Loading...
PL 03/07/1979 - 6649.,.�r- .,�,, _ . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City of Fridley AG EN D-A WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 1979 � CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: l. REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #79-01, BY MARVIN AND ROBERT ERICKSON: Split off the Westerly 74.99 feet of Lot 10, Aud. Sub. No. 89, to make two buildin9 sites for double bungalows, the same being_1285-87 and 1�95-97 Norton Avenue N.E. Tabled 2/28/79 at petitioners request. To remain tabled for this meeting. 2. CONTINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES IN CHAPTER 205. ZONING 3. RECEIVE ENERGY PROJECT CONfitITTEE MINUTES: FEBRUARY 14, 1979 4. OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURNMENT IJ 7:30 P.M. � �\ CITY OF FRIDLEY � CALL TO ORDER• Chairman Hsrris cslled the Mareh 7, 1979, meeting of the Planning Co�ission to order at 7:30 P.M. ROIJ, CAIS.• Members Present: Mr. Storla, Mr. �quist� �. Herxis, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Peterson Members Abaent: Mr. IangenPeld (arrived at 8:45 P.M.) Others Present; Mr. Bosrdman, City Planner 1. REQUEST FOF. A LOT SPLIT L.S. �'j9-01 BY MARVIN APID ROBERT ERICKSON: Split o t e es er eet o Lot 0, A. u. No. � to make wo building sites ior double bungalows, the same bein� 1285-87 and 1295-97 Norton Avenue NE. This item w�s tabled at the February 28, 1979 meeting at the petitioners request. It re�ined tabled at this meetiug. 2. CONPIN[Jfl): PROPOSID CHANGES IN CHAPTER 205. ZONIAIG: 205.03 D�zNrrzoNs �Be a, #53 �B� HOME PARKS; Co�unity Development Commission recommended the Words "trailer park" snd "trailers" be deleted. The definition would then re�d: "An approved srea Por the parking of occupied mobile homes." Page 8, Old �+3 2�TEL (TOU�tIST COiAiT): Appeals Caemmission recot�ended this deYiniti�n be retained. Page 8, �55 N[IltSING HOME: Coamiunity Development Cc�mmission recommended the Words "A nursing ha�e ehall mean"-be deleted. Page 8�56 OBSfiRUCTION: Appeals Com�mission a�l Co�unity Dsvelopment Co�ission recommended the Word "meana" be deleted. Page 8; Appeals Commisaion reca�ended a deiinition for "OCCUPANCY LIMIT" be insertQd sfter #56. The definition xould read ae Yollrnrs: "FOr the purp�se oY hQa].th, safety end �+elfare, the required maxim� retio ia two (2) persons per bedroom in a dwelling unit.° Mr. Pet�rson stated they had diacusaed this azxi had obtained a definition fraam Minneapolia which took care of this, so did they atill need a deFinition for occupancy i�it. Mr. Boerdmsn stated they had a definition for "Pamily" and there is a difPerence betveen "family" and "occupancy limit". l�h�. Bosrdman questioned occupancy limit because what vould be the rules and regulations that would 13mit an occup�ncy limit. Right now, they look at overeroWded conditions, but overcrawded conditions are n�t nscessari�y agsinst the zoning la�s, and he did not feel this was the location for oceupancy limit. � � ; 20 PLANNING CONINiI8SI0N MEETING, MARCH 7, i979 - �� �---- '— Mr. Boardman ststed he did not know how they could control occupancy limit. Mr. Asrris atateS he did not Imow how they could control it either. Me. Gabel stated shc r�as not at the meeting when the Appeals C�ission developed this definition, so could not c�ent on it. Mr. Harris stated iP they cannot enforce it, it shou].d not be there. He su�gested it might be more apprapriate to have it in the Maintenance Code or so�place else. Mr, Boardman stated he would question even that. Th� on�y time an occupancy limi.t Would be worth anything to them would be if they were judging or looking at over- crowding for the purposes of the Housing Authority. Mr. Peterson stated there was a certain integrity within a family Unit tkist is not governments role to disturb. Mr. Peterson ststed he recalled that this question came up at the request of some departments within the City where they were having difficulty with rental areas specifically where non-related people were living in a house and causing problems with neighbors� and they had nothing in the code to deal +aith it a� thie was an attempt to deal with it. He could see it someplace where they would be dealing with rental units, but reall,y wpuld not like to see it regarding famil7. Mr. B�rdman stated that if a landlord had a problem with tenants, he