Loading...
PL 01/23/1980 - 6672PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City of Fridley AGENDA WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1980 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 9, 1980 1. CONTINUED: PROPOSED CHAN6ES TO CHAPTER 205. ZONIN6 2. RECEIVE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES; 3 4. RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINU7E5c JANUARV 8, 1980 07HER BUSINESS: ADJOIlRNMENT : _. ..__ . .__. ._ . _._. __ _. __ , CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 9 1980 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the January 9, 1980, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:45 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. Harris, Mr. Treuenfels, Mr. Langenfeld, Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel Members Absent: Ms. Hughes Others Present: Te�rold Boardman, City Planner Bill Deblon, Associate City Planner APPROVAL OF AEC�ER 19 1979 PLANNING COMMISSION MIN[JTES: MOTiON by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to apprwe the December 19, 1979, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN FIARItIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 1• VACATIO� REQUEST, SAV r 79=05, BY RICHARD KAH�1: Vacate the drainage and utility easements, a1: in GlocR 1, ATice Wall Addition: The south 10 feet of Lots 1 and 2, over the south 10 feet and the east 5 feet of Lot 3, over the west 5 feet of Lot 4, over the west 5 feet or Lot 5; which lies north of the easterly ext�nsion ef tne SOLLVI �1110 of Lot 3, !and the west 10 `eet of that oar;, of Lot 5, which lies south of the easterly er.tension of the �outh line of Lot 3, over the ' west 10 feet of Lot 6, over the w�st 70 feet of Lot 7, and an Lot 24, which 7ies a�est of a line draam parallel with and distant 356.0 feet east ofi the most westeriy lir�2 �r said Lot 24 and its northerly extensior.. Mr. Boasdman explained these easements were placed on the plat originally to allow fox the handling of any potential drainage problem. However, the pond that was located on the final building plan would 6e capable of handling a 50 year storm and the staff felt that would be adequate drainage. The garages and townhouses have been built over these easements. He fuxther explained grading has been completed for the pond and any further grading would only be on the residential lots. That grading would noC affect the pond size. Mr. Boardman added the pond would normally have a few areas of standing water, but basically the pond would only have water in it after a rain or melting period. MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Oquist to approve Vacation Request SAV �k79-05, by Richard Kahn. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTI23G AYE, CHAIRMAt3 HAIIRIS DECLAliED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 9 1980 PAGE 2 2. Receive Parks and Recreation Commission minutes: December 12 1979 MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr, Langenfeld to receive the Parks and Recreation Cotrm�ission minutes of December 12, 1479. Mr. Langenfeld queationed the dollar amount ($50,000) on page 2, paragraph 2. Mr. Boardman stated that figures was correct. The city has put a$50,000 price tag for the construction of one basebaZl diamond. If a business wished to have a diamond named after them, that figure would be the contribution required. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman when the Spring Brook contract was up. Mr. Boardman replied in February of this year. The Spring Brook foundation has not rexrewed their contract since they feel they have done what they set out to do, which was set up the Spring Brook Park area. They have turned the maintenance and upkeep over to the city, which will be the only cost incurred by the city. The building, to be located in the park, received $ 100% financing grant ($365,000) from LAWCON, through the Metropolitan Council, Both Mr. Harris and Mr. Langenfeld said their impression was that when the contract was awarded, it would be an ongoing prograzr�. They both were upset by_the fact that the contract was not ren<.wed and felt many other people in the city c�ould be upset also. Ms, Gabel voiced concern over the F.E.S.T, program and reports of vandalism, She stated when she helped chaperon� the dances there was a ratio of 1 adult for every 30 teen- agers, plus a policeman on duty. There was, at that time, no signiEicant prablems at the dances, She stated the policeman was no longer at the dances and questioned if there was enough chaperones. She felt this was a needed service and the teenages do use it and hoped it would not be dropped. