PL 03/23/1977 - 30464�
-`..
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING CORiMISSION MEETING P�ARCH 23, 1977 PAGE 1
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7;35 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Harris, Bergman� Zangenfeld� Peterson, Schnabel, Shea
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Darrel Clark, Community Development Administrator
MOTION by Shea, seconded by Schnabel, that item 10 on the agenda (receiving
the Appeals Commission minutes) 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 vote9
all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Schnabel wondered if they shouldn't also move item 5 up since there
were also people in the audience for that particulax 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 PLANNING COMMISSION rZINUTES: r�.axcx 9, 7-977
Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to make a few comments on the items
contained from the bottom o� page 15 through page 18 (the discussion of
the Nietropolitan Council Application, Award and Disbursement 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 for this particular program
was 21-g million dollars state wide; 50o which went out state� and 50% to
the metro area, with 5o retained for administrative purposes. She stated
that in that metro area a.11ocation a Land Use Advisory Committee was
established to discuss the priorities and allocations of that money, and
� the intent was for each community to receive a system statement before
making application. She sa,id that not all of them had been mailed out yet�
Planning Commission rteeting - March 23� 1977 Page 2
which was the reason for the delay in the
explained $870,000 had been set aside for
$300 to the 189 communities involved. Sh
had talked about the five criteria for the
besides that they also used an adjustment
looked at the community's ability to raise
that in terms of the money that they were
for special planning problems; in other wo
had something unique which caused a proble
of that bulk. She continued that $5�,000
189 communii;ies had never done anything to
a special $1,000 each of them could use to
was called an Inventory F�nd).
appropriations. Mrs. Schnabel
entitlements with a minimum of
e noted the Planning Corrunission
application, and said that '
factor of relative wealth (they
money through taxes). She said
looking at� $1�2,500 was set aside
rds, if a community felt they
m, they could apply for money out
was set aside because S7 of the
get this implemented (that was
help them get started, and
Mrs. Schnabel stated there was the County Assistance to Freestanding Growth
Centers of $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 unin.corporated townships. Of that $129,000,
she said, 25� was set aside for Hennepin and Raznsey Counties and 75J for the
other five counties. She added that they were going to be pushing for more
money in addition to the money that �ras available here in the metro area.
Mrs. Schnabel said she had wantecl to bring those additional thoughts out
so they would add to the information that was contained in the last minutes.
Chairperson Harris 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 "if it was of inetropolitan significance".
ri0TI0N by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission
minutes of AZarch 23, 1977 be approved as amended. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
1. VACATION REQUEST: SAV #7?-Ol CLIFFORD R. P�12STALSKI: Vacate the
Southerly 17 Street and Utility easement of L�t , Block 32, Hyde
Park, to make this a buildable lot, when included with Lot 7, Block
32, Hyde Paxk, the same being 5801 bth Street N.E. (House addressed as
5801 6th Street on Zots 8 and 9, Block 32, Hyde Park will have to have
a.n address change to 5811 6th Street N.E.).
Mr. and Mrs. Clifford R. Mistalski were present.
Mr. Claxk directed the Commission to located Block 32 of Hyde Park on page
22 of their Half Section Plat books, and explained that in 19?1 the City
vacated the 3 3� easement. He said that prior to that time, Lot 6 was going
tax forfeit and the F�gineering Department had requested that the county
�
��
�
Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 3
^ keep 17' of street right of way combined �rith what was there to make a Lt0'
- right of way. Mr. Clarlc stated that between the time it was requested and
the time the county actually had the tax forfeit sale, the City then vacated
the 30' easement, so the 17' �ras really no longer necessary�and should be
vacated. He said that the �gineering Department recommended that they
retain the Southerly 10' 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 if the 10'
utility easement was retained,and Mr. Clark replied it should not. He explained
the 10' easement could be used for the setback, and shouldn't reduce the
buildable site at a11. i�Ir. Mistalski asked if the lot �rould still come out
to !�!�'� and Mr. Clark replied it would. Mrs. Mistalski asked if they could
sell it as a l�lt' lot, and Mr. Clark answered they could. P�r. Mistalski
asked if they had been paying taxes on a corner lot all these yeaxs, and rlr.
Clark replied he didn't believe they were, especially since the street was
vacated.
Chairperson Haxris asked if the Mistalskis were planning this as a home
buildi.ng site, and Nlr. I•;istalski replied they hadn't decided if they were
going to sell it or build on it. P4rs. Mistalski said they might want a
few feet of Lot 7 added on to their property, and Mr. Claxk explained that
would also involve a lot split. Mr. and Mrs. Mistalski stated they hadn't
decided what they wanted to do with it yet.
^, MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Schnabel, .that the Planning Commission
recommend to Council approval of Vacation Request SAV #77-01, Clifford R.
Mistalski: Vacate the Southerly 17' Street and Utility easement of Lot
6, Block 32, Hyde Park, to make this a buildable lot, when included with
Lot 7� Block 32, Hyde Paxk, the same being 5801 6th 5treet N.E., with the
City to maintain a 10' easement on the South portion. Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
2. REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, I,.S. #77-02, PARI{ METROPOLITAN INVEST;i'ENT FUP;D�
INC. Split off the Southerly 120 feet of Lot 1, Block 3, Commerce
Paxk, to make two parcels for tax purposes, the same being 7300 and
7320 University Avenue N.E. (zoned C-25) (Variance request will be heard
by Appeals Commission on April 12, 197?).
Mr. Steven Coddon� property owner, was present.
Mr. Clark asked if there w�.s some paxticulax hurry with this, and Mr. Coddon
replied there was as he had a closi.ng coming up and he needed the lot split
in order to get financing. P�ir. Clark asked tahat the target date was for
closing� and rlr. Coddon replied June 1, but he would like to get this done
as soon as possible. Mr. Clark said he asked the question because he thought
they might be getting the caxt before the horse, and thought perhaps the
Appeals Commission should be hearing this first.
�
Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page �
Mr. Clark explained that there were two car vrashes on this property; one Vras �
autamatic and one was self-service. He said the two buildings were built at
different ti.mes, and one �ras leased and one was owned. He stated they had
separate sewer, water� etc. Mr. Clark stated that now they�wou3d like to
split the paxcel so there could be two separate owners, two sepaxate mortgages,
etc.� but the buildings i�rould look the same as they do now. He explained
that Mr. Coddon also needed a vaxiance because he would only be 5' from
the lot line i.nstead of the required 15'.
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 �rould be no
change except the legal change. He said that the buildings were 10' apart.
Mr. Clark said the reason he asked about the scheduling of this was because
the Boaxd 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 �rould go to Council on May 2. Mrs. Schnabel asked what ki.nd of
variance they would ask for if this wasn't handled here tonight and there
was no lot split approved. rir. Clark said he felt the Board of Appeals
could make a more unbiased decision if they knew the lot split hadn't already
been approved. P�1rs. Schnabel again wondered what type of vaxiance they
could ask for since there was no vaxiance from a lot line unless there was a
lot split. r1r. Clark said they would appeal for a hypothetical vaxiance,
and the Board of Appeals could pass a recorrunendation that the variance be
approved contingent on the lot split being approved. He stated the end
result would be tlie 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 any real
problem in hearing this. �Zr. T�angenfeld commented 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 sarie.
Chairperson Harris said he remembered when this came before the Planning
Commission in 1970, and was rezoned from Cl to C2. He s aid there was some
concern at that time about the distance between the two buildings.because
they liked to maintain 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 him that the circumstances when the petition
was presented in 1970 when there was one owner and one paxcel wee a lot
different from now tahen there would be two parcels and two owners. He
sa3d it seemed to follow that next week, or whenever this had been consumated,
they might have all ki.nds of requests coming in 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. Mr. Coddon explained that there were two owners at the very start.
He said the hardhsip was that one of the owners owned the building but not
,�
Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 5
'�� the land� and financing was really a problem. He stated there was a definite
-�- hardship because the fi.nancing couldn't be restructured without the lot split.
He added he was not asking for any change and there wasn't any contemplated
change in what was going to be there in any way, shape or form. Mr. Bergman
asked if he was correct in saying Mr. Coddon had a situation in which a
building owner also wished to oran the land on which 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 tne same oYmer for the building and the
land, but his first need was to be able to close the transaction.
Mr. Peterson asked if P�Zr. Coddon would clarify what his position in this
might be, and ?•Ir. Coddon explai.ned that in 1970 he bought the paxcel on
a land contract as an individual. He said he arranged for the construction
of the buildings, the two separate ot�ners and the tenants� then sold the
developed package to an investment corporation. Now, he conti.nued� that
corporation was splitting up their partnership and wanted to split up the
property and sell it. P�Ir. Coddon said he was both the contract purchaser
and the equity purchaser, and would like to get a separate mortgage on the
property. He stated he was the owner right now, but in a mixed-up fashion.
