PL 03/04/1981 - 30554CITY OF FRIDLEY
`� �PLANNING COMMISSIO� MCETING, MARCH 4, 1981
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Harris declared the March 4, 1981, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Mr. Harris, Ms. Schna6el (arr. 7:46 p.m.),�Mr. Svanda,
Mr. Oquist, Ms. Hughes
Members Absen�: Mr. Treuenfels, P�r. Wharton
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
Bill Deblon, Associate Planner
Ron Miller, 946 Mississippi St. N.E.
Paul Gaydos, 3607 - 37th Ave. N.E., Apt. 207, Mpls.
David h1enken, 2200 Midland Gr. Rd., Unit 307, Roseville (55113)
Anthony & Rosella Pikus, 4036 Main St. N.E.
George Steiskal, 4�050 Main St. N.E.
Donald Arc�er,4057 �adison St. N.E.
Jan Bertrand, 4042 Main St. N.E.
�„1 Sue Waldhauser, 6120 - 7th St. td.E.
APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 25, 1981, PLANNING COMMISSION MIyUTES:
MOTION BY h1R. OQUIST� SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 25, .I98Z,
PLANNING CONIMISSION MIIVUTE5 A5 WRITTEN.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAI.RMAN HARRIS DECLARED TXE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
1. CONTINUED: PUBLSC HEARING: RE(�UEST FQR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #80-13,
BY 6dALTER J. h1ILLER: Per Secti on �05.051 , 2, A, to a� o�w an exi sti ng�
accessory bui ding 14 ft. by 20 ft. to be moved ta the rear of the property
and be used for a storage shed, and a new detached garage, 24 ft. by 30 ft.
to be constructed on Lot 8, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 21, the same
being 945 Mississippi Street N.E.
Public Hearing open.
Mr. Boardman stal:ed this item was con�inued from the February 4 Planning
Commission meeting. The Commission had requested it be continued, because
�(r. Arthur Miller was nat in attendance at that meeting. He stated Ron Miller,
Arthur Miller's son, was in the audience if t�e �ommission had ar�y questions.
Ms. Hughes asked Mr. Miller what the storage shed was to be used for.
�'^�
0
����+
'"''� PLANNING COMI�ISSION MEETING, MARCH 4, 1981 PAGE 2
Mr. Miller stated it would be used for storage of a lawn tractor and antique
furniture.
Mr. Harris stated that the size of the new garage was almost the same size as
the house. What was the reason for this large a garage?
Mr. Miller stated they thought it was a nice garage size and was what they needed.
He stated the garage will be used to house two vehicles, plus lawn and garden
equipment. They have a large garden. He stated that as far as any other uses,
there would not be any.
(Ms. Schnabel arrived at 7:46 p,m.)
Mr. Harr�s asked Mr. Boardman to explain to Mr. Miller the City's conditions on
home occupations.
Mr. Boardman stated that the City of Fridley does not allow any gainful home
occupatians to be operated out of accessory �uildings. Mome occupations can
only be operated out of the actual family unit itself. This is one of the City's
concerns when they have this type of accessory building, especially now when a
lot of people are having to go toward home occupations to make a�ditional income.
Mr. Mi71er stated his father is a truck driver and is on the road most of the
time. He would not be operating a home occupation. .
Ms. Hughes asked if Mr. Miller had asked any of the neighbors if there were any
object9ons.
Mr. Miller s�ated they have very good relationships with their.neighbors, and
they have talked to tfieir neighbors. He stated that none of the neighbors
objected to this; in fact, he thought they would like it.
MOTION BY MS. HUGHE5, SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON
5P #80-13 BY WALTER J. MILLER.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING
CLOSED AT 7:52 P.M.
Ms. Hughes stated the only concern she would have is that the stvrage shed be
moved to the back of the lot at the same time the garage is being built. It
would be easy not to move that shed, and she felt it was important that the shed
be moved. Moving the shed �o the back of the lot removed the possibility of
a lot of things, and tl�e shed would not be accessible to other vehicles.
