PL 06/06/1979 - 6655PLANNTNG GO�MISSION MEETTNG
City of Fridley
AGENOA
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 1979
CALL TO ARDER: �
ROIL CALL:
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 23 1979
1. PUBLIC HEARING: RERUES7 FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT,
SP #79-06, BY ROBERT J. CARLSON: Per Section 205.
051, 2, A, of the Fridley City Code, to allow the
construction of a second accessory building, a 16 ft.
by 22 ft. detached garage on Lot 4, Block 2, Juli-Ann
Addition, the same being 157-62nd Way N.E.
2. VACATION REQUEST: SAV #74-03, BY THE CIT1' OF FRIDLEY:
acate t at portion of the alley in Block 11, Nyde Park,
not vacated 6y Ordinance #533, between Lots 1-6 and
Lots 25-3Q, and between Lots 14, 15, and 16, U. Located
between 59th and 60th Avenues N.E. and between 2 1/2
Street and 3rd Street N.E.
3. RECEIVE
4. RECEI4E PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 16, 1979
5. RECEIVE ENERGY PROJECT COh�1ITTEE MINU7ES: MAY 22, 1979
6. CONTINUED: COMPRENENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
7. CONTINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 205. ZONIRG
8. 07NER BUSINESS:
AD.lOURNMENT:
7:30 P.M.
f7:[e7�.�
1 - 24
25 - 29
30 - 33
34 - 41
GREEN
WHITE
SEPARATE
SEPARATE
u
0
crrY or Fxinr.�7
PI.ANPdING CaN�iISSZON I•��,Lfiit�1G - 14l�Y 23, x979 __ ,�
CAT�L T0 O.TiI�ER:
Chairman I7arris called the May 23� 1979, meeting of.the Planning Commission to
order at 7:�+0 P.M.
ROLL CE�LL:
Membera f'resent: Nir. Oguist, iir. 13arxis� Mr. Treuenfels� N,s. Schnabel� A7r, Hora (for
� Mx. Langenfeld), Pis. i3ughes (arrived ae 7:45}
Members Al�sent: N�,vE
Others Yreseut: Darrell C1ark, Community Development Adc�inistrator (left at 8:3o P.P-i„
3erry Boardman, Cit;; Planner (arrived at fi:30 P.bi.j
l. Ai'PROVE PL.9NTdIT.iG COf�itL5SI02d b"�TIyJPES: MkY 9� 1.979:
A'(QTIGid by A3r. Oqui�t� secoaded by hir. Treuenieis� to apprpve the Nay 9� 1979�
minutes of the Planning Commission.
tds, Schnabel stated that on page 3� -,�k3� the word "LIk'E" shculd Ue "L;CPT" and also
on page 9� Tt4� the word "LIFE" shauld be "L:CF''i"`.
b�. Oquist stated that pa�e 35, �9 �tates that he was absent i'rom the April 24� 1�7�
meeting oi the Com:annity Development Con:ciiseion. He had stated 1-ie was latef not
atsent.
UPON A VOIC� VOTE� ;�LS, VCtTITJG AYE� CI�AIRb;AN HARRSS DECI.t�3ED Ti� b�N�1PES APPROV�'U
AS CORREC'P�.
2.
M(YPION by I+1s. Scr.nabel� seconded by Ns. Treuenfels, to open the public hearing.
(SPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING
OPEN AT 7:45 P.h:.
Mr. Clark stated that the petitioner had aslced Por CR-2 and should be aware that
CR-2 ineluded some limited general businzss and manufacturing. It would fit the
petitioner's wishes betier if it were CR-1 which is strictly o£fice complex and
would be limited to dent3sts� real estate offices and things of that nature. Also�
there are different setback requirements for CR-1 and CR-2 and the petitioner'S
plan dces not meet the CR-2 requirea�nts. For example� the front yard is 35 feet
in CR-1 and 60 feet in CR-2 and the rear yard requirements increase from 25 feet
to 40 feet. IP they agreed to a CR-1, they would have to increase the setback of
the parking lot to the service road from 20 feet to 25 feet. Regsrding the parking
PLANNING C�ISSION MGETING, MAY 23� 1979 __ PAGE 2
a CR-1 requires 122 atalls Yor this equare footage office building. Some
considerption ehould be given to reducing the nwnber oY parking atalls paved
to ten or even 20 per cent over so there would be more �reen area between the
oYfice structure and the R-1 surroundin� it. To the sou�h of this area is
property zoned R-2 and is presentl,y being used as R-3. The reason Yor that 1s
the zoning changes made between the time the buiZdings were built as apartment
houses and whereby we couldn't build apartments in R-2 after a certain date. So
the area to the south is R-2 being used as R-3 and to the north is R-1 and to
the east along Delwoal 1� R-1. This particular property was originally zoned
R-1 atid about 10 years ago was rezoned to R-3. The Commissioners should tie aware
that this would be spot zoning and would not increase the size of an adjacent
zone. It would be an office structure in the middle oP residential� R-3 to the
south and R-1 to the north.
Mr, Harris noted tk�at there was a petition in the agenda on pa�e 44 signed by
12 people stating they had no objection to thzs coustruction.'
MOTION by Mr. Oquist� seconded by Mr. Treuenfels' to receive the petition which
reads as foll�as; "We� the undersigned� have no objection to the construction
of a 2�500 square foot� one story� oPfice building on the property according
to the legal description attached".
N1r, Harris read the petition to the audience. He stated tkiat he had also received
a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Ray and Gladys Andersou and also from Mr. and Mrs. Ludwig
and Myrtle Ask stat2ng they had no objections to the construction.
Ms. Schnabel noted they had signed the petition also.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN AARRIS DECLP.REED THE PETITION RECEIVED.
Mr. Harris stated there was no petition in opposition in the recoxds.
Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Clark if the Staff's feeling was that the request Yor. rezoning
was in the wrong c2assification? .
Mr. Clark stated that Staff felt it wou].d bettex fit the CR-1 classification. If
it is going to be rezoned CR-1 would be more appropr3ate than CR-2. He noted that
the Commissioners could recommend a lesser zoning that is more restrictive.
Ms. Schnabel asked what the purpose of the park iee noted on page 39 of the agenda2
Mr. Clark stated this probably didn't app]y to this petition and was the second
page of a petition far a lot of different things� one of which is plattir�g.
Mr. William Hart� 61kI Rainbow Drive� stated that he would be agreeable to a CR-1
zone and apparentiy misunderstood when he requested the CR-2. He felt that the
office building would blend in witk the residential and he would tae will.ing to
put in a fence if they want. When he talked to the people around there� he ielt
they would like an office building rather than an apartment building there.
Mr. Noxwan Shuldhuis came forward and stated he owned the apart�nt building on
the next corner. He was concerned about the traPPic an the service road with an
office building there.
PLANNITSG COY�IM.LSSION 1�TiNG� MAX 23 �979 -_ __ _._ PAG�
_..._.._.----�,„._.. __.._�L-_
Mr. Clark stated tkwt the service drive would serve Lhis building. Tha di£ference
in the amount of' trafYic would depeid on the kinds of ofSices. There coul.d be
an increa�e in traYfic fram a caum�ercial offi.ce Uuildii�q over an apartm2nt house�
however� an apartment house could 1�:xve two car gara�ea an3 probabJy two to four
trips a day ior those alsa. iie stated that a profeosional type office building
should not be c� big trafiic generator.
Mr. Ilarri� stated the building wo�aJ.d be 2500 square feet and acked how maz�y offices
they were taJ.kin� about? �
Mr. Hart stated there would be or.e oPfice for them of 1000 square feet and 1500
square feet £or the other oi'fice. They did not l�;ve a tenr�nt as yet. He �tated
tkiat his business would generzte very little traffic. They have iour agents and
one girl and uLually thay are r_ot all in at the sa�e titie. In the insurance
business they no not have a lot of people ca'nin� to the ofS'ice. Most of the business
is over the phone.
Mr. Clark stated that the occupant load ior t:iat structure according to the buildin�
ca3e is 25 people� including oi'fice sta££ and visitors.
Mr. RUUsell Du1'?'is� 1150 �ssissippi Street IQ.�.� cane for�:ard and stated that he
had a petition in opposition Z+h�ch stated tY�t spet zonin; oi t'r.i� type is LindesNr.uble
because it would be placin�, a ccKi�erczal property adjaceut 'co a resid2ntial property.
The sec6nd point tiras tn?�t ideal zonina shovld provide a propex bu;'?er be�,ween
residential and co:�aercial and the location is noi condusive to sucY: a plan. l�ecess
to the property is not suit�ble, due to i�nproper road facii�ties� heavy trai'fic an3
the fact tl�a�t trafiic zaould have to (;o past apartment buildin�s �rith parkec� c�zs
and people coming in and out o£ their apartments and creating potential barUa'ds
as well as con�esti.on. Conucercial �xaific tkirough the area s�ould further cez�y�ound
the serious problem of fatal accidents already occuring too frequ�:ntly in thys
Area particularl,y a't the intersections of Highway �5 and 64th Avenue and Eii.�l:way
�5 and bTississippi Street, The fousth poir.t was that there was already an abuudance
of coz�ercial property �andeveloped in the City of rridley ��h11e the prop°rty £o:
residential use has been almost a11 developed. This would not ease ths housi�g
shortage. Ns. Burris gave tha petition to the Commissioners.
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by idr. Treuenfels, to receive the petition in
opposition.
Ms. Hughes noted there were about 48 signatures on the petition.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CfLAIRMAN IiARRIS DEGL.9RED TAE PETITION RECEIVED.
Mr. Clarence A. Timop 6517 Lucia Lane NE� came forward and stated he was concerned
about these requests for rezoning because it was destroying the neighborhood concept.
There is not enougii residen�tial property left to develop. He understood that about
100�, of the residantial property was developed but about ?_�3rds of the cocimercial
property is undeve�oped. Fie was concerned about if the business failed and the
property was unused it would become an eyesore. He would like them to stay with
the planning that was set up years ago. If they allow it here� they would be
setting a precedent for other areas of the City. He stated that he had helped
get the signatures on the petition and when'he talked to people he found that some
oP them thought thrxt the area was alresdy coumiercial and there was nothing they
could do e�yway. He informed them it �ras not zoned commercial. Also� once they
let this in, there would be no way of controllin� what type of business could be
in that building in the i�Zture. There could be a clrive-in� a bAr� a restaurantj
etc.
��
PLANNSIdG COMMLSS�Otd MEETING, MAY 23, 1979 PAGE �
Mr. IIurria stated that if they let this in, it would spread to other parts of
the neighborhood.
Ms, 5ehnabel stated tk�at some people signed both petitions.
Mr. Burris stated they had pas�ed their petition on May 22 so theirs was the most
racent. On7y 3 people refused to sign, The people who signed in favor did so
before they signed the one in opposition.
tds. Schnabel stated that as Par as what types of businesses that would be allowed
in a CR-1 zone� a•bar was mentioned and that would not be permitted. She stated
that some of the things allowed in a CR-1 would be general offices and office uses
such as real estate, lawyers� medical� dental, etc� or automobile parking lots
prcvidin� spaces for other buildings, They couldn't even do it with s Special
Use Permit so nothibg like a bar could go in. She stated they had a request to
rezone this particular piece of property about two years ago for a doctor's clinic.
At that time, the concern was about the traffic coming down Highway ��65 and going
into this particu7a��o�t� xf they missed the turn on 63rd, they wotil.d pro-
bably atterapt tom` °' --�cz�.----�''``n�' Highway iE65 to go there. She a7.so stated that
she didn't think this would generate as much traffic as a aactor9s cliuic,
Mr. Harris stated they had 1500 square Yeet unaccounted for.
Mr. Oquist stated that if they didn't rezone it and they put in a large apartment
�osrplsx' they would have the same problem.
Mr. :iarris stated the maximum nwr.ber of units allowed would be 11� and 9 in order
'Lo maet the aetbacks.
M:,. S�hnabel stated thst when the request came before them the last time, the
thlnking was that the people who Iived in the apartment lmow where they live.
Mr. Oquist stated there wazld still be a traffic problem because they might not
use the intersectian with the traffic light to enter.
Mr. Burris stated that the map showed a future extension of the service rcad and
stated tYuit would be impossible. He felt that would never k�appen.
Mr. Oquzst agreed there was a problem, but stated they would have the same problem
with an apartment co�lex as with an offzce building. '
P�. Iiart stated there �*ould be less traffic with att insurance ofPice than with An
11 unit apartment building. Also, there would be more kids with an apartment than
with an office.
Ms. Schnabel asked if eny oY the people who signed the original petition in favor
of the construetion were present� She referred in particu].ar to the Kandel fami7.y�
the Anderson i'amily and the Ask fami]y.
Mr. Harris stated they were not here but showed the cormnissioners the letter from
��^,the Anderson's and the Ask's indicating they would rather see the apartmm t rather
' than the oSfice. The letter was not dated. �
Mr. Hart stated they had sent their petition around in March.
. .:,�,.
k'LANPIIPIG COMMISuION MEETING� T�°V 23� 1979 - PAGE 5
Y�'h�. Timo stated that there were sm�ll ch3ldren in the npartment there and he f�lt
1't would be safer for tho�e children if people who iived in the area were driv3ng
thrauF;ki. They would be more aG�are of the children than people �oing to an office.
MOTIOP] by Mc. Hughea� seconded by Mr. Treuenfelc, ta close the publie hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIP�G AYE� CIIATRN�Pi HARRIS D�CLARED Tf� PtJBLIG HF.��RING
CLOSED AT 8:20 P.M.
t✓:s. Hughes agmed there was no real choice �etween these two uses whether it was
CR-2 or CR-1 or R-3 in tenas of traf'fic. She was opposed to the kind o�' spot
zoniny tk�xt this r.epresents� partici�;.arly zn this area which ha> r.�sna�ed tio siay
residential under so�e hea�ry threat� Uecause ti�ey are so clpse to Higl.saay ���5 and
Missis�ippi. IIeceuue oi' the histox•ic nature of th@ rezoning requests on the nor'th
east corner oi Hi�;l�way ,�55 and Pdississippi ai�d what ]�s happened i:o ther.i, s;:,e ie].t
they would be vezy reniss i.n �ranting this b..�_nd of zoning. Unless the diccuse=on
turns up soniethis:� new� she s•rculd be in faver of denzal.
Mr. Treuenfels stated he had. received material iram the City Attorney ta?ii.cn sta�ted
that in order to r�zone, it should exercise r_easerv2Ule i'urtherance o£ t.}.� put,17-c
heAlth� saE'ety and weZx�re and also the Comprehensive ➢eveiopment Plau s�at�° oa
page 2 tUe� th�re is a need i'or 23Q0 ne:a houser> and not eno��gh .r.esid�A.cia1 le;nc'�
exists to accomala�E that. Qn ihis oacis� he Fz�uld not t�e in faver of re�an:n�
residential land to co�c°ercial.
TAr. ;iarriU noted that t'_tie Co:npreY,�nsive Plan had not ,yet been adcpted b;/ the Ci�cy.
MOTSOPI by N�s• H�hee� seconded by P•'s. Hora� to reconunend io Council deni.al c3f tY�e
request� 'LOA ;�79-02 by Willie.m J. I�art to rezone the soutr, 1.5oA feets £�ont a��d
rear of iot <j� Auditar�'s Sub@ivision No. 88 (except tiie tdest 30 feet) and �he Sn��th
120 feet of the 4;est 47 feet of Lot 10, Audito:'s Subdivision PIo. 68, ir.cm Fta3
(multiple dwelling u.nits� to CR-2 (office� sercice and limited busines�) to allow
the construction of a 1-story insurance office at 6431 iIighway ��5 T3E.
NIr, Harris informed tixe petitioner that the niotion was to recoum:er.d denial and
that Council would hear this and set public hearings. He also informed the
petitioner that iP Council denie�l l�is request� he could not re-app],}' for Puxther
action on this property for 6 months. He ha3 the option to withdraw his request.
Ms. 5chnabel asked if he could withdraw it before it goes to Couneil so he would
not have to make a decision right now. .
Nh�. Clark felt he could do that.
Mr, Oquist asked what would happen if we vote to deny it and he withdraws the
request before it goes to Council. What process �*ould he'have to follocx?
t�, ftarris stated he would have to reapply if he decided to do something else.
If he doesn't withdraw'his request and it is denied by Council, he could not take
any action for 6 months.
MAY 23, 1979-___-_-- J'
The petitianer stated tkiat he underatood.
UPON A VOIC� VOTE� ALL VOTING Ai'E� CHAIIiMAN IiARRIS DECLARED TI� MOTION CARRIED
UNANIN�USLY. ,
Ns. Harris informed the petit3oner that this wou].d go to Council on June 4 and
the recommendation was tp dexiy.
3•
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by N,r. Oquistt to open the public hearing.
UPOIV A VOIC� VOTE, ALL VOTIPIG AYE, CHAIRMAN HAHRIS DECLAR�D THE PUBLIC HEARING
OPEN AT 8:30 P.M.
Mr. Boardmaxi stated that thir property was ].ocated in the flood plain and �ihat
was the reason for the S�ecial Use Pervzi-L. It is on a 50 foot lot with a house
to 'the north and a house �o the south. They put together a drainage plan which
3s show�n on page 50 oi the agenda. It is a little bit different from othar
homes in that area prisarily because the house would be built on stiltso It
would be built so ti:at the first level of the house would be above the floal
plain. The drai.nage plan they have developed catches the water trom the north,
drains it back around the garage ares and drains it out towards the streety on
the south side oi the _i.ot. From looking at the plans and the 3rain4ge plan it
appears that it matches we11 with the adjacent property and the pilin�s would
minimize the effect af flooding on the floors and that typ� oY thing. They
eliminated a lot of tYie problems they would normally have if the built a normal
type of structure.
� ,_ . The drainage
would be handled within the lot itself. Because the :�-��aer level would be raised
above the Ylood plain and because of the situation of the floor and the adverse
effect a Ylood would have for expansion� they could eliminate the 15 foot of level
fill on the �ides. Therefore they wouldn't have to worry about the overflow'onto
the nei�hbor's property
Ms. Hughes stated she didn't understand the 15 foot oi level fill.
Mr. Boardman stated that in a flood plain they have to have the fill at 2 Peet
above the floal 1eve1 and that fill has to be at a 1$ foo� distance from all sides
of the house. The reason for that is the more lend there the less water pressure
on the floor. So this would be a different �ray of looking at it. He noted that
the Planning Counnission had requested a moraiorium on building in the floal plain
area� but the Council has not yet declared a moratorium. They had asked that the
Planning Commission study it further. He also noted that sewer and water would
be available.
�
PL/�NNSPiG COM[�4ISSIOId MF,E.L'IiVG�29f,Y 23, iy79 - p�E 7
Mr. Harrie stated that he was not cure about the draina�e.
Mr. Boerdman stated that Dick Sobiech had reviewed it.
Mr. iiarris stated that the statement was made thett the drainage would be handled
within the con£ines of the lot. fie questioaed what would happen to it from ther.e�
Nfr. Boardman stated that it rrould go into the street. The arrows on the plan
indicated the water flows. '
P+ls. Schnabel stated that the elevations circled are the proposed elevations and
the ones noi; ci.rcled are the existing elevai:ions.
Mr. Boardman stated tnat wben he lccked at it he had some problems also.
Mr. Haxris sta'ted thai the drop was so gradual th�t h° questioned it. Ye asked
if 2fx. Scbiecn c�as convir.ced this would handle the drainage.
n1r. Bosrlman stated that he r.eviecaed the drainage glan and if that plan was completed
as desi.gned, the drainage should work.
2+�r. Oquist sta�ed t:�t it rr�s inte,estir.g that the existin� elevation wa� �i23.7
and the proposed eleval;ion was E23.6. Tr�t�s about a teuth oi a fcot� or a little
over an inch.
Ms. Schnabel stated i�hat i;he stat�ment was �.�de at tne Appeals Connniseion that
tAe 5taii Repor� foi• th� Sj�eciaZ U.-�e Per;�;i.t v�o'aid s'tate tr.at the �ro�.tiid uu��er �ha
house should 'oe r�t G23. She dicin't iind that in the Specisi Use appiication.
Ms. Boardraan stated that i�he Pirst fl_oor o£ trie house has 'to Le raisel �to °26>3.
That is the first floor elevation of the Louse.
t+ls. Schnabel stated they would have abput lz foot between the ground level and
the bottom of the ho�s e. The ground level would'be about 823. She also stated
that the question had cou,e up at the Appeals Cou�ission regarding whether or not
the sewer �aas adequate. It was their understanding that it was a 10 inch pipe
south of Augo and 8 inch north of iit�o. There was a question because some of
the people in the neighborhood were experiencing a back-up problem. They felt,
that the Engineering Department shou].d look and see if there were adequate lines
to hsndle additional, houses in the area. .
Mr. Boardman stated that was an Engineering Department problem and also stated
that it was probab],y desi�x�ed to handle Pull development of the area.
Mr. Perrozzi s�ated that at the Appeals Coimnission there was concern about the
pile driving. Since -then he found that would not be necessary and could be hand
dug with s cement collar underneath so this would al,leviate that problem. Also,
there was a quest3on about the setback� on the side yard. He stated he would be
w3113ng to cut down a couple feet on the house if that would help.
��
pTJ�NNItdG COMM7SSION MEETSNG _MAY 23, 1�9 PAGE 8
Ms. Schnabel stated that Mr. K2ingbefl hsd questioned the pile driving and noted
that he wae here.
Mr. Klingbeil stated ttu�t he had heard the statement by Mr. Perrozzi.
Mr. Harris asked what k�appens to the water presently on the lotY
Mr. Boardman etated that it looked like the lot was low.
Mr. �quist statefl that when he looked at it it looked like it just st�yed thexe.
Mr. Boardman etated that the water seems to collect there.
Mrs. Doris Schneppmueller� 8151 Riverview Terrace� stated she lived nex't door to
the south. She stated that the survey was done in the winter and she felt they
misjudged by a couple of feet. The water from her lot runs onto that lot.
i�s. Boardraan stated that he had to assume that th e survey is right. It looks like
the house is 5 foot o,f.£ the property line and that the �arage is �+ foot from the
property line, 1$ £oot is required and that was wby they needed a variance. He
ctatad that all triey could do was assuroe the survey was correct.
Pfir. Chester Schack, 685 Glencoe Street TJEJ stated that he was concerned about
setting a precedent. `�here ware two lots behind him to the north. He ielt the
house plan was awkward for that area and was concerned about the skirting arovnd
the house. He stated that there would be a problem with rodents.
Mr. R. H. K�ingheil� 5199 Riverview Terrace PFE� stated that he lives on the north
side oi' the lot in question. He stated that in 1965 during the floa3� water carae
into the low spot on the front of the l.ot. He agr�ed with Mr. Schack about the
rodents and aPter the flood there was a problem with rats on that lot because of
the debris le£t behind. He noted that :�n Wisconsin on lake homes they require
a pouxed foundation because of rodents.
Mr. John Rice� 696 Fiugo St, N.E., stated that if they grant the variances £or
this lot it would set a precedent in the area and the homes would be too close.