He said that Standard Oil was a leasee on a year to yeax basis, and the
� self-service car wash had paid off their building and had another fifteen
years as a land lease tenant on the Northern part. He said it was his feeling
that they would very much like �o have the parcel, but they already owned
the building. He added that a lot split would solve everything and not harm
� anyone in any way.
Mr. Peterson said that was true unless the people who had the self-service
car wash decided in two months to do something different and came i.n for
variances. He said he had been on the Planning Cor�mission two or three
yeaxs and had seen a11 kinds of problems arise as a result of thi.ngs like
this. Mr. Coddon said that if the lot was split, the remaining two 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 where it would be
a problem if they used their land for legal purposes and.zoned purposes.
Mr. Peterson pointed out that part of the lot split entailed a variance,
and that was not within the code.
Mrs. Shea wondered if one of the stipulations when this went through Appeals
could be that the use would be limited, but Chairperson Harris said he didn't
think they could make it stick. Mr. Clark said they might be able to li.mit
the enlargements of either structure by stipulating that any additions must
meet all setbacks.
Mr. Langenfeld commented that he had the feeling they were making this worse
than it was. He felt it would perhars be wise to make a motion with the
stipulation that this property be split in two parcels for tt�c purposes only.
Chairperson Harris said he didn't think they coul d do that. He explai.ned
the assessments were split, the taxes were split, and there would be two
separate owners on two separate percels. He asked how big the paxcel was
,,—� in total� and r4r. Clark replied about 1�3,000 feet. Nir. Claxk added that it
4�
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 taken at the building line (for example, on
cul-de-sacs). He wondered what would happen with this frontage if it was
taken on that criteria. He noted the property was zoned C-2S.
Mr. Peterson commented that in 1970 a Special Use Permit also had to be
granted because of the nature of the buildings, and Chairperson Harris said
that was correct. Airs. SchnaY�el asked if that was a way in which to tie
the two busi.nesses to these two particula.r lots if .the lot split was approved.
Chairperson Harris said he taas 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 Special Use Permit was granted to the
property as a single entity, and now they were talking about two different
entities; it seemed to him they would have to go back through the Special
Use Permit process.
Mr. Clark sai.d that a Special Use Permit would probably not be denied since
the buildings were already there and it had been approved before. He added
that if they were going to approve the lot split and approve the vaxiance
and then make them go back through the whole process of a Special Use Permit,
it certa3.nly would not be denied. Chairperson Haxris wondered how they could
split a Special Use Permit, and s aid he had never heaxd of that being split
with a lot split. Mr. Clark said he didn't lrnow, either. Technically, he ^
said� Mr. Harris was probably right� but if everything else was approeed
he didn't think a Special Use Permit could be denied. �
hSr. Peterson said it seemed to him that if somebody was applying for a
Special Use Permit in 1977 on that� there 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) was not an unusual
situation.
rir. Bergman stated he would like to regroup where they were at. He said
they were talking about a lot split with a fee of $30, a vaxiance procedure
with a fee of $50� and possibly two Special Use Permits (one for each parcel)
at $120 each� plus a fair amount of Mr. Coddon's time. He said he was just
wondering if Mr. Coddon still thought it was worth it. 1�Sr. Coddon replied
it was well worth it, and he would do anything they wanted. He said his
appeal was there was no change planned, and he taanted a lot split for what
was already there. He added that he didn't see that what might happen in
the future was a valid question in this matter.
Mr. Peterson s aid that under C-2S zoning, t�hich was on the property now�
there were all kinds of options in terris of what could be done with that
building for manufacturing, etc. rir. Clark said it would have to be a
commercial use. l�Ir. Peterson asked if they would be able to change the �
building without coming in and mal:ing requests. He said they could be faced
Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977
Page 7.
�'^� with a lot of alternatives and have no control as far as the City was con-
_ cerned. Mr. Clark said that if they did any construction at a11� they would
have to come in for a building permit. He said that parking requirements�
setbacks, and so forth were looked at before a building permit was issued.
Mr. Peterson stated that once they had the zoning and were using the building
in conformance ��ith the zoning at that paxticular time, then the City would
be hard pressed to not issue a building permit or grant a variance.
Mrs. Schnabel stated that under one owner, one of 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. She wondered if they
were making a big "to do" about something that might never come up again�
and asked how many other instances there were similar to this in Fridley.
Mr. Clark said there were a lot of situations like this where someone owned
the land and someone else owned the building. Airs. Schnabel said she was
talking about the two buildings being so close together, which seemed to
be the real problem. Mr. Claxk said that the City didn't necessarily know
about them unless someone came i.n, like now.
Mr. Coddon said that as Mrs, Schnabel had mentioned, these problems would
be the same whether it was split or not. Mr. Peterson stated that couldn't
happen at the present time, hoUrever, because of the financing involved. He
said that right now the owner couldn't do it because he didn't have a clear
title. Mr. Coddon pointed out that was the same situation as when it was
built, so it could happen. He said that the cax wash to the North might
� want to add on. Mrs. Schnabel commented that if the owner had private
financing, he could do it. Chairperson Harris added that the lot sizes
did meet the code, depending on how much frontage could be considered as
legal frontage.
Mr. Bergman said it looked to him like what they were addressing here was�
on one hand, a request for financial benefit of a property owner; and on the
other hand, a vaxiance 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 of an existing C-2S property which in terms 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 material
value other than the forthcoming variance request to reduce from 15' to 5'
on the setbacks of each parcel in order to make this happen. He saa.d 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 vaxiances. Mrs. 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 Permit 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
.m�
Planning Corrmiission Meeting - Maxch 23� 1977 Page 8
�
on one piece of property. Mr. Harris said that as he remembered, this was a
unique situation, and he couldn't remember it happening before or since
then. He said there were situations where more than one buildi.ng was built
on the same parcel, but none with the buildings this close. rir. Peterson
commented that it seemed to him that any time they had a unique situation
it kept coming back and coming back before the Planning Commission, causing
more things to be out of the ordinary when it came back the next time, and
that was his initial concern.
Mr. Bergman said that apparently Mr. Coddon had been involved in �he property
from the word "go". 27r. Coddon stated that he bought the property as an
individual� and a gentleman who was developing car washes came to him as
a property owner and put the package together. r1r�. Bergman asked if he
recalled why the property wasn't split at the time the two businesses were
constructed. l�ir. Coddon replied the main reason t,ras because Commerce Park
Investments wouldn't take payment on the property until 1972 ?or tax purposes.
He said it was bought on a contract for deed, so the financing for the
buildings had to be axranged 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 sel'f-service car wash and one automatic car wash, along
with service pumps. No other business would be operated without the explicit
approval of the City Council. Both car washes are on one permit and on one �
parcel of land, and any time the ownership changes on either of the eax
washes a lot split will have to be approv�iby the City Council.
Chairperson Haxris 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 wash
tenant was the original tenant, and the automatic car wash land owners
leased to Damaron Corporation which went through Federal bankruptcy. He said
there was also an equipment squabble involving the paxty that was a leasee
of Standard Oil and the car wash. r7r. Coddon said that all this had nothing
to do with the land which he purchased, then sold his interest out, and then
purchased back. Chairperson Harris asked who owned the South one, and Mr.
Coddon replied that he owned the land and the building (the automatic cax
wash). rir. Coddon said that the self-service was the tenant in the lease,
and the terms of the lease said the building would be built for him and he
would pay a rental of �850 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 made for the rezoning or the Special Use Permit
that�this was going to be a buy-back operation. P7r. Coddon explained what
the lease had said, and stated that if there was an error he had not been
aware of it. �
�
Planning Corrmission Meeting - Maxch 23, 1977 p8ge 9
,�
Mr. Peterson requested Mr. Clark to again read the stipulations on the Building
Permi.t, which Mr. Claxk did. P4r. 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 if the Planning Commission and
City Council had known of the buy-back arranger�ent on the lease and the fact
that there were two owners involved� they might have looked a� it a little
more carefully before granting the Special Use Permit. He said that in effect,
the ordinances were violated right from the beginning without going through
the process of a hearing; right from the beginning there was a lease for a
buy-back that the City never ]rnew of. He said he suspected that the lease
was entered into before the buildings were ever constructed.
Nir. Bergman asked if there were two buildings, and Mr. Coddon replied yes.
Mr. Bergman asked if they were o�med by the same party, and Mr. Coddon
answered they were not, but he would like to get this corrected i,rith a lot
split.
Mr. Langenfeld said that he was led to believe that an actual "buy-back"
didn't exist. He thought the axrangement was such that due to the nature
of the business (with fixed equipment attached to the building) the building
and this equipment could not be moved. So in this lease agreement, he
continued, $850 was to be paid for the equipment as well as the building
for sixty months, .and then a much reduced rental would be allotired. He said
'� that to him, that was not a buy-back yet. �Chairperson Harris said that
he was renting land space right now, but for all intents and purposes he
owned the building.
