The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 11/14/1990 - 7139City of Fridley A G E N D A �,� ,�_,.;..: : -.�•.,ti.,,R�.. :. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER_14.� 1990 7:30 P.M. LOCATION: FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER, 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. CALL TO ORDER• ROLL CALL• APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: October 24, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #90-07 /�Y PAT AND RITA BOYLE: ,'/ Per Section 205.07.O1.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow a �� second accessory building in excess of 240 square feet on Lot 1, Block 2, Sylvan Hills, generally located at 6261 Rainbow Drive N.E. �PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REGISTERED LAND SURVEY, P.S. ' #90-06, BY GLACIER PARK COMPANY: ! To replat that part of Lots 2 and 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, Anoka County, Minnesota, generally located north of I-694 and west of Main Street N.E. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY �ITY CODE, ENTITLED "ZONING" BY AMENDING SECTIONS 205 03 (�''"DEFINITIONS", AND SECTION 205.07 "R-1 ONE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT REGULATIONS" �1991 PLANNING CONIlKISSION CALENDAR $�E'CEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING J OF OCTOBER 1, 1990 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING OF � OCTOBER 4, 1990 �ECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER ' 30, 1990 �,..�OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURN• t CITY OF lRIDLEY PI.l1IdNING C014IISSION l[BBTING, OCTOH$R 24, 1990 �►.�.www..w.r.►.►w.�.w 1►w.w..►ww.wwr�r.�r.�..�..►r.�..�.rrr.►�.r.�.wwrw..�..n.r.�..�rw.�.w...w...r.��►.rr.r�r.rwwww.... w.w. CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Betzold called the October 24, 1990, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Don Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Paul Dahlberg, Connie Modig Members Absent: Diane Savage Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Frank Kraemer, 1290 - 73rd Avenue N.E> Christine Hansen, 230 Rice Creek Boulevard Tay Kersey, 8450 Eastwood Road, Mpls. 55112 Roger Stene, 870 Pandora Drive N.E. Robert Lange, 189 Logan Parkway N.E. Doug Erickson, Fridley Focus APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 10, 1990, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOT ON by Ms . Sherek, seconded by Ms . Modig, to approve the October 10, 1990, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 1. �ABLED: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #90-08, BY JOHN BABINSKI• Per Section 205.17.O1.C.(11) of the Fridley City Code, to allow exterior storage of materials on Lots 1 through 20, Central Avenue Addition, generally located at 1290 - 73rd Avenue N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to remove the item from the table and reopen the public hearing. IIPON !1 VOICE VOTS, 7►I�L VOTIN(i 11Y8, CBAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED 11ND TH$ PIIBLIC HEl�RING REOPENED AT 7:37 P.M. Ms.�McPherson stated this item was first presented to the Planning Commission on June 20, 1990. At that time, the petitioner was requesting a special use permit to allow exterior �orage of pLANNINQ COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 24 1990 PAGE 2 materials at the above location. The site is zoned M-1, Light Industrial, as are the parcels to the south and west. There is M- 1 and C-2, Local Business, zoning to the north, and R-3, General Multiple Dwelling, zoning and M-2, Heavy Industrial, zoning to the east. Onan occupies the building south of the petitioner's building and the two share a common drive of Central Avenue. Ms. McPherson stated there is an existing storage area surrounded by a chain link fence with vinyl slats on the east side of the property which is used to store a variety of materials including an MTC bus and other types of building materials, lumber, plumbing equipment, etc. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has proposed to construct a screening fence along the east property line along the right-of- way to provide screening and to meet the Code requirement. Ms. McPherson stated that on June 20, 1990, the Planning Commission tabled the request to allow the petitioner time to explore a potential warehouse expansion which would allow the petitioner to locate as many materials as possible inside the building instead of outside the building. The petitioner has informed staff that a warehouse expansion is not possible bec�use of the cost involved. In discussions with staff, the petitioner indicated he could clean the existing storage area in order to allow all the equipment to be moved inside the existing storage area and that the equipment that could not fit within the storage area could be moved to another site. The petitioner indicated this could be completed by November 15, 1990. Ms. McPherson stated that in addition to those items that are currently stored in the rear yard, there are still several items that are being stored in the front yard. There are tractor trailers and a mobile home (RV-type vehicle) still being stored in the front yard. The petitioner has requested that he be allowed the tractor trailers to be allowed to be stored in the front yard, due to the vandalism problem. However, staff cannot recommend approval of this request. Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of this special use permit as the special use permit is consistent with the use as outlined by the M-1 zoning requirements, and the proposed fence will allow the petitioner to meet the screening requirements of the Zoning Code. Staff does recommend the following four stipulations: 1. The existing storage area shall be cleaned of materials not directly related to the retail lumber and contracting business and shall be used to store only heavy equipment directly related to the retail lumber and contracting business. Clean-up shall be completed by November 15, 1990. pLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. OCTOBER 24, 1990 PAGE 3 2. � Flat bed trailers shall be allowed to be stored outside the storage area in the rear yard at the loading docks. The existing storage fence shall be reslatted. 4. The petitioner and 3 boulevard fence design installation. 2 1/2" caliper. shall install an 8 foot high wood fence trees along the east property line. The shall be approved by staff prior to The boulevard trees shall be a minimum of Mr. Betzold asked how the clean-up is proceeding. Mr. Frank Kraemer, representing Mr. Babinski, stated the contracting business is slowing down now for the season, and they will soon be able to have their employees work on the clean-up. He believed they will be able to make the November 15 deadline. Mr. Kraemer stated that stipulation #1 stated that the existing storage area would be "used to store only heavy equipment...." He stated he would like to have the stipulation state that the storage area would be "used to store only heavy equipment and materials..." Mr. Kraemer stated they are building a storage facility in northern Minnesota. All the equipment will be moved to that location by November 15. Ms. Modig stated that on May 12, 1980, Mr. Babinski was cited for illegal outside storage of materials and equipment. No response was ever made to that, so what assurance does the City have that the site will be cleaned up by November 15, 1990? Mr. Kraemer stated the clean-up process has already started. A lot of the lumber will soon be moved to the job site. They have cleared out and rearranged half the warehouse. They have removed one of the buses and one mobile home. Mr. Kraemer stated they had soil tests taken and because of the environmental problems caused by other businesses in the area, it is almost impossible to obtain a mortgage so any warehouse expansion is just not financially feasible. Ms. Sherek stated that at the June 20 Planning Commission meeting, Mr: Kraemer had stated that the tractor trailers were parked in front because of the severe vandalism problem they have in this area. This special use permit is stating that these vehicles must be parked in the rear. r � PI,ANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, OCTOBER 24, 1990 PAGE � Mr. Kraemer stated that in the last two weeks, they have had about $5,000 in damage to their vehicles, even while they were parked in front. Ms. Sherek stated that parking these vehicles in front of the building is not an allowable situation. If this special use permit is approved, will the petitioner continue to be in violation? Mr. Kraemer stated that they have a lot of money invested in these trucks. The vandalism is astronomical. They need to park two vehicles in front, a dump truck and a semi-tractor trailer. The other vehicles will be moved to the rear. Mr. Saba asked what measures the petitioner is taking to reduce the vandalism. Mr. Kraemer stated they have improved the lighting in front and in back of the building. Mr. Betzold stated that if the petitioner continues to park these two vehicles in front of the building, will they be in violation of the Code? Ms. Dacy stated, yes. The Code reads that if there are any trucks or vehicles related to the business, they must be stored in the rear yard. That was the basis for staff's recommendation. When they discussed this a few weeks ago with Mr. Kraemer, staff advised him that if he wanted the stipulation to read otherwise, it was up to the Planning Commission and City Council to do that. Ms. Sherek stated that if the Planning Commission and Council approve the parking of the two vehicles in front, what assurance does the City have that the two vehicles will not turn into 3 vehicles, then 4, etc.? She stated this is what has happened in the past. Mr. Kraemer stated that with the storage facility they are building in northern Minnesota to store all the heavy equipment, that will take care of a lot of the problem, because they now have an alternative. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAZRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRZED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:55 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated maybe the Planning Commission should wait to take action on this special use permit after the petitioner has cleaned up the property. PLANNING COMMISSZON MEETING, OCTOBBR 24, 1990 PAGE 5 Ms. Sherek suggested the Commission act on the special use permit at this meeting, but ask that the Council not act on it until November 19, 1990, after the November 15 deadline when the existing storage area is supposed to be cleaned up. Mr. Saba stated that because of the severe vandalism problems the petitioner has had, he thought the Commission should have some consideration for the petitioner and allow the storage of two vehicles in front of the building as requested by the petitioner. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to City Council approval of special use permit, SP #90-08, by John Babinski, per Section 205.17.O1.C.(11) of the Fridley City Code, to allow exterior storage of materials on Lots 1 through 20, Central Avenue Addition, generally located at 1290 - 73rd Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The existing storage area shall be cleaned of materials not directly related to the retail lumber and contracting business and shall be used to store only heavy equipment and materials directly related to the retail lumber and contracting business. Clean-up shall be completed by November 15, 1990. 2. Flat bed trailers shall be allowed to be stored outside the storaqe area in the rear yard at the loadinq docks. Two vehicles may be parked in the front parking lot for overnight parking, but all other trucks and trailers shall be stored in the rear yard. 3. The existing storage fence shall be reslatted. 4. The petitioner shall install an 8 foot high wood fence and 3 boulevard trees along the east property line. The fence design shall be approved by staff prior to installation. The boulevard trees shall be a minimum of 2 1/2" caliper. 5. The special use permit shall be reviewed in one year, and annually thereafter. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AY$, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to direct staff submit spQCial use permit request, SP #90-08, to the City:_Council on November 19, 1990, or later; and that, subsequent to the City Council meeting, staff videotape the site for presentation to the Council. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANZMOIISLY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 24 1990 PAGE 6 2. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL US� PERMIT, SP #90 17 BY LYNN AND CHRISTINE HANSEN: Per Section 205.24.05.B of the Fridley City Code, to allow an accessory building in the CRP-2 District (Flood Fringe) on Lot 13, Block 4, Rice Creek Plaza North Addition, generally located at 230 Rice Creek Boulevard N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOZCE VOTE� ALL VOTING �YE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:00 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated that the petitioner is requesting a special use permit in order to construct a 12 ft. by 16 ft. accessory building in the CRP-2 Flood Fringe District. Located on the site is a single family dwelling unit with an attached two car garage. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, and directly abuts the backwater of Locke Lake/Rice Creek. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner's lot is unique in the fact that there is a large chanqe in topography from where the dwelling unit is located to where the proposed accessory building is to be located. Also, a 30 foot wide sanitary sewer easements runs in the middle of the petitioner's lot in the area where the slope changes dramatically. The flat area which is directly adjacent to the dwelling unit is currently being used by the family for the picnic table, grill, children's play area, etc. Ms. McPherson stated the proposed storage shed is proposed to be located near Rice Creek on the flatter part of the parcel. The petitioner is proposing to place the structure an elevation lower than the regulatory flood elevation; however, this is allowed by Code as it would not be considered habitable space. Ms. McPherson stated the City is currently working with the Rice Creek Watershed District and the Locke Lake Homeowners' Association to develop plans to replace the failing dam structure on Locke Lake to create a sedimentation pool and to also dredge the lake. Currently, the City does not know what the permanent elevation of the lake will be once it is dredged; and there is the possibility that once the lake elevation has been elevated, more water could flow through the channel that directly abuts the petitioner's property. For this reason, staff recommended that the accessory building be placed on the west property line on or near the sanitary sewer easement to minimize the impact flood waters may have on the proposed building. Staff is concerned that if a major flood should occur, the building would not be swept downstream as the water would be flowing through the channel at a higher velocity than normal. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. OCTOB$R 24, 1990 PAGE 7 Ms. McPherson stated she had met with the petitioner on site that day to discuss where he is proposing to place the storage building. He indicated that in the 11-12 years he has lived there, there has been very little, if any, water flowing in the channel adjacent to his property, that water tends to flow on the other side of the island, and that the channel adjacent to his property is more or less for the backflow from the creek. However, he did agree that the unknown is the Locke Lake improvement, but the most water he has ever seen in that channel was from the 1987 super storm. Ms. McPherson stated is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit to the City Council. Staff recommends that in either location that the petitioner should execute a hold harmless agreement to release the City of any liability or damages to the proposed accessory building prior to the issuance of a building permit (stipulation #1). She stated stipulation #2 is optional. Except for the unknown in the Locke Lake improvement project, staff can see why the proposed location for the accessory building by the petitioner is a logical one. Mr. Betzold stated that in addition to a hold harmless agreement, he would suggest there also be indemnification. If the building is ever washed downstream which causes damage to someone else's property, the City could be sued by someone else. Staff might want to consult the City Attorney on this. Mr. Dahlberg stated that, in addition, it should not only include the building, but also the buildinq's contents. He and Mr. Saba would be concerned about the storage of fertilizers, chemicals, pesticides, lawn sprays, those kinds of things in concentrated form, that if there is a situation where it is washed away, that amount of material dumped into the lake or stream could be a potential problem. Ms. Christine Hansen, the petitioner, stated she would like to have their attorney look at the hold harmless agrement and give his opinion as well. Mr. Betzold stated a concern has been expressed about possible environmental problems if there are fertilizers or oil type materials in the storage building. Ms. Hansen stated they will not be storing any chemicals or things of that nature in the building. M�: Betzold asked if Ms. Hansen would object to a=stipulation prohibiting the storage of those kinds of things. Ms . Hansen stated she would not obj ect to a stipulation of that nature. pLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBBR 2� 1990 PAGE 8 MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:10 P.M. Mr. Dahlberg stated that if the petitioner is willing and if the petitioner's attorney agrees that it makes sense to execute a hold harmless and indemnification agreement to release the City from any liability, that seems to be the most appropriate for this situation. He stated he thought it was appropriate to change stipulation #1 to include that and to omit stipulation #2• MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to recommend to City Council approval of special use permit, SP #90-17, by Lynn and Christine Hansen, per Section 205.24.05.B of the Fridley City Code, to allow an accessory building in the CRP-2 District (Flood Fringe) on Lot 13, Block 4, Rice Creek Plaza North Addition, generally located at 230 Rice Creek Boulevard N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall execute hold harmless and indemnification agreements to release the City of any liability or damage to the accessory building or its contents prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Any materials, which include gasoline, oil, insecticides, fertilizers, etc., that would pose an environmental hazard when released into the water are prohibited in the accessory building. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on November 5, 1990. Mr. Dahlberg asked that staff submit the rewritten stipulations as well as the hold harmless and indemnification agreements to the petitioner so that they can be reviewed by the petitioner's attorney before the Council meeting. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING MOTHER-IN-LAW APARTMENTS MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:17 P.M. PLANNZNG COMMISSION MB$TING OCTOB$R 24 1990 PAG$ 9 Ms. Dacy stated that about 1 1/2 years ago, the City Council brought to staff's attention their concern about seeing a number of advertisements for "apartment units" for rent_ in local newspapers as well as the Minneapolis Star Tribune. A number of these situations occurred in single family zoned areas. What the general planning world has called a"mother-in-law" apartment, means "an area of a single family home where a living area exists, a bedroom, bath, kitchen, which is used for a blood related individual". Unfortunately, after the mother-in-law leaves, sometimes these types of areas within homes have either been rented out to individuals not related, or more improvements to the home have been made which has separated that living area more from the main living area of the home. Ms. Dacy stated that also during the last 1 1/2 years, the Council has asked staff to analyze the City's licensing procedure for rental units. Until just recently, staff has determined that rental licenses have been issued to persons owning single family property for rental of a portion of their homes which are, in fact, zoned for single family use. The City was actually authorizing a two family dwelling/duplex in a single family zone. Until recently, the Fire Department was responsible for issuing the licenses, and there were no zoning checks by the Community Development Department. That procedure has since been amended. Ms. Dacy stated that through a review of past files, staff has determined about 10 situations in the City where the City has consistently for 3-4 years issued a rental license to create another unit within a single family home within a single family zoned district. Ms. Dacy stated the purpose of the proposed ordinance amendment is to strengthen the City's existing policies regarding this type of situation. Right now, a"mother-in-law" apartment is not permitted; that is, they cannot have a two family dwelling in a single family area. The ordinance amendment proposes additional language to say that a part of a living area cannot be rented to any other individual. It does not discriminate between blood related individual or a non-related individual. Ms. Dacy reviewed the existing code provisions: 1. Guest rooms may be rented to no more than two persons, provided that no kitchen facilities are provided. This is a permitted accessory use in the R-1 district. 2. The definition of a"family" permits up to five unrelated individuals within a single family home, and an unlimited number of persons related by blood or marriage. For example, they could have three students and two nurses living in a single family home renting as one unit. In that case, that would be an absentee landlord. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 24, 1990 PAGE 10 3. The City has currently been enforcing its informal "door" policy. They have required that one of the doors separating two living areas must be removed. By removing the door, free access is provided between the two living areas; therefore, an argument cannot made that the door provides separation between the two areas. 4. There are existing single family homes in the City which have two kitchens but are not renting rooms. 5. Early in the 1970's, the City did allow those structures to be constructed under a special use permit. This ordinance amendment would not affect those homes. However, for those units that have been issued a rental license to operate more or less as a two family unit or a duplex, there is a section in the proposed ordinance which would require the amortization of that use within three years. Ms. Dacy stated the proposed ordinance language amends the definition of a one family and two family dwelling. In the permitted use section, it states that they cannot rent any part or portions of a unit to any other member. Again, it does not distinguish between blood relation or non-related individual. And, finally, it does provide for an amortization schedule of three years to have the use revert back to the single family use. Ms. Dacy stated that if the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of this zoning ordinance amendment, it would go to the City Council for another public hearing on November 19, 1990. Mr. Betzold asked if there have been complaints from citizens about abuses of too many people living in single family homes in R-1 districts. Ms. Dacy stated, yes, the City's Code Enforcement Officer handles about 3-5 different complaints per year of this nature. Mr. Tay Kersey stated he represents Rodney Billman who owns rental property on 7th Street in Fridley which falls under this category. Mr. Kersey stated it is difficult to come and "argue" against a proposed ordinance that strengthens an existing ordinance and that clarifies that renting another unit in a single family dwelling is an illegal activity. Their particular property was granted building permits that essentially said this type of use was o.k. They have tried to conform with the City whenever asked by the City. They have removed the doors so that one person has total access to the building. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINQ, OCTOHER 24. 1990 PAGE 11 Mr. Kersey stated that to write a new ordinance because of 3-5 complaints a year seemed to be stretching the point. Certainly there are more important issues in the City that should be dealt with. Mr. Kersey stated a question he had was whether they would be "grandfathered in" so to speak and that this ordinance amendment would not apply to them. Staff has made it clear they would have three years to comply, but he questioned the legality of that when they were granted licenses to build the units and they have been licensed by the City for a number of years to operate as two family dwellings. Mr. Betzold asked Mr. Kersey to address specifically how this ordinance amendment would affect his rental property. Mr. Kersey stated they are forced to comply with the ordinance if it is amended, it would mean that they would suddenly have either 4 or 5 bedroom units they would have to rent either to one family or to five single individuals. He believed they would have to remove one of the kitchens. Mr. Kersey stated one of the main questions of this whole thing is: What is a family? The City of Fridley says five unrelated individuals. Then he wondered about the situation where there are two brothers and three other persons. Is that five, or does that suddenly become 4, in essence, because two are related? Mr. Kersey handed out an article from the Minneapolis Star Tribune dated October 19, 1990, re: "Minnetonka rejects plan to limit the definition of a family." Minnetonka wrestled with this problem and finally just threw it out because they cannot come up with a definition for a"family". He would ask that the Commission wrestle with this problem also. Mr. Kersey stated it is not unusual for Hmong families to have many related individuals living in the home. Mr. Kersey stated he would conclude with one of the statements made by one of the Minnetonka Councilmembers: "It is easy to write an ordinance or write a definition of family. It only gets difficult if you ever have to use it." He sees problems with the enforcement of this type of ordinance, and he would speak against trying to change an existing ordinance or strengthening an existing ordinance to the point where it is going to create more problems, g��ticularly along the lines of the definitio� of a fa�ily. Ms. Sherek asked if it is possible to rezone some of these single family homes that are being used as multiple family dwellings so that they become conforming. pLANNING CO1rIIdI88ION MEETING. OCTOBER 24. 1990 PAaE � Ms. Dacy stated that is an option. The advantage the 7th Street location has is that it backs up to the Village Green complex and another multiple family complex, so that might be a possibility. If there is a duplex in the middle of a R-1 area, then that is probably not an option. Mr. Kersey stated that regarding the rezoning issue, it is unusual to have the high rise across the holding pond and then not have a buffer to the single family units. He would welcome any consideration in this regard. Mr. Betzold stated it is something Mr. Kersey might want to pursue with City staff. Mr. Robert Lange, 189 Logan Parkway, stated he lives near a house that has been occupied by more than one family for many years, and he has not complained. He had a question about the definition of rent. Does rent include any kind of in-kind expenses or forgiving of liabilities, rather than monetary reimbursement? Mr. Betzold stated Mr. Lange had a good point. Ms. Dacy stated that up until this point in time, she thought it was the Council's intent that it was the typical rent check, and the point raised by Mr. Lange is one of the issues that will have to be addressed in the enforcement of this ordinance. The other issue is: What happens if the persons renting the home share all the expenses? It would be up to the City to prove that the person is paying rent and living under some type of arrangement. Mr. Betzold asked Mr. Lange what he saw as problems as a result of non-family members living in a single family house. Mr. Lange stated it affects the property values of other single family homes in the neighborhood. There is more garbage and more traffic. There are five vehicles for one house instead of the typical two or three. Mr. Roger Stene, 870 Pandora Drive, stated he has a mother-in-law apartment in his home. Presently his mentally ill son occupies this space. He stated this proposed ordinance amendment will have a great impact on his situation. He stated his son has tried other living arrangements--group homes, board and care, Village Green, etc. Mr. Stene stated that after seeing these undesirable living conditions, they signed up for Section 8 housing. However, they found out that most of the Section 8 housing that is available is designed for a 2 bedroom situation, primarily for a single parent with children. The amount of subsidized housing for single males is very limited. So, they approached the Section 8 housing people and asked about putting a mother-in-law apartment in his home. In PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. OCTOBBR 2�, 1990 PA(3E 13 order to do that, he had to make some changes to the home. Because of his son's paranoia which is part of his illness and fear as the result of abuse and being beaten up several times, he also made the house secure with bars on the basement windows. Mr. Stene stated he has done many things to make this apartment comfortable for his son. His son is very happy living there; and as a result, he requires little medication compared to what he was on when he was in other living situations. Mr. Stene stated his son has to live in a separate apartment. If he lives with his father, his social security is cut in half. In order to qualify for the work program at RISE, he must pay rent. Ms. Dacy stated that Mr. Stene is in compliance with the ordinance now, because he is renting to a blood-related individual. However, under the new ordinance, he would not be allowed to rent to his son. Mr. Stene stated his home has been used as a model by Section 8 as an ideal living arrangement for him and his son's type of situation. He stated he does not consider his apartment situation a detriment to the neighborhood. They keep the property up nicely, and there is no extra traffic or cars. Mr. Stene stated that if this ordinance is amended, he would like to see some type of conditional permit for him and other people in similar circumstances. Mr. Betzold stated Mr. Stene and his son's situation is very interesting. He stated this type of situation certainly merits some serious consideration. He told Mr. Stene that his son was very fortunate to have such family involvement. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:05 P.M. Ms . Sherek stated that when elderly adults have their home occupied by another individual, whether family member or not, and are receiving medical assistance from the State of Minnesota, often they are required to be compensated for the space being occupied in their home. This ordinance amendment would prohibit that. Since it has always been the intent of the City Counc�l to assist people to stay in their homes, this amendment seems to be counterproductive. Ms. Sherek stated a window should be left open when these types of situations exist, and maybe the answer is a special use permit. pLANNING COMMI88ION M8$TING. OCTOBER 24. 1990 PAG$� Ms. Dacy stated the other option is that if the ordinance is . created to permit mother-in-law apartments by special use permits, there are standards that can be imposed such as: (1) The unit be owner-occupied; (2) Some type of restriction be recorded at the County that the special use permit is for a specific type of situation; (3) Standards could be put on the special use permit that would regulate any exterior improvements to the house, limit I the number of cars, etc. Ms. Dacy stated that at this time, the Commission has two options: 1. They can act on the Mother-in-Law Zoning Ordinance Amendment and send a recommendation to the City Council. 2. If the Commission is not happy with the ordinance amendment, they can recommend that staff rework the ordinance amendment. Ms. Sherek stated she is more comfortable with option #2• She stated she does not like the ordinance amendment. The idea of one family has certainly changed drastically and continues to change. Many older single adults who choose to remain in their home as they grow older are going to need someone living with them. There has to be a window that would permit the non- traditional types of uses. Mr. Betzold stated he is troubled with this whole thing. As far as not being able to rent to any person, he could see people finding a way to get around that. Maybe as long as they have the special use permit option, that won't be as much of a danger. Ms. Modig stated she saw trouble enforcing this kind of ordinance. It is going to be enforced the way it is today through the 3-4 complaints the City receives per year, and those are the people who are not going to adhere to the ordinance anyway. Mr. Dahlberg stated people just won't indicate that they are renting a portion of their home either to a son/daughter, elderly parent, whatever. Mr. Betzold asked what they can do about the situation presented earlier by Mr. Kersey where buildings were built as duplexes, and it will be very difficult to rent or sell those buildings if this ordinance amendment is passed. Ms. Dacy stated that in the split level example where there are three college students on the first level and two nurses on the bottom level, right now the owner receives two rent checks, but if in the future the owner receives one rent check from all five individuals, it would be up to the City to prove that they are not. The property owner has the right to rent out his building. PLANNING COMMISSION ME$TING. OCTOBER 24. 1990 _ PAGE 15 Ms. Sherek stated that in this example, it sounds like the City would rather have a property owner rent to five individuals who will be coming and going with multiple vehicles than they would to have the owner rent to families with one child each. That does not make sense, and this ordinance does not make any sense. Mr. Saba stated he liked .the concept of a mother-in-law ordinance that can be enforced, but he did not think this is an enforceable ordinance. However, he did have a problem with single family homes degrading into multiple family rental units. He would like to see staff rewrite the ordinance. Ms. Dacy stated staff has done a lot of research, and she thought staff could come back with a revision at the next meeting. MOTION by discussion apartments meeting. Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to table further on the ordinance amendment regarding mother-in-law and request staff to bring back a revision at another IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED QNANIMOIISLY. Mr. Betzold stated he would like to see more publicity in the newspaper on this subject, and that the people at this meeting be invited to back when this subject is discussed again. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION Of AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR LANDSCAPE REOUIREMENTS: MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:22 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated staff has been working on the proposed landscape ordinance requirements for about a year. They are now in the process of adopting the ordinance amendments. The purpose of the amendment is not to include something new in the ordinance; it is to make the existing requirements more explicit to aid staff in evaluating landscape plans in a consistent, fair, and equitable manner. It will also provide some assistance to those staff members who do not have training in the field of landscape architecture to evaluate the landscape plans that come to the City. In. addition, the Commission may be aware that it has been the Community Development Department's policy to hire landscape interns to do work over the summer to help evaluate landscape plans and, in some cases, to actually design plans to meet the ordinance requirements. As there are no specific requirements in the current ordinance, the requirements of the ordinance were open to pLANNING COMMIBBION MB$TINa, OCTOB$R 2�. 1990 PAGE 16 interpretation by those various individuals evaluating or designing the site plans. Ms. McPherson stated staff sent the amendments out to various developers, architecture and landscape architecture firms for comments. Many of those people are local people who have worked in the City and have developed projects in the City. Ms. McPherson stated staff presented the amendments to the Chamber of Commerce Board for their comments and suggestions and some of those comments and suggestions have been included in the draft landscape ordinance. Ms. McPherson stated staff also presented the landscape ordinance amendment to the entire Chamber of Commerce membership at a luncheon meeting to let them know what the requirements would be, some examples of the various requirements, and numbers that will be proposed as part of the new requirements. Ms. McPherson stated one comment they received from several local developers, as well as the Chamber of Commerce Board, was on page 1 which includes the "Scope" and specifically outlines those things that would trigger compliance by existing uses. They were concerned that if someone came in to get a permit for a new roof or siding, would that trigger compliance with the landscape ordinance requirements which may make a building improvement project economically not feasible for a small business owner? What staff has tried to do under "Scope" is outline who will need to comply with the requirements of the section and, for those existing developments, what types of building improvement projects would trigger compliance with the landscape ordinance requirements. In addition, existing developments will be credited for their existing landscaping so they may just need to add to their existing plant materials. If a property cannot meet the parking setback requirements or the other zoning code requirements, full compliance may not be required, but that would be determined by staff. Mr. Saba asked if they could somehow tie these requirements into a performance bond rather than just addressing each individual situation, especially for larger developments. Ms. McPherson stated that currently, it is the City's policy to tie outdoor improvements with a performance bond. That is included near the end of the ordinance requirements. Perhaps that should be moved to the front of the ordinance under the "Scope", so people are aware upfront that the City has a bond requirement. Mr. Saba stated he would also like to see something added to this ordinance regarding major developments near a park area, wetland area, or natural area such as the nature center, where there would be a dense screening of trees, brush, etc., that would effectively screen parking lots, lighting, etc. He stated this brought to mind pLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, OCTOBER 24. 1990 PAGE 17 the example of Target's concrete wall that faces Locke Park, and there is no screening whatsoever. That is an eyesore and degrades Locke Park dramatically. Mr. Dahlberg stated item E.(1) states that: "All parking areas containing over 75 stalls shall include unpaved, landscaped islands that are reasonably distributed throughout the parking area..." He asked if staff had received any comments about the landscape islands. Ms. McPherson stated there was one suggestion that landscape islands be eliminated. Mr. Dahlberg stated that as a person who works with owners on a regular basis and has to deal with ordinances to plan parking lots or projects, the biggest difficulty in putting landscape islands in the parking areas is snow removal. The loss of parking in winter months, because of islands and stacked snow, becomes more of a hazard in a parking lot during the winter months. The fewer islands developers are required to put into a parking lot makes it easier for maintenance during the winter. He stated 100 parking stalls might be a more appropriate number, and maybe they should consider leaving it at 100, rather than reducing it down to 75 or 50. Ms. Sherek stated that plant materials o killed during the winter months because of people backing over or driving into them. parking areas, she did not think landscape for all the hazards and trouble they cause. z islands usually get snow stacking and from Except in very large islands add that much Ms. Dacy stated that since they are anticipating some very large projects in the City, staff would like to meet the original deadline of adopting the ordinance by the end of December. The public hearing is scheduled for the City Council for November 19. Staff will bring back the suggested addition to the ordinance for the Planning Commission's review and comment at the November meeting. She would like the Planning Commission's permission to allow staff to go ahead and advertise the ordinance with the proposed language so they can stay on schedule. The Commissioners were in agreement with this. Mr. Dahlberg commended staff on their hard work in putting this landscape ordinance together. It is a good model, however, it is not restrictive in relation to other municipalities throughout the metropolitan area. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing. PLANNZNG COMMISSION MEETINa, OCTOBER 24. 1990 PAGE 18 IIPON,A VOICE VOT$, ALL VOTING AY$, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARIN(3 CLOSED AT 9:50 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council approval of the ordinance amendment for Landscape requirements with the following recommended changes: 1. To insert regulations for landscaping that is adjacent to public parks and other public properties. 2. That the minimum threshold for interior marking spaces increase from 75 spaces to 100 spaces or stay the same as the present ordinance. 3. To move the bonding requirement to the beginning of the ordinance under "Scope". IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 5. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 18 1990, ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the September 18, 1990, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON HETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOOSLY. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the motion carried and the October 24, 1990, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Res ectfully submitted, � � �I,.�.C� �-Cv Lyn Saba Recording Secretary � � � � STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE �'�O� pLAt�NG COM��SSION DATE : June 20, 1990; November ]4, 1990 FR! DLEY C�TI( COl�1qL DATE : AUTHOR MM� dn REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER APPLICANT PROPOSED REQUEST LOCATION SITE DATA SIZ E DENSITY PRESENT ZONING ADJACENT LAND USES 8i ZONidU UTLJTES PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FMIANCIAL IMPLlCATIONS CONFORMANCE TO COMPREI�JVSNE PLAN COMPAT�ILITY WITH ADJACENT USES 8� ZONNG ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION � SP �690-07 Pat and Rita Boyle Allow construction of a second accessory building in excess of 240 square feet 6261 Rainbow Drive N.E. 26' x 24' accessory building; 624 square feet R-1, Single Family Dwelling R-1, Single Family Dwelling to the North, West, and South; University Avenue to the East Yes Yes Approval with stipulations e Staff Report SP #90-07, Pat and Rita Boyle Page 2 Request The petitioners, Pat and Rita Boyle, are requesting that a special use permit be granted to allow construction of a 624 square foot second accessory building on Lot 1, Block 2, Sylvan Hills Addition, generally located at 6261 Rainbow Drive N.E. Site The parcel is located at the intersection of Rainbow Drive and the University Avenue service road. Located on the lot is a single family dwelling unit with an attached two car garage, constructed of brick and wood. Also on the lot in the rear yard is a carport, which the proposed accessory building will replace. The site is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are the parcels to the south, west, and north. Analysis As was stated earlier, the proposed accessory building would eliminate the need for the existing carport. Access would continue to be from the existing driveway from the University Avenue service road. The proposed accessory building would bring the lot coverage to the maximum 25� allowed by the zoning code. The petitioner has not submitted any plans or elevations of the proposed accessory building. Without plans and elevations, it is difficult for staff to determine the compatibility of the proposed structure with existing structures. The City Assessor notified staff that how buildings relate may have significant impact on the values in the area; both on the property itself and neighboring properties (see attached literature from The Appraisal of Real Estate). However, there are no standards outlined within the zoning code for issuance of a special use permit for second accessory buildings. Recommendation and Stipulations for the June 20, 1990 Meetinct As the petitioner has not provided staff with plans and elevations of the proposed accessory building, and staff is concerned about the aesthetic fit of the building to the property, staff cannot recommend approval of the special use pernait. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of the special use permit for the second accessory building, staff recommends the following stipulations: 1. The accessory building shall be located 17 1/2 feet from the east property line. Staff Report SP #90-07, Pat and Rita Boyle Page 3 2. The accessory building shall be constructed with wood or vinyl siding painted to match the trim on the existing house. 3. The height of the accessory building shall be limited to 14 feet. Uodate of June 20 1990 Meetinct The Planning Commission voted to table the request pending submission of plans and elevations by the petitioner. The petitioner expressed concerns regarding the stipulation that the accessory building be placed 17.5 feet from the side lot line. The petitioner submitted elevations for the proposed accessory building (see attached drawings). The Appeals Commission reviewed a variance request by the petitioner to reduce the side yard setback from 17.5 feet to 4.5 feet. The Commission voted to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. RecommendationfStipulations The proposed accessory building will be compatible with the dwelling unit and adjacent structures. The City Council will need to take final action on the variance for the accessory building. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special us permit request, SP #90-07, to the City Council with the following stipulations: 1. The accessory building shall be architecturally consistent with the existing house. 2. The height of the accessory building shall be limited to 14 feet. 3. Approval of the variance request, VAR #90-30. PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. on Wednesday, June 20, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #90- 07, by Pat and Rita Boyle, per Section 205.07.O1.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow a second accessory building in excess of 240 square feet on Lot l, Block 2, Sylvan Hills, generally located at 6261 Rainbow Drive N.E. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. DONALD BETZOLD CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: May 30, 1990 June 6, 1990 Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department, 571-3450. SP �690-07 Pat and Rita Boyle Patrick Boyle 6261 Rainbow Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 MAILING LIST Planning 5/25/90, 6/4/90 Council Loyd Tanner 6260 Rainbow Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 John Jacob � ,,,�o�in Reeves 6251 Rainbow Drive N.E. �� d250 Rainbow Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Willard Bolling 6241 Rainbow Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Gordon Knutsen 6231 Rainbow Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Lovern Otten 6240 Rainbow Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 John Snyder 6230 Rainbow Drive N.E Fridley, MN 55432 Buzz's Barber Shop 6247 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 U.S. Navy Re �3ttng 6 'versity Avenue N.E. dle MN 55432 Current Tenan 6239 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 �rent Tenant 243 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Anthony Olesinski A. T. Gearman J& L Dance Studio 6221 Rainbow Drive N.E. 6225 University Avenue N.E. 6235 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Ernest Powell A. T. Gearman Je nies Needles 6241 Sunrise Drive N.E. 6257 University Avenue N.E. 7 Llniversity Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Wayne Brandt -� Lettering U.S. Air Force 6231 Sunrise Drive N.E. 267 University Avenue N.E. 6231 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, IrIN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 David Arnason R Block Current Tenant 6220 Sunrise Drive N.E. � 63 University Avenue N.E. 6229 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Thomas Gliadon Plaza Cleaners U.S. Army Recruiting 6230 Sunrise Drive N.E. 6259 University Avenue N.E. 6225 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Walter Zembal Dave's Sport Shop/Tenant Lo n Green Assoc. 6240 Sunrise Drive N.E. 6253 University Avenue N.E. R S�University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 ridley, MN 55432 William Camp Powdour Pouf Salon C �nt Tenant 6280 University Avenue N.E. 6251 University Avenue N.E. 3 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Robert Davis US Navy Recruiting U.S. Marines Recruiting 280 Sylvan Lane N.E. 6249 University Avenue N.E. 6223 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 SP �i90-07 Pat and Rita Boyle Pae 2 Farmer's Insurance Group 6221 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Moon Plaza Restaurant 6215 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 North Star Video 6213 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Emerald Office Supply 6209 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 A & G Enterprises 6205 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Affiliated Emergency 6201 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Wheelock Enterprises A and G Enterprises 6205 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Planning Commission Chair City Council Members SP 4�90-07 Pat and Rita Boyle S �/2 SEC. ��TY .��.;�� ... i. U �, , �� 31 i, °o � '�-�+—�- ee��rr� —�y. J J '' I Q ,��, ��~ t .',II� -:�+ r �� ---�� • �`•I' a _ t ��. -�;i 3 � ' ,� 1' � 5 Y �'v p N '' ,;�: ". . � • Y �' ' J � o •°;'-�-�� c� � • , •' - `� '� R�D�„� � a # �� ,, � '. � � `�---� .� LS � - . ,.. ; F � � �; �_� . N�L ---- - � =. a c,t � f, � i �� _ • � , • ��^ ''' � ...1 r; � -�, • _.. 1z �ar � � ---+? , "`.��-� ' ,- ,,, /7�,�,__ , ' ° _ �ti ;� r SiLVAN � � P - ,� - '--� � �� a- � � '� �;' � � / � � � -- ' ,�.', i I ' / � H� 8;..1 �y - �� ,� ��p ,'. � .e�p ... _ ; � �' V.; ; pl.�!Z� � ✓ �� '� "° PLA • � "+ ... �, : : ---�i . � ;-�, ° AL.ICE , , ' � ELU E - - 'r^ ANE �;�. � ';� " �.'f M : : � �L i ��,V� i�.�� u � . `�,' �` ;• , ' , � ;,�✓ � . � �t � ��` �� v : ��' ' �� %N ,=—., _� _��' - 'r . �,y ; � �_ . _. r � : A�� N , �l� \y ,�. "•,' ��:.j ' + ' ' � NTER�p , , � �� ij� � . - . ' _ - E i � .�' ` : . .. t G _ � r/;�;;; � „ Sr�w�N - Ln►�_ r' , �RCUAY -- DRrvE ' ' � _ � �� , • : i ` t %= .' i : e....,. _ � � � �•;tiii. + y H �, ' . .` • � ./: � � I:. . � , � , . I . y =y� �'I . °'^'^• �. • I t! tl, fi � M } q � � . �4 ' i 1 rl t � �� , .. . I ,.. �. 'I �. e S``= . �� . . •.� . � , ; " . • "� i �� ';� e r �1'y .. i • 1 � ' � a , . AUDk ORS _ •� � t. �v 19 - ` _- � _ -'- _ - _":� �-=w__- , ._ h .. .. , _ � -,. ,� . , . S I —b.wE—� _ ,=�—_' T-= ' � . �, •. � •. , . . � .. � � � i .. ' .�.; , �:a. 3 i � �+ ~ . `y Y � ,.i�., q j`_�:�y :I ..-. � ^--- = ,- I�"� � '• •.. � r) � � ' � � � W� � � ° 7 � . � + Qv - �T.,- � � ' �$U8 IVIS . �� ►,. . ' � ��' � I � ��. 1' • �1i. i � �� • i I � '� ' E �O � • ��, ��f �I 'i tw � N.. f � a ��: ' � y ��, � � 1 •130,1 _l�' • , _ � • 'r_ . �i � ' � DRiVE ! •.. , � 1 . � -� '., •, ' N0. 59' _ � � r � r , t. •.. � . , 0 � � , 4 � .n ... �� r � � � �, ., � � • �i-:� • ' \- � � :�• � � 2 \ 7f � \. , 'I . '� .�i � i i I � r [ � « , w ' �.. � + W � �' \ I� '�;I � :� ii ' s. �'� \�� DRIVE� � , . : 62�N0. AVE..2 .�.. J�+ F • .t ' 1 ' . ' • 'S . �W' ��,_ �+ -a.s. `� � ��. . � •�' • `- �� , � �:- . �;,, �..o. ,�. • + , r • +^ � � � • •; � uo. i . , � "' i i � e, ' � "' • � •, r, *. � _ �. , , �- �,•».. �:, ��^ � :�° � �aNe 'S =..., ,.� � ,, . .. � I . 3 :,' . {' : � � � ,,, ;� � . • .r �' f� .., . � ; .��.: a � � `: � : w o � r . y 1 . _ ♦ .. ♦ ' = t .� ;L� ��'• a �� • ' ~ � ' � " ' `�r�—. — . . _' Sw coqatR--� I-� iT1 '"�"""� r� r� .sec i� � 33 ' 6 ir� �i�li�l�i i!1!■ .�� LOCATION MAP � SP ��90-07 . . Pat and Rita Boyle r.. - �.�,�E�� . ��_ � , �, � � �� ; ��o�� ,�',�� `,�' � �. � �,- � , � � � �� tJ � � � , �� ,�€ � ` �.``r'� F' ` �': � .� ., ZONING MAP SP 4�90-07 Pat and R CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY LpGAfION SURYEY FOR = RIfA 80`(LE R� i n180 IN 68 �R�vE 9' _ 1 �— 53. 9 _ T- ZO . - -- � � � 1 ' � � � � , � , �,, � ' �� i � � �. � N U � � �� ~� O , ` � t'j ` sa `O i t �o r. s., 9�' � � w � � ♦ a� i SroRY SR'NE � 6aQA6E � � Btl1�D�n1G '° �11 NO. GZ 61 ' `' . , . . �" ` ` _ v •, _. �+ ,L1 � �S 1 i � � : '�� , � t,_.'_ � / � � � � �'-- 7o.2s RiPr►oN = LoT �, b�OC�C t, Srr..�Au �{I�LS, qNOKA COuNrY .� � h �t _ � � � i � i � � � � � �- � � I� � StA� E : 1'' = 30' � ��r c�rt�r nw �as st�v�r wr►s �r�m sr � EM CONSULTANTS. P.A. °� ��DO1 � °�'T �� ro TMa i�w w owr �c�+cTt�m t�o st�tveirat � • E'vGINF�RING • CONSTRUCTIOti STAKI�G � u�Q � �� M �� A _ SITE PLAN ,r,K,, �., •- . � � � Do It Yourself ,� � . .al � Ste -B -Ste � �� - � p Y p�q �� , i . �, ' �,�` � ,� � � 10 Eas Ste s to Do-It-Yoursel� Y p Garag e Construction 4�f�-f�V�cl`�`� � U � �� Acknowledgments Director of Publications: Karla L. Heuer Development Writer: Michael R. Milgrim, Ph.D For Educational Purposes Only The opinions and statements sct forth herein do not necessarily reflcct the viewpoint of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers or its individual members, and neither the Institute nor its editors and staff assume responsibility for such expres- sions of opinion or statements. ,c^ 1951, 1952, 1960, 1964, 1967, 1973, 1978, 1983, 1987 by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers of the N.nTio'�ni. AssocinTioN or RFnt.TOttsp, an Illinois Not For Profit Corporation. All rights reserved. Published 1951. Ninth edition 1987. Printed in the United States of America 92 91 90 89 88 87 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data The Appraisal of real estate. Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Real property—Valuation. HD1387.A663 1987 ISB'�i 0-911780-87-4 American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. 333.33'2 g�-��423 TASLE O� CON'�EN' Foreword Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chupter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chaptcr I1 Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter ] 4 Chapter 15 Chapter 16 Chaptcr 17 Chaptcr 18 Chaptcr l9 Chapter 20 Chapter 21 Chaptcr 22 Chaptcr 23 Chapter 24 Chapter 25 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D lndcx Rcal Pn Thc Na' Foundat The Val Munc} Fcc Sin Data C� NcighU� Land o; Buildin Buildin Highes! Land o The Sa The Cc Buildin Accruc Thc In Incom� Direct Yicid c Yield � Recon� Thc A Evalua Profes� Mathc Financ Sugge Foundations of Appraisal 37 The principle of balance and the related conccpts of contribution, surplus productivit�, and conformit� are interdependent and crucial in estimating highest and best use and market value. These concepts form the thearetical foundation for estimating all forms of depreciation in the cost approach, making adjustments in thc sales comparison approach, and calculating expected earnings in the income capitali- zation approach. CONTRIBUTION ��'hen appraisers appl� the principle of balance to component propert� parts, the�� stud� the concept of contribution. The conrept of contrrbutivn .ctates �hat the value of a/�artict�lar contpu��enl is measured in ternts oJit.c conlribution lo the ralt�e nf the xhole prurert►, or a.c the antottnt thal it.c absence k�ould delrnct from the �'nlue of the� «hole. The cost of an item does not necessarily equal its ��alue. A swimming pool that costs S 10,000 to install does not necessaril� cause the value of a residential propert� to increa,c b} 510,000. Rathcr, thc pool's dollar contribution to �•aluc is mea�urcd in terms uf ho�� aluable its benefit or utilit� is in the market. Its contribu- tion to �alue ma� be lo�+er or highcr than its cost. Thus, in some cases, a propert�'s market �alue m:i� not increase even though thc ph}sical real cstate has undergone c�ltcration, mudification, or rehabilitation. The existing improvcments ma� not reflect a proper balance for the total propert��. E�peciall�� in areas of rapid transition, a property's present use ma�� repre- �ent undcrutilization of thc land. 1c��erthcless, an existing, le;s optimal usc, callcd an inrrriirr u�c�, ��ill continuc until it is economically fcasiblc for a dcvcloper to absorb the cu,ts of comcrting thc Propert� by razing or rchabilitating thc cxisting im�+r�n cm�nt:. SURPLUS PRODUCTIVITY S��r�>l�rc rrudu� ti� i�� rs thc� net incunre tftat r�irrairts nJtc�r �he costs of labur, rapital. nrid cuordinntrun hnre heen Paid. The surplus is attributable tu land rent and tends to ti� land � aluc. Thc roncc�t uf �ur�lu� �roductivih is thc ba;is for thc residual conccpt ol� I:in�1 r�turns and for rc.;idual ��aluation tcchniyuc�. CONFORMITY C�u»J��rn�itl� is the appraisa! principle �hat holds thc�t rral pro�ertt' �•alue rs created arrrl c��.crai�ied �, he�t the� charac teris�ics uf a/�ruPerl r ru�tJurn� tu the c�i�l)1QRCI.S U�((.S n;��r�c�t. Thc st�lcs and uscs of thc propertics in an arca ma� conform for scvcral r�:u��n>, inrluding ccunumir pres;ure,; thc sharrd �rcfcnnces of o��ncr, for ccrtain � r� . y � ��`�� x �y �� .. ,�i,. 4�R. - =i.. * T� r �. .. �� . ,,` . . � ' ±>y � .�;'� ;{^ : _� � ` � �� ,i y . x+�. ' � ��c�' . , : .. 38 The A raisal of Real Estate t}pes of structures, amenities, and services; and the enforcement of uniform stan- dards by means of zoning. Through local zoning ordinances, the go��ernment encour- ages conformit� by restricting land use. Stand:irds of conformity are set b} the market and are therefore subject to change. Zoning codes, however, tend to establish conformit}� in basic property characteristics, including size, style. and design. A particular market also sets standards of conformity, especially in terms of price. � l;suall}, the value of an overimproved property µ'i�� decline, or regress, toward the value le��el of surrounding, conforming properties; the value of an underimpro��ed property� ma}� increase, or progress, toward the prevailing market standard.� ERTExNALITIES The prrnciple of externalities states �hat economies or disecononties outside a prop- ertr may ha�•e a positive or negative efject on its ��alue. When external economies affect a great number of people, the product or service wil] probablr be provided by go�•ernment. Bridges, high�ays, police and fire protection, and other essential ser- �•ices can be provided more cheaply through common purchase b� the government than through separate acquisition b}� individuals. EXTERti.qL I'�FLCENCFS Oti RFSIDE'�TIAL PROPP.RTl' �H �rm.�ronE Robcri�. Inc 1 External diseconomies result when the costs of inconveniences are imposed on other people b� an individual or a firm. A person who litters, for examplc, imposes the cleanup costs on others. Real estate is affected by externalities more than any other economic good. ser� ice, or commodity. Because it is ph��sically immobile, real estate is subject to man� types of external inilucncc in .�rigin or the� ma) cmanatc i r nalitics may be as broad as inte� neighbor's standard of propert� lyze how external influences af' At the in��rnatiAti��i �� cienc>', interest rutra. ;►�A sE�� valucs. For example, a combina valuc� to fall or stagnate in thc industrics, and old plants and cc tions Ic,s cfficicnt than their homc buying and industrial exp a natiunal priority resultcd in n bu} a homc had to compcte fc At thc regional le��el. some areas than in others. In g� to enhance values there at the tendcd to stabilize or decline. wcre susccptiblc tu forcign c� reliant on such industries. B� t recession in the Sunbelt. In ac thc prcvious dccadc resultcd in northcrn Rustbelt cxperienccd fall-off in construction couplc pnccs. At the community an local laws, local govcrnment growth, and social atlitudes. among communities in thc � community. Appraiscrs shoul ablc to asscss thcir impact or FORCES THAT INFLUE? The value of real property re1 1ha1 motivatc human activit� social trends, econon�ic circi em�ironmen�al conditions. T activitic� and in turn arc affe influences thc value of ever� To cstimate valuc, a property; thc scopc of invcsti; the appraiscr analyzcs tren� direction, spced, duration, s 0 CITY OF FRIDLEY P��ING Cp1�II+iISBION �EETING, JtTNL� Z� � 1990 CALL TO ORDER: 1990� planning Commissi Chairperson $eer at 7a30ep,mhe June 2�► meeting to ord • ROLL CALL: Sue Shere Don Betzold, De�r� Kuechle (f Diane Members Present: paul Dahlberg, Members Absent: Others Present: Savage) Dave Kondrick, Connie Mo � Planni Coordinator Barbara Dacy, lanning Assistant Michele McPherson�ainbow Drive N.E. Rita Boyle, 626 ears outlet Robert Bushey reP. John Babinski & godyworks Frank Kramefel, Maaco Auto Painting Phillip 0 Vi a+..-'--- � p,ppROVAL OF Ni�'Y 3 0 that the following amendment�sa Piy„bshould be Mr. Dahlberg stat last paragraph, the word the minutes: P e 10, a Y"• changed to " 1 to approve the May MOTION bY r, Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Saba, p 199 , Planning Commission minutes as amende � ETZOLD DECLp'RED 3 � Cg�IgpERSON B UPO 1°� VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYEr MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY• _,��,rTAL USE pERMIT SF �,vi.., � ..,._.- - 1, pUgLIC HEAR City Code to allow 90-07 BY PAT•AND RITA B�YLof the Fridley are feet on Per Section 205.07• bu iding in excess of 24iocated at 6261 a secondBiocks 2rYSYlvan Hills, generally Lot 1, Rainbow Drive N•E• Ms. Sherek, to waive the reading OTION by Saba, seconded bY ublic hearing• ,,�_ Mr. notice and open the p of the public hearing D TgE MOTION tTpON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYEr CBAIRpERSON DECLARE CARRIED A11D THE PUBLIC $EARING OPEN AT 7�32 p' ' r� pLANNING COIfl+II88ION KEETING. JQNE 20. 1990 PAGE 2 Ms. McPherson stated that the petitioner fs requestinq a special use permit to allow the construction of a second accessory building over 240 sq. ft. The property is located at the intersection of Rainbow Drive, just west of the University Avenue Service Road. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as is the adjacent properties to the north, west, and south. Ms. McPherson stated a single family home with an attached two car garage is currently located on the lot. At the rear of the lot, there is a carport which is hidden by a privacy fence. The petitioner hopes that with the second accessory building, the need for the carport will be eliminated. Ms. McPherson stated access to the lot occurs from the University Avenue Service Road and would continue to remain as it is today. The existing driveway would access both the existing garage and the proposed accessory building. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting to build the largest accessory building possible for the lot. She calculated the remaining available square footage to bring the lot to the maximum 25� lot coverage allowed by the Zoning Code. This allows the petitioner to build an accessory building of up to 624 sq. ft. Ms. McPherson stated that at this tiae, staff has not received any plans or elevations of the proposed accessory building from the petitioner. It is difficult for staff to make a determination as to the compatibility of the proposed structure with the existing structures on the lot and structures on neighboring parcels. The City Assessor has indicated to staff that how buildings relate to each other, both on the lot itself and adjacent properties, may have a significant impact on the values within the area. Staff had included some literature in the staff report. She stated, however, that the Zoning Code does not outline any particular standards for the construction of second accessory buildings. Ms. McPherson stated that since staff is concerned about the compatibility of the proposed structure, staff cannot recommend approval of the special use permit. However, staff has outlined three standards if the Planning Commission recommends approval of this special use permit to the City Council. l. The accessory building shall be located 17 1/2 feet from the east property line. 2. The accessory building shall be constructed with wood or vinyl siding painted to match the trim of the existing house. 3. The height of the accessory building shall be limited to 14 feet (Zoning Code requirement). pLANNZNG COMMISSION MEETZNG, JONE 20, 1990 PAGE 3 Ms. Sherek stated that if the Planning Commission recommends approval, she would suggest that another stipulation be added that the carport be removed upon completion of the construction of the accessory building. Ms. Boyle stated they are willing to comply with the restrictions recommended by the staff and submit plans for approval when they are ready to start construction. She stated one thing they have a problem with is the 17 1/2 foot side yard setback. If the City forces them to build the accessory buildinq 17 1/2 feet from the property line, then the building would be in the middle of their back yard. That would not be aesthetically pleasing to them or the neighborhood, and it would not be accessible to the existing driveway. Mr. Betzold stated it is not possible for the Planning Commission to give permission to go any closer than the 17 1/2 feet. If the petitioner wished to build closer to the side property line, then they would have to apply for a variance through the Appeals Commission. It is difficult for the Commission to make any decision on this special use permit without plans and elevations for them to look at. Ms. Doyle stated the City staff has already told her how the building should look, and she is willing to comply with that. She just found out about the 17 1/2 foot side yard setback. She thought the accessory building could be built 3-5 ft. from the back neighbor's lot line, but no one had told her that she would have to be so far from the side lot line. Mr. Betzold asked Ms. Boyle if she needed more time to put her plans together. Ms. Boyle stated she will definitely need more time, and staff will need to show her how to deal with the 17 1/2 feet. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to table consideration of special use permit, SP #90-07, by Pat and Rita Boyle to give the petitioner additional time to work with City staff regarding the 17 1/2 foot side yard setback requirement, to be brought back on the agenda at the petitioner's request. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. _ 2. j'�KMl'1' JY y�-vv DZ nv,�Ln� Per Section 205.15.O1.C.(8) exterior storage of mate ' Plaza, generally loc at (Public hearing�].-�ed. ) of Fridley City Code to allow s on Lot 1, Block l, Shorewood 1000 East Moore Lake Drive N.E. pLANNING COMMI88ION I�ETIId(i. JIII�i� 20� 3990 PAGE � OT ON by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Dahlberq, to remove the item from the table. / OPON A VOICE VOTE, 11LL VOTING 11YE, CHlrIRPER80N BETZOLD �SCLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMODSLY. / Ms. McPherson stated staff inet with Mr. Bushey and Mr. George Applebaum on June 6, 1990, to discuss the alternativ s to provide additional warehouse space for the Sears store. It as determined that there is adequate space on the parcel to co truct a 57 ft. x 150 ft. addition along the south wall of th building. The proposed addition would bring the lot coverage to the maximum of 40$ allowed by the zoning code. Ms. McPherson stated there are currently 13 parkinq spaces on the site, and the addition would eliminate appr ximately 17 spaces; but an additional five spaces could be constr cted along the west wall of the addition. There are cross parki easements between Sears and the old Shorewood shopping c ter across the street. Currently, the Sears employees utiliz the parking spaces directly along the East Moore Lake Drive publ c right-of-way. Ms. McPherson stated the buildin expansion would eliminate the ability to drive around the bui ing; however, trucks will still be able to access the site fro the east driveway and they will drive through the parking lot and back up to the loading docks. Ms. McPherson stated staff di cussed this with the Fire Department staff, and they indicated t at because of the access through the Shorewood Inn parking lot, the Fire Department would be able to provide adequate fire pro ection for the rear of the building. Ms. McPherson stated t t in addition to the proposed expansion, Sears is proposing to onstruct a second loading dock adjacent to the existing loading dock. This would allow them to unload two trucks simultaneous . Ms. McPherson st ed Mr. Applebaum is proposing to upgrade the facade on the S rs store with a canopy similar to those canopies on the new off' e building and the old shopping center. Ms. McPhers stated the proposed expansion would screen the loading act vity as well as provide additional warehouse space and will eli nate the need for the five dropped trailers. T�►o trailers ill still be necessary to accommodate daily deliveries. These t cks will be adequately screened from the Hiqhway 65 right- of-wa by the building expansion itself. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends the Planning Commission r ommend approval of the special use permit request with the llowing six stipulations: v !►PP8AL8 COI4IIBSION 1[EBTII�Ta. OC'�OBER 30. 1990 Pl1QE 11 4. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REOUEST VAR #90-30. BY RITA BOYLE: Per Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(c). ((1)) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the side yard setback from 17.5 feet to 4.5 feet, to allow the construction of a second accessory building on Lot 1, Block 2, Sylvan Hills, the same beinq 6261 Rainbow Drive N.E. Ms. McPherson stated this property is located at the intersection of Rainbow Drive and the West University Avenue Service Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwellinq, as is the property to the north, west, and south. University Avenue is to the east. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing to construct a 624 sq. ft. second accessory building, and he has applied for a special use permit as the building is over 240 sq. ft. The Planning Commission reviewed the special use permit request in June and tabled the request due to the lack of building plans and elevations, which the petitioner has now submitted. Ms. McPherson stated that in reviewing the special use permit, staff's recommendation is to locate the proposed accessory building within the 17.5 foot setback at the rear of the parcel. The petitioner's request is to reduce the 17.5 foot setback to 4.5 feet so that the accessory building would be somewhat in line with the existing garage. The petitioner would still be able to use the existing driveway as the accessory building would face to the north. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has ample room on the property to meet the 17.5 foot setback. For that reason, staff recommends that the Commission deny the variance request. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner's house faces Rainbow Drive; however, the garage faces east onto the University Avenue Service Drive. There is a fence running along the east property line and a car port along the east side portion of the fence. The car port structure will be removed with the construction of the second accessory building. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner's house is 15 feet to the curb; however, the right-of-way line is only 4.5 feet from the dwelling unit itself. Dr. Vos stated the existing garage and house are 4.5 feet from the right-of-way line and are essentially nonconforming now. OT O by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, to open the public hearing. �pPEALB COPII�II88ION 1[B$TING. OCTOBER 30. 