Loading...
PL 03/07/1979 - 30505CITY QF FRIDLEY • PLAIVNING COPM�ffSSTON P�ETIPiG, Ml1RCH 7� 1979 __ _� -.— CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris cal.led the R�.arch 7, �97g, meeting of' the Planning Commission to order at 7: 30 P. P4. ROLL CALL: .__.__� Members Present: Mr. Storla, Mr. Oquist� Mr. Harris� Ms. Gabel� Mr. Peterson Members Absent: Mr. Langenfeld (arrived at 8:�+5 P.M.) Others Present: Mr. Boardman, City Planner l. REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #79-01, BY 2�1RVIN AND RCP_3ERT ERICKSOr1: Split off the Westerly 7.99 feet of Lot 10� Aud. S,�.b. No. 9, �o malie two building sites for dauble bungalows, the same being 1285-87 and 1295-97 Norton Avenue NE. This item was tabled at the February 28, �97g meeting at the petitioners request. It remair_ed tabled at this meeting. 2. COP3TINIJ�: PROPOSED CHAAI��ES IN CHAPTE'R 205. ZONING: 205.�3 DEF'INITIONS Pa�e 8, �53 Mt?BrLE F?OME PARKS: Con¢r►unity Development Comanissian recorrmiended the ^ words "trailer park" �nd "trailers" be deleted. The definition would then resd: "An approved area for the parking of�occupied mobile bomes." Pa�e 8, Old �+3 MOTEL {TOik�IST C4URT); Appeals Conmiission recommended t�iis defini�ion be retained. Pa�e 8� �-55 TTURSING �IOD�: Coam�unity Deve].opment Commission recommended the words "A nursir.g home shall mean" be deleted. Pa�e 8�56 OBSTRUCTION: Appeals Commission and Commun.ity Development Commission reco�nended the worcl "means" be deleted. Page P: Appeals Commission recommended a definition for "OCCUPANCY LIMIT" be inserted after �6. The definition wauld read as follows: "For �he purpose of hea].th, safety �nd welfare9 the required maximwn ratio is two (2� persons per bedroom in a dwellin� unit.'� Mr. Peterson stated they had discussed this and h�d obtained a definition from Minneapolis �dhich tooY care of this� so did they.still need a definition ior occupancy limit. � Mr. Boardman stated they had a definition far "family" and there is a difference ' be�l.weei: "f;tmily" and "occupancy limit" . r°�. �'oardman quesicioned occupaucy litnit because wha� would be_ the rules and regula�tions that wo�ild limit an occup�i�cy limit. RiGht no�a, they laok at ove.rcro�•rded conditions; but overc.rowded conditions sre not �'1 necesssril,y a�ains� the zonin� laws, and he did uot fee]. t�his �aac the lacation far 6CCt;�1;?I1Cy •ZLIIl'lt. • � � _�,_,-�: , P'LANNING COi�IISSION P�EETI�TG 1�fARCH 7� 1979 PAGE 2 Nr. Boardznan stated he did not know how they could control occupancy limi'�.• . Mr. Iiarris stated he did not know how they could control it either. • Me. Gabel stated she was not at the meeting when the Appeals Conanission developed this definition, so could not cou�ent on it. • Mr. Harris stated if tbey cannot enforce it, it should not be there. He sug�ested it might be more appropriate to have it in the Maintenance Code or someplace else. Mr, Eoardman stated he would question even that. The only time an occupancy limit �aould be worth anything to them would be if they were jud�in� or looking at over- cro�ding for the purposes of the Housing Authority. 1�. Peterson stated there vras a cericain integrity within a family unit that is not �overnments role to disturb. Mr. Peterson stated he recalled that this question came up at the request of some departments within the City where they� were havir� difficulty with rental areas specifically where�non-related people were livin� in a house and causing problems with neighbors� and. they had nothing in the cod.e to deal with it and this was an attempt to d�al with it. He could see it someplace where they would be dealing with rental units, but really would not like to see it regarding family. %� 1�r, goardman stated that if a landlord had a problem with tenants� he could determine how many people would live there. Ms. Gabel stated she would discuss it at the next Appeals Co�nission meetin� and � report back. Mr. Eoardman stated �the definition of family was a�ood one and relates ta fi:ve unrelated persons ��ho can live in a household as a Pamily, a�ymore than 5 in the household cannot live as a family, unless it would be a group home situation where 1 person was takin� care �of � 5 people . l�s. Peterson stated that in that case� the defini-�ion of occupancy limit was redundant and unnecessery'. - Mr. gcardman stated he agreed. 