Mr. Bergman asked if the ownership of the buildings or the land under the
buildzngs had changed. Mr. Coddon said that in actuality nothing had
changed, but the lease stated that after the sixty payments the building
and the equipment became the property of the tenant but he could not move
it off the property. Messrs Harris, Peterson and Bergman agreed that then
it had changed. P�Ir. Coddon stated he was just here to correct the situation
that existed.
Mr. Clark read from the minutes of the City Council meeting concerning this
parcel, which said the owner of the land would remain the same. He said
that apparently the land was going to be o�med by one person and the leases
would be of the type where they didn't o�m the building. Rir. Peterson said
that the intent of the lease was that the tenant would own the building in
fact� but that wasn't told to the Council or the Planning Commission. Mrs.
Schnabel sa.id perhaps what rir. Coddon isas s�ying was at the time he made the
siatement before the Council he did not own that building at that time, but
failed to perhaps say that he would o�.m it in the future. AZr. 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 rezoni.ng, but the Commission at that time had some serious
r doubts about the spacing between the ttao buildings. He said'he felt that
since they weren't talking about lot split at the time and since it was under
Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 10
one ownership, he had voted in favor of the recommendations on the Special Use �
Permit and the rezoning. He sa.id that if he had Irnown at that time about
the two owners, his vote may have been different.
Mr. Bergman said he would like to clarify two points: l. While the state-
ment can truthfully be made that both buildings are today under one owner-
ship as originally, a legal document has been established setting in motion
a change of ownership on one of the buildings. 2. He was i.mpressed with
the wordage from the minutes which indicated that this Vahole discussion
took place at that time with some apparent acceptance that there could in
fact be a future lot split, and they recognized that in that event there
would be lack of setback. Chairperson Harris said he didn't recall it
that way, but perhaps Mr. Bergman was correct. Mr. Bergman said he thought
there was an implication in what Mr. Claxk had read from the minutes that
the attitude was positive toward a lot split if the ownership did change.
Mr. Haxris said that was one of the stipulations--the lot split would be
applied for before the buildings changed ownerships.
Mr. Peterson said the implication he read was that the Planning Commission
and City Council were very concerned in 1970, but reluctantly granted the
Special Use Permit and building permits based on the fact that there was
one ot,mer and would continue to stay one or�aner, and they were really setting
up safeguaxds to keep it as one oi�aner. He said that in effect, at the tirne
that these were applied for an axrangement had already been entered into,
as he suspected that the lease was signed before the building permits
were issued. Mr. Peterson said he felt the implication was that this was �
exactly what they didn't want to happen (the lot split and change of
ownership), at least not without it being reviewed. r�r. Bergman 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 for a lot split,
and if he didn't get it, he couldn't sell the property). He said that seemed
a bit awkward.
Mr. Claxk suggested that if the Planning Commission and Council had
assumed that a lot split would have been approved, they may have asked that
the buildings be pushed apart further. Chairperson Harris said he agreed,
and he thought the ball game would have been different. He added that he
didn't remember why the buildings were so close together, but it seemed to
him they wanted more distance in there to begin with.
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 a11
those minutes that had been referred to could be reviewed 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 Commission meeting it wouldn't
throw the timing off that greatly. Mr. Coddon stated that he had a conflict
on the 6th� and asked if this could be put on the agenda for the April 20th
Planning Commission meet�ng.
�
�i� �:=�-=i
Planning Commission Meeting - Mareh 23, 197? Page 11
,�
- MOTIOAI by Schnabel� seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission
continue the request for a lot split� L.S. �77-02, by Park rletropolitan
Investment F1u1d� Inc., to the April 20th Planning Commission� meeting.
IIpon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Clark said he would get those minutes together, and informed rir. Coddon
that after this had gone to Appeals and come back to the Planning Commission
it would go to City Council on P�ay 2nd. t;rs. Schnabel requested that copies
of those minutes be sent out before the Appeals Commission meeting on the
12th. •
2A. RECENE APPE.�LS COP-4�7ISSIOr1 MINUTES : MARCH 15, 1977
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Shea� that the Appeals Corruni.ssion minutes
of March 15, 1977 be received.
Mrs. Schnabel stated that she hoped the members of the Planning Commiasion
had time to read through the lengthy discussion of the Appeals Commission
meeting of March 15th. She said the second item on their agenda had been
a request for 7899 East River Road by the R.C.E. Corporation, and that
discussion had taken 3 z hours of the Appeals Corzmi.ssion meeting. She noted
that Mr. Ernst was present to answer any questions� and explained that he
was the father of the peiitioner that had been at the Appeals meeting.
�
Mrs. Schnabel said to briefly review what had happened� four motions had
been made on this particular item. She explained that the first motion
was to approve the request for vaxiances with �e exception of one and with
some added stipulations. That motion died for lack of a second. The
second motion, she said, was to deny all the requests for variances. That
motion was seconded but failed for lack of a majority vote. r1rs. Schnabel
stated that the third motion was to table the item until all Appeals
Commission mer�bers could be present� and that motion also failed for lack
of a majority. She said that the final motion was that the Appeals
Commission pass on to Council their tie votes without recommendation since
they could not reach a consensus opinion� and that motion passed 3- 1.
r1rs. Schnabel stated that just prior to the vote being taken on the final
motion she told the members of the Appeals Commission and the petitioner
that she felt she would be negligent if she didn't call the mayor and the
chair of the Planning Commission to explaa.n to them what had happened with
regard to this request. She said that the following day she did call Mayor
Nee and explained to him what had happened. She asked him if he would like
them to take a second look at the request and try to reach some kind of
conclusion� and he felt that they should pass this on through normal .
channels without recommendation. A�rs. Schnabel stated that she had contacted
Chairperson Haxris over the weekend and explai.ned the situation to him. At
that point� she continued, she did not feel it was necessary to call the
petitioner to appear tonight� but when she had stopped by the office today
,,� she had been informed that the petitioner was planning to come in case any
member of the Planning Commission wanted to ask any questions about the request.
Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 197? Page 12
At this point� she said, it would 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 Ea.st River Road and the problem with the intersection
itself. He asked if it was r1rs. 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 looked at with the idea of trying to come to some recommendation
concerning that intersection. 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 vrell awaxe of several very
serious accidents that had occurred there. Mrs. Schnabel stated that one
member of the public had appeared at this r�eeting, and he had also expressed
his concern for that paxticular 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 th at they should perhaps have soMe kind of study organized
of that whole Northerly section of East River Road to determine where
the serious crossings occurred. She said that perhaps 79th was no� 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.
Mrs. Shea wondered if the East River Road Project Committee had looked at
some of those areas� and Mr. Langenfeld said they had not gone that far
North. Mr. Langenfeld said he had read the minutes and saw where safety
seemed to be the biggest factor as well as the left-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 paxticular project group
or not.
Mr. Bergman asked if this was corrmiercially-zoned property, and Mr. Claxk
said it was zoned C-2S, and the two abutting properties were R-3. rir. Bergman
saa.d he had a general question, and asked why it was that a speculative
building couldn't conform to City Code. Then, he said, a.s he got fuxther
into the detail he found that because of the shape of the property, only
1�J could be built on� and that was why he was in here for variances. He
stated that maybe the property shouldn't be used for commercial.
Chairperson Haxris said this was another unique situation. He explained '
that the whole parcel from 79th to ?7th at one time was zoned C-2 or C-1
(the whole front half), and the back half toward the tracks was zoned ri-l.
He sa3d that was about 1968 or so� then it was a11 rezoned after a lot of
,�
�.�
Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977
Page 13
� hassle to R-3, except for this particular corner which was left as C-2S.
� He said that the City had actually created a situation where only 1t% of
the land was buildable.
Chairperson Harris asked how this request differed from Meridian's request
in 1975� and 1•ir. Ernst replied that their building was 8' deeper and 10'
longer. He explained that P�Zeridian proposed a I.tO' buildi.ng, and they were
proposing a 1�8' building. He said they were asking for a setback of 35'
along 79th where the ordinance called for $0', but they would agree to
down zone to C-1� which would mean 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 i.n 1975 it Vras a larger figure than 35' . She saa.d that as Mr. Ernst
had pointed out, if this was rezoned to C-1 (vrhich was one of the stipula-
tions the Council had attached in 1975) then it would meet code with a
35' setback.
Mr. Bergman asked about the vaxiances that were requested in 1975� �d
Mrs. Schnabel said that they had been requested':by the Meridian Corporation
to build not quite as large a building as PZr. Ernst was now proposing.
She explained that request �ras approved by the Appeals Commission with a
number of stipulations, and it had also gone through the Building Standards-
Design Control Subcorrunittee and they had made some recommendations. AYrs.
