The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 02/28/1979 - 6648City of Fridley AGEHDA 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1979 7:30 P.M. PAGES CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING C�MMISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 24, 1979 1- 11 1. REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #79-01, BY MARVIN AND ROBERT 12 - 14 ERICKSON: Split off the Westerly 74.99 feet of Lot 10, Auditor's Subdivision Na. 89, to make two buiiding sites for double bungalows, the same being 1285-87 and 1295-97 Norton Avenue N.E. 2. CONTINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES 70 CHAPTER 205. ZOPIING SEPARATE A. Receive minutes from Member Commissions on proposed changes. SEPARATE 3. RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: FEBRUARY l, 1979 SAL•MON 4. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: FEBRUARY 13, 1979 YEI.LOW 5. RECEIVE COMMUNITY OEVELOPMENT MINUTES: �EBRUARY 13, 1979 PINK 6. BLUE 7. RECEIVE ENER6Y PROJECT COMMITTEE MINUTES: JANUARY 17, 1979 WHITE 8. OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURNMENT: 4 . . l . . . . . . . . .. czTr or FazU�c PL;tt�Ir'ItdG CONII✓iTSSIOiI 1�TI.T;r � JAIdU�RY 24� 1979 ClaLL TO �RD�R: Chairman Ilarxis calle@ the JsnL�.ary 24� i979, r�eeting of the Plarming Conunission meetin$ to order at 7:�t5 P.N,. ROLL CAL.: P•lembers Present: Ms. ITarris, Nx. Storla, Mr. Oquists T+�'. Peterson N,embers �bsent: Ms. Sehnabel (arrived ¢t 7:50 P.M.), Mr. I,an�enfeld (arrived at 8:30 P.T•'.) Others Present: N�r. Bosrdman, City Pl4nner 1. APPR04� PL.'�NidIPIG COP2✓,ISSION MTn2TPES: JAidUARY ]0, 1�79: MO'PION by ASr. Oquist� seconded by i+3r. Storla� to approve tne January 10� 1979, Planning Com.�ai.ssion minutec. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIiv'G AYE, CEiAS�2tnAI3 HI�I',RIS DECLARED TfIE b4ln�'JTES IL"PftOVED AS WRITTETd, 2. PUELIC ix�PIP'r� COPISID�RATIG2I OF A PROPO�ED P�ELII+SNAfiY PLAT, P.S. �f'7Y,-�� COii^•1'.ZA iPIDIIS1T,?:?i :r�.'�'SC, !?Y s0°,�hi SC::FG':.n: L'eir� a reuyet of the 1��^i� of the uW4 of Section 11 "tarcel 5 0� and Loi 3f Sevised A.S. r,77� in the South Half of 9ection 10, generall�r located between 69th and 73rd Avenues V.E: between Univereity Av°nue id.E. and t::e Burlington T?orthern ri�ht o� way. D?(?TION by bir. Peterson, seconded by I�fr. �quist, -Lo open the public herzring. UPO?i A VOTCE VOT�� ALL VOTSlv'G AYE� CHkII?AfAil Fk1RRIS D�CL.4RED [HE PUBLIC HEARIS�G OPEN AT 7:�+5 P.M. h"s. Boardran showed the Commissioners t�e plAns and expl,a3ned thai Bob Sebroer had picked tip the Sears property, and there was a potaer line which sglit the property, with 40 acres on each side. At this time, h�. Schroer r+ould like to plat tbe nortY: portion of the property into indu�trial and comc;ercial develo�xent. He would like co�':ercial along the highway, light in3ustrial throu;h the center and heavy industrial on the outside. The way the plats are aet up, everythin6 would ;neet code r�nd the streets and utilities ��*ould be all right. Tbey would ueed a Rzce Creek Watersned review on the plat� and they were in the process of doing t�at. Regarding the rezoningr eveu thot�h tnat is the next it�m of discuseion� if this �aas rezoned to comaercial� there eould be a lOJ £oot setback requirement £or buildin� on that plat. With that 100 foot set�acic line, there would be two lots cn wY:ich it would be very difficult to buiZd without a vari�nce. They wuuld also require 10 �'oot easement lines around the pioperty to allc�w them the teaximum flexibility. There could be some areas where they wouldn't want easements� but they would bave to ~aork with the property owner on that. Basically these lots �:ould be the ones with a zexo lot line for industz•ial buildin�. Jerry Faske was apparently looking at pickin� up these properties for industrial construction. Also, if the park was developefl� they would wunt a 5� f�ot easement for the �riveway lnto trie parkins lot. If tliey do pick up the property south of the casement line� they would like to t�ave the plats exteiided down to the couth Uoundary of the easement line. 1 , � PIJ1PdiJZDir COhA�IISSION t�:ETING1 JAAI[IlaRY 24� 1979 P9GE 2 Mr. Boardman also stated that Subuxban Engineering was presentJ.y developing a plan to be submitted to the Rice Creek 'rtaterehed Por the drainage. They were looking at potential drainage out to the railroad ditch and the� to drain to another area where a natura2 basin wculd be developeci far pon3ln�, storage� etc.� before it would go into the Rice Creek Watershed #'or natural filtration. Mr. Schxoer stated that on the comercial areas, they were reversing wbat they had done on previous areas. They were putting the service drive behind the cotnmercial and moving the buildin;5s clo�er to the highway and the perking wouZd then be behind. Mr. Harris asked about the 100 foot setback. Mr. Schroer stated they had a problem with that. Mr. Harris a�ked if the� could re-align some of the lots. Mr. Schroer stated that Jim Benson� D'k. Paske's representative could explain what they wanted. A�s. ?aske is the potential buyer Mr. Benson stated that he realized that the City had the 100 foot setbacks for goa] reason, but he questioned the need ior a 104 foot setback in this particular cieveloprrent considering that the buildings wou3d be set ug sgainat University Avenue end the parking would act as a buffer, also because this �aould be a complete plat and uot as tho�agh they were trying to isolate something somewhere else� and a1so� because this would be li�ht industriaZ,.the buildings along there would be almost as �ood looking as couunercial bui.ldings . Mr. Harris stated it was a part of the zoning ordinance, but they could ask for a variance. Mr. $oardman stated the 100 £oot �etback would also ensure adequate parking� because they can paxk in tbe 100 foot setback. Mr. Harris stated it would be a si:niliar situation to Ranchers Road. Mr. Benson noted that the end building on ftanchers Road, the one on 79th and Ranchers Road� there the building was turned givin� it 35 feet aud the parking oras across the front. Ns. Harris stated thrzt �aith the platting and re2onin�, the variances coiil.d be a stipulation. bfr. Boardman stated i;hat if they approve the platting and rezonina� they would be providing a hards$ip fcr tlie construction on these lots and the Appeals Conunission would be hard pressed to deny a variance request. R'his should be considered in their decision. Mr. Benson stated thnt the ptu•pose of the 100 foot setbaek, when agplied to this lot� would noL seem Iogical, conslderin,g the lighter zor.ing and all, and maybe a 50 foot setback would be enou�yc-h. Mr, Schroer noted they were also talkln�, about a 66 foot road right of way. Mr, iiarris asked if there r�oul.d be a pxoblem with the other 50 foot easement Yor tbe roadway. Mr. Iiensoz� stcted that wottl.d not be a problem. �. � PLATdNTN; rOMMIS�iO^1 t��'TSNG, JAPdUA.4X 94� 1979 - _ PAGE Mr. Harris asked if there would '6e a problen with extending the p}.at line to coincide with the southern easem°nt boundary ].ine. N�. Board�:an stat=d they were coizeerned about that tecau�e iP it was turned over to public property, thcy don't know hoor they would use it and cst this point in tipe they would like to require a buffer by the industr3al, property within that portion. They would still 6e able to utilize that area for parkin�r and trucks. Mr. Harris asked if ttiat was D1-1 or M-2. Mr. Benson �tated the proposal was id-2 and through th� center was ,�. Mr. Harris asked whicb way they would be facin�. blr. Een�on stated the ertrance would be on the side similiar to Perkins� and the building �ould be moved up close to the high�:ay. b4r. Boardman stated most of them would want exposure to University �venue with the parking in the back. Mr. Peterson asked if it was essential that the roads in the M-2 match up. Mr. Boardman stated they would want the streets lined up because when they were not lined up, there would be a greater poiential for accidents. Mr. Heardraan also stated they woixid require underground. utilities �ith the plat. Ms. Harris asked what tbey shoul.d do about the drflinage. Mr. Boardman stated that Suburban Engineering was looking at it and putting together a plan for drainage ior the Rice CreeY.Zdatershed. They were ZOGIL1AV7 at drainage into the County parx area, Mr. Peterson asked iP the park had been approved in terms of funds. Mr, Boardsan stated that the Coiuity had been approved in tercus o£ funds and the City was still waitin�3. I£ they eannot �urchase the bropert,y, Ns. Schroer would be developing this as indust:ial probably, nnd he would take care of draina�e with that plat. ?fir. Boardmsn stated they were hoping to have the drainage Plan at this tine. There should be a stipulat3on to the plat that Sice Creek Watershed approve the drainage and if something should happen �rhere this property could not be purcha�ed as park facilities, the drainage frcm this plat would be taken care of within that �lat. I�'r, ti�rris stated they should have an agreeraent in writing regarding that� as well as the stipulation for the plat. Mr. Hcirris asked if ax�yone in the audience wished to spe�k regarding this item. Mr. Ed Stephens� 2�+g - 6gth Avenue N.E.� stated tbat he wae concerned aUout the other 40 acres� the southex half af the property� and wondered iY they would get a noti.ce when that w�s bein� deueloped. Mr. Harris stated they would be notified before that area was developed. PLlNiVITdG CONi7°STOTd MEETTNG, JAtdUARY ?_?F, 1979 - PAGE 4 Mr. Harris asked how the zonin� code regaxding the 100 foot setback read. Mr. Bo¢rdman stated the ccde required a 100 foot setback acroas any right oi way from ttny other zcne .°or industrial. Mr. F3oardmran then read the zoniug code to the Comraissioners. Mr. Harris stated they should look at tha� code when they review the code changes. In sor.,e instsnces it would work and in others it did not make sense. hir. Oquist stated it did not make sen�e in this case wbere those lots were facing two di£ferent kind.s oi zones. Mr. Harris stated he would bave to agree with btr. Benson, that consi@ering what property costs and to �et it into buildable shape� that would be a real burden to have a 100 foot setback on this particular property. Ns. Peterson stated thet if tbey approve this� they would be taking the option away from the apuea.ls Commission, and asked Ms, uchnabel hox she felt about it. bis. Schnabel stated she was trying to visualize how these bui2dings would look and Yelt that the point was well taken t�at if the s2tback only has to be 35 �eet on two o£ the lots and 100 feet on the other two� it wouldn't mzke senseo Ms. Schnabel stated she did not 2hir.k tnat was the iutent of the zoning code. Also� to have a 100 foot setback on both sides �f the one particu2ar lot eras much tougher to ccmply with. These setbacks would not effect or help anything that much. Mr. ieterson esked if wben the building permits arz �pplied £or, would thexe be a�ythixig there to give sorae continuity to the �+ lots along 73rd and the lots coming south along the ne�+ proposed road. The way tb�y place the buil.ding on lot 1 would effect it �oing both ways. Pdr. Boardman stated Mr. Paske would most likely lzave 100 to 105 foot setback on 73rd� because the way those lots are setback� he wculd have two zero lot lines, The buildings would be facing 73rd witn the parking in front. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Benson i£ tnat was the way Mr. Paske would do it� on lots 1 thro�h �+� would he put tne parking in front facing 73rd. Mr, Benson stated he would do it tnat way. t�s. fiarris asked if there was a 100 foot setback line drawn fro:n the nev proposed road running parallel along 73rd all the way across, would that work. bfr. Benson stated it would. N`x. i?arris st¢ted that the problem then Was aSong the new proposed ror�d. For clarificatio.i, b;r. F?arris sugr;ested they call the street along the eaet side ".?" street� the one that runs eese and srest to the soutb "B" s•t:eet� and the one tv the west "C" street. Mr. FIarris state�� if they stinvlated that a line from "C" street to "A" street runnin� parallel to 73rd at a 100 foot setback� an3 if they did away with t�e 100 Yoot setback on "A" street ond made it a 35 foot setback, it would gfve continuity. PLAPiI3IS'G COD"i ffS<�Ipn` i1EEPIIVG, 3NNUARX "hs 19i9 --- -- PI�GE 5 N,r. pen3cn stated that because "A° street curves, they wou].d never get symmetry there. Ms. Schnabel asked whst the setback requirement was for lot 1 on "A" street facir� University Avenue. . Mr. Boardman stated the setback was 35 £eet except where property lines were adjacent. It was 35 feet from any public right of way t�nd University Rvenue was a public right of way. Mr. Oquist stated that if you looked at itr lots 3 and 4 have a 35 foot setback require- ment, and lots 1 and 2 have a 100 foot setback requirement. That did not make sense looking ai; the total area. MOTIOId by bs. Peterson, seconded hy hir. Cquist, to close the publie hearing. UFOV A VOICE VOTE� N�i. PETERSON� Pd5. 5CHYAEEL� Mft. HAF.PIS� i+�t. OQUIST� AT1D Mft. STORLA VOTIPIG AYr � 9I� h1R. LANGFi�ELI1 t1BS^1AINIIv'a� CfiAIRM.4N HARitSS DECLA.�D TI� PUr3LIC FU�ARING CLOSED ai 5:40 P.I✓�. Mr, Oquist stated that .rhat they had wor'r,ed out seemed to be reason�ble along with the other things such as u;ider�round utilities, drainage, movin� the south lot line to take into consideration the easement� and require a 100 foot setbacl� alono 73rd and a 35 foot setl�ack along "A" street. The ether setbacks would be standard. tr:s. Schnsbel asked, reg4^3ing 1ot 1, bour.3ed bv 73rd and "A" street, �rith � 100 foot setback from 73rd and a 35 foot setbach _ror� "A" street� how much land would be left to bui�.d one. i+�s. Board!r�n stated that the way the plat uas proposed� they would have 132 x 95 �4uare feet. With the rear yard setback they �aould have 98 x 95 S4uare feet. Mr, Harris stated they should be able to build a 12�000 square foot building there. N.r. Benson stated that would be satisfactory. J�'A�IOil by bir. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Pete:son, to recorrceend to Ccuncil aAproval of consideration of a propesed prelirrLirary plati P.S. ;�'�-08� Cclumbia Tndustrial Park by Robert Schroer: Being a replat o£ ihe !+'h`,� of tt-,e S'rl ; of Section 11 (Farcel 5400�, and Loi 3� Revised A.S. �fj7� in the Sout,h F.alf o� Section 10� ganerally loc�te3 be- tween bgth ar.d 73rd Avenues N.E. between Unit�ersity Avenue N.E, and th� Burli.�;ton Northern right of way� ccithe the follo�rin� stipulations: 1) �pproval from Rice Creek Watershed; 2� Contis;gency dr.ainage p1Ait ard a form.al agreement with Mr. Schroer stating that aqy �rainage frora this plat would have to be taken care of with the acq�d.siti.on or with the development of the sou�h 40 acres� 3) Underground utilities� �+) Moving the south lot line to take into consider&tion the easement for ihe utility Zin?; 5) A 50 fcot easement runi:ing south oF: of "A" street; 6) T'iie Commissioners reco�aend approval of a variance for 35 foot setback from "6�" street ��rith the understan3in� that there would be a 100 foot setback £rom 73rd Avenue on lots 1 through 4 in the �7-1 Zone, WON A VOICE VOT%t h�2. P:'.°l�RaQN� P%:u. SCFi�IAB�L� MR. iIAFRIS� h�. OLIT�BT l�ND N!R• STORLA VOTING AYE� ANB hfft. L:aNGEPdr�LD A➢STAII3I?VG� CiL4IP.hL4N IiAk?RIS DECIu1.�ED THE 2;OZ`ION C/�I'iTED. Mr, I,angenfeld stated he abstained from �rotin� becauce he was late in arrivin� st the meeting and missed most of the discussion. PLANf7iNG COMNISSION 2�TII1G1 JANUIIRY 2b� 1979 - PAGE (i 3. PUPLIC I�nT:ItdG: COPv'SIDERATTOTd 70A #78-0�3, BY ROBII3T �VilliU."Jt: 1(C'LOt7� 1'rO��Ouru rre;liiiuuai�y riu�� r.u. �!i Iv-vv� ��a.:u,:u�a �..u.,�v...G.� P7.at,' as follows: Lota 7, S, and 9� blocic 1, and Lota 1-12, L�7.ock 2, re2oned from I�1-2 (heRr,� industrial are�s} to ifi-1 (light industrial areas), and Lots 1-6� Block 1� from M-2 (heavy industrial a.eas) to C-2(general business areas�� generally located het�+�een University Avenue N.E, and the Surlington Northern ri�ht oP way between 69th and 73rd P.venue PI,E. f•40TION by Mr. Peterson� seconded by Fdr. Langenfeld� to open the pubZic hearing. tIf'ON A VOZCE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRb`�PI H:�RFIS DECLARED T�IE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:50 P.A4. Mr. Boa:dman stated that the property along University Avenue would be commercial propexty,, the lots in the �iddle would be M-1, which is Zight industrial� and the lots along the railro&d t:aets would be T9-2a heavy industrial. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Schroer i£ the C-2 would handle what they were looking at in the commercia7. and if he was aware of what was allewed in a C-2 zone. Mr. Beuson stated that he thou�ht he was. Mr. Boardruau explained that the C-2 was very broad. Mr. Harris asked bs. Benson if they thought there would be more than 100 parking s�ails, Mr, $enson asked crhat the ratio £or parking Yras, and stated be did not thinL there would be more than 100 stalls. Mr. Iloardrmn st�ted that the ratio £or parking was quite varied and went on to explain that the G2 allows £or a wide rznge oi businesses. idr. Sto:la noted that the C-2 would also a11ow bars and taverns. MOTIOPI �y Ns. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Oquist to c2ose the public hearing. UPCN A VOICE VOTE� 11IS, VOTING AYE� CFiAIRb1AN I3e'�RRIS DECLARED ?'AE PUBLIC iIFAP,ING CIRSFD AT 8:s8 P.hI. Mr, Ffarris asked if there ehould be azry stip�zlations. Mr. Bosrdman stated there were no stipulations except no access on University Avenue. Mr, Peterson stated the �tate wauldn't allow that ar�y�ray. t�'s. Herris asked Nr. Schroer how wide the easement was along the back of the industrial property. Mr. Sclvcoer stated it was 100 foot. Nm. Foardmaa stated that all the easements had been vacated except ti�e power line. �� Mr. Harris acked if there wasn't a pipe in there �ome*ahere. Mr. Boardman stAted that alorg the railroad there was a sanitary se�rer line� a high preasure gas line and also a 30 foot roadway easement. But across the property� there was only ihe power line. Ni0TI0RT by Mr. Oquist� seconded by N,r. Langenfeld} to recommend 'to Council approval of consideration of a z•ezoning request, ZOA �r�(8-08, Colwnbia lndustxial Ylat, as follows: Lots 7� 8 ar.3 91 31ock 1� and Lots 1-12� Block 2� rezoned from M-2 (heavy industriel areas� to A4-1 (light industrial areas)� and Lots 1-i� E].ock 1� Yrom M-2 (aeavy indus'�rial sreas) to C-2 (general business are::s)� gEnerally loc�ted betrreen University Avenue Pd.E. and the Burlington tdvrthern right of way between 69th and 73rd Avenue N.E. t3F0i3 A VOICF. VClSE� ALL VOTING AYE� CI�FiIRB1P•N 1�11RRIS DECLARED TI3E MtYPION CARFIED U:dANIi�'.OUSLY. Mr. Schroer thanked tfle Corm�ission°rs and stated He would keep in 'touch with the City Staff re,�,arding utilities, etc. 1y, gE�IS'E sIt,TSAP1 RF.SOi'RCES CGB�fISSSOTd 2ffP7UI'E5: JFNUARY �+, 197°: A?OTION by i>s. Storla� seccnded by Mr. Langenfeld� to receive the January �+� i979 minutes of the A�a.-nan Resoure�s Co�mission. Mr. ?,angenfeld asked i�`�r. Storla if they we*e goirg to think about an ordinance as £ar as the Hucan Rights was concerned. Mr. Storla stated they would have to discuss t'act. Mr. I,�n;en£eld stated that, regarding �he s7ickes situation, he had expressed concern because they were powerless right no�r and wondered what they would do i£ a u;ore ser3ous problem cane up. Mr. Storla stated that he felt that Ms, Chrisi;lieb's su�gestion tl�t they send a letter stating triat there had been a co�plaint� laas a good idea. In this case� they had a coivolaint, but the complainant did noti wish to pursue the issue. They had not yet had a complaint where the complainant wished to pursue tre issue. Mr. Langenfeld noted on page 3� they had chan�ed their meeting time fxom 7:30 �•T�. to 5:00 P.M. Mr, Storla stated thet was because one of their members had a conflict in her scl�edule. b7r, Lan�;enfeld asked, regarding the Tenant�LandJ,ord Project Coimnittee� i£ they would keep the Human Rights Co;1�i�sion informed of their activities. Mr. Storla stated they would only if they wisLzed to� since they were independent� that would be & voluntary thing on their part. They would keep in touch, however. Mr. Peterson asked if the Wickes i:his�q wqs the one from wqy back. Mr. Storla ststed it was snd that apgarentl,Y the co�cplaivant had all sorts of credit cards, so the Wickes representative's explanation was not valid, Mr. Storla stated that since they did not want to pw�sue it ti�ey would not. PI.,ANTITfiC COI•TdISSION t�'TINC, JANUARY 24� 1979 - PAGF, 8 Mr.. Petersoi� noted that the Tenant�Landlord Project CommitLne had detached themselves from the IIuman Ri�hts Carmnission and wondered how a pro3eci; conmi3ttee could decide they did not want to operate uudex the Cormission that had chartered it. Mr. Fiarris ctnte@ they could be an ad hoc co�mnittee� that aqyr group of eitizens could Porm c� committee. Mr. Storla stated the Commission had not accepted the committee's motian to detach themselves� and the Co�mission had made a motion to dissolve the cemmittee. bir. Langenfeld asked if bhey were independent� would they be accountable to the City CounciL Mr, fiarris stated they a�ould not. UPOIQ A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIPYv AYE� CHAIRN�^,P1 FIaTtRIS D�CLAR,ED TI� MOTION CARRSr,D LNAPiIA.CTJSLY . 5. RECEI�,'E COD�CfiIIi7 DL't�LOPt�'NT COP�A4ISSION niI1�iUTES: JAPNA.RY �, 1979: N,OTIC�iV by rfr. Oquist� seconded by Nr. Langenfeld� to recezve the Janumry 9� i979, Co�iunity Development minutes. Ns. Oquist stated they had como7.eted their revie�a of the zoning code. 2fs. Oquist asked if the minutes fro� all the Comrcissions regarding the zaning cocle would be coTM�bined befom the Planning Commiscion reviewed 'it. Mr. Boardman statad they vrere planning to do t�at. T�s. I,a�enfeld noted that on page � they had d3scussed the o1d dictricts. r's. Langenfeld stated there had been a 1ot of discussion �d concern ab�ut 'that particu2ur ordinance being incorporuted in the zoning itseli. He felt they co'ald not do that because they were t�lkirro about zonin;� and he taould lik� to point out that here was a special over- lay Uituation which would i.nuorporate tahat they are lookitk; for� as a separate thing within the ordinance. I�;r. LangenPeld felt that the ovexlays were distinct from the zoning itself, Mr. Boardman stated that the overlsy was a certain set cf regulations which fall in a11 the districts re�prdless of whether tliey are R-1, R-2 or E#-3. They app�y only within a certain zone wi4hin a whole zcning area. Mr. Petexson noted that the Rice Creek Watershed was an overlay as far as the property they had diseussed earlier. UPON A VCICE V02L� I�LL VOTING AXE� CHAIRb7AN FIARRIS DECLPSiED THE MOTION CARRIED U:1'ANIbi0T7SLY, 6. P.ECEIV� APPEALS CONA;SSSIQN MINUPES: JANUARY 16, 1979: MO?'IOTd by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Peterson, to xeceive the January 16, z979, Appeals Commission minutes. PLANNING COF-ffdISSI0r7 hiL'�TItIG� SADiIiARY 2�ti, 1979 _- __ PAGE 9 Ms. Schnawel stated the AppeaZs Commission had completed the rev3ew of the 2onir� ordinance. UPON A VOIC� VOTE� ALI, VOTING A�� CHAIIi�-1AN EiAFiRIS DECLARED THE N:OTIaN CARRIED UNl�IVTi:OUSLX. 7. COI�"PIN[13D: PROPOSED C?iAIdG�5 TO CHAPT}� 205. ZCNSNG: PdOTIOid by Nir. Peterson, seconded by Ms. Schnabel3 io cantinue tha review oP the pra- posed changes to Cha�ter 205. 7oning. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIR'G AYE� CHA .T'r�P�,AN H.4RRZ5 DECLARED 'IHv' N�IUN CARRIED Ui�T4fiIMOG�LY. 8. OTI�,Tt BUSIP1ESS: NO`PIORT by t+`s. Peterson� seconded by b:s. Schnabel, to receive the letter £rom SORT� Iuc. U20N A VOICE VOTE� ALL �OTIPIG AYE, CFiAL4b1AT7 iiARRIS DECLARED THG MCTIOT7 CARRIED IPIATdIIdOUSLY . Ms. Elarris stated that he and tiis. Schnabel had atteeded the Council r�7eeting last N,onday night and discus,ed with Council the propcsed alterations in the fees t1:ey charge for things like lct splits an3 rezcnint. The specific items they were con- cerne3 aUOUt ��ere as follows: Lot splits - raiGing the fee fren w3p•� to �7.00.00; Toomhouse DeveZo�ment - raisinU the fee fro� �21Q.QQ to $350,00; Special Use Per*^it - fran $120.0� to �175.00; Variances - from �50.�0 to �80.00; Rezoning requests - from �155.00 to 5250.00. D'�. F.srris stated he and Ids. Schnabel thou{;ht some of these were rather inflationary. Kr. Harris stated he had rset wi.th t�arvin Brunsell and r.eviewed his worksheets. The breakdown £or variances� for example, oras as follo,as: Snspecti.on in a variance would r�n �11.41, which would include 33.4,� for personal overhead services� whlca would be fringe benefits. They say it takes an hour to prccess a variance as far as the Engineering Deroartment geec. The Building Inspection s7epartment is cl�ar�ed �22•97 Per hour and they say it takes 90 mi�utes to pracess a variance crhich comes to $19.46. 2he Planning �cretary ic char�ed at �7.20 per hour also uses 90 minutes which would be $10.8C. h�r. Harris stated he did not hare as�}r probie�s with those figures. Mr. Harris stated he auestioned Items 2, 3 and �+. Item j k�as Overhead - ee.timated at 30'`0. t�lr. iiarris stated that overhead was real.ly a misnomez• because t:��t �ras included in the overhead for publishiug fee and �ailin� fee. That crould amouat to �23.61. He had r.a problem with that. R9r. Harris noted that the City Co�mciZ �aas cnarged at �14.50 including 1u.2� overhead £cr five menbers and the City A'anager at $23.89 includir� 33•�+� overhead for a teial of 4'3g.3q pen c�u: fcr pxocessing a variance. h's. Harr3s axplained tre br2akdowns to the Corurnissioners in greater dei;ail. t:s. 5c?�nabel stated that her point was that Staff would have to be there whether or siot anyone came in with a request, and did not Yeel the Sta£f shoild x�ecoup their salaries throt�h the fee sysi:em. Mr. Boardman stated that when a request came in they were providing a service aF�z�y fran other service�, i PTJ,idIiINr COh�idT"GION 2�'L'TII�TG, JA"IUA?tY 24� 1�79 -- PAGE 10 _ _� I Mr. Hr�rr3. stated that in the axe�a oY lot splitsr variances, special use permita� and vacations� these requests usually involve recidential properties� and felt that those casts wexe unjust. Ms. Schnabel r�greed, in partieular in regarda to lot splits. i�Ir. Ik�rris stated that such high fees WOU]-d. C�R,SCOUTtI�E R-1 im^rovements ar.d also promote non-compl3ance. ?�ir. Harris stated they should ask Couneil to reduce the proposed increases. He P�lt some increase was necessary� but not tliat much. Mr. L�ngenfe2d stated that he agreed the proposed fees were inflationary and �xcessive. MOTION by N,r. Pet•erscnJ seccnded by Mr. Lan,r,enfeld� that the ?lanning Cor�ission Sorcefully �tate to t:e City Council that a1Z the fee schedulee should be increased� but that they zaere indignant and outra;ed that they flid'not follo`a the President's guidel3nes oi 7�� and went so Yar Leyond in terms o£ beirg inflationary. Nir. Storla statad that che increase in fees could be a tax cutting sid. P��, Harris noted tha� the pecple making the requests were also tax payers. Ms. Schnabel stated that she did not feel the 7� figu.re wou7.d 'oe 'realistic, aud the Council had tabled the uote for two freeks to gice her and Ns. Harris time to worlc �rith Marvin Brunsell. Pdz�. Peterson stated govern�eent should exhibit the same good faith as eve:yone else and should not exceed the President's guidelines on inflation. Mr. Boardm�n noted that the fees had not been changed since i976. Mr. Oquist state@ be Yelt the proposed increases were outrageous� and the fee should be a token fee and xivt a re-coup fee. Mr. Storla stated that the point of the motion was that the fees were excessive and he felt he did not know enough to concur with that. Mr. Harris asked what ihe Commissioners wanted him and ids. Schnabel to do. Mr. Oquist stated he felt the Council shouJ.d request that the estimates Ue re-evaluated downward. Mr. Harris stated he felt they should re-coup the incurred costs. 1„r. Peterson stated that he felt that these proposed increa.ses were not right� the Fresident had co�ns out and stated that �overr.ment has got to oe respc?nsible and find ways to keep costs for services do�rn aud live w3th the inflation guidelines. T£ the citizens had to live within those guideline�, the City couZd too, and if they �idn't raise the fees for three years, that wAS no excuee Lecause it was the prices that were in e£fect the date that the guidelines went into effeet. UPON A VOICE VOTG� Dffi. PETERS�P1� MR, LAPdG�?dFFLD� ifiS. SCENt�SEL� MR. C�UIST� VOTI3QG AYE� AND D'P3. TtAftRIS AND bfft. STORLA VOTING N4Y� CHAIRhL1:d EiARRIS DECLA^,ED THE MOTIQV CtaRRIED 4 TO 2. PT,ANNING CO1�i>fIS5I0N I+��TING, TAPNl�RY 2�+L 1979 - PAGE 11 Mr. Storla stated that those guidelinas were not as simple as they sounded. Mr. ilarris asked what the Cormnissioners wanted to do. Mr. Peterson stated he wou].d like to achieve as reaeonable an inerease as po�sible, and would I±Y.e them to reali2e that rrh�n they do 1;hings like this, they are not operating within the �uidelines everyone else h�s to opes•ate within. b1r. Fiarris stated he and Ms. Schnabel would meet with i�,arvin and see what they could do. N,OTSQN by Ns. 5chnabel� seconded by tdr. Cquist, to adjourn the January 24, 1979� meeting of the Planniry� Cowmi.ss:.on. UPON A VOICE VOT'E� ALL VOTIidG AYE� CiiASRh1AN fi,'sI212IS DECLARF.D TAE A'�TiNG t1DS0URP3ED AT 10:05 P.bi, Respectfully submitted: '� /�j� /�s��;�-� � Kathy She�tcna Recording Secretary . ,°� i�./" '� � � I�� a�S �' � a` � � � � � � a� ��r1 � O�{ J S�'.' Rtvf N ' a�P.s o � � � � �+ m cd o r°+ a�i � � e�i � m .e a� � m0N k•� d W m � CITY 0� FRIDLEY APPLICANT :� -�I,Qt/ ,J � / l :, ,� ^ i' �r , c�� S �� yi ADAiiI�SS: ��/ ��/ J/ 9 Sc� �, ll W e•,�(1 a.�c S�c%�? Sireet City Z p Code TELEPIiONE �r i� 5-�� 7 S`7 ' C �o n� Home 13ueiness I'ROPliRTY OYINIIi� 5�/ij9 /r �i � nJ C� .� r' . G�< s a n� 1L= �-��a -f ^ r , c � :s�c� n/ v,1 TELEPHONE ��'�S}7 c S • � �r7-- 6 Business Zip ti F'QR Ci � z I�F OPlS: f icanl' :1. : ` ! , Lot llate Filed: ,�7 -`%� `� Fee:%-�°'Recnigt �g�(� Council Action:7late RFi•14iiKS: l �� Propexty Locatian on Street or Exact Street Addxess (IF ANY� ,� � /�,/',c� �, ,C � / 9_ . �- ��r'�� tl.F Legal Description of Property: Total � �n [yJ /07 � 5 � /aZ 1�J %%wv�„ � -�. 7! �; Class fihe undersigned hereby declares that s1Z the Sacts and representations stated in this application are true and correct. � n r, /� DATE: � BELQW FOR CITY iTSE 0 Y CHECKED BY 5TAFF DATE�?- %� %� Remarks: - PLANNING COMMISSION: Date oi' Considexat'ion -�%" :�-/� �/` Remarks: � CITY COIINCIL: Date of Consideration - Remarks: J � �s � ViC7(T92C" e (D O (D � C O O o, ° � f-y [f y �r% � t* o� a< N"1 �(D F t%'. Y-' �� cowomv7c .� 4. � iT �../ 1-y • c ° ' • � ' o � R Y < Y s'.°. 'JC (D U:% m m a ti C a � �J` o :r 'f P .'3 0' N• c* µ= tu C f�. c* c.,• c* �' � ON �cDO � o F9 N N n'S ,o� — • O C c+ a e e C Q' C� N 0 � � �'�, '�'1 tD G O Cn n � � a o . c� ct ? 2 Q � e .Y O tl �p �y W '1 f'• * . O O c-� C U] av '+7 O 1'� N � e' A1 M.7�N ^: i i/1 .(D h�' c* P ° R �D O (p a � C� IS � � � f�C d � � J30.01 �i i' ° � c Y K � jo �� J -4 `� � _g y '0 -,, 3 § ^ �0 Cp aa e � � e '� e �, h O aT O � . �• Y . d� 0 � . ' a ' � � � � � a. Y �' � ro��\ ` y , , ` � � Q Y � � b 3d � U ,� ;v'i .n � � Q O � i� �i � CEMTRAL_ _ stYE. � � T � �_ Easf /i�e of Lot /o, Aud. 5..6d. �a. 89 � `£L }' Y � G H 2 � H n �' (.9 O 7 ��,�. O � c�iZ � p G � N r�� Orp N f r i -� � � O G ��v �vY �r n > r m O V W � a O �e = � a «7 � ; � 0 � � F� 3 b ; � � d �� A �y N 'V � m 0 u � u iJ�r = f�p ,�� o �� z r �-- o Q � � - r .p O �� z � s �' m Z Z C ; r!•i .. n�Nd" �11 » y. r n m �0.;'�.� Q . w � < z. =ZmM'. ZN � A b � t` mr � Y � � � m �y o �ti m� ► "� o � ♦ �- z � > 0 � N � � N 0 3 � ZJ 1 a A p z�oa mz�0 _ �yor O?�z� � m P �Z?x;' f � . �t: ;r .�.._, . :' � � ,; -H. ,. . '� k 'f}yy - }� x �i uY ,'��r3'�y ''� ' c + _ t''3': Y -., a � �_ ; . _.. � �; • �... ,x �� - � _ � /7T. 2J6 Jfs!'� � ' ' s - _ � - 'P/d3S+Sf.! ... ' � D o' 4a' q!. - ' . p o•i1' . . . . �. T NO.a• ,. - .. i4eyl . . .d�G 280.0` ..r � . . - .". � .... . . _. -. . ... s �;.�.. `�: �p�. .. . � ', :� � - �4 $ � � � p 1 E " �:==;CEM7ER. ...._..' �s I ��-S.E t2�.�.�: ` �7:-_�_ �'� � tj :. ' � T,�. : , NPt q7 �/ 9' 2. �_ Q. s d o' �� 3 � I - � t . � c-.: 4 1 > $>' � ♦ � � -� A � !7 7B l9 � 6 - � � - _ ` '' t . . .. `. . ..._ .> r'_ y i IO �O 4O IO -TjY-..1 J �r .+:c oto .o — � 9 do.at . - ' ' , � a c• ' • .. . . �� ' . _' . :..�, _ ...,. : � -.. �' •arrA.a�iiie>Jds/.�s/x. � ' -- �. ,. -- 7ii-t.. . .,, ". � - - .. . •1 .�.�, �•; - �'c.� f� .6' ': -�� _ - . �zz� �� - ..�. . _ . - , �.`� s paqi ', . . _ . . �• C�SQ�. /f9lnnesafal ✓sslii>/ �. •..' ' 7�00 � /°si.4s/ac f, /iir.