PL 06/18/1986 - 30612CITY OF FRIDLEY
—� � - . . . pLANNTNf�..COM�1zSSI0N MEETINC,..JUNE_18, 1986
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice-Chairperson Oquist called the June 18, 1986, Planning Commission meeting
to order at 7:35 p.m.
ROCL CALL:
�
Members Present: LeRoy 0quist, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Wayne Wellan,
Donald Betzold, Sue Sherek
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Jim Robinson, Planning Coordinator
Jock Robertson, �ommunity Development Director
Dennis Schneider, City Councilman
Ben Rischa7l, United Stores
David Harris, 470 Rice Creek Blvd.
L. Robert Erickson, 2178 17th St. N.W., New Brighton
Richard Mochinski, 8271 Madison St. N.E.
(See attached list)
,., APPROVAL OF JUNE 4, 1986, PCANNING COMMISSION I�INUTES:
M0270N BY MR. KONDRICK� 5ECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO APPROVE THE JUNE 4, Z986�
�
PLANNING CQMMIS5ION MINUTE5 A5 WRITTEN.
UPON A VOICE UOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, £IICE-CHAIRPER50N OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY.
l. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL 11SE PEW'1IT, SP #86-07, BY
ED S ORES:
er ection 05.15.1, C, 13 of the Fridley City Code to allow wholesale/
warehouse enterprises that do not meet an industrial setting that have
considera6le customer contact and have no outside storage of materials,
inc7uding furniture, home building supplies, automobile supplies, etc., on
Lot 3, Block 1, Target Addition, the same being 785 - 53rd Avenue N.E.
1NOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, 5ECONDED BY MR. SABA� TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HE1�R.ING.
UPON A VOICE VbTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPE.R50N OQUIST DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:36 P.M.
NJr. Rob-inson stated that the United Store was located west of Highway 65
and sonth of 694. The zoning was C�3, genera7 shopping, The special use
perm1't was for a warehouse facility not associated with the principal use.
7he 7o�t area of the United Store was 104,600 sq. ft., approx. 2.4 acres.
The existing building area was 16,000 sq. ft., and the proposed addition was
� close to 7,600 sq, ft. The lot eoverage was less than 40% which is allowed.
�
PLANNING COM�ISSION�MEETZNG;�JUNE 18, 1986 PAGE 2
�
The bui7ding use would be approx. 80/ warehouse with the addition, retail
15%, office 5%. Presently, they have 51 parking spaces. The plan shows
81 spaces. The requirement is 38 spaces, so they do exceed the parking
demand even w-itFi tFie existing spaces.
NJr. Ro6i'nson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations:
1. Petitioner to prov�de an approved landscape plan and
instal7 6y Oct. 15, 1986.
2. Petitioner to provide automatac sprinkling system for
lawn areas and install by Oct. 15, 1986.
3, Petitioner to provade an approved storm drainage plan and
lnstall 6y OCt. 15, 1986.
J�r. Robinson stated the petitioner has also applied for a variance for the
slde yard from 80 ft, to 10 ft.
Mr. Betzold stated the Appeals Commission recommended approval of the variance
at their last meeting, because they felt this was a unique situation and
the addition would not enfringe on anyone else as it would only be close to
the e�it ramp off 694.
Mr. Ben Rischall s�ated the plan was quite self-explanatory. This was their
� faur'th year in Fridley and they have enjoyed a nice increase in business
o�erall. They have 13 stores in the Twin Cities and St. Cloud. This building
�as always 6een their distribution center. They are requesting the addition
6_ecause their 6usiness has increased and they find it necessary to bring
in more merchandise and, in some cases, store that merchandise in this
bui7ding. Gaven the amount of truck traffic already in the area with the
Target store, they feel any increase in traffic to their store would be
negligible. He stated they are pr.epared to meet all the city requirements
regarding landscaping, sprinkling system, etc. As far as drainage, they do
have an engineer working now to see if anything was necessary beyond what
ls already in p7ace. If the e�gineer feels more drainage improvements are
necessary, they will do them.
Mr. Kondrick asked how many people were employed at the store.
Mr. Rischall stated they average about four people in the store. The ware-
h.ouse has abou�.eight people right now and sometimes as many as 15 depending
on the season. The office has six or seven, again depending on the season.
Tf1ey do no�t anticipate adding any additional employees at this time.
�Ir� Rlscha7l stated they receaved a letter from Target that day stating that
Tdrget fws approved tfii s p] an .
Mr. Robinson asked if Mr. Rischall felt the additional warehouse space would
create the need for the additional parking spaces.
r"1
PLANNING CO�M9ISSION�MEETING; JUNE 18; 1986 PAGE 3
n
�r. Rischall stated they do not think it will at this time. Riqht now the
lot is strtped for 51 spaces. It can be striped to 81 spaces if they feel
there is a need in the future, but for now they will stay at 51 as long as
they are within city code and the extra spaces are not needed.
MOTION B� MS. SHEREK� SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD� TO CLO5E THE PUBLIC NEARING.
-�„�
IIP-9N A YOICE T70T�', ALL VOTI2VG AFE� VICE-CHAIRPE.RSON OQUIST DECLARED THE
PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED A2' 7:45 P.M.
MOTION BY MR. SABA, SECONDED $Y MR. KONDRICK, TO RECOMMEND TO C.ITY COUNC.ZL
APPROVAL--OF�5PECIAL U5E PERMIT, SP #86-07� BY UNITED STORES� PER SECTION
205.15.Z� C� l3 OF 2'XE FRIDLEY �ITY CODE TO ALLOW WHOLESALE/WAREHOUSE EIVTER-
PRI6E5 THAT DO NOT MEET AN INDUSTRIAL SETTIIVG �'H,AT HAVE CON5IDERABLE CUSTOMER
CONTACT AND HAT7E 11IU OUZ'SIDE.5�'ORAGE OF MATERIALS, .TNCLUDING FURNITURE, HOME
Bi7T�LDINP, SUpPLI'ES� AUTOMOBTILE SUPP,LIES� ETC.-, ON TAT 3, BLOCK .Z, TARGET
ADDITION, 2'IiE ,S,�1ME $EING �85 - 5.�R73 AVEIVUE N.E. , WITH THE FOLLOWING
STIpULATIONS:
1. PETITIONER--2"O PROVIDE AN APPROVED LAND5CAPE PLAN AND INSTALL
BY OCT. 15, 1986.
�.• PETITIONER TO PROVIDE AUTOMA?7C SPRINKLING 5YSTEM FOR LAWN
AREA5 AND INSTALL BY OC2'. 15, 1986.
3. PETITIONER 2'0 �ROV�DE AN•APPROVEb STORM DRAINAGE PLAN AND
� INSTALL BY OCT. 15, I986.
UPON A VOICE YOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHA.IRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED TNE
�'1pTION CARRIED' UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Oquist stated this item would go to City Council on July 7.
2. RUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT P.S. #86-03, BY
' 'D � ID FIARRIS:
A& R Addition, being a replat of the North 750 feet of the Northeast
uarter of tFie Idorthwest Quarter of Section 12, T-30, R-24, Anoka County,
1'nnesota, e�ccept the east 720 feet thereof, and except the south 300 feet
of said north 750 feet and except the north 233 feet of the West 230 feet
tf��ereof. Together with that part of the North 750 feet of the Northwest
Quarter of tfie Northwest Quarter of Section 12, T-30, R-24, Anoka County,
l�lnnesota, lying easterly of State Trunk Highway No. 65, except the south
30� feet of said north 750 feet and except the north 233 feet thereof.
