PL 05/04/1977 - 30467�II
�
0
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COP7MISSION f1EETING
f�ay 4, ],977
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Harris called the mee��.ng to order at 7:40 P.M.
R4LL CALL:
�1embers Present:
Members Absent:
Others Presen�:
Shea, Bergman, Harris, Peterson, Schnabel,�•
Langenfeld
None
Jerrold Boardman, Ci�y Planner .
APPROVE PLANNING COf1�1ISSI0N MINUTES= April 2�, 1977
I�rs� Shea requested �ha� tche Mo�ion on page 32 be correct�ed�
She st�,ted tha� �che Motion was not ca�ple�te and should read
^��.�� that a memo be sen� �o aZl Corr�missions bei�ore �their next
meetings sicating Lha� elections are 'to be held and steting �che
dutcies and obligations ot= members of ichose commissions and
officerG of those co��nmissions �
�"�
f1ro Langenfeld indicated tha� Page 1 ROLL CALL, th� last narne
listed as Meml�ers Presen�c is spelled wronga Lagenfeld shauld
be Langenfeld�
f1r. Langenfeld indica�ted thatc on Page 14, first paragraph, the
sen�ence reading �'He indicated �hat many people think that this
projec�c will be subsidized, therefore, that it would be sub-
s�andardw, should read ^He indicated that since this project
would be subsidized, �hat some people felt it would be sub-
standard�" f1r. Lanqenfeld �elt that the word "think^ gives �he
impression that people are thinking of something tha� does not
exis� when, in fact, it is a subsi.dized projec't.
�1ro Langenfeld corrected the seventh paragraph from the top of
Page 31�� It should have read ^Mr. Langenfeld asked the Cammission
not to call. a Special Interest Group^ and not �••-�.•a Special
Interest meeting�
MOTION by Mrs• Shea, seconded by Mr• Bergman, that the Planning
Commission minutes of April 2D, 1977, be approved as amended•
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, 'che motion carried unanimously-
�
Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, Z977 � Page 2
1• CONTINUED= PUBLIC HEARIPdG= REZONING REQUEST, ZOA �77-01
� BY GARY PETERSON� Rezone from C-1 {local business areas}
to R-2 {two family dwelling areas}� Lots 3, 4, 22 and 23,
Block 2, Meadowmoor Terrace, to allow the construction`of
double bungalows/duplexes, the same being 1326-28 Osborne
Road NoE�, 1344-46 Osborne Road N•E., 1345-47 Meadowmoor
Drive NoE•, an� 1331-33 Meadowmvor Drive N�E-
MOTION by Mrs• Shea, seconded by Mr. Bergman,
Hearing rezoning reques�, ZOA �77-01, by Gary
voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris
Public Hearing open at 7:45 P��•
Mr- Gary Peterson was present�
to open the Public
Peterson. Upon a
declared the
MOTION by Mrs� Shea, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, that the Planning
Commission receives the three let�ers from Mr• Peterson,
Mr. Richard S• Carlson {Briar Homes, Tnc-}, and Mr. Edward Chies�
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously
and the letters were received�
Chairperson Harris i,�dicated that the letters were part of the
file and would go to City Council�
Chairperson Harris asked if Mr� Boardman had any additional
comments on this item.
f�r a Eoardman ans��►ered that he did not a
Chairperson Harris asked �Ir� Peterson if he wished to address
this subject-
I�r. Peterson commented tha�t he didn't have anything to say
o�her than that he had put in for a rezoning and wanted �o
know if it was going to be allowed or not�
Chairperson Harris asked if there was anyone in the audience
who wished to speak for or against the request.
Mrs� Ri.chard f1orin of 7635 Meadowmoor Drive wanted to know what
the three letters received by the Planning Commission concerned•
Chairperson Harris informed her who the letters were from and
proceedecl to read the letters to the audience•
Mr. Richard Morin of 7635 Meadowmoor Drive indicated that he had
no objection to duplexes/double bungalows going in on Osborne
Road� He said that his objec�ion was building duplexes/double
bungalows on (�eadowmoor Drive• He indicated that they {Mr. Morin
and the people accompanying him} had been to a previous meeting
and had, at that time, voiced their objections• He also said
that at the previous meeting they had been under the assumption
that a11 these lo�s were zoned R-1� not C-1• Mro Morin indicated
that the neighbors would like to see the lots on f1eadowmoor Drive
zoned as R-1 and anything that Mr• Peterson wanted on Osborne Road-
_�
�
�
Planning Cammission �eeting —�ay 47 1977 Pa�e 3
r"`� Mr• Morin con�inued by stating that presently �hey have ?0
children on one block area on Meadowmoow Drive• He objected
to eight more �amilies with �he average of 2•5 children per
family moving into the_areao
Mrs� Richard �orin said �hat another objection she had to double
bungalows was �he upkeep� She indicated that even though it
had been stated that these double bungalows would be owner
occupied, the owners could move out in a couple o� days and the
pro�erty would be �otal ren�al° rohertelistke��tu� andythemes
the ren�ers don°'c car� how the p p y P P
double bungalows begin to look shabby, �herefore, making the
whole neighborhood look shabby�
�rs� Douglas Pavlik of 7651 Meadowmoor Drive wanted to know
if anyone checked into the fac� 'chat the neighborhood dzdn°t
know �hat the lo�s were zoned C-1• She indicated tha� there
was concern among the neighbors that they had been told �hat
all these lots were R-1 la�s�
Chairperson Harris commented that he suspec�ed that whoever
called Ci�y Hall.d�d not specify the particular lots when they
asked what the zoning was.
��s� �orin said tha� shE �old City Ha�l wha� lots she u�an�ed
� to kno�� about� She said she indicated -the �wo vac�n�. lo�s
on Me�dvwmoor {one fronted on Old Cen�ral and f1eadowmoor} and
two other vacan� lots �hatc were jus't on fleadowmoor� She said
that she was told that all the lots were zoned for sir�gZe
f amily houses-
r�
Chairperson Harris said �that it was possible she had been
informed this; however, he said that the lotcs had been zoned
C-1 since about 1959. �
I�r. Langenfeld indicated that the problems brought up at this
meeting and a�c previous meetings had been breught before Council
by one of the Council members and these problems were in the
minu�es as items to be looked into•
Mr� Boardman indicated that in regards to upkeep, the City
covers every sicreet once a year•
Mr• Richard Morin indicated to the Planning Commission that the
neighborhood turnout was not as good as the last time because
some people were intimidated by what had been said at the last
meeting• At the previous meeting� the neighborhood presented
a petition to the Planning Commission indicating their wishes
to keep the lots zoned C-1� They wer.e informed at that time
what could go on the lots as a C-1 zoning• �Ir. f1orin felt
that the Commission had painted a bleak picture for the
neighbors. He also•felt that many peopl.e didn't show up
because they felt there wasn't any use to• Mr� Morin again
indicated t�hat, for the records, he would still rather see
these lots remain C-1 than to see double bungalows/duplexes
built on the lots• He said that he had taken his name off
the petition because of what the Commission had said� however,
Planning Commission �eetin� — Ma� 4, b977 Page 4
he indicated he wanted his name put back on the petition• His
Y.: reasoning was that if the lots were zoned R-2 then it would be
over with and they would have to live with the double dwellings
for a long time-� However, he said that if left as C-1 perhaps ,�
they would have a chance �or a compromise with Mr. Peterson• ,
Chairperson Harris defended th� Commassion and City Staff saying
that it had not been their intent to intimidate the people• He
continued by saying that their inten� had been to inform the
neighbors•
Mr• Morin said that the effect was intimidation even if it
wasn'� the intent
Mr. Chuck Lindman of 1378 Meadowmoor Drive pointed out that
there were still many names on the petition ar�d the people
would still like �he lots �o remain C-1 rather than R-2•
Mr. Lindman also indicated that since �eadowmoor Drive was not
a through-traffic street, he didn't think anyone would want
to build any business on those lots• He continued to say that
Mr• Peterson would probably have to take a loss if he did
put some type of business on these lots. Mr. Lindman said that
he felt �r• Peterson wanted R-2 because of more profit.
Mrs. Morin indicated to the Planning Commission �hat she and
her husband wanted to put their names back on the petition•
Chairperson Harris said that that would be possible if the ^
petitian had not gone to City Council-
Mrs� Morin indicated �hat she had heard rumors that nobody would
buy lots for private homes on �eadowmoor. She said that they
had talked to the Real�or and he had indicated that he already
had people who wanted to build on Mead�wmoor• Mrs. Morin said
that she made �he sta�ement far Mr� Peterson's benefit, so he
would know that �he Real�or had ir�dica�ed that there were
people interested in buying �single family dwellings
on those lots.
Mr• Bergman asked for someone to refresh his memory regarding
Lots 5 and 21 on the East and Lots 2 and 25 on the West. He
wanted to know if these lots were developed and wha� they
were zoned as.
