Loading...
02/07/1996 - 00003451CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 7, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: chairperson Newman called the February 7, 1996, Planning commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: �ave Newman, �iane savage, �eROy oquist, �ean saba, Brad sielaff, connie Modig Members Absent: �ave Kondrick Others Present: Barb Dacy, Community Development Director scott Hickok, Planning coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant A1 stahlberg, 8055 Riverview Terrace Ted & Audrey Theilmann, 1540 Rice creek Road �arrel & Melodee Madsen, 7191 East River Road Pete Panchryshyn, 7155 E. River Road curtis Barsness, 6581 central Avenue N.E. Robert & Doris Nelson, 1439 Mississippi st. Paul wilson, 635 - 57th Avenue Mark �acobson, 509 cherry �ane Mary Matthews, 1259 skywood �ane N.E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to approve the agenda. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 3, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. oquist, seconded by Ms. savage, to approve the �anuary 3, 1996, Planning commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 110, ENTITLED ��PUBLIC NUISANCES��, IN ORDER TO CLASSIFY GRAVEL AND/OR DIRT DRIVEWAYS AS A NUISANCE AND PROHIBIT THEIR USE MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Mr. oquist, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:35 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated staff held a public information meeting regarding this item on �anuary 31 in order to provide an opportunity to ask questions and to get more information to provide a more complete presentation. The meeting was attended by approximately 30 people, and through that process staff received very good comments. Mr. schneider, Assistant Planner and code Administration officer, and Mr. Hickok attended the meeting. Mr. Hickok stated the history of the gravel driveway issue dates back to the mid-1960's. rn 1969, the city of Fridley adopted an ordinance that required all parking surfaces be hardsurface. The issue has been on the books for many years. rn the late 1980's, there were a number of calls generated related to the surfacing requirements, vehicles improperly parked, etc. As staff continued with the code administration process, they monitored the complaints to evaluate whether or not these are scattered issues or whether these are issues that should have formal action. rt has been from that time to 1993 that staff had a consistent number of complaints related to the surfacing of properties where vehicles were being parked and the side effects of not having a hardsurface drive. rn 1993, staff brought the issue to the Planning commission. At that time, the Planning commission and staff did study to determine what would be the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 7, 1996 PAGE 2 appropriate recommendations to forward to the city council related to these issues. The city council was also interested in the outcome of the discussion as they are aware of the number of complaints that were generated due to hardsurface drive non-compliance. The Planning commission through the process determined that there were five stipulations they would like the city council to consider: 1. Approved hardsurface materials should consist of concrete, bituminous, brick, and/or concrete pavers. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends, in addition, that the materials have a sufficient PSI rating to support motor vehicles. 2. All driveways should be paved within five years from the adoption of the ordinance; when the property is sold; or when a permit is required by the city. 3. A separate compliance deadline should not be established for property owners with driveways in excess of 50 feet. 4. A hardsurface requirement not be imposed for secondary/ accessory structures being used for storage facilities. 5. An assessment process be made available to homeowners. Mr. Hickok stated the Planning commission also considered the following rationale for hardsurface driveways: 1. Promotes visual appeal and neat appearance of single family properties. 2. Restricts vehicles to one area of the lot instead of allowing them to be scattered across the yard. 3. Eliminates the nuisance of gravel being sprayed on neighboring yards and avoids unsightly ruts and ditches. 4. Eliminates problems created by blowing dust. 5. Protects soil from contamination due to oil and other vehicle fluids. 6. serves to maintain property values by promoting a more attractive appearance. 7. Reduces the maintenance costs incurred when ruts are "evened out" or gravel is replaced. 8. Promotes parking requirements consistent with that of other zoning districts. 9. Prevents soil and gravel from eroding onto the street and being deposited into the city's storm sewers and detention ponds. Mr. Hickok presented photos from the file that had been used to illustrate the situations described above. Mr. Hickok stated the city, as they considered this issue and an amendment to the ordinance, also looked at recent improvements in terms of aesthetics and felt these recommendations are consistent with other improvements the city is doing through the housing rehab program, the nuisance abatement ordinance, rental rehab program, and scattered site housing program. Mr. Hickok stated other related issues in the agenda packet talks specifically to the gravel, dirt and unpaved driveways. The term "nuisance" had some contention in and of itself at the neighborhood meeting. Those attending the meeting asked how this relates to other nuisances. rt comes down to the issues of health, safety and welfare and the above rationale. Mr. Hickok stated staff and the Planning commission in 1993 considered what the implementation would be for an ordinance such as this. staff notified 328 property owners by mail of the neighborhood meeting and the pending ordinance amendment. rn addition to those attending the meeting, staff also received calls from over 30 residents who had already paved their driveways. There may be more residents in the community who have paved their driveways of whom staff are not aware. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 7, 1996 PAGE 3 Mr. Hickok stated this public hearing is a part of the process. The issue will then go before the city council in late February or early March. The city council will conduct a public hearing, and then hold a first and second reading before the ordinance goes into effect. Mr. Hickok stated included in the agenda packet was a copy of a memorandum from Mary Matthews, who was unable to attend the neighborhood meeting, expressing concern about the extenuating circumstances at her property. Mr. Hickok reviewed some of the comments from the neighbor meeting . someone expressed felt an aggregate surface of 3/4-inch may be appropriate rather than requiring a hardsurface drive. rn response to the washout effect, it was asked why this was an issue and why this was any different from the silt that is at the drives to some businesses. Regarding the grandfather clause, what about those who have existing gravel driveways. The issue is that of parking and the parking surface. others felt the driveway requirements should be considered a zoning issue rather than a nuisance. A homeowner brought in a property diagram showing a very long driveway and they had also granted an easement to a neighboring property to have a long drive on the property as well. would both these driveways need to be hardsurface and