Mr. Perrozzi stated that the gradin� would not be brought up to the top of the
first floor. It would be pretty much as is. As iar as rodents getting i.nto the
house� a wire mesh or lattice work wiZl go around the house to prevent ralents
from getting in. He added thet the foundation orould probab]y be stronger th�.n
any house in the area because of the poles and e�eTbeam construction. The City
of Minneapolis has approved this type of construetion. He also felt it was a
buildable lot and felt he had met the requirements of the flood p].ain.
Mr. Harris asked I�. Perrozzi iP he owned the property now?
A�. Perrozzi stated that he was in the process of buying the property contingent
upon the outcome of his request for variances and S�iecial Use Permit.
�� �
PLANIdING CO2+��IISS70N h1�ETING, P�ii�Y 23� i979 PacE 9
Mr. Oquist asked Mr. Perrozzi. if he intended to live in the house?
Mr. Perrozxi stated he did.
Mrs. Schneppmuel].er stated that tnis would be the fi'rst house built on a small
lot on Rivervie�i facing the xiver.
Mr. Iiarrls asked when trii� was plstted?
Mr. Boardman stated it was a very old plat• •_. �-.�;
Mr. IQingbeil stated that be thcu�ht it was platted in 1926. (�'latted 8/1922)
Ms. Hughes asked if' the StafF was ��eLl satisf'ied wi.th this type of construction?
hs. Hoardman stated they �,rere satisfied with the construction. 7'he only proble;n
he had was thr�t no decisions had bee� xiade by the Plannin� Co�:ission in re�ards
to the f'lood plain.
Mr. Schack state3 that they ehould Ue consistezit in their ru].e� x�c�ardin�; the
flood plair,. Iie didn't think it �ras right to let h's. Perr�zzi build with poles
and so�eone else build a different c;ay.
Mr. Boardm.�n stated that the flood plain re^ulztions were set up by the Federal
Government in 1975 anc? the regv].ations must oe apnroved by the State. All reqiiests
re�t;rding �his iloa�l plain must be sent tc th� Stete. -
Mrs. Schack a,ked if the garage would be built on poles ard raised a1eo4
I�Sr. Boardmman stated that � structure �:�a� not required to be above the flood plain
level unless it was habitable. It must Ue anchored however� so it doe�n'� floa�t.
Mr. Pexrozzi stated that the garage would be out of the flood plain area. f.e
also stated that the value of the house would be consistent with others in the area
and wou].d add to the amenities. This type of construction Fras developed becc�use
la:u1 is beco�ning valuable.
MOTSON by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. I�u�;hes, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOTCE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMt1N HAP,RIS Dr�CLARED Ti� PLBLIC HEARING
CLOSED AT 9:10 P.M.
Ms. Hughes stated she would need more input from the other Cormnissioners. 5he
w$s completely opposed to building in the floal plain. She would like more Dack-
ground regarding the philosopY�y of what is allowed in the Ylood plain.
Mr. Harris stated that he would like to appraise the Conunissioners as to the
conditions of a Special Use Permit. Under rezonings and variances it is tncwnbent
upon the petitioner to show cause wk�+ it should be granted. Under Special Use
Permite� if it 3s denied, .�.t is incumbent upon the Commissioners to list gocd �nd
qualified reasons as to wk{y it should be denied. We have a flood plain ordinunce
PLANNING CO2�'ILSSION MEETING, MAY 23s 1979 __ __ _ PAGE 10
and it must be complied with. In this area the Coz�s of Engineere has stated
the leval is 822. Our crdinance requires thet any livable structure be 2 foot
above the 100 year floal level and this meets that requixement. So he is meeting
the requixements of tlie flood plain and if we recommend denial we muat have �ood
cause for it. Mr. Harri3 stated that it was his general feeling that the City
and the Planning Conunission has been negligent in not adopting general policies
for development in this area. Mr. Ft�rris went to the City Council about a month
ago and a�ked how the Council would feel about a moratorium on buildin�{ in this
area. Council sug�asted the Planning Cormmission study it ond Soxm recouunendations
before they declare a moratorium. II3.s particular feeling was that he wou].d not
like to see construction in the area until guidelines are set up.
Mr. Treuenfel.s was concerned about what would be considered gooct reasons. Two
aspects mentioned were firct� the draina.ge might not be sufficient and second�
there could be a problem with rodents. He asked if these would be considered
good reasons for denial?
Ms. Hug;hes addecl tkiat the 50 Poot lot was substandard.
Mr. Harr9.s stated tY�at in our ordinance, ar�y plat recorded before 1955, we a11ow
consi:ruction on 50 foot lots provided they are 7500 squz�re feet. Thi� lot is
not but that concerns the Board of App°als. The draa.nage situativn is a valid
point. He was not sure about the rodent situation.
Mr. Boardan�n stated that the ordinance layed out the types of things they wotald
not al.low a Spacial Use Pex�nit for. `Phe main thing they .look at is if it �ril1
cause economic hardsnip elsawhere by causing floaling on th° neighboring Zots.
If they cau show use through engineering ciata tYiat they are not going to do that
or iY they could solve an existing drainage problem, then we feel. they have met
that requ.irement.
Ms. Schnabel stated they should review the Cottmiissioners obligations regar&ing
Special Use Permi.ts. We must grant Special. Use Permits if it is found that the
proposed use is compatible with the existing use and dqes not endanger the public
health, safety and welfare ot the area. To deny couZd be deemed arbitrary� un-
1.awful and in violation oP ihe applicant's rights. The burden is oxi us in that
sense. There have been other cases that have established certain facis in con-
nection with this. For instance� a claim that the adjacent property owners pro-
perty would be devalued has been found by the courts to be not a xeason for denial,
If the u�e complies with Planning, City, police and fire departments recommendations
it must be given weight wi�Gh the Coustcil in approving a Special Use Permit. The
burden is really on our shoulders. She stated that she �ot this information from
a memorandum sent out by the City Attorney some time ago.
Mr. Harris asked if this property was really in essence acting as a holding pond?
Mr. Boardman stated that was the way it looked.
PLANyTNG COb4dISST0IV D1�ETTI'dG, t�AY 23: 1979 PA�� �'
Mr. Harris stated that it might be, becauee of the drainage situation, that this
structtire should noi: be buili; there and u,a;�be the City should look into the
possibility of acguiring that loi, for storm water storage. This goes back to
kheir ori�inal diUcur,�ion of settin; izp guidelines and criteria i'ar building in
this area. If we had that� we would have certain areas pinpointeci as drainage
stox•a�e areas. He was not certain zhat an £3 incli pipe could handle the situation
o£ all the storm waLer in the area.
Mr. Boardman stateci that the 8 inch roipe was Yor sewer.
P4r. Iiarris asked what they had for storril k�ater? •
l+x.r. Oquis�t a�sked how much drainu�e tk:ere was there?
b1r. Iiarris stated that it 1oc'.�ed like «�e houses an both sideU drained into this
lat.
Ms. Schnabel stated `�hat the kzouse to tLe south drains there but the house to the
north de�s not.
Dir. Boardr�an stated ther� was a series oi storra se�,*ers there, biost of tnem are
a catch ba.�n ty�e systen at the end of each of the streets and it d:zins froin
there through a pipe into the river,
b�. HarriU stat�d that according to �ris drawing, the center oF the strect eleaaiian
is at `�22.6. `i''n;t i� the e.is�in;; el:.�at?oa. :i:n tlie lot� mwdpaint �iYiere ti?e
house wovld sit� is 822. 5o iYiis lo� is acta.?� as a stortr, 4;ater retenticr. yrea.
The garage elevation is at F322.6. The nouse to the soutn is L�22.7 and the house
to tne noi°t;n ie 822.II, So tl�ey Y��.•ve to draSn there.
~�. i�r. Boardman stated that by fillin� and grading this lotJ i�he water draining from
the adjucent houses zaill drain into t.his lot and out to the street. That would
solve the drainage problem.
Mr. Harris aas not sure it woutd solve the probles�. He did not f'eel the elevation
differentials were enough. There we:e talkin� about pretty long distances and
ab4ut tenths of ieet.
his. Schnabel stated that they were limited because oi the elevation oi' the street
and ii they were going to change it� it might require the whole lot be filled in.
Mr, Boardman stated that by filI.ing in the lot, they would be creating s dreinage
problem for tha neighbors.
Mr, HarriU atated that there was a house off to the northeast and there is an
elevation of 822.1 in the corner of that house. The szaale is 823•6 so the swale
is higher thsn the corner of that house.
Mr. Boardman stated there probably wasn't water in that area az�yw�y.
Mr. Harris stated that the drop from the back was 823•� end to the front of the
lot is 822.3 so they have a foot and a tenth of an inch over 117z feet. It was
not much of a fall.
PI,ANNING COMNLLaSION Mh'ETTI��MAY 23� 1�'j9 _ PAGE 12
Mr. Hoardman stated that he looked at it baaed on enginearin¢ and what can be
done �rith the lot� and they probably did the most they could do with the lot.
He sti11 riad:reservations as far as what the Planning Connnission's recaiaraendation�
will be regarding the Iots in the flood plain.
Ms, Schnabel asked Mr. F.arris if he wou].d feel more comfortable if this item were
tabled until he had an opportunity to go to Counci7. and discuss the questions that
had been raised or until further study was done on the drainage on this lot.
Mr. Hcirris stated he would Yeel more comPortable, yes� but felt the petitioner
srould like to get on wlth the constructi.on.
2dr. Robert Lindbloom stated he was the owner of the property attd when ke acquired
the property the City told him he could build on the property if he met the flood
pla3n requirements.
Mr. Boardman stated th<at if they tabled it for the purpose of fvsther diseuseion
with Council� he wou].d suggest they ttot table it. He felt if they wanted to table
it in order to put together a policy that would be a good reason.
N�, Harris agreed.
Ms. Iiughes asked when they could get to that kind of a siudy.
tBx. Boaxdman stated he SJOU�.CZ reauest a ti�e period on the study. He stated he
was nvi quite sure what they w<re loolcing �or, fiight norr they ku�ve re�ulations
and if they meet thase rega].ations tney can build. I� they don't liieet them� they
cannot build. Ths regulations require a look at the drainage and we ha��e denied
veveral ba:,ed on the drainage. This one does not seem to follow tt�at criteris,
Mr. F.arris stated he couldn't agree with that. It was dif�icul� to grade within
an inch.
Ms. Hughes stated tlaat i.t Zooked like there would be a'�out �+0� to 50� hard surface
on the lot after the house is bui.lt. 5he asked how iaany other lots would present
this same pxoblem?
Mr. Boardman stated there uere onZy a feW buildaUle lats in the area. The
other lots would be hard to build on because they would require 4 to 5 feet of fi71..
Mr. Oquist stated that he did not see a xeason to deny the Special Use Permit.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist� seconded by Mr. Treuenfels� to reconuaend to Council approval
of Special Use Permit� SP �9-04� by Joseph Perrozzi: Per Section 205•z53, 5a D,
of the Fridley City Code� to ellow construction oP a new dwelling on Lots 28 and
29� Block R, Riverview Heights� in CPR-2 Zoning (flood plain) the same being 8181
Riverview Terrace N.E.
Ms. Schnabel stated that she had a probZem with the elevation situation. She wsa
not convixiced that the figures were acurate and it would not cause a drainage
problem. This survey was done in the winter and there was s question by the
neighbors regarding tha accuracy. -
PLAIVNING COP�+tIaSSON h1GETIPIG� 1�il�Y 23f 1979 PAGE 13
Mr. Hnrris r��reed and stated they rrould have no probl.em estaUlishin� lines in the
winter� but it would Ue difficult to establish elev�tions in the winter.
Ids. Schnabel stated they could take the elevatipn at the iour �oints and they
must Yu�ve taken it at the center, but tiie rest wa� all conjecture. She was
concexned about gettin� da�n to less than an inch grade difference and she wa�
not convinced they could clear ar�y i-rater problem when they were working with less
than 12 inches. She felt thst the intent oP ttie petitioner was correct and felt
he had a valid plan 4�ith the post and t�am construction.
Mr. Hpra stated that he r�oreed that gradin� tnat cicse was difficult.
Ihr. Ha.rris stated the problem would be in the sprin� when the �rcund was frozen.
UPON A VOICE VOi'E� i"13. GrUIST� I��t. T�tEtP�"±I'ELS� I•i.�'i. SCNSdAELL VOTSfi"v Al'E� P�. Hkii.ti2S
AND hiR. IIOR/: UOTII'+G I9AY� P.TuD "�:5. I:[f:sIi: S:�BSTAiiISSdG� TICC h;0'I'IOI� WAS Ci�RRIED 3 t0 2.
bh�. Iiarris informed the petitioner it yroul3 �o to Council on Sune 4, i979.
4. PL23LIC ?�ARIiIG: R'r.'P,iJc,SI' FOR A SPECTa.T, �g,^�, PF;?i�iTT. SP >f7°-75, FY J.�iA�:S_Ta",it�OTvT:
_ . _ _.. _.�. __ _._.� . `__ _
scco:�d acces ory bu?1air:yq`a 2�+_fc�c t
2. Rice Creeic 5°errace i'1at �. �he sae
MOTTON h�r Ms. Hughe;, seconcied b� t�s. mr�uenfels, to onen the pub).ic he?rir:�.
UPO:d A VOICB VOTE� AL.I. VGTIPIG AYk.� CFtATI��1Ai1 Sif1f'�FiIS DBCLARP� THE PTit3L,T.0 f�tiR3'.t+G
OPrdQ AT 10:00 P,M,
Mr. Boardman stated this was locai,ed at 67�:0 4th Street NE an3 the petitioner
proposes to build a 62�+ square £oot garage. It would be an accessory or seeond
gara�e. The existing gai'age is attached to the house. This wou13 be lccatecd
to tne rear of the house with access off the service drive in the back area.
This is similar to other proposals that have been comin� in and Staff has no
co�nent.
bir. Oquist asked if that was a service drive behind there?
DSr. Board�an stated it was an access,
�
Ms. Schnabel asked if it was a dedicated access and asked wY�y there was a sia�n
at the end stating it was a private driveWay? She stated there were also barriers
aeross there.
Mr. Hora stated that he lived on the service drive and the barriers were placed
there at the request of the neighbors.
Mr. Harris suggested they l;ook into having a barricade on a public right of w�y.
PI�ANNStdG CObR✓ISSION MEETZNG, MAY 23, 1974 PAGE 1�
thr. Oquist �tated thzat if it's barricaded it and the possibility was there of
makin� an easement there� couZd a garage go there? There are other gqxages there.
Mr. Hora stated they couldn't drive around tha barricade.
P,7r. Boardman.stoted this garage wotil.d have access off that right of way.
Mr. Harris stated that then the barricades would have to be moved.
Mr. Hora sta�ted that it shoul@ be the choice oP i:he person owning the garage as
to which way he entereci the alley. Last year they requested the City to move
the barricade to allow access to 21r. Larson's yard.
Ms. Schnabel stated that the sign saying it was a private dri.ve should not be
there.
t�. Hora stated that he didn't see any problem with the access. It was their
choice as to which �aay they entered. He stated thnt the petitioner woul.d not be
attending because he �•as in the hospital.
tds. Schnabel asked what the petitioner would do with ihe exieting garage.
i��r. I3oai•dn2n stated that the petitior.er had discussed convertin; the garage but
didn't �aant to convert it i�¢aediately. He would wait on that.
ASr. Harris stated there would be a proUlem with that because it is 7�'eet from
the lot 1ine.
D'1r. Boarcl*.nan stated that wasn't Fiis intention at 'this point in 'time. Ae Pelt the
nain thing was that the existing garage was a single car gsrage and wanted more
garage space.
Mr. Harris stated that when discussing the zaning cocies� they were considering a
1+00 foot maximum on second accessory bui2dings and they enforced that on someone
else.
Mr. OquiUt stated that was a different situation because there were houses behind
it and it wae going to be used for storage.
Mr. Harris pointed out that it was similar because it covered a large portion of
the width of the lot also.
Mr. Harris asked for comments from the audience.
There were no comments.
Ms. Schnabel asked if there were any comments Prom a�Y oP the neighbors regarding
this in the files.
Dfr. Boardman stated there were no calls or eo�nents.
PLf1NI1ING CONINII�STON P7E'ETTNC, MAY 23� 1973 __ PAGE 15
Mr, Aora stated that he �:as the neigYiuor that wouLd probab]y be most aSfected by
Lhe increased traffic. IIe wa� in favo: of the barrica3es remaininr3 i'or thai reason.
He stated he had na Qhjection anu u.nderstands the problem of a sir.gle ear gara6e.
He stated tha't the petitioner wou].d use it as n garage because he has a pickup�
a car sna a camper.
Mr. Oquist stated that if the petitioner took the door oYf the existing garages
he could get a buildin� perrnit.
Mr. F3oardman stated he would lwve to �et a variance.
Ms. flu�hes noted that the neighLcrs in the audience had made no cor.v�ents.
One neighbor stat�d tlkat the;� �rvuld hav� no obj=:ction to tl:e �ara�e i£ it was the
proper distance from the lot line bui.�rould �e very discouraged if the barricades
were removed. She stated they lived next, doox.
bi0TI0Pd by N�s. I:u�hes� seconded by NW. ScYinabel, to close the public hearin�.
UPON A VUI�F' VO''i'�t�� AiJ. V�P71'?G AYE� CFIa55I:L�.AN FiARRSS D�CLARED T:� °UBLIC HEAFiIP:G
CLOS.�.'B AT lO:lE P.PI.
D?OTS6Si by S�SS. Fiu;hesJ seconded by i�`s. Treu=�nfe].s� to recol�rend to Council t�pp?'ova�
of the request for a Special Use Pe:rmit� SP i%'7J-�5� by Jam�s Larson: Per 5ectior.
2p5,Oj2� 2� A, of t:�e Fri:dley City' Co�'e� to aJ.1.o�r cpns�truction of a second
accesso�'y 'r.uilding� a 2�+ P'c. Uy 25 io��T �:e-iache3 �;aia�de� on Lo�t 1�� Llocn 2� Rice
Creek Terrace P1at 3� the sar�e Uein� u(AO �+tii 5'tr�?t Td.li.
Nis. Sclma.t�el stated that she 's�ud a quc:;ticn re�arding th° size. Thi� prcposal is
for 62?F square i'eet and i.f we are going to be consistent� we should consider the
size of the building.
Ntr, Boardman stated that 4�J0 square feet i•rould be gretty tight for a doubie garn ;e.
They should consider the use of the buildinU.
Mr. Oquist stated that he only had twc cars but wished he had that 3.arge of a
gara�e. It c�as a large lot� it c.ould sit in the Uack� and there was no one behind
him. He felt this was different from the previous request.
Ms. Schnabel stated that the proposed gara3e is larger than l�al£ the size of the
original house. The house is 25 by �+� khich �aorks out to 1100 cquare feet.
PIr. Oquist stated he didn't think that was unusual. 2�+ by 26 is a nice size garage.
Ms. Hughes stated that she felt this would enhance this particular piece of property
without going overboard. She would agree i£ there were different circumstances
behind there. There wovld be no chancs of anythin� different behind it.
Mr. Harris atated that in the past, some of these lar�e accessory buildings end
up as a camnerciAl enterprise and that would be his objection to a large aecessory
building.
PLl�NNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAX 23�_1979 PAG� 16
Mr. Oquist Utated that could happen in a 20 by 22 garage too.
Y9r. Httrris statec3 that wa� mnre unl,ike],y.
Ms. Schnabel stated that the Fire Department and Police Department should be aware
o£ the baxricade should the� need to get an emergency vehicle back ihere.
Mr. Hora stated that was a goo3 reason for keepiag it as a sexvice road rather
tkian vacating it. �
Ms. Schnabel stated she would be more comfortable iY the petitioner were here.
Ms. Hu�hes asked if this could be delayed?
bfr. Hora stated he �rould be in the hospital for about 3 or 1+ weeks. He planned
on hiring a contractor.
Ms. Schnabel stated it was difficu7.t to deny a Special Use Permit.
UPON A VOICr VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIl?hIAN H�RRIS D�CLARE.D Ti� t�OTIOIQ CARRI�D
UNAIQT.t�iGIJSLY,
5. PUbLIC f�A:tIl`;G: RLZOIIIIiG RE�U'iST, ZOA ;;79-03� E3Y R�D��PT G. iiAYS: Rezone
t�'rid.ley (see t�.i'c�.ic Y.e�;ring P�iotice 1'or, cemplet•e le�;al�}.; S'rom li-1 �sirlgle
familv c;well:in�� are���to GR�i �ener�l oifice and .'li��:ited husinese�}�?'�the
____�,�._.__�� , - ._...._
sanie beinh `�',99 IJniversit;y l�venu? idr:�,
t40TI01d by Mr, Oquist� seconded by D4r. TreuenFels� to op�n the public hearing.
UPORT A VOICE VOTE� ALL VO`PITdG AYE� CIIAIRb1AN HARRIS DECLARED TF� PUBLTC IiEARING
OPEN AT 1C:30 P.M.
Mr. Boardman stated this was located on the southeast cornex o£ Osborne Aoad
and University Avenue� oiP the service drive. There is present],y a single fami�y
structure there with x•esidential around it. At this time there is no commercial
zoning. The lot itself is 23,450 square foot. Pa�e 63 oi' the agenda shows they
would be using tre single family home as the ofiice with parking behind it. At
this point in time� Staff wou3.d recommend againsi: this request because it is
spot rezonin� which is something �he Planning Commi.ssion and the City are trying
to avoid. He would recommend they maintain the residential character of that
area.
Ms, Schnabel asked what page 63 shoWed?
Mr. Boardman stated that page 63 showed how the parking would be behind the house
and page 64 showed hotr th0 house is situated on the lot. There would be a 20 foot
drivei+ay. There would be access to �Lhe service drive and to Osborne Road. He
was not sure there was enough room behind the house considering the building is
23�000 square feet. There is about 60 feet behind it. It's a large ].ot, but
he felt it would be spot rezoning and detremental to the neighborhood.
PLANIdING CONQdSSrI0P1 M1:PPIAG� MI1Y 23, 1979 _, _ PAGE 17
Ms. Schnabel asked whAt the width of the house was?
A7r. Boardman stated it was about 26 feet
Mr. Oquist asked if they had the required nwnber of parking stallsY
Na�. Boardman'stated they did, £or that square fooia�e.
