PL 04/20/1977 - 30466CITY OF FRIDLEY
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — April 20, 1977 Page 1
� CALL TO ORDER=
Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:40 PoM�
ROLL CALL:
Members Present:
hlembers Absent:
Others Present:
Shea, Bergman, Harris, Schnabel, Lagenfeld
Peterson
Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
APPROVE PLANNTNG CO��ISSION MINUTES� April 6, 1977
Mr• Bergman requested that page 2, the first and sixth sentences, the
word ^not^ be eliminated�
Mr� Lagenfeld requested that on page 3, the sixth paragraph, the last
sentence be eli�inated�
Mrs� Schnabel requested that on Page 10, the fifth paragraph from �he
bottom� the first sentence, the word ^of^ our business community be
changed to read ^to^ our business community•
n
�,Third paragraph from bottom, page 10, third line, the word ^toward«
�should be changed to ^with^� It should read •�•� which deals directly
with the City's objective with the business community�
�
MOTION by Shea, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission
minutes of April 6, 1977, be approved as amendeda Upon a voice vote9
all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously�
1•
BY GARY PETERSON= Rezone from C-Z {local business areas} to
R-2 {two family dwelling areas} Lots 3, 4, 22 &�23, Block 2,
Meadowmoor Terrace, to allow the construction of Double Bungalows/
Duplexes, the same being 1326 and 1355 Osborne Road N�E� and 1331
and 1345 Meadowmoor Terrace N.Eo
Mr• Gary Peterson, the petitioner, was not present•
Chairperson Harris explained that this particular item was moved to
May 4, 1977, at the petitioner's request•
Mr• Boardman explained that all people concerned had been notified
by mail that the hearing would be continued on May 4, 197?, at the
petitioner's request•
Plannin9 Commission Meeting — April 20, 1977 � Pa e 2
Chairperson Harris asked why this was being done-
M�• Boardman explained that Mr• Peterson wanted to wait so that the
variance would go through at the same time.
M�• Bergman mentioned that perhaps, since this was a public hearing,
that anyone that did happen to be in the audience should be able to
speak.
Chairperson Har�is asked if there was anyone in the audience
in regards to the item• There was no one, mainly because Mr. Boardman
had notified, by.mail, all concerned people.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Lagenfeld, that the Planning
Commission continue until May 4, 1977, Public Hearing: Rezoning
Request, ZOA �77-01� by Gary Peterson• Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously•
2• CONTINUED= REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT� LoS� �77-�2, BY
PARK METROPOLITAN INVESTMENT FUND: Split off the Southerly 120
feet of Lot 1, Block 3, Commerce Park, to make two parcels for
tax purposes, the same being ?300 and ?320 University Avenue N�E.
{Zoned C-2}• {See Appeals Commission minutes of April 12, 1977,
for variance approval}•
Mr• Steve Coddon, Park f�etropolitan Investment Fund, was present.
Mr. Boardman explained that presently located on this property is a
gas station and a car washo The property and one building is owned �
by one party and the other building is owned by another person.
Mr• Boardman explained that the request is to split the property. .-
He explained that the buildings are ten feet apart and by making the lot
split right down the middle of the two buildings, there would be a five
foot setback for each building� The property does meet the requirements
as laid out for the commercial zoning on the property. Each building has
a front footage of 160 feet o Reference was made of the Planning
Commission min�tes from 1970, where action was taken• At that time,
the Commission had made a statement that if at any time they wanted thi s
property under two ownerships, the lot split would have to be approved by Council.
Mr• Codden made reference to the Appeals Commission Meeting of
April 12, 1977, at which he had made a variance request, that
M°r• Robert Aldrich, Fire Prevention Bureau Chief, had reaffirmed his
statement made June 1, 1970, regarding ifire protection.
Mr• Aldrich had stated that the structures were low and he would have
no reservations in the construction of {or} placement in the event of
a fire• He said that the trucks could get around the buildings easily-
Mr• Codden felt it would be sensible, at this time, to have the lot
split-
Mrs• Schnabel verified what Mr• Codden had said regarding the
Ap�il 12, 19??, Appeals Commission Meeting.
r�
_ --��
Planning Commission Meetin — April 2D, 1977� Page 3
Mre Lagenfeld made the statement that accessability of this property
posed no problems•
'� Mro Lagenfeld asked Mr� Codden if it wasn't his.intention to se11 this
property�
Mre Codden confirmed the statement that it was his intention to divest
himself of the ownership of the self-service car wash�
Mr� Bergman made the statement that the Planning Commission has
received the request to do a lot split regarding two structures which do
exist and are, in fact, ten feet apart� He stated that even though
they do involve a conflict of city code, in reality the buildings do
exist and he felt that at this point, it should be recommended to
City Council�
MOTION by Mro Bergman, seconded by Mrs. Schnabel, that the Planning
Commission recommend to City Council approval of a lot split,
L. S� �77-02 byPark �letropolitan Invenstment Fund,,� to split off the Southerly
�?n fo�± �f ��± �9 R��C� 3, Cor^rierce �ark, tc�!n?k� tw� oarcels for tax �urposes,
the same being 7300 and�7320 University Avenue N.E., zoned C-2. Upon a voice vote,
all vo�ing aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris stated that this request would go to the City Council on May
2, 1977.
^ 3. PUBLIC HEARI�JG:• REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #77-02, CANADIAN FINANCIAL
CORPORATION: Fer Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, 3 E and F, to allow the
;: construction of housing for th� elderly and an automobile parking lot for off-
street parking in an R-1 Zoning District, on Lots 1-7, and the Northerly 215 feet
of Lot 24, Block 1, Alice Wall Addition.
MOTION by Mr� Lagenfeld, seconded by I�rs� Schnabel, to open the Public
Hearing request for a special use permit, SP �77-02, Canadian
Financial Corporation� Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson
Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 7:55 Po�10
Mra Richard So Kahn, Canadian Financial� Corporation, was present.
Mr� Boardman explained that the original plan for the property zn
question was -For a 144-unit conventional apartment building� However,
the financing for that particular project did not come through, and
Canadian Financial Corporation stepped in with an immediate proposal
on that property. Mr. Boardman explained that the fi�st proposal received
was for 138 multi-family units. The Staffr went out to the Golden Valley
project which Canadian Financial Corporation is involved in, the Dover
Hill project. This project was carefully looked at along with Canadian
Financial Corpora�ion. He worked with Canadian Finance in developing a
proposal for 104 multi-family area and 10W unit elderly structure� The
mu].ti-family units would be located in a presently zoned R-3 area that was
zoned for apartment buildings � The elderl,� buildin,� �woul�l be, loFated �
� on trie Northern part of the R•1 zoned property; including Lots 1 through 7.
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 1977 Page 4
Under the proposal for the 104 unit multi-family and 104.unit elderly,
we would have required a special use permit to allow the elderly
building in Zone R-1 and also a special use permit to allow a portion
of the multi-family area to be in the R-1 zone• Also with the 104 n
unit proposal it would have required a variance• The maximum number
of units allowed on that portion is 92 units• The Canadian Financial
Corporation went ahead with the 104 units at this time with full
knowldege that a special use permit approved, they would go for a
variance• This proposal has been sent to the Human Resource Commission
and the Community Development Commission• These commissions recommended
to Canadian Finance Corporation that they may want to bring the number
down to 92 units• Canadian Finance Corporation agreed to do this.
Therefore, the plan now is for 92 units multi-family and 104 units
elderly• This would eliminate the need forthe Special Use P�rmit to
allow�parking�in the R-1 zoning for the multi-familv complex. _
Mr• Boardman also pointed out that they are still proposing the
single family development along seventh street and 63rd & 64th _.
Avenues and eliminate lots 1 thru 7 but keep lots 8 thru 22•
At this point M�. Boardman turned the floor over to Mr• Richard Kahn
from Canadian Financial Corporation•
Mr• Kahn presented more background material on how they arrived at
their present plan. He explained that back in November, the
Canadian Financial Corporation had been working with the Wall
Corporation on a proposal that had previously been approved by �
the City Council for that property for a 144-unit conventional type
building• As they progressed with this particular proposal, the �,
State Housing Finance Agency came back and said they should consider
a plan more oriented towards family townhouse units. This required
them to come back to the city with a whole new concepto The reason they
changed the plan from family to combination family/elderly came after
some discussions with the City of Fridley Staff� The Staff felt
that a project the community had the greates� interest in was a combination
of both. Mr• Kahn stated they had taken the Staff for a tour of the
Golden Valley project and Staff had given encouragement to duplicate
the Golden Valley Plan.