Schnabel stated it then went to the City Council and they denied approval.
^�, However� she said, after they denied approval AZeridian Corporation came
back with additional proposals and at that time the City Council said that
if this was rezoned to C-1 an.d met all the stipulations, it would be approved.
She stated that happened in August of 1975� but then Tgeridian was unable
to get financing so nothing happened until this time when r�1r. Ernst had
now picked up this concept. In the meantime, she explained, 7-11 had changed
their requirements in terms of size for the store and were proposing a
laxger building.
AZrs. Shea saa.d it appeared to her that the Appeals Commission's main concern
was safety along Ea.st River Road, and she thought that was where they should
be looking. Chairperson Harris said the problem was that the safety along
East ftiver Road was the City's and County's responsibility and not the
petitioner's responsibility. He trusted the City and County would solve that,
hopefully with the cooperation of the property oi,mer. P�Ir. Claxk stated that
the owner had agreed to the turn lane and cutting the sharp corner off. Mr.
Haxris said the problem was the egress onto East River Road, and he did think
it was within the city's prerogative to limit access to a major arterial
highway. However� he said� he didn't think they could deny access to the
property off of another street if that �as available.
Chairperson Harris asked PIr. Ernst if he was looking for action from the
Planning Commission, and what he wanted them to do. Mr. Ernst said he would
like them to do whatever i,ras necessary to get this on to the City Council
so they could get f inal action.
�
Planning Commission Meeting - March 23� 1977 Page 1.1�
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. Chairperson Haxris sa.id there were
many busi.nesses in opera�ion today that did not have direct access, and
cited examples along University Avenue. Mrs. Schnabel 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.
Harris replied it was spot zoning from a planning standpoint.
I�1r. 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
ossibly were neces�ary 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 taith the rest. Chairperson Harris pointed out that option
would be with the land oVmer, and he had decided to try this. PSrs. Schnabel
informed them that A7r. Ernst just had an option on the property.
Cha.irperson Harris said he did not see how the Council could deny this
gentleman's request if the request was substantially the same as Meridian's
request in 1975, and the conditions really hadn't changed. He said that
Council couldn't say that because P�1r. Ernst wanted to build it that the
same conditicns did not apply today as they did i.n 1975• Mr. Bergman stated
that he thought someone could make a point that conditions have changed.
He said the City Council's judge:�ent had changed, safety had been brought
to the forefront, East River Road had been further identified and emphasized /"1,
as a safety problem, etc. He corimented that he didn't think it was iair to
say blanketly that conditions hadn't changed.
Chairperson Harris stated that the safety condition of East River Road was
not the land owner's problem� it was the City and County's problem. r1r.
Bergman axgued that the se-tback ordinances were based on public health,
safety and welfare and considered that. P•ir. Harris said those had not
changed since 1975 when the Council gave approval to essentially the same
program they Vrere looking at no�:. I2r. Bergman thought that someone could '
logically say that they were more concerned at this time with enforcing
the setback from East Ftiver Road than they were in previous years. Mrs.
Schnabel commented that she didn't think that was true.
Mr. Clark stated that if it was a 7-11 store and some other commercial activity
that went into this building, the people 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 caxs and create more traffic to do their
grocery shopping. He said it was possible that it might help� if it was done
properly.
Mrs. Schnabel sa.id the Appeals Commission had discussed the fact that putting
a?-11 store there probably wouldn't generate any additional traffic on
East River Road itself. However, she said, if there was another tenant in
the building which was an attractive arad unique tenant, that might generate
more traffic coming to that particular location. She thought some of the r"�
Planning Commission Meeting - March 23� 197? Page 15
'�'`� Appeals Corvnission members were concerned about the amount of traffic that
`- might cross East River Road 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 Road who might attempt to make a left-hand turn to go
to the store; the main problem would be if they missed 79th and continued
on down and tried to mal:e it into that additional access to try to get i.nto
that shopping center. So, she said, she agreed that the store probably
wouldr}'t generate any additional traffic� but it might create problems in
terms of access.
^
,�,
Mr. I,angenfeld asked if this Vrould reach the point of Public Hearing, and
Mrs. Schnabel said there had been a Public Hearing at the Appeals Commission.
Mr. Langerifeld commented that he was surprised so few people were there.
He stated he tended to lean towards the stipulations made by the City Council
on page ltl, to start this thing moving. Mrs. Schnabel said that some of
those items were incorporated into the motion made on page lt9, and the
developer had already incorporated some himself.
Mr. Lax�genfeld said that there was no question about the safety element here�
but felt the property ot•mer was really placed in a bad situation. Also�
he added, �rith a speculative building the owner might find in 3- 5 yeaxs
that business wasn't as prosperous as he thought it would be and might place
it up for sale again. Nlrs. Schnabel s aid that was one of the concerns of
one of the members of the Appeals Commission� a1so. She stated it was her
feeling that that wasn't for ther► to judge at the Appeals Commission level.
She said she also felt strongly that the traffic situation on East River
ftoad was a legitimate concern of the City�Council, but did not feel it Vras
a concern of the Appeals Commission because they had no power to control
traffic situations.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
r70TI0N by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld, that a study be conducted by
the appropriate commission or subcor�i.ssion on the traffic problems that
occur on East River Road from the area of Osborne Road North to the City
limits� with regaxd to safety factors to determine those intersections which
are of particular concern so that recommendations could be made to the City
Conncil and passed on to.the county in hopes of getting some type of better
traffic control on East River Road.
Mr. I,anganfeld asked if this motion was being considered separate from
the 7-11 item� and rss. Schnabel replied it was. She said her concern was
that nothing that she had seen had been done with regard to the City and
County in terms of dialogue on this particular intersection si.nce June of
1975� and she thought that if this was going to be either approved or dis-
approved, that intersection should be looked at. Certainly it should be
studied, she said, if this proposal was going to be approved by the City
Council. She stated that her concern was whether that was the most dangerous
intersoction in that axea; maybe there was another one that was equally as
dangerous or more dangerous. She sa.id 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.
-r�,�
Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 19?7
Page 16
Mr. Clark stated that he didn�t think the county would do anything on East �
River Road until directed unanimously by the City Council. He explained
that whenever they started to draw somethi.ng up, thi.nking they were reading
the City of Fridley's wants, there was a big hassle when they brought the
proposal in. He said the county wanted to know what Fridley wanted before
they did anything on design.
Mrs. Schnabel commented that she thought that whoever did study this (whether
it was the East River Road Project Committee or a new committee) should take
a look at the county's goals (one-year, two-year and five-yeax), the traffic
counts, etc. She said that all these things should be checked out.
Mr. �,angenfeld said that the decision of this project committee would not
have a bearing on this paxticulax 7-11 item because of the time element.
He 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 request 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 North.
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 saS.d 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 Committee was kind of a special-interest group. He stated ^
that he said this seriously, and it was his opinion. He didn't think that �
committee, for whatever reason, fairly represented an objective City of
Fridley populous with regaxd 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 of self-interest there.
Mr. Langenfeld suggested that the II�vironmental Study Group look into
this and they would show the Planning Commission how unbiased they could
be. Chairperson Haxris suggested both Community Development and Environmental
study this so the Planning Commission could get two opinions. Mr. Bergman
replied that he would have to say that he thought Community Development
should get involved in general traffic pattern and the access program,
and he would have to say "yest' to Community Development studying this.
Mr. Peterson asked if he was to assume that if he voted for 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 Haxris
replied that was correct. Mr. Clark asked if the Planning Commission wished
the Council to delay action on this request until the two commissions had
time to study this, and Chairperson Harris sai.d no�� he thought that should
be sepaxate.
Mr. Langenfeld said he would like the F.hvironmental Quality Commission to
have copies of the minutes of this paxticular 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
�r.a
Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977
� involved a business and a person who owned property as wel
� with transportation, safety and welfare. 2-ir. Claxk said h
minutes from the Appeals Commission meeting to them� along
these Planning Commission minutes.
^
r"'1
Page 17
1 as the problem
e would get the
r�ith copies of
Chairperson Harris asked if there was any other commission who wished to
look at this, and there was no reply.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris directed this item to be sent to the East River,Road
Project Committee through the r'�vironmental Quality Comrnission, and also
to the Community Development Commission.
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. Cha.irperson Harris asked if
the Planning Commission wished to make a recorimendation on this item or
wanted it to go to Council without recommendation. I�ir. Ernst said he would
defer to the other items if the Commission so desired.
MOTION by I,angenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Com*nission
defer this item on behalf of the Commission and 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 Corr,mission and the
City.
Mr. Bergman said that he was going to vote against the motion. He said
they had spent a lot of time on this, but they did have a gentleman in
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 changi.ng the agenda
at this point. rlr. Peterson said that when they moved to a.riend the agenda,
they moved to receive the minutes without taking any further action. He
stated he thought it was proper to defer the action because they also
agreed to hear the other gentlemen. He said he might not have agreed to
amend the agenda had he realized they would be taking some definitive action.
