PL 02/09/1977 - 6603City of Fridley
��:
AGENDA
,
RLANNTNG CONP1ISSION MEETTNG FEBRUARY 9, 1977
CALL TO ORDER:
RQII CALL:
APPROVE PLANNIN6 COMMTSSION MFNUTES: JANUARY 19, 1977
1.
�
s
2.
3,
4.
5.
6.
�
PLAT. P
7:30 P.M.
PAGES
1 - 22
23 - 26
.��•. �� •,��.��� „�.0 n�vnn �vtw�: tseing a replat
o that part o the 5':1/4 of tfie NE 1/4 of Section 3,
lying Westerly of the Westerly right of way line of
Burlingon Nor#hern, Inca, lying Easterly of the Easterly
rignt of way line of Ashton Avenue and lying Southerly of
a Tine described as follows: Commercing at the intersection
of the South line of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 and said
Westerly right of way line; thence on an assumed bearing
of N.18°26'70"W, along said Westerly right of way line
293.25 feet to the actual point of begirining; theace on
a 6earing of West 292,20 feet to the Easterly right of
way line of Ashton Avenue, and there terminating, the
same being 8701 Ashton Avenue N.E.
: RECOMMENOATIUN aN EAST RIVER ROAD
CONTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE
OTHER BUSINESS:
ADJOURNMENT:
27
28 - 34
35 - 36
�
�
��
1 Y
GITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANtdING COAIMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 19, 19T7
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:l�8 P,M.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Harris, Bergman, Langenfeld, Schnabel, Shea
Membens Absent; Peterson
Others Present; Jerrold Boardman� City Planner
APPROVE PLANNING COt�IISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 5, 1977
PAGE 1
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission
minutes of January 5, 1977 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
1. Pi3BLIC AEARING:
OF.A PczOPOSED PLAT, P.S.
...,.,��1.,,�, .�, ��� .,:.�..,.�. .,. ..,:�RICA, INC: Reglat o£ al.. ,., ...,., _.,,
part o£ Lots 11 and 12, Auditor's Subdivision No. 155� as per legal
notice, generally located South of I. 691y, West o£ Highvay //6�, North
of 53rd Avenue N.E., and East of the Target parking lot.
MOTION by Tangenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission open
the Public Hearing on consideration of a proposed plat, P.S. /{76-12� Target
Addition, by Pop Shoppes of America, Snc. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 7:$3 P.M.
Mr. F�nmett R. Albergotti� Real Estate Negotiator for Dayton Hudson Properties;
Mr. John Zavitz of Pop Shoppes of America, Inc.; Mr. Bill Jaeger £rom Kraus
pnderson of St. Paul Company; Mr. Jon Pope, architect Yor Plagerso McGee, Inc.;
and Mr. Bob Harvey� Box 3761t� Minneapolis, were present.
Mr. Bourdman directed the Commission to turn to pages 15 and 16 of their
agendas which showed the ge»eral location of.where the replat was going to
take place. He explained this was East oS the present Target parking lot,
behind F�bers and the gas station, and would be div3ded into three separate
lots, He said that this was to allow for two or three separate developments,
and the larger lot on the North side of the property was groposed.for Pop
Shoppes of America. He stated that access into this area would be through
privAte easement from Target off of 53rd to service these three lots.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page 2
Chairperson Harris asked if this was on part of the blacktop portion of the �
parking lot, and Mrc $oardman rep].ied that the lots themselves were not, but
the driveway easement would be on the Easterly end of the blacktop portion.
Mr. John Zavitz explained that the head offices of Pop Shoppes of America
xere in Denver, and there were 19 other locations in the United States. He
said they would be opening fourteen new centers this year, one of which was
the Twin Cities location. Mr. Zavitz said that basically what they were
trying to do was delioer soft drinks to the public ai lower than normal
cost as they rnanufactured and retailed on the same premises. To daLe, he
said, they have enjoyed quite a bit of success both in Canada and here� and
were just beginning to scratch the surface in the U.S, market. He stated
that to date they had been able to satisf� all concerns with regard to
envi.ronmental issues, noise levels� etc., to the satisfaction of all City
Councils. Aesthetically speaking, he coniinued, they did not look like a
manufactnrer, but a retailer. He told the Cormnission they sold 26 different •
£Iavors in two sizes, in plastic cases, and returnable bottles only. He
explained that people could :nix and mateh flavors as they wished.
Chairperson Harris asked what the zoning was, and Mr. Hoardman replied it
was C-2S and that was the reason they were going with the Special Use PermiL
on it, He explained the operation o£ this type of shop would be similar to
that of a dai:y. He stated they mixed the soSt drinks at the plant and
stored them there, but ihey had a majar retailing operation from the store
also so there wasn't a major handling of the shipping of the bottles. He �
safd they would ship to about three or £our other retail stores in the
metro area� but it was a major retail operation. Mr. Boardman said that
all three of the parcels met the requirements as £ar as square footage
under a C-2S zone and lot sizes were adequate. He added that one of the
stipulations they would want io put on the plat would be some definition of
roa@way in the parking lot area itself. He said he had received a letter
from Target on access that he would like entered into the minutes.
Chairperson Harris read the following letter to Mr. Boardman, from Jack
Franzen, Building Services Manager for Target Stores, dated January 19,
1977; In the event that the County $ighway Department does go ahead
with its planned improvements along 53rd Avenue, specifically including
ihe revised eastern mosL access routing into the Target Fridley parking Iot�
Targei will define the access road with curbings, plantings, or some other
method acceptable to the City of Fridley and Target. This is to promote
more orderly tra£fic flow through the Target parking lot facility.
i ,
MOTTON by Shea, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission receive
the letter to r7r. Bosrdman From Mr. Franzen dated January 19, 1977. Upon
a voice vote� alI voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Schnabel noted that,the proposed plat was to divide the property into
three separate lots� and asked if the Special Use Permit would cover all
three lots. Mr.. Boardman explaS.ned that the Special Use Permit was for just
the Norther]� lot. He said that loLs 10, 11 and 12 were the existing lots, �
and they extended to Highway 65, He explained that was an old lot description
Plarming Commission Meeting - January l9� 19T7 r�ge 3
�on Target and was only used as definition to show where the new plat would be.
' He said that actually it would be platted out to lots 1� 2 and 3. Mrs.
Schnabel asked if the other two lots would remain vacant, and Mr. Boardman
replied that was correct. Mrs. Schnabel asked i£ it kas necessary for Pop
Shoppe3 to get some type of agreement with Target for use of the roads�
and Mr. Boardman said they would have to have easements drawn up for use
of the properties, and he thought that could be handled with the platting.
Chairperson Harris agreed it should go with the final plat. Mrs. Schnabel
asked about utiliiies i.n that area, and Mr. Boardman said that utilities
Hould be serviced to all three properties o££ of 53rd.
Mr. Jon Pope, architect, explained that the water would be brought in
off o£ b5 to the rear of the building. He said that a pole would be placed
at the Southwest corner of the lot� and electrical power would be brought
underground to the site. Chairperson Harris asked about the other lots,
and Mr. Boardman said he would imagine it would be easier and better to
have the water and sewer service for the other properties o£f of 53rd.
Mr. Bergman said he expected sizeable water requirements for this activiiy
and noted an eight inch water line was planned, He asked iY there were
any pressure or capacity problems in this location, and Nir. Boardman replied
there were not. Mr. Bergman said it would appear that all the utility
installations took place on private property so no easements would be
involved� and Mr. Boardman said that was correct.
i Chairperson Harris asked if a drainage easement xould be needed in there,
and Mr. Boardman replied that the lay of the land took care of it mostly,
He explained that the drainage off of all three of these lots would be
onto the Target parking lot wnere there were catch basins which would handle
it. Mr. Bergman said he assumed that some kind of written agreement would
'be in order between Pop Shoppes and Target attesting that drainage was
agreeabZe between the two parties. He added that he thought it was more
normal that any place oP business would take care of its oti+n surface
drai.nage rather than drain of£ someplace else. Mr. Boardman said that
was the only way they could handle the suri'ace drainage, and pointed out
• that the catch basins in the Target parking lot had the capacity to handle
it with no problem. Mr. Albergotti said it was handling it right now.
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission close
the Public Hearing on consideration of a Proposed Plat, P.S. �/7b-12,
Target Addition, by Pop Shoppes of America. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:12 P.bi.
Mrs. Shea stated she had some reservations about this simply because of
the intersection, and asked if the county had given a timetable regarding
the planned improvements there. Hr. Boardman said that 53rd should hopeSully
be done this summer. Mrs. Shea said she hated to see anything go in there
unless something was done with that intersection. Mr. Boardman explained
that the improvements were being tied in with the urbanization project from
� Columbia Heights all the way through, and there were presently some difficulties
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Pe�e �
irith Co2umbia Heights which would hopefully be resolved before March.
Mrs..Schnabel asked if that meant that if there wasn't an agreement by March
nothing xould be done at all, and Mr. Boardman said that was right. Chair-
person Harris said he certainly hoped that didn�t happen, and asked what the
problem was Nith Columbia Heights. Mr. Boardman explained the Highway Depart-
ment wanted to widen the road, but the local businessmen didn't want to lose
the on-street�parking around 40th. He further explained that the urban-
ization project went £rom 37th .to 53rd, regardless of what community it was
in, and if.any part of that project fe12 through the whole project would £all
through. Mrs. Schnabel asked why something cou2dn't be done on 53rd by
itself� and Mr. Boardman said i,t was because there wouldn�t be any state
monies for it. He added that if it was going to be improved by itself, that
would be the county's respansibility. Mrs, Schnabel said that it seemed to
her that something should be done on 53rd at a minimum� regardless if the
other project fell through. Mr. Boardman said this was not to say that 53rd
wouldn�t be done at a later date if that project failed, but it wouldn't ,
be done this year.
Mr, Bergman stated he thought the things they had been discussing were of
some relative bearing, but not an overriding bearing, on the question of
rsplatting the property.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld; that the Planning Commission
recommend to Council approval of Proposed Plat P.S, i/76-I2, Target Addition,
by Pop 5hoppes of America� Inc.: Replat of all of Lot 10, part of Lots �
21 and 12, Auditor�s Subdivision No. 155, as per legal notice, generally
located South of I. 69Lt, West of Highway �j6s, North of 53rd Avenue N.E.,
and East of the Target parking lot, subject to a pIan de£ining the accessway
e�ctending to all three of the proposed lots with the authorizing signature
from Target or its parent company. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously.
2. PUBLIC HEARING• REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP#/76-16, BY POP
SHOPPFS OF AMERICA, INC.: To permit the bottling of so£t drinks and
a retail outlet, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, B, (3,�,), on
Lot 10, and parts of Lots 11 and 12, Auditor's Subdivision No. 155,
locaied South of I. 69h, West oF Highway No. b5, North of 53rd Avenue
� N.E., and East of the Target parking lot, the same being 78$ 53rd
Avenue N.E.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission open
the Public Hearing on the request £or a Special Use Permit, SP �76-26� by
Pop Shoppes oF America� Inc. Upon a voice vote� alI voting a�ye� Chair-
person Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 6:23 P.M.
The same people were present as for the first Pub2ic Hearing,
Mr, Boardman said that as xas discussed before, Pog Shoppes Nould be doing
mixing of the pop, storage of that pop and retai.l sales of that pop within �
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page 5
that build'ing. He said that as far as they could tell, it fell under the
category of retail or xholesale sales or service uses, such as creameries
and dairies, where there was the mixing of a product and storage of a product
for retail sales. Chairperson Harris stated he had a slight problem with
that, and said it looked like either a 13-1 or M-2 use to him. Mr. Boardman
sai.d they had felt the retail operation of Pop Shoppes was more characteristic
of C-2S zoning� and probably over 50� of the retail sales in the metro-
politan area would be handled out of this location.
Mr. Zavitz stated that what they t'ried to do was manufacture and sell
directly to the public. He said Pop Shoppes could be compared to McDonalds
because their process was one where they took concentrate, mi�ced it with
vater and carbon dioxide, and bottled it for sale to the public for con-
sumption off-premises. He said they were specialists in so£t drinks as
opposed to hamburgers, and their bulk was consumed off-premises. He added
that they were not at all difYerent Yrom a bakery or a Dunkin� Donuts chain
for on-premises and o£f-premises consumption. Mr. Zavitz stated that they
had never gone into a city where they hadn't had to answer questions of
this nature because there was no particular zoning anywhere that he had
found where they cou].d just walk in and operate because people didn't
recognize their particular use. He said he thought the Coimnission was
probably concerned with "degree"; what was manufacturing and �rhat was
retailing. He stated that because they made something they were manufacturing.
Chairperson Harris said that as he looked at the plan, he saw one sales
-✓ area, one production area, and another area possibly 3- 1� times as large
as the other iwo labeled °warehouse". I•ir. Zavitz esplained that was mainly
to hold the empties and the full bottles ready to move onto the floor. Mr.
Boardman noted that under accessory uses it did allow for storage of inerch-
andise.
Chairperson Harris asked if in the event this went over well, and he assumed
it would, if they would propose an expansion of this facility on this partic-
ular property or if they would build another, Mr, Zavitz said they couldn't
get too much more equipment in that area as they were at their capacity, and
they would generally build another one. He added that right now their £acility
in Duluth was serving a 60-mile radius� and this proposed facility would
probably serve a 20-mile radius.
Mr. Bergman asked if it was the intent to do bottli.ng at this plant, do
product sales, and from the bottling capacity also to ship product to
other retail putlets. Mr. Zavitz said that was correct. He stated they
would ship to their own specialty sources such as West St, Paul and Knoll-
wood, where they were building free-standing stores. He showed the Commission
a picture of one of their free-standing retail markets. Mr. Boardman asked
if they had any wholesale operation going out to supermarkets or other
chain stores, and Mr. Zavitz said de£initely not as it was all an internal
process.
� Mr. Bergman asked how many outlets this warehouse £acility was designed to
5ervice. Mr. 2avitz replied that depending on hox successflil they were,
Planning Commission Meeting - Jsnuary 19� 1977 Page 6
they were planning on opening !� - 6 outlets. He added that the plant was �j
designed to make about a half million cases of soft drinks a year. . `
Mr. Langenfeld asked if there would be any non-returnable bottles, and Mr.
Zavitz said there wou2d be only returnable bottles, Mr, LangenYeld asked
if they would be using caustics� and rir. Zavitz replied they would, but
they went through a recycling process. Mr. Langenfeld asked how they
disposed of the caustic material, and Mr. Zavitz answered that the caustic
solution was only 1�% in their product; it was a very low percentage and
it would go into the seVrer system at some point. Mr, langenfeld asked how
long Y�Ir. Zavitz thought the bottling machinery would be in operation during
the day, and he replied that during the summer they generally ran two
shifts� five days a week, and in the winter months probably one shift. He
added that during the Christmas period they usually ran one shift or 1�
shifts. Mr. Langenfeld asked how noisy the equipment was� and Mr. Zavitz
replied they had just met a decibel level 0£.65. He added they were meeting
both the OSHA and environmenta7. controls,
Mr. Langenfeld asked if some of the public xatched the bottling of the pop,
and Mr, Zavitz replied that the bottling process was in open view to the
public and ihey irivited schools to come in on tours to watch the pop being
bottled. Mr. Langenfeld asked about the water treatment area designated
on the plans, and Pfr. Zavitz explained that all of the plants had to have
water treating equipment as it was part of the policy of the bottling plant.
He said it was very simple filtration of city water. Mr, Langenfeld asked •
if they would be using stainless steel tanks, and how many they would be
using. Mr. Zavitz answered that they would only be usi.ng stainless steel,
arid there would be two lt00 gallon tanks and two 200 gallon tanks. Mr,
Langen£eld asked if there would be somebody checking the bacteria count�
and NIr. Zavitz said yes, very definitely, He explained that each week
samples were sent to their lab in Denver, and they were very critical about
quality and their standards were extremely stringent.
Mrs. Schnabel asked what type of volume they expected with regard to retail
sales and customers coming in. Mr. Zavitz stated they have gone from a
grand opening in Buf£alo twelve weeks ago where they sold 21,000 cases in
two days, to areas where they had sold as few as 7,000 cases in a week. He
added that generally speaking, a customer would usually buy 1� - 2 cases;
on a Saturday they might sell 1,000 to 1�500 cases. He said it depended on
the market and the time of year. Mr. Zavitz told the Commission that their
customer £low was rapid as it only took about four minutes from the ti.me
they entered the parking ]ot to the time they left. Mrs. Schnabel stated
that using the figure of two cases per customer, he was saying that an
average Saturday might generate about 500 to 750 customers in a store, Mr.
Zavitz replied that was correct, and added that they were busy about the
same time as Target and had about the same tppe of market. Mrs. Schnabel
asked if they would be open approximately the same hours as Target� and Mr.
Zavitz replied exactly the same.
Mrs, Schnabel asked if they had trucks that would be doing the shipping to
the other stores, and Mr. Zavitz said they would use a local broker to do it. �'
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 P�e 7
� He said they had anywhere from £our trucks a week in the winter to ten
. truck.s a week in the summer, and they didn't have as many trucks as a
normal grocery store would have. He commented that loading would be done
in the rear and would be screened, r1rs. Schnabel asked how many parking
stalls taould be required, and 1•ir. Boardman said that under G2S it would be
three stalls for every 250 square feet within the actual retail use ares,
under the storage area one stall for every 2�000 square feet was required,
and under the actua7. bottling aFea one stall for every 1t00 square feet would
be required. Mrs. 5chnabel said she was concerned about the number of
parking spaces available since the maximwn in a day might be 750 cars,
assuming there was just one customer per car. She said she was wondering
if the 68 car stalls provided would be adequate. Mr. Boardman said that
the rapid turn-over rate of about £our minutes per customer had to be
considered. Mr. Zavit2 sai.d that in their Pacperience they found it to be
more than adequate, and it was to their detriment not to have su£ficient
parking. He said that there might be two weekends when the parking Nouldn�t
be adequate� but 95% of the time it.would be. He added that in the initial
stages when they were educating the people about their operation it would
take a little longer, but after that it would take about four minutes. He
said that they employed off-duty policement during any special promotion.