1�. Aarris stated the sleeping arrangements within a household are the business of the household, not the City. Ms. Gabel stated she would find out exactly why.Appeals recommended this and report ' back to the Planning Co�ission. p��� g� l�57 pARKII�G ST�1LL; It was recommended the wor� "standard" be deleted. ' Page 8, #58 PRO�'ILE: Coma:unity �evelopment Commission stated that the definition �iven was not a definition. A�, Boardman stated this defines profile as it relates to the Overl�y Ordinance. In other words it defines what profile is� profile is the official creek and river profile. ��Tithin the ordinance, the term profile is used and when you see the word � pro:£ile -they use the term pro�ile rather that offici.a creek e.nd river profile. f Mr. Oquist s�;aied it should be inse��,ed into the �body of the ordinar�ce where the tez�tn is first used. Th� C:ouu���.ssio���"S ����cur.red. _.�.-.� /� PLANPII�VG CONIMISSION MEETINC, MARCH 7, 1979 - PAGE 3 Page 8, Old ��7 PUELIC iPrILITY: Appeals Commission recommended the heading be changed to "UTILITY CO2�'ANY" and the definition be retained. . The Coaamissioners concurred. Page 8� �59 PiJi�LIC IP�EOVEMENT: Appeals Co�nission recommended the heading be � changed to read: "PtTtiLIC F�ICILITY". Community Development Commission recommended the definition be changed to read: "Any facility for which the City or other governmental agency may ultimately assume the responsibility for construction� operation and maintenance." The Commissioners concurred. Page 8: Co.mmunity Development reco�mnended a definition Por "REGIONAL FLOOD" be_ inserted after �59• ' Mr. Boardman stated he had developed the folloz��ing definition for "Regional Flood"'i "That flood which has an occurance rate defined as once per every 100 years." Page 8, �60 REGULATORY �'LOOD PROTECTI4N ELEVATIOPd: Community Development Co�nission recommended the words "{100 year flood)" be deleted. Page 8: App�als Commission recommended. definit�,ons for front, rear and side yard setbacks be inserted after �60. They recommended the definition for "SETBACK, FRONT" be changed to read: "The minimal distance between the front property line of the •lot and the front of the principal structure loeated. on tha� lot." Mr. Boardman stated he had changed that to read as follows: "The minimum dis�ance between the front line�of a lot and a structure located on that 101;." Ms. Gabel noted that the principal structure was the determinin� f�etor. Mr. Boardman stated the 35 foot was the determin�.ng factor because you could have a garage sitting out in front of a house. The Co�issioners concurred. Pa�e 9, #61 STORY: Appeals Co�mission and Community Development recommended the words: "A basement is a story for the purposes of height regulations if one half (�) or more of the basement's height is above the average level of the adjoining �round." be deleted. Mr. Boardm�n stated his comnent was tha� tliey needed that for the dei'initions purposes. Mr. Oquist stated that basement was defined. Mr. F�oardman stated that for the.definition of a story, a basement is a story if one ha1.f or more of the basements height is above the average level of the adjoinino ground: � � Mr. Oquist stated that both Commissions had questioned it an� something must be wrong wi �h it . Ms. Gabel stated that the definition states '�if one hali or more of the basement's hei�h�t is above t17e �average level of the �d joinin�; �round."t but a lot of Uasemeats are t ot;ally iii t�e �round . � -�,.-.,. PI�ANNING CON1MiSSION MEETIPdG� b�RCH 7� i979 = PAGE 4 Mr. Boardman stated it would then not be claesified as a story. Mr. Peterson stated that in co�eercial buildin�,s it would have to do with the amount.�—,� oP parking that's required whether or not i1;'s considered a story. So someplace 1 they would have to include that deYinition. Ms. Gabel stated that what they were getting at was it was sti11 a story but if it's not sticking out of the ground it's not considered a story. Pdr. Peterson suggested they define it by saying "A story is ..." rather than sayin� "A basement is . . ." Mr. Boardman stated they had a definition for basement so they �now what a basement is and here they are saying a basement, which is defined� is classified as a story if that basement is ... Ms. Gabel asked what it would be classified as if it�s not that. �. Eoardt�an stated it woi.r].d not be a story