Loading...
PL 06/24/1992 - 30757i�, CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNINQ COMMISSION MEETIN(�� JIINE 24� 1992 tiM�M�MMMMNNMNMN���MM�Y���M.►.►M.►�.►��►�MNNMwMMMMMMMMMMN�YNM MNM.YMMM.YMMMN CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Kondrick called the June 24, 1992, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Dave Kondrick, Dean 3aba, Sue Sherek, Connie Modig, Larry Kuechle (for Diane Savage), Brad Sielaff ' Members Absent: Don Betzold Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Michael Bargy, 1568 Ferndale Ave. N.E. Myron & Lillian ostlund 4130 - 3rd Street N.E., #103 Columbia Heights, NIN 55421 � APPROVAL OF MAY 27 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES• MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to approve the May 27, 1992, Planninq Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINd AYE, VICE-CBAIRPER80N RONDRICK DECLAR�D THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP � #92-06. BY MICHAEL BARGY: Per Section 205.07.01.C. (1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow a second accessory building over 240 square feet on the West 82.5 feet of the East 247.5 feet, axcept the South 150 feet thereof, of Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, generaily located at 1568 Ferndale Avenue N.E. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPER80N RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:32 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the property is located north of Gardena Avenue and east of Hillcrest Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are all adjacent properties. PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINd, JIINE 24, 1992 PAGE 2 � Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting a special use permit to allow the construction of a second accessory structure over 240 square feet. The petitioner is proposing to locate the structure in the rear.yard in a manner which would meet the Code requirements as it would be set back three feet from each of the property lines. The petitioner intends to use the structure for storage purposes. The addition of the structure to the lot does not adversely impact the lot coverage nor will it adversely impact the adjacent properties. The accessory structure cannot exceed 14 feet in height nor can it be used for any home occupation purposes. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit request with the following stipulations: 1. The proposed accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling unit and shall not exceed 14 feet in height. 2. The accessory structure shall not be used for a home occupation as defined in the Zoning Code. 3. If necessary, the petitioner shall provide a hard surface ^ driveway to the accessory structure by June 1, 1992. Ms. McPherson stated that at the time the staff report was written, it was unclear whether or not the petitioner needed a driveway to the structure. The petitioner can verify whether or not stipulation #3 is needed. Mr. Bargy stated his existing garage is only 12 feet by 25 feet and 6 feet high. It is big enough for one car. The new structure will be used for the storage of a rototiller, patio furniture, and other personal latam maintenance equipment. He stated he sees no need to have a driveway to the structure. Ms. McPherson stated the Commission can strike stipulation #3. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CBAIRPER801d RONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIHLIC HEARINa CL08ED AT 7:39 P.M. Mr. Kuechle stated that if they approve the special use permit, they should leave in stipulation #3, but change the wording slightly to read: "If the petitioner chooses to install a �,..� driveway, the driveway must be hard surface.�� He stated it ought to be clear that if the petitioner ever wants to install a driveway in the future, it has to be hard surface. PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, JONE 24. 1992 PAGE 3 Ms. Dacy stated the minutes of the Council meeting will be recorded against the property, so any new property owner would see the minutes in the title search and that should flag the hard surface driveway requirement. � Ms. Sherek stated that she did not think the stipulation is necessary; however, if they choose to have it remain, maybe it should state that if the structure is ever intended for garage purposes, that a hard surface driveway should be constructed. Mr. Kondrick stated he did not think the stipulation is necessary and should be deleted. The Commissioners agreed. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to City Council approval of Sgecial Use Permit, SP #92-06, by Michael Bargy, per Section 205.07.01.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow a second accessory building over 240 square feet on the West 82.5 feet of the East 247.5 feet, except the South 150 feet thereof, of Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, generally located at 1568 Ferndale Avenue N.E. � 1. The proposed accessory structure shall be architecturally �� compatible with the existing dwelling unit and shall not � exceed 14 feet in height. 2. The accessory structure shall not be used for a home occupation as defined in the Zoning Code. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN�3 AYE� VICE-CBAIRPER80N KONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on July 6, 1992, 2. CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT L S. #92-02 BY MYRON AND LILLIAN OSTLUND: To split the above referenced pro�erty into two separate parcels: The East 83 feet, front and rear, of Lots 6 and 14, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 10, Anoka County, Minnesota, also the East 83 feet of Outlot A, Dennis Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plats thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds, Anoka County, Minnesota, generally located at 1400 - 66th Avenue N.E. Ms. McPherson stated this property is located east of Central Avenue and west of the Fridley/New Brighton border. The property ^ is a double-fronted lot. The rear of the lot fronts on Creek Park Lane. The property.is zoned R-1, 5ingle Family Dwelling, as are all the adjacent properties. ,.,,,, PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINQ. JIINE 24, 1992 PAaE 4 Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing to subdivide the existing single family lot into two parcels. There is a single family dwelling unit with an attached two-car garage located on the property addressed as 1400 - 66th Avenue N.E. The petitioner is proposing to create a new lot, 83 feet by 120 feet. The lot split will create two lots which meet the minimum requirements of the R- 1 zoning district regulations for lot width, lot size, and setbacks for the existing dwelling unit. A variance was granted for the living area to the rear of the garage on the existing dwelling unit several years ago. Ms. McPherson stated utilities were stubbed to the lot line for the vacant lot when Creek Park Lane was constructed in 1984. There are outstanding special assessments which will need to be paid at the time the lot is sold or prior to the issuance of a building permit. A park dedication fee of $750 will also need to be paid at the time of issuance of a building permit. Ms. McPherson stated that as the lot split creates two lots which meet the minimwn requirements of the R-1 zoning district regulations, staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of this request with one stipulation: 1. A park dedication fee of $750.00 shall be paid at the r—.� time of issuance of a building permit for the vacant lot. Mr. Ostlund stated his property is located right next to the old Rice Creek School property. When �hat was developed, it was suggested that he split his property into two lots. Since he was grandfathered in, he was not required to split his property at the time and would only be required to pay the assessments when he did split the property. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend to City Council approval of Lot Split, L.S. #92-02, by Myron and Lillian Ostlund, to split the above referenced property into two separate parcels: The East 83 feet, front and rear, of Lots 6 and 14, Revised Auditor's Subdivision A1o. 10, Anoka County, Minnesota, also the East 83 feet of �utlot A, Dennis Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plats thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds, Anoka County, Minnesota, generally located at 14�00 - 66th Avenue N.E., with the following stipulation: 1. A park dedication fee of $750.00 shall be paid at the time of issuance of a building permit for the vaeant lot. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERBON RONDRICR DECLAR�D THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. ^ Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on July 6, 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 24. 1992 PAGE 5 � 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL AATD ADOPTION OF THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY'S REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1. AND APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE MODIFIED INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR THE CITY' S TAX .INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NO. 1 THROUGH N0. 12 . THIS PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF 59TH AVENUE AND MAIAT STREET : Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission is being asked to approve the above reference resolution. Before the City establishes any parcel in a redevelopment proj ect area or a tax increment district, the Planning Commission needs to evaluate whether or not the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Dacy stated this.particular property is now vacant. It is located midway between 61st Avenue and I-694. Sheet Metal Connectors wants to move here from Minneapolis. The property has been zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, since 1958. Ms. Dacy stated that instead of creating a tax increment district, the HRA is adding the parcel to the redevelopment project area. State law enables communities to spend tax increment funds on parcels in a project area. The taxing jurisdictions--the County, the City, and the school districts--will all continue to receive � the benefit from the property taxes of this site, but it enables the HRA to spend money. Ms. Dacy stated that at their July 9, 1992, meeting, the HRA will be considering a loan assistance package, so not only does the City benefit from property taxes, but the HRA will benefit because the loan will be repaid over the next ten years. Ms. Dacy stated that since the property is proposed to be used for an industrial purpose and is consistent with the zoning and the neighborhood, staff recommends approval of the resolution. MOTIOIV by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council approval of a"Resolution of the Fridley Planning Commission Finding the Modification of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment District No. 1 to be Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City��. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTINC� AYE, CBAIRPERBON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 4. APPROVE 1992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING REQUESTS:. Ms. Sherek stated that for all the years she has been on the Planning Commission, .she has also chaired the Human Resources '�� Commission. Over the past several years, the amounts requested for CDBG human service funding have continued to rise, well out of proportion to the amount of funds that have been available. This /"� PLANNING CONIlKI88ION MEETIN�, JONE 24. 