Loading...
10/18/1976 - 5725JANET KONZAK ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OCTOBER 18, 1976 �i I� � t � � � CT� MINUTES OF THE PJBLIC HEARING MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF OCTOBER 18, 1976 I� ' LJ � � � �� � � I� � �. ls� � i • , , ` ` . � � i THE MINUTES OF TNE PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF THE FRIOLE�Y CIi'Y COUNCI� OF QCTOBER 18, 1976 � . � � i � i , � The Public Hearing Meetinq of the Fridley City Council of October 18, 1976, was called to order s�t 1:42 p.m. by Mayor Nee. PLEDGE OF ALI.EGIANCE: � Mayor Nee led the CounciT and the audience in saying the P]edge of Alleg9ance to the Flag. ROLL CAIL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Councilman NamerRik, Councilwoman Kukowski, Councilman Starwalt, and Councilman Fitzpatrick. MEMBERS ABSENT: None ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilman Hamer�ik to adopt the agenda with the additions of the consideration of a req�est by Mr. Ed Wilmes, 6350 Riverview Terrace, for reward signs to be posxed at the Islands of Peace, and consideration of the first readin.g of an or.dinance for a vacation request by Assurance Manufacturinq. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon•a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARIN6S: . PtJ6LIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE: MOTION by Counci]man Fitzpatrick to waive the reading•of the Public Hearing notice and open the Public Hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the Public Hearinq opened at 7:44 p.m. Mayor Nee stated that there was additional new ianauaqe to the Charter reqarding the requir�nents of the C?ty Cierk insofar as determinina the validity of signatures on petitions and Voter Registration Cards ar+d the reas�nable effort made to contact the persan(s) in question who signed such petitions. Mayor Nee then�proceeded to quote the added ]anguage which is in Section 5.03 of the Charter as follows: "The city clerk shall be responsible for determining the validit,y of signatures. If it is obvious the signature on the petition is the sianature of the person on the Voter Re�istration Card with which the signature is compared, the siqnature shaTt be counted as a valid signature, notwithstanding the fact that the person may have siqned the petitTOn irr a different matter when they signed the Voter Registration Card. Before discard�n4 a signature, a reasonable effort shail be made to contact the person(s) in question to determine if, in fact, they did sign the petition." Meyor Nee then asked if there was anyone who wished to comment on the proposed added language and there was no response except from Councilman Starwalt who for the benefit of the audience, stated that the proposal had been reviewed extensively by the Councii and the Charter Co�►ission and all were in agreement that ihe added language was very reasonable and straight-forward. MOTION by Councilman �itzpatrick to close the Pubiic Hearing. Seconded by Counci)man Starwalt.� Upon a voice vote, al7 voting aye, Mayor Nee dec]ared the motion carried unanimously and the Public Hearing closed at J:47 p.m. ! � i i i , � � 1 i r � � PUBLIC HEARING ON STREET AND ALLEY VACATION SAV #76-05 BY ASSURANCE MANUFACTURING ; ' COMP NY, 3 BEECN STREE , VACAT ON 0 U ILITY AN DRAIN GE EASEMENT: MOtION by Councilman Hamernik to waive the reading of the Public Hearing notice and i open the Public Hearing. Seconded Dy Councilman Pitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, al] � I � voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried u�artimo�sly and the Public Nearing , � a opened at 7:48 p.m. ' � '� : : ! ` � • � f � 1 164 0 PUBLIC HEARING MEETING.OF OCTOBER,18, 1976 i � PAGE 2 � i � Mr: Dick Sobiech, Public Works Director, proceeded to discuss the matter st�ting that this was a request to vacate a certain portion of drainage and utility easement in a vacated alley located between Elm and Beech Streets. 7he vacataon is requested to allow the adjacent property ow�ers, Assurance Manufacturinq Company, to expand their facility and, in fact, their manufacturing operation. Mr. Sobiech further stated that the Planning Commission held a Public Hearina on the matter and based on such hearing, did recommend to Council approval of the vacation request with the stipulation that certain�drainage easements be provided south of the existing property to allow for any drainage to the adjacent streets. The utility companies were also notified.and they advised that they had no objections to the requested vacation. Mr. Dallas Anderson, representative from Assurance Manufacturing was present and stated that they would like to get started. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to close the Public Hearinq. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, alt voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the Public Hearing closed at 7:56 p.m. Mayor �ie� then stated that the approval for the adoption of the first reading of the _ ordinance for the vacation request would be added later in the agenda and that it was not necessary for Mr. Anderson to be present and thanked him for attending the hearing. OLD BUSINESS: CONSIDERATION OF A RE�UEST �OR FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE NORTH SUBURBAN FAMILY SERVICE CENTER T B ED 10/4/76 : • Mayor t�ee made reference to a letter received from Mayor Geo�ge J. White, City of ` Coon Rapids, whereby he stated that the total anticipated deficit for 1977 would be $3,306, as a result of the usage by the residents of Fridley at the Nortfi Suburban r,tiFa�nily Service Center. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that according to the letter, � the feeling is that the City owes $1,400 in one service and $900 for the Nucleus Clinic which he felt very stronaly about contributing to. Councilman Fitzpatrick also stated that he believed the Nucleus Clinic was not a duplicated service in any sense and apparently the people who use such services do aot have as►other source to use. He further comnented that the other services deserve support too, however, the total amount available for such privileges was not very qreat. _ Councilwoman Kukowski stated that she had attended the open house on October lOth and was very impressed with the'work the Center has been doing; however, she wou}d like to see the contribution of $1,000 donated without any specific designation. Councilman Starwalt stated that he had some qualms about the Cit.y becominq involved in public health fields.• He further made reference to a paragraph in the letter which asks the City of Fridley to cover the anticipated deficit in 1977 and any future years. Councilman Starwalt stated that he would like to have it aareed that this be for 1977 and the City of Coon Rapids stand on their own thereafter as he would not want this to be a continuing canmitment. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that he believed tMe request will contine as long as the citizens of Fridley continue to use the serviees. Councilman Hamernik then comnented ttiat he discussed the situation with several people in tfie comnunity and the reaction he received was somewhat along the lines of Councilman Fitzpatrick -- that the Nucleus Clinic provides a service that the City of Fridley does not provide and recommended that this service be available for people who want or need the service and he had no objection to the contribution of $1,000. MOTIOW by Councilman Fitzpatrick to contribute $i,000 without designation to the North Suburban Family Service Center. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Uoon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MR. ED WILMES: REWARD SIGNS FOR POSTING AT ISLANDS OF PEACE: Mr. Ed Wilmes, 6350 Riverview 7errace, addressed the Council re�ardinq his proposal for reward signs for the Islands of Peace. Mr. Wilmes stated that witfi all the time, funds and ef.forts that have gone into the Islands of Peace, he proposed signs be posted offering a reward for any information leading to the arrest or conviction of anyone destroying property of the Islands of Peace in a approximate amount of $1p0. If, however, the City could not undertake the entire amount, Mr. Wilmes stated that there wouid be an organization which would undertake this if the City would be willing to match the reward. � u ' � � , , , � , � , , � � � > � I ,� • • � �' t � � . 165 a PUBLIC HEARIN6 MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1976 PAGE 3 He furLher pointed out that he believed the entrance to the Islands of Peace should be well lighted, and it was time to ask the public to cooperate in any way possible to prevent the threat of vandalism from happeninq. Cou�cilman Starwalt stated that he understood Mr. Wilmes' viewpoint, however, whether a reward would be the best type of inethod to achieve this, he cou7d not fully agree. He further pointed out that there were people reviewing the sign ordinance. There is some sign psychoTogy and sometimes signs turn certain individuals to destruction. Council- man Starwalt stated that he would like to encourage this be qiven to Staff and perhaps for the Parks and Recreation Repartment to review the matter and be brought back to the City Council at the earliest opportunity with something that everyone could agree on. Mayor Nee stated that if it is feasible, it might be worthwh�lein a�� of the parks. He further co►ronented that the matter would be discussed again when the City Council has received some feedback from Mr. Chuck Boudreau, Parks and Recreation Director. NEW BUSINESS: CONSIDERATION OF FIRST REAOING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY 0 RIDLEY: ' � Mayor Nee indicated he thought they had already had the first reading of this ordinance. ! Mr. Marvin Srunsell, Finance Director, said that the consideration of the ordinance ! previously inciuded everything except the item the Public Hearing was held on this � evening. Mayor Nee said that maybe this item can be added onto the previous �onsideration � of the ordinance as an amendment and we can hold the second reading of the ordinance as � amended. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, said that we checked with the City Attorney's office j and the thought was that, even though it was not too substantive a change in the Charter, j it might be better to consider it as a first reading, including all changes, and hold the second reading next Monday at the next Council meeting, so as to avoid the raising of any questions of improper adoption of the Cfiarter amendments. Mayor Nee said there was a section on resoiving in the case of an inconsistency between two initiated ordinances, and from his point of view, he withdrew his objection to it. He said it is.still the same problem -- his problem with it hasn't changed, but his view of whether or not it is serious has changed. He said he could not convince members of the Charter Commission of his point of view. He said ihat at least for hts part of it, he agreed to vote for the language as suggested by the Charter Commission. MOTION by Counci7man Fitzpatrick to waive the first reading and adopt the first reading of the ordi�ance. Secanded by Councilman Starwalt. Unon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING THE MINUTES DF THE PLANNING COhp�fISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 6, 1 976: INNSBRt1CK NORTH REPLAT 3RD ADQ., P.S. #76-05: f�tOTION by Councilman Starwalt to set a pablic hearing for December 13,•1976. Seconded by CounciTman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vate, a]l voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimousiy. INNSBRUCK VILLAGES SECOND ADDITION, P,S. #76-i0: MOTION by-Councilman Starwait to set a public heari�g for December 13, ]976. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. qpon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. DELIER ADDITION, P.S. �76-09: MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to set•a public hearin� for Oecember 13, T976. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all votin� aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. � - -- m � � t i i � i i � �.. _._, ____ _ � 166 , l � � , i � PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1976 . PAGE A ; KENNETH GASPER LOT SPLIT REOUEST, L.S. #76-08, 5�1 RICE CREEK BOULEVARO: Mr. Sobiech proceeded to discuss the matter statina that this was a request for a• lot split to split off certain parcels of proper±y adjacent to the subject property located at 501 Rice Creek Boulevard. The request is being made by.the petitioner � in order to make greater use of the adjacent property. P1rs. Kenneth Gasper was present and Mayor Nee asked Council if anyone had any �uestions, and there were none. However, Mr. Virnil Herrick, City Attorney, asked Mrs. 6asper if there was going �o be an exchanne of deeds and she responded that there was. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to approve the lot split as requested. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all votin� aye, Ma,vor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. BENEDICT IVOUAK LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #76-09, 145 71� 4JAY N.E.: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to approve the lot split as requested. Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all votina aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ST. 1975-3 (EAST RIVER ROAD): (� Mayor Nee asked if there was anyone present to discuss the matter and Mr. Mike Paripovich, Member of the Fridley Environmental Cluality Co�iss�on, 8200 East 4 River Road, addressed the City Council. He stated that the purpose of asking for a moratorium was simply that there was not enou�h information at this point to � even agree on what is being araued. ATso, more inforniation is needed from so� federal agencies requiring noise levels and air pollution levels surrounding ; residential dwellings and the purpose of the moratorium is to enable Mr. Paripovich to qet this informatian tcoeti�er. i I i � { � C { t � ( � ; { Two years ago, the County Engineers had no plan to show him and now they are ready to`go ahead with a four or five hundred thousand dollar project,and there is a' good deal of resentment on the part of the people who live in the subject area. He further pointed out that until his Committee can net a �ood plan together, one that can test against federal standards and state and county highway standards as they exist, and until several studies can be made; he and his Committee do not fieel the City should go ahead and spend four or five hundred thousand dollars. Councilman Starwalt then proceeded to ask Mr. Paripovich in reqard to his concern over the.noise levels and poliution levels along Ezst River F,oad, why wasn't he concerned about Highway 65 and University for the same reasons. Mr. Paripovich stated thet he was concerned and that this was a matter that could be discussed in future projects. Hcwever, his Project Committee was set up to study East River Road. Councilman Starwalt asked, assuminn the noise and pollution fumes are more than the people desire, what Mr. Paripovich Froposed to do about the whole three areas and all the traffic thet enters there. Mr. Paripovich then referred to the East River Road Project Committee report and as pointed out, tfie Minnesota Hi�hway Department study showed that there will be approximately 9,000 cars per day on East River Road. This study is based on the completion af the Georgetown area. He further stated that he believed it would be in order for the City of Fridley to seek some relief from the traffic pressures the City has. Councilman 5tarwalt stated that it was his position that, as nice as it would be for East River Road, he believed the burden would be put e]sewhere and he felt that this is simply a problem that all weuld have to live with. Mr. Paripovich responded that the peopie who live between Mississippi and Georqetown recognize this fact and were simply askina that their share of ttie probiem not be increased. Hr. Sobiech pointed out that althounh an improvement shauld be made, basically the oniy problem the Project Committee and the County and City Staff differ on is the Co�nittee's proposal for a two lane roadway with medians and shoulders as opposed to the City and Count,y`s proposal for a four lane roadway with medians and shoulders. The medians and shoulders are proposed to provide safe access for the adjacent neighborhoad to aet on and off East River Road. MOTIUN by Councilmari Fitzpa±rick to approve the.rnoratorium with a thirty day time limit. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upor► a voice vote� Councilmembers Fitzpatrick, Kukowski and Mayor Ivee votina aye, Councilmembers Starwalt and Hamernik votin� nay, Nayor Nee declared the motion carried three to two. f ` ' ; i� � � � � � ' � ' � � ' � 1 ' ' . � . � �. �i ; ; � ' � � � � � ; i ' !J PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1976 167 PAGE 5 Mr. Nasim Qureshi, City Manager, theh proceeded to reiterate for the purpose of clarification and to give some background and reasoninq on the East River Road project. He further stated that East River Road has been a four lane road for over twenty years, thereby being a four lane road before a number of the houses were built in Fridiey. Basically, the interest of the City has been to try to contro] the traffic on East River Road and make it easier for local traffic to Qet on and o�f the roadway safely. He further pointed out that presently, the plan has been approved to be funded by a federal grant and if the City �s ever qoin4 to do any improvement on East River Road, this would be the right time as the Cit,y could use federal funds to do the project rather than the local taxpayers having to pay for the project. He further stated that the chance of losinq the f2deral grant could happen if the project is delayed. Also, if there are any leqal requirements to be met, such as environ- mental impact study, it should be done. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES FOR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1976: • R. TOMCZAK, 999 OVERTON DRIVE N.E.: � ' _ Mr. Sobiech stated that this was a request by the petitioner at 999 Overton Drive ; for a variance; first, to allow reducing the front yard, and second, to allow a � variation from the 4' fence requirement in the front yard to a 6' fence as required � • by the Swimming Pool Ordinance. He also stated that the Appeats Commission did ' j deny the request by a 3 to 1 vote. Mr, and Mrs. Tomczak were present and Mr. Sobiech asked them if they had reached any aqreement with the surroundinq property owners. � Mr. Tomczak repTied that they had aqreed at the Appea7s Commissian meeting to go � along with their request for a swirr�ning pool. � � � '� �J � � ' , '' t t ' � �� � � Councilman Hamernik stated that he spoke with several of Mr. Tomczak's neighbors and although they did not object per se, they were, however, concerned about the safety aspects of putting somethinq that close to the boulevard. He further � pointed out that the Appeais Commission did have a similar type request which �' they did pass without Council input, and there have been some'problems with that; � and the encroachment on the boulevard was not to the extent as that beinq discussed now. Counci�lman Hamernik further added that he talked to Mr. Ault and that � Mr. Ault indicated to him that he did not want to be the one to block this request, however, he felt there was a concern which was the City's responsibility; that � being the s�te situation of puttinq somethinn which is essentially in a front yard ; along the street. Councilman Hamernik expressed his concern about allowing { something like this because there is a considerable deviation from the plan of ; the area since the requirement on someth�nq like thfs is 35'. Mrs. Tomczak responded that she felt this was very unfair and that this was the only place j they could put in a pool. Councilman Hamerrik stated that he would not be in favor of approving the request at this time, but he would be open to tabling the matter for further discussion. . � Councilwoman Kukowski stated that she believed th9s is something that is going i to come up again and again and suggested that Council get together for discussion on November 22nd. ! r � . j � MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to table the matter in arder to formulate and discuss a policy with the AppeaTs Commission. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. PACO, INC., 7760 BEECH SiREET: Mayor Nee stated that the Appeals Co�nission recommended qranting one variance, but not the other variance. • Mr. Sobiech stated that this was a request by Paco Hasonry for a variance from buiiding setback and property line setback in order to be al�owed to construct a speculative wareho.use. He further stated that the petitioner was notified but Nas not in atteFldance and he did not know why he was not present. There also dppeared to be some confusion regarding which plan the Appea]s Commission was to look at. The petitioner had brou�ht in one plan for his application, and at � � _ �_.. _ � ._ _ — .r.. _— ___.._ _ _ _ _` � .i i � f i � , � I i . • .+ PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1976 � �'I PAGE 6 � � anOther ti'me he'd brought in a revised one. For.tunately the variance request was the same -- setback from a lot line and setback from a building iine. The only problem is that at the meetinq, the Appeals Corraniss�on did not know which' plan they were really looking at, and so they approved one variance and passed on the other without recorr�nendation. The Appeals Co�nission did recortunend approvai of a variance request to use the parkina lot setback from 5' to 3' and they failed to make recommendation regarding the 5' setback from the property line. Mr. Sobiech further commented that it was Staff's contention that the 5' setback requirement to the property lot line be maintained based on the concern they have for the future development of the block. He also believed that in order to continue the development of an industrial nature, there will have to be side yard setbacks for this reason. Also, at this point in time, he would not want to get involved in the situation where there is a black top parking lot abutting proposed future buildings. In order to maintain this flexibility, it was requested that the 5' be maintained and that a reduction in the buildinc� actually take place. Mr. Sobiech also stated that the petitioner mentioned at the Appeals Commission meeting that it would be a hardship in that he would not maintain his 40% iot coverage. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to concur with the Appeals Conanission to allow off-5treet parking within 3' of the main building and deny the request for reduction in setback for a parkinq lot from a property line._ Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the'motion carried unanimously. 110-1976 - RECEIVING THE PRELIATINARY REPORT AND CALLING A e MOTION by Councilman Starwalt '� adopt Resolution No. 1I0-1976. Seconded by Council- woman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all votinn aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimousiy. CLAIMS: MOTION by Councilwanan Kukowski to pay the Claim No's. 17189 - 17407. Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a`voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE FOR STREET AND ALLEY VAC;4TION, ASSURANCE NU TUR' N� ., SEE H ST EET: MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to waive the reading and adopt the first reading of an ordinance to grant the drainage and utility easement vacation request SAV #76-05 for Assurance Manufacturing. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, ail voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the r�tion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: MQTION ty Councilwoman Kukowski to adjourn the meeting. Secottded by Councilman 5tarwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor PJee declared the motion carried unanimously and the Public Hearing Meeting of the Fridley City Council of October 18, 1976 adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dorotfiy C. Green Secretary to the City Council Approved: Wiiliam J. Nee Mayor � � ' � i , � , ;� ,� �_J ' > � _ MEMO T0: DEPARTh1ENT HEADS . • � Following are the ACTIONS NEEDED. Please have your answer back in,the City Manager office by 4tednesday Noon, Qctober 27, 1976. Thank you %RIDL.EY CITY C�l1i�CI�L � PUBLTC �'riEN�Iid� P�ttTTi�dG - OCTQBER 1�, 1976 — 7;30 P,t�, � r PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE;� ROLL CALLc � ADOPTION OF AGENDA: ! Ed Wilmes spake briefly on Islands of Peace ', Added: Consideration of Ordinance for Street and Alley Vacation by � Hssurance Manufacturing Company , � PUBLIC HEARINGS: ' � . PUBLI C I�EAR I NG ON PROPOSED CI-lARTER CNAh:GE � . � � . , � � � , ]. Public hiearing closed TY �lANAGER NO ACTION NEEDEU (See Item No. 4� � � PUBL I C HEAR I NG ON STR EET AND ALLEY VA��lT �d -�V '� — _ Iar St! �76 05 BY ASSURANCE �IANUFACTURING COMPANY1 �%5� �EECf-i S'f"FZEET, � � VACATTON OF UTIZITY. AND DRAIR�AGE. EF1S�NiEN"r, . , �� , � , ,. , � 2 — 2 C Pu�alic Hearing Closecl. Va.catzon ►�eq�.es� appr��ved and ord�nance' read on first reading � GI �ERING ACTION NEEDED: Put ordinance back on next �.cenda for s�cond readir�� � � ' � � �' , PURL I;C HEAR I1V� ,MEET I.NG,� OCTOBER 18,� 1976 PAGE 2 11 I � � OLD �RUSINESS;' CONSTDERATION OF A REQUE�T FQR FUNDS TO SUP.PORT THE NORTH SU�URBAN FAMTLY SERVTCE CENTER CTABLED la/4/76) , , , .,. . ,. . . .,. .. . .,. . . . . , , . , . . 3 $1,000 was approved R. ACTION NEEDED: Inform NSFSC of City Council action and make arrangements for the transfer of funds to them. ' � NE� BUSINESS: � CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE _ AMENDING THE CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY� ��.�� 4 4 G Ord9nance adopted on first reading ,N(� ACTION NEEDED: Put ordinance back on next regular agenda for second r2ading —7 �� � ' RECEIVING THE P'11NUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION h�EET I NG OF �CTOBER 6, 1976 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 5 - 5 �� � 1� INN�BRUCK ��ORTH REPLAT 3RD ADD., P� s, #76-�5 ••••• 5B -, 5C PLANNTNG COMM� RECOMMENDATION; APPROVE & 5Y , �QUNCIL ACTION REQUjRED: SET PUBLIC HEARING �OR DECEMBER �.3, 1976 � Public Hearing set for December 13, 1976 :N RING ACTION NEEDED: Make arrangements for public hearing December 13, 1976 � � '• 1 1 � I , � EERING � ' ��,N TNG �I � ' � N�ING , � . PU�.L�C HEARI:N� J�lEETI:NG.�. UCTOBER�18� 1976. ..� . .. ..� . ... ..'..� �AGE 3 ._� � NE[� BUS�.NES� CCONTI`NUED� CRECEI.VI�NG �J��NUTES OF PLANNING COMMT�SION -� CONTTNUED) 2�. INNSBRUC K V I'LLAGES SECOND ADD I,T I'ON, P��� �%b-�IQ �•.. 5C �' SF' ._ _ . ... :. .... _,.. _. .. .... .. ....... & 5Z � PLANNTNG COMM� RECQMMENDATIQ�� ApPROVE , COUNCIL ACTION RE�Zj@ED: �ET PUBLIC HEARING ' FOR DECEMBER 13, 1976 Public Hearing set ', ACTIQN NEEDFD: Make necessary arrangements for public hearing December 13, 1976 3� DELIER ADDITION, P�S� #76-09•••••••••••••••••••••••..SK - 5h'I PLANNI�JG COt�1M� RECOMMENI�ArIOi�: APPROVED WITH & 5AA STIPULATIONS �OUNCIL ACTIQN REQU RED: SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR DECEMBER 13, 1976 Public Hearing set ' ACTION NEEDED: Make necessary arrangements for public hearing Decernber 13, 1976 �. KENNETH GASPER LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S, #76-08, 5�1 RICE CREEK BOULEVARD •_•. ••••. ••••�••��•.-•�.•5M T 5M ... .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . & 566 PJ ANNING COMM, �COMM�NDAT,LON; APPROVE COUNC � ACT I ON REQU T.[�,�D ; CONS ID ERAT I ON OF . RECOMMEf�4T I ON I Lot Split approved ACTION NEEDED: Inform applicant of Council approval ' if �� I� � � I � ING � IN RING r ' , � �I�RING � � PUBLIC HEARI:i�G ��EETING, OCTQ�ER 18, 1976 NEW BUSINESS CCoNTi►vu�n� ... . . . . . . PAGE 4 CRECEIVTNG MINUTES OF PLANNI:NG COMMI:SSION �- CONTINUED) 5. BENEDTCT I�IOVAK LOT SPLTT REQUEST� L�S,� #76-�9, 145 71� WaY. IV � E , : . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5N - 50 .. .. .. .. .. . . - . . .. _ ... & �cc P� ANNING CO M� RECQMMENpRTION: APpROVE � COUI�CIL ACTION REQUIRED: CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION Lot Split approved ACTION NEEDED: Inform applicant of Council approval 6�,. STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ST, 1975-3 (EasT �RIVEF� ROAD) ................. ... ..... .................. . 5P - 5V FEQC RECOMMENDATI�N: SET MORATORIUM � PLANNING COMM�_R�COMMEhDATIO�.: NONE �Q�INCIL ACTI0�1 � IRE�1.: �ONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION Moratium set for 30 days by vote o� 3/2 ACTION NEEDED: Inform FEQC and Anoka County of Council action %� APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES FOR �'iEETING OF $EPTEMBER i�, 1976 ..................... ............. 5DD � 5UU A � R. TOMCZAK, 9J� OVERTON DR I VE l� � E � • • • • • • • • • • • • 5DD � 5HH �,ePFai s COMM. RECOM,M NDATION: DENIA�, & 5UU 3;l VoTE �Q�i(�CIL A �ON RE�UIRED: CONSIDERATION OF . RECOMMENDATION • � Item tabled ACTION NEEDED: Put back on Council agenda when ready to be considered again ,� . I . � ! PUBLI:C HEARTNG �IEETING, pCTOB.ER l$� 19.76 � . .. . . .. . ..PAGE 5 � . .. NEW �RUS I NESS CCONT r.NUED� I� . .. � . .. ... . . . . . .. . ..