Therefore, Canadian Financial Corporation then came up with a new plan
that would call for a Senior Citizen mid-rise of five stories, with
104 units and 104family townhousetype units- Based on further discussions
they had with the Staff and during meetings with the �ommunity
Development Commission and the Human Resources Commission last week
they had again modified their plan slightly and came up the the plan
that Mr• Kahn had displayed•
M�• Kahn then described the plan. He explained that the larger gray
area on the plan was the Senior Citizen mid-rise building consisting
of 104 units, five stories high, with all units having one bedroom•
There would be a F+alf-moon pick-up/drop-off area in front of the
Senior Citizen building• There would be no parking allowed here, however,
the area would be big enough for a bus turn-around. There would be ^
parking behind the Senior Citizen building. There would be a SOi ,
parking capability for the senior citizens consisting of parking spaces
and garages-
;U��� ��
Planning Commission Meeting — April 2D, 197? �age 5
�r• Kahn continued with his description of the plan. He indicated that
the remainder of the area was the multi-family units. He said that
� after discussion with Staff, ins�ead of 104 multi-family units, there would
y;, be only 92 units. Therefore, he explained that there would be no request
for a variance on that part of the proposal�
Mro Kahn then went to the drawing of the plan and pointed out to the
Commission a few of the things he had added such as a tennis court, a
court for basketball/volleyball, a play area for the children, and
playground equipment for the smaller children� He added a buiZding of
approximately 2,400 square feet for a community center. He indica�ed
that they would be doing extensive landscaping, especially around the
pond� He said there would be a walking path, well lighted, with benches at
various points around the pond� Also he indicated a picnic area for
both the senior citizens and family areas� He added that the Senior
Citizen area would also have a putting green, gas grills, and a community
room located in the building� This community room would be approxiamtely
1,200 sqware feet in size and would be made available to the Senior
Citizens of Fridley for their various meetings and activitieso There would
also be several multi-purpose rooms available for the use by Senior
Citizens.
Mr� Kahn indicated that one parking space and one garage would be
provided for each o� the 92-unit mul�i-family townhouses�
Mr� Kahn then went into some detail with regards �o what Canadian
�,Financial Corporation has done in Golden Valley. The city of Golden
Valley was very extensively involved in the Dover Hill project�
�`Golden Valley had been very resistent at firs� to have this kind o�
proposal in their community. They indicated that if they were going �o
have this �ype of project, there were two things they had to know —
{1}they had to know that they would have control in designing the
project and {2} know that they would have control over the management of
the project indefinitely into the future�
Mro Kahn indicated that Golden Valley did control the design of the
project from start to finish. In terms of management, what the Ci�y of
Golden Valley did is in the zoning approval Canadian Financial
Corporation received, that for all times the City Council of Golden Valley
would control the management policies of the complex and if there was
ever a time that Canadian Financial Corporation was doing something
with that project in terms of management that the City didn't like, they
could, through the Council, issue an order to have Canadian Financial
Corporation change it- If the City didn't like the way the grounds
were being maintained, if they didn't like the kind of.programs that
they were offering to the residents, if there were complaints from
neighbors about something they weren't doing, all they would have to
do is simply order them to take care of the matter and Canadian
Financial Corporation would have to do it•
��
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 1977 Page 6
Mr• Kahn indicated that the City of Golden Valley also established
a procedure where the Human Resources Commission would review the
operation of this project on a continual basis� Four times a year ^
the Commission would review the operation� Twice a year they would
make a report to the City Council as to how they were doing and if
they felt that there were things that would have to be changed, they
would make recommendation to the City Council• The Council, in turn,
would indicate to Canadian Financial Corporation that such things
were to be done immediately•
Mr• Kahn said that the City of Golden Valley has become so involved
in this Project that Canadian Financial Corporation meets with a
�epresentative from the Human Resources Housing Community Development
Commission, a social services director, and a resident manager and go
through applications and unanimously agree on who should live in
each unit• He stated that in the instance of poor tenants, there was
a court procedure whereby within 30 days, they could be evicted
even if the lease had not expired• Mr• Kahn said that thev were
not reluctant to do this• Mr. Kahn stated that he fel� that this
process-was one of the reasons that this project has been so successful•
Mr• Kahn proceeded to say that because this project has been so
successful, they would like to duplicate this idea in Fridley• He
said that Canadian Financial Corporation would like to set up some
arrangement whereby on a long term basis, Fridley, like Golden Valley�
would be able to control the management of the complex and through
Human Resources or Community Development Commissions {whichever manner�
Fridley decided to structure it} they would constantly be working
with management from the City in developing management policies i r
and determining what kinds of people should be living in this project.
and, in general, making sure that the Project is being operated
the way the City of Fridley would want it to be operated�
Mr. Kahn continued with his presentation by explaining that all the
Senior Citizen units would be subsidized• Under that program, the
tenants would pay 25 percent of their monthly income for rent•
This would mean that those tenants on Social Security payments of
�400 per month would pay $1D0 per month for rent. Mr. Kahn indicated
that the multi-family section would also be eligible for this plan•
Mr. Kahn gave the breakdown of the multi-familY units. There would
be 40 one-bedroom units, 40 two-bedroom units, and 12 three-bedroom
units•
In closing, Mr• Kahn, said that some preliminary research had been
done and Fridley has a relatively high degree of people approaching
65• Canadian Financial Corporation has found that when people retire,
usually they want to stay in the community they have lived most of
their lives; however, many times they are fo�ced to leave because
their ability to pay for housing had gone down, while housing and
�ents had gone up•
n
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 1977 Page 7
Mrs. Schnabel asked about plans fo� single family dwellings on the
remaining lots•
�' Mr- Kahn answered that u on a
p pproval of the plans, there is presently
a contractor interested in the remaining lots to build single family
dwellings. The price range of these homes would be in the
�50-60,�00 range•
Chairperson Harris asked if the driveways emptied onto Mississippi-
Mr• Boardman answered that all accesses are on fifth street. The
drop off/pick-up area in front of the Senior Citizen Building would
be the only driveway onto �ississippi Street� �r• Boardman
indicated that he didn't feel that this would result in an extensive
amount of traffic.
Mrs. Shea expressed concern for the lack of a plan for tornado shelters. �
Wanted to know if some provision could be made for such shelters�
Mr� Kahn answered that he assumed that some provisions for tornado
shelters would have to be drawn into the plan before the proposal
could be approved�
Mr� Bergman commended f1r. Kahn on the fact that many of the items
of concern and considerations brought up a� �he Cornmuni�ty Developmenic
Commission meeting of April 1.2, 1977, have been en�ered into the new
plan being presented• He felt that, in deed, Mr. Kahn had an
�� improved plan�
�� Mr� Bergman asked �Ir� Kahn how Canadian Financial Corporation had
arrived at the size of the Senior Citizen building and the number
of units it would contain.
Mr. Kahn answered that Canadian Financial Corporation assumed that
the height of the building would be a matter of concern in Fridley�
Therefore, they decided on five stories, which because of the size
of each unit, would best handle 1�4 units. If a need was expressed
for more units, ichen it would mean they a�ould have to add more
heighto The reason they wouldn't make the building longer is that
it would be too far of a walk to the elevators for the residents
living at the far ends of the hallways.
Mr� Lagenfeld wanted to know the approximate turn-over in the
Project�
Mre Kahn commented that in the Senior Citizen building there would
basically be no turn-over� Generally, once a person moves into a
Senior Citizen residenee, they generally stay� He estimatec� that
in the family dwellings� the turn-over would be about 30-35i per year.
��
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 197? Page 8
Mr• Lagenfeld asked Mr. Kahn to explain the screening process-
�M• Kahn responded that the process would be whatever the City of
Fridley decided• It could be made the respon'sibility of the �
Human Resources Commission or the Community Development Commission•
It could be handled the same as Golden Valley-
Mrs• Schnabel wanted to know the breakdown of the 92 multi-family units-
Mr• Kahn indicated that the larger building would consist of eight
one-bedroom units and eight two-bedroom units• The two-bedroom units
are two-story townhouses that will be 1�200-1�300 square feet• On
top of each two-bedroom unit ia a ane-bedroom unit� The other buildings
would be either two or three-bedroom units• The overall breakdown
would be 40 one-bedroom units, 40 two-bedroom units, and 12 three-
bedroom units.