�'�,
�
�
n
PLANPaING COMMSSION MEETING, MARCH 4, 1981 PAGE.3
MOTION BY MS. HUGHES, SECONDED BY MR. QQUIST, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE
APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP �80-13, BY WALTER J. MILLER: PER SECTION
205.051, 2, A, TO ALLOW AN EXI5TING ACCESSORY BUILDING 14 FT. BY 20 FT. TD BE
MOVED TO THE REAR OF TXE PROPERTY AND BE USED FOR A STORAGE SHED, AND A NEW
DETACHED GARAGE, 24 FT. BY 30 FT. TO BE CON5TRUCTED O% LOT 8, REVISED AUDITOR`S
SUBDlVISION NO. 21, THE 5AME BEING 945 MISSISSIPPI STREET N.E., WITH THE '
S2IPULATION THAT THE EXISTING S•lORAGE SHED BE MOVED TD THE REAR OF THE LOT BY
THE TIME TNE NEW GARAGE IS COMPLETED.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN H�RRTS DECLARED THE MOTION C.�RRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Harris stated this item would go to City Council on March 16,
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATIDN OF A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMI7,
SP 81-0 , BY PAUL GAYDOS AND DAVID MENKEPd: Per Section 205.053, 3, D, to
a] aw a single fami y dwe ling to e converted to a two family dwel]ing,
located on Lots 2 and 3, Block l, Ber]in Addition, the same being 4042 Main
Sireet N.E.
MOTIDN BY N1�2. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEA:RIIdG ON
SP #81-01 BY PAUL GAYDOS AND DAVID MENKEN.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE', CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING
OPEN AT 7:58 P.M.
Mr. Boardman stated this is a request to convert a present single family structure
into a two-family structure. This property is located on Main Street in the
southern end of Fridleye Across the street is Columbia Heights. He stated that
th� general make-up of the neighborhood is single family except for a triplex
and a duplex located at 4030 and 4022 Main St. N.E.
Mr. Boardman stated that, according to the Zoning Code, this conversion would
be an allowed use with a special use permit. He stated the petitioners, Mr. Gaydos
and Mr. Menken were in the audience.
Mr. Harris asked if the petitioners wished to make a statement.
Mr. Gaydos stated this is a Capp split-level home constructed in 1966. It has
1,040 sq. ft. on each floor, and to convert it, all �that is need�d is to convert
the 1 aundry room to a kitchen on the lower floor. There are already two
separate entrances. �
Ms. Bertrans stated she
single family home, and
upstairs and downstairs
converting the storage
area to the downstairs.
0
is the present owner. This house was constructed as a
they have completely finished off both floors. Both
have two �edrooms and a bath. It is just a matter of
and laundry room into a kitchen and closing off the �,►all
^ PLANNIyG CO��MISSION MEETING, MARCH 4, 1981 PAGE 4
Mr. Harris asked if they planned to split the utilities and have.separate meters
for electrical and gas.
Mr. Gaydos stated they planned to do that.
Mr. Boardman stated he had no problem with the planned conversion. His main
concern was whether they want this kind of conversion done in this location or
whether they want to maintain it as a single family home.
Ms. Schnabel asked if the petitioners planned to live in it themselves or if they
planned to rent it out.
Mr. Gaydos stated they both plan to live in one level and rent out the other
l�el. He stated that houses today are so cost prohibitive that buying this
house and converting it to two living areas is a saviou� for them, because they
can rent out the lower level until such a time as, hopefully, they can each
reside in a level. Otherwisey they would not be ab7e to buy a home for a number
of years and would have to live in apartments.
Ms. Schnabel asked why the special use permit, rather than rezoning?
Mr. Boardman stated that both alternatives are given to the petitioners, but
� Staff generally recommends a special use permit, primarily because the City
doesn't necessarily want that type of rezoning in that area. The special use
permit retains the R-1 zoning in a single family zone and gives more flexibility,
if the house should burn down, of granting another special use permit for another
duplex or maintain it as a singie famiiy home. If it was rezoned to R-2, then
anything could be built there.
Mr. Anthony Pikus, 4036 Main St. �.E., stated he is opposed to this canversion.
He stated the house was built for sing7e family use. He stated he is very
unhappy with the triplex at 4030 Main St., but it was there when they bought
their home. He would not like to see another double occupancy home go in to
the north of them, as they woi�ld have the only single family home up to 4050
Main St.
Ms. Rosella Pikus �tated that even though the new owners say they will live in
it, that doesn't mean they couldn't sell the house in a year, and then they
would have a big problem.
