11/01/1976 - 5727J�NET KONZAK
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER l, 1976
�
'
�
'
1 THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCZL OF NOVEMBER 1, 1976
�
�
�
�
�
�
'
'
,
'
'
;
� ,�
' ,
i,
' �
� �
' �
' ..
f
,
�
� �
'
�
' `
r
�
I '
Z73
THE �1INUTES OF TNE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF NOVEMBER 1, 1976
The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council of November 1, 1976 was called to
order at 7:32 p.m. by f�layor Nee.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Nee led the Council and the audience in sayin� the Pledcle of Alle�iance to
the flag.
ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayur Nee, Councilman Harnernik, Councilwoman Kukowski,
Councilman Stai-walt, and Counciln�an Fitzpati°ick.
MEMBERS AQSENT: fJone
ADOPTION 0� AGENDA:
MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to adont the aaenda as submitted. Seconded by Council-
woman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all votin� aye, Playor Nee declared the motion •
carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
C(1NSIDERATION OF UF4J POST #363 REOUEST TO USE QINGO FUNDS FOR THEIR BUILDING PROGRAM
INSTEAD OF FOR COPIMUNITY PROJECTS TlaQLED 10/7_5/�:
Mayor fJee stated that this matter was tabled by the Council at the last meeting,
October 25, 1976, in ortler to allo��a n�ore time in which to be supplied more extensive
information. Mayor fdee then proceeded to ask if anyone was present to represent
the UF4! and P1r. Marvin arunsell, Finance Director, stated that he believe P1r. Dan Sjodin,
Commander, V.F.t^J. Post No. 363, vaould be alona a little later in the eveninn.
Councilman Starwalt also commented that he had been in contact with persons from the
American Legion and they, too, we�°e expected to attend the meetinn.
MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to table the inatter until later in the meetin�. Seconded
by Councilti�oman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all votinn aye, P1a,yor Nee declared the
motion carried unanimously.
NEW 6USINESS:
RECEIVIP7G 7NE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMP1ISSION f1EETIPJG OF OCTOBER 2�, 1976:
ROTTLUND OAKS, P.S. #76-07:
Mayor P�ee stated that the Plannin� Comniission recommended anproval of the proposed
plat with stipulations and the itein �-�ould be to consider a public hearinn for the
13th of December, 1976.
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to set the matter of the plat and vacation for
public hearing on December 13, 1976. Seconded by Councile�an Hamernik. Upon a voice
vote, all votiny aye, Mayor P�ee declared the motion carried unanimously.
REZON;NG PD DISTRICT, 8100 l3tOCK OF EAST RiVER ROtID:
Mr. Richard Sobiecfi, Public Wo�°ks Director, stated that this mati;er was broughtup
as a suggestion by the Staff in that the previous item that was just set for public
hearing in December, Rottlund Oaks, P.S. �76-07, is a replat of a portion of existing
P.D. district and the replat is rounhly in line ��rith Ely Street adjacent to East
River Road. He further stated tl�at at the time for consideration of the replat,
it was discussed that the entire area was zoned P.D. However, the P.D. requirements
were not actually being adhered to accordinn to the ordinace. P1r. Sobiech also
stated that the development in the northerly half has been proceeding alonq in a
I
, -- . __ ___ --- --. _ _ _ ......__ -- ------ - -- ---- - ----- _ --'
I
�
���
REGULAR COUNCIL ML[TTNG OF NOV�f�1Q[R l, 1976
PAGE 2
single family i°esidential development manner, and this was provided for by a motion
by City Council in 1973 wherein they indicated that they would allow the R-1
requirements to be the overall P.D. plan and allowed the developers to proceed
with single family developments specifically around Fairmont Circle. As that
proceeded, the i°equest then came from single family developers in the southerly area.
P.D. is a P�anned Develop+i�ent district which allows for any type of development
from R-1 through C-2S, so it is an area that allows the developer flexibility in
development of certain parcels of property. However, in this particular case, it
appears to be proceedina in an orderly manner for R-1 and all single family,
especially for the request for replat in the southerly portion. He further stated
that at this point and tiine, Staff sugc�ested that to eliminate the confusion, as
it presently er,ists due to the P.D, requTre�7ients as the property is develop9ng
sinc�le family, perhaps it should be rezoned. The propert,y owner at the present time
has no problem zoning it R-1 if a certain portion of it remains R-3 and he is
receptive to go along with the P.D. rezoninn. However, he is willin9 to proceed
with the rezoninc� with the understandinn that certain lots, specifically Lots ll,
12, and 13 be tezoned for R-3.
Mr. Sobiech further stated that the Pl-onning Commission did discuss this matter at
t�•�o meetings and did recommend to the Council that the City initiate rezoning for
R-1 and R-3. Hz also sunc�ested that it would be in order for the Council to concur
with the recommendation of the Plannina Commission to beain the processing of the
rezoning request.
Mayor P�ee then asked Mr. Sobiech what it was before it went to P.D. Mr. Sobiech
replied he believed it was R-1. Mr. Sobiech then proceeded to show the Council
the plat being prepared by M�°. Rotter. Mr. Sobiech also cominented that Mr. Rotter
was notified about the meeting, however, he was not nresent.
Mr. Sobiech stated thai the properiy ownei°s were ali advised that they were in a
P.D. zone and Staff is of the opinion that all of the owners realize this and
as far as financing mortgages, titles, etc., that is all fine.
Councilman Star���alt suggested that rather than initiatinn any action at the present
time, a letter Le sent to the p2ople askina them for their thoughis on the matter.
Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that he thought this would be acceptable and it would
not hold up the petitioner. He further stated that in the meantime, the people who
already live and olvn the property to the north could be advised of this and if
they wanted to reouest a rezonin�, l,�e cculd proceed with it at that time. In the
meantime, the pr�esent plat could be handled.
Mr. Sobiech agreetl with this and stated that the property owner at this time would
just as soon leave it alore. He further� commented that Staff could make up a form
letter with appropriate return response froei them and it will not hold up the rlat
and a better understandinn from the property owners to the north could be received.
MOTION by Counciln�an Fitzpatrick to direct the Administration to contact the property
owners to the north to receive an indication whether they are interested in the
rezoning and to continue the item until the response from the residents is received.
Seconded by Councilvaoman Kukol��ski. UPon a�.�oice vote, all voting aye, Ma,yor Nee
declared the moticn carried unanimously.
GARAGE REQUIREhii.hdTS FOR SINGLE F/IP1ILY HOMES:
Nr. Sobiech, Puulic 6�Jorks Director, led the discussion statin4 that this request
was initiated at one of the sub-commissions of the Planninn Commission for review
as to whether a single garage requirement shoultl be mandatory for all single family
dwellinq units. He f�rther stated that the Appeals Commission had discussed this,
but did not come up with a��ecommendation. Hovlever, the Community Development
Commission came up with a positive rer_or,mendation to the Plannina Commission which
indicated five i�easons why all single fainily dwellin�s in the City of Fridley should
have a single family qaraae. The Planninn Comrrission did discuss this in consideration
with the Human Resources Commission minutes which indicated that they felt was
not in line with existin� City codes. The Fluman Resources Commission felt that single
, ,
�
'
,
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINf.. OF NOVEM[3ER 1, 1976
175
�
i
PA(;E 3 ,
, family garages should not be required. Ho�vever, the Plannin� Commission did pass
on to the Council the recommendation of the Cor•�munity Development Commission j
recommending that the zoning code be chanoed to niake a requirement for all single ;
family dwellings to have a sinqle family �arage. �
Mr. Sobiech also stated that it should be noted that from the minutes it was a
unanimous decision; however, there were only three members of the Planning Commission
� present. The tlumari Resources and Parks and Recreation Conimissions did not have
representatives at that meetin�. He stated that the plannin� people did provide
input also, and it �vas their feeling that there was a very serious conflict with
the recently adopted housing pro�ram which indicated that they would try to proceed
in a manner which would allow n�oderate incoinc. families to acquire a diverse type
housiny.
Councilman Hainernik then commented that he weuld be willinn to consider chan4inq
the ordinance requiring a garage if we could limit the property owner from
putting up the sma11 storaqe sheds.
Councilwoman Kukowski stated that she aqreed with the way it is ri�ht now; that
as they can afford to pui a garage on, they could put it on later and that she
did not believe thei°e was that much of a problein.
Mr. Nasim Qureshi, City Manager, sua�ested that perhaps this matter could be
further discussed at the Conference Meetina.
Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that it �aas his opinion that they are not prepared
at this point to request the administration to prepare an ordinance.
, MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to refer the item to the Plannino Commission for
consideration of the entire zoninn ordinance, buildin� code and the maintenance
code. Seconded by Co.uncilman Starvdalt. Upon a voice vote, all votinn ave, Mayor
Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
APPEALS COMMISSION EY.CCRPT FRO^4 MEETING OF OCT06ER 26, 1976:
PACO, INC. 7751 ELt� ST., REAR YARD SET�ACK AND SIDE YARD SET6ACK:
Mr. Sobiech, Public l�orks Director, stated that this was a request by Paco hlasonry
to vary from the code in t���o aree:s--the parcel ofi propertv on Flm Street roughly
betwcen 7700 and 7800 Elm Street. He further pointed out that the request by
Paco was to vary the code from 20' to 0' on the sid� yard and from the 25'
requirement to the 7.5' requirement on the i�ear yard. As noted in the discussion
of the Appeals Commission, the rear yard setback request did not aopear to be out
of line in that the same request was granted to the north, and it is consistent
with the development taking place in the biock, However, there was some discussion
for the request for the zero lot line setback in that it would conflict with the
parking lot, particularly with the traffic that might hit the building. The
recom�nendation, however, from the Apneals Commission was to approve reduction of
the rear yard setback, but to only apnrove reduction of side yard setback from
20' to 5'. The five feet is to be made up by reduction of the buildin� or by
another variance request. Mr. Sobiech further stated that after discussions with
the contractor Mr. Paschke, �WI10 was, by the �vay, nresent in the audience) he has
reduced the size of his buildinq to permit the 0 to 5' setback.
Mr. Sobiech stated that with the concession to reduce the building and the
recommendation to approve the rear yard setback, the development could proceed.
As a further point of information, P1r. Sobiech stated that the developer did
contact the property owner on the north in an attempt to acquire some additional
property to provide a development simila�° to what is happeninn to other parts of
the area. Also, even thou�h the developinent will consist of approximately three
lots, or 120', there are other 120' developments in the ai°ea; so it is not an
inconsistency of what is going on there.
' Mr. Qureshi then asked Mr. Sobiech if anyone was objectinn to this, and he
responded not that he was aarare of and there was no indication from the Appeals
Commission. The only objection P1r. Sobiech could comment on was a nentleman to
the north was unwillin� to help with a total plan for the remainin� area.
, P1r. Qureshi then questioned if he was sent a notice, and Mr. Sobiech stated he was.
MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to concur with the Appeals Commission recommendations
and approve the variance request to reduce the rear yard setback from 25' to 7.5'
�
i
i
�
i
�
1
i
�
�I
a
!
�
���
RE6ULAR COUNCIL MEETIP,C OF IVOt!EMQER 1, 1976 PAGE 4
and reduce the side yard setback from 20' to 5'. Seconded by Councilwoman
Kukowski. Upon a voice vote> all voting aye, f4ayor Nee declared the motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION by Councilwoman Kul;o�.vski to i°eceive the minutes of the Planning Commission of
October 20, 1976. Seconded by Council�nan Star�v�alt. Upon a voice vote, all votinn ave,
Mayor Nee declared the rnotion carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF VFW POST r363 RE�U�ST TO USE BIPJGO FU^!DS FOR THEIR QUILDIM, PROGRAM .
INSTEAD OF FOR COMMUNITI' PROJECTS�TAi�LEL) 10%25/l6j �
Mr. Dan Sjodin, Cominander, VFtr' Post 3,53 discussed the desire of the Post to use some
of their bingo funds to coinplete necessary projects, such as landscaping, flag pole base,
re-surfacing the parking lot, etc.
Councilwoman Kukowski asked Ptr. Sjadin if the organization could work with lOq of the
profits for this year, ai�d he replied it was a variable thing. He did not know if
10% would be adequate or not.
Mayor Nee then expressed the concern of the Council as to how they should respond to
other groups, American Legion, etc. that may be en±itled to the same consideration,
and said the Council wished to develo� some kind of nuildeline that would be available
to everyone.
Councilman Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Sjodin if this would just be a one time occurrence to
complete the projects the Post has and not an annual occurrence, and he replied it
was. Councilwoman Kukowski stated that perhaps the Council could allow 10% now and
then review it and see ho�,�� it was worhinq.
Mr. Marvin 6runsell, Finance Directer, ashed M•r. Sjodin if he had a dollar figure he
could give on this, and he could not qive a fixed amount. P1r. Sjodin could only coinment
on a$5,000 figure to repair the parkiny lot.
Mr. Virgil Herrick, City Attorney, stated that he thou�l�t perhaps the Council and
Administration should be thinkinq of �ef:ting sorie type of report from the organization,
maybe on a quarterly basis, that will show what the nross income and expenditures are
in operating the bingo operation,ai�d th��n the Council and the organization would know
what ±heir net profits are for the quarter. He also stated that, at present, he
believed the orqanization did not knol�� wnat their proposed expenses are. Mr. Herrick
proceecied to ask �1r. Sjodin if he ti�as keepin� a sepai�ate account of operating expenses,
and Mr. Sjodin replied thc �vere anc �vnr�e expected to by law. P1r. Herrick then stated
that as far as he and Mr. Brunsell t-,�ere concerned> they have never seen any indication
of what has been taken into the account or what has been expended from the account.
MOTIOf� by Councilman Han;ernik to appro��e, or, a one time basis, �10,000 from the 1976-1977
income for the specific purpose of impr�ovi.ncr the exterior of the buildinq. Seconded
by Councilvroman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all votinc� aye, Dlayor Nee declared the
motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVIfJG THE PIINUTES OF THE CATV PIEETING OF OCT06ER 2�, 1976:
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to receive the minutes of the Cable Television
Commission. Seconded by Councilman S1.arwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor
Nee declared the motien cai°i°ied unanirnously.
IUERATI(?�! OF REQU�ST FOR FUNDS FCR SOUTF�ERN ANOY.A COhi�1UNITY ASSISTAPdCE:
Ms. Pat ar-ennen stated that her organizatior, SACA, is a non-profit organization
servin� the southern part of Ano4ca County operatin� as an informational and referral
service. She further stated that her� organization delivers food and clothing as it
is needed. They also refer people to the type of help they seem to need. Mrs. Helen
Treuenfels is the Executive Director.
