PL 08/04/1976 - 30449CITY OF FRIDLEY
'"� PLANTdING COMMISSTON MEETING AUGUST 1t, 1976 PAGE 1
CALL TO ORDER:
Ghairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:3� P.M.
Ftc�LL CALL:
I��mbers Fresents Haxris, Bergman, i,a�ribert (atten�ing for Shea), I,angenfeld,
Schnabel
Members Absent: Peterson
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
APPRQVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTESa JULY 28� 1976
�?rs. I,ambert said that regarding the third paragraph on page 3, the Fine Arts
Comma.ttee was not the only active subcommi�ttee, but the Yoath Project Comrni�ttee =
was al�so very active. She also pointed out in the same paragraph that Human
� RElations sr,ould be changed to Hum�xi t�esouxces.
I,OTION by Schnabel, seconded by Zangenield, that the Planni.ng Cornmission
minutes of July 28, 1976 be appreved as correctEd. Upon a voice vote, all
vof�ing aye9 the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE FaRKS ANI� RECREATION CO1�iISSION MSNU�'ES: JULY 269 1976
Mz°s. Schnabel stated she had a question concerriing page 3 of -�heir minu.tes,
ur,der item 2. She said tY�e question was raised concerxii.ng the soccer field
at Locke Park' and Mro Haxris said that money had been appropriated for it in
the budget. Ho�rever, she sai.d, �hen she went through the budget she did not
see any monay appropriated for it and baondered if that was an error or if she
ha.d difficul�y finding it. Mr. Boardman said that Parks and Recreation had
askECi for it last year and it was cut out by the Cit�r Council. He sta�ed that
this year he thought they asked for it again, but he �aas not suree He suggested
tha�t would be a good thing to bring up at the next Planning Commission meeting
when a representative from Parks and Ftecreation would be in attendance.
Mrs. Schnab�l said she had raised the question at the last Commission meeting
of what the dollar amount of the tatal Parks and Recreation budget was. She
. stated that she had added the fi�ures up herself� and thought the other members
would be i.nterested. She explainecl she had tal:en the top dollar amount of
. everything, arhich didn't include any monies that might c�me back to them through
/"1 co�icessions or other resources, and i� came to $148,613.
�-,�
Ylanning Cormnission Meeting - August �� 1976 . pa,ge 2
Mrs. Schnabel stated that her next question in relation to'that �ould be� is
the Planning Commission to make any decisions on this budget or is it totally
within the realm of the Parks and Recreation Department? Chairperson Harris ,�"�
stated that he thought the Charter was set up so that Parks and Recreation
proposes a budget, but the approna.� of that budget was completely up to the
City Council. He added that if Mrs. Schnabel wished to discuss it, they would
be within tne realm of operation. Mrs. Schnabel said that if the Planni,ng ,
Commission was responsible to make any comments on it or ask any questions
about it, she would feel inadequate in asking those quest�ons as she didn't
know what the past procedure had been with regard. to Parks and Recreation.
She continued that if they were required to do that, then she, personally,
would like some budgets from other years to make comparisons.
Mr. Boardman said that the Parks and Recreation budget had never been reviewed
by the Planning Commission before. He stated the only reason it goes before
the Plann3ng Commission was to see if it fit in with the adopted goals and
objectives of the community. In other words, he said, if they said they needed
a�ennis court and according to the goals and objectives it was not needed,
it would then be up to the Planning Commission to say that wasn't an objective
of the city to provide that. He said that thi� is where the realm of the Planning
Commission �rould come in� but not necessaxily an item by item budgeting going
through past budgets, etc. Mr. Bosrdman said he felt that would be very weighty
to go through two Commission processes of going over a budget and then to the
City Council. He added that Parks and Recreation was supposed to be a responsible
enough Commission to promote this with just a review by the Planni.ng Commission
as•far as the application to t:ze overall goals of the city.
Nirs. Schnabel said she appreciated that explanation. She added she was not ^
aware of the process and wanted to be better informed if they were called upon
to do anything with it.
N1r. Langenfeld asked to be corrected if he t1*as wrong� but said he thought that
this was nothing but a proposed cash outlay and guide. Mr. Boaxdman said these
were outlay costs--what Parks and Recreation felt they needed to denelop these
things. He explained the Ciiy Council would now take a look at it and cut it
in ax°eas and add in other areas. Mr. Boardman further explained the Planning
Commission should review it according to the overall views of the community.
He said the whole purpose of the Planning Commission was an over-view Commission.
He added that a11 the other Commissior� below �hem were� to work on implementation
of policies and then the Planning Commission was to see that the implementation
was caxried out and to see that they were going in the right.direction.
Mr. Bergman s�.id that he noticed that out of thirteen park areas, the Parls and
Recreation budget only provided funding for numbers one through six. I�Irr. Boardman
explained there were six maintenance axeas in the city, and the budget was
developed according to those maintenance axeas. Mr. Bergraan asked if he was
saying that in addition to the map ��hich had thirteen areas� there was another
map which had six areas, and Mr. Board�r►an said that was correct.
Mr. Bergman asked if it was the long-range Parks and Recreation Plan that Innsbruck
ATorth Park be a nature center, and Mr. Boardman answered not necessarily. He
said that all parks within the community except Locke Park, North Park and the
r"'1
Planning Commission Meeting - August lt, 1976
Page 3
Island of Feace had been given to those thirteen neighborhood project committees
,� to see if the uses within the park area were compatible wi-�h the neighborhoods.
He added th3t they were waiting for.response to�aard the�end of September on
� those. Mr. Bergman s aid ne noted �here was no money indicated in the budget
toward Innsbruck North Park, and Mr. Boardman said he thought.it was just about
completed. .
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission receive
the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of July 26, 1976.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if the motion should state they could hold additional
questions until the next meeting. Chairperson Harris brought to the Commission's
attention Item No. 6 on the agenda� which concerned reviewing the Paxks and
Recreation Commission minutes of July 6%h and July 12th, 197�� and said that
particulax item could be tabled until the next regular meeting. Mrs. Schnabel
pointed out that the question she had asked earlier about the soccer field
would be included in the July 26�h minutes� and Chairperson Harris suggested
she make a note of it and bring it up at the nex�i regular meetinga
UPON A VOICE VOTE9 all voting aye' the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 27, 1976
Mrs. Schnabel said that she k•�uld like to bring to the attention of the Planning
Commi.ssion a motion that was passed by the Appeals Commission on the bottom of
j„� page 19. She explained 'che City Council had raised the fees wil,hin the city
recently� and it was the feeling of the members of the Appeals Commission that
on oc�rder-accupied residential prop�rties the $50 f�e frora �15 was �xcessivc,
and thought $25 ma�imum �aould be a sufficient fee. She explained that they
asked that the City Council reconsider that one fee. Mrs. Schnabel said that
to give them an example' at their July 27th meeting they had a request for
a variance of one foot by a property owner. She sa3.d it was fel-t that for that
property o�,�er to pay �50 for one foot appeared to be an excessive amount of
money.