who would be responsible for the cost? rn another case, a homeowner has paved their driveway to what is considered a quiet right-of-way. under the proposal, this would not be given separate consideration because of the length. Another question involved future buyers. when a property is sold, the homeowner must provide such information to prospective buyers. what about the situation where an alley serves private drives? These would have to be taken on a case-by-case basis. rn the case of a shared driveway, the homeowners would have to work this out individually. Mr. Hickok stated, as far as legal implications which goes back to the grandfathering, there was a question about an unimproved portion of a driveway that had touched the right-of-way at one time and, as improvements were made, there is now a gap. staff is now seeking additional information on this situation. The owner had a letter from the city about the right-of-way modifications. This is a unique situation and we may have to work with the Engineering staff to see what is the best solution. There was also an issue about hardsurface driveways that are not maintained. Mr. Hickok stated persons at the meeting felt the word "nuisance" puts an ugly umbrella on this issue. They do not feel they are a source of a nuisance. That is an issue that speaks to the rationale for the ordinance. Though their drive may be well maintained, the issue is one of where to draw the line. The line was drawn when the city made a decision in 1969 to require hardsurface. Mr. Hickok stated seepage is an issue. rs seepage any better on asphalt than on agg regate? staff feels it is. The idea is that asphalt is a porous material and some oils will seep into the asphalt bed or wash off. Nonetheless, this is a way slowing down that direct spillage and/or seepage into the soil. Mr. Hickok stated someone asked, of those 328 properties, how many complaints were generated. staff does not have a number. The ordinance amendment was driven by the complaints. Ms. Modig referred to the shared driveway. rf the owner has five years and the property is sold, what happens then? Mr. Hickok stated he would expect the requirement would be revealed at the time of sale. rt may be that certain lending institutions would want that corrected at the time of sale. rt may be that the existing property owner would need to separate the drive and hard-surface or come to an agreement with the prospective buyer about the installation. Mr. saba asked if there were situations where paving would cause water drainage problems. Mr. Hickok stated there are times when people want to widen a driveway toward an adjacent property. we ask the property owner to control runoff to an area that can handle the runoff. rf the area sheet drains, this must be kept away from granular soils and severe slopes so they do not cause further erosion. These are design issues specific to the site. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 7, 1996 PAGE 4 Mr. Newman asked if the amendment also deals with the issue of property owners who do not have a properly maintained hardsurface driveway. Mr. Hickok stated the ordinance actually talks to improving to a standard. specifically, it would boil down to an interpretation unless you would suggest modified language in the text. rt would require an interpretation if similar characteristics were becoming evident on an old blacktop drive, for example, that had eroded away and causing runoff conditions. Mr. Newman referred to section 110.11, compliance. He did not think the language was comprehensive enough to address hardsurface driveways that have fallen into disrepair. staff may want to look at this before this goes to the city council. rf a driveway has eroded away and has gaping holes, it would probably fit. However, a driveway with one or two big holes but is mostly hard surface may not fit. He asked staff to look at this section. Mr. oquist asked how many driveways remain unsurfaced. Mr. Hickok stated there may be as many as 40% of 328. staff had a strong response from those who had their drives hardsurfaced. Ms. Modig asked how this affects those who have a hardsurface driveway and have made a gravel area for cars to park to the side. �oes that mean they would be required to hardsurface the area where they park the cars? Mr. Hickok stated, if a person has a hardsurface and chooses to park off to the side, they could choose whether they needed that added space or whether to park on the drive. commission members had no further questions of staff. Mr. Newman opened the discussion to the public. Mr. Theilmann stated he has a driveway with crushed rock. The driveway is 175 feet long and ends in a 50 foot x 25 foot parking area for relatives and visitors. At the end of the driveway, he has a five foot apron of asphalt going onto Rice creek Road to handle any stones that may come down the driveway. The driveway leads through six pine trees that are about 30 feet tall and goes between a rock garden and two flower beds - one measuring 20 feet x 40 feet and the other 20 feet x 50 feet. He does not feel like having asphalt or concrete running through these flower gardens. The driveway was set up about 1925. He and his wife have lived there since 1951 and have not had any trouble with the driveway as it is. He does not see why he would have to hardsurface it. They have a double garage in the back with a cement floor. Aesthetically, he thought they would have to agree that flower gardens and pine trees do not look nice with a cement or asphalt driveway. what do they do then? Mr. Newman asked, if the ordinance is passed, would he be exempt because of the length of the driveway. Mr. Hickok stated no. �ong driveways would be included in the requirement. Mr. Theilmann stated, from their point of view, they don't see that it would devaluate their property as it is. As far as having space, blowing dust, and the other items on the sheet of paper, they have two lots with a driveway running through the middle. They do not consider it a nuisance or have any trouble with neighbors or anyone else as far as the driveway is concerned. They have never had a complaint as long as they have lived there. He thought this was going overboard. The driveway has never caused any problem at any time. rf he blacktopped it, he would then have to coat is once a year which he does not now have to do. Mr. Barsness stated he purchased his house in 1968. He has been a resident for 28 years. He showed drawings of his property. The house was built a long time ago and the lot was much larger than what it is now. when he bought the property, they came in from Highway 65 and turned around in the yard. The neighbor has a house from the 1960's and he has a long driveway also. Mr. Barsness has a 26 foot easement from central Avenue that he would have to pave. The asphalt for the drive would cost over $3,000 and that would not be what is being asked. That does not include any parking space and no turnaround space. He showed another drawing showing what he would have to pave to be legal and this would cost over $10,000. The property is appraised at $55,600. The city says they want to condemn substandard housing . The only think substandard about his house is that it is very small. when he sells that house, a developer or contractor will buy it and make it into two or three lots. That is where he will get his money. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 7, 1996 PAGE 5 The asphalt will not be worth anything to them. He is in his 50's, works at onan and hopes to work there until he retires. $10,000 out of the equity of his house to put in a asphalt driveway is 1/5 of the value of the property. He does not have the money and would have to borrow it. Mr. saba asked the length of the driveway. Mr. Barsness stated the driveway from the street to the old garage is 150 feet. From the property line, it is about 125 feet. The area is front of the two garages is already concrete. He started putting in concrete and got the first one done. He did not get the second one done. He was doing the work with the help of friends. He cannot afford to hire someone to put in concrete. He does not know what to say except that he cannot spend $10,000 on his driveway. His driveway is crushed asphalt. rt doesn't blow around. rt does not rut. rt doesn't get muddy. rt doesn't wash away. rt has class 5 underneath it. The original driveway was just sand. rt has very low upkeep and does not track into the street. Mr. Barsness stated it is downhill into his yard. As far as vehicles dripping , it would wash into his yard and not into the street. He has had trouble in the past when the city has flushed fire hydrants that it washes out his driveway. This is the opposite of what is being said. The city determined a few years ago that 66th Avenue N.E. Wds the narrow side of his lot and was the front of his house. At that point, all of his parking was done in the backyard and he enters from the side street. rn some of the pictures, people are not parking in their yard. They are parking on City property. They are parking on the easement. why not say that is our property and don't park on it? Because he parks in the back and enters from the side street, he did not see how this was different from those who park in an alley. rt is not an aesthetic problem because it is in the back of the yard. Mr. Barsness stated he looked at his options. He could wait five years, he could wait until the city takes him to court, he could install a small amount of asphalt in the front and use the old garage. That garage has never been used for a garage. He has a shop there with metal and woodworking tools. He could park his cars on 66th or on the asphalt next to it and that would be cheaper. He would like them to consider some of the consequences of this. Mr. saba stated he doesn't want anyone to feel that the commission is calling them a nuisance. That is a term that is used for ordinances. what you are giving us is very valuable input as to the extent of this ordinance proposal and whether or not we recommend that this ordinance go to the city council. The public comments provide extremely valuable information and that is what we are here for. Mr. Barsness stated one of the reasons he objects is that his house does not have that much value. To hit us with that expense is difficult. He started working in 1967, was making money and raising a family. over the years with wage compression, loss of purchasing power, etc., he earnings have eroded. Mr. Newman stated, on the diagram showing the additional area paved, what does that area serve? Mr. Barsness stated he has two �eeps and a van parked in the area. The rest is a turnaround area. The traffic in that area has really gotten bad. when he moved in, there were four lanes of traffic and now there are two. He sometimes has to wait five minutes or more to pull out of his driveway because of the traffic. He bought the property because he likes the space. He would hate to not use it because it is too expensive. He cannot Justify buying another place because he is so close to work. rf he sold the property, he would have to add to the value to get a townhouse further out. And that would be about all he can afford right now. Mr. Hickok stated there was a discussion regarding assessment. According to state law, the city does have an assessment ability to help provide loans at 7% interest for 5 years which is in the agenda packet for consideration. Also in the packet is information on lot coverage. with the long driveways and large paved surface area, staff has suggested 30% lot coverage for the front of the property. Mr. �acobson stated he would like a hard paved driveway. rt would be nice. He has lived here for five years. He had planned to have it done when he moved. He could not afford then and he cannot afford it now. He does not see it in the future. His house is only $53,000 in value. He is a single homeowner and just barely getting by. He PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 7, 1996 PAGE 6 cannot afford more payments for things he does not need. The driveway is now rock and sand. rt is 120 feet long and the estimated cost is $3,000 for tar. He wanted a concrete pad by the garage to park his motorcycles but that estimate was $5,000. He does not see how they can make him spend $3,000 or $5,000 for something he does not have to have. Mr. Madsen stated the property mentioned earlier at Ashton which is paved to the right- of-way is their property. He has letters from the city and the county saying they can cross over the easement for a driveway. They built their house in 1984 and were to code with the driveway when they put it in. The city council said Ashton Avenue would not be put in. will they have to pay for paving that since they were up to code in 1984? They have paved their driveway already to property line. rt is then class 5 and gravel to the bike path. Mr. Newman asked if Mr. Madsen owned that property. Mr. Hickok stated they do not. The Madsen's paved out to where their private property ends and terminated the asphalt at the edge of a public right-of-way. rt was the city's decision not to complete Ashton. That caused the property owner to make a longer distance trip out to East River Road. staff has taken Mr. Madsen's comments back to the Public works staff to get more history and to get a sense of the city's position on this particular issue. Mr. Newman stated this did not answer the question. He believes, with the ordinance as proposed, Mr. Madsen would not be obligated to provide a hardsurface driveway on property he does not own. Mr. Hickok stated the only variation is where the apron crosses the public right-of-way out at the boulevard, but this is a circumstance that the property owner has a very wide right-of-way that is meant to be a street so it is quite different from the standard. Mr. Madsen asked, since it was the city's decision not to put in the street, are we going to have to pay for it. Mr. Hickok stated he thought this was a unique situation and staff will work with Mr. Madsen on this. The Madsen's have done what is required and that is to provide a hardsurface drive on their property. He did not believe they would be required to anything beyond that. Mr. stahlberg stated he would like to commend the city council for what they are doing. He has been working in his neighborhood to get something done. The only thing he questions is that five years is a long time to get this done. That seems like a long time. He thought two to three years to get the pavement in would be sufficient with five or six years to pay. rn his neighborhood, it is part of the problem addressed with the junk vehicles. They tend to go hand-in-hand - unfinished driveways with extra vehicles. Again, he felt two to three years time to install the pavement with five years to pay would be the way to go. Ms. Matthews stated she has a concern. when they considered Fridley for building, they decided to consult a landscape architect if the lot was buildable because of its uniqueness. will