1990 B�QE 12 IIPON 71 VOICE VOTE, 71LL VOTIIiG 71YE, VICE-CSPiIRP$RSON xII$CHLE DECIJIRBD TH$ 1LOTIOI�T C7IRRIBD 11ND TSE P�BLZC HEARING OPEN AT 8: SO P.M. Mr. Pat Boyle stated the biggest problem is that if they have to put the building at the 17.5 foot setback is with the existing driveway, and he would end up with yard on both sides of the garage with a driveway in between, which doesn't make sense. He stated there is a privacy fence on the east side now, and that will be torn down and a new fence constructed. The way his lot line and his neighbor's lot lines run, he would not be blocking the line of sight for anyone. The proposed accessory building would be in line with the existing attached qarage, and he can then use the existing driveway in between. OM TION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, to close the public hearing. ��LARED THE MOTION �CARRIED Ol�ND THE PIIBLICCHEARINGpCL08 D ATE8H55 DEC P.M. Dr. Vos stated he looked at the property. His first reaction to this variance request is that it does not seem very advantageous to chop up the line of sight along the service roa= �esare�4s5tfeet the 17.5 foot setback. The house and existing g 9 from the right-of-way, but with the boulevard, there is about 15 feet to the street. Now, they are asking the petitioner to go another 13 feet, so the proposed accessory building would be right behind the house in the middle of the back yard. He believed the widening of the service road must have taken some of the petitioner' shiopertH Stat d helwould trecommendh approval �oflthe that a hard p variance as requested. Ms. Smith stated she is normally reluctant to grant this large a variance. However, because of the service road and the fact that the accessory building would be in the middle of the back yard, it did not make much sense to adhere to the 17.5 foot setback. The proposed acceSline ofls ght or be a detr ment to anyone elsegoing to affect th Mr. Kuechle stated he concurred that the accessory building would not affect any sight lines and aesthetically it would be better to construct the accessory building at the side of the yard rather than in thalsonfor histneighbor'srd�He�wouldyrecommend approvalrof view, but the variance as requested. OT ON by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, to recommend to City Council approval of variance request, VAR �90-30, by Pat and Rita Boyle, per Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(c)• ((1)) of the Fridley City � r �ppgALB COMMI88ION l[BBTINa. OCTOBBR 30. 1990 P�GE 13 Code, to reduce the side yard setback from 17.5 feet to 4.5 feet, to allow the construction of a second accessory building on Lot 1, Block 2, Sylvan Hills, the same being 6261 Rainbow Drive N.E. IIPON 71 VOICB VOT$, 71LL VOTI�Ta 7►YB, VICB-C871IRPER80li xIIgCHLE DBCL�RBD TSE 1LOTIOI�i Cl1RRISD II�iliNll[OOSLY. Ms. McPherson stated this item, along with the special use permit request, will probably go to the City Council on November 19, 1990. ADJOiTRNMENT • OTIO by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Vice-Chairperson Kueeals declared the motion carried and the October 30, 1990, App Commission meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Res ectfully s mitted, �, .G�-�-� Lyn Saba Rec rding Secretary -� �► STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE ��OF PLAMNNG COMNqSS�ON DATE� November 14, 1990 FR! DLEY CITY COUNGL DATE �� / dn REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER APPLICANT PROPOSED REQUEST LOCATION SiTE DATA SIZE DENSITY PRESENT ZONING ADJACENT LAND USES 8� ZONING ��$ PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS F�IANCIAL IMPUCATIONS CONFORMANCE TO CpMpREHENSNE PLAN COMPAT�ILITY WITH ADJACENT USES 8� ZONNG ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMEt�ATION APPEALS RECOMMENDATIO� PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION P.S. 4i90-06 Glacier Park Company To divide property in such a manner that the legal descriptions may be recorded. Generally located at the northwest corner of Main Street and I-694. 780,293 square feet M-2, Heavy Industrial and C-2, General Business M-2, Heavy Industrial to the South, West, and North; C-3, General Shopping to the East. Available to site $.023 per square foot ($17,946.73) Yes Yes Approval with stipulations Staff Report P.S. #90-06, Glacier Park Page 2 Request Glacier Park Company, the petitioner, is proposing to create a registered land survey for Lot 2 and a portion of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78. The registered land survey will create a single tract that would be a buildable lot while also creating tracts for the Burlington Northern Railroad yards, and a private right-of-way for a private access drive. This request is for the property generally located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Main Street and I-694. Site The property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of where Main Street and I-694 cross each other. The property is zoned C-2, General Business, and M-2, Heavy Industrial. The surrounding properties are zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial to the north, west, and south; while the property to the east is zoned C- 3, General Shopping. The property is currently vacant, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation has used the property to pile their construction debris from the I-694 reconstruction proj ect. Analysis The subdivision ordinance would require that all lots within the proposed registered land survey meet the minimum requirements of the zoning district. The principal lot, Tract A, created by the registered land survey would meet the minimum 1 1/2 acre area requirement of the M-2, Heavy Industrial District regulations, and would also meet the 150 foot lot width requirement. The registered land survey creates three other tracts in addition to Tract A. Tract B will be reserved for the Burlington Northern rail yards. Tract C could be used by Burlington Northern at some future time for private access to Tract B, but is not a buildable lot. Tract D will be dedicated to the City for right-of-way for Main Street, which would allow a future Anoka County road improvement project. The lot created as Tract A could be further subdivided into lots based on future needs. Attached is a memorandum from the Public Works Department regarding a ditch improvement project along the railroad right-of-way north of 77th Avenue. The Commission may want to consider the Public Works Director's recommendation when considering the plat request. Recommendation and Stipulations The proposed registered land survey creates a tract which meets the minimum requirements of the C-2 and M-2 zoning districts. Staff • Y Staff Report P.S. #90-06, Glacier Park Page 3 recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the registered land survey to the City Council with the following stipulations: �� t�,- . 1. Clean the parcel of I-694 construction debris and re-esta�lish f� ,�-, •�.��° vegetative cover by June 1, 1991. �C� � �•�- �,��"_� �"��- � -- - �_ �� _ f—.._ . 2. A park dedication fee of $.023 per square foot shall be paid at the time of construction on Tract A or if Tract A is re- subdivided. 3. Tracts B and C are not buildable lots. 4. Tract D shall be dedicated to the public for street and utility purposes. PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. on Wednesday, November 14, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of: Consideration of a Registered Land Survey, P.S. #90-06, by Glacier Park Company, to replat that part of Lots 2 and 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a concrete monument marking the quarter corner between Sections 22 and 23, Township 30, Range 24; also being the Southeast corner of Lot 3 in said Auditor's Subdivision No. 78; thence due North along the East line of said Lot 3 a distance of 897.05 feet to a judicial landmark at the Northeast corner of said Lot 3; thence North 88 degrees 51 minutes West along the North line of said Lot 3 a distance of 692.1 feet to a judicial landmark at the Northwest corner of said Lot 3, thence South 4 degrees 18 minutes West along the Westerly line of said Lot 3 a distance of 894.85 feet to a judicial landmark at the Southwest corner of said Lot 3, thence South 4 degrees 18 minutes West along the Westerly line of Lot 2 in said Auditor's Subdivision No. 78 a distance of 876.47 feet to a judicial landmark on the Northerly right-of-way line of State Highway 100; thence South 85 degrees 42 minutes 45 seconds East along said Northerly right-of-way line 236.44 feet to a judicial landmark; thence South 4 degrees 17 minutes 15 seconds West 3.57 feet to a judicial landmark in said Northerly right-of-way line; thence South 85 degrees 22 minutes East along said Northerly right-of-way line 588.65 feet to a judicial landmark at the intersection line of said East line of said Lot 2 and said Northerly right-of-way line; thence North along the East line of said Lot 2 to the point of beginning, excepting therefrom the North 845 feet which lies Easterly of the Westerly 59 feet thereof. Generally located north of I-694 and west of Main Street N.E. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. DONALD BETZOLD CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: October 31, 1990 November 7, 1990 Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department, 571-3450. P.S. 4i90-06 Glacier Park Company Burlington Northern Inc. Mr. Norman 2000 Foshay Tower 821 Marquette Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402 Glacier Park Company Mr. Dolan 2000 Foshay Tower 821 Marquette Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402 Hakanson Anderson Assoc. James Winters 222 Monroe Street Anoka, MN 55303 JRG North Partnership 5730 Main Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 JRG North Partnership 512 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55402 Current Resident 5800 Main Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident�• 5750 Main Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Burlington Northern 5400 Main Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Burlington Northern 176 E. 5th Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Current Resident 5500 Main Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 JCH Associates 5400 Main Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 MAILING LIST JCH Associates P.O. Box 32225 Fridley, MN 55432 Planning 10/26/90 Council John Blahoski ]05 - 58th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 John Blahoski 895 Orange Avenue E. St. Paul, MN 55106 Wayne Bachler 1946 Fairmont St. Paul, MN 55105 Timothy Maciej 5825 Main Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Alisa Mazurek 5825 Main Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Auren Kerntop 5835 Main Street N.E Fridley, MN 55432 Auren Kerntop 201 Mercury Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Joseph Steindel 2061 Main N.W. Coon Rapids, MN 55433 Michael McCormick 5847 Main Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Frank Meyer 5857 Main Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Rachel Loehr 5861 Main Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Richard Bistodeau 101 - 57th Place N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Steven Otterness 131 - 57th Place N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Bernard Jeska Sr. 215 - 57th Place N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Bernard Jeska Sr. 2103 - 140th Lane N.W. Andover, MN 55304 Robert Russell 219 - 57th Place N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Robert Russell 3025 Jersey Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55427 Current Resident 217 - 57th Place N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Kevin Raatikka 233 - 57th Place N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Lyndale Terminal 210 - 57th Place N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Lyndale Terminal 4567 West 80th Street Minneapolis, MN 55437 Paul Laduke 216 - 57th Place N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Harry Berkholz 218 - 57th Place N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Twin City Tire 226 - 57th Avenue N.E Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident 5790 - 2nd Street N.E Fridley, MN 55432 P.S. #90-06 Glacier Park Company Page 2 Current Resident Bos 32004 Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident 5790 - 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Thomas Wolff 5770 - 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 David Burg 2291 Lois Drive New Brighton, 1�1 55112 Current Resident 5848 - 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 R. Blesi and R. Ward 2812 - 64th Avenue N. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Thomas Wolff Current Resident 5296 Matterhorn Drive N.E. 5830 - 2ad Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55421 Fridley, MN 55432 Ronald Brace 5765 Main Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Randy Holmberg 5765 Main Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Donald Findell 110 - 58th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Donald Findell 6676 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 John Keppler 100 - 58th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Holiday Plus 250 - 57th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Susan Griener 5775 l�sin Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 David Burg 5866 - 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 John Weatherly 5815 - 19th Avenue S Minneapolis, MN 55417 Sylvia Holmen 5816 - 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Gerald Hooser 5800 - 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Planning Commission Chair City Council Members . -� ( ' _ . • Y_ '!� � ' � 1• 1— : .:;,,,, ; . � � � ; •. � , �. �, _ _ �/ � . .� � < � � � � ' � , - -- �� : : , A.i t ::ar!�1► � �' ' �; ' ' : � , . ...� . � Q � j , '• • ;� �;� �`` Ei1S !` � lP L f t / � �=_ � ; �S' w�r �a r• ;t • i s ,• = • � � • �O •► .A •S'.' � � II '; � r Y' T .�' � � .f�,.� . � � i � `.� M.•1 !� f r ♦ �k , �� / �� rri � � I W�' � � � � I j . i � �, � + � � � � � � �`' � , �� •/ � ' � i• '� � ,'R. . N0. 38 �� .. : � � � I 'i� srtl I , -I , , • raa�iL�...�� / �+ �� _J '� ,�J�. � I� �• 1 t Ir�. �I . I , I �. , ,. ,. � � `� I = � ' •' , :�c ;• • I • . ; �� • i�� j � � � . �' , . ' `:' '� 13 I; ~ , � f �:. � i ;- i7 � / �M /: i • �'� r' j � � ( � ' � � , � ' • �! _ .. ... � �:.� . ,� ♦ � ' � / • � •' � ��' + t AUDtTORS ;`; /�/i t� ':. , / . , ,,i! ; y_ � ,,.,s.... _:.. , � '�, � 14 M . �� i i i `�� . . � K/.K � i �� . . � s �i:� � NO. ' ! / : �t +� ..� ti ;... , , , , , � � , -.{,�` - ;/� ;� '' - . ��.�,• . — — _ a�i , ,.z 6RfAT • �� ; NIt1.�T M� • j v � M r . �► �` � � ; � . � ` � N : •.. �." j �� : '' � s, '� W � � � j J � . t:�, .� il � � p ■ P.S. #90-06 . � _ -� �� L � �._ .. �;. .�� .1 1 .r. w ( • ...,.;,�:xe-.. - ,1 _ �t , �~�'� 1=j � tl � 22 ' �' � � v � I � � � � � 4 ! t.: .w, t� �� Y � i :: � � � _ � ` � S o � � �� t < ._ .... .:- . . - M . - . , • - — [ lU9CIVISION � ..� r.. � �, AR L/ K � � TS i ; �. _. _ - .-----_�--� -- u r.y '� A • � -- . LOCATION MAP n u Glacier Park Co. RE�ISTERED LAND SURVEYP'��90-06 ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA Nort�.�� Cornv of Lo1 3 JuClciol LonOmorM Not Found ^ I ' I I � � � � �1 tl �! 1' '.'• i? o Z � i H � Z �< '•. . Z � 'F^ V Z J � � � z IM O J 0 0 c J f� � � �� o� �O e'��O°� ��. r Norlh Lln� of Lot 3 /' � 692.10 C�rll/icol� of Tltl• / / / N89°SI'OO��W —`-- �f ---6��I.SB��-- � 66 ��—Norl��ott Corno ot Lot 3 � �t / Judlelol LanOmmk Not FounE� �, j i 90a- I i I I I ��. I I � � � � o� . I � . °' j ' i'�; I�: � c•! I I ,};. ' �:; : ' 4's C:: i \_ . � o � •%•• I I — :.;: . , � � ------ � � � a ( I ��;t; •r� �; a�: ��. ��. _WI I __ -.. - o I r-- --- r i -�°, h. W Q � � g N� I '= s ; Z �G-`r \ ' ( � °_, r � �' `{, 0 �O � I � 2N� h O � P � nl� � , o � ; p m �o wl �o� • � � I Z Q 'm yd v'— . 0 n� I '� �jl�l •°� 1 I � '.. C ' n� I � ' IN J= J . ,, ,� �� 3 i; ,� 0 a°� i � � ��.!X� O p � O ' � I �_ _ J O W ''� � � � + I � � '�:�.. � I L--------- . I o ...y.... � r. si ( e . I:d I.AC�.. Soufhao�t Corn�r ,� e I19 ot Lot 3. —� �\ �� _ � �°° N88°51'00"W o;�.,,�\ ,\I\� t`� ....r••, � — 695.6 '� ` � � � No � 'c — -- ;. =.-�v �5�8 �:�:. TTRACT----- -==isaee --- --C==.- '� �--- -- — •--- --- 8° 5�30"W 666.59 --- --- � � — 1��:� 20.03 � ---686.62--- `� R."YI•� li�lC.. �i.r.. ;{�i(.i SZi.•. i�ii'r. ��.J; i N� � ��I� SQQp l. Nor�� Line of Lol 2 ond �� i � � �� o Sout� Lin4 of Lot 3, AuA. �b ''�� c ' i --- --- — � Sub. No. 7B po� g�� o 0 0 �.°0 0� .<o� � I cy� °cN c o i3 (4�2 c°.l�if � ; p`' I r;: " :n�` � t ��^ c c o >> �' LJQ \� �~VV O . �',' � f \'�,� N O� O � N O O I � 1� t�•. � � � � 1 V = Q ~ � � � ,o � I ; I N h � � m 3 J p � O io c � m J O � y � � 3 Q �''- � NOJ po Cc 'I Y' . W41Q< I �'.. , ' ,!f� � ' �!,' C:• I I� W _u /,��''. �� 'I I � � p c 1t •. I ON ;o N �,3 TRA C T q D o yN Q -,'< �''. N� � O ��J ^ A W I � O N o � Z � �roov � Qm �o� � Z � pm J � � Z I I I o o e I W�W � �__J , I�� r I ' � I o i �'O � (I oi � � � i I j � 1 \� 1 y 1� �I 213.93 234.95 �• ��252.93 , "- 302.28 — —_-- 26796-- S88°41'40"E � N8T°52'37"E —S8B°I6'52"E�, `North�rly Riqht-o/•WOy Lin• of OIA Mlqnway 100--�� INTERSTATE HiGHWAY N0. 694 '— Hakanson � Mderson ■■� Assoc..inc. ZI`O Q — �I � 33 Z ( I� NSO p0 SO 0 150 IO GRAPMIC SCALE IN FEET �1�� Scole� I Ineh = 150 Feet Beorinqs Shown Are Assumed SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS P� 430 - 67th Avenue Northeast Fridley, Minnesota 55432 November 12, 1990 Barb Dacy, Planning Coordinator, and Members of the Planning Commission: The proposal to prohibit the renting of any portion of a single fanily home to blood relatives was noted with alarm by many Fridley families. It threatens to be an ordinance very anti-family in effect, even if not in intent. Like a foot in the door, it could be a forerunner of much more restrictive ordinances to come. The statement suggesting nuisance for neighbors due to increased traffic noise sin�les out extended families, when they create no more problems than do the not-unusual family with cars for both parents, as well as several high school and college age children. Even a couple, socially active and entertaining frequently, can be the cause of a lot of traffic. Will this trend result in a mandate to count how many cars per any residence? If so, how many visitors will be allowed? Our home, which looks no different from any other on the block, is structured with a walk-out lower level and contains a"mother-in-law apartment." This provided our mother quarters she could not otherwise afford, giving her the independence of cooking for herself in her own kitchen and keeping her own hours without feeling in the way, or disturbing the rest of the family. "Rent," scarcely more than payment of utilities, allowed her the pride of "paying one's oun way," so important to self-esteem. In these times, when we hear so much about the aging of the population, often on limited means, it seems ill-advised to consider an ordinance which would cut off a family's means of providing separate but at-hand quarters; providing elderly or otherwise needy family members the dignity of their own "space." Please consider very carefully the danger of thwarting the ability of Fridley families to co�e with their special needs. Thank you for your attention, �� :.�c � � ��i uZ 1�- (: �.�.-.�. C , %�'.-.�.'��--�, Jack and Corine Kirkham . d '� . - . WATER aUALITY POLIC] IMPACTING PARKS, CONaIUNITY AND NATURAL RE Crystai Commun'ity Center 4800 Douglas Drive Crystal, Minnesota 55427 .,,, November 29, 1990 �?� � �. C' % 0 �.� crz,e, / C �z � . � � o,�� J. C�c� �-- �-�-c.'. � 3 Workshop Purpose The Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association's Administrative Section is presenting this workghop as a service and challenge to public officials and employees who are concerned about the effects of deteriorating water quality in their communities. • To educate participants on the causes of water quality deterioration - naturally and human caused. • To provide participants with knowledge base from which to assess water quality impacts when evaluating development plans. • To educate participants as to effects of water quality on parks and recreation management concerns. • To provide participants a broad perspective on government agency involvement in water quality management and need for coordination. • To provide participants with sample "tools" from which to model water quality management plans/policies. r---------- Who Should Attend ----------1 � � � • Parks and Recreation Managers and Administrators � � • Affected County/City/Agency Staff including Public Works Directors, � i � � City Administrators, City Engineers � � • Government Public Officials including Parks and RecreaHon Board Members, � � Planning Commission Members, City Council Members 1 � • Other Interested Citizens � L-------------------------------------J � , �- � � Minnesota Recreation and Park Association 'Water Quality Policies ImpacUng Parks, Cornmunity and Natural Resources" e:oo - e:3o .m H:30 - 8:45 am 8s45 - 9:25 am Progrom Schedule R�ratio� � Re�res�ts wd�� ..a �m �oa�. b7 Da�id TisL�r, Superintendent-Minneapolie Park and Recr�ation Board 1tie Statu ot Water Bodks ie Minaesota (What is Water Qualih') Pressnt�r: Drnc� xilsoa, Re�aarch Speciali�t, PC1► Th� div�r�ity and,numb�r o! lakes in Minne�ota may ba b�ttor und�r�tood by tha u�e of zeqional characterizations of lake and wattrshed information. R�cant •ffort• hav� utilis�d th� �coroqion approach to dofin� ��v�n r�qion• acro�• ltinn��ota, four of which contain 98 psrce»t of our lak� r��ourc��. Typical land u�e patt�rns vary r�qionally a� do lake water quality pattern�. Ond�rstandinq th��t patt�rn■ will a�oi�t lak� manaqsr� to d�vslop r�alistic qoals and minimise - ��` fals� �xpectation�. 9:30 -io: oo am Who are the Consamera o[ Water Qailit� - What Are 1Leir Expectatbos2 Preeentare: Carol7a Dindorf, Di�trict Limnoloqiet-8�nn�pin Con�orvation Di�t. Dick Osqood, Limnologist/Snvironmantal Planner - ltetro Council Water quality e�ectatione vary from ueer to u�er. Each u�er has diff�rent deenande on water and perceptione of water quality. Lak� uaers �xpect the lake to bf u�abl• and quickly raepond to noticeable chanqas in it• quality (such ee alga� bloomt and weed infastatione). Park (lak�) manaqer• mutt bt abl• to rsspond to these normal ■hort-term chanqes a• well a• promot• the protaction of ths lak� fran mora subtls lonq-tarm changoe in wator quality. Protsctinq lake water quality hae been difficult for park manaq�r• becausa the intareste of municipal land manaqaro, who ofttn viow park� a• an auxiliary laad use, conflict vith pr�ssrving natural ar�as. 1► moro rational and lo�• political approach to lake prottction ie noeded. ' 10:00-10:15 am Sr�ak io: is-ii: is un impsct of Deteriorating Water Qnality on Parks and Recreation Management Concerns - Fishing� Wildlife, Boating, Sbimming Presentere: Staa S�ith, U.S. Fieh and wildlife Servica Joha Sart�a, water Quality lianager/Hennepin Parke 11 s 15-12:30 pm Who is Responsible [or Water Qoalibj Management and Entoroement Moderator: Joha x�lis, Dir. Environmantal Quality Soard, water Reeourcee Comm. Panel Sruc• Baadstrw, BWSR • Eruc• Nilsoa, PCA • To� Ho��l, DNR liembere: • Dick osgood, Metro Council � Terr7 1looaaa, Ramaey County � Or�q Ifack, Ramaay County and MRPA Pro�idont Panel membere will briefly addreee tha role their aqency reprasent• in the spectrum of water quality manaqement and policy devalopaNnt. Tarry Noonan will addree■ th� rol� of cities and countiea, and Grwg Mack will discuee the r��pon�ibilitieo of parks and racraation boarde and profa�sionals. 12:30- 1t15 pm Luach 1: 20 - 2 s 45 pm Zil! POIItICf O� �V��Ci Qa�l] p01�C1C8 The N��d fQr Coordtnated 6fforta Logislattvs Isauea Affect3ng Water Quality Nanagement P�n�l M��b�r John Welle, Director Environmental Quality Soard-water Resourcee Comnittee Pat Jeneen, Leqielative Commiseion on water Resourcae � Land Use Po2iciea - Hal Runka, Limnoloqist-Barr 8nqin�erinq Watsr Quality Policiea Nele Nelson, water Resourcea Engineer Barr Enginesrinq Who Peya for Water Qualtty Terry Noonan, Limnologiet Ramsey County Prot�ction and Zmprov�cwnta 2: so - 3:55 pn Water Q�alit� Policy/Issae Case Stad�es 4s00 - 4z45 pm Aeahtngton Cty.