unless it was classified as a story, it would then be a basement. Mr. Storla referred back to the dePinition of basement on page 3. He stated their definition of basement necessitates over half of the basement being out of the ground� so a basement has to be a story according to the definition of basement. Mr. Oquist stated Community Development Commission had questioned the definitions of basement and cellar and wondered wY�y they were separated. Also, they were not used in the text, so wby do they need them. The Commissioners agreed to delete �he definitions for "CELLAR" and "BASEP�NT" and to change the second sentence in the definition of "STORY" to read as follows: "For the purposes of hei�ht regu].ation a story is one half or more of the floor to ceilin� elevation that is above one half the level of the adjoining ground." Page 9, �2 STREET: Co�unity Development questioned this definition. Mr. Boardman stated he did not see any problem with it and suggested they leave it as is. The Co�nissioners concurred. Pa�e g, Old #50 STRUCTURAL ALTEEtATION: retained. The Commissioners concurred. Appeals recommended this deiinition be Page 9, ��64 TOh�NHOUSES: Community Development Commission recommended the following words be deleted: 'tsuch structures to be of the to�m or row house type as con- trasted to multiple swelling apart�ent structures." The definition would then read as follows; "Structures housin� three or more dwel.ling units� continuous to each other, only by the shsring of one common wall. No single structure shall contain in excess of eight (8) dwelling units and each dwellin� unit shall have senarate and individual front and rear entrances." � � e _ ��N � ;_±, , „ PLANPdING CO:�Il�fISSI0r1 r�ETII'G, P�1RCH 7, 1979 PACE 5 I�. Harris stated. the word "contiguous" would be better than "continuous". Mr. Storla s�ated as he understands 3t, if you had a condominum coruplex and �gave each owner his oT.m plct of land and it was a one story condominum, 3.t would be a townhouse, which is not the same as a ro�.house. Here, they are talk.ing about , row houses. Mr. Harris stated that ig you say "conti�uous" you are talking row.houses� if you say "contiguous" you are talking townhouses, meaning you can have one on top of the other or whatever. Mr. Storla stated that when you b�r a condominum you buy air space and cormnon inclivisible interest in the rest of the cozrnnon ground. With a townhouse� y6u buy that air space and the land it sits on� and indivisible interest in the swimmin� pool and the rest of the conunon grounds. A row house is a structure that cou].d be rented out� which is different than a townhouse. Ms. Gabel noted that Appeals had requested a definition for condominum. Mr. Boardman st�ted he was working on that. Mr. Peterson stated they did not have a definition �or row houses. Mr. Storla stated this was the definition for row houses as far as he was concerned. Mr. Harris stated he agreed if they used �he word "continuous" but not if they used n the word '�contiguous" . ' � Mr. Storla stated he would like a definition for townhouses a1so. Mr. Peterson stated that in a row house, you get the land in front and in back of the house too, because there is no undivided interest in a ro�� house. The Coumiissioners recommended that definitions for townhouse, row house� condc�minum and co-aperatives be developecl. _ Mr. Oquist stated that the last sentence in this definition belongs in the text of the ordinance, not in the definitions. The Commissioners concurred. Rqr. Peterson suggested they check with Minneapolis and ge�t their statement on co-operatives. Also, this should be discussed in the ordinance. Pa�e 9, �5 USABLE OPEN SP9�E: � As. F:arris questioned this definition, especially the last sentence. He �elt it was editorializin� in the definitions. � Mr. l3oardman stated he uad a point there and would check to see if this was a usable definition. . _ �� PLANNING COt���ITSSION ML�TING� MARC'ri 7, �979 - � PAGE 6 Pa�e 9� �67 VISION SAFETY ZOPJE; Appeals Commission recommended this definition be chan�ed to read as follows: "the trian�ular area of a corner lot be�inning at the intersection of the street cur'o lines, snd thirty (30) feet alon� each .