MO�'ION BY MR. 5ABA� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO �PEN THE PUBLIC HEARIIVG.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOT.rNG A3rE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQU252' DECLARED 2'HE
PIIHLIC HEARIIVG OPEN AT 7:47 P.M.
Mr. Robinson stated this property was located on the southeast corner of
Osbnrne and Highway 65. The pr.operty consisted of approx. 5.1 acres, and
�,
it was zoned C-3. The property was surrounded by some light industrial
PtANNING�COMMISSION'�EETING;�JUNE 18; 1986 PAGE 4
zoning, also. He stated the petiti�ner was seeking to replat the property
into four lots that ranged in size from 31,000 sq. ft, to 71,000 �q. ft.
The four lots all met code in terms of lot area, except Lot 2 which was
31,000 sq, ft. Tfie lot area requirement for C-3 zoning was 35,000 sq. ft.
The next pu6lic fiearing was for a rezoning from C-3 to C-2, primarily so
the setb�ck-�equirements �nd the 7ot area will.be lessened. The lot area
requirement fo� G-2 zoning was 20,Q00 square feet.
Mr. Robinson stated that presently Viron Road was being reworked. This
�mprovement is fieing assessed to this platted property.
�r. Robinson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations:
1. Plat approval continge�t upon approval of rezoning.
2. Provide drainage and uti7ity easements on final plat as requested
by Staff.
3, petitioner agrees to assessments for one-half cost of Viron Road
improvements.
4. Park fees on four lots to be paid with building permits (subject
to prevailing rates�.
N�r. Harris �tated they-�have moved the line between Lots 1 and 2 so both lots
meet the 35,000 sq, ft. requirement, This makes it so the easement does not
r�un down tfie center of t�ie property line, but a71 the easements will be in
�"� Lot 2,.This gives Lot 2 tFie necessary square footage.
Mr. Harris stated tfie City Attorney was investigating the abandonment of
the sewer line easement that runs north and south. That was a private ease-
ment put in in 1967 by the original owner of the property and it goes to
Mr. N�a�well's property wFiich is the 42 acres to the south. Mr. Harris stated
that to his knowledge, this easement was never a matter of record, so there
�tas some question as to whether that north/south sewer line easement will
continue ot�er t�ian to serve the purposes of the City and whether it should
extend througFi Lot 3. It serves no useful purpose�for the properties that
�ist there now, He was sure �Jr. �laxwell would traise a concern about that
line also. He stated this question wil] be answered prior to any final action
�y the C1ty Council on this preliminary p7at request. _
Mr. Harris stated the reason for the replat was to clean up all the errors
and omissions tha�t were col7ected in this survey.
Mr. Robinson stated that 6ased on the change in the preliminary plat by the
pet1'tioner, tftey coald �liminate stipulation #1 because ti�e re oning wa o
longer o��tingent upon rezoning if all lots met the plat 3,OOOZSq: ft.�lo� area:
Mr. Maxwel7 stated he owned the property directly south of P1r. Harris' property.
The only concern he had was tfiat his property was 600 ft, deep. It was too
I�ig a piece of property to be tha� deep and isolated by itself. He wondered
�
�
PL�N�ING COM�IISSION'MEETING,�JUNE�18;�]986 PAGF 5
if the City had given any consideration to replatting that property or having
access to the back ha7f of it in the event he shouY.d decide to break it up
or develop it for a 6etter tax 6ase for the community.
�r. Ro6inson stated they have not looked.at Mr. Maxwell's property as part
of the overa7l effort. -
L�e was not aware tfiat �lr. �laxwell was interested in splitting his property.
Lnt11 a�ew days 6efore tFie�meetang. He stated the City really needed a plan
1n order to design a road for it. Ci�y Staff would be glad to work with
1�'. Maxwel l if fie came �n wi �h a p7an.
Idlr. Maxwell stated he would explore some possibilities. One o�her item he
would like to 6ring up was that in a former hearing with the City Council, tit
was mutual7y agreed 6�tween Dave Harris and himself that they would put a
privacy fence 6etween their two pieces of prop�rty by virtue of the fact that
he had a mo6ile Fiome sales lot on his property, That lot is now comp7etely
undeve7oped and no 6usiness is 6eing conducted on the property,.so he would like
i�o 6e releas�d �r�o� th� sh�ring of a fence.
INr. Harris stated he had no objection to thai. If, in fact, the property was
not being used as a mobile home sales lot and would not be,�used, then he had
no problem with there not being a fence between the two properties.
Mr. Robinson stated this would be noted in the minutes, and the City Council
�"� �rould address at �he time they act on the prelimi�ary plat. He would
recommend Mr. Maxwell attend that meeting or address a letter to the City
Counci7 stating his request.
INr. Maxwell stated he would attend the City Council meeting.
MO'T.fON BY MR. 5A8A� 5ECONDED BY M5. 5HEREK� TO CIASE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A 170ICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUI5T DECLARED THE PUBLIC
SEARING CLOSED AT 8:05 P.M.
M�. Betzo7d stated that regarding stipulation #2 regarding the drainage and
-�tl7ity easements, he would suggest they leave the wording as it is. If there
�as a reason to de7ete some of the easements, that can be done before the
pre7iminary plat reaches the City Council.
M07'ION BY MR. 5ABA� 5ECONDED-.BY MR. KONDRICK� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROI7AL OF• PRELII�IINARY PLAT� P.5. #86-03, BY DAVID HARRI&� A& R ADDITIOIY,
BEIN� A REpLAT OF THE NORZ'F1 750 FEET OF' THE NORTHEASZ' QUARTER OF THE AIORTH-
[aEST pUARZ'ER OF•5ECTION 12, 2"-30, R-24, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA� EXCEPT THE
EA.ST 720 FEET THEREOF, AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 300 FEET.OF SAID NORTH 750 FEET
_ .�tITD E%CEPT THE. NORTH 233 FEET OF THE WEST 230 FEET THEREOF. TOGETHER WITH
TFIAT pA1qT OF THE NORTH 750 FEET OF THE 1VORTHWE5T QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF 5ECTION.12, T-30, R-24, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, LYING EASTERLY
OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 65, EXCEPT THE SOUTH 300 FEET OF SAID NORTH 750
� FEET AND EXCEPT TH� 1110R2"H 233 FEET THEREOF, WITH THE FOLLOWING 5TIPULATIOIVS:
�,
PLANNING CO�MISSION MEETIFJG, JUNE 18; 1986 PAGE 6
3.\
1. PROVIDE DRAIIVAGE AND UTILITY EA5EMENT5 ON FINAL PLAT AS
REQUESTED BY STAFF.
2. PETITIONER AGRE`E5 TO A55E55P?ENT5 FOR ONE-HALF C05T OF
VIRON ROAD IMPROTTEI�?ENTS .
3. , PARIC FEES ON FOUR LOTS 2'O BE PAID WITH BUILDING PERMITS (5iTBJECT
TO PREPA.ZLING .RATE5J .
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYL", VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIS�' DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY.
