The URL can be used to link to this page

11/22/1976 CONF MTG - 5731.-�-,--;, ; . FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 1976 1. Discussion Regarding Dura�ion of City Council Meetings on Mondays � _ . _ , __ _ _ . .._ . . __ _ : . 2. Meet�ng with Appeals Corr�nission Regarding 40' Lots 3. Discussion Regarding Swimming Pool Location at 999 Overton Drive N.E. 4. Appointment of Council Representative to City/School Cooperation Task Force 5. Discussion Regarding Vandalism Control and Giving Rewards for Information • 6. Discussion Regarding Space Utilization of Civic Center 7. Other Items �� _ _ , . 1 � " ��?annin�� C��:�mission M�;F;tin�; — At.��ust lj� ]n7G • _� Pa�e ? e�n�truction o!' a s�cond accessory buildin�, a?_1� ft. by 32 ft. detached gara�,f:, an ];�t; �;; :,nd 19, i�locl: B, Plymouth Acic'.ition, the same bein�; 1�'715 3r� StrF�et ?•d,�'., =ndicuting gencral cor.currence with the request and iha pr��p�seci c�,:icf;r�iction �.nd usa�e, but subject ta a dimension�I verification throu�h �!at st:rve3� prior to City Council review. I�ir. La.n�ci;.f'e?d said he tended to want to indicate "if poss�.ble". He sazd he �ot tY:e fc:clin� they were pushing these people i'or a survey, and th��y should }:�.ve one, bu�E "ondered l�tiat would 1-,appen if they couldn't come up wi�;}� one b�f.cre this W�T'iL �o Covnczl on August 16th. Chairperson Harris said th�y CC'�i1Ci �.E2:c i� as one of their stipulations, and if the City Cauncil wanted t.c cha;��,� t,hat, it was their prerogati�e. l�ir. Harris said he would like to recor:,r.enc t.nat the ;r�oi;i�n inclucie somethin� aboui l�.mitation of th� st.uctare fc�r es:,y iuiurE �;s.e as: a home occupa�ion. rir. Fsergman said h� k•as open `to �;hat thcu�ht, .�nci asked if' that wasn' i. adaquatel,y covered in tfie present, ordinanc�,, 1-Ir. i:oar�.r�:�.� said +„hat no accessoi�r buildin� could be used as hame occupatioz:, bu� t?�cre :•rc>re sorne arovnd. I•ir. Harris said tha� some time doc•m the Iine I�i:. :,iniga�;lio may desire to sell his horle or get out oi' the c].asszc car s �cr�gc busi►:ess, and he would like to :�a�ce it c].ear to everyor,� irvolved th-�-i; t'r,e acces�cry tr�ildin� could not be used as �. caUiret sY:ap� body repai.r s:�ap, e�c. H� st<.ted he-felt it would not hurt to stat� it a� a stipul�.tian in tne reco�,�endai:.�on so everyone involved wo2ild �e cieax on the ma�t�r. il�. ier�;r;��. ;�•:��:v'DED the MOTION -to include 1im; �zng the 2CCG'SSGT� bui:l.��ng use to e�-c�:uu� h�ir�e occ�apa�ion. Seconded by i,ar,,�,ert. Chai.rn�rs�n I:urris won �e�, ed i#' i �:�*ould be necessary t o incyude in t}.e motion sorr:eLhing abo��t the gara.tre oeing c�r�ipat� ble with tne es;i� i:� �g s� r�ic �•u�•E�. i�:r. Ber�in,^,n S81.C� Lt1�..'i. the peitioner i��d stu�ed i� ::au:!�. b�. a�it�i t;�a� discussior. �ti�oi�ld be �n t:.e :�irnates rax� readii.g by Council. �-1r. Harri:s said the proo? em was ihat k�h� n t�ey got dac•rn Lhe li�ie at a 1a�er period, so.��atimes the discussion parts SYer� omitted and the onl�r `ching triat can be found i.s �he motion t,iti-� th:� stiUSlations. �x. Bergrn2n asked �.f ihere w�,sn't some ty�;e of tircentive pi•aY�ded to �l�.e owner to :�a?ce tne aestl:etic tr�a�r,ent con; isten� a� tYie time he a�plied for the ��uila�ng per�it.. H� said that re�ardle�s of �;iiut the Cor.�.misszan �:.�zd, �,�:� builc�.ing per.:ii�; pz�oces> i-ras where -.�i reail}r ha�?�sned. I�ir. B��.s�d1r.?.n said -:.h�1: ti,as usually a stipulation on �he Suil.ding permii., . UPOI1 A VO�CL �%UTE, a1.1 votin� a..�-e, tl�e mot�.o,� c�arried unari��r:ousl�r. Chairp�rson �iarris declared a recess at 8:30 P.��:. and recontfened the meet;ing at 8:55 P.rf. 3. RECE_T\►E :��?�tp F'R0�1 r1�Y�JR PIL� TO Ti1E Ai'PL11LS CO2•IIIZSSIO�I: DATED JC'LY 7.s, 197� rU�TION by L�n�enfeld, s�cunded by Ber�ma.n, ih�i the Pl��t�.7ing Conunission receive the mem� ii•o:n I•Iayor l�ee to the Appeals Corrun�: sion dated July 15, I97b. rir. B�ardma�i said L;iat s�uc3ies show that only about 25B of iamilic:s ca�i aiiar@ }1OU511�q �ht? way it is ncw. He sta�ed t.h�tit ther.e would be some point in time whe�i these 40' lots would have to bc usedand t_he pres4iit standards would hav� Planrying Commission tdeeting - Au�ust �, 19?6 , Page 6 , ; to be drorped or changed so that p�o��le woula be aUle to afford housing. He said that right now about 75$ of the families were really struggling in buying houses ahich they really can't afford because they can't find a needed home in a lower price range. . . ' � Mr. Bergrnan said he recalled the �0' lot consideration which was brought to the Planning Cc�mission's attention from ihe �oard of Appeals based on.a pending variar:ce re?uest. 1he Planning Commission, he said, then sent the question to the subcor�:assions to coMe back to the Planning Commis�ion with regard to policy. Mr. Ber�ma.r: said that Community Develop�ent was one of ihose tnat reviewed whether or not LO' lots should be considered developable lots for housing, and they commur.icated back to the Planning Commission, as did a couple other Commissions, and the Planning Commission then pulled together or endorsed a po2icy-type situation in that regard. He asked if it was the Planning Commissicn dialogue that Bi11 hee was referencing in his letter, or. if it was somethi�g else. Mrs. Schna�el answered that it wasn't really clear, but she thoughi ii was the Appeals Co.:�nission minutes or June 15th that prompted the letier. She stated she would like to review for everybody's benefit i�rhat has happened in order to help clear the matter up a bit. She said that on February 10, 1976, the Appeals Commzssion received a request for variance from a rir. Denis L. Villel].a to construct a residential d*�relling on a I�0' lot. At that time the Appeals Commission decided that since this was the first reques� to build on a 1t0' lot, they shoula per'r:aps request the Planning Comriission and other subcorunissions to tr3T to develoD so��,e tyne c° policy statement regarding Lt0' lots. Sne s�id the words "�o].�cy statement" came about because in reviewing tne Administrative Staff Report to the App°als Corunission on that request, the remarks said something about city policy staiement. She commented that the term got to be used a bit 2oo�ly, but it got to be used. Mrs. Schna�el continued that on March 9, 1976, the Comrnunity Development Commission :eviewed !t0' lots, on I�iarch llth it was reviewed by Human Resources and on ri��:� 23rd by the Fridley �viron:nental Quali�y Commission. She stated that on April 7th the Planninc Commission received the minutes irom the three subconmissions 2.�d on ApriZ 27th the Appea�s Commission received the guidelines from the C�ty Council. The Ciiy Council received those guidelines prior to Apri� 27th From the Planning Commission. I�irs. Schnabel explained that once the Appea].s Com�;ission received those guidel�nes on April 27th irom the City Council, they removed the request from i•ir. Denis Villella from the table. I�Ir. Bergman �asked from what body the Appeals Commission received those guidelines, and Mrs. SchnabeZ ansk�ered from the City Council. She explained that the three subcom�issions cacne to the Planning Corunission wzth their recommendations, and the Planning Cor.,-�ission developed tentative guidelines wh3ch were sent to the City Co�zncil for their approval. She stated that the Council held two discussions on that, as she rec�lZed. She believed one was during their informal neeting and the second was at a regular Council meetin�, and they sent their recommendations, which �.•ere not exactly in a finalized form but in a sense the approved tentative guidelines of the Plannin� Commission� back ta the Appeals Commission. Mrs. Schnabel stated that request to build on � J�0' and the Apreals Co,n-nissio on April 27th the Appeals Commission acted on the lot. Dlr. Villella had made six requests for vAriFZnces, n approved four of the six and denied two� and passed • Plannin� Comm�.�sion 14eeLing - l�u�ust !t, 1976 � : Page 9 thE.ir recommendati.ons on to the City Council. She said at that time they had asked J�Ir. Villella i£ he would consider applyin� for a lot split and �aining 1'ive additional feet from the adjacent neighbor, who also owned tae 1�0� lot. Mr. Vi�le2].a had not purchased the lot yet but had made a purchase agreement. On Diay 3rd, Tirs. Schnabel continued, the City Council heard ihe rAquest from Mr. Villella with the recommenda{;ions from the Appeals Corunission, and passed on a 3- 2 vote approval to build on a lt5' lot. Sne said that"Cou.ncil�s r,otion stated he m�.�st purchase five additional feet .from the adjacent neightor, �� tahat tt�ey a.pprovec� was building on a!�5' lot---not a!t0' lot. She explained th�.t tiie adjacent lot i•ras two �0' Zots, or 80'. I�rs. Schnabel infor:r;ed the Ccmmis�ion that the petitioner had not come in and requested a lot split to date, and the house was not under construction. Mrs. Schnabel said that because the CounciT 7otc was close and because the� had made quite a fe�f chan�es in their recommendations as opposed to 1•:nat the Appeals Comrnission had done, the Appeals Cor�nission felt that perhaps they needed additional infoz�riation and maybe they �rere acting under f21se pre^�ises. S:e said the �!ppeals Commission didn't understand t•rny Couneil overturned evezything they had done, so they then reauested a�ranscript oi tihat rlay 3rd Council meeting. rirs. Sct:nahel explained that it had been impossible for the CitSr to get it off the tape, and it had been about a fifty minute discussion. All the Appeals Corlmission rece�ved was one short paragraph which said "considerable discussion ensued" , the vote iras 3-2 and this recor;L�nendation was made. S:ze • staied t��t t�.en tre Apnaal.s Commission asked if the3r coul•' listen zo ihe iape recc;'rd.'_ng of the City Council neetin� instead, haping ttley coul� find oui r:�ore iniormation because it had c�.�e to tlieir attention �'�at, there ��ras mare in�armaiion prot*ided to ihe City Coa.ncil that the Appeals Comr�v.ssion did not have. C�n June 15tt� they did lisien to that Co•sncil tape a.�d held aduitional disc;:ssion a� tha� iime. Then c:t July �5i'�i, ;irs. Scr.na'�el said� tY:ey received the r�.�:r:o from :•iayor � Nee concernir.g the remarlcs the Appea�.s Gommission made at the time the� listened to the tape on June l�th. She added that at their July 27th r�eeting, the h�peals Cor,unission discussed his letter in deta�.I and agreed to respond bac'_� to ?:�yor i�ee Frith a letter from the Appeals Commission. As far as sne couZd pinpa:�.nt, she stated, there have been thirteen separate discussions on It0' Iots starting at the ApAeals Comrnissian and including the Corununity D�velop:�ent Commission, Hur.�r�n Resauz�ces, F�hv3.ronmental Quality, Planning Co�nmission, the I•,a3�or, ete. Mrs. Lambert stated it had been mentianed that 2�,r. Ville2la made several requests for vai�iances and the Appeals Commission approved iour of the six. Sne asked if he had sax fort,y-.foa�. lots. I�irs. Schnabel replied no� on one !t0' lot he n2d six ��ariances he reqsested: reduction in lot size, reduction in lot kidth, maximum loi coverage increase, side yard reduction, setback reduction, and additional side yard reduction. She stated that two of the requests were because ttie lot z�as small, but ihe other four were because of the size and type of house he was buildin�. Pirs. Lambert said that Tir. Boardman had men�ioned that only about 25� of today's wage earners could afford a home, and questioned if the size of a Iot would really make that mucr, difference in tiie cost of a home. She wondered what the difference in cost woiild be betk*een a 1t0' lot and one that was 75'� and suggested it might be about �3,0:10 ��lt,000. Cliai.rperson �Iarris ssid he would �;uess a 1t0' lot would be �t�out y�I�,000 -$S,U00, with all the utilii:ies. He said there was Plannin� Commission Meeting - Augu�t �, 19�6 .