� Mr, Langen£eld asked if they could Foresee any drainage problems� and Mr.
Boardman replied they couldn�t. Mr. Langenfeld asked how many employees
they would have� and Mr. Zavitz replied they would have about six full-time
•people in the production area, two in retail� two in accounting and general
_, management� and approximately ten to fi£teen part-time students. He said
that they hired only local people� and the General Manager would be from
the Twin Cities. He added that they tried to keep their work force down
to a minimum force of highly productive people.
Chairperson Harris commented that it seemed he had heard this all before
with Plywood Minnesota� and they were in a M-2 zone. He asked how they
justi£ied this. btr. Boardman said he didn't see Pop Shoppes in an industrial
zone, but saw it more as a retail-type operation similar to a bakery. He
said they were not a aholesale operation but a retail operation� and had to
rely on a retail market. P1r. Harris asked what their justi£ication was on
Plywood Minnesota� and Pir. Boardman replied he didn't ]mow. Mr. Harris
asked about Wickes� and Mr. Boardman said that the largeness of that operation
was probably the reason it was in an in3ustrial area. He said they had a
very, very large wholesale-retail-storage operation� and just merely the
size of the thing was probably the reason.
Mr. Langenfeld said that as far as classification for this, he looked at
it as a consumable product and not a finished product, thereby disiinguishing
it from heavy manu£acturing and so on. Mr. Zavitz said that as he read the
zoningy his operation related very directly'to the dairy type of use. He
said that was a filling operation also, and a heavier manufacturing use than
Pop Shoppes.
� Mr. Bergman said he saw the middle position of the type of activity they
xere talking about, it being in between the two possible zoning categories.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19� 1977 Page 8
He said that he thought of the two, the Special Use Permit within the oommer- �
cial was the better way to go.
Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that under C-1 and C-1S zoning was listed bakeries,
cafes, confectioneries, ice cream and soft drink shopes including the
preparation of food products for retail sales from their sites only. Mr.
Boardman said that was the reason they were looking at a Special Use. Permit
under C-2S.
Chairperson Harris asked where they woul.d go if they needed additonal park-
ing� and Mr. Zavitz said that they had 2.3 acres. He said that their
normal site was one acre, so there would be room to expand parking. He added
that they wouldn't have to be prompted if they needed more.
Mr. Langenfeld asked ho�+ long they had been in existence, and Mr. Zavitz
replied since May of 1969. Mr. Langenfeld asked about the subsidiaries,
and Mr. Zavitz explained that Pop Shoppes 7nternational was owneci by the
Canada Development Corporation which owned Texas Gulf and a number of other
companies. He said the company that owned 20� of Pop Shoppes of America,
which was a subsidiary of P.S,I., was a company called F.�nasco which was
the parent of S& W Foods� Progressive Foods; a tobacco company, Tenderbox
Chain of Smoke Shops� etc. He said they had other subsidiaries and a number
of other trademarks.
Mrs. Shea asked if everything had been r�orked out with ➢nbers to their
satisfaction, and PSr. Zavitz replied it had, �
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea� that the Planning Comcnzssion
receive the letter to Mr. Harris dated January 17, 197% from Mr. Hyman
Edelman concerning Embers Restaurant, and the accompanying letters marked
as E�hibit A and I��hibit B. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
Mrs. Schnabel noted a reference to a pylon sign in the letter to Mr.
Birnberg from bfr. Albergotti dated January 5, 1977 (Eschibit B), and asked
if Pop Shoppes had a standard sign that they used for identification,
Mr. Zavitz replied they did, and showed the Commission pictures o£ what
the sign would look like. Chairperson Harris asked what size the sign
would be, and Mr. Zavitz replied generally the largest alloteable. He
said that actualZy it was usually a standard 1� x 6, 2lt square foot sign.
Mrs. Schnabel noted that in the past Target had made a request to raise
their sign, and the request was turned down, so there may possibly be a
restriction on height, Mr, Harris pointed out that although they could
discuss this as part oF the Special Use Permit� any signing dohe had to
have a special permit. Mr. Zavita said he was familiar with that, and
would work with the sign people and Mr. Boardman on that.
Mr. Bergman commented that administraticn had apparently gone over these
plans to some extent� and asked if there should be any stipulations for
the Special Use Permit, such as dealin� with the landscaping. Mr. Boardman �
Planning Commission Meeti.ng - January 19� 19�7 Page 9
� said they hadn't gone over it in any great deal yet, i�ut didn�t think they
would have to stipulate it xith the Special Use Permit.
i
Mrs. Schnabel stated she did have some concern with the traffic flaw, and
was thinking more of the very busy times when perhaps the traf£ic i'rom
Target would cut across the parking lot to the Pop Shoppe. She said there
would be no internal control of that traffic because ihe parking lot was
not separated from the roadway itself. A1r. Albergotti and }Sr, Pope showed
the Commission a map depicting the relationship between the Pop Shoppe
building� the Target building� Dnbers Restaurant and the gas station. They
painted out a ring road which they said would allow a good flow of traffic. Mr.
Albergotti said that at one point they did have curbs in there but when there
was snow in the parking lot people couldntt see them and drove over them
and damaged their cars, so they were taken out. He stated that if they put
them in again they would also put in landscaping and trees so they would
be visable.
Mrs..Schmabel asked if 53rd was improved if they would implement a plan
o£ traffic control� and Mr. Albergotti said that was correct. She then
asked what their intentions were if 53rd was not improved, and Mr. Albergotti
said they would do something. He explained there was money in their budget
to do something� and it was just a matter of deciding how the ir�provement
would be handled. He added that they were a].so concerned with the trafiic
flow at that intersection, and assured the Commission that Target would do
something. Mrs. Schnabei asked i£ he was talking about putting some type
•of barrier down each row. Mr. Albergotti sai.d they would be putting up
_ barriers every so often, but not down each row. He explained that at the
end of each row there would be a curb �ith landscaping to delineate thai
it was an access road.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if Finbers had made any request, or if they anticipated
using another access down onto Dayton Hudson property. Mr. Albergotti
said he thought Embers would like that very much� and they had asked
Dayton Hudson to think in terms of a road connecting the properties, He
pointed out that would make a whole di£ferent situation where people would
be taking shortcuts through I�]nbers, and he personally didn't think it xas
a good idea. TIr. Harris commented that the grade dif£erential was consider-
ablea and asked if there would be a retaining wall. Mr. Albergotti said
that when the hill was graded dorm there would be a contoured landscaping.
He said there was about 12' o£ dif£erence, but it would be a gradual thing.
Mr. Harris thought they might have to use a modified retaining wall.
MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Shea� that the Planning Commission close
the Public Aearing on the request £or a Special Use Permit� SP #76-16,
by Pop Shoppes of Americay Inc. Upon a.voice vote� all voting aye�
Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:10 P.M.
Mrs. Schnabel said she did have some concern on the zoning of this particular
property, and was not sure that light manu£acturing would £all under this
� de£inition. However, she said, she didn't necessarily see any other wey
to go on it. Chairperson Harris said he couldn't see an alternative either,
and he thought they were correct with a Special Use Permit.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page 10
Mrs. Schnabel said that aside from that, her other concern would be with �
the traffic florr, and she felt fairly comfortable now that it would be
pretty well taken care of. She said her biggest hope was that the State
and the Gounty would get their act together and get that area improved,
Mrs. Schnabel said she thought the buZk o£ the traffic going into ihere
would be people going to the Target area to begin with� and she didn't
think Pop Shoppes would generate that much more additional traffic in
itself. She added that if the internal traffic system was i.mproved, that
might improve ihe whole situation itself.
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission
recommend to Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit�
SP #/76-16� by Pop Shoppes of America� Inc.: To permit the bottling af
so£t drinks and a retail outlet� per Fridley C4ty Code, Section 205.101�
B� (3�0)� on Lot 10� and parts of Lots 11 and 12� Auditor�s Subdivision
No 155� located South of I, 694, West of Highway No. 6s� North of 53rd
Avenue N.E., and East of the Target parking lot, the same being 785 53rd
Avenue N.E.
Mr. Langenfeld suggested the following stipulations be included in the
motion: 1) Strict compliance with the terms.of the ground lease regarding
visibility restrictions (as stated in E�chibit B)� 2) Complete study done
on retaining walls} and 3} Reasonable judgement be used as to traific
patterns in accordance with City Staff recormnendations,
Mrs. Schnabel sai:d the only stipulation that she thought necessary would �
be following the intent o£ the letters that were received.. She said that
was not to say tl�e others weren�t important, but she thought the petitioner
had indicated they intended to do those things in good £aith. Mr. Harris
said he thought the grade change could be handled with the building permit.
Mrs. Schnabel AI�'lENDID the MOTION to include the stipulation that the intent
of the letters of agreement Detween the Ilnbers and Dayton Hudson be followed.
Agreeable to t4r. Langenfeld.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 9:20 and reconvened the meeting
at 9:35 P.M.
3. CONTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE
Chairperson Harris said he had one criticism, and that was his copy was so
bad he couldn't read it and there were no page numbers. The Commi.ssion
agreed they did not have very legible copies.
Mr. Bergman said that he had read a portion of this and had arrived at the
feeling that they still weren't in.concert as to what the content of the
maintenance code should be. He said he thought they had agreed they were �
P2anning Commission Meeting - January 19� 1977 Page ll
�. going to try to reduce this down by.adhering to the maintenance considera-
tions only, rather than construction, and yet whoever was putting this
. together wasn't followi.ng that. For example, he said, there was still a'
requirement in there that every room have a window.
Mr. Boardman said he didn'i feel they had gotten that far. He said that
at the last meeting it had been discussed and the Commission rranted it
broken down into a more clear direction'. He stated they had put it into
consistency and related it according to health and safety items; their
efforts had been in the organization of the code £or a more proper review.
Mr. Bergman commented that he�didn�t see a definition o£ maintenance in
the proposed code. Chairperson Harris suggested that perhaps they could
start with the introduction and take it section by section to get started
on it someglace. Mr. Bergman said he thought they had agreed on a
de£inition o£ maintenance� and he had looked for that definition as a
gauge in the review. Mr, I,angen£eld sai.d he had provided a definition
at one point. The source was the American Heritage Dictionary, he said,
and the definition was a) The action of continuing carrying on, preserving
or retaining something b) The work of keeping something in proper condition.
Mr. Bergman said he recalled Afr. Langen£eld reading that, and recalled
himself referencing another document where maintenance was described as
the care and caretaking of that which exists. He said it would then be
out of line to say someone had to put a window in a wall because maintenance
� means care for what already existed rather than build more. P1rs. Shea
. noted that the Building Inspector could set that aside, so there was a way
out,
Mr, Bergman said he thought a defi.nition of maintenance belonged in the
front o£ the code� and what £ollowa should be consistent with that de£in-
ition. Mr. Boardman said he thought it should be in a preamble or the
opening statements,
Mr. Langenfeld stated that he thought the preamble was redundant and
suggested eliminating the first sentence to simplify and shorten it.
Chairperson Harris noted that this preamble was longer than the preamble
to the constitution, and the whole country was run by that. Mr. Boardman
said they were not only talking about maintenance� but blighted premises
and structures harboring conditions dangerous to the public healLh,
safety, and general welfare of the people. He said they were also saying
that faulty design or construction� iailure to keep them in a proper
state of repair� lack of adequate lighting or ventilation� inability to
properly heat� etc,� were causing this disproportionate amount o£ expenditure
of public funds £or gublic health, safety and wel£are, Chairperson Harris
questioned the last statement concerning public fhnds, and asked if that
was what they were really doing. Mr. Boardman said this referred to crime
prevention� fire protection, and things like that. Nr. Harris asked if
there wasn�t a window in somebody's wall, if they would be expending those
� funds. Mr. Boardman stated it was in the interest �of public health, and
Planning Cormnission Meeting - January 19� 1977 Page 12
vas required in the State Building Code for a reason.
Mr. Bergman said that ihen a house may exist prior to code (for example by
way of a��grandfather" clause) that was acceptable from a building code
construction control� but now they were coming up with a maintenance code
that said it was not acceptable, Mr. Boardman said what they were saying
was because that structure existed the wa,y it was and met code because it
was "grandfathered" in� it may be a£ire hazard. Since in was a£ire hazard,
he continued� there should be some repair work done to that so it was no
longer a fire hazard and there wouldn't be an expenditure of public monies
for the protection of that structure. Mr. Bergman said that meant that
somebody had to decide what was a fire hazard and what wasn't. He stated
that Mr. Boardman was defining the previous code that existed when that home
was built as allowing a fire hazard in its design.
Mr. Langenfeld said he felt that Mr. Berp,man had good points� but it seemed
to him that in order to use this document they had to.first go throngh iL
and condense it, and then after that go through it again and hit on those
items that had been brought up. Chairperson Harris suggested skipping the
preaznble and moving on to the code, but Mr. Boardman said they should handle
the preamble because it was the basis £or the code.
�
Mrs, Schnabel asked if it was necessary to have a preamble� and Mr. Boardman
replied that it was necessary to have a statement saying that they lrnew
what they were going to talk about, For instance, he said, if they were �
going to talk about the conditions dangerous to the public health,
safety, and general wel£are, they had to lmow what those conditions were
io be taken into consideration.
Mr. Bergman stated he felt they should de£ine what they meant by maintenance,
in other words, the scoge of this dociunent, Mr. Boardman commented that
they� would probably have to rewrite the entire preamble as far as the scope
and what they were trying to accomplish with the maintenance. He asked if
they were trying to accomplish, with the maintenance code, elimination of
conditions dangerous to public health, safety and wel£are. Mr. Bergman
replied that in that broad of a context he would have to say no. Mr. Board-
man then asked the purpose of developing a maintenance code} and Chairperson
Harris said it was to insure the integrity of the residential neighborhoods,
Mr, Bergman added they could accomplish that by putting an acceptable
limitation on the normal deterioration and blight oY the buildines and
facilities.
Mr, Boardman asked if they were going to attempt to correct things that
were wrong within the buildings, and cited an example of a stairw�y with
no handrails. He asked if that would be a maintenance item. Mr. Langenfeld
said that in his opinion that would be a safety item. Mr. Boardman asked ,
if they were going to talk about the sa£ety and general welfare of the
public� because if soa that was more than what i•Sr. Langenfeld�s definition
of maintenance t�ras, Mr. Boardman pointed out that if they went snto sa£ety
i.n one area� they would have to go into it in other areas. Mr. Bergman �'
asked if there was any other code that would cover an item such as the
handrails, end Mr. Boardman replied there was not.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 197T Page 13
�. Mr. Langenfeld said he didn't mean to sound harsh, but everytime they
started on this code they bounced all over the place.' He suggested that
• perhaps they could start on page 1 and hear everybody�s comments. Mr.
Boardman explained that he was talking about the preamble and whether
they wanted to just handle maintenance and preclude safety items.
Mr. Langenfeld said that in reference to the preamble� he thought that
perhaps they could eliminate the first 7� lines and pick it up where it
started talking about Fridley only, He commented that he definitely felt
that they had more than maintenance actually involved here, and they were
going to end up talking about construction� maintenance� use,.and so on.
He felt they should condense the preamble first and then talk about it.
He added that he thought the last portion of the scope was a bit severe,
and he thought that the purpose was sufficient.
Mr. Bergman commented that it was interesting he had marked his copy
consistent with what Mr. iangenfeld had just said. Mr. I,angenfeld gave
the Commission a£urther example by showing them his copy of the proposed
code with his comments noted where he thought they could omit, simplify,
etc.� throughout the rest of the code. Mr. Bergman said he had started
out the same way� and then it occunei to him that he didn�t lmow what he
was doing� and that was when he got back to the definition item. He
asked what they were going to address in this document as he found that
in other concerns there was a health code� safety code� construction code
� and maintenance code, and they were separate documents and each addressed
difPererit things. He noted that they had a mixture here and he didn't
. really lmow how to deal with that.
Mr. Boardman stated that all the items in the proposed code dealt with
construction and housing structure. �He said that there were certain
things in construction that were sa£ety hazards--not only to the people
kho lived there but to the £ire £ighters iY they were called in.
Mr. Bergman suggested that perhaps they should call it Maintenance, Health
and Safety Code. I�Ir. Boardman said that perhaps the de£inition of mainten-
ance is where it should be handled under this code, and suggested that
maintenance Nas maintaining the structure for health and safety purposes.
Mr. Bergman said that he didn�t see how they could come up with a definition
of maintenance that was in con£lict with the generally accepted and under-
stood definition of the term. rir. Boardman read the scope to the Commission
and noted that even that dealt with more than what the simple definition
of maintenance was. .1r. Langenfeld suggested renaming it Completed
Structures Building Code as he could see where "maintenance" was starting
to throw this into di££erent categories. Chairperson Harris commented
that he thought if they did that they would get into trouble with the
State Building Department because they would.see this as an attempt to
circumvent the State Building Code,
Mr. Boardman suggested that they get back to the subject of the preamble,
� a»d Mr. Bergman again suggested defining maintenance. Mrs. Schnabel said
that maybe they should go on the tact o£ what the intent of the ordinance
xas� and the intent was to prevent blighted areas £rom occurring as well
as to protect citizenry in terms of health and safety from deterioration
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 197? Page 1�
of dwellings within the city. Mr. Bergman asked Mrs. Schnabel if she would �
be comfortable with a"Maintenance" title then, and she replied she would
because she thought that pretty well defined what maintenance would be. .