��J+'>!a i � _ m , 124f �305 -� �a �.,rsr.... � .... .� . ".'A �•--�so.. �: . . i �'YZB'"" 2. t .� - � ' �tmJ ' � _ u.i t9iimerasd Goor- . } Z Q O � = Co. , r.ic. 7 t 9 i` `Z: al X �'�«vc B r�t��ss� > � " �� /Ae' � � AUDITQRS "i }'. _� ,<s°°� -�� SUBD fS �1 N - - (f�'} r�lAn✓i �ltuqr+/el r • . . � -�� -' � a°'- ' -,� ,'._'�" - -�i.1 � �� ... . . s.Yewt � �..�s...... � � . :.. _ _ �, � � �oo) C� tsool � e � s«- .s%r� ' { s r • � _ _....3 ,. � z .--- ` .' - .. . . ' ...._ _,ro <._ l - - �b� � �ian -....� � : .. . .. . . b .cra' v> roS �� ' ' � • a ..v �w .n.e G�. � �� , � ; � � r � ��o (aroI �H65T _l C n 0 i/.!<' ^ �920 � _ . . 1163 $� �� .. �i - � � '7 h e �, i ./o,.. $ S ab J\� 9E Ni.�j - t O . 710i • ..1 �� 239 iz45 1z51 �4� i t30I 7JU ' ` ` 2 . �] .. . . . .' ��SI. ` ��.... ....3aa. .. . , ... ..1 Jue �.�.... ...,., . � � , � �! , �. ...... ' .�� . ....j�'.._..,. �. � 1 (� ��) (roso� �� o�a) I �y�� lv�'0 �ysa � � 1 �y� ��° 4 i t .ad � �� tl7p (�200 fZf4 6 S y 3� � t �.ry�ns , ,.' .... r _,.. . - . - ...: .... -' r . _ ....:. . z��..... .__ - , _.. _._ ,— ,_.. . `;� ......»s.__... . .. '�-,._ ----- � _ - --- � -�-`_ ` `'1- r. ',— '�` `` - . � --_,_ ' - . > ��g�4- '�-,.. � ` - � = -� _.�� ., : . '`. ``�� ``�`` ~�'�; � � -- r� 4 �`' --�. � � � . . �� -., `\�_� \��` � � -` � " �` - ZiUNL4N RESOURCES COi+li4ISSI0N MEETING FEBRUARY 1, 1479 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ned Storla, Mary van Dan, Marlyis Carpenter MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary Jo Dobson OTHERS PRESENT; Peter Fleming, Administrative Assistant Betty Christlieb, Housing Specialist Fran Swanson, Chairperson, Fridleq Fine Arts Committee CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Storla called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. APPROVAL QF JANUARY 4, 1979, HUbiAN RESOU1tCE5 CO:iMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Marlyis Carpenter, seconded by Mary van Dan, to approve L'he January 4, 1979, Human Resouxces Coumiission minutes as written. U�on a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairperson Storla declared rhe motion carried unanimously. 1. CONSIDERATION OF HITMAN RIGHTS ORDINANCES FR4M OTHER CO1�'AIIJNITIES: Ms. Christlieb stated that she had ohtained copies of the Hiuman Rights Ordinances for Minneapolis and St. Paul. Since the Commission members were just now receiving these copies, she suggested that t-he Commission receive them into the record and review them for the next meeting. MOTiON by Mary.van Dan, seconded by Marlyis Carpenter, to receive the Human Rights Ordinances from Minneapolis and St. Pau1. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Storla declared the motion carried unanimously. 2. PRESENTATION BY FINE ARTS CONA2ITTEE: Ms. Swanson stated she had understood that the Comnission would Iike a report and they were certainly enCitled to one. She stated that the Fridley Fine Arts CosmnitCee was fovnded in November 1975. There were originally 14 memUers, buC Che membership was now down to 4-5 members, She listed the followin� events that had been put on by the Fine Arts Committee: HUMAN RESOU[LCES COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 1, 1979 - PAGE 2 pLay............Sune 1976 concert.........Oct. 1976 art show........Aug. 1976 p1ay............Jan. 1977 concerts,.......May & Oct. 1977 art show........June 1977 concert...........Jan.1978 art shows.........May & June 1978 photography show..Oct. 1978 Minn. Opera Co....Dec. 1978 C3ty Band & N.E. Ch�mber Ensemble concert...........,7an. 1979 Ms. Swanson stated that the Fine Arts Committee tried to maintain a high quality in the types of programs presented. The problem was in getting enough people to he1p. Concerts and art shows did not require as many people, but plays and dramatic events took many people. Ms. Swanson stated that, budget-wise, they were talking in terms of $2-3,060. This year they were working with $1,000 from the City of Fridley, $600 from Co�unity Education, and about $800 carry-over from many revenues for a total of $2,400. Ms. Scranson stated the Committee was now planning an event for March'37., 1979, called "The Fridley Celebration of Nations: A Fo1k Festival Celebrating our Heritage." They would Ue featuring ttie Ethnic Dance Theatre. They were loo�ci.ng for people inCerested in p:-eserving tttsix- heritage. They o�ere particulzrly seekin; pragrams invo2viug ethn.ic dancin�, crafts, music, costumes, and anp displa}•s clevoCed to cu1L-ural craits; hobbies, antiques, etc. She stated that if the Coummis�i�n members ka��F1 0� r=ny people whc caould be in[erested in this to let the Cummittee Isnow so these people could Ue contacted. Ms. Swanson stated they had been very disappointed in the attendance at the concerts, She thought one of the biggest groblems was public relations-- how do you get communication across in the suburbs? Fridley was not unique in having thia problem. The Co�ittee was using all the media possible and tried to cover all the bases, but it was still difficult to make sure people heard. She stated they were going to investigate using the 100 Twin Drive-In marquee. Ms. Swanson stated Chat with the "Celebration of Nations", as they had done caith some of the other events in the past, they would charge a siagle ticket price or a family ticket price. In that way, they hoped to get the whole family to participate. She stated therc was a great deal available in Fridley, but most people were just not aware of it. Ms. Carpenter asked about membership in the Comc�ittee. Ms. Swanson stated that the Fine Arts Committee would be having an open meeCing on Feb, 12, T979, at 7:30 p.m. at the Coumiunication Education Library to discuss the staging of the "Celebration of Nations". They hoped at that time to get people willing to serve on the coumiittee. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 1 1979 - PAGE 3 Ms. van Dan asked if the Fine Arts Committee had considered having people become sponsors to help supporC the Fine Arts CommitL'ee. Ma. Swanson stated that each one of the committee would be going to three difEerent conm�unity groups to present what they were planning to do in the "Celebration of Nations" and they wexe going to mention at that time that they would welcome participation of any individual or group who wished to promote the celebration. They had talked a little about having sponsors on a continuing basis, but so far it had not been necessary. It was possible they might have Co go with something like that. Mr. StQrla asked Ms. Swanson if anyone was going to ba talking to the Friendly Fridley Folk. They were a very active group and might have a lot to contribute to the "Celebration o£ NaCions". Ms. Swanson stated someone would be presenting it to the Rriendly Fridley Folk. Ms. Carpenter asked how oFten the Fine Arts Committee met. Ms. Swanson stated that the Cammittee normally met once a month. Member- ship was definitely open as they needed more members. 9he stated that the Committee had also talked about changing the name of the Comm4ttee. One proposal was to change it to "Fridley Community Arts", but it was still in the talking stage. Ms, Swanson statPd that after the "Celebratien of Nations", they would have a beCter idea of whether the people of Fridley even caanted a Fine Arts Committee and how much they were willing to support it. They might have to re-evaluate whether it was worth going on with the CommiCtee. Mr. Fleming stated he thought it would be a good idea Co have local artists' paintings displayed in City Hall for short periods of time, As a city employee, he thought it would be aesthetically attractive and would also show the citizens thae Che city had some public awareness, both of Local talent and the arCS, He asked Ms. Swanson who he could contact if some- thing like this was done. Ms. Swanson staCed ehere were a number of local arCists who were quite good couunercialiy. She stated the contact person for that would be Edith Thompson, Sub-Committee on Visual Ares. Ms. Carpenter thanked Ms. Swanson for her information. She stated she had learned a lot she had not been aware of before. Mr. Storla also thanked Ms. Swanson for coming. He stated that in ehe future, csllenever the Commission decided they would like a reporC from the Fine Arts Committee, they would contacC the Co�ittee. Also, if the Fine Arts Conm�ittee telt at any time they would like to come before the Commission, they could contact the Commission. HUMAN RESOURCL�S COMTIISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 1 1979 - PAGE 4 3. STATUS OP LETTER TO WICKES FURNITURE: Mr. Storla apologized for not yet getting this letter written to Wickes Purniture. He stated he would get the letter in the mail this week. 4. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Resignation of David Thiele MOTION by Mary van ban, seconded by Marlyis Carpenter, to receive David Thiele's letter of resignation dated Jan. 8, 1979. The Commission wished to express their thanks and appreciation to Mr, Thiele for his service to the Commission. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Storla declared the motion carried unanimousLy. B. International Year of the ChiLd Mr. Storla stated that he had received the packet of information that the Cou�ission had requested, � P4s. Christlieb stated she would be willing to review the information and sift out wl�at s}ie thought would be,of particular interest to the Commi.ssion, C. Memoz•andum of Agreement Mr. Storla stated that there might be a new Commissiotter of the State l�uman Rights Department, He stated that on Sat., Feb. 24, 1979, at Augsburg College, the Human Itights Department was going to have a L'raining program on how to use the Memorandum of Agreement. The Human Rights Department would be sending him a 2etter asking how many people would be attending and he would also receive a copy of the Memorandum of Agzeement to review before the training session. He stated he would contact the Conmiission members regarding this prior to the training session. ADJOUttNMENT: MOTION by Marlyis Carpenter, seconded by Mary van Dan, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Storla declared the February 1, 1979, Human Resources Co�nission meeting adjourned at 6;11 p.m. Respecl-ively sub itted, (.7` �(iK,F. ��.�fi`LC/ Lyn t Saba Recording Secretary CITY OF FRZDI.EY p,ppEqLS Cot�lISSiOx t�ETING - FEERUaRY 13 1979 CAi.L T� ORDER: Chsirwoman Schnabel called the Februaxy 13, �979, ApPeals Coffinissian Neeting to order at 7:35 P•M• ROLL CALL� Members Present: Mr. Plemel� Ms. Schuabel� Ms. Gabel� }�.'. �aT� Members Absent: Mr. Kemper O�thera Preaent: Darxell ClaxkJ Community Development Administrator 1. APPftOVE 4PPEAVS CONIMSSSIOiV b9INUTES: SANUARY 16� 19T9: MOTION by i�s'. Earna, seconded by Nx. Plemel, tp approve the January 16� 1979 Appeals Co�ission minutes as �rritten. UPON A VOICE VOTE� AI�� VOTING AYE� CHAIRFIOMAN SCHNABEL TIECLARED � MOTION CARRIID UNANIl�40USLX. 2. MOTION by hlr. Plemel� seconded by i�r. Barna� to open the Public Hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE� OPEN }1T 7: �0 P. M. ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNAbEL DECIu'aRE➢ THE PUBLIC �ARIPdG NIs, Schnabel stated8thaA�t��i�stimeeting therehwaslaapublic hearingsarcdma motionmwasi� of Noveanber 1�1 197 made to the City Council to approve tl�e requests as stated. The minutes of that meeting reflect the reasons the Commissioners had at that time for approving the variances. The week fellcwing that r.seeting� the item went bePore the Plenning �ommiesion� and the Planning Coramission took the act3on of recomnending to Council tl�at this item be tabled for 90 dqvs. i+'ben the item reached the Council� on December 4� 1978, the Couzicil agreed to table it for 90 days� which would be December, January and Februsry• The Council had further discussSon regarding the Appeal, Coamiission actions and the request and on January 8+ �979, the Council requested this item be returned to tha Board of Appeals to Le reconsidered� which is the reason tliis item is before us now. The Appeals Commission had discussed this item several times because of things that were brought to their attention along the rrqy. The two most8lmp �ant things to cene to their atteution were a statement ma3e on Deceu�ber 12� ly7 J Darrell Clark that tue building curreatly on the lot in question vae not considered APPEALS COMMtS3SON MEETING� FEBRUARY 13s 1979 PAGE 2 ecndemnable by the City� in fact it �ans considered rehabitable� which was contrary to inforc�ation given to the Co�i.ssion en NovemUer 14� I.q78. The second item that came to the Commission's atteniion was a letter dated vovember 24� 1978 from the Cit� 4ttorney, Virgil Herrick� to Clyde Moravitz of the Staff� xhich contradicted information �iven to the Commission at tbe November 14th meeting. Each oP the Commissfoners had received a copy of the letter. The.ltem 3n question was particu- larly the effect that approvel of this xe�uest would have on the legal suit that tke City was currently involved in. That letter was forwarded to the Commissian in December and 3r.cluded with it was a Yile on other �+0 foo� lots that have i�ad requests fox variances Prom 1g62 to the present. t4r. Clark stated the Comnissioners hed also received a meno Prom Council and item 3 oP the n;emo lists Yive items the Council would like the Co�.issioners to address in either the deniRl or approval oP the request. Ms. 3chnaDel stated that those five items were reASOns they used for approval in the first place. N'.s. Sennabel stated she felt the minutes from the Novemxer 14th meeting were quite c7.ear and quoted from page 15 of the minute�, b1s. Schnsbe2 stated� for the benefit of the sudienee� that the r.�ain thin� that had come to the Board�s attention was t}zat they ielt they were misleafl in several instances. The first area in which they were mislead they feZt was by tlie Staff person at the P;ovember l�+th meeting� where they were told that the house eurreatly on the lot should be condemned� that the City wanted it condez�ued even if nothing were done w3th it. T'nat it was in very bad �hape� unhabitab7e� a'nd shou].d be torn dowu. The second tizing wes tl�at they �rere alsa concerzied about the court case the City was invo2ved in. The Stafi person ststed thmt he had talked tc the City Attorney and the City Attorney had said that i% the variances were �rantedJ there should be a notation that there was a hcuse currently on the 2ot and that it was in very bad cor.dition a�d was effaeting the general aesthetics of the neighborhood� and in grantin� the variances� it would �.m�Prove the over-all neighborhood. Since that time they had received a letter frcm the City Attorney oihich cont-radicted that statement. That statement was nade orally to the Staff. Several days later� the City Attorney wrote a letter and in writing he changed� the Comr�i.ssioners felt substantially,, his opittion. TQr. Nede�eard stated tl�t the day he and fou:c Stafi people had gone through the houseJ the mutual feelin� was that the house should be,torn down. T�at was t2ze reason he had come this far with tre request and al.so because at the Council meet3ug the Mayor had told him that he felt it would be approved� but not until the court , case wes taken care of. Ns. Schnabel quoted from the lettex from Nr. Herrick� dated Nover�ber 24� 1978. She read the second pa�e of the letter. D�s. Schnabel etated that this led the Commissioners to believe that granti.n� approval of this request could cause problems with the court case. Iiowever� tl�ere were still the bssic facts remaining. This wac a lot that had a s�ructure on it c:u?'x'e[�f�ly� the c�se in litigation had no structure on it but was 6 VAC£iL1t ]_Ot. This was ar interior lot� the 1ot !.n liti�5ation wae a cornex l.ot. Thic lot� the neighi;ora supporte3 the in�pxovement� the lot 3n liti�fltion� the reighUora di8 not support. ThereSore� A1s. Schna�el stated she felt t2iere were sub- stantial differences. t�ir. Clark str�ted he agreed tl�ey should tear the house dov,*n and start fro:n scratch, but i.t wasn't in such conditi.on that it coul.dn't be repaired. Tt cuuld be repaired aud live3 in. For Lhe nle;hborhood� it i•rould be beHter to have the house further back from tke street and be one of ucore equal value to �he ones next door. The house next door was on A 40 foot lot of comparable sir,e. APPEAI,S CONMIS5ION MEETING, FEBRUAT2Y 13, 1979 P�E 3 Ms. Schnebel stated the awner of the house next door on tHe 40 foot lot, Ms. Evans, was at the Yovember 14th meeting and spok.e in favor of the new structura t�ein�'put on the lot, and the only thing she eaked was that the plsn be flopped� because of the driveway. Ma. Gabel asked if the house were upgraded and added��:�n to� could it be made com- pareble to other houses in the neighborhoai. Mr. C1ark stated i£ they did d�hat� they were almost back where they started from� becfluse e variance would be necessary if they added more thsn 50� to the ho�se. Once you add more than 50� of the current v�lue oi the house to it� it would have to go through the same process to be upgraded. Alco� it was closer to the atreet than it should be. It would probably be more economical to take it down. Mr. Barna stated that the exist3ng house was 720 square Peet zrith basement. He stated that 400 square foot houses without basements were rurining about $20�000 to $25�000. So that would put this house nt about the $30�000 bracket. The existing house repaired and upgraded would probab]y run about $35�000 to $�0�000� whicn would still leave it within the reach of a low and medium income person. The new house on that lot woul.d not be within the reach of the low and medium income people which he sees as basical�y more desirable to hsve it a lower income housing. As he stated at the November l�+th meeting� he would be more comfortable with a smaller house than that larger house� because that larger house would run $50�000 or better� and that would not include the expense of tearing down the existing house and foundation. Mr. Nedegaard stated it would cost al�ost as nucYi to upgrade the exis�ing house. Mr. Barna disagreed and sta'ted there was not room in the house to put $15,000. Mr. Clark stated they had re-hebed a house on 60th and Main and it had cost almost $10,000 for a new bathroom� re-wiring and new trim, Part of the problem with the structure on 2nd Stree� was tha't it was onl,y 16 feet wide and it would be difPicu].t to 2ay out a Ploor p].an in that space. Mr. Pleme2 asked i£ the house was occupied at present. Mr. Nedegaard stated the lady who had rented it was in a rest home� and the house was vacant. Mr. Plemel asked Mr. Nedegasrd if he planned to acquire it himself. Mr. Nedegaard stated he did. Mr. Plemel quoted from t+�. Herricks letter that the variances should be granted only where there are unique circumstances that impose a hardsh3p upon the owners of the property. This hardship must be one that was not self-imposed or ssswned when the bqyer scquired the property. Mr. P1eme1 stated he would feel different if the owner wanted to tear the old house down and build a new one. 2�. Clark stated that the owner had co-si�ned the request. Ms. Gabel stated that bir. Nedegaud's purchase of the lot was contingent upon tk�e variances bering granted. APPEAL3 CONMIflSION I�TING, FE�P,UIIRY 13, 1979 PAGE 4 Mr. Darna stated he would feel different if the present owner Was contrscting *,rith Mr. Nedegaard. But sa it stands� i�'s. Nede�aard was bi.�yin� on spec and that puts it in a different ba11 game, It wquld make it a self-assumed hardship even though� it waa in his neighborhocd and ne wanted to upgrade it. He sti11 felt it couid be rehabilitnted by a young persou who wanted to bi.�y an inexpensive home. Mr. Clark stAted that the other lots had 'oeen brougbt tax forPeit� which was difYerent from this case. Also� that person was told prior to purchasing those lots that they were not buildable� but he brou�ht them kno�rJ.ng that. In this case� the petitioner would net be out anything if this was denied. A11 he wants to do Ys upgrade his neighborhoai . Nx. P2eme1 etated tnat not one neighbor had spoke a�;ainst the project and apparently Mr. Nedegaard had a good relationship with the neigYibors and their complete conYidence. Ms. Schnabel stated that Mr. Nedegaard had stated �hat the neighbors had come to hin when the hou,e was put up Yor sale, and had asked him to bi�y the lot and put up a new structure. Ms. Schnabel stated she felt she could see both sides and felt like she was on ihe hortts of a dileimna. :;s. Gabel asked Mr. Nade�nard 3f he could see his w�y e).ear to do some re-hab on the house. Mr. Nedegaard sta�ed he would have to look at it again. The on7,y other time he had looked at it was with As. Clz.rk and at tHat time� didn't feel it could be re-habed. Ms. Gabel stated she a�reed with Ms. Schnabel� thqt ii was a dilevnna. I�.s, Gabel stated that i;he problem she Y�,d was that as long as there was a stnuctux'e on it, it �ras one situationl but as soon as they tear down the structure� and they i�ave a vacant lot� it would become a 40 ioot lot problem. I�s. Clark ttsked what would happen if the house was not there. Ms. Gabel stated it would then be a 40 foot lot and the C3ty had pretty well established a policy re�ar3ing 40 £oot lots� an3 the policy did not distin,uish between interior or corner lots. bir. Barna stated he had chas�3e:i his viewpoint regardi.ng 40 foot lots after seeing \ w�at was happening in I�Linneapolis� where the City was re-habing house on 7+0 foot lots and they were standin� racan�. Peopla were not byying houses on 40 foot lots. He could not see a v�able iF0 foot lot in an urbqn area as Ueir�q the sensible thing to do. Ms. Schnabel aske@ ho� much work would have to be done on the house to bring it to cale. Mr, Claxk strsted that tl�e electricc�l� heAt3ng and plumbin� �aas not all that bad. Structural]y� the floor ;joists were over spanned� the rafters were over spanned, ancl it was iiard to tell what kas in the walls. It was hard to lmow until they started tearing it apflrt. APPEALS COM�R,SSION ME�TING� FEf3RUARY 13� 19?9 PAGE 5 Mr, Barna stated that when he drove by the house� he had noted that the rooP did not sag. _ Mr. Nedegaard �tated there was no insulation in the house r�nd none of the windows met code. He did not feel it covld be Pixed Yor 50� of tbe value oi the house. Ms. Gabel asked if he would need a variance if he sxceeded the 50�. Mr. Clark stated he wouid. The 5�i referred to the cost oi the house� the assessed valuation. Ms. Schnabel asked if the setback was 20 feet from the atreet. Mr. Barna stated it was. Ma. Gabel stated that in terms of the court case� once the structure was torn down it becomes an identical situation to the other 1+0 foot lots. Mr. Clark stated that this pet3tioner was in a diYierent situation. Ms. Gabe1 stated he was not really in a different situstlon because he was essuming his own problems� where the present owner would not be. Ms. Gabel stated she thought the present owner would have a stronger case than Mr. Nedegaard woiz7-d have. Mr. P2eme1 noted tha� they could. liken Mr. Nedegasrd to someone just taking care oY the paperwork in arder to facilatate matters. The present owner wouZd realize quite a bit of money iP she sold the property to Mr. Nedegeard. hfr'. Plemel asked how lon� the present ot.�ner had owned the pro�erty. Mr. Clark stated he thought it was over 20 years. Mr. Plemel asked if she had it built. Mr. Nedegaard stated it was moved in and that it was a chicken coop and all that was added on was the back portch. Ms. Gabel stated tha'� if she knew where they were with the court case� she would be willing to say go ahead with it. Mr. Plemel asked if they should table it again. Ms. Schnabel stated that at tbis point it was uuclear when the City would go to court� and it would be reall,y unfair to the petitioner to do that. Ms. Gabel stated she £elt it would be better to tear it down and that the Commission had a responsibility to the people who live there. Mr, Nedegaard stated he had met recently with the neighbors and suggested they stay home tonight� but they were concerned c�nd would fight leaving the esistin'� hoin� there. The existing"structure was a hazard to the neighborhood. APPEALu CON,hIISSION b�ET7ldG� FEBRUARY 13� 1979 . - PAGE 6 Ms. Schnabel siu;gested ta Mr. Nedegaard that he encourage the neighbor� to come to the Council meeting when this item is removed from the table� so that Council could hesr what they have to say. Mr. Plemel stated thst he fe2t they ha@ aovered the subject pretty well the first time and saw no reason to change their minds. Ms. Schnabel stated she was concereQ about the same thing Ms. Gabel had mentioned, that once the present structure was torn dot,m� they would be dealing wlth a vacant 40 foot lot. Mr. Plemel stated they chould a].so Iook at it that they should have some compassion for the lady trying to se11 it and reeoup her investment. Ms. Gabel stated that iP the house was just a chicken coop to begin with� her invest- ment could not bave been too great. If sor�ecne were to buy it an@ re-hab it she would be able to recoup her investment at a profit. Mr. Plenel asked if someone could bqy it and live in it as it was. Mr. Clark stated that would be difficult to prevent unless it was lived in on a rental basis� in which case it woulcl cone under the Housing Code and they could step in. Ms. Schnabel stated that in loakinE; back �ver previous requests for �+0 foot lots� the on�y one sir.�ilar was o,e in ?��ay ot' lgo5. The lot size was 41.5 x 130. They tore . down the existing house and buil.t a new one, This request was granted and approved by both the Appeals Iloar3 snd the City Council. It was a corner lot. Ns. Clark noted that �aas a tprnado damaged house. D�'PION by bis. Gabel� seeonde$ by Mr. Barna to close the Publie Hearing. UPON A VOICE VOT: � r1LL VO'i'ING°AYE� CHAIRWO:'+fAPi SCHSIABEL DECL,'sRED THE PUPLIC' HEARING CLOSID �T &:45 P.r�t. Mr. Plemel stated that a�'ter going i� to it more thorou�hly� he understands it better but hasn't changed his a�ind t'rom his original vote. 2�. Schnabel stated that if they concur teith their previous recouanendation they shauld ser.d to ti�e Council some additional informat:ion� speciPical.ly how this request differs �'rom other requests in the past. Ms. Gabel reiterated tlzat she did r�ot know what the legal ramiiications would be once the house was torn down ard it bec¢me a vacant 1+0 foot lot. As far a� hir. Nedegaarcl tearing dowu the house and putting up another one� she hsd no problem� but was unsure of t�e legslities once the house cars torn down. Ms. Sehnabel ctated they had not received that kind of information either because the courts hAd not dealt with that problem or because if the courts had� they hadn't 5een informed on it. APFE�',LS COA'A9I55ION P�ETING� FEBRUAR� 13v �979 P� 7 t+ir. Barna stated he Pelt that as a Board they were charged wi.th the responsibility to determine whether they felt that in a�y particul�r inatance there was a situation where the code should be overridden to the beneiit of a resident or a person wi.shing to build in the City who vras hampered by a aituation in the code. He could not see where they could.s�y tear down a building that was maybe reparable and build one thst uould cost more an3 take it out oY the reach of the people who could afford the house as it ea:ists. Ns. Barna stated he knows o£ max�y people who would b�y it and reYiabilitate it. N,s. Schnabal stated that considering the ascount oY work the house needed and the size of the lot, they would be maybe interested in a house that would not require so much work. . Mr. Barna stated the main point might be the lot bize. Ms. Schnabel stated she felt the house should be torn down and replaced� but was con- cerned about startint; a precedent of building on interior !t0 foot lots. There could be the distinction that they would permit construction on 1t0 foot lots in the interior of blocks 1Y there was an existing structure t�ere which was cansidered non-rehabitabl2. So consequently� they would permit existing structures to be removed and replaced by a dwelling because the problems of rehabing what was there would be so �reat� and that would be a separate issue from a currently vacant �+0 foot lot. The bottom line was that the people in that neighborhood were used to a structure on that lot and to put a new structure on trhe 1ot would not create a problem visual�y� as it would if the 1ot were currently vacant. Mr. Plemel stated that having heard nothing at thia meeti.ng to change his thinking� he would make a motion. MOTION by Mr. Ple�l� seconded by Mr. Barna� to recoumiend to Council approval oY the request for variances to allow the construction of a. new dwelling at 4526 2nd Street NE. Pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Ccde� the variances needed are: The required lot area be reduced irom 7500 square feet to 5160 square feet� the front yard setback be reduced from the required 35 Peet to 30 feet� reduce the side yard setbacks� one from the required 10 feet to � feet, the other from the required 12 £eet to 10 feet� and reduce the requtred finished floor area from 1020 square feet to 960 square feet, the increase the maxi.mum lot coverage £rom 25 percent to 25 per cent� with the stipulation that the existing structure be removed within a reasonable period of ti.me i.e. 60 days. Mr. Barna steted that as directed by Council in the letter dsted December ll� i978, No. 3� the following was a statement indicating why this request was different Prom previous],y brought forth 40 foot lot requests: a) House present3y existing on property: There is presently a house existing on thai, groperty which m$y or m�y not be economically feASible to rehabilitate. The existing house definitely is not aestheticall,y fitted . to the neighborhood and it would aesthetically desirable to remove the house because of constn;ction, tyDe of windows and the location of the house on the lot. b) ;Iouses ott other 1t0' lots in the imuiediate neighborhood: Tliere is a house on a�+0 foot lot adjoining this lot to the north which aesthetically enhauces the nei�hborhoal. There are houses on other 40 foot lots in the nieghborhood that nre vexy nice looking pro- perties, all being interior lots. c) D'o objections noted from the neighborhood indicatir:�; a potentisl de�•eluation of existin� homes: A lar�e nwr.ber of n�ighbors were present at the Npvember 14th meeting and they spoke in £avor of a new home on this lot. APPEALS COMI�SLS�ION MEET=P�� N�RUARY 13� Z979 PAGE $ The neighbor i.r�ediately to the north indlcated thai; her preference wou].d be that the proposed house p7.an be £lopped so there could be adjoini.rk; dr3veways which would make it easier for her to get into her �arage.. Mr, P+ed-e3aard� the petitioner, in- dicated he had no problem with that. Ms. Ilarna stated his personal estimate would be thnt this woul.d not clevaluate the other homes but would er.hance the vsluation of the other homes on ��0 foot lots in the imr.edia�:e neighbo.hoai. d) Removal of bli�ht and �eneral upgradittg o£ neighborhood: Due to the type of construction on the existin� l�ome� the removal of this house wou2ci make the other hvmes in the neighborhood loolc better especialZy the adjoining'homes to the north and south. The construetion of a house similnr to the house to the north would generaLly� in u� opinion� upgrade the nei�;hborhoo3� and in the opinion oi' this Board I believe. The major di£ference would be that this was a presentiy owned lot. e) The lot is an interior lot: This lot is an iiaterior lot. 'Phe most imPortant item to rqy mirni' is that this is not a tax forPeit Zot. This is s 1ot which is present],y owned by a private party and this wou7.d �e the major di£ference between this and other requests to the Board. It has a home on the lot whicH. has been determined not-rentable and in Mr. Barna's opinion this recuest was 100� di£Yerent from other requests Yor 40 foot lots that have come before the Board, Mr, Barna state3 he felt this was a rehabi2atation of the lo� rather than a rehabilitation of the house. Ms. Schnabel noted that the current ozmer had signed the petition and because of this it would not be a speculative tqpe of thing such as they have had before. Also� there was a request in May of 1965 which was simi.lar to this and it was approved. Mr. Clark stated i£ Cour,.cil granted the request it should have the stipizlation that the b•si.ldi� be remaved within a reasonable period of time' 60 days. T2�t would be in acccr.dance with the orig�nal motion raar.e at the November 14th meeting. UPON A VOTCE VOTE� Mft. PI1'sb4ELJ hR. BARISA� MS. SCHNREEL VOTIA?G AYE� AND MS. GABLE VOTING IuRX} C3AIfttdCMRP7 SCIINABEL DECLP.RED TfIE i•10TSON C.ARRIED 3 TO 1. Mr. Rarna suggested that Mr. Nedegaard get a bill of esti.mate on the rehab of the present structure to shaca to Council hoW much it wculd cost to rei�bil:ttate the hcnxse. I�s. Nedegaard thanked the Couu�issioners. 