PL 06/23/1993 - 30774�
�
CITY OB BRIDLEY
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MELTINC:� JIINE 23� 1993
__,..._........................_................................,...__......»...._____....__........,.___........
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Newman called the June 23, 1993, Planning Commission
meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Dave Newman, Dean Saba, Connie Modig,
Brad Sielaff, LeRoy Oquist
Members Absent: Dave ICondrick, Diane Savage
Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Steven Barg, Planning Assistant
Peter Vagovich, 6600 Brookview Drive
Stephen Witzel, 1349 - 104th Ave. N.E., Blaine
Christopher Boe, 520 Glencoe Street N.E.
Dale Pearson, Fridley Laundromat
� APPROVAL OF JUNE 9, 1993, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MoTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the June
9, 1993, Planning Commission minutes as written.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED T8E
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
Chairperson Newman requested that item one be moved to item three
in the agenda to accommodate staff persons.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP
#93-09. BY PETER VAGOVICH:
Per Section 205.07.01.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow
the construction of a second accessory structure over 240
square feet on Lot 6, Block 2, Brookview 2nd Addition,
generally located at 6600 Brookview Drive N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading of
the public hearing notice. �
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINC3 AYE, CHAIRPERBON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRILD IINANIMOIISLY.
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to open the public
hearing.
�
� PLANNING COMMI88ION 1�EETING, JIINE 23. 1993 PAGE 2
IIPON A VOICE VOTL, ALL VOTIN(3 AYE, CBAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED THB
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIHLIC HLARINa OPEN AT 7a33 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located south of the
intersection of 67th Avenue on Brookview Drive and west of Highway
65. The Michael Servetus Unitarian Church is located directly west
of the subject property. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family
Dwelling, as are all surrounding properties.
Ms. McPherson stated that located on the property is an existing
single family dwelling unit with an attached two-car garage. The
petitioner has begun construction of a 12 ft. by 30 ft. (360 sq.
ft.) detached accessory structure which is located on a concrete
slab adjacent to the existing attached garage. The petitioner
applied for a variance as the accessory structure is set back 3
feet from the lot line, and the Zoning Code requires that detached
accessory structures be 5 feet from the lot line in the side yard.
On June 22, 1993, the Appeals Commission recommended denial of the
variance request to the City Council.
Ms. McPherson stated the proposed accessory structure does not
adversely impact the lot coverage or any other setback
requirements, except for the side yard setback. There are several
� building code requirements which must be met by the petitioner
prior to construction continuing. Those include:
1. The building code requires one hour fire walls on the
north and south side of the structure to its foundation.
Because the structure is on a slab rather than a
foundation, it is not certain whether the fire wall
requirement can be met.
2. In the opinion of the Building Inspector, the roof
trusses are not designed to provide storage in the upper
level of the structure. The petitioner indicated that
this area may be used for storage or to be used as a
playhouse for his son. If the petitioner can provide
structural information to refute this observation, the
petitioner would be allowed to have storage in the upper
level of the structure.
3. The accessory structure needs to be permanently anchored
to the slab on which it sits. Anchoring the structure
to the slab may be difficult in its present location.
The petitioner will need to remove the existing slab to
provide appropriate anchoring systems.
Ms. MoPherson stated that while the structure appears to be
architecturally compatible with the dwelling unit and it does not
^ adversely impact lot coverage or any other setback requirements,
with the exception of the requested variance by the petitioner,
�.,1 PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa. JIINE 23, 1993 PAGE 3
staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of
the special use permit for the accessory structure in its present
location. If the petitioner would relocate the structure to meet
the code requirements, staff would recommend the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the request.
Mr. Oquist asked what the alternatives are for the petitioner.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner can relocate the accessory
structure to the rear yard behind the dwelling unit. Another
alternative is for the petitioner to remove the accessory structure
and expand the existing garage.
Mr. Peter Vagovich stated that he when he started construction, he
did not know he needed a building permit to construct a storage
shed. The house to the south was built in 1946 and his house was
built in 1957 when the setbacks were closer than the current Zoning
Code allows, and he did not know he needed a 5 foot setback from
the lot line. The neighbor to the south has no objection to the
accessory structure in its present location. The Michael Servetus
Unitarian Church�s only concern was that the structure be anchored.
