PL 10/20/1976 - 30454�
0
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MTG.
CITY OF FRIDLEY
OCTOBER 20, 1976
_ PAGE 1
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:32 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Members Preser;t: Haxriss Bergman, Bruce Peterson (sitting in for Langenfeld),
Schnabel '
Members Absent:
Others Present:
Bob Peterson� Shea
Jerrold Boaxdman, City Planner
APPROVE PLANNING COr1MISSION MINUTES: OCTOBER 6, 1976
MOTI�N by Schnabel, seconded by Bergmari, that the Planning Commission minutes
of October 6, 1976 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye� the motion carried unanimously.
1. CONTINUID: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED PLAT, PeS. #76-07,
ROTTLUND OAKS BY THE ROTTLUND COA2PANY:. Being a replat of Lots , 7, ,
9, 0, 1, 1 1 and 17, Block l, Spring Brook Park Second Addition,
together with Lots 32 and 33, and the West 30 feet of Lots 3J� and 35,
, Block 10, Spring Brook Park Addition, zoned P.D. (Planned Develo�ment),
generally located between Ruth Street N.E. and East River Ro�d°`�1';;E.,
. North of Liberty Street N.E.
Pu.blic Hearing open.
Mr. David H. ftotter, Vice President of Rottlund Company, was present.
Mr. Boardman stated that Mr. Rotter had laid out the approximate building sites
on his plan as was requested by the Planning Commission at the last meeti.ng, .
and there was a consistent setback of !�5 � asound the cul-de-sac. He explai�?�i=•;:#
that Mr, Rotter had dropped a lot, and the type of lot line requirement t�:a,t
was needed had been picked up. He added that in most cases there was about
80' at the building line.
Ch�irperson Harris asked if there was any problem with:the topography of the
� land on lot 7, and Mr. Boardman said he didn't think ther�;would be too much of
a problem there. Mr. Rotter explained that house would have a walk-out.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1976 � page 2
Mr. Howard Dumphy stated that the same condition applied as he had explained
8t the last meeting, and that the replat was subject to the purchase of the ��
property. -
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission close
the Public Hearing on consideration of a proposed plat, P.S. #76-07, Rottlund
Oaks, By the Rottlund Company. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson
Haxris declared the Public Hearing closed at 7;1�5 P.M.
Mr. Bergman said that at the last meeting Mr. Boardman had a fair amount of
concerns, and was wondering how he felt about the plat now. Mr.'Boardman
replied that the plan was now acceptable.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommend
to Council approval of the proposed plat, P.S. #76-07, Rottlund Oaks, by the
Rottlund Company: Being a replat of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, ].1�, 15, 16 and 17,
Block 1, Spring Brook Park Second Addition, together with I,ots 32 and 33,
and the West 30 feet of Lots 3!t and 35, Block 10, Spring Brook Park Addition,
zoned P.D. (Planned Development), generally located between Ruth Street N.E.
and Ea,st River Road N.E.� North of Liberty Street N.E.
Mr. Boardman suggested a stipulation be included concerning the !t5' setback
for a11 construction.
Berg-ian AMENDED the MOT�ON to include the understanding that the development
off the cul-de-sac would follow in general the 1�5� setbacic. Agreeable with �
the seconder.
Chairperson Harris asked if there was any need for drainage and utility
easements, and Mr. Boardman said that everything was all set.
UPaN A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris marked the plat bchibit A to send on to Council.
2.
THE
TION OF REZONING THE PD DISTRICT (PLANNID DEVELOPMENT
EAST RIVER ROAD, TO R-1, SINGLE FAr1ILY D��v'ELLING AR.F�
Mr. David ftotter, Vice President of Rottlund Company� was present.
)•
Mr. Boardman stated that this had been discussed at the last Planning Commission
meeting, and the City felt they sho�ild ca11 a spade a spade and get the area
zoned according to how it caas developed, �nstead of carrying on as a P.D.
District which was a useless zone for that area. He explaz.ned that most of the
development in that area would be an R-1 zone, with probably a R-3 development
on Ea.st River Road on Mr. Rotter's property. Mr. Boardman stated that as far
as City Staff was concerned, they felt it would be a good idea to get rid of
the P.D. in the area and call it what it was going to be. He explained that
they were suggesting that Mr. Rotter petition for a rezoning on his property,
�
0
Planning Coiranission Meeting - October 20, 1976
Pa�e 3
and that the City initiate a rezoning on that R-1 that was presently existing.
� Mr. Bergman said he thought there should be some better identification of what
they were talking about rezoning.- He also said that he felt there was merit
to the suggestion and he understood administration's proposal and i.t coneerned
itself with a couple of points: l) that P.D. zoning was kind of a bummer, and
2) the solidification of land use, regardless of what happened, would be
restricted to R-1 if it was rezoned. Mr. Bergman.stated he thought that i� �Yso
ought to have some benefit to the occupants of that land, as there would be
one less concern as to wha� could happen next door if there was a tornado or
� heavy damage of some kind. He added that under these considerations, and
considering the fact that the owner had in good faith followed or•dinances� and
process, that he not be charged with such costs. With that as a base, Mr.
Bergman said, he would like to ask the property o�mer if he would have an
objection to this rezoning if it would take place at no cost to him.
Mr. Rotter referred the Commission to his letter of October �,_1976, contained
in the minutes of the last Planning Commission meeting. He said that even if
there was no cost, if the zoning was changed on lots 11, 12 and 13 of the original
plat he would be spending the next six months in front of this Commission to
possibly get a multi-family dwelling in there. He explained that under the
present zoning it was possible for a multiple dwelling to be developed with
some ki,nd of a buffer. Mr. Rotter said that it was the feeling of his
compa.ny that they were trying to do everything they could to make it advantageous
to sell the property, but they didn�t want to take'a piece of property which
they felt would be in their best interest to use for multiple family and
rezoiie it back to R-1 and go through the hearings. He said that he would prefer
r'1 to rezone one axea first and zone the rest residential.
Mr. Bergman suggested rezoning it R-3; thereby ta.king the whole P.D. axea and
rezoning it for its intended use. Mr. Rotter said that R-3 would be no problem;
but problems did arise when residential property was rezoned to multiple family
or commercial. .
Mrs. Schnabel asked if it was possible to split a section; for instance, deszgnate
all but lots 11, 12 and 13 as R-1 and leave the others P.D. or change them to
R-3. Chairperson Harris s aid they could rezone to R-3 and R-1, but he would
be opposed to leaving a P.D. situation with those three lots. I�irs. Schnabel
pointed out that if the entire area was rezoned R-3, there might be,some concern
from the neighbors. Chairperson Harris said they could zone the lots around
the cul-de-sac R-1 and the others R-3 at the same time. Mr. Rotter commented
that the letter that was read int� the minutes at the last meeting stated what
he was going to do with the property anyway� so that was a matter of public
record.
Mr. Bergman asked Mr. Rotter if he was willing to be pinned down to that rezoning
plan; three lots rezoned from P.D. to R-3 and the balance of the P.D. rezoned
to R-1 at no cost to him. Mr. Rotter said that was fine.
Mr. Rotter said he had one other question; on .the origirral plat of the Spring
Brook Addition some money was placed on escrow with the City for park dedication.