� Page 10 �' ' more involved hcre than ju�t land area�, and when they were talking lot costs they were tal.king raw land plus utili.ty assessrnents and street assessrnents, and many times the street and utility assessments were in excess of the raw land casts. He stated this happened quite frequently. Mr. B�rgman said it wasn+t common in loraer-priced development areas. Mr. IIoardman said one thing about that was all the utility and street assessments were by front foot� and TTr. Harris said that was correct, so therefore there �ras a considerable amouni of da.#'ference. • }9rs. I,ambert said that in trying to provicte homes for an average home o�rner, did the size of the lot make that much difference dollar-wise or the type of s�:ructure? Chairperson Harris said ihere were a 1ot of things that entered into the total cost of a h�me on a lot. P•irs. Lambert asked how much did land enter into it. 2�1r. L2ngenfeld suggested they use about $30 a squaxe foot. Mr. Bergman asked if it wouldn't be fair to say that land and assessments were normally 15 - 20i of the total, and i�r. Harris said that ��as reasonable, }4rs. Lambert said that in order to provide homes for people 1•TY10 may not be able to afford them, would a!i0' lot be tiiat much of a benefit? She asked : if they would be able to afford a home because they had a 1�0�' lot. ASr. Boardman said he thought there F*ere other things that �rere involved, and asked the Cor:unission to note Mayor I�ee's.statement at the bottom of ihe first page� which said 'tI want to underscore that there may be reasonable ways of developing the I�0 foot parcel as a building site, but I have not seen suc'.� a proposal yet. It would certainly have to have some very fundar-,ental planning work dor�e on it... ". rir. Boardrzan said t�e problem with ?�0' lots right now was that they t�r2nted to put standard size houses on them, and maybe that was not the way to �o on it. He suggested that the standaxds that are set up under code for housing, such as square footage requirements, should be dropped sa that development of these lots could Make it more affordable and smaller houses could be built on them. Mr. Bergman asked i4rs. Schnabel if she could read to the Planning Commission the guidelines that were passed to Cit,y�Council and apparently approved b,y them. 2•1rs. Schnabel said she ti�ould first like to say that when the request for variance came before the Appeals Commission in rebruaxy, it was the hope of the Appeals Commission that perhaps there would be more definite guideJ.ines such as reducing •the size of house necessary on a!t0' 1ot. 1�� that time, she stated, theZr ti*ere in�o approving the whole housing pinn for the Ciiy �,.nd getting into low-incone housing. She continued that the Appeals Comrii�sion felt this was an opporl;unity to find some me�;hod of providing low-incorne houses by utilizing 1t0' lots within the c�.ty. Airs. Schnabel read the fallowing exce:pt from the minutes of the April 27� 1976 Appeals Com.mission meeting: "Chaiz�aoman j�Jahlberg stated tnat in addition to the minutes of the subcoi.unissions on the !�0 foot lots which i�ere distriUuted at the last A�peals meeting, ttiere i.s now available a list of tentative guidelines from the Planning Commission on substandard lots. She explained that ihe Planning Conunission hnd passed the5e �uidelines on to the City Council for their review, and at this point the Council had not yet come up with fcn a.ffirmative plan. rlr. Ho].den said that this was discussed at the City Council Meetin� last ni�ht,, and they concluded the Planni.ng Commission guidelines r�ere good pints to consider. Plannin� Corimission Mcetin� � AuGu3t 4, 1�7 rc�e He added that the Council su��ested they should be con�idered on an indivldual basis� with revi.ew anc� final approval to bQ by the Council. ChairVroman Ylahlberg said that all tt-�e subcorr�nittees ielt thc city should �o along wit,h building on 1�J' lots, but there wcre stigulati�ns they felt should be adhered to. TEtiTATIVE GUTDELI2IES FROM 7.'HE PLAIdNIPJG COI�Q�lISSIOP] ON SUBSTANDARD LOTS ; I. The Planning Cammission feels that it was consistent �aith the Comprehensive tlousin� Plan that sub-standard lots shouJ.d be developed in Fridle,ya but each sub-standard lot should be con- sidered separately. 2. That there be no vara.ance allot�ed from the present ordir�ance allowin� a maxirnum of 25% lot coverage. (For example, on a 5200 square ioot lot, wnich �rould require a variance for lot size; only 1,3d0 square feet of the lot could be covered by the house and garage.) 3. If there is land available on either side of a sub-standard lot, every effort should be made to purchase that Iot a� a.fair market price by the petitioner, so the lot size T�rould Ue consistent wit.h the existing building sites in the area. If the petitioner refuses to try.and ne�otiate £or additional vacant Iand, consideration shou2d be given to denying the variance. A11 denials have to be based on ga�d� sound considerations. 1�. That the ocme.r/builder make as much of an effort as possible to meet the existing codes. 5. That the house being built on a sub-staztdard loti blend in as aesthetically as possible t,rith tizv existing houses in thc� neighborhoods realizing that a neta home cannot a7.t�rays blend into an old neighborhood. STAr^F � S CO2L��I�TS : a. Statement oi hardship must include statement regarding leng-th of ot�mership k*hich taould give indication if property was oti�med for a number of years, or recently acquired ti��th the intention of speculating on development af a I�0 foot lot. b. A11 variunces associated with the development of �t0 foot lots would require final approvsl by the City Council." Mrs. Sc`�nabel stated the Mayor posed two valid problems in his memo. One taas, in spite of the Gomorehensi�*e Housing Plan, does the City have an abligation to the existing home owilers in Fridley wno perhaps moved to the suburbs with the i.dea ot 3cquiring additional space im ther�selves. She said to then start buildin�; on 1�0' lots would perhaps not fit in with the general size of lots that the majority of the residents of I�'rid�ey now have. She said she thought that was a valid point which had not been considered before. Mrs..Scnnabel said his second point was, haw do you i'orec a person io buy additional land from the ndjzcent propei•ty owner if it is available? She stated �,,..,,t�.. Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1976 Page 12 . that in his memo the Mayor went throuF;h that quite thoroughly. She said that additional information had come to their attention since the memo which showed pretty much where 40' lots existed in the City, and evidently there were few �Q' Zots which were clustered together,'or in strips. Mr. Bergman said that surprised him, because when they•reviewed �0' Iots in Community Development, they were given a location of every �0' lot and every 50' lot. }ie stated that all the addresses were listed and they even had sections of the city plan showin� locations, and they concluded there were a lot of adjacent small size lots. Now, he continued, it comes out there aren't. Mr. Bergman said they had concluded that in most cases there was adjacent property that a�0' lot owner could buy and expand his lot. Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to correct him on that, and noted that according to the listing of �0' Zots that she had,�there were five existing strips. She stated that three of them were two �Q' lots together, and two of tHem were three �0' lots together. She added that there were a numbex of other lots which varied in size from �7' down to 25' and any number_in between, not adjacAnt to �O� lots, which were individual, landlocked, i.riterior lots. She said that�as far as �0' lots in strips, there were very few of them in the City; there were many more that were interior lots or corner lots where there was no additional property available. , Mr. Bergman stated he thought it was a key point that what �irs. Schnabel was describing as strips taere very, very limited strips of 1�0' latss and there rrere just ��ao or three cases where this kind of thing could be possible. He said that this iaas an entirely different conclusion than they had reached in Conmunity Development. i�ir..Bergman said the conclusion they reached was that in most cases where there was a 40' lot, there was an opportunity to expand that lot. He said he wasn!t necessarily limiting opporti:nity to anether adjacent !�0' lot, but� there was some property such that a co�bination could be made. He added that he would have to review the data and the dialogue they had. 1fr. Boardmar► said he didn't think they had been lookin� specifically at !�0' lots at the time, bui were also loo�ing at 2Z' lots and that type of thing. He said that in most cases the smaller lots did have adjacent property. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought pari of the problem was that at the time these ' .requests came to the subcorL-nissions as well�-�s �the Planning Comanission, a 1ot of this information was not available. P�ir. Bergman interjected that he did have the data--a listing of the Iots with their dir�ensions. r1rs. Schnabel sho�aed him ihe listing she thought he had k�hich shoi:�i the number of i�0' lots and also went down to 25' lots. Mr. Bergman said he didn't think they had that data. Mrs. Schnabel said there was another memo dated April 30th on substandard lots from Dick Sobeich, and a list of substandard lots under 50' with no adjoining vacant property and all zoned residential. She stated that these lots ran�ed in size from 25' to !t2', and i;here were 2!t of them. PSr. Bergman said he was confused ri�ht now as to what data they had had in Community Development. Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Boardman what percentage of the substandard lots made up the available building sites that remained in Fridley. Mr. Boa;dman replied he couldn't give a percentage figure, but there were probably about 150 lots left. Air. Harris said that �ccording to their survey, they were 8rN built on R-1. rir. Boardman pointed out that was back in about 1972� and tney had been doing a lot of building. Mr. Harris stated he tnou�ht they Nere missing _ _ � , , � ��, ,____.�'__.__ rlur�n.tn� �ommi�sion MeeLin�; - August 4, ly'f� ' Pt�ge 13 a couple of point:;. He stai.ed that tt,e problem was the available buildin� sites that �ere remainin� in Frfdley, and onc af these days they were goin� to wake . up to the fact that the onZy thing left to build on as far as R-1 without some rezoning would be substandard lots. He said they should start facing up to that fact. " Chairperson Harris said the I�iayor also brought up the point of taxation, and asked how these lots were taxed. Mr. Boardman said they were probably taxed as buildable si.tes. Mr. Harris said if that was the case, he had a feeling they were legally in trouble. He stated he had been after the City Attorney's office to get a memo out on :rhere the City stood legally on !�0' lots, and after all these discussions he had yet to see such a memo. He wanied +.,o know if t;hey could legally deny a building permit on a!t0' lot, a.nd said thai, was really the cru�, of the Yinole situation. P:r. Harris stated that if the City was taxinb t:em as buildable sites,.then he thought they were morally obligated, if�not ls;ally obli�ated,.to Ma:ce some provision to build on them. He added tnat if they were not going to allow construction, they should be obli�ated to' change the t�ing structure on them; not only as far as general taxes went but as far as special assessments also. He said that if they were going to be turning t?