He stated the structure wil'1 be bolted into the concrete.
Mr. Vagovich stated he hired an architect to design the building
�-�. and a carpenter to build the building. He has invested over $3,000
in the building so far, and he does not want to relocate it in the
rear yard. He has a nice back yard with a sprinkler system, and
this building would look out of place in the back yard. He needs
the extra storage space for parking his cars as his existing
attached garage is full of storage. The Appeals Commission
recommended denial of the variance because no one has ever asked
for this same type of variance in the past and granting the
variance would set a precedent. He stated that in driving around
the City, he sees a lot of buildings closer to the property line
than 5 feet.
Mr. Vagovich stated he can sheetrock the building and insulate it
to make it fireproof. He will also anchor it to the concrete slab.
The building will look nice and will have the same siding as the
house. If the special use permit is not approved, he would need
90 days to move it out because he will not relocate it to the rear
yard.
Ms. McPherson stated that any building over 100 sq. ft. requires
a building permit.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public
hearing.
IIPOAT A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(�1 AYE, CHAIRPERBON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
� MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:50 P.M.
� PLANNINa COMMIBBION MEETINa. JIINE 23. 1993 PA6E 4
Mr. Saba stated he can understand the petitioner's desire for more
storage, and he could understand the petitioner not wanting to
relocate the structure in the rear yard. He did not have a problem
with the special use permit for the storage shed itself, but he was
concerned that construction has already been started.
Mr. Oquist stated he agreed. The petitioner has learned a valuable
lesson in not getting a building pernait and understanding the
City's requirements. It seems like a good structure, and he would
be in favor of recommending approval of the special use permit,
pending approval of the variance for the setback.
Ms. Modig stated the structure looks nice in its present location.
The neighbors do not have any objections. 5he would also recommend
approval with the stipulation that the variance is approved by the
Council.
Mr. Sielaff stated he was also concerned that the petitioner went
ahead and started construction before obtaining a building permit
and approvals. As far as the special use permit request, he would
be willing to recommend approval.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend to City
Council approval of Special Use Permit, SP #93-09, by Peter
Vagovich per Section 205.07.O1.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to
� allow the construction of a second accessory structure over 240
square feet on Lot 6, Block 2, Brookview 2nd Addition, generally
located at 6600 Brookview Drive N.E., with the following
stipulations:
1. Construction of the accessory structure shall comply with
the Uniform Building and Fire Codes.
2. Approval of variance request, VAR 93-12, or structure is
relocated so that no variances are needed.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED T8E
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
The Commission members agreed that the City should provide
information to City residents regarding the necessity to apply for
building permits. Perhaps this information could be provided in
new resident packets or through an article in the City newsletter.
Ms. McPherson stated the special use permit and variance requests
will go to City Council on July 6, 1993.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP
#93-10, BY STEPHEN WITZEL:
Per Section 205.13.O1.C.(10) of the Fridley City Code, to
allow outdoor storage of materials and equipment on Lots 9
�` and 10, Block I, Riverview Heights, generally located at 505
Fairmont Street N.E.
�„� PLANNING COMMI68ION ME$TINa. JIINE 23. 1993 PAGE 5
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, 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� CHAIRPERBOAT NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRITD AND THE PIIBLIC HEARIN(3 OPEN AT 7:55 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located just west of the
intersection of Fairmont Street and East River Road. Located
adjacent to the property is the Fridley Laundromat and the former
Fridley Food Mart. To the south is the Texaco station. The
property is zoned C-1, Local Business, as are the properties to
the east and southeast. The surrounding properties on the west,
north, and southwest are zoned R-1, Single FamiYy Dwelling.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner purchased the property several
years ago. Located on the property is a one-story concrete
structure which has a double garage door and service door in the
front. The petitioner operates Mobile Maintenance, a mobile home
repair operation. The site is used for the storage of vehicles,
equipment, and materials associated with the business. The
building is used as an office for the business.
