PL 05/18/1977 - 30468� CITY OF FRIDLEY , V
PLANNING CO��ISSION �EETING
!� P1ay 18, 1977 •
�,
�
��
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:4D P.P1-
�
ROLL CALL: �
M�mbers Present:
�1embers Absent :
Others Present:
Storla, Bergman, Harris, Schnabel,
Langenfeld
Peterson
Jerrold Boardman, City planner
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION P�INUTES= May 4, 1977
Mrs• Schnabel clarified the ninth paragraph on Page 8,
the second sentence• She said it should read, ^She said
that each of the four lots individually••••^
Mrs• Schnabel corrected a typographical error on Page 2]„
fifth paragraph• It should read ^Mr• Frank wan�ed to know if
the entire area on the drawing was zoned as R-1w•
Mrrs• Schnabel wanted the eighth paragraph on Page 22 to
indicate that Mr- Wyman Smith was
representing Dr• Sakamoto, the owner of the property•
MOTION by �1r• Langenfeld, seconded by Mr• Bergman, that the
Pianning Commission minutes of May 4, 1977, be appraved as
amended• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously•
],• PUBLIC HEARING: REZOf�ING REQUEST Z4A �77°02, BY
ROBERT FLAIEN: Rezone Lot 41, Block 1, Spring Brook
park A ition, from M-], {light i.ndustrial areas} to
R-1 {single family dwelling areas}, so it can be combined
with Lot �2, Block 1,2, Spring Brook Park Addition,
{already zoned R-1}, �o make a residential bui].ding site,
the same being 176 Ely Street N•E- -
MOTION by Mrs• Schnabel, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, to open the
public Hearing Rezoning Request ZOA � 77-02, by Robert Flaten•
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared
the Public Hearing open at 7:48 P.M-
Mr• Robert Flaten of 7424 West•Circle was present•
• PL�NNING COMMISSION MEETING — MAY 18, 1977 Page 2
Mr� Boardman explained that the petitioner planned to combine
Lots 41 and 42 so that he could cons�ruct a one-family residence•
�ot 42 is zoned R-1� however,�Lot 41 was zoned M-1• The request �1
is to rezone Lot 41 to an R-1 .Lot•
Mr• Flaten said that he wanted to build a house on the Lots•
He sazd that when he applied for a Building Permit he had been
informed that.he would have to apply for a Rezoning of Lot 41•
Mrs- Schnabel wanted to know if he planned to live in the house
or if he planned to build it for re�sale•
Mr• Flaten indicated that he intended to live in the house•
Chairperson Harris wanted to know the frontage on the two lots•
Mr• Boardman.explained that both lots were 3�°foot Lots• He said
that �he two lots combined would make a 6D-foot Lot upon which
Mr• Flaten could construct a single-family dwelling•
Chairperson Harris wanted to know if there were any adjacent
M-1 properties•
Mr• Boardman explained where the industrial sites were located
in regards to the lots in question•
�OTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by �r• Bergman, to close the
public Hearing Rezoning Reques� ZOA �77-02 by Robert Flaten• �^
Upon a voice vo�e, all vo�ing aye, Chairperson Harris declared �
the Public Hearing closed a� 7:55 P•�-
MOTION by �r• Langenfeld, seconded by �r• Bergman, that the
planning Commission recommend_�o the City Council approva� of
the Rezoning Request ZOA �77-02, by Robert Flaten; to rezQne
Lot 41� Block 12, Spring Br�ook Park Addi�ion, from M-1
{light industrial areas} to R-1 {single family dwelling areas},
so it can be combined with Lot 42, Block 12, Spring Brook Park
Addition, {already zoned R-1}, to make a residential building
site, the same being 176 Ely Street N•E•
Chairperson Harris asked Mr• Boardman if there would be any
easement problems•
Mr• Boardman indicated that there would not be any easement
problems•
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously�
0
0
�
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING —.MAY 18, 197? page 3
2• PUBLIC HEARING: R�ZONING REQUEST, ZOA �77-03, BY
C• D• CHANDLE�� Rezone �ot 1� B oc , Jo nson s River
Lane Ad ition, from R-1 {single family dwelling areas}
to R-3 {multiple family dwelling areas}, and, rezone
Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, Johnson°s River Lane Addition,
from C-1S {local shopping areas} to R-3 {multiple family
dwelling areas} so these three lots can be used for the
construction of a? unit row house development and/or
townhouses9 generally located between 64 1/2 Way and
Mississippi Place on the West side of East River Road N•E•
MOTION by �r• Langenfeld, seconded by Mrs• Schnabel, to open
the Public Hearing on the Rezoning Request, ZOA �77-03, by
C• D• ChandlerA Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair�erson
Harris declared the public hearing open at 7:58 P.�.