the city allow variances? Mr. Newman stated variances are granted for zoning ordinances. This is not under the zoning ordinance but under the public nuisance ordinance. Therefore, there is no provision for granting a variance. Ms. Matthews stated, 33 years ago when they decided to build in Fridley and when they contacted an architect because of the lots' uniqueness, the city said this lot was buildable. They worked with a landscape architect because they wanted to restore it to its natural style. rt has never been a nuisance. on the driveway, they went back four to five feet to get the gravel out of the street to avoid the problems with flushing hydrants. They tried to accommodate the city there. when the architect designed the drive, they designed it with a firm base on clay with crushed rock. rt has been there for 33 years. rt was designed to provide drainage and prevent erosion. rf it was hardsurface, they will have erosion problems. on each corner, they have dug in drainage basins so the water will go down and pipes are installed underg round so the water will drain out. For 30 years they have considered this so they could build there, got the okay to build there, and all of a sudden it is not right. she does not understand what her alternative is. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 7, 1996 PAGE 7 Mr. Newman stated, if the ordinance is passed in its present form, she probably would not have any alternative. Ms. Matthews asked what happens then when the hill erodes, which it will. Then who pays for that? There is no way to contain the drainage. They are on top of a hill. The only flat surface of their yard is the driveway into the garage. she considers this a unique problem. Are there going to be exceptions considered? Are you going to categorize all non-paved driveways into the same category as the slides shown where the drives obviously are eroding into the street? Mr. Newman stated, if this issue is dealt with under the public nuisance chapter, there are no provisions or exceptions. rf it is dealt with as a zoning issue, there are provisions for variances. Mr. savage asked if Ms. Matthews was saying that, if they built a hardsurface driveway, they would have more erosion. Ms. Matthews stated yes. They are at the top of the hill. when they designed it, they dug very little into the hill so as not to disturb the natural upheaval from the glacial flow. Every edge of their yard drops right down into a ravine. They framed the drive with 8 x 8's. rt is a clay surface. rt is hardsurface. This was done on the advice of a landscape architect and their architect in order to have drainage and save the hill. rf they are going to hardsurface the drive, there is not place for drainage. Their neighbor has a hardsurface driveway and he has erosion problems. Mr. Newman stated the drive then absorbs some of the water during a heavy rain and, therefore, they do not have the runoff. Ms. Matthews stated yes. This is how it was designed. when they built their house, they checked into this. This was a precaution at the time. rf it is a nuisance, it is one thing and, if it is zoning, it is another thing. rf so, she is caught. she would hope the city, if it is not disturbing anyone and not disturbing the city and with the apron back into the yard, that would take care of it. she would be willing to take care of the drain problems of the turnaround. This has been there for 33 years and she would hope the city would not put them all into a"cookie mold". she understands the aesthetics. This is detrimental to her property. she has been written up several times in the paper for trying to be an alterative property and returning it to nature. If I have an alternative property and it does not conform, she is perplexed. she submitted a letter and copies of articles from several newspapers. Mr. Newman stated the commission received only a copy of her letter. The city council will be conducting a public hearing on March 18. He suggested Ms. Matthews provide to staff ahead of time any articles, letters, and/or photos she would like to city council to receive. Ms. Matthews stated the pictures shown are legitimate issues. There are others who are not problems, and she did not think it is fair to put those in the nuisance category. when they spend time and money to maintain their property, she did not see how they can be put in that category. Mr. Newman stated he understood her point. However, there are laws that say cities cannot be arbitrary. when passing an ordinance, they need to have clearly defined rules. That is where it becomes difficult, and that is where the commission needs your input. Ms. Matthews asked, if they comply by making a driveway and their property erodes, what is her recourse. There are exceptions and people have done things for years. They have paid taxes, improved their property, and have a lot the way they want it. Now the city is making this blanket rule. MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive into the public record the memo from Ms. Mary Matthews regarding this issue. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Nelson stated he has lived at 1439 Mississippi street since 1951. They raised nine kids. They are now retired and cannot afford a driveway. The driveway slopes downhill. There is no water going up hill to the street. They put in crushed rock, and the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 7, 1996 PAGE 8 driveway is as solid as the street. rt was put in many years ago. They have two driveways - one goes behind the house. They have to turn around in the yard because of the heavy traffic on Mississippi street. There is no way to have a driveway go all the way to the garage. That is a long way. Mr. saba asked the length of his driveway. Mr. Nelson stated he has a 100 foot lot. rt would approximately 100 feet down to the garage. rn 1960's, he had 100 feet all the way from Mississippi street to the creek. The city bought the land and built a school. They tore down the school in 1980. rf he had that land now, he could sell it and put in a driveway. All he has left is 300 feet with a big garden in back. He is retired now for 12 years and does not have the income to do these improvements. The company he worked for went out of business forcing him to retire early so he has limited income. He cannot afford to put in a driveway. The driveway is as hard as it can be and there is no rock, water or gravel going up hill into the street. He has crushed rock that he keeps packing down. He did not know what this would do to people who cannot afford it. He did not think it would make sense for them to go into debt and make payments with his circumstances. Mr. Barsness stated he would like to clarify his statement when he showed the second drawing with the asphalt. That area is all grass that he drives on. You can drive on grass occasionally and not kill it. rf the ordinance passes, he would have to put asphalt down if he wants to drive on it. Mr. Hickok stated at the neighborhood meeting staff provided estimated costs of services available to property owners, as follows: concrete - $2.50-$4.50 per square foot Pavers - $6.00-$10.00 per square foot Pigmented concrete -$4.00-$5.00 per square foot Asphalt - $1.25-$2.50 per square foot Chip seal - up to $3.50 per square foot Mr. Newman asked if there were any additional comments from the public. There were no further comments. MOTION by Ms. savage, seconded by Mr. saba, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:55 P.M. Mr. Newman