1992 PAaE 6 �^� year, the City received $31,042 in grant money, slightly less than they have received in the last couple of years; and the City received $68,761 in requests. Needless to say, there are going to be a number of unhappy grant applicants. Ms. Sherek stated that one of the things the Council had asked the Human Resources Commission was how the Commission makes their funding decisions. The Council was particularly interested in whether the Commission uses a point system. She stated that for at least the last three years, the Commission has used a number of criteria and then has made its decisions on a consensus basis essentially on each of the issues. Ms. Sherek stated that, traditionally, the City has provided funding for the counseling organizations in Anoka County. This year in a conversation at the May 21 public hearing with one of the recipients from one of the counseling organizations, it came to the Commission's attention that if the City of Fridley doesn't give the counseling agencies any funding or funds them at a lower level, they don't turn away patients,.they simply bill the County. The Commission members thought that perhaps if the County is going to pay the bill anyway, CDBG funds can be better utilized some place else, so the Commission reduced the amount of money allocated to the counseling agencies. Ms. Sherek stated that another item that might be somewhat contro- versial is.the request from RISE, Inc., which is an organization which employs developmentally disabled, both mentally and physically, persons in sheltered workshop situations. RISE requested CDBG funds for.capital equipment. The Commission did not feel that was a good expenditure of CDBG funds because they felt that since the activity the piece of equipment would be used for is producing income, the revenue generated from that activity should be used to purchase the capital equipment. Ms. She�ek stated the request from Anoka County Community Action Program (ACCAP) is for the Fridley Senior Outreach Worker who visits Fridley seniors in their homes. The only way that position is funded is through the Community �ction Plan (CAP). The Community Action Plan is actually the administrator of other people�s funds and a supervisor for people working in other organizations. CAP handles fuel assistance and weatherization, etc. For a number of years, the Commission has been discussing with ACCAP the issue of trying to find some other reliable source of funding for the Senior Outreach Worker so that the Senior Outreach Worker does not have to come to the Human Resources Commission every year begging for her job for the subsequent year. Ms. Sherek stated that one of the things discussed at a recent ^ Commission meeting is that the Commission request that the Human Resources Commission and ACCAP }�e put on a City Council agenda to make a request to the City Council that the Council consider funding the Senior Outreach Worker through the City�s General Fund. � PLANNING COMMI88ION MLETING, JUNE 24. 1992 PAaE 7 In view of the increasing aging senior population the City of Fridley has, this may be a permanent need. Ms. Sherek stated the Human Resources Commission recommendations for 1992-92 CDBG Funding for Human Services came about after three very long meetings and one short special meeting over the last few months. Mr. Saba asked about the Chore Service. Program and the Senior Companion Program for which the Human Resour.ces Commission recommended $5,000 in CDBG funds. Ms. Sherek stated Chore Services has guidelines based on income levels, and senior citizens and handicapped people can get chores done on a sliding fee scale. What the CDBG funding is providing is some funding for the person who does the administration of that program. Ms. Sherek stated the other half of the $5,000 is for the Senior Companion Program. The Senior Companion Program matches a person or a pair of people (typically very frail seniors) with a senior companion who also is a low income senior who lives in Fridley. That person is paid a stiper�d. The senior companion spends 16-20 hours a week visiting a senior. Most of the money for this ,� program is funded through a federal Title 8 program, which requires matching funds from the community. Title 8 will not fund the program 1000. Mr. Saba asked how seniors know about the Senior Outreach Worker. Ms. Sherek stated the Senior Outreach Worker gets referrals from a variety of sources--from family members, doctors' offices, etc. Mr. Saba asked if any of these programs get funding from United Way. Ms. Sherek stated the Senior Center receives some United Way funding, but she is not sure about the rest. The United Way is very selective about the programs it funds. The majority of the money that is coming back to the Senior Center is coming from the Lions Club and other community organizations. Mr. Saba stated that the money coming from the VFW, Lions Club, etc., is going to be decreasing. These organizations get most of their money from gambling, and now a lot of the gambling is at the big casinos and through the state lottery. Ms. Sherek stated it is difficult because the Commission would like to see and fund new and innovative programs, but there are so many ^ needed ongoing programs that cannot survive without CDBG funds. Mr. Sielaff asked if there is any data to show how much the senior population is increasing in the City of Fridley. i'�\ � "'� PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa, JIINE 24. 