PL 04/18/1979 - 6652\
PLANNI�dG COMMISSIQN MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
City of Fridley
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 1979
APPROVE PLANNING COMMMISSION MINUTES: APRIL 4, 1979
7:30 P.M.
PAGES
1-13
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SPECIAI MEETING: APRIL 11, 1979 Available at
Meeting
1. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: APRIL 10, 1979 YELLOW
See Pages 4-lII (Planning Commission to discuss items 1-12 on pages
17 and 18)
2. RECEIVE NUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MI(VUTES: APRIL 5, 1979 SALMON
3. RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: APRIL 10, 1979
4.
�
�
: DISCUSSION ON DRAFT OF COMPREHENSI
C�NTINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES IN CHAPTER 205. ZONING
OTHER 6USINESS:
A. No election for Chairperson of Planning Commission until
all Commissions have voted for Chairperson to serve from
May 1, 1979 to May 1, 148�.
ADJOURNMENT:
PINK
These minutes
will not be
available until
the meeting.
SEPARATE
SEPARATE
CITIt OF FRIDLEY
PI.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING - APRIL 4,_1979_ _
CALL TO ORDER:
Chnirman Harris cslled the April 4, 1979, �eting of the Planning Ccmmiseioa to
order at ?�30 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Members Preeent: bh�. Storla, Mr. �quiat, Mr. Aerris� Ms. Suhrbier, 1�h'• I.angenfeld
Ms. Schnabel (arrived ar 7:35)
Members Abaent: None - , ;
Othere Preeent: Mr. Boardma►n� City Planner
1. APPROVE PLAPiP1ING COIM�IISSION MIN[TPES: MARCH 21� 1979�
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld� seconded by Mr. Oquist to approve the Merch 21� 1979,
minutee oY the Planning Ccm�ission.
Mr, Iangenfeld stated that the last paz'agraph on page 7 should state that if the
inttaded use vas not used� it would then have to come before the Commission and
the Council.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN AARRIS DECLAREII Ti� NBAIU!'ES APPROVED
AS CORRECTED.
2. LOT SPLIT REQUESP� L.S. #79-�1� BY A�N FEFIN: Split ofY the Southerly 222
feet o£ Lot 23, Auditor�e Subdivision No. 92, except the West 30 feet oP Lot
23, and except the South 30 feet of said lot 23� into two building sites, as
follows: Parcel A. The South 110 feet of Lot 23, A.S. #92, with the exceptiona�
snd Parcel B. The South 222 feet of Lot 23, A.S. #92� except the South 110 feet
and except the West 30 feet of said Lot 23� located at the intersection of
Gardena Avenue and Benjamin Street N.E.
Mr. Boardman stated that page 20 of the egenda showed the location of the lot. There
was an existing house located on what would be Parcel B if the lot split was approved.
The exiating lot right now is quite a large lot and even with the split you would
have more that What is required Yor two single Pamily lots in the area. The thing
to be concerned about and should look at is that with the split of£, the existing
house is presently facing Gardena, and although it meete the requirements st this
time, vith the eplit off it would make the existing house e non-conforming use as
far as the setback gces. If something happened to that houseD it would probab�jr
have to be rebu3lt based on the code, and couldn't be rebuilt on that same foundation.
The new house would have to meet the code and face Benjamin witb a 35 Yoot setback
instesd of the 25 foot setback. Another thing to consider is that the house to the
east of this property is setback a considerable distance, spproximate�y 70 feet. So
a house built on this corner lot would stick out into the front yard of that house.
Mr. Boardman stated he would imagine the location of the propoaed house would be
facing Benjamin. Also, the present sewer and water come off oi Gardena� so they
would have to have a new water tap off Benjamin. He believed aewer could still be
served off Gardeas.
PLANNING CONQdISSION MEEPING, ,4PRIL k, 1979 PAGE 2
Mr. Harris stated that there appesred to be a setirer clesn out ia there someplace.
Mr. 8osr8man etated that there wae a eewer clean out in the middle of the Iot, and
there would have to be some changes in that. He uttderstood that the sewer for the
exieting house rrould have to be tapped off BenJamin. The nevr structure would use
existing sewer Yrom Gardena.
Mr. Iiarris etated they would then have to cut off the line.
Mr. Eoardman etated that eas correet, tne sewer would have to cooae ofY Benjamin for
the existing structure� and also the vater would have to come off Benjamin for the
existing etructure.
Mr. Harris noted they could make both taps at the eame time. He aeked what the size
of the new 2ot wovld be. '
Mr. Board�n atated the new lot would be 80.04 x 133•25•
Mr. Harris asked iY the petitioner would like to mske aqy cormnents.
Mr. Allan Fehn stated he had no co�ente at this time.
Mr. Boardman stated thet the lots to the east Were very deep lota, appr�xi�te�Y
225 feet deep.
hh�. Harris asked if there was just one structure on lot 24.
Mr. Boardmsn stated that was correct, that it looked like lot 23 had been split�
and.the northerly part had the house on it.
Mr. Fehn eteted tLat actuall,y thc south end had been split.
Mr. Oquiet noted that his house would then be Pacing Benjamin and would have a
$enjamin address.
Ms. Schnabel asked if the petitioner had talked to the people to the east at 1623
Gardena, or if the City had beard aqything from those people.
Mr. Fehn stated he had talked to no-one about this.
Mr. Boardman stated that the City does not send out notifications on lot splits,
so those people probably don't even know about it. Mr. Boardman stated that there
was a coum�ent in the file from Dick that they would need vqriance spproval since
e lot split does not require a public hearing.
Mr. Harris �aid he thought they needed a variance because they would be changing
the frontage of the house.
lYh�. Boardman stated they had done thia before with lot splita, And if they approve
the lot split� they vrould be approving the variance.
Mr. Harrie 5tated that variances need notiYicatiom.
PLANNING COIJAfISSION ME�TING, nrxa 4, �979 rnGE 3
Ma. 3chnabel etsted that what they were doing wae grandfathering in aa existing
drrclling in a non-conforming setback.
Mr. Harrie etated they Would be changing the front yard setback from the required
35 feet to 2k.lq feet.
Me. 3chnabel aeked if there cvas a garage on this property.
Mr. Fehn stated it was a tuck-under house. The entrance to the garage wae off
Gardeae.
Me. Schnabel asked how he would enter it aPter the lot split.
Mr. Fehn stated he could either enter off Benjamin and make a u-turn into i�e
existing garage, or he could build a garage in the back of the lot. .
Mr. Boardman aeked Mr. Fehn if he lived in the house present]y and if he did� vas
he plannin� on ataying there.
Mr. Fehn stated he did live in the house and plsnned un etaying there.
Mr. Boerdman seked if he planned on building on the other lot.
Mr. Fehn stated he did.
Ms. Schnabel aeked iP he was planning on tearing down the existing house at aay
point and building a new house there.
Mr. Feha steted he did not plan on tearing dawn the existing house, that it was not
very old.
Mr. Boardman asked if the garage Waa on the east or west side of the house.
Mr. Fehn stated the gara�e was on the west side of the house. He etated that he
planaed to bu31d a garage on the backside of the existing house and enter off
Benjsmin. He Would then close off the lower garage complete�jr.
Mr. Storla asked if they had settled the question dP whether or not a variance was
needed.
Mr. Aarria stated he questioned that himself and etated they could reco�ad approval
of the lot split.
Mr. Boardman stated that a questlon on platting had come up before the attorney and
if they could make some decision on platting� that would require a public hearing.
In effect� they xould then be informing the people oP the variance.
Mr. Aarrie stated he would like to have the attorney's opinion on this� because i£
Council apprwed the lot aplit, 1t would auto�atically approve the veriance.
PLANNING COMMIS3ION ME'ETI1�, APRIL 4, 1979 PAGE_4
Mr. Harris atated thnt if the Co�miaeion wished, they could act on the lot split
wlth the etipulation that they get a reco�endation from the legal stafP on whether
they need a public hearing in thig particular case. It would then be up to Council
to either hold a public hearing as far as the vnriance goes� or send it back to the
Board of Appeals. �
Mr. Langeni'eld stated they should get a legal opinion no matter which way they go.
Mr. Oquist etated that a variance goes before the l�oard of Appeals� so they could
reco�end approval of the lot split and find out vrhether or nat a variance vould be
required, e� if it is, it would go back anyway:�•to the Board of Appeals.
Mr. Boardman etated the variance would not need Council action because it is a
residential area.
Mr. Aarris etated tLat if Couacil wanted to act oa it they could� or if there was
a dispute on the variance request from the Cov�iesioners� the StefY or the neighbors�
it vould go to Council.
Mr. Boardman steted that the �st efficient way of handling it Would be to act on
the lot aplit� seuding it to Council with an action and if a variance was needed� they
vould talk to an ettorney and then start processing it through the Appeals Comm�issian.
That v�y the Council could act on it comditioned upon Appeals Co�nission� or they
could hold it and act upon it themselves.
N�ION by Mr. Oquist� seconded by Ms.Suhrbier, to reco�end to Council apprwal of
o u it Requeat, L.S. #'(9-Ol� by Allen Fehnt Split ofP the Seuther�v 222 feet of
Lot 23� Auditor's Subdivision No. 90� except the kTeat 30 feet of Lot 23� and eucept
the South 30 Feet of said Lot 23� into two buildipg sites� as follows: Parcel A.
The South 110 feet of Lot 23, A.S. �92� except the South 110 feet With t e exceptions�
and Parcel B. The South 222 feet of Lot 23, A.S. �92, except the South 110 Peet and
except the west 30 feet of said Lot 23, located at the intersection of Gardena Avenue
and Benjamin Street N.E.� contingent upon whether or not a variance ie needed.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� AI.L VOTING AYE, CHAIftMAN AARRIS DECLARID THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANSMOUSLY.
3. DISCUSSION ON TAE DRAFT COPY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVEIAPMENT PLAN:
Mr. Boardman stated that a speciel meeting had been scheduled next week for the
Planning Co�ission to discuss this and also the other Commissions would be
diecussing it. He etated that they vere looking at policy direction rather than
the vording o£ the doc�ent. The discuseion should be about whether or not they
are going in the right direction. Ae would like to avoid nit-picking on the
wording� etc.
Mr. Oquist atated they should hsve the time to read the document bePore discusaing
it.
, . �.
PLANNING CONAtI5SI0N MEETING� APRIL k, 1979 PAGE 5
Mr. Boa�rdmnn atated that the meeting vhere they gave the initial presentation
gave somc direction a� eamie idea• as to the background of the policies.
Mr. Langenfeld stated it tirea a fine presentation.
Mr. Boerdman atated thia wes an important document and needa coneideration. They
could go through it word for vord and lose the direction of the policy.
Mr. Storla asked what had motivated this document.
Mr. Boardman stated it was a regulation of the State� and if the City dcesn't do
it, the Metropolitan Gouncil will do it and charge the City Yor it.
Ms. Schnabel stated she would not be able to attend the special meeting on next
Wednesdsy and asked if she should send Pat Gabel.
Mr. Boardman said she should do that.
MOTION by Mr. Lengenfeld, seconded by Mr. Oquiat, to continue the discuasion on
the Comprehensive Develop�nt Plan.
UPON A VOICE VQTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIID
UNANII�USLY .
3. PROPOSED CHANGES IN CiiAPTER 205. ZONINGS
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, aeconded by Ms. Schnabel to move this item to the end
of the agenda.
The Co�i.saioners requested that this item appear at the end of the agenda Yrom
now on.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CAAIRMAN fiARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNAIIII�USLY.
4. RECEIVE ENII?GY PROJECT COI�R�IIT'S'EE MINUYES: MARCH 1�+, i979:
N[YPiON by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to receive the Energy Project
Committee minutes of March 14, i979.
Mr. Harris stated he had a copy of the minutea which contained more than the
minutes in the agenda book.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that vhat Mr. Harris had was the introduction and the draft.
He stated that was a revised introduction and draft because they were making a lot
of co�ents in regarde to it end they Would try to finish it up the next time
arotand .
Ms. Schnsbel asked if that Kas the "Draft Proposal - City of Frldley Policy".
Mr, I.angenfeld etated that vea what they were talking about.
Ma. Schnabel asked 3£ these were the goels and objectives oY the Energy Project
Committee.
PLANNIIQG CO2�ffSSION MEETING� APRIL 4, 1979 - PAGE 6
Mr. Langenfeld stated they had a chart listing all the items the Planning
Coffiniasion had reco�nended they cover. Ae they went through it� they were relating
the draft ta the chart to make sure they had everything incorporated in the
draft. The dreft ia the goals and ob�ectivee of the City� not juet the Energy
Project Committee.
Mr. Aarris etated he Pelt they were right on schedule.
Ms. SeBnabel atated she was afraid they were getting bogged on in gosls anfl objectives.
Mr. Langenfeld etated they had an introduction which would be presented to this
Commission With the draft.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN FiARRIS DECLARED THE N�TTON CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. RECEIVE Tf� PARKS AND ftECREATION COM[�1ISSION MINUTES: MARCH 14, 1979:
MdfION by Ms.Suhrbier, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the Merch lk, 1979�
minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Ms.Suhrbier atated that hopefully� there would te tennis courts at IQorth Paxk
School. This was from the Darrell Farr money.
Ms. Schnabel stated they were talking about eventual],y lighting those and aeked ,
if the neighbors had ar�y say in that.
Ms. Stiahrbier stated thet ahe xas not sure� but it wes such a big area� the lighting
probab],y would not effect the nei�hbore. It would be on the order of Moore Lake
and they would be timed.
Mr. Harris noted that his wife and mother-in-law had attended the Ladies Dqy Out
and had enjoyed it very much.
UPON p VOICE V02'E� AiL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED TSE N�TION CARRIID
UNANIMOUSLY.
6. RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COi�ffSSION MINUTES: MARCA 20� i979:
MOTION by Mr. Lengenfeld, seconded by Mr. Oquiet� to receive the March 20� 1979,
minutes of the Environmental Quality Coa�issioa.
Mr. Langenfeld etated that most of the discussion concerned items they vere awaiting
information on. He directed the attention of the Co�isaion ta the bottom oY page 4
and asked Mr. Harris to read the two letters he had given him.
Mr. Aarris read the letters as followe:
The firat letter was dated Merch 22� 1979 and reads as followa:
YLANNING CO2�A7ISSION ME'ETII�, APRIL 4r 1979 PA� 7
Dear Jim; I hereby aubmit my resignation to the Environmental Quality
Co�isaion. Becsuse of aSy other intereate and obligatione� I do not
have time to serve on the commission.
I am pleesed to knasr that Mervin Hora wishes to continue and therefore
there will be no problem in filling the vacancy I leave.
Sincerel,y yours,
Mre. R. E. Metcalf
The second letter was dated April 1, 1979 and read as folloxs:
Dear Jim: I recently sent you a letter resigning iqy position on the
Environmental Quality Co�nission. Subsequent�y a�y coungilman, Dennie
Sehneider� pointed out that mp+ resignation and tha filling of a� position
by Marvin Hora would create an imbalance on the commission as far as
representation of the three wards 3s concerned - i.e., there would be
three representatives from Ward l� 2 frpm Ward 3, and none from Ward 2.
He asked me to reconsider �y resignation. I heve agreed to st�y on the
Commiesion in order to continue the representation of Ward 2.
Ae you know� I hsve not been entirely satisfied with the accomplishments
of the cormnission nor of the way our meeting times have been spent. Let's
work together to speed up the time for procedural'matters - smendin� minutes
and receiving co�unications - and spend more time on the matters that are
of real concern to the commission and to the City.
Our next meeting is April 17. This is also the time for the League of Women
VoteTS� annual meeting. 5ince I should like to attend at least part of the
League's meeting� would you consider delaying the EQC etarting time until
8:15Y
Sincere�y yours,
Conaie MetcalP
Both letters were addressed to Mr. Langenfeld with copies to Mqyor Nee. The
second letter had a copy to Councilman Denn3s Schneider.
Mr. Harria stated that he was not aware that commiseion members were being appointed
according to Wards.
Mr. Langenfeld etated he was quite upset with the situation. Ae felt Mr. Hora
was well qualified. Mr. Langenfeld questioned having six commission membexs.
IY Na�. Hora an8 Mr. Wilson stsy on� that would be eix people.
I�. Aarris eaked if there was a provieion in the ordinance for aix members.
Mr. Boardman etated he vould look at the ordinance and let them know at the end
of the meeting.
PLANPiING COhP�R3SI0N t�ETING, APRIL 4, 1979 __ _ PAGE 8
Mr. Harris stated he sraa more concerned about thie bueiness of apportionment.
Mr, Boardman atated he would check the ordinance and they could diecuss St at
the end of the meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VO'PING AYE� CHAIftMAN IiARRIS DECLARED TftE MOTION CARRIED
tJNANIMOUSLY.
7. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMI�IffSSION MINfTPES; MARCH 27� 1979�
MYtiON by Ms. Schnabel seconded by Mr. Oquist� to receive the Merch 27� 1979,
m�nutes oP the Appesls Co�ission.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� AL2, VOTIPIG AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS bECLARED THE bR)TION CARRIID
UNAIZIMJUSLY.
Chairman Harris declared a recess at 8:45 r.rt. and recomened the meeting at
9:0o P.M.
8. CONTINUID: PROPOSED CHANGES IN CHAPTER 205. ZANiNG:
Mr. Harris ststed they had made several reco�endations at the last meeting and
would like to revievr them with Mr. Boardman.
205.045 accESSOax svrLVZxcs & srsucrv�s
Page 13, 2C:
Mr. Oquist stated that Mr. Harris had questioned the 3 feet and wondered if it
shouldn't be Z5 £eet. They felt the Fire Department Would require 15 feet.
Ffr. Boardman atated that the Fire Department did not require 15 feet� ae long as
they have access along the outside of the building.
Mr. Harris stated he remembered they hsd discusaed this some time ago, and he
thought the buildings had to be 15 Yeet apart or bave a co�on �rall.
Mr. Boardman stated he would check with the Fire Marshall and if that was the case�
they vould eliminate thie atatement altogether. He stated that the only other
thing that could happen there would be that the Fire Marshall would require e iire
wa1L
Page 13, #2D:
Mr, Aarris stated he was concerned about nllowing a 24 foot aceessory building in
a reeidential area. He suggested they put a limitation in R Districts.
�, Boardman etated that under R-l� there wss a height limit oY 30 feet� vhich would
incl�e accessory buildings.
Mr. Harrie stated they should meybe l�ave the 24 feet alone and make a stipulation
in R-1 to restrict it even farther.
pLqNNING CONAtZ38I0N MEETING, APRII. 4, 1979 - PAGE 9
Mr. Boardman suggested they change 2D to resd ae £ollowe; "In all districts
exeept R-1 and R-2r when an aecessory building exceeds 15 Peet in height� one (1)
oot of additional setback ie required for each three (3� Yeet af additional
height to a height limit of 24 feet. In all R-1 and R-2 Districts� an acceesory
building ahall be limited to n height of 15 feet.
The Co�iasionere concurred.
Page 13, #3:
Mr. Fiarris ststed they would like to add canopy and delete zobf houses because
they don't have a de£inition for rooY houses.
Mr. Oquist stated that #3 on page 13, and �+ on page 14 didn't fit in with this
section. Thia section deala vith accessory structures� and•#3 and #4 deale w3th
main structures.
Ms. Schnabel stated that #3 on page 13 were all accessory structures, for example�
vindmills, Plag poles, etc.
Mr. Storle stated that aome of them did refer to mein buildings� such as domes
which would be on top of the msin structure.
Mr. Boardman stated they felt they were accessory structures.
Mr. Harris stated they did want to add canopies.
Mr. I,angenfeld stated his notes indicated they wanted to add canopies to #3C on
page 14.
Mr, Harris agreed.
Ms. Schnabel stated that in regards to #3 on page 13, there were no height limitations
and she felt there should be height limitations for such things as windmills and
Ham Radio Tawers in residentlal areas.
Mr, Harris stated they had a note to rewrite this one.
Ms, bY�hrbier stated they should clarif� vhether these sre for acceasory buildings
or principal buildings.
Mr. Boardman stated they hsd height limits listed in the regular sections.
Mr. Oquist stated that a lot of those referred to the main buildings.
Mr, Boardman stated that in the old code these uere under "F�cceptiona to Lot
Requirements".
Ms. Schnabel asked if there was a height limitation to that.
Mr. Boardman atated there wae not, but they set a limit where if the structure
falla, it must fall xithin the property line, so it would not fall and damage a
neighbors property.
PLArtxit� Cot�v�asslox ME�rzrrc, APxiL 4, i979 PAGE 10
Mr. Harrie suggeeted Mr. Boardman look at this section and see what he could do.
Mr. Boardman agreed.
Pnge 14� #4:
Mr. Aarris etated thie referred to basement dwellings and didn't belong in thie
section.
Mr. Boardmnn stated he was looking at deleting this.
Ms. Schnabel atated that Appeal� Co�ission had alsa suggested this be deleted.
The Co�issioners concurred.
205.046 REQUIIiED YAAD APVD OPEN SPqCE
Page 14, #3C:
Mr. Harris stated they wanted to ineert canopies in here.
Mr. Boardman suggested they insert "canopies" after the word "porches".
The Cottm�isaioners concurred.
Mr. Storla atated that they had also requested that "required front yard" and
"required rear yard" and "required side yard" be changed to "required front setback"�
"required rear setback" and "required side setback".
Mr. Boardman stated he had no problem with that.
The Co�issioners agreed to make the change.
Mr. Oquist stated that they had also recoa�endefl they delete the words "parking
or driveways".
Mr. Boardman staLed he had no problem with that.
The Co�issioners concurred.
Page 14, #3D%
hfr. Harris stated he was concerned that thia sllowed on a 12 Poot balcox�y�.or fire
esespe.
Mr. Boardman stated this mesnt . that a fire eacape or balco� could
not extend more than 12 feet into the required ysrd. It did not limit the size
of the balcor�y, ae long as the building wae setback fsr enough.
PLANNING CON4IISSION MFETING� APRIL 4� 1979 - PAGE 11
Pege 15, #3E:
Mr. Herrie etated they s+anted thia rewritten because it was too wordy.
Mr. Boardman stated this meant that 1P something was higher that 2 Yeet it had
to be l� feet Prom the lot line. IY it wae less than 2 feet high, it could be
on the property line, which means a driveway could be on the property line.
Mr. Harris stated it was hia understanding that a driveway had to be 18 inches
from the property line.
Mr. Boardman stated that a policy like that would eliminate common driveways.
He etated that he had no problem with deleting this item.
The Co�issioners agreed to delete �3E.
Page 15� #3F:
Mr. Herris etated that they didn�t have a definition of "hedge".
Mr. Boardman suggested they delete "or closely grown hedge".
The Conmmissioners concurred.
Page 15, #5A:
Mr. Boardman suggested they delete this.
The Commissioners concurred.
Page 15� #5B:
Mr. Harris stated he had a problem wlth combining sidewslks and bikewqys.
Mr. Boardman stated that if they wanted to separate bikeways and walkways� they
would need 15 feet.
Mr. Hsrris stated he was concerned because a lady had been killed by a bicycle.
Mr. Boardman stated that in some cases, in order to have both bikeways and walkwqYs,
they had to combine them.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that where the k�azard is increased� they should eliminate
thet.
Mr, Boardman stated thst they would have a problem on Missiseippi Street. Ae
suggested they chunge it to read "Sidewalk easements shall be permitted at a
width no greater than five (5) feet unless included �.+ith a bikeway trail� at
which time we would need sn eight (8) foot easement"
Ms. Schnabel atated that he had said they would aeed 15 feet for both.
.. .. ..... .. .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .._..... ._ . . �...en�..
PLANf�NG COM[�ffSSION MEF,'TZNG, APRIL 4� 1979 PAGE 12
Mr. Bosrdman etsted that what they mqy have to look at at that point in time
vould be a combination bike��ralk within a boulevaxd area as well ae an 8 foot
easement. If they did that, they vould have about 16 Yeet from the curb to
the end of the easement.
Mr. Oquiet stated they needed 15 Yeet in order to separate the two.
Mr. Boardmnn atated it was a metter of whst they vranted to flo� because they were
looking at easements from private property.
t$�. Harris stated that vehicular traffic and pedestrian �raYfic dces not mix.
Mr. Boardaren suggested they sqy sidewalk easements should be no greater that 5 foot
and where a sidewslk has a bikeway ne�ct to it, they would put in an 8 foot easement.
They they could use the boulevard area for a bikewqy and the easement area for a
sidewalk. .
The Camnissionere concurred.
205.047 avroMOS� raxrc�
Page 15� #1:
Mr. Harris felt it wae too Wordy.
Mr. Board�mn stated that what they were saying wea that parking was such $ vague
thing� that they were letting the developer come in and tell them what they need
for parking as long as they provide space available Yor parkin� that will meet the
Code requirement.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that he felt it wae still too wordy.
Ms. Schnabel suggested they delete the first six words "In a case where it is"
and insert the word "When�.
The Cammissioners concurred.
Page 16, #3D:
Mr. Bonrdman etated that the Community Development Co�ission snd the Appeals
Commission had recommended thia be deleted,
The Commissioners concurred.
Page i6, #3F:
Mr. Harris asked xhy "carpenter shops" rrere included in this aection.
Mr. Boardman stated he had taken this from Brook�yn Center,
_ . _ _ _ __ ..-�+s
PLpNHING COt+Q+II5SI0N MEETIP�� APRII, 4� 1979 PAGE 13
Mr, Boardman stated that included similar uses. fte suggested they insert the
words "for each" before the worde "five hundred".
The Camnnissionere concurred.
Mr. Harrie asked what the difPerence was between 3F� 3K and 3S.
Mr. Boardman stated that eo� retail storea generated more traYtic tk�an bthers.
Mr. Harria reconnnended they change the word "Undertak3ng Establishments" to
"Mortuary" in 3Y.
The Co�nissioners concurred.
The Con�issioners requested that Mr. Boardman rework this whole section because
there Were aeveral inconsistencies� Por example between 3K and 3Z.
Ma. Schnabel suggested they look at established clientele figures to set parking.
Mr. Boardman stated that in some cases the use changes if the business is sold.
He stated that parking was difficult to put s handle ott snd atated he would
re�rork this section.
9, o�r� suszr�ss:
Mr. Storla stated that his term hed expired the leat day of last month and was
ssked to stay on because his Cou�ission had not yet held elections. He etated
tkiat he had enjoyed serving on the Co�ission end getting to know everyone.
The C�isaioners thanked Mr. Storla and said they would misa him.
Mr. FIarris stated that Mr. Boardman had checked the ordinance regarding members
oY co�issions, and the oxdinance states that the number o£ co�mission members
allowed is five. He stated that as Chairman he would like the minutes to show
that the Planning Commission has read the ordinance and discovered that the ordinance
requires five members per co�nission and perhaps if the Council wishes to deviate
from that they should consider amending the ordinance.
MOTION by Mr. Langen£eld, aeconded by Ms. Schnabel� to adjourn the April 4, .tg79,
meeting of the Plnnning Co[�ission.
UPON A VOICE VO'PE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE t�TING ADJOUFtNID
AT 10:30 P.M.
Respectt1�17y submitted:
�,/ �/'�
/� / ' �i�'' '�L'�z�--
'IF�atby e tan, Reco ing ecretary.