stated staff would like the Planning commission to pass a motion recommending the ordinance to the city council or to form a recommendation we would like to make to the city council. Mr. oquist asked why this was in the public nuisance section as opposed to the zoning section. rs it not a zoning issue rather than a public nuisance issue? Ms. savage asked what the effect would be. rs there some purpose that would benefit the city to have this under a nuisance? Mr. Hickok stated, under the zoning section, there is a provision for hardsurface drives for every property constructed after 1969. rt was deemed a nuisance for code purposes in that, if it was only those drives from homes constructed after 1969 that the city is concerned about, the zoning section would cover that. There would not be an ordinance amendment necessary. There should not be an existing property constructed after 1969 with anything but a hardsurface driveway. rt the other properties that predate this ordinance. The nuisance - health, safety and welfare - characteristics described in the rationale points to something beyond just those homes. rt is a bigger picture. The city's interest is to eliminate the problems that were spelled out that are nuisance characteristics as defined by law. Mr. Newman stated, to clarify, that the zoning ordinance is not the vehicle to use to address a lawful non-conforming use. However, by addressing it as a nuisance and by setting a time period by which that non-conforming use will be amortized, under the law the city can go back retroactively and apply that. This cannot be done under the zoning ordinance. rt must be done under nuisance. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 7, 1996 PAGE 9 Ms. savage asked about the hardships expressed by the property owners. Has the city considered any other way to address that other than the loans? Mr. Hickok stated, according to state law, the city has a window of time from 0 to 30 years for assessments. rt is up to the city to determine where they will fall within that window of time. whether or not the city would structure it in a way that would run a longer period of time than five years or whether or not there are other interest opportunities, the law is specific about the range and the city does have some discretion. There have been situations where the assessment is a deferred assessment. staff recommended what they thought would be a reasonable interest rate and a reasonable length of time. Mr. oquist asked if this would be an assessment against the property for the amount of the improvements to be paid in five years with interest. so, it would be handled like an assessment taxed against the property. Mr. Hickok stated yes. The principal amount would vary. The interest rate would be 7%. Ms. savage asked, if there is a very unique situation, is there any provision or discretion in the city's enforcement of the statute or any solution. Mr. Hickok stated, unfortunately, if this is in the nuisance section of the code, staff does not have the latitude to say there may be unusual situations. Ms. savage asked, if the ordinance is passed, would the only recourse, in Ms. Matthew's situation, be a lawsuit. Mr. Hickok stated he would like to think there are desi gn alternatives. The chip seal surface is one example which gives a more natural look but is a bit more expensive. The city's Engineering staff work with difficult situations and perhaps could achieve a look that is natural and meets the intent of the code. Mr. Newman stated staff would like to think they could find a design alternative, but if not, the only recourse is litigation. Ms. savage stated she was basically in favor of the ordinance. rt is in the best interest of the city. There are obviously some problems, and she did not have the answer. Her general feeling is in favor of the ordinance. Mr. oquist agreed. He has a dilemma is that he can appreciate the hardships that may come out of this whether they be monetary or a problem with the property. when looking at all the driveways, he thought it was in the best interests of the city as a whole. Mr. saba stated he liked the intent of the ordinance and he was in support of this ordinance a few years back. Tonight he heard some real concerns. He cannot see forcing people into lawsuits or placing financial burdens on the backs of residents, especially those with extremely long driveways or extenuating circumstances. rt does not make sense to pave 175 feet of driveway. There must be some limit. They had talked about limits before and it is time to talk about it again. He cannot support the ordinance as it is. Ms. Modig agreed. she has a problem with the individual cases as presented. rf these cannot be dealt with on an individual basis in some manner, she did not think they could ask someone to spend $10,000 on a property that is worth $55,000 or undo landscaping that was okayed 35 years ago. she has a problem with it being called a nuisance. she would like to see it in a category where cases could be dealt with on an individual basis and be subject to variances so those with a hardship can deal with it. she cannot support it the way it is. Mr. saba wondered if there could be an incentive to pave those driveways that need paving. rn situations like Ms. Matthews', we should not be forcing her into a different situation. rt looks as though she has tried to look at all the alternatives, has worked with an architect and a landscape architect, and has a neat piece of property. To make her change that to something she does not like is something he did not think the city should be doing. They had talked about an assessment. rnstead, is there some kind of assessment incentive without passing an ordinance to provide an incentive to pave the first 75 or 50 feet. Being forced to pave 175 feet creates more problems that it solves. He did not know how to handle the problem driveways. Even on asphalt, dirt and PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 7, 1996 PAGE 10 oil gets on the driveway and heavy rain washes that out into the street. rt does not completely solve the problems of silt and oil washed into the street. He looks at it as more of an aesthetic problem. As an aesthetic problem, he felt it should be solved by working with the residents and by providing incentives rather than by an ordinance. Mr. Newman asked if the assessment system was now in place. Mr. Hickok stated yes. That is where their list originated. There are some economies by using the city contractor. Mr. saba asked if people were contacted and made aware that the city contractor was available. Mr. Hickok stated yes, people are contacted annually. The city has not had as much activity as they had hoped. Ms. Modig stated staff had indicated this action was due to a lot of complaints. she assumed that was because of the type of parking that is taking place on the property. she sees two different issues. one is an issue of people who are parking junk cars on their property and the other involves those who take care of their property but who cannot or choose not to pave their driveways. she thought these were two different issues. Mr. oquist stated a property owner has five years to do something about the driveway and another five years to pay for it. rs that correct? Mr. Hickok stated, if the owner decided to wait the full length of time, this is correct. Mr. oquist stated, in response to Ms. Modig's statement, unless we can start to define what the driveway is, how do we prevent cars from being parked all