The URL can be used to link to this page

PS79-01 JAY PARK ADDITION • CITY OF FRIDLEY MINNESOTA 3 PLANNING AND ZONING FORM NUMBER P � 1/7�–O l TYPE OF REQUEST APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Z,�1�4-,- :� �w Rezoning Address 4, �� Xt �. lir Special Use Permit Telephone Number ' 7 7 $ ` Approval of Premin- inary & Final Plat PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURe5& Streets or Alley N � Vacations Address 6,66/ � 144�-Tz Other Telephone Number Fee�r�• Receipt No,4 Street Location of Property 4(061 —$t J*^1 N Legal Description of Property �ibtq ARK W;Olrt Present Zoning Classification 'Okl� Existing Use of Property Acreage of Property + ks #4j Describe briefly the proposed zoning classification or type of use and improvement proposed Has the present applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot sRlit or variance or special use permit on the subject site or part of it? yes A- no. What was requested and when? The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all residents and owners of property within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) must be attached to this application. (b) This application must be signed by all owners of the property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. (c) Responsibility for any defect in the proceedings resulting from the failure to list the names and addresses of all residents and s property owners of property in question, belongs to the undersigned. A sketch of proposed property and structure must be drawn and attached, showing the t following: 1. North Direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on the lot. 3. Dimensions of property, proposed structure, and front and side setbacks. 4. Street Names. S. Location and use of adjacent existing buildings (within 300 feet) . ' The undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this application are true and correct. / DATE ;�– � G � � SIGNATi1RE (APPLICANT) y t Date Filed Date of Hearing Planning Commission Approved City Council Approved (dates) Denied (dates) Denied Ir ! POLICY STATEMENT ON PARK FEES FOR 'LAND SUBDIVISIONS • Thep ark fee for residential subdivisions is $300.00 per lot to be paid at the time the City approves the final plat (raw land value of $10,500.00/acre) . The park fee on commercial and industrial subdivisions platted after February 24, 1977 (Ordinance No. 633) is at the rate of 1.38 cents ($0.0138) Per sq • uare foot to be collected on each lot separately when building permits are issued (raw land value of $20,000/acre) . Typical Agreement to be Executed at Time of Plat Approval for Commercial or Industrial Zoned Property: i I ' I PARK FEE AGREEMENT The undersigned understands that according to the City Platting d Ordinance the following land dedication or cash payment equiva- lent, is required to plat commercial or industrial zoned property: 3% of the gross area of the property to be subdivided. It is further understood that the land dedication or cash payment equivalent is at the discretion of the City. It is agreed that a cash payment at the rate of per square foot will be paid separately for each lot when the building permits are issued for the following described plat: , The undersigned further agrees to notify all future property owners or assigns of the cash payment requirement. f Signature (Property Owner) i i 2/77 Revised: 6/2/77 -� � EGAN . , FIELD & NOWAK _ a SURVEYORS • 2825 HARRIET AVE. E F MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA (� ES1 At. Itlp ^ Z N F CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY f For Alvin Nitschke 13 5.78 _ - - � t 73.45 Lij Z8.33 A-�Y. QI o ScA Z Z �T 3�33 { ` - /35.9/ ,t � line of Lof 3Z ��' Description : Outlot 1, RICE CREEK PLAZA SOUTH ADDITION,, That part of Lot 32, Block 4, Lowell Addition to Fridley Park lying North of the Sou +h 2.7 feet thereofp including the West J of vacated alley adjoining and including