�` curb line, and then a straight line between the two points." Nir. Boardman stated that the difference b�tween �the reco�mnended definition and the existi.ng defi�iition was that they look at as ri�ht of way lines� in other words, the property line. If you use the curb lines, the curb line is dependent on the boule- vard size, so it would be a ma'iter of whether they want to use street right oP way 13.nes or curb linea. Mr. Peterson stated that in terms of' saie�y, v�hich is what we are trying to accomplish, curb lines are more meaningful than prvperty lines. Ms. Gabel stated curb lines were more meaningful to Appeals. Mr. Boardman asked if they felt that 30 feet back from the intersection of the curb lines would be enough. They are looking at the intersection oP those two lines. In some cases� there is an intersection that is not a right angle intersection, and the intersection of those td�o curb lines may run some 50 feet out into the center of the street. If they use the ir�tersection of the property lines, the property line intersection would still be within the curb lines. ' The Commissioners a�reed to use the ter� "street right of way lines". The Coimnissioners also agreed �o delete "25 feet" and insert "30 feet". . Page 9, �66 47ALKFJAY OR SIDEWALK: Community Deyelopment Commission reco�nnended the word "paved" be deleted, and the word "designated" be inserted. Page 9� �9 TrTATERWAY: ComQnunity Development Carmnission recommended the word "man- made" be deleted and the word "artificial" be inserted. Pa�e 9, #70 YARD: Appeals C�ission recommended the following words be deleted: "unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward". . Mr. Aarris asked 3.f that wasn't restating setback. Mr. Boardman stated they wern't� just definin.g yard. pa�e g,� #71 YARD, FRONT: Appeals Commission recommended. this definition be changed to read: "A yard extendin� across the full width of the lot"and lying between the front lir.e of the lot and nearest line of the prin�ci�pal buildin�." They inserted the word "principal". The�Commisaioners concurred. Pa�e 10, ,�73 YAP,D, SIDE: The Appeals Commission recommended this definition be � changed to read as follows: "A yard extendinb across the width of a lot and the principal bui.lding extending from the front yard to •L-he rear yard and havinc a width eQunl to the shorte�t distance between the side line and the principal Luildin�." They ii�serted the �aord "principal" and deleted the word fu.�tl"r and also deleted the word "main". - � � �. . ' � . � .m._-�= PL.AN:IING COMMISSION M�'ETIPdG�_MARCH 7, 197g , PAGE 7 205.Q41 DECLARATION OF POLICY Page 10, �1; Appeals Commission recor�mended the word "morals" be deleted. The Commissioners concurred. Page 10, �'f�+: Community Development Co�ission recommended this paragraph be deleted and placed in the ordinance. Nir. Harris stated that did. not really belon� in the Declaration of Policy section� and was not really sure� if that was what they wanted to say either. They could have some problems with the to�mhouse developments on that. Why couldn't they have more than one principal building on one lot? � Ms. Gabel noted that i't stated "except as provided herein" and each zonin� district has it's own provisions� so she felt i� did take.care of itself and wa,s not a real� problem. Mr. Harris asked if they really needed it in there at all. Mr. Boardman stated that it says that a�y building that contains any dwelling or guest rooms shall be erected on a lot which has at least access of 25 foot along a public right of way in order to get access into it. In other__words, you cann't build on a lot without access.from a public street. Mr. Oquist sta,ted they should change the wording to what N.�. Board.man said and put n i� in the ordinance. It is in the wrong place. Ms. Gabel agreed, it was an ordinance, not a declaration of policy. Mr. Harris suggested they place it.in "Lot Provisions" on page 12. Mr. Harr3s referred to �2 on that same page and quoted the following: "Where the conditions imposed b;� any provision of this chapter are either more restrictive or less resicrictive than comparable conditions imposed by any ],aw, ordinance, statute, resolution, or regu].ation of any kind, the regulations which are more restrictive, or which impoae higher standards or requirements sha11 prevail." Mr. Harris noted that regarding the building code, they cannot be any more or ar�y,less restric'tive than any State Code. Nlr. Boardman stated that in the zoning code� they.do not refer to building regul.ations. Mr. Harris stated �hat was fine, if �hey did not do that, but would have to be care- ful not to refer to any building code in the zoning code. Mr. Eoardman asked what they wanted to do with ;;�!