Mr• Boardman explained that there were three lots involved
in the request• He said that Lots 2 and 3 were zoned C-1S and
Lot 1 was zoned R-1• He said that the request was to rezone
all �hree Iots to R-3 so that the lots can be used for �he
cons�ruction oi a row-house development and/or townhouses•
�.r• Boai^dman conLinued ta explain that �r• Chandler had proposed
� building a cQrtain type ofi dwe.l.lings, however, with �hat
,, particular design he could only fit six units on the property
whil�e the sc�uare footage of the property aiould allow the
cons�ruction of eight units• Therei`ore, he said that
f1r• Chandler decided to first get a rezoning of the property and
then he would proceed with the planning of exactly what
would be built on the property•
Mr� Chandler oi 11320 Mississippi Drive and Mr• Talbot of
Calhoun Realty were present�
Mr• Chandler explained to the Commission that he had owned the
property for about 15 years and was now trying to build
something on �he proper�y in order to get back his investment•
He had pic�ures of the property, surrounding areas and buildii�gs,
and the types of units he was contemplating• He indicated that
he felt thait what he planned for the property would be a good
use for the particular lots and locatcion• ,
Mrs• Luckow of 1,6], - 64 1/2 Way N•E• wanted to know if
Mr� Chandler had any definite plans of whaic he was going to
build on the Lots and if they would be for rental or re-sale•
She also wanted to know what size the units would be•
Mr• Chandler indicated that at that point he had no definite
n plans• He pointed out that whatever he would do would meet
a11 the existing codes• He wasn't sure if the property would be
for rental purposes or sold• He also said that he wasn�t sure
of the size of the units•
PLANNING COM�ISSION MEETING — MAY 18, 1977 � Page 4
Mr• Talbot of Calhoun Realty explained that everything they
had proposed to that point. in time hed not met various codes �
and would have needed numerous variances• He indicated that
the owner had decided to first ge� the rezoning and then get �ogether
with the City and decide exactly what could be built on the
property that would meet a11 existing codes•
Mr• Fred Foster of 6441 Riverview Terr•ace expressed
disappointment that he had not been notiFied of the Public
Hearing especially since they would be greatly effected
by the proposed plan since �hey lived on the corner of
64 1/2 Way and Riverview Terrace• He also indicated that
he was greatly disappointed in the present multiple dwellings
in the area• He said that the people living in the apartments
in the area didn�t pay attention �o posted speed signs; he said
that �here wasnBt adequate off-street parking so that cars
were always parked up and down the streets• He continued by
saying that the nearby apartments were not neat and were not
kept up• He said there was always garbage around the yard °
and most were detrimental to the area• Mr• Foster felt that
with the �axes he had to pay he didnTt want to see any mo�re
apartment buildings in the area�
Chairperson Harris tried to expla�n to Mr• Foster why he
hadn't been notified of the Public Hearing• He said that
City Hall cvuld have slipped up and not sent him a notice• ^
However, he cuntinued by saying that there had been a sign �
posted on the proper�y indicating tha� there was to be a ��
Public Hearing on the proper�y• He said that City Hall most
definitely tried io be sure that everyone that would be
concerned or effec�ed by the rezoning was notified• Ne
apologized for the oversight•
Mr• Dennis Phitzner of 6430 Riverview Terrace agreed with what
Mr• Foster had said regarding the present apartmen� buildings
and the people living th�rein• He felt that more apartment
buildings would only give more headaches to the home owners in
the area•
Mr• Luckow of 161 - 64 1/2 Way N•E• questioned the construction
of a seven-unit row house on the three lots• He wanted to
know how many square feet would be �or off-street parking• �
Chairperson Harris said that an off-street parking stall was
10 x 20 feet or 2D0 square fee�•
Mrs• Schnabel indicated that the current ordinance required
off-street parking• She said that 1-1/2 stalls had to be
allowed for each one-bedraom un�t and two stalls for each
two-bedroom unit and 2-1/2 stalls far each three bedroom unit•
r"1
�
�
� �
�
�PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — MAY 18, 1977 Page 5
Mr• Chandler indicated to the audience that he was requesting
a higher and better use for the property•
Mrs• Foster i'ndicated that a�Tl the children played in a
park located near the lots in,question• She said that the
park was the only play area for the children and she couldn•t
see bringing in seven more families, with children• She
said what the area really needed was more recreation area
and not more apartments•
Mrs• Luckow want�d clarification as to exactly what could
be constructed on a C-1S Lot•
Chairperson Harris read to the audi�nc� exactly what would
be allowed on a C-1S Lot•
At that point Mr• Boardman said that on C-1S properties,
160 foot frontage was required• He said that the Commercial
property did not meet that requiremen�• He said that the
Commercial only had about 1/2 of the required square footage•
�r- Chandler indicated �hat what he had been told by the
Building Inspector did no� agree with what �r• Boardman had
said• He said that he would take i� baek to Court• He