Ms. Brennen stated that $500 again tf;is year as a donation would be fine. P1ayor Nee
then asked Mr. Qureshi to recapitulate the status of the budget. �1r. Qureshi then
proceeded to mention that there was $3,000 in the coi��munity development budget; $1,000
designated fior North Suburban Family Service Center, and $2,000 to be used for general
social service needs.
Y
m
�
� REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMDER l, 1976
� _� ,
172 i
PAGE 5 j
MOTION by Coiancilwoman Kukoaaski to approve a�5U0 donation to the Southern Anoka
�
Community Assistance orqanization. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
CLAIt�15:
_ MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to pay Claim No's. 17408 - 17570. Seconded by Councilman
Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Mayor Nee declared the rnotion carried
unanimously.
LICENSES:
MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to approve the licenses as submitted and as on file
in the License Clerk's office. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNf•1ENT :
MOTION by Councilwonian Kukowski to adjourn the meetinq. Seconded•by Councilman
Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion
carried unanimously and the Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council of November l,
1976 adjourned at 9:17 p.m. �
Respectfully submitted,
Dorothy C. Green blilliam J. Nee
Secr•etary to the City Council Mayor
Approved:
MEMO T0: DEPARTMENT HEADS
Following are the "ACTIONS NEEDED". Please have your answers back in�.the
City Manager's office by Wednesday Noon, November 10, 1976. Thank you
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL — REGULAR MEETING — NOVEf�'sER 1, 1976 — 7s30 P. f�.
CE
i
1
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIAiVCE:
ROLL CALL:
All Present
ADOPTIO�V OF AGENDA:
Adopted as submitted
OPEN FORUM, VISITORS
iCONSIDERATION OF ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA, IS MINUTES)
OLD BUS I f'�ESS :
�ONSIDERATION OF VFW POST #363 REQUEST TO USE BINGO
FUNDS FOR THEIR BUILDING PROGRAM INSTEAD OF FOR COMMUNITY
PROJECTS tTas�En 10/25/76) � . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Approved $10,000 on a one-time basis from 1976-1977 income for specific
exterior purposes
ACTION TAKEN: Inform VFW Club of Council action
. ,
'
r� t
�i
�_: NGINEERING
,
' •
0
GINEERING
,
� '
INEE
REGUTAt� MEETIi�G, fJOVEMBER �1, 1976 PAGE 2
NEW BUSINESS:
RECEIVING THt MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION .
MEET I NG OF OCTOBER ZO, 1976 � � � . .. e . . � . . . . . . . . 2 - Z aA
1. ROTTLUND OAKS, P�S� �%6-O� „_,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,, 2- 2A
eJ AhNI�NG COMMISSION .B,��OMMENDATION: •APPROVAL & 2V
�WITH STIPULATIONS
�nuN�tt ACTiON REQUIRED: SET PUBLiC NEARING
FOR PLAT AND VACATION FOR IZ/13��b
Pub7ic Hearing set for December 13, 1976
ACTION NEEDED: Make arrangements for public hearing
�
2. REZONING PD I�ISTRICT, $IOO BLOCK OF EAST
RIVER RQAD ...... ................... ............... 2A - 2D
PLANNING COMM. REGOMMENDATION: OCITY YNITIATE •• & 2W
REZONING
COl1NGIL AGTION REQUIRED: CONSIDERATiON OF
RECOMMENDATION
Pastpose until letter is sent to property owners ta the North
ACTION NEEDED: Prepare co�nunication to property owne►s to the North
and put back on agenda when answers received.
0
3. �ARAGE REQU I REMENTS FOR S I NGLE FAM I LY HOMES ,.,,,, 2K - 2R
�SEE CDC MTS. OF S/IO, HRC MTS. OF 9/Z AND
STAFF REVIEW) ,
PLANNINC COMM. REGOMMENDATION: CHANGE ORDINANCE
TO ALLOW GNE GARAGE PER SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
�OL1NG I L AGT I ON REQLI I R� : CONS IDERATI ON OF
RECOMMENDATION
Referred to Planning Commission for consideration as part�of their considera
tion of the zoning, building ana maintenance code.
ACTION NEEDED: Put on Plannin� Comnission agenda for consideration as part of
t ei.r consi�deration of the zoning� building and maintenance code when appropriate.
,
�
'
��-�ENGINEERING
�-�ENGINEfRING
' e
,
,
- fINANCE
�I�
' .
REGULAR MEET I iyG, t�OVE(�1�ER 1, 1976 PAGE 3
NEW BUSINESS (COr�TINUED)
(PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES COWTINUED)
�. APPEALS COMMISSION EXCERPT FROM �`�EETING OF
OCTOBER Z6. 1�76 ...................................... Zx - �
PACO, INC, 7751 E�M S-r., REAR YARD SETBACK
.AND SIDE YARD SETBACK
APPEALS COMMISSIOI�L REGOMMENDATION: APPROVE
VARIANCES WITti STIPULATIONS
PLANNING COMM� REGOMMENDATIOK: WAIVED REVIEW
COl1NGIL AGTION_REQUIRED: CONSIDERATION OF
RECOMMENDATION
Council approved variances
ACTION NEEDED: Inform Paco, Inc. of Council action
RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE CATV MEETING OF
OCTOBER ZO, 1y76 � � e a � � e � � o e e e � e � � i � • � � �_�"
Received
ACTION NEEDED: File for future reference
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR FUNDS FOR SOUTHERN ANOKA
COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE � . . . . . � . . � . . . � . . . . . . 4
City Council approved $500 for SACA from Comnunity Development budg et.
ACTION NEEDED: Send the money early next year to the appropriate person
o t e agency.
�. .
. _
� . �
. . .
_`, ` REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 1, 1976 PAGE 4
NEW BUSINESS (GONTINUED)
,1 ..
C�±IMSi • � � e � � • � • � � � o e e � � � r o � � • � � � • J
Approved
�� INANCE ACTION NE€DED: Pay claims
�
'
�, , �ICENSES � � . � . . � . . . . . . � . � . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Approved
` INANCE ACTION NEEDfD: I��ue licenses
'
� _
'
� ,
i � i
ADJOURN : s: j 7 P.M. _
___ 1 �
1 �
1 � .
�
1 '
.�
1` . . .
�- _
� FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
� �--,-
' PL.�ASE SIGN NAME ADpRESS ANQ ITEM NUMBER INTERESTED IN DATE: / �1�'"� -� �lp
'NAME - ADpRESS ITEM NUMBER
��_-- �___________ ______ _ ___= �_—_-----__=__________________________=_______—_________�—
� C �— f ---- � _ �
��C; �� � �� � � �-�� fG; ` �jy, � lG�
� '� � _.�- ��. . c� _-,_ �.. �.. . ,i � � , � � i ,
�
,
I '
� �- _
0
�
�1
i-� _ �j, �,
I� '
'
��I
,
,
'
� .
,
'
�
'
r � _ � ....
��3 �r�j�:
$
�
FRIDLEY POST N0. 363
1042 Osborne Road, N.E.
Fridley, Minnesoto 55432
October 14, 1976
The I?onorable ��lilliam J. Nee
riavor of the City of Frid.le,y
6431 Universitv Avenue, P1.E.
Fridlev, Minnesota 5543?
Honorable Mat►or Nee and Mer�bers of th� Fridl.ey Citv Council:
Accordin� to tre Bi.ngo Law recentiv enacted �y our S't1�P_
Legislature, a11 V.F.��.'. Clubs must use b;_ngo fur�s for c.r,mmunit.y
vrojects unZess othe��ri.se authorizer� by the local Cit�* Council
for other tirojects.
It is the desire of the F'^idley V.F.tJ. Post �`363 to use
some of ou.^ bingo funds to complete o�?r buil�?i�g pro�'ram on
such necessar,y projects as a fla� bole i�ase, re-s�zrfacin� the
parkin� lot, sidel•�aLks, curbin�, etc.
We are aski.n� your approval on this request.
Res-�ectfully you?^s,
�"3c�-rc.c:E� � ,���i,
Daniel L. Sjodin,
Commander
I '� VET ERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES
1
i�
1
�
'
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MTG.
CITY OF FRIDLEY
oCTOBER 20, 1976
PAGE 1
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:32 P.M.
ROLL CAI�L:
Members Preser:t: Harris} Bergman� Bruce Peterson (sitting in for Langenfeld),
Schnabel
Members Absent:
Others Presents
Bob Peterson, Shea
Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
APPROVE PLANNING COrg1ISSI0N MINUTES: OCTOBER 6, 1976
MOTIGN by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman� that the Planning ComMission minutes
of October 6, 1976 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously.
' CONTINUID: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOS� PLAT P.S. #76-
ROTTLUND OAKS BY T:iE ROTTLUND COi�1PANY: Being a replat of Lots , 7, ,
� 10, 1, 1 1 and 17: BZock l, Spring Broak Park Second Addition,
together with Lots 32 and 33, and the West 30 feet of Lots 3It and 35,
Block 10, Spring Brook Park Addition, zoned P.D. (Planned Development),
generally located between Ruth Street N.E, and East River Road N.E.,
North of I,iberty Street N.E.
Public Hearing open.
Mro David H. Rotter, Vice President of Rottlund Company, was present.
: Mr. Boardman stated that Mr. Rotter had laid out the approximate building sites
;r , on his plan as was requested by the Plannzng Commission at the last meeting,
and there was a consistent setback of 1t5� around the cul-de-sac. He explained
that Mr. Rotter had dropped a lot, and the type of lot line requirement that
I' was needed had been picked up. He added that in most cases there was about
80' at the building line.
l� Chairperson Harris asked if there was any problem with the topography of the
land on lot 7, and Mr. Boardman said he didn't think there would be too much of
�i a problem there. Mr. Rotter explained that house would have a walk-out.
,I '
,
'� 2
'
�J
'
,
�
�
�
�.I
'
�
'
,
'
'
'
, �
,
,
'
'
'
Planning Commission Meeting - Qctober 20, 197b � . Page 2
�,_._— -
Mr. Howard Dumphy stated that the same condition applied as he had explained
at the last meeting, and that the replat was subject to the purchase of the
property. . �
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission close
Lhe Pablic Hearing on consideration of a proposed plat, P.S. #�76-07, Rottlund
Oaks, By the Rottlund Company. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairperson
Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 7:lt5 P.M.
Mr. Bergman said that at the last meeting Mr. Boardman had a fair amount of
concerns� and was wondering how he felt about the plat now. Mr. Boardman
replied that the plan was now acceptable.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommend
to Council approval of the proposed pl::�, P.S. #76-07, Rottlund Oaks, by the
Rottlund Company: Being a replat of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11t, 15, 16 and 17�
Block 1, Spring Brook Park Second Addition, �ogether wi.th Lots 32 and 33:
and the West 30 feet of Lots 31� and 35, Block I0, Spring Brook Park Addition,
zoned P:D. (Planned Development), generally located between Ruth Street N.E.
and Ea.st River Road N.E., North of Liberty Street N.E.
Mr. Boardman suggested a stipulation be included concerning the !t�' setback
for all construction.
Bergman AriENDED the ri0TI0N to include the understanding that the development
off the cul-de-sac would follow in general the 1�5' setback. Agreeable with
the seconder.
Chairperson Harris asked if there was any need for drainage and utility
easements, and Mr. Boardman said that everything was all set.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris marked the plat F�hibit A to send on to Council.
0
: CONSIDERATION OF REZONZNG THE PD DISTRZCT (PLANNED DEVELOPT�IT
1� RLOCK OF EAST RIVER ROAD. TO R-1. SINGLE FAI�IILY D;�IELLING ARF.�1
Mr. David Rotter, Vice President of Rottlund Company, was present.
2 �
Mr. Boardman stated that this had been discussed at the last Planning Commission
meeting, and the City felt thef sho�.ild ca11 a spade a spade and get the area
zoned according to how it was developed, �nstead of carrying on as a� P.D.
District which was a useless zone for that area. He explalned that most of the
development in that area would be an R-1 zone, with probably a R-3 development
on East River Road on rir. Rotter's property. rir. Boardman stated that as far
as City Staff was concerned, they felt it would be a good idea to get rid of
the P.D. in the area and call it what it was going to be. He explained that
they were suggesting that tir. Rotter petition for a rezoning on his property�
0
�: ' Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1976
�'
Page 3 2 B
and that the City initiate a rezoning on that R-1 that was presently existing.
I: ' Mr. Bergman said he thought there should be some better identification of what
they were talking about rezoning.• He also said tha� he felt there was merit
. to the suggestion and he understood administration's proposal and it concerned
. itself with a couple of points: 1) that P.D. zoning was kind of a bummer, and
� 2) the solidification of land use, regardless of what happened, would�be
. restricted to R-1 if it was rezoned. tir. Bergman stated he thought that i� �Yso
ought to have some benefit to the occupants of that land, as there would be
' one less concern as to what could happen next door if there was a tornado or
heavy damage of some kind. He added that under these considerations, and
considering the fact that the owner had in good faith followed ordinances and
' process, that he not be charged with such costs. With that as a base, Mr.
Bergman said, he would Iike to ask the property owner if he would have an
: objection to this rezoning if it would take place at no cost to him.
�J
, '
� ,
Mr. Rotter referred the Commission to his letter of October !t, 1976, contained
in the minutes of the last Planning Commi.ssion meeting. He said that even if
there was no cost, if the zoning was changed on lots 11, 12 and 13 0� the original
pl.at he would be spending the next six months in front of this Commission to
possibly get a multi-family dwelling in there. He explained that under the
present zoning it was possible for a multiple dwelling to be developed with
some kind of a buffer. Mr. Rotter said that it was the feeling of his
�ompany that they were trying to do everything they could to make it advantageous
to sell the property, but they didn�t �rant to take a piece of property which
they felt would be in their best i.nterest to use for multiple family and
rezone it back to R-1 and go through ihe hearings. He said that he would prefer
to rezone one area first and zone the rest residential. .
Mr. Bergman suggested rezoning it R-3; thereby taking the whole P.D. area and
rezoning it for its intended use. rSr. Rotter said that R-3 would be no problem;
but problems did arise when residential property was rezoned to multzple family
or commercial. :
Mrs. Schnabel asked if it was possible to split a section; for instance, designate
all but lots 11, 12 and 13 as R-1. and leave the others P.D. or change them to
R-3. Chairperson Harris s aid they could rezone io R-3 and R-1, bui he would
be opposed to leaving a P.D. situation with those three lots. r1rs. Schnabel
pointed out that if the entire axea was rezoned R-3, there might be some concern
from the neighbors. Chairperson Harris said they could zone the lots around
the cul-de-sac R-1 and the others R-3 at the same time. rir. Rotter commented
that the leiter that was read into the minutes at the last meeting stated what
he was going to do with the property anyway, so that was a matter of public
record.