Nm. Ed L�abcock came fox�crar.d and stzted that he was the petitioner's attorney. He
stated ihat he repre:aented P�tr. P,alpi� Lind. Mr, Lind was unable to attend becauee
o€ recent surgery. i�`,r. Lind is retired and would like to selJ.. F�e found that
the best use tras no lon�er residentia). I�lr. Babcock noted ih�,�tt there was strip
zoning along Universi'cy Avenue nn3 that it Y�3 F�n efiect on tY� othex three corners
of this intersection. He felt thiy pronerty would not have it's fvll tialue as a
resi.dence because OS� 47�.3ii exists en tkie other tnree corners. i?e noted that in the
ordinance the word "transition" �s used for CR-1 2oning. Sn other words, CR-1
zoning should pr.ovide a transition between conar�ercial and resadential zonin,;. =Ie
suggeste3 they look at this as a unique eite and nci; as usual spct zqnir�;. Iz
it Zaexe an intericr lot� it would 'c>e differer.t. Wi�h respect to Uarriers� on ihe
south side {:here is a board £ence <^.r.d cr_ the east sid° �here is a green hea�e,
' Idr. Beb &�ys o,ms the house tio th� east anfl h.e ie in the real cetate business� with
Ptews RAality. Netas Reality has the listing on i+fr. Lind's heme. `.�hey have not
entered into � purchase a�reemeni anu do not ha-ve a purchaser. Tney h�ve had iui�eres�
in the property �,zd it would app°ar chat this wovld be s real estate of�'ic�. It
would not be parchased by News Reality. They wou7.d Ue willirag to coazp.ly �rith
as�y coxidi.tions imposes by the Cor.mmission.
Mr. Oouist aslced how trie,y could be cure it wo'a1d be a real estate office if they
didn't Yaave a buye.r2
Mr, nabcock stated that a real estate business is very interested.
Mr. Oquist stated that he understoad his poin�c regardiz� spot zonin� and even
t1�otL;h it is not in the middle of residential� i.t is a't the start of it.
N,r. Babcoek etated that he Yelt the corner lot was affected by the comn,ercia2 mor�
than any other l.ot and i�L would serve as a transition.
hir. Aoardman stated that he fel-L- the cerner lot wrzs more affected by traffic than
conunercial and the same point could be used for all the lots along the service
drive. All the lots to the south are affected by traf�'ic� access� lights� etc.
If they pui that house on the market as a single famil,y residence� it woulci be
sold that way• There are houses being built along 6g4 and also along the Burling-
ton lines that are affected by traffic noise ar_d those homes are being sold. By
starting c�mmercial along that service road they would have major problems as far
as access on to Osborne. Any corner development wovld spread a].ong University
and they would have another strip commercial development. Also, this zoning is
not consistent with the Comprehensive Development Plan the City adopted in 1974.
PLANNING COMMISSIOPI M'ELTING,__MAY 23� 7�979 PAGE 18
Mr. Babcock etated that he felt there was more exposure on the carner and d3d
not feel it would necessarily put them in the position of rezoning the lots to
the south.
Mr. Oquist stated it would make it more diEficuli; a�ad it is the start of' it.
Mr. Boaxdman stated that if the Planning Co:nmission approved this, they would
have to look at the road system. They would need more of' s loop access for the
intersection oi Osborne �and Ux�iversity. There are �oing to be changes on that
intersection tkiat will require some medians, rigtit and leit turn lanes and those
types o£ things. If rezoning is approved in this area, and he FrouZd recor�end
aGainst it� then he would recommencl a port,icn be dedicuted for a loop-back system and
that the present structure� the wey it is presently set up� not be allowed to be
utilized. He £elt they wouid have to look �,L selling that structure and removin;
it and developin�; somethin� aJ.ong thz�i; site tliat ��roulci meet a road pattern system.
If we start deva.loping commereial� ihis street pattern rri.11 not service it. It
will have to be chan�;zd. Iie would like a conm,i.tment on the service drive and the
setbacks £or the loop-back system.
I�s, Babcock stated they would tr;; to nmet the conditions. He would have to
consult with his client. The lot din:ensions are 185 faet on the west� 215 along
the east by a6out 130 Yeot.
bir. Frank Waks, 7571+ 4th Streei; T�, stated th�t the people in that two block area
were responsible for tYie rezonin� irom Rice Creek to 73rd. Nx. Lind oras in on
t�t petition� At one tim,e, 3 trailes� cour� was proposed i'or across the ;,treet.
iflr. 7,ind was in on the petition �to �top tlklt. He felt th� ra�do�ay they were
consi.derir�g alos� the back would be a fine transitior. for P+�r. Lind� but not for
the o�:r�er 5 propert�� owners along there. Nk. Waks stated his property was 200
feet from h1r. Linds. They had a gentler:en's agree�ent that 5th Strest wou].d not
be used to �et to Unity Hospital. He stated he couldn't see taking tha't home,
which is a beautiYul brick home� and making it coaur.ercial. The other 5 property
owners wauld sufi'er �ore than As. Lind.
P�;s. Lorraine Blosl�y? 305 76tn ut. NE, stated that she lives behind the £ence.
Sha st,ted they have been there for 24 years and had watched all the changes. She
did not want the paxking and traffic noise. There rfoul.d be an increase in traffic
on tha service road.
Mr. Robert Blosky� 30$ 76t1x Ave. NE,, stated he had a petii;ion with 32 signatures
against the rezoning. They Iive to the south. He agreed with his wife and didn't
believe there should be a co�aercial property on t1�at coxner.
Mary Treanor� 7$42 4th St. NE, stated tl.at �Fth Street was one block long and was
a nice residential street. She would like to keep it that w�y.
MOTION by Mr, Treuenfels� seconded by Mr. Oguist� to receive the petition.
UPOSd A VOIC� V07'E, ALL VOTING AYE, CFTA7RFLVd IIARRIS DECLARED THE PLTITION RECEIVED.
�1TNG COhi[YffSSSOP7 I��:ETING, "MAY 23, 1979 - PAGE 20
N,r. F3oardman �ave the Commissioners some aerial photograph� o£ the site. He
etated the �fte was locpted in the loop-bnck area that the City has at 57th
and University Avenue. The ex3stin� structure will be taken down. There Are
four lots with otte owner and the fi.rst 3 lots are zoned C-2 and the fourth lot
is zoned R-2. They would like the R-2 lot zoned C-2 so it would be consistent
with the ather three ].ots and they would be qble to construct a small offiee
with a 47inchell Uonut on the corner. This is located acroes the street from
where �the new approved Super Amerin.a Station y�Ill go. Iie �'elt this plan with
the �andscaping would be an improvement ovcr the existing station will all the
blacktop on this corner.
Mr. Treuenfels asked if there wasu't a second possibility concerning the rorzd?
A4r. Board:��n stated they had looked at it in the residential context because
there is � residential structure there, There were two aZternatives. 6ne was
to 7.eave the service road where it is. Th2,y felt that if the existing house
was ever destroyed} thaL- property saould probab�y beco�a commercial. He fel't
that wiili tiiat road pa*tern it w�s no'c a good location for residential. If
they developed the ro�ad pattern in a msuner to iso2ate that houce from this
co�ercial area� and elimir.a'te tlzis road sy�tem� it would be tied more into a
residential area. They felt this plan t:as the best.
Mr. Euger.e Graves stated they wotiLd like tp get the four l�ts together so they
couJ.d put up a better buil@ing.
A7s. Schnabel asked if tT:ey had Giinchell's I.ined u,� as a te:,ant?
Mr. Graves st¢ted they did,, but as of tod�;,� they didn't. But they still want
to get. ttk. four lots together.
t+��. Sennabal stated that the plans ir.dicated they wanted to put office and retail
in and asked what type oP facilities they were thinking up?
Mr. Graves stated that he had no tenants lined up.
Ms. Sctuzabel asked what the square footage of the buildinr3 �ro•ald be?
Mr. Graves stated he was not sure and only had Uketches. They planned to
present the plans when they applied for the building permit After 1;he rezonin�
was taken care of.
D:r. Boardman stated that the plan the Cou�issioners had indicated the maximum
amount of space and parking that would be allowed on that site.
Ms. Schnabel stated that the following were the types o£ businesses allowed in
a C-2: Drug siore� hardware storeJ bakery� departnnent stor.e, bars �and taverns,
household equipment repair ahopsa comv,ercial recre2tion� restacuant, exclud3ng
drive-ins� and several others tk�at w0uld not be applicable. Also, additional
things would be allowed with a Special Use Permit.
PLANPdING COMMISSION NLE'PING� MAY ?_3,�19T9 - PAGE 21
Mr. Boardman noted that three of the lots were already zoned C-2 and Also the
strSp commerciul to the north And south are C-2.
Ms. Grace t+tathisen� 348 57th P1ace I��,� stated tku�t she owned the other thxee
lots and asked hew thie wau].d a£fect herZ She askecT if the Super America was
goin� to coe,e in? ,
Mr. Boardman stated it was.
Ms. Nktthisen stated tkiat the sta'�icu that was there didn't bother her and it
was n peaceful corner. There was a traffic problem.
b�. Boardman showed hus, bfathicen i;he propoaed plan.
N,s. h;�thisea s'tated she Fr�uld have no objecticn if they follota tnis plan 1•rith
the bui7.ding in ttie back and the parlcing oa the south and west.
hL,. Eiu6hes stated that if that whole strip ineluding Ms. D��thisen's property
were rezoned C-2� it zrould tend to encroach i.nto the reslden�ial.
Nir. Boax�dcr�an stated that itt this �itvatio : he would not 'r�.ve tY:at much of a
proble� with that because oi ihe se���ice rcad. `ine �ervice road thati is p�esently
existin�t there is a traffic �ene:a�ex becau.se of A9acP,oa.ld's� etc.
NOTION by Ms. Ha�nes� seconded by h;r. Hora� to close the puolic hearin�.
UPON A VOICE VO r, ALL VOTING AYt�� CFL4TRN�liTd IiARRIS DliG],ARr:U Ti� I'UELIC HEFkRITIG
CLOSED AT 11:�:7 P.M.
Mr. Oquist stated that he did uot see a�y problems with this request.
M(�1'ION by Nm. Oquist� seconded by Nir. i?ora� to recom,mend to Cotmcil approval of
rezoning request ZOA �-79-04, by the Graves Company: Rezone Lcts 1-4, Block 6,
City Viewr frow R-2 (toro family dwelling areas� to C-2 (�eneral busittess areas)
to allow a new development of sriall offices� the same being 5701. University Ave. I�
Mr. Treuenfels stated that he re�reted seein� ar�y residential zone rezoned to
co�mnercial.
Nh�. Boardman stated there is a dedicated easement set up by the Highway Depart:cent
for a right turn lane and on the fourth lot there 3s an 8 foot dedicated easement.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� AIS, VOTING AYE� CF'uIIRN,AN IIARRIS DEGLAR�D THE MOTION CAREtI�D
UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Harris informed the petitioner that this wou].d go to Counci,l on June 4 and
Council �*ill set a public hearing for July 16� 1979.
,-�,*
PLANNING COl�thfISSION MEL`TIT7G, N,AY 23� Z9T9 PAG� 22
7. VACATIOTI R�aUEST: SAV f 9-O?, CS`PY OF FF?TDI�Y: Exchanqe of Property to
realign Servicc }?oad S'or Univexsity Avenue.
Mr. Boardrnan ctated this cras located in the same area �zs �;he previous request.
zt is the ,",uper America property. The existin� service arive is too close to
the corner and they waxit to pull the service drive in behind to get around the
median lines', Most oP this property rras State property �and was turned back to
the Ci.ty of Fxiflley this year, They negotiaced an exehange of proparty with
Super America to all.ow them the Additional roo�n they need and still provide a
service access. In order to do that ti;ey had to go IIer.oss the car dealership's
property and in those negotiations they tu,ne3 b�cl; sone oE the property to
the car dealership. Super timerica wcald get Farce]. 1 ax�d Parcel 2� and the
d.ealership orould �et Pa.rcel 3. Tnis plan wil.1 also solve the problem with the
trtii'fi.c Pro:n the drive-in.
N,s. Schnabel stated there was an apartment buiZdinb behind and asked if they
were nouifie3 0�' this?
D3r. Boardman sta'ted they wnuld not get notified, They know about the service
drive,
h1s. Schn�zbel stated �that she wou].c] be conces�ned if she lS,ved in that apartnent
and iiie drive-in was letting cars go t,hrotagPi there.
Mr. Oquist asked i?' there wasn't a parking lot there?
i���. Schna2ae�. statad it was not that big.
Ns. Siarris stated they had to clean up that intersection. .
Ms. Sclu�abel asked about the accesses fcr Super Anerica.
Mr. Boardmsn si;ated there would be an entrance on Percel 1 and Parcel 2 and axi
access oif the service drive to the east. There.would be one access ofP 57th
and two oPf the service drive.
Mr. 'PreuenPels asked if there would be ai�y direct access to University?
Mr. Boardman stated there would not be a�{y access to Liniversity.
MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels� seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommen@ to Council spproval
of Vacation Request, 5AV �79-02,'City of Fridley: E�cct�ange of property to realign
service road for University Avenue.
UPON A VOIC� VOTE� ALL VOTII�TG AYE� CitAIRN'.AN TiARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRTED
�±s
-. PLAffi�SI� CONLMISSIOPI MFL"P7NG, MAY 23, 1979 PAGE 23
8. ELF:CTION OF VICF CiIAIRPE'iiSOiV F'OR PI.,AP�Iiltvr. CO�d4�SSS9I0N:
Ms. Aughe& nominated hi,. Schnabel Por Vi.ce Chairpersoa.
Mr. Hora nominated Mr. Lan,genfeld ?or Vice Chairperson.
MOTSON by Nir. Treuenfel3� seconded by trs. Oquint, to close the nominationc.
UPOTd A VOIC� VO`1'E, l�LI, VC`i'IN"v A��, CHl1.iP1':f�Id HAPStIS DECLARED TIIE PtObZNAT2QPiS CLOS}�.
The Counnissio�exs vated by secret b�Ll.ot and I�!s. Srh;iabel was elected to the
position af Vice Chairperson of ��he i=lanninE Coasnission.
9. RECEiVL HUhAN "xiES411RC.dS C6r.�?;SSSYON MINU"nS: 2�IAY 3� 19?9�
DiOTICPi Uy idr. 2'reuenfe].sJ seconded by Y%�s. ScLnabel, to receive the b;�y 3, 1979,
minutes of the Aun�n Res�.ources Cc�riesion.
UPOP,r A VOSCE VO'iLS AGL VOi'ISTv AYE� CHe'�IRDi��"+ iiAi7JiIS DCCLAnED �"� ����'i'ZOT:d CAfiR�T''D
UNAPII2�40USLY. �
10. P.EGEPJE Pr'fIt.TCS & 1?Li;?wi,TT.O..T.i C"ub�t>�SSIOi+T ;SidUI'LS: ."�t'Y" 7� 1�'(9�
I�TION by T+Is. Fi.z�hes� secencLed by bi�. Treuenfels� to receive the A"ay 'j, Lg79,
minutes of the. Parks and Recreation C��nnis�_on.
liPON A VOICE VOTE� P:LT� VGTIIEG Ai'E� CFiAIiiI!`LaiT Ii�.RRTS D:.CL�PED `J'li�'.� T�0'TICIb CaI'5�:6'A
UIdF�NIihO'JSLY .
11. RECEIV� APPE.'�LS COP�'+:ISSION I�LC�VUPES: b1�1Y 15, 1�79:
MOTION by his. Schnabel� secanded by Is. Tret�enfel�� to receive the N;ay 15' 1979,
Appeals Conmiission miuutes.
Mr. Harris stated he was surprised on the deternination on the lot size regarding
the request involvir� tbe ilood plain.
Ms. Schnabel stated they had appro�ed other 50 foot lots of tha1: size in that
area.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VO`PSNG AYE� Cf3AIRIdAN FIAi2F2Z5 DECLARED THE Mt7PI0Pd CARRiED
UNANII�IOLPSLY .
12. COlV`P'tNUED: COl�ff'REHENSIVE DEVEIAPt�'T PLAN:
MOTION by Ms. Schmbel, seconded by Nf�. Oqui.st� to continue the discussion on
the Comprehensive Development Plan.
___
Mr. Boardman stated they should plan to discuss it duxin _ Tune � 19'�9
meeting and he would like to set up a special meeting "June 14y 1979. �
UPON A VOICE VO`L`�� ALL V(YPZI�TG AYE� CHAIRMAN IfARItIS nECLARED TFi� i��TION CARRI�D
LTNAN LNAUSLY .
PT,/1NNING CO2+�dSSSION b1GFTIPdGL b7AY 23, 1y79 - PAGE 21+
7.3• COPd'I'II7C�D: PP,UPQ9�D CHA1tiC�S TO CSil�PTER 205, ZOSTSNG:
P,OTION by 1�Lr. Oquist, seconde3 by Ms. iTu�hes� to continue the discussion on
the propored chaxiges $o Chrzpter 205. zohin�.
UPON A VOICE VO`i'E� FlLL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMlofJ FIARRIS DECLESRrD THE MOTIQN CARRIED
UP1AI�"It�tOU;LX. �
14. RECETVE I�dUSING & REDEVELOP?✓�NT AU`tHORITY Mk.L'i`IiVU: MAY 1tE� i979:
i�IOPt by Ms, achnabel� seconded by Ms. Hughes to receive the N:ay lk� 1979
minutes of the FiousinQ 8; Redeve].opment Autho:ity.
UPO;d A VOICE VOT�� RLL VOrPING AY�� CHATF3SdF�Id IiAIi�IS DLCLARF.D THS N(yPION CARftIED
UP!/',P1Ii;0USLY.
i;�TIOid by I�•. Oquist� seconded by Mr, ireuenfels� to ad jow°n the P1ay 23� 1q79�
rneeLin� of the Planning Cosr�cis;,ion.
TJPOIvT A\+OIC� VOTPy ALL VOTING AYEy CIIAIRI+L4Pd HARRIS DECLARSP. TI� I�&+'ETZPiC AUJOURI4'CD
AT 12:15 F.M.
Respeetfully submitted:
-`%i � ' � ��
i r ,�! ::; 1� ��
Kathy Shelton, Recording Secretary
��
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
PLANfVINr, COhtMISSION
u
Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the
Planning Commission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431
University Avenue Northeast on ldednesday, June 6, 1979,
in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of:
' Consideration of a request for a Special Use
Permit, 5P #79-06, by Robert J. Carlson, per
Section 205.051, 2, A, of the Fridley City Code
to allow the construction of a second accessory
building, a 16 ft. by 22 ft. detached 9arage on
Lot 4, Block 2, Juli-Ann Addition, the same being
15l - 62nd Way N.E. .
Any and a11 persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity
at the above stated time and place.
25
, .
,
�
Publish: May 23, 1979
' May 30, 1979
RICHARD H. HARR?S
CHAIRMAN
PLANNING COPIMISSION
� . ;
.
�'
NUMBER?�'��---'
APPLICANT'S
Address /
CITY OF FRIDLEY MINNESOTA
AND ZONTNG FORM
'felephone Number )
�
�.�.�---- �
PROPERTY 0{YNER'S SIGNATURE �.yy.�✓
a
Address
Telephone Number
Street Location of Property
Legal Description of Property
Present Zoning Classification
_�
26 �
TYPE OF REQUEST
Rezoning
t/ Special Use Permit
Approva2 of Premin-
inary £, Final Plat
Streets or Alley
Vacations
— Other
Fee d�Receipt No, S73.Z
Acreage of Property Qesczibe briefly the proposed zoning classification
or type of use and imprwement proposed L%s %�x� G✓ ��-�'�
„�lo X Y � � ��'�-f/ �'^c.� �-'`�^,/ � , ' o��Gc��A
7�
Has the presen"t applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split or
variance or special use permit on the subject site or part o£ it?,�es�no.
What was requested and mhen?
The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all residents and owners of property
within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) must be attached to this application.
(b) This application must be signed by all owners of the property, or an explanation
given why this is not the case. (c) Responsibility for any defect in the proceedings
resulting from the failure to list the names and addresses of aIi residents and
property owners of property in question, belongs to the undersigned.
A sketch of proposed property and structure must be drawn and atCached, showing the
following: 1. North Direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on the lot.
3. Dimensions of property, proposed structure, and front and side setbacks.
4. Street Names. 5. Location and use of adjacent existing buildings (within 3D0 feet)-
The undersigned hereby declares that all
application are true and correct. �
DATE
SIGNATURE
Date Filed ���%� �7 `J Date of
Planning Commission Apprwed
(dates) Denied
facts and representations stated in this
City Council Approved
(dates) Denied
MAILING LIST
SP#�9-G6, Robert Car1son
2nd Accessory building
151 62nd Way N.E.
Mr. & Mrs. Anver Larson
6241 Alden Way N.E.
f'ridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Johnson
6245 Alden Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Parsons
6261 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. John Pedersen
6220 Alden Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Gerald A. Grei"g &
Cheryi A Low
6240 Alden Way N.E.
Fridley,Mn 55�32
Mr. & Mrs. Donald Odland
6274 Alden Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Glenn Engstrom
6260 Alden Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Austin Peterson
6230 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Hilbert Voigt
5210 Alden Drive N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Wallace Sele
131 62nd Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Daniel Yietzke
141 62nd Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Planning Commission 5/22/79
City Council
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Carlson
151 62nd Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. George Arnold
620i Riverview Terrace N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Theodore Burandt
6211 Riverview Terrace tV.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. Harold Harris
6210 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Samuel Aiello
180 62nd Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Byron Davis
170 62nd Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Stan Jakus
160 62nd Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Bernard Becker
150 62nd Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Marchiafava
130 62nd Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Bichard Steele
140 62nd Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
27 �
.I��.�v.ds � l�'� ni:Iw,�Qi~f . ,NrS� • ���15✓. C
��' -'� � .} �' 6 9 �1�'.. z bA�4 j, p"La•�! ,,.,, >>� ,.
� � � � j� � r.� �i�c�. , . �o . �-J- . —�-`� ,
{ �v ^•K' ! �' . .�Y f. \ C�
'^ 1 _��., � h s
� �; �6414 i 1�s� � ._ � /�/ „i � ,
` 1p ��;-.�W' � ao�..!.. . , ;.. ,.;s., y .1 2 �. 2g� � � .
AU ;r�� r�'�dtb �`6,+.uY r�,; :� �,�6M• f� w � `�5 ,�,�j�►�,,, ,' ; ,
J�
'S ! 35o y � ;�3K� ���',1�3, �7y �59� �A'� WAY . •"�1J , w
�.. � ,a �� n i� � .
, i• �' �' _ — , ,� . r� � . �i,:�.�
� ,..: - < -63 �1/2 - , . � ��A ti 1'k'?� :; '^1
, �,- ; _ ,�� o� �s� �a6 �„ z z .. i:°: F-
.
; ;ir � 336 , � b'�31 :;_��aL i0z ', �� -• f � � �` 3 i Y i\0 ! W
;•, � s ,:;, E ����S�j� : ,:��� _ >
�3 �. � ,�." , . ��a7; " ►�3,�,���,
ie b324� -� '` �o .'�� �^ z ir a 15���'��t36 { M��. tB' �(r
�y" .•- M'ib3z{`� 145� 1 3� t'ti � f�tVFR � e :.. r..
6 � J I �
�.� 3��;' � '
,� ` .a : y H 63 J _ _ WAY :.'.9 --_ iV.E. - y°,-+:,
•; L ';--'� c� ,�s.,a , , s >s - .. ; °i
_ .., �� e 4 1$2;ti'r0oi�8, 146 134 IZ2" ��p� �
i' S(vz�Q g-. 8 � � 6 y�..y .o- ° J L r` �
sn uw �, �} /'�
u •� yQ , r9f vp r �' � • r .t ��T�6a�.�.. 3
.r. � ''(7pi.T/�� ` ' . �.b�.'.-.*�-•?�4a1.+iR �,y�.'/.3t , , � �.,v.... _,. _
~ '�,..,f iflJ�/ :t�a;�"'�61� ' �/V(? �'�{ 4/ r `� � ,�bZ76 Y
. q �'-=� x .