-Lake Slmo Projsct Bryent and SaQI� Lakea Cfty of Eagan Aater Queltty Manag�ssnt Plan Mstropolitan Arsa Intsgret�d Psat Xanagsmont Progrem City of shorovt�w 1►�rttlt:sr �� policy �e Importanee or Pabik A�i�pl� �Otatl00 OII � orw� �w� John Perkovich, Director Waehinqton County Parks John Barten, Hennapin Parki Tao Colbert. Dir. ot 8ublic Florko, Eagan Mark Andrews, Hennapin County Extension Chuck Ahl, Shor�viw+ City 8nqineer George orning, Research Director Freehwater Foundation Engineer:,�� Scwer 'iWater Parks Strects Maintendn��: MEMORANDUM TO: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator PW90-442 FROM: Mark A. Winson, Asst. Public Works Director /11�i DATE: November 9, 1990 SOBJECT: Stonybrook Diversion Project The City currently has in the 1992 Capital Improvement Plan a project to divert storm flows in Stonybrook Creek to the ponds in the Springbrook Nature Center. The proposed plan is to create a ditch along the east right-of-way of the Burlington Northern tracks from 78th Street to the south end of the Nature Center. We have contacted the railroad regardinq obtaining an easement over the easterly 40 feet of the railroad right-of-way from 78th Street to the Nature Center. To date, it appears that the Railroad is looking favorably at our request and it is hoped that they will grant a request in the near future so th�t we can proceed with final design and construction of this project. MAw/ts � � �, _ � �� PLANNING DIVISION � MEMORANDUM cinr oF FRlDLEY DATE: November 8, 1990 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Mother-in-Law Apartment Ordinance Amendment Backctround At the October 24, 1990 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission tabled further discussion on the proposed ordinance amendment regarding mother-in-law apartments and requested staff to bring back a revision at a future meeting. The proposed ordinance amendment was based on the principle that "no part or portion of any one family dwelling shall be rented to any person or persons". Because constitutional case law prevents municipalities from distinguishing/discriminating between related or unrelated individuals, the ordinance amendment had to be drafted as proposed. A guest room, which is now provided in the current ordinance, would still be permitted. A guest room is defined as a room which does not contain cooking facilities. At the Planning Commission meeting, a variety of individuals testified regarding different situations which the proposed ordinance amendment would prevent. These situations are: 1. Where an elderly person would rent out part of the home to an individual in order to be eligible for state assistance. 2. Where a rental situation exists for a family member who must, in order to participate in other social service programs, be paying rent. 3. The split level homes constructed on the west side of 7th Street in the Alice Wall Addition. The Commission inquired as to how many violations the City investigated on an annual basis. We reported that approximately three to five complaints occur each year; however, depending on the nature of the complaint, it may or may not be an illegal situation. u Mother-In-Law Apartment November 8, 1990 Page 2 There are approximately five homes in the community which the City has been issuing a rental license to on an annual basis where a secondary unit has been created in the lower level or basement of the home. Proposed Ordinance Revision In order to address the Planning Commission's concerns as well as to meet the intent of the City Council, we began our analysis by evaluating and comparing existing situations within the City (see attached chart): 1. A typical single family home with the rental of guest rooms as now permitted. 2. The experience of the split level homes in the Alice Wall Addition on the west side of 7th Street. 3. The living arrangement exemplified by Roger Stein. 4. An elderly person living in a single family home wanting to rent out a portion of the home for a person to assist them, or an elderly person who wants to return living with their adult children. 5. Homes which we have issued rental licenses to, including 541 - 53 1/2 Avenue; 7430 Able Street; 4042 Main Street; 6070 Central Avenue; and 6428-30 Dellwood Drive. After comparing the physical layout and impacts of these living situations, we determined that only the situations in items #2 and #5 approached the issues that the City Council was trying to prevent. Ironically, the split level homes in the Alice Wall Addition, while contrary to the City Council intent, are the best examples of cohabitation with area neighbors. We have not processed any code violation against these homes, nor have there been any complaints. We developed our philosophy from the following points: 1. If the City Council intent is to regulate the creation of two units in one structure/create a duplex, thereby eroding the intent of the single family neighborhood, then we must create performance standards to ensure the "accessory nature" of these living areas. We believe the City Council intent was not to prevent a Roger Stein/son situation; an arrangement to provide for the elderly, or to prevent the existing guest room provision. Therefore, the following standards should be imposed as part of a rental license for an "accessory apartment": Mother-In-Law Apartment November 8, 1990 Page 3 A. Require owner-occupancy of the structure. B. Limit the size of the living area of the accessory apartment so that it is clearly subordinate (not only will this be consistent with the definition of "accessory", but the size of the living area will tend to limit the number of people who live in it). C. Requlate outdoor impacts, i.e. a separate entrance into the accessory apartment can only be created at the side or rear of the home and that there shall be no substantial exterior architectural changes to the single family home such that the home appears to be a two family dwelling. �D. One accessory apartment shall be permitted per single family dwelling. E. The accessory apartment must meet the Uniform Building �` Code and Uniform Fire Code. If the City were to permit the mother-in-law apartments by a license, would we receive a flood of applications? Because we have already been issuing rental licenses, the City could be processing anywhere from ten to 20 licenses per year. This is not an excessive amount and can be handled administratively. In the long term, we do expect that these types of license requests would increase because our population is aging, and elderly couples may want to rent a portion of their houses or adult children may want to rent a portion of their homes to their parents. We also believe that the amount of work which needs to be done in order to meet the Building and Fire Code requirements for a living area may deter applications. The kitchen has to be properly vented and wired, and egress windows must be installed for fire protection. Also, if the building is required to be owner-occupied, the owners will take greater care in the type of tenant that will occupy the accessory apartment. Summary and Recommendation We recommend that the Planning Commission endorse the concept of permitting a mother-in-law/accessory apartment as an accessory use in the R-1, Single Family District, subject to receiving a license. Incorporated into the ordinance and prior to the issuance of a license will be standards as follows: 1. The owner of the single family home must occupy the dwelling:�`� 2. One accessory apartment per single family dwelling. Mother-Zn-Law Apartment November 8, 1990 Page 4 3. The secondary living area must comply with building and fire codes. 4. A separate entrance to the apartment must be located on the side or rear of the house to maintain the single family appearance; exterior stairways shall not be added to single family structures unless required by the Uniform Fire Code. 5. There shall be no substantial exterior architectural changes to the single family home such that the home appears to be a two family dwelling. C'6. Establish a maximum size of the apartment such that it is clearly subordinate to the principal.-use of the.single fam.il.y .. _ ho�ne . � . �An amendment to the licensing provisions of the City Code would F also have to be provided. Given that we are estimatin the number g of units up to 20 per year initially, the Building and Fire Code requirements could be handled by the existing Building Inspection and Fire Department staff. Planning Division staff would also be � responsible for reviewing the license to determine that the other standards are met. � BD/dn M-90-798 cc: William Burns Jock Robertson Darrel Clark Bob Aldrich N H z � � a � � a 0 � � w U U � � z H E � H x W w a� s s°1+ o +�i a�i °o ao +�+ a�i � a .� 3 �+ a a � � v -.�1 G�1 � A b �� b 0�! � 3�.� W� � OOGI O+ �OW W R �N O+ >y o 03> a �+ a> s� ro �w ►7 � R ��.�i > � W �� +�+ � �� d d Gl O! •- -.� '� 1a •- N R -•� � f+ E3 .0 i.� A��+ r-1 �0 '� �-1 ia � N 1.� al �-I U Gl N U O N 01 r-1 W 01 C 1-� •.� �0 3oro �� ea�ia °3 3°,cmo � °3s°a �� a�i .7aa D4w o� � E H o�� o Hw v�w o W A � � OidN �N � L�i � W N -•�� b+ +� o b p' a� �' � d � LT � � � N b+ � O-.��1 W W 3�-i b•.��I 'd ?� +� � i� +� .-i i� � .� 01 +� ••� O W C ••a .0 Y+ A�d 1-�1 1� � Gl 1� W� U Ol � � :a •rl rt1 'Ci yr i� O 3O N N O �d U +� W ��tA� H O OW t�11W � tll N � J". i� CI O N y d U O� W � b� W Oro! � A �N d � 3��+ ��d G O O Gl C� C K G N b� d A o 0 3> � o �+ ro a v +� �++ a� •.� N a� �+ ro•.� b cn � a � .i > �+ +� � � +� a� •.� w o� •- •.� a� a� c •.� x 3a ,C ia A�� rl LL t,' d+i G1 � U d C U O W Gl � 3-i •.I t0 tro +�o d>a o o a� do roo +� oN -.+� aa�a c c�+ ,cro +� a�- acw o�+� o ow cnw a N � W 'O N N � CL ,c a� � a d m G 'd U A N > � -� � W Cl U � W U�J d� a � w d+ w a�i >y�+ o � a o a �73 q �O > �'CC W ia •rl � Ol •'1 +� d .q ia O U1 � R+� 'O •.I U U O � •� �d � .-1 •r1 � O O3 O 3O k �-�1 •rl cn � D4 w H� E+ �� A s a °o � a u a� d � � z° � O 0 � � a� .a a � � � a � m � m v � m 0�1 � O .� .i O � �U '�O � w a°�a d � � a a� � b+ N � 3�-i o �o ro � C N lT � ro �d � � �� G •r1 .0 � Gl +� d ri U C 3-i •.i �0 a a�°+ .�ro � O Ow v�w � d 1 ,C X i� J� ro� � a � a�i � o+ m a°' o�' d �' s�+ a �o.�a-. o b ro o aa o q a a m tr+ � >.yo�i�°o w � ro-.�i �v c � o aa� a�i � ��.�i � ro w�o�a�i a� a�o ro� � u�i �-� ��0+ o ow v�iw � m � a �n m w d b� b+ Sa � U 'd � �� G1 G C G1 O ia •� •.I Rf 'd ri O� D� � 7��1 �� i� �1 � U 3%i a� za �vi ow �w � ecisions SAMPLE ZONI�G ORDINANCE: ACCESSORY APARTMENTS HYJE PARK, NEW YORK On April 12, 1982, the Hyde Park Zoning Code was amen�ed to include the following: 1• (a) A new subdivision shall be added to the following sections, to wit: Section 108-8D. (19); 108-9D. (19); 108-1OD. (15); 108-11D. (6); and 108-12D. (6) as follows: 2• One apartment within a one-family dwelling in accordance with the requirements of Section 108-7 (J). � (b) The following paragraph shall be added to the sections inaicated, to wit: Section 108-13D. (1) and 108-14 0. (1), as follows: D. Special permitted uses. Site plan review and approval are required for the following special permitted uses: 1) One apartment within a one-family dwelling in accordance with the requirements of Section 108-7 (J). (c) Article 2, Definitions, Section 108-2 (B) is hereby amended to add the following definitions: 3• Apartment: A separate formity with the requirements of a building that otherwise would dwelling. dwelling unit, in con- Section 108-7 (J), in constitute a one-family 4• Floor Area: The sum of the gross hori2ontal area of the several floors of the building or buildings, measured to the exterior of the outside walls of such buildings, but not to include attached or built-in garages, porches or terraces (unless such spaces are to be converted into living spaces in order to create the apartment) or floor area having a clear head room of less than 7 feet. (d) Article 4, General Regulations, Section 108- 7, applicability of exceptions, additions and modifications, be amended to aud the following sub-section 'J': 5• J. Apartment Within One-Family Dwelling: Two of the reasons for allowing an apartment within a one-family dwelling are: (1) to make it financially possible for homeowners to stay in their homes despite rising property taxes, heating bills, and maintenance costs, and (2) to Notes (�,�t, � � 7. � increase the diversity of the Town's housing stock in teims �f price and availability of rental units, thus helping to meet local housing needs and a share of regional needs, without significantly affecting the character of the Town. A special permit is required to create an apartment within a one-family dwelling, subject to the following provisions: (1) The apartment shall be clearly subordinate to the one-family dwelling. (2) The number of bedrooms in the apartment shall not be more than two. (3) The floor area of the apartrnent shall be greater than 400 square feet. 9- (4) The floor area devoted to the apartment shall be less than 35 percent of the entire floor area of the one-family dweliing. 10. (5) The apartment and one-family dwelling must have safe and proper means of entrance, clearly marked for the purpose of fire safety and mail service. 11. (6) If the water supply is from a private source, the applicant shall certify that th� water supply is potable and of adequate flow. This certification is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the testing by and approval of the Dutchess County Health Department that is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Such County Health Department testing shall be done at least once each year thereafter. Failure to conduct these tests or failure to correct promptly any water quality problems, shall result in the revocation of the special permit. 12. (7) The applicant shall disposal system is adequate for the correct promptly any sewage problen tion of the special permit. certify that the sewage two units. Failure to shall result in revoca- (8) No special permit for an apartment shall be granted in any case where the County Health Department has determined that the water or sewage system serving the dwelling or dwellings in question is for any reason not capable of handling the additional demand that would be imposed upon it in the event the special permit were issued hereunder. (9) The requirement for site plan approval for all special pennits shall not apply to special permits under this section unless the Zoning Board of Appeals directs that a particular application for a special permit \ (oa7� - (o S� ��`��'�,,, � � .� -� .. �ti; , hereunder, because of its complexity or other or unusual special circumstances, must have site plan approval. 13. (10) Stairways leading to any floor or story above the first floor shall be located within the walls of the building where ever practicable. Stairways and fire escapes shall be located on the rear wall in pre- ference to either side wa}l. In no instance shall a stair- way or fire escape be located on any wall fronting on a street. 14. (11) Owner occupancy required. 7he owner(s) of 15. the one-family lot upon which the accessory apartment is located shall occupy at least one (1) of the dwelling units on the premises. (22) Any apartment within a one-family dwelling that is in existence at the time of the adoption of this amendment shall be subject to the provisions outlined above. i . . � �,�,.� � _ ` a�. / %� � r .0 Zoning Ordinance Section 300.t6. Page 64 -- , I �►�G,�..� t-�+� ' ( d) mass transit facilities 1) bus shelters subject to the following: 2} a. b. screaned irom adjoining residential uses if required by the city; a concrete pad to be provided for the shelter aad immediately surrounding area: c. signs to conform to section 300.30, et seq. of the code of city ordinances unless determinad by the city to be necessary for economic viability of shelter; d. paved bus standing area to be provided if detenmined by the cit� to be necessary for safe and eificieat traffic flow; and e. incorporation of architectural features compatible with surrounding area if required by the city. park and ride facilities and inter-modal transfer points Subject to the followiag: a. permitted only along collector or arterial roadwa�s as identified in the comprehensive pla.n; � c. d. screened from adjoining residential uses if required b9 the city; all parking areas to be paved and maintained; a.nd site and building plan subject to review pursuaat to section 300.2? of this ordinance. e) accessory apartments 1) accessory apartments shall be allowed for the following purposes: a. more efticient utilization of the existing single family housing stock in the city; b. eajoyment of the benefits of rental.income. decreased housekeeping responsibilities or the companionship oP tenants by persons residing ia houses Mrhich are too large for their present needs; c. provision of housing which allows privacy and independence for older family members; and d. preservation maintenance singla family Zoning Ordinance Section 300.t6. Pa.ge 65 of property values and of the character of existing neighborhoods. 2) for the purpose of this subdivision, the following definitions shall apply: a. age - Age of the house shall be determined by reference to the date of the issuance of the certificate of occupa.ncy or shall be fixed as six months after the date of the issuance of the building permit if no certiflcate of occupancy was issued for the house; b. housekeeping unit - All persons residing r+ithin a single family house whose relationship includes a substantial amount of social interaction including the sharing of housekeeping res.�onsibilities or expenses or the taking of ineals together; c. living space - The area within a house which is suitable for human habitation including suitable finished basement areas but excluding garages. services areas an d unfinished portions of the building; d. owner - The person who holds fee title or is a bona fide purchaser under a contract for deed of the property; e. unit of housing - One or more rooms designed, occupiad or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters, with cooking. sleeping a.nd sanitary facilities separate from those of another unit of housing and intended for the exclusive use oY a single housekeeping unit; and f. temporary absence - Establishing residence outside of the Twin Cities metropolitan area for a period aot to exceed 12 months but duriag which period the subject properts continues to be the applicant's legal or principal residence. 3) no accessory apartment shall be created or used except in conformit� with the folloaing: a. to be created only on property zoned for single family detached daellings and no more _ than one apartment to be created in any dr+elling; Zoning Ordinance Section 300.16. Page 66 b. structures in which an accessory apartment is created to be owner-occupied, Mrith the owner residing in either unit on a continuous basis except for temporary absences throughout the period during which the permit is valid; c. age of structure to ba a minimum of two years as of the date of the issuance of the conditional usa permit; d. adequate off-street parking to be provided for both units of housing with such parking to be in a garage. carport or on a paved area specifically intended for that purpose but not within a required turnaround; e. ma.,y be created by the conversion of living space aithin tha house but not by conversion of garage space unless space is available for a two car garage on the lot without the need for a �ariance; f. apartmant to ba clearly subordinate in size to the main unit; g. exterior �ha.nges to the house to be kept to a minimum and �not substantially alter the single family character of the structure; h. no apartment to be created except in compliance with all applicable building, housing. electrical, plumbing� heating and related codes of the city; i. to be permitted onl� where it is demonstrated that the accessory unit w111 not have an undue adverse impact on ad�acent properties and ahere •there will not be a substantial alteration of the character of the neighborhood; and j. all other provisions of this ordinance relating to single familp dwelling units to be met, unless specifically amended by this subdivision. f) licensed d� care facilities in common areas or in structures r+hich are not also used for residential purposes 1) located only in proximity to a collector or arterial roadr+a9 as designated in the comprehensive plan or otherwisa located so that access can be provided without conducting significant tratfic on local residential streets; F 850 W. Moore Lake Drive Fridley, Minnesota 55432 November 6, 1990 Attention: Planning Commission Fridley City Council 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Dear Sirs/Mesdames: I wish to lodge my strong opposition to the proposal to restrict homeowners from renting "single-family" homes even to blood relatives. When I moved into Fridley five years ago, I remodeled my home to allow for my mother-in-law to spend the latter years of her life living in peace with us. In my opinion, it is reprehensible to isolate our older people into nursing homes. It is a blight on our society. I want the privilege of having my home available to my mother-in-law and still receive help from Medicare or insurance policies and I strongly oppose any proposal that would inhibit this privilege. A Very„ sinc lmar Kingsriter DK mk cc: The Mayor of Fridley Fridley Focus Del K[ngsriter • 850 West Moore Lake Dr[ve, Minneapolis, MN 55432 •(612) �� 571-3468 C � � � PLANNING DNISION � - MEMOR,ANDUM cinroF F�� DATE: November 8, 1990 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: 1991 Planning Commission Calendar Attached is the 1991 calendar for City Council meetings. We have indicated on a separate sheet a list of proposed Planning Commission meeting dates. Please review the attached and determine if these dates are acceptable to the Commission. BD/dn M-90-675 � Fli! .�EY 1991 CALEN DAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND HOLIDAY SCHEDULE .: January t�t F�Orua�r 1�1 MarcA ttlt �I t�9t i M Tw T F 8 i M Tw T F 8 S M Tw T F i �M 2w i s s t � i �o �i �2 � s � i � �i �s �i ,6 ie i� io 1� �1S 7 18 1! 10 1 12 4 1 5 1 6 Z p �? 2 t 2 S 2 6 17 1! 21 22 Z3 17 1 21 22 23 Zi 23 25 26 27 :7 � 2! �t !� 26 2d ;1 2 6 2 a ?� 3 0 � 3 0 Mar 1�91 .�M� 1�1 Ju�y 1�91 Aupust 1�91 S M T W T; 4 i bl T W 7 F 8 8' T W�� S� S M T W T F S �� 111213 � 6 S 9t0 �s 14 � 17 ts • 15 14 /a 1� 1! 20 11 13 S 16 17 19 21 23 21 2S 16 1 � =1 � �� 27 � 2� 29 30 31 Z6 2a 30 31 � ?S 27 26 2� 2e 30 �Pt�mb�r 1l91 Octob�r 1�91 Nowmb�r 199t D�c�mber 1�9t S M T F� S 1� � 3 4 S S M T W T F S S T W T F S � 4sa4 a e o�,�z 3 s�e� ,i, ,� � t3t 5 171819202t � 20 21 13 1S 1T tt 19 10 12 14 15 16 � 27 2a �0 22 2� 25 26 17 t� 21 22 23 22 24 � 26 27 29 29 30 31 2� Z6 i� � 29 30 31 0 March 9 - 12 NLC Congressional City Conference Washinqton, D.C. June 11 - 14 League of Kinnesota Cities Rochester, Minnesota September 22 - 26 ICMA Conference Boston, Massachusetts December 6 - 11 NLC Conqreas of Cities Phoenix, llrizona E!Y x = Holiaay� O = Council Meetings D = Confer�nce Meetings Q= Planning Co�ission I�Ieetin s Budqet iiork Se�sion Da�es: June 5, 10, 24 i 26 t�cal Eoliaavs Jan. 1 New Year's Day (1) Jan. 21 Martin Luther King Jr. Day Feb. 18 Presidents' Day May 27 Memorial Day July 4 Independence Day Sept. 2 Labor Day Nov. 11 Veterans Day (1) Nov. 28 Thanksqiving Day po�, � Christmas Day 9 Holidays adQ� {onal Holidavs July 5 Friday After Independence Day Nov. � Friday After Thanksgiving 11 Total Holidays Council meetinqs will be he �une,tOctobert and third Kondays of May, November and December; the second and fourth ltondays of February, 1lpril, and Auqus �a=ch lirst and iourth Mondays of January, and July; and the second and fifth Mondays of Septembez. Conference meetings wfll be held on the first and third Mondays of April ; the second Monday oi May; the fiith Konday of July; the first Tuesday in Septeaber; and the fourth Monday of october and November. PROP08$D PLANNING CO1rII+II88ION ME$TING DATES FOR 1991 January 9 January 23 February 6 February 20 March 13 March 27 April 10 April 24 May 8 May 22 June 12 June 26 July l0 July 24 August 7 August 21 September 4 September 18 October 2 October 16 November 13 :�„��;�,�"gr� December 11 \ '4. � � � CITY OF FRIDLEY PARRS AND RECRBATION COMMI88ION M1�STINO, OCTOBBR 1, 1990 M 1Ur M �1►w�w�MN.Y�►�Ar1Y�Y1rtiA,Y��YM�MMM�M.Y��►��YAMMNMM.YM�Y�YAM�MM�.►w1YMMNMi��tiM.►N�Mti CALL TO O DF.�t � Chairperson Kondrick called the October 1, 1990, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Dave Kondrick, Dick Young, John Gargaro, Tim Solberg Mary Schreiner Jack Kirk, Director of Recreation and Natural Resources APPROVAL OF SE EMBER 10 1990 P1�1�3CS AND REC FATTON COMMISGTAN MI— NUTES• MO ION by Mr. Young, seconded by Mr. Gargaro, to approve the September 10, 1990, Parks and Recreation Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOIC� VOTS, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRP$R80N KONDRICR DECLARBD THE MOTION CARRI33D IINANIMOUSI.Y. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: oTIO by Mr. Solberg, seconded by Mr. Young, to approve the agenda as written. UPON A VOICB VOTE, ALL VOTIN(� AYE, CHlIIRPERSON RONDRICR�DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIBD IINANIMOIIBLY. 1. 3TAFF RE ORT• a. Proqram IIpdate Mr. Kirk stated the October 1, 1990, �'Program Update" received by the Commission hiqhlighted the following activities: Fall Program Begins, Red Cross Babysitting Clinic, 4-Man Football, Senior Golf League, Senior Options, Springbrook Nature Center Parking, Fall Festival, Youth Activities, and Adventures in Dining. m � � �AR1C8 i RECREATION COMMISgION MEETINa. OCT. 1. 1990 PAdE 2 b. Proqram speaialist Position Mr. Kirk stated that 231 applications were received for this position. There were many qualified people, and it was very difficult to narrow it down to 15 people. These 15 people were sent a written questionnaire. From those written responses, they chose 8 people for interviews. He stated they offered the position to Debi Campobasso, who is currently working in the Anoka-Hennepin School District as a community school coordinator. She was also a Program Supervisor at the City of Woodbury. He stated he would have Debi attend a future Commission meeting to meet the Commission members. 2. NEW BUSINES : a. 1990-91 8katinq and Hoakey Rink Locations Mr. Kirk stated staff is recommending the same skating and hockey rink locations as last year. T ON by Mr. Gargaro, seconded by Mr. Solberq, to approve the 1990-91 skating and hockey rink locations. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(� AYE� CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. b. Park Bhelter Rental Policy Mr. Kirk stated staff is looking for guidance from the Parks and Recreation Commission for a park shelter rental policy. He stated the new Flanery Park shelter will be used for a warming house facility and broomball league facility during the winter and a playground program facility during the summer. In the summer months, he could see groups wanting to rent the facility for family picnics. It is different from other shelters and buildings in the parks in that it is a combined gicnic/shelter €acility �aith indoor restrooms. Mr. Kirk stated staff has also noted an increasing number of calls from people requesting reservations for the picnic shelters at Moore Lake. For years, those shelters have been available on a first-come/first-serve basis. Staff feels this is not really serving the people, because it is really difficult for anyone planning a family gathering in advance to be assured they will have a picnic shelter. So, staff is thinking in terms of some type of rental agreement or rental reservation type program similar to what Anoka County does at Locke Park and Riverfront Park. r y, . � :�: - i._. �_�_, . • '11 Y� • �= ` • ' ' e : Mr. Kirk stated Anoka County rents their shelters for $10 a day. Mr. Gargaro stated that even if a group rents a facility, how are they going to reserve it? He could see the problem where a family has the shelter reserved for a certain time, but another group is already there. Mr. Kirk stated there would be an official rental agreement with the City. This is similar to the rental of softball fields, and they have had very few problems with that. He stated they would anticipate putting some type of sign on the shelter that says, "To reserve this facility, call (nwnber)". Mr. Gargaro stated that if they are going to start renting park shelters, they should have a damage deposit. Mr. Kondrick suggested that the rental fee vary with the season. In the winter time, since this will be a heated facility, there are heating costs to be concerned about. Mr. Kirk stated that in the winter, with heat being a concern, they might want to have a staff inember on the site. Mr. Young stated one problem with the City of Fridley is there are not a lot of available buildings for meetings. The Community Education Center building is full, the schools are not always available, and sometimes it is hard to reserve a room at the Municipal Center. This shelter should be made available but not at a rental fee that is so exorbitant that some people cannot afford to rent it. They might want to charge a little more in the winter time because of the heat, but he did not think the heat is going to be that significant a factor. Mr. Kirk stated staff did an informal survey of neighboring communities--Columbia Heights, Roseville, Blaine, Brooklyn Park--in terms of what they charge for shelter rental. A lot of the communities charge based on the number of people expected: 1 to 25 -$25; 26 to 50 -$35. He stated staff decided a rental fee of $25 per day for the Flanery Park facility would be adequate. They could possibly charge an additional $25 for a damage deposit. Mr. Gargaro stated he thought the damage deposit should be considerably higher. He would suggest $100. The Commission members agreed with the recommended $25 per day rental fee with a refundable $100 damage deposit. � PAR1C8 & RECREATION COMMI88ION MEETIN�3, OCT. 1. 1990 PAO$ 4 Mr. Young stated there are electric outlets in the shelter. Maybe there should be some restrictions on the maximum number of items that can be plugged into one outlet. This would eliminate the problem of blowing a breaker that cannot be tripped because the breaker is inside the locked utility room. Mr. Kirk stated that is a good point and is something to consider. He stated this policy will be a trial for one year. They will promote the rental of the Flanery Park shelter in the spring brochure. Mr. Kirk asked if the Commission wanted to limit the rental of the facility to Fridley residents, businesses, organizations, churches, etc., or do they want to also rent it to nonresidents? Mr. Gargaro stated he would like to see the shelter limited to Fridley residents, organizations, etc. Mr. Kondrick, Mr. Young, and Mr. Solberg agreed. Mr. Young stated it might be a good idea to provide a broom and dustpan for people to clean the shelter. People should not be expected to bring their own cleaning supplies. Mr. Kirk stated they can maybe get a free-standinq cabinet where cleaning supplies can be kept. Mr. Young asked about whether there are plans for a parking lot closer to the shelter. • Mr. Kirk stated the future of the existing ball field is very limited. The turf is not very good. He would like to make a smaller general skating rink right outside the shelter's doors, so that people would have to go through the general rink to get to the hockey rink. On the south side of the general area, he would like to have a 12 car parking lot in the future. He has already requested that when the Park maintenance people grade for the general rink, they allow for a spot for cars to park closer to the shelter. Mr. Kirk asked if the Commission members were in favor of a reservation and rental policy for the park shelters at Moore Lake. He suggested 3 hour time blocks for $10. The Commissioners agreed that they would be in favor of reserving and renting the Moore Lake park shelters. m �, � r � .i.' �.� >.- � � h� ..1.. � ��.� -' _ r__z.ia��i:lt=T=Tl<' � 1�2`�'� Mr. Gargaro stated he would like to see it as a daily, not hourly, rental--$10 for the whole day. Mr. Young stated there should be siqnage that indicates the shelters are available for rental and who to contact. Mr. Kirk stated he will prepare reservation and rental policies ior the Flanery Park shelter and also for the Moore Lake shelters for discussion at the next meetinq. a. Parks aad Recreation Map Mr. Kirk stated that the last parks and recreation map was printed in 1979 and is very out of date. The old map was very difficult to read. He stated that with the new G.I.S. (Geographic Information System), he has been working with the Engineerinq Department to develop a new parks and recreation map. He tried to keep the map free of clutter and yet indicate the qeneral area where the parks are located. The plan is to have a 11" x 17" map which can be folded in half . On the back side of the map, they will have a grid describing the facilities available at each park. They will include the county parks, schools, and city parks. Mr. Gargaro stated they could also indicate on the qrid which parks have shelters available for rental. Mr. Kirk stated the map will be essentially black and white with the parks in green and the waterways in blue. Mr. Kirk stated the plan is to have the map placed in the spring program brochure. Copies will also be available in the Recreation office. O ION by Mr. Solberg, seconded by Mr. Younq, to approve the new Park System Guide for the City of Fridley. IIPON A VOICB VOTE, ALL VOTIN(� AYL, CHAIRP8R80N 1CONDRICR D$CLAR$D THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. Mr. Kirk stated discussed the idea of including the bikeway/walkway system in the new map. Without putting a lot of side streets on the map, this would be difficult. It is their plan to have a separate map that will identify bike trails and bike paths. m ., , ',_ ;_� . .��r. •, ��_: ,� . � _�. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Gargaro, seconded by Mr. Young, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, Chairperson Kondrick declared the motion carried and the October 1, 1990, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynne Saba Recording Secretary �.. CITY OF litIDLSY HtilLll�i REBODR� i:OlOtI68IO�i IEE�TI�t�:� OCTOBaR 4� 1990 rw.r.rM�rww�wrww�.ww�nrww�w�ww��.��r1rr�ww�.wrww.�rw�irw.�r�rw�w��►1rww�ww�w�w.w��r1rrr^. wr w. �. r � ••��;� Vice-Chairperson Jackson called the October 4, 1990, Human Resources Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL': Members Present: Sue Jackson, Marija Netz, Jack Velin Members Absent: Sue Sherek, LeRoy Oquist Others Present: Steve Barg, Planning Assistant Jack Kirk, Director of Recreation and Natural Resources Karen Schaub, Director of Community Education, School District #14 Doug Erickson, Fridley Focus APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 6 1990 HUM�iAT RESQURCES CQMMISSION MINUTES• MOT O by Ms. Netz, seconded by Mr. Velin, to agprove the September 6, 1990, Human Resources Commission minutes as written. IIPON D VOZC$ VOT$, ALL VOTINQ 11Y$, VICB-CSl�IBPER80N JACRBON D$CLPiRBD TSS ![OTIO'T CARRILD ONl�TIMOIIBLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTIO by Mr. Velin, seconded by Ms. Netz, to approve the agenda as written. IIPON A VOZCB VO'1'8 � ]1LL VOTIIKi AYE, `1ICE-C871IRPS�S�N JACRSON DECLl1RL►D TSS iiOTION C7IRRIBD t�UiNll[OIIBLY. 1. OLD BUSINESS: a. Consideratfoa of Child Cara Issuea Pertaininq to older Childrens l�aren Sahsub and aaak lcirk Ms. Jackson stated that one of the Commiseion's focuses this year has been on child care issues. One need that has emerged is care for older children who are out of Iatch K�y for one reason or another and at loose ends during the summer and school holidays. The Commission « �II1+L��i RESOIIRCBB COlQ[IBBION 1sEBTI�TG. OCTOBBR 4. 1990 PAGE 2 i has been qathering information and trying to see what they can do to encourage the City or Community Education or some outside source, through CDBG funding, to get involved in this area. Ms. Jackson stated the Commission had invited Ms. Schaub and Mr. Kirk to.the meeting to get their input on older child/middle child issues in the City. Ms. Schaub stated that although she is new as the Community Education Director, she is somewhat familiar with Fridley as she lives in New Brighton. A couple of things she knows are happening right now in the area of what might be considered latch key kinds of programs. Ms. Schaub stated they do run a latch key program at the Community Education Center that is basically kindergarten through 4th grade, with some 5th graders. They have 144 students in that program right now. That is about 20 students more than last year. They find that program works wonderfully for kinderqarten - 3rd/4th grade. The girls in 5th grade do a little better in the program, but the 5th qrade boys have a very difficult time. They are bigger, so they play harder and rougher. That is a real concern, as well as trying to convince parents that latch key is not the best spot for 5th grade boys or girls. Parents do not always take this well, as there are not a lot of other options for that age. Ms. Schaub stated probably the first real need she heard after she started this job was what do they do about these children who are 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th graders? They are too young to hold j obs . She heard this from the Community Education Advisory Council, staff inembers, and from the parents themselves. Ms. Schaub stated the Fridley Middle School has a "Breakfast Club" and a"3 : 00 Club" . To a certain extent, it is a latch key-type program. She believed the children can arrive at 6:45 a.m. and stay until school starts. And then after school, there are some programs until about 4:30 p.m. The numbers have fluctuated. They are averaging around 30-35 children per day. There seems to be a lot of potential with this proqram, but there is also the issue of funding it and making sure there is appropriate staffing to deal with the kinds of issues that students might have. Ms. Schaub stated she believes that with any kind of program, staffing is the #1 issue. Within the last week, she has read about 10 different programs around the state for this age qroup. Some are working out wonderfully, � �� , -�� -- a�• . i . ! • . . 1 : _ .,�c �i� 11� > � � : but other people have copied the sa�e program, and the same proqram has been a complete flop. She believed the reason the proqram flops is because of the lack of the right kind of staffinq. Ms. Schaub stated that ehe and Mr. Kirk discussed this need last week.. She had followed up on a lead, and she has not had an opportunity to discuss this with Mr. Kirk. �he stated there is a proqram in i�est St. Paul that has been modeled after a University proqram. Last summer was really the first year. It is tied in w4th a modified summer school pr�qram in the morninq, and then in the afternoon is some kind of "adventure" proqram. It was supposed to bs for children R- 8th grade. West St. Paul is about the same size as Fridley School District #14. They had about 184 students who participated in the program. It started from 12:00-12:30 p.m. and lasted until 5:00 p.m. The students were promised transpertation there because it tied in with sununer school. When summer school was over, the bus would take some children home and would also pick up some children to bring them back to school. Then, parents were able to take the children home at 5:00 p.m. Ms. Schaub stated children were put together by age qroup, with no more than 20 children per group. There would be one adult or leader for every 10 children. Part of the day. was called "extravaqanza", part of it was enrichment, and part of it was real physical (tennis, swimming, softball, etc.). The enrichment part was going to the computer lab, gettinq involved in art projects. In laoking for staff, they looked for adults who really knew art and art education, so it was a step beyond the craft kind of thing. The extravaganza part could be a field trip, a play, something real exciting. Students were not allowed to pick something to be involved in. The staff rotated the children to different programs. The children were really excited about being there and taking part in the programs. Ms. Schaub stated this summer there were two 2-week sessions (12 days and 15 days). Next year they will run two 3-we�k sessions. The cost was $54 and $65. They received a grant of $3,000 from two parks and recreation departments within the area. Ms. Schaub stated a program simiiar to that could possibly be done durinq the summer in Fridley. She did not think a eix week program would be as successful, but a four wetk program might be workable. She believed scholarships could be offered for children whose parents could not afford the proqram. Some school districts have r HIII+i�H RE80IIRC88 COli1[ISSIO� ltE$TINa. OCTOB$R 4, 1990 PAGE 4 set up programs just for the month of August, as the end of the summer is a time when a lot of children are very bored. Ms. Schaub stated they need to do some kind of community service projects and leadership opportunities for older children so they feel a part of something. Mr. Kirk stated the City has a summer playground program, tiny tots and elementary age. They are seeing a lot of registrants in the first and second grade, but then it drops off for the older grades. By that aqe, some of the children have been in the proqram 3-4 years and feel they are too old for a playground program. They have encouraged some of the older children beyond the program age to siqn up and work as junior leaders. They have had mixed success with that. It is great experience for these older children for future jobs. Mr. Kirk stated that in the after-school programs, in the last few years, they have seen a decline in the number of participants. They have decreased the number of after-school activities in an attempt to make some programs go. There are a number of affecting factors: (1) dual working family/working single parent situation, where the parent(s) has no way of picking the children up after the program; (2) children going to latch key. Ms. Netz asked what programs were offered and what programs are more successful than others. Mr. Kirk stated the sports activities are generally pretty popular. Sometimes the craft activities are popular. Mr. Kirk stated they offered a program which met with limited success where, after the program was over, an instructor stayed another hour to qive parents time to pick up their children. So, from 5:00 to 6:00, the child was supervised. Some parents thought this was only in emerqency situations, so the concept might have not been marketed correctly. Also, sometimes it is also the parents, not just the children, who feel their children are too old for a program. He has some concerns about that. Ms. Netz asked about cost of the activities. Mr. Kirk stated the costs are kept very low. They try to j ust cover the cost of the instructor and/or suppl ies . Some costs are higher when there is a lower student/ instructor ratio and when more specialized staff is � o�B$� � 1990 Pxa$ s auaaasi FE60t�itCEB E:4 �i�IOlt MEBTII�. � needed. The try to run the proqrama at the elementary schools. ey find �ore success at Hayes than at Stevenson. any of the children at Stevenson are bussed, so, again, i� is a transportation issue. That leads him to believe ti�at if any of these proqrams are qoing to be successfui, transportatian is the key. Mr. Rirk stated he has discussed with Ms. Schaub that if they offer a proqram for the older children during the summer, it is qoinq to be a little unrealistic to expect to keep those children's attention from 7:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. ' Ms. Netz sta►ted she had asked her 16 year old daughter about what type of activities s�e would like to have participated in when she was younger. Some of the things she mentio�}ed were: tours/field trips, bowling, swimming, cl�ub, computers, and art. Ms. Netz st�ted she thought a variety of activities is best where c�ildren do not necessarily stay in one place. She thought' the hours of 12:30 - 5:00 p.m. might work out well. ' Mr. Kirk st ted that, again, transportation is a major issue. Fric�ley has a lot of major barriers that parents are very 'reluctant to let their children cross unsupervisec� . Mr. Rirk s�ated the City has a van that is almost 10 years old, �and the City does not own any buses. The program in i�est St. Paul worked well, hecause the program tied in with the summer school proqram. Ms. Jackson; stated it is unfortunate that liability is such an iss�e that they cannot rely on volunteers to pick up children;. Mr. Kirk stated that the City has, on occasion with some of the summer proqrams, encouraqed carpooling, by putting children on teams to accommodate carpooling. But, they do not qet involved in setting up any carpools. Ms. Jackson referred to the study done in July 1986 in Minneapolis, Burnsville, and Edina, entitled "Summary of the Family's View of After-School Time". One thing the study said is that one of the great needs is for kids to have courses in being home alone. There is a great interest by kids and parents, whose beinq home alone is a reality, to get some training and experience. t BIIMAN it8800RCE8 COZD[I88IOM ItEETI�� OCTOB$R 4. 1990 PAQE 6 I Mr. Rirk stated the City offers a babysitting clinic that has been very successful. Along with that, there is a clinic that is targeted for children who are home alone. Ms. Jackson stated this miqht be a qood idea for a parent/child class at Community Education. Ms. Jackson stated another thing that came out strongly in that study was that kids need to be asked about what they want. Ms. Netz stated that maybe a survey could be done by children in a homeroom. Ms. Schaub stated a survey was done last year at the Fridley Middle School. It would be important to look at that survey. If they really want to find out what kids want, talking to them verbally is very important. This is usually more effective than a written survey. Mr. Barg asked Mr. Kirk and Ms. Schaub if they have any ideas of possible programs for older children, whether or not fundinq is needed. Mr. Kirk stated they discussed working together and pooling the City's and School District's resources, whether it be in transportation or staffing. A program should not be a copy of the playground program. It could tie into projects/jobs that can be done around the City- --a program where older children would do a certain number of work projects as a group, but then would earn a recreational activity--a field trip, etc. This is an opportunity for children to do something they might enj oy and to develop a pride in their community and schools. Ms. Jackson stated two important elements to any program will be transportation costs and upfront coordination. Mr. Kirk stated transportation is becoming a bigger issue every year for their recreational programming. He has discussed with the Council that it might be necessary to budget some money in the future for transportation in order to continue some of the programming. Ms. Schaub asked if there were any fraternal orqanizations or churches that own their buses that might be willinq to assist the City with transportation. Mr. Kirk stated Woodcrest Baptist Church and Redeemer Lutheran Church have buses. The City has a van which could be utilized. ; �� • : ; • �l �!i - : �. • � � _ _ • : _ ! � - � ,. ic ��`1r'�� : � - - Z�_� •., • c — r-=.�_ . � Y_:_ Ms. Jackson asked if the City ever has situations where children cannot afford the proqramminq. Mr. Kirk stated, yes, they do. He stated they publicize that no one is turned away because of inability to pay, and a number of p�ople do take advantage of that. Ms. Jackson stated maybe they could use CDHG �onies to help with transportation costs for those who wculd fall under the low and moderate income guidelines. Mr. Kirk a�tated that they do not ask for financial background.for those who aek for fee waivers. It is a policy recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission which staff supported, and they have not seen a need to chanqe that policy. Ms. Schaub stated there are a certain nw�ber of children who are �ligible for the free sci�ool lunch program. Could they use that percentage of the total school children to fulfill the guidelines for CDBG funds, assuming there would be that certain percent who would siqn up for recreational proqrams? There should be a way of not havinq to ask for financial information. Ms. Netz stated concerned, and embarrassed or information. she had no biases as far as children are she would not want to see anyone hwailiated by asking for financial Mr. Kirk stated that with transportation costs, they run into the problem where children who live near a park and can walk will pay much less than those children who live farther away and must pay for transportation in addition to the program cost. Transportation can become very expensive as far as programming. Ms. Netz stated they cannot have the �ituation where one child pay$ more than another. It is qoing to have to be a free service. Mr. Kirk stated he liked Ms. Schaub's suqgestion of using general population figures and then going with a percentage to meet the low and moderate income guidelines. Ms. Schaub stated that, if they can get past the liability issue, and they can get the use of a bus from a fraternal organization or church, they could then afford to pay someone to drive the veMicle. 