PL 04/18/1979 - 30509''�
C ITY CjF k'R IDLEY ,
PLAIJNINC COMP�9ISSION t��T'I'TNG � APItIL' If3� 1979
CALL TO ORDER; •
� Chairman HarY�is called the April 1f3, ig79, me��in� of' the Plannin� Commies�.on �o
order �t 7:30 P.M.
FOLL CALL:
A'iembera Present: Mr. Treuen�els, Mr. Oquist� Mr.Harris,:Ms. Schnab�l�
Mr. Hora (for Mr. T�n�enfeld)
I�mbers Absent; Ms. Suhrbierj Mr. Langenfelci (arrived a� 9%�+5)
Others PreEent: Mr. Boardmtzn, City Pl�nner �
Mr. Leek� Associate Planner .
� Mr. Ni�sclieke' 6661 A�ain Street N.E. '
l. APPROVE PI,ANNTNG COA�'I.ISSION MLNU`.I'ES: APRIL 4, i979:
PdOT�ON by A7s. Schnabel' seconded by Mr. Oquisi' to approve �h� April �� �979,
mir�u�tea oi �he Planning Con�nission.
A�. Harris asked Nir. Board�n how th� Council reacted to the Planniing Counnission4 s
st�temen� regArding �he six members on the Envirorun�ntal..�uaii�y Commissio�.
,`� Mr. Board�an s�;ated thos� rainutea had not ye� gone �co Council. They �rouZd come
b��ore Counci]. on Apri]. 239 1979• .
�,
UPON 1� V�ICE VOTE9 ALL VOTING AYE' CHAIRNIAN HAR�tIS DECLAl� THE MOTIOTd G.ARl�IED
UNANIriSOUSLY . � •
2. APPROVE PLANIVIRTG GOI�IISSTpN MINU`1'ESa APRIL � 1, 1979:
N�OTION by Mr. Oquist� seconded b3* Ms. Schnabelr to apprave �the April 11' a.g79,
minutes of the Planning Commission.
A�S. Schnabe�. stated that sh� �aished �they haci mo�°e time �to read �th� minutes. Sbe
asked haw far they got in the discus�ion.
Mr. Harris sta'�ed they h�d a rather ].engtY�y discussion on housing.
Mr. ]3oardn�n sta'ted they braught up highli�hts throughou� the documen� and did not
really start with goals and objectives. They diaeussed issues prinarily.
Mr. Iiarris stated they discussed housing and i;he mtti�udes to�rArds i�C and what we
thoughi our a�Ltitudes ahould be. He f�l�t i�C wr�s a good discussion.
UPOPt A VOICE VOTE' .ALL VOTING AYE� CIiAIRAgAId HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARR]ED
UNAN7.MG�USLY . �
0
�
PLANNING COMMIS�T.ON P�TING� APRIL ln� �979 � - PAGE 2
_-_____,._.
3, REC�IV� APPFALS COMP4ISSION MITnJi'ES: APRIL 10� i979: �
,�
MOTION by Ms. Schne�bel, seconded by Mr. Oquist� to_xeceive the April l0y 1979s -�
m nutes of the �lppeals Commission.
Ms. Schnabel stated that th� discusaion startin� on page 4 of the minutes centered
on the item that iuxd been before the Planrxin� Commission previously. The item was
e reg,uest by Alvin Ni�scheke, 666i r��.n Street, to rezone his property. It came
to Appea].s wi�h a variance request. She stated that she was quite shociced when
she went over and looked at Mr. Nitscheke�s property becr�use she did not realize
from the Planning Commission minutes that ihere �,ras a mull;iple use on this piece
of property. She did not know if �he Pianning Commissioners had looked at the
property� but it didn�t come out in the rainutes� and it bothered her tremendously.
1✓a�. Oquist asked what she meant by � multiple use.
Ms: ScYinabel stated.-there was a commiercial use in the garage. Part of �he garage
was converted into a State Farra Insurance Of�ice. So it is a cammercial use of
the property as well as being a tri-�lex. The commercial use is an open violation
of our zoning code� but tha� was not the question that the discussion centered
around. As yau can icell from the list of q,uestions at the end of the minutes' they
had a 1ot of questions concerning this piece of property and others that wi11 come
up like it. They were not zeroing in on this piece of property per se� other th�n
3t has brou�ht �to their a'�tention many questions conc�rnin� densi�y, ho� the City
would I�.ke �o see property reclassified in the future� io� sizes with re�ards to
these types of requests and a lo�t of o�ther ques�ions they felt should be discussed
before the Board oP Appeals made a decision on this particular r�quest. She assumed �`�.
that the corrnnissioners had read the minutes and either had ques�ions of their own
or some ans�ers to the Appeal's questions. She :fel�t they had some problems with the
current zoning ordina�ce and they slzould perhaps address �these problems in �he new
zoning ordin�nce as they rewrite it. One of the quest3.ons was �he number of units.
Do we still k*ant to require a minimum of 60 units in � new townhouse develop�ent?
That is what our code currently requ3res. It also requires 5�zcres of land, and sa
many square feet per unit com°s down �0 60 uni�ts as a minimum development for �otzn-
houses. Another question was in regards to existing units. I�' there is an exist3ng
unit in an R-1 Distric� it requires more square footage than the same existing uni�
built iu an R43 District. There was a discrepancy �here in our configurm�tions. There
was a discrepancy in our zoning ordinance concernin� �arages. There was one set of
rules for townllou.ses and another set of xules �'or double bungalovrs. That was not
necessaril.y consisten�t in terms of xental,property, yet we see that kind of property
also comin� before them ior a reclassification such as this. There was a difference
in subletting. If you have a townhouse developmen� in an R-� Zone� you can�ot sub-
let that property. It must be owner occupied. The same is no� true if it is in an
R-3 Zone� yet it could be the same building in both zones. There were a lot of
questions they felt the Planning Coannission should look at and scme of the sub-
commissions might also want i:o look at them also. She stated that first of all they
should try to zero in on this particular type of situution so that the Appeal.s
Commission could act upon 3t. Maybe the thing to address is existin� units and then
get into new development after that. - .
. •
. ��
PLAt�TNTNG COMMISaIOIV 1�FETINGy /1PI',IL 1f3� 1979 - ' PAGE 3
Mr. iiarrie stated tha� aa he sees i�, the br�sic question is whether we ahould
^ allaw these pari:icular typea of units tY�at are now existin� to be sold �s i:own-
• hou�es. •
Mr. Boardman stated 'chat at the Appeal's mcetin� iie had brought up the question
of density and felt the Plannin� Commission shot�d discuss it also. First of all�
the Staff checked with other Communities �o find out ho�w �Chey were handling �hese
types oi requests because they are get-Lin�, more and more of them. A ma�ority of
�the caanmuni�ies con'tacted felt tha,t ii, in �:he existiilg praperties the densities
don� t chang�, �the type of own�rship didn't rea,lly ma�tter. The thin�s they sholil.d
Iook at are the thir�gs that �rould be cox�unon or would require an agreement Uetween
o�wners' ra�her than looking a� whether they rare going �o allaw it or hota they're
going to split it. Re�ardless o� �ahat they do9 they would sti1Z be looking at the
s�me density o� 1�ving units. •
N1r. Harris stated �h�t wass ti°ue9 but contxal �ra� � di�gex�ent thin�.- In �ihis parti-
cular case, ins�ead of one a4mer to deal with, �re wou].d dealing with a covmiittee.
Mr. B oardman sta�ed �hey would �ave to deal wit� 'chree individual owners.
