Loading...
PL 06/06/1979 - 30511� .''� e CITY OF FRIDLEY PLAIJIVING CONIl`�tISSION MEETING - JUNE 6� 1979 ____ CALL TO ORDER: , Chairman Harris called the June 6� 1979, meeting of the Planning Couani.ssion to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: � Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Ms. Hughes, Mr. Oquist� Mr. IIarrisj Nis. Schnabel� Mr. Treuenfela Mr. I,�ngenfeld (arrived at 7:35 p•M•� Mike Franzen, Planning Staff l. APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINiJ`!.'ES: �a�c 2,�, i97 : MOTION by Mr. Og,uist� seconded by N1r. Treuenfels� to approve the May 23s �979, minutes of the Planning Comoni.ssion. Ms. Hughes stated. that on page 3 of the m3.nutes she had stated there were �+8 signatures on the petition. She ].ater discovered there were a few more so that figure was not accurate. �` Ms. Schnabel stated tha� on pa�e �+ of the minutes� the �+th paragraph: 2nd sentence - from the �nd sl�ould be changed -Lo read.: "attempt to make a righ�t hand turn off x3.ghway 65 to go there. Also� tl�e next to the last paragraph on that pa�e was in error. The people who wrote the letter were in favor of the office ra'�her than . the.apartment. � Ms. HugYies stated that on page 8 of the minutes� "eye-beam" should be "I-beam". UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL V4TING AYE� CSAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE A'aNtTrE5 �il.'PROVED AS CORRECTED. � 2. PUBLIC AEARING: REQi�ST FOR A SPECIAL USE PF•RMIT� SP #79-06� BY ROBERT J. CARLSON: Per Section 205. 051� 2� A� of the Fridl City Code to allow. the construction of a second accessory building, a 1 ft. b�r 22 ft. detached garage on Lot , Block 2, Juli-Ann Addition, the same being 151 - 2nd Way NE. �'ION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels� to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PL�LIC �ARING OPEN AT 7:35 P.M. Mr. Franzen stated that the applican� requested a Special Use Permit to construct a aecond accessory buildin�. The firat accessory building is located in the front ' part of the property. One stipulation would be that the second accessory building not be in a utility easement. At the present time� the second accessory building is not within this easement. The easement is shown on.pa�e 29 of the agenda. The n PLANNING CONIMIS3ION MEETING, JUNE 6, 1979 - PAGE 2p � proposed accessory building would be 16 x 22 which is approximately 352 square feet. The proposed use is storage and at this time there are no plans for an i'"�, access� however� there is adequate room available for a driveway. Staff would I�ave no objection to this request as long as the building is used for storage and not a home occupation or living quarters, ' Mr. Oquist stated that Mr. Franzen had indicated that the second accessory buildin� �aould not iall within the utility easea�nt but noted that it was close to it. Mr. Franzen �ave the Commi.ssioners a more detailed plan oP the proposed construction. Nls. Hughes asked what the first accessory buildin� was? Mr. Franzen stated the first accessory building waa the existing two-car garage. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Franzen if the purpose of the second accessory building was for storage only? . Mr. Franzen stated that was correct and Staff had na object3on as lon� as it was used for any use other than a home occupation. Mr. Robert Carlson� 151 62nd Way NE, came forward and stated that it wou].d be a detached garage. . Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Carlson wY�,y he needed a storage building of this size? Mr. Carlson stated that his existing garage is 19 x 22 and he has two cars. It �� is difficult to get in and out of the cars because of the bicycles� garden tools� toys�.e�c. Because of this con�estion, he would li.ke a building far storage. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Carlson if he had ar�y plans� now or in the future� to use the proposed building as.a �arage and convert the existin� garage into living space? ' Mr. Carlson stated he had no plans to do that and also•that he was not plann3ng to put in a drivewqy. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Carlson if he would be doing the construction himself? Mr. Carl.son stated he planned to do the cement work and would have a carpenter to � help with the other work. � . � Ms. Hu�hes asked if it would be gara�e construction with an overhead door? � i Mr. Carlson stated that he intended to put an overhead door on the west side and - it would be regular garage construction w3th trusses for the roof. Mr. Harris asked if he was goin� to put the o��erhead door on the west side? . . � Mr. Carlson stated that was correct. � ! Mr. Harris asked if tiiat wouldn't be tight to get in and out if he decided to use it a� a garage? - � Mr. Carlson atated he had no intention to use it as a gsrage. PI,pN1vI� Co�SSION 1�I�s, � 6, 1979 - p�E 3 4 - 24r. Carlson alao stated that there is 19 feet there. ,� . Mr. Harris stated they usually �'igure that it takes about 20 feet for an auto- • mobile. , Mr. Carlson reiterated �ha't he did not intend to use it for storin� a car. Mr. Earris asked Mr. Carlsan if he would object movin� it sli�htly to the east and asked how far he would be willing to go? Mr. Carlson stated he could go east another foat. He added that he had decided on the placement of the gara�e because of the window placement in his house. Mr. Harris asked how high the structure would be? • Mr. Carlson stated there would be regular 16 foot trusses. It would be built on a cemen�t base which would be about 2 inches off ground level. There will be 8 foot 2x�+s running from the cement up� so the building wovld be about 8 ft. 2 ino from ground level to the eaves. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Carlson 3f he h�d ta].ked to any of his nei�hbors? Mr. Carlson sta�ed. he had talked to all of them and they had no comment. He s�ated - that he had heard that someone had second thoughts but he apparently' decided to �o along with it. He stated.that the propased building would have the same siding as his house and he wou].d construct it in such a way ttiaat it wauld add to the looks � of the praperty. � Mr. Harris stated that he was concerned about movin� the gara�e to the east because if it was ever used to store an automobile� i� would be much �asier to get in and out withou� encroaching on his neighbor's property. They figure �hat an automobile parkin� place 3s 10 x 20. Mr. Carlson stated he would be willing to move it a foot. , Mr. IIarris stated that 2 feet would be better. Mrs. Carlson stated that thexe is a 6 foot hedge alon� the ne3�hbor's property that would make it impossible for them to go over on their property. Mr.. Harris stated that at some point they might want to•use the building for a garage and bein� that close to the hedge would make it difficult to get in and out. Mr. Oquist asked if he decided on a 16 x 22 foot building because he planned to use 3t for a�arage 3n the future? He stated that most stora�e buildings are 8x8or8x12. Nlr. Carlson s tated that the people he had talked to about it suggested he iigure what he needs and then add a little. 0 PLANNING CONIl�fISSION MEETINGi JtJI� 6� i979 . . . ... ,_ . ' _ ..�. . _ _ PAGE 4� _ .. , Mr. Oquiat asked how far the proposed building would be from_the existin� house? Mr. Carlson stated it would be 25 fee�. Mr. Harria stated the plan indicated about 28 feet and noted that it was a�ood size lot. . N�. Carlson stated that another reason wl�y he placed it where he did was because of existing trees. He did not want to have to remove an�y trees. He added that moving it east 2 feet would not hurt it at a11. Ms. Hughes asked Mr. Harris if he was sure the building should be moved? Mr. Harris stated that because of the 6 foot hedge, moving it over 2 feet would give him more room. � Ms. Hughes asked if that would be a stipulation2 Mr. H,arris stated it would. Ms. Schnabe]. stated that the 20 feet was based. on an existing ordinance which was written when the avera�e car was bigger than what they are now. Nh�. Harris stated it was still tight even fox�a small. car. He stated it wauld be � one car garage and wozald be tight. Also� the other house at 6211 Riverview Terrace sits rather close and there wasntt much back yard there. . � Mr. Langenfeld asked if the northen part of the building would go up to the 1ot �_ line? Mr. Harria stated it wovld not. As indicated on the drawing� it w�s.a good size lot. There were no other coiarnents from the audience. MOTIOId by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld� to close the public hearing. ..�..s_ UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHA]RMAN AARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:58 P.M. . MOTTON by Mr. Langenfeld� seconded by Mr. Treuenfels� to recommend to Council approval of the request for Special Use Pez�mit� SP �79-06� by Robert Jo Carlson: Per Section 205.051� 2� A, of the Fridley City Code� to allow the constx�uc�tion of a second accessory building� a 16 foot by 22 foot detached garage on Lot �+� Block 2 Juli-Ann Addition� the same being 151-62nd Way NE� with the following stipulatim s: l� in accordance with the survey it be not less than 20 feet rather thau 1.9 feet� 2) it be compatible with the existin� neighborhood and his home� 3) no h�me occupation be allowed. Ms. Hughes noted that the notification tha� was sent to the neighbors indicated this was to be a detached �arage� however the ca�nnente in the discussion were in terms of other things� and if we pass this motion it will be possible for him �—., to use it as a gara�e in the f�ture. She asked if the notice that this was a _ detached garage adequate for the neighbors to understand that they could be looking � at a detached garage? � � i"� •PLANNING COMMISSSON MEErING, JUNE 6, i97g - PAGE 5 r....._.� �_._.._ �r. �_-______..� Mr. Harris stated that'6 what it is and that's what it was ca]1ed in the notice. Ms. Hughes sta�ed tha�c the fact that the neighbora were not here indicated to her ichey had no problem with it. UPON A VOICE VOTE� AI�L VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAIJ i�ARRIS DECLARED THE MQTION CARRIID UNANl�'IOUSLY. . Mr. Harris informed the petitioner that this would go to Council on June 18� 1979• Mr. Harris stated that he und.erstood he was a second class citizen, but when same- thing comes up �aithin 300 feet of his property� he would like to be notified. Mr. Iiarris stated tha,t he lives at 6200 Riverview Terrace. His f�ther was notified but he was not. 3. VACATION REQUEST: SAV �f9-03� BY Ti3E CITY OF FRSDLEY: Vacate that �ortion of �the alley in Block 11, Hyde Park, not v�cated b,y Ordinanc�339 between Lots s 25-30, and betvreen Lots 14, 15� 169 and 17. Mr. Fr�nzen stated tl�ey were looking at one of four alter•natives as er.plained in Memo #79-2�� dated Jvrie 6� 1.97g, from Jerro].d Boardman to tbe Planning Commission. This memo stated the City's policy. on vacation requests, They were lookin� a�t trying to turn over �he property to individw�,i ownership and�retaining the alley as a utili�y easement. The Commissioners were given a letter dated June 1� 197y? from Warren R. Johnson of NSP regarding tha..s easement. MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seco�d.ed by Ms. Hughes� to receive -the memo� #79-2�+, from Nlr. Boarclman to the Planning Commissian' and to receive the letter from NSP regarding the easement. Mr. Harris stated that another alternat3ve would be to improve the alley a,nd ma3.n�;ain it. � Ms. Sck�abel, noted that the memo indic�ted there were three options and listed four� so it wouldn4� matter if they added another option. UPON A VOTCE VOTE� ALL VOTIlVG AYE� CEAIlZMAN HARRIS DECI�ARED THE MOTION CARRIED IJIVANIlKOUSI,Y . Mr. Og,uist stated that the map in the a�enda indicated that the area that was darkened was to be vacated. He asked what would happen in be�tween? Mr. Franzen stated that was the property of NSP. He stated there were apartment structures on the north and south ends of the al].ey aad that easement was used for getting into the parking areas� and does not go throu�h the entire block. � PLANNING CON�2CSSION MEETING, �.TU�E 6, 1979 ' • - PAGE' 6 Mr. Earris stated that they then had two dead-end a].leys in the same black. Mr. Franzen stated that the center part of the alley had already been vacated. Mr.