�
Mr..,Oquis�t stated this item would go to City Council on July 21.
..... .. . ...... .. ... ...... . ... ...
PUBLIG�HEARTN�:��C0IVSIDERATION 0�'A'REZONING REQIIEST, Z0A #86-02, BY
TS R Fl [eTR r� e Rc*c �sc _
Z��� i��K 1 .� �' . . . . _ _ _ .
ez�fro C�-3 (general sfiopping center) to C-2 (general business) on the
Nor.th 750 feet=.of tfie NortFieas� Quarter..of the Northwest Quarter of Section
12, T..30A RR24, Anoka County, l�innesota, except the east 720 feet thereof,
and except tFie soatfi 300 feet of said north 750 feet and except the north
233 fee� of the West 230 feet thereof. Together wi�h that part of the
Nor.tFi 750 feet-.of tfie Northw�s�t Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section
12, T�30, R�24, Anoka County, l�inneso�ta, lying easterly of State Trunk
Highway No. 65, except the south 300 feet of said north 750 feet and except
the nor�h 233 feet tFiereof.
^ MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD� 5ECON•DED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO WAIVE THE READING OF THE
FO.RMAL pDBLIC NEARING NOTICE.
UPON A I10ICE VOTE, ALi VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OpUI5�' DECLARED THE
��'ION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION BY MR. SABA, SECONDED BY 1�II2. KONDRICK, TO OPEN TNE PUBLSC HEARIPIG.
UPOIIT A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAI.RPER50N OQUIST DECLARED THE
,Pi1BLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:10 P.M.
1�9r. Ro6i�nson stated this was the same property as discussed above. The zoning
�[as C�3, genera7 shopp�ng, and the proposal was to go to C-2, general business.
Tfiis was fieing done primarily so the smaller buildings that are going to be
p7aced on this plat would not be required to set back 80 ft. 3nstead of
35 ft. The first building proposed for the area will be a dental lab, approx.
5,500 sq, ft., a one-story brick veneer bui7ding. That was all that was
P7anned at this time.
Mr. Kondrick asked if the traffic situation had been addressed.
Mr. Ro6inson-stated the city engineers feel the new road will facilitate
tEie traffic. The proposed plan is more of an office scale development.
�[ith the current C-3 zoning, the developer coul-d develop th� area with a
� hi gher tr_affi�c vol ume. ��taff -feel s C-2 i s more a�propri ate for thi s
intersection and-wil-l-have less Df a traffic impact on the surrounding area.
PLANNING COMMISSION�MEETING; JUNE 18, 1986 PAGE 7
�,
MOZ',�pN BY MR. 5ABA, 5ECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO CLOSE �'HE PI7BLIC HEARING.
UPON A I70ICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN� AYE�� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQU,Z5Z' DECLARED THE
PITBLIC �EARING CLOSED A2' 8:16 P.M.
'M02'.ION BY 1�. KONDRICK, 5ECONDED BY MR. 5ABA, TO .RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF REZONING REQUE5T, ZOA #86-02, BY DAUSD HARRIS, REZONE FROM
C�3 (GENERAL SHOPPING CENTERJ TO C-2 (GENERAL BUSINE5S) ON TAF. NORTH 750
FEET.OF THE NORTXEAST piIART� OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF 5ECTION Z2� 2'-30�
13-`24��ANOKA COUNTYr 1�IINNESOTA� ERCEPT THE EAST 720 FEET THEREOF� AND EXCEPT
THE SOUTH..300 FEET OF SAID NOR2"H ?50 FEET AND EXCEPT THE NORTH 233 FEET OF
T�' WEST 230 FEET THEREOF. TOGETHER WITH THAT PART OF THE NORTH 750 FEET
OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTE� OF THE NORTHWE5T gUARTER OF SECTION Z2, T-30� R-24�
.�NOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA� LYING EASTER�Y OF 5TATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 65� EXCEPT
TIiE SOUTX 300 FEET OF SAID NORTH 750 FEET AND EXCEPT THE NORTH 233 FEET
THEREOF.
UPON A TIOICE VOTE, ALL TfpT.ING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON �UIST DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY.
Mr, Oquist stated this item would go to City Council on July 21.
4. PUBL-IC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #86-01, BY
.., ,.vd�n� Clc'1L�ICJUIV.
^ Rezone from R-1 one famil dwellin to R-3
the West half of Lot 4, all of Lotsg5, 6 and 7geLucia Lane�Additi�onl�ajj on
]ocated in the North half of Section 13, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County
of Anoka, Minnesota.
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY M5. SHEREK, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
-��
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OpUIST DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:18 P.M.
Mr. Robinson stated this property was located on the northeast corner of
Highway 65 and Plississippi St, and included Lots 5, 6, and 7, and the
westerly half of Lot 4. The property was zoned R-1, single family, and was
in a single fami]y neighborhood. It consisted of approx. 64,000 sq. ft, or
12 acres. The proposal was to rezone from R-1 to R-3 in order to facilitate
a townhouse development of 10 units. The proposed density was 6,400 sq. ft.
�er unit. The al]owable density in an R-3 zone was 2,500 sq, ft, per unit.
f course, that would be to facilitate an apartment building. The 6,400 sq, ft.
of 70� area per unit being proposed worked out to be about 6.8 units per acre.
A typical townhouse density ranged from 8 to 12, so this was described as a
very low density.
Mr. Robinson stated the proposal was for all two bedroom units with double
garages, 7 3/4 bath, approx. 1,600 sq, ft., not including the garage. When
�,,,` Staff looked at the plan, they felt it was somewhat unbalanced in that there
� �ere eight units for tFie west portion and two units for the east portion.
�,
�
�'1
PLANNING COM�IISSION MEETING, JUNE 18, 1986 PAGE 8
They realized this was to minimize the impact on L,ucia Lane and the single
family neighborhood. However, S�aff came up with some alternate plans, one
1n particular had some merit. Tt was staying with the ten units but break-
Zng them up so there were three clusters instead of one long linear building
that had soroething of a barracks-type appearance:-three units on the eastern
portion, four uni�s facing Highway 65, and the other three units �n the
northern part of the site.
Mr. Robinson stated the driveway access was facilitiated by a driveway onto
�ississippi, approx. 130 ft, from the in�ersection, and another driveway onto
Lucia Lane. The deve7oper fe7t the plan suggested by staff did have some merit,
and he �ight be willing to implement the plan. Also, the plan provided some
distinct green �reas for privacy and play areas. It also turned a blank wall
to the single family fiomes rather than the back of �the buildings.
Mr. Robinson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Provide an approved landscape plan, including berming of
boulevards.
Provide automatic sprinkling of all lawn areas.
Provide snow fence around all trees adjacent to construction
zone; identify which trees will be removed prior to construct�on.
Obtain townhouse plat approval and record with City approved
covenants prior to second reading of rezoning ordinance.
Provide 25 ft. street/bikeway/walkway easement along
Mississippi St.
Provide a tot lot area with equipment prior to occupancy.
Park fee of $500 per unit to be paid with each building permit.
Provide a 6 ft. high solid wood s�reening fence between project
and adjacent R-1 land.
Rezoning is for townhouse plan as proposed only.
Petitioner to provide an approved storm drainage plan.
Work with Staff to identify guest parking locations.