Mr. Bergman asked Mr. Rotter if he was willing to be pinned down to that rezoning
plan; three lots rezoned from P.D. to R-3 and the balance of the P.D. rezoned
to R-1 at no cost to him. .rir. Rotter said that was fine.
Mr. Rotter said he had one other question; on the original plat of the Spring
Brook Addition some money was placed on escro�r with the City for park dedication.
He said he felt that since it had already been paid once, he shouldn�t have to
pay�it again. He flirther explained that since the park dedication had already
been paid on this entire piece of property as it was developed now prior to
his petition, and he was replatting within an existing area and losing a lot�
he would like to have it waived that he pay again for park dedication.
L �
� '
Planning Commissior� rieeting - October 20, 1976 p$ge !�
2�
� Chairperson Harris pointed out that that would be a City Council decision.
Mr, Boardman stated that if ihe old plat kras recorded the money should have
been paid, but he wasn�t sure where they stood on it. He said they would get
', ' it straightened out at the Council meeting.
Mr. Bergman said he assumed a Public Hearing was required for a rezoning
, action, and Chairperson Harris said they �rould have to make a request to
City Council to initiate the action for the rezoning.
' MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission pass
a resolution to Council that the present P.D, zoned area in the 8110 block of
East River Road be rezoned at City initiative to R-1, with the exception of
Lots 12, 12 and 13 to be rezoned to R-3, with the understanding that the prop-
'erty owner, Mr. David Rotier, is in concurrence with this proposal and also
. with the understanding that the property owner will not be charged for this
rezoning.
�
'
V'
�
Mr. Boardman said they were also talking about a1I P.D. in the area including
North of this around Fairmont Circle that was presently developed. He
suggested asking the City Council to also petition for a rezoning on that
with no charge to the property owners. He explained that was outside of this
plat. Chairperson Harris suggested making two separate motions so there would
be two Public Hearings.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
'. Mrs. Schnabel asked who ihe develoFer was of the Fairmont Circle area, and
Mr. Rotter said he was. He �XPlained that all but one lot was developed�
and that would be developed soon. Mr. Bergman asked if the use of the
, total Fairmont Circle area was R-1, and r7r. Rotter replied it was. Mr.
$oardman said it was all zoned P.D. except Lot l, Block 2 of Bourdeauxs
Spring Brook Addition, which was zoned R-1.
l�
,
1
'
'
�
'
'
Mrs. Schnabel said she was a little concerned that they were taking the
initiative to do this, and was �rondering if that would be jumping the gun on
the re�idents of the area. Mr. Harris said the problem was it was an existing
fact and it would be difficult to get the residents in to make the initiative
for the rezoning. rirs. Schnabel asked Mr. Boardman if he felt fairly certain
the residents in the area were in favor o£ this type of thing. She said she
would hate to make this motion and get the Council going on this and then find
suddently that the people in the area didn�t �rant it to begin with and become
upset with both ihe Planning Commission and City Council for initiating it.
Air. Boardman said he had talked to some of the residents and they had the
general feeling they would feel more protected under this. He added that he
hadn't gone into all the financia]. comglicatior_s on a P.D. zoning, bu� it
seemed the people had gotten_loans to build their houses even though it was
zoned P.D.� but he thought�it would be more secure for them if the area was
zoned R-1. Tirs. Schnabel asked if their applications for loans �rould change
in any way if it was rezoned from P.D. to R-1, and Nir. Boardman said he
doubted it. He explained that if anything� it would be more difficult under
I�
kl
�
Planning Commission t;eeting - October 20, 1976 Page 5�
2�
P.D. to get monies to develop. Mrs. Schnabel asked who would bear the costs
for rezoning this, and rfr. Boardman answered the costs would be waived since
it would be initiated by the City.
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission pass
a resolution to the City Council that the P.D. area araund Fairmont Circle
be rezoned to R-1 wi�h the understanding there would be no cost to the residents.
Mr. Boardman-said he would like to point out that they did have on record
that an apartment building was approved in there, so by going R-1 it would
be protecting the residents.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11 voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
I�IOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission suspend
the rules and mo�e to item 8 on the agenda. Upon a voice-vote, a11 voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE APPEALS COi•1�1ISSION MINUTFS : OCTOBER 121 1976
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive
' � the Appeals Commission minutes of October 12, 1976. Upon a voice vote� all
voting a;fe, the motion carried unanimously.
,
�
i
�,
�
L..
a. Request by Jerry Paschke of Paco, Inc. for permission to have the
Planning Co:nmission consider his variance requests for 7751 Elm Stre::t
N.E. before this is heard by the Appeals Commission on October 26� 1976.
This process wauld allow this request to go to the City Council on
November 1� 1976 instad of November ls, 1976.
Mr. Jerry Paschke of Paco, Inc., was present.
Mr. Boardman stated that to a certain degree he disagreed ta the thought that
was behind this request. He said an order had been set up that such items
would go to the Appeals Commission, then to the Planning Commission and then
to the City Cauncil, and he preferred not to change that order. Hawever� he
said� due to time periods it did pose some kind of a hardship on rir. Paschke.
Mr. Boardman explained the major problem was with the zero lot line for the
proposed building on the South property line.
Mr. Harris turned the Chairmanship over to Mr. Bergman, since he was the
affected property owner on the South side.
Mrs. Schnabel said that V:hen this came before the Appeals Commission Mr.
' Paschke had said he wasn't planning on building until next spring, and asked
him if he had changed his mind. Nir. Paschke explained that for various
reasons he had decided not to build on his property on Beech Street� so he
' was going to proceed with this property. He said that the house was now vacant�
although his daughter wanted to live in it for the winter.
'
C
�
�
'
�
iJ
,I�
'
'
'
'
'
CI
�
Planning Commission Meeti,ng - October 20, 1976
Page 6
2E
rirs. Schnabel asked if he was planning to start right acray, and Mr. Paschke
replied he was, and explained the house was not affected by it.
Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that the original discussion of this request appeared
on pages 11l� through 116 of the agenda dated October 6� and said that there
may be some information included in that discussion which would be pertinent
now. She stated that at the time this came before the Appeals Commission on
September 28, the proposed structure on this lot covered more than l�0� of the
lot. She said that because it did go over !�0% the Appeals Commission tal.�ced
to l�ir. Paschke about reviewing it trith City Staff and coming up with a
different size building on the lot� and about the problems of the zero lot
line and the setback of the parking stalls. She explained that the proposed
building he presented that night for this address was the exact building he '':
presented that same ni�ht for another lot, and that was why there was not a
lot of conversation under that particular request� but a lot of it occurred
under the other request. Because the building covered more than l�Op of the
lot� rirs. Schnabel. staied� it was agreed ihat Mr. Paschke would work with the
Staff and come up with a new building plan. She said he had indicated at that
time that he didn't plan on building until next spring, so the Appeals Commission
tabled it so he could have time to revi.se his plans. She asked Mr. Paschke if
basically he was planning to go from 25� to 7.5� in the rear of the building.
Mr. Paschke said that originally the building was going to sit on the North
zero Iot line, but Mr. Boardmaii �ranted to have �' on either side as a buffer
strip between the parking lots. He explained the reason it was changed was
because the plan that was drawn for the building on Beech Street had a vacated
street that was 25t, and when the plans were reclrawn they were redracan the same
as he ha3n�t rea3ized that on this site there was only a 7�� alley that was
vacated. He said that was how it got over l�0�, and nobody realized that until
a few minutes before the meeting.
Actirig Chairperson Bergman said he felt a bit awkward that the Planning
Commission even had this item. He said he felt they were being asked to
substitute for the Appeals Commission, and this item would be taken up before
the next Appeals meeting anyway. He asked if this would.actually be saving
any time, and Mr. Paschke answered it would be saving one month.
1�`,r. $oardman said that ihe pr•ocess they went through on a vaxiance was that
it was heard by the Appeals Commission and then it was sent to the Planning
,I ' � ,Commission for policy review and then went on� the the City Council. He said
4'�' ' tiiat in mosi cases the Planning Com.mission did not take any action on a
� .� � variance, but taok a loolc at the variances when they received the minutes.
�,I� ' He stated that instead of a discussion on the building tonight, what they
were looking for was a motion to send this to the Appeals Commission and then
from the Appeals Commission directly to the City Council without recommendation
'' from the Planning Corr�ission. In other words, he explazned, skipping the
process through the Planning Commission. Mr. Boardrian said the Commission
should look at it to see if there �:as any po2icy tha�L might arise, and then send
it on to the Appeals Commission; their job ��as not to approve the setbacks--
that was still up to the Appeals Commission.
,
'
,
' Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1976
,
'
�
Page ? 2 F
Mr. Paschke said it was all M-2 zoning, and he was just asking the Board of
Appeals to aZlow them to build on 7 1/2' rather rhan 25'. He said this was constant
in the area, and this would fit in with the setback of other buildings in this block
Acting Chairperson Bergman asked Mr. Harris if he 'r;ad any objection to the
zero setback, and i�Ir. Harris replied he didn�t. He said the only concern
he had on the deal was since this was a parking lot and they were going
to zero lot line, there should be some curbing in there.
� Mr. Boardman explained that what the code allowed without a variance was
a developer could go to zero lot line if, and only if� his building would be
abutted by another building. He said that anything other than that would
require a variance to go to zero lot line; so even if agreements were signed
` it would still require a variance. He said that in the past in this area
they had allowed zero lot lines mainly because they had agreements on buildings
' io abut those zero lot lines, but in alI other cases zero lot ].ines were not
granted.
'
�
�
�
�
i�
I�
Mrs. Schnabel said they had only allowed zero lot lines when there had been
a written agreement with the adjacent property o�mer, and in most cases the
adjacent property owner planne� to build up to the zero lot line himself
so the two buildings would connect. i�Ir. Boardman explained the reason they
did that was so instead of having smaller sections of green areas beiween
the buildings, they shoved the buildings tagether and got wider open spaces
in there. He said he had some pxoblem with the zero lot line in this case,
mainly on the South side, because that zero lot line would abut a parking
lot instead of another building. .
Acting Chairperson Bergman�said that requests for variances from 25' down to
7-�t upset him (jusi the magnitude), and variances down to zero upset him.
He said, however� that the request for 25' to 7�' taould just allow the petitioner
to do what others had already been allowed to do, which seemed like a good
qualification. Nfr. Bergman added that going to zero wiihout a total plan�
for the area bothered him personally, and said that he thought they were talking
about details when maybe they should be addressing policy. He stated that he
would be open to administration or other Commission members with regard to
any concerns for policy direction to the Board of Appeals.
� Mr. Boardman said that he felt the proposal Mr. Paschke had previously where
he had zero lot line on the North property line was a much better plan. Mr.
Paschke said he agreed with what pir. Boarctman was sa3ring, but he wasn't the
person who wanted to buy the building. Mr. Boardrian said he thought they had
' to be somewhai conscious of what was hapgening in this area, and if the only
way they could build that buil.ding was to go with zero lot Iine on that side,
he didn't feel it should be developed yet.
�
�
�
�
Mr. Boardman said it would be up to the Appeals Commission as to what they
thought, but what he didn't want to see happening was another request coming
in. He reiterated that the question that should be before the Planning
Commission would be to allow the Appeals Commission to make a motion directly
to the City Council, and the Planning Commission would be able to see what
' Planning Commission ?ieeting - October 20, 1976 Page 8
2G
�
'
LJ
�
�
'
�
�
�
��
�`j
�
�
r
r
,
I�
�
'
took place after it went to City Council.
Acting Chairperson Bergman said that apparently everything that was of concern
here was with the ordi.nance rather than policy, per se. �•ir. Boardman said the
only policy involved �ras -�e general feeling of what had happened in the area.
Mr. Paschke said that he tt they had pretty much gotten this under control,
and all of his buildings �w:� that area were good-looking buildings. He said
that realisti-cally you had io think, do you �rant something in there or not?
He said that could not be built without zero lot lines. -
Mr. Boardman said that his concern was that right now the parking lot for
Sign Crafters was rignt up to the property line. He asked ?•Ir. Paschke if
he would get maintena�ce easements to go on the adjoining property for
maintenance of the building. Mr. Paschke replied that caould only involve
painting once every fifteen or twenty years, and with the modern painting
equipment it �ras almost unnecessary to go on someone else's property. Mrs.
Schnabel pointed out it would be for his own protection so he wouldn't be
irespassing.
Mr. Boardman said that if the varia�ce was granted on that building, some
consideration should be given.to the parking and even the setback of the
building so that if a curb was placed on Sign Crafter's property something
would happen to keep the cars� signs, or storage off the building. Nir.
Paschke suggested put�ing down curb blocks, and Mr. Boardman replied they
were trying to get away from them. Mr. Paschke sa.id if grass was put in
there it would not be maintained, and if it was asphalt it would be used
for storage. rirs. Sc'rinabel suggested sor�e kind of a small berm, but 3�ir.
• Boardman said if this didn't go to zero lot line he would like to see a
poured concrete curb go along the property line.
Acting Chairperson Bergman said that he would like to intervene and suggest
the Commission was talking about other things than the policy suggestion.
He said he didn't think they wanted to substitute for the Board of Appeals
or try to do their job. Mr. Boardman said he thought that 21r. Harris could
participate in a motion if the motion just made a recommendation that the
Appeals Commission review this with direct recornmendation to the City Couneil.
I�ir. Harris said he would vote on that, but as lor�g as there was discussion
on the actual variance he thought there might be a conflict.
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Schnabel, that the Plannin� Commission
recommend that the standard procedure be waived for review by the Planning
Commi.ssion, and allow reco:-�.�nendation to go directly from the Appeals Commission
to tY:e City Council on Air. Paschke's request for vaxiances. Upon a voiee
vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris dec�ared a recess at 8:55 P.r-I. and reconvened the meeting
at 9:20 P.M.
CONTINUED: REVIE�.�I OF PROPOSED riAINTENANCE CODE
Mrs. Schnabel co�nmented that it seemed to her that perhaps this should be
deferred again only from the standpoint that rir. Peterson had not had a
'
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�I
LJI�
��I
�
�
Planning Commission 24eetin� - October 20, 1976
Page 9'
-- 2H
chance to review it, which left only three regular members of the Commission
to review it. 2•Tr. Boardman said the intent of the last delay was to have
time to review it to give some direction to member cor�rnissions.
