Loading...
PL 10/24/1979 - 6664PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City o4 Fridley AGENDA WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1979 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: RULL CALL: APPROVE PLANNIN6 COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 26, 1979 APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MIN�TES: OCTOBER 3, 1979 l. CONTItdUED: LOT SPLIT REQUEST L.S. #79-04 EDWARD T. BAULER: Split off the Westerly 5� feet of Lot 14, A.S. #22, except the Southerly 390 feet, also Lot 30, Block 2, Irvington Add- ition, and adjoining vacated streets and alleys in Irvington Addition, to 6e sold as open space for an adjoining property, the same 6eing 1420 Rice Creek Road N.E. 2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, 4.S. #79-07 WALLACE L. LARSON: Split off the hortherly 115.78 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Spring Va17ey Addition, the same being 1482 Mississippi Street N.E., to create a new building site 80' x 125' (10,000 square feet). 3. PUBLIC HEARIN6. RFVtFw n� ruF MrccrceroPr orwcfl.rnm�Tnno. 9. 5. :OMMISSION MINI 6. RECEIVE APPEALS COMISSI�N MINUTES: OCT�BER 9, 1979 7. RECEIVE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES i in�n II. CONTINUED: PROPOSED CNANGES TO CHAPTER 205. ZONING 9. OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURNMEN7: PAGES 1 - 11 1-6 18 � 20 2T � 23 24 GREEN PINK YELLOW WHITE SEPARATE ciTSr oF rxinLEx PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 26 1979 CALL TO ORDER: Mr, Langenfeld called Yhe September 26, 1979 meeting of the Planning Commisaion to order at 7:43 P.M, ROLL CALL: Members Present: Ms. Iiughes, Mr. Treuenfels, Mr. Langenfeld, Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel Mr. Harris (arrived at 7:45 P.M.) Members Absent: Ms. Schnabel (represented by Ms. Gabel) Others Present: Bill Deblon, Associate City Planner APPROVE PI�ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTII�ER 12 1979: MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the Septembex 12, 1479, minutes of the Planning Commission with the following corrections: Mr. Langenfeld said on page 3, the Sth paragraph from the bottom the word emission should be admission. Also, on page 12, the 6th paragraph should read: He was ex- officio on the Pianning Commission for over a year and this brought about a fu11 citizen participation and felt the establishment of this (Energy Commission) would be very beneficial to the City of Fridley. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPIAN II9ItRIS DECLARED TI�E MOTION CARRIED UNANiMOUSLY, 1. LOT SPLIT REQUEST. L,S. ,'�79-04, EDWARD T. BAULER: Split off the Westerly 60 feet of Lot 14, A,S. �k22, except the Southerly 390 feet, also Lot 30, Black 2, Irving- ton Addition and adjoining vacated streets and alleys in Irvington Addition, to be sold as open space fox an adjoining property, the same being 1420 Rice Creek Road N.E. Mr. Deblon said the lot was 239.2 feet by 194.5 feet. The petiCioner plans to split off the 6C1 feet on the west side. Staff approached this request with a comprehensive look for the entire area and felt the lot split as shown would not be in the best interest of this area. Mr. Deblon showed a map of the area with a future proposed road on it. He said Mr. Boardman placed the road where the suxrounding land would be used most ef£icient- ly for future residential development. He said any future road in this area would have site limitation 6ecause of the steep elevations. M�. Deblon said this lot would only be 60 feet wide by 239.2 feet deep, making it sub- standard in width. Staft felt this could set a precedenC for this area as there was quite a large amounC of undeveloped land in the area. He stated the plan as drawn by Mr. Boardman is not a definite plan. Mr. Oquist aslced if any developer had approached the city fo�r this tyge of development. Mr. Deblon said no. The staff caas asked to make a comprehensive study of this area be- fore allowing a sma11 piece of land to be split off. Thiscaould foresee future development complications. �� PI.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTII�ER 26 1979 PAGE 3 Mr. Bauler asked why they could not move the road further west and take 1/2 of what was needed for a road from 2 lots. Ms. Hughes �aid this would make many areas unbuildable. They have an obligation to plan for the future and thought the co�ission should get information on this area befoxe deciding on this lot split. Mr. Bauler said Mr. Brickner had asked him to sell some of his land to him befare. Mr. Harris said that was why he felt they should get the intentions of the landawners. Possibly Mr, Brickner was still interested in buying land from Mr. Bauler. Ms. Hughes asked what would be done with the lot split. Mr. Bauler said the adjoining property owner wanted to buy it and use it for a tennis court. Mx. Harris questioned if a11 Che area lots were 4,000 square feet. He said if the road was put in the wrong spot, some land would he landlocked and could not be developed. Ms. Hughes asked about a private road to those lots. Mr. Harris said that brings up a lot of problems and did not think there was room for a cul-de-sac. MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded hy Ms. Hughes, to continue Lot Split request L.S. ��79-04, until the next meeting to allow staff time to contact the landowners in the axea and see what they pxopose to do with their land, to find out Cize lot sizes of the lots to the north of Mr. Bauler's land and also, what the proposed road status was. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN kTARRIS DECLARED TFiE MOTION CA.RRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mx. Aarris asked the staff to noti£y the petitioner if this information was not ready £or the October 3, 1979 meeting. 2. 3AT SPLIT RE�UEST, L,5. �k79-O5, CITY 0° FRiDLEY: Split o£f the West 14.2 feet from Lot I, Block I, Van Cleeve'e Addition. Already split by County, never approved by City, Purpose of the lot split request is to make County and City records agree. Mr. Oquist pointed out there were houses already builE here and asked when the County approved this and why. Mr. Deblon said he did not have answers for those 2 questions, but said it went tax- £or£eit 6 years ago. He said the property owner, Nir. Van Cleves, kept 14.2 £eet out when he sold this land (Lot J) to Mr. Erickson. Right now the land was not owned by anyone and is was suggested that the Lot C pick up the exCra 14.2 feet. fte said the City was looking for a possible lot split on Lots 1-4 and also to build a road off of Benjamin Stxeet to service them. Mr. Treuenfels asked if the property owners had been contacted to see if they wanted to purchase the 14.2 ieet and pay taxes on it. Mr. Deblon said not to his lmowledge. PLANNING COTQiiSSION MEETING SEPTII�ER 2b 1979 PAGE 4 Mr. Harris questioned if the City had street right-of-way along the possible lot splits. Mr. Deblon said no, but they would try to get them. Mr. Harris pointed out this lot was Zandlocked then. Ae questioned how the county could a11ow a split like this to go through. They are the ones who registered the deed and should not have allowed it. It was noted the owner o£ this land was deceased. It also was noted the City of Pridley owns Lot A and was probably a park dedication at the time of the platting. Mr. Langen£eld stated Lot C was 75 feet wide on the one end and 63 Peet on the end by Lot I. Could Lot C buy only 12 feet of Lot I and Lot J pick up the remaining 2.2 feet. Mr. Harris said no, but it would create a jog in the lat lines. He thought the City should put a hold on Lot I, sin�e it was taic forfeit, and not allow Lot J to pick up the 14.2 feet. He reasoned if the lots were split in the futuxe and a ioad put in, thexe would be a 63 £oot lot in the middle of the block. He said the county wants to sell this 14.2 feet and get it back on the tax rolls. He alsn wanted ta know why the City was holding Lot H. MOTTON by Ms. Aughes, seconded by Mr. Lsngenfeld, to recoumiend to Council approval of Lot Split request L.S, 4�79-05, to allow the County and City records to coincide, with the £ollowing stipulations: 1. The City hold on to Lot I. 2. City stafi bring in information on why we haye lot H and what the future development plans are for it. IIPON A VOICE VOTE' ALL VOTING AY&� CHAIRMAN t3ARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 3. LOT SPLIT RE4U�ST L.S. �k79-06, EXEMPLAR. INC.: Split o£f Lat 2, £ram Lot 3, both in Block 2, Shaffer's Subdivision 4k1, both Iots Iying East of the East 90 feet thexeoi, to make two R-1 building sites, the same being 75b2 and 7584 Able Stx�et N.E. Mr. Deblon said this lot had previously been proposed for a double bungalow, but the neighbors had objected because of the rental factor. fihis plan calls for 2, 3 bedroom rambler homes. Mr. Deblon said if they approve the lot split, they would be in a sense approving the variance for lot size. Ms. Gabel said that was not ture, a variance would still be required for lat size. The homes have been placed on the Zot so yard setback variances would not be required. The lot sizes are 7,520 feet each. Air, Deblon informed the petitioner he could build a 2-car garage on the northern lot instead o# a 1-car garage. The garage could be moved closer to the Iot Iine. He also stated it should be stipulated Yhat utility sezvices will be required and they are not in at this time. Mr. Harris said if Council appzoves the lot size variance, they would be acting as the Board of Appeals, The coumiissions are .normally the recon¢nending bodies for the Council an it would be unusual for Council to act as such. PLANNING COMMISSION MGSTSNG SEPTEt�3ER 26 1979 PAGB 5 k1r. Deblon said staff was staisfied With the plan �nd have no pXOblems w7.th Che lot aizes. The land wauld be used at it's best with tlxis pzoposal. Mz. Oquist said 7,500 square �eet was the xecocmnended size by th4 MetropQlitaM GAUneil, taking into considezatian there's less �.and available and ttying to lpwer housi,ng eosts. Ms. Gabel informed Che peC�ta.oner hQ should apply f9x a variance req�est immediet�ly. This would give enough time £oz proper noti.ce and would pot delay hls bui�di.ng sehedule. Ms. Hughes said she thaught the proposal was better auited for the area thzn Che first proposal. Also she was a�i,rm beJ.i�vex of lowexing hAUSfng eost� and th�.� ahould da so. She pointed out the 1ok si,zes were vexy close f,n size Co the ones aeross the stxeet. Mz. Langenfeld asked i� the pxoper iot size was 9,QQq sguase €e�t, and th�se lots would be 7,520 square feet, or a di€ference of i,I+8q sc{uare �eet� wasfl't that a, lazge amount to a11ow £or a vaxzance. The lots are 80 fe�t w1.d� by 9/+ feet deep, with was 5/6 of what was ��t�ui�ed �r �3°(0. Ms. �abel said it was not out Qf 1.i,na and vaXiancss ixave been gsanted befp�e fQr similar xequests. rIOTTON by Ms. I�ughes, seconded by Mr. I.angenfeld to reco�mnend to Council apptova� pf Lot Split xequest L.S, �k79-06, Exemplar, Znc�, to split off I.ot 2� £�om T.pt 3� boEh �n Block 2, Shaf�er's Subdivisi.on 462., both lots 7.ying east of the east 90 �set Che.xeo�, tn make two R-1 building six�s, khe sa;ne be�ng 7542 �nd 7584 Abel Si:x�et N.$., with the following stipulation: 1. Drainage and utility easement be worked out between the tieveZopeY and tha C�ty of Fzidl�y. Mr, Holsten, the petiC�onez, questioned zhe easements. f Mr, Harris said this was an area of the 1ot zetained €or dxainage and u��,J.ity, sueh as underground telephone serviee, that would be used by the Gity i� needed. Usually an easement is 6- 10 €ee� wi.d�, �'he suxvey shows a 6,�oo� easQment on the south line. UPflN A VOIC� VOTE, AJ.� V9T�NG AY�, GHAIRMAN I�RRIS AE�LAjtED THE M�TI9N CARRIEA IINANIMOUSLY. Mr. Harris advi.sed Mr. Halsten to talk with the staf£ pn the easements and variance requests. 4. DZSCUSS MEMORANDUM FROM VIRGIL HERRICK DATED AUGUST 2 1979 AI3D MEMO DATED SE9TEMBER 17, 1979 After reading Che memo, Mr. Oquist said the memorandum implied if a speci,al us� permit was issued, you set a pzecedent. Mr, Harris said the Planning Cuimnission has �lways Cziesi to mai.ntttin that idea, but Che City Attorney's oEfice has jumPed f�^om one side to ttn other. The Supxeme Caurt seems tD agree with the idea it was precedent se�tixig._ Mr. Oquist said the memo al�o said you cannot arbitrarily deny a�equest. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 26,_1979__ _ PAGE 6 Mr. Harris said thae was why they make a specific list oi reasons for denial. For 3nstance in the case of the Tom Thumb request for gas pumps, the denial reasons where only for the gas pumps and not the shopping center. Mr. Oquist noted on the first page, 2nd paragraph, that it was confusing. It states: "Special Use Permits differ from variances in Chat a special use provisional permits property, within broad discretion of gwerning body, to be used in a manner expressly authorized 6y ordinance." Mr. Oquist asked why we need a special use permit if the property was going to be used in accordance with the ordinance. Mr, Harris said there are special uses, such as gasoline stations, that could be hazardous, etc. to the general public. Thoses uses would require a special use permit. Mr, Deblon pointed out this helps give the City a broader control on what was built in a district. Mr. Oquist said the memo also states we cannot deny a special use permit unless it does not meet the requirements £or public safety and welfare. Mr. LangenEeld said the Commission had received an article by the Minnesota Supxeme Court (1976) pertaining to standards for denying a special use permit. The 4 points are: 1, A use that was contrary to a comprehensive land development plan would be reason for a City to deny a request. 2. Further excavation that appears to increase the danger af irrepairable environmental damage was legal reason for denial. 3. The applicants failure to prove a proposed use will not affect the health, safety, morals and welfare of occupants of the surrounding land was sufficient raason f-or denia2. This puts the burden of proof on the applicant and not the City. 4. If the end results was not compatible with the comprehensive plan, that was sufficient, as far as legal aspects are concerned, for denial. Mr. Langenfeid said these were very good points to follow, and he intended to do so. The other coannissian members asked for copies nf this article. Mr. Harris pointed out the memo dated September 17, 1979, sited examples of court decisions. He said the Supreme Court revrewed the decisions directly and not the de- cisions of the lower courts. He said it pointed out that public pressure that was put on a city to deny a special use permit was not sufficient reason for denial. This couunission has had that happen to them many times. Mt. Oquist said the memo states we have to give reasons for denial and also states, if the request was granted, it was precedent setting. Therefore if we give a special use permit once, we will have to do again. Mr. Iiarris said he has argued that point severl times. In the case of secondary buildings on a lot, one in a neighborhood might not be objectionab2e, but a whole hlack of them could be. Ms. Hughes asked why we even use special use permits and how they xelate to a neighbor- hood Iooking alike, She asked if a special use per�it lets a homeowner do what he would like on his lot or does it regiment him to do exactly as his neighbors do. PLANNING CONAtISSION MF.ETING SEPTII4RER 26 1979 PAGE 7 IC seems the special use permit would.allow some individuality wl�ile still adhering to the zoning oxdinances. That gives some protection. She said a special use per- mit was aimost like a minor rezoning. lfs. Gabel said she things individuality in a neighborhood was good and a special use permit allows this spot rezoning. The process may be difficult to ga through to obtain a permit, but it was there and can be done. She felt that was impoxtant. She also said a change in the ordinace now regarding all lot sizes could cause problems with the citizens. The city was almost built to compacity now as £ar as residential 6uilding was concerned� but the special use permit would allow smaller lots where it would be feasible. Mr. Oquist thought smaller lots should be allowed because of housing costs and land shortage. He suggested a change in the oxdinance may be needed to allow this. Mr. Langenfeld said the one thing he liked about a special use permit was the fact r�+- if someone came before them with a somewhat quesCionable request, the commission �could�place controls and stipulations on the requ�st. Mr. Oquist said that only happens when a permit is granted. If the permit was denied (i.e. Tom Thumb request) and the development was sti11 allowed, the control was lost. Ms. Hughes said she felt the staff should be more discrete about mentioning special use permits to developers. Mr, Harris said when they ase going thzough the re-zoning changes they should take out some areas for special use permits. Tt has been a catch-all for many items that should be variances. They are in fact variances to the zoning code and have been called special use permits. For example, the gas pump request by Tom Thumb, was a variance to the zoning in the area and not a special use permit. We would have more control with variances then a special use pexmit. 5. RECENE YUBLIC HEARING NOTICE FROM SPRING LAKE PARK ABOUT A USED CAR LOT AT 83a1 UNIVERSITY AVEATUE N.E. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to receive the Public Hearin� Notice from Spring Lake Park about a used car lot. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN fiARItIS DECLARED TIlE MOTIOi� CAP.RZED UNANIMOUSLY. Since the co�ission was not notified in time of the pu6lic hearing, Mr. Haxris asked Mr. Deblon to see what type of action was taken before this item goes to Spring Lake Parlc's council. Mr. Harris said there was a policy with our neighboring sister cities to inform each othex on what type of developments are planned along the boundries. He felt a used car lot zaasn't maintained as well as a new car lot, but did not know of any z-easons why this request could be denied, The business would fit into the surrounding area. Chariman Harris declared a recess at 9:35 P.M, and reconvened the meeting at 9:55 P.Pi, 6. DISCUSSIDN ON ESTABLISHING AN ENBRGY COMMiSSION �� PLANNING COMMISSZON MEETING SEPTEMBER 26 1979 PAG� 8 Mr. Langenfeld pointed out pages 31 and 32 oE the Energy Policy were in the wrong ozder. He also stated he would like the Energy Policy proposal, as written, be sent on to Council for apprwal and then have the Planning Commission discuss the establishment of the Energy Commission. Ms. Hughes said she thought the Energy Policy was good. It was quite inclusive and somethings would raise some eyebrows, but perhaps they should be raised. She felt in some areas, particularly "City Rules and Regulations" and "Maintenance and Operation", that the work could not be done properly if there was not a representative from the Energy Commission on the Planning Commission. Mr. Langen£eld said he wished to point out the chart in the policy realy ties everything to�ether. It coincides exactly the specifications of the Planning Commission as far as the duties delegated to the Energy Project Committee. Each one o£ the elements were to be delt with and they were. MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms, Hughes, to receive and approve the proposed Energy Policy with the reco¢miendation to City Council that it approve the policy. Mr. Treuenfels noted some items on the chart were listed twice. Mr. Harris said some items had to be planned for in different ways to cwer the entire scope. Mr. Langenfels said there was going to be some type of overlap. He cautioned not to use thi.s chart as a guide or the onZy way to interpret the policy, but rather as an outline ot the Energy Policy. It was also not the intent of the policy to have a pxecise procadure, but to also allow flexibility. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN IiARRIS DECLARED Tf� MOTION CARRIED IJNANIMOUSLY, Mr. Aarris asked Por discussion on setting up an Energy Commission. Mr. Oquist thcugtt the Planning Co�ission should wait until Counci2 acts on the Energy Policy, Mr. Treuenfeis asked if the budget would be affected, Mr. Harris said it would not have a large affect on the budget, and it would be money wi21 spent. Mr. Langenfeld thought the policy "scope" and the ordinance "scope" should zead the same. As it was written now, they aze different. Mr. Harris explained that the scopes were of 2 different types. The ordinance scope was set up like all ordinances setting up a r.ew commission. Ms. Hughes pointed out a typing error in the proposed ordinance. There was a double sentence. 210TTON by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, that the Planning Co�nission recommends to Council approvai of the a�endment of Chapter 6, establighing an Energy Commission. PT.ANNTNG COPII•tISSION MEETING SEPTS'N�ER 2fi 1479 PAGE 9 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AY�, CHASRi�SAN A?.RIZIS DECI,ARED THE MOTION CARRIED Ul'7 ANIMOUSLY . 7. CONTIN(TED: PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 205. ZONING MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to continue the discussian on the proposed changes to Chapter 205. Zoning, until further notice. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, C}3AIRhiAN I�ARIiIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARItIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. RECEIVE COMMUPTiTY DEVELOPI�NT COMMSSSION MiI�IITES: SEPTII�IBER 11 1979 MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr, Langenfeld to receive the Community Development minutes of September 11, 1979. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CIiAIRA1AN HARRIS ➢ECLARF.D THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Oquist said they discussed the cul-de-sac on Glencoe and East River Road and made a recommendation to the Planning Cnmmission to deny the request. He said there wexe other ways to contxol the psoblems here and the neighborhood was working �aith the staff on it. Mr. llarris said thay did not have the r.�inutes on Chis item at the last meeting and Cook no action on it. I�. Dquist pointed out the Community Development's motion for the Planning Commission and the xeasons for denial, MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld to concux with the recormnendation of the Community Development Commission to recommeud to Gity Council, that a nul- de-sac at the intersection of the 500 Block o£ Glencoe Street and East River Road not be considered for the following reasons: 1. Limited access for emergency vehicles 2. Violation of Section 211.0613 oi- the City Code, because Glencoe St. is approximately 800 feet in length 3. Concern by residents of neighboring streets about the increased traific • due to the blockage of Glencoe, The Cort¢nunity Development Commission would also encourage staff to develop alternative soiutions to the traf.fic problems. UPON A VOIC� t�OTE, ALL VOTIATG AYE, CIiAIIL*IAN IIARRIS DECLAP�ED THE MOTION CARR7.�D UNAN71�10USLY , Mr. Oquist p�inted out the continued discussion on conversion of rental propexty to individual ownership property. Mr. Langenfeld asked him to deiixie "relocaCion payraents^ on page 4 of his minutes. Mr. Oyuist said this was i.n the City ot Minneapolis proposed �rdinance on how much :the developer aould have to pay or hel.p pap to an iudividual who is moving out of a building. PLANNING CQMMISSION N1�ETING SEPTEMBER 26, 1979 PAGE 10 Ae felt this whole question oE property conversion was a difficult problem and should be looked into very slowly and carefully. Mr. Langenield asked how many rental units is Fridley could be converted Co ownership property. Mr. Deblon said in the last comprehensive plan survey there were 2,985 units. 0£ these, 2,115 were a£fordable to low and modexate income families. Iiowever, he poiated out, that changes quickly because of inflation, 9. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MIN[TTES: SEPTF,MBER 1$ 19)9 MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld to receive the Appeals Commission minutes of September 18, 1979, with the following correction: Ms, Gabel said on page 5, the 9th paragraph from the top, the portion of the sent�nce reading ...'said she agreed and .., should be omitted. Mr, Harris questioned the staff repores where it says Stated Hardstxip, i.e. pege 6, "Would like to reduce the front yard setback by 6 feet to add an addition." He asked how that can be a hardship. Ms. Gabel said that was not the hardship. The hardship was Chat they needed Che extra living space as the house was small, The Appeals Commission has questioned this area many times, and thought when the petitioner was filling out the applicaCion, it was not made clear to him what was requixed. The applicar_ion was probaUly not checked at the ti.me tkie petitioner filled it out. Mr. Harxis said he has noticed this many times and thought the application wording should be checked so it gives a better guideline as to whht was required, Pis. Gabel said she would mention this to staff and the Appeals Commission. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AXE, CHAIRMAN HAI2RIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED U.'�ANIMOUSLY . 10, OTI3ER BUSINESS: Mr. Harris said he went to the $laine City Council meeting xegarding their new develop� ment Uy Nortlitown. He said this 6 acres was north of our city limits and drains into a re- tention pond and goes from there into Coon Rapid's storm sewer system. The drainage then continues to our Spring Brook area. He said he could not find ottt from the developer, Burlington Northern, if thexe was to be any type of control spots by Spring Brook or skicr¢ning devices on the ret,,ntion ponds far this project. It seemed, even during the construction period, there was not any type of filtering planned. He said he could not find any agreement with Coon Rapids on this and does not remember even beinging invited to their meetings for this project. Ae felt North Parlc would become a silt settling area for this development. Mr. Hazris questioned what type of protec- tion Fridley has for this re�arding amount of flo�a and water quality. Mr. Deblon sliowed drainage maps o£ Blaim and Coon Rapids and said this development would draiu into Coon Creek and into Spring Brook, lie also stated Mr. Boardman had becn in en meetings regar.ding this development, but was not convinced Blaine or Coon �� PLANNING COTQffSSION MEETING SEPTEh�ER 26, 1979 PAGE 11 Rapids was doing what they said they would. Mro Deblon said North Park has been a natural holding pond for many years and has heen assimi2ating the run-off effectively. He stated water samples taken from Spring Brook have been of good quality. Mr. Harris pointed out this area has not had to handle this much run-off befoxe. He stated if we get an excess of water and lesser grade of water quality, we could xuin North Park. He felt people dumping their water into our drainage system should control it and clean it up, particularly silt that wi11 be coming down. Ms. Hughes said there was much moxe land under asQhalt no� and that extra water has to go somewhexe. Mr. Harris said this development may only be 6 acrQs, but you take 6 acres here, 4 acres there, etc. and ie soon adds up. This will add to the pollution problem. He felt put upon by Coon Rapids and Blaine regarding the water they wese sending down. He suggested some sort of an agreement between the cities should be set up if this gets out of hand. Mr. Deblon said a watershed district £or this area could be an answer. Mr. Harris said we require developers to follow the standards of the Rice Creek Watershed District, even if they are not in the watershed. Our sister cities should be doing this also. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Langen£eld to check into a proposed meeting on October 17, 1979, regarding the kIighway 10 development. He asked to make sure someone was represented from the Environmental Quality Co�ission at the meeting. Mr. Aarris also asked staf£ to notify the Planning Coromission of any meetings or developmenis regaxding the Highway l0 question plus the Northtown drainage problem. ADJOURNAg,T7T : MOTION by Mr, Langenfeld, seconded by Mr, Txeuenfels to adjourn the September 26, 1979, meeting of the Planning Commission. UPON A VOICE VRTE, ALZ VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS pECI.ARED THE MEETTNG"ADJOURNL+D AT 11:Q5 P.M. , Respectfully submitted, ! " C�� ,�. � � � / Ir`aula Long, Recordi-ng Secretary v CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEtiTING OCTOBER 3 1979 CALL TO OliDER: Chairman Harris called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 P.M. ROI�L CALL: Members Presene: Mr. Harris, Ms. Hughes, Mr. Oquist, Mr. Treuenfels, Ms. Gabel Members Absent: Ms. Schnabel,(represented by Ms, Gabel), Mr. Langenfeld (arrived at the end of Che meeting) Others Present: Jerry Boardman, City Planner and Bi11 Deblon, Associate City Planner 1. CONTINUED: LOT SPLIT RE(?UEST. L.S. ��79-04. EDWARD T. BAULER: Split off the Westerly 60 feet of Lot 14, A.S. 9k22, except the Southerly 390 Feet, also Lot 30, Black 2, Irvington Addition, and adjoining vacated streets and alleys in Irvington Addition, to be sold as open space for an adjoining property, the, same being 1420 Rice Creek Road N.E. Chairman Harris asked Mx. Boardman for comments on this request. Mr. Boardman told the Planning Covanission when considering this item, that it was very important to consider planning for the whole district. The entire area was quite large with many undeveloped lots. He stated other landowners in this area hzve contacted him regarding the question of lot splits. His two main questions were how to get access to all of this land and what kind of use the land would service Fridley best. He realized Mr. Bauler only wants to split off 60 feet, 6ut this would make the lot substandard in width and a very deep lot. This lot could become landlocked in the future. When planning we have to look at 15 to 20 years down the road. He realized this wi11 put a burden on Mr. Bauler now. The City already has a 30 foot road right- of-way along I-:r. Bauler's land. This was platted many years ago on the old Irvington Addition. Ali the streets and alleys in the area have been vacated. The City would have to obtain an additional 30 feet to make room for a road. Mr. Boardman recommended denial of the lot split. Mr. Harris said the reason for continuing this request was the question of access to the rear properties, plus, to find out what the other property owner°s intents where. Mr. Boardman said they did not ask each owner what their intent was, because perhaps in 5 years from now they may sell to a developer and we have to plan for that now, Mr. Harris said they were also looking for some sort of a plan for this area. Mr. Boardman said tl�is was what he did on his proposed road plan and lot plan. Because of lack of time, everything was not planned from an engineering standpoint, but the plan as far as a road system, lot division and lot size was feasible. He asked if we do this split now, what problems are we creating down the line. Ae xecommended denial because the lot would be too narrow. It �vould be only 60 feet wide, which was substandard and that has never been allowed before. If the cocmnission okays the lot split, it would be saying the lot was buildable, whicti was not true. Mr. Boardman questioned if PLAAINING COi�1ISSI0N MEETING OCTOBER 3 1979 PAGE 2 the Coimnission could legally apprwe the lot split because it would be going against the ordinance requirements for size. Mr. Boardman also recoimnended denfal because the rest of the land would be inaccessibleand the City could not get the needed road right-of-way. Mr. Harris asked if the terrain was too steep for roads. Mr. Boardman said there are variations in the terrain, but there are low points which are fairly level and could be serviceable. The proposed plan was about the best one for road access and creating lots. Ms. Gabel pointed out on the proposed road plan, some houses were in the way. She questioned what happes Co them. Mr. Boardman replied this xoad plan was not definite. It may have to be moved around for those homes, some lots made smaller or larger or if the price was right, the developer would purchase the hom� and relocate them. Ms. Hughes asked how many property owners were affected. Mr. Boardman said the land was owned by 9 homeowners and they each have a large amount of land. He then showed a map of each homeowner's land. Mr. Boardman suggested to Mr. Bauler to split off some other area of his land. Mr. Bauler, 1420 Rice Creek Road, said he has a buyer for this land already and he did not want to sell anymore of his land. Mr. Boardman said this neighbor would be able to put in his tennis court, with this lot split aud then split off his original land and sell. He has seen this happen , before. �fr. Bauler would then be left with inaccessib2e land on his back property. Mr. Robert Barnette, 541 Rice Creek Blvd., speak3ng as a friend for Mr. Bauler, pointed out the only reason Mr. Bauler was selling was because of financial need. He said if he sold this 60 fee[ to his neighbor, ultimately the tennis court would go in, and when the road was needed, it would be part of the. neighbor's land that would be condemned. The burden would be on the purchaser of the property, not on Mr. Bauler. It would be up to the neighbor to settle on the cost of this lot, not Mr. Bauler. The burden should not be on the petitioner because of something 20 years down the road. . Mr. Boardman said the burden was on the City, because they would be saying the lot split was buildable and it was not. Mr. Harris said he did not see how the Planning Co�mnission could approve a lot split for this size because it goes against the ordinance. Mr. Bau1er said he did not want to se11 off more of his land closer to his house. That was all part of his home and he had lived there since 1938. Mr, Harrfs said there have been no lot splits of less than 75 feet since 1966. Ms. Gabel asked if C,C, would buy another configuration of his land. Tlie Commission tried to work out vaxious ways to split the land, but because of needed read right-of-way and futuxe land development, nothing was feasible. Also, Mr. Bauler PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 3 1979 PAGE 3 cauld not agree with any of the su�ge�tions because it would infringe on his home and his life style. Mr. Bauler stated he wanted to leaue his land to l�is childxen. Mr. Harris suggested splitting off the land along Rice Creek Road, leaving an accesc to his home. This lot would be more valuable then the original request, somewhere in the area of $15 - 16,000. This lot would also meet all the requirements. An easement would ba given for future road right-of-way to give access to the land to the Year. This split would stillleave Mr. Bauler the land asound his home and allow him to do what he wants with it. Mr. Barnette pointed out that �he neighbor was not interested in.tl�is land. Mx. Harris said considering land shortage and the location, Chis lot should sell very easily. Mr. Boardman suggested leasing the land the'neighbor wasnted for his tennis court and also split the front lot on Rice Creek Road. The proposed road plan would then be shifted be along this lot and an easemenC could be dedicated for road right-of-way when the_lot was sold. This would satisfy the neighbor's plan, and give Mr. Baulter the"money-he requires and still leave 2 lots left of his land. Mr. Bauler said he fought placing a road here in 1967, but looks now like he has losC. Mr. Barnette asked what type of procedure Ed would have to go thru. Mr. Harris said he would only need a lot split for the land on Rice Creek Road. He also su�gested working out a written aereement with the neighbor on leasing the land for the tennis court. This should include and easement for access to the tennis court for motorized vehicles. Mr. Harris said they would continue this item until hir. Baulter had time to talk with his neighbor ori this proposaT and"caork out the new lot split. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Hughes, to continue Lot Split Request, L.S. �k79-04, Edward T. Bauler, until further notice. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN t3Aft1iIS DECLARED THE MOTION G(�:�IED UNANiriOUSLY . 