(�r. Wellan stated that r.egarding stipulation #8 to provide a 6 ft, high
solid wood fence between project and adjacent R-1 land, who maintained that
fence?
Mr. Robinson stated there would have to be a townhouse covenant and maintenance
would be spelled out in that covenant.
Mr. Robinson stated that in 1983 Mr. Erickson had requested a rezoning from
R-�1 to R-3 for 14 una�s so this project was scaled down from 14 to 10.
Mr. �rickson stated he had no objection to the different layouts suggested
by Staff. Tiie problem, of course, was the beautiful trees, and they want to
save as many trees as they can. As far as the ten units, that is the number
they came up with in order to make the project financially feasible. Anything
less than ten would wipe the project out. He stated the townhouses would be
owner-occupied, not rentals.
PLANNING CO��ISSION��EECING; JUNE 18;'1986� PAGE 9
!'1
-- Mr. Jack Young, 6549 Lucia Lane, stated he had lived in this location for
24 years. He stated there had been at least 4-5 proposals for this property,
and each time the proposals have been shot down. He stated the neighbor-
hood has a lot of traffic already, with the apartment buildings at the
other end of Lucia Lane and the Knights of Columbus Hall. Lucia Lane is
a one-way street for all those people, and he did not believe the traffic
from this new deve7opment would use T�ississippi St. as an exit. They would
use Lucia Lane. With the possibility of a median down Mississippi, that
would force tFie people to use Lucia Lane even more. He stated there were
only 1] homes on both sides of Lucia Lane, and now they are proposing to put
in 1Q more homes in an area about 1/4 of that space. It did not make good
sense. There would be ten homes with possibly twenty cars on a lot that
would not even house five residential homes. Why can't the property be left
as a residential district? Why do they have to go through this same thing
every 2-3 years?
Mr. Henry Me7cher,6500 Pierce St., asked Mr. Erickson the approx. selling
price of each unii.
I�r. Erickson stated the se7ling price was approx. $70,000 per unit.
. Ms. Lois Raaen, 6501 Lucia Lane, stated she would like the property to remain
residential. Lucia Lane was already too busy. If they put ten townhouses
on that property, there were going to be problems. She stated she has lived
^ there 17 years, and she liked living there; but if they put townhouses in
_ there, she was going to move.
Ms. Jody Bystrom, 6533 Lucia Lane, asked why single family homes coul� not
be built on this property.
Mr. Erickson stated the back half of Lot 4 was landlocked right now. The
only way to get into Lot 7 was a curb cut on Mississippi and right now the
County is talking about widening P�ississippi and putting in a median, so a
driveway could not be put out on that corner. So, that virtually made Lot 7
useless. Lot 6 was the same way. Lot 5 could be divided in half for two
residential lots. That was why he was requesting a rezoning to R-3 and
proposing a townhouse deve7opment. R-1 housing was just not feasible.
Ms. Joyce �wanson, 6601 Lucia Lane, stated she did not object to the con-
struction or the design as much as the density. The intersection of Mississippi
and Highway 65 was notorious for �raffic accidents. Traffic was very heavy in
the area, and putting 20 more cars onto Mississippi was going to make it worse.
Mr. Joe Randal7, 1210 Mississippi, stated he would like to see the property
remain R�1. He fe7t there were alternatives to work with landlocked lots.
Ms. Elvina Timo, 6517 Lucia Lane, stated the driveway from the proposed
development onto Lucia Lane wou7d come right toward her house. She was afraid
th�is development would depreciate the value of her home. They do have a lot
� of prob7ems at night with traffic from the Kraights of Col.t�mbus Hall, as well
, as the Lucia Lane apartments. She wanted the property to remain zoned R-1.
PLANNING COMMIS_SION NIEETIPJG, Jl1NE 18; 1986 PAGE 10
�
.;
Mr. Bob Bystroro, 6533 Lucia Lane, stated he fe7t the access from the proposed
de�re7opment onto Mississippi probably would be impossible. He doubted if
eastbound traffic on Mississippi would ��ant to turn left any sooner than
Lucia Lane. Also, there was a considerable incline onto Mississippi from
Lucia Lane. In the winter, in spate of maintenance, it was often difficult
to make the grade the first time beca�se of the slippery surface. It seemed
to him the people who would be trying to get in and out of the proposed
townhouse deve7opment would be at a real disadvantage as they would have no
momentum at all trying to get onto Mississippi when Lucia Lane was slippery.
He did want to say-there were some things about this townhouse design that
were better than previous plans.
Mr. Jack Young stated he did not think families with young children would
.�.uy on th�is busy corner. He was afraid if these townhouses did not sell that
they would turn into rental units.
Mr. Robert Haedtke, 6540 Lucia Lane, stated he felt the townhouse development
would really decrease the real value of the homes in the neighborhood. What
about assessments for water and sewer and the roadway? As far as the density,
where would the children play? Marketability was mentioned in the request
for rezoning, but it was also marketability for the people who own their
6.omes in this area. There was too much traffic, the density was too high,
and it was unjust and unfair to take away some of the real value from the
^ peop7e who own homes in this area.
' Mr. Robinson stated
additional streets.
by the developer.
�
>
all utilities are in place, and there would be no
The expense of any hook-ups to utilities would be borne
Mr. Dick Berganini, 6596 Pierce St., stated he was against the rezoning
proposal.
Mr. Oquist stated !�e had a letter addressed to Councilman Dennis Schneider
froro Dean Thomas, 6550 Lucia Lane, who could not be at the meeting. Mr. Thomas
expressed concern that the units be owner-occupied, not rental units, he was
concerned about the density and concerned about the traffic. Mr. Oquist
stated this letter would accompany the minutes to the City Council.
Ms. Jody Bystrom stated that if the townhouses were not sold and they became
rental uni�ts, what happened to the townhouse association?
�lr. Erickson stated that townhouse association documents are written so that
each unit that is built has to contribute to the association, whether the
uni�s are owner-occupied or rental.
Ms. Lilas Crosser, 6565 Lucia Lane, stated there were many accidents on the
corner of P9ississippi and Highway 65 already, It would be worse with more
traffic.
n
PLANNING CO�MISSION�MEETING; JUNE�18;�1986' � PAGE 11
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD� 5ECONDED BY MS. 5HEREK, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HE�RING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPE,RSOPI OQUIST DEC,UARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:03 P.M.
Mr. Wellan stated he would not be in favor of the deveiopment. He felt that
�tit{� the limited properties in the community, the landlocked properties could
be rearranged so that single family homes could be put in.
Ms. Sherek stated she had a problem with the theory that something could be
done with the lots facing IMississippi St. Just looking at the intersection
of Highway 65 and INississippi made you realize it was unrealistic to expect
people to have access from their front yard at that corner. She really
tFiought the ]ots were not developable as R-1 zoning; and in view of the
opposi�tion of the neighbors, she did not think R-3 was all that realistic
either unless sanething was explored with regard to making some kind of shared
driveway across the backs of the properties so 3-Q• homeowners could access
onto Lucia Lane. She also did noi think it was realistic to believe that
because they p7ot a driveway onto Mississippi that the peop]e living in the
townhouses were going to use it to any extent--yes, if they are making a right
turn onto Mississippi and a right turn onto.Highway 65, but the rest of the
traffic was going to go to Lucia Lane.