Chairperson Ha.rris asked ho�r those fees �rere axrived at� and Mr. Boaxdman replied
they were arrived at according to Staff cos�s�. He explained that whether the
eariance was for one foot or one hundred feet, the same amount of notices had
to be sent out and there was the same amount of work as iar as Staff operation
costs wente Mrs. Schnabel said the Appeals Commission realized that at the
time. However, she said, they did feel that on that particular section oi
owner-occupied residential properties the fee was excessive, and they had no
quarrel with industrial or anything elsee Mr. Boardman added that the fees were
also eoaparable to the community fees.
Mrs. Schnabel said she wanted to bring it to the attention of the Planning
Comm:ission as the members of the Appeals Commi.ssion wanted to express their
feelings on it. Chairperson Harris said it was so noted.
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive
� the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeti.ng of July 27� 1976. Upon a voice ,
vote' all votin� aye� the motion carried unanimously. '
�
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1�, 197b
,
Page !t
1. TABLID: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S.
11VIVJl3ILUliA 14ViLlri [CL�i"LH1 1i11iw Ii11L111V1Y lit L6LUI.L'L r►• i nau� .+....-.+�..••+�+_.�
CORPORATION: Being a replat of Lots 1 to inclusive, Blocks 21 through
2�d— a o part of Lot 1, Black 28� Innsbruak North Townhouses Third
Addition, to allow changes in the size of garages� generally located on
the West side of East Bavarian Pass and South of Meister Road N.E.
Public Hearing open.
Mr. Boardman explained that Darrel A. Faxr Development Corporation was trying
to work out some arrangements with the Townhouse Association� and requested
that this item be tabled agai.n.
Mr. Langenfeld raised the question of how long something like this could be
tabled� and Mr. Boardman replied about sixty days.
���
Nirs. Schnabel saa.d she would like to relay something that she thought was
rather interesti.ng to the Coirumission. She said that as she drove out North
Innsbruck Drive' the City of New Brighton�s survey crew was, surveying the road
at the Fridley border. bJhether or not they were going to do anything on it,
she didn't luiow. She also said she wondered whether or not paxt of the stipulation
of the Darrel A. Farr Corporation proceeding with building the townhouses was
that they should grade out North ?nnsburck Drive, and said it was her understand-
ing that a culvert should be put in the low spot ��hich water is draining into
currently. Mrs. Schnabel saic; that perhaps since they already have a model
built and it was nearing fina� stages, they should be reagp�a:�sea� o� �l�a�
stipulation.
,,"�
Mr. Bergm�n stated that each meeting they had this item on the agenda� typicall�
as number one, and each meeting they spent time on it. He said he would like
it removed from the agenda until Darrel Farr Corporation indicated some further
interest. Chairperson Harris sa.id he thought because of tne time element
involved, since they were getting close to the time limit when they would have
to reapply, they should table it until the next meeting.
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Langenfeld� that the Planning Commission table
the Public Hearing on consideration of a preliminary plat� P.S. #76-05, Innsbruck
North Replat Third Addition' by Darrel A. Far°r Development Corporation' with
the Public Hearing open� until the next regular meating of the Planning Commission.
Upon a voice vote' all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP.
SINIGAGLIO: Per Fridley City Code� Section 20 .0�1, 2
construction of a second accessory building� a 21� ft.
garage� on Lots 18 and 19� Block 8, Plymouth Addition�
4715 3rd Street N.E. �
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Sinigaglio were present,
6-11. BY JOSEPH
, n, .,., �..��., � ,....,
by 32 ft. detached
the same being
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission open the
Public Hearing on a request for a special use permit, SP #76-11, by Joseph
Sinigaglio. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared
the Public I3earing open at 8:00 P.M.
�•
�'"�`'��
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1�, 1976
Page 5
Mr. Boardman explained that this was a request for a special use permit for a
� 21�' X 32' detached gaxage. He said the applicant presently has an attached
garage to the building� and the lot�that.he is on is 80� X 129', which made
3t about a 10�000 square foot lot. He stated that this was in the Plymouth
Addition, and there have been several requests in that area for garages of
this size. Mr. Boardman stated the applicant said he has about five cars� and
the second accessory building would be used as a gax�agee He added that he had
driven by the property and he had no probl�m with gran�ing the application.
Mrs. Lambert stated she had driven by the property and it looked to her like
there were fences and things to the edge on either side of the property, and
asked how they proposed to get to the back. Mr. Sinigaglio replied he would
remove the fence on the North side to get access. He added that his current
garage was on the South side� and presented the Corrunission �rith a drawing of
his proposal. He said he had �ho plat or survey.
Mr. Boardman said that as far as setback requirements went, Mr. Sinigaglio
would be allowed to go down to three feet on the property line with a survey�
and without a survey it would be ltl2 feet setback. Mro Sinigaglio said he
didn't Imow where his lot line was� but just took it for granted ti�e telephone
pole was the. ].ot line. Mra Boaxdman inforrr�ed hi.m that he really should get a
survey on the property before the gaxage•was built in case a mistake was made�
as it could make a difference in selling the property.
Chairperson Harris askec� what he was planning to�do w�.th the garage, aud Mr.
Sinioaglio replied that he had several car� that were sitting in his yard.
'�� He said he didn't want to sell them and they were more or less deteriorating.
He explained they were-vintage caxs, and this �ras his hobby. He further.
explained he couldn�t get in his present garage becauss he kept his sno�rblower�
table saw� etc. in there' and he needed the extra room. !�Ir. Sinigaglio sa.id
the garage would be 21�' X 2!�°� and the last 8' on the South end would be
enclosed like a patio or amusement room.
Chairperson Harris asked i� he was planning on having utilities in this
structure� and Mr. Sinigaglio replied he would have e].ectricity. Mr. Harris
asked how l�rge the attached garage was that he presently had� and h1r. Si.nigaglio
replied� the garage itself was about 18� X 21�'. He explained he had a fire wall
which put a breezeway between the house and garage, and that cut down on his
garage areae
Mrs. Schnabel asked if there.�ras a Zimitation or restriction on a secondary
use building as far as combining living quarters per se and gara.ge space. Nir.
Boardman said there �ras no restriction as to what it �aas to be used for. Nirs.
Schnabel then asked if someone could then build a secondary use building and
u�e it as livinb quarters. Mr. Boardman replied no. He explai.ned the code
said an accessory use was something like privately-owned recreational facilities
such as swinuning pools, tennis courts, etc., which are for the convenience
of the residents and their guests. Chairperson Harris said he thought they
would have a hard time stretching that to living quarters.