Mx�. Harris sta'ted tha't �he ordinance requires ir� �o�rahouses som�e sor� o� a managemen'c
organi2ation to take care of �h� grounds and so forth.
Mr. Boardma�n s�tat�c3. that he sees no dii'ference lega�ly in this situation t�n in �
one ownership si�tu��ion.
�.-�\ M:3, Schu�bel. sta�ed. she did not ��ree �ntirely. If he was �alkin� aboui; an ap$rt-
men� complcx convericing -�o a condominium, she coulct see that �rrangement in a
di:�ierent �.ight �;h�.n a ssnali isoZ��ted unit ].il�e tha� bec�use an apartment c�np].ex
tha� �oes conctominium ger�erally has an area of J�znd tha't has been n�are s�eci�ieal.ly
developed to tha� �ype o� multiple exisi;ence. It has corninou grounds� p�rlcing spaces
and a uumber of things that are more ��ared towards that �type oP d�nszty anc� �he
internal aspec�C of wliether it is o�zemperson a�aned or multiple-owned in �the condom-
• ir�ium sen�e doesn9t n�cessari],y alter that as much as an isolated building does.
She sees a difference bets�een a sin�Ie free-standing unit like this and a larger
complex developmen�. ,
NIr. Boardm�n s�a-�ed that he agreed �here was a dit'ference. He Pel�t they should
look at definitions og �he c1if�'erent �ype� o� units which �'chey never had in the
code. A definition o� a condominium refex•s to osanership of an apar%ment. It
� means private ownership of an �partment w-�.�th rao land involved. A�ownhouse is
, private ownership of the proper�y.with just the property under -the building as �
ownership. A patio rome is 6enerally classi�'ied as from one to four units set
extremely close to other units of its type which require land ownership more than
just undernea'th the unit. A'laybe they shoul.d l.00k at tliese definitions and see if
they are going to sllow deiinitions of -�his �ype arid under wk�z�; zones they �ould
be allowed in. First they should de�1 with the existing situation and density�has
been brou�h� up time and time again. If the densities sre the same and will remain
the seme then wha� difference does it ma�ce w2iether i�'s a iiome o�rnership type of
situa�3on, or apartment ownership type of cii;uation or whether itts a rental type
of situation if the zones r�re correctly zoned�for thase types of uses. Home owuer-
�, ship, even in a condominium ownership where tl�ey have a lot of people on a committee
_ i•nvolved in i.t� they still have home ownership tahich means that they have somebaiy
that�s taking better care of the proper�y becau�e th�y oWn it and have an�invest�nent
3n it.
pLA1VNING CON�IISSION N�TING, APRIL 18, 1979 _ PAGE �+
I�1r. Boa�dman stated that he question�d W�iether it inade that much diPference as �
long as the densities remained the same because the purpose of zonin� in the first
place is density.
Ms. Schriabel stated. tha� it struc�Cher 3n reading the minutes that the attempt was
to reclassif�r it 3.nto what; is so called the easies'� classi�Fic�'tion to work with.
It seems th�t someone went throu�h �he code book and took a look at wY�t required
the least amount of variances and ca�e up with the realization that a townhouse
would require the least amount of variances, so they reco�¢nended to the pe�itioner
that he app],y ior a tawnhouse. Maybe this piece of property and others like it
�rould be better off with an R-1 classification even thou�h it requires more
variances than a �o�anhouse cl�ssification.
" Mr. Boardman stated he would h.�ve some real problems with that because that would
vary the density in an R-1, it would v�ry the lot size in an�R-l�� and they would
end up wi.th a 30 foot lot instead of a�+0 foot lot wh3ch they were not allawin�
other people ico build in an R-l. He ielt tlaere were some real problems with re-
zoning to an R-1 just becauae they were trying to conicrol ormership on a piece of
property. He did not see where there was a problem in tryin��to control ownership.
• Whether they had ownership or rental in a situation 13ke �this he did not see any
problem because the density was set for R-3 and i� was being developed for R-3.
The reasoniug behind the taWnhouse definition of it was because they h�d no other
definition that would allow this �ype of split ownership where they had houses
butting right up next to each other.
Ms. Schnabel refe�red back i;o the ques�ion of a�aner occupied dwellin�s� because ,�
this was one of the key points in this issue.� The sel.ling point was tnat if it ,
became a totanllouse it would be owner occupied and as a result there�rwould be more
pride in �the property'� �the dwelling would be kept up better� etc. She stated ichat
was not required under our code. If that was an R-1 zone it mus� be owner occupied.
In an R-3 zone, �rhich this is� it does not have to be o�rner,occupied. So a person
could come in an b�r one of those units and turn around and sublet it.
Mr. Boardman stated he would question that because if they require owner occupied
in this in an R-1 zone yet they don'ic req,uire owner occupied in an R-1 zone in a.
residential area for a single family house. He qu�stioned the reasonin� behind
that. � �
N!s . Schnt�bel s�ts�ed that she a�reed. with Mr . Boardman but that' s the w�y the curren�t
code book reads. She brought it up because she felt i� was important for them to
discuss i�t �nd understand it so that when they do rewrite the code they would have
a be�ter idea of where they are going and what they want to say.
ARr. Boardman stated he understood that but �elt that �oin� to an R-1 zone and then
br3nging variances to alloza this would be opening them up for other areas such as
�+0 foot lots or 50 foot lots bein� split into two ownership units and dividin� the
�+0 or 50 foot lot into two 20 or 25 foot lots as long as they had 3�000 square foot.
They would run into real.problems with that whereas if they look at existin� pro-
perties and allow existin� properties by density and then set up eom� controls on
new property such as a patio home development; as least they could handle the
�
PLAIVNING CONII�IISSIOId P�.TING� APRIL l�, �979 - p�E 5
,� existing prop�rties based on density and look at ideals for density on tihe new unit-s.
He felt the whole issue ca�e down to �he fcact �that the zoning is based on densii;y.
They were �trying ta protect a certain density wi�hin an area and there were other
things th�-� entered into that euch as setbacks snd those types of things which
es�tablish standards within an area. Those standards are set based on a density.
Mr. Harris asked if this w�,s zor�ed R�3•
Mr. Boardman stated that w�s correct.
Mr. Harris asked if in a to�rnhouse e�ssociation the ].�,nda ��ere held in co�on.
Mr. Boardman stated. that in some situ�tions they were but in this case it would not
be th�t �ray. In this c�se' �he w�y it's s�t up, �the lot lines were being divided
a11 the way through �the lat so each unit Yu�s � separ�te yard area.
Mr. Harris sta�ted thati bothered him.
Mr. Boardman stated that each of the units would be responsible for �he �aintainence
and upkeep of their yard area.
M�. Oquist asked why th�t bo�hered Mr. Harris. It's no differenic from a ain�le �
family pxiva'te dwelling.
Mx°. Ha,rris s'tated they shou]..d iook at t�rhat covld happen. I� �they split it up in�o
n three pareels' he assumed there would. then be three di�'fexent tax s�a�ements, three
di�feren�: �rater meters and three di�fferent gas meters.
A7r. Boardman stated that would depend on how �he uti2i�ies were set up. In this
case thcre might h�ve to be a common utility agreement. He was not sure what the
si�tu��ion w�as on th�t.
Mr. Harris asked Mr. Nitscheke if he had one �rater meter or three.
e
Mx°. Ni�tscheke st�ted th�t he had one water meter.
Mr.�Harris stated that if they in fact split it 3nto �three o�merships� they should
have three differen'c w�ter me�ters.