.y
i
CITY OF I'RIDLEY
SPECIAL MEETING - PLAIVIdIPdG CGi�7ISSI0N - APRTL 11� 1979
x.:.,�
���r
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairman Harria called the April 11, 1979, special meeting of the Planning
Cor�ission to order at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CAIS,:
Membera Present: Mr. Harris� Mr. Oquist� Ms. Gabel
Members Absent: Mr. Iangenfelc�� Ms. Suhrbier� Ms. Schnabel, Mz. xkeuenfels
Others Present: Mr. Saunders (newly appointed member oP Auman Resources Commiasion)
Ms. Nartin (newly appointed member of Human Resources Co�ission}
Mr. Boardman� City Planner
Mr. Leek� Associate Planner
1. COt9PREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLP.N:
Nfr. Doardman stated that they have had several member co�nission meetings includin�
Parks and Recreation� Connnunity Development� and Appeals. They irere trying to
develop a time frame and had planned on a pubZic hearing before the Planning Comroissioi
next Week� but would probably hold off on that until tbe iirst Planning Coaanission
meating in May. He wouLd like the Ple±ining Ccmmissi.on to review this simu7.t�neous7,y
with th� other commissions so that when the Plauning Cor.�mission received coTnments
from the other co�icsions� they would have a feel for what they were talking about.
He notea tk�ey had slready received a response from the Parks and Recreati�n Comm:ission
and also a letter from Peter TreuenfeLs,. The Hwnan Resources Co�issiou deeided to
review the document individually and to submit their coa�ents individually� ral:her
than as a group. The Enviorivnental Quality Commission has not yet revieWed the
document, but would be discussing it next week. Community Development and Appeals
would be holdin� more neetings to discuss it. Tne primsry point brought to the
other conmissions was that the docun�ent may look thick, but a majority oY the docvment
was a aurvey and ana�ysis oP existing conditions. They were primarily interested
in the direction of the book rather than necessarily the content of the survey and
analysis. They were looking for comments on the policy and system plan as a direction
for the City. bir. Boardman stated that at this meeting� he would like to go through
some o£ the system plans snd explain some of the mapping� within each oY the system
areas. Also, if the Coimnission wished, they could review the com�ents of the Parks
and Recreation Cwmnission.
Mr. liarris stated he had a few comments be£ore they started. He stated that regarding
the introduction, he understood the direction of it� but felt parts of it should be ,
rewritten. He vas concerned that parts oi it stepped on the tces of previous
sdministratione and that was not their intent. He agreed with most of the statements
but felt the wonding could be better. Ae asked Mr. Boardman if they should start
this discussion with goals and objectives.
Mr, Boardman stated that was correct but there were some recommended changes�from
the member commissions he would like to discuss Pirst. One of them concerned the
Iand area. Right now they have a policy statement but do not hsve aqy system plens
drawn up• Initially, they Pelt the system plsn would be the 1990 land use map but
after some diacusaion and additional reviex, they felt that parts of it could not
be covered ln map Yorm and vould need some docwaentat3on so they are presently working
on a system plan for the land use section.
6PECSAL MEEPING - PLAIdNII� COMMISSI02J APRIL 11, i979 P�E 2
Mr. Harrie stated that in the Inventory they were using some percentsges� and he
did not think these figures were giving a true picture of what really exists,
eapecially in re�ards to co�ercial and industrisl land� and aLso public land.
He had queationed how much of the co�ercial and industrial land was railrosd
property. Ae was referring to page 9 of tne document. Also� he wae concerned about
how much of that land was controlled by other governmental bodies, such as the
Minneapolis Water tdorka and FMC. He aeked if theae lands were counted in with
the industrial end commercisl Yigures in the document.
Mr• Boardman stated that the FMC was counted in with industrial becsuse it is
industrial even though there are government coatracte there e� they cann�t collect
taxes on some of the buildinga there.
Mr. Harris etated that he felt that should be spelled out plsinly in the Inventories.
Mr. Boardman stated tHat the Weter Works and the Waste Control were public lands.
Mr. Harris asked how much was controlled by the railroad. He felt this should
be specifically spelled out because it wou3.d then �ive a clearer picture oP how
much land is developable land.
Mr. Boardman stated that the railroad land that hae trackage on it is classified
as developed industrial progerty and the railroad property without trackage is
classified as vacant industrial property. F'or example, the Great Northern Rail-
road property is considered open for development. It is undeveloped industrial
property.
Mr. Harris stated that he felt the percentages indicated on page 9 could change
because of that and £elt the statement "In proportion to the total land use, the
City of Fridley has about 50� more industrial land than the Metro Area Average"
could be misleading because of this particular situation.
Mr. Boardman stated that he did not feel it was misleading and felt it was pretty
clear cut. 529a is the undeveloped industrial property in the City.
Mr. Harris stated he could not believe it was that high.
Mr. Boardman stated that we have a lot of acres , 80 acres . of Sesrs property
unoccupied� Carter-Days industrial property� Great Northern Tndustrial Park still
has a large tract open, Onan's has some open and in the Onaway, 3rea there is some
open. All of that is zoned industrial.
Ma. Gabel asked what the average breakdorm was for co�nunities in terms of industrial
and ca�ercial.
Mr. Baardman stated that Minneapolis is generally higher in commercial�industrial
than most of the other c�nmunitiea and Fridley is higher than Minneapolia in co�ercial
and industrisl.
Ms. Gsbel asked what the ratio was.
Mr. Boardman stated that the ratio is about 12�. Leas than 12� is general�y the
ratio i'or industrial zoned property and we hsve about 22;$.
�
�` SPECIAL MEE`PING - PLANNIPIG CO}�ffSSION� APRIL �1� 1979 PArE 3
Mr. iic�rris aeked if they didn�t have some epecial casea in there. fIe rePerred to
the Inventory of Public Lands and aeked how much of the land was controlled by the
City� the Sta�e and the County, anfl also the Federal Government.
Mr. Boardman stated that Publfc land included the road system� the park systems�
the City Hsll, the Water F7orks, nll of the publicly zoned pxoperty.
Mr. Herris stated he uaderstoal that, but there was considerable acreage in the
Water Works area and also in the Sewer Districta land and the Pumping Station� with-
in the bounds of the City that really isn�t our land. It belongs to someone elae,
like the City of Minneapolis.
hh�. Boardman stated that 3n genersl they felt thnt 39� is about average for public
ownership. We faZl a little bit low in cornmercial and residential in what is
generally ciessified as "normal". They mri?:e up for it in industrial.
Mr. Harris stated that then maybe the figures were accurate. He felt this was
important if what comes out of this is a proposal down the line for rezoning.
Mr. ➢oardman stated that be did not think they were looking at rezoning per se,
they were Zooking at areas that have the potential £or mixed usage.
N;r. Iiarris stated that they were saying we have to put in another 2300 units.
Mr. Bosrdm,:�� stated that they were saying they shouZd be providing another 2300
units oP housing to meet our standards or to meet the needs of the growing
popu].ation in the Twin CS_ty Area and £or us to take a share of that load.
Mr. I�arris stated it was important to have a clear picture in our Inventories
because obviously we will have to do something with our zones or make some special
provisions. Without a clear picture it would be difficult �o make a good ,judgement.
Mr. Boardrnan stated thAt he thought they had a pretty goal picture.
Ms. Gabel stated they would have to rezone to �et 2300 more units.
Mr. Bosrdman stated they weren't looking at rezoning per se� they had other tools
for providing housing units. There were programs the City couid get involved in
auch as tax increment programs, sponsorship oi low interest mortgages or tsx exempt
mort�age loans which encourage the development or redevelopment of housing programs.
Mr, Oquist stated they still had to have someplace to put those houses.
Mr. Bosrdman stated that by making low interest loana or mortgage loans and these
types of things available to apartment developers or housin� developers� even at
the industrial cost of property, they wpuld be putting it more into the realm of
acquisition. There are s lot of tools the C3ty could use to develop increased
denEity within areas. One plsce would be the Center City area. They are looking
st the improve.:,ant ot the Center City area but feel that 3n order to improve tLat
area they will have to get density within that area. So they have to look at the
posslbility of condonimium type housea or combinations of offices and houaing with-
in the Center City.
SPECIAL MEfiTING - PLANNING CONQ�ffSSION�AF�RIL 11� 1979 _ - PAGE 4
\
Mr. Oquist asked where they would put thoae in the Center City.
Mr. Boardman stnted they had about 25 to 30 acres oP open land or lsnd that cm ld
be made available. He atated there was property behind Rice Plaza between the
apartmenta and across the street Prom Holly Center. There was also land near the
Church 's ball diamond that could become available. Also� there is land owned by
Saliterman. , It has drainage problema� but maybe a solution cou7.d be found.
Mr. Oquiet asked if he wae referrin,g to the marshy land near Sandeea.
Mr. Boardman stated that was correct, and there was another tract oP lsnd near
Sear�s Outlet and the Shorewood� about 30 acres. We could put a lot oi units in
there.
Mr. Leek stated that with med3um density, they could be tallting about as many as
210 units on that amount of lsnd. With higher density they cou].d be looking at
twice that, or with a combinatian� maybe three times the density.
NIr. Hsrris stated that he suspected they might get a combination oP uses on that
land.
Mr. Soardman stated they had, at one time� looked at tbe srea near the Nature
Center by Northtown. That coula be a good location for a combination of mixed
housing and coimnercial ofYices.
Mr. Harris mentioned the area below 69�� near the river.
Mr. Leek stated that tbey should move on into the Goals aud Objectives. He stated
that in talking wiih the member commissions so far, he tried to answer their
quections about consistency between goals and object3ves and the policy sections
and sug�ested they start at the beginning with the Land IIse Pattern Section on
page 6. The Policy Section is on page 11.
Mr. fisrris stated that in looking at the first goaly V100� on page 6� it left h3m
a little cold.
Mr. Boardman stated they took the gosls and objectives provided by the City Council
and the Planning Covm�ission.
Mr. Izek stated that in looking at the goals and objectives� when they were drafting
the document, it seemed a little tenuous. When they talk about the economic well
being of the City� they are in £act talking about more than just the amount of
receipts that gsss through a commercial establishment an3 the amount of tax generated�
but also the standard of livin� of individual residents and a number of other things.
Mr. Boardman ststed they had a little trouble with goals and objectives and they
found a lot of repetition in the objectives and Where they found repetition� they
tried to eliminate those objectives. They basical�jr kept all of the goals the
same.
Mr. Harris atated that on page 6 be £elt they should say more� but wae not sure
juat what.
���
� SPECIAL MEETING - PLANNING COtM7ISSI0N� AP'RSL 11� 1979 PAGE 5
Ms. Gsbel asked if they were going to start ehanging goals and objectives.
Mr. Bosrdman stated that they could c�ent on the goale and objectives, but
the whole document wae based on the assumption tHat the goals and objectives
were given as a directian.
Mr. Harris suggested they move onto page 11.
Ms. Gabel referred to the first sentence under V120 �2.on page 11. She had a
question about that because it seems that our shopping areas are having problems
now and vrondered what direction they had in mind £or that.
Mr. Boardman stated that in looking at our proposed land use, we look at the area
that we have already for viable key coum�ercial nodes such as Holl,y Center� the
Shorewood area, the co�ercial area near Tar�et, and the Holiday Center area. In
these areas they ar.e operating and making money and they are our key coa�ercial no3es
for resident services. On top of that they have 1ocs1 co�ercial nodes cuch as the
7-ll�s and Quik Stores which provide for a very localized service area. �ese are
the types of things they are referring to under V120 #2. As energy gces up and it
costs more to get to shopping centers, there are service area within the City that
provide a function. We have to look at making those service areas more viable as
far as providing thosea services to the residents.
Mr. Leek stated that in the �uture� the relative cost in terms of energy� time arn7
money for iamilies,-not only in Fridley, but in most other communites too, to travel
to large regional centers to perform a11 of the kinds oi shopping and service ftmc-
tions they need in the course of s week or o month, will become prohibitive sixl it
woul.d seem to be necesssr,V and worthwhile to try and maintsixi those sreas 'tkiat pro-
vide grocery shopping kinds of Punctim s, dry cleaning functions� etc.� to service
the nei�hborhoods in Fridley.
Ns. Oquist stated that those small shopping areas also have to be competitive or
people wi11 drive to a larger center. He stated that they have to be careful Frith
those kind of things, because if they start planning those areas and then they
board ihem up, what are we going to do with those buildings? W2�at will l�appen to
the 7-11 on Old Central and Miseissippi?
Mr. Leek stated that in Fridley, they were not talking about promoting additional
areas where construction would have to take place. As Ma. Gabel statedi they would
try to keep viable the areas we have.
Mr. Oquist stated that the 7-11 on Old Central was a mistake because there was a
Country Boy a block away. St wss a mistake to allow that to happen� because one
of the two would not make it. That area cannot support tvo small stores. We hsve
to watch that kind of development.
Mr. Iiarris reYerred to the Eecond sentence in V120 #1 which reads as follows: "Sn
the future, risi.ng building snd energy costs will take the single-fami],y house out
of the financial reach of most families." He Pelt that statement was true, but
questioned the following sentence "That reslity coupled w3th the still-increosing
demend for housing in the City will demand that the City make every effort to
encourage the construction of alternative and affoxdable homes."
SPECTAL MEETING - PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 11, 1979 - PAGE'6
Mr. I� rria asked iP-thle meant they were going to try to promote doubles or
multiples. What direction will they take?
Mr. Boardman stuted there were a lot of directions they Wou1d have to look at. In
the System Plan they will have to deal with a lot of these issues. Some of the
things they would look at were apartments turning into condominiums. They have had
several requests ior this� snd this is one of the alternatives for different types
of home ownership. The problem with this is they wi21 be losing some of the rental
market so they will have to start looking at other provisions they can have and
other things the City can do. We have tax exempt mortgages that is a potential for
home ownerahip and also 1ow interest loans.
Mr. Harris stated that he t�ad questioned the word "construetion". As far as he
could see� they were talking about 2300 units of "new construction". He felt our
housing stock was the main concern here.
Mr. Boardman stated that there were more and more programs bec�in� available
through the Federal Government on different housing programs. There were rebabili-
tation programs that make existing structures that are presently unlivable more in
line with livable standards and yet still provide a low or moderate income housing
unit. There are a lot of nex construction techniques bec�ning available. The
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency has low interest loans ior new construction oY g
single family house. Another thing would be tax exempt mortgages. That is also on
new construction as well as existing housin� for low interest mortgage loans. We
will have to take a look at these types of things. �de will also have to encourage
things like condominiuns and those types o£ housing units for energy efPiciency.
The sin�le Yamily h�ne is grobably the least efficient type of living unit you can
have because of the waste of energy. They will also have to look at pro�rams that
wiZl make those houses energy efficient.
Ms. Gabel stated that those kinds of speciYics belong under housing. Here we are
talkin� about land use and somewhere in the policy plan we should be saying that vre
are going to provide the land to do this. �
N.r. Harris stated that in the land use section, tHey should also be talking about
density� which we don�t aZlude to at all.
Mr. Boardman stated that was a go0d point and noted that they did get into that
quite heavi}y in the housing section. He stated that in the land use section� they
should be looking not only at the existing land use we have for housing� but also
the density� as Mr. Harris pointed out.
Mr. Harris stated that in discussing this a few months ag8, they had talked about
looking at� in specific areas, density instead of lot size.
Mr. Boardman atated tk�at was a key also to a policy issue we had for converting
rental to Condominiums. It doesn�t change density a�y, so wk�y not do it. What is
the proUlem we have in doing that on existing structures?
�
SPECIAL MEETING - PLANftINC CON�LCSSION, APRIL 11, 1979 PAGE 7
� - -
Mr, Harrls etated ttwt iP we get into rezoning or speciel zoning� snd apparently
we will have to do something to get 2300 more units in, maybe our approach to
that under the Land Use Section, should be not lot sizes but density. And mqybe
we should say something like that in here.
Mr, Boardman ctated that saas a good point and also what he had mentioned about
under "Lsnd Use" they should be tallcing about lnnd availability for housing as
opposed to altemative forms of housing.
Mr. Oquist stated they could maybe drvp tk�at Pirst policy.
Mr. Boardman stated they could but in it's place they would put "encourage land
availability for alternative Porms of housing to meet the demand or need for housing
by 1990 "
bh�. Oquist asked if #3 didn�t cover that.
Mr. Herris stated that he felt it just didn't say that. He felt that in going rner
thfs thing� it didn�t seem that they were sayin� whst they were trying to do.
Ms. Gabe1 stated that she sssumed the figure of 2300 more units came from Metro
Council� but have they decided that thie is what we want to do� and if we have�
we should address the que�tion. We have not ccane out and said "we need to provide
2300 more units". .
Mr. Leek stated that in the Aousing Section we hsve said there is an e}cpected need
for 2300 additional units and that is a calculation based on some very rudimentary
statistics. The trend in decline of housin� size as figured throu;h 19yJ and pra-
jected population ittcreases. Both of those sets of inform�tion epne to us froni
Metro Council� but they are by no means dictates fr� Metro Coancil. What are
dictates� in a form, are the housir.g allocation plan figures which are also mentioned
in the Housing Plan in yrhich we state "we adopt Fridley's full share goal". He
believed that was something like 1842. So the plan does say that the City o£ Fridley
will do what it can to ensure that this maqy new units are provided in the community.
Ms. Gabel stated that then, in the Land Use Section� we should state that we will
make land available for that.
Mr. fiarris stated that was wY�y he K�s concerned about the figures in the Land
Inventory. If we are going to make the land available, We will have to get it
fr� some place.
Mr. Boardman stated that in looking at what they had just discussed, they were not
looking a� the elimination of that much industrial property. What they were looking
at was providing a mixture in some areas and a more concentrated look at the density
of development� not just sin�le family but the density of all types of development in
certain preas in order to accomplish the goal. We may keep that industrial property
to give us a good tax base to b$lance off the additional population we may get. But
what we ehould look at is increased density in certain areas.
SPECIAL MEETITdG - PLANNING COMMISSION� APRIL 11, 1979 PAGE t�
,
Mr. Harris stated that if they used what they have dane so far as & yard stick�
and a good measurement would be the Georgetown apartments where there are about
500 apartments, they used a considerable amount of land. If they are �oing to
use four times that much to accomplish 2300 unita� they will have to start carving
up something to get there.
Mr. Doardman stated they would have to change their ideas about the types of
structures. The types oP structures presentZy going in Por spartments� are�very
wasteful on the land primarily because they dott't wunt to go any higher because
they need a different type oY structure to �o over three stories. So an apartment
complex is a kind oP sgrawlin� type of complex to accomplish the sa�e thing they
could in a five story building.
Mr. fiarris stated that would involve density again. It seemed that the Geor�etown
Apartments had about all the density they could get.
Mr. Boardman'agreed and stated there would have to be sane changes in our thoughts
and in our zoning ordinances to allow higher densities in certain areas.
hir. Oquist asked wt�y they would want to do that? He stated that we was pl�ying
devil's advocate and asked why they wanted to pack in everything we can into the
community. Instead of putting in 5�0 wk�y not 200? Why do we feel this need to
fill it up?
Mr. Leek stated ttrat at this point, they were juraping the gun on the decisions
that would be made by the City providing that kind of housing. At this point in
time, they were not looking at specific sites, and he did not think they could�
nor could they look at specific proposals. So they did not know whether they were
talking about packing them in� so to speak.
Mr. Oquist stated they were talking about that in a way because they were talking
about bringing in 230D more families And making living space available for that
many. They should step back and a�k if that's what they reall,y want to do.
Mr. Boardman stated there were some very basic questions underlying that. First oY
all, the American people have generally been a very wasteful people and he thought
our ideas and coneepts as to the use of availability of resources i� going to have
change. As far as taxes� right now a sin�le fami]y type of development is probably
the least dense tqpe of development and it's getting less dense as the family sizes
continue to go down. So the amount of resources we use per household is increasing
when we look at density. There is more and more demand £or additional housing and
thst housing has to go somepluce. And that is the problem in urban communities.
The main concept is to get people into a more concentrated area and provide a lot of
parks and open spaces within easy aceess and also service areas within easy access.
They cou7.d then provide more facilities for less resource cost.
Mr. Oquist stated they had to be careful not to pack them in too much. He could
understand not promoting single fami]y dwellir�s because of the energy problems
snd other things but they should be careful about gettir�g into large apartment
complexes and that kind of thing just to provide so mar�y dwellings for an assumed
market.
�
�SPECIAL MEEPING - PLANNZNG COMMISSION, APRIL 11, 1979 PAGE 9
Mr. Boardman atsteS they were not necesearily ta2lcing about large apartment com-
plexes,:or renter occupied complexee. The ideas of ownership are changing. A lot
of people are deciding they don't want single fami]y ownership and want condominium
type ownership. In the rental units they are constantly at 9F3p or 99;6 occupied.
It ie very diPficult to find adequate hous3ng in the metropolitan area. Ener�
eosts sre increasing.
Mr. Oquist stated that his point was tHat we bave to really know what we are doing
here. We don't want to be putting in density for the sske of density or because
Metro Council says we ahould have so many heads per acre. We have the opportunity
to do a little bit of planning on the land that is left and we shouldn't go all out
on a density kind of thing.
Ma. Gabel asked what would happen if we didn't provide tbe number of units that
Metro Council asked for.
Mr. Leek stated that if a co�unity doesn�t adopt it's full share housing goals,
it will lose points when Metro Council evaluates a grant application.
Mr. Boardman stated they should look at the City of Fridley as a neighbor and a
part vf the metropolitan area and we should share the problem.
Mr. Oquist asked if we hadn't already done our £sir share.
Mr. Boardman stated we were quitE a bit below what the average community provides
as far as housing gces.
Mr. Leek stated that without isolating for industrial and public land, this commun-
ity's overall density is five (7) pzople per acre.
Mr. Oquist noted that included industrial which in Fridley is a high percentage
over other co�unities.
Mr. Leek stated that was correct. The industrial is approximately 22.1�p and i£
you pull out about one £ifth, you would be looking at approximately 6 to 7 people
per acre. If you pull out public lsnd, which constitutes about 39�, you would be
looking at just under 10 p�ople per acre.
Mr. Oquist stated that his point wAS that he didn't know if we needed such high
density developuient.
Mr. Leek stated that in Fridley most of the residential land was already developed
vhich means we have to search elsewhere� even at that a large portion of our land
is developed. In addition we are looking at 2300 units. As a£igure that sounds
like a lot, but when you consider that Fridley already has 10�000 housing units� it's
not that much more� especial�y when you think of there being £ewer people per unit.
Mr. Oquist ststed that wae 25�6 more and was quite a bit.
N¢�. Leek stated this would take place over the next ten years and that is projected
ae being the peak of gro�+th for res3dentiel construction in this c�unity.
�
SPECIAL A".E�TING PLANtiING COt�A7ISSI0N� APRIL 11� 1979 - PAGE �0
Mr. noardman stated that there is land available in Fridley� but that land ie
more difficult to use, it's more expen�ive to use or it's zoned industrial and
not available for residential at this time. It's rt matter of what our priorities
are for the use of that property. Right now we are providing 1.2 jobs
per household in the City of Fridley and we still have a lot of open induatrial
space. Another question is are we going to be the job center for the metropolitan
area? Do we want to provide jobs for everybody elses co�unityY Do we want to
provide 2.5 or 3.5 jobs per household in our coum�unity? Or do we want to balance
that more? Do we want to provide housing for the people who work in Fridley so
they can live in Fridley?
D4s. Gabel stated that in Appeals they hear people sqy that they moved here so they
could have open space and they don�t want to be packed in.
Mr. Boardman stated that won�t happen. Those people already have houses with yards
and the housing will stay essentially the same in Fridley.
Mr. Oquist stated they would be packing in more traffic and more people would be
using the services.
Mr. Boardman stated that more people would be paying for the services also.
Ms. Gabel stated we have s responsibility to the people who are already here.
b1r. Boardman stated they were also paying for the sexvices for people who utilize
the businesses. They have to work out a balance. They are not talking about
packin� the neighborhoods or the people who are already existing here. Fridley
is primarily a single family co�nunity and it will remain single Pamily. They
will not see a major change in that and the only change in that will be energy
related. Those kinds of char�ges are already taking place. People are splitt3ng
off their basements and renting them out. They are doing their own packing.
Mr. Saunders asked if Fridley was involved in the Distriet Heating Studies that
the Eher�y Agency is promoting.
Mr. Harris stated that we have the Energy Project Committee that is looking at the
energy situation.
Mr. Oquist stated that the talk of development and density concerns him.
Mr. Beardman ststed that he understood his concern, but the type of development
they were talking about and the location of the developments are peripheral
developments primarily. They are developments that presently have a road system
to service them. They were not talkin� about developments within a neighborhood
where they would go into a residential area and take down five or six blocks of
homes and put up a concentrated development. They were not talking about that
because in the first place, when you have a higher concentrstion you have to service
th&t concentretion with a road system that can handle it.
Mr. Leek stated that another reason it wouldn't happen wss that Fridley's housing
ctock is sound snd there is no reason for taking down sound housing to put up
concentrated housing,
SPECIAL MEETING - PLANNING COMMISSIONt APRIL 11� 1�79 __ PAGE 11
Mr. Oquist asked what would happen if a tornado went thro��gh.
hir. Harris stated that because of services and esteblished street patterns� it
would probably be built much the ssme. .
Mr. Oquiet stated that some streets had all the traffic they could handle without
increasing the density.
Mr. Boardman stated that may not be a problem of density so much as the road pattern
that's existing.
Ns. Fiarris stated that they may have to do some major overhaul on the road patterns.
Mr. Oquist stated that then to provide £or this density, they would have to change
the road patterns.
Mr. Boardman stated that the road pattern was a problem now. He stated that the
primary problem with the transportation syatem in the City now was the north-south
access route. That will do nothing but increase traffic.
Mr. Oquist stated that to bring in more densityj they will have to have more exits
off those roads.
Ms. Gabel asked if this discussion didn�t belon�; under housing.
Mr. Harris stated that it was important to discuse these thi.ngs.
Mr. Leek stated that in discussing housing, they should keep in mind that tY�e City
has very little impact on market conditions and what housing is going to be pro-
vided except for the mini�ral pre:,sures we can put to bear because oi our zoning
codes. If in fact, in ten yesrs material costs and labor co�ts go down� people
are ¢oing to build single family homes no matter what our code says.
Mr. Harris stated that the whole question of .land use and density impac� more than
just land use. City services must be provided and also, right now we are figuring
1 child per household in the school districts, That coizld be a disaster for the
schools.
Mr. Boardman stated that ihe impact on the school districts would not cbange a lot.
He stated that it depended on the type of unitc they were looking at. Townhouses
like in Innsbruck have a very small child population.
Mr. &trris stated his point was that they should be careful when they.�et into the
land use area thst it doesn't al.l end up in one area. They should make sure that
it's spread.
Mr. Hoardman agreed. He stated that there would be concentrations within one area
like in Innsbruck. There would be concentration within one building structure but
there would be more open space. They will not give up the open space for houaing
units.
SPECIAL MEETSI� - PLA1dNING CON,hLCSSION, APRIL 11� 1979 PAGE 12
Mr. Oquist asked if they had done any atudies on the available land left in F'ridley
and see what the den�ity level would be if they maintained the averege. Would
sll the land left to build on satisfy bringing in 2300 more unita?
Mr. Leek stated they had not done that but they hsve inventoried what was availsble
reaidential land.