Mr. Ro6inson stated that regarding Ms. Sherek's suggestion about a shared
� dr1veway,for 3.-4 single family homeowners, it would have to be a private
- drive maintained by the homeowners, which was contrary to the city code.
It was possible a variance could be granted for something like that.
Mr. Oquist stated the problem with a deadend street was the servicing by
eroergency vehicles.
Mr. Saba sta,ted he really felt it was an injustice to the neighborhood, and
he felt bad that they had to keep coming back defending their right to an
R-1 zone. He had some problems with the development and problems with the
traffic.
Mr. Betzold stated he was sympathetic to the neighbors' concerns, but he
wondered if the concerns about traffic were not a little bit overstated. He
said that because he happened to live in probably the densest area in the
City of Fridley, the Black Forest Condominiums right next to the Farr Town-
houses. Just in the deve7opment he lived in there were 250 different units
and one driveway that comes in and exits. One would think they would be
drt�ving into one an��her all the time, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
Mr. Betzold stated there would certainly be an increase in traffic, but he
felt the concerns expressed about the traffic seemed to be primarily because
of the Lucia Lane Apartments and the Knights of Columbua Hall, particularly
the Knights of Columbus Hall which generates a lot of traffic at set times.
r"�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETI�G; J�NE 18;'1986� � PAGE 12
�
� Mr. Betzo7d stated something was going to have to be done with this property,
The Cor�nission has to be concerned, not only with the neighbors, but also
with the deve7oper. There was going to have to be some give and take on
6ot� s1�des as thi's was too importan� a piece of land to have it remain as
lt 1S.
Nlr. Oquist stated he agreed with Mr, Betzold. He stated he has been involved
with the last four proposals, and one of these times they are going to have
to approve a project because this property has to be developed. They have to
be concerned about the best deve7opmen� for this area, and he was not sure
single family homes was the best development for this property.
T�� Kondrick stated he a7so agreed with Mr. Betzold. This was the best
proposal he has seen so far. Single family homes were not feasible for this
property, and it was not fair to leave the property vacant. He also wondered
lf the traffic concern was a little overs�ated.
Mr. Erickson stated the main reason for the dual entrance and exit at
Mississippi and Lucia Lane was for emergency vehicles.
MOTIOIV BY MR. BETZOLD� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNC.ZL
APPROVAL OF REZONING REQUEST� ZOA #86-�01, BY L. ROBERT ERICKSOIV� TO REZONE
FROM R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS) TO R-3 (GENERAL MULTIPLE DWE7IL.ZNG) ON THE
WEST HALF OF LOT 4� ALL OF LOT5 5, 6� AND 7, LUCIA LANE ADDITrTON, ALL LOCATED
^ I1V THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 13, T-30, R-24, CITY OF FRZ'DLEY, COUNTY OF
-� ANOKA� MINNESOTA, WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS:
Z. PROVIDE AN APPROVED TIANDSCAPE PLAN, r1VCLUDING BERMING OF
BOULEVARDS.
2. PROVIDE AUTOMATIC SPRIAIKLI111G OF ALL LAW1V AREAS.
3. PROVIDE 5NOW FENCE AROUND ALL TREES ADJACENT TO COIVSTRUCTION
ZONE; IDENTIFY WHICH TREE5 WILL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
4. OBTAIN TOWNHOUSE PLAT APpROVAL AND RECORD WITH CITY APPROVED
COi1ENANTS PRIOR TO SECOIVD READING OF REZON.ZNG ORDINANCE .
5. PROVIDE 25 FT. STREET/BIKEWAY/WALKWAY EASEMEN2' ALONG
MISSIS5IPPI ST.
6. PROVIDE A TOT LOT AREg WITH EQiTIPMENT PRZOR TO OCCUPANCY,
QUAT.ITY AND 52ZE SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL.
w7. PARK FEE OF $500 PER UNIT TO BE PAID WITH EACH BUILDING PERMIT.
8. PROVIDE A 6 FT. HIGH 50LID WOOD 5CREENING FENCE BETWEEN
PROJECT AND ADJACENT TO R-1 LA1VD. ;�
9. REZONING IS FOR TOWNFIOU5E PLAN Ac PROPOSED ONLY.
Z0. PETITIONER TO PROVIDE AN APPROTTE'D STORM DRAINAGE PLAN.
11. WORK WITH STAFF TO IDENTIFY GUEST PARKI111G LOCATIONS.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, KOIVDRICK, OQUIST, BETZOLD VOTIN.� AYE, WELLAN, SABA, AND
SHEREK VOTING NAY, VICE-CHAIRpERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOT.IOIV FAILED BY A
TIE VOTE.
�,
RLANNING CO�MISSION �EETING, JUNE 18, ]986 PAGE 13
�
� Mr. Kondrick stated he hoped the City Council would give this proposal some
serious thought. He felt this was the best proposal the Planning Commission
has seen for a long time. The plan had a lot of inerit.
Mr. Oquist stated the Planning Commission was at a stalemate. This item would
go';to the City Council on July 21 with a split vote. He recommended the
peop7e concerned be:at that meeting to express their concerns.
�
�
5. pUBCIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #86-03, BY
� C' ' OCHINSKI:
Rezone from C-1 local business) to R-3 (general multiple dwelling) on Lot 16,
except the East 199 feet thereof, 17 and 18, Block 2, Spring Ualley Addition,
all lo�ated in the south half of section 13, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley,
County of Anoka, Minnesota.
1KOTIOIV BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. SABA� TD OPEN THE PUB.T.Z'C HEARING.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL UOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPER50N OQUIST DEC�ARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:29 P.M.
Mr. Robinson stated this property was located east of Old Central and north
of Rice Creek Rd. It was zoned C-1, local commercial. There was approx.
96,900 sq. ft, or 2.3 acres involved., which was all of Lot 17 and 18 owned
by Mochinski and the west half of Lot 16 which was owned by the HRA.
Mr. Robinson stated the proposal was to rezone to R-3 in order to allow the
construction of 19 single family attached townhouses. The density was
5�1Q3 sq, ft, of lot area per uni�t or 8.5 units per acre. Th"at was a moderate
density for a townhouse develoment which generally ranges in density from 8�-12
units }�er acre. The units would range in size from 1,100 - 1,500 sq, ft.
seiling in the mid $70,000. Each would have a double car garage and there
wonld be room for two cars �or visitor parking behind the garages.
Mr. Robinson stated they have worked with the developer to come up with the
best townhouse plan, and Mr. Mochinski was willing to go alo�g with the
fo7lowing stipulations recommended by Staff:
1.
2.
3,
4.
5,
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Provide an approved landscape plan, including berming of
boulevards.
Provide automatic sprink]ing of all lawn areas.
Pet�tioner to provide an approved storm drainage plan.
Obtain townhouse plat approval and record with City approved
covenants prior to second reading of rezoning ordinance.
Provide a tot lot area with equipment prior to occupancy.
Park fee of $500 per unit to be paid with each building permit.
Provide a 6 ft, high solid wood screening fence between the
project and adjacent to R-1 land.
Rezoning is for townhouse plan as proposed only.
Work with staff to identify guest parking locations
Petitioner to agree to pay for utility and street assessments
�not including new storm drainage pipe).