He said he felt that since it had already been paid once, he shouldn�t have to
r"�, pay it again. He further explained that since the paxk dedication had already
been paid on this entire piece of property as it was developed now prior to
his petition, and he was replatting within an existing area and losing a lot,
he would like to have it waived that he pay again for park dedication.
Planning Commissior� Meeting - October 20, 19?6 " Page �
Chairperson Harris pointed out that that would be a City Council decision. ,r,�
Mr. Boardman stated that if the old plat was recorded the money should have
been paid� but he wasn't sure where they stood on it. He said they would get
3t straightened out at the Council meetirig. -
Mr. Bergman said he assumed a Public Hearing was required for a rezoning
action, and Chairperson Harris sa.i.d they would have to make a request to
City Council to initiate the action for the rezoning.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission pass
a resolution to Council that the present P.D. zoned area in the 8110 block of
East River Road be rezoned at City initiative to R-1, with the exception of
Lots 11, 12 and 13 to be rezoned to R-3, with the understanding that the prop-
erty owner, Mr. David Rotter, is in concurrence with this proposal and also
with the understanding that the property owner• will not be charged for this
rezoning.
Mr. Boardman said they were also talking about a11 P.D. in the area including
North of this around Fairmont Circle that was presently developed. He
suggested asking the City Council to also petition for a rezoning on that
with no charge to the property owners. He explained that was outside of this
plat. Chairperson Harris suggested making two separate motions so there would
be two Public Hearings.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
�''1
Mrs. Schnabel asked who the developer was of the Fairmont Circle area, and
Mr. ftotter said he was. He �XPlained that all but one lot was developed,
and that �rould be developed soon. Mr. Bergman asked if the use of the
total Fairmont Circle area wa.s R-1, and Mr. Rotter replied it was. Mr.
Boa;rdman said it was a11 zoned P.D. except Lot l, Block 2 of Bourdeauxs
Spring Brook Addition� which was zoned R-l.
Mrs. Schnabel said she was a little concerned that they were taking the
initiative to do this, and was wondering if that would be jumping the gun on
the residents of the area. Mr. Harris said the problem was it was an existing
fact and it would be difficult to get the residents in to make the initiative
for the rezoning. Mrs. Schnabel asked Mr. Boaxdman if he felt fairly certain
the residents in the area were in favor of this type of thing. She said she
would hate to .m�alce this motion and get the Coun�cil going on this and then find
suddently that the people in the area didn't �rant it to begin with and become
upset with both the Planning Commission and City Council for initiating it.
Mr. Boardman said he had talked to some of the residents and they had the
genera]. feeling they would feel more protected under this. He added that he
hadn�t gone into all the financial complicatior_s on a P.D. zoning, but it
seemed the people had gotten loans to build their houses even though it was
zoned P.D.� but he thought it would be more secure for them if the area was
zoned R-1. Mrs. Schnabel asked if their applications for loans would change
iri any way if it was rezoned from P.D. to R-1, and Mr. Boardman s aid he
doubted it. He explained that if anything� it would be more difficult under �
�-
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1976 pagE 5
,�""1 P.D. to get monies to develop. Mrs. Schnabel asked who would bear the costs
. for rezoning this� and Mr. Boardman answered the costs.would be waived si.nce
it would be initiated by the City.
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission pass
a resolution to the City Council that the P.D. area axound Fairmont Circle
be rezoned to R-1 with the understanding there would be no cost to the residents.
Mr. Boardman said he would like to point out that they did have on record
that an apartment building was approved in there� so by going R-1 it would
be protecting the residents.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning.Commission suspend
the rules and move to item 8 on the agenda. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously. •
8. RECEIVE APPEALS COP��hiISSION �ffNUTES: OCTOBER 12, 1976
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman, that the Planni.ng Commission receive
the Appeals Commission minutes o£ October 12,�1976. Upon a voice vote, all
^ voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. .
a. Request by Jerry Paschke of Paco, Inc. for permission to have the
Planning Comrriission consider his variance requests for 7751 E1m Street
N.E. before this is heard by the Appeals Commission on October 26, 1976.
This process would allow this request to go to the City Council on
November l� 1976 instad of November 15, 1976. •
Mr. Jerry Paschke of Paco� Inc., was present.
Mr. Boardman stated that to a certain degree he disagreed to the thought that
was behind this request. He said an order had been set up that such items
would go to the Appeals Commission� then to the Plar�ning. Commission and.then
to the City Council, and he preferred not to change that order. However� he
said� due to time periods it did pose some kind of a hardship on Mr. Paschke.
Nlr. Boardman explai.ned the major problem was �zi.th the zero lot line for the
proposed building on the South property line.
Mr. Harris turned the Chairmanship over to Mr. Bergman, since he was the
affected property owner on the South side.
Mrs. 5chnabel said that when this came before the Appeals Commission Mr.
Paschke had said he wasn't planning on building until next spri.ng, and asked
him if he had changed his mind. Mr. Paschke explained that for various
reasons he had decided not to build on his property on Beech Street, so he
� was going to proceed with this property. He said that the house was now vacant�
although his daughter wanted to live in it for the winter.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1976
,,,
Page 6
Mrs. Schnabel asked if he was planning to start right away, and Mr. Paschke
replied he was� and explained the house was not affected by it. ;�
Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that the original discussion of this request appeared
on pages 111� through 116 of the agenda dated October 6, and said that there
may be some information included in that discussion which would be pertinent
now. She stated that at the time this came before the Appeals Commission on
September 28, the proposed structure on this lot covered more than 1t0% of the
lot. She said that because.it did go over 1�0% the Appeals Commission talked
to Mr. Paschke about reviewing it with City Staff and coming up with a
different size building on the lot� and about the problems of the zero lot
Ii.ne and the setback of tYie parking stalls. She explained that the proposed
building he presented that night for this address was the exact building he
presented that same night for another lot� and that was why there was not a
lot of conversation under that particular request, but a lot of it occurred
under the other request. Because the building covered more than �.0% of the
lot� pirs. Schnabel stated, it was agreed that Mr. Paschke would work with the
Staff and come up with a new building plan. She said he had indicated at that
time that he didn't plan on building until next springt so the Appeals Commission
tabled it so he could have time to revise his plans. She asked Mr. Paschke if
basically he was planning to go from 25' to 7.5' in the rear of the building.
Mr. Paschke said that originally the building Yras going to sit on the North
zero lot line, but Mr. Boaxdman wanted to Yiave 5' on either side as a buffer
strip between the parking lots. He explained the xeason it w=.s changed Vras
becat�se the plan that was drawn for the building on Beech Street had a vacated
street that was 25', and when the plans were redrawn they were redrawn the same�
as he hadn't realized that on this site there was only a 7 2� �l�y that was
vacated. He said that was how it got over 1t0I, and nobody realized that until
a few minutes before the meeting.
Acting Chairperson Bergman.said he felt a bit awkward that the Planning
Commission even had this item. He sa.id he felt they were being asked to
substitute for the Appeals Commission, and this item would be taken up before
the next Appeals meeting anyway. He asked if this would.actually be saving
any time� and Mr. Paschke answered it would be saving one month.
