The URL can be used to link to this page

PS 79-01City of Fridley AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS • __ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. r PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. t = � CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 _ ��•�• .J 612-560-3450 SUBJECT APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS NUMBERREV. 910-F23 1 DATE 3/21/75 PAGE OF ,1 2 APPROVED BY 800 NameC�/��-'��G Address,/ ei Phone Legal Description Lot No. f' --3 Block No. Tr -4W or Addn. Variance Request(s); including stated hardships ttach plat or survey of property showing building, vari ces, c., ,where applicable) eol Date Meeting Date 16 - 79 Fee Receipt No. Signature Comments & Recommendations by the Board of Appeals 4-1 a City Council Action and Date CITY OF FRIOLUY, SUBJECT COMMISSION APPLICATION REVIF-W Number i liew rugs Approved by UGI@ El Jerry P NO/ FlLr 9ATE ouEODATS —.... COMMENTS A) City of Fridley AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS SUBJECT APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS L• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. r PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 612-560-3450 (Staff Report) NUMBER 910-F23 REV. 1 DATE 3/21/75 PAGE OF 2 2 APPROVED BY 800 Staff Comments Board members notified of meeting by List members, date notified, and "Yes" or "No" for plans to Name attend hearing. . Plan Date To Attend Alvin A. Nitschke, 6661 Main Street N.E. Design -Ware, C/O Raymond J. Brink 6536 Main Street N.E. Lynn D. Hansen, 210 67th Avenue N.E. wners having Da a property within Phone or Mail 200 By whom Notified Wayne F. Peterson, 200 67th Avenue N.E. Sidney R. Dahl, 6551 2nd Street N.E. Darold D. Johnson, 6541 Second Street N.E. Paul M. Johnson, 6525 2nd Street N.E. William H. Gates, 6701 2nd Street N.E. Andrew Pappas, 6711 2nd Street N.E. Raymond R. Beyer, 6721 2nd Street N.E. Barry Case, 6730 2nd Street N.E. :'Gert Rollins, 6720 2nd Street N.E. 'Robert Fisher, 6710 2nd Street N.E. Jeanette M. Ulinen, 6700 2nd Street N.E. John D. Christensen, 6570 2nd Street N.E. Stephen Matson, 6560 2nd Street N.E. Kevin B. Rohan, 6705 Main Street N.E. Richard Brisbois, 6711 Main Street N.E. Delbert Christen, 6721 Main Street N.E. John P. Hreha, 6731 Main Street N.E. Gordon J. Aspenson, 6500 2nd Street N.E. Gerald Toss, 6501 Main Street N.E. Gary R. Marlow. 6525 Main Street N_F_ The American Oil Co., 6490 University Avenue N.E. CITY OF FRIG EY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 65432 TELEPHONE (612)571-3450 February 7, 1979 Alvin A. Nitschke 6661 N.E. Main Street Fridley, Mn 55432 Dear Mr. Nitschke: In reviewing your request to split the three unit townhouse into three lots so that they could be sold separately, it has been determined that this could not be done by the lot split process. . It will be necessary .for you to plat this and you will need to meet the townhouse requirement of 3,000 square feet per lot. If you have any questions on this item, please feel free to call me at 571-3450. Sincerely, g D L . fOARDN N ITY PLANNER JLB/de C-79-10 CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.; FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 March 30, 1979 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers at 6431 University Avenue Northeast at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, April 10, 1979, in regard to the following: Pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, a variance has been requested to reduce the minimum area fora townhouse development from 5 acres to .25 acres, to allow an existing tri-plex to'be sold as three individual townhouses at 6661-6671- 6681 Main Street N.E. Notice is hereby give that all persons having an interest therein will be given an opportunity to be heard at the above time and place. VIRGINIA SCHNABEL CHAIRWOMAN APPEALS CQMIM!$§19N Item #2 April 10, 1979 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 6661-6671-6681 Main St. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205. 14, The public purpose of this section , and the five acre minimum size for a townhouse development, is to provide for and encourage advances in housing design; changes in types of dwellings; move flexibility in layout and site planning; the development of the life -cycle environment; and the more efficient use of land, open space and public facilities. B. STATED HARDSHIP: None was given with the application, however, all conditions exist, and a variance approval will be necessary to accomplish the petitioner's plan to sell off the units as owner occupied. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The City attorney was verbally consulted and his response was that the Commission should review the request based on the substandard size of the overall tract, that he would have to review the townhouse association by- laws, and that he may want to comment on those when the proposal reaches the City Council. The staff has no stipulations that it would recommend, related to the variance, and will reserve its comments later on in the process when we have received more details from the petitioner. This will occur when the plat (Jay Park Addition), association by-laws, and variance request, reach the Council level as a complete package. Item #2 April 10, 1979 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 6661-6671-6681 Main St. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205. 14, The public purpose of this section and the five acre minimum size for a townhouse development, is to provide for and encourage advances in housing design; changes in types of dwellings; move flexibility in layout and site planning; the development of the life -cycle environment; and the more efficient use of land, open space and public facilities. B. STATED HARDSHIP: None was given with the application, however, all conditions exist, and a variance approval will be necessary to accomplish the petitioner's plan to sell off the units as owner occupied. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The City attorney was verbally consulted and his response was that the Commission should review the request based on the substandard size of the overall tract, that he would have to review the townhouse association by- laws, and that he may want to comment on those when the proposal reaches the City Council. The staff has no stipulations that it would recommend, related to the variance, and will reserve its comments later on in the process when we have received more details from the petitioner. This will occur when the plat (Jay Park Addition), association by-laws, and variance request, reach the Council level as a complete package. r APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING., APRIL 10, 1979 PAGE 4 3. PURSUANT—TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, A VARIANCE HAS BEEN REQUESTED .B. (xequesz oy Aivin A. aiwcnexe, ."., X4.L%AJ.'Z,rp MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Kemper, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:55 P.M. Ms. Schnabel read the Administrative Staff Report as follows: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 6661-6671-6681 Main St. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205. 14, The public purpose of this section , and the five acre minimum size for a townhouse development, is to provide for and encourage advances in housing design; changes in types of dwellings; give more flexibility in layout and site planning; the development of the life -cycle environment; and the more efficient use of land, open space and public facilities. B. STATED HARDSHIP: None was given with the application, however, all conditions exist, and a variance approval will be necessary.to.accompl.ish the petitioner's plan to sell off the units as owner occupied. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The'City attorney was verbally consulted and his response was that the Commission should review the request based on the substandard size of the overall tract, that he would have to review the townhouse association by- laws, and that he may want to comment on those when the proposal reaches the City Council. The staff has no stipulations that it would recommend, related to the variance, and will reserve its comments later on in the process when we have received more details from the petitioner. This will occur when the plat (Jay Park Addition), association by—laws, and variance request, reach the Council level as a complete package. Ms. Schnabel stated that the Commissioners had received copies of the minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of March 21, 1979. One of the first items on the agenda that evening was a public hearing for consideration of a proposed preliminary plat. That plat was recommended to Council for approval with the APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL_ 1_01979 PAGE Ms. Schnabel asked if there were pipes on that wall of the kitchen. Mr. Sandin stated there were and the plumbing would have to be moved. Mr. Kemper asked if he would be doing the work himself. Mr. Sandin stated he would be the genera.. gonstractq;v a : 'He :vQuld b#- C ., pegple tgy'4a the work. His wife's uncle would do the carpenter work. Mr. Barna asked if he had considered making the basement a walkout for future expansion. The slope of the earth there would lend itself to that. Mr. Sandin stated he had no intentions of putting a doorway in there. Ms: Schnabel asked if he had talked to his neighbors. Mr. Sandin stated that two of his neighbors were here, the one immediately to the north and the one next to him,on the 2nd Street side. Mr. Gareth Iverson, 4519 - 2nd St. N.E. came forward and stated he had no objections, and felt it would add to the neighborhood. Mr. Edwin Hoglund, 4531 - 2nd Street N.E. came forward and stated he had no objections, that whenever Mr. Sandin did anything to his home, he always made it better. He diel not feel there would be any problem with the line of traffic. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:50 P.M. Mr. Barna stated he felt it would make a good walkout. He also stated that 90% of the corner lots don't line up with the rest of the street anyhow, so he did not feel there would be any visual impact, especially since it ib so far back from the street. He would have no problem with it. Ms. Schnabel stated that since the neighbors to the north did not object, she had no problem either. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to approve the request for variance pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the front yard setback of an existing house at 201 45th Ave. N.E. from the required 35 feet to 27 feet, to allow the construction of an 8 foot by 22 foot addition to the west end of the house, UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel informed Mr. Sandin that he was free to apply for a building permit. Mr. Sandin thanked the Commissioners. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 10, 1979 PAGE 5, stipulation that Staff look into the utility factors with regards to separate meters for water, gas and power. Also to make certain there were no problems with setbacks and easements especially in regards to drainage and utilities and also to make certain that the drainage and utility easements are shown on the new plat. Ms. Schnabel stated that the Commissioners had a survey and two pictures of the tri-plex. Ms. Schnabel stated that one of the questions raised at the Planning Coimni.ssion meeting was whether or not there would have to be a variance request for zero lot line construction. Mr. Clark stated he would like to go over'the Staff Report. The public purpose served was taken from the townhouse ordinance. The reason they said, under the hardship section, that all conditions exists, was that fact that the townhouse ordinance was drafted basically to develop vacant land and this is the reverse, the structure already exists. There is no more acreage available. When Mr. Nitscheke came in and asked what he could do to sell these units as owner occupied, they had°a choice of going R-1, single family lots with variances for each indivi- dual size of the lots, because they are all less than the single family ordinance calls for and also they would need variances for zero lot line. But in the town- house development, typically they are all zero lot lines. Therefore, as long as they call this a townhouse development, he did not need variances for zero 16t line. Mr. Clark stated that they would probably see more of this kind of thing. Rather than handle them as single family lots, they will probably be handling them the same way. So this will be the first one through. As far as having individual meters and utilities for each one, Mr. Sobiech, the City Engineer, is working with the City Attorney and other public works personnel on that. From the stand- point of the City, we would probably be better off with three owners in that tri- plex than three renters as far as pride in the dwelling and care of the structure. Ms. Schnabel asked on what facts he based that opinion. Mr. Clark stated they would not have an absentee landlord for one thing, which they would if Mr. Nitscheke sold the building. Ms. Schnabel stated he was making a supposition which was not based on fact, be- cause there are other buildings in the City that are owner occupied. Mr. Clark stated they also had absentee landlords in the City. If they want to look at what would be best for the building, if the building was built as a town- house it would have been built differently, with separate utilities for each unit, and the firewall, would continue through the attic. Those would be the only differences. They all have separate electric meters and separate gas meters now along with separate hot water heaters and furnaces. Ms. Gabel asked which meters were on the north side. Mr. Clark stated those were the gas meters. Ms. Schnabel stated that then there were three gas meters and three electric meters; and asked if there were three water meters. Mr. Nitscheke stated there were three gas and electric meters, and they could do the same with the water, although at present there were not three water meters. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 10, 1979 PAGE 6 Mr. Clark stated there was one other thing he would like to comment on and that was that technically there was a code violation that does exist on the property, and that was that Mr. Nitscheke was using part of his garage for his insurance office. He is self-employed and does not hire anyone else. Also, they have not received any complaints. But technically, it is a violation because he has a home occupation taking place in an accessory building. If he moved the business into the house, it would no longer be a violation. Ms. Gabel asked if it didn't have to be moved, since it is a code violation. W. Clark stated that was correct,.it should be moved to comply with the code. He stated that there were a lot of violations that exist, but they are not staffed to handle all of them. Some business attract a lot of cars and people, but this business does not. Also, it is not offensive to the neighborhood. Ms. Schnabel stated she was concerned when she saw that commercial use of a garage, and was,surprised when she saw it there. She asked what this was zoned as. Mr. Clark stated it was R-3, and there was a time when an office was allowed in an R-3. Ms. Schnabel stated that this had happened after that ordinance was changed. Mr. Nitscheke stated he had moved into the garage in 197+ and at that time, he thought it would be only temporary. One of the reasons he wants to sell is to get a different location. He also stated that he is right"acro'ss from an industrial area., Ms. Schnabel stated that was true, but he was in a residential area with a commercial venture, which is not permitted by our code now and was not permitted in 197+. There are certain land space requirements that our zoning ordinance is very strict about. She asked if the tri-plex was built in 1973, and asked also what they were classified as at that time. Mr. Clark stated they were built in October of 1973 and they were classified as an apartment house on the original building permit, or a tri-plex. Mr. Nitscheke stated he had always thought of it as a townhouse. Mr. Clark stated that it is a townhouse design, but technically in the code it is an apartment. No. Schnabel stated that had it been a townhouse at that time, we would have required more land. W. Clark stated they would have required 5 acres. Ms. Schnabel stated that for a tri-plex we would require 10,000 square feet. In terms of dividing this block into three lots, how many square feet would be in the individual lot sizes? W. Kemper stated there would be approximately 3667 square feet per lot. The total lot size is 10,999.8. P APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 10, 1979 _ _ - PAGE 7 Ms. Schnabel stated that in effect then, they were not only going from 5 acres to .25 acres, but in terms of lot size they would be going from the requirement of 9,000 square feet to 3667 square feet. Mr. Clark stated that was correct if they looked at it from the standpoint of R-1 Zone with R-1 lots. The area requirement in an R-3 Zone for townhouses is 1,000 square feet per unit. Ms. Schnabe). stated she agreed with Mr. Clarkt.s statement that they would be seeing quite a bit of this, and asked at what point, as a City, they should draw the line as to what is called townhouses and what would be called flat out duplexes or private dwellings with mother-in-law apartments. How are we,.as a City, going to handle this in the future. Mr. Clark stated that the reason they chose to go from 5 acres to .25 acres.was because the structure, for one thing looks like a townhouse. Also it was the only variance even though it's a big variance, they would need in this case to make it comply with the townhouse ordinance. If they chose to call it that in R-1, attached single family dwellings, and used the part of the platting ordinance they would for any other type of single family dwellings, they would need lot area, setbacks, zero lot line variances. Ms. Gabel stated that what they did then was go through the code and find the part it most complied with. Mr. Clark stated that was correct plus there would probably be some by-laws so the building doesn't get too different, as far as colors and maintenance of the grounds. Ms. Gabel agreed it did look like a townhouse when you drive by, but also agreed with Ms. Schnabel's comments. What would they do if someone with a four-plex wanted to do the same thing. Mr. Clark stated it could happen in Black Forest and they would have.condominiums. He stated that the City as a whole, has to decide whether they want this or not. Ms. Schnabel stated this would be a wave of the future. She stated that if to propose a townhouse development, they must have a minimum of 5 acres, how do they get down to 3,000 square feet as a density in R-3? Mr. Clark stated that later on in the townhouse ordinance it talks about density. If you build a townhouse in an R-1 District, it's 9,000 square feet, etc. Ms. Schnabel asked why they say that if you need 5 acres. Mr. Clark stated it controlls the number of units you can put on the tract of land you have. If it's R-1, you can only put the density of an R-1 District which would be 9,000 square feet. He stated it was a ratio, such as 9,000 square feet per unit, or 5,000 per unit or.3,000 per unit. But they didn't necessarily have to Individually alt ori parcels of that size, it allows for larger open space. APPEALS COMSSION MTINGv APRIL -101- 1979 - ' PAGE 8 Ms. Schnabel stated that then in this case, these three units meet the density requirement if it was on a 5 acre plot, in an R-3 Zone. But it does not meet the density requirement, because it is not on 5 acres. W. Clark stated it met the density requirement if it was considered a townhouse development. Mr. Kemper stated that what they didn't have here was the extra green space, but on the other hand, it would be unusual to build three townhouses on a 5 acre plot. Mr. Clark stated that if you multiplied the amount of land here by 20 to get the 5 acres and then multiplied the 3 times 20 and put 60 units on it, you would have the same density ratio. Ms. Schnabel asked how many covered garage stalls there were. Mr. Nitscheke stated there were 3. Mr. Clark stated there would be 4 if he took the office out. Mr. Nitscheke stated that the south unit had a double car garage and the other two units -each had a stall in:t!he other double garage. Ms. Schnabel stated that she felt the Planning Commission was mislead, and they should have gone out and looked at it. She felt they were under the impression that there were 4 separate garages, and two of those garages were double car garages and two were single, which would make 6 garage stalls. Mr. Nitscheke stated that if you counted the driveway, there were 6. Ms. Schnabel stated she meant covered stalls. Mr. Nitscheke stated there were 3 plus the office. Ms. Gabel stated that Planning Commission had touched on the question of what they would do in the future with this type of thing, but this particular case did not seem to be as big a problem as some other ones could be. Mr. Clark stated what they chose to do with this, will effect future requests. Mr. Nitscheke stated that he could not see the problem because with individual owners they would have better maintained property. He felt his request was reasonable. Ms. Gabel stated that as a Commission, they had a responsibility for setting a precedent. Ms. Schnabel stated that the crux of the thing was density. Did the City wish to permit single ownership density on a parcel of this size. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 10, 1979 - PAGE 9 Ms. Schnabel stated that in a townhouse development, they generally have more land for open space than what is available here. Mr. Clark stated the ratio would be the same. Ms. Schnabel stated that conceivably, if there was vacant land adjacent to this property and somebody wanted to build a townhouse on that vacant land, and it went, on down the street, at some point the City would have to take a look at that con- struction in that manner, if it was repetitive of this, and say "is that the kind of density that we want in this City. Is this administering to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents and is it proper for the.City to continue to accept it". Mr. Clark stated they still have the density ordinance, and instead of calling,it townhouses like this one, it would be apartments or tri-plexes. Ms. Schnabel stated she was talking about building townhouses for sale, exactly like he wants to turn this into. Mr. Clark stated that as far as bringing more people into the City, it wouldn't. Ms. Gabel asked if the land adjacent to the property was also zoned R-3. Mr. Clark stated that was park land, and across the street was zoned light industrial. South of him is Jay Park. Mr. Barna stated, that after looking at it and after reading the public purpose served by the requirements, it struct him as funny as to why they would require 5 acres of land to achieve the more efficient use of land and the more efficient use of open space and public facilities. We have a large acreage of public facilities as far as recreational facilities and open space in the City of Fridley. He could not see any problem as far as lot size, although he did think that part of the Park was part of the parcel. Here you have three units with a larger lot and an open space break- up and he had no problem with a development of this type on the land left available in the City. Ms. Schnabel stated that the vacant land was City property. Mr. Barna stated he understood that now, but if the land across the street was re -zoned R-3 and developed with the same type,of structure, he would have no objections to that. It would less visually objectionable than a large apartment complex. He also stated that as far as owner occupied and achieving the density we need in the City, this would be a lot less objectionable way of doing it, rather than have large apartment buildings. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Barna if he felt the code was wrong to require 5 acres of land for a townhouse development. Mr. Barna stated that if land were still cheap, he would agree with the code. But land is not cheap and is at a premium in Fridley. We have enough parks that are developed or developable, that we don't need them in the yards. APPEALS COMMISSION MATING, APRIL 1Q, 1979 - PAGE: 10 - i Ms.Schnabel asked how he would feel if someone had an 80 foot wide lot in an R-1 and asked to have it re -zoned to R-3 and asked to put up this same type of structure in the middle of a.xesidential zone. Mr. Barna stated that would have to depend upon the type of structures in that neighborhood. He felt the height factor would limit it more than anything, because in R-1, they would be limited more than in an R-3. Mr.;: Clark stated in that case, they would be changing the density of the land. In rezoning, they would be going from 9,000 square feet to 1,000 square feet which would put three times as many families on an 80 foot wide lot. Ms. Schnabel stated the reason she asked that was because of the 40 foot lot situation. She felt it was important they consider all sides of it. Mr. Clark stated that in Hyde Park for example, in his opinion, he would give a lot of thought to instead of having 2 houses on 2 individual 40 foot lots with their setbacks which make the houses quite small, it might be better to have two units attached which would be owner occupied with zero lot lines. Ms. Schnabel stated that because Hyde Park is a Special Use District, you could conceivably have someone come in and buy two 40 foot lots and.knock down the existing structures and build something similar to this. Mr. Clark stated they couldn't there, because they have to be on h0 foot lots. Ms. Gabel stated that nothing could go into Hyde Park that was more than an R-1 use. Mr. Kemper stated that the figure he had given them of 10,999.8 was not correct. The correct figure was 10p870. He stated that the point was that three townhouses are going on basically the same amount of square foot lot as 60 townhouses would go on 5 acres. The ratio is almost identical. The question in his mind was what if you had 4 acres and wanted to build townhouses. The existing code would not permit it. It seems rather foolish not to allow 47 townhouses to be built on a 4 acre plot if that was all the land that happened to be available. So the question is, do we agree with the 5 acre limitation. He stated that if he was asked that question, he would have to say he didn't understand what that means. He could understand a square footage limitation, but could not understand how they could have a 3,000 foot limitation for an individual townhouse but require that there be almost 2,000,000 square feet in the total area. W. Clark stated that was probably taken from someone elses