�Harris noted that the notification stated it was the lots not vacated by Ordinance �'j33. They were talking about Lots 1-�� Lots 25 - 30 �nd between Lots 1�+� 15� 16 �nd 17. He asked how those people would �et in and out if this was vacated? How would they get to the apartment building parking lots? , Mr. Franzen stated that Mr. Boardman was looking at turning that portion of the property over to the individual awners and it would be maintained by them. A'!r. Harris asked haer the people in the apartment at 5944 3rd Street would get from 60th Ave. NE into the parkira� area? Mr. Benjamin F. Carman, 5955 22 Stree� NE, He also stated that there was an entrance to use to reach the parking areao stated that 594U was.a private residencea off o� 3rd Street for the apartment people �� Ms. Pat Gabel' 59�+7 2� Street NE� cam.e forward and stated this w�s not a request by the people th�t live there to necessarily vaca*e this alley. I� is an alter- na�ive the City is using ra�ther than doing what they should9 which is �o clean the area up. There has been a problem there for �two years and the City has not done their job which is to make them clean it up. There is garbage there' fences are knocked dawn� they dump oil on the fences and shrubs� etc. Her nei�hbors have had to repair a very expensive fence on severa]. occasions. In talking to Ed Fitzpatrick� it was his suggestion that they vacate it and put a barrier 6 feet ^ out from the fences in order to keep their property in tact. None of them really ' w�,nted�6 more feet vf property to take care of but it is a matter o�' protecting _ wha,t they have. Ovex the years the apar�ments have beco�c� run do�m and the tenants are problem type tenan�ts. So this is not really their idea but is an alternative. ' Ms. Schnabel sta�ed that 5�80 was where the apartments are. Ms. Gabel stated there was a driveway between two of the apar�iments coming in. Alsa� if they vacate that 12 feet� the apartments wou].d lose some park3.ng spaces but they were not supposed to be parking back there ar�yway because it is a public easement. TY�i.s has not been enforced either. Mr. Harris stated that 5901 and 5�2 �rea�e apartment buildings. Ms. Gabel stated that was correct and that was a]�. vacated in between so 3t had. na bearin� on this request. � Nir. Earris stated it was part of the vacation request. Ms. Gabel stated that they apparently weren't concerned about 3.t and was not sure what the City's thinking was there unless they wanted to get the whale thing done at one t3me. ' ,� i�` �, PLANNING COMI�CSSION MEETING, JUNE 6, 1 79 � _� � `_ PA� Ms. Schnabel stated that the people in the apartment at 59$0 were currently usin� that alley as an access and asked i� there ��a� another way to get to their .parki� spot? , Mr. Carman stated that when the streets were bein� curbed and repaved� those people used the center driveway off 3rd street. Mr. Harris asked if they were using it now? Mr. Carman stated that some of them use it but not a71 of them. Ms. Schnabel stated th� alley was 12 feet wide and ichey would gain 6 feet of the alley�if it were vacated and asked if they.thought putting up a barrier would help the situation? Ms. Gabel s�ated they didn't think so� but at least they would. then have some recourse. They were not getting ar,�ywhere now. Ms. Schnabel asked if they •thought there was current legal recourse or if they thought this would stren�then their position. In other words� did they feel the City was ta�].ki.ng them into the vacation or was there a better way to handle it2 Ms. Gabe1 s�cated she felt the Ci�ty should issue a Red Tag and they should ha,ve d'one i�C a year ago. S1ie didx�'t know why' but they seem reluctant to do that � She stated they were tired. of going through �his evexy su�er. Aft�r the rezoning' people were fixi.ng things up and cleaning things up and they arere at the point wh�re there was a war between �he people who own resi�ential homes and tYr apart�:ent owners. At this point� she �eZt it was incumben�t upon the Ci�ty to do something and they �ron't. Mr.. Langenfeld. stated that if �chey did vacate it� they woutd have �he legal r�couxse of trespassing� but unless something is done� they will always have the problemo Mr. Oquist stated that vacating the alley would not solve the prohlem. It would just bring the property line 6 feet closer to iche apariment building. Ms. Gabel stated they planned to put up � pY�ysical barr3er that would not be as expensive as their fences. Mr. Oquist stated �that then they would have two fences� one good one and one to protect it? Ms. Gabel stated that this is what they were resorting to because the City won't do anything about it. Mr. Oquist asked if ar�y of the private residences used that alley? Ms. Gabel stated they did not. Mr. Langenfeld noted that if it stays the way it is now and the problem continues, the neighbors would not be allowed to put up any barriers. . m PLANNING CONA+IISSION MEETING, JUD1E 6, 1979 - PAGE 8 '�'� r , Ms. Gabel stated that she knew that. � n Ms. Hu�hes asked if there would be any sense to improving a portion of the alley by the apartment houses? � Ms. Gabel stated that would make it worse bec�use then the pavement would be ri�ht next to the �ence�e Mr. Oquist stated tha,t they could vacate the alley because it doesn't make ar�r sense to have a dead a11ey a�yway� but couldn't they also recommend that Council instruct City Staff to clean it up? A�s. Gabel sta'�ed that Staff had been out therea Mr. Oguist asked if the apartment owners lived in the apartments? Mso Gabel stated they did not. She stated that in the past few years there has been a turnover 3.n landlords and a different quality of tenants, and this is the problem. Ms. Schnabel stated th.at 3f they gained control of the 6 feet a�d junk was still dumped there, they wou].d have the problem of �indin� out who dumped it there and it could create more frustrations. If' �he Ci'cy 4rere to iraprove tha�t alley� it would be �the City�s responsibility to keep it clean. Granted� it zvould be close to the ience and maybe wouldn't solve that problem, but at ].east i� would be �the City's responsibility to maintaiai it and lceep it clear of the junk. �: Ms. Gabel stated that she didn't believe the City w�uld have any more i.nterest in kaeping it clean if it were paved than they have nowo Ms. Schnabel stated that at least then it would be i;he City's responsibility and no�t theirs . N�. Harris stateol that if they went to plow it and junk•was there� something wauld be donee Ms. Gabel stated that if the alley were improved, they would have �to pay for it and did not feel they should pay for an alley i;hat did not service them. Nm. Oquist asked if the City would want to improve a dead-end alley? Mr. Earris stated that he did not think they would want to. Nle. Gabel stated it would not benefit them any. Ms. Hu�hes stated she could see no sense in 3aaproving the whole thing� only a port3on of it. . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JU1VE 6z 19� � - PAGE 9 � M'r. Carmen atated they were sick and tired of �this problem and their last /°`�� alternative was to vacate this a]1ey. He stated th�t he has argued with the caretaker of the �partment and the caretaker wanted to fist Pight him. Iie • asked if the City Council was not supposed to ask an apartment to dedicate parking places for their tenants,? ' Mr. Harris stated that was correct. Nfr. Carmen stated that was never done. He stated that their rubbish can.nisters s3t r3.�ht next to his fence� and the garbage ends up in his yard. There are beer cans� trash� etc. there. His windows get broken and his fence gets broken. He st$ted that the police had been there several times and have taken pic'�ures of this. He felt the onJ.y w�y was to vacate the alley. He stated there was no owner on the premises and felt it was a hazard to t�e whole ecmununity. They find bugs and maggots from �hese cr�anisters in their yard. TYiey were trying to keep a clean neighborhoocl but the apartments do nothing. They would like to see the City do something. He felt.this was their last alternativee Mr. I,angenfeld stated that it was strange to see this special district go in there and �hey plan.ned to maKe it nice� but they allow this kind of thing to go on. Al.so� he would be in favor of' vacation because they could take the necessary action on �their own proper�ty. . . 2�r. Robert Ecker' 59�+U Third S�treet I�' caxne forward and stated tha� if they vacate the a11ey9 the kids will s�top going �through ther� and tY�owing �.unk around. � Ms. Gabel stated she had a let�er From Mrs. Robert Williams� 59�5 22 S'��eet lY.Eo Mrse Williams was�unable to at�end. N1r. Harris stated th�� the note stated they were in favor of the request to vacate the �lley. MOTSON by Mr. Iangenfeld, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to receive the letter from Mr..and Mrs. Williams. • � UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIE3MAN �ARRIS DECLARED THE MOTIQV CARRIED UNAPIIMOUSLY. Mr. Harris stated he understood the situation but was not sure vacat3.n� the a71ey would help. Mr. Oquist stated that vacatin� the a]1ey just brings the property line closer to the apaxtment. . Mr. Aarris asked how they �et to the trash containers? N1s. Gabel stated they come 3n from 3rd and go around. , PLANNING COI�+?ISSION MEETING, JUNE 6, 1979� - PAGE 10 � Mr. Aarris stated that the trash containers were not supposed to be by Mr. Carmen� s fence. �'� Mr. Carmen�stated that he had called the irash collector and they said they would �o along Vrith ar�,ything Council wanted them to do. They would prefer to pick them up off solid ground anyway. Mr. Harris noted the trash containers were sitting in the public right of way. Mr. Carmen stated that the caretaker in the second apartment put them there and when Mr. Carmen tried to move them ataay from the fence the caretaker came out and �ranted to beat him up. N1r. Carmen stated he was 69 years old. Ms. Schnabel asked if the trash collector entered on 3rd and exited on �th? Mr�. Carmen stated that was correct. He stated there was enough room for them to turn around and exit on 3rd. Mr. Oquist stated that if i� was vacated� there would be a curb �nd they couldn't exit to �th. Mr. Caxmen stated the driveway was at least 15 i'eet wide. Mr. Harris stated if they pu� a barricade up they couldn't exit �0 60th. Ms. Schriabel stated that the City would �ot put up a barricade9 �the people wouZd have �;o. � � . � Ms. Gabel stated it wou].dntt have to be barricaded and they cou].d sti]e7. �et in an.d out. Mr. Oquist stated that wouldnp� solve their problem. Ms. Gabel stated they were told they need some way to legally take care of this and they're saying they cannot leg�].]tiy take care oF it. This way the problem would become ours and they would be trespassing and that would give the home- owners legal recourse. She felt it was r3.diculous that they had to go to these lengths to get something cleaned up. Mr. Carmen s�ated that if this was vacated� he would sod the 6 feet by his fence and make it Zook decent. Ms. Schnabel sta'ted they could drive a few telephone poles in the corner of their lots� and that woul.d help. - Mr. Oquist stated it wauld still brin� the property line 6 feet closer and they would still have the trash containers there. It would not solve the problem. They would have the same problem with the second fence. . Mr. Carmen stated they have called the police and have had several City officials there including Mr. Sobiech and nothing has been done. He felt this was their on],y alternative. � ,'� � �LANNING COMM�I.SSION MEETING, JUNE 6� 19'�9 - PAGE 11 Ms. Schnabel referred to N[r. Boardm�n's memo and asked what he meant by the G�1 statement that due to the controversey between the neighbors there was a r strong tendency tYiat no vacation reque.st would be �pplied for. Ms. Gabel stated that the ].�st time the City Staff was there� they suggested she request the vacation and she stated that she would not pay for a vacation request to clean up something the City should �take care of a�yway. Ms. Schnabel asked if she kriew for sure'that the apartment owners would not join ichem in a vacation request? Ms. Gabel stated that she was not sure but felt there would be no cooperation because of past experiences with them. Mr. La,n�enfe]:a asked what initia'ted �his request? Mso Gabel stated tha�C iiciaas Ed Fitzpatrick's recommendation after the ].ast incid.ent . � Mr. Franzen stated that he vnderstood that the zoning code requires they have a maintainea parking area as we1.1 as a screened refuse area. He asked if they requi.red �, fence around the refuse area� woutd that solve some of the prob].e�n? Mr. Harris stated that he was not sure they could �'orce the apartmen� owners to build a fence because the apartments were old and probably built before those ordin.ances were in effect. He suggested �hey go to Council. � � . Ms. G�bel stated they had gone to Council. Mr. Cax�men stated that Mr. Olson of the City Staff toZd him he cou].d move i� lie didn't like it. He s�ta'ted that the former owuex of his house Yiad gone �o Council several times to have somethin� done and moved because xiathing was done. He felt the police had more to do than worry about this kind of thin,�. He also stated that he had talked to tY�e City Manager several times. Nlrs. Carmen