� Mr. Langenfeld pointed out that the petitioner indicated the use of the garage
and that is why the Special Use Permit was being requested9 and if the special
use �as granted then the Gity would have control over that particular piece of
_��.:--�
Planning Commission Meeting - August !�� 19?6 Page 6
property. He stated he noticed that t4r. Sinigaglio had a lot of neighbors,
and asked what their general feelings were. Mr. Sinigaglio replied that his
neighbors on both sidas had asked if he had any ulterior motives for building, �"�
but he stated he did not. He sai.d he just wanted to get the cars out of the
yard as they were deteriorating� and stated that the neighbors saa.d they
didn�t care what he did in his back yard as long as he didn�t put the garage
in the front yard. He stated he didn't believe there were any objections,.
and felt that getting the cars out of sight would be an improvement.
Mr. Langenfeld asked what his hobby was, and Mr. Sinigaglio replied he worked
on the cars he had. He explained that parts were difficult to find� and over
the last couple of years he �ould buy a bumper here and a grill there. He said
he would just leave the cars in the garage and take them out when the weather
was nice. Mr. Langenfeld�asked if the garage would be compatible with the rest
of the house� and Mr. Sinigaglio replied it would.� He sa.id it would have
eertical wood like his home and the same roofing, and would essentially look
like a scale model of his house but it wouldn't be as long.
Mrs. Schnabel noted that he did the reconstruction for his own personal benefit9
but asked.if he was in the business of doing this type of work for other people
or doing it with the intent of reselling the automobilies. Nir. Sinigaglio
replied he �ras not, and said the cars were just for his own use when he felt
like it. Iie explained he did the work in his own garage no�r� but would like to
be able to jack up the car and leave it there i.nstead of taking it up and down
every night.
P�r. Bergman asked if Mr. Sinigaglio hired someone to come in and work on tl�
automobiles� and he answered he did not. Mz°. Bergman said he had no other ^
concerns with regard to the general plan and concept, but was a little concerned
about the dimensional validity. He stated there was no registered survey of
the lot� and he was not sure that other than approving the concept in general
there was any more they could do prior to City Council review without verification
or dimensions.
Chairperson Harris stated they could send this on to Council �rith their
recommendations and stipulations� and one of those stipulations could be that
the petitioner get a sur�ey before he goes to City Council. Mr. Boaxdman said
he re a11y didn't Imow if they needed a surv�y before they got to Council. He
�explained their main concern was that they don't take up more than 25� of their
lot. Mr. Harris said he thought it wonl.d save a lot of time if before this got
to Council there was a survey and all these things were checked. Mr. Langenfeld
sai.d he would like to support the suggestion and comments regarding the survey�
and added he was sure Council would ask Mr. Si.nigaglio to do that any�aay.
MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Bergman9 that the Planning Commission close
the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #76-11, by
Joseph Sinigaglio. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris
declared the Public Heaxing closed at 8:21 P.M.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded•by Lambert� that the Planning Commission recommend
to Council approval of the request for a Special Use.Permit, SP #?6-11, by
Joseph Sinigaglio, per Fridley City Code� Section 205.�51� 2� A� to a11o�r the
�1 '
Planning Commission M�eting - August �9 1976
Fage 7
construction af a second accessory building� a 21t ft: by 32 ft. detached
;,o•� garage, on Lots 18 and T9, Block 8, Plymouth Addition9 the same being l�715
3rd Street N.E.� indicating general concurrence with the request and the
proposed construction and usage, but subject to a dimensional verification
through lot survey prior to City Council review.
Mr. Langenfeld said he tended to want to indicate "if possible". He said he
got the feeling they were pushing -�hese people for a survey, and they should
have one, but wondered what would happen if they couldn't come up with one
before this went to Council on August 16th. Chairperson Harris said they
could leave it as one of their stipulations, and if the City Council wanted
to change that, it was their prerogativs. Mr, Harris said he would like to
recommend that the motion include something about limitation o� the structure
for any future use as a home occupation. Mr. Bergman sai.d he was apen to that
thought, and asked if that wasn't adequately cover�d in the present, ordinance.
Mr. Bcardman said that no�accessory buildi.ng could be used as home occupation�
but there were some axound, Mr, Harris s aid that sorte time down the line Mr.
Sinigaglio may desire to sell his home or get out oi the classic car storage
business� and he would like to make it clear to everyone involved that the
accessory•building could not be used as a cabinet shop� body repair shop, etc.
He stated he felt it would no-t hurt to state it as a stipulation in the
recommendat3on so evea�on� involved �aould be clear on the mattsr.
,. . .
Mr. Bergman ��NlENDID the MOTION to include limiting the accessory building
use to exclude home occupativn. Seconded by Lambert.
,..� Ch�,irperson Harris w�nd�red if it would be necessary to include in the motion
'' something about the garage being compa�ible r�ith the existing structure. Mr.
Bergman s aid that the peitioner had stated it would be, and that discussion
would be in the minutes for reading by Council. Mr, Harris sai.d the problem
was that when they got down the line at a later period� sometimes the discussion
parts were omitted and the only thing that can be found is the motion with the
stipulations. Pqr. Bergman asked if there wasn�t some type of incentive
provided to the o�mer to make the aesthe.tic treatment consistent at the time
he applied for the buildi.ng permi-t. He said that regardless of what the
Cormnission said, the building permit process was �rhere it really happened.
Mr. Boaxdman said that was usually a stipulation on the building permit.
�UPON A VOICE VOTE, all vo�ing aye, the motion caxried unanimously.
Chairperson Haxris declared a recess at 8:30 P.M. and reconvened the meeting
at 8:55 P.�.
3. RECEIVE NN�T40 FROAS MAYOR NEE TO THE APPEAIaS COMMISSION: DATID JULY 15, 1976
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Commission receive
the memo from h4ayor Nee to the Appsals C�mmission dated July 15, 1976.
Mr. Boardman said that studies show that only about 25�; of families can afford
^ housing the way it is now. He stated that there would be some point in time
_ when �these 40' lots would have to be usedand the present standards would have
�� w
Planning Commission MQeting - August �, 1976
Page 8
to be dropped or changed so that people would be able to afford housing. He said
that right now about 75� of the families were really struggling in buying houses
which they really can't afford because they can't find a needed home in a lower �',
price range. ' _
Mr. Bergman said he recalled the 1�0' lot consideration which was brought to the
Planriing Cormnission's attention from the Board of Appeals based on:a pending
variance request. The Planning Comrni.ssion, he said, then sent the question to
the subcommissions to come back to the Planning Commission with regard to policy.