2, RECEIVE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTF,S: SEPTIIIBER 13 1979: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms.Gabel Yo receive the Housing an' Redevelopment minutes of September 13, 1979. Mr, Boardman pointed out the motion on page 3 regarding the discussion on . reliminary Development Srandards and the Center City Project. "Motion by Mr. Houck, seconded by Mr. Prieditis, to recommend to City Council, through Planning Commission, that they adopt some guidelines for controls sim- ilar to the "Preliminary Development Standazds" to be implemented in the zoning ordinance. Upon a Voice Vote, all voting aye, Chaitperson Gommer.s de- clared the motion carried unanimously. � He said he was presently working on zoning controls for the Center City project' and should be bringing them to the Planning Conmmission soon. ile �ated he �aas looking at this area as an overlay district wliich would requfre Special Use Permits for all buil- dings in the Center City project. Special Use Pexsnits would take care of variances, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 3, 1979 PAGE 4 with proper notice. Mr. Haxris asked if he had a timetable for the development. Mr. Boardman said he hopes to get a brochure out to developers by mid-November. That puts any firm development commitment into January or February. He felt if everything was done in a year's time, we would be doing good. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN ITARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTEP�ER 18,_,1979: MOTION by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the Environmental Quality Commission minutes of September 18, 1979. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN }IAItRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4. CONTINUED: PROPOSED Ci3ANGES TO CHAPTER 205. ZONiNG: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels to continue the discussion of Proposed Ciianges to Chapter 205. Zoning. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN liARItIS DECLARED THE MOTTON CARRIED UNAI4IMOUSLY . Mx. Boardman asked the commission to set up a special meeting to-discuss the zoning changea only, This was the only poztion of the re-codification that had to be done. MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to hold a Special Meeting of the Planning Commission to discuss Proposed Changes of Chapter ZOS. Z�ning, on Wednesday, October 10, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. in the downstairs classroom. UPON A VOICB VUTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN IjARItIS DECLAR�D THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Harris asked to have this meeting posted because it was a special meeting. 5. OTHP.R BUSINESS: Mr. Treuenfels asked if the number of housing units (Comprehensive Plan) suggested by the Metropolitan Council was subsidized by other agencies. Mr. Boardman replied yes. He atso stated he has had some discussions with the Metro- politan Council on the number of units to be made available in a 10 year period. The Council now feels it cannot require a community to build X number of homes in 10 years if the Federal monies are not available. They now look at a 3 year period and say we have so much money that can be granted to a community and therefore the units will be built according to the monies available. This does not change the goals or objectives of the Comprehensioe Plan, but will change some numbers in the impleroentation process. Mr. Treuenfels aslced iE the funds come through the Metro Council, PLANNING COMMISSION MEGTING OCTOBER 3 1979 PAGE 5 Mr. Boardman said the Metropolitan Gouncil was an "A45" Review Coccm�itCee and only made sure the money granted by HUD or Minnesota Housing Finance was used propexly. Mr. Boardman said he had talked to Coon Rapids on the drainage question for the new 6 acre development on Hwy. 47 in Blaine. He said he got all the reports, charts, stati:stics, etc, from the architect firm that was developing this axea and was satis- fied that proper controls on quantity and quality of drainage were being used. They are using a 100 year rain or 24 hour - 6 inch rain run-off, which was the same re- quired by the Rice Creek Watesshed District. The problem now, was there wete no present storage controls for run-off. There was a lot of silting in the area and the developer was embarrassed by that. He said they wi11 6e cleaning the ditches of this silt in the next 2 to 3 weeks. The quantity of run-o£f was being controlled and the quality of the water was improving. Mr. Boardman stated there had been no silting into North Park, only the ditches. Mr. Boardman inCroduced the Critical Area Plan that was passed out tQ the commission. He asked for a Public Hearing on October 24, 1979, to discuss this. He said this was to have been sent to the MinnesoCa Environmental Quality Com¢nission in September for rev iew . MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to receive the Mississippi River Corridor CriCical Axea Plan. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAiRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRZED IINANLMOUSLY . Mr. Oquist asked if this was the same as what was in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Boardman replied it was the same up to page 21, After that page it was new and should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. However, he noted on page 26, these requirements are state requirements and have been in ef£ect since 1976. He asked the members to pay close attention to Che regulations when reading through. There axe many requirements under Federal regulaCions concerning bluffs, visual, vegation, set- backs, etc. He said signing was noC covered in this plan as that had been taken care o£ by the existing code requirements. Mr. Harris said he noeiced a 4 feet x 8 feet yellow sign along the river by 62nd Ave. regarding boats. He did not think Chis sign should be there. Mr. Boardman said he would check into it. Ms. Hughes asked abouC the status oE the Great River Road funding on the F,MaC. pxoperty. This is covered in this plan. Mx. Boaxdman said it was good. Funding was available, 75l Federal and 25/ local. He understood there was mohey for the house, taking ovex the salt storage area and aquiring caalkway easements along the river by Georgetown AparL-ments. There will be a walkway along the river irom island of Peace to the Minneapolis Water Works and possibly con- nect np to the Camden liridge bicycle path. Within the nexY 4 months, Island of Peace and the rest of this property will be designated by the Metro Council as a regional park, PS.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 3 1979 PAGE 6 Mr, Txeuenfels questioned page 21 were it reada . ."the City will take Che following measures: Ammend Chapter 205 nf the City Code to inalude special development regula- tions for the corridor." �r. Boardman said this was what the Critical Area Plan will do. We are incorporating state regulations with our own. D�. Gabel pointed out some oE the state requirements were to� loose. Mr, Boardman said they are loose, but those requlations are encompassing the entire river. We help interpret them and then add our own requirements. Ms. Gabel asked how we find out if we are consistant with other communities on this plan. Mr. Boardman explained the process was to have our City approve the plan first, then send it to our sister communities for approval. From there it goes the Metropolitan Council for approval and on to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Coimnission. The MEQC looks it over and sends it back to us to tell us where to change or strengthen our requirements. Mr. Boardman also noted L.S, �k79-O5, City of Fridley, that was discussed at the September 26, 1979, meeting. The commission had questioned the status of the lot owned by the City of Fridley. ?'his lot was not a designated park area, but rather a drainage area for dumping of storm sewer water. As of now, the City has not decided whae. to do with it. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Treuenfe2s, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting o£ October 3, 1979. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLAR�D THE MEETING AD.TOUItNED AT 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, r' � Paula��ecording ecretary . CITY OF FRIDI.EY � 1� L�% :.� T �3.�,.�.��� APPLICANT: ��Y� n. , � J �. a- �-�� � nvn��ss: 1`/' Q CnZ� ���au�� �--�. � ' 5treet City Zip ode TLLEPHON� �E �7 / 33' 0 `f S- �—_ Home �D= °A IPROPERTY OWNIIt(5) C��,wnn.�'X �' �cc.�-vCl�/ �/%%aN�[ 'F� � VJCei.+.e—P/✓ nDnxESS(ES) iy �o e�,�^ L, � ,, _ . . ��-� liate File� Fee:$���eceipt 'lao Council Action:Date gFMARKS: - . 5 SY 3 z� �tireeti ..y �, , � .� � � �� �� Street City Zip Code TELEPHONE �(S� % ` 5� �-- Home auai��. /� Property Location on or Ebcact Street Addr y c /% %% ,3'y�� 3 2 8 L S-S- (IF . Property: ��2. r,-s�'1���- d-�-'^L� a �-1-- �-�"3 � �- � -+�s���.,..r_r-L�� i Z 4ir.z h _ r{- Property sq. £t. C'� / 0 L�etl� � o�N++u� cr�-^ �te�`°�'u' `i-- ant 2'ne undersigned hereby declares that a11 the facts a.nd representations stated in this application are true and correct. DATE• BELOW FOR CITY iTSE Oi�LY CHECKED SY STA1F DATE Kemarks: ___ ca (Seb reverse side £or additional �nstructione PLANNING COMMISSION: Date of Consideration -_� Remarka: CITY COUNCIL: Date of Consideration - ' Remarks• ,:.-;---- , Edward Bauler • ' ' ' 1420 Rice C�¢k Road Z9 L•( �J � 4 � �- � -- �..--- .�� ; _ ; . �-_:___ _ . _. - . . � � � � � . ,.. . ___ . , - � .,. ; i.. I . _.____ _ _:___�; � � � . . ___.- _ _— �. d _� � � : .�. . . . � - . . I.J a + . ` • � , �'�.� . . . . . : ' � . � - '�� a ` _ _--._� '� , . . � ' ! i -� r . — . - '.. _ _ /. . . i ' , '�� / � , � • � � . ti . . ' . ' . , ..'. _ . . . . . � . . .- ' : . ' . . i z . ' � a.�P-$�-�zZ • � ��� -��:3x _ , _, � (. , �� . fi �- a a �„n..�. - . I «&P. .� �e¢ � O_ �'�i�.iG 6- a 'tl.,yi+-' ` �� \ . � - n �Q ='.-_ _ . l %" - . �: , � - � , ' � � �� �` � � a: . Q , ���� : �. � � � , , �, /� . . . ' � ' ' ..�. � � ` � � ` � ❑ . ' • . 0 .� - � o . - � �. � � --_- �-a - ; o [� � � � .. _ /�:./ i.i;/,��_ � .a C�. s`� 5�f .s � ' I�/CF C�r��-� �� . c���, �,����� �'�l�'�. �� : . � ,.mo.�ward_Bauler. �__ r � r �""� 1... ; .,._._:�._ �....�.------------ . --MIS�I:,,�IPP' �T . � Sp .✓p I�lS7 /.7 i:f /Jf /.'d il. /1i .lf ./r . �0 ,�,�,""�^`". i ti 1314 � 1340 {35g 1376 1400 i4z8 144z 1464 �462 j .�' • M•. . , % 6 ., . i4o,; . 3 i � 1 ` ��c� ._ �I`4' ` (�20) �440� �360� �2801 (?_O�) (r20) •' . �b. � L_ _v ., � � .a�>,• � I e `''1 �.7 �. q ,( � , �, 1 �, 4 1 h I N`J � H� ry n �J � �� 9 / J ✓ � u ! r .� i� �, � r�' �, !.I � � , 644 ' � h t -" � . , s9°7 � �, , . ; • '� Sal ss /.sJ ' • ' � : � � : 6441 3ioc� . i6c' t � _, +i _ _, -; ;,r, M iyoo) /d � p � r , ... : ', : '/I� \ _ A I _... � !'J .'�l:i Y. '� ."�� , j� Y I � t/L . . .w�va r b�i'l.0 � i 75{ : t.. � (7�0� (Soal � �HO� '' .Y h � � � bAZi �i � o �560� � t49o� �4007 /32d� �'�� '�a ✓B�l � � ;- 6��1t° � ,� Cj ��f if_`__.�9 - � /�l /z . V `�i `� ' ` x : ,, �.�; ? FrA01 13�1.13 7,; � 1423 i�6o� �j5�j {QF�9 ��,,.r.^,��.rtc, � ` 148? I . `:� � /�`�`'' J� d '•� 1373 ,1385 140� � 1443I145j3 I J`r (,'�'I � �. 3 3! � - y _� /.'S � /)f rf � .� i J � Se i5 co /1! •5 � ..� vd - Cr�� � 64TH AVE. �� �,0� ���. l,+�t `��". „ . � �., ��i9s,u . pf � /Ff IS ilf ico � S� :f � it' 1 I 1/ZS � f :. � t` ° ' �+6391 �" ` `" 1364 1400 1426 ��4z145o�� a �9 ; �:'-�,•, � a \ (��o� � 340 �, �/.7:�i �( � �21oJ �roa% � � aJ ; b j 6 � �d (E'�) � 6's�L; '�; ... : � JjuFII 1356 Ciq�y � '(°oa) �e�p)I ^J, ppp��� : • , � � W�1 °VL " h��� ? � . � •I,y V' i � ,,, ' . _ _ li9> ' °� /3 �� j 9 7 �' S ,�, � " -, �E- c � �v I ,�,�,zq> , ,, � .:•„ �� �tC � (/'�g, �. I "' � � ': � � ' I � r 4 � y �� :'i.: � ��0 „�`- M- � � &J � '� f i ;, �- /7 .' `� �F''__"`:i',._•'_ _ y �, 3 4 5 -- - -- �ddGf y � f}SOa1 : � �:��'' ;. .°, � r � \ 4ll97 : ° �� . _�_._�' „1 ;_..__. ; j - . /�` ", O " ,s-.fo) -_. t 4 z �3i�, . . �.:,: �'= ;:s �z6oJ / (�aol �i� /� \ ' ; �. . ;� � J�o � ; ,;>��:,.: � � � • x .-- —� � L_ �: :;�:�- . ; -; :�� ��,- ; 5 ., .,. � > i � { i � ,.. (//DOi i�/020,) ��940� I CE6C� ,�� a. ti e; I � � I — ; ,; . � i{ � j.: i.Ny . i . 4 (; � -,- h .� ff9 � ' � `c �3:9- �- --:`.,i iaz5 Y ; _`;-:�.�. . �;CF ��7:;RE�� k�0�� ..- .. ,•�r, ; ; , .:. . _ . �,: , , ,...,,. �, h29t ...�7.__..._.�a`l:>:. i i 1400 ,�N . . a -t3��o � � h tre; � h.�.'3�] -. ..� =rr\� � � i, ' � (� f.<: ' �� r'liR1 i I �.^:'n r% '`"' i6' 15 .o :•, • . :n- � . .9 1.� � .;�... - 'Cl I � � Ei:.lt if . ._� �, i '�. 10 � �''.S � �.� ` ' `I � �' II 1�L• .11P ' t 4�� v�l .. :u. f✓: / �n t.i:;G: 1 i1J — �g�a ��-�€�. i J ��9 �� I .,.� 1 1[) � � . ix}; ' � n' ;; F,`f ��:f�, � w fl' � � ._._...�. ���- ._... � +.; ��.....��._�..-�- , ' � p� ' i , , � �.�� . � :� 6� ,i {d`�; 4 t4bl s�i,o '. iaa,.� £t ir'8: � Z ¢° !�°. �,—._ L.1 1�-���� � � s��j � ...5 U^�t / hzt�3 -=�3- �J ; _a � 4��y �I��' �,:; __ _ _ _ . .��C�'��`;'t : C �` s f• �: C.� `��a..-� l._.;:L... Q` y:il C i r- ' Z� ., ��q7 q n�JI� ., . `�`� �-.Y/t_W ' �� k.+r , G O�, x b.. ; s ��`� � \s �= ,�S 4!� � u R � je, '�' � � ; a �� , : . �C)'i/ � �' � t f + �w� �"'� �� e i �' ��y �� � i'. s J� :�R' I J•t �1 . � �,�. +" � �. . � . .!r-.. ,:�. I f. . � �,d .. t '�. ' �A � �. ... � . ♦ . � � .! �� I �lY• � �i: Ae �� � 1 'I '+ . `S � , . ' 1 ' -, - '.�:._ _�.�..".�_...._. �, , ;� � ; 10 w .,, � . *, F. . �. .` ,s.., _. 4 .i � � ' + ''rr�' _._ ..y F < � �--ti-_.._.�t__._...r.....+F ' � . � • i .f f F'� . � J (� 6�! 4 � � r .{ � �� [' � . n _..q.,y-. � a,iN ��� . �• t�� � , � ". :', 'Y4 4� ` � ..'r�� ir' !, � i `� �� � ��. . � � � �'�. .j �L .�: r_...• �, 1 ` � 1 '' j ` ' � ,:,i�..w, . l { ' > 3 `! �, � n�'r.. f i. � . � . , . /J I' '7 . � R�� � � •N � m s: m � 0 f..'�' U � � .c: 2f Y r—� 3 � .� N a. � o m o •.+ Y � �as O U `� v � � � � O U W � m N+�',��' am+� G1�Y UI- rH�ll�tr APPLICANT:�,l��cLAnt= ( C /�/��� n�nx�ss: /y�3� /�%i�� sT, N�' r,��ir ,< HE TELEPHONE # c 'S// � . � "JI. � 'JI' i� �1 j �r� c � �� , ,..�F orrT,v Applicant�� Name Lot Split —o' Date r�iea: Fee:$���"! eceipt ���2 Council Action:Date REMARK3: ADDRESS(ES) Street City Zip Code TELEPHONE #( Street City Zip Code Home Property Location on Street or FScact Street 9ddress (IF Legal Ilescription o£ Froperty: Business �: The undersigned hereby declares that all the £acts and represe.ntations stated in i:his application are true and correct. DATE: BLL�OIJ F'OR CITY USE ONLY �Se� severse side for additional instrcctions� CHEChlill 13Y STAFF DATE ..� tion Hemarka: PLANNING CCMMISSION: D�te of Consideration - Remnrka: CITY COUNCIL: Date of Considexation - Remarka: M�I�PPI � n DESCR(P'T1DN: LOTI� 9LK1, SPRIN6 VALLEY (IX.TH�S.105� 11iERE0F) � � � �: � /i �� 22 � No�TM ��,�, VV I NEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYO UNDwER TfiE IAWS OF TNE STATE OF MINNESOTA. � MERLYN . "SK " ANDERSON DATE 9f 25/%y REG. N0. 13596 . . ,, 23 � +Ul..�uu��� ..,� _ . ----� :.�P . - � _—�,�..----- - „� ' /ff iif -�.�f„ 7i� �M. nr.r '. M �: �r. r. .r _ vr � � � (���t1 a �It /.1� . -x„ � � � � ^ � A� [ i i f g � 1 " � , �,C (P�rk� L� )� i200� �� 20% � . � a�P/. ) , � �Q� � - �,r \� J� o u t t�'{ :. Oot/it .9 C/i J `�60 0 1� 3 3 k y� k 7L` N�s c e � esE�� ssi.y � NAa '': . ta ,C 11 . ,� v � � � f9/ � 1�i ♦ �i�c � � � ' 6• t s , � � '�. '..� �9� "{ 9 �•• ' r' � ii ��c . z c,�y .� F..ri�y ��� � �B� �80� e � pdr�lY O�f�) Io) 2� aK ,.ro t w � ,sa of s � ' > � �%• v� SCAG� �"� �z, �s 7 �� d �i � a /%240� � . � _ � .azei `R � � se I ss oo /tt fi � �i �iii . . . .�i ,e; �� � _ , �,. � v. .� � t�� _ � � G -.� � s• ��r u isa �� 9 `i :�• �5. ai. i� � �. I r.«��t s ¢ �.. s.in'n" . ir. y ��� ���) I9io) 'soo)I(Bzdl j�B�o) �.. $ iL � ~n.� �` � /G • '-`� r� w'/z E� ` t � stsr � w r' s � �`t��4�� 4� 4� t I °o � .r ��ra _ �°�F%B �> i1P �IO QI/.ti,�11 �017 j �I1 '� 1 R � '�/T a o l�' a i � o � i � � � . � � yL :� �.i, .�.d� m t i i � � � ����,. e� ,r .a ti� '� ' ` LA N E' N.E •I I �1�" Z � ` ��o.�:� �•%+'", ` i h . Y. .n A ar : • i x il:.. �� }� i _3$, f-.��J.�A.���d�.�rs. ��r ��r u RO. ESrr . ,, w '� -- — ,r ,r ,� ,rs ��,;,�;k 3e eff pi1 �!i i� ; � qi` � ds �� � t �oJ <iozoJ C9ao/ Ca6ol 4 1� 4 T z e�ri � W: (Sf� �� � t � Q� .atwsl �'. -. �<l �.:� : TS ^ � � ��'.o'ur ,�r�r,n� � � •: 9 �: 1G � I � 6 ¢ ( o !Le%rM r iYe�min � � ♦ �� o� � ° � � � � .n� �O �,a. � ' ^ � (6 �. 3 G` 7� L+L� ��, �� f�� �? ti 79�) 1�� _ .... - ,M s st �s .•ss ; � '� f +-. .. ___ y' �� ' � J' ' e,_3� �° ' I�{�LJN• � .�.s , �';�. �I�7�� . ]�� ._„V.'Mb� J.q'qw< .. ���� ••. p � ._ .. �l . 1 /ln!! ' � � ' n � . b f ,..`� ir.r � _ h«�' . 1 �` / �. � �. J.�li' �` a 1 � � Z ; � � � / � ` / $ 1'� 1 (0 e ////4' o �� : � a. p : 1 � • ��t ♦ !rta � �` 3 ;r.�.�.! h/ic.ieT.<q' lo� � ' ..` j T M ./ N � Y �r iirw O�/nsA.' �, fp ' /�`� Lt : t � � o Z � 'f •'yn� HirJtad � i+ � ` ` '�C,, Fc �j 1 G : � :`s �. � �� 34. N � � 6�r $� � . . - , � q ` y4er'�' �. tt - .,� � ' fQ p t rp .��cc a . ua • a <,..w \� i J 'f 11.1�� wA" ��`� V� � S� "W���S� °DCOLi�T� I , F i� s� x: � + f� �'..�. -�� � rer :° : � � .M�� . c.a,vE � ; ` � ; � s , ,'� ` ° .� �.� i� . a ,.�4 .. _ 1 _ . � � .' i ..