Mrs• Schnabel wanted to know about guest parking for the senior c�tizen
building•
Mr� Kahn indicated that approximately 1/3 of the tenants would have
cars• There are 52 parking spaces available for the 104 units�
Therefore, he felt that there would be ample spaces for the guests to
park• He indicated that at the Golden Valley project, there are
always plenty of empty space• He added that guests would enter from
Fifth Street and then proceed to the Senior Ci�izen Building-
Mr• Kahn continued that at the Multi-Family section they have allowed
for one space and one garage for each unit� Not all families will �'`�
have two cars; therefore, again, there would be ample parking for
� �
guests•
M�s� Schnabel wanted to know if there would be a guest room in the
Senior Citizen building for visiting families-
Mr• Kahn indicated that in the past, when Canadian Financial Corporation
asked the Senior Citizens what they wanted done with extra available
space, most of them indicated they would like to have a semi-medical
clinic that would be available for them• The tenants felt that
the utilization of the extra space would be more beneficial to them
as a clinic than a guest room• However, Mr• Kahn, indicated that
they would leave the decision of what to do with extra space up to
the tenants themselves-
Chairperson Harris wanted to know approximately how many children
would come out of the multi-family area.
Mr• Kahn responded that studies have come up with an estimated
number of . 7 c�i 1 dren per uni t3
Chairperson Harris asked Mr• Boardman if anyone from the Fire
Prevention Bureau had checked the plans in �egards to the height
of the Senior Citizen Building•
,�
_ _ - -�
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 197? Page 9
�I,r• Boardman answered that', _ •
� there would be no problem handling the fiv� story building�
Chairperson Harris wanted to know if there would be any screening
process for the Multi-Family section- .
Mr.� Kahn responded that it would be the same as explained for the
Senior Citizen Building�
Chairperson Harris wanted �o know what will happen to the rest of the
R- 1 Zoned lots 18-22�
Mro Kahn indicated that ichey would be sold to another developer who
would build single family homes.in the $50-60,�OD price range•
Mr� Kahn indicated that he noticed that there were many people in
the audience who had been at.the Dover Hill Project in Golden Va_lley
and he assumed they would have �ome questions ichey might want answered•
Mrs� Schnabel wanted it to be understood that the reason the Planning
Commission was not asking many questions w�s that the Commission had
been invited out to Golden Valley to see the Dover Hill Projec� and
many had gone and had asked numerous questions previously.
At this point Chairperson F�arris asked if there was anyone in the
au�ience who would like to comment about the Project.
�"'� .
Mrs. Maddison of ?311 Oakley Street N�E� commented �hat she was
�� very much interested in the Senior Citizen Building� She said sh8
was presentl.y living in a Mobil Homeo She presently had to do all
the lawn work, all the shoveling, and general upkeep of the property.
She felt �ha� it wouldn't be long before she wouldn't�feel like or be
able to do all the work necessary. She said that there wasn°t any
place in Fridley a person could go to get this type of aceommodations.
She felt that Fridley should definitely consider something of this
type for its Senior Citizens.
Mrs� Gladys Peek of Z�47 North Circle N�Eo commented that the
Senior Citizens would all like to remain in Fridley where they have
lived for many years� She said that it was becoming increasingly
harder to find an apartment that a Senior Citizen could afford. She
saa.d she would be delighted if this building could be in Fridley.
Mr. Steven Takle of 6311-7th Street N�Eo wanted to know what would
happen if �the Federal Subsidy Program was cut back in coming years.
Wha� is being planned to take care of this problem?
Mr. Kahn responded that before construction is even started,
Canadian Financial Corporation would sign a contract with the
Governmen� for 40 years, guaranteeing this rental subsidy pragramo
,.-�� Mr• Takle asked if there was a firm agreement with the contractor
,; to build the single family dwellings on lots 8 thru 22�
M�o Kahn said that yes, there was an agreement and the contractor was
r-eady to go ahead as soon as the project was approvedo
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 197? Page 10
Mr• Takle asked about the completion time, should the project be
approved• •
Mr• Kahn said that he hoped to begin construction this fall and ^
figured that it would be completed in about one year•
Mr• Takle quoted Mr. Kahn as saying there would be one parking
space and one garage for each multi-family dwelling• He wanted to
know if any provisions would be made for the many things that accummulate
in a family like bikes, wagons, and other play things�
Mr. Kahn said that this would be the responsibility of each family
to keep up their yards� There will be policies made up governing this
type of thing and the management will take care of the matters
immediately•
Mr• Takle asked if the Senior Citizen and Multi-Family grounds would
be kept up by the same people�
Mr• Kahn said that yes there would be the same up keep on both grounds.
Mr• Takle commented that there was a park close by and would there be
walkways provided from the project to the park• He wanted to know
who would be assessed for these walkways.
Mr• Kahn said that they have not included this type of walkway to
the park in their plans�
�
Mr• Boardman commented that there would be walkways all around ��
- �and throughout the project. He said that there would be a
sidewalk to the park, but that it would not be a part of the project.
Mr• Boardman submitted a letter received from the County Commissioner
of Anoka County offering the support of the County Board to the
proposed senior citizens' housing project planned for the Wall
property in the City of Fridley�
MOTION by Mr. Lagenfeld, seconded by t1rs• Schnable, that the
Planning Commission receive the letter from Anoka County,
Mike E� 0°Bannon, County Commissioner.
Chairperson Harris read the letter.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously and
the letter was received• �
Chairperson Harris said that the letter will go in a file to go to
City Council•
�"1
�
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 1977 Page 11
Mrs• Olive Hedman of 5695 West Moore Lake Drive commented that she
had gone out to the Golden Valley Project and she felt that the
,�"'� Senior Citizen building was a nice, secure place to live. She said
that there were a lot of high-rise buildings for seniors, but none
of them were in such a safe neighborhood as the one in Fridley.
She said that she really liked Fridley and would like the
opportunity to stay here�
Mrs. Nelen Burtson of 1091 North Circle N�E� said that she really
couldn't add anything to what everyone else had said. She .iust
said that she would really like to have the Senior Citizen Building•
Sue Shelton of 500 Bennett Drive N.E� commented about the abundance
of water runoff when it rained• She wanted to know where all the
water would go.
Mr. Boardman commented that with the development of this property
they would be making it possible for �he pond to handle a 50-year
flood. He said that the purpose of the ponding area was to handle
the water run off; basically a holding area for abundant water until
the water could gradually run off into the sewer systems� He
said that this would eliminate the need to completly update the entire
sewer systems in the area.
Sue Shelton asked if the Senior Citizen Building and the Multi-Family
buildings would be managed separately or by one and �he same-
� Mra Kahn said that Canadian Financial Corporation will manage
;_ �., both areas • .
Mr. Schnabel asked Mr� Boardman who would be assessed for the storm
sewer system�
Mro Boardman said that the sewer system would be totally within
the property itself�
Mro George fl�isner of 373 �lississippi Street expressed concern
about driving onto Mississippi Street from a driveway. His concern was
from the standpoint of what another driveway will do� He also
felt that a five-story building would have a negative impact on the
areao
Mr• Kahn didn°t agree that it would be a negative thing� He said
it didn't seem to produce any hostile feelings at all in Golden Valley
and they have a seven-story Senior Citizen Building�
/'�,
, ,
��
Planning Commission Meeting — Apri1 20, 1977 Page 12
Chairperson Harris asked I�r• Kahn if he had elevations of the
buildings.
�=
Mr• Kahn showed the commission the exact comparison to the library thaz
would be right next to the Senior Citizen Building� The arches on
the library would be about 1/2 as high as the Senior Citizen building•
Also he explained that the landscaping and grading of the grounds
would be such that it would help neutralize any problems•
Mr•Meisner wanted to know if the extensive grading involved would be
included in the proposal and if it would be all done at once•
Mre Kahn responded yes to all comments�
Mr� Meisner questioned the security procedures that would be in
the Senior Citizen building.