He said he spoke in favor of the motion.
Chairperson Harris asked if the chair of the Appeals Commission wished them
to take action. rirs. Schnabel replied that as she had mentioned previously,
she had talked to the N7ayor 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 riajor felt comfortable with what the
Appeals Commission had done in view of the brief outline she had given him
of what happened, so she thought it was up to the Planning Commission members
to decide. Nlrs. Schnabel said that if 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.
�
Planning Commission Meeti.ng - March 23, 1977
Page 18
Mr. Langenfeld said he r�ould 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 was
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, Haxris, Langenfeld, Peterson and Shea voting aye;
Ber�man and Schnabel votin� nav. the motion caxried I� - 2.
Chairperson Haxris said this item would be deferred and handled a.�ter item
2C.
2B. RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MIPNTESa 1`•4ARCH 17, 1977
MOTION by Shea, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planni.ng Commission receive
the Human Resources Commission minutes of riarch 17� 1977.
Mrs. Shea i.nformed the Commission that Mr. Haxold Belgum was present. She
said that the Human Resources Commission had been talking about a better
community newspaper than thef currently had, and A�1r. Belgum had set up
a subcommittee. She directed the Commission's attention to the motion
on top of page l� of the minutes, and said that Mr. Belgum would like to
discuss that motion with this body.
Mr. Belgum stated that the iiuman Resources Commission was attempting to
represent i�*hat 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 kand of a humane level exchange of news� and they thought
that what the people did and thought was very important to people living
in Fridley. He stated that people said Fridley was simply a bedroom
community, but that was a misnomer because people's most important lives
were lived at home saith their families. He said they had a feeling that
the news 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 l�oi,r about in their home town. He stated they
had come up with the following main categories; political life, educational
programs, 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 time was given. Pqr. 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 serned.
Mr. $elgum stated that because of this increasing desire of people to know
what was go�.ng on in their otcn neighborhoods, forty newspapeis had grown up
n
�
�
Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 19
� in Minneapolis - St. Paul which addressed themselves to local news in the
past three years. He saa.d that this tendency of communities wanting to
v know what ��as going on in their community had grown so much that the
University of I�Iinnesota was looki.ng into that phenomenon a.nd following this
movement; they were very interested in the possibility that a suburb like
Fridley 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, what shape newspaper they wanted, and what
it would be worth to them.
Mr. Belgum said that people at the School of Journalism had told him that
the idea of a publi�, non-profit organization supporting a local nevrspaper
had been batted around by many suburbs, but nobody had tried it. He said
there was also the possibility that some other way of financing might be
developed. He stated that they were in the very beginning stages of this
expToration, and that was why he had been invited to this meeting. He
said that it seemed to him this would broaden the understanding of what kind
of hwnan beings lived here and what type of human interest potentials
would help to elevate and improve the City and the neighborhood.
Mr. Langenfeld commented that he felt the idea of having a comriunity
newspaper would, without question, benefit the entire community. He
said there were many things that took place within this city� such as
plays� that people were totally unaware of. One thing �:hat troubled him,
he said, was -that it seemed there were so many people here who ca-ne
�'` 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. A�Tr. Langenfeld explained that he thought this was
a moving community as iar as the weekends were concerned, and people
didn't seein to want to get that involved during the evening.
Mr. Belgum said he didn't know a great deal about how many people in
Fridley left for the weekends or what interest there would be in a laxge
number of people lmowing the overview of a11 of the activities that were
going on. He stated that he could say that a number of people he had
talked to had indicated that they kneza very little about th�ir own comrmanity
and would like to have a small newspaper that Vaould give them a picture
of what was going on. Air. Belgum added that one thing that characterized
the forty conununity newspapers he had mentioned was that they were pretty
well divided between reporting nej,rs and giving opinions, so there was
an exchange of ideas on important issues.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that the designated paper certainly did not fulfill
the function of informing the City of what was really going on or of
the opinions of 4ther 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 Mr..Belgum's �omments.
Mr. Belgum said he would ].ike to leave with the Planning Commission copies
of a letter that was going out to the people who agreed to serve on a study
i'°�
Planning Commission Meeting - Maxch 23, 19?? Page 20
committee concerning this.
MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Commission
receive the document from Mr. Belgum dated St. Patricks Day,, 1977, listing
the people �rho were rrilling 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. P�1r. Belgum s aid he was not a.n expert on how studies
like this would be taken. He stated that the consultant they had talked to
from the School of Journalism had said that if this s a^�ple was dra�m right,
it could be a good sarnple. He added that a group of p�ople he had met with
a few days ago had suggested that the sample be doubled to 250. r�r.
Belgum said that the cost for doing a 125 saMple study would cost about
$500 for computer work, travel, etc. P�.rs. Schnabel noted that would come
out to about $4 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 of the City� and
in view of the fact that the subscribers to the Sun Ne�rspaper were a rather
sma11 number, she wondered if they had studied if there V�as a real desire
in the community for a community newspaper. :•1r. Belgur� 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
$500 to $600 just to find that out, and rlr. Belgum replied that was correct.
� � �
Mr. Langenfeld asked if this would be an at-random survey, and �ir. Belgum
answered that it would be designed to be representative. He added it would
be a scientifically selected sample. Mr. Langenfeld then asked the members
of the Planning Commission if they would be interested in a community news-
paper. Chairperson Harris replied that frankly, he hadn't thought about
it before he saw the minutes tonight. Mr. Bergrian said he could respond to
that. He said that 2•1r. Langenfeld had asked a very sirlple question, but
he didn�t believe it was a complete question. He said he s•ras i.nterested,
but he wan�ed to lrnow more about it before he could say he would subscribe.
He wanted to lmow hota much it was going to cost him, if it was going to be
self-supporting, if there would be advertising, and so on. He said he would
have those k3.nds of questions in response to Mr. Langenfeld's question.
Mr. Belgum said that was precisely why they were forming this committee--
to explore the various Vrays a paper could be developed. He stated that the
forty cornmunity newspapers in the St. Paul - Aiinneapolis area were financed
in an amazing variety of ways; some had Federal grants� some were entirely
supported by advertising, some were private enterprises, etc. r1r. Belgum
said that one thing they a.11 seemed to have in corrunon was that they all told
the news and also tried to tell what the people were thinking; and that
seemed to be a very healthy thing for the City oi' Fridley.
Chairperson Harris asked if Human Resources was initially asking for the
Planning Commission's recommendation to Council to fund a feasibility study
n
�
Planning Commission Meeting - March 23� 1977 Page 21
� to the tune of $500. Mr. Belgum stated he Vras simply sayi.ng that was a
� possibility that did exist. He saa.d thezeason he was here was because the
,, Human Resources Commission had authorized him to propose this to the City
Council.
Chairperson Harris asked out of whose budget the $500 would come 'if the
Planning �ommission recommended this to Council, and r;rs. Shea stated that
she didn't �ow. She said they didn't even know if they had a budget; they
had been trying to get an accurate account of how much there was, and
couldn't find out. I�r. Harris suggested asking the Mayor or some oi the
Council people. P�:r. Langenfeld said he would like to find out the same
thing about his commission.
Mrs. Shea noted that in the last Planning Commission minutes there had been
some discussion on the newspaper and how they could arbitrarily change
dates, and said that was sorlething else to think about. She said that if
it was the City newspaper, hopefully that t�ouldn't happen. Nirs. Schnabel
asked if the intent was for this to become that type of newspaper or
if it was to become the kind that was pretty oriented to�rards their partic-
ular section of the city. She stated that kind did not serve as a vehicle
for legal notices or that type of thing. She said that her impression was,
in iact, that they became highly political vehicles within their particular
areas.
Mr. Belgum said that there were many questions concerning what type of
� newspaper would best serve the residents of Fridley, and that was what
' the study committee would try to find out. He said they were inviting
anybody who felt this was worth discussing to come and tell what they
thought; if the feeling was that the citizens of Fridley wouldn't benefit
from this, then there was no point in carrying this out.
Mr. Peterson stated that he i�as always intrigued by this mysterious "they"�
and he heard it all the time. He said that P•Ir. Belgum had mentioned several
times.that enough people in Fridley thought they should have a neUrspaper,
and he lived in Fridley and hadn't heard of a lot of people talking about
the need for a newspaper. He said he t,ras curious as to I�ir. Belgum's point
of reference--who they had sampled and how they had arrived at this to make
such a broad, general statement. rir. Belgum stated that he hadn't said
enough people thought there should be a netrspaper so there should be a news-
paper, but had said that enough people had expressed an interest in it to
cause the Human Resources Corunission to name a study committee. He e:cplained
that he had personally talked to forty or fifty 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 Fridley 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 s�}•, in summary, that the
idea for the newspaper originated within the Human Resources Commission rather
�
a
Planning Commission 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 expla.i.ned that it was within the territory of the
Human Resources Commission to discuss if it would benefit the human resources
wii�nn the City of Fridley to ]rnow 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 was 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
Mr. Belgum said he would go along with that.