Mr. Bergman said that Community Levelopment was one of those that reviewed
whether or not 1t0' lots should be cansidered developable lots for housing, and
they communicated back to the Planning Commission, as did a couple other
Commissions, and the Planning Commission then pulled together or endorsed a
policy-type situation in that regard. He asked if it was the Planning Commission
dialogue that Bill Nee was. referencing in his Zetter� or if it was something else,
N1rs. Schnabel answered that it wasn't really clear, but she thought it was the
�ppeals Commission minutes of June 15th that prompted the letter. She stated
she would like to review for everybody�s benefit what has happened in order to
help clear the matter up a bit. She said that on February 10, 1976, the Appeals
Commission received a request for variance from a Mr. Denis Lo Villella to
construct a�residential dwelling on a!t0! lot. At that time the Appeals
Commission decided that since this was the first request to build on a!�0' lot�
they should perhaps request the Planning Commission and other subcommissions
to try to develop some type of policy statement r.egarding ?�0' lots. She said
the words "policy statement" came about because in reviewing the Administrative
S�Cafi Report to the Appeals Commission on that request� the remarks said somethi.ng �
about city policy statement. She commented that the term got to be used a bit
loo�l.y, but it got to be used.
Mrs. Schnabel continued that on March 9, 1976, t.lie Community Development
Commission reviewed !t0' lots, on March llth it was reviewed by Human Resources
and on March 23rd by the Fridley �viron.�nental Qu.ality Commissiox�. She stated
that on April 7th the Planning Commission received the minutes from the three
subcommissions and on April 27th the Appeals Commission received the guidelines
from the City Council. The City Council received those guidelines prior to
April 2.7th from the Planning Commission. Mrs. Schnabel explained that once
�he Appeals Commission received those guideYines on Ap.ril 27th from the City
Council� they removed the request from Mr. Denis Villella from the table.
Mr. Bergman asked from what body the Appeals Commission received those guidelines,
and AZrs. Schnabel answered from the City Council. She explained that the three
subcommissions came to the Planning Commission with their recommendations, and
the Planning Coirmiission developed tentative guidelines which were sent to the
City Council for their approval. She stated that the Council held two discussions
on that, as she recalled. She believed one was during their informal meeting and
the second was at a regular Council meeting, and they sent their recommendations,
which were not exactly in a finalized form but in a sense the approved tentative
guidelines of the Planning Commi.ssion9 back to the Appeals Commi.ssion.
Mrs. Schnabel stated that on April 27th the Appeals Commission acted on the
request to build on a Lt0' lot. Mr. Villella had made six requests for variances, �,
and the Appeals Commission approved four of the s�x and denied two� and passed _
. � . ��
Planning Conunission Meeting � August �� 19?6
Page 9
their recommendations on to the City Council. She said at that time they had
� asked Mr. Villella if he would consider applying for a lot split and gaining
' five additional feet from the adjacent neighbor, who also o�rned the !�0' lot.
Mr. Villella had not purchased the lot yet but had made a purchase agreement.
On May 3rd� Mrs. Schnabel continued, the City Council heard the request from
Mr. Villella with the recommendations from the Appeals Commission, and passed
on a 3- 2 vote �.pproval to build on a lt5� lot. She said that�Council's motion
stated he must purchase five additional feet from the adjacent neighbor, so what
they approved �as building on a 1�5� lot--not a 1�0' lot. She explained that the
adjacent lot ��as two !t0' lots, or 80�. Mrs: Schnabel i.nformed the Commission
that the petitioner had not come in and requested a lot split to date, and the
house was not under construction.
Mrs. Schnabel sa3d that because the Council �rote was close and because they had
made quite a few changes in their recommendations as opposed to tvhat the Appeals
Commission had done� the Appeals Commission felt �hat perhaps they needed
additional information and maybe they were acting under false premises. She
sa3d the Appeals Corrunission didn't vnderstand why Council oQerturned everythi.ng
they.had done, so they then requested a transcript of that May 3rd Council
meeting. Mrs. Schnabel explai.ned that it had been impossible for the City ta
get it off -the �;ape, and it had been about a fifty minute discussion. All
the Appeals Commission received was one short paragraph which said "considerable
discussion ensued" , the vote was 3�2 and this recommendation was made. She
'stated tha�C then the Appeals Commission asked if thej� coul� listen to the tape
record�ng of the City Council meeting instead� hoping �hey could find out more
n information because it had come to their attention that there was more information
provided to the City Council that the Appeals Commission did not have. On June
l�th thEy did listen to that Council tr�pe and held additidnal discussion at tnat
time. Then on July lsth9 l��rs. Schnabel said� they received the memo from Aiayor
Nee concerning the remarks the Appeals Commission made at the time the3� listened
�to the tape on June 15th. She added that at their July 27th mee-�ing, the Appeals
Commission discussed his letter in detaa.l and agreed to respond back to Mayor
Nee with a letter from the Appeals Commission. As iar as she could pinpoint'
she stated9 there have been thirteen separate discussions on �0� lots starting
at°the Appeals Commission and including the Community Develop:nent Commission,
Hurn�n Resources' �vironmental Quality, Planning Conunission� the r:ayor, etc.
Mrs. Zambert stated it had been mentioned that P�ir. Villella made several requests
for va'riances and the Appeals Commission approved four of the six. She asked
if he had six forty-foot lots. Nlrs. Schnabel replied no' on one !t0' lot he had
six variances he requested: reduction in lot size, reduction in lot width,
maximum lot coverage iricrease, side yard reduction' setback reduction, and
additional side yard reduetion. She stated that two of the requests were
because the lot was small, but the other four were because of the size and type
of l�ouse he was building.
Mrs. Lambert said that Mr. Boardman had mentione� that only about 25% of today�s
, wage earners could afford a home, and questioned if the size of a lo� would �
really make that much difference in the cost of a home. She wondered what the
. difference in� cost would be between a!�0' lot and one that �ras 75�� and suggested
it might be about $3,000 -$4,000. Chairperson Haxris said he woulc� guess a!�0'
� 1ot would be about $1�,000 -$5,000, with all the utilities. He s aid there was
��
Planning Commission Meeting - August Lt, 1976 Page 10
more involved here than just land areas, and r�hen they were talking lot costs
they were talking raw land plus utility assessments and street assessments, and �
many times the street and utility assessments were in excess of the raw land
costs. He stated this happened quite frequently. Mr. Bergrr►an said it wasn�t
common in lawer-priced development areas. Mr. Boardman said one thing about
that was a11 the utility and street assessments were by front foot� and Mr.
Harris said that was correct� so therefore there was a considerable amount�of
difference.
Mrs. Lambert sa.i.d that in trying to provide homes for an average home o�mer�
did the size of the lot make that much difference dollar-wise or the type of
structure? Chaa.rperson Harris said there were a lot of things that entered
into the total cost of a home on a lot. Mrs. Lambert asked how much did land
enter into it. Mr. Zangenfeld suggested they use about $30 a square foot.
Mr. Bergman asked if it wouldn't be fair to say that land and assessments
were normally 15 - 20% of the total, and Mr. Harris said that was reasonable.
Mrs. Zambert said that in order to provide homes for people who may not be
able to afford them� would a 1�0' lot be that much of a benefit? She asked;.
if they would be able to afford a home because they had a!�0' lot.