M�• Kahn explained that they would have a full security system with
intercoms and buzzerso The building would be locked at� all times.
The residents would have to go to the door to give addmitance to anyone•
Mr� Meisner wnated to know if this was only an apartment complex
for the elderly or perhaps sometime in the future, will families
be allowed to rent�
Mr• Kahn responded that this would be an apartment complex for
Senior Citizen ONLY-
Mr• Meisner want ta know the difference in regards to the special
use permits�
Mr� Boardman said that only hospital clinics, housing for the
elderly, rest homes or senior citizen residences can be built in
an R-1 Zone with a special use permito Apartment complexes cannot.
Mrs• Joseph Tapsak of 510 Mississippi Street N�E• expressed concern
for the children in regards to the pond. She wanted to know if a
fence would be installed� She wanted to know how deep the water
would be� Also she wanted to know if there would be something done
�egarding insect controlo
Mr• Kahn said they had no plans to fence the pond as they found
fences were more of a challenge to children than a safety factor- He
said that special precautions were being taken to have the pond have
a gradual slope and no sharp drop offs•
�
� �.
MR• Boardman explained that the water would probably be two to three
feet deep except during a storm, at which time it would be considerably
deeper.Y Any overflow of water in the ponding area would go into the
parkings areas and gradually be handled by the storm sewer system.
He indicated that actually they didn't anticipate this to be a frequent
event• He felt th�t this method would be a temporary type of thing ^
that would have to be lived with• Otherwise, they would have to ,
enter into a substantially expensive re-modificatior� of the total
sewer system in the area•
,�
�
�"�
,' �:
r�
r �
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 197? Page 13
Mr• Boardman also explained the capability of the ponding area to
take care of 12 acres of water, one foot deep•
Mr• Kahn said that Canadian Financial Corporation would do whatever
the City of Fridley felt was necessary as �ar as insect control.
M�• Boardman said that presently there was a plan in the proposal to
keep the water in the pond from becoming stagnant. He felt that
this could possibly tie in with t.he insect control for the complex•
Chairperson Harris asked what was presently being done in regards
to insect control in that area•
Mr� Boardman stated that presently nothing in particular was being
done� �
Mr� Arvid Miller of 525 Be�nett Drive N.E� asked if the storm sewer
system is updated in the future what would happen to the pond area•
Also he wanted to know who would handle this assessmen��
Mrn Boardman explained that if something like that was done, the
project would handle their share of the expenses. Regarding the
pond, �he area would become open space in the projecto He said that
the area would remain open space and not build on�
Mr• Takle wanted a verification tha� the Senior Citizen building
would be for senior citizens able to take care of themselves and
not a nursing home• Also wanted verification of the parking space
available for the Senior Citizens. Also wanted to know about
overflow parking during peak visiting times•
Mro Kahn verified that the senior citizen building would be for
people capable of taking care of themselves. He explained that
parking would be approxi►nately 5D percent and that in Golden Valley,
this amount of parking space was adequate•
Chairperson Harris commented that since the Coun�ty of Anoka stated
that this Senior Citizens' housing would be in conformance with the
plans ofr the County Library Board and the County Board of Commissioners,
perhaps something could be worked out with the Library to utilize
their parking area on special holidays {Christmas, Easter, etc} when
the Library would not be open•
A senior citizen from the audience made the statement that basically
most senior citizens spend holidays with their childrer and the
parking would probably be less of a problem on these days�
Planning Commission Meeting — Ap�il 20, 19?7 Page 14
Mr• Lagenfeld said that he went on the tour of the Dover Hill project
in Golden Valley and that he found it to be most impressive• He
looked at locks and pounded on walls to check for hollow spots. He !�
said he was very nosey, more so than he figured Canadian Financial
Corporation had expected� He felt that the construction of the
Senior Citizen building was superb. He said that each room had a
smoke detector and a central smoke detecting unit in the hallways;
in other words he felt that as far as fire protection, this project
couldn't be beat•. He indicated that some people made comments as
to this being a^high rise^• It seems that immediately a person
would think of some kind of skyscraper sticking out like a sore-thumb•
He didn't think that that was at all true even with the seven stories
in Golden Valley. He went on to say that he tried looking at the
project from the outside, putting himself in the position of a
citizen of Fridley as to how this really would appear• He really
felt that once completed, this project would actually blend in with
the surrounding areas and would be an asse't to the City. He indicated
that many people think that the project will be subsidized, therefore
that it would be sub-standard- Mr. Lagenfeld indicated that NO WAY•
He felt this was a really beautiful structure• He felt that the
City of Fridley would really be able to say they were proud of this
project� The city would be able to take pride in the fact that they
were finally getting something for the Senior Citizens� He also
indicated that we really do need this type of rental unit in our
community�
There was applaud from the audienceo
,�
Mrs• Schnabel indicated that for four years or more she has wanted �' ''�
to see a Senior Citizen housing project in Fridley. She had always
had the opinion that this particular piece of property would be ideal
�or this type of projecto She really felt that this Senior Citizen
plan has been a long time in coming�
Mrso Schnabel asked Mr. Boardman if there were any plans regarding
the intersection of Mississippi and University avenues as to improving
it for pedestrian safety�
Mr� Boardman said that he felt that this was something that really
had to be looked into.
An observor from the audience came forward to add the comment that
the intersection of Mississippi and Hwy 4? was scheduled to be reviewed-
He said that many things were being considered such as turning lanes,
improved pedestrian crossings, and possibly an overpass•
Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Boardman if Staff had read through the
Management Plan�
Mr• Boa�dman said that they had� He indicate� that Staff was in
complete agreement with the plan as drawn up. The only point that
needed more wording was the opening of the building for community
Senior Citizen functions�
,�
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 1977 Page 15
Chairperson Harris asked Mro Kahn if he had seen the list of
t�tipulations-
�, Mr- Kahn said that they have seen and read the liste He agreed to
_. go along with all items.
Mrs• Shea indica�ed that Mr. Kahn has been most willing to answer
any and all questions that the members of the Planning Commission
have had� She indicated that Canadian Financial Corporation has
also been most cooperative to any concerns or ideas the members
have had.
Mr• Lagenfeld made the statement that the Senior Citizens living in
the Dover Hill project seemed most satisfied• He also wanted to poin�
out that this project would be centrally located• He felt that it
was true that some problems would have to be ironed out, but he was
most confident that the Staff and Council would be able to
clarify everything.
MOTION by Mr• Lagenfeld, seconded by Mrs• Shea, �o close the
public hearing: Request for a special use permit, SP �77-02,
Canadian FZnancial Corporation• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:10 P�M�
MOTION by Mr� Bergman, seconded by Mrs� Shea, to recommend to
City Council approval of the request for a special use permit,
SP �77-02, Canadian Financial Corporation� per Fridley Citv Code, Section
� 205.051, (3), E, to aliow zne construction of housing for the elderly, on Lots
1- 7, and the Northerly 215 feet of Lot 24, Block 1, Alice Wall Addition, with
/`\ special note that the special �se permit for automobile parking on R-1 property
is no longer required, and with the stipulations contained in an agreement to be
considered by the City Council.
Mr� Lagenfeld pointed out for the records that the Environmental
Quality Commission was 100 percent in favor of this project�
�1rso Schnabel also wanted it mentioned that the Appeals Commission
was in favor of this p1.an and were pleased to see the project come
abouto She had one ques�ion regarding the list of stipulations
previously approved by the Planning Commission• She wanted to
know if the additional stipulation regarding insect control would
be added to this list or would that be acted upon by City Council.
It was indicated that the additional stipulations regarding insect
control would be incorporated by City Council�
Mro Boardman indicated that Canadian Financial Corporation has gone
over these stipulations and probably would be adding them to their
proposal-
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously�
� Chairperson Harried said that this item would be considered by
� ,
City Council on May 2, 19??.
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 197`7 Page 16
��:• PUBLIC HEARING= REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP �7?-03,
BY BARRY C. BROTT UND= o permit e construction o wo
up exes an or ou e bungalows, in an R-1 Zoning district �
{single family homes}, per Fridley �ity Code, Section 205:053, 3,
D, to be located on Lot 11� Auditor's Subdivision No�23,
together with vacated Grand Avenue as dedicated in the plat of
Fridley Park, the same being 6431-33 East River Road and 6435-3?