ordinance. What it encourages is development of large tracts of land in 5 acre tracts. The purpose was that if there was rough terrain, they could cluster the houses in one section of the land and still have open space on the other section. Mr. Kemper stated that they 'should address the question of what the minimum number Of units should be in a townhouse complex. That question will have to be answered. In a tri-plex situation, there would be three people involved and would allow for a majority vote, but in a duplex situation there could be problems with an agreement. Mr. Barna stated that would have to be a legal contract signed between the two parties. It would not come under our jurisdiction. APPEALS COMMISSION MFMTING, APRIL 10, 1279 ." PAGE 11 W. Kemper stated they would have to be some discussion at the planning level as to what constitutes the minimum size townhouse complex. In this case we are faced with three and do we want to establish a precedent and allow three. Mr. Kemper felt the Appeals Commission was not the group to review and establish that kind of criteria. Ms. Gabel stated they were being asked to make a decision without any criteria. Mr. Barna stated that he felt the question they were faced with was, do we as individuals and residents of the City and property owners feel the =5 acre require- ment is legitimate considering the amount of land left in the City, and the definite need for future development. He personally could not *see the requirement of a 5 acre tract for a townhouse development. Mr. Kemper asked if there any5 acre tracts in the City that could be developed as a townhouse. Mr. Barna stated that with zoning changes, there could be. Mr. Barna read from page 2 of the Comprehensive Development Plan as follows: "Current, estimates by the Metropolitan Council indicate a need' for about 2,300 new housing units by 1990; however, it is clear that enough (residentially zoned) does not exist to accomodate that kind of growth. Residentially zoned land is about 90 developed." He stated that this request was one way to accomplish the goal of 21300 additional housing units in a way that would be compatible with existing land uses. If we plan on developing all our 80 foot and 100 foot lots that are left as single family units, they would not get anywhere near the density of population required for an even tax base. If they talked about developing on.a two to one ratio of what we have available sensibly, with a sensible townhouse design on a smaller lot area, there would be no problem in achieving the desired population density. Ms. Gabel stated that in referring to Hyde Park, the density there is high, and the people there don't want higher density. That's why it was zoned.the way it is.. She also stated that some places, including We Park, are not geared for higher density as far as park facilities, etc. She felt.this was another question that should be addressed. Ms. Schnabel stated that she disagreed with Metro Council's analysis of 2,300. She felt that Metro Council had made a flat out statement and tried to apply it to all communities. You cannot compare Columbia Heights or Fridley with Chaska or Rose- mount, where there is a lot of open space available. Mr. Barna stated there was very little land available in Fridley. Ms. Schnabel stated that was her point. She tams not sure it was our -burden to provide the requirements of Metro Council. Mr. Barna stated that they did not necessarily have to try to fill the quota, but how were they going to develop the land that was left. He personally had no problem with this townhouse type structure on this size of a lot. Ms. Schnabel stated that maybe there were people in the community that did not want any higher density. So maybe it was not proper for the City to consider any further development in this manner. APPEALS COMMISSION MOTING2 APRIL 10, 1979 - 'AGE, U Mr. Clark stated that to get more density land would have to be rezoned. If they don't rezone, the density would not change that much. Nor would it change unless they changed the requirements in each zone. But by granting a variance such as this on a plat such as this, the number of people will not change. The only thing that would change would be that they would have three owner occupied units rather than three rental units. Also, they would change the taxes derived from this. They would go down as owner occupied, because each unit would be homesteaded. Mr. Nitscheke stated that the tax base could increase because the value would pro- bably increase. Ms. Schnabel stated the value would increase anyway probably. Ms. Schnabel asked why he wanted to sell off the units individually rather than sell the whole complex to one person. Mr. Nitscheke stated that if the unit cost $100,000 to build, there was no way to collect enough rent to make it profitable. .The bottom line is economics. Ms. Schnabel asked why he built them in the first place and got into this situation, if he knew that ahead of time. Mr. Nitscheke stated he didn't know that then. In 1974, the return on his money was fairly good. Today he could make more money on treasury bills. Ms. Schnabel stated he could sell the entire complex and there would be investors who would want to buy it. Mr. Nitscheke stated it would be difficult to find a buyer for the entire complex, because they would not even break even. Mr. Kemper asked if he was saying that the property was not marketable at this point in time as a tri-plex. Mr. Nitscheke stated that was correct.because the replacement cost would far exceed what could be collected in rent. Ms. Schnabel stated that then he was selling it to protect his investment. Mr. Nitscheke stated that was part of the reason. Ms. Schnabel asked if he had commitments from the present renters. Mr. Nitscheke stated he had no such commitments. Mr. Kemper stated that he then felt he could yield more selling it as three individual townhouses, than selling it as a tri-plex. Mr. Nitscheke stated that was correct. But he had other reasons for wanting to move out of there. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 10, 1979 PAGE 13 Mr. Clark stated that they were at the point of trying to make a policy decision. That decision would have to include the Planning Commission , the Council and the Appeals Commission. Ms. Schnabel stated that she thought they were very handsome structures. Mr. Nitscheke stated he had put a lot of money into them.. Ms. Schnabel stated she felt they were an asset to the Community, but was hung up with creating three living units on three separate lots that turn out to be 3,600 square feet each. There is a difference between it being a rental unit and in that classification versus it being individual.owner occupied residential units. They have had a lot of discussion involved in a lot of meetings and a,lot of court time now, regarding 40 foot lots. The majority opinion appears to be that as a City we do not want to put construction of residential dwellings on that size lot Mr. Nitscheke stated that was a contradiction, because the structure already exists. Ms. Schnabel stated they wern't changing density if it was a tri-plex, but they would be changing the density by going into single owner occupied dwellings on lot sizes of 3,600 square feet. This is something we don't permit in•ordinary residen- tial areas. Mr. Clark stated that if it weren't zoned R-3, that's what they would be looking at but this is R-3. If there were two 40 foot lots right next to each other and it were zoned R-2, rather than build two single family houses which has been denied by the Board of Appeals and Council, they couldn't deny, nor would they probably want to deny the construction of a doudle bungalow. Rather than having two tiny houses with small floor plans, they would have one large double bungalow with a large floor plan they could do more with. What if someone want to do this, have a double.bungalaw and both of them owner occupied. Mr. Clark pointed out that the ones they were going to court on were R-1 lots. If they are approved by the court, the court will be changing the density. But in this case, the Board of Appeals would not be changing the density. i Ms. Schnabel stated they would,be changing the density as far .as lot sizes go. Mr: Clark stated that the ratio would remain the same. Ms. Gable asked what would happen if we did this and then down the road someone comes in and says they have 2.5 acres and want to put a townhouse on it. What happens then. Mr. Clark stated they would have to get a variance. Ms. Gabel asked that legally then, what have we stuck ourselves with. Mr. Clark stated that if it happened very often, then realistically, they should change the area requirement from 5 down to what would seem realistic. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 10 1979 - PAGE -14. Ms. Schnabel stated that was Mr. Kemper had stated. Maybe they should eliminate the 5 acre requirement and just go with density. Mr. Kemper stated that what he was saying was establish a certain density for a certain zone and establish a minimum number of units that would constitute a townhouse development. Mr. Kemper stated this should be discussed before we make a decision. He asked Mr. Nitscheke what kind of a time frame he was working under. Mr. Nitscheke stated that another month wouldn't probably create that much of a problem, although he would like to put them up for sale early spring. Mr. Kemper asked Mr. Nitscheke what the selling price would be. Mr. Nitscheke stated he planned on asking about $60,00 to 65,000 on smaller units, and aground $65,000 to $70,000 on the larger unit. Ms. Schnabel asked what purpose Mr. Kemper would hope to accomplish by delaying this Mr. Kemper stated he questioned if there should be an item on the Planning Commission agenda to review, not this variance, but to review the items in the discussion we have had tonight regarding 5 acreas, and regarding lot coverage or rather the size of the lot per the number of units, and the minimum number of units that would constitute a townhouse development. He asked if the other Commissioners agreed that this item should appear on the Planning Commission agenda. He felt these items should be addressed before the Board of Appeals makes a decision on this request. Ms. Gabel agreed, and stated this was briefly touched by Planning and it was discussed that we don't have anything to work with regarding this. She agreed that Planning was the place to start. Mr. Kemper stated that maybe Planning would like to establish a committee to review what other Communities have done. Mr. Clark stated they were starting to look at other communities. In this case, if the request were approved they would have three owner occupied units rather than three units, two rental, and one owner occupied. Mr. Kemper stated that in the face of things, that seems somewhat desirable. But he was not sure they had had enough dialogue in all the Commissions in Fridley, to be able to really say this was desirable. Mr. Clark stated that looking into the future on double bungalows that are going to be built andperhaps.also tri-plexes and some four-plexes of this type of design, he would suggest that the Council direct the Staff that the construction be done different. Maybe put in four water services and four sewer services so that if in the future, someone wants to split it, the structure would be set up for it. Mr. Nitscheke noted that the fire wall did extend into the attic. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 10, 1979 . - PAGE 15 Ms. Schnabel stated that in terms of the new zoning ordinance, and she had briefly touched on this with Mr.Boardman, how is our new zoning ordinance geared towards this type of situation, and do we address it. Mr. Boardman had indicated that no, we haven't talked about it. He indicated he would be discussing this with Mr. Clark and Mr. Sobiech. Mr. Clark stated that if they put it directly into the zoning ordinance, it would be the rule rather than the exception., Ms. Gabel suggested that Community Development Commission might want to take a look at this also. Ms. Schnabel agreed. She also stated that if the Planning Commission reviews it, and Community Development Commission reviews it and it is then returned to the Board of Appeals, it would not reach Council for a public hearing until June 11, 1979• She stated that if the Board of Appeals reached a decision tonight, it would reach Council on May 14. Ms. Gabel stated that she felt other people should discuss it before they make a decision. Mr. Kemper agreed and suggested they establish a list of things these other people should discuss. He stated he would be in favor of tabling this pending analysis and discussion by the other commissions and suggest it then be brought back to us after they reach some conclusions. He stated this may put a hardship on Mr. Nitscheke, but wouldn't feel comfortable until other commissions had looked at it. Ms: Schnabel stated that they would like Planning Commission to look at the over-all question, not just this request, but in terms of the future. If Planning desired, they could request Community,Development to look at it also. Mr. Nitscheke stated that he could live with a 30 day delay. Mr. Clark asked if they thought Planning would be more comfortable if they delayed or if they would be more comfortable if the Board said what they felt and let the Planning Commission then study the Appeals Commission's recommendation Ms. Schnabel stated that if they table the item, they should give an opinion