over the yard. He was in that dilemma when he moved into a home with a crushed rock driveway, but he did surface the driveway. while it was a hardship, he had the driveway surfaced. That is part of the next part of the ordinance. rf you do not define a driveway and the boundaries of the driveway, how do you define where you can park a car? rn addition, it is an aesthetic thing. we must get some of these driveways cleaned up. while crushed rock is a good surface, it needs to have additional rock added because it sinks. Mr. Newman stated, when we talked previously, the issue that seemed to surface at that time was the fact that under the ordinance we were restricting parking to a hardsurface area; but in those cases where there was not a hardsurface driveway, the issue was how to prohibit and regulate random parking. At that time, he was opposed to this. He is still opposed to it. some of the alternatives are to have crushed rock with a minimum size. There is some way to define a driveway area and parking surface. He thought they could define or regulate where that is going to be. Perhaps we indicate that is must be an area that is clearly define and contains aggregate no less than one inch in diameter, it cannot be wider than the garage area or no wider than 24 feet, and/or indicate that parking needs to occur on that driveway surface. rn this way, we can define parameters. He knows they will get into the issue of inoperable vehicles, but perhaps we can say in the ordinance that, if you do not have a hardsurface driveway, then we will set a limit to the number of cars that can be parked there. rt seems there are other alternatives to be considered. From an aesthetic standpoint, many of these driveways are unacceptable. He was not sure there are not other solutions short of a bituminous surface. Mr. Newman stated, from a financial standpoint, he knows that staff and the city are concerned about the quality of housing and want to maintain the quality of housing. His concern is that some of these individuals who are going to be hard pressed to pay for the driveway. They may be diverting funds for that driveway when in fact they should be using that money to reroof their house, repaint, or do other necessary maintenance that would have an effect on the neighborhood. Ms. savage stated she realizes that for those people who spoke this is a grave problem. To put it in perspective, these are a handful of people who are having problems. she still thought that basically the ordinance is in the best interest of the city. she would not like to see it lessened but rather see the individual problems handled and still keep the ordinance. otherwise, if you are going to chip away at the ordinance, it will not solve the problem. when living in a city, you need to have a hardsurface driveway. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 7, 1996 PAGE 11 Mr. Newman stated that is the reason they previously talked about the alternative of requiring the drive to be paved upon sale. People who moved here many years ago have seen the tone of the neighborhood change. staff felt this would be a way to address the need and the new person would need to make the transformation. Two more public hearings will be held. He suggested a motion to recommend that the Planning commission recommend approval only if there were appropriate amendments that would allow flexibility to address situations where it is not a public nuisance or where it creates a financial hardship. rf the staff and/or council could come up with a solution, he thought they would be more supportive of the ordinance. rf they cannot, then the alternative is that the Planning commission recommends to the city council considering an alternative approach where they look at alternative surfaces such as crushed rock not less than one inch in diameter, clearly define the driveway area using minimum widths, where they provide for a minimum apron area to avoid runoff and erosion in to the street, and consider restricting the number of cars parked on a non-hardsurface area. Mr. saba stated he has sympathy for the gentlemen who has a driveway at the back of the lot and who has a driveway with trees. Perhaps we have to talk about some type of a maximum, such as 100 feet, where they have a hardsurface or crushed rock surface up to a specific limit. when a homeowner has a long driveway that is part of the landscape, he was not sure that crushed rock would serve any purpose. He supported Mr. Newman's proposal. Mr. oquist asked if crushed rock would cause a financial burden for those with a long driveway. Mr. Newman stated some of the driveways already have rock. some will have a financial hardship but he thought it would be reduced. The city also needs to consider the quality of housing. MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend to the city council approval of the ordinance only if the ordinance is amended to provide for flexibility to address situations where it is not a public nuisance or where it creates a financial hardship; if that cannot be accomplished, the alternative is to modify the proposed ordinance to allow for alternative surfaces such as crushed rock not less than 3/4 inch or one inch in diameter, to clearly define the width of driveway area, to provide for a minimum apron area where the driveway enters the street, and to consider restricting the number of cars parked outside on a non-hardsurface area. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Newman stated the Planning commission acts in an advisory capacity. The city council will consider this item at their meeting of March 18. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REVISION TO SECTION 123, ENTITLED ��JUNK VEHICLES��, AND SECTION 114, ENTITLED ��ABANDONED MOTOR VEHICLES�� MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Ms. savage, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:25 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated, at the direction of the city council, staff is presenting modifications to the sections of the code that deal with junk motor vehicles. The purpose is to increase the effectiveness and efficiency in resolving Junk vehicle code issues. staff has proposed an ordinance modification to include the following: 1. To incorporate the definition of "unsafe for operation" to include reference to any state, local or federal regulations including but not limited to Minnesota state statutes 169.468 to 169.75. 2. To include any vehicle which is not regularly used on city streets as an abandoned, junk or unsafe vehicle. 3. To increase the expediency of junk or unsafe vehicle processing and abatements by using a 5-day notification period which exceeds the 72-hour minimum required by law. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 7, 1996 PAGE 12 4. To detail the notice, reclamation, and pubic sale requirements concerning abated vehicles. 5. To implement a hearing process for aggrieved vehicle owners. 