� i 2u PUQLIC HEARING - BE�ORE THE ' PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Planning Comnission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, October 24, 1979 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of: Review of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Plan for the City of Fridley. Copies are available for review in the Planning �epartment prior to this meeting date. Any and all persons desiring to be he�rd shall be given an opportunity at the above time and place. RICHARD M HARRIS CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: October 10, 1979 October 17, 7979 . . .. . . . ... ... . .. .. . . . ^�'^T PrtRKS & RTiCIt�ATION COMMISSIOIQ MEETING SEPTEMBL"R 19, 1979 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Barbara Hughes called the September 19, 1979, Parks & Recreation Commission meeting to order at 7:42 p.m. ROLL CALL: Memhers Present: BarUara Hughes, Betty Mech, Dave ILondrick, Dick Young Members Absent; .Tan Seeger Others Present: Charles Boudreau, Parks & Recreation Director APPROVAL OI' AUGUST 15, 1979, PAF.KS & RECREATIOAT CON`NIISSION MINVLES: MOTION by Mr. i'oung, seconded b�� Mr. Kondrick, to anprove the Au�ust 15, 1979, Parks & Recreation Commission minutes as written. Upon, a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairperson Hughes declared the moticn carried unanimously. I. DIR�CTOR'S REPORT: k1. Meeting with SocceY Renresentatives: Mr. Boudreau stated that as a resul.t of last month's Commission meeting, he had met with the PYSA - Soccer represeatatives. The meeting went well, He had suggested sane things to them such as having two teams sweep and pick up the field before the game to avoid the problem of rocks and glass. He stated the irrigation was almost completed in the Locke Park area, it would be reseeded again, and should be a viable field for soccer nexC year. They also expLored the use of the area behind Che Jr. High for practice fields where the baseball diamonds are now located, and that was acceptable wiL-h the soccer representatives. At Burlington Northern, the City hoped to put some fill over that area to keep the sandburs down and fill up the holes. It wi11 be fa11 seeded and, hopefully, it wi11 be satisfactory for play next spring. He stated that with a good year in football, the foot- ba11 £ield at Commons should be available for soccer use also. Mr. Boudreau stated he felt the soccer people were satisfied with what `�he City �aas trying to do. He stated the soccer people were going to assist the City with manpocaer cahere needed and will probably have a general clean-up next year before the soccer season begius. PnRKS & R�CREATTON COMMLSSIOIQ MCETING S�PTEM6ER 19, 1979 - YAG�_3 Mr. Boudreau sL-ated that the City was sti11 trying to resolve the matter of. payment to the School Distr.ict for use of �chool facilities. Mr. Qureshi, Mr. Kirk, and himself had met with Mr. Tom Myhra, and Mr. Qureshi offered to pay $5,000 a year for three years ($15,000 total) as a donation Lo Community Educat-ion. This money w ould cover the custodial fees or pool supervision fees that the City might incur. That was agreed upon, Mr. Myhra went back to his administrat-ion, and it came back to the City.that the $5,000 would be acceptable for Community Education, but the custodial fees sti11 had to be paid differently. That was neiCher accepted or rejected so now the City �oas back at the starting point of $10,000. Mr. Boudreau stated that the Mayor and the City Council members were involved because they were deeply concerned about both the Teen F,E,S,T. program and the payment for use of school facilities. iI. CHAIRPERSON'S P.EPORT: Ms. Hughes stated that she had not yet been able to 5et up joint meetings with the Human Resources Commission and the Environmental Quality Commission. She would try again to get in touch with them. Ms. Hughes stated that there was a public hearing in Blaine that evening on development of some property near North Par.k which could have some water run- off effeces on North Park. The rridley Planning Commission was concerned enough to have someone from the City atr_end that meeting. Ms. Hughes stated she had talked �aith the Planner on the Nor.thtown Corridor. The current status on that was that the noise report was done and Che air quality report was partially done. They have settled on two alternatives - one south of Banfill Island and one which would go directly across the river, which appears to be the most likely place for the crossing. Ms. Aughes stated there caas virtually no money to build a new Highway 10, so she felt they were going to upgrade Highway 10 past Northtown and that there were going to be severe air quality problems in intersections down from North- town, which could stop construction. There was no money at a11 for 610 on the other side of. the river at this point. She stated it looked like the bridge caould probabiy be built, but there were going to have to be a lot of accormnodations to the air quality. She felt this was fairly encouraging news, because now the "no-build" option became more xeasonable. III. NEW BUSINESS: A. Director's Philosophy: Mr. Boudreau stated he had given the Commissioners some material on the direction their sports program caas talcing, plus a three-page report on his philosophy. Administrative Process - Mr. Boudreau stated he believes in the humanistic approach to administration. He tries to involve the peoPle worldng for PARKS & RECRL'ATION CONIl�'iISSION MEETING SL�PT1sMI3�K 19 1979 - PAGli 4 him and with him at every level of the decision-malcing process. He also believes in Yhe eeam approach Co eperaeion. He stated there is a fine line between Chat kind of practice and the times when direct orders are given, and he is very caref-ul with that judgemeut. Mr. Boudreau stated he also atlows, by nature of their jobs, the £lexiUili.ty of working hours. The office is open frrnn 8:OOa.m. to 5:00 p.m., but they are generally worlcing from 8:00 a.m. until 11-12:00 p.m. He cam�ot' expect professional seaff to be in the office from 8:00 a.m. and operate effectively until midnight, so they have a working arrangement with houzs on the team approach. Mr. Boudreau stated tiiat the planaing, the organization, and the controlling of acitivities, whether. Maintenance, Naturalist Division, or Recreation Division, is on a team approach. Theq work closely with the Plannino Department and with other departments around City Hall so they can plan their total program no matter what division it is: . Scope of Recreation in Society of Today - Mr. Boudreau stated he felt he had covered most of this in his phi:losophical approach to what he f.eels is the imporCance of leisure and c��hat he feels is tt�e importance of the pur.suit of happiness for. every individual. He strongly believes that recreation is a basic human need of everyone. :Ct is also an individual choice. Aecreatiau is diize:rent things eo diff.erent people. Mr. Uoudreau stated '.�e feel.s rec.reaT.i.oa has at l.east 12 poteaitia.ls {or meeting li.fe's satisfactions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1C. 11. 12. Physical weli-beiixg and ph}�sical outlet Emotional balance Need to iind identity Stimulas for learning Soci.al ir.T.egration Outlet for adventure Creati��e self-expression Regaining a sence of- comm(uni.ry) Ar_ceptable outlets of aggression Opportunity for self-realization Potential to allow people to interact �rith their envaronment Compensation factor Mr. Boudreau stated this was they used as s basis for their program and theiz department, ke stated he would Se glad to answer any questions the Commissioners might have. Mr.. Kondricic stated he would be interested in hearing Mr. Bovdreau's philosophy regarding budgets and monies. Mr. Boudreaustated he fe1t. Lh�t recreatz�ii t'�� a commuuity,caas.jyc,L- a,�; impoitant as fire protection, po].i_ce protection, city managemenC, Pinar�ce� PARKS & RECRI3ATION COI°SMISSION P1EE'PING, SEPTP.MBBR 19, 1979 PAGE 5 management, or anything e].se, and he has not been slighted when it came to the Uudget. The Park, Recreation and Natural P.esources Depar[menl' was most visiUle and touches many people in many ways. Mr. Boudreau stated that as far as spending monies, he needed input irom the Commission on how to spend the money in the most meaningful way. Right now they are getting approximately 22.7% of the City budget, and it was prudent for them to spend that money in the most constructive way. Mr. Mech asked 44r. Boudreau to talk a little about how fie felt about community relations. Mr. Boudreau stated he felt his position in community relations todaq_was_ one weak area of the department. He and his sta£f have not had the time to do the things they should. He felt community relations was an important aspect to the to Recreation Department as far as offering speaking engagements, etc., to Fridley groups and organizations. Their objective: to try and organize groups in a meaningful wap towaxds a conrzaon goa1. Staff tries to smile aud tries to give service, because that is the external community relations they have with the general public. It is also important, on the reverse side, to notbend all the way backwards. They will bend more than their share, but they have a breaking point when they have to say no, they are sorry. Community relations to him means that they try and do things in a positive way, whenever possible, to coordinate the efforts of a coirs:unity and cooperate towards a goal of making the community a better place to live in. Ms. Hughes asked Mr. Boudr.eau if he belonged to any coL�munity organizations. Mr. Boudreau stated he was a non-joiner, for the basic reason that_in his position, he could not afiord to have an allegiance to any one group. Ms. Hughes stated she ioas interested in the social integration potential Mr. Boudre.au mentioned earlier. She knew that the City ended up with programs that were just for senior citizens or just for certain age groups. Did he think there was a pide enough balance in the offerings that get th� full age range? Mr. Boudreau stated that no, they did not have a balance, primarily because of the lack of facilities for those types of programs. Proper facilities was one of the most difficult problems to resolve. I�e stated that they were looking at Sunday evenings for a type of family fun night. Ms. Hughes stated that anothex area �oas the age integration. For example, how do teenagers integrate wil-h senior citizens? Mr. Boudreau stated that this was true, and he did not know what the Recreation Depaxtment could do in that area. He though that cvith the recent programming aC Village Green, amyUe they will have the opportunity PARKS & RliCREP.TT.ON CONII�4ISSION M1iLTING, SL•'PT.EMB�R 1��'1979 - PAGli 6 where a facility and people wi11 lend themselves to the mixture. Iie hoped Connie McMi111on could work something ouL- in this area. Mr. Boudreau stated that anoL-her o£ his policies is that none of his staff are allowed to participate in the progr.ams they are in charge of, because he believes strongly that if you are iei charge of a prograa� and become an active partici_panl-, there zs the opportunity for bad vibes from the other particiPants. Mr. Boudreau stated that, in closing, he felt he had an excellent staff. Iie felt that most of his people do over and above what- was asked or expected of them. He felt they have a long way to go to build the City of Pridley Park, Recreaticn, and Natural Resources Department to the p9.nnacle they would like to see. They are young and energetic and willing to try anything. Their sole purpose is the concern of people's happiness, and people's enjo7�ment, and that is what they live by. The expenditure of leisure in koday's societq is an import-ant expenditure, and they want to contribute L-o t(ie wise expendi.ture of that leisure. Mr. Eoudreau sta[ed he would inviee any of the Commiasion members to come into L-he office at any time to meee the staf£, ask quest-ions, sn3 make suggestions. Mr. ?3oud_eat+. stated Le taoul�l tike Y.o have Si.ati. St. Ciai,-, City :Qatuiali�t, sharc his phiioscphy �aith the �ocnmiss±��� �t their ne:�t' meeting, then, Jacic I:irk, Curt Dahlberg, and Cor,.nit. Mc'4ii7.:ion, is+ �ha� order. �J pIIRId�1",1T : MOTION Ly Ms. Mech, seconded by Nr. Kondrick,to adjourn the meeting, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Hughes declared the September 19, 1979, Farl:s & Recreation Commission meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully s bmitted, � ��� L ✓ ne SaUa' Reco?-ding Secretary COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COtIIiTSSION ` MEETING OCTOBER 9, 1979 CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson LeRoy Oquist called the OcYOber 9, 1979,'Community Development Conmiission meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. ROL1 CALL• Members Present: LeRoy Oquist, Connie Modig, A1 Gabel, Kenneth Vos Members Absent: Sharon Gustafson Others PresenC: Bill Deblon, AssociaCe Planner APPROVAL OF SEPTEhffiER 11 1979 COMM[1NITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MiNUTES: ' MOTION by Mr. Gabel, secanded by Mr. Vos, to approve the September 11, 1979, Coumiunity Development Commission minutes as written: Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Oquist declared the motion carried unanimously. 1. CONTINUED: DISCUSSTON ON POLICY FOR CONVERSZON OF ItENTAL PROPERTY TO Mr. Oquist stated that this item would be a continuing item each month as moxe, information was received as to what was being done with the Minneapolis Ordinance relating to "rental conversion. Mr..Deblon stated that he felt it would not be too long before there was some concrete sction on the Minneapolis Ordinance. He had attended a public hearing on:Monday, October 1, held by the Co�unity Development Committee of the Minneapolls City Council led by Alderman Mark Kaplan. Ms. Salley Haward, co-author of the bill, was also present. Ae stated the meeting was well attended, especially by elderly people, and a few young women with children. .'fhe meeting was very long and intense, and many people were upset, especially Che elderly, about "condo” conversions. Mr. Deblon stated that it looked as if the committee was going to try to get the new ardinance through City Council. He stated he had not yet received a copy of the new ordinance, but would attempt to get one. This ordinance included the 120-day notice (even against the opinion of their City attorney), xighC of first refusal, and vacancy rate greated than 4% or no conversions. „i COMM[TNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 9, 1979 - PAGE 2 Mr. Vos asked if there was any way the City of Fridley had any control oeer "condo'" conversion? When a'landlord decided tn converk, was there any reQuire- ment or any reason he would have to notify the City4 Mr. Deblott staCed he did not know the answer to that quesCion but would try to find that out. Mr. Oquist star.ed that at the last meeting, the Commission had asked Staff to get some legal advice from the City Attorney. Mr. Oquist asked Mr. Deblon if he had obtained that iaformation? Mr. Deblon stated he ha� not, bat he had sent a mcmo regarding rental con— vexsions to Jerry Boardmar. for review by Mr: Virgi2 Herrick, City Attorney. He said he would get copies of that memo to the Commission members. He further stated that the question of the constitutionality of the ordinance came out at tfie Minneapolis Community Development Committee Public Hearing. Toward the end of the hearing, a lawyer testified that regulating condo conversions in this case was constitutional hecause it was in the best interst, health, safety and welfare of the general pub�ic. The lawyer weat on to challenge anyone to contest the constitutionality of regulatinQ condo conversions in a court of law. He then volunteered his services to the Committee for the future. Mr. Oquist stated that he would appreciate it if Mr. Deblon would mail out this memo as soon as possible. He would also appreciate it if Mr. Deblon would mail out the new Minneapolis Ordinance and/or any other information as soon as it was oUtained. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Gabel, to continue discussion on a policy for conversion of rental orovertv to individual ownershiv uronertv at the next �otion carried unanimously. 2. CONTINUED: CONSIDERATIQN OF STATUS OF UNUSED ALLEYS IN FRIDLEY: Mr. Deblon sted he had talked to the City Engineering Department and it was their feeling that they would Iike to see something done with the alleys fn Fridley. However, any upgrading of the a;.leys would have to be assessed against the people who benefit. At this point, staff is not getting any positive feedback on the alleys tti�t are being used, hut are not improved. Dir. Oquist stated he felt the alleys that are being used, but are unimproved, should be handled one at a time, possibly sending a notice to the people aEfected and having a public he.aring befoxe either the Planning Commission or the City CounciL Mr. Deblon stated that di the City did improve an alley, the adjacent landowner would be assessed and the City would be responsible for plowing and maintaining that alley. He stated that it was his personal opinion that these alleys detracted from t�e neighborhood, and it was not consistent with the neighborhood preservation concept to leave them unimproved. He would like to see something done to improve them. At'Ehis time, it was up to the people to petition for that improvement. wt� � CtkII4UNITY DEVELOPMENT COPPiISSION MEETING OCTOBER 9 k979 - PAGE 3 i�fr. Vas stated that if some alleys were deeded back to the property owners, there were sane owners who could cut off access or landlock aomeone else's RrpPerty or garage. Mr. Oquist stated he definitely thought the alleys designated and not being u&ad should be vacated by the City. Maybe the Commission should recommend that Staff look at each alley individualiy and make>recommendations back to the Commission on what should be done with each one, MOTIiON by Ms, Modiq, seconded bv Mr. Vos to recownend that Staff come up .� �� .-�CO�tti�d DLHR f01' C}1P. .'311evc���haino neaA hnh v.....,...-....nA�l i+.,.,L ,.�i___ ..t_..i� 6e review 3. nT?� �< UP( act a �Q �ecP,a�'� f� �alley for feasibilitv of .iley or Vacation analysis of each for each alley. rocess for s�e not being used al should continue to TE, ALL VOTI�YG AYE USLY. 3: pTHER BUSINESS: ley with specifi dback from the I vice departmenta vacated bv the ( ' Mr. Oquist stated that for the next meeting he would like to have an update on the status of the Bikeyiay(Walkway P1an. Also, what was happening on Afiasissippi Street regarding the bikeway. M&. Modig stated she would also like an update on the status of the Anoka County Airport at the next meeting. Mr, Deblon stated he would be attending a meeting regarding the Anoka County Airport on October 17 at the Northtown Co�unity Room. ' Mr. Oquist stated that the Critical Areas Plan would be reviewed by Yhe P,lanning Commission at their October 24 meetiqg. This Plan was basically ` taken out of the Comprehensive Development Plan, but included an ordinance. He_stated that Mr. Deblon would be sending the Commission members copies of this PLan. He would like the Co�ission members to read the Plan before the October 24th Planning Commission and to call him if they had any questions or changes, particularly in the ordinance part af it. ADJOU1tNMENT : MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Gabel, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a vaice vote, ali voting aye, Chairperson Oquist declared the October 9, 1979, Community Development Cottmission meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully sub itted, y Sa6a Rec rding Secretary �:� __ _ � . ,,*�!i CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS GOMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 9. 1979 GALL TO ORDER• Chairwoman Schnabel called the October 9, 1979, meeting of the Appeals Co�ission to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Kemper, Mr, Plemel, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Barna Members Absent: None Others Present: Darrel Clark, Building Inspector APPROVS APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 18, 1979: MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Barna that the Appeals Co�ission minutes of .