Loading...
PL 04/06/1977 - 6607�a r � � PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: City of Fridley A� E N APRIL 6, 1977 APPROVE PLANNIN6 COM�dISSION MINUTES: MARCH 23, 1977 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA �77-01, BY GARY PETERSON: Rezone Lots 3 and 4, and Lots 22 arid 23, all in Block 2, Meadowmoor Terrace, from C-1 (local business areas) to R-2 (two-family dwelling areas, the same being 1326 and 1344 Os6orne Road N.E, and 1331 and 13A5 Meadowmoor Drive N.E. 2. ING: 7:30 P.M. PA6ES 1 - 33 34 - 39 i�+�eDwD �,� IAL USE PERMIT, INC. �er — 'Fridley City Code, Section 205.102, 3, N, to allow the continuation of a mebile home sales lot to replace SP #71-14 which will expire on April 17, 1977, located on the Westerly 600 feet of the Southerly 320 feet of the Northerly 750 feet of the NE 1/4 of the N/W 1/4 of Section 12, the same being 7625 Viron Road N.E. 3. L07 SPLIT REQUEST, L,S. #77-03, THOMAS BRICKNER: Split off the West 5' of Lot 24, Block 2, Harris Lake Estates (1671 Came7ot Lane N.E,) and add it to Lot 23, Block 2, Harris Lake Estates, (1661 Camelot Lane N.E.) so the property owners of Lot 23 can install a swimming pool in their back yard. 4. *lOT -02 Corttinued uatil April 20, 1977 5. *CONTINUED: STUDY OF INTERSECTION AT 53RD AND CENTFAL 6. *CONT IN 7, *CONTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE g. *CONTINUED: GOALS & OCJECTIVES: ACCESS 9, *CONTINUED: 60ALS & aBJECTIVES: CQhU9UNIT1' VITALITI' * chech previous age�n�as for background material �DJOURNMEtd7: 40 - 4� 45-48 � � PLANNING COATMISSION MEETING CALI. TO ORDE�t: CITY OF FRIDLEY ;4ARCH 23, 197T Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7;35 P.M. ROLL CALL: PAGE 1 Memhers Present: Harris, Bergman� I,angenfeld� Peterson� Schnabel� Shea Members Absent: None Others Present: Darrel Clark, Corr¢nunity Development Administrator PIOTION by Shea, seconded by Schnabel, that item 10 on the agenda (receiving the Appeals Co.�nmission .*ninutes) and item 12 on the agenda (receiving the Human Resources Commission minutes) be be made items 2A and 2B respectively, since there were people in the audience for those items. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried w-�aninously. Mrs. Schnabel wondered if they shouldn�t also move item 5 up since there were also people in the audience For that particular item. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld� to amend the agenda to make item 5(intersection at 53rd and Central) number 2C. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. APPROVE PL.4At1�1ING COP4�'_�ISSION MIt;UTE: ::'ARC'i 9 19'j7 Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to ma:ce a few comments on the items contained from the bottom of page 15 tnrough page 18 {the discussion of the Metropolitan Council Application, Award and Disbursenent Guidelines for the Administration of Planning Assistance Grants). She stated she did have additional information, and had it with her this evening, so she could clarify a couple of things. Mrs. Schnabel explained that the total grant £or this particular program was 2� million doliars state wide; 50� which went out state, and 50� to the metro area� with 5; retained for adminisLrative purposes. She stated that in that metro area allocation a Land Use Advisory Committee was established to discuss the priorities and allocations of that money� and the intent was for eacn community to receive a system statement before making application. She said that not all o£ then had been mailed out yet, ��� Planning Commission Tleeting - Diarch 23� 1977 Pag� 2 which was the reason for the delay in the appropriations. Mrs. Schnabel � explained $870�000 had been set aside for entitlements with a minimum of $300 to the 1B9 communities involved. She noted the Planning Commission had talked about the Five criteria £or the application, and said that besides that they also used an adjustment £actor of relative wealth (they looked at the community�s ability to raise money through taxes). She said that in terms of the money that they were looking at, $42,500 was set aside for special planning problems; in other words, if a community £elt they had something unique which caused a problem� they could apply for money out of that bulk. She continued that $$7�000 was set aside because 5? of the 189 commnnities had never done anything to get this implemented (ihat was a special $1,000 each of them could use to help them get started, and was called an Inventory Fund). Mrs. Schnabel stated there was the County Assistance to Freestanding Growth Centers o£ $1,000 each, and a program called County Planning Assistance Fund of $129,000 which was set aside for aid in planning solid waste sewage disposal systems and land use in un9ncorporated townships. Of that $729,000, she said, 25% was set aside for Hennepin and Ramsey CounLies and 75% for the other five counties. She added that they were going to be pushing for more money in addition to the money that was available here in the metro area. Mrs. Schnabel said she had wanted to bring those additional thoughts out so they would add to the information thai was contained in the last minutes, Chairperson Harrfs asked if their assumption was correct that what they were going to get out of this whole thing would be $8,835. Mrs. Schnabel replied � she would assume so, but she could not say definitely. Mr. Langenfeld referred to the third paragraph under number 5 on page 15, and said he would like the first sentence to read "...what is of inetropolitan significance" instead of "i£ it was of inetropolitan significance". MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission minutes o£ March 23� 1977 be approvec3 as amended. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. VACATION REQUEST: SAV /�77-OI CLIFFORD R. rfISTALSKI: Vacate the Southerly 17 Street and Utility easement oF Lot } Block 32� Hyde Park� io make this a buildable lot� when included with Lot 7, Block 32� f�yde Park� the same being 5801 bth Street N.E. (House addressed as 5801 bth Street on Lots 8 and 9, Block 32, Hyde Park will have to have an address change to 581I 6th Street N.E.). Mr. and Mrs, Cli£ford R. Mistalski were present. Mr. Clark directed the Commission to located Block 32 of Hyde Park on page 22 of their Half Section Plat books, and explained that in 1971 the City vacated the 33' easemenL. He said that prior to that time, Lot 6 was going tax Forfeit and the Engineering Department had requested that the county � Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 3 � keep 171 of street right o£ way combined rrith what was there to make a�0' right of way. Mr. Clark stated that between the time it was requested and the time the county actually had the tax £orfeit sale� the City then vacated the 30' easement, so the 17' was really no longer necessary and should be vacated, Ae said that the D�gineering Department recommended that they retain the Southerly 1Q' of Lot 6 for utility easement because of a water main in that area. Mr. Peterson asked if it would impair the lot as a building site i£ the 10' utility easement was retainec� and idr, Clark replied it should not. He explained the 10' easement could be used for the setback� and shouldn't reduce the buildable site at all. i•ir. Mistalski asked if the lot would still come out to L�lt'� and Mr. Clark replied it would. hirs. Mistalski asked if they could se21 it as a 1�ly' lot� and Afr. Clark answered they' could. Nix�, tti.stalski asked if they had been paying taxes on a corner lot all ttese years, and Pir. Clark replied he didn't believe they were� especially since the street was vacated. Chairperson Harris asked if the Aiistalskis were planning this as a home building site, and Mr. Nlistalski replied they hadn't decided if they were going to sell it or build on it. b1rs. 2astalsY.i said they might want a few feet o£ Lot 7 added on io their property, and ;-1r. Clark explained that would also involve a lot split. ,'•ir. and I•frs. Mistalski stated they hadn't decided what they wanted to do wiih it yet. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Schnabel� that the Planning Commission , recommend to Council approval of Vacation Request SAV �77-01, Clif£ord R. Mistalski: Vacate the Southerly 17� Street and Utility easement of Lot 6� Block 32� Hyde Park, ta ma:ce this a buildable lot� when included with Lot 7, Block 32, Hyde Park, the same being 5801 6th Street N.E., with the City to maintain a 10' easement on the South portion. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unaninously. 2. REQUEST F03 A IAT SPLIT, L.S. (.f77-02, PARK MET�OPOLITAr: IhNESTAIEI+T FiJND, INC. Split ofi' the Southerly 120 feet of Lot 1� 31ock 3, Commerce Park, to make two parcels for tax purposes, the same being 7300 and 7320 University Avenue N,E, (zoned C-2S) (Variance request will be heard by Appeals Commission on April 12, 1977). Mr. Steven Coddon, property owner� was present. Mr. Clark asked if there was some particular hurry with this, and rir. Coddon replied there was as he had a closing coming up and he needed the lot split in order to get financing. Mr. Clark asked what the target date was for closing, and Mr. Coddon replied June 1, but he would like to get this done as soon as possible. PSr. Clark said he asked the question because he thought they might be getting the cart before the horse, and thought perhaps the Appeals Commission should be hearing this first. � �i Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 4 Mr. Clark explained that there were two car washes on this property; one was � automatic and one was self-service. He said the two buildings were built at different times, and one was leased and one was owned. He stated they had separate sewer� water� eic. Mr. Clark statad that norr they would Iike to split the parcel so there could be two separate owners� t4ro separate mortgages, etc., but the buildings would Iook the sa^�e as they do now. He explained that Mr. Coddon also needed a variance because he would only be 5' from the lot line instead of the required 1�". Mr. Coddon stated that even though the variance was necessary, the buildings came together at a corner and were not side by side� so there would be no change except the legal citange. He said that the buildings were 10' apart. Mr. Clark said the reason he asked abont the scheduling of this was because the Board of Appeals would be looking at the request on April 12� and those minutes would come before the Planning Commission on April 20, and both sets of minutes would go to Council on May 2. 2�:rs. Schnabel asked what kind of variance they would ask £or ii' this wasn't handled here tonight and there was no lot split approved. Mr. Clark said he felt the Board of Appeals could make a more unbiased decision i£ they knew the lot split hadn't alreac�y been approved, hfrs. Schnabel again wondered xhat type of variance they could ask for since there was no variance from a lot line unless there was a lot split. I�ir. Clark said they would appeal for a hypothetical variance� and the Board of Appeals could pass a recoimnendation that the variance be approved contingent on the lot split being approved. He stated the end result would be ttie same� since one was contingent on the other. � Mrs. Schnabel said she thought it was six to one and a half dozen of the other, and as long as the petitioner was present she didn't see ar�y real problem in hearing this. Mr. I,angenfeld commenied that it seemed to him that all they were going to do was split this into two parcels for tax purposes and everything else would remain the same. Chairperson Harris said he remembered when this cazne be£ore the Planning Coimnission in 1970, and was rezoned from C1 to C2. He said there was some concern at that time about the distance between the two buildings because ihey liked to maintafn 15' between structures for safety reasons, but it had been approved at that time based on the way the buildings were now, Mr. Peterson said it seemed to hzm that the czrcumstances when the petition was presented in 7.970 when there was one owner and ane parcel wee a lot difFerent from now when there would be tWO parcels and two owners. He said it seened to follow that next week, or whenever this had been consumated, they might have a11 kinds of requests coming i.n for changes in use of the buildings, and so on. He stated he thought they would be opening up a Pandora�s Box. Mr. Bergman asked what the hardship would be if this lot split was not granted. rfr. Coddon explained that there were two owners at the very start. He sai:d the hardhsip was that one of the owners owned the building but not • Planning Commission Dleeting - March 23, 7.97? PaBe 5 � the land, and £inancing was really a problem. He stated there was a definite hardship because the financing couldn't be restructured without the lot split. He added he was not asking for any phange and there wasn't any contemplated change in what was going to be there in any w�, shape or forrn. Pfr. Bergman asked if he was correot in saying 1•ir. Coddon had a situation in which a building owner also wished to own the land on whicn his building resided. Mr. Coddon replied that was a potential he was seeking to achieve, but there was also a tax situation and a financing situation he would like to resolve. He said he would also like to have the sane ormer £or the building and the land� but his first need was to be able to close the transaction. Mr. Peterson asked if i•s. Coddon rrould clari£y what his position in this might be, and h;r. Goddon explained that in 197� he bought the parcel on a land contract as an individual. He said he arra�ged For the constx^action of the buildings� the two separate owners and the tenants� tnen sold the developed package to an investment corporation. idow, he continued, that corporation was splitting up their partnershio and wanted to split up the property and sell it. I-'s. Coddon said 'ne was both the contract purchaser and the equity pt:rchaser� and would like to get a separate mortgage on the property. He stated he was the ow�er right no:a� but in a mixed-un fashion. He said that Standard Oil was a leasee on a year to year basis, and the • self-service car wash had paid of£ their building and had another Pifteen years as a land lease tenant on the Northern part. Ae said it was his feeling that they would very much like to have the parcel, but they already ovned the building. He added that a lot split would solve everything and not harn anyone in any rray. � Mr. Peterson sai.d that was true unless the people who had the self-service car wash decided in two months to do something dif'erent and csme in for variances. He said he had been on the Planning Corrmission two or three years and had seen all kinds o£ problems arise as a result of thi.ngs like this. Mr. Coddon said that if the lot was split� the remaining tiao portions were legal lots under the zoning code, and anything anybody did propose would be judged on its own merits. He said he didn�t see �rhere it V:ould 'oe a problem i£ they used their land for legal purposes and zoned purposes. rir. Peterson pointed out that part of the lot split entailed a variance, and that was not within the code. Tirs. Shea wondered if one of the stipulations iahen this went through Appeals could be that the use would be limited� but Chairperson Aarris said he didn't think they could make it stick. 1•s. Clark said they might be able to limit the enlargements of either structure by stipulating that any additions rmist meet a11 setbacks. Mr. Langen£eld commented that he had the feeling they were making this worse than it was. Ae £elt it would perhaps be wise to make a motion with the stipulation that this property be split in two parcels for ta�c purposes only. Chairperson Harris said he didn't think they could do that. He explained the assessments were split, the taxes were split, and there would be trro separate owners on two separate percels. He asked how big the parcel was � in total� and Mr. Clark replied about 1�3�000 feet. Mr. Clark added that it — �>. � Planning Commission Meeting - March 23� 1977 Page 6 had more than 200' of frontage, so it did meet that zoning requirement. � Chairperson Harris said they had a City policy on odd-shaped lots, and that was that the frontage was ta;cen at the building line (for example, on cul-de-sacs). He wondered what would happen with this £rontage if it was taken on that criteria. He noted the property was zoned G25. Mr, Peterson commented that in Z970 a Sbecial Use Permit also had to be granted because of the nature of the buildings, and Chairperson Harris said that was correci. Pfrs. Schnabel asked iF that was a way in which.to tie the two businesses to these two particular lots if .the lot split was approved. Chairperson Harris said he was not certain that it was the intent of the Council or the Planning Commission that the Special Use Permit could be split automatically. He said the Specia2 Use Pernit was granted to the property as a single entity, and now they were talking a6out tvro dif£erent entities; it seemed to him they would have to go back through the Special Use Permit process. Mr. Clark said that a Special Use Permit would probably not be denied since the bui�dings were already there and it had been approved beSore. He added that if they were going to approve the lot split and approve the variance and then make them go back through the whole process o£ a Special Use Permit, it certainly would not be denied. Chairperson Harris zaondered how they could split a Special Use Permit, and said he had never heard o£ that bei.ng split with a lot split.. Mr. Clark said he didn't lmow, either. Technically, he said� Mr, Harris was probably right, but if everything else was approved � he didn�t think a Special Use Permit could be denied. P1r. Peterson said it seemed to him that if somebody was applying for a Special Use Permit in 1977 on that, t:�ere would be a lot of questions asked before that Special Use Permit was granted, thinking ahead that it might be split. Chairperson Harris said that the situation that the gentleman was eluding to (where there was one building on a parcel and a lease held on another section of the same parcel with a building on it) rras not an unusual situation. Mr. Bergman stated he would like to regroup where they were at. He said they were talking about a lot split with a£ee o£ $30, a variance procedure with a fee of $50, and possibly two Special Use Pesrtits (one £or each parcel) at $120 each, plus a fair anount of PIr. Coddon's time. He said he was just xondering i£ h1r. Coddon siiZl thought it was worth it. Fir. Coddon replied it was well worth it� and he would do anything they wanted. He sai.d his appeal was there was no change planned, and he aranted a 2ot sp2it for what was already there. He added that he didn�t see that what might happen in the future was a va2id question in this matter. Mr. Peterson said that under G2S zoning, which V�as on the property now, there were all kinds of ootions in terris of what could be done with that building for manufactur3ng, etc, Pir. Clark said it Would have to be a commercial use. Mr. Peterson asked if they would be able to change the � building without coming in and making requests. He said they could be faced Planni,ng Cammission Meeting - Aiarch 23� 1977 Page 7 � with`a lot of alternatives and have no control as far as the City was con- cerned. N's. Clark said that if they did any construction at all� they would haee to come in Sor a building permit. He said that parking requirenents� setbacks, and so forth were looked at before a building permit was issued. Mr. Peterson stated that once tk;ey had the zoning and were using the building in conforr.iance with the zoning at that particular time, then the City would be hard pressed to not issue a building permit or grant a variance. Mrs. Schnabel stated that ur.der one owner� one o£ the two buildings could still be converted if he so chose. She pointed out they could still have the same problem whether there was a lot split or not. 5he wondered i£ they were making a big "to do" about something that might never come up again� and asked hosr many other instances there ro�ere similar to this in Fridley. b1r. Clark