6. To include a one-year sunset date from the effective date of this ordinance. Mr. Hickok stated this ordinance was deemed necessary as staff worked through different code situations in the field and determined there is overlap in the two sections of the code, and need some efficiency in addressing the issues with unsafe or inoperable vehicles. rncluded in the agenda packet was a handout that indicated what staff would look for in the field for unsafe conditions and junk and/or inoperable conditions. staff's recommendation is that a vehicle owner be given notice and given five days to correct a situation if the vehicle has either two of the unsafe or one of the junk/inoperable conditions. Mr. Hickok stated the recommended modifications were included in the agenda packet with the proposed changes indicated. Mr. oquist stated he supported the ordinance. He felt the city could not be tough enough. when talking about vehicles, do they need to be motorized vehicles? what about recreational vehicles that are parked year-around and seldom used? what about a trailer home parked on a resident's property, damaged a number of years ago, still parked there and still damaged? rs that considered a vehicle? Mr. Hickok stated motor vehicles are defined in state statutes as being self-propelled on the highway. The question of the trailer is considered, if demolished, an open storage situation. staff can look at that under a separate section of the code. Mr. Newman stated, is summary, staff is going to broaden the definition, speed the process, provide administrative safeguards so we do not infringe on anyone's rights, and then look at it again in one year to see if it is working. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. Mr. stahlberg stated he has been working on this for some time. Regarding the junk vehicle ordinance, section 114.01, the newspaper refers to, in the last sentence, the city council having significant concerns, amending this section, and talks about violations that occur through March, 1997. He did not understand that. Mr. Newman stated that is what requires the city to come back in one year and revisit this issue. Mr. stahlberg stated Mr. Newman had mentioned something about limiting the number of vehicles in a household. He did not see that in this proposal. Mr. Newman stated it is not in this proposal. That is a part of the recommendation concerning hardsurface driveways and the suggestion that parking areas be defined. Mr. stahlberg asked what would be done in the case where someone who does not have garage. Mr. Newman stated he did not want to discuss what he has not seen. rf the city council wants to pursue, staff must work with the city attorney on how to proceed. Mr. Newman asked if there were any additional comments regarding the ordinance amendment. There were no further comments. MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Ms. savage, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:35 P.M. The commission expressed their support of the ordinance amendment. MOTION by Mr. oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of the proposed changes to section 114, Abandoned, �unk or unsafe Motor vehicles. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 7, 1996 PAGE 13 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Newman stated the city council would consider this item on March 18. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REVISION TO SECTION 128, ENTITLED ��ABATEMENT OF EXTERIOR PUBLIC NUISANCES�� MOTION by Ms. savage, seconded by Mr. saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:37 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the proposed amendment process allows the city to re-enter property within a reasonable period of time once a nuisance has been abated. The city had a situation where they went through an abatement process. It is an elaborate process in which, after the city has provided notification, allows the owner to appeal the city's view of what is happening on their property. The City has the authority to remove a problem deemed a public nuisance. This amendment provides assurances that the condition does not re-occur. Mr. Newman stated, for example, he dumped 50 tires in his backyard. The city comes in and removes them. He does not reclaim them, but gets another 50 tires and puts them in the backyard. He does not si gn a release of property form. �oes the city have to restart the process from the beginning? Mr. Hickok stated it basically piggy-backs on the initial notification if it is deemed the same or similar and that person's right to appeal. As an enforcement body, the city would be able to back on that property and clean it up. Mr. Newman stated the release of property is not the operative. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. The release of property is a safeguard they would use. Mr. Newman asked if anyone had any further questions or comments. There were no additional comments or questions. MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Ms. savage, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:40 P.M. MOTION by Ms. savage, seconded by Mr. oquist, to recommend approval of the proposed changes to section 128, Abatement of Exterior Public Nuisances. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 14, 1996 MOTION by Mr. oquist, seconded by Ms. savage, to receive the minutes of the Parks and Recreation commission meeting of �ecember 14, 1995. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 1996 MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting of �anuary 11, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. OTHER BUSINESS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 7, 1996 PAGE 14 a. Proposed Redevelopment of Frank's used car site Ms. �acy stated 1996 will be different. Progress has been made on the southwest Quadrant and it looks as though the project is headed for approval perhaps by the end of this month. �ake Pointe development has been progressing as well. The city council is now focusing on the former Frank's used cars site and redevelopment in areas throughout the City. There are a number of commission appointments pending. The City Council sees this as an opportunity to bring a diverse group onto the commissions. rf Planning commission members have anyone in mind, please bring those names to the city council. Ms. �acy stated in 1996 the commission will hear about the �ivable communities Act, a recent initiative taken on by the Metropolitan council to assist communities with redevelopment sites, such as Frank's used cars. The Metropolitan council will have an informational meeting about this act and the funding programs they have available. she invited Mr. oquist as chair of the Human Resources commission to attend. Ms. �acy stated the Human Resources commission would be asked to review the preliminary Housing Action Plan before it comes to the Planning commission. staff will also be looking at a fair housing ordinance. Ms. �acy stated she would provide an update on what the city council and Housing & Redevelopment Authority (H�,) have reviewed so far on the Frank's used cars site. staff has worked with the heirs of the property and closed on the property in �ecember. staff is now working on the acquisition of the two properties to the south. staff has prepared some development options for the Planning commission's input. Mr. Hickok and Ms. McPherson will talk about the processes and see if the Planning commission concurs. Mr. saba asked if the city council had already made a commitment as to the housing for Hyde Park. Ms. �acy stated there has been a commitment on the part of the city council and H�, to Hyde Park as their first focus area. This includes some remodeling programs, rehab loans, etc. Through the scattered site program, they acquired some lots on which single family homes will be constructed. They are now looking at owner-occupied townhomes on the Frank's site. The city and H�, are committed to changing the face of that neighborhood. Mr. saba asked if input from the neighborhood had been sought regarding this site. Ms. �acy