1 • � : • 1�• �� Iz • . �1_ . c �1�� : . ; � � �_. b. Ms . Jackson stated they might f ind someone who is wi 11 ing to volunteer his/her time to drive a bus or for low pay. Mr. Barg etated a possibility would be to put an ad in the "Volunteers Wanted" section of the Star Tribune and the Fridley Focus. Ms. Jackson stated she would like to see more communication between the City and the School District, as there seems to be a misconception on the part of the public about which body offers what programming. Mr. Barg stated, subject to a determination on how much funding is of the low income status, he would think that CDBG funds would be very appropriate for a program that would benefit older children of the community. It would be starting something innovative, it would be a new opportunity for kids, and it would be something the CDBG program is designed to help. Ms. Jackson stated it needs to be a well thought-out program. Mr. Barq stated the Human Resources Commission is available to help in whatever way they can. Mr. Kirk stated the Commission has certainly had some qood ideas. He stated they all seem to share a common concern. Ms. Jackson thanked Mr. Kirk and Ms. Schaub for coming to the meeting. Update on Child Care Issues: Child Care Cooperatives Mr. Barg stated he has talked to Sandy Hannah regarding child care cooperatives. Apparently there once was a babysitting cooperative in existence in the southern suburbs of the Twin Cities. That program was unsuccessful, mainly because of insurance and liability problems. He was unable to get a contact person regardinq this program. Mr. Barq stated Ms. Hannah did call his attention to Care Share in St. Paul. Care Share allows parents to bring children up to three hours per day while the parents shop and run errands. The parents then have to pay back some of the time. He had prepared an outline of what Care Share does and how they do it. He stated there are some unique things that make Care Share possible. One of those things is that they are apparently insured through part of their Family Service Program that is already in r � : 1 . .. s t!• �!� : �s i, �...-�� _�,E°_��._.__��_ ��ie : . ' - . . � . . .-s.-��-.�i�a.�_�1_,.�� ._. .-- �-- � ' operation, whereas someone Btarting a cooperative unconnected with a�ny insurance proqra�, would have to work out that liability issue. Mr. Barg stated this is for the Commission's information. c. Discussion/Consideration of Issues Pertaining to Discrimination Mr. Barg stated he had obtained this information from the State Department of Human Riqhts, and it was outlined in his memo dated September 27, 1990. Mr. Barq stated he could check with the Department of Human Rights to see how Fridley compares with neighboring communities. Mr. Barg stated that at one time, the Commission talked about publishing information throuqh the Fridley Focus outlining things employees and employers should know about laws against discrimination, and also sending letters directly to employers advising them of some of the laws regarding discrimination. Does the Commission want to pursue this? Ms. Jackson stated she would first like to see the numbers of how Fridley compares with other communities. Mr. Barg stated he would get that information for the next meeting. Ms. Netz stated she did not know how much impact an article in the newspaper would do. They should also think about public relations with the businesses. 2. NEW BUSINESS: a. Consideration of Meeting Dates for 1991 MOTION by Ms . Netz , seconded by Mr . Vel in, to approve the 1991 meeting dates as follows: Thursday, January 3 Thursday, June 6 Thursday, February 7 Thursday, August 1 Thursday, March 7 Thursday, September 5 Thursday, April 4 Thursday, October 3 Thursday, May 2 Thursday, November 7 Thursciay, May 16 * Thursday, December 5 * Special meetinq - oral CDBG presentations :� �� :.�� .��r__ .. �,: � •�i•�=; �� QPO'i 71 VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTI�iG 1�iYE, VZC$-C8l�IRPBRSON .T71CZ80'i DECL�1itSD TS$ l[OTIO�i C71RRI$D II�Tl�TII[ODSLY. • � • '�!_ � OM TION by Mr. Velin, seconded by Ms. Upon a voice vote, Vice-Chairperso 4, 1990, Human Resources Commission Re ectfully s mitted, ��.� yn Saba Recording Secretary Netz, to adjourn the meeting. n Jackson declared the October meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. i is � � : 0 CITY OF FRIDLEY HOIISING i REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY KEETING, OCTOBER 11, 1990 _...._....____....�..�..__..__..__..��_..__..�..�__�_.........._..��.._.._..�............_......� CALL TO ORDER• Vice-Chairperson Schnabel called the October 11, 1990, Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Virginia Schnabel, Duane Prairie, John Meyer Members Absent: Larry Commers, Walter Rasmussen Others Present: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of HRA Virgil Herrick, City and HRA Attorney Paul Hansen, Accountant Jim Casserly, Development Consultant Jerry Brill, representing Ashland Oil/Rapid Oil Doug Erickson, Fridley Focus APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1990: HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES• MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve the September 13, 1990, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERBON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. ESTIMATES• l. TALBERG LAWN & LANDSCAPE (LAKE POINTE): MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the payment to Talberg Lawn & Landscape in the amount of $4,458.22. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON BCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 2. R. NELSON ENGINEERING (SOUTHWEST 4UADRANT STORMWATER): Mr. Robertson stated this estimate is in connection with the corporation which is looking seriously at the southwest quadrant. City staff wanted to furnish information to this corporation on how this stormwater should be handled and the approximate costs. This information was completed satisfactorily by R. Nelson Engineering, and staff recommends approval. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MTG.. OCT. 11, 1990 PAGE 2 MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve the payment to R. Nelson Engineering in the amount of $1,800. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, l�LL VOTING 11YE, VICE-CHAIRP$RSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THS MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 3. CLAIMS �2066-2075): MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the check register as presented. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Mr. Hansen stated that regarding tax increment revenue return to the school districts, the HRA wanted staff to start working on this in the fall. However, they are going to have to wait until after the general election because the four school districts are attempting to pass referendums. He stated staff will try to have something prepared for the November meeting. 4. STATUS OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION (CLEAN-UP) AT 57TH PLACE: Mr. Robertson stated staff received a copy of the letter the MPCA sent to the previous owner of the Rapid Oil Company. After receiving the letter, he contacted Delta Environmental who referred him to Art Newby, the Consulting Engineer for Ashland Oil Company. Mr. Newby told him they had been working on this for about one month. There is some detailed testing work which will determine the final number and location of both the withdrawal wells and the monitoring wells. Mr. Newby estimates it will take about one more month for the detailed work to be completed. Mr. Newby also estimates the clean-up program, once commenced, may take from 5-10 years. Mr. Robertson stated he believed it will probably be about another month before anyone will know what the site constraints are while the contaminated water is being pumped from the recovery wells. Mr. Robertson stated there is going to be an aeration operation in addition to the separation tank, and the City might want to know how large the tank is and if it can be removed and put off to the side of the site so that the site can be redeveloped while the withdrawal is going on. He will ask this question of Mr. Newby. Mr. Robertson stated he has also asked Mr. Virgil Herrick to contact the Assistant AG for the Petro Board to give the City an update on what the City's legal liability may be if they were to proceed to acquire the site for redevelopment while the treatment and cleanup is going on. HOIISING � REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MTG., OCT. 11, 1990 PAGE 3 Mr. Herrick stated he was unable to contact the Assistant AG, but he did sufficient research to answer these questions. He stated there is no question that if the HRA becomes owner of the property, under the state and federal law, it would be determined that the HRA is the responsible party. However, in this case, because Ashland Oil is a substantial corporation and because their liability would be primary to the HRA's, the practical effect of that legal liability would not be great. As the HRA is aware, there is a state fund that refunds up to 90� of the costs of treatment, and that would apply to anyone who has to expend money for treatment. In the first instance, the refund would to go Ashland Oil for whatever they expend. If the HRA acquired the property and expended money in the future, the HRA, too, would be eligible for the 90� reimbursement. There is a total limit on each site of $250,000. Mr. Herrick stated there is another factor that the HRA ought to keep in mind. That is: If the HRA acquired title and did not have a developer in hand, then the HRA might have to give some thought to whether this pollution problem would be an obstacle as far as getting financing for any future development. Usually in these cases, the financial institutions want to check with the PCA to see what the problem is and what is being do�ne about it, but financial institutions also universally require that a developer issue some sort of a hold harmless agreement as far as the financial institution is concerned. If the HRA has a strong developer financially, then they can do this by way of an indemnity agreement or letter of credit or whatever the financial institution requires. If they have a developer that is not financially strong, then the HRA might have a problem, and this could be an additional hurdle for some developer to get financing. The safest approach would be to have a development agreement in hand and to make sure the developer has secured financing before the HRA considers acquiring the property. But, if, for whatever reason, the HRA feels they have to or want to acquire the property without having a developer in hand, they then have this additional consideration. Mr. Jerry Brill stated Ashland Oil has requested a rezoning for the purpose of redoing the Rapid Oil facility. This all depends, however, on the outcome of the concerns about pollution and the City's interest in the property. Rapid oil is quite anxious to do something with this property to make it a more economically viable business. As far as the clean-up, Ashland Oil has never tried to duck their responsibility and they will do their part. 5. STATUS OF WINFIELD PROPOSAL FOR 57TH PLACE REDEVEIAPMENT: Mr. Robertson stated that at the last meeting, HRA was shown an outline of a development agreement prepared by Jim Casserly that was forwarded to Winfield at the end of August. He spoke to Mr. Bubany, who said he did not wish to proceed until his primary 8008ING & RED$VBLOPMENT AIITHORITY MTG.. OCT. 11, 1990 PAGE 4 financing is lined up and until the extent of the pollution is known. Mr. Robertson stated he then met with Bill Fogerty, who informed him that the major anchor tenant, Crosstown Bank, is now uncertain whether they wish to proceed with a branch bank at this location. Mr. Robertson stated Mr. Fogerty stated he wanted to proceed with the project on his own. Mr. Foqerty verbally outlined the following counter-proposal and said he would follow up with a written proposal. 1. HRA would acquire the Rapid Oil site through condemnation. 2. Fogerty, in addition to the duplex which he acquired two years ago, would also acquire the garage and empty land behind it. 3. Fogerty would continue to pay taxes on the land he owns plus pay the taxes and interest on the Rapid Oil site at the same rate that is being paid today. 4. In exchange, the HRA would grant him exclusive right to develop the property for the next five years. The City would not establish the TIF district or rebuild the streets and utilities until such time as the developer is ready to proceed. Mr. Robertson stated he has not yet received a written counter- proposal from Mr. Fogerty. Mr. Robertson stated he and Mr. Casserly conclude that they really do not have an experienced developer at this time for this specific proposal. What they have is a would-be developer with a desire to proceed, but who does not have a tenant who has made a location decision. He stated he believes it is in the HRA's best interest to seek another developer. Mr. Robertson stated that several months ago, staff presented the North Gateway Redevelopment Plan. One possibility would be to consider using the Rapid Oil site as an extension of the housing development which is being considered for the Phase II property directly to the north. So, rather than create a 2 1/2 acre redevelopment site for commercial, they would look at the existing street and utility pattern and see what could be put on this site in terms of residential as part of the whole residential alternative being explored by staff. Residential would start right at 57th Avenue and go north to the Alanon building. That would provide a larger mass of redevelopment land for residential that might make the project more attractive for a residential developer. With the HRA's permission, staff will analyze this alternative for the Rapid oil site. HOIISING i REDEVELOPMENT �OT80RITY MTG., OCT. 11. 1990 PAGE 5 6. STATUS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION FOR MISSISSIPPI/ UNIVERSITY AVENUE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS IN 1991: Mr. Robertson stated the City has petitioned Anoka County to contract for intersection improvements on Mississippi Street on both sides of University Avenue for the 1991 construction season. He wanted to emphasize that the Council has not confirmed proceeding with the Mississippi Street project. Mr. Robertson stated that if the Council confirms the improvements and wants to proceed, staff then has to look at acquiring the Dairy Queen in November when the season is over. There is a remote possibility the Dairy Queen will fit into the Fridley Town Square project on the old 10,000 Auto Parts site. Mr. Fitch, owner of the Dairy Queen, has been talking with Mr. Scott Erickson about this possibility. Staff hopes to have some form of commitment for the HRA to consider at the November meeting. In the meantime, Teri Mau, owner and operator of the beauty parlor and tanning salon in the Levy building, which the HRA recently purchased, has expressed interested in moving into the new Fridley Town Square shopping center if the project proceeds. She has asked the HRA to consider a trade-off where, instead of paying rent for a year, she would use that rent money to pay off her business loan and that would be deducted from her relocation entitlement. Mr. Robertson stated, again, until they know for sure whether the Fridley Town Square project will proceed, this item is moot. Obviously, the first step is to determine if the Fridley Town Square project will proceed. Ms. Schnabel stated that if nothing is done with the Levy building before the Fridle� Town Square project, then none of the tenants in the Levy building will be entitled to any relocation. Mr. Robertson stated that is correct. What they have to consider is that this is a FridZey business and this would be a chance for this business to stay in operation in Fridley. That is a less measurable attribute, but none the less an attribute. Ms. Schnabel stated that is a real precedent setting issue, and she is not sure the HRA should get into this kind of situation. If one tenant is given special consideration, then every tenant could ask for the same thing. Mr. Robertson stated there are a lot of variables here. He stated Ms. Mau approached the staff with this offer, and he wanted to make the HRA aware of it. Ms. Mau is aware that staff cannot even evaluate it until they know more about the schedule for the northeast quadrant. HOIISING i REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY 1�ITG.. OCT. 11, 1990 PAGE 6 � Ms. Schnabel stated this kind of deal would also have an affect on the HRA's relationship with Jim Kordiak as the manager of Rice Plaza, since Mr. Kordiak is entitled to 5� of the rent. Mr. Meyer stated the only way the HRA can give Ms. Mau relocation monies or any implication of it would be if the Levy building is going to be taken for redevelopment. 7. OTHER BUSINESS: a. Springbrook Apartments Mr. Robertson stated City staff has been approached by the owners of Springbrook Apartments, University Avenue Associates. As the HRA remembered, at the August 1990 meeting, the HRA passed a one year extension of the HRA's subordination agreement of the HRA's second mortgage. They have now approached the City with a proposal for a ten year mortgage through John Hancock Insurance Agency. Mr. Robertson stated he has asked Mr. Casserly to look at this proposal because the financing proposed by the John Hancock Insurance Agency is a bit unusual in that there is an assumed growth in the f inal value and sel l ing price of the proj ect from $16 million to $21 million. There is a certain amount of risk associated with this, and he would like Mr. Casserly to explain this a little further. Mr. Casserly stated that, as he understood it, Springbrook Apartments is still operating with its construction financing. University Avenue Associates have concerns with the problems of S& L's and take-out financing, so they have been doing a lot of work to find a permanent lender for their project. John Hancock Insurance Agency has made them a very interesting proposal. As he understood the proposal, what often happens with an insurance company or a lender is they want to have some equity participation. This financing is not that kind of an arrangement. What is happening is that the project has a$14 million construction loan against it. The project is worth around $16-18 million. Apparently, John Hancock Insurance Agency would allow University Avenue Associates to reimburse themselves, the developer, for all of the costs they had during lease-up. He is assuming there is a lot of other fees in the project (almost $2 million) they have never been able to take out. So, the mortgage company would actually allow them to take $16 million of financing against the project. If they take out the construction loan of $14 million, they would have $2 million left over for the other expenses. Mr. Casserly stated if it was just that arrangement, it probably would not be too much of a problem. The problem is HOIISINQ i REDEVELOPMFIJT AIITHORITY MTd., OCT. 11. 1990 PAGE 7 that the HRA has a second mortqage for $850,000, and they cannot place permanent financing on the project without dealing with the HRA's second mortgage. As soon as they pay off the construction mortgage, the HRA's mortgage moves up to # 1. And , anyone who f inances the proj ect wants to be in f irst position. So, no matter who they finance with, University Avenue Associates is going to have to have to ask for subordination again from the HRA. This would not be unusual, and this was originally what the HRA had bargained for. Mr. Casserly stated this is really interesting, because instead of putting a$16 million mortgage on the property, the day they close the financing, it is a$22 million mortgage. At the end of ten years, the developer has to sell the project or refinance it to pay off the $22 million mortgage. During the ten years, no principal is being paid at all--only interest. It is what is called a"reverse amortization", where the interest is not decreased; it is increased. Essentially, they would have a$22 million debt, and the HRA would stand behind the $22 million. In theory, they are really only paying on $16 million, because the balance they owe is increasing each year. At the end of ten years, they would pay off the HRA and do something with the project to pay off John Hancock Insurance Agency. Mr. Robertson stated the original payment schedule for the HRA's mortgage payment will stay the same. Mr. Casserly stated the developer is looking favorably at this kind of financing, and will be back with a proposal to the HRA. b. Fridley Auto Mall Project Mr. Robertson stated the HRA considered a request for tax increment assistance to the Fridley Auto Mall on 73 1/2 Avenue/University. At that time, the HRA was quite skeptical about the project, as was the Council. The Council is now considering an alternative way to assist the project and get some surplus City land back on the tax rolls. Mr. Robertson stated the City Council will be holding a public hearing on Monday, October 15, 1990, to consider declaring that land surplus. There is a provision in the State Statute that as an alternative to turning the land back to the State Commissioner of Revenue which the City would normally do, the City can also give the land to the HRA for redevelopment purposes. This is what the Council will be considering at this public hearing. Essentially, they will be asking the HRA to be a conduit so the land can be sold directly to the developer at a negotiable price, rather than having the land turned over to the Commissioner of Revenue and purchased back 80IISING � REDEVELOPMENT PiIIT80RITY I�IT(i.. OCT. 11. 1990 PAGE 8 at market price. If the Council approves this option, then he will be working with Virgil Herrick on the necessary administrative procedures for using the HRA as a conduit for this surplus land. ADJOURNMENT• Vice-Chairperson Schnabel declared the October 11, 1990, Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, � �---G� Lyn� Saba Recording Secretary CITY OF FRIDLEY ApP$AL8 COMMISBION MEBTIN(i� OCTOHBR 30, 1990 w. w. w....rrw�.w..rw.w.�.�rw.w.w..►arrw..�.w.wr.r.�..►rww.w.w.�r.rrrw►w.r�r.►ww.w.rw.rw.w.r.r.�.rrw..w.w.r..rr w. w..r w CALL TO ORDER• Vice-Chairperson Kuechle called the October 30, 1990, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Larry Kuechle, Ken Vos, Cathy Smith Members Absent: Diane Savage Others Present: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Weldon Fenton, 640 - 67th Avenue N.E. Jack Kreager, Health One Unity Hospital Glenn Johnson, Sign Logic, Inc. Dennis Garner, 7119 Ashton Avenue N.E. Patrick Boyle, 6261 Rainbow Drive N.E. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 2, 1990, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, to approve the October 2, 1990, Appeals Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPER80N RIIECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 1. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REOUEST, VAR #90-27, BY WELDON FENTON: Per Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(a) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to 6 feet, to allow the enclosure of an existing porch on Lot 2, Block 6, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 6, the same being 640 - 67th Avenue N.E. Ms. McPherson stated the property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as is the property to the west, north, and east. The property directly abuts the Hayes Elementary School property on the south. The proposed three season porch would enclose an existing patio area which is located to the rear of the single car garage portion of the dwelling unit. The area that is proposed to be enclosed is approximately 7 ft. 4 in. by 17 ft. 10 in. There are several other homes in this area that have similar patio areas at the rear of the garage, some of which appear to have been converted to screened-in porches. She did check the address files and there did not appear to be similar variances granted in this neighborhood. C APPEALS COMMISSION MBBTING, OCTOBSR 30. 