said there were a lot o£ situations like this where someone oimed the land and someone else owned the building. Pirs. Schnabel said she was talking about the tiao buildings being so close together, which seemed to be the real problem. A1r. Clark said that the City didn't necessarily know abaut:them unless someone ca-�e in, like now. rfr. Coddon said that as t�irs. Schnabel had mentioned, these problems would be the sarae whether it was s�lit or not, Mr. Peterson stated that couldn't happen at the present time� however, because of the financing involved. He said that right now the owner couldn't do it because he didn't have a clear title. :ir. Coddon pointed out that was the same situation as when it was � built� so it could hapnen. ?:e said that the car wash to the North mighi want to add on. Afrs. Schnabel commented that if the owner had private fi.nancing� he could do it. Chairgerson Harris added that the lot sizes did meet the code, depending on how much £rontage could be considered as legal frontage. Mr. Bergman sazd it looked to hi.m like what they were addressing here Fras, on one hand, a requesL £or financ;al bene£it o£ a property owner; and on the other hand� a variance from the ordinance. He stated he had listened back to history which involved at one point a rezoning and a Special Use Permit, and at this point a lot split o£ an existing C-2S property which in tezrts of frontage and/or area was within the zoning ordiance. He said this put them back to the variance problem with regard to the setbacks. He stated he didn't see anything about what was being requested that was of m2terial value other than the forthcoming variance request to reduce Srom 15� to 5� on the setbacks of each parcel in order to malce this happen. Ae said that to him, the consideration got back to the variance request being they key item, and if they should agree to a lot split which would automatically involve two variances. Plrs. Schnabel added that the two Special Use Permit requests were also key items, Chairperson Harris said that it seemed to him there were some stipulations either with the rezoning or the Special Use Perriit on this particular parcel when it had gone through before, and asked Mr. Clark if he could get the files on this. � Mrs. Schnabel asked if Chairperson Harris could recall a similar situation where a petitioner went in a commercial area and built two separate buildings Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 8 on one piece of property. Air. Harris said that as he remembered, this was a � Unique situation� and he conldn�t remember it happening before or since then. He said there were situations where more than one building was built on the same parcel, but none with the buildings this olose. Mr. Peterson commented that it seemed to him that any tirie they had a unique situation it kept coming back and coming bac� before the Planning Commission, causing more ihings to be ont oF the ordinary when it came back the next time� and that was his initial concern. bir. Ber�nan said that apparently hir. Coddon had been involved in the property from the word l�go". Yr. Coddon stated that he bought the property as an individual� and a gentleman who rras developing car washes came to him as a property owner and nut the package together. Mr. Bergman asked i£ he recalled why the property wasn't split at the time the two businesses were constructed. 2s. Coddon replied the main reason was because Commerce Park Investments wouldn't take payment on the property until 1.972 for tax purposes. He said it was bought on a contract £or deed, so the financing for the buildings had to be arranged independently of that contract. He added they couldn't be paid for at the time, let alone split. Mr. Clark returned with the requested information. He read from the building permit itself, which stated that the Special Use Permit was only good for the operation of one self-service car wash and one automatic car wash� along with service pumps. No other business would be operated without the explicit approva7, of the City Council. Both car washes are on one nermit and on one parcel of Iand, and any time the ownership changes on either of the ear � washes a lot split will have to be approvaiby the City Council. Chairperson Harris said that somebody violated the condition of the Special Use Permit, and asked if there weren't two separate parties on the car wash and the self-service. Mr, Coddon explained that the self-service car vrash tenant was the original tenant� and the auLomatic car wash land oym ers leased to bamaron Corporation which went through Federal bankruptcy. He said there was also an equipment squabble involving the party that was a leasee of Standard Oil and the car wash. Tir. Coddon said that all this had nothing to do with the Iand which he purchased� then sold his interest out� and then purchased back. Chai.rperson Harris asked who owned the South one, and R1r. Coddon replied that he oVmed the land and the building (the automatic car wash). pir. Coddon said that the sel£-service was the tenant in the lease, and the terms of the lease said the building would be built £or him and he would pay a rental o£ $85Q a month until 60 payments had been made, in which case the building would become his and the rent would be reduced. Chairperson Harris said that was the violation--that was not part of the deal when this started out. He said there had never been any mention made at the time the requests were nade for the rezoning ar the Special Use Permit that this was going to be a buy-back operation. 1•Sr. Coddon explained what the lease had said, and stated that if there was an error he had not been aware of it. s Planning Corrunission Meeting - March 23� 1977 Page 9 � Mr. Peterson requested Mr. Clark to again read the stipulations on the Euilding Permit, which idr. Clark did. t"s. Coddon then asked if that meant there should have been a lot split, and Chairperson Harris replied that the lot split should have been done previous to this time. Mr. Peterson stated that he suspected that iS the Planning Commission and City Covncil had known of the buy-back arrangenent on the lease and the fact that there �,rere two oti,�ners involved� they might have looked at it a little more carefu2ly before granting the Special Use Pernit. He said that in e£1'ect, the ordinances were violated right from the beginning without going through the process of a hearing; right £ron the beginning there was a lease for a buy-back that the City never Irnew of. He said he suspected that the lease was entered into before the buildings i�rere ever constructed. Mr. Bergman asked if there were two buildings, and i�!r. Coddon replied yes. Mr. Bergman asked ii they were o�med by the sa^�e p2rty, a7d 1•?r. Coddon answered they were not� but he would like to get tnis corrected uith a lot split. Mr. Langenfeld sai.d that he was led to believe that an actual "buy-back" didn�t exist. He thought the arrangement was such that due to the nature of the business (with £ixed equiprnent attached to the building) the building and this equipment could not be moved. So in this lease agreement, he continued� $650 U�as to be paid for the equipr.ient as well as the building for sixty months, and then a r.iuch reluced rental Yrould be allovred. He said � that to him, that was not a buy-6ack yet. Chairperson Harris said that he was renting land space right norr, but for all intents and purposes he owned the building, - Mr. Bergman asked if the ownership of the buildings or the land under the buildings had changed, tir. Coddon said that in actuality nothing had changed� but the lease stated that after the sixty pa;�ments the building and the equipnent became the property of the tenant but he could not move it off the property. Piessrs Harris, peterson and Bergman agreed that then it had changed. DIr. Coddon stated he was just here to correct the situation that existed. Mr. Clark read from the rainutes of the City Council meeting concerning this parcel� which said the owner o£ the land would remain the same. He said that apparenily the land was going to be owned by one person ard the leases would be of the type xhere they didn�t obm the building. pfr. Peterson said that the intent o£ the lease was that the tenant ��ould own the building in fact, 6ut that wasn't told to the Council or the Planning ComMission. Mrs. Schnabel said perhaps what r�r �o� W�S Sav�g was at the time he made the sefk° o, e ,n• statement before the Counc' di not own°�`£hat building at that tine, but failed to perhaps say tha ould own it in the future, hir. Coddon said that it hadn't seemed to him to have any bearing on the requests. Chairperson Harris said he recalled he voted in favor of the Special Use Permit and the rezoning} but the Cor.m�ission at that time had some serious � doubts about the spacing between the two buildings, He said'he felt that since they weren't talking about lot split at the time and since it was under Planning Cocmnission Afeeting - March 23, 1977 Page 10 one ownership, he had voted in favor of the recommendations on ths Special llse � Permit and the rezoning. He said that if he had imown at that time about the two owners, his vote may have been different. Mr. Bergnan said he would like to clarify two points: 1. While the state- ment can trizthfully be made that both buildi.ngs are today �ander one owner- ship as originally, a legal document has been established setting in motion a change oS ownership on one of the buildings. 2. He was imoressed with the wordage from the minutes which indicated that this whole discussion took place at that time with some apparent acceptance that there could in fact be a future loi split, and they recognized that in that event there would be lack of setback. Chairperson Harris said he didn't recaZl it that way, but perhaps Mr. Bergman was correct. Mr. Bergman said he thought there was an zmplication in what Mr. Clark had read from the minutes that the attitude was positive toward a].ot split if the ownership did change. Mr. Harris said ihat was one of the stipulations--the lot split would be applied for before the buildings changed ownerships, Mr. Peterson sai.d the implication he read was that the Planning Com*�ission and City Council were very concerned in 1970, but reluctantly granted the Special Use Permit and building pexr�its based on the fact that there was one owner and would continue io stay one owner, and they were really setting up safeguards to keep it as one owner. He said that in effect, at the time that these were applied for an arrangement had already been entered into, as he suspected that the lease was signed beSore the building permits were issued. rfr. Peterson said he £elt the implicati.on was that this was exactly what they didn't want to happen (the �ot solit and change of � ownership)� at least not without it being reviewed. N1r. Bergr;an said that in his opinion, that implied that the City had some control over a private party selling his private property (saying he must come in ior a lot split, and if he didn�t get it, he couldn�t sell tke property). He said that seemed a bit awkward. Mr. Clark suggested that if the Planning Commission and Council had assumed that a lot split �aould have been approved, they may have as'sed that the buildings be pushed apart further. Chairperson Harris said he agreed, and he thought the ball game ;,rould have been different. He added that he didn't renember wi�y the buildings were so close together� but it seemed to him they wanted more distance in there to begin iaith. Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that they had now been discussing this one item for more than an hour, and suggested that this request be tabled so a1Z those minutes that had been referred to could be revietaed since there seemed to be a great deal of confusion as to what discussions took place. She added that this item would come before the Appeals Commission on April 12th, so if this were tabled until the next Planning Comtnission meeting it wouldn't throw the timi,ng off that greatly. 2•ir. Coddon stated that he had a conSlict on the 6th, and asked if this could be put on the agenda for the April 20th Planning Commission meet�.ng. � Planning Commission Ateeting - March 23, 1977 Page 11 � MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Comnission continue the request for a lot split� L.S. ,�/77-02, by Park hfetropolitan Investment F1uid, Inc., to the April 20th Planning Commission meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Clark said he would get those minutes together, and informed hir. Coddon that after this had gone to Appeals and come back to the Planning Commission it xould go to City Council on PSay 2nd. Tfrs. Schnabel requested that copies of those minutes be sent out before the Appeals Commission meeting on the 12th. 2A. RECEIVE APP�ALS COP-R4ISSI0;1 ifP.NTES: r�cx i5, 1977 MOTIOi3 by Schnabel, seconded by Shea, that the Appeals Commission minutes of March 15, 1477 be received. Mrs. Schnabel stated that she hoped the members of the Planning Commission had time to read through the lengthy discussion of the Appeals Commission meeting o£ �Iarch 15th. She said ihe second item on their agenda had be�n a request for 7899 East Rive^ Road by the R.C.E, Corporation, and that discussion had taken 3� hours of �he Appeals Corunission meeti.ng. She noted that bL. F�nst was present to answer any questions� and explained that he was the father of the petitioner that had been at the Appeals meeting. • Mrs. Schnabel said to briefly review what had happened, four motions had been made on this particular iier.i. She explained that the first motion was to approve the request £or variances with �e exception of one and »ith some added stipulations. That notion died for lack of a second. The second motion, she said, was to deny all the requests £or variances. That motion was seconded but failed £or lack o£ a majority vote. �irs. Schnabel stated that the third motion has to table the item until all Appeals Commission menbers could be oresent, 2nd that motion also £ailed for lack of a majority. She said that the final motion was that the Appeals Cormtissian pass on to Council their tie votes without recommendation since they could noi reach a consensus opinion� and that motion passed 3- l. D'ss. Schnabel stated that just prior to the vote being taken on the £inal motion she told the nembers of the Appeals Corrmiission and the petitioner that she felt she would be negligent if she didn't call the mayor and the chair o£ the Planning Commission to eatplain to them what had happened with regard to this reguest. She said that the following day she did call i3�yor Nee and explained to him what had happened. She asked him i£ he would like them to take a second look at the request and try to reach some kind o£ conclusion, and he felt that they should pass this on through normal channels without recommendation. hfrs. Schnabel stated that she had contacted Chairperson Harris over the weekend and explained the situation to him. At that point, she continued, she did not Seel it was necessary to call the . petitioner to aopear tonight; but when she had stopped by the office today she had been inPormed that the petitioner was planning to come in case any member of the Planning Cormnission wanted to ask any questions about the request. Planni.ng Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page �2 Ai ihis poi.nt, she said, it wou2d be up to the Planning Commission to decide � if they want to review this and pass a recommendation to Council on their own� or don't want to review it. Chairperson Harris said that as he read this, the two major hang ups seemed to be the access on East River Road and the problem with the intersection itself. He asked-if it was i�irs. Schnabel's wish that the Planning Commission take under study the intersection of 79th and East River Road, and she replied she felt that was a viable concern of the Planning Commission. Mrs. Schnabel said that particular intersection of 79th and East River Road should be loolced at with the idea of trying to come to some recommendation concerning that iniersection. It was stated by members of the Appeals Commission� she said� that that intersection happens to be a particularly dangerous one. She said that one member was well aware o£ several very serious accidents that had occux2ed there, Mrs. Schnabel stated that one member of the public had appeared at this rneeting, and he had also expressed his concern for that particular intersection. Mrs. Schnabel said that when they reviewed the correspondence that had occurred between the City and Anoka County on that intersection, it appeared that the last time there was any correspondence was June of 1975. She thought the county�s focus had been further South on East River Road� and they had not particularly dealt with that intersection. She said it was her feeling that they should perhaps have some kind o£ study organized of that whole Northerly section of East Hiver Road to determine where tha serious crossir.gs occurred. She said that perhaps 79th was not as dangerous as some other intersection� and there may be some other inter- . sections that were as serious or more serious. Somehow or other� she said, they should address that problem. Nlrs. Shea wondered if the East River lioad Project Committee had looked at some o£ those areas, and Mr. Langenfeld said they had not gone that £ar North. Mr. Langenfeld said he had read the minutes and saw where safety seemed to be the biggest factor as well as the �eft-hand and right-hand turns and access to 7-11. He said that he felt this would be a good thing for the East River Road Project Committee to extend their studies to, but he felt it did need some study whether it was that particular project group or not. Mr. Bergman asked if this was commercially-zoned property, and Mr. Clark said it was zoned C-2S� and the two abutting properties were R-3. b1r. Bergman said he had a general question, and asked why it was that a speculative building couldn't conform to City Code. Then� he said� as he got £urther into the detail he £ound that because o£ the shape of the property� only 1�,� could be built on� and that was why he was in here for variances. He stated that maybe the property shou�dn't be used for commercial. Chairperson Harris said this was another unique situation. He explained ' that the whole parcel from 79th to 77th at one time was zoned G2 or Gl (the whole £ront half), and the back ha.lf toward the tracks was zoned M-1. He said that was about 1968 or so, then it was all rezoned after a lot of � Planni.ng Commission Meeting - March 23, 197? Page 13 • hassle to R-3, except for this particular corner which was le£t as C-2S. He said that the City had actually created a situation where only l�� of the land was buildable. Chairperson Harris asked how this request di££ered £rom t3eridian's request in 1975, �nd t-r. E�'nst replied that their building was 8' deener and 10' longer. He explained that Iferidi2n proposed a!�0' building, and they were proposing a 1t8' building. He said they xere asking for a setback of 35' along 79th where the ordinance called for 80', but the;� Vrouid agree to down zone to C-1� which would nean a side yard of 35' would be allowed. Mrs. Schnabel said that the only difference in variance requests from 1975 to 1977 was the first request (the request to reduce from 80' to 35�), and in 1975 it Vras a larger figure than 35� • She said that as hir. Srnst had pointed out� if this was rezoned to G1 (which :ras one o£ the stipula- tions the Council had attached in 197$) then it would meet code with a 35' setback. Mr. Bergman asked about the variances that were requested in 1975� and Mrs. Schnabel said that they had been requested':by the .'