Mr, Bergman said he couldn't see a maintenance code telling an owner that
he must now put up a railing on the stairway or a window in a Wall, consid-
ering that when he had bought the house it had met any code stipulations.
Mrs, Schnabel said that they might come to those sections in the proposed
code and then delete them if they didn�t feel they fell within what the
intent of the code was.
Chairperson Harris stated that in his mind, a maintenance code was to
maintain status quo--keep things the way they were. Mrs. Schnabel and Mrs.
Shea disagreed with that definition, Mr. Harris said that what they were
tatking about in someareas was an upgrading code; upgrading the structure
by adding windows or stairway railings, etc. He said that to him mainten-
ance was keeping the structure the way it was when it was built. Mrs.
Schnabel said that a structure may have been built such a long time ago
that the construction of it� by today's standards, was not adequate. Mrs.
Shea said she felt that maintenance was maintaining a building so it was
safe and healthy, Mr. Harris said that then that would mean upgrading
it in some areas. Mr. Boardman stated that Mrs. Shea was saying that
maintenance was maintaining a building in a health situation, and to do
that the upgrading may have to happen. Nfr; Harris said he felt that was
more than maintenance. Mr. Langenfe2d said he felt the whole intent of
this was to be a Structural Deterioration Preventive Code� and suggested �
that as a possible title. He saic3 then they could touch on maintenance,
safety, etc.
MOTION by Langen£eld, seconded by Shea� that the Planning Commission
reriame the proposed Maintenance Code "Structural Deterioration Preventive
Code".
Mrs. Schnabel asked i£ he k*as speaking of all structures whether they
were commercial, residential, or whatever, and Mr. Langenfeld replied
that the intent of the motion referred to dwellings in the "R" districts.
Mr. Langen£eld AMENDID the MOTION to read "Residential Structural Deter-
ioration Preventive Code". Agreeable to Mrs. Shea.
Mr. Bergman said that he appreciated Mr. Langenfeld�s good intentions,
but he would have to vote against the motion. He felt, that "Maintenance"
was the proper and correct title to put on this document and Yelt they
should adher to that. Mr. Langen£eld coimnented that if they did that,
much o£ the document would have to be eliminated.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, Langenfeld and Shea voting sye; Harris, Bergman and
Schnabel voting nay, the motion failed 3- 2.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission
insert in the Preamble and adopt the definition of the term "maintenance"
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19� 1977 Page ls
� as applicable to the proposed Maintenance Code as follows: a) The action
of continuing carryin� on, preserving, or retaining something b) The work
of keeping something in proper condition.
Mr. Bergman read the Prearnble to the Commission as he suggested it would
read� deleting the whole first sentence, elimi.nating "lack of adequate
lighting or ventilation", and after the word "City" merely adding the
defi.nition of '7�iaintenance". He said he felt that would be reasonable
content.
Mr. Langenfeld stated he was in f1x11 agreement with striking the First
sentence� but couldn't go along with eliminating "lack of adequate lighting
or ventilation" because that was in the preamble to make the reader aware
that these conditions can and do exist, He explained thai was just
cresting an awareness of a situation.
Mr, Boardman said he thought one thing was being left out, 2nd that was
a statement of what they �rere trying to accomplish. He said that was the
purpose of the Preamble� and it should state what they were trying to
do with the code. He explained that the first seven lines were a statement
of finding� and the Preamble should also state what they were trying to
declare and what the purpose o£ the ordinance was. Mr. Boardman said that
if they had to go into court with this� they would have to have a solid
statement of reason as to why they xere getting into this. Mr. Langenfeld
said that as far as he was concerned� they had that in the last half of
� the existing Preamble. He added that one of the things that i,ras bad about
ordinances was that they had so many words they couldn't be interpreted.
Mr. Bergman said that if they were to pursue the motion, some of this
would really be awkward. He asked if lack of maintenance of an existing
building would really necessitate excessive and disproportionate expenditures
of gublic funds £or public health, public safety, crime prevention, fire
protection, and other public services, thereby causing a drain upon public
revenue and impairing the ef£icient and economical exercise of governmental
functions, Chairperson Harris said he didn't think they could prove that.
' Mr. Boardman said that because of these conditions it may be necessary to
expend more police time. He said that if an entire area was deterioration
and conditons were such that mainienance was in poor condition, more police
time would probably be expended in that area. He said that he was sure a
lot of this was written up under that premise--that more police time was
spent in areas where there was deterioration and more blight because the
eonditions were such that they allowed more criminal activi.ty. He added
that the same may be found with the fire department in these areas.
Mr. Bergman stated he thought part of what Mr. Boardman �ras s�ying had
some truth to it, but it was greatly overdone. He said he thought one
thing that was lacki.ng here was a statement to the e££ect that they were
concerned about this because blight expands and is found to be the cause
of additdonal blight.
�
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19� 1977 Page 16
Mr. Boardman said they had to have in the Preamble some kind o£ statement of �
finding to show why they had this code; for instance� for protection of ,
public safety� hea].th� and welfare� and for the disproportionate amount
of public funds being spent and maybe even for aesthetic reasons--for the
upgrading of the general character of the City.
Mr. Bergman suggested that he change the motion to include the organization
of the Preamble and the general approach used, but to add a definition of
"maintenance" as applicable to�this document. Mr. Boardman said he thought
the de£inition of maintenance would be more appropriate in the Scope than
in the Preamble� and Lhe Commission agreed.
P1r. Bergman AMENDED the MOTION to change, within the Preamble, the word�
"dangerous" to "detrimental"� and to delete the phrase "lack of adequate
]ighting or ventilation". Mrs. Schnabel stated that she couldn't second
that. She explained that he had added deleting the phrase "lack of
adequate lighting or ventilation" after she had seconded the motion the
first time, and she really didn�t agree with that.
Mr. Bergman AMENDED the MOTION as follows: That the Planning Commission
accept 220.02 Preamble of the proposed Maintenance Code� changing the
word "dangerous" to "detrimental'r. Agreeable to Mrs. Schnabe2.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� a21 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Langenfeld said that he would like to see the Cor,unis'sion continue to �
go through the document and make notatians, as he had shown everyone,
and see what they could do on that basis. He added that he felt they had
spent enongh time on this i'or tonight. Mrs. Schnabel suggested that if
anyone care@ to change any of the wording in any way, that they come to
the meeting with their new language written out so they could perhaps
proceed a little quicker.
Mr. Bergman said he would like to suggest that they also attack "Scope"�
and Chairperson Harris agreed. Mr. Harris asked if they wanted to incorpor-
ate the maintenance definition in Scope. Mr. Boardman corrunented that he
wondered if "maintenance" shouldn't be under Definitions, and noted that
under objectives there was a kind of definition o£ maintenance. He asked
what the Commission's feelings were on that. Mr. Bergman said he felt it
was proper to ca7.1 th�s a MainCenance Code� and the definition of that
term was really what the Scope was all about, and that is where it should
be. He said that he would suggest £urther that it could be repeated back
in Definitions, but it wa� really basic to understanding the Scope.
M4TION by Bergman, seconded'by Langenfeld, that what is described under
Scope in the Fridley Residential Maintenance Code be deleted and replaced
Wi.th °The provision o£ this Ordinance sha1l apply uni£ormly to the maintenance
of existing structures and facilities, where applicable�+, Maintenance as
applicable in this document is defined as fo2lows: .a} The action of
��
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page 17
� continuing carrying on� preserving or retaining something b) The work of
keeping something in proper condition. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye�
the motion carried vnanimously.
MOTIOId by Shea, seconded by Langen£eld� that the Planni.ng Commission
continue the Proposed Maintenance Code until the next meeting. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Bergman said it was his impression that tirith that motion as the Scope�
drastic things would hagpen to this dooument� mainly in the form of dele-
tions. I•�. Boardman stated that he would have to digest that and would
see what would happen.
�. CONTINUED: HUMAN AEVELOPMEIdT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Mr. Boardman said that they had gone through this briefly at the last
meeting and there had been a motion to continue so it could be properly
reviewed, and now he was open for questions.
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman, that under D410 the word '�mothers"
be changed to "parents"� and "women and children" be deleted and "all
citizens" added. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
'ur;animously.
` MOTION by Langen£eld, seconded by Shea, that under D420 the words "in
order" and "morc'be deleted. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Schnabel noted the words "within the Metro Area" under D51�0, and
asked if it was the responsibility of the City of Fridley to promote a
better understanding of minorities within the Metro Area. Mr. Boardman
said he was trying to bring out the responsibility of the CiLy as a
broader unit than just the City itsel£; it did have a responsibility to
the metropolitan area also as a neighbor. Chairperson Aarris asked why
they were limiting it to the metro area� and suggested it read "Promote
a better understanding of minorities and encourage programs which provide
opportunities for•their developraent in society."
MQTION by Schnabel, seconded by Shea, that the words "within the Hietro �
Area" be deleted £rom D540• t)pon a voice wte, all voting sye, the motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Shea, that the words "a better" be
deleted from Program Objectives D510� D520� D530 and D540. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
5. CONTINUID: SECURITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
� Mr, Langenfeld read Goal Statiement 5100, and said the first thing that
came to his mind was, "how?". He said it just seemed like an impossible
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 19�7 Page 18
statement to make. Chairperson Harris said he had trouble with the term
"civil wrongs". Nfr. Langenfeld suggested just saying "Assure the security �
of the individual°, He said that ��security° would involve criminal acts�
civil wrongs, etc. �
Chairperson Harris said that with the term "civil wrongs'� in that statement
he gat the feeling they would be asked to choose up sides in a neighborhood
disagreement; i.e., kids running through a garden, etc. Mr. Boardman said
that he was thinking more in terms o£ wrongs of the justice system itself.
In other words, he said, discrimination �ainst the civil liberties of a
person. �e said they would try to find a better term� and suggested �'civil
injustice". Chairperson Harris suggested that they think about it as he
couldn�t think oF anything o£fhand. '
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Schnabel, that under S1I0 the second
"that" tie eliminated; and under 5120 the word ��national" be changed to
"natural��. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unan-
imously.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Schnabel, that the words "all elements
of ° be deleted under S150, Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion
carried unanimously.
Mrs. Schnabel commented that she would like to know how they could get
the justice system to respect the public; she didn't think it was possible.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if there should be an objective which included in£orm- i
i.ng the citizenry of safety programs available to them� such as Operation
Identification� etc. She also wondered if something should be written in
that would include the services that were available to people in times o£
trouble, such as the Poison Control Center� YFS� Suicide Prevention� etc.
Mr. Boardman read Program Objective 5130 to the Commission� and said that
he thought they were talking about that type o£ thing in there. He added
that information on that type o�' thing would be included under Po2icy
Development rather than Objective.
Mr. Boardman pointed out that on page 23� the Program pbjective should be
5210 instead of S200.
Mr. Langenfeld said that regarding page 21�, he would like to lmow how
security got involved with environment, Nir. Boardman said it meant securing
the environment for the resi@ents.
Mr. Langenfeld read Program Objective 5330, and said he would like to see
"and eliminate" deleted. Mr, Bergman suggested it read °$liminate or
control...".
MOTION by Langenfeld that the words "and eliminate",be deleted from 5330.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Bergman said that he would like to comment on Goal Statement 5300,
which said "Assure the conservation and improvement o£ the environment..." �'
He said he didn't know how improvement could be assured� even as a goal.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page 19
� He added that he would think that assuring the conservation was more what
. they were talking about. Mr, Boardman stated that it was the continuation .
of the conservation that exists, plus improvement on the existing situation.
He said that could be assured through evaluating problems o£ air, water
and noise control policies� pollution abatement policies, renewable and non-
renewable resources and preservation of natural habitats. Chairperson
Harris asked if Program Objective S311�, Preservation of natural habitats,
would eliminate construction. Mr. Boardman said it would not as it didn�t
say "all'� natural habitats.
rfOTION by Bergman, seconded by.Langenfeld, that Program Objective 533�
be chariged to read "Eliminate or control disease-carrying pests, noxious
weeds and harmf�l insects". Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion
carried unanimously.
Mr, LangenFeld read Slt3� to the Commission� and said to him that just meant
getting the victims to the hospital-as quickly as possible. Mr. Boardman
said they were referring to a natural disaster and the control and policing
of the area so the victims could get back to their everyday� normal life
pattern as quickly as possible. In other words, he said, a clean up and
that type of thing after a tornado.
Mrs. Schnabel said she didn't understand the term "activities". Mr. Boardman
said this meant the normal functional activities of the city in general,
� such as businesses returning to a normal pattern of activities. A3r. Bergman
said he would have thought two different words would have been used: instead
of "victims", use "casualties"; and instead of "activities", use "facilities".
Iir, Boardman suggested eliminating "victims and activities" and substituting
"conditions��,
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman, that Program Objective S430 read
as £ollows: Help £acilitate the return of conditions to a suitable
productive state as quickly as possible.. Upon a voice vote� all voting
aye� the motion carried unanimously.
6 RECEIVE APPEALS COTQ4ISSION hiINUTFS: JANUARY 11, 1977
MOPION by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld� that the Planning Commission
receive the Appeals Commission minutes oY 3anuary 11� 19?7.
Mr, iangenfeld noted that the Appeals Commission was still going after the
economic feasibility versus hardship question as well as the devaluation
problem. He commented that he hoped they got some help soon. Mrs. Schnabel
said she had received no response yet.
Mrs. Schnabel brought to the Commission's aitention the second to last
paragraph on page 6 0£ the Appeals Commission minutes. She said she was
� smused tonight to see that Pop Shoppes had a whole•book of signs� and the
man had said they would pick the largest one they could. She stated that
xas exactly what Pirs. Gabel had discovered, and they should be aware of
this.
Planning Commission Afeeting - January 19� 1977 Page 20
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. �
MOTION by Langenfeld that the second to last paragraph on page 6 of the
Appeals Commission minutes be included in the Planning Commission minutes
of January 19th so the word could get around and a few more people could
be informed of the findings of the Sign ardinance Committee.
Mrs. Schnabel commented that the City Council should be reading the
Appeals Commission minutes anyway� as they went directly to Council.
Mr, Langenfeld WITHDkEW THE MOTION.
7. RECEIVE HUMAN RFSOURCES COM1�tISSION MZTdUTES: JANUARY 6 1977
MOTION by Langenfeld, secori@ed by Shea� that the Planning Commission
receive the Human Resources Commission minutes of January 6, 1977.
Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to comment that she felt it was a
shame that the Planning Commission didn�t receive these minutes until
the night of their meeting as they didn�t have the time to go through
them, She noted that these minutes were taken January 6 and weren�t
included in the packet� yet the Appeals Commission minutes were taken
January llth and were included, She said she realized the seoretary
had a tremendous amount of minutes to go through in this' case, but �
thought it was unfortunate they didn't have the opportunity to read them
all the way through because she felt there was probably a lot of interest-
ing material in them. Mrs. Shea said that she had requested that these
minutes wait until the next meeting so they could be included in the
booklet.
Mr. Langenfeld commented that the same thing happened almost all the
time with F�vironmental Quality Control minutes. He said that when
something like that happened� it was his asswnption that the Chairperson
would indicate any highlights.
8. RECEIVE COMMIINITY DEVFSAPFSENT COA'�STSSION MINUTES: JANUARY 11 1977
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission
receive the Community Development Commission minutes of January ll, 1977.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion.carried unanimously.
Mr. Bergman said that in their meeting with the Bikeway/Walkway Corru7ittee
they discussed many things, and on page 6 identi£ied items of concern or
consideration.
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission
pass on to Council the following concerns that were raised during the
Bikeway/Walkway Implementation: �
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page 21
� 1. The suggestion to identify a selected advertised bike day.
2. To reviex the route and intersection problem at Highway 6$ and
53� Avenue.
3. The concern for other major intersectional crossings.
1y. The suggested widening of sidewalk where bikeway joins same.
5. Commission unanimity against state licensing.
6. Request for directional arrows on bike routes.
UPON A VOICE UOTE, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Bergman said he had come to this meeting intending to make a motion
to get secretarial help for the Sign Ordinance Committee� but he saw that
had already been taken care of.
OTHER BUSINFSS:
Mr. Boardman brought the Commission up to date on what had happened with
the East River Road Project Committee. He said that on October bth the
planning Commission sent down to tYae member Cqmmissions the Parlcway
Development Plan; on November i�th Human Resources acted, on November 9th
Community Aevelopment acted� and on November 15th Parks and Recreation
acted. He stated there had been no action taken by the Planning Comnission
on those responses� and suggested that they respond at the next meeting.
� Mr. Boardman informed the Corrmiission that concerning the "baby° for
the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Programs, Bob Hughes had attended that
City Council meeting and said they did not need that £or the Fridley
Fire Department. Chairperson Harris said he had talked to i3r. Hughes
. about a week ago and found that the problem xas they did not have the
electronic recorder £or the "baby". They needed the recorder� he said�
to tell them i£ the resuscitation was being done correctly to sustain
human life� and that particular piece of equipment cost about $900 to
$1�100. Mr. Harris stated that he thought this program was of utmost
, importance� and this was where the City should provide a service. Ae
said that if it cost $1,500 for a recorder, he thought that was what
they ought to have.
140TI�N by Iangenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission
recommend to Council the purchase o£ the electronic recorder to be used
for the education of the citizens of Fridley. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. .