3• REaUEST FOR VARIANG'.ES Pik?SUANT TO CfiAPTER 205 OF TI� FRIDLEY CITY CODE� TO ALLOW TI� CONSit2ik:TIOTI OP LNIIIG I�REA f1BOVE THE EXISTIICG GpRAGE A:VD ALLOW Ti� CONSTRC�TIOPd OF A NEW GARAG� aT 136'T iIRESTDE DRIVE N.E. TI� VARIAS7C�S NECESSARY FOR TAIS CONSTPtICTIORT IS TO RF.DiP'I; THE FROP1`i' YARD SETSACK FR02+ TF� REQUIRED 35 F'EET TO 18.3 FEl�`T� ��ND REDUCE THE REQ[TLR�D 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SE�BACK ON THE LIVING S7SE' OF THE IiOUSE T0 9��. (��quest by Ronald L. C:ustafson� 1367 Fireside Driae NE„ Fridley� bin. 55432}. MOTIDN by Mr, Barr_a, seconded Uy NSf;. Gabel� to open the Public Hearing. UPON A VOICE OdTZ�'� ALL �JOTING AYE� CHAIh'�d01'iAPd SCIPidAREL DECI.AT3L�'D THE PUPLIC Iff+',ARIItiTG OPEN AT 9:20 P.M. Ms. Schnabel read the AdmGnistrative Staff Report as iollows: �...�-, APPEALS COI�ffSSiON MEE'TII�� F'E�P.UARY 13 19i9 PACE 9 ADl�1IPlISTRATIVE STA�f REPORT 1367 Fireside Drive N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED 6Y REQUIREM�NT Section 205.�53, {q,[i(l)) requires a 10 food side yard setback for living area to a side lot line. The public purpose served by�his section is to maintain a 20 foot open space between living areas in a residential district. This reduces exposure to conflagra�ion of fire and also allows for aesthetically pleasing open areas around residential structures. Section 205.053 (4,A) requires a front yard setback of 35 feet. The public purpose served by this section is to provide an open area in front of an attached garage for parking u�ithout.encroachment into the public right af way. It also alloVis for aesthetically pleasing open area 6etween the structure and the street and prohibits the. encroachment inLO the line of sight for neighboring structures. B. STATED HARDSHIP: It is practical to add over the present garage for living space due to the layout of the floor plan. At present the living area i5 in the front southeast corner, and kitchen in.the front southwest making it convenient to build to the orig-inal layout. The foundation is already in place due to the garage and it would be least expensive to build in this location. Any addition to the back corners of the house would interfere with sleeping areas, and much more expensive due to a new foundation and landscaping. The proposed�garage would be elevated above the street level 18 , and there would be access to the living area through it. At present the garage is approximately 4 feet below tite sireet level, and drainage is into the driveway and garage level. Adding a new garage to this area is also convenient to the layout of original house with little rnlandscaping needed. The ne�a garage would make it a double instead of the present l stall garage. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIE4J: The first requested variance is to reduce tfie required 10 foot side yard to 9 feet. The neighboring structure to the east is located 14.5 feet east of the coma�ion line, therefore, the desired 20 feet Uett�ree� structures will n�t be reduced by the approval of this request (the distance between will be 23.5 feet). Therefoi•e staff has no structural modification that it would recommend if the Qoard approved this part of the variance request. The second requested variance is to reduce the required 35 foot front yard setback to 1II.3 feet. The reduction in the required front yard setback is substantial, and Che opinion of the neighbors affected �aill have to be considered. The desired off-sti°eet parkii�g area can be obtained by ltaving the garage door open off the west side of the proposed garage, as does thc existing gai°age. The neia proposed improvements wi11 provide for better drainaele away from the , APF'EAI.S COMt�CCSSION ME�.CINr,� �gRUAttY 13, 1979 PAGE 10 garage, as does the existing structure. Therefore, if the 6oard approves this portion of the request, we would concur with the petitioncr's plan to raise the er.isting grade and have the new driveway enter the west end of the new garage. b�a. Schn:.�bel noted that the Commissioners had received a survey of the current house showing the garage �ahich exists presently and which is the area tlwt the proposed structure would be put over and also showed the proposed new garage. The other tti�o surveys include the neighborc. They also ha3 a couple drawings of the proposed garage. Also there v;ere two photos of the house in question. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr, Gustafson 3or his cos�ents regarding what he w&s plannin� to do. N's. Gustafsan stated the Staif Report basically co•rered what he planned to do. He had not yet had plans drawn u� Yor tP.e floor plan because he was waiting to see i£ the variances would be passed. . Ms. Schnabel asked what use the proposed area over the existing garage wovld bs put to. Mr. Gusta£son stated it would be a part of the current livin� room and make the living room L-shaped. The present lfving room rras only 10 x 10. Ms. Schnabel asked hom msay bedrooms were in the house. Nm. Gustafson stated there were two bedrooms. Ns. Gustat'son �lso stated that part oY the addition would be uced as entryway because there was not entryway in the house at present. bir. Barna asked if they had aacess from the present garage into the living area. Mr. Gus�Lafson stated the access was to the basement. Ms. Schnabel asked how solid the foundation was for putting the addition on. Mr. Gustafson stated the east and south wa11s were poured eoncrete. Mr. Plemel asked what he would do with the e�c�sting gara�e. t�. Gustafson stated he would mc�ke it into a work s6op. Ms. Schr.abe2 aske3 Ms, Gustafson iP he had ta2ked to his nei�hbors about this. Mr. Gustafson stated he had and they all seex:ed in favor of it main2y because most of the houses around him were fairly new and they would like to see it upgraded. Mr. Clark stated he had not received aryy calls or letters regaxding this. Mr. Plem�l a�ked if there was living area in the second floor. Mr. Gustafson ststed tliat was sttic. Mr. Clark stated that the reasan the house wns so close to the street wae beceuse the APPEALS COI�ffSSION MEE`S'TRG� r�sxuax�l 13 1979 pA�E �7. house was there before the street was there. Ms. Schnabel asked when the house was built. Mr. Gustafaon 'stated he thought it was built in 1955, but wasn't s�e. Mr. Cl.ark stated that the VA had done rehabilatation work on it in 197].• Mr. Plemel asked when Mr. Gustafson had brought it. Mr. BustaYaon stated he had pi.u'chased it A year and a half ago. Mr. Plemel stated it looked like it would be an addition to the neighborhood. moresthan adequatedinhtermstofcmeetingeounc�odesa£ortiire and in termstofrcrowdings The only problem wouid be that when the addition is put on the Pront� that house woutd stick out further than the other houses around it. Mr. Plemel asked if the other houses were setback 35 feet. Mr. Clark stated they ��rere. Ms. Gabel stated she �aould be concerned about that too if ar�y of the nei�hbors had objected� but could see where they wactl.d "feel this woulc3 up�rade the nei�,hboxhood. Ms. Schnabel asked wliat the exterior Yinish would be and if they would match it with the existing exterior. Mr. Gustafson stated they would put new aluminum siding on the whole house and would also tie in the roof on the front with the exist3ng roof. Ms. Schnabel asked if he were going to contract out the work. Nm. GustaYson stated he would do it himself. Ms, Schnabel asked what the timetable would be Mr. Gustafson stated they would start on it in the spring. Mr. Barna asked iY it wouldn�t be difficu3.t to tie the fooi:i-ngs in with the existing etructure. the hole andaw�enttbPywoo�' thecfooting heyhfillllthetholescinathe concrete blockn gad ereate a bond � . between the new footing and the old house. Mr, Barna noted he wou3.d be coming up against a poured concrete zaall and that would be difficult. APPEALS COMMI,SSION t�ETING, P'EBRUARY 13, 1979 P_A.GE 12 Mr. Clark �tated they could drill some ties in. Ma. Schnabel stated that the elevation of this garage would be higher than the existing driveway� 18 inches� and asked if they would put in fi11 there. Mr. Clsrk stated they would put the footings down and pack it and then alab it. Ms. Schnabel asked if the entrance from 1;he garage would �o into the basement or into the upstairs. Mr. Gustafson stated there would be a door from the present ga?^age to the new garage and also one going up.ittto the livin� area. MOTION by N�. PZemel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the Public FIearing. Uf'ON A VOIC� VOTE� ALL VO`�NG AYE� CAATRTAOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED TI� PUBLIC FiEARING CLOSID AT 9:35 P•r��• Mr. Barna stated re felt it would be an improvement over the present situation� and could see where tb=re could be quite a draina�e situation as it presently exists �nd closing it oYf and filling it would save a 1ot of trouble there, The house would have a tendency to be long and narro;a, but would not look bad with the difference in the types oY st.ructures tYvat are up and down that block. The ti-idth o£ the lot would enhanee itself to tbe si.de drivew�y situati�n so there wnuld not be a proble� there. Tne propez�ty owner to the east has nat voiced a�y objections and iP there were ob- jections it wuuld probably be £rom there. Mr. Barna stated he would have to go alona with it. Ms. Gebel agreed. MOTIOP: bv t�s. Gabel� seconded by bs: Barna to approve the request for variances pursuan� to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code� to allaw the construction of living area above the existing gara�e and allow the aonstruction of a new garad at ].367 Fireside Drive NE. The variances necessary for this construction is to reduce the.£xont yard setback �'rom the required 35 feet to 18.3 feet� and reduce the reqvired 10 foot side yard setback on the living side of the house to 9 feet� kdth the stip�zlz;tion thac the entrance to the garage be from the west side� oY£ tha street. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRtidOMAN SCHNABEL ,:�ECLARED TAE MOTIOSI CARRIGD UNANIi�?OUSLY. M�. Schnabel inYormed Mr. Gustafson that he was free to get a building permit. 4. RE�,UFST rOR VARIAPICE YURSUAP�'i' TO CHAPT'r',.4 OF TI�' FRIDI�:Y CITX CODF� TO ALT�0�7 .,�:.[:F� A`T 8S;'�RIVER��! T;�,RACE '61�'��b� ��OAii�`-�`�i �Ti'�>'S-S�UA1�E-- 'F'1"�`T—(Request by 47ill.i'.� L. LeDuc� 1�+20 Silver Lake Rond�'NeW Brigliton, A'�i.� 5511z). 1 klk'T'k;r^T.5 COt�1ISSI0N b�ETiNG, FEBRUARY 13, 1979 PA�*E ' a M�. Schnabel stated that this item sliould be tAbled until Staff receives a survey and construction plans from the petitioner so they can be revieWed priur to the public hearing. Mr. Clark stated be would l,ike to comment that this was two 25 ioot lots and right adjacent to it was two more 25 Yoot lots. Depending upon the plans� it would 'be a lot easier to have a l00 foot lot� and if he has to fi11 �+ feet� it would be better than the situation.we had on Fairmont Street where the house looks like it was,built on a pedestal. NOTION by Mr. Barnz�� seaonded by Ms. Gabel to table this item vntil the petitioner provides Stai? with a survey and construction plans. i�lr. Clark stated tha't they should re-uotify the ne3ghbors when it is re-opened. UPOPt A VOICE VOTE� AI�L VOTIATG AYE� CH.4IRWOPQAN SCffiiABEL DECIJ�RED THE MOTION CARftIED UNANIhIOUSLY. Mt7iI0N by Mr. Plemel� seconded by Mr. Barna to adjourn the February 13� 1979� �eeting of the Appeals Couur,i.ssion. UP�N A VQICE VOTE� ALL VQTII� AYE� AT 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted: �� '�' Katl�y S3ielton� Recording Secretary CHfiIRWOb'fAN SCFL�TABFI. DiCLARED THE I,�EETIt1G ADJOIIRPIvD COMMUNI`lY DEVELOP'[�NT COPAIISSIpN MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1979 MEMBERS PRESENT: LeRoy Oquist, Connie Modig, A1 Ga6e1, RenneCh Vos, Sharon Gustafson MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Oquist called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m, APPROVAL OF JfINUARY 9 1979 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MiNUTES: A$1TION by Kenneth Vos, seconded by Connie 24odig, to approve the January 9, 1979, Community Development Covmiission minutes as written. Bpon a voice yote, all voting aye, Chairperson Oquist declared the motion carried unanimously. 1. SIKS LANE STRIPII3G ON MISSISSIPPI ST. AND.OSBORNE RD.: MOTION by Connie Modig, seconded by Kenneth Vos, to receive the memo dated 1/31f79 from Dick Sobiech to Nasim Qureshi, a letter dated 1/19/79 from Paul Ruu$,County Engineer, to Dick Sobiech, and a letter dated S/27/75, regarding Bike Lane Striping on Mississippi St. and Osborne Rd. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Oquist declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Boardman 'stated that back when the Bikeway/Walkway Project Conmiittee was meeting and when the coum�ittee forn�ulated their report, the city was aware that at some time the County would say that they had to get the bikeway off the county road systems, i.e., Miss3ssippi St., Central Ave., and Osbome Rd. The reason the city was using those bike systems in the first place was because the county road systems were the only systems to use to get across the railroad tracks, They were missing something if they did not use those systems or at least get the right of ways of those systems. At that point in time, the city said, o.k., the amount of traffic on those road systems wasn't that much of a dettiment to have an additional cost of off-trail bike systems, Now, the County had repaved Mississigpi St, and n � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMZSSION MEETING FEBRUARY 13 1979 - PAGE [ " had made it a four lane traffic street, eliminating the bikeway system on Mississippi Street. The ci�y was now at a point where they had to decide what to do with the bikeway system--wheCher they wanted to keep the system on Mississippi St., whether the bikeway system should be moved off to a different location, whether they even wanted to maintain the bikeways systems on the county road systems. Mr. Boardman stated that right now there were sidewalks along Mississippi St. and eventually there would be sidewalks along Osborne Rd, and OId Central Ave., depending on the arrangements that could be made. With that type of arrangement, the city would probably want to have some type of off-street bikeway built right into the sidewalk. However, that would be a very expensive process. It was a matter o£ time of whether they wanted to do ' that or try to figure out a different type of system. Mississippi Street was a very important road because it was right in the center of the city and it crosaed ouer from East River Road to connect up with the New Brighton bike system. Mr. Oqaist stated he did not think having the sidewalk for a walkway and bikeway was a very good situation, especially with the openittg of the senior highrise where more elderly people wauld be using the sidewalks along Mississippi St. Mr. Boardman.stated thaG what would probably have to be done would be to remove [he boulevard and blacktop between the curb and the sidewalk and stripe it to allow for both blkes and pedestrians. Ms. Modig asked if there was any way of getting funding for this. Mr. Boardman stated it was possible, but he did not know what �unding w�s available at this time. Most of the funding for trail systems was for recxeational trails. Mr. Boardman stated they were just going to have to assume that people were going to use Mzssissippi St. Eor biking no matter how dangerous it was. What the city had to do was make it as safe as possible for that use for both pedestriax� and bicyclists. Up to this point in time, the bikeway system on Missisaippi St. had been quiCe successful and people had used it a lot, He felt they'needed Mississippi St. as an integral part of the bikeway system. Mr. Oquist stated it seemed the only choice they had was to change the boulevard into a bikeway if they were going to retain Mississippi St. as a bikeway system. ' Mr. Boardman stated the problem was that between the present sidewalk and the existing curbing there were telephone poles and fire hydrants, and you cou2d not expand on the other side of the sidewalk without taking people's property. _ <',i� COD'R4[JNITY DEVEI.OPMENT COhII�iSSZON MEETING FEBRUARY 13 1979 - PAGE 3 Mr. Boardman stated that the county had not yeC done any overlays or atriping for four lanes on Osborne Rd. and Centrab Ave., and the bike systems were still on those roads. However, iC was something the city had to be thinking about. On Central Ave., there wez'e no curbs ao there was the possibility of a wide shoulder on that streeC. Mr. Boardman stated there was an alternative route to Ocborne Rd. by dropping down and uaing 73rd Ave. as soon as possible past East River Road. On the north side of Osborne, there was rhe "St. Paul Water Easement", so there was the potential of having a bikeway there. The only problem was that most of that easement was in Spring Lake Park. Mr. Boardman stated the reason he had hrought this information 6efore the Commission was because the Commission wanted to be aware of any changes in the bikeway system and because there were going to have to be some changes made in the future. He felt with Mississippi St. they might have to go to off-street biking and just designate it as a bike route. He could not see any other means of handling it at this point in time. Ms. Modig stated that the advantage of having bike route signing might make motorists more observant of bicyclists, Ms. Gustafson stated that with parking being allowed on Mississippi St., it made it more dangerous for the bicyclists. ion cnntinved on Mississippi St. with off-street biking. Als an as nossible past East ADJOURPIMENT: for vote to of MOTION by Connie Modig, seconded by A1 Gabel, Co adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Oquist declared the February 13, 1979, Community Development Coamdssion meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submi ted, Lyn Saba Recording Secretary _ _. _ .,,�,, .- � � b�i31 Univarsify N. G �� i��. Quret�ld ' • Minnoapolis Minn. 55421 � a ` . 612-560-3450 L � .� � 131.p,m-i,nne--&1:-r_i{�'.��r� on MLssissipgi SC. UHJLCT _.�.O;;boxpy.,$q.�rj.___�\_ _, . �A'I'E _t/'it %79 . . —`.-.�__, — T— � . . .. _ . . . .. '� . ._... .._.... .. , _�. , Please be advised we havc a�ai.n re.qucsted Anoka County to str.3pe bike lanes on Ll�e referenced skrcets. Please note the aLCached correspundence in which they are of the _. _. � . __ . . . _. opinion ti�at otf-street system; would be mor.e appropriaee. They also indicate chat the su�gesl-ed sLripin� oE the center 10' wonld - . ...... _.._ not be allowcd, _ _. __ _._ I pas� this on Co you for information purposes. , __ ._ ._.. _. _ _...__..._...._ . DS(j __ ._ __, _._ _ _ _ _- ---_ __.._.___._._... __. -____.----_. .__.___.. ___.__ ..____.. ��IGNATURE . � � � . . 2EPLY: :�_:_� _.___..--•--._..__._.:. _.__. . _ . . DATE. . . 51GNATURE ffEFLiE�'S LO?Y — F.ETkN. FOR YC�L'R FILcS 0 0 .� � ' , �. �. �t , ! � . . . . „�. _.. ; ;. , a� A 4 Ff � \ i � 4 � �, � ��;� ��1 � ,.s' January 19, 1979 cou��rY oF A�voKA l7��raruueu( u( /li�lurtq'x Pnu! K. /tuud. //i�/rnY1r I:'nJ�iirrcr COURT HOUSE ANQKA, MINNESOFA 55303 612•421•4760 Mr. Richard N. Sobiech, P.E. Public YJorks Airector 61,31 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Regarding: Bike Lane Striping on C.S.A.H. if6 (rti.ssissippi Street) „ and C.S.A.H. H8 (Osborne Road) Dear Dick: We have studied the traffic aspects relating to the above topic as noted in your letter dated January 9, 1979. In checking tvith the h4innesota Department of Transportation we found that striping the center 10 feet o£ these routes is not advisable. It would act as a barrier and restrict entraz�ces and exits to and from residenees (and other adjacent land uses) to right turns only. .Also, the 10 foot turn lanes are too narrow; they should be 12 feet �ride. According to design criteria from the Minnesota State Planning Agency four foot wide bike lanes are inadequate. In 1978 we jointly revie�ved traffic volumes and considered turning movements on these routes. At this time we agreed that the striping of four lanes (accomplished in 197$ subsequent to our studies) provides the best facility for traffic available on the existing road surfaces. You'll recall that we placed a new surface on I�'[iesissippi Street in 197$ from T.H. fE47 (University Avenue) to C.S.A.H. #35 (Central Avenue). It would Ue impractical to modify striping on this new surface. , ' Considering the above facts, we feel that bicyele� may use the roadway, providing i;hey obey the rules of the road, and it can serve both vehicles and bica�cles. One option the City muy consider is obtaining permission to cons�ruct a detacl�ed Uikewny on the "St. Paul Vdater Easement" along C.S.A.A. t!$ (Osborne Road). This would bc safer for bicycles. �Ve believe it is advisable to provide dei.ached road facilities for Uicycle u,e especi:ally in nreas, such as your City, w}iere mnny vehicle� use ihe roadway isnd increase the hazard for bicyclists. Attirtttativo Action / Equal Opportunity Employer �� .�� r" Mr. Richard N. Sobi.ech, P.E. Public Work, Dlrector January 19, 1979 Page 2 Please refer to the attached letter from me to the City of Fridley dated May 27, 1975. VJe noted therein our concerns regarding bicycle traffic and fuiure needs for four lanes for vehicular traffic. . A sheet is enclosed chowing the traffic counts for Osborne Road rind Mississippi Street for 1976 and 1978. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office. Very t y.yours, ��L�.l Pau1 K. Ruud, P.E. County Engineer PKR:dmh Ehcls: �' `�; .� �� i � ;. a 0 � � �. ' .� r•--.,."� , r,, .. •,t\...'-. • 4, f � . �,v:.t.� May 27, 1975 ,/tH4kn CUllltllf� �e,v�r r�t�lr�l1� a f }f�,�Grw�z�s City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley.� Plinnesota 55432 Paul K. Ruud, Highway Caginecr �4reoka Comity Cour! llouse • Anoka, Minnesom 55303 Tclepl+one: 612421-47fi0 Attention: Jerrold Boardman � Planning Office Subject: Biiceway/Wal�:esay Systems 21an Gentlemen: , A copy of your Bikeway/Wallcway System Plan for the City of Fridley was delivered to our cf:ice on .7�?* 2, 1975} which did not allo;� us adeouate timeou= �Sa"i�th the docunent and prepare a co�saentary on our review in time for y Y deadline that was requested. TJe have, as of this daCe., attempted to review the document and trust that the toa�ents that c�e malce at this time wi11 still be useful to you in the further prepara[ion and development of your Bikeway/ F7alkway System £or the City of Fridley. Our office concurs in the necessity for the development of a system of trails for not only the Gity of Fridley but alsu the neighboring coimnunities ar.d even- tually the metropolitan area and a stare-wide system. [de exaect that the incerest in the develo�nent of thi5 system will increase as timc goes on>and we will be attempting [o uork with each o£ the communities to provide for ueilization of po=CiCns of Che County iiiohway system where the location of a bike traii along our highways is feasible from the standpoint of capacity and safety. With tl�ese Chouglits in mind,we would offer a few coimnents concerning the system that you have pronosed,as sfiown on the map included in the report on pase 33. Thc location oE bikc Lanes along the existin� County highway system �itir_n the City of Fridley, we rcalizc,orovidc some �;ood [hrou,�,h connections. In sevcral instances they,also provide the only cantrolled crossitigs of Trua�tc Hifihway�s k7 and G5� and �lso crossin�s ot the Burlin�ton Northern Railroad witliin the City of Fridley. �litltin thc past ueelc we have bcen in on a meeting with the S[atc lii�hwny Deparbnent rclative to tlie intcrseetiotts of Osborn Road and Mississippi Strect wi[h Trunk Ili�lnony A7, so you arc aware of thc proUlems and eonccrns [hat must be dca1C �.�ith in designin; and constructino tlicse intcr- sections to adcquntcly I�andic thc vchicular tr.fEic��nd also to proviJc for the s��fe p�ssage of bicycic and pedestrian [raEtic. , Ciey of Fridlcy May 27, 1975 pagc 2 We are concerned that� as addttf.onal develo�xnent occurs wfChin the CiGy of Fridlcy aad wi[hin the nei�h�or.in� adjaccaC cocvnunitics� the trafEic volumes on streets such a, Osborn Road, tlississiQpi Streee and Old Central, which are viCa1 parts of your proposed system, will incrcase to a point whcre four lanes of vel�icular traffic will be required and Chere wi11 be a liraited area, if any� remaining on the paved surface for a bicycle lane. 4Jith Chis in mind, we would supx,est strongly that wherevcr possi6le you look for alternative routes for your bicycle paChs or lanes off of the County L�iglr.�ay sy,tem, so that as the Yraffic builds up this chan�e in system at a Iater date wi11 not be a problem for either the City of Fridley or the County oE Anolca. Tn reviewing the Uike trail systems for neighboring cormunitzes, such as Coon Rapids, Colmnbia l[eights and New Brighton which are ateached in Appendix C in Lhe report, we note.that the City of Coon Rapids has laid out their primary system in a L'ashiori�tosthat of thc Cit of Fridlc y � A Y y, n�el thaC a ood share of their routes are a�ong County roads. Tde expecc that traf£ic on these routes wi21 also increase in the future and they will Ue faced with the same type oE proi�Iems I have described previously, We note with interest that the cities of Columbia Hei;hts attd New Btighton have� in some instances� located Cheir bicycle routes along County highways. The najority of their routes, however, are located along city streets away from the heavily traveLed rouees, thereby not creating pro'Ulems for trafFic on the hcavily traveled roads� but also pro- vidinU foZ a safer Uicycle path or lane on sEreets that have more residential traffic cl�aracteristics. . � Zn reviewin� the reco:n:rendations that were prepared by your Bikewap/[JaLkway \ Co:�aiCtee, as listed on pages 5 and 6 of the reoort,.we would like to state that our [raffic signal section is in the process ot reviewing each of the signalized interseceions along the County hi�huay sys[em, as required by State and Federal hi�h:oay re�ulations. One of the specific items being reviewed in this inventory is an enuveration of def:ciencies thal- exist regarding pedestrian traffic facilities. F:e would expect that this report will be completed and re- vler.red wiChin the next few months so that some of the i.tems that you note in Itc�s 1 and 2 of your recor.anendations will have Ueen studied and a soluCion of any deficiencies that are fouiid will be addressed. As �re have state�I previously, we wil2 work witii you on the indication by scripinr of bike 2anes along the County highway system. {•le expect that our Tra£Eic Den�rc- ment will be meetind caith you within tlic.nez[ month prior to ttie start of any striQing along the County ro:3ds within the Czty of rridley. Sde wish to makc clear the fact that the installation of the striping to provide for bicycle Ianes at this tirac docs not gunrantee thaC the 6ikc lanc can be maintained along Lt�e CounCy roads if necd for the full paved �uidCh to safely and acic- quaCely handle vehicular trafiic necessitates the sCriping of the roachaay for four lanes oE trafEic at some fuL-uLC date. If you have any qvesCions or cor.ments concerning the i[ems cluded in chis lettcr in responsc to your report, we iaould to sit down with you [o revicw the rcport in nore detail, points th:ic cac havc riised. � Vcry triiky yours, j �/ ,(/� �fI r/� ��'c .. i � / �.. • !�= ` �c c �.-Ll ., ,.. n .. .. . � _ .. that havc bnen in- apprecia[e a eliance and to explain [hc i , � Trtnrrzc cour�Ts OSBORN� ROAD ( CSAH NS ) AT CSAH If1 T.H. iF47 T.Ii. fl65 TO CSI�i il3> 1"J�ST EAST WEST EAST 6775 7050 10250 10100 5800 5800 MIS>ISSTPPI STREET ( CSlaH i/6 7757 7050 8543 * S�*stem 70 1976 Traffic Volvmes (}:Sn/DOT} �� Coiu�ts taken by Anoka County 15357 11000 9950 53g1 5381 850� 6585 65$5 4950 4950 15200 10$7$ 7716 66g$ - 1 � ;:; � �� t3EH��.: G7�� _Gh.�irpe �;kPEL�tT�� ^ i '� �` = �'� `"�a,N,"�t 3 r� i -t : � �� „�'�� -<.�� „ . - iss-� -�„'-`' > . .��h Y x�.t- E��l?PfAL QUALi2Y . �. � MEETING JA[�UARX 16 1979 �� .�� .� � ;� �x > ��aS�NT= 3im Langen£e�d, �i^uce Peterson (�r.r. 8:45 p.m.), : I.ea Ana sporre„ Cortnie Metcalf A�.SF.NT: ��MaYYiA �I'lOL€C � BES$NT: . Rgy S,eek, Planning Aide , f�fl�R: ., �oYt Laagenfeld:'eaYied the meeting ta order at 7:45 p.m. . �� , �� r'r°Y!+r.-.r . . : spelling - nx � � Ms. Sporre's stat�+ xendecl that, to; pro�e+ state-clearlp at the� �inute�", raCher thasl ey hadrnot yeY.been a �ting : to put "Dsa#L 'SI : miuutas. : two things bothe�ed ��^E WaAted the mftut�et ss time the Coumiss�� ,�'GOI�&SI$SION MINUT$Ss �tte Horbal on page 3, on page 2, Paragraph 7; the record, the &nvirott- p �ttf � the minutes, � � � ving the minutes grinted -byed. The 'Commissioti members ect to P'inal APPz�'�a1� 04 about this: (la He a be approved-hy this got the minutes back tu Planning CommisB#.an; t at a meetiz��:aad did mean it ae such ded to�Fh&aga,��e meaning and�the �ho�g enfelil stat�tt- �at if the Cammission katement on tii�-�inutes, they coul$ do �iG? �s ��kt�1s t�e,c�i3.$,s��;Tit�s�-concerned, bue'�;� �ninntes'�had� already . - g4�e=��r�tigh Plantti�g.+�?�-ss�.on, and they wouic�: �itit wamt to hald that' ' p�cess- up. . ,, , �' ( 6 � � - q � � � ; .�k� ,h A �� 2 i Y e� } };=., C i ��• � i "!( � � � , � 3�V ','� ' iFy�<' q ,�.. gr +i4 � 5 t ^ y : '. i ,+�. ` r.,�. ' � ' � ; . � !. " . < .' �., � � _ R� : � t� � , , � s I�ta �a�r8 8G9ted`�'C"<#�.i�i[6� tt�id: aup�li��iip�8� ��a,� nii6-�?at�s�Yli�it. ��ii� ?E��bk ia-�ht�ae� i�n Yi�e Ci4�t nf Fifdle�,�iey +�nderstood z2t�z¢, xrea _ "`t < �t�ing �`cc�ziie:aE�9.tau. $�it> t�''e � �eas� � this ea� uF was bae$p� �f' = di�m�e ' =o�tsi�� °�e �ag��es" amt�Eng� �a� 't�te e;ty, "'i�, �1te m3nukes "we�s ��Y�ed as writt �� wau1�I."1i�ve 2 &ifiere�:,i.�Rae�t:: She 'did •. ls9x� it:sitiwe� -' , ' uji �6e �:aanixtg G�48e,�t +a�" 1�, aad sh�,,£�� 3t� w�s<v�arY +�se�n�.�o Pu� �;. �� tliaC s��rtea�ent at�- Efie tG� +�`[�e� minutes . : _� � �> ��. ' ,, . . ., , ,.;�: < � ._ _ :' � �. . . , , , .„ _; . ;��, La�iget►€gid �t�ted, r'� �tODdered if ��he Gtt3►, Ctauncii eYrerts�t+rWa�ry;>.. :' . < �' . .�.k- � � � � , . ' ., : ;Yf� tiie arotiGns �3L'&t Cke�3'��ntal comc�fsS�on ��fttted to tii�•�;�ecs�st�e ; the Co�iasi� �e�er gcr�"-; �r „��plies .` xe st�ted i�a�wing` Co�i�s�rtn ap�oved. �tle °$a�r�^e�meni�ti.'.Qtaalitc�* s5ion minutes' wif�>'� ivaCYonN i�ctix�ParatOSY ias. the, miisute8 aRd E�xa� ,,�e cme af th+e �ss ' wfiy tt�z �crtn�r,�i� d8�3 �t, get �etsy scssi�Ga , �'�t��9Ced xkue�t 'ii;. tEia „ ss-ion wan�E" �ii ge� ' . ; kl?tiu8� �o�s&'t� �?sey �1�°��Eltxing Gcrmtn��s��n tar°ncrte �hese �meati�ta �to ; � �tp C�im�ii . �:=,� � :: � " ' , - . M. � � a �� ,,�. � _ __ . . N�I#1PF b.Zee Ael�;�� `' s�Cc�tded b Con� e`.Met�If to a''� =� � � l�c�heg. �� I97 : tial�' al-=�� ssip �inuCes " e�� '. `, � � : _ "u� a esaice vot�= a�'. ' a�� 9� Ci� i , � ��n � La " e�fe3�t� deic�.� " � Ise� < '-� aiotLon earried usiatti ""; ' .�� { . � � : -'� ,�#Ai. 4F_,,..�1G� s# } s Y 1 ,�.� �,,-�� ;� ;�� ; , ,�. , ,� ; ; �. ° �tte . follw�riA$ i��; t►er� ,#�dde� ts� the- a8e�t.^unit�c "6th,e� Susisi�s�". � ; ,� � � , � 4...� I�.,��%etC�+ �#rcim �. $�` �i.sei.sSn �: E � - E . � �. �it�cycl�� ea ;� � , , -= � ,. h,� : 7�T"�OT$ b �� ec' �� b '-£ �� ' Me�t � lf. ,ta?a rove � `' � �: '' ' eada wi.th t�-", �. ,_ . . ; a ce ' � : a 'tuutin ,a , ersot� ` eafeld d e�`: ca riad u" 's r- � , _ � :. � ., ; .i x . � _ . � k l . ��• Y�� .._�� o- �f . , , . :: , �. . " � � � � ; t . � �''�t'. Langen�eld �t�d �i.;�e��-tihiere stigh�'�� ea�' e�eet�oa aB�`�_iii� t�'��ing ke6tets ,� �s" _ `� d "3a a�otioas -�'� � �q�ias� m�#�. He � '; . BCated tfYa� i�a� k ` �6 �r: ,Ciat�ile � zit;� tTir�ctrs�' o� #��#�s�s " � " � , " 8itc! Euv£^�o�eia� � ' �, � YOpali�an ��'��rts,. Ccmm�i.ss�.oa? �i+�Y�;w�tfoa :_, at)� PyageyI'��•. {�ov��=�(�� . �.�pi78y,��:'8#�C m'�.i(�}u�t.�d£��y�s"d��re ��dJiGc[ ne�.t{ ��ae a}}.a�3�.y�°�y;a°�3eyuyi 'p' , �tii.tlt �wY.Y4�, e#8��:.48C`�il�.� JLt =r�A� :.$�T�'.O }F?C y"�aii'A.1�C�t.M� . VZ i1.k�"h��iYR.��.b ktr �ir.: �.� Cti `�a5,rt;�`3�.P�(��A�, he �a�tY�t�ted Lt�e es�tc� b�.�'t� .' m. 6oamisa�onfa s a� .�he i�s�embe� �},s��etia��d: i��d s�aeed th�t Che �cabe�s eX�i�ssed ��'Q de�irabili� o� �evia8 �. ��t plEaaesa, fvr- � � A�1'�ElY� B7tp1i{iB�{�ffi �,,�,4�;�j�&+'�C�CY t� 2$I'...74ilit �$O�.arid, �3XCt'N�b�€C�A' �: . _ .. ' fiblttkC�.�� .l1@. tt�'r�$a�,�;�,.��.01'ft8 �,'-�S�t!$8 Si1C1 .$�k�C� Qt1$$'k.��k11i+9 '9� �lle'��?. -��2'�, W,a8 Rq}y jc�'D}?iC'�a 1ai� tk�:4�e�$�.*i'. ��,�s _ ,� . .'- s �.. rf f� S. ..�� j� . . g:: � r r � . hs� k �� ^.t � :�: H, � : � . _„xU �.. �. . � y � �. � - � � � � � � � r �' . 2 ' 3 "i. k. E � � t � t � � i ,�g�' r .