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARILZS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 3. Receive Em�ironmental Qualitv Commission Minutes• December 18 1979 MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to receive the Environmental Quality Commission minutes of December 18, 1979. Mr. LangenEeld pointed out the discussion on pages 2- 8 regarding NPC-5 Airport Noise Permit. It was asked if the Planning Commission desired to make a recommenda- tion on this permit, similar to the action T.hat the EQC took. Basically the pexmit (for new construction or modification) would be issued to an airport if all complicances on noise control had been met. Planning Conanission felt they would like more informa- tion on the permit and the agencY that was to decide on the permit (MPCA) wes presumed to have met by this time so their action woula be of no consequence. Mr. Langenfeld also pointed out the discussion undex "Othes Sessiness" on the MWCC. This was an item discussed at a previous Planning Commissi�n meeting and he felt the members would be interested it i[. , Hr. Deblon noted the discussion on Trunk Highway 10/North Crosstown, He said the ` Commission of MnDot had chosen the relocated Highway 10 alternative and that the relocation eliminated 2 of the possible North Crosstown routes. Mr. Boardman pointed nut that all reporta on this project were not in at this time. PT.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY ° 1980 PAGE 3 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Continued: Proposed Chanp,es to Chapter 205. ZoninQ: MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded hy Ms, Gabel, to receive the tevised edition oi the Proposed Changed to Chapter 205. Zoning. The Cot�ission members decided they wnuld like to look at the new document and how it was set up before discussing it. Mr. Boardman said the conter.t was basically the same, however, there had been some juggling of districYs, some were removed, some combined with others, and some re- named. The changes the Commission had made previously on the book and been incorpora- ted in this book. The only item Mr. Boardman wanted the Coimnission to think about was the possibility of adding a requirement stating a contractor must spend a X% of his total construction costs on lan�!scaQing. Mr. Boardman noted L- 2% could be the per cent range. Mr. Boardman said we negotiate now on this item and this requirement would simply by putting it up front as to what the city expects. This would also make the contractor budget a certain amount of dollars for landscaping in his total construction coets. The Planning Commission had some prohlems with this idea. They felt it was noC fair to ask co�ercial property to budget so many dollars for landscaping and not to do the same in the R districts. They also questioned the right that the city has in making someone spend a certain amount of money on anything. Another point bxought up, was the fact that even if a contractor has set aside a certain amount of money for land- scaping, how can that be a guarantee that a good landscaping plan wi11 be dYawn up and used. Mr. Boardman explained this was a suggestion, other conununities were adopting this requirement, and only wanted the Commission to think about it. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMt1N IiARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED 5. Other Business: Mr. Treuenfels stated he and Mr. Harris attended a meeting with Che Fridley Ministerial Conm�ittee and found there was some overlap of social services in tha city, This meeting was more or less fact finding and they will also be meeting with the school district for the same reason. Mr. Treuenfels said they will keep the Cormnission in- formed of theix findings. Mr. Harris said he attended a Council meeting to geC some precise information on the new park fees. He could get no real answers fxom the Council and felt if they desired a slush fund, they will have one. The new Environment Development Fee was evidently going to be charged and Mr. Harris could not find out if this fee will be going inCo a specific park improvement program, in escrow or what. Mr, Harris said he objected to the City collecting a"park fee" when it should be called a"public service fee". These fees usually go into the general fund and not a capital park improvement program as they should. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 9 1980 PAGE 4 Mr. Harris also pointed out the Comprehensive Plan was still before the Council. It has had some major changes since the Planning Commission last saw it. He said the Counci� was reluctant to set numbers on the housing needed in Fridley because it will cause some major rezoning. Mr. Boardman said the numbers were not important. What was important was the goals and needs of the city. The Metro Council was looking for low and moderate housing and what we obtain will be based on the Eunding that was available for that type of housing. The city has to provide the opportunity for housing of this type in this area. Mr. Langenfeld suggested that the Council sfiould not resume any type of conversation ox comments after the adjournment until they are sure all visual and audio equipment has been tumed off, ADJOURN1�fE;NT; , MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Oquist to adjoum the January 9, 1980 meeting of the Planning Commission. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:10 P,M. Respectfully submitted, ����� �� Paula R. L�ng, Recording $'g�cretary �� HOUSING AND REDBVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING DECEMBER 13, 1979 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Larry Commers called the Decem6er 13, 1979, Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Co�ers, Carolyn Svendsen, Elmars Prieditis, Duane Prairie Members Absent: Russell Houck Others Present: Serrold Boardman, City Planner APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 8, 1979, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES; MOTION by Mr. Prieditis, seconded by Ms. Svendsen, to approve the November 8, 1979, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Commers declared the motion carried unanimously. 1. CEIdTER CITY PRQ7ECT UPDATE; Mr. Boardman stated he did not have a lot to report since the last time they talked about the Center City Project. They are working with about three developers who are interested in the project. One of the developers is interested in all six phases of the project. The other two are primarily interested in phase one. He stated that Dean Doyscher was meeting the following day with the developer who is interested in a11 six phases. Mr. Boardman sCated there have been a lot of discussions with these developers, and they should have some direction by January 15, 1980, when the proposals are due in to the City. Mr. Commers stated he did not recall the Authority adopting any policy as far as wanting to try to get someone to take the whole project rather than breaking it up into phases. Mr. Boardman stated they are looking primarily at phase one. Within the Center City Project plan itself, it laid out that they are primarily interested in phase one to initiate the development and all other phases are open. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING DECEMBER 13 1979 - PAGE 2 Mr. Boardman stated there are several things they look at. First of all, there is the architectural control. If they can get someone to handle all six phases, that is very beneficial to the City, because then they would have the architectural control through all six phases. In order to do that, they need to get some commitment for the development of those six phases. If they are going to go with phase one, it would behoove the Authority to get an architect to develop some kind of design for the Center City area which is going to have some design control for the other phases that would go in. Ms. Svendsen asked about the status of the Overlay Zoning District. Mr. Boardman stated it had been sent on to Planning Coa�ission, but it had not come before Planning Commission yet, because they are working on it with Virgil Herrick, City Attorney. He and Mr. Herrick had a meeCing on it about a week ago. At that time, Mr. Herrick felt he would rather go with a PUD (Planned Unit Development) ordinance than with a Special Use Permit. It would give the City and the Au.thority more control. Mr. Boardman stated he had a meeting with Mr. Doyscher the following week on this to try to work out what is going to be workable for the Authority when they get into the actual ordinance development. It would probably be another 60 days before staff can get something more concrete as far as an ordinance to control these kinds of things. Mr. C w�mers asked if Mr. Boardman would provide the Authority with copies of the present PUD ordinance before their next meeting. He would like the members to take a look at it. Mr. Boardman stated he would get copies for them. Mr. Boardman stated they are still looking at January 15, 1980, for all proposals and a 90-day review period by the Authority on a11 proposals. At that time, the Authority will select a proposal, they will work with that proposal, and submit it to Planning Commission and City Council. 2. DISCUSSION OF LARGE FAiffLY HOME OWNERSHIP PROGRAM: Mr. Boardman stated that the members had before them copies of "RESOLUTION N0, HRA-4 - 1979, A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY APPROVING THE INITIAL NEGOTIATION FOR ACQUISITION OF 5832 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, N,E „ LOTS 21, 22, 23,AND 24, BLOCK 21, HYDE PARK, Mr. Boardman stated they have had a negotiation meeting with the property owner at 5832 University Ave. The appraised valuation on that property was $38,000. The property owner wanted about $45,000. They did negotiate a purchase price of around $42,000. They felt that negoCiation price could fall within the limits of attorney fees, inflation costs, and additional staff planning costs. They felt it was a good price for the property and felt they can work within that as far as budgeting goes. They had budgeted prior to this time with this project of around $A5,000. There is no relocation costs involved in this project. Because of that situation, they feel they can HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENf AllTHORITY MEETING DECEMBER 13 1979 PAGE 3 get some adequate housing developed on that property. They are looking at three units, getting lot splits on the property £or zhree units. Mr. Commers asked what the quthority's authority was as far as exceeding the appraisal made for them by the appraiser. Mr, Soardman stated that this authority of exceeding the appraisal was ia3d but in the three conditions listed in Resolution No. HRA-4. He has Calked 'to the aCtorneys on this, and