that part of vacated St . Croix Street adjoining, lying South of Outlot 1, RI :E CREEK PLAZA SOUTH ADDITION . We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land above described and of the location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Dated this 24th day of May 1971 • EGAN, FIELD b NOWAK Located buildingthis 13th day of October, 1972. rveyor, r F i to No 5663 Book No, 1963-24 by 1972 - 56 (Official Publication) PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that there / will be a Public Hearing of the Plan- ning Commission of the City of Frid- ley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, :March 21, 1979 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M.for the purpose of: Consideration of a Proposed Preliminary Plat,P.S.No.79-01, Jay Park Addition, by Alvin A. Nitschke:being a replat of Outlot 1,Rice Creek Plaza South Addi- tion;that part of Lot 32,Block 4, Lowell Addition to Fridley Park, lying North of the South 2.7 feet thereof, including the West Half of vacated alley adjoining and in- cluding that part of vacated St. Croix Street adjoining, lying South of Outlot 1, Rice Creek Plaza South Addition,to allow a three unit townhouse develop- ment to be sold separately,lying in the North Half of Section 15, T-30,R-24,City of Fridley,County of Anoka,Minnesota. Generally located on the East side of Main Street in the 6600 Block. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. RICHARD H.HARRIS Chairman Planning Commission (March 7&14,19791—SB8 PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONERN: Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, March 21 , 1979 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of: Consideration of a Proposed Preliminary Plat, P.S. #79-01 , Jay Park Addition, by Alvin A. Nitschke: being a replat of Outlot 1 , Rice Creek Plaza South Addition; that part of Lot 32, Block 4, Lowell Addition to Fridley Park, lying North of the South 2.7 feet thereof, including the West Half of vacated alley adjoining and including that part of vacated St. Croix Street adjoining, lying South of Outlot 1 , Rice Creek Plaza South Addition, to allow a three unit townhouse development to be sold separately, lying in the North Half of Section 15, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. Generally located on the East side of Main - Street in the 6600 Block. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. RICHARD H. HARRIS CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: March 7, 1979 March 14, 1979 —� � �., �/�/'`lA ��,;. 4. `.254_.1"' �,•' 3=, •1, ••v 1 ! �'• !i q• 281 �., Z2AO2'11 A [v+ �. ,`I, i \_� r t q 'ti7M:�� s_o.l� yi•il'/'��/ ,�� l .\\tiaE��'� 41 Lul `i bat''t/�•V �y� 1 �jiJnO IJ/ 1S? •.i ,00 •-}®Y �`•7V .. \•►\\\I71•„'..i L s �yc!'L,.}7_ �f�'-�"y� `('j �• to .•�i;,7�1�75 ti�1 �� 1 •\ Ss S,,•- a! V V4�' -'JJ ! "�1 '�O � �4�1� yt.�9 t� 3•v--�'� m `• -/O.a.=, `� _ _-_.:_�. • -. •' t,�� 'i -'4''j..4 /�y't'\ V� ' O 'q r A)/ •:Q � 70�_ .-- .ti•'. 3� ' J/,ra✓ro `<j%M! �_ /..a-`•- ..SB4y '''6 /''l �"�r+.� . c \ Y•� + `� ,S i � .at%< .'/• VA 171 tat is 191 ,, M '•` ;�bo:�e ;.� `�'� ;� ,, , 71 h yo. I• „n e, ;a- �'Y •� \�D, �\ 1S.d _, writ !o-�.._ )r;1.0 -f - ,•.. o +r s.. '�,�.;i�o• �� J..y ft'j,� �q��`�� CS 170 01;1$0 oi.�19 '�, ? y ,tea��p.° '✓1a/� ~v\ ,r �7!:c� . a 'FE¢ --"__ Iw �o. Tv- F� Z `'.fit 6• �r�'..�o ��., �•�ri' � ----Jis-rir � � Be�.�-nor•_ I el.. ;"� �,q;;;>:+ a -r,30 •',� n_. d ��}�� t 3 � t� I `� _j � � =•._a _ �•�a�:�t,, �+:-'>='s;�,,— " �,,`�j� �"�•�1 a• i kit ±" _ Xr __ o x,73• - � .,—{–J...f�, os r o. - �L ; S , M `,. � � '.• 3/.�.� fi°�' 6 7z r1 ' •-A, Stl-Jr w< , - o w'•' S eo b z� o ee .. ti,i.t •^ S�� \�r�. (0,721c) ll� `' 3e.z --- v � - �(°7 J O v � �o,• r =*tY �� - {� a 9 . , 670 ;,,. f T'9iii9f L+ v!w'"JI.,.r V�sY SG •?.fA _ .y « 6 k E A O L-/ n ` Se r' r /oa+ k'r v ,r .•!r Jr,I,.