asked wY�y the Health Department of the City of Fridley did nothing when they asked that a rotten mattress and some garbage be removed? Mr. Earris stated that Steve Olson was the health officer. Mr. Carmen stated that Steve Olson had been there four or five times and he told Mr. Carmen that if he didn't like it he cou].d move. He also stated �hat they should enforce the parking ord.inance and designate parking spaces to keep the cars away from his fence. - Mr. Harris stated that he would 13ke to learn more about this. Nlaybe a meeting with the City Manager, the Mayor and the Councilman would help. Ms. Schnabel stated that she was not convinced that the vacation was the answer. She stated that she was concerned about the City's attitude. She agreed that a meetin� mi�ht be more helpful. . � ' � �,.:.:��� PLANNING CONIMISSION MEETING, JUNE 6� 1979 � ___ �- pA� �' ` Ms. Hughes suggeated they send a•mod�.fied version of Mr. Boardman's memo to Council listing the alternatives and include the su�estion that they improve �..� part of the alley and also the suggested that the City should eniorce all applicable c�c3.es. She was not sugges�in� the apartments be harassed but that there should be consistent and logical enforcement. Mr. Carmen stated that he �elt the Poli.ce Department should be commended for their responsiveness but when the Police turn their repor�ts over to.the City officials� noth3ng is done. He asked that the Planning Commission make a strong effort to find out why the City officials have done nothing. A�r. Barris asked Ms. Gabel if she and her neighbors would be willing -to meet with tlie Ward Councilman� the Mayor� the Councilman at Large� the Chair of the Planning Commission amd any other members of the Planning Comonission 4�ho �rish to attend., and the City Manager to find out what-the problem is and �ahy this situation is not being taken care of? Ms. Gabel stated she would attend such a meeting and also stated that they had spent a long time working on the I�yde Park rezoning and she, alon� with he� ueighborsy had put in a lot of their own time on it in order to make it a viable place to live� and she felt it was time for �h� City to cio their share. Ms. Schnabel stated tha'� she �elt �the Ma.intenance Cod.e would be a good place to start and suggested �they research it in terms of inte�cior and exterior maintenanee on these rental propertiese She would like to see this da.scussed at the meetin� wi��h regards to who should enforce the Maintenance Code and wY�y it has not been enf o�°ced . /"'� MOTION�by Mso Schrnabel, seconded by Ni�°o Lan�enfeld, to recommend to Council t�ia� Vacation Request SAV �79-03 be continued until a meeting is held and at�tended by the following people: the �ffected neighbors, the Ward Coux�.cilman� the Mayor� � the Councilm,an at Large� the Chairman of the Planning Commissioxi and ax�y' other member of the Planning Commission who wishes to attend� the City Manager� the City Engineex and any other Staff person deemed necessary. The purpose of the meeting - would be �to discuss the untenable situation that has occurred and is continui.ng to occur between the private residences and the apartments located in the block bourided by 22 Street and 3rd Stxeet and 59th and 60th Avenues NE. Vacation Request SAV �j9-03 is a request by the City of Fridley to vacate that portion of the alley in B].ock 11� $yde Park� not vacated by Ordinance �533, between Lots 1-6 and Lots 25-30� and between Lots 1�+� 15� 16� and 17� located between 59th and. 60th Avenues NE and between 2� Street and 3rd Street NE. Mr. Carmen requested that the reports and records of the cnmplaints be at the meeting. Ms. Schnabel stated they would be including the minutes of this meeting. Nir. Treuenfels stated that the people who own the apartment houses should be notified of this meeting. � � � �• PLANNING CONA�SSION MEETING� JUNE 6, 1979 '- PAGE 13 N1r. Aarris st�ted they would be �lon� with all affected neighbora. �� Ms. Schnabel stated that the purpose o� the meeting should be to see if there was some_way to solve the problem of the friction within the neighborhood. UPON A VOICE Va'I'E� ALL VOTZNG AYE� CHAIRMAN HAFtRIS DECLARED THE NlOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. • Mr. Treuenfels stated he would like to be notiiied of the meeting. I�. Schnabel stated they shou].d all be notified as to the date and time. Mr. Caxmen thanked the Commissioners. �+. RECEIVE MEMORlaNDUM FROM THE CITY AT�ORNEY ON �SI'ECIAL USE PERMITS: MaTION by Mso Hughes� seconded by Mr. Txeuenfels� to receive the memorandum from the City Attorney on Special Use Permits. Ms. Hu$hes stated that after reading �through this she felt ichat Special Use Permits were not in �Che ca'tegory she thought they were and that they were more stringent �than she thought. �ter reading this� she felt better about Special Use Permi�s and what is allowed and what is not allowed. Page 35 in particular brought the things such as �he effect on �the neighborhood� the nature of the adjoining land� traffic, etc. Nlr. Hr�rris stated tha� the;� had to have goad and valid reasons for denying a request. Ms. Schnabel stated tha'c one thing they had not done enough of in the past was zerQing in on the burden oi" prvof �hat the applicant has �o show that the Special Use Permit they are applyiaig for does no� in ar�y way effect the public health� safety' convenience� welfare, traffic congestion and hazards� or change the pro� posed original use of the area� etc. We have no� made the applic�nts prove to us that these �hings exist. Ms. Hughes stated that the request for a garage tonight was an example where it could have an i�npact on the neighbors land value especially if the hedge wasn't there. � Mr. Aarris noted that the person at 621]. was not here to object. He also noted that in reading over the minutes�of their discussion on the last request in the flood plain� if that house had been built and graded the way the plan indicated� there would be detremental effects to the abuttixtg property. Ms. Hughes stated that this seems stronger �han she had thought. She also stated that a statement from Staff that they have no objections would not be adequate. It should be more specific and detailed. � � PLANNING CONIl�'aSSION MEETING� Ji1NE 6� 1979 � - PAGE l� I�. Aarris stated."that when Staif processes a•�pecial Use Permit they look at all aspects. They do have a