could determine ho+�r mas�y people would live there. Ms. Gabel stat�d she Would discuss it at the next Appeals Co�ission meeting and report back. Mr, Boardman siated the definition of family was a good one and relates to five unrelated persons crho can live in a household as a family� a�ymore than 5 in the houaehold cannot live as a family� unless it would be a group home situation where 1 person was taking care oP 5 people. Ms. Peterson stated that in that case, the definition of occupancy limit vas redundant and winecessary. Mr. Boerdm�n stated he agreed. Mr. Eiarris stated the sleeging arrangements vithin a household are the business of the household� not the City. Ms. Gabel stated she would find out exactly wY�y Appesls recammended this and report bqck to the P2snning Commission. Page 8� #57 PARKING STALL: It rras reco�ended the word "standard" be deleted. Page 8, �''j8 PROFILE: Co�unity Development Co�iesion stated that the definition given was not a de£inition. P�fr. Boardmsn steted this defines profile as it relates to the Overlay Ordinance. In other words it defines what profile is, profile is the official creek and river prof3le. Within the ordinance, the term proPile is used and when you see the word profile they use the term profile rather that oYficia creek and river profile. Mr. Oquist stated it should be inserted into the body oP the ordinance where the term is first used. The Co�missioners concurred. �/ ` 21 PLAN^1ING COP�IISSION MEETING, MARCH 7, 1979 PAGE j Page 8� 01d #47 PUBLIC ilPILITY: Appesls Coffinission reco�ended the heading be changed to "UTILITY COMPANY° and the definition be retained. The Co�issioners conewcred. Page S, �59 PUBLTC IMPROVEMENT: Appeals Coffinission recommended the heading be ehanged to read: "PUBLIC FACILITY". C�unity Development Co�ission recommended the definition be changed to read; "A�y facility for which the City or other governmental agency mey ultimately aesume the reaponsibility for construction, operaiion and maintenance." The Commissioners concurred. Page 8: Co�unity Development recommended a definition for "REGIONAL FLOOD" be inserted atter 9. Mr. Boardman stated he had developed the following definition for "Regional Flood"'s "That flood which has an oecurance rate defined as once ger every 100 years." pa�e 8, �60 REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION: Ca�unity Development Co�iseion recc�mended the words "(100 year flood)" be deleted. Page 8: Appeals Commission reco�ended definitie ns for Pront, rear and side yard setbacks be inserted after #60. They recoom�ended the definition Yor "SE`I'BACK� ERONT" be changed to read: "The minimal distance between the Yront property line of the lot a�l the £ront oP the principal structure loceted on that lot.� Mr, Boardman stated he had changed that to read as Yollaws: 'R'he minimum distance between the front line oi a lot and a structure located on that lot." Ms. Gabel noted that the principal structure was the determining factor. Mr. Boardmsn stated the 35 foot was the determining factor because you could have a garage sitting out in front of a house. The Commissioners concurred. Page 9, #61 ST�IY: Appeals Coamiission snd C�unity Development reco�+ended the Words: "A baeement is a story for the purposes of height regulationa iP one half (�) or more of the basement's height is above the average level of the adjoining grovnd." be deleted. Mr. Boardman stated his comment vaa that they needed ihat for the definitions purposes. Mr. Oquist atated that baeement was defined. Mr. Boardmen stated that far the definition crP a story, a basement ie a atory iP one half or more of the basements height is above the average level of the adjoining ground. Mr. Oquist atated that both Commissions had questionsd it and samethin� must 6e wrong with it. Ms. Gabel stated that the definition atatea "iP one half or more of the basement's height is above the average lekel oY the adjoining grou�."