Mrs� Morin indicated that a11 the other houses in the area
were single family�
��
Plannin� Commission �leetin� — May 4, 1977 Page 5
� Mr. Boardman indicated that the lots East were single famiZy
dwellings and the lots West were commercial�
Mrs. Morin said that she only meant tha� there were no other
multi-family hames in �he area.
Mro Morin indicated �hat the commercial buildings all face on
Central Avenue. Ne �aid tha� �wo of �he duplexes would f ace
Osborne Road• He continued to say �hat they were only concerned
wi�h the building of duplexes on Meadowmoor Drive
�rs. Schnabel wan�ed to know if the concensus of opinion of �he
neighbors that were present was that they did not want any of the
prvperty rezoned or specifically �hey didn't want the two lots
an �eadowmoor Drive rezaned•
�r� �orin indicated that they either wanted the lo�s to
remain C-1 or R-1, bu� �hey did not want the lo�s rezoned to R-2
on Meadowmoor Drivea He said they weren9t concerned abou'c �he
lo�s on Osborne Road
Chairperson Harris asked Mrs� Schnabel if she Mad handled this
particular i�em in the Appeals Commisszon Mee�ing o�
April 26, 1977� He also wan�ed �o �now �he recommendation made.
� �rsm Schnabel indica�ed that �hat �he Appeals Commission.did not
handle �his item because the pe�itioner was not present at the
- mee�ing. She �lso said tha� �here was no per�on from the
neighborhood presen� at �he mee�ing. She said that the Commission
feZt they wouldn°t act upon i� until such �ime as either �he
petitioner reques�ed to come before �he Appeals Commission or
° some person from the neighborhood made a request. The
Commission felt that there wasn'� enough information to go on
sa the item was �abled•
Mr. Bergman wanted �o know what the item was that had gone
before �the Appeals Commission.
�Irs. Schnabel indicated that it was a request for a reduction
in lot size for R-2•
Mrs• Morin' indi.cated that she had called City Hall to talk to
someone regarding the meeting for that night. The person she
talked to told her that it wasn't necessary for the neighbors
to appear because no matter what decision was reached, it would
be based upon the contingency �hat the lots were.rezoned•
�`'1
Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, 1977 Page 6
Chairperson Harris said that he objected to what Mrs. Morin had
been told• He indicated that if Staff was passing out that
type of information, he objected• '
Mrs� Schnabel indicated that she was really sorry to hear what
Mrso Morin had said� She told �rs. Morin that they rely on
the opinions of the adjacent neighbors to the property that is
before the Appeals Commission• She indicated that the comments
are used by �he Appeals Commission so that �hey can make a
decision a� the Appeals Commission level• She continued to say
that if the Commission doesn't hear from anyone, they can only
assume that everyone is in agreement with whatever appeal is
coming through� Mrs• Schnabel did indica�e that what �rs. Morin
was told was true, that whatever decision was reached, it would
be besed on the contingency that the lots were rezoned•
Nevertheless, Mrs. Schnabel felt that Mrs. Morin should have
been told to attend the Appeals Commission�meeting• .
�ro Boardman asked
been told �ha� she
Commission meeting•
for a verification that Mrs. Morin had
did not have to come Vo the Appeals
Mrs• Morin indicated that she had been told �hat it was
completely un�ecessary.
Mr• Langenfeld indicated that on this particular ^subject�
he felt the people had been terribly misinformed in more ways
than one.
Chairperson Harris suggested that this item be added to the
agenda for �the evening to be discussed later, a-Fter the
Public Hearings.
Mr. Bergman also felt that there was a lat o1F confusion on
this subjeet. He indica'ted that the petition seemed �to be
the last thing comple�cely firm as to who was far and who was
agains�t �he request. Mr. Bergman wan�ed confirmation that
this petition was placed into record as it stood as of the
last meeting that was held on this subject. .
Chairperson Harris acknowledged that this had been done-
Mr� Lindman indicated that any names that were left on the
petition still preferred to see C-1 than R-2 zoning on the
lots. He also said that if there was any problem, he would
be able to get the entire block of Meadowmoor Drive to sign
the petition�
�
�
�
Planning Commission Meeting — Ma.y 4, 1977 Page 7
'� Mr. Bergman asked �r• Peterson if he was aware that there was
a fair amount of neighborhood opposition and confusion as to
the neighbors unders�anding his rights as well as their own
options�� He con�inued to ask �r• Peterson if he had any
contingency plans to develop the property as C-1, if the
rezoning request was not approved•
Mr� Peterson responded tha� he would probably build a warehouse
and office spaceo
Chairperson Harris responded �ha� warehouses are no� allowed
in C-1 zones-
Mr� Pe�erson clarified his s�atemen� as saying office and
warehouse� not just a warehouse-
Mr• Bergman asked.�r- Peterson if there was some hardship in
his ability to develop the lots as C-1 or leave �he lots for
future developmen� as C-1� He wanted �o know i� this was part
of �r� Peterson°s reques� for �he change�
Mra Peterson indica�ed tha� there was no identif�able hardsi�ipa
Mr• Pe�erson felL �ha� R-2 would be be�ter as a buf�er zone�
� Mra Bergman asked �r• Peterson �hat if after lis�ening to �he
neighbors objections, if he would reconsider zoning the lo�s
fronting on �eadowmoor to R-1-
�r� Peterson indicated that he would have to give the'matter
some though'c. He said tha� there was definitely a financial
dif�erence in selling R-y compared with selling R-2 and that
the difference wauld have to come out of his pocket�
Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Boardman about �he lot sizes.
Mr� Boardman responded that one lo� on Meado�wmoor was
120 feet deep with 75 foo� �rontage and the o�her lot on
Meadowmoor was 120 fee� deep with 65 foot frontage and
90 foot rear.
Chairperson Harris asked
was 75 feet.
Mr• Boardman said yes-
Mr. Boardman if �he normal R-1 lot
Chairperson Harris continued by saying that 9,000 square feet was
the minimum R-1 lot size; therefore, it appeared that the lots
on Meadowmoor would be considered as minimum R-1 lots• ,
�
Planning Commission �eetinq — May 4, 1977 Pa e 8
Mrs. Schnabel indicated to Mr• Boardman that the Code Book stated �.
that the lot width at the set back on a �-1 lot should be not
less than 160 feeto
Mr. Boardman said that the lot width of not less than 160 feet
or 20,000 square feet.
Chairperson Harris told Mrs. Schnabel that by putting all four
lots together, a person would have a buildable C-1 lot.
Mrs� Schnabel indicated th�t if the two lots on Osborne Road
were rezoned, and �he lots on Meadowmoor were kept as C-1,
then the result would be an unbuildable C-1 lot�
Mrs. Pavlik wanted to know if the lots on Meadowmoor were the
normal R-1 lot size, would the lot be big enough to build R-2's.
Chairperson Harris indicated that he would need a variance• He
then asked Mr. Boardman what the minimum lo� size was fnr an R-2•
Mr. Boardman said that the minimum lot size was 10,000 square feet.
Chairperson Harris said tha� at presen� these lots did not make
minimum square footage- Hz indicated that the lots were
presently 9,�00 square feet�
�rs• Schnabel indicated that the variance requests were the
reasons the subject had been brought before the Appeals
Commission. She said thaL the four lots individually did
not meet the minimum square footage of 10,000 square feet.
Mrs. Morin wanted to know if the variance requests would be
before the Appeals Commission again�
Mrsa Schnabel said that the items were tabled until the
petitioner requested to again appear before the Appeals
Com�ission�
Mr� Morin indicated that they had been led to believe that the
Appeals Commission meeting was inconsequential. He said that
actually �he Appeals meeting was the key meeting because if
they had won their appeal at the Qppeals Commission meeting,
Mr. Peterson wouldn't be able �o build R-2's on those lots.
Chairperson Harris indicated that because of the misunderstanding
regarding the neighbors attendance at the Appeals Commission
meeting was the reason the Planning Commission was going to
have a discussion later in the evening.
�
�'1
Planning Commission Meeting —�ay 4, ti977 Page 9
Mrs� Morin wanted to know Mr. Peterson's reasons for not
'� wanting to build R-1's on the lots-
Mr. Peterson indicated that he would have to give the idea
some though�.
Mr. Walter Lizakowski of 14Q2 �eadowmoor Drive indicated that
he fel� the main objection to the R-2's was thE amount of
children that could possibly�be added to the already over-
whelming amoun� presen�ly on Meadowmoor Drive�
�r. Morin said that they presen�ly had a high instance of
vandalism mos�ly caused by children and he didn°t feel that
more children should be added.
Chairperson Harhis asked �r� Peterson if he wan�ed his reques�
to stand as sta�ed or if he wished to change i� in any way.