,, t ;., ` l ;`�„'b22i :'u� • �
' � -:62SA32a.ir.'+ �.`�n:..14 Q�c°�i,.�r..-. .� fJ � �f '-� a
/ � -rliiw .r.M �� �' .,r � '�" Z�� /ii✓1
f � '° ��.� � - f �' �j • '�'�- b3 � � � 2� �� ,
►d 4 �? 36230 3 . �� .., � yi L : Lz ;r624d � � K •'�;rv G,w.' ' < ' ; .
p � � ^,.i.i+v ? r . " q w; .r :' 2 v � � ' .J:�: . �
+��5°�f r " ' : �'' �_�, E�2a',4,� i�244°F •..., - ; 6220., •� • : �266 n ..
..,'. , .,.,-,..n' . _ � . . _ .,
,` S. �N -w4+%... � t� � � i.. � �• ..< i�
ti.
j�. � .?�O2S0 ;=;.. ' ,`<c.y�� r b+ I1 , e .��a,r. �1 ���'�Q ,� •y, '!�-
" •4 � �' �..,n i (u210 �:
, % �-? ---�-.3—;;�,;H.b�� ..._i ,�1P � Z•', 3�'�z�_�j".__=u
( , ° , � (/L } , s , ,� �
1I s. �,•.(bZO� S .,,'Z"� .,.« ��� ;�9f ��3� �7-� w .°:a... ;� t4i.
� / � �n, is• , • n.. "x a .a:n. /t
� . n' a: e.✓ . ..
/1 /� lses wi p�
f �.. •�jra:• 1 o I4b �� i'a• u: I<a iK� � �JSar�
�t . ye..u"� �O��N.r... 'b0/��{��) 6 ( J' � r � � :
,$M1�� � 310 'y � ��, A DD1�✓ ! l%lYV �iT �;�U4rz s 1 ,Wa: �
� �, zo
+ $ 4 � ,,,.0 . ,.
,, pOiAS��9c� ��.�.���_' N5, ���so`�t4o �:i3o��ppirj0�6�9o�9z� _
` � M i H _. � .. , w , �
�n.:• �l0 /<A lJft p0♦ 1 O �
y tL />• I.. .: C
C.� ' 6+�is�"►�'S�i�s"S+r.�.FS�� L ser.sv.�,.xm.� . . n,. . s• : ,. . � ,
� { a '" �` . . �� 1$ 5 189 : � '°
nys�.�. ;� � f57 � 44,,,, �# ,. ti ; - ;11 . . ; a ;`{ ,: •. �
� PARA' . L'..�'�w;;�''^�<�°ir:` � A �OIb5�_� (b9 � 173 177� 181 ` ... 3tv,., `��19,,,�. ^�"i
. .,� '��, •�?'»„� RlVE� IE�G� 1�' j �'sy� 1
., ' '� ,,. ,,. ,
� � '_ '• ? 152 �,�, ` , h. ... � ... a ,
-i�—�:---__- '• ,»,.__..,, f6d , �68, �"►z ISo; ►84, r88, � � i
,--- —•-
��,, �; '; � �t� � d y! ' ; c ; t : a � � it , y ; ,
., • y .y ,�� .
�$ �� :.� IG$ ,.'�t� I�6� � ! 192; F�i
..L__iN= '_—�'_'!�_ _"_ " fitq._.. �1i wiip H�� •f+� fY. �e�� !i. ls• �
1 .-y�j � ,'_"_' � rir. ' n• !_.sLe r' as. g�.. f�.. '
. q ,�'1 �� • '��i '� � Nal. :
iS �� Z, .. �
H..0 ' Z � ,``��' `�:
- - —j-� �•�� ^'� ` i29'� "z5' zr' ri�'� ii3' io9' tos�io{'� �"
140 ;,<= ,� � � � �
��._ p s a; z. ", ,. <. �.a .�. .,, �,. .,. , ...'
----�,„� �' ` j`-, ,;�� RNEt� ED�c '�/AY, ;; ai
�,. ��; • .
�- :t�;i� e . ' � � n. �., r.. ,.,
1 136 's, �.�„`�� 128� fZ4 fLO f16 (j2 {p
, � „
` �: , tO
� �,� . / 2 if A Oii+'���Ti � 11 � I3�{�II � 1r ry l�a P',a,t�ODa
1,.�.... _ : . � �?,'Z �`dI . r
�'. .. ._.
. . . . fu,. �� .�..:r.r.il� ....._Lta,f.fs.. . { ; 2._ . 1 : �
' AP:CA�yt/l'�__' . . 'st. .� la Iii iI� ' L• �/c• b.• .r�����
, al. C. .4 i � <... .+r�.:o• �
;_
�..
�
r '. , .
._ . ,,.,.._. . .. �� � .
_ ... .;:..:.. ,.:.a... , . ._ .; ._ �.'e-"}� t�;'
- � � .. . .. � - � . . � . . 't�;
. : �M��py,♦����� Q� I����� CQ:AB[NiNG :NE REGC .
f-iARVPY A� GARTWR1fHT ' o: �+ a' �,;L - i F. HIG.L. Grv�L E� .
�ANO�A COUNTY $URV8Y3� (�� -� �� ESTfaIItXFD Ies�a ��
.M HM1 Y�N GOUN:Y SUqJE15 ��'�`I� SLK�EYVR�S C,.F.SRNDHQFf -
..lNr.iw➢DL13 SUNYfi/3 . � 4
.gJ.O S�i.1iiY OAK LAn! N.E. . . . - � . GY1t ENGIFYEBR * •.
HEG�STENfiO UNOCR� LAW4 Of 9TAf6�01 MINNEiOT9 . . �. �sr��uswio �wO ' '� �
Svnscr 6•OOPY � L�CEnSE� eY OROINa�NGE OF CITT�OF MINNEAP0�15 � � `�'
� � o��FR � 3�g pLYMOUTH BUILDING � 6.InGO�H�B72f , � ��MES NEL56N < ; �
. . - �JURY[70R " ; k
1\Oli$(d1AL -� AUOICl�1l � ( , : �- - .... . " . .� tlTa�WrED ��i2 . . � +;
�-eusrr.as> - TovOGwa>h�U�, - '��(CUCVOC S 'ECCI[EKliC - � � M6TROPOLtTAN LAND ;i;
G:Y LDT3 � PLATTlNG � _ - . , . � ' SURVEYORS u�i�Nawroj�o �
' - �> r � �'' �•
300 :u:;hzs ` Invoics Z9?09
� �- i���
9'lf.`°�, .
� �:
�,
��:A .
x < �
^r :
[�
5� `- �
:�,.j �,�� .
� '�
>�
I
I ;
� �
�_'� �; ��. ; ��
,... e. t . _ �,�; t � , ';
�iniy � ` ti� . ' i �:• - A _•-'• j . L
< �r
� ; � _ r
� . ''S�r �-T � C .' �� - � � •��
_. . �
i .4
. :.. �,�., : . , . . �_ ..
. . , . ._. � .r• . ��o .x�.
• • 3
� �� - � f � • . :. i w �'
. - ._ .. . . - . . . ' ! . �l ..!
a w .
. . . . .. .l .... . .. . . � . � .: . ,... c.. . I�t' ....
. T � .. . . . . � - � .... .
�
�
l
�1`� � • _
�s+ :
- � v. � _ .. . . . .
-
Y`
\x1
k� —'"' --
J _ _ _ �,
'' �---- J ___ -
. . . .._---�- -_ .
�!—
�- s
1��� � �
I
, 9J ,.
i;� { �',
.�-%.s: �y i — ---
�1
.a
-�
t
, _ '
J .
- �
i'r.°reo_r c�r'.i`y thct tni_s �.; a t^u-� ; n i cor�::ct ?l�t o_` a surv�y o: '.oL �,
�lor_:: 2, Jnli-.n^. _;iit_on, Slilla,� o_° �i.ilay, :o':? Crn:nty, :�:i:^n>_ao�., as
;vrval�... L;;;- ..., du: in, t :� :.octh o£ ❑�c�c.b°r, 't?�= . '
'" -'- �I -�`' ��-� �_- ��
. . � l i �. . : i.`J ���J./ i .Ii . . J..� I ���( i "'`
. . . . YIGNEO �.".,`.'_.. � � ' .
. . � ' . ' 'yGARTG/j7(GHT �anD .OLSON �
. ,. :.-:_:_ �� . .._ _. .,_:-_r�__' �_.-._ '- /......_.�- ... ... __ _ ....;-..- . . .._..,_' - _,�_
_ "..� _.:... ..
.... ..-.�_.�.-�.. . . . � . . " . : F ....
�o
�
�
_.��
�
�
,'�'
a�d.
����i�
�v
f
�
-- - -
,, C.^:'„ � ;',ti��c;r
� � ,
_;
(f�5
J
�
� -
w_ __ ,_ ____ �
5
CITY OF PRIDLEY MINNESOTA ' 30
PI.ANNING AND ZONING FORM
NUMB£R �j ��%�/�D-3
„. . �/.i�
APPLICANT'S SIGMATURE
Address /�.3� /�i��e
Telephone Number v % �
r
PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE �✓ d � /' ' �
Address =��`�-
TYPE OF REQUEST
• Rezoning
Special Use Permit
Approval of Premin-
inary $ Final Plat
�Streets or Alley
Vacations
_ _ — - - _ Other
Telephone Number � • �j
,/� Fe r ceigt No.
Street Location of Property F"fl�y ���
Legal Description o£ Propert /,/�i ��n /1����, ,�� 2/� d��,/ y�
�.�..,
Present Zoning Ciassification Existing Use of Property
Acreage of Property
Describe bxiefly the proposed zoning classification
or type of use and improvement proposed
Has the present applicant previously sought to rezone, piat, obtain a lot split or
variance or speciai use permit on the subject site or part of it? yes no.
What was requested and when?
The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all residents and owners of property
within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) must be attached to this application.
(bJ This application must be signed by all owners of the property, or an explanation
given why this is not the case. (c} Responsibility for any defect in the proceedings
resulting from the failure to list the names and addresses of all residents and ,
property owners of property in question, belongs to the undersigned.
A sketch of proposed property and structure must be drawn and attached, showing the
folloiaing: 1. North Direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on the lot.
3. Dimensians of property, proposed structure, and front and side setbacks.
4. Street Names. 5. Location and use of adjacent existing buildings {within 300 feet}
The undersigned hereby declares that all e facts and representations stated in this
application are true and correct.
DATE $�� /�% SIGNATURE
�'—' ICANT)
Uate Filed Date of Hearing
Planning Comroission Approved City Council Approved I
(dates) Denied (dates) Denied
Mq,�r 30, 197� .
Tp WHO1q TT MAY' CONCERN:
31 ''
The Planning Concnission at thei`r regular meeting 6eing field on 3une 6,
1979 at 7:3� P.M. in the Council Chamber at 6431 Univer§ity Avenue NortBaast
will 6e cons9der9ng a vacation request which was brought forward 6y tfie
C9ty of Rridley. This request is to vacate all of tfie:alley�in Block li,
Hyde Park, that wasn't vacated at the time Northwestern Be11 TelepFione Company
constructed tfieir bui1ding. This will be an informal f�earing only, and th.e
City Council wfll be setting a Public Hearing on thTS request at a later date,
at whicB time you will 6e renotified of the formal Pu61ic Heari.ng.
The Planning Correnission wishes to e�stend an invitation to any property
owner who may have an opinion on the vacation of this a11ey to attend this
meeting.
RTCHARD H. HARRZS
CHAIRMAN
PLANNING COMMISSION
a
Plarning Commission �-3 d- 7 9
Crty Council
MAILING LIST
SAV #79-03, City of Fridley
Laurence Muggli Warren Johnson
North Branch, MN 55056 Northern States Power Company
� Mr. & Mrs. David Nelson 4501 68th Avenue�N.
17631 Chameleon Avenue N.W. Minneapolis, Mn 55429
Anoka, Mn 55303
News Realty
6500 Barrie Road
Minneapolis, h}n 55435
Mr. & Mrs. Curtis Sorum
5900 3rd Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Ecker ✓
5940 3rd Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
John H. Quellette
848 82nd Avenue N.E.
Minneapolis, Mn 55432
Mr, & Mrs. Robert Williams 1�� �
5945 2 1/2 Street N.E. �;1�M
fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Alfred Gabel
5947 2 1/2 Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Benjamin Carman
59!55 2 1/2 Street K:f: t/
Fridley, Mn 55432
John Eddy, Manager
General Television
350 63rd Avenue Id.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Minnegasco
cIo Leo Caouette, Conanunications Dept.
733 Marquette Avenue
Minneapolis, Mn 55402
L K. Rodman
Northwestern 8e11 7elephone Co.
6540 Shingle Creek Parkway
hlinneapolis, Mn 55430
32
� 33
� L } . �__.__�J �____�
�, , , , >, , ; � �--...�._.:
..Sr /
� i'i� ta -,.i . � _". _. • � .. . ... � . ,{ _ ... . _.__ .
� iJ � f! r y'� �:
z�.... 6. , � ;, ���� z6e �;� "i � z90 %� �° - .so---i ,��„ � ,,� ,
rJ 061 n�6d-� a , ° � ��k � r i
. ' � a ,. �Q� : Z...
.. . , ._ ' .- � � .- .
, .� G _ ` 6e�o � v ` j _; ' � 60� ; '_ � �
»nf�n C�i3`J "�/ � :. _ �bb1 [ 1C � (i0�n3 r" `�
. . �A _' .: .:. . f . .
�
4�ts30 �'�.�� " `vt��5-- -4-!�6�--- � � r t 0�'� ; � �'a� �t
...-�.. .�.J3% . . -tl�d� 5 . .i ' s"1 E � �V.3� ?+ � .
f 5 F
bt)22 - .. 7�,032. _ < < ` � . , ' [st 1= 6 � --j.
.(9''J.'a9 - , Od�� . . b65� _ 'I ' j. � F�
.: / � ._-y "" y i .
, „ bO�i�. �- na.10 - `� _ z 6� 4� ra4 - '� +
" - bo3 i - bcs�4 .._ __ "_ ,..� _ b s , � _ .:.�b�l , a� }
� n 6� �� - ni� '
�C�ti ' 6�2�-- 6a:;� - �/ � z� , ': ;
' ,, :e . ; _ 5
, �. � � i ,
�3�� ,, .
— b01't (�p�A ___ np1Y - ' I 9 io `
. G�{-3G / '/ 1 . _-GC�y�
4;h17. b�20 ` /�� � `° �4� �i x ��
,, , a �.. ,
r , ---`c�� �
*- 6C�Q9 — - n�$.�A-- bo1s� _. _._. E�J�� .._ ._/z ; : � i>_ � .��i�0 'o tr,�;
�;0^Ci , , bol!1 _ �3 � •' � �b �3 , !
� —' �¢ � �a
, .- 7 . � . o �
_—\ 600�__ (s0,0� z`�1 -- l�Q� —�5��1 /{� .�..- --- ��:
J
tJit�tJ /f� ��� � :� 1 �� // � ��� �f � �1
'I
.r, _ ' iY,'�. /ie i' � � _
. . . � 1 � o lr:�_"
' � j
••.' _ :t � . ' cs �79 J� a zvos .:r s
. : ., . . � � �� � . .
59;.'.0 � Ji-`?7 5980 -` ° ��Qp ''��ct^a�' �. ; °. ;n-- 5� aiQ - ' �
<� 's 'S ?� � � ' „o .,t
---- 595. ' - ; * " " °
7"._
����-G�' S�fi�s �9A8 �• 5974 5 q�' ' i_ T" 1 . e�
�; � s:.�, a � !� 54�i� - S�ItS ..:
..��.� . c '` 594�7 - � f � C :. � - 5ry�q .. _
�V3v 3i 59J'� q ?E � `g
5.42 5�Q$, T�tj�li 0 59b5-aS a`
t•„
t j _ �,.�, R , j
" S924 , �' � :V zs b
GSZ 59z3 `sR2A : � � 595 •� i a ' �� <s > 59'!O � aR. •
• . / > '. 2�- �. . � / Q_ � , c•'
59L4 w 59�6 - t�i 5az5 -ScjzG W `� ,'�a � "! � �s , .�
� � ' � '.. •• r S�j�.i 4o5.vi'. -r �v96oEr � � � �' � �.
!,�7fr: 59�� p ` ?O �g� a 59/7 .� I `_ � ��; 54�Cb � �,,
-••- . S�vJ�� /? !� '� Cc_ .� ..: ,7 y ;r. M
� .__.__, ._ .
�.y{p ;;c;•9 F` i,i �>' _ o: �r e��QO'Q - 3
� „ /,� ' 09: �3 °'=� }.,:
� 9 � � , ',� �j 3- �
v , S•'<< 5900 � � � S9o� ��eo ; � �� � . �,N' e eS �3 3
�:� `I �, ; ,�1tio� i! ��.� ,,
59�'H •.. ^°°`' -
� , .. .
A1�E�fUE i. . Tv.E. � �'i�.� �. ,i�' q zb_ �
. ��rl`� sr:st : :5�+:,i St�6o ; ; '' e"� ; ,' �9�9 � :
� . . .e' •� , � �> � . .
a i , 5£�,95 � [� �, _
. . • _ . . �
� � t��75 A�9S0 S8G9 . 51�� n' �,vc;qc ,:n' '�"91F;-l8 x �';
�' � � Z AJ �i`'3 ' O ` . > ` j���^ � ,;
�� 4Q N ` a SiYS S$=l6 � 584C� �; � � —` "' 'jy�`�!_;•�. � �9•_'-
5�66 S) 5�'�b N 5°'ti 5�40 M �_ � ',.� ��d0 ,._•:
° i! � .. , .. � ' � ,,,. ...,. �,..' r� c
?�8'� �� 535L ;3'sd 58�� 5 32 d>'L ;• � � s>»
�r, 8 : �� �C?.'.9� � �� .; ,
/� 5835�..a .�92Q � ;` :o.� _� °58'ra '
:'� ",:,j ���6 . . <<� �„ � � (�.�� �,'O� ,
S � � n� � r. �•.. d o � e. 5340 1 � i�;:
''��`'�a 5�==., `._e.�o _�_.. ��z4 '� ,. �, S9 S _ ,
5.?{• , : i
i 3� , ��t�S Szrs 9fio7 ��: 1 ..,N z `-_58so F�'�.
� Snl.b . ,.��, e �y�y _._ 58fo - . . '-' i7 . ., " : : �,- �'"�
MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
MEMO FROM: JERROL� BOARDMAN, CITY PLANNER
MEMO NUMBER: PC #79-24
MEMO DATE: June 6, 1979
RE: SAV #79-03
�
It has always been the policy of the City to eliminate all alleys when and
where possible. In the past, these alley vacations have generally been
a joint cooperation between the neighbors on a block, and the alley
vacations have been applied for to tfie City of Fridley by those
neighbors.
This vacation request, SAV #79-03, came up for the purpose of developing
a solution to a problem that is developing within the block area in which
the alley right-of-way is located. It has 6een brought to the attention
of the City that there has been continual problems between apariment owners
and residents on the upkeep of the a71ey right-of-way within this 61ock.
Since the alley right-of-way is public right-of-way and since there is no
concurrence within the neighborhood on the upkeep of the right-of-way, and
since the City of Fridley does not maintain unimproved public right-of-ways,
the City of Fridley, due to the public nature of the alley, is making this
request for vacation Lo solve this problem.
��
In my opinion, the Planning Comrtiission has��e options to take with this
vacation:
JB:15
1. The Planning Commission can deny the vacation on the grounds that
the City should not be making the vacation request. This would
sti11 not solve the problem as far as the public nature of the
alley and maintenance problems and of the disagreements between the
neighbors.
2. The Planning Commission can recommend denial and request that the
vacation be petitioned by the neighbors. In this case, due to the
controversy between the neighbors, there is a strong tendency that
no vacation request would be applied for.
3. The Planning Commission tan approve the request based on the nature �
of contention on the alley right-of-way.
4. The Planning Commission can approve the alley vacation and direct
Staff to look at aTl alley areas in-the City to see if other areas
for vacation should be applied fior and establish that po7icy which
would allow the City to make those applications for alley vacations.
.,yf' i:- A9,. .
,,��,. �'._
NflR7HERF1 STATES POWER C.OMPANY
4601 6BTH AVENUE NORTH
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 56a2�
June l, 1979
i�hr. Richard H. Harris
�hoirman Planning Commission
�ity of Fridley
b431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Depr Mr. Harris:
In regards to vacation of the alley in Block 11, Hyde Park Addition,
bounded by 59th and 60th Avenue N.E. between 2'-z Street and 3rd
�treet, we have both overhead and underground facilities located
in the portions of the a11ey to be vacated, (see attached print).
If #he remainder of this a�ley is vacated, we wish to retain a utility
easement for our facilities.
Sincerefy,
'f.cJv„�,,e,Y, 0? , Ci��-f�-�—
Warren R. Johnson
Staff AssisFant
Narth Division
i�
._ �
P
r
�
� .
Naxoxnxnux
�:�+ �Pttdlty City Counot2
rRCYP+ CSty Rttotney
' .',3,1�,_
"S55UEr Nbat are t6e proc9dural and aubstantfve zequtremants GhaC must be complied ��
�ptth Sa grantrng a spacial use permt[, a vartanoe, or a rezoning chmgeT.
LdMt I. SPECSAL USE PEFHZT ' . '.
•. �GENSRALLY � �� .
A apecSal vse perneit is de£ined as 'a pezmit £or a22uwing specified
�� oaes ia specific zoning districts.' Fridley Code��S�205.192. Special use permtt
ptov3stons vere iatzoduced iato zoning ordinanr.es as £2exibility devices to �
pZCVtde municipalities with broad latitude to n„.-et the ehanging pzoblems oP 1and
� ose control. Z�ka v. Ctty of Crgstal, 1B3 Minn. 192, 267 H.W: 2d�45 (2469). . �
� They ara designed ta a+eat the prob2em vhich arisas wLere certain�vses� aZthough �
.�generally rnmpatiLle vitA the bastc use classiEfcatran of a partieu2ar zone, ��
. ahou2d not be pezmitted to be located as a matter of Y3ght tn every area included
� Mthtp the zone becavsa oi hazards inl�erent in the use itse2f or spcciaZ pmblems whirh
3LS psaposed locatian may preseaL. Sd. By�tl:is deviee, csrtain vses which may be .
� csws3dered essentiaZ2y desirable tc the co�imity, but which shouZd nat be� ��
�: anthoi3¢ed gen� Sn a particuSar zone because of rnnsiderations svch as current �
�-. �8 anGiCtpated trafflc eongestion, popvlatron density, nntse, effect on adjoining �
�, Lad vaSUes, or other co�siderations tnwlving public health, safety oz general �
�-�ne21are, may be permitted upon a pmposed sfte deyending upcn the iaets and ��
- � dreumsta++res of the particuZar case. Id. � . . � : .. � .