Mr. Boardm�n s�tated they wou].d be lookin� at that or compaxable a�r�ements for t�e
use of the utility. •
Nm. Harris staiced the problem w�s tha� if someone didn't p�y their bill, what would
they do? Turn the water off on the other two?
P�. Nitscheke asked what they did in townhouses?
Nir. Harris stated that townhouses were a separate deal because that was held in
common by the association.
�, Mr. Boardman stated that in a tv�anhouse, the lands were held in co�mnon� but the
_ utilities were separate �or each unit.
PLANIVING COPM�IISSIoa MEETING, APRIL 18, 1979 - PACE 6
Mr. Harris stated that then if they did divide it 3nto three parcels they would •�
have to have �hree tax statements. .
Mr. Boardman a�reed and etated they wauld a].so hsve to hav� preferably three wa'ter
and sewer hook�ups. But it �y not work that way. They might have to have some
kind of agreement with even the potentiality oP h�,ving a sewer and water fund
�vai�.able for repairs and that t3rpe of thin� in which those people taould have to
put money in escraur. �
Nir. Harx�is stated tha�t easentially then they were tr�lking about �etti� to an
association type setup for some of those thin�s. If certain repairs were needed on
the building� like the roof, ho;a would they handle it if a7.1 three p�rties didntt
agree on the need for repairs? ,
Mr. Boardman stated we wouldn't handle th�t, it would be up to the people.
Mr. Harris stated they were putting themselves into a very stra�e situation.
Mr.'Boaxdman stated it was the same situation in a townhouse where they had eight
units side by side. He didn't understand A3�°. Ii�rris's point.
Ms, Schnabel st�ted that she was not too hun� up on that and tha't's a problem
those people would have to worry about and hopeiull,y �hey would hire attorneys
to handle that.
Mr. Iiarris s�a�ed they would be creating -the situation. H� �.aould be more ce�� �"`�
fortable �rith this proposal if they handled this particular piece of property _,
just like they hand].ed �th�ir other px°op�rties. Tnstead of sp].3tting it up into
three separate lots, they should have the people form an association a�nd the
associa�tion t�ould be responsible for the e�cterior of the property.
N1r. Boardman stated that what he was sayin� then was they should sell the land on].y
under the buildin� similar to a�iownhouse.
Mr. Harris sta�ed. that was correct �nd he would feel more comfortable. He stated
they cauld be put�ing themselves in a box with the 40 ioo�t lot busimess by dai�g
samething like this. Because we would be creating small lots that are substandard
lots.
N1r. Oquist s�ated that �hese units were joined together by common wallse they were
not iudividual lots and individuai buildings. It's like a zexo lot line.
Ms. Schn€�bel stated they could not know what would develop in the future if they
did develop this into three individual substandard lots. One point brough�t up was
that if you had two adjacent �+0 foot lots and someone came and he and the other•
o�naer wanted to teax down the dwellin�s on the adjacent �0 goot lots and put two
buildin�s together with a zero lot 1ine. One on one 40 foot and one on the adjacent
�+0 f oot� would "we pez°mit that .
Mr. Oquist asked what was wrong with that.
�,
PLANNIIdG COMMISSION t�ETING, APRIL 1�3, 19'f9 PAGE 'j
Ms. Schnabel stat�d there mi�ht be nothing wron� w3.th it� and it's v�xy similar
,''� � to� wh�t� s happening here. � .
I�. Aarri$ stated there was nothin� �arong with that if they allo�r constx°uct3on
on 40 foot lots and it has been City policy to not do tbat.
Mr. Oq,uist stated that then �he assumption M�. Schnabel made was not valid.
Ms. Schnabel. stated there was another example that had been brought up. What i�
soa�eone ozmed ��ro structures on two s�par�te lots and they decided that' since
we were allowin� tri-plexes to be made into townhouses, assumin� th�t's what we
do, wl�y don't they build a building in the center and attach �he two that are
separated now by the bua.lding in th� center. And say those are each on �U goot
lots which would make an 80 foot width. Now they would have � new structure that
stradd].es the middle so then why not go through and separa'te these and make three
separr�te lots out of' them. It becomes very coxaplicated. As la�i. beca�nes more
valuable' these sre the options.
Ni�°. Harris stated he was not too concerned abou�C whether they allow this ox mo�
but more �the v��y in which it is done. If we split this vp into three s�parate
•sections, we woul.d be dealing with three clifferen� people as far as �h� ex�erior
of the building.
A'�r. Oquist asked what they were doin� with a double bungalow with two o�rners.
Ms. Schnabel s�tated that by de�iniicion they can°t turn a double bungalow in'to a
� to�mhouse.
Mr. Boardmc�n stated �hey werP gettir�g renues�s to �llow two owners in a double
bungalow and they shoizld discuss that also. One oi the problems we have is our
definitions.
Mr. Oquis� stated that one definition they have no� talk�d about is tri�plexes or
row houses.
Mr. Boardman stated that the si�tuation they h�cl was by definition of some of the
cuxrent projeets is tangible. I�°s a home tha�t h�,s more of an atanership �han just
under the building itself. 2�t has � land. o�mership that is broader than just the
building. A townhouse definition is the land under the building is the ownership
and �the rest of �he property is co�unon property. In a condominium, just the uni�
is otrned wi�th co�non ownership in the facility. 4de have problems in here becAUSe
our townhouse definition does not say �thst. It does not say ownership just und�r
the building. Mr. Boardman re�d the townhouse definition �s �o].lows; "5tructures
hous3ng three or more d«elling units� continous to e�ch o�her, on];r by th� sharing
of one co�on wall, such structures to be of the to�m or row house typs as contrasted
to multiple dwelling spartment structures. No single stxucture shall contain in
excess of ei�ht (8) dwelling uxiits snd each dwelling uai� sh�ll hav� separate
and individual fxont and rear e��trances."
Mr. Harris stated they don't even allude to the amount of property.
'� Ms. Schnabel. stated that it did addreas that later on in the code.
PLANNING CON�TISSION A�ING� APRIL 18, 197`9 - PAGE 8
Mr. Boardman read from the Special Requirements in the co3e book �s follaws:
"Any and all coimmon open space �h�ll. be labe].ed as such" . It doesn� t say that ,,�
at�y praperty under the buildin� has to be common or open space. He continued
reading "and as to its intent or deaigned function and provisions for maintenance
ownership� and preservation shall b� raade in accordance with the proviaions of
the "Apartment Ownership Act" ...�nd it�shall include all groposed covenants�
restrictions and easemen�is ico run with �he land together with � provisions for
release Yrom same; provisions �'or ded.ication of easement for public streets ...
modified �s deemed necessary by the City Council. .. the development in R-1
shall consist of awner occupied units ... and membership in the townhouse develop-
ment shall be made a part of the agreement o� the sale of the dwe�lling unit."
Nowhere in the classification of townhouses do they talk about whether that owner-
ship has to be just the o�wnership under the buildin� and any and a].1 �raership of
the outside l�nds as a common ownership. So based on our def inition of what a
townhouse is this would also Yall under oux definitiori of a toti�nhouse. The only
difference is that we've got the 3,000 square feet which is a requirement for.an
R-3, they've �ot the front and rear entrances which is a requiremen�, but the only
difference is th�t it says that every tow�nhouse plat has to have five acres. That's
wY�y �hey need a variance .
PKr. Oquist asked if a townhouse required an associ�tion.
Mr. Boardman stated it does not require that. If there is com�aon o�umership of any
of the utili�ies or property, �hen ichere has to be an associ�,t3on to govern those
things as deemed..necessary by �he City Council. He stated they could l�ve a�own-
house deve�.opment without common ownership. That°s the w�y he reads it.