Mro Peterson wantec to know how he was to go about changing
the request, i� his decision was �o change i��
Chairperson Harris said that since they were down-z�ning, he
would be able to just sta�e to the Planning Commission whatever
change he would want.
� Mr� Peterson wan�ed �o give �he subject some �h�ugh�m He said
he would le� the Planning Commission know ei�her by telephone or
letter.
Chairperson Harris indicated �ha� �he Planning Commission could
continue by making their recommendati�n �a Council and then
Council would set up a public hearing to hear �he matter and
then make a decision. He said that �he CouncilPs decision would
be finale He �old Mr� Peterson tha� the Planning Commission
only makes recommenda�ions �o the City Council�
Mr� Peterson wanted to know if it would be permissable to
let City Council know at the time they set the Public Nearing
� if he wanted to change his requesto
��,
Chairperson Harris said it would be okay as long as it was before
City Council made publication of the P•ublic Hearing
Mr� Peterson wanted to know when exactly he would have to notify
someone as to changing his request�
Chairperson Harris indicated that the Planning Commission Meeting
minutes would go to City Council on May 16, 1977, at which time
Council would set a Public Hearing.
Planning Commission Meeting-- May 4, 1977 Page 1U
t�-
Mr� Langenfeld wanted to be sure that the neighbors were aware ^
af what could be established in a C-1 designation� _
The neighbors in the audience said that they were aware of the
possibilitieso
Mr. Langenfeld indzcated to the neighbors in the audience that
if he had in any way imposed upon them or put them ^on the spot^
it had no� been his intention.
MOTTON by hlr• Peterson, seconded by f1rs. Shea, to close the
Public Hearing on the Rezoning Request, ZOA �77-D1, by Gary
Peterson• lJpon a voice vote, all vo�cing aye, Chairperson
Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:23 P.M.
P10TION by Langenfeld �to deny the rezoning request, ZOA �77-01,
by Gary Pe�erson: Rezone from C-1 {local business areas} to
R-2 {two family dwelling areas}, Lo�s 3, 4, 22, and 23,
Block 2, Meadowmoor Terrace, �co allow the construc�ion of
double bungalows/duplexes, the same k�eing 1326-28 Osborne
Road N�E�, 1344-46 Osborne Road N�Eo, 1345-47 Meadowmoor
Drive N�E�, and 1331-33 f1eadowmoor Drive NoE. due to the
objec�ions from the neighborhood� f10TI0N DIES FOR LACK OF
SECOND•
MOTION by f�rs. Schnabel, seconded by �Irs• Shea, that the n
Planning Commission recommends to City Council the approval .
of the rezoning request, ZOA �77-01, by Gary Peterson: Rezone
from C-1 {local business areas} to R-2 {'two family dwelling
areas}, Lots 3 and �, Block 2, f1eadowmoor Terrace, to allow
�he construction of double bungalows/duplexes, the same being
�326-28 Osborne Road NoE� and 1344-46 Osborne Road N.E.� AND
recommend to City Council the denial of the rezoning request,
ZOA �77-�1� by Gary Peterson: Rezone from C-1 {local business
areas} to R-2 {two family dwelling areas} Lots 22 and 23,
Block 2, f1eadowmoor Terrace, to allow �he cons�ruction of
double bungalows/duplexes, the same being 1345-47 f1eadowmoor
Drive N.E� and 1331°33 fleadowmoor Drive NaE.
Chairperson Narris did not like the Motion by Mrs• Schnabel
because that proposal would create an unbuildable C-1 1ot• He
said he would rather have someone recommend the rezoning of
the lots on Osborne Road to R-2 and rezoning the lots on
Meadowmoor Drive to R-1�
Mrs. Schnabel indicated that the petitioner had not requested
for a rezoning as such�
Chairperson Harris said that the Plannang Commission could
recommend such a rezoning�
�,
�"�
Pl.annin� Commission �eeti_ng — May 4, 197? Page 11
Mr. Boardman said it would be best to deny the rezoning and leave
all the lots as C-Z•
Mr• Langenfeld said that that was why he had made his particular
motion as such� He recommended that the request that was before
the Planning Commission be denied�
Mr. Bergman stated �hat ta recommend that the reques� be denied
wouZd penalize iche requester as to tzme �o change his mindo
Mr. Boardman pointed ou� thatc the Planning Comrnission could only
make the recommendation to City Council to deny the request and
that �the decision wauld be made at �the Cour�cil Zeve1 and any
arrangements could be made at that �ime�
f1rs� Schnabel indicated that her in�ent in making the mo�ion was
to grant �he pe�titioner the ability to �u�t R-2 dwellings on the
icwo lots on Osborne Road• She sazd that she understood �that
an unbua.ldabTe C-1 Zot would result, however, her intent was to
hope �hat the ac�ti on would, in a sense-, force f1r• Peterson to
rezone �he lots on f1eaaowmoor Drive to R-1e
f1r• Bergman hoped �he PJ�anning Commission wo�ald take a posi�ive
positzon, includinc� possibly �heir �choughts as to how the
Commission hopecl �he petitioner {rJOUid change his request, �nd pass
� on to the Ciicy Council tho�e fchoughts assu�ning that his request
Would be cons�.s'�en� with the Planning Commission. Therefore,
f1r. Bergman v�ted againsL Mrs. Schnabel's mation.
f1r• Peterson didnot think the mo�cion by Mrs. Schnabel was in
line wi�h wha� the pe�itioner had requested.
f1rs. Schnabel indicated that the pe'citioner w�s requesting rezoning
on �wo parcels of land and she recommended approving one and
denying the other�
At this point there was discussion among the Commission as to
whether the land was one or two parcels.
Chairperson Harris said that the Public Hearing notice indicated
the lots as �wo parcels of land; one located at 1326 and 1344
9sborne Road N.Eo and one located at 1331 and 1345 Meadowmoor
Drive N.E.
Mr� Langenfeld felt the commission should stick to the petition
itself� He said that the Commission couldn°t split something
that k�asn't in the form of the petition�
Mr• Langenfeld again indicated that his motion had been to deny
the stated request by Mro Gary Peterson.
��
,.�Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, 1977 Page 12
r"�
Chairperson Harris indicat�ed that it was in the Ordinance �hat
the Planning Commission was allowed to recommend a lesser zone
wi�.hout re-publication•
Mr. Boardman said that the policy stated that this could be
done at the petitioner's request, but that the petitioner had
not made a request. He continued to say that the Planning
Commission did have the authority to recommend any rezoning on
a lesser basis wi�hout re-publication•
f1rs. Schnabel said that �the Planning Commission's motions are
only recommendations to the City Council and not final approval•
She said that �he pe�itioner had �he option to change his
request at the City Council level�
UPON A VOICE VOTE, 2 voting aye and 4 voting nay, the motion
failed :
I�r. Bergman �.ndicated that the Planning Commission was opposed
to the total and specific request o-� rezoning four lots to R-2�
Ne also indicated the the Commission would be unfavorable towards
a�-1 development of the four lots. Therefore, he said tha� a
compromise would be in the best interest of the general
nei.ghborhoodo He con-�inued by saying that a valid land use �
of the four lo�s would seem t� be for lots 22 and 23 to be
rezoned for single family development and that lots 3 and 4
be rezoned for buffer zoning for duplexes•
I�OTION by �Ir• Bergman that since the petitioner had indicated
some in�terest in the above modification and with the anticipation
that I�r� Peterson may choose to change his request, �1r� Bergman
suggested that the request be passed on to Council with �he
Planning Commission's though�s• MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A
SECOND�
MOTION by �1r- Peterson, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, �that the
Planning Commission recommends to City Council the denial of
the rezoning request, ZOA �77-�1, by Gary Peterson: Rezone fram
C-1 {1oca1 business areas} to R-2 {two family dwelling areas},
Lots 3, 4, 22, and 23, Block 2, Meadowmoor Terrace, to allow the
construction of double bungalows/duplexes, the same being
1326-28 Osborne Road N.E�� 1344-46 Osborne Road N.E.�
1345-47 Meadowmoor Drive N•Ee, and 1331-33 hleadowmoor Drive N.E�
with �he understanding that the City Council would read all of
the minutes of the Planning Commission to find out the intent of
the neighbors as well as the intent of �he Planning Commission
UPON A VQICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris indicated that the rezoning request ZOA �77-01 �
by Gary Peterson had been recommended for denial and that the
request would go to City Council on May 16, 1977, and that a date
for a Public Hearing would be set at that timeo He also said
that tf�e audience would be notified by mail of the date for tha�
Public Hearing•
r'�1
Plannin� Commission Meeting — May 4, 1977 Page 13
Mrs• Pavlik wanted to know was going to be dor�e regarding the
rezoning and the size of the lots.
Chairperson Harris indicated tha� �the subject would have tco be
appear before the Appeals Commission� However, he s�ated that
if the pe�tition�r decided to go along wi�h the previous
discussions regarding �he f1eadowmoor Drive lofcs, he would not
have ico go before the Appeals Commission• Chairperson Harris
indicatced that f1r. Peterson migh�t have to go be�ore the
Ap�eals Commissaon regarding the lo�ts on Osborne Road.