��
PLANNING C�P��ISSION �EETING, JUNE 18;�1986 PAGE 14
�r. Robinson stated the petitioner has gone to the HRA, and the HRA has
tentatively agre�d to assist him because of the severe soil correction costs.
Mr. Robinson stated this was a similar deve7opment to the one on Silver Lake
Road across from Apache Plaza.
Mr. Richard Mochinski stated he has been trying to sell this pr�perty for
some time,-and he has had.a number of proposals--manufacturing, storage
�arehouses, offi�ces, etc., but he had not had any luck putting the numbers
together. Then, i� was 6rought to his attention that the best possible 'use
for the land would be townhouses, one in a moderate price range, because of
Ziebart and a moving and storage company right across the street. He stated
the property does not lend itself to commercial because of the traffic.
Mr. Mochinski stated one of the difficulties was the poor soil. The cheapest
bid so far was $150,000 to take out approx. 72 ft, of bad material and replace
tt �ith granular fill, so their cost projections are even higher than when
they originally started. Right now it was borderline with the number of units
t�ey have. Anyth�ng less than that would make it very difficult to put the
package togetFier.
Mr. Brian Peterson, 1340 64th Ave., stated his main concern was drainage in
the soil. There was a drainage ditch on the south side, but what about the
north side? They have all kinds of water problems on the north end where the
� houses are. He stated he also felt a townhouse development would depreciate
-- tfie value of the sing�e family homes in the area.
Mr. Kondrick exp]ained that one of the stipulations recommended by Staff was
that the petitioner had to provide an approved storm drainage plan.
Mr. Robinson stated the developer would have to guarantee that run-off from
the new development would not exceed the rate before development.
Mr. Mark Schwartz, 1372 64th Ave., stated drainage was also one of his main
concerns, other than that he was opposed to the development. It was too many
units, and a townhouse development would not fit into this area at all. It
is all R-1, single family homes, and small businesses. He stated there was
a 6ig water problem right now; it was more than just getting adequate drainage
on the new development.
Mr. Oquist stated the plan was to ensure that the problem was not any worse
than it is today. The development would not improve the present situation,
but it would not make it any worse.
Ms. Lavonne Kowski, 6391 Central Ave., stated this property shared her back
property line. She was thoroughly against the proposal. There were too many
units and it would create too much traffic. She felt all their property values
would go down, and she would much rather see a business go on this property.
�
PLANNIPdG COP�MISSION �EET3�G, JUNE 18, 1986 PAGE 15
��
� Ms. Jean Schwartz, 1372 64th Ave., stated they just bought their home in
February. They checked with the surrounding zoning before they bought their
home. If this property had been zoned residential, especially multiple,
t�ey would not have bought. They decided to buy because the property was
zoned C�1, light coTrm�ercial, a business thai is there during the day and
gone.at nig�t. They were opposed to the massive 19-unit townhouse complex.
Also, Old Centra7 was already a very busy road. They would �e talking about
a lot more people coming out onto Old Central. Obviously, their property
taxes are not going to go down even their real estate value will if the
development goes in.
P�r. Brian Peterson stated that as far as rezoning, he would rather see the
property zoned in the res�dential direction, rather than commercial.
Idealistically, he would like to see it zoned R-], but that might no� be
feasible wi�h the high w ater table. He stated he was not too happy about
the density. He did not think going to multiples wauld decrease their
property values that much. As stated earlier, his major concern was the
drainage.
Ms, Jackie Ca]erom, 6401 Centra7, stated she wa� totally against this develop-
ment, 6ecause of the drainage problems, the extra children in the area, the
noise and the traffic. It was just too many people for this size an area.
�'. 9oe Nelson, 1357 64th Ave., stated he was against the proposal because
�"� too many units were being proposed. He would not like to see 60-80 people
- living in that area.
MOTION BY MR. SABA� 5ECONDED BY MS, SHEREK, TD CLOSE THE PUBL.ZC HEARIIVG.
UpON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRpERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT I0:15 P.M.
Mr. Betzold stated it seemed there were two issues the Commission was facing:
1. The rezoning issue. That cannot be taken lightly, because once
property is rezoned, it does affect the character of the neigh-
borhood. One,thing they have to keep in mind in the rezoning
question was that Old Central was not the same as it was years
ago wfien it was the main thoroughfare from Minneapolis. It is
going to 6e c]osed down even more once the Lake Pointe Corporate
Center is deve7oped and once the Moore Lake access is closed from
the south. He did not realistically think this area was ever
9o1�'ng to be a commercial area.
2. The residential issue. If the property was rezoned residential,
was this the right way to do it? Normally, from a townhouse stand-
point, this proposal was on the low side of the der�sity.
l�r. Kondrick stated he agreed that the density was low compared to the size of
�� tfie property. Considering the entrance and exits to and from the property
PLANNING COI�MISSION �EETING; JUNE ]8, 1986 PAGE 16
,�,
` and the green areas, if the deve]oper was willing to agree to all the
stipulations, he felt this would be a good development.
Ms. Sherek stated the hope that was expressed by a few people that this
property could possibly be deve]oped long range with single family dwellings
was not feasible due to the poor soil conditions. The hope was for either
a light corim�ercial or a residential development sueh as the one being
proposed, because the cost of single fami7y housing would be prohibitive.
TFLe other question was whether it would be desirab7e to develop single family
wt�th what is already across the street from this prope'rty.
Mr. Saba stated stipulation �8 that the rezoning was for the townhouse plan
as proposed only was a very important stipulation.
Mr. Oquist stated that from a density standpoint, the proposal did not seem
unreasonable. This property would be hard to develop as commercial. The
drainage plan will have to be very strict to make sure the drainage is
controlled in the area.
MOTION BY MS. SHEREK� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF REZOIVING REQUEST, ZOA #86-03, BY RICHARD MOCHINSKI, TO REZONE
FROM C-1 (LOCAL BU5INESS) TO R-3 (GENERAL MULTIPLE DWELLING) ON LOTS 16�
EXCEPT TNE EAST Z99 FEET THEREOF� Z7 AND Z8, BLOCK 2, SPRING VALLEY ADDITION,
ALL LOCATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF 5ECTION Z3, T-30, R-24� CITY OF FRSDLEY,
� COUIVTY •OF ANOKA� MINNESOTA, WI�'H THE FOLLOS�ING 5TIPULAT.TON5:
` Z. PROVIDE AN APpROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN, INCLUDING BERMING OF
BOIILEi7ARDS.
2. PROVSDE AUTOMATIC SPRINKLING OF ALL LAWN AREAS.
3. PETITIONER TO PROU.LDE AN AppROVED STORM D.RAINAGE PLAPI.
4. OBTA2IV TOWNHOU5E PLAT APPROVAL AND RECORD WITH CITY APPROVED
COVENANT5 PRIOR TO SECOND READING OF REZONING ORDINANCE.
5. PROVIDE A TOT LOT AREA WITH EpUIPN1ENT PRIOR TO �'CUPANCY.
6• PARK FEE OF ,5500 PER UNIT TO BE PAID WITH EACH BUILDING PE.RM.ZT.
7. PROVIDE A 6 FT. HIGH 50LID WOOD 5CREENING FENCE BETWEEN PROJECT
AND ADJACEIVT TO R-Z LA1VD.