Mr. Boardman said concerning the request made by the Planning Commission
for recommendations £rom City Staff on the intersection of 53rd and
Central Avenue, they had two recommendations. Ae showed them to the
Commission and explained the di£ferences. Chairperson Harris asked how
much land they would have to take to accomplish this, and i�tr. Hoardman
� replied it would be a strip about 200' long by 66r. He added that they
were talking in terms of a project cost oF around $10,000 -$12,000, and
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977
Page 22
that was for the actual construction. He said that if they had to acquire
the property it would be the acquisition on top of that. Chairperson �
Harris commented that it would aertainly improve things, and asked that
this be put on the agenda for the next meeting with all the pertinent
information included.
MOTION by $ergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission
continue the discussion of the proposed improvement at the intersection of
S3rd and Central pvenue until the next meeting. Upon a voice vote� all
voting aye, the motion carried�unanimously.
ADJOURN24EiVT:
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the meeting be adjourned.
Upon a voice vote� a].1 voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the
Planning Commission meeting of January 19, 1977 adjourned at 12:00 A.Pi.
Respectflilly submitted,
��i�7; � �;�, irn�e �0
�.J
Sherri 0'➢onnell
Recording Secretary
i
�
Y
�
OFFICIAL NOTICE
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PUBLIC HEARIfdG
BEFORE T{IE
PLAP�NIN6 COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the
• Planning CoR¢t+ission of the City of Fridley in the City fiall at 6431
University Avenue Northeast on 4lednesday, February 9, 1977 in the
Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of:
Consideration of a Proposed Preliminary Plat, P.S. �77-01,
Arnal Addition, by Arnold and Alvan Toevrs, being a replat
of that part of the Southti•iest Quarter of the Northeast
� Quarter of Section 3, T-30, P.-24, lying ldesterly of the
Westerly right of way line of Burlington NortP�ern, Inc.,
lying Easterly of the Easterly right of way line of
Ashton Avenue and lying Southerly of a line described
as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the South
line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter
and the said lJesterly right of ti•�ay line; thence on an
� assumec� bearing of N.18°26'10"W, along said k'esierly
right of way line, 293.25 feet to the actual point of
beginning; thence on a bearing of lJest, 292.20 feet to
the Easterly right of way line of Ashton Avenue and there
terminating, located in the North Half of Section 3,
T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota.
Generally located at 8101 Ashton Avenue N.E.
Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter will
be heard at this meeting.
Publish: January 26, 1977
February 2, 1977
�
RICHARD H. HARRIS
CHAIRMAN
PLANNING COMMISSION
�3
CITY Ot PRIDLEY MINNESOTA
PLANNING AND ZONING FORM
NUhiliER��-o/ '
A�n/ctr� . R ._1 oEuIS
� �iAPPGICANT'S SIGNATURE /4��/�Q��7 G{I. J 0�=u/S
Address o2�D �(� �/TD �
d ST.!✓`, l�ci nu v
Telephone Number % � -vQ S,� D
�
PROPGRTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE
Address 2no 1/Zae/TCnI �r- t(l-E [-KrIJ/�Y SS�ts'z
�5 ���°a►
TYPE OE'REQUHST
Rezoning
z�
Special Use Permit
�_ Approval of Premin-
inary $ Pinal Plat
Streets or Alley
Vacations
Other
Telephone Number' ?�c7
�� p� ./ Fee j� Q�eceipt No.g+-i�7Q �
Street Location of Property %�SifTO�� ��- N��-• ���Y
Legal Description of Property� ,S �%Ti� /'�t,�7 ` �"� ��~ �
Present Zoning Classification 111-Z Existing Use of Property U.FI•C,�'.�
Acreage of Property j.S(3t.c_. Describe briefly the proposed zoning classificatio:
�
or type of use and improvement proposed Z,e�OLkST2i✓3�.�
• Has the present applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split or
variance or special use permit on the subject site or part.of it? yes�_no.
What was requested and when?
The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all residents and owners of property
within 300 feet (350 feet for re2oning) must be attached to this application.
(b) This application must be signed by all owners of the property, or an explanation
given why this is not the case. (c) Responsibility for any defect in the proceedings
resulting from the failure to list the names and addresses of all residents and
groperty owners of property in question, 6elongs to the undersigned.
A sketch of proposed proparty and structure must be drawn and attached, sho�oing the
following: 1. North Direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on the lot.
3. Dimensions of property, proposed structure, and froni and side setbacks.
4. Street Names, 5. Location and use of adjacent existing buildings (within 300 feet:
•The undersigned hereby dcclares that all the facts and rep esentations stated in this
application are true and correct. „ � ��— r
DATFX' l / `�- 7 7 '
,
� Date Filed %� /y- �7 Date of Hcaring ��y�77
Planning Commission Approved City Council Approvcd
(datcs) Denicd (datcs) Denied �
u
.
�
MAIIING LIST
P.S. #77-01 Arnal Addition
A-1 Tool Company
160 Ely Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Keith Larson
222 18th Avenue South
South St. Paul, Mn 55075
Mr. & Mrs. Frank Niznick
191 Liberty Street N:E.
Fridley> Mn 55432
Ms. Gertrude Emerick
181 Liberty Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Arnold & Alvin Toews
200 Ironton 5treet N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Ernest E. Cook
10354 Mississippi Blvd N.i�
Coon Rapids, Mn 55433v
Mr. & Mrs. Marshall Johnson
200 Ely Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Edward Bishop
212 Ely Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Bryan Kohl
220 Ely Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Narlan Erickson
175 Liberty 5treet N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Veronica J. Stenze
4435 Minnehaha
Apartment �10
Minneapolis, Mn 55406
Mr. & Mrs. Howard Stine
1532 3rd Ave. South
Moka, Mn 55303
Planning Commission 1-26-77
Council _
Lance W. Peterson
1625 2nd Av�ue
New Port, Mn 55055
Mr. & Mrs. Gary Anderson
196 Ely Street N.E.
Fridley, Mrt 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Jerome Sowada
243 Ely Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Raymond F. Pauser
2644 Washington Street N.E.
Minneapolis, Mn 55418
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Tumnel
223 Ely Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
6unner �ensen
1301 Mar Les W.
8anta Anna, California 92706
�J
�
.
a
,:�_ :
�' (.�)
;, • 33��
, %is�l
�___
•�.�� .
, :,;-- -
: �: �� .
,_�,
,.�,�,� S i� r 1 , i c, V
if ti/f ✓�� '•
� �9`�ffR 6 ."��J . 3�! :.�v� ��
: 6�3�� �� 3�.: .j a z ;
; ,y, �:�IflATIQ;! �
� ; �,,,� a: F�. < ..
—� IS l
� • / �G�: .. . .. . .�I t ..jn I 1 .
. .; S �i,5f S- 3.TY3/ 0�49���"i5 NA3�41
j�.l ��s , i � i IQS,.
,._�_.i.,.. .. t. N ^..'. ... ,
,-.�.. .. , . -�2s r.
390..1. ., 3�y....,`; eD
. . . : ' i S71'7J7 �nzi;,7s e Jr 1' �3i31135 > u j� '�^ �
..a .�}Yf� .�' il..l.. I I I -fi1-
' -. � 'y +2 :. _y.LN�� .-T�
.� . •� < , ^ .�
8i6o:t = : "i _ $ 41 � S�gi � $� S �
` •_ Ri�s,— �'..---7H "�l:�i,
_ : &c�d; , '` ^.. 5/ 9 t' '' ''? .� er
. .,�� � 6� �,�'�.�qb? � g15� ;
p.`_ , g��S _ i
�i/$� -- �f —° , ar:
F" g �r �o
. . ...� tn �3s r = &��
.._�r....— _� f..
. � � (4�� � $.{J` g1.2� � ru
. � a ' f ` � c8�3�
� i. . M1.
r
�•. .� .:. . •
:���b,� � ,.,=CIRCLE�`*lz��`.,
i`
.,. �a'. � ,.� , r,,{
T
� �. 8�0� :.r': � X
� ���. ••.Y.. ;' � ,� 8u� * �
,
n YM Y.. � , M
.. ...I/I � .
� �.
� ` �
�
,, ,
,
� `" '
,.
��
l�) �
l
� � , ; :�:,a°.. �.
� N
\ �j -fl��y.1t_ c'
e� 1 0
� � i
• w
� � o
s � ,�� �
� �..t
e��r � - —
\ 4 , c <zoo) ,
ay = �
�� V N q .
��
I ,
� �
�• �;� ��°
: a ,.> '
:�
1"' . • �t�e �
�^ e �% �pi+ � .
�^ �
�n � _
' � —/�I
: � � I 0 � ` \J �:�j
; „\
a 4; , P ,x !
^ �c, ��� a '. >..,t J..�
� � � b
,� e
. r, I �
/a � y
� "� , , C£NT£R
' S£C. 3
� � r�
m�'-----
��
. c
. ��
�
� — — — —,.,.:9wsh.y: nry,s-_<— —
1
� ,• " l ��ol
(iusJ + ,
//�
r Kbd'a/7
�},� •>ze
V `
A.'I��e��n'�'- �
,� _ ..
_ s.�,
P.S. #77-01 Arnal Addition
8101 Ashton Avenue N.E.
�
ris��
Ein�siE Gec.F
2 �ac.
,
\ ,
�
�i `�
�
"' - - -
,
`
�
OFFICIAL N07ICE
CITY Of FRIDLEY
PUBLIC HEARIN6
BEFORE THE
PLANNIN6 COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is fiereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the
Planning Conmiission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431
Universtiy Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, February 9, 1977 in the Council
Chamber at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following matter:
A Public Hearing meeting on the City of Fridley's
Comnunity Development Block Grant Preapplication
through the office of Housing and Urban Development,
to allow citizens to voice their views on a three-
stage community development program, including:
1. Nousing maintenance,
• 2. Rehabilitation grants, and
3. A Rehabilitation Resource Center.
Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter wi11
be heard at this meeting.
Publish: February 2, 1977
�
RICHARD H. HARRIS
CHAIRMAN
PLANNING COMMISSION
�i
;< �
sse+8 their ap�ec#+
� she vas sortv- t1
�hiie meer � . � .-
;� � �-� ' '
;' : 3 EY �t�VIRUPiM�NTXL €t1i�H3ISSi0N "NE�
F � + •;<
� �� { , .daEiws 'af Dea�:gaat#ttn by the Fri�l�
�� �;�#�'��t.�iver=Road a� a Farkway and EsCeh�
' 0." � ��iey.-Pa�cksray Sqstam,: for. i[s SociaX �md'
£`�
, ; v3�,C� fi'!�'�a��lik.Belg�mn, se¢muded �.by Willi�a Si
}arr�ug2r,f$re,- Upon a voiee v�¢t
�
�` �;
r=
: '� �
F1c� � ,r � . �,
� � , � ��.�
�i�Eo Mr. 13111 �or at���� =
�e o€ [he publfc h�c� ��� "`
�QT�ffiER 21, 1476• ��
• �
�r%s & Recreation Camnissian
..�ontrols by Ordinanee as the
�ropanental Significaace <
. . . . .. .h ..
, that the Human Resources-
�itt"River Road into a,parkway/
, ,all voting aye, the maCion
iz ��
�:
mamwr nrmnuFU� 7 �t93f,• - ,..
t��1; mes�e�s_agreed they weze �ot infi.�sested ia the provisfon of
Aights Adminiatrator fox theiF s�safon.
�S HUMAN Ri6lk'�S CE�RIISSION•
t�esl Chat it �1� be: of benefit if a�;l �te Caa�iasion memb�rs could
��4t t�eetiag of the Local Coomtfa�ios�;<�,November 11, 1976, sponsored
�s�� A�ightg Flir�n R#ghts Caami&sicaR;. t� be held at the Caluuihia
�r� et 7c30 P.m.
�$.t#'�b�x-�RA21T P�U�At�t (2197): .
@g���l,�liat thete is �53,000,fu_the'�tsi�3get for human services, and as
y�� £ind out, the $3.,QU0 far �e;l+#.ae �irCs, Co�ittee is not .parY of
�, "S,he sa;id there is ao tieae f�rae� Qn.<'t�e Mtni-grant ($5,00(f) and the
:�lioukd;try to'�o� up-wfCh sa� ide�:€ot.a project for $8,6Q0.
a��ied befare they do anythiag; �hm�t t��.s; ti�ep should go back<and
�ws�eCa;y requeste the Caam�issimt 6a�i �de.earlier. :
�' that 3t waca�`t qfficial yet, but>:�t�.�iTancy Lambert will be
E�T�,�i+e.,Gamnission, acd that.�he.£�#;���6a:members should see if they
��q"� might be in�ex�sted ia �,on-, this Co�tnission.
�
'
�-
�:
;�
;
� .�
. , . ` - _ ._ ..r.rr�.='�TSC$'�:;.s,:K.. - _..u�.. <..�.�:y.�-..- �
ra e
. . �.��' �Tt
' �
r � �
. ,,,. . . . > ,. . �
,�
h
: g:, rt ' @ ;.' � . .
� �_`,
5 T. .. � ,�,�� -
l :
E
af x. ... . � . �
�4"...v. � � . _ . .. .
♦
� 6
r
...> :��: � . .
�
. .. .. �N.r.
$
� i
�1
.. �,! .. . . . . - .:
. . , � �.°...�' ���
. F ���� . � �'���
� a
�
�.+i <= . h- < . .
, ;<.
� � �� s
. -"�.�. _ Jz. i. . . - � .
:
;�9
Y COj�UNITY DEVELOPMENT COMhiISSION MEETiNG NOVEMBER 9 1976
PAGE 2
Mr. Schneider stated that the Sign Ordinance Project Comnittee's next meeting �
� fa seC for November 15, 1976. The plan for that meeting is to attempt to get
through the rest of ehe alphabet. They anticipate completing the definitional
. phases at that meeting, and, optimis[ically, hope to get into the specific
definitions at that meeting, or, realistically, by December.
- Mr, Bergman stated that due to Mr. Schneider's successful campaign for Council
seat, he will be resigning €rom the Community Development Commission and also
from the Sign Ordinance Project Comnittee. He suggested that Mr. Schneider should
put the subject of his replacement as chairperson of the Sign Ordinance Project
C�mittee on their next meeting''s agenda for the C�ittee's discussion. He asked _
- Nr. Schneider would like him to attend that meeting,
Mr. Schneider stated that he would.
resignation to the Conm�ission at the
A.
B
He also stated he would submit his written
next meeting to be effective December 31, 1976.
21, 1
tcecommendation on the East River Road Pro ect Committee Re ort
Mr. Bergman sta[ed that he felt these two items should again be reversed and It�g
� ahould be discussed first, defining whaC kind of a plan it ought to be prior to
diacussing whether it should be a parkway or not.
�
T1r. Boardman stated that the East River Road Project Committee has put in a lot
of vork, but he feels in general agreement with the Commission that he doesn't
see any way that East River Road can be dropped from four lanes to two lanes,
especially the area south of Mississippi Street.
Mr. Schneider stated that he does feel that in any traffic plan, they shouLd
attempt to minimize diversions of traffic [o that road.
• Mx'. Bergman referred to key items that were discussed at the last Commission meeting,
There was the question of speed limit as to whether it ought to be 30 m.p.h., or
whatever the County would set (which is more like 40-45 m.p.h.), The Co�ission
had some feeling on that. There is [he consideration of funding and that was
touched on. The Comnission was in somewhat agreement that reducing East River Road
from four lanes to two lanes in that area would be impractical. The Commission
then tabled consideration on the matter until the Commission could review the
latest Planning Co�nission minutes, [he Metropolitan Council's Transit Plan, the
County Plan, [he Community Development Goals and Objectives, in addition to [he
Task Force's Plan.
�.
f" V
� �`
�
�
... _ _.��}
COMMpNITX DIiVIiI,OPMENT C09iM2SSi0N MEETING NOVCNII3ER 9 1976 PAGE 3
The MetYopolitan Transit Plan vas reviewed by the Commission and ndthfng of
any substantial relationship Co East River Road was found.
The Co�ission then revicwed the Community Development Goals and ObjecEives.
Mr. Bergman stated that Goal �5, Objectives I- 4,had some reference to the 6asC
Siver Road Project.
GOAL �5 PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN A HIGH LEVEL OF ACCESSIBILITY
TO ALLOW FOR SAFE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE, GOODS AND
SSRVICES.
OBJECTIVES
1. Encourage increased pedestrian and bicycle traffic within
the City.
2. Promote increased transit facilities to provide better and
more convenient transportation opportunities to the public.
3. Promote a high degiee of safety in all levels of tr2nsportation.
4. Promote inproved neighborhood access wiChin the co�unity.
Mr. Schneider also felt Goal �3, Objective 1, was perCinent to the East River
Road Project.
GOAi, �i3 DEVEi,OP, MAiNTAIN, AND ENFORCE A PLANNED, WELL BALANCED
LAND USE SYSTEhf,
OBJECTIVE
1. Discourage the encroachment of co�nercial and industrial
development into residential areas, but allowing for develop-
ment of hierarchy of services to the residential neighborhoods.
' Mr. Schneider stated that maybe what the Coaimission's motion with regard to the
East River Road project should be is a two-phase motion--a "short term"
reco�endation (next ten years), and a"long tei�" reco�endation (ten years
and beyond).
Mr. Boardman stated he agreed with P1r. Schneider--that this whole thing should
be handled in tcao stages. The first stage is that portion of East River Road
south of Mississippi Street, and the second stage is that portion nnrth of
Mississippi Street. He thinks south of Mississippi Street is the short range
deteYmination as to how to handle the present traffic loads within that area,
acceptin� the fact that AIississippi is either going to channel off or increase
ttaffic flow with the underpass on to East River Road, With the signalization
improvement on Mississippi and University which is coming up next year, it will
i
�-
«,.