Mr� Morin reques�.ed to be notified if the subject went before
the Appeals Commission again�
�Iro Boardmen indica�ted that usually people �ren°t no�ified on
an item �hat had been previous�.y tabled-
Chairperson Harris indica�ted tha�G it would be best, in this
part�cular case, �o no�ify �the people �that would be concerned•
I�r� Morin assured fche Planning Commission that zf �they would
be natiried, �hat there would be a good turn-ou�o
��ir� Boardman said �chat the people would be notified by mail.
�
2o PUBLIC HEARINGa CONSIDERATIOlV OF
P.S• �77-03, IWEN TERPACE,
of Part of Lo�s 3, �I, and
No� 25, generally loca�ed
' 1000 Block of Lynde Drive
NoEo and West of Fillmore
PRELIMIPJARY PLAT
BY A� Ts GEARMAN: Replat
5, Auditor°s Su di.vision
immediately South of �he
N• E�, East of Polk Street
S�ree� N�Eo
MOTION by Mro Bergman, seconded by �1r. Peterson, to open the
Public Hearing on the Consideration of a preliminary plat,
P.S= �77-03, Iwen Terrace, by A. T• Gearman. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public
Nearing open at 8:40 P.f1.
f1OTI0N by Mr- Lange��Feld, seconded by Mr. Peterson, that the
Planning Commission receive the memorandum to Jerry Boardman
from Thomas A Colbe�t, Assistant City Engineer, dated f1ay 4, 197�
regarding the Iwen Terrace Plat• Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously and the memorandum was �
received�
Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, 1977� Page 14
z°`Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Boardman to give the background
on this item. , . �
Mr� Boardman indicated •that the proposal was to plat some open
property between Polk and Fillmore Streets N.E�� just south of
Lynde Drive• He said that presently there was a large ponding
area on this property� He con�inued to say that there was a
proposed plat on this area a� one time to make buildable
sites out of the area, however, that plan fell through and this
proposal t�as what came ou� of it• He indicated that the
proposal was for six lo�so
Mr. Boardman showed the Planning Commission a copy of the
proposed pla�� He indicated �hat the lots are lar,e having
be�ween 87 & B9 feet in width and about 304 feet deepo He said
that it was the inten� of the city to retain a drainage pond
on the back portion of �he property with drainage easement
picked up on lots 4& 5o He said that the ponding area would
drain of� drainage into the sewer system on Polk Street�
Mrs� Shea wan�ed to know about the easements-
Mr. Boardman indicated on the drawing the easements that the
City wanted•
Chairperson Harris wanted �o know if Lot 4 would be buildable.
�'1
Mro Boardman indicated on the drawing an area tha� would be
regraded and he said that �here would be a sizable area to build
on this lot. He indicaiced, further, that at the time they were
not sure of �the exact angle of the 1ot but said that before the
final plat went to City Council the angle of Loic 4 could be
changed� He said that the drawing would be reworked and proceeded
to show the Commission differen� areas that would be reconsidered=
�1ro Bergman asked �1r� Boardman what the depth of lots would be�
Mro Boardman indicated that the lots would be 304 fee�, of which
the City would take 75 �eet to allow for ponding area�
�Irs� Schnabel asked why the City wan�ed a curved easement on
Lot 4 rather than make a right-angle turn onto the connecting
street�
Mr� Boardman indicated that it was mainly because of the slopes
of the hillsides• He said that the angle o� the curve had not
been decided yet�' He indicated that before the final plat went
before the City Council he would be �eeting With the Engineering
Departm.ent to determine actually how much easement would be
needed� . .
�"'1
Planning Commission Meeting —�ay 4, 1977 pa�e 15
^ Mrs. Schnabei showed concern about the panding area in terms of
high water levels- She a�anted to know zf the drawing was
showing the pond at its highes� level or at its present�level•
Mr. Boardman indicated that it was shown at its current wa�er
level�
�rs. Schnabel s�id that at times the pond had been known to
become quite large•
Mr� Boardman said that the proposed pla� had been to �he
Engineering Departmen� and they felt tha� the 75 foot easement
on each side, wi'ch a rnodification of �he drainage area, would
handle the higher wa�er levels•
Chairperson Harris asked if �he Ci�y was presently dumping
wa�er into the pond-
�re Boardman indicated on �he drawing the present areas that
are draining in�o �he pond which in turn wen� to Moore Lake.
Mro Eoardm�n also indicated �hat �he ponding are� was a
�emporary solu�ion to �he present plata He said �hat if the
pe�itioner, at a la'cer date, deczded �o spli� the 'lo�s, then
drainage would have �o go o��o Po?k �treet and arould be �aken
� care of by a new storm sewer system. Howev�er, he said tha� �he
pond was a solution to �he drainage tha� was presen�ly �here�
�r� Langenfeld wanted �o know if the Rice Creek Water Shed
Distric� had any au�hori�y in the proposed pla�•
Mr. Boardman indicated that any proposals for drainage into
Moore Lake are sent �o the Rice Creek Water Shed District.
Mrs. Schnabel wan�ed to know if the intent was to drain the
pond en�irely in the future.
Mr. Boardman indicated that the in�ent presently was to try
to limit the drainage going into Moore Lake�
Mr� Iwen {works for Mr. Gearman} indicated that presently
this pond drained into Moore Lake• He said that the water
level of the pond had to be kept down, otherwise the people
in the area would have water in their basements.
Mrs. H• C• McKinley of 101� Lynde Drive said that they never
had water in their basements until someone s�arted dra�ining
the pond the last time {the year of the big tornado}� She
continued to say that the basements had always been dry
because Lynde Drive was high and on solid ground�
/'`�
❑
Plannin9 Commission Meeting — May 4, ],977 Page 16
Chairperson Harris wan�ed to I:now a.f i� was Mr. Iwen's in�ent ^
to make the pond into a drainage retention pond•
Mr• Iwen said that it was his intent to rr�ake it into a drainage
retention pond�
Chairperson Harris asked what he planned �o do with the pond�
He wanted to know if Mr� Swen planned �co dig it or dredge it
or put in control structures, or basically what did he plan to do�
Mra Iwen indicated he wanted to leave the pond as it presently
was�
Mr. Boardman indicated that the Engineering Department recommended
six stipulatcions be placed on the Plat�
Mrs� I�cKinley wanted to know what tche zoning was on the six lots�
f1r. Boardman indicated 'cha� �he lots were zoned R-Z•
Mra Boardman wanted the following six stipulations r�ad into the
record�
1• Comments and any pertinent requiren,Fnts if any, mus�
be obtained from iche Department of Natural Resources
regarding allowable al�teratzons to the existing wet /"�
land within �his plat prio�^ to approval•
2o A?5 foo�; drainage and utili�ty easement along the
east lot lzne of lots 4, 5 and 6 and along the west
lot line of lots 1� 2 and 3�
3- A 24 foot drainage and uti.li�cy easement cen�tered
over the common lbt line of lots 4 and 5.
4o A 5 foot drainage and utili�ty easement along all
proper�y l�nes not previously mentioned•
5. Unless expressly prohibited by the Department of
Natural Resources, the own2r should relocate the
existing drainage ditch presently centered on lot 4
to the cornmon proper�y line of lots 4 and 5, and an
appropriaite inlet s�ructure 'to be constructed as
a connection to the existing storm sewer line on
Polk Street. A timetable of one year would be
appropriate with an acceptable performance bond
of $2,000.00• An alternative would be the
acceptance of an agreement together with an escrs�w
of $2,000.�0 for such construction in the future.
n
�
Planning Commission Meeting —�ay 4, 1977 Page 17
6� A tri�ngular s�reet and utilit� easement over the
southwes� corner af lot 4, for future street and
utility purposes, the dimensions of which to be
determined by the Engineering Division and property
owners prior to submissaon of final plat.
As �ra Boardman read each of the stipulations, he clarified sorne
of the s�a�emen�s to be sure �ha� everyone clearly understood
each poin��
Mr• Bergman wanted to know if the Engineering DeparLment°s
recommenda�aons �or drainage easements and systems would be
an improvement from the present flooding situa�ionse
Mr� Boardman said �h�t it was his understanding fr.om Engineering
tha� what they were basically doing was �aking wha� was already
existing, obtaining easements, and ge�'cing a utili�y and drainage
easement centere� over the common line be-tween lo�s 4 and 5, �o
allow Lot 4 to be buil� and also �o get drainage out to the
Polk Street storm sewer sys�em�
�ra Boardman didn°� know if the Engineering Depar�ment felt
�ha� �his system would bP better. All �re Boardman kne_w was
Vhat �hey planned to maintain t'r.e exis�in� system unti� there
�' was furLher developmen� in �he area. Ne cont;�ued �o say that
if there was to be an addi�ional re-plat of the property, then
something would have Lo be d�ne with the s�orm sewer system
in �he area �o handle the additional drair�age� He said tha�
there was presen�ly a ponding area on �he property because
of the incomplete developmen�.