Mr. Donald Archer, 4057 Main St, N.E., stated he is also opposed to the conver-
sion. When one co�version starts, pretty soon there wi11 be more, and the single
family area will be gone. He does not want the problem they have from the
triplex coming into the neighb�orhood.
Mr. George 5teiskal, 4050 Main St. N.E., stated he would have no objection if
the house is owner-occupied.
�
PLANNING COMP�ISSION MEETING, MARCH 4, 1981 PAGE 5
Mr. Gaydos stated he could understand the neighbors' concern if this was a
small single family residence that would require knocking out walls, etc. Even
with a single family home, an o�vner can have non-homestead and rent it out
and guarantee nothing as far as tenants. He stated the neighbors' complaints
about 4030 f�ain St. are probably w�17 justified. He stated economics is the
reason they are proposing this conversion.
Mr. Menken stated �hey both realize the neighboi�hood and how attractive the
home itself is. He is very impressed with the qua7ity of the home and appreciated
the hard efforts of the owners to keep it so nice. He stated he is very exeited
about living in this house for a number of years.
Ms. Pikus stated she has nothing against Mr. Gaydos and Mr. Menken, 6ut if the
house is ever rented out, they wou7d have rental on both sides of them.
MOTTON BY MS. HUGHE5, SECONDED BY MS. SCHNI�BEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARIAIG ON
SP �81-01 BY PAUL GAYDOS AND DAVID MENKEN.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARIN�
CLOSED AT 8:26 P.M.
� Ms. Hughes stated that, in terms of what they want to see in the future when the
new awners might sell, aahat is the best way to maintain the house? She wondered
what the advantages of split entry I�omes are to the City of Fridley. It was
obvious what advantages split entry homes have for the owners. Apparently, five
unrelated people can live together in that house and share the bedrooms and treat
it as two different units without sealing off the two ]evels physically. The
City would have that kind o-� operation if these two people wanted to buy the
house and recruit more roomers. She stated the advantage to keeping that home
single family is that in the futtare, it would be a house suitable for a 7arge
family--something needed periodically in this �ommunity. On the other hand,. if
the Planning Commission granted the special use permit, and the owners do seal
off the two floors, they have permanently changed that home to a duplex regardless
of the zoning.
Ms. Hughes stated this is a problem this community is going to be seeing more
and more of, and what does the Planning Commission feel is the best approach?
Mr. Svanda stated that by locking a door or putting up some sheetrock to divide
the two floors, he did not see the permanence described by Ms. Hughes.
Mr. Oquist stated it is a nice large house, but would it be affordable to a large
family?
Ms. Schnabel stated that if the special use permit is granted and the house is
divided, if the house is sold in the future, a family could still buy it as a
� single family home and all they would have to do is unlock the door or tear out
the sheetrock.
,�
PLANNING COMMISSION MCETING, MARCH 4, 1981 PAGE 6
Mr. Harris stated he could unders�and the neighbors' concerns about the upkeep,
loud noises, and all the rest of �he things that happen with multiple dwellings.
However, how are people going to be able to afford a house otherwise and where
are these people going to live?
Ms. Hughes stated she was more in favor of handling these through special use
permits, than letting them happen without taking official notice.
MOTION BY MR. SVANDA, SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST, TO RE'COINMEND TO THE CITY COUNClL
THE APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #81-01, BY PAUL GAYDi05 AIVD DAVID MENKEN:
PER SECTION 205.053, 3, D, TO ALLOW A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING fi0 BE CONVERTED TO
A TWO FAMILY DWELLING, LOCATED ON LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK Z., BERLIN ADDITION, THE
SAME BEING 4042 MAIN STREET N.E., WTTH THE FOTLOWING STSPULATIONS:
1. 2'HAT THE NEW OWNERS WORK WI `l'H THE FlRE MARSI�ALL ON THE APPROPRIATE
EJfITS FOR THE UNIT5;
2. THAT THE NEW OWNER5 OBTAIN TNE PROPER PERMITS TO C'ONSTRUCT THE
DDWNSTAIRS KITCHEN AREA.
Mr. Harris stated that because this home is being converted into a double, it
would a]so fal] under the residential Housing Mair�tenance Code.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VDZ'ING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTIOPI C.�RRIED
UNANIMOIISLY.