$
�
•�
COMMUNITY DEVELOI'M�iNT COMMISSION MEETING,'NOVEMBER 9, 1976 PAGE'4" -` �i
'�` make it a little easier to get from Mississippi.on to University, It is going
to do some things on East River Road South. The portion north of Mississfppi
aeeds additional study and should be a long range determination.
�
.
The Camnission reviewed the "Comprehensive Development Plan", Transportation
section, as adopted July 2, 1973.
Mr. Boardman stated he coutd see the poinC of the East River Road Project
Co�itCee somewhat; however, he doesn't think by stopping development south of
Mississippi for safety reasons will handle the situation north of Mississippi.
The oniy thing that would handle [hat would be by lowering speed limits in that
area and strictly enforcing those speed limits. Mother thing would be to
designate specific traffic ingress roads along there and either mark them with a
four-way stop or mark them with signalizaeion. He doesn't know how the County
would react to this. He said he doesn't feel that East River Road south of
Mississippi is a residential street.
Mr. Bergman suggested that the best application for a 30 m.p.h. speed control
would be north of Mississippi, rather than south of Mississippi.
Mr. Schneider stated he had to agree with Mr. Boardman that there is no way at
this point in time that East River Road should go from four lane to two lane.
He does think they should do what they can to &iscourage more traffic flowing on
to East River Road and seriously consider lowering the speed limit, and doing
whatever else is possible (at least north of Mississippi) to try shielding the
residential area from the road. He said he realizes Chere is a land problem.
?fr. Bergman stated that another consideration on this is, with the advent of the
Northtown Corridor which will naturally tend to reduce the traffic an East River
Road, then something of a more residential character would be more practical.
.i
MOTION by Dennis Schneider, seconded by Flilliam Forster, that the Coortnunity
Development Commission recormnends for the near term future (next ten years) that
Bast River Road remain a four-lane highway, but that the additional traffic
channelization, left-turn lanes, increased signalization, and reduced speed limit
be implemented. The purpose for this.recommendation for four lanes is that the
Co�ission feels there are not adequate additional roads in Fridley at this time
to take the additional traffic flow as a result of a reduction to two lanes; but
ia order to provide for safety considerations, signalization and channelization
be implemented in order to resolve citizen concerns with which the Couunission•
is basically in agreement. Further, that the proposed speed reduction would
further help resolve the concerns of the citizens. Be it further recommended
that a study as to the feasibility of providing visual and acoustical buffering
north of Afississippi Street on East River Road be undertaken by City Staff in
their "Comprehensive Transportation Plan".
�
�
� : ��
. �•
- COMMUNITY DEVGLOPMCNT CQt�NITSSIOM MEETING, NOVEMBER 9, 1976 PAGE 5 ��
�"� Hr. Schneider stated that it should be noted that from what they have seen, the
v� Metrnpolitan Council plans do tend to bear aut the East R3ver Aoad Project
Committee's contention. He thinks the real question is the time frame invt+lved,
� and"this whole thing,should be reviewed again aC some later point in time.
11Yi1N A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, THE MOTTON CARRZED UNANIMOUSLY,
The Commission agreed that there was no need to specifically cover Item 1 at,
this time. .
Mr. Schneider s[ated that if, in the next een years, the Northtown Corridor gces
in, that it would be reasonable to pursue it at that point in time.
DISCUSSION ON STATUS OF THE BIKGWAY/WALKWAY PROJECT COMNIITTEE:
l�ir. Boardman stated he had not had a chance to talk to Councilman Fitzpatrick
about anyone to fill the vacancy of the one member of the BikewayfWalkway Project
Committee. He gave 2ir. Bergman the names of Ms, Helen Treuenfels and Ms. Donna Kos,
who had helped on the Bikeway/:lalkway survey and who lived in the right area.
Hr. Schneider stated he had a concern about the Bikeway/�dalkway project. He has
talked to a great number of people in the last couple of months, and the people
feel the City has taken more or less a halfway appxoach on the Bikeway/Walkway
sysEem. Mr. Schneider stated we stxrted to implement the thing by striping the
�, roads, but we haven't follocu�d the recommendations with Yegard to the amount of
signing. The Council hasn`t followed up on the plan cvith regard to crdinance
changes that were requested. H� stated we may have created a halfway situation
--�' whexe aur main objective, safety, is being forwarded, and which is more dangerous
than no system.
� �'
�
Mr. Boardman stated that Staff did have an ordinance all set up and ready to go
and then some new stata regulations came. Since that time it has been in Jim Hill's
area, the Police Department. 4dhat is going to happen there, he said he is not sure.
Mr. Schneider stared one of the problems is the bike educational program for the
kids and the adults,
Mr. Boardman stated that theg are doing an education program through the Police
Department caithin the schools. A[ least tt�rough the schools, they are able to
reach the kids, and they are trying to reach the adults through the City Newsletter.
A lot oi the educa[ion will have [o take place after they get an ordinance.
Mr, Schneider stated he felt that the things heing brought up were related to
getting Staff to implement w1�aC was approved as far as the plan,
k;r, Boardman stated Staff is implementing as far as they can implement at this time,
�
CR""' t%1 ^ ,_�. '� i � .. . .... . - _. . .. . .. . .. :. .: r" . : , , . � ��3 ty''�
t. . . . . . . . y. ....
� m:� P11RKS 6F.$$�HPATI� COTAQSSION I�ETIN6 NOVE!ffiER 15 1976 PAGE 7
��
�
x � ., :
!!�. �sQm stated there is also a philosophy atatemenC that was dever�op� aroer
� a��.,�ge by��the� C�mission that vreat up to Plaaa#ag--Co�iesion and t�ea�"r�raa seat �
ost Ess��C3.Ey C�mci1. �i .
" l�it..`$ca�dYaau staYed he was not avare this philosophy statement vss available.
Mr. Peteraon,stated he felt it vould be vell to hold this discussioa until the
aexi meeting to give Mr. Boudresu a chance to Look at vhat the Cammission 3,s
Lallcis�g about and what the Caaoission did a year ago. Se suggested Mr. Boudreau
get together with Staff. .
1�� ga�dreau stated this vas just a"thought piece" snd he would be happq to hold
it:natil he fiads out more about the historical background oa the "philosophical
•'state�ent".t;at was developed last year.
PSN B� S� . �
A: Bast Hiver Road Project :
Mr. Boardmen ezplained to the Com�ission a little about the East River Rosd
Prpject. First of all, the East Eiver Eoad Project Camdttee was established by
the Fridleq Hmriranmeatal Cau�dssion. Sihen the Project Cammittee came out with
t.�eir report, the Fridlep Environmental Co�ission made a motion that Sast River .
- Aoad be declared as a parkway a� therefore develop uader the Parks b Recreation
Car�aission as far as the governing and the controlling of it. That was part of
flfR motion; the other part of the motion vas to recommend approval of the Project
� Committea's report ae far as developing Hast River Boad as a two-lane road with
1efL.and sight hand tssrc►s with aa island down the center. This has also gone to
the Co�itq Developmeat Cammission aad Human Resources Co�issioa. Coamiunity
` Davelopment Coomiasion reco�ended against the Project Coumittee's report on the
devplct(+met►t of a two-lane road and also reco�eaded that it be analyzed to further
deCail in a comprehensive transportatian plaa.
!!r; Paterson stated that as a m�ber of Planaing Co�iss3oa and Chairperaon of
thia Co�iasion, he objecied to the Project Cammittee's report when it was presented
. to t6e Planning Commission. He felt Che Project Co�ittee 6ad gone way beyond its
icape of its charter and it had gone iato an area that made it aound like it was
#ke govaroment of the city speaking vhen it vas citizens. When the Project Committee
pss; questioned as to the scope of these citizens, there vas no ome from other areas
oLi�r thaa the East River Hoad area. He stated it was the Co�issioa's decision if
thay t+sated to take any action aa it.
'!A�lIfAi bq Dave Harris, seconded by Hasvey Wagar, that the Yarks � Recreation
Cmmisaioa dces not concur with the rece�eodation that East River Road be a
parkway aad that the Co�moiasion dcea not coacur with the recomeodation oa the
ehasging of the eraffic pattern an Hast Hiver 8asd.
,
' �
'.
� �
+ - .
t. . .
,� . , . ,
� _ ... . _ . . :°: ..___.. . _ . __
�. ...
__._... ..._ ... . _.._.__ _ . .
�... . _...:�.... , . . . . _ • . _ . _... _ ' _..
. .. . _. : . .• _. , , ... . ._. _, ,... ,�.:-...._,.... � '_:�. � .; :�_
� . . , ,. ��, .: .
;_ �
�� ��r
PARRS ._��ON COPAtISSION t�ETING NO'�EMBER 15 1976 PkGE 8 .
+ ' �
1�,, sCated ahe feels, �s a Parka fr xeoreatioa Cammisaion member, that
tba'��isiim"awes it to itself to talk abocst parkvays. She said the Camwisaion
aeeds:ta look autside its boundaries as ather cities have done and she feels
Hinneaptk7;is has been a-fiae leader. The Co�fssiou ahould not close its mind
and they-sfiould do some research into it. She said she doesn't think the
Ca�s�ion has ever discussed what a parkway can do for a park system and what
�nds of`things they could benefit from iC. She said we have a fine river which
has aot been utilized aad we have East Biver Road vhich is a beautiful,curvy
driveway. Ms. Seeger stated she had talked to a TIs. Susan Bell of the Minneapolis
Ystk Spstem, who encouraged Ms. Seeger to have a speaker speak to the Co�ission
app what a psrkway caa do for Fridley, what the costs vould be, what the benefits
�uld be, aad the disadvantages. She said she vould like to see aome consideratioa
. °abput parkways as input iato this body. �
UPO�i A WICE 901ti, PETEBS021, H6B81S, i�lAiGAB, V�II�G A48, 'SBEGER VOTING NAY, THE
I�STi� CARBIHD. .
8. Saowmobile Trails in the Cit
Mt, Boudreau stated that he wae aslced the queatian of whether the Coum�issian is
�going to reco�end areas for snoWmobiling as was done ia the p8at. That would be
- Mooze I.ake, Locice Park, aad Locke Lake.
Mr.!Peterson stated that last year the Coc�isaion talked about Locke Yark, and
Lecauae of a bad eacperience at Locke Yark, be thought the Commission had acted or �
vere in favor of developing an ordinance to not �ave saoummobiliag in Locke Park.
� ?Sr. Soadreau stated there are nome pros and caas on wt►ether to have snowmobiling .
` in tbe City of Pridley. There is the aeriation system on the east side of Moore
yate vhere the snowmobilers might cross the east side to get to the west side.
�nd there are alvays problems along Locke 1ake.
1Sr, Harris stated he would like to have a reca�endation fram Staff come back to
LLe,Comkissioa on whether or aot to have sno�obiling ia Fridley.
!h, Peterson stated ?Ir. Baudresu should also talk to Dan Huff for empirical data
an.it because Daa Huff did a study for the Co�ission•
Mt,:Boudresu stated he would hold this over until the aext meeting and came back
-,. vith a recoomendatian fsom Staff.
�_. _:.. . . ,_ __ ' : -
,°, ;�' ;�.'C. iToadcrest BaPtist Church Hequest =- . ''.
Mr,'Boudrtau stated he had a request fram the Roodcrest Baptist Church to utilize
Locke Pasfic's soccer field next year during the moaths of September and October
� fram 3-5 p.m. every daq..
The Commiasion decided they vould not take any action oa this request until the
Cteffic problem vae solved on the crossiag on 69th Street fram Woodcrest Baptist
t�urch,to Locke Park. .
. .
s
� ,
3
Y
�•
: ��. .
. . � . , ,,
. t� � . ' 7: ij�7
. � . • . . . • , . �C ... .. • UI•�i
i � �-
q ;.,.+:�-
. � o � v� ' • ;, i.
, �r a, u
•p � � � .• Ci
� � . • . . W ••' '' !?
_ � 1
:� �7 ri
. �' �`__ ,[i _�-.�. uQ � :1..
. . tlf . � a `t � tj
i n:1
t . , . , . Q �:M1r�
¢ -� u
� F. rt
i � i'"_°r,��� • :.
, u: � ;;�'�.,.�% —T"V'« .:: '•'., .:.,,,:nr� .
' ' —� • �::•:::.i ''''•• .� �''� � .,�':ivii:'::�_7 .
.:: • 1:•}:; ;ii tti}•i i�ii:•:i 1:•: •� �'
,' ...�:i%•T � [•i:�? �: � }?[ `9 .
"�' 1'�"" I:•::.�.) ..�::•:::.� l:; y 1' .
� • 1. i;:;iii;t:� Fi;t?;: i;<t;:� �:; � - - - -t - ^ ^ - _ � �
! - - '- - f - -- - ,;;';• i t2�::�c i>:;:'• F: 'r'
i:�::;:�::; ::.. ...::t • i.:� •- - -t- -r -- u �
1 • �. „ ::T i F�ii�: �<��`��� t:;� --t' > �
�;•::::: -::. I .
j ----j ---' I:;:;�i�� Ei::::::i''`; t':1 _-_+-___ . } G�
� - �`' - --• '-�';:'V� k�:�;2t::;::';i:� W f;; � . 07
'� � � —7- 0
; - - - � • •:::.,a :;.,-i,»: .:J -•:1 � - - - -� - - - --' Z �. u
1 !.`:�::�• t:�::::�::;<: � 1;:; .
- - --"- - - ... � ... ..... Y . � ---r� _ . � n � ta
i � 0z i•:_i;;:> �: i;: ::;;;: f.. !:; -_ a -- 4 ui � r
+ ___t-::_� t. o t�:� �T� a A U C
� :..�.�>.:.• .
fi`:: •:; � :::
7 i:;:':;:[:}? � •' n '� � � - -- - -. Ci U EI .t �
' � -- :.; � .. � � � `O [:}. o .. -
. ---j,-:-: E:�::; :�'�:�;:;:� •� � � �
�, :: i::. ::. ...... L F}�,_�,.�' '_ �
-' - - f:y}?:4:% I �;'}�[ ;f;i'r[;11 I F;?I .{c '7- "_' . . .
� ! --rc; �-:�:y . .. ::
1 •::. f;i :�:•:::�: i�i:� t:;� � _ _
� - - - i:t�:;;•::f " ' ' • � _ _ _'-' _ _
� - -�- - - - T'''':i �:�i :�::::�:;;; � k:-i . �
j -- i;r:�:;�>: E�::<?�;���� �:�: t:� � a
I .:::::� r •::•. 2�:�:�:::�1 F�:i� , �.`'����)�j � Q
f � ,::>:::>::I �:::�;::;:::: � �`���,�������t�������_ '
__ _,.-___ � .::.:: � � ..:�::::::.: r::�
,:.:.:_ ..� �--- �
� � � ".4 .; � y r:..' �::::::.. ":' .- ---- " �
't�»>::: � i:::� -,- �
�" � � <�� � � . �_�:�����:-:::::::_,�
---�:.:::: f:::<:��:`�:�. - -- �
-•- -�'---: • .:;::., .: :�1.::..a 1t<� �: ..., .
!�:_�i:;�: i;•::r[•:;�;�., t•2 i
4 ' � ..,•-� ;. } , . �:: • _
t �, :: ;:;y:. � ::�{ . .. j . � �-o �]
+ � j � .:.:::1 t'�e:�l:::�:�:::{: I:::i � � _ �, _ � �
( . " _ " ---I;:,v,;j;ri. �. .. . —`� � "'
_i' _" ' .. ��.:...� 1::� �� �-- -' W
- - - !'�>::�t� � #: t 2i;`.^=:�:. •� �s �
_� • : ��`-� }:ii`i:}:;::; I;i.s. . 'c— 1' {.�
""'4:�..:::.• : •. {};;;r�.
- - - �- - - - ----r:;: ;:�: ;� • :r.:;:: ;�:::;.g •y: — - - - - F � �
� ��:�i:�: c�: r�•::itii�:`:•:: �' �
_ � - _ _ _ _ " : •7 (;i:} < • , .
_ '::�;::��<:�� �.r::<:::�:;::<::�:# �(f�:� I I I I I � �' �
r '3Nbl 1J71-i� , I
r .,��'� , �.
. . � , 1�
������I,1
� ' I �
� � �
�?
� �i
• � 0 1 � I R np� �
• • � y I j I I i i
I
.. , . , i ., '� � ; ;
�
i � � � I � � ;
i
� . � � � i i
• I 1 ..r; ��l
� � ' 1
_ l t ik ^.i'�� ��
. � z ,,; Q
. . �. • w��nr.
. , . . �'>Y�ir
' p � t- �>.�
, :\ ` Q p'�::A
LL q _
� LL�te�
� . � '�(E�}.
. lil � 1'1
}�yr]..1
. • . . � � �.� (i
. . � . `i W V'4
,r �
ly ._•� .:�
� ' • • , ' a` a� .
�9.
rp •
f"7 •
• o
. w'
p
s
ri
�
�'�..�. � '•4�'....�i
.:,_i ;
' ^ _ _l_ _ _ "
1
----r----
�
-^--j ----
-' _ :�='-'
---- � - - ,oz
_ j .
I
----j ---
----�"---
. �
' _ - 'I".%-' -
--�---
�
-�---: .
_�_� - � .
- - �
- - � — --
_ _ - � ---
_�
� '
-- --�----
----�---•.
'3N'd� .
� ,
i �
� Y�
i
. f ;'
ot
I N�
I �
� yl
�,
i �;
� ,.
�.
oJ
o�
�
��
w
f-:.� . •}::::� �?::•}:�?:� .