�em into gardens or something else, perhaps the3� should be taxed as agricultural. He said he would like the City Attorney to tell him what kind of ground they were on. Chairperson Harris said that a number of.those !�0' lots were tax delinquent, and a lot more would go that way if they made a decision that under no circuri- stances would building be alla�red on the;�. He said that tnen they wou2d be sittii�� ;�-itn suostandard Io�s *�rhich would turn into neignborhood junk-co�?ection gr�unci, or ti-.e ad�acen� property owners would use them. �ir. Boar3man pointed out that the prob�em was the City would have to maintain the k�eeds. He said that under the norm�.l weed proor�.*� �h4t ;�ould be chur�ed cff to the o�,*rier of the grogerty, out V:ith tax-farfzit property ii was �ust assessed against tne property. Chairperson Harris said he thought they had to loo�c at the s.l.ternatives. He stated that all the things that have be�n said are very true, but behooved them to start puttin� a plan to�ether. r;r. Boardman said he thou�ht tne Mayor�s statement was valid t•rhen he talked about what was meant under Coru::unity Goals by "qualzty of life". rir. Boardrian said Aiayor Nee had stated that a 1�0' paxcel y�nder the present code was not a buildable parcel, and he tended to agree wiih him. � l�ir. Harris szi.d he disagreed with the T;ayor's one statement k=here he said ti:at these were the nei�hborhoads that had the worst history of urban decay. He said he i,rished to t�ke issue on that� and wanted to say that he was born and raised in Northeast Alinneapolis and moved to Soutll t�inneapolis and grew up there. He stated they had never lived on anything larger than a!�0' lot and he didn't consider the neighborhooc� to be in a state of decay. N1r. Harris stated he would Iike i:he Mayor to go to Atortl:east Minneapolis and tell the residents that their neighbt�rhood was in a state of decay. Mr. Ber�man said that he would like to make two comments: 1) He said he would 1i:ce tQ su��est that the rea� on tiie Covncil vote of 3;?_ was so close in .:�ir. 1'illella's request was because he did a marginal job in applying effort to the stipulations. 2) He said he h*ould like to point out the Community Development 3 -:.: .+4': rr-�. Planning Commission Meetin� - August !�, 1.976 '' P�ge 11� '' minutes trom their meetinE; of March 9th. He stated that item one in their motion was that if land was available on cithcr side that could bc purchased such that the lot could be brou�ht up to code, then building would be denied on a 1�0' lot. He said that was a pretty specifie candition for denial and that was �heir recommendation, but he did�1't see it pui; in that context i.n Lhe guidelines that were received. 1•trs. Scr�nabel read aloud poinl; nu.*nber 3 of the tentative guide- lines, and i•1r. Bergman said that was quite a different statement. Mrs. Schnabel said that in this particular request there a�as no land, per �e, available. She continued that the adjacent property owner was willing to sell five feet of land, but the problem created by his selling five feet was that Yri� garage was 5� fram the lot line and he would then have a non-confor�nin� garage. She said that was one of the problems the Appeals Commission had t,rith the City Council's decision; they felt Council F:as creaLing a new problem by demanding that the petitioner buy five feet of land. Mrs. Schnabel said she would a2so like to respond to the 3-2 vote. She stated that one of the Appeals Corrmission�s concerns in listening to the Council minutes was that Councilwoman Kukoti•�ski �sked one auestion �hat they couid . detect through listening io the minutes and voted no, and ?•,aSTar Tdee made a staternent indicating that he wo�ald not necessarily vote against the request but then he did vote against the request. She said the Appeals Commission was not sure why they vo-ted against it, and were not sure �rhai their tnoubhts were. rirs. Sciinabel said tne Appeals Commission wanted to get as much inforr�ation as possible because they felt they ►aere in tne dark as to tai�at Council's reason- in� i_as; She added that she wanted to poznt out that the fact of the mauter was the Appeals Commission heard a request on a l�0� lot and approved !� of t!�e 6 variances; when the City Council finished ;aith it they approved building on a 1t5' lot, so the question of buildiz�g on 1�0' Zots has not yet occurred in the City of Fridle�� . �fr. Bergman ask�d if one of the variance requests was a request frorn the r�axirnum 25w coverage. Airs. ScYznabel answered that it �aas one af the variance requests, but the Appeals Commission recommended the petitioner reduce the size of his house by going fro;r: a double car gara�e to a single car garage, w'.�ich would reduce the tota.l size down to come t�rithin the 25% m�ximum lot coverage. Instead, she continued, the Gity Council agreed ta the double car garage and in order �o make up the additior.al land asked him to purchase an additional five feet. She said this then caused a code violation setbacic fram the nei�hbor's garage, which the Council did not discuss as far as they could determine. Mr. Langenfeld said that �aithout question as the Chairman of the Fridley Ehviron- menta]. Quality Comr�ission he could not deny Aiayor isee � s comments concerning quality of life, the affect on present home o�,Tners, and so iorth. He said that first off, they must have some kind of lYgal docu.ment regarding inese lots; and secondly, if t•hey are taxed as buildable siies it is implie3 they can be buil� upon. rlr. Langenfeld said that out of all this discussion he got the impression that City Council, as well as the Mayor, may have felt that the Appea].s Commission was just handling these !�0' Iots as p�3rt of their Co::�mission procedure. Ne said that he r�as thinkin�; that Council and rl�vor Nee were s�ying "hold it" bec�use many factors enter into this picture and the next thing you know they . , Plannin�; Commission Mec:ting - August 4, 19'jG Page 15 mi�;ht be handlin�; 35� loLs and 15� lots. He said he was just trying to simplify 1;his thin�; by making that statement, hut thouj;ht the,y had to draw thc� li.ne somewhere. 2�'ir. Lan�enfeld asked what could stop an ok�ner of a �t0' lot from a�ying for a �peci�:l Use Yer�iL. Mr. iio��zrdman a.nswered that there was no condition for a 3pecial Use �'erMit on this. tie explained that a Special Use procudure ��as set up for a special use on a property, and a living unit was not a special use on a.R-1 properiy. I�Ir. L�zngenfe].ci cvruaented thai he certa.inly felt thai this Comrnission's cornments were really the right route to follow. Chairper�on Harris asked rrhat the attitudcs of the neighboring cor�,.-�unities t:ere on 1�0' 1ots, such as Columbia Heights, Hilltop� and Id�w Brighton. Mr. Boarcir�an repli.ed tnat he didn't thinx Columbia tieignts Vras having that much of a problem, and sorne af the new�er corruma.nities weren't experiencin� that proble�i because tnere were plenty of buildable si.tes a.round. He said he would iMagine that Colum�ia iiei�hts had reduced their square footage requirements under the UBC, and there was quite a bit of difference between square foota�e requirer�ents. Chairperson Harris said that maybe it should behoove th�m to make this a project, and Iir. Bergrnan commented tna�L they had cne related project going on in CJC. He said the question bef'or.e the Community Development Cor�mission was speci�ically wliethex or not a garage should be a requirement on substandard lots. He sa5.d they would. be addressir.g the question of a garage being reauired on a!;0' 2ot at the r.ext meeti.n�. He added that the discussion held at a previous meeting seemed to slant toward the need to speciiy a garage regardless of the size lot for aesthetic reasons. �. 1ir. Harris �ai.d th:zt cerhaps t'�is should bo Uac}; ihrough the . committee process to be considered again. He stated he had thought they had looked at it at one tiine, but suggested they look at it from a difierer.t standpoint such as di�ferent house d�si.gn or smaller houses mor� com�iatibae �*�_+,h the lot s� ze. he saad ?�e had the fezling the,y hacl io start someplace and they had better st�rt doing something. 1�ir. Harris stated he taould find it very disagreeable if the court would decide this issue before they had an opportunity to plan it out so it would t�rork. . Mr. Lan�enfeld asked if hs.ndling this on a.n individual basis wouldnit do the job since there h�eren't that; :n�nve rir. harris said perhaps that was true, but perhaps what they should b; ].00kin; at is sr�aller, more compat.ibl.e str�sctures for !�C' . lots. AIr. Boardman said then i,�hat they �eere looking at is possibly a separate code seciion tahich said �,nat on substandard lots or on lots under a certai.n square footage the T317;1IT1'1r1 bUl� G1i1� area on a house should be reduced. ASr. I.angenfeid comr�ented th�t he �idn't feel the F�vironmental �uality Commission could actually say how large the house should be or if a.gar.age should be required or someihing like that as they ti�ere not qualified to specii'iy a form of construction. Mr. Bo�r�wnan said they did have one square footage size lim'itation, and that was tlze UBC. He s�.id.the UBC stated that no house shall be smaller than this. iir. Boardman said that wh�zt Mr. Sobeich was talking about was that m2ybe they should come back and ia};e a lobk at the substandard houses and ask t}iemselves whAt they wanted to require on these lots. He said they woiild still t,rant to maintain � m:iximum 25�� lot covera�e, but should take a look at the min�mum square footage requirement for housin� units. He suggested that maybe on those sub- i'lanning Commission Meetin�; - August 1�, 1976 . Page 16 � ' � standard lots they sho�ild �o down to the UBC minimum. He commented that they wouldn't have to say anything on the desi�;n of the thing, but say that a garage was not a requi.rement on substandard lots and tha.t way the option would be open to the owner. • Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that in the letter she wrote in response to 14ayor, Nee's memo, she made a sug�;estion that the persons involved in these ori�inal discussions (the Planning Commission, subco.�nmissions, Council and appropriate Staff) should get together and have some type of open discussion where the,y could get some of these ideas out.and from there proceed to start to develop a new policy regarding building on ��0' lots. She stated she tnought the Mayor's remarks �rere well-taken and she felt he carie up with some very good new ideas, and she thou�ht the point brought out at this meeting concerning ta�ation on these 1�0' lots r�;as a good point that h�dn�t been 1'ul.ly discussed yet. J�rs. Schnabel corr�mented that the proble:n ��as a7.1 of them had not gotten together to talk this aut at �one point to come up 1•T1't}1 some ideas to start to develop codes that ro��ould be pertinent to !�0' lots. Y1ith regard to garages, for ins�;ance, she added, attached garages were only required on ramblers, split-levels and lot-splits, but were not required on ot�er types of houses �(such as a two-.story house). She stated that there tiaere some situations on substandard lo-�s where the existing codE was so unclear that they were not sure garages were required at a11 due to the wording in�the code book. Mr. Bergr�an said this was the subject they iaould be addressing at their next meeting in Com.munity Development, and Mr. Boardman suggested that rather than just substandard lots they take a look at,garage requirements on a11 Zots. Chairperson Harris said that maybe t:hat they' shoulci do at this point in time, sir.ce there seemed to be a com�r:anication dZfficulty Vrith Council, is reques�; a �ime slot with the.m on that fonr�l: hionday to sit do�m at a�.