.eridian Corporation to build not quite as large a building as t•ir. rsnst was notir or000sing. She e�cplained that request Vras approved by the Appeals Corunission rrith a number of stipulations, and it had also gone through the Building Standards- Design Control Subcommittee an3 they had made some recomc!endations. Ptrs. Schnabel stated it then t:ent to the City Council and they denied aporoval. • However� she said� after they denied approval i�Ieridian Corporation ca,�e back vrith additional proposals and at that time the City Council said that i£ this was rezoned to G1 and net a11 the stipu].ations� it tiaould be approved, She stated that happened in August o£ 1975, but then i`eridian 1:*as unable to get financing so nothing happened until this tine when Ps. �nst had now pieked up this concept. In the meantime, she e�cnlained, 7-11 had changed their requirements in terms of size for the store and wer= proposing a larger building. Mrs. Shea said it appeared to her that the Appeals Cor.unission's main concern was safety along East River Road� and she thought that was where they should be looking. Chairperson Harris sai.d the problem vras tnat t`�e safety along East River Road was the City's and County's responsibility and noi the petitioner�s responsibility. Ae trusted the City and County xould solve that� hopefully with the cooperation of the property o�,mer. :ir. Clark stated that the owner had agreed to the turn lane and cutting the snaro corner off. r1r. Harris said the problem was the egress onto East River Road, an3 he did think it was within the city's prerogative to linit access to a major arterial highw�y. However� he said� he didn�t think they could deny access to the property o£f of another street if that was available. Chairperson Harris asked Pfr. Ernst if he was looking for action from the Planning Commission, and what he wanted them to do. Nir. �^nst said he would like them to do whatever was necessary to get this on to the City Council so they could get final action. • Planning Commission Tieeting _ r7arcl, 23, 1977 Page Il� Mr. Langenfeld stated that he recalled from the minutes of the Appeals • Commission meeting that the property had no value unless it had a proper access in order to conduct business. ChairDerson Harris said there were many businesses in operation today that did not have direct access, and cited examples a2ong University Avenue. PSrs. Sehnabel said that if there was a frontage road along East River Road it would solve many problems, but there wasn't. Mr. Langenfeld asked if this was spot zoning, and Mr, Aarris replied it was spot zoning from a planning standpoint. r1r. Bergman stated he was trying to see what options were available� and thought one would be to grant the variances, and that all those variances possibl� orere necessary in order to make some profitable use of the land for commercial purposes. He said an alternative solution was that maybe that property should not be a C-2 zone� and possibly should have been rezoned to R-3 with the rest. Chairperson Harrzs pointed out that option would be with the land owner� and he had decided to try this. Nss. Schnabel informed them that P•Tr. r,rnst just had an option on the property. Chairperson Harris said he did not see how the Council could deny this gentleman's request i.f the request was suhstaniially the same as Meri@ian's request in 1975, and the conditions really hadn't changed. He said that Council couldn't say that because T-:r. Ernst rranted to build it that the same conditions did not apply today as they did in 1975. D1r. Bergman stated that he thought someone could make a point that conditions have changed. He said the City Council's judgement had changed, safety had been brought to the forefront� East River Road h2d been further identified and emphasized � as a safety problem� etc. He coruner.ted that he didn�t think it was fair to say blanketly that conditions hadn't changed. Chairperson Harris stated tlzat the safety condition o£ Easi River Road was not the land owner's problem; it was the City and County's problem. NIr. Bergman argued that the setback ordinanc2s were based on public health, safety and wel£are and considered that. i:r. Harris said those had not changed since 1475 when the Council gave approval to essentially the same program they were looking at now. I•Ir. Bergman thonght thaL someone could logically say that they were more concerned at this time rrith en£orcing the setback from East River Road than they were in previous years. t4rs. Schnabel commented that she didn't think that iras true. Mr. Clark stated that if it was a 7-11 store and some other commercial activity that went into this building, the peoole presently living on that side of East River Road (which includes the 295 tenants in the apartment complex) would not have to get into their cars and create more tra££ic to do their grocery shopping. He said it was possible that it might help, ii it rras done properly. Mrs, Schnabel said the Appeals Commission had discussed the fact that putting a 7-11 store there probably wouldntt generate any additional traffic on East River Road itself. However, she said, i£ there was another tenant in the building which was an attractive and unique tenant� that might generate • more traffic coming to that particular location. She thought some of the Planning Commission Meeting - March 23� 1977 Page 15 . Appeals Commission members were concerned about the amount of traffic that might cross East River P.oad to go to that store, and that was a viable concern. She said that the biggest problem concerned those people travelling South on East River P.oad o;ho might attempt to make a left-hand turn to go to the store; the main prodlem would be if they missed 79th and continued on'down and tried to mal:e it into that additional access to try to get into that shopping center. So, she said, she agreed that the store probably wouldn't generate any additional traffic� but it might create problems in terms o£ access. r1r. Langenfeld asked if this would reach the point of Public Hearing, and P7rs. Schnabel said there h>d been a Public Hearing at the Appeals Co.�ission. Mr. LangenSeld commented that he was surprised so few people were tnere. He stated he tended to lea-� towards the stipulations nade by the City Council on page ltl, to start this thing moving. t1rs. Schnabel said that some of those items were incorpora�ed into the motion made on page lt9, and the developer had already incorgorated some himself. rfr. Langenfeld said that there was no question abont the safety element here, but felt the property oi,mer :•ras really placed in a bad situation. Also, he added� with a speculative building the owner might find in 3- 5 years that business wasn't as prosperous as he thought it would be and might place it up £or sale again. i•irs, Schnabel sai.d that :aas one of the concerns of one oY the members o£ the Apneals Corrunission� also. Sne stated it Vras her feeling tnat that �resn't for ther.i to judge at the Appeals Commission level. She said she also Pelt strcngly that the traffic situation on East River • Road was a legitimate concern of the City Cour.cil� but did not feel it was a concern of the Aoneals Co.^�nission because they had no power to control traffic situations. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Sc?ulabel� seconded by Langenfeld, that a study be conducted by the appropriate co:nmission or subco.^�ission on the traf£ic problems that occur on East River Road £.^om the area of Osborne Road North to the City limits� with regard to safety factors to determine those intersections which are of particular concern so that recommendations could be made to the City Council and passed on to.the county in hopes of getting some type of better traSfic control on East River Road. Mr. Langen£eld asked if this motion was being considered separate from the 7-11 item, and 1•ss. Sc:nabel replied it was. She said her concern was that nothing that she had seen had been done with regard to ihe City and County in terms o£ dialogue on this particular intersection since June of 1975� and she thought that if this was going to be either approved or dis- approved� that intersection should be looked at. Certai.nly it should be studied� she said� i£ this proposal was going to be approved by the City Covncil. She stated that her concern was whether that was the most dangerous intersection in that area; ;�aybe there was another one that was equally as dangerous or more dangerous. She said it was her understanding that the • County at this point had no plans to spend any more money in 1977 on East River Road, so she thought they should get the ball rolling. -- -- — — -- � �� Planning Commission Meeting - Atarch 23, 19T7 Page 16. Mx. Clark stated that he didn�t think the couniy would do anything on East • River Road until directed unanimously by the City Courtcil. He explained that whenever they started to draw sonething up, thinking they were reading the City of Fridley's wants, there was a big hassle when they brought the proposal i.n. Ae said the county wanted to know what Fridley wanted before they did anything on design. f�Irs. Schnabel commented that she thought that whoever did study this (whether it was the East River Road Project Conunittee or a new committee) should take a look at the county's goals (one-year, two-year and five-year), the traffic counts� etc. She said that all these things should be checked out. Mr. Langen£eld said that the decision of this project committee would not have a bearing on this particular 7-11 item because of the time element, Ae stated that he could not say at this time whether the East River Road Project Committee had gone further North or not, but he would take it on himself to submit this req_uest to the East River Road Project Committee to see what their feelings were. He added that perhaps they might be willing to extend their studies tdorth. Chairperson Harris stated that he thought it was only fair to ask Community Development if they would like to get a look at this. Mr. Bergman commented that was a leading question. He said that without trying to be in any way antagonistic or derogatory, he would like to comment on it before answering. He stated that in his opinion he felt� for one thing� that the East River Road Project Corunittee was kind of a special-interest group. He stated � that he said this seriously, and it was his opinion. N.e didn't think that committee, for whatever reason, fairly represented an objective City of Fridley populous with regard to studies of any street, and in particular one that ran by their homes. He stated he felt they had a bias� and he he felt there was a lot o£ self-interest there. P1r. Langenfeld suggested that the �hvironmental Study Group look into this and they would show the Planning Corm�nission how unbiased they could be. Chairperson Harris suggested both Co:nmunity Development and �vironmental study this so the Planning Commission could get two opinions. P'Ix�. Bergman replied that he would have to say that he thought Gommunity Development should get involved itt general traffic pattern and the access program, and he would have to say "yes" to Community Development studying this. t4r. Peterson asked if he was to assur�e that if he voted £or the motion, the Chair would then use his prerogative and direct this to both of the commissions that had been involved in the discussion. Chairperson Harris replied that was correct, AIr. Clark asked if the Planning Commission wished the Council to del�y action on this request until the two commissions had time to study this� and Chairperson Harris said no� he thought that should be separate, Mr. Langenfeld said he would like the F]�vironmental Quality Commission to have copies of the minutes of this particular problem. He said this would bring forth the problem that took place with a particular request on behalf � of a petitioner and not just the road problem, and the committee would be able to see the whole thing in perspective and could readily see that it Plannin� Commission t4eeting - March 23, 1977 Page 17 • involved a business and a person who ovmed property as well as the problem with transportation, sa£ety and welfare. hir. Clark said he would get the minutes from the Appeals Commission meeting to them� aZong with copies of Lhese Planning Commission minutes. Chairperson �iarris asked if there was any other commission xho wished to look at this, and there was no reply. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voti.ng aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Harris directed this item to be sent to the East River Road Project Committee through the Elivironmental �uality Commission, and also to the Community Developonent Com*nission. Mr. Peterson suggested that because there were other guests who had sat and waited� perhaps they should delay the action on this item and discuss items 2B and 2C and then come back to this. Chairperson Harris asked if the Planning Commission �rished to mal:e a recorunendation on this iiem or wanted it to go to Councii without recommendation. t�ir. E�nst said he would de£er to the other items i£ the Commission so desired. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Co,^L�.ssion defer this item on behal£ of the Commission anri the petitioner to allow the other people in the audience to be heard� and then go back to this and resolve it to the best interests of the Planning Co:nnission and the • City. 1dr. Bergman said that he caas going to vote against the motion. Ne said they had spent a lot of time on this� but they did have a gentleman i.n the audience for this item. He stated that they might get involved with the other people for longer than they would keep this gentleman waiting, and he didn�t know if they would be gaining ground by changing the agenda at this point. 13r. Peterson said that when they moved to anend the agenda, they moved to receive the minutes without ta:cing any further action. �e stated he thought it was orooer to defer the action because they also agreed to hear the other gentlemen. !�e said he might not have agreed to amend the agenda had he realized they c•rould be taking sone definitive action. He said he spoke in favor o£ the motion. Chairperson Harris asked if the chair of the Appeals Commission wis:ed them to take action. Alrs. Schnabel replied that as she had mentioned �reviously� she had talked to the *Iayor and he felt this could go on to the Council without any further action. She said she didn�t want to persuade this body one way or another. She added that the Afajor felt comfortable with what the Appeals Co�ission had done in view of the brief outiine she had given him of what happened� so she thought it was up to the Planniag Comnission members to decide. Mrs, Schnabel said that i£ they had some strong feelings on it they should feel free to discuss them� but if they didn�t have strong feelings it might be better to pass it on just the way it was, � .� Plenning Commission Meeting - tdarch 23� 1977 Page 18 Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to indicate one thing they should watch • on this� and that was they could end up going on as the Appeals Commission did and then ending up in a tie vote as well. He added that if there yras something very pertinent that the petitioner wished to bring to them,to enable them to make a decision� then they should abide by it. UPON A VOICE VOTE, Aarris, Langenfeld, Peterson and Shea voting aye; Bergman and Schnabel voting nay, the motion carried 4- 2• Chairperson Harris said this item would be deferred and handled aiter item 2C. 2B. RECEIVE HUMAN RE°�OURCES COt��4ZSSI0N MIIdUTES: 24ARCH 17, 1977 MOTION by Shea, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission receive the Human Resources Commission minutes of tfarch 17� 1977. Mrs. Shea informed the Commission that Mr. Harold Belgum was present. She sai.d that the Human Resources Commission had been talking about a better community newspaper than they currently had, and ptr. Eelgum had set up e subcommittee. She dir,ected the Commission's attention to the motion on top o£ page Lt o£ the minutes, and said that Mr, Belgum would like to discuss that motion with this body. Mr. Belgum stated that the Human Resources Commission xas attempting to � represent what he called the "non-material" aspects of life in Fridley; and was supposed to focus on the human element rather than the property, buildings, real estate� and so on. He stated that the Human Resources Commission had come to the conclusion that a city the age of Fridley was due for some kind of a humane level exchange of news, and they ihought that what the people did and thought was very important to people living in Fridley. He stated that people said Fridley �aas simply a bedroom community� but that was a misnomer because people�s most important lives were iived at home with their families. Ae said they had a£eeling that the naws concerning the people of Fridley would be of great importance. Mr. Belgum said they had tested this out and had several meetings with representative citizens, and had asked them to indicate the kinds of things they would like to know about in their home town, He stated they had come up with the follooring main categories: political life� educational progr2ms, overview of businesses in Fridley, cultural activities and religious life. Mr. Belgum stated that it could be said that was the intention of cable T,V., but only 1,500 persons were tied into that and a limited amount of tfine was given. h1r. Belgum said that the Sun Newspaper helped with this, but it covered 25 or 30 suburbs and it would be impossible for them to cover in detail each of the communities they served. Mr. Belgum stated that because of this increasing desire of people to Imow what was going on in their own neighborhoods, forty newspapeis had grown up � Planning Cormnission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 19 . in Minneapolis - St. Paul which addressed themselves to local news in the past three years, Ae said that this tendency of commixnities wanting to kpow what was going on in their cornrmmity had grown so much that the University of Piinnesota was looking into that phenomenon and following this movement; they trere very interested in the possibility that a suburb like F'ridley might want to try something. He continued that one of the professors told him that there was a master's degree student ready to go to work to establish a questionnaire in a suburb like Fridley to see what type of newspaper people would like� xhat shape newspaper they wanted� and what it would be worth to them. Mr. Belgum said that peoole at the School of Journalism had told him that the idea o£ a public non-pro£it organization supaorting a local nerrspaper had been batted around by many suburbs, but nobody had tried it. He said there i•ras also the possibility that some other way of financing night be developed. He stated that they were in the very beginning stages of this exploration, and that was v:hy he had been invited to this meeting. He said that it seemed to him this would broaden the understanding of iahat kind of human bei.ngs lived here and what type o£ human interest potentials would help to elevate and improve the City and the neighborhood. Mr. Langenfeld commented that he felt the idea o£ having a community newspaper would� without question� benefit the entire community. He said there Vrere many thinos that took place Vrithin this city� such as plays, that people �*ere totally unaware o£, One thing that troubied him� he sai.d, was that it seemed there were so many people here ��rho car.e • home from work� did their chores� and then left for the wEekend. He said he just wondered if at that particular stage a newspaper wouldn't be that beneficial. P1r. Langenfeld e�lained that he thought this vras a moving community as far as the weekends were concerned, and peonle didn�t seem to want to get that involved during the evening. Mr. Belgum said he didn't lmo�a a great deal about how many people in FY�idley left £or the i�reekends or c�hat interest there iaould be in a large number of people lmowing the overview o£ all of the activities that were going on. He stated that he could s�}r that a number of people he had talked to had indicated that they knew very little about their oc�m cornmiuiity and would like to have a small newspaper that yrould give them a picture of what was going on. :•ir. Belgum added that one thing that characterized the forty community news�aners he had mentioned was that they were preLty well divided between reporting news �d giving oninions, so there was an exchange of ideas on important issues. Mr. Langen£eld stated that the designated paper certai.nly.did not fulfill the function of inforning the City �f what was rea]ly goidg.on or o£ the opinions of other citizens, He said it seemed that if a letter was written to the Sun it had to be screened� and then only certain people got through. He added that he appreciated Nfr..Belgum's corrunents. Mr. Belgum said he would like to leave with the Planning Commission copies • of a letter that was going out to the people who agreed to serve on a stuc�y Planning Commission Dteeting - Dtarch 23, 1977 Page 20 committee concerning this. . MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by IIergman� that the Planning Commission receive the document £rom Mr. Belgum dated St. Patricks Day, 1977� listing the people who were wiZling to serve on the committee. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Schnabel noted that the Human Resources minutes said that 125 inter- views would be done. She asked if that was a valid statistical survey in terms of the population. fdr. Belgum said he was not an expert on how studies like this would be taken, He stated that the consultant they had ta,lked to from the School o£ Journalism had said that i£ this sa^ple was drawn right� it could be a good sarnple. He added that a group of people he had met zoith a few days ago had suggested that the sample be doubled to 250. P�ir. Belgum said that the cost for doing a 125 sarsple study would cost about $500 for computer work, travel, etc. Mrs. Schnabel noted that would come out to about $it an interview. Mrs. Schnabel said that in view of the fact that the number of subscribers to Cable T.V, was a small percentage of the population o£ the City� and in view o£ the fact that the subscribers to the Sun Plewspaper were a rather small number, she wondered if they had studied i£ there ti�as a real desire in the community for a community newspaper. !�tr. Bel�wn said that the way he understood it� the proposed study by the master�s degree student would be to address that very question. '�irs. Schnabel asked if it would cost $$00 to $600 just to find that out, and A1r. Belgum replied that was correct. Mr. Langenfeld asked if this would be an at-random survey, and Dir. Belgum • answered that it would be designed to be representative. He added it would be a scientifically selected sample. Mr. Langen£eld then asked the members o£ the Planning Commission if they would be interested in a community news- paper. Chairperson Harris replied tnat frankly� he hadn't thought about it before he saw the minutes tonight. NIr. Bergnan said 'ne could respond to that. He sai.d that 2•ir, Langenfeld had asked a very simple question� but he didn�t be]ieve it was a complete question. He said he was interested� but he wanted to know more about it before he could say he would subscribe. He wanted to know how much it was going to cost him� if it was going to be sel£-supporting, if there would be advertising, and so on. He said he would have those kinds of questions in response to rir. Langen£eld's question. Mr. Belgum said that was precisely w2�y they were £orming this committee-- to explore the various vrays a paper could be developed. He stated that the forty community newspapers in the St. Paul -�finneapolis area were £inanced in an ariazing variety of ways; some had Federal grants� some were entirely supported by advertising� sone were private enterprises� etc. t�ir. Belgum said that one thing they all seemed to have in corrunon was that they all told the news and also tried to tell what the peoole were thinking; and that seemed to be a very healthy thing for the City of Fridley. Chairperson Harris asked if Auman Resources was initially asking for the Planning Commission's recommendation to Council to fund a feasibility stucjy � Planning Commission Meeting - March 23� 1977 Page 21 • to the tvne of $500. Mr. Belgum stated he ti�as simply saying that was a possibility that did e;cist. He said thexeason he was here was because the Hwnan Resources Commission had authorized him to propose this to the City CounciL Ghairperson Harris asked out of whose budget the $500 would come i£ the Plannin� �om�nission recor�mended this to Council, and P•1rs. Shea stated that she didn't Irnow. Sne said they didn't even knovr iP they had a budget; they had been tryi.ng to get an accurate account of hoi-� much there vras, and couldn't find out. I�s. Harris suggested asking the Piayor or sone of the Council people. 1'r. Langenfeld said he would like to £ind out the sane thing about his commission. Mrs. Shea noted that in the last Planning Cormission minutes there had been some discussion on the neNrsoaper and how they could arbitrarily change dates� and said that rras sonething else to think about. She said that i£ it was the City newsoaner� nopefully that taouldn't happen. I°Irs. Schnabel asked i£ the intent iaas for this to become that type of newspaner or if it was to become the kind that was pretty oriented towards their partic- ular section of the city. She stated that kind did not serve as a vehicle for legal notices or that type o£ thing. She said that her impression was� in fact, that they becane highly political vehicles within their particular areas. Mr. Belgum said that there were many questions concerning what type o£ newspaper would best serve t'r,e residents of Fridley, and that was what � the stuc�y committee would tr� to find out. He said they were inviting anybody who felt this w2s worth discussing to come and tell *.,*hat they thought; i£ the feeling r:as that the citizens of Fridley wouldn't bene£it from this� then there xas no goint in carrying this out. Mr. Peterson stated that he xas always intrigued by this mysterious "they'", and he heard it all the time. He said that 1-;r. Belgum had mentioned several times.that enough people in F4�idley thought they should have a nearspaper, and he lived in Fridley and hadn't heard of a lot of people talking about the need for a newspaper, He said he was curious as to ASr. Belgum's point of reference--who they had sampled and how they had arrived at this to maice such a broad, general statement. rir. Belgum stated that he hadn�t said enough people thought there saould be a newspaper so there should be a news- paper� but had said that enou�h people !�ad expressed an interest in it Lo cause the Hurian Resources Cor�-nission to name a stuc�y committee. He explained that he had personally talked to forty or £ifty people, and this possibility had been been boiling around in their Commission for a year. He said they had discussions with people from the Sun Newspaper and discussions about the possibilities of the FY�idley T.V. system� and the commission came to the conclusion that there was enough evidence that a community newspaper would benefit the people. Mr. Peterson then asked if it would be fair to say� in summary, that the idea for the newspaper originated within the Human Resources Commission rather � Planni.ng Co�mnission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 22 than enough people thought it was desirable. Mr. Belgum stated that he would � say that 19 out of every 20 people they had asked had felt a newspaper would be a good thing. He explai:ned that it was within the territory of the Human Resources Commission to discuss if it would benefit the human resources wilimlthe City of Fridley to lmow the news, and they had concluded it would. He added that they had given thought to that for a year and had asked enough people to feel that it was worth studying. Mr. Peterson said he would like to see the record show that this vras the idea of the Human Resources Commission and they bounced it off of the citizens on a random basis for their response, rather than enough people were interested. He felt that would present a more accurate picture of what was happening� and Pir. Belgum said he would go aZong with that. Mr. Ber�rtan asked if it z�ras the intent of the Human Resources Commission that a questionnaire be generated for a door-to-door survey� and that questionnaire would cover all questions� i.e.: Would you be interested in a newspaper� and if so� rrhat kind? At what frequency and at what price? With or without advertising?, etc. Mr, Belgiun said that the number 125 re£erred to personaJ, interviews to determine xhat kind of news the people wanted to know about their city. He said there were no limits on what could be asked, and the idea would be to develop enough answers to see if it would be practical to have a newspaper in Fridley. i•ir. Bergman said he was wondering about the kinds of questions which would result in them knowing whether or not the citizen would� in fact� be a subscriber� and at what . price and at what £requency. He asked if it wzs the intent that that would be part of this �500 expenditure. rfr. Belgum replied yes� they would try to make the study as use£ul as possible. r1r. Clark said that he didn�t lmow how these surveys were done� but thought that part of the problem in doing this would be getting people to be inter- viewed. He stated that if they i,ere going to conduct 125 interviews� they might have to ask 500 people if they wanted to be intervie4red. He said he thought that information should be lmown because the 1�60 who didn't want the interview weren�t even interested in talking about it� which showed him that only 251 0£ the people wanted to talk about a newspaper. P4r. Clark said that if the survey was to be random they should laiow how it was done, and the number o£ people contacted to get the inforriation. He stated that i£ only 25% of the people contacted were interviewed� then probably that 25� would be in favor. Mr. Langen£eld said he would like to bring out a point that came out oF this kind of discussion. He stated that the present corrunission setup laas designed for citizen innut, output, and so on. �ery now and then, he continued� when one comnission or another seemed to fulfill their obli�ations�; and goals and objectives to provide better communications throughout the city� then it aopeared tnat that co:nmission or another commission all of a sudden became a special interest wiihin their own commission. He asked how else it would come about. He said that in other words� each one of these coirunissions was trying to do exactly what they were designated to do � for the good of the conumu�ity. Planning Commission Meeting - March 23� 1977 p�e 23 .. Mr. Peterson said that he would like to respond to those comments from the standpoint that he iaas only trying to determine where the original impetus had come from� and it had turned out that it came from the conanission itself. He stated that he wasn't inferring there Was a special-interest �roup. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTIOI3 by Bergman� seconded by Langenfeld� that the Planning Commission recommend to Covncil that $$00 of Hwnan Resources budgeted funds be applied toward the newspaper survey for the City oi Fridley as recommended by Human Resources, Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 2C. CONTINUED: INTT.�tSECTIOPI AT S3?� �� CE�v'14?AL Mr. Sheldon Mortenson and I+Sr. Gregory Aiortenson were present. Mr. Clark showed the Commission tne Highway Department plans £or the inter- seetion and explained them in detai.l. :Ie said tnat basically what they were doing was channelizing and creating turn lanes for 53rd onto Hignway 65, He stated that the signalization would be with left turn asrorrs, and a relatively new concept �rauld be used where East-bound traffic could go any direction it wanted and the 41est-boi:sid traffic was held� and then the opposite. 2�s. Clark said there had been two propasals drafted 6y Fridley's • E3igineering Departr:�ent for the access to Pienards and Skywood t•Sa=1, and showed them to the Comnission and the interested parties. He explained that one plan was very similar except that one lane had been elirainated and the median had been made larger; he added that this plan was probably more aesthetically pleasing and would also be adequate For the traffic that would be using it. Mr. Peterson asked if this was basically the same plan that Mr. Boardman had last time, and rlr. Clark said it was. Mr. Sheldon Mortenson said he realized there was a problem and agreed it got pretty congested in that area. He asked if that rrould then be City property. TIr, Clark said there were two ways it could be accomplished. One would be strictly by private monies on private propertiesg and the other was that the property owner irould dedicate the necessary right of w�ys to the City of Fridley, Fridley would do the improvements and then assess them back to the properties. Pir. t•fortenson commented that either w�y he would p�, Hir. Clark said that the dif£erence might be that if they waited for the developer to do this, it might never occur. If the City did it, he said, the financing would be spread over a number of years. Mr. Peterson said that it seemed to him that part of the problem at 53rd and Central was not only on the East side, but also on the ;dest. He said that if they were going to be dead-ending one lane at the first Target driveway, Target should share in the easements. tir. Clark said that a � representative o£ Target had been in the office at least xeekly £or the Planning Commission rieeting - March 23� 19?7 � Page 2!� last couple of months, and before that possibly monthly. 8e said that Target would share on that side. . Further discussion followed� and Mrs. Schnabel pointed out her concern on the plan. Mr. Clark informed the Commission that since 1973 the reported accidents in that area were 7� and the most was two in one year. He added he didn't know if all had been reported. Chairperson Harris stated that they were usually recorded if they took place on public property� but not necessarily on priv2te oroperty. Pfrs. Schnabel said the additional problem was because hlenards was generating more traffic than the previous tenant did. Mr. Bergman said he would like to briefly talk about the bikeway plan through this area. He stated that the present bikeway pIan showed a crossing at this intersection� crossing Highway 65 on 53rd� which was a problem that should be addressed. He pointed out on the plan the two routes going to the top of the hill; one fol7owed the service drive and was ridable� the alternate suggestion was not in the original plan, but was to run back on sidewalk and then so:°�ehow get up the hill. He said he didn't think they had really resolved the routing through there. i�s. Bergman stated that he did want to bri.ng out that the bikeway olan did get them on to the edge of this property, and tnere were those two possibilities. He added that he thought the property oomer should be ataare there were bikelaay plans for that area. Mr. PeLerson eorunented that the bikeway had also been before the Parks and Recreation Commission� and the bikeway scheme that he had seen did not provide for the crossing of any arterial or busy street. Mr. Ber�Cnan said he thought perhaps different co^,nissions were asking questions of different Staff people� and they weren't alUrays getting the . same answers. Chairperson Harris explained to AIr, i�iortenson that these were the pronosals drawn up by the City Ehgineering Department, and he didn't Imow if this was a hard and fast rule as fa: as they i•rere concerned. He said that the Planning Co;runission had gotten t,his far, and they yranted I�;r. Mortenson to take a look at the plans and see what he thought. Chairperson Harris suggested that perhaps ;s. 2•:ortenson could take copies of the proposals back and look at them and then come back and work with the City on the progosal. Mr. Tiortenson agreed. Mr. Peterson suggested that it might be well to give Mr. Alortenson a copy of the £ourth paragranh on page 1!� of the hlarch 9th Planning Co:amission meeting. He said it concerned the thinking and discussion that went on at the Planning Commission regardi.ng condemnation, and he thought, it would be well far them to have that in£ornation. Chairperson Harris asked how much time rlr. Mortenson thought he would need to look over the proposals and get back to them, and Air, Mortenson replied a week or two. MOTION by Peterson� seconded by Schnabel� thai the Planning Commission continae the discussion on the intersection at 53rd and Central to the April 6th meeting to allow the property owner an opportunity to respond, � Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting - March 23� 1977 Page 25 � Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 10:50 P,M. and reconvened the meeting at 11;00 P.M. 2A. RECEI�TE APPEALS C0�4�ISSSON A`.I^IUTES: 1�IARCH 15 1977 (Deferred £rom ° page 1 Mr. Exnst said he orished to point out several items� and had colored un a site plan to shorr what he proposed, He stated that in reading the minutes of the Apaeals Cocrmiission r;teeting� he didn't think it was stressed enough that the right-turn lane from the South was very important. He said that one o£ the conditions the City Council had asked £or in 197$ was that the development pay for the cost of the construction of this right- turn lane. P1r. Ernst sai.d he pictured it being done in such a fashion that south-bound traffic from East River P.oad would almost be prohibited from using it (by the desi� o£ it and also the signing o£ the right-turn lane). Secondly, Nir. Ernst continued, they didn't carry the right-turn lane far enough to the South as ta make t�e turn onto 79th. He said another important consideration was dedicating the right of way to accommodate that turn lane (there would be txo right turn-lznes onto 79th). tfr. Ernst noted that the Appeals Comriission had discussed the possibility of elininating a couple o£ parkir�g spaces, as they did have a surplus o£ • two, and this drawing did cut out t�ro spaces. He exolained that they had landscaped and greened in those spaces along with part of the driveway that provided access to those parking spaces. F;r. Ernst stated that this allowed for corner visability and provided more green area. He sa=.d that it didn't eliminate the front setback requirement any, but it did allow for a better corner approach there, fs. T�..x'nst said he thought those points were valid, and added that the site needed the granting of the variances in order to be developed. Ae st2ted they had a lease ready to be executed from 7-11. Mr. F�'nst stated that the speculative terminology of the balance of the building sounded rather derogator�, and it shouldn't be. He explained it was their intention to lease the balance of the building to ofYice-type use and professional-type use. He said that he v.xas e�caerienced in building these structures and had been highly successful with filling them up with high-quality tenants. Chairperson Harris asked who would maintain the triangle on the corner, and Pir. Ernst replied that he would guess they would be dedicating that for public right of way. 13r. Clark pointed out that if the 12nd was rezoned to G1� two of the setback variances they were looking at would be eliminated, and he pointed out on the plan where they would comply with the ordinance. Afrs. Schnabel said that by eliminating the two parking stalls they had also eliminated � one variance request because that brought it back within the lines o£ the Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 197? Page 26 zoning ordinance. She stated that the Appeals Conurtission's reasoning for � eliminating.two parking stalls was that a 7-11 store usually had a maximum of about six cars at any given time, so they would only be using about six oi' the 38 stalls and the other 32 would be used by whatever other tenants would be in there. Mr. Peterson added that 7-11 did most of its business after hours when the other places might be closed anyway. Mr. Peterson asked how the channelization would a11oVr the cars to get back on to East River Road without causing some very serious traffic problems, Mr. Ernst pointed out the only wa;� they could get out on the plan; going out on ?9th and then on to East c'i�'.ver Road. Mr. Bergman said he was impressed that i�ir, E�nst had obviously spent quite a bit oF time in tr^�ing to plan