$ . ' COfJTTNUED) CRECEI� I NG T�II NUTES OF PLANN I NG COMMI S, ION , %� CAPPEALS MTNUTES OF SEPT� Ig, I��C CONT�'NUED) .. . _ _ . . B� PACO, TNC., ��60 BEECH STREET.•...••••••••••••••• 5JJ'- 5NN � .. .. _ . . . APPEALS COMMTS�TON RECOMMENDATIOj�,: APPROVED ' ONE VARIANCE AND SENT ONE ON TO CQUNCIL � WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION OU�CIL ACTIOf� REQUIRED: CONSIDERATION , OF REQUEST ' Approved one as recommended by Commission, denied second one that � was sent on without recommendation ' aI ERING ACTION NEEDED: Inform applicant of Council action ' '� CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION RECEIVING THE PRE�IMINARY , REPORT AND CALL I NG A PU�3L I C EiEAR I NG OP�1 THE I�ATTER OF THE ' CONTRUCTIO(V OF CERTAIN IMPROVEM NTS: STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ST, 1977-1 AND ST, 1977 2(MSAS), ,,.,,,.., 6- 6 A Resolu�ion No. 110-1976 I ERING ACTION NEEDED: Proceed as authorized r� I�IA� E � ' I � �� CLAIMS � � . � � � . . � � � � . . � . . . . . � . . � � .' . � Approved ' ACTION NEEDED: Pay claims as authorized ' ;� � ►1 10:45 P.M. � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING P SE SIGN NAME ADQRESS ANQ ITEM NUMBER INTERESTED IN DATE: � � N� ADDRESS ITEM NUMBER � c=�e=s=coc===saccs=a=�=c=o===s=====-==c====aa==o�as==a=�oao�=a=ae=ao�ao=�=aasoa�==ac=�===o= ✓`-� C) il•,.` r�.9-i,c/ � . ' �%G� -- (a� ��.. �P ! / � � . .,c - 7/ _ � � ' }�,'' �'i 1 / �i �'% , �. •3"l , �- `S _ -, �') /�`� , /- � � 1_�! /( 1 N�7d L�� / � I I n r._ / _�--� �j' ' % ' , � ! 6 � " /;.. �. .r�h .:. ��,c_�;-)`�e_.LC--Q_.v�. C�,�� • (�� � � ' 7 .i. , - . S � ���ii -r� � � � �% �� O-u�'�---/�G'� � t !' d J i�Y� ,l�/ `�� c�:�-/ ��,e,� � ���� / � � �� ,�c�e� C�,.�P.�� �/'�i� . Q Z a d � , �( � c.. � ,2 �/1 dJ . �, ' • FRTDLEY CTTY C�Ui�CTL -� Pi�BLiC��'rtE�C�Ii�1G� f�ttTTiv� r OCTOBER 1�, 1976 � 7:30 P,M. PLEDGE OF ALLEG IANCE�;� ROLL CALL: ADOPTION OF AGENDA: PUBLIC HEARINGS: PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE� . � � , , .' , , � 1 PUBLIC HEARING ON STREE.T AND ALLEY VACATION SAV #�6-05' , BY ASSURANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,-��53 BEECH STREET, VACAT�ON OF .UTILITY.qND DRATNAGE. EASEMENT. . � . � . . � � � Z - Z C • , PU�L I;C H.�AR I NG ,MEET I.NG.� OCTOBER 18, .197� ..: ...� PAGE Z OLD BUSTNESS;' CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR FUNDS TO SUPPORT ', THE NORTH SUBURBAN FAMI�LY SERVTCE CENTER ' CTABLED la/4/76) ,: , .,. ., , . .,. ., , , �. , �. , . , . . , , , , , 3 e NEW BUSINESS: CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY� .�_ ... �- 4 G RECEIVING THE P'�INUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEET I NG OF �CTOBER 6, 1976 � � . . � � . � � � . . � . � . . 5 - 5 �� 1 � INN�BRUCK ��ORTH REPLAT 3RD ADD � , P � � � #76-05 • . . . . �B � 5C . . _.. ... . . & 5Y eJANNTNG COMM� REGOMMENDATION; I�PPROVE �OUNGI'L ACTTON REQU��RED� SET PUBLTG HEAR I: NG FOR DECEI�BER 13, Ig%6 � �' 1 � � � ' . � � � � � ' � PUBLTC HEARI:NC J�IEETIidG,�. OCTOBER 18, 197�, . .. .. .... ... PAGE 3 NE[^C �USTNESS CCONTI'NUED� CRECEI.VTNG �II.NUTES OF PLANNING COMMxSSION -� CONTINUED) 2�. INNSBRUCK V I'LL�IGES SECOND ADD I.T I�ON, P��S ,�76-1Q• .•'. 5C �. 5F PLANNTNG COMM� RECOMMENDATIC�N; APPROVE & 5Z . . . , . . SOUNCI ACTION REQUIRED. SET PUBLIC HEARIN6 FOR DECEMBER 13,� 1976 3� DELIER ADDITION, P�S� #%6-09••••••••••••••••�•••••...5K - 5M PLANNING COM�1� RECOMMENDATION: APPROVED WITH & 5AA STIPULATIONS �OUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED: SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR DECEMBER 13, 19%6 . . �I� KENNETH GASPER LOT SPLIT REQUCST, L�S, #76-08, 501 Rr.cE CREEK BOULEVARD ••. •. •- ••••�-•t� . ....5M - 5N .. .. .... .. . . .. . . . . . & 5B6 QJANNI. �MM�� RECQMMENDATIQN; APPROVE COUNCtL ACTION REQUTRFD; CONSTDERATION OF RECOMMENATION PUBL �C HEAR I i�G P�1EET I NG, �CTOBE.R ls,� 1976 � ����������� PAGE 4 NEW BUSTNES� CCoNTx�rvuEn� ' CRECEIVI'NG MI,NUTES OF PLANNI:NG COMMI:SSION ^ CONTINUED) 5� BENEDTCT I'�OVAK LOT SPLTT REQUEST, L�S,� #76-Q9, 145 71� WaY. N , E ,� : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5N' - 50 ..... .. .. .. _ _ . - - . . _ . & 5CC PLANNING COMM� RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE . . COU�CIL ACTION REQUIRED: CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION • 6� STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ST� 19�5-3 iEAST RIV E R ROAD) ........................... ............... 5P - 5V FEQC RECOMMENDATION, SET MORATORIUM PLANNING COMM� RECOMMENDATION: NONE ' COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED: CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION �. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES FOR h�EETING OF $EPTEMBER Ig, 1976••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••• 5DD � 5UU A� R. TOMCZAK, �9� OVERTON DRIVE N�E�•••••••••••• 5DD � 5HH QpPEALS COMM. RECOMMENDATION; DENI.AL, & 5UU 3:.1 VoTE �OLINGIL AGTI�ON REC�LIIRED: CONSIDERATI:ON OF RECOMMENDATI:ON � � ' � � � ' C! r � ' � ' ' I � PUBLI.0 HEARING 1dIEETING, �CTOB.ER 18�� 1976 ���� �� PAGE 5 NEW �USI;NESS CCaNTI;NUED)- (RECETVTNG T'�II.NUTES OF PLANNI`NG COf�1MTSS�ION - CONTTNUED) �� (APPEALS �T.NUTES OF $EPT � 1$, 1976 coN-rz Nu�n) . . .. . . _ _ _ . $. PACO, 1NC�, %%6O BEECH STKEET•��•.-�•••••••••••••••'SJJ - 5NN .. . . APPEALS COMM�SS TON RECOMMEND TA I ON : APPROVED ONE VARIANCE AND SENT ONE ON TO COUNCIL WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED: CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST , COI�SIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION RECEIVING THE PRELIMINARY REPORT AND CALLING A PUBLIC NEARING ON THE M�TTER OF THE CONTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS: STRE�T IMPROVEMENT PRO�ECr ST, 1977-1 AND ST. 1977-2 t(�SAS}, ,,,,...., 6— 6 A �LAIMS. . . � � . . �� . . . . . . � . . � . . � � . � . � � % :I 1 ►1 0 , PUQ.LIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE ' 1 L ' i� � ' � ' ' ' r,, � � LJ ' ' (OFFICIAL PJOTICE) CITY OF FRIDLEY There will be a public hearing before the City Council at 7:30 p.m, on October 18, 1976 to consider the following change in the Charter of the City of Fridley. Language that is proposed to be added to the Charter is shown as follows: ' New Charter Lanc�uac�e Section 5.03, FURTHER REGULATIONS. A lawful petition under this Charter may be certified, signed an d circulated upon an ordinance to be initiated, an ordinance to be made the subject of a referendum and a proceeding for recall upon the grounds authorized by law and requi red by the Consti tution of the State cf� Minnesota, and reasons stated in the certificate, are to be stated and noted in the petition itself. A petition for any other purpose may be made in accordance with procedures established by this Charter or under provisions of law as may be elsewhere provided. A petition under this Charter shall be filed in the office of the city c1erk as one instrument, which instrument shall contain any instrument required, a copy of any ordinance proposed, cove red or affected, any o ther document (appropriate to the pe tition) and all the signature papers and affidavits attached in support of the same. A petition may be signed by any elector. A petition can be circulated and verified only by an elector who has signed the same. All th.e signatures on any petition need not beion one signature paper. The circulator of every paper shall verify by affidavit attached that he(she) was the ci rcul ator of the same, that each si gnat:ure .was si gned in hi s(lier) persence, and is of the person tfiat same purports to be and that each signer affirr�ed that he(she) � was an elector at the residence stated thereon. Any paper lacking such affidavit or verifiied by an affidavit false and untrue is insufficient and void of effect. The city clerk shall be responsible for determinin g the validity of �i natures. If �'�i s o�vi ous t e s� gnature on t e peti ti on i s t e si gnature of the erson on the Voter eg�stration ard wit w ich the signature is com ared, the signature shall be counted as a va id signature, notwithstanding the fact that the person may have signed the etition in a different manner w.en the si ned the Voter Re istration Card. Before disrardina a sian�ture.. a reasonable effort shall be made to contact the person(s in The insufficiency or irregularity of a petition shall not prejudice the filing of any new petition for the same purpose, nor shall it prevent the Council from referring any ordinance proposed to the electorate at the next regular or special election, or otherwi�e acting favorably upon the same. The Council may provide by ordinance such further regulations for the initiative, referendum, and re call, not inconsistent with this Charte r as it deems necessary. ' The city clerk, upon receipt of documented information that any signature on any petition paper has been falsely attested tv, shall promptly forward such information to ti�e proper authority for prosecution under sta�te statues applying thereto. � , ' DATED THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1976, BY ORDER. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY. WILLIAM J. NEE, MA1(OR ATTEST: MARVIN C. BRUNSELL, CITY CLERK Publish: Fridley Sun on September 29, 1976 and October 6, 1976 OFFTCIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TO i��NOM IT MAY CONCERN: ' Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Nearing of the City Council of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Monday, October 18, 1976 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M, for the consideration of the followina matter: Consideration of a request for a Vacation, SAV �76-05, by Assurance Manufacturing Company, for the 16 foot drainage and utility easement bounded on the North by the Westerly extension of the I�orti� line of Lot 5, 31oc1: 7, Ona:�ray Addition, and bounded on the South by the West- erly extension of the Sout.F line of Lot 7, Block 7, Onaway Addition, to allow them to connect the buildings on both sides of the easer�ent with a structure, all lying in the South Half of Section 3, T-30, R-24, City of �ri dl ey, Caunty of Anoka , t�1i nne5ota . Generally located at 7753 Reech Street N.E. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. WILLIAM J. NEE MAYOR Publish: Septeirber 29, 1976 Qci:ober 6,. 1976 � t �A/. Ip�`j _.. _..' ..�� . I � ' , .-,�� __, I 2 � , �. o. . � ��� (.v � � 1 � ` ` ';� "' � a y � � � � I _---._.---- � ..._._ , '� , �.�o , r. ! � 1 � � _���j�` � -� � , SAV #76-05 /�SSI�fZANCE MFG. C0. ���'i..5���'rl � � .'if-=�w_ � � ' ^�' , {' \ I ..5. .fiE>.�i�AC-�/.�,�;! .}{ sfJ.� :i ! � � ', � ;.• , ,o ~`� � acate 16 drai age'�rd. uti 1 i ty I� 4 '' �� � I,� x� easement betwee ' l ots 5 a. 7 ��. �' � 9Qp I�,� Slock 7 Onaway' dditioaz�p> iK � - ' 9, �,�K � I ! � -' *' - - - ' ) , 1� �/ .,} � .l . �T , _ __.. -- -- � ' F� 'o :� _ ,. � �.. — _ _ ._ J � — _. _ _ — -- "_ 330 �3 . , - � ' — — -- � _ -: --- --- .��, ...... � . !.T' ��( �ryt�--- .! � �I `j, � ^�j .• `�`,��� -.�,,, � � iNi t..�v .i t!•' 1� �� iG� �34.5 C ?G � , , t;� �.`�. �° i-- Z,:s � i 0 Y ill. � � y il4 f" , � k v `. • J.r r ^� . .�. f v _ G ;,� v (# � :i ? — � 't,� �� � ° � � �!.!_O_�!S`� �� � ' 3�1 . � "` } f_9. g � w �� o i � ?+ i i �+ �� � > IG.3 2 P ~ � / % P � 2 P � �!-� � �� �� � �. W r �% P � � ^-"' � �°r3` � ��, 3� � �13- �:�� ' �,� ��:.• �� z�3•3 -3 4*1 /8 __ �_ LsJ ���"��� = � ,.�� � .� . �, ._ � �� 2�0.3 4 � �9 4 � � ` G ' _-----� � � C _ S- � , '::=� �'� y �=��5 � J� ZG S N _ ` ---- ` </ 6 _ , �� '�T,,,� _G 2� _ y 6 _ - � ��— -- ' .l �-. ~^y �• �y.✓ 7 22 � 7 � 'z� 1 � `� ;� �Z 7 � -, `;a�'`so f � �-----�5.7 1 � :,S ` - z3 � `,1'• � � ,\ � 23 �'- - � - — .�j� `9-: �`�` ,e � 9 � • ',,�� y Z�� ' / . 3 { G,� f - ''i\ � � ; \ 9 o z4 t1� , .�, :��� � io � . ���� ,1 f� a .'" � zs i0 � '�_`______� — Z.�''F.` , �� _ : � �, in ;' �; J., `,L�-� 2G // 2 � � � :.' �' 11. � t \ ���`' e?y`/ q `` � : • 2 7 /Z c. �_! � _ _ ----- � �+ 2 % � /� i n � �`'�4 � C.• �f� /3 0 ��� f��v'}:: "�:� �G __` A�a.t�r! � ``�;` y \ ` � �' _, G' " � , �. ---' � 1 �: _ � 1 G� 3 29 t �`: � V tl � � \ y , : � q = . /�y% : ; � 9� t - a —� r , 0 3C ` o � c � � � ' \\� ^ � � c, � ♦ • �.� ~` �/,Q �u ?�� � �� _ s p� cG 7. /.i-�.. V ` '..'4.3 G � �/ ; a . P -1 r I !" b �+ /G \\ jz e 6 �p•>Q� �i ` �� y 1 � �� 1 ii ` HiJi.�`i�� ,� � (3.�. i' v ,1 .. � . � � 1 �ti � ' . S ^'t"�^'; ���t ,�..; _ .. - t � � /3C. 6 �'�d -'f �; �!'s � . � .:a.s . �n .'- ! i i : " � cG 'F u' f � / � �� /�y.4 .f'.� r:� .. G-� � � (1�700� `� `,' r o � �-s � b W . � sr. Y I.� � G r� p �. :C � � C _ �• } .. ___ �.�, �\\ V\` -i�V �r _ �=!-�'�� � � _._�-__�� •' � i- � -�-� J .' . � �� OY C �l ^-�4.�i ' _�-- ---=� �\ :� := ;�1���� —�a— z —:�- , ,,s � r3� -- � --- _ .�--��-- � i '" -- (g� ' � � p � \ a = � � '� ir `s � ! ' � — _1_____"� � / \` R}/{7 _'; � �-�. .F� � � - j ` � �� � i i . _._ �J._ 3ea �— `• `' ` � -- . __ ,��, y, _ � r:- __.� -- ��' �'� 'S� � �� E- �1�ar.� ;_. � � f .. _ - --5 ---� : �( : ,j� �" �� . ,2� � � \\ w �� �3. S � u) � � -% _ �__•___ - �.;s-,,t�,-�---�-_.: � 2 �---.� �-�-- � ,'� � v . y,� f i . / _ . •, r� �� �_ •� :'------ � '� ���� R � �,�- � � ; t`,'�;�''. ' � �.____. _I�_ � .�_ _" � . �.4 , .%�,, `a ;'� � ` s � =""R �'_" � _' �+ --' � LZ � � ` ) `+ ` `� , � t - --- � ~ — , --_ e.����;�r4�;o� \�� � ' � � .1 �.� � �-� �� �-�.-�;�-i i� �i�>j ;.� 5�y _; � . � � =. � , � � � � �_� , �: °' �... �! �.:�� _ = I �_ -� .- — _.�:� , �.. � .. ; , 4� :i • � Y �� �ay � i,.'1 4, /C ,s� _'_' j°_T :• �� j �_ rG � e,; o �.: c�' :L `� `}�`; 4, r �' � +� �^� � �---_ � �-� 1 '- , i � �.+ �� . � � '�'�� '� �°. , . �` �. 7% U �; ;� ►,,.lfl,. ,� :'/ z � �> ,��, ��. : ,".� e� 1 �3r��-I ",if� i a �I � � ]' � � d { /_ ( 7G S� N • \\ N :• !!"t -`� 4�� �,�..._..�..! �..�.��� . i . �cl.+.-..�.�+...�... \ ""`1' yyTW�Y' V '. � � `` ,�� P� � � j �� \ ,.�1 i!' M i:'�: ,+� � � . .l�..,���?G��/�t? .J •S io 37 ::J r ��' '� � /' _ . , � � f , i � � �. , �� ��� �.� �� i � � ��V�` •�¢ A� �:, � �� � � � 4 � sL . � \� , ; �. �l � , �c ,.! � � :.�;: -� ( . � �i •' . '� �•� :1 � ,r..��""� � � " „�.�"_ �`,A� � ��� n� � �. _ _ _ _ _._ - --..- - --- � �' � ~-r ��-- .^ _ ,:1;��,— -- - - � : , ••' \� S.£. Ci �� � � S EC �, • . \, � � • . . - . . , c.. � �, � �. � . . ' , .f'<r J•.Ye F.�-P .4s: �e.•• y s •� P ,, •�'n' � Fir :� u• ir� r. t..;► � ��..r 7 ��.✓ R o �fe .. .,� a. ] 'It'♦ .!' - .1t / , � • � • E.� .�.. •, �:. .f'��•��'�� `�/ � •• �C'. . . . � , r . . :. I �.. i .QI`�+ ' �� 1 • • � ��sM��� �t� Y�w�oMY��I�'����� . �+.' T . .. � _ _ - .'. . w t ' LJ I_ I � � , ' P1AnninE; Cornmissior� t�cetin� � Rii�ust lf�� 1976 Pagc iG , � � . xraua.rcrnc•nL:a, and it would be ir,sul.ated e;xr�ctJy like a home. 1�10`rIOIv h,y Ber.�m?n, :;econdcd b,y Pc�erson, thai: the 1'lr.�nninr; Corr�mi�sion clo�r. the Pub?.ic Hearinf; on the requcsi for a S��ccial Usc Permit, S,P. ;;f76-].?, b;� Pako Yhoi;o, Incorporai,ed. UF,on a. voice vote, all voi.i��� �e, Chairj:er�on Ilarris decl.ared the Public Hiarin�; c].osc:d at 9:1t3 P.i•i. �� J�i0TI0I� by Petersen, seconded by I3er�;r�an, thai; the Plannin�; Conu7i::sion rer.�;,�;n��nci to Counci:]_ a}�;prov�zl of thn rec3u.est �or a saec�.al use permit, S.P. ;�?6-12s b,y Palco F;�oto, Incorporui:ed; 1;o r.�e�,nit a f'i].n proc�ssir;; drop-oii ''�„o:,�li, p�:z Frid.]_e,y Cit;,• Code, �ection 20>.�±^l, 3, (I), to be loc��rd on Lot 1, �lc;cr_ ], Syl .��i I�i?_1� 1'lat 7, the �ame Y:iri� 2l�8 l�iis: issip��i �tr�ei; 2+.L. y i•r,i �:� tre stipula�::i.cz,.:� a�reed to by the C-i1:y �x,d Pa'..o Pi:oto listcd on Page �� c.� t..c� ::,;�:n��.. which are as iollows: ' (1) The traffic �atterns be the same as worked out b}• administration . for the previous request (SP f�73-12, Motofoto) ' (2) The parki�.g lanes be stri.ped aiid dir.ectioual arro��rs be p,ro_.�ided for traffic direction. ' (3) AII utiZity lines be under�round. ' (4) � letter be obtained from an adjacent tenant statein� tlie e..�plo}�ecs ' can use the public faci]_ities, �:Tithin 200 feet of this f�lr.: borth. ,. (Already provided) � (5; Ir. t!�e e��cnt the b��i]_�l�ng has to �e renoved t�r any reason, the ?arki:,� lot will be returned to its arininal condiditon. Mr. L2I1ne?�.:'eld st�Lted he �•�cu:).d like to see :i.t put in t?:� :�ecord i:':�� :,�;s ' par�Licular building ;.rnuld def'inii,e�� follo�•. the s�ar:e dc;szr;_ �s �:.e r�.:;::�i• ;�::. Ferr�ar��ez stated t}Iey had alre ���t�� sub,n�t',;ed a s�t e�' p? <.r.s ide;a�.:i.^=.? �:� all. detail.s to �rhat they Tl:ere see:�n�. � C� 1 ' ' � J I'� UPt�i� A VOIGE VO'1'i�'s a11 ��otin� a;,-c, ti�e :r,�tion carriE;:i i�: ;.n�::�ous�.;�, T ' �j� k � �:! �r ii�tt� ��7C` � .C� . : uSJ`l!1 �'�� Y j i 'i � � ,� �''�� � � , Cc.::. � 3. I..t�Sc�!'1It_� �i��l --'-`- ----. ` .P; �, ��_ t, it .,� :�,rl `' _ o -a -, the 1C� f00 v OTulrliw;:i: c"321:1 u l• � 1. �Y E'F��E.;`.1C1� 1, h�_)LU�CIC(� O:i t.::@ i�l��. :-il 1'�r ...:i' tidest•erl�y� eY�erisioi? o.f t?le i�o� i,h line of Loi �s Bloc'.: "T, Cn� �:;::,� i��ai �i:,:., and bo:znd�d or� the Sou�:h uti' the t-:esterly exten>i ��n a: t;,e :�;_ �_`1 _l .i° iJ.t y��t 7$ ���.00n ( S Q:1�'•iciy Addition, i.0 a'lleia t.:.,G' COl:il'.'Cv1Ci1 �f }..f:� �'1Z11i:i.Y1Cr >•• -' on bot�-c sictes of tl�e ease,nr.n;; 1•rith a sti�cture, the sa,.e beinf; ;:�3 Beech St•re:e*.. N.�. bSr. Boai•dir,�n explained that t•}iei•e r:as an alle,y there before �rh�c�: t�a.�i �ecr: vacGted. ���d noi�r :lssur��uice tiSllUf';�CtIII•in�; idutliE'C� 't0 V3C3tf' the c�r:�i.n��;e t��:ci utilit�� e�semer.ts 1:�iat i:ere beinn i����,d in that alle�r so t::ey cti� }�ui' :�.icr!�ss ttie :�11.e�T and jo�n up with a bui:ld���g i:he�• i�:�.nt to bt.�� � c_-:��s t}ie' st•^�et. He stat.i�cj the Cit,y had contuc�; t•,i�h tl;e utilit,y co:�pariies �r.d h.:ci ; rcFived letter: t�acic fro;n ti�c;n :��ivin�; there was no p� oblcm as ;'. r as �:h��v l=c�•e conc:ert:eu7. Alr. I3uar��man said ;.>>e cnly ec�neei�.i i:iie Cii;ti• �aauld ha�e would be f'c,T• :tJ�aii�a..t;��s and �one o.f the stipui<tiens ior ttiis approval wou].ci be tne d�dic��tic�:� o.t ne:; dr�in��;e cKSCment to tr:�: 5outh «i' t}zeir i�ui:idin€; t.o h��n<�le �.he d^r.ii::.�e i.h,:t is comit��; dotim alon�; l.hc r�ll.c`��.:t;,�. He ex�>laiued thcy l,ould take ',ii �u� to 33eech St�•cet, :�nd the �n�;ir�eerE.i�t ll�:�,ari.i�:cr!t hud luc,i:ec.i ai, it tui�� s��ad ±i��:r•e wera no problems. ' ' � • , � � � MOTZ(71J by Peter,on, �econded b,y Shea� i:hat ttie Pi.ut�n.i.nt; Commise,ion'recommcn�i , to C�ur�c�i.1 <��7;�rc�va.7. of.: vacai�ion rc:yu.e;3t, ::At' /,f'�6-()5, ll:.surrincc ;•;�;nii!'�ct.uri.n,� � C�mp,:�,y, Lo vacate t':r: 15 1'oai; druina�;e .snd ui:ilii,y c::�.scment boundr,d on the Plorl;li bf t}�� We�terl.y� ��xi.�nsicn c�f i;he Pdori,h ].ine af' I:ot �, f�loc� 'j, Onar:ay Addi.i,ian, an.d boundea cm the Sout,h by the '.�resi;erly ext:�r,sion o: thr: "auth 19.ne ot T�oi; 'j, I31ocY 7, Gr►ataay Adc:a.ti.on, to al.l��•� t'��e carin��ction of' the ^lzi.ldinE;s or, l�oth >ides oi thF� easement �:i�r� a strucLure, the sar.c be:in�; 7'T�� '--�ech Street i�.F..., wii,h the dedica�;ion of a nela dr2.inage ca�ement. Mr. Ber�;man asked ti•:hat i�ras considered a sl;anda�ci dra�.na;;e easemen�; r:idth, a��d ii there �•ras such a t:�in�,. ls . Bo�.rdman said that usu�.7.1;/ the;� �acre t-.lkin� abou�; i;en f.ee1;. Mr. �3�rt;man: saic� t�e wondered if thai; should be spec;fied in the r.?otion. 1•Sr. Peterso.� �1�iE?JDI.i) the 2:OTIOId to includc the s;.ec.:.f'i.ca.�;.'�on of a 10' drain�s.�;e easemen�. �econded. by S�ea. � UPOP1 A VOIC� VUT�� five voting a1�e and 2�tr. Ha.r•�is abs+a�nin�, tre rtotion carried. � Chairp�rson Harris erp7.a�r.ed hzs reascn for abstainin� �:�: at one t.ir.ie he oi,rned a�)02't�'.1.021 Of abut �ing pi G}':E.'Z'-G;� v0 i.}]�:f. v�.cation cii:� .`i�',li�. !'iE.'ZC,� SOii�? paper on its and therei'c�re to �,�,•o�d �n;� cer�tiicts he ubstained. ' Chairperson Ha?^ris declared a recess at 9:>0 F.'•I. an!: r�:..�omTene� the �ee �i:l�; at 1G:20� P�T�fe ,• i, •r� '� iTf��" t t;"'' 'f`i° � r. � � 7�'( s':.�. ';11_.��_J: .i, r.:i L= u�LCiP.�,u:.i GO::I: Iv:J G3�,:�.;7'I.:� � If1I . t`.'J??':3. � ��"1 .t• 9t. O'lE Oi i `.' �' `' t ' °`� �.:�'18V }12r1 �OI1@ t��re���;�� „an stateu � �. . the p e.� �u.. r.eeti.��,� �_1 O� '';:;' �U'2.1 Si;3�°i��P7i"',.S L'Si:1CI' t.t7E '"OLil I' Tt�iT��:?�'!' �� .�T"�':;� :r' u'� "" a_ ,, b G ca oi iz _, ��v _o• _ •�. :i ,��.. c��:ec[ ��orcli?;g oi, i.:_:.t, an:i no;=r �:� ;�c�_}ld 1? kc to ��o i�zto �2�t; �:lllvh :•�i._ ,;ed �•o ' leaxnin�; a.��s cultu„a'_ de-�elopn:�nt� oi res:;_der� �s � He s.:�Ld �hat ulldc:?' �:.is h� f'ei_ � that there 1�:ou1.: o� �,;hree pro�ram objecti.ves: , � 1• PT'Ci'.'tOtC' w11 �'•:8?'.�,:12SS 2T1C� ut��T'P.C7.2.t:'.OT;. ^f �17° I�li'":FiIZ1t1.E'S• 2. �6�.1� .`.it.�:rralu{� ��;1�I'f..'Clc'i�:10:1 22�d �:'_'�,'? Cl.�c^�.t1C11 1Ti �ine a_^?;S :�i1 ;,hc co.,�-�un�t�; . 3. Encourage ��� i.zter�, tioil of le�rning f.•cilii�i.es a�:d progrw:�s e ]1eC�SSa.I'y '�O ;il�Oid I" �iiCC`7;�5 a�.Tide C?lO1.C@ of piirsuits i2'1 E'C::1C�ii.i0.a� tr��in�..ig and cul:,ural �eelop:,�ent. . � Mr. Ber�;�:,a� said that .�c� wei�ld ? i!:e de.f-_ni_t.-ir.n o±' the :�:ord °�.ur::.�ities", A•ir. d a4 f � h , th�t '�h :i, ,-Zcso. � ^ -� ��, C 'Y�-'C]� �a I�,Or'3i' l+i _ 1 1T'i OT'i'.2C'� l:^ c. .. c .l:�lc.`l i �1T';'.8a l�Ci, Ti1 �01CI7 �ll�,,_ t.E'.�.. c:S Yltli�lc'3T11t1CS ��OE?t.T'j�� �I1.". iOT'�T� bZC� _'::i CI,L,'� S� E'I1Cf: f? 1C�'.10!7 � 71�1: 1C � c'1T'i:� D�i2?I''i.Z11� ano sculpt.i.re. Iie st�i,ed th�i: a� f�r ��s he ,:�as cancerr.e:i, 78121`t.lSlr �•.::d i sculpture lti�ould be fine �xts, l�ut thev �;erc i� tre l�ur�an�.t:�- �i•oup af �tctivitie.�. � � r�� � 2� I�ir. Boardm<�.n said t2iat; the areas he sras t�:inl:iiiE�; e. co��erin� uncer th� Ti�a�::il� U�V��O��:1iCrit. SeCt10i1 i�rere t.�lE L�aI'iC:> «t1C1 It:C.'G�l�_i0;1 �12' 't� learn�n�; :li;:I CUlt..i?"�:ti deve��.o,�:-►cn�: of citi::en�, pro��ic?iz:�; �abl:ic i.nfo^r�ation �•::���tu�icat.ier�, p7�o�n�t.�n�; eff'ective z�i^tt:ods to provide tlumaii serv.ice;: (d��}• cai•e ccii ,rs, et.c.'), encuu:,�;-�i�� pl'O�T'8T:16 CiC:�l.;.`,ned to ��2'O`I;i�tC C'.��:CC'%,l\'i=. },11,r�:i:1 1117(2CT':?i;�.Iic,ll.il�; ��•: � �•ti_ri tl,,?7E' CO:'L��i!llli,\• (elder'�' }�i'L�f�T'FL^iS OI' �'OLlI'�il pi'C!�?`��lS t.O �:C1�� ��t.'i• SOTRE ]11�:E.'I'c�Ct1. 1 1�Zt.i?ii� f.� comm;u�it.y). He s:iid that hopcYul�}� ��Tith �lt��se goa7. st.<:,tcmcn�:r> h�. iad covE�r•ed a11 are:�s concerned iaith huM�:n :�e�el���^��nt �s f�ir as i��_man liesourcc�., titicnt. }?e �dded t.hat. �!iere �.�ere other t�rc:a;: unc���r ilumrin kie.,ourcc;; �:•t�i.c1� iaoul�� be oc�teci i.rt utliez• �rc�a�; for in: i:•ailc4� liu;:�_tn r:i�;tsi:� �,�.��tid be irico:•�oi•ated uric?e?i• a.�c;.r:i.��,� �:r� � c�t of y �oo� �a id� � p Mayor William Nee City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue North East Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Dear Mayor Nee: e September 20, 1976 �� As you know, Coon Rapids sponsors the North Suburban Family Service Center which serves as a large part of Anoka County and its immediate environs. The Ci�Ly of Coon Rapids has consistently subsidized programs at the Family Center to the amount of an average of $30,000 a year over and above grants and fees collected . , You may not be aware of the degree to which residents of your community use �the services of the North Suburban Family Service Center. Our records indicate that 140 Fridley families will have used the counseling services at the Center in 1976. It is projected that 2��0 of your resident� �w�il use the counseling services in i977 at a total cost of $5000. Of that amount, fees and grants will cove r only $3600. Our records indicate 220 teenagers and young adults from Fridley will have used the Nucleus Clinic in 1 o76. It is projected that 300 of your young people will use these Clinic services in 1977 at a total cost of $4800. Of that amount, fees and grants �vill cover $3�D0. The totat anticipated deficit for 1977 as a result of usage. by your residents will be $2300. We respectfully ask you to cover the anticipated deficit in 1977 and any ftiture years when grants and fees do not cover the entire cost of services. In the event that you are not familiar with the services performed at the Center, may I take this opportunity to invite you, the rmembers of your City Council and their families to the open house on Sunday, October 10th. The Center witl be open for tours between noon and 5:00 p.m., with the formal dedication ceremonies at 2:00 p.m. I hope' that you witl be able to attend. , Si ely, . ' n 2- G�-c-f'K� � ' George J . White ' Mayor ' GJ W:ck 1313 Coon Rapids Boule�►- ., Coon Rapids, Minnesota 55433 (612)'755-2880 � � ' �� � � � � ' , ' � , ' ' � � � � T0: FROM: CITY OF FRIDLEY MEMORANDUM NASTM M. QURESHI , CITY I�IANAGER Af�D CITY CQUNCIL MARVI�d C. BRUNSELL, ASST. CITY MGR./FIN. DIR. SUBJECT: CITY CHARTER AMENDMENTS DATE: OCTOBER 14, 1976 The attached ordinance is being placed before the City Council as a first reading. On April 19, 1976 and on May 17, 197G, the City Council held first readings of an ordinance amending the City Charter. At the April 19 meeting, the City Council approved Section 5.08, Initiative Ballots. At the i�;ay 17, 1976 meeting, this section failed to carry, Sectior 5.03, "Initi«tive Saliots" was removed from the ordinance for the pro,�osed second reading on June 7, 1976. The ordinance was tabled at thai meeting pending working out certain language changes v�ith the Charter Commission. A public hearing is being held on October 18, 1976 regarding additional language to be added to Section 5.03. The attached ordinance contains all r�visions to the City Charter origin ally proposed by the Charter Commission as well as the new language for ��rhich a public heari«g is being heid on Oc�tober 18, 1976. If this ordinance is adopted as a first reading, presumably all of the proposed amendments submitted by the Ci�arter Cor�nission will have been included and ti�ere will be no point of disagreement between the City Council and the Charter Commission regarding proposed amendments to the Charte r. . MCB : s h � y � AN OP,DINI�,'ICE !-',1�ENDING T��E CITY CHARi ER OF THE CIT'( OF FR'IOLEY LI A ' TNE COUf�CIL OF THE CITY OF FRIGLEY DOES OR�h:N AS FOLLOtJS: That the following Sections of the Fridley City ChartQr are amended as follows: ' Section 5.02, EXPEfdDITURES BY PETITIONEPS. `lo merr�er of any initiative, ,referendum, or recall committee , no ci rcul ator of d S1 cr,3tUl,e par�er, and no si gner of any such paper, or any other person, shall accept or �ffer any ►°e��rard, pecuniary ar ol:herwise, �for such service rendered in ccnnec�ion wiTh the circ�!lation the►-eof, but this shall not prevent the corrani ttee from paying fc,r 1�7a1 3dvi c� and from incurrinc� an expense not to er.ceed $200.00 for stati�ner� , cc�yin�, print���, and notaries' fees. �A s���orn statement substantiating such ex�e��s�s shall be turned over to the ;,ity cierk wi thi n 5 days fol 1 ot•ri ng the �1 � 1llg o f a peii �i on, Ar�y vi ol ati or� of the provi si ons of this se��tion is a r�;sder-�eanor. Any vic'ation of this section shall b� reported by rthe city clerk to the proper authorities for� prosecut�on ��nder state statues applying thereto. ' Section 5.03, FURTHER REGULATIOi�S. A l��.rful petition under this Charter may be ' certified, signed and circulated upon an orCinance to be initi��;ed, an ordinance to be made the subject of a referendum and a proceeding for :,ecal l��pon the 'grounds authorized by law and required by the Ccnstiiui,ion of the State of '•1inn2sota,and reasons � stated i n the certi fi cate, are to be state� an d noted i n the peti ti on i ts,el f. A peti ti on for any other purpose may be made in accordznce ��rith procedures established by this Charter or under provisions of la�v as may be else�,�here p�rovided. ' ' ' r r ' L_J ' ' ' r A petition.urder this Charter shall bc filed in the effice of th� city clerk as one instrur�nt, ti�rnich instrumtint shall cont�in �ny instru�ent required, a copy of any ordinance proposed, ccvered or affec�ed, ar,; other docUiii°nt (appropriate'to the petitior.) and all the signature papers and afridavits attached in support of the same. A petition may be sig�ed by any elector. A pe�iticn c�.n be circulat?d and verified only by an elector who has sigr�ed the same. All the si�natures on any petition need not be on one signature paper. The circulator of every p�?er shall verify by affidavi� attached that he (she) �•�as the circula�or of the same, tna� each signature �•�as signed in his (her) �presence, and is of the person ti�at same puraorts to ��e and that each signer affirmed tl�at he �she) was an elector at tne residence stated thereon. Any paper lacking such affidavit or verified by an affidavit false and untrue is insufficient and void of e f fect. 7he city clerk shall be responsible for determining the validity of si�r�atures. If oit is obvious the signatu►-z on the petition is ti�e signatare of the pe��son on ti�e Voter �,Registration Card ��itl� wl�ich t;�e siqnature is comparctl, ti�e signature shall be counted �as a valid signature, not��ithstanding tiie fact that �ftie person may have signed the �petition in a different r�anner ti�rhen they sirned the l'oter Registration Card. Before 3 discarding a signature, a reasonable effort shall be made to contact the person(s) in Zquestion to determine if, in fact, they did sign the petition. The insufficiency or irregularity of a petition shall not prejudice the filing of any ne�rr petiti on for the same purpose, nor shall i t prevent the Counci 1 from referring any ordinance proposed to the electorate at the next regular or special election, or othen,rise acting favorably upon the same. ihe Council may provide by ordinance such further regulations for the initiative, referendum, and recall, nvt inconsistent �ritii this Ci�arter as it deems necessary. The city clerk, upon receipt of documented information that any signature on any � petition paper has been falselti! attested to, shall �ro��ptly forward such' information to the pnoper authority for pr..