checklist. ^ Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Franzen if the check].ist for the Special Use Permit request tonight was in the file? - Mr. Franzen stated it was and it included who reviewed-it. Ms. Schnabel stated that at the Appeals Cormnission� the Chair�of the Co�n.ission has been given the iile and the Commissioners can review it. Also� the Fire Department� the Police Department and others should make comments too. Nls. �Hughes felt their co�nen�s shou].d 'be more specific. Mr. Langenfe].d sta-ted tha'c when he has denied a Special Use Pexmit he had good reasons such as public health, safety and weJ.fare� and they should not be afraid to deny even if someone threatens to sue. Ms. Hughes agreed and felt the Ci�y has been unwillin� to pro�ect the zoning codes and deny a Special Use Permit tha.t should be denied just because someone threatens to sue. Mr. Langen�eld stated that at one time he had the impression that.people ielt at one time if they taanted anything they shou�.d just put in for a SUP. Nk�. Harris stated that they were in the middle ot looking a't the zoning codes and in the past the Special Use Permit was a catchmall. They shoL�l.d. not do th�t any � longer. They have allowed a lot of latitude especial]gy in the R-1 dis�ricts and he felt they should tighten up � �ittle bi�t, but it has to be reasonabl.e. Ms. Aughes stated she did not want to see a Ci�y that was identical in every aspect. Mr. Harris stated that the problem o�' a Special Use Permit for a second accessory Uuilding has been with us for� •a long time and �,rill be until we find another way of handling it. In re�ards to this request tonight� if everyone on that side of the street dec3ded to do this� i� would be a disaster. In �he future� when they look at the zoning codes and the Comprehensive Plan� they will have to look at the problem of second accessory buildin�s. Mr. Oquist agreed. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTI1� AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLA�ED THE MOTION CARRZED UNANIlKOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION CONIMISSION N�TL�ES: MAY 16� 1979: MOTION by Ms. Hughes� seconded by Mr. Lan�enfeld� to receive the Parks and Recreation Commission minutes of M�y 16� 1979. �' I �LANNSNG COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 6, 1�79 - PAGE 1S Mr. Treuenfels asked �hy Mr. Boudre�u was present at the meeting? �c �� Ms. Hu�hes stated they were interviewin� arch�.tects. UPON A VOTC� VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS iSECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLYo 6. RECENE ENERGY PROJECT CONR+�LTTEE NlINIFI'ES: MAY 22, 1.979: . MOTION by N�. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Schna.b�l� to receive the May 22� �.979� minutes of the Energy Projec� Committee. Mr. Langenfeld sta�ced there was an introduction included called "Proposal B" and �his is a drait copy of an introduction to �he•Planning Commission. He stated that the chart was �he key to the whole thin�. The chart incorporates �he scope of the project as s�t forth by the Plannin� Commissior�. He gelt that the City Coordinatix� Unit was a good ideae Item 2 on page � explains the City Coordinatiug Unit. They hoped to finish �this a't their next meeting and would then present it in a proper fashion. Mr. Treuenfels noted thaf; pa�e 2 of �h� Ener�y Project Comrait�ee, Item B, �2 appears �o be in conflict with the section on parlss in the Comprehensive Deve].opment Plan. Tn the CDP9 J.ighting is encoura�ed to pre�en-� vandalisms Ms. Iiughes stated this �•ras r�o�t in conflict with what th� Park� s Coimnittee tlzinks' but i'c mig�it be in eo�af� iet with what the Park's Department thinlcs. The Parks � Commi vtee would agree �rith �Lh� s stateraerit . � Mr. I�::rx�is st�ted tha� as far as this aaad other ques�ions �o' they will have to weigh �t�e good and baci and set priorities. A�.s. Schnabel sta�ed that she �'chou�ht �$ on that page was �the wa�p it is now. 1�. Treuenfe].s re£erred to pags 3 of Proposal A, I�;e�n D, �l� and stated. tba,t he uuderstood there was a conflict between earth-sheltered buildings and the Unifo�m Building Code. Mr. Aa,rris stated there was e conflict thex°e. A'Lr. Langenfeld stated that they considered that under the energy-efficient dwel].3ngs. They could not have a detailed explanation oi each item•in the mi.nutes. Mr. Treuenfels referred to pa�e 5 of �the Proposal A� Item C� and suggeated they discuss GasohCal, He would like the Co�i.ttee to discuss Gasoh�l derived from waste praducts rather than food products and also dist311ation of alcohol should be d.one using solar energy rather than fossil fuels. Mr. Langenfeld referred to the "SCOPE" section and quoted the following: "It is NOT the intent of this Policy to formulate precise procedures or to categorize specific actions based upon the availability of fuels used." Ae stated that they had looked at energy policies from Mourid� the City of Minneapolis� New Brighton ��� and several others and they did not find them.helpful. A part of the contin�ency plan £rom New Brighton was helpfut. Fridley's Energy Pro3ect Committee was takin� a completely new approach and he felt this was exciting. He wae proud of the work the Committee has done. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUI� 6, 1979 - PAGE 16 - � Ms. Hu�hes referred to page � oP Proposal �� �7' and stated she would like to see a"policy maker" rather than �:he City Manager there. Also� she would like ,� to see a more de�ailed explanation of what the citizen's group� referred to in Item �8 on-page �+' would be doing. She also referred to Item II� #A on pa�e �F and stated that the last sentence in that paragraph sounds different from what she thought they were saying. She wor�dered if,that was what they wanted to say. Ms. Hughes referred �o page 5, Iicem C� and asked why.transportation on the local government level was not included? N1r. Aarris stated �Chey were talkin� abc�ut public transportation. Mse Hughes �sked-why they weren't talking aboui; a local public transportation system? Mr. Harris stated �hey did not have one �ad had talked about it at one time and decided against it. Ms. Hughes s�ated that �hings ha,d changed and maybe �they should look at it. Mr. i�arris stated they had looked at it and it ��as in the realm o� the N�I'C. He stated they were not set up to o�crate such a sys'tem. Msa Schnabe7. mentioned tl�e Dial-A-�tide system