this out and to do a good job on it� and thought Nrhat he had yras inpressive. He stated that he 4ras concerned with the magnitude o£ the variances (along the 2ines that the ordinance was good and in some extreme cases some adjustment might be necessary, but the magnitude of the variances I;r. Ernst was requesting was great). He asked iF Mr. Ernst had considered a multi-story building, and ATr. Esnst replied he had not. He stated he did build multi-story buildings, but he required property with some slope so it could be built in and a great amount o£ stairways wouldn't be necessary, Ci3airperson Harris corunented that he didn't ]moi�r how a multi-story building would match in aesthetically with the apartment buildings. Mr. Peterson asked if it was correct that in ].975 the City Council had . promised Meridian C-1 zoning, and 2,7r. Clark replied it taas done at the Council's request. Chairperson harris said that the way it taas written, the City Council was obligated to give C-1 zoning� vrhich would eliminate several of the vari2nces. ;�Ir, Clark pointed out that there were more restrictive uses in a G2 than in a G2S. He said that one of the things he he didn�t think they would want in there would be a VF�+I Post or an American Legion Post where there might be tra£fic and alcohol mixed. He added they probably wouldn�t want any fast-£ood restaurants there� either� but wanted to try to keep the traffic at a minimum. N;r, Ernst said that the total area of the bui2ding was 7�000 square feet, and the 7-11 took up 2,$00 square feet� and out of the remaining space he could picture a dry cleaning shop, perhaps a beauty shop or small real estate ofFice, and a dentist's or doctor's office. Chairperson Harris said that at the time of the rezoning there had been some discussion on that corner, and asked I•;r. Clark if he remembered what the strategy was. 2�Ir, Clark replied that first o£ all� the petitioner probably didn't petition to have it rezoned. Chairperson Harris stated that it seemed to hirn that there was some over-a11 plan they had for the area, but he couldn't remember what it was. hr. Clark said he could probably find out, hlr. Harris said he thought there was talk of a service station when it was rezoned, and he wondered i£ they intended at the time of the rezoning that it either be a service station or some kind of mini-shop on that corner. He asked t•ir. Clark if he thought that in£ormation would � Planning Commission Meetin� - March 23, 1977 Page 27 • have any bearing on the City Council's decision at this time� and SSr. Clark replied he thought it could if the minutes reflected that the owner thought a convenience store would be the proper thing to do and the Council thought it might or might not make sense. He added that he didn't lmow i£ the minutes reflected that or not, Mrs. Schnabel stated that she Imew that several o£ the area residents had expressed quite a bit of cor.cern about that corner through the years, and it had been brought out at the Appeals meeting that one resident across East River P.oad frondered why residential couldn�t go onto that corner. She said she pointed out that this had been aoned C-2S for 17 years, and the property oomer himself had not i.nitiated a request to change it. She said she felt the City didn't necessarily have any conLrol over that; if the property owner wished that to renain a corunercial property, there was not much they could do about it in spite oF what the area residents wanted to see in there. ' Mr. Bergman said he thought there was something they could do. He stated that their only concern at this point was because somebody wanted to build something commercial on the property. He said that if they were to deny the request to build and the o:mer wanted to leave it G2S, there rras no problem there, either. He stated that i£ they approved a corunercial buildi.ng o£ this nature on tne propert5>, that was the only way to, in fact, develop it comriercially. P1r. Bergman added that either it didn't develop com^�ercially or there was the ootion of rezoning and putting a�artr!ents on it. t-Irs. . Schnabel said that her poi.nt was that in 17 years the property or�ner had not wished to have it rezoned. Chairperson Harris asked i£ the o:�rnership of the nroperty had changed� and 2Ir. Ernst replied it nadn't, to his ]moioledge, in the past 7- 8 years. He said that just paying taxes over that long neriod of time had priced it into the commercial market� and it would be economic211y un£easible to develop it for multiple. He added that he zras paying commercial price for the property. Mr. Bergman asked i£ he had developed other 7-11 projects, and PIr. Ernst replied he had. P1r. Bergman asked if there iaeren't areas cahere he had built only a 7-11 store on a piece of pronerty, and P:r. Ernst ans::ered that he had tuilt one free-standing 7-11 store (the first one in the T�rin Cities), and since then had developed nine centers like the one he vras proposing over the last four years. Mr. Bergman said his only thought vras that there were some options to reduce the conflicts with setbacks� and so £orth. He said it c•ras not really necessary that the building be of that size and on one floor and be that much in conflict with the setbacks, pfr, Ernst replied that the economics required a building of that size to work. Chairperson Harris asked if it would be economically feasible to Lse the same proposal that the Aferidian Corporation used in 1975, and Air. �nst � replied it xould not� especially witn the addition of the final requirement Planning Coimnission Meeting - March 23� 1977 Page 28 of the Council to construct the right-turn lane. He explained there was a • ditch there that would take substantial filling, and they wanted to build it to state highway standards. He said that was his reason for requiring the increase in the building size. Mr. Clark had checked through the files, and informed the Commission that in 1462 there had been a perr.tit issued to build a£illing station on that lot� buL it was never built. He said that apparently the petitioner rraited too long to start and the permit expired. t4r. Clark added that it was possible that in I962 the zoning ordi.nance didn't require a Special Use Permit; he thought that changed in 19b9• Chairperson Harris asked if tkat r�as a 7-11 store on East River Road and Mississippi, and Mr. Ernst replied it was, bit it hadn't been built as a 7-11, He said that was on the other side o£ the road 2nd picked up different traf£ic. Mr. Harris asked what the total land area vJas they were talking about� and i�ir. Ernst replied the land area was 1�2�000 feet-- just about an acre. Chairperson Harris asked if the Commission wanted to ta:ce any action on this, and Mrs. Shea said she v�ould recorlmend that they pass it on to CounciZ and get on to the next item. Mr. Bergman said he k*ould like to state for th= record that he was coneerned about the magnitude o£ the variances� and had some feeling that there were options open to the developer that could possibly reduce that magnitude. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission nass • this item on io Council without recommendation. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 3• ED C'dANGES IPI CHAPTE,Tt 212: i�IID?ING Mr. Langenfeld directed the Commission's attention to page 2 of the F7hviron- mental Qualiiy Commisslon�s minutes� and pointed out that they had once again gotten tied up with 212.0$ F�cceptions, especially concerning emergency work. He said that when they had discussed this previously he had indicated he didn�t thi.nk it meant human li£e, and was wondering if it could be clariSied a bit. He also pointed out that Mr. Olson had felt the ordinance should also specit� who actually approved these minzng permits. Chairperson Harris stated he thought h1r, plson had a good point, and thought the City Council should approve the mining permits to begin with. He said that then, if the Council felt they could be handled by Staff, they could delegate that responsibility back to Stai'f. Mr. Langenfeld asked if the hang-up on this "emergency work'� involved human life and what constituted an emergency� and things of that nature. He noted that they had eliminated the written memo that had been required� • Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 29 but he thought that within this emergency work the corunission got going on • the idea that if a land slide took place it was still a waste of tine to have the City authorize corimiencement of the emergency work. He stated that to him co:unon sense would prevail� and the action had to be ir�ediate. Mr. Langenfeld added that he thought this particular section was still del�ying action, and he just wanted to bring that to the Planning Commission's attention. Mr. Bergman agreed and thought the wording should be revised. 2�irs. Schnabel said she wondered if they shouldn't strike "huraan life" and state "vegetation or property'�, i�tr. Bergman said he xas confused as to 4rhy eMergency F;ork necessary to preserve human li£e should not be an exce;�tion. t•'ss. Schnabel thought the point was that the way it sounded now, if somebody uas caught in a landslide the rescuers rorould have to contact the City and get per:�ission beYore they could proceed to extract that person. Mr. Bergman suggested the wording be changed in paragraph 1 un3er 212.05 to read "IInergency work necessary to preserve human life or pro�erty. Dnergency work performed under this section shall be reported io t�e City of Fridley at the earliest nractical on�ortt:nitv, kn operator corunencing emergency work .......". Mr. Peterson said that 6ecause o£ that change and also the one that P:r. Olson brought up as to who was going to act on these Dermits, he would like to see this rewritten the way it was going to be acted upon. �e noted that they hadn't spelled out that the approval of the mining permits ro:ouid be a City Council function, and he thougnt that should be in there. P's. Clark • stated that he thought that had to be decided, but it wouldn't have to be in the ordinance. Chairperson Harris suggested they could develop a policy that the Council would approve all minir.g per:nits to begin with. Mrs. Schnabel said there were a couple of other things she e:ouid like to note. Under "F�cceptions"� in paragraph 2� the fourth line read ��to upon a permit", which she thought should be changed to "to nake apn�ication for a permit". She noted that further down the page under Aoplication :or t�nd Processing o£ Permit� under 2b� the iaord "extraction" appezsed, and she thought they had agreed to eliminate that word and substitue "nining". Mrs. Schnabel stated that she was a little concerned about 2c under the same section. She said it was not defined there whose responsibility it was to obtain those names. Normally, sne said, in the application process the City provided the names through the ta�c records; but this inferred that the aoplicant should provide those names. She was wonder�ng i£ that should really be in the ordinance or instead be a part of the per:nit where space was provided to list the names and addresses of people within that radius. Chairperson Harris said he thought the intent o£ that section was for notification for possible Public Hearings or whatever. Pirs. Schnabel said she realized that� but didn't think it should be the applicant's responsibility to provide those names and addresses. She didn't believe they required that of any other applicant. r;r. Clark suggested that if � �� Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 30 the application form was done properly, they could do it there. • Mrs. Schnabel said that in order to be consistent, it should be deleted from this ordinance and could be included on the application. She stated that if there rrere goin� to be Public Hearings on any application for a mining permit, then they might want to add a paragraph that said "Notification of Public tiearings must be given to all persons within a half mile of the boundary of the property" (or whatever distance they decided upon), Chair- person Harris wondered if they orere going to have the Council do this� if there shouldn�t be a Public Hearing process. Mrs. Scnnabel said she thought there shouZd be, because it could affect adjacent land owners. MOTION by Sc.hnabel� seconded by Langenfeld, that item c under 212.06 be scratched from the ordinance� but the idea included on the application £or a mining permit (the form should include space tv list the names of the people within so many hundred feet of the property). Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought they should add a number 3 under that same heading which would deal with a Public Hearing; something to the ef£ect that a Public Hearing would be held beiore Council. Chairperson Harris asked if the Planning Commission wanted to get involve3 in this� like a Spscial Use Permit application setup, h1r. Peterson stated that he could see where Environmental, Community Development and Htunan Resources rrould have concerns, and if they were digging a pit next to a park, then Parks and Recreation would be concerned also, hs..I,angenfeld thought that the • Planni.ng Commission should definitely get involved, otherwise there would be no reason for the Ehvironmental Cammission to look at it. Mr. Bergman said he thought that would be i.n complete conflict r+ith the defined process. He asked if they were suggesting that permits be sent to alI the commissions £or review� and I•Ir. Langen£eld replied no, just tne Planning Cor,�ission. :�Is�. Bergman said then they Vrould be reviewing a permit application rather than setting policy and establishing guidelines. Chairperson Harris said they had a precedent £or that as they examined all Special Use Applications, and he looked at this in the same realm as a Special Use Permit. Afrs. Schnabel said that if it was agreed that the Planning Commission should review these applications� then she thought that rather than the Planning Commission deciding on this language right nota� perhaps Staff could take a look at the language that was already in the Zoning Ordinance under 20$.193 and use similar language (dealing with application� referral to Planning Commission� Council action� etc.). 2•ir. Clark said he thought the purpose o£ the ordinance was to set guzdelines so that Council or Sta£f could issue the pernits without having each individual permit go through various subcommissions of the Planning Commission, and from Planning Commission to Council. He said it was his understanding that the mining ordinance was to draw up some guidelines so that a mining permit could be acquired without having to go through Planning Commission, and maybe even Council. He was under the impr �sion that the guidelines would be stringent enough so that � � Planning Commission Meeting - March 23� 1977 Page 31 • if a person met all those requirements, then he would be granted a mining permit. Chairperson Harris said that it wouldn't go through the subcoimnissions� but would be handled like a Special Use Permit, MOTION by 5chnabel, seconded by Peterson, that under 212.06 Application For pnd Processing Of Permit, an item number 3 be added which defined the method of obtaining permission £or mining b� coming through the Planning Commission, and would use t�e language of the Zoning Ordinance similar to sections 205.193 through 205.195. Mrs. Schnabel sai.d that perhaos the Staff would find some additional language should be included� and that would be £i.ne. UPUN A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Shea referred the Commission to 212.07 Standards, and said she xas sure that sb should read "betueen 7 a.m. and 7 p,m....". The other members agreed. — Mr. Bergman referred the Co^�nission to 212.07, 2a� and said that it seemed to him that in some cases five feet would be a*afully close. Chairperson Harris suggested they have it read "ATO less than five feet..." and then look at that under the Special IIse Permit-type operation. P1r. Bergman said he thought they should make it 10' or even 1$'. Mr. Harris said there may be some cases 4rhere that was not necessary. • MOTION by Bergraan, seconded by Peterson, that 212.07 Standards, 2a� be changed to read "No less than £ive £eet....". Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unaniraously. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission continue the discussion on recommended changes in Chapter 212; A;ining, r`x�idley City Code, until the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voti.ng aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTZON by IBterson� seconded by Ber�an, that the Planning Commission continue item 1� (Proposed A*aintenance CodeJ� item 6(Goals and Objectives: Access)� and item 7(GoaZs and Objectives: Coiru�unity Vitality) until tne next meeting, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 8. RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION C0;-RfISS20N i-fII+NTES: FEBRUARY 28 1477 MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission receive the Parks and Recreation Commission minutes of February 28, 1977. Mrs. Schnabel commented that she couldn't help but notice on page 29 in the first paragraph where Mr. Boudreau had stated that in i•finnesota they � Planning Commission Meeting - March 23� 1977 Page 32 ; had stayed away from naming parks after individuals or clubs. She said • she couldn�t help thinking of Locke Park or Albert Kordiac Park� so there had been some parks named after individuals, rir. Peterson said he thought that meant in Fridley� because b;� City Council action and Parks and Recreation's recommendation they had tried not to name parks ai'ter individuals. Mr. Clark thought there were quite a few parks named after individuals, but thought Mr. Boudreau might have meant that you didn't take a city nark that was not dedicated by a particular group or person and name it after them. UPpN A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 9. RE^EIVE CO'�t1�NNITY DEVELOPP,E:dP C0;?SSSION rIINUTES: MARCH l, 1977 MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission receive the Community Development Commission ninutes of March 1� 1977. rtr. $ergman commented there had been a lengthy discussion on the Sign Ordinance Project, and when the Sign Ordinance Froject Committee came through with their proposal, the result of a11 that discussion would be included. NIr. Bergman stated that the meeting for t�iarch 15th referred to at the top of page 2 0£ the minutes had been cancelled because of a conflict, but they would pick it up ai their next regular meeting. Chairperson Aarris asked when rlr. Bergman could foresee getting the report . out on the signs� and he replied that they were going per schedule but noted that the schedule had gotten leit out o£ the minutes. I�Ir. Bergman said that 1irs. Gabel had identified tneir schedule� which keyed of£ of a City Council deadline� backed up one month for submission to this body. He could not remember the dates, but said that i.nformation would be included in their next minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. Il. RECEI4E E�VIROPIMEIJTAL QUALI;Y CO?•�1ISSIOPJ AIINUTES: ptARCH 17, 1977 MOTION by Langen£eld, seconded by Schnabel� that the Planning Commission receive the IIivironmental Quality Conmission minutes of Niarch 17� 1977. Mr. Langenfeld stated that in the minutes of the last Planning Commission meeting he had mentioned the fact that he would provide information on the Noise Control Seminar, and he passed out copies of the brochure to the commission members. He reco:amended that anyone who could get away during the day attend this meeting� and he assumed the City would pay for it. He mentioned that Mrs. Sporre o£ the II�vironmental Quality Commission was planning to attend, Chairperson Harris said that if anyone was interested in attending the seminar they should contact Dir, Clark or Mr. Boardman so they could make reservations. . -� Planning Cormnission Meeti.ng - March 23� 1977 Page 33 � Mr. Langenfeld said he would like the staff to lmow how much the Environmental Quality Commission appreciated receiving the State oF the Region, lwrin City Metropolitan Area bookleLs. Chairperson Harris said that if any oS the Planning Commission members wanted a copy, they should contact rir. Boardman. UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting �ye� the motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission receive the notification of hearing from the Cit;� of Spring Lake Park concerning a lot split request at 77�5 Central avenue P1.E. Chairperson Harris asked if t-s. Clark saw any problem with this, and he replied that he did not. t;rs. Scnnabel asked if there were 2ny residential homes in FY�idley in that area, :i�, Clark said that in the Southeast corner there was an of£ice building, and they had a petition ior a double bungalow on the next two blocks� and then �he single-family dwellings started. Mrs. Schnabel wondered if the residents who were witnin so many hundred feet should be notified. 