8. REZONING IS FQt TOWNHOUSE PLA1V AS pROPOSED ONLY.
9. WORK WITH STAFF TO IDENTIFY GUE5T PARKING LOCATION5.
10. PETITIONER TO AGREE TO PAY FOR UTILITY AND STREET AS5E55MENTS
(NOT INCLUDlNG NEW STORM DRAINAGE PIPE).
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE
.1�IOTION CARRIED UiVANIMOUSLY.
INr. Oquist stated this item would go to the City Council on July 21.
6. CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L S #�6-05, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY:
Split off the South 150 feet of the West 80 feet of Lot 6, Auditor's
Subdivision No. 129 (presently being part of Flannery Park), the same
being 1500�- 75th Avenue N.E., to be used as a residential lot.
�
PLANNING COMP�ISSION MEETING, JUNE 18;�1986 PAGE 17
�,
`" �r. Ro6inson stated the proposal was to split off a lot which was 80 ft.
b� 150 ft, and fronted onio Onondaga St. It was a portion of Flannery
Par� which was described as unused. By Resolution #81-1984, the City
Council has determined that this is e.�ccess property. Ne stated the process
now i� to qet the lot split approved and sold, Ther� a�e �uyers interested
in the property.
MOTI0111 BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY 1�II2. SABA, TO 13ECOMMEND TO CITY CDUNCIL
A,PPR027AL OF LOZ' SPLIT REgUE5T, L.S. #86-05� BY �'NE CITY OF FRIDLEY� TO SPLIT
OFF THE SOUTX 150 FEET OF THE WE5T 80 FEET OF LOT 6, AUDITOR�5 SUBDIVISION
NO. 129 (pRESIs'N�'LY BEING PART OF FLANNERY PARK) , THE 5AME BE.ING 1500 -
75th.AVENUE N.E., TO BE USED A5 A RESIDENTIAL LOT.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL�OTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIS_T DECTIARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY�
Mr. Oquist stated this item wou7d go to City Council on July 7.
7. CONSIDERATION OF APPRUVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QfJACITY COMMISSION WORKPLAN
�
1 VR 170U"
.���'
M0�z70N BY MR. WELLAN� SECONDED BY NIR. SABA, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAZ QUALITY COMMI5SION WORKPZ�AN FOR Z986.
� UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE
- MOTION CAR.RIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. RECEIVE MAY 14 1J86, SPECIAC liIJINAIV RESOURCES COMINISSION MINUTES:
1%O�'ION_ BY MS. SHEREI{, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK� TO RECEIVE THE MAY 14� Z986,
SPECIAL HUMAN RESOURCES COMMI55ION MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTlNG AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
g. RECEIIIE MAY 20, 1986, ENllIRONNJENTAL Ql1ACITY COh1MISSION MINUTES•
M0�27�N Bi'1�. WELLAN, 5ECONDED BY 1NR. KONDRICK� TO RECEIVE THE MAY 20� Z986,
ENVIRONMENTAL QUAL.ITY COMMISSION MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECZARED T$E
MOZ'ION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. RECEIVE JUNE 2, 1986, PARKS & RECREATION COI�MISSION MINUTES:
MO�T.F0111 By MR. KONDRICK', 5ECONDED BY MR. WELLAN, TO RECEIVE THE JU1VE 2, Z986,
PARK.S � RECREATION COMMI55ION MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTSNG AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE
n MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUS�Y.
PCANNING COMMISSION MEETING� JUNE 18a �986 PAGF 18
n
` 11. RECEI�E �UNE 3, 1986, ENERG� PROJ�CT COI�MITTEE MINUTES:
MOTION BY MR. 5ABA� 5ECONDED BY 1�2. 'KONDRICK, TO RECEIVE THE JUNE 2� Z986,
ENERGY PROJECT COMMITTEE MINUTE5.
�2.
�
13.
�
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL I70TI1VG AYE, VICE—CHAIRPER50N OQUIST DECLARED �'FiE
MOTIOAi CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY.
RECEIIIE JUNE 5, 1986, HUMAN RESOURCES COMId1JISSION MINUTES;
1�?OTION BY MS. SHEI3EK, 5ECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK� TO RECE.ZVE THE JUNE 5,
1986, HUMAN RESOURCES COMM255ION MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE—CHAIRPER50N OQUIST DECJIARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNAlVIMOUSLY.
MOTIOIV BY MS. SHEREK, SECONDED BY MR. SABA� TO CONCUR WITH THE MOTION MADE
BY Td�E HUMAN RE50URCE5 COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND TO C.ITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
OF THE FOL?AWING 1986 HUM.z1N 5ERI72CE CDBG FUNDING:
ANOKA COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION PIF�RAM
FRIDLEy SENIOR CENTER
NORTH SITBURBAN COUNCIL FOR THE ART5
ALEXANDRA HOUSE
5T. WILLIAMS CHURCH
S.A.C.A.
NORTH SUBURBAN CONSUMER ADVOCATE5
FOR THE HAAIDICAPPED
NORTH SiTBURBAN FAMILY COUNSELIIVG CENTER
CENTRAL CEIVTER FOR FAMl'LY RE50URCE5
FANIILY LrTFE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER
— $6,840
— 3,000
— 2,000 �
— 3,000
— 2,000 **
— 5,000
— 1,000
— 2,8y4
— ..-3,•000
= ' '2.;874
$3I� 588
'�� TO BE USED FOR SENIOR PROGRAMMIIVG
** TO BE USED FOR FREEZER5 AND FOOD, NOT WAGE5
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, VICE—CHAIRPERSON OQUI5T DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
RECEIVE JIJNE 10, 1986,APPEACS COI�MISSION MINf1TES:
1IOTfON BY MR, BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO RECEIVE THE JUNE 10, 1986�
APPEAL�S COMMISSION MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE—CHAIRPERSON OQUI5T DECLARED Tl•IE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
,"�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION �EETING, JUNE 18, 1986 PAGE 19
14. OTHER Bl1SINESS:
a. ICO Station at 7375 Highway .#65
b.
c.
Mr. Robinson stated the Commiss�no� had received in the agenda a letter
dated April 28, 1986, to Koch Marketing Co. from Richard Larson,
Deputy Chief, Fridley Fire Dept., and a memo dated June 3, 1986, to
�im Ro6inson from Ric Wiersma, Code Enforcment, regarding the vacant
ICO Station at 73rd and Highway.65. These were for the Commission's
information, and no action was required.
Daycare Ordi�ance Changes
Mr. Robinson stated that at a_pre�iaus meeting, the Commission members
had talked about revising the daycare ordinance. He stated the
Commissio�ers had received at this meeting a copy of a proposed
ordinance change.
MOTION BY MR. SABA, SECONDED BY MR. WELLAN, TO RECOMMEND TO CIZ'I'
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CNANGE5 IN �'HE DAY CARE
CENTER ORDINANCE.
UPON A VOICE V02'E, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQIIIS5T DECLARED
THE 1NOTION CARRIED UNANIMOU5ZY.