they feel they would probably fall within that 'cost, They would probably justify $4,Q0� cost based on these three conditions; (1) Attorney fees for a condemnation hearing; (2) Inflation costs since the appraisal; and (3) Additional staff costs in planning. Ms. Svendsen asked what the timetable was on this. �1r. Boa-rdman stated they would like to try to close an the property befare the firsC of the year. They are waiting for this resolution befare they tlraw �� the papers. As soon as the papers are received, Lhey will rlose righL sway. �, Co�ers asked abaut the �axlin psaperty at 6025 -��� St. N.E. I+Fr. Soa-rdman stated they have a negotiation meeting with Mr. P�lin ihe £b1loWing week regarding the purchase of that prope�Cy. 3, �THER BUSINESS: Z+�r. Commers stated he Wou1d like io Yake rhis apportunity to welrome �uane Yrairie to the Authority. The Author�Cy had some very i.nreresting �YO�ects going on in the City of FYidley, and he hoped Mr. Prairie would �tijoy his work with the A�thority. They were glad xo have him.jaiti them an3 �laoked f6rward to his cont�ibution to the Authority. Mr. Boa-rdman stated xhat if Mr.. Frairie had anq questions, he�was Yo �ee1 free �"o call 'him at the of-fice. 'Mr. Commers stated that the:next Housing & Redevelopment:Authority mae'Liayg w0uld be held on Thursday, January L0, 1980., at 7a30 p�.m.. 11DJOURNMENT: Ghairperson Larry Commers declared the December 13, -1979, Housing & Redeuelopment Avthority meeting adjourned at B:OO p.m. Respectfully sub itted, i, L Lyn Saba ' Recording Secretary COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 8, 1980 CALL TO ORDER: Ghairperson LeRoy Oquist called the January 8, 1980, Co�unity Development Commission meeting to order at 7;35 p.m. ROLL CAI,L: Members Present: LeRoy Oquist, Connie Modig, A1 Gabel, Kenneth Vos, Sharon Gustafson Members Absent: None Others Present: Bill Deblon, Associate Planner APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 11, 1979, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COrQfISSZON NIINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Dr. Vos, to approve the December 11, 1979, Co�unity Development Commission minutes as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Oquist declared the motion carried unanimously. 1. PROGRESS ON CONDO CONVERSION DRAFT ORDINANCE: Mr. Deblon stated he had hoped staff would be able to report on some progress on the condo conversion draft ordinance, but that Virgil'Herrick was still reviewing it. Because Mr. Herrick had to spend time on the Comprehensive Plan and the Center City Pxoject, he hadn't had much time to comment on the draft ordinance. Ms. Gustafson stated that as part of an ordinance, it should be stated that condominiums to be converted have to be brought up to code. The same should be included for single family homes; that before single family homes are sold, they must also be brought up to code. Dr. Vos stated he had some problems with that, because there could be many older homes that are not up to current codes. There could be changes in electrical codes, fire codes, etc. So, to bring a house up to code could be a financial hindrance. It would maybe stop condo conversion, but it would also put a burden on xhe whole real estate industry. He thought it would be easier to put that kind of statement into just an ordinance for condo convexsion, because iY was going from one use to anotheY use. He saw it as two different issues. Ms. Gustafson stated she did not see it as two different issues. There was still home ownership in condo conversion. In bringing a house up to code, she did not mean current building codes, but a minimum safety code or safety standards that these homes would have to meet. She thought that at one time, 'the Coum�ission had talked about a code like that. - COlIISUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 8, 1980 - Page 2 Mr. Deblon stated he did no[ know what the City had sight now, but he knew that in the Comprehensive Plan, they wanted a systematic inspection at the time of sale for single family homes. At the present time, the City systematically inspects apartments. Ae stated he would ffnd our exactly what the criteria was for these inspections and what authority the City had,for`repairs, etc. Mr. Oquist stated that, for the present, the Commission would just have to wait for Mr. Herrick's opinion before drafting an ordinance on condo conversions. 