East River Road N.E.
MOTION by Lagenfeld, seconded by Schnabel that the Planning Commission
open the Public Hearing on the request for a special use permit,
SP �77-D3, by Barry C• Brottlund• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 9:15 P•M�
MOTTON by Lagenfeld, seconded by Schnabel that the Planning Commission
read the letter to Mra Harris dated April 11� 1977, from
John W� Kimbler and Joyce E• Kimbler concerning the property located
at 6431-33 East River Road and 6435-37 East River Road� Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously�
Chairperson Harris read the letter in opposition to this request.
MOTION by Mrs� Shea, seconded by Mr� Bergman that the Planning
Commission receive the letter to the Planning Commission dated
April 11� 1977, concerning the property located at 6431-33 East River
Road and 6435-37 East River Road from Mary Carda and Leo Carda.
,�-,
Even though this letter was a part of the agenda, Mro Lagenfeld felt�,.,�
that the letter should be read for the benefit of the audience-
Th� letter was read•
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously
and the letter was received•
Mr• Boardman gave the Commission a background of the request. He
stated that the proposal is for a double bungalow/duplex to be
constructed on Lot 11 {referred to agenda page 39}� The intent of
the proposal is to divide the property into two parcels for construction
o� two structuresa Mr• Brottlund was coming before the Planning
Commission for a special use permit that will allow for the construction
of double bungalows in an R-1 Zoned area� Mr• Boardman explained
that both lots would be approximately 12,000 squre feet• �The
requirement for a duplex is 10,000 square feet; therefore, they do
meet the requirements•
Mr• Barry C• Brottlund was present at the meeting•
Chairperson Harris invited Mr� Brottlund to speak before the
Commission on this subject•
,-�
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 1977 Page 1?
Mr• Brottlund explained his intentions of how the construction would
be done and approximately what type of construction he had planned for
�`, the property. He said that the structures would be two units each-
� His plans are to make property values in the area benefit by the
structures. He said that the units would be very attractive•
They should do nothing but add to the attractiveness of the area-
He went on to say that there are several plans available that will
give these duplexes the appearance of being e single family dwelling.
He did indicate �hat at this point in time he didn't know exactly
what he will be building o
,�1
�� �,
,�
i
Mro Lagenfeld asked him if he had any plan at all at this time?
Mr� Brottlund answered that he didn't have any plans at this time•
Mr• Lagenfeld asked if he had any idea of any similar type of
structure somewheres in our tity•
Mr. Brottlund answered that there were four such structures in the
City of New Brighton, He said that he had been in contact with the
single home owners in the area, some directly across the street.
These people did indicate that when they first were aware of the
units, they did show some concern, as I am sure anyone wo�ld• However,
since the cons�ruction of these structures, they have all been happy
with the �ype of people that have been living in them, primarily
owner occupied. Most have been impressed with the structures.
�ir� Lagenfeld asked if he has looked into the feasibility of
constructing single family dwellings.
Mr• Brottlund said it had been considered• He said there are
accommodations on the property to take care of either single or
double family units. He said that he had looked over the area and
felt that there was a trend for good looking, we11 cared for double
family dwellings�
Mrs- Schnabel wanted to know if f1ro Brottlund had an option on this
land or if he owned it�
Mr• Brottlund responded that he had a purchase agreement�
Mr• Schnabel wanted to know if he was intending to build for sale of
the property or if he was planning to lease them-
Mr. Bro�tlund explained that he had three different plans:
{1} To market them to builders that will build them for
sale {market the land}�
{2} Most preferable way, that he has contacted two builders
that were most interested in putting up the type of buildings
he had mentioned, for sale purposes•
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 1977 Page 18
{3} To put the structures up himself and lease them•
Again, Mr. Brottlund indicated that he was most inte�ested in ^
pursuing the second choice• _
Mrs. Schnabel asked that since he has a purchase agreement on the
property, that if he would hire a contractor to build on the property
for sale purposes, who would retain ownership of the property-
Mr• Brottlund indicated that the contractor would retain ownership•
Mrs. Schnabel wanted to know if Mra Brottlund was in the construction
business himself-
Mra Brottlund responded that he was not.
Mro Schnabel wanted to know if he had any ideas, if he was to develop
this property, if he would have driveway access onto River Road or
would he plan for a turnaround on the property itself•
Mr� Brottlund said that this was one of the things he discussed with
Mr• Boardman• He indicated that this would definitely be a
consideration since both lots are large enough to have turn-around
areas-
Mrs� Shea wanted to know who owned the garage that is on the property•
�,
Mr• Brottlund said that it belongs to the present property owr.er
and that it goes with the property• �'�1�
Mr� Lagenfeld wanted to know what kind of landscaping, fencing, etc•
he had planned to put on this property.
Mr� Brottlund indicated that prese�tly there is fencing across the
front of the property from one driveway to the other driveway, about
15 feet from the curb. He indicated that the price range of this
planned structure would be between $65-85,00� and that the
cosmetic appearance of the property would be comparable to the
price of the home.
Mr• Lagenfeld asked if this particular idea was just a speculative
venture at this timeo '
Mr• Brottlund indicated that, in part, it was a speculative
venture; but he personally felt that it would be to the benefit
of the area.
Mr• Bergman believed that the total block in question was zoned R-1•
n
, �.
Planning Commission Meeting — April 2�, 197? Page 19
Mr• Boardman clarified that Lot 1D was zoned Commercial, however,
that the rest of the block was, in fact, zoned R-1�
�
_ Mr• Bergman wanted to know the Zoning of Block 12.
Mro Boardman indicated that they were R-1•
Mr� Bergman wanted to know if there were any other duplexes in the
area�
Mr� Boardman explained that there were none east of East River Road.
He said that there were some further down on East River Road• He
then discussed the locations of present duplexes in the area•
Mr• Bergman wanted to know if there were any hardship in
Mr• Brottlund's request.
Mr• Brottlund explained that he felt the lot was extremely large
for a single family unit. He felt that two units, double or single, woul�
make better use of the land- However, he said that there was no
hardship involved.
Chairperson Harris asked if there was anyone in the audience that
wished to address the issue•
Mr• Ken Hughes of 6424 Ashton Avenue N.E. indicated that he not
�, only owns his lot but also owns lots 20, 21 & 22. He restated
that thie entire area consisted of single family dwellings. He
�,� felt it would be wrong to bring in any type of double dwellings.
He wanted to know how much of Grand Avenue that Lot 11 included•
Mr� Boardman indicated that half of Grand Avenue went to Lot 11
and half would go to Lot 22� Basically 27•7 feet would go to each
lot�
Mr� Hughes said that he was led to believe that when Grand Avenue
was dedicated to be a street, that the land had been taken from
Fridley Park and when the petition was approved to vacate the land,
that it was to go back to Fridley Park. However, when he checked
with City Hall, no one could confirm this�
Chairperson Harris commented that if this land came from Fridley
Park, then it would go back to Fridley Park.
Mr• Hughes quoted from the legal description of the subject property
a••.atogether with the west half of vacated Grand Avenue, as dedicated
in the plat of Fridley Park e�o..
Chairperson Harris indicated that Fridley Park MAY have included
those lots on East River Road.
Mr� Hughes believed that if this property was from the Park, then
^' double dwelling structures couldn't be built.
i
Planning Commission Meeting — Arpil 20, 197? Page 20
�hairperson Harris indicated that the plat better be
He said that as he recalls, this lot in question is
and that the Planning Commission would have to go to
and hope they still had the records•
checked out.
a very old plat ^
the County
Mr. Hughes felt that the building of these structures wou�d definitely
lower the real estate in the area� Also he indicated that since
there were no parks or playgrounds in the area, where would the
children from four additional families play. He said that presently
the children in the area have to play in yards or in the streets
and adding four more families would only add to the problem.
Mr� Hughes wanted to know the required frontage for a double dwelling.
Mr� Boardman responded that the required frontage was 75 feet and
that Mr. Brottlund was showing 76.6 feet on one and 92 feet on
the other�
Mr� Hughes asked if Mr• Brottlund would have the required square
footage if half of Grand Avenue was not included•
Chairperson Harris referred to Page 38 of the agenda and indicated
that this was how it was registered in the Coun�y of Anoka. He added
that if this was incorreet, i� would take a Court Action to correct
it and Mr� Hughes would have to bring this action.