Mr. Bergman indicated �hat �he reason he asked the question was
that it was his impression �ha� i� was no� specifically part
of the reques�or4s in�en� to improve on the flooding problem�
Mr� Iwen wasn't aware �hat there was a flooding problem�
Mre Bergman indicated that he felt that it was the time to
address tha� problem�
Mrs. McKinley wan�ed to know what flooding problem �r• Bergman
was talking about.
Mr• Bergman said that she had commented about having water in
her basement�
Mrs� McKinley said that there had been no problem in the last
few years because the pond had been low�
1`,^` Mr. Peterson wanted •to know if Mrs. McKinley had water in her
basement in 1975-
1
,
���
Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, 1977 Page 18
Mrs• McKinley explained tha� two things had happened the �ear of
the "big^ tornado. The first thing was that the tornado took
the roof off the apar�ment building and then bounced down to the
swamp and she indicated tha�t her house "sang^� She said that
every wire and pipe in iche house vibraiced and made a very eerie
sound� She continued to say that that was the same year that
a construction company tried to drain the swamp•
f1rs� flcKinley said that the first few years they lived in the
house they never had any water problems• The first time they
experienced any prob�.ems was �he year mentioned above and she
couldn'tc say which of the i.tems, the tornado or the draining of
the swamp, caused the water problem.
f1r. Peterson again asked if Mrs• McKinley had water in her
basement two years ago when the water was so high•
f�rs. McKinZey indicated that she did•
Mr� Iwen i�dica�ed �hat there was presently a drainage syst�m
out of the pond• He said �chat possib�y the sysicem was too
high� He continued �o explain that there was a culvert and
tha� when iche wa�er got just so h�gh in the pond, it drained
in'to the stcorm sewer on Polk and then into h1oore Lake. He sai.d
that no matt�r how much rain we got, the pond shauldn'fi. raise
any higher �han a certain level-
Chairp�rson Harris wanted to know how large the outcfall
s�ructure was.
Mr. Iwen said that the struc�ure was a makeshific, temporary
thing with no piping• He said tl�at it was jus� a culvert
in a sicorm sewer and when the water got tco a certain point
in �he swamp, it would just drain off.
Mr• Iwen indicated �that he believed that it would �take about
two years to get the legal i�ems worked out regarding the corner•
Mrs. McKinley wanted to know when the work would be started if
the lot did get re-platted�
Mro Iwen guessed that it would be Fall before any work got
startedo
Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Iwen if he had had a chance to
read through the six stipulations.
Mro Iwen indicated that he had read them�through and the only
item he questioned was Item 6.^A triangular street and utility
easement over the southwest corner of Lot 4, for future
street and utility purposes, the dimensions of which to be
determined by the Engineering Division and property owners
prior to submission of final plat^�
�"�
�,
r�'�
�1
/"�
�
planning Commissi�n Meeting — May 4, 1977 Page 19
Mr• Twen wanted to know if this stipulation would le�ve a
buildable 1ot.
Mr• Boardman said �hat there would be no �roblems and Mr. Gearman
would have a buildable lot•
Mr. Iwen indicated that ever��hing on the list was agreeable to
him.
Mr. Rober� Prois of LDU❑ Lynde Drive N.E� indicated �hat his
family enjoyed �he pond and the na�ural setting and he wanted
to recommend that the City buy this parcel of land and leave
it in i�s natural s'catee
Mrsa �eKinley indicated '�hat she �elt the whole block enjoyed
the land in its n�tural sta�e and fel� that a park would be
idealo However, she said if tha� couldno� be done, then
R-Z would be be�ter than a lot of things �hat couZd happen
�o these lots� She did indicate �hat she would like to
see the pond left natural. She said �h�t most of the neighbors
enjoyed �he birds tha� came to the pond. She also said that
if people l�e�•t dra� ning and moving the nai,ural wetlar-�ds, tfti�
children two or three generations from now wouZdnet even know
wha� a water bird looks like.
Cha,_rperson Harris wanted �o know i�' this ponding �rea encompassed
entirely on the area in ques�ion•
(�ro �oardman indica��ed that �the panding area also went back into
Lots 6, 7 & �� �
Mrs� McKinley wanted to know what was going to happen to �he
natural drainoff from the service road�
Mr� Boardman indicated it would go into the road.
�ir. Iwen indicated tha� he wanted the pond- He said that they
could have gone into the area and filled �he pond and made 2� to
30 lots to build on. He poin�ted out that he was only planning
to have six lots and he planned to keep iche pond. One of the
reasons he gave was that it would have been too expensive to go
into the area and build a developrnent with 20 to 3� houses. He
said he would have had to put sewer and water, streets, curbs, and�
gu�ters. He said that by doing it the way he proposed, he already
had sewer and water on both Po1k and Fillmore Streets and he
could leave the pond in its presen� state•
,
Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, 197? Page 20
Chairperson Harris wanted to know what f1r• Iwen planned to do
with the lots.
Mr. Iwen indicated that the lo�s would be sold for individual
homes-
flrs• McKinley wanted to know if I�r. Iwen planned to build the
homes himself•
Mro Iwen didn't wan� to say whether he would buzld the homes
or not•
i�rs• McKinley wanted to know if �here would be any restrictions
on 'the homes �
f1r. Iwen said that he didn't believe there would be any other
than the same restrictions placed on eny home in the area.
Mrs• f1cKinley felt tha� th�re would have been a bigger turn outc
ifr more people could have figured out wha� �the Public Hearing
no'cice was trying to say�
Chairperson
required by
property.
Harris indicated that �he Planning Commission was
law to publish �the legal descrip�ion of the
Mr• R� M. Frank of 557,2 Fillmore Street wan�ted to know if an
individual eould buy one o� the six planned� lots and then
break �ha't lot into two lots� thereby creating a possibility
of 12 lo�ts ins�ead of the original plan of six loics �
Chairperson Harris indicated that a person would be able to
make a request to spli'� the lot; however, whether the Ci�y
would allow it would be another mattera
P1r � F rank wanted to �now if there was enough square footage
to make these lots into two lots•
Chairperson Harris said that he assumed there was enough square
footage on the lots to enabJ.e a possible lot split.
Mr� Frank wanted to know if Lot 4 would be a buildable lot•
Mr• Iwen said that he was told it would be a buildable 1ot�
Mr• Frank wanted to know if the replat was being requested to
make Lot 4 buil:dable•
�
,^
i "1
n Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, �977 Page 21
�r. Iwen indicated tha� �he purpose of the replat was to make all
six lots buildable�
�r. Frank wanted �o know when the new s�reet would be put in.
Mr• Iwen indicated that he didn°� plan to put a stree� in�
�r. Boardman pointed out on a drawing �o �r4 Frank the area he
was referring to and zndic��ed �ha� the stree� would come at the
time when whoever owned the back Iand decided wh�t �hey wan�ed
�o do wi�h the property�
�r- Frank wan'�ed �o �now ir the entire are on the drawing was
zaned as R-1•
Mr. Boardman again pointed out on the drawing the areas zoned
as R-1 and the lots �hat were zoned R-3o
MOTION by Mr� Langenfeld, seconded by Mr� Bergman, to close the
Publie �earing o� �he considera�ion o� a preliminary p1��9
p�S� �77-D3, Iwe� Terrace, by Ae T� Gearrnanm Upon a voice vote,
�•�., all vo�in.g aye, Chairperson Narris dzclared the Public Hearing
closed a� 9e1p P@�o
Mr� Bergman asked �ro Iwen if he felt any particular burden or
had any strong objec�ions to the six condi�ions and stipula�ions
recommended by �he Engineering Division
Mr� Iwen only asked tha� he was left with six buildable lots.
�OTTON by �r• g�rgman, se�onded by �r. Peterson, that the
Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the
consideration of a preliminary plat, PoS� �77-p3, Iwen Terrace,
by A� Te Gearman: Replat of Part of Lots 3, 4, and 5,
Auditor'.s Subdivision No� 25, generally located immediately
Sou�h of �he 1�Oa Block of Lynde Drive N�E�, East of Polk Street
N�E� and West of Fillmore Street N�E� subject to the six
stipulations recommended by City Engineering•
Mr• Langenfeld wanted i� to go on record that the comments and
opinions of the Rice Creek Wa�er Shed District should be considered-
Chairperson Harris indicated that these would be considered-
Mrso McKinley wanted to know why the Rice Creek Water Shed
District had to be consulted-
(�
t� Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, 1977 Page 22
�
Mr• Langenfeld said that Mrs• MeKinley had showed great concern
of the pond and it was Mr• Langenfeld°s opinion that the Rice
Creek Water Shed Dis�rict was very concerned about the deletion
of wetlands, ponding areas, etc• because of the ef�ect it has
on the surrounding areas in regards to eliminating the natural
wa�er resources�
Chairperson Harris also indicated tha� the pond dumps into
Moore Lake which in turns dumps into Rice Creek� He said that
that was another reason �o consult �he Rice Creek Water Shed
District.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, �he motion carried
unanimously.