- . : r. x �... z��' � � x �r; �ti� ` �-„.�„ � ' �'�; ._x � >.s-. .�.'� x, a �n, . . �3.,....�` ' r7� �, d 2�. �., w�a�.+"'_..'� ' �O� �#� ! - p�aj:iti � � . ' e�:kiiei ta�en me�br�" ` eiir�;: � . .jae i�Q' Mr� � w�rit3 �#,8 .'�' �" i<.� . �£+g1'. ,r �s �fr t'= �: a��d � �� : �� '��,��lF�;,,�,i ' � � SSZOH MEET�NG. JAIIUA�§? _ �k 4 � .. ,. 3f . y . :..: , eause cns �o�ino. �uid nQt do this. of this ca�miss3 : apinion af the ;an`s. In writir ;atative of the>c he c��1ri see Mr, Langenfeid at ?the�,p#aple reFeiving the f�e' �eC��rs;. As a member of ttare to, for'.example, the a mutual c a zesult of eued he was e citv stat �� 4 rtP �g Page 3 �� ,�g his neCk out" .�c�ng a poaition. �,�$� quesCions bssC�� se ttie City of Fri8ley's @�y�:dley or xhe City �eetera, he was t3�i;s: commisaion. �cn-. At the same time, were cognizant of the ,, aff, he was 'often cai2ed x ailt?itig� Agency, Metra'- � r«@xpressed an opinion :e o£ten the posiCions �: . aetion. As a staff' > evaluate a situatian : �s the same perspective ., , . - 8've'on the comnfs8itm3evel. $ �eld asked Mr. Leeli if he would fiz�d ��it if he could continue ese ki�sds of sletCer� or whether he ne�lecl Citq Council approval. s;f�sr thls was to protect himself as tae11 as Che Cormnission, �fi,�ted`he wau�d cheek 3nto it-- the P�'��Y &QUxce he wnuld use ; ��ce w�s." Clie a�di;nanee t?�ich estaTilisf�d' Lha �Q�Ygsios procedure �t it said iu Xegard to the roles OP �hE F�&sions. i€�Id stata�'�h�fi h�r liad receiveil $ rep�� '�'� Mr. John Boland; �ary :Y2, .;19�9a i.ii rasponae to the Gc�mtiss�.�on"s question regarding � cissai�4��fCxn=of the��Anaka Coc�nt� ��.ne) �Airport,�� =�,ee A�n�S�or�e,� seconded by Gonnie'ld�t�a3.f, to receioe the "tetter �. �.2 2�J79 fi^�n Mr lofin Boland Ch��+an Metropolitan Coune�l. � ice vaLe, all uotin�a�e ChairPexso� ��;e�eld declarea tne °`.+ �Ylad . uitaAimouBi:Y , . tfQld stated tkc��'#s tatking about Ehe$� letters, it was too bad 2�. �.�ic-sta�ed C�afi i isc�g� of ttiat �;etter Cp l�een �e�t to Af Perez'' Ctte M.P.�,k. : �g.��.�pp�e:. staCed'�[hak ..._ _,,�__ .,�_..... a�ion iu the lette� seut to'the M.P..C.A. ss for airport sit�.ngs'had uoC gotten to xon would have been helpful. ,g Commiasion �rbuld 1ik�; he wouid forward a Boland. Copie& A� that letter had already �; M,P.C.A. and Sandxa'Ga'c'debzing, Director of „akp�geared.Chat the 1�tC�st`;��z`om Mr. Schmidt, � � �issi:on <MAC) ::and the "�:e��r�r £rom Mr. &olanii, ; contradictory; The. }��t�' £r� MAC said the :onsistent wi,th the roie-�sigaed by MeCro- `s answer was they ware goiRg to develop a,glatt .he role of Mse�oPotitan`Council and Metxv- ; that tha ro2e would be defimd based nn tl�e �t�kit�g'ri.t off an eaeh �ther._ , ' '�'[ ' „ ' � �r” # .�. , ia'x',��i„.- , i: a :6 � g�+ � ` + � " f a + . ' �' �< :d''- ` i '� �, + � ^# a � � '�€ � ��i�i !��- �3 ��q'7�� :,f�'r„ y��>}, � .. �� ,! � � �,.�. - ` � ,- . , i . + � . . �' �' .. Y � . . � �. � 3�c. L�gi� pC�t�� c ��,�"a�t° Counei"� '§�„saq��g on vne 1ta�,�raEt they , �ra+i al��+iz�' Fr�+� �taa��.� defi�aed the xa2� �sr a�l the a;trpor� �th�,h 1 �. the ptct�'agsrll�a�,�sEama;r B�C, ::they �e s'�s�; say�rig ehat; th� p�ai�`vras bg� for revis3.tfl3 ro�E Chi�=.bais�s`'of the �in��ion Lhat ca�ae £'CCm �,�ue - s��ter pYan X�� "�g'� .� . Se�m4�tt`s :iet� -iiid �at aclarpwt�ctga ��a �Che ` f�t that, accox'd�tg �°.. ." Ba�.ait8, Cher� '�as a� r��evelua�i�f �u�e�uze - . Ghat Cpok �iace qeE C� ".�.�'p'o�tb chapt�' a�e� rhe-master' �7.ati#.; e �r �� a�; � � �` � 3+i9. SPo�re €�at4E� t�re L�sat €zam 2MC'�lid �in� refl�cC the'opt#�oQ Chat` �I�tropo{itaa Gdi�kq4�L �� reconsidar,inp, � minor c�assifi�ati'on:. = Yz�c�use tfie ectt��8 t+naA3t �' �}s7,am fn the T�tAC.ietter appea�ed�� cotbe- 0�9.� : � o dYi�e�t�c� towarrI's'E#� ��` aa$i�rt�d v�#�k� c�as iateim�diate. ', , � ` '- ' ,, � Mi". isek stated''�� t�'�.+etie�r -¢i'am Mr. ��i�idt le£t a qiues�i.c� unansweted �� p?€haps s�cmu�8 be ��€eted �ack to hfm and tha� .�sas on phe,basis oi` �tir. ��tr3and`s �tit�et�.c� #,�p3ied �at the d�oar �s�- e�en t6 tecb�ssi€ica� : � -_ - ��fln"Co-`miaor atC�ES�u� , -�� . . _ �_ °` �; ' � �l�. Spfrsre asked �r. r�fe#d '�f he .wauld �arite'am� aa�r ��. �'h�dt i,f�' _,. F ti�k�rI i�A ihe infoX�nat3� `��.�1'�I�: $oland's k�tte�'. ' ebi�sidtratini� of ttie � afiaor t�assificat4.o�s �s �ai� c�ptLon .%'wg+ul;d be �ddit'es�ct iti: C1se master -y�i�nz =; = �,�c, �Lange�I� :i��. ,1 .:� c�apy of �r. H�land `�_ ��?er �shs�ls�,3�, aenc ' ta �. Sct+midt.� �r.. �6mid� could sespei�d to t3►at. ' � . . '.;, ; , 41�b..:`�.e��A�%^� ��c �'+:dt�.,C�� e"M�tc�lf ,tts"�er�i_�_ ��hele�ter , �ated Ja�#uar ��°,`- 4 '.>'-��aue� 5� clt 2�1�. ' ii �n �' c:a va�e - a�:�. vo 1� a " r. � �j, ' � -;� bst � �:t �en€e `si'� de�i� ��,°L��' _ Q�fQri-4's�i!sie�i � uRartiats��1�. - -;, ----^�.�.._ ,'l�e i�e sLaCe� 1�� t�:�a� }i�aring S��ier's-ii€f�ce wa� se�pp��ed::ta =-si�2� r�cords v� ths �1�2�6aD�iT hearings �eiic t#�oeca t�,regue�e�• � sfgbed `� t1�aa,= Ae •ta� °:t�rr ;�sc� �or reeeiv� �� reis� : �ri �dii#tic+n, � 1� sai4i �key -r�#�et _' t� direc� �ri"ts r�Ysa4 -uffie�a�� s�-h�h�.f . vf i�e Ga�-safo� aad t.�`, Goi�xcil .'�;t :,;�lsp Dec�bsr 4th. �e��i�, and � �3� �raa �trit hesr� �iro� . +�t. , �e �sac@d l�e��=�e+u�d' ej�c�a�t ftte .statesiteari�r$ : � , ��a3s�r'��3?fi#�+� an�, �, � t�gis� ureel�: i�e �acts�.d �tx��co��ava ttx�� re�orcis �� ; "fisz Cfie rt�tt .Gtl�.ssipl�`�,e�f,�tg • r , � . � � : �., � , �� . , � �. ON'b"*Con�e '� etea�f` see�td�8 b L � S arre to.:cc�ctti,�n: ,diaaus�fo�t �zk,e'h� �1ftXC.�� at � ri�xt'�meetin�. ;it�fc�st' a �i.ee u�, $1�.``v�s�i�:&Ye� �ai:�ts��rzc I:�t�i�n�eLd` �c1sr�II 'the u�oti� �arr3ed �xn�i.a�ou�l� �. - s. 2'; •" Sit"'Wb3tICSHf� R&EflRT: C�IS' : s_. �. Ms. Me�a�t7.� sES�d she��tl �=�3tten repo�;'-its di�at€� �at� o�'�[e'�itfs `- i'oTiuGft�st Sio�k�3}�ip . �, _ _ ., ; �.. , F ;, , , . � 1 4 v. `� ^ �'' . y, ' . . f : s �� y ¢ � � 3 L �x � � d y��.� � r a . x m � . '��°+ � � y.,. � � , . � «x,. x� a �. t � ° � � r' ��." � � � . � �+4 �" . �.� '�^ ?^k S. _- � � q �" � q � � � � x 3'�` . a.., c: ..�s:�� .e..�^�iti .,. � . ,+..��a"-;L^'.,��:.� :.�:' � .=�'-�.� -,::T� ._ . '*�. ..v.#'.,�� ,.e. . . �. � .._—� a x� ris v. � cts�1: �riv: snLCs . i�� +�.;�t] i�s. I Inspa �e� p, �.�,� Ms� d o, a iY�( $ �34Z , r � � � K Zr:. � S x� � ��y�, � � y�.�,_ ' . - k4 � �� . .s„c'�� S, � �� "� � t` 'ri,� � � _. '�°' ` ', �- SSIOH t�ETII�iG J 'i97� - FAGE 5 . �, �. : - ) � �-.L � ' � � . . se"�s%��y�« �e�cali�,€or�saw anYact�,t��his Co�isefon . tA t�e �.��i,3�ei�tg propased for �� Lhe �ext legislai:ive � � - � �% , t :- �; �.: •�.� �� eIf sCaG�i;��efi #he was sure [he I&��i ;��spection and Mafntenance w�y�rld.b�°,�,�zii9. submitted to the L�g��.;`.' ,`; and it sounded �ike t en�it�$h,ak��rt ti€ the��dea that��iC ��ce�y it would pasa,� ��As �� :� ;ti� by �Fiis 6�issian, ,she atataci. �,E�;�o�fssion could go on� eppartiu�-csr..4gperstiug�it. 5he stated's�;did�not have enough � � s€'this bi;�1,.,GO make'that kind of p2��on. She could get - [ vf f.��o�tatisan if the Commission w,3tt'Cai! 1�. agked Ms.:Btel�clil,f'if she had gotten any'indication at the work- a;Ms. Barbara 2}ug�ies, Metro C1ean Air Co�iCtee, about whq woukd fsible fnX enEot��ent of the program--someChing to he handled > .at� kLigfiway £#��t�tor w�te local ccmanuAities gafng to be saked it eAfl help safLki :�he- enforcement? If th�t crts the case, then �re a costc��tc �f xt�ii$ Ennfroumental Qualitp Co�iission. t�.f sta�ed:th�Y in Che actuel execut�on of �his program, it would :� grogramy �D�er, in the chart (Review qf -Inspection and tee PragTas�s #�, �.he [I:S..) they had recei�ed at the workshop, thsre ' t cit4es thatC; h�tsl Cha program--Riverside, California; Chicago, �'�`vYtland�,.S��,?bt�s` �tbenix, �Arizona; amd `G-i�tcinnati, Uhio.� �Th�re�� ;;two.staCes--ATizona and New Jersey, So, it sounded like it would f,eCered two separare ways--perhaps hy the fftate iiighway Patrol. as:'had �eid tlte>facitities for the iusgection af the vehicles �ithe�,state-t�ted and operated ox state�crvmed anct leased to apezaCors. Ms. �ughes was Calking to the City Gaunci}. about th�.s sx:��3ugly, the i+nviranmental Quality Coueriisaiaa:had not been of this directiq'since it did have to do,with the environment• Lty. 31f submitt�d her ,#�e{+c�xt 'and the eha�:t exititled, "Review of �t:and ASaintettance Frograms iu the U.S,",Y.o become part of the 5t�e sugges�ed Che Commissi�er� look aver-the chart thoroughly. - ktet�lf st�ted:tha� as ,aa Environ¢ientai Qua�fty.Cebamission, they could $I;;C2tgy cflutd-to eneourage a progsam Ca reduce the number of "SPOOC's" Tid�'��y--an snt3-SP4dC'(9ingle:Fasseuger fh+�� Qeeupied Car).<program. P�et�an arrivad aC Gite m�ting at 8 45 p�:} � - �� ANYIfttL. 9ItD�ATAN(;Ez � G��R�ld sta�ed that in regard to the ai"t'��ftan he had been l�k ia regarding aq3.�t22 cruelty, he felt it cF�€initely entailed ga a}.�eady riated #.YC�hs.State Statutea, Section 346.21 (Attacnment �-$); �ahjh�.t#te city wqzcj,�S;i� have to pick it up in ita ordinanee as the ��taCUtes were tzv�&;Si�d-above the city or&inanee anyway. �;:s . . . - �. .�. : . . = ^� :. ':_; � .� � � r--'.` � � . .� .. ',�,, . . -.. ..� . � . � . � . . �� . ... . �`!!ET'$� 3 s ^°i- kR e h + . _ , `p i : �� y: '�: ) � S '�.'_ : " � . . d' . y � � �� ' �': S . ' � . N .a ;t �. ) �+�i�FV � �� i . ��% q' - � �b._ ° �.",'... � :�. R ' } ��.'� 'f �C I,o-� , z " � {_ }. ..xt t �� r' i � z < ;.. -�`� s s �'. ' a�`.�- ' �: , ' ' .,� ,-'..' � �Ix' iee�s.� e�aC�' �#� tl+e'��CY +�dinanee� ad��i'� by reEerestce Ail �ectinas e�f tk� �$#te to!1� ��la�i� &v Sp�.�tal�., ��,H�:�'£t� i� covered. Mr: ��feidk'g c��esn and fihe t�3� *asxi��3 aot "`#�ave to vsi�e a necs vrdi�atice. ` �, �:� ;� . �, ,. _ � �, . _ ,. , r #, Y4r. Lange[�eld s�� th'a�' if the Covac�s3�x" did trflt m1nd,. he" wtrill�� a&k . � Mr.•'E�eelc:-to give�`� aap�ee oE ��e atat� �ia�v �v he �re�e�tted ta �tap � `tbneere�eYi geopie. .;,i'�ey ��iroc+�d �en' be �elware� �oi =�t$e "}.aa� anct aoisl��ii��}� � #6is siCiiaCiou:asc�r�iksg�.y. H4, tauld 81so=8sit M�t.. =Stev� (}lsap,.:�o-�h�eck � ' fnCo it- atxd act '�c��cz#ii��r; Tlie Cc�nn�:ssianetir �g�ee�`viLh 1�r. Langanfe�'3 suggesred �nti:on;= 4: CO2iTI3�tIED: �t�K�'�%�,+' T;e�' #tECOLt13EB: M�. Lartgeaf+eid s�C�d h�t�=�ought ehis �$t Flaaning Go�is�i�s�t�`and ttv cute �a� inte�8�ad i�.� ta� -r�ecord�r. .�ame o€ the �mewhe�e �-�e�tth'at wTsen tl1,�Tre were �lfe ii�ri�g�,,= infoid,atf�i�� from �haE� meering::�tfkd_be � � - o�ta�,rt�d ��b� 8et�4'a�,+:>�: �t� �o£ ��its miacz�es x -raCHer thaYt � �go#ng : tltp �epa � � x�corde�r`� �onte.,°�o, �1s�. Co�4s[�iau �s �c�i�sg � to� Yeave��ta �iap�d� �s ` - � � � ` �tem:vn titeir ovm level;�:.'.. '_ } ,��, iEa," 5parte. $[at�i tita� ,�re -ii�re quest3oias irroug}i'� m?-h� ntHe� g�er�- �. � �8zttal uttfts addi�s&ed,:�v`H'��tey propbsal�,�hat nead$d a�sswer�aicir tiae ��' iapxt u�eet��. if Fridt '�si�ad' for the ��ttacri�t rs� t1�e mpeC#tt��' theq �aauld �: have trie :< ��he act�al E�s�sseri� 't`v ti�_ ab�� ?�o- anayer �hose `q�t#.bns fc�r �%le i1e�`�"f��ting. I�. 5� a9tatad �h�t#r ��4z ��z goXernt��aC'e1'-�3,ts thgt aa`er�•- €daane#�s.i 3 d - s��t=n�tits ft�s Frici�`{s�i�e as Metrop�iitan ��il}=°tha� o� �uu4fl: d�l �€i.tit�accura�ely �."b�R,�le to a#swe�'fl�efr'�aaeatioits �hekaa�' they t ha�-s�te�' rhem,. At oit�;66�#n8' very'reca��#.y ort�re Fridiey �s �i��sent, '� tke�e we#'� � seY$es of :s�vre`sGi�ns raf,s+�d' h� L#e P�B��°a�c�1#�Eaa 'Pa�a`"& Opea � - _ , „� &��Bee=Go�arisgtt�?re�aC1� �a�ane of 1�'YidT.�y�8 app�ie�tic�s. k�. �Id �6�v$ � :"U�en �sae.£ui in ��ieri��: �os�r, questfune to know a3t$ctly; whst th�-'�qx�eSCions °y ,"�ter� acid haw tFie� ��u�'fie.aifdressad frt+�s che traRSeri�. Titen,=,�otiw�lcl be � � ari�ateriag rT�e �c�s� �tk� ehe c�ay i� was �aisec��insiead cz� ��r �� a �=perce��.edtit��c�ef�s��:�aTi� y+ou gbt ho�. 5he had been �ar�e�e at , ; �tee�riMgs whese s?s�Srri �f. cc9�p'�icat�d qc#�etiion�"�3e�s-r�9.sed ,�_it ��1 .. ffie��aiaati2e ta.;�v�'L'�;i�ua"��eranscxipe uf what-qas s��d.� m5.' � `* " .3 . � . I�. ieek stac�.�e •c�o�'� p6st: tm�ether a�:eat analys3s �f rvh�t � reasoaaifle � ,'� �_ taps resozd�� s3vt�ld ;c,t�t'gns�>�a�id repo�t ��R;� tiie �xt !Csxi�ais��.cm'' " � � BtE.*8Ci#I�. `" � � a � 4I ' ' �,- ;,.: _ . , � , � �, �:� .. .�. . ., . � , �, . . : � t' 1 s . ��. - � . , �., . � . s, - , , �� A. i.etxer` �rda�ter �:tunmissi�rn d��d ,Dec �8, ��78 i ��' c'f.a�geikf�i:d st�eak��ad recci�veic� �, "2et�er f�o�.�tit� C,�ar��r r �'ret�ssion �isc��gv'��`a�stions. }te ��t�d,2te #�da'8tt�ttd�d � ;i 1�sC:�� '; ":��,�s#t'�SSeting 'Qn:t� Piantdr�ng� CGrn6�is$io�; �evel,� r = �- : �;' �� r � ' . . �.: a '. -, } ` 3 � ° " : u � e' .. b . . �. F 1 .. . . Y� � . x � �- :� 'f"- ? j` . '4 "I} i .F '°F � . :5�� .` ..i Ll ] � � \ � a S y� �. :_ yi c . -e �Y�'.c'S{ � Y �i . _ : � .-..... _ �... � :3i: . � — . — . � � .— �..r.�!.�a..�.�-.��a$.'le� _ . _. r�� — �_�.�.s, ._ �. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COtR�ffSSION MECTING SANUARY 16 1979 - Page 7 and had asked Charter Commission to delay any action so the Planning Commission could make recommendations to the Charter Commission. In the meantlme, he wondered if the F.nvironmental. Quality Corr¢nission wou2d like to provide any recommendations regarding these quesCions. ed bv Bruce Yeterson sion members each receive a copy of the Charter Ooum�ission dated Dec.'28, 1978, by the next meeting. Upon a voice vote on B. Recvcling Center: mot Ms. Metcalf stated she had brought along all the official documents including the Articles of Incorporation by the State signed by Joan Anderson Growe. She thought the Commission would like to see these documents. Mr. Langenfeld thanked Ms. Metcalf and stated he was very pleased with the way everything had been done. Ms. Metcalf stated that the center did not yet have a sheltex and if the Commission members knew of anyone who had one or who would build one, she would appreciate being contacted. Also, if anyone was interested in working on the recycling committee, the membership was open. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Lee Ann Sporre, seconded by Com�ie Metcalf, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Langen£eld declared the January 16, 1979, Environmental Quality Commission adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, �� yn " Saba Recording Secretary �� _ I o� ' f'�' >,,:,� ��+�v$ �� .Tames H. Langenfeld, Environmental Quality Gity of Fridley Chairman Commission 6431 University Avenue N.E Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Dear Mr, Langenfeld: ivie�rv�wmvn �.,vuncir 300 Melro Squaro Buildinq Seventh Street and Rotae�f Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Tefephono (612) 29f-6455 Office of fhe Chairman 3anuary 12, 1979 This 1etCer is in response to your quesCion regarding the system classification of the Anoka County (Blaine) Airport. The Metropolitan Airports System Plan, as presented in the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide, classifies the Anoka County (Blaine) Airport as an inter�ediate. The Airport Master Plan and Environmental Assessment to be under- taken by the ?4etropolitan Airports Commission is intended to study and evaluaCe, in depth, the capability of the airport to most effectively function as an Intermediate facility. The master plan will investigate various ways of ir�proving existing on-site facilities to better serve the identified syste� role of the airport. Upon completion of the master plan, the.Metropolitan Council will, as stated in the Airport Guide Chapter, evaluare the Airport's "Intermediate" classification. In other words, if, as a result of the naster plan process, the airport cannot be adequately improved to function effectively as an Intermediate facility, the Metropolitan Council will re-evaluate the role of the airport �•�ithin the system. I trust that this answers your question. If, however, you have additional concerns, please contact us. Very truly yours, C�� ohn Boland Chairman JB:w �� ..E� ��_ ✓ ,`MAC. ' � l� s �'+, "A •' <ilrn )N� � 3anuary 5, 1479 �,• o.Q�,� � s�wt Pc�u,� NlETRQPOLfTp,N R4�PQRTS COfJiMiSSlQN P. O. BOX VOD .• TWIN C�TY AIRPORT • MINNESOTA 55177 OFFICE OF EXECU?IVE DIREC70R • PHONE (672) 726-5770 James II. Langefeld Chairman Fridley Environmental City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue Fridley, MN 55432 Quality Commission NE Dear Mr. Langefeld: Thank you for your letter of December 26, 1978, regarding the Anoka County-Blaine Airport. The airport planning process in the Twin Cities area is a joint responsibility of the Metro Council and tl�e Metropol- itan Airports Commission. The Metro Council is responsible for preparation of the Airports Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. This document defines the need for air- ports, the location of airports, and the role each airport should play in the metropolitan system. After completion of the Airports Chapter, the Metropolitan Airports Commission prepares a Master Plan for each airport. The Master Plan looks at how each airport can be developed consistent with the role assigned by the Metro Council. Your question with regard to airport role is therefore in the Council's area of responsibility and should be addressed to them. Thank you for your interest in the Anoka County-Blaine Airport. Sincerely yours, �44�,�.t(�l � � C�-tiwu-6%�I Claude C. schmidt Director of Operations and Environmental Affairs NDF:hu OFFICE LOCATION-6040 281h AVE.�SO.—WEST TERMINAL AREA—MINNEAPOLIS-SAINT PAUL INiEFlNATIONAL AIHPOflT ENERGY PROJECT COI�4ICTTEE MEETZN� JANUARY 17, 1979 ASEMBERS PRESEI3T: Jim Langenfeld (arr. at 8:30 p.m.), Dean Saba, William WharCOn, Dennis Anderson, Gi1es McConville, Betty Enkhaus, Donald Wall MGMBERS ABSENT: Chester Potasek OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Anderson, Minnegasco Warren Johnson, Northern States Power Richard Harris CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Saba called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. OF DECEMBER 13. 1978. ENERGY PROJF,CT COMMITTF,E MIN[7TES: The following corrections were made to the minutes: Page 1, 3rd paragraph from bottom of page, "6 M.C.F." should be changed to GO M.C.F. Page 5, 2nd paragraph from top of page, "16 gallon" should be changed to 16,000 gallon. Page 5, 4th paragraph from top of page, "unit" should be changed to dollar. Mr. Harris stated that with regard to the memo from Bi11 Davis to the Energy Project Committee on December 13, 1978, regarding "Energy Consump- tion for Fridley ( Electrical Only )," he was sure there some facts that Mr. Davis or members of the Energy ProjecC Committee were not aware of. Mr. Harris stated that probably the reason why the "Residential Sa1es" stayed relatively constant or had gone down a biC was, (1) Uecause of Che conservation measures taken by the zesidential owners; and, (2) because there had not been a great deal of expansion in the residentill properCy. He was guessing that the figures were the total amount of kilowatt hours that were sold to the residents of Fridley. The residential density in the city is at almost 95% with less than 5% still buildable. _�-* ENERGY PROSECT CONAIITTEE MEETING JANUARY 17 2979 - PAGE 2 Mr. Harris stated the reason the "Commercial and Industrial Sales" had risen so dramatically was because there had been a great deal of expansion in the cortanercial and industrial areas in the city. The city is at about 6�/, of saturation as far as industrial/cotmnercial land use. Mr. Harris stated that there was a substantial rise in "Public Streets and Highways", probably due to the increase in the city's street lighting pzogram. That was a program worked out with NSP over a five or seven year program, MOTION by Betty Enkhaus, seconded by Donald Wa11, to approve the December 13, 1978, Energy Project Committee minutes as amended. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Vice-Chairperson Saba declared the motion carried unanimously. 1. MINNEGASCO - MR. TOM ANDERSON: Mr. Tom Anderson stated that at the last Energy Project Committee meeting, he had been asked to answer the following questions: 1. How does Fridley's meter count compare with other cities? 2. Of Fridley's 64 interruptible customers, how manq are on oil and/or propane standby? Names of the interruptible customers. 3. What is the average MCF usage in an average residence? (1,000 sq. ft. house) 4. For assistance in metering some city-owned buildings, wh�t direction should the committee take? 5. As the result of a question raised at the last committee meeting, he had br.ought along a Iist of programs Minnegasco offers to schools and groups. Mr. Tom Anderson stated that the answers to tUese questions were listed on three pages entitled: "Information for the City of Fridley EPC", "City of Fridley Interzuptible Accounts", and "Accounts Using over 200 MCF/Day" (attached to minutes). Mr. Wall asked that if, for example, the Energy Project Committee were to look at a central power system and wanted to join other communities, could they get this same kind of information for Braoklyn Center, Columbia Heights, etc.? Mr. Tom Anderson stated the committee coula get that information. Mr. Wall asked if it was a big job to meter an individual line (a temporary meter} within a facility or within a building such as city hall where there were muitiple heaters2 What might it costY Mr. Tom Anderson stated he could not answer that, but Warren Waleen or Earl Bartels in NSP's Industrial-Commercial Department could answer those questions. , � ENERGY PROJECP COMMITTEL� MEETING 3ANUARY 17 1979 - PAGE 3 Mr. Tom Anderson handed out a listing of the films, slide presentations, and programs that NSP offered Co schools and groups such as the Energy Project Committee. Mr. Wa11 asked Mr volume of gas for iC would give the tion in Fridley. Anderson if anyone had asked for a month by month total the city oE Fridley? Since Fridley was primarily gas, committee a bigger picture of the total energy consump- Mr. Tom Anderson stated he would try to get that information for the committee . MOTION by Bill Wharton, seconded by Donald Wall, to receive the three gages of information on gas usage in Fridley provided by Mr. Tom Anderson of NSP. Upon a voice voCe, all voting aye, Vice-Chairperson Saba deciared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Saba stated that at the last meeting, someone mentioned the auditing program and that it was still in the infancy stages. Was there any additional information on that program? Mr. Tom Anderson stated they were now ready to go out in an unofficial way to get their firse test cases and would be going out some time next week. Next month, he should have some results of places they had surveyed. He stated th�t eventually, this would be an advertised service, but it would also be a charge service. He explained that the energy audit of a resident consisted of the checking out of every possible feature in the home--windows, insulaCion, doors, thermostat, etc. They will attempt to leave a copy of the last page of the audit with the resident showing the ways the resident could improve the home. The audit might eventually be compueerized. Mr. Wall stated that if the committee were to determine that it would be useful to have a community action program of self-conservation where they would have people came together in a session, would Minnegasco be available to instruct that kind of session? Mr. Tom Anderson stated that he was positive Minnegasco would do that. Mr. Wall stated he would even hope it could go to the point where people would Learn to do their own energy audits. Mr. Wharton staCed that at the present time, AVTI (Area Vocational Technical Institute), state-wide, had a course on"Residential Retrofit for Energy Conservation',' an adult education course. He stated these courses could be brought into the.community by contacting Anoka AVTI. Mr. Wall stated that could be considered as an additional resource. Mr. Saba thanked Mr. Anderson for attending the meeting and for all his information. :--� ENERGY PROJECT COMMITTEE MEETING JANUARY 17 1979 - PAGE 4 2. NORTHERN STATES POWER - MR. WARREN ,TOFiNSON: Mr. Johnson stated he had not gotten the answer to the cormnittee's question regardin� the BTU cost to heat electrically versus natural gas. He stated he would get that answer and send it in a letter. Mr. Johnson stated that relative to the energy audit Minnegasco was doing, beginning this month NSP was sending out with the billing a computerized program on hame energy study, It would go to every residential customer and the customer would have the opportunity to fi21 iL out and send it back by Apri1. All this information wouid be fed into the computer and then NSP would come back with suggestions on where residents could actually conserve energy. He thought it was one of the best ways to handle the situation of conservation and it gave every residential customer an oppor- tunity to participate. Mr. Saba asked if NSP had considered a similar type of audit for ligh[ coaunercial and industry? Mr. Johnson stated they might, but right now they were leaning toward the residential sector, They did have people who were working with major custaners and many of the smaller customers if these customers called in and asked for help. Mr. Saba stated that last month, the committee talked about industrial co-generation of electricity. He had read a lot of articles recently about co-generation. He asked the question last month about what NSP was doing, if anything, to help industry establish some kind of co-generation. He would like to change that question and ask if NSP had ever thought of leasing equipment to industrial users for co-generation so NSP would still have some kind of control over the entire picture of ahat kind of electrical capacity that industrial customer actually used? Not only leasing equip- ment out, but maybe showing these people how they could do something with their in-process heat and supplement the power they were getting now so they could reduce the effect of peak demand. Mr. Johnson stated the NSP had definitely considered this. He stated he had hoped to Uring along someone from NSP who was an energy specialist on that. He stated he would like to hold the answer to that question until the next meeting and he would try to have this person present. Mr. Saba asked if Mr. Johnson knew when the Idea Aouse in Roseville would be available for tours. Mr. Johnson stated he had not seen any official notice that it was open. He wou2d check the date of its opening. He aLso stated that on Feb. 22-23 at the Radisson South Hotel in BloomingCon, there would be a Tiinneso[a Energy Conference and the Canadian Ambassador, Mr. Peter Towe, would be discussing the way the Canadians were cutting out the U.S.'s flow of oil from Canada. There was no cost for this conference. � GNERGY PRQJECT COMMITTEE MEETING Je#NUARY 17 1979 - PAGE 5 Mr. Saba stated that one point in co-generaCion study was the extreme amount of. energy losses to generate one BTIJ--you lose approximately two BTU of electricity in the transmission process for every one BTU delivered. The efficiency was so low that if, wiCh co-generation, you could reduce some of that electrical �lemand from the power company, you would greatly increase the efficiency and reduce the amount of fuel required to produce that electricity. Mr. McConville stated there was one more aspece of energy efficiency and that was the use of electricity to bring the existing heat to where it was needed. A lot of companies had found that in the taller buildings, by simply putting a fan to bring the heat off Che ceiling and reuse it at the work stations, they were able Co save a substantial amount of energy. That same sort of product was sold for homes, Coo. Mr. Johnson stated he had brought more copies of the brochure, "It Pays to Earn Your Sea1" as requested at the last commietee meeting. He also gave the Committee a pamphlet entitled, "How to Save Energy Every Day" and NSP's "Supplemental Equipment Use and Operation." Mr. Saba stated that at the last committee meeting, the Committee had questioned whether they had a budget for materials, etc. Mr. Harris stated that the Energy Project Committee did noC have a budget. If the Committee needed something, they were to submit a formal request to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission would see what they could do. Mr. Wa11 stated he felt the Committee members should each have a copy of the "Energy Policy and Conservation Report, Minnesota Energy Agency, 1978". MOTION by Donald Wall, seconded by Gi1es McConville, to receive into the record the following energy information: "It Pays to Earn Youx Seal", "How to Save Energy Every Day", "Supplemental Equipment Use and Operation", and "Energy Policy and Conservation Report, Minnesota Energy Agency; 1978". Upoa a voice vote, all voting aye, Vice-Chairperson Saba declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Wall asked about the Street lighting program. Mr. Harris explained that it had to do with studies that indicated that more lighting definitely affected the crime rate. That was why the city went into a program to extend the number of street lights. Mr. Wall stated that he was ass�ming that someone was loolcing at lower cost illumination such as the sodium types. Mr. 3ohnson stated that he had tallced to Dick Sobiech and Clyde Moravetz at the city several times and had gathered information for them on the high pressure sodium lights. Fridley was one of the coaIInunities that had started to use high pressure sodium lights. �_� ENLRGY PROJECT COMMITTEE MEBTING, JANUARY 17 1979 - PAGE 6 Mr. Aarris stated that he suspected that as the old mercury lamps went out, they would gradually be replaced by more efficient lighting. Mr. Wall asked if NSP had anything in the area of industrial and commercial lighting with regard to the cost and the cost of operation. For example, eould we assume that sodiam vapor was half the operatiag cost of inercury? Mr. Johnson stated that the cost was sti11 based ontfie wattage, but the lumens output of high pressure sodium was greater. It would not be hard to put together that kind of information. They did work with businesses in that respect who wanted to know what their bi11 would be in dollars and cents if they were to convert to a high pressure sodium system. It was no problem to calculate that infozmation. Mr. Saba asked what the life expectancy was on the high pressure sodium lamps. Mr. Johnson stated that rigfit now they were talking about 12,000 hours. Mercury vapor was 24,000 hours, Mr. Harris stated that the street lighting was kind of a trade-off on whether to save energy by not having as much street lighting or to pay for the burglaries and street crimes. You had to find out where your priorities were. Mr. Wall stated he was pleas� that energy consumption in "Public Streets and Highways" was not a big thing compared with other opportunity areas. He stated that Minnegasco had provided a list of the large natural gas users in Fridley. Could similar information be mad� available from NSP? Were we looking at things such as FMC using two-thirds of this electricity or two or three large consumers that made up the couanercial and industrial. Mr. Johnson stated it was entirely possible that FMC was using half of the electricity in Fridley. He said this information tended to be confidential with the customers, but he would see what information he could get. He stated maybe he could get one lump figure for a11 the major users. Mr. Wa11 stated that any information Mr. Johnson could get would be helpful. (Mr. Langenfeld arrived at the meeting at 8:30 p.m.) MOTION by William Wharton, seconded by Betty Enkhaus, to schedule the next Energy Project Committee meeting on Wednesday, February 14, 1979, at 7:30 p.m. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Vice-Chairperson Saba declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Saba thanked Mr. Johnson for coming and for his help. �.