Mr. Boardrrian said that the process they went through on a vaxiance was that
it was heard by the Appeals Commission and then it was sent to the Planning
Commission for policy review and then went on the the City Council. He said
that in most cases the Planning Commission did not take any action on a
vaxiance� but took a look at the nariances when they received the minutes.
He stated that instead of a discussion on the building tonight, wh�t they
were looking for was a motion to send this to the Appeals Commission and then
from the Appeals Commission directly to the City Council without recommendation
from the Planning Commission. In other words� he explained, skipping the
process through the Planning Commission. �lic�at atlmi ht arise� andsthen send
should look at it to see if there was any po Y g
it on to the Appeals Commission; their job was not to approve the setbacks--
that was still up to the Appeals Commission.
�
Plann3ng Commission Meeting - October 20,.1976
Page 7
Mr. Paschke said it was all M-2 zoning, and he was just asking the Board of
Appeals to allow them to build�on 7 1/2' rather than 25'. He said this was constant
;� in.the area, and this would fit in with ttie setback of .other buildings in this block.
Acting Chairperson Bergman asked iytr. Harris if he had any objection to the
zero setback, and Mr. Harris replied he didn�t. He said the only concern
he had on the deal was since this was a paxking lot and they were going
to zero lot line, there should be some curbing in there. .
Mr. Boardman explained that what the code allowed without a vaxiance was
a developer could go to zero lot line if, and only if, his building would be
abutted by another building. He said that anything other than that would
require a vaxiance to go to zero lot line; so even if agreements were signed
it would still require a variance. He said that in the past in this area
they�had allowed zero lot lines ma.i.nly because they had agreements on buildings
to abut those zero lot lines, but in all other cases zero l�ot lines were not
granted.
Mrs. Schnabel s aid they had only allowed zero lot lines when there had been
a written agreement with the adjacent property owner, and in most cases the
adjacent property owner planned to build up to the zero lot line himself
so the two buildings would connect. Mr. Boardman explained the reason t�ey
did that was so instead of having smaller sections of green areas between
the buildings� they shoved the buildings together and got wider open spaces
3n there. He said he had some problem with the zero lot line in this c�e,
m,�.inly on the South side, because that zero lot line would abut a parking
lot instead of another bui:lding.
n
Aating Chairperson Bergman said that requests for variances from 25� down to
7 2� upset him (just the magnitude), and vaxiances down to zero upset him.
He said� however, that the request for 25' to 7�� would just allow the petitioner
to do what others had already been allowed to do, which seemed like a good
qualification. Mr. Bergman added that going to zero without a total plan
for the area bothered him personally, and said that he thought they were talking
about details when maybe they should be addressing policy. He stated that he
would be open to administration or other Corranission members t�aith regaxd to
any cancerns for policy direction to the Boaxd of Appeals.
• Mr. Boardman said that he felt the proposal Mr. Paschke had previously where
he had zero lot line on the North property line was a much better plan. r1r.
Paschke said he agreed with what Mr. Boardma.n was saying� but he wasn't the
person who wanted to buy the building. Mr. Boaxdman said he thought they had
to be somewhat conscious of what was happening in this area� and if the only
way they could build that building was to go wiih zero lot line on that side,
he didn't feel it should be developed yet.
1�x'. Boardman said it would be up to the Appeals Commission as to what they
thought, but what he didn't want to see happening was another request coriing
in. He reiterated that the question that should be before the Planning
Commission would be to allow the Appeals Commission to make a motion directly
to the City Council, and the Planning Commission would be able to see what
�"'1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 197b •� Page 8
took place after it went to City Council.
Acting Chairperson Bergman said that apparently.everything that was of concern
here was with the ordinance rather than policy, per se. Mr. Boardman said the
only policy involved was the ger�eral feeli.ng of Vrhat had happened in the area.
Mr. Paschke said that he felt they had pretty much gotten this under control,
and a11 of his buildings in that area were good-looking buildings. He said
that realistically you had to think, do you want something in there or not?
He said that could not be built without zero lot lines.
Mr. Boardman said that his concern was that right now the parking lot for
Sign Crafters was right up to the property line. He asked P4r. Paschke if
he would get ma.intenance easements to go on the adjoining property for
maintenance of the building. Mr. Paschke replied that would only involve
painting once every fifteen or twenty years, and with the modern painting
equipment it was almost unnecessary to go on someone else�s property. Mrs.
Schnabel pointed ou�t it would be for his own protection so he wouldn't be
trespassing. ,
��
Mr� Boaxdman said that if the variance was granted on that building, some
consideration shQUld be given_to the paxking and even the_setback of the
building so that if a curb was placed on Sign Crafter's property something
would happen to keep the cars� signs, or storage off the building. Mr.
Paschke suggested putting down �urb blocksg and Mr. Boardman replied they
were trying to get away from them. Rir. Paschke said if grass was put in
there it would not be maintained� and if it was asphalt it would be used �
for storage. Mrs. Schnabel suggested soMe kind of a small berm, but Mr.
Boardman said if this didn't go to zero lot line he would like to see a
poured concrete curb go along the property line.
Acting Chairperson Bergman sa.id that he would like to intervene and suggest
the Commission was talking about other things than the policy suggestion.
He said he didn�t think they wanted to substitute for the Board of Appeals
or try to do their job. Mr. Boaxdman said he thought that Mr. Haxris could
participate in a motion if the motion just made a recommendation that the
Appeals Commission review this with direct recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Haxris said he would vote on that� but as long as there was discussion
on the actual variance he thought there might be a conflict.
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission
recommend that the standaxd procedure be waiveci for review by the Planning
Commi.ssion, and a11ow recommendation to go directly from the Appeals Commission
to the City Council on Mr. Paschke's request for variances. Upon a voice
vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Fiaxris declared a recess at 8:55 P.M. and reconvened the meeting
at 9:20 P.M.
3. CONTINUID: REVIEW OF PROPOSID MAINTENANCE CODE
�.
Mrs. Schnabel commented that it seemed to her that perhaps this should be �
deferred again only from the standpoint that Mr. Peterson had not had a •
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20� 1976 Page 9'
chance to review it, which left only three regular members of the Commission
,..>
to review it. Mr. Boaxdman said the intent of the last delay was to have
�� �ime to review it to give some direction to member commissions.
Chairgerson Harris asked where they were on the study to find out how much
this would cost to administrate. Mr. Boardman replied that at this time "
they were going to ather communities that had this type of ordianance in op-
eration and analyzing their costs. He said some of the cities that had such
an ordinance were St. Louis Paxk, Coon Rapids, Bloomington� Richfield and
New Brighton. He explained they were not a11 as lengthy, but with this
maintenance code they were also including one for industrial and including
exterior maintenance also. -
Chairperson Haxris said he really felt that this should be handled in two
sections; making it residential and non- residential. Mr. Boardman said
that was the i.ntent. He sai.d the main thing the Commission should actually
delve into was the administration of it and the operation of the code because
that was where the major thrust of the matter was going to be--in enforcement.
He commented that they did anticipate a drop i.n the number of permits with
the completion af development in the City� and that would probably free up
some of the time of the Inspectors.