Chairperson Harris asked where they were on the study to find out how much
this would cost to admi.nistrate. Mr. $oardman replied that at this time
they were going to other comminities that had this type of ordianance in op-
eration and analyzing their costs. He said some of the cities that had such
an oxdinance we:e St. Louis Park, Coan Rapids, Bloomington, Richfield and
New Brighton. He explained they were not all as lengthy, but with this
maintenance code they were also including one for industrial and including
exterior maintenance also. .
Chairperson Haxris said he really felt that this should be handZed i.n two
sections; making it residential and non- residential. 14r. Boardman said
that was the intent. He s aid the main thing the Commission should actually
delve into was the administration of it and the operation of the code because
that was where the major thrust of the matter was going to be--in enforcement.
He commented that they did anticipate a drop in the nuriber of permits wi.th
the completian of deve�.opment in the City, and that would probably free up
some of the time of the Inspectors. .
Mr. Bergman s aid he thought this ki.nd of a code involved addi�ional govern-
mental control, sgeczfical].y te�ling groperty owners what tney have to do
to tneir property �rhich costs them money. He said he had some conflict with
that, and asked "how far do you caxry govner:nent?" Mr. Boardr:an said it may
mean the difference between a house �hat was unlivable, a house that was
moderately livable, and a well-kept home. rir. BergMan asked "livable for who--
the people or the City?" 2Ir. Boardman reglied that building codes were for
the protection of the people, whether they Iiked it or not.
.
Chairperson Harris said i.t has been the policy in the past that government •
concern itsel£ primarily with the health, safety and structural soundness
of the buiZdzngs. He said he noted as he went through the code that it
stated a window was necessary in every room. l��r. Baardrian said that type of
thing would be vsry difficult to enforce, and added there was also a clause
which stated this might not be acceptable in all cases. rfr. Harris said it
would be very difficult to say, for instance, that all ho�ases in Fridley have'
100 amp electrical systems. He stated that he understood that Minneapolis
had done this in same areas and it had caused a lot of prob�ems. i;r. Bergman
stated that he thoughi courts upheld thai kind of ordinance for new construction,
but he was not familiar with that for upgrading property. lir. Boardman
commented that the code had been around for a long time, and he imagined that
there were a lot oi' court cases.
� Chairperson Harris'said he thought it went beyond the legality to the political
pressure from a coruminity on the elected officials, and with a corununity this
size it would be tremendous trith this code. He said he could £oresee a lot
of loca] political pressure, and he thought the elected officials would have
� a tough time adopti;ng this, at least in its present form. He said he hoped
they could strike �'ome type of accord which they could all live with.
1
1
�
L�
�
�
�
�
'
�
�
�
iJ
�
,
�
'
�
��
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 19?6 Page 10
r1r. Boardman said he thought the whole issue that would be involved with this
was the question of if this code would allow the City to go into a resident�s
home at any time arid any place and tell that person to upgrade his property.
He said he didn't think that was what they were going to do, he didn't think
they could do that or wanted to do that. He suggested that perhaps upgrading
shou2d take place at the time of a sale, rrhen it would be more impersonal
and the rights of ane person wouldn�t be invaded as much. Also; he said� if
someone is going to buy the house he should be aware of what was wrong with
ft. He stated tha� a lot of th�s took place with the mortgage companies and
FHA or GI loans.
Mr. Bergman asked if there weren't guidelines already against ��hich these
gauges were made, and if these weren't the building codes. Chairperson Harris
said that the code ten years ago was not the same code as it is today, and
explained that they had adopted the Uniform Building Code as ar.�ended '�y the
State of Minnesota. �ie said the Attorney General ha� an opinion that if a
City had a building code they had to adopt the P•tinnesota State Builciing Code,
but if they didn't have any building code they wouldn't have to adopt that
one. rir. Bergman �a.id he was suggesting that was the code against which the
Inspectors worked,,and asKed if they weren�t to a�reat extent duplicating
or expanding on that in this maintenance code. He said he was bothered
because the common understanding of the term "maintenance" was the proper
care and attention of existing facilities, and in a lot of the proposal they
were addressing modification of those facilities; he said they were talking
aboUt construction and not maintenance.
, Mrs. Schnabel asked who wrote the proposed maintenance code, and tir. Boardman
replied it was put together by one of his interns i�rho put i� togeth�r through
the present codes in existence. t�lrs. Schnabel as�ced who requested l.hat this
be written, and Mr. Boardrnan said it was r.equested with the approval of the
Section 8 Prograr► by the Planning Comrni.ssion and the City Council. He added
it was also talked about in the Housing Plan. Mr. Boardman said that the bugs
had to be ironed out so this could be made a usable item that was enforceable.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission continue
the review of the proposed maintenance code until the next meeting when full
menbership would be present.
Chairperson Harris said he di.dn't think this should replace the zoning code,
and t�s. Boaxdman said it wouldn't. l�ir. Boardman said the problem tney had
right now was if they got a complaint from a tenant in an apartment building
in Fridley, there was nothing they could do about it. He explained there was
nothing that would a11ot� the City to tell that property owner to upgrade
or make those chan�es. rir. Harris said he was not so sure that was their
function. He said that suppose a tenant didn't like the color of his wall,
that might be a disagreement between the tenant and the landlord for one reason
or another, and it seemed the City was getting in between.
Mrs. Schnabel stat�d that she thought they had a responsibility to the person
who owned the build�ing as taell as the tenant. Mr. Boardnan said they did have
a responsibility toi protect the heal.th and safety of the residents of the
City, and asked wh�t could be done if a tenant in Fridley was not getting
2I
Planning Commissionlrieeting - October 20, 1976 � Page 11
� 2J
_.
, proper heat to his �nit. Chairperson Harris s�id all the tenant would have to
do is put his rent in escrow until he got his heat; that would be the quickest
way to solve that. He said he thought they would just be taking on mc�re work
than they were equipped to handle, as they were not going to get more Staff.
, He added he didn't feel it was government's function to act as an arbitrator
� betVreen tenants and, landlords. Nir. Boardman said he didn't think they would
be acting so reuch a� an arbit�ator. He said that the City did enforce building
� codes, and with that enforcernent thef �rere taking on the responsibility of
the protector of the residents--even on new buildings.
'
LJ
�
�
�
!J
�
'
' �
'
'
��
'
�
r
Mrs. Schnabel noted!that there was a lot in the proposed code about garbage
and rubbish control, and the City had a very strong garbage �d rubbish
code already. t-1r. $oardman said that was mainly in the R-1 properties. rlr.
Harris pointed out that was why he would like to handle i:his in two sections.
Mrs. Schnabel said �that even R-1 should be broken down, as mobile homes and
apartment buildings were listed in the R-1 section and she felt they should
be handled separate'1y. Nir. Harris agreed� and said that would make it easier
to study.
rir. Peterson asked t�hat tiie necessity of this was in regard to Section 8.
Mr. Boardman said that it was recorunended that with the Section 8 Program
the City get a hous'ing maintenance code, and the main reason for that vras
that if people accepted units under a Section 8 Program the City sho:zld in
some manner insure proper living conditions for those people. tlr. Peterson
said then it was a recommendation, but not someihing that had to be part of
the policy. 2•ir. Boardman explained it was part of the Comprehensive Housing
Plan that this be an impl.ementation program, but whether this tras adopted or
not Vras strictly based on its o�m merits.
Chairperson Harris read to the Commission part of the Non-Residential
Maintenance Section under Responsibilities of Owners and Occupants - Structural:
230.31 Provision and r2aintenance of Basic Services and Utilities: ].) Plumbing�
Heating and Electr�,cal Service: Every owner shall be responsible for the '
provision and main�enance of plumbing, heating, electrical and ventilating
service to each non-residential facility. He stated that the problem with
that was it was absolutely contrary to the terms of the leases. He explained
that when a property owner had a renter there was usually a lease agreement,
and there Vrere many points in the proposed code which ran contrary to the .
provisions of the leases. Mr. Boardman said that what they were sayi.ng there
was those services must be provided by the property ot,mer; in other words,
he had to provide sewer.to the property, electrical, etc.� and if that was
not provided to that property then that property should not be occupied.
rlr. Harris pointed'out in also said maintenance of those services. He said
that if a tenant dumped something down a drain which plu�ged up the sewer,
under this code the landlord would have to clean the sewer out. He explained
that his lease said it was the tenants responsibility to maintain the plumbing.
Mr. Boardman said �hen he had transferred the responsibility to the tenant.
r;r. Boardman expla!ined that as far as the City was concerned, if anything went
wrong with that pr;�operty it was the owner's responsibiZity, nat the renter.
Chairperson Harris said he thought that all of a sudden they would be caught
between the Iease land the code, and they would have a three-ring circus. 2s.
,
�
Planning Commissio� Meeting - October 20, 1976 ' Page 12
I 2K
Boardrian said that',was the way it was now, and explained the City could not
' enforce a lease bu�t had to go to the property owner. He added that the code
did not say that it would take the place of a11 lease agreements.
�
'
�
�
�
,
'
� '
C�
�
�!
'
'
�
�
'
'
Mr. Bergman commented that he thought ?1r. Boardman had a clean way of handling
it.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission amend
the agenda to include as item 9 the receipt of the Community Development
M�nutes of October 12� 1976. Upon a voice vote� all voting �ye� the motion
carried unanimously. �
� CONTINUID: DISCUSSIOI�1 ON GARAGE REC�UIRFTIENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOi�S
Mrs. Schnabel asked what kind of time element they were dealing with on this,
and Mr, B�ardraan replied there wa:� none. Mr. Bergman said that he thought
there were soMe strong feelings within the Commissions on this, and he thought
it might be wise to continue this item.
Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to mention that on September 28 the Appeals
�ommission did rec�ive the Community Development Comrnission minutes and held
a rather lengthy discussion on garage requirements which was includEd in the
October 6th Planning Commission minutes on pages 116 through 120. She said
that they received the Community Development minutes, and the nppeals
Commission's hasic consideration was they still really did approve having
garages required. She suggested that if any members of the Planning Commission
had not reviewed those minutes that they do so, because the Board of Appeals
did have quite a long discussion and delved into many areas of it, particularly
with !�0' lots.
Mr. Bergman asked if the Appeals Commission had then concluded their review
of this item, and rirs. Schnabel replied that they had not been asked to make
a specific recommendation to the Planning Commission so they simply reviewed
what Community Development had stated and held a discussion. rirs. Schnabel
said that the meat of what they discussed was on page 119, when rlr. Holden
asked the Commission what their reaction would be if a motion was r�ade identical
to the one in the Community Development Commission minutes oi' August 10, 1976
stating that one enclosed garage space be provided per dwelling for those five
reasons listed. Sh� said ihat including P•ir. Holden voting, because this had
been informal, it h�d come out 3- 2 in favor of the motion. She explained
they felt there wasia misprint regarding Mr. Kemper's vote. Mrs. Schnabel
added that they had',not had Staff�s report at that time, and tir. Bergman said
the Community Develppment Commission had not had the report from Staff either.
Chairperson Harris �sked if they wishsd to reconsider their positions considering
the Staff report th�t was no�� available, and 21r. Bergman said he didn � t feel
inclined to.
Mr. Bergman comment�d that they were talking here about whether or not they
Planning Commission',P4eeting - October 20, 19?6 page 13
2
should require as a minimum a single unit garage for a single family dwelling
out of consideratioM for safety, welfare of adjacent property owners� to
enclose automobiles and other things that could be of a nuisance or actual
safety hazard to adjacent property owners and so forth. He said he was
wonderir�g whether that ought to be required or if that was being too overbearing
on someone about to build a house. rlr. Bergman stated they �•rere considering
something of a similar general nature which was the housing maintenance code
which would require more things that would also cost money, and he was just
considering what the relative merits of those two things were. .
Mrs. Schnabel said �hat along with that, one of the thoughts she had on this
was that perhaps somehow or another the percentage of lot coverage allowed
should include space for the possibility of a garage to be constructed at a
later date. She said that this tied in with the size of a house that could
be built on a substandard lot, and this might be a way to get around that.
She noted that the statement had been made that if people were not required
to build a garage at the time their house was constructed, they did tend to
put a garage in at a later date. Nlrs. Schnabel said it was interesting
because the Appeals Commission heard a request at the last meeting for a garage
to be built on a lot that previously had no garage, and the people had lived
there for six years. She commented that she thought six years was a rather
long time in a way. Mr. Boardman said that he thought 1;he decision ti�as
probably an economic decision, and in mosi cases he thought it was an economic
decision. bccept for the fact, Pirs. Schnabel said, that they had a driveway
in all the time and a single car garage cost probably about �1,000 to �1,200.
1�4r. Boardman said th;�t was constructing a garage after the house was built.
He said if a garage was built with a house, it was about l0ja of the cost
of the total structure. He said that figure came from the I�Setro Council
Subcommittee on Housing Industry Practices. r1r. Bergman commented that he
couldn't believe a person would save money by going in at a later date and
adding a garage. Mr. Boaxdman pointed out it was possible for a home owner '
to build a garage hi�nself or with a little help. Mr. Bergman asked ii the
present code couldn�t allow for that. He said, for example, if a man came
in with complete building plans which included a garage, to his Irnowledge
that set of building plans didn't necessarily attest to the fact that the
contractor was going to do it rather than the man himself. He added he
really couldn't see the tremendous impact of taking that $1,200 or $1,500
for a single unit garage and adding it to the mortgage and paying for it
over 25 years. ' .
Mr. Bergman asked what percentage of R-1 lots had not been built upon, and
Mr. Boardman answered probably about 100. Mr. Bergman said that then they�
were talking about tine advisability of revising the code requirement for the
last 10�. Mr. Boardman said that possibly the last lOJ may not need a garage.
Chairperson Harris s�id he felt they ought to tighten up on the res�dential
areas. He said that'�,in some ways they were pretty tight� but in o�.,zr way
pretty lax. ,
Mrs. Schnabel said t�at the majority of the Appeals Commission did concur
with Community Develqpment that there still should be a garage requirement.
Chairperson Harris s�.id however, that didn�t address the !�0' lots. i�irs.
Planning Commiss
�
t4eeting - October 20, 1976
Page 1!�
Schnabel said one''of their thoughts was that this may be a way that reduces
' the number of buildings that axe put on !�0' lots. Nlr. Bergman said that
Community Develop;nent had a view of that also, and their view as that it was
entirely misstated. He said a lot should not require a gaxage; a house
' should. He said a garage should be disassociated from a lot, and a dwelling
unit should require a garage.
