Loading...
PL 01/23/1980 - 30528r, r � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING CUNIMISSION MEETING, JANUA1tY 23, 1980 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the January 23, 1980, Planning Commission meeting tocgder $t / :1+5 P sM• RQLL CAZL: Members Present; Mr. Iiarris, Mr. Treuenfels, Mx. Langen�eld, Mro Oquis�, Ms. Hughes, Ms. Schnabel Members Absent: None Others Present: Jerrold Boardman,City Planner Bill Deblon, Associate Citty Planner A�'PROVAI, OF JANU�RY 9. 198Q, PLAI�NING COMMISSION MINUTES : MOTION by Mr. LangenfeZd, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, t� approve tlie January 9, 1980, Planning Gommission mi�.iutes ns corrected. Mx. Langenfeld wished to have the minutes further e..xplain his feelings noted on page 2, garagxaph 6. He stated his concem was no� only personal, but also was concexned for ti�e possible_political implicarions because the Spxir.g Brock Founda�ion =_. had not renewed their contract. Mso Hughes added that the Park Commission was not upset because the Fau:xdation had not renewed their contracto The Commission Felt what was set oui: to do by the Spring Brook Park Foundation had been accomplished and the Ci�.y shoul� take o•re�r the park at this point. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTSNG AYE, CHt�IRMAN Ht�RRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CAldRIEI3. 1. CONTINUED: PP.O�OSED CH�'GES TO CHA1'TER 205. ZONING Mr. Boardman expla iued all �revious correctio�s and changes given to sta£f by all the co�nissions had been incorporated in this dxaft. CHANGES AND CORR�CTIONS PAGE 1: Bottom paragraph - delete duplicate line PAGE 3: • nDefinition no. 21 m add tiie word adop�ion after the wurd marriage � PLI�NrIING COMMISSIOAT MEETING, JAA'U.�RY 23A 1980 P�'aGE 2 .. PAGE 5• Definition no. 43 - change pexmitted to included '� Add definition fo�c "Recyling Center" PAGE 10: No. 4- Mr. Harris felt the terfm fair market value should be deleted from thia item. fle fel� it would difficult to determine that cost if a building was damaged. Mr. Boardman xeplied because this building in question was of a non-con£orming use, we waa�t to get rid of L-he structure and we should 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 and they use a dollax amount. The co�ission reworded the item to read . e.(50%) or more o= its assessed val�sation as determined o o. PAGE 1�• The commission icook no action on section 205.047 (Environmen�al Quality} until updated state charts are brought in by member Barbxa Hughes. � PAGE 17• Noe 5- Mr. Harris asked the com�ission members if a 350 foot radius of property ownexs was la�ge enough. for no�tification on commission business, Mro Boardman stated this w�.s in line with state requirem�nts for notifica�tion. The commission ag�ceed itc was adequa�ee � PAGE 20° No: 3- Same question as for page 17, except for a 2Q0 foot radiuso Ms. Sc:�nabL1 naid �he Apgeals CommLssion felt this distance was faixe However her corr�ission felt the;s.e should be some type of notification to adjoining p-roperty owneYS when a lot spl�t was requestede Presently there was no notificationo Mra Boardman stat�d he;would checic into thai xequest, Tie thought it would require a modificai�ion in t�ie Platting OrdinancP4 PAGE 22• �. Fi�st paragxaph change bonded to secuged. No< 4� Mso Schnabel said the Appeals Conmiissian felt same type of time period should be placed on a building permite For exartzple, work must be completed within- 2 years aftex the building permit was issued� The Appeals Commission felfc there we�e many, and continuing instances in Fridley where projects wexe sta.rted by private individu�ls and never comple�eda This causes a visual and possible dangerous situation for a neigh•• borhood. Mro Boardcnan said hz caould have to check into the legality of that requirement. Mso Hughes asked what the city could do to someone who has not completed construction within the time period. Mse Schnabel said oae recourse could be revoking the building permito The city shoi='� have some sort of recoursee 0 � ���4I�I��iYvG CC�P•u�1TSSI0Pd 1^'4EETING, J'�fI�1UAR� .�1 qaRO Pt�GE 3 � Ms. Hughes pointed out if the pea:mit was revoked, the construction would never be com- pleted. Ii there was a danger or problem to the neighborhood, that could be handled because of the health, safety, and welfa�e factora already provided in the ordYnance. PAGE 23• ...._....