�7
Ms. Schnabel stated that under the Final Plan� a capy of the bylaws of the proposed
assaciation of oryaners is required.
N1r. Boardman stated �e understovd that to mean only if there was an association.
If i�here isn'�t common otimership then they don't need an associa�tion. The way the
present c�e for tawnhouses is layed out� it doesn't say they h�ve to have co�mon
ownership of property. '
Ms. Schnabel stated that we should put tha� in our new zoning code.
Mr. Treuenfels atated that he understood �ha� some of the utilities in �his case,
especially the �aater, was served thx°ou�h a co�non m�te�� so this would require an
association and bylaws. �
Mr. Boardman stated that he was not sayin� they would not need an agreement in
this particular case. They would have to have agreements for usage of that water
and of how they would.pay for that water and the agreements would have to be filed
with the deed when anyb aly purchased into that property. Al1 the cocle says is that
it must be submitted with the plan for revie�a with the City Council and the Council
can uaodify it if they chose. But it doesn�t say they have to have common otanership
of iand and it doean't sqy that this is not a townhouse because it fits the town-
house definition. It says a townhouse can be built in an R-3 zbne and the on]y
requirement it doesn't meet is the 5 acre parcel. `
�
�
PLAIVNING COMMISSION MEETII�IG' APRIL 18� �979 - PAGE 9
�� � Mr: Aaxr"is s-�ated that �hen they have to�get b�ck to some basic philosophy. Are
we going to �llow this particu.lar type of activity? And also �re we going to
allow �the individuAl ��inership of a double? Ii we a�ree to allow it with a tri-
plex then i� follows that we should a11ow it �rith a double bun�alow.
Ms. Schnabe]. stateci that this is where we �eic i�ato the question oi density. What
type o� density do we want on a multipl� living building.
Mr. Harris stated there woul.d be no problem with a row house but 3f it's a mul�tiple
story like a duplex there could b� a problem.
Mr. Boardman st�ted that in order to qualify �s a to��nihouse, there cannot be one
uni'� on top of another. So in that situa�tion9 we wouldn't be r�'ble to allow a
split or we wrould have to split i-t under a condominium type situation, or � co-
operatcive type of si�tua�ion, which is simila� to a condominium. The problem is
tha�t the exisi;ing density i.s �here and do we allow th�a� densi�y to con�inue? We
may have to a1Zow that densi�ty to continue b�cause i�'s existing. What kinds of
problems woul.d we have if we go �o ownership on those density or if we don��C go
to ownership on the densi-�y? He doesn°t see any problems oth�r �han leg�l problems
and those leg�l problems are the problems of the people who buy into i�.
Mr. Oquis�t asked.iP we �ss a City should be concerned about �he weliare of oFrners.
Mr. Hr�rris stated tha� as f�r as general he�ZtY� and safety goes, yes.
n Mr. Oquis�c sta'ted tha� he mpant should the Ci�ty be concerned if the owners cannot
agPee qn repairs or kinds of siding, etc.? -
I�. Harris stated th�t in a v»y we should because ri�t now we �equire a license
for �this par�ticular un.it and it's controlled by -the tnain�enance ord.ixiance. We are
supposed to make inspections of 'che unit. So, becs,use it's ren�al property, the�°e
are som� basic things we can do �o keep a handle on it. If we go to �this par�icular
type of operation, we don'� have �that control.
Mr. Boardm�n sta'ced that ars we saying �then tha�t we like ren�al. property because of
more control over rental prop�r�y and therefore should we rent out all our sir�le
family hoffies because ��.e ordinance sta�es th�'� in o�der to ren� a single f�mily unit
a license is needed? Wi�ih the license we can control �he upkeep of' single fi'�mily
units. Do we w�nt that con�rol?
Mr. Fiarris stated that his point was ii they were sold as individual units, then
the Gity do�s not require a license. If there was �n associ�tion� he felt the
property stood a better chance of 8taying in �ood conditian than if i�t w�s just
three separate parcels. He would feel better abou� an association as far as the
grounds held in comaron.
Mr. Boardman statQd that he felt there should be som� common agreement between the
property owners �or maintenance of the structure, etc. if �there was common owner-
ship of the property. However, th� way it's pla'tted th�re would be no counnon owner-
� ship.
� Mr. Oquist stat�d there was common ownership because there was a common wall between
the units. .
0
PLANNING COMMISSION A�ETING� APRIL 18, 1979 PAGE 10
Mr. Boardman stated that th�re were no common walls, there were double walls �hich
is a requirement of townhousea. It is also a require�ent of owner occupied units.
He expinined that there �ere two series of studs with a common space between those
studs. The reason for �hat is le�al. If one owner causes dama�e to a wall, it
is his reaponsibili�ty %o repair that damage. The Builciing Code requires two
separate stud walls between two owner occupied units.
Mr. Oquis� stated that was a contradiction bec�use there was another place in here
that requ3red they share a ca�non wa11. It was in the townhouse deiinition. There-
fore we do not have �townhouses in Fridley because they do not share a co�on wall.
Mr. Eoardman sta�ted that rental units such r�s apartments do not requ3re double
walls. O�ner occupied units do require double walls.
Mr. Oquist,�sked if in this case there were double walls. �
I�. Boardm�n stated that was eorrect.
Nlr. Schnabel stated that if Mr. Nitscheke didn°t live there� then he wouldn't of
had. to put up double walls. This points up discrepancies in the zoning ordinsnce
th�� we should review. She asked what kind o� walls a double bun�alow would hav�.
Mr. Aarris stated double bun.galows were rental uni�s� therefore they did not require
double wa11s.
Mr. . H�rris s�aic�d. �that we cann't go through and pla�t t}ais because it doesn� t fall
wi�}�in the guidelines of our pla�ting o�din�nce for minimum lot size.
N1r, Boardman sta�ted that the ouly thing it s�ys is the� a townhause must have
3,000 square feet.
Mr. Harris stated thest xao m�tter what they call them, they are making three separ�,te
parcels out o�' a piece of grouna whether it's R�1� R�2 or R-3 �that's 80 feet wide
and 1l+U fee� deep. Essentially they are cut�ing $0 feet into three pieces.
Mr. Boardman asked if' that wasn't �ha�t they do in a townhouse plan.
Mr. Hsrris s�tated those were com►non grounds. What we're doing is pla'ttis�g sub-
standar�l lots. If something happens to the s�ructure� we are leit with a parcel
of �round zoned R-3 with less than 30 foot lots.
�
Ms. Schnabe]. stated that the Planning Commission had alxeady approved the preliminary
plat on this.
I�Ir. Harris stated they may have made a mistake. If they �o ahead and do this tk�ey
would be jeopardizing the �+0 foot lot deal.
^
m
�
PLANNING COMMZSSION �ING� APRIL 18, 1979 PAGE 11
Nir. Boaz°dman �tated they would ha,ve to decide�on horw to handZe the issue.
� - . > _... •
r Mr. Harris stated th�t i� they do it according to the townhouse ordinance, and
they are ca].ling this a townhouse� they could s�y �tt�at all they were buying is
the land under the �townhouse and the rest of �the land would be held in co�on.
Mr. B oardman �tated that was not a requirement of to�rahauses.
Mr. Harris �ta'ted they could make it a stipulation.
� Mr. Bo�rdman stated that our definition s�ates strictly wha� a totimhouse building is
and in �h� to�mhouse area of' the Buildin� Code there is no requirement for ownership
of the land just under �the building.