*orkshop meeting and discuss this to see if they could.n't get some sense of. direction or policy. i�irs. Schnabel said that ��as precisely what she had requested of tne DSayor in her letter. �irs. Schnabel said that talking about codes and types of dwellings, there was a problem in ihe existing code book which could be re3evant to building on !c0' lots. She stated there was a descriptian of a single-�aa:iTy dY�elling unzt �f split-level design, and then ihere t�ras a description of a ttao-story dc,Telling unit of a split-entry desi�n. She said she did not k:�ow what the difference was between those two, and they had different minirmzm square footages. Mr. Harris said trere was a difference bet?�Teen a split-level and a split-entry. He explained that a split-entry was where you walked in off the street and there was a staix�:a}r going to the doT,mstai.rs and one going to the. upper level. He said a split-le�=el was ti�There there was no stairway at the entry and the rooms on three or four levels taere � story apaxt in heigizt, and that sometimes a split-level would have half a basement. Mr. Boardman cited the example where the garage was sometimes below the bedrooms. Mr. Rergman asl:ed if it �,�ould be a true statemeni that in the City of Minneapolis where there are a].ot of homea built on !t0' lots, that they are normally greater than 25� covera�e. Mr. H�.rris said he didn't think so, but it was possible. Mrs. Schnabel interjected that they dicin't have those facts and figures available. Mr. Bergman asked iahat was implemented in the 25:'�, and ;rir. Boardman replied bui�ding structures and accessory buildings. Mr. Bergman said some of the homes must come pretty close to exceeding ttie 25w covera�e. He stated there wasn't much of a back yard and there was typically a gara�e in it from an alley, and P2anning Commi::sion P•Ir_e�in�; - 1�uf;u�t 1►, 1976 I'age I? vexy 2ittle sidc yard. ( 2�r�. Schnab��•1 sa_id that llle•r. Baz•na on the Appea.ls Com,nission had brou�ht in booka of hou�e dc:,igr.s �rhich could fit on 1�U' .lots �rithout a�c1y variance� required. She said tt��t perhaps ihe desi�ns were more modern than the City of i�inneaoolis wa� ia-niliar :aith since tho�e hor�es built on 1�0' lots in ttinneapolis �rere basic- a11y older }io:ncs, but tlicre were some very ima�;inative kinds of construction that could be put on !a0' lot�. She �dded that the price mi�ht be another subject as they didn't kno�a �ahat it �rould cast to "build so:ne of these new and differen� tS•pe ho,�►es tha� z•;ould fit on !�0' lots ti;ith no v^riances. She su�gested that :r,avbe the price would be prohi�itive to qualify for low-cost nousin� and that it mig�t har,•e to be a higher-priced hor�e. Airs. Schnabel said the p�int ��as t:ere .:ere � � �OZIJC"CJ that ��ou].d fit on !e0' lct� taitho:zt any varia.nces at a11. She added that so;ne of the questions that h�d to be resolved kere: Do we kant to save the L�0' lots for loti*-income housin�? Do we �aant those LO'_ �lots to be built ti:ith any type of dwelling? Do We want to reduce the reouirements for size of structure? SY�,e added that there were rr:any problens associa�;e� �i �h. buildin� on a!t0' lot � �rhich she fe?t hadn�t been fully covered to this point, and that was k?�y she wanted to get into this discussion again. � Chairp�rso:� H�.rris said he didn�t feel they were �oin� to accornplish a lot by discussin� t.r��s any f�:rther, and called tne question on the motion to receive the t;ayar's raerno. ' ' UP��. A VOICE 'VOTE� al.l voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 210TIC;; by Langenfeld, secondeci by L�.�nhert, that the i'lannin� Co:�xnission be � allo:•.ed to atter.d the r.ext inForr�al Ci�y Council meeting to reaolve tl:e pr�blems � concerning 40' Lots. - ' Mrs. Lambert �aid she wondered i#' that r�ight not be a g�od i,ime to ask �:he �i �y Attorney about the legality of this, ar.d I�!r. L��enfeld said he trougn4 this would be taken care of within �nai discussion. i•ir. i3oardma.n said h� �rau�a make a point of having that infor:�iation available at t'r,at meetino. UP�V � VOIC� t�01'�, aZl voiing aye, the motion carried unani�ously. tt. RECEIVE 2i�:0 t+tt0i-I 1TIR^vIAI� S�HPI�BEL, Cii�1IRi•:OctQ`_v CF TiiE APP�ILS CO:;':�iTSSICit1, TO ��iVLI i�:.'�J� L'LLJ�i�A� t�l+L`.• �V� 1]•(U ii0TI0Id by Lan�an, �1d, seconcie.d by Bergman, to receive the memo from 1�',rs. Schnabel to rlayor Nee date:? suiy 30, 1975. . iirs. SchnabeZ said sl�e woul.d like to goint out the memo should read from Virginia Schnabe2, not l�ir�ir.ia k'ahlber�. She staied that they did truly appreciate receivin�; the ,r.emo from t•IaSor Nee because they feZt Man�► of the points t!�at he rPise3 were �ood, valid poirits. She said she thou�;ht it 1�15 pertinent that this cume up at this time before they x•eceived .�riother rec�uest ta build on a 1t�� lot. `irs. Schnabel corY�ented that t.iie Appe��.s Cammission concurred' witr: thc: r;:�S�or that they did not like the liii: �nd mi:: � propositian of �,-r:uttin� variances on I�O� �lots without aii3-thii:�; more 1;}�a2t i:he guidelines that, h«d bcen establishcd. She s�id the,y feXt i:here would probat�I.ti� be oth��r prablems tteat would arise which hRd not beer� looked into, r�nd some of i.hese had bcen raised by I:uyor Nee vid the Pl�+nnfng Commission rleetin� - Augu�t 1�, 19lb ' Page 28 ?lannin� Co:nmission at this mceting. She stated they Here hopeful they could get some ne�+ dialogue started. � I�:r. L�.7genfeld asked if Chairperson fiarris thougtit they mi�;ht have to have some kind af conso2ic2ation of all the previous material prior to the meeting with Council� and r;r. Harris said he didn't think that Fras necessary. He_su�;gested everyone just come in and put their cards on the table and Ieave it informal. I;rs. S�hnao�I �aid the Appeals Commission Vrould appreciate gettin� all the various thoughts out in tne opnn and findin� out as r�uch information as they could. ' � Mr, Bergman toZd Mrs. Schnabel that he got the impression that she was looking for sc:�eth:ng i:�at sne probably wasn't going to get. He stated that Appeals had � probiem� and they could not escape the individual rec�uest burden 2nd � there wouldn't oe any panacea. He said the Cominunity Developi.lent Comr.tission submi:,�e� a iicense for denial, which someho;�r got turned into a license Sor appro:�21 and the context turned over fro:n what they had iniended. l�:rs. Schnabel said rir. Ber�man was correct that the Appeals Commission had a proble�►, but th�y di� no�t have any type of vehicle which ��hi.ch to solve i��e probls:� ot'�er t:�an to come bac� to the Planning Commission ar�d City Co�ancil. She said t:ey had used the guidelines which had been sent to them 2s ihe basis for aoprov?ng �nd denying the variances, but ihey felt the problem was ].2x�er than -..�at it appeared to be and felt sc�me of the points the t�;ayor r2ised Ci.e., the effect on the exi:=ting residents of Fri3ley) were •�+•ell-taken and had n�t cor�e up before. Tnat, she said, is why they felt it shauld al2 be revie�ad again. , Chairp°rson Harris said that hopefully soMething F:ould come out of tk�e �oint . meeting an3 ihey :�•ould get a cor.census of direction. i•irs. Lambert ashed w•ho �,*o�ald 'oe the participants of the � jaint meeting, and �1r. Harris replied the Pianning Co...,�►ission and 2nyone else who wishsd to come. I•1rs. Schnabel state3 tha� in :�er remo to iia�•or hTee she included members of Co;nmunity �evel.00- m�nt, 3uman i?esources, Enviror,mental C�uality, :opeals Comntission anci Planning Cortmission as �;e.11 as CitS• Counci2 mer�bers and appropriate StaFf persons. She said �aat it m�-,� be a large body, but it was the ��Zayor's prerogative to ma.ke that decision, and he may substiiute the Planning Cor.unission's mo�ion over her sugges �ion to hi.^�. r' �ir. Langenfelci s�i.d that it c.�as his intention when he made the motion th�t the meetin� would includs the Planni.ng Cort�ission� b�at be an informal meeting open to ti�e ent;re gablic. 1Srs. Schna.bel said that the Appeals Ca,�ission feZt there may be merr;�ers of the other subcotnraissions z,•ho had some ideas or thoughts that they r:anted to rel�.ie. to the rest �f tnem, and ttiey might have some very valid thou�t� 4s. ;•Ir. �oard:aan explained that as i ar As the motion went, the P).anning Co�,mission requested to be on the agenda as a Plannin� Comr:iission. Howe�er, he said, as Chairpersons they could invite their Corunissioners to attend as garticipants becuuse it would be an open meeting. UPON A VOIC� VCT�, all votin� aye, the motion to receive the memo �rom A;rs. Schnabel to 1•ia}�or Aee dated July 30, 197� carricd unanimously. i � "� � i t � � j ; # t : � : , r t . ` r SU6-STANDARD LOTS (UNDER 50') WITH NO ADJOINING VACANT PROPERTY (all zoned residential) - Parcel 300, Part of Lot 15, Moore Lake Highland lst Addition Lot 16, Block 16, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsviiie Lot 30, Block 9, Plymouth Addition Lot 15, Biock 3, Plymouth Addition Lot 11, Block 10, Plymouth Addition � Lot 16, 8lock 11, P7ymouth Addition Lot 30, Block 12, Plymouth Addition Lot 10, Block 13, Plymouth Addition S�1/2 of Lot 8, Block 4s Shaefers Subdivision #1 � Lot 57, Biock A, Riverview Heights Lot 72, Block A, Riverview Heights Lot 2b, S1ock C, Riverview Heights Lot 21, Block F, Riverview Heights Lot 18, Block 4, Springbrook Park (Tax Forfeit Lots) Lot 21, Auditor's Subdivision #23 Lot $, Block 19, Fridley Park !ot 11, Block 4, Nyde Park - Lot 2i, Block i0, Hyde�Park Lot 1, Block 1, Oak Grove Addition Lot 30, Block 4, Oak Grove Addition Lot 15, Block 2, Plymouth Addition Lot 30, Block 2, Plymouth Addition Lot 30, Block 8, Plymouth Addition Lot 1, Block AA, Riverview Neights vA� e,"� Lot size 40' 40' 38' 40' 40' 40' 39' 40' 42' 25' 25' 25' 25' 30' 42' 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' 35' 38' 37' • 1 ti� FRIDLEY APPEAIS COMMISSION rIEETING • SEPTEMBL'�t 28, 1976 M�IB�..RS PRESENT: Schnabel, Barna, Gabel, Kemper MEIyiBF?�S A3SENT: Plemel OTH�S PRESENT: Ron Holden, Building Inspection Officer ' e The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Schnabel at ?:lt5 P.14. APPRQ'+TE APPEAIIS CO'��iISSIOIJ %`:IRUTFS : S�'PTEti?fiER 15, 1976 2�1rs. Gabel referred to the second para�raph on page 11 and the statement she had made that it was encouraging. She explained she meant it was encouraging to see fees lowered where they were higher than the actual costs. MOTIC:�: by Ker�per, seconded by Barna, that t!ie Appeals Commission approve the minutes of the September 15, 1976 meeting as amended. Upon a voice vote, all ; voting aye, the motion carried ��nanimonsly. 1. REQUEST FOR Vl�RIANCES OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLO?�'S: SECTION 205.053, It, �, TO RIDUCE THE FRO:uT YA.LtD SET�ACK FROA1 THE RE':`JIF?F..'D 3� FEET TO lt.5 FE=,T TO ALLOYd T?-IE CCi��ST�UCTION OF AIJ INGROUnD S?�'IAIl'�IING PC10L, A23D SECTIOi�: 205.1�3, 3, TO INCRF�!S� THE i; .y00T riIP1Ii�1U�1 HEIG:iT C� A FEi�iC� IN THE FROIdT YA.�D TO 6 FE?.T IN OrZDr.:� TO COTIPLY ?�1ITH THE FEi`dCE RE�UI��.i•�,NT OF THE S�7I'•:i�IING POOL OP�DI;dANCE� ALL LOCATED OP1 LOT 12� rLOCK �t� BROOKVIE:1 TERRACE SECOND ADDITIOV, THE SA��E BEIP:G 999 OVERTON DRIV� Iv.E., FRIDLEY, i1INNESOTA. (Request by A?r. & Mrs. Robert Tomczak, 999 Overton Drive Id.�., Fridley, 2,�innesota 55�32). 