Ms. Gabel asked if that included 40 £oot lots,
Mr. Basrdman stated they had included all of the land thst is residentisl that is
open including 1+0 foot lota.
Mr. Harrie stated they should talk about denaity snd what the optimum should be.
Mr. Leeic stated that each coimnunity and esch neighborhood ares must be assessed
individually.
Mr. Harris suggested that they take a neighborhood area.
N�r. Leek that the area just north of Mississippi� near Terrace Park and the Meadow-
lands, for example� would have an optimum density oY 3 to 5 units per acre. That
is single £amily density.
Dir. Harris su�ested they look at density for these 2300 units. In future construction
what kind oi densitfes shou?d they look at and obviou�ly it would be multiple use.
b9r. Boaxdman stated he thought they would see a mixture of different types of units.
They would sti11 have the sxngle Yamity tuiits and would see a medium density in
so�ae areas. There could even be a difference in the site. It could range from
low to medium to high density.
Mr. Harris stated he was looking fox an average. He wanted more definitive answers.
IP they had 30 acres and tbey were going to put about 2� units on it� that givea
us a better idea.
Mr. Board:nsn stated they were not looking at hign density concentrations. fte felt
they were looking more in the area of inedium density concentration, such as an
apartment type concentration.
A�Lr. Harris stated that if they could put 500 ta 600 unite on a 30 acre tract, that's
telling him that in order to prwide for 2300 units, they would need Pour to five
sites like that. Do we have foux or five �ites like that?
ASr. Boardman stated we have about 1500 acres of industriel property. He pointed
out on the r.�ap several areas that hAVe the possibility o#' mixed usage.
Mr. Harris ststed that When they inventory these particular sites they shou].d be
sure they can in actuality be built on and can support what we are talking about.
Mr. Boardman atated he felt they could.
! . . ...... ... .. . .... . . . ..
�� SPECIAL ME'ETING - PLAIVNING CO:�IISSION, APRII. 11, 1p79 __- PAGE 13
Mr. Boardman stated that he did not see that City-wide density would go up that
much becxuse the single family areas are becoming lese dense. Ten years ago in
the aingle family households there were 4.3 persons per household and now there
are 2.9 to 3•1 persons per household.
Mr. Aarris etated thst was a fact they were not taking into effect in our present
zoning code. They referred to lot size and not density.
Mr. Leek stated that in talking aboui; density they were talking about two things.
First of sll there is population density which is the number of people per area.
The other kind of density is the number of units per acre� and tYiat depen3s upon
architectural design. What they will have to look at is the process within the
City which looks at each site which potential.],y can be developed into medium or
high density housing and evaluates the proposal Yor that site in terms of haw
the units relate to one another within the site and how the development rej.ates
to it's neighbors whether the neighbors are industrial or co�aercial or residential
and the way it relates to the City as a whole. In the housing plan this is some-
thing we try to address. Traditional7,y, what we have thought of in term.s of density
is apartment buildings. But that is not necessaril,y the on]y form available Por
the development of density. There are alteruatives Yor home ownership within
multiple unit kinds of structurec tk.at hsve tBe senee of single fatnily homes. This
is sn elternative.
b1r. Boardman stAted that what they rrere saying was that there is ogen space in
Fridley, and that land will be developed.
Mr. Oquist stated they had to be careivl whea they fi12 those spaces up. They
have a lot of acrenge snd they should spread it out.
Mr. Boardman stated that development pressuxec were heavy and it would behoove the
City to determine what use� we want on the available property. T�ere are msny
demands such as for the elderl.y, services, liousing units and housing.units for
young people.
Mr. Harris stated that they would have to talk about this again and asked Mr.
Boa�'dman if he understood the direction they were talking about.
Mr, Boardman stated they should be talking more policy as fsr as density goes.
Ms, Gabel stated she had a question about items 1, 2 and 3 Qn page 68. She felt
this tied into the question of 40 foot lots and was changin� the philosopY�y they
had folloved up to now.
Mr. Boardman stated he agreed that Items 1, 2 and 3 should not be in here. The
first sentence of thrit paragraph was fine but those three items should not be here.
He also stated that the philosopY�y was changing and that Coimnunity Development had
reco�ended less than the 9,000 square foot, they had recommended 7500 square ieet
and Human Resources had also recoimnended 7500 square feet.
i
SPECIAL MEETIIJG - PLANIVING COMMISSION, APRIL 11� 1979 - _ PAGE_14 �
Mr. Leek stated they should keep in mind that the £irst one talks about a range
of lot sizes. 'Phis does not say that the City should go to 40 £oot, lots. An
8�000 square fbot lot is a�ood size lot.
Mr. Harris stated they were talking square footage not density.
btr. Oquist stated tk�at Co�unity Development had recommended they go with a density
program.
Mr. Boardman stated that the questian iras what density should they be talking about.
Mr. Harris stated that was something they should discuss.
Ms. GAbeZ stated that they were promoting low cost housing and there were a lot
of ramifications to that.
Mr. Boardman stated they were not talkin� about low cost housing. They were talking
about reducing the cost of housing.
Mr. Oquist stated that we need a goal definition oY low cost housing.
Mr. Harris stated that in discussing this years ago, they had mi�ced up the ter�s
low cost housing with substandard housir.6. They are two different tliin�s. He
stated that the present cales provides Por a pretty good quality house as far as
struetural vaiues and energy eificiency goes.
Ms. Gabel stated she was opposed to allowing homes without �arages because it is
dangerous to the health� safety and welfare oY the people ta have junk ],ying
around. She stated that people were saying that they had to put in �arages� and
wY�y shouldn�t people coming in have a garage.
Mr. Boardman stated that standards change. �`
I�h�. Leek stated that the cost of a gara�e Five years ago was less than it is now
and unless the City responds to that appropriately, it would not be serving the
population.
Ms. Gabel stated that by not requiring garages, they would be running into a
community attitude and we have a resgonsibility to the community as a whole.
Mr. Boardman stated that the Couneil might not go aZong with everything in here,
but there are' questions that have to sddressed.
Ms. Gabel stated she didn't think we should be locked into these three items.
Mr. i3oardman stated there were reasons for those such as economic reasons.
Mr. Leek stated he could understand her objection to those kinds of changes to
the housing cale, but they must keep in mind the purpo3e of reducing the cost of
housing in Fridley. He asked what alternativec there were to reduci� the cost
of housing without jeopardizing the zoning code for single Famil,y.
1
SPECIAL Mf�'CING - PLANNING CON(NffSSION� APRIL 17.� 1979 PACE 15
Ma. Martin stated that We had to conaider young people because moet houses on the
market are out of their reach.
Mr. Harris stated that what they used to think was thnt they ahould combine the
number of joba with households, figuring in those days there was one vorker per
household. Do we still want to do that7
Mr. Boax'dman stated thst at thia time� rre were looking more at proximity of
working areas to a population.
Mr. Izek atated that in general terms� that rule of thumb served it's purpose
becquse it helped to keep the City viable� but it did that by providing a certain
tax base and a certain sales receipt base� not because it provided one job per
househo�d. Wk�at's beco�ing ir�portant is that you provide housing thrat has ready�
efficient and amenable accees to coacentrations of employr,:ent and those concentrations
of employment should increasingly be scattered throughout the metropolitan region.
Concentrated employment causes problems with traffic and economics. That is wt�y it
is important to look at the provision of jobs within the corrmiunity.
Mr. Boardman stated that the balance of that is they want to provide househo].ds to
service job facilities because of energy. Energy is going to have to be addressed
by all communities. People canm t afford to travel a great distance to a job.
Mr. Leek stated that people would be narrowing their job search.
Mr. Boardman stated there wo+.zld have to be chan�5es �n company attitudes regarding
transfers even �+ithin the metropolitan area.
Mr. Leek stated that in regard to some of the questions raised here by Ms. Gabel
and Mr. Oquist� they should look at page 54� H140.
Mr. Boardman xeferred to K150 on psge 54.
Mr. Leek stated tliat may say we don't have to grovide 2300 units, but xe should
provide Z82�•
Mr. �quist asked wY�y we had to have L@20 units2
Mr. Boardman stated that was Fridley's full share based on an allocation of housing.
This came from Metro CoUncil.
Mr. Leek stated that what it doea is allocate to Fridley rough]y 2.06� of new
houBing in the metro area.
Mr. Harris stated that he could see the Planner's point. If we can provide 1850,
we could go the rest of the way snd provide the 2300 units.
Ms. Gabel stated she did not have a proUlem with that. She had a problem with
sa�ying they were going to be on smaller lota and make them smaTler houses.
Mr. Boardman atated that Items 1� 2 and 3 were an attempt to reduce the cost of
single family hous3ng.
<�
SE'ECIAL MEETING - FI.ANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 11� 1979 PAG� 16 :
t
Ms. Gabel stated they were providing a different quality of liYe with those three
itema.
Mr. Boardman stated there were same basic questions they had to address. I'iret of
a21 is the cost of housing, Whnt can the City do to reduce the cost of housing?
Another quecstion is the provi.sion of additional housin�r. What can the City do
to provide that additional housing and to provide the services to go along with that
housing such as Jobc, transDOrtation services and parks and recreation facilities.
The third question is how can we increase those ammenities and still provide for
the ecological ba2ance with the metrogolitan area. Here we get into natural re-
sources such as the water quality of the river,runoYf, wetland preservation as com-
pured to woter recharge area. These are the basic questions we have to answer.
Ids. Gabel stated there had to be a better way to address that and she tho�tght it
wgs density.
Mr. E�rris stated that density was a very useful tool zxi a lot of respects.
Mr. Boarclman stated thst when the 2oning code was set up it was based on density,
however they tur�ed sround xnd asked how do we evaluate density, and they evaluate
density 'by square foot. And what that did was eliminate cluster housin� and tbe
tewnhouse development without approval. It allo�rs density per acre and instead
of' makin„ goai use of the land as far as land contours and wetlands� it allowed
for people to do things like fill in wetlands to build on them.
2. OI`ii:;'� 73(?37p7ESS:
Dir, Sav_.zoer., stAted that he had been asked by the Human Resources to read a
gro,^1.a�r.�Cion regarding the Year of the Child. He read the proclan:ation and
stete3 it wss t� ba preser.ted to Gouncil. He asked if the Planning Coum;ission
oz' 'the Nv.�n Hi�ht Coa�mzssion shou2d make tlie presenttztion.
D�. Iiarris suggested he esk Peter Treuenfeff to poll the Human Rescurces Commission
and see what they WAII'tF:d t0 do.
Mr. Leek stated that if they wanted, they could have both commissions make the
presenta2ion.
MdPIOTd by Idr. Oquist� seconded by Ms. Gabel to adjourn the April 11� 1979� special
meeting of the Planning Ccmm�ission.
UPOn A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIfiG AYE� CF7AIRMAN IiAitRI5 DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED
AT 10:10 P.M.
Re�pectfully submitted:
�,✓'•!. -�/ !' � s?,L
'ii �� r'�..%i. c�
t�y he ton, Recording ecretary
�
cim�c oF Fxmr.Ex
ApP'EALS CONIIdISSION MEETING - APRIL 10� i979
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairwoman Schnabel called the April 1Q� 1979, meetiag of the Appeals co�ieStpn
to order at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Membere Fres�nt: Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Kemper� Ms. Gebel� Mr. Barna
hSembers Abaent: Mr. Plemel
Others Preeent: Mr. Clark, Co�unity Development Administrator
Mr. Boardman, City Pl.anner (arrived at 9:15 P.M,)
1. APPROVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINCITES: MARCH 27, 1979:
MOTION by Mr. Barns, seconded by Ms. Gabel� to approve the Mareh 27, 1979, �nutes
oY the Appeals Co�iseion.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CAAIRWOMAN SCANABPsL DECLARID TAE MOTION CARRIED
UNAriIM0U5LY.
2. PURSUANT TO
OF THE FRIDLEY CITY
� ..�..�..�s
MOTION by Mr. Kemper� seconded by Ms. Gabel to open the Public Hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CAAIFtWOMAN 5CFiNABEL DECLARID THE Pi7BLIC AEARING
OPEN AT 7:40 P.M.
Ms. Schnabel read the Administrative Staff Report ae followe:
-•. '; ADMINIS7RATIV[ STAFF REPORT
201 45t1i Avenue N.E.
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SrRVED BY RE UIREh1ENT:
Sectian 205.053, 4, .4, re�;uires a front yard setback of 35 feet.
Fublic purpose served is to provide open space for nff-street parking
without encroachinq on public right of way. Also for the aesthetic
considerations not to reduce the "building line of sight" encroachment
into a reighbor's front yard
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
The extra room is needed and there �s no other feasible way to add onto
the house.
��
APPEALS CONR4ISSION MEETING, APRIL 10� 1979 - PAGE 2
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFf REVIEW:
The existing 22' x 46' house is located 35.5' from 2nd Street. The 22
foot dimension paraTiels 2nd Street and the peiitioner want to add 8 feet
onto this end of the house to enlarge their kitchen and living room. Since
they have a detached garage fronting on 45th Avenue, the 8 foot addition
will not affect off-street parking.
Should the Commission approve this request, the staff does not have any
stipulations that we wou7d recor�nend.
Mr. Ssndin etated that the garage fACea b5th Avenue.
Ms. Schnabel atated tk�at the Commi.ssionere had a copy of the aurvey and also tWo
picturea of the house. She stated that ae s point of clarification, although the
house does Yront on 45th Ave., the narrow part of the lot faces 2nd Street, and the
narrow part of the lot ie considered the front. That is the reason Yor the 35 Yoot
setback rather than 17.5 in this esse. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr, Sandin to come
Yorward and stated that their understanding was that he wanted to add on to the
narrow part of the house facing 2nd Street.
Mr. Sandin stated that was correct.
Mr. Kemper asked how recent the survey xas.
Mr. Sandin stated that it was an old aurvey, but was takea after the house was
built.
Mr. Kemper asked how Mr, Ssndin would continue the rooY line.
Mr. Sandin stated the roof line would remain the same� he would mwe the hip line.
St would be just like iP he cut it in half and added to flie cenEer and moved the west
ora�l Aur 8 feet.
Me. Schnabel aeked if the siding would be the same.
Mr. Sandin stated it would.
Ms. Schnabel asked what he would do with the lower level.
Mr. Sandin stated it would be all basement� there are no roa�s there._ Since he
had to go do�n 42 inches, he might as well pour the basement. It srould look the
same as it does now, only extend out f�u^ther.
Ms. Sehnabel noted that the hardship sts�ed on tbe Staff Report was that he needed
extra room. She asked if this was a kitchen and dining $rea.
Mr. Sandin atated that the kitchett and dining srea were to the rear of the house
end the living room vas in front. He would like to enlarge the kitchen and dining
ares and thie was the on7y vra�y to do it.
APPEAL3 COI�ALISSION MEEPING j APRIL 10, 1979 --- -- PAGE 3
Ms. Sehnabel saked if there were pipes on that rrall of the kitchen.
Mr. 3endin stated the7re were and the plumbing Would have to be moved.
I�. Kemper asked if he vould be doing the work himaelf.
Mr. Sasxiin atated he would be the fieneral constz'actq,g�� He wvuld 1�iX�,pegpl� Co�dq tfia
work. His wife's uncle would do the carpenter *+ork.
Mr. B�rna asked if he had considered making the basement a wellcout for future
expanaion. The alope oP the earth there vould lend itaelY to that. -
Mr. Sa�in stated he had no intentions of putting a doorway in there.
Ms. Schnabel asked if he l�sd talked to his neighbors.
Nfr. Sandin stated that two oY his neighbors were here� the one i�ediately to the
north and the one next to him,on the 2nd Street eide.
Mr. Gareth Iverson� 4519 - 2nd St. N.E. came Yorward and stated he had no objections�
and felt it would add to the neighborhoal.
Mr. Fdwin Ho�lund, 4531 - 2nd Street N.E. came forward and stated he had no obj�ctiona,
that whenever Mr. Sandin did as�ything to his homc, he always made it better. He
did nqt Yeel there would be a�y problem with the line of trafYic.
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Gabel� to cloae the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� AIS, VOTIflG AYE� CAAIRWOf�IAN SCHNABEL DECLARID THE PITBLIC F�ARII�
CLOSED AT 7:50 P.M.
Mr. Barna stated he felt it would make a good walkout. He slso stated that 90',� of
the corner lots don't line up crith the rest of the street anyhow� so he did not
Yeel there would be ar�y visual impact, especially since it i's so far back Prom the
street. He would have no problem with it.
Ms. Schnabel stated that since the neighbors to the north did not object� she had
no problem either.
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to approve the request for variance
pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to zeduce the front yard setback
of an existing house at 201 45th Ave. N.E. Yrom the re,uired 35 feet to 27 feet� to
ellow the conatruction of an S foot by 22 foot additioc. to the west cnd o� the house,
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNAHEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIID
UNqNIMOUSLY.
Ms. Schnsbel informed Mr. Sandin that he was PTee to app�y for a building permit.
Mr. Sandia thanked the Co�issionere.
_ _ _ ,
APPEAIS COMMISSION MEEPING� APRIL 10� 1979 - PAGE 4
3•
NSOTION by Ms. Gsbel, eeconded by Mr. Kemper, to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOIC� VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, GAAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED TRE PUBLIC fiEARING
OPEN AT 7:55 P.M.
Ms. 3chnabel reed the Administrative Staff Report as follows:
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
.,. �� bb61-6671-66f31 Main St.
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED f3Y REQUIR[MENT:
Section 205. 14, The public purpose of this section , and the five acre
minfmum size for a townhouse development, is to provide for and
encourage advances in housing design; changes in types of dwellings; give
more. flexibility in layout and site planning; the development of the
life-cycle environment; and the more efficient use of tand, open space
and public facilities.
B. SiATED HARDSH
Nonet•+as given with the application, however, a17 conditions exist, and
a variance approval will be necessary to accompl.ish the petitioner's
plan to se11 off the �iniis as owner �ccupied. .
C. ADMINISTRATIUE STAFF REVIEW:
The City attorney was verbally consulted ancf his response was that the
Commission should review tlie request based on the sabstar;dard size of the
overall tract, that he would have to review the �ownhouse association by-
laws, and tf�ai f�e may want to comment on tiiose when the proposa7 reaches
the City Cauncil.
The staff has no stipulations that it would recommend, related to the
variance, and will reserve its comments later on in the process when we
have received more details from the petitioner. This will occur when the
plat {�ay Park Addition), association by-laws, and �rariance request,
reach the Council level as a compiete package.
Ms. Schnatel stated that the Commiseionera had reoeived copies of the minutes
from the Planning Commisaion Meeting of March 21, 1979. One of the first iteme
on the agenda that evening was a public hearing for consideration oY a prapoeed
preliminary plat. That plat was reca�mernied to Council for approval with the
'�R"�
ppPEALS CONQ2[SSTON MEETING APRIL 10 1979 - PAGE 5
etipulation thst Staff look into the utility factore vith regarde to separate
meters for water� gas snd power. Also to make certain there vere no problema
aith setbacks a� easements especially in regarde to drainage and utilities
and also to make certain that the drainage and utility easements are shorm on
the nerr plat. Me. Schnabel stated that.the Commiasionere had a eurveY and two
pictures oP the tri-plex. Ma. Sclmabel stated that one of the queatione raised
at the Planning Covaaisaion meeting Was vhether or not there would heve to be a
variance request for zero lot line construction.
Mr. Clark etsted he would like to go over the StaPf Report. The public purpose
served was taken from the townhouse ordinance. The reason they said� under the
hardship section, that all co�itiona exiets� rras ttiat fact that the townhouse
ordinance was drafted basically to develop vacant land and this is the reverse�
the structure a].resdy exists. There is no more acreage available. When Mr.
Nitscheke came in and aeked what he could do to sell these units ae owner occupied�
they had a choice oP going R-1, single family lots with variancea far each indivi-
dual size of the lots, because they are all less than the single family ordinanee
calls Por and also they would need variances Por zero lot line. But in the town-
house development� typically they are all zero lot lines. Therefore� as long as
they call this a to�mhouae development, he did not need vsriances £or zero lbt iine.
Mr. Clark stated that they would probably aee more of this kind of thing. Rather
tkian handle them as single iamily lots, they will probab],y be handling them the
same way. So this will be the first one through. As far as k�aving individual
meters and utilities for each one, Mr. Sobiech� the City Engineer, is working
with the City Attorney and other public works personnel on that. From the stand-
point of the City, we would probably be better ofi with three owners in that tri-
plex than three renters as £ar as pride in the dwelling and care of the atructure.
Ms. Schnabel ssked on what Pacts he based thst opinion.
Mr. Clark stated they would not have an absentee lsndlord for one thing� wbich
they Would iP Mr. Nitscheke sold the building.
Me. Schnabel stated he was making a aupposition which was not based on iact, be-
cause there are other buildings in the City that are owner occupied.
Mr. Clark stated they also had absentee landlords in the City. If they want to
look at what would be best for the building, if the building was built as a town-
house it would have been built diYferent],y, with separate utilitiea for each unit�
and the fire wall would continue through the attic. Those would be the on�y
difPerences. They all have separate electric meters and separste gas metera now
slong with separste hot wster heaters and Purnaces.
Ms. Gebel asked vhich meters were on tue north side.
Mr. Clark stated those �ere the gas meters.
Ms. Schnabel stated that then there were three gas meters and three electric meters�
and esked if there were three water meters.
Mx. Nitacheke atated there were three gas and electric meters� snd they could do
the same with trie water� although at present there were not three water meters.
APPEALS COt�ffSSION MEE'PING nrFtiL 10 1979 PAGE 6
Mr. Clark stated there wae one other thing he Would like to co�ent on and that
vras that technically there was a code violation that does exist on the property�
and that wae that Mr. Nitacheke was using part of his gsrage for hia insursnce
office. He ie self-employed and dces not hire anyone else. Also, they have not
received any complaints. But technically, it is s violation because he has e
home occupation taking place in sn accessory building. If he moved the bueiness
into the houae� it would no longer be a violation.
Ma. Gabel asked if it didn't have to be moved� since it is a code violation.
Mr. Clark stated that was correct, it should be moved to comply With the code.
He stated that there were a lot of violations that exiat� but they are not staYfed
to handle all oP them. So� business attract a 1ot of cars and people� but this
bueiness does not. Also� it ie not offensive to the neighborhood.
Ms. Schnabel ststed she was concerned when she saw that conmmercial use of s garage�
and wae surprised when she saw it there. She asked wbat this waa zoned as.
Mr. Clark stated it �ras R-3� and there was a time when an office was allowed in an
R-3.
Me, Setiaabel stated that this had happened after that ordinance was changed.
Mr. Nitscheke stated he had moved into the garage in 1974 and at that time� he
thought it vrould be only temporary. One of the ressons he xants to sell is to get
e difYerent location. He also stated that he is right'across from an indus�rial area..
Ms. Schnabel etated that was truey but he was in a residential area with s co�ercial
venture� Which is not permitted by our code now and vas not permitted in 1974. There
are certain land space requirements that our zonin� ordinance ia very etrict about.
She asked if the tri-plex wae built in 1973, a� asked alao what they were classified
ae at that time.
Mr. Clark stated they were built in Oetober of 1973 and they were clasaified ae
an apart�nt house on the original building permit� or a tri-plex.
Mr. Nitecheke etated he ha8 always thought of it ae a to�mhouse.
Mr. Clark etated that it is a townhouse design, but technically in the code it is
an apartment.
Ms. Schnabel stated that had it been a townhouse at that time� ve would have requ3red
more land.
Mr. Clark stated they wwld have required 5 acres.
Ms. Seimabel atsted thet for a tri-plex we would require 10,000 square Yeet. In
terms of dividing this block into three lota� how man,y square £eet wauld be in the
lndividual lot aizea?
Mr. Kemper stated there would be spproacimately 3667 aquare feet per lot. The total
lot size is 10,999.8.
.�
APPEAL3 COMMIS3ION 2+�TING, APfiII. 10, 1979 - PAGE 7
Ms. 8chnabel atated that in efPect then, they were not on�V going from 5 acres to
.25 acrea� but ia terme of lot eize they would be going Yr� the requirement of
9,OOQ square feet to 3�7 equere feet.
Mr. Clark stated that was correct if they looked at it from the standpoint of R-1
Zone vith R-1 lota. The ares requirement in en R-3 Zone for townhousea is 3�000
square feet per unit.
Ma. Schnabel stated she agreed rrith Mr. Clsrk�s statement that they would be seeing
quite a b3t of this, and asked at what point� as a City, they should draw the line
as to what is called townhouses a� what would be called flat out duplexes or private
dwellinga wi.th mother-in-law apartments. How are we� as a City� going to handle
this in the future.
Mr. Clark stated that the reason they choae to go fxom 5 acres to .25 acres was because
the structure� for one thing looks like a townhouse. Also it vas the only variance
even though it's a big variance� they would need in thie case to make it comply with
the townhouse ordinance. If they chose to call it that in R-l� attached single
Yamily dwellings, and used the part of the pintting ordinance they would for any other
type of single Pami]y dwellir�s, they would need lot area, setbacks� zero lot line.
variances.
Ms. Gabel stated that what they did then was go through the code and find the part
it most complied with.
Mr. Glark stated that was correct plus there wou7.d probab]y be some by-laws so
the building doesn!t get too different� as far as colors and maintanance of the
grounds.
Ms. Gabel agreed it did look like a townhouse when you drive by, but also agreed
with Ms. Schnabel's co�ents. Whnt would they do if someone with a fovr-plex wanted
to do the ssme thing.
Mr. C1ark atated it could happen in Black Forest and they would have condominiums.
He stated that the City as a whole, has to decide whether they want this or not.
Ms. Scl�nabel stated this would be a wave of the future. She stated that iP to
propose a townhouse development, they must have a minimum of 5 aCres� how do they
get darym to 3,�0 squsre feet as a density in R-3?
Mr. Clark stated that later on in the tawnhouse ordinance it talks about density.
If you build a tuwnhouse in an R-1 District� it's 9,000 square feet� ete.
Ma. Schnabel asked wk�y they say that i£ you need 5 acres.
Mr. C].ark stated it controlls the number oP units you can put on the tract of land
you have. If it's R-1, you can on�y put the density of an R-1 District which would
be 9,000 square Yeet. He stated i�t was a ratio� such as 9,000 square feet per unit�
or 5,000 per unit or 3�000 per unit. But they didn�t necessari]y have to individually
tiit ori parcels of that size, it allows for larger open space.
APPEALS CONR4ISSION MEETIMG, APf2IL 10, 1979 - PAGE 8
Ms. Schnabel stated that then in thia case� these three units meet the density
requirement if it wgs on a 5 acre plot� in an R-3 Zone. But it dces not meet
the denaity requirement� because it is not on 5 screa.
Mr. Clark stated it met the density requiremeat if it was considered s tawnhouse
development.
Mr. Kemper etated that what they didn�t have here was the extra green apace, but
on the other hand� it would be unusuel to build three townhouses on a 5 acre plot.
Mr. Clark etated that if you mul.tiplied the amount of land here by 20 to get the
5 acres and then multiplied the 3 timea 20 and put 60 unita on it� you would have
the same density ratio.
Ms. Schnabel asked hw ma�y+ cwered garage stalls there vere.
Mr. Nitscheke stated there were 3.
Mr. Clark atated there would be 4 if he took the ofPice out.
Mr. Nitscheke stated that the south unit had a double car garage and the ather
two units "each had a stall in:�he other double garage.