Mr. Bergman asked if it Vras 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, what kind? At what frequency and at what price?
With or without advertising?, etc. Mr. Belgum said that the number 125
referred to personal interviews to determine what kind of news the people
wanted to lmow 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. rir. Bergman said he
was wondering about the kinds of questions which would result i.n theM lmowing
whether or not the citizen would� in fact, be a subscriber� and at what
price and at what frequency. He asked.if it �ras the intent that that would ^
be paxt of this $500 expenditure. Mr. Belgum replied yes, they would try
to make the study as useful as possible.
Mr. Clark said that he didn't lrnow 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 were going to conduct 125 intervie�as, they
might have to ask 500 people if they wanted to be interviewed. He said he
thought that information should be lrnown because the 1t00 who didn't want
the interview weren't even interested in talking about it� which showed him
that only 25% of the people wanted to talk about a newspaper. A1r. Clark
said that if the survey was to be random they should know how it was done,
and the number of people contacted to get the information. He stated that
if only 25% of the people contacted were interviewed, then probably that 25%
would be in favor.
Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to bring out a point that carye out of
this kind of discussion. He stated that the present commission setup was
designed for citizen input, output, and so on. �ery now and then, he
continued� i�hen one commission or another seemed to fulfill their obligations_�
and goals and objectives to provide better communications throughout the
city, then it appeared that that commission or another commission a11 of a
sudden became a special interest within their oi�m commission. He asked
how else it would come about. He said that in other words, each one of
these commissions was trying to do exactly what they were designated to do
for the good of the community. ^
.,�
Planning Commission Meeting - Maxch 23, 1977 Page 23
^ Mr. Peterson said that he would like to respond to those comments from the
_ standpoi.nt that he was only trying to determine where the original impetus
had come from, and it had turned out that it came from the commission itself.
He stated that he wasn't inferring there was a special-interest group.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11 voting aye, the motion caxried unanimously.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld� that the Planning Commission
recommend to Council that $500 of Human Resources budgeted funds be applied
toward the newspaper survey for the City of Fridley as recommended by
Human Resources. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion caxried
unanimously.
2C. CONTINUID: INT�R.SECTION AT 53RD AATD CEI�TT�tAL
Mr. Sheldon Mortenson and rir. Gregory P�Iortenson were present.
Mr. Cla.rk showed the Comriission tne Highway Department plans for the inter-
section and explained them in detail. He said that basically what they were
doing was channelizing and creating turn lanes for 53rd onto Highway 65.
He stated th at the signalization ��rould be with left turn arrows, and a
relatively new concept would be used �here East-bound traffic could go any
direction it wanted and the West-bound trafiic was held� and then the
opposite. AIr. Clark said there had been two proposals drafted by Fridley's
� F,hgineering DepartMent for the access to Menaxds and Skywood Mall, and
showed them to the Comrv.ssion and the interested parties. He explained
that one plan was very simi.lar except that one lane had been eliminated 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.
N1r. Peterson asked if this was basically the same plan that Mr. Boardman
had last time, and r1r. Claxk said it �,Tas.
Mr. Sheldon Mortenson said he realized there was a problem and agreed it
got pretty congested in that axea. He asked if that would then be City
property. rir. Clark said there were tiao ways it could be accomplished.
One would be strictly by private rnonies on private properties; and the
other was that the property owner %rould dedicate the necessary right of
ways to the City of Fridley, Fridley would do the improvements and then
assess them back to the properties. Air. Mortenson commented that either
way he would pay. rir. Clark said that the difference 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 wQUld be spread over a number of yeaxs.
Mr. Peterson said that it seemed to hiri that part of the problem at 53rd
and Central was not only on the East side, but also on the West. He said
that if they were going to be dead-ending one lane at the first Target
driveway� Taxget should shaxe in the easements. Mr. Claxk said that a
� representative of Target had been in the office at least weekly for the
�
Planning Commission rleeting - Maxch 23, 1977 � Page 2�
last couple of months, and before that possibly monthly. He said that Target
�rould share on that side.
Fizrther discussion followed� and Mrs. Schnabel pointed out her concern on
the plan. Mr. Claxk informed the Commission that since 1971 the reported
acc3dents in that area were 7� and the most was two in one year. He added
he didn't know if a11 had been reported. Chairperson Harris stated that
they were usually recorded if they took place on public property, but
not necessaxily on private property. PZrs. Schnabel said the additional
problem was because Pqenards 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 plan 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 folloVred the service drive and was ridable,
the alternate suggestion was not in the original plan, but was to run back
on sidewalk and then somehow get up the hill. He said he didn't think
they had really resolved the routing through there. Mr. Bergman stated that
he did want to bring out that the bikeway plan did get them on to the
edge of this property, and there were those two possibilities. He added
that he thought the property oUmer should be aware there were bikeway plans
for that axea. rlr. Petrerson commented that the bikeway had also been before
the Paxks and Recreation Commission, and the bikeway scheme that he had
seen did not provide for the crossing of any axterial or busy street.
Mr. Bergman said he thought perhaps di£ferent comriissions were asking
questions of different Staff people� and they weren't always getting the
same answers.
Chairperson Harris explained to NIr. Mortenson that these were the proposals
drawn up by the City IIzgineering Department� and he didn't lmow if this was
a hard and fast rule as far as they were concerned. He saicl that the
planning Commission had gotten this fax, and they dranted I�Tr. Mortenson to
take a look at the plans and see what he th.ought. Chairperson Haxris
suggested that perhaps A�r. P•Tortenson could take copies of t;he proposals
back and look at them and then come back and work with the City on the
proposal. Mr. Aiortenson agreed.
Mr. Peterson suggested that it might be well to give Mr. I�iortenson a copy
of the fourth paxagraph on page l� of the rlarch 9th Planning Commission
meeting. He said it concerned the thinking and discussion that went on
at the Planning Commission regaxding condemnation, and he thought it.would
be well for them to have that iniormation.
Chairperson Harris asked how much time rir. Mortenson thought he would need
to look over the proposals and get back to them, and r2r. rSvrtenson replied
a week or two.
MOTION by Peterson� seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission
continue 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 - Maxch 23, 197?
Page 25
'^ Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 10;50 P.M. and reconvened the meeting
'° at 11:00 P.M.
2A. RFCEIVE APPEALS COAgZISSION MINiJTE�: MARCH 15 1977 (Deferred from
page 1
Mr. �nst said he vrished to point out several items� and had colored up
a site plan to show what he proposed. He stated that in reading the
mi.nutes of the Appeals Commission meeting� he didn't think it was stressed
enough that the right-turn lane from the South was very important. He
said that one of the conditions the City Council had asked for in 1975 was
that the development pay for the cost of the construction of this right-
turn lane. N1r. Ernst said he pictured it being done in such a fashion
that south-bound traffic from East River Road would almost be prohibited
from using it (by the design of it and also the signing of the right-turn
lane ) .
Secondly, Mr. Ernst continued, they didn't carry the right-turn lane fax
enough to the South as to make the turn onto ?9th. He said another important
consideration was dedicating the right of way to accommodate that turn lane
�there would be two right turn-lanes onto 79th).
Mr. Ernst noted that the�Appeals Commission had discussed the possibility
of eliminating a couple of parking spaces, as they did have a surplus of
,�"� two, and this drawing did cut out two spaces. He explained that they
had landscaped and greened in those spaces along with part of the driveway
that provided access to those parking spaces. PIr. Ernst stated that this
allowed for corner visability and provided more green area. He said that
it didn't eliminate the front setback requireMent any, but it did a11ow
for a better corner approach there. hlr. Ernst said he thought those points
were valid, and added that the site needed the granting of the vaxiances
in order to be developed. He stated they had a lease ready to be executed
from 7-11.
Mr. Ernst stated that the speculative terminology of the balance of the
building sounded rather derogatory, and it shouldn't be. He explained it
was their intention to lease the balance of the building to office-type
use and professional-type use. He said that he was experienced in building
these structures and had been highly successful with filling them up with
high=quality tenants.
Chaa.rperson Harris asked who would ma.intain the triangle on the corner,
and r7r. Ernst replied that he would guess they would be dedicating that
for public right of way.
Air. Clark pointed out that if the land was rezoned to C-1, 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. A7rs. Schnabel
said that by eliminAting the two paxking stalls they had also eliminated
�'1 one variance request because that brought it back within the lines of the
Planning Commission Meeting - Maxch 23� 1977 Page 26
�
2oning ordinance. She stated that the Appeals Commission�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 of the 38 stalls and ihe 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 allow the cars to get back
on to East River Road without causing some very serious traffic problems.