Mr. Boardman said he thought there were other things that were involved' and
asked the Commission to note Mayor Nee's statement at the bottom of the first
page� which said "I want to underscore that there � be reasonable ways of
developing the !�0 foot parcel as a bnilding site� but I have not seen such a
proposal yet. It would certainly have to have some very f::ndamental planning
work'ct�ne on it...". Mr. Boardman said the problem with �.0' lots right now
was that they wanted to put standaxd size houses on them� and maybe that was �
not the way to go on it. He suggested that the standaxds that are set up under
code for housing� such as square footage requirements� should be dropped so
that development of these lots could make it more affordable and smaller houses
could be built on them.,
Mr. Bergman asked Mrs. Schnabel if she could read to the Planning Co�ni.ssion
the guidelines that were passed to City Council and apparently approved by them.
Mrs. Schnabel said she would first like to sa� that when the request for variance
carne before the Appeals Commission in February, it was the hope of the Appeals
Commission that perhaps there would be more definite guidelines such as reducing
the size of house necessary on a!t0' lot. A� that time� she stated, they were
into approving the whole housing plan for the City and getting i.nto low-income
housirig. She continued that the Appeals Commission felt this was an opportunity
to find some method of providing low-income houses by utilizing !t0' lots within
the city.
Mrs. Schnabel read the following excerpt from the minutes of the April 27, 1976
Appeals Commission meeting: "Chairwoman Wahlberg stated that in addition to
the minutes of the subcommissions on the !�0 foot lots which zaere distributed at
the last Appeals meeting, there is now available a list of tentative guidelines
from the Planning Commission on substandard lots. She explained that the Planning
Commission had passed these guidelines on to the City Council for their review,
and at this poinic the Council had not yet come up with an affirmative plan. Mr.
Holden said �hat this was discussed at the City Council meeting last night, and
they concluded the Planning Commission guidelines were good pints to consider. ,—�.
�°�
Pl�nn3.ng Commission Meeting - August !�, 1976
Page 11
He added that the Council suggested they should be considered on an i.ndividual
r�, basis, with reviev� and final approvai to be �y the Council. Chairwoman Wahlberg
said that all the subcommittees felt the city sho�ld ga�along with building on
'I�0' lots, but there were stipulations they felt shauld be adhered to. .
TENTATIIIE GUIDELINES FROM THE PLANNING COMMSSSION ON SUBSTANDARD IATS:
1. The �'lanni.ng Commission f�els that it was consistent with the
Comprehensive Housing Plan that sub-standard lots should be
developed in Fridley� but each sub-standard lot should be con-
sidered separately.
2. That there be no vaxiance allowed from the present ordinance
allowing a maximum of 2 lot coverage. (For example, on a
s200 square foot lot9 which would require a�variance for lot
size� only 1,300 squaxe feet of the lot could be covered by
the house and garage.)
3. If th�re is land available on either side of a sub�standard lot�
every effort should be made to purchase that lot at a fair
market price by the petitioner, so the lot size would be consistent
with the existing building sites in the area. If the petitioner
refuses to try and negotiate for additional vacant land, consideration
should be given to denying the variance. All denials have to be
based on good� sound c�nsid�rations.
n �i. That the owner/build�r make as much of an effort as possible to
meet the existing codes.
5. Tha-i the house being built on a sub-standard lot blend in as
aesthetically as possible with the exis�ing houses in the neighborhood9
realizing that a new home cannot always blend into an old neighborhood.
STA.�"F' S COMN�NTS :
a. S-tatement of hardship must include statement regarding length of
ownership which would give indication if property was owned for
a number of years� or recently acquired tiuith the intention of
speculating on development of a l�0 foot lot.
b. Al1 variances associated urith the development of It0 foot lots would
require final approval by the C3ty Council.ro
Airs. Schnabel stated the Mayor posed two ealid problems in�his memo. One was�
in spi�:e of the Comprehensive Housing Plan' does -the City have an obligation to
the existing home owners in Fridley who perhaps r�oved to the suburbs �rith the
idea of acquiring additional space i� themselves. She said to then staxt
building on 1�0 � lots would perhaps not fit iri witYi the general size of lots that
the majority of the residents o£ Fridley no�r have. She said she thought that
was a valid point-which had �not been considered before.
P�'1Mrs. Schnabel said his second point was, how do you force a person to buy
-additional land irom the adjacent property owner if it is anailable? She stated
Planning Commission Meeting - August �, 1976
Page 12
that in his memo the Mayor went through that quite thoroughly. She said that
additional information had come to their at�ention since the memo which showed �„�
pretty much where �0' lots existed in the City, and evidently there were few
�0� lots which were clustered together� or in strips.
Mr. Bergman said that surprised him, because when they reviewed �0� lots in
Community Development, they were given a location of every �0' lot and every
50' lot. He stated that all the addresses were listed and they even had
sections of the city plan showing locations, and they concluded there were a
lot of adjacent small size lots. Now, he continued, it comes out there aren't.
Mr. Bergman said they had concluded that in.most cases there was adjacent
property that a�0' lot o�rner could buy and expand his lot.
Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to correct him on that, and noted that
according to the listing of �0' lots that she had, there were five existing
strips. She stated that three of them were two �0' lots together, and two of
tnem were three �0' lots together. She added that there were a number of other
lots which varied in size from 47' down to 25' axid any number in between, not
adjacent to �0' lots, which were individual, landlocked, interior lots. 5he
said that as far as �0' lots in strips, there were very few of them in the City;
there were many more that were interior lots or corner lots where there was no
additional property available.
Mr. Bergman stated he thought it was a key point that what Mrs. Schnabel was
•describing as strips ti�ere very9 very limited strips of !t0' lots� and there were
just`�� or three cases where this kind of thing could be possible. He said
that this �aas an entirely different conclusion than they had reached in Community ^
Development. Mr. Bergman said the conclusion they reached was that in most
cases where there was a 40' lot, there was an opportunity to expand that lot.
He said he wasn!t necessaxily limiting opportunity to another adjacent 1�0'
lot, but there was some property such that a combination could be made. He a.dded
�that he would have to review the data and the dialogue they had. Mr. Boardman
said he didn't think they had been looking specifically at !t0' lots at the time,
but were also looking at 25' lots and that type of thing. He said that in most
cases the smaller lots did have adjacent property.
Mrs. Schnabel sa.id she thought part of the problem was that at the time these
requests came to the subcommissions as well�s �the Planning Commission, a lot
of this information was not available. P�fr. Bergman interjected that he did have
the data--a listing of the lots with their dimensions. Mrs. Schnabel showed
him the listing sh� thought he had which sho�lthe number of �.0' lots and also
went down to 25' lots. Mr. Bergman said he didn't think they had. that data.
