PL 05/21/1980 - 30536;�
/"'�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING CONIMISSION MEETING, N1AY 21, 1980
CALL TO ORDER•
Acting Chairperson Langenfeld called the May 21, 1980, Planning Commission
meeting to order aC 7:38 p.m.
ROLL CALL • �
Members Present: Mr. Harris (arr. 7:39 p.m.), Nir. Treuenfels, Mr. Oquist,
Ms. Gabel (€or Ms. Schnabel), Mr. Langenfeld, Mr. Wharton
Members Absent: Ms. Hughes
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
Isabelie & Duane Motzko, 290 Ely St. N.E.
Ken Brustad, 272 Ely St. N.E.
APPROVAL OF MAY 7, 1980, PLANNING CO1�'ICSSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms, Gabel, to approve the May 7, 19$0,
Planning Commission minutes as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously.
1. PIIBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMTT, SP �8Q-03, DUANE MOTZKO:
Per Section 205.051, 2, A, of the Fridley City Code, to alZoca the
construction of a second accessory building, a 22 ft. by 22 ft. detached
garage for the storage of a boat and car, located on lots 45 and 46,
Block 11, Spring Brook Park Addition, the same being 290 E1y St. N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to open the public hearing
on SP ��80-03 by Duane Motzko. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris
declared the public hearing open at 7:40 p.m.
Mr. Boardman stated this is a 60 ft. lot. The present building is a house
with an attached garage. The proposal is for the construction of a detached
garage in the rear yard for storage. Because of the situation and because
the Zoning Code requires a special use permit for a second accessory building.
in excess of 240 sq. ft., Mr. Motzko is proposing a special use permit.
Mr. l�totzko stated the existing attached garage wi11 remain a garage. He is
in need of another garage just for storage of a car and boat. He intends to
cut a garage door in the back of the existing garage, then build a 10 foot
patio between the two garages, so there would be about 14 feet between the two
garages.
Mr. Motzko stated that
remain open, he would
alley, but he was not
^ future. .
if he had the o.k. from the City that the a11ey would
put the garage back farther and have access through the
assured that the alley would remain accessible in the
��
PLANNING CONIMISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 1980 PAGE 2
n
Mr. Harris stated that Mr. Motzko may have received some misinformation about
alleys, .
Mr. Boardman stated that anytime there is access off an alley, the alley should
not be closed, and Mr. Motzko would have legal recourse if ,an alley he was
using was closed. It was a question of what would work better for Mr.Motzko,
knowing that the alley may or may not ever be improved. Mr. Boardman stated
that the City will not plow alleys unless they are paved alleys. If there
are not enough people on a block to request the paving of an alley, the City
wi11 not maintain an a11ey right-of-way. If Mr. Motzko wanted to have access
�o his garage from the alley, he has the legal right to do so and has the
legal right to maintain that alley right-of-way. If it is easier for Mr. Motzko
to maintain access from his existing garage, Mr. �oardman stated that would
probably be the best way to go.
Mr. Motzko stated he would like access through his existing garage.
Mr. Harris asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak
regarding this item,
Mr. Ken Brustad, 272 Ely St. N.E.,�stated he lives one block east of Mr. Motzko.
Sis main concern was whether Mr. Motzko would be painting the garage as he
did not want an eyesore in the neighborhood.
Mr. Motzko stated the new garage would be pdinted to match the house and �
attached garage. He stated the garage would be built by Su�sell. He also
stated that if he had a lot of neighborhoad objections, he would be willing
to put up a redwood fence thafi would run along the side of the new garage up
to the existing garage. The garage wi.11 face the same direction as the
existing garage. •
Mr. Langenfeld stated there did not seem Co be much opposition, and there was
a sizeable mailing list. �
MOTION by Mr. Lang�nfeld, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to close the public
hearing on SP �80-03 by Duane Motzko. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
Chairman Harris declared the public hearing closed at 7:58 p.m.