Mr. Ernst pointed out the only way they could get out on the plan; goi.ng
out on 79th and then on"to East River Road.
Mr. Bergman said he was impressed that T,'Ir. F�nst had obviously spent
quite a bit of time in trying to plan this out and to do a good job on
it� and thought �rhat he had was iripressive. He stated that he was concerned
with the magnitude of the variances (along the lines that the ordi.nance
was good and in some extreme cases some adjustment might be necessary,
but the magnitude of the variances A�ir. Ernst was requesting was great).
He asked if Mr. Ernst had considered a multi-story building� and Pir. Ei�nst
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 of stair�rays wouldn't be necessary. Chairperson Harris commented
that he didn't lmos•r how a multi-story building would match in aesthetically
with the apaxtment buildings.
,�
Mr. Peterson asked if it was correct that in 1975 the City Coiancil had
promised Meridian C-1 zoning, and :•1r. Clark replied it was done at the
Council's request. Chairperson Harris said that the way it tras written,
the City Council was obligated to give C-1 zoning, �rhich would eliminate
several of the variances. Nlr. Clark pointed out that there idere more
restrictive uses in a C-1 than i.n a C-2S. He said that one of the things
he he didn't think they would want in there would be a VFta Post or an
American Legion Post where there i°iight be traffic and alcohol mixed.
He added they probably wouldn't want any fast-food restaurants there, either,
but wanted to try to keep the traffic at a minimum. Mr. Ernst said that
the total axea of the building ti,ras 7,000 square feet, and the 7-11 took
up 2,500 squaxe 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 Haxris said that at the time of the rezoning there had been
some discussion on that corner, and asked T�Sr. Clark if he remembered what
the strategy was. PY1r. Clark replied that first of a11, the petitioner
probably didn't petition.•to have it rezoned. Chairperson Harris stated
that it seemed to him that there t�as some over-all plan they had for the
area, but he couldn't remember what it was. Mr. Claxk said he could probably
find out. Mr. Haxris said he thought there was talk of a service station
when it was rezoned, and he wondered if 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 rir. Clark if he thought that information would ^
Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 ' p�e 2?
have any bearing on the City Council's decision at this time� and Mr. Clark
� replied he thought it could if the minutes reflected that the owner thought
' a convenience store would be the proper thi.ng to do and the Council thought
it might or might not meke sense. He added that he didn't Imow if the
minutes reflected that or not.
Mrs. Schnabel stated that she knew that several of the area residents
had expressed quite a bit of concern about that corner through the years�
and it had been brought out at the Appeals meeiing that one resident across
East River Road wondered why residential couldn't go onto that corner.
She said she pointed out that this had been zoned C-2S for 17 years, and
the property oimer himself had not initiated a request to change it. Sne
said she felt the City didn't necessarily have any control over that; if
�he property owner wished that to remaan a commercial property, there
was not much they could do about it in spite of what the axea residents
wanted to see in there. •
Mr. Bergman said he thought there was something they could do. He stated
th at their only concern at this point was because somebody wanted to build
something comr�ercial on the property. He sai.d that if they were to deny
the request to build and the owner wanted to leave it G2S, there was no
problem there, either. He stated that if they approved a commercial builcling
of this nature on the property, that was the only way to, in fact, develop
it commercially. r•ir. Bergman added that either it didn't develop commercia7_ly
or there was the option of rezoning and putting apartments on it. Nlrs.
Schnabel said that her point was that in 17 years the property owner had
�, not wished to have it rezoned.
Chaa.rperson Harris asked if the oc-mership of the property had changed,
and R�Ir. Ernst replied it hadn't, to his lffiowledge, in the past 7- 8 years.
He said that just paying taxes over that long period of time had priced
it into the commercial market, and it would be economically unfeasible
to develop it for multiple. He added that he was paying commercial price
for the property.
Mr. $ergman asked if he had developed other 7-11 projects� and 1�1r. Ernst
replied he had. P7r. Ber�man asked if there weren't areas where he had built
only a 7-11 store on a piece of property, and AZr. Ernst answered that he
had built one free-standing 7-11 store (the first one in the Twin Cities),
and since then had developed nine centers like the one he was proposing
over the last four years.
Mr. Bergman said his only thought was that there were some options to reduce
the conflicts with setbacks� and so forth. He said it was not really
necessary that the building be of that size and on one floor and be that
much in conflict with the setbacks. r1r. �nst replied that the economics
required a building of that size to work.
Chairperson Haxris asked if it would be economically feasible to use the
same proposal that the pleridian Corporation used in 1975, and rir. Ernst
replied it would not, esnecially with the addition of the final requirement
,�
Planning Commission Meeting - March 23� 1977 Page 28
of the Council to construct the right-turn lane. He e3cplained there ��as 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 1962 there had been a permit issued to build a filling station on
that lot, but it was never built. He said that apparently the petitioner
wa,ited too long to staxt and the permit expired. t•Yr. Claxk added that it
was possible that in 1962 the zoning ordinance didn't require a Special
Use Permit; he thought that changed in 1969. .
Cha.irperson Haxris asked if that �ras a 7-11 store on East River Road and
Mississippi, and Mr. Ernst replied it Vras, bit it hadn't been built as
a 7-11. He said that was on the other side o� the road and picked up
different traffic. Mr. Harris asked what the total land area was they
were talking about, and NIr. Ernst replied the land area was 1�2�000 feet--
just about an acre.
Chai.rperson Harris asked if the Commission wanted to take any action on
this, and A1rs. Shea said she would recor¢nend that they pass it on to Council
and get on to the next item.
Mr. Bergman said he would like to state for the record that he was c�ncerned
about the magnitude of the variances, and had some feeling that there were
options open to the developer tha� could possibly reduce that magnitude.
��
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission pass
this item on to Council without recommendation. Upon a voice vote� a11
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
3• CONTINUED ; RECOP•1P�ZENDID CHANGES lIV CHAPT� 212 ; MINING : FRIDLEY
CITY CODE
Mr. Langenfeld directed the Commission's attention to page 2 of the �viron-
mental �u.ality Commission's minutes, and pointed out that they had once
again gotten tied up with 212.05 �ceptions, especially concerning emergency
work. He said that when they had discussed this previously he had indicated
he didn�t think it meant human life, and was wondering if it could be
clarified a bit. He also pointed out that l�ir. Olson had felt the ordinance
should also specify who actually approved these mining permits.
Chairperson Haxris stated he thought Mr. Olson 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 Staff.
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, 197?
Page 29
� but he thought that within this emergency work the commission got gaing on
the idea that if a land slide took place it was still a waste of time to
— have the City authorize corrunencement of the emergency work. He stated that
to him common sense would prevail, and the action had to be immediate. Mr.
Langenfeld added that he thought this paxticulax section was still delaying
action, and he just wanted to bring that to the Planning Commission's attention.
Mr. Bergman agreed and thought the wording should be revised. Mrs. Schnabel
said she wondered if they shouldn't strike "human life" and state t'vegetation
or property". Mr. Bergman said he was confused as to vrhy emergency work
necessary to preserve human life should not be an exception. rir.s. Schnabel
thought the point was that the way it sounded now, if somebody was caught in
a landslide the rescuers would have to contact tr.e City and get perr�ission
before they could proceed to extract that person.
Mr. Bergman suggested the wording be changed in paragraph 1 under 212.05
to read "Emergency work necessary to preserve human life or property.
�nergency work performed under this section shall be reported to the
City of Fridley at the earliest practical opportunity. An operator commencing
emergency work .......".
Mr. Peterson said that because of that change and also the one that Mr.
Olson brought up as to who was going to act on these permits, he would like
to see this re�mitten the way it was going to be acted upon. He noted that
they hadn't spelled out that the approval of the mining permits would be
a City Council function, and he thought that should be in there. Pir. Clark
� stated that he thought that had to be decided, but it wouldn't have to be in
the ordinance. Chairperson Haxris suggested they could develop a policy
that the Council would approve a11 mining permits to begin with.
Mrs. Schnabel said there were a couple of other things she would like to
note. Under "Exceptions", in paragraph 2, the fourth line read "to upon
a permit", which she thought should be changed to "to make application for
a permit ". She noted that further down the page under Application For And
Processing of Permit, under 2b, the word '�extraction" appeaxed, and s17e
thought they had agreed to elirnin�+..e that word and substitue "mining".
Mrs. Schnabel stated that she ��:as 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, she said, in the application process
the City provided the names through the tax records; but this inferred
that the applicant should provide those names. She was wonderi.ng if that
should really be in the ordinance or instead be a part of the permit where
space was provided to list the names and addresses of people within that
radius.