}, The Co�:tn3ssioners agreed to place 7�4 af�er ='� in LOT PROVISTOPdS and change it to read as follows: "Every 1ot, in order to t:�� biiilt oii, shall liave at least one line oi which abuts for >>ot less than 25 feet along a�?ublic street or along a permarient, unobstruct�d easement of access to the lot fro;n ta public street as approved by the !� zoning administrator as adequate ior the purpose." , P�ANNING COI+�ISSION MEETIIVG, MARCH 7, 1979 _ ' __ _ p�� _8 205 . 043 rroiv—CONFORPdING USES �ran s�,uc�ruu�s � Page 10, �l: Insert the follo�ring Section Number; 205.19. Page 11, �2: The Co�nissioners felt the wording was bad. The Co�nissioners a�reed. to chan�e the wording as follaws: "Nothing in this Ordinance shall prevent the up�rading of a non-conforming structure to safe condition when said structure is declared unsafe by the Building Inspector provided the necessary repairs shall not constitute more than 50°� (percent� of the fair marlcet value of such structure. mhe words uperading and to were inserted and the words placing and in" were deleted. Pa�e 11, �12: Mr. Boardman stated that Appeals Coaunission had a comment on this. They questioned automobile salvage as compared to junk yard. Aqr. Boardm.an stated his comment was that there was a tendency to eli.minate this as an allo�aable use. If that's true, we don't r.eed it in the non-conformin� use section. The statement that was there said that no junk yard could continue as e,�non-conforming use more than one year after the effective date oi this ordinar�ce without a special use permit. If there is going to be a tendency in the code to eliminate junk yards, then we would eliminate the junk yards. They�would con�inue as a non-conforming use just as a normal use, and.then we wouldn't have to have any other statement. � Mr. Harris stated they had discussed auto salvage, auto wreeking and junk yards� � and their definitions and had put a question mark by that. He asked if they ' could in iact elimina,te junk yards. Mr. Boardman stated that legally they could. They could take you to court and there would be just compensation for that elimination of the use. Mr. :iarris st�ted they would never get that past the Council. N�. Boardman stated the question �oould be do we want junk yards to continue with s special use permit. You could say a junk yard is a non-conforming use and is grand- fathered in, but the only way you can say �hat is by not allowing junk yards to exist.� Mr. Harris stated that in other words, the existing junk ysrds could remain as non- conformin uses. �ut without the special use pex-mit, we have no handle on their operation. Mr. BQardman stated thexe are screening requirements in the ordinance, and even a � non-conformir_g use lias to comply with the screening ordinance. The junk vehicle ord3nance states that you cann't park junk vehicles on the street, they cannot have •, a junk vehicle on property across the street from theirs, �hey cannot stack junk -. vehicles so they are visible above the screening fence �nd they must screen all exterior s-�ora�e. They also '^ave no�se requirer.;er,i;s. �?hat z�ore can thev do? They have to meet all of those requ�remeiits regardless if they�re � non-conformin; use. A non-co�iformin� use states you can no lan�er build a junk yard or expand � one in �he City. _ _ ��: PLAPT.VIPIG COMt�fISSION P�ETIPJG, I�IARCH 7, 1979 , PAGE 9 � Mr. Boardman stated the only problem we could have is if they wanted to expand and we didn't allow it� they could take us to court. '� Ms. Gabel asked if they put this in the ordinance, wouldn't they have to be notified. . � Mr. Harris stated they would ha,ve public hearings. Mr. Boardman stated he was talkin� to Virgil Herrick about the notification. Mr. Harris asked ho�w they would handle "reclamation center", Mr. Eoardman stated that in the definition of junk yard, it states "except Council approved recycling centers". Mr. Boardman stated that in other words� if they wanted �o have a junk yard. and keep everything inside a building, there was no pro- blem with that, as long as there is no outside storage. Mr. Harris asked if they should delete the definition of junk