�v'._ c •Y- i� : �el
��:�� 1
1:�� 1
(:.' �__.t_�^�
1�- —'�-
c�:? � ---F-----
� f:y! —t'
t01 ___+____
IW ��?i �t'
S F;1 -'�"---'
l � —r
� J C�:' - ' - 'L - -'
I_ a I:{� --f�
Y �::� :?i ��`� � --
! l,t;� �_-_ I
� •.a .¢c -t - - - --
t;; I�I ��'� c===L====
���::::�� ��'
.:.>;� �
�:::::.� � ,
� ,.::::�
�::: :.� �
i.;:!;:
jj::::
t;�::�
Zc; ;;i
.::: �
i�':i�
� •:. �
3.'•i::
i:�>.<:
i'`:':
�;:=>:
—} —1:,� ::n _ s
� 4}}; � _
I r:�::: 1
.• -.
_�
i
� � �
� _.`��._.,-�------
.�
�.-- - r
_�_—� _
�s �_
Y' — - -'
� . . . �, .
� I
I`tJ
Y�
� ; i , 1
IA r+o� � n
� ,
�� �;r: �
� �.�
� i . � i
I ��'i
,,
�
,,
,; �
� „ ,
--�.,
�
W°�ao"
� p>Ywa
Q�FZN
� Z
`� . LL���
��2W�
% UI 7 J .
FZ-�
. U � p LL"
. ;;,�m
�,
PRUGRAM NARRATIVE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND OBJECTIVES
Need: Assure safe and healthful conditions in all housing and
encourage consideration of the qualities of privacy, comfort
and other amenities.
Need: Promote the preservation and upgrading of existing residential
property through elimination of substandard housing and providing
an economical means for improving an owner's property without
compromising the essential needs of the owner`s family.
Objective: Policy Development and Implementation Plan (From Comprehensive
Housing Plan; see Attachment A).
DESCRIP7ION OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES
. _ �, The development and enforcement of a Nousing Maintenance Code- $24,�00
This program will provide for the development of a Housing Maintenance
Code and its enforcement within primary focus neigh6orhoods #1 and #2, as :
laid out in the Comprehensive Housing Plan. It will entail approximately
A09 residential structures and 664 households. Approximately 48% of the
househo7ds in these 2 neighborhoods are low or moderate income households.
2. The development of a Rehabilitation Grant Program �$100,000
_____ ___—�_�.hi.s_.prQgram_wil_1 provide grants for rehabilitation of housing in
_ .__- -
_primary focus areas #1 and #2, as laid out in the Comprehensive Nousing
� Plan. The grants wi1T be directed primarily to those households iving
• on lot and moderate incomes, and will supplement the Rehabilitation Loan
Program and Section 8 Program, already operating in the community. 7he
Program will also correspond to the 1976 Street Improvement Program in
primary focus area #2 and the 1978 5treet Improvement Program scheduled
for focus area �1.
3. The development and operation of a Housing and Maintenance Resource
Center and Workshop - $6,000
This program will provide important information regarding rehabilitative
construction and maintenance of housing units and also workshops for the
benefit of the resident. This program would be a reqitirement for anyone
receiving grant monies under the proposed Rehabilitation Grant Pro9ram
and would be open to everyone.
Location of .Project: The attached map shows primary focus areas #1 and #2
wherein enforcement of the City's Housing Maintenance Code would be
emphasized and the City's Rehabilitation Grant Program would be centered.
These primary focus areas contain relatively large concentrations of
deteriorating housing and low-to-moderate income families.
The proposed Housing Maintenance Resource Center would be operated out
of Fridley's Civic Center building at 6431 University Avenue N.E., with
copies of materials at the Fridley branch of the Anoka County Library.
Any files would be maintained by the City's InspeCtor and,(or Planning Dept.
... ��l�
� J Program Narrative (Page 2)
Proposed Activites to Receive Single Rating pursuant to Section 507.402.
(c)(3)(vii) of the program regulations.
PROGRAM BENEFITS
�ected Benefits: The projects descri6ed will improve the.quality of
li e and env�ronment in Fridley.
Enforcement of a Housing Maintenance Code, together with the Housing
Rehabilitation 6rant and existing loan program would help reduce the
amount of substandard housing in the City. A reduction of such housing
would move the City toward the attainment of its objective of "Assure(ing)
safe and healthful conditions ir all housing and encourage(ing) consideration
of the qualities of Qrivacy, comfort, and other amenities".
Public improvements to the primary focus areas and the upgrading of housing
in these same areas will improve the comnunity's aesthetics.
Relationshi of Pro osed Activities to Needs: The proposed Housing Maintenance
ode and Rehabilitation as well as the existing Low-Interest Loan Program)
would significantly decrease the amount_of substandard housing in the City.
'? Sixty-two of the City's 227 substandard housing units are in Primary Focus
Areas #1 and �2; approximately 48% of the households in these areas are living
on low-moderate incomese
_.2rimarv Beneficiaries: Most of the City's low-moderate income families live
.n_�the Ci±y�rimary Focus Areas, particularly #1 and �2. A 1975 housing
survey indicates that much of the City's deteriorating housing is also in
these ,areas.
The stated need is of concern to most of the City's low-moderate income
families.
The letting of rehabilitatian grants and the development of a housing
maintenance resource center will make it possible for homeowners in the
low and moderate income group5 to make repairs to their homes whose cost
would ordinarily be prohibitive to them.
� -
A7TACNMENT A
_, �&.-
POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: REVISION 3/5/76
POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Currently available data indicates that while the quality of housing in
Fridley is generally good, the City will face servious challenges in the
future due to changes in the population. These challenges should be met
with action in three areas: 1. Neighborhood preservation, 2. Housing
assistance, 3. Land use evaluation, and Zoning Code review. The City
should direct its primary efforts toward neighborhood preservation.
' ` Neighborhood Preservation
A prime consideration for the development of an effective and viable
neighborhood preservation program is that the residents of any given
neighborhood in the community feel that they are a part of that neighborhood
and that they can have a measurable impact on its operation and livability.
Fo that end, the City shouTd direct its efforts toward defining its neigh-
borhoods and_strengthening_tfieir v-isua7, physical, and social cohesiveness.
T. The City should establish a housing maintenance code and provide for
adequate enforcement of it.
2. The City should ensure that public improvements (e.g, repaving streets,
replacing curbs and gutters, updating street lighting, etc.) be made
continually, particularly in neighborhoods that are part of preservation
programs. Many communities have already included public improvements in
their neighborhood preservation programs and have found that they provide
an impetus for residents to make improvements on their own properties.
3. The City should develop a resource center on housing maintenance and
rehabilitation for City residents. This resource center should include
information helpful to homeowners in doing their own maintenance and
files of persons, companies, and organizations with expertise in housing.
This information should be readily available to the public.
4. The City, in cooperation with churches, civic organizations, etc.,
should sponsor and organize home maintenance and improvement workshops
for its residents.
_
____
'�e° -:
, �
5. The City should continue the development and construction of Fridley's
Bikeway/Walkway System as well as the study of other transportation forms
necessary to increase the accessibility of tfie City's residential
neighborfioods, business concerns, educational facilities, etc.
Housing Assistance
�! 1. The City should pranote a housing rehabilitation loan and grant fund in
I order to provide low interest loans ( 3% - 6% } and grants to City
residents unab7e to afford conventional home improvement loans.
2. The City should use HUD Section 8 funds to help supplement its suppty of
low and moderate income housing units. The use of rent subsidies to
_provide low and moderate income housing would help to promote the devel-
___.__apment of a balanced population mixture in the City.
3. The City should continually review existing federal, state, and local
programs for comnunity development funds.
Land Use Evaluation and Zoning Code Review
1. The City should reevaluate current land uses in Fridley in order to
determine whether there is an adequate balance between coirmiercial,
industrial, and residential land uses in the community. The City must
realize that its zoning policies have a great impact on the long-range
development of Fridley. It should therefore examine each development
proposal in the light of its effects on the quality of life in Fridiey
and the Metro region.
2. The City should review its residentia} zuning codes (R-1, R-2, R-3) and
determine whether or not they are viable means for ensuring human scale
in tfie City's residential developments.
� �
�,
IMPLEMENTATION
1. The City should make application to HUD for Caimunity Development funds.
These funds can be used ta develop and operate a number of programs
including:
a. A housing and maintenance code.
b. Housing maintenance resource centers and workshops.
c. Housing rehabilitation loan and grant programs.
2. •Lhe City should apply for Minnesota Finance Agency funds to be used
in making low interest home rehabilitation loans.
3. The City should make application for Section 8(rent subsidies) funds.
The Gity should contract with Metro HRA to make the application and
handle accounting procedures. The City staff would make any necessary
� client contacts, empla,y�nent checks and building inspections. Funds
would be allocated by Metro Council for these administrative costs.
;
,
�.
,
.�
;
�_.- _ _._--
�
i_ - -- _ _ _ __ _
�. _. .. __ ._ _. �._ ... _ . ' .�
V__ . .. __"_" „_'___ _�__.__ __.
�_.. . . __ _... � _ .. �___ �... . .-�._
I '_
J
�
F
�.
n
m
No. 6
�vtap �'-�
��
h
�
j�
3,;
ST
.- �_
P91M�RY C �lCOI�G�OV
FOCYB �Rf�B
?�>� SECONOP.RY
�� � PRIMARY
-
���� �: o : : . { ,, . _ e �
q x
� .i.r ����. ��. j.. F� �<� _ � °'� �.
. <� a>o
\ � °' t �� r ,�i e , . �e�
�' ,N�a� �I. wf . _ _ i s 3
'�' vneK �'�.il , � ...' S � " s ��„ %
w
,�� ,,.
i '
�. , Y o�'.:, ' n. e„' '•wg iiw�
�e •I w �<,.. --:,.:•1f�1 i 3' n, ° i r
.',�'_'_" � � _ 6 + v
� m� � „r � � � i � 1�+ PMK 1 Y a ,�: ; u.
� I ' ! �„ _'_'_ .""_'__ �i
1 • O_ � F ,u• {� rnacrla
�, / ;'.,,. ��r w� ���'"'�Conc�r,e;ssi nal Di
i
: . , _„ . _�. .�
. .. ,
.�, �,. ; - : ; ,,, .,,. -------- -.,;� � �
� ' r---°•�r �ocR�
W.
9 ,aa.ur e ��g -'—
� ..� � � �:; .} � - ,3}. ----- � — � - - - �-: ,., 5e � :
iM � n� aal �� ix� �Nn� ae w�
J i'. `�' ' M�
a •�y �� i l�q r` + a
r A �en o.<<
�n . .,. ;, ' ..
• 1a
5 Y} .�� '� �F�I�i:. ii�S'YyeY'% f��'9
2 Ita: ``� ` ,f �� '[ � � ] 9 'd }la�
. F .� wa^��a'`�' z, ^•il�y . a. . '� ' t e I a. _ .� i� �r�� e�� n Af �
� N�o' ��' ' o,r a� ; 9 r;� i B, o� �.
K�I le` osTi �ei• � )t>� +) j��� • ' oa' Y FE 'qa.' Y �' } ��\�c
� 5(}. ��4 � � iSud : o �� �'i)'
� 9t j_`i •i j•'"ta �'• vi _i 3 rt� api ry ii: � ¢�� p1 �,
•�. _'�/ e n Sg'<e� 1 :� ��_'� , � y � e. k
,... ' � Q « ' .� � .02 - � � .5 2 .03
� N �f ;} � `f,�, �I�. �� .
4 .. d. ' .f: ,,, : �. .�> � ' - �(�!?�
� i' a„ • T � a � ' � b'� ° .
� '0i MOORE �
� ! ��.'� � ' �. , �.��. i � �
o I � w•�,�Y�-�3 =ea: a �� UKE �`s � M�
� ' M •c' � s' :'��., �. .
j �T 'q' , �wo € "'
ior �.. { � • xY, � ` .
N1- @ � d
� 26 .U5 ' ��, ` - : ,
� .., ,. .� ; , : - ,,,
.,� ,o�
' , - F t .aa ,. � -.,. ,.;
• �� `n:512.03
� ,
• �i t _ �t) �� 5 Y � y x -i'�'
lo� � 'i �� �
a'� .,� g I �o ' ie� , ie. � n� .or
� iu�mi'c r�¢o _ i� _ � /YY/ � t r� �
YS "�
��� .. _ . _ . �i. x'.b ♦ m� '
�m�
l
�u I� M —
..;� �� ��1 �.64 �E
� � ]Y A� ]oa
N ]10 3
�, 1 . �
� Ml 1 �
4 .>„,
��
�----
�a, �:c. '
„�. ,
� ��
im
,�
Y w
��;ENI M`
�,�,:.
,�ma' �r' sr
I. . �
t R� ' AO 100Y � 1�i �Art[t � .
r , , -r—� . , . . ,.,.
� IVO MitJO%=1't'V LUH�LN'�'EU�XAY�UN
�� �1�;,.l�6 OF° .:.0^i--� N'fizAT�Ot-1 OF L(iW�
MOvECtAYE INLOME ssY LENSV`� -�������'
G,�o�p
l
y''
�.
,
.-j
�
�a�yJ
Map 3 �-'I
L'J
(
a = �
� _, i B
� . . . . _ _ _ . . _ . . . . . . T
;
i �CF Nie.
� � .,.. _.. _ f __ __ . ' .... ...__ _i. .__ .. . _ .. � ... . . . . . , t . -
r j . .. - . . , � f e
• i
. ; �. ._ .'__ _" _._..__. ._ ._.._.. —.._.�___ .. ._ _. �_ ._. _ .._.__ _ - _. - .
• ? y
�
.: � , . � . I . . , k .
� � �
: . � � � t 1 i , r . i ..
`. , � _.' } �.i-.L � r ._ � _. L .. � ': ..'__ _ ._ .:__ _ I . ..
( `
. " . .1' : � • � _ ( n.n.r..co1 ec. �
. . . � M.B.A.B. No. fi
p •
Y �
o � ■
• . . ' ' � . BY dia.
.. . ._ .. __ _. ._ _. ._.
.` .— _._ . .. .. � '_. _{_ i_ � _ _ � . _ .
� �
� l
. .�___ L� ._:i.' _ f .: . _ __ ._ _ . . _ 1 . ..
_ _ __ __ �� M�n �
;
�4 �
_ .___ ,._-L�___._, ; � t- , ��� __ __..- _. _ _. _. _ ._ _ � _. _.
. _ _. ._ . mi' .
.. � . ,�. -' i. . .. , ��� �
L
wwe�e s oeu��r
WNCEMfRI�tlOf�l W
�OW-INCOM6 �tl
eawmv wee�oewra
�
1 `-
T �`
"� $ ' .". . _—
. � �.
�
,
�
�
r,
I
�
�
.._. __. _ . ____— . _.� .. ._ . _ .� _ -� . _
f
_ _ 1-- �}-�...{ 1 i'- • `—._ __
i , _- -_-� _--���
��
0
Map 3-2
� . .
s,..
�� �
�e �
:
:
�
_�
�
�
4�
�we�s w
OI�ICENTFCTIOV
p OETEq1OR�r�N� �w1
R�N BTYUCtYREe
�
, y}fi,� ;�"�.
�_
�
l
�
CITY OF F&IDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSIQN MEETING - FEBRUARY 9, 1977
i�
YAGE 1
CALL TO ORDER:
Ghairperson HarriS called the meeting to order at 7:38 P.M.
ROI.L CALL:
Members Present: Harris, Bergman� Peterson (arrived 8:15), Schnabel, Shea
Members Absent:
Others Present;
I.angenfeld
Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
APPROVE PLANNING CONIMTSSION MINUTES: JANUARY 19, 1977
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea� that the Planning Commission minutes
of January 19, 1977 be approved.
Mrs. Schnabel noted that on page 11, the third paragraph� there should be
a co�ns after the Word "continuing".
UPON A vOICE VOTS, all voting sye, the motion carried unanimously.
1. PUBLIC HEARING:
tti Ait1VVLU AIYL ALVAIV '1U�WSf 13e7.IIg a replat oY that p8T't of the SW � oP
t e NE of Section 3, ying Westerly of the Westerly right of way line
of &�rlington Northern� Inc.� lying Easterly of the Easterly right of ray
line of Ashton Avenue and lying Southerly of a line described as follows:
Commencing at the intersectian of the South line of the SW � o£ the NE �
and said Westerly right of way line; thence on an assumed bearing of
N. 18°26�10"W, along said Westerly right of v�y line 293.25 feet to the
actual point of beginning; thence on a bearing of West 292,20 feet to
the Fasterl,y right o£ vay line of Ashton Avenue, and there terminating,
the same being 8101 Ashton pvenue N.E.
MOTION by Shea, seconded by Bergman, that the Pla¢uling Commission open
the Azblic Hearing on Proposed Freliminary Plat P.S. #77-01, ARNAL ADDITION,
By Arnold and Alvan Toews. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, Chairperson
Harris declared the Fub13c Hearing open at 7:l�IA P.M.
Mr. A1 Toews was present and stated that Arnal Addition did not need all
the land they had, but their neighbors, Berkeley Pump Company� needed more
room and wented to b�y 1� acres. He esplained this had never been recordest
�:
Planning Cormnission Meeting - February 9, 1977 Page 2
ad being private property, so this xas what they had to do.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if Berkeley Pump had ever attempted to purchase this
property before, and Mr. Toexs replied that this �as the first time. Mrs.
Schrla�el said the reason she xas questioning t6is vas she lmew Berkeley Purnp
had a request for a variance coming through the Appeals Commission on that
same property, and Mr. Toerrs said he was auare of that.
Chairperson Harris asked if Mr. Toews lmev iY it was the intention o£
Berkeley Pump to put an addition on, and he replied that he didn't think
it was their plan to add on. Mr. Toevs added he didn't imov if they could
add on if they wanted to because there was an easement involved, Chairperson
Harris said a site plan had been submitted to the City from Berkeley Pump
dated January 31, 19%7, which showed a proposed addition. He noted that
it was zoned Industrial.