1-Ir. Clark said that Vrould be fine, but they didn�t notify people when �idley was having a lot split and didn�t hold public hearings. He said that he would� however, do those people the courtesy of notifying t:�m, BPON A V�ICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. • 21rs. Shea inform=d the commission that this was the secretary�s last meeting with them, and felt they should publicly thank her for her hard work and the excellent minutes she had done for them. The commission thanked her and said they were sorry to see her go, ADJOUR2?�NT • MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, ihat the meeting be adjourned, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson riarris declared the Planning Commission meeting of t4arch 23, 1977 adjourned at 12:20 A.PI. Respectfully sutamitted, �/ �/T�(l A fril/IJO��i Sherri 0'Donnell � Recordi.ng Secretary *� � PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE i `� PLANNING COhV+lI55I0N TO WH�td IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Fridiey in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, April 6, 1977 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 for the purpose of: Cons4deration of a rezoning request, ZOA #77-01, by 6ary Peterson, to rezone Lots 3 and 4, and Lots 22 and 23, all in Block 2, Meadormoor Terrace, from C-1 (local business areas) to R-2 (two family dwelling areas), all lyirg in the North Half of Section 12, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Moka, Minnesota. 6enerally located at 1326 and 1344 Osborne Road N.E. and 1331 and 1345 Meadormoor Drive N.E. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter may . be heard at this time. RICHARD H. HARRIS CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION • Publish: March 17, 1977 March 24, 1977 � , CITY OP FRIDLCY MINNGSUTA • • PLANNINC AND ZONING FORM � NUMBLR.�/7A��7-DI APPLICANT'S SIGNATU2C , Address I3G fl �5 D n r n� It d ��' �� I'P � Telephonc Number % �� —.� � y � ,� � PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE � Address �3�c 0%� 5 6 o r v�-o �@ � Y��1 �'p `' Telephone Number,,7� 1� - a� ya l32G Q�7E,F. �3�/ mr��eoti QR.. Street Location of Property ��� u �a�(t '�/S5. o � ���: 7'YPE OP REQUEST n Rezoning Special Use Permit Approval of Premin- inary $ Final Plat Streets or Alley Vacations Other Fee /� W Receipt No.,� ��� Legal Description of Property ��*r S.= a a- Z Z� a3 �+a��. �— m�np�wM an- 1E2RA� Present Zoning Classification e-J Existing llse of Property �/�G A-�i Acreage of Property�ia2ou .�-, Describe briefly the proposed zoning classificatior or type of use and improvement proposed R-2 ���-a-F�^'�'�Y ���'�'�!N�' Has the present applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split or variance or special use permit on the suhject site or part of it? yes�no. What was requested and when? The undersigned understands that: (a} a list of all residents and o+aners of property within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) must be attached to this application. (b) This applicatian must be signed by all owners of the property, or an e�planation given why this is not the case. (c) Responsibility for any de£ect in the proceedings resulting from the failure to list the names and addresses of all residents and property owners of property in question, belongs to the undersigned. A sketch of proposed property and structure must be drawn and attached, sho�aing the following: 1. North Direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on the lot. 3. Dimensions of property, proposed structure, and Front and side setbacks. 4. Street Names. S. Location and use of adjacent existing UuilJings (within 300 feet The undersigned hercby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this application are true and correct. DATB Z— L S'" � 7% SIGNATUFE � C.1..-.� �tX.v-f C_ (Al'PLI ' ) Date Filed �',��i'7? ��te of Hearing ", ��' 17 ' Planning Commission Approved City Council Approved (dates) Denied (dates) Denicd �� MAILING LIST ZOA #77-01 GARY PETERSON Lots 3,4,22,23 Block 2, Meadowmoor Rezone from C-1 to R-2 Anderson Trucking 5ervice, Inc. 203 Cooper Avenue North St. Cloud, �M 56301 Ed Chies 7651 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley,Mn 55432 Briar Homes, Inc. 8535 Central Avenue N.E. Minneapolis, Mn 55432 Lambert-Petersen 1917 Old Highway #8 New Brighton, Mn 55112 Mr. & Mrs. Dale Thorp 1376 Osborne Road N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 � Mr. & Mrs, Ronald Frankhouser 1392 Osborne Road N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Larry Prescott 1400 Osborne Road N.E. fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Loyd Erion 1412 Osborne Road N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Patrick Maxey 1413 Meadormoor Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. William Baerboom 1401 Meadowmoor Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Daryl Rollog 1391 Meadowmoor Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 � Mr. & Mrs. William Sharp 1371 Meadowmoor Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. James Hanson 1371 Meadowmoor Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Planning Commission ���`" %% City Council Terrace �� Mr. & Mrs. W. F. Thiel 7627 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Robert Knoll 7613 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Bernard Heille 1418 Meadowmoor Drive N.E. fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Walter Lizakowski 1402 Meadowmoor Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 ��zz�z�es. Mr. Larry Lee and Ms. 1392 Meadowmoor Drive Eridley, Mn 55432 Patricia Von Mosch N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Charles Lindman 1378 Meadowmoor Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Richard Castro 1362 Meadowmoor Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Ralph Melbie 1345 Meadowmoor Orive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Douglas Pavlik 7651 Meadowmoor Drive N.E. fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Richard Morin 7635 Meadowmoor Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Allyn Beekman 7619 Meadowmoor Terrace N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Roger Bauer 1359 76th Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 ZOA #77-01 Page 2 � M. & Mrs. Mariyn Jeske 1367 76th Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Melvin Doolittle 1375 76th Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Vernon Larson 1383 76th Avenue N.E. fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. William Holte 1415 76th Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Gary Peterson 1360 Os borne Road Fridley, Mn 55432 City of Spring Lake Park 8429 Center Drive N.E. Spring Lake Park, Mn 55432 LJ i �6V �. � `��....-/ GARY PETERSON, ZOA H77-Ol l!_.0 L�1 ( C-1 to R-2 n8 N/ ? CORY£R SEC, /�_ /��1w)�'}/ n�� � .'/" -� '- -C-'JVI:T7""f�T'V-l-icli. � 1nn ..,.r: ..n,,... �� iI7S �F C17Y OF FRI ���,Y ;s• .,. ,., �;°, ; f . = „ , ,. ,s , I �l . ..iJ•.,. j, 3 �vu� 1° .So :.f.Jr��: 51%i i.: ��6�� � ��j±�3f!�., r'n�' , 'o c.Jria ! � 2 �aC _i t� r�. , ��.�A_� �1A�0� I�Jr�r;,n I.vc,F�a� ,%svict,/�c. � i L7.H L'iro� Re�: y ::.c. (2F5D% � _�!'�._�._...-- - -- (+;'co: vsGOvi.'e/�e (r."D600d `. e �f.v�� . . " Z % .a �^ : Jil'J)�SX �I \ � � 2E � � e � ��'� < ! : L��i � j�;llj ! � 1 I` .JF�_ : n I f, _3 � ., ., ` - _�': =' ,; t �_'_ .e�3J-- L7 ��r: F7. _. ri, ;YSS,� Q � � -` I -.xk Qi tiJ' F- � . � f Y� ` 1 / � �' '� r V � . � __ . ._... _ �. __._ � . ; V. . w n_� �q��/V✓,y � ••1.'anccrr ..�; : i:. ' _ /6 � 'S "R 5i%'bvd4:t""�.�,:1� :: 3 '� /O� // �`_,a,W � � . �`^' �- .TL_ J.. 1 �� w �SJ.TTI _TL-f c . y � i j a ,. .. 0� Oi G. 0 � o o---��f � 2/ ;10 �/ �/B';;7�/b".IS",o �J .n : ; �m . ._ . . ��" OR1VE .. �.�..,;,¢ ?: 4 >s I �r I <' f! ' � .�' � ��' % ��^ ti ,/ tl' /� �{ • � v •� � _.73et_.�.?fe�11 _ sf. I U /r�31 �� k'is � i,l� � " ��+! � �1 � �RV 0�\ / Q ,- ; '4 �• I•a ti•: ���r,�'. �-�i. "iir1.I^ _ � t:. -`�•' "� i��F.• ` _ � �` ei ��.(7 �` . ✓ a � � J � C �rSlJw._ #`i:=.i. e • . a w �' 7 :� „r�� ; ,. � 1 I �~ O w l � :�+1: • \ `. � ��.i:� 9 ; �"' y ;� !"-'� �'} �'° , ,..•,;.. , P� ��,. u.� u i 6�3 "w �.a `s `i ' �� J�'f_�L.. � Jf LJ. � �_ i)-_ . Ix � �..H 25 'k 26 "' 3 �j 'I�• J:Y . i p L� J O -.y . •'+v.y� r � __i/ltt : � `� �.)� . �� • ll�-ytn �� �, y"- >/ oa2¢',a ;;:� :97°^\':. j �j . -� � �X M jt T : .�j W ti. �! _�L.�' -� rirr,��:': R` °ili �—i �1' .� � Z3r' '_o.F-:i:_ - ^', ._' ---- -76 --T-t;- —==,,,.; �,VEt.I. so (960) f✓Eii��F.roir f� K ao}- �,= % .� I 't il> df � f : i� ' �`a+ q �.a � o q�(� a; �'!� „''` .Lf�f o� k U t1 iV.,:ai '7�• m,% i�.�' :!'-w `•ti; �-+ �i .-e;; � • � 1 \1L�' -(i "b: `' � '�fi?�\c�i�,•_ .,. `��. . L{!___ �! �,�, /.c 'i ,�T ./ .. ` r;�'.,'�'"' =- .; ; . F-:. . . •.q.: �. r j ' �ii�. v �` � ' � :.,__ _ -1^ ..t. � . . �- �.,j.,�✓,,,: "y,�-� < 1�%�, 3 e '� 4,�: ^k,':,:,z. Y' J:.1,` 5 �:, . � f ��' .. �,- y .«^ T e��.:, . �913 AUGITOR�S _� �: r-----�y--- _.1. ,�__�___ �✓_ , ,•,;�, � ,,.,, ��.�� 1;4 .:-, .�.; n � � . _�,; . .�-.. � �FIYFSID�: � ., i. v. • ,,` r' ' .�Ir :r..t la':�r�!`� - .f �. ., h).E. _ _ �.—s . -.. —� �1 �./ c± •Z :.+ evr�os � _'� ,n • so' s"s w��-�= r ` �� y �i . ; • �O .. u`� ¢ 't�r:�' „ ,`�;'� �" ' ".wB��i�OT :fF � , '!,r ( i% � �i ::'J /n • ... :l . � ii � il ;. i ••'T- _ ?,.3' -,�.�, ,,; , : ;� �e � , .�,.,; : �. .>„ . /?r/ ' a ^ j • - ' ��'� Y \ 1 � � �•i ± _.C•l. .a ` �i. .-.: ro�s.; •�4 ipao; .3 : � • 2�. � :�`� . � ,,.:, .,.� ,-:..:,�,� - - .. ._._... � � :�,. � _;:� �: ���i-. . ;����` ' � o . . . �.� ..i "::y,�' �. . •.. .'i _':7i_' / `,yF.. � � J.. _.:i�.. �-.. • � ��. �� � `. I r. _'J"1'_/_']_'. . .h' ::v:, �..i•l� c��-a-r��cA-rE o� su�vE�r J A 6ifJ G� L. FZ U R T E�i LAP3D �UF3VCVOR ^9 � 7�0.40THAVENUEN.E. 7889�69 COLUMOIA HEIGHTS 55421 1 HCI�[OY C[Ri��Y THAT THIO 6URVEY. rLAN, OR REPORT WAS VRCPARCO DY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT 9UPERVI610N •NO THAT 1 AM A DULY RrQiSTERCO UNO 6URVCYOW UNOER THE LAYl3 OL THH ETATE OF MINNEBOTA DATE, ?"tG>"�Ti SCALE 1"= -=��/ MiNNE50TA REGISTRATION NO. 5332 �=1RON MOfVUMENT � � / � /� , I� \ _�;�_ iJ�. � � � ._ �'1.iA!';�:-� I I T' — — — -r}.� — -- — — �<-15,5- I� I I i�3 j! , , , u <_ ,�.zs ' I -- ��y ' � � ;z , 1 �� s;� � _�! _i I I-- _ � Z3 in �i/,�� v, r —�7V'_ 0 N I I��TL � i�L1� +������ �� � �'tU T��_: tilS 't L1"��� S ' %'° - I' ; _ ,.. `�/� .�r•i'_ _ l'.7.-T''""\. � S /,U Ui'i{ i�\�.,,.'. ,.s x y� �< : . . �5>-;� __ —�,.� — '--� i � i� ^'� I � , � ��.�� �� <<� i �_ _ ,-- — - 1.0 i�l�v �� �' ��I �� i i__�_� , , Z2 � l7� � ULY�SCS �"�i-. 1�� .t-_, 0 � __--- - ----.�--- — --__ _ _ � �U�J`�� li L� , r `_.;:?� ` �� c .,�J :;' !;�,;=!_ _';�•i LoTs =%� � �_� =; ; "�� �� 2- ^1 j I�j`{ _, ._. � ,1`(�'� 11 �lr� Y V {�IVJ!,;J ��L�i�.`•/(' � V� ,'��� � . l} �fii�\ ��U�-� �ls:li� �!�( ' '� ,. � c „i , k_:: ��) V� I C� PUQLIC HEARING DEFORE 7NE PLf�NNIWG COldh1ISSI0N TO l4HOM IT hiAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Planning Cocrmission of the City of Fridley in the City Nall at 6431 University Avenue hortheast on 1•:ednesday, April 6, 1977 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.�4. for the purpose of: A request for a new Special Use Permit, SP. �77-01 (replacing SP n71-14 which viitl expire on April 17, 1977), Certified Pio6ile Homes, Inc., to continue Flobile Nome Sales, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.102, 3, N, on the ldesterly 600 feet of the Southerly 320 feet of the Northerly 75Q feet of the PJortheast Quarter of the tdorthvrest Quarter of Section 12, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Moka, r�iinnesota. � Generaily located at the Southeast corner of Osborne Road and High;�ray �65, the same being 7b25 Viron Road N.E. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter may be heard at this time. Publish: Ptarch 17, 1977 Pfarch 24, 1977 � RICHARD H. HARRIS CNAIR�MN PLAt�PaING COMMISSION �o �i �� � NUh16GR �J � ���-Q, CITY Of PRIDLEY DIINNL5UTA PLANNINC AND ZONING PORM APPLICMi7''S SICNATURC - - Certified tdobile Homes Address 762� v;,-r,., u� N F Fridley Mn 55432 Telephone Number �R� �q (� PROPER'fY ONfiGR'S SIGNA'f'UR�L � _ ( �__--� Address .5�.,,� ti ��i TYPG Of RGQUGST Rezoning �_ Special Use Permit Approval of Premin- inary f� rinal Plat Streets or Alley Yacations . Other Telephone Num6er ' �� Fee$120.06Receipt No.��`� Street Location of Property 7625 Viron Road N.E. . Legal Description of Property Westerl 600' of the Southerly 320' of the Northerly 750 o t e N o t e N o ection 1� Present Zoning Classification C-25 Existing Use of Property Mobile Home Sales Acreage of Property L�O.:aKy ____ Describe briefly the proposed zoning classification or type of use and improvement proposed continue as a mobile home Sales lot 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? X yes no. 1Vhat was requested and when? 1972 � The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all residents and owners of property within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) must be attached to this application. (bj This application must be signed by all owners of the property, or an explanation given �ahy this is not t15e case. (c} Responsibility for any defect in the proceedings resulting fron the failure to list the names and addresses of all residents and property o�cners of property in question, belongs to tlic undersigned. . A sketch of proposed property and structure must be dra�+�n and attached, showing the folloiaing: 1. North Direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on the lot. 3, Dimensions of property, proposed structure, and front and side setbacks. 4. Street Names. 5. Location and use of adjacent existing buildings (within 300 feet) The undersigrtcd hereUy declares that all the fac nd representations stated in this upplication are true and correct. � DATS ���_SI " . • Datc Filed � Datc of Ilcaring � � %� %7 � Planning Commission Approved (dates) Denied City Council Approved (datcs) Denicd Planning Commission 3-17-77 Council • MAILING LIST SP # 77-01 Certified Mobile Homes Certified Mobile Homes Ernie Pasborg 7625 Viron Road N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 M. G. Astleford, Inc. 1200 West Highway 13 Savage, Mn 55378 Mr. & Mrs. Sherman Hanson 841� Kannaston Drive Fridley, Mn 55432 Anderson Trucking Service 203 Cooper Avenue North St. Cloud, Mn 56301 Our Realty Corporation . 7585 Viron Road N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 � �12 J' ,�' � �po � 7S �i � i � �� I p� �I ---...-----�j- ..L � I =� � ��1 �I 1 �I ' w 1 Q 43 � ..... ..�..� ���..�....� .,.��.. ��o=� _.��_ � =,e ..e... � �=f,�, C 1 T Y � t M I TS ''• t" ��'" ''�: She.monn0� "- . - e.sin:r Ca�o/GNa..�ron a OF F R! DLEY - 1 °-s:.,;, �^ s° r.=e I (/Za} ' �oo) �/C) , h 3 �� 2 �„ 1 0 n _�° AtVDF'R�ON . nss� .H:Veq 60siaeNe . �_ �oo..__` . zoc _ ��uz�___ _ mwumwnum�i`iSnunn�nunu (Z600J �.,o.:� _�—� ' � I y ✓�? r '. : � 1 4 a � SN �L 40J � � � . � � 5 j �— :e� ._ � /Hi/1Fbn4��eti �H06eeJ : DFVFLOP�IE1�lT N I � . � . � • .6 . �:.yo ,�y- ja """""""""'"""""""""'""""`L�:"._,..'_' ...�-... � . _ �s. (OSOf On- lZcctlty G.rfe rL� i✓ far. �BSo� _ 3oe / � � __Jm _ _ _�,..__ .. _J.¢el. _� f i4�") � G«a/d E � (29t�/ To 6 aii.>on . _�� .�._ � ( SOJ _ � � —__ .r cao' I � 1 i L7.�/ yi.ai Redt/, /x. t�ro/ • rAZOO� �://enGOv:meffs (//OGood � 4 � � ---a- A M' e 1 Z'. m� �� 'tMi}'� // �. ` i' 1r��1� t�; ��l �~�.�' , ',� �; ' �� � 6431 Ernie Pasberg Certified Mobile Homes 7625 Viron Road N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Dear Ernie, ���:� �ir ��33�L�''�:�� UNIVEASfTY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 T£LEAHONE (612J571•3450 March 16, 1977 Re: Your Letter Cated March 3, 1977 In our recent telephone conversation, I informed you that your letter dated March 3, 1977 was not altogether accurate. In checking our files, your special use permit expires Aprii 17, 1977. Because there is an expiration stipulation on.your special use permit, we will have to go through the normal process of Planning Conmiission and City Louncil, so that a new special use permit can be issued, I have taken the 7i6erty of setting this speciat use permit up for Planning Comnission at their April 6, 1977. meeting. It will be necessary, however, for. you to submit an application for this speciat use permit, along with a�120.00 filing fee, before that date. I am enclosing an application for your signature. We also discussed the landscape area fronting your office. I would like again ta reiterate that the code requires that all open areas be planted ground cover and that the boulevard must be sodded. A variance of this code must be obtained from the City Council through the Appeals Commission. I will 6e sending a ietter out on this item in about a menth to you, and other businesses that are in vio]ation of the same code. However, you may apply for a variance at any time, with a$50.�� fiiing fee. JLB/de C-77-6 If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 571-3450. Sincerely, � ERR fl. B ARD� N CI7Y PLANNER ' REGULAR CCUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 17, 19T2 � FAGE S `� Jr . types of greens he would be using. Mayor Liebl asked how much he plany pn spending for the landscapinq. Mr. Rotter said about $1500 for the txeea although the plans were based on using aggregate in front rather than so$. Councilman Utter co�ented that the sod would be cheaper. Mr. RotteY thet► � shos+ed on the plans where they planned on using the pre-stressed concraCe j curbiag. Mayor Liebl asked the Council if they agreed with the use oR th0 gre-atreased curbinq and thay aqreed, and added that it would have to be pp�ed dofim, Councilman Mittelstadt said that then if one aection breaks, iC could be taken out and zeplaced. ,f;i� . � �, �'. ,r.� � Dfayor Liebl said that he wanted their aod maintafaed:and that tliey were to wdten it occasionally. Councilman Breider added that the Council Porced Vikittq Chevrolet to put in a green strip and he did not want to see a deviation. MOTION by Councilmari Utter to concur in approval with Yhe exceptions nota$ 1A � tha discusaion, so that the stipulations aze as follows: f 1. Front setback be changed £rom 15 feet to 20 £eet. 2. Pre-stressed anchored concrete curbing arouszd all blacktop areats. 3. Grushed rock pazking azea fox trailers be oiled. �4. All landscaped azeas to be sodded. (This includes the two 20� X 75� strips a2ong the service road) ' , is o erned by a certificate of ocCUpdT1Cy� 1�'�Pd af}a+ ..s,A..�p��ent is in place and all City Inspecto_ ;s h4V8 � ' 'tions have bg�e��l � t������i�owe �16. The special use permit is to be ��rii� � �rr:��'rr. � � � duration from time of apgroval. ¢ 0 7. When permanent iacilities aze built, the_oWnez is to prwide d.n ease� nent for roadway to Osborne Rnad behind the FrosCop Drive-Ir1. '/ Ig. The asea outlined on the plat plan is to be blacktopped. (Par�iilg Ieqt) 8�9. The office is to be at lenst 24' X 48' on conczete blocke and ta be skirted to give the appearance of a pezmanent structure. _y�� The landscaping is to be done according to the landscapiuq p1aA 9nQ ��blacktopped and crubed. (,j �, Units are to be a minimum of $' apart with a maximiva of �0 unit� �IC the site. ` �012 }The parking lot ta be striped for customezs and employee pa�kln9. x�l3! There shall be not less than four aecurity lights around the peric�et9�. �!: There are to be wood walks to all units from She blacktop area. , ';k5'�Security fence to ba provided on the aouth side of prope=kX i�t Wh6rB . the trailers starC at the eastern edge. � 1;. All vacant pzoperty to be graded and seeded. (The City Esig�pe� ptate9 � that this was aqreed to with the previous aaner and he feele that � agreement would still cover it.) � i�. The sign is to conform to City Ordinances without a vAriance� ari$ t0 ba �$ the proper distance back from the oezvice road. � 18. The o�fice aill be taxed as a permanent structure. The motion tiras seconded by Counci].u�an Mittelstadt. Upon a voice Vote� aXl �yep� Mayor Liebl declazed the motion carried unanimously. IItIILDING �� ,�,. . rm #5-6e ' L6T SPLIT APPLICIITION �� CITY OF FRIDLEY APPLIGANT: �(��f'i�/1 S �CS.