� but a lot oP basements are totally in the ground. PLANNING COP�ff3SI0N MEETIDK',� MARCH 7� i979 - 22 PAGE 4 Mr. Boardman stated it would then not be classified as a story. Mr. Peterson atated that in co�ercial buildings it would have to do with the amc>unt of parking that's required whether or not it's considered a story. So someplace they would have to include that definition. Ms. Gabel stated that what they were getting at was it was still a story but if it's not sticking out oP the ground it's not considered a story. NIr. Peterson suggested they define it by saying "A story is ..." rather than saying "A basement is . . ." Mr. Boardmsn stated thay had a dsfinition for basement so they know what a basement is and here they are saying a basement, which is defined, is classiffied as a story if that basement is ... Ma. Gabel asked what it would be classified as if it's not that. Dir Boardman stated it srould not be a story unless it was class3fied as a story,_it would then be a baeement. Mr. Storla referred back to the definition oY basement on page 3. He stated their definition oP basement necessitetes over half of the basement being out oP the �round� so a bqeement has to be a story according to the deiinition oY basement. Mr. Oquist stated Community Development Coamiission had questioned the dePinitions oi' basement and cellar and wondered wY�y they were aeparated. Also, they were not used in the text, so wk�y do they need them. The Co�issioners agreed to delete the definitions for "CELLI�R" snd ^SASEMENT" and to ch�nge the second sentence in the definition of "STORY" to read as Pollows: "FOr the purposes of height regulation a story is one half or more of the Ploor to ceiling elevation that is above oae hal.f the level of the ad,joining ground:" Pa�e 9, #b2 STREET: Co�unity Development questioned this definition. t�. Boardman stated he did not see aqy problem with it and suggested they leave it ae is. The C�issioners concurred. Page 9� Old #50 STRUCTiJRAL ALTERATION: retained. The Cw¢missioners concurred. Appeals recommended this definition be P�e 9� #64 TOWNHOUSES: Co�unity Development Co�ission reco�ended the following vords be deleted: "such structures to be iaf the town or row house type as con- traste& to multiple s�relling apartment structures." The definition would then read as Yollaws: "Structurea housing three or more dwelling units, continuous to eaeh other, only by the sharing of one common wall. No single structure shall contain in excess of eight (8) dwelling units and each dcrellin� unit shall have separate and indiuidual front and rear entrances." PLANNING CON�ff3SI0N MF.�TIIdG, MARCH 7, 1979 _ pAGE_g 23 Mr. Harris etated the Rrord "contiguous" would be better than °continuous". Mr. Storla stated as he understands it, iP you had a condomin� complex aad gave each owner his oom plot oP land and it was a one story condominum, it would be a townhouse, vhich is not the same as a rrn,r house. Here, th�y are talking about rov houses. Mr. Ei�rris atated that iY you say "continuous" you are talking row houses, iY you ae�y "contiguous" you sre talking townhouses, meaning you can have one on top of the other or whatever. Mr. Storla stated that when you b� a conda�inum you buy air space and common indivisible interest in the rest of the coa�on �round. With a to�mhouse� you b� thet air space and the land it sits on� and indivisible interest in the swi.mming gool and the rest of the common grounds. A row house is a structure that could be rented out� s�hich is difPerent than a townhouse. Ms. Gabel noted that Appeals had requested a definition Por condominum. Mr. Boardman stated he r�as working on that. Mr. Peterson stated they did not have s definition Yor row houses. Mr. Storla stated this was the definition for row houses as far as he was concerned. Mr. Harris stated he agreed if they used the word "continuous" but not if they used the word "contiguous". Mr. Storla stated he would like a definition for tovnhouses also. Mr. Peterson stated that in a roW house, you get the land in front and in back of the houee too, because there is no undivided interest in a row house. The Co�issioners recommended that snd co-operatives be developed. rrnr house, condom3n� Mr. Oquist stated that the last sentence in this definit3on belongs in the text of the ordinance� not in the definitions. The Co�issioners concurred. Mr. Peterson su�gestefl they cheek tirith Minneapolia and get their statement on cw operatives, Also� this should be discussed in the ordinance. Page 9, �5 USABLE OPEN SPACE: Mr. Earria questioned this definition, especially the last sentence. He felt it Kas editorializing in the definitions. Mr. Board�an stated he Had a point there and would check to see iP this was a usable definition. PLANNING COMM£SSION MEETING, MARCH 