Mrs. Schnabel said that in reference to this, the existing building vas on
Lots 3� !� and $, and at one point they had franted a permit to add on to the
West side of that building. She explained they vere denied that permit,
but were granted a permit to add on to the North side o£ the building.
Chairperson Harris said it appeared from the plat that Berkeley had taken
into account the 10' drainage and utility easement on the Easterly side o£
the property. He noted the property vas an acre and a half, so it did
con£orm with the aoning requirements. Mrs. Schnabel pointed out this had
been rezoned to M1 in 1974. After some discussion on if the zoning was M1
or M2� Mr. Bergman said it should go into the minutes that this was being
considered an M1 property.
Mr. Bergman asked wkat the variance xas £or� and Mrs. Schnabel explained
it vas a setback variance to reduce the building setback from 100� to 73'.
1[UTION by Schnabel� seconded by Shea� that the Planning Commission close
✓ the Public Hearing on Propose�Preliminary Plat P.S. #77-01, Arnal Addition,
by Arnold and Alvan Toews. Upon a coice vote, all voting �ye, Chairperson
Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 7;58,
MOTION by Shea, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission recommend
to Council approval of Proposed Preliminary Plat, P.S. �/77-01, Arnal Addition,
by Arnold and Alvan Toews: Being a replat of that part of the SW � of the
NE � o£ Section 3, lying Westerly of the Westerly right o£ rr�y line oF
Burlington Northern, Inc.� lying Easterly of the Easterly right of way line
of Ashton Avenue and lying Southerly of a line described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection oF the South line o£ the SW 4 0£ the NE �
and said Westerly right of vay line; thence on an assumed bearing o£ N.18°26�10"W�
along said Westerly right of way line 293.25 feet to the actual point oF
beginning; thence on a bearing of West 292.20 feet to the Easterly right of
way line of Ashton Avenue, and there terminating, the same being 8101 Ashton
4venue N.E. Upon a voice vote, all voti.ng aye, the motion carried unanimously.
�
Planning Commission Meeting - February 9, 1977 P�e 3
2. PUBLIC HEARING: COMMUNITY DEVEL(1PMMStiiT BIACA GRAtiT PREAPPI,ICATION
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Schnabel, that tk�e`P3:anning Cfliri�iission open
the Public Hearing on the Coimminity Development Block Grant Preapplication.
Upon a voice vote, all voting sye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public
Hearing open at 8:02.
Mr. Ned Storla was present.
Mr. Boardman explained to the Commission that in 19611 the Office of Housing
and Urban Develo�snent grouped all o£ their funding possibilities into one
lump sum and called i� a Block Grant, instead oP having twelve or thirteen
separate grants. Out of that �lock �rant� he continued, were entitlement
cities and discretionary flmds; the entitlema�t cities got an sutomatic
grant out of those Block Grant monies, and the discretionary funds were
then opted for by all other bodies that want to try to get monies. Mr.
Boardman said that xhat they were going through now vas the preapplication--
this is an application to AUD to see if they could get invited to make
application for monies.
Mr. Boardman informed the Commission that a public information meeting had
been held about a week ago on the preapplication form as to what type of
projects vere eligible £or funding and this type of thing. Ne said that
actually there were three categories� but the tsro that tirere o£ mai.n concern
were:
1. Acquisition of real property for redevelopment, parks, or any
other public purpose permitted by state and local law.
2. Acquisitd�on�construction or recoastruction of public works such
as neighborhood and coimmmity centers, streets, street 1$ghts,
wells, water and sever lines, and pedestrian malls.
He said that some of the other eligible activities were code enforcement;
demolition, clearance or rehabilitation o£ buildi.ngs; relocation costs; and
administrative expenses.
Mr. Boardman explained that the application xas judged according to a certain
100 point scale process� and the criteria by irhich the preapplications vere
judged �rere mainly based on lox and moderate income housing statistics.
Mr. Bergman asked if that meant if a city had enough lov and moderate income
hot�sing they would have a better chance of getting money, and Mr. Boardman
said that was right.
Mr, Boardman said there vere five criteria for selection. The £irst one
was based on the extent and percentage oP poverty end substandard housing,
and a city could get 20 points maximiun. He explained that five poi,nts vould
be al,cardad for each of the following factors; 1. ESctent (number o£ poverty
persons)� 2. Percentage of poverty persons, 3. E7ctent (number) of
substandard housing units� and 1�. Percentage of substandard housing units.
Mr. Eoardman said that each city xas based on every other community in the
�R,
Planning Co�nission Meeting - February 9� 1977 Page !t
metropolitan arsa, and got a certain number oP points on that scale.
Mr, Boardman stated that the second ar�for criteria vas the benefit of the
project to lox and moderate income families� vith 35 points maximum. The
third ciiter�;, he said� was the expansion and conservation of low or moderate
income housing stock, with a maximum of 25 points. The fourth uas if there
was a condition which Has a serious ihreat to health or safety and the project
did something to prevent that (10 points maximwn), and the last was that
points xould be awarded when the funds xould be used in combination rrith
funds from other Federal or State sources (10 points ma�cimum},
Mr. Boardman said that the activities that had been set up for the pre-
application vere mainly:
l. The denelopment and enforcement of a Housing Maintenance Code -
$2l�,000.
2. The development of a Rehabilitation Grant Program -$100,000.
3. The development and operation of a Housing and Maintenance Resource
Center and Workshop - $6,000.
He stated that there were several stipulations; the grant couldn't be directed
toward a city-wide operation� it had to be directed to more o£ a neighborhood
operation; and eny rehabilitation grants or loans had to be done in connection
with some city work in the area� such as a street improvement program. He
said the grants could be tied in rrith a street improvement program if the
program had been doae a year before or scheduled for a year ahead. Mr.
Boardman stated that i.n Primary Focus Area II a street improvement project
had gone through last year, and in the f�yde Park area (Primary Focus Area I},
a street improvement program xas scheduled for next year, so those txo focus
areas vould fit srithin the criteria of rehabilitation.
Mrs. Shea asked if the compiled statistics xexe based on the whole city or
just the certain areas that rrould receive the money. Mr. Boardman said that
the criteria was for within the areas.
Mr. Bergman xondered how many oY the public attended the public meeting held
last week� and Mr. Boardman said there xere about ].!i people� three oF which
were not connected with government.
Mr. Bergman noted that there xould be a preapplication made to the State
Office of the Federal HUD Department for $2lt,006 for the development and
enforcement of the Housing Maintenance Code. He said that the City had
already spent siz months or more developing this code� and asked if they
were already spending some of that $21t,000. Mr. Boardman said no, that the
monies would be strictly for the enforcement of the Housing Mai.ntenance Code.
I3e said they couldn�t get money to pay for something they had already done.
Mr. Bergman asked i£ there was some history that said proceeding with the
development of a Hnusing Code at city expense and then requesti.ng £unds for
Planning Commission Meeting - February 9� 1977 P�e 5
the enforcement of same had a more successful ring to it (stood a better
chance of getting the money) than holding off on the development and request-
ing financing for both. Mr. Boardman co�nented that it xas hard to say, but
he thought they did look more favorably on something that already had money
spent on it as they wanted to make sure the project was of£ the ground.
Chai.rperson Harris said that something about this bothered him, and asked
Mr. Boardman to go over the Focus Points again. Mr. Boardman explained
that Focus Area I was North oP Holid�y Village between Hain Street and
University up to 61st (the F�yde Park area), and Focus Area II was 61st io
53rd between 7th And University. Chairperson Harris asked if those were
priority one and txo, and Mr, Boardman said that was correct. Mr. Harris
said that it seemed to him that this proposal may be contradictory to Focus
Area I in its present zoning. Mr. Hoardman said that only about half o£
that vas zoned Commercial, if that, and at least half was still residential
and was zoned as such. Mr. Harris said that until they got that situation
straightened out one way ar another� mqybe they ought to delete the C2 area
from the Focus Area.
Mrs. Schnabel said she disagreed with that. She stated there was residenti�
in the C2 that was really goi.ng to ruin because those people couldn't get
any kind lf loans to rehabilitate their housing. Chairperson Harris said
the problem was they were running contradictory to the zoning codes by doing
this. Mrs. Schnabel said if the C2 wasn�t included in the program for
rehabilitation, she rras afraid that area would get even worse and the surround-
ind areas wouldn't improve their property, either.
Mr. Hoardman stated that they were really not going in contradiction to what
the zoning or�ilmance said. He added that upgrading or rehabilitating the
property tras allo�ed� but the use could not be expanded. Chairperson Harris
said the thing that disturbed him was he felt they vould be perpetuating
the situation down there iY they did this. He said that if they kept
promoting rehabilitation and upgrading o£ the residential area, it never
would go to C2.
Mr. Bergman commented that it sounded io him like an example jrhere a city
administration-sponsored rezoning might be a wise move. Chairperson Harris
said he discussed that xith some Council persons and the consensus of opi.nion
was that before the City would initiate a rezoning action there� they would
like to see a petition from the affected residents and get their £eelings.
He said it seemed like they were running kind of contradictory here; i£
they were going to preserne the integrity o£ a residential neighborhood it
would be one thing, but it was not really a residential neighborhood. Mr.
Boardman said it was a residential neighborhood as the existing use vas.
Mrs. Schnabel asked xhat the proportion of residential versus coiraaercial was
in that C2 area� and Mr. Boardman said it was about 80% residential.
Mr. Bergman asked how they ever got single family in a C2 zone. Mr. Boardman
explained that it xas zoned R3, then in 1968-19b9 the residents along there
petitioned £or a rezoning to Commercial thinking that they could sell their
property for great profits. He added that they had a consultant do a report
on that and he recotmnended against Co�nercial zoning in there� but the City
Planning Co�ission Meeting - February 9� 1977 Page 6
Council at that time did their own study on it end came up �rith the exact
opposite, and rezoned it Coirmiercial.
Mr. Peterson asked hov deep the C2 was Prom 51st, and Mr. Boardman replied
about a block and a half deep. Mr. Peterson said he traveled that street
quite a b3t and found it hard to believe that that property would ever be
choice residentSaal area. He added he thought there was some justi£ication
for leaving 1t�Commercial. He said there xas quite a bit o£ traffic and
noise in that area� and it xas going to contESnue to be a problem. He further
added that it was not an R1 area by definition in terms oY what they felt
people should be living in. Chairperson Harris adimnented that there vas
quite a bit of Commercial in there whei he stopped to think about it, and
he was uncertain about this whole deal. Mr. Peterson stated that in his
mi.nd that was not R1 property, and they were just kidding themselves because
people were not going to be happy irith the noise on University.
Chairperson Harris said that maybe xhat they should be doing is looking at
this as some other zoning. Mr. Bergman said 3t urould seem odd to him, if
he Kas HUD, to receive a request to aid housing that was on property that
had just recently been re2oned to Co�mnercial. He said he thought something
ought to change, although he wasn't sure what. Chairperson Harris said
that was ithat had been bothering him.
Mrs. Schnabel said she thought that the City should make up its mind which
wqy they wanted to go xith this area, and if they didn�t xant to rezone it
back to R3 then it was useless to go through this application. Mr. Boardman
comm@nted that he thought the City had put quite a burden on those people;
they had come in to get it rezoned, and the City shouldn't have gone along
rrith them. He said the City should have used its better judgement, based
on the consultant's reports, and not rezoned it Coimnercial. He stated that
the road patterns were poor and not geared toxard Commercial property, so
if the City xanted that to go xith Conanercial property they would have to
take initiative on it through street improvement. Mr, Boardman added that
if the City went along with the scheduled street improvem�nt plan in triat
area with the road pattern that vas presently there, it would practically
kill eny Commercial develo�ent in that area.
A4rs. Schnabel said that she felt that the residents in the area living in
owner-occupied homes had something at stake, and that was their neighborhood
xas deteriorating and that deterioration was encroaching on those o�.mer-
occupied homes. She said that somehoW or other those people would like to
have that area preserved and upgraded to protect their oxn property.
Chairperson Harris suggested that perhaps they should be looking at a
special zoning for that area. Mr. Boardman said at present there were
three zones there: R2 primarily along blst; R3, which was the balance of
property between MaineStreet and 2� Sireet; and Commercial i.n the inverted
"I," shape bordering University.
Mr. Hergman said that one clean approach vould be to limit this application
to the presently zoned Eesidential portion of the block� but Mrs. Schnabel
Planning Commission Meeting - February 9, 1977 Page 7
disagreed. She said there were private family dwellings that were being
rented out that were in the Co7mnercially zoned area, and that was the area
that was determorating so badly. She asked if they Wanted to let it just
Pall apart triith the hope that those people would sell their property commercially.
Mr. Peterson commented that if the area xas upgraded there would still be
problems because of the traffic noise, and Chairperson Harris added that
if it was upgraded it would just perpetuate the situation.
Mr. Bergman said he thought it xas a zoning question. He said that ii the
zoning shown on a map was good zoning, then they should face up to it. Chair-
person Harris asked whoever said it was good zoning, and said that maybe
what they needed Was something like a..planned unit development.
Mr. Boardman stated that if the City went along with Co�nercial, the anly
w�y Coimnercial would develop srould be xith a renewal project. The City
would have to purchase the property, bulldoze it dotim, and put it up for
sale srith a nev road pattern. He said that the units that are along a lot
of that Coimnercial property are apartment buildings--buildings on a Conmiercial
property that would have to be torn dojrn in order to rebuild. He continued
that the lot situation in the area xas an old plat type thi.ng� similar to
the Onawqy area, and the street pattern was poor Por Commercial development,
Mrs. Schnabel said that iY the City applied for a Block Grant and it became
lmorm that monies were available for rehabili�tion� some people would take
advantage o£ it and some xould choose not to. 5he said that there may be
a number of those particular dvellings that xere getting in poor condition,
and those owners might choose not to apply for a loan on the chance they
could still sell the property for a co�mnercial venture. She stated that
those residents who did decide to apply xould have to be aware of the type
of zon�ng they had and that there ras a possibility ihat ihere xas a chance
that co�mnercial property may go in. �She said she didn't necessarily thin(�
they should eliminate that area from the rehabili�tion program, but thought
the people living there had to be axare of vhat their zoning problem was.
Mr. Boardman commented that he thought there would be a point in the near
Puture when the City would have to make a commitment in that area either one
way or another. He said the i�yde Park issue had been brought up time and
time agai.n, and a study had been done a couple of years ago to see how it
should be developed. Mr. Boardman said the City would have to make a decision
on it at some point in time, and if they were going to go �rith Coirmiercial
they should start taking a look at redevelo�nent in the area. He said that
if they don�t srant redevelopment in the area, they will have to face up to
the fact that it will never be Commercial, but would be a real mess.
Mr. Bergman said he di �t�t beliene the City would ever make a conenitment.
He thought that if anything changes it vould be because a co�rmiercial developer
came along and wanted that property to develop. Mr. Boardman said that the
problem with that was it waa not good planning and Sras not good for the City�
and they would end up with a mix of uses in there that were not necessarily
good neighbor uses. Mrs. Shea commented that she thought the City would
have to decide within the next month which way they wanted that area to go.
Planning Commission Meeting - February 9� 1977 Page 8
Mr. Hergman said he thought the problem xas they were talking about puttmng
money into R1 and R3 property in a present C2 zone. He said he did feel
fairly comfortable with the thought that as far as the preapplication grant
went, it should xiot include requesting money to put into residential
property in a present and recently rezoned C2 area.
Mr. Boardman said he thought they could safely maintain this application
mainly because the areas they were applying for xere block rou areas.
He said that srhether it Was 6omnercial or had no Co�nercial , it xas a
block group area. He explained that the boundaries £or the Primary Focus
areas uere the boundaries because the data that was available for the
areas vas based on that boundary area.
Mrs. Schnabel said that she disagreed with Mr. Ber�nan, and felt there sras
a lot of potential £or housing in that area. She said it was not a total
co:mnercial area, and felt there xere residential units (whether they were
R1 or R3) within that Focus Area that needed rehabilitation that might be
accomplished through a lox-interest loan or a grant of some type to get
the property upgraded. She said there xere some homes that were very nice,
and those people �aould like to preserve their neighborhood,
Mr. Bergman asked if this gaeult would give the property owners the opportunity
to get a low-interest loan. Mr. Boardman replied no, this would be a direct
grant and rrould cost them nothing if they met the criteria. He said that
he doubted very much i£ the Gity would vant to get involved in the low-
interest loan business, but the City xould do the screening for the grants.
Ae stated that out of this $130,000 program, money could be used for adminis-
tr�tive costs.
Mr. Bergman asked xhat vas expected of this body on this subject, and Chair-
person Harris said the Coimnission should recommend to Council either their
concurrence� concurrence with changes or their disapproval. He explained
the Council was looking £or some reco�nendation from the Planning Commission�
and that reco�mnendation had to be given tonight as the deadline uas February
18, 1977.
Chairperson Harris cited an eacemple o£ a house in a C2 zone that met all of
the criter�a for a direct grant, He said that if this property orrner received
a grant of $5,000 and upgraded his house, raising its market value by $�,000�
this would be a non-conforming use in a C-2 zane perpetuated by the City.
Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that they also had a goal to provide low and moderate
income housing in the City. Chairperson Harris said that if they wanted to
perpetuate non-con£orming use in a different zone, then maybe that zone was
not the correct one. Mr. Boardman explained that a non-conforming use xas
allowed in a different zone and xas allowed to remain a non-conforming use
as long as that use did not e�cpand� although it could be maintained and
upgraded. Mr. Harris asked why it should then be a non-conforming use, and
Mr. Boardman explained that they didn�t xant that non-conforming use to
expand or get larger. He explained that if there was a non-conforming
Cotmnercial use in a Residential area, that Coisanercial would not be alloxed
to expand with another addition to perpetuate that Comraercial, �].though it
would be alloved to continue and could be maintained.