.. B. PROCEDURAL REYtUSREXENTS ... . .. � . . � . . .
�� Nhi1e Minn. Stat. 3 467.357 svbd. 1 impZiedty suthorizes a municipaZfty
.� Ytie poreY to iss¢e e specia2 use pezmit, Zy1ka v. City�of Grysta2, supra_, it sets
tost6 no cvndiGions for tts�3ssuar+oe. As such, the Procedure is generaZly .
�� govesned by a municiPa2ftys• zoain9 ordtnanas. ... .
SecGtoa 205.19 et. seq. o! thn Frtdiey Co� eoataias the pzocedure for
:-U+r itawnos oi a speeia2 ase permit. ' � �� .
� Ewsy app2lcani.for a syectal use permfC must.Ptrnt tt2e an app2ication attk
� !hi Sontng AdminisCZator whtch must be ac�panted by avdi daLa as required by the
- Planning Co�isaion. �Sectim 205.I93.��7'he app2icstron is Nen referred to tha
llanning Conmission whirli Sa tequited to Aold a publtc heartnq�on the app2tca[ion .
�nitLin 60 days.���Sectien�205..I94PubIished nocice o! the hearing must be qlwn
0
' ��. �
�\ .
, ,
• _.., .. ,: _ r�
�
�
�
�
�
i
� :
�
. ,
�
��
; _� �S,
at lea+t 10 daya beto[e tha heeriag date M re2l u meSled noflce to �I1 pmperty ,
wurse wtthln 100 feet ot the pmperty �ffecCad.�Sd. � �� �.
� SA� appllcant or hla.rapt+eaentetive mwe appear befors the P1�nnin9 ��sston .
et Lhe publlc hearing 2n order to ansver queatlons eanoerning ehe proposed specte2 �se.
BICt.{on 105.190. Sha 1'lan+eln4 ��ission mvst draft ftndSngs and zep�%� Yhe same �
to the Comc1I indteating fts recaawendation as to appmval or denial and spectfying
�al� t! any, co++diitons are necessary regarding featvrea oF the pmposed use of the .
but2ding. Yd. � � �
She Ctty Counct2 must tate ectian nithin 60 days after receEving Lhe rer . �
� apeendatto24 of the P2anning Comcission and eitheY��afftsm�or deny. tlie applicetion .�.� �
.Dy a stmp2a majority wte. SectSon 105.195. SpeciaZ use peimi.ts may be denied �
by moiion of the Counsel. Section 2Q5.197 � �� . � ��
. c. sussrnxTrva xEVUrxexexms ' �
. Mhi2e !he Ctty Council has bmad�discrettonary power to deny an �� ...
♦pp2tcatton for a apecial vse permit, it eannot do so arbitzazi2y. z ly ka v. �. - �
City of Crystai, supra. A deaiat ,+ovld be azbitrary, Pot' erample, iP it ts � �.
Ytablished that aI2 of the standazds specified by the ardinanee as a cvndttzon .� ��
..�to gsantinq the permit have been me. Zd. Canseque++t2y. xhere the standazds_ ��.� �..
iy�cified by the ordinance have been mvt, the City Ca�1 has the porver and the .�.. ..
abltgatian to �issue a.special use pezmft. . .�. .
4M btendarda For the issuarsce of a speciel usa pezmtt aLe set forth 3n . ��
� 1tctSon 105.191 of the Ftidley Code which pmvtdes:, - -- �� �
� �'Ths purpose oF tl�is sectton is to provide the�City of Frid2ey vith a .�
-. naaonab2e�degree of discretion in detezmining the suitabiSity of certain . ���
. dealqnated uses upon the genezaZ weSfare, pvb2ic hea2th, and safety. � ..
�., Zn mtki.ng this determination, ►hether or not Lhe special use is to bs �� � .
•jjpqed, t}ie C.ity may bDnsider tl�e naiute of the laAd upon whidt ihe �
- use ts W be Iocaied, and nature�of the adjoininq lend or bvi2dings, -� .��. .
�-��tps pmximity of a simi2ar vse, tAe effect upon.traPfic into and � �.
� fiOe � pN'+r++se5, oi on any adjoining mads, Lhe tDeal numbet of simi2as ..
. � uses wtth the City, and eZ2 such other or fvsther facton as the�City �.:
..-..sAaS2 deem a requiste o£ consideration in determiniaq the effect of. � .�.��
.,- s�eh use.on the general velfare. Public health. and safety-" . . ..
�dlmi2uSg. seetion ?05.196 pmvides tliat Ne�tssuanca of any specia2 use pecmit �� -�
is dependent on the faet ehat ehe actfvitres�pecmitead vi21 aoe be danqeroua �
pl�ptLaswiae detrimenta2 to pataons z'esidiA4 or aotkSng 1a tl+e viein3ty iheztaoP. -. .
, pt tp Lhe Dub2ic welfare, md wSIS not 3apa(r Ne use. anjoymen[• or velue .
ol any psoperG9. . .� .. . � .
plurs a+pecia2 we permie Sa Sssued aubjeet to caiidietorin, the condittons ��
awt wntorm to� Ne fo23a+tng standardat . , . .. . . . . " .. .
'�•. , to protect the�puDlie hen1N, salety, eonvenienca +nd veIfnro, �
-pt to �void trafFic cwoqestion or hazard, or other dangers, ot to �
- ysowN contot'mity oF 4 P�P?Sad usa with the �atactet ot the � .
�
c
. , �
. . . . _ .. . _ . . . . -��.v
I
I
_}
:3� .
• Wjotntng pYOperty and uses, and the diatrld as a rhole, or to � ., � .
� ptotact�suth character." Secrlon i05.196. . �
' � � � SAs ay lp ;cMt for a� specfal use per+ait has th� ot provtng tliae the .� .
� yroposed use wou2d maet the etandards re4viiad by tha ordinance for isauanee ,
pf a speclal use permit. In2and Construceton Co v. Citu of Bloominaton, 192 .
. lllnn. 374, I95 N.W. 1d 558 (1977) Xarever, Na Court in In2ared Canstruetton�co.
v Cttv of Bloominqton noted that the burden of praof is murh ISghter.then�that
' . l.�osed on an epplican[ for a use varianae. ' . � .....
ttbl
.. � If evldence is presented at the hearing that the requasted use ts compa e �
� .. — __.._... __ . .. . . . �� -
, � . vith the beste use aulhorized within the particulaz zone ana ao� not endanger ��
��� -� t6e publtc AealU+. safety or qeneraZ we2fare of the area�af,fected ar the mmmimity
_ � _._._ .. .. _ . _. .. . _ .. . . _ . _ . _ .... .. � __ . ...
� � as s rhole ead compZ3es with surh atliez standards aa specified ln Seetions 205.191,
. �_ . ..... _ _ _ _ .- - � � ------- . �
-. .S%• the special use permit shouZd be.4ranted and a denial vi11 be deemed . ..
. �-- . __ _—F`_. -.. .. _. _,-_ . . .
-� �arditryrye unlavfu2, and Sn violation of tCe app2icants'�ocnstitutional rtqhts. _
_--_. _____ _ .. . . .
� � tylka v. City of Crystal, supsa, Ostrand v. vfllage�of St.�PavZ, 275 Minn. �: .
: - 4f0, 307 N.H. 1d 571 (1966). Ia deierminin9 whethez the pmp�sed use rnmpltes�with.�
•. .� ..� staadazds set forth�ia t6e ordinance. tbe Ninnesota Court has indicated that � .
.... .. � ihe t+ePnrts and rnmmmendaLions of Lhe Planning, en4lneerin4. Polic�. fire and
� Lselth departments should be given weight by the couneil• C.F. .In2md Construction
� .. Co. v. City oP Bloomington, svpza., Ostrand v vi2lage of N- St. Pau2, supra.. .
� ���� � Si Lhe standards regulaU.ng tRe iss¢ance cf a special +se permit have been ca�np2ied �.
� . vfW. t1�e face fhat adjoininq P�Pe�9 °�r� � of�the oginion [hat their � �.
. . .� y=ppezty may be devalued if tha permit vexe granted ts o! no leqa2 signiiicance.
- � �- � N�stIing v CitV of 5t. Zauis Park, 284 Niiui. 354� 2�0 R.W. 7d 218 (1969) � :.
.. . �... �nq action of tIIe c�oundl must be based on the evideaoe presented at the heating.
.� � � Ostrand v Vi2lase of N. St: Paul, svpra. � � � . � � _
�� -� �- that a deaia2 of a specia2 use �-
_ t
3
f
�{ . .�. � � • � . i
i
t
.. � �� . Section YOS.S97 aF the Fridley Code pmnder
.. ..... �. � permtt by Couaetl xotioa�shal2�constieute that the�aonditions, required for �- . .
�
- �. .�ppsvval do not esiat. A2tAOUgB the FridIey Code.cw+tatns tAis pmvisiao, tha .
. . . iLmesoG Sup=am CoutG has Aeld that the fatluz+a of tRe oo�ci.2 to reootd any. .
.. . �. 1�gilly suf£tdent Dasis for its datetmimtion at the tima tt acted zendered its .
� �� .� ��..duCision prtma facie arbitranl +�d unl+vfnl. Z11ka v. City of Crystal,�supra., .�
� �� In2and Construc[ion Co. v. Citv of Blaominqton, supra. Zn SigAL�of thts Suprama :
.. �' .� � COntt holdinq. it wou2d be advtseble for the oo�md2 ta spectlg th° bas3e upon .
. .. ahfeh itr�danyt+W a apecial use Permie La iis motion. .
�
! . . . _. _. . � .
• ... . . ......_.�.'..._�... .....�__....._.. .-�._.._ ........._ ..... ...�:.... _... .. . . . . .
. . . . . � ." . . . � ' ��
-a
sr. vuuxnres •
• � �. CSNSltALLY . .. . . . .. � .. � . . , � . .
�- . - UnZlke e spectal usa pzovtston whtch peimSts pmperty� wtthtn the �
� .discretion ot the Ctty Cotmcii, to be used Sn a manner expressly avthorized by the � � �
� ordiaMcee i vattance proviston permits parttcvlaz property to be nsed in a mxnner � �
�
�
. tOSbtdden by the ordinance by varyta9 tl+e terms of Che ordinance. Zylka v. City � !
I
�
�. ol Crysta2, Y83 Minn. 297� I67 N.W. Zd 45 (1969). A variance pmvides Lhe . �. ���. �,
�� �, • _opportunity�For amolioration of unnecessary hardshtps�rnsuSting fmm the r3gid � . . ���
� � �nforcement of a broad zoaing ordinan�. Herriarn Park Communitv Couneil, Snc. . � �
�. � v. McDOnough, 220 N.W. Zd 4Ib (Minn. 1973) � . � . � � ' � � �
. 8. PIZOCEDURRL RE4UIItEMENTS . . � . . � .
' � . Ondar Seetton 205.I8Z et. seq. of t6e FridSey Code and Minn. 5tat. .�
�� .� � � 467.357�svbd. 6 the Board of Appeals Is given Lhe�pwer and the duty of hearing �.
� . ..en$ recroamending to the City Council-�quests fos var3artces from the Iiteza2 .. .
._ - . � pzovtsion8 ot the zaning ardiaance.. A person requesting a variancg must fi2e an . .� .
� � ":? ayplicatlon for a variance vfth the zoning admirustrator which �st staCe the. �-
�\'.:. ' �-� ' �zceptronal eonditions and the pecvliaY and practica2 d£fF3eu2ties cIai�d�as a . .... . � . . ... .
I� � . � . � � . - . . � . . _ . .
� basis ior a variance. Section 105.586 � � . . � � �
� - .� The Soard oi.Appea2s muat mahe a rema�endaCion of [hs action t0 be taken . •,
� � � � an Ghe reqveat Por a varianca to the City Comci2 wL{rl3 shai2 deefde on�the ftnal ��. ..
� �. actiw to be taken. at its nent zeguIar maeting after receiving the reroa�sdation. . � .� .
�� � Sacttoe T05.197_ Ia zewm¢iendEng a vuiance, the Board, arid fhe Council on appmval, ��
... . .. .. 7nag Smpose condttions to insure compltanc� and fo P�Leci adjacent piopert2es. �.� . .�.
.. �. �� . 7�rre is ao- mvzszon Por a ub1lc beertn on a vananc�t ction 305.192t . �� .
� —___. .. . .. / . r �� �
p . . � p � 4 � �sL. Se .
• . � �NSM. Stat. 3 462.357 subd. 6. � _ '.-.-'� '� wyGWti+'l .- �EuM,E..!' U?� 4�a'�� �/ �� � .
. . . . . � � u«,i /�. yrr, v . U i . ..
.� .�d vutanm a�sy lapse by non-use undar Sectioa 105,28B of the FrShcey Code �. �. �. .
•. � . � - adfdt pmvidas: ' • . � � � � � � . � � �` � �
� qhenaver rtthfn one f1/ Year after grantfng a vartaore the reciPient . . . .. .
�. '- . �, of the variance sha32 �t have completed the +rork as permitted by Ne . . .
:. .' � ��-- . qrlance, then such vaziance shaS2 berome nu12 and void unless a .
.. . � yetStion for e:tCnsian of tims in which.to camplete the rork has been -. �
.. ���- qranted by the Board o£ Appeals, Such ez[ension sha12 be zeguested . . -� ..-
� . . . . 1q wrtting and fi2ed �i[h ehe City Hanager a[ 2east twenty (70) days ' �- .
b�fore the expization of the originaI variance. The rnquest for ex- � -
� -� lvuton shaZ1 state facts shoaing a qood Faith attempt to mrrplete � �
� ' Che ►rork petmitted in the varianre. Such petition shaS2 be presented �. � � �
� . Co fhe Board of Appeais for hearinq and.decision in the same mamer � _ �
�. � �s the ortgtna2 request For varianae. � � �
�
• , i
_�
3� .
, Q. SUBSTANTIVE REOUIftEHENTS , � ..
� � TLC Ctty Comc12 may grant a var2ance from the 1ltera2 pmviatons � ��
p! the iontng ordfnance vhere 'thetr StricC enforcemenC �+ould cavsa �ndus�hdrdshtp.�.�:�� -
. D�eeusa of circumztancea mtque to fhe indtvidua2 pmperty vnder considerntlon" � .
md St Ss demonstrated that such acUons rtZl be in keeping with the spirtt and � �
fntant o£ the�osdinance." Minn. Stat. 3� 462.357 subd. 6(31. d2thovgh the statute
nequtrns "clrcumstances unique to the indivfdual property.under questton" the � �. �
Mlnnesota Supzeme Covrt has interpreted "pmperty" bmadIy to inc2ude not only .
the buSlding site and buildings, but also the pmperty owner, svrrounding �
- netghborhood, economic feasibi2ity and 2ike elements. Merriaro Park Commmity � .�
�� Inc., v. McMnough, svpra. Therefore, in cnnsidoring whether there exists wdue
hsrdships because of unique ctrcumstances, the City CounciZ need not be confined
� Lo the topographica2 conditions of t6e pmperty itse2£, bvt mxy.take in to .� �
� consideration the ebove meniioned facton. � �-- �
TAe CSty Council may nat grant as a oarSance any�use that is not permitfed -
� �mder the zoning ordinanee for Fzoperty in the zone where the affeeted person's �
Smd is Socated. ad. 8oc+ever, the Rinnesota Supreme Court held in Nerriam Park ���
Comrtunity Covncil, Inc. v.�MCDonough, supra_ ihat a City Covnci2 may grant norruse �� '
� vasiarsces soch as thase oi area, heiqht, set back, denstty, and parkinq requimments, .
�� Sf the granting thereo£ Ss in keeping with the spirit md intent af the ordinance -
sad the rnfvsa2 to grant them wouZd cause undue hazdship.. � � �-
. The City Counci2�has broad discrntion ia grantYng or denytng a vaziance. �
. Nesting v. CSty oF S[. Louis Park, 289 ldinn. 354, 170 N.W. 2d 21H.(1969) _� �.
Sach casa o£.a variance dependa on its own facts and vhether there exists �mdue -.. - :
Aardship due to untque ctrcumstances is a questton of Fact to be determined by the � ��
City Counctl. 8 Mcpui22in, Municipa2 Corporations, �s� 25.160,.267 (3rd Sd.'Z965) �
.,� TLe app2lcant hes Ne burden of proving imdua hardship dve�to untgue circwastances and .
�� t6aG Uis graniing�of a vaziance rill be in keeptng with the spirit and intent of �.� ,
. . _ ..... .. ...._... ....,___ __ _-� . .'
' tb zontng ordinance.- The Murt �a Zvlka v. Cttv of Crysta2, supra. noted tDat an -��� �
�ppltcant for : vartancn haa e mudt heavier burden of proof ihan an app2icant for �
� �._ . . . . .. � - .. . . . ..._. _>
. . a speetal use permii. . � . �. . � � � .� ' �
..___ . � � � . . . .
1It6ough the��City Cnmei2 has broad disezeUon in.granting or denying a variance,
tt Canno[ act arbiYrart2y� capriciously, ot unreasonably. Merriam Paik Comnunity
Councl2, Inc. v. McDnnough, supra. M arbttFary decision is one vhich Ss not �• �
�upportad Dy evidenca or 2aeks a zational b�ats. 2 Rathkopt, The Zav of Zontng
. �ed PIanning� 3 65 - 19 (1977/ � � � - . � .
- ' '.
� .
��
-s=
3�
. . '-SZI. REZOWINC . . ' � � .
� � A. CENERALLY . � . .. .
� , � Nhlle a varience�ls only a specta2 exceptton t0 eristing zoning .
sules and regulations Sn a speeific instence permitting e nam conforming use tn `
ardes to al2evtate unnecessary hardship, a rezontng, in a legn2 sensa, ordimrtly .
� aontemplates a chmge in eristing zoning rules and rnga2ations withiR a zo�d
distrtcC. 1 Andenon, Rmerican Law of Zoning, $ 2Q.04 (2968) A rezoning Ss an .
assndment of tha zoning ordinance, enacted by the leqislative authority of a ,
sraitetpa2ity, vhich reclassifies a particu2ar par�2 of Zand. Id. �
� �8. PROCEDURAL REPUIRED:ENTS . . .
� �. �ia .Yinnesoia, the authority to adopt and eaiend romprehensSve
amticlpal planning ordinances is fomd in Hinn. Statoie �§ 962.352 463.364. �
8wecrer� the e:ercise of the pomer to rezone must conform to the,pmcedural
seqntiements oi Lhe enab2ing statuta ar zoning ordinance. OISen v. Ci[y of Nopkins,
i76 Him. 265� 249 B.W. Id 39A (196�J �. � - - � -
.� �� The psoreduza2 reqviremenu for a mzoaing are set forth ia Ninn. Stat. - ��
- �� $ Q61.357 subd.. 3 and 4 and Sections 105.?O.and 105-20I of the Ftidley Code. The �
, �� � pzuvisions o£ the Fridley Code mezely reinteratea the statutory requirements. ��
� An amendment to rem�m may be initiated by the City Council� the P2anning �� ��.
Commisston or by a petttion of�,any nffected pmperty owner. Section 205.10,
- ltldley Code. An ainendment�aot initiated hy the Planning Co�nission must be rnferred
to tha Ca�ission for pubZic Aearing and rec�mendations. Id. 1'he City Council
� sust not act upon iha.reqaested amendment until?tt has recefved.the recromnendation
�. oi the PSanning Commission or �til 60 days have elapsed from the date of reference
. of tAe amendment to tAe Planning Ca�ission. Id. . . � .
-� � She PZs+uiing Commissian and CiLy Co�nci2 must ho2d a public�hearing on any .
eeendment to the zoning ordinance or to the boimdaries o£ any zoning district.
� Sscttan 205.]01, Frid2ey Coda. A notice of !he time, place, and purpose ot the �
� pnbSic Learlags must be publlshed 3n tLe City9 offic{a2 newspaper at Ieast ten days
ptios to tda day of the heuing before Lhe Planning Cou�issioa� and aG leut ten �
dayi prSos to t6a day of Ur Aeariaq before tlia City Cpuncil. Id. Mhese the
�� .��een�oent tnwlves.a�cAanqe in distr3et boimdaries��affectSn4 �+ a='ea of ftve ac:as �
� or�la+s, a simiSar notico shall ba mailed gt leest ten deys Defoxn Ne day oF the .
6��rSngs to eeeh owner ot aftected pmperty and pmperty stCUated wholly ot part-
l�lly rtGhln 350 feat of Ne pmper[y to vh[ch Lhe amendment relates. Id. The
fallrsos to.gim maiSed not{ca to iedivtdua2 property amera or defeeGa in the aotiaa
+h�Il Aot lnvstldnta tlw pmmqdinga, pmvlQed � bonaftds a[[ampt m eomply rtth
0
..
. . ' .� >:,- . �...
thSa subdlvtatan hes baen.meda. id. . .. . .. . � • . .
� SM epD2tcant or afhar affected property�amen or CAatt repreaent�tSves uuy �
� apys�r beioze the Planning Coaunisston md CounctI and sheZl�be givan en opportuntty:
0� bs 6eard. SeMton 205.201, Fridley Code. A No-thisds (1/J) wta of nIl �
� aea�ben of the CouncLl shall ba required for passage oF en e�ndment to the�zonfng
Ordtamee or for the change of any distriet boundazSes. id. � �
' � C. SUBSTANTIVE ItEQUIREMENTS � �
� Bo ruIe of zoning Sr better setLSed thm that a munictpality may .,
fmm Gi.me to time amend, revise, supplemenL or repea2 the restrtctfons imposed by �
� Sb compzehenstve mning ordinance. Olsen v. City of 8opkins, 276 Hinn. 163, 149
� �.ii. 2d 394 (1967) Nowever, the pover to amend and revise,�like Che pover to enact
� tAs ori91na2 p2an, musi be erercised reasonably-in�furtherance of the pobIic
Leelth, safaty, and va2fare. id. Tha va2ldity of any reviston or amendment to the
� bastc plan must be determined by t6e same rules as those�applied in testing the
�� w2tdity aE tbe origina2 mmprehensive p1an. Id. � . �
� Where e chartge made by a reviston of tba bastc glan is rompateble with and �
in fuztherance of the basic rnmprehensive p2aa, the determiaatton of hov areas
or properttes sha11 be classified or reclazsifted is a Iegislat3ve function, . �
.��mt aubject to interference by the rnurts 'mless sLpm to be arbttrary, di.scrim{natoxy
oi cont3scatory. Id. �. . .