Mrs. Schnabel said there was another memo datsd April 30th on substandard lots
from Dick Sobeich, arid a list of substandard lots under 50' with no adjoining
vacant property and all zoned residential. She stated that these lots ranged
in size frorn 25' to !t2', and there were 21� of them. Mr. Bergman said he was
confused right now as to what data they �ad had in Community Development.
Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Boardman what percentage of the substandard lots
made up the available building sites that remained in Fridley. Mr. Boardman
replied he couldn�t give a percentage figure, but there were probably about
150 lots left. Mr. Harris said that according to their survey, they were 85� �,
built on R-1. Mr. Boardman pointed out that was back in about 1972, and they _
had been doing a lot of building. PZr. Harris stated he thought they were missing
-�--,�,
Planning Commission Meeting - August �, 197� Page 13
a couple of points. He stated that the problem was the available building sites
� that were remaining in Fridley, and one of these days they were going to wa.ke
up to the fact that the only thing left to build on as far as R-1 without some
rezoning would be su�standard lots.. He'said they should staxt facing up to that
fact. �
Chairperson Harris said the Mayor also brought up the point of taxa�ion,.arid
asked how these lots were iaxed. Mr. Boardman said they were probably taxed
as buildable sites. Mr. Harris said if that was i;he case, he had a feeling
they were legally in trouble. -He stated he had been after the City Attorney�s
office to get a memo out on where the City stood legally on !t0' �.ots� and
after all these discussions he had yet to see such a memo. He wanted to lrnow
if they could legally deny.a building permit on a 1�0' lot, snd said that was
really the crux o� the whole situation. Mr. Harris stated that if the City
was taxing them as buildable sites� then he thought they �9ere morally obligated,
if not legally obligated, to make some provision to build on them. He added
th�.t if they were not going to allow construction, they should be obligated
to change the t�ing structure Qn them; not only as far as general taxes went
but as far as special assessments also. He said that if they were going to be
turning them into gardens or something else� perhaps they should be taxed as
agricultural. He said he would like the City Attorney to tell him what kind
of ground they were on. e
Chairperson Harris said that a number of those �0' lots were tax delinquent9
and a lot more would go that taay if they made a decision that under no circum-
stances would building be allowed on them. He said that then they would be �
�.-� sittin� �iith �ubstandard lots which would tu.rn in�co neighborhood junk-collection'
grovnd, or the adjac�nt property owners would use them. Mr. Boardman pointed
out that the problem was the City �rould have to ma:intain the we�ds. He said
that under thE normal weed program that w�uld be charged oif to the owner of
the property, but with tax-forfeit property it was just assessed against the
property.
Chairperson Harris said he thought they had to look at the alternatives. He
stated that all the thin�s that have been said are very true, but behooved them
to start putting a plan together. Mr. Boardman said he thought the May�or's
statement was valid when he talked about what taas meant under Community Goals
ay "quality of life ". Pqr. Boardman said Mayb� Nee had stated that a 1�0 � pr�,rcel
under the present code was not a buildable parcel, and he tended to agree with
him.
��r. Harris sa.i.d he disagreed with the Mayor's one statement where he said that
these were the neighborhoods that had the worst history of urban decay. He
said he wished to take issue on �hat� and wanted to say that he was born and
raised in Northeast Afin�leapolis and moved to South Minneapolis and grew up there.
He stated they had never lived on anything laxger than a 1�0' lot and he didn't
consider the neighborhooc� to be in a state of decay. Mr. Harris s�ated he would
li.ke the Mayor to go to Northeast Mi.nneapolis and tell the.residents �that their
neighborhood was in a state of decay.
Mr. Bergrr�an said that he �aould like to make two commerits: 1) He said he would
� like to suggest that the reason the Council vote of 3=2 was so close is,Nlr.
> Villella's request was because he did a marginal job in applyi.ng effort to the
stipulations. 2) He said he wauld like to point out the Corrmtunity Development
Planning Commission Meeting - August t�, 1.976 Page ll�
minutes from thFir meeting of March 9th. He stated that item one in their motion
was that if land taas available on either side that could be purchased such that �
the lot could be brought up to code., then building would.be denied on a�.0' lot.
He said that was a pretty specific•condition for denial and that was their
recommendation� but he didn't see it put in that context in the guidelines that
were received. rLrs. Schnabel read aloud point number 3 of the tentative guide-
lines� and 1•ir. �ergman said that was quite a different statement.
Mrs. Schnabel s ai.d taat in this particular request there was no land, per se,
available. She conti.nued that the adjacent property owner was willing to sell
five feet o£ land, but the problem created by his selling five feet was that
h� garage was 5' from the lot line and he would then have a non-conforming
garage. She said that was one of the problems the Appeals Commission had with
the City Council's decision; they felt Council was cre��cing a new problem by
demanding that the petitioner buy five feet of land.
Mrs. Schnabel sai.d she would also like to respond to the 3-2 vote. She stated
that one of the Appeals Cominission's concerns in listening to the Council �
minutes was that Councilwoman Kukowski asked one question that they could
detect through listening to the minutes and voted no, and Mayor Nee made a
statement indicating that he would not necessarily vote against the request
but then he did note against the request. She sai.d the Appeals Co�nission
was not sure why they voted a.gainst it, and were not sure what their thoughts
were. Mrs. Schnabel said the Appeals Commission wanted to get as much information
a�s possible because t:�ey fel� -;,hey �rere in the dark as to what Council's reason-
ing was. She added that she wanted to point out that the fact of the matter
was the Appeals Commission heaxd a request on a!�0' lot and approved !� of the r"`�
6 vaxiances; when the City Council finished with it they approved building on
a,1�5' lot, so the question of building on 1�0' lots has not yet occurred in the
City of Fridley.
asked if one of the variance requests was a request from the maximum
25� coverage. Airs. Schnabel answered that it was one of the variance requests�
but the Appeals Commission recommended the petitioner reduce the size of his
house by going f:om a double car gaxage to a single car garage, �rhich would
reduce the total size down to come within the 25� maximum lot coverage. Instead,
she continued, t^e City Council agreed to the aouble cax gaxage and in order to
make up the addiiional land asked hi.m to purchase an additional five feet. She
said this then caused a code violation setback from the neighbor's garage, which
the Council did not discuss as far as they could determi.ne. .
Mr. Langenfeld said that without question as the Chairman of the Fridley �viron- I
mental Quality Commission he could not deny Mayor Nee's connnents concerning
quality of life, the affect on present home owners, and so farth. He said that
first off� they m�zst have some kind of legal document regarding these lots; �
and secondly, if they are taxed as buildable sites it is implied they can be f
built upon. Mr. Langenfeld said that out of a11 this discussion he got the j
impression that City Councilg as well as the Mayor, may have felt that the Appeals `
Commission was just handling these 1�0' lots as part of their Comrnission procedure. i
He said that he was thinking that Council and Mayor Nee were saying "hold it" k
because many factors enter into this picture and the next thi.ng you lmow they
r"�
��
P1atu►ing Co.�mission Meeting - August �� 1976
P�e .15
might be handling 3S� lots and 25' lots. He said he was just trying to simplify
this thin� by making that statement, bu� thought they had to draw the line
� somewhexe. Mr. Langenfeld asked what could stop an owner of a!�0' lot from
, asking for a Special Use P�rmit. Mr. F�oardman answered that there was no condition
for a 3pecial iJse �'ermit on this. �He explained that a Special Use procudure was
set up for a special use on a property, and a living unit was not a special use
on a R-1 property. Mr. Langenfeld commented that he certainly ielt that this
Commission's comments were really the right route to follow.