7� 1979 - PAGE 6 24 Page 9, �7 VISION SAFETY ZONE: Appeals Co�iseion recommended this definition be changed to read as follows: "the triangular area of a corner lot beginning at the intersection of the street curb lines, and thirty (30) feet along each curb line� and then a straight line between the two points." Mr. Bosxdmsn stat�d thitt the difference betvieen ?the reco�ended definition and the existing definition was that they look at ae right of way lines� in other crords� the groperty line. IP you use the curb lines, the curb line is dependent on the boule- vard size, so it would be a matter o£ whether they want to use street right of way lines or curb linea. Mr. Peterson stated thet in terms of safety� which ie what we are trying to accomplish� curb lines are more meaningful than property lines. Ms. Gabel stated curb lines were more meaningful to Appeals. Mr. Boardman asked if they felt that 30 feet beck fro� the interseation of the curb linea would be enough. They are lookiug at the intersection of those iwo lines. In so� cases� there is an intersection that is not a right angle intersection, and the intersection oP those tvo curb lines may run some 50 feet out into the center of the street. IY they use the intersection of the praperty lines, the property line intersection would atill be �rlthin the curb lines. The Co�issionere agreed to use the term "street ri�t of way lines". 'Fhe Coam�issioners also agreed to delete "25 feet" anfl insert "30 feet". Page 9, � WALKWAY OR SIDEWALK: Co�unity Development Ca�iss3on recou�ended the word "psved" be deleted, and the word "designated" be inserted. Page 9, #69 WATERWAY: Community Development Cm�iesion reco�ended the word °man- made" be deleted and the word "artiiicial" be inserted. Page 9, #'%0 YpRD: Appeals Coammiasion recoffinended the follo�ing words be deleted: "unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward". Mr. Harris asked if that wasn�t restating setback. Mr. Boardman stated thay vern't� just defining yard. Page 9, #'jl YARD� FRONT: Appeals Commission reco�ended this definition be ebanged to read: "A ysrd extending acrosa the full width of the lot and �ying between the front line oP the lot an8 nearest line oY the principal building." They inserted the word "principal". The Caaumissioners concurred. Page 10� #73 Y�� SIDE: The Appeals Co�ission reco�ended this 8efinition be changed to read as follows: "A yaxd extending acroas the width of a lot and the pri__ ncipal building sxtending from the front yard to the rear yard and having a��h equal to the shortest distance between the side line and the �pr�in��c__i �al�_ building." They inaerted the word "principal" and deleted the word �u33 � and also deleted the word "main". PLANNIP� CONIMISSION MEETING� MARCH 7, 1979 - PAGE 7 205.Ok1 DECLARATION OF POLIQY Page 10� #1: Appeals Commisaion recor�e�ed the irord "morals" be deleted. The Co�iesioners concurred. 25 Page 10, �4; Ccm�unity Development Co�iesion recammended this par�raph be_ _ deleted and placed in the ordinance, Mr. Harria atsted that did not really belong in the Declaration oP Policy section, �nd was not really sure if that was what they wanted to say either. They could have some problems with the to�mhouse developments on that. Why couldn't they have more than one principsl buildin� on one lot? Ms. Gabel noted thet it stated "eaccept as providcd herein" and each zoning district Y�as it's own provisions, so she felt it did take care of itselP and was not a real problem. Mr. Harris asked if they really needed it in there at all. Mr. Boardman stated that it satys that ar�y building that contains any dwelling or guest rooms shall be ereeted on a lot which has at leaet access of 25 foot along a public right of wsy in order to get access into it. In other words, you csnn't build on a lot without access.from a public street. Mr. Oquist stated they should change the wording to what Mr. Boardman said and put it in the ordinance. It is in the wrong place. Ms. Gabel agreed, it was an ordinance, not a deelaration of policy. Mr. Aarris auggested they place it in "Lot Provisione" on page 12. Mr. Aarris re%erred to �'2 on that same page and quoted the following: "Where the e�nditione imposed by any provision of this ehapter are either more restrictive or leae restrictive than comparable conditions imposed by aqy law, ordinance, stakute, resolution, or