.�' 1 nzoning 3s rnasonab2e and not arbttrazy vhere it has a reasonable re2aiionship
_ _ . ... ...... ______. . . , . _
�LO Lhe pmmotton o£ the pub2ic health, safety, oz+der,�or welfare. 8A Xc�uillin,
__ ..__._.__ -.— ______.___—._
� MunicipaI Corp., 3 25.280 (3rd.Ed. 2965) SimiZazly, a�rnzoning classificatton � �
. —__. . .. _ _ _ _ .. - _._
Sa ieot discriminatary if it is reasonably based in the public po2icy to be served. �
1 Rath JCOpf• She Law of Zoniag and PSaming 3 7-3 (2974)� �
�� . TLe main constieuttonaI issue in determininq,the va2idity of a rezoning�� �
__— ___— ._ ----� . .
.. :.-�mand+rent is ahether the razonias is ron_ fl�eatory. R rezaning is confisca[ory vhere ��
�� SC r�auits 3n ihe taXiag of a private pmperty right foi a public pvrpase-�rithout �
. dw pmcess and without rnmperyaatian. The qeneral rule is that vhiSe� pmperty may .
b� r�gulated to a cercain extent, if the reguletion goes too far it vi11 be
sumgntzed es a tak.ing tn vtoZation of arttele 1, 3 23 of the xfimesota Constttution
aod U+e Faartaenth Amendaasny to the ConsGitutim� of ihe United States. Sanderson
v. City oF Nillmat� 282 Hinn, 1� 167 N.t+. Zd 190 (1968) � �_ �
. Resonings, therefore, have been cba2lengad oo iha gmimd Lhnt pmperty areas '
. 1a Lbe area atfected investad in [heir groperty 3n znItance upon tts then ertsting �..� ,
� aoning u ve21 aa upon ths zorting c2assiflcation ln fosce in neighborinq properties �
�-Or 1a nelghboring aress,�and�that s a+ezoning vhtcq d�aeyas Nat zoning depreciatea .
F�
0
�.
0
0
� .
.
.•
� . . . �f�
th� raluo.ot�the lsnd�and !s uucanst![u�ionaI aa oonfiacatory. There !s� horsver� � :
m rartt to t8is contention.� 1 Reth Xopf. aaPra. $ 77-21. �Ths unLversal zuSe �
is thats � ' . ' � . .
. .°property ownets hare no vested rights by reason of the enactmsnt . -�
oF an ordinance estabIishing use districts.. No Cantractua2
selattons are themby crested. Property is held subject tp a �
valtd exercise of the polim pa+ez. We think, however that a home
ovner has the right [o rely on the rute of law�that a elassification .
made by ordinance wi12 not be changed on less the chanqe is req+umd �
� loi the publlc good. Phioos v. Ci[y of Chicaqo, 339 I11. 315, .
� 175 N.E. i89f 1 Rath Kopf� supra. � 17-12• . .
• .�.In l4innesota� the Court has cited with appmvel the folla+ing lan9vage from � �.
� a Nev York cues . , _ - .
• ' 'Whi1e stabSlity and zegu2azSty are mdoubtedly essentia2 to the � ' �
_ �� operation of zoning plans, zoning is by no means static. Chan4ed , _
. , pr changing mnditions ca31 for changed plans, and persor+s aho own
� pmperty in a particu2ar zone or.use district enjoy no et�rnally - .. .
vested righi Lo ihat classification if the public interest demands �
ptda2wtse.° OZsen v. City of Hopkins� supza. - �.�
Wkile a rezoaing that msrely deprnciates pmperty va2ues in the a£fected �. � .
ezea or Sn ne}.ghboring areas is constiiutional if enacted for the public good,t.e. ���
reasooabIy re2ated to tha pub2ic healt6, safety, or welfaret a rezoninq�wlZ1 be � �� � �
� Le2d mnfiscatory and umm�stitutiorsa2 if the zezoniag classiFication resu2ts in
a LoteI destruetion ar substantiaZ diminution in tha value af the propErty aFfeeted �.
� vithout just wmpensation. ze4ard2ess of vhether enac[ed far the publie good. . � .
Ia Sanderson.v. willmar, supra. the Minnesota Suprems Couzt heZds � -. .
•2his Court supports the po2icy that an amenda�nt to a � , �-
compzehensive zoning plan w�der the polic� powezs which - ,
� sesulu �in a tota2 destruction or substential diminution . • � -
, pf value of the pmperty affected thereby �+ithout fust �� - - � .
. ppmpensation therefore consiitutes a taking o: the -�- _' .� �
� � . . � property witLO¢t due process.° . � � - . . �
�
�
�. . . . • � . •.
�
PARKS & RECBEATION COMFti3SI4N
MLETING ^
MAY 16, 1979
CALI. TO pRDER:
Vice-Chairperson Jan Seeger called the meeting to order at 7:28 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
MBMBERS PRESENT: Jan Seeger, Betty Mech, Dick Young
MEMBERS ABSENT: Barbara iIughes, Dave Kondrick
OTHERS PRESBNT: Charles Boudreau, Parks & Recreation Director
APPROVAL OF APRIL 23 1979 YARKS & RECREATION COt�@SISSION MINi7TES•
MOTION by Betty Mech, seconded by Dick Young, to approve the Aprii 23, 1979,
Parks b� Recreation Commission minutes as written. Upon a voice vote, a1.1
voting aye, Vice-Chairperson Seeger declared the motion carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MAY 7 1979, PARKS & RECREATION COI�AIISSION MINII.CES:
MOTION by Dick Young, seconded by Betty Mech, to approve the Maq 7, 1979,
Parks & Recreation Commission minutes as written. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, Vice-Chair.person Seeger declared the motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNl�NT' •
MOTION by Dick Young, seconded by Betty Mech, to adjourn the meeting. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, Vice-Chairperson Seeger declared the
May 16, 1979, Parks & Recreation Co�ission meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.c�.
Respectfully subm tted,
t J
Lyn Saba
Recording Secretary :
�
0
ENERGY PROJECT COMMITTEE
MEETZNG
-- MAY 22, 1979
CALL TO ORDER: .
Chairperson Langenfeld called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Jim Langenfeld, Dean Saba, Giles McConville, Betty Enkhaus,
Donald Wa11
Members Absent: Dennis Anderson, Bill Wharton
APPROVAL OF APRIL 24, 1979, ENERGY PRQTECT COMI�ffTTEL� MINUTES:
Pi0TI0N by Dean Saba, seconded by Giles McConville, to approve the
April 24, 1979, Energy Project Committee minutes as written. Upon a voice
vote, all uoting aye, Chairperson Langenfeld declared the motion carried
unanimously.
CONTINUED: DISCUSSION ON THE DRAFT POLICY:
The �nergy Project Committee members agreed that the computer print-out
from the "Home Energy Surveys" sent out by NSP, in conjunction with the
Minnesota Energy Agency, caere extremely disappointing.
Mr. Saba �tated that he thought the que�tionnaire that was sent out was very
good and specific; it asked a lot of important, critical questions, but the
answers sent back displayed little effort given to analysis.
Mr. Saba stated that the energy coordinating unit as described in
Proposal C could be very effective.
Mr. Wall felt that the Energy Project Conanittee should recommend that_the
City have an energy coordinuting unit. Mr. Wall questioned whether the
City would consider funding such a unit.
Mr. Saba stated that if an energy coordinating unit was established at the
city or county level, it may be possible that the Minnesota State Energy
Agency might consider funding such a unit.
Mr, Wall stated he saw half the job of an energy coordinator as working
with the Federal Government in looking for loans, grants, etc., that are
available, but aren't known and communicated.
ENERGY PROJECT COMMITTEE MEETING MAY 22, 1974 - PAGE 2
Mr. Sa6a stated that the area of "fin�ncial assistance" as it presently
exists at the state level really bothers him, because most energy efficient
improvements are very expensive. The "financial assistance" is not available
for the people who want to make the improvements, and is available for the
people who cannot afford to improve anyway.
Mr. Wall stated that for purposes of"industrial/coirnnercial/institutional;''an
energy coordinating uniC would be more effective at the County level, because
the County has more of Chis type of property. For purposes of residential
conservation", "transportation", and "information resources", an energy
coordinating unit would be more effective at the City level.
Mr, Saba stated ihat a city energy coordinating unit was badly needed. He
cited the example of calling the State Energy Agency and getting four or five
people before finally getting general information in answer to a question.
With a city energy coordinating unit, a citizen could call the City and talk
to the energy administrator, who could, in turn, give information, recommend
other people to talk to, and perhaps have information available for distribution.
A city coordinating effice could write axticles for the city newsletter and that
kind of L-hing.
Mr. Saba stated that perhaps at t:�e end of the policy proposal, the Energy
Project Committee could make a statement on coordinating functions or
recommendations for an energy administrative office at the local level. Then,
throughout the policy, they could refer to coordinating functions and tie it
a11 in by stating that these coordinating functions could easily be handled
by an energy administrator. It all depended on whether the City wanted to be
a leader in energy conservation or just stand on the sidelines.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that he wou13 like to have•the advantages of having an
energy administrator (outlined in Proposal C) listed somewhere in the policy.
Even though these advantages were for the county 1eve1, he felt they also sti11
applied to the city level.
Mr. Wall stated he felt theq did not really support what the Coa¢nittee was
saying. What he was saying was that the whole "industrial/coa�ercial/institu-
tional" thing was something that the City of Fridley ought to participate in '
with other cities at a larger level.
Mr. McConville stated [hat they should svggest somewhere in the policy that
they were not going to duplicate eff-orts of any other government level; and if
Anoka County or Metropolitan Council took over this function, it would not be
the City's intent to duplicate it.
,,
)
� ra
ENERGY PROJECT COMMITTEE MEETING MAY 22 1979 - PAGE 3
Mr. Wall stated that he fe1C just the "comnercial/industrial/institutional"
area alone did not merit an energy coordinating ofSice, so the issue was,
again, should it be tossed up to the County level or should Chey recommend
that an energy office be established and state the things it could do? He
felt the Energy Project Committee was saying that the energy office should
be established in the City of Fridley. The energy policy could then be :
written in two parts, one being "Loca1 Government & Regulation" and the other
heing "City Coordinating Unit".
Mr. Langenfeld stated that at the next meeting, the Co�ittee could continue
to discuss and starC finalizing the energy policy.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that the next Energy Project Co�nittee meeting will
be Tuesday, June 26� 1979, at 7:30 p.m.
ADJOURNMENL :
MOTION by Donald Wall, seconded by Betty Enkhaus, to adjourn the meeting.
Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairperson Langenfeld declared the
May 22, 1979, Energy Project Committee meeting adjourned at 10;10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
✓ t.�- ' t-l.�J
Lynne Saba
Recording Secretary
' DRAFT COPY
TNTRODUCTION
Proposal D
Energy Project Committee
The Energy Project Commitl-ee is established for Che purpose of
providing recommendations L-o the Plannin� Commission for the establishment'
of a City Energy Policy for the promotion of energy conservation in the
CiL-y of rridley.
The United SL-ates cannot long maintain the growL'h rate of recent
yeaxc in our energy consumption without major changes in our energy
supply patterns.
Our Nation is faced e�ith many problems, one of them being that our
government' is �naUle to nove toward a unified, woxkable; pxoductive
Energy Policy. Goveriuneatal units have a yery significant role to play
in dealing caith our energy dilenuna. Sde, the Energy Project Cemmittee,
concur with the initiative taken by the City Council and Planning Commission.
The Energy Project Committee fully svpports the idea of conservation.
This Committee highly recommends that (through the Planning Ccmmission)
a resolution be passed by the T�'ridley City Council alerting municipal
employees and the citizens that- energy conservation is the official policy.
Therefore, this Committee, hereby suUmits to the Planning Commission
L-he enclosed recommended ENERGY POLICY FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEI.
_4�.W
.�asae�.si
�
DItAF'f COP'C POR CONSIDERATION O1�I.Y
A DRA�T PR�POSAL
CXTY Or PR7llLEY
L�NGRGY POLICY
STAT�2�N7' OP Pi3RPOSE :
Proposal A
t
�
Eners Project Committee
This Energy Policy has been established for the purpose of -providing
an Energy Policy and Contingency Plan for L'he City of Fridley, MinnesoL-a.
This Policy sets forth proceduies for the conservation of energy,
particularly those sources oi energy which are depletable and provides
for a Plan of Action in the event of an acut-e energy shortage or emer.gency
situation.
3COPP::
This Policy provides a see of guidelines for implementaCion of a
Plan of Action to maite the City of Fridley.ener�y efficient. In addition,
iC is in the public's interest that the City plan for and have the
capability to continue its services of providing protaction of health,
safety, and welfare to its citizens. It is lv`OT the intent of this
Policy to fonnulate precise procedures or Co categorize specific nctions
base,d upon tlie availaUility oi iuels used.
I. LOCAL GOVIiRNrIIiNT & REGULATION
A. OperaCional Procedures
1. Establish energy efiicienC criteria relating L-o the cit'y
purchases.
2. Energy efficiency shctll Ue given priority in all city
0
consCrucCion or renovaCion oi properties,
,`
�nergy Project Committee
Page two
3. Authorize �n Energy fludit of all city-owned slructures,
tncluding feasibiliey s[udies for reCrofit projecL-s hased
upon life-cycle-costing and establi'sh energy bud�ets and
management programs to moniCOr and regulete energy use.
Seek funding for tliose projecl-s found to be feasible,
g, Maintenance and Operation
0
1. Evaluate l'he placement and operation of street lighting in
view of modern technology, including a consideration of
replacing exis[ing units wiL-h L-he more efficient high
pressure sodium type.
2. Consider a restriceion on li�hting of recreaCional areas
(ball fields, skating rinks, tennis courts) Chrough the
use of time clocics, coin-operated switches, etc.
3. Install flow restrictors in, and lower the temperatures of,
a11 city-owned domestic hot waCer syetems in accordance
with the Tlinnesota Energy Code (ASHRAE 90-75, 7.4 and 7.7),
4. Schedule the maintenance and cleaning �f all city-owned
facilities Caking inl-o consideration peak-poe�er demand,
5. Random-Cycle security lighting should be considered for
use on all cil-y facilities.
6. Minimize decorative lightins of city-owned facilities.
7. ProhiUit the idling of city-o�.�ned vehicles when parked,
excepC for emergency vehicles.
8. Revise the snowpla�in� policy from "scrape clean" to
"make passable".
��
�', s•� ��.U.;� ,�, _,c.
-, f .
� . i' r7 �, �e'ta.> .
�
�
.1 . . . . . . . .
i... ' . . a :..
..._._. __.._.. ......_ t �. ._.. �
_ ._._.... . . .._. _. . _./<.. .�.._....�... .. ' ' . ..:..�
Propoeal A
' Energy P�:ojecL- CommiL•L'ee
Page three
�C. �ducation • �
l. InitiaEe a training program for all city employees
concexning their job-related energy consumption.
2. Provide funding ior the continual training of I'ridley
Buildiug Inspect'ion personnel on the Minnesota inergy
Code and its revisions.
3. Include data on energy conservation in city newslet-L-ers.
D. Cily Rules and Regulations
I. Modify zoning ordinances to encourage energy-eff-icient
dwellings.
2. Provide for flexiUility in Uuilding const-ruction to
permit innovation for energy conservation and the use
of alternati•�e ene:gy sources.
3. Establish a city ordinance regulating the Solar Rights
(direct heating, wind power, etc.) of property owners.
4-. Revise aIl city ordinances witli viec.�oint on energy.
E. Contingency Plan
1. Create a fuel allocation plan by the establishment of
departmental priority. , , -
2. Adjust the operating schedules of City departments to
minimize energy use.
3. Close a11 recreational and other non-essential energy-
consuming facilities.
4. Halt the use of all City-owned vehicles except emergency
units.
�
Proposal A
Energy Project Committee
Page four
5. Concentrate offices and maintenance areas into closer
quarters so that resulting unoccupied areas can be closed.
6. Establish a City Ordinance regulating the operating hours
o£ xetail businesses in the event of a fuel emergency.
7. Provide the City Manager, or other official, with the
authority to declare an energy emergency and implement the
above procedures.
8. Form a citizen's group to assist, the police and other Ci.ty
departments in the event of a brown-out or oCher energy
emergency.
II. CITX COORDINATIrIG UNIT - The Fridley City Governmen*_ should provide
leadership to coordinate all energy activities. A central office shouid
be estaUlished to administrate energy concerns. The administrator
would have a variety of responsibilities such as; (1) coordinating
functions; (2) active participant in State and Federal energy programs;
(3) a focal point for the purpose of lobbying for the interests of
the various gxoups; (4) the primary agenCy for other 1oca1 energy
concerns in the residential sector; and, (5) implementing an Energy
Incentive Program. Each of these is described in the following sections;
p, Commercial, industrial, and Instituti.onal - Each of these groups
would organize Cheir own energy "association" £or the purpose of
collective management of energy within their own specialized field.
A City Eiiergy Administrator would be responsible for caordinating
the activities of each group and would serve as a focal point for
information across groupe. In our view, the principal areas of
interest are;
Proposal A.
Energy Project Committee
Page five
1. Go-genetation of steam & eLectrical power
2. Recycle product
3. Uses of renewable energy sources
4. Energy audits
5. Increased energy efficienty in space conditioning
6. Awards and incentives
7. E�ergency planning
8. Loans, grants, industrial bonds
B. Residential Coneervation - Assist citizens to monitoring and
applying for State and Federal Government programs relating to
energy conservation in the following areas:
1. Insulation
2. Target-use figures
3. Renewable energy
4. Public information
5. District heating �
6. Energy efficient standards
7. Lighting
8. Loans, grants, volunteer programs
9. Recycling center
C. Transportation -To encourage and promote energy conservation
at the state level, metropolitan level, and, if necessary, through
lobbying efforts at state and federal level,through utilization of:
1. Electric vehicles
2. Car/van pools -
3. Improved public transit
Proposal A
Energy Project Committee
Page six
4. Bikeway & walking path improvement
5. Loans, grants, volunteer programs �
D. Information Resources - To promote and encourage energy
conservation through the following information resources: �
1. Library
2. Classes
3. Newsletters
4. Technical information
5. Films
6: Citizen awareness
7. Cable TV
8. Loans, grants, volunte.er programs.
$. Establish an Energy Information Center and promote energy
education through brochures, classes in public schools,
seminars, and community education programs.
cn
O
H
H6
W+
A
H
�
O
U
"✓i
U
H
O
W
�
W�W.
z
w
D+
w
G
a
W
u
.�
C
�
C
.�
t�
ro
C
.�
b
S+
O
0
U
T
i�
�-I
U
O M
� m
���
ro y
U 00
a° a
0
•rl N
L N
H 7
O O
Ca�'i
H fl.
C
O
.,�
L N C
N m 5 O
6 � � y
O G ^ OD N
W N m O Fi
sNi °' $ m "' w°
N .-� m S+ i+ C
u N OD � H
1�+ UI ' N � N n u T 1+
N m ra {,." N N v N�7 b0 Ul
H W N .i � � H H �� 1-I L
� .-ro+ oJi a�i +~i � ro O o G w
a � z H w � o a> w �
N
N m
r-a b0 �
� u � G f+
a .� •�+ x v - on
O O) N r� � E N O
� � o 'a 3 > C a
`�u ro a °' �zs s�+ s�. s.
o ..�+ C� � u �, -6 � w
v�i u > o ai 3� m C
C U � l+ C a� .0 G�
m w s. a m x+� ro.-�
r+ r+ ro E s+ �+ m o 0
H w U H u w a ,.a >
H ?� �rJ 00 L N S�I
7 b0 u G p N w
�D F+ �d •�-1 N � OD +�
C W � Ej L .ri N O ('
� O v o w a G a. u
lU •N C N W .0 W cd
•� 1J O N N C W w i+ l+ OD
u N •.a ? r+ •.1 � N'LS 00 b0 N G
N ia N a� N U � >. N .,-�i - a�i ,�
-o w .,-+ a� 3 •�+ sa to es a, y� .�
M N 7 M Ul �-+ J-� }+ G .0 F' � T
N o F' N N � .�-I C+�-� •� o o N
F4 U H H W' P+ f-a W�n f.l i-7 > f,
�
� m
.� .�
i+ U
J�1 }1
� �
G O
H U
d m
.-+ u a� eo
m ro � a
w u a� �, a� •.+ +-i m
� tM+ u A v� � N . � C ^ G
o u v 3 u ii � C�.�i on u- � J-�'i ,n
,+ a� o a� s+ •�+ m C C w q
t� ,-+ N G 7 '17 7. •rl •ra N�
N� °' s�+ °m � � C o �25 c�i m�
w Sf al m N•.1 G � H
F' r-I W T T N M LJ m N ^ JJ
UI E S+ U O 00 M N U�.i 'CJ b0 v1 �
00 m N T H N 1a +� �O 3+ H q�
� w 3 u d o� w o w p ro m ca v
o u o al m q q p w o 3 o q
U v/ P. P4 ."] N W H Ul V Q rl T�
W
>+ G o0 al
� C �.Ci N N
bD N q (J p+ h O M
N 6 i1 � W U U � L: p LI
'C3 'T U M ,i N� U1 �ry-1 p0 O V
O OD L N L p. bD 3a C C •rl N
U Sa � ('+ G� N� N M •r1 N i� •rl 1J �-�I
a� N C " H S+ .-+ N cI G N N
PD p E •.+ C V N 00 Ul A O F+
M W u >, E ,a w v s�, ro M u C�
v v t+ � oo m a� u y w u•,� w��+
.�+ u O N u •.� N 7 O }.� •.1 Ry OD N
� J.� p p 1-� 'O O O) p p W O O L O
W � m w w�n 6 u w w r+ w u U m a
N
�
u
�
O
U
t�
mrn
•��
O o'�
Sa �
CL
'T N
00 N
C N
W �,'
,_�
�
� PLANNING COt�417SSi0N MEETING - J[7� 6y 1979
/
f
!
Y4 � ' �+ �_
-� _
CAIS. TO ORDSR:
Chairmsn Harria ealled the June 6� 1979� meeting of the Planning Commisaion to
order at 7:30 P.M.
R�LL CALL:
24embere Precent: Ma. Hughes� Mr. Oquist� Mr. Harris� Me. Schnabel� Mr. Treuenfels
Members Abeent: Mr. Lsngenfeld (arrived at 7:35 P.M.)
Others Prmeent: Mike Franzen, Planning StefY
1. APPR�VE PI�AMNING CQI�R+LiSSION MINUrES: MAY 2� 1979:
rATION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to approve the A�i y 23 1 9s
minutec of the Planning Co�ission.
Ms. Hvgk�es atated that on page 3 of the minutes she hsd atated there were k8
si�naturea on the petition, She later discovered there w�re e Yew more so that
figure iras not accurate.
Ms, Schnabel stated thst os page 4 of the minutes� the 4th paragraph� 2nd aentence
irom ths end should be ehanged to read: "attempt to make a right hand turn oYP
xi.�t�wqy 65 to go there. Also� the next to the last paragraph on that page Wae in
arror. The people vho zmote the letter xere in Yavar of the office rather than
the apartment.
Ma. Hughea stated that on page 8 of the minutes� "eye-beam" should be "I-beam",
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAti HARRI3 DECLARED THE MINU1'ES APPROVID
AS CRRRECTED.
2, -Pi1BLIC HEARING: RPsQi.IEST F�t A SP.PsCIAL i15_E PEIiMITt SP �-06�BY ROBERT J
a to xti.