Ms. Schn�bel s�ated that maybe•it was sc_ :';l�ing we could make �e a stipulation in -
approval vf �the pla�� no matter wha� plr��t. �.'� is.
P9r. Har�ris stated he f�lt very uncomfor'cable �that �hey did it this way. If some-
thing happened to i�t and i�t was totr�lly or over 50�0 destx°oyed wha�C they have
created is three R-3 lots o� about 26 x 135 fee�.
Nlr. Boardman sta�ed that the m�ain �hing they should do is chan�e the deiinitions.
The Co�issioners concurred.
� A?r. Boaxdm�n asked. what they were goin� to do wi�h condo�iniums? What is our
� direction going to be for the ownership for �th� previous densities which are rental?
Mr. H�rris s'cated they were not changing the density. They vrould not be doing �r�r-
thing different fr�m wha,t they were daing nrw.
Mr. Boardman �sked if they would haue e, problem �ri�th peo�le eoming in �d ask �io
do this. All they �aant to do is ch�nge the otanership' not ��e densiicy.
Mr. Harris s�ca�ed �th�,t �r�s th� key poin�. He wan'ted to anake sure �ha� people who
buy �.r�to �this �re protected. A].so, he w�anted. to m��e sure that �he City ancl the
surroundin� residences are pro��c�ed fro�n the st�ndpoint �ha� the propexty will be
ma,int�ined. Iiis this�d concern was with public services. That�the Ci�y do�sn'�
have a problem when they are sold.
Mr. Boa�dman stated, that then our primary direct3on would be similar to some of the
other cammunities. They don'� have any problem as long as the density �oesn't
change and that thexe are asaociaiion byla�rs �that are dra�m up and at�tached to the
deed.
Nir. Harris stated he would have no problem �aith that.
Mr. $oardman sta��d that the main point would be to get definitions of condominiums�
townhouses and patio homes.
The Commisaioners agreed. '
'"1
PLANNING CONA�IISSION MEETING� APR1Z lt�, 19'(9 PAGE 12
1�. Bvardm�n �howed the Caamnissioners a desi�n of a patio home.
� ��
Ms. Schnabel stated sh@ �as not sure she lil�ed �he concept of a patio home in
terms of density.
Mr. Boardman sta�ed they m�y have to look �t that typ� of units based on the
ch�ngin� p�tterns of home ownership.
Ms. Schnabel stated th�t in the new proposed. code she didn't aee where they hac�
spelled out R�2 or R-3 for condominiums.
Mr. Boerdman st�:ted they didr�'t �nd that was something they would have to get into.
Ms. Schnabel ststed �hey shoizl.d discuss the 5 acre minimum for townhouses. That
is the question befbre Appeals in the variance request.
Mr. Oquist asked why we had a restriction of 5 acres.
Ms. Schnabel st�ted it probably came about when land ror�s che�per and more available.
Aqr. Boardm�n sicated that they were looking �t developmen�ts like the Darrel.l F�,rr
Development where they have common recrea-�ion areas' etc., and in order to provide
all the amenities that go along with tos�rnhouse living� they felt that 5 acres
was necessary. He g,uestions �the need for that at �his point in �ime.
Mr. iiarris asked �o see a copy o� the plaic the Planning Co�iasion had approved.
�
Mr. Boardman sho�,red the Commissioners a co�y o� it. He atated that iF they w�nted
to do it ].ilf.e a�townhouse, they �rould have to actually plot out 6 parcels and the
rest with common ownership.
Mr. Fiarris st�ted he �'elt very uncomfortable with the way that plat was.
Nir. Boardman s�ta�ed 'chat it boi].ed down to a po].icy decision.
Mr. Harris stated he felt they shou].d plot it into 6 parcels with coantton oymership
f or �the rest of it .
Mr. Boardman aslced I�r. N'itscheke if he had a problem with that.
Nlr. Nitscheke atated he would not.
Mr. Harris asked iP the aictorney had seen this.
Mr. Boardman stated that he had laoked at it and stated he didn°t have any problems
wit}a it as long as it met the requirements of a to�mmhouse and as long as they �ot
a variance.
Mr. Oquist stated that the attorney also wanted to review the association by laws.
Nir. Harris stated he would feel much better with it this way.
0
i"`,
!�
�
�
PzarmnNG cor�sszoN r��rzrr� zL i�, i979____�_ - s �i3
Ms. Schnabel asked i� �the Cauani.ssioners th�n Pelt that the 5 acre requirement is .
still valid.
Nlr. Harris stated that on all new construction� yes.
Nir. Oqui.st sta�Eed he w�sn't sure he would go along with �Lhat.
Mr. Boardman st�ted �here were wa�ys to get �round that. .
Mr. Harris stated that they should, maybe set up �he townhouse ordinance a little
bit different.
Mr. Oquis�t stated he would like to elimin�te �the term 5 acr�s and set � cer�cain
percen-ta�e �or green area. •
Mr. �oarcima,n a�at�d that was already said. In an R-1 they are allawed 1 unit for
every 9,000 square �°eet, in a,n R.� they �re allo�red i unit fop every S�OOQ square
feet and in an R�3 they are allowecl 1 unit for every 3,000 square feet.
Mr. Og,uist sta'ted they could then eliminate the 5 acres� bu-� in an R-1 area for
sin�le family they have �, 25/0 lot coverage for green area. Maybe, �hey should do
something like that for townhouses.
Ais. Schnabel asked why they said so ma�y sg,uare f eet in R-1, so many i�a R2, and so
many in R-3?
I��r. Boardman sta'ted tha't the phi7.osophy was �that they want to maintain a certa�n
densi-ty in e�ch zone.
Mr. Leek stated that the philosop}ay derives basically from �he values of the
cammunity.
1�r. Harris stated �hat he �ouia ilxe them to retain �he 5 acr�s for a�townhouse
developmen� because it has worked f�irly well up ta now. He asked Ms. Schnabel
if she ne�ded �n answex° iimned�ately. He �'elt th3s should be talked about.
Ms. Schn�bel stated tha�i if what they have discussed is the direction they want
to �tak� and if they warat to make �, proposal and vote oi� it, she wou].cl then t�ke
that b�ck to the Board of Appeals and they sa�ould ac� on �he request. They had
tabled �he request. If the Plannin� Commission felt it needed more discussion�
maybe they should table the discussion. She also asked if the Commun3.ty De�*elopment
Commission �aould be intereated in looking at it.
Mr. Oquist stated that he felt they would. He feli; the first eleven questions were
things they shou7.d talk about when they discuss the ordinance.
Ms. Schnabel si;ated that her impression from this discussion wes that provided the
proposal for replatting would be changed,a-t the Council level, then philosophically,
the Planning Conunission would have no problem with a�y tri�plex being converted into
a townhouse classifica�ion if it falls into the townhouse guidelines d3scussed here.
In other words catnman property and individual property ownership.
PLANNING CONARISSION MEETING, Ai'RIL l�, 1979 PAGE 14
Nlr. Oquist stated he would like to cl�rify one point. When we t�lk about co�mnon
property, it is the land leit over. The �ssocia�ion would be respottsible for '�
main�enan�e oi the common property and �he building mr�intenance.. That would be
part of the by laws.
Ma. Schnabel stated that then sh� undersi,oal tha't they had na problem with con�erting
tri-plexes such as th3s to townhouses provided the lo� size remains generally co�on
praperty wi�th the land under the building havin� individual ownership and as long
as the density doesn't change. She eould take �his back to the Appeals Commission
and fe].t �that the rest of these quesicions should be discussed alon� with duplexes
and double bungaloc�►s. TYiey ha,d also touched on the park and open space situation.