2. INFORMATION ON TRUNK HIGHWAY 10 AND NORTH CROSSROWN: Mr, Deblon stated that the Commission had received a packet of information regarding this item. Mr. Deblon stated that the State Transportation Commissioner, Richard Braun, has chosen the relocated 10 alternative as the route to be constructed. It involves a 3.5 mile segment. He stated that this decision has caused a lot of controversy and a lot of implications in regard to the North Crosstown. Mr. Deblon continued that the first concern was President Carter's urban policy on circumferential freeways -- that development should be back toward the center city and not lend itself to urban sprawlvrhir3zcircumferential freeways tend to do. Mr. Deblon stated that the second concern was the Alternatives Analysis. Now that the Comnissioner has selected the relocated Highway 10, that eliminated two Crosstown zoute alternatives. There were four alternative routes. This was discussed thoroughly by the consultant and it was decided they would carry all four alternatives through in their study, even though relocated Highway 10 has been chosen. Mr. Deblon said the third concern was energy, and the fourth concern was muncipal review -- getting concurrence from all affected municipalities. Mr. Deblon stated that regarding the urban policy on circumferential freeways, the consultant stated that if he had'known about this a year ago, he would have said, "nothing to the west": In other words, they would have dropped that part of the highway project that extended through the Maple Grove area. Mr. Deblon stated that included with the packet o£ information was an "Overall Project Development Schedule" prepared by BRW. The consultant felt this was a very realistic schedule. As shown, construction for TH 610/TH 252 would begin in 1985 and would be completed in the fall of 1987. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 8 1980 - PAGE 3 ADJOURNMENT; MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Ms. Gustafson, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Oquist declared the January 8, 1980, Community Development Comonission meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Respectfully su mitted, eL r-CL� yn Saba Recording Secretary 0 � . . c `1 ���� f l CITY OF FRIDLSY � PLANNING COIMSISSION MEfiTING, JAN[TARY 23, 1980 CALL TO ORDER• Chairman Harris called the January 23, 1980, Planning Cov�ission meeting tocrder at 7:45 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present; Mr. Harris, Mr. Treuenfels, Mr. Langenfeld, Mr. Oquist, Ms, Hughes, Ms. Schnabel Members Absent: None Others Present: Jerrold Boardman„City Planner Bill Deblon, Asaociate City Planner APPROVAL OF JANUARY 9 1980 PLANNING COMMISSIQN MINUTES: MOTION by Mx. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to approve the January 9, 1980, Planning Commission minutes as corrected. Mr. Langenfeld wished to have the minutes further explain his feelings noted on page 2, paragraph 6. He stated his concern was not only personal, but also was concexned for the poasible political implications-because the Spring Brook Foundation =.�_��� had not renewed their contracY. Ms, Hughes added Chat the Park Commission was not upset because the Foundation had not renewed the3r contract. The Commission felt what was set out to do by the Spring Brook Yark Foundation had been accomplished and the City should take over the park at this point. UPON A VQICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CFIAIRMAN HARRIS DHCLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 1. CONTINUED: PROPOSSD CHAN6E5 TO CHAPTfiR ZOS. ZONlNG Mr. Boardman explained all previous corrections and changes given to staff by all the co�isaiona had been incorporated in this draft. CHANGES AND CORRfiCTIONS PAGE 1• Bottom paragraph - delete duplicate line PAGE 3• Definition no. 21 - add the word adoption after the word marriage PLANNIBiG C,OMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY„Q3..19B0 PAGE 2 PAG& 5: • Definition no. 43 - change pexmitted to included Add definition for "Recyling Centex" PAGS 10: No. 4- Mr. Harris felt the texm fair market value should be deleted from thia item. He felt it would difficult to determine that cost it a building was damaged. Mr. Boardman �epl�ed because this building in question was of a non-conforming use, we want to get rid of the structure and we ahould have some type of dollar amount to de- termine the value it would cost to replace the structure. He also stated this standard comes from the state�i and they use a dollar amount. The commission reworded the item to read ...(50%) or more of its assessed oaltat�an as determined ... PAGS 14• The commission took no action on section 205.047 (Environmental Quality) until updated state charta are brought in by memher Barbsa Hughes, PAGE 17: No. S- Mr. Harris asked the co�ission members if a 350 foot radius of property owners wae large enough': for notification on co�iasion business. Mr. Boardman stated this was in line with state requirements for notification. The commission agreed it was Aadequate. PAGE 20: No. 3- Same question as for page 17, except for a 200 foot radius. Ms. Sc%"nabel said the Appeals Commisaion felt this distance was fair. However her co�isaion felt there should be some type of notification to adjoining property owners when a lot split was requeated. Presently there was no notification. Mr. Boardman stated he would check into that request. He thought it would require a modification in the Platting Ordinance. PAGE 22: Firet paragraph change bonded to secured. No. 4- Ms. Schnabel said the Appeals Commission felt some type of time period should be placed on a building pexviit. For example, work must be completed within�. 