� Mrs. Schnabel read'from tne Appeals Commission minutes of September 28, 1976,
which stated: Mr. Kemper said that maybe by requiring that each home have
at least a single-car garage, it would automatically prohibit building on
� �0' lots, and that,might be the appropriate criteria they should be using.
She said that would be tying a garage to a house, regardless of lot size.
'
'
'
�
Mr. Boardman referred to the Staff Report, and said they were wondering if
they were providing adequate facilities for th��se people in the low and
moderate income range. He was wondering if the people who were purchasing
a house should hav�: the option of buying it with their house, buiZding it at
a later date, or perhaps not having one at all. rirs. Schnabel suggested that
perhaps the size o� the house should be restricted on a substandard lot so
that if a garage is not required at the time af construction, it could be
built at a later date. She said that at the present time there were houses
on 1�0' lots in Fridley, but they were built a long time ago. She stated that
some of those did have garages, and the problem was it was very difi"icult to
squeeze both a house and a garage on a substandard lot. Mrs. Schnabel said
that regarding substandard lots, she thought that the one person they had to
get to at that point was the contractor. She felt that the eontractor wanted
to build as large a home as possible so he could make more money. She said
with smaller homes!on these lots the lower-income people could afford to buy.
2 �i
Mrs. Schnabel s aid'she would like to bring up ane other point. She pointed
' out that Fridley was probably 90% developed in their residential area, but
there were adjaceni communities such as Coon Rapids and B1 aine that had a
lot of open space to be developed. She said that maybe they� as a community,
' had to be slightly,selfish because they were so fax along in their develop:nent
process and still demand that a garage be built witn a home, She stated that
if a person didn�t want to build a garage with a home, then maybe he could
' go out to Blaine or Coor_ Rapids where that requirement didn't exisi. P�r. Bergman
pointed out there were other options also, such as renting or moving into a
townhouse, so the City wouldn't be closing them out entirely.
�
�
LJ
'
'
'
Mr. Boardman said that Fridley iaas an area that was getting more low and moderate
income people, and by forcing them to other areas the City would be creating
hardships on them a5 far as transportation since there were jobs available for
them in Fridley. He asked if they wouldn�t be denying that person the capability
that could be available to him if garages were no longer required to purchase
a home in the city and work in the city. Mrs. Schnabel pointed out she was
not talking about e�Cisting homes, but about new construction, and that maybe
the contractors sho�Zld be forced to build sm.aller homes. She said she was
not trying to be te�ribly hard-nosed about this, but maybe it was the only way
to force some of th� low-income homes to be built.
Chairperson Fiarris �.sked what the minimum square footage of a living area could
be� and I�ir. Boardma�h replied that the requirement was 1,020 for a 9,000 square ,
'
'
'
'
�
'
f _J
'
'
' '
�
ry '
�l
�
'
�
'
'
ll
Planning CommissionlMeeting - October 20, 1976 Page 15 2 ��
foot�lot,and the mi�imum on lots less than 9,000' was 768'. Chairman Harris
said he thought he wouldn't have any objection to a smaller house. t4r.
Bergman suggested a'variance could be requested in that case, and on a sub-
standard lot where that occurred there wouldn't be any real problem.
Mr. Bergman said he regretted the full Commi.ssion wasn't represented, but he
did feel somewhat aCtion-oriented on this and would like to make a motion.
MOTION by Bergman, �econded for discussion by Schnabel, that the Planning
Commission recommen� to Council that in consideration of the objective to
upgrade or at least,maintain the quality of the single family residential
areas in the_City of Fridley, the City Ordinance be modified to require as
a minimum one enclo�ed garage space per single family dwelling unit for the
following reasons: '
l. Reduce outside automobile parking.
2. Provide for'enclosed storage of equigment and materials other
than automobiles to enhance neighborhood appearance.
3. Reduce safety hazards which may result from outside storage of
equipment axpd material. .
It. Promote the,preservation and upgrading of the neighborhood and
maintain a quality of living environment consistent with the
housing plart.
5. Provide #'or the security of stored goods in the neighborhood.
Mrs. Schnabel asked',if the Planning Commission wasn't awaiting reports from
other subcommissions and if it wasn't the intent of this Commission to gather
all the pertinent information together before passing this on to Council.
rlr. Boardman said this had been sent to Community Development and Human
Resources. Mr. $ergman located the discussion on garages by the Human
Resources Commission at their September 2nd meeting in the minutes of the
September 22nd Planning Commission meeting. He read the discussion to the
Planning Commission, which concluded �aith a motion that the Human Resources
Corunission recommended to the Planning Commission that they did not condone
the principle of a garage requirement as a stipulation for builaing; however,
if the property owner decided to put up a garage, standards should be set
for the structure. The r►otion had passed unanimously. Chairperson Harris
noted that then they had all the necessary input. Mrs. Schnabel summarized
the situation b� po�.nting out they had one Cammission that said a single unit
garage should be required with every single family dwelling, one Commzsion
that said it should not be required� and a third Commission that gives no
direct action.
Mr.'Boardman said that.another thing they had to Iook at was tirhat they passed
on as far as the goals and objectives for housing. Chairperson Harris said
he just didn�t see N�ow adding a garage to a house could make or break the
deal, and added that� he didn't agree with Metro Council.
rlr. Bergman said th�t he thought this business of adding on a garage being
a problem for low arid moderate income people �ras being way over done. He
stated they had lot� of opportunity in Fridley; they could buy a used house�
� Planning Commission,l��ieeting - October 20� 1976
1.
'
�
'
i
�
l_.J
'
�
1
Page 16
they could rent, th�y could move into a townhouse. He said that therefore
they would not be prohibiting low and.moderate income people from moving
into the City of Fridley by requiring a garage on new construction. rir.
Boardman pointed out that they would possibly be limiting their capability
of diversity of purChasing. Mr. Bergman said that every code the City had
was restrictive; th�y were restrictive when they required minimur►floor space
and in all kinds of ways, and he thought they were overburdening this particular
one. Mr. Boardman said that the Housing Goal stated the necessity of providing
a diversity of suitable housing and living environment for a11 persons� and
it suggested this b�; accomplished by encouraging programs to provide housing
at costs a family cquld afford without compromising essential needs. He
explained they wereltrying to support programs that would reduce the cost
of housing. He said it may not reduce it $S,OOO in order to make it an
acceptable unit for',somebody to buy, but it may reduce it enough for some
person who could not afford it right now to be able to buy it.
Mrs. Schnabel said $he felt that in their minds they were dealing basically
with low and modera�e income housing, and they had quite a few lots that
�rere being built on'right no��r that were in no way being built for low-income
families� but probal�ly middle income and up. She stated that if an ordinance
was passed that stated a garage wasn't required� it might open a new Pandora's
Box for those areas'which had already been developed and were nice home areas.
She stated she was specifically thinking of ihe Innsbruck North area and the
O�Bannon area, and thought they might be doing a disservice to the residents
who already lived in those areas if a garage �rasn't required. rirs. Schnabel
noted that Mr. Boardman had talked about the City having an obligation to
encourage low and moderate income housing, and thought maybe that obligation
was to encourage the contractor to put that type oi development in on sub-
standard lots. She said she thought there could be two ways to interpret
that type of statement.
. Mr. Boardman said that he thought the point that was brought out tnat they
� should require the �pace to be available for a garage on a lot, but not
necessarily require a garage to be there, would restrict a smaller-size lot
to be built with a smaller-size house. He said he thought that k*as a very
, valid point. He said that if a garage wasn't required by code, he would
� still imagine that gaxages would be built in areas such as Innsbruck North.
Mr. Boardman stated that he thought zahere they had to consider this type of
' thing was with the �ubstandard lots and in axeas such as Riverview Heights
where there was some nice housing and some housing that wasn't qnite so
nice.
�
'
'
�
,
Chairperson Harris stated that if there was going to be a garage, there
should be some standards set up for that garage such as a certain size.
hir. Boardman said tN�e only place that garage size was addressed t�as under
an accessory buildirhg for the ariount of lot coverage. He explained th at
the coverage of botN� the main building and the accessory building could not
be more than a cert�in percentage. l�ir. Bergman commented that he thought
sometrhere in the coc�e it specified the minimum requirements for a single-
stall garage. rir. �oardman said it did give a minimum of 252 square Feet,
2�
'
1
'
�
,
'
�
�
i
LJ
' �
'
�
��,
,
'
�
'
�
'
��
�
��
i
Planning Commissio� Meeting - October 20, 1976
� Page 17
ZPI
but it didn't give a maximum. Chairperson Harris stated they should have a
maximum size, as occasionally it got ridiculous Frhen the size of the accessory
building exceeded the size of the house. Mr. Bergman said he agreed with tir.
Narris� but pointed out when these varianc� came in they boih usual�y voted
in favor of theM for various reasons of hardship stated by the requestor. He
said they ended up getting trapped because they didn't want the cZutter, and
approved the request. �
Mr. Boardman said that he thought a lot of it boiled down to enforcement
of the clutter. He said he heard time and time again that garages should
be required in residential areas because there was outside material to store
and it had to be put someplace. He said that if there were appropriate codes
and.appropriate enforcemeni of those codes, he didn't see where it was necessary
to have a garage required. He suggested the possibility of a storage shed.
Mr. Bergman said h� didn't see how that would help the preservation and up-
grading of residential neighborhoods.
Chairperson Harris said they were really on the horns of a dile:nma;.on one
hand ttiey were trying to provide low and moderate housing, and he thought
that sometimes they got that mi.xed up with substandard housing. rir. Boardm2n
said that he didn'� believe that by not providing garages there t,rould be
substandard housing. N�.r. Bergman said he thought it bordered on it. Mr.
Boardman asked why a garage was necessarily the_borderline between standard
�iousing and substandard housing. He said a house could be just as well
maintained without a garage, and he doubted very much if it would even affect
the cost of the ne�ghbor's house.
tir. Bergman said he thought they had a conflict bett�reen housing goals and
residentiai integrity. He said that some of this conversation bordered on
discrimination, and from the comments made zt seemed thai anybody who had
enough money to be able to afford a standard size lot would b� required by
the City to spend more money to put a garage on it. However, he said, peopl"e
of low or moderate income aidn't have to spend money to pu-t in a garage.
Mr. Boardman stated they were not saying that. He said they were saying it
should not be the City that was telling that person if he had to have a garage;
it should be the person who made that decision.
Chairperson Harris said he thought the word garage was really a misnomer,
and an accessory storage area would be a better choice of words. Mr. Boardman
asked Frhy they should require a person to build a garage for a storage area
to keep clutter off his yard, when he could do the same thing (maintain his
house well, keep the grass green and keep the clutter off his yard) by having
an accessory storage building. i�ir. Harris said that maybe that was what they
should be saying--a storage building of a certain size. 1ir. Boardman suggested
that even better y�t, a11ow absolutely no outside clutter and have that
strictly enforced. P�Ir. Harris said that wasn't enforceable, and that was
the problem. Air. $oardman said that he thought it boiled down to more than
the affordability di the �arage; it boiled down to the question of a garage
being a necessity to maintain a quality of living in a neighborhood. Mr.
Narris said that he�, personally, believed it was--or at least a storage area.
Chairperson Harris'said that if he didn't have a storage area, which also
happened to be his!garage, there would be several items that would have to
��
Planning Commission �eeting - October 20, 1976
Page 18
20
I� stored within the d�,elling which he ��ould be very nervous about, such as items
with gasoline tanks;bn them. t2rs. Schnabel said `�at this went back to promoting
� the health, safety and Frelfare of the residents of Fridley. Mr. Bergman
read to the Commission the five reasons Community Development thought a
� garage was necessary� and Mr. Boardrnan pointed out that most of.those were
for storage purposesi.
Chairperson Harris reiterated that perhaps the word garage was a�misnomer�
and it should be a storage area. Mr. Bergman s aid he cou3dn't see that having
those little tin sheds would be enhancing the neighborhood characteristics.
Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that if they said storage area, they would have
to have some type of ordinance that dealt with the size, quality�and mainten-
ance of that storage area itself so it wouldn't just be somebody's fish house
that they set on the back of their property. Mr. Bergman said he thought
it would be inconsistent if they would not maintain the position which they
had for the 90% of the single farnily homes that had been built with a require-
ment for a garage. !t�irs. Schnabel said it would change the current code
if they tied in a garage with a living structure, because currently a garage
was not required on a substandard lot.
Mr. Boardman said he thought they should think very carefully about what
they were �rying to do. He said that in the Housing Plan they were trying
to discourage putting an unnecessary burden on a resident through various
requirements which may or may not be necessary to preserve residential
environment. He asked if they wouldn't be putting unnecessary equipment
in�tt.e Zoning Code which would provide something that may be done anyway,
or if those options'should be left up to the people. Mr. Bergman said that
if he was asked if he thought a garage was an absolu-te necessity or require-
ment� he might havelto vacillate on that; but if he was asked if he thought
it was highly desirable, he thought it w�s. He added that from a City view,
they didn't have to feel it was required in or.der to act positively to put
it in the ordinance.: He said the fact that it �ras highly desirable should
be adequate consideration. Chairperson Haxris pointed out there was always
the variance procedure.
Chairperson Harris said that if he had to choose between savings on the
house and the health, s�fety and welfare of the neighbors and the occupants
of the house, he would have to go with the health, safeiy and welfare and
felt that a storage',area was a necessity. r1r. Bergman said that maybe a
separate storage axea would be an amenable alternative, but then they would
have to get �nto code stipulations on what kind, the size� the kind cf
st:ucture, and secu�ity, and really define what they were talking about. He
added that a separate storage area to somebody might be just a lean-to wri.th
no front on it, which would be defeating the purpose.
Mr. Boardman said Y►� was not arguing for or against this, but was just
questioning some of��lthe reasons why they wanted certain thzngs. He s aid
he was also looking,at the goals and desires of what they wanted to achieve
in the community. i�irs. Schnabel said she thought rrhat they were hoping to
achieve was the hea�.th, safety and t•relfare of all the citizens of Fridley;
whether they were c�rrent residents or new construction residents. rlr. Peterson
added that at the s�me tirte they were tryin� to upgrade and maintain the
community. ',
� Planning Commissio� Meeting - October 20, 197b Page 19 2 R
, UPON A VOICE VOTE,'a11 voting.aye, the motion passed unanimously.