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded b Mr. Oquist, to recommend to City Council
the approval of a request for a Special Use Permit, SP ��80-03, by Duane Motzko:
Per Section 205.051, 2, A, of the Fridley City Code, to allow the construction
of a second accessory building, a 22 ft, by 22 ft. detached garage for the
storage of'a boat and car, located on lots 45 and 46, Block 11, Spring Brook
Park Addition, the same being 290 Ely SC. N.E., �oith no stipulations.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that he felt this request was in accordance with the
Zoning Code and special use requirements, and Mr. Motzko is going.to make
this structuxe compatible with the existing area. Also, the special use permit
does have the element of control. .
�
���
,''—�
FLANNING CONlMISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 1980 PAGE 3
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING A�'E, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr.. Harris stated Special Use Permit SP ��80-03 would go.to City Council on
June 2. "
MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to suspend the rules and
adopt "Renewal of Special Use Permit SP ��74-16 as Item 2 on the agenda. IIpon
a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried
unanimously.
2. RENEWAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP �74-16 for Reynold Swanson to operate a
mobile home sales lot, located on the West 375 feet of Lot 3, A.S. �k89,
the same being 7151 Highway ��65 N.E,:
Mr. Harris asked if this was a renewal of a special use permit or a reviewal
of a special use permit?
Mr. Boardman stated that when City Council granted t�is special use permit,
they granted it for a period of tive years, but nothing was said about whether
it was to be renewed or reviewed.
Mr. Harris stated he discussed this Monday night at the City Council meeting
with Virgil Herrick, City Attorney, 2t was Mr. Herrick's opinion that if this
/�1 is a review, the Planning Commission can handle it as an agenda item, but if
it is a renewal, if the e�.isting permit expires, there is sorine question of
whether it has to go to public hearing because it is like a new special use
permit. �
Mr. Oquist s�ated that on page 2 of a letter da�ed Dec. 31, 1974, to
Reynold E. Swanson from the City of Fridley, it stated that "this Special
Use Permit be issued for a maximum of five years or to run concurrently with
the lease, whichever is less." He felt that meant this special use permit is
a renewal.
Mr. Boardman stated the Planning Commis sion had talked before about what they .
wanted to do on these kinds of things. He thought the Planning Commission
had decided �o stop looking at renewals of things and start just having
reviews of special use permits. The way this request is laid out is not very
clear at all.
Mr. Treuenfels stated that in Mr. Swanson's letter dated Apri1 21, 1980, to
the City Council, he was requesting a renewal of the special use permit,
Mr. Boardman stated the way they have set up the policy or process is that
a renewal--any pei-mi� that was going to be renewed--would not have to go
through the public hearing process, but would follow the normal grocess of
being reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council, because, primarily,
the Planning Commission and City Council would be looking to see if the
� operation was in comp°liance with the requirements of the special use permit.
� He stated he ��ould like some clarification on how the Planning Commission
wanted to handle this.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEBTING, M�Y 21, 1980 PAGE 4
�
Mr. Oquist stated that assuming this operation is in compliance with the
special use requirements, they could not deny the special use permit under a�
reviewal process. But, assuming the City did not want trailer sales anymore,
if it was a renewal, they could then deny that renewal of the special use
permit and eliminate that business. +
Ms. Gabel stated that ife there were people who had any camplaints against
this operation, the City would never lmow about tliose complaints with just a
reviewal process and no public hearing.
Mr. Boardman stated that once a special use permiL is granted, there are some
' real problems in legally denying a special use permit with either a renewal
or reviewal, because special use permiCs are granted to the land and go with
the land regardless of the operation.
Mr. Harris referred to the second paragraph i,n the Dec. 31, 1974, letter fram
the City of Fridley to Mr. Swanson: "� Special Use Permit to operate a mobile
home sales lot is given only to Reynold E. Swanson as an individual and he
will be the operator of the business. If the business changes hands or he no
longer is the majarity owner and operator of the bus3ness, the permit will
be nuil and void, and would have to be reviewed by the City Council before
transfer." Mr. Harris stated that statement was legally unsound. �
Mr. Boardman stated this trailer sales opera�ion is a very clean operation.