Mr. Lagenfeld asked Mr. Hughes why he felt that this type of -�
dwelling would lower his property value• ��
�
Mr• Hughes indicated that if he was to plan to buy a home, he would
look for a home in a single family dwelling areaa He also added
that he felt if two double dwellings were built in the area, it
would only make City Council more apt to allow more to come in
the future.
Mr� Gene Emerson of 99 N�E• 64th Way agreed with Mr- Hughes and was
against the proposed building of two double dwelling units. He
requested the Commission to consider the feelings and wishes of the
people living in the area�
Chairperson Harris said that the Commission would do this-
Mr• Warren Palm of 6421 East River Road said he was opposed to the
building of the proposed two double family dwellings. He felt that
Mr• Brottlund was very vague about what he is going to build• He
thought that the Commission should make him be more specific as to
what exactly his intentions were.
�
, �
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 1977 Pag� 21
4�r• LeRoy Erlandson of 60 Mississippi Way wanted it clarified that the
wording of the request meant that there would be four families• Also
'�� wanted to know about whether the units would be single or double
- level structures�
Mr• Brottlund confirmed that there would be four families• He
indicated that he was leaning towards the split entrance structure•
Mr• J• Cadwallader of Wayzata was there representing Mr• Brottlund•
He indicated that he had gotten legal descriptions of trie property made
by the Minnesota Valley Surveyors and Engineers Corporation and he has
found no restrictions on the property• He indicated that they were
dealing with a piece of property southeast of the corner of
Mississippi and East River Ro�d• He said that in driving through the
area he saw a considerable amount of multi-family apartments and such
and the actual corner of Mississippi and East River Road has become
commercial• Mr• Cadwallader felt that the area is really set and
looking for a buffer zone between single family dwellings and multi-
family units• He said that they were looking for a place to build
two two-unit buildings• They have checked into this property and have
found that they have the required square footage of land and also
that they have the required front square footage• He said that
they have looked into the access and egress from the property
because of the fact that East River Road is qui�e busy• They felt
that they have tried to meet all of the requirements of the City of
Fridley• He said that they were not looking for a rezoning, only
�^; e special use.permit and indicated �hat if it would �e necessary to tie
�� the special use permit to a particular type of building, then that
would be a possibility• He indicated that the city has supplied this
land with the necessary re�uirements for this to be a two unit site•
Mr• Cadwallader wanted to make it clear that they are presently
requesting the division of this property into two separate parcels
and that the special use permit is for the separate zoning for a
multi-dwelling and that the special use permit is not for the division
of the land• He did not want this special use permit and the
request for a lot split {item S of the agenda} to be considered
together•
Mrs• Shea asked Mr• Brottlund if he would consider putting up two
single family units on this property•
Mr• Brottlund responded that yes, consideration has been taken, but
that it was only a secondary consideration•
MOTION BY Mr• Lagenfeld, seconded by Mr- Bergman that the Planning
Commission close the public hearing on the request for a special use
permit SP �77-03, by Barry C• Brottlund• Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at
1D:05 P.M• �
�,
� �
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 19?? Page 22
MOTION by Mr• Lagenfeld, seconded by Mrs• Schnabel, that the
Planning Commission deny the request for a special use permit �
SP �77-.03, by Barry C• Brottlund •, to permit the construction •of two
duplexes/or double bungalows, in an R-1 Zoning District (single family homes), �-
per Fridley City Code, Section 205.053, 3, D, to be l.ocated on Lot 11, Auditor's
Subdivision No. 23, together with vacated Grand Avenue as dedicated in the plat
of Fridley Park, the same being 6431-33 East River Road and 6435-37 East River Road.
Mr• Lagenfeld indicated that the grounds for denial are the facts
that thet^e are no apparent hardship, there doesn�t seem to be exactness
in the planning and since this is a special use request he doesn't
feel it conforms with the Statement that when a special use permit is
issued, it must be subject to conditions — the conditions must conform
to the following standards: to protect the public health, safety,
convenience, and welfare� To avoid traffic congestion or hazards or
other dangers or to promote conformity of a proposed use with the
character of the adjoining property and uses and the district as a
whole or to protect such character• The reason for the denial request
was that Mr• Lagenfeld felt that it was not in harmony with the area
and does not protect the characters as stated•
Mrs• Schnabel seconded the motion because shE had several concerns•
One was because the petitioner did not have any particular hardship-
She also was concerned about the development of this property in that
Mr• Brottlund has only a purchase agreement on the property and does ^
not own it• Also that he has three different ideas of what he would c,
none being firm• It is because of these that she goes along with /�;
the decision to deny the special use permit•
UPON d VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
�hairperson Harris declared the request for a special use permit
SP �77-03 by Barry C• Brottlund be recommended to Council for denial•
He indicated that this would go to City Council May 2, 7,977•
5• REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L•S• 77-04, BY BARRY C- BROTTLUND:
Split Lot 11� A•S• � 3, toge er wi vaca e ran venue
as plated�tr•u�n Fridley park into two building sites each 76•66*
of frontage•
Mr• Boardman commented that since the legal description of i�his lot
was quite lengthy he had talked to Mr• Brottlund and they decided
that instead of a lot split, they would go Plat on the property.
He also tommented that with a notion of the possibility of a denial
for the special use permit, he had asked Mr• Brottlund if he would
still be interested in splitting the property•
Mr� Brottlund responded that he was definitely interested in
splitting the property•
Chairperson Harris asked how they wanted to handle the request•
Mr• Boardman commented that if Hendrickson does own the portion of
the vacated Grand Avenue then it is his right to sell•
,^�
,
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 1977 Page 23
thairperson Harris commented that there may have been a mistake in
' the vacation ordinance, and felt that the City Attorney should look
� at it•
Mr• Boardman pointed out that the plat would
public hearing process• He indicated that he
the next day• By that time they should have
City Council regarding t�he special use permit
comes through, we would be able to know what
as an R-2 or R-1 zoning•
have to go through a
would start the process
some indication from
so that when the plat
should be done as far
Mr- Brettlunc� made a formal reqtaest for the withdrawal of the request
for a lot split•
Chairperson Harris want the records to.show that Mr• Brottlund was
withdrawing the request for a lot split, L•S• 77-04•
6• PUBLIC HEARING=
�77-02, REPLaT OF
the purpose eing
for the area•
ONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY
MARXEN TERRACE, BY THO�IAS A•
to have iche plat meet the new
PLAT,
ARXEN_
street
P•S-
pattern
MOTION by Mr• Lagenfeld, seconded by (�rs• Shea, to open the Public
Hearing on consideration of a preliminary plat, P.S• �77-02, repla�
of Marxen Terrace, by Thomas A• Marxen• Upon a voice vote, all
� voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at
f�
1�:14 P.M•
i ,
Mr• Thomas A• Marxen of 19958 Pineridge Drive N•E• was presen�•
�1r• Boardman made re�Ference to the Replat of Marxen Terrace on
page SO of the agenda• He explained that the cul-de-sac did, at the
initial plating, extend past Marxen Terrace and cul-de-sac'd on th�
back properties to the east of Marxen Terrace• Ne indica�ed that
opposition was received from some property owners regarding the
cul-de-sac; therefore, the cul-de-sac was pulled off that area to
where it is now within Marxen Terrace�
Mr• Marxen commented that he had brought the land from Mr• Hall
who had initiated this section about ten years ago with the dedication
to this land of the right of way• Mr• I�arxen said he brought the land
five years ago and built a home on it• Mr• Marxen ended up selling
this home and the adjacent lot to it on Onondago Street• However,
he indicated that he still owned the back land• He indicated that
there seemed to be no other way to make this into a paying project•
f1r• Marxen pointed out that several home owners on the Stinson Blvd
side of the area in question are opposed to this• They don't want
it to affect their property• He pointed out that by moving the
cul-de-sac as stated� it would not affe��. their property•
��,
� ,
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 1977 Page 24
Mr• Boardman clarified that the request was to replat the cul-de-sac
to the way it .was originally plated• Also he indicated that the
second request was for vacation request of the existing right of way
described as the 50 foot right of way located between Lots 3, Block ?^•
and Lot 1� Block 2 and the south 50 feet of the North 355 feet of _.