Ma. Schnabel stated tk�at she felt the Planning Coannission was mislead� and they
should have gone out and looked at it. She Yelt they Were under the impreasion
that there were �+ separate garages, and two of thoae garages were double car
garages and two were single, which wovld make 6 garage stalls.
Mr. Nitscheke etated that if you counted the drivewqy, there were 6.
Ma. Schnabel stated she meant covered stalls.
Mr. N3tscheke stated there were 3 plus the oPfice.
Ms. Gabel stated that Planning Commission had touched on the question of what they
would do in the future with this type of thing� but this particular case did not
seem to be ae big a problem as some other ones could be.
Mr. C1ark stated what they chose to do with this� will effect future requests.
Mr. Nitseheke stated that he could not see the problem because with individuel owners
they would have better msintained property. He felt his request was reasonable.
Ms. Gabel stated thst as a Coammission, they had a responsibility far aetting a
precedents
Ms. Schnabel etated that the crux of the thing was density. Did the City wish to
permit single oenerehip density on a parcel of this si2e.
�
APPEALS CObB+QSSION MEE'PING, nPttII. lo, 1979 - PAGE 9
Ms. Schnabel stated that in a tocmhouee development� they generally have more
land for open space than what is available here.
Mr. Clark stated the rstio would be the seme.
Ms. Schnabel stated that conceivsb]y� if there vas-vacant land adjacent to this
property an8 somebaiy wanted to build a townhouse on that vacant land, and it went
on daxn the street� at svme point the City vrould hsve to take a look at that con-
etruction ln that maaner� if it vas repetitive oP this, and say "is that the kind
oP denaity that we want in thie City. Ia this adminiatering to the health, safety,
and welfare of the residenta and is it proper for the City to continue to accept:it".
Mr. Clark atated they still have the deneity ordinance, and instead of calling it
toWnhousea like this one, it would be apartments or tri-plexes.
Ms. Schnabel stated she was talking sbout building townhousea for eale� exactly
like he wants to turn this into.
Mr. Clark atated that as far as bringing more people into the City� it wouldn't.
Ms. Gabel asked if the land adjacent to the property was also zoned R-3.
Mr. Clark etated that was park la�� and acrosa the street was zoned light industrial.
South oY him is Jqy Park.
Mr. Barna etated that eYter looking at it and after reading the public pvrpose served
by the requirements, it struct him as fun�r as to wk{y they Would require 5 acres oP
land to achieve the more eYficient use of land and the more efficient use of open
space and public facilities. We have a large acreage of public facilities as fax'
ea xecreational facilitiea and open space in the City of Fridley. He could not see
a�y problem as far as lot size� although he did think that part of the Park was part
of the parcel. Here you have three units with a larger lot and an open space break-
up and he had no problem with a development aY this type on the land left availsble
in the City.
Ms. Schnabel stated that the vacant land was City property.
Mr. Barna stated he underatood that nrn+� but i£ the land across the street vas
re-zoned R-3 snd developed with the ssme type of structure, he would have no objectione
to that. It would less visually objectionable than a large apartment complex. He
also stated that as far as owner occupied and achieving the density we need in the
Gity� thia would be a lot less objectionable way of doing it� rather than have large
apartment buildings.
Me. Schnsbel asked Mr. Barna if he felt the cale wsa wrong to require 5 acres of
la�d for s townhouse development.
Mr. Bama stated that if land were still cheap, he would sgree with the code. But
lend is not cheap and is at a premium in Fridley. We have enough parks that are
developed or develapable, that we don't need them in the yarda.
��
APPEAL9 COMMT3SION N�'PII�, APRIL 10, 1979 ___PACE 10
Ms.Bchnnbel asked how he wou2d feel if someone had an 80 foot wide lot ia an R-1
and asked to have it re-zoned to R-3 arnd asked to put`np thia eame type of structure
in the middle of a xesidential zone.
Mr. Barna ateted tbat would have to degend upon the type oP structures in that
neighborhood. Re felt the height Yactor would limit it more than an,ything� because
in R-1� they would be limited more than in an R-3.
Mr. Clark etated in thst case� they would be changing the deneity oP the land. In
rezoning, they would be going from 9�000 square feet to 3,000 aquare feet which
would put three times sa maRy families on an 80 foot wide lot.
Me. Schnabel stated the reason she asked that was because oP the 40 foot lot situation.
She felt it was important they consider all sides oP it.
Mr. Clark stated that in Hyde Perk for example� in his opinion� he would give a lot
of thought to instead of having 2 houses on 2 individusl 40 foot late With their
setbacke which make the houses quite small� it might be better to have two unita
attacfled which vould be owner occupied with zero 2ot lines.
Ms. Schnsbel stated that becauee i�yde Park is a S�ecial Use Dietriet, you could
conceivab�yr have s�eone come in and buy two 40 foot lots and lmock down the existing
atructurea and build smnething similar to this.
Mr. Clark stated they couldn't there� because they have to be on 40 foot lots.
NIs. Gabel stated that nothing could go into Hyde Park that was�aore thsn an R_1
use.
Mr. Kemper ststed tkiat the figure he had given them of 10,999.8 xas not correct.
The correct figure was 10,870. He stated that the point was that three townhouses
are going on basical]y the same amovnt of square foot lat as 60 townhouses Nould
go on 5 aeres. The ratio is almost identical. The question in his mind wss what
if you had 4 acres and wanted to build townhouses. The existing code would not
germit it. It seems rather foolish not to allow 47 tcmnhouses to be built on a
4 acre plot iY that vas all the lattd that happened to be available. So the question
is� do we agree with the 5 acre limitation. Ae stated that iY he Was asked that
question� he would have to say he didn�t understand what that means. He could
understand a square footage limitation, but could not understand hvw they could have
a 3�000 foot limitation for an indfvidual townhouse but require that there be almost
2,000,000 square feet in the total area.
Mr. Clark stated thst was probably taken Prom aomeone elses ordinattce. What it
encourages is development of large tracts of land in 5 acre tracts. The purpose
�ras thnt if there was rough terrain, they could cluster the houses in one section
of the land and still have open space on the other section.
Mr. Kemper stated that they should address the question of what the minim�m number
oP units should be in a townhouse comiplex. That question will heve to be answered.
Fn s tri-plex situation� there woulfl be three people involved and would allow Por
a majority vote� but in a duplex aituation there could be probl.ems with an agreement.
Mr. Barua stated that vould have to be a lega2 contract signed between the tWO parties.
It Would not ca�e u�1er our jurisdiction.
APPEALS COA4�ff3SI0N MEE�ING, APRIL 10, 1979 PAGE 11
Mr. Kemper etated they would have to be eome diecussion at the planning level
as to what constitutes the minimun size townhouee coa[plex. In this case we
are-fsced vith three and do ve want to establish a precedent and allw three.
Mr. Kemper Yelt the Appeals Co�mniseion was not the group to review and establieh
that kind oP criteria.
Ms. Gabel stated they were being asked to make a decision without any criteria.
Mr. Bsrna stated that he felt the question they were faced with was, do we as
individuals and residents of the City and property owners feel the 5 acre require-
ment is legitimate considering the amount of land lePt in the City� and the definite
need Yor future development. He personally could not see the requirement of a 5
acre tract for a townhouse development.
Mr. Kemper asked iP there any 5 acre tracts in the City that could be developed as
s townhouse.
Mr. Barna stated that with zoning changes, there could be. Mr. Barna read from
page 2 of the Comprehensive Develapment Plan as follows: "Current estimates by
the Metropolitan Council indicate a need for about 2,300 new housing units by 1990;
however, it is clear thst enough (residentially zoned) dces not exist to accomodate
that kirni of growth. Residentially zoned land is about 95� developed." He stated
that this request was one way to accomplish the goal oP 2�300 additional housing
units in a way that would be compatible with existing land uses. If we plan on
develaping all our 80 Yoot and 100 foot lots that are left as single family units�
they would not get sx�ywhere near the density of population required £or an even
tax base. IP they talked about developing on a two to one ratio o£ what we have
available sensib]y� with a sensible townhouse design on a smaller lot area� there
would be no problem in achieving the desired population density.
Ms. Gabel stated that in referring to Ijyde Park, the density there ia high, and the
people there don't want higher density. That's wk�y it was zoned the way it is.
She also stated that some places, including fjyde Park� are not geared for higher
density as far as park facilities� etc. She felt this was another questiari that
should'be addressed.
Ma. Schnabel stated that she disagreed with Yhetro Couneil's analysis oY 2,300. She
felt that Metro Council had made a flat out statement and tried to appl,y it to all
c�*mm+�nities. You cannot c�pare Columbia Heights or Fridley with Chaska or Rose-
mount� rrhere there is a lot oP open space available.
Mr. Barna stated there was very little land available in FridZey.
D1s, Schnabel stated that wae her point. She was nat sure it was our burden to
provide the requirements of Metro Council.
Mr. Barna stated that they did not necessari�y hsve to try to fill the quota, but
hrnr were they going to develop the land that was left. He personally had no problem
with this townhouse type structure on this eize oY a lot.
Ms. Schnabe2 stated that mqybe there were people in the community that did not Want
nay higher density. So m�ybe it rrae not proper for the City to eonsider ax�y further
development in tLis manner.
, ";�._
APPEALS CONR�IISSION MEE'tING, APRIL 10, 1979 -- — PAGE 12
Mr. Clark etated that to get more deneity land wou18 k�ave to be rezoned. IP they
don�t rezone� the density would not change that much. Nor Would it change unless
they changed the requirementa in each zone. But by grsnting s variance such as
this on a plat such as this, the number of people will not change. The only thing
that would change Would be that they would have three owner occupied units rather
than three rental units. Also, they would change the taxes derived from this. They
would go dovn as owner occupied� because each unit would be homesteaded.
Mr. Nitscheke stated that the tax base could increase because the value would pro-
bably i.ncrease.
Ms. Schnabel stated the value would increase a�y�+sy probably.
Ma. Schnabel asked wl�r he vanted to sell off the units individually rather than
sell the whole complex to one pereon.
Mr, Nitecheke stated that if the unit cost $100�000 to build� there was ao way to
collect enough rent to make it proYitable. The bottom line is economics.
Ms, Schaabel asked wt�,y he built them in the first place and got into this situation�
if he lmew that ahead of time.
Mr. Nitscheke stated he didn�t know that then. In 1974� the return on hie money was
fair],y good. Today he coul.d make more money on treasury bi12s.
Me. Schnabel stated he cauld sell the entire complex and there vrnxld be investore
who would want to buy it. '
Mr. Nitscheke stated it would be difficult to find a b�p+er for the entire complex�
because they would not even break even.
Mr. Kemper asked if he wae saying that the property was not marketable at this point
in time as a tri-plex.
Mr. Nitscheke stated that wea correct.because the replacement cost srould far exceed
what could be collected in rent.
Ms. Schnabel stated thst then he vas selling it to prntect bis investment.
Mr. Nitscheke stated that was part of the reason.
Ms. Schnabel asked if he had co�i.tmente £rwn the gresent rentera.
Mr. Nitscheke stated he had no such co�itments.
Mr. Kemper stated that he then felt he could yield more selling it as three individual
townliouses� than selling it sa a tri-plex.
Mr. Nitscheke stated that was correct. But he had other reasons Por vanting to
mwe out of there.
APPEALS CONII�ffS3I0N NIEETING, APRII, 10� 19'►9 � P�E �3
Mr. Clark stated that they vere et the point of trying to mske a policy decision.
That decision would have to include the Planuing Co�ission � the Council and the
Appeale Co�iseion.
Me. Schnabel etated that she thought they were very handeome atructures.
Mr. Nitscheke etated he had put a lot of money into them.
Ms. Schnabel etated ahe felt they were an asset to the Coffinunity� but Was hung
up with creating three living unite on three separate lots that turn out to be
3,600 aquare feet each. There ia a diYference between it being a rental unit
and in that classification versus it being individual owner occupied residential
units. They have had a lot of discussion involved in a lot of ineetings and a lot
of court time naw, regarding 40 foot lots. The majority opinion appeare to be that
as a City we do not want to put conatruction oP residentisl dwellings on that size
lot.
Mr. Nitacheke stated tk�at was a contradiction, because the etructure s7.ready exiats.
Ms. Schnabel stated they wern't chan�ing density ii it was a tri-plex, but they
would be ahan�ing the density by going into single owner occupied dwellings on lot
sizes of 3�600 square feet. This is something we don�t permit in ordinary residen-
tial areas.
Mr. Clsrk stated that if it weren't zoned R-3, that's what they would be looking at
but this is R-3. If tbere were two k0 ioot lots right next to each other and it
were zoned R-2� rather than build two single family houses which has been denied
by the Bosrd of Appeals and Council, they cou7.dn't de�y, nor would they probsb�y
want to deny the construction of s doudle bungalow. Rather than having two ti�y
houses vith small floor plans, they would have one large double bungalow with a
lsrge floor plan they could do more with. What ii someone want to do this� have
a double bungalow and both of them owner occupied. Mr. Clark pointed out that
the ones they were going to court on vere R-1 lots. If they are approved by the
court� the court will be changing the density. But in this case� the Boarcl oP
Appeals woutd not be changing the density.
Ms. Schnabel stated they would be changing the dens,3ty as far,as Zot sizes go.
Mr. Clark stated that the ratio vould remain the same. • ,
Ms. Gable asked what would happen if we did this and then down the road someone
comes in and says they have 2.5 acres and want to put a tormhouse on it. What
happens then.
Mr. Clark steted they would have to get a variance.
Ms. Gabel seked that legally then, vrhat have we stuck ourselvea with.
Nir. Clark stated that if it happened very often, then realisticsl3y, they should
chsnge the area requirement fro� 5 down to what would seem realistic.
, _ _
,. �.
APFEALS COhII�tISSION ME�TING APRIL 10 1979 PAGE 14
Ma. Schnabel stated that was Mr. Kemper had stated. Mqybe they should eliminate
the 5 acre requirement end just go witb density.
Mr. Kemper ststed that what he wae eaying was establish a certain denaity for
a certain zone and establish a minimum number of units that woul.d constitute a
townhouae development. Mr. Kemper stated this should be discussed before we
make a decision. He asked Mr. Nitscheke what kind of a time frame he was working
under.
Mr. Nitscheke etated that another month wouldn�t probably create that much of a
problem� although he would like to put them up for sale early spring.
Mr. Kemper asked Mr. Nitscheke what the selling price would be.
Mr. Nitscheke stated he planned on askin� about $60,00 to $65�000 on smaller units,
and around $65,000 to.$70,000 on the larger unit.
Ms. Schnabel asked what purpose Mr. Kemper would hope to accomplish by delaying
this.
Mr. Kemper stated he questioned iY there should be an item on the Planning
Commission agenda to review, not thia variance� but to review the items in the
discussion we have had tonight regarding 5 acreas� and regarding lot coverage
or rather tbe size of the lot per the number of uuits, and the minimLmm number of
units that would constitute a townhouse development. He asked if the other
Coffinissioners agreed that this item should appear on the Planning Co�i.ssion agenda.
fte felt these items should be addresaed before the Board of Appeals makes a
decision on this request.
Ms. Gabel agreed, and stated this was briefly touched by Planning and it was
discussed tk�at we don't have as�ything to work rrith regarding this. She agreed thet
Planning was the place to start.
Mr. Kemper stated that maybe Planning would like to establish a coffinittee to review
what other Communities have done.
Mr. Clark stated they were stsrting to look at other coammunities. In this case,
if the Tequest were approved they vould have three owner occupied units rather
than three units, two rental� and one owner occupied.
Mr. Kemper stated that in the face o£ things� that seema somewhat desirable. But
he was not sure they had had enough dialogue in all the Co�issions in Fridley� to
be sb2e to real�y say this was desirable.
Mr. Clark atated that looking into the future on double bungalows that are going to
be built and perhaps also tri-plexes and some four-plexes of thts type of design,
he wauld suggest that the Couneil direct the Stafi tHat the construction be done
difYerent. Maybe put in four water services snd foux sewer services so that if in
the future� someone wants to aplit it� the structure would be set up for it.
Mr. Nitscheke noted that the fire.wall did extend into the attic.
-�
APRIL 10
Ms. Schnabel atated that in terms oY the new zoning on3inenee, and she ha8 briefly
touched on thie with Mr.Boardman, how is our new zoning ordinance geared towarda
this type o£ aituation� and do we sddresa it. Mr: Boardman had indicated that
no� we haven't talked about it. He indicated he would be discussing thie �rith
Mr. Clark end Mr. Sobiech.
Mr. Clark atated that if they put it directl�y into the zoning ordinaace, it would
be the rule rsther than the exception.
Ms. Gabel suggested that Coamrunity Development Co�isaiai might want to take a look
at this also.
Ms. Sehnebel agreed. She also ststed that if the Planning Coammission reviews it�
and Community Development Cor�.ission reviews it and it is then returned to the
Board of Appeals, it would not reach Council for a public hearing until June 11� 1979•
She stated that if the Board of Appeals reached a decision tonight� it would
reach Council on May 14.
Ms. Gabel stated that she felt other people should discuss it beYore they make a
decision.
Mr. Kemper agreed and suggested they establisri a list of things these other people
should discuss. He stated he would be in fsvor oY tabling this pending analysis
and discussion by the other commissions and suggest it then be brought back to us
after they reach soune conclusions. Ae stated this may put a hardship on Mr. Nitscheke�
but wouldnit feel comYortable until other cormnisaions had looked at it.
Ms. Schnabel stated that they would like Planning C�mission to look at the
over-all question, not just this request, but in terms of tne Yuture. If Planning
desired� they could request Community Development to look at it also.
Mr. Nitscheke stated that he could live �tith a 30 day delay.
Mr. Clark asked if they thought Planning would be more com£ortable if they delqyed
or if thev would be more comfortable if the Board said what they Pelt and let
the Planning Commiss.ion then study the Appeals Commission's recommendation
Ms. Schnabel stated that if they table the item, they should give an opinion and
list the questions that have been raised.
Mr. Boardman stated he had discussed this with Mr. Herrick and his opinion was that
if the structure met the townhouse requirements� they would not have any problem
with the platting� the variance is the variance on the townhouse platting. The
question ie, do you want townhouses to have home ownership on smaller size lots
within the zone. The zoning is R-3 and is set up for multiple units. There has
been no discussion as to whether the units ahould.be set up for rnraership or for
rental. Actually� there should be no real differences as long as the density is
the sa�.
Ms, Schnabel atated that one of the queetions they had raised was that our zoning
ordinanee requires 5 acres for a townhouse development. That i�ediste]y says
that iY it is in an R-3 2one� there could be 60 units. The point that had been
raised �ras that there should be a minimum oY ten units in order to have a claeaification
Q--=�
APPEALS CoMMISSION MEETING, APRIL lo� 1979 PAGE 16
of a trnmhouae development. Ten unita ie a figure she wss pulling out of the air.
The ordinance now saye there ehould be a minimum oP 60 units.
hir. Boardman atated that the main queation that will be before the Planning Co�iesion
ie vhst ia the definition of a townhouse, because there will be a 1ot of discussion
in that respect. There xill be a lot of questions on our zoning: What we actually
have here ia zero lot line ownership. MqVbe Planning should look at denaity on�y�
rather than eetual aquare footege or actusl lot sizea or acreage.
Ms. Schnabel stated that there were other ways of handling this� such as a�proving
the request and aeking for a moratorium on other similar requests until a pollcy
is eetablished. They could then list their concerns and questione that they want
Planning to consider.
Mr. Kemper stated that if Planning did not agree� or if they had a different set
of suggestions, the agprovel they would have made on this particular variance
request might end up setting a precedent that wouldn't agree with the changes to
the new zoning code. Mr. Kemper read the definition of a townhouse frarn the
proposed zoning ordinance� "Structures housing three or more dwelling units, contin-
uous to each other� onl,y by the sharing of one coaunon wall, such struetures to be
o£ the town or row house type as contrasted to multiple dwelling apax-tment structures.
No single structure shall contain in excess of eight (8) dwelling units". Mr.
Nitscheke's bu3lding appears to qualify under the definition oP townhouses in
the zoning ordinance.
Ma. Schnsbel stated they would have to go further and aee what it says in terms
of density.
Mr. Kemper stated they have reviewed the zoning changes, but not in the light of
this particular problem. He would feel more comfortable iP they look at the
ramifications of this request and similar types of requests.
Ms. Gabel agreed and eo did Mr. Berna.
Mr. Boardman ststed that if Planning makes a policy decision to not alluc� by policy,
or if they make a reco�endation to allow thie� then the Board of Appea2s would be
in a poaition where they cann't deny it or where they have to deAy it. In other
worde, they would be making the decision Yor Appeals.
Mr. Kemper stated that he did not understand what Mr. Boardman was getting at.
Mr. Boardman stated that they were looking for a recommendation Yrom Planning attd
Council and that recommendation would be a recommendation on a policy issue. In
other words, they will eitner allow these by recommending a change in the zoning
code to allo+,r it or they xill make a reco�endation to change the zoning code to
dex�y it.
Ms. Schnabel stated that vras no dlYiereat from the way the discusaion on �+0 foot
lots.
_ _ •
�
APPEAL3 COtM4ISSI0N MEETING� APRIL 10� 1979 - PAGE 17
Mr. Clark stated they should either make a recommendation on the request� or table
it vith an opinion.
Mr. Kemper stated that frmn his personal standpoint� this looks like a natural
Yor doing what Mr. Nitscheke wants to da
Ms. Schnabel atated that she read that in an R-1 zone� the tovnhouse development
shall conaist of osmer occupied unita. She asked if that meant they could not
sublet.
Mr. Clark stated that wss true, but in R-3, they could rent them out if for instance,
it took them two years to sell the unita. They could rent them out until the units
were sold. In an R-1 development they could not rent them out.
Ms. Schnabel stated that then� Mr. Nitscheke could sell them to three individual
o�raers and those three owners could not'renC them out to someone else.
Mr. Clark stated that was correct.
Ms. Schnabel asked what tne number of garages was that was required in a townhouse.
1�'. C1eY'k stated they had one per unite. however the Code did not require one per unit.
.__.
.A doulsle-buqga?ow-t�equires 1 1/2 garages.
Mr. Kemper etated that was another question that should be looked at.
MOTSON by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Ms. Gabel� to table the request for a variance
pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the miniu�um area for a
townhouse development from 5 acres to .25 acres� to allow an existing tri-plex to
be sold as three individual townhouses located at 6661-6671-66tS1 Main Street N.E.
UPON p VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECI.ARED THE M(Y.CION CARRIID
A�'ION by Mr. Kemper� seconded by Mr. Barna� that the Planning Commission include
on 'their next agenda an ana7,ysis of the following items:
L Regarding 5 acres as a necessity Yor tawnhouses. Should that be limited to
new construction or should it be applied to existing structures which may
£all under the townhouse criteria.
2. In lieu of the 5.acre requirement� should there be a minim� number of toFm-
house units in a townhouse development and if so what ehould tne minim� number
be. We have discusaed 10 and perhaps 8.
3. Should future construction be done in such a manner that� if conversion is going
to be permitted� the conversi� can take plsce easi�yr i.e.� the meters, utilities�
fire walls� etc.
__ .
_ _. _ "�. ;.
APPEALS CONIMIS3ION MEETING� APRIL 10, 19'79 - PACE 18
4. What is the square foot coverage ior the density oP a townhouae development
on a specific amount of property? In other words� what lot coverage would
be allowed within the density?
5. What about duplexes reverting to townhouses or individually owned unite?
Cou1d a duplex be sold as two individual units4 Should the minimum townhouse
requirement be two units or three unitsl
6. Should they look at apartmenta being turned into condominiums?
7. IP there are two side by side existing properties, each 100 foot lots, and
someone would like to put another ormer occupied unit between those two
existing units, sharing common walls, they would have then crested a townhouse
by definition and it would even qualify £or density in an R-1 District� but
would have to be re-platted. Do they wsnt to allow this? Where can they put
a handle on it to stop it?
8. There should be an analysis irom StafY indicatin� what other co�unities have
done to handle questions like definitions of acreage for townhouses and now
have they handled the transformation oP apartment buildings into townhouses.
(It was noted by Mr. Boardman that they t�ave already atarted looking into this
and most of them sllow condominiums in existing units� without a varisnce
procedure. He did not believe they had a minimum size for existing units. What
they. generally look at is density.)
9. Should there be a different standard for existing structures;andn,new,�const.zuet�on?
10. What are the alternatives in Fridley to home ownershipY (Mr. Boardman stated
thst Sta£f would have to address this question).
11. A very broad brush answer to this dilemma would be to say that these things
�ould be allowed provided the density doesn�t change. IY it was allowed under
the previous dePinition, it could be xllowed under a new definition. If this
is what the Planning Commission decides, then our direction bec�es much clearer.
They would be better able to react to s variance request such as this.
22 Appeals Co�nission would elso like the Planning Co�i.ssion to diseuss anything
in the minutea that were not covered in thie itemization.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� AIS, VOTING AYE� CfIAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED TAE NATION CARRIED
UNANI.t�USLY.
MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Kemper to adjourn the April 10� 1979, meeting
of the Appeals Commission meeting.
IR'ON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CfiAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED
AT 10:20 P.M.
Respectful]y submitted:
������
I�a e n, eco ing eu`"�cr�ary
HU1�1lsN RESOURCES CONA'ICSSION
MEETING
APRIL 5, 1979
NfEMEERS PRESENT: Peter Treuenfels, Marlyis Carpenter, Wayne Saunders
MEMBERS ABS�NT: Mary van Dan, Mary Martin
OTIIERS PRES�NT; Peter Fleming, Administrative Assistant
�t the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Peter Treuenfels stated he would
be willing to serve as temporary chairperson until there was a full
commission and a foru�al election for chairperson and vice-cha.irperson
was held.
CALL TO ORDLR:
Temporar}� Chsirperson Treuenfe?s callc�d the meeting: to order at 5:21 p.m.
Pir. Treuenfels caelcomed I�r. tidayne 5auaders to the Commission.
APP£.O�TAL OI�' PSIsRCH 1, 7.979, HUMAN RESOURCES Cd:�1MISSION MINUTES:
MOTION 6y Marlyis Carpeuter, seconded by Wayne Saunders, to approve the
March 1, 1979, Human Resources Commission miuutes. Upon a voice vote,
temporary Chairper.son :reuenfels declared the motion carried un&nimously
1. RLCEIVE RESIGNATION C
City Council Minutes;
G' A1ARY JO DOBSON (P.eference March 19, 1
The Commission members acknocoledged with regret the resignation of
Ms, T4ary Jo Dobson. Mr. TreuenEels stated he coould wxite ietters of
appreciation to both Ms. Dobson and Mr. Storla.
2. RECiIVE PROCL.SMATION ON INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE CHILD (IYC);
Ms. Carpenter showed the Commission the proclamation written in calligraphy.
MOTION by Wayne Saunde:s, seconded by Marlyis Carpenter, to receive the
follo�aing proclamation on Che International Year of Che Child:
"The United Nations passed a resolution proclai.ming 1979 the
Internat'ional Ye.1z of the Child (IYC). It �ives all countries
a special year to put a fresh focus on children's concerns. In
recognil-ion of this event, Ue it resolved that the City of Erid"Ley
encoura�es the promotion of the stnCus of our children anu celebrates
the contributions of our chi7dren."