yard. Mr. Boardman stated they need the definition of junk yard, but they should delete #12 "No junk yard may continue as a non-conforming use." Here we wauld have a problem with a court case because as of the adoption of this ordinance, the�r would not even be a non-conforming use. If they say that, then they have a problem. S�That they want to say is they are allowed, but they will restrict their business to the point tirhere they cannot expand their operation. The Commissioners agreed to delete #12 on page 11. Mr. Harris questioned the definition oi Junk Yard on page 6. He stated. that "waste" and "used material" were t�o different things, and asked what the definition of waste is. Iie did not fee]. that scrap iron is waste.rmaterial. The Commissioners agreed to.change this definition to resd as follows: "An area rahere used material, as a principal business, are bough-�, sold, exchanged� stored, packed, disassembled or Yiandled, includir_g, but noi limited to, scrap iron and other �etals, paper, rags, rubber, wire and bottles. A junk yard ineZudes an auto wrecking yard or auto salvage yard, but does not include uses that are entire]y raithin enclosed buildinos or City Council approved recycling centers." They deleted- the words "open" and "waste and" and inserted the words "as a principal business". Pa�e 12, #13: I�hr. Harris questioned this statement. _ Mr. Boardman stated he had�received this deiinition from Brooklyn Center. Mr. Lan�enfeld suggested they delete this. Mr. Boardman stated he would talk to Darrell Clark and see if we have ar�'thing like this. He had no problem in deleting this. Mr. :iarris su;�,ested they put a question.mark by it until Mr..Boardman talks to Darrell and b9srvin. Mr. Boardman agreed. -.�.�,:� . PLANNII�iC COMMISSIOIJ �� INC, MAP,CH 7, 1979 . - PAGE 10 205.0�4 LOT PROVISIONS Page ,12, �2: 1 N�. Boardman stated that someone on Staff had g,uestioned the sta�ement "not more than one (lj� princinal building shall be located ou a lot." They were referring to situations like Onan. Nfr. �oardman stated he had commented that �e looked at the buildings there as accessory buildings to the main buildin�. The Commissioners coiicuxred. Page 12� �4: Cormnunity Development Commission reco�nended . plan" be deleted and the words "transportation plan" be The Co:�issioners concurred. the words "thoroughfare inserted. 3, RECEIL'E ENERGY PROJECT COMMSTTEE I�IPitfl'ES: FEBRUARY 1�+, 1979: MOTIOR' by Mr. Peterson, seconded by I�r. Oquist to receive the February 1�+, �979, minutes of the Energy Project Committee. Mr. Langer�eld noted the statement by Ns. Johnson on page �+, third paragraph. He fel� this was a worthwhile st�teme�t a�d he wou.ld use it as a sprin�b oard for other ideas. Mr. Lanbenfeld also noted the sixth paragraph on page 5 where Mr. Saba had commended NSP and P�iinnigasco because they were coming out with audits and trying to create awareness. He mentioned the term "Co-generation" and noted that the Commissioners would �e hearing this term of�cen. On page 7, they listed items from various drafts from different communities which they fel't would Ue helpful ideas. The New Brighton � draft was really for emergencies, but it was good to be aware of those things. He also stated that he would be usin� the information on page 9 under Section 6 as ideas and springboards for the goals and ob jectives of the Co�ittee. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIIJG AYE, CIiAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARID THE MOTION CARRIID UNANIA:OUSLY. • . 4. OTF�2 BUSINESS: Mr. Boardman stated he would like to have a special mee�ing of the Plann3ng Co�mnission on March 28. He would like, if possible, to have all the CoIInnissions present. The purpose of the meeting would be a presentation of the first draft of�the Comprehensive �evelopment Plan. At that poin�; th�y could make a decision as to hota the review process would take place. Mr. Harris stated there would be no problem with•that. Mr. Harris stated re had discussed the question.of kennels at the Council meeting. The Commissioners had requested he do this at the last meetin�. The Council felt they should chan�e "and�or" to "and" and for�et about private kennels. r'fr. Harris stated he had also discussed with Council the situation in Riverview :?ei, ht.