Lot 6• Mr• Boardman showed the members of the commission exactly
what was in question on a drawing from the plat book•
Mr• Virgil Ishaug of 1473-75th Avenue N•E• stated that he was entirely
in favor of this particular replat•
Mr• Boardman also wanted to point out that wit� the approval of this
replat, they would also be approving a 30 foot setback on the
back property• {Again, Mr• Boardman pointed this out to the Commission
on a �lat drawing}•
�r• Ishaug wanted to know how many homes this plat called for now•
Mr• Marxen indicated that it called for three homes•
Mr- Ishaug wanted to know if this was initially plated for
multi-dwellings•
Mr• Marxen said that it was all single dwellings•
Mrs• Schnabel questioned the lot lines resulting from this•
Chairperson Harris showed her the lines on the drawing they had befo,�
them• ��
Mrs� Schnabel wanted ta know the approximate dimensions of Lot 6•
Mr• Boardman explained that it was 276 feet deep and 66•4 feet wide•
Mr• Bergman claimed that the Plat Book did not show the plat as
dedicated•
Mr• Tshaug wanted to know if that lot was vacated, would he be able
to put trees all the way back on his property•
Chairperson Harris responded tha�, yes, he would be able to plant
trees-
At this point the Commission continued to look at the Plat Book and
discussed among themselves the area in question•
Mr• Marxen brought up the question of Re-Rlat fees that he had to pay•
Chairperson Harris informed him to bring this up with the City Council•
�
�
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 1977 Page 25
MOTION by Mrs• Shea, seconded
�ommission receive the letter
�"1 the charges for Re-plat fees
, Upon a voice vote, all voting
the letter was received•
�"�,
� ��
�,
� ,
by Mrs• Schnabel,
from Mr• Thomas E•
of plat PS 7?-02•
that the Planning
Marxen reqardinq
aye, the motion carried unanimously and
MOTION by �rs• Shea, seconded by Mr� Bergman that the Planning
Commission close the public hearing on the consideration of a preliminary
plat, P.S• �77-D2, replat of Marxen Terrace, by Thomas A• Marxen•
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the
public Hearing closed at 10:30 R•M�
MOTION by Mrs• Schnabel, seconded by Mr• Lagenfeld, that the
Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of a preliminary
plat, P..S� �77-02, replat of Marxen Terrace, by Thomas A• Marxen
as proposed•
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
Chairperson Harris indicated that this would go to City Council on
May 2, 1977•
7• VACATION REQUEST: SAV �77-02 BY THOMAS E• MARXEN:
Vacate the existing righ� o� way or �arxen Terrace described as
the 50' right af way loca�ed between Lots 3, Block 1� and
Lot 1, Block 2, Marxen Terrace, and the South 5D feet of the
North 355 feet of Lot 6, that part of said �o� 6 that lies
within a circle whose radius is 5� fee� and whose center is
located at the SW corner of Lot 8 of said Auditor's
Sub• No• 10B•
Chairperson Harris indicated that the Comr��ission had already
discussed this and �chat Mr• Marxen wanted to vacate the section
that will not be used•
Mr• Bergman stated he didn't believe the.re tn be any problems with
this request•
Mr• Boardman explained that this had been dedicated prior to this
with Marxen Terraee•
MOTION by Mr• Bergman, seconded by Mrs• Shea, that the Planning
Commission recommend to Council approval of the vacation repuest, SAV #77-02,
6y Ihomas E. Marxen to-var.ate the existing right of way for Marxen Terrace,
described as the 50 foot right of way located between Lots 3, Block 1, and Lot l,
Block 2, Marxen Terrace, and the South 50 feet of the North 355 feet of Lot 6,
that part of said Lot 6 that lies within a circle whose radius is 50 feet and whose
center is located at the Southwest corner of Lot 8, of Auditor's Subdivision No. 108.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris indicated that this request will go to public
hearing on June 13, 1977 before the City Council.
Chairperson Harris declared that the planning Commission would take
a ten minute break at 10:35 P.M.
Chairperson Harris called the meeting back to orde�r at 10:45 P•M-
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 1�7? Page 26
.8• tONTINUED� GOALS & OBJECTIVES: ACCESS
$-
Mr• Boardman indicated that all the goals and objectives had
previously been approved•
Mrs• Schnabel indicated that at the 'time they approved items
A10U - A19�, however, there was no item A180• She said that there
had been a mistake in numbering• The approval should have been for
items A10� - A180•
9• CONTINUED: GOALS � OBJE�TIVES: COMMUNITY VITALITY
Mr• �oardman indicated that all the goals and objectives had
previously been approved, with the exception of item V150�
Mrs• Schnabel commented that item V11,0 had not yet been corrected•
She said that it sould read •••• kind of activity ••• instead of
...• the kind of mix ••••
�
-� _
Mr• Boardman presented to the Commission what he believed item
V150 should read•
^Promote industrial and commercial efforts to provide
business services and employment opportunites to the
residents tfirough the encouragement of technical assistance
in supporting their efforts to the extent that such
proposals are reflected in area development^
n
Mrs• Schnabel indicated that it was her main idea to assure the r�
business community that the City of Fridley wants to encourage
their continued business in Fridley•
Mr• Boardman explained his wording•
Mr• Bergman wanted to know how we would encourage business growth
and development to our residents•
Mrs• Schnabel wanted to know how we would encourage a favorable
climate for businesses•
Mr• Boardman responded that a favorable climate can be extended to
a degree when you have things like zoning restrictions, zoning
code requirements, etc• He explained that the thing we want to
do is to promote industrial development through the use of things
we have available to them• Such things as technical assistance, etc•
Mrs• Schnabel indicated that she wanted to go beyond those technical
services in that she would like to see an atmosphere in the
community that encourages businesses to stay here•
�,
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 1�77 Page 27
t,�Mr• Boardman agreed to change the wording
^promote an atmosphere that would encourage industrial
��'""� and commercial efforts in providing business services
and employment opportunities•to the resident in supporting
their efforts to the extent that such proposals are reflected
in area development^
MOTION by Mrs• Schnabel, seconded by Mr• Bergman, to accept item
V150 under Community Vitality, Program Objectives• Upon a voice
vote9 all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
1�• APPROVAL FORMAT FOR GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Mr• Bergman indicated that he thought the format was great•
MOTION by Mrs• Schnabel, seconded by Mrs• Shea, that the Planning
Commission approve the format for goals and objectives• Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
11• CONTINUED: PROPOSED �AINTENANCE CODE
MOTION by Mr• tagenfeld, seconded by Mrs• Shea, that this item
be continued until May 4, 1977• Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously•
12• �ONTINUED: RECOMMENDED CHANGES IN CHAPTER 212, MINING ORDINANCE
�
Mr•_ Lagenfeld made reference to It�m 212•05, Exceptions• He
�� indicated that the unnecessary wording had been struck out and that
it was recommended by the Environmental Quality Commission that this
be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval•
Mrs• Schnabel made reference to the situation that had just
occurred where three boys were caught in a sand cave-in• She said
that it was sand that had been brought in for construction of
homes in the area• She wanted to know if the Staff had reviewed
this item•
Mr- Boardman indicated that the staff recommendation on th� entire
Mining Ordinance would be not to allow any type mining in the City
of Fridley except if the party has a building permit•
Mrs• �chnabel wanted to know if there were any safety precautions
required in land alterations•
Mr• Boardman indicated that since the same applica�ion is used for
Mining and Land �4lterations, the same safety precautions are required•
Mr• Lagenfeld wanted to know if this recommendation would eliminate
the Mining Ordinance•
�..� Mr• Boardman indicated that that was the recommendation•
i�
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 1977 Page 28
Mr• Lagenfeld wanted to know what Would happen to the Ordinance
presently in the Books•
Mr• Boardman said that it was the o�pinion of the City Attorney �
to eliminate this Ordinance• �-4-
MOTION by Mr• Lagenfeld, seconded by Mrs• Schnabel, that the
Planning Commission accept this Ordinance as written and send
it to the City Council for their recommendation•
Mr• Bergman asked for clarification of the underlined words in
5-Operating Standards, {b} and the items on the last page•
Mr• Boardman answered that it was done to denote a change on the
final form•
Mr• Bergman didn't like the wording ^no less than^ in 212•07,
2 {a}.