��ecuiion ui�der.state statues applyiny theheto. 'ORDIP�MlCE N0. _ � PAGE 2 �. y B�. , Section 5.05, FORt4 OF PETITION AND OF SIGP�ATURE P/iPERS. 7he petition for the adoption of any o rdinance sha11 consist of the ordinance, togethe r with all the signature pape rs ',, ' and affidavits thereto attached. Such petition shall not be complete unless signed by�a number of voters equal to at least ten pe rcent of the total number of registered voters as January lst of that year. Each signature paper shall be in substantially I'', ' the following form: . . INITIATIVE PETITION ' Proposing ar ordinance to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (stating the purpose of the ordinance), a copy of vrhich ordinance is hereto attached. This ordinance is sponsored � by the folla.ring corrrnittee of electors; ' Name 1. ................ 2. ................ 3. ................ 4. ................ 5. .....:.......... Address ............ ... ................. ................ ............... ............ ... The undersi gned electors , understanding the terms and the nature of �he 'ordinance hereto , attached, pe'�ition the council for its adoption, or, in lieu thereof, fdr its submission to �:he electors for thei r approval . � Na� - Address . 1. ............... ................ 2. ................ ................ 3. ................ ................ At the end of the list of signatures shall be appended the affidavit of the circulator mentioned above. � � Sectaon 5.06, FILING OF PETITIONS AND ACTION THEREON. Within five days'after the filing of th� petition, the city clerk shall ascertain by examination the number of electors �vhose signatures are appended thereto and whether this number is at least ten pe��cent of the total number of regular voters. If he finds the petition insufficient `' or i rregul ai°, he shali at once noti fy one or more of the commi ttee of sponsors of that fact, certifying the reasons for his finding. The com�nittee shall then be given 30 days in �vhi ch to fi le addi ti onal si gnature papers and to correct tl�e petiti on in al l ', other particulars. If at the end of that period the petition is found to be still `, m insufficient or irregular, the clerk shall file it in this office and shall notify each � member of the committee to that fact. . . �I� ' � IP�ITIATIVE BALLOTS. The ballots used �v{�en voting, upon such proposed o Section 5.08, � ordinance shali state the substance of the ordinance and shall give the'voters the ` ��;opportunity to vote either "yes" or "no" on the questioi� of adoption. If a majority �,` '� of the electors voting on any such ordinance vote in favor of it, it shall thereupon �` �^ becane an ordinance of tlie ci ty. Any number of proposed ordinances may be voted upon ,� at tl�e san�e election but the voter siiall be allotved to vote for or against each '�'separately. In the case of inconsistency bet��een t►vo or n�ore initiative ordinances ;,approved by the electors, the ordinances shall not �o into effect until the city I` ;; counci 1 has had GO days to resolve the inconsistencies. I N ' ' � ' ' I � �r � � � � ORRIt��MICE N0. PAGE 3 Secti on 5.13, THE RECALL. Any fi ve electors may form themsel ves i nto a coi�uni ttee for the purpose of bringing about the recali of any elected officer of tne city in accordance with procedures established in Section 5.03. The committee shdll certify to the city clerk the name of the officer ���hose removal is sought, a statement of the grounds for removal in not more than 250 words, and their intention to bring about his reca]l. A copy of this certificate shall be attached to each signature paper and no signature paper shall be put into circulation previous to such ce rtification. Section 5.14, RECALL PETITIONS. The petition for tne recall of any official shall consi st of a certi fi cat? i den�;i cal wi th that fi 1 ed wi th the ci ty clerk together with all the si gnature papers and affi davi ts thereto attached. Each si gnature' paper snal i be in substantially the following form; ' RECALL PETITION ' Proposing the recal i of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . from hi s offi ce as . . . . . . ,,,.,,. . which recall is sought for the reasons set forth in the attached certi fi c�te, Thi s movement i s sponsored by the fol l owing commi ttee c` el ectors : N ame 1. ................ 2. ................ 3. ................ 4. ................. 5. ................ Address ' ................ ............,... ............ ... ............ ... ................ 4C ,The undersigned electors, understanding the nature of the charges against the office r herein sought to be re called, desire the holding of a recall election for that purpose. � . Name 1, ................ ' 2� .�.�.�...�.....� 3. . . . . . , ' Address ............ .... ................. ................. At the end of the list of signatures shall be appended the affidavit of ihe circulator. Section 5.19, INSTRUCTIOt�S TO PETITIO�dERS. The city clerk shall provide to every person circulating a petition for the initiation of an ordinance, the initiation of charter amendments, for a referendum, or the recall of an elected offici'al, written instructians delineating the correct and proper procedure for circulating the petition.� The instructions provided will clearly define falsification of a signature and false attestati on of a s i gnatu►�e and wi 11 ci te those ordi nan ces , 1 aws , or statutes rel ati ng to such acts . ' • 0 �ORDINA��CC N0. 4 D PAGE 4 ' ' ' � � � ' � � ' LJ � ' ' ' � � 1 Section 6.04, SUQORDIPlATE OFFICfRS. There shall be a city clerk, city treasurer, city attorney, and such other officers subordinate to the city manager as the council may provide for by ordinances. The city attorney and/or legal officer(s) shall be appointed by the ci ty manager wi th approval of the counci 1. The ci ty clerk shal 1 be subject to the direction of the city manager and shall have such duties in connection v�ith the keeping of the public records, the custody, and disburser�ent of'the public funds, and the gener_al administration of the ci±y's affairs as shall be ordained by the counci 1. He may be desi gnai:ed to act as secretary of the counci 1. The counc�i 1 may by ordinance abolish officers �•�hich have been created by ordinance and it may combine the duties of various offices as it may see fit. Section 6.05, PURCHASES AND COfdTRACTS. The city manager shall be the chief purchasing agent of the city. All purchases on behalf of the city shall be made, amd a11 contracts let, by th2 city manager, provided that the approval of the council must'be given in advance whenever the amount of such purchase or contract exceeds the amount stated in the state statutes. All contracts, bonds, and instrumeni;s of every kind to �,►hich the city shall be a party shall be signed by the may�r on behalf of the city, as w�ll as by the city manager, and shall be executed in the name of the ci ty. Section 6.06, CONTRP,CTS, HOW LET. In all cases of contracts for th2 purChase of merchandise, materials or equipment or for any kind of construction work'undertaken by the city, which require an expenditure of more than that which is set by the state statutes, uni�ss the council shall by an er�ergency ordinance othe nNise provide, the city manager shall ac(vertise for bids by at least 10 days published notice in the official newspaper. t�fhen a bid is required, it shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder as determined by the council. The council may, however, reject any and all bids. No'i.hing contained in this section shall prevent the council from contracting for the doing of �•rork with patented processes, or f�°om the purchasing of patented appliances. Section 7.04, PREPARATION OF ANNUAL BUDGET. The city manager shall prepare the estimates for the annual budget which shall include a»y estimated deficit for the current year. The estimates of expenditures shall be submitted by each departm�nt to the city manager. Each estimate shall be divided into three major subdivisions as follotivs: (a) Salaries and t�Jages, (b) Ordinaty Expenses, (c) Capital Outlay. Salary detail shall show a list of all salaried officers and positions �viti� salary allovrance and number af persons holding each. Wages shall be brol;en do��rn in sufficient detail to justify tfie request. Ordinary expenses shal l be broken down i nto such detai 1 as ti�e ci ty man.ager shal l,di rect. Capi tal Outlay shall be itemized as to items and ar�ounts. ' In parallel columns shall be added the amounts expened under similar heads for the two pti^ece�ing fiscal years, and, as far as practicable, the amounts expended',and estimated for expenditu re during the current year. In addition to estimates of ex�enditures, the city manager shall prepare a detailed statement of revenues collected for the two preceding completed fiscal year•s with amounts estima�ed to be collected for the current fiscal year, and an estimate of revenues for the ensuing fiscal year. The estimates shail be submitted to the council at its first regular nionthly n�eeting in August and shall be published in summary in the official publication prior to t�ie August n�eeting. � � , � � ' J ' � � ' � ' � � � ORDIP�/1��CE t�0. 4 E PAGE 5 Secti on 7.05, Pt�SSAGE OF TNE 6UDGET., The budget shal 1 be the pri nci pal i tem of business at the fi rst regular monthly meeting of the counci 1 in August, and the counci 1 shall hold subsequent meetings from time to time until all the estimates have been considered. The meetings shall be so conducted as to give interested citizens.a re asonable amount of time in ��hich to be heard, and an opportunity to ask questions. The budget estimates shall be read in full and the city manager shall explain the various items thereof as fully as may be c�een�ed necessary by the council! The annual budget finally agreed upon shall set forth in such detail as may be dete rmined by the city council, the complete financial plan of the city for the ensuin g fiscal year, and shall be signed by the rrajorit;� of ihe counciT upon being adopted. It shall indicate the sums to be raised and from ��rhat sources, and the sums to be spent and for what purposes, according to the plan indicated in Section 7.04. The'total sum appropriated shall not exceed the total estimated revenue. The council shall adopt the budget during the month of October by ordinan ce which shall set forth the total of the budget and the totals of the major divisions of the budget�, according to the plan indicated in Section 7.04. The budget ordinan ce.as adopted shall be publisned in the official publication. Section 7,09, LEVY A��lD COLLECTION OF TAXES. On or before the 5th day of November, each year the counci] shall levy by resolution the taxes necessary t� meet the req�;irements of the budget for the ensuing fiscal year. The city clerk shall transmit to �he co;�nty auditor annually not la:,er than the lOth of November, a statem�ni: of a11 the taxes levied, and such taxes shall be collected and the payment thereo�' be enforced with and in like manner as state and county taxes. No tax shall be invalid by �°eason of any informality in the manner of levy�ng the same, nor because the amou��t levied shall exceed the .amount requi red to be raised for the speci al purpose for whi ch the same is �evied, but in that case the surplus shall go into a suspense fund, and shaTl be used to reduce the levy for the ensuing year. Secti on 7.14, ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS. The city manager shal l be the chief accounting officer of the city and of every branch ti��t�eof, and the council may prescribe and enforce proper accounti ng metf�ods , forms , bl anks , and other devi�ces consi stent wi th the la��r, tf�is charter, and the ordinances in accord with it. He shall subr�it to the council a statement each month shotiving the amount of money in the custody of the city treas�r�°er, the status of all funds, the airount spent or chargeable against each of the annual budget allo��vances and the balances left in each, and such other information rel ati ve to the fi n ances of the ci ty as the counci 1 may requi re . The counci 1 may at ariy ti me and shall ai�nual ly provi de for an audi t of the ci ty finances by a certi fi ed public accountant or by the department of the state authorized to make examinations of the affairs of municipalities. On or befor-e the first day of April in eacn year th� city manager shall prepare a complete financial statement in form approved by the counciT ofi city's financial operations for the preceding calendar year, and quarter, which statement may be published in such manner as the council may direct and a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper on or before the third week in Ap'ril, July, October, and Janua�°y as appropri ate. SECTION 10.05, RATES AND CHARGES. Every public utility 'the street or public places within the city shall give service at reasonable rates. A reasonable rate shall b with efficient management, no rnially yield a fair return 'itt furnishing service to the city a��d its inhabitants. a guaranty of a return and in no case shall there by an, Within ti�ese limits the determination of maximum rates, ' � or franchisee making use of courteous, efficient and adequate e construed to be one which will, on all property used and useful This shall not be construed as . y return upon frar�chise value. fares, or charge� to be charged ORDINAI�CE N0. PAGE 6 4F by any public utility or franchisee for service rendered to the city or any person, persons, firm or corporation within the city shall be made, if possible, by direct negotiations between the public utility or franchisee and the council. In case of failure to reach an agreem�nt by this method v�ithin a reasonable time the council may, in its discretion, agree to submit to arbitration on such terms as it may, deem feasible or upon such terms as the franchise provides for, the fixing of rates, fares, or charges by the public utility or franchisee; provided, hov�ever, that Ithe rates, far2s, or charges so fixed by arbitration shall not be binding on the city for more than fi ve years. Sectian 10.06, PROVIDIO�lS OF FRANCHISES. Every franchise shall contain,' among other things, provisions relating to the following: ' (1) The term of the franchise grant�d, which shall not exceed 25 years. (2) Rates, fares and charges to be charged by the public utility or franchisee in compliance with the terms and provisions of S�ction 10.05 (3) The ri ghts reserved to the ci ty i n connecti on s�ti th the erecti on af poles , masts or other fixtures in the streets or publi c pl aces and the attachm�nt of wi res thereto, the l a,yi ng of tracks i n or of pi pes or condui ts under the streets or publ i c pl aces , and the placing in the streets or other public places of any permanent or seini-permanent fixtures �r equipment by the public utility or franchisee. :(4) The�orompt repair by the public utility or franchisee of all damages to the � public streets, alleys and public property occasioned by the acts or omissions of the publ i c uti 1 i ty or franchi see. � (5) The rights of the city to have access to all books, recor�s, and papers of the publ i c uti 1 i ty or franchi see whi ch i n any ���ay deal wi th, affect or record i ts operati ons within ana pertaining to the city and pertaining to property and equipment used and useful in furnishing sei°vice to the city and its inhabitants. � (6) The power and ric�ht af tfie city to subnlit to arbitration the fixing of any rates, fares or charges to be made by the public utility or franchisee., � C� � (7) The right of the public utili�y or franchisee to receive upon cor�demnation proceedings brought by the city to acquire the public utility or franchisee compensation for its franchise or the value thereof, if any. Section 10.09, PUBLIC IiEARINGS. Gefore any franchise ordinance is adopted or any rates, fares or charges to be charged by the public utility, or franc��isee are fixed, there shall be a public hearing by the council, in regard thereto. Notice of such public hearing sha11 be given by published notice at least once in the official newspaper not less than twenty (20) days prior to the date of such public hearing.', Additional notice of such public hearing may be given in such mannei° as the council sha11 determine. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1976. � � � ORDIN/��CC �VO. PAGE 7 � � � 'ATTEST: - � � CITY CLERK - MARVIN C. BRUNSELL �Public Hearing: April 12, 1976 & Ifay 17, 197G First Reading: gro_riZ 1a�1�.Z�z, t�1ay 17, 1976 Second Readi ng : � Publication: � � . � - . � . l � � r . � � . � � 1�lAY0R - WILLIAf�I J. ��EE � �� U � � � CITY OF FRTDLEY PLkt1NING COM:•iTSSION MEETTNG OCTOBER 6, 1976 PAC�E 1 CALL TO ORDE.R; Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order a�t 7:38 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Harris, Bergman, Langenfeld; Peterson (arrived Ss00), Schnabel, Shea . riembers Absent: None Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner B�.ck Sobiech, Public Works Director �APPROVE PLANNING CONIMISSTOAT h�INUTE5: SEPTII��BER 22, 7_9�6 , MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission minutes � of Septem}aer 22, 1976 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, �11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. CONTIWED: PUBLIC HEARING: COP�SIDF.,RATION OF A PROPOSED PREI� pLt.T of Lot 19, except ti�e East 190 feet thereof, and exce�t the West 17 feet taken for highway purposes, and the 61est 11�7.7l� feet of Lot 18� all in Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, to allaw the development of a 36 unit townhouse site, the saxne being located at the intersection of Central Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E. Public Hearing closed. � Mr. Evert R. Swanson, property owner, and Mr. A1 Hoffinei'�r, architect, were present. Mr. 3oardman exp2ained that this was a preliminary plat on the towmhouses �, to locate the buildings on the site and also clean up the legal description, and it was a typical townhouse type plat. Chairperson Harris stated there had been a question at the last meeting concerning parking stall locations, and Air. Boardman showed the Co�nmission a plan depicting parking stalls. He said that although these plans did not show it, rir. Hoff:m�ier had guaranteed he would also shift the buildings. Mrs. Schnabel said that they should note that the number of parking spaces had changed from the plan presented at the last meeting. Mr. Hoff.meier said � � �� � Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 ' Page 2 he had made a mistake in his mathematics on the first one. He stated that the requirement was for nineiy parking �talls, and they had 99. Chairperson Harris marked the plan showing the parking stalls as exhibit D. MOTIOPI by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission reco;.u~lend to Council approval of tne proposed preliminar-,� plat, P.S. �76-08; Central Townhouse Addition, by Evert Swanson: Being a replat of Lot I9, except the East 190 feet thereof, and except the Trlest 17 feet taken for hig'�w�y purposes, and the West 11�7.7lt feet of Lot 18, all in Auditor�s Subdivision Na. 129, to allow the development of a 36 unit townhouse site, the same beir.g located at the intersection of Central Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E. Mrs. Schnabel said that in looking back in the minutes from the last meeting, one of their concerns was the review of the assessment type items relative to 73rd Street. Mr. Boardman stated that the sek�er and water and stor►� se•,aers that were in the streets were designed to carry capacity loads for det�elopment in that area. Hs added that this development would not overburden t�at Ioad. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the mot�on carried unanir�ously.' 5A COPJTINUED: PUBI,IC HEARING: REZOiJING R£CzUF�ST� ZOA #76-05� 3Y WY'.•:nii S*�iITH: Rezone the Easterly 200 feet of Lot J_3, except tne Nortnerly 3� �eet '�t'�ereof; also the Easterly �O,feet thereof, Auditor's Subdzvisior. iio. 89, from R-3 (ger.eral multiple family dwellings), to C-1 (local business areas), or C-2, (general business areas), to allow the consiruc�ion of'a speculative building to be used for offices and assemblies, generally located on the South side of Norton Avenue N.E. where it intersects with Central Avenue N.E. Public Hearing closed. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Com�iss;,on receive the letter dated October 5, �976 to the City of Fridley fro:� Leroy S:�ith withdrawing this request. i3pon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Eaxl Dunbar, 121�5 Norton Avenue N.E., stated he had a petition,w�ich he would like put in the files for future reference. Chairperson Harris read the petition, dated October !t, 1976, aloud: , tide, the undersigned, as concerned residents of Norton Avenue Northeast� City of Fridley, wish to make the following statement of our wishes and desires concerning the proposed rezoning request, ZOA 76-05, to rezone the Easterly 200 feet of lot 13, except the Northerly 30 feet thereof and also the Easterly 50 feet thereof, auditors subdivision No. 89, from R-3 to C-1 or C-2: . It is our desire that the above request be denied, and that any similar request be likewise denied; in short, that the property mentioned, as well as all unoccupied property on Norton AvenuellNortheast, remain R-3. � � � � � Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 . ' Page 3 Our primary reasons for this position are: l. That the proposed changes would lead to a decline in property values. ' 2. That the increased personal and vehicular traffic on the street would be disturbing to the residents. � 3.` That the increased traffic will endanger the safety of the' children and property of the homeowners. , Chairperson Harris noted that the petition had ten signatures. MOTIOPI by Shea, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission receive the petition frori the residents of Norton Avenue dated October �, 1976. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimousl;,r. , Chairperson Harris stated that he would give the peition to the City Ad.-ninistra- tion to be put in the file. TABLID: PUBLIC HEARING: COATSIDERATI0IT OF A Px�ELIMIIti.��f PLAT, ; P.S. =�76-0�, � INIdS$RUCK I�O�ih REPLAT �=�I�D �DITIOiJ BY DA:�REL A. F��: T��Y�IA-: �:+1 �C�RPORATIO;ti: Leing a replat of Lots 1 to inclusive, �iocks 1 t:�rough 2, and also part of Zot 1, Block 2E3, Innsbruck North Townhouses T�n.ird � Addition, to allow chan�es in the size of garages, generally located on the West side of East Bavarian Pass and South of Meister Road N.:. � � � L: 1 Public Hearing open, tabled August 18, 1976. Mr. Jim London with Darrel Farr Development, and P:r. Darrel A. Farr �rere present. Mr. $oardman explained that this had been tabled until Darrel Farr Corporation was ready to go with it, and they were now ready ta proceed. He saic tha� this was in the townhouse area and they wanted to increase the s�ze of six proposed single-car garages to double-car garages. Mr. London showed copies of the proposed plat to the Corunission. He explained that he and rlr. Farr had mAt with the Innsburck North Townhouse Association Arch�tectural Control Committee and the Operating Committee of the'Innsbruck North Townhouse Association, and they had worked out this proposed replat of the Third Addition. He said that i:heir proposal was to provide 12'doable gara�;es in Iieu of the 12 single ga_rages that were on the origina2 plat. Mr. London eaplained that they hadn�t changed the total nuriber of parking spaces as they had increased the i.nside parking by 12 spaces and decreased the outside parking by 12 spaces. He said that in thair agreement w�th the Innsbi•uck Townhouse Association they were moving blocks S, b, 7 and 8 to the bottom of the page five feet to give a minimum of almost 50' between buildings for movement of traffic, parking, and so forth. He added they had'also moved the garages in blocks 5 and 6 so the garage and house would be more in line and open up the �reen area between buildings. rir. London added th�t they were � � Planning Commission rfeeting - October 6, 1976 Page !� 5 C � , going to offer a standard garage door operator to be sold with each garage so people would use the indoor parking more. Chairperson Harris asked Mr. London if he was aware of the letter from Mr. Jerry W. Anderson, Chairman of the Architectural Control Committee, to the Planning Commission, dated July 20, 1976. P1r. London said he.was, and that they had had their meetings after that. He explained that letter was written the first time they had appeared before this Com�nission, and there were three subsequent meetings after that when this plat was worked out. Mrs. Schnabel asked if tl:ere would be any outside parking, and u.r. London replied that it �rasn't shoi,m on this plat, but there would be. �1r. Boardr.tan asked if units 7 and 8 were moved, and rlr. London replied they had'been r�oved back from the street. NIr. Boardman stated that Staff had no problem with this preliminary plat. � MOTION by Shea, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Cor.unission close the Public Hearing on consideration of a preliminary plat, P.S. ,�76-05, Innsbruck North Replat Third Addition, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corpora- � tion. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 8;05. � � � i Mr. Bergman stated that initially he had some concern about the lack of a letter in writing from the Architectural Control Committee to mate with the letter on pa�e It5 0£ the agenda. However, he said, the letter from that Co:L^�ittee says they have a verbal agreement �,�ith Jim Tondon, and �since rir. Landon now tcld the Commission they are in accord, he didn't feel the cnncern that a letter��ras needed for reference purposes. Chairperson H�rris suggested it taould be well to have that letter for the City Council. MOTION by Shea, seco:�ded by Bergman, that the Plann�ng Comrlission reco:�ur►end to Council approval of preliminary plat, P.S� �76-05, Innsbruck North Replat Third Addition, by Darrel A. Farr Developrnent Corporation: �eing a replat of Lots 1 to � inclusive, B1oc�cs 21 through 26, Und also part of Lot 1, Block 28, Innsbruck North Totanhouses Third Addition, to allow changes in t'r.e size of garages, generally located on the West side of East Bavaxian Pass and South of Meister Road N.E. ' Mrs. Schnabel said that the original request form said to increase the size of � five proposed garages, and the request was actually for six. A7r. Lon�on said that was just an error, and it should be si.x. Chairperson Harris suggested that be cleaned up before the request went to Council. ' � � � UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC Hr,ARING: CONSID,�RATIOPd OF A PRELP.�IINA.