Chairperson Harris asked.what the attitud� of the neighboring communities were
on !t0' lots, such as Columbia Heights, Hilltop� and New Brighton. Mr. Boardman
replied that he didn't think Columbia Heights was having that much of a problem,
and some of the newer commiznities t�reren't experiencing that problem because there
were plenty of buildab�.e sites around. He said he would imagine that Columbia
Heights had reduced their square footage requirements under the UBC, and there
was quite a bit of difference between square footage requirements.
Chairperson Harris said that maybe it should behoove them to make this a project,
and Mr. Bergman commented that they had one related project going on in CDC.
He said the question before the Community Development Commission was specifically
whether or not a garage should be a requirement on substa.ndard lots. He said
they would be addressing the question of a garage being required on a l�Oo lot
at the next meeting. He added that the discussion held at a previous meeting
seemed to slant toward the need to specify a garage regardless of the size lot
i'or aesthetic reasons.
Mr. Harris said that perhaFs this should go back through the committee process
�'�1 to be considered again. He stated he had thought they had looked at it at one
time� but suggested they look at it from a different standpoii�t such as different
house design or smaller houses more compatible with the lot size. He said he
had the feeling they had to start someplace and they had better start doi.ng
something. 13r. Harris stated he would find it very disagreeable if the court
would decide this iasue before they had an opportunity to plan it out so it
would work.
A�r. Langenfeld asked if handling this on an individual basis wouldntt do the job
since there weren't that many. Mr. Harris said perhaps that was true, but perhaps
what they should be looking at is smaller, mor� compatible structures for !t0'
lots. r1r. Boardman said then what they were looking at is possibly a separate
code section which said that on substandard lots or on lots under a certain
square footage the minimum building axea on a house should be reduced. Mr.
Langenfeld commented that he didn°t feel the Environmental Quality Commission
could actually say how large the house should be or if a garage should be
required or something like that as they �rere not qualified�to specifiy a�orm
of construction.
Mr. Boardman sai.d they did have one square footage size limitation9 and that
was the UBC. He said.the UBC stated that no house shall be smaller than this.
N�'• Boardman said that what Mr. Sobeich was talking about was that maybe they
should come Uack and iake a look at the substandard houses and ask themselves
what they wanted �o require on these lots. He said they would still want to
m�inta.i.n a maximum 25� lot coeerage, but should take a look at the minimum square
'�footage requirement for housing units. He suggested that maybe on those sub-
_ � c��'
Planning Commission Meeting - August �, 1976
Page 16
standard lots they sho�ld go down to the UBC minimum. He commented that they
�ouldn't have to say anything on the design of the thing, but say that a garage
was not a requirement on substandard lots and that way the option would be open
to the owner.
�
Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that in the letter she r�rote in response to Mayor,
Nee's memo, she made a suggestion that the persons involved in these original
discussions (the Planning Commission, subcommissions, Council and appropriate
Staff) should get together and have some type of open discussion where they
could get some of these ideas out.and from there proceed to start to develop
a new policy regarding building on !�0' lots. She stated she thought the Mayor's
remarks ��ere well-taken and she felt he came up with some very good new ideas,
and she thought the point brought out at this meeting concerning taxation on
these 1�0' lots was a good point that hadn�t been fully discussed yet. Irlrs.
Schnabel commented that the problem was all of them had not gotten together to
talk this out at one point to come up with some ideas to start to develop codes
that would be pertinent to 40' lotso With regaxd to garages, for instance,
she added, attached garages were only required on ramblers, split-levels and
lot-splits, but were not required on other types o.f houses (such as a two-story
house). She stated that there were some situations on substandard lots where
the existing code was so unclear that they were not sure garages were required
at all due to the wording inLthe code boo3c. hSr. Bergman said this was the subject
they would be addressing at their next meeting in Comrnunity Development, and
Mr. Boardman suggested that rather than jtist substandard lots they take a look
at garage requirements on a11 lots. �hairperson Harris said that maybe what
they should do at this point in time� since there seemed to be a comrnunication
difiiculty with Council, is request a time slot with them on that fourth Monday ,�
to sit down at a workshop meeting and discuss this to see if they couldn't get
some sense of direction or policy. Mrs. Schnabel said that was precisely what
she had requested of the Mayor in her letter.
Mrs. Schnabel said that talking about codes and types of dwellings, there was
a problem in the existing code book which could be relevant to building on 1�0'
lots. She stated there was a descriptiori of s siazgle-family dwelling unit of
split-level design� and then there was a description of a two-story dwelling
unit of a split-entry design. She said she did not Irnow what the difference
was between those two9 and they had dif�ferent mini.mum squaxe footages. Mr.
I�arris said there was a difference between a split-level and a split-entry.
He explained that a split-entry was where you walked in off the street and there
was a stair�rray going to the doianstairs and one going to the upper level. He
said a split-level was where there was no stairway at the entry and the rooms
on three or four levels were � story apart in height, and that sometimes a
split-level would have half a basement. Mr. Boardman cited the example where
the garage was sometimes below the bedrooms.
Mr. Bergman asked i£ it would be a true statement that in the City of Minneapolis
there are a lot of homes built on 1�0' lots, that they are normally greater than
25% coverage. l�ir. Harris said he didn't think so, but it was possible. Mrs.
Schnabel interjected that thex didn't have those facts and figures available.
Mr. Bergman asked what was implemented in the 25�� and,Mr. Boaxdman replied
building structures and accessory buildings. Mr. Bergman said some of the homes
must come pretty close to exceeding the 25� coverage. He stated there wasn't
much of a back yard and there was typically a garage in it from an alley, and
where
n
�.
�
�I
Plt�.nning Commission Meeting - Augu.st !�, 1976 Page 17
very little side yard.
Mrs. Schnabel said that Alex Barna on the Appeals Commission had brought in books
of house designs �ahich could iit on �0'.lots without any variances required.