HUMkN k�SOURCES COMNiiSSION I��TING APRIL 5, 1979 - PAGr 2
UPON A VOIGE VOTti, AJ L VOTTNG AYL�, TEMPORARY CIiAIRPERSON TP�Uk:NFL'LS
DECLARED TI�L' MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Treuenfels thanked Ms. Carpenter and Ms. Carpenter's son who did the
beautiful calligraphy.
MOTIOIQ by Marlvis Carpenter, seconded Uy Wayne Saunders, to recommend
that this proc.l.amation on the International Year of the Child be
resented to Ci_ty Council. The Human P.esources Commission would like
to be ir.formed cJhen this would come before the City Council. Upon a
a voic� vnre. all votine ave. temnorarv Chairnerson Treuenfels declar
the motion carried unanimously.
As temporary chairperson, Mr. Treuenfels agreed to present tl�e proc7_amation
to tha City Council on behalf of the Human P.esources Commission.
Ms. Calpenter stated she would also be present at that meeting, and
Mr. Treuenfels encouraged a11 cotmnission members to attend if they could.
3. STATUS REPORT OIQ INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE CIiILD (IYC) - SCHOOL
PR03ECT:
Since Ms. van Dan was not preGent at the meeting, the status of the school
proje.ct caas �.iot i�aotn.
Mr, Traueniel � stated ztiat chil.dren 4�ete cer.tuiniy a r�art oi their human
resuurces ar.d he felt that tne otli�i school districts (othe-r than D�strict
i�14) withiu the geogiapnical botiudaries of. Fr.idley ahould be considerecl
for the school project. This ccu13 be discuesed with 2�is. =aan Dan at the
next meeting.
MOTIOiT by Marlyis Carpenter, seconded bq Wayne Saunders, to continue discussion
on this item at the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, aI1 voting aye,
temporary Chairperson Treuenfels declared the motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Carpenter stated that on the subject of the International Year of the
Child, she had received a call from Joyce Dahlberg of the Fridley United
Tiethodist Church. Ms> Dahlberg wanted the Commission to be acaare of the
programs and activities they had through the United Methodist Church on
IYC. Tlie programs aud activities are listed below:
J.. A United Methodist Child Support Program, world-wide, collecting
funds to tal.e care of inedical care, education, and child abuse
programs. One-half of the fuiids go to the United States and
one-half oi the fwids go caorld-wide.
2. Lenten Learnings--During tha Lenten season, they have �ahat is
called "Lenten Learnings" for both children and adults geared
around IYC. The adult program focuses on nutr.ition and child
abuse, 111d the children's program iocuses on individual
countries and learning aUout children in those countries.
HUMAI� RrSOURC�S COMMS"uSION MLETI2dG APRIL 5 1979 - PAGL 3
3. Family Week, beginning May 6, 1979. They are going Co have a
°Celebtation of the Child".
4, Chil<Iren's Art Show in May
5. Book fair in May or June, displaying books for and about children.
6. They are.sponsoring a Family Life Counseling Workshop in the
fall. They will be bringing in outside people to run the workshop.
7. Church newspaper--each addition of- the ne�ospaper had a part
focused on various aspects of IYC. The necaspaper will come out
2-3 times a month.
8. Planning a musical called "The Rainbow Express" which will
involve people of all ages in the church.
9. Sponsoring a bus to the "Festival of Nations" on May 4, 5, 6, 1979,
aC the St. Pau1 Civic Center.
Mr. Treuenfels stated he was very impressed and pleased that the Fridley
United Methodist Church had communicated these things to the Human Re�ources
Comuiission, and he wished that other churches would also let the Commiesion
know c.*hat they were doing.
4. DISCUSSION OF H�NDICAPPED E�Wt�FEIQESS 4�LY. PROCI,Ai?ATTON:
p4r. Treuenfels aslced L-he Commission nembers ii pe.rhaps they �,ou1d 1i6:e to
have a han3icapped person come to a commission meetin� and talk on what
lifelooks like to a handicapped person.
The Conunission members agreed this was a very good idea.
P1r. Treuenfels stated he had a handicapped friend who might be interested
in spealcing to the commission.
MOTION by Marlyis Carpenter, seconded by Wayne Saunders, that in the
absence of Ms. van Dan, discussion on the Handicapped Awareness [deek
(proclamation, handi.capped accessibility, and possibility of a handicapped
person to spealc to the Commiss;.on) be conCinued at the next meeting.
Mr. Saunders stated that the Governor's Council for the Aandicapped had
expert people who came out and looked at Che accessibility oi buildings
in variuus areas. Iie stated he would be willing to contact Mr. Dick Ramberg
l'o find out what resources are avail.abTe in this area.
Ms. Carpenter stated she would appreciate Mr. Saunders obtaining that
information for the next meeting.
UP�N A VOTCG �'OTE, FS,L VOTING AYE, T�MPORARY CIIAIRPERSON TREUENFELS
lllCLARED TI2E P10TION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
HUNAN ILIiSOURCES COMMZSSION i�liTING, APRIL 5, 7.979 - PA,E 4
5. C01�TINIJ,?P: DEPARTM�NL OF HUMAh P�IGFITS I•SANUAT.,:
Ms. Carpeuter stated she f-elt every Coircnicsion member needed L`o look over
L-his rnanual as the Commission would have to decide cotiether they saere
willing to operaCe according to the procedures ouClined in the manu�l.
She suggested each memher read the manual and jot down concerns or questions
to hring to the next meeting.
The Cormnissioners agreed they c✓ould 7.ike to invite Mr. Ned StorZa to the
next meet'ing as he had attended L-he training program on how to use tl�e
manu al .
MOTION by Marlyis Carpenter, seconded by Wayne Saunders, to continue
discussiori on the Department of Human Rights Manaal at the next meeting.
Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, temporary Chairpereon Treuenfels
declared the motion carried unanimously.
6. OTfiER BU;7I�IESS;
A. Time Change
N,OTION Uy Wayne Saunders, seconded by Mar.lyis Carpenter, to change
the mee:�ng time from 5:00 p.m. bacic to 7:30 p.m. on the first
Thursday of each month. Upon a voice vote, alI voting aye; Temporary
Cha.iruerson Tr.euen£eIs declaz-e3 the met'ion cairied un.animously.
,4D30iiF.t'Ptlt;`:T :
;�(e7I'FO'rI by t,?apne Sau*_iders, eecunded b}r tfsrlyis Car.peziter, to adjou.rn tha
meeting. U,or. a voicz vote, a11 ti:oting aqe, temperary Ci:airpe;-son Trece.nfels
decl::ted tiie ,�pril 5, 1979, Human Resources Couunission meeeing adjourned at
6:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
il J ,�
�.r'?r: ;r_w' ;-�i% ��'. r�._.-
Lynne pa"aba
Recording Sec.retary
. .�,.,,,
��.
..�+*'`r:
cors�rriz� nEV�.o�xx corunssia�a
MEETING
APRIL 10, 1979
MEMBERS PRESENT: LeRoy Oquist, Connie Modig, A1 Gabel, Kenneth Vos
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sharon Gustafson
OTHERS PRESENT: .Terrold Boardman, City Planner
Ray Leek, Associate Planner
GALL TO ORDER:
Chai,rperson Oquist called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 13 1979 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMZSSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Kenneth Vos, seconded hy Connie Modig, to approve the
February 13, 1979, Co�unity Development Commission minutes as written.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Oquist deciared the
motion carried unanimously.
1. ELECTION OF CHAIRPEI�SON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON (Terms run
_. . ,..-... __ ,.__ � �non\.
MOTION by A1 Gabel, seconded by Connie Modig, to cas[ a white ballot
� for LeRoy Oquist to continue as chairperson. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, Chairperson Oquist declared the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by A1 Gabel, seconded by Kenneth Vos, to cast a white ballot for
Connie Modig to continue as vice-chairperson.r Upott a voice vote, all
voting aye, Chairperson Oquist declared the moticrn carried unanimously.
2. DISCUSSION ON THE DRAFT COPY OF THE COMPREHEI3SIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
Mr. Boardman asked Mr. Leek to give a brief summary of the Comprehensive
Development Plan presentation held on March 28, 1979.
Mr. Leek stated that, basically, the motivaCion for doing the Compre-
heusive Development Plan in Fridley was two-fold. First of all, in
about I972, the city began moving in the direction of cioing a Compre-
hensive Development Plan. In fact, �he city completed some elements of it
over a span of time between about 1972 and 1976. It included the Bike-
way/Walkway Systems Plan. The first Comprehensive Development Plan was
��
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMIS3ION MEETING APRII, 10 1979 - PAGE 2
published in 1974 and the Housing Plan, which was initially done in 1976.
About that time, the State Legislature passed a Mandatory Land Planning
Act, which legislated that a11 municipalities and local uniCS of govern-
ment prepare a Comprehensive Development Plan. It was left up to Metro-
politan Council and Region 11 (our region) to decide what elements were
going to be a part of the municipalities' comprehensive development plan.
As a result of that legislation'and the city's own efforts to date, they
stepped up the effort to complete the plan.
Mr. Leek stated the purposes of the plan,as the city identified them, were
four-fold. The first three he would classify as important purposes and the
fourth, in terms of significance to the community, was relatively minor.
1. To provide a rational framework for decision-making on the
policy questions that affect the City of Fridley (included
environmental resources, land use, transportation, provisions
of housing, provisions of public facilities)
2. To provide a tool which makes it easier for the city to decide
where to target monetary and capital resources the city has
available.
3. To provide a guide to same community needs so they can identify
areas in which they need to seek our further resources to try
and accomplish what needs to be done in the City of Fridley.
4. To bring the city into compliance with the Mandatory Land
Planning Act.
Mr. Leek stated the document was organized basically into tnree chapters:
the Land Use Chapter, the Public Facilities Chapter, and �the Implementation
Chapter. The Implementation Chapter was currently being worked on and
would come later on in the review process. The Implementation Chapter
involves tke following:
1. Official controls adopted by City Council in the form of
_ zoning regulation$, overlay districts, special regulations
2. Capital improvements pYOgram
a. 5 yr. detailea capital improvements program
b. l0 yr. general expenditures progxam
Mr. Leek stated the city had to submit the Land Use Chapter first for
review in order to he in compliance with the Mandatory Land Planning Act.
The Land Use Chapter dea1C with four areas: (1) general section dealing
with land use patterns; (2) environmental resources; (3) Critical Areas
Plan; and (4) Housing Plan.
Mr: Leek stated that the Public Facilities Chapter dealt with three
areas: (1) parks and open space; (2) transportation systems; and (3) water
resources recovery.
r. .,;�'�'"";
---.----_
the city identifiedW;nl�o�nkean�fnventor �en���n some of the major issues
and systems plans for each of those a Y and in working on the
reae. Policy
o£ issuesVidentified nSFridleyPwereytheai7' Mr. Leek stated that a couple
weC and lowlands in the cit 4vestions of the development of
was a problem in Fridley, y and to what extent non-point source
pollution
In the Critical Areas Systems Plan, Mr. Leek stated one of the over-riding
issues was the protection of the natural, and, in Fridley, residential
and�encouragementroferecreationaltuselo£uthe Mississi and run-off control,
ppi River.
Mr. Leek stated that some of the issues identified in the Housing Policy
Plan were a projected need for new housing units in Fridley, not so much
because of the population growth, but because family size was expected to
continue to decline, resulting in more households in the cit
the inflating cost of construction and materials, how could the cit
housing to meet the demand that was available at a Y' because of
questions about increasing importance of housing rehabilitation�st'yand�vide
Mr. Leek stated that in the Park System Development Policies, they were
looking at some issues that involved the provision of neighborhood
recreational facilities in cooperation caith the residents of the neighbor-
hoods, facilities that would not only service children, but all a e
cooperation of the city in the development of a regional system of
recreational facilities; efficient utilization of the city's resources ins'
developing and maintaining its park and open space system; and the
of recreation services.
provision
In the Transportation Policy Plan, Mr. Leek stated they were Iooking in
large at the continued maintenance of existing transportation systems;
expansion_of transit service; the question of the use o£ the river surface;
and future planning for the Anoka County Airport.
In the Water Resource Recovery P1an, Mr. Leek stated that two issues facing
the city was maintenance of the existing eanitary sewer system and the
control of surface water run-off through the storm sewer systems. '
After Mr. Leek's brief presentation, the Co�ission decided to set a special
meeting date to discuss the Comprehensive Development Plan. �he meeting
was scheduled for Tuesday, April 24, 1979, at 7;30 p,�,
`hDJ—= Np :
MOTION by A1 Gabel, seconded by Connie Modig, to adjourn the meeting. Upon
8 voice vote, all voting aye, CF.airperson Oquist declared the April 10, 1979,
Community Development Commission meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m,
Resp�etfully sub�itted,
� i'
f r,-:.< 11;2 :'.`
Lynn Saba, Recordiag Secretary
r.
�/ r�
, CITY OF FRIDLEY
�
PLANNING COb4dLSSION t�TING - APRIL 18, 1979
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Harrio cslled thQ April 18, 1979, aaseting oY the Plaaning Co�ieeion to
orler at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Me�bsrs Present: Mr. Treuenfele, Mr. Oquiat, Mr.Harrie� Ms. Sehnabel�
Mr. Hora (for Mr. Langenfeld)
Masbers Absent: Ma. Sularbisr, Mr. Langanfeld (arrived ot 9:�+5)
Oth�ra Pre�ent: Mr. BMrdmaa� City Plann<r
Mr. Letk, Aaoxiate P].�nner
Mr. Nita¢heke, 6661 Muin Street N.E.
i. �ov$ rr.axxn�c co�ussiox �rivrES: aPxrr. 4, i979:
AATION by Me. S�ehnabel, aeconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the April �, 1979,
a�nutes of the Planuing Co�iesion.
Mr. Narrle eokad Mr. Boaramn haw the Council reaetd ta the Planning Cc�iaeioa�s
etateaent reg�rding the six meabere on the Environmental Quality Ccoaviesion.
Mr. Bo4rdatw stated those minuts� had not yet �one to Council. They would ca�e
befc+re Cwneil on April 23, 1979.
iJPON A VOIC& V(1�PS� ALL VOTING A7C�� CHAIItMAN AARRI3 DECLARED THE 1�'PION CARRIED
UNAHIMOUSLY.
2. APPROVE PLA1�iNING COAA1TSSioN'-�TN[TSTss: APRIL li, 1979�
IYpTION by Mr. Oquist� secomded by Ms. Schaabel, to apprwe the April 11, i979,
■—�utos af the Plaaning Cc�eoiseioa.
Ms. Schn4bel ststed that ahe wished they tmd m•re time to read the ainutes. She
aak�i hrv far they get in the diacus�ien.
Mr. Aerris etatad they hsd a rether�ltagtk�y diecuesion on hwsing.
Mr. Boarda�n strted they brovght up highlighte tlarouQhout the doc�aat and did not
really start rith goale sn� objectires. They diocuesad isauee primarily.
Mr. FIarric stpted they diacuaoed houeing and the aLtitudee towarde it ;ag what we
thought uur attitu�ies �hbuld be. Iie felt it vaa • good diecueaion.
UPOH A VO�CS VOT&, ALL VOTING AYE� CAAIRMAN HARRIS DBCLAR&D Ti� t+�0'1'IOPI CARRIED
UNANII�IOUSLY .
PLANNING COA49ISSION MEETII�G, APRIL 18, 1979 - PACS 2
3. x$crxv� aP�ar.s co�ssIOx a�ax[rrES: a�x� 1A, 1979:
1NOTIOi� by bls. Schnubel� seconded by Mr. Oquiat� to receive the April 10, 1979,
r�nu$ea of the Appeals Ca�iseimn.
Ma. 3ehzubel etated that the diecusaion starting on yage 4 of the miautes centeTed
oa the item that had been before the Plaaning Cr�isaion previously. The item was
a roquest by Alvin Nitacheke, 6661 Main Street� to ��lat hie property. It came
tc Appwla with a varianae requsst. She stated that sht was quite ehacksd when
she went crver and loolced at Mr. Mitseheke'a proparty beaause she did aot real3ze
frae the Planning Cea�ie�ion minutes that there vas a multiple use on this piece
aP prvperty. She did not kncnr if the Planning Cc�ei.seioners had lcvoked at the
prmperty� but it didn't come out in the minutes� g� it bothered her tre�ndoualy.
Mr. Oqui�t aakad what she aeant by a multiple use.
Me. Setuubel stated there ves a co�eercial use in tho garage. Part of the garage
vps converted into a State Ferm Ineurance OYfice. So it is a ca�ercial uec oY
the property ne well as being a tri-plex. The c�ercial use is an open violation
of our zoning code� but t}ut was not the question tiv�t th� diseuseion centered
around. As ymu can tell Yro� the list of questione at the end of the minutes, they
had a lot of queationa concerning thie piece of praperty and othera that will co�
up like it. They were not zeroing in on thie piece oi property per se� other tMa�
it hsa brought to their attention maqy queatione sencersina ieneity, hmr the City
would like to see pragerty reclaeaified in the future� lot eizes with regard to
these types of requests and a lot of other queatimns they felt should be discueBed
before the Boerd of Appeals mode a decision on this particular request. She ase�ed
that the co�issionera hACi read the minutes sad either had questions of their own
er oo�ee ansvers to the AppsAl'e questions. She ielt they had sa�e problema vlth the
current zoning oxdinsace and they shc9uld perhape addrQSS these problems in the nev
zoning erdinance sa they rewrite it. One oY the qusstione was the n�laer of units.
Do we atill want to require a minim� oP C� unite in a ne�r townhouse development!
That ia vhat eur eode currently requires. It alae requirea 5 acres of land, and so
anqy equsre feet psr unit camea down to 60 unita as a minimum development for town-
houaea. Another question was in regarda to existing unita. If there ia an exieting
unit in an R-1 District it requires more equare fomtage tLan the same exieting unit
built in an R-3 Dietrict. Thsre Was a d�eorepaacy there in our confi.gurations. There
rn s a discrepaney in mur zoning ordinance eoncerning garages. There �+es one set of
rules for townhousea aad another aet oY rules for double bungalara. That wae not
neceesarily eonsistent in terms of rents�l gruperty� yet �+e see tLat kind of property
rlso c�ing beiore them for a reclassification suah aa this. There wae s diff�rence
ia eubletting. If you }�ave a tv�mhouse devel�nt ia an R-1 Zone� ymu cannot sub-
let thAt pruptrty. It must be armsr oecupied. The samt ie n�t true if it is in an
R-3 Zone, yet it could be the same building ia both zenea. There rrere s lot of
queotisae they felt the P1Anning Ce�.tsaim ahoulci look at Rnd some crP the sub-
caeaaiaciona might also waat to lock at them also. She stated that flrst of all they
should try to zero in on thia partieular type of situation so that the Appeals
Co�iasion could aet upon it. Msybe the thing to addresa ie existing unite a�i then
get inta new development after thet.
PLAI�D1Ii� COP�II+IISSION N�TING, APRIL 18, 1979 - PAGr 3
Idr. Earris atated tk�at as he sees it, the baeic queetioa ie whether we shefuld
allra► these pnrtieular typea of unite that are nov existing to be sold ae tovn-
hous�a.
Mr. Boar�m�n stated that at the Appeal'e meeting he had brought up the questioa
of 8eneity and felt the Planning Co�ission should discues it also. First of all,
ths- Staff checked tirith cther C�unitiec to find out hw they were i,andling these
typee of requeste because thsy are getting more anri aare of them. R�Jority oY
the ec�unitiea eontaetsd felt that if, in the exiating progertias the denaities
d��t ciLnge, the type of ownerahip didn't xveal�y auitter. The thinge they should
look at are the things t�would be coormon or would require an agreemeat bet�reea
ownera� rather tt�n leoking at whether they are going to allow it on c�nr they�re
goiag to eplit it. Regarfllese oP what they do, they would still be looking st the
same deaaity of living unita.
Mr. Harris atatad that wae true� but control was a different thing. In this parti-
cular caee, inetead of one art�mer to deal R*ith, ve womid dealing vrith a ca�tittee.
Mr. Bo*rd�n atatnd they would have to deal �riti� three individual cnmers.
Mr. Aarria stated that the ordinance requirss in ��nrnhouses eame sort of e mstnaBement
organizatimn to take care of the grnunde an� sa forth.
Nh�. Boor�en statad that he sees no difierence l.g�lly in thie situatian t�s in a
one ownerehip eituation.
1�. Setmabel stated ahe did not agree entirely. If he t�tae talking about an apart-
ment emoplex converting to a condomini�, ehe cauld ase tbut arrangement in a
different light tl�an a emall isolated un3t like that beeause an apartment camplex
ths�t gcts coasdciainium general]y has an area of laad that hae been more �eoifical�y
devsloped to that type oP multiple exiatenee. It has co�cm grounde, parking spaces
and : nuaber of things that are sore geared twarde that type af density arxi the
internal aapect of whether it is one-perstaa avned or n�ultiple-owned in the condor
iai� aenao deesn't necessari�jr alter that as much ae an isolated building does.
Sha seea a dit"Perence betveen a single free-standing unit lfke thia and a larger
camplox developm�nt.
Mr. Beard�n atated that he agreed there vas a difPtrence. He felt they 9hould
look at defiaitions of the diffennt types o! unito which they never had ia the
eod�. A definiti�n of s¢ondoninium refers to orreerehip aP an apartmeat. It
meana private o�mership of an apart�nt wi.th no land involved. A tvrmhc�use is
prive'te eimsrehip of the property With just the prryperty under ths building ae
ovnership. A patio h�e ia general�y classified a� frcm one to feur units set
extre�ly elose to other units oY ita type which require land o�merehip mors than
juat underaeath the unit. Msybe they ahould lc+ok at theee definitions and see if
they are going to allow definitions of this typt a�ld under vhat zonee tluy would
be allaoved in. Firet they should deal with the existing situation and density has
bean brougkt up time anal time again• If the densitiea are the sa� and wi.11 remain
the sam� thmn what difPerence doea it make whether it�s a h�►e rnmerehip type oi
eituation� or apart�nt c�rrnerehip type cf eituation ar rrhether it�s a sental type
eY situation iY the zonee are correctly aa�ed for th�ae types of uses. Hcaie awner-
ahip, even ia a condo�in3um mmerehip where they Yuve a lot of people on a ce�i.ttee
involved in it, they still hsve hc�me ownerehip vhi¢h aeans that they have somebody
that's teking better care of the property beeause they own it and have an investment
ia it.
PLANNI� C(3�4ffS8I0N MEETING, APRIL 18, i979 - PAGE 4
Mr. Boardnan etated tk�at he questioned vhether it aaade tlut much diiference as
long aa the deneitiea reaainod the same becaus� the purpese of zoning in the firat
pl�ce is density.
Ms. Schnabel atated that it struc}cher in reading ths mminutea that the attempt Wae
to reelassiPy it into vhat is so called the aasieat claeslYicstion to work rrith.
It aeeme that acmeone rrent through the cede bock ond took a l�k at what required
the laapt �unt oP variancee and came up with ths realization that a tavnhouse
vould require the lea�t amount of variances� eo they rsca�ended to the petitioner
ttut he app�y for a tvrmhouse. Mqybe this pieee af property and othera like it
weuld be better off rrith an R-1 claesiYication sv�n though it requirea more
varisnees thtw a toWnhouse clsesification.
Mr. Bwrdmsn atated he vould have eame reel prcbl�se with thnt beeause that vould
vary th. denaity ia an R-1� it would vary the let size ia an R-1� :nd they would
end up with a 30 foot lot instead oY a 40 foat lot rrhich they wers not sllcnring
other peaple to build in an R-1. He felt there ware some real problems rrith re-
zoning to an R-1 just bec�tue they �rere trying to cc�ntrel ownershig c�n a pieae of
property. He did not see where tHere was a problem in trying to control ownership.
Whether they had wnership or rental in a situation like this he did not see avy
problem becatuse the deasity rras set for R-3 a� it was 'bcing develvped :ar' R-3.
The reasoning behind the townhouse definitio� of it wqt beca�se they hsd no other
iefinition that wc�uld allow thie type of split o�msrahig rrhere they kud houses
butting rlght up next to each othsr.
Ms. Schnabel referred back to the question of a�rner occupied direllings� becsuae
thia wos c+ne of the key points in this issue. The selling point �vas that if it
becaim� a tcoWahouae it xcluld he ownex.occupied and as a result there��ould be more
gride in the prerperty� ths drrelling vo`ulcl be kept' up better, etc. She statad that
vas not required under our code. IY that rras tw R-1 zone it must be ovner oecupiQd.
Ia qn R-3 zone, vhich this is, it dces nat have to be ormer occupieai. So a pereon
could caae in an buy one of thoae units a�i turn arovnd snri sublet it.
Mr. Bcwrdman Qtated he voul8 qwstion that becauee iY they reguire ovner oecupied
in this in an R-1 zone yet they doa't require mvner secupied in an R-1 zone in a:
residential area for a single femi�y houae. He questioned the reasouing behind
that.
Ms. Schnabel etatad ttut ahe sgreed s+ith Mr. Boardman but that's the NqY the current
eode book reads. She brceught it up beesuae ehe felt it we im�ortant for thea ta
discuas it and understand it so thet when thmy do reonite the code they would have
a better idea of vhere they ar� going and vhat they wtat ta eay.
Mr. Boarda�n stated he underatood that but Pelt thRt going to an R-1 aone a�l then
bringing variances to allow this would be opening thea up for ather areae such as
40 foot lats or 50 Yo0't lots being aplit into tvo o�amerahip units aad dividing the
40 er 50 fost lot iato two 20 or a5 root iots as long sa they had 3�000 equare SoOt.
They Would rua into real;probleas vith thst ehereae if thty look at cxiating pro-
pertiee and allow existing properties by denaity and then act up some controls on
nea* property sueh as s pstio hoae develcipment� as lea�t they could handle tlse
PLAI!TNING COMbII33I0fi MEELING, APRIL 18, 1979 p�E 5
exi�ting pPOpex'tiee based oa density and look at ideals for density on t�e new units.
Iie felt the whole issue came doim to the fact that the zoning is based oa deneity.
They vere trying to protect a certa3n density vithin an area and there were other
things that entered into thet such as aetbacke and those type8 of thtiags which
estwblish etendards vithia an area. Those stsndarde are set based on a density.
Mr. Harris aeked iY thie rras zoned R-3.
Mr. Boardman stated that was correct.
Mr. Aarris aeked if in a townhouse associetion the lands rrere held in cammon.
Mr. Boardmwn stated that in sa�e situations they were but in this case it rrould not
be that vqv. In this c�ae, the v�y it�s aet up, the lot lines vere being divided
ell the �y through the lat so each unit has s separate yaxd area.
Mr. Harris stated thtt bothered him.
Mr. Soardmnn stated that each of the units would be responaible for the mnintainenee
and upkeep of their yard area.
Mr. Oquist asked why that bothered Mr. Harris. It's no different fram a single
famil,y privete dwelling.
Mr. Harria stated they should iook at what eould happen. If they split it up into
three percels� he assumed there would then bc three different tax statements, three
diPferent water meters and three diPferent gas meters.
Mr. Boerdman etated that wcruld depend on how the utilitiea were set up. In this
ceee there might have to be s common utility agreement. He wes not sure �rhat the
situation was on that.
Mr. Barris asked Mr. Nitscheke if he had one rrater meter or three.
Mr. Nitscheke stated that he had one water meter.
Mr. Harris atated that if they in fact split it into three rnmerehips, they ahould
have three different water meters.