Ms. McPherson stated that currently being stored in the storage
� yard is a trailer which is used as an office unit for larger jobs,
a boat which is temporarily being stored, assorted materials, and
55 gallon drums used for recycling various metals. A variety of
vehicles are stored in the front yard but sometimes they are stored
in the storage yard. The petitioner has worked to provide a
screening fence along the front, west, and north side of the
storage yard. Typically, the City requires that all storage yards
have hard surface and concrete curb and gutter around the
perimeter. There is a hard surface driveway from the easterly curb
cut on Fairmont. The petitioner should provide a hard surface
driveway to the westerly curb on Fairmont. There should be an
increase in landscaping along the boulevard area between the two
driveways.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner can mset the outdoor storage
requirements as far as screening from the street right-of-way.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the special use permit with the following stipulations:
1. The screening fence shall be completed along the north
property line by August 1, 1993.
2. The petitioner shall provide hard surface and concrete
curb and gutter for the storage area by July 1, 1994.
The petitioner shall also install a hard surface driveway
from the storage area to the westerly curb cut by July
%'�'� 1, 1994.
�,.,� PLAIJNING CONIIRI68ION I�iEETING. JIINE 23. 1993 PAC�4E_6
3.
4.
5.
The petitioner shall install landscaping between the two
curb cuts on Fairmont Street.
The storage area shall be used to store materials and
equipment which are directly related to Mobile
Maintenance.
There shall be no exterior storage of materials and
equipment outside the storage area.
6. The petitioner shall submit
the Engineering Department
stipulations.
the proposed paving plan to
and comply with recommended
Mr. Sielaff asked if the petitioner needs a storm water runoff
permit for the outdoor storage srea.
Ms. McPherson stated a storm water runoff permit is not needed for
property under 9,000 square feet.
Ms. Sielaff asked if any hazardous waste will be stored at the
facility.
Ms. McPherson stated that question will need to be asked of the
petitioner.
Mr. Stephen Witzel stated he is the owner of the building. When
he purchased the property, the property and the building were in
very poor condition. He has made a lot of improvements to the
building and the property. The area he is asking for a special
use permit for storage has been used as a storage area for 20
years, so it is not like a new use for the property. As far as
the stipulations, he has objections with #2 and #6 regarding the
requirement to provide hard surface and concrete curb and gutter
for the storage area and providing a paving plan to the Cfty to
comply with the recommended stipulations.
Mr. Witzel stated that when he purchased the property, he talked
to a staff person in the Planning Department who stated that since
there was already Class #5 in the storage area and the storage area
had been used for parking in the past, he was grandfathered in.
He estimated the cost of the concrete curb and gutter and blacktop
to be around $15,000. He was not prepared for that kind of
expense. It is something he would like to do in the future but not
this soon.
Mr. Witzel stated he questioned the need for curb and gutter in an
area that no one can see. He believed that any curb and gutter
will just interfere with the natural drainage. Had he known he
would have been faced with this additional expense, he would not
�� have purchased the property.
�.,� PLANNING COMMI88ION MEBTINa. JIINE 23. 1993 PAGE 7
Mr. Witzel stated he has tried to get along with everyone in the
neighborhood, and he did not know if anyone had any problem with
what he has done with the property.
Mr. Dale Pearson stated he has owned the laundromat next door to
this property for 20 years. He stated Mr. Witzel has done nothing
but improve this property. He would appreciate the Planning
Commission giving him a break with these stipulations.
Mr. Oquist asked if the staff is recommending hard surface for the
whole storage area or just the area to the second curbing.
Ms. McPherson stated the staff's recommended stipulation is based
on past actions by the Planning Commission. In the past when there
has been a special use permit request for outdoor storage, the
Planning Commission has required that the storage area within the
fence be paved with concrete curb and gutter around the paved area,
especially with vehicle parking.
Mr. Saba asked if any chemicals will be stored on the property.
Mr. Witzel stated that no chemicals will be stored on the property.
They do change the oil on the vehicles on Saturday mornings. The
oil is put in a 5 gallon oil pan which is taken to John' s Auto
^ Supply in Blaine and dumped. He stated he works on mobile homes
off site. No automobile repair or mobile home repair is done on
the site. He stated his employees are on the from 7:00-8:00 a.m.
to load materials. They are not back to the site until about 4:00
p.m.
Mr. Saba asked if there is any soil contamination.