said that he had an investment of over �40,000 and he wasn�t
going to put up with the City cvndemning his property from
any use•
Mr• Bergman wanted to know if Lots 2 and 3 were ever large
enough to build as C-1S•
Mr• Boardman indicated that Lots 2 and 3 were never large
enough ta meet the square footage requirements to build as
C-1S• He said that �hey could be buildable wi�h a variance•
Mr• Boardman went on to ex��ain that there was an exclusion
in the R-1 District code that would allow an R-1 lot to be
used as a parking lot by getting a Special Use Permit•
He said that together with Lots 2 and 3, Lot � could be used as
parking area� therefore, making lots 2 and 3 buildable C-1S
�ots•
Mr• Chandler indicated that his request was a very na�ural
request and it would be an upgrade for the property• He asked
them to realize that ttie entire street had apartment buildings•
Mr- & Mrs• Foster indicated that they would like to see some
plans•
PLAN�ING CO�MISSION MEETING — MAY 18, 1977 Page 6
Mr• Chandler said that he didn't hav� any definite style plans /�
at that time• He indica�ed that whatever was planned for ,
those lots, that all City Codes would be met• He said that
the first thing he wanted to do was to get a rezoning of
the property and that he would proceed from that point•
Mr�� Foster asked Mr- Chandler that if he got the lots rezoned
to R-3, would he try to get eight units on the property-
Mr• Boardman indicated that if Mr• Chandler had the right
desig�, that eigh� units could be constructed on that property•
Mrs• Foster asked if Mr� Chandler planned for a yard area•
Mr• Chandler said that he would have all the required setbacks•
Mrs• Lukow wanted to kno� if provisions would be made for
children• °
Mr• Boardman indicated that there were no requirements to
provide play areas for the children•
Chairperson H�rris made reference to the Plat as to the
2�•1D foot alley �hat was locate� next to 64 1/2 Way-
�r• Foster indicated that when they moved into the area, they ^
had a private drive-way onto East River Road• He said that �
now the street had taken up the alley•
Chairperson Harris wanted to know how much of the property
� in question had been ta�en for the East River Road and
�ississippi Street intersec�ion improvement•
Mr• Chandler indicated �hat approximately 30 feet had been
taken �rom both ends of �he lot•
Chairperson Harris asked if the property would have been a
legal C-1S lot before the condemnation•
Mr• Boardman said tha� even before the condemnation, the lots
were noL buildable C-LS lots• He said that very probably the
City would have HAD �o grant a vari�nce since �r• Chandler
would have had just cause for a hardship• �
Mr• Langenfeld asked Mr• Chandler if his plans were speculative
at that time• �
Mr• Charidler said that he had a contract for the purchase of
the land if and when the property was rezoned•
�
•PLAN�ING COMMISSION MEETING — MAY �8� 1977 � Page ?
Chairperson Harris asked �r• thandler if his contractor would
� draw a site plan• �
Mr• Chandler indicated that he had already drawn up three site
plans and had gotten no results• He said tha� they really
needed the rezoning firs�•
Mr• Baardman explained the o�her requests that Mr• Chandler
had made and what had happened on each of them• He said that
the last plan he saw was for five two-bedroom units and
three three-bedroom units•
Mr• Boardman indicated that the plan would be for a two-story
unit in answer to a question by �r• Foster-
Mr• Phitzner didn't like the idea that �he City put in a park
that was not and would not be large enough �fl handle the children
in the area• A1so he said that the Park was loca�ed on a
str�et that was basically dangerous due to the abundance
of traffic contribu�ed �o by the apartment complexes in
the area•
.. At that poin�, Chairpersan Ha.rris said that he considered this
request a major rezoning and that it was not un�sual to require
a site plan• He indicated that he would no� be able to vote on
the rea,uest un�il he saw a site plan•
�"�
y Mr• Langenfeld wanted to know, if the rezoning was gran�ed,
when �r• Chandl,er would plan to start construction�
Mr• Chandler responded that actually he had no idea but
figured probably sometime in the Fall•
Mr• Langenfeld explained to the audience and Mr• Chandler that
the Commission had to make their decisions based on the City
Codes and Ordinances• He said tha� in this case it should be
noted that the members of the Commission were very concern�d
abou�c the safety o� the children in the area as well as the
general safety of the public• He con�inued to say that they
had to keep in mind that the request was to rezone two lots
presently zoned C-1S and one lot zoned R-1 to three lots
zoned R-3• He said that it should be kept in mind that any
of the previously stated commercial enterprises could be
constructed on the lots in question• He said that he only
made the statement for informative purposes•
Mrs• Schnabel wanted to know Mr• Chandler's explanation of
Row Houses and Townhouses•
r'""1
0
0
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — MAY 1b, 1977 Page 8
Mr• Chandler first wan�ted �o explain that what was stated on �
' the Public Hearing notice was not actually what was being
planned• He said that the notices had been sent out before
he had withdrawn I�is ina.tial plan• Mr• Chandler then explained
that he felt the definition of �he two housing types were
interchangeable• .