If the density isn't going to chan�e� tha�t wauld not make any difference. She
said they had �lso discussed talcing� for example� the strip of land across the
street from Mr. NitschekeQs proper�y, which is currently zoned industrial, and re-
zoning it R-3 and a series of tawnhouses were put on the property. It would be
less than a 5 acre site� but would be compa'tible with �he nei�hborhood. Would
they lilce to see something like that done?
Mr. Aarris sta�ted. he would like to think about that.
Ms. Schnabel stated tha� another thirag th�y had discussed was the number oP garages.
She understoad tha� there was no reguirement for nwnber of �arages in a townhouse .
development, but there is � gara�e requirement ior duplexes� double bungalavrs�
apartments �nd si�gle f�mi.ly.
Mr. B�ard.man st�'�ed there were no requirements for apartments. That w�s parkin�
spaces. ' �
Mr. Harris sta'�ed they should address that in the townhouse ordin�nce.
Ms. Schnabel stated �hat there shou].d be something in the minutes to indicate iiP
tiaey have had a change of mind on the re�plat.
Mr. Boardman stated tlzat since Pl�nning had already r�sponded to the initial plat�
they could say it°s an indication of the Plannin� Co�ission that �the policy ior
conver�ing this type of unit must be similar to a townhouse area which would require
common open space pl�ns and that they recoaunend.that these type o� situations be
considered in the redwritin� of the ordinance �or policy direction and in the mean
time the Appeals Co�nission could,act on the vari�nce with those conditions.
Ms. Schn�bel stated that Appeals had no pawer over the re-plat.
Nhr. Boardman agreed. and staiced that should be included with the platting. He felt
there shou�.d be an indication to the City Council that this should be looked �t
by separate ownership under the units with common ownership of property and they
should make a recoaunendation to Council that the plat should be modified to refl•ect
that.
Ms. Schnabel suggested that the Appeals approve the variance with the stipulation
that Planning reconsider the replat.
r"`�
�
�
PLANIVING COt�lISSION 2��ETT?.NG9 APRIL lti, 1979 PAGE 15
1� � � - .....
M4TION by Mr. Oquist� seconded by Ms. Schnabel� that in light of recent discussion
and a reeiew of the proposal' the Pl�nning Coffinission wishes to change itos
reco�aenda'�ion concernin� P. S.7g-Ol .as follo�rs: That the proper�y under �he existing
dwelli.ngs become priv�te ownErship and the rest oi' i;he l�and become ground heid in
co�on which �tould be consistent with existing tc�rnhouse developrcents as currently
knotan in Fridley and the Planning Coimnission further recomm.ends there be association.
by la�rs to control. tkie operation of those coaanon properties.
UPON A VOICE VQTE� ql,�, VOTING AYE9 CIiRIRMAN HA,RRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIID
UNANIMOUSLY.
P�ls. Schnabel stated tha�t she �rould take �ha� back to Appeals �nd they would a,c�
in light of i�his diseussion.
Mr. Harris asked fbr more discussio�a on the Appeals rai.nutes. �
Ms. Schnabe7. sta'�ed �that the rest of �he items could be discussed when they rev3ew
the 2onin� code.
Pfir. H�,rris sta�ted they could �hen voi�e on r�ceiving the Appeals minutes.
�` UPON A VOICE VOTE9 ALI, STOTING AYE, CHATRM�IN HARRIS DECLAR��D TBE MOTIOrT CARRTED
UNANIMOUSLY. �
.
�• RECETVE I-IUMAN RESOURCES CON�LCSSION MINi�'So APRIL 5s 1979:
MOTION by P'1r. OquiSt, seconded by Ms. Schnabel9 ta receive the April 5s 1979,
aii.nutes oi vhe Hu�nan Resources Commission.
l�x. Harris stated th�t the discussion tai�th Nlr. Saunder� s a't the last Plsnnin�
Cor�ission meetin� indicated �h�� �he Human Resources Commission would like the
�hairman o�' �he Planning Coimnission to pr°esent the proclatnation fox the Year of
the Child to �he City Council. Is that wha'� the Human Resoux°ces Commission decided?
Mr. Treuenfcels stated �hat they had decided to put it begore the Plann3ng Coffinission
and see whr��t the Plannin� Commission wanted to do.
Mr. Aarris asked. when they wan�ed �this io come before �the Pl�nn3n� Coxanission?
Mr. Treuenfels steted he would like it to be discussed tonight. He pointed ou'�
that a copy of the procl�matiou was on pa�e 1 of the minutes.
Mr. Harris stated that after they receive the minutes� they could make a motion
re�arding this.
Mr..Langenfeld asked if they had selected a person for the Handicapped Awareness
''1 Week?
Mx. Treuenfels stated that he had contACted his friend and hie friend was interested
and would speak on what life was like ior a handicapped person and also the legsl
aspects of bein� handicapped.
PLANNING CON�ffSSION N�ETING, APRIL l�, �979 PAGE 16
Ms. Schnabel stated that it had came to her attention during the elections last
year �hat on� o� the problems handfcapped p�ople had was �etting to th� votin� �
places.
Mr. Treuenfeis s�ated that they should be more �were of the problema of handicapped
people to attend a7.1 civic �'unctions including voting because of the inaccessibility
of buildings. He indica'ted �that they would look in�o havin� a central loca�tion for
Y�ndicapped people to vote at.
UPON A VOIC]E VOTE' ALL VO'iING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED TFiE MOTIOIV CARRIID
UNAIVIMOUSLY . . . . . -
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel� seconded by Mr. Lan�enfeld, tha� the Planning Co�unission
concurs raiich and encoura�es �he Human Resour�ces�Co�nission to present the proclama-
tion for �he Year of �;he Child to the City Council.
Mr. Harris asked Mr. T�euenfels who they want�d to make the presentation.
Mr. Treuenfels felt it wou].d be nice if both I�. Harris and himself m�,de the
pres�nta�cion.
Mr . Harri s eigreed .
UPON A VOICE VO'T'E, ALL VOTIIVG AYE, CHAIRMAN I�IRRIS DECLAIiED THE MOTION CARRIED �
UNANTMOUSLY. .
5. RECEIVE COMMANNNITY DEVEI,OPMENT CONL�tTSSION 1�2Ni�I'ES: �RZZ �o, �979: �
MOTION by Mr. Og,uist' seconded by Ms. Schn�bele to receive the ApriJ. �4, i979,
minutes of the Co�nunity Development Co�snission.
Mr. Oquis� sta�ted that Mr. B�rdman and MY°. Leek had pre�ented the Comprehensive
Dev�lapment Pl�n. Tvro of �the members didnTt have �a copy� so they scheduled �
special meet�ng for n�xt Tuesday to finslize the discussion. H� also stated they
had held elections and he was elected chairman again.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VtY.rING AYE, CHAIRTdAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTIOIV CARRlED
UNANIAiOUSLY.
Chairm�n Harris declarecl a recess at 10:15 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 10:25 P.M.
6. C'ONTINUED: DISCUSSION ON DRAFT OF COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
Mr. Harris stated that at the last meeting they got into land use patterns. The
minutes of the last meeting indicate they had a long discussion on r�s3.dential
land use. He asked Mr. Iseek where he �ranted to start the discussion.
Agr. Leek statec7 that he �rould like to look at the input from the Parks and Recreati.on
Commission. ,
Mr. Harris stated that in view of the faet �hat the covm�ission member from Perke �
and Recreation raas absent tonight� they should hold of� on that. �
Mr. Leek agreed. � �
^;
�
PLANNING CON�IIS�ION MEETINGy APRI� 18, 1979 PAGE 17
i�r. Harris suggested they discuss the e�vironmental section.