1�lOTICiT by Gabel, seconded by Barna, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADI�IINISTRATIVE ST�F'F REPORT Ae PUBLIC PURFOSE SERVED BY REQUIRE":•.r'r..VTs Seciion 205.d53, �, +�, front yard setback of 35 feet; Section 20s.1l�3, 3 six foot #'ence requirement around sr►rimming pools. Public purpose served is that the front yard fence and structure restrictions tend to keep front yards more open and aesthetically pleasing. B. STATED HARDSHIP: The front yard is the only place that the owner can construct a pool, and if he is allowed a pool.he needs a six foot fence to meet the City Code �ool specifications. 0 � , R i �ik e � �Fridley Appeals Commission t�eeting - September 28, 1976 - _� Pa�e 2 ° �• C. ADMINI�TRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: This front yard is not typical in that the house faces the side of the lot; therefore, the fence and pool will not be in the front yard now used as front yard. However� it would lie in front of the home just East of the applicants. Staff feels the variances should only be granted if the homeor�*ner at 953 68th Avenue has no objection, since it would affect them the most. There is no logical compromise available. Mrs. Robert Tomczak was at the meeting to present the request, alon� with Mr. and 1��rs. Dan Ault, 953 68th Avenue N.E., the adjacent neigh��ors. Mrs. Tomczak showed the Board a plat with a rough drawing, 2nd e�cpla=ned �anat she and her husband t�ranted to do. She said that if rlr. and t•Srs. Ault were r.ot agreeable to the proposed plan, she and her husband agreed �hey �ould not build it. She asked r:r. Holden how far a pool had to be from t:e existir�g property line. Mr. Holden explained it was considered an access;,ry building so it rrould have to be at least 3' from the property line with a ver_fyir.g survey, or 1�� feet wi:thout. a survey. �ie said that since there nas no ver�fying survey� it would have to be �t'-� feet from the property line. Mrs. Tomczak stated that their existing fence was 1� feet in fr�:� their property line, and would have to be extended. She explained tne�r were proposing a 36� kidney-shaped pool, and shon*ed how it would fit on t'r:eir property and where the diving board �rould be. Mrs. Schnabel asked if t:�ere ��as a 3' deck requirement, and ?4r. :iolden replied there was. He said there was approximately 12' from the curb to the property, and another It�' to t?�e pool edge, so there would be a total of aoout 16�' from the curb to the pool. ' l�ir. Ault stated that one of.his concerns was that the fence would obstruct the vie:r, and there would be a problem going in and out of his crine:•ray. Chairperson Schnabel asked what type of fence the peti.tioner was plar.ning on putting up, and :�irs. Tomczak replied a board-on-board, the sa-�e tyne they had at the present tiMe. Airs. Sc:uiabel stated that chain-link iences r�rere also legal at 6�. �Ir. Kemper said that this had been discussed several weeks ago, and it had been decided a chain-link fence was clir:ibable. :Irs. Schnabel said it was the Building Inspec�or's feelin�; that a toddler would not climb a 6� fence. rirs. Tomczak st�ted she didn't �eel a chain-link fe:�ce :,as saie, and she didn't care for that i�ea. Mr. Barna commented th at vertical bo�rd-on- board Sences that gave no toehold were preferable. Mr. Ault said that another concern of his was if he would be allowed to paint or stain his side of the fence. He said that they hadn�t yet reached an agree- ment with the Tomczaks regarding the fence in the back yard, and there was some concern about the fence in front, He explained that he would like to stain the fence to match his house, but the Tomczaks preferred to leave it natural. Chai rperson Schnabel stated it was the property owners responsibilit�- to maintain the fence, unless the fence was right on the prope�ty line. rlr. Holden said that if two neighbors put up a joint fence together, then they shared responsibility of tiie fence; in this case it would be the responsibility of the Fridiey Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28� 1976 . I� owners. Chairperson '�r against an unsightly � eomplaint procedure property owners and . Pa�e 3 Schnabel asked if adjacent property owners had any protection fence, and rir. Holden replied that according to the the City Staff could discuss the matter with the adjacent try to settle any questions. Mrs. Gabel said tnat this seemed to be a matter of one person liking the fence stained and the other person liking the natural affect� and everyone was entitled to their preference. Mrs.Ault stated there would be a problem staining one side of the fence and not the other. rirs. Tomc2ak said they eould discuss that, but if the pool didn't go in the ience would never be � stained. lrrs. Sc�nabel asked if the existing shrubbery would have to be removed if the fence was extended, and 1`1irs. Tomczak said she thougnt it would. She added that the two large lilac bushes would have to be removed, but she hoped the smaller shrubs could be transplanted. Chair�erson Schnabel said one concern she had from a safety standpoint was the encroachment ;nio this area as far as driving dotim the street was concerned. �irs. Gabel asked 'noir many feet were actually going to be added on to the fence going toward the street� and rirs. Tomczak replied about 33�'. Mr. Kemper asked if there were any other variances granted on the street, and Mrs. Tomczak replied there t�eren't any� and the houses trere in a fairly straighi line. rir. KeMper com,^�ented this might be a rather severe visual encroachment for that street, a.nd ��irs. Tomcza.k poi.nted out that they could put up a 1t' fence if they wanted to. 2•ir. Kemper stated that the gurpose of the ordinance ti:as to maintain an aesthatic open area, and this request was violating that. I�Irs. Tomczak corimented tr.�y had not known until this came up that their side yard was actually their front yard. i�Srs. Schnabel asked hot•r much traffic was generated on 6�3th�Avenue in terms of cars or children, and hlrs. Tomczal: replied that a survey had been �aken on Labor Day and in 96 hours there had been 3�� cars. TIr. Kemper asked :_r. and Mrs. Ault if they had reached any kind of conclusion regarding their o�jections to this. rlr. Ault stated that they had a natural concern, but they didn't want to limit something that somebody else wante� to do. He said tney i.*anted to be good neighbors but they c3idn � t want the pool to detract fron t:�eir property. Chairperson Schnabel asked if they had any particular feelin�s on the board-on-board fence being extended do�ti?n versus a chain-linic fence. I�ir. Ault replied that +hey would prefer a fence similar to the existing fe:ice� but tiieir concern was about staining it �o it itiould blend in with their house. t�1rs. Ault added that she was also concerned about children bei.ng ab�e to look down the street for cars if there was a lot of snow piled up theTe. Mra Ault stated that he had been under the impression that if he signed the release for the Tonczaks to build the pool, then he could stain the fence to match his house. Pirs. Tomezak said that was fine, but her husband's concern was that if the ALlts moved then they �JOUld have to keep maintaining the fence. Chairperson Schnabel a�.so pointed out that if the Tomczaks should sell their house, then the new property owner would also have to maintain the fence. She suggested that if the Tomczaks would be agreeable to allowin� the neighbors to stain the fence, and they in turn were agreeable to the construction of the pool� perhaps they could reach a happy mediume ey Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28, 1976 .. --- Pa�e 4 Mrs. Gabel asked the Aults if they could specify what their feelings were. Mr. Ault replied that they had no objections to a pool, but they were concerned with the location and the view and the fence. He stated thef did not want to object to someone doing something like that if the City a�reed it would be in the best interest of the City and the property owners on tr.e street, and he would leave it up to the Board. 2°lr. Kemper asked if they had the decision to build that pool, would they or would they not build it. �ir. Ault again stated they didn't object to someone building a pool, per se, but they .:ere cor►cerned s��ith the location. He said he didn't lmow what impact it would have on his property, but he thought it r►ight make it more difficult to sell. lie added that they didn't want to be the ones to s�,}r yes or no� and felt it was some- thing the Board had to decide. Chairperson Schnabel asked if it would be less objectionable to the Aults fror� en aesthetic standpoint if in addition to staining the fence there r�ras soMe planting along the side, and 1�ir. Ault replied that �:as t:hat they would do an;�aay. Mrs. Schnabel asked if in addition �o the aestnetics, they irers also concerned about the safety factor. I�irs. Ault replied that as a Mother she was concerned about the vie�r being obstructed in the winter and the children not being able ta see caxs cor�ing. 1�s. Schnabel commented that she felt 121-�' �rould be ample room to plow the snow. Chairperson Schnabel stated that if the Board decided to approve the request and there was no dissention from the nei�hbors, Staff, or Board� the Tomczaks ca�ld proceed with construction. If there tras some objection, she said� then �t•he request would go to the City Council and it would be revietaed one more time� and their decision taould become final. She explained that i�ras imy the;� wanted to ;rnot�r how the Aults felt about it before thezr took any action, and they �•anted to make sure everybody had an ample opportunity to express their feelings. I�irs. Gabel asked iahen construction on t'r:is Vrould be started ii a vaxiance �aas granted, and rIrs. Tomczak replied they t•;ould start next �reek. Mrs. Schnabel asked if they had talked to any of t:�e other neighbors, and rsrs. Tomczak answered that she had talked ta every neighbor �rithin 200' and no one else expressed concern. �Irs. Ault asked how the pool Vras going to be enclosed, and Pirs. Tamczak sho�:ed her where the fence and gate 1�:ould be. Chairperson Sc.hna�el asked ii they . would have to enter the pool through the gate also, and rirs. To:�c2ak replied that was correct, there would be no direct access. �:r. Barna asked if the pool area could be seen fror� the kitchen t•rindo:a, and Pu s. Tomczak said no, only from the bedrooms. Mr. Barna asked how long they had been planning tnis, snd rirs. Tomczak replied since July, but they had just found out that t:�eir side yard was their front yard when tney talked to Darrel Clark. MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Kemper stated he had a very severe concern about the amount of visual encroachment there would be along 63th. He said they taould be moving a structure out to 12' �rom the curb, and it would be the only structure stickin� out along the street for several blocks. Mr. Kemper said he had a stron� concern that they would be seriously violating an ordinance that said that shouldn't be a � 1 ` ' Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - September 28, 1976 Page 5 � ; . � . done�in the City of Fridley. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the fence across the street was 12' back, because in her mind that didn't seem like it was terribly close to the street. Mr. Holden looked through the records and returned to say that there was no verifying survey for the house across the street from the Tomczaks. rirs. Schnabel loo�ed through the file on that house, and said it didn't tell them very�much. She said they would have to proceed ti,rithout that visual image in mind. Mr. Barna stated that his major concern iras that there were thousands of lots like this in Fridley where the front yard !