M(7TION by Me. 3chnabel, secoaded by Ns, TreuenYels� to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHA7RMAN AARRI3 D&CLARED THE PUBLIC HEARIAIG
oi'sN AT 7:35 P•M.
Mr. Franzen stated that the applicant requested a 3pacial Use Permit to construct
a aecond acceesory build3ng. The Pirst accessory building is located in the front
part of the property. One stipulation voulfl be tkwt the second accessory building
not be in s utility easement. At the preseat time� the second acceesory huilding is
not withia this easement. The easement is shown on page 29 of the agenda. The
PLANNII�', CO�II+IISSION I�,'I.'I1QG, � 6, 1979 - PAGE 2 � F�
proposed acceasory building vould be 16 x 22 which is approuimately 352 square
feet. The proposed use is storage and at this ti� thsre are no plans Yor an
aceess� however� there is adequate room available Eor a driveway. Staff would
have no objection to this request as long as the building is used for atorage
a� not a home occupation or living quarters.
Mr. Oquiat stated that Mr. Franzen had indiceted the.t the second accessory building
Wou],� not fall within the utility easemeat but noted thst it was close to it.
Mr. Fraazea gave the Cw�issioners a more detailed plan of the proposed constructioa.
Ms. Hughes asked what the first accessory building vasT
Mr. Franzen �tated tha first accessory building was the existing two-car garage.
Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Franzen if the purpoae of the secoad accessory buildix�
stas Por storage only?
Mr. Franzen stated tl�at �+as correct and StaPf had no objection as long as it was
used for any use other than a home occupation.
Mr. Robert Carlson� 151 62nd Way NE� came Yorward aad stated that it would be a
detaahed garage.
Me. Schnabel asked Mr. Carlson w�y he needed a storage building of this sizeY
Mr. Carleon stated that his existing garage is 19 x 22 and he has two cars. It
is diffi¢ult to get in snd out of the cars because of the bicyclea� garden tools�
toya� etc. Beeause of this conge�tion� he would like a building for storage.
Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Carlson if he had any plans� now or in the future� to use
the proposed building as a garage and convert ths existing garage into living apaceY
Mr. Carlson atated he had no plans to do that and also that he rrae not planning
to put in a drivew�y.
ALs. Schnabel asked Mr. Carlson if he would be doing the construction himself?
Mr. Carlson stated he planned to do the cement work and would have a carpenter to
help with the other work.
Ms. Hughes asked if it Would be garage construction with an overhead door?
Mr, Carlson stated that he intended to put an overhead door on the west side and
it vould be regular garage construction with trusses Yor the roof.
blr. Harris asked if he was going to put the overhead door on the west sideY
Mr. Carlson stated thst was correct.
Mr. Harris asked iF that wouldn't be tight to get in aad out if he decided to use
it as a garaget
Mr. Carlson stated he had no intention to uee it as a garage.
PLANNLNG COI�IISSION t�IINArES, ,Tt1NE 6, 1979 PaQ� 3 ��
Mr. Carleon also atated that there is 19 Yeet there.
Mr. Harria etated they usual]y figure ttiat it takes ebout 20 feet for an auto-
mobile.
Mx. Carl�on reiterated that he did not intend to use it Yor atoring a car.
Mr. Harris aeked Mr. Carlaon if hs would object moving it slight�V to the east and
aeked hoW Par he would be willing to goY
Mr. Carlson atated he could go east another foot. He added that he had decided
on the plQCement of ti�e garage because oY the window placement-in hia house.
Mr. Barris aeked how high the atructure would be?
Mr. Carlaon stated there would be regular 16 foot trusees. It would be built on a
cement base which vould ba about 2 inehea off ground level. There will be S foot
2x4s runaing Pro� the cet�nt up� so the building would be about 8 Ft. 2 in. from
ground level to the eaves.
Mr. Harris aeked Mr. Carlson if he l�ad talked to ar�y of his neighborsY
Mr. Carlson stated he had talked to all of them aad they had no co�ent. He stated
thst he had heard that someone had second thoughts but he apparently decided to
go along frS.th it. He stated that the proposed building would have the same aiding
as his houae and he would construct 3t 3n euch a Kay that it would add to the looks
oY the property.
Mr. Harris stated tl�at he was concerned about moving the garage to the east because
if it wes ever ueed to store an automobile� it would be much easier to get in and
out Without eacroaching oa his neighbor'e property. They Yigure that an aut�obile
parking place is 1CY-x 20.
Mr. Carlson stated he would be willing to move it a foot.
Mr. Harris stated that 2 feet would be better.
Mrs. Carlson stated that there is a 6 foot hedge slong the neighbor's property
that would meke it impossible for them to go over on their property.
Mr. Harrie stated that at some point they might rrant to use the building Yor a
garsge and being that close to the hedge would mske it dif£icult to get in and out.
Mr. Oquist asked if he decided on a 16 x 22 foot building becauae he planned to
use it for a garage in the future? He atatsd that most storage buildings are
8x8or8x12.
Mr. Carlson s tated that the people he had talked to about it suggested he figure
what he nseds and then add a little.
PLANNING COA�[BSION MEETIt� ,� 6 1979_ __ P�� �+ 6 C
---------i----- -'-- -- - _—
Mr. Oquist asked how far the propoaed building would be from the existiag houseY
Mr. Carlson etated it would be 25 feet.
Mr. Harrie stated the plan indicated about 28 feet and notad that it was a good
size lot.
Mr. Carleon stated that another reason w�p he placed it where he did was'beeause
oY sxieting traes. He did not want to have to remove ar�y trees, FIe added tbat
moving it east 2 feet Would not hurt it at all.
Afa. Hughes aeked Mr. Iiarrls if he was sure the bvilding should be movedY
Mr, Harris stated thst because of the 6 foot hedge� maving it over 2 feet wovld
give him more room.
M�. Hughea asked iP that would be a stipulation?
Mr. Hsrris etated it would.
Ms. Schnabel stated that the 20 Yeet wae based on an existing ordinance which was
written vhen the average car was bi�ger than wk�at t�y are now.
Mr. Harris stated it was atill tight even for a small car. He atated it wcMtld be
a one car garage and vtould be tight. Also� the other house at 6211 Riverview
Terrace sits rath�r close and there �rasn't much back yard there.
t�. Iangenfeld ssked if the northen part of the building would go up to the lot
lineT
Mr. Harrie stated it would not. As indicated on the drawing� it was a good size
lot .
There were no other comments fraai the atadience.
bi1TI0N by Ms. Schnabel, seco�ied by Mr. IangenfeJ.d� to close the public heasing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARIiIS DECLARPD THE PUBLIC HEARII�G
CL(?�D AT 7:58 P.M.
MOTION by hfr. Isngenfeld� seconded by Mr. Treueafels� to recmtomend to Council
approval oY the requeet for Special Use Permit, SP �T9^06a by Robert J. Carlson:
Per 3ection 2p5.051� 2� A� of the Fridley City Code� to a11oW the construction of
a second accessory building� a 16 foot by 22 foot detached garage on Lot �� Block
2 Juli-Ann A3dition� the eame being 151-62nd Way NE� with the follow3ng st3pulat3m s:
1� in accordance with the survey it be not less than 20 £eet rather than 19 feet�
2) it be compa'tible with the exieting neighborhood and his home� 3i no hame occupetion
be allmsod.
Ms, Hughes noted that the notif3cation that vas sent to the neighbors indicated
this was to be a detached garag�� however the co�mente in the discussion were in
terms of other things' and iF we pass this �otion it w211 be poasible for him
to use it as a garage in the future. 8he asked if the notice that this was a
detached garsge adequate ior the neighbora to underetand that they could be looking
at a detached garage?
PlANNING CODQ4IS5ION MEETTNG, �TUNE 6, 197� PAGE 5—�" �—
Mr. HarTis stated that's what it is aud thst�s wh8t it was cal].ed in the notice.
Ms. itughes stat�d tY�at the fact that the neighbors were not here indicated to her
thsy haci no problem with it.
UPOl� A VOICE VO�t'E� AZL VOTING AYE� CHIIIRMAti ftARRIS DECLARED THE �ION CARRIID
UtBANI�lOU3LY.
Mr. Harris infox�ed the petitioner that thia would go to Council on June 18� 1979.
Mr. Harris stated that he understood he was a aecond c].ass citizen, but when sa�e-
thing cames up within 300 Peet of his property, he would like to be notiPfed. Mr.
Harris stated thst he lives at 6200 Riverview Terrace. Bis fsther was notified but
he was not.
3•
Mr. Franzen stated they were looking at one oY Pour alternativea as explained in
Memo �79-24� dated June 6, 1979� from Jerrald Hoardman to the Planning Co�ission.
This memo atated the Gity�s policy on vscation requeata. They were looking at
trying to turn over the property to individual oxnership and reiaining the alley
as a utility easement. The C�mmisaioners xere given a letter dated June l� 1979i
from Narren R. Johnson of NSP regarding this easement.
2+�TIOP1 by Mr. Langenfeld� seco�ied by Ms. Hughes� to receive the memo� �'(9-2�a
r�om�ir. Boardman to the Planning Co�ission� and to receive the letter from
NSP regarding the easement.
- M* = ris stated that another alternative wou7.d be to improve the alley and __,
maintain it
noted that the memo indicated
�4uY�
option.
UPON A VOICE V�� AI3. VO�SIFiG AYE� CHAIRMAN HAFi�2IS DECI�ARL�D THE MOTION CARRIED
Mr. Oquiet atated that the map in the agenda indicated that the area that was
darkened was to be vacated, He asked wl�at vould hs�ppen in betweenR
Mr. Franzen stated that was the property of IySP. Se stated there *�rere apartiment
structurea � the north and south ends of the alley and that easement was used
for getting 3nto the parking areas, and does not go through the entire block.
PLAPI�ING COtM7TSSI0N MEETING, JUAE 6, 1979 - PaGE 6 J�-�
Mr. Harris atated that they then had two dead-end alleys in the same block.
Mr. Franzea stated that the center part of the alley had already been vacated.
Mr. H�rria noted that the notification stated it zras the lots not vacated by
Ordinanc� #533. They were talking about Lots 1-6� Iqts 25 - 3o and between Lots
14� 15� 16 a�l 17. He asked how those people would get in and out if this wae
vacatadt Ho�t woul.d they get to the apart�nt building parking lots?
Mr. Franzen stated that Mr. B�rdman was looking at turning that portion oY the
property over to the iadividual owners and it would be maintained by them.
Mr. Harris asked how the people in the apartment at 59b0 3rd Street would get from
60th Ave. NE into the parking area?
Mr. Benjamia F. Carman� 5955 ��reet NE� stated tha't 5940 was a private residence.
He also ststed that there was an entrance oYf of 3rd 3treet for the apartment people
to uae to reach the parking area.
Ms. Pat Gabel, 59�+7 2� Street NE, came foxtirard and stated this was not a request
by the people that live there to neceasar33y vacate this alley. It is an alter-
native the City is using rather than doing what they should� which ia to clean
the area up. There has been a problem there for two yeara and the City hss not
done their job which is to make them clesn it up. There is garbage there� fences
are knocked down� they dump oil on the Pences and shrubst etc. Aer neighbors have
had to repair a very expensive fence on several occasions. Iu talking to Ed
Fitzpatrick� it was his suggestion that they vacate it and put a barrier 6 feet
out frami the feaces in order to keep their property in tact. None oY them rea]1y
wamted 6 more Peet of property to take care ot but it is a matter of protecting
what they have. Over the years the apartmente have become run down and the tenants
are problem type tenants. So this is not real]y their idea but is an alternative.
Ms. Schnabel etated tl�t 5980 was where the apartments are.
Me. Gabel stated there was a drive*aay between two oP the apartments coming in. Also�
if they vacate that 12 feet� the apartments Would lose smne parking spaces but they
were not supposed to be parking back there a�ywqy because it is a public easetnent.
Thie has not been ettforced either.
Mr, Harris atated that 59�11 and 5902 were apartmen'� buildings.
Me. Gabel stated tk�t was correct and that was al]. vacated in between so it had
no bearing on thie requsat.
Mr. Harris stated it was part oP the vacation request.
Ms. Gabel stated that they apparent],y werenTt concerned about it and was not sure
What the City'a thinking was there unless they wanted to get the whole thing done
st one time.
Pr.arnaxRC corQQSSio� r�rIIac, ,nrt� 6, i�9 pAGE 7 � F
Me. Schnabel stated that the people in the apar'tment at 5980 were currently
using that alley as an access aud aeked iY there wae another way to get to their
parkigg spotY
Mr. Carmew stated that when the streeta zrere being curbed anci repaved� those people
used the center driveway ofY 3rd street.
Mr. Harris asked if they were using it now't
Mr. Carman stated that some of them use it but nat a11 of them.
Me. Schnabel ststed the alley vas 12 PEet wide and they wovld gain 6 feet of the
alley iP it were vacated and asked iP they thought putting up a barrier would help
the eituationY
Ms. Gabel stated they didn't think so� but at least they Would then k�ave some
recourae. They were not getting a�ywhere now.
Ms, 5chnabel asked iY they thought there was current legal recourse or if they
thought this would strengthen their position. In other worcis� did they feel the
City sras talking them iato the vacation or vas there a better way to handle itY
Ms. Gabel stated she felt the City should isaue a Red Tag and they should have
done it a year ago. She didn't know wl�y, but they seem reluctant to do that.
3he stated they were tired of going through this every suffiner. After the rezoning�
people were fixing things up aud cleaning things up and they were at the point
where there Was a war between the people who own residential homes and tln apart�nt
ovmers. At this point, she Yelt it was incumbent upon the City to do soa�ething and
they won't.
Mr. Langenf�ld stated that if they did vacate it� they would have the legal recourse
of trespassing� but woless something is done� they will always have the problem.
Mr. Oquiat stated that vacating the alley would not solve the problem. It would
,uet bring the property line 6 feet closer to the apartment building.
Ma. Gabel stated tbey planned to put up a physical barrier that would not be as
expensive as their fencea.
Mr. Oquist stated that then they would have two fences� one good one and one to
protect itR
Ms. Gabel stated that this is w�at they vrere resorting to because the City wonTt
do anything about it.
Mr. Oquist asked iP a�y of the private residences used that alley?
Ms. Gabel stated they did not.
Mr. Langenfeld noted that if it stays the way it is now and the problem continues�
the neighbors would not be allowed to put up auy barriers.
PAGE 8 � G
PLANNTNG COhAiLSSION MEElTING, ,7vr� 6, 1979 - -
Ms. Ga'bel stated that she lmew that.
Ms. Hughea aeked iP there would be ax�y sense to improving a portion of the alley
by the apartment housesY
Ms. Gabel stated that vould make 1t worse because then the pavement would be right
next to the fences.
Mr. Oquist etated that they could vacate the alley because it dcesn't make any
sattse to have a dead alley anyw�y� but couldn't they also recounnend that Council
inatruct City Staff to elean it up?
Ms. Gsbel stated that Staff had been out there.
Mr. Oquist asked if the apsrtment owners lived in the apartmentsY
Ms. Gabel stated they did not. She ststed that in the past Yew years there has
been a turnover in landlords and a different quality oY tenants� and this is the
problem.
Ms. Schnabel stated that if they gained control of the 6 feet and junk was still
dumped there, they would have the problem oY fiading out who d�ped it there and
it could create more frustrations. IY the City were to improve that alley, it
would be the City's responsibility to keep it clean, Granted, it would be close
to the fence and maybe wouldnTt salve that problem� but at least it would be
the City's responsibility to maintain it and keep it clear of the junk.
Ms. Gabel stated that she didn't believe the City wvuld have a�}r more interest in
keeping it clean iF it were paved than they have now.
Me. Sc}�nabel atated that at leaet then it would be the City's responsibility and
not theirs.
Mr. Harria stated that if they Went to plow it and junk was there, so�t5ing vuuld
bc done.
Ms. Gabel atated tYiat iY the alley +aere improved� they would have to pay for it
and did not feel they ahould pay for an alley that did not service them.
Mr. Oquist asked if the City would �+ant to improve a dcad-end alley?
Mr. Barr3s stated tkiat he did not think they would �rant to.
Ms. Gabel stated it wou].d not beneYit them anp�.
Ms. Hughes stated ehe could see no sense in im�roving the uhole thing� only a
portion of it.
r �
PLAtai7:NG CONASTSSION MEETING, �� 6, 1979 PAGE 9 0 F,
Mr. Carmen stated they xere sick and tired of this problem and their last
alternative was to vscate this alley. Fie stated tkt�t he hae argued with the
caretaker of the apart�nt and the caretaker wanted to Yist fi�ht him. He
asked if the City Council was not supposed to aek an apartment to dedicate parking
placea £or their tenants?
Mr. Harris stated that was correct.
Mr. Carn�en stated that was never done. Iie stated that their rubbish cannisters
sit right next to his feace� and the garbage enda up in his yard. There are
beer cana� trash� etc. there. His windo�rs get brokea and his Yence geta b�oken.
Az stated that the police had been there several times and have tsken pictures
oY this. He felt the only wqY was to vacate the alley. He etated there Was no
owner on the premises �ad felt it was a hazard to the whole ccmaunity. Tb.ey �ind
bugs and maggots Yroa� theae cannisters in their yard. They were trying to keep a
clean neighborhood but the apartments do nothing. They would like to see the City
do somathing. Ae felt this was their last alternative.
Mr. Lang�nfeld stated that it was atrange to see this special district go in there
and they planned to make it n�ce, but they allow this kind of thing to go on. Also�
he would be in favor of vacation because they could take the necessary action on
their orm property.
Mr. Rob�rt Ecker� 5940 Third Street NE� came Yorward anfl atated that iP they vacate
the alley� the kids will stop going through there and throwing junk around.
Ma. Gabel stated she had a letter from Mrs. Robert Williems� 59�5 2� Street N.E.
Mrs. Williama was unable to attend.
Mr. Haxris etated that the note stated they were in favor of the reguest to vaeate
the alley.
MOTION by Mr. Isngenfeld� aeconded by Mr. Treuenfels� to receive the letter fr�
Mr..and Mrs. Williams,
ik�ON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARID 'PHE MOTIIN CARRIED
UNANIMOLSLY.
Mr. Harris etated he understood the situation but was nat sure vacating the alley
would help.
Y+�. Oquiet stated thRt vacating the alley just brings the progerty line closer to
the apartmeat.
Mr. Harris aeked how they get to the trash containers?
Ms. Gabel stated they come in fr� 3rd and go around.
_6 1
P� CONJMLSSION ME1s�2NG, at� 6L1979 - PAGE 10 -
4�. Harris stated that tha trash containers were not supposed to be by Mr.
Carmen's fenee.
Mr. Carmen atated that he had called the trash colleetor aad they said they �vould
go along with atp�thing Council Wanted them to do. They would prefer to pick them
up ofY solid ground anyway.
h4r. Harris noted the trash containers were sitting in the public right of wey.
Mr. Carmen stated that the caretaker in the second apartment put them there snd
whea Mr. Carmen txied to move them away from the Yence the caretaker ca� out and
*+anted to beat him up. Mr. Carmen stated he was 69 years old.
Ms. 3ehnabel asked if the traeh callector entered on 3rd and exited on 60th?
Mr. Carmen stated that wae correct. He stated there was enough room Por them to
turn around and exit on 3rd.
Mr. Oquist stated that if it was vacated� there would be a curb and they couldnTt
exit to 60th.
Mr. Carmen stated the drivecr�y wes at least 15 Peet wide.
Mr. Harris stated if they put a barricade up they couldn't exit to 60th.
Ms. Sehnabel stated that the City would not put up a barricade� the people would
have to.
Ms. Gabel atsted it WouldnTt have to be barricaded and they could still get in and
out.
Mr. Oquist stated that wouldn't solve their problem.
Ms. Gabel stated they were told they need some w�y to legal�y take care o£ this
aixl they're saying they cannot legally take care of it. Thie way the problem
would beccmme ours and they would be trespassing and that would give the home-
owaers legal recourse. She felt it was ridiculous that they hmd to �o to these
lengths to get something cleaned up.
Nh�, Carmen stated that iY thie was vacated� he would sod the 6 feet by his fence
and make it look decent.
Ms. Schnabel stated they could drive a Pew telephone poles in the corner of their
lots� and that would help.
Mr. Oquist stated it wauld still bring the property line 6 Peet closer and they
would etill hsve the trash containers there. It would not solve the problem.
They would have the same problem with the seeond fence.
Mr. Carmen stated they have called the police and hsve had several City officials
there includiag Mr. Sobiech and nothing has been done. FIe Pelt this rras their
on3y alternativa.
pLANfIII� C�SIOId NIEETII3G, 3UtaE 6, 1979 - PAGE il �� �
Ms. Schr,abel rePerred to Mr. Boardman's memo and asked what he meant by the
statement that due to the controversey betrreen the neighbors there was a
strong tendency that no vacation request would be applied £or.
Ms. Gahe1 etated that the ]ast time the City Staff was there� they suggested
she request the vacation and she stated that she would not pay Yor a vacation
request to clean up something the City should take care of anyway.
Ms. Schnabel asked if she knew Por sure that the apsrtment owners would not
joiu tham in a vacation request?
Ms. Gabel stated that she was not sure but £elt there would be no cooperation
beaause of past experiences with them.
Mr. Langenfeld asked wl�at initiated this request?
Ms. G�bel stated that it was Ed Fitzpatrick's recommendation aPter the last
incideat.
I�. Franzen stated that he understoal that the zoning code requires they have a
maintained parking area as well as a screened refuse erea. He asked iY they
requixed a fence around the refuse area� would that solve some oY the problemY
Mr. Harris etated that he was not sure they could force the apartment owners to
build a fence because the apartments were old and probab�y built before those
oxdinances were tn effect. He suggested they go to Couacil.
Ms. Gabel stated they had gone to Council.
Mr. Carmen stated tkiat Mr. Olson of the City StaPf told him he could move iF he
didn't like i�. He stated that the former owner of his house kiad gone to Council
several timea to have something done and moved because nothing was done. He felt
the poliee had more to do th�n worry about this kind of thing. He also stated
that he had talked to the City Manager se�reral timea.
Mrs. Carmen asked w6y the Health Department of the City of Fridley did nothing
when they asked that a rotten mettress and some garbage be removed7
Mr. Harrie stated that 5teve Olson wae the health oPficer.
Mr. Carmen stat¢d that 3teve Olson hsd been there four or Yive times and he told
Mr. Carmen that if he didnTt li.ke it he could move. He also stated that they
ahould enforce the parking ordinance and designate parking spaces to keep the
cars away from his fence.
Mr. Harris stated that he would like to learn more about this. Maybe a meetisg
�rS.th the City Manager, the Mayor and the Councilmsn Xauld help.
Ms. Schaabel stated that ehe was not convinced ti�at the vacation was the anawer.
She atAted that she was concerned about the City'a attitude. She agreed that
a meeting mi.ght be more helpful.