Mrs� Schnabel indica�ed 'that she did not feel comfortable
giving approvals far rezoning without seeing a site plan•
f1r• Talbot asked for v�rification as to exactly what the
Commission wanted in regards to a site plan•
Chairperson Harris showed Mr• Talbo� an example of what
he wanted• �
At that point, I�r� Talbot showed the Commission the site plan
ichat had originally been drawn up before ichey decided to
first rezone the property and then draw up plans that would
m�et all City Codes-
(�rs• Fos'ter asked P1r• Chandler if he could try to plan the
units so that the �traf�ir_ from �he t�ni�cs did no� go to
Riverview Terrace•
Mr• Chandl�r felt tha� i�t would be impossible to say what the
traffic would decide to do• •
Mrs• Foster ind'icated tha� she felt the City should buy
these lots•
Mr• Chandler said that he didn't care who bought the lots•
Mr• Langenfield asked (�r- Chandler if he had considered putting
up single family dwellings on the lots-
f1r• Chandler indicated tha� the lots were too expensive to
try to sell single family dwellings•
�1r• Boardman explained that when they were going through the
layout of the property with a par�icular type af construction,
they could only get six units on the property without a
variance• The cwners o�' the property felt that six units �aould
not pay for the property:
�"1
i
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN6 —�AY 1$, 1977 • Page 9
� . Mr• Bergman explained that he thought Mr• Chandler would like
to do something with his property after many years of tax
paying and ownership• However, he felt that the neighbors also
had justifiable fears of more children in the area ,
inadequate playgrounds and more tra�fic problems- He said
that it did bother him to have a plan submitted that would
require variances• He felt that if the best use of that property
was for townhouses, then the problem that should be deal�
w��h would be one of density•
Mr• Chandler pointed out that the site plan before the
Commission was not the plan that they were going with•
He said that the new plan that wQUld be drawn up would
meet all requirements that the City needed•
Mr• Bergman said that a request for a plan did not imply
approval even if the plan did meet codes• He said that o
basically the request at hand was �or rezoning and the site
plan would not commii the owner to do exactly as the site
plan stated•
Mr• Boardman indicated that it also would not bind him to
that site plan�
^ Mrs• Schnabel pointed out to the audience tha� if the
,, rezoning was granted, that any requests for variances would
have to go be�ore the Appeals Commission• She said that
at that time the neighbors would again be able to express
their feelings in regard� to the number of uni�s and the
layout of the units� Also she said that the requester would
have to have concrete plans before he could appear before
the Appeals Commission• �
Mr• Bergman indicated that the Commission was dealing with
Mr• �handler regarding a reques� for a rezoning• However,
he said t�at once the rezoning was granted, they would have
to deal with the developer and he couid come up with any�hing
within the ordinance for that zone and the Planning
Commission would have no control• He said that the developer
could have a whole different picture as to what he wanted .
to do with the lots• .