Chairperson Harris said he thought the intent of that section was for
notification for possible Public Hearings or whatever. Airs. 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. Rir. Clark suggested tha� if
�
,� .
Planning Commission Meeting - Maxch 23, 19?? Page 30
the application form was done properly� they could do it there. �
N1�s. 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 were going to be Public Hearings on any application for a
mining permit, then they might want to add a paragraph that said "Notification
of Public Hearin�s must be given to all persons within a half rnile of the
boundary of the property" (or whatever distance they decided upon). Chair-
person Harris wondered if they were going to have the Council do this, if
there shouldn't be a Public Hearing process. rirs. Schnabel said she thought
there should be, because it could affect adjacent land owners. �
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld, that item c under 212.06 be
scratched from the ordinance, but the idea included on the application for
a mining permit (the form should include space to list the names of the
people within so many hundred feet of the property). Upon a voice vote,
a11 votang aye� the motion caxried unanimously.
Mrs. Schnabel s aid she thought they should add a number 3 under that same
heading which would deal with a Public Hearing; something to the effect
that a Public Hearing would be held before Council. Chairperson Harris
asked if the Planning Commission wanted to get involved in this� like
a Special Use Permit application setup. rir. Peterson stated that he could
see where IIzvironmental, Community Development and Human Resources would
have concerns, and if they were digging a pit next to a park, then Paxks
and Recreation would be concerned also. AZr..Langenfeld thought that the ^
Planning Commission should definitely get involved, otherwise there would
be no reason for the F�vironmental Commission to look at it.
Mr. Bergman said he thought that would be in complete conflict with the
defined process. He asked if they were suggesting that permits be sent to
a11 the commissions for revisw, and r�Ir. Langenfeld replied no, just the
Planning Commission. P7r. Bergman said then they �rould be reviewing a
permit application rather than setting policy and establishing guidelines.
Chairperson Harris said they had a precedent for that as they examined all
Special Use Applications, and he looked at this in the same realm as a
Special Use Permit.
Mrs. 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 now, perhaps Staff could take a
look at the language that was already in the Zoning Ordinance under 205.193
and use similar language (dealing with application� referral to Planning
Commission, Council action, etc.). P•ir. Clark said he thought the purpose
of the ordinance was to set guidelines so that Council or Staff could issue
the perriits without having each individual permit go through vaxious
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
haeing to go through Planning Commission, and ma,ybe even Council. He was
under the impr �sion that the guidelines would be stringent enough so that ^
-�__
Planning Commission Meeting - Maxch 23, 1977 Page 31
,� if a person met all those requirements, then he would be granted a mining
_ permit. Chairperson Haxris said that it wouldn't go through the subcormnissions,
but would be handled like a Special Use Permit.
h10TI0N by Schnabel, seconded by Peterson, that under 212.06 Application
For And Processing Of Permit, an item number 3 be added which defined the
method of obtaining permission for mining by coming through the Planning
Commission, and would use the language of the Zoning Ordinance similar
to sections 205.193 through 205.195.
Mrs. Schnabel saa.d that perhaps the Staff would find some additiomal language
should be included, and that would be fine.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Shea referred the Commission to 212.07 Standards, and said she was
sure that sb shovld read "between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m....". The other members
agreed.
2�Ir. Ber�man referred the Commission to 212.07, 2a, and saa.d that it seemed
to him that in some cases five feet would be awfully close. Chairperson
Haxris suggested they have it read '�IvTo less than five feet..." and then
look at that under the Special Use Permit-type operation. Mr. Bergman said
he thought they should make it 10' or even 15'. R�Ir. Harris said there may
be some cases where that was not necessary.
^ MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that 212.07 Standards, 2a� be
changed to read '�No less than five feet....". Upon a voice vote� all voting
aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Ni0TI0N by Schnabel, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Corrunission continue
the discussion on recommended changes in Chapter 212: rlining� Fridley City
Code, until the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
MOTIOPI by l�terson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission continue
item 1� (Proposed rSaintenance Code)� item 6(Goals and Objectives: Access),
and item 7(Goa1s and Objectives: Com�minity Vitality) until the next meeting.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion caxried unanirmously.
8. RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION CO.�L�ZISSION P�iINUTES: FEBRUARY 28 197?
�SOTION by Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Plann3.ng Commission
receive the Paxks and Recreation Commission minutes of February 28� 1977•
Mrs. Schnabel commented that she couldn't help but notice on page 29 in
the first paxagraph where rir. Boudreau had stated that in Riinnesota they
�
Planning Commission Meeting - March 23� 1977 Page 32
3
had stayed away from naming parks after individuals or clubs. She said �'
she couldn't help thinYing of I,ocke Park or Albert Kordiac Paxk, so there
had been some parks narried after individuals. Mr. Peterson said he thought
that meant in Fridley, because by City Council action and Parks and
Recreation's recommendation they had tried not to name parks after individuals.
Mr. Clark thought there were quite a few parks named after individuals,
but thought I�gr. Boudreau mignt have meant that you didn�t take a city park
that was not dedicated by a particular group or person and name it after
them.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� a11 voting aye, the motion carried unani.raously.
9. RECEI�TE COi•��NNITY D�JELOPi�iENT CO?�4ISSION P�IINUTE5: MARCH l, 1977
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Shea, that the Planning Comrzi.ssion receive
the Community Development Commission minutes of March 1, 1977.
�ir. Bergman commented there had been a len�thy discussion on the Sign Ordinance
Project, and when the Sign Ordinance Project Committee came through with
their proposal, the result of a11 that discussion would be included.
P�tr. Bergman stated that the neeting for March 15th referred to at the
top of page 2 of the minutes had been cancelled because of a conflict�
but they would pick it up at their next regular meeting.
�
Chairperson Harris asked when r4r. 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 left out of the minutes. I-Ir. Bergman said
that Mrs. Gabel had identified their schedule, which keyed off of a City
Council deadline, backed up one month for submission to this body. He
could not remeMber the dates, but said that information would be included
in their next minutes.
IIPOAT A VOICE VU?E� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
11. RECEIVE E^PTIROr��TAL QUALITY C0:�IAZISSIOPI rSINUTES: A'fA�CH 17, 1977
MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission
receive the IIivironmental Quality Commission minutes of Alarch 17, 1977.
Pir. 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 recommended that anyone who could get away
during the day attend this meeting� and he assumed the City would pay for
it. He mentioned that rxs. Sporre of the IIzvironmental Quality Commission
was pla�nning to attend. Chairperson Harris said that if anyone was
interested in attending the seminar they should contact rir. Clark or Mr.
Boardman so they could make reservations. �
Pl��g Commission Meeting _ rlaz.�h 23� 1977
Page 33
Mr'• Langenfeld said he would like the staff to
@uality �o�ission appreciated receivin �OW how
^ Metropolitan Are$ booklets. �' the State of the Re lon �virorunental
- Pl�ing Corrunission members wan edpar�on H�rls said that i�g• '�'ln City
PY, they should contactny of the
UPON A VOICE VOTE �1 �'• Boardman_
�
°"�
, voting aye�
OTNER BUSIi1ESS;
the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Bergraan� seconded b
rece.ive the notification of h�angenfeld, that the pl
concerning a lot split reque�t at g fron the Cit� of Spr��g �O�SSion
7705 Centra.l Avenue N� E� g L�e P�'k
Cha,irperson Harris asked if tr.
repl.ied that he did not. �l�'k saw an '
homes ��'s. Schriabel y problem with this, �d he
� F�'idley .i_n that asked if there were
there was an of£ice build.inea� r�' �1�'k Sa�.d that in the Sou heastdcorner
on the next two blocks g' �d they had a
Schnabel wondered if thearesi ents who wer Petition for a double b
should be notified. �gle-fami1y dwellings Stax.ted.�g�ow
notif p P�'• Cl�'; sa.id that wou d be fs� many hundred feet�s�
Y peo le when Fridley was havin �e
hearir�gs. He said that he would g a lot�oplit and ' but they dic1n►t
of notify�.ng t�m� , however d1� t hold public
, those peOple the courtesy
UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11 yotir�g aye� t�e motion .
h�r'S• Shea �ar'ried urian�mously.
informed the comrrLi.SSion that this was the secr r
with them, and i'elt the
the excellent minutes shes�ould publicl et�'Y s last meet,irig
said the haa done for hem.� her for her hard work and
y were sorry to see her go� The comm3.ssion th
anlced her and
ADJOURIVI�I�TT;
MOTION by L�ge�eld, seconded b
Upon a voice vote Y Shea, that the meet'
CommiSSion meetin� �1 vot�g �'e� Chair erson �g be adJourned.
g°f Ma.r'ch 2 p H�'ris declared the PI��g
3s 1977 adjourned at 12:20 A.1�1.
Respectfully submitted,
�
i
Sherri 0'Donnell
Recordirig Secretary