They have followed all the special use stipulations, and he really did not �
se� any reason why they shouldn.'t go ahead and process this�special use perabit.
The City has never had any complaints about the operation.
Mr. Langenfeld stated i� was his concern that the special use permit be
rewritten so that the name was off the special use permit and the special use
permit went only with the property. �
Mr. Harris stated he had the feeling they should have Mr. Swanson go through
the public hearing,process again and request City Council to waive the fee.
The was the special use permit is written, it looks like the permit has expired.
Mr. Oquist stated the special use permit apparently expired on Dec. 31, 1979,
so Mr. Swanson was operating illegally with no special use permit at this
Cime. Therefore, Mr. Swanson should be asked to request a new special use
permit.
MOTION by �'Ir. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Oquist, that Special Use Permit,
SP ��74-16, by Reynold Swanson to operate a mobile home sales lot, located on
the West 375 feet of Lot 3, A.S. �k89, the same being 7151 Highway �r65 N.E.,
be continued until such a time that the proper notices and procedures re uq ired
for a special use permit are issued, with the stipulation that the City Council
waive the fee and that a public hearing be conducted.
Mr. Harris stated that Mr. Boardman should talk to Mr. Herrick about just
having to notify the people within 200 ft.�of the mobile home sales lot,
rather than having to publish notices in the newspaper.
---.�,.,...,.,
PLANI�TING CONIMISSION MEETING MAY 21 1980 PAGE 5
,'"'�
Mr. Boardman stated that when this comes back to the Planning Commission, they
should ery to clean up the language on special use permits and decide how they
want to handle special use permit reviews.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HA1tRIS D�CI,AgED,.THE MOTION
CARR,IED UNANIMOUSLY:
3. RECEIVE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE FROM CITY OF SPRING LAKE PARR; Rezoning
and Special Use Permit to be used for the construction of a 60-unit
apartment complex for tl�e elderly, generally located in the vicinity of
Terrace and Osborne Roads. Meeting will be held May 27, 1980, at
7:30 p.m.
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Nir. Oquist, to receive the public
hearing notice from Spring Lake Park.
Nlr. Harris stated that what bothered him about Spring Lake Park's projects
was the drainage. Would this project substantially increase the flow into
Fridley's storm sewer system? He thought it probably would. He stated that
one advantage with this project is that Spring Lake Park will need Metropolitan
Council's concurrence, because of funding. He felt he or Mr. Boardman should
attend the public hearing on May 27 and see how Spring Lake Park intends to
handle the quality and quan;:ity of water. After they see what Spring Lake
Park's plans are, if there is a problem, they.can write a letter to Metro-
n politan Cotmcil.
UFON A VOICE VOTE, ALL 'JOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN gARR,IS DECLARED THE MOTION
CE�RRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. RECEIVE MAy 1 1980 HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSTON MINtTrES:
MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Nlr, Langenfeld, to receive the
May 1, 1980, Human Resources Commiss:�on miautes.
Mr. Boardman stated that the Human Resources Commission had made a motion on
page 3 recommending to City Council, through Planning Commission, that the
Human Resources Conmiission does not see a demand for the No-Fault Grievance
Procedure.
Mr. Harris stated the Planning Commission could discuss whether they agreed
with the findings of the Human Resources Commission. If they do agree, they
could concur with that motion.
Mr. Treuenfels stated that, as a member of the Plannin� Commission, he did
not really concur with the views e�;pressed by the Human Resources Commission.
He felt it would be worth�ahile for the Commission to at least be attentive
to the needs of the people and attentive to the expressions of those needs.