__ • Section 205.06 (Dist�t Provisions) Mr. Boardcnan stated this section was not included in this d.raft but will be included in the final copy. PAGE 24• �• Gorrect section number on top of page to 205.071 No. 2A-2 - The co�ission felt the wording of this sentence was not clear and should be reworded. � lYo. 2D - This section xefers to mother-in-law apartments. Mr, Harris �aid this type of housing was needed but felt there should be some type of follow up from the city, for exa.mple the fire znarshall, to malce sure there was adequate ventelation and exits in case of a fire or emergea�cy in these apartments. M�. Boaxdma.n..suggssted a].icense 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. n Mse Hughes stated a iicense would not cure the problem on unsafe conditions if the homeowner does not apply for a license. The unsafe conditions will be existing even �~ � before that area of �he home was convexted to an �pa-rtment. The license w�,s one more example of control on �op of con�xol on top of conL-rol. She �e1t it ��as a2� unn�cessa3cy invas�on of privacy a.nd the safety iactors were more important. Mrb Harris said the license would give the city the legal means to go into a home and make su�e the apartmer�� was safeo If it did no� meet requiremen�s, the citg cauld revoke the license and shut down the apartment c�ntil safety precautions wexe taken. He stated the license fee should be very minima.la Mr. Oquist questioned the definition on limited dwelling, Mr. Boardm�nn stated a limited dwelling �aas a compleiely self-contained unit within a single-family dwellingo It will be occupied by a family member and must have afc least one main entrance through the main single-family dwelling structuree Mso Hughes questioned if a�aalkout basement would be legal. The ou�side 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 �.he home was not blocked offo . No. 3A - change worcling to: Secondary accesso-ry building as per section 2Q5.071, ^ Noo 3B - riro Boardman stated churchea and private scliools were placed under f:he special . use permit sectiono Q PI.�NNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 23q 1980 PAGF 4 � No. 3C - change wording: All non-commercial, golf course, country club, yacht club� tennis courts and swimming pools and additional recreational uses and not an access< ,, use to the principal uses in R-1 Distrd.ct. PAGE 25• G - delete Section 205.073 (Lot Requirements and Setbacks) Itea► 1 m Mr. Oquist stated' the minisnum lot size was now 7,500 square feet. The Community Development Cominission felt this size was adequaice and followed �he rea��enda�- tion of the Metro Council. Because of land shortage and land costs, any size largex� becomes prohibitiiveo He also pointed out t�he 60 fv�t width requiremenic for lot size. P�. Iiarris questioned if se�backs shouLd be changed because lot size requirements had been anade smallero He thought it could be hard to place a house on that size width lot and still meet al1 the setback requi�cementso . Mr. Oquist sazd the setbacks wex� not to ensure a cextain size house, but to ensure adequate space between homes for health and safety. PAGE 27° Mse Schnabel asked the Commissa.on to jump ahead to pa.ge 27� where miniqnum floor a�rea r�quirements was discussedo She noted on the last paragrapti of page 27 fhe work or ^ should be the word ofo Ms, Schnabel said the Appeals Co�i.ssion had come up wit�i a. reeammend�tion for niinimum fl.00,r_ requirements. 1. Lot of 9,000 sq�ar� fPet or large� � 1,02Q square fset on tk�e �irs.� floor, including garage area. 2o Lo� of less tha� 9,000 square fee� � 76� squaxe feet on the first floor, � exclusive-. of gaxage areao The a4ppea? s Commission felt� they w�u.ld li.lee to get a�aay from home style de�initions (split level, ramble�, etcm)o Th�y also felt these lats could handle �the reco�ended size home and still be consistent with the a.reao Mro Oquist questioned the fact that a hous� �n a smallPr lo� was almost as laxge as a home on �he larger loty even rhough a garage had been inciu,ded on �he largex size io�a �.'he Appeals Cau�►ission supports the including of a garage b�cause a garage not only housPS a vehic':s bu� also was a storage place fox combustible i�ems tha.t norm�lly ��ould be sitored in � �►ame; s�orage of miscellaneous items (bikes, trailersy yard equipmenty etco) �that wo �e unsigntly; and they felt a garage would not be a financial burelen on someone wha ,�uys a lo� of at least 9,000 square feeto Mr. Oquist pointed out a garage was an expensive item and could make the difference between someone being able to purchase �he home or n�t being able to purchase the home. Mr. Oqui�t questioned if garages caere 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 welfareo � M7r, IIoaxdman pointed ou� the Appeal's recommended floor requirements w�uld give the � same visual appearaatce if thexe was a gaxage or no9:, * �i;�li�TNING CO?yII�IISSION MEETING� Jt11�1U�,Ri' 23, 19E0 p��g 