�IG/�NC',�_ nnn��ss: � ays l���ll/� ,Ft .�'� f�/,Gcry S'� %?Z� Street City Zip Code TELEPHONE # 5�''� - i' � 7� Home Business �QP'�Ti 0�(S� f3�ic�r'�/'- I'�i:0/c /� /�_� �' ADDRESS(ES� i� �- f Sire Stre TELEFHONE #�5�� Home '�<�� /ir;%� rE� �P;C<<�v City City .G�^ � • Businesa 4b'.� : .: nppl�canti•s r+ame Lot Split � �' — O Date Filed: Fee:E3p'' Receipt � '"�S�G Council Action:Date REI�9ARKS : -,-y� - n Code Gip Property Location on Street /' or Exact Street Address (IF ANY) �� �� i����'°� �/ �����-�� - Description o£ Property: 1 �i �/ �1.�� v �/��'r,s �_/�/�� <<�.4i,�� Reason £or Lot Split: l� i ,% ;% / l.lJ� GJ*1}�. Gr`� ��� � /.�s-r�.L, .!_4Y.> .i"1i���i � �'1-rl�� /'v.�i�/_ �'% . H /:�!j/ � �� /� ��, %�%/i,�7, G-u.,�>. ✓ � I �r �Aw�/,�//��e / �f� o£ Property !r_v �• � sq. ii. �r �7l �� �-1�1., /=1 Present Zoning Cle The undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this auvlication are true and correct. DATE: � � '� S � ?? RELOW FOR CITY USE �NLY CHECKEll BY STAFF DATE Hemarks (See reverse side for additional ixLStructions � PLANNING COMMISSTON: Date of Consideration - Remarks• CX`S'Y COUNCIL: Date of Consideration - Remarka: • land Ptamm�q s�(����/�IjI ba7S HiqMwoy No.65 N.E. Load Survayiny • • � � MVnneapolif� �i. r�s���g ' J/(�'//lI'I'I(11�� • /1!'. M;�R. ss�sz �vilfnqin�erina ielepho�a 7E�-A06G Muniupot Engineering A�eo Codc 6�7 . E ngineers & Surveyors j� 1 Certificate of Survey for I��lC�%V� � �S i O. , S 0 ,�: K. i � L. � ._��------ i�� �' ��7� 24 � � , � � � � i I I I IW , . � � �o ------ ; � o - - - — -� -�'� +�`'�°!cp� . CaM�w-r l�,�vE N.E. i�OT 24, BI.00K 2, Scolc� 1'^-="•4-0�� ' Hr��s l,�x�. Es�a-rE5 , Ano%ca i'ouA'y I hs.�by cerlily fhot lbls �5 o f.u� ond co..eu .ep.�srnror�on oi a sorwy o! rhe boundaries of 1he obor� �•tc���6ad �ond, a�d o� Ihe lo�al�on o� 0l1 bu�ld�nq', rh..eo.., und ali �uiblr encroo�hmen�a� ii ony, from or on id land. As aurveyed by me �hu__duY o�_ f.._ •.._� .'__p D IQ�� o G�E^IGTES ��ilN MONUNENT DEt�TES DA�AI�itE �. UliU i t EaSchltUt SUBURBAN ENGINEERING, INC. lny�n�rers Surveyorf erls��! �i'� - ' � ' �� us�f�a� �o ,�r}.�onb �sna4lr�'c(a�{�o a���� �sb� ' •a„t�,��,rs �l —l.°J'1l.8 — o � �� 1 t \ �' - d a -000br - -_ -t� 'l Q 8. -a-eo�o9i----� i-----►r5bi�-----o- a � � � j � i � �- � * � ,�_ 3 �� s:>_ s, J r _ � � -., .-- �-o ..' u, . c� � � �:s� . ���9 868C * f,o r� o.�-� �q1 Q�a�t�• �� o o . � o � i •l°6p� �'no� � p� 'o�' c,,.'+�' �9 � � q .� � ' . °�n . . f y 0'�l1 Sb °° `� e' . s" t � . 1 1 - a�a ` � ��� '�'� �� r e �.o - � o-•-. .. �':p v�n .M �0��1iE�. .� � � I� i -z ..629E.9° °V . �'N,.5i�01.0'fV-"' Q,�p.°�;�T�FZ `�' 'M,�� �4.£ol'N ��� �--SL'Zll___� tie�.op oo a,r IL'ISI � � � o- �ti�;oloLt`9 �f{ h�' �'c' `y. 8i b;'III � O�.d d � °F ,8 '� ,9''Ca!1i7�-� l��Ob i � ��c' ,hoC6Qti�ti =� Sb SL °r, t'-�,_SE 6`�:p � � 'M„14�iSo1'N `\f � � •t�r.,,5o,rnao'n � � ' ' °" i'b bN uc�sin�pqn� �ac iPnd t9l°1 ' � _ pp 5E� �' .M„50,o100�4 �n \ � � � � ° fai�561 �' �^1'4f � bU!I ISD3 0. o , o W � 00'Owl � � �., c�``�+ u�.', 2 °o, f a° � � c� ���� r 'N„SO.OtoO"IV r r `� � � — ' - �' "°`� — i ` 00'5�.� � � 'N���50.01�0'N � a ! ' o � 00'9`ii I cs \ CY o i � i 3 o c'' 0 3 0 0 �; cq, o �t+ ir+ �'' �, p ^� a 7� cn p-o � r 0� � M� ���' d'in � \ G_ � ���,', 'M„SC,6i,9"N � ,�°{ � ~ .h1, � ~ �'a- c�+ cr �r 00'Ski �� � �50.0ofi4 t�9°a�-�a � � j o � � y � 00'�tl d m o Z � � \� / v°. 1 � O O O � N� sn �- ,� O s) O I '- l r�'- �;�� cN+� v+ � : ^ -�°-- �� � �� :�1..50,01��'N i r" � r" ° .>_ �a \` � � (b'C�A � � 'M..50.01>C'N �� a � _o \ ' � � \` � 1 ����L� �e�` i.CiN �'7� � � 1[j `\ � 1� O �fl � O .0 i J� ' <� J � r ! ~ � N l+� �, Ifl .t ."= a.° \� O �� � 7N.SO.�Iop.N � 2 r �" `o � c:> �� � 5- � 00'S5,! � _! � N1..50.o1�0'N �� --� ` -�' � ;� e cs 00'6L: �� p s- . i ° � s/s �i 3�r o�, C�I �) ZT � N i O� r�-� /�J 9;�D � SL 52 � k5 �^ �°r+ '3 u7,'i��cial'S C� � �` t,i�h1„SQ.OI,p�N a;� _ a�.-�•6t:u,zc.reo�.N I-' "_�Q �LZ— �( `'� a _ ��9g'S4.1 _ = g �_ �-- s9 tzi � .� . � o �� ° � "� a °a ^"�' �L �'t� 00'S8 00'001 „... 10'd£ a + \\�`� .�v.b•.,ti�' °' �� m� .9i+.,$S.�etrl_� �--- 3�------7�------, ' cS) 1 -*T "°` ° � � �)- � tn � � c� / °O 06 � i \`, �I '�'M.,50�01,0'N � 2"5 � �,'^ a o �^ a� .'-��{ d � G_.. ('..l ��y0 I '� i�`I ,"__--� h`L </ �6 r� 3. S� ,��, J� C N L c< � r�'� � a o a.rJ�o ,1�� � �D,o��, � c,e �ti ,. g�_ , � �-�o % 1 �. � fs£'--artt-- —b6�vs-- --69�oz—��o� 6 �p0 . -� ` 1 � p_ 9 �� S,bZ,£8�v � .;� °£:b �n Q�� p �Y � � ' �o � ` � c9 l y ._ �'a'� � `i' _ iN..11, D£o J N _ `�' L �l� v. , � � �. ,:.��a ' i C �.lr Sl.lr �u+„ '. j f� e�+ a���' °9 �' ��'� o o i �v. '� u,l,�s sy �� Se F�;';'�- b 9-----DOQ -- --6L'ti9_Tlg. � o �/ `� `` . 0`,O�' ' � S� �- �''Y G� 3 p � � _ O � a 3 .��. �1,. �c �D s' �. 1 0 6 i � � '^ �n w 0 � ( S . � � / > ,,2a � 5 ,..- 6l� , . . °�a,o � o ,.-. a o ,�, � . , 3 _._. ` Op' M1�G'1 _ ., � r, - �n a 6� �r, $' v �' �. t9.r, o 60• [�• 'h9�'-_-. �'a � 52 St ,n � °' � �' o- �- �� ���. _ oy� I Q. -...a �, w °� a� �.� d d e. '�''�:'°`��� ; ' �� Y.i°T= i"' 4Z 'l+.•f/r/°au,/�s�j M U�OidN •.,._ ' � �� ,� �'' -a ;`S� , �� • �; r ; � i9 s6 00•09 oo•s6 � � { ..c 5��0 `,s.� p9�g��iS+"� M,��O��L.I'N � o � 9' Yt �� 00'04.1 � � � �92 .� �- Sr� o��lbi � m o c o �°� o � �" � ,, Ci� '�_ _ _ �__ _. - _ -__. t: ; C�TY OF FRIDLEY P7.Rd8NING COMMISSION MEETING AFRIL 6, 1977 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Harris called meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL: Me�ers Present: Harris, Bergman, Schnabel, Shea, Langenfeld Members Absent: Peterson Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPROVE PLANNING COMPSISSION MINUTES: i`1ARCH 23, 1977 PAGE 1 Mrs. Schnabel requested that page 9, second paragraph at the bottom be emended to read as follows: The sentence that starts "Mrs. Schnabel said perhaps what Mr. Coddon was s��ing was at the time he made the statement before the Council..." ahould be changed to reflect that although he did not own the building at the time, he perhaps failed to say that he would own it in the future. i�TION by Shea, seconded by Schnabel to approve the Planning Commissfan minutes. Upon a voice votq all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA U77-01, BY GARY PETERSON: Re- zone Lots 3 and 4, and Lots 22 and 23, all in Block 2, Meadowmoor Terrace, fr� C-1 {local business azeas) to R-2 {two-family dwelling areas), the same being 1326 and 1344 Oaborne Road NE and 1331 and 1345 Meadowmoor Drive NE. AL1Ti0N by Schnabel, seconded by Shea to open the Public Hearing on rezoning request, ZOA #77-01, by Gary Peterson. Upon a voice vote, all voting sye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 7:40 p.m. Mr. G��q peterson; the petitioner, was not present. Mr. Boardman eacplained the proposal to the �lanning �ommission stating that the petitioner ie requesting to build 4 duplexes, 2 facing Meadowmoor and 2 facing Osborne. Chairperson Harris asked if the petitioner was in the audience. The petitioner was not in the sudience. The Chairperson asked if there was anyone in the audience against this petition. Bernard R. Heille, 1418 Meadowmoor Drive, presented a petition to the Planning Commission. Ae said that this land is zoned commercial and was unaware that it was anything but residential. He said that he wanted to see it stay resi- dential. Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1977 Page 2 Chairperson Harris asked if he understood that is e¢as not no�r zoned comaercial. Mr. Eai3i� stated he knew, but felt, it should be single family homes. Schaabel asked iE those in the audience were opposed to R-2 and would like it to remain conmereial. Pfr. Heilie stated that he would like to see it zoned R-1 which eve=ybodq was lego to believe eaisted in the first place. Berg�nan asked Mr. Boardman to read what was not allowed in C-1 zoning district. Pir. Boardman read the C-1 zoning code. I3r. Bergman stated tUat he wanted the audience to be aware that tfie property owner has the Yight to build any oE the allowed uses on these lots. Nancy Melbie, 1346 Meadowmoor Drive, said she lives directly across the street and she is verp much opposed to the proposal. She wasn't told that it was r.-`_ commercial property and felt it was the responsibility of the City to inform her as auch. Walt Lizalcowski, 1402 Meadowmoor Drive said that he had moved in 5 years ago and was told by the City that the whole area was R-1 single family dwelling. Rolla llorin, 7635 Meadowmoor Drive, said she was told last year by the City that they were single family homes. If thep would have known anything other than R-1 they would not have purchased their home. Nancy Melbie also stated that there were lots of kids in this area and dupleaes would provide additional kids in the neighborhood. William Sharp, 1377 Meadowmoor Drive, said that the idea of building a business in the middle of a residential block is bepond his understanding. Donna Czupta, 7620 Bacon Drive, said we live about a block away and if businesses go in on Meadowmoor it will affect my children, but I'am also opposed to duplexes. If you put in 2 dupleses on Meadowmoor Drive that wi.11 mean 4 additional families which will mean added children. I don't think we can handle the population. It would seem to me that the population should be spread out a little �re in- stead of cr�ing it into a two-block area. I would im�ite you to drive down our block and see that there are a lot of children, and we don't need the added children,we are content witfi what we have. She said also, we don't need the added tzaffic that this pxoposal would genexate. Chairman Iiarris read the petition. The petition reads, "We the undersigned, request that Lots 3 and 4 and Lots 22 and 24, Block 2, Meadowmoor Terrace, address 1326, 1344 Osborne and 1337 and 1345 Meadowmoox zoned C-1 local businesa, remain zoned C-1 or ct�anged to R-1 single family dwelling and not rezoned to R-2 multiple family dwelling; ��t a duplea or a double bungalow. Larry Von Mosch, 1392 Meadowmoor D=ive, asked the commission what was imrolved in rezoning this property to R-1. Can't the land owners around, petition to have it changed? Chairperson Harris explained that the City or the property owner could petition for rezoning however, it is the policy of the City te receive only a petition from the propertp owner in order to rezone the pzoperty. Richard Morin, 7635 Meadoumoor Drive, stated that the way it stands is that they either get R-2 or C-1, and unless they can petition the owner of the land to change his request to R-1 they will either end up with a duplex or a parking lot of some commercial property along Osbome. planning Coffiission Meeting - April 6, 1977 Page 3 Councilman Schneider asked if sta�f had tried to get Mr. �etexson to huild single family homes. .Sr. Boardman stated t5at fie atas not.sure �Tietfier Mr. Peterson was approaehed witfi this idea. Councilman Schneider stated that he thought mayise a campromise of R-2 along Osborne Road and R-1 along Meadowmoor Drive could vaybe be arranged. Rolla Morin stated she was concerned that the lots not go cammercial on Meadowmoor Drive. ?irs. Schnabel said that she looked at the area and felt the wors2 thing that could happen was that commercial be build on Meado�oor. Mr. Langeafeld said that he would like to point out to the audience that members of this Eommission are also concerned citizens;as they are. It is our duty to review the actual request and review the audience to see if the request was in order. He said that there was no way that we could:enter into R-1 zoning without tfie request of the property owner, and tt�at the Co�ission could either suggest that the audience discuss a change with the property owner, or the Planning Eommission take action on the problem as presented that night. William Sharp asked if all 4 cammercial lots could be joined together and a large commercial building be built. Chairman Harris said that this could happen. Langenfeld said that he would like to point out to the Planning Commission that there had been several people who had stated ttiat they had received false information from City staff and highly suggest that whoever gives out this information know esactly what they are referring to. Also, he pointed out to the audience that sometimes the Gommission members look at the lesser of two evils. Richard Morin said that if it stands that they get either duplex or co�ercial he would rather see the duplex. Mr. Betgnan xead the p�t�tiun and questioned whether the people who signed the petition realized that they signed either for or against coffiercial. There were several people in the audience that stated that they were not aware that this was what they signed. Chairman Harris suggested that the petitions will be placed on the front desk and that anybody wishing to remove their name from the petition, be allowed to do so when the diacussion on this item was completed. Bemard Heille said that he felt there had been a terrific loss between this area and the City from the day of it's conception aad it has praven right down the line the lack of willingness of the City to respond to the needs of the people in Meadowmoor. He said he felt like the people in the area lack City services, lack response from the City, lack police services. He can't keep gas in his car and feels that it should be more responsive. LeAnn Hennes, 7600 Arthur Street, said that she called city hall when there was a street light broken and the broken glass was not even swept up. She said that the City t�ad just forgotten about them. PlanninR Commission Meeting - April 6, 1977 Page 4 Walt Lizakou*ski, 1402 Meador�oor Drive, said he felt the services had been real 1�. He has had to call in for snow zaooval everp year for 5 years and when they come through, tfiey.rome tfirough tfie middle and leave one side unplowed or they will come througfi so late that a foot of snow is packed down. Iast year they called about sweeping and they swept it once all year and now there is glass on the street and has been for the last 2 weeks, and they won't sweep it. 24r. Langenfeld said that he would like to indicate here that he was glad to hear these comments because this was the place to begin them and they would defin�tely reach the top from here. He said he would also like to make a coffient to the audience that #hey could suggest that this could be zoned to R-2 and reduce it from a comnercial nature, and then suggest to the audience that they talk to Peterson before it goes to the Council and maybe suggest to him that it should be R-1. Chairman Harris said that he would feel remiss if we acted on this before having a chance to talk to the petitioner. Ms. Czupta asked if there is a possibility in this rezoning that_the 2 lots_on Osborne remain zoned C-1 and that �� lots on Meadowmoor be rezoned to the R-2. Chairperson Harris said that this could be done because it was a lesser re- quest tk�an what the petitioner had requested. She stated that it was her concern not only with the zoning, but the amount of people already in the area and felt that this suggestion would make enerybody happy by cutting down on the population and w@uld allow the developer to gain part of the request that he wanted. She said that she was the one that made up the peti- tion and the reason it reads that way was that she was trying to make this point with as little words as possible. Chairman Iiarris asked if the 2 parcels on Osborne would meet the requirement of C-1 zaning. Mr. Boardman said that these lots would meet that requirement. Mr. Bergman said that he would like to encourage the people in the audience to contact Mr. Peterson and discuss with him thoughts on the rezoning of this property. Richard Morin said that he would like to re-emphasize one point, that they all feel that they were deceived as far as what the properties were zoned as, and he wanted to get that in the record one more time,that they called on it before they bought their property and were told that it was zoned residential as were a number of people, and he would like the Planning Co�ission to reassure them again that it will be looked into because it is not some casual mistake that a clerk made. It affects them severely. Chairman Harris wanted to give a piece of advice to the people in the audience that felt they were misledy, in fact, they may not have been purposely mis- le�d by s�ebody on the staff. He advised that in the future if tfiey are going to make a purchase of a property or a house that they don't leave any- thing to chance, and come into the City office and look at the zoning map hanging on the wall. Plaunin� Commission Meeting - April 6, 1977 page 5 Betgnan said that he would lik� by a siww of hands, whicIi people in the sudience tfirougfi direct contact, felt tfiey had 5een directly mislead or misinformed as to the zoning. Mr. Bergnan stated tfiat for the records he would 11ke to indicate tfiat nine persons indicated that they were mi.sled as to the zoning. MOTION by Langenfeld, secanded by Schnahel, the Planning Co�ission close the Public Hearing on rezoning request, ZOA $77-01, by Gary Peterson. Upon a voice vo�e, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:45 p.m. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Co�ission continue until April 20, Public Hearing: rezoning request, ZOA B77-01, by Gary Peterson: Rezone Lots 3 and 4, and Lots 22 and 23, all in Block 2, Meadowmoor Terrace, from C-1 (local business areas) to R-2 (two-family dwelling areas), the same being 1326 and 1344 Osborne Road NE and 1331 and 1345 Meadowmoor Drive NE.for the teason that in all fairness to the people, the petitioners should be at the meeting and allow the people to discuss this item with the petitioner. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Langenfeld would like to add that the audience had shown concern ahout City services in this area and would like the City to step in to resolve some of the problems such as broken glass, stealing of gas and proper police_gatrol. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, to open the Public Hearing for a Spemial Use Permit, SP 1�77-01, Certified Mobile Homes, Incorporated. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Ernie Pasborg and Mr. Maxwell of Certified Mobile Homes were present. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP $77-01, CERTIFIED 1�BILE HOMES, INCORPORATED: Per Fridlep City Code, Section 205.102, 3, N, to allow the continuation of a mobile home sales loY to replace SP 871-14 which will expire on April 17, 1977, located on the Westerly 600 feet o£ the Southerly 320 feet of the Northerly 750 feet of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 12, the same being 7625 Viron Road NE. Mr. Boardman explained to the Gommission that this special use permit was granted for a period of 5 years and eapires in April and because of the condition placed on special use permits at the time it was issued the requirement was for the issuance of a new special use permit. Mr. Boardman explained the 19 stipulations on the old special use permit and would like to indicate certain changes that crere allowed by the City Council when the present owners toak over the property in 1974. Item �11 was changed to allow for a minimum of 6' distance between units and 50 units in the display area. Also, Items �14 and $15 were removed. Shea asked the petitioner how may units they had on the property. �, Pasborg said that he tfinught somewhere around 50. :4r. Pasborg stated that the amount of room that they had on the property if properly distributed, would hold around 100. Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Boardman if the staff t�as had any problems with the stipulations to date. Nir. Boardman stated that in general, all of the stipu- lat3ons as listed have been met. Plam4ln� ComQisaion Meeting - April 6, 1977 Page 6 Mrs. Schnabel said that in yi,eyring the property before tfie�ueeting, it seemed tfiat theie were other stzpnlations that fiad not been met. Ttem 99 which states tUat the office will be skirted had not been�met. Mr. Pasborg said that they fiad just taken the slcirting off because tfiey wanted to put additional siding on tfie mobile fiame that orill estend all the way to the ground to give the appearance of a permanent structure. Pirs. Schnabel said the other item was �i14 stating that there would be oroodwalks to all units. Mr. Pasborg stated that Iteffi �i14 changed because the whole area was black- topped. Mr. Boardman stated that Item fl14 and $15 were waived by the City Council in 1974. Schnabel asked about Item �7 discussing easement for roadway to Osborne .behind Frostop Drive-In. Mr. Boardman stated that no easement had ever been received and would question the necessity of the easement for this development. Mr. Pasborg stated that presentlp, they do bring units across that property, but this is with mutual consent of the property owner. He also stated that he had seen the plan showing a road with a cul-de-sac coming across that area and stopping at their property, but to his knowledge, was never platted. Mra. Schnabel asked if for any reason they were not allowed to hring mobile homes across this property; dio they have room to bring it in on their own property? Mr. Pasborg stated that they did. i3r. Pasborg atated that they wanted $60,000. for permanent access across the back property and that they couldn't justify that on a 3-year special use permit. Mrs. Schnabel was concerned about encroachment on Strite-Anderson property. Mr. Pasborg stated that if that was the case, it would be remitted. Mra. Schnabel explained that when a motion is made she would like to bring out three points and onq was that they added siding to extend to the blacktog two, was that the units in the display area be 6' apart and the units in the istorage area be 1' apart and three, that a security fence be provided on the south side of the property as stipulated in Item 1�15. Mr. Boardman reitterated that Item #15 had been waived under the condition that tfiey received a letter from Strite-Anderson regarding iE. The letter was received from Strite-Anderson and the item was then waived. MOTION by Ber�an, seconded by Shea, to close the Public Hearing for a Special Use Permit, SP $77-01, Certified Mobile Homes, Incorporated. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the public hearing closed at 9:10 p.m. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that Planning Coffiission recoffiend approval of the reijuest for a Special Use Pexmi.t, SP �77-01, Certified Mobile Homes, Incorporated: Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.102, 3, N, to allow the contin- uation of a mobile hame sales lot to replace SP �71-14 whicfi will expire on April 17, 1977, located on the Westerly 600 feet of the Sautherly 320 feet of the Northerly 750 feet of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 af Section 12, the same being 7625 Viron Road NE, with the following stipulations: 1. Front setback be changed trom 15 feet to 20 £eet. 2. Pre-stressed anchored concrete curbing around all blacktop areas. 3. Crushed rock parlcing area ior trailers be oiled. Planning, Co�tission MeetinA - April 6, 1977 PaSe 7 4. All laadscaped areas to be sodded. (Tfiis includes the two 20` $ 75' strips along tfie service road). 5. Special Use Pex^mit granted for a peariod of 3 yeare at which time it will he reviewed. 6. When permanent facilities aze built, the owner is to provide an easement for roadway to Os6orne itoad behind tiie Frostop Ii�ive In. 7. The area outlined on the p�ot plan is to be blacktopped. (Parking lot) 8. The office is to be at least 24' x 48' on concrete blocks and to be skixted to give the appeatance of a permanent structure. 9. The landscaping is to be done according to the landscaping plan and blacktopped and curbed. 10. Units in the display area are to be mini�m of 6' apart with a masimum of 50 units. 11. The parking lot to be striped for cuatomers and employee parking. 12. There shall be not less than four secuxity lights around ihe peximetez. 13. All vacant property to be graded and seeded. (The City Eagineer states that this was agreed to with the previous owner and he feels that agree- ment would still cover it.) 14. The sign is to conform to City Ordinances without a variance, and to be the proper distance back from the service road. 15. The office will be tased as a pexmanent structure. Upon open voice vote, all voted aye and the motion carried. 3. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. 4177-03, THOMAS BBICRNER: Split off the West 5' of Lot 24, Block 2, Harris Lake Estates (1671 Camelot Lane NE) and add it to Lot 23, Block 2, Harris Lake Satates, (1661 Camelot Lane NE) so the property owners of Lot 23 can install a swimming pool in their back yard. Mr. Boardman explained that Thomas Brickner wanted to sell off a 5' portion of his lot to the adjacent property awner to allow for the development of a swi.mming pool on his neighbors property. t2r. Brickner`s lot is presently undeveloped and this lot split will not affect the code requirements for his lot. MUTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Be=gman to recommend to Council the approval of Lot Split L.S. �77^03, Thomas Brickner to split oX£ the tlest 5` of Lot 24, Block 2, Hsrris Lake Estates (1671 Camelot Lane NE) and add it to Lot 23, Block 2, Fiarris Lake Estates, (1661 Ca�¢elot Lane NE) so tfie pzoperty owners of Lot 23 can install a swivmting panl in their back yard. Upon a voice vote, all vnting aye, tfie�notion carried. _ ._ __ _ __ _._ _. _- _..._ _ _ _ _ _ _ Planning C6aamission MeetinA � April 6, 1977 Page 8 4. *LOT SPLIT REQUEST L.S. /t77-02, PARK METROPOLITAN INV&STI�NT, INC.: Continued until April 20, 1977 5. *CONTINUED: STUDY OF INT'ERSECTION AT 53RD AbID CENTRAL Mr. Mortenson was present. Mr. Mortenson said he discussed the plans with Menards and they both agreed to the improvement shown as Plan B. Mr. Mortenson requested however, tt�at the road be designed so that the ttansformer pole be included in one of the land- scape areas. Mr. Boardman stated that he cwld see no problem with that. Mr. Mortanson asked what the approsimate cost would be. Mr. Boardman thought that it would be around $10,000.- $12,000. Mr. Mortenson said that he would check with Menards as to hnw they want to pay for this and will have some decision back for the Council on April 18, 1977. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded bq Langeafeld, that the Planning Commission re- co�end to the City Council that the street improvement as agreed to by Mr. Mortenson (Plan B) be approved for construction. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried. MDTION by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld to suspend the rules to allow _-- Councilwoman Rukowaki to address the Planning C�ission. IIpon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried. Councilwoman Rukowski wanted to discuss the issue of absenteeism that has been pointed out several times in the minutes and has been quite obvious on the Planning Commission. She said that she realized that everyone is a volunteer and tries hard to attend the meetings, however, the vice-chair often is not in attendance when the chairperson is absent. She wondered if some encouragement should be sent down from the Planning Coffiission when attendance becames a problem. She said that her concern is that with one member absent, that the Planniag Commission is not getting accurate information from all your commis- sions�i�e therefore, how can the Council feel that you are passing something accurate on to us. She said that she really feels that if you are appointed to do the job by the commission, you should do the joh. Mr. Langenfeld said that sometimes we have to update any missing members as to what happened at past meetings and therefore, waste additional time. Mr. Bergman said that the atmosphere that comes down from the Council kind of negates any action that could be taken by the chairperson. The Council is reluctant to remove anyone without first getting a letter of resignation. Councilwoman Kukowski thought that maybe some policy should be developed by the Planning Coffiission for Council approval� in dealing with this probl�. She said that she doesn't feel that the Council should pass down recoffinenda- tions to the Planning Commission, and beeause you`re working with the situation you should let us know and give us a couple of slternates. Planning Cow¢ission Meetin& - April 6, 1977 Page 9 Mr. Bergman asked the other members if they have had any of the same problems that the Community Development Commission has been having. Shea stated that her comuission has not had any problem with absenteeism. Langenfeld said that they have had some bad times when attendance was down. Schnabel stated that she also has had some attendance problem with the Appeals Commission. She said also, that if the Council �as that there is a problem, it should be the responsibility of the Council to do some policing in this area. Councilwoman Kukowski felt that the policy should come fram the Planning Commission. Schnabel said that she felt since the Council set the directives for the op- eration of the co�issions, it should be upon the Council to be included in the coffiission ordinance. Councilwoman Kukowski just wanted to bring this item up and would appreciate any further input back from you on this item. 6. *CONTINUED: RECO�NDED CHANGES IN CHAPTER 212, MINING,FRIDLEY CITY CODE Mr. Boazdman reiterated the changes that were suggested by the Planning Commis- sion at their last meeting at which time they had recoffiended a public hearing process be establiahed to allow for the mining operation. 1+ir. Boardman asked if the Planning Co�ission wants staff to make the changes and send these on to Council. Mr. Langenfeld would like to have the final draft back to the Enviro�ental Co�mmission on the 19th of April and back to the Planning Commission on the 20th fbr final approval before going to the City Council. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Shea, to continue recommended changes in Chapter 212, Mining,Fridley City Code until Apri1 20, 1977. Upon voice .rote, all voting aye, motion carried. 7. *CONTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE Schnabel wanted the Planning Ca�isaion to receive an article from the Minne- apolis Star dated March 22, 1977, and wanted to make sure that when the commis- slon develop this ordinance that they don't put any unnecessary burden on the City staff by making their review a subject for a lawsuit. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Schnabel to receive an article from the Minaeapolis Star dated March 22, 1977 (attachment to the minutes). Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried. There was some discussion as to how the maintenance code should be reviewed. P1�t�nkFig �Q9�Di.SS�4n �Teeting - ApYiI 6; 197T P8ge 10 Shea requested that we set up a separate meeting to handle this item. Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Boardman if the document they had before them was the final staff recommendation. Mr. Boardman said that ft was the revised document that was suggested by the Planning Commission. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, to set up a special meeting on April 18, 1977. Upon voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 8. *CONTINIIED: GOALS AND OB.7ECTIVES: ACCESS Mr. Boardman explained the goals and objectives of the goal area access. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, to approve goal and objectives A100 through A290. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried. 9. *CONTINUID: GOALS AI�ID OBJECTIVES: COMMUNITY VITALITY *Check previous agendas for background material Mr. Boardman explained goal area Co�unity Vitality. Mr. Boardman stated that he set up two goals under this goal area. One would desl with the economic well-being of the co�unity and the other on effective gover�ent operations. He then, explained goals and objectives undex each area. Mr. Langenfeld suggested that the wording in V110 be changed to read more smoothly by eliminating "the kind of mix of". 1+40TION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, to approve V100 through V240. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried. Schnabel asked how we are addressing the c�unity response of our business coffiunity. She thought that we should have some statement which would include the business community. Mr. Boardman felt that this could be included. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Ber�an, that an aenen�ment be added to the original motion that a program objective V150 be added, which deals directly toward the City`s objective towards the business community. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the amended motion carried. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Schnabel, that staff reword all areas of the goals and objectives where there is implied busiaess to specifically indicate business. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried. Shea said that she wanted to bring up one other thing. She said that she finally found the Human Resources fund. The City sent her a program budget in which there are two funds. One is a Cammunity Development fund. Out of _ __ _.. __ ._ __ __ _ _ _ P18nniri� Cmgr�£SSi.pn Meeting ^ Apri1 6, 1977 Page 11 this fund we gave $1,000 to North Snburban Family Seryices, SACA got $500, Red Cross got $160 for the "Baby" and the Countp Winterization Program got $750. The other fund is in Parks and Recreation from which, Fine Arts was given $1,000 and $2,000 was given to the Senior Citizens. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Schnabel, to receive the information from Canadian Financial Corporation on their Goldea Valley Dover Hills Project. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the information was received. Schnabel said that she really recoffiended that the members go to see the pro- ject before the meeting on the 20th. t1DJ0URI�NT: I�TION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Planning Coumission Meeting of April 6, 1977 adjourned at 11:35 p.m. �tfully submitted, z����� 1d Boardman, Planner � 1 ' � ' ' � ` S_,a �i ) * ,_ �` S�\ z �y, ' '�i '� .•� 5�. -o _ Hy GWENYTH JONES son says, he already hes spent ' Minumpo:is Sht Stafl Wtlter §220 to repair the roof and will A men who says he wxs misled have to replace it, because of nu- by the report given to him under merous holes and rotting, at a the Mlnneapolis truth-in-housing cast of $3,000. ordinance has sued [he couple Swanson also say5 the Flahertys who sold him a house and the assured him that the heatinR and housing evalua[or who made the airvconditioning sys�ems were in report on tLe house. good condition and tha[ the cost It is belleved to be the firat suit of operxting them was 335 a Ned under the ordinance, wGich month. I3e says the systems are wns passed in 1975. inadequate ned mus[ be repltced The ordinance requires the sel1- at-a cost of 52,142. He also has er of a house to provide a written had ro spend 5700 on additional evalustion by a certificd housing � insulation, the complain[ sayf. evaluaWr, revealing any major Leaks in the basement have code violatiovs or defects, or to wst Swar.son $350, acrording to obtain a certificate of code com- the complaint. pliance from the city. It charges that Hedquist per H. Richard Swanson's sui! io formed his in>pection `•in a negii- Hennepin Dis[rict Court says he Ben[. manner" and [ailed to report relied on a report made by Don any problems witA the roof, insu- HedqWst, an evaluaror, aMut a�Ation nr heating and airvcondi- house at 4600•4602 Folwell L1r. ��oning systems. when he bought the house in May The suit asks E6,432 from the from Joseph and May Flaher[y. £lahertys and $5,842 tmm Hed- quist. SWANSON SAYS he asked about the condition of the roof TH8 FI.AHERTYS deny any and Flaherty assured hiro that it misrepresentations and have filed Was in good condition. But, Swan- a 550,000 wunterclaim for mali- cioac prosecution, saying that they are elderiy and have been worried and upset by the allega- Uons aod by having to 6ire a law- yer to defend themselves. Hedquist, who was in [he city inspections department for seven years before leaving to become an evzlua[oq has fi]ed a general de- nial. Ia an aftidavit, he says he could give only his "bes[ opinion" as to t6e rnndition of the roof because he did not e�mine the rafters and roofboards. The pulicy for 6oth city inspeemrs and private evaluators, [he affidavit says, is to exazr.ine the roof from the inside on!y when there is a wx!k-up at- tic, no[ just a cra��:l space. But, he say& his report did noie that there was evidence ot seepage from Ihe roof. iiis affidavit says he made no representations auout the cooling system or the insulation because [Le official report form, adopted by t6e city cowcil, dces not rnver those itema Hedquist said l6at [he examina- tion is designed co reveal mnjor defects t6at would be dangeruu: [o heal[h or safety and [hat an in- adequate heating system is no; such e defect. � � �� �. :� r ;:..� s. � i�1 - �` _ � �"� ;`+.� ; , 1 ,i � � �` � �� � i•� � �� �'. ��- �. �� �� {� � � �� INTRODUCTION: Planning is viewed as a series of reTated actions and decisions that are organized around and moving toward the accomplishment of Qoals and Objectives. The goals and objectives themselves are the cornerstone of the planning process, for in theory, they form the framerrork for public and privata decision making. Effective technical planning only occurs when there is a ciear notion of the goats and objectives being pur5ued. These goals can be deterinined only through decisions concerning the scope and content of action based ultimately on an established value system. These goals must uitimately be estabiished by the elected officials in conjunciion with the public, and are the result of a complex set of pressures and compromises which fottn the value system of a cortmunity. The goal's and objectives, once established, become the basis upon which operating departments structure their activities, Together they exhibit a basic concern for goals, values and the need for making basic choices. The operating departments then establish policies which are a set of general statements based on the community!s goals and objectives that define the direct9on and character of future development and set forth the actions necessary to attain the desired results. They are the connective link between general goals and objectives and specific recomnendations. These po7icies wil] not be discussed in this document, but wil7 be incor- porated in a policies plan document. �$' < .�. ', , . .. _ �p '1,'e � J � i : �} '� � ' �lJ� p � Sj F 1 e�, n Y _ 1 1' The goal area Human Development relates to those facilities and services which afford each individuai an opportunity for a viabie community Tife and enable them to develop to their full potential. S � �i J 4 �^ � , , t , t� (� i f 5a �� t � i� fi � {f _; - �,: ...� r� 1 The goal area Housing relates to those functions which dea] with the provision and maintenance of housing within the conanunity. L L ] �� �. ; K�; #C�- � �[�': , �_ � , The goal area Access relates to those systems which deal with the movement of people, goods and services into and within the comnunity. , �. � � ��� � � � �� � � � �. � �z� �- The goal area Security relates to those functions which deal with the individual and public healfh, safety and general welfare and pro�te the protection of the environment. � S � � � � � �. ����e COMMUNITY VITALITY The goal area Community Vitality relates to those functions which deal with tfie operation and growth potential of the community.