Mr• Langenfeld said that he understood Mr• Chandler•s position
as far as he had property that he was paying taxes on•
However, he said that he could not vote for a rezoning
until he knew exactly what was going to be done with the
Lots in question•
At that point there was much discussion amongst the
r,,_, Planning Commission as far as putting stipulations on the
rezoning and whether�the stipulations could be enforced•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEET�NG — MAY 18, 197? Page 10
Chairperson Harris said that stipulations coul•d be enforced �
as far as the locati�n of the units on the property, the
number of uni�s, and the access to �he units•
Mr• Chandler felt that putting stipulations on a rezoning was
noL- part of the Planning Commission's jurisdiction• He felt
that since the rezoning would be an improvement to the property
and that as long as they met all t�e City Codes and
req�irements, the Commission should no� be able to put any
stipulations on the rezoning request• He continued to say
that the Planning Commisssion was not putting enough confidence
in the �ity Planning Depar�ment• He felt that most of the
issues that were being brought into �he rezoning request
were already controlled by the City Codes•
Mrs• Schnabel indicated that she was aware of both sides of the
issue• She said that the residents in the area definitely o
had to be concerned about the safety of the children and that
they also had a definte traffic problem• However she said that
if the proper�y were to remain commercial, it would result in
a hardship for Mr• Chandler in terms of access to and from the
property•
Mrs• Foster said tha� she felt adequaze of�-street parking
HAD to be required• ^
Mrs• Schnabel said that the current ordinance required off- ��
s�reet parking•
In response to Mr• Bergman�s question regarding the zoning
of the neighboring areas, Mr• Boardman explained all �he
zonings in �he area• _
M�• Bergman indicated that he �ersonally felt there was no
problem wi�h an R-3 zoning for the lots-� however, he felt
the problem was the density• He said �hat he would be for
the rezoning if a limitation could be se� on the density
but he was not sure, how that could legally be handled• .
M�• Chandler felt that that �as covered in the Building Code•
Chairperson Harris said that he wan�ed Mr• Chandler to get
with his contractor and decide what idould be done on the
property and have a site plan drawn up-
Mr• Chandler agreed that he would try to get in touch with the
contractor and have a site plan dra�Jn up•
Mr• Foster wanted to know exactly how many units were being
considered•
�
Mr• Chandler indicated that seven units.was the tentative
plan•
PLANNING COMMISSZ4N MEETING — MAY 18, 1977 Page ZZ
e
Mr• Phitzner said that no matter how many units were in the
�' plan, he didn't feel the neighborhood needed any more traffic
� or any more people• ��
,--.,
, �.
�
Chairperson Harris �old the audience that the Planning
Commission had to respond to Mr• Chandler°s request•
Mr• Bergman indicated that just because the Ordinance would
allow seven or eight units, it didn°t mean that the developer
would HAVE to put the maximum number of units on the property•
He said that perhaps the developer could consid�r a little
more green area and a few less units•
MOTION by Mr- Bergman, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, that the
planning Commission continue the Public Hearing on the
Rezoning Request, ZOA � 77-03, BY C• D• CHANDLER,. to rezone
Lot 1, Block 2, Johnsan's Rzver tane Addition, From R-1
{single family dwelling areas} to R-3 {multiple family
dwelling areas}, and, rezone Lots 2 and 3, Block 2,
Johnson°s River Lane Addition, from C-1S {local shopping areas}
to R°3 {multiple family dwelling areas} so these three
lots can be used for the construction of a 7 unit row hause
development and/or townhouses, generally lacated between
64 1/2 Way and �ississippi Place on the West side of East
River Road N�E• until the next planning Commission meeting
{June 8, 1977} at ��hich time �r• Chandler and the developer
would come before the Commission with a definite site plan•
Chairperson Harris indicated that the Pl.anning Commission
wasn't allowed fco tell Mr• Ch�ndler how to draw his.site .