^, wi}ere t`�erF are sel�er.a1 paz�cels af l�nd, the sizes of �ahich are 50 x 117� .,�,;. � PLANNING COb�92SSI0N I�ETING, MARCH 7, 1979 - PAGE 11 and they are below the floai plain radiance. Mr. H�rris stated they had two requests, but one had been withdrawn. He asked Mi�. Bosrdman what the status of �he other requesl; rras . Mr. Boardman stated they were trying to �et an attorneys opinion on whether they can vary the 15 foot requirement. The Code state"s that no variance shall be��ranted that makes the conditions more dan�ero�zs or less restrictive than the purpose of the ord3nance. In other words� if the purpose of the 15 �oot out is for safety, and you �rant a variance for that 15 foot and it reduces the safety, if would not be righ.t. Ms. Gabel asked what the purpose of the 15 foot was. Mr. Baardman stated the�l5 foot appl3es to ground pressures. Ms. Gabel asked if that area fell into the Mississippi Corridor. Mr. Boardma,n stated it did. Ms. Gabel stated that any house within the I�Iississippi Corridor within a certain footage needs a variance to begin with and if they want to buiZd on a 50 foot lot, that would require a variance a1so. Mr. Harris stated that they allow construction on SO �oot lots in old platting with a ir3ninum lot size of 7500 square feet. These sites �re less than 7500 square feet� and because they are 50 foot in width, they would need a variance. Mr. Harris also stated that the people could build without raising them by flood proofin�. Ms. Gabel stated there were a lot of homes in that area on 50 foot lots, �nd the � Appeals Commission �ends to continue granting thase variance because it is compatible with the neighborhood, and the neighbors dontt complain. She asked what the problem was with it. Mr. Harris stated that if these part3cular structures go in, they cauld impact the entire area as far as drainage and other things. Mr. Boardman stated that only one structure had been built in the flood plain and that was a corner lo-L which helped with the drainage. In a corner lot, the runoff could go into the street, but there is no place �'or it to go on an interior lot. Ms. Gabel asked if a developer was interested in the area. Mr. Loardman stated that people were coming in requesting Special Use Permits to build there and the code states no variance shall provic?e for a lesser de�ree of flood protection than is stat�8 in the ordinance; and that's where the question they are seudin� to the attorney comes up. Mr. Harris stated they could flood proof and still have drainage problems. Mr. 13oardmr�n stated they could build a structure on that si�e without any fill if they flood proof the structure. He also noted that flo� proofing is very s�:ringent. � `'� `'. PLAT�I�IING CON�+IISSIOPI MEETING, MARCH 7, 1979 _ • - PAGE 12 Mr. Fiarris stated he had asked the Council iF they would be in favGr of a moratorium on building permits in the flood pla3n area until they could get all the da�a � togetrer and look st the situation. The Counci], ngreed. ar.d suggested he vrork with Jerry �nd Dick. He had discussed the boundary lines with 1�Rr. Herrick and he asked N�r.�L'oardman to talk with Dick and obt�in the pertinent information and bring it to the Planning Commission for setting a boundary for the moratorium. They would look at all the inherent problems in the area and also come up with some alternate uses for the 1aud. Mr. Langenfeld sug�ested they use the �rounds of safety and welfare ior the moratorium. Mr. Harris agreed and stated the Council had stated they would go for a limited moratorium. From the discussion, he felt it would be a resonably short one. He understood they mi�ht �o for six months� but it was never said exactly. N1r. Boardman su�ges�ed they could make it into a tax increment district. Mr. Harris stated they should look at the total picture and discuss it. Mr. Boardman stated they were developing a Housing Resource Center in the library. - They have $5,100 of HUD Co�aunity Development Block Grant P�Ioney. They ta].ked with the Library Board and are working with the Director of the Board and also they wil]. acquire about �5100 worth of material on energy conservation� housing maintenance� etc. It will be located in the Anoka Library. 1��ION by A�rr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. �abel, to aci journ the March 7� 1979, � meet�ng of the Planning Commission. Respectfully submitted: i ^ � �� � t thy S� on, Recording Secretary � .��:s