2 yeara after the building permit was isaued. The Appeals Co�ission felt there were many, and continuing instances in Fridley where projects were started by private individuals and never completed. This causes a visu�l and possible dangerous situation for a neigh- borhood. Mr. Boardman said he would have to check into the legality of that requirement. Ms. Hughes asked what the city could do to someane who has not completed construction within the time period. � Ms. Schnabel said one recourse could be revoking the building permit. The city should have some sort of recourse. P�.ANNING COhAIISSION MEBTII�IG. JANUARY y� _ taan PAGE 3 • Ma. Hughes pointed out if the pet�mit was revoked, the canstruction would never be com- pleted. If there was a dangex or problem to the neighborhood, that could be handled because of the health, safety, and welfare factox�_already provided in the ordinance. PAGE 23: Section 205.06 (Distxict Provisions) Mr. Boardman stated this aection was not included in this draft but will be included in the final copy. PAGE 24• Correct section number on top of page to 205.071 No. 2A-2 - The co�isaion felt the wording of this sentence was not clear and should be reworded. No. 2D - This section refers to mother-in-law apartments. Mr. Harris eaid this type of houaing was needed but felt there should be some type of follow up from the city, for example the fire marshall, to make sure there was adequate ventelation and exits in case of a fire or emergency in these apartments. Mr. Boardman suggested a license could be required to have a unit like this in your home. This would give the city the legal means to ensure all safety factors are being met. •Ms. Hughes stated a license would not cure the problem on unsafe conditions if the _ homeowner does not apply for a license. The unsafe canditions will be existing even before that area of the home was converted to an apartment. The license was one more example of control on top of control on top of control. She felt it was an unnecessary invasion of privacy and the safety factors were more important. Mr. Harris said the license would give the city the legal means to go into a home and make sure the apartment was safe. If it did not meet requirements, the city c wld revnke the license and shut down the apartment until safety precautions were taken. He stated the license fee should be very minimal. Mx. Oquiat questioned the definition on limited dwelling, Mr. Soardman stated a limited dwelling was a comp3.etely self-contained unit within a single-family dwelling, It will be occupied by a family member and muat have at least one main entrance through the main single-family dwelling atructure. Ms. Hughes questioned if a walkout basement would be legal. The outside door could be used as a main entrance to allow for more privacy for both parties. Mr. Boardman replied it would be legal so long as the entrance inside the home was not blocked off. No. 3A - change wording to: Secondary accessory building as per section 205.071. • No. 3B - Mr. Boardman stated churchea and private schoals were placed under the special use pexmit aection. P�.AHIVING COMMISSION MESfING. JANUARY 2�, 1980 PAGE 4 . No. 3C - change wording: All non-co�ercial, golf course, country club, yacht clubs, tennis courta and swi�rming pools and additional recreational uses and not an acceasory use to the principal uses in R-1 Distract. PAGE 25: G - delete Sectian 205.073 (Lot Requirements and Setbacks) Item 1- Mr. Oquist stated' the minimum Lot size was now 7,500 square feet. The Co�unity Development Co�mnission felt this size was adequate and followed the rem mmenda- tion of the Metro Council. Because of land ahortage and land costs, any size larger becomes prohibitive. He also pointed out the 60 foat width requirement for lot size. Mr. Harris questioned if setbacks should be changed because lot size requirements had been made amaller. He thought it could be hard to place a house on that size width lot and still meet all the setback requirements. Mr. Oquist said the setbacka were not to ensure a certain size house, but to ensure adequate apace between homes for health and safety. PAGE 27: Ms. Schnabel asked the Commission to jump ahead to page 2Z where minimum floor area • requirements was discussed. She noted on the last paragraph of page 27 the work or ahould be the word of. Ms. Schnabel said the Appeals Co�ission had come up with a recommendation for minimum floor requirements. 1. Lot of 9,000 square feet or larger - 1,020 square feet on the first floor, including garage area. 2. Lot of less than 9,000 square feet - 768 square feet on the first floor, exclusive= of garage area. The Appeals Commission felt they would like to get away from home style definitions (split level, rambler, etc.). They also felt these lots could handle the recommended aize home and still be consistent with the area. Mr. Oquist questioned the fact that a house on a smaller lot was almost as large as a home on the larger lot, even though`a garage had been fincluded on the larger size lot. The Appeals Commission supports the including of a garage because a garage not only houses a vehicle, but also was a storage place for combustible items that normally would be stored in the home; storage of miscellaneous items (bikes, trailers, yard equipment, etc.) that would be unsightly; and they felt a garage would not be a financial bur�en on someone who buys a lot of at least 9,000 square feet. Mr. Oquist pointed out a garage was an expenaive item and could make the difference between someone being able to purchase the home or not being able to purchase the home. Mr. Oquist questioned if garages were even needed as a requirement. He did not think it was fair to place a garage requirement on a certain size home and not another size • home. The question of a garage need was not aesthetics, but safety and welfare. Mr. Boardman pointed out the AppesYs reco�ended floor requirements would give the same visual appearance if there was a garage or not. • • • F�,e(NNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANtJARY 23. 