and list the questions that have been raised. Mr. Boardman stated he had discussed this with Mr. Herrick and his opinion was that if the structure met the townhouse requirements, they would not have any problem with the platting, the variance is the variance on the townhouse platting. The_ question ia, do you want townhouses to have home ownership on smaller size lots within the zone. The zoning is R-3 and is set up for multiple units. There has been no discussion as to whether the units should be set up for ownership or for rental. Actually, there should be no real differences as long as the density is the same. Ms. Schnabel stated that one of the questions they had raised was that our zoning ordinance requires 5 acres for a townhouse development. That immediately says that if it is in an R-3 zone, there could be 60 units. The point that had been raised was that there should be a minimum of ten units in order to have a classification APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING., APRIL 101 1979 - PAGE 16 of a townhouse development. Ten units is a figure she was pulling out of the air. The ordinance now says there should be a minimum of 60 units. Mr. Boardman stated that the main question that will be before the Planning Commission is what is the definition of a townhouse, because there will be a lot of discussion in that respect. There will be a lot of questions on our zoning. What we actually have here is zero lot line ownership. Maybe Planning should -look at density only, rather than actual square footage or actual lot sizes or acreage. Ms. Schnabel stated that there were other ways of handling this, such as approving the request and asking for a moratorium on other similar requests until a policy is established. They could then list their concerns and questions that they want Planning to consider. Mr. Kemper stated that if Planning did not agree, or if they had a different set of suggestions, the approval they would have made on this particular variance request might end up setting a precedent that wouldn't agree with.the changes to the new zoning code. Mr. Kemper read the definition of a townhouse from the proposed zoning ordinance,, 'Structures housing three or more dwelling units, contin- uous to each other, o y by the sharing of one common wall, such structures to be of the town or row hose type as contrasted to multiple duelling apartment structures. No single structure s4all contain in excess of eight (8) dwelling units". Mr. Nitseheke's building ppears to qualify under the definition of townhouses in the zoning ordinance. Ms. Schnabel stated tY ey would have to go further and see what it says in terms of density. Mr. Kemper stated they have reviewed the zoning changes, but not in the light of this particular problem. He would feel more comfortable if they look at the ramifications of this request and similar types of requests. Ms. Gabel agreed and 4o did Mr. Barna. Mr. Boardman stated that if Planning bakes a policy decision to not allow by policy, or if they make a recommendation to allow this, then the Board of Appeals would be in a position where they cann't deny it or where they have to deny it. In other words, they would be making the decision for Appeals. Mr. Kemper stated tha' he did not understand what Mr. Boardman was getting at. Mr. Boardman stated that they were looking for a recommendation from Planning and Council and that recommendation would be a recommendation on a policy issue. In other words, they will either allow these by recommending a change in the zoning code to allow it or they will make a recommendation to change the zoning code to deny it. Ms. Schnabel stated t t was no different from the way the discussion on 40 foot lots. APPEALS COMMIS o - MEETING. APRIL 10 PAGE 1 Mr. Clark stated they should either make a recommendation on the request, or table it with an opinion. Mr. Kemper stateft that from his personal standpoint, this looks like a natural for doing what Mr. Nitscheke wants to do. Ms. Schnabel stated that she read that in an R-1 zone' the townhouse development shall consist of owner occupied units. She asked if that meant they could not sublet. Mr. Clark stated that was true, but in R-3, they could rent them out if for instance, it took them twc years to sell the units. They could rent them out until the units were sold. In an R-1 development they. could not rent them out. Ms. Schnabel stted that then, Mr. Nitscheke could sell them to three individual owners and thos three owners could not *rent them out to someone else. Mr. Clark statedl that was correct. Ms. Schnabel as ed what the number of garages was that was required in a townhouse. Mr. Clark state4 they had one per unit,., however;.the_.Cod.e did not require one per unit. A _doutTle-bunga? w •Lrequires 1 1/2 garages. Mr. Kemper stato that was another question that should be,looked at. MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to table the request for a variance pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the minimum area for a townhouse development from 5 acres to .25 acres, to allow an existing tri-plex to be sold as three individual townhouses located at 6661-6671-6681 Main Street N.E. UPON A VOICE 'VO% ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANU4DUSLY. MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Barna, that the Planning Commission include on their next agenda an analysis of the following items: 1. Regarding 5 acres as a necessity for townhouses. Should that be limited to new construction or should it be ;applied to existing structures which may fall under the townhouse criteria,. 2. In lieu of the 5 acre requirement, should there be a minimum number of town- house units in a townhouse development and if so what should the minimum number be. We have discussed 10 and perhaps 8. 3. Should future construction be done in such a manner that, if conversion is going to be permitted, the conversion can take place easily i.e., the meters, utilities, fire walls, etc. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 102 1979 - PAGE 18 4. What is the square foot coverage for the density of a townhouse development on a specific amount of property? In other words, what lot coverage would be allowed within the density? 5. What about duplexes reverting to townhouses or individually owned units? Could a duplex be sold as two individual units? Should the minimum townhouse requirement be two units or three units? -' 6. Should they look at apartments being turned into condominiums? 7. If there are two side by side existing properties, each 100 foot lots, and someone would like to put another owner occupied unit between those two existing units, sharing common walls, they would have then created a townhouse by definition and it would even qualify for density in an R-1 District, but .would have to be re -platted. Do they want to allow this? Where can they put a handle on it to stop it? 8. There should be an analysis from Staff indicating what other communities have done to handle questions like definitions of acreage for townhouses and now have they handled the transformation of apartment buildings into townhouses. (It was noted by Mr. Boardman that they have already started looking into this and most of them allow condominiums in existing units, without a variance procedure. He did, not believe they had a minimum size for existing units. What they. generally look at is density.) 9. Should there be a different standard for. existing structures,�andnnew;.,coz stxzlct on? 10. What are the alternatives in Fridley to home ownership? (Mr. Boardman stated that Staff would have to address this question). 11. A very broad brush answer to this dilemma would be to say that these things would be allowed provided the density doesn't change. If it was allowed under the previous definition, it could be allowed under a new definition. If this is what the Planning Commission decides, then our direction becomes much clearer.. They would be better able to react to a variance request such as this. 1:2. Appeals Commission would also like the Planning Commission to discuss anything. in the minutes that were not covered in this itemization. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Kemper to adjourn the April 10, 1979, meeting of the Appeals Commission meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted: Kathy e n, - ecor ing Secretary f PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 20, 1979 PAGE 11 Mr. Langenfeld stated he thought it was strange that the City did not know about the meeting until the very day it took place. Ms. Hughes stated that what had happened was that sometime in the past, Fridley had made the decision not to join in on this particular review. Mr. Langenfeld stated that the Environmental Quality Commission talked about this at their meeting on June 19, and they came to the conclusion that Staff would evaluate the EIS and all the on -coming procedures and inform the Environmental Quality Commission accordingly, rather than the EQC making decisions on piecemeal information. Mr. Boardman stated that from what he understood, there were actually three alternatives: a northerly crossing, a southerly crossing, or no crossing. None of these alternatives actually came within the City of Fridley's land per se. The southerly crossing goes north of Breckenridge Island and connects either into the new realigned Highway 10 or the old Highway 10 north of the Northtown area. The concerns the City may have is what the environmental impacts of that southerly crossing will be on Fridley as far as noise pollution, and an EIS has not yet been done on it. Mr. Boardman stated that he and Mr. Qureshi were involved in the Management Task Force in the Northtown Corridor Study in 1974-75. They had opted out of the continuing Task Force, primarily because all the access points and all of the land acquisition was taking place in Coon Rapids, Blaine, and communities to the west. The Task Force would have involved a city expenditure of cost for hiring the consultant. They felt at that point in time that the City did not really need to get involved in the actual hiring of the consultant when Fridley was not going to be affected by any acquisition of City property. That decision was made because the corridor area was going to go north of Fridley. What they should do now is just keep very close tabs on the thing and keep a close watch on the EIS. Mr. Boardman stated there was also a concern expressed by the Environmental Quality Commission about the new alignment of Highway 10 just north of the old Highway 10. That is in the process of an EIS. Within the EIS, the Department of Natural Resources was talking about the disruption of wetlands and how it is going to affect the two creeks off of which the wetlands feed. One of these creeks is Spring Brook Creek. So, the City is very concerned about that EIS. Mr. Langenfeld stated he gets rather upset with the Department of Natural Resources because of the conflict with them over the wetlands in the North Innsbruck area versus laws, etc. He really fejt that the Planning Commission should think about a statement made at the last Environmental Quality Commission that, in the event the City did not get involved in preliminary hearings, they could lose scope and a few other essential grips on what is taking place. He really felt the City should become involved almost yesterday. i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 20, 1979 PAGE 12 Mr. Boardman stated he felt it was very difficult at this time for the City to get into the Management Task Force because of the expenditure of monies and that type of thing. That was the purpose of the Management Task Force. He thought the main involvement should and will come in evaluating some of the things that come up. Ms. Hughes stated she just wanted the Planning Commission to be aware of this problem and to be ready to follow whatever information comes from Staff. Mr. Harris stated that the Planning Commission had the information requested from Staff on the Nitschke request for a three -unit townhouse development. The City Council has asked the Planning Commission to examine that and give them a new set of proposals for a possible ordinance change and how to handle any further requests of that kind. Mr. Boardman stated he thought the City Council had tabled the Nitschke request and sent it back to the Planning Commission.for further study on all types of issues like this. He stated he would probably want to sit down with the city attorneys to see what can and cannot be legally done as to restricting property use. Mr. Harris stated this whole subject should again be put on the Planning Commission agenda. , ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the June 20, 1979, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lyn Saba Recording Secretary CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION M'TING - APRIL 244 1979 CALL TO ORDER: Chairwoman Schnabel called the April 24, 1979,•meeting of the Appeals Commission to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. Plemel, Ms. Schnabel, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Barna. Members Absent: Mr. Kemper Others Present: Mr. Moravetz, Engineering Aide / Administrative 1. APPROVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: APRIL 10,,1979: MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to approve the April 10, 1979, minutes of the Appeals Commission. Ms. Schnabel stated that on page 15, the last line, the word "maybe" should be inserted after the words "was that". UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MINUTES APPROVED AS CORRECTED. 2. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON TO SERVE FROM 5/1/79 to 5/1/80: MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to move this item to the end of the agenda. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL•DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. TABLED: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER . nizscnexe, OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE. A VARIANCE HAS BEEN Ms .L' ., 1'114.iGJ, a•aaa. '/J-r,��/ vin NATION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to remove this item from the table. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE.. CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel stated that at the last Appeals meeting they had a number of questions which they directed to the Planning Commission asking their opinion on this type of situation. The Appeals Commissioners have.been given copies of the Planning Commission minutes and as they could see, the Planning Commission spent a considerable amount of time discussing the entire situation. She noted that Mr. Nitscheke had attended the Planning Commission meeting and participated in the discussion. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 10, 1979 _ _ _ _ PAGE 2 Ms. Schnabel stated'that.the Planning Commission felt there was no problem with this -type of.request based on the fact that the density was not changing. So, in regards to our question as to whether or not they would like to see this -type of situation occuring, the answer was that they had no problem with it. However, they felt they had made an error when they approved the lot split on this request, and after reviewing the Appeals Commission minutes and having more discussion at the Planning Cemmission meeting, they decided that rather than treating this property and any like it as a lot split, it should be treated the same as any other townhouse development. There should be a townhouse association developed between the three owners with their own bylaws. Instead of splitting the property three ways from street to alley, the property should be divided up so that only the land underneath the buildings would go to -the ownership of the people and the rest of the land would be held in common. This is what the motim on page 15 refers to. They are now recommending to Council that -Council understand they feel they made a mistake in their original recommendation and they would like Council to concur with their new recommendation. With regards to the rest of the questions, they felt these could be answered as they draft the new zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission indicated that they appreciated the Appeals Commission bringing these questions to their attention. In terms of this particular request, they did not seem to have a problem reclassifying it as a townhouse because of the fact that the density would not change and control over the complex itself in terms of maintenance would be best controlled by the townhouse association having the responsibility for caring for the property in the common and also the exterior maintenance of the structures. She asked Mr. Nitscheke if'he cuncurred with her summary of the events of the Planning Commission. Mr. Nitscheke stated that he agreed, but would still perfer.the lot split. He did see the -need for a townhouse association for maintenance and the problems that would arise. As far as dividing the land, he felt the original recommendation was good. Ms. Schnabel stated that he should understand that the Planning Commission did not reverse it's original decision. Their original decision will go to the Council recommending the lot split, however as a follow-up the motion they passed last week will also go with the original recommendation. So eventually, the City Council will make the final decision. Another reason the Planning Commission decided to reconsider the lot split was that if there should be a disaster to that property or building and it were 50% or more destroyed, the City would end up with three sub- standard lots. As an added protection, it was felt that it was better not to split that land. Ms. Gabel asked what the front footage was. Ms. Schnabel stated it was 80 feet total. Mr. Nitscheke asked if the variance would hold up if there was a loss of 50% or more so the structure would have to be rebuilt in accordance with City code. Ms. Schnabel stated that if over 50% of it were destroyed the variance would be void and to reconstruct they could conceivably end up with one owner not wishing to re -attach. In a strictly hypothetical situation, that's the kind of thing they want to avoid. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 24, 1979 _ - PAGE 3 Mr. Nitscheke stated that his contention was that in order to reconstruct the Building, it would have to meet City code. It would be the same as if an apart- ment were destroyed, the City could not force the apartment owner to rebuild. He felt the question was almost mute because under the law, the City couldn't force anyone to rebuild. Ms. Schnabel stated that the thought was that perhaps one of the three may not want to rebuild sharing common walls. Mr. Nitscheke stated the agreement would be that if they didn't want to rebuild they would have to sell. Ms. Schnabel stated that hopefully, the City Attorney would look at some of this and offer a legal opinion, One of the main points was that they wanted to avoid creating three substandard lots. Ms. Schnabel asked if in view of what the Planning Commission decided, any members of the Board had any questions. Mr. Barna stated that any action on this now would be stating that this would be similar to a normal townhouse development with the general property owned in common and the property under each home would belong to the -owner of that home. He stated that he would be more comfortable with that than with the three odd -shaped narrow. lots. Ms. Schnabel stated that the other things that were discussed was that the utilities would have to be separated and that townhouse bylaws be drafted. W. Moravetz .stated that there should also be a separate meter for the common.grounds for such things as watering the grass, yard lights, etc. It should be located on the exterior of the building so City personnel could read the meter. Ms. Schnabel asked if the Council would want to look at the townhouse bylaws, and would they want them by the time this item reaches Council. Mr. Moravetz stated that Mr. Herrick would probably want to review the bylaws to see just what the City involvement would be and also Council should review and they can decide if they want to take action on them. Because it is a unique situation, he was not sure what the legal ramifications would be. Ms. Schnabel stated that this probably would not reach Council until May 14th and she suggested that Mr. Nitscheke talk to someone on Staff and find out exactly what Council would want and when they want it. Mr. Moravetz stated that it probably would not reach Council until May 21st. Mr. Nitscheke stated that would be no problem. Ms. Schnabel suggested they review what the Planning Commission did so they can decide if they want to take action. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 24, 1979 - PAGE 4 Mr. Barna felt the question had been well covered, but he asked if it was a replat ox a . lot..split . Ms. Schnabel stated that Mr. Nitscheke had applied for a replat. Mr. Plemel stated that hadn't been recorded yet because it hadn't reached Council yet. Mr. Barna stated that this had confused him the last time. In looking at it as a townhouse development, he was thinking all this was common ground and the main thing with a townhouse development is the common ground with the park and recreational area, which was why he had brought up the park next door. In a townhouse development they were creating a community within a community for recreational and open space purposes and in this particular instance they could satisfy all those situations with a townhouse type ownership. With common property surrounding the structures and private ownership under the structures, adjacent park boardering the property which basically belongs to everybody in the community including the owners of the three individual units gives the recreational area commonly owned. In his mind, that would satisfy all the townhouse requirements. Whether it's a 5 acre townhouse, or a 4 acre townhouse or a 2 acre townhouse there is, in this instance, recreational facilities available just as,close as they would be in a regular townhouse develop- ment. He felt more comfortable with the common property. Ms. Gabel stated that she agreed and had no problem as long as they don't create any substandard lots. Mr. Plemel stated that he was not present for the original discussion regarding this, but for a variance to be granted a hardship must be stated and he noted that there was no hardship given with the application. He asked what it was. Ms. Schnabel stated that the hardship came out during the initial discussion: The hardship basically was that Mr. Nitscheke felt that as a development it had become difficult to collect enough rents to make this a reasonable'investment. Because he felt it was limited in terms of the amount of rental income, he would like to instead. sell the individual units off. That is the hardship. Also, it would be difficult to find a buyer for the whole unit. Mr. Plemel asked if there were garages? Ms. Schnabel stated that were.two units with one garage each and one unit with a double -garage but one stall in that garage was presently being used as an office. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Plemel, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING. CLOSED AT 8:07 P.M. Mr. Plemel asked Mr. Nitscheke if he still planned to record that replat. Mr. Nitscheke stated he had paid a replat fee and would hope it would be refunded if the replat wasn't possible. Ms. Gabel stated it couldn't be replatted until Council looked at it. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 24,.1979 PAGE 5 MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to recommend approval of the variance request, pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley _City Code, to.reduce the minimum area for a townhouse development from 5 acres to .25 acres, to allow an existing tri-plex to be sold as three individual townhouses located at 6661 - 6671 - 6681 Main Street N'.E. and that the Board of Appeals concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation that the land be left as one plat with the exception of the land under the building rather than be split into three lots and it be treated as a town- house development. Further, they should work with the'City to determine how the City wants the meters set up and also they work with the City in developing town- house association and bylaws. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel informed Mr.- Nitscheke that the variance was recommended for approval and suggested he call Dick Sobiech, Public Works Director, and find out when it will be at Council and if he would need a copy of the association bylaws at that time. She stated that Council would determine the platting. The Board of Appeals 1 made the recommendation that they approve his concept and that they concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission that it not be platted as split lots, but that they sell the property underneath the building and the rest of the property be held in common. Ms. Gabel stated that she felt that Council should be made aware ofthe multiple use on this property. MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Barna, that there is a multiple use existing on this property and Council should be aware of it and there should either be a Special Use Permit applied for or the additional use should be ceased within a reasonable period of time. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL-DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNAN MDUSLY. 4. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO ;•P .r.., r11ax11Uy, MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Gabel to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:15 P.M. Ms. Schnabel read the Administrative Staff Report as follows; APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 24.-1979 - PAGE 6 ¢ . ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT .. 6517 McKi n'1 ey St. N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4, (B,l) requiring a 10 foot side yard setback for living areas in an R-1 zone. - Public purpose served by this section of the code is to maintain a minimum of 20 feet between living areas in adjacent structures and 15 feet between garage and living areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure to conflagration of fire and also to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas around residential structures. Section 205.053, 4, A, requiring a front yard setback of 35 feet. Public purpose served is to alloYl for off-street parking without encroaching on the public right of way. Also for aesthetic consideration to reduce the "building line of sight' encroachment in the neighbor's front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: I have to add to the house in this way in order to getia-good size bedroom -and have an entrance to my existing bathroom, and to have a good size family room. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The reason for the front yard variance request is to bring the existing house into conformance if request is granted. The side yard variance, if granted, would not reduce the distance between the Kok home and the neighbor to the North, as the home on the lotto the North is located further West than the petitioner's is. Therefore if the Commission grants these two requests we are not recommending any stipulations to be attached to the approval. Mr. Kok stated that he had stated that his hardship was to get a good sized bedroom and family room but should have stated that if -the original builder had put home on the property square, he wouldn't need a variance. Ms. Gabel stated that he probably did that because the street was curved. She noted that the house to the north sits even further forward than Mr. Kok's. Ms. Schnabel asked if there was an easement on the north side. Mr. Moravetz stated there was not. r 147 THE MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF MAY 14, 1979 The Public Hearing Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order, after the Board of Review Meeting, at 9:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Councilman Fitzpatrick, Councilwoman Moses, Councilman Schneider and Councilman Barnette MEMBERS ABSENT: None ADOPTION OF AGENDA: The agenda was adopted as submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS: PUBLIC HEARING ON ISSUANCE OF WINE LICENSE TO IRENE Y.L. SONG DBA: ORIENTAL HOUSE RESTAURANT AT 5865 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 9:30 p.m. Mr. Brunsell, City Clerk, stated the report from the Police Department indicates there is no evidence of any police problems and the Police Department could see no reason for denial of this license. No persons in the audience spoke for or against the issuance of•this license. MOTION by Councilman Moses to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 9:32 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE OF ON -SALE_ NON -INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE TO PATRICK G. KOLB DEBA: PAKOLLY'S PIZZA AT 7893 EAST RIVER ROAD: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upona voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously, and the public hearing opendd at 9:32 p.m. Mr. Brunsell, City Clerk, stated the Police Department made an investigation of the premises and finds no reason for denial of the license. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated, in all the years they were talking about this property and development of it., he never heard any reference for a pizza parlor with a beer license. He stated he had no objection to the applicant regarding the beer license, but it'does disturb him to have that business at this particular location.. No person in the audience spoke for or against the issuance of this license.- J6 icense: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 9:34 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ON FINAL PLAT. P S #79-01, JAY PARK ADDITION BY ALVIN A. NITSCHKE 6661, 71, 81 MAIN STREET N.E.) MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nde declared the motion.carried unanimously. Mr.Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated this hearing is to review the final plat for property at 6661, 6671, and 6681 Main Street. He stated the Planning RM PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MAY 14, 1979 PAGE 2 Commission held a public hearing and has recommended approval of the plat. Mr. Sobiech stated, originally, the property developed into a multiple rental situation and Mr, Nitschke intends to plat the property into lots which would then be owner -occupied. Mr. Sobiech stated, since this was an existing situation, and there was nothing in the code regulating existing structures, the staff likened this to a townhouse development and proceeded on that basis. He stated, in this case, the plan has been constructed and now exists and the City would have to concern themselves with the platting of the property. Mr. Sobiech stated the original 'recommendation of the Planning Commission rias for approval based on the platting of the property. He stated what is shown on the map is actually,three lots in one block. Each lot would consist :of a portion of the structure, a garage and then the adjacent properties. Mr. Sobiech stated at the Planning Commission meeting on April 18, 1979, there was discussion on the townhouse proposal. In light of that discussion, the Planning Commission recommended that the property under the existing dwellings become private ownership and the rest of the land become ground held in common. Mr. Sobeich stated the staff and City Attorney feel this could be handled either way because once it is platted, the legal description would be for structures and certain properties. He stated, either way, there would have to be by-laws, filed as covenants, that would take into account certain items whether it be from maintaining the structures, down to the utilities. He stated an association woul&be formed consisting of owners of the property, but initially it would probably be set up by the present owner at this time, Mr. Nitschke. Councilman Fitzpatrick questioned once the by-laws were set up, what about control as far as the City was concerned. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney stated, generally speaking, by-laws can be altered by a certain percentage of the property owners. He stated where you are dealing with only three property owners, you would probably want to make it unanimous for any changes. He felt, in this particular situation, the Council should make the approval contingent upon approval of the initial by-laws. Mr. Herrick felt this may bean area that the City could be dealing with that may happen frequently, where owners of rental properties decide to "condominiu,mize". He felt the City may be faced with similar requests in the future from people who own larger units and stated be discussed this with staff to some extent, and they felt they had adequate ordinances to cover the situation. Councilman Schneider asked if this was the same process they would be considering for condominiums. Mr. Herrick stated, at this stage, the City doesn't have any experience with such requests, and unless some new legislation is adopted he would think it would be the same process as for condominiums. Mr. Sobiech stated this entire area of revising existing rental property is being reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Sobiech felt, in his own mind, that if there was an apartment situation with stories of dwelling units, he didn't believe it would satisfy the requirements of the townhouse or condominium development, as compared with units in a townhouse design where lots and blocks can be simply described, and common property can be seen. He felt, with apartments you have a difficult time identifying what is common property. Mr. Herrick stated he would concur with Mr. Sobiech's comments and that with an apartment, you have a different style building. r i PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MAY 14,1979 PAGE 3 Councilman Fitzpatrick stated his concern is that whatever interest the City has in this, it seems would be addressed in the by-laws which would be far from stable because they could be changed. Mayor Nee stated �he felt a little uneasy with it and perhaps a precedent would be set and was not sure it has been thought through enough. He felt part of the premise of setting up a townhouse development area was to have a fairly large development area to insure professional maintenance. I Mr. Sobiech stated one reason staff felt confortable going this way is that there was some criteria in the code for guidance. He stated the only item in question was the area, and he felt this requirement was originally set up to allow perhaps for recreational uses. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, questioned if there were other situations in the City where a similar approach could be taken. Mr. Sobiech indicated there were several and pointed out some of them. Mr. Sobiech stated another way to approach this would be to rezone to single family and then have "0" lot lines. Mr. Sobiech felt with the present R-3 zoning, townhouses are allowed and the only criteria you have to satisfy is the square footage per unit, which is the case here. Mr. Qureshi stated there are certain restrictions the Council can impose which they feel are necessary to maintain the integrity of the development. Mr. Herrick stated they could possibly obtain additional information through the League or the City of Minneapolis, as they have had a lot of conversions. He stated one point he would like to make is that covenants, as such, are not enforceable by the City, but the property owner can enforce them. Mr. Qureshi stated, ds far at the townhouse development, the Council could impose restrictions that could be part of the approval. Mr. Herrick stated this could be done, however, the question is if it would be binding on the property owners. Mr. Sobiech stated in the Innsbruck North development, the City had an agreement that was binding cin the original developer and the City would have the right to enforce the developmental agreement. Councilman Schneider felt, however, with the Innsbruck North development, each of these units were paying something into a• central fund to maintain the land and exterior. Mr. Nitschke stated he fails to understand why one situation would work and one wouldn't, just because this is a smaller number of units. He stated, as far as maintenance of the property, he felt the City would have as much control through the City codes and ordinances as they do with single family residences. He felt, however, if you had an absentee landlord possibly the property wouldn't be maintained as well and thinks, in the majority of the situations, -that certainly would be the case. Mr. Nitschke stated he didn't feel uncomfortable with any of the by-laws he has seen. Is was his understanding that the covenents are binding to all the owners. Mr Nitschke stated the units are all finished separately now and felt they would remain the same. He stated he didn't see any problems with anything that has been discussed. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated one of the points that has come up is comparison to the single family residences and felt it was a matter of impact. He stated it is true if you buy a home in the middle of a block, you are impacted by your neighbors, but certainly not anything of this degree. He felt they should keep in mind that they also have to think in terms of other requests of similar nature. -and aren't talking particularly about Mr. Nitschke and his situation. Mayor Nee stated he would feel more comfortable if they had some guidelines. TT 149 150 PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MAY 14, 1979 PAGE 4 Mr. Sobiech felt, with the Planning Commission's review, they may be coming up with some recommendations. Councilwoman Moses stated she would compare the two where this would be separate owners, each taking care of their property, as compared to a townhouse development, where the upkeep is taken care of. Councilman Schneider stated he was more concerned about a precedent being set, rather than just this particular piece of property. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, suggested obtaining additional information and to develop some type of guidelines. - MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 10:12 p.m. Mayor Nee stated that staff will bring this item back when they have additional information and will advise Mr. Nitschke when it comes back to the Council. PUBLIC HEARING ON STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ST. 1978-1, ST. 1978-02 MSAS AND ST. 1978-4 (CSAR): MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to waive reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote , all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the meeting carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 10:13 p.m. Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated this is a hearing on the final assessment cost for the 1978 street improvement projects. Mr. Herrmann, City Assessor, explained how the assessment is figured for corner lots. Mr. Sobiech stated, in the Hyde Park area, improvements were made on 2nd Street, 2-12 Street, 3rd Street, 57th Place, 58th Avenue, 59th Avenue, 60th Avenue, several alleys in Blocks 9 and 22 of the Hyde Park Addition and Main Street from 58th to 61st and 57th Avenue from Main Street to 3rd Street. Mr. Sobiech stated the front foot assessment for the street and concrete curb and gutter was $17.04 a front foot and the side yard assessment was $5.37 per foot. The front foot rate for the alleys was $3.57. Nine sewer services were put in the Hyde Park Addition at a cost of $276.47 per service. Main Street from 58th to 61st was put in under ST. 1978-2 with commercial property paying the full cost per foot for bituminous street surfacing and concrete curb and gutter and residential and park property being assessed at normal residential rates, with the balance being paid from State Aid Funds. The front foot assessment for industrial and commercial property is $22.47 and for residential property, $17.04. Mr. Sobi-ech stated 57th Avenue from Main to 3rd Streets was assessed for curbing only on the North side of the street under improvement project ST. 1978-4. The front foot assessment rate for commercial property is $9.59 a front foot and for residential property with double frontage, $2.40 a'front foot. In the Alice Wall Addition on 63rd Avenue and 7th Street, water and sewer services were put in cinder project ST. 1978-1 at a cost -of $257.94 for the water and $242.00 for the sewer per service. Mr. Sobiech stated with the improvement on 53rd Avenue, East of Central between Menard's and Skywood Mall, the front foot assessment was $27.71. He stated this improvement was needed to improve the traffic flow and signali- zation. On the University Avenue West Service Road, which generally abuts the House of Lords property, the frontfoot assessment rate was $45.74. Mr. Sobiech stated water and sewer lines and water services were put in East Ranch Estates Third Addition on Main Street, as petitioned by the property owners, at a cost of $4,019.98 for the water line of Lot 4 and a cost of $3,511.28 per lot for the sewer line. Cost of the two water services was $323.22 per service. _4 .'