Mr. Bergman said he thought this kind of a code involved additional govern-
mental control� specifically telling property owners what they have to do
to their property which costs them money. �ie said he had sorr.� eonfTict with
that, and asked "how far do you carry govnerment?'� Mr. Boardman said it may
^ mean.the difference between a house that was unlivable, a house that was
moderately livable, and a well-kept home. Mr: Bergman asked '�livable for who--
the people or the City?" Mr. Boaxdman replied that building codes were for
the protection of the people, whether they liked it or not.
Chairperson Harris said it has been the policy in the past that government
concern itself primarily with the health, safety and structural soundness
of the buildings. He said he noted as he went through the code that it
stated a window was necessary in every room. Mr. Boardman said that type of
thing would be very difficult to enforce� and added there �ras also a clause
which stated this might not be acceptable in all cases. Mr. Hasris said it
would be very difficult to say� for instance, that .all houses in Fridley have
100 amp electrical systems. He stated that he understood that Mi.nneapolis
had done this in some areas and it had caused a lot of problems. Mr. Bergman
stated that he thought courts upheld that kind of ordinance for new construction,
but he was not fami.liar with that for upgrading property. Mr. Boardman
commented that the code had been around for a long time, and he imagined that
there were a lot of court cases.
Chairperson Harris said he thought it went beyond the legality to the political
pressure from a community on the elected officials, and with a community this
size it would be tremendous with this code. He said he could foresee a lot
of loca] political pressure, and he thought the elected officials would have
a tough time adopting this� at least in its pr�sent form. He said he hoped
they could strike some type of accord which they could all live with.
�"1
Planning Com�ni.ssion Meeting - October 20, 1976 � Page 10
Mr. Bflaxdman said he thought the whole issue that would be involved with this
was the question of if this code would allow the City to go into a resident�s
home at any time and any place and tell that person to upgrade his property.
He said he didn't think that was what they were goi.ng to do� he didn't think
they could do that or wanted to do that. He suggested that perhaps upgrading
should take place at the time of a sa1e, when it would be more impersonal
and the rights of one person wouldn�t be invaded as much. Also,�he said, if
someone is going to buy the house he should be aware of what was wrong with
3t. He stated that a lot bf this took place with the mortgage companies and
FHA or GI loans.
Mr. Bergman asked if there weren't guidelines already a.gainst which these
gauges were made, and if these weren't the building codes. Chairperson Harris
sai.d that the code ten years ago was not the same code as it is today, and
explained that they had adopted the Uniform Bnilding Code as ar►ended by the
State of Minnesota. He said the Attorney General ha� an opinion that if a
City had a building code they had to adopt the Minnesota State 3uilding Code,
but if they didn't have any building code they wouldn't have to adopt that
one. Mr. Bergman s aid he was suggesting that was the code against which the
Inspectors worked� and asked if they weren�t to a great extent duplicating
or expanding on that in this maintenance code. He said he was bothered
because the cormnon understanding of the term "maintenance" was the proper
care and attention of existing facilities� and in a lot of the proposal they
were addressi.ng modification of those facilities; he said they were talking
about construction and not maintenance.
�-'`�
Mrs. Schnabel asked who wrote the proposed mai.ntenance code, and Mr. Boardman �
replied it was put together by one of his interns who put it togeth�r through
t�e present codes in existence. Mrs. Schnabel asked who requested '-.hat this
be written� and Mr. Boardman said it was r.equested with the approval of the
Section 8 Program by the Planning Commission and the City Council. He added
it was also talked about in the Housing Plan. Mr. Boardman said that the bugs
had to be ironed out so this could be made a usable item that was enforceable.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission continue
the review of the proposed maintenance code until the next meeting when full
membership would be present.
Chairperson Harris s aid he didn't think this should replace the zoning code�
and Mr. Boardman said it wouldn't. Mr. Boardman said the problem they had
right now was if they got a complaint from a tenant in an apartment building
in Fridley� there was nothing they could do about it. He explained there was
nothing that would a11ow the City to tell that property owner to upgrade
br make those changes. Mr. Harris said he was not so sure that was their
function. He said that suppose a tenant didn't like the color of his wa11,
that might be a disagreement between the tenant and the landlord for one reason
or another� and it seemed the City was getting in between.
Mrs. Schnabel stated that she thought they had a respon'sibility to the person
who owned the building as well as the tenant. Mr. Boardman said they did have
a responsibility to protect the health and safety of the residents of the �
City� and asked what could be done if a tenant in Fridley was not getting �
Planning Corruni.ssion Meeting - October 20� 1976 � Page 11
proper heat to his unit. Chairperson Harris sid all the tenant would have to
�i do is put his rent in escrow until he got his heat; that would be the quickest
, way to solve that. He said he thought they would just be taking on more work
than they were equipped to handle, as they were not going to get more Staff.
He added he didn't feel it was governmen�ls fnnction to act as an arbitrator
betbreen tenants and landlords. Mr. Boardman said he didn't thi.nk they would
be acting so much as an arbit�ator. He said that the City did enforce building
codes; and with that enforcement they were taking on the responsibility of
the protecto� of the residents--even on new buildings.
�
��
,,-.
.__
Mrs. Schnabel noted that there was a lot in the proposed code about garbage
and rubbish control� and the City had a very strong garbage �d rubbish
code already. Mr. Boardman said that was mainly in the R-1 properties. Nir.
Harris pointed out that was why he would like to handle this in two sections.
Mrs. Schnabel said that even R-1 should be bfioken down, as mobile homes and
apartment buildings were listed in the R-1 section and she felt they should
be handled sepaxately. Mr. Harris agreed, and said that would make it easier
to study.
Mr. Peterson asked what the necessity of this was in regard to Section 8.
Mr. Boardman said that it was recommended tha� with the Section 8 Program
the City get a housing maintenance code, and the main reason for that �ras
that if people accepted units under a Section 8 Program the City should in
some manner insure proper livi.rg conditions for those people. Mr. Peterson
sa3.d then it was a recommendation� but not something that had to be paric of
the policy. rir. Boardman explained it was part of the Comprehensive Housing
Plan that this be an implementation program� but whether this was adopted or
not was strictly based on its own merits.
Cha.irperson Haxris read to the Commission part of the Non-Residential
Maintenance Section under Responsibilities of Owners and Occupants - Stxuctural:
230.31 Provision and Maintenance of Basic Services and Utilities: 1) Plumbing,
Heating and Electrical Service: Every owner sha11 be responsible for the
provision and maintenance of plumbing, heating, electrical and ventilating
service to each non-residential facil.ity. He stated that the problem with
that was it was absolutely contrary to the terms of the leases. He explained
that when a property owner had a renter there was usually a lease agreement,
and there were many points in the proposed code which ran contrary to the
provisions of the leases. Mr. Boardman saa.d that what they were saying there
was those services must be provided by the property owner; in other words,
he had to provide sewer to the property, elec�rical, etc.� and if that was
not provicied to that prvperty then that property should not be occupied.
Mr. Harris pointed out in also said maintenance of those services. He said
that if a tenant dumped something down a drai.n which plugged up the sewer,
under this code the lsndlord would have to clean the sewer out. He explained
that his lease said it was the tenant's responsibility to maintain the plumbing.
Mr. Boardman said then he had transferred the responsibility to the tenant.
Mr. Boardman explained that as fsr as the City was concerned, if anything went
wrong with that property it was the owner's responsibility, not the renter.