�as the side yard� or vice versa, and although t�e s�rir,�ming pool itself would be flusn �ti�ith the ground, it was still an accessory building. Fie said that if they granted a vaxiance for an accessory building in this case, they might be opening it up for garages artd other structures in front yards. Mrs. Gabel pointed ou� that it �rasn't the Tomczak's fault th�t it w2s their front yard by a technica.lity, and Chairperson Schnabel said that it �:as a.n unfortun- ate thing the shape of the lot created the problem. . Mrs. Gabel asked if it �rould be conceivable they could put up a!t' fence on the property line and put i.n an above-ground st•rimmzng pooi. Chairperson Schnabel said that a six foot fence *�:ould be required. AIrs. Gabel as�ed if they would also need a variznce for an above-ground pool, and r•ir. Holden replied p it v�o�:ld be treated tne same Vray. rir. Barna said he objected to allotiring a �iaxiance for an accessory structure in a front yard. MOTIOPd by 3arna, seconded by Ker;per, that the �ppeals Commission recorurend to Council, through tne Pl�nning Gorunission, denial of the request for varia-�ces to t�llow the construction of an in;round s�r:r�-ning pool. Upon a voice vots� Barna, Kemper and Schnabel Xoting aye; Gabel voting nay, t:�e motion carried 3-1. Chairperson Schnabel explained to rlrs. Tomczak that this L•1011I.C� g0 before the City Council on the 18th of October, and she could present ner plans again at that time. 2. RE�'U�ST FC�t A V�RI��TCE OF �ECTIOII 205. a53, �, �, FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO RFrJUC� THE RE�UIR,_,D rRO1�T'�fYARD SETBACii rROii 35 F�T TO 20 F�'�T, TO ALLO�y' THE C0:1STR'JCTIOid OF� D��LLII�iv AIV`�7 GA.�t1GE, LOCAT�D ON LOT 9, BLOCK 1, HEAT:iE� HILLS SLCOtTD ADDITION, T'rIE S�'1�i•IE BEIi�G 6180 KER3Y LANE t1.E., F'RIALEY 1;IN�IESOTA. (:�ec�uest by I•Tichael E. 0' BannQn, 5298 Fillmore Street N.L., r?inneapolis~ Aiinnesota 55�t21). The petitioner withdr k• his req est as he had designed a house that would come within Gity Code. � ;. i t � I , �, � �! l: � i • r � 1 � i � ! . � i � t � � i i 1 i ; o � � � � � ► i � • . I � : � � i � .. • . � Is% PUBLIC HEARING MEETIIV6 OF OCTOBER 18, 1976 = � PA6E 5 Mr. Nasim Qureshi, City Manager, then proceeded to reiterate for the purpose of Clarification and to give some backqround and reasoninq on the East River Road project. He further stated Lhat East River Road has been a four lane road for over twenty years, thereby being a four lane road before a nu�ber of the houses were built 1n fridley. Basically, the interest of the City has been to try to control the traffic on East River Road and make it easier for.local traffic to aet on and o#f the roadway safely. He further pointed out that presently, the plan has been approved to be funded by a federal grant and if the City is ever qoinq to do any improver.�ent on East River Road, this would be the right time as the tity could use federal funds to do the project rather than the local taxpayers having fo pay for the project. He further stated that the chance of losina the federal grant cauld happen if the project 15 deTayed. Also, if there are any legal requiremen.ts to be met, such as environ- aiental impact study, it should be done. , APPEALS COF�BYIISSION MINUTES FOR MEETIN6 OF SEPTEMBER� 18, 1976: R. TOMCIAK, 999 OVERTON ORIVE N.E.: Mr. Sobiech stated that�this was a request by the petitioner at 999 Overton Drive for a variance; first, to allow reducing the front yard, and second, to allow a vdriation from the 4' fence requirement in the front yard to a 6' fence as required by the Swimming Pool Ordinance. He also stated that tt+e Appeals Comnission �did deny the request by a 3 to 1 vote. Mr. and Mrs. Tomczak were present and Mr. Sobiech asked them if they had reached any aqreement witfi the surroundinu property owners. Mr. Tomczak replied that they had aqreed at the Appeals Ca�mission meeting to go • along with their request for a swimninq pool. Councilman Hamernik stated that he spoke with several of Mr. Tomczak's neighbors and although they did not object per se, they were, however, coneerned about the safety aspects of putting somethinq that close to the boulevard. He further pointed out that the Appeals Co�nission did have a similar type request which they did pass without Council input, and there have been some problems with that; and the encroachment on the boulevarQ was not to the ertent as that beinq discussed now. Councilman Hamernik further added that he talked to Mr. Ault and that Mr. Ault indicated to him that he did not want to be #he one to biock this reauest, however, he felt there was a conc�rn which was the CitY's responsibility; that being the site situation of puttinq somethinct which is essentially in a front yard along the street. Councilman Hamernik expressed his concern about allowing Something like this because there is a considerable de�►iation from the plan of the area since the requirement �n something like this is 35`. Mrs. Tor�czak responded that she felt this was very unfair and that this was the oniy place they could put in a pool. Cauncilman Hamerr.ik stated that he would not be in favw af approving the request at this time, but he would be open to tabling the matter for further discussion. Councilwoman Kukowski stated that she beiieved this is something that is going � come up again and aqain and suggested that Council qet toqether for discussion on November 22nd. MOTION by CounciTman Hamernik to table the matter in or�r to``formulate and discuss a policy with the AppeaTs Commission. Seconded by Counr�twoma� Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. PACO, INC., 7750 BEECH STREET: � Mayor Nee stated that tfie Appeals Coomissioo recwianended ctrartting one variance, but not the other variance. �• Mr. Sobiech stated that this was a request b.y Paco Masonry for a va�iance from building setback and property lirte setback in order to be allowed to construct a Speculative wareho.use. He further stated that the petitioner was notified but Ma5 not in atte�dance and he did not k�ow why he was aot present. There also appeared to be some confusion reqarding which plan the Appeals Commission was to lo0k at. The petitioner had brnunht in one plan for his application, and at _._ . ._ _ _ _ .. _... . � .�. �_ _... _ � � i t i I " � . � E � • ,� . a � �. i i l � . . ��y . � -�; �� "- '�� `�` �,� R' � y ' �� ' � �� `�� 3�:��j.� :)�•��.vy ;ao••, /�r�.:.cl . icit:�;cvr.t:,. :.•c,r.i..t�r.�:r.Li.rr_ (.�,, HARRY 9, JOHNSON RqHE'RT Fj. MEREOITH ° „ � � . Zs 1 ��'�'°' � � _ ___ _� . . _ .. .. ... . .... .._. ..__. ...� 5 UU � � . ,� l A h(� S'w �� •I f �ON.f � �. . 1! • ,`��:_ ,��irrJ..Sr It�1j�s-rtl . �} � ��' � - � �;;� �' �� .�� 10021 IwwhC[ wy�_ SOYTN � MINNt�rOl�! 20. M�Nh[lOTA � ruxcoo s.s�uo � I s'' `` ' ° � � � 99� ��.-c_ �: ; N � �1. � . Z'�'7 -� '�f�; . •". f • � ' "� �n� ..; �� p 4f � AI i • $ o. � _ . .; B/. �� . , �! '•. : � � • � 1 . - l,.�. �' � �� . , „ � . � . ! � ; .�Ir�vB RA�% N �, _,�,_ _ '�.- � 4 t;i i 29 ;� ' , 9,0' � � �' � '� ' , � � -� ,� � ,v . p � � �' � �;c-_— ' � ' ,� �,. �� b 4 �j rQ �- j -- �� zc •i' � 0 � � � i� $-o �� i , . /O � � � � e • r+ � , �` � . • !� �� . `' L"yc%�a Fznco �- i .i. i i L.:�i i/ �G.9 - ` _ !� / J to, y Q�f"r4lTr0 � ;�l �* 9�� - ��,�� '�� 4.S' - � C �p • ~ �P.�oPos�p ��.c�� —�-- — — -- 9 1 . • � � �� • i � . � • •� �_ ,f;�Pnrr�r - . �. ♦ • �. _� i��• • �.1, �� G.?i!�rl,� U %l1ci.� �ti t �1 .1 C� t i!t!P. (:r: . `.� •�j`.:.C'� ^.v :A � ' . . . : . . �.�.�.i'�t.i.v.: ��. � �•�>•up•t c,� t ::: f>c>,•;:::.:,:.�� cr ; '�i1+1. l ' � lr l(• �v t! � • , ` . � .� „r�. � , . . � `. r ;1' � l I7 / �7 , , .l � � '�, ' �•• '�� 1 �•+ \ �� , � I i J � J % �! :�, .1i:11M[4 �,,il:�/1• . a �1A�!'�' i„u,�� (irtl �� .I:!! �Q('f�..r.��/4 O�� 1�•1,�. Uttf.�.ie�.• �.� - f:.Y f I ' •I l -y' �1� . :.r"�� .� °P.i)r� :✓::.. Q(w. tl�-'�t)4t? Pr:i:?Ci.:':.iw'i'J. +.t .'�YS1.� .:t:ldf i^,A. nK �Sti4l� Iiil!!�. �J� Ci.��ail •✓1:•�;r,. :l:�` �:('�:.%-:l�/: f`� �� f''`t�7{!�{�1� �1L•-f�w.�ri�{. �`.s.f. �Il: ::.�.tJi�1 �• .. :Lw. 'a .'7l1''I�1. �i0.� j.1I � �; ,�± J . / . I • .� � � _. oc:r..tt��n. ,.. •:.,.r.�,�•..o.. r�„ n.� .;. t , .�t-: ��ah ,:iwa o•f ..:�..:�tit !•toi. . i� � , . /' ,..�' .;�' /` � ♦ J � y. 1 iI�EEMO TO: � MEMO FROM: DATEa SUBJECT: NASIM M. QIIRESHI, CITY MANAGER JAMES P. HILL, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/ PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR �.� NOVEMBER 19, 1976 REWARD PROGRAM We have recently discussed the pros of reward�s for information leading of individuals committing crimes. about as a result of the vandalism of Peace. and cons of the offering to conviction and arrest This basically was brought activity at the Islands To bring you up to date, I simply would re-emphasize that •I do not feel that a municipal government should become directly involved in a reward offering program with taxpayer's moneys for minor offenses. There may be rare occasion where a significant problem may have developed in a community where such actian may be ta.ken in sort of a last effart action. There is, however, a very beneficial system operating within our area at this time known as the Edina Crime Prevention and Criminal Apprehension Fund, Inc. I have acquired the essential information regarding this fund including the funds, organization, and by-laws. In essence, this fund is made up of contributors both from within the commercial and individual area, to provide , moneys for a multitude of reasons connected with a crime prevention and reduction efiort in a particular community. The board of directors that operate the fund remain anonymous, and they operate with a�ax exempt certificate from the � Internal Revenue Service. I have enclosed some basic informa- tional data that the Council members may be interested in viewing regarding this fund. Tn reviewing the data, it appears � that it is a worthwhile project but also one that probably �akes a considerable amount of community effort by one or `more organizations to establish and maintain. This particular type of system would be one that I would support if it is �he desire of Council for the Police Department to make inquiries.into such support by community arganizations. The City of St. Louis Park has recently modeled a crime . prevention fund progra.m after the City of Edina's, however, the St. Louis Park program is so new that me do not have any significant information regarding that project at this time. You will� notice in the 19?6 annual newsletter of the Edina Crime Prevention Fund, that they claim 350 crimes were cleared through that fund in the past six years. That certainly is an impressive record. Y would be glad to discuss this possibility with City Council at their upcoming conference meeting, if that be your desire. JPH/pr �tt. � �; , <� � . . : -n,. . _ . _T_ _ � - /�� - �.' �.�°"� `'��,. . . . ' � `� ;�-, � � �� arC.��11'1Ze .,��'eYe12L`�Z07Z un� � s: � � ;� � � -. .� � _:. ,,,� � .r. �: � s � .� : _ i rv c. EQ1NA CRIME PREVfNT/0N AND CRIMINAL APPREHENSION FUND, �' � BOX 3513� o S10t WEST 74th STREET • .EDtNA, MINNESOTA 55495 �. � � < , . . � . - . . . ..- <3" . . . � �'3Rti � . , � .,.. . . . .. . �'5.:.�t: A .