Mr. Witzel stated he had water and soil testinq done on the
property prior to his purchasing the property. The tests came back
clean.
Mr. Newman asked why they are dealing with this special use permit
for storage differently than they did for Park Construction. Park
Construction does not have a hard surface area for storage. Is
that grandfathered in?
Ms. McPherson stated she did not have an answer to that question.
She stated that based on her experience as staff, whenever there
is vehicle parking, the City has required hard surface and concrete
curb and gutter. She believed that part of the reason Park
Construction does not have a blacktop or concrete storage area is
due to the types of materials and equipment that are part of the
day-to-day operations. The tractors and bulldozers would basically
destroy any blacktop. As far as the storage area for the
materials, she did not know why hard surface was not required for
� that.
^ PLANNINa COI�MISSION MEETINa, JIINE 23. 1993 PAGE 8
Mr. Newman stated he is extremely sympathetic to the plight of the
petitioner. They want to be upgrading and improving the City and
to get people who acquire properties to make improvements. They
want to be consistent and treat everyone fairly; but, by the same
token, they do not want to penalize the small business person such
as Mr. Witzel who purchases a dilapidated piece of property, starts
to make improvements, and then is faced with an unexpected cost for
improvements required by the City.
Ms. McPherson stated that a large number of past outdoor storage
requests have dealt with junkyards. With those type of requests,
the Commission had an environmental concern regarding leaking
fluids from damaged vehicles, and that environmental concern led
the Commission to require the hard surface and concrete curb and
gutter. Perhaps with the current request, due to the nature of
the materials to be stored, the environmental concern may not be
as high and the Commission may find that it would be appropriate
to allow the storage area to continue as it is with stipulations
on what can and cannot be stored within the storage area.
Mr. Saba stated that he remembers insisting on hard surface for
those situations where there was the storage of junk and damaged
vehicles. He did not consider the current request as much
different from the Park Construction situation. This is not an
�, automotive repair shop, and there will be no junk vehicles on the
property.
Mr. Christopher Boe, 520 Glencoe Street, stated he lives behind
the storage facility. He stated he has no problem with the
business, but he does object to the large boat that is stored in
the storage area that has not moved in the 1 1/2 years he has lived
there. There is also an RV that has been sitting in the storage
yard, and it is just as large as the boat. These two things are
6-7 feet higher than the fence, so the screening will not solve the
visual problem for him.
Mr. Witzel stated he has no problem with moving either the RV or
the boat. He would like one year to finish the boat and remove
it. The RV can be removed immediately.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public
hearing.
QPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERBON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIHLIC HEARIN(3 CLOSED AT 8:45 P.M.
Mr. Oquist stated that stipulations #1, #3, #4, and #5 do apply to
the special use permit. He stated he was not sure about requiring
the hard surface driveway and storage area. If they add a
stipulation that the boat and RV have to be removed from the site,
� that is putting a lot of restrictions on the site.
^ PLANNING CObIIriIBBION MEETING, JIINE 23. 1993 PAaB 9
Ms. Modig stated she believed the Commission should deal with
whether or not to require the hard surface and concrete curb and
gutter. She believed the petitioner should be allowed to store
the RV and the boat on his property if he wishes. She did not
think they can restrict that kind of storage. This property is
zoned C-1, Local Business, and has used as an automotive-type
business for many years. The petitioner has indicated that he
plans to hard surface the area in the future, and she did not see
a point in penalizing the petitioner for not being willing to
provide the hard surface at this time.
Mr. Saba agreed. However, if the petitioner wishes to be a good
neighbor, it might behoove him to remove at least the boat in
response to his neighbor's concern. The RV is questionable because
it is used for the business, and the petitioner has every right to
store it on the property. The boat is not related to the business
and should probably be removed. He believed a year timeframe to
remove the boat is more than adequate. He stated he would agree
to removing stipulations #2 and #6 and adding or modifying a
stipulation to restrict the petitioner from storing hazardous waste
and non-functional vehicles on the site.
Mr. Newman stated that since it is his understanding from staff
that the Planning Commission has been fairly consistent with
�--� enforcing the hard surface parking, they need to be careful what
basis they use for deviating from that requirement. In this case,
it might well be the fact of being grandfathered in, because a
similar activity has been operating on this site for some time.