, � Chairperson Harris said
certainly like to have
� person on maximum sizes
that as long as they were on this subject, he would
a recommendation from the Community Development Chair-
of accessory buildings.
Mr. Bergman said that he felt it was pertinent for him to point out that
as Chairperson of Community Development, they had discussed this very thing
�.n their Commission neeting and they had not come up with a concensus of
opinion on limitin� the size of an accessory building. He said he would be
willing to readdress that question with Community Development if this
Commission so �ri.shed. He said that he, personally, had mixed emotions: on
one hand he saw no reason why someone in an R-1 neighborhood should request
an accessory build�ng larger than his house, on the other hand they did
have allowance for home occupation. Mr. Harris said that home occupation
could not be in the accessory building, but only within the d:relling. rir.
Bergman said th.,�r did have a lot coverage regulation irhich did tend to control
the size to sor�e extent. He added t:nat he did not like over-governing, so
he had�conflicts regarding this.
Chairperson Harris�asked if rlr. Bergrian would take this item back to Cor�muniiy
Deve�opment for their thoughts, and Mr. Bergman said he yrouZd.
CONTINUID: HUi,'fAN DEViLOPt`�NT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
1�IOTIOIv' by Schnabel, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Comriission
continue the Hurian Development Goals and Objectives since a representative
from Hurian Resources was not present.
Mr. Boardman said that this had been sent to Human Resources for their review�
and this was tne main reason it had been delayed the last few times. He said
they had had a chance for input from the Commissxons initially, and now the
Planning Commission, is establishing all the goals and objectives. He stated
that when those goa,ls and objectives were developed, then they could send
them to the subcommissions for their additional inpui at that time instead
of having to wait for member co�r►missions to act on separate issues.. He added .
that this would elilninate this delaying process. Chairperson Harris said it
was sa noted.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
CONTIi'?JED: ART!�CLES OF INCORPORATION OF FttIDLEY YOUTH CEiITER
�
Chairperson Harris l�aid that there was a timing problem on this. He explained
that the committee �that was to organize this was set up by a charter fror+z
City Council, and t�at charter was for ttiirty days. He said that the comr+iittee
that had worked on jthis had acted very diligently and held many meetings and
worked very hard to'put this to put this together, but their charter had run
out and he was not Sure that without an extension from City Council they would
be able to meet aga�n.
Planning Commission �Ieeting - October 20, 1976
Page 20
2$
l�ir. Boardman said he',would even question the Planning Commission's role in
reviewing articles ai�d the charter and things like that. He said he felt
this would be more in the realm of the City Council.
Mr. Peterson said this had been reviewed by the I:nvironmental Commission at
ttteir last raeeting, and they had agreed with the Human Resources Cor�mission
that the Articles of' Incorporation of the Fridley Youth Center be returned
to the temporary Tesk Foree of the Fridley Youth Center for further refinement,
alignment, and simplification, and that guidance be sought from the City
Attorney to accomplish these things.
Chairperson Harris said ihat speaking as a member of the task force, he
thought what they we�e looking for was any input, information or suggestions
from the Planning Cotnmission or meMber Commissions. He said it was their
intent that it be seni to the City Council with any additional recomriendations�
but it would actually go to the City Council. P4r. Boardman said he thought
it was sent down for an informational purpose, and shouldn't necessarily have
to be acted on by member Corimissions.
Mr. Peterson asked ii when the axticles of incorporation were set up by the
task force there was any legal counsel involved or if this was patterned
after previous axticles of incarporation from other organizations. r•1r:
Harris said that was;correct, as they felt they had to have a starting point.
He said they wanted to move forward and get it to Council, sa Council could
th�n �ive it to the legal staff to refine. He stated that they had felt
they didn't have the authority to give it to the City legal staff and ask them
to work on it without City Council direction.
Mr"s. Schnabel read to the Comrcission the motion made at the last Planning
Commission meeting which sent the Articles of Incorporation of the Fridley
Youth Center to all member Cor,vnissions for their review and comment. Mr.
Peterson asked if it wouldn't then be appropriate to wait until all Commissions
eubmitted their recommendations, and A'!r. Boardman replied he thought this t�as
something that the Planning Commission would have to decide not�--whether they
were going to take ariy formal motions on the incorporation or if it would be
strictly a review thing and those reviews should just be passed on. rir� Harris
said the task force felt they were sending it back here for review. He said
he would like some action on this, as without any action it would just stale-
mate again, drag on some more, and pretty soon there would be no place for
the youths to meet at a11.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission
recognize the review and concerns of the Human Resources Commission and pass
on to the City Council without comment the Human Resources Commission motion:
"That the Articles of Incorporation of Fridley Youth Center be returned to the
tenporary Task Force,' of the Frzdley Youth Center for further refinement,
alignment, and simpljification, and that guidance be sought from the City
Attorney to accomplilsh the above". Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the
motion carried unani�r►ously.
�
�
�
Planning Commissionlrieeting - October 20, 1976 Page 21
2T
_._RECEIVE HUt�'IAI�1 RESOURCES COt��2ISSI0N r4INUTES: OCTOBER 7, 1976
1�IOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Plannzng Commission receive
� the Human Resources Commission minutes of October 7, 1976. Upon a voice vote�
. a21 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
�
�
�
�
�
�
� ftECEIVE COrIh:UNITY DEVELOPi�1ENT C0;�4ISSION NIINUTES t OCTOBER 12, 1976
MOTTON by Bergman� seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive
the Community Develbpment Commission minutes of October 12� 1976.
Mr..Bergman said that he would 7.ike to point out the trend of the discussion
on the East River Road Pz•oject Commitiee report was to retain the four-7.ane
system. He said they had yet to subject that to the metropolitan plan, which
they would have at 'their next meeting, and atso a review of the original
goals and objectives from a transportation view.
Chairperson Harris asked when he thought they would have a recommendation
on the signs, and r:r. Bergman replied that was probably two to three meetings
off� so it would probably be December.
Mr. Boardman said that I�lr. Bergman had requested that the CDC minutes be
teceived at the Planning Comriission at the first meeting after the Community
Development meeting. He said that in orc3er for them io get these minutes
done� they would nat be abZe to include them in the agendas, but they would
be handouts at the time of the meeting. He stated that if that was acceptabZe
to the Commission they would attempt to do it that �ray. Mrs. Schnabel said
the only problem was that they had to sit at the mesting and read ihe minutes.
I�ir. Bergman agreed that was a problem, but said it was a question of which
was worse. He said that as the person somewhat responsible to this group for
what was in the �DC minutes, if he had to wait another two weeks it wasn't ,
as fresh in his mind ar,y more. He stated that at times it even got confusing
because the Planning Commi.ssion might discuss subject matter that ►ras covered
in Community Develapment a previous week, but the CDC minutes were not available
and he had to rely on memory. He said he thought the information got stale
three weeks after the meeting.
Mr. Peterson said that he would like to comrient on something along this line.
� He stated the agenda and minutes for the Ehvironmental meeting held �ast
night had been rec�:ived on rlonday. He stated the time factor was a great
problem, because one day was x�ot enough time to revie�,r all that material.
� Mr. Peterson said there were a number of people concerned about this on the
Fridley E�lzvironmental Quality Com,�ission. He added that they would like to
see the agenda and;minu'�s at least by the weekend prior to the meetin�. Mr.
Boardman comrnented'that they tried to send them out by Friday so the Commissioners
� would receive thert' on Saturciay, bui he would look into ii. ,
UPON A VOICE VOTE�,'all voting aye� the motion carried unanzmously.
�J
rlr. Boardman said �hat he had a couple of additional items he would like to
discuss. He said that the first thing concerned the Planning Commission
L,
�
L� Planning Commissionll•ieeting - October 20� 1976 Page 22 2 U
�
�agendas. He explairied that right now when they set up agendas they had Staff
� input on the agendas and then Dorothy had to ca11 the Chairmen of the Commissions
to see if they had anything to add. r1r. Boardman stated what they would like
� to have done was, instead of Dorothy calling the Chairmen, having a set date
� for the Chairman to call in to Dorothy to add anything he desired. He explained
that there were many times Dorothy had to call all day long because she
.� couldn't get hold bf somebody� so if the Chairman could call in on the last .
Thursday of the week before the meeting, it would be more efficient for them.
Mr. Bergman suggest�d that Dorothy could ca11 just once. He said that usuall.y
she got `�old of hiri the first time she called. He explained that it wasn't
just to call on items on the agenda, but to also have some discussion. t�tr.
Bergman said he tho�ght it did the Chairman some good because frequently
Staff added items to the agenda which the Chairman didn't lmow about� so it
was a two-way purpose. He added that with one call, the Chairman ought to
recognize that within his ot,m committee meeting he had the prerogative of
adding items to the agenda if he �rished.
Mr. Boardman said that in some cases it did require inforr�ation that Staff
had that would be helpful to the Co��'ssion if it was included in the agenda.
He said it also gave Staff a chance to prepare for the meeting� because in
some cases it did require a response from Staff. NIr. Boardman said he felt
that if the Chairrie.n of the Commissions could take it upon themselves to
call with any items they wanted added to the agenda, i-t would be a more
productive way of handling this. He added that if they had not received a
call from the Chairman they would assume there were no additions that would
go into the agenda. - .
. Mrs. Schnabel suggested that Mr. Boardman put out a memo to this effect to
� each of the Commission Chairr�en involved and inforrn them by what date they
should call.
��
II �
Mr. Boardrian said the other item he wished to discuss Vras the Chairmen of
the Commissions informing their Vice Chairman to attend the Planning Commission
meetings if they, themselves, t,�ould not be there. He explaa.ned that they
had almost not had a quorum for this meeting. He sai.d that the process had
been set up that the Vice Chairman was to attend in the place of the Chairman,
and in many cases he didn't even knoc�r if the Chairman was asking the Vice
Chairman. He asked all the Chairmen to please contact their Vice Chairmen
instead of Staff trying to call to see if they could or could not make it.
ADJOURNI•1ENT '
I�10TION by Bergman, �Seconded by Schnabel, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Planning
Commission meeting qf October 20, 1976 adjourned at 12:05 A.M. by unanimous
vote. �
Respectfully submitf�ed,
Sher�i 0'Donnell ..�
Recordin� Secretary,
�
� � �. . ��I . ���� 1. %'� �� �� �, � •r � i s f ���
.j' ., ir � _
� —
� ; � i —" ROTTLUND OAKS P.S. #76-07 � �
� , . .. ' � ., ..._
- � �
-. � . , �' �
� +
� :::, � .
a �lso �'�`�w ' � -
�_ ..
.,
r .r u�...... ` . . - . .
F�� ��s�� �`1`y . . . .
' gic�..r \.., , _p�.�s•• ......�tG.ct�.�r :. ».. .
se oa �'_• - �� 0l.4�- j-----------._' :=�=�'
30 /o - . .��ai , i 3j 4r. �.o �•
Og � � , " � ^ �` 3� � � �
� 9 l J � �3 �„ � y� � � . .�«
So : 8 =i •�•}� ` "r,s�sa ; tiJ /54 � 3'3� l�} l? 1 � S 6 i 8 9/a n/,Z /3 s/f �iR �Sj! i/
,� a y � _ ��z �r ,► :'� � ; � 32 !
� r ,
f, / 2,
I 3• � (o � � 1 4 `�e' r,m � � o ' � �.q �r � .ti � � i � Z��'
.rs�- � �'� ��..� �� �� �7 � � � V i (/ �" � �i � !
� � � 4 �9 a.os es. ., � � � � � . � ' .,j � 3i
� „ I �, '� . o !� � y? ,• �4 �� r P. 'r"'�s :� ��� i 3r .. ..... ° " . ,.. ..
� " m � ?.�, ! ��i.. q � �� v
Q p � ;.�,' R' -�s a. '° �,y�+„ � �s �
e�, ' �'Y� j O a. ��,� �" "".rt r+ �{,.�h : .. - t i =� 96�Ix
"�?/ J9�/o i7 6I iJ /4' !3 T��!�� � pp � �w � � ��'�'y, ,� ;'^�'f.�F� /��� ��.�b ��"-V� 3, � � �a .� � � � 'L 2 "2 , $ +�� 21$ 'fJ� � �
i � �Y YfYy .\, � ^t * `,�j�tY ��'� 9 a•7e••�A M`� � �
/ I +ti. �l.y "'�'� xr � . �s $ � g 7 �` ,�s :� 4�3 ,a21�t . • �+ 9 3b �e " ;33 �3/ � � �'n E
� � .: � �.��:� '���'' �Nu �' � `�, � I _ �
o "_.<�_o � Y ', /� `� '1 �1 ♦ � .. � � � t�
�: �w .� y� w:" 3 I s�+w
�.� ,2.. Q �c; .�, �'� T 5 � �� ,..:�. :..d:: �• -
',� I � s' 18 ��`� � n'� 'p�`"�``�y J� ss � 3' r '� y 1
�.
I� sir' g gi�. ii �• z`' � �e :�� s,- ��. `�s��7 a- =p10 ! 2.� � s 4' g �'��yr} ii /2/3 i� E�y1i P�/9 a_/'72 a
i i z SI � �, �f �rw �w T wi � iir { �" 1 1,.
� � I I ZS /7f \ ,`�.�I. R.r� � J `�,:*� a �2•4g � �' 2 �� � �` � Y 2 , Z' i Z�s 2J.d
1 ! I.ee 11 `(' °3 °� � +�::3� � 1, � c�, .y f 3a •� .
� � :. : .. � \ `��- . sa�-•a�rr i;l �.
. ��B�R I i � • � . � ,,r'� ,r9�'; � , y
iT.MF D ...���. � � �. / •
� .. .. 'jp y�v��-� . !�Y `� � H,.._ ��� ��p p� .. . .. . • ' .
�' , � ... ?�- 3v ` - °: ;, �� Z h .. ,.� 7 Z� . i �, .. .. . .. -- �� , L�
� „ % ,�yg �3 � r/ ?J S � 6� �f3 ,St}1 .9 33` o �7 .� ;3_? 3t '
�ti �.:f 4l ��l3I �i1 / 3t ��Y �S 3.1 �-' � 3 � j' � I � �
1 ` �� � � � � � � ,
, � . o '��--..�,r
i _i i 30 � _ :.�,�,-: 9.� ;11 _�=
� � , ;�\, �� 6%�'n�f ,,,�' �c � `�}'�'� "�
l % � � 1 � -; : 7 4 , � .�^ 4
1 ° -,- a !/ /1 �3 /8 6 7' � 9 � .! "2� � 27179 .
a i� • a �2 »,�s ,e� a a 8 i�,z�.rr �:. `¢ A� �� �� �
�c s � s � I •�- � `
� f � r �
y'� ,�.? � �,(, �/ 7�,.c',3� a'�s - \� r�� ( �a% �i � lsj �%� a
�7 � � y�'uy �kF � % � 9 G!7 � 2z . 't. ° �, '�o ° .�. ' ` '
, i a. -;�: �
� i;�►�317�7��.i.L4 z3 �� . . . .. . �� :�r . . . � .