Chairperson Harris indicated that the Planning Commission
would be recommending to Ci�y Cou�cil approval of the consideration
of a preliminary plat, PoS� �77-03, Iwen Terrace, by A� T• Gearman
subjec� to the six s�ipula�ions recommended by City �ngineering- '
Chairperson Harris said the item would go to the City Council
on May 16, 1977, and they would se� a date for Qublie hearing•
n
3� PUBLIC HEARING� CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, ,�
p�S� � 77-04, NORTON AVENUE HO�ESITES, BY WY�AN SMITH=
Repla� of Lo� 13, Audi�or°s Subdivision Noe 89, except
the Easterly 200 feet thereof, generally located on �he
South side of Norton Avenue where it intersec�s with
Central Avenue N.E=
MOTION by Mr� Langenfeld, seconded by P1rs. Shea, to open the
Public Nearing on the consideration of a preliminary plat,
P•S. �77-04, Nor�on Avenue Homesites, by Wyman Smith. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the
Public Hearing open at 9:15 P.M�
Mr• Wyman Smith of 125D Builders Exchange Bldg� was present.
MOTION by Mrs• Shea, seconded by Mrs� Schnabel, that the
Planning Commission receives the le�ter from Mr. Jerry
P Sympson• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously�
Chairperson Harris indicated that the letter was received
and that it would go with the file to the City Council.
r"'�
Plannin� Commission Meeti�g — May 4, 1977 Page 23
� Mr• Boardman indicated that the proposal was for six lots and
that portion of Lot 13 minus the 200 �eet to the Easts He said
that �here h�d been a mix up with the S�arf in that Mr• Smith
didn't have 442 feet but rather had 475 feet. �r� Boardman
indicated that Mr. Smi�h had another drawing that he had
sketched ou�.
Mr. Wyman Smith gave the background up to the point of the
mee�ing� He indica�ed that by using the 475 feet, he could
have five lots o� 79 foot wid�h and one lo� of ��-foot width•
He said that by doing it �hat way all sir, lo�s would have
over �he 75 foo� minimum requiremen�o
Mro Boardman said tha� he had laid it ou� as �wo lots
having 75-foot width and four lots with 80-foot wid�h and
then �r� Smith would have five feet of ou�-lo�. He indicated
that with �he five �oot out-lot, the 15D fee� on the corner
could possibly have two single famzly Zo�s, if f1r. Leroy Smith
so desired� Ey having the five �oo� outlot, �r� Wyman Smi�h
could sell or give the five fee� �o �r� Leroy Smith, �hereby
giving Leroy the required amoun� of square foo�age without
having to go throu�h a lo� split•
P1r• Wyman Sm�th indica�ed •tha� �he corner lo� could not be
taken care oi� �he way Mr� Boardman sugges�ed because
�-.` �r� Leroy Smi�h had �25,DD0 involved and a person couldn°t ge�
�hat kind of money out of two dwelling lots�
Mr. Wyman Smi�h sugges�ed that the �ive lots with 79-foot
width and one lot with 80-foo� width be laid ou�-
Mro Boardman indica�ed that the requirements of the lots
would be �hat the City would need five foot utilt�y and drainage
easemen�s along the side of each of the lots and �en foot
utility and drainage easements along the back�
Mr� Boardman asked �r. Smi�h if he was aware of the park fee
that would be involved with the plating-
Mr. Smith indicated that he was not aware of this park fee•
Mr� Boardman explained that there would be a park fee that
turns out �o be ten percent of the land vaZue of the property
which would equal approximately �038 cents per square foot.
Mro Smith wanted to know what he was to do next.
Mr. Boardman indicated that the final plat would have to be
drawn up for City Council- •
��
4�'r
Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, 1977 Pa�e 24
�OTION by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Bergman, to close the
Public Hearing on�the consideration of a preliminary plat, ^
poS� �77-04, Norton Avenue Homesites, by Wyman Smith• Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the
Public Hearing closed at 9:25 P.M.
MOTION by Mre Peterson, seconded by Mr. Bergman, that the Planning
Commission recommend to City Council approval _
of a preliminary plat, P�S� �77-04, Nor�on Avenue Homesi�es, by
Wyman SmZth= Replat of Lot 13, Auditor°s Subdivision No. 89,
except the Easterly 2�0 feet thereof, generally located on the
South side of Norton Avenue where i� in�ersects wi�h
Central Avenue NoE. Upon a voice vo�e, all voting aye, the
motzon carried unanimously•
Chairperson Harris indicated �hat the consideration of a
prelzminary plat, PaS• �77-04, Norton Avenue Homesites, by
Wyman Smith had been recommended to City Council for approval.
He said that i� wou�d go to Council on �ay 16, 1977, and they
would set a da�e for a Public Hearing-
Chairperson Harris declared that the Planning Commission would
take a�en minu�e break at 9:35 P.�.
Chairperson Harris called the meeting back to order at 9:45 P.��
MOTTON by Mr� Pe�erson, seeonded by �r� B�rgman, that the �^
Planning Commission move Item B o� the Ag�nda to ILem 4. Upon
a voice vo�e, all voting aye, the mo�ion carried unanimously•
8. STAFF ACTIVITY REGAR�ING INFORMATION TO CALLERS-
Mr� Pe�erson said that he shared the entire Planning Commission°s
embarrassment at the statement that was made• He felt that
�he Staf� should be very careful about suggesting that
people no� appear in front of commissions that are meeting if the
people are effected because if the commissioners volunteer their
time, then it is impor�ant tha� if the people have anything to
say, they should be encouraged to be at the meetings
Mr. Bergman commented tha� the entire item F�ad been a very
confusing i�em. He felt that the public should take more time
in developing their thoughts and their positions• He also
indicated that the people in the audience should be more careful
about stating their requests when they call City Hall for
information• He cit�d the example where Mrsa Morin indicated
she called City Hall and asked someone if she was required to
attend the Appeals Commission meeting• Mr. Bergman stated that
N0, she wasn't required to attend the meeting.
�
/"1
��`Plannin� Commission �eeting — May 4, 19?? Page 25
Mr• Bergman did say that rather than just sayi,ng N0, the Staff
person eould have informed the caller thai; itc might be to
his benefit and thaic he should attend�
f1r� Bergman sta�ed that very possibly �he people are asking
the wrong questions or are using the wrong wards when stating
a question because tnere ��as too much indication of confusion
and misguiding for it to all be one-sided.
Mra Peterson statecl that �he Staf� people that understand the
Ordinances and are workzng at City Hall -�ull time sould have
a lit�cle more burden on them �han does the ci�izen who is not
as well informed� Staf� person should have realized tha� when
the caller asked af she was required, the caller really meant
was anything going to happen of importance� Mra Pe�terson felt
the staff should be discerning enough to understand even if the
wrong word might have been used-
Chair�erson Harris said tchat a policy or procedure had to be
set up on how to hand7.e instances such as �this�
(�r� Boardman cornmentced th��t prior to that �ime, there had
been no policy or procedure regarding thi� p^o�lem� He wenic
� on ta say �hat there w�re going to be corrections rnade�
He stated that staff was planning to set up a seven-day time
requirement before any applicafcion had ico go to paper for
Public Hearing Notice or any application notice tha� would
have to be sentc with an agenda� He said �hat Staff would
require seven-day application time during which time �the
application would be reviewed by all Staff personnel and
then, and only th�n, would thatc item be pu�� on an agenda or
set up for a Public Hearing�
Mr• Boardman indicated thatc �the second thing �hat would
happen would be a Staff Checklist� Ne said �hat on Friday,
�1ay 6, 19?7, a Staff Checklist Procedure would be set up
in which a checklist shee�t would be attached to all Building
Permits and all applications for rezoning, special use permits,
etc• and it would go through the entire review process• It
would then be returned to one person who would be the
responsible person for following the request through. He
indicated that i� would be returned to him if it was an
application for the Planning Commission and that he would have
a complete handle as to all the recommendations from the other
areas� He indicated that other requests and applications would
be sent to the appropriate person responsible� �
/"'',
Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, 1977 Page 26
Mr� Boardman also discussed with �r. Sobiech the giving out of
information• He indicate� that since the secretaries did handle
much of the load for the Administrative Staff9 that the
secretaries be informed that certain information would have to
be given out by cer�ain personnel• He said that a firm
conclusion had not been reached but the problem was being
worked on• �
Mr. Langenfeld indicated tha� he fel� it e�fected bo�h the
Commission and �he audience wher� the people joined forces
and talked about an item and then came to the mee�ing with
just one idea in mind, that being �HAT THEY WANT, and then
when any person on the Commission tried to inform them or
educate �hem, i� would turn into an accusation that the
Commission had tried to in�imidate �hem. He felt that
sometimes the Commission was faced wi�h a men�al block �hat
had to be pe�e�rated before the item cauld even be discussed•
Chairperson Harris indicated that the problem with mis-
information from Ci�y Staff was tha� it was worse than no
in�orma�ion at all• He said that �he people would get �he
misinformation and �hen �hat would be changed and the� �he
people get defensive and belligerent.