- September 18, 1979, be approved with the following corrections: Ms. Schnabel noted on page 10, the 6th paragraph from the botton, the word "with". ehould be added to the sentence, "Ms. Schnabel said with the exception ..." On page 11, the Sth paragraph from Che top, the word precedent was spelled wrong. On the same page, between the lOth and llth paragraph, Ms. 5chnabel asked to have the following explanation inserted. "Mr. Moravetz stated that the Councilmember for this ward had requested through the City Manager's office that this itero come befare the City Council.^ UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHa°aIRWOMAN SCIINABEL llSCI.ARED THE MOTION CARRIED UIlANIA�JUSLY , Ms. Schnabel asked the petitioaer for item one on the agenda if he would mind being placed second on the agenda. She explained, Mr. 0'Bannon, the second petitioner, had an 8:00 meeting at the County. Mr. Holstan, representing item one, agreed to the change. � 1. .E_�, Fridley, t by riike 0'Bannon1 5298 Fillmore Street, MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Ms. Gabel to open the Public Hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARfiD THE MOTION CARRIED UNAN7iY)USLY. PUBLIC tIEARING OPENED AT 7:35 P.M. � APPEALS COI�4tISSIOH MEETING OCTOBER 9 1979 PAGE 2 Chairwoman Schnabel read the ataff report: ADMINISTRIITIV� STAFF HF•:PORTS 1990 Rice Creek Drive N.E. 1480 Rice Creek Drive N.E. 6150 Kerry Lane 17.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOS� SERVED BX RES)UZREMENT: Section 205.053, 4A, requires a front yard setback of 35 feet. Pub2ic purpose served is to provide open space for off-street parking , without encroaching on publi¢ right of way. Also for the aesthetic consideration not to redyce the "building line of sight" encroachment into a neighbor's front yard. B. STATED HARASHIP: "7b be in line with other hanes and to allow room £or back yards." C. AIB+IDTISTRATZVE STAFF REV7EW: Tnese three lots are all on the southerly side of the cul-de�-sac joining Kerrl Lane and Rice Cree3: Drive. The other lots, sur.rounding these three, have varyirig setbacks; Lot 3 has a 26.55 verified setback; Lot 4 has a 50 foot setback; Lot 6 has a 40.33 verified setback; and on the east side of Int 1 thane is a 38.4 sethack. The visik+ility o£ the differences in setbacks is somewhat eliminated by the cul-3e-sac and curve of the streets. T4ie useable back yard area would he increased with appmval of the variances as the bac7c of the land is quite steep. Ms. Schnabel asked Darrel C1aFk if he had any further co�ents to make on this item. Mr. Clark said no, he felt tj�e attached map should answer any questions. Ms. Schnabel said with all the various numbers and writings on the map, it gets a little confusing, and asked 13r. Clark to go over the area. Mr. Clark said the existing home on Lot 6 was setback 40 feet, the proposed home on Lot 5 would be back 25 Leet. The home, under construction, on Lot 4, was setback 50 feet. Lot 3 had a previous variance granted for a 2G.5 foot setback. The proposed home on Lot 2 would have a 30 foot setback and a 25 feet setback on Lot 1. He pointed out the house left of Lot 1 and not on the diagram was setback 38 feet. Ms. Schnabel asked the petitioner, Mr. 0'Bannon, for co�ents, He'said the drawing sets up what he proposes. He has set each house step by step aroux�d the cul-de-sac. He said Lot 5 will tyave a small backyard because of a.steep APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 9,_1979 PAGE 3 drop-off on the lot. Both Lots 1 and 2 have backyardsthat go into a cliff. Ms. Schnabel said ahe was not aware of the drop-off on Lot 5. Mr, Kemper asked where the house to the east of Lot 1 was placed in comparision with tha pxoposed home on Lot 1. Mr. 0'Bannon said the garage of the house east of Lot 1 wouid line up with the outer- moaG front edge of the proposed home on Lot 1. Mr. Clark scaled the home home location for the Co�ission. Mr. Kemper said Mr. �''Bannon does have a hardship. There.was a drop-off on Lot 5 and hoth Lots 1 and 2 have a cliff in the backyard, The house on Lot 3 had a similar request about a yeas ago. He felt Mr. 0'Bannon had been able to compromise lining up the homea on the cul-de-sac and has done a good job of making them look nice. Ms. Schnabel said she was concerned about the setback on Lot 5, The garage on Lot 6 was setback 40 feet, with the house back even further. She thought the aetback on Lot 5 could be more then 25 feet. There are no windows on the home on Lot 6 on thia side, but thexe was a deck, so the placement should not bother them. On Lot 4, there was a window in the front portion, but even that should not create a visual problem. Mr. Kemper asked how much room was in the backyard if the proposed home was setback. at 25 feet. Mr. 0'Bannon said there would be a 25 foot backyard. Ms. Gabel asked if the drop-off would:be.terraced. Mr. 0'Bannon said they are planning on leaving it in its natural state. Mr. Kemper suggested discussing each lot separatly. Mr. 0'Bannon explained he sighted the house on Lot 1 with the one to the east, that was how he came up with the 25 foot setback. Mr, Kemper said the line of sight looked okay between the 3 houses on Lots 1 and 2 and the one to the east. He felt thexe were no visual problems and had no objections to the setbacks for Lots 1 and 2. Ma, Schnabel said she understood the backyard problems on Lot 5, but did not like the idea of having this house so much closer to Che street then the neighboring homes. Mr. 0'Bannon said the house on Lot 4 was not setback SO feet, it was closer to 45 feet. � He also said when placing a home on a lot in this type of a situation, he trie8 to place it in the middle of the neighboring homes. You would not want Lot 5 to be Lot 6's backyard. Me, Schnabel said that was true, but there were no windows on this side of Lot 6. Mr. 0'Bannon said there was a deck located there. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING �CTOBER 9 1979 PAGE 4 Ma. Schnabel asked if there were any comments from ataff regarding the setback. She understood, when talking to the Planning Department, there had been a comment made. She was refering to the staff review sheet. Mr. Clark said the only cmmnent was by Jerry Boardman. He said he did not see any real. hardahip, but the hillside doea'cut down the amount of rear yard. . Ma, Schnabe7. questioned the size of the boalevards. Mr. 0'Bannon replied they are 10 feet on the straight street, and 7 feet on the cul- de-sac street. Mr. Kemper asked if it would be possible to an�e the home on the lot, or would that create a problem with the sfde yards. Tir. 0'Bannon replied angling the home would create other problems. He stated as the house is proposed, there ar� no problems with the side yards. He stated a L-shaped rambler would not work because the back of the house would be on the edge of the drop-off. Mr. Bama asked how much the drop-off was. Mr. 0'Bannan stated 15-20 feet. You cannot climb the hill easily. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Bama to close the public hearing. UPQN A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTLYG AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED T'fiE MOTION CARRIED UNANI4�USLY. PUBLIC HEARING CIASED AT 7:53 P.M. Mr. Remper said he sees no xeal problem caith the xequests, but acknowledges that the Chairperson was concerned ab�ut the setback on Lot 5. Ms. Schnabel said her main concem was Lot 5. She felt Lots 1 and 2 would fit in, and there was definitely a backyard problem with the hi11. Lat 3 was previously granted a.similar variance request and fits into the neighborhood nicely� so these should also. She had objected to Lot 5's variance request because first of a11, she was not aware - of the drop-o£f in the backyard and secondly, was led to believe there was an objec- t ion by staff on this request. She said when reading the staff review report tonaght, she does not detect that and has no problem with it now. Mr. Clark asked Mr. 0'Bannon when he would be building. Mr. 0'Bannon stated he would like to dig Lot 5 this fall, but was not sure. He felt one of the lots would be started this fall. Ms. Gabel said she would be concerned about the setback on Lot 5 if the street was straight. Secondly, she felt, many variances have had to be granted in this area be- cause of topographical reasons and these sequests were consistent with those,. She also £elt the area looked very nice. Mr. Kemper and Mr. Plemel both agreed that Mr.-0'Bannon had done a good job in the area. MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Ms. Gabe2 to approve the request for variances pur- suant te Chapter 205 uf the Fridley City Code, to reduce the front yard setback from APPEAI.S COrEfISSION MEEfINGy OCTOBER 9. 1979 PAGE 5 the required 35 feet, to 25 £eet on Lot 1, Block 2, Heather Hills Third Addition, and to reduce the front yard aetback to 30 feet on Lot 2, Block 2, Heather Hills Third Addition, and reduce the fzont yard setback to 25 feet on Lot 5, Block 2, Heather Hilla Third Addition. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED TNE MOTION CARRIED. UNANIMOUSLY. Chafxwoman Schnabel informed Mr. 0'Bannon he could apply for hia permits i:�ediately since this co�issian had final action on his requests. 2. :�� Exemp Inc., 3213 fiownview Avenue N.E.� Minneapolis, MN MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Barna to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, PUBLIC HEARING OPIIVED AT 8:00 P.M. Chairwoman Schnabel read the staff report: ADMINISTRATIVE STAI'Y RF.PORT 7562 IJ�le Street N.E. 7589 Able Street N,E. A. PUIII.IC PURPOSE SL•RVED BY REOOIREMF..NT: Section 205.053, 1, lot area required of not less than 9,000 square feet for a residential lot. 8.. STATED HARDSftIP: "Lot split into Lot 1 and Lot 2 approved. Requires variance to area requirement. Lot is low (2-3 feet below street grade) and has several feet of peat on top of bearing soil. Established area of smaller homes is not conducive to expensive home on one lot. Property o�aners within required distance notified o£ lot split but did not attend Planning Commission meeting." - _ _ ;, ,: C. A1k9INIS7RAT2VE STAFP REVIL•W: 7he lot split request approval was recommended to the City Council by the Planning Commission on September 26, 1974 that would establish these building sites. This land is on the corner of 76th Avenue and Able Stz�et and both building sites would face onto 1�ble Street. The lots would be 99.20 and 93.88 feet deep with BO foot frontages and the proposed buildings would meet all of the Code r�uiremeiits for setbacks. The majority of the lots in this area are cottsiderably larger than these would be if the lot split is approved. APPEALS GOMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 9, 1979 PAGE 6 Mr. Barna pointed out the Block number should be 3 and not 2, Ms, Schnabel asked Mr. Clark for ca�ents. Mr. Clark said his main concern was that ali lots in Shaffer's Addition were the same size prior to this lot being split. But since there were no objections from neighbors, about 2 houses on 1 Lot,perhaps tihat was not a real concern. Ms. Gahel said she understood the neighbors had objected to the previous proposal of a double bungalow. Mr. Clark atated that was true. Ms. Schnabel said she undexstood public notices were sent out to the neighbors for the lot split that has already been heard before the Planning Commission. Notices are not normally sent out for lot splits. Ajr. Clarl� said the reason was because the lots would be smaller then the rest of the neighborhood. Ms. Schnabel pointed out the neighbors were properly notified for both the Planning Commission and Appeals Comnission meetings and there were no objections, Mr. Plemel asked if these were factory built homes. Mr. Ted Holsten, 3213 Townview Ave. N.E., Mpls., said no. He pointed out the lot widths are 80 feet, but they would not be as deep as usual. Ms. Schnabel asked if the homes would be built at the same time. Mr. Holsten replied the builder, Allan Homes, have one possibly sold at the present time. That one would probabj'y be built first and then the second one would be built. Ms. Schnabel asked what the homes would look like. Mr. Holsten presented a plan o£ the homes. They are 23 feet R 42 £eet, 3 bedrooms, with a detached double garage. The price, with tlie garage, should be around $55,OOD. He pointed out the area homes are oldex, the same size or smaller and there are double bungalows across the �treet. A single home on the one lot would be too expen- sive for the area. Ms. Schnabel asked 3f the soil wculd be a problem. Mr. Holsten said he had not had soil tests taken, but from what he nbserved by digging down 2 to 3 feet, there should be good firm soil. Some of the trees on the lot will have to be remwed to get down to that soil. Chaizwoman Schnabel asked £or further discussion from the commission. Mr. Kemper said this community needs more i.nexpensive hou�ing and these should help, He said the petitioner was correct, there was a Catch-22 system here. You build one house on the large lot, you take the home aut oE the inexpensive range and an expensive home takes it out of the neighborhood. _ _... � , AP BALS.COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 9 1979 PAGE 7 Mr. Plemel felt this would be a good improvement Yo the area. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Ms. Bama to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECI.ARED THE MOTION CARRIED Ll!`j;(�2luqpUSyy, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:10 P.M. Ghairwoman Schnabel said. any motion recoc�miending approval should be made directly to the City,Council and not to the Planning Commission. The package deal, lot split and vaxiance aequest, would go to the Council at one time. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Barna to recommend to the City Council approval of variance request pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the square footage requirement for lot size from the Yequired 9,000 square feet to approxi- mately 7,520 square feet, to allow a lot split request to split off Lot 1, Block 3, Shaffer's Subdivision �kl, lying east of the east 90 feet thereof, to make two building sites on parts of Lots 1 and Lot 2, Block 3, Shaffer's Subdivision �1. UI'ON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AY&, C1IAIRWOMAN SCHNABF.L DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chaixwoman Schnabel reco�ended Mr. Holsten to verify the date this request goes to the City Council. , OTHSR BUSINESS• Ms. Gabel said the Planning Commission asked to have the portion of the Staff Report regarding the statement of Aardship he better defined. They thought perhaps staff could draw up some sort of £ormat for the petitioner to follow. Ms. Gabe1 said she thought when the petitioner fills out the application, staff did not have enough. time to properly review the application at that time. Mr. Clark asked if they wanted staff to put words in the applicant's mouth. The Coffinission said no. Ms. Gabel said some hardships do not make sense. For example, "Want to build a 10 x 20 foot addition." What type of hardship was that. Mr. Clark stated a hardship would be different for each request. The applicant can afford to build the 10 x 20 foot addition, but not a new home. Money would be the hardship and economic feasibility was not suppose d to be considered ae � i�rdsh�p. Ms, Schnabel said they have received a memo recently stating that economic feasibility could be considered. Mr. Kemper asked if the staff reads the application irmnediately to see if it make sense. Mr. Clark replied not usually. Mr. Kemper said that seems to be the real question then. Staff, when Caking the $50 for the application, should make sure the application makes sense. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOB�R 9, 1979 PA�E 8 Mr. Plemel noted this commission wae to review and make recommendatians according to the stated hardships. How can they'do that if it was not stated. Ms. Gabel pointed out the coumiission finds out the hardship through the discussion with the petitioner at the meeting, but it was noF notecl on the application as such. It should be stated on the application for future reference. Ms, Schnabel asked Mr. Clark if th� City Council had looked at their request for re- wording the "Notice of Pubic Hearing". The ao�ission did not want to have another incidenfl like the one regarding the addition request in Melody Manor to come up again. Mr. Clark said he was not aware of any action. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Clark to please follow up on this. Mr. Kemper asked what the latest status on the Tom Thumb request was. Ms. Gabel said it was tabled as far as she knew. AATOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Bama, seconded by Mr. Kemper to adjoum the October 9, 1979, meeting of the Appleals Commission. ` UPON A VOICF. VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCIiNABEL DECLARED TFIE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �Q,Cc �%CJ .��1°7: ( C'�i Panla Long, Record�g Secretaxy AOUS7N G AND KEDEVELOPhffi1T AUTHORITY MEETIId G October 11, 1979 CALL TO ORDER• Chalrperson Larry Commera called the October 11, 1979, Housing and Redevelop- ment Authority meeting to order at 7:50 p, m. ROLL CALL: Members Present; Larry Commers, Russel Houck, Carolyn Svendsen, Elmars Prieditis Members Absent: None Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Dean Doyscher, Professional Plannittg & Development, Mankato APPROVAL OF MII3UTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1979: MOTI�I by Mz. Houck, seconded by Mr, Prieditis, to approve the September 13, 1979, Housing and Redevelopwent Authority (HRA) minutes as submitted. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairperson Corm¢ers declared the motion carried unanimously. 1. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPER PROPOSAL INFORMATICJN RLCEIVED SEPTEMBER 13, 1974): Mr. Commers stated the developer proposal in'formation was received at the September 13 meeting and was reviewed with the consultant, Mr. Doyscher. He stated there were some changes in the document and the members of this body wanted the opportunity to review the information further. Mr. Doyscher stated that the City staff has drafted an overlay zoning district which will be submitted to Che Planning Commission a"t their next meeting. He stated this oveilay zoning distr3ct requires that a11 uses proposed in that zone are conditional on meeCing the intent of the Center City project. He stated the Planning Coimnission and City Council will be considerin g this item and staff believed it would be passed. He felt, therefore, it was reasonable to seek developers'based on those assumptions so that they don't get too far behind in the planning. Mr. Commers referred to the Authority's motion on September 13, 1979 on Page 3 of the minutes where they recotmnended that some guidelines fdr control be adopted, and questioned what had taken place in this regard. Mr. Doyscher stated the staff has drafted some plans and schemes on how they er.vision this development so when the proposals are reviewed, there are some ideas down on paper as to the (cinds of things they would like to see occur. He explained it was difficult to set down a design standard because there are many� however� it is good to have a general, framewark so they can tell developers the kinds of things they are look- ing for and Che options. HOUSING & REDEVELOPI��IT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 11. 1979 PAGE 2 Mr. Doyacher submitted a copy of the plans, prepared by the City staff, for the Authority's review. Some oE the concepts of the plan included underground parking, a plaza, open areas and possibly office space. Mr. Doyscher atated a developer could look at this conceptual site plan and incorporate some of these ideas. Mr. Prieditis questioned the underground parking and the costs. Mr. Doyscher felt the costs would go up when you have a specialized type of parking. He stated the question might come back to this Authority if they wouid like to use the fesources available to them to assist the developer where there might be excessive costs. Mr. Boardman explained there may be a join t venture between the deve- Ioper and the City as the City is looking at the possibility of obtain- ing some space in that area Chat might be utilized for public purposes. Mr. Commers questioned who would control the number of parking spaces needed. Mr. Boardman stated it would be controlled by the City based on the regulations being developed by the Planning Couunission. Mr, Boardman explained the type of controls they are looking at is an overlay district which requires every development to go through a special use permit. He stated the Housin g Authority will be looking at the development proposal and the Plannin g Co�nission and City Council will be looking at the special use permit within the regula- tions. Mr. Coumers questioned if they can determine how the parking should be done, iE they don't like a particular parking plan. Mr. Boazdman stated this could be done if it doesn't meet the conditions of the goals of the Center City project. Mr. Coamers questioned if their goals can differ from what the zoning ordinance requires. • Mr. $oardman stated if the new regulations go into this district, there would be controls which require a conditionat use or special use permit for all buildings in this district. He stated, with eacit buildin g, there is a potentia2 for putting conditions on thaC building permit that meet the requirements they want to set out fnr the area, Mr. Boardman explained the speeial use permit is controlled by the City Council and Planning Conanission, but the Housing Authority does control which developers are going to be selected. He stated the Authority would work with the developer on the site plans, but they will have to be approved by Che Planning Co�mnission and City Council. Mr. Houck stated he liked the propnsal for underground parking. Mr. Doyscher stated he felt this was an option, but one of the problems today in redeveloping an area is a parking shortage. HOUSTNG & REDEVELOPMGNT AUTHORITY MEETI[3G OCTOBER 11 1979 PAGE 3 Mr. Doyscher felt, if any use is put in that generates parking, you have to look at available optiona or otherwise cut down on the use of the buildings themselves. Mr. Boardman felt, when a developer comes in and makes proposals, they have to determine if this is the direction they wish to go and what funds to use out of tax fncrement in order to bring the costs within the range of the developer's costs. Mr. Prieditis questioned if there were any other uses they wished to suggest besides the office functions. Mr. Doyscher felt the administration would like to see the first floor be an arcade with small convenience type stores. He stated, in order to do that kind of thing, you have to get the automo6ile some- what out of the way, He stated it was not their intent to try and use the firsY phase area as nver-the-counter retail trade type of develop- ment. Mr. Doyscher felt, if they were talking of redevelopment in terms of retail trade, it would probably be the area now occupied by the Rice Creek Plaza and reconstruction of Moon Plaza. He felt those locations would be the most logical if they were going to strengthen the retail market. Mr. Doyscher then reviewed items which were to be filled in on the development proposal. He stated the Exhibits would be identified and this identification put into the proposals. In referring to Page 2 of Che proposal, Mr. Uoyscher stated it is suggested the period proposals will be accepfed be for 90 days from October 15, 1979 until January 15, 1980. Mr. Commezs questioned if it was realistic to assutne they would get some acceptance or interest in this 90 day period of time. Mr. Doyscher stated he was aware there are individuals who have ex- pressed an interest. He stated, if there wasn't any acceptance to this documenC, his advice would be to set it aside for some period of time until they could determ3ne what caused it to be unacceptable. Ae felt deve2opers would be willing to state the reasons why they couldn't proceed. All Authority members agreed to the timetable of 90 days for accepting proposals which would be from Oc�ober 15, 1979 to January 15, I980, In referring to Page 2, Mr, Doyscher felt a chazge shouldn't be made ' for the document. He poixited out one of his problems which would be in taking this document to a constructiori firm to try and generate interesC and then indicating they would have to pay him for the document. He pointed out, however, on the other hand, there have been experiences in the past where the document was made availa6le, without charge, and persons not really interested .«era picking them up which required a lot of copy work. �� HOUSTNG & REDEVELOPMLN T AUTHORITY MGETIN G OCTOIIER 11 1979 PAGE 4 Mr, Boardman felt they shouldn't necessarfly charge for the document. Mr. Doyscher suggested that the sentence regarding a charge for the documents be deleted, unless the Authority members had any strong feelings. All Authority members agreed to eliminating the sentence on Page 2 regarding a charge for the document. Mr. Doyscher stated the date of January 15, Z980 shnuld be filled in under Item 10 on Page 4 of the document. Also, under Item 12 on Page 4, the woxds "ninety (90) days after the date of" should be eliminated and the date of April 15, 1980 be inserted. All Authority members were in agreement with these dates. Mr. Doyscher questioned if the members of the Housing Authority fiad any comments regarding Item 9 on Page 4 concerning the cashier`s check in the amount of $?,500 as a good faith deposit. Mr. Commers questioned if any member of the Authority ielt the figure should be changed. Mr. Doyscher stated this Nas the amount that was being used in the mid- 70's, not as a percentage figure, but a number to show good faith. E4r. Boardman stated this amaunt would be primarily a project applicatfon fee. Mr. Co�ers £elt it was reasonable to have such a fee. Mr. Prieditis felt the amount was high enough that it would eliminate persons who are not sincere about proceeding. No change was made, therefore, in the amount of the good faith deposit. Mr. Boaxdman stated, in re£erring to Item E, Page 6, there may be a problem with the 90 day period. Mr. Doyscher stated their intent is to get the disposition documents ready within 90 days and Ttem E does indicate that the land sale and execution of the documents will follow the public hearing. Ae felt a developer would be more comfortable if a co�itment is made to making thin gs happen. Mr. Prieditis stated he would like to see a piaster Plan for the entire district. Mr. Boardman stated it was their intent to wait for the first development proposal to see how this proceeds and then to hire a consultant or arcliitect to put in some.public space propusAl in order to tie iC all together. MOTION by Mr. Houck to approve the development proposal, aith the,dat� oE January 15, 1980 inserted on page 2; the elimination of the sentence on Page 2 referring to a chaz-ge for the documents; the date of January 15, 1980 inserted under Item 10, Page 4; and the words "ninety (90) days after the date of" eliminated under Item 12, Page 4 and the date of April 15, 1980 inserted under Lhis item and that the Exhibits be labeled and identified in Che proposal. Seconded by Mr. Comners. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Co�ners declared the motion carried unanimously. HOUSING & REDEV�LOYMFI�IT AU2HORITY MLETIN G, OCTOBER 11, 1979 PAGE 5 2. AYPROVAL OF RESOLUTICN FOR OFFICIAL DETERMINATIQ� TO ACQIIIRE REAL PROPE1tTY • Mr, Boardman asked the Housing Authority members to consider the adoption of this resolution for officia� determination to acquire real property. He stated letters have been sent out to the affected property owners and involves the,propereies aC 5832 University Avenue and 6025 3rd Street. The letters indicate to the owners that these properties are being considered for acquisition under the City`s large family home ownership program. Mr. Boardman stated the resolution is needed so that an appraisal can be made for the two pieces of property. MOTION by Mr. Houck, seconded by Mr. Prieditis to adopt this resolution for o£ficial determination to acquire real property regarding the properties at 5832 University Avenue and 6025.3rd Street. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairperson Coimners declared [he motion carried unanimonsly. 3. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Prieditis asked if any determination.has been made regarding a fifth member to serve on the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Mr. Boardman stated he has talked with Mayor Nee regarding this matter and given him several names. � ' Mr. Cotmners scated he would also contact Mayar Nee to see if they could move a little faster on this item. Mrs. Svendsen asked if a letter of clarification was received regarding liability insurance. Mr. Boardman stated the City Clerk has stated Yhat the members of the Housing Authority are covered in full in the same manner as the CiCy Council. Mr. Houck brought up the question of insurance coverage for members of the Housing Authority traveling to meetings in the event of an accident. Mr. Boardman stated staff is currently working on the budget for the Housing Authority and conCact is being made with several other commuri- ities regarding their accounting process. He stated he would be meeting with the City Attorney to try and estabiiah an accounting pro- cedure. HOUSING & ACDEVELOPi�lT AUTHORITY MEETING OCTOBER 17. 1979 PAGE 6 Mrs. Svendsen asked if property owners were noti:fied of the proposed overlay district. Mr, Boardman stated the process that takes place is the same process as changing the zoning code and it requires a public hearing before ihe Planning Coimaission and City Council. Mr. Prieditis asked Mr. Boardman if he had any show of interest in the development for Center City. Mr. Boardman stated several persons have shown an interest, ADJOURN1�IFdVT : MOTIIX9 by Mr. Houck, seconded by Mr. Prieditis, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, a7.1 voting aye, Ct�airperson Commers declared the motion carried unanimously and the Qetober I1, 1979 Housing and Redevelop- ment Authority meeting adjourned at 8:50 p, m. Respectfu],ly submitted, �'Irl`��'�` rC'�GL�L��� Carole Raddad Recordi.ng Secretary � 24 --- -- , PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Planning Comnission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, October 24, 1979 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of: Review of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Plan for the City of Fridley. Copies are available for review in the Planning Department prior to this meeting date. Any and all persons desiring to be hettrd shall be given an opportunity at the above time and place. RICHARD M NARRIS CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: October 10, 1979 October 17> 1979 j � � t CITY OF FRIDLEY Co-chairperson Schnabel called the meeting of the October 24, 1979, Planning Conmission meeting to order at 8:32 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Ms. Modig, Ms. Hughes, Mr. Treuenfels, Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Hora, Mr. Harris (arrived at 8:35 P.M.) Members Ahsent: None Others Present: Jerry Boardman, City Planner, Bill Deblon, Associate City Planner APPROVE PIANNiNG COtQ4iSSI0N MINUTES; SEPTE�ffiER 2b. 1979: MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels to approve the September 26, 1979, minutes of the PLanning Commission as written. UPON A VOICS VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CD-GHAIRPERSON SCFINABEL DECLARfiD THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4YPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES; OCTOBS& 3. 1979: I�iDTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels to approve the October 3, 1979 minutes of the Planning Co�ission se corrected: Page 2, the second to last paiagraph shoud read; "Ma. Gabel asked if the neighbor ..." Ms. Schnabel was not present at the September 26th and October 3rd meetings, and questioned the use of Special Use Permits taking care of variances in the Center City Project as noted on page 3 oE the October 3rd meeting. She felt this statement contxadicted what the Board was diacussing at the previoua meeting on pages 6 and 7, where they were concerned about Special Uae Pexmits being used inatead of variances. Mr. Boardman said Special Use Permits are set up now not to handle variances becauae one requires a�ublic hearing and one does not. He was looking at the Center City Project to be an werlay diatrict and thexe would be special conditions fox building in that dietrict. One of the special conditions would be that all building pexmits would require a Special Use Permit. The permits would cwer any variances from the code, i.e., setbacks. The project would be handled by development rather than the regular code requiring a 35 foot setback. The Special Use Permit process would have to follow the variance procesa. Mr. Herxick has a copy of the overlay district and Planning Co�ission has not reviewed iC yet. They will be reviewing the overlay district and zoning code modification after Mr. Herrick has looked at it. Ma. Schnabel said she would like to have time to look wer this and see if ahe thought it was a good idea. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEhTING OCTOBER 24 1979 PAGE 2 Mr. Boa�dman said dPfinitelv the Planning Commission would be going over the use of Special Use Permits in the Center City Project. -- UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HAltRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. CONTINUED: UJT SPLIT REQUSST. L.S. �79-04. EDWARD T. BAULER: Split off the West- erly 60 feet of Lot 14, A.S. �22, except the Southerly 390 feet, also Lot 30, Block 2, Irvington Addition, and adjoining vacated streets and alleys in Irvington Addition, to be sold as open space for an adjoining property, the same being 1420 Rice Creek Road N.E. Mr. Boaxdman reminded the co�ission that at the last meeting they had continued this request so Mr. Bauler could look into another lot split and possible lease agreement with his neighbor. Mr. Bauler came foxward and said he would like to stick to his original request for a lot split. He said he l�ad been told when he broug�t it in, it would not be approved. Mr. Boardman said he told Mx. Bauler when he bxought in his reyuest he would reco�end denial of the lot split. Mr. Harris said the coam�ission would make a reco:mnendation to the City Council and he couLd ask the City Council fox•:.apprwal. Mr. Bauler could see no point in that and felt his only alternative was to sell all his land and move out of Eridley. . Mr. Bauler left the meeting at that point. Mr. Harris said the co�ission had atudied the entire area carefully and had come up with an altemative suggestion for Mr. Baulex. He chose to stick with his original lot split request and that request does not meeting zoning requirements. MOTION by Me. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels to reco�end to City Council denial of L.S. $79-04, for the following reasons: 1. Lot split does not meet zoning code requirements for minimum lot width. (lot size would be 60 x 293.2 feet) 2. Any futuz�,lot split of this new lot would create,;2-suiastand�rd,lois (60 x 146.6 feet). This would only add to future problems in this area. 3. By allowing such a lot, the commission would be saying the lots are build- able, which was not true. Ms. Schnabel said she felt bad she wes not at the last Z meetings when this request was discussecl. She had atudied the minutes and felt the motion was proper. Approval of the request would be creating a substandard lot and this would not be in the best interest of the city. Mr. Harrie pointed out the commission had come up with a better plan by aplitting off the front section of his land on Rice Creek Road. That would still leave all the land around PLANNtNG COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBffit 24 1979 PAGE 3 the house and to the rear. An access easement would have been provided for Mr. Bauler. This land would be more valuable to Mr. Bauler for resale and that was his main reason for the lot split request. Ms. Hughes also felt Mr. Bauler was not receptive to any new proposal as this was his third time here and he had the same comments each time. She felt the co¢m�ission had really tried to work with him. She stated she felt sorry they were not able to con- vince him of the alternative solution. She understood why he might not want to use their solution, because a house couLd be built close to his. She wished they had been able to explore the possibility of splitting the rear lot and leasing that land to his neighbor. She stated that Mr. Bosrdman said the City would not have done that because a rear lot split would have created a diagonal line and they do not do lot splits wiCh a lot o£ description. Mr. Boardman said they do not aecessarily not do them but a split like that would have to go through the plat process, Ms. Modig asked if he could use an alternative lot split proposal at a later date if he desired. Mr. Harris said yes. UPON A VOICE VOT&� ALL VOTING AYS, CHAIRMAN HAItRIS DECLARED TH.E I�TION CARRIED UNANII�fOUSLY, Chairman Harris asked to have Mr. Bauler notified of the cov¢nission's reco�endation. He also asked that City Council get all the information and discussions on this request as one package. 