Chairperson Harris s aid he thought that all of a sudden they would be caught
between the lease and the code� and they would have a three-ring circus. Mr.
Plann3ng Commission iieeting - October 20, 1976 . Page 12
Boardman said that was the way it was now, and explained the City could not
enforce a lease but had to go to the property owner. He added that the code ^
did not say that it �rould take the place of all lease.agreements.
Mr. Bergman commented that he thought Mr. Boardman had a clean way of handling
it.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission amend
the agenda to include as item 9 the receipt of the Community Development
Minutes of October 12, 1976. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
!�. CONTINUID: DISCUSSION ON GARAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
Mrs. Schnabel asked what kind of time element they were dealing with on this,
and Mr. Boardman replied there was none. Mr. Bergman said that he thought
there were some strong feelings wi.thin the Commissions on this, and he thought
it might be wise to continue this item.
Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to mention that on September 28 the Appeals
Comm3ssion did receive the Comi;.unity Development Commission minutes and held
a rather lengthy discussion on garage requirements tahich was included in the
October 6th Planning Commission minutes on pages 116 through 120. She said
that they received the Community Development minutes, and the Appeals
Commission�s basi.c cor�sideration was they still really did approve having
garages required. She suggested that if any members of the Planning Commission
had not reviewed those minutes that they do so, because the Board of Appeals
did have quite a long discussion and delved into many areas of it, particularly
witn 40� lots.
�
A2r. Bergman asked if the Appeals Commission had then concluded their review
of this item, and Mrs. Schnabel replied that they had not been asked to make
a specific recommendation to the Planning Commission so they simply reviewed
what Community Develog.�ent had stated and held a discussion. Mrs. Schnabel
said that the meat of what they discussed was on page 119, when rir. Holden
asked the Commission wnat their reaction would be if a motion was made identical
to the one in the Co .mr�unity Development Commission minutes of August 10, 1976
stating that one enclosed garage space be provided per dwelling for those five
reasons listed. She said that includi.ng Mr. Holden voting, because this had
been informal, it had come out 3- 2 in favor of the motion. She explained
they felt there was a:nisprint regarding Mr. Kemper's vote. Mrs. Schnabel
added that they had not had Staff�s report at that time, and Mr. Bergman said
the Gbmmunity Development Commission had not had the report from Staff eittier.
Chairperson Harris asked if they wished to reconsider their positions consideri.ng
the Staff report that �►•as now available, and Mx�. Bergman said he didn't feel
3nclined to. /'
/
�•'�
Mr. Bergman commented that they were talking here about whether or not they
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1976
Page 13
should require as a minimum a single unit garage for a single famiily dwelling
;�=�, out of consideration for safety, welfare of adjacent property owners, to
enclose automobiles and other things that could be of a nuisance or actual
safety hazard to adjacent property owners and so forth. He said h� was °
wondering whether that ought to be required or if that was being too overbearing
� on someone about to build a house. Mr. Bergman stated they were considering
something of a similar general nature which was the housing maintenance code
which would require more things that would also cost money, and he was just
considering what the relative merits of those two things were.
N1rs. Schnabel said that along with that, one of the thoughts she had on this
�ras that perhaps somehow or another the percentage of lot coverage allowed
should include space for the possibility of a garage to be constructed at a
later date. She said that this tied in with the size of a house that could
be built on a substandard lot, and this might be a way to get around that.
She noted that the statement had been made that if people were not required
to build a garage at the time their house was constructed, they did tend to
put a garage in at a later date. A�rs. Schnabel said it was interesting
because the Appeals Commi.ssion heard a request at the last meeting for a garage
to be built on a lot that previously had no garage, and the people had lived
there for six years. She commented that she thought si�c years was a rather
long time in a way. Mr. Boardman said that he thought the decision was
probably an economic decision, and in most cases he thought it was an economic
decision. FSccept for the fact, Mrs. Schnabel said, that they had a driveway
i:: all the time and a single car garage cost probably about $1,000 to $1,200.
i�1 Mr. Boardman said that was constructing a garage after the house was built.
He said if a garage was built with a house, it was about 10% of the cost
of the total structure. He said that figure came from the Metro Council
Subcommi.ttee on Housing Industry Practices. Mr. Bergman commented that he
coulcln�t believe a person would save money by going in at a later date and
adding a garage. Mr. Boardman pointed out it was possible for a home owner
to build a garage himself or with a little help. Mr. Bergman asked if the
present code couldn�t allow for that. He said, for example, if a man came
in with complete building plans which included a gaxage, to his Imowledge
that set of building plans didn't necessarily attest to the fact that the
contractor taas going to do it rather than the man himself. He added he
• really couldn�t see the tremendous impact of taking that $1,200 or $1,500 '
for a single unit garage and adding it to the mortgage and paying for�it
over 25 years.
MY'• Bergman asked what percentage of R-1 lots had not been built upon, and
NIr. Boardman answered probably about 10%. Mr. Bergman said that then they
were talking about the advisability of revising the code requirement for the
last 10%. Mr. Boardman said that possibly the last 10% may not need a garage.
Cha.i.rperson Harris said he felt they ought to tighten up on th� residential
areas. He said that in some ways they were pretty tight� but in other way
pretty lax.
Mrs. Schnabel said that the majority of the Appeals Commission did concur
with Community Development that there still should be a garage requirement.
/`1 Chairperson Harris said however, that didn�t address the 1�0' lots. Mrs.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 19?6 Page 1�
Schnabel saa.d one of their thoughts was that this may be a way that reduces
the number of buildings that are put on l�0� lots. Mr. Bergman said that ''^'�
Comrminity Development had a view of that also� and their view as that it was
entirely misstated. He said a lot should not require a garage; a house
should. He said a garage should be disassociated from a lot, and a dwelling
unit should req�uire a gaxage.
Mrs. Schnabel read from the Appeals Commission minutes of September 28, 1976,
which stated: Mr. Kemper said that maybe by requiring that each home have
at least a single-car garage, it would automatically prohibit building on
1t0' lots, and that might be the appropriate criteria they should be using.
She said that would be tying a garage to a house, regardless of lot size.
Mr.-Boardman referred to the S�aff Report, and said they were wondering if
they were providing adequate facilities for those people in the low and
moderate income range. He was wondering if the people who were purchasing
a house should have the option of buying it with their house, building it at
a later date, or perhaps not having one at a11. Mrs. Schnabel suggested that
perhaps the size of the house should be restricted on a substandard lot so
that if�a garage is not required at the time of construction, it could be
built at a later date. She said that at the present time there were houses
on 1�0' lots in Fridley� but they were built a long time a.go. She stated that
some of those did have garages, and the problem was it was very difficult to
squeeze both a house and a garage on a substandaxd lot. Mrs. Schnabel said
�i,;iat regarding substandard lots, she thought that the one person they had to
get to at that point was the contractor. She felt that the contractor wanted
to build as large a home as possible so he could make more money. She said ^
with smaller homes on these lots the lower-income people could afford to buy.
Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to bring up one other point. She pointed
out that Fridley was probably 90% developed in their residential area, but
there were adjacent communities such as Coon ftapids and Blaine that had a
lot of open space to be developed. She said that maybe they, as a community,
had to be slightly selfish because they were so far along in their development
process and still demand that a garage be built with a home. She stated that
if a person didn�t want to build a garage with a home, then maybe he could
go out to Blaine or Coon Rapids where that requirement didn't exist. Mr. Bergman
pointed out there were other options also, such as renting or moving into a
townhouse, so the City wouldn't be closing them out entirely.