�Y PLATi P.S. #76-10, I\?I�SBRUCK VILLAGES SECOND ADDI`i'IOt�� BY Da:-Z�nLL A. FAi� DF.VELOPAILn:T CORPO�ATI��:u: Being a replat of the Eastern boundary of Innsbruck Villages Addition, described as�follows: That part of Outlot A, Innsbruck North, lyi.ng West of a lirie drawn from the most Northerly corner of Qutlot C, Innsbruck Villages, to the most Southerly corner of Outlot A� Innsbruck Village and said line there terminating, the purpose of the plat to allow for a more feasible � Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 ' � � � �� , , ' Page 5 5 D distribution of the same number of units in the development, generally located North of North Innsbruck Drive N.E. and West of the Black Forest Apartment. � Mr. Jim London, with Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation, and Mr. Darrel Faxr were present. ', MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission open the Public Fiearing on consideration of a preliminary plat, P.S. #76-10, Innsbruck Villages Second Addition, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declaxed the'Public Hearing open at 8;10. Mr. Boardman stated this was somewhat confusing, and directed the Commission ta turn to page 55 of their agendas which showed what had originally been proposed. He showed the Commissioners the new plat and explained what changes had been made, 2x�d explained the land change would be equal. He said they had felt that several buildings were too close to the apartment area, so they were eliminating "B", were switching "A" closer to the cul-de-sac, and putting wha,t had been "A" back into Outlot C. He stated there would be the same number of units on the plat, but just in a different location. He added that the square footage would be adjusted to be equal. ' M::. London said that this had been approved originally for 100 units, and they now had 96, so there was a reduction. He stated that the land areas would be an equal swap; neither the Black Forest or Innsbruck Village would'lose any land. Mr. I�Iilton Bullock, sci71� Arthur Street, Fridley, asked if he could'see a copy � of the plat. NIr. Boardman showed Mr. Bullock and other interested residents the proposed plat and explained it to them. I Marjorie Phelan, Matterhorn Drive, asked if an IIzvironmental Impact Study had been done in this area. Nir. Boardman replied that none vaas done, and explained that the only way they would have been required to do an �vironmental Impact Study was through a petition, and no petition was dratan up. hls. Phelan said � , she.knew this was after the fact, but she felt ��hat was being done in that area was a shame. She asked if the City �f Fridley didn't have any responsibility to protect, the environment. I�ir. Boardrian replied they did, and it'would have � been up to the City Council at the time the first plats ca�ne in. He said the City Council tried to realize some of the environmental problens om this; how- ever, it would have been difficult when this came through to tell them they � had to do an environmental statement without the State EQC rules and regulations to back them up. He added it �aas also pretty hard for the Council'to deny some- one use of his property, but they could put restrictions on that pr�operty to be as environmentally conscious of the property as possible. , IChairperson Harris stated that the City had spent a lot of time ard!energy, as did the developer, trying to work out a workable plan to save as many trees � and preserve the area as much as they could. He explained that they did not have the tools at that time that they had now to require Dnviranmental Impact Statements. He further explained that didn't take affect until the first part � �, � , _ __ • Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 Page 6 � � - -- ' of 1971�, and this plat had been i.n the works since 1970. � , � , L Mr. Bergman stated that the history actually went back about 9 or 10 years when the entire 130 acre site of Innsbruck Pdorth both in Fridley and rlew Brignton was proposed for rezoning for multiple farnily apartments and townhouses. He said the people in the neighborhood fought successfully against rezoning efforts which would have converted the entire acreage to multiple�famiZy. The people in the neighborhood ��ere in contact with cit�, county, and state agencies promoting all or part of that area as park land to try to retain its natural state without success. Mr. Bergman said it was rezoned about ten years ago for the purpose that the developer now wants, so he felt that the ecology effort should have been applied 9 or 10 years ago prior to'its rezoning for multiple family. Mr. Peterson said that he thought they had to realize that probably everybody at this meeting who o��rned a home had probably cut down trees to build that house. He stated it V:as always easy to say that somebody else should preserve their property in its natural state, and he thought that the Darrel Farr Corporation had been very cooperative in trying to do all they could to preserve the beauty of the area. He added that he felt it should be pointed out that people did have certain rights to develop the property they owned. Mr. Farr stated that they had done as good a job as they could to maintain , the land. He sa�d it t�ras costly to develop, and because of that cost the horrie:; �rere more highl;� priced than comparable homes in other areas. Therefore� he continued, they had to have some competitive advantage from a business I standpoint, and that was the trees and ponds. rie added that t;hey clid dedicate a site to the City of Fridley for park purposes that was larger thsn the site they were presently developing for tY:e villages. LJ � � , ' , � � � Mrs. Schnabel asked if the two buildings that were being currently'constructed on North Innsbruck Drive would ee models. T�Ir. Farr replied that the first two buildings would be sold. He explained that the first building Vaas intended to be a model, but since the decision to incorporate double garages was made along with other arcY�itectural changes of a minor nature, the models would actually be block 19. rir. Bullock stated he had a a,uestion cor►cerning the road. He said that at the last Corunission meeting he attended he understood +he road that would be constructed between the divisions coming out on Arthur Street would be single 1ane and Frould be angled to the North, and asked i.f this was still the case. Air. London said the road would be built to the letter of the agreement with the City of Fridley. , 5 E. Mr. Bergman said they had all spent a lot of time at previous meetings concerning the building plan, street patterns, setbacks, etc., and he was just wondering how approval of this plan would affect the agreement, stipulations, and negotiated compromises that were made through the previous process. Mr. Londion said that the agreeMent stands. He explained they taere not asking for any changes in that agreement. A1r. Bergman then asked if the request could be rephrased to 1) include a reduction in density from 100 units to 96, and 2) to merely relocate units A and B from the previous plat. Mr. London said the only other change would be , Planning Coinmission Meeting - October 6, 1976 . P�� 7 5 F , � ' ' , , LJ � � ' � , , , � , , , the land slot. He showed Mr. Bergman the plat and explained what he meant. Mr. Robert 7'urek, 5629 No. Danube Road, asked if samewhere in the City there was a master pl�n that showed the way things were going to be. Mr. Boardman said they had an over-a11 concept, but it didn�t show where all the buildings would be. Chairperson Harris said that they would have something on all buildings that were under constr�action at this time. Mr. �rek asked if he could__get copies of the letters that had been discussed, and was told he could. Mr. Bullock asked if the direction of the road ir� question had been drawn on any plan showing the degree of angling to the Piorth, and I�ir. Sobeich replied that construction plans had not been drawn. Mr. Bullock asked how they would be able to �mow yrhen it had been drawn so they could express their opinions, and Pir. Sobeich said the office could just take his name and if he was interested show him the plans. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on consideration of a preliminary plat, P.S. #76-10, Innsbruck Villages Second Addition, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation. Upon a voice vote, all votirg aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing� closed at 8:1�8 P.I�2. Mrs. Schnabel com�ented that one thing tha.t had concerned her before was the main'anance of �lorth Innsbruck Drive, and she was now happy to see''things were moving along as approved. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Comm3.ssion recommend to Council approval cf prel�.:ninary plat, P.S. #76-10, Innsbruck Villages Second Addition, by Darrel A. Farr Developrr�ent Corporation: Being a replat of the Eastern bounda.ry of Innsbruck Villages Addition, described as follot�rs : That part, of Outlot A, Innsbruck North, lying ��Test of' a line dra�,rn from the most Northerly corner of Outlot C, Innsbruck Villages� �o the most Southerly corner of Outlot A, Innsbruck �Jillage and said line there terriinating, the purpose of the plat to allotr for a more feasible distribu- tion of the sarie number of units in ttie development, generally located North of North Innsbruck Drive Id.E. and West of the Black Forest Apartment. Mrs. Schnabel neted that the planning and zoning form did not show a fee paid for the request. AZr. London said it had been paid, and P•Zr. Boardman agreed it had. Mr. Bergman said Yie would like to suggest an additional statement 'to the motion sa,ying "with the understanding that all stipulations and agxeements which were part of the previous preliminary plat recommendation be retained". rir. Peterson AMMENDED the rI0TI0N to include the statement by Tir. Bergman. Mr. Langenfeld agreed. . ' UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.'. PtJBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED PLAT, P.S OAKS, BY TE��. ROTTLUND COP•1PANY: fieing a replat of Lots 6-07, ROTTLUND � �� , �, �.,, :i 1 Planning Commission Meetin� - October 6, 1976 ' Page 8 1l�� 15, 16 and I7, Bloc?c 1, Spring Brook Paxk Second Addition, together with Lots 32 and 33, and the West 30 feet of Lots 3!� and 3�, Block 10, Spring Brook Park Addition, zoned P.D. (Planned Developrnent), generally located between Ruth Street N.E. and East River Road N.E.� North of Liberty Street N.E. Mr. David H. Rotter of Rottlund Company was present. MQTION by Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission '' open the Public Hearing on considera+ion of a proposed plat, P.S. �76-07� Rottlund Oaks, by the Rottlund Company. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 8:55 P.M. , � Mr. 3oardman explained th.is was a proposal for 13 lots off of a cul-de-sac, and the lot widtrs at the 35' setbac% were shoi�m. He said that Staff would suggest a 1ot be dropped to bring it up to what the code requirements were for lot widths, and also to make the lots more salable. Mr. Peterson asked if all of the lots met the minirnum area requirements in terms oi square footage, and Mr. Boardman said he believed they did. He explained that lot 7 was a 50' lot that had an existing house on it. rir. Boardman said that they were asking a lot be dropped because although the lots might meet the square footage requirements, in order to meet the 75' width on the lot it may be required tc have a setbacx of I�0 or �5 feet. Mr. Rotter stated that they trere not trying to increase the number of lots , over the original plan; he said that in this area with the original street patterns there were the same number of 1ots. He explained the reason for platting it this way tisas because of the unusual terrain of the property ' and by pulling the cul-de-sac back up they were forced to reduce tne Iots. He stated they would like to leave these lots as they were buildable. � � Chairperson Harris read the following letter to the City of Fridley Planning Commission from 1�•Ir. Rotter, dated October �., 1976: � Z7e would like to briefly explain our position in our request for preliminary approval of Rottlund Oaks. After study on our part as to the topography of the area and neighbor- ing property, we felt the majority of this.property would best be suited for residential construction other than Lots 11, 12 and 13� of Spring Brook Park, 2nd Addition, �rhich we �aould use as a multi-family area. In the past� this property has been approved for a 108 unit apartment building. The high density use of this land would not be conc�ucive with the neighboring streets of Liberty and Ruth, which now is single family homes. 5G In order for this property to be developed botYi economically and esthetically, we axe proposing the replatting of the lots as indicated in our applica- tion and preliminary plat. The number of lots we are requesting on the replat is the same number of lots on the.original plat. , , , • .'� Planning Commission P•ieeting - October 6, 1976 � ' ' � � � ' � P�e 9 5 H MOTION by Langenfeld, second�d by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive the letter from Mr. Rotter to the Planning Commission dated October !tj 1976. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carriec3 unanimously. Mr. Rotter stated that they were trying to utilize the property as economically as possible, and were not trying to gain anytring out, of the property or pick up an extra lot. He added that hopefully the purchase of the existing home would be made by the Rottlund Company. fie said that they were also the awners of lots 1, 2, 3 and 1� on the South portion of Liberty Street and were building single family homes on this now. r1r. Rotter said tha�L as far as marketability went as mentioned by Staf.f, he felt they c��ere marketable this way �.nd wanted to hang on to all the lots they had. Mr. Peterson asked kThat Mr. Rotter's plans werz for lot 7 if he purchased the existing structure there. P�Ir. Rotter replied ilis intention was to'resell� as there was nothing wrong with the house. I�Irs. SchnabeZ asked i•rhy he was replatting from the orig�nal plan to the one presented at this meeting. 2�Ir. Rotter explained that lots 11�, 10, 9 and 8 were practically unbuildable unless the entire area was filled. �ie saicl the eul-de-sac would be at the top of a sV:ale line that dropped about 18', and that by pulling this back up they could leave the majority of tne trees. He explained that building on East River Road wouldn't be as salable *.•rith the trees gone. Mr. Bergman said he got the impression that every lot facing the cul-de-sac was more than 9,000 square feet, and askeci ?�Ir. Boardma.n if he had �necked ' the sizes. ;�1r. Boardman said the lots :aere a11 in excessof 9�000 square feet, and their consideration would b� that no variances be granted on these lots. ' � � Chairperson Harris asked how far back the houses would be set from the cul-de-sac, and t�ir. Rotter replieci that on lots 3� l�, 5 and 6 the houses would probably be back about !�5'. NIr. Harris asked how far back the nouse on lot 8 tiaould sit, and NIr. Rotter stated that he tirou�d try to blend the houses so it vrouZd look like a neighborhood. Chairperson Harris explained that the City had an ordinance concerning average front, yard setbacks which �llowed, he believed, only a 6� deviation. rir. Boardman pointed out that on lot 8 i�1r. Rotter could deviate ' the house back from the one on lot 7� and i;r. Rotter said he could also put the garage toward the front to bring it clo$er. , Mrs. Schnabel noted that in the original plan dated back in 1967 there was some discussion about commercial developnent. She said they were ignoring lots 11, 12 and 13, and asked if r1r. Rotter still intende� to put a commercial area 1 in. Mr. Rotter replied he did not, and explained those lots were for multiple purpose and not for corimercial. , ' ' � Mr. Howard Dumphy stated he was representing the owners of lot 15 of block 10, Spring Brook Park, and lo �s 32 and 33 and the ?•yest 30' of lots 3!t and 35, Spring Brook Park. He said these lots were being purchased by the applicant and they were willing to go along with the request, but in the event the purchase was not consuriated they felt the_replatting should not be considered. , I' Planning Commission t�seeting - October 6, 1976 Page �0 5 I � , Mr. Azad P�esrobian, 293 Ely Street N.E., asked for a definition of Planned Unit Develop:�ent. NIr. Boardman explained that required the developer to bring in a plan showing how he would develop the property, and the code required the developer to appear before a Public Iiearing and have complete, complex drawings of what was proposed. He explained that Planned Unit Development eould include commercial, residential, ete., in a combination. rir. riesrobian asked how many of these planned units frere multiple dwellings, and 2�Ir. Boardman replied that Mr. Rotter was developing the lots off of Ely Circle into single-family homes. ' Mr. Charles Sprafka, 280 Ely Street N.E., stated he wished to commend Mr. Rotter and Rottlund Company for proposing the movement of the cul-de-sac a�ray from the street to preserve the beauty of the area. P�rs. Schnabel noted that Mr. Boardman had. recommended that the petitioner give up a lot in the proposed plan, and asked�if there was some sp�:cific plan in mind. N1r. Rotter explained he had talked to Darrel Clark briefly abbut this. He said that he d�d not t,rish to drop a Iot in the area as he was trying to operate within the �otal number of lots originally platted. , Mrs. Shea asked if lot 5 was 100' wide, and Mr. Rotter said that lot was 75'. Chairperson Harris asked if the lots would meet the minimum requirements for width if they were at the Lt5' setback line. i�ir. Boardman replied they would in all cases except lot �7, where the existing house was, rrr. Boardman suggested if this proposal was 2dopted thdt they would maintain a setback at some point where they could build where the lot width was 75'. Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Rotter i_f he would be willing to agree that the setback would be at Ja5' for a 75' width. Mr. Rotter replied that it depended so much on the lay of the land. He said he didn't want to end up pushing the houses back into the area and defeating the purpose of the cul-de-sac. He added that he would not request a variance for any of the lots as proposed as far as side yard setbacks. Chairperson Harris said that the problem h�as they had a platting ordinance that states that minimum lot width be 75' at the 3�' setback line.' He explained that if they approved this plat as it was, they were in violation of the ordinance. NIr. Rotter asked if they were suggesting that a setback be maintained that wauld give them 75' at the building line, and Nir. Harris said that was correct. Pir. Peterson said they had heard neighbors commend P-Sr. Rotter for a plan to save the ecology of the area, and they on the Planning Commission were trying to force �ir. Rotter to accept a plan that would force him to destroy trees. Chairperson Harris said he was not sure that was what they were doing. He stated they required that the location of the buildings be presented before they approved a Planned Unit Development, so all that work would have to be done ahead of time. :•;r. Peterson stated he understood that, but they did bend the ordinances under certain circumstances and he thought that as a Commission they should be listening to what the people in the audience were telling tYiem who were neighbors of the developer. ' rir. Sprafka asked if it would be possible to obtain an�vironmental Impact ' Statement that would have precedence over the local ordinance in this case to waive that requirement, or if something could be done at State level. Chair- person Harris stated they could handle this as a Planned Unit Development where ' , ' , ,, Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 Pa�e 11 5 J the locations of all the buildings would have to �e presented on a plan, showing contours and the whole layout before the plan was approved. Mr. Baardman added that actually the Planning Commission could not waive any of 'the codes�- but could make a recornmendation to the City Council. Chairperson Harris said �hat Mr. Rotter could draw the houses on the plat to see if the setback requirements would destroy the tress or if they wouldn't. He added that the Commissio� should find out if 1•�r. Rotter felt that the requarements would work a hardship before they recommended approval of the plat. Mr. Boardman suggested a motion that would say Pfr. Rotter would at�empt to maintain the 75' lot width at the building site location,, and taould require a variance to this if that building location was any less than 75'. He said -that way ihe Appeals Corunission cou].d look at it, and he thought that in most cases it wouldn't take the !t5' to get the 75� �aidth. Mr. Rotter stated he wanted to utilize the property as best he could, and there were 60' lots in the area where homes had been built. He said tha� if he had to push the homes back to 50 or 60 feet, it might meet the letter of the law but it might not be presentable as such. Chairperson Harris said that perhaps he should determine where the 75' lines were and sketch in a rough'd�elling size and see how exactly they would fit in on the lot. i�ir. Rotter said'he kould consider that, but he had already done the North section of the area without fol�o�*ing this format. ?�?r. Harris said tnat apparently someone �..n ! the past had decided not to folloYr the ordinance. Mr. Peterson asked Mr. Rotter what his plans iaere in terms of time„ and rlr. Rotter replied he would li�e to start construc�ion on lots 5, 1 and 7 in a very short time. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld, to continue in trro weeks the Public Hearing on consideration of a proposed plat, P.S. �#76-07, Rottlund 0aks, by the Rottlund Co:�pany, and as:c the developer to bring in a sketch snowing the location of the buildings regarding the 75' wi�th and setbac!c requirer�ents. � Mr. Peterson explained that they really had nothin� to go on at this time, and the sketch would let them know if they ti�ere causirg rir. �otter a hardship or not. P1r. Bergman stated he thought they were overburdening this thing. He said he was sure that eventually 2•Zr. Rotter woald have to do what had been ' suggested, but he was not sure that what would be done to show tre building setbacks and 75� lot �,�idth at the building location would be that firm or valid at this point as it would be at the time Afr. Rotter would seriously consiruct � something. He stated that he was impressed that ene of the public,benefits of establishing continuit3• was not really that applicable around a'cul-de-sac as in a straight-line block. Mr. Bergman said he was recognizing that this ' particular piece of land was causing some development problerns, and was consid- ering that the 75' width c,ras real�y not that u:�iformly adhered to.' Chairperson Harris stated that in all new plats it was. Mr. Bergman•said that'',it may be adhered to on new plats, but not in building construction on preser�tly platted ' property. He said he was questioning that that requirement was legally applicable in a Planned Unit Development. rir. Harris said it was. ' ' Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 ' Page 12 Mr. Peterson stated his first inclination would be to vote for Mr.' Rotter�s request� but as the discussion went along he felt it was unfair to the Planning Commission to vote without knowing if it was one, two, or three lots that would be working a hardship on Mr. Rotter, and tr.at was the reason for h'is motion. Mr. Langenfe].d added that what it boiled down to was that they were just asking that tne Pl�.nned Unit Development procedure be followed to the letter. UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously., Mr. Rotter said rle wished to point out that the original development plan of this property was for a 108 unit apartment building, which would have been a disaster in that area. He said he didn't want to completely go through the Planned Development procedure because of the length of time it would take, but he was trying to better the property other than the previously planned monster that was going to �o there, and he wished the Commission would consider that in their determination. TABLED: C0�3SIDF�tATICPI OF REZONING THE PD DISTRICT (PLA?�T:•�ED IN THE 110 BIACK OF �ST RIVEP� ROADy TO R-1 SIIdGLE Fhi�iILY Tabled at September 8, 1976 Planning Commission meeting. M��. Boardman explained that this item had to do with item 5? the proposed plat by the Rottlund Company, and suggested that this be continued'in two weeks also. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission continue in two weeks the consideration of rezoning the PD District in the 8110 block of East River Road to R-l. Upon a voice vote, all vot�ng aye, the motion carried unanimously. T Mr. Rotter said that item 6 was an item brought to the Commission by Staff, and explained he was not requesting rezonirig on that property. P'JBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIi��INARY PLA.T, P.S. ;�76-09, D�LIF�. ADDTTION, BY DOldALD II. LEIi.��: Being a replat of Lot 33, Auditor's Subdivision No 129, to allow the development ef 3 R-1 lots (single fariily dwelling area) and 1� R-3 lots� (�eneral multiple family units)� generally located in the 1500 Block between 73rd avenue IvT.E. and Onondaga Street 1�.E. Mr. Donald Leier was present. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Plarining Commission open the Public Hearing on consideration of a preliminary plat, P.S. �76-09, neleier Addition, by Donald M. Leier. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 9:1t5 P.M. Mr. Boardman directed the Commission to turn to page 72 of their agenda and pointed out the general location of the area. He said there were plans that 5K , Planning Con�ission Meeting - October 6, 19%6 ' Page 13 5 L ' � � CJ L� � � � � ' 73� would ga through that property and connect up to Onondaga Street. He explained tYiat this was an existing plat from Auditor's Sub, and what was being requested was a replat of that Auditor's Sub. He stated that',page ?3 showed what was involved, and said at this time Mr. Leier was plannxng on gozng with single family homes in the R-3. P�Ir. Boardman said that if an apartment unit was al].owed in there as it was according to the zoning, he would suggest that a stiptilation be made allowing no access to 73 2 St. He brought to the Commission':s attention a memo from Tom Colbert dated October 5, 1976 concerning the waterma9.n, sanitary, and easements in the Deleier Addition. Mr. Leier s�Lid he bought the property not knowing of the platting, and found out LakesidE; Road was supposed to extend to the cul-de-sac. He said he had invested in this and would have to go ahead with it. rir. Leier said the lots were not 75' wide, but 72.25' wide, and it was a tough situation. He added that this was an area where large homes would not be built, and the! square footage on i;he smallest lots were 9,970 feet and and ihe largest was 11,000 square feet,. Chairperson Harris asked if the area designated as R-3 was all one parcel now, and was told it Vras. He asked if Mr. Leier proposed to split that into four sections, atid Mr. Leier replied he did in order to have a wider range of possibilitiE�s for it. Tir. Harris asked how large the total R-3 parcel was, and P�1r. Boaa�dman said it was getting close to lt0,000 square fPet. Nir. Harris askEd how m��.ny units that t��ould hold, and i�ir. Boardman replied about 16. Mr. Harris <�.sked if there were any problems with any of the lots in the R-1 area, and ri�,. Boardman said there were not. Mr: Petersoii asked if he understood correctly that Staff had no prablems with the petitioiier's request with existing codes, other than the stipulation for the egress onto 732. Mr. Boardman said that was correct, and he didn't have a big probl�:m Urith that area going either R-1 or R-3. He said if it went R-3 he would su�;gest all traf£ic be connected.to 73rd. He added it was even possible fo:� half of that to go to R-1 and half go to R-3. Karen Egger�t, 7351 Pinetree Lane, N.E., asked if the plan called for 73� to go � through or :if it would stop right there. rlr. Boardman explained the road would connect, anci suggested that should be a stipulation. He added that he had contact witli the owner o£ 2180, and his zntent over the phone was to go for a lot split North and South, and he would be coming in to apply for that so:ne � time next week. However� he said, he siil� felt the s-tipulation far easement should be cunnected to this plat in case he dirin't apply for the lot split. Mr. Sobiech interjected that in order to achieve the integrity of the future � development that was planned there, it was the City's intent to make that connection, and in order to make that connection they must maintain that easement. Chairperson Harris asked if the City would require these people to , acquire the easement, and P11r. Sobiech replied that was their intention. He explained tliat to this date they had had the developers acquire the easements, and it was not unusual. ' , John Eggert� 7351 to the neiglibors R-1. � � Pinetree Lane� N.E.� stated he lived on lot #3� aind in talking around the area they agreed they ��ould like to see the area go � Pla.nning Commission Meeting - October b, 1976 Page 1!� 5 r'' �J , � Mr. Leier sai� it was his intention for the City to do this work and assess him for it. He said he also contacted tYie o�mer of the apartment adjacent.on the Eastern side, and that person also owned the property where 73'-� would go straight Ea.st, and he was interested in doin� something there� too, rir. Leier asked ii, f"or example, the City would take over the curbs, street, sewer, etc., if they would couple that bid with others in the area. Mr. Sobeich replied that they tried to incorporate street projects with the annual city street improvement•s, and would hopefully get the lowest possible bid for construction. Iie added tr at sanitary sewer and Ura�ter would be another bid, but they'.tried to combine as much as possible to get the lowest possible price. MOTION by F�ergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Comrnission close the Public Hearing on consideration of a preliminary plat, P.S. �76-09, Deleier Addition, t�y Donald M. Leier. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, Chairperson Harris dec7.ared the Public Hearing closed at 10:05 P.i�1. � Mrs. Schnat�el asked if they were approving a replatting into four separate lots of that R-3 section for the purpose of those parcels eventually being built on� a:� R-1 property. rfr. Boardman said he was sure that was what hlr. � I,eier's ini;ention was. Mrs. Schnabel then asked why they would not rezone at the sa.r.ic: time they replat, and PZr. Boardrian answered because R-'I could be built on R-•3 property. � � � � ' � M��s. Schnat�el stated that the lot size bothered her. She said that she had some problE;ms going along with replatting with lots of that size since they were tryin�; ta be consistent in the City to maintain 75' widths. Mr. Boardrian pointed oui: that it would be difficult to do it any differently. Mrs. Schnabel s:iid she didn�t have the magic anskTer, but felt it would require a variance a-� the time it was built upon. t�ir. Sobiech stated that a variance would not l�e necessary if the p1.at k�as approved as such. MOTION by '3ergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommend �to Council approval of preliminary p�at, P.S. r�76-09, Deleier Addition, '�y Donald i�I. Leier: Being a replat oi Lct 33, Auditor's sub- division N�� 129, to allow the development of 3 R-1 lots (single family dwelling area) and 1.� R-3 lots, (general multiple family units), generally Tocated in the 1500 BLock between 73rd Avenue N.E. and Onondaga Street N.E. vrith the following �anderstandings: 1} Thai streei easements to ccmplete 73� Street and its inters�sction of Lakeside Road will be completed, and 2) That if the R-3 property is actually developed for multiple family, that access not be off 73� Street. L'pon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. LOT SPLIT RE�UEST: L.S. �76-08 BY MR. & rIRS. KENN�'TH GASPER: The purpose of the lot split request was to split off 5 feet of front footage of Lot 8, Block 1, Holiday Hills Second Addition, and make it a part;of Lot 9� Block 2, Holiday Hills Addition, but the request now includes other properties listed on their deed that has never gone through tY�e lot split procedure by the City. ' The complete request is as follows: �'hat part of Lot 8, Block l, Holiday Hills Second Addition, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Easterly line of Lot 8, Block 1, Fioliday Hills Second Addition, said point being located 97 feet 5outhwesterly of the � Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 � � � Page 15 5 N Northeast corner of �aid Lot 8, a distance of 99.65 feet to the most Southerly point of said Lot 8� thence Northwesterly along the West line, . a distance of ?5 feet, thence Northeasterly to the point of beginning, AP]D, that part of Lot 8, Block 2, Holiday Hills Addition described as follows: Bepinning at a point on the Easterly line of said Lot 8, that point �eing 15 feet Northeast of the most Southerly corner of said Lot 8, thence Northwesterly along the Southerly line of said Lot 8, a distance of 137 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 8, thence South- easterly to a point of beginning, all to be part of Lot 9, Block 2, Holiday Hills A.ddition, the same being 501 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. Mr. Kenneth A. Gasper was present. � Mr. Boardman explained to the Commission what axeas they were dealing with, and said that Mr. Gasger was requesting a lot split of an additional 55'from Holiday Hil.ls Second Addition. He said that since this lot split had never � been approv�ed by the City, that should be done at this time also. He stated that the petitioner did have the approval of the property owners on each si�e. � � �J Ll � � Mr. Gasper explained that his children played on that particular piece of property, �nd he had wanted this lot split for some time. He said that to look at the� geography of the property, it looked like it belonged to his lot more than I�ot 8, Block l. ' MOTION by F'eterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commissa.on recorrlmend to Council approval of Lot Split Reques�; L.S. �76-08, by I�ir. & 1�1rs'. Kenneth Gasper: Tr�e purpose of the lot split request was to split off 55 feet of front foot<<ge of Lot R, B7_ock l, Holiday Hills Second Addition, and make it a part of I,ot 9, Block 2, Holiday Hills Addition, but the request now includes other propE�rties listed on their deed that has never gone through the lot split procedure t>y the City. The complete request is as follotas: That part of Lot 8� Block 1, Holiday Hills second Addition, described as follows: 8eginning at a point on the Easterly line of Lot 8, Block 1, Holiday Hills Second Addition, said point being lccated 97 f.eet Southwesterly oi the i�ortheast cos•r�er of said Lot 8,, thence Southeasterly along the Eas� line of said Lot 8, a distance of 99.65 fE�et to the most Southerly point of said Lot 8, thence Northwesterly along the 4Test line, a distance of 75 feet, thence Northeasterly to the point of beginnirig, AiJD, that part of Lot 8, Block 2, Holiday Hills Addition described as follows:: Beginning at a point on the Easterly line of said Lot'8� that point being 15 fE�et Northeast of the most Southerly cerner of said Lot 8,, thence Northwesterly along the Southerly line of said Lot 8, a distance oi 137 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 8, thence Southeasterly to a point of beginning, all to be part of Lot 9,, Block 2, Holiday Hills Addition� the same 501 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. Mrs. Shea stated that for personal reasons she wished to abstain. UPON A VOICE VOTE, Haxris, Bergman, Langenfeld, Peterson and Schnabel voting aye; Shea absiaining;, the raotion carried. 9. LOT SPI�IT REQUEST: L.S. �f76-09 BY BENEDICT NOVAK: Split c,ff the Southerly 102 feet of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, subjeci; to 9 foot road easement 711z W�y N.E.� to create a new building site, � Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 � � � � `�7 Page 16 5 Q the same being 11.i5 71� Way N.E. (The acldress of Mr. Novak's residence will have to be changed when a building permit is taken out for construction on• the new bui�ding site). , Mr. Benedict Novak was present, and stated he wanted to take off q2 feet, not 102. Mr. Boaxdman explained that this lot split request was tentatively',granted by the City Council when ro;�dway easement was given up by P�4r. Novak io allow development of 8 lots. He indicated to the Commission where the p�roperty was located on the map on page 82 of the agen�a. Mr. Boardr►an said Staff would. request the 7.ot splzt be no less than 89' and -tnat 9' of that would be required fcr roadway easemen�. He said they would also request that the lot split be no closer than 10' to the present structure. Mr. Novak said he had had his property surveyed, and the lot split would be 8� South of his fence, and the fer..ce was over 10' from the existing house. Mr. Bergmar.. questioned what could be made out of a 9' street easme�t, and Mr. Boardman�ex:plained they had a present road easement there now, and an additional 9' would make it a standaxd size. Mr. Sobeich added that the additional 9' V�ould make it 1�2', which would be consistent with the adjacent property. NL�. Boardm�n said that the City Council allowed him only one lot split, so although ir.e lot -to the Souih was laxge enough for another lot spl�t, the Counci.l sai.d onl;� one would be allowed. Tt had also been agreed, �e added, that the property would be split by a simple lo� split instead of platti.ng. MOTION by �,chnabel, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commzssion recommend to Council approval of Zot Split Req�zesi L.S. #76-09, by Benedict Novak: � Split off t.he Southerly 92 feet of Lot 3�., Auditor's Subdivision Np. 77, subject to 9 foot road easement 71 2 Way N.E., to create a new building site, � the same be�ing 11�5 %l� Way N.E. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion caxried un��nimously. � t� � . Since representativ�;of Anoka County were present �o discuss East'River Road, Chairperscn Harris suggested deferring Item 10 until after Item ll on the agenda. , MOTION by Bergr�an, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission take the receiti�ing of the Community Development minutes as Item 11-A. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion caxried unanimously. RECEIVE FRIDLEY ENVIRONi�IENTAL QUALITY COhTMIISSION r1IP1UTE5: SEPTII�1BF�t 2_ 1, 19? . � MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive the Fridley IIzvironmental Quality Commission minutes of September 21� 1976. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � � � Planning Co�rimission Meeting - 4ctober 6, 1976 � � ' � � � � � � Pag� �7 5 P MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the East Fiiver Road Project Committee report. • Mr. Sobi.ech stated that Staff and representaiives from the County were not present to respond to the minutes, but to perhaps provide additional information to the Plannin� Commission that might he�p them when consi_dering ihe minutes of the Environnental. �uality Commission. � Mr. Boaxdman stated that the recommendation from the Environmental Commission was threefold: 1) the approval of the Project Comrnittee report, 2) the recommendation of d�signation by the Fridley Parks and Recreation Commission for the East River Road as a parkway axid establish controls by ordinance as the Fridley Parkway System for its social and environmental significance, and 3) the recomrnenda�Lion that the Planning Commission and City Council set a moratorium on project ST 75-3. He added that he t:�ought the main thing at this meeting for the County would be the moratorium issue. Mr. Sobiech stated that first of all, it should be realized that the project as it exists naw is not something that was just starting� but something that the previous Council had already ordered in. He said that back in'1970 and 1971 there were Public Hearings, and. the resolution was made ordering tMe improve- ment of East River Road from I-691� to Mississippi Stree�. He said'that at that time this was the normal procedure to follow for an assessment type improvement; se they were not beginning something at this stage, but trying to complete previous direction given by Council. TIr. Sobeich stated ihat at this time there was c. remaining section to be completed. He said that during the Public Hearing pha.se of the original proposal, there were thres Public :iearings held to i•eceive input from the area residents. Based on those three Public Hearings� he said, tt-.ere were some real modifications to the original p1an, and based on the inpL.t revised plans were prepared and the project improve.ment was ordered in. Mr. �obiecr� continued that at that initial time there was some Federal funding applied fox� and approved for that section; but jtiTitn the modifications that were sugge:;ted and implemented based on the Pub2ic ?iearings, the Federal people could not il.uid the revised project. He said that what developed at that time was a stagE�-type construction, and the Federal people indicated they could paxticipate in a different program for the improvement of East River Road at riississippi Street and a feth* blocks either way. Ne said that was Federally f�nded and that set the stage for the construction stage as it was now. He added that once the Topics Project was complete�, then the City got pressure from the pz•operty owners to complete -the next stage at the Georgetown area. He said thE�y then proceeded with the next stage of the improvement and the County and the City Had to provide their own funding for the completion that had been done over the past several months. All that remained now, he said, was one rerlaining section abou� four to six bl�cks long. He stated that ihe City Counc::l and the County still wanted to receive the input from the project committee, because they felt that any input was good. � Mr. Sobiecli emphasized tha ments that they intended to not intend to increase the � in 1955 or 1956 and had bee increase s:�.fety for the peo , t the improvement that had been made and the improve- mal:e were for safety iactors. He said they did traffic lanes; four lanes of traffic were initiated n that way ever since. He stated they hoped to ple i;ravelling along East River Road and for the � ' � �� ' i � r � � � � � Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 r�� is 5 Q residents to get on to East River Road. He said that with the section that is proposed, they anticipated four lanes, shoulder sections and turning lanes, and their main objective was to get pe�ple on and off the road saf�ly. Mr. Sobiech said tnat this project was pending. Because of the fact that certain homes had been built since the project was initiated and certain homes had changed hands, there had been a lot of escrow money that had been aside for this improvement., He stated that another reason for the'completion of this project was they felt that now with the completion of the Mississippi underpass there would be a definite traffic pattern established �rhereby a lot of Fridley residents tirould use that roadway. He explained that a traffic count taken at the Plorth boundary line was about 10,000 to 12,OOQ cars per day, but the count taken closer to I-69� reached 27,000. He said they felt there was a considerable amount of use being made by th:is section pf East River Road by general area residents Urithin the community, so not only were they trying to emphasize safety, but also allow a means for other area residents to get through the area safely. He stated he felt the Project Committee should be commended on a11 its work, gathering data, and coming up with their plan. Mr. Paul Rux3, County �gineer, and Mr. Bud Redepenning, Assistant County Engineer introduced themselves and said that they were at the meet�ng primariZy to anstaer questions. Mr.� Ruud stated that there was a new program of Federal funding for transportation in the urban area, and all agencies put project r�quests into the hopper and they were prioritized. He said that the project on East River Road they were talking about did survive that prioritizing. He added that their preliminary report ��as called a project development report, and it had been submitted to the State Highway Department last week; it would be revie�,red by the State Highway Department and the Federal Highway Administra- tion. r7r. Ruud said that based on other projects they felt it would be approved, and would not need an Ehvironmental Impact Statement. Mr. Ruud said that the County had several meetings with A1r. Paripovich, and they did not feel that his request that Lhis be turned into a parlcway or two- lane facility was very realistic, although he c,ras sure it would be nice for the people living along the road. He explained it had been used quite extensively as a four-ttiray facility. i�1x. Ruud added that there was one facility in Fridley that is now used as a two-lane facility that had heavi:er use orginally, and that was �13 Central Avenue. He said he thought that rlississippi atreet North of East Riv�r Road was a different situation, and they didn't have any plans to do any specific work on that with the exception of one improvement of the intersectio:� of Osborne Road and East River Road. i4r. Langenfald stated tha�. it definitely was not the intention of the Dzviron- � mental Quality Commission to embark in a lengthy argumeflti, and he �.ssumed that everyone on this Commission had read the preliminary recommendatioris from the East River :3oad Project Committee. He said that at this time he would like to , ask the Chair to recognize the Chairperson of the East River Road Project Committee, 1��1ike Paripovich. ' � � Mr. Paripov:ich stated that he felt the report from the Project Committee went over the ob,jections and he thought the Committee offered some axgument. He s aid that tlle file ST ?5-3 went back six or seven years, and the people who � � � � ' ' ' � L_J � � � � � C� ' � Plannin� Commi�sion Meeting - October 6, 1976 Page 19 lived in tr,ose residential areas understood that the entire issue had been dropped; tr.ey hacin�t realized this was still on the burner. He said those, residents ��ere very much �zp in axms abott this development to discover that this wasn't. set aside but is an on-going project. He said that this should be loo�ed �.t because these people represented � good portion of the citizens of Fridley. r1r. Paripovich suggested they al.so make a good scrutiny of FAU funds, and said ihey could use some help fro� the Count� on that. 'He said he would like to find out their ground rules and what their funds could be applied to. ' 5R Mr. Paripov�ch said that as far as the Project Committee's plan versus the County plan, there was only one main difference as they interpreted it. He said.they F�raised the County plan as it would improve the saiety of the road, and shoulders, medians and more signals were needed. ��lhere they differed from the County plan, he said, was they were asking for one lane instead of two going in ea.ch direction. J�ir. Paripovich had a copy of a report given him by the City Engineers which showed the traffic projections for 1980 and 1990 projecting a decline in the use of East r�iver Road and a very definite increase in trunk hightaay 65 with a less pronounced increase in tru nk highway Lt7. He stated that for that pertion of the road they were discussing, the projections were only 9,000 cars a day. Mr. Paripovich said that by improving the road and widening it at the l.east 32 feet, which the County's plans called for, it wduld take a garage ar..d a lot of property. He again reminded the Commission and the C�unty Engineers that they were dealing with people who thought this whole matter was closed. He stated that if tnis was done, and then the Northtown Corridor and the bridge came along, they would have an obso�ete expanse of highway on this sic.e of the river. He said that what they did need was shoulders, a center median, places for people to walk and the abilit,y for cars to travel unencumbered down the road at a safe speed. He added that they also wanted to lower th.e speeds, but understood that had no connection with the proposed expansion cf the road. He stated that if the Project Committee's p2an became a physical reality, they would have one strictly unencum�ered lane, He said that if thEy opened those areas up to accommodate rnore traffic through that underpass a.cross the railroad tracks, ihey would be inviting traffic to come over. Mr. Paripovich stated that assuming the FAU end of triis could be solved, he wasn't sure if there would be an impact on the fiscal area of the project; but it seemed to him that if the road wasn't expanded, and if what was'already there wasn't torn up, it would be a good deaZ less expensive. F`unds had already been set aside for part of it, he said, and if the FAU went along with this plan it would be more economical and better for Fridley, and would have',no adverse affect for the County. Chairperson Harris said that he would like to see a layout of the present plan by the County, and TZr. Redepenning showed a map to the Commission snd explained what had already been done and what they were proposing. Mr. Paripovich showed the Commission a map of the Project Committee's proposal, and explained it was just about the same except there was only one lane going in,�each direction. He said he would like to change the concept frorn a blazing highw�y',to a busy, well-defined thoroughfare. , Mr. Ruud said that as an �gineer, there was no way he could recommend Mr. Paripovich's proposal. He said it would be carelessness on his part� as there � P�anning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 ; Page 20 5 S � i ' � L: ' � ' � ' � i � ' � , �J � were standards that they had to follow. Mr. Paripovich said that the only area they differed on was the safety, because the County thought the Project Committee's proposal would cause accidents a.r�d he thought it would prevent them. P�r. Redepenning said the Committee's proposal would cause accidents because they were trying to funnel four l�nes of traffic down to two, and there would be a bottleneck. Chairperson Harris asked what would happen t� ths amount of traffic on this road if sorr�ethir,g could be done �rith Iower University Avenue. i�"r. Ruud said that r.e was sure that discouraged a lot of people from using l�7, and the same was tr�ue tirith 65 going into Ceniral. He added t.hat another thing that would help woul� be the bridge across the Nor�htown Crossing, but there'was a sixty-mil.lion dollar price tag on that project, and nobody knew when it would happF�n. P�Ir. Harris commented that t'r�e reason most people used East River Road was because it was a straight shot i.nto downtown 2�inneapolis.' Mr. Bergmari said that he was impressed with one part of the project report in particu�.ar, and that was the comparisons of signalization on East River Road as compared to University Avenue and Centr.al Avenue. He stated that the comparison said they were apparently discouraging traffic on 65 as a thoroughfar•e, were discouraging traffic on University Avenue, and had the least ainourit of discouragement on East River Road. He said that what the Project Corunittee was talking about was reduc�ng traffic, and he didn't see where the County plan a�dressed. that. Chairp�r.son Harris st^ted that as he saw '�, what they were trying to do V�as hand�e this as a County affair� and he didn't l�elieve that the total tra?fic pict�;re was totally a County problem. rir. Redepenning pointed out where there were signals along East River Road as compared to 65. He said that eu�h time th�t a si�nal was installed, though, there was <i configuration where the traffic concentrated at that point. He stated tha�� from Mississippi Street south, there were as many signals as on !t7 or 65. He continued that one of the reasons there was a traffic buildup was the ma:�r� focus of the plan for the metro �xea of the strong dawntown Minneapolis and strang downtown Sf;. Paul. He stated that people had to get there, and w'nat they found on tris stretcn oi road �,�as not unique in Fr?dley. He said a:^ing could be drawn around the Twin.Cities and the same thing would be found on every feeder that was going in. :ie said there had been a basic decision made that people had to get downtown. Mr. Bergma:z asked what the cost would be to finish that section of the road, and Mr. Redepenr.ing said it would be about $!�00,000 to $500,000. Mr. Bergman asked if t:1at included funding irom Federal, County and City along with property assessments, a.nd rir. Redepenning said that what they meant by the City's share was the assessments. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the speed limit was the same on East River'Road as it was on 55 �d 1�7, and was told that the speed limits varied. t1r. Bergman said he could only see one dramatic difference in the�ttivo plans, and that was the nu:nber of lanes. He asked if it wasn't possible that the'project committee's plan to narrow down and attempt to restrict the volwme of traffic ,I � ..�-�. i 1 , � ' ' � � � Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 Page 21 on ihis roa�i would be more applicable aftex the pressure was relieVed by the Northtown C��rridor than at this point in time right prior to addit�onal pressure. Mr. Paripovich responded that the problem was once the improvement� had been made, they •�ould be such a permanent thing they would be there for;a long time. Chairperson Harris s aid that statements had been made in the 1971 �earings that this was Stage 1. He said a study had been done from 69� to he creek, an d that was the section that was proposed for improvement; then w�en that was complet�d, it would be continued from the creek to the Northto,�an Corrid�r. He commente3 that he thought this was just Stage l. , Mr. Langenfeld said he had several comments to make, but would lik them by reminding the gentlemen who were present that this i�as a c problem, and would be even more so by Plywood Minnesota. He state off, the citizens were not aware of stages as�discussed; secondZy, opinion t'r�at the intention of the Project Comrnittee ��ras to divert to the major highways such as 65 or 1�7; and thirdly, as far�as bei Mike 0'Bannon himself supported this idea and stated that if they to do something like this t^ey ha.d io start right here at home. 1�1 suggested a noise and pollution report be obtained, as he thought have some bearing on the project. Mr. Ruud said that it was their at this time that their staiement would be accepted that their pIa adverse. He added that there were four lanes of traffic in there they would just be upgrading an existing facility and trying to ma to preface ntroversial that first it was his he traffic g realistic, ere going . Langenfeld hat would opinion was not otti, and e it safer. Chairperson Harris asked ho�r a speed limit was determined, and r�Ir.I�Paripovich ' said that h.e had checked to see what the criteria was for reducing�a speed limit. He stated. that the ;:�ost important point was a radar check �ras set up to see what the average speed was� the reason being they wanted thle matorists , to show them zrhat thev tho�zght the speed lirnit should be. He adde�i that the number of schools, hosp�tals, driveways, etc., Vaere also taken�into considerati.on. He stated that East River Road hac� everything thatlindicated the speed �hould go down, except that people insisted on driving f'�,ast on that � road. I�ir. Paripovich said that because of the situation there werie tk�o �roups; one said tr�ey had to move traffic through town, and the other grou�p said they lived therE� and the County's plans would be destroying their neighliborhood. � UPON A VOIC;E VOT�, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously ,�to receive the East Ri.ver Road Pro ject Com�nittee report. � ' ' , , CJ , MOTION by I,angenfeld, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commlission receive bot:h plans from the Anoka County and the East River Road ro�ect Committee. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion caxried animously. i MOTION by I,angenfeld, that the Planning Commission recommend to Cauncil that a moratorium be set on ST ?5-3. The motion died for �ack of a secjond. Mr. Langeni'eld stated he would like to i.ndicate for the record t appreciatecl all the information they had received as the result River Road problem. He said they had heard Staff�s comments and County's camments� and he wanted to emphasize the fact that.they he the East oka d established 5T ' 1 � � � �1 , Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 I Page 22 5U these commi-ttees to get citizen input. He stated that the East River Road Project Corrunittee was established in accordance with the Commissior��s ordinance and had don�� a fine job, and he wanted to underscore the fact that'�what they had before �them as far as the report was concerned was the citizens,' concern. Chairperson Harris said that with regard to Plywood riinnesota, try'''mg to solve a traffic p,°obler► with a billboard wasn't his idea of good enginee�ing. rir. Sobie�.h said that the County was in favor of closing one section off, but the merchants wE:re opposed. t•ir. Ruud stated they could close the North�,ern access off if they got some encouragement from the City of Fridley to back� them in that. Mr. I3oardr�an added that until the time the City Council decilded they wanted to c_!ose that North entrance, he didn't think the County cou,!ld do anything. Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 12:06 P.Ai., and reconvened�l�lthe meeting at 12:30 P.P4. ' Chairperson Harris noted that there were three ztems � themselves i;o under #11 on the agenda, receiving the Quality.Comru.ssion minutes of Sept. 21, 1976: ' a. Recomrnendation from Pl be :;et on ST 75-3 they should ad'�,dress Fridley Enviro;nmental Commission to Council that a rryoratorium Mr. Harris pointed out that this item had been handled by Mr. Langeg�feld�s 1 motion propasing the moratorium, which died for lack of a second. I,I C , b. Recommendation of designation b,y Comr►ission for the East Fiver Ro by ordinance as tne.�'ridley Park environmental si�nific�.r_ce the Fridlev Parh:s and Recrl,eation d as a par'.:�<ray and establish controls a�,T S�rster� for its social and c. Recommendation on the East River Road Froiect Corru~�ittee Repbrt MOTION by SY.ea� seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Comrnission Send iter,is ' b and c to the Community Development Commission, Human Resources Commission and Parks ar:.d Recreation Corunission for their comments. Upon a voi�e vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ' � ' ' � ' , rir. Peterson said that at the last Planning Commission meeting he a�tended there had been a lengthy discussion concerning procedure of Project�,Committees and whether the East River Road Project Committee was operating as � Project Committee or� a citizen's committee, whether it kas operating withinithe frame- work set up by the ordinance and if it was receiving direction from��,the Fhvironmental Quality Commission. He added that as a Chairman of alCommission he was a little concerned as to how this was being handled and if t�4ey were operati.ng within the framework they were supposed to be.