� Mr. Harris stated this would go to City Council on March 16.
3. PUBLIC HEARIfdG: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED NOISE ORDINANCE
Public hearing open.
MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO RECEIVE INTO THE RECORD A MEMO
DATED MARCH 2, 1983, FROM VIRGIL HERRICK TO BILL DEBL0211 RE: PROPOSED NOISE
ORDINANCE.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTIOIV CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Harris stated he had reviewed the whole Noise Ordinance again. One problem
he had was with the definition of "Noise", #8, on the first page.
Ms. Schnabel suggested that "excessive and unnecessary" be inserted in the
definition of "noise" to read: "Noise means any excessive and unnecessary sound
not occurring in the natural environment..."
Mr. Harris stated he would be more comfortable wath that definition, because
he felt that was really want they were trying to accomplish with this ordinance.
Ms. Hughes and Mr. Oquist stated they had no problems with that defini�ion.
�
' "Sound Receiving Unit", #12 in the Definitions, ti�vas changed to read: "A person,
animal life, or pro�erty which is affected by noise".
_..�.-.:.,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 4, 1981 PAGE 7
�
Mr. Harris sia�ed that in a discussion with an attorney, the attorney had stated
that if the City is going to adopt a Noise Ordinance with "Receiving Land Use
Standards° (Section 124.02), then these standards should also be referred to in
the Zoning Code, because it is a land use.
Mr. Boardman stated he would make that change and have the Zoning Code reference
the "Receiving Land Use Standards" in -�he Noise Ordinance.
In Item #2, under Section 124.02, "Receiving Land Use Standards", the word "as"
was deleted in the second ]ine.
Ms. Hughes stated that in Section 124.03, "Source Emission Standards", they shou]d
reference State Statu�e 169.69 for noisy mufflers and MPCA Motor Vehic]e Noise
Li mi ts - 6t�ICAR 4. 2004.
Under Section 124.05,"Operational Limits", Item #Z, "Power Implements", Mr. Harris
stated the question the attorney had and he had is: Is this a prohibition against
the operation of all of these implements, no matter what their noise level is?
If it is, then the attorney wanted �o know if this was what the City really wanted
to do. Under the Constitution, can they really enforce this?
Ms. Hughes stated that, yes they can, because of th e setting of time limits.
� Mr. Harris stated he is opposed to this ordinance because� he felt the ordinance
is arbitrary, capricious, and not a natural extension of the police powers of
the Ci t3r. �
MOTION BY MS. HUGHES, SECONDED BY M5. 5CHNABEL, TO RETAIN ITEM #2, "POWER IMPLEMEN2S",
IN SEC�'ION Z24 . 05 OPE.RATIt�NAL Ll'MITS.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, MS. NUGHE5, MR. OQUI5T� MS. SCHNABEL, VOTING AYE, MR. HARRIS
AND 1�IR. SVANDA VOTING NAY, CHAIRMAIV HARRI5 DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED 3-2.
In Section 124.06, "Public Nuisance Noises Prohibited", Item #1, "Genera]", was
changed to read: "It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause to be
made any distinctly and loudly audible noise that unreasonably annoys, disturbs,
injures, or en�angers the health, safety, and general welfare of the up blic..."
MOTION BY MS. NUGNE5, SECONDED BY MR. 5VANDA, TO CDIVTINUE THE CON5IDERATION OF
A PROPOSED NUISE ORDINANCE.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECIARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIh10USLY.
4. CON1'INUED: AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CHAP7ER 209 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE
FNTTTLED: "CONVERSIOi� CONDUMINIUM LICEi�SING
MOTION BY MR. OQUI5T, SECOIUDED BY MS. SCHNABEL, TO RECEIVE MEMO �81-16 FROM
,/�1 BILL DEBLO:V TO THE PLANNING COMh7I5SION DATED FEB. 27, 1981.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING e�iYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS L�ECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIAfOU5LY .
�
PLANNING COMMISSTON MEETING, MARCH 4, 1981 PAGE 8
MOfiION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO CdNTINUE THE "CONVERSION
CONDOMINIi1M LICENSING" ORDINANCE.