regulation of any kind, the regvlations which are more restrictive� or which impose higher standards or requirements shall prevail." Mr. Harris noted that regarding the building code, they cannot be a�y more or ax�y less restrictive than Qny State Code. Mr. Boardman stated that in the zoning code� they.do not refer to building regulations. Mr. Harris atated that was fine, iY they did not do that, but would have to be care- ful not to refer to any buildin� code in the zening cofle. Mr. Boardman asked what they wanted to do with #4. The Co�issioners agreed to place #4 after #2 in LOT PROVISIONS and change it to read as follows: "Every lot, in order to be built on, shall have at least one line of which abuts for not less than 25 feet along a public street or along a permanent, unobstructed easement of acceas to the lot from a public street as approved 'oy the zoning administrator as adequate Por the purpose." PLANNIY�G CON�ISSION MEETING� MARCH 7, 1979 - PA� 8 26 205.043 NON-CONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES Page 10, #1: Inaert the follo�a�Section Number: 205.19. Page 11, #2: The Co�nissioners Yelt the wording wss bad. The Co�iseioners agreed to change the wording as followe: "IVothing in this Ordinance shall prevent the _up_�r�a��di� oY a non-conforming structure to safe coaflition when said structure is�ecfared unsaPe by the 9uilding Inapector, vrovided the necessarv revairs sha11 not constitute more than 5096 (percent) were deleted. Page 11, #12: Mr. Boardman stated that Appeals Co�iasion had a comment on thie. They questioned sutomobile salvage as compsred to junk yard. Mr. Boardman stated his comment wss that there was a tendency to eliminate this ae an allowable use. IP that's true, we don't need it in the non-conforming use section. The stateroent that was there sa3d that no junk yard could continue as a non-conforming use more then one year after the efPective date of this ordinance without a special use permit. IP there ie going to be a tendency in the code to eliminate junk yards, the7a we would eliminate the junk yards. They`would.continue as a non-eonforming use just as a nos�mal use� and then we wouldn�t have to have any other atatement. Mr. Iiarris stated they had discuseed suto salvage, auto wrecking and junk yards, and their dePinitions snd had put a question mark by that. He asked if they could in fact el3minate junk yards. I�. Boardman stated that legal�y they could. They could teke you to court and there raould be just compensation for that elimination of the use. Mr. Iiarris atated they would never get that pest the Council. Mr. Boardman atated the question would be do we want junk yards to continue with a specisl use permit. You could say a junk yard is a non-conforming use and is grand- fathere$ in, but the on]y way you can say that is by not allowing junk yards to exist. Mr. Harr3s stated that in other woxds, the existing junk yarde could remain as non- coniormin uses. But without the special use permit, we have no handle on their operetion. Mr. Boardman atated there are screenin� requirements in the ordinance, and even a non-conic>rming use has to comply with the screening ordinance. The junk vehicle ordinance states thet you cann't park junk vehicles on the street, they cannot have s junk vehicle on praperty ecross the street Prom theirs, they cannot stack junk vehicles so they are visible above the screening Pence and they must screen all exterior storage. They elso have noise requirements. What more can they do? They h�ve to �et Q11 oY those requirements regardleas if they're a non-conforming use. A non-conforming use stetes you can no longer build a junk yard or expand one in the City. z� PLAN'_VING COI�f28SI0N MEETING, MARCH 7, i979 - PaGB 9 Mr. Boardman stated the only problem we could have is if they wanted to expand and we didn't allow it� they could take us to court. Ms. Gabel ssked if they put this in th� ordinance� wouldn't they have to be notified. Mr. Harris stated they xould have public hearinga. Mr. Boerdman stated he was talking to Virgil Herrick about the notification. Mr. Harris asked haW they would handle "reclamation center". Mr. Boardman stated that in the definition of junk yard, it states °except Council approve8 recycling centere". Mr. Boardman stated that in other words, if they wanted to have a junk yard end keep everything