� � Mr. Langenfeld replied that it was his impression at the time that �articular conversation took place, there was concern that perhaps this Projec� Committee Planning Ccmmission Meeting - October 6, 197b ' Page 23 was going to sl.y rocket in a11 different directions and there woul� be a group � of irate citizens up in arms. He said.that he attended several of�the meetings and found they were very controlled and could find no way the Comm�ttee was operating out of the scope of the City plans. , P4r. Peterson said that the comment had been made that the East Riv�r Road Project Committee was going to be checking on funding available an� this type of thing, and he was not sure that fell i��ithin the scope of a Project Committee's jurisdiction or if this was the proper direction for tl�em to go. Mr. Langenfeld commented that he thought they should seek all the they cou].d get relating to this particular project. i•ir. Peterson they were speaking for the Planning Commission or the IIzvironmenta Commission, and Mr. Paripovich said he would like to answer that. all the Commission met�bers to attend the meetings, and said he iaou to answer any questions they liad. r7r. Paripovich said that for th they had ha� to gather information and really research it, and to was necessary to go to County Government, etc. He said that in ta the funding people, he would only be asking them for criteria, and be masquera�ing as part of the Fridley Staff or anything else. �ie in addressing these people had had only said he was part of the Fr II�vironmen�al Quality Commission �rorking on a subcommittee project information for this. He said he never pretended to be anybody wh the City Council or the Planning Commission, and had taken great p do that. sked if (�uality He invited d be glad s project o that it king to wouldn't stated that dley to gather represented ins not to 5V Mr. Bergman asked if the membership of the Project Commiitee was m�de up entircly of people living along East River Road. P�ir. Paripovich replied th�t they had thrown the �ommittee open to everybody by putting a notice in the rid.ley Sun, and had invited everybody to join tl-ie group. He said that the membe:s live in the neig:zborhoods on either side of East River Road, and a,lmost'everybody lived West of the railroad tracks. rSr. Bergman said he t�ras wonder�ng if this was true City of Fridley'type input or neighborhood input with part,icular and home-�ased interests on that street. Mr. Paripovich replied that qf course there was d��finite interest there, but they had tried to present a 1 tne facts. Mr. Peterson asked if the East River Road Project Committee was ac�ually appointed a�1d approved by the fuil �vironmental �uali.ty Commission, and I�ir� � Paripovich :�eplied that the membership had never been approved, bu� it could be. rir. Peterso�l explained that in Parks and Recreation they had gone �hrough a neighborhood recreation project committee type thing, and they wer� lead to believe by :interpretation of the ordinance that the members were t� be approved by the Comm:�ssion before it started. I�Ir. Boardrian explained that embership approval wa:> entirely up to th� Commission itself and it could, if'�they chose to, control or approve membership. rir. Langenfeld said that when l+�r. Paripovich took the Ch,�.irmanship of the Project Committee he was in sole char�e of the committee. As far as he was concerned, he said, there was no rulelor established way that project commi.ttees were going to function. He stated thatl he didn't think there was a set procedure, and just because one Commission handled it one way did not meari that all Commission had to follow that. RECE'CCVE COriMUNITY DEVELOP�IENT CONIMISSION riINUTES: SEPTEPSBE� 11t, 1976 �� 1 Plannzng Ccmmission Meeting - October 6, 1976 Page 2� MOTION by E�ergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission receive the Community Development Commission minutes of September 11�, 1976. U�hon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion caxried unanimously. Mr. Bergman commen�ed that Comrmanity llevelopment had two Project Cbmmittees; the Sign Committee was nearing wrap-up, and they would be reviewin� the Bikeway/ Walkway activity program at the next meeting. � 6 I! RECENE APPEALS COP�II�IISSIOTd NfINUTES: SEPTEMB� 28, 197 I, ' I�IOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commis ion receive the Appeals Commission minutes of September 28, 1976. Upon a voic� vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carrled unanimously. pir. Boardman noted that there had been some confusion regarding 2:r� Paschke's ' requests, and said he would have to give the Appeals Commission th� standards they used regarding this type of variance which were approved by t�e Zoning Administrator. �, ' � � ' C� � � � ' � ' ' Chairperson Harris said the thing that bothered him was that l�0� a�ways seemed to be the g�verning factor; an d those lats in the Onaway Addition,!ibecause of the peculiarity of the situation, could not always hold 1�0�. hir. �oardman a�ded that it was the petitioner's right to have !�0% coverage onlyl�if he could follow all the codes and regulations. ', CONTIN7ED: REVIE7,�1 OF PROPOS�'uD' I�IAITJTEP3ANC� CODE I MOTION by Peterson, seconded hy Shea, to continue the review of th� proposed maintenance code until the next Planning Commi.ssion mee�Ling. Upon;ia voice vote, all v��ting aye, the motion carried unanimously. CONTIN'7ED : DISCUSSIOPI ON GAR.AGE FOR SIi�GLE FAt?II�Y HOt•�S ri0TI0N by Shea, seconded by Peterson� to continue the discussion or� garage requirements for single family homes until the next Planning Commi�sion meeting. U�?on a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried un�nirnousl CONTINIJID: HUMAN DEVELOP��IENT GOAI�S AI�TD OBJECTIVES MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, to continue the Human Dev�lopment Goals and Ol�jectives until the next Planning Commission meeting. pon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. I, MATF�tI��L ON TiiE YOUTH C�NTF'R MOTION by L��ngenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the Articles of Incorporation of the Fridley Youth Center. I Upon 5W ', � Planr.ing Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 Page 25 5 X � � �I ' a voice voi;e, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ' MOTIdN by Shea, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commissi,on send the Articles of Incorporation of the Fridley Youth Center to all m'�ember Commissions for their review and comment. Upcn a voice vote� all �oting aye, the rnotior. carried unanimously. . ', Chairperson Harris cor,3mented that they �rere not getting much suppo t from " the school districts on this. He said it seemed like the School B ard V�as amiable,to the proposal., but school staff was not enthralled with �at. RECEIVE P�.KS AND RECPEATIO:J COT i•?ISSIORT P-IIPNTES : SEP'T'r'�'-iB� 2�T, 1976 P�IOTION by Peterson, seconded by Schnabel, that the Plannirig Commis'�ion receive the Parks and Recreation Commission minutes oi September 27, 1976.j Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. il i I i ADJOURNI�TENT : �� � r7�TI0N by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the m�eting be adjou�ned. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Plan}�ing Commission meeting of October 6, 1976 adjourned at 1:06 A..�i. oy un�anir►ous vote: I Respectfully submitted, � � ��' .� � , Sherri 0'Donnell Recording Secretary .� . , � . .� O � � , 1 � � � � W � � w � O � � � O � � � � � V � � .� , � . ta•...� �.---- .....ar � �•" .., •- ....� ....�. �' i I � .. � . . . . . ��IV ./• �V.. . _ .J . . w.� � . � ,_ , ,�.., ....,..: � �,� r ' � Y ( r � + �' , . . ' '�� � � � � :, � 's+ f�.��•�as ;i � 1 � "� :: � ,.,� i t t I y � � • � � � w , � _ \� ' � ' ' .. w E � � ^I 11 � � -:. a - .s . ':1 ��.. ' � ' � ^-; - -N ..••,- ti h � ..'���!;rr_ b.$l I A � � ��: ( '• � � roA) Ir�•VimN . V O � - yA'J Prw. � « �. 1 � 1 � • �„-_....i+-�— � � M � � S I : � ' . 1 � . .. . 1 2 7.. i-y • � . - � � �. ��°� ���»��rN ! ;�• 1 � twd..i� 1 ��S � � - :. ooa �- .::�";. ♦ � oo��' . � : 1 � �' �,ir �eM - a �I�$ �1 � ; � i � :. g'�. ,_� �� _,. - � ,w tl ~ `_ _ - - � �'-�----•---------� ��^ '° �.� � . I w � _.�' . � ~•� I • . /.� 6� af �, �_�� � : �� M�� � � � � �" � ���' ! � ' � .M.64Ft.tOi -r � � r -� ' � = v W ',v t �r � � � -: :o . I r' �o �• � � I 'x � ` � r..:, �, ^ i v M 1 � � 1�� � w �.� � N i �w�: •' I, �M � I , yN " � .• 1 � ,:•tL � _i•_�. �Vtr� 1 . o . re � .-f' c o � « ' , o ^ ` ... �. t... ► o n' ::'?a ` j r.`_ I ' . i.t � � A'N . e * I? ' . 1n ry.�au 7 ���f�t..�nN �T� � I •�,'• {N• �..$ ` $::.. n : J ' � � �' .. ..t: ' _ :"' , _ _ _ � . d: c o tI % h I 1 ` i h_A'�M�C�., R;' I • �i� _ - _ J •-��=EO 'S •:'' -- t----- L_"_-- i �, ;�-," _ . p:p ; � � �, a g , p���n n h �:" '�'J�.n�, b . i � � • i+..e.i ��ahiw•Y� � ,� � � p%.�.. . r � - -:Si 3 :sS.iixp- � ,�� Z � � � ;�!�s.� � ♦ w`.'. $ g ::', . o � ' ti .'"� tl�� i� f , ' —„ ' . I � r - ' I � s►i `, � � ( � � .. � � -- _ � . 1 r `' :,. . N' I . � i ' . 4� O r f� � ��O I O. _ . 2' ' � � � : i ••�1, � / � � � .2 li 1i� 0 `�; � � � � � . : ars, . �2,r_� . 2 " 1 / 1 � �c1.g � I b ! ' - G'7 F�b � I O �1 � . f � . I p . Z l 1 I � f \. � .':. (V O :•'' • � �' , ' � � , l � . R III �+`' ` � Q / � � �� �w J ir • '�f N I ' . � � _ 1 � J. ,. ' , -yy� ' ' i � — � - - - _ � ` i ,~'°� •�'�•� � W° � � . ` � . � ( , i �', ���; � ,�11 . � � . _ _ .. �:�I• � I � �r' � W I rr�'�1 `1 • , �--`y_�-. ;..�, ' . � � � �- • `` �`' , � . <:, , r � � .i •,"� �" � = " �— I� • � � , � — ; :>, , ` � 'i••, '; ;�, �•�,:��: � � - � � � �. .� , ,� •.,' �,,,., • ' ! . /:��. � . . W: a.� �o• �' �:: � ��•• . I , ' : � e �•�- . . , a. I � N : . �.: J ! .4.�s g���' : • i I • � � / • . � ' � �• �• 1 � � f � �' � f � . 1 � � � � . � +4 , ` 4 Z .` r i � � r � ` '-- _ : r � '� -. i • `�`: �•'�t � � � ( . ~ � � � � / ')' '•.a..� i ` ' ' ,: ! ��� t �'/ ti w�`' ...at. �' 9 1 le ' - _� `9 �� . ' , . ' �_��.ii,,,t�.A I ' ' �. 1 • •• � I .. w ��y �. . L� . • . • . - - .�; ' ' � •� -� 2 � � �_ / , .' , _`a - � �r:7:. � Y �ry � ' A ; ' ~ • � / i � ; ` ' •- . � M f� M iN� y • r�� � `�� � � � � �� � ` �� � 8��� � �� ,� . � � � , � , ., �� �. �� `� / �� `� _ , I , �. �� 4�� , F :�` �.. - :;,��j - - .��_��# i. .=.-_— --�.�� . � .� ?.,;: � � ` �'�, C/ � � \ .\ \/ > �/ . ;z�� ��' � \ � / � \� � � � � � � � � rJ � � � . � /�� � \� // ,� ♦ .� LpGI� \ � S �� g i9 �� �'��� % � i (_ ` -� � � _i � _ _, �� � i �� '—� 1 gl�� �� � 1 � ' � �� 1 `� �.� � L _ _J �� � � � � � � � a� � � � � � � ` � -- �--.- -- --_' '"— � 1� n . ,,,r `�2� � � �~ _.J � ^— r— r— �,,,,� r � �x�sr��� (� P��er����� � C4M p�.E� , ( ' ScA�.E : 1 i�c.i . Qo �'�rr I � 1.UOeTt�- � 5Z � P/�D/?OSF_ � � o`'��� �I, c `,� .\ : fr, \ �� , . .� ,.�/ I \^ ., \\ i � � - 'c1 '-�. : � ,. �� �••.� � \ \ � .,•.'' �\, ^ I"r. I ,�.i. �•� . , %\ . . ,': ; \ i . . •1 . �'� � �'�:�y � �� i��� � i � -I �/ � � I _..... ,-- •,iti o -- - .r.�,%r.cY -- �r� .. • � e ...0 � . ^r �-' . _ I � ti1 � r • �,"°'� � �, iv � ,"" DELIER AllDITION, P. S. 4�76-09 �+ ^ �._ ,,. ._IL_ ..,a � �:. 5 An .;,1 .,,9!✓ 1 ...., _.-. . �-----__._._,_._ . .._:...? ....�::�.e:� .�-,z,,,�.� _ - • ;Ml + - � - , ; . � ..,�, '� __--.___.. _ _ . �^,; •�' ' � ° i.s-� •` 'I'�-51�� {��t..f'+,..�� i��/ ° � ° 3 ec ..';r, �'i /�°e.'d1 �� � 1 \ /.� � _( - �'1 � •-- -- - � \ i. a ^ 11 � •-� ---___='=���1 -- -� j'�`f '.�� ''��`''� .._._.^.__f9�.�° _..___ .`�i ~� � 1.���;��.,_� ... r�, � , ���- — v '3 ':: �. :-- --,-, , �' � ; � �, ` �. ; ��A ` � �� J ni I� �. � � • � «,�. 1 � � .. _ . � w I r' � ;1 ! �j•' .•s• ,..1 t � /•�- ,',� ,. � / a`�_.1.t�. � `,:; :✓±.� �I-- �'�', �; 'I _1:'�'�:.3��,''`� " ' - .. • it , �y , � .: 9i. t � il �'1 � titl` �� '�S" ` �. --.-_. � - i ' .�,;••> f ,�; � ` 1. ,� s rt �..� .'► � �� 2 r . i, � �. :,F,� — /`� �=►-.�. � �7__l.__� � ' � . �', � �-y=�--:,-q��-- ,� ° �"�' 'a ' :� �' �, � ;` f` , � .. _L�! _ .�1.. �G'y � I a. `� � .. 4 i.��" . .. � �,�.a :'.• •"�• '� ,`.� u. �.\ .l ° ��� � -j`�'.� J{r _ .:T_.?.'.�i'._. ; . � :. _ �.... 'v 8 !, � : =�; c r�t.� �.�_ r_ ..�� � •...t� ., � s,r ; .. ..+.... ,�;.' r- %,P`:, fv �1�31 /� �. i�:!S"�� / �:'3.•^� w, � Z ..i,,,{ ���' i ` e , �3 ��� '� Z �• . �__ ` ���= � '`� _�?�.'.?�'_ _- ' ,:c!1. _ ���-zy � _ _ ...a.. �vt ,�a. ,¢ ; . .T 6�a,�.�'.-.r._..:. �T';,; - ''� . r w a 4, •� j r��. *1' �.�:" S��f�YiP�.. �� j 4# � a: i�� �' f '' 71Y L9 ' �+ �. 1 �� + r� ,�� I �� y_i . Y _.� M �,� �b �"c�i�,�'� �� .. I.. �j7J) � � �''� . 0 +9. 'b 0 � ��� t ' � A ' e V a 1 � � �i� ! .�� . 7 .i� �l 1•'� �' • ♦ !� �� � � •/ � a�j'��i _ �" � �3iop� i � i i i � � ��� .. . i ��,+ , 'y ." ''b /� t.� �. � �. ; t � / \ (/i1 r � i. C� 9 - a..-. , t d i . 9 �9 ;i „�;. � � � � ��. � .< ��, . � H�� I � ; ;,�r. V'i 'R • 1�• Q �i - 7l.S� .i _ .` p` t1 ' r A fs� 3 i� = r' .,� -�r. cy. AF o _��. 'O � 2+15 .�,I �-c I ir.'°�.__..i . ,� r-- �- h 4 ^ ' - - �:fF-961 ` ,�! �" `13 .�, � . . �---" - ^:_ik: -- -.f3v -'- :r� -�� -� Z---=_ ---:/d ' - ��Y �..-" '-' '.-i:;Tii�-s-- �b.��-�---' --r s � . j � � .,..JJ/Sl/ � � i `/�� . . �...._ .O ": � 4 ��� ., �� a> ti � ? ls'A ; ? �Rl � � ' �� �a, ' . �.�g �� � S w ,�4A 1, ' � ¢, �I w 0 .. ,.... ,� � •�� g�c�� , . , ^. 1 _ �,. �,�, N —T'------�"`°"'i,:r ;,� � i ., �.I,�z/ /� � : dc..� n-' Li..' , ��I � , i� �`'� � J.q � "� L i3 � j ;��� 9 �� a, _1 �ti�� .� ':.s� �"� � . _ .:t� + 1 1.�.� 1 ' � F��' � ^�%JO� � � � j M��c� ' Gf IL✓ ''L (¢oo� \.J ,�g ; -�' .�I � �: c ,� ;...��� �y� �� , -, . . � „ v.. _ � �� �a t� a-- _ _----AV �: , � � � t R �'t ' ��l I �� - :i1 Y. . .. �� CC I %%� i �� � c o �' �!J i3J,1 � �, ;� D.� . �. .'I I I * e� : � (f10� I ' C � � o . � � �t -+� Z .3 � il> �ii/R ^ � .� ! ti G '` . `\ �� �I �,q�,�y,e u.-- o ''j' 1 �.li � I y I/�.�i,!/ei :►� p I • _ � i �w c � � 15: J l - - --� y � �5S% °i i � � 1. _. l£.' : ; � -F . I` 'a �3S 1 n, i ` . ,� q2-- — I,: / o'r:' .Ji b' � I�' I` .'" / � � i: � � '�a i . y I � � . � � n � � Caw ,� f �i J' (� t� c. .1 1 � � •--�.�a__. � .�' 3, , � J� ,.7 r' ' �.y ;. �n.7 ►� I ' ` �' �:�J � � �_ j"'1 �_ 'y_ . I (�o' ; � �) h j' � `^ �� :'�q � v l a r o �• S :=*"� i � � �� � � I Z lac" cry ti� .5�. _�J��=..._. ._ 1JG .+ .__,``f '{.� � � >: '�t _� � m 1 �� :�c j iio i .. _. , � .A. - . . r_k'J3 .. i� .r' ar �. � � -- e � , � � f....� � f � �--�-�� -- Qc ( � ' � � _ a �.� � ° � �� ,�> , � ,: -;` E � i �l: ._,� ,�_ � ;r '� i f4o: , j _.. �.�:_ B . Ix- �_� f � _. i r'f`'' �., � . - � y- � /3•. — .. � i; . .I 21 4 � � :, i� . � � �•', �� ��.- � � � . � c� o- .rr/ � �' ° .� l� �., , " tt, �� � q a ,� <�� �I r '°� �. �, ( w ��, �/ ; � , Q �. � � : - — �;� :� r - �.,,� ���� 1 ,��. :�_ .^s: � i , y �.:.:;y n:.' � . � � . /3i ' �ti ! � � � � � ���i i cYn � � 3�� � i i � � i 4 '� � „ � i � � �'�[y �.^ 3f � `', G � ./� y �'� � '� • ! '' , �1 � .� � . �� . � i V I I � 's `� .: ,.,. I _'- 50 *1S�1-•i � , "'t '�;.�33 / :s : i .. � i ti . - � �sh� ,.,.,.........w...�.....,.! ...+..A:.�,.....�r.. 4a...".�,.�.,r.s...:.-��e...,.�....,.. . �.......,........�. �A. - , F<:. F S l =Y-'; -- � ' . . �.� - . '-<3."v�?`< .. _ . �-- — - - ..... r.L !t^'�'�.�..� �� �� � .._. ,. •w � ° .,.� ..,�..a.�a._.�......_!_rrr. (� ` � � F ` ' / ~ '1� � �. i� 1 � � ` . � �, ( 1 4 t. I G � ° �` %». J ?�l �� , � �� . � , «�; , , \ .,� � , , . �: . . � a � � 3�X+ a� — � , ` l 1 - ; = � � i .r 1;� � �-,, . � . , • . � . . a • s., , � .; T /� .. .� , .� I � �` 3µ- }'� " 2 // 2 �; � , , • ''' � !�•r:'f I� 1.� L_ _��.��.�. `,_.''.�i„��i'4�_F.���-- — � 1 4 �, ;1� t:�i _'_„_' .._. �� i�y;l•, i.;:.� . .,�r t., ; � I, .'�:o! ., _� s '� 3 �� � , . ; ..� , P �� � s'F � � '•!7 � � , � 'ws.��� ' . ;��.�ti _ .__� _ -, ; .�,... _.� �: � ,_.e.� �. � ; �:. �,� � ,, � - - - - , . ' �_'1� �/ � i. I a:.� J �, t I � t Ii� ����.!��'__"_ !i% ��.w♦ � "'-� �1 1 �a`i ��' /� �' .j a5 t �,.,r.,•�1" i� •.£. , � � � �• . �� �:pA� �l%:rt�::r/. � � j,+, � � �� A��l� /�DA/.��✓J�.Z ' � � '�'• I . .. . _. �.. _ � 'Z , �� "� % • 1I� •- -- 'U �5 ^•'a! •/ �_ � �� � �n%+ ,� `,� 7'i1 i � � ! . � ".' " _ f� � � _ ���" ' .�" "...��_ i'V . �.. . � � ��..�...._�: i r3�- ��s��. r�. ; s"; 1 �'1 � i ! `3� i�� j; lry.� ti� �`,t V, t� r � i � ..� � i , , Ar�y,�° - - - _ _ ..,...a. .....,..M::,.�.w. . _' ..,-•.eie�r•�r,.,x.r.•a�.•;; ........._......_... . "_ .._.... -._ .. _. _.':._._. _... _.�.._..:.� ...a.:..._' �" � ....::•:._ .; . . .C3.. 71.� �: . ... s �•h .._ �.:� ' - --' ' ��„f/� !��'��!1 I �i��,�. �� r _ � �`'%/4 COqNER ! * — KENNLTIi GASPER L.S. 4/76-08 i� S�C./4 '13�s ......_.... _�. ;_ � ; .. 6 9 , ; ,,, .. _ --'-=- . °�;z �, TH AVE. h.�. , ., ` � ; . n � ;: _ . .... - - � 5 B� �_ ( ; . - ; ,�,. � � " . - --- � ; ,: � �,. 19• /o'i� '�J! ...� r,\• .•dr.s e.nNy.lya �.. arr.? � i .i ; 0 50 i':� , •C ��+< $� j.'L ry, � � ^ e:irs ��w 1yti ✓1 ''� ' . � T � c. • I " ;, . I � .� 9�?�'� -' �•,y.u•Mi� i /�� i :1. � t � - . . _ '�z11[ � 'z'Jr_ w � � 4� � ' .�. , ' � +, .. u' :.r� - •-- ,ret` 11 :�i'y �� : ..� e,�j� , �...i •o��� � � , p � o �, .4i , ; :,� •S�f - • 9 a C : -.-► :, 2 � , Z � C� � ; ,� z; , � � :�,4 ,� •d � 1. (p o . v ,: . � ; � �y ; ~� . . "1 • ! s �.' .. : � t ti � � "o � �.'� „� i �' ��I�� i s ` . .. �'� 5 0 '2 R f � �r , ` 0 7 q � `o 'n .2 d ^� 1 0 �,� o - �. � .'� ....t ' . �V � . .r J � i ,` � w� c 3 °„' _ �" '�,' v , � �, '�t F � (i:�o) � �,v Y �L?� t � 91,,.��' S `yi �`� ./ �� � � � �^�oed�..�t , � , � -9- �-, . , � , � - __._ _� ."�' �. , � Bipfi�� .r;..: °• Q ` i j � �, o w �4j�� \ � � � � , a � '���- _--�-, �J� � ,. � . 1 �; �� ' r- .5--� �/ip'IC/r . � /Li32 0 `T ' ,��. :' � .� �:r,r ?i.,s ' �•''1 ti . . 1 + �� ' U i ,., �''K � 'a�' o"w p �` ��� ' ��+ t'y�Ih � � � � � ' � P� `�� r i O,( i A�'.� . ; 0 ' !'�s 1 \ �� I � � / ��J9 � �i. t � �1�' � °�6, ���; �� � p �` 5 ,'` .' ` � I � /� � •� (1 y� � � , ; ,,� . L,n ., � � �� � � � - � J �A � - �:. Pti . �� s°3 �� ,� Q � b �+ ? 6f" •y�. 5 1 ' 1 ' J� � , � � `rT�-� �4 � .. . .a.j�-�! . Ie� y � d��� 3 a ; �,.n��t� .i .D � ?:' - Y � � : � ! . i� J ,�� , !�. � s ��1i'i.n_ g � ?/j wn,e%9►G . i� ' . . ✓ir �c � � ? a_ :? , ,0' �� P r z ai. 6 `�8 '_„ i .. •y� y�/,� , `_�.a � �� F t A ,. � � _ e ' ,� C� % � r . � ��h � ' +•�ss 6;�- ::eiY � �� ' _ ,• � � � , �; ' x � y dg (,� . � �, �.� �B. I �:_: � � s; - ;a . .", �f E6 � � ' . , � ' M� " " ,� C b � _ a . S' � 1 ; l�.: k , �� �' � . . ;,rr�' �� L'� �61 / � � + � _ e.�,`n�, , � i . 1�.� � � „ 9 ° , �j/ . i+�' / i �i ' J�g.c .� ^ �! l� �. '°i' ��' M1 � ��•�i 4 ��. ' �p ro ,rr� --" ' �•" �� ` �^M S/�.J,s�.� _ � � � �y � A��•E,,B� �, �� ,� ` -.� _ c� . � �' e a ,6�_\ ., �� . . � � � � � � ~ �` Y� � / i �' "'__ � �2 f!ts � l�.S� �\ � .- ' �� � ' \ � � I�� � ` : 1�.�'. h � `ryr ' � � i � �� �M . x� -r ; ti '�� `� ��� �� �y; � `�`' I �•' �o �� ? i . � �' � to � e � S76.y.:.� rV14 �� '`,�,b i'"�. a � \�"�ti i '�� y . � - � \'`.4 �O i�-- �;�, _ � � ti `� ^ � � . � , �M.� ; .; : , p o� :. ,.s,�� � "� ,� t � � .� �•''f �`'' 1 .4� . , 1 � ` • ` ` vy , ` y^� ' � r -� 1'i'` � � � a / �` Y ' ,• �y � �' � a 1•b`--> :>,r�s� e'�' � pa''l g o, s p 1 . o n"Yy y,.l n. ;y1 } �:� �}lS7it-� 's. \► {• b ^ � � � '?y �y �' �l"�.y� .y,�'� `� ��a! �i �� � � S v �1�� ry � Y �i .� I �, ` � ' ;: ,'` " I ; t�� 1 °,� , b �" i .rs. . o . V �+' � '`. ` `. y-. _, .j .y+3'�. o �3� ` ' . � • �, � °' � � � �.; �� � :: � � . \ r,.� Y ` r- , ' �: _ _ 1 1 .•: : ' '� � , �� °' � :5 �. ; , • , � J: \ �� — >s` .. � _ �' �1 ? �\�� � , . �. �j`--'�r- � �. � Z ' � N ,. j,,'zl s � y+3' � ~ s ° , "�C :� e ` . �, `\ ,. Q� � �.e,Yre �'.+.,. �� u �-,;. ;� 'i�� � �o° � `��~ e t tj � � � �'4° � . / � �'�'.� R'S° ,'�, L r ' v . °r'•7ii � �.M /1� � .� �:°::�'•% - �� ; � •. i .ti � �-, �J"' J �'i . �e1ti c � �h • % . c � 2, \ . ��eo' S�,y , sr O •.q• �M1 e�f �+�"���Pa. S+r` � .. � • � ` �� ,'c s'3� Y � � � o ius� Q �� .a i, ' � a" y0 - 1/' - �� �,. 9 �1�; s � n ��, c� s : s� , '1�. �� ssi ��� ' ies ' S .K � i / � ` ti � J� °' � ?�3s-• � � , . � � S' � % � � ` � , , \ e.,,\ � ` M o' hr:'� � o ij tiq`7 �'ly •� a� ► Tr .� �% ��� . r ��~��' ; '�"7.S o���,,°� 0 3 � � } �'�� `�2 a �0 �� '�' �r� a1 . �tN 49� �4j� � q� r, a f/ � \\ � ��` , 1 � V"�, �! (`••\ r / � � � . . � n 1 r .' Y � �`�S�e 1 r� � �a�h' .? ^ wC 0. "� p%��,,~� s1\ . . � \ ' _ ° , � � � � r ,.� '` � / �. � �� 7 ,�, op", ,g �\s ,� '��`,, `° ,�,•` + b • ,�a6 b f , n.� ��`� q0 ., ;� .4 q �, \ " C, � � �. •_'_...._ .N _ m ..._.._'. _ .._ _. _.�7 -- ___`�a . �5i=�y-� �_ —T- �'� 4..._�.,...i, ,,�t� ' _' ! i�' � .. h � � ,� 1�: � �,.^`` � ,6 '��� ..� ^ �y.�� {fi� �- ,5 y ` � : ,, 1� ° - �"� � , -�.. y �� _ r` : p ; a., � , 6 ' •.�;f' ,£ ' �'b'� P°2 . o° tl' ' a ',,I� 4A �� 5 Q r" .r � a��'� ^ °- I °r�p .� . .s�"e�i°�s-..^e J 1 ,_ �. n .' h w� _ �r'\�Su Z�r' }�l 2as... ���� . �.;ti.� ¢- � : s . I ✓s ` , ,+7 , � �:.� , R ° ''�y/'/ 1 _ w r "f' Y �/ � \ � ' � ` \ + � ~ / v �,�� � >ti � � G• �e 8 - I Y , \ �S tiry c" -� v \ �,,: ` ¢ ` Z � =�-�: _ �y �7 , •, ti _��,� � ` � o � � �^ '` ' )y I� • le.o r � ,o \`�� i C�i�� y+� ,\ 5 ., a v � � � � ' , 7 � .<I a .-. ,n��3.rt .'� � � � 2 yO( w'i. i... . . s � ��Q 1h � G'uf/Of 1 ..f .r � •s o-nIV�' ,>°� S � , ti ?t . .� . — � c 'S�/ `+' v./r• + J • jt�� , �� ` ,, I \` , ^ ^ � . � S�d �v — 41 t �t y , ! 1'V M� ' 2 � � � 6 �. � � , • ' ,.,. �•�, � �- ` . � � � ., � h a . �^+s i4_._ _ 33 �1 v; �.� � .�„o "pi' .-1 �� I ` + `. / - � N � . '. 200 t��! �w , T C-/��. �� � ' G � � 7_'J.___ �1 i.. v�. � •� �+ �+' ' , � ° Ba'• 60 .7.i _ y � ' � � 4 � �� �' , ' �� ��Z °� ' � i ' , , t— i r-- ° _ , � 1 , �Y � N �. '-�"�-,�..• 6 �,r � d •�„ , �,,,,, ; y � ¢ y 3 2 � ; �, a �i � � ' II � }'— ' : �' v, ° �a.5 . � � � � 9 a � `� � �� ' ` � 4 . � o '""�' , � �� ;,,. � j � o� w� � , :'•. ,,_. . I � W� �`' ,•� 1f 7S � 7S ��� o �•. O� � I '�.7 � O^ !�! 4p T') ��f:Y "!yit I ".f 1 r � p •'. w _' r._ �. � �6 T �V'�• t`J . E � i �; : O � � , . , �.. . � (/'.� I— �,M..- - '' � » .7�•' ,90 . 7_f � �'� . . �i . . � t '�.: B: d � a� � �4 I r�+J ' ' '� � . r�/1- ' I i a .� � a y' V J, . ; !�' ! i . e'i 1 � � � �� � � .3 �� 5 O ^I "' � � ' % � i0 �. � � :I �Z :'. /; � '�' ..'i' : y i���. "� �� • � . • `+ � � � I : I � , �, .,;' � ( � . ,. >.�r � ; �' T n Ju ?J •e �1 � ,'D ,� YJ :'S vo .�r o ��}+ � .i , •� � � � �� J-,. . .. . . . . . � �" . �.. .. . � � . _ . .. � . i'. J ` tn� ; 41 � p•' ►�''��� ^1 �� , � - i �`�'' � 49vv . � � � � N � 1 \ v .�.Wv h r r�`�' `� '� cw' ! p \� BENLDICT NOVAK L. S. 4�76-C�9 ` f f��'�'-�� ' .`., . . -c ,, ; � , �� � , �► `� � CC •� � xl r. ►. � ,�,,=-..-t .� 5 �i� ,. q� � , . r ' , � n' `�f �p �e n , . r1 f ^r � �i (� . � /.. i�/.�}����ar'i,.,.�ir'� Goj•��.�j„ {� •` �a� i�l � Q'!�� `)°� oj h ���. W�: �.1 - �..�i__� / /�' --"°°''.-.rr•iy�„ nrr �� 'v %�� �' "1 �On %'1 � ��. � O r�: : 1 •��>°�' . � :.:.% � , �"�f�r'--`-,`�.i-� ��'` r1. � � �: ^I ry °� D�1 y° ' �; .,t .� � ��1J'� 1 c �„�y..w%i � ��RSi� p s' �- ^� •,� � Q� � n'iLr�_ : r: ♦ : � tA � _,;, �-�"'%r.f;�i !y � .r � '-" ;� �•zt� � � ... :�! 1it • (•I^. i,r.! 1- ' M � ��i�- �c\y E'1� d , .T I �. � i • i� I[i ^ " �/7 � � � �_�b.—�! ti./ �`� -s' K� � � ` ., %/ ; � "itii�.✓ . . '.YOC f�ACiY'.�:Wia ���! ri9�t P:f�. `�r �a , ;�}• �'�C ,�'� •J . . '� � � ��, � �'O,-' , TM^+�,�• % _ � � ��„� ��"�'�L�;�.l 6r _� i '� � \ J �e e 3 � . :��� ` ~ i � � h'°-� f� � `( "' N `+ 4� e N ti ��� -��Ae: ��. �.��1��y� r ''T} t i� I , �a� �f r• � t � � �, t�1 � • 0 s • ;•vy, Ty'�i.!! sr � •' � / ", - ^ � ... . � � O Sp� ! ����� � ` ^� . d � . :` 7 ^rJ!. � �. L✓ \ V "V�� `C I E`ip' �i �� �� •r��, � A � ' . �J � �� 9'S/2 i\ � � � � . `;"�- f;.� • � ,�U •�p-.�tf-: __ . �. .,� _ :�-- � � � y � , r �' +4� `�w"1� � e ' �i — 4 ! � Q�-'°��' .� o a � ��. � � _, � � �. � . ,t�� , �, � `� ���e..Y� ; Y ` � t� ,\ � 1 ` �- ° � _..� '� ° °� 1 � �" ";� ' G � rt : a'L' � �t � ' ��D Y � �t'1'�► � �'•`S � y ��- . ox � � �� �' �i . _ � � . '�� �. ' I �. s - �`°+-- ti � - �. t� .� ` k�� � " '� t� .n �a �+ t.�,J ~ K � ` � \ O �p j'�rf� � ' . �°`��' _� f`'" � ;,.� � � 1 �O � ;S . / �• l�• . '1� �� ^.. � ,� �"��+; o � i� . � � a � ,� o r :'�.,;.' . ,3- I ., ��....� 1 � i � �"' � p • ' n " ��''`.'� t?�" , � �'''r'�`-;c � ,,i" `'- \ .��_ ti . �.5!' • v•ro • '`� �t e c �• ��� 6°�.c,'' :.•�. � � ' o O r _:r^��` �: �* . .c � �Q ��; �� n� �y . �1 � r � ����, � h �:��' - ��`g �" � � a: �'`,� � ��`. �.-. •� "d X 3 '+ �� � � �. s � w . a ,I% � a �� � �, � f2�7.cw.�rf.Tr` `• � \ �. - r � _w,��.✓.+ �i. 'Je �Q ' S- �jZ. •.' '`� . . �� ��,^�� � � - - . �h 1 � :0 «. . ` . , � � � � yyr .� M�S�F.f �' � � �� � N •U � � � • F � �/`�� '�. . 1�� � ! `�� � t � � • � \ ��' ' �' • � � T ~ �, va � '; �1 l� � • •4 I' 1„�. : !�` � \ • \ , � 4 ,� � , �-: - � -� ob sa w'"'"'. �•'1;(' ' f �� I . '�`'�' �,(� x�.r �1 a .. \ � d ' ;j i � � � � 'A ** ` � fe��� �+r j �t � `' _ � V � 4• � � _,-� ;,w (!� 1 � • � �� :� � hb ' _��. ^�517o y�j o� � � .� ' �, � � � �� � � \ Q � M � ''� , :. 4 �=�r��` �E; = ° � `� . : "�.� '° � �� ° � � N m � _ �t`�.-�-%i :'.,,,. �. ; �. I l •v�, �� � / �L/ a� • . .�:- .. '.. � ' . '' � = �' � � 'i . � 1 � '' .; ' �\,. � (y b' �':�,��'r. -�` � . , .``' . • >y ,�ti �" {� � : � o�� 1 • � ( t ' � �:2 0 � t��, ° � � .`,`e . f'�'"�_ - � °m �:� `�'� • • � � �i � �1 k � K `N-�-� J � -� � � '` �_� '�- -` ; �1.'td yl :f: ��_ ... �� � : • . ' _ 4 � \ S` C � ! 1 f L' \ � � • • n � � � i� � � � �`�.� ' , ����, "� � y . r - ..� b�� • �� ' � o�i . 1 -- �- 1=�� �� � �� - g�' i� � nn?� f i � �'�o � •-: .��� � �' � �� ��'�_ ^�. � � �i m �: � h . . .-�� `_Y �t, �7 �;1_ f, '4f• �i f.' � ` � � °, � � c � ` . � , �.. �j � : ` b/p". �i,j �/�`f . �<• � ,— -�--,- _ . � .. � �:.,: � `Cy ;. ` e rs � � i • � �'� Yr49/ • g�� �' � � � . . -'7 � �., . � "� V ' V � 1 � • . { 1. k o W )' ` �-�c>'�s.W p � � ' • . • . ;i� �. �� � � , � � ti h -1�`` � t � ` yb-�,�� .: ) o I:- r%. • h o t�e � 1 � � ��- --�'�^� `' � � � �a , �g%r�6N�� � I . . '^' ,i. :. .�:.'. � �� ' /�� ``. ^r � � \� O �� �W T`►� ; h Z S` �.p> ' ��A �l 1 V � � �� ��. � N �'csi , � ��' �, 9, lj��a • • v ' ��� � � 0 CA �4 - � ='��f � [,' � --i - t, �y `i, � 2�0 q � �N � , ss.,, � �leeL.V.- ��. � � �V \ ' C ; . F-��i � r. j �`t .�y I �.��j �, �„'� „ 1"F ; ``9 .� �i u � i p� � . � � ' f/3'. 3L . J. ^ :��%+ � '''' F.1 � � � .\ °V � � � � p � � 't ;. °D'='jg o � _ _ _ ��� ti � � � k � �-� \ � �Y � ;:,.c�'/iJ%'e„\ /� �?.�..�-�;; . ,,�� : °s=� �� � t ta n�� .% '^ � a. s�� .. � �. , � o "i Y 1 , 1 3• ,�� .�i•o�i��1 M ?'; � . i�.. '`G , . M�� a `�� �` v�•�M � �f11.�_ � �1 ' r.� '..r� e ' , f �.p`y -�r� 4rFrA < .} O . v + �y'j +�'e ' 4� � � � � C:. �OLt ` � �:� _ �4� � ' � a �i `� '- '�r'(� ,+ rTr. C':�+�.r�. , �� � . :r,a b .... -� �.' ` �y 0 �j � � � �° `T : _ ` ,. � ' � �� i \ � � �� � 1 w �� �Q��� � `�' _ ii•,i t� Jl Jt / oL og .vB. °r� s: � o �'� �'� .i �. i't�'? s �� , � � " 1� ` �� �. � ,�.a �ts' �:s- . _..C.� r -' i ,.r- \` �° 1 .i `� --t : �� 2 3 ��t a � � h � . . t�,� i,�i.cy,r�,,�'�°���'„�s��7� jar_«i �w 6 � { ! .i z :1 � 0 � i /.:.s�.�-f __l1:f ..:� � , �,. . 4'• �(`����`�4� tJ'1`� �/\ ���1" 7.JS�a.e.Y��fJ'lL.. wiY°�.r�/ �/i�+,•NM •nq� tri i. : 4� A 1�`�� ''✓`ir`�R`'._'_ ...L \ \/ � ` �'Ya�.: .. s/ ! ! ' L:'fv . k � � :ai� ::j O 1 1 ' � ...;� '�.. h (•: � �;a{� i`' �'� � �'` Ci cA � J� �p .�;• sraO sra . ^r'�:m . . Q � ;` ; ► �. ���;-, � " J 'V \� h . J� � c*j-- �T t� � �. ' z �, t -.L�- _. i ` �` � - � � '9P ' �, � � � �a � � � �. � i \ � N .� -'�- =p--�- ., . :r ,.; �s� r k^i � • r. l�� (� ' ti � aYf,-�„ _� n A•ya.�r ''S'�i.` r„b ' � i 0� � �)� � �p � Q� ��, s. 7 � �y • � t . 1'• e: ��vta� $ . 3 ` � �('� •• O , ti v `r , � � �i.� f ; . �., ♦ �..������ 'y �'°� �� '� � t�9`�7p• �.�t�'� O�� � � I m t"'� � � f � 1 li�,f ' _uf+w_ '/�a�'Y� � �!�►��N QQ'' 1 � t � I I � ' . �`` � {'` . * '-Ss✓E_ _2'� `'vrFi _`'f� � � . �- y t J _ � I � r � � f�~� c _•` _ .��g ' - +• ry ��' � O�S�', 9s��.ts 7 � —�• i ' . � .. ' ° 8`- 9 � ----___- A•,r` ' - . s9'9u • bi� w�' ap��A . �� � ���� i • • . . . � . - • � . � . � • , • . w � � FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION riEETING SEPTEI�BER 28, 1976 MII��IBERS PRESENT: Schnabel, Baxna, Gabel, Kemper MI;MBERS ABSENT: Plemel OTHERS PRESE1dT: Ron Holden, Building Inspection Officer The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Schnabel at 7:lts P.M. ' • II, APPROVE APPEALS COiIMISSION �"IIdUTFS: SEPTEI��BER 15, 1976 �, � Mrs. Gabel referred to the second paragraph on page 11 and the statement she had made that it was encouraging. She explained she meant it was �ncouraging � to see fees lowered where tney were higher than the actual costs. ', MO`I'ION by KeMper, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission a�prove the minutes of the September 15, 1976 meeting as amended. Upon a voice� vote, all � voting aye, tne motion carried ::nanimously. i T I , l. REQUEST FOR VAR.IANCES Cr THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLO�ti'5: SE�TION 205,053� �.� Ai TO �IDliCr THE FRONT Y�'RD SETB�CK FROPi THE RE�UIF�ED 35 FEET TO �.5 P`E�T TO ALLOu,I T�iE COiJSTRUCTION Ot+ f1.i�1 INGROLND Sti�TI�Il�'IING POOL, 1 AND SECTION 205.1�.3, 3, TO INCREkSE THE 1� r00T I�1IP1Ti�'�UM HEIGHT aF A FET�CE IN THE FROidT YARD TO 6 FE�T IN ORD�R TO COP-1PLY �rJITH THE FENCE RE�UIR�'��NT OF THE St��I��II�IING POOL O�.DINANCE,, l�LL LOCATEP ON LOT 12, �3LOCK 1�,, BROOKVIEbJ TERRACE SECOND ADDITIO", THE SANE BEING 999 OVERTON DRIVE N.E., FRIDLEY, , MINNESOTA. (Request by ls. & Mrs. Robert Tomczak, 99�1 Overton',Drive N.E., Fridley, P�iinnesota 55�:32 } . ' � � , MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Barna� to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ' ADI�SINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT ; A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIRE��IENT: Section 205.053, !