�. ENERGY PROJECT COMb1ITTEE MEETING JANUARY 17 1979 - PAGE 7 3. GOALS AND TENTATIVE GOALS: Mr, Langenfeld stated that at the last meeting, it was the Committee's feeling Chat they would not even touch upon the goals until they had been able to review the model policies. Mr. Saba stated he would like to start talking about sane of the goals naw. He could see the list of goals and objectives being added to or modified, probably at every meeting. He had looked at the Energy Project CommiCtee's charter and had made up a flow chart of different sectors and the BTU's each sector uses in terms of Q`s (guadrillion BTU's). He thought it was good that when they talk �bout an energy policy, they talk about common units. If they talked about different measures, they could become confused. Mr. Saba stated that on the chart he had made comments on areas the Co�mnittee might want to look at in terms of policy. He said there was so much Co Calk about in considering an energy policy that he could not see how they could possibly get done by June 1979. Any energy policy they came up �oith ChaC would be useful at all for the City of Fridley had to be as comprehensive as they could make it. Mr. Saba stated he was recommending that the Committee start with something like this flow chart. Under "Industrial, Commercial and Loca1 Government" sector, he had listed the possibility of; co-generation of electricity, recycled product, use of rene�aable energy sources, and emergency planning. ilnder "Residential Conservation" sector, he had listed: insu7ation, target use figures, renewable energy, public information, district heating, and financial crises. Under "Transportation" sector, he had listed: electric vehicles, city car/van pools, commuter parking lots, bikeway and walking, and path improvement. Under "Regulation" sector, he had listed: building codes, State Energy Agency, sCandards, enforcement. Under "Financial Assistance° sector, he had listed: loans, grants, work with State Energy Agency, Under "Public Information" sector, he had listed: library, classes, newsletters, technical information, films, citizen awareness, recycling center. Mr. Harris stated there was one other thing the Coamiittee might want to think about. It seemed to him that "governments" worked at cross purposes. He cited the obvious example of children walkino to school. On one hand, they say they have to conserve energy and look for ways to cut the use of gas and fuel; and on the other hand, they say they have to bus the children to the other side of town to achieve racial balance. He did not know whether the Committee would want to think about those types of situations or even get into tLat area and make any recoaunendations as to what things should talce precedence. Mr. Wall staCed that he liked Mr. SaUa's chart, because the Commil-tee was going to need a categorized shopping list. He suggested thaC one other matrix they needed was to further subdivide the categories; for example, "Public" as a category which could be government, hospital, � ENERGY PROJ�CT_COMMITTEE MIiETING, .JANUARY 17 1979 - PAG� $ schools; "Industrial" as a category: "Residence" as a category. With each of those categories, he felt they needed a policy that dealt with short range kind of tM ngs and something that dealt with long range. Mr. McConville voiced his concerns on how short term policies ultimately influenced long term policies. For example, in the area of transportation, the idea o£ encouraging growth of public transportation now by doing some- thing on a short term level would have a positive influence on long term. Mr. Wall stated that two other categories could be: (1) "General Classifi- cation"--if they did not get things classified, they would never get them simplified; (2) "Government Aesponsibility for Action"--talking in terms of responsibility for action as contrasted with the individual's responsi- bility for achion and the government's role in relation to thaC individual's responsibility. What was the legitimate role of city government? Does it have a responsibility? It so, why? What was the limit of that responsibility? He thought this would be a useful thing to try to do. Mr. Wharton stated that Mr. Wall's statement was the best statement he had heard all evening. They had seen the Energy Agency come up with policies which had been blown to pieces; they had seen the Building Codes Division come up with buiLding codes that were tota]Iy unenforceable. Government did not put responsibility and authority hand in hand, and he thought they should look at both sides of that. One of the Committee's main responsi- bilities, as he saw it, was to give credibility to the citizens of Fridley of what the energy situation was really all'about. 13e did not ]cnow where they could start, but the Federal and State governments were not doing it. Mr. Rarris stated that Mr. Wa21 had raised some valid points. The city had heen waiting for a long time for some leadership from Washington, Mr. Millhone and the Energy Agency, and none had come through. The state- ment was made and agree d upon�by most of the Planning Commission that the Federal Government seemed to be in a state of flux. Consequently, some- one has to provide some leadership, and it had to start someplace. That was really the purpose of this Energy Project Conanittee--to start to provide leadership in the areas of conserving energy. Mr. Saba stated it had to be part of their goals to keep their recommendations as simple as possible, but make them as practical as possible. Mr. McCOnville stated that one of the things that would enhance credibility and practicality at the same time would be to Iook at the total impact of these things instead of just looking at statistics and comparing on a single plane. For instance, in residential heating, comfort was a big aspect instead of just energy alone. Pi0TI0N by William Flharton, seconded 6y Giles McConville, that discussion. on the Goals and Tentative Goals and Discussion of Model Ordinances be contYnued until the next meeting when the Conunittee members had a chance to revieca the model ordinances. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Langenfeld declared the motion carried unanimously. � ENERGY PROJECT CONIMIITTE� MEETING JAN[JARY 17 1979 - PAGE 9 OTHER BIJSINESS: Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Harris if he was going to become a member of the Committee. Mr. Harris stated that as much as he would like to, he would not be able Co because of other co�itments,but he would attend the meetings as often as possible. ADJOURNMENT: , MOTION by Dean Saba, seconded by Gi1es McConville, to adjourn the meeting. Upon-a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Langenfeld declared the January 17, 1979, Energy Project Committee meeting adjourned at 9:32 p,m. Res� ctfully sub �ttted, O_V i'Y' Ct: n ��L� Lynne' Saba Recording Secretary �. t INFORMATION FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY ENERGY PROJECT COMMITTF.E How does Fridleys meter count compare with other citys? Firm Interruptible Fridley 7754 b4 Col. Heights 6305 24 Brooklyn Center 8375 68 Brooklyn Park 8605 73 Of Fridleys 64 interruptible customers, how many are on oil and/or propane standby? (See attached list with names, addresses and standby status.) What is the average MCF usage in an average residence? Average MCF (monthly) 4-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 May thru Sept. Apr & Oct Mar. & Nov Feb & Dec January For assistance in the area of inetering of some city owned building, contact Minnegasco's Industrial-Commercial I)epartment. Warren Waleen 540-6045 Earl Bartels 540-6045 E� 0 0 0 0 0 P P 0 0 0 0 P 0 0 0 P 0 0 P P 0/P 0 0 0 D P P 0 0 0 0 0 � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 None O CITY OF FRIDLEY INTERRUPTIBLE pCCOtJNTS Fridley, ,Tr. H.S. Fridley Sr. H.S. Parkview Elem. Sch. Rice Creek Elem. Sch. Church of St. William H. B. Fvller Co. Dealers Mfg. Co, Hughes Properties Hayes Elem. Sch. St. Phillips Luth. Church A & G �nterpr.ises Holiday Village Gardena Elem. Sch. Fridley Civic Ctr Anoka Cty. Ice Arena Target Stores Rustic Oaks Apts. Black Furest Apts. Fullerton Metals Precision Sheet Metal Longview Fiber Co. LaMaur, Inc. Redeemer Evang. Luth. Ch. Riverwood Elem. GTE Sylvania, Inc. Barry Blower Co. Wici:es Furniture Lynwood Planor II WoadcresC Sch. Maurice Fillister u n �� ❑ n n u �� n n �� n n Robt. L.Stevenson Elem. Sch Donald C, Anderson River Road East Apts. David D. Bartol Fridley Convalescent Home Meadow Run Apts. �� „ n n n u n n Bryant Franklin Corp, Royal Devel Corp. The Pillsbury Co. Designware Ind. 6100 W, Moare Lk. Dr. 6000 ° " " " 6085 N.E. 7th St. 6666 Arthur St. N.E. 6151 University N.E. 5220 Main N.E. 5130 N.E. Main 6680 Lucia Ln. 615 Mississippi St. 6180 Highway 65 5650 N,E. Polk 5601 Main St. 1401 Gardena Ave. 6401 University N.E. 500 N.E, 71st Ave, 7200 Highway 65 1200 N.E. 72 Ave. 1601 No. Innsbruck Dr. 5170 Main N.E. 5250 Main N.E, 5851 E. River Rd, 5601 E. River Rd. 61 Mississippi Way 7Z50 E. River Rd. 5330 Industrial Blvd. 99 77th SJay 5353 E. River Rd. 5700 E. River Rd. 880 Osbourne Rd. 5860 E. River Rd. 5 840 " " " 5760 " " " 5780 n n n 5800 " " " 5820 " " " 5640 " " " 5680 " " " 5660 " " " 5720 " " " 5740 " " " 6080 E. River Rd, 5460 80 Anna Ave. 6550 E. River Rd. 630 Osborne Rd. 7590 Lyric Ln. 7845 E. River Rd, 7895 " " " 7805 " " " 7875 �� 7825 " " " 7901 NE Beech 7900 NE Main 7350 NG Commerce Ln. 6536 b9ain N. E. �� 0/P P P 0 0 0 0/P 0/P P ACCOUNTS USING OVF,R 200 MCF/Day Burlington Northern Carter Day Co. Strite Anderson �ifg Unity Hospital htedtronics P.9pls. l4ater Works Honeymead Products P�IC Corp. D. 1V. Onan 84 43rd Ave, N.E. 504 N.E. 73rd Ave. Co. 7585 Ilighway 65 SSO N.E. Osbourn.Rd. 6900 Central N.E. 4300 N.E, r9arshall 25 44t1i Ave. N.E. 4801 Dlarshall N.E. 7201 N.E, Central � .'; t� ° a COMMIIIQITY DEVLLOPt�NT C0;�IMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 1978 MEMBERS PRESENT: LeRoy Oquist, Connie Modig, Al Gabel, Kenneth Vos, Sharon Gustafson 2�MBERS ABSENT: None CALL TO ORD�R: Chairperson Oquist called the meeting to order at 7:40 p-.m. Mr. Oquist welcomed Ms. Gustafson to the Commission and introduced her to the other Commission membe:s. APPROIr�.L OF OCTOBER 11, 1.978� COi4•S�JfiITY DEVE?�0?rf1E\T COt•4�'iiSSIO\T ?IIh'UTES: MOTIO*7 by Al Gabel, seconded Uy Kennet^ Vos, Co approve the October 11, 197E. Cormnuni.ty Development Com.�ission minu+;:; as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson �qoist der_::red the motion carried uaani.mcusiy. FIt�TAL ft�C0�1T.�„'NDAi'IO2?S ON PROPOSED CF.k.';G�;S TO CF3APTEiC 205. ZO:dING: Mr. Oquist stated he felt the best caay to do this was to continue goin� through the document page by page and making changes and/or reccmmendatioas as they went along. Ms. Modig co�ented that in reading the minutes of one of the Planning Conmiission meetings, Mr. ]3oardman had stated that the commissiozers di3 not have to refer back and forth between the old Zoning Ordinance and the Proposed Changes to the Zoning Ordinance as it was a11 incl:sded in the latter dociunent. Ms. PSodig stated that it was the Commission's experience from their last meeting that this was not always true. The Commissioners concurre3 with the follocaing recommended cbanges: 205.04 GEnTERAL PROVISI�NS 205.041 Declarati.on of Policy Page 10; ��4. PSr. Vos seated Itcm 4 did not seem like a"declaration oi policy". Receimnendation to delete �F4. a . COMMIINITY DEVELOPMI:NT C01�U�1ISSION MI?TiTZNG NOVEMBER 14, 1978 - PAGE 2 205.(143 Non-Conformin, Uses :�nd Struc�ures Page 10, ff1. Reminder by Conanission to put in section number. page 11, �k12. Comment by Mr. Vos: "Did that get rid of all junk yards if not in right zone?" , 205.044 Lot Provisions . Page 12, �F4. Delete "thoroughfare plan" in second line and insert "Transportation Plan" 205.046 Required Yard and Open Space Page 14, �k3-C. Mr. Oquist stated that according to this require- ment, no one could build a deck larger than 10 feet, and steps would have L'o be 2 feet from Che driveway. Zt seemed like an unreasonable depth. This item should be clarified. 205.047 Automobile Parking Page 16, �3, Is word "lited" in second line supposed to be "listed"? page 16,'�3-A, Apartment Aotel. "Apartment Hotel" was not defined in definitions. Should be defined. Page 16, 1f3-F. The words "£or each" should be inserted after "one (1) parl;ing space" in second line. Page 16, �t3-H. Five parking spaces for each alley in Bowling Alley seemed rather high compared to the amount of parking spaces allowed for Church, Clubs (;F3-I). Page 17, �3-0 and �k3-P. Mr. Vos commented on the difference between the parking spaces for a medical or dental clinic and the parking spaces allowed for a public building. He felt public buildings needed more space than a medical clinic. Recownendation that Offices, Banics, Plunicipal Building and/or Public Office Buildings (P) have a more equitable amount of parking spaces, such as 150 sq, ft. which was the same as the Medical or Dental Clinic (0). Page 18, �k4-I, J, R. Mr. Oquist stated thal- the "zoning administrator" was referred to on this page. Tir. Oquist referred to page 24, 2QS.Q51 Zoning Administrator. He stated there caas a definite need for a table oi contents or an index so things such as the Zoning Administra[or's description could be found in this document. � y: '� � CO�NITY D�VCi.OPMTiNT COMhIZS5I0N M13ETINC NOVIiI�'D3GR ]4 1978 ^ PAGE 3 205.048 Performance Standards Page 20, �2-A (Refuse). Mr. Vos stated that compost piles or leaves should uot be put in closed containers. This statement seemed somawhat restrictive for R1 and R2, but was needed for the othet zoning districts. . Page 20, ��3-B-2 (Screening). Mr. Vos stated that people were being told what kind and size cf trees should be planeed. This statement was too res[rictive and should be re-examined. Page 21, �k3-B-3. Mr. Vos stated that this statement again seemed too restrictive. I£ the statement meant that screening fences should be maintained, then the wording should be more clear. Page 22, �i`4-C. Sentence was incomplete. Should read; "She City Engineer may specify a minimum finished ground grade for any strucl-ure in order to alloc� proper connection to city utilities. (Underlined portion taken from Secticn 205.051, 1-D, page 205-11 of old Zoning Ordinance.) Page 23, 4�6-C (Maintenance). Did this requirement regarding snow aad ice removal £rom private steps and. walkways belong in the ?.oaing Ordinanc�? Page 23-A, ��8-D (Envi.ronmental). Should be underlined to conform with the oCher additions in the ordinance. Page 23-C, �18-1 (Erosion). The word "his" should be deleted and"the" inserted in the fourth line. 205.05 ADI•SII3ISTIL9TI013 & BNFORCEMEIQT 205.052 �Amend,nent to the Znnin� Ordinance Page 25, first paragraph, changed to read: "The Council, by majority vote of the entire Council, shall adopt amendments to this ordinance as required. Page 25, �1. Delete "his" and insert "the" in last line. 205.053 Special Use.Permit ' Pa�e 26, ��2, What "Commission" was being reierred to in first sentence? If it was Planning Cormnission, it should Ue so stated, 205.054 Variances Page 27, �2-A. The words, "himself" and "his" should Ue deleted, � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMGNT C0t•4�[ISSIOAT MliP'CING NOVEMII�R 14 1978 - PAGE 4 205.06 DTSTRICT PROVISIONS 205.067. EstaUlishment of Districts Page 31. The Commission questioned whether there was still a "PD District" as listed. Page 31. In £irst sentence at the top of Che page, the word "sixteen" should be deleted. 205.07 R-1 DISTRICT REGULATZONS i 8 205.071 IIses Permitted Page 33, ��3-E. The word "is" should be changed to "to" in second line. 205.D73 Lot Requirements and Setbacks Page 33, �kl Lot Area. Recommend 9,000 sq, ft, be changed to 7,500 sq, ft. 4P1-B should then be deleted. Page 34, r�2 Lot Sdidth. Reco�end 75 feet be changed to 60 feet. �2-A should then be deleted. Page 34, �'2-C, Recommend 75 feet be changed to 60 feet. Mr. Vos stated it shauld be considered whaC implications the changes in lot requirements would have on the setback requirements for side yard. 205.075 Parlcing Requirements Page 35, 1-C (General Provisions). The Commissioners questioned what "other approved hard surface material° wouZd be other than hlacktop or concrete already mentioned in the sentence. 205.08 R-2 DISTRICT REGULATIONS 205.OSI Uses Permitted Page 36, �k3-C. ''R-1 District" should be changed to "R-2 Distr.ict". 205.082 Lot Requirements and Setbacics Page 39, �'iD-1 (at top of page). "R-1 District" in Eirst paragraph should be clianged to "R-2 District". , 205.034 Suilding Requirements Page 36, �2 Minimum Floor Area, The Conunission fe1C there should be some.guideline for floor �rea requirements. PossiUly a sl-andard per the "Advisory Standards for Land Use Regulation". .,,,..��, , . �" CO;�dONI7'Y DEVPLOPhII3NT CONR4I ;5ION MIsfiTING NOVEMRER 14 , 197II - PaGE S 205.09 R-3 FISTRTCT REGULATIONS 205.091 Lises Permitted Page 4I, F-6. The Commission questioned why L-he maximum height for hi-rise aparl-ments was seven stories. F.lsewhere in the ordinance, a maximum of six sCories was mentioned. (Example: page 42, 205.094 Building Requirements, ��1) 205.10 P.-4 DISTi2TCT REGULATIONS 205.101 Uses Permitted Page 44, ,�f2-C (middle of page, Uses Permitted with a Special Use Permit). The Commission questioned what this statement was trying to address regarding automobile parlcing lots for off-street parking spaces. 205.103 Lot Reauirements and Setbacks Page 45, �kl-A Lot Areas. The Commission questioned�4,000 sq, ft. Should possibly be changed to 3,000 sq, ft. Pa�e 45, �F2-A Lot Coveragn. The Commission f�1t that "3CP/ of. total area used for tiie moUile home sha1T Le covexed hy all units and accessor} st�uctures" leit a.1ot of open land. Page 45, 9k3-A SetUack. The setback of 35 15 feet from any oti�er progerey line was average size of a trailer. 205.10+ Pa;king Requirement-s feet from the street and not reasonable with the Page 45, �kl-A Stall Provisions. The Commission questioned why two 10 x 20 ft. hard surf.ace parking spaces when a single family dwelling only needed oue parlcing space. Mr. Vos stated L'he whole section on 205.10 DISTRICT RLGULATIONS was not underlined as new additions, but did not matclr tl�e old Zoni.ng Ordinance. AA7 OUR1��IENT ; MOTION 6y Connie Pfodig, seconded hy A1 Gabe1, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Oquist declared the November 14, 1478, Community Development Couunission meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, � ��,�?��,�.c� � Lyrmci Saba Recording Secretary . . ... , ..��rv , �� y f� PLANhINC COMMiSSION MEETING, SFPTF.Tfi3IIt 13� i97� PAGE 4 J ' � v Mr. Boardman etated that it looks like thc City Council will go with a pnra- tranait �yetem oimiliar to the program in Columbia lieighte. The Federal • Governraent Will aubsidize 90',6 of the firat yeer on an esperimentel basis nnd after that other subsidiee will take over although thcy haven't yet been de�ermined. It lookcs like it vill be a 2�3 eubsidy. � Mr. Peterson stuted that he is opposed to e transit system i the City of Fridley because of the cost and hopes that the City Counc will look at these Federal eubsidies becauae he feels th�t they are out ready to dry up. Mr. Boardman stat that he felt a decision would b made by the City Council at their next meetin regarding this. Mr. 3torla stated his C ission was group. They Would tie han ing the uF leasing team that the manage ent has, applicanta thst had been poor e would be passed to the Cou�unity the limiL-s such as one child per same sex, Mary Van Dan explained on a priority list for a larger ' excellent document. / t� �egsrding the initial rent-up a ons that first passed through a hat they would be screening out the paet, nnd eligible applicants ent and Resources groups. Regarding unless under the age of 5 or of the the Pami�y groas� they rrould be pinced kicked out. He felt it was an Mr. Lan�enfeld �tated thst � likes the idea b prevcntative managemen� bECause it concerns itself xith the people involved. �� MOTION by Robert Petersf�n� seconded ty.Ned Storla��t.o reco�nend the nanagement plan and all the attaGYimente there3n in regerda to th�> Villa�e Green Proposal to the City Counicl for approval after proper legal co�cil. UPON A VOICE V01'E, ALI. VOTSNG AYE, VICE CHAIIUdkN LAIQGEIg' DECLARID TAAT TAE MOTION TO RECO,'�fI�2tD THE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ALL TBE ATTACffi✓� S-`1'iIF�tEIN II�I RE�ARDS TO THE VILLAGE GR�I PROPOSAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL AF'TIIi ' PROPF•ft I,EGAL COUNSEL CARRIID IINANIhSOUSLY. � �F. RECEIVE AND DISCUSS CHANGES TO CHAPTr^,Et 205� ZONING CODE N�TION by Virginia Schnabel, seconded by LeRoy Oqui.et to receive and discuss the proposed changes to Chapter 205, Zoning Code. , UPON p VOICE VCIPE� ALL VO'1ING AYE� VICE CRAIRt/iAN LANGENFELD DECLARED TFiAT T:� MOTION TO RECfiIVE AND DISCUSS PROP0.SED CAANGES TO CHAPTIIt 205� ZONING CODE� CARRIID UNANIbf0U5LY. Atr, Boandman ;;tated that he would like to'go through and point out general t�ings that would be helpful to them in reading it. He stated that everything that is underlined is an added stat�ment and thst deletions ore crossed out. 1. The purpose of the code ehould be laid out mor� clearly and deSine the code better. 2. A general change in the organization o2 the code� for exnmple, duplications are removed and aectione no longer used are removed. 3. Za the co�ercial sreA, modificAtiona were mde. Everything that deala vith adniniatr�tion and general performnnce requirementa �re included ia the firat � p�es� and changeable itema will be in the back of the document. �r �T -..-. • -,',�^-•- e � 4. Speciel Dietricte will be liatc8 �rith their reguletione. 5. All parking requiremente are now placed under Ceneral Restrictiona w�th � s listing of uaes. 6. -Perfonoence Standards - auch thinga �e oPf-street parking, ester3or storage, dr�inage snd landscaping requirements, ctc., are now included in thia docmnent. The following items will also be listed uwder Performanee Standarde: A. The maintenance aepects of the Zonfng Code hae b�en eupa�ed so that we vrill have some type of etatement that could be eniorced through the Zoning Code as i'sr ae thc maintenance of exterior structures� removal of snow and ice� eta B. Essentiel Servicea are slso included under Performance Standarde. C. A section classified as E1�vironmentel Aspects hue been added to the Performance Standards section. This section xill inc�,ud� euch things as explosives� Yall-out shelters, noise� vibrations, etc. It w311 slsp crner such things as erosion on construction sites� use of drainage pands, and th�t type of thing. 7. The Variance Procedure xas put buck into the Zoning Code. 8. Esch District vill be listed �r1th specific regulations. Mr. Boardman stated that completed copies will be distributed shortl,y. Ms. Schnabel stated that the Appeals Cov�ission would like to review the doctffient. NATION by Robert Peterson� �econded by LcRay Oquist to include on the agenda Por the next meeting, an item to set up a timetabZe fox the review� approval and recot�endution of the Building and Zoning Caie. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� VICE CAAII2MAN LANGENFELD DECLARF.D TAE MOTION TO SNCLUDE APi ITEM ON THE AGFsNDp FOR TF1E NExT DlEETING TO S�,`P UP A TIMETABLE FOR THE REV�41� APPROVAL AND RECONR�I�IDATION OF THE BUILDIPdG AND ZOYdING CODE� CARRIED . UI�ANIA,OUSLY . MOTTON liy LeRay Oquist� Seconded bq Robert Peterson to adjourn the meeting. tk'ON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTISiG AYE VICE CEAII2MAN JAMES LANGENFEND DECLARED THE &LANNING CO21MI5SIbN p�TING OF S�7EFfBER 13, 1978 AD,TOURN�D AT 8:40 P.Pi. • � � . . . . �. . . .' n. . . . _ a ' . .. N- � • �v� ENVIRONMENTAL UALITY COMMISSION PiEETIN� OCTOBER 17 1978 - PAGE 7 2. be in complete concurrence or not citizen's committee with part� SECOND cfd also because they were a concerns. Mr. Langenfeld stated e had talked to Mr. A1 Messerli and Mr. Messerli had thanked the Co ission for the work they had done. The issue of the wetlands was now dead issue. 3. PROPOSED CHANGES IN CHAPTER 205, ZONING: Mr. Langenfeld stated he would Like to state some of his concerns about the Proposed Zoning Ordinance that the Commission might want to take a look at: 205.01 Purpose, page 1-- needed to be rewritten 205.02 Goals, page 1, �Z � 205.02 Goals, page 1, �7 -- maybe a statement about the goals and objectives could be incorporated 205.03 De£initions, page 4, �`2� and �k21, Creek & River,Protection Zone 1& 2 205.03 Definitions, page 8, �k56 Obstruction 205.03 Definitions, Page 9, �k6S Useable Open Space . Ms. Sporre stated she was disappointed and disillusioned, because a good zoning'ordinance could be written, but it was only as good as its enforcement. She had a real problem dealing with it, because of the way things had gone in the past, for example, the noise ordinance. She did not want to spend many hours refining an ordinance. Mr. Langenfeld stated that one of the reasons for the proposed changes in the Zoning Ordinance was to eliminate a lot of the unnecessary things. Mr. Leek stated that one of the major changes was f�rgaaaza�ooaato uestions. the Zoning Ordinance a more workable zoning code y Y Q In addition, there were ne� areas, such as the S-2 District Regulations - Creek and River Preservation District. Mr. Langenfeld stated he thought it was a good document for the planning level and the key to decision-making as far as the development that was going on. ' Ms. Sporre expressed concern about old gas stations that were not used as gas stations any longer and had turned into car repair Lots. Junk cars were repaired and sold, but these lots kept bringing in more and more junk cars. She•noted that the new proposed zoning code had deleted "Used Car Lot". What could deal with this problem? Was that definition replaced by another definiCionY , Ms. Sporre also expressed concern about companies who deale with com- bustible or flaimnable materials and were fire traps. Was there.an ordinance that dealt with specifics for fire hazard companies2 � -` 8 ENVIRONMENTAL�qUALIT3f COMMISSION MIiF.TING, OCTOBER 17, 1978 - PAGE 8 Mr. Langenfeld stated he wouLd like to see che definitions cross- referenced. Mr. Peterson stated he wouid like to see a Cable of contents or an index of some kind. Ms. Sporre stated there was nothing in the ordinance on how a developer should protect the natural ameni[ies of the land. BY LEE ANN SPORRE, SECONDED BY BRUCE IONS A:iD PERFORhfANCE STANDARDS FOR DI TO TiiE THE TO HAVE MORE SPECIFIC OF THE CITY. Ms. Sporre stated that one of the Commission's goals was to "recognize areas impacted by large scale public and private development as critical areas and activities and subject them to control". She stated that the Zoning Code should in sane way identify activities that were significantly important. There had to be some parameter for high scale activities. VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON LANGENFELD DECLARED THE Mr. Leek stated that if the Coum�ission had any specific questions relating to the Zoning Ordinance, he would appreciate.having the� call or come in so that these questions could be put together for the next meeting. Mr. Peterson referred to pages 23-A and 23-B regarding "Noise". He stated that there should be a referral to the Noise Ordinance in addition to the State Standards. MOTION by Bruce Peterson, seconded bV Lee Ann Sporre, to continue discussion of the Zoning Ordinance at the next meetin�. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Cliairperson Langenfeld declared the motion carried unanimously. 4. CONTINUED: FIELD TRIP WILLIAMSON Mr. Langenfeid recormnended that this ite be tabled until the Commission had a lighter schedule. Peterson, sec to motion 5. ANIMP.L PROTECTION: Mr. Langenfeld s[ated he had br ught this up as general conversation at Planning Commission, and he had gotten overwhelming suppart to get this ordinance. � „,..,,s,. , ENVLRONMENTAL QUAT ITY COiR�IISSION MEETING NOVIihII3I:R 21, 1978 - PAGE 9 ' � -- 2. S OPFICli 'LEl.�e'r THF ATIP,ILIT _F 'Plil PI2L•'SEVT FACILITIES ON 'PHE A`1D S� TY OF THE R7'SiDlNTS OF 2l:E AREA. UPON v�NG AYE. CHAIRPERS0:1 LANGENI'F.LD DECLARED 1AE Mr, iangenf� declared a ten-minute break at 9:37 p.m. C�lil 205 ZONING: Mr. Leek stated that one of the questions raised by the Commission last month was in regard to "used car lots”. Mr. Leek stated he had talked to Mr. Boardman and that particular item should not have been deleted and would be put back in the 2oning Code. Mr. Leek stated he was not able to co�e up with any firm anscaer with regard to the fire hazard comoanies other than the fact that there zaas net an ordinance that specifically dealt with fire hazards or fire hazard coopanies. Those were all questions dealt�fiith by the fire inspector through the fire code. Mr. Leek stated they had agreed there was a need for cross referencing and a table of conLents; ho:aever he was not•able to have it put together for the Commission meeting. It would be done for Planning Commission review. Mr. Leek stated that in response to Ms. Sposre's question of there not being an ordinance that told the developer how to piotect the amenities of the land, at this noint, it was staff's opinion that the ordinance was not the vehicle by wl:ich they cduld do that. Ms. Sporre aske3 if there was anything in the Zoning Code that wc,uld prevent the filling in o£ marshes, the draining of water resources adjacent to rivers, etc.? Mr. Leek stated that Ms. Sporre was specifically referring to wetlands and the Zoaing Code did not specifically address the wetlands and what could and could noC be done with them. Hs. Sporre stated Chat since she had been on this Commission, she had said that the present zoning did not reflect the sensitivity to the inherent characteristics of the site and that there needed to be a method of following the dictate of the land. It was in the Comnission's gcals and objectives, buC was not reflected in the revised Chapter 205. The Commission had reconunended to City Council that overlay districts be used in pro[ecting the natural resources. The Zoning Code d1d not reflect the recommendations proposed by the Coonnission, and she wondered who had proposed these present changes. �..y ._ �_ a � 21. 1978 __- rncr� iv Mr. Leek stated that the recommendation that overlay districts fox pro- tection of natural resources be developed was not one which had been discarded. They were putting together the entire comprehensive develop- ment package for Fridley and that consisted of not only policy plans, but specific capital improvement program and attendant regulations accruing from the policy plans. But, it was not something proposed for the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code was of such a nature that iC was not likely that those specialized protection regulations would become part of the land use classification per se. The changes were primarily proposed because the Zoning Code was very much in need of some kind o£ update, particularly where redundancies occutred in cammercial zoning and industrial zoning. Ms. Sporre stated that she thought some of the Commission's recommendations had included more than just water bodies; they had talked about unbuildable slopes, high water tables, and vegetative characteristics that ought to be accommodated in the 7.oning Code. This zoning code was not the proposal initiated by the Commi.ssion and she found things in the 2oning Code that did not reflect the intention of the Commission. She recommended that the "Proposed Changes in Chapter 205 Zoning" be forwarded on without recoum�endation. Ms. Sporre stated she wanted Co see the natural resource ordinances the Conmission proposed brought into line with the present zoning capability and that during the process (which she felt should be prio:ity) they use the Interim Development Control Ordinance so that the design of the � w�munity reflect the natural amenities of the area. Ms. Sporre read the following goal which she felt was applicabla to the 2oning Ordinance: Goal �2• the�environment andtb osphereVand stimulaCeathedhealthto and welfare of man. d. Pr�ote high quality standards for the control of air, water, noise and visual pollution, including necessary protective measures. e. Develop and implement land use standards which are compatible with the inherent characteristics and carrying capacities of the environment. h. Ensure public access to recreational areas, with due regaxd to carrying capacity and wise use of energy. i. Foster innovative commanity design. 1. Minimize conflict of inCerest on the part of those who make decisions abouC land resources. m. Ensure more effective citizen participation through such measures as adequate public notice and review. ENVIRON1�fiiNTAL QUALZTY CO2•i1fiSSI0N MEETING, NGVEMBER 21, 1978 - PAGE il MOTION BY LPE hhTl SPOI2RE, S1iCO27DED P,Y EP,110E PETERSON, TO REC0�7END TO CiTY COiJNCIL TIIAT Tkit3 USF OP P7A9'UR,1L Y1iS0UP.CGS OIZllINANCES PROPOSIill I;Y T1�1; ENVIRUNNIIsNTAL l�L'ALITY COhSNISSION ANll T,llF. INTF'.RIM D1iVBL0�iLNT COYTROL CAPAI3II.I'fY L'L INCORYORATliD IN T}'.li ULVGI.OI'�N7' OE �THE CNANGLS ZN '1'tlli �ZONING CODi. UPON A VOICli VOTE, LA:rGEI�[''ES,D, PE'YERSON, SPOR1iL' VO'PING AYE, iiOYA ABSTAINING CIIAIRPliRSON I.Ai�Glit:FELD DECLAP.lill T}iB MOTI0:1 CARRILD UNANINOUSLY. Ms. Sporre asked that Mr. Langenfeld adhere to xhe Commission's reco�endation at the Planning Commission level. MOTION RY PRUCE PETERSOn, StCOND�D BY LEE APiN SPORRE, THAT REGARDZNG NOISE, REFERENCE TO THE t?OISli OY.111t�ANCE, IN 6DUITION TO THL S'PATE STAI�➢ARDS, B� SNCLUDED IN THE 7.02dIhG CODE, SPECIrIC.1i,LY R�FBRENCIhG YAGES 23-A and 23-B (1F THF. "PRnPOSF.D ClIARGES `TO THE ZOPi1'i�i, GODE". UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING 3. AIR POLLUTION: Mr. Langenfeld stated that there was an Air Pollution meeting in Community Room I that same evening spo sored by the League of Women Voters. Ms. Metcalf was representing the Co ssion at that meeting. MOTION BY BRUCL PETERSON SECONDED Y LEE ?S1N SPORRE TO CONTINII� THIS ITSid AT THF, NEX'1 NiEETING AA'D TO R CEIVE A REi'ORT FROM TLS`rr'TCALP' ON TIIE RtEETING. UPOiv' A VOIC3: VOTE ALL 'GiING A`sL CHAIRYERSON L�1tdGEfiFELll DE�L�D TE.E MOTION CARRIED UNANIr10USLY. 4. CONTIi1UED: �1�'Iii4L ORDii�A' �: Mr. Leek stated due to loss f manpower in the department, he had Ueen unable to come up with a mo el animal ordinance. MOTION b Bruce Peterson seconded bv Lee Ann S orre to continue discusszon on the animal ordinance t the nest meeting. U on a voice vote a11 votin a e Chair erson Lan,en 1d declared the motion carried unanimousiy. 