�" F` T . , ' ' ' �r"t . i SPONSORING ' ORGANIZATIONS Athena Club of Edina Edina American. LeQion Post #471 Edina Good Government 6roup Edina Junior Chamber of Commerce (Jaycees) Edina Lions Club Edina Masonic Lodge Edina Optimist Ctub Edina Rotary Club - Edina Woman's Club. 6reater Edina '- Chamber of Commerce Morningside Women's Club Southdaie Optimist Club Edina Reveille Exchange Club � .: 1 ' # � f t � a � � ` 19i6 ANNUAL NEWSLETTER Dear Edina Resident: The Edina Crime Prevention Fund and police department efforts to make �rivate citizens more awaxe of ways they can fight crime have had dramatic res+u]_ts in 1976. Private citizens can fight crime and win! During the past year we have seen several examples: In Au�ust, an Edina housewife noticed a young man paxk in the next door neighbor's driveway, approach the house, and ring the front doorbell. She knew that her neighbor worked during the day and that the house was unoccupied. The young ma.n returned to the car, retrieved a tool, and went to the back door of the house and attempted to enter. The alert housewife, who had the Edina police number on her telephone, quickly called us with a description of the suspect and his vehicle. She continued to observe the burglax, but he wa.s thwarted in his burglary attempt because her neighbor had installed deadbolt locks on the doors. When he departed, she gave his direction of travel and license plate number to our dispatcher. The suspect was - apprehended in a stolen car by the police a few minutes later after a short chasee A few weeks ago an alert paper boy observed three men removing furniture from an apartment building in the early hours of the morning. .Recognizing that the furniture belon�ed in the apar�tment building lobby, he recorded the license number of the van into which i� was being loaded and called the Edina police. Having this inYormation, the Edina police arrested a suspect. All of the property �ras recovered. . These examples point out that you -- an Edina citizen -- axe the best crime-prevention resource we have. You are the eyes and the ears which aid your Edina police officers patrolling your . neighborhood. Without your help we could not be effective. Good crime prevention is being a good neighbor. Your.Edina police _ department appreciates the way Edina citizens are assisting aur continued efforts to keep Edina a safe c.ommunity. _ Citi2ens have not only helped by their awareness but also by their contributions to the Edina Crime Prevention Fund. This Fund is tre�nendously helpful in solving crimes in Edina. It has been a significant aid to other law enforcement agencies. I urge you.r support. Sinc rely, Ber Merfe d, ie of Police I �� aue = t��u ��.i�ced . o . OPERATION IDENTIFICATION � s , . _Nr., � y��''-" 4 : � � 1.. zilA �; � .i: �.�� 'l:;�• OPERATION IDENTIFICATION is an ongoing Edi�a Crime Prevention Fund program. If you have not joined, do so soon. For information, call the Edina Police Department at 925-2242. EDINA CRIP4E PREVENTION FUND PROGRAP�IS: Residential Security, Senior Power, Retail Security, Sank Security, and Rape Prevention. If your group or organization would like a presentation on these programs as a part of your meetings, call the Edina Police, 925-2242. EDINA CRIME PREVENTION OFFICER: If you have questions regarding protecting your property -- residential or business -- and how you can help prevent crime, do not hesitate to call the Edina Police -- 925-2242 -- to ask for the assistance of the Crime Prevention Officer. . . , ,. �� L.�: hyy�,::� TOM TICHAWA MEMORANDUM T0: Chief Bert Merfeld FROM: Mancel P1i tchel 1 DATE: April 6, 1976 SUBJECT: Operation Identification Recovers Stolen Property On April 6, 1976, we received a telephone inquiry from St. Louis Park Police Department concerning a suspecied stolen Citizens Band radio which they had recovered. The radio was marked with an Operation Identification number which had been partially obliterated, possibly #MN02706MK(?)4948. Through a process of elimination, we came up with a probable number of MN02706WK07948 and contacted the party, who reported that a C.B. - radio had been stolen from his car while in a restaurant parking lot. Police made an arrest based on this I'�� Operation Identification information. � ' a ce T. Mitchell, Jr. Crime Prevention Officer �SUN E�[�tirA Yovth al erts pol ice; ti lea ds to a rrest p _ Some say his action showed real civic responsibility. Others say it re- quired courage and a sense of pride in his community. Tom Tichawa, a 14-year-old freshman at Edina East High School, ponh poohs the eompliments with, "Aw, it was nothing. I wasn't even scared." But whatever his feelings at the time, Tichawa did the city and the resi- dents of the Lanterns Apartments a big favor on the morning of Sept. 16. It was early, about 5:30 a.m., as Tichawa wound his way along his Min- neapolis Tribune paper route. The streets were deserted exceptfoc aa occasional stray dog or cat. As he approached the Lanterns Apartments at Slst Street and France Avenue, Tichawa noticed three men loading a piece of furniture into a dark-colored van. The newsboy, his curiosity rising, wondered why people would be moving at such a strange hour of the day. Moving closer to the van he recognized the furniture as that belonging to the apartment building. He had seen it many times in the lobby when delivering papers to his Lantern customers. Tichawa caught a brief glimpse of other familiar-looking furniture as the three men slammed the van door shut and sped off into the darkness. Thinking something was amiss, Tichawa jotted down the license number before the vehicle disappeared. � Completing his route, Tichawa returned home and told his mother, Therese, of 4914 Bruce Ave., about the incident. She cailed police. A short time later, a squad of Ediaa's finest interviewed young Tichawa. T6e license number was traced to a St. Paul address where the suspect vehicle and stolen items were mcovered by police. The crime was solved and three suspects in custody within 24 hours, police said. "You are to be commenckd for your alertness in recognizing some activ- ity which yqu felt was out of place and giving the police information which was instrumental in solving a serious crime," Edina Chief of Police Bert Merfeld wrote in a letter of appreciation to Tichawat "Many people often see suspic�ous activity but disregard it either be- . cause they feel it to be insignificant or they don't want to get involved," the chief added. "You have done a tremendous service to the Lanterns.Apart- tnents, the police department and your community."� A similar letter of thanks was received from the Lanterns' board of di- rectors along with a S50 reward for his assistance in recovering the furni- ture valued at 31,500. T6en at tde City Conncil meetlng Oct. 4, the Edina Independent Pollcemen's Association preseaEed ltichawa witb a certlfIcate of inedt for "oqtstanding civic performance." "I just thought they were stealing something, so I thoughE I'd get their license number," Tichawa explained. "It happened pretty quick." The newsboy said his acGon nearly doubled his income for the month. But the real reward was contained in the letter from the I.anterns' resi- dents. •'We are proud to have you as our morning paper carrier," they wrnte. � - � , HOW THE EDINA CRIME PREVENTION FUNDS WERE USED IN 1976 Funds were expended for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of a � wide range of crimes. In addition, funds were expended to aid in the recovery ' of several thousands of dollars of stolen merchandise. A few examples of some � �- crimes solved in fdina in 1976: � GAMBLING Edina Crime Prevention Fund money was used as "flash° ay State ` February) Crime Bureau agents who worked undercover, assisting Edina I� , police officers in breaking up a large professional gambling operation. Several arrests were made. THEFT Information furnished by a paid informant led to the arrest of April) a suspect involved in a long series of vending machine thefts. ARSON Information from an informant 1ed to the arrest of a juvenile for Ju y) not only theft but also arson of a golf cart. The information� . also led to the solution of a previous burglary at the country club as well as seven burglaries in Hopkins. NARCOTICS During these two months, drug investigations.developed out of ugust & controlled buys made with Crime Prevention Fund money, resulting September) in the confiscation of �hundreds of dollars of illegal cocaine, marijuana, and "angel dust." Also, two deaier-level arrests . were made in these cases as a result. � 350 Crimes Were Cleared Through the Edina Crime Prevention Fund in the Past Six � Years. Unsolved Crimes: During 1976, the Edina Crime Prevention Fund offered more than $�, 0.0 �n rewards. All of these rewards have not been claimed; the crimes have not yet been solved. However, the Edina Crime Prevention Fund is corr�nitted for these rewards as well as those offered in previous years. Directors Anonymous and Non-Paid: For obvious reasons, the Directors of the Edina Crime Prevention Fund are anonymous. They serve Edina as a public service, receiving no compensation or special consideration. The Board of Directors controls the funds which are made available to the Edina Police Department. The Directors determine the amount of the .rewards to be paid. It i.s their intention to utilize the Fund for your protection and to continue to make Edi'na one of the safest comnunities in our country. They urge your support. THE EDINA CRIME PREVENTlON FUND NEEDS ; YOUR FINANCtAL HELP The Edina Crime Prevention Fund exists only because of contributions (tax deductible). For your convenience in mailing your contribution, we enclose a repTy envelope. _ CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE EDINA CRIME PREVENTION fUND .ARE TAX DED.UCTIBLE The Edina Crime Prevention Fund received the first Internal Revenue non-profit status in the United States. Now, donors to the Edina Crime Prevention Fund may Crime Prevention Fund Employer ldentificatlon Number is "L31{Uby53. You, your attorney, or your income tax firm may refer correspondence to this number. � � '��•.. . : �_ .. . :�� ... Y�I A Y N Wednesday. April 7. 1976 $300 rewa rd of�e red . • • ��a a.,m� error�z� .� � � -- ., � � , ` � By JANE 3IMS PODESTA ,�e,�."��;� \ s� Edina police aze searching for two men who terrorized a Benton Avenue i s �-r�� • "bl < s�'�.` � ,�, family and fled mto the mght after threatemng to ast one person. _ t.;- , �` The bizatre incident 6egan innocently enough. ` �� t\ �� Susan McKenna heaz� the doorbell ring at the front door ofher parenta ,' �,, ? ±�` • �•' � home at 5603 Benton Ave. last week and saw a stranger. "� � "Would you mind letting me in, I'd like to use your telephone;" Md{enna Yf ' remembers the man sayin g.. � `=�, ,� The dark-hai;ed, mustached man told her that hia car had a flat tire, and ,� 6e needed to call for help. c :.�",`t`f – But Susan McKenna became suspicious and told him to wait outside `�� while she went downstairs to talk to her patents, police said. �' `�` 'y ` Then — before they could return upstairs — the McKennas heard foots- teps, and Susan ran into the closet, police records show .;� After demanding to see the young woman, the�strenger warned the � MeKennas to "open the closet door or I'll shoot." * T6e woman's father, Robert J. McKenna, attempted to caim down the in- :x: '�� truder ac� his daughter escaped to a neighboNs home next door, police ` , �aid: �` ;�` ,•" ` � W6ile the man — 5-foot, 10-inches ta11- pointed a.22 caliber riIIe at the �^:�`.�e �= �-°�' �� oouple, McKenna began struggling with him. Finally, on the front porch This 1s an oAisi's drowing of tho sus- pact Edina police are searching for in an aggrovatad asaouit cass. Edina poliq aee searching for this mon as a susp�cf in an aggravated assoult ense last week. The above is onl one exam le of our Edina Crime Prevention Fund in action. As evi enced in 1976, the Edina Crime Prevention Fund made efforts throughout the State of Minnesota to openly combat`crime. The Fund will continue to use the money you give to combat Rape, Murder, Bur�lary, White Collar Crime, and Vandalism. . ` M�iiL YOUR CONTRlBUTlON TO THE FUND TODAY! ,.,,��A 4.�... . .:.�,__�_. _�_ ... . , _, _a � . �.. - . . � - � �I�au Ca�c �� Fi��.