�, A, firont yard setback oi 35 feet; Secti�n 205.1l�3, 3 six foot fence requireme'�t around swimrriing pools. '�, Public purpose served is that the front yard fence and structu tend to keep front yards more open and aesthetically pleasing. B. STATED HARDSHIP: ihe front yard is the only place that the ' construci a pool, and if he is allowed a pool he needs a six to meet the City Code pool specifications. � ' 5 DD restrictions :r can >t fence � � Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28, 1976 � � ' � ' � ' � ' ' r , ' i L_� ' � ' � P8ge 2 5 E� C. AAMINIS�RATIVE STAFF REVIEW: This front yard is not typical in that the house faces the side of the 1ot; therefore, the fence and pool'will not be in the front yard now _usec� as front yard. However, it woulc� lie i.n front of the home just East of the applicants. ', Staff feels the variances should only be granted if the homeowr�er at 9S3 68th Avenue has no objection, since it would affect them t�e most. There is no logical compromise available. I Mrs. Robert Tomczak was at the meeting to present the request, alo�g with Mr. and Mrs. Dan Ault, 953 6E3th Avenue N.E., the adjacent neighbor . Mrs. Tomczak showed the Board a plat with a rough drawing, and explained what she and her husband caanted to do. She said that if rlr. and rirs. A�11t were not agreeable to the proposed plan, she and her husband agreed they wo�ld not build it. She asked Mr. Holden how far a pool had to be from the �xisting property line. Mr. Holden explained it was considered an accessor� building so it wou].d have to be at least 3' from tne property line with a v�rifying survey, or �� feet without, a survey. He said that since there was',no verifying survey, it would have` to be 4� feet from the property line. Airs. Tomczak stated that their existing fence was 1 2 feet in from their property line, and woul� have to be extended. Sne explained they were proposin� a 36� kidney-shaped p�ol, 2nd showed how it would fit on'their property and where the diving board would be. ', Mrs. Schnabel asked if there was a 3' deck requirement, and Mr. Ho�den replied there was. He said there was approximately 12' from the curb to t,e property, and another 1��' to the pool edge, so -chere would be a total of abo�it 16�' from the curb to the pool. ` I Mr. Ault stated that one of his concerns was that the fence would �bstruct the viei•r, and there would be a problem going in and put of his dri�reway. Chairperson Schnabel asked what type of fence the petitioner was p�.anning on putting up,�and Mrs. Tomczak replied a board-on-board, the same,type they had at the present time. Mrs. Schnabel stated that chain-link fen�es �rere also legal at 6'. Mr. Kemper said t'r.at this had been discussed sey'eral weeks ago, and it had been decided a chain-link fence was climbabl.e. Mr$. Schnabel said it was the Building Inspector's feeling that a toddler would �ot climb a 6' fence. rtrs. Tomczak stated she didn't feal a chain-link fenc� was safe� and she didn't care for that idea. rir. Barna commented that vertic�al board-on- board fences that gave no toehold were preferable. I, Mr. Ault said that another concern of his was if he would be al.zow or stain his side of the fence. He said that they hadn't yet reac ment with the Tomczaks regarding the fence in the back yard, and t some concern about the fence in front. He explained that he would the fence to match his house, but the Tomczaks preferred to leave Chai rperson Schnabel stated it was the property owners responsibil maintain the fence, unless the fence was right on �he property lin said that if two neighbors put up a joint fence together, then the; responsibility of the fence; in this case it would be the responsi d to paint ed an agree- ere was like to stain t natural. ty to . Mr. Holden shared ility of the , ' • ' � ' ' Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28, 1976 P�e 3 5 FF owners. Chairperson Schnabel asked if adjacent property owners hac� any protection against an unsightly fence, and Mr. Holden replied that according to the complaint procedure the City Staff could discuss the matter with tY�e adjacent property owners and try to settle any questions. �', Mrs. Gabel said that this seemed to be a matter of one person liki: fence stained and the other person liking the natural affect, and� was entitled to their preference. Mrs.Ault stated there �would be staining one side of the fence and not the other. :�irs. Tomczak sa could discuss that, but if the pool dicin't go in the fence would n stained. Nirs. Schnabel asked if the existing shrubbery would have removed if the fence was extended, and i1rs. Tomczak said she thoug She added that the two large lilac bushes would have to be removed hoped the smaller shrubs could be transplanted. Chairperson Schnabel said one concern she had from a safety stand ' the encroachment into this area as far as driving doVm the street Mrs. Gabel asked how many feet were actually going to be added on going toward the street, and 2�Srs. Tomczak replied about 3�'. � ' ' , r ' ' ' ' , � ��J Mr. Kemper asked if there were any other vaxiances granted on the Mrs. Tomczak replied there taeren't any, and the houses were in a f line. rir. Kemper commented this might be a rather severe visual e: for that street, and PZrs. Tomczak pointed out that they coulc� put if `tr.�y wanted to. Mr. Kemper stated that the purpose of the ordi: to maintain an aesthetic open area, and this request was violating Tomczak commented they had not lrnown until this came up that their was actually their front yard. pSrs. Schnabel asked how much traff generated on 68th Avenue in terms of cars or children, and :��Irs. To: that a survey had been talcen on Labor Day and in 96 hours there ha cars. g the veryone problem d they ver be to be t it would. but she t was concerned. the fence treet, and irly straight croachment p a !�' fence ance was that. rirs. side yard c was czak replied been 300 Mr. Kemper asked D1r. and Z•4rs. Ault if they had reached any kind of ' conclusion regarding their objections to this. I�ir. Ault stated that they had',a natural concern, but they didn't want to limit something that somebody els� wanted to do. He said they wanted to be good neighbors but they didn't want'�,the pool to detract from their property. Chairperson Schnabel asked if they had any particular feelings on the board-on-board fer.ce being extended dowri versus a chain-link fence. Mr. Ault replied that they would prefer a fenr�e similar to the existing fence, but their concern was about staining it so �t t�ould blend in with their house. r1rs. Ault added that she was also conc�rned about children being able to look down the street for cars if there was �. lot of snow piled up there. ��� Mr. Ault stated that he had been under the impression that if he s gned the release for the Tomczaks to build the pool, then he could sta.in th fence to match his house. Mrs. Tomczak said that was fine, but her husb dts concern was that if the Aults moved then they would have to keep maintainir�g the fence. Chairperson Schnabel also pointed out that if the Tomczaks should �ell their house, then the new property owner would also have to maintain thelfence. She suggested that if the Tomczaks would be agreeable to allowing the eighbors to stain the fence� and they in turn were agreeable to the constru�tion of the pool� perhaps they could reach a happy medium. I .r Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28� 1976 ' Page � ,, Mrs. Gabel asked the Aults if they could specify what their feelin�s F�ere. Mr. Ault replied that they had no objections to a pool, but they w�re concerned with the location and the view and the fence. He stated they did r�ot want to ' object to someone doing something like that if the City agreed it �ou1d be in the best interest of the City and the property owners on the stree�, and he would leave it up to�the Board. Nir. Kemper asked if they had the ecision to ' build that pool, wauld they or would they not build it. Mr. Ault gain�stated they didn't object to someone building a pool, per se, but they we,e concerned with the location. He said he didn't lmow whai: impact it would ha�e on his � proper�ty, but he thought it might make it more difficult to sell. �He added that they didn't want to be the ones to say yes or no, and felt it'Iwas some- thing the Board had to decide. ; ' ' � ' ' ' , ' , ' ' , � Chairperson Schnabel asked if it would be less objectionable to th an aesthetic standpoint if in addition to staining the fence there planting along the side, and Nir. Ault replied that V:as �hat they w Mrs. Schnabel asked if in addition to the a.esthetics, they z�rere al about the safety factor. I�irs. Ault replied that as a mother she w about the vie�r being obstructed in the winter and the child:en not to see cars coming. Mrs. Schnabel commented that she felt 1212' wo 5 GG Aults from was some uld do any*..�ay. o concerned s concerned being able ld be ample room to plow the snow. ' Chairperson Schnabel stated that if the Board decided to approve tY�e request aar:•i there was no dissentior. from the neighbors, Staff, or Board, t2�e Tomczaks could proceed with construction. If there was some objection, shelsaid, then the request iaould go to the City Council and it would be reviewed qne more time, and their decision would becor!e final. She explained that w�.s i•rhy they Vranted to knota how the Aults felt about it before they took any acitzon, and they wanted to make sure everybod� had an ample opportunity to expmess their feelings. I�irs. Gabel asked when construction on tnis would be sta.�ted if a variance was granted� and rlrs. Tomczak replied they would start ne�tt ;,•eek. Mrs. Schnabel asked if they had talked to any of the other neighbo�s, and rqrs. Tomczak answered that sne had talked to every neighbor within 200''�,and no one else expressed concern. '�, Nirs. Ault asked how the pool was going to be enclosed, and Mrs. Tomczak sho�red her t�rhere the fence and gate would be. Chairperson Schnabel asked if they would have to enter the pool through the gate also, ar�d r2rs. Tomcz' replied that was correct, there would be no direct access. NIr. Barna aske�if the pool area could be seen from the kitchen window, and Mrs. Tomezak �aid no, only from the bei3rooms. P�r. Barna asked how long they had been pl�.nning this, and rirs. Tomczak replied since July, but they had just found out ti�at their sic�e yard was their front yard when they talked to Darrel Clark. !� MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion caxried unanimously. �, Mr. Kemper stated he had a very severe concern about the amount of'Ivisual encroachment there would be along 68th. He said they t,rould be mov�.ng a structure out to 12' from the curb, and it would be the or�ly structure stick"ng out along the street for several blocks. Mr. Kemper said he had a strong co cern that they would be seriously violating an ordi.nance that said that shou dn't be . II I i Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28, 1976 ' Page 5 done'in the City of Fridley. , . Mrs. Schnabel asked if the fence across the street was 12' back, bdcause in her mind that didn't seem like it was terribly close to the street. Mr. Holden looked through the records and returned to say that, there was no v'rifying survey for the house across the street from 1�,he Tomczaks. Mrs. Sc abel looked through the file on that house, and said it didn't tell them very uch. She said they would have to proceed. without that visual image in mind.l, Mr. Barna stated that his major concern i•r�s that there were thousar�ds of lots like this in Fridley where the front yard Taas the side yaxd� or vic}e versa, and although the swimming pool itself would be flush with the gro�d� it was still an accessory building. He said that if they granted a vari ce for an accessory building in this case, they might be opening it up fo� garages and other structures in front yards. ; 5 Nf! Mrs. Gabel pointed out that it tJasn't the Tomczak's fault that it �as their front yard by a technicality, and Chairperson Schnabel said that i� was an unfortun- ate thing the shape of the lot created the problem. ' rfrs. Gabel asked if it zaould be conceivable they could put up a 1�' the property line and put in a,n above-ground s�rimming pool. Chair Schnabel said that a six ioot fPnce would be required. Mrs. Gabel they would also need a variance for an above-ground pool, and P�ir. it would be treated the same way. ?�1r. Barna said he objected to a variance for an accessory structure in a front yard. ---____ ._ _. _..----_ __.._ ._ . __--- MOTION by Barna, seconded by ICemper, that the Appeals Commission r Council� through the Planning Ccmmission, denial of the request fo to allow the construction of an inground s�,�airnmin�; pool. Upon a vo Barna, Kemper and Schnabel voting aye; Gabel voting nay, the motio Chairperson Schnabel explained to I�Zrs. Tomczak that this �rould go City Council on the 18th of October, and she cauld present her pl at that time. 2. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.OS3, �, A, FRIDLEY CITY REDUCE THE REQUIRr�D FftONT Y�RD SETBACK rR0?��1 35 FEET TO 20 FEET THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DtitirELLING AND Glu'�AGE, �CATED ON LOT 9, � HEATHER HILLS SECOPID ADDITION, THE SAt��1E BEING 6180 KER�.Y LANE FRIDLFX MINNESOTA. (Request by Michael E. 0'Bannon, 5298 Fill Street N.E., Minneapolis, rlinnesota 55�21)• The petitioner withdrew his request as he had designed a house come within City Code. fence on erson asked if o�den replied lot,ring a cor^.mend to variances ce vote, carried 3-l. efore the s again �DE, TO TO ALLO�J JCK l� .E.� would I� Fridley AppeaZs Commission Meeting - September 28� 1976 Page 6 5 j j � f� 3. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.053, 4� A, FRIDLEY CITY �ODE� TO RIDUCE THE REQUII�.ID FROPdT YARD SETBACK FROri 35 FELT TO 20 FEET� TO ALIAW THE COt1STRUCTION OF A D�dELLIPiG AIJD GARAGE, IACATED ON LOT 10, LOCK 1� '.' HEATHER HILLS SECOATD ADDITIOPI, T:�E SAN,'E BEING 6170 KERRY LAIJE I�.E. � � FRIDLEY, MINIdESOTA. (Request by Michael E. 0'Bannon� 5298 Fil]'�more Street N.E., Minneapolis, P4innesota 5�l�21). � ' rfOTION by Barna, seconded by Kempers to open the Public Hearing. i�pon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. j , � ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT I A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERV'-'�.D BY R.EQUIREP•SENT: Section 205.053, 1�, A, �ront yard setback of 35 feet. ' Public purpose served is that the front yard setback restrictimns tend to keep structures back far enough to attain adequate ogen space �or aesthetic purposes, and also to make the space in front of a g age door long enough to a11ow the parking of vehicles without encr�aching into public right of way. ��, B. STATED HARDSHIP: The grade of the lot makes further setback r�quire a very deep footing and the cutting of two large oak trees. ', C. ADI�IINISTRATIVE STAFF REV1EGd: This lot does fall away from the I street. ^lherefore, moving the construction back on the lot would resul� in the lowering of the rear footing. However, we feel a home can be designed th�.t would fit on the lot that would not encroach into any req�ired setbacks and would not be any further back on this lot with respect to �he rear line of the house. I We feel that the Commission �rrill have to hear the petitioner's,reasons for the request� and receive the comments of the neighbors and',,then make a determination on the matter. i Mr. 0'Bannon was at the meeting to present the request, along with',Rir. Ron • Cadwell, 1293 Brighton Square, New Brighton, t,rho wouZd be the owne� of the house. Mr. 0'Bannon presented the plans to the Board and explained that a�though the house would be 20' from the lot line, there was a steep hill and i� t,ras wooded. He showed where the large trees were situated on the lot and how t e house would face, and explained there was also a 10' boulevard so the hoy�se would actually be 30' from the street. He stated that he �•ras asking for a 15' variance because there was a steep grade in the rear, and as the h�use sat, the basement would be sitting out of the ground. . I ' Mr. Barna noted that would be no more lot back from the garage � ' the property in back of these lots was park, 'lo there behind these. Chairperson Schnabel noted it was 20' side� and actually 26' back from the living q�arters. ! 1 n�� �� � � ' ' L_J � ' , � � ' ' � ' r ' ' Fridley Appeals Commission i•ieeting - September 28, 1976 Page 7 Chairperson Schnabel asked Mr. Cadwell how many cars he he had t*ao and had no plans to have more than that. jIP. four-level home, and showed tahich level would be at the Cadwell stated he and his wife had been tiior'killg with Mr. Nover�ber and had discussed several diff'erent plans, but wife liked. owned, and he replied explained �.t was a ground level. t�ir. 0'Bannon since last this was tY�e one his i�10TI0Id by Kemper, seconded by Gabel, to close the Public Hearing. '�,Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � . rSr. Barna stated he did not object to this encroachrr�en� into the f�ont yard as in the previous request. He explained that it was in line withlthe tyt�e of structures in the area which tirere varying in their distance fror� the street� and he felt this made for a very nice looking area. Mr. Kemper st�ted he didn't feel they were violating the intent of'the ordinance with tHis proposed variance. . ', Chairperson Schnabel said that Staff had felt there could be anoth�r home designed that would fit on the lot with no variances, but the petit�ioner had stated they had worred with a nuriber of different pla.ns and this or�e fit their needs the best. Sne stated that while there may be another �lan available that would meet code, it might not meet the petitioner's�living requirer�ents. r;rs. Gabel said she ag:eed that there t��ere areas whdre a Iittle Frell-planned variety iras a good thing. ', NfOTIOPd by Kemper, seconded by Gabel, that the �ppeals Commission a�prove tne request for variance. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the moti�n caxried unanimously. . ,I �.. REQUEST FOR VARTAi�CE5 OF THE rRIDZEY CITY CODE AS FOLLO�IS: SE�TION 205.135, l� �,3), TO ALLO:r1 OFF-STRE�,T P�.'��IT�iG i0 BE TrTITHIi� C� rEET OF TH� LOT LI�E INST�.�1D OF SET BACK THE �.E�JUIRr,D 5 FE�T, AIdD, SLCTION 205.13Z, ',1, (E,l�), TO AI.,LOti•J OFF-STRr.Li PARKIivTG Z�ITHIiJ 3 FLET OF THE I�IAIP1 BUILDING; IPJST.�'�►D OF SETBACK TH� R�QUIRED 5 FEET� �OTH TO ALLOti•7 THE CONSTRUCTION'OF A SPECULATIVE BUILDIi�G TO BE LOCAT� OA? LO`l'S 3, 1� and 7, BLOCK 6a ONkZ��JAY ADDITION, T:�E 5��� BEIIeTG 7700 BF,�,CH STr2EET N.E,, FRIDLEY� I�:IN��SOT�. (Requ.est by Paco, Incorporated,, 5920 Iiir;�nod Lane, rlinneapolis, I�-1inn. 55427�. ' � ri0TI0N by Barna, seconded by Gabel, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanirnously. ' � ADTffNISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREhIENT: Section 205.135, 1, (E,�I), prohibit- ing parking any closer to a lot line than 5 feet. '', Public purpose served by the requirement is to provide for protiection of adjacent property o�mers from vehicie encroachment and to a�'!low for a landscaping strip between properties. I, 5 JJ w � ' � � Fridley Appeals Commission ?�teeting - September 28, 1976 Page 8 Section 205.135, 1� (E�l�), prohibiting paxking any closer to ajbuilding than 5 feet. I Public purpose served by the requirement is to protect the buil�ding from unnecessary maintenance due to vehicle's hitting the building.�, B. STAT� HARDSHIP: Land cannot be built on to meet code. C. AD2�IINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIL'�d: Staff feels that a full 5 foot d�.vider strip should be maintained at the property line, thereby reducing th� parking stalls to 18 feet in length and the driving area to 19 feet in width. Allo�ring the va.riance of 5 feet to 3 feet for parking area adj�.cent to a building Vrould enable this to be possible. I �Ir. G. ti�d. Paschke was at the meeting to present the request. i , Mr. Paschke stated he didn't kno�r of anyzahere in Fridley where thene was a 10' strip betiaeen joint parking lots, and explained the problem the nei�ghbor would have if -tnere was a 10' strip. He corvnented that 18' for a parkin� stall was awfully short, and a 10' island doiti� the middle would be nothir�g but junk. C�iairperson Schnabel said that they were talking about a landscapir�lg strip, but i�Ir. Paschke said that just didn't happen. �, Mr. Barna asked what the buildi:�g was going to bz, and I7r. Paschke �replied he didn�t lrnow yet as it taas speculative, but it could be a warehouse or a. factory. I�irs. Schnabel asked if he ;ras goir�g to go with zero lot construction, and rlr. Paschke repliec he Vras. P•7r. Kemper asked w zoning �aas in this. area, and PIr. Pascnke answered it was M-2. � Chairperson Schnabel asked if there �,Tould be enough room for park around if they t�aent with the 5' setback from the building but eli strip. I�:r. Paschke said yes, but a 5' setback wasn't necessary. 3� would do the same thing as 5'. r7rs. Schnabel asked if she was � assuming that if he went with 3' and eliminated the 5' strip, the be any problems. r�1r. Pasch'ce said that was right, and stated it to turn in 20' and sho�aed how a semi could drive in there. LJ �J � � � the ; and turning �ated the : felt that ght in wouldn't possible rir. Kemper asked if he couldn't move the wall of the building and r�eet code, and rlr. Paschke rep]_ied then the building wouldn't be l.i0%. He stat�',ed that economically he couldn't build there wi-thout a,variance. Mr. Kemper pointed out how the wall could be moved to meet codes, and r;r. Paschke replied that then the building would be an odd size. rir. Kemper stated that iti appeared to him that rir. Paschke had designed a building to cover the l�Ojo mi�imum and tha rest he wanted for driveway, so he was requesting a variance. �Ir. Paschke stated that the lot had been sitting there for a lot of years, and �they had designed a building to go there with the least amount of variances.i rfr. Kemper stated that a building could be designed to fit without any varianc,l�es. Mr. Paschke said that originally the building was designed differently,,but Jerry Boardman had desi�ned it this way. He said that if he couldn't bui,�d on 40%, he wouldn't build on it at all. He added that land was too expensi�e, and he would have to look for another site. I 5 K!� � ^ � F � � � � � � � , �� � � � � Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28� 1976 Page 9 Mr. Kemper asked if Mr. Paschke was saying the property line would�eventually be one big parking lot, and NIr. Paschke said that was correct. He�'�added that the owner of the other property had indicated he was going to pavei,it, and that this was a joint parking lot and not property lines, as such. Mr.liKemper asked if he had a zero lot line agreement to build up to the property li.rne, and Mr. Paschke repl.ied he did. Mr. Kemper stated that he would have 35� f�or parking, and tne code said 20� for a stall and 25' for a parking aisle, so t�Ir. Paschke was essentially 10' sh�rt. Mr. Paschke stated there were many sim�lar joint parking lots in Fridley, and Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that other ommercial areas cahich had adjacent parking lots might have been constructed l�efore the code. � Chairperson Schnabel asked if he had thought about this in terms o� land- scaping, and 2-Ir. Paschke replied there were several evergreens andliother plantings. Mrs. Schnabel said she ;�ras concerned to some extent�about the adjacent parking going up to the lot line taith blacktop since the djacent property owner had submitted nothing in �,mit2ng. I�irs. Gabe� asked if there would be any problem getting a written joint parking agreement. M. Paschke said no, except if it was recorded there would be trouble clearing'the title on it. Chairperson Schnabel asked where the 18� for parking left them in large cars, and �ir. Holden said they would stick out a bit. Mrs. asked if 21�' was ample room to back out, and T•Zr. Holden replied i to what was required. l�irs. Schnabel pointed out that if that was 19' by h�ving the 5' against the building and insisting on the 5' would be tight to move around in. i•:r. Holden agreed. Mr. Paschke had considered diagonal parking, but it took about the same amoun as striagh�,-in pa.rking, plus it elin;nated the option of backing o way. Mr. Kemper asked if it tiras okay to blacktop up to the line b on it, and Mr. Holden said that was correct. TIr. Kemper asked wh percentage would be if the building was 65 x 99•5, and Mr. Holden that would be 33.go lot coverage. rms of t was close educed to trip, it �,said they t of room t either �t not park at the �eplied MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Barna, to close the Public Hearing. iUpon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. , Chairperson Schnabel said that 1�7r. Paschke was asking to blacktop Ihe parking lot out to the lot li.ne and eliminate the 5� barrier between his l�t and the adjacent property, and tl-,e code said he must maintain a 5' baxrierlbetween the adjacent property. A,r. Holden read Section 205.135, B, of the',Czty Code, and said he interpreted that to mean he could pave all �he way outlto the lot line. Mr. Barna said that then the recorvnendation of the 5' strip'Iwas just a Staff recommendation, and not a code requirement. Nir. Holden said that was correct. Mrs. Schnabel said that then legally he could blacktop u� to the lot line, but Staff was saying he shauld allow for a 5' strip as o�posed to parking up to the lot line or using it for a turn-around axea or d�iveway. She asked how close a driveway could go to the lot line. rir. Hold�n said he would interpret that as being a parking aisle. Mrs. Schnabel said that it was also a driveway, and Mr. Holden said that was true. '�i 5 LL , Fridley Appeals Commissian Meeting - September 28, 1976 �! Page 10 � --- - — � l��� � Mr. Barna read Section 205.13s, F, It, of The driveway pavement must: a) Be 5 feet � the maix� building, and c} Have a mini.mum � � � � the Zoning Ordinance, which stated: from any lot line, b) Be 5 feet from driveway radii. of 10 feet� Chairperson Schnabel said she thought the situation had changed since rir. Paschke had chan�ed his plan. Even so, she said, if that was inte�preted as a driveway, then it still would have to be five feet from the lcbt line. Then zt would.require a variance, she expla.zned, but it would havelto be a different request. AZrs. Schnabel asked r�r. Paschke how soon he pl�nned on staxting construction, and he replied in the next couple of weeks.� She said she was wondering if -�here was time for someone to make an interpr�tation as to if that taas a driveway. I�1r. Holden said it w�uld be either �. driveway or a parking aisle. r1rs. Schnabel said it was her personal opinior� that it would be interpreted as a driveway, an d the code said it must be 5� from the lot line and she would like to see that 5' maintained unless therelwas strong reason not to maintain it. ,' Chairperson Schnabel asked if there was a minimum driveway �Pen�.n� Holden replied there was a ma.�imum width, and there was a suggeste a paxking aisle of 25'. rirs. Schnabel stated that if this had to preted as a parking aisle or a combination parking aisle and drive thought the Zoning Administrator should take a loo?c at it. She sa felt enough up-in-the-air about, it that she wasn't certain. P�lrs. stated tnat this would :�o� go bc-fore Council until Uctober 18th an if it was tabled ur.til the �fppeals Commission's next meeting it co go before Council on the 18th. She asked if A�r. PaschkF would sti construction tnis fa11 if tnis went to the City Council on ths 18t replied he would., hir. Barna stated he would need r.equests for E� instead of E3 and E�. width, and Mr. V�idth of e inter- ay, she d she chnabel taay, so ld still 1 start , and he nd FltA Chairperson Schnabel said she t,�ould like to get this moved, but pe'rsonally felt a bit hung up on it as she was not certain Staf'f knew what th�.s was a11 about because of the change in the parking stall positions. r1r. Kemper corru�ented he would like to see it written properly, and he• was not' prepared to act on this as it was. I�;rs. Schnabel sai.d they could act on it'�and either approve or deny it, and it taould still go before Council. 