stated they have not at this point, but they intend to do that after the proposals are reviewed by the appropriate bodies. rf anyone has concerns about the site, staff wants to know now. The idea of owner-occupied townhomes came up as part of the focus groups that were held last year. There are people in the neighborhood who see opportunities for redevelopment. Ms. McPherson presented conceptual drawings for the proposed redevelopment area. The area includes the Frank's used cars site, the vacant lot to the north, 58th Avenue and 57th Place, and the city Manager is working with the two property owners to the south. The total area is approximately 2.5 acres. Ms. McPherson she worked on a variety layouts and redevelopment options for the site. The three options include single family, townhomes, or a senior development. she reviewed each of the options. Ms. McPherson stated the single family option would provide a typical subdivision style which would yield seven units. The lot frontages would range from 75 feet to 90 feet. Ms. McPherson stated the townhome option would yield approximately 17-18 units with four possible layouts. The first would have two private cul de sacs providing to access to clusters of units. The second would be a more traditional row house style facing 3rd street with a smaller cluster to the south. The third would be similar with smaller blocks of units facing 3rd and a smaller cluster to the south. The fourth would have blocks of units each facing a private road which would provide access to the units. Ms. McPherson stated the last option is an apartment which could yield 51 one-bedroom apartments for seniors. The building would be three stories with underground and surface parking on the site. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 7, 1996 PAGE 15 Ms. McPherson stated these options were presented to the H�, and the city council. The direction and concurrence was that the owner-occupied townhomes would be the recommended option. Mr. Newman asked if that recommendation was financially based or if there were other reasons. Ms. �acy stated it was a mixture of both. on the financial side, the single family homes would have a net cost $300,000. The owner-occupied townhome option does cost some money but perhaps half of the detached option. The townhome option also provides the opportunity to gain some variety in sizes, heights, values, etc. Mr. saba asked if there would be some kind of theme. Ms. McPherson stated staff talked about what would happen along the edge, how that would be presented as the entrance into Fridley and that amenities would be very important. They see a process very similar to the southwest Quadrant in which neighborhood participation is valuable. They could help set the design guidelines and/or theme for the project. Mr. saba asked, in the second townhome option presented, would each unit have a two-car garage. Ms. McPherson stated yes. Mr. oquist asked if staff had considered carrying the same theme from the southwest Quadrant into this project so it carries through. Ms. McPherson stated they had talked about picking up some of the design guidelines. Ms. �acy stated they had also talked about carrying through the fence. she wants to pick up some of those elements. Mr. Newman stated stonegate has two-story, zero lot line properties. �id staff consider that? Ms. McPherson stated staff did not look at a specific design because they would be getting neighborhood input. with the footprints as presented, a two-story design could fit. Mr. Newman stated, if he lived there, he would be concerned about the townhomes. He was not sure that just doing 7 split entry home would make a statement to people as they enter Fridley. rf we are going to have additional developments, we could do single family with a hi gher density. rt may require a shorter setback or require front porches. rf he lived in Hyde Park, he would be excited about it because you are doing something there rather than isolating. with the townhomes, residents are looking inward and are not a part of the neighborhood. The townhome owners in many cases have a different lifestyles than those in a single family home. Ms. �acy stated, if staff went to the neighborhood, presented this information, and then involved them in coming up with some minimum design criteria to develop a request for proposal, staff would then go to the market and have a design to bring back. Ms. McPherson stated staff would show residents pictures of other developments to show them what they may see on the site. Mr. Newman agreed they needed photos. Many developers want to copy their last development. This is small enough that we could get someone in there and see if it would work. rf it does, we then have a springboard to replicate that throughout the community. Ms. �acy stated the city council and H�, want owner-occupied townhomes. They preferred the fourth townhome option. staff is asking the Planning commission's opinion. staff wants a sense of what you would like to see on the site. Mr. Newman stated he thought they would have a problem selling single family units nearest university Avenue. The units nearer the neighborhood would be more desirable. Ms. �acy stated the row house style may provide an opportunity to return to the idea of a front porch, a smaller setback, a garage in the rear accessed by an alley. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 7, 1996 PAGE 16 Mr. oquist asked if they had considered the one-story cottage. Ms. �acy stated the original one-story empty nester was bigger and would bring down the density. The design could have a one-story unit at the ends with two two-story units in the middle. Mr. oquist liked the first townhome option with two cul de sacs. rt somewhat creates the neighborhood concept. The residents there may not be a part of the neighborhood because they are going to be mobile, working people. They likely are not going to be "into the neighborhood" as much. He thought it was a nice project. Mr. stahlberg asked if staff had an idea of what senior housing demand is going to be in the next few years. He understood that spring �ake Park has senior housing more like townhomes where each entrance is separate and each has a garage. rt is like individual housing and might be something to look at. He grew up with an alley and does not want to be near another. They tend to collect the junk, trash cans, etc. Ms. �acy stated there is a high amount of senior demand into the next century. �ow income senior housing is in great demand. There is a three-year waiting list at village �reen and a one-year waiting list at Norwood square. The market rate senior has a tremendous demand. The demand is there. There is also a demand for the younger crowd as well. Mr. Newman stated, if he was retiring in Fridley, he was not sure he would want to be backing onto university Avenue. while there is demand for that type of housing and people want townhomes, he was not sure that that location is where they will want to be. He thought this location would attract a young, first time home buyer. Mr. Hickok stated he thought people want to come to a common area where people can get to know their neighbors. on the first townhome option with the cul de sacs, there could be some nice amenity in the open space between the units to provide an attractive area that would appeal to different ages. 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 FEBRUARY 7, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �avonn Cooper Recording secretary