Mr• Boardman indzca�ed that �here had been several cases
when a person wauld �onsul� �he City on a piece of property
and ask how many uni�s they couid build on this piece of
property. He continued to say that without any further
information on that piece of property, they could only
tell what would be possible on tha� much square foo�age of
land�
Chairperson Harris said that the requestor should be asked
exactly what specific piece of proper�y he was talking about•
Mr. Boardman said tha� even with �hst in�orma�ion, they would
have to take the time to layou� the building and layout the
parking lot. He indica�ed tha� usually �hey inform the person
that according to the Code he would be allowed to build
eight units on that property if all of the other requirements
were met. Mr. Boardman said that then the person is tald to
draw up a site plan and bring it in to City Hall and they
could discuss the plan further•
Mr Peterson mentioned to Mr. Boardman that perhaps many of
the requests were from Real Estate Agents who would want the
information to be able to tell a poten�ial buyer=
�
�
�"�
Planning Commission �eeting — May 4, 1977 Page 27
� Mra Boardman indicated that they still could only tell the
person that according to the square footage, he would be
able �o build a certain amoun� o� units but that there would
be other code requirements that would also have �o be me�o
Mro Boardman cited an example �o the Commission�
Mr. Peterson suggesed that in certaan cases the requestor be
given a copy o� the Code and have him discuss it with his
attorney rather than Staf�� saying anythinga
Mr� Boardman said tha� usu�lly they indicated that according
to the square footage �hey could be �hinking o� that certain
amount of units• Then the req�estor would be given a copy of
the Ordinance �nd would be inrormed �hat those would be the
ordinances �hat would have to be me� and before �here ��ou1d
be any more discussion on �he plan �he requestor would have
to have a si�e plan•
Mro Bergman said �hat he felt tha� �he number of units that
would be allowed was a��easo�able question �or a citizen to
ask and �hat Sta�� should give him an answer•
Mrs� Schnabel men�icned L-ha� in th.e Appeals Commission that
most of the members go out and do a si�e �nspection an eacF�
piece of proper�y tha� would go b�far� the Commission� She
�� said �hat they do this in��e�tion indivi�ually and on their
own time� She ind�ca�e4 tha� particularly when there was an
appeal 'chat was unusual in nature and would present some
distinct problerns to the adjacen� neighbors, she has gone �o
the site and talked to �he neighbors about the request. She
said �hat �he Appeals Commission had a par�icular request that
was appearing for the second �ime and when she was at the site,
she talked with a neighbor who indicated tha� she was no�
going to �he meeting. �rs� Schnabel �alked with �he neighbor
and indicat�d tha� the Appeals Conimzssion needed their input
and it turned out that �he neighbor had been opposed �o the
particular �equest and because of �rs. Schnabel's encouragement
the person went around the neighborhood and had a new petition
signed and that neighbor and several others appeared at the
meeting�
�rs� Schnabel indicated that she didn't like to ^hand°hold^
people from their homes to the mee�ing but she was concerned
about the person at the meeting �hat indicated that she had
called and had not been encouraged to attend the meeting�
Mrs� Schnabel said thet she would like to see a memo sent to
the Staff indica�ing that any time there is a public hearing
and someone calls regarding that meeting, that the person
calling definitely be encouraged to go to the meeting•
��
Planning Commission Meetiny — May 4, 197? ' Page 28
Chairperson Harris cited an example to the Commission �hat a
person would call City Hall and ask what a particular address
was zoned as and they would be told, �or example, R-1� He said
that then the reques�or would say �hank you and hang up and
City Hall would have no idea what was across the street or in
tihe neighborhood• Then when the owner of some adjacent property
wants to build some f actory or something on his proper�y, the
citizen would be upset because he had been told by City Hall
that his lot was zoned as R-1- thairperson Harris indicated tha�
the citizen didn't always have the exact facts. He said that
the citizen had been told that HTS lot was R-1 but there had
been no indication that the adjacen� lot was also an R-1 lot•
Mr� Boardman indicated tha� the only way to correc� that �ype
of misunderstanding would be to ask the person calling �o go
into Ci�y Hall and review, with a Staff inember, the Zoning �ap�
Chairperson Harris wanted to know if some�hing could be mailed
to a person requesting zoning information, showing them the
zonings near them-
Mr� Boardman indicated tha� an abunaance of requests come_ into
Ci�y Hall each day, and to do,tha� type of mailing would be quite an
additional expendi'cure just for mailing cos�s•
Chairperson indicated �hat �he present way the zoning information
calls were being handled was not adequate•
Mr� Boardman felt that the number of complaints rec�ived compared
to the amount o� informa�ion that wen� out of Ci�y Hall each day
was relatively small�
�r• Boardman indicated that
misunderstanding was in �he
information• He went on to
caused by some Real Es�ate
that he had talked to City
lots were zoned whatever.
it seemed that the main area of
area of reques�s for zoning
say tha� �he pr�blem could be
Agent telling a perspective buyer
Hall and had been �old that the
Chairperson Harris suggested that when a person would call
City Hall to request informa�ion on zonings that the person
be requested to go to City Hall and discuss their question
with someone who could explain the exact zonings in the
particular area • Chairperson Harris theh asked Mr� Boardman
if this procedure Gould be implemented•
Mr• Boardman said that the requests for zoning information
could�be handled as outlined by Chairp�rson Harris•
n
r"'�
�
�^,
Planning C�mmission Meeting — May 4, 1977 Page 29
^ 4. CONSIDERATION.OF THE RECOM�ENDATION FROM THE APPEALS
CO��iI�SION THAT PROPERTY OWNERS OF RESTDENTIAL PROPERTY
W THIN FEET OF ANY OPERATION APPLYING FOR BEER, WINE
L QUOR LICENSES BE NOTIFIED•OF THIS APPLICATION�
�"1
�
Mr� Boardman indicated �hat at �he time the Beer Ordinance
was reviewed, the City Attorney suggested tha� such notification
should nflt be a condition of the licensing but should be a
condition o� the zoning• Therefor�, it was not writ�en into
the Licensing Ordinance•
Mno Boardman indicated that at the presen� time Staf� was
working with the City Attorney on the conditions for
notifications. He re�ues�ed �hat the Planning Cornmission table
the item un�il S�aff received further response �rom the
City At�orney.
�ra Peterson asked if Chairperson Harris wanted the item
continued so it could go to other Commissions or did he
wan� �he i�em back on the agendaa
MOTION by �r. Peterson, secanded by �rso Shea, that the
Planning.Commission continue �he considera�ion of the
recommenda�ion from the Appeals Commission tha•� property
owners of residential property within 2D0 fee� of any
opera�ion apply�ng for beer, wine or liquor licenses be notified
of �his applica�ion until tche firs-� meeting of July so �hat
each member Commission would have a chance fco review i�t.