Maybe the Human Resources Commission could not really do,what was suggested
in the No-Fault Grievance Procedure, but he felt it would have been better if
the Fridley Human Resources Commission had followed the exampie of Coon Rapids
�
FLAI�INING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 1980 PAGE 6
and Columbia Heights and gone ahead with at least listening to complaints
at this level. Then, if need be, passing those complaints on to.the Department
of Human Rights. �
Mr. Trauenfels stated he would be happy if the Planning Cou6nission would
concur with the Human Resources Comnnission's motion as made, but recommend
that if the circumstances should change in the future, the Human Resources
Co�ission look at this procedure again in a year or two years from�now.
MOTION by Mr Treuenfels, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld� that the Planning
Commission concurs with the motion made by the Human Resources Commission
that the Human Resources Cou�i.ssion does not see the demand for a grievance
committee at the city level and would recommend that the grievant be referred
to the State Department of Human Rights or other appropriate organization,
with the recammendation that if circumstances appear to have altered,the
Human Resources Commission take anoth.er look at thi.s entire area sometime
in the future.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CAAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED TI� MOTION
CARRIED UNAl�'IMOIISLY:
5. RECEIVE MA,Y 8, 1980, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to receive the May 8, 1980,
Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes. Upon a voice vot�e, ail voting
aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously.
6. RECEIVE MAY 13, 1980, APPE.�LS CO'MMLLSSION MINUTES:
Ms. Gabel stated thaC these minutes were a little incomplete as no discussion
was included on the variance request. She stated that when these minutes go
to City Council, she would like a statement included in the minutes that a
brief discussion was held on that item.
MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to receive the May 13, 1980,
Appeals ComQnission minutes, but that the minutes be amended to include a
statement that a brief discussion was held on the variance request. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried
unanimously.
Chairman Harris declared a ten-minute break at 9:15 p.m.
7. CONTTNUED: PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 205. ZONING:
Mr. Boardman stated they would like to set the Zoning Code up for public
hearing before the City Council on July 1. They would like to have it adopted
and �.n operation in August. He stated that if the Planning Commission does
no� Chink they can finish the Zoning Code at their regulax meetings, they
should consider having special meetings. �
Mr. Harris s�ated they should see how far they get on the Zoning Code at this
meeting and then decide wheth er Co have a special meeting. �
�
/"�
n
�
PZANNING CONIMC.SSION MEETING MAY 21, 1980 PAGE 7.
205.10 R-4 DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Page 46
,.205.104 Parking Requirements � � �y +
�2-A. "construction" should be changed to "constructed"
205.105 Performance Standards
Mr. Boardman reco�ended that the Planning Commission approve the Performance y"-
Standards with the same changes as made in R-3. �Ie would then make those
changes as requested by the Planning Commission under R-3.
The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Boardman's recoumaendation. .
Page 48
�5-A. Change to -"The minimum landscaped area for the mobile home park
sha11 be 35 percent of the to�a1 site."
Mr. Wharton stated there was nothing requiring stoxm shelters oa: tornado
shelters for mobile home parks.
� Mr. Boardman seated they have never required a mobile home park to build'a
solid structure. With anly two mobile home parks in Fridley; he did not think
they could require the parks to build a shelter at this point.
Mr. Harris stated there are now some state requirements about tie-downs in
mobile home parks, and he though� there was a.1so sometliing about a permanent
shelter-type tauil.ding.
Page 49 .
205.11 TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Mr. Boardman stated this section was moved from the end of the Zoning Code to
this location, primarily because there was no special district that was set up
as a townhouse district and the townhouse district falls into any of the
R districts.
205.111 Procedu�e for Townhouse Development Approval
�2. "Section 205.192" should be changed to "Section 205.20"
C-2. Delete "morals" in the 7th line.
