Loading...
PL 10/24/1990 - 30727CITY OF FRIDLEY n PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, OCTOBER 24, 1990 ANI�ti�►�YMM�YMMNNMMII�N�MMMANMI►MM�M�YIrIr��M�Ir�M���MM�Y�I�AwNwI��MMM�MM�M�►.►MM 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 ICersey, 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: MOTION by Ms . Sherek, seconded by Ms . Modig, to approve the October 10, 1990, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTINQ AYE, CBAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 1. TABLED• CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #90-08, BY JOHN BABIN5RI: Per Section 205.17.01.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 A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BBTZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING 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 storage of � n PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, OCTOB�R 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 because 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 CONII�tI88ION MEETING. OCTOBER 24,_ 1990 PAGE 3 2. 3. 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 Rraemer, 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. ,� /'� PLANNING CO1�II�IBBION ME�TINa, OCTOBER 24. 1990 PAaE 4 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 f ront . 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 tha�t 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, CBAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED 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 COMMI88ION MEETING. OCTOBER 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 pard at the loadinq doaks. 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 AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to direct staff submit special 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, CBAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. PLANNINa CON�iI88ION MEETINa. OCTOBER 2�, 1990 PAGE 6 � 2. PUBLIC HEARING; CONSIDERATION OF A 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. MOTION by Mr. Rondrick, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to waive the readinq of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC BEARING 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 change 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 r"� than normal. PLANNING COMMI88ION MLETING. OCTOBER 24. 1990 PAGB 7 �'"1 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 building's contents. He and Mr. Saba would be concerned about the storage of fertilizers, chemicals, pesticides, latam 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. Mr. 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. n � a PLANNINa COr+II�II88ION MEETING. OCTOBER 24, 1990 PAGE 8 MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICl3 VOTE, ALL VOTIN(� AYE� CBAIRPERSON HETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HSARING CL03ED 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 VOICTs VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED tJNANIMOIIBLY. 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 AMEATDMENT 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, CBAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THL MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8s17 P.M. ,� PLANNINa CONIIKI88ION ME$TING OCTOBER 24, 1990 PAGE 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. Dac stated that throu h a review of y g 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 nwnber of persons xelated 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 COMMI88ION 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 COMMI88ION MEETING. OCTOBER 24, 1990 PAaE 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. Rersey to address specifically how this ordinance amendment would affect his rental property. Mr. Rersey 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. Rersey 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, particularly along the lines of the definition of a family. . 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. �"� PLANNINQ CONIl�RIBBION MEETING. OCTOBBR 24. 1990 PAaB 12 n � 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 Lagan 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. r"'� 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 PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING. OCTOBER 24, 1990 PAaE 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 HEARINC� CL08ED 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 Council 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. PLANNINQ CO1�KI88ION MEETINa. OCTOBER 24. 1990 PAaE 14 � - 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 e�rterior improvements to the house, limit 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. � � � PLANNINa COI�iI88ION MEETINa. 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, ALI� VOTING AYL, CBAIRPERSON HETZ07�D DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 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 VOTINC, AYE� CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIHLIC BEARIN(� OPTN 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 � � PLANNINQ COMMI88ION MEETINa. OCTOBER 24. 1990 PAGTs 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 COMMI86ION MEETINa. OCTOBER 24. 1990 PAaE 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 o� 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 on islands usually get killed during the winter months because of snow stacking and from people backing over or driving into them. Except in very large parking areas, she did not think landscape islands add that much for all the hazards and trouble they cause. 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. Rondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing. � � /�, �'`� PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa. OCTOHER 24, 1990 PAGE 18 IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLAR�D THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PQBLIC HEARINa CL08ED 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 VOTIN(,i AYE, CHAIRPER80N SETZOLD DECLAR�D THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 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 VOTIN(3 AYE, CBAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLAR�D THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 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, �� � Lyn Saba Recording Secretary �, n � 8 I G�- IN 8 8 g$ T PLANNINQ� COIrIIrIIBBION l�ETING� October 24, 1990 Name Address/Business _ � L �'. � av �a L��d (� (�� /l � � �'�� ���� 4�,� ��, t� ��/�� . 3� / � , �YLr��.s`� k'�.+�c-w, c t zq o 7�� c� Av F ni � Fn,,r� N mber G La� � I� La w tJ, �'m L�. t � �s � �� � �r �'� �Q lh z ����1/ � 'Ie ase � `�ui'de �,.�'y �x, �s�-��,�� �r �sa�/ a�a�C� ,� � Q�he j - (w� u� ��.1� h r� 1� 1 ° h � qh��