t10TI0N by Mr• Lagenfeld, seconded by Mrs• Schnabel, that item
212•07, 2{a} will read ^within five feet of the right-of-way of an
existing public utility•
UPON a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
13• RECEIVE LETTER FR4M NEIGHB4RS ON 45th and 2-1/2 STREE'f' �
MOTION by Mrs• Shea, seconded by Mr• Bergman, that the Planninc;
Commission receive fche let�er from the neighbors on 45th and 2-1/2 �'
street regarding an addition to the garage at 4591 2-1/2 S�reet NE�
Fridley, and its use. -
Mr• Lagenfeld made reference of the meeting where he told the
neighbors to watch each other•
UPON a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously
and the letter was received•
],4• RECETVE PARKS & RECREATION COMf1ISSI0N MINUTES: MARCH 28, 1977
MOTION by Mr• Lagenfeld, seconded by Mr• Bergman that the Planning
Commission receive the Parks and Recreation Commission minutes of
March 28, 1977•
Mr• Lagenfeld made reference to Page 57 of the agenda, fourth
paragraph from the bottom, in the motion by Leonard (�oore regarding
the Rice Creek Watershed District as to what was transpiring within
the district• Mr• Lagenfeld indicated that whenever the date was
set for the meeting, he would try to attend•
�
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 1977 Page 29
Mr• Bergman felt that someone should have been at the Planning
���- Commission meeting representing the parks and Recreation Commission•
� Mrs• Shea commented that each commission should be informed that they
have a responsibility to attend the meetings•
UPON a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously
and the minuties were received•
15• RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: April 12, 1977
MOTION by �rs• Schnabel, seconded by Mrs• Shea, to receive the
Appeals Commission minutes of April 12, 1977•
Mrs• Schnabel made reference to Page 73 of the agenda, number
5, Recommendation on Beer and/or Bar or Liquor License• She
indicated that this article was acted upon and the Planning Commission
was be requested to act on this problem• She continued by giving some
background on the problem• The Pizza Hut on 57th Avenue would be
applying for a beer license {defined as non-intoxicating beverage}.
The question arose a� the Appeals Commission meeting whether or not
the neighboring residents would have to be notified• The answer
came as no, this was not required• I� was the feeling of the
�ppeal Commission that the Ordinance should be reviewea wit� the idea
that residents within 20D feet of an establishment that is Gpplying
for a Beer/Wine/Liquor License should be notified•
�"1
�..� Mrs• Schnabel clarified �hat she was referring to on-sale licenses•
' She continued with her discussion• She indicated that none of the
residents were even aware of the inicention of the Pizza'Hut to ap�ly
for this particular license• The Appeals Commission feels that these
residents should have been notified that the license was being
applied for• I� was the concern of the Appeals Commission thaic this
should be brought to the attention of the planning Commission with
the idea that this be written into the Ordinance•
�"�
, �
Mrs• Schnabel indicated that at any time, whenever an establishmen�t
planned to apply for licenses for on-sale liquor, that the residents
should be notified• She said that especially as a parent, she would
want to know if an establishment bordering on her property was �o
begin selling li�uor• She felt that as a parent she should have the
right to know what is happening that close to her home•
Mr• Lagenfeld suggested looking at the Ordinance and see exactly
what it did say in regards to this subject-
Mr• Boardman looked it up• The ordinance indicated that no public
hearing was necessary on a beer license, on or off sale• The
Ordinance stated that in regards to Liquor Licenses, a public
hearing should be held- Notification of the public Hearing sheuld
be published in the newspapers ten days prior to the public hearing•
T��.
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20,.�9?? Page 30
��: �OTION by Mrs• Schnabel, seconded by Mr• Lagenfeld that the
Planning Commission chairman received the��otion of the Appeals �
. Commission concerning the review of the policy of the Beer/Wine/
Liquor License applicatians of establishments in a residential area_6
with the intent of notifying property owners of such requests
and that the Chairman would pass this request to the appropriate
Commission for their review and action•
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously
and the Appeals Comnission Meeting minu�es of April 12, 1977,
were received-
16• RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELORMENT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES:
APRIL 1 , 1977
MOTION by Mr- Bergman, seconded by Mrs• Schnabel, that the
Planning Commission receive the Community Development Commission
meeting minutes of April 12, 1977•
Mr• Bergman made reference to the item at the bottom of page 6 of
the minutes regarding the �raffic related pro�lems on East River Road
south of 79th Avenue N•E-
Chairperson Harris sugges�ed that the Community Development �
Commission and the Environmental Commission s�udy the intersection
and come up with a recommendation as to whether there should be
signal lights, turn lanes, or whatever appropriate safety features ^
should be located at that intersec�ion• ,<�
Mrs• Schnabel indicated that the original recommendatiofi was to
have a study of the traffic flow on East River Road from Osborne
Road north to the City limits wi�h the intent that some recommendation
be made identifying potential traffic problems•
Mr• Boardman was not sure that this item should be handled a� this
time• He indicated �hat an extensive study was going to be done on
East River Road•
Chairperson Harris indicated that he wasn't interested in an entire
study of East River �oad; he wanted a recommendation as to what to
d� with the intersection of East River Road & 79th Avenue N-E•
{proposed location of ?-11 Store}•
Mrs• Schnabel indicated that the real problem is that there were
more dangerous intersections on East River Road other than
79th Avenue N •E -
Mr• Boardman commented that every in�tersection is a potentially
dangerous problem•
s
�
�
r"�
i �
��
r
r.�.a.n��.�oy �,VIIIIII1��1U11 Ilcc�.1��� Nf.Jf'11 GU7 y i r r r� ���
Chairperson Harris suggested that a proposal be put together with
Staff concurrence• Bring the proposal in, make recommendations,
and send it to City Council• This way City Council would be
to make a decision• He indicated that in this way the
Planning Commission would be officially on record as asking for a
modification of that intersection•
There was much discussion by members of the Planning Commission
regarding this subject•
Mr• Bergman suggested that City Staff get a�ith the County to identify
what their plans are as compared to what the City�s view is as to
actually what should be at that intersection and then they present
to the Planning Commission their recommendations rather than
getting the Rlanning Commission involved in a rather broad a�jective•
UPON a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously
and the minutes of the �ommunity Development Commission meeting of
April 12, 19?7, were received•
M4TION by Mr• Bergman, seconded by Mt^s• Shea, that the Planning
Commission accepts the general attitude of the Community Development
Commission, that they not study East River Road problems at this
time•
Mrs• Schnabel indicated that she was disappointed to hear this
motion•
Mr• Lagenfeld as{�ed the Commission not to call a Special Interest
Meeting•
UPON a voice vote, four ayes one nay, the motion carried•
MOTION by Mr• Bergman, seconded by Mrs• Schnabel, that the tapes
be checked in regards to Mr• Bergman's motion on Page 6
regarding the approval of Special Use Permit SP �77-01 as to
specifically verifying the requesi of the 1,5 stipulations•
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried• The tapes
will be checked•
17• RECEIVE HUf1A
APRIL 14, 19
RESOURCES COMMI;
ON MEETING MINUTES:
MOTION by Mrs• Shea, seconded by Mr• Bergman to receive the minutes
of the Human Resources Commissicn meeting of April 14, 1977-
.��
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — April 20, 19?? Page 32
Chairperson Harris asked about the status of the public hearing on
tenant/landlord relations — consideration of establishing a �
tenant/landlord committee•
Mrs• Shea indicated that it was going to be discussed again on
April 26, 197?•
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously
to receive the minutes of the Human Resources Commission meeting
of April 14, 1977•
MOTION by �rs• Shea, seconded by Mr• Bergman, that a memo be
sent to all Commissions before their next meetings, stating that
elections are ta be held•
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried•
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mrs• Shea, seconded by Mr• Lagenfeld, tha� �he
Planning tommission meeting be adjourned• Upon a vaice vote,
all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Planning
Commission meeting of April 20, 1977, adjourned at 12:25 A.M� �,�
Respec�ively Submitted,
i� `� ��G�LG�i�
MARY LEE C HILL, ecretary
` '