Mr. Boardman atated they wuld be looking st that or oc�p�rable agree�ents Por the
use of thc utility.
Mr. Harrie sta�ed the problem rrae that if someone dian't pqv their bill/ vhat would
they do? Turn the vater off � the other tvo?
Mr. Nitseheke aeked what they did in twnhoueea7
Mr. Harrie stated thet tcnrnhouees were a separate dsal because that vas held in
co�on by the asaociation.
Mr. Baardman stated that in a tcnrnhouse, the lande were held in ca�on, but the
utilitiee were separate for each unit.
PI,ANNIIQG COI�A�LCS5I�1 NIEETIHG, APRIL 18, 1979 - PAGE 6
Mr. Harris atated tm4t then if they did divide it into three parcels they vou].d
have to have three tas etate�nte.
Mr. Bwa��n agreed aad stated they vmil.d alsc have to have preYerably three vrater
a�d aewer hook-ups. But it mfty not work thst wqy. They might have to have e�me
kind of agreement vith even the potentiality of hsving a sever and vater Pimd
available Ycr repaira and %lut type aP thing in which those peaple zrould luve to
put money in escrw.
Mr. Harris etated that esaentially then they rrere talki.ng obout getting to an
sesociation type setup for eame of those thinga. If certain repaira vere nee8ed on
the building� like the roof� how would they hnndle it iP all tt�ree parties didn't
agree oa the need for repsire2
Mr. Board�an etated we vouldn�t hatndle tbat� it vould be up to the people.
Mr. H�rris atatsd they were putting theneelves into a very strange situation.
Mr. Boardmen stated it vas the same situation in a tovnhouse vhere they had eight
units side by si8e. He didn't anderetand Mr. Harris's point.
Ma. Schnabel etated that ehe iras not too hung up on tt�t and tku�t�e a problem
thoes pecgle would Meve to rrorry about and hogeYul�y they wou18 hire att�rrneys
to lundle that.
Mr. Harrie etated they woul.d be enating the situatioa. Iie xould be more cea-
fortable with this proposal if they handled thia particular piece of property
juat like they handled their other gr�perties. Iastewil of epl3tting it up into
three ae�arate lots, they should have the pec�ple fora an assc�cistion and the
aseociatioa rroul� be rerponaible for the exterior oi the praperty.
Mr. Boarde�n stated that what he vas sRying thexs SraA they sho�tl.d �ell the land an7S
under the buildiag eimilar to e tovnhouse.
Mr. Aarrie atated that was correct and he vould Yeel more cc+mPortable. He etated
they covld be putting thenaelves in a box rrith the 40 Focit ltrt businesa by doiag
saeething like this. Because xe vould be creating saall lote that are aubetandard
lote.
Mr. Oqulct atated that these unite �aere jcined together by common valls, they were
not indiviival lots and indivddual buildinga. It'e like a zero lot line.
Ms. Schaabel stated they could not knw vhrt vould develop in the future if they
did develop thie into three individual eubatandar3 lote. One point brought up vas
thst if you had tWO adjaeent LO ioot lcrts sn8 scima�u came and ha and the other
cRmer vanted to tear dcwn the dvellinga on the adjacent 40 foot lots and put t�o
buildinge tvgether vith a zero lot liae. One an va� b0 Poot and one on the adjaceat
40 f0cat, rt�uld "we permit that.
Mr. Oquiet aaked vhet ves wrong with that.
PLANNTNG COAg9ISSI0N P�TING, APRIL 18, 1979 PAGE 7
Ms. $chnabsl stated there aight be nothing wrong rii.th it� and it'a very similar
to what'e happening her�.
Mr. Harrie otAted there vas nothing �rrong xith thst ii they allmr ccnstruction
oa 40 foot lots and it has been City policy ta nat do that.
Mr. Oquiat etsted tkaat thsn the �ssumptian Ms. Schnabel mede �tas not velid.
Ms. Sehnabel stat.d there was aaother example the�t had been brought up. What if
someaae a�med two structurea on twc sepa4rate lote and they decided thst, since
ve rrere allaving tri-plsxes to be msde into tovnhoueee, aseumina tlut's vhat we
do� *rkk�y don't they build a building ia the center and attach the txo that are_ _
eeparatsi! arnv by ths building in the eenter. Aad say those are eaeh on 40 foot
lots which wc�uld mske an 80 Poot width. Nw they w+auSfl have a new strueture that
straddles the middle so then vk�y not go through ara� ssparate these nnd make three
separate lote wt oF them. It becomea very camplicated. As land becames moz�e
vakuxble� these are the options.
Lh�. Aarris statsd he was aot too concerned abe+ut whether they allow this or not
but �ore the rra,y ia vhich it ia done. If ve split this up into three separate
aeetione, rre would be dealing with three different people ae fer sa the exterior
of the building.
Mr. Oquiet asked wbat they vere doing vith a double bungalow with tva� owners.
Ms. Schnabel stated that by definition thsy c�n't turn a double bungalow into a
tovnhouse.
Mr. Bae�rdnan stated they were getting requeste to allw teo owners in a double
bw�galow and they ahould diseuss ttiat also. One oY tht proble�ms ve have is our
defin3ti�ns.
Mr. Oqui�t stated that one definition they have nut tslked about is tri-glexes or
rw houeee.
Mr. Bcardsan atated that the att�ution they had wa6 by deYinition of so�se of the
current prmjecte is tangible. It's a ho�e ths,t haa more of an a�+nership than just
under the building itaelf. It hne s land wnerehip thet ia brosder than just the
building. A tdwnhouse definition ia the la�d under the building is the oxnership
and the rest of the progerty is comm�ari property. In a condominium� �ust the unit
ia wnsd with ca�on avnmrship in the facility. We iuve probleme in here becauee
our trnmhouse definition doe� no�t say that. It dcee aot say ownerahip juet under
the bui].aling. Mr. Boardman read the toimhouae defiaiticn �s follows: "Structurea
hou��ng three or more d�lling units� eontinous to eaeh other, on]y by the eharing
of one common vall, euch atructurea to be of the twn or row house type as contraeted
to aultiple dwelling apartment structures. No simg].s atructure shall c�ntaia in
e�ccesa of ei�ht (8) dvelling unite and each drrelling uait shall have separate
and individual front and mar e�tranees."
Mr, Harris steted they don't even allude to the amcwnt oY property.
Me. Sehnabel atated that it did addrese tlat latar oa in the cocde.
1'LANNING COb4II33I0A 1��E'PIMG, APRII. 18, 1979 PAGE 8
Mr. Boardaaa read iran the Special R•quirements in the eode boo� se followa:
"A�y ani all eo�a� opon apace sLall be labe�ed as euch". It dcesn't asy that
arpr praperty ut�der the building hse to be camaon ar apen space. He continued
Yeading "and as to its inteat or d�si.�ued P�netioa an� psovisiams for m4lntenance
waersbip, arid preservation ahall be made in aecorisacse with the proviaioass of
the "Apartseat Oimerehip Aet" : snd it�.s}�11 include e11 propoeed cwenants,
rsstricti0as uid eaaeaenta to run wi.th the land together vith aiqr prwisions for
release fra� esme; prc�visiona for dedication of eeeemment far public atreets ...
aadified aa deea�ed neceseary by the City Council. .. the develapment ia R-1
ahall eonaict of osrner occupied unite ... aad aesberehip in the townhouse develop-
ment e�sll be msde e part of the agre�ment of the'sotle of the �emlling unit."
Nawhere ia the claeslYication of townhousee do they talk about whether that wner-
ahip lue to be just the wnerahip under the building;aad aay and �11 ownere_�._of
the outside lande as n co�on ovnerahip. So baB� oa cnu' definition of wk+et a
t�vnhcaee is thie rould also fall under our definitian cii' a townhouse. The oaly
difference ie that sn�ve got the 3,000 eqvart feet vhieh is a requirement ior sn
R-3� they've got the front aixl rear entrancee which is s requiremeat, but the on�y
difference is thet it says that every townhouse plat has to have Pive seres. That's
vl�y they need a variance.
Mr. Oquiet aeked if a tormhouse requirad an assacia�ion.
Mr. Board�sn stated it doee not require tbat. If there is ca�on cnraershi:p of any
of the utilities or property, then thsre has t� be an masoeiation to govern thoes
things as deemed necessary by the City Council. He etated they could have a t�m-
houae d�v�lopment rrithout co�an amerehip. That�e the wqy he reada it.
Me. Sahnabel stated that under the Final Plan� • coPY �' the bylawa af the pro�pcsed
association of art+ners ie required. _
Mr. Besrdme�a stated he understooci that to mean an�y if there vraa sn aesoeiation.
If there isn't co�on ownership then they dos't need an aseociation. The wqy the
present ecde for tovnhousea ie layed out� it doesn't eay they have to have c�mon
ownerehip of property.
t+ts. Schn�bel stat�d that ve should put thwt in eur n�w zaning code.
Mr. Treuenfela stated that he u�leratood that ac� of the utillties in this case,
eepecial�y the Water, vae served through a ca�aa �ter� �o thls Wauld require an
association and bylawe.
Mr. Boerdmen stated that 3u was not seying they woul� nat need an agreement in
this garticulsr case. They would have to have agrfeaente Por usage of that vrater
and of hcnr they vould pay for thet �aater and the agree�nts would kave to be Yiled
with the deed vhen Rx�ybdiy purchased into that groperty. All the code says ia that
it muet be eubmitted rrith the plan for reviev xith the City Cauncil sad the Council
cen modify it 1Y they chose. But it doesn�t aay they tuve to have ca�on m�mership
af lsnd and it doe,n't s$y that this ie not a townhouse beesuse it fits the town-
houee definition. It ae4ys e to�mhouQe c�n be built in sn R-3 zone and the only
requireaent it dceen�t �et is the 5 acre psrcel.
�
PLANNING COb8�Li5SI0N MEETING� APRIL 18� 1979 - PAGE 9
Mr. Harrie stated that than they have to get back t• aome basic philosopk�y. Are
w going to allrn+ this particular type of setivity? And also are we going to
allow the intiridual ownsrship of s double7 If ve-agree to alloc+ it with a tri-
plex then it Yollwa that �+e ah�uld allow it �rith • double bungalow.
Ms, Sehnabel steted that this ic where r+e get into the question of density. What
typs oi denaity do we want on a mu].tiple living building.
Mr. Harris etated there would be no problem vi.th a rc�w house but if it's a aultiple
story like a duplex thers cauld be a problem.
hh�, Boardman eteted tt�at in order to qualifj� ae a townhouse� there cannot be one
unit on top of another. So in that situat3oa, rre rrouldn�t be able to a11oX a
split or we would have to split it under a co�adaminium type situation, or a eo-
operative type of situation, r�hich is aimilar to a condomini�. The problem ie
that the exieting d�nsity is there and do we allow that density to continue! We
mqy hsve tA ullo�r thst density to eontinue because it's exiot3ng. What kinde of
problems vould sre have if rre go to rnmership on thoee denaity or ii we don't go
to rnraerehip on the d�neityt He doesn't see a�y problems c�'ther than legal problems
and thase legal problems are the problems of the pevple Who buy into it.
Mr. Oquist asked if ve as a City should be concerned about the welfare of owners.
Mr. Harris stat�d t}at as far as generel health snd safety goes, yee.
Mr. Oquist etated that he meant ahould the City be concerned if the owners cannot
agree on repaira or kinds of siding� ete.Y
Mr. Efarris etated that in a way we should beeauee right nrnr we require a license
ior this particular uait and it'e control�ed by the �aeintenance ordinance. We are
supposod to mke inspectlons of the unit. So� becsuse it's rental property� there
are euee bpeic thinge we can do to keep a tumlle aa� it. If we go to thie particu].ar
type of operatlon, we dcm't have that control.
Mr. Boardman etated that ars we sqying then that ire like rental preaperty becauae ;of
arore control aver rental preperty and therefore elnould xe ront out all c>ur eingle
fanily h�es because the ordinance etates that in order to rent a aingle family nnit
a lieense ia neededt With ths liceaee *�re can contr•1 the upkeep caY aiagie family
units. 170 we *tant that ¢�trali
Mr. Ff�rris atated that hie p�int was iY they �*ere coli as individual unita� then
the City doee aot r�quire a license. If there vas an •asoeiation� he felt ths
presp�rty atcod a better at+anee of etayiag ia good eoedition than if it frae just
three se�arate parcels. He vould fesl better aboui an sesociatiun as far ae the
grmunda held in co�on.
Mr. Boardman stateci thst he feit there ahould be ecns co�man a8reement betWeen the
preiperty armers for meintemm�ce oY the structure� ete. if there �rae eommoa oaner-
ship oi the property. Hmrever, the way it'e platted there vould be no ca�aon owe�er-
ehip.
Mr. Oquist etated there sraa co�on ovnerehip because th�re vae a em�a vra11 betrreea
the units.
PLANNING COI�fI8SI0H I�P�TING, APRII. 18� 1979 PAGPs 10
Mr. Bp�rdnan etated that there �+ere no cc�on valla� there were double walls whieh
is a require�nt oi tvvnhousee. It is elso a requirement of owner occupied unite.
He explained that there vere two series of atuda vrith a cao��on space betrreen tbcse
etuda. The rsaeon for t}ut i� legal. Tf oae owner cta�uaes dsmage to a wall, it
is hie reapcineibility to repair that damage. Tho Buil.ding Code requires tvro
aeparats att�d walls betwecn tNO wner occupied unita.
Mr. Oquiat etated that waa s contradiction becauec there wae another plsce in ture
that roquired they ahare a co�on wall. It wae in the tarnhouse def�nition. There-
ft>re xe do not have tormhouses in Fridley because they do not shere a eo�on wall.
Mr. Boaxda�n atated that rental units such es apartmenta do not require double
sralls. Oomer xcupied units do require double valls.
Mr. Oquiat�aeked iY in this case there wcre double rralls.
D1r. Boardman ateted thet was correct.
Mr. Schnebel etated that if lYh�. Nitecheke di8n't live there� then 3u vouldn't of
had to put up double �+alls. This points up discrepancies in the zonimg ordinance
that we shoul8 review. She aeked what kind oi walle a double bungalow wou1.8 have.
hh�. Harris stated double bungalove vrere rental unita, therefore they did net require
deuble walls.
Mr..Aarrie statcd that rre cannTt go through �nd plat this bscause it doesn't fall
within the guidelinee oY our platting ordinanee for minimum lot size.
Mr. Bomrdman ete►ted that the on]y thing it sa�ye ia that a t�+rihouae muat have
3,000 square Peat.
Mr. Aa�rris etsted thst no metter what they cell them� they are making three separate
pareele wt of a piece of ground whether it'a R-1, R-2 or R-3 �hat's 80 feet wide
and 1l+0 feet deep. Eseentially they are cutting 80 f�et into three pieces.
Mr. Boardmen arkmd if that vaen't elut they do in a tenmhouse plan.
Mr. Harria eta�t�d those were camnon grounds. What ve're doing is plattiag sub-
standard lota. IP aomething happens to the etructure� we are left `rith a parcel
of ground zcjn� R_3 with lese than 3o roat lote.
Ma. Sehnabel stated that the Plsaning C�iesicn hed already spproved the preliminary
plat on this.
Mr. Hazzis stated they may have �de a nistake. If they go ahead and do thie they
rrould bs jeopardizing the 40 foot lot de�l.
PLANNING COb4QSSI0H MEETING, APRIL 18� 1979 PAGE 11
Mr. Bosrdaqn statad thry srould have to decide on hov to ha�lle the issue.
Mr. Harrie stated that if they do it aocording to the townhouee ordlnanc�, and
thty ara calling this a townhouse� they couli ary thet all they were b�ing 3s
the l+tud under the tm+nhouse and the reet oY the la� rrould be held in coam�on.
Mr. Boarim�n atated thet was not a requirement of ta�wnhouses.
Mr. Hsrrie eteted they could make it a atipulation.
Mr. Barr�san etated that our definition etates etric�]y vhat a t rnmhouea building ie
aad in the townhouse ares of the BuilSing Code there is no requir��nt for ownerahip
of th� land just under tht building.
Me. Schnabel ststed that mnybe it vas something ve could make as a stipu,lation in
approval of the plat no �tter vhat plat ft is.
Mr. Hnrria atated he felt very uneomfortable that they did it this vay. If some-
thing happened to it and it �rae totally or over 50'� destrayed what they have
created ie three R-3 lots of about 26 x 135 feet.
Mr. B�rdman stated that the msin thing they should do is ehange the deYinitions.
The Cv�iseioners concurrsd.
Mt. Bonrdnan asked what they vere going to do wi.th condominiwne? Whst ie our
direetion going to be for ttx avnership for the previous denaities which are rental?
Mr. Harrie etatoci thay �ren not ehanging the dsasity. They wauld not be doing a�-
thiag different ir�a what tbey were doing nar.
Mr. Bo�rd�ew aek�d if they would have a problem �+ith people coming in and ask to
do this. All they vant to do is chsnge the rnmerehip� not the denaity.
Mr. Harris atsted that rrAa the key point. He wanted to make sure that peogle who
bqy into this are proteetasl. Also, he wanted ta make eure that ths City and the
surrounding reaidencee are protecteti frcm the etandy�int tYiat the preperty w311 be
maintained. His third emncern xae vlth publie eervieea. TLat the City dcesn't
heve a problem when they are eald.
Mr. Boardman atatsd that then our prin�ry direction would be similar to eome of the
other Qaomwnitiea. They don�t have eap� problsn as long as the density d0esa't
ehange and that there are aoeociation bylaws that are dravn up and attaeffied to the
deed.
Mr. Aarris etated he vrould kuva no problem rrith tMat.
Mr. Bemrdman atated that the m�in point rrould be to get dePinitiona of cv�lamini�s�
tovnhouses and patio hoaea.
Ths Cv�iseioners agreed.
PLANNING C01�4�I5SION MBETING; APRII. 18� i979 PAGE 12
Mr. Boariaan f3�nrad 't1�Co�isaioners a desigrs oP a yatio home.
Ma. S¢hnabel stated she �s not �urt ohe iddced ttw coacept of a patio hamc in
teras of deneity.
btr. Boasdn�a atated they m�y have to look at t}aat type of units baeed on the
cha�sSlag patterna of home ownerahip.
I�. Schnabtl stated tflat in the new proposed eple ahe didn't aee xhere they had
spelled out R-2 ar R-� Yor condoninivme.
Mr. BoRrdman st$ted they didn't and tk�at ves somsthing they would have to get into.
Me 3slarra'�el atatsd they sho�ald diecuse the 5 acre ni.nimum for tcrimhous�s. That
is the question beiore Appeals in the variance request.
Mr. Oqviet oaked vk�y we had a restriction of 5 aeres.
Me. 3chnabel etatad it probsb]y came about vhsn land rras cheap�r and more available.
Mr. Bea:dnsn atated that they were loolcing at develep�ents like the Darrell Farr
Develupaeat vhere they have co�on recreation areas� etc., and in order to provide
all the amenities that go along vith t amhouea living� they felt that 5 acres
`ras II@Ce88ATy. He questione the need for that at thia point in time.
Mr. Aarris aeked to eee e ecrpy of the plat the Planniag Ca�ission had approved.
Mr. Boardmen showed the Co�3ssioners a copy of it. He stated that if they eanted
to do 1t like a tormhpuse� they would have to actuel�y plot out 6 garcele and the
rest trS.th cwmon ovnerahip.
Mr. Harrie staitad he felt very uncomfortable with the trqy that plat was.
Mr. Bc�e,rdman steted ti�at it boiled dovn to a policy decieion.
Mr, Harria etated he felt they should plot it into 6 parcels rrith comm�on ownerehip
for the r.st of it.
Mr. Boardman aaked Mr. Nitachek� if he had a problea `ri.th that.
Mr. Nitseheke stated he trould not.
Mr. Harris asked iP the attorney had seen this.
Mr. Boardnrn etated that he had looked at it anal statsd he didn't kiave sny problema
`rith it ae lang as it met the requiremente oP a tannheuse atxi as long as �hey got
a varianee.
Mr. Oquiet sta�ted that the attorney alao risnted to revi�v the aesociation by laxs.
Mr. HaTrie stated he vould feel much better with it this wa�y.
PLANNING COb4+ffS5I0N MEETING, APRIL 18� 1979 - PAGE 13
Ma. Schnebel atked if the Co�iasionere then Selt that the 5 acre reguirement ie
etill valid.
Mr. Harris etated that on sll new cenetruction� yes. I
Mr. Oqnist atated he wasn't aure he would tto aloo¢ r�ith ihat.
Mr. Bosrdmein stated there s+ere ways to get around that.
Mr. Harria ststed that they should msybe set up the townhouse ordinance a little
bit diYferent.
Mr. Oquist stmtad he would like to eliminate the term 5 ecres and set a certain
percentage for green area.
A�. BoarBaan a'�tad that Wae already eaid. In an R-1 they are allared 1 unit for
every 9�000 square feet, in an R-2 they are allowed i unit for every 5,000 square
Pest and in an R-3 they are allowed 1 unit for every 3s� $Q�r� Peet.
Mr. Oquiat etated they covld then eliminate the 5 acres� but in sn R-1 area Yor
single fami�y they have a 25`� lot coverage for green area. Maybe� they should do
ecmething like that for townhousee.
Ms. Schnebel asked why they said so �x�y square feet in R-1, ao many in R2, aad so
mn�y in R-3T
Mr. Bpardman stated that the philosopl�y vas that they wsnt to maintain a certain
density in eseh zc>ne.
Mr. Leek stated that the philosopt�r derives basically Yro� the values of the
ca�unity.
Mr. Iiarris etated that he vould lik� them to retain the 5 8cres for a trnmhouse
develepment because it haa worked fairly �rell up;to naw. He asked Ms. Schnabel
3Y she needed an anewer immxciiate�y. Iie felt this should be talked about.
Ms. 3chnabel stated that if wMat they have discuesed is the direction they want
to take and if they eant to make s proposal arnl vote � it� she would then take
tt�at back to the Boerd of Appeals and they vould act on the requsst. They had
tebled the requeat. If the Planning C�iesion felt it needed more diecusaion�
me�ybe they should table the di�cussion. She also asked if the Cc�unity Development
C�iaeion �rould be interest�d in looking at it.
Mr. Oquist atated that he felt they vould. He ielt the first eleven queatioas rrere
things they should talk about when they fliscuse the ordinance.
hL. Schnabel stated that her iapresaion from this diseuseion vas that provided the
propossl for replatting rrould be changed,at the Ceuncil level, then philpsoph�cal�y,
tku Planning Co�ission would have no problem rrith arpr tr3-plex being cohverted into
s townhoues claseification if it Falls into the tewnhauee guidelines dieeussed here.
In other vesda ¢c�on property and individual property rnmership.
PZANNII�G CO2�IIS3ION MEE'PING, APRIL l�, i979 PAGE 14
Mr. Oquist etated he would like to c1arlPy one pctnt. When we t�lk about ca�on
proptrty,, it is the la�d left over. The association would be reeponsible for
main�enance of the caammon ppoperty and the building maintenanee. That would be
part of the by laws.
Mr. Schnabel atated tbat then sh� understood tYiet th�y ha8 no problem with con�erting
tri-plsxes such as this to townhouses provided the lot s3ze remeins geaeral],y co�on
property with the land ux�er the building haning individual ownership and ae long
a■ the density doesn't change. She could take this back to the Appeals Co�ission
and felt ttat the rest ef these qumstions should be diseusamd along rri.th duplexes
And double bungalanrs. They had also touched on the park and open epsce situation.
IP the density isn't going to change� that would not make ax� difference. She
said they had nlso discussed taking, for example� the strip of lnnd acroea the
atreet from Mr. Nitscheke�s property, which ie currently zoned induatrial, and re-
zoning it R-3 and a reriea cf twnhouses were put on the property. It R+ould be
lesa than a 5 acre site, but would be c�patible xith the neighborhood. Would
they like to ses samething like that done?
Mr. Harris at�ted he rrould like to think about that.
Ma. Schna�bel atatad that another thing they had diecuesed vas the number of garages.
She underatood that there �ras no requirement ior number a� garagee in � tavnhouse
development� but there ie a gar�ge requirement for duplexes, double bungalrn+s,
apartments and aingle family.
Mr. Boardman etated there vere no requirements for apartmenta. That was parking
epaeesc.
Mr. Aarris etatad they should address that in the tvwnhouse ordinance.
M�t. Schnnbel stated that there ahould be sa�ething in the minutes to indicate if
they hove had a ehange of mind oa the re-plat.
Mr. Bwrdman stated tkist eince Planning had already responded to the initial plat�
they could s�y it's an iadication of the P7.ewuing Ccrom�iesion that the policy for
eonvsrting this type of unit muat be similar to n twnhouee area which Would require
cam�on open spaco plane and that they reeC�end�t}eat these type ef aituations be
considered in the re-�rriting vf the ordinanee for policy direction end in the mean
time the Appeals Ca�ission could,ect on the varisnce with thoae conditions.
t9�. S¢hnabel etated that Appeale had no porrer over the re-plat.
Mr. Buardnau agrsed e�nd ststed that ehould be iaeluded rrith the pletting. He felt
there should be an indication to the City Council that thie should be looked at
by aepante ovnership under the uttite with common wnerehip of property and they
should �elce a recouanendntion to Council that the plat should be modified to reflect
that.
Ms. Schnabel suggeated thet the Appeals approve ths variance with the atipulation
that P�anning reconsider the replat.
PLANNING COP�RdISSION i�'PIIQG� APRIL lti� 1979 PAGE 15
MOTION by Mr. Ognist� aeeaaded by Ma. Schnsbel}-that in light oP reeent discuseion
s�a�reviev oY the proposal, the Planning Co�iseion wishes to change it'e
recc�ndation concerning P.S.79.01 as Yollws: That the property under thc exiating
dvellinga becooe privete ownership aad the rest oY the land became grounei held in
co�on which would be conaietent with existing taKnhouse developments as current],y
knovn in Fridley and the Planning Cemm�ission further recommenda there be asexiation
by ].a�ws to control the operation oi those co�on propertiea.
[JPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN FIARRIS DECLARED THE I�%YPION C.ARRIID
UIQANIbPDUSLY.
Ms. Schnabel stated ttut ehe srovld take thst back to Appeals end they tirould act
in light of thia diecusaion.
Mr. ELtrrie aekad for more discuseion oa the Appeale minutes.
Ms. Schnqbel stated that the rest of the items could be diseussed when they reviex
the 2oning eqie.
Mr. Harris stated they could then vote on receiving the Appeals minutee.
UPOP A VOICE VOTE� ALL SOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN AARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOU6LY.
4. x�xv� � xESO[�xcES cot�n�ussIOrr rax�ss: argzx� 5, 1979:
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, secornled by Ms. Schnabel, to reeeive the April 5� 1979�
minut�s ot the Human Reeources Ca�isaion.
Mr. Aarris atated that the diseuseion with Mr. Saunder�s at the laet Planaing
Co�iaeion ueeting indicated that the H�pn Reaovreea Commission would like tha
tshairmen of the Planning Co�ission to preeent the proclamation for the Year oi
the Child to the City Council. Is that rhat the Humnn Resources Ccmm�iesion decided?
Mr. Treuenfele stated that they had decided to put it before the P],anning Co�isaimn
and aee �het the Planning Casm�isaion �rsnted to do.
Mr. Horris aeked when they waated this to c�e beYore the Planning Camnieaiont
Mr. Treuenfels atated he vould like it to be diecussed tonight. He pointed out
that a copy of the preelametion vae on page 1 of the minutes.