Chairperson Harris asked that �che City Attorney research in
particular Item 11, in Ordinance �435, Secf.ion II —
Conditions of Li.cense:
11• Any police officer, or any properly designa�ed
officer or employee of �the City shall have �the
right to enter, inspec�, and search the premises
of the licensee during �the business hours
without a warrant-
He requested that the City Attorney kept in mind the
Fourth Amendment to the UoS. Consti�ution:
^The righ�t of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, pepers and effects agains� unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants
shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by
oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searc'hed, and the person or things to be
seized•^ -
Planning Commission Meetin� — May 4, 1977 Page 30
Chairperson Harris also reques�ed the City Attorney to keep in
mind the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.So Constitution that
states: h �`
^All persons born or naturalized in the United Sta�es,
and subject to the ,jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the Si:ate wherein they reside�
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of ci�izens of the
United Sta�es; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, libertcy, or proper'ty, without due process of
law, nor deny �o any person within its jurisdiction the
equal pro�ection of the laws•^
Chairperson Harris felt tha� this Ordinance was �nconstitu�ional•
Mr Peterson acknowledged �o Chairperson Harris that he agreed
comple�ely with his sta�temento He also said that the Ordinance
made references to persons 2], years of age and he indicated
that presently the legal age is 19 years• He indicated i�hat
he thought the entire ordinanc� needed rewriting•
Chairperson Harris also didn't like the wording of Section 9—
Persons Ineligible for L�cense• In par�icular he ques�ioned
the second item "Who is not of good moral character'°• He wanted
to know �he definition of �'good moral character�'.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voti.ng aye, the motion carried
unanimously• The considera�ion of the recommendation from the
qppeals Commission that property owners o� residential proper�ty
within 200 feet of any operation applying for beer, wine, or
liquor licenses be no�tified o�F this application will be con�inued
a�t the -iirst Planning Commission mee�ing in July•
Mrs• Schnabel asked �1r. Boardman i-F he expected to have the
City Attorney's response before the first mee�cing in July•
i�r� Boardman indicaf�ed that he should have the City Attorney°s
response be-Fore July•
Mr- Peterson indicated that on f1onday, May 9, 1977, the Parks
and Recreation �ommission would be having a special meeting
regarding the Commission's goals and objectives and other forward
looking things and he extended an invitation to the Planning
Commission members to attend•
Chairperson Harris indica�ed to f1r. Peterson that he had a
petiicion for the Parks and Recreatian Commission-
�"1
�"'�
MOTION by Mr� Peterson, seconded by Mrs. Schnabel, that the
Planning Commission receive the petition and forward it on
to the Parks and Recreation Commission for inclusion on their
agenda- Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried �
and the petition was received and forwarded•
�
'� Planning Commission fleeting — May 4, 1977 Page 31
MOTION by �ir� Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Bergman, to receive
the Park and Open Space Plan•
�IroBoardman distributed a copy of the Plan to each member
of tche Planning Cornmission indicatzng that Staff had completed
their version and that it was to go 6efore the Parks and
Recrea�ion Commission� He explained that there were a few
maps s�i.11 missing from the document and that they would be
distributed �o the Commission members in a few days-
�Irs� Schnabel w.anted �to know if a small map delineating
the neighborhoods would be included•
Mrm Boardman indica�ed that the particular map f1rs� Schnabel
had referred �o in addition to several other maps would be
distribu�ed in a �ew days�
Mra Peterson pointed out to the Cotnmission tha�c the Parks and
Open Space Plan �efleeiced the thinki��g of about 120 people �hatc
had served on �he neighborhood committees one year ago�
n Mr� Boardman said that �the Parks and Open Space PZan a�as quite
an ac�ion plan• He said �hat it made some very strong
recommendations, some or which migh�t b� controversial; but said
- that i� a�as a document �that Staff fe?t was essential ta �he
Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the future development
in the City of Fridley�
UPON A VO�CE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimouslyo
The Planning Commission received the Parks and Open Space plan�
5. CONTINUED% PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE�
Chairperson Harris indicated that this i�tem would be deferred
until later in the meeicing�
6. RECEIVE APPEALS COMf1ISSI0N MINUTES= APRIL 26, 1977
MOTION by f1rs� Schnabel, seconded by Mr� Bergman, that the
Planning Commission receive the Appeals •Commission Minutes of
April 26, 1977.
Mr� Langenfeld said that he really liked the way the Appeals
� Commission.minutes are set up regarding the Administrative
Staff Report. He indicated that it would save time if the
Planning Commission had a similar form to refer to on each
n of the items discussed at the meetingso
Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, 197? Page 32
Mrs• Schnabel indicated that the entire Appeals Commission �
felt that the Administrative Staff Report was a very helpful
tool�
Mr. Boardman asked Chairperson Har.ris if he felt an
Administrative Sta�f Report was actually needed or if the
oral presentation was adequate•
Chairperson Harris indicated that a S�aff Repor� would be
helpful� He asked �r• Boardman if �here would be staff
available to make Administra�ive S�aff Reports for �he
Planning Commission.
Mr. Boardman indica�ed that he could possibly delegate the
task of producing Adminis�ra�ive Sta�f Reports to another
person, but �hat he personally would not have the time•
There was some discussion on the reasons for a rezoning
request to be before the Planning Commission a� the same
time tha� a variance request was before the Appeals
Commission•
Mr• Boardman wan�ed to know if a rezoning was approved with a
certain thing in mind that would require a variance, would
the Planning Commission be pu�tz�g a burden on the Appeals ^
Commission to grant �he variance• �
Chairperson Harris said �ha� if the �ity Council approved
a rezoning as it stood, they would be giving tacit approval
to the variance request.
Mr� Boardman indicated that the whole purpose of �he
re-organization of the Planning Commission was done so that
all the information would come together a� the Planning
Commission and they would make a full recommendation to the
City Council taking into consideration the variances and the
rezonings that would be needed• He felt that the position
of �he Appeals Commission was a recommending commission for
the Ci�y Council, with �heir recommendations going through
the Planning Commission• He felt it �as very essential that
some�imes the Appeals Commission would have action on a
variance request before the Planning Commission acted on
a rezoning request-
Mrs• Schnabel indicated that sometimes the Appeals Commission
was very uncomfortable handling a variance request on some
property before a rezoning had been approved� She felt that
when a petitioner went before the Appeals Coinmission for a
variance request with a plan in which there would be alternatives,
she didn't think it appropriate to hear the request before ��
the Planning Commission had acted on the rezoning•
Planning Commissian �eeting — May 4, 1977 Page 33
r„� Mr. Boardman indicated tha� the Planning Commission should
present to the City Council a^full pic�ure^• He also felt
that the petitioner should ha�e �he R=ull picture� of
the different Commissions responses before he goes before
the City Council-
Mrse Schnabel and t�ra Boardman discussed -For a shor� time
their reasons for and against the handling o� a variance
reques� by �he Appeals Commission before �he Planning
Commission had approved the rezoning•
Mr. Boardman felt that a clear picture is not given �o
Ci�y Council when too many differen� things on the same
property go to the Ci�y Council at dir�erent times•
Chairperson Harris said �hat the inten� o� the way the
Planning Commission was set up was to present a comple�e
package to City Cou�cil on a project with all the materzals
and recommenda�ions all toge�her•
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all vo�zn� aye, the motion carried
unanimously and �he Planning Commission received the
App�als Cornri�ission rriinutes of April 26, 1977.
7m RECEIVE Ea. 1�VIRONI��NTAL�UALITY _ 0��1S�SI0�1 �1INUTE� =
^ APRIL 7,9, �977
MOTION by h1ra Langenfeld, seconded by �1rs• Schnabel, �that
the Planning Commissi�n receive th� Environmen�al Quali�y
Commission minu�es o-F April 19� 1977a
(�r• Langenfeld indicated that the Environmental Commission
was going to embark on a Noice Pollution Ordinance very
shortly�
�1r. Langenfeld referred to the statement he made +L-hat he
would appear before C�.ty Council with the request by League
of Women Voters �or thE Environmental Quality Commission to
co-sponsor a public meeting on ^Energy^ on �1onday,
April 25th•.-m� Mr. Langenfeld indica�ed that the date was
actually �1ay 2, ],977�
Mr� Langenfeld told the Planning Com�nission about the May 2nd
meeting. He explained that he worked �the Environmental
Resources simulator. He expTained that the top of the machine
had knobs representing our means of energy and the bottom of
the machine had knobs representing our energy consumers {such
as automobiles, industries, agriculture, etc}• He explained
how he worked the machine and said that the goal was to try
to make the energy resources last for 500 years. He said that
^ after many tries, they made the resources last for about 683
years but that they had completely cut out automobiles,
airp].anes, and air conditioners- He explained that the whole
purpose of that machine was to show that by merely conserving
on one thing was certainly not going to solve any problems.
�
Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, 1977 Page 34
Mrs• Schnabel said that she was pleased to see that the �
Environmental Quality Commzssion was going to follow up on
�he request from the Appeals Commission regarding the East
River Road traffic problems•
Mr. Langenfeld indicated that he had used the 7-11 Store
�o be loca�ed at 79�h and East River Road as a�case^ item
�o try to show the Environmen�al Quality Commission how
involved jus� one particular problem could get. He also
said that he hoped that the East River Road Project�Committee
could provide �he necessary informa�ion that had been reques�ed�
UPON A VOSCE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously and the Planning Commisszon received the
Environmental Quality Commission �inutes of April 19, 1977-
Chairperson Harris discussed items received from
�ro Mike E� 0'Bannon and Mr� Al Kordiak� He also had a
copy of the Annual Financial Report from the City of FridZey�
Mr� Langenfeld, �rs� Schnabel, and �rsm Shea requested to
receiv� a copy of the Annual Financial Repor��
ADJOUR�!t�1ENT=
�10TION by Mr� Langenfeld, seconded by f1rs. Shea, �hat �he �
Planning Commission tnee�ing be adjourr�ed= Upon a voice vote, -
all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Planninc�
Commission mee�ing of f1ay 4, 197? adjourned at 7,�:55 P�M�
Th� Planning Commission decided to have a one-hour Workshop
on the Prop�sed Main�enance Code�
Respectively Submitted,
%������
MARY LEE CARHTLL, Secretary