inside a building, there Was no prw blem with that, as long as there is no outside storage. Mr. Harris ssked 1Y they should delete the dePiniiion of junk ysrd. Mr. Boardman stated they need the definition of junk yard, but they should delete #12 "No junk yard mqy continue as s non-conforming use." Here we would have a problem with a court case becsuse as of the adoption oY this ordinance, thejc would not even be a non-conforming use. IY they s�y that, then they have a problem. What they rrant to say is they are allowed, but they will restrict their buainess to the point where tlaey cannot expand their operation. The Commissioners agreed to delete #12 on page 11. Mr. Harris questioned the definition of Junk Yard on page 6. He stated that "waste" and °used material" were two diiferent thingsi and asked what the definition oF waste is. He did not feel that scrap iron is waste.material. The Co�issioners agreed to change this definition to read as follows: "An area vhere used material� as a principal business� are bought� sold� exchanged� stored� packed, disassembled or hand ed� inc ing� but not limited to, scrap iron and other metals, paper, rags, rubber, wire and bottles. A junk yard includes an auto wrecking yard or suto salva�e yard, but does not include uses that are entirely within enclosed buildings or City Council approved reeyclin� centers." They deleted the words "open" and "sraste and" end inserted the words "as a principal business". Page 12, #13; Mr. Harris questioned this etatement. Mr. Boardman etated he had received this definition from Brooklyn Center. Mr. I,sngenYeld su�gested they delete this. Mr. Boardman atated he would talk to Darrell Clark and see if we hsve as�ything like this. He had no problem in deleting this. Mr. Harris suggested they put a question mark by it until Nfr. Boardmaa talks to Darrell and Msrvin. Mr. Boardman agreed. PLANNING C4MMIS8ION MEETING� MARCH 7� 1979 - PAG� 10 28 205•044 LOT PROVISIONS Page £�a �2: Mr. Boardman stated that sa�eone on StsfP had questioned the statement "not more than one {1� principal building shall be located on a lot." They were referring to situations likQ Onan. Mr. Boardman etated he hed coa�ented that he looked at tbe huildings there as acceasory buildings to the main building. The Co�issioners concurred. Page 12� #4: Coam�unity Develapment Commission recoffinended the words "thorou�hfare plan" be deleted and the words "transportation plan" be inserted. The Co�isaioners concurred. 3. RECEIVE ENERGY PROJECT COh4TITTEE MINt7t'ES: F'EBRUARY 14� 1979: b�YI'ION by Mr. Peteraon, seconded by Mr. Oquist to receive the February 14, �.979, minutee of the Ener�y+ Project Coa�ittee. Mr. Iangenfeld noted the statement by Mr. Johnson on psge 4, th3rd paragraph. He felt this vras a worthwhile statement and he would use it sa a springboard for other ideas. Mr. Langenfeld also noted the sixth paragraph on page 5 where Mr. Saba hsd commended NSP end Minni�asco because they were coming out with audits and trying to create avareness. He mentioned the term "Co-generation" and noted that the Commiasioners would be hearing this term oYten. On pa�e 7, they listed items fream various drafts from diPferent coa�unities which they felt wovld be helpful ideas. The Idew Brighton draPt was really for emergenc�es� but it was good to be as�are oP those things. He also statn8 that he would be using the information on page 9 under Secti�n 6 as ideas snd epringboards Yor the goals and objectives of the Cou¢nittee. UPON A VOICE VO`FE� ALL VO'PING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARID TfiE MOTION CARRIED UNANLMOUSLY. 4. OTF1Efi BUSINESS: Mr. Boardmsn stated he would like to have a special meeting oi the Planning Co�nmission on March 28. He would like, if possible, to have all the Coammissions present. The gurpose`of°the meeting would be a presentation oY the Yirst draft of the Comprehensive Bevelopment Plan. At that point they could make a decision as to how the review process +,rould take place. Mr. FIarris stated therc would be no problem with that. Mr, FIarria etatad he had`discussed the question,:of kennels at the Council meeting. The Coam�iasioners had requeated he do this at the last meeting. The Council Pelt they should change "and�or" to "end" and forget about private kennels. Ns. Harria stated he had also discusaed with Council the situation in