plan, he said that the Commission could only respond 'co a
site plan and his request• He said that �1r• Chandler was to
have a plan drawn up and the Planning Commission would respond
to the recyuest �
UPON A VOICE V4TE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
MOTION by Mr• Storla, seconded by Mr• Bergman, that the Planning
Commission suspend the rules and handle Item 7B of the agenda
RECOMf1ENDATION FOR $200 FOR TEEN CENTER• Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
PLANNING CO�MISSION MEETING —�AY 18, ],977 Page 12
�
7b RECOMMEN�ATION FOR �200 FOR TEEN CENTER
Ms• �ary Anderson, the Coordinator for the Fridley Teen Center
was present•
Ms• Anderson indicated that it had been brought up at the
Human Resources Commisszon �hat a fund be established to help
start up the Fridley Teen Center• She then presented a report
listi�g the items that were needed to help the Teen Center get
started •
The Planning Commission took a few minutes to study the report•
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by f1rs• Schnabel, that the
Planning Commission receive the report from I�s� Anderson•
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carri�d unanimousZy� �
Ms• Anderson briefly explained the items listed on the report•
She.also answered a few questions �hat the Commission had on �
several of the items•
�1r• Storla explained that the Teen Center personnel had been
economical with the money it had previously received fram the
Fridley State Bank to help them pu� on a dance• He said t��at ^
iche dance wen�, fairly well cnnsidering ii: had been held on the i i
same night as a student-faculty bas�etball game• ye said that
the Committee ended up with about �20 down• f1r• S�orla said
that at thattime they needed money to hElp to notify people
that the Teen Center was open and to help the Teen Center get
off the ground•
Mrs• Schnabel asked if the report indicated the dollars that
were needed•
Ms• Anderson said that they were only requesting $20�•
MOTION by Mr• Bergman, seconded by �1r• Langenfe].d� that the
Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of
the request for �200 for the Fridley i'een Center•
Mr• Langenfeld made a suggestion that the Teen Center try to
sell Stock .in the Teen Center• He felt that possibly the
suggestion would get more people interested in the Teen Center•
Chairperson Harris and Mr• Storla expressed �hat they felt it
was a good idea worth looking into-
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously-
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — MAY 18, 1977 Page 13
�� � � ,
3• VACATION REQUEST, SAV ,� 77-041 FRTI�I FY IINTTFD M�TNOnTCT
CHURCH: Vaca�e �he utility easement over the South
5 feeic of Lots 1, 2 and 3, and the North 5 feet of
Lots 22, 23, 24 and 25, all in B.lock 2, Christie
Addition, to allow an addition to an existing church,
the same being 666 Mississippi Street IV•E•
Mr• Boardman said thatc this request was a requiremEnt of the
Building Permit• He said that they had applied for a Building
Permit which the City was going to hold up unless they had
approval from the City Council for encroachment on the
easements• The Council approved �heir reques� for easement
encroachment with the stipulation that �they apply for a
vacation of the easements• The Vacation Request, SAV � 77-�4
is for that vacation• � .
Chairperson Harris said that the drawing looked as though
the Church was already over iche easements•
�1r• Boardman responded that they were•
Chairperson Harris asked if the easements were still there•
�, Mr• Boardman didnot know•
� • .
Mr• Bergman asked �Ir• Boardman if Fridley Methodist Church
also owned lots 22, 23, 24 and 25•
f1r• Boardman said that those lots were the Church
parking lot•
MOTION by Mr� Langenfeld, seconded by Mr• Storla, that the
Planning Commission receive the two letters from Northern
States Power Company and the one letter from Minnegasco
regarding Fridley United Methodist Church vacation request•
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously•
Mrs• Schnabel wanted �o know if the Planning Commission was
being requested to obtain easements•
Mr• Boardman said that the church is�requesting the vacation
and the Staff is asking that the Planning Commission, as part
of the Vacation, stipulate the rededication of easements•
�
�
�LANNING COM�ISSION �EETI�G — P1�Y 18, 1977 V Page 14
MOTION by �rs• Schnabel, seco�nded by �r• Bergman, that the ��,
Planning Commi�sion recommends to City Council agproval of
the Vacation Request, SAV� �77-04, Fridley United �ethodist
Church to vacate the utility easement over the South five feet
of Lots 1� 2 and 3, and the North five feet of Lots 22, 23,
24 and 25, all in Block 2, Christie Addition, to allow an
addition to an existing church, the same being
666 Mississippi Street N•E� and that they stipulate the
rededication of easements of ten feet alang the west proper�y
line of Lot 3; 15 feet along the wesL property line of Lot 22;
and five feet along �he north property line of LoL- 22•
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the mo�ion carried•
Cahirperson Harris declared a short break at 9:50 P.M•
Chairperson Har.ris called the meeting back to order at
1�:�0 P•M-
MOTION by Mrs• Schnabel, seconded by Mr�.Langenfeld, that the
Planning Commission suspend the rules and handle Items 5, 6,
7, and 7a and hold I�em 4 until after adjournment• Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously-