1980 PAGE 5 Ms, Hughes atated she thought the city in the past had not required attached garages. Mr. Boardman said the requirement was for detached garages. The city had desired to see attached garages inore recently. Mr. Oquist stated again that financially some builders may desire not to build garages because that would help lower their costs and therefore make more people able to pur- chase the home. Ms. Hughes felt a vote should be taken to see if garages should be required. Et�en if they were not required by ordinance, it would not prohibit the construction of a garage. MOTION by Ms, Hughes, seconded by Mr. Oquist to delete Section 205.075 (Parking Requirementa), Item 1(Garage Requiresant) and change Item 2(General Provisiona ) to Item 1. UPON A VOICE VOTE� OQUIST, HUGHES, FIARRIS� TREUENFELS� LANGENFELD VOTING AYE� SCHNABEL VOTING NAY, CHAIRMAN iTARRIS DECLE�I2ED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A 5 TO 1 VOTE. PAGE 25: (Continuedj Mr. Harris questioned if 60 feet would be wide enough for a corner lot. Mr. Boardman said a house could be designed to fit the lot and meet all requirements. PAGE 26• No. 45-3 - Ms. Schnabel said since the co�ission was not reqsiring a garage to be huilt, did they want to change the side yard requirement of 13 fe.:t to something larger so a garage could be built in the future. She pointed out that 13 feet would not give enoughs room for an attached garage and recommended a 17 foot sideyard requirement. Mr. Boardman said the city cannot control if adeqsate space was left for an attached garage, just so long as minimwm requiremente were set and met. He stated a detached garage could be built instead of an attached garage. Ms. Hughes said she thought Mr. Boardman stated earlier detached gaxages were not allowed. Mr. Boardman corrected himself. He also said the city's responsibility was to only allow area foT the possibility of a garage and that was what the 13 feet did. If the homeowner deaired to build an attached garage in the future, he would have to plan for that when he built. The 13 feet was only a minimum sideyard and the homeowner could leave more if he chooses. Ms. Schnabel said that was why she felt this section should read 17 feet and not 13 feet to allow fox the future. Mr. Oquist pointed out that the ordinance was not a reminder to the homeowner on how. much room to leave for future expansion. It only sets the minimum sideyaxd requirement and if the homeowner want to leave more room he can do so. Mr. Boardman suggested rewording this sentence to: Where a house is conatructed:r�ithout a garage, a aideyard of thirteen (13) feet is required. The covmission agreed to "that. PLANNING COME3ISSION MEETINGL JANUARY 23. 1980 PAGE 6 . PAGE 27: No. D2 - omit "or welfare" from last sentence. 205.074 (Building Requirements), Item 2(Minimum floor area) Ms. Schnabel referred to her previous stated reco�endations on minimum floor area: 1. Lot of 9,000 square feet or larger - 1,020 square feet on the first floor, including garage area. 2. Lot of less than 9,000 square feet - 768 square feet on the first floor, exclusive of garage area. The Appeals Commission felt there should be a stated number of square feet required to be consistenC with the xest of the city. The new ordinance copy has no stated minimum required aquare footage. Mr. Boardman atated "theg were using the state code. Each type of room (bedroom, bath, kitchen, and livingroom), haa a stated minimum square footage area required. This way if a builder only needs to build a 2 bedroom home, he would only have to build a square footage area for 2 bedrooms, Gath, kitchen and Livingroom and nothing extra. This would help cut down on wasted space and dollars. Mr. Boardman said he did not have the minimum square footage for each type of room as stated by the stete. Ms. Schnabel asked the commission to hold off any decision on this section until they can look at the state figures and compare them with Appeal's recommendatian. . PAGE 28: Change part 3 of Parking Requirements to 2 and (2) to (1) in same section. 205.076 (Performance Standards) No. lA - Chan�e to: All materials shall be kept in a building or shall be fully acreened, so as not to be visible from any public right-of-way, except where Che .. 3B - delete PAGE 29• 4A - change to: All open areas of any site, except for areas used for parking, drive- ways, or atorage shall be sodded or seeded. End of R-1 District MOTION by Ms, Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels to continue the discussion on pro- posed chaaged to Chapter 205. Zoning. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN FIAR1tIS DBCLARED THE MOTION CARAIED. 2, RECEIVE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTfiORITY MINUTES; DECII�ER 13, 1974: � MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded hy Mr. Oquist to receive the Housing and Redevelop- ment Authority minutes of December 13, 1979. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 23, 1980 PAGE 7 • Mr. Langenfe�d pointed out the discussion on page 2 about either a PUD (Planned Unit Development) Ordinance or Special Use Permit for the Overlay Zoning District. Mr. Boardman said it was still under discussion with Mr. Herrick, but that he preferred the apecial use permit. Mr. Boardman also stated the Center City Project had aome proposals and they will be presented at the Jaivary 24, 1980 meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. UPON A VOIC$ VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CtiAIRMAN FIARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 3. RECEIVE COMM[TNITY DSVELOPMENT COMNIISSION MIN[I,B,ES: JAN[TARY 8. 1980 MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Hughes to receive the Com�unity Development Co�ission minutes of January 8, 1980. Mr. Oquist said Mr. Herrick was sti11 reviewing the condo conversion draft ordinance. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN ELARRIS DHCLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 4. OTHEFt BUSINESS Mr. Langenfeld read a copy of the letter he sent to the City Manager and Council in response to being asked to be on the Energy Co�ission. It stated he felt the people who served on the Energe Cou�ittee were all very talented and they all had worked very hard and with great speed to set up the guidelines and policies of the � &nergy Co�nission. They were under the impression that the new commission was greatly needed. However, he felt, as of yet, there had been no real action taken on using ` their work and getting this cou¢nission going. Ms. Hughes said she received information that the League of Minnesota Cities has set up funding to help cities establish a noiae ordinance and noise planning area in their cities. Mr. Boardman said he received the same information and it will be preaented to the Council at their next conference meeting for discussion. MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels to receive the Guidelines for the Setting of the Prioritization of Funding Requests as prepared by City staff and to be passed onto the Human Resource Co�ission for review and co�ent. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION-C6RRIED, Mr. Harris asked Mr. Treuenfels to have his commission look at the document, add to or amend as they desire and bring it back to the Planning Co�ission. MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Schnabel to receive the memo from Mary Cayan. UPON A VOICB VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHATRMAN y�IS DHCLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. � This memo was an outline of the meeting with the Ministerial Committee of Fridley, city staff and Planning Co�ission members to see what type of social services are provided already in the city. Ms. Hughes said ahe noted some duplication of services PLANNING COtMiiSSiON MEETING JANUARY 23 1980 p,AGg $ • provided by the various churches, but �elt that was good. That would give the opportunity for someane to go more than one place to get help or services. Mr. I3arris said they also had a meeting with co�mnunity schools and the commission should get a similar su�ar� on that meeting. They would be meeting with the county for the same reasons soon. Mr. Langenfeld said the various resources of social services should pool their infornna- tioa into one media. Mr. Treuenfels said the Fridlev Comomittee Service Bulletin;,, does just that and they do try to cover all areas and agencies. Ms. Schnabel said the city should handle this pooling of resources. It cannot be handled by the school because there aYe numberous districts in the city, Mr. Boardman said that was the purpose of these meetings. We don't know what the needs are yet, we have to identify them, see what agencies provide the service, and then see where the city can help, Mr. Harris read a notice from the Metro Council about a seminax to be held on 2/12/80, at the Radisson South. Any interested commission members should let Mr, Boardman know by 2/4/80 if they want to attend. MY. Langen£eld felt the conmmission members should get a gas allowance for attending monthly meetings. NBDTION by Mr. Langenfeld, aeconded by Ms. Schnabel to haue Council grant a monihly expense for gas of $5.00 per person. UPON A VOICE VOTE, OQUIST, HUGHES, TREUENFELS, SCHNABEL, LANGENF&LD VOTING AYE, HARRIS VOTING NAY, CHAIRMAN H,ARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A 5 TO 1 VOTE. MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Oquist to adjoum the January 23, 1980, meeting of the Planning Co�ission at 11:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted O � Paule, R. Long, Recnr g Secretary •