Mr. Eoardman stated that un�i7, they had the input from the Environmental Commission,
they could possibly discuss just the generalities and concepts throughout the
document. • �
Nlr. Harris suggested they take it in order.
Mr. Boa�dman stated they shoul.d talk about the general concepts for the plannin�
procesa. Under l�nd use they were looking at the number of hazsing units required�
density� and wha�; effee'c the additional uniics would have on the City. That's what
they were looking at in �he policy u.nder larsd use. Und�r the resources section'
the prime thing they �aere lookin� at Fras what kind of quality standard they wou].d
try to set up for the City as far as a natural resource base i'or the City. What
is th� effect of wetlands? What is the effect oi developing-the we�].ands? What �
are the effects of m�iniaining thase �retlands as to the con�trol o� �rater flow with-
in our area? They wi11 '�e looking at these �hings in o�her co�unities also be-
cause �zll oi the wetl�nd areas are supposedly recharge �x°eas for the �roun�d water
whieh is 3efini�tely effecting �he City of �'xidley becauge of our well system. Another
thing to look at is �hat is our poZicy going to be in the direction of F��ter c].t�rity.
We have a lo�t of problems with non�paint source po�.lution. There are a loic of
thir�s �re just s�ar�:ed �aZking �bout in �he last �three ar four years as ico howt �hey
are effecting water recharge areas, �he clas�i-ty o#' �*at�r9 the quality of water with
Metro Council's 2Q8 Pl�n. One of -the bi� issues is �the Moore T�ake area. The lake
area is dying if not already dead par-ticulr�rly i�' �re°re tryi.ng to protect it. Z'he
pxoblem is the w�,ter discharge f`rc�zn res3den-L-is]. �streets and everything that go i.nico
these ponding areas -tha-� are essentia7.ly fil.�ering areas in order to �ilter the �•a'ter
be�'ore ii �lows into the river. Shoul.d ��e be looking r�� Moore La�e as a�ything but
a fil�ering area? These ty��s o�° ruestions s�iould be looked at.
Mr. Harris stated he wou].d have to take issue with Mr. Boardman as �ar as Moare Lake
being dead. Tt �ay be dead as a lake� but is not-dead as fax� as �rhat Moo�e Lake
really is.
Mr. Boardman stated �that t4de�d" w�s �jus�; an expression. Are �e tryirig to brin�
Moore Lake back to something it shouldn't be in the firs�t place?� Are we txying to
make it mo�re than w}aat it is? Some o� the other areas we h�ve to look at is that
we have � Rice Creek Watershed Dis�trict within the City 'cha�t controls the f].aw of
Rice Creek Watershed �nd cantrols the quality on runo�'i within the Rice Creek area.
Ho�rever� there are o�her areas within the Ci�ty oi Fridley that h�ve no controls.
They are out of the control of the Rice Creek Wr�tershed and the only controls are
fxom th� Ci�y. There are other things dre ahaul.d look at as our r'unoff goes into tk�e
Nlississippi River. Undex ths 208 Plan there are suggested q�zlity standards.
N1r. Leek st�ted that the 208 p1.�n essentially establishes the standards that have
to met by 198� in terms of �he inhabitability o� water for wild life� flora, fauna�
and in terms of recreational s��ndards.
Mr. Boardm�,n stated these were the types of issues 3n the environmental section that
we should deal with and look at.
PLANNII� COP�S�ION MEETING� APRIL 1.8, 19`l9 ---- -- PAGE lt3
I�. Boardman stated that oth�r things in the environmenta]. section �aould include �
a policy on energy in this section.
Mr. Leek stated they were ].00king a� incorporating somle statementa with regard to
energy conservation and ener�}r conscientiousness in Fr3dley.� This section also
addresses in it's policies air and noise pollution, and other issues. In Fridley
the area tha� seems to get hit h�rdest is water and wa-ter quali�ty because -
one of the most i.mpox~tan� �nd unique resources fbr F'ridley as a me�ropolitan comini.in-
ity is that our drinking water supply doesn't come from the Mississippi River bu�t
ratk�er Proan �round water rechar�e area �nd it is extremely important tha'� we main-
tain not on]�y the capacity of those recharge areas but the quality of water entering
those xecharge areas and that is the function of .draina�e irom surroundin� are�s
ini;o our co�nunity and a�unction o� the way that the water filters in the recharge
areas. -
Mr. Aarris sta�ed th�t on pa�e 15 he had a problem with a statement. He referred
�o �he ].�st paragraph on ths.�t page.
Mr. Langenfeld stated tl�at he had noted that the current�capital expenae may be
minimal but concern shQiald be towards overall impact and cost.
. Nr. Bo�rdman stated that the question on that would be "wha't is m3nimal?" TJo
�matter whether they feel the costs are minimal, they are being deve�oped �nd the
reason they are .being developed is th��i they are rn�rket�,ble. If they are marketable
then �he cost must be �inimal to �the point where they are going ta get their money
out of it . �"'�
N�. Harris stated he was looking for a different way of sayi.ng that or saying it
diiferently. Maybe they should say some'ching to the effect that Mr.Langenfeld
alluded to.
Mr. Leek �sked if he was saying that current m�arket conditions for �his kind o�
land makes i'c cost effective2 �
Mr. Harris stated he would feel more comfor�table iaith that. He s�ated thmt he
had a question on pa�e ].6. He questionea the statement "the Mi.ssissippi River
has the potential �o become one oi the Ci�ty's finest amenities for recreational
purposes". He asked wh�t they k*e�� s�ying there.
ARr. Boardman stated th�t referr�d to canoeing� viewing� overlooks� �nd bikeways
will be developed along the river. �
Nbc. I,�ek stated that in Pa,rk Plannir�g there is a kind of prioritization of
facilities and amenities that iic's nice to have and iche first of those is ��ater.
In any kind of recreational facility it is advisable to have some water body or
�rater course which adds visual relief and psychologically ties the person close�y
to the site. The river is that kind of amenity even if i�'s not usefu]. for the
kind of wide range recreational activities in scme of our areas.
�"�
PLANNING COI�SSSION NN�EETING, AP'RIL lfi, 1979 " PA� 19
Mr. H�rrifl sts�ted tha� when he x°e�d that s��tement i�t misled him �rid he got the
�� feeli:ng that it �as for boating, fishing and �rimin� which is not true durin� al].
seasons of the year. He felt they should cl�rif'y that. Nlr. H�rris referred to
page 17 reg�rding the fl iscussion on 2�loore La��. He asked if the Plannin� Commission
should �ake a position on Nloore Lake? . -
�
�
Ni�°. Boardman stated they should look at it in th� Parks and Recreation section as
a po�ential r�crea'tional ba�y �and wh�t it cvuld be usetl for. There is a probl.em�
when we look at the amount oi money i� woul.d cost �o bring it b�:ck to a usab].e
recreation source for s�rixaming. He felt that Moore I.�ke was totaly accep�able for
possibly fishing and canoeing in one are�. A1.so it provides � visual sii;e. But
they ahoul.d look a'c the �cicu.�l use of the w��er for a recre�tional. use such as
switmmin�.
Ms. SchnabeJ. st�ted i�hat she found � contradiction on the bot�com of p�ge 17 �nd. the •
top o�' page 18 where �they ta].k about haw bad tY�e lake really �is snd �then �hey say
nbut" we will rem�dy that bec�use they have already initi��ted this program �to pre�
serve the recreational and aesthetic value.