Planning Coimaission Meeting -�'ebruary 9, 1977 Page 9
Mrs. SShnabel commented that she xas sorry that the people who live in the
area hadn't gotten a petition together up to this point as that would give
the City an idea of how the property owners felt.
MOTION by Shea� seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission close
the Public Hearing on the Gommunity Develo}xinent Block Grant Preapplication.
Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public
Hearing closed at 9:16 P.M.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, vith the following considerations:
1) Time available appears to be limited to tonight and recognizing that
this body had not had a chance to allov for time to explore alternatives�
and 2) Recogn3zs�g that the zoning and actual use in Foeus Area 1 are mi:ced,
the Planning Cotmnission recommendecto Covncil that the Community Development
Block Grant Preapplication be revised to encompass only the property
gresently zoned Residential.
Chairperson Harris asked if Mr. Bergman would consider adding the folloWing
sentence: In the event that the sections zoned C2 would be rezoned to
residential� then that also uould be included in Focus A,rea I, Mr. Bergman
said he agreed with the thought behind that, but Wondered if it was germane.
He added that one o£ his considerations was the lack of time.
Mr. Hoardman said he wished to paint out that this Was a�reapplication�
and it would be back again i£ they were invited to apply for a Community
DeveloZxnent Block Grant application. He said that Public Hearings vould
again be held, and added that he felt comfortable with the preapplication
as it was laid out. He stated that if they started revising the greapplication
he would £eel uncomfortable selling itoto HUD, Chai.rperson Harris said he
thought they vould have trouble selling it to HUD with the C2.
Mr. Peterson sai.d that he would like to speak in favor of the motion for
two reasons: 1) As a member of the Commission he felt more comfortable
by deleting the Commercial section from the preapplication and avoiding
spending bad money after good money, and 2) He felt �they were highlighting
what the problem was and were sending it on £or other people to wrestle xith.
Mr. Boardman said he was not sure how Mr. Bergrnan's motion could be written
into the preapplication. He said that as far as policy Went on enforcing
this� the policy could state that no grant monies would be approved in
Commercial areas. As far as the application went, he sai.d, it was based
on the information they had trroken dosm by block group, and data by block
was not availahle. Mr. Boerdman stated that as far as the policy Hent in
dispersing that money out, they could say they would only give monies in
Focus Area I to non-commercial properties, but that did not have to be
written in the preapplication.
Mr. Ber�man said he �.ould like to make several comments. First� he thought
if Gity Administration could successfully sell that kind of thing to the
Ciiy Council, that vas fine, Secondly� he said� he thought that as citizens
and taxpayers they had some responsibility to apply some conservatism to the
Planning Con¢nission Heeting - February 9, 1977 Page 10
e�cpenditure of their oxn money. He said that if they were going to make use
of the grant he thought they should Le a little bit prudent in hox they were
going to do it. He continued that his best judgement said that if they had
to make a decision tonight, they had to deal xith the facts they had and
the situation as it exists� and he could not in good conscience ask for_-_
government money to be spent to perpetuate the situation of Eesidentaal
property in the Commercial area. He said he did not feel the sureness that
this vas the right W�r to go, so therefore his v�ev vas "don't spend the
money". He said he preferred to leave the motion as it stood.
Mr. Boardman stated that as he had said before! he thought it could be handled
as a policy matter. He sai.d he preferred to leave the preapplication written
as it tiras because the in£ormation that was broken doxn £or the area xas broken
down for Pri.mary Focus Area I. He said that was done by Block Group, and
that area was a Block Group, and the criteria they had to use was based on
that area. Mr, Peterson comnented that it sounded like what had happened
xas Holy Writ and there xas no x�y to change it. He said he couldn't see
wk�y the applicat�on couldn't read the same� less that area that is C2. Mr.
Boardman said that would then change their data.
Clsairperson Harris said that he thought if the application xas approved
as written, those people in C2 could go ahead and get those grants. Mr.
Boardmen pointed out that they �rould be alloxed to set criteria where
the C2 districts Would not be eligible for the grant. Mr. Berginan questioned
that, and said that i£ they applied for a block grant for upgrading residential
property and outlined the area, and then excluded half the residential
property, that rras not setting criteria but changing the plan.
UPON 6 VOICE VOTE, Aarris� Bergman and Peterson voting �ye; Schnabel and
Shea voting nay� the motion carried 3- 2.
Chai.rperson Aarris declared a recess at 9:35 and reconvened the meeting
at 9:50 P.M.
3. NEC01�41ENDATION ON &4ST RiVhit RlJAD PROJECT REYORT
Mr. Hoardman informed the Commission that the garkxay suggestion £rom the
fiast River Road Project Corraoittee had been sent doxn to Parks and Recreation,
Human Resources and Community Development, and they had responded. Hoxever,
he said, there xas never a Planni.ng Commission response on that information
and now it xould be appropriate for the Planning Coimnission to give a response
on that. He added that the subcommissions' recommendations were included
in the agenda.
✓
v Mrs. Schnabel asked i£ the City Council had Had already acted on this, and
Mr. Boardman replied they had not. He said that the Planning Commission had
settt on to Council without recommendation the moratorium on East River Road,
and the other part of that motion (develoFsnent of the parkway system) xas sent
Planning Commission Meeting - February 9, 19�7 Page 11
down to the member commissions for review. He said that each one of the
member commissions had made a motion on that, and added that the Council had
approved the moratorium.
Mr, Bergman said he thought the project was disapproved. He stated that
there were tvo items sent to Community Development; one ras the question o£
designating East River Road as a parkvay� the other xas a review of the
East River Road Committee plan as opposed to what exists and the oounty
plan which vould leave the two-lane limitation existing. He said they had
been sent both questions.
Mr. Peterson said that he thought Mr. Bergman was right. He said that
in terms of City Council action, he thought they had already acted on it
irith plans to finish East River Road. They had received the input, he
continued� evaluated the in£ormation and had gioen permission to the county
to apply £or funds. Dhairperson Harris explained that the county had
applied� xith City germission� to the Federal �overnment (possibly the
Department o£ Trensportation) for 3luids to do the xork on that 3jl� of a
mile. He said that zrhether the application had been approved, he didn't
lrnow, but he suspected that if it hadn�t been approved the work would not
be done.
Mr. Bergnan :said that he agreed that Counoil had apparently taken action,
but it wa¢'done without recoinnendation from this body relative to which
plan had the most merit (the txo-lane or four-lane). He added that maybe
it vas all redundsnt at this time. Mr. Bergman stated that he felt a bit
awkxard on this as they had spent some time verbalizing about the way that
subco�nittee xas operating and hox they were bypassing process and how they
should be going through proper channels (through Hivironmental to Planning
Coimnission to City Council). He stated that this Co�nission had dropped
the ball as far as proper route because they hadn't said °yea" or "n�y"
as to vhat they spent all their time on. Mr. Bergman said that a fair
amount of time had also been spent at Cotmnission levels on this, and
Cotmmmity Development had done a£air amount of research. He noted that
those minutes had come to the Planning Commission and it had been suggested
that he xait until other Commission reports came in, and that vas the end
of it. Mr. Bergman stated that in the Community Development mi.nutes there
were some things that were germane. He said that C.D.C. thought this plan
xas ten years too early at the present time; they thought that until the
Northtown corridor �as completed the trend was for more and more traffic
to come in on East River Road and that to reduce East River Road now to
tvo lanes was completely out o£ context. He added that he thought they
could all bene£it from some mutual understanding of the scene� and his
commission felt the subcommitteis plan was ten years out of £ocus.
Chairperson Harris said that they could take action on this, but because
of the time frame he didn�t think it xould be worth a hill of beans. Mr.
Boardmen stated that he thought a recommendation that might come out of
this on these two issues (the recommendation on the parkway system and
the East River Road Project Co�ni.ttee report recommendation} could be
similar to what Community Development came up xith in that these two items
vould be considered under a transportation plan. Chairperson Harris
Planni.ng Cormnission Meeting - February 9, 1977 Page 12
commented that was part of the mandatory comprehensive glanning process,
and this would uork very vell into that.
Mr. Peterson stated that basically Parks and Recreation agreed with what
Community Development had said, and their motion was very similar except
that Parks end Recreation had combined both issues i.n one motion.
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Peterson, that ielating to the past studies
and discussions concerning the Fast River Road Project Committee recov¢nenda-
tion� vhich addressed two main controversial points (1. The proposal to
reduce a sectmon of &ast River Road from £our lanes to two lanes, and 2.
To develop the East River Road area as a park�ray), the Planning Commission
pass on to Council their thoughts� which are:
1. That the plan to reduce the sridth of East River Road is in
conflict with the present trend of traffic volume.
2. That the possibility of the proposed changes might be more
feasible at the time of the development of the North Corridor.
3. That any further consideration of East River Road traffic
pat,terns be considered in the "Comprehensive Transportation
Plan°.
UPON A V�ICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
1�.
Mr. Boardman informed the Con¢nission that the two plans that had been
requested ati�he last meeting were included in the back of the agenda.
Chairperson Harris noted that this had been precipitated by the Pako
Photo that weat in the Skywood Mall�s parking lot, and there had been
some lengthy discussion about the area � block awqy from the intersection
of 53rd and Central where the driveriay entrance on private property tied
into a street intersection. He said they had asked Mr. Boardman to get
a proposal together to remedy that situation� and that was what xas 6efore
them now.
Mr. Boardman stated that they had txo proposalsfor street impnavement
of that area, and both were in the neighborhood o£ about $10,000 to
$12�000. He said that was actual cost of the project improvement, not
including condemnation costs. Mr. Boardman added that he couldn't really
foresee any condemnation costs because any such costs would be charged
back to the property oxner through assessment taxes.
Mr. Peterson asked how the plsn would affect the Pako Photo Shop, and
Mr. Boardman pointed it out on the plen and said that was where they
had Wanted to build it in the Yirst place. Mr. Peterson asked which
glan Mr. Boardman would recommend of the two plans that had been submitted,
and he replied the first one.
�
Flanni.ng Cwmnission Meeting - February 9� 1977 Page 13
Mrs. Shea asked how much land would be conde�ed� and Mr. Boardman replied
it would be a strip about 200' in length.
Mr. Peterson said that xhen this had been discussed previously, Chairperson
Harris had been concerned that the Ground Round not be disturbed. He said
he noted on the first plan that the Ground Round parking was left pretty
much the way it was. Mr. Boardman said that was correct.
Mr. Bergman stated that as he understood the plan, a great portion of the
money would be spent on vhat is now private , pro�rty, but some of it wrould
be spent on public street dedication. Mr. Boardman said no, that vas
already part of an ur�anization project. Mr. Bergman commented that if he
was the property oener, he didn't think he wwld agree with the plan.
Chairperson Harris said that they had been trying to get the property owner
to do something for at least txelve years and he hadn�t been �*illing, so
this might be an incentive.
Chairperson Harris asked if there was eny information available on the
number of fender-benders in that area, and Mr. Boardman replied that there
probably were reports with the police department. Mrs. 5hea said she £elt
there must be quite a few, and many close calls. Mr. Harris said they
5hould get that information to go with this package iY this went to Council.
Mrs. Schnabel asked Mr. Boardman why he preferred plan A over B, and he
replied that he felt it had better potential for traffic control. Mainly,
he said� because one lane going up rriih a direct lane i.nto the Sky�*ood Mall
would give more control at the end of the channelization area. Mrs.
Schnabel poi.nted out where she thought there may be some confusion with
plan A, and Mr. Boardman coimnented that he felt there vould be more traffic
conflision go3ng yrith plan B, and pointed out vhat he meant on the diagram
of B. Chairperson Harris said that he thought from an aesthetic standpoint,
plan A would have some merit. He noted that there vould be about 20�
with greenery and trees, while plan B would be just concrete ribbons and
blacktop.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if that power pole xould be shifted, and Mr. Boardman
said it would. She asked if he could foresee any problem iri.th people
crossing Central (perhaps com+n�g from Target) and channeling into one lane.
Mr. Boardman said there would be tWO lanes, not one. Mrs. Schnabel noted
there Was a proposed sidewalk shown, and asked 3f there vas a sidewalk
planned srithin the parking area itself. Mr. Boardman replied there was not.
He added that according to the bikeW� plen, the bikexay would be r�uu3ing
strai.ght East through this area and up the hill. Mrs. Schnabel said she
was wondering if it wouldn't be consistent to include a sidswalk tirithin the
parking area itself (on the North boulevard}, She said that if there were
bicyclists going through the .parking area, at least it uould keep them off
the roadwqy. She noted there was also some pedestrian traffic through
there because of the bus. Mr, Boardman stated that if the Metro Transit
went along taith the proposal, ihat property that showed a proposed sidewalk
xould also be a bus turn-out area. Mrs. Schnabel commented that she still
Planning Commiss�on Meeting - February 9, 1977 page 1!t
tended to prefer plan B personally.
Mr. Bergman noted that on both plans there was a provision $or a shortcui
right hand turn� and he assumed that the only reason For that was for the
convenience o£ the Ground Round customers rrho might be parking on the other
side of that barrier. Mr. Boardman said no, the purpose was to keep traffic
from coming out of the Skywood Mall area lot into that area. He explained
that xas a right only in, into the Skyxood area.
Mr. Peterson stated that he gathered £rom some of the coimnents that the
Commission would feel more comfortable with more data to submit xi.th their
recoimnendation.
MpTSON by Peterson= seconded by Schnabel� that the Planning Commission
continue the discussion of the proposed improvement at the intersection
of 53rd and Central Avenue N.E. to the next meeting� asking Staff to
provide the needed information. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the
motion carried unanimously.
5. CONTINUED: PRAPOSID MAINTENANCE CODE
Mr, Hoardman told the Cormnission that at Monday night's City Council meeting
concern was expressed as to the direction the Planning Commission was going
with the Maintenance Code� and the Council at that time requested a joint
meeting with the Planning Conanission for neact Wednesday, February lbth. He
stated that the only topic would be the Housing Maintenance Code, and the
Council Yelt that at this time they vould like to try to give the Planning
Commission some direction as to rrhat they are looking at. He added that
the Council did request information on the codes from St. I,ouis Park,
Minneapolis, etc., so they could prepare for this meeting.
Mr. Peterson said he would like to express his con£idence in the Co�nission's
Chairman i.n that if there was going to be a joint meeting they at least get
their input into that agenda be£ore they met.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if there was a concern in that it was taking so long
or in the direction the Planning Con¢nission was going� and Chairperson Harris
replied both.
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission
continue the discussion on the proposed 2isintenance Codetto the next
Planning Co�ission meeting pending the results oY the meeting with the
City Council members.
Mrs. Schnabel said she vould also like to recomnend that Mr. Aarris� as
Chairperson of the Planning Coimnission, have an opportunity to have some
input into the agenda for that meeting; and also that the City Council
members have a copy o£ what the Planning Coimnission was dealing with and
srhat they had done to date. Mr. Boardman stated that the Council had
received copies o£ everything the Planning Commission had. Ghairperson
Harris asked What input Mrs. Schnabel would like into the agenda. She
Planning Gommission Meeting - February 9, 1977 Page 15
replied that her feeli,ng was that at least he� as Chair of the Planning
Commission, should be apprised of srhat they were thinking o£ in terms of
the agenda and xhat their concerns were so he could elaborate on the agenda
if he so desired, or whatever.
Mr, Boardman told the Co:mnission that it sounded like the discussion at
the Wednesday meeting xould be Council trying to give their thoughts to
the Planning Con¢nission as to the direction that they think the Maintenance
Code should go. He said that they felt that maybe there is some misunder-
standing as to what the Maintenanee Code should be trying to accomplish,
and they `rant to shed some light on that. He added that Council wanted
to add some direction to the vay the Planning Commission vas looking at it.
Mrs. Schnabel stated that in view o£ the fact that it had taken the Planning
Coimnission this long to get through txo paragraphs, she didn't fi,nd it
of£ensive at all.
Mr. Bergman said that concerning the reference to time� at their first
meeting on this subject there vas the understanding that the Planning
Cormnission was going to send the code doxn to the member commissions for
study. He said he felt there was a lack of direction to the member
commissions and the Planning Commission was going to establish some
guidelines before sending it doxn to the commissions. He said he didn't
lrnow if that xas still the plan� but they hadn�t even approached that yet.
Chairperson Harris said he thought they had ta have something to send
to the member co�mni.ssions, and right nox they didn't have anything to send
to them. That was this Commission's purpose, he said, to direct them
what to look at. Mr. Bergman stated that initially the plan was to send
it to the conmiissions for develo�ttnent, but he felt �he Flanning Commission
was now developing the thing and xould send it to them for reviezr.
UPON A�lOICE YOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
b. oT� sUSn+FSS:
Chairperson Harris informed the Go�nission there vas a Planning Seminar
to be held at the Radisson South on February 2}�th and 25th, which xould
be similar to the one he and Mr, Bergman had attended last year. He said
he would strnng�y recommend it to anybody on the Comunission that would
like to go, and informed them the City xould pick up the admission fee.
He said it was a tWO-d$y affair, and very worthxhile. Mrs. Schnabel said
that she would like to attend.
ADJOURNMENT:
t+�TION by Peterson, seconded by Shea� that the meeting be adjourned. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, Chai.rperson Harris declared the Planning
Co�nission meeting of February 9, 1977 acijourned at 10:50 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
od�. ,,.• o;��,�,o%
$ e rz 0 Donnell, ecor ing ecre azy