Mr. Boardman referred to �05.111, Item 2: "In addition to the procedure as
outlined in this ordinance, there shall be provided a general plan of develop-
� ment as required under Section 2Q5.20 of this code, e�:cept...." He stated
PLANNING CONIl"1I.SSION MEETING, MAY 21, 1980 PAGE 8
that 205.20 is the Planned Unit Development District. Does the Planning
Commission want �o go through the planned unit development•process for town-
house development? It is a lengthy process and an expensive process. What
process did they want to go through for townhouse development and also planned
unit development2 "
Mr. Harris stated they could say something like: "All townhouse development
in R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones sha11 have a special use permit." �
Mr. Boardman suggested thaC the statement read: "In addition to the procedure
as outlined in this ordinance, there shall be provided a general plan of -
development as required under the speeial use permit process."
The Planning Commission concuxred wiCh that suggestion.
Mr. Oquisti asked if.they should make a requirement for a townhouse association.
Mr. Harris stated that could be a s�ipulation in the special use permit.
C-3. Change to -"When Townhouse Developffient is granted in an R-1 District,
the development shall consist of owner occupied dc,relling
units ."
Page 5 0
205.12 P DISTRICT REGULATIONS
2U5.12I Uses Permitted
N1r. Harris stated that under Item 1, Principle Uses,.when you start talking
about airports, it is conceivable that at some future time, there could be
a landing pad fox helicopters. He wouLd a7.most like to see some of these
uses with a special use permit, because there should be a public hearing on
something like that. If public lands are going to be used for some of these
things, even athletic fields, he thought the surrounding neighbors should
have the legitimate right to know and voice their opi.nions of what the City
intends to develop in an area. If that had been done before, the City
wouldn't have the problem they have at Conn�nons Park right now, because that
area really impacts the neighborhood.
Mr. Harris stated that later in the Zoning Code, Chey should talk about the
possibility of landing strips in the C and M Dis�ricts, which has never been
thought about before. There is the possibility of Onan or Medtronic wanting
a helicopter pad, or Unity Hospital needing a helicopter pad for transporting
accident patients. Rather than saying, "airports", they should probably say
"aircxaft facilities".
Mr. Boardman suggested that only emexgency helicopCer landing pads for
hospitals be allowed with a special use pexmit in R-1, R-2, and R-3. He did
not thinit they should a11ow helicoPter pads for industxp.
n
�
PLANNING C�SSION MEETING, MAY 21, 1980 PAGE 9
°"� The Plann,ing Cammission members concurxed wiCh Mr. Boardmatt's suggestion.
Mr. Harris sta�ed that maybe a11 of Item ��1-B ("Public parks, playgrounds, �
a�hletic fields, golf courses, airports, parking area") shou.ld be with a
special use permit. The reason for that is that people who abut the proposed
project area are then notified of what is �aking place, bec�.use it wili impact
their property,
Mr. Langenfeld stated tha� he was concerned about the special use permit,
because it is reaching the point where special use permits are just a folcmality
and are never denied. °
Mr. Boardman stated that maybe they could set up a process where all public
facilities must require publication to people within 200 feet of a proposed
project area, Maybe it could be just a public hearing.process for citizen
input and not be involved in any special use permit process. He asked what
types of pLblic improvemr:nts would they wani: to hold public hearings for?
He �thought it should only be when new parks are purchased and not capita1
costs and not capital improvements.
Mx. Harris stated the Planning Cou�nission•should think about this question and
bring back any suggestions and concerns at the next meeting. � •
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by I�lx. Wharton, to continue discussion on
Proposed Changes to Cha�ater 205. Zoni�.g. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
n Chairman Harris declared �he motion carried unan�Lmously.
Mx. Har�is s�ated that since the Planning Co�ission had a light agenda for
the Jun.e 4 meeting, they should sta�t tlie meeting at 7;00 p.m. in order to
accomplish, as much as possible on the 'Loning Codea
AD30IIR11�.�iET�'T ;
MOTION by Nlr. Langeaafeld, seconded b� Mr. Oquist, to adjourv, the meet3ng. Upon
a voice vote, al1 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared fihe Asay 2I, 1980,
Planning Commission mee�ing adjourned at 10:41 pem.
Respectfully submi.tted,
A ,G�
LS e Saba
Recording �Secretary
r