Chairperson Harris indica�e� that item 4 CONTINUED: PROPOSED ^
MAINTEN�NCE CODE be handled as Workshop after adjournment �
of th� Planning Commission �eeting•
5• RECESVE PARKS � RECREATTON COM�ISSION �TNUTES�
APRIL , 1977
MOTION by Mrs• Schnabel, seconded by Mr• B�rgman, that
the Planning Commission receive the parks & Recreation
Commission �inu�es of April 25, 1977� �
Mrs• Schnabel indicated that on Page 64, the second paragraph,
second to las� sentence should read ••• ^The real solution
would be to outlaw utilization of motorized RECREATIONAL vehicles
in Fridley, •••^-
Mrs• Schnabel indicated on Page 64, the last paragraph, had
what she believed to be typographical errors• Re�erence was
made all throuyh the paragraph to St• Louis Park and she felt
that they should have been Spring Lake Park•
UPON A VOICE V4TE, all votir�g aye, the motion carried
unanimously-
n
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING —'MAY 1B, 1977 ' Page 15
�� 6• RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 10, 1977
° MOTION by Mrs• Schnabel, seconded by Mr- Langenfeld, that
the Planning Commission receive the Appeals Commission
Minutes of May 1�, 1977•
Mrs• Schnabel indicated that on Page 79 at the end of the
fourth paragraph, a sentence should be added —^Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously^•
Mr• Langenfeld wanted to know if a motion was necessary to
take an item from the Table•
Chairperson Harris indicated that it was necessary•
There was some discussion regarding �r• Peterson°s variance
requests• �rs• Schnabel said that at �he Appeals Commission
meeting, Mr• Peterson, had withdrawn his request to build
multiple dwellings on Meadowmoor Drive- She said that after
that statement, the neighbors in the audience were not very
vocal•
Mr• Boardman indicated that it had gone to City Council and that
Mr• Peterson had decided �o build single family dwellings on
Meadowmoor Drive•
'� UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously�
, 1
7• RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COP•T�ISSION �INUTES�
MAY 5, 1977
MOTION by Mr• Storla, seconded by Mr• Bergman, that the Planning
Commission receive the Human Resources Commission minutes
of May 5, 1977•
Mrs• Schnabel asked �r• Storla if there haa been any problem
regarding the Tenant/Landlord Projec� Committee with two people
on the Committee from the same Complex•
Mr• Storla responded that they preferre� that the Committee
had only one tenant from each complex• However he said that
that was a large complex and there did appear to be more
interest in that complex than in most of the other places•
Therefore, he said that they decided to allow it•
Mr• Storla continued to briefly explain the actual function
of the Committee• '
Chairperson Harris wanted to know what the Tenant/�andlord
project Committee's objective was• .
�.
i �
PLANNING CO��ISSION �EETING — MAY 18, 1977 Page 16
Mr• Storla indicated that �he Fridley Tenant/Landlord Project �.,
Committee shall act as an advisory committee to the Fridley
Human Resources Commission for the purpose of maintaining a
quality of life in residential rental stock consistent with
the standards of all residents in the community; and
developing methods, policies, and means of ensuring that the
rights of tenants and l�n�lords are protected and harmonious
relationships facilitated• He said that basically the objective
U�as to maintain the quality of life and to i�crease communication
between both the tenants and landlords to try �o work ou� any
problems before �hey become so accute that the tenants are
evicted or a ten�nt ^skips� out on his rent•
Mrs• Schnabel wanted to know if the members of the Committee
would be serving as a scre�ning board for future rental
applica�ions•
Mr• Storla said �hat they would have some set commit�ee
to do the screening•
�r• Bergman wanted to know if this Committee was connected
with the Tenants Union•
Mr• Storla said that there was no connection• The Tenants
Union was for the peo�le in the City of Minneapolis• He
w�nt on to say thzt the TenanLS Union was more of a^las�
resort'° type thing• He sai.d that the Tenanic/Landlord Project
Committee was formed to get the cc�mmunications established
between the tenants and landlards be�'ore �he problems resulted
in an evic�ion or someone ^skipping ota�^ on his rentc•
Mr• Langenfeld wanted to make a point regarding a statement
made by I�r� William Sco�t on Page 95-, seventh paragraph, in
which he stated �!•••under �che influence of alcohol to use the
restroom facilities; and, whereas, the Commission did not
consider that kind of in�luence conducive ico the well—being
of Fridley•s young people; �••^• Mr• Langenfeld felt that
Mr• Scott t�as labeling people wiichout having all the pertinent
facts•
Mr• Storla indicaiced that Mr• Scott only made the statement after
several people had made the statement to him• He was taking
someone else's word�
Mr• Boardman said that the Rest Rooms were open to the public
and asked Mr• Storla what ti�e Commission intended to
recommend•
Mr• Storla said that they made a motion to have satellites
set up•
UPON � VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously•
There was a short discussion on the elections of officers
at the various Commission meetings•
i�,
i
�1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — MAY 1,8, 197? Page 17
7a• RECOMMENDATION FOR $1�D00 FOR SENIOR CITIZEN WELL CLINIC
� 1 � �r� .