,
PLAANII� COMNL[�SION MEEPING, JUNE 6� 1979 — -- PAGE 12 ���-
Ms. Fiughea suggested they send a modified version of Mr. Bosrdman's memo to
Council listing the alteraatives and include the auggeetion that they improve
part of the a11ey and slso the suggested tLst the City should enPorce all
applicable codea. She was not suggesting the apsrtments be haraesed but that
there ahould b� consistent and logical enforee�nt.
Mr. Carmen stated that he Pelt the Police Depsrt�nt ahould be ca�mmended for
their responsiveness but when the Police turn their reporta over to=the City
oPYicisls� nothtng is done. He asked that the Planning Cos�ission make a strong
efPort to find put why the City officials have done nothin�.
Mr. Barris asked Ms. Gabel if she and her neighbors would be wi].ling to meet
with the Ward Councilman� the M�yor� the Covncilman at Large� the Chair of the
Planning Commiasion and aRY other members of the Planning Coimmission who wish
to attend, a� the City Menager to find out what the problem is and wY�y this
situation is not being taken care of7
Ms. Gabel stated she would attend such a meeting and also etated that they had
spent a long time working on the Hyde Park rezoning and she, along with her
neighbora� had gut in a lot of their own time on it in order to make it a viable
place to Zive� and she felt it was time for the City to do their share.
A9s. Schnsbel atated that she felt the Maintenance Code would be a good place to
start and suggested they research it in terms oP ittterior �nd exterior maintenance
on these rental properties. She would like to see this discussed at the meeting
with regards to who should enYoree the Meintenance Code and why it has not been
enforced.
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel� secos�ed by Mr. LangenPeld� to reco�end to Council
�a Vacstion Request SAV �'(9•Q3 be continued until a meeting is held and attended
by ths follocring people: the aPfected neighbors, the Ward Councilman� the Mayor�
the Councilman at Large� the Chairman of the Planning Coaani.asion and any other
member of the Planning Co�ai.ssion who w3shes to attend, the C3ty Msnager� the C3ty
Engineer and any other Staff person deemed necessary. The purpose of the meeting
Kould be to discuss the untenable situ&tion that has occurred and is conti.nuing to
occur bet�reen the private residences-and the apartmente located in the block bounded
by 2� 3treet and 3rd Street and 59th snd 60th Avenuea NE. Vacation Request SAV �'(9-p3
ia a requeat by the City of Fridley to vacato that portion of the alley in Block 11�
Hyde Park� not vacated by Oxdinance #533, betWeen Lote 1-6 and Lots 25-3�� $�
between Lots l�F� 15, 16� and 17, located between 59th and 60th Avenues NE and betvreen
2� Street and 3rd Street NE.
Mr. Carmen requested that the reports and recorda of the camplaints be at the
meeting.
Ma, Schnabel stated they would be incl�ing the minutes of thia meeting.
Mr, Treuenfela stated that the people uho own the apart[nent housea should be
sotified of this meeting.
PLANNING CDIYAIISSION MEE'FING� J[IIdE 6, 197� - PAGS 13--� �'---
Mr. $arris etated they would be along with all affected neighbors.
Ms. Schnabel stated that the purpose oP the meeting should be to see i£ there
was ec�me wa�y to solve the problem of the friction within the neighborhood.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN AARRIS I3PsCI�ARED THE t�YPION CARRIED
UNANIT�9Jik5LY .
t�. Treuenfels atated he would like to be notified of the meeting.
Ms. Schnabel stated they should all be notified as to the date and time.
Mr. Carmen thanked the Commiseioners.
4. RECEIVE MEMORANDUM FROM THE CITY AT1'ORNEY ON SPECIAL USE PERMTT9:
MOTION by Ms. Hughea� seconded by Mr. Treuenfels� to receive the memorandum Prom
the City Attorney on Special Uae Permits.
Ms. $ughes stated that sfter reading through this ahe felt that Special Use Permits
were not in the category she thought they vere and that they vrere more stringent
than shs thought. After reading this� ahe felt bettex about Special Use Permits
and what ie a]lowed and what is not allowed. Page 35 in particular brought the
things such as the ePPect on the neighborhood� the nature of the adjoining land�
trafYic� etc.
Mr. Harris eteted that they had to have good and valid reaeons for denying a
request.
Ms. Schnabel etated that one thing they had not done enough of in the past was
zeroing in on the burden of prooY that the applicant has-to shoc+ that the Special
Use Permit they are app�ying Yor does not in an�y way effect the public health�
ssfaty' comenience� welYare, traYfic congestion and k�szards, or change the pro-
posed original use of the area� etc. We have not made the applicants prave to
us tYiat these things exist.
Ms. Hughes stated that the request for a garage ton3ght was an e�cample where 3t
eould have an impact on the neighbors land value especiall,y if the hedge wasn't
there.
Mr. $arris noted thst the person at 6211 was not here to object. He slso noted
that in reading over the minutes oY their discussion on the last request in the
flood plain� if that houae had been built and graded the wsy the plan indicated�
there would be detre�ntal ePfecta to the sbutting property.
Ms. Hughea stated tt�at thie seema stranger than she had thought. She also stated
that a statemeat from StaiP that they have no objeetions would not be adequate.
It ehould be �re specific and detailed.
PLAI9NING COi�II+iCSSION MEETTNG, JUNE 6, 1979 - PAGE 14
�
Nh�. Harris stated that When StsYY procesaes a Special Use Permit they look at
all aspecte. They do have a checklist.
Ms. ScYinabel asked Mr. Franzen if the checklist for the Special Use Permit reguest
toaight tras in the file?
Mr. Franzen stated it was and it included who reviewed it.
Ms. 5chaabel atated that at the Appeals Conmmission� the Chair of the Co�ission
has baen given the file and the Commissioners can review it. Also, the Fire
Departmant� the Police Department and others should make co�ents too.
Ms. Hughas Felt their co�enta should be more speciYic.
Mr. Latigenfeld stated that when he has denied a Special Use Permit he had good
reasona such as public health� saYety and Welfare� and they should not be afraid
to dex�y even if someone threatena to aue.
Me. Hughea agreed and felt the City has been urnJilling to protect the zoning
codes aad deny a Special Use Permit that should be denied just because someone
threatens to sue.
Mr. LangenPe].d stated that at one time he had the impression that people felt
at one time if they wanted aqything they should just put in for a SUP.
Mr. Harris stated that they were in the middle of looking at the zoning codes and
in the past the Special Use Permit was a catch-ell. They should not do th�t any
longer. They have allowed a lot of latitude especially in the R-1 districts
and he felt they should tighten up a little bit� but it has to be reasonable.
Ms. Hughes stated she did aot vrant to see a City that was identical in every aspect.
Mr. Harris stated that the problem of a Special Use Permit for a second accessary
buil8ing has been uith us-for s long time and wi11 be until we Pind another way of
handling it. In regards to thls request tonight� if everyone on that side of the
street decided.to do this� it would be a disaeter. In the Puture, when they look
at the zoning codes and the Comprehensive Plan, they will t�ave to look at the
problem oP second accessory buildings.
i+h�. Oquist agreed.
UPOSd A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRTS DECI,ARED Tf� I�TION CARRIEID
uxa�n�vsZx.
5, RECEIVE pARKS & RECREATION COA4+ILSSION MINVPES: MaY i6, i979�
4�TION by Ma. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Lsngenfeld, to receive the Parks a�
Recreation Coam�issiou miautes oY Llsy 16� 1979•
PLANNING CO3�ff+II5SI0N MEETING, JUNE 6� 1979 - PAGE 15 _ 6 �`'J
Mr, TreuenYels asked wk�r Mr. Boudreau was present at the meeting?
Ms. Hughas stated tbey rrere interviewing arch�tects.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIItMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
iJiQAItIMi1t�LY.
6. �rvE Er�xcY Pxo.�cT corn�um� rurivrES: Max 22z i97�:
-..� —
k�TYON by Mr. Lsngenfeld� seconded by Ms. Schnabel� to receive the Mey 22� 1979,
minute� vf the Energy Project Coam�ittee.
Mr. Lsngen�eld stated there was an introduction included called "Proposal B"
and this is a draf� copy of an introduction to the P1anning Co�i.ssion. He
stated that the chart Wae the key to the whole thing. The chart incorporatea
the ecope of the project as set Porth by the Planning Commission. He felt that
the City Coordlnating Unit was a good idea, Item 2 on page 4 explains the City
Coordinating Unit. Thsy hoped to finish this.at thQir next meeting and would
then present it ia a proper fashion.
Mr. TreuenYels noted that page 2 oY the Energy Pro,9ect Co�ittee, Item B, #2 appears
to be in conPlict with the section on parks in the Comprehensive Development Plan.
In tha CDP� light#ng is eneouraged to prevent vandalism.
Ms. Hughes stated this was not in confi3at with what the Park's Coumiittee thinks,
but it might be in confliet with wkiat the Park's Department thinks. The Parke
Committee would agree with this statement.
Mr. Iiarris stated tY�at as far as this and other questions go� they will have to
veigh;.tlne��ood and bad and set prioxities.
Ms. Schnabel atated that she thought #8 on that page was the w�y it is now.
Mr, Treuenfels referred to page 3 a� �'oPosal A, Item D� #1� and stated that he
underatood there was a conYlict b�tyeen-earth-eheltered buildings and the Uniform
Building Code.
Mr. Harris stated there waa a conflict there.
Mr. Langenfeld etated that they considered that under the energy-efP3cient dwellinga.
They could not have a detailed explanation o£ each item in the minutes.
Mr. Treuenfele reYexxed to pege 5 of the Froposal A� Item C� and suggested they
discus� G��e1a�+].. Iie would like the Co�ittee to discuss GasohQl derived fram
waste groducte rather tl�ta food prodtticts and also distillation oP alcohol should
be done using solsr energy rather than fosail Yuels.
Mr. IangenPeld reYerred to the "SCOPE" section and quoted the following: "It is
ftOT the intent of this Policy to formulate pr�cise procedures or to categorize
specific actions based upon the availability of fuels used,." He stated that they
had looked at energy policies from Mound, the City of Minneapolis, New Brighton
and several others and they did not find them helgful. A part of the contingency
plan Yro� New Brighton rrae helpful. F'ridley's Energy Project Co�i.ttee was taking
a e�gletely ne*�r approech and he Pelt this was exciting. He was proud oi the work
the Cu�aittee has done.
PLARNING CObIITi33I0N MEEPING, JUDE 6, 1979 - PAGE 16 6 �
Ms. Hughes referred to page 4 of Proposal A, #'(, and atated she would like to
see a"policy maker" rather than the City Maaager there. Also, she would like
to see a more detailed explanation oP what the citizen's group� referred to in
Item �8 on page k� would be doing. She also referred to Item II� #A on page 4
and stated that the last sentence in that paragraph sounds difPerent from what
sh� thought they were sqying. She wondered iY that was what they wanted to say.
Me. Hughes referred to page 5� Item C� and aeked why�transportation � the local
government level was not includedY
Mr. Harrie stated they were talking about public transportation.
Ms. Hughes asked wY�,y they weren't talking about a local public transportation system?
Mr. Herris atated they did not have one aqd had talked about it at one time and
decided against it.
Ms. Hughea etated that things had changed and maybe they should look at it.
Mr. Fiarris etated they had looked at it and it wae in the realm of the MPC. He
stated they were not set up to operate euch a-system.
Me. Schnabel mentioned the Dial-A-Ride system in Columbia Heights and stated that
did not exist in Fridley.
Ms. Hughes felt they should look at the poesibilities of having a private company
provide that service.
Mr. Iangenfeld etated that this question was brought up by one member of the
Co�ittea� but the other members felt it vould not be appropriate to put it in
here beeause it would be sueh an enormous groject and it would be very difficut
Por them to get it going. Mr. Langenfeld stated that when they 3�irst set up the
Co�aittee� they had a large number oY things to cover and they had to narrow it
down soa�how.
Mr. Harris stated that one of the shortco�ings was that they were dealing only with
the City of Fridley and energy is a much broader problem. He felt that if thie did
nothing else„ it Would make them energy-aware. When they started this out� they
had a lack of coordination aad leadership from the State. He stated that the State
bad indicated that they were using Fridley ae a model.
Mr. Lsngenfeld referred to the NSP Survey and stated he felt the only good thing
out of it vas to creste awareneas.
Ms. 3chnabel referrod to page 3„ Item E(Contingency Plan) and asked who would
implement that Plsn and under what conditionaY
Mr, Langenfeld etated th3.s was directed to the City and would occur if there was
an all out national criszs.
PLANNING CO1�A'IISSIOft MEEP7S�LNNE 6, 1979 - PAGE 17 � P
Ms. Sehnabel stated there s�+�re eome things in there that could be done in advance
oP a crisia� Yor example, Item 6 on psge 4 which reYers to regulating the operating
hot�c of ratail businesses.
Mr. Oquist asked if the City could do that7
Mr. Harris atated there �ras a Supreme Court Decision that struck tt�at down.
Me, iIughea atated there could be a reeson now, auch as public health� safety
and walPare.
Ms. SehnabeJ. stated that before tbat was done� they should have an ana�ysia of
how much it xould eave. She referred also to page k� Item A, and asked if
"Inatitutional" would refer to schools� hospitals� etc.?
Mr. Langenfeld etated that �as correct.
Ms. Sekmabel a�ated that they bsd talked at one time about the City and public
inatitut3ons analyzing their cons�mption and making an attempt to cut that con-
sumption by s certain percentage.
Mr. I.angeafeld stated they had discussed that and reYerred to page 2, Item 3 of
Proposel A.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
(TNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Harrie declared a re¢ess at 1A:05 P.M. and reeonvened the meeting at
10:15 P.M.
7. CONPINUED: COMPREBENSIVE DEVEIAPMENT PLAN:
Ms. Hughes steted that the Psrks Commisaion had not completed their review of the
doaument snd they would be diecueaing it at their next �eting and would have a
complete]y Tewritten section. They had problems with the way it was put together
and they finally had to eut and paste before they could diacuss it.
Page 31, SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL:
Ms. Hughes reYerred to the second garagraph and suggeated they add recycling and
encouraging redueir� tkie -amotixnt of it.
Mr. Harris agreed and notsd they were promoting recycling of waste, A sub-committee
had been set up a yaar ago and it should be included.
P�, 33, s31o, �1:
NLe. Hughes suggested they delete the word "prioritize" and insert the word "rank".
She also stated that she felt S3]A� �2 was a critical area. She also felt the
word "prioritize" should be deleted throughout the whole document and replaced
by the word "rank".
PLANNING COI�IISSION I�ETING, NNE 6� 1979 - PAGE 1$ 6-Q
Mr. LanganYeld etated that hia copy of the dosument was difYerent fro� the copies
the other Commiseioner8 1�ad..
PaBe 33L 5311 �1:
Ms. Hughes noted that th� word "PROMUIGATIOId" should be daleted and t1�e word
"PROPAGATION" should be inserted. Also� the statement "RECREATION IN APm OUT
OF THE WATER" was queationed by her Commission and they wondered if it shouldn't
be "RTiCREATION IN AND ON TEE WATER". This wauld eneompass boatin�� etc. They
wanted attention paid to "ON TSE WATER".
Page 35, S31o:
Mr. I�ngenfeld stated that he had several atatemente on energy that were to be
included in thia portion of the doc�ent. Thia was a revision dated April 26� 1979•
He also stated that on page 35� the Environmental Quality Co�ission felt the
xords "Wetlanda and Lowlands" ahould be changed to "water bod3es and wster courses".
Mr. Franzen stated that Metro Council had recommended the use oP that termonolo�y
and to be consiatent it sitoul.d remain "wetlands and lowlamis".
Mr. Oquist stated that the revision Mr. I.angenfeld read to them regarding energy
did not Yit into the Systems Plan on page 35•
Me. Schne�bel stated thst the introduction oa page 12 of the document did not
rePer to energy.
Mr. Harris atated they would have to Yit it in somewhere.
Ms. Hughea stated that the Parks Comnisaion had trouble following the document
and had to cut it apart and reorganize it because it waa not workable the way
it was.
Mr. Harris etated that he could nat see how they would Pit the section on energy
into the lowlands section.
Mr. Ogniet etated that he was concerned that the Co�iasioners hsd dif£erent
copies oY the doc�nt. Some were revised editioas and some were not. FIe aleo
atated that in swle aections� the policy plan did not relate to the systems plan.
Ms. Schnabel asked iP the Planning Coa�ission could ask for a reorganization of
the document and a clearer understanding of �e direction or Ylow oY the documentY
Mr, i3arris stated they could.
I�SDTION by Ms. Schnabel, aeconded by bSr. Treuenfele� to continue the discuesion on
the G-omprehensive Develops�nt Plan and that the Planning Coimnission recommends
that the Chair of the Planning Coffinission go to the Plantxing.Depa�ment Hesda and
discuss their fselings on the umrorkability of this documant based on the experience
that the Parks and Reereation Commiesion had with the doc�ent� and the Planning
Co�iseion would like a rewrite of the document.
PLANNING CONIIdISBION MEE'PTPiG, JUNE 6, 1979 PAGE 1S � R__.
Mr. Treuenfels stated that there doeen't seem to be a general Pocusing idee in
the dpeument and it's very difYicult to say which direction Fridley is going
baeed on this document. Also� the organization of tha document is diYPicult to
Pollow.
t1PON A VOICE VOTE� ALL YOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN i1ARRIS DECLARPD TAE h�TION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
8. CONTINUED: PROPOSED CFIANGFS TO CHAP'PER 205. ZOIdING:
b&Yi'ION by Ms. Sehnabel� seconded by Mr. Lsngenfeld� to continue the diacussion
oa the propoeed eMangea to Chapter 205. Zoning.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARID TI� MOTION CARRIED
UNANI1�iJSLY. .
9. oT�[t BvsIriESS:
Mr. Bstrris etated he had received a letter from Metro Council on LawCon Application
regerding Parks and Open Spaces and lake aceese guid�lines. He gave the letter
to Mr. Frsnzen to give to Mr. Boardman.
Mr. Harris atated he had a direction from City Covncil regarding rentsl conversion
property and in particular the Nitscheke case. Mr. Nitscheke requested permission
to eplit a tri-plex into a tovmhouse. The memo stated that the Jay Park Plat -
Nitscheke - was tabled indefinite],y� and StaPf wea directed to refer this item to
Planning ior discussion of the Yollowing iteme: 1) t1u varioua types of conversion
and whether they ehould be allowed at all, 2) a zero._ 1ot line Yor single fsmily
homea and 3) review oY the exieting townhouse ordinance for poeaible modification.
It wae the feeling of Council that a cowprehensive look ehould be taken in regards
to converaion snd their impact on policy statement development. A policy statement
or appropriate ordinanees could be draPted where needed. Mr. Harris atated there
was another memo from Mr. Boarriman to Mr. Sobiech on how these rental conversions
were hsndled and apparently they called several other suburbs.
Mr. Franzen stated he had ealled the suburbs listed and aeked them how they were
handlir+g converaion of duplexes and aw;l.tiple dwellings to individual ownerships
and also the converaion of apartm�nts to townhou�es. 3ome of the suburbs were
allowing apartments to be convertsd into townhouaes or condominiums. A lot of
them said they Weren't getting involved with that qnd it was up to the owner of
the apartmeat. He felt the problem with converting apartu�nts to townhouses or
condominiums was that a certain amount oP rental property was necessary and they
were forcing a lot of people to find dwe2ling units elsewhere. The City has a
significant shortage in multiple dwelling un3ta and if they go in that direction�
it could be a problem. A lot of coffiunitiea were getting complaints from older
people who said they were getting kicked out of their apartments and wanted the
citiee to do something about it. Out East they srere running into the problem oY
a ahortage of multiple dwelling units. Regarding duplexea to individual ownership�
some oP tha communit�es stated they weren�t allvwing this because of lot size
requiret�nts. Some coa�unities in 5t. Paul did not have e problem because they
have a very ama]1 lot eize requirement. The queetion oF individual ovnerehip
PLANNING COhAIIS3I0N A9EETING, JUAIE 6, 1979 ' P� t� (� S
�
raises the problem oY meintenance. S�a co�unitiea atated that as Par as duplexes
go they would split it dawn the middle xith each peraon responsible Por the
maiatenance oP their side and they would have separate services. Regsrding multiple
units� some coIImmunities require an asaociation to maintain the exterior of the
building� aMl the landscaping� etc.
Mr. Harris noted they had recammended to Council that an association be formed to
take care oY the exterior maintenance.
Mr. Franzen referred to the 40 foot lots in thQ City that were preeently considered
unbuildeble and by allo�ing splita, they were allowing special consideration to
lower the lot eize of single family atructures. He etated it would be a problem
if the unit burned drnm and they Would have 40 Yoot lots.
Mr. Flarris atated that was their reaeoning for the aesociat3on and for the land
to be dividmd in co�on.
Mr. Franzen atated they would also have to coasider this as an opportunity for
people to bqy and put their money into a home that will go up in value as opposed
to renting.
Ms. Schnebel stated there was also the benefit of a tax write-off in owning thelr
ovm home.
Ma. Hughes ■tated thst another reason Por allotring this type of thing was that it
was a way to lrnrer the cost of hame oamership.
Mr. Harris suggested they continue thia item a� put it back on the agenda.
Ms. 3chnabel euggeeted they revie�r the minutes from the previoue Plmnning Co�i.seion
meetin�s where this was discussed and see how closely those discussions reflect
the queations Yr� Council.
Mr. Aarria sgreed and suggested they think about it. He asked Mr. Franzen to
have this put bsek on the agende and include in the agenda copies of Planning's
discussi� on this item snd also a copy of the memo "Info. Prom Council" dated
June 4a 1979. Also� a copy of the Council�s minutes from their meeting of
June 4� 1979 pertaining to the Jay Park - Nitscheke Plat� ehould be included.
Mr. Aarrie asked Mr. Franzen who was t�andl3ng the interviewing of the Senior
Citizen's Fiigh-Rise? He had heard there might be some preference being given
and would like to lmow the criteria used in the selection process. He had
received several inquires regarding this.
Mr. Franzen stated he Wou1d look into it.
PLANN7NG COM[�fCS3I0N MEETINGLJUNE 6, 1Q79 - PAGE 2�, 6 T
Mr, LangenY�ld stated that in reading the minutes in regards to the proposed
house in the flood plain� he noticed that the worda "aesuming" and "probably"
were uaed Yrequently. He felt they should be more sure of themselves when
diseussipg sometiliYlg like this,
Mr. Eisrris stated they doubted_the �urvey because it wes taken in Februaxy and
it rrae diYficult to get accurate elevations in the winter.
Ms. Hughea ststed thet the Minuesota Water Reeouz�ces Research Center would be
holding a seriea of regional meetings and in our area� it will be June 19� 1979
at 7:30 at the Earl Brotim ConYerence Center and the topic will be "Citizen
Participation on Water". She felt thia would be of interest.
10. ADJOi3RNA�NT•
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel� aeconded by Mr. Langenfeld� to adjourn the June 6� 1979,
meeting of the Planning Commission,
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTII�G AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURt1ED
AT 11:3� P.M.
Raspectfully Submitted:
/ . //�.. i �/!.�
�� -'�i i���T'1tiT:A:": . t. � • -'�3'. w'�'i�i'r�7