She said that perhaps the designs were more modern than the City of Minneapolis
was familiar vaitdi since those homes built on !t0' lots in Minneapolis were basic-
ally older homes, but there were some very imaginative kinds of construction
that could be put on !�0° lots. She added that the price might be another subject
as they didn't know what it would cost to'bu�ld some of these new and different
type homes th at idould fit on !t0' lots with no variances. She suggested that maybe
the price would be prohibitive to qualify �'or low-cost housing and that it might
have to be a higher-priced home. Mrs. Schnabel said the point was there were
houses that would fit on 1�0' lo'ts without any variances at a11. She added that
some of the questions that�had to be resolved were: Do we want to save the �.0'
lots for low-income housing? Do we �aan'c those 1t01 •lots to be built with any
type of dwelling? Do we want to reduce the requirements for size of structure?
She added that there were many problems associated with building on a It0' lot
which she felt hadn�t been fully covered to this point, and that was why she
wanted to get into this discussion again.
Chairpersor� Harris said he didn't feel they were going to accomplish a lot by
discussing #�his any fkrther, and called the question on the motion to receive
the MayorQS memo. °
UPON A VOICE '�OTE9 a7.1 voting aye, the motion caxried unanimously.
I�OTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Lambert, that the Planning Commission be
� allowed to attend the next in.form�l City Couazcil meeting �o ��aol.v� the probiems
�concerning 40' Lots. -
Mrs. Lambert �sid she wondered if that migh.t not� be a good ii.me to ask the City
Attorney abou-t tile legality of this, and Mr. Langenfeld said he thought this
would be taken care of within that discussion. Mr. Boaxdma.ri said he would make
a point of having that information available at �hat m�etinga
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion caxried unanimously,
ft. RECEIVE iiEP�IQ FROM VZ�GINIA SCHNABEL CHAIRWOAIAN OF THE APPEALS COI�NIISSIOId
TO MAYOR NE,'E9 D�TED JULY 309 197
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, to receive the memo from Mrs. Schnabel
to Mayor Nee dai:ed July 30, 1975.
Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to point out the merno should read from Virginia
Schnabel, not Virginia Wahlberg. She stated that they did truly appreciate
receiv�ing the memo from Mayor Nee because they felt many of the points that he
raised were good, valid points. She said she thought it �aas gertinent that
this came up a� this time before they reeeived another request to build on a
!�0' lot. Mrs. Schnabel commented that the Appeals Commission concurred'with
the Mayor that they did not like the hit and miss proposition of granting varit�nces
n on !t0' lots without anything more thail the guidelines that had been established.
She said they felt there would probably be other problems that would arise which
h�d not been looked into� and some of these had been raised by Mayor Nee and the
, _��`�'
Planning Commission Meeting - August lt, 197b � Page 18
Planning Commission at this meeting. She stated they were hopeful they could
get some new dialogue started. �
Mr. Langenfeld asked if Chairperson Harris thought they�might have to have some
kind of consolidation of all the previous ma�terial prior to the meeting with
Council� and Air. Harris said he didn't think that was necessary. He_suggested
everyone just come in and pat their cards on the table and leave it informal.
Mrs. Schnaoel said the Appeals Commission would appreciate getting all the
various thoughts out ira the open and iinding out as much infbrmation as they
could. '
Mr. Bergman told Mrs. Schnabel that he got the i.mpression that �he was looking
for something that she probably wasn't going to get. He stated that Appeals
had a problem, and they could not escape the individual request burden and
there wouldn't be any panacea. He said the Camniunity Development Commission
submiLted a license for denial� which somehow got turned into a license for
approval and the context turned over from what they had intended.
Mrs. Schnabel said Mr. Bergman was correct that the Appeals Commission had a
problem� but they cbd not have any type of vehicle which ��rhich to solve the
problem other than to come back to the Planning Commission and City Council.
She said they had used the guidelines which had been sent to them as the basis
for approving and denying the variances, but they felt the problem was larger
than irhat it appeared to be and felt some of the points the Mayor raised
(i.e., the effect on the exi:•ting residents of Fridley) were well-taken and
had not come up before. That, she said, is why they felt i�t should all be
reviewed again. � �'`�,
Chairperson Harris said that hopefully sorr►ething would come out of the ioint
, meeting and they would get a concensus of direction. Mrs. Lambert asked
�who would be the paxticipants of the! joint meeting, and Mr. Harris replied
the Planning Co:mnission and anyone else who �rishsd to come. Asrs. Schnabel
stated that in her memo to Mayor Nee she included members of Community Develop-
ment, :�iuman Resources, Environmental Quality�.�ppeals Commission and Planning
Commission as �rell as City Council members and appropriate Staff persons. She
said that it may be a large bady� but it was the Mayor's prerogative to make
that decision, and he may substitute the Planning Commission's motion over
her suggestion to him. "�
Mr. Langenfeld said that it was his in�ention when he made the motion that the
meeting would include the Planning Commission, but be an informal meeting open
to the entire public. Mrs, Schnabel said that the Appeals Commission felt there
may be members of the other subcommissions who had some ideas or thoughts that
they �ranted to relate. to the rest of them, and they migYit have some very valid
thoughts, rlr. Boaxdman explained that as far as the motion went, the Planning
Commission requested to be on the agenda as a Planning Commission.
However, he said, as Chairpersons they could invite their Commissioners to
attend as participants because it would be an open meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion to receine the memo from Mrs.
Schnabel to Mayor Nee dated July 30� 1976 carried unanimously.
, �.
, �
'"'�
�
��,
Planning Commission Meeting - August !t, 1976
Page 19
5. CONTINUID: HUMAN DEVELOPP�IENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Mr. Boardman stated he had nothing to discuss on this and would�like it
continued.
?�Ir. Langenfeld asked Mr. Boardman if he couldn't incorporate some�he�e under
Program Objective D1Lt0 something about the handicapped. Mr. Boardman replied
they were going to do that, and asked if he meant the Program Plan and not
necessarily the Program Objectives. Mr. Langenfeld said he was getting the
impression that this was getting pretty much set and perhaps the handicapped
had been omitted. Mr. Boardman replied that under D11�0 "�hcourage the advance-
ment of recreation opportunities for all residents", they would have something
on activities for the handicapped. He explained that the Program Plans were
not set and were pretty open, but what they were establishing now were the
Goa1s and Objectives.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission
continue the Human Development Goals and Objectives until the next scheduled
meeting. Ugon a voice vote' all voting aye, the motion ca�ried unanimously.
.
6. REVIEW PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 6TH AND JULY 12TH� 1976
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission table
the Parks and Recreation minutes of July 6ich and July 12th, and also the
minutes of the July 26th meetingm Upon a voice vote, all voting aye' the
motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Boardman brought to the Commission's attention the Beer Ordinance as
revised by the City Attorney. He explained he had just received it today
and brou �t it before the Planning Commissi�n for their review.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission
receive the revised Beer Ordi.nance. Upon a aoice vote, all voting aye, the
motion caxried unani.mously.
ADJOURIdMENT s
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the meeting be adjourned.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Planning
Gommission meeting of August !�� 1976 adjourned at 10:35 by unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
)
- r .
�nh'_ an
Sherri 0'Donnell
Recording Secretary
a