Mr. Boardman said that Fridley was an area that was getting more low and moderate
i.ncome people, and by forcing them to other axeas the City would be creating
hardships on them as far as transportation since there were jobs available for
them in Fridley. He asked if they wouldn't be denying that person the capability
that could be available to him if garages were no longer required to purchase
a home in the city and work in the city. Mrs. Schnabel pointed out she was
not talki.ng about existing homes, but about new construction, and that maybe
the contractors should be forced to build smaller homes. She said she was
not trying to be terribly hard-nosed about this, but maybe it was the only way
to force some of the low-income homes to be built.
Chairperson Harris asked what the minimum square footage of a living area could ^
be� and Mr. Boardman replied that the requirement was 1,020 for a 9,000 square Y
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1976 page 15
� foot lot�and the minimum on lots less than 9,000' was 768'. Chairman Harris
said he thought he wouldn't have any object'ion to a smaller house. Mr.
Bergman suggested a variance could be requested in that case� and on a sub-
standard lot where that occurred there wouldn't be any real problem.
Mr. Bergman said he regretted the full Commission wasn't represented, but he
did feel somewhat action-oriented on this and would like to make a motion.
MOTION..by
Commission
upgrade or
areas in t
a mi.nimum
following
Bergman, seconded for discussion by Schnabel, that the Plannang
recommend to Council that in consideration of the objective to
at least maintain the quality of the single family residenti al
he City of Fridley, the City Ordinance be modified to require as
one enclosed gaxage space per single family dwelling unit for the
reasons:
1. Reduce outside automobile paxking.
2. Provide for enclosed storage of equipment and materials other
than automobiles to enhance neighborhood appearance.
3. Reduce safety hazards which may result from outside storage of
equipmgnt and material.
!i. Promote the preservation and upgrading of the neighborhood and
�maintain a quality of living environment consistent with the
housing plan.
5. Provide for the security of stored goods in the neig�;�orhood.
^ Mrs. Schnabel asked if the Planning Commission wasn't awaiting reports f:om
other subcommissions and if it wasn't the intent of this Commission to gather
all the pertinent information together before passing this on ta Council.
Mr. Boardman said this had been sent to Community Development and Human
Resources. Mr. Bergman located the discussion on gaxa.ges by the Human
ftesources Commission at their September 2nd meeting i.n the minutes of the
September 22nd Planning Commission meetinga He read the discussion to the
Planning Commission, which concluded with a motion that the Human Resources
Commission recommended to the Planning Commission that they did not condone
the principle of a garage requirement as a stipulation fo� buildi.ng; however,
if the property owner decided to put up a garage, standards should be set
for the structure. The motion had passed unanimously. Chairperson Harris
noted that then they had a11 the necessary input. Mrs. Schnabel summaxized
the situation by� pointing out they had one Commission that said a single unit
gara.ge should be required with every single family dwelling, one Commision
that said it should not be required� and a third Commission that gives no
direct action.
��'1
Mr.-Boardman said that_another thing they had to look at was what they .passed
on as far as the goals and objectives for housing. Chairperson Harris said
he just didn't see how adding a garage to a hQUSe could make or break the
deal� and added that he didn't agree with Metro Council.
Mr. Bergman said that he thought this business of adding on a garage being
a problem for low and moderate income people was being way over done. He
stated they had lots of opportunity in Fridley; they could buy a used house,
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 19?6 Page 16
they could rent, they could move into a townhouse. He said that therefore �
they would not be prohibiting low and moderate income people from moving
into the City of Fridley by requiring a garage on new construction.. Mr.
Boardman pointed out that they would possibly be limiting their capability
of diversity of purchasing. Mr. Bergman said that every code the City had
was restrictive; they were restrictive when they required minimu�n floor space
and in all kinds of ways� and he thought they were overburdening this particular
one. Mr. Boaxdman said that the HousYng Goal stated the necessity of providing
a diversity of suitable housing and living environment for a11 persons, and
it suggested this be accomplished by encouraging programs to provide housing
at costs a family could afford without compromising essential needs. He
expla.ined they were trying to support programs that would reduce the cost
of housing. He said it may not reduce it $5,000 in order to make it an
acceptable unit for somebody to buy, but it may reduce it enough for some
person who could not afford it right now to be able to buy it.
Mrs. Schnabel said she felt that in their minds they were dealing basically
with low and moderate income housing� and they had quite a few lots that
were being built on right now that were in no way being built for low-income
families� but probably middle income and up. She stated that if an ord�ance
was passed that stated a gara.ge wasn't required� it might open a ne�� Pandora's
Box for those areas which had already been.developed and were nice home areas.
She stated she was specifically thinking of the Innsbruck North area and the
0°Bannon axea� and thought they might be doing a disservice to the residents
who �a].ready lived in those areas if a garage wasn't required. l•irs. Schnabel �
noted that Mr. Boardman had talked about the City having an obligation to
encourage low and moderate income housi.ng, and thought maybe that obligation -`
was to encourage the contractor to put that type of development in on sub-
standard lots. She sa.id she thought there could be tt�o ways to interpret
that type of statement.
Mr. Boardr►an said that he thought the point that was brought out that they
should require the space to be available for a garage on a lot, but not
necessarily require a garage to be there, would restrict a smaller-size lot
to be built with a smaller-size house. He said he thought that was a very
valid poi.nt. He said that if a gaxage wasn't required by code, he would
still imagine that garages would be built in areas such as Innsbruck North.
Mr. Boardman stated that he thought tdhere they had to consider this type of
thing was with the substandaxd lots and in areas such as Riverview Heights
where there was some nice housing and some housi.ng that wasn't quite so
nice.
Chairperson Harris stated that if there was going to be a garage� there
should be some standards set up for that garage such as a certain size.
Mr. Boardman said the only place that garage size was addressed was under
an accessory building for the amount of lot covera.ge. He explained that
the eoverage of both the main building and the accessory building could not
be more than a certain percentage. Mr. Bergman commente�d that he thought
somewhere in the code it specified the minimum requirements for a single-
stall garage. Mr. Boardman said it did give a minimum of 252 square feet�
�
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1976 Page 17
� but it didn't give a maximum. Chairperson Haxris stated they should have a
� maximum size� as occasionally it got ridiculous when the size of the accessory
• building exceeded the size of the house. NIr. Bergman saa.d he agreed with Mr.
Harris� but pointed out when these varianc� came in they both usually voted
in favor of them for various reasons of hardship stated by the requestor. He
said they ended up getting trapped because they didn�t want the clutter, and
approved the request. .
Mr. Boardman said that he thought a lot of it boiled down to enforcement
of the clutter. He said he heard time and time aga.in that garages should .
be required in residential areas because there was outside material to store
and it had to be put someplace. He said that if there were appropria�e codes
and appropriate enforcement of those cofles, he didn't see where it was necessar�f
to have a garage required. He suggested the possibility of a storage shed.
Mr. Bergman said he didn't see how that would help the presernation and up-
grading of residential neighborhoods.