� � C�i�e iw� ��Ediva!� � � � � � � � � � � �� C�ASH �E��►AR��DS GIIdEN BY ��E�Q1NA CRIME PREVENTION � f UND - � � � � � � FOR tNFORMATION LEADING TO ARREST AND PROSECUTtON FOR CRIMES IN EDINA � CALL 926-1246: Follow the instructions you will be given. WRITE: Edina Crime Prevention Fund, Box 3523 I, 5 I 08 West 74th Street, Edina, Minn. 55435. All Calls or Le+fiers Strictly Confidential! YOU REMAIN ANONYMOUS i�g • �: M M.. .: .o� � . ' r _�.�� '�� .ti� ti�1. � t- � 's : .:,. , � EDfNA C1TIZEA+tS F�R CltlJS►lf PREVFN�l0�11 . Af�1D CR1�'�1fNAi APPRFNFNSlOfV � - (FOINA CR/ME PREYENTiON FUND) . , January 30.; I973 io o SOUTHD�LE �IERCH�INTS ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS . ii'e have asked for this opportunity to appear before you to update you on the activities of the Edina Crime Prevention Fund ar.d ask your financial support. For those of you tvho are unfa.mi2iar iti•ith our fund, it iti�as incorporated under the laws of i�Iinriesota in December of 1974 and has a re�resentative cr signee from each of the folloi�ing groups, plus other _ a�embers selected by the Directors from.Edina, whom they feel will help sustain and build our program. A11 members of the Board of Directors and Officers have remained anonymous from � . the very beginr.ing. � . - - The folloiYino organizations have sponsored the Edina Crime � Preventian Fund: • � The Athena Club of Edina �. -� � The Edina American Legion Post No. 471 . � � - Edina Gooci Go�•ernr.ent Group ' Edina Junior Chamber of Commerce �. The Edina Lions Glub � �iasonic Lodge . Optimist Club . �� Rotaxy Club ` jti'omen's Club . _ The Greater Edina Cnamber of Commerce �Iornings iae i�'o�►.en' s Club : Southdale Optimist Club � �� (t�e c��ou.�d e2rt�a.�n.�y c��eticUme acld�.ng ��ze Sou�`hdcc�e ��e.tckanzd Aa a o c�.a��.o st .�o �h.�a �;.ia ti o� b p a n.a ond .) � Our primary goals have been and are as folloi�•s: � 1.. To have a ready cash fund a�=ailable at aII times to use as the Coilmittee clee:�s n�Cessary for the fol�.oc.ing purpose:: a. To mal:e avai2able in�r�eui��e .: eti�ax�s for najor crimes _ in our o��n t`ii�a�e a� Sr'EZJ, as nei�hboring communities � . (at the present time under state 1�:: it is ille�al for any 4'illage tc use �axable �uncts `o: this purpose). � b. To dete: in every <<ay pos�iblc �h� infloi.� and s�ale of narcotics in our communitv an3 those adjacent. � -: ... . ,, � ti a � s�f ,� � �•. � �. f`• B , � Z o . : ' � c.o To�assist our young citizens in ways of better �- educating them about the dangers.and abuses of : not only using drugs but the sale of them and the serious consequences therein. ' � d. To use these funds when necessary to purchase informa- tion from informants t�rhich will help in: crime preven- tion and criminal apprehension.. - e. To continue Operation Identification t�rhich has � proven to be already a tremendously successful • ventiure. . . . The officers present today will go into some detail � as to various crimes that have occurred�in the . Southdale camplex and exactly how the fund has been helpful in apprehension of criminals in your complex. . 2� Contributions To Date; � � � " During the past three years there have been three mailings for funds; tiuo to residents of Edina and one to the merchants � of Edina. � � The mailing ta the merchants had a very poor response and ' .� actually did not return enough dollars to pay for the cost of mailing. . This is in contrast to the mazlin�s to private residents within Edina ivhere the return has resulted and has pro- '� vided more than SOo of the present funds. �. � �+Ie think you should knoir that in spit� of the fact that the main funds have come fron rESidenti�Z contributions, the largest portion of our expeZditures from these funds have been substantially used in the Southdale area. It r��ou13 appear that the customers, rather than the merchaZts, are the ones that are contributinA the most towards the protection of our ca�r�munity. j�hile it is not our policy to reveal exact expenditures, I cti*ould doubt that the residential contributors should be provide3 i�ith the . above information, in that they perhaps might feel that merchant support is extremely i:�portant aZono tdith their - � Atr'n . . - . . . 3. .,Some af t�ie uses of these funds : � ae To purch�.se dru�s in an eFfort to d�termine t�rho the actual distributors of n�rco�ics 2re. This requires a substantial amount of monev bt:t thus far has cut back the infloi.r of narcotics� irsto our community by almos4 60''s. Therc is little Gcubt t}iat Southdale is � I ! �I 1 i . S �.:� '; � �t � .. . �_ A� � one of the most frequently used areas for selling of various narcotics. The Iockers here provide an excellent means for dropping off large amounts of drugs and provides an atmosphere very attractive�to - both the buyer and seller of narcotics. � b. Burglaries and Thefts - there have been a number of burglaries involving businesses at Southdale which Officer Sigafoos can relate to you today and tell you exactly ho�� money from the fund was used ta solve these crimes. Presently there are three crimes being investigated in your complex through the use of informers. In short, the fund has been very helpful to both you and our Police Department in closing � .crimes and as a crime determent. c. The fund has paid for placards for �erchants to display in their stores and they are available free to all . .merchants. These have worked quite well when placed .: near cash registers and on countertops. � a , ., � { < 4 4. jt�e are purchasin� various types of special eQuipr�ent which - will be of assistance to all merchants ��here we have infor- mant tips on impend�ing crimes. Such equipment is not budgeted and, although very necessary, cannot be purchased except upon request annually and based an the Edina ViI12ge budge�. The . Crime Fund did purchase a Code-A-Phone which is located in the Police Department and is ayailable to anyone possessing ' information 24 hours a day. jti'e have not�only received some valuable tips �•rith this device, bux have also been able to: help many youn� people ZJho are troubled with �he narcotic '� and drug problem. � � j�re feel that the merchan � t,;ill � be at a great advantage if he can utilize the fund for.payment of a rei�rard. First, the reward can be larger than if he r�ere posting it as one merchant. It also increases the chance oi an inf�rmer pro�Tiding the police with infor,ation. The merchant does not th�n become an additional victim af crir�e through harassment by his own effor�s to solve burglaries and other crines,but also in a sense remains aaonym.ous and does not r.iake himself vulnerable to addi�ional crime. It should certainly be considered that the small merchant �oes not ha1*e th� ability to nlace a?arQe �mount of monev as a-re�vard for a cr�ne,and yet small merchants account for a I`arge part of the Southdale area and indi�Tiduallv could do very little. jtiouldn't it have been great had such a fund been available and the rec�ard money offered that ti�•ay i��hen the bonbing occurred in S;.. Paul several years a�o? Another eaa:�*�1� <<�as the bombing las� fall of the ��Iighland School. Z�:ithin z short time after the bombin� occurred a11 television ancl radio n�aia ��tere announcin� the fact that $500. reward ��as available zor information about� tllis part icular bombing. Due to the �•nlue of a re�tiard sy stem, information t�as obtained in less than 2=� Iiours �ti�hich broug}it . � � �•�� • •M,�t • .' � � J, �-.' .. ,.. �o A:" i . ✓ � � e 4 •e about the arrest and prosecution and conviction of two young men. , ' . You can imagine hoi�r valuable the crime fund might have been . had the Piper kidnapping occurred in our comr..unity. Instead, - it.took more than one month to raise an adequate reward and still no results have occurred. l�re are prepared to place or to offer � rewards in,-nediately but can only do so with your help. : ��'e are anticipating obtaining more sophisticated equipment to assist in the bicycle theft problem at Southdale. This is the area of the largest numb.er of bicycle and vehicle thefts in the .. community. In the past year we have.placed an officer here in the Southdale camplex to assist the lo�al security and handle - the shoplifting cases, and other types of offenses_committed in this area. - There are more incidents�and requests f�r services of all�types in the Southdale comnlex than in all of the remainder of Edina, .excluding vehicle accidents. � - � � As explained before, the Edina Crime Preventian Fund is legally incorporated under the laj,rs of �iinnesota. The funds are in��ested , in savings certificates for the highest rate of interest and still have the funds available when necessary.. . - j�'e �,rould t�relcome having severaZ of your directors or representa- tives be a part of our prvgram. They tti�ould not only be extrem.el}� � helpful to us, but�irould have access to confidential information," which for obvious reasons cannot be made available at this ti,-ne. In addition, we need strong financiai support from aIl of you '�, to sustain our program. . Sincerel.y, THE CHAIRI�:� OF THE ` EDI�Tr� CRI�1H PREVE`TIO�? FUi�iD P,S.: Please see that every merchant in Southdale receives a co�y�of this letter, ' �„_y e� . • - . •: � r' ,; ' , March l, I974 - �,, �. : • ' C�s��S CLEARr.p THROUGH THE UTILIZAT20*I OF ' ' �i�T�TI .r+OT• •.••�� PREV� :TI�P. � :,�I�S - �973 . . . ��','�--'-�� .Cri1JC....�J t.'Lr.r�..:.� ^=?C�G�i US� ��--,- tJUbi3�R OF . NLTL�lB�� OE . O_ � u_1�S : . PERSO.,S OFFE;ZSES CNARG�D rJ� = = `: S� • . . � . . -- . '�" = � " � � 4 � Edina B d ��. �. �c+� � � i � . . urglaries � � � - l� Bloor:t�ngton Burqlaries . ' � • � 7 P.ichfield Burglaries - - � , � 3 ±iinneapolis Bur�laries ' � � � 6? 61- • . � 17 � �::��_ies: ' � 3 £dina R _ � - obberies � . _ 1 Outstate Rol�bery -- . � � � � . 4 �. . � 3 `"_� =i�°=��= 11 �dina Auto Thefts � • . . 11 1 :;:= _ics � , . � . . c� _ i r^.dina . ' � r v; ._ 1 3Zoo:ainqton . - .� 5 � . � - _ _ . 2� ��-:°= ^^�='s. 7 . -.. _ `s : ��ina . I �r.iversity of riinnesota � a � . . 8 � �, . � . .� ' == � °=- • 5 ��ina ' � : _ 1_'_ ..izneapolis . . l0 16 � 2 ..: .._- , . °--�-- — = .��5: -+� . � .��ina - (Liquor, Bomb, 4 - �s�aaed Person, Etc.) � �- ' � TOT_i1LS e 109 5� �--, � �.._ � -. • _ "' "'� =�=OJ--2� -s �. result of the above arrests and clearances of �===_ — a: , , �`-�=-=zYY= $.11,280.00 ' _ 30:�� y : None . . ::a=cotics: 300.00 � �= :�r �h�; �sz 1,280. Q0 - O?'� °- V iJOII� $12�8 Q Qp � - r:�to �he=�s: 15,400.00 . � I;' $23,260.04 f ,, ..:123Z C� ��? ?: a . . _ _ � - �I2�i �ZOI2 ' t_'::res 1373 � . � . .. . � . ~ � • � v '? � o � - . . . � . . . . . � � � ' . � . . � .. � � i� � 3�Ci.i �1, 1 � %� � . . � .. - . . I' � � � ' . � . • ' � . �==_�° �a� r�_^� C�rse Prevention Fund was started in �lpril, 1971, in . el��;� o� _2� cas�� ave been cleared as a result of the use of. the , _=-�= -�:: -= -ti�=ss o= $6Q,00o00 �rorth o�' propertv has �been reeovered. o . : o . . . .� f` � � , � � /r . • . . °N •. � • � • ' Z4arC2't 1 � 1.97$ �°° . ''' 1972-1973 _ � .. d . �tEPOtti OF CLASS I 2•IAJOR CRItSES ' . �. . — , �DItJA POLICE DEPART�'�IENT _ • EDItdA, MItNESOTA . � � � O: F�_vS3 :`L^.•i3F� OF Or^F'£I+ISES � OFFE�TSES CLEARED BY AP.P.ES� � ?972 1973 a # 1972 $ � 1973 $ ___._. _____._ � �iu�d�= 1 1 0 . ]. 100 .- 1 � 100 Ra�e 1 1 0 1 100' 1 100 , . ; . . Robb�=y 7 13 85:?� - 2 29 ; 3 23 �ssa�slts �]. 55 7.8 12 24 27. • 3g . Burgla=y � 339 333 � 14. �3 � I5 39 37 37 . Larceny � 1471 1248 15.2 . .539 37 522 .�2 AutO ^a:s= � . 13� 157 16.3 6 4 ' 24 1S . 20��. 808 12.0� . 576 28� 9 34� " � • - �'Perso�s �:�-�e� =or Class I Crir�es: 1972 �- 3Q& . , � ' 1973 - 694 - 125.�$ Increase in _ � Class I Crines over �.9? 2 - . i � �