2. IAT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. �79-07a WALLACE L. LARSON: Split off the Northerly 115.78 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Spxing Valley Addition, the same being 1482 Mississippi Street N,E., to create a new buildi.ng site 80' X125' (10,000 square feet). Mr. Boardman said this lot split was in an area in the Comprehensive Plan called under- utilized land. The lot had previously been split- off on the southerly end to create a 130 x 125 foot lot. On the south end of that lot the city has a 25 foot rode right- of-way. The lots in this area are all quite deep and the city was looking at placing a road along the southerly end and developing the area. He felt this lot split would fit in with the area. Mr. Harris questioned easements. Mr. Boardman replied the neceasaty easements to service the back lots would be required. Thexewould be approximately a 5 foot easement around the lot. Mr. Harris asked the petitioner for co�ents and if he understood the easement requirement. Mr. Wally Larson, 1482 Mississippi Street, stated he had no additional comments and that he understood about the easements. Mr. Boardman nated the curb that runs down Missisaippi Street along Mr: Larson's property was 1.3 feet on his land. Some type of agreement regarding that should be worked out. PI�ADINING COMNIISSION MEETING. OCTOBER 24. 1979 PAGE 4 Mr. Larson replied he was sure some type of agreement could be worked out between him and the city. MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Modig to reco�end to the City Council approval o£ L.S. #79-07, with the following stipulation: 1. Work out the required easements needed for the lot. Mr. Treuenfels questioned if the curb problem should be stipulated also. Mr. Harris said the City Council could handle that after staff has gotten all the information together. UPON A VOICB VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN FiAltRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIBD UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Harris infoxvied Mr. Larson this goes before the City Council on November 5, 1979. 3. PUBLIC HEP,RING: REVISW OF THE_MISSISSIPPI_R1VSR CORRIDO_R CR_ITICAL AREAS PLAN MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Hora to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AY$y CHAIRMAN t1ARRIS DECLARED TfiE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING OPSNED AT 8:02 P.M. Mr. Boardman explained that the Critical Area Plan was part of the Comprehensive Plan and had been pulled out to allow review by the various local and state boards. He said the firat 20 pages of the Critical Area Plan `^'ere the same as in the Comprehensive Plan. The policys and recoo�endations have already been apprwed with the approval of the Comprehensive Plan by the Planning Commission. From page 21 on there was a breakdown of projects and implementations of the Critical Area, Plan. The Critical Area regulations ere found in this aegment also. Mr. Boardman stated the plan was an werlay district, \in which changes will be included in the modifications of the_Cit�Code, Chapter 205. The _MetX4 Council has_reytewed tfie plan ver,L tnfQrma9lv A roDV gf tfiei� comments. were made _ avail�hle to each Commiss%on member. Mr. $oardman sa9,d he did n�r_�raP '*h ��' '� comm�n*G made, Mr. Deblon said he had talked to the person who made the review, Carl Schenk, Mr. Shenk said the comments may seem harsh, hut wexe not intended. Lack of time made for h irru e3— courments. � Ms. Hughes questioned if these co�ents change the policy, do we approve them and then send them back to Metro Council or what happens to them. Mr. Boardman replied we will review the plan and comments, make changes WheYe_needed, approve them and send them to the Metro Council for further reviewal. These co�nents, changes, and regulations are not necessarily the ones the Minnesota EQC would make. There was still some necessary negotiation needed on the document. The comments wi11 be looked at to see if we are cavering them or not. PAGB 21: Ms. Schnabel said the chart referred to as Figure 3-10 should be labeled as auch. This was the Capital Improvements Program chart on page 23. PLANNING COAA�ffSSION MEETING, OCTOBSR 24. 1979 PAGE 5 She also questioned the statement in the 3rd paragraph. "In addition to proposing seven capital improvements of their own ...". She wanted to know what those seven were and where they are listed. She felt this should be clarified better. Mr. Deblon said those seven improve�nts were also referring to Figure 3-10. PAGE 22: Mr. Harris asked for clarification of paragraph 1. Mr. Boardman said if our water area was to be used as some sort of co�ercial activity, by Coon 8apida for eacample, we should have regulations to cwer that activity and know what conflicting activity it may involve. Mr. Deblon added if there was to be a use of the river for perhaps recreational use,then whst are the conflicting uses? i.e. canoe vs. motorized use. Ma. Hughes said the Park Committee would like to see the river used for some sort of recreational purpose and would like to have this regulation for conflicting uses in the plan. Ms. Schnabel asked about water quality in connection with surrounding co�unities, uses, agencies, etc. Mr. Boardman said our Compzehensive Plan does cover water quality and use very strongly. There was also co�ents on this in the Critical Areas P1an regulations. Ms. Schnabel asked if a city upstream was polluting the water, what course of action does Fridley have to correct it. Mr. Boardman said our only real option was the Metro Council. When they are reviewing other communities plan the water quality area should be carefully reviewed. Also our waterahed diatricts allow us closer, but limited control. PAGE 23• Ms. Hughes questioned the chart regarding stated imprwements, i.e. Riverview Heights Paxk, How do xeaidents find out about such improvements. That infoxmation should be included. Mr. Boardman said that information will have to be put in. The chart now was to give an idea of improvements. He pointed out that the costs and time table portions of the chart were blank because the park area of the Comprehensive Plan was not completed yet. Ms. Hughes also questioned the funding sources. Are these funds definite from those agencies or are we going to apply to them. Mr. Boardman said this was were we would apply for funding, if funding was not avail- able through LAWCON or LCMR and the city would have to fund, more time would be needed to complete each project. Ms. Hughes said the plan does not atate clearly what type of park plan there was. Mr. Boardman said that ahould be included also. PLAt�3INGG COA4�ffSSION_ MEETING. OCTOBEii 24. 1979 PAGE 6 Irene t4aertens, 144 River Edge Way, asked if the city really knew where the park imprwements would be needed. Mr. Boardman said the chart shows where improvements would most likely be needed. Ms. Hughes pointed out to the Planning Commission that the Park Commission had not reviewed or developed anything on the FMC River Front property acquisition. She wanted to know where this plan was coming from and where the funding was coming from. Mr. Boardman said the FMC property was to be a regional park in conjunctian with Islands of Peace. Thia package was put together by Anoka County. The funds will come from the Metro Council and the Great River Road project. The County has submitted to Fridley a PDR (Project Development Report) on this facility. Ms. Hughes wanted to know when the Park Co�ittee got to see this report. Mr. Deblon said the proposal goes to the federal government first, Yhen comes back for a public hearing. Mr. Boardman said Anoka County gave present�on of this plan directly to the City Council. The Council did approve the master plan. Ms. Maertens queatianed if Anoka County ba�ught just the FMC property or FMC plus the Islands of Peace project to Council, and how they got involved in iC. Mr. Boardman eaid the County can designate an area for park property without the conaent of the city. He said theg (MeCro Council) were looking at Islands of Peace to be a regional paxk and in order to do that you need at least 100 acres of land, This would also include Durnam Island. Ms. Maertens asked what type of development would be planned for this area. Mr. Boardman said it would be a passive, picnic area with walkways. Ms. Maertens said she had tried to get infonoation on this development from the Park Director, and he said he was unaware of any. Mr. Boardman was not sure if the Park Director had a copy of the PDR. He had gotten his copy only two days ago. Ms. Hughes said the public hearing time was too late. The deveYopment has already been decided. Mr. Deblon stated the City Council still w wld have to approve purchaeing of the land and what would be developed on it. There still waa time for public input. Ms, Schnabel said iC seems the Metro Council has already decided this area fiCS into their park plan and if it was not consistent with a city's plan, that was too bad. Ms. Maertena questioned if the City caould sell Islands of Peace. Mr. Deblon said he did not know for sure. PLANNING COMMLSSI�N MEE71iNG OCTOBER 24 1979 PAGE 7 Mr. Boardman explained the PDR was only an application for FMC propexty acquisition. The Islands of Peace as a regional park application was separate to the Metro Council. The Metro Council was very interested in the FMC property because it was the longest stretch of open space in the 1Fain Cities. The FMC pxoperty also includes funding by ttre Federal Highw.ay Administration and the Great River Road Project. FMC and Islands of Peace are tied together in this application because pzeviously Islands of Peace had tried to get regional park status. However, additional acreage was needed and so F1� was inaluded. If the Islands of Peace was not included as a regional facility, it would not necessarily stop the �cquisition of the FI� pxoperty. The Fedesal High- way was looking at FMC as a recreational park facility along the Grear River Road and an access to the river. Irene Maertens asked if the figure, 1.8 million,.was a correct.iigure for the FMC acquisition. Mr. Boardman said that was for the acquisition only. The federal government has guaranteed that much money. The city has no control what-so-ever on the acquiaition of the Ft�BC River Front property. We get control when the Council approves the plan. Ms. Schnabel asked how come it came before the Council for approval then. The County brought the PDR before Council to see what, if any, problems they had on it. Ms. Hora questioned who would own the land. Mr. Boardman stated the County would. The park would be a regional facility and the County would develope, manage, and maintain it. Mr. Hora thought the Park Coa¢nittee should have been allowed some input on this plan. Ms. Schnabel said she had heard talk that the FMC property might be used as a residen- tial area. Mx. Boardman stated they had talked with both FMC and the highway department on that proposal. The highway deparYment would not purchase any land if it had any development on it. The City could not purchase the 52 acres and neither could the Housing Authority. FMC wants to se11, but are very picky as to what they will sell it for. The City tried taking out 2 parcels of land to be developed, wiCh the federal government picking up the rest. F2lC would not go along with that idea. The City tried only developing 1 parcel with a motel and again FMC would not agree. They said if the highway department was to get involved, it was all or nothing. Both the County and Metro Council agreed it should be a park development. Ms. Hughes said the Park Camnittee would agree with that. Ma. MaerCens asked if FI� was willing to sell with the park idea in mind. Mr. Boardman said that was what came before the City Council. If they do not sell, the City could condemn the land and designate it park property. Ms. Maertens asked if the city could do that to all the land along the river. Mr. Boardman said yes, but it would be politically unwise to do so. All cities have that powe=. PLANNING COTffiSSION MEETING, OCTOBER 24. 1979 PAGS 8 Ms. Hughes said she thought Mr. Boardman had said before FMC wanted to sell, and now he atates they don't. Mr. Boardman replied they were willing to aell at their price. They want $50-60,000 an acre: Right now they are paying ta�ces on this vacant 1and as undeveloped R-1. He explained the land would be assessed at a certain price (l.e. $20,000/acre), FMC would claim it was worth $60,000/acre and would try to claim so by taking the city to court. A judge would then determine the cost per acre. That was the reasoning behind condemning the land. Ms. Hughes atated she was going to try to get the Park Committee to review this proposal before it was fully developed, but felt it might not be posaible because of time. Ms. Modig said so many times when something was to he reviewed by a committee, they are fighting a time element. This proposed park plan was a good example. They are suppose,d to ha�e citizen input on these questions and so often, staff says because of time, it muat be done iamiediately. She felt staff has already; many ti.mes, made a recamienda- tion or decision on a request before the co�ittees get to review them. Mr. Boardman agreed that the time element was a problem, but sometimes things have to be done within a certain period. Ms. Maertens said she also felt there was Lack of co�unication between the different departments and local governments. When she came into City Hall and asked the Park Director for infoxmation, he told her to go to ;the County. The information was available through, the Planning Department, only no one knew it. She also felt there should have been time for citizen input on the Ft� park question because it was known since last April that Islands of Pesce would be a regional park. Mr. Boardman said he had talked to the Planning Co�nissian about the FMC property, but did not have all the different concepts available until recently. He said this re- queat mwed very fast. After Anoka County presented their plan, he and the City Manager went to the County to push for one of the development plans. They were told no, if the City didn't go along, funding would be withdrawn. The funds had to be allocated - by November to keep the funding available. If the funding was not allocated by then the federal govemment would withdraw those funds for the State of Minnesota and give them to another state. The City had 4 days to make a decision. Mr. Treuenfels said it was important to note that a citizen was interested enough to come tonight and the infoxmation or where to get the information should haue been available for her to look at, but it wasn't. PAGE 24: Mr. Harria questioned ehe item regarding Entrance Development to the City. Mr. Boardman explained this would be some sort of landscaping or pertaags a sculpture to let motorists know they are entering Fridley. It would be something to represent the City. Ms, Schnabel asked for review of that plan by the Planning Co�nission. rA[:u 25• No Change PLANNING COMPIISSION MEETING OCTOBffit 24 1979 PAGE 9 PAGE 26: Ms. Schnabel stated the portion of item ��1 referring to "fleeting" does not apply to this portion of the Mississippi River and should be omitted. Item #1 to read: The Missiasippi River Corridor shall be managed as a multi-purpose public resource by conserving the scenic, environmental, recreational, mineral, economic, cultural, and historic reaources and functions of the river corridor, and pxoviding for the cantinuation of development of a variety of urban uses within the river corridor. PAGE 27: Correct �kl, the word or to of. _- Change 4k5, last line, tl:r�e to xwo. Correct ��6, ESSENTIAL SERVICSS: PAGE 28: Omit in at end of #8. Correct spelling, meadow on �11. Remove �2 under "Uses Excluded" Reword ��3 under "Uses Excluded" to read: Any waste material, storage, use or waste treatment facilities. Mr. Harris questioned �F'4. Mr. Boardman said this refers to gravel or sand mining. PAGE 29: Ms. Schnabel felt C should be reworded, because many of the factors of this regulation would be known or on records by the City or the proper government agency. It did not seem right to ask a developer to spend money to find out these factors, when they are already known. The extra costs involved could possibly discourage a develaper. C to read: Existing topography as indicated on a contour map having a contour interval no greatex than 2 feet per contour; the topography map sha11 also clearly delineate any bluffline, all streams, including intexmittent streams and swales, rivers, waterbodies, and wetlands located on the site. The topography map shall indicate the floodway and/or flood fringe lines and sha11 indicate the normal highwater mark of the river. Correct D, last word from lake to river. F should be E. Ms. Schnabel felt for better clarity, paragraph J should follow D. She also felt E, H, K and P should be grouped. Mr. Aarria asked about item G. PLANNING COMLfISSION MEETING OCTOBEtt 24 1979 PAGS 10 Mr. Boardman said in order to have any federai monies released, we have to have a statement from the Minnesota Historical Agency stating there are no Indian arrowheads, pottery, bones, etc. that will be disturbed by this development. PAGS 30: Change and to for, last line of J. PAGE 3]�: Correct spelling of the word services, 4th line of C. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Soardman if there were any variances for some of the requirements. He was referring to the possibility of a present structure being 50% or more destroyed. What requirements are allowed for Yeconstruction. Mr. Boardman replied variances would be allowed. They would be handled under the present zoning code. Ms. H�ghes questioned the need for variances in the Critical Area Plan. Mr. Boardman said, if for example, a row of homes bumed down and the street was 100 feet or less from the rivex, variances would be needed for setbacks. Otherwise a whole row of homes could not be rebuilt. Ms. Hughes pointed out that she thought that was the intent of the Eritical Area Plan. Mx. Boardman stated that was not necessarily t�ue. He felt the intent of the plan was to maintain a natural setting along the river. Houaes are not objectionable to look at. Ms. Schnabel pointed out one of the objectives, as lieted by the Metxo Gouncil, was for planned unit development. Another objective was dedication of road frontage for public use. These two objectives could or could not be compatible. , Mr. Boardman did not thinl� it was the intent, and should not be the intent of the plan, to remove all housing from the area. We already have streets along the river and if houses were not allowed, what was the purpose of having the streets. PAGS 32: Mr. Treuenfels felt item D should be clarified.regarding what type of view could not be walled off. Mr. Boardman said Chis paragraph was referring to sSenic or recreational views. Item D,_lgst sentence, should read: The walling off of scenic views of the river corridor from other properties and public right-of-ways shall be prohibited. PAGE 33: Mr. Harris felt item 3, section B, could cause some problems. It states only natural material could be used for bank preaervation. Some of those materials would be un- suitable for atopping erosion. SecCion C states nothing should be allowed, that was YLANNING COMMISSION M6ETING OCTOBER 24 1979 PAGE 11 not natural, to keep the eroaion control material in place. Mr. Boardman said it was stated that way in order to help preserve the view of the bank from the river. Ms. Schnabel pointed out you cannot see through rocks or wood, so why not allow some type of stabilization of that material by tiebacks or similar material. Mr. Boardman said the erosion control was for run-off and not flooding from the river. Therefore a terraced, retaining wall out of natural material would keep a more natural look to the river banks. Mr. Harris felt some erosion control systems were definetly eye sores, but if what was allowed doesn`t work, what good was the control. Ms. Schnabel said this was basically a personal opinion. Beauty was in the eye of the beholder. One person may consider a railroad tie retaining wall attractive and another person would consider it ugly. Mx, Boardman said one of the intents of the plan was to keep the natural character of the river. Retaining walls should therefore be out of natural material. Mr. Harris questioned the safety of these retaining walls. A proper tieback could help eliminate that possibility. Ms. Hughes said she would prefer to see the plan keep these requirements. Ms. Modig asked if present retaining walls of cement, chickenwire, etc. had to be replaced with the natural materials. Mr. Boardman said no. Mr. Harris asked to have section A included as written, section B to read: Construction shall be of roaterial approved by the zoni.ng administrator. Sections C and D deleted. Mr. Boardman said they would rewrite item 3 to include the changes. Mr. Treuenfels questioned the wording of section D. It should read: The minimum space between retaining walls shall be twenty feet. Mr. Schnabel pointed out under item 4, "Vegetation Management:.', only cutting of trees was referred to. What about some type of regulatian on small plants and shrubs. Mr. Harria asked if the selective cutting of trees greater than 4" in diameter was just for the area along the river. Mr. Boardman said it was for the whole Critical Area Plan. The plan has been set up by the �ederal goverx�ment to include all the land from the river to the highway system and therefore the regulations apply to the entire area. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBSR 24 1979 PAGE 12 Mr. Harris said he could go along with selective cutting up to 350 feet from the river, but not 2-�/2 blocks away. Mr. Boardman said sections A and B of Item 4 should be combined with the word however. This would then keep the xequirement where new development was being done along the river. Ma. Schnabel asked hnw the �ity could enforce section C which states a tree 4" in diameter if removed must be replaced. For example; an addition to a home meeting all requirements and needing no variances was built, how does the city make sure a tree was replanted. Mr. Boardman said the building permit would give the city the needed cantrol. Mr. Harris said he had some problems expecting all homeowners in the Critical Area to replant. Especially if they are 2,000 feet from the river. Ms. Modig said perhaps there would not be room for a new tree on a 1ot that was already developed. Ms. Schnabel said this could also infringe on the solar rights of a neighbor. Too much tree coverage would not allow for enougk sun light in certain areas. Mr. $arris questioned the right of the city to place such retrictions on some homeowners and not others. Ms. Schnabel said perhpas this should be a requirement Eor all of the city and not just a certain area. Mr. $oardman pointed out this area was a special area and had special conditions for it to exist. Any development in this area affects the Critical Area Plan and any affect on the Critical Area, affects the entire river. Ms. Schnabel asked about the removal of the sentence reading "expansion of escisting structures". This would then just pertain to new developments. Mr. Boardman said he felt that it was just as important to regulate on existing lands as well as on new developments. Why only regulate a certain amount of the land use and not all. Ms. Schnabel said for 3 reasons: 1, The regulation was picking on only a portion of the city. 2. There may not be enougk room for a new tree on a lot. 3. Possible infringement on a neighbor's solar rights. She said if only new developments were included in the regulation this would allow the city control for replanting in those areas. Ms. Schnabel was thinking of the possibility of some land opening up in the Critical Areas for housing development. Mr. Boardman said this regulation already does that, plus also regulates existing atructures. He said that would be picking on only new developments and the same 3 PI�ANNING GUMMISSION MEBTING� OCTOBER 24, 1979 PAGE 13 reasons could apply �to them also. He could not really see why a developer or existing structure would have a hardship replacing one or two trees. Mr, Harris felt the regulation was ridiculous and they would get laughad out of town. He could see the regulation for along the river, but not 2 blocks away. He also felt it was rather two-aided to expect homeowners to improve and keep the natural look of the area when on the other side pf their-homes, the city was widening East River Road to almost the extent of a freeway. MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Ms. Modig to delete the words "or the expansion of eaciating structurea" from the first sentence in C under Vegetation Management. Mr. Deblon pointed out that on the co�ent sheet from Metro Council a standard for tree replacement was needed. This was what this regulation was doing. UPON A VOICE VOTS� MLIDIG� ILSRRIS� SCHNABEL VOTING AYE� AND HUGHES, TREITENFELS, HORA VOTING NAY, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION FALIED BECAUSE OF A TIE VOTE. PAGE 34: Item 1, section C, add the word permit after special use. Item 2, section A1, correct spelling of word construction. PAGE 35: Mr. Harris questioned the last paragraph referring to chemical control. He felt there should be no chemicals used, because of the cloaeness of the river. Mr. Hora said if the chemicals are uaed properly, there should be no problem. Arbitrarily banning chemicals would be unwise. Such control for tree disease, poisin ivy, etc. would be required. PAGE 35• No Change Ms. Schnabel asked about sign control in the Critical Area Plan, particularly along the River Road. Mr. Board said that will be handled in the sign ordinance. The signs along the River Road are on the south side of I-694 and in a different district. There was also con- trol on federal landa. MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Ms. Schnabel to close the Public Hearing. UPON A VOICS VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HEfRRIS DHCLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:33 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Mr. Hora to reco�end to City Council approval of the Nlississippi River Corridor Critical Area Plan for the City of Fridley as simnended. UPON A VOICE VOTE� SCHNABEL� TREUENFELS, HORA, ilARRIS AND I�FDDIG VOTING AYE, AND HUGHES VOTING NAY, CHAIRMAN t1AltRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. Ms. Hughes said she voted no because she would like more time to study the plan and some of the changes made tonight. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 24 1979 PAG� 14 Mr. Boardman said the Planning Coc�ission would be able to discuss the plan again after the comments are received back from the Minnesota �,C. Chairman Haxris called a recess at 10:35 P.M, and reconvened at 10:45 P.M. 4. RSCEIVE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTII+IBER 19, 1979: MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Modig to receive the Park-and Recreation Com- mission minutes of September 19, 1979. Mr. Harris asked what was the purpose of the "Director's Philosophy" under New Business. Ms. Hughes replied because there were 3 new co�ission members on her co¢�ission, the views, feelinffi or goals of the City's park staff were not know�. The co�ission was devoting an hour of each of the ne�ct few meetings to hear certain members philosophy. These philosophys do not necessarily represent the commission's ideas. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN IL9RRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RSCEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COI�ASISSION MIN[JTSS: OCTOBER 9. 1979: MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Ms. Hughes to receive the Cormnunity Development Commission minutes of October 9, 1979. UPON A VOICB VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN FIARRIS D&CLARED THE Pi0TI0N CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, Ms. Modig pointed out the motion on page regarding the consideration of the staGUs of unused alleys in Fridley. She asked to have the Planning Commission conc.ur with this motion so it could be implemented as soon as possible. After reviewing the conditions of the motion it was decided condition 1 was the same as 2 and should be dropped. Also on condition 2, property owner was not defined correctly. The words "ad3acent to" should be added after the c�ord owner. Ms. Hughes said she got the impression from the minutes that the alleys would be vacated if not used and the city would probably initiate that action. However, there was a re- luctance to leave alleys unimproved, although used. She could not see how the city could ask homeowners to improve a used alley if they were satiafied using it unimproved. Mr. Harris pointed out they do not plaw unimproved alleys. Ms. Hughes said it was basically a philosophical question of hers. Why should the city be initiating such improvements if the homeowners are satisfied now. Mr. Deblon said these alleys are eyesor� and the improvements would helplreserve the neighborhood. It also would eliminate rut problems in the alleys and garbage pick-up problems. Mx. Boardman stated if the alley was there, it would be used like a road and therefore should be improved like a road. Ms. Modig said the idea behind the motion was to get the unimproved alleys imprwed. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 24 1979 PAGE 15 The alleys would then be an asset to the City. Mr. Hora queationed what happes if only one homeowner was using the alley for access to hia garage and the other homeowners wanted to vacate the alley. Could access ease- ments be required so the homeowner would not be cut off from his garage. Ms. Modig said that was why they wanted all adjacent property owners contacted. Mr. Bo�rdman pointed out if 1 or 2 homeowners were using an unimproved alley, would t hey be the anly ones charged for the improvement or would all the adjacent propetty owners be charged. Mr. Hora said he ran into that problem on his alley. Ms. Hughes asked how the city could get any agreement between homeowners who use the alley and those who don't. She questioned the city initiating such action. She agreed with improvement for petitioned alleys or vacatinn requests. Mr. Boardman said he felt the city would not initiate improvements on alleys used by some and not all. That would be a dynomite situation. Mr. Modig said the purpose of the motion was to find out what should be done with each alley. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Ais. Schnabel to concur with the Co�runiYy Development Co�nission motion regarding unused alley in Fridley, as corrected: To recomnend that Staff come up with a plan for the alleys "being used but unimproved". Each alley should be Yeviewed individually as follaws: 1. Contact property owner adjacene to the a11ey for feasibility of improvement of alley or vacation of alley. 2. Make a detailed analysis of each alley with specific recormnendations for each alley. 3. Implement some process for some feedback from the Public Works Department and the Public Service departments on each specific alley. "Designated but not being used alleys" should be vacated by the City. "Paved alleys" should continued to be maintained. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION GARRIED UNANiMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MLNOTES: OCTOBffit 9. 1979: MOTION by Ms, Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels to receive the Appeals Co:mnission minutes of October 9, 1979. Mr. Harris asked if YheYe had been any discussion regarding the clarification of "Stated Hardship" on the variance application. Ms. Schnabel said they did discuss it and staff said they are reluctant to make a decision as to what the hardahip was, If the applicant does not state it directly, they did not want to pue words in their mouths, However, the Appeals Commission did suggest the staff review the application when accepting their money. Ms. Schnabel said if there was or was not a valid hardship it will come out at the Appeals meeting. PLANNING COIBtISSION MEETING. OCTOBER 24. 1979 PAGE 16 UPON A VOIGE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DHCLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANII�fOUSLY. 7. RHCENE HOUSING AND REDHVSt.OP2�NT 91JTHORITY MINUTES : OCTOBER 11, 1979 : MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded hy Ms. Modig to receive Che Housing and Redevelopment Authority minutes of October 11, 1979. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman if the package for the Center City Project was together yet. Mr. Boardman said it was compLeted and he will be meeting with 7 or 8 developers this week. They hope for proposals by ,7anuary 15, 1980, thae would give them 90 days to review them and make a selection. He also pointed out the resolution on page 5 re- gardin� the purchasing of propeity for the Large Family Housing Program, UPON A VOIC& VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DSCLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. CONTINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES TO �HAPTIIt 205. ZONING: MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Ms. Modig to continue this item until Navember 15, 1979, when a special meeting will be held to discuss this item only, UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THL I�TION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. OTHER BUSINESS; I�ITION by Mr. Hora, aeconded by Ms. Schnabel to receive the article on Special Use Permits. UPON A VOICS VOTH� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS D&CLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMQUS'LY. This article had been presented by Mr. Langenfeld at an earlier meeting. Mr. Harris said he was approached by the owner of Central Auto Parts with a proposal to purchase the Chies property by the junk yard. He intends to enclose it with a fence and use it to park trucka there. Mr. Boardman said he had�talked earlier with Central Auto and said they are presently uaing the Chies building to take repairable cars, drop motors in them from other junk cars and then sell them. Mr. Boardman said there are a lot of junk cars setting up there now and he hates to see an expansion of this type. They would also need a Special Use Permit for this type of expansion. The city has 2 new construction sites being developed in the axea that will greatly imprwe it and the expansion of the junk yard would only create a larger, measy operation. He would try any legal controls he h as to stop the expansion. . Mr. iiarris said he was not told of the vehicle repair business, but only of the storage facilities. PLANNING COI�AiISSION MEETING OCTOBER 24 1979 PAGE 17 Mr.,Harris asked if there was any way to keep this expansion out. Mr, Boardman stated yes. Centzal Auto was using the vehicle repair and storage area as an expansion of the junk yard. In order to do so, that requires a Special Use Permit. The city would deny the permit. There are other developers willing to buy the same Chies property that would be more visually compatible. Ms. Hughes questioned if we can stop the junk yard. Mr. Boardman said not the junk yard, but we can stop the expansion request. Mr. Harris pointed out there was no definite proposal, but he had been contacted by this persQn. ADJOURIV[��NT : MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Ms. Modig to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of October 24, 1979. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL V.OTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECI.ARED THE MEETING AAJOURNED AT 11:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � Paula Long, Record g Secretary