Mr• Storla apologized that he�couldn't give much background
,on the item• He indicated that Mr• Kline was going to be
present at the Planning Commission meeting to give a formal
presentation• However, since f1r• Kline did not show tap,
� Mr• Storla said he would try to answer any questions as best
he could•
Mr• Storla circulated copies of a booklet he had regarding
the Senior Citizen Well Clinic Program•
Mr• Boardman asked wi�ere the Clinic was located•
Mr� Storla said that it was in the North Suburban Family
Clinic in Coon Rapids•
Chairperson Harris wanted to know if the Program was just
for the Senior Citizens in Fridley and Columbia Heights•
Mr• Storla said it was for all Anoka County Senior Citizens•
Chairperson Harris wan�ed to know how� long the Program had
been in operation•
,� Mr• Boardman said that it was in its third year of operation•
- ti He said that the Program needed local funds to keep going•
Chairperson Harris wanted to know how much money the
County was contributing• '
Mr- Storla didn°� know�
Mrs• Schnabel re�erred to the booklet and that that Anoka
County was contribu�ing �56,�00• She said that according
to the booklet the Program couldn't get United Way funds
until June 1979•
There was much discussion as to where the funds were going to
come from and how much they would be receiving from the
different sources•
l�r• Storla read a list of the agencies that had already been
approached• He said that the Program was trying to get $9,500
from businesses and organizations•
Chairperson Harris felt that this particular program was a
County function and should be funded by the County•
Mr• Bergman indicated that $1,000 was a lot ofi tax-payer's
,,� money-
PLANNING COMMISSZON �EETING °�A� LB,�y�77 Page 18
Chairperson Harris said that it was not the Cityps responsibility
to handle a County project• �
Mr• Langenfeld said tha� the Fridley Lion's C1ub had donated �`�
' a bus to Anoka County� In turn, he said, that when the Fridley �
Lionvs Club wanted to use the bus, Anoka County charged them•
He indicated that the Fridley Lion's C1ub was in the process
of asking for the return of the bus•
Mr• Bergman
�o the We11
cannot drive
didn°t 7reel
as a luxury
of the need
felt that the free transportation of Senior Ci�izens
Clinics should be limited to tl�ose persons that
or have no other means of �ranspor�a�ion• He
tha� this should be offered to the Senior Citizens
item• He felt it should be an item offered in ligrit
for �he tcranspor^tation service•
Mr• Storla felt that possibly �che i��m should be tabled
un'til suc{� '�ime that f1r• Klin� appeared before the Planning
Commission and explained why Anal<a Counicy wasn't backing
it up-
Chairperson Harris and �1rs� Schnabel felt that it would be
impor�ant to have f1r• Kline talk to the Planning Commission
and indicate exactly what the plan was all about•
�10TION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Mrs• Schnabel, tha� the
Rlanning Commission table the recommenua�ion for �1„D00 for
Senior Citizen Well Clinic {CAP} until such time �hat (�r- Kline �
could appear befiore i:he Commission to provide the necessary �
facts needed before the Commission could reach a decision•
UPON A VOICE VOTE� a11 voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously•
8• OTHER BUSINESS
�10TION by P1r• Langenfeld, .seconaed by P1rs• Schnabel, tha�
the Planning Commission receive the memo from Mr• Boardman
to Mr• Sobiech regarding the action required to se�tle the
Hyde Park rezor�ing issue•
Mr• Boardman indicated that the memo of necessary actions
was given to �he Planning Commissiori for informative purposes•
He said that several questions had to be broughfc up before
the expendiicure of money:
a} The question of the.rezoning�
b} Are the street patterns good to promote the
commercial development IF that commercial developm.ent
should be promoted•
�
PLANNI�G COMMISSION MEETING — MAY 18, 1977 Pa�e 19
The planning �ommission discussed at length the Hyde Park
�� rezoning issue• They arrived a� seve�al different thoughts and
' • ideas of what they would like to see ana not 'see done•
They indicated many questions that they felt had to be answere�
regarding the subject•
Chairperson Harris suggested that the.planning Commission attend
the City Council conference meeting on May 23, 1977. -�
Mr• Boardman made reference to several points he had m�de
in the memo and reiterated his reasoning for making several
of the comments he had made�
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye� the motion carried
unanimously• The memo was received•
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by �r• Bergman, secanded by Mrs� Schnabel, that �he
Planning Commission meeting of May 18, 1977, be adjourned•
Upon a voice vote, all vo�ing aye, the motion carried una�imously•
Chairperson Harris declared the Rlanning Commission Meeting
of May 18, 1977, adjourned at 11�Z5 P.�•
��
1
The planning Commission held a workshop on the PROPOSED
MAINTENANCE CODE after the formal adjournmen'c of the
May 18' 1977, Plahning Commission �eeting�
Respectfully Submitted�
� �
Mary Lee Carhill
��