in Columbia fteights and stated �hat did not exist in �'�idley. . .. Ms. Hu�hes felt �hey should look at the possibilities of having a priv�,te company provide tha� serviceo I�. Langeni'eld stazed that this gues�;ioz� was l�rough�t up by one member of the � Committee' bvt 'che other members felt it �aould not be appropriate to put it in hexe because it would be such an enorraous project and it would be very difficut for them to �e� it going. Nm.. I,angenfeld st�ted that when they first set up the C�rnmittee, they had a large number of �things to cover and they had to ru�rro�r it down somehowo � Mr. Ha,rris st�ted that one of the shor�tcomings was th�t they were dealing only wi�h the City of Fridley and energy is a mtich broader probl.em. He �elt that if this did nothing e1se� it would make them energy�aware. When they started this out� they had a lack of coordination and leadership irom the Sta�te. He stated that the State had indicated that �hey were usin� Fridley as a model. , Mr. Langenfeld referred to the NSP Suxvey and stated he felt the on],y good thing out of it was to create awareness. Nl�. Schnabel referred to page 3� Item E(Contin�ency Plan) and asked who would implement that Plan and under what conditions? - Mr. Langenfeld stated this was directed to the City and would occur if there was an al1 out national crisis. � �..�—� PLANN7NG CONIl�lISSION N1EE'TING, JUI� 6, 1979 �- PAGE ].7 Ms. Schnabel a�iated there were some thin�s in there that could be done in advance �'-'''� oP a.crisis� for example� Item 6 on page �+ which refers to regulating the operating hours of retail businesses. . Mr. Oquist asked 3f the City could da that? Mr. Ii�rris s�ated there vras a Supreme Couxt Decision that struck"that down. Ms. Hughes statecl there could be a reason now� such as public health� sa�'ety and wel£are. Ms. Schn,abel atated that before that was done' they shoul.d have an analysis of how much it would save. She reierred also to page �+, Item A� and asked if "Insti-�utional" would refer to schools� hospitals' e�CC.? Mr. Langen�eld sta�ed that was correct. Ms. Schnabel sta'ted that they had talked at one time abou�c the City and public institutions analyzing their consumption and making an attempt to cut that con- sump�ion by a certain p�rcentage. Mr. Langenfeld sta�ed th�y had discizssed that and xeferred to page 2� Stem 3 0�' Proposal A. UPON A VOICE VOTE� AI,L V4TING AYE9 CHAIRMAN f�RIS DECLARED THE NIOTSON CARRTED UNANIMOUSLY. � - Chairman 13arris declared a recess at 10:05 P.M. �nd reconvened the meeting at io:a.5 �.r�. �. • 7. •C011F�INL�D: COMPREflENSTVE DEVELOPMENT J'LAN: Ms. Tiughes stated that the Parks Commission had not completed their review of the doewnent and �hey would be discussing it at their next meeting an.d would hqve a completely rewritten section. They had problems wi-�h �the way it was puic together and they finally had �o cut and paste before they could discuss it. Page 31, SOLID WASTE DISP�SAL; Ms. Hu�hes referred to the second paragraph and suggested they add recycling and encouragin� redu�in� �h.e amoiant of it. � Mr. Aarris a�reed and noted they were promot3n� recyclin� of waste. A sub-committee had been set up a year a�o and it shovld be included. Page 33, S310 1: Ms. Hu�hes suggested they delete the word "prioritize" and insert the word "rank". She also stated that she felt 5310� �2 was a critical area. She also felt the word "prioritize" should be deleted throughout the whole document and replaced by the word "rank". � �"� • . . r 0 PT�ANNING COMMIS3ION ME�ING,JUNE 6, 1979 -_ PAGE 18" Mr. Langenf'eld stated that his copy of the document was different from the copies the other Commissioners had. � � Pa�e 33,� S3�� , Ms. Hughes noted that the word "PROMULGATION" should be deleted and t�e word "PROPAGATION" should be inserted. A].so, the statemen�C "RECREAT�ON IN AND OUr OF THE WATER" ��as questioned by her Commission and they wondered if it shouldn't be "RECREATION IN AND ON TF� WATER". This would enco�pass boating, etc. They wanted at�Lention paid to "ON THE WATER". • Page 35, 5310: Mr. I�,ngenfeld stated that he had several statements on energ,}r �hat were to be included in this portion of the document. Tnis was a revision dated Apri� 26� �979• He also stated that on �+age 35' the E�.y�ironmental Quali-ty Comanission iel�; the words "Wetlands and Lowlands" shoul.d be changed to "water bodies and water courses". Mr. Franzen stated that Metro Council had rec�mmended the use o�' that termonolo�y' and to be consistent it should remain "we�tlan.ds and lowlands". Mr. Oquist stated tha'� the revision Mr. Langenfeld read to them regarding energy �.id not fit into �the Systems Plan on page 35• Ms . Schnabe2 stated �that �the in�;raluction on p�.ge 12 of the documen� did not reier to energy. �� Mr. Harris stated- �hey would ha,ve �o fit iic ir. somewhereo Ms. Hu�hes �tated that the Parks Commission had trouble followin� the document and Yia,d to cut it apart and reorganize it because i� was nat workable the taay it was. A�°. Harris stated that he could no� see how they would•�it the section on energy into the lowlands section. Mr. Oquist stated that he wrzs concerned that the Commissioners had different copies of the document. Some were revised editions and some were not. He also stated that in some sections, the policy plan did not relate ico the sy stems plan. Ms, Schnabel asked if the Plannin� Cortun3.ssion could ask for a reorganization of the document and a clearer understandin� of �e direction or fiow of the document2 Mr. Harris stated they could. MOTION by Ms. Schnabel� seconded by Mr. Treuenfels� to continue the discussion on the Comprehensive Development Plan and tha't the Planning Cott�ission recommends ., that the Chair of the�Plannir� Commission go to the Plannaxig i�partment Heada and , discuss their feelings on the unworkabil3.ty of this docuir►ent based on the experience that the Parks and Recreation Commission had w3th the document� and the Planning . Coffinission would like a rewrite of the document. • � � " � � F�LANN]TTG COMMISSION MEETING�_ �JUNE 6, 1979 � • -__r_.____ � P� Mx°. Treuenfels stated that ther�, doesn't seem to be a general £ocusin� idea in �•�, the docwnent and it's very difficult to say which direction Fridley ie �oing � basec� on this document. Also� the organization of the docwnent is difficult to follow. ' UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL �iOTING AYE� CHAIRMAI� HARRIS DECLA.RID THE MOTION CARRIED UNANiMOUSLY.. . 