Mr. Harrie stated that aYter they receive the minutea� they could make a mation
rege�rding this.
Mr..LangenYsld s�ked if they had selected e pereon Yor the He�ndicapped Ar�areaeas
WeekS
Mr. Tzeuenfels ateted thet he hesl contacted kiia friernl and his frie�t waa interested
s� vauld tpeak on *rhat liYe was like Yor a� handicappeS person and slso the legal
aspecta of being handicapped.
PLANNII� COMHffS3I0N I�ETIHG, APRIL 1i5, 1979 PAGE 16
Ms. Schnabel stated that it hsd cme to her attentien during the electione last
yesr thst one of the probleme handicapped people hal va� getting to the voting
places.
Mr. Treuenfols stated that thcy should be more ar�raz�e a>Y the proble�s of l�and3capped
peaple to attend all civic funetione including voting.becsuae of the insacasait+ility ;
of builiinge. He indicated that they vould look iato having a central loeetien for
lundieapp�d people to vote at.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN EfARRIS DECLARED THE I�TION CARRIID
UNANIh�U3LY.
MOTION bq Me. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, that the Planning Cc�ission
concura vith and enceurages the Htman Resources C�iasion to prssegt the preclama-
tion Yor the Ysar a�f' the Child to the City Cauncil.
Mr. Aarria asked Mr. Treuenfels Who they t+affted to make the preaentation.
Mr. Treuenfela felt it would be nice iY beth Mr. Harris and himself made the
presentation.
Mr. Herris dgreed.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARiiIS DECT,ARED THE P90TION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. RECEIVE COAAifJNITY DEVEIAPM6NT CO2A�tI3SI0N NIIN[Tt�Ss ApRIL 10, 1979:
NBDTION by Mr. Oquist� tecunded by Me. Schnabel� to reeeive the April 10� 1979,
minutes of the Co�unity Development Ca�ieslon.
Mr. Oquist stated thst Mr. Board�n and Mr. Leek had preaented the Camprehensive
Develapmeat Plan. � of the membere didn�t have s eopy� so th¢y echeduled a
special meeting for nsxt Tuesday to Yinalize tha discussion. H� also stated they
had held eleetions and he was elected chaira�sn again.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARID THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Glasirman Harrie dec red a recess at 10:15 P.M. and reaonvened the meet3ng at 10:25 P.M.
6. G4NPINUEII: PISCUSSION ON DRAFT OF COMPREHEti3IVE DEVIIAPMENP PLAN:
Mr. Harrie stated that at the last meeting they got inta land use patterns. The
minutee of the l.a�et mesting indicate they had a lang �iacuasion on,residential ___
ls�i use. fie aeked 1�. Leek where he wanted to etart the discussion.
Mr. Leek steted that he xould like to look at the iuput Yrom the Parks and Recreation
Co�iesion.
A4r. Harria stated that in view oY the fact that the caormission member from Parks
a� Recres�tion was absent tonight, they should hold off on that.
Mr. Leek agreed.
PLANNING C�55ION NII�,'E'TING� APRIL 18, 1979 PAGE 17
Mr. Hearris suggested they diocuss the environmental section.
Mr. Bc�ardman atatecl that until they had the izi�it iram the Environmental Co�i.ssion,
they could possibly diecues just the generalities and concepta throughout the
doc�eut.
Mr. FIarris syggested they take it in order.
Mr. Boardman �tated they ahould talk about the genersl eoncepts for the planning
proctse. Under land use they were looking et the ni�ber of hm sing units required�
density� and whet effect the additional units xcu].d have on the City. That`e what
they �rere looking at in the policy under land uee. Under the rssouree� section,
the prime thing they xere looking nt was vhat kin8 of quslity standard they rrould
try to set up Yor the Citq as far as a natural ras�urae base for the Gity. What
is the effect oY eetlsnde? What ie the effect of developing the xetlandsi What
e�re the etfeets oP maintaining those wetlamde as to the contrc�l of water Plm�r with-
in our sreat They will be looking at these things in other co�unities also be-
¢ause sll ot the wetland areas are supposedly reclurge areas for th� g�ound water
whieh ie 3efinitely effeeting the City of Fridley becauae of our well system. Another
thing to look st is what ia our policy going to be in the direetion of wster clarity.
We lvtve a lot of problems wi.th non-point souree pollution. There are a lot of
things `re juet atarted talking about in the last thrte or four years as to hov they
ars effecting *,+ater recharge areas, the eLrity of vater, the quality oP vater �+ith
l�tro Council'e 208 Plan. One oY the big iseues is the Moore Lske area. The lake
area is elying if not elready dead particular�y if ve're trying to protect it. The
prablem is the vater diecharge Yrom residential streete and everything that go into
these p�ding ereas that are essential�y filtering areas ia order to filter the water
beYore it Ylwe into the river. Sbould we be looking at Moore La1cs as anything but
a filtering areaT These typea oP iuestions ahould be looked at.
Mr. Harrie etated he vould have to take iasue vith Mr. Board�n aa far sa Moore Lske
being dsad. It may be dead as a lake, but is nat dewd as far as what Moore Lake
real�y ie.
Mr. Boardmmn stated that "dead" �e just an expreesion. Are ve tryring to bring
lYk�ore Laka back to sc�mething it ehouldn't be in the firet place7 Are we trying t�
make it �re than whot ft':is! So�e of the other aresa ve have to look at is that
we have a Rice Creek Watershed District within the City that controls the Plvr of
Rice Creek Watershed end abntrols the quality on runoYf within ths Rice Creek ares.
Hovever, there are other aroae within the City of Fridley that have no coostrols.
They are uut of the cantrol aii the Rice Creek Waterehed and the on�y controle are
Yrom tha City. There mre other things we ehoulcl look st as our i'unoYY goea into the
Mississippi River. Under the 208 Plan there aro euggestsd quslity atandards.
Mr. I,eek stated thatt the 208 Plan essentiel]y eetabliahea the atandarda that have
tm met by 198$ in terme of the inhsbitability of water for wild life,_flora, fauns�
e�d in terms of recreational atandards.
Mr. B�Brd�n stated thess were the types of iasues in tha enviro�mental sactioa that
we sh�ul,�ii deal with and look at.
PLANNII+� CONfl�IISSION N�TING, APRIL 18, 1979 "-- — PAGE 18
t9r, Soax3man statsd t�t other things in the eavira�ental section would include
$ pelicy on energy in this eection.
Mr. I.eeY atattd they were lceking at incor�oratia� saae atate�nts with regard tm
energy ¢en�ervation aud energy eenacientiouenese in Fridley. This section elso
•ddresees ia it�s pelicies air and neise po2luti�t, aad other issuea. In Fridl�Y
the arsa that seeme to get hit hardeet i. vrater and rrater quality because ___;
one of the most iaport�nt s� unique reeources far� Fridley ae s metropaliten c�nw-
ity ie tt�at our drinkiag rrater supply doesn't ¢e�e frem the Miasissippi River but
rather frm greuad �+ater reciurge area and it ia extremel,y important that we msin-
taia aark aoly the capa¢ity oY thoae recharge areaa but the quali�yr oY water efftering
those re�hargt areae and that is the fuactian oP�:.drainage from� surrcunding areas
iato our ae�uaity an8 a Punetion oY the vay the�t the water filters in the rechaxge
areae.
MT. Aarris etated thi�t on pege 15 he had a problem with a statement. He reYerred
to the laet paragrwph ari that page.
bh�. LnngenYeld ateted that he had noted that the eurrent capital expense may be
minimsl but concern -ehould be tcrvards overall impact and coet.
Mr. Boardmsn etated thst the quastlon t3n that �*vuld be "what is miniaoalt" No
mstter *�rhether they Peel the coata are minime�l� they are being developed and the
reason thay are being develepid is that they are aarketable. IP they sre �rketable
then the eost anzst be minimal to the point vhere they are going to get their moaey
out oi it.
Mr. Harris sta'Ced he s+as looking for a different wa,y of et�ying th�t or e�ving it
difYerently. A7�ybe they ahould s�y something to the eifect thst Mr.Langenfeld
al2uded tc.
Mr. Leek aeked iY he was sqying that current mTket conditions for this kind of
1s� �kee it cost effective?
Mr. Herrie stated he vould Peel more comfortsble with that. He stated that he
had a queation on page 16. He qr,�eationed the statement "the Missiesippi River
haa the potential to beec�e one of the City'e finest smenities for recreational
purposes". He asked srhat they rrere aqying there.
Mr. Boardman etated that referred to canoeing, vieving� overlooks� and bike*�ya
�r111 be develo!ned along the river.
Mr. Leek atated that in Park Planning there ie a kini of prioritization of
Yaeilities and amenitiea that it�s nice to have and the firat of those is �rater.
In any kind of recreational-faMlity it ia advisable to hsve aome water body or
water eourae vhieh add� visusi relieP and geychologieally tiee the person elose�y
to the site. The river ie tlut kind of a�enity even if it's not useful for the
kind of wi.de range reereaticuaal ectivitiea in eme oY our areas.
PLANNING COD�@lISSION I�ETI2�, APR1i 18� 1979 ___ PAGE 19
I�. Harris statad that when he read that statemeat it mieled hia arid he got the
feeling tLat it rns Por boating� fiahing and evimiag t+hich is nat true during all
eer�ons of the year. He felt they ehmuld clarify that. Mr. Barria referred to
page 17 regarding the diseuasion on Moore Lake. He asked if the Plannia�g Coum�i.ssion
ehould t�ke a pasltion oa Moore IekeT
Mr. Boax$'an atated they should look nt it in the Parks and Recreatian section sa
e pmtential recrestional body and wi�at it cwl�l be ueed for. There is a problem
srhen ve look at the amount oP money it wauld east to bring it baek tc a u�nnble
neraatien sourca for svi�i.ag. He Yelt that Meore Iake �+as totaly aeceptable for
poseibly tiahing and canoeing in ane srea. Also it providea e visual site. But
they sheul� look at the aetunl use of the water for a recreational use sueh as
ewi�ing.
Ms. Schnabel etated that she Yound a contradictioa on the bottam of page 17 and the
top oi page 18 where they talk about hw bad the lake reslly is aad then they sa�y
"but" we will remedy that because they have slrawdy initiated this progrsm to pre-
serve the recreational and aesthetic value.
Mr. Leek etated that the present situation ie thst the City Council hae taken�the
position that Mvore Lake can be ssved.aa a recreational and aeathetie aa�enity.
They fel.t it necessary to report thnt Yact.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that they meacie that statement by saying "it:eueeessful."
Mr. Leek stated they Purther qvalifisd the etatenent bq eqying the nLmber of years
a�d according to the coneultant it would be 10 yesrs.
Ms. Schnabel stated that in reading it it seema contradictory. She suggeeted they
say "mRy" rather than "will".
Mr. Bosrdmsn etated that the etatement "if the project is succeaaful" would take
care of that.
Mr. Sehnabel stated that if ehe were on the Metro Council a�i read this section
ehe woul�l think that the City ia not fo2laving what it just got thraugh sa�ying on
the previous page.
1�. LangeaPeld agreed.
Mr. L@ek etated he did nut reslly aee ax�y coaflict becauee what ia eesential�,y being
said ie that Moore Lake ie a lake in the proceec of becao�ing whst it originally
vna� a mnrsh. And becauae oY that the caosditions oP the water ars not curreat]y
auitable for ssii�ing activitiee but at the same time it is possible to undertake
the effort to bring the water quality up so th�tt it is suitable fmr sriit�ing an3
there we are looking at the kind of policy determinatiou that Mr. Bcardimn and
Mr. Harrie mentioned, and that is, is the eoat of doing that Worth the results.
We dcaa�t attempt to make an� judgement about that.
PLANHING COA4A.i88I0N MEE'PING, APRIL 18, 1979 - —_- PAGE 20
Ms. Sehnsbel stated that her poiat rras that their doubts about that vere coming
through on paper.
Mr. Langenfeld stated they should look at the eauae of the problem. Hc felt it
was the runadf iato the lake.
Mr. Bosxdmsn stated they addresaed that on page 17.
Mr. LsagenYeld atated he understocd that but queetioned rrhether they were to talce
sr�y action to eliffinate that cause.
Mr. B�rdman stated that aould have to be a pol3cy statement. If the City is
going to take action to divert the storm sewera or dm something� the guestion thst
vill come up is is that inappropriate at th3s time When one of the purposes of
Moore lake is a filtering process.
Mr. Harris etated it waa very valuable for that. He etated that if everything
�reat of the highv� were in cattails� it would do a better job.
Mr. Uek statsd that than 1� a determination tkiat haen't been made in the City
yet and the question ia if it's more valusble as a recreational reaource for
active recreational purpo�es or is it �re valuable because of the i'unction that
it Yill�.
Mr. Harria st$ted that he felt that no matter vhat they do� it's going to do what
it wanta anpivey.
Mr. &iardman stated that the City could force it into a 2ake� but it wovld be very
expeasive to do that. The policy direction at thia time ie that the Council is
tsking efforts to modify or redirect the uae of Moore Lake as more of an active
uee s�ea. The question ia if that�s the policy direction ve want to go or do we
want to let Moore Lke go back to it'e natural state as a filtering system.
Mr. Leek etated that the consultants rrport indicatea that even given the kinds of
ePYorte such as diverting the storm sewers awqy Pram the Iske, their caleu].atiaaia
i�licste that the City is looking at l�foore I,eke in ten years as eing at the sscne
level of pollution and eongestion as it is nov. Then eimilar efiorts would have
to be taken.
Ms. Schnabel asked where they covered it ia the pelicy plan.
Mr. Boardman etated that r►►as the direction fram the City Counci2.
Ma. Schnabel stated they sheruld address it then.
Mr. Leek etated it vas mddresaad generally on page 3�r but I�+600re Lake uae aot
specifieally sddresaed.
PLAta1� cc7�IS8IOx t�rzrrG, a�tII. 18, 1979 - PAGE 21
Me. 3ehnebel etsted that she Pelt tYiat this ieaua taas not adequately addressed.
Mr. Bperalm�n questioned whether it should be addreeeed in a policy plan or in a
uy�at�m etatsment.
Me. 3chnabel atated they should do it in both placee because the eyste� really
follov� the policy.
Mr. Leek etsted that he undesatood that Me. Schnsbel vae sqying that neither the
poliey plan ncrr the syetem plan address speciPlcal]y the question of Moore Lake.
Me. 3chnabmi stated that wae correct. '
Mr. Harris queationed the statement on page 33 �er 53u #1. He questioned the
first �ragraph in that section a�i etated he was ncat sure they could have all
of thcsse.
Mr. Leek etated that �+as taken from the 208 plaa.
Mr. Harris etated that rrhen you sqy recreati� in the �rater� people think of
srimi�ing and boating, and the vater can�t be everything to everybody. Re felt that
the City hae to be ca�ittcd to actu�].�y trying to do it.
Mr. Boardman stated they could chsage the wrd "prcmote" to "provide". HB nated
t}ast the Parks and Recreationa C�iseion had reea�ended thia throughout. He
etnted that these were iasues that hsd to be brought up.
Mr. Iaeek etated there was s potential�y a gap in policiee in tmat area because
we 2�aven't addressed the responaib3lities of not on]�y the City but of other ageneies
that ere vi�lators.caf good surface coatrol runoff moaeures.
Mr. Irngeafeld stated tlu�t vhen he read it he had mede the note "make it stick°.
Mr. Boardman asked iP they wanted more discuseion Seetinge before they received
input trcm the other co�iseions.
The Ca�issiarciera agreed to vait for the other cc�issions.
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld� seconded by Mr. Oquist�, to contlnue the diacuasion �
�aft of the Coa�rehensive Development Plan.
UPOA A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIItMAN HARRIS DECLARID THE MDTION CARRIED
I7NANTMDUSiY.
7. corrrix�n: pxo�osID caaxcES rrr cxa� 205. zoxixc:
MOTION by Mr. Oquiet, eeconded by Mr. Treuenfela� to continue the propoaed changea
n�xpter 205. Zoning.
UPON A VOICE VOPE� ALL VOTING AYE� CAAIRMAN HARRIS I�ECLARID TAE NR7TION CRRR�
UNAN�AUSLY.
PZANNING CO2�1I3SION t�E'PIAQ, APRIL 18, 1979 PAGE 22
8. OTHER BUSIPIES3:
Mr. Harris aeksd what ca�iseions had not yet }aeld electiona.
Mr. Bc�riman atated tbat Parks and Recreatiar► a� the Appeals Com�ission hsd
not ytt held theirs.
A�TION by Mr. Langenield� eecesded by Mr. Tr�uenYelsa to adjourn the April 18, 1979,
me— e�t3g oY the Planning Co�i.ssi�.
UPON A VOICE YOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS D�CLARID THE ME�'i'II� AD.T�LIltI�D
AT 11:10 P.M.
RespectPully eubmitted;
/
l � Il� _ L ��.��
� .• y.: .� . ,•
CITY OF FRIDLEY
t
SPECIAL MEETING — PLANNIIdG CON�dISSIpN — APRIL ll� 1979
�
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairman Harria cal2ed the Apri2 11� z979, special meeting oY the Planning
C�ission to order at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Membera Present: I�fr. Harris, Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel
Members Absent: Mr. Lengenfeld, Ma. Suhrbier, Ms. Schnabel, �It< xxeuenfeis
Othere Present: Mr. Saunders (newly appointed member of Human Resources Co�ission}
Ms. Martin (newly appointed member of Human Resources Commission)
Mr. Boardman, City Planner
Mr. Leek� Associate Planner
1. COMPREAENSIVE'DEVEIAPMENT PLAN:
Mr. Boardman stated that they have had several member coffiaission meetings including
Parks and Recreation, CoLmnunity Development, and Appeals. They wexe trying to
develop a time frame and had planned on a public hearing.before the Planning Cor�missim
next week, but would probably ho18 o:f on tha� vntil the first Planning Coffinission
meeting in N.ay. He would like the Planni.ng Coarmission to review this svnultaneous]�y
with the other coaunission� so that when the Plnraning Commission received cosPCUents
from the other coa�issions, they would have A feel for what they were ±alking about.
He noted tbey had alrer�dy received a response from the Parks and Recreatian Co*rr�ission
and also a letter £rom Peter Treuenfels.. The Human Resources Commissian decided to
review the document individually and to submit their commnents individually� rather
than as a group. The Enviorn�ental Quality Covwirsion has not yet rev:ewed the
document, but would be discussing it next week. Co�unity Pevelopmant and Appeals
would be holding more meetings to discuss it. Tne primary point brougnt to the
other commissions was t.hat �he document mAy look thick, but a majority of the document
was a survey and analysis of existing conditions. They were primarily interested
in the direction of the book rather than necessarily the content of the survey and
analysis. They were lookin� for co�nents on the policy and system plan as a direction
for the City. Mr. Boardman stated that at this meeting, he would like to go �throu¢h
some of the system plans and explain swne oi the mapping, within each of the syste�
areas. Also� if the Coumi.ssion wished� they could review the ca�ents oi the Parlcs
and Recreation Co�nission.
Mr. Harris stated he had a few co�ents before they started. He stated that regarding
the introduction, he understood the direction of it, but felt parts of it should be
rewritten. He Was concerned that parts of it stepped on the toes of previous
adminiatrations and tYiat wae not their intent. He agreed with most of the statements
but Pelt the woxding could be better. He asked Mr. Boardmsn if they should start
this discusaion with goals and objectivea.
Mr. Boardmea stated that was correct but thera were some reco�ended changes irom
the member co�iseions he would like to discusa Yirst. One of them concerned the �
lsnd area. Right noW they have s policy statement but do not have ar�y system plans
drarrn up. Initially� they felt the system plan would be the 1y90 land uae map but
sfter some diacussion end additional revieu, they felt that parts of it could not
be covered in map form and vould need some documentation so they are presently working
on s system pinn for the land use section.
SPECIAL MEETING - PLANNI7� COMMISSION, APRIL 11, 1979 PAGE 2
Mr. Harris stated that in trie Inventory they were using eome gercentages, snd he
did not think these figures were giving a true picture of what really exiats,
especially in regards to connnercia2 snd industrial land, and also public land.
Ae had questioned how much of the co�ercial and industrial land was railroad
property. fie was referring to page 9 of the document. Also� he was concerned about
how much of that land wae controlled by other governmental bodies, such as the
Minneapolis Water Worke and FMC. He asked if these lands were counted in with
the industrial and commercisl figures in the document.
Mr. Boardman stated that the F'MC was counted in with iudustriel because it ie
iadustrial even though there are government contracts there ami they cann�t collect
taxes on some of the buildings there.
Mr. Harris stated that he felt that ahould be spelled out plainly in the Inventories.
Mr. Boardman stated that the Water Works a� the Waste Control were public lands.
Mr. Asrris asked how much was cpntrolled by the railrood. He felt th3s should
be specifical�y spelled out because it would then give a clearer picture of how
much lsnd is developable land.
Mr. Boardman stated that the railroad land that has trackage on it is clessified
as developed ittdustrial property and the railroad property without trackage is
classified a6 vscant industrisl property. For example� the Great Northern Rail-
road property is considered open for development. It is undeveloped industrial
property.
Mr. fIarris stated that he felt the percentages indicated on page 9 could change
because of that and felt the statement "In proportion to the tatal land use� the
City of Fridley has about 50� more industrial land than the Metro Area Average"
could be misl.eading because of this psrticul,ar situation.
Mr. Boardman stated that he did not feel it was misleading end felt it was pretty
clear cut. 52� is the undeveloped industrial property in the City.
Mr. Harris stated he could not believe it was that hi�h.
Mr. Boardman stated that we have a lot oP acres , 80 acres . of Sears property
unoccupied, Carter-Days industrial property, Great Northern Industrial Park atill
hae a large tract open, Onan�s has aome open and in the Onaway, area there is some
open. Al1 oY that ie zoned industrial.
Ma. Gabel aeked what the average breakdown was for co�nunities in terms of industrial
and commerciel.
Mr. Boardman ststed that Minneapolis is generally higher in commerciel�industrisl
than most o£ the other communities and Fridley is higher than Minneapolis in co�ercisl
and industriel.
Ms. Gabel asked what the ratio was.
Mr. Boardman stated that the ratio is about 12�. Less than 12� is generally the
ratio for induatrial zoned property and we have about 22�+.
Y SPECIAL MEETING - PLANftING COMMISSION AFRIL 11� 1979 - PAGE 3
Mr. Harris asked if they didn't have some specisl casea in there. Fie referred to
the Inventory of Public I.ands and asked how mueh of the land was controlled by the
City� the State and the County� and also the Federal Government.
Mr. Boardmun stated that Public Land included the road system, the park systems,
the City Hall, the Wster Works, all oP the publicly zoned property.
Mr. Harris stated he understood that� but there waa considerable acreage in the
Water Worka area and also in the Sewer Districts land and the Pumping Station, with-
in the bounds aP the City that really isn�t our land. It belongs to someone else,
like the City of Minneapolie.
Mr. Boardman stated that in general they felt that 39� is about average for public
ownership. We £all a little bit low in co�ercial and residential in what is
generally classified as "normal". They �ke up for it in industrial.
Mr. Harris stated that then maybe the figures were accurate. He Yelt this was
important if what comes out of this ia a proposal down the line for re2oning.
Mr. Boardman stated thet he did not think they were looking at rezoning per se�
they were looking at areas that have the potential £or mixed usage.
Mr. Harris stated that they were s$ying we have to put in another 2300 units.
Mr. Bcwrdman stated that they were saying they shouZd be providi.ng another 2300
units of housing.to meet our standards or to meet the needs of the growing
population in the �in City Area and for us to take a share of that load.
Mr. Harris stated it was important to have a clear picture in our Inventories
because obviousi;� we wi11 have to do something with our zones or make some special
provisions. Without a clear picture it would be difficult to make a good judgement.
Mr. Boerdman stated that he thought they had a pretty goai picture.
Ms. Gabel stated they would have to rezone to get 2300 more units.
Mr. Boardman stated they weren�t looking at rezoning per se� they had other tools
for providing housing units. There were programs the City could get involved in
such as tax increment programs, sponsorship of low interest nortgages or tax exempt
mortgage loans which encourage the development or redevelopment of housing pro�rams.
Mr. dquist stated they still had to have someplace to put those housea.
Mr. Boardman stated that by making low interest loana or mortgage loans and these
types of things available to apartment developers or housing developers, even at
the industrial cost of property, they would be putting it more into the realm oY
acquisition. There are s lot of tools the City could use to develop increased
density within areas. One place would be the Center City area: They are looking
at the improvement of the Center City area but feel that in order to improve that
area they will t�ave to get density within that area. So they have to look at the
possibility oP condonimium type housea or combinatione of offices and housing with-
in the Center City.
SPECIAL MN�TING - PLANNING COMNIISSION� APRIL 11, 1979 PAGE 4
Mr. Oquiat aeked wMere they would put thoee in the Center City.
Mr. Boardmnn atated they had about 25 to 30 acres of open land or land that cm ld
be made available. He stated there was property behind Rice Plaza between the
apartments a�ttl acrosa the street Yrom Aolly Center. There was also land near the
Church 'e ball diamond that could bec�e available. Also� there is lsnd owned by
Saliterman. , It has drainage problema� but maybe a solution could be found.
Mr. Oquist asked if he was referring to the marshy land near Sandees.
Mr. Boardman stated that was correct� and there was another tract of land aear
Sear's Outlet and the Shorewood� about 30 acrea. We could put a lot of unita in
there.
Mr. Leek stated that with medium density, they could be talking about as maqY as
210 units on that amount of land. With higher density they could be looking at
twice that� or with a combination� maybe three times the density.
Mr. Harris stated that he suspected they might get a combination of uses on that
land.
Mr. Boardman stated they had� at one time� looked at the area near the Plature
Center by Northtown. Thst could be a good location for a combination oY mixed
houaing and c�mmercial offices.
Mr. Harris mentioned the area below 694� near the river.
Mr. Leek stated that they shou].d move on into the Goals and Objectives. Ae stated
that in talking with the member commissions so far� he tried to answer their
questions about consistency between goals and objectives and the policy seetions
and suggested they start at the beginning with the Lsnd Use Pattern Section on
page 6. The Policy Section is on page 11.
Mr. Harria etated that in looking at the Yirst goaly V100, on page 6� it Zeft him
a little cold.
Mr. Boardman stated they took the goals and objectives provided by the City Council
and the Planning Co�ission.
Mr. Leek stated that in looking at the goals and objectives, when they were drafting
the document� it seemed a little tenuous. When they talk about the economic well
being of the City� they are in fact talking about more than just the amount of
receipts that pass thro�.zgh a co�ercial establishment and the amount of tax geaerated,
but also the standsrd of living of individual residents and a number of other th3ngs.
Mr. Boardman ststed they had a little trouble vith goals and objeetives and they
found a lot of repetition in the objectives and where they found repetition, they
tried to eliminate those objectives. They basical]y kept all of the goals the
same.
Mr. Harris stated that on page 6 he felt they should eay more� but was not sure
juet what.
�
^ SPECl/1L MEETING - PLANNING COMMISSION� APRIL 11� 1979 - PAGE 5
Ms, Gabel asked if they were going to start changing goals and objectivea.
Mr. Boardman ststed thst they could c�ment on the goale and objectivea� but
the shole document was based on the aseumption that the goals and objectives
were given as a direction.