1990 _ PAGE 2 Ms. McPherson stated the purpose of the code requirement for the 10 foot setback is to ensure that there is adequate separation between structures and to ensure that there is some type of fire protection between structures. Ms. McPherson stated the, petitioner has other alternatives that could be explored to provide this type of recreational space. There would be adequate setback for the petitioner to construct an addition to the rear of the house, or the petitioner could construct some type of detached gazebo in the rear yard. Ms. McPherson stated that as the petitioner does two other alternatives which would allow him to meet the code requirements, staff recommends that the Appeals Commission recommend denial of the variance request to reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to 6 feet. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING liYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RIIECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:44 P.M. Mr. Weldon Fenton stated the garage is 6 feet from the property line, and it is not a fire hazard. Why would a three season porch on the back make it any more of a fire hazard? Mr. Weldon Fenton stated his elderly mother-in-law lives with them. They would like to enclose the patio area with an entrance into the garage from the new porch. This will make it much easier for his mother-in-law who is in a wheelchair to get into and out of the car during the winter time when it is snowy and icy. He stated the porch will not be heated in the wintertime. There are other houses in the area that have done the same thing and are not 10 feet from the property line. He stated he has talked to the neighbors and they are in favor of this addition. Ms. Marie Harry, 650 - 67th Avenue, stated she is the neighbor to the east. She stated they have no objection to the enclosing of the patio area. She stated it would aide Mr. and Mrs. Fenton in getting Mrs. Fenton's mother in and out during the wintertime. She could not foresee any problems in the future, even if the house is sold to someone else. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to close the public hearing. OPON A VOICB oOTE, ALL VOTING l�YE, VICE-CBAIRPERSON RIIECHLE DECLARED THE 1rIOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:50 P.M. .. APPEALS COIrII�I88ION MEBTING, OCT088R 30. 1990 PAQE 3 Ms. Smith stated she had no problem recommending approval of this variance. The roof line is already there because of the existing patio area, so there would not be any change in the sight lines. Also, there are no objections from any of the neiqhbors. Dr. Vos stated there will still be 16 feet between the living space of the petitioner's house and the house to the east. Making a jog further from the garage roof line does not make any sense. He thought the spirit of the Code is really more aesthetic and for fire protection, and he thought both of those were being met. He would recommend approval of the variance. Mr. Kuechle concurred. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, to recommend to City Council approval of variance request, VAR #90-27, by Weldon Fenton, per Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(a) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to 6 feet, to allow the enclosure of an existing porch on Lot 2, Block 6, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 6, the same being 640 - 67th Avenue N.E. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, 7►LL VOTING AYE, VICE-CBAIRPERSON RUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION ClIRRIED IINl�NI1rI00SLY. Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to the City Council on November 19, 1990. 2. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #90-28, BY HEALTH ONE UNITY HOSPITAL• Per Section 214.09.O1.B of the Fridley City Code, to increase the square footage of an area identification sign from 24 square feet to 94 square feet, to allow the construction of a new area identification sign at 550 Osborne Road (complete legal description on file). Ms. McPherson stated the property is located just east of the intersection of University Avenue and Osborne Road. It consists of Health One Unity Hospital plus the Unity Professional Building located slightly to the west of the hospital complex. Ms. McPherson stated the property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are the parcels to the west and south. There is CR- 1, General Office, to the east, and the City of Spring Lake Park is to the north. Ms. McPherson stated the parcel has a history of sign variances and also contains several types of signage includinq wall signs and various informational pylon signs. Ms. McPherson stated that in 1974, the hospital applied for sign variances to increase the allowable square footage of delivery and APPEALS COMMI88ION M8$TINQ, OCTOBgR 30. 1990 PAGE 4 emergency signs from 6 sq. ft. to 24 sq. ft. and 75 sq. ft., respectively. The Council denied the variance for the delivery signs but did approve a variance for a 75 sq. ft. emergency sign. Ms. McPherson stated that in 1981, the hospital applied for a sign variance to increase the area identification from 24 sq. ft. to 56.83 sq. ft., which , she believed was the current area identification sign. The previous identification sign was built without a permit and was approximately 55 sq. ft. in area. Ms. McPherson stated that in 1985, seven 8 foot free-standing informational signs were issued permits. In addition, the hospital also has signs on each face of the canopy over the emergency room entrance, 54 sq. ft. and 70 sq. ft. respectively. Ms. McPherson stated that in 1986, the hospital was granted permits to revise the facias on four pylon signs which vary in area from 33 sq. ft. to 47 sq. ft. Ms. McPherson stated Health One Unity Hospital is requesting a variance to construct a pylon identification sign to replace the existing identification sign. The proposed sign would be 16 ft. tall and 94 sq. ft in area. The proposed area identification sign exceeds the 80 sq. ft. maximum which is allowed in the industrial and commercial zoning districts in the City. Ms. McPherson stated there are four conditions in the Sign Code, Section 214.21.02.A-D, that must be met prior to the Appeals Commission approving a sign variance. Section 214.21.02.A-D. allows variances from the literal provision of the Sign Code if four conditions are met by the petitioner: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and district. Unity Hospital is the only hospital located within the City of Fridley; however, it is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, and would be classified by the Zoning Code as an institution. Therefore, it would be similarly classified as churches, schools, and governmental agencies which would be required to conform to the signs allowed under the R-1 district. The Code does allow institutional signs up to 32 sq. ft. in area, so the petitioner's request would be greater than the maximum allowed by Section 214.05.06.A. of the Sign Code. The only exception to this would be a hospital emergency sign which could be a maximum of 100 sq. ft. in area (Section 214.05.06.C.). The purpose of the proposed sign is to provide ' APPEALB COMMISSION 1dE$TING, OCTOB$R 30. 1990 PAGE 5 identification of the hospital to the general public, and not as an emergency sign. B. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and district but which is denied the property in question. By denying the variance, the Commission would not deny the right for the hospital to have signage. The variance, which was granted in 1981, is still valid; and the hospital could have an area identification sign of 56.83 sq. ft. C. That the strict application of the chapter would constitute a unnecessary hardship. Again, as the property was granted a variance in 1981, strict application of the Sign Code is creating an unnecessary hardship. It would limit the area of the sign to only 24 sq. ft. In 1981, the City decided that 56.83 sq. ft. was reasonable. D. That the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare, or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or district in which the property is located. By limiting the area of the proposed sign, the Commission would be serving the public purpose to limit excessive or overly large signs. Again, the proposed sign is greater than the maximum square footage allowed in the commercial and industrial districts. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends that the Appeals Commission recommend denial of the variance request to increase the area of an area identification sign from 24 sq. ft. to 94 sq. ft. However, as stated earlier, the variance that was granted in 1981 for 56.83 sq. ft. is still valid; and the petitioner has the right to construct a sign at that square footage. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, to open the public hearing. OPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE—CHAIRPERSON KIIECBLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PQBLIC BEARING OPffiqi AT 8:00 P.M. Mr. Jack Kreager, Director of Support Services for Health One Unity Hospital, stated that in 1981, they requested a variance to go to the present sign size. Their business at that time was very APP$ALS CO�I88ION ME$TING, OCTOHSR 30. 1990 PAGE 6 different than it is today. Today, somewhere in the neighborhood of 40� of their business is out-patient business. They have had patient and public response that they have driven by Health One Unity Hospital. They have been Unity Hospital, a member of the Health Central system, since 1981, but they are now Health One Unity Hospital, part of the Health One system. Mr. Kreager stated the proposed signage is the adopted signage for the corporation. They have this same sign at their other institutions at Mercy Medical Center, Coon Rapids; United Hospital Unity, in St. Paul; and Metropolitan/Mt. Sinai, in downtown Minneapolis. So, they are asking for the opportunity to have the same visibility as all their other hospitals. Mr. Kreager stated they do advertise Health One Unity Hospital, and they have ambulances throughout the community that say Health One. They have had occasion where a family has tried to follow an ambulance to the hospital and hasn't identified the hospital as Health One, and they are trying to tie Health One and Unity Hospital together. Mr. Kreager stated he also wanted to point out that their present sign identifies them as a medical center, and Fridley Medical Center is on the corner near them which is a doctors' office building. They very much want to bring to the public and the community their new identity as Unity Hospital Health One. Mr. Kreager stated he wanted to emphasize that they are not really asking for a variance from 24 sq. ft. to 94 sq. ft. which is the way it appears. Their existing sign is 56.83 sq. ft. so they are really only asking for a variance of approximately 37 sq. ft. Dr. Vos asked if the hospital could get the wording "Health One Unity Hospital" on 56 sq. ft. of signage. Mr. Kreager stated, yes, they could get the information on the signs. Whether or not they could get the lettering large enough to be readily visible for people driving east and west on Osborne Road is the question. Ms. Smith asked if the hospital has looked at an alternative plan if the variance is denied. Mr. Kreager stated they have not looked at any alternatives at this time, because they are trying to standardize to the signage of all the Health One hospitals. Mr. Kreager stated they have received permission to install this identical sign at Health One Mercy Hospital in Anoka County, although the zoning is not R-1, as it is in Fridley. He stated they are serving an aging population, and they want to make Health APPEALS COMMIBSION MEBTING, OCTOBBR 30. 1990 PAGE 7 One Unity Hospital visible to their elderly patients and to do what they can to ease their entrance and identification to the hospital. OM TION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to close the public hearing. QPON Pi VOIC$ VOT$, ALL VOTINQ l�YE, VICB-CB�iIRP$RSON 1CIIECHLE DECLPiRED THE MOTION Cl1RRIED l�ND THE POBLIC BEARING CLOBED AT 8:10 P.l�t. Dr. Vos stated it is obvious that 24 sq. ft. is not realistic for this kind of operation, so some type of variance is necessary. He stated he had some hesitance to go up to 94 sq. ft. That size of sign would overpower the neighborhood, and there are already a lot of signs in the area. If the hospital was in a commercial zone, it would be allowed to have an 80 sq. ft. sign. He thought the problem with the existing identification sign is more in the height than in the size. If it is put on a pylon, it will be more visible. He is willing to recommend approval of a variance, but he is uncertain as to how large a variance to approve. Ms. Smith stated she hesitated to recommend approval of a larger sign than it is now. She thought the 56.83 sq. ft. s�gn serves the public interest and would be more visible on a pylon. She stated she thought the variance at 56.83 sq. ft. is acceptable and adequate. She stated she would recommend denial of the variance request. Mr. Kuechle stated he concurred with Ms. Smith in that there is already a variance in place of 56.83 sq. ft. There are already a lot of signs in the area, along with a large emergency sign. If the hospital was in a commercial district, it would be allowed an 80 sq. ft. sign. However, the hospital is not in a commercial district and, given the four conditions which must be met in order to recommend approval of the variance, he could not rationalize the need for that large a variance. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend to City Council denial of variance request, VAR #90-28, by Health One Unity Hospital, per Section 214.09.O1.B of the Fridley City Code, to increase the square footage of an area identification sign from 24 square feet to 94 square feet, to allow the construction of a new area identification sign at 550 Osborne Road. IIPON A VOICE VOT$, 2 VOTING AYE, 1 VOTING NAY, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RIIECBLE DECLARE THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 2-t. Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on November 19, 1990. 'p�EALB COM�II88ION MSBTINQ. OCTOB$R 30. 1990 PAGE 9 1. The petitioner sign and record against the parcel an aqreement stating that he understands that the deck can never be enclosed. Mr. Kuechle asked if there is any Fire Code requlations about barbecue grills on wooden decks. Ms . McPherson stated she did not know but could check into that before the City Council meeting. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner did submit two letters from adjacent neighbors stating they had no objection to the variance. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to receive into the record letters dated October 28, 1990, from Michael Corbett, 7115 Ashton Avenue, and Wes Garcia, 7109 Ashton Avenue, stating they have no objection to the variance as proposed. IIPON A VOIC$ VOT$� 7�iI.L VOTING AYS, VICB-CBAIRP$RSON RIIECHLE DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRI$D IINANIMOIIBLY. OM TION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING l�YS, VICE-CBAIRPERSON RIIECHLE DECLARED T8E 1rIOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:25 P.M. Mr. Garner stated he is not the homeowner, but the renter of 7119 Ashton Avenue. He stated he has a signed document granting permission to build the new deck. He stated he was unaware of the Code requirements when he built the deck; and, apparently, there was a complaint which brought this to the attention of Darrel Clark, Chief Building Official. He stated he would like to keep the deck as proposed, but if it is impossible to do that, he will tear it down and rebuild it. Mr. Garner stated he has received only good comments from his neighbors, that it provides a good view and affords more immediate privacy to the adjacent neighbor. He stated he is willing to conform to whatever the City decides. He stated if he is required to tear down the deck and rebuild it, he would appreciate it if the work could be delayed until spring. Ms. McPherson stated that if the Commission recommends denial, staff would recommend that the Commission make that a stipulation. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, to close the public hearing. APP$ALS COMMI88ION ME$TINa. OCTOH$R 30, 1990 PAGE 10 �PON ]► VOICB VOT$, 7►LL VOTIDIQ 71YE, VICB-CBAIRP$RSON 1CIIECHLE DECLARED THB 1�tOTZON ClIRRIED l�ND THB PIIBLIC BEARING CLOB$D AT 8:35 P.M. Mr. Kuechle stated he has looked at the property, and he believed anyone would agree that the deck with the enclosure is an improvement over what the . old deck. It looks good and fits in well with the house. He stated he wished the petitioner had built the deck at 6 feet rather than 8 feet, but he could not see a real strong reason to require him to cut off 2 feet. Mr. Kuechle stated that even though he is generally quite reluctant to grant a variance after the fact, in this case he would recommend approval of the variance. Ms. Smith stated her only concern is the proximity of the deck to the adjacent garage. If there is no fire hazard, then there shouldn't be a problem. She agreed with Mr. Kuechle that she also did not like to approve variances after the fact; however, the petitioner did not intentionally build the deck without a variance, and she would be inclined to recommend approval. Dr. Vos stated this is a very narrow lot, and the deck looks like it is out of variance. His only concern is also the distance between the deck and the neighbor's garage. A 6 foot wide deck would still look close, and it would be a lot of work to tear it down and cut off 2 feet. The neighboring garage is at a different elevation, and there are no sight lines to be obstructed. There is a high fence on the south side to block off the view. He, too, did not like granting variances after the fact, but he thought he could live with the variance as proposed. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to recommend to City Council approval of variance request, VAR #90-29, by Dennis Garner, per Section 205.04.06.A.(3) of the Fridley City Code, to increase the area an unenclosed deck can extend into the side yard from 3 feet to 8 feet, to allow the construction of an unenclosed deck, on Lot 6, Block 2, Hillcrest Addition, the same being 7119 Ashton Avenue N.E., with the following stipulation: 1. The owner of the property sign and record against the parcel an agreement stating that the owner understands that the deck can never be enclosed. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CBAIRPERSON RUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on November 19, 1990. ��P8AL8 COMMI88I0� I�BTING. OCTOB$R 30. 1990 PAG$ 11 4. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE RE4UEST VAR #90-30 BY RITA BOYLE• Per Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(c). ((1)) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the side yard setback from 17.5 feet to 4.5 feet, to allow the construction of a second accessory building on Lot 1, Block 2, Sylvan Hills, the same being 6261 Rainbow Drive N.E. Ms. McPherson stated this property is located at the intersection of Rainbow Drive and the West University Avenue Service Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as is the property to the north, west, and south. University Avenue is to the east. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing to construct a 624 sq. ft. second accessory building, and he has applied for a special use permit as the building is over 240 sq. ft. The Planning Commission reviewed the special use permit request in June and tabled the request due to the lack of building plans and elevations, which the petitioner has now submitted. Ms. McPherson stated that in reviewing the special use permit, staff's recommendation is to locate the proposed accessory building within the 17.5 foot setback at the rear of the parcel. The petitioner's request is to reduce the 17.5 foot setback to 4.5 feet so that the accessory building would be somewhat in line with the existing garage. The petitioner would still be able to use the existing driveway as the accessory building would face to the north. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has ample room on the property to meet the 17.5 foot setback. For that reason, staff recommends that the Commission deny the variance request. Ms. McPherson state however, the garage Drive. There is a a car port along th structure will be accessory building. d the petitioner's house faces Rainbow Drive; faces east onto the University Avenue Service fence running along the east property line and ; east side portion of the fence. The car port removed with the construction of the second Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner's house is 15 feet to the curb; however, the right-of-way line is only 4.5 feet from the dwelling unit itself. Dr. Vos stated the existing garage and house are 4.5 feet from the right-of-way line and are essentially nonconforming now. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, to open the public hearing. �PPEALS COMMI88ION MEBTING. OCTOBBR 30, 1990 PAQE 12 IIPON A VOIC$ VOTB, lILL VOTINQ 11YE, VIC$-CBAIRP$RBON 1CIIECHLE D$CLARED TH$ MOTION CARRILD 11IdD TS$ PIIBLIC HEARINa OPEN AT 8 s 50 P.M. Mr. Pat Boyle stated the biggest problem is that if they have to put the building at the 17.5 foot setback is with the existing driveway, and he would end up with yard on both sides of the garage with a driveway in between, which doesn't make sense. He stated there is a privacy fence on the east side now, and that will be torn down and a new fence constructed. The way his lot line and his neighbor's lot lines run, he would not be blocking the line of sight for anyone. The proposed accessory buildinq would be in line with the existing attached garage, and he can then use the existing driveway in between. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, to close the public hearing. OPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:55 P.M. Dr. Vos stated he looked at the property. His first reaction to this variance request is that it does not seem very advantageous to chop up the line of sight along the service road just to satisfy the 17.5 foot setback. The house and existing garage are 4.5 feet from the right-of-way, but with the boulevard, there is about 15 feet to the street. Now, they are asking the petitioner to go another 13 feet, so the proposed accessory building would be right behind the house in the middle of the back yard. He believed the widening of the service road must have taken some of the petitioner's property at some point in time, and he would consider that a hardship. He stated he would recommend approval of the variance as requested. Ms. Smith stated she is normally reluctant to grant this large a variance. However, because of the service road and the fact that the accessory building would be in the middle of the back yard, it did not make much sense to adhere to the 17.5 foot setback. The proposed accessory building at the 4.5 foot setback is not going to affect the line of sight or be a detriment to anyone else. Mr. Kuechle stated he concurred that the accessory building would not affect any sight lines and aesthetically it would be better to construct the accessory building at the side of the yard rather than in the center of the back yard, not only for the petitioner's view, but also for his neighbor's. He would recommend approval of the variance as requested. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, to recommend to City Council approval of variance request, VAR #90-30, by Pat and Rita Boyle, per Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(c). ((1)) of the Fridley City APPBALS COI+IIdI88ION ME$TING. OCTOB$R 30. 1990 PAGE 13 Code, to reduce the side yard setback from 17.5 feet to 4.5 feet, to allow the construction of a second accessory buildinq on Lot 1, Block 2, Sylvan Hills, the same being 6261 Rainbow Drive N.E. IIPON 71 VOICB VOTB, 11LL VOTING ]1YE, VIC$-CHAIRP$RSON 1CIIECHLE D$CLl1RED TH$ MOTION CARRIBD IINANIMOIIBLY. Ms. McPherson stated this item, along with the special use permit request, will probably go to the City Council on November 19, 1990. ADJOURNM�NT• MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Vice-Chairperson Kuechle declared the motion carried and the October 30, 1990, Appeals Commission meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Res ectfully s mitted, Lyn Saba Rec rding Secretary