But, their other justification is to limit the storage that occurs
on that area, and they could place some restrictions on the boat
and the RV. Since the petitioner has expressed a willingness to
remove the RV, it would behoove him to do that, and the Commission
can set some limitation on the removal of the boat.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend to City
Council approval of Special Use Permit, SP #93-10, by Stephen
Witzel, per 5ection 205.13.01.C.(10) of the Fridley City Code, to
allow outdoor storage of materials and equipment on Lots 9 and 10,
Block I, Riverview Heights, generally located at 505 Fairmont
Street N.E., with the following stipulations:
1. The screening fence shall be completed along the north
property line by August 1, 1993.
2. The petitioner shall install landscaping between the two
curb cuts on Fairmont Street.
3. The storage area shall be used to store materials and
equipment which are directly related to Mobile
Maintenance and which do not include or contain hazardous
i'—� chemicals or contaminants and shall not include any
vehicles which are inoperable and unlicensed, with the
�
�"'�
�
PLANNINa COMMISHION MEETINa. JIINE 23. 1993 PAaE 10
exception of the boat which the petitioner shall remove
by July 1, 1994.
4. There shall be no exterior storage of materials and
equipment outside the storage area.
Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on July 6,
1993.
Mr. Saba stated stipulation #3 does not include the RV which is
related to the mobile home maintenance business.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINa AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
3. PUBLIC HEARIATG: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE FRIDLEY
CITY CODE, CHAPTER 205. ENTITLED "ZONING° BY AMENDING SECTIONS
205.07.06 205.08.06 205.09.07 AND 205.10.06 AND
RENUMBERING CONSECUTIVE SECTIONS:
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to open the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICB VOTE, ALL VOTIN�3 AYE� CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOII3LY.
Mr. Barg, Code Enforcement Officer, stated the City has had a long
standing policy through the Zoning Code to prohibit parking off
hard surface areas. There is also the problem of people who have
built their homes before there was the hard surface requirement,
but that is another issue. However, the City has always attempted
to require people who have hard surface driveways to keep their
vehicles on the hard surface or to require other people who don't
have hard surface driveway to keep their vehicles on whatever
existing driveway they have.
Mr. Barg stated that last fall, the City was unsuccessful in
attempting to enforce the hard surface parking requirement in Anoka
County Court. In this case, the resident was parking a vehicle in
front of his front door and had worn a path up to the front steps.
The Judge dismissed this citation telling the City that he did not
feel �here was a tie in the current Zoning Ordinance between
required parking facilities and required parking behavior. There
is nothing in the current Zoning Ordinance that says directly and
clearly that parking off the required parking area is prohibited.
The Judge stated that in order to uphold the hard surface parking
requirement, the City needs to show a tie between parking
facilities and parking behavior.
Mr. Barg stated staff is recommending the following amendment to
the Zoning Code to make a tie between the parking facilities as
� PLANNING COP�lI88ION MEBTINa. JIINE 23. 1993 PAGB il
required by the current code and the actual using of those
facilities:
B. Prohibited Parking.
No outside parking or storage of motor vehicles shall
occur except on approved hard surface driveways and
parking stalls.
Mr. Barg stated the Commission has received a copy of a letter from
Kathy McCollom, 197 Longfellow Street N.E., who has a concern that
her neighbor will begin paving large portions of his front yard to
meet the parking requirement and be able to store more vehicles on
his property.
Mr. Newman asked if the Zoning Code specifies how much of a lot
can be impervious surface.
Ms. McPherson stated the Zoning Code, for both commercial and
residential properties, only covers lot coverage in terms of the
structures on the site.
Ms . McPherson stated there is a section in
requires landscaping, seeding, and sodding
� area. But, there are very few limitations as
surface on any lot.
/'!�
the Zoning Code that
with the front yard
to the limit of hard
Mr. Oquist stated he believed that at one time, the Zoning Code
required a certain percentage of green area on a given property.
Ms. McPherson stated Mr. Barg also explored the possibility of
limiting the number of vehicles that can be stored on a property,
but the Council has chosen not to pursue that option. Coon Rapids
has a requirement that the number of vehicles on any particular
property can be two more than the licensed number of drivers.