1992 PAGE 8 Ms. Sherek stated they do not yet have the 1990 census data, but the 1980 census data showed that the 55-64 age group was the largest age qroup in Fridley at that time. That was ten years ago, so that probably shows that the largest age group in Fridley now is 60-69. Mr. Sielaff stated he wondered if there is going to be a turnover in homeownership in the City in the near future. Ms. Sherek stated that turnover is starting now in some neighborhoods. One of the things that is lacking in the Twin Cities area is alternative housing for senior citizens, so they are staying in their homes. Ms. Sherek stated the Senior Outreach Worker has noticed an increase in calls and contacts for seniors for assistance and for crisis situations. Anoth�er indicator of the increasing senior population is that the calls for Chore Services are for more routine chores which would indicate that the seniors are getting unable to do even the lawn mowing. Ms. Sherek stated that when she receives the latest census data, she will share that with the Planning Commission. Ms. Modig stated that since the counseling agencies were reduced to $1, 000 each, is that all the money they will receive for the year, or will the Commission give them more if there is more? Ms. Sherek stated that on occasion CDBG funding has been turned back by an organization that could not use it or by an organization that did not qualify. If that should happen and some more CDBG monies become available, the Commission would certainly consider recommending more funding to the counseling agencies since their funding was cut back substantially this year. Ms. Modig asked how seniors and the community are notified about the availability of these programs for seniors. Ms. Sherek stated this information has been in the Fridley Focus. Both the Senior Companion Program and the Chore Services Program have been featured in the Focus. All these programs have also been featured in the City Newsletter. Another person who does an excellent job of getting this information to seniors is Council- member Nancy Jorgenson, who was also the Fridley Senior Outreach Worker for a couple of years. Mr. Kondrick commended Ms. Sherek and the Human Resources Commission. He stated they have a very difficult job each year, and they have done a tremendous job. � � n PLANNING CO1�II88ION MEETING� JIINE 24. 1992 PAGE 9 MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to concur with the Human Resources Commission's recommendation and to recommend that the City Council approve the following allocations for 1992-93 CDBG Human Service funding: Alexandra House Anoka County Career Consortium Anoka County Community Action Program Arc of Anoka County Ariel Productions Central Center for Family Resources Community Emergency Assistance Program Family Life Mental Health Center Fridley Senior Center North Suburban Consumer Advocates for the Handicapped North Suburban Counseling Center Northwest Suburban Kinship Northwest Youth & Family Services RISE, Inc. St. Williams Church Southern Anoka Community Assistance Amount Reauested $ 4,000.00 1,526.50 7,686.00 3,000.00 9,500.00 5,000.00 2,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 2,000.00 5,000.00 3,000.00 3,049.00 4,000.00 1,000.00 8.000.00 $68,761.50 Amount Recommended $ 4,000.00 500.00 5,100.00 1,000.00 0 1,000.00 2,000.00 1,000.00 5,000.00 0 1,000.00 0 1,500.00 0 1,000.00 7.942.00 $31,042.00 IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIN(3 AYE, VICE-CHAIRPER80N RONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMODBLY. 5. RECEIVE MAY 4. 1992. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the May 4, 1992, Parks & Recreation Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON ROATDRICR DECLAR�D THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 6. RECEIVE MAY 14, 1992 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by,Mr. Sielaff, to receive the May 14, 1992, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes. IIP.ON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(3 AYE, VICE-CHAIRPER80N RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 7. RECEIVE MAY 19. 1992, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the May 19, 1992, Appeals Commission minutes. � PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETIN�. JIINE 2�, 1992 PAGE 10 IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINa AY�, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 8. RECEIVE MAY 21, 1992. SPECIAL HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the May 21, 1992, Human Resources Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIN(� AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSOAT RONDRICR DECLAR�D THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 9.. RECEIVE JUNE 2J 1992. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the June 2, 1992, Appeals Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINf3 AYE, VICE-CBAIRPER80N RONDRICR DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRISD DNANIMOIISLY. 10. RECEIVE JUNE 4, 1992, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES• MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the June 4, 1992, Human Resources Commission minutes. � IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINa AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON ROND1tICR DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOIISLY. 11. RECEIVE JUNE 10, 1992, SPECIAL HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the June 10, 1992, Human Resources Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINa AYE, VICE-CHAIRPER80N RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTIOAT CARRIED ONANIMOIISLY. ADJOURNMENT: OTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba; to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Vice-Chairperson Kondrick declared the motion carried and the June 24, 1992, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m Respectfully s mitted, L e Saba �.� Recording Secretary