5. OTHER BUSIIvESS: A, Purchase of T e Recorder for Co�ission Use: Ms. Sporre stat there was a need for this Commission to have a tape recorder t be aUle to accurately record statements regarding puUlic policy Uch as was presented at the public hearing the previous even' g on the Anoka County Airport. She could see the need to recor policy makers or government officials on their posil-ions on certain issues. MOTION BY �E ANN SPORRE TO AL"L}IOFIZE THE CHAIRPEI:SON TO PURCHASE A TAPH REC 1:DER THAT ldOULD HAVE THE CAPABILITY Or BEING ABLE TO RECORD LARGE MEETINGS. MS, SPORRG WITIiDREW IiER MOTION. �. .� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION k1E�TING OCTOBER 11 1978 - PAGE 4 bikeway system or if these were to cover what was calle egional Trails that tied the different communities together. The Co ission would like to makc sure that Fridley had what was coming n that area. The Commission was concerned about the Northtown Cor dor, that it was adequately constructed to relieve the traffic n�94 at the river, and Yliat it not be just a crossover at the rive , but be an actual artery tying into 94. The Canmission was concer d about the Burlington- Northern Railroad Bxidge over 694 in th the bridge would have to be widened before ehe 694 widening coul�ke effect,and how MnDOT would deal with noise abatement generated y the railroad. Ms. Modig stated it was her unde standing that in the original plan, there was no funding for barri s for a part of the Innsbruck area when the barriers went up as that rea was undeveloped. Innsbruck was now developed and 694 generate a lot of noise. In the future, P1nDOT should consider noise abatement easures along the Innsbruck segment of 694. � _ --__. - Mr. Christensen tated that in regard to the bikeways, he believed what had happened w that the Great River Road Project was originally laid out to run up ast River Road. That had bzen chsnged so'that the State Bikeway Trai would be going up 1G9 or Lyndale on the west side of the river and ossing over af Coon Rapids Dam. Connie Modig, seconded by A1 Gabel, to forward the concerns to Mr. Clyde MoraveCZ. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, �n Oquist declared the motion carried unanimously. 3. IIVITIAL REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN CHAPTER 205, ZONiNG ORDINANCE: MOTION by A1 Gabel, seconded by Kenneth Vos, to receive the "Proposed Changes in Chapter 205, Zoning". Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Oquist declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Christensen stated that essentially the document was oriented for comnunities that were developed. It was a reorganization of the 1973 document and it put things into a better perspective for those who had questions regarding special permits, variances, etc. It was a more workable document. He thoughC Mr. Boardman had dona a good job in organizing it. The Commissioners concurred with the following reco�ended changes: 205.02 Goals Page 1, �k3. "To promote sound land management and orderly develop- ment and/or redevelopment of the community." �%' .• COMMIJNITY DEVELOPMENT CO�IISSION MGETING OCTOBER 11 1978 - PAGE 5 Page 2, #10: "To maintain tlie City's image." 205.03 Definitions Page 2, �3, ARTERIAL STREETS. (Delete "thoroughfare plan" and insert "Transporation Plan".) Page 2, �4, MOTOR VEAICLE MAJOR REPAIR. (The Commission members expressed roncern that possibly there should also be a definition for "Minor Repair".) Page 2, �5, AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION: "A place where gasoline and ather essential services related to the operation of motor vehicles are retailed directly to the public on premises, inciuding minor servicing and repair, but not including motor vehicle major repair. (Delete end of sentence on top of page 3.) Page 3, �k10, BUILDING. (Definition should be underlined as it was a change from the 1973 document. Commission also expressed concern that the definition should include walls.) Page 3, �13, CELLAR. (The Commission was concerned about the need for definitions for both "Cellar" and "Basement". What was the significance of needing two definitions?) Page 4, �F14, CHqNNEL:. "The Natural or artificial depression of perceptible extent, with definite beds and banks to confine and conduct water, either continuously or periodically." Page 4, ,�15, CHURCH. (The Coum�ission was concerned about the statement, "together with its accessory buildings and uses". Why did that statement need to be includedY) Page 4, �16, COLLECTOR STREET. (Delete "thoroughfare plan" and insert "Transportation Plan". Co�ission reco�ended that all street definitions be listed together, such as "Street, Collector".) Page 4, �19 COANER LOT. (Change to 'T.OT� CORNER" and insert after "LOT" on page 7.) Page 4, �k24, DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOT:� "A lot which has opposite lot lines on two non-intersecting streets. Both street lines shall be considered as front yard areas." (Ehange t� "Lot, Double Fr mtage" and insert after "Lot Depth" on page 7.) Page 5, �26, DWELLING, LIMITED (delete MOTHER-IN-LAW APARTMENf): "A separate dwelling unit completely contained within a one-family structure with an occupancy limited to persons related by blood or marriage within one generation of the.principal occupant o€ a one-family dwelling.° , y . s . .._.. ...t . ' . . COMMUNITY DEVGLOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING OCTOIIER 11 1978 - PnGE 6 Page 5, �31, PA2�ffLY. (In Item B under "Family" which stated: "A group of not more than 6 persons who need not be related by blood." The Commissioned wondered why the number 6 was used.) Page 5, �32, #33, �k34, �35; and �36. (Delete the word "means" and insert "the",) Page 5, �33 and �36. (The Coaanission noted that the words, "regional flood" were used twice. They felt "Flood, Regional" shoula be defined.) Page 6, �39, GARAGE, REPAIR: "Place #or major repair of motor � vehlcles or equipment under 2 ton capacity." Page 6, �40, GARAGE, HEAVY DUTY REPAIR. Page 6, �42, AOME OCCUPATION. (The Commission questioned why teachin$ was singled out as a restriction in the last sentence.) Page 6, �44, KENNEL,PRIVATE: "Any lot or premises on which three (3) or more dogs and(or cats at least four (4) months of age axe kept." Page 7, �46, LIVING AREA: "Area of a building designed to be used for living purposes, such as bedrooms, dining room, living room, which are used for family purposes, as distinguished from any garage or other type accessory space." Page 6, HOSPITAL OR SANITARIUM and HOTEL (old il'29 and �F30). (The Commission questioned why these two def'initions were deleted as they were referred to elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance.) Page 7, LfaBORATORY (old 4�32). (The Commission questioned why this definition was deleted.) Page 7, �48, LOCAL STREETS. (Should be listed under "Streets, Local". Also, the words, "thoroughfare plan" should be deleted and "Trans- nortation Plan" should be inserted.) Page 7, �49, LOT. (The words "dedicated or private" should be deleted from the last sentence, unless it was necessary for them to be defined. Mr. Oquist questioned the need for sub-headings A, B, and C. A lot was being defined, not a combination of lots.) Page 7, �k51, LOT FRONTAGE. (The Commission questioned why the last " sentence was added: "If the dimensions of a corner lot are within 1fP� of being equal, the owner may select either street lot line as the front lot line."} Page $, �53, MOBILE HOME PARK: "An approved area for the parking of occupied mobile homes." ("Trailer park" and "trailers" were deleted.) COI'�tUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBGR 11 1978 - PAG� 7 Page 8, MOTEL (oid �53). (The Commission questioned why the definition of "Motel" was deleCed.) Page 8, �55, NURSING HOME: "A state licensed facility used to provide care for the aged and infirmed, persons who require nursing care and related services in accordance with these regulations, but not including facilities for the treatment of sickness, injuries, or surgical care.° Page 8, �56, OBSTRUCTION.. (Delete the word "means" at the beginning of the sentence.) Page 8, �56, PARKiNG STALL. (Delete the word "standard" in the third line.) Page S, �k58, PROFILE. (This should be deleted as it was not a definition.) • page 8, �59, PUBLIC TMPROVEMENT: "Any facility for which the City or other governmental agency may ultimately assume the responsibility for constructionz operation, and maintenance." Page 8, �k60, REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION. (Delete the words, "100 year fiood". "Regional 100 Year Flood" should be defined separately.) ' Yage 9, �61, STORY. (The last sentence should be deleted: "A base- ment•is a story for the purposes of height regulations if one ha2f (1/2) or more of the basement's heighC is above the average level of the adjoining ground.") ' Page 9, �62, STREET. (Should be redefined as the present definition was not clear.) � Page 9, STRUCTURAL ALTERATION (old dk50). (The Coumiission questioned why this had been deleted as it would be used in Special Districts.) Page 9, �64, TOI�I`IHOUSES: "Structures housing three or more dwelling units continuous to each other, only by the sharing of one comnon wall. No single structure shall contain in excess of eighe (8) dwelling units and each dwelling unit shall have separate and individual front and rear entrances." (The Commission questioned whether the second sentence should be part of the ordinance, rather than part of a definition.) Page 9, �68, WALK47AY OR SIDEWALK: "A designated surface for pedestrian use.." (Ms. Modig stated that.if walkways were�defined, why wasn't bikeways definedT) . COMMIJNITY DEVELOPMENT CONA7ISSION M(iETING OCTOBER 11, 1978 - PAGE S Page 9, �69, WATERWAY. (Delete "man-made" and insert "artificiai" in the firsl- line.) ADJOURNMENT: MOTTON by Kenneth Vos, seconded by A1 GaUel, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairpersan Oquist declared the October 11, 1978, Co:nmunity Development Co�nission meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Res ectfully sub itted, '✓'Y� . �c � Ly e Saba Recording Secretary 0 0 �� C01�ANNITY DEVTiLOPPIIsNT COMhiISSIOtI M13LTTNG JANUARY 9, 1979 A1LI�Il3�RS PRESENT: LeRoy Oquist,. Connie Modig, A1 GaUel, Kenneth Vos, Sharon Gustafson MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRLSENT: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner CAI,L TO ORDER: Chairperson Oquist called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. APPROVAL OF NOVEMB�R 14, I978 COh'IMUNITY DEVELOPMGNT COhiMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Kenneth Vos, seconded by A1 Gabel, to approve the November 14, 1978, Community Development Commission minutes as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Oquist declared the motion carried unanimously. 1. CONIZNUED: FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROPOS�D CHAIQGES TO CHAPTER 205 Mr. Oquist stated the Go�nission would continue to go through the document starting on page 45, 205.11 P-District Regulations. Mr. Oquist stated that a couvnent was made at Plaruiing Commission that some people did not like the way the document was divided wit-h the common items in the front, and that it should just deal with the specifics about.each one of L'he districts separately. Mr. Boardman sCated that primarily there was not enough to deal with that was in common. When you got into some o•f the areas, such as the P- District and C-District-s, they only had a few pages. There were separate items in each of the specific districts, Uut there was a loC of common that applied to all the 'districts. He stated the way the code was written riglit now was with a common section with common secCions ' in the 6ack. The problem was that it never got looked at and was overlooked a lot; and a lot of things were repetitious throughout all the disCricts. Be could not see the sense in repeating L-hings time after time. Wlien a developer came in for information, rhey wo�ild have all the inf-ormation in a packet to hand out, This was more oi an administrat'ive manual, and regular citizens caould not be loolcing at it tliat often as far as the operaeion ot it. It would be mostly staff reviewing it with developers. y , � • COMMUNITY DtiVtiI.OPMBNT COMMISSION t��PTING JANUARY 9 1979 - PAGP: 2 Mr. Oquist stal'ed that a L'able of contents or an index would be helpful. Mr. Boardman stated there would probably be an index. 205.11 Y DISTRICT RLGULATIONS (Page 45) Mr. IIoardman stated Chat the Cormnission would note that the P District was very different from the o1d Zoning Code as it had been very general before and allowed about anything in a P DisL-rict. He felt there needed to be some regulations. lde also felt there were some things where a special use permit was required and he had included additional xestrictiocis. 205.12 C-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS (Page 47) Mr. Boardman stated that before there was.Cl> and�C32 asd ost of districts, and he had changed that to C1, C2, , the requirements and uses were the same. 205.13 C-2 DISTRICT REGULATIONS 205.131.Uses Permitted Page 52, �k4-B, Additional Restrictions: Dir. Vos stated that the restriction that "Bike racks shall be provided in an area that is convenient to each major building entrance, but which will not disrupt pedestrian or vehicular traffic or fire lanes" was too restrictive. It would mean bike racks would have to be provided for a service station or a telephone booth, for example. MY. Boardman agreed and stated the wording should be changed to; "Sike racks ma be provided..." 205.14 C-3 DISTRICT REGULATIONS � 205.141 Uses Permitted Page 56, �4-B, Additional Restrictions: Should be changed to read: "Bike racics ata be provided in an area that is convenient to each major building entrance, but cahich will not disrupt pedestrian or vehiculax traffic or fire Lanes." 205.143 Lot Re uirements and Setb'acics Page 47, �64-D, Additional Setback Requirements: Mr. Vos commented thaC the setback requiremenC of 20 feet for C-3, also 50 feet for C-2 District on page 54, did not seem right. Mr. Boardman stated those should be changed. On page 54, C'z? e 57, District, �k4-D, "50 feet" should be chan�ed to 30 feet. On p.g �k4-D, "20 feet" should be changed to 50 feet. i � COMMUNITY DI?VI?i3OPMI'.TIT CO?�Q�1I5SION MI?.IiTINC JANUARY 9 1979 - PAGC 3 Page 59, Cop of pa�e on right: 205.061 should be changed to 205.161. 205.iT M-1 DISTRZCT RTGULATIONS Mr. IIoardman seateJ tliere was a major change in the M-1 District. In L'he present 7.oning Code, not very mucli was listed, and it was hard to detex�nine what was allowable in that district. So, they had decided to acCUally name everything allowable in that district. 205.171 Uses Permieted Page 62, �kl-A-33, "Railroad sidings, spurs, depots, L.C.L. yards": Mr. Vos asked Mr. Boardman whaC "L.C.L. yards" were. Mr. Boardman stated he did not know, but would check and find out what that meant. Page 63, ��2-A: Add the words, as allowed under Chapter 214, at end of sentence. Page 63, �3-A: Mr. Boardman indicated that the sentence should read: "Salt, Gravel lots, exploration or recovery" 205.18 M-2 DISTRICT REGULATIONS 205.181 Uses Permitted Page 66, �1-B: To be consistent with the change made in the definition of "large repair garages", the Commissioners agreed that the word "large" should be changed to heavy duty. Page 66, �'P2-A: The words, as allowed under Chapter 214, should be added at 'the ettd of the sentence. Page 67, ,'�3-U, Junk Yard: The Co�issioners agreed to delete "Junk Yard". 205.19 S-DISTRICT REGULATIONS (SPECTAL DISTRTCT) Mr. Boardman stated this was actually the PD District that was in the old code that was unworkable, so they turned it around, reclassifying it an S-District which would allow them to set up special regulations that did not apply to any other district or any other area in the city. This was done wiCh the Hyde Park area. 205.192 Special District for Planned IJnit Development (Page 70) Eliminate word "his" and insert "the'" in foureh line Mr. Boardman stated one thing was left out that should not have been left out under 205.19. Tliere l�ad to be some land size resYriction to qualify that land as an S-District. He stated ten acres might be a good size to work with. . +.�—. ; CON➢�7UNITY DEV)?LOPA9iN'P COMPITSSION MliIiTING, JANUARY 9 1979 ^ PACE 4 205.1921 5-Disl'rict Rerulal-ions Page 75, �8-A: In 4th line, "PUD" shouid be written out--"planned unit development". 205.193 SpeciaY District for Townhouse DevclopmenC Mr. Boardman stated that they had decided it would Ue better to take this whole seceion out of the S-District, because tliis was a different procedure, but all of these were allowed in the R-Districts. What they were saying was that the S-District was strictly a rezoning district with a regulation change, whereas this was strictly additional restrictions for townhouses coming in. They were going Co put this section after the R-Districts. St �oould be called, "Special Regulatious for Townhouse Development;' and would not be. a separate zoning district, 205.1931 Procedure for Townhouse Development Approval Page 76, �2-B, Densities: On page 33, the Cormnission had recommended a minimum lot area of 7,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit rather than 9�OOD sq. ft; therefore, under R-1 District, 9,C00 sq. ft. should be changed to 7,500 sq, ft. 205.20 S-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS - HYDE PARK SPECIAL DISTRICT Mr. Boardman stated that this was what they would be doing with all of the special distric.t regulations, They had put this at the end so they could keep adding other special districts. This was another reason all of the administrative things were in the front, so the numbers would not have to be changed in the zonin� code when other special dist-ricts were added, Mr. Boardman referred to page 81, S-2 District Regulations - Creek and River Management District. He sYated they felt they probably should take this out of the S-District and set up a special district called an 0-District (Overlay District) cahich would a11ow them in the description to make a statement that all of the 0-DisCricts were special regulation districts that were enforced along with the existing regulations, of those districts. Oa Pages 81 and 82, Mr. Oquist stated that CRP-1 and CRP-2 were referred to and he felt they should Ue listed in the definitions. Page 4, Definitions, �20; Add CRP-1 in parentheses Page 4, Definitions, ,�21: Add CRP-2 in parentheses '`w �°'"' • '�"" COMMUNITY DEVLI.OiTiiiN'P COMMISSION MF.liTING JANUARY 9 1979 PAGP. 5 205,'1104 S-2 Dlstri.cc Re�ul<<Ci.ons Pa�e 83, Item G: The word "his" should be deleted and "the" insereed in the second line. 205.2106 Planni:ng Commission: Powers and Duties and Technicai AssisCance Page 85, 1-A: Mr. Vos asked who the "Commissioner" was referred Co in the middle of the paragrayh? Mr. Boardman stated that was the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Oquist stated that who the Commissioner was should be identified in the document. Mr. Boardman agreed. ADJOURNI�NT: MOTION by A1 Gabel, seconded by Connie Modig, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Ghairperson Oquist declared the January 9, 1979, Community Development Commission meeting adiourned at 9:45 p.m. � Respectfully submitted, * �G,l�+t/ L .ue Saba Recording Secretary 1"— �....- � v ,�„.-- �� CI'PY OF FRIDLEY SP�CIAL t�ETING - APP�AI; COMMiSSION OCTOB�t 24 i978 CALL TO ORDER: Chairwoman Virginia Schnabel called the October 24, 1978� Special Meeting of the Appeals Commission to order at 7:45 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Mr. Barna� Ms. Schnabe2� M. Gabel Mr. Kemper, Mr. Plemel Others Present: Ron Holden: Building Inspector 1. INITIAL REVIEW Or^ PRO°ASED CHAI3GE5 `PO CRAPTF'1? 205. 7AP3IPiG The general lay-out of the document was discussed� and the Co�3.ssion t�'embers reco�ended that the present formst be retained. The reaconing behind this was that iY a person wanted to buil.d in a particular zone� everything pertainining to that zone should be in one section. If parlcing� setbacks� etc. were in separate sections� there would be the possibility of missing something. The Co�ission Nlembers concurred with the following reco�mnended changes: 205.01 rUxnosE Page l� first paragraph: Uelete the word "morals." 205.02 GoALs Page 1, �2: Delete Goal �}2. Page 1� �3: Change to: "To promote sound land management and orderly development and/or redevelopment of the co�nunity." Page 2� #10: Change to: "To maintain the City's ima�e." 205.03 D��xrrlorvs Page 2� Old �3: Retain "Apartment" and definition" Page 2� lii�► A[fPOt�BILE MAJOR REPATR: Title is confusing. Page 2� �5 AUPONIOBILE SIItViCE STATION: Title is conYusing. Page 3: Conmission Members would like definition of "Auto Salvage, Auto Ldrecking". Page 3� �10 BUILDING: Delete word "chattels." Page 3� Old �11 BUII,DABLE AREA: Retain "Buildable Area" and definition. e 0 °..��1V � u;TOaLR 21f 1978 l,��'GS' PAGE 2 �- Page 3� ��13 CELLARt Delete "Cellar" ctnd dafinition. Page !F� �19 CORNER ypT; Cy�n$e headfng to; "Lot� Corner." Page �+� �2�+ DOUBLE FRppITAGE LOT; Change heading to °Lot Double r n _ � rontage, Page 4: Commission Members would like definition oY "COndominium,�� Page 5, �f26: DWi�,inGonelr�ID: Delete words: "Mother-in-luw qpey�m�� and generation pP, Page 5� �27 DwELr,znTc, ONE-FAMILY: Change to: "DWELI,ING, SINGLE FAP�II,Y: detached 'huilding designed excl,usive]y for occupancy by a si le fami]y,'r � P$Se 5, �30 DWEI,yING UNIT: Change definition to read same as Maintenance Code ss follows; "DWELLII�G �TT: a single unit providing conplate independent lfving Pacilities Por one or more persons including permanent provisions for living� sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation," Paee 5, #31 F.4BSILY: B; Change to: "A group oY not more that � persons who need not be related by blood, marriage or adoption, living together as a single housekeapi� unit." Ac1d ar subsitute a definition for "Occunancy Limit " The Commissioners wi11 try to define "Occupancy Limit"� and Ms. Schnabel wiZ1 talk to Jerry Boardman b ; P� e 6 a out th�.s. � ,#39 G�AG�, REpplg� a� �0 GARAGE� LARGE ggpA�g: These two are similiar to �. AUTOMOBILE;I�,7Q,*� gEPA�� d �5 AUtOMOBILE SE�VICE STATION and these could possibly be combined. page 6� Old �9 gOSPITAL pND g�TTAgI��; Retain "gpspz*pAL ANfj SANITARIUP4" and definition. Page 6� Old �30 HOTEL: Retain "HO'1�L" and definition. =Pa�e 6� �+3: The Coffinission Members questioned this de.finition and would like to have it xe-defined, Page 6� #1�1� �Nry�y. The Commission M�mbers crould like this definition checked egeinst the Animal Control Ordinance, Pa�e 7� #�+5 KENISEL; CaF�CrAL: The Comnission D"embers wovld like ihis de£inition checked agaiast the Animal Control Ordinance. Page 7� Old �32 LABO_RATORY: Retain."LqI3pRqTpgy�� and definitioa. pAs� 7� Commission N:embers would Zike �19 CORNEft L�T, and 4 DO(P3LE moved to this page with their heading changed to: � ��'AGE LOT �2b LOT� DOUBLE FRONTAGE. �r�-9 L�T, COR?VES, and � F �� ►8 SPECiAL D�L•TIN, - lsPPEqLS CO;�tiSSION, OCTOB�R ?4, 1978 PACE 3 Pa¢e f3� Q].d �f43 PdOi'L`L; Retain "b'07'EL° and definition. Pa�e 8, �55 OI3STRUC'PIOPi: Delete taord "P�eans," Yage 8� �57 PARKIPIG STALL: Delete worci "standard." Page f3; Cor.imissioners woul.d like "OCCUPAiJCY LI1�ST" added here with a definiticn. Psge £i, -01d /�47 PU3LTC UTILITY: Retain definition and change heading to: "Ui'II,ITY CO.+iPAI`iX." Page 8� #59:P�LZC zt�xov�r�nrr; Change heading to: "PUBLIC FACILITY." Ca�issioner3 questioned word "IMPROVEtdSNT," Page 8: Co3missioners �rould like to add definitions of "S�FBACK� FROi'T"� 1eSErPYtACK� S7DE" sttd "SEi'BACK� REAP,," "SETBACK� FRONT: the minimal distance between the front property line end the front of the structure as defined by this cale herein." Page j� �'(2 YARD� SIDE: Delete word "full." Page 9, �1 STORY: Cor,imissioners questioned second sentence and would like it deleted. Page 9, Old �50 SPRUCTURAL ALTERATION: Retain "STRIJCTURAL ALTERATION" and de;inition. This term is used in the•Special Use Permit section. Page 9: Cormnissioners would like old ��47 PUBLIC UPII,ITY moved here and have heading changed to "tPPILITY CO��ANY." Pa�e 9� #67 VISION SAFLTY ZOT1E: Change to: "the triangular area o: a corner lot beginning at the intersection of the street curb lines� and thirty (30) feet along eaeh curb line, and thett a straight line between the two points," Page 9, #68 WALK?JAY OR SIDE>lALK: Change to: "A designated surface for pedestrian use." Ptige 9� {�70 YARD; Delete worda "unoccupied and unobstructed fram the ground upward." Page 9� �71 YARD� rRONT: Chanoe to:"A yard extendin� across the full width of the lot and ]ying between the front line of the lot and nearest line cf the nrincibal building," Pa�e 10� �73 YARD, SIDE; Chan�e to; "a yard extending across tkxe width of a lot and t�e principal building extending from the £ront ynrd to the rear yard and having a caidth equal to the shortest distAnce betNeen the side line and the principal building." (The worci "full" is deleted� ' � . v � SPF:CIAL P4E7LTIPIG - APPEFlLS COf�7ISSI0N, ocTOBr�t a_�+, 19T8 PACE IF Chairwanan Schnabel scag�ested ond the Cormnisaioners a�reed to hove another �pecial meeting to di�cuss the proposed changes to the Zoning Code on Wednesday� November l� 1978 at 7:30 P.M. Chairwoman Sehnabel declared the meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Respectfully Submitted: ��,��. �'�� Katk�y Shelton, Recording Secretary ---� CITY OF FRIALEY -• SpECIAL MEE,E`PING - APPEALS C�MPRSSION NOVI'.M6ER 1 1978 CALL� �' phairwoman Schnubel called the November l� 1978� 5pecial Meeting of the Appeals Co�ission to order at b:00 P.M. ROIS, CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Ms. Schnabel� Mr. ICemper� Mr. Ba�a Ms. Gabel� Mr. Ple�l •.. :. �-� I, PROP�ISID CHANGES TO CHAPTER 205 • 7�OPZING CODE: Ms. Schnabel read the deiinitions of "Fami7y" from the Minnesota Welfare Department. Ms. Schnabel stated that at the last meeting� they were concerned about l�aving a definition for "Occupancy Limit". The Couaaissioners developed the following definition pf "Occupancy I.imit": "For the purposES of health� safety snd welfare� the required ma�rimum ratio is two (2} persons per bedroom in a dwel7.ing unit". N�TIDN by Mr• Kemper, seconded by Nh'. Barna to bring to the Planning Commission.the definition oP "Yami�jt" and the definition of "occupancy limit" Yor their consideration and ask that a legal opinion be given on both definitions. UPON A VOICE VOTEy ALi. VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCIINABII. DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UI3ANID:OLISLY. The Commissioners conettrred with the folloWing reco�ended changes: 205.041 DECLARATION OF POLICY Page 10� #1: Delete woxd "morals". 205.0�+3 NON-CONFORMING i3SES AND STRt�TUitES . Page 11, #12: No junk Ya� �Y continue as a non-conforming use: accordinq to this proposed zoning ordinance� a j� yard is allowed only in an M-2 zone with a Special Use Permit� and the existing 3unk Yards cUxxently in the b1r1 2one are not allowed even with a Special Use Permit� therefore it appears they would either have to re-2aae their property or move. 205,O�k IAT PROVISIONS page 12� �2: there seem to be a couple of industrial lots where more than one principal building exists such as Onan and Medtron3cs. Fage 13� �: Change ta read: "Where the front yard setback of existing buildin$s within a distance of 100 Yeet on both sides of a atructure to be erected is more thun thc minimum front yard setback requircd� then the setback � for the said builciing coutd be 6 feet less oY the meart depth. (deleta worda "more or") In no case shull it be less tiian the requlred uuniminn setback for tLot zone". �� i Page 3�� 4-A Front Yard: �Add the Yoll.oiri.ng; "In special instance3 i:he Zotting Admi.niotrutor m�y pei�nit a eetback oi' not leas than 30 feet provided that i;he new aetback ie within 5£eet of the Sront yard setback oY any • adjacent otructures. � At tke October 24� 1978 Speeia7. Meetin� of the Appea].s Co�i.ssion, a dePittitioa of front yard setback was deveYoped. The definition was as So]1ows; the minivus7. disttwce from the pront property Zot ].ine to tlie Pront of the structure as defined by thic aale, The Cotmniesloners would like to cl�nge the word "minirnal" to "minimum", 205.Okj ACCESSORY Bi7ILDIP7G5 APID STRf�TURES Page i3, ��3; Tfie Cormnissioners would like a de£inition of "rooP houses"� snd recommend height limitAtions on wind mills and Ylag poles. Page 14, ��1+: The Co�mnisaioners reco�ended that this item be deI.eted. 205•047 AiFPOMOBILE PARKING Page 16� �3-D Apart�nt Hotel: The Commissioners recoam�ended that this item be either defined or deleted. Page 16� �3-M Hotel, Mote1, Tourist H¢me� Motor Hotel: The Co�i.ssioners would like a deYinition for "Tourist Home and "Motor Htel". Page 17� �3-W: The Commi.ssioners questioned the placement oY °Mis3iature GolY" here� and would like it justiPied. Page 17� #3-Y:Undertaking Establishments: Change heacling to "Mortusry". Page 17: The C�mniscioners would like "Townhouses" in th�s�section with garages and parking considered in the definition� simil,iar to the definition Yor two Pami�y dWe7lin�s. Page 19, G: Change to: "Except in a71 R-Zones, all parking snd hard surface area shell be:" 205.048 PEftFORbiANCE STANDARDS Page 20� �1-B: D2l.ete word "morals". Page 20j #3 B-2: De2ete all aY B-2. Page 21� D: Change to: "All loading and unloading facilities must be located in the rear or side yaz'ds, and be screened from all public right-of-waya or in within 50 teet of adjaceut xesidential zone� must be screened Kith a 6£oot solid screening fence." This is in uccordance rrith I-2 on page 19. Page 22� G: The Commissioners Would 3,ike to knoer where the words "rear lot parking area" are used elsevhere in tha document. Pnga 22� H: Inaert the word "wide" after "15 foot". Page 22� I: Inse�rt the word "s,ide" ai'ter "15 foot°. Page 22, #4-C; pdd xord "drainage° to end. � . ..r .. • �jt��ynL , i•1�:�{i111\V !1l L Ll1Y✓ vv� ` � �,.,. _ /, / 9 7 ._ Pagc 22� �%4-D: Cc�issi�era reccu,mend City Attorney check tho wording here. pagQ 22� �ES: Co�iesioners reco�oended that "A° and "B" be switched around; makc "B" first nnd "A" second. page 23� �5-C: Insert Teforestation plan and performance bond requi.rements either here or elsewhere in this document. Page 23� �/b-B: Cc�mi?sioners found the wording nmbi�uous and would 13ke to knov what "prevailing standar3s". ' Pa�e 23, �7-A: Deleie woxds "none except". The Co�enissioners suggeated that a self-contained� enviroamental]y approved� non-flush unit that does not leech into �round level be considered here. The Commissionera would also like to have it afYirmed that the local building administrators jurisdiction in this matter is legcal. Chairwoman Sclmabel adjourned tSe November l� 1978, Special Mee�ting of the Appeals Commission at 11:00 P.M. � ItESPECTFULLY SU9t�9.'PTED: Xatby�Sh lt�� Rec ding�Secretary 9 �• ! /""�� CITY OF FRIDLEY . SPECIAL 1�TIA'G - APf'EALS CON�tISSION� NOVF.MD�it 28� 1978 _ CALL TO ORDER: . Chsixn+oman Schnabel aelled thc Nrnember 28� 1978� Special Meeting oY the Appeals Co�niseion to order at 7;45 P.M. ROLL CA.T.L: Membera Rresent: Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Kemper, Ms. Csbel Members Absent: Mr. Barna, Mr. Plemel Others Present: Jerry Boardman I. PRCPOSED CHANGES TO CiU1PTER 205• ZONING CaDE: Ms. Schnabel informed the Ccmmissioners thst the Planning Commissian had suggested ttsat the minutes regarding the chanQes to the Zoning Ccde from sll the Co�lssions Ue consolidsted before they reach the Planning Co�ission. Mr, Bpardman stated that StafY had not planned to do that until after Planning hafl discussed the changes� because there vould be more changes from Planning. Ms. Schnabel stated that sbe had infor�ed tbe Plsnning Cc:r�mission that the AFPeals C�issi m vanted a deYinition of "Family" and °Occupsncy Linit" and that they had requested a legal opinion regarding these definitions. Ma. Schnabel stated that Planning Commission k:ad sug5este3 that they �rait nn getting a legsl opinion and elso suggested that they check into a Nfinneapolis ordinsnce regarding non-reloted people living in s dwelling. h3s. Schnabel stated that she ]wd cslZed biinneapolis City Hall today, end they couldn't locate the ordinance, but koirld ca11 Ms. Schnebel back tomorrw. Ms. Schnsbel stated they could discuss this at the next meeting after she obtained a copy of the Minneapolis ordinance. 