8. CONTTNUED: PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHA.PTER 205. ZONCNG: NIOTTON by Ms. Schnabel� seconded by Mr. Langenf�ld9 to continue tYte discussion on the proposed changes to Chapter 205o Zoning. UPON A VOICE VOZ�' AIeL VOTING AYE9 CHAIRMAN �IARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRTED UNANIMOUSLY. � - . g. o�r� Buszr�ss: Mr. Harris s�ated he had receiv�d a le�ter from Metro Council on LawCon Application regarding Parks and Open Spaces and lake aecess �uidel.ines. He gave �he le�ter to Nir. Franzen to give to I�lr. Boardman. Mr. Harris sta�ed he had a direction from City Council re�ardi.ng rental conversion property and in par'ticular the Nitscheke cASe. N�. Nitscheke requested pea°�ission r,� �o split a�ri-plex in�o a townhouse. The memo stated tha� �he 3ay Park Plat - ' Ni�tscheke - was -�abiea indefinitely, and Staff was directed to refer this �tem to Planning for discu�sion of �he �ollowing items: 1} �he various �types of conversion and �ahether they should be allowed at al].' 2) a zero.� lot line for single family hom�s aud 3) revi�w o� the existing townhouse ordinance ior possible modification. � St �ias the feeling of Council that a co�prehe�asive look should be taken in re�ards � to conversion �nd their iurpac�c on policy stateme�t deyelopmen�. A policy s�atement or appropriate ordinances could be drafted whexe needed. Mr. Harris stated there was another memo frorn Mr. Boardman to Mr. Sobiech on how these rental conv�rsians were handled and apparently they called several other subu�cbs. . Mr. Franzen stated he had called the suburbs lis�Led and asked them how they were ]aandlin� conversion of duplexes and �ultiple aw�a.a.i�gs to indi.vidual ownerships and also the conversion of apartments to to��nhouses. Some of the suburbs were allowing apartments to be converted into townhouses or condominiums. A lot of them said they werentt getting involved with that and it was up to the owrzer of � the a�artment. He felt the problem wi�h convertin� apartments to townhot�ses or condomin3.ums was that a certain amourit of rental property was necessary and they � were forcing a lot of people to find dwelling units elsewhereo The Ci�y has a significant shorta�e in mul�iple dwelling units and if they go in �that direction� it could be a problem. A lot of communities were �ettin� complaints from older 1 pes�ple who said they were gettin� kicked out of their apartmente and wanted the ` cities to do something about it. Out East i;hey were running 3nto the problem of , � a shortage of multiple dwelling units. Regardin� duplexes to individual ownership� some of the communit�es stated they weren't allowing this because of ].ot size ��\ , requireme.nts. Some cottununities in St. Paul did not have.a problem because they have a very small lot size requirement. The question of individual ownershin .a�< PL�UVNING CO1�lISSION MCETING, JU��IE 6� �979 - PAGE 2(� raises the problem oP maintenance. Some communities s�Cated that as far as duplexes go they would split it down the middle with each person responsible for the ,� � maintenance of their side and they would have sep�rate services. Regarding multiple j units� some communities require an association to maintain the exterior of the buildin�' �nd the landscaping� etc. Mr. Har:ris noted they had recammended to Courici]. that an association be formed to ; � take care of the exterior maintenance. € Mr. Franzen referred to the 40 foot lots in the City that were presen�ly considered � unbuildable and by allowing splits, they were allowing special consideration to ; lower the lot size of single family structures. He stated it would be a problem Q if �he unit burned down and they would have �+0 foot lots. � Mre fIarris stated that was their reasoning for the association and for the land to�be divid�d in cozrunon. Mr. Franzen stated they would also have to con.sider this as an oppor'tunity for people 'co buy and put their money into a home that will go up in value as opposed to rentingo � � Ms. Sckznabel stated there was also the benefit of a'tax write�off in ownin� their " y, L �� LS�me s . - ' �' Ms. Hughe� �ta�ted that another reason for allowing �this type o� 'chin� was that it was a way �to lower the cost of home ownership. �f Mr, Harris su��ested they continue this i'cem and. put i�C back on �he agendao _ Mse Schnabel suggested they review the minu�es from the previous Planning Commissiora meetinbs where. �his was discussed axid. see how cl.osely those discussions reflect the Ques�ions fram CounciY. ' Mr. Harris agreed and sizggested they 'think about it. He asked I�. Franzen to have this put back an the agenda and include in �he agenda copies of Planning's discussior� on this i�em and also a copy of �he memo "Tnfo. from Council" dated June �+' 197g. Alsoa a copy of the Council°s minutes fram their meeting of June �� 1979 pertaining to the Jay Park - Ni,�tscheke Plat' should be included. Nfr. Harris asked Mr. Franzen who was handlin� �he interviewing of the Senior Cit3zen°s High-Rise? He had heard there might be some preferenee being �iven and would like to know the criteria used in the selection process. He had received several inquires re�arding ihis. - Nir. Franzen stated he would look into it. d i � ,�-,�. w� .��'L�iNN2NG COMMISSION ME�TING, � 6, i979 �� PacE 2i , — ' .�� Mr. Langenfeid stated that in reading the minutes in re�ards to the proposed �`"; house in the flood plain9 he not�ced that the words "assuraing" and "probably" Were used frequently. He �e].t they should be more sure of themselves when diseussing something like this. Mr. Iiarris stated they daubted �the survey because it was taken in Februe,xy and it was diffi�u.lt to get aecuxate elevations in the winter. � Ms. Hughes stated tha� the Miianesota Water Resources Research Center would be holding a series of regzonal meetin�s and in our area� it will be June 199 1979 at 7:30 at the Earl Brown Conference Center�and the topic �aill be "Citizen Participation on Water". She fe1� this would be of interesto 10. ADJOURNMETVZ': MOTZON by N1s. Schraabel� seconded by Mr. I,angenfeld� ta adjourn the June 6' 197g, meeting of the Planning Commission. UPON A VOIG`E VOTE' ALT, VOTII� ,�YE� CHAIRMAN Hd4RRIS DECLAR�D THE MEETTIV'G .ADJOUPNED A� �.:30 �.Me Respectfully Submittedo —�—�,� /% , _ _ `�C�,.�,,.�`� ��✓ '�' .--/� � She1 n9 ecordir�g Secretary ^-'1 �� . �