• �s,a3,"_- �f �j r. ,{' /_•s 6�o e k.r`n a.0 s r ', '+� w 4 �,, /y I/(lO 'I • ( '7•d.3-w+ro i��__��e ter--- u", � 7 6�•':'-�'O�V }'� / J' 220 c� 1 - e- -"f, J.tl f�'w' ✓ o C1 00 +�:•J d - li, b a. A 0 6 c fi :; . i 200 s :230 t 246 ' C / P. ,� (oS� 6530 •J�•,` � 6 °• �.o (�<roa O YZ I Wim_ oa' w 4w o ._.1fi. �'�---•a,9 E W5 ;O tr _ � .�_ __ -.�; 2 r !� !^ ;ley, °^o a 65a 16 3� _M t. $ •h't�.;•,<"'� "`. �''� ,u!' be ,�':'• 2a1 r..,..:o E is P A01 ��Y - • _-�.__.. �.._�>,_: . . .__�_-,,,•,r,'�'�It.�s..y��.al C4R MER M �--•-� E 11c. 14 ..-. � ._.."... ".,.1-ldn'A fir,/1• Planning Commission March 6, 1979 City Council `d MAILING LIST 30z' P. S #79-01 Jay Park Addition Alvin A. Nitschke Alvin A. Nitschke Robert Fisher 6661 Main Street N.E. 6710 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Design-Ware Jeanette M. Ulinen C/O Raymond J. Brink 6700 2nd Street N.E. 6536 Main Street N.E. Fridley, IMN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 John D. Christenson Lynn D. Hansen 6570 2nd Street N.E. 210 67th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Stephen Matson Wayne F. Peterson 6560 2nd Street N.E. 200 67th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Kevin B. Rohan Sidney R. Dahl 6705 Main Street N.E. 6551 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Richard Brisbois Darold D. Johnson 6711 Main Street N. E. 6541 Second Street N.E. Fridley, PIN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Delbert Christen Paul M. Johnson 6721 Main Street N.E. 6525 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 John P. Hreha William H. Gates 6731 Main Street N.E. 6701 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Gordon J. Aspenson Andrew Pappas 6500 2nd Street N.E. 6711 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Gerald Toss Raymond R. Beyer 6501 Main Street N.E. 6721 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Gary R. Marlow Harry Case 6525 Main Street N.E. 6730 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 The American Oil Co. Wauen Rollins 6490 University Avenue N. E. 6720 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 SUBJECT i lyi CITY OF FRIJL GYM MINNESOTA r��:OMNIVS. S!07M APPLICATION Ueporlm nt/Ury s[om 'Number liev ru4o l.ppruved Uy to - i" (-iL G/ ^.DURESS---_�• FILE BATF .....__ CC 1%APLETE REVIEW CHECKLiS'T ),�7Cj_ UC12 - r RE-TURN TO PL..ANr+Jiivrz, � nr,E DATE COMMENTS WJ .�w �1 • ��l I • i a: -v �_...� ..� .w,z, tilg.d� '*!C3✓�,Y `.7 1S I ,vole: f xidq Townha�x locolio12 s were lakeri P��n C ry, f elal£'Noyva C r°r//l��E}/c o G'araP , aice /ocallores fakfi ;n C)M oWners a/lA lt-cfs ulrawir, . J � • I e PANADDITION Citi o� Fridley gno�a Coon}� cc ` kor{h 1117 o/Ouflof 1, mice Creek Plap saufh/�c�clifior�. I Draino�e 'Uf;l� lmemea1 Is 1.1.1 C'' 22.0 1_1.1 n'rr x.K GARAGE ExtSTIWC4 a��c�nRv�t � TOWNHOUSE I GAKAGE � � C; I)r- ,LL yiyK �r yr S!� �Ku�� vsu� �v Z4.0 Cl C' _rl.o EkliTlWG M— o ,Y z I ©C brie �eneeJ j a° OV�INNDUSE a; { �y lUi, fir. V fol•a1 0 120 — C� 22.0 RaamR.c�aRR�a��gnt� I \ -T' pXIS j ING U o �-�� ' cv C7gG�AGE o C c N 6 N TOWwum . 0� t.,r ,rr N K K -� 4; 22.0 woo qCP Soulh line 01 YO1 x2,Bloc%4, Lowell i-Mllrorl,fo Fr c llj PO4 North line 00he Foul/? 2.7iret 1"W32 §ocl,�, 1�e//Ad fivr� fo trio'/Qy )ar/, ✓t/'LLL /7t./L/1 i i tJ1✓ OWNER ALVIN c NIT9-CHI� E- -rXXl AA AIN CTRFFT NF —"4 t Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1970 Page 6 fact that the land is either going to be developed by the Five Sands, Inc. or the owner would eventually develop it himself. Chairman Erickson said he did not question the intent of the petitioner. How- ever, he did not see why it should be the burden of the City to see this project through. The complex could be built first and then the platting can be accomplished for taxes. Mr. Schmedeke wondered if it were not the tight money market that is a factor in platting now. Chairman Erickson said he did not believe that seemed to be the problem. Frank Liebl, Councilman, stated when the Georgetown Courts