205.0l+8 PERFORMAfiCE STANDARDS Page 23 - A-�-�vironmental: A. Explosives: Ma. Schnabel stated that she would like to have sc�ething in this aection regarding land alteration. Mr. Boaxdman stated this section dealt on�y vith materiels that could decompose by axplosion and felt that lrznd alteration Was a separate function, h1r. Boardman stated that they could store dynaaite at A land alterat3on site, but they kould need a license to do thst. Mr. Boardman stated that there Was another section in the cale which deals with land elteration. ' Mr. Kemper asked where all the specificatione under Environmental came from. Mr, Bc�ardman stated that these specifications were para-phrased from ordinances fr� Nex Brighten, Cwn Rupids� Fdina� ar.d ➢rook]yn Center. Most of these were 1n the original Fridley Ordinance, but the uoniing wae changed. . �-;,: �..�:a ��¢a,v�.ilu au.c�i�.nu efi'iCl11n> V41nM1�.71V1V�1VVYL'N�L'C:[( l0� l�jjii t'/)l.Ml A fJ�J Paga 23-C �8 - Erosion: � � �• Mr. Soardmen atated that in thla eection they rrere concerned that wi.th construction there xas a certain �mpunt of run-off that could affect the ndjacent property crvmer snd until now they bave not had anything that controlled erosion of nnother peraons' property. Ma. Sebnsbel asked Mr. Boardman if he meant that this vould contain a�ything regerding la� niteraticn. Mr. Boardman stated that Item fto. l under Erosion stated that e property ormer ves required to prevent wind or Water erosion, and to that point it would. Mr. Boardman stated that there r+as a separate ordinance on land alteration. Ms. Schnsbel asked if there sbould not be something in the code referring to the land alterstion ordittance. Mr. Boardman stated that when construction takes place� the person must get a permit, snd tbe permi.t review would cover land elteration. Other instances of land alteration, where there was not construction, would be covered in the land alteration ordinance. Ms, Gabel stated that she ogreed with Ms. Schnabel that some reference to the land alteration ordinance should be made here. Mr.-Boardman stated that land alteration real�y does not app],Y to the zoning ordinance� and that it was a separate ordinance. Ms. Schnabel stated that it did in that it eas more etringent in reganls to xatersrays than this appeared to be, and felt they should be tough on development in terms oP vater�rqys, such as ponding areas. Mr. Boardman atated that thoae things were being taken into consideration on page 23-D of the code. 205.052 AMENDME:VT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE Page 25, lst paragraph: Change to read: "Tl�e Council, from time to time� mqy adopt amendments to this ordinance." (Delete words: "by majority vote oP the entire Council".) 205.05k SPECIAL USE PERMPP ISSUANCE Psge 27: Ma. Schnabel etated she would like the following statement in here: "S�ecial Use be revieved periatical�y and�or u�an the sele of the business to Which it was granted". Ms. Schnabel stated tbat this would build in some type oP control over the Special Use Per�it. • Mr. Bosrdman stated that that would create a lot of extra paper work end probably wouldn't accomplish enough to meke it worthwhile. Handling it on n complaint basis srould seem'to work better. F , .:� � ' ' �'�c...�-��'• �Z�rv 18, 197ci �. -• Na. ICemp�r anked 1Y they cou13 check on it �ahen a piece of property changea handa. Idr. Boardrian etAted that they don't knox When property ia eold� because they don�t require businesa licences. Mr: Soardran atated thut the 5pecial Uae Fermit gces xikh the Uusinens� nvt With the peraon xhp owme the businesa. 205•05�+ vn�ran�cEs pege 28� �%�+: The C�issioners agreed that the firat paragraph shm ld be changed to resd: In residential (R-1 Zoning) areas the Appeals Co�i.ssion hae the authority to grant final aFPro-�a1 0£ variances when ell the fol].owing .- conditione are met: Page 28 #5: The Co�nissioners agreed that the Section i�umber in the ftrat para- graph should be changed. Page 28� #5-B: Ms. Se�nabel atated that Ha�ieh3ps had not been noted in recent Administrative Reports Yor varisnce requests a�3 �rov3.d like this to be required. Mr. Bosidmsn stated he wou].d look into this anci make sure it srould be done in the future� as it was already required. page 29� Parsgraph C: The Ca�iesioners agreeci that this paragraph ahou7.d be eHanged to read: "In reca�ending or approving a variance� subject to the conditians of Section 205.05�+ the Co�+nission and or the Council may impose conditions to ensure ca�pliance a�. to protect adjacent properties.'.' 205.055 Bv1�n�c �t�.*rs Ms. Gabel stated that when e Building Permit is issued� could there be a control as to �.�en the building must be ccBpZeted. bt�. Gabel mentioned one instance where co¢istruetion had been going on, in a residential areai for a period of 12 years, on one house. Mr. B�xdman stated that Builflin8 Permits ere re-newable� and there were not limitatiens on the time period necessary to complete censtruction. Mr. Boardmn stated he would check irith Darrell Clark and a2so with the State Building Caie to see vhat aontrols xere poasible. NSr. Kemper stated thst the charges for re-nesri��g a Buildin8 Permit should m�ybe be looked into. Page 29� ir�: �e CwLVissioners rsgreed that this should be changed to read: "In addition to other reQulations and requirements herein, ao building or use sha71 be permitted in any District nor shall existing lanci contoi:r or drezin- age be altered without a building permit and�or a lan3 elteration permit os provided in the City Co3e of Fridley. No such permit sh�.l.l be issued for aqy bui2ding or use not in cO�ormity with appZicable structural� saiety and sanitary re�ulations." . _l�...-; �' ' � , �3PECIltL MiPl'ING - APPF,ALS COTRdIS9I0N, T:OV�'�33ER ?_8� 197g PAG� •. � � V . , � 20$•071 R-1 DISTRICT RP:GULATSOtIS - USTS PERMTI'ITD � � Puge 32, �1-A: The Coaan:L�sioners agreed that this uhoul.d be changed to read: • - "Single-Saml�y dwel2inga" ruther than "Qne�frimily dwellin6s". Page 32, #1-B: The Coffinissionera egreed that the word "ns" should be deleted. Page 33, E: The Co�issioners agreed that a7.7. of "E" shou].d be deleted. Ms. Gabel ststed that she felt thia was jusi; a w�y to circ�vent the zoning process� and seemed to amount to spot-rezoning. 205.073 Lar x�o,urxEr�rrrs arm s��aacxs Page 34 -�+A: The CoIInnissioners agreed that the definition they had develoged at their Piovember l� 1978 meeting should be ac3ded here. The definition uas as follows: In special instencee t�e 'GOning Administrator may permit a setback of not less than 30 feet provided that the new setback is ;rithin 5 Peet of the front yanl setback of a�y adjacent structures." page 35 -�r�+C; The Co�issioners agreed that No. 1 and No. 2 shoutd be ca�bined� and read es follows: "A rear yard with a depth oi not less than 2j �ercent of the lot depth is required, with not less than 25 i'eet permiuted or more thsn 40 Peet requis'ed £or the main building except tnat eacessory buii:ii*�s , ms�y be built not less than three (3) feet f'ran aqy rear lot line not adjacenL to e street". - 205.07�+ �ulLnlr;G xE�.uit�t�nrrs page 35, �1 - Hei.ght: The Co�mmissioners agreed that the words "fran finished grade level" should be added at the gnd of this sentence. pe$e 35, #2 - Minim� Floor Area: Ms. Schnabel noted that DSr. Nedegsard� who had requested a varience ior a d�,-elling at 4526 -�d Street� d1d not need s variance for floor area because his lot wss 40 feet and less than 9�000 sqvare feet aad the requirement for a lot less than 9�000 square ieet �ras 768 square feet, not 1020 square feet. Tlie Co�oissioners a8reed tY�at the definition for Minimum Floor Area should require that a lot that F�as 9,� squsre feet or more must have 1020 square feet an the first floor includin3 an attached garage, and a lot t2�t eas less that 9�� square Yeet must bave 768 square feet on the first floor exelusive of attached garage or accessory buildin�s. The Cammissioners were also concerned about the terms "split- entry" and "split-level" and asked tbat Serry and Stsff work with this end develop some sui.table Fordir,� ior this. . 205.075 Paaxx��c �4.v�r.r�rrrs The Co�issioners agreed that the heftding "Garage Requirements" should be No. 1 under Parkin,q Requirements r.1th the fallowing definition; " All lotc hoving a mininn�n lot ares of 9�000 square feet or more shall have a mini.mum of one (1) single sta]1 garage. Then Generul Pxovision� would become No. 2 under Yarkirk3 Requirements. ' � �.:�.„t ,�yppEALS C�t+��tI5SI0N :�L"tING, JANUkItY 16� 1979 _ -___ PAGE 4 MOTION by t4r. Kemper� seconded by t�. Gabel to recotrmienci to Council approva2 of the request fo: varianee: pursuunt to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Cale to allow the enelosure of a loadin� dock at 77A0 Deech Street N.'E.� which will reduce the required side yard se'tbuck from 25 feet to 3 feet, crith the .tipulation that the vacation be epprwed and 1;k�at the �tructure comply �dth tY,e fiuilding Cale. tJPOTI A VOICE V�'E, ALL VQTING AYE� C?iAIRWOMAN SCfINABEL D�CLAFiED THE M�PION CAFtRIED UTANIMOUSLY. _ Ms. Schnabel atet°d that the Appeals Commission would like to alert the City Council to the "Exterior Improver:ents Checklist" with regards to the parking lot� curbing� and refuse container screening. 3. COPITII�'[J�'9: FIN.9L 1�CONP�'�'P�aTIOPIS 0?? PROPOSF?D CY_AP?GES TO CFAP`i'ER 205• ZONIP?G: Ms. Gabel asked iP Mr. Boardman had found ax�ything out about time limi.ts on building permits. i4r. Boardman stated he had not� but would look into it. The Comnissioners concurred with the following recoimnended changes: 205.081 USES PERTilTTiD P.age 36 �l-B: Delete "one-family dwellinb'� and insert "single-fami�y dwellin;". Pa�e 36 �2-C: Because oi this item� the Co�issioners would like �he 3efir.i.ti.on oY "Guest Rocm" retained in the "Definitions" section of che dacument. 205.083 LOT FU?aUII?�3FSRI'S ATdD SBT'iACP'�'w page 38 #3 - Lot Coverage: Delete "25;��" and insert "30$". Pa�e 38 �B-3: Ms. Schnabel stated this siatement allowed a 2-Yamily dwelling to be built without a garage. In R-1� the Aopesls Commission had recorm-..ended that e�y lot of 9�000 square feet of r�ininum area should have a minimum of a single-sta11 garage. Ms. Gabel stated they should t� consistent. Mr. Boardnan stated they did not have a garage requirement for a three-facnily unit. Mr. Boardm.an stated he had reservations about requiring garages. The Co�uunity Development Commission had come nut in favor of not having garage requirements. Ms. Schnabel stated the current code required a 1 1�2 stall garage for each dwelling unit. Mr. Boardm�n ctated the Metr000litan Council and the League of MinnesotA t•;unicipaSities Were 2eaniry� towards the elimination of garage requirements� and also excessive lot . requirements. Ms. 8chzsabel �tated t2�at as a ec�nunity� they were pretty well developed and up to this time� they have required garAges. By requiring a garage� they would be protecting thuse residents vho are already here nnd liuve garagesi from the unci�ht]y pollution of neW, stnictures coming in without saragec if there was a storage problem. ,'tROardman ctated that mo�t people would put up a garc+�e� and by not requiring. r�rnge^, ii; tiauld leave people the option i;o put the garn�,e an at the time of . cunstruction� or at ta luter time uhen they could �fford it. ��Ma. Gabel stated ehe agreed with Ms. Schnabel. � Mr, Ke�per stated he was in favor of not changing the eacisting code and agreed with Me. Schnabel also. M�, Sc'nnabel stated they should continue the di�cussion when the reached the parking requirements on page 39• page 38 #B_3: Delete the word "future"� and change the word "for" to the word "to". Page 38 �B-5� �elete the first "three"� this was a typing error. Page 38 �{C-1&2: Combine �1 and ��2 to make one paragraph� and delete the words "as fol].ows". Page 38 �i�-5� Delete "three �eet" and insert "five feet". 20�,084 Buildin�Requirements Page 39 �l-Hei�ht: Insert at end "from finished grade level". Page 39 7'2-I�.i.nimum Floor Area: Ms. Schnabel referred back to the recoicmendation they had made for minimwn Yloor area in A-1 which reads as follows: ":, lot that wae 9�000 square feef or more must have 1020 square fe�t on the first floor including an attached garage, and a lot that was less tt�an 9�000 square feet must have 768 squ�re feet on the fir�t floor er.clusive o: attached garage or acceseory buildin�s". Ms. Schnabel ctated the existing co3e for minimum floor area in P.-2 reads as follo�.r. "In a two-�'ami7y dwelling� the mininam flocr area shall be 1400 square feet total� the minimum livin� area o£ any unit �hall be 650 square feet. In no case shall the first floor az'ea be less than 768 square feet". The Co�issioners reco�ended tPat the existing code for minimum floor area in R-2 be setained. ." The Commissioners recoc¢aended that the definitiott they had developed for mini.mum floor area i.n R-1 be changed io read as follows: A lot that was 9�000 square feet or more must have 1020 square feet on the first floor which could include an attached garage� and a lot that was less than 9,000 square Yeet mush have 7 square feet on the first floor exclusive of attached garage or accessory buildings". 205.085 Parkina Requirements Pa e 39: Change "#1" to "�2" and "�2" to "#3° and insert a new "�1" which would.read: 8 "A 1 1�2 stall garAge shall be required for each dvelling unit". 205.094 nun.Drnc �:A,u�:rWrrrs page 43 �<4: Ms. Schnabel and Dis. Gabel questioned vhether they had a�y apartment units that were nt that lower level� with Y�alf above and half below ground� with m�re thun 2 bedrooms. .� �_�� - �y �`�.'� ��' � �'}�1pTZOP7 by 15r. Ycmper, :,econded Uy t4a. Gubcl to recoumiend i:o Couneil �pprovol of the rec` jucr,t for varirance purouiml; Lo Chapi;er 20j of the I�ridlcy City Cale to ullow i;he enclouure of o loadin� dock ut 7(1�0 Peech Strcet Ii.r.� which will reduce the required side yc�rd ccCback from 25 1'eet to 3 Tect, with the ^i:inulu�Ci.on Lhai; i;lie vacation be ��roved �n3 thst the cLructure comnl.y Zri.t,h thc }.uildinq Ucde. UPOiI A VOICE VOTEI ALL VOTIN+G AYF.J C?iAIRY70DW7 SC}Q`IAEEL DECLAR�D TF� MdPION CARRIED ��1ATJII;OUSLY. . Ms. Schnabel �tat°d i;hat the Appeals Co*mnissicn would like to alert the City Council to the "Exterior I�orover.eni;s Check7.ist" with regards to i;he parkin� lot� curbing, and refuse container screenin�r. . 3, corrrir�• rIA'.4L RECOI�`L "iD:ATIOPIS 0'? PROPOST'D CEAP?GES TO CI.AI'TF.R 205. ZONIP?G: Ms. Cabel asked if t�r. Boardman had fovnd aqything out aboui: tine litnits on buildir.g permits. t�. Bo�rdman stated he had noi;� but would ],00k into it. The Corrmissioners concurred with the follooting recor.uaended changes: 205.081 USBS PEi?;4ITT�D Page 36 �1-B: Delete "one-fami]y dwelling"� and insert "single-fami2,y dwe11in3"• Page 36 �-C; Because of this item� the Cc:snissioners woul.d lil;e the defir.i.tion of "Guest`Rocm° retained in the "Definitions" section of i:he document. 205.083 LOT R"•�i1IItE,.'"��I7`'i'S A?SD 5F'TiP.CI� Pa�e 38 �3 - Lot Coverage Delete ��250�� and insert °30p��. Page 3S �B-3: Ms. Schnabel stated this s�COtement allowed a 2-P2mily daelling to be built without a garage. In R-1, the Appe3ls Conmission iiad reco�-ended that any lot of 9�000 sqi;are feet of nininum area should have a minimum of a single-stall garage. b9s. Gabel stated they should tae consistent. Ai�•. Boardr„an stated they did not have a garage requirement for a three-family unit. Mr. Roarde�an stated he had reservations about requirir� gaxa�es. The t;ounnunii:y Development Comcaission had come uut in favor of not havin6 garage requirements. Ms. Schnabel stated the current code required a 1 1�2 stall garage for each dwelling unit. Atr. BoArdr.�n stuted the Aletropolitan Council und the Len�ue of Minnesota 2•`:unicip�lities Ncre leonirZ; Lowards the eliraina�ion of �arage reqtti.rement�� and also excessive lot . reguirements. b1e. Sclu�.nbel �tated ttwt ns a ccmr�unity� they were pretty wcll developed nnd up to this tinie� they have required car:�;es. I�y requiring q garage� they would be protecting those residents Wiio ure alre�dy hcre und iiavc �nieges� fro:� tlae w�oi�iit],y pollut'ien of new, structures ec�r�ing in �+11;hout garage;, if thcre was a stornCe problem. ��.i�� , COMtdISSIOM MEETINC, JANUNRY 16, 1979 PA� 7 ��fU �.20081.andacapin¢ . . t'age 80 �f2-A�B�C; tde. Gabel queationed wl�y thi� section had been deleted. Thia section referred to site improvementc in ITyde Park. Mr. IIoardman stated they bad replaced this with a more extensive requirement in maintenance. Ms. Gabel �tsted she felt the wording in HTaintenance was better� but would not like to eee any sipnificant changes rmde to the F[yde Park area. Ms. Schnabel asked iP the requirement� in S-1 were geared towards development of land that vas currently vacant� or could this be used by existing areas such as I�yde Park. Mr. IIoardman stated ii; could be used by an area such as Hyde Park.� Ms. Schnabel asked who then would be responsible Por developing a land use component� circulation component� popu].ation component, etc. Mr. Boardm�n stated that in a situation like �}rde Park� the City would take that responsibility. Ms. Gabel stated she felt Hyde Park was a special district� but didn't seem to fit the rest of these regulations very well and suggested it could cause problems if they include F�yde Park in this section. Ms, Schnabel suggested they add a section to the code for existing developed areas. Mr. Boardman agreed� and suggested they insert it after 205•193• 205.193 5pecial District for Townhouse Develoument • Page 76: Mr. Eoardman stated that after discussing this section with the City Manager and Community Development, it was decided that this section would be re-located to the section rehind the R llistricts and the heading would be changed to "Additional Restrict- ions for Towhhouse Development. It would placed after the R-3 section. Mr. Boardman stated they would be adding a new section entitled "0 Districts". They have a lot of "ovexlay" districts such as the floo3 plain and shore land management regulations, critical areas� etc. They would be setting up a regulation for overlays. This would be at the end of the document, so they would be able to make changes with- out changing nwubers throughout the book. The Commissioners agreed. Mr. Boardman asked if the Co�issioners had any probZems regarding the way the document was layed out. • Ms. Schnabel stated they preferred the way the existing code xas layed out because everythirk; was in a district by itself� and people didn't have to go through ma:�y diYferent arees to find what they wanted. . �� `� j�EALS Cat�tqS5I0r1 �a.TZric �ntvun:ci io ,.yr7 �` /6 -� �, }�, Boardman atuted the existing document Was not resl�y layed out that way. There WAa a section in the back with �dditional restrictions ?or a11 di�tricts. tds. Schnabel stated they did not liY.e the way the first part of the proposed document �rae layed out. The exiatin� document waa easier for the public ar.d the Ccmmi�sionere to read. Also� they felt i�&at the way trie proposed document wae layed out� there was a chance to miss things. �; � � � �, � � � <, 2dr, Boardraan stated he did not see the advrantage of repeating thin�s such as parking restrictions for each distrlct, envirornnental restrictions for each district, etc. He felt tiwt would edd a lot of bull: to the document� up to 4 or 5 pa�es per section. Mr, Boardman stated that khen the public comes in� they woul.d not give tbem the entire zonin6 code, but only a copy of the district involved and they aould attach a copy of the edditional restrictions coi�cerned_with that district. The proposed document would �ve the same restrictions� but they would not be repeated so often. Also, the pro- posed document was c�ore of an operating document and would be easier for Staff.. The existir.� document was difficult Yor Sta£f to interpret especially in regards to parking requirements. Mr. Kemper stated he was in favor of keeping the bulk down� and suggested that an lndex wovld help. N,r, Boardman s�ated they planned on having an index. Ms. Gabel ststed she agreed with Ns. Schnabel� and pre£erred the way the existing dpeument was 1aYed out. $. pTHIIt_BUSII�SS: Ms, Schnabel stzied that pages 3 and 4 of the December 4� 1978 City Council mi.nutes rePer to the NedegaaYd Construction Compa�Y at �526 2nd Street. fihere was some con- fueion as to what they should be doing rs�during whichrtimesthe ppeals Co�issions a motion to table tha request for 90 day zaa� to review it again in light of the City Council',s memo and co�nts that th° City would have to come up with a statenent as to what w�y and to what degree thi� pequest was different from those tha� had been denied. Ms. Schnabel staied thet at another time they would be instructed to re-cansider this request. Ms. Gabel stated she understood from the January meeting� they would send 3t back before the 90 days were up. Mr, Boardman stated that Staff had understoal it wou].d remain tabled for 90 days and then come bsck to Appeals. Air. Kemper asked if there would be a new announcement of the public hearing. Ms. Schnabel stated she felt they shauld. �r, goardman stated that legally they would ttot be required.to make another announcement. Ms. Schnabel �tated that in all fairness� an flnnouncement should go out. Mr, Hoardman agreed. � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COT�ffSSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 28, 1979 CALL TO ORDER: Chairn�n Harris called the February 28, 1979� meeting of the Planning Commi�sion to order st 7:45 P.M. ROLL CAIS,: Members Present: Mr. Eiarris, Mr. Storla, Ms. Schnabel, Ma. Modig (in place of Mr. Oquist) Membere Absent; Mr. Oquist, Mr. Peteraon, Mr. Langenfeld (arrive8 at 8:15 P.M.) Others Present: Mr. Boardman, City Planner 1. APPROVE PLAIQNING COA4ffSSI0N MINUPES: JANUARY 24, 1 79: MUTION by Me. Modig, seconded by Mr. Storla, to apprme the January 24, 1979, m�es of the Planning Coffinission as rrritten. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTII3G AYE, CAAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. REQUEST FOR p IAT SPLIT L.S. 9-01, BY MARVIN AND ROBERT ERICKSOId: Split o t e es�ri terly .9 feet o ��Aud tcr e S�i�ciivis on�� to make tvo building sites for double bungalows, the same being 1285-$7 and 1295-9T Norton Avenue N.E. MOTION by A4r. Storla� seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to table lot split requeet� L.S. �9-�, This item tabled at the petitioners request. UPUN A VOICE VO'FE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN I�ARRIS DECLARID THE MOTION CARRIED tfNANIMOUSLY . 3. corrr�: PxoPOSEn cxarrcES To c�,rm�a ao5. zo�rrc: MCYPION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Ms. Modig� to receive minutes fr� Member � seions on proposed changea and to receive the minutes of the Cozmnunity Development Co�iseion of November 14� i978. UPON p VOICE VOTE, AIS, VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARID THE MOTIOId CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Board�n atated he had gone through the minutes of the Appeals Co�ission and the C�unity Development Cc�iesion and raeorded th�ir recommended ctaenges in hia book. The Environmental Quslity Comaeissivn t�d not made any specific reeo�endatione, so they could discuss tbpse minutes later. Mr. B�rdman suggested they go through the book page by page, the s�qy the Co�issiona did� aud they could diecu�s sa they r,+ent along. Mr. Aarris egreed. Mr. Boardmsn atated they could then go back and make additi�nal com�nts or changes aftor thay had gone through the Whole book. 4 PLANNING CO2�4ffSSI0N Nl�E'PING, FEBRUARY 28, 1979 paGE 2 4 p Ms. Schnabel suggested they receive the minutea on the agenda first and then go bsek to this. MQTION by Ms. Sehnabel, seconded by Mr. Storls, to continue the progosed changes to G�hapter 205. Zoning, until the end of the mea�ting. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARID TAE MOTION CARRIED 4. RECEIVE HUMAN RESO[R2CES CObAffSSION MiNITPES: FEBRUARY 1� i979: MOTION by Dh�. Storla� seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to receive the February 1, 1979, �n Resourcea Co�isaion minutes. Mr. Storla stated that Ms. Swanson had reported on the activities of the Fine Arts Committee. Her report was very acurate. Aleo� on the laet page of the minutes, Mr. Storla noted that there �ras a training program on Februaxy 24th for the new Memorandumi oY Agreement. The training seseion lasted a6out hours and the Hwnan Resrnu�ces C�teaion irill discuss it tamorrcn,�. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL jiOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE I�TION CARR� UNANIMOUSLY. 5. x�� .a��s cora�ssrorr �riv�s: r�BxuaRY 13, 1g79s I�%YSION by Ma. 3chnabel, seconded by Me. Modig, to receive the February 13r 1979, Ag �a C�isaion minutea. Ms. Schnabel stated they had spent quite a bit af time diecussing the request on the aubetandard lot on 2� Street. This request had cam�e before the Appeals Com�isaion in Nwember� it went through the Planning C�ission and the Planniag Ca�isaion had recoa�ended to Council that the request be tabled for 90 d�ys. The 90 days ie up, a� Couacil had seked Appeals to revisw the request again because they had received two ne*a piecea of information. AYter reviewing the requeat, the Appeale Caam�ission decided they were on target the first time. Mr. Harris esked �ahat the new information vae. Ms. Schnabel atated that in Nwember they were told the house rra� condeffiable, that the City viewed the house se e condemnable piece of property and the City would be inclined to condeemm it and rsould order it torn do�m. It turns out that in £act the City does not look at that piece of property in that light at all and think that the bu3lding is rehebi3itaiale. They were also told verbally at the November meeting tt�t approval of building on this property probably would not effect the court case. They were told that this wea the opinion of the City Attorney. A Week or so later, they received a letter from the Gity Attorney ia which he said it probab�y could efYeat the court case. Ms. Schnabel stated that their feeling was that there would have to be ao mueh renovatipa done if it was to be just renovated. The structure orignislly tras a Chicken coop and at some p�int someone moved into it. It is in bad ak�pe snd atructurally it needs a lot of work. The Appeals C�ission felt that bq permitting this to be done� in a sense, they really would be going at a lot renovation rather than a11oF+ing building on a 40 Poot lat. As Mr. Barna stated on page 8 oi the minutes, it would he a rehabilitation of the lot retber than a rehs�bilitation of the house, as oppoaed to starting out with a vacant 40 Foot lot end sllorring eom�thing to be bui2t on it. They Ytlt this was a real distinetion. They did not ieei thie would prtjwdice the c�urt case beeauee oP this distinetion. PLAIQNIPTG CQAR�ffS5I0N MEETING, FEBRUARY 28, 1979 PAGE 3 4 B Ms. Schnebel aleo noted that in this ease, this was rehabilitation that the neighbors vanted� and Sn the other cases, the neighbors did not F*ant it. Mr. Aarria stated he agreed With Mr. Herrick that it would have a bearing on the case. Ms. 3chnabel statsd their distinction was tHat moat of the other 40 foot lots were en[pty and are curreatly empty. This lpt hsd been occupied by a strueture that people have been living in for 20 some years. They looked at it as rehab- ilitation� a� opposed to allowing a new structure to be built on an empty 40 Poot lot. The Co�i.ssion reconm�ended to Council again� that this petit3on be apprwed . Ms. Modig etated that if they srere going to tesr it down and etart over, it would be a vacant lot at some point. Ms. 3chnabel atated it would be vacant for on],y a mini.mal amount of time. It�s not like it z+as slWays vacant. Mr, Harris stated that it appeared to him that the Building Inspection Departu�nt said tk�at it was a marginal building at best. N�r. Harris stated that the minutes atated that Mr. Clark said that the electrical, heating and plumbing was not all that bad. Structurally, the floor joists xere over spanned, the rafters were aver- spanned, and it ►ras hard to tell vrhat was in the rrallc. Mr. Harris noted that the setback of the exiatin� atnzeture vras 20 feet fram the street. Nis. Schnabel stated the setbaek Paa� the proposed atructure would be 30 feet. Mr. Harris stated he was concerned about several thinqs here and aeked Mr. Boardmen whgn the City firet had a building code. Mr, Boardman stated he thought it came around 1959 or 1960. Mr. Harris atatecl he wondered hox they got into thie place and hrna they got services such as electrical and plumbing. It had to be inspected by the State Electrical Inapector. Mr. Board�n stated the old Yiles did not contain mueh inYormetion to help on this question. Mr. Eiarris stated that the existing house boardere on being unfit for hvmsn hsbitation. Ms. 3chnabel stated it probably was and the City would not a11oF+ it to be rented out again, but the o�mer epuld live in it if eh� wsnted. Mr. Harris asked if the house tiras presently vacattt. Ms. Schnabel stated it was. Mr. Asrris aeked what Mz'. Herrick's opinion was on this. Me. Schnabel read a portion ef the letter from Mr. Herrick dsted November 21�, 1979 aa follaws: PI�ANPIIRK's C0IMISSI011 t�;'T'IP�FE:?RUARY 28� ].979 - PAGE k 4 C "As you and the.members of the Agneals Co:n�.ission�knaa, the grantin� of a variance is d�scretiorary wlth tre City. It should be done only tahcre there are vnique circumstance:. that impo.^>e a hardship upon t!�e owners of the pronerty. This hard- chip must be one that waa nat self-icnposed or eesamed when the b�er acouired the property. In this perticular circumstance, it appears that there is a diZapidated house on a 1+0 foot lot. This, of course, is a non-confo:min6 us� under our existing ordinance. Generally speaking, non-conforciing uses are not to »e encoura�ed. Ti:e inter:t ia allowirg a non-conforming use is to paxmit the owiier to use the property for its useful liYe aad then to have it removed. : In this particular case� it Nould appear that the City's options *.+oul.d be two: 1. To de�lare the building ur_fit Yor habitation and hazardous and ha�•e it remmred. 2. To grant the request for variance and allow ths constructior_ of a new buildir�. The m°rits of the two alternatives should be consi.dered by t*�e Appeals Ceirmiseion and the Couneil before making tk:e Yinal decision. 2 believe that th°_ granting of the request might well create so�e proble:� fcr the City as far as existing and futur� requests £or construction on 40 foot p2.rcels. If 1t is granted, the City wouI.d have to i�ake a Fosition that the circu�sta^ces 3n this case were differeat: 1) because there was already a house on that lot, which ereated a substsntially greater hardshi.n on the owner tH�n in thcse situations where the loi: was vacant; 2) th�t the granti.�:� of {:he var=ance wes co.^_patiY,le with tBe nei�hborhoad and would not have an ad•:ers� eY_°ect on the propert;/ ralnes of the adjacenti properties or the health, saYety a.nd welfare ef the surrcvn8in� residential area. In order to ar�us successfutl.y the latter point� it �: �SS.d be necessary to l:ave facts and £igures thai �:ould difierentiGte the neighborhood in this situation from neiahborhoa3s where other requests have beer_ made."` N1s. hto3ig noted that there were other houses near there on 40 fcot lots. iQs. Schnabel stated there v:ere six on that blocic includir.g one i:�.ne3iately ad�iacent. 2�,r. ?'arris asked iY th�re was any available vacant property on eith�r side o: this lot. bis. Schnabel €tated there ��:as no �.oper`+.y a�4ila�l_e, there �re ho�.ses cn boih sides, (�.,I:d the �e:ie to t.:tC IlOxt.tl j.5 Q�� 00� I.Ot.. i'�Cl•� fOi7ce C:7 t.IIC !FQ f00�.: �Q� 1S S�i:.'_7.3L' to the propesed struciure. !'r. 'i�rr_s s'.� t.ed t'.:.,t i.. thi:: psrti..^.u1er e, se, t'_�eir recc?ns:enciltio:, �r�.s ti:e best of the a1teT•nat.ives a��3ila' 1e. G•• •a l ^f i:E`il t:18'" CIlf3 : Ct S°: "••••' +;;�('-T W".3' t0 0. �if �hc • left lt �i::1C':'C 3.� � ��;. .t.1tP. ��f.. . C y . u.,f U ✓ ("i ✓ f z�ould teco�e a r.u,in:lce� A t22��?'Cl and would hare a dcter:iorati:i; effec+ on �"e nei;: ?i� ori:uo9 . I"r. :?arris sts�i;cd he ��as couccrned {;hnt ihis si�!.aiion has exi.