Swimming Poo] Ordinance
NJr. Robinson stated that as requested at the last meeting, Staff had
done some research on swirrening pool fence requirements in six other
cities. Nbst other cities require fencing for pools that are greater
than 24 inches in depth. They had also included in the agenda some
minutes fram the Oct. 22, 1975, Planning Commission meeting, the
Nov. 5, 1975, Planning Commission meeting, and the April 5, 1975,
City Council meeting when�.�he code was changed from a requirement of
4 ft, fencing to 6 ft, fencing. Concerns were expressed �bout the
afiility of children to climb 4 ft, fences versus 6 ft, fences. Part
of that issue revolved around the fact that if they went with a 4 ft.
fence, it would probably be chain link fencing which has footholds
while people were more apt to install solid wood fencing if the
requirement was 6 ft.
Mr. Robinson stated they found that Brooklyn Center waived the fencing
requirement if the pool wall was 4 ft, high with a removable ladder.
1%r, Saba stated his concern was that the City's ordinance did not
address separately the above ground pool versus the below ground pool.
It was virtually impossible for a�oddler or small chi�d to walk up to
a 4 ft, high above ground pool and fa71 in. A� foot high above ground
pool wall d t h
� oes no ave any footholds and with the removable ladder,
it was virtua7ly impossible for the child to fall in or climb in unless
he/she was older. If they are older and determined to get into the
poo7, they can climb a 6 ft, high fence.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 18,�1986 PAGE 20
��,
v Mr. Saba stated that regarding any concern about 4 ft, above ground
� pools being recessed 6-8 inches into the ground, most pool manufac-
turers recom�end that the above ground pools set on the ground and
not 6e re�essed�into the ground because of rust. Even if the pool�,
�tas recessed 6�8 inches, it would sti17 be very hard for a small child
to get into the pool.
�r. Saba stated that in researching the other codes, both New Brighton
and Broo�lyn Center allowed the 4 ft, wall af the pool to be part of
the 4 ft. high fencing requirement.
Mr. Saba stated the code was just inconsistent in distinguishing between
above ground and be]ow ground pools. (Ne had no problem with the 6 ft.
f�ncing requirement for below ground pools.) It was forcing a lot of
eastra expense to people in order to adhere to the 6 ft, fencing require-
ment. One was the flimsy rai7ing that can be attached to the top of the
4 ft, wall (cost �$600�1,000 depending on the size of the pool) to
satisfy the 6 ft. requirement.
Mr. Robinson stated Fridley's ordinance was based on the national
standards which were put forth by the American Public Health Associa-
tion°.s model ordinance.
� �s, Sherek questioned when that ordinance was written, because above
ground poo7s were not very prevelant ten years ago, at least not in
� t�is part of the coun�ry.
�r. Saba sta�ed he would like to see the Fridley swimming pool ordinance
changed similar to Brook]yn Center's code for above ground pools.
MOTION BY MR. SABA TO RECOMMEND �'HAT THE SWIMMING POOL ORDSNANCE BE
CHANGED SIMILAR TO BROOKLYN CENTER'S SWIMMING POOL CODE THAT ALL OUTDOOR
POOLS REQUIRE A 4 FT. HIGH FENCE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ALL ABOVE GROUND
POOL5 �'HAT HAVE A MINIMUM 4 FT. HIGH VER TICAL POOL 5IDE WITH A REMOVABLE
LADDER.
MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A 5ECOND.
Mr. Oquist stated he fe7t the Commission really needed to review
the Fridley swimming pool ordinance. He would request that the
Commissioners get a copy of that ordinance for review at the
next meeting.
Mr. Saba stated the City requires people to build fences around pools,
but the City does not put fencing around lakes, creeks, beaches, which
are also very attractive nuisances. He would just like to see the code
changed to soroething more reasonable.
v
PLANNIPIG COI�MISSION �EETING, JU�E 18; 1986 PAGE 21
^
ADJOURN�ENT:
NlOTION BY 1�. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO ADJOURN THE MEETSNG. UPON A
VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUI5T DECLARED �'HE JITNE 18� .Z986,
PLANNING COMMIS5ION MEETIIVG ADJOURNED AT 11:20 P.M.
Respectful7y submitted,
. .1 . ... _ .
yn Sa a
Reco ding Secretary
�
�
� �. __
C� ` r + _
� \�
,!%�/j�:e�
_�
,^ _ ld' �9��
. - _ _ - -- - ��-�_ � -
�.2s%1.f l _ ..�� �"O � %� •�rc� r �.� , ^�. /
� `
�-hvl t5 '`�c dlh� c �l� -_ - __��� � e�� e � � �_ . __ ___- _
� � Ce���� �
_:
-- - - ��''�S _ _ _ _
.
_ _l� � (�=� � - _ - �
, ��� _ .
�' '
r ,
- � - - _ ��-� �_��� � ;�
"
' - . - - - - - _ _Z�. � °�� � s-�s� - �
�
�
.
- . ��...�,.,�,� _ _ �.�"�_� : . , � � � _ � ._� � . -
_ _
_ �°�' Q�� _ _ f� 5 33 �0�c — °�� t�_-�, � ----� --_ � —
� _ __ _t_-n__ --Co ���_ �.-1�-�� �-� _
�-�
� _ _-- - =--_����__ _ _ �. -_��_ y - __- -
-� - _�'_�_ _ �- � _�_ � ��e _
� �� �-�� _ --- � �-�� �_�' _�._.� -�-�- � �, - �'-- _
.�
--- � ��o - - ,� ��-- �._� _ �._ ---
- -�--- _ �! � - � ��-sr_ � s���� -�� - �
e.E� . _. , :� _ . _ '�- - �- — �� S � /
� -�- ��r���- � .
_ -_- ����_ - _ - _ ��� �v - � � . __.
. �.
_ - _ � _-� -- ;� _-- %`� �� - -- -- - .�-� �- �_ �_� � C�
_ ,
z
� ���� � _�.-�. - -� _. �- _�
: I��� _� y�
__
� -- --_
� - � .--_ - - -
_ __ � �_ �7__ � � ��—�_
- -_-,_ �'�-=-
_ -_
. � _ -
- -- _ _ _ � - - -c� 4�=- - - - _ �..�i�_ _ - =_ �.� _
_ _
6 .�� = 6� � � --- -- �3�/ - �1�.,�,�1: ��.� �r� � �
- - _ _ � __
�►�. �- �__� _ . _ - -- — - -� -�-- -- � _ - � �
-% _: __�- _ -. � 3_� �. � �ffi-�!' -. __ �� �s
, /�,_
�
-� -_� � �-� �`� .��,��- �� .
-
- '� ���_- �cfG���- -��% ��
� ���� s �� -�
�__ _ �°=�.�.�v - �
.,
a�
_ _ _ — — -- --- — - - —
^ !/ g �
� � S 7` /
- -- - �2 f o�.r� _ _ _ _ __ 5�
� � _
�°_� - ----- -�s�i �°� ,�� -- - -��
- -- - --- — -
� �� __ _f . Ccs�,.� - —__ __ _ _-" _� SG� V� Lu.c�_ �%� � � �
- - _ _ -- -
����.- _ _ l � �'o �. �
�
` ' /� � � -
__ _ __- �� ���� - - -
_ - -- ��c�� �� ��� _
�- �r��� �� �..� s�. �. �
C - -- -
��e��nf �l �c,,� _ -�__ �Zl � ,C�,�eo�� s�2 d� �"
� - -
n
_ __ _ - _ _ _ -- - -- _ _ . I
�"�� ___ ----- ___----__ _ ___---__ _ _ - ---_ . _ __--_ __