Chairperson Harris said they were really on the horns of a dilemma; on one
hand they were tryi.ng to provide low and moderate housing, and he thought
that sometimes they got that mixed up with substandard housing. Mr. Boardman
said that he didn't believe that by not providing garages there would be
substandard housing. Mr. Bergman said he thought it bordered on it. Mr.
�. Boardman asked why a gaxage was necessaxily the borderline between standard
housing and substandard housin�. He sa.id a house could be just as well
maintai.ned without a garage, and he doubted very much if it would even affect
,� the cost of the neighbor's house.
Mr. Bergman said he thought they had a conflict between housi.ng goals and
residential integrity. He said that some of this conversation bordered on
discrimination� and from the comments made it seemed that anybody who had
enough money to be able to afford a standa.rd size lot would be required by
the City to spend more money to put a garage on it. However, he said, people
of low or moderate income didn't have to spend money to put in a garage.
Mr. Boardman stated they were not saying that. He said they were saying it
should not be the City that was telli.ng that person if he�had to have a garage;
it should be the person who made that decision.
Chairperson Harris sa.id he thought the word garage was really a misnomer,
and an accessory storage area would be a better choice of words. rir. Boardman
asked why they should require a person to build a garage for a storage area
to keep clutter off his yard� when he could do the same thing (maintain his
house well� keep the grass green and keep the clutter off his yard) by having
an accessory storage building. Mr. Harris said that maybe that was what they
should be saying--a storage building of a certain size. Mr. Boardman suggested
that even better yet, allow absolutely no outside clutter and have that
strictly enforced. Mr. Harris said that wasn�t enforceable, and that was
the problem. ASr. Boardman said that he thought it boiled dawn to more than
the affordability of the garage; it boiled down to the question of a garage
being a necessity to maintain a quality of livi.ng in a neighborhood. Mr.
Harris said that he� personally, believed it was--or at least a storage area.
�1
Chairperson Harris said that if he didn't have a storage area, which also
happened to be his garage, there would be several items that would have to
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 197b Page 18
stored within the dwelling �hich he �ould be very nervous about� such as items
with gasoline tanks on them. Mrs. Schnabel said that this went back to promotin�
the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Fridley. Mr. Bergman
read to the Commission the five reasons Community Development thought a
garage was necessary� and Mr. Boaxdman pointed out that most of those were
for storage purposes.
Chairperson Harris reiterated that perhaps the word garage was a misnomer,
and it should be a storage axea. Mr. Bergman said he couldn't see that having
those little tin sheds would be enhancing the neighborhood characteristics.
Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that if they said storage area, they would have
to have some type of ordiriance that dealt with the size, quality and mainten-
ance of that storage axea itself so it wouldn't just be somebody's fish house
that they set on the back of their property. Mr. Bergman said he thought
it would be inconsistent if they would not maintain the position which they
had for the 90% of the single family homes that had been built with a require-
ment for a garage. Mrs. Schnabel said it would change the current code
if they tied in a gaxage with a living structure, because currently a garage
was not required on a substandard lot.
Mr� goaxdman sai.d he thought they should think very carefully about what
they wexe trying to do. He saa.d that in the Housing Plan they were trying
to discourage putting an unnecessary burden on a resident through various
requirements which may or may not be necessary to preserve residential
enqironment. Ae asked if they wouldn't be putting unnecessa�•f equipment
in t��e Zoning Code which would provide something that may be done anyway,
or if those options should be left up to the people. Mr. Bergman sa.id that ,—,
if he was asked if he thought a garage was an absolute necessity or require- �
mex�t� he might have to vacillate on that; but if he was asked if he thought
it was highly desirable, he thought it was. He added that from a City viei,r,
they didn�t have to feel it was required in ord.er to act positively to put
it in the ordinance. He said the fact that it was highly desirable should
be adequate consideration. Chairperson Harris pointed out there was always
the variance procedure.
Chairperson Harris said that if he had to choose between savings on the
house and the health, safety and welfare of the neighbors and the occupants
of the house, he would have to go with the health, safety and welfare and
felt that a storage area was a necessity. Mr. Bergman said that maybe a
sepaxate storage area would be an amenable alternative, but then they would
have to get into code stipulations on what ki.nd, the size� the ki.nd of
structure, and security, and really define what they were talking about. He
added that a separate storage area to somebody might be just a lean-to with
no front on it, which would be defeating the purpose.
Mr� Boardman said he was not arguing for or against this� but was just
questioning some of the reasons why they wanted certain things. He said
he was also looking at the goals and desires of what they wanted to achieve
in the community. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought what they were hoping to
achieve was the health, safety and welfaxe of a11 the citizens of Fridley;
whether they were current residents or new construction residents. Mr. Peterson
added that at the same time they were trying to upgrade and maintain the ^
community.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1976 Page 19
_�
� UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion passed unanimously.
1
Chairperson Harris said that as long as they were on this subject, he would
c.ertainly like to have a recommendation from the Community Development Ghair-
person on maximurn sizes of aceessory buildings. '
Mr. Bergman said that he felt it was perti.nent for him to point out that
as Chairperson of Community Development, they had discussed this very thing
in their Commission meeting and they had not come up with a concensus of
opinion on limiting the size of an accessory building. He said he would be
willing to readdress that question with Community Development if this
Commission so wished. He said that he, personally� had mixed emotions: on
one hand he saw no reason why someone in an R-1 neighborhood should request
an accessory building larger than his house, on the other hand they did
have allowance for home occupation. Mr. Harris saa.d that home occupation
could not be in the accessory building, but only Vrithin the dwelling. Mr.
Bergman said they did have a lot coverage regulation which did tend to control
the size to some extent. He added that he did not like over-governing, so
he had conflicts regarding this.
Chairperson Harris asked if Mr. Bergman would take this item back to Community
Development for their thoughts� and r�Ir. Bergman said he would.
5. CONTINUIDs HUMAN DEVETAPMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES °
'� MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Peterson; that the Planning Commission
, continue the Human Development Goals and Objectives since a representative
from Human Resources was not present.
Mr. Boardman said that this had been sent to Human Resources for their review,
and this was the main reason it had been delayed the last few times. He said
they had had a chance for input from the Commissions initially, and now the
Planning Commi.ssion is establishing all the goals and objectives. He stated
that when those goals and objectives were developed, then they could send
them to the subcommissions for their additional input at that time instead
of having to wa.i.t for member commissions to act on separate issues. He added
• that this would eliminate this delaying process. Chairperson Harris said it
was so noted. .
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
6. CONTIPNED: ARTICLES OF IlVCORPORATION OF FRIDLEY YOUTH CENTER
Chairperson Harris said that there was a timing problem on this. He explained
that the co�nittee that was to organize this was set up by a charter from
City Council, and that chaxter was for thirty days. He said that the committee
that had worked on this had acted very diligently and held many meetings and
worked very hard to put this to put this togeiher, but their charter had run
� out and he was not sure that without an extension from City Council they would
be able to meet again.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 19?6 � Page 20
Mr. Boardman said he would even question the Planning Commission�s role in
rev3ewing articles and the chaxter and things like that. He said he felt
this would be more in the realm of the City Council.