Mr. Leek st�ted �hat the presen�t si�uaicion is that the City Couaacil. has taken .�the
�osi�ion tha�; Moore Lake c�n be saved as � r�creational and aes�hetic amenity.
They ielic it necessa'ry to repox°t th�t �act. '
N�. I�angenfeld s��ted tha�t they made �ihat sta'teanen-� by s�ying t4i� successful.'�
NIr. Leea� stated they ��s°ther qualifi.ed �the s'ca'�em�nt by saying the nimmbsr of ye�rs
and. �ecording to the consult�nt i�t would be 10 years.
Ms. Schz�abeZ st�tecl tht�� in reading iic 3t seeans contradictory. She su�esiced �they
sa�y `rma,ytB ra�ther 'chan• "�i11" .
N1r. Boardm€�n stated tkiat �ihe sta'te�ent "if' �he project is successful" would take
care ef tha't . �
Nle. Schxiabe]. stated that if she were oxi the Metro Council �nd read this section
she would think that the Ci'ty is not followin� what it just go�t �hrou�b. saying on
the previous page.
Mr. Langenfeld agreed.
Nir. I,eek s��ated he did no� really see ar�y conflic�t because what is essen'ci�lly bein�
said is that Moore Lake is a lake in the process of becomming wha�t it originally
was� a marsh. And because of that the conditions of the watex are not currently
suitable i'or swimming activi�ties but at the same time ii; is possib7.e to undertake
the e�fort to bring the water quality up so that i�t is suitab].e for s�.mmin� and
thex°e we �re looltir� at the kind of policy determination that Mr. Boardu�n and
Mr. Harris mention+ed, �nd that is, is the cost of doing that ��orth th� results.
We don't attempt to make �I�y judgement about that.
PLAN�ING CON�CISSION N�ETING� APRIL 189 �979 �- PAGE 20
. ..___._.___._
�Ms. Schnabel stated tha� her point wao tha'� their doub�s ebout that were caanin� �
through�on paper. ' �
Agr. Langenfeld stated they should look at the cause of the problem. He fel� it
was the runoff into the lake. �
Mr. Boardman stated they addressed that on page 17.
Mr. Langenfeld sicated he underatood tha�c but ques�ioned whe�ther �hey were to take
any action to elimin�te tha� cause.
Mr. Boardman stated tha�C would h�ve to be a policy �statement. If the City is
going to take action to diver't the storm sewers or do soffiethin�� the q,uestion that
will come up is is that inappropriaice at this time when one of the purposes of .
Moore lake is a filtering process. � -
Mr. Harris stated i� was very valuable for th�t. He st�ted that if everythin�.
west of the hi,;hw�y were in ca�tails� it would do a� better job.
AZr. Leek stated that ther� is a determination that hasn't been m�,de in �the City
yet and the question is if it's moxe valuable as a recreational resource for
active recreational purposes or is it more valuable because of the function that
it fills. .
Mr. Harris s-tated �hat he fe1.t that no matter Frhat they do,, it� s going to do what
i�c wants a�yway. �
N�. Boardman s�tat�:d �hr�,t the City could force it into a lake9 but it would be eery
expensive to do that. The policy direction at �his time is tlia�t �the Council is
taking ei'forts to modify or reciirect the use of Moo-re Lake as more of an active
use area,. The qt�estion is if that's th� policy dir�ction vae want to �o or do we
want to l�� Moore Iake go back �to it's na,tural.state as a�'iltering system.
Mr. Leek sta'ted that the consultants report indicates th.at even given the kinds of
efforts such as diverting �he storm s�wers awr�}r from the Lake' their calcu].atians
ixadicate that the Ci�ty is lookin� at Moore Lake in �en years as being e�t the same
level of pollution and congestion as it is now. Then similar effox°ts would have
to be taken. '
Ms. Schnabel. askeci where they covered i� in the poZicy plan.
Mr. Boardm�n sta'ted that �aas �he direction fr� the City Council.
Ms. Schnabel sl;ated they should address it then.
Mr. Leek s�tated it was addressed generally on pa�e 3�F� but Moore Lake was not
specifically addressed.
r"�
�
��
�
ri�■1
�
PLANNING CONIMTSSION N�ETTNG, APRIL 18, 1979 . - PAGE 21
A4s. Schnabel stated th�t she felt that this issue was not adequately addressed.
Mr. Bar�rdman questioned whethex it should be e,ddressed. in a polir,y plan or in a
eystem s-tatement.
Ms. Schnabel stated �they ahould do it in bo�h pl�ces because �the system really
follows the policy.
Mr. Leel� stated thg,t he understo� that Ms. SGhnabel was saying that nei-�her tYie
policy plan nor the system plan add.ress specifically the question of A400re Lake.
Ms. Schn�bel st�ted tha� �ras correct.
Mr. Harris questioned �he sta'tement on page 33 undex° 5311 �1. H� questioned. the
�irs� �aragraph in that s�ction and stated he was no� suxe th�y could have all
of those.
NGc. I,eek sta�ed that was taken �'rom the 208 plan.
Nlr. Harris sta�ted tha� when you s�y recre�tion in the water, people think o£
swia�.i.ng and bo�'cing, and the �rater can� t be everything to everybody. He felt th�t
the City has to be committed to actually trying �o do it. .
A�r. Bo�x�dm�n stated ichey could change the word f°p�°omo�e" to "provide" . He noted
that the Park� and Recreations Co�ission h�d reco�ez�ded this throughout. He
stat�d that �these weie issues th�� had to be brou�;ht ug.
1�. Leek s�ated there w�,s � potenti�lly � gap in policies in �h�t �rea because
we hav�n4t addressed the xesponsibilit�c;s a�' not onJ�y �lhe City but oi oth�� agencies
that ar� vio�.�tors. o� go�. surface control runoff' �easures.
N1r. Lara�enfeld stat�d tha� vrhen he read it he had made the no7'ce "mfake it stick".
N�°. Boar�n askc-d if they ��,nted more discussion ffieetin�s before they received
inpu�t fx°am the other coffinissions.
The Comanissioners agx�eed �o �it for the other couunissions.
NOTION by Mr. I�ngenfc:lds seconded by Mr. Oquist9 to continue the d3s�ussion on
the dr�fic oP the Co�rehensive Developffien�c Plan.
UPON A ��OSCE VOTE' ALL VOTSNG AYE, CHAII�MAIV HARRIS DECLl�RID THE MOTTON CARRIID
UIVANIMbUSLY .
7. COIVTINUED: PROPOSED GHANGES TN CHAPTER �5. ZON2NG;
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels' to eontinue the proposed chan�es
in�CYiapter 205. Zonin�. .
UPO1V A VOICE VaT'E� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAId HARitIS DECLARED THE 1�OTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
PLANIVING COMMISSTON I�TING, APRIL 18, 1979 - _� PAGE 22
8. OTI�R BUSII�TESS;
Mr. H�rriB asked wha,t coaanissions had uot yet held electians.
Mr. Boardman ata�ed that P�rks and Recreation and the Appeals Ca�..ssion had
not yet held theirs.
MOTION by Ni�. L�n�enfeld' seconded. by I�. Treuenfels� to adjour� th� April Z8� 1979�
me ite � o� the Planning Co�ni.ssiora. •
UPON A VOICE VOTE, AA.LL VOTING AYE� CI�IRMAN HARRIS DECLARID THE MEETING ADJOURNID
AT 11:10 P.M.
Respectfu].ly submitted;
� �.-,' ' ' f �--
Ksthy helton, Recording Secretary.
0
/"�
�
: .q �