. ; . s. ` 30 1 ..Z . ..' . . . �30 •��5;. ' �� a � f! � ^ 30 �o,� � :
� �/ y.. I �L! �'r✓ �S� V ,z i .-: ` � ` � � � � �
AK �
--e� �t.� Y ! i �.1 ��� • � .�G.O � ,.-Z3 ., \ � .., oo , � s • 3 2 /�O ��3' _9�E��'•d 3
- }�3 / 0/9 6•'�S�/6(3 �" 3: .i6 • ,h3d 1 / 4tA27`,Z6 , � ` �� �
�1I tf�� �.� l; � `� � l I' � .�{� f I � �,,..1+.?► \'��'.r.�4 � ? ' � Z� { , fi � �3
�_ 1.. �Js ..� 7e .A� � •; i i �Js � /. i � �/Ol.T^� f is �=
' . !� '�I�,.,�`� p � I. �'� ^��3��:`^-eZO • ,'•' �i��.a - )al .� ..
� �� � r� � � 3 7 � �9 ' 3�� dl; _ � ;.� -� a = � ,�. � � �—
�o � i 1�� � �f_ � N�9 � I 3 . t� �, _ � :���,11, j _ i �z i.��i� -sl.s ��►��9
- .� �c�� a 9 iali: 2V3�#� �/'2 �5�6 ��g sl�o�ii 1i/.� �J�I. So r
�� �� � � � �, o.. ,� 2 2�}
� � � � s � �. � � •• =✓�==- � '' ` _i�! � / + , � J
'� ,�-�. r �� a- * — = i !,^:�" �'- —?. � � a ;,`'- �
� � . i -'- . T- s+ t� t r � •-i �. . �. o+ �T � '
" _ � . M;�.S� .. �
� , . S ' n� `�'•y l" l
. • _ �JS' ' ' `' _' ."s �..... i /'��,3 �. . ... �
�:7 � '���- � f�R�' w � Y �'�� • ' ��� /
. Y•11 /)1 ;A �, liI • q :,� rp}af�' � �L ' •.:.�:. � �1 �� �i ' +�fJ �>
:►•,,f ��S -' ~i .�'•.'r•J•- a� a �ehl�� � 'I� +q�i � �Q y : �� ' �..�w��q y�.� �i � \ ��
b ; � � � +e�
t�
�, g'�'�'` x � i y- � � . rµ' . ,a q � ��,► � i ;
.. �' S , +�3 ' ;; � !I � k"` �r:.�' 1g�y�✓ �g � '• �► � � , a C
.�a � �sq t . .�� ♦ �,.,,� � } . � . ,Fo
� q 2 . � >� �3� ', � �'�� .t► / �� ; �.y � --
. ' �f f ' $ '..., . �' �' ' .� �;� ` //y � ��q � � i �; -� .
'� 7883 ,' `� � . � b/ "� �� � f �t �� � ,. � , r , .
� �r�r,{, ,,. >(� �fl 8�/ O^ � C�,/'��,��,�,� j a
. Y �X d. � ,, . . � . /17 . � �/ w I ! .�, � . Va • � �i
� _ :�. �,, ' '' . ' �
, �•.'' =:� : �:.� �.:.,• . ,
' , "" ----,.� ; . ..
.. '''✓ t % �`,•'
'-
�� �
� .. , REZONING OF PD DISTRICT ., .�i .-
' I ` •.,,1 � ,/ ��3 �, �-�n `�'' � 2 !� �'
' _ _ ,' ,✓ • � ` �,� c�.� `� 3 .:) �� . .
� � .� '1 -.�• �
�" . ,�'_ � ! `` J '� ..� .♦� �3 �� C�+y E',+'' � :
.. � � . 1 . � � �'�, � � �r' -.J � t✓ ��r� �•',M� L? y� �`.•�
. . , . . .. � � � �t % �j L+ � "� w�
� � , �" �� �'"3 '-' ..�
' 4.. " ' i
�1�jr �.,� ''� �
. , , � � f� � �� f. .,
•r� �� `�� � � �
� `�- _ .�,f � • �,� ���
� ±' i � � ) � � \.
� A�
, .::3 . � � � ..
� • i � , �,! : �� �•.�
� w :;:��;�� �j a
� %. ' ,
v _. _ c,;, `�:> c-.
, H� c� st.� � % 1 c� `• `t'� ,-
` . � " . �, � " /� •✓
� Y� v '� F: � � �
� � `
. . C?,; iv�i'• L�+�" ~e
� R • ' • � — t � � .�� �, •� •� .� .
� , 1/Q/bt � `�✓ s-~� `�.� � ,
y �` � ~ _ ��, ^ :�:+�
-� L e��''�sr a r f ��1.�.. �i��„ �� • �r� �
..... w����• � •s .
� � O . � r ° �� ��. .� � ....� T „� \
'.�� �J_J_'J['s_i_�i_-r�.
�
�
:-��� �/ l
� ` ��
I
�;�y
„
�
;4�
, �
u
�i� � c2 j)11!Il, 2i �
r �� `
��►.�f •oOL 4 � 1`
�. .r a 1 , ��+ � v
� iiii � � ! ti
,..�..-.i..,i,,..,1
�.� f}1 IR�*fTnN i'+� �ctT
t /
s „�r,ss
�
r� i�
� ` �
�
�cs �a��
.'/. y'.`a
� �
O -ie���
�µY� -
• �� -1
�
►�:��
�JOTIFY COMMUNITY
�. LOt=MEN,� D�PT. REGAR
;��FLCOD Pt_AIN INFORMATI
�_ � CO�JSiIDER1NG PROPEI
i��i �
�oe �
/ .. ,
J', =t�"`� ,
s ,- µ,T �i'��i f
6 ,{� I� 1a..+ 1� � 'a
I 7 ,.,..�, � � fi��, ss,
',� i d I -
`
N4 N ; :;'� `I �r 1��1 _
'4 t�• �..;I �Q'� � . s
�� ��� I i i�.,
_9 � �
��i � , . ,_'. '
' j � ��
8�/ � 1
7 �1.,
00 � z'� .� � + �s
�}� ��
e* �?`�, ,�,
�
t `
/ ��
�
` , , '`' r" ��
s L "+
T. ° '
` ; { - _RU�y rw
T F
,`���
P.SRX �^�
'D � 9 i a r .�. .
��
�o P�
G
V`` \
� Z��.r � . -�
�, ,,, o .;...
.�.,�w � ...�
{ i. � ��;y
'J� S.1 S!.� y�
,�(��1j�/y �
� � 2� � \�1 `r�� �7� �. � i � / i i
H 'Y i
�� :f � a � R"�j�'�, � �'%�., ,��
� .. .-^ �• .� .�,
t• .� � .o ' 'l� �Tr~1� ',', i
��,
� ' '��+�'1/� _, , L�.
. „
.. 5 t�,�, � ,�� r�►a, � * , �,
,''�.. �� 1+ ;�r�
�: � � �:9j• �, y , . , f ,'.
. 1� - h1�. �;1':
rJ � ` o � � � r i
� ",� . - r
• : � �,�, � ' � � � • �t� :.' g � .,;
� �
a .�
���
+r .��'�
r�
�
'Y
S�sTs
�� r -;y��„2=h�
. . ��.w..
�i� � . i
, , .
........
.........,.....,,,..
.....................
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;;;;
=,. ..:.,.,,,, 24 ,.,..
..,..,,,,,,�''t:
;�'�' : ,......,�r.,,..
�..�...... .�....
, �iiii�iiiiiiiii
!l ii..iiiiii.. .�
i��iiii...�..•
[�
I�
Fridley Appeals Commission t�ieeting - October 26, 1976
Page 3
� X
Mr. Kemper asked Mr. Brickner what the house he �ived in was set�..baek, and Mr.
Brickner replied 35'. He said there weren't any variances around the cul-de-sac�
but there were several variances on Kerry Circle. Mr. Kemper asked if the
curbs were in now,'and I•ir. Bric�mer said that they were, and they followed
the easement.
� Mr. Carpenter, 625� Ben riore Drive, said he didn't want to see the house built
any further back t�az P-tr. Brickner had it, but the plan as he had it now was
fine. He said he would prefer that this request be granted.
�
Mr. Holden asked if there would be any problem with elevation between the
yards. Mr. Brickner said they would probably be pretty much the sar:ie, and
would drop doThn on the West side. He explairied �.t would be about the same
grade that the Carpenter's tapered down on the ti�lest side.
MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Barna, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Barna said that his main concern would be the neighbor's feelings, and
since Mr. Carpentsr was in favor of the variance he Vrouldn't have any objections.
MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Barna, that the request for variance be
granted. Upon a voice vote, alI voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
2. CONTINUED : ( Original vaxiance withdrawn ) RE�UEST FOR VARIA�ICES OF T�i�.
FRTDLEY CITY �ODE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 205.134, 1�, C, TO REDUC�. TH� RE�.
YARD SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED 25 F�ET TO 7.5 FEET� AND SECTION 205.13�,
B, TO REDUCE Ti-iE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROi�I 20 FEET TO 0 FEETs TO ALLO:•� THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SPECULATNE BUILDING ON LflTS 23, 2� AND 25, BLOCK 8,
ONA'n1AY ADDITION, THE SAT•ZE BEING 7751 EI1�i STREET N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA.
(Request by P�.co, Incorporated� 5920 Kirkwood Lane,.Minneapolis, Minn-
esota, 55��2)•
MO`.PION by Gabel, seconded by Barna, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice
voi;e, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
ADMINXSTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REaUIRII�4ENT:
Section 205•13�, 1�, C, required reax yard setback of 2It feet.
Public purposie served by the requirement is to provide adequate open
space around �COmmercial structures for aesthetic and fire fighting
purposes. I
Section 205.113lt, �, �� requiring a 20 foot side yard setback in a r1-2
Aistrict. '
Public purposi,e served by the requirement is to provide adequate fire
protection anid aesthetically-pleasing open areas to industrial structures.
Friciley Appeals Cotnmission Meeting - October 26, 1976 Page 1�
�
, 2Y
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
Land cannot be built on to meet Code.
C. ADr1INISTRATIVE STAFF REVIELd:
� Staff has been in favor of rear yard setbacks in the Onaway area due to
the shortness of the lots, and feel that this request is justified in
light of past variances granted in this block. �
� Section 205.131�, !t, B, subsection 3, allows for the exception to 0
feet where a common wall is constructed between two buildingss which
� meets the fire' safety standards. A common or�mer of two adjoining
properties can easily build on one property at the zero setback point
in anticipation of constructing a similar structure with a zero setback
� on the adjacent property. In lieu o� common •.��mership, a joint agreement
with the adjacent property owner is in order, hoVrever, the adjacent property
in this case (Signcrafters to the South) is developed in such a way that
no cammon wall is possible. In other words this would be a single building
� with a zero clearance to the lot line. Staff does take objection to this
variance reque�t in that .fire protection clearance and green areas are
not provided.
' Mr. Holden said that Staff i�ould also like ta recommend a 5' reduction in the
dimension of the building in order to allow for maintenance of the building
and any possible problem of the building being hit by trucks, etc.
� Mr. G. Zd. Paschke of Paco Inc. t,ras resent �
� s P • .
� Chairperson Schnabel stated that this request had come through the Planning
Commission last week because rlro Paschke had a potential occupant for the
building and he wanted to have this proceed along as quickly as possible.
� She explained the �'lanning Commission took a look at i�_and had no specific
suggestions to mak�, however, they s•rere interested in reviewing the 0 lot
line approach. ShE said that one concern that carie about was building on
the 0 lot line when there was not an adjacent building to be built up to.
� rlrs. Schnabel said that this was different from most, if not alls of the
requests they had i,n the past,; she didn't recall any 0 lot line construction
when it was not the intent to build another building to the Iine adjacent
� to it. She said tY�x�e m� xe cases where they granted 0 lot line and the
adjacent owner didn�t build, and explained this was different because there
was no w�y anyone ciould build. rlrs. Schnabel stated that the Planning Commission
� had passed a motion that the Appeals Commission could send this directly
to the City Counci�!..
Mr. Paschke said tHat originally rir. Harris and he had agreed to the 0 lot
� line, but then tir.!Harris realized there might be legal problems if someone
ran into the build�ng and thought that perhaps 5' would solve the problem.
� He said he had gonc� over this with rir. Sobiech and Mr. Boardman, and they
felt the buildin� �hould be set back 5�.
�
�
Fridley Appeals Cqmmission Meeting - October 26, 1976 Page 5
�j 2z
�,
�
��
Mr. Holden said that the other suggestion acceptable to the Planning Depart-
ment was to shift the parking area on the North to 0'with a fence constructed.
He said the intent would be to shift the building over 5'� but the 68' width
of the building would still be maintained.
Chairperson Schnabel pointed out that shifting the parking would require
another variance on the North side, and it would require another public hearing.
Mr. Plemel noted that this request was tabled once already. Nlrs. Schnabel
said that at.the time it was first tabled Mr. Paschke didn�t think he would
start construction,until next spring, and he was over the �t0� lot coverage.
She said they ha.d �ecommended at that time that Nir. Paschke sit down with
Staff and come up r�i.th a better idea, and in the meantime he had found some-
body to occupy the building so he was anxious to build. Chairperson Schnabel
said that possibly'they could act on the request on just the building part
so Mr. Paschke cou�d start construction, and then handle the separate request
for going to the lot line on the Pdorth at a later time. Mr. Plemel noted
that if the variance for the parking are�. wasn't granted; it would cut down
the size of the buzlding.
Chairperson Schnabel said that the 72t rear yard setback was consistent in
� the area� and 1�Ir. Holden agreed. irlr. Holden asked if there would be loading
docks in the back of this building� and r1r. Paschke said there wouldn't be.