Mr. Harris auggested they move onto page 11.
Ms. Gebel referred to the first sentence under V120 �2.on page 11. She had a
question about that because it seems thst our shopping aress are having probleme
now and wondered what direction they had in mind for that.
Mr, Boardman stated that in looking at our proposed land use, we look at the area
that we have already for viable key coffinercial nodes such as Holly Center�.the
Shorewood area� the co�ercial area near Target� and the Holiday Center area. In
these areas they are operating and making money and they are our key cott�ercisl nodes
for resident services. On top of that they have local commercial nodea suoh as the
7-11's end Quik Stores which provide Yor s very localized service area. These are
the types of things they are referring to under V120 #2. As energy gces up and it
costs more to get to shopping centers, there are service area within the City that
provide a function. We have to look at making those service areae more viable as
far as providing thosea services to the residents.
Mr. Leek stated that in the Yuture, the relative cost in terms of energy� time and
money Yor families,�-not only in Fridley, but in most other communites too, to travel
to ].ctrge regional centers to perform all of the kinds of shopping and service func-
tions they need in the course of a week or a month� will become prohibitive airl it
would seem to be necessary and worth�rhile to try and maintain those areas that pro-
vide grocery shopping kinds of functim s� dry cleaning functions� etc.� to service
the neighborhoods in Fridley.
Mr. Oquist stated that those smsll shopping areas also have to be com�etitive or
people will drive to a larger center. He stated that they have to be careful with
those kind of things, because if they start planning those areas and then they
board them up� what are we going to do with those buildings2 What will. happen to
the 7-11 on Old Central and Miseissippi?
Mr. Leek stated that in Fridley� they vere not talking about promoting additional
areas where construction would have to take place. As Ms. Gabel stated� they would
try to keep viable the areas we have.
Mr. Oquist stated that the 7-11 on Old Central was a mistake because there was a
Country Boy a block away. It was a mistake to sllow that to heppea, because one
oP the two would not make it. That area cannot support two small stores. We have
to watch that kind of development.
Mr. Harris referred to the second sentence in V120 #1 which reads as follcrws; "In
the future, rising building and energy costa will take the aingle-family house out
of the financial reach of most families." He felt that statement was true� but
questioned the following sentence "That reality coupled with the still-increasing
demand for housing in the City will demand that tne City moke every effort to
encourage the construction of alternative and affordable homes."
BPECIAL MF.ETINC, - PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 11� 1979 PAGE 6
�
Mr. Harria aeked if this meant they were going to try to promote doublea or
multi.ples. What direction will they take7
Mr. Eoardman stated there were a lot of directions they would have to lools at. In
the S�stem Plan they will have to deal with a lot of these issues. Some of the
thinga triey would look at were apartments turning into condominiums. They have had
several requests for this, and this is one of the alternatives for different types
of home ownership. The problea crith this is they will be losing some oY the rental
market so they will have to start looking st other provisions they can have and
other things the City can do. We have tax exempt mortgages that is a potential for
home ownerehip and also low interest loans.
Mr. Harris stated that he had questioned the word "construction". As far as he
could see, they were talking about 2300 units oi "new construction". He felt our
housing stock was the main concern here.
Mr. Boardman stated that there uere more and more programs bec�ing available'
throv�h the Federal�Govern�nt on different housing pro�rams. There were rehabili-
tation programs that make existing structures that sre presently unlivable more in
line with livable standards and yet still provide a low or modera'te income housing
unit. There are a lot of new construction techniques beccmin� available. The
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency has low interest loans for new construction of a
single £amily house. Another thing would be t$x exerapt mortgages. That is also on
neia construction as wel2 as existin� housing for low interest mortgage losns. We
wil]. have to take a look at these types o£ things. We will also have to encourage
things like condominiwns and those types of housing units for energy efPiciency.
The single family hpme is probably the least efiicient type o£ living unit you can
have because of the waste of energy. They will also k�ave to look at programs that
will make those houses energy ePficient.
Ms. Gabel stated that those sinds of specifics belong under housing. Here we are
talking about land use and somewhere in the policy plan we should be saying that we
are going to prwide the land to do this.
Ns. Harris stated that in the land use section, they should also be talking about
density, which we don't allude to at all.
Mr. Boardman stated that was a good.point and noted that they did get into that
quite heavil,y in the housing section. He stated that in the land use section� they
should be looking not only at the existing land use we have for housing� but also
the density� as Mr. Harris pointed out.
Mr. Harris stated that in discussing this a few months ago, they t�ad talked about
looking at, in speciPic areas, density instead of lot size.
Mr. Doardman stated tiwt was a key also to a policy issue we had £or converting
rental to Condominiums. It doesn't change density a�y� so wi�y not do it. What is
the problem we have 3n doing that on existing etructures?
� SPECIAL MEE'TING - PL.ANNING COMMIuSION� APRIL 11, 1979 - PAGE 7
Mr. Harxis stated thst if we get into rezoning or specisl zoning, end apparently
we will have to do comething to get 2300 more units in, maybe our approach to
that under the I.and Use Section, should be not lot sizes but density. And maybe
we should say something like that in here.
Mr. Boardman stated that was a good point and slso what he had mentioned about
under "Land Use" they should be telking about land availability for housing as
opposed to slternative forms of housing.
Mr. Oquist steted they could maybe drop that first policy.
Mr. Boardman stated they could but in it's place they would put "encourage land
availability for alternative forms of housing to meet the demand or need for housing
by 1j90 n
Mr. Oquist asked if �3 didn�t eover that.
Mr. Harris etated that he felt it just didn't say that. Ae felt that in going over
this thing� it didn�t seem that they were saying erhat they were trying to do.
Ms. Gabel stated that she assumed the figure of 2300 more units came i'rom Metro
Council, but have they decided that this is what we want to do, and i£ we have,
we should address the question, We have not c�e out and said "we need to provide
2300 more units".
Mr. Leek stated that in the Housing Section w� have said there is an expected need
for 2300 additional units and that is a calculation based on some very rudimentary
statistzcs. The trend 3xi decline of housinr� size as figured thrau�h 19qJ and pro-
jec-Le3 populatioa �iicreases. Both of those sets of infor�.:tion come to us £rwn
Netro Council, but they are by no neans dictates from N'�tro Council. 4ihat are
dictates, in a form� are the hou�in� allocatien pZan figures which are also mentioned
in the Housing Plan in which we state "we adopt Fridley's full share goal". He
believed that was something like 1fi42, So the plan does say that the City of Fridley
will do what it can to ensure that this many new units are provided in the caum�unity.
Ms. Gabel stated that then� in the Land Use Section� we should state that we will
make land available for that.
Mr. fTarris stated that i+as wY�y he was concerned about the figures in the Land
Inventory. If we are going to make the land available� we will have to get it
from some place.
Mr. Basrdman stated that in looking 4t what they had just discussed, they were not
looking at the elimination of that much indu�trial property. What they were looking
at was providing a mixture in some areas and a more concentrated look at the density
of development� not just single fanily but the density of all types of development in
certain areae in order to accomplish the �oal, We may keep that industrial property
to give us a good tax base to balance off the additional population we m�y get. But
what we ehould look at is increased density in certain areas.
SPECIAL t+�TING - PLANNING CCN,t+ffSSION� APRIL 11, 1979 PAGE t3'
Mr. Harris stated that if they uaed wkiat they l�ave done so far as a yard stick,
and a goo3 messurement would be the Georgetown apartmentc where there are about
500 apartments� they used a considerable emount of land. TP they are going to
use four times that much to accomplish 2300 eulits� tkey will have to atart carving
up somethin� to get there.
Mr. Boardman stated they would have to chan�re their ideas about the types of
structures. The types of structures presently going in for spartments, are very
wasteful on the lsnd primarily because they don't want to �o a�y higher because
they need a different type of atructure to go over three stories. So an apartment
complex is a kind of sprawling type of complex to accomplish the same thing they
could in a f3ve story building.
Mr. Harris stated that would involve density again. It seemed thrit the Georgetown
Apartments had about all the density they could get.
Mr. Boardman agreed and stated there would have to be same changes in our tboughts
and in our zonin� ordinances to a11oFr higher densities in certain areas.
Mr. Oquist asked why they would want to do that? He stated that we was playing
devil's advocate and asked why they wanted to pack in everything we can into the
community. Instead of putting in 500 why not 200? WY�y do we feel this need to
fiZl it up?
Mr. Leek etated th�t at this poi.nt, they were jumping the gun on the decisions
that wo�.u.d be made by the City providing that kind of housing. At this point in
time� they were not looking at specific sites, and he did not think they could�
nor could they look at specific proposals. So they did not know whether they were
tall�ing about pacicing them in� so to speak.
Mr. Oquist stai�ed they were talking about that in a way because they were talking
about bringing in 2300 more £amilies and making living space available for that
ma�y. They should step back and ask if that's what they real]y want to do.
Mr. Boardman stated there were some very basic questions underlying that. First of
all, the American people have generally been a very wastef�zt people aud he thought
our ideas and concepts as to the use of availability of resources ic going to have
change. As far as taxes, right ❑ow a single fami]y type of development is probably
the least dense type of development and it's getting less dense as the family sizes
continue to go down. So the amount of resources we use per household is increasing
when we look at density. There is more and more demand for additional housin� and
that housing has to go somepZace, And that is the problem in urban communities.
The main concept is to get people into a more concentrated area and provide a lot of
parks and open spaces within easy access and also service areas within easy access.
They could then prwide more facilities for I.ess resource cost.
Mr. Oquist stated they had to be eareful not to pack them in too much. Ae could
understand not promoting single .family dwellings because oP the energy problems
and other thin�s but they should be careful about getting into large apertment
complexes and that kind oP thin� just to provide so mar�y dwellings £or an assumed
market.
- SPECIAL NiEEPING - PLANNING COMI+IISSIONt APRIJ, 11, 1979 PAGE 9
Mr. Boardman etated they were not necessarily talking about large apartment com-
plexes or renter occupied complexes. The ideas of ownership are changing. A lot
of people are decidin� they don't want single fami],y o�+nership and wunt condominium
type ownership. In the rental units they are constantly at 9i3� or 99� occupied.
It is very difficult to find adequate housing in the metropolitan area. Energy
costs are increasing.
Mr. Oquist stated that his point was that we have to really know what we are doing
hera. We don't want to be putting in density for the sake of density or because
Metro Council sqys �re should have so many heads per acre. We have the opportunity
to do a little bit of planning on the land that is left and we shouldn't go all out
on a density kind of thing.
Ms. Gabel asked what would happen iY we didn't provide the number of units that
Metro Council asked for.
Mr. Leek stated th�t if a coannunity doesn�t adopt it'S full share housing goals,
it will lose points when D4etro Council evalnates a grant application.
Mr. Boardman stated they should look at the City of Fridley as a neighbor and a
part of the metropolitan area and we should share the problem.
Mr. Oquist asked if we hadn't already done uur fair share.
Mr. Boardman stated we were quite a bit below what the average co�unity provides
as far as housing gces.
Mr. Leek stated that without isolating for industrisl and pubZic land� this commun-
ity's overall density is five (5) people per acre.
Mr. Oquist noted thmt included industrial which in Fridley is a high percenta�e
over other communities.
Mr. Leek atatefl that was correct. The industrisl is approximately 22.1� and i£
you pull out about one fifth, you would be looking at approximate�y 6 to 7 people
per acre. If you pull out public land, which constitutes about 39�, you would be
looking at just under 10 people per acre.
Mr. Oquist stated that his point was that he didn't know iY we needed such high
denaity development.
Mr. Leek stated that in Fridley most of the residential land was already developed
which means we have to search elseWhere, even at that a large portion oP our land
3s developed. In addition we are looking at 2300 units. As a figure ti�at sounds
like a Zot, but when you consider that Fridley already bas 10,000 housing units, it's
not that much more, especial],y when you think of there being fewer people per unit.
Mr. Oquist stated thet was 25'� more and was quite a b3t.
hh�. Leek stated this would take place over the next ten yeara and that is projected
as being the peak of groerth for residential construction in this coannunity.
�.. >
SPECIAL NR:ETING - PLANNING COMMISSTON, APRIL llt 1979 _ - PAGE 10
Mr. Iloardman stated that there is land available in Fridley� but that land is
more difficult to uee, it's more e�cpensive to use or it's zoned industrial and
not svailable for residential at this time. It's a matter of what our priorities
are for the use oP that property. Right now we are providing 1.2 jobs
per household in the Ci�y of Fridley and we still hctve a 1ot of open industrial
space. Another question is are we going to be the job center ior the metropolitan
areal Do we want to prwide jobs for everybody elses cormnunity2 Do we want to
provide 2.5 or 3•5 Jobs per household in our co�nunity? Or do we want to balance
that more? Do we wsnt to provide housiug for the people who work in Fridley so
they can live in Fridley?
Ms. Gabel stated that in Appeals they hear people say that they moved here so they
could have open space and they don�t want to be packed in.
Mr. Boardman stated that won't happen. Those people already have houses with yards
snd the housing wiLl stay essentially the same in Fridley.
Nm. Oquist stated they would be packing in more traffic and more people would be
using the services.
Na. Boardman stated that more people would be paying Yor the services also.
Ms. Gabel stated we have a responsiLility to the people who are already here.
Mr. Hoardman stated they were also paying for the services ior people who utilize
the businesses. They have to work out a belance. They are not talking about
packing the neighborhoods or the people who are already existing here. Fridley
is primarily a single family coimnunity and it will remain single family. They
will not see a major change in tliat and the onl.y change in that will be energy
related. Those kinds of changes are already taking place. People are splitting
off their basements and renting them out. They are doing their own packing.
Mr. Saunders asked if Fridley was involved in the District Heating Studies that
the Energy Agency is promoting.
Mr. Harris atated that we have the Energy Project Couanittee that is looking at the
energy situation.
Mr. Oquist stated that the talk of development and density concerns him.
Mr. Soaxdman stated that he understood his concern, but the type of development
they were talking about and the location of the developments are peripheral
developments primarily. They are developments that presentl,y have A road system
to service them. Tkey were not talking about developments within a neighborhood
where they would go into s residential area and take down five or six blocks of
homes and put up a concentrated development. They were not talking about that
because in the first place� when you have a higher concentration you have to service
that concentration with a road system that can handle it. -
Mr. Leek stated that another reason it wouldn�t happen was that Fridley's housing
stock is sound and there is no reason for taking down sound housing to put up
concentrated housing.
> SPECIAL MEETING - PLAP��NG COMMISSION, APRIL 11� 1979_ __ PAGE 11
Nfr. Oquiet esked what would happen if a tornado went through.
Mr. Harris etsted that because of services and established street patterns� it
would probably be built much the same.
Mr, Oquist stated that sarne etreets had all the traffic they could hsndle without
incressing the density.
Mr. Eoardman stated that may not be a problem of deneity so much as the road pattern
that's existing.
Mr. Iiarris stated that they may have to do some major overhaul on the road patterns.
Na�. Oquist stated that then to provide for this density� they would have to change
the road patterna.
Mr. Boardman stated that the road pettern was a problem now. He stated that the
primary problem with the transportation system in the City now was the north-south
access route. That will do nothing but increase traffic.
Mr. Oquist ststed that to bring in more density� they will have to have more exits
off those roads.
Ms. Gabel asked iY this discusaion didn�t belong uncler housing.
Mr. Aarris stated that it was important to discuss these things.
Mr. Leek stated that in discussing housing, they should keep in mind that the City
has very little impact on market conditions a�l what housing is goin� i;o be pro-
vided except Por the minimal pressures we can put to bear because of our zouing
codes. If in fact, in ten years material costs and labor costs go down, people
are going to build single family homes no matter what our co3e says.
Mr, Harris stated tk�at the whole question of land use and density impac� more than
just land use. City services must be provided and also� right now we are figuring
1 child per household in the school districts. That coizld be s disaster for the
schools.
Mr, Boardmsn stated that the impact on the school districts would not change a lot.
He stated that it depended on the type oP units they were looking at. Townhouses
like in Innsbruck have a very small child population. '
N1r. Harris stated his point was that they ahould be carePul when they get into the
land use area that it doesn�t all end up in one area. `Shey should make sure that
it�s spread.
Mr. Boardman agreed. He stated that there would be concentrations within one area
like in Innsbruck. There would be concentration within one bui�lding structure but
there Would be more open epace. They Will not give up the open space for housing
unfts.
SPECZAL MEETING - PLANNING COPR�'Q^oSION� APRIL 11� 1979 PAGE 12
Mr. Oquist asked if they had done any studies on the available land leit in Fridley
and aee what the density level would be if they maintained the average. Would
all the land left to build on satisfy bringing in 2300 more units?
Mr. Leek stated they had not done that but they hav� inventoried what wae available
residential land.
Ma. Gabel seked if that fncluded 40 foot lota.
Mr. Boardman stated they had included all of the land that is residential that is
open including 1+U foot lots.
Mr. Harria stated they should talk about density and what the optimum shou].d be.
Mr. Leek stated thai: each co�unity and each neighborhood area must be assessed
individually. ,
Mr. Harris suggested that they take a neighborhoal area.
Mr. Leek that the area just north of Mississippi, near Terrace Park and the Meadoc+-
2ands, for example, would have an optimum density of 3 to 5 units per acre. That
is single family density.
hir. Harris suggested they look at density for these 2300 units. In iuture construction
What kind of densities steould they 2ook at and obviously it would be multiple use.
Mr. Boardman stated he thoUght they wou7.d see a mixture of different types of units.
They would still have the single Pamily units and would see a medium density in
some areas. There could even be a difference in the site. It could range from
low to medium to high density.
Mr. Harris stated he was looking Por an average. He wanted more dePinitive answers.
If they had 30 acres and they were going to put about 20 units on it� that gives
us a better idea.
Mr. Boardman stated they were not looking at hign density concentrations. He felt
they were laoking more in the area of inedium density concentration, such as an
apartment type concentration.
Mr. Hsrris stated that if they could put 500 to 600 units on s 30 acre tract, thst's
telling him that in order to provide for 2300 unitc, they wduld need Pour to five
sites like that. Do we have four or £ive sites like thatl
Mr. Boardman stated �re have about 1500 acres of industrisl property. He pointed
out on the map several areas that l�ave the possibility oP mixed usa�e.
Mr. Herris atated thst when they inventory these particulsr sites they should be
aure they can in actuality be built on and can support what we are talking about.
Mr. Boardmsn stated he felt they could.
• SPECIAL MF.ETING - PLAT�IING COMMISSION, APRIL 11, 1$79 __ _ PAGE 13
Mr. Boardmon stated that he did not see that City-wide density would go up that
much because the sir�le family areas are becoming lese dense. Ten years ago in
the single family households there were 4.3 persons per household and now there
are 2.9 to 3.1 persons per household.
Mr. fiarria stated that was a fact they were not teking into effect in our present
zoning cale. They referred to lot size and not density.
Mr. Leek �tated that in talking about density they were talking about two things.
First of ell there is population density which is the nwnber of people per area.
The otner kind of density is the number oY units per acre� and t�at depends upon
architectural design. What they Will have to look at is the process within the
City which looks at each site which potentisll�y can be developed into medium or
hi�h density housing and evaluates the proposal for that site in terms o£ hrnt
the units relate to one another within the site and how the development relates
to it's neighbors whether the neighbors are industrisl or co�ercial or residential
and the way it relates to the City as a whole. In the housing plsn this is some-
thing we try to address. Traditionally� what we have thought of in terms of density
is apartment buildings. But that is not necessarily the only form available for
the development of density. There are alter�tives for home ownership within
multiple unit kinds of structures that have the sense of single family homes. This
is an elternative.
Mr. Boardman stttted that what they y�ere sayin„ was thst there is open space in
Fridley� and that land uill be developed.
R7r. Oqu3st stated they had to be careful when they Yill those spaces up. They
have a lot of acreage and they ahou7-d spread it out.
Mr. Boardman stated that development pressures were heavy and it would behoove the
City to determine what uses we want on the available property. There are maay
demands such as for the elderly, services, housing units and housing.units for
young people.
Mr. Hurris stated that they would have to talk about this again and asked N�r.
Boardman if he understood the "direction they were talking about.
Mr. Boardman stated they should be talking more policy as far as &ensity goes.
Ms. Gabel stated she had a question about items l� 2 and 3 on page 68. She ielt
this tied into the question oi' 40 foot lots snd was changing the philosophy they
had follcrwed up to now.
Mr. Boardman stated he agreed thet Items l, 2 and 3 should not be in here. The
Yirst sentence of that paragraph was fine but those three items should not be bere.
He also stated that the philosopk�y was changing and thc�t Coannunity Development had
recommended less than the 9,000 square foot� they had recor�ended 7500 square feet
and Auman Resources hed also recouunended 7500 square feet.
SPECIAL NEIETING - PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 11, 1979 - PAGE 14
Mr. Leek stated they should keep in mind t�t the first one talks about a range
of lot sizes. This does not say thtit the City should go to 40 foot, lots. An
8�000 square foot lot is a good size lot.
Mr, Harris st�ted they were talking square footage not density.
N,r. Oquist stated that Commu.nity Development had recommended they go with a dens3ty
program.
Mr. Boardmsn stated that the question was what density should they be talking about.
Mr. Harris stated that was something they should discuss.
Ms. Gabel stated that they were promoting low cost housing and there were a lot
of rami£ications to that.
Ns. Boardman stated they were not talking about low cost housing. They were talking
s�bout reducing the cost of housing.
Mr. aquist stated that we need a goal de£inition of low cost housin�.
Mr. Harris stated that in discussin� this years ago, they had mixed up the terbs
low cost housing with substandard housing. They are two different thingG. He
stated that the present codes provides for a pretty goal quality house as far as
structural values and exiergy efficiency goes.
NLs. Gabel stated she was opposed to allowing homes without gara�es because it is
dangeroue to the health� sai`ety and weli'are of the people to have junk lying
around. She stated that peopZe were seying that tbey had to put in garages� and
why shou�dtt�t people caming in have a garage.
Ns. Boardman stated that standards change.
Mr. Leek stated that the cost of a garage five years ago was less than it is now
and unlecs the City responds to that appropriately, it would not be serving the
population.
Ms. Gabe7. stated that by not requiring garages� tbey would be running into a
community attitude and we have a responsibility to the couununity as a whole.
Ns. Boardman stated that the Council �ight not go along with�everything in here,
but there are questions that have to addressed.
Ms. Gabel st¢ted she didn't think we should be locked into these three items.
Mr, f3oardman stated there were reasons for those such as economic reasons.
Mr. Leek stated he could understand her objection to those kinds of changes to
the housing code� but they must keep in mind the purpose of reducing the cost oY
housing in Fridley: He esked whet alternatives there were to reduci� the cost
of bousing without jeopardizing the zoning code for single fami�y.
r
+ SPECIAL MEETING - pLANNING COMHIISSION, APRIL 11� 1979 PAGE l5
Ms. Martin stated that we hed to consider young people becsuse moat houaes on the
uierket are out of their reach.
Mr. Harris stated that what they used to think was that they should combine the
number of jobs with households, figuring in those deys there was one worker per
household. Do we sti11 want to do thatT
Mr. Boardman stated that at this time� we were looking more at proximity oP
working areas to a population.
Mr. Leek stated that in general term:,, that rule oi thumb served it's purpose
because it helped to keep the City viable� but it did thet by providing a certain
tax base and a certain asles receipt base, not because it provided one job per
household. What's beco�ing important is that you provide housing that has ready�
ef£icient and amenahle access to concentrations of employment and those concentrations
of employment should increasingly be scattered throughout the metropolitan region.
Concentrated employment causes problems With traffic and economics. That is wby it
is important to Zook at the provision of jobs within the comnunity.
Ns. Boardman stated that the balance of that ia they Want to provide households to
service job facilities because oY energy. Energy is going to have to be addressed
by all coffinunities. People canm t afford to travel a great distance to a job.
Mr. Leek stated that people would be narrowing,their job search.
Mr. Boardman stated there would have te be change:, in corupany attitudes re�ardi.ng
transfers even within the metropolitan area.
Mr. Leek stated that in regard to some of the questions raised here by Ms. Gabel
snd Mr. Oquist� they ahould look et page 54� H140.
I�. Boardman referred to ii150 on page 54.
Mr. Leek atated that may say we don't have to provide 2300 units� but we should
provide "�820•
Mr. Oquist asked wY�y we had to have LS20 units3
Mr. Bpardman stated that was Fridley's fu11 share bssed on an allocation oi housing.
Thie came from Metro Council.
Mr. Leek stated that what it does is allocate to I'ridley roughly 2.06� of new
housing in the metro area.
Mr. Harris stated that be could see the Planner's point. If we can provide 1850�
we could go the re�t of the wsy and provide the 2300 units,
Ms. Gabel stated she did not have a problem with that. She had s problem with
saying they were going to be on smaller lots and make them smaller houses.
Mr. Boardman atated that Items l, 2 and 3 were an attempt to reduce the cost of
single family housing.
SPECIAL Mr.�TING - PLAPININC COMMISSIOY' APRIT, 11� 1979 PAGE 16•
.,
Ms. Gaoel stated they were providing a diPferent quality of life wlth those three
items.
Mr. Boardman stqted there were some basic questions they had to address. First oP
all ia the cost oP housing, What can the Czty do tq reduce the cost oi housing7
Another queation is the pr.ovision of additional housing. What can the City do
to prnvide that additional hnusin� and to grovide the services to go along with that
housin�r auch a� jobs� traasgortation services and parks and recreation faeilities.
The third quection is how can we increa�e those amrcienities and still provide for
the ecological balanee Hith the metropolitan area. Here we get into natural re-
sources such as the water quality of the river,runo£f, wetland preservation as com-
pared to water recharge area. ihese are the basic questions we have to answer.
Ms. Gabel stated there had to be a better way to address that and she thought it
was density.
Mr. Harris stated tHat density was a very usePul tool in a lot oP respECts.
Mr. Boardc2an stated that when the zoning c a1e was set up it was base3 on den�ity,
hoaever they tur�ed around and asked how do we evaluate density, and they evaluate
density by squxre foot. And what that did was eZiminate cluster housing a?i3 ihe
toc.mhouse development without approval. It allows density per acre and instead
of making good use oY the land as far as land contours and wetlan3s� it allowed
for pecplF to do things like fill in wetlands to build on them.
2. cr� r���r.n�ss:
NL+^. Saundexc �tated that he had been asked b1� the Hwr�n Resources to re�d a
proc2.am.�ticiz re�aa•din� the Year of the Child. He read the p.r.oclamation snd
stated it was to be presented to Gouncil. He asked if the Plannin; Co�ission
or ti�e t�uma� Ri�ht Co�mission should make the prese�tation.
Mr. F,r,rris sug�ested he esk Peter Treuenfeff to poll the Hum�n Resource� Co,.�ission
and see what they wante3 to do.
N,r. I�eek stated that if they wanted, they cnuld have both commissions make the
pxe sentat i an .
A40TION by A4r. Oqui�t� seconded by Ms. Gabel to adjourn the April 11� 1979, special
meeting of the PZannzng Co�ission.
UPON A VOICE VO'1'E� ALL VOTIfiG AYEj CHAIRMAN IiARRIS DECLARb� Tfi� MEETING ADJOURNED
AT 10;10 P.D4.
Respectfully submitted:
/'! -L� �� �.�i%<.� .
� .'% �� "I':%% c
thy �he ton, Recording ecretary ,
_,�,,..,,