.. 163 REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 21, 1979 PAGE 3 SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, •SR #79-03, THE LIFT -SKI & BIKE, INC. BY SCOTT HOLMER, 6319 HIGHWAY 65: Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated, since this special use permit is contingent on the rezoning, he suggested this item be tabled until the rezoning is considered. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to table this item until the public hearing on the rezoning request. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ALLEY VACATION REQUEST, SAV #79-01, BY KATHRYN GERARD, BLOCK 3, PLYMOUTH DDITION, BETWEEN 48TH AND 49TH AVENUE, AND 2ND AND 22 STREET N.E.: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to set the public hearing in this alley vacation request for June 18,1979. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. v APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 24,1979 - TABLED VARIANCE REQUEST BY /\1 ALVIN A. NITSCHKE, 6661-6671-6681 MAIN STREET: Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated this variance request is related to the platting item which the Council considered on May 14,1979. He stated the Council directed staff to prepare some guidelines on this item and, therefore, suggested the variance be -tabled until staff has a recommendation regarding the platting request. MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to table this item for consideration at the: time of the final plat. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1979. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING CATV COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 1979: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the minutes of the Cable Television Commission Meeting of April 25, 1979. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,.Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF REAPPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT OF BROTTLUND 1ST ADDITION (EAST RIVER ROAD SOUTH OF MISSISSIPPI Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated the Council did approve the final plat of Brottlund's 1st Addition on January 23,1978, but due to certain legal entanglements with the property, the plat hasn't been recorded to date. Therefore, it is requested Council reapprove the plat since the time period for recording it has run out. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatridk to reapprove the plat for Brottlund's 1st Addition with the same stipulations when originally approved. Seconded by Councilman Barnette, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF ENCROACHMENT INTO DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON LOT 3, BLOCK 2, INNSBRUCK NORTH ADDITION: Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated this is a request from Mr. R.M. Swanson for a seven foot encroachment into the drainage easement on Lot 3, Block 2, Innsbruck North Addition. Mr. Sobiech stated it should be pointed out that the City does have a total of 80 feet for drainage easement, generally in this location, along the rear lot lines. 164 REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 21, 1979 PAGE 4 Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated staff felt this was a minimal type of encroachment and would not impact the drainage flow. Mr. Sobiech stated the main consideration is that the fill doesn't block drainage into the main pipe, and to follow the policy to insure maintenance of the drainage system. Mr. Swanson stated at the corner of his lot there is an inlet pipe and the basement elevation would be higher than the pipe. Mr. Sobiech felt, if the house was properly constructed in the lot, there shouldn't be any problems with drainage. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to grant permission to encroach seven feet into the drainage easement on Lot 3, Block 2, Innsbruck North, as requested by Mr. Swanson, for purposes of constructing a single family residence. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF LARGE FAMILY HOME OWNERSHIP PROGRAM: Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated several months ago, Council discussed the bonus money that was available from HUD pertaining to implementation of the large family ownership program. He stated the City made application for this money and the program would consist of acquisition of substandard homes, relocation of the people to other homes and appropriate write down of various costs for a new structure. He stated the new homes would be available to applicants that meet the criteria that is set up. Mr. Sobiech stated a preliminary application was submitted to HUD and in this particular case, HUD felt prelimimary application was all that was necessary, although there was some problem with the application since it didn't include the process involved. Once the process was discussed, HUD felt comfortable with the application and will issue the money once the Council requests they released the funds. Mr. Sobiech reviewed the qualifications for participation in this program, as outlined in a letter to Mary Youle of the HUD Office from Jerry Boardman, City Planner. Mr. Sobiech stated the City would receive about $130-$132,000 which would allow for approximately three or four acquisitions and relocation of existing families. Councilman Fitzpatrick asked, in these acquisitions, if there would be a new house on each of the acquired properties. Mr. Sobiech stated there would be where it is possible, however, they have one parcel in mind that is 120 feet and this may involve splitting it into two 60 foot building sites. Mayor Nee asked if the City or Housing Authority would have control over the building plans. Mr. Sobiech stated it would be the Housing Authority, but the home would still have to meet the code and ordinances. Mayor Nee asked if they could assure the neighbors that this wouldn't be a "bare minimum " home. Mr. Sobiech felt more money could go into, the construction of the home since the builder doesn't have to pay the full cost of the land. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated, presumably, those neighbors, where a new home would be built, are now living next to a substandard house and the new home would be an improvement. Councilman Schneider questioned the procedure if they had a situation of a substandard home and the people didn't want to move. Mr. Sobiech stated once the determination is made, he felt if is incumbent on the City to proceed, hopefully without condemnation, as he felt, if they didn't, there might be a liability problem in that the City recognizes it as substandard, but doesn't proceed. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, asked where the money is coming from to build the new homes.Mr. Sobiech stated this would come from the lending institutions. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 6, 1979 PAGE 19 Mr. Tre nfels stated that there doesn't s=the l ocusing idea in the docume t and it's very difficult to saridley is going based on thi document. Also' the organizent is difficult to follow. UPON A VOICE VOTE, VOTING AYE., CHAIRMATHE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. CONTINUED: PROPOSED CHANG 0 WAPTER 205. ZONING: MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seco by Mr. ngenfeld, to continue the discussion on the proposed.changes to pier 205. Zoni UPON A VOICE VOTE, OTIIdG AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. OTHER BUSI_WSS: Mr. Harris stated he had received a letter from Metro Council on LawCo pplication regardi,4g Parks and Open Spaces and lake access guidelines. He gave the tter to MW,/Franzen to give to Mr. Boardman. Mr. Harris stated he had a direction from City Council regarding rental conversion l( property and in particular the Nitscheke case. Mr. Nitscheke requested permission 6 to split a tri-plex into a townhouse. The memo stated that the Jay Park Plat - ` Nitscheke - was tabled indefinitely., and Staff was directed to refer this item to Planning for discussion of the following items: 1) the various types of conversiou and whether they should be allowed at all, 2) a zero.- lot line for single family homes and 3} review of the existing townhouse ordinance for possible modification. It was the feeling of Council that a comprehensive look should be taken in regards to conversion and their impact on policy statement development. A policy statement or appropriate ordinances could be drafted where needed. Mr. Harris stated there was another memo from Mr. Boardman to Mr. Sobiech on how these rental conversions were handled and apparently they called several other suburbs. Mr. Franzen stated he had called the suburbs listed and asked them how they were handling conversion of duplexes and multiple dwellings to individual ownerships and also the conversion of apartments to townhouses. Some of the suburbs were allowing apartments to be converted into townhouses or condominiums. A lot of them said they weren't getting involved with that and it was up to the owner of the apartment. -He felt the problem with converting apartments to townhouses or condominiums was that a certain amount of rental property was necessary and they were forcing a lot of people to find dwelling units elsewhere. The City has_a significant shortage in multiple dwelling units and if they go in that direction, it could be a problem. A lot of communities were getting complaints from older people who said they were getting kicked out of their apartments and wanted the cities to do something about it. Out East they were running into the problem of . a shortage of multiple dwelling units. Regarding duplexes to individual ownership, some of the communities stated they weren't allowing this because of _lot size requirements. Some communities in St. Paul: did not have a problem because they have a very small lot size requirement. The question of individual ownership PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 6, 1979 - PAGE 20 -- raises the problem of maintenance. Some communities stated that as far as duplexes go they would split it down the middle with each person responsible for the maintenance of their side and they would have separate services. Regarding multiple units, some communities require an association to maintain the exterior of the building, and the landscaping, etc. Mr. Harris noted they had recommended to Council that an association be formed to take care of the exterior maintenance. Mr. Franzen referred to the 40 foot lots in the City that were presently considered unbuildable and by allowing splits, they were allowing special consideration to lower the lot size of single family structures. He stated it would be a problem if the unit burned down and they would have 40 foot lots. Mr. Harris stated that was their reasoning for the association and for the land to be divided in common. Mr. Franzen stated they would also have to consider this as an opportunity for people to buy and put their money into a home that will go up in value as opposed to renting. Ms. Schnabel stated there was also the benefit of a tax write-off in owning their own home. Ms. Hughes stated that another reason for allowing this type of thing was that it was a way to lower the cost of home ownership. Mr. Harris suggested they continue this item and put it back on the agenda. Ms. Schnabel suggested they review the minutes from the previous Planning Commission meetings where this was discussed and see how closely those discussions reflect the questions from Council. Mr. Harris agreed and suggested they think about it. He asked Mr. Franzen to have this put back on the agenda and include in the agenda copies of Planning's discussion on this item and also a copy of the memo "Info. from Council" dated June 4, 1979. Also, a copy of the Council's minutes from their meeting of June 4, 1979 pertaining to the Jay Park - Nitscheke Plat, should be included. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Franzen who was handling the interviewing of the Senior Citizen's High -Rise? He had heard there might be some preference being given and would like to know the criteria used in the selection process. He had received several inquires regarding this. Mr. Franzen stated he would look into it. 8431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDiLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE ( 812)571-3450 Apnie 13, 1979 AP -vin N.c.6 chlze ��/ L/ R. f 6661 Main Street N. . F'n i.dZey, MN 55432 Re: State 1=anm og6.iee .in garage Dean Mn. Nitschke: Upon doing neseanch and gathen.i.ng data 4on your vaAi.ance request, it ways noted that you ane pnesentty using pant o6 your garage bon an .inzuxance o66.ice. Thiz doe.6 eonstC, c ea zoning code vdotat,i.on; thene- bone, the u6e o6 pant o6 the garage ass an o 6 � ice must d,uscontinue. you woutd not be .in v.iotat-i.on .ib you were to move the o b b.iee o penat ion .into the dwelt ing unit. We w.i tt expect that by May 15, you wilt have eeaa ed to use the garage as an obb.ice. Tb you have any quutiows witA nebenence to t Us matteA, pZeaze been bnee to Batt me at 571-3450. DCltp your eoopetcation in t6w6 matter wilt be appreciated. S.incexety, VaA&eZ CZaxk Chieb Suit -ding C b b ic,i,aZ a 173 THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF J E 4, 1979 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was./calledtder at 7:40 p.m. by Mayor Nee.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:Mayor Nee led the Council and audience in the Pledgee to the Flag. PLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor.Nee, Councilman B nette, Councilman Schneider, Councilwoman Moses an Councilman Fitzpatrick MBERS ABSENT: None •.• 1"Ia I.VILJ. BOAR OF REVIEW MEETING, MAY 14 1979: MOTION by Co ncilman Fitzpatrick approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Councilman arnette. UpoY4A45 ice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion car 'ed unanimous PUBLIC HEARI •fiEETING, 1979. MOTION by Councilman chn der to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatr Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion car 'ed unanimously. MOTION by Council n Schneider to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded ( j by Councilwoman ses. Upon a ice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared !j the motion carr ed unanimously. i CUNTINUEZ BOARD OF REVIEW, MAY X , 1979. MOTION by ouncilman Fitzpatrick to app ve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Counci woman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the moti n carried unanimously. GULAR MEETING, MAY 21, 1979: /Nee N by Councilwoman Moses to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded uncilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all vot aye, Mayor Nee red the mation carried unanimously. ON OF AGENDA: Nee requested the addition of the following item: "Cons eration Concept Approval to Establishment of a Motor Bike Recreate n Area". by Councilman Fitzpatrick to adopt the agenda with the above ddition. ed by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor clared the motion carried unanimously. '( OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: I} There was no response from the audience under this item of business. OLD BUSINESS: RECEIVING REPORT REGARDING CONVERTING EXISTING TOWNHOUSES INTO CONDOMINIUMS 1/ AND 1 ,XI CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT AND VARIANCE, JAY PARK ALVIN NITSCHKE, 6661-71-81 MAIN STREET TARIFn 5/91/79 174 REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 4, 1979 PAGE 2 MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to receive the report regarding converting existing townhouses into condominiums, as submitted by Jerry Boardman, City Planner. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. .Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated, in considering approval of the final plat, there should be discussion on the approach the Council can take, either town- house ownership or condominiums. Mayor Nee questioned where the City has the authority to convert existing rental units into owner occupied units. Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated, to specifically state that the City can convert existing units into owner occupied units, there is nothing in the statutes; however, certain platting and zoning codes permit development of a certain nature. He stated, in this case, staff enlikened it to a townhouse development because it involves a certain area, certain numbers of units and density, and certian criteria that could be established or waived to consider this as a townhouse development. He stated this is the reason it is being processed through for platting and the variance requested to satisfy the townhouse development. Mayor Nee questioned if there was something in the Platting Ordinance which states they could draw a plat like this one proposed. Mr. Sobiech stated the Platting Ordinance allows a parcel of property to be subdivided. Mayor Nee also questioned -if a plat could be developed that contains about 30 foot wide lots. Mr. Sobiech stated the Zoning Code does not permit platting into 30 foot lots. That.is why, if there is a positive consideration of this item, it would be platted into townhouse property in order to strictly conincide with townhouse plats that have been developed previously. He stated there would be blocks and lots and the common property would be maintained by an association that would have to be established. Mayor Nee felt, as the ordinance stands now, this is prohibited. He stated the Zoning Ordinance provides i.f there is no way to provide a reasonable use of the land, then there could be a variance; however, in this case, the site is already established. Councilman Fitzpatrick questioned, if in the future, persons could build double bungalows on a single lot and then proceed to split them. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, indicated this could be done. Mr. Sobiech stated the report received by the Council indicates this has been done in the conver- sions that have taken place. Mr. Sobiech stated there was an article in the Wall Street Journal which indicates a rental problem with the conversion of rental units that has taken place in the Eastern part of the country because, in some cases, you are actually displacing people who cannot afford the homeowner occupied price. He felt this would be the most serious problem in conversions. Mayor Nee stated, it seemed to him, in order to approve this, the ordinance would have to be amended as there is no reason for the variance. Mr. Sobiech stated, in this case, ft is the economical or financial hardship that is involved. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, felt the Council should consider whether or not they wish to allow this type of development and, if so, the proper mechanism should be developed. He stated the staff recommendation is that it be allowed on a limited basis, under the townhouse development requirements. He pointed out that the City.has about 70 units out of 2900 rental units which may fall into this category. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated what bothers him is simply that he can foresee that the Council would be setting precedent for setting up substandard lots. He pointed out that you would not only be creating them with the existing double bungalows, but would circumvent the present ordinance. V. 175 REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 4, 1979 PAGE 3 Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated, aside from the policy of whether or not the Council wishes to have additional rental units or not, the City Code states, in order to have a double bungalow, the lots must be a certain size. He pointed out there would be exactly that much space on the lot whether you have one family owning and one renting or both of them owning their unit. Councilman Fitzpdtrick stated he agreed it doesn't change the density, but only one person was responsible for the building. He questioned why, if it wasn't necessary, it was provided for in the first place. Mr. Herrick felt it was done in order to provide a variety of housing and that it is cheaper to construct a double bungalow on one lot then two single family houses on two lots. He felt the concept of conversions with dual owner- ships is a rather new one and was not thought about when the Zoning Code was adopted. Councilman Schneider felt this concept might be a way for someone to obtain two building sites for sale out of what would normally be a single site, thereby circumventing the ordinance. Mayor Nee felt the entire question had to be reviewed whether or not they wanted "0" lot lines. Mr. Herrick felt the Council should determine if they want to allow existing units of this type to convert from rental to ownership and also if they want to permit this concept for new construction. He pointed out, if this was to be allowed, the mechanics of it could be done under the code, as it stands now, or with some simple modifications. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated he was not prepared to allow building on 30 foot lots. Mr. Qureshi stated it is a question on whether the Council wishes to permit j more rental units or more private ownership. Mayor Nee questioned whether one person or several would be responsible for the structure. Mr. Sobiech stated there would be a developmental agreement which would indicate that the by-laws would be reviewed and that would be enforceable because it is an agreement between the City and developer. Mr. Herrick stated a development agreement would be enforceable, but probably only until the development is complete, then it is up to the individual property owners to operate it, unless it violates some of the City's other codes. Councilman Barnette pointed out that these units only have one water meter and if one person doesn't pay their bill, how is this handled. Mr. Sobiech stated it would be covered in the by-laws. Mr. Herrick stated a lien could also be placed against all the property, if it is a service that is being used by all. Councilwoman Moses stated they have this concept in Brooklyn Park and the residents pay an additional sum, in addition to their rent, to cover the costs for utilities. Mayor Nee questioned, under this concept, if convenants could be put in, such l asa co-op. Mr. Herrick felt this might be a possibility. Mr. Sobiech stated the Planning Commission is in the process of reviewing the Zoning Code and the Metropolitan Council will be studying this concept in the next several months. 176 REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 4, 1979 PAGE 4 Councilwoman Moses stated she personally felt this is a trend that is happening now and would like to pass this item, rather than table it. Mr. Herrick stated that some communities have cluster developments and felt perhaps this might be quite similar where units are very close together and there is a lot of open space that is commonly owned by the entire group. Councilman Schneider felt there were several issues that this particular plat doesn't raise. He indicated he was concerned with the general maintenance and also that possibly a developer may find some way of using this to totally undo some areas by not following the intent of the Zoning Code. Councilwoman Moses suggested looking at this concept in terms of existing structures and at new construction in another light. Mayor Nee stated he would feel much better if this was in the Zoning Code as he has a problem of how to rationalize a variance, as far as hardship, since it is now an existing use. Mr. Herrick felt that if the Council has any inclinations to authorize this type of conversion, they could prepare a procedure to allow it, however, if they felt it was something they didn't want, there wouldn't be any reason for spending time in establishing a procedure. MOTION by Councilman Barnette to table this item indefinitely for further infor- mation and refer this concept to the Planning Commission for their processing and policy recommendation pertaining to the conversion concept. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion.carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: VING NG BY W 23 MOTION by ouncilman Schneider to set the publi hearing on this rezoning request for ly 16, 1979. Seconded by Counc' man Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, a voting aye, Mayor Nee decla d the motion carried unanimously. FOR -S�.AL USE PER -MIT , SP79-04, BY W TCDA Mr. Sobiech, Public Works irector stated a special use permit is required due to the flood plain zom of he property and, in conjunction with the special use permit, variances a requested for waiver of the setbacks. Mr. Sobiech stated the entiy6 lot s not in the flood plain, but only the area along the front of the pr9gerty. H ,stated, in this particular case, they would be raising the firsY floor with Klings and then raising the lot to insure no impact or minimal impagot on adjacent pr erties. Mr. Sobiech stated ffie Planning Commissioncommended approval of this special use permi at their May 23 meeting. Mr. Sobiechst ed he was confident that this drat age plan, as set up, will handle the dr nage. He stated there was discussio at the Planning Commission meeting.abo the amount of slope on the swale sectionnbut he felt it was adequate. Mr. Sobi ch stated the petitioner did propose a certain dime n on house for the pr erty, however, it was recommended that the house be re igned to el mi to the need for the side yard variance, which was denied b the Appeals Comm ssion. He stated the Appeals Commission did, however, approve variance for red ction in the area of the lot. . Sobiech felt this was a very good plan as compared with others in the Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated as far -as the drainage, the standard rule in Minnesota is that an owner may 'develop his property in a reasonable fashion, as long as it doesn't unnecessarily burden the neighbor. He stated it is a very general rule and depends on a situation -by -situation application.