� � Mr. Kemper sta-�ed that Staff r�ade a strong objection to the 0'setback, and
asked I�ir. Holden what his position was on a 5� clearance, Mr. Holden replied
that Staff felt that Witti 5' and proper fire protection according to code
' there would be adequate means to fight fire all around the building and the
5' t�ould also allow room to maintain the buildi.ng. 1�irs. Schnabel said that
at the Planning Commission meeting t-ir. Harris had been concerned from a legal
� standpo3nt about the O�lot line because large trucks could back into the
building and damage it, but the 5' would take care of that.
Mr. Holden showed the over-all plan for the Onaway area to the Board and
pointed out the various buildings and setbackse •
Mr. Kemper asked for a review on space allowed for parking, and Mr. Holden
replied that basica].ly a parking stall should be 20� x 10'. He said that
in cert ain cases in other areas they had reduced it to I8'. Mr. Holden said '
that the driving aisle should be 25', but in this case the Zoning Administrator
was willing to go to 2�t�, and it �ras possible in some instances to go zaith
less depending on the area. He added that the Code said 5� was required from
the edge of a parking stall to the building. rirs. Gabel pointed out that
with a speculative building they almost had to go �rith 25' because they didn't
know what was gaing,in there. rlrs. Schnabel noted that Mr. Paschke was 2'
short on parking sp�ce and 1' short on driveway.
Mr. Kemper asked wh�t size t•fr. Paschke wanted to make the building, and he
replied 68�. Mr. K�mper asked if he would agree to the 5� clearance instead
of 0� and he replied he would.
��
I11
�
�
'
�
� .
�
�
Fridley Appeals Coinmission Meeting - October 26� 1976 Page 6
, 2 A�
Chairperson Schnab�l said that the request before the Appeals Commission
basically had to d'o with the buildi.ng structure, but the building �as tzed to
the parking area, �lso. She said they sti11 had a proUlem with the eliriination
of the 5' strip on', the North side. 2•1rs. Schnabel asked A�Sr. Paschke if he
should acquire the'property to th�: North if he would take down the fence and
make it a joint paxking lot. Mr. Paschke replied he would� but he didn't see
that in the future. -
Mrs. Schnabel said'that they could grant the variances to shorten the drive��y
and the parking,'b�t the final question that remained was the 5� setback on
the North property'line. P�Tr. Paschke asked if the Board would have any
objeciions to tha� variance, and Tir. Plemel explained tha-t another request
and. Public Hearing �ras a formality.
Mr. Holden suggested it would be possible to grant the variance to the 5t
setback on the South side with the knot•rled�e that a variance would be
required on the North and with the understanding that if there was soMe
objection to that, the building trould have to be reduced in size. blr.
Paschke said that would be impossible because if he started construction
all the outside vralls would be up by the time this carie up for anoiher
variance.
Chairperson Schnabel said that essentially the two requests before them at
this meeting dealt with the building, and she suggested that to facilitate
P4r. Paschke they sYiould act on those two requests and have the Staff caork
out the parking situtation with him. She said that if it tras decided that
a 5' variance was still needed for a parking lot then NIr. Paschke would have
to come back wit,h a request for variance. rir. Paschke said he didn'.t have
ti.me to come back for another variance, so he c•rould have to make the building
63�. Mz'. Kemper said that under those conditions he wouldn�t have any
objection.
MOTION by Kemper� seconded by Barna, to close the Public Hearing. tJpon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Schnabel asked if basically Staff recommended a 5' reduction in
�, • �he size of the bui.lding, and P4r. Holden said that it �ras Staff � s recorru�endation
not to reduce the building by 5� but to shift the building 5' to the Piorth.
Nlrs. Schnabel said'that if the variance was approved with the 5' instead of 0'
, setback, she would'guess the Staff and PIr. Paschke would have to get together
immediately and figure out the parking area, and if they found it caould still
require the 5' then iiulrr. Paschke irould have to reduce the building by 5'.
�
�J
rir. Barna said he had no objection, and he thought the speculative buildings
in that area looked better than some of the residences.
MOTION by Ker�per, �econded by Gabel, that the Appeals Commission recommend
to Council approva� of ttie request for variance to reduce the rear yard
setback froil the r�quired 25 feet to 7.5 feet, and reduce the side yard
setback from 20 feet to 5 feet, taith the stipulation that the buildin�
should be sized su�h that the parking to the North side meets Code and
if. the building size is such that parking does not meet Code� an additional
variance request m�st be submitted. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the
motion carried unar}imously.
1
�■
3
CATV COMMZSSION
MEETIIJG
OCTOBER 20, I976
�
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Scott, Barbara Hughes, Kenneth Brennan, Ed Kaspszak
MENfBERS ABSENT: A1 pssenkop
O�THERS PRESENT: Clyde Moravetz, Staff Representative
Chuck Hungerford, Manager of GTV
John Walkmeyer, State Cable Commission
IGALL TO ORDER: `
C.hairperson Scott called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m.
�.PPROVi�L OF AUGUST 11,, 1976, CATV COMMISSION MEETING MInTVTES:
� MOTION by Ed Kaspszak', seconded by Barbara Hughes, to make the following correction
t:o the August 11, 197�6, CATV Commission minutes: Page 3, paragraph 3, should read,
'''In regard to 'TraveL, Conference, Schools' in the budget, Mr, Kaspszak stated he
� �:elt GTV should be ap;proached as to the possibility of them sharing the cost on a
��0/SO basis of sending a Commission member to any conference or schools that would
be beneficial to the Commission and GTV. The Commission felt that maybe this would
� c:ompromise its position in terms of its responsibility to the City." Upon a voice
��ote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Ti0TI0N by Barbara Hughes, seconded by Kenneth Brennan, to approve the August 11, 1976,
� 'O1�TV Commission meetiing minutes as corrected. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
I:he motion carried unanimously. .
� i1PDATE ON BUDGET:
__.�,�,�.�..--.. _
1'4r. Scott stated that�, he had talked to the City Manager about the Commission's
�f.-eelings on the budge't and that the Commission would like to have a meeting with
� him. The City Manag�r said he would be happy to have a meeting with the Commission,
l�ut the policy was ndt l�is, he was just writing policy that had been followed by �
� 1.he Council in the past,whereas the Commission was to work within the revenue
�ceceived from the Co�lpany. The City Manager stated that the Council could change
lthis, but as far as he was concerned, this was between the Commission and the City,Counc
' isot between the Commussion and the City Manager
�
0
'
� �
� '
�
�
�
,
. . . . ........ .. . :.. .. ... ... .. .... . 3 A
CNTV COMMISSION ME�TII�Gy OCTOI��R 20. 1976 Pa�e 2
M�-. Scott stated he haid talked to�Mayor Nee and the mayer is aware of the possible
t�eaed for additional moiney for legal fees during the next budget year.
M()TION by Kenneth Brennan, seconded by Barbara Hughes, that in reporting on the budget
sl:atus, the Commission has resolved that it is unhappy that the City Council does not
see fit ta fund travel for education opportunities for Commission members of Staff.
M�-. Kaspszak stated he would vote against such a resolution as he can understand the
C<�uncil's position. If he was sitting on the Council, he wouldn't vote."carte blanche"
for travel, and he thought it was the Commission's responsibility to go to the Council
si�d say they want to go to a certain place at a certain time for a specific reason and
tite exact amount of money it would cost. He said he felt very strongly about this.
M��s. Huges and Mr. Scott stated that most conferences dealing with cable television
wE:re not vlanned more than three to six months in advance.
NIr. Kaspszak stated that from what he has gathered from past minutes of ineetings,
t:he Commission is in a defensive position, and he is sure the Council doesn't have
a�ny confidence that the Commission knows what it is doing. The Council has a
Y•eluctance on their part to spend money on a cause that they feel, for the next
t:wo years, is a hopeless one. And, until that position changes, what can the
C;ommission do about it? The members can go to all the meetings they want and get
2�11 the information they want, but it isn't going to do them much good.
tfPON !A VOICE VOTE, SCOTT.,HUGHES, BREI�IVAN VOTING AYE, KASPSZAK VOTING NAY, THE
H[0'CION CARRIED.
N[AYOR NEE MEMO DATED DECEMBER 11, 1975:
H[s. Hughes stated she had not yet written the letters to the school districts and
t:he Iibrary board about their participation in the project of improving utilization
c�f Cable T�' channels. She stated she would write the letters before the meeting
t�ias ad j ourned .
E�TUDY OUTLINE FOR SURVEY:
Mr. Scott stated he would like the Commission to do a study similar to the
�tloomington CATV Access Study as he had outlined on �pril 13, 1976. The whole
.'(:ommission would be involved in gathering information and coming together with
t:his information and sitting down and writing a study. He wanted the Commission
�aembers' reactions on whether they should undertake this task.
Mr. Kaspszak stated he thought it was the Commission's obligation and responsibility
t:o do the study. He said he would be in favor of it, but a timetable should be �,ut
��n it.
I�2r. Brennan stated he feels this thing needs to be done. But, he said, he envisions
�t final form of report which would not be the same as Mr. Scott's outline. He
�oould like to see the report coming out with a plan as the first part and be
a;upported by appendic',es such.as the following:
, 3B
_ �CATV COMMISSION MEET�NG, OCTOBER 20, 1976 � Page 3
, . �
1. Some exciti�gly written material about what has worked elsewhere.•
2. What the Cornmission found to be the interest level of the community here.
� 3. What the Commission found to be the available resources in the cou¢nunity,
both real and potential.
'.� '['he Commission agreed that the timetable for this study should be set for one year.
' l�ir. Kaspszak stated zhat he thought it would be better if the Commission, as a
1� ��roup, tack2ed each i;tem rather than certain items being assigned to certain
snembers right away. 'This could be included as part of the meeting. He stated
lie thought it would also be good if Mr. Scott and Mr. Moravetz went through this
�>utline cn their own as there are some areas which belong a.n their job description.
� ��hey could then start on it simultaneously.
r�Ir. Scott stated he would go through the outline and write something up about
�ireas where he knew the information was and get this out before the next regular
�neeting .
' r10TI0N by Kenneth Brennan, seconded by Ed Kaspszak, that as part of the preceding,
t:he CATV Commission, in the coming year, begin collecting data called for by
Zir. Mark Scott's outline dated April 13, 1976, to be used in preparing a report to
t:he City Council to b'e handed in July l, 1977. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
� t:l-�z motion carried unanimously.
�
t[OME BOX OFFICE PROGRESS :
H[r. Hungerford stated that after several delays Home Box Office will definitely
��e here by the first of November. Everything is being constructed. People who
niow have Cinema III will automatically be changed over to Home Box Office. GTV
i;�as put notices in subscribers' bills last month and this month, put an ad in the
N[onday, October 18, Post newspaper, and are going to put doorhangers on all the
h�omes in Fridley informing them of Home Box Office.
2?[r. Aungerford stated that the Super Sport station has had �avorable calls, but
t.hat the "Time for Art" series has not had much feedback.
MIr. Scott explained to the Commission that the library, along with.State Cable
a.nd the State Library', is sponsoring a 10-week series on different areas of art.
It has been running four times a week on public access. One of their requirements
w�as to do public relations and get some questionnaires f�om viewers. 'They
h.ad good cooperation �rom GTV, but are now waiting for viewer cooperation.
GTV DEVELOPMENTS• ',
M:r. Hungerford report�d to the Commission that as of October 15, 1976, Mr. Jeff Marcus
has resigned from GTV',to become Executive Director of the Minnesota Cable Communica-
tions Association. ' � •
, ' Hi� further stated thaq
rTI and basic service�
� , . �
,
of the prasEnt subscribers, approximately 803 had both Cir.ema
S00 had Cinema III only, and 150 had basic service only.
I�■
�
'
�
� "
3C
CATV CONIMISSION MEETII�G, OCTOBER 2.0, 1976 Page 4
07�ilER BUSINESS • . • �
M�°. Scott stated that in their ordinance there is an area that establishes a
Complaint Review Board, which consists of three members of the Commission. At
tlifs point, they have not had a need for one, but should appoint one. Ordinance
4Q5.117, page 6, deals'mostly with Service Complaint Procedures. �
M�-. Scott appointed Ms,. Hughes, Mr. Brennan, and Mr. Kaspszak to serve as the
Cc>mplaint Review Board',.
Th�� Commission expressed their conc�rn about the absence of Mr. A1 Ossenkop. .
Mr, Moravetz was asked to draft a letter to be sent to Mr. Ossenkop regarding �
hi;� recent absences and to request more assistance from him as a member of the Commission
DA�TE FOR NEXT MEETING:' '
A meeting was set for Thursday, November 18, 1976, at GTV for a tour and technical
re:port, � regular Commission meeting date will be scheduled at that time.
ADJOURI�TMENT :
Tl�.e meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
O�� � � � .�
�
Ly e Saba
Recording Secretary
'
' .
0
0
4
c�o 7/� j��' ��t'���
,� , �� .
(� ��, i�� �
�.� �'�..���.��.� f
� �� � � � �
, � ��
�- ������� ��-� � ��.
�� � _
�� � ��. �� �.
� �'�e ,��; . . -
��
� � , ' �, � l � //
_ � i!� / \
�, C,%L;!'_ w ��� L%2%�-�/(�'�.� �i� *
� �
' � P� . l
� G� �'��L.���^=`a� G2_►C_
��� � � , � � ,
► G� �L . ���
/�� i
/'��`�-- � ,���� � � ' '
� ��- �� -�G ��
���� � �
�� �-- �� �-���.� �� �� �� �
�
��� � ,� , ,
� ` �-�-� ��"o� .��.�
.- �
���
-� . � ���._
�� , �
���-e- �.�.�� � �.-�� � ,�
��� ; , ��� � � : ' —
, ��� , ��� - _ �'
� ! � a�
�'�- .t� -���,� ����v ' .
����
�� - �'���� G�� . �
-e- . ����,
�� , `� � �-�'��� .
`�
��-� � � �
�� � �
, ��`'
G� ,
� ` �
LICENSE5 TO BE AF�PROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR REGULAR MEETING
ON NOVEMBER 1, 1976 �
i .
EXCAVATING ' APPROVED BY
Consolidated Plumlbing & Heating Co.
1530 East Cliff R6oad Darrel Clark
Burnsville, Mn. 55337 By: Sylvester Enright Com. Dev. Adm.
GENERAL CONTRACTOR •
D. F. Vizecky Contracting Co., Inc:
2659 Dupont Avenue South Darrel Clark
Minneapolis, Mn. By: Don F. Vizecky Com. Dev. Adm.
GAS SERVICES '
Whelan Company, Inc.
2921 Lyndale Avenue South William Sandin
Minneapolis, Mn. a5408 By: M. J. Whelan Plbg. Htg. Insp.
0