2�grs. Gaj�el stated she didn't like to act on something zahen they didn't have any firm�statements about what they c�rere really acting on. MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Barr.a, that the Appeals Commission re to Council, through the Planning Commission, approval of the Vaxia Ssction 205.135, 1, (E,l�) to allow off-street parking wiihin 3 fee building, and send the other request (Section 205•135, l, E,3, to street parking to be within 0 feet of the lot line instead of set required 5 feet) on without recommendation due to lack of inforr�at request that Staff make a determination before it goes to Coizncil. Mr. Kemper commented that he didn't like to simply pass something because they (the Appeals Commission) hadn�t been given enough in He said that if they had the proper information they could act on request; so what they were doing was essentially passing it on to recognizing that the petitioner had a ti.ming problem because of f ce of of the main llow off- ack the on and n to Council R V1V11� s variance � �� Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28� 1976 Page 11 ' 5 N�J Mrs. Gabel stated that the petitioner had come here in good faith, and somewhere along the line a mistake was made that wasn't his fault, and he dic� have a timing problem because of frost. Mrs. Gabel sa�.d she agreed with �rhat Mr. Kemper was saying, but she didn't feel the petitioner should be perialized. Chairperson Schnabel said that another problem was because Staff s�.w one plan � and the petitioner showed the Commission a revised plan. Mr. Barn� said that the problem was with the City bureaucracy rather than with the peti�tioner or the Appeals Commission, and he couldn�t see handicapping the petitilaner because of that error. He added that he felt Staff should be able to cle this up � satisfactorily before it reached Cit;� Council, and they would have�all the pertinent information to go on at that point. 'i � UPON A VOICE VOTE, Schnabel� Gabel a�d Barna voting aye; Kemper vo�ing nay� the motion carried 3- 1. . , � � ' _ � � � � MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, that the Appaals fees be paid'�before this iteM appeared before the Planning Corunission. Upon a voice vo�te, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. I 5. REQUEST FOR VARIANCES OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLOi,TS: SE 205.131�� I�� C, TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROri THE RERUIR TO 7. 5 FEET, Al`dD, SECTIOId 2�5.13 [, l, ( E, 3), TO ALLO�rJ OFF-STR� TO BE ti•TITHIN 0 FEET OF THE LOT LI1JE IPISTEAD OF�' SET BACK THE RE 5 FEET� AIdD SECTIGN 205.135, 1, (E,Lt), TO �ZLOad OFF-STREET PAR 3 FEET OF THE rIAIN BUTL"UTIQG IIJSTEAD Or SET BACK THE RE�UIRED 5 TO ALLOti7 THE COIv',STRUCTION OF A S?ECUL�TIVE BUILDING ON LOTS 23 25, BLOCK 8, OP�Air1AY ADDITIOld, TH ; SAP� BEIidG 7751 ELM STREET N FRIDLEY, P•ZIPINESOTA. (Request by Paco, Incorporated, 5920 Kirk rlinneapolis, riinnesota 55�27). I�IOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, to open the Public Heaxing. voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously; ADPIINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIR�•�NT: Section 205.13�, I�� C� rear yard setback of 25 feet. 25 FEET PA�.KIPIG IATG :IITHIV FEET� ALZ 2l�, AND E., ood Lane � a Public purpose served by the requirement is to provide adequatelopen space axound commercial structures for aesthetic and fire-fight�.ng purposes. Section 205.135, 1� (E�3)� prohibiting paxking any closer to a�.ot line than 5 ieet. I Public purpose served by the requirement is to provide for prot�ction of adjacent property owners from vehicle encroachment and to allow�lfor a landscaping strip between properties. '�, Section 205.135, l, (E,l�)� prohibiting parking any closer to a than 5 feet. Public purpose served by the requirement is to protect the buil�ing from ' unnecessary maintenance due to vehicle's hitting the building. � � � � � J � � � � Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28, 1976 Page 12 B. STATED i-IARDSHIP: Land cannot be built on to meet code. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIE41: The proposed building size o�' 75 feet by 97.5 feet will cover 7,1t62.5 square feet. Lots 23, 21t� 'iand 25, Block 8, Onaway Additi.on, total 17,100 square feet. The n�t lot coverage is lt3.6�.to; therefore, a variance to the lot cover�ge requirements of Section 205.131�, 3, A, is required unless�-�he building size is reduced. ' , Staff has been in favor of rear yard setbacks in the Onaway� area due to the shor+ness of the lots, and feel that this rec�uest is justified in light of past variances granted in this block. '� The petitionPr apoarently is reluctant to enter into a joirit parking agreement with Signcrafters to the South. Staff feels a Sl,foot green area should be ma�ntained and the variance to 3 feet from �he building approved. This would allow an 18-foot parking stall and a'�I19 foot driving area. ', Mr� Paschke was at tne meeting to present the request. 5 00 Mrs. Gabel asked why tr,e Public Notice didn't mention the variance',on tne coverage, and I�1r. Holden replied a variance to the lot size hadn't been requ�ste� because they hadn�t realized it would be needed until tor.ight. T•ir. K<mperjsuggested that r�uld be solved by reducing the building to �;0 0. ', _� Mr. Paschke shot•red the Comriission where the proposed building would be on the lots and zahere_the parkin� areas l�:ould be, Chairp�rson Schnabel as,ked if he was going up to zero lot line, and 2�Ir. Paschke r•eplied he T�ras. I�Irs. Schnabel asked if he had any kind of agreement on the zero lot line� and 'ne''�,replied he had a verbal agreement, but nothir_g in ti,rriting. �•1rs. Schnabel i!nfor^�ed hir: he would have �o get a��rritten agreement before he could start cons'truction. Chairperscn Sc:�nabel said that unless P�:r. Paschke decided at this r�eeting te change the size of the building, they might be better off tabling t�,his `�Thole process until anether notice could be issued for lot size coverage. She explained that otheri�ise he t��ould have to pay another fee and �rould have to c�ome back for another hearing anyi�ray. P•x. Paschke stated that he would like Staff to help him decide how to reduce the building. I Mr. Kemper stated that since I�ir. Paschke was so amenable to reducir�g the size of ihe builda.ng, perhaps it could be reduced to give more adequate!paxking. Mr. Paschke said that there was adequate parking. He said he would', prefer to let Staff decide hok* to cut the building--from the back or the fror��t; he was open to suggestions either• way. ' Chairperson Schnabel said that this was the very same problem as be�fore, with the additional problem of the reax yard setback, which might be re ced if the building was redu�ed in size. Mr. Barna asked r�r. Paschke when he lanned on starting work on this, and he replied not until next spring. rirs. abel said then there would be no problem in tabling this until the drivew�y p�oblem was worked out and the building reduced. " I � Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28, 197� I Page 13 MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, to close the Public Hearing. iUpon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. i ' MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, that the Appeals Commission t�,ble this item until the following meeting, and direct Staff to get a11 the roper information. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carrieq� unanir.►ously. Chairperson Schnabel declared a recess at 10:I�0 P.2�I., and rec at �.1:05 P.r�. 6. CONTITJUED: ZONING CODE REVIEt�I ON GARAGES T7rs. Gabel xeminded the Commission that in Play they had received a for variance on a dwelling to be located on G1.encoe Street, and thE on gaxages arose at that time and the Appeals Commission had sent � more input because the code was very vague. Iyir. Kemper stated the didn't mention anything about garages on lots 9,000 square fset anc and as he r�called they had asked for some kind of clarification or. tdow they were in receipt of the Community Development Commission's from their meeting of August 10, 1976, con�aining a zoning code re` garages. the meeting request question t on for code under, this. minutes ieta on Chairperson Schnabel said that�.the report from Cemmunity Developme t recommended that one enclosed garage space be provided per dwell�ng unit for tY�e follotring reasons: � l. Reduce outside automobile par�cing. 2. Provide for enclosed storage �f equipment and materi:als ot�er than automol�ile to enhance neighborhood appearance. �� 3. Reduce safety hazaxds which may result from outside storage of equipment and materi2l. ' !�. Promote the preservation and upgrading of the neighborhood�land maintain a quality of living environment consistent with tY�e housing plan. � 5. Provide for the security of stored goods in the neighborhoqd. Mrs. Schnabel recalled there had been a discussi.on on •,�hether a giage should be tied to the d�relling or to the size of the lot. She noted from tYie Community Development minutes that most of the other cozn,-nunities did not tre�t the question of substandaxd lots at all. r1rs. Schnabel informed the C mmission that the Planning Commission had tabled this item and had not acte on it yet. Chairperson Schnabel said that they ha�i already approved construct"on on 50' lots and did not require a garage stall, but to her lmowledge o lots of under 50' had been built on at this point. She said they would ha e to address themselves totally to substandaxd lots, unless they wanted to separlate 50' and above from �0' and under. . I r .. Air. Kemper stated that through his motion on riay llth he had asked Ithe Commissions to take a look at the subject of garages and the requirements for s�ingle or • double garages, and the requirements for paved or unpaved driveways as they applied to any lot under 9,000 dquare feet. He said the minutes of��the CDC meeting addressed themselves not to lot sizes but to garages and ho'µses. He � Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28� 1976 1 ' ' Page llt wondered if the garage should be considered part of a house and not concerned with the lot size, and said that it appeured to be a sensib].e way �o go about it. He added that he sensed something wrong back in riay when they�Iread the codes for lots over 9,000 squaxe feet and they didn�t mention unde� 9,000 square feet. He stated he thought they should be tied to the builc�ing and not the lot size, and this helped him understand what he thought the City's position should be regarding garages. ', Mrs. Gabel said she disagreed. She explained that next to her hou�e there was 1 a sma11 house and garage on a I�0' lot, and because the driveway wa� so close to her property her fence kept getting lrnocked down. P�ir. Kemper s�.id that maybe by requiring that each hor:►e have at least a single-car garag�, it would � automatically prohibit building on 1�0' lots, and that might be the!iappropriate criteria they should be using. � � � ' � ' Hir. Barna stated that if they tied garages to houses on a 50� lot,'',and if the property owners wanted to upgrade it, they would have to put a�!,garage on it. He said there was no way he could put a garage on either of tYue two 50� lc�ts he ot,med �rith houses on tihem because of hills on the prope�ty. �;rs. Gabel stated the code wouldn't have to be written tnat way. P•Sr. K�mper added that because something t•ras done at one point in time didn't mean somethi.ng else couldn't be established that said it couldn't be done in the futurc�. Nirs. Gabel said that under the pres�nt code system they haven't allocaedl,,any houses to be built on I�O� lots, but there were many homes built on 40' lo�s in the past. P�4r. Barna said that the information passed on to himself anc� the CoL�r.cil iaas that there Freren't any 1�0' lets tirith hou�es on ther� ir� Frid�eyl Crairpersor� Schnabel said there certainly trere a lot of older dtrellings in the�City which were on substandard lots and didn't meet the current code, but the�e hasn't been any nei� construction. She exp].ained that a.nything that was b�Ailt prior to the new code was grandfathered in� but i,7nat they said was from r�ow on they wouldn't allow anything under 9,000 square f.eet. She added that c�uld be done again, and wha� had already been done could be grandfathered in. '�, Chairperson Schnabel asked the Commission if they wanted to make aldecision regarding this, and Nirs. Gabel suggested gettir�g something from th� Planning Commission on this. Ntrs. Schnabel said they should also bear in mind that on Novemb�r 22nd they were scheduled to have the hearing on Lt0' lo�s with the City Council, and said that perhaps at that time this subject shou�.d come up again. Mr. Kemper said that in his opinion �Lhey would accomplish r�othing by waiting, and should therefore make soMe decision. ', rlrs. Gabel said she still felt very strongly that a garage should � ment. She stated she thought it came back to rnaintaining a standa for people who had lived in Fridley over a period of tzme and main quality of life, and she felt they otaed something to the people wh � in Fridley a long time. J LJ � e a require- d of living ained a had lived Chairperson Schnabel said she had another problem with not requiririg gaxages, and that was ihat garages were required for multiple dwelli.ngs. SY�e s aid she felt in some ways it would be discrimi.natory not to require a gaxa e for a single-family dt,relling but require l� stalls for a multiple dwellir�g. Mr. , Kemper said he felt it wouldn't be any more fa�.r to require a garage for a 5 Q(� � Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 2�� 1.976 I� Page 15 5 P R � � , i � � lot over 9,�00 square feet and not for one under 9,000 squaxe feetl Chairperson Schnabel said that if garages were required, then ther� should be a review of the size requirements for structures built on substand�rd lots, if building on substandard lots was allowed. Sh� suggested that p�rhaps the requirements for a two or three bedroom nome should be reduced and that would be t�e answer to getting a d�elling on a substandard lot with a ga.�age. She said that if the lots �reren't built on they became tax-forfeit property� and there was the problem of' who maintained them. i Mr. Barna said he didn't go along with that on the grounds that itlwould be protecting the present citizens beoause he hadn't heard any compla�nts from anyone saying they didn't want a house on a 50' lot. P�1rs. Schnabe said there had been several. �i rir. Holden said that l�ir. Boardman had read a report by the Metro Cbuncil � concerning garages and accessory buildings and it had said that inja survey of 160 communities in the me�ro area, only 20 of them required gar,�.ges of some sort. i � � , , i � � � � Chairperson Schnabel said that �ras consistent taith �rhat came out i PERSPECTIVES� a booklet published by the %Ietropolitan Gouncil. Sne stated that he Council had appointed a hiodest Cost Housing kdvisory Committee to study th effects of governmental regulations, t�-_es, °ina.ncing, ar:d housing industriy practices on the cost of housing, and to make recoru�nendations for reducing t�ese costs, and they were to report i.heir recorrv�:endations to the Legislature b�y January 15, 1977. P4rs. Schnabel said she thought several meMbers of that Icommittee said thny felt that the re�uirements of municipalities had become ,�very restrictive totdard buildir.g private dwell.ings w?�ich the popu.lation could afior'�. She stated they were looking for ways to allow construction of private dwellings so more of the population could afford to buy th�m, and one of those ways ��might be to not require garages and reduce the size requirements to fit on a l�ot. She added that �he Appaals Comrnissian might actually be doing a lot of', unnecessary work because the Legislature might come out with all new �equireme�ts. Mr. Kemger referred to the Planning :?eview On S�ngle Family Garagej Requirements submitted by Jerry Boardrrian, and the statement which Said that out�!, of the 81 communities surveyed, 6 required a one-car garage, !� required a twlo-car garage, and 71 required off-street parking with no garage requirements. Hi,e was wondering if Fridley was one of the com�rnunities surveyed, and if s',o, if it was one of the six requiring a one-car garage, one of the four requiri,�ng a two-car garage, or one of the 71 with no garage requirements. He stated t�hat if Fridley was one of the six or the four, then what they were talking about,�was expanding on the City Codes which already required garages for certain types, of construction. He added that right now the codes talk about garages for ].ots ovexf 9,000 square feet and multiple dwellings, but it didn't address itself to gara�es on sub- standard lots. I Chairperson Schnabel said that if they looked at the adjacent comr 1 Fridley they would find one totally developed community on one sic then Coon Rapids and Blaine where there was a lot of open space ye su�gested that perhaps they could afiord to be more open in their � ' unites around e, and t. sne zoning codes. , Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 2B, 1976 � Mr. Kemper added that what was substandard in Columbia Heights mi substandaxd in Blaine. � ' ' � � � � , - � � Page 16 not be Mrs. Gabel said that if somebody built a home on an eighty foot lot}, they could eventually add a garage; but when somebody built a house on al substandard lot there was no room to add a garage. She said that was her conc�rn--not with the large lots. She added that she was convinced that on the average 70 or 80 foot-lo�s a garage would go up anyway. I Mr. Kemper said that the question was if they wanted to allow builc�ing on substandard lots, and if they permitted it they were essentially r�ducing the total quality of life in the Fridley areae A�r. Barna stated t at he felt neighborhoods had to be considered, as in his ne�ghborhood a s'iubstandard lot was anything less than 50'. Mrs. Schnabel said they had to cor�sider that the people who were living on 50' lots had lived there for a long tiime. Mr. Barna wondered if a substandard lot could be restricted in an arealwhere the majority of lots were over a certain size. He said that regarding�50 and 60 foot lots, perhaps tne best way to handle them was the way they hac� been-- on an individual basis consi�ering objections from neighbors. I Mr. Holden asked the Commissioners what their reaction would be if was made identica.l to the one in the Community Development Commiss minutes of August 10, 1976 by Williara Forster stating that one enc space be provided per dwelling �or those five reasons listed. Mr. said that he personally would vote no. r1rs. Gabel said if she had a decision she would vote in favor of it. Chairperson Schnabel st she would vote in favor, but was concerned they rnight be spinning wheels because if the Legislature acted on this they might hdve a set of laws. She added that she would be inclinded to say a garag was needed for every dz�relling f�c�m an aesthetic standpoin�,, and ad she felt the majority of ho^:es in the City did ha�re garages and th the City looked as neat as it did. PIr. Kemper stated he would not of the mation. Mr. Halden said that althou�h he couldn't vote, he would vote aga ' an economic standpoint. He stated t;hat by knocking that 10� cost it might make �t a little more affordable to someone who was just rirs. Schnabel said that those people could then go to another com garages weren't required, and NSr. Holden said that was possible. ' added that since Fridley was basically developed, maybe those peo better off moving to a com.munity that was more lenient in their b and building there. � , a motion osed garage Barna to Make ted that heir hole new stall ed that t was why be in favor t it fr�m f the house� ginning. ity where s. Schnabel would be ding codes Mr. Kemper said he thought they had more responsibility to those p�ople who already lived in Fridley to maintain an image and a standard of li�ii.ng, than to those people who didn't live in Fridley and were looking for anl,opportunity to build, i , Mrs. lots. I room, 1 1 Gabel stai;ed her feelings about garages were more tied into s�bstandard She said she felt people would put up garages eventually iflthey had but on substandard lots there wasn't room. She said that pe�haps if :• 5 SS� � Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28, 1976 ' � , garages were required and they didn't fit on ���' lots, then those not be buildable. Mrs. Schnabel stated i;hat she was not totally c that the building industry was willing to put up modest or low-inc She said if that was done with substandard lots so a better mix Wa in the commun�ty, maybe she would feel more the other way about pr but she was not convinced that was what the building industry wa-�t Mrs. Gabel added that the little bit of residential area that was� Fridley was not condusive to low-cost housing. , Chairperson Schnabel said that maybe their discussion, as reflecte minutes, would be enough to shoti� their line of thinking, and peraa just needed a motion to receive the Corrununity Development Cornmi�si 1 of August 10, 1976. r;r. Kemper said he didn't feel a necessity £o a motion such as that in the CDC minutes, but would go along wit� those minutes. � � ' , � , ' � � , � j� 1 MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, that, the Appeals Community Development Com^�ission minutes of August 10, vote, all voting aye, tr�e r�otion carried unanimously. Page 17 5 TT ots would nvinced me housing. provided viding garages; d to do. eft in in th e s they n :ninutes pass�ng eceiving Coruni�sion r�ceive the 1976. Uponi�a voice 2�Irs. Sclinabel said she t�ished to call the Com^�issioners' attention Administrative Policy on Survey Requirements that taas before ther�. tYiis had been approved by the Planni;�g Corrimission a.nd was ve��y rel the� i„ems that car�e before tne Appeals Commision, and directed t'�e to keep it for future reference. ADJQURNP�iENT : Chairperson Schnabel adjourried the September 28, 1976 Appeals meeting at 12:05 A.r�i. Respectfully submitted, �� � /J /:���ri> ,� ,�n� i" � Sherri 0'Donnell Recording Secretary to the S:�e said �vant to ner�bers _ssion _ � �, � � � . _ .. . . .. . . ... .., 5 �� � � . ._. ` ,I , �� � �;��� �, 1 ��� • � ��.r. ,: II.•,c -,•.� ,: , ,�.'� .�.�ll J'1! ��f /l��i.�.S'(JtI � � � t�� � t �! ' `�`/ ..�i�����Wr� �: ��V V� �.i ti�N ��I MI ��� ��Vi7 �,� ,a ��'J ;'� , I D �Rf'I'I� .f.1 . � � � ; ,�iy:t , y ,v �� � � � ������ -i l..t . l.' ,.() ` !'fi.: L! . �':C/;,'iCvT.� .� �.1)Y./1A.�ta S('�i(.i✓ �. ,�� � � � x t � r w r. c c ,� v c. s a u t r. �. , ' � � M 1 N N C� P O l. I! 2 O. M 1 N h[! O i A TyXEDO tl•2140 I HARRY S, JOHNSON • - RC [i^pT • I • J c R MEREOt7H . . , , _ . Zs� 1 . �/;��;r �� �',I 1 s,..: � �; , :, , 1' ' � '� �'q�! �,�_�_ .: i /'..� .._ � y - , l 2a.7 _ � � �:? . .,. i � j ' _ • . ) . �� � - ^ � n,�ti� .:. �` � �'f � �,t — ,i , � B/. �� . ,Z I,1 �� II+ '. � v� `" C y: /a�a a�r. o , ' ` / � ,/• , ,. . ? � ! � ;� L. � � I f � ' i { � � : �. � � i i''� i ' , . �.. ! ,IIt�Y9 QA �' :� tu � �� I. ; ; __.._. � � _;.... _ _ � z � :� ;' � � i � ' ► ''`'�� ` � ' ' � ' �; tj.ty � � ;� % � i% I � ' , ;', �^ , '� ; �� I ? a� � � i� .� - I , . � `- q o �.--� �` ' �-�1� 1J��J i , � �lf, � ti v � ,J, , ^1�IJtJr�✓ ✓ � � v _ �rr���zi � i:� $—��,�__ �� � ' ' � �� � ` � � ,� � ;., �>= � I � � i' /D�t�, �:i A , � ��F' �: � �� _ � 4,S � i� . . , � � -- � , . , � . � '�� , �o , , , � ` rz,,` . , ' � � _~ , .� �S � °" , -'_ � � I ' ` {. v� ,_ ' ��'� J/l�Q �� ' ' _. . .. . i i � -=+-__ � � .'. _ , _ _ %J�7r� �� ______.___ � � �O 4 � � ` I, � j`'� . ' (� Ir . , ,� �'�i _ ,� ;i /� n ri � r __ I - ._ �, � . ti � - ♦ . . . ��l ��.1�f, �X/�R.A� i; ! ill/.1 'i./11.-• :'l� •1. �/�i!f'.. �J• .�.1�^���'�.1/I' I.Ni.�f .�/%��i.�.(.(/}..J/� �� W 'V� I � i ' � ��. r- I�P.II f,^�� j\;����..:....• �/ltlw 1i�1 '�,.; r � , �. • :c. tl , , ; , �• , . . ' . , -�, . . , r , � ,, „ r; , .. , . ' , � .l J c] I ��a f, � \ �. � :� � fl J fJ / �/ 'f, .���:��1'14 �,,ii:�i;.�..r� , 1 '� I .!�;i�'s'y;�i;,� c:yti; O�l �.::lC �Oc'f�..i.i'�2 i;�! i1%�. !)�•.f.�.�.�,. :Y� !: t�rl:.�� w:t✓!�P.�)r� :✓:::. �ol� �l�l'.�:)t_t2 ►'r:�.�!'Ci:,':✓.U�i'.i,• �' r,r:1�, � ���m r,r. �n. aa�ri! �c..��, !l� / � •• . _ '' . . : .. . -. �.. iA. /r(j •��,f�•�� �(:i� ��:��:+.�t � � , f ) ��� l �� �� �..�f '_< Y� f�� .� l� �i �i� :f . t��.Iw.�I:�Ii• � 'y � I• ili �.1.:��i". .....�:a ^L<•'ri 'S�.t ;�11. �..�.�? %p(:t..i�L�.rt. ./,i .�!•',.Ul�,,c�,� ��rl s;tlj .i::�f•1 ..�)l:: �.1:dJ Q•C . .�. :aLi i-%C%. t � . ' • t ' � l ' , �' ,.� , f', �.. , ., ' ' RES�LUTION N0. T A RESOLUTION RECFIVING TItE PRELIMINARY REPORT :'1ND CALLING A � . _ �iEARING ON Tfil: T�IATTL•R OF THE CONSTRUCTIO�� Orr CERTAIN ID9PROV STR�ET Ih1PROVEhiLiVT PROJLCT ST. 1977-1 �, ST. 1977-2 (i�;SAS) LIC I'S : . WHEREAS, t.he constxuction of certain improvenients is de�med to'I bF: �.it the intexest of the Ci�y of Fridley and the proper�y owners affec�e�' LhFr�hy. BE IT ItESOLVED, by the City Cauncil oi th� �ity o_` Fri�iley, asj iollocas: 1. Tliat the preli,r,inary report subm.itted by the City Engineer wn�'� the Consulting Engineers is hereby receivec: and acce�ted. I 2, fha.� ��.e C�ty Cierk s �all ac;, to- ascerta�i� �he r.a;,ie ar►d addre;js o� th� • owner af eacti �a.rcel of land directly •afiPctPd or wi tt�i_ti the �rea �f lari:is. as may be pro�,osed to be assessed for saici iII:�)1'OVements,� ar.:3. ca� r.-�? ate esti, �ates of assessments as r�ay be propcsed relativeli thcreto ag�.inst each o� said lands. , • . 3. That t},.v 1T'�3 prop�s�d, to be ass�ssed �or said irr�rn�:Ar�ents rr�d rar.r �:' tiier as noted in said no;:ice are all the J_znds ar.� areGs as noj�eci in � s,:.i� r.c�ice: A1? of t:�s same to be assessed. y.•o, ort��a, ate?y �ccorcii_n� to th� benefi�s r�ceiveci. � 4. Th� � t}�e e�tir:ates of assessments of the Clexk shul� �e avail�}�le icr ir,�pectic�n �e tr.e c��rne„ of ar�y parcel of land as may �� �f�ecuc,�� there�y at ;�iy public hearing held relativ� L'r�ere�o, �.S wAZ1. �s a'.: :?.:r� prior rirne rea�c;,,.b1F anCl COIlUP711P,Ilt. S. Tiiat the Cita� Gl�rk is authorized and directeci �o ��.ve r..�?ti.ice'of si.c�� p�:bli.c hea��in� by pui�lis?�ing a noii�e there,af i�� *he c.�:.=.i.cial �.i�.�:�- ps.�e�e� oi= ?:he ;,ity ;�f Fridley a.�d 'ay maile��notices to all 4he p�•cl::�-iy owners �•�hose pronerty is i�able t� be asse�se3 w:ti� tne in;:;i:ri� �f . these impr�vements according to law, suc?x r.otice to be suost=.;�tial?y � � in form ar.d si�bstance of tne noti�e attachs��: hereto as 1?xhibi� """. 6. That t}:is Co�:nci� s�i.11 mcet on thE 8ti� � c?ay c:� :Zove���oer�;._� ,?�76 . a'.: 7: 30 0' clock P.A4. at tre City Hal l ir, the Cit.;r o� i�:�:.u;��v �ox ':�i� purp�s� c�£ holciing a public heariiig on the irm�roven,�:�t nc�te�? �.�: '_:��: n�tic;� attaw.ed lieretu ai.� made a purt th�reof oy ref.:-r�:.ce, �:::i:i:,i;: �it�n� . I A�OPTED BY TI� GIT`:' COUh'C7L �F T}iE CITY OF ;�IDLEY THI� 1Stli I'� �q'; :1^ _._._...�� ._ . October a 1�76. � I AITHST: Ci'I'Y t;I.�'I;i; =�ti;A_ Rt�'Itd C. �f[iNSELL + _...a.r�_..........._ tARYOR - ivILLIAhi J. NEE I � _ l,� � f' � � I � . ' OPf1CIAL PU�LICATIOY CITY OF FRTULL•Y (EXHIBIT A) NOTICI: OF IIEAP,ING ON I�'IPROVT_•DtGNTS STRGGT IMPROVEMENT PROJL=CT ST. 1977-1 Fr ST. 1977-2 (DiSAS) WHEREAS, tlie City Council of the City of Fridley, Anoka County, Dtinnesot�, has deemed it expedient to receive evidence pertaining to the improvements hereinafter described. � NOiP, THEREFORE, NOTICr IS HERBBY GIV[N TIiAT on the Sth day of N�,vc�mh�r , 1976 at 7:30 o'clock P.M. the City Council will meet at the City Hall in said City, and will at said time and place iiear all parties ' interested in said improvements in who2e or in part. The general nature of the improvements is the construction (in the lands and streets noted Uelow) of tlie follotieing improvements, to-i�it: CONSTRUCTION I9'Ehf Street improvements, including grading, stabilized base, liot-mix bituminous mat, concrete curb f gutter, storm sewer system, iaater � sanitary sewer services �, other facilities located as follows: � STREETS UNDL•R PROJECT ST. 1977-1 Channel Road Mississippi Street to 200 Ft. Nortli of 68t1i Ave. Lueia Lane �lississippi Street to 200' S, of 6St1� Place 66th Avenue Central Avenue to Itice Creek Elem. School � Dellwood Drive 63rd Avenue to Dlississippi Street Pierce Street 63rd Avenue to D9ississippi St.reet 63rd Avenue TH E5 E. Service Drive to Rice Creek Road TH 65 E. Service Rd. 6"srd Avenue to 750' North � Talmadge Lane Talmadge Way to Osborne Way Ironton Street Hugo Street to Asnton Avenue Ab2e Street 73rd Avenue to Locke Park Parkiiig Lot Hickory Street 78th Avenue to 79t1i Avenue � STREETS UN1)ER PROJECT ST. l977-2 (MSAS) Ashton Avenue Ironton Street to Ely Street Osborne lUay East River Road to 75th Way Alden }Vay 75th Way to Approx. 400' Nortli ,' 75th Way Talmadge Lane to Alder. Way Railroad Crossing At 79th Avenue ' ' . i ' , ' ESTID4ATED COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 589,264.00 T►iAT Tl� AREA PR�OPOSED TO 6E ASSESS�D FOR SAID IDIPROVEA4GI�TS IS AS FOLLO{�'S: For Construction ItAm above ----------------------------_.____________ All of the land abutting upon said streets named above and all lands within, adjacent and aUutting thereto. All of said land to be assessed proportionately accoxding to the benefits received by such improvement. � That should the Council procced with said improvements they will consider i each separate improvements, except as hereafter otherwise provided by the Council all under the folloticing authority, to-wit: Diinnesota Statutes 1961, i Chapter 429 and laws amendatory thereof, and in confoxmity tieith the City Chart�er. i DATGD THIS l�tii DAY OP October , 1976 , gy ORDER OF 771E CITY COUNCIL. ' MAYOR - iVILLIAh1 J. NEE Publish: Uctober 27, 1976 November 3, 197G n