Riverview Heights where there are severel parcels of land, the sizes of which are 50 x 117� PLANNING COMMISSION MEE`PING� MARCH 7� 1979 - PAGE 11 pg and they are below the flood_plain radiance. Mr. Harris stated they had tWo requests� but one had been withdrawn. He asked Mr. Boardman what the status of the other request was. Mr. Boardman stated they were trying to get an attorneys opinion on whether they can vary the 15 Yoot requirement. The Code states that no variance shall be granted that makee the conditions more dangerous or lesa restrictive than the purpose of the ordinance. In other words, if the purpose oP the 15 Eoot out is for safety, and you grant a variance for that 15 foot and it reduces the safety, if would not be right. Ma. Gabel asked what tMe purpose of the 15 foot Was. Mr. Boardman stated the 15 foot applies to ground pressures. Ms. Gabel asked if that area £ell into the Mississippi Corridor. Mr, Boardman ststed it did. Ms. Gabel stated that ax�y house within the Misaissippi Corridor witbin a certain iootage needs a variance to begin with and if they want to ui �sa-50 foot lot, that would require a varianee also. 1�. Harris stated that they allow construction on 50 �oot lots in cld platting with a minimum lot size oP 7500 square feet. These sites are less than 75� square ieet, and because they are 50 Poot in width, they would need a variance. Mr. Harris also atated that the people could build without raising them by flood proofing. Ms. Gabel stated there were a lot of homes in that area on 50 foot lots, and the Appeals Commission tends to continue �ranting those variance because it is compatible with the neighborhood, and the neighbors don�t complain. She asked what the problem was with it. Mr. F7arris stated that iP these particular structures go in, they eould impact the entire sree as far as drainage and other things. Mr. Soardman stated that onl,y one structure had been buili in the flood plais a� th�t was a corner lot which helped with the drainage. In a corner lot, the runoff could go into the street, but there is no place for it to go on an interior lot. Ma. Gabel asked if a developer was interested in the area. Mr. Boardman stated tk�at people were c�ing in requesting Specisl Use Permits to build there and the code states no variance sha11 provide Yor a lesser degree of ilood proteetion than is stated in the ordinanae, and that's vhere the question they are sending to the attorney comes up. Mr. Harris etated they could flood proof and still have drsinage problems. Mr. Boardman state8 they could build a structure on that site without a�y £ill if they floc�d proof the structure. He also noted thst flood proofing is very stringent. PLANNING CO2�R�IISSIQN MEETIPIG, MARCH 7, 1979 - PAGE 1R 30 Mr. Aerris etated he had asked the Council iY they would be in Ysvor oP a moratori� on bullding permits in the flood plain area until they could �et all the data together and lovk at the situation. The Council agroed and suggested he �ork with Jerry anfl Dick. He had discussed the boundary lines with Mr. Herrick and he asked Mr. Boardman to talk With Dick and obtain the pertinent inYormation and bring it to the Planning Co�mission for setting a boundary Por the moratorivm. They would look at all the inherent problems in the area and also come up with some alternste uses for the land. Mr. Langenfeld auggested they use the grounds oY safety and �a�lfare for the mor�torium. Mr. Harris egreed and ateted the Council had etated they would go Por a limited moratorium. From the diseusaion, he felt it would be a resonabl,y short one. He understood they might go fox six months, but it uas never said exactly. Mr. Boerdmen suggested they could make it into a tax increment district. Mr. Harris stated they should look at the total picture and diseuss it. Mr. Boardman stated they wsre developing a Housing Resource Center in the library. They have $5,100 oP HUD Co�unity Development Block Grant Money. They tslked with the Library Board and are working with the Director oY the Soard and also they will acquire about $5100 worth of msterisl on energg conservation, housing msintenance, etc. It will be located in the Anoka 7�ibrary. NR�TION by Mr. Langenfeld� seconded by Ms. Gabel, to ad�ourn the March 7� 1979, mee ng oP the Planning Cammission. Respectfully submitted: �, ��.ii� ��i f:�?S�:Fl�:iSi .. : ...ii'.T'�'?��-Tr