^,ted for 20 years a�:d no'tl�i!�.�, wa. clone atout it, that in tt,is day and a;e, people we^e livin;; in chic:en coors. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 28, �979 pA�E 5 4 D Ms. Schnabel state8 that the other side of it was the fact that the present ormer was in a nursing home and she hae a potentisl b�er. We don't know her finan¢ial circumstances� but maybe ahe needs the money. P]�yaically, she is unable to do an,y- thing vi.th the property her9elP. IP they denied this, they would be placing a burden on her: Mr. Iangenfeld stated that in approving this requestr the Appeals Com�mission ahould note the special circumstances so as not to set a precedent. Ms. Schuabel atated they Yelt this was a unique situation iroxn other 40 foot lots because this had a structure on it where the other 40 foot lota were vacant. Ms. Schnabel reiterated Mr. Barna's statement that this was really rehabilitation of the lot. Ms. Modig asked ii thia would go on to Council. Mr. Harris at�ted it would. Mr. Harris noted they had tabled the item in Riverview Heights. Ms. Sehnabel stated they had becauae the petitianer vas not prepared. Mr. B�rdmen stated they had received anotfler request in the same area, just north of this one. Mr. Boardman �uggested that the Planning Co�ission reco�aend a moratorium on building in thst area, Mr. Aarr3a stated they vould have to discuse that iasue, and make a recoa�mendation to Council. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED NRYSION CARRIED UNANI2+]OUSLY. 6. RECEIVE CoMMtnvITY DEVELOPMENT MIN[7PES: FEBRUARY 13, 1979: hX1TI0N by Ms, Modig, seco�led by Mr. Langenfeld, to receive the February 13� 1979, �i�nmity Development C�isaion minutes. A4r, Langenfeld stated that on gege 3, the second paragraphr Mr. Boardman stated there was an alternative route to Osborne Road by dropping down and using 73rd Ave. ae soon as posaible past Ea&t River Road. Mr. I,angenPeld askcd what they meant by "as soon as poesible paat East River Road.° Ms. Modig stated they eere coneerned about the changing of the strippin� on Mississippi and beceuse they have a lot of bike traffic� they want to get something going on this. According to the way the bikewe�ys vere set up, there was the possibility that changes �rould have to be made with rerouting an8 they wanted to get going on the alternatives. Mr, Bosrdman stated that the Word "paet" meybe shoul8n't have been used. They meant to say " using 73rd Ave. ae soon as posaible to eonnect up to East River Road." Ns. Boardman stated they could use Coa�erce or they do have bike easements in behind the industrial properties that go up to Osborne. They will have to use Osborne a little bit, and could probably keep eouth of Osborne on some easements, to get across the tract�. It looks like Oaborne Road will go to four lanes in that area too. So they t�ad better etart planning right now to get dovn to 73rd. They can go on the street on 73rd. PLANNING COD4dL33I0N MEETING, FEBRUARY 28, 1979 _ pp� 6 _ 4 E Mr. Harris stated if they get the singlization on 69tn which Couneil apparent�jr pa�sed on Monday night� that would help. Ms. tdodig stated she felt strongly about aomething being done about the bikewr�y on Miseissippi. The County said they should have four lanes of traPfie svailable there� but they allrnr perking so they still have on�y trro lanes of traPFic� and bicycles beeides. In the minutes, they indicated they would like to see sam�thing done sbout takittg over the boulevard area between the sidewalk and the atreet and allow the b3kes to go there, either on one side of the street or the other. Mr. Flarris stated thet use oY the boulevards �ras not a panacea either, because that puts the bicyele and pedestrian traffic side by side. Hox could they keep them sepsrateY Mr. Boprdman stated tbat right now, on 73rd they don't have the type of traYYic that they would need to go ofP-street. But they should plan to go off-street at a later time. Mississippi Street would have to be ofP-street, on the sidewalk. Mr. Harris asked if it would be wise to mix pedestrian trafiic with bicycles. Mr. Bosrdman stated they could blaektop it, msrk it with stripping and mark it bikea or pedestrian, and try to keep them separated that way. He didn�t know iP it vrould work that well, but they don't have ro� Yor bikes on the road. Their only alter- netive rrovld be to eliminate Miaeieaippi Street as a bikeway system. Mr. IangenPeld stated he would be against s caanbined bikeway�pedestrian system nesr the aeniar area. Mr. Harris and Ms. Modig agreed vith h1r. Len�enfeld. A�. Boardman stated they hed also talked about heving the bikewey on one side and the �+alkway on the other, but they �aould still have the use of that Pacility for pedestrian. If anyone �+ants to get to Ho11y Center� they would have to cross over to the north side. A�. Boardman stated that during the revitilization of the doFm- trnm area, they could plan the bike and wa].kWr�y system into the area. Ms. Modig atated she would like to see the psrking taken oYY, but they couldn't take the perking aWay fx'om the residents. Ms. N�dig asked if it was used as a four lane road. Ms. 3chnabel stated it was. Mr. Harria stated that in the future they might heve to limit parking. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN IiARRIS DECLARID THE h�TION CARRIID UNAI�TIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel stated they should act on the motion on page 3 of the minutea. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Storla, thst the Planning Commission reco�end ha the bikeway system be continued on Miasissippi Strcet with off-street biking� and to recc�end that an alternative bikevay route for Osborne Road be the use of 73rd Avenue as soon as possible past East River Road. Ms. Sehnabel asked if in the recaa�endation for Mississippi Street they were taking a position as to where it should be. PLANNING COI�MdISSION MEEPING, FEBRUARY 28� 1979 - PAGE 7 4 F M�. Modig stated the poaition zras to figure out some alternative to what they have. They had mentioned the boulevard or having it on on�y one side of the atreet. There really wasn�t a great solution to ar;y of it. HopeYully, they can find same type of solution because even if they take the bikewqy system off, pcople will still use it for biking and that could be dangerous. Their opinion Wes to do samething to eliminate as much danger as poasible. LiPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARID THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIJSLY. 7. RECEIVE ENVIROPIMENTAL gUALPPY COPM�ff5SI0N MINVPES: JAN[TARY 16, 1979: M(7rI0Y by Mr. Langenfeld� aeconded by Ms. Schnabel, to receive the January 16� 1979a �nmental Quality Coffinission minutes, and the letter dated January 12� 1q79 frami Sohn Bolsnd oY tha Metropolitan Council, Apd also the letter dated January 5, 1979 from C].aude C. 5chmidt of the Metropolitsn Airports Co�ission. Mr. I.�ngenYeld stated that most of the minutes were items thst had been discussed 2sat time. Mr. Harris reierred to the motion on page 7 regarding the letter from the Charter Co�mi.esion. Mr. I.angenfeld stated they had received the letter and had discussed and acted upon it. Mr. Lsngenfeld stated that the Co�ission's next series oY minutes would answer a lat oY these items. Mr. Lewgenfeld asked Mr. Boardman if there wes an oxdinance regarding junk cars b�cause they had a,situation vhere there were 4 or 5 cars parked Yor over two years. Also� there �ras a problem with multiple occupancy in one part of a dwelling. People were moving out beceuse soa�e young people were creating a multiple living situation. Could ax�ything be done? Mr. Boax�dman stated iP the vehic3e was operable and had s current license� they could not do ar�ything about it. tAr. Boardman aeked Mr. Langenfeld where it was located end stated he would have someane look into it. Ah•. I,angenield stated it *aas loeeted at 100 63� Wqy. Mr. Lengenfeld stated the letters from the Metropolitan Council and the Metrapolitan Airports Co�ission were replies from letters he had written to them. UPON A VOICE VO'1'E� ALL VOTING AYE� CfiATRMAN FIARRIS DECLARED TF�' MOTION CARRIID UNANI2�USLY . 8. RECEIVE EI�RGY PR0.3ECT CONAYITTEE NIINVPES; 3ANUARY 17� 1979: A�LION by Mr. I,engenfeld, secomied by Ms. Schnabel, to receive the January 17, 1979, n� ergy Project Cm�ittee minutes. Mr. Storla asked what 0 and P stood for on the last page. Mr. Harris stated that "0" meant oil and "P" meant propane. PLANPIING COLH�fISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 28, 1q79 PAGE 8 � G �. Langenfeld ststed that the Mr. AnBerson mentioaed in the top paragragb oY page 3 was vith MinnigasCo, not NSP, Mr. Langenfeld also noted that on page 6 of the minutea, in the fiith garagraph, "12,000 hours" ehould read "24,000 hours". Ah�. I.angenfeld stated coneern wea expressed at the laet meeting regarding the goals �nd objectives, and deciding exaci�y what their goals should be. It was very easy to get sidetracted on technical things. They will discuss goals at their next meeting. Mr. Aarris brought the fifth paragraph on page 8 to the attention of the Commissioners. Thie paragraph referred to the Energy Agency. UPON A VOICE VO'1'E, AIS, VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARID THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIN�USLY. 9. CONTINUED: PROPOSID CHANGES TO CHAPTER 205, ZOPiING: Mr, Boardman stated thet the folloc�ing recommended changes were made by the Appeals Commission and the Coam�unity Develapment C�ission: 2o5.oi Pvxros� Psge 1, first paragraph: Appeals Commission reco�ended they delete the word "morals". ��:02 GOALS Page 1, #2: Appeals Commission recommended they delete this statement altogether. Ms. Schnabel stated they Yelt this tras wordy and really didn't say a�ything great and the goals should say vhat the Zoning Ordinance can do and this state- ment doesn't do that. The Co�issioners concurred. Page 1, #3: Appeals and Coa�unity Development recot�ended thie statement read: "To promote sound lsnd management snd�r redevelopment oY the community". The Co�issioners concurred. Page 1, �+: Planning Cmr�ission recommended they delete the word "ensure" snd insert the word "promote". Page 1� �j: Planning Commiss3on recoaanended they delete the word "secure" and insert the word "promote°. page 2, #7: Planning Commisaion recoffinended thoy delete the word "assure" and insert the word "promote". __ _Page 2, #9: Mr. BoarFiman stated they_should delete word "and" ,�nd insert Word "an". Page 2, #10: Appeals and Co�nunity Development recommended they delete word "upgrade" arni insert the xord "maintain". `i'he Ca�tiseioners concurred. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING� FEBRU.4RY 28� 1979 PAGE 9 4 H 205.03 v��xrrzoNs Page 2� #3 APARTMENP: Appeals reco�ended this d�finition be retained. it had bees-deletod. Mr. Boerdmsn stated it was deleted because they felt the definition of apartment xas clear and they didn't need it. Ms. 3chnabel stated they Yelt when s reference was made in the text to something epeciPic like "apartment", there should be a definition for it. Mr. Boardman stated some terms were common enough that they felt it didn't need to be defined. Ms. Schnabel stated that since there wes a deYinition Por hotel and motel� there �hould be a dietinction msde and a definition for epartment. Mr. Boardman stated he had no problem vith retaining it. The Coamissioners agreed to retain the definition oY apartment. Page 2, New #3 ARTERIAL SPRF�7PS: Coamunity Development recou�ended they change the heading to read: "STREETS, ARTERIAL". They also recommended they delete the word "thorou�hPare" and insert the word "tranaportation". The Coummiseioners concurred. Page 2� #4 AiTPOMOBILE MAJOR REPAIR: Coum�unity Devalopment recommended they change heading to read: '� VEHICLE MAJOR REPAIR". Ns. Asrris stated that wou3d include motorcyeles� snmrmobiles,outboarfl motors, automobiles� tractors� etc. There is e big difference betsreen tearing down a motor- cyele engine and a automobile engine. Mr. Boardman stated that if there were going to change that to motor vehicle, they should have a de£initi� oP motor vehicle. They Would limit the size when they get into what_a gar�ge is. Mr. Harris stated tkiat rras fine as long as they covered it somewhere. The Coramissioners concurred they needed a definition Por motor vehicle. Page 2: Co�nnity Development questioned vrhether they needed a definition for �N�POR VEHICLE MINOR REPAIR-�.-- �— Mr, Boardman stated he did not feel that �ras neceasary because a�ything not covered uuder major repair Would came under minor repair. The Commiseioners concurred. page 2, #5 AUPOMOBILE SEEtVSCE STATTON: Cor�unity D�velopment recommended they change the heading to "MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICE STATION". Planning Cao�3.saion reccmmended the definition be che,nged to read as follows: "A place where fuel end other esaential services related to the operation of motor vehiclea,'"S!'E� retailed d3rectly to the public on premisea, including minor eervicing and repair, but not including motor vehicle major repair. P7,ANNING COMMI.,SION MEETING� FEBRUARY 28, 1979 - PAGE L 4 I Pag� 3, lst paragraph: Coffiunity Development reco�nded khey delete this para- gragh. The Cc�i.ssioners concurred. Mr. Harris asked where they were handl3ng aelf-aerv3ce garsges. Mr. Boardman stated that would come under the definition oY motor vehicle major repsir. Psge 3� Old � AUTO WRECKING OR JUNK YARD: Appeals had a question regarding this. Ms. Schnabel stated Appeals vanted a definition for "AUTO SALVAGE, AUTO Wf2ECKING" Mr. Boardmen atated ttiat would co�me under deYinition #43 JUNK YARD. Ms. 3chnabel stated that firet of all they t+anted "Junk Ymrd" redePined and secondly, they didn�t think that "JUNK YARU" neceseari�y applied because most people use the term "Auto Salvage" in their title. Mr. Boardman stated his suggestion was that thsy use the �rording "JUIVK YARD; AUPO SALVAGE:" and then say junk yard would include auto wrecking yard and auto salvage yar8, but does not include uses that are entire],y within enclosed buildin�s or City Council approved recycling centers. They do not �ant to hsve batteriea, iron scrapa� etc.� which is normally vhat vould be classifiecl as a 3unk yard. Ae felt they pretty well covered that with this definition. Ms. Schnabel asked iY auto salvage xasn't really diPferent from a junk yard. Mr. Bosrdman atated that the main�thing they look at there was not the definition of what a junk ya� is but the nature of the operation. If there was outsifle storage of inoperable vehicles, vhich we call junk vehicles, that's in the definition. Therefore, even though they are salvagable� they don't salvage them within that yard or repair them xithin that yard. An auto ealvage yard hold those vehicles a�x1 sells those vehicles for salvage elsevhere. What they have in effect, is an operatioa where they haul in inoperable vehicles for sale for salvage.to be repaired. Me. Schnabel stated she felt the difference frc� e junk yard was that in that case, sa sutomobile remains in tact, whereae in a junk ya� it vould be torn apert in different pieces. Mr. Bosrdman stated it was still the same type oP operation. They are storing in- operable vehicles on a site snd whether you heve an suto srreckin� yard where they brsak down thoat parts for atorage or you have an auto salvage yard nrhere �hey don't break dmm those parts for storage and they se11 the vehicle as a part, he wwld look at it in the samc manner as having batteries, old tractors or whatever. He wishea they hsd never allo�red them in._ Mr. Langenfeld stated they could insert the vords "neture of operation" at the beginning of the definition, and in Old #b inaert the words "see Definition #43"• Me, Schnabel atated the Appeals Go�ission felt there should be a separate definition for "A[F,�!Q SALVAGE, A[JTO WRECKING" PLANBiING COMMIS3ION MEETING, FEBRUARY 28, 1979 PAGE 11 t� J Mr. Bonrdman stated that Couffiunity Development had recommended they eliminate junk yaTd from the code. They're sqying that a junk yard is no longer a legsl uee in any zone. They are existing non-conYorming usea� but there is no longer e provision Pnr S�iccial U�e Permits. Mr. Harris ststed they w�re s fact af 13fe. N,r. Boardman stated they had the authority to zone them out o£ the co�mity. Did they rrant them in the co�unity? They ean establish the standards of the coammunity. Mr. Harris stated they �rould then be a non-conforming use with no provision for a Special Use Permit, but now they do provide Yor theml Mr. Boardman stated that was the case. Mr. Harris suggested they put a question merk on this item and he would talk to Council and see vhat they wanted to do. Page 3� NeH �b BASSE'MENT: Co�unity Development stated they had a definition for "BASENIENT" and a definition Yor "CEIS�AR" They recommended having on�y one definition. Mr. Boardman stated he felt they did need tvo definitions. The Co�issioners concurred. Page 3: Comomunity Development reca�uended the addition of a definition for "BIKEWAY"• The definition vould read as follrnas: "A designated anrFace Yor use of bicycles". The Co�issioners cancurred. Page 3, #10 BUILDIIdG: Appeals reco�ended they delete the word "chattels". The Commissioners concurred and reco�ended they insert the words "groperty oP any kind". Page 3, Old #11 BUTLDABLE pREA: Appeals recon�ended they retain this definition. Page 3� #13 CELLAR: Appeals reca�mended they delete this definition. Ms. Schnabel stated they did not need this definition because it was not used anynrhere else in the text. Nu. Boardman ssked iP they used "BASEMENT" aRywhere else in the text either. He recommended t�ey put a question mark by "BASEMENT^ end eee if it was used in the text. Page �+, #14 CHANNEL: _Community Development recommended this definition reed as follows: "The natura2 or artiPiciel depression of perceptible extent� aith definite beds and hanks to confine and conduct water either continous]y or periodically." PLb1NNINC3 CON44TSSION MEE`PING, FEBRUARY 28, 1979 PAGE 12 4� Page 4, #15 CiR3RCA: �ommunity Development recommended they delete the words: "together with its aceessory buildings and usea." Mr. Harris asked hvw they handle accessory buildings Yor a church. Mr. Soerdman stated it was an allowable use. Page �+, #16 COLLECTOR STREET: Co�unity Development reccaffinended the heaciing be changed to read: "STREET, COLT.ECTOR". They also reco�ended they delete the word "thoroughfare" snd insert the word °tranepprtation". The Commissioners coneurred. Page 4�, #18 COMPAl^IBI.E: Mr. Harris questioned this deYinition. Mr. Boaxdman stated the reason "Compstible" was in there was that later on they put in a clause that the City Staff would determine whether something was com- patible or not� to the area. Mr. Harris stated some of these were judgement calls. Ms. Schnabel suggested they use the dictionary definition. Mr. Herris suggeated they put a question mark by this dePinition and come back to it. Page 4: Appeala recov�ended they insert a definition for "CONDOMINUM" between #18 and #19. Pag� 4, #19 CORNEft L(YP: Community Development recommended the hesding be changed to; "IAT, CORI+tER". Page �+, �24 DpUBLE FRONTAGE 7,OT; Appeals and Cou�unity Developa�nt reco�mmended this definition read as follrnrs: "A lot which ha� oppasite lot lines on two nou-intersecting streets. Both street lines shall be considered as froni ysrds." Also ek�age heading to read: "LQT� DQU9LE FRQNTAGE", The Co�eissioners concurred. Page 5, �26 DWELLING, LIMiTED: (M(YPF�R-IN-LAW APARTMENT): Appeals Cc�ission reccmimended they delete the vords "MOTHER-IN-LAW APARTMENT°from heading. C�unity Development Co�mniasion recotmmended they delete word "s#ngle-family" and insert word "one-family". Mr. Boardman noted that in other de£initions, the Appeals Ca�issian had recommended the use of "si 1e-family" rather than "one-fami]y". The Appeale Conmmission elso reco�unen en t ey delete the words: "within one generation". Mr. Boardman stated that in deleting the words "rrithin one generetion" they would loose control ae to vho would use thst apartment. They should have control because otherwiae they tirill have a two unit hvme in a eingle family area, if that spartment is rented to juat a�vnne other than a"mother-in-law". PLANtiZHG COMMISSION ME'EI'IN� FEBRUARY 28, 1979 - PAGE 13 ��- Ms. Schnabel askQd wlyy they would want to coatrol it as long a� they weren't doing enything. Mr. Boardman a'tated tt�at in the first place� iY they wexe going to have a tvo unit d`relling, it shouldn't be in a single family area. If they set up two apartments, they are setting up a duplex, and by sllowing a"mother-in-lav" apartment� they would be opening themstives up to it becaming a 8uplex. I�. Aarris etated that without the eode a11rn.Ting for a mother-in-law apert�nt, people Weuld still do it without the control of ineking a�e it was progerly ventilated� etc. Mr. Boardman stated that by allowing it they have the gotential of having two families in one etructure, which would ehange the density allowed in that area• Mr. Harris atated that old people do exist and some familiea have the need oP having them live with th�m, a�i they cannot ignore that Yaet. They cannot throw the old folks out onto the street. Mr. Boardman notad that the idea DP duplexes t�ad been discussed and ib was decided that they xould not be allovafl in sn.R-1 srea evsn with a special use permit. The City Council stated they wanted to eliminate duplexee in R-1. Mr. Boardmsn asked if they ahould require Q epecial use permit for "mother-in-law" apartments in R-1. Nh�. Harris stated thet would one way of controlling it. Mr. Boardman etated that once the special use permit was granted� they still had no'vr� of controlling it. Mr. Iiarria suggeated they rethink their definition of their whole R-1 area and put a question mark by it and he would talk to Council and see what they want. Mr. Boardman stated he had no problem with limited dvellinge beceuae that is happening all over. Mr. Herris noied that from the snergy standpoint, it might not be right to eliminate mother-in-law apartments. Mr. LangenTeld noted that the Energy Pt�oject Co�ittee migbt well reco�end that families ,oin together to conserve energy. Mr. Bosrdm4n agreed that the single fami�y home wes not energy efPicient. t�r. Boerdme,n stated thet Ga�munity Development had recau�me�.ed the use of the term "one-fami]y" and Appeals had recommended the use of the term "single-family". Which vray did they wsnt to go? t�k. Boerdman noted that they did uae the t�rm °two-Yami]y" Mr. Harris asked how they uaed it in the Meintenance Code: Ms. Schnabel stated they used "one-family". But throvghout the zoning.cvde text they used the term "single-family". The Co�issioners decided that the term "one-family" should be used throughout the text �nd the use of "single-family" wu7-d be changed to "one-fami}�y"'-in trie text. PLANNZI6G COhIl�LLSSSON MEETING� FEBRUARY 28� 1979 - PAGE 14 4� �6e 5, �3o DWELLING UNIT: Appeals Co�ission recoffiended this deYinition be changed to read the same as the Maintenance Code definition for Dwelling Unit which is as follova: "A single unit providing comglete independent livi�g facilities for one vr more persons including permanent provisions Por living, sleeping, eating� cooking and sanitation." The Co�i.esioners concurred. PaBe 5, #31 F�II�ffLY: The Appeals Coffinission recorrmended thie definition be changed to read the same as the Minneapolis definition for fami�y which is as follows: "An individual or two {2) or more persons related by blood� marriage, or adoption� including Yoster children and bonafide domestic servants employed on a full time basi� by the family in the dwelling unit, living together �s a single house- kesping unit in a dwelling unit and also including roomere� provided that the fami],y plus the roomers ahall not exceed a total oY five (5) persons� pronided further that the limit oi five (5} persons shall not app�y Por the entire group liv3ng in the dwelling unit consists of persone related by blood, max'z'iage, or adoption, including foster children and domestic servants+ or a Pamil.y consisting oY parents and children and other persons who all live together as a single housekeeping unit (not as laudlord and tenant), sharing all e�cpenses oP the family� and who are membere of a federal tsx=exsmpt`non-profit organization; provided the totel n�bers of persons other than parente and ehildren shall not exceed five (5) fn number.° The Co�i.ssionere concurred. Ms. Schnabel suggested Mr. Boardman check to see iY the State law says 5 or 6. Mr. Bpsrdmsn atated tbst applies to group ho�ees snd was covered in the definition. PaB� 5s #32� #33, �3�+, #35, �36: Delete the vord "means" from all these definitions. The Ca�issioners concurred. Page 5� #37 GaRAGE, PRIVATE: The Planning Caamnissioners reco�ended they delete the words °recreational equipment by the resident oP the property" and insert the vords "other personal property of the resident." Page 6, #38 GARAGE, PUBLIC; Mr. Boardman recoffinended they delete the words "other than a private garage". The Co�issioners concurred. Page 6, #39 GaRACE, REPAIR: The Appeals Coa�isaion had �uestioned this definition, Ma. Schnabel stated thst Appeals Yelt that #39 and #40 �rae very similsr to � and #5. Mr. Boardmsn stated that the diPference xas that this wae the plsce of an activity� where �+ and #5 was the activ3ty. Page 6, #40 GARAGE, LARGE REPAIR: Change heading to read "GARAGE, HEAVY DVPY REPAIR". The Coamnissioners concurred. Page 6, ald �27 Gi7EST ROOM; Retain th3s definition because it is used in the text. The Commissioncrs concurred. PT,ANNI� C92�SISSIaN MEE'SING, FEBRt3ARY 28� 1979 PAGE 1; 4 P� Page 6� �42 HOME OCCUPATION; Mr. Harris questioned this definition and whether they could enforce it. Mr. i.angenf�ld stated that insurance companies used a very similar dafinition. Mr. Boardman etated that they have enforced it and had left ou� parking which cmuld 6e inserted. 'Phe Cammissioners agreed to the definition. Page 6� Old #29 HOSPTTAL OR SANITARIUM: Tt was rece�mended they retain this deYinition. Page 6� Old #30 HOTEL; It was rec�ended they retain this definition. Page 6� �3 JUNK YARD: They hed put a question mark on this earlier in the diecussion. Page 6, #44 I�NNEL: Mr. Boardmsn stated that in the old ordinance a kennel is not allowed in a residential area. In other words, if a resident has three or more dogs or cats, that would be dePinad ea a kennel, and a kennel is not allowed in a reaidential ares. TherePore, a resident cannot have 3 or more cats or dogs. Mors than 3 cats would be classified as s kennel. IP they allowed a lot owner to have more than 3 dogs, he would have to get a kennel license and there would have to be a�e control over the operation of tha't kennel. Mr. Aarris stated he did not like the idea of allowing anybody to own more than 3 dogs in any residential zone� other than puppies. Mr. Boardmen stated they had pzoblems with this beYore and had discussed allowing kennels with controls auch as placement of the kennel on the lot, etc. He had no problem sri.th not allwing kennels in residentisl zones. The old ordinance dces not ellow it. The C�isaioners agreed to retain the old definition and insert the words "_�n��ata"_=_— Page 7� #45 KENNEL: COMPAERCIAL: The Coffinissioners agreed to delete this deYinition. page 7� Old �32 ZAB�RATORY: It was reco�aended they retain this deYinition. page 7� #48 IACAL SrREETS: Change heading to resd: "&�TS� IACAL" and delete the ward "thoro�xghfare° and insert the vord "treneportation". The Ccwm�is�ioners concurrtd. page 7y #46 LIVING AREA: The Co�iseioners agreed to change this definition to read as follo�ra: "The_area of a building deaigned to be used Por living pur- poses sueh a� bedrooms, dining rooms, living rooms which are used for ami – purposes. PI,ANNING CODR+ffSSION MEETING� FEBRUARY 28, 1979 PAGE 16 4 O Page 7, �49 TAT; Community Development Co�iasion questioned thia definition. Mr, flarria stated tha�t he did not Yeet that "B" was a correct statement and suggested they should change the heading to building site. t�fr. Boardman read the definition Prom the building code for "lot". The Co�issioners agreed to change the word "lot" to "building site" and Mr. Boardman zrill check with Darrell Clark to see iP that would be a problem. MOTION by Ms. Bchn�b�l� seeouded by Mr. IangenPeld to continue the proposed changes to G�i pter 205• Zoning until the next meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTI1� AYE� CHAIRMAN IfARRIS DECLARID THE MOTIQN CARRIED UNANIMOiISLY. 10. 0'Pi�R BUSINESS: Mr. Langent'eld asked iY Council had taken ax{y action regarding their recommendation to keep Yse increasea to 7�. Mr, Aarris stated they did Y�ave a consensus af opinion. They did reach en agree�nt. Mr. Langenfeld asked if they would pick up the Central City Development on the next sgende. Mr. Harria ststed they )�ad started on it and there was nothing Por them to do. Mr. Boardman stated he wovld keep them informed. Mr. Storla noted they had not read ihe tax increment Pinancing at the time they votsd. Mr. Harris stat�d that wae correet and before the Planning Commission took an oYYicisl stand, they would want to diacues it. Be requested it be put on the next agenda. Mr. Boerdm�n stated he would take care of that. Mr. Harris atated they were getting a lot oY requssts to build single Yami�y units on substandard lots in the flood plain area of Riverview Heights. He asked how ma�y parcels �rere available there. Mr. Boardman ststed there were arouud 7 or 8 building sites in the actual flood plain erea. i�, I�arris stated that in driving through there, he noted that everyone oY them had a problem of some eort. They are atarting to get a lot of reques+s becauae building sites in Pridley are ehort. They pr�sently have tvo requests and tbe building s3tes are 50 by 117 which is a pretty small lot. ,� 4P PLANNIl� CObH�ILSSION ME�:PING, FEBRUARY 28r i979 PAGE 17 Mr. Langenfeld etated he thought they were going to handle them on an individual bsais. He did not feel they could start denying now. They had never denied before. Mr. Harria stated he felt the C3iy should set a policy on it as to what they will. snd will not allow. He felt they shoul.d pass a resolution aeking Council to deelare a moratorium on bullding permits on the ilood plain in Riverview Heights, until they could get some data together snd set up some criteria for whnt they would allow there. 2Poc. Boardman stated that the criteria wae already established end iY they could �et the requirements� they could build. Mr. Langenfeld noted that in all prev3ous requests in that area, he had stated that the buxden vas on the petitioner, not the City. He �ras in Pavor oP a moratorium, and suggested Mr. Harris approach tHe Council and discuss it with them. MOTION by Ms. Sehnabel� seconded by Mr. IangenYeld� the Chairman oi the Planning �ommiseion apprpach th� Council at their next regular meeting to diseuss with Council the possibility oi declaring a moratori� on building in Riverview flood plain area until such time ss data can be collected arni a st�y made to determine vhether or not building ahould be permitted in that area in the future. Mr. Langenfeld stated he vould like the moratorium established Por 60 days. They would be helping the person who want to build on it by raaking them xait so they don't get uaahed away. Mr. Boardman noted that the data was alreae3y collacted and would like to know ex�et�y what deta they want. He stated they could look at the aiternatives for development. Mr. Harris stated they should just go to Council and ask them what they want to do wlth these lote. Mr. Boardman suggested they request a moratorium on all development in the �lood pla3n and that the City should laok at�the gosaihility of putting an option on the acquisition of sll oY the houses in the Ylood plain area when they come up for sale. Ma. Schnabel stated she did not 1#.ke the idea oS the City getting into that'kind o£ businesa. ' Mr. Eoardman stated that in order to make the area a buildable area they have to fill it and the problem is that it is hagpening piecemeal in a random pattern which csuses drainage problema. If the City purchased the entire area� tore down the existing homes and fillod the whole area at once, they could resell the lots as buildable lots. Ms. Schnebel atated that maybe the citizens of Fridley did not want that. Mr. Harris ststed they would have to talk to Council. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN IiARRIS DECI.ARED THE MOTION CARR� UNANTMCIUSLX. 4Q PLANftING COh4IISSI0N MEETING} FEBRUARY 28, 1979 - PAGE 18 Chairman Harris declared the February 28� i979, meeting oi the Planning Commission sa�ournea at 11:30 P.M. Reapectfully Submitted: �� , /../i�_ �i�/ �, , �-- .. - . . _