UPON A VOIGE V02'E, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRM�IN HARRIS DECLe�1RED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. APPROVAL OF MQORE LAKE REDEVELOPMENT PLAfJ:
Mr. Boardman stated the Planning Corronission had received two documents--The
Moore Lake Redevelopment Plan and the Tax Increment P1an #1. The only one the
Planning Commission is required to look at by law is the Redevelopment Plan.
However, he did have a resolution for both the Redevelopment Plan and the Tax
Increment Plan so that the Planning Commission can act on both resolutions.
These resolutions are si:atements that the plans are eonsistent with the Compre-
hensive Development Plan of the City of Fridley.
Mr. Boardman stated the reasons for the establishment of a redevelopment district
are designated in the plan and it lays out the conditions for blight which allows
the City to establish a redevelopment district.
Mr. Boardman stated that when they set up a tax increment district, they have a
choice of three projects--a redevelopment plan (that p7an has to meet certain
criteriaj,a housing projec�, which is what they are looking at, or an econamic
development. A housing project has to be set up primarily for the development
n of housing� He stated they have set up the tax increment district in five phases.
Since this is all one housing project, they can group those funds; in other words,
all funds and bonds sold in this district can be grouped as one district, and,
therefore, construction projec�s can be phased.
Mr. Boardman stated they have a potentia7 developer for development of Phase I.
In order to meet the requirements of the State, they are required to establish
and layout an indication of costs for one project, and �they can do that in
Phase I. It allows them to stay general enough in ihe other phases to satisfy
the in�tent of the law and still accomplsih the overal] plan.
MOTZ'ON BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MR, SVANDA,TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 198.Z,
"A RESOLUTTON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSl'ON OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, FINDING TH�
FRIDLEY NOU5ING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY'5 MOORE LAKE REDEVELOPMENT PLAAI IS
CONS25TENT WITH TNE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY."
MOTION TO AINEND BY MS. HUGHES TO SAY TNAT THE MOORE LAKE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPh1ENT PLAN OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY WHEN
IT PROVIDES FOR NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES IN THE CITY.
THE MOTION TO AMEND DIED FOR LACK pF A SECOND.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, MR. HARRIS, MS, SCHNABEL, N1R. SVANDA, AND l�t. OQUIST VOTING
AYE, MS. HUGXES VC�TING NAY, CHAZ'RMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1.
/�
-- �-"
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 4, 1981 PAGE 9
�= Ms. Hughes stated she had voted against the motion, because she did not believe
the Moare Lake Redevelopment Plan was consistent with the noise abatement goals
of the Fridley Comprehensive Development Plan.
6. APPROVAL OF TAX INCREMENT PLAN #7, MOQRE LAKE REDEVELQPMENT AREA:
Ms. Schnabel stated she did not feel comfortable voting on a motion to concur
with this tax increment plan, because she was not sure she tota]ly understood
it, Since it was not required of the Planning Commission to approve this plan
and since it was out of th� P7anning Corronission's jurisdiction, she did not
care to take a position on it.
Ms. Hughes stated she agreed with Ms. Schnabel.
Mr. Boardman stated he would take this resolution out of the Tax Increment Plan #1
document.
Mr. Harris stated that if thare was a problem, Mr. Boardman cou]d resubmit the
resolution to the Planning Commission.
7. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 2Q5 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE,
nr�irnn� � v v��n�.in� nr TIIf rl'1TT1 rv -�nnirn�r rnnr
^ MOTION BY MS. HUGHE5, SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST, TO CONTINUE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 205
OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE.
UPON A VDICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRNIAIV HARRIS DECLARED Z'HE MOI'ION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
8. OTHER BUSIf�ESS:
Mr. Harris stated he had written a memo to the Fridley City Council which was in
response to a communication he had received relative to affordable housing. in the
City of Fridley.
,MOTION BY MS. HUGHES, SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST, TO RECEIVE A MEMO DATED MARCH 2, 198Z,
FROM MR. HARRI5 TO THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. •
ADJOURNMENT:
MQTION BY M5. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A
VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRI5 DECLARED THE MARCH 4, 198Z, PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNEI7 AT 12:02 H.M.
� RPspectfully submitted,
> , . -C ' � Z.�"�.�
Lynne Sa a
Recording Secretary