5 Ms. Hughes stated she thought the city in the past had not required attached garages, � Mr. Boardman said the requirement was for detached garageso The city had desired to aee attached garages more recently. . Mr. Oquist stated again that financially some builders may desire not to build garages because that would help los,�er their costs and therefore make mare people �ble to pur- chase the home. Ms. Hughes felt a vote should be taken to see if garages should be required, Even ir they were not required by ordinance, it would not prohibit the coa�struction of a garage. MOTION by Ms, Hughes, seconded by Mr, Oquist to delete Section 2050075 (Parking Requixements), Item 1(Garage Requir.e�ent) and change I�em 2(General Provisions ) to Item 1. UPON A VOICE VOTE, OQUIST, HUGHES, HARRIS, TREUENFELS, LANGENFELD VOTT.I�TG AYE, SCHN.�3EL VOTING N.4Y, CHAIRML�N HARRgS DECLARED THE MvTION CARRIED BY A 5 TO 1 VOTE • PA�E 25: (Continued) Mxe Harxis questiaz�ed if 60 feeft would be wide enough for a corrier lot. I�ir, Boa�dman said a house could be designed to fit� the lot and meet �11 xequi�enlents, PA, GE 26: No. 4B-3 - Mso Schnabel said since the coa�mission was no� rEq,siring a garage to be built, did �hey want to change the side yard requiremea�t of 13 fe.:t to something la�ger so a garage cou1�. be built in Lhe fu.tur�o She po�niea out that 13 feeg would not give enough.� room for an atta.ched garage and xecommended a 17 foot sideyard requirement. Mro Boardmare sa9 d the city cannot cantxol if adeqsa�t� sgac� was le£t £ox. an af�tached ga�age, just so lang as minimum requirements e�ere set and me�. He s�a�ed a detached garage could be built ins�te�d of an ati.ached garage. Mso Hughes�said she thought Mr. Boa�dma.ai stated ea�lier detached garages we�°e not alloweda Mr. Bo�.rdman corrected hi.mselfa He also said the city's responsibility was to only allow area for th.e possibili�y o� a gaxage and�that was wha.t the 13 �eet dido If the I�omeowner desired to build an dttached garage in tl�e future, he �aouid lzave to plan £or that when he buil�a The 13 fee� was only a minimum sideyard and the �omeowner could leava more if he choosesa Mso Schnabel said that taas why she relt this section should read 17 �eet and not 13 feet to allow for the future, M�. Oquist pointed ov.t that the ordinance was not a reminder to the homeownex on how much room to leave for future expansiono It only sets the mini.mum sideyaxd requirement and if th� homeowner want to leave mora room he can do so. �� M�. Boardman suggested rewording this sentence to: Where a house is constructed without s garagey a sideyard of thirteen (13) feet is r�qui�red, The commission agreed to `that. L PL�NNi�vG GOMMISSION MEETING9_ 3ANNU.A:.�Y 23, 1980 PAGE b PAGE 27• No. D2 - omit "or welfare" from last sentence. 205.074 (Building Requirements), Item 2(Minimum floos 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 firs� floox, including garage area. 2. Lot of less than 9,000 square feet - 76$ 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 consistent with the xest of the city. The new ordin�nce copy has no �t�ted minimum required square footagea Mr. Boardman stated �the}� were using the sfcate codeo Each type of room (bedroom, bath, kitchen, and livingroom). has a stated minimum square footage area required, This way i€ a builder only needs to build a 2 bedroom home, he would only h.ave to build a square footage area f�r Z bedrooms, bath, kitchen and. livings•Uom and nothing extra. This would help cut down on wasted space and dollars. Mro Boardman said he did not have the ninimum square footage fo-r each type of room as stated by the steteo 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 recommendation. PAGE 28: Change part 3 of Parking Requiremen�s �0 2 and (2) to (1) in same section. 2050076 (Performance Standards) � No, lA - Change to: A11 materials shalL be kept in a building or shall h.e_fully screened, so as not to be visible from a.�y public right-of-way, �cept where the ... 3fi � delete PAGE 29• 4A - ch4nge to: All ogen a�eas of any site, eaccept for areas used for parking, driJe� ways, or storage shall be sodded or seededm � Ea�d of R>1 District MOTION by Msa Schnabel, seconded by Mro Treuenfels to continue i.h.� d.iscussion on pro- posed changed to Chaptex 205. Zoning. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRM.�N �IARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARfiIED. ' 2. RECEIVE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPD�NT AUTHORITY MINUTES: DECII�ER_13, 1979_: MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mro Oquist to receive the Housing and Redevel�� ment Authority minu.tes of December 13, 1979s `- � PLAt�1ING COMNIISSION ME�T��IG, JANUAR.Y 23, 1980 p�G� 7 NLr. Langenfeld pointed out the discussion on page 2 about either a PUD (Planned Unit ��` Development) Ordinance or Special Use Permit for the Overlay Zoning DisCxic�. Mr. Boardman said it was still under discussion with Mr. Herrick, but that he preferred the special use permit. Mr. Boardman also stated the Center City Project had some proposals and �hey will be presented at the Jaivary 24, 1980 meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 3. RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONIMISSION MINU`�S : JANIJARY 8 1980 MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Hughes to receive the Community Development Commission minutes of Ja,nuary 8, 1980, M�. Oquist said Mr. Herxick was still reviewing the condo conversion draft ordinance. ZJPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRM�N HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIEDa 4. OTI�R BUSINESS Mr. Langenfeld read a copy of the letter he sent to the City Ma.nager and Council in xesponse to being asked to be on the Energy Commission. It stated he felt the people who served on the Energe Committee were all very tale.nted and they all had worked very hard and with gre�t speed to se�t up the guidelines and policies of the � Energy Commissione They were under the impression that the aew commission was greaicly needed. However, he fe1t, as of yet, there had been no real action taken on using � their work and getting this commission goingo I�Is, Hughes said she received informa�tion that the League of Minneso�a Cities has se� up funding to help cities establish a noise ordinance and noise planning area in their cities. Mlc. Boardman said he received the same information and it will be presented to the Council at their next conference meeting for discussion. MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mre Treuenfels to receive the Guidelines fo� the Setting of the Prioritization of Funding Requests as prepared by City staff and to be passed onto the Human Resource Commission for review and comment. UPON A VOTCE VOTE, ALL VOTIlVG AYE9 CHAIFM�IN %L�.RRTS DECLAR�D THE MOTION CARRIED, Mr. Harris asked Mr, Tgeuenfe�.s to have his commission loo� at the documenY, add to ox amend as theJ desire and bring it back to Che Planning C�mmission. MOTIOIV by Mr, Langenfeld, seconded by Mso Schnab�l to receive the memo from Ma1ry Cayano UPON A VOIC� VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CH..A712I�1AN HARRTS DECLARED THE MOTION CA.RRIED, �1 This memo was an outline of the me�ting �aith the Ministerial Committee of Fridley, - city staff and 1.'lanning Commission members to see wl�at type of social seavices are provided alzeady in the city. Ms. Hughes sai3 she noted some duplication of services «, PI.�".NNING �OP�iISSION MEETING, JAT�LTARY 23a 198� PAGE 8 provided by the various chur.ches, but �elt that was good, That would give the opportunity for someone to go more than one place to g�t help or senrices. Mr. Harris said they also had a meeting with community schools and the commission should get a similar su�ar3� on that meetingo They would be meeting with the county for the same reasons soon. Mr. Langenfeld. said the various resources of soc3.a1 services should pool their informa- tion into one media. Mro Treuenfels said the Fridlev Committee Service Bulletim, does jus� that and they do t1-y fco cover all areas and a6encies . . Ms. Schnabel said the city should handle this pool�ng of resou?-ces, It cannoti be handled by the school because there are numberous districts in the city. 0 Nlx. Boa�dnnan. said thet was the purpose of these meetc�ngs . We don't know wh.at the needs are yet, we have to iden�tify them, see wlzat agencies provide the service, aaid then see where the city can help. Mr. Iiarris read a notice from the Metro Council about a seminar to be held on 2/?2/80, at the Radisson SouLho Any inte�estad cotmnission membexs should let Mro Boardman know �y 2/4/80 if they want t�o attend, Mxo Langeniel�l felt the commission members should get a gas allowance fox ar��endin�;� mon�hly meetingso �� MOTTON by Mre La.ngenfeld, sec�nded by Mse Schnabel to have Co�ancil gra.�i� a mo�,ty expense for gas of $5.00 peg perso�, UPON A VGICT VOTE, OQUTST9 HIJGHES, TIZEUEN�'ELS, SCHNABEL, 7.�iNGFl�?FE"LD VOTi�TG AYE� H�AP.RIS VOTING Yd�.b,.X, CH�.IRi�iN HAi�1.tTS DECLL�RED THE 1�J'r�ON CAR�tTETS BY A 5 TO 1�30i:� o ADJ'OUiZI�NT Mt7TI0N by Mx. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. OQuist to adjotam t�ie January 23, 1980, mee�ing of the Plan�zing Commission at 11:15 EoMa Respectfully submitted �L����-�� - �s-a- Paula R. Long, Recard�i.�g Secretary . �