Mr. Oquist stated that the way the current ordinance reads, there
is no way to prevent someone from paving his/her whole front yard.
Mr. Newman stated that maybe the Commission should ask staff to
evaluate whether or not they need to adopt a new ordinance or amend
the ordinance to limit the impervious surface area. With this
ordinance, are they addressing the issue of dirt driveways?
Mr. Barg stated, no, they are not. It is his understanding in
talking to the City Prosecutor that the City has lost the task in
trying to require anyone, under normal circumstances, to pave their
driveway. However, when someone applies for a permit to make an
improvement to the home, the City does require a hard surface
driveway within one year. Residents are also encouraged to hard
surface their driveway at a reduced cost during street improvement
projects.
�..� PLANNINa COI+�IIaiISBION MEETING, JIINE 23. 1993 PAaB 12
Mr. Barg stated that for those homes that were built before the
hard surface driveway requirement, he has always tried to work
toward requiring those people to keep their vehicles parked in
whatever driveway they have. He asked the Judge if that is
enforceable, and he basically said, yes.
Mr. Newman stated the recommended amendment states that: "No
outside parking or storage of motor vehicles shall occur except on
approved hard surface driveways and parking stalls." So, if he had
a grandfather driveway, would that be an approved hard surface
driveway?
Mr. Barg stated asked if Mr. Newman is saying that the wording
should be amended to cover those grandfather cases.
Mr. Newman stated it seems they are running into the issue of
discretionary enforcement if they are not going to enforce the
driveway requirement against the person who does not have a hard
surface driveway, but do enforce it against the person who has a
hard surface driveway but parks his/her cars in the middle of the
front yard.
Mr. Oquist stated that maybe the Parking Ordinance should be
� reworded to include the non-hard surface driveways that still exist
but are approved driveways because they are grandfathered in.
Mr. Newman sugqested the Commission approve the Parking Ordinance
amendment so that it goes on to City Council, but that the
Commission ask staff and the City Prosecutor to review the issues
of how this ordinance impacts those homes that are grandfathered
and do not have hard surface driveways.
Mr. Oquist agreed with Mr. Newman.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the letter
dated June 23, 1993, from Kathy McCollom, 197 Longfellow Street
N.E.
OPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEAMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON NEAMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARINa CLOSED AT 9i20 P.M.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend to City
Council the adoption of the Parking Ordinance Amendment in concept,
� but to ask staff to consider some rewording regarding the
terminology for hard surface driveways and non-hard surface
� PLANNING COI�IIKI88ION ME�TINa, JIINE 23. 1993 PAGB 13
driveways and to ask the City Prosecutor to review the iasue of
how this ordinance impacts those people who do not have hard
surface driveways.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(3 AYE, CHAIRPER80N N�EAMAI�T DECLARED TSE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
Ms. McPherson stated that staff will address the issues of non-hard
surface driveways and will evaluate the ordinance with the City
Prosecutor as to the larger policy impacts prior to the City
Council�s public hearing. If there does need to be an ordinance
change, these changes wi11 be brought back to the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Newman asked staff to write a letter to Rathy McCollom on
behalf of the Commission letting her know the Commission's action.
Mr. Barg stated that the second part of Ms. McCollom's letter
refers to the fact that the person who owns the property next to
her actually lives across the street but keeps his dogs and
vehicles on the subject property. Her concern is why should this
person be allowed to use a property for vehicle storage even if
the surface is paved and to have a kennel area in the rear yard if
that is not the person's primary residence. He stated he has done
� some checking on this and has not been able to find anything that
would restrict the use of a property in that way.
4. APPROVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR 1993
CDBG ALLOCATION:
Mr. Barg stated that, again, this was a tough process. They had
only $30,600 in CDBG funds and $108,705 in requests. The
Commission tried to focus on youth programs and new and innovative
programs.
Mr. Newman stated that by just looking at the names of the
organizations on the funding chart, it is difficult to know what
the programs are.
Mr. Oquist explained some of the programs. He stated it might be
a good idea to add a short explanation of the program after each
organization's name on the chart.
Mr. Oquist stated that in reviewing the funding requests, almost
all of them had some real needs. But, in looking at some of the
organizations the City has funded in the past, particularly in the
mental health areas, some of them have very large budgets. In the
past, the Commission has recommended funding a few thousand dollars
to these organizations, but even without funding, the programs will
continue. This year, since the City did not receive that much
i� money, the Commission decided not to fund these larger
organizations, knowing that the programs will continue anyway.
� PLANNINa CO1rII�I88ION MEETINa. JIINS 23, 1993 PAaE 14
Also, in addition to the larqe budgets, there are also large
numbers of staff, so a lot of the money goes to pay the staff. The
Commission focused on funding food shelves, youth, and new and
innovative programs until they had allocated the $30,000.
Mr. Oquist stated he would like to commend the members of the Human
Resources Commission because, considering the amount of requests
they had, things went very smoothly. Steven Barg, staff person to
the Commission, gave the Commission some valuable assistance and
helped keep things on track.
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend to City
Council the approval of the following funding allocations as
recommended by the Human Resources Commission:
1993-94 CDBG HUMAN SERVICE FUNDING REOUESTS
Last Year's This Year's Funding
Allocation Request Recommended
Alexandra House $ 4,000 $ 4,500 $ 3,500
A.C.C.A.P. $ 5,100 $ 7,705 $ 5,100
� Arc of Anoka County $ 1,000 $ 1,500 $ 1,000
Banfill Locke House N/A $ 6,000 - 0-
�
Central Center for
Family Resources
City of Fridley
(Park & Recreation)
Community Emergency
Assistance Program
Family Life Mental
Health Center
Fridley Senior Center
Girl Scouts of America
Health One
North Suburban
Counseling Center
Northwest Suburban
Kinship
$ 3,000
N/A
$ 2,000
$ 3,000
$ 5,000
N/A
N/A
$ 3,000
- 0 -
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
$ 2,000
$ 5,000
$ 6,500
$ 2,000
$ 5,000
$ 3,000
$ 3,000
$ 2,000
$ 5,000
$ 2,000
- 0 -
- 0 -
- 0 -
$ 5,000
- 0 -
- 0 -
�"1
PLANNINa COI�IIylI88ION MEETINa. JUNE 23. 1993 PAaE 15
Northwest Youth &
Family Services
RISE
St. Phillips Church
St. Williams Church
S.A.C.A.
Tamarisk
$ 1,500
- 0 -
N/A
$ 1,000
$ 6,504
N/A
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
$24,000
$ 1,000
$10,000
7 500
$108,705
�:
�
�
$ 1,000
- 0 -
4 Q00
$30,600
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTINa AYB� CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
5. RECEIVE THE JUNE 1, 1993 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES•
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the June
1, 1993, Appeals Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED T8E
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY.
6. RECEIVE MAY 20. 1993. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the May 20,
1993, Human Resources Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICB VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPTsR80N N�EWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
7. SPECIAL MEETING ON JULY 15 1993:
Mr. Newman stated the Commission had received a copy of a memo
dated June 22, 1993, from Barbara Dacy regarding the special
meeting that had been scheduled for July 15, 1993, regarding the
investigation of a variety of planning/visioning processes and that
the Planning Commission not pursue this at this time because of the
staff workload and priorities.
Mr. Sielaff stated his concern is that sometimes when things are
put on the back burner, they are left there. He did not want to
see this dropped.
Mr. Oquist stated that maybe the Commission should bring this
subject up from time to time until the staff can act upon it.
� PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa, JIINE 23, 1993 PAGE 16
Mr. Newman suggested that staff put this on the Planning Commission
agenda every three months as a reminder.
Mr. Saba stated that in her memo, Ms. Dacy stated that: "The City
Manager has asked the Community Development Department to ensure
that the housing programs are successfully implemented." He stated
that he would like the Planning Commission kept informed on what
is happening with the housing issue.
Ms. McPherson stated that perhaps at the July 14, 1993, Planning
Commission meeting, Barbara Dacy or Grant Fernelius, the new
Housing Coordinator, can update the Commission on the process and
the various programs that have been established.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the meeting.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Newman declared the
motion carried and the June 23, 1993, Planning Commission meeting
adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
R pectfully ubmitted,
, �
�, L ne Saba
Recording Secretary