Mr. Peterson sai.d this had been reviewed by the i;nvironmental Commission at
their last meeting, and they had agreed with the Human Resources Commission
that the Articles of Incorporation of the Fridley Youth Center be retu.rned
to the temporary Tesk Force of the Fridley Youth Center for further refinement,
alignment, arid simplification, and that guidance be sought from the City
Attorney to accomplish these things. '
Chairperson Harris said that speaking as a member of the task force, he
thoughi what they were looking for was any input, information or suggestions
from the Planning Commission or member Commissions. He said it was their
intent that it be sent to the City Council with any additional recommendations,
but it would actually go to the City Council. Mr. Boardman said he thought
it was sent down for an informational purpose, and shouldn�-t necessarily have
to be acted on by member Commissions.
��
Mr. Peterson asked if when the articles of incorporation were set up by the
task force there was any legal counsel involeed or if this was patterned
after previous articles of incorporation from other organizations. Mr.
Haxris said that was correct, as they felt they had to have a staxting point.
He said they wanted to move for�rard and get it to Council, so Council could
then give it to the legal staff to refine. He stated that they had felt
they didn�t have the authority to give it to the City legal staff and ask them ^
to work on it without City Council direction. '
Mrs. Schnabel read to the Commission the motson made at the last Planning
Commission meeting which sent the Articles of Incorporation of the Fridley
Youth Center to a11 member Commissions for their review and comment. Mr.
Peterson asked if it wouldn't then be appropriate to wait until all Commissions
submitted their recommendations� and Mr. Boardman replied he thought this was
somethi.ng that the Planning Commission would have to decide now--whether they
were going to take any formal motions on the incorporation or if it would be
strictly a review thing and those reviews should just be passed on. Mr. Harris
said the task force felt they were sendi.ng it back here for review. He said
he would like some action on this, as without any action it would just stale-
mate again, drag on some more� and pretty soon there would be no place for
the youths to meet at all.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel� that the Planning Commission
recognize the review and concerns of the Human Resources Commission and pass
on to the City Council without comment the Human Resources Commission motion:
"That the Articles of Incorporation of Fridley Youth Center be returned to the
temporary Task Force of the Fridley Youth Center for further refinement,
alignment, and simplification, and that guidance be sought from the City
Attorney to accomplish the above". Ugon a voice vote� a11 voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously.
n
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 19?6
Page 21
7. RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES CON�IISSION MINUTES: •OCTOBER 7 1976
'� MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Conuni.ssion receive
the Human Resources Commission minutes of October 7� 1976. Upon a voice vote�
all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. _
,�
�
9. RECEIVE COMMiJNITY DEVEIAPI��TT COMMISSION MINUTES: OCTOBER 12�, 1976
MOTION' by Bergman� seconded by Petersdn, that the Planning Commi.ssion receive
the Communit� Development Conunission minutes of October 12, 19?6.
Mr. Bergman said that he would like to point out the trend of the discussion
on the Ea.st River Road Project Committee report was to retain the four-lane
system. He said they had yet to subject that to the metropolitan plan, which
they would have at their next meeting, and also a review of the original
goals and objectives from a transportation view.
Chairperson Harris asked when he thought they would have a recommendation
on�the signs� and Mr, Bergman replied that was probably two to three meetings
off, so it would probably be December.
Mr. Boardman said that Mr. Bergman had requested that the CDC minutes be
received at the Planning Commission at the.first meeting after the Community
Denelopment meetin�. He said that in order for them to get t,hese minutes
done, they would not be able to include them in the agendas, but they Would
be handouts at the time of the meeting. He stated that if�that was acceptable
to the Commission they would attemp� to do it that way. Mrs. Schnabel said
the only problem was that they had to sit at the meeting and read the minutes.
Mr.. Bergman agreed that was a problem, but sa.id it was a question of which
was worse. He said that as the person somewhat responsible to this group for
what was in the CDC m3.nutes, if he had to wait another two weeks it wasn't
as fresh in his mi.nd any more. He stated that at times it even got confusing
because the Planning Commission might discuss subject matter that �,ras covered
in Community Development a previous week� but the CDC minutes were not available
and he had to rely on memory. He said he thought the information got stale
three weeks after the meeting.
Mr. Peterson said� that he would like to comment�on something along this line.
He stated the agenda and minutes for the IIivironmental meeting held last
night had been received on hionday. He stated the time factor was a great
problem, because one day was not enough time to review all that material.
Mr. Peterson said there were a munber of people concern�ed about this on the
Fridley Ehvironmental Quality Commission. He added that they would like to
see the agenda and mi.nutes at least by the weekend prior to the meeting. Mr.
Boardman commented that they tried to send them out by Friday so the Commissioners
would receive them on Saturday, but he would look into it.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Boardman said that he had a couple of additional items he would like to
discuss. He said that the first thing concerned the Planning Conunission
Planning Commission rieeting - October 20� 19?6 . page 22
agendas. He explained that right now when they set up agendas they had Staff
input on the agendas and then Dorothy had to call the Chairmen of the Commissic'''�
to see if they had anything to add. Air. Boardman stated what they would like
to have done was, instead of Dorothy calling the Chalrmen, having a set date
for the�Chairman to call in to Dorothy to add anything he desired. He explained
that there were many times Dorothy had to call a11 day long because she
couldn't get hold of somebody, so if the Chairman could call in.on the last
Thursday of the week before the meeting, it would be more efficient for them.
Mr. Bergman suggested that Dorothy could ca11 just once. He said that usually
she got �old of him the first time she called. He explained that it wasn�t
just to ca.11 on items on the agenda, but to also have some discussion. Mr.
Bergman said he thought it did the Chairman some good because frequently
Sta.ff added items to the agenda which the Chairman didn�t know about, so it
was a two-way purpose. He added that with one ca11, the Chairman ought to
recognize that within his own committee meeting he had the prerogative of
adding items to the agenda if he wished.
Mr. Boardman said that i.n some cases it did require information that Staff
had that would be helpful to the Commission if it was included in the agenda.
He said it also gave Staff a chance to prepare for the meeting� because in
some cases it did require a response from Staff. Mr. Boardman said he felt
that if the Chairmen of the Commissions could take it upon themselves to
call with any items they wanted added to the agenda, it would be a more
productive way of handling this.�, < He added that if they had iiot received a
caIl from the Chairman they would assume there were no additions that would
go into the agenda. '"'�,
Mrs. Schnabel suggested that Mr. Boardman put out a memo to this effect to
each of the Commission Chairmen involved and inform them by what date they
should call.
Mr. B�ardman said the other item he wished to discuss was the Chaa.rmen of
the Commissions informing their Vice Chaa.rman to attend the Planning Commission
meetings if they, themselves, would not be there. He explained that they
had almost not had a quorum for this meeting. He said that the process had
been set up that the Vice Chairman was to attend in the place of the Chairman,
and in many cases he didn't even know if the Chairman was asking the Vice
Chairman. He asked all the Chairmen to please contact their Vice Chairmen
instead of Staff trying to call to see if they could or could not make it.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Bergrnan, seconded by Schnabel, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon
a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairperson Harris declaxed the Planning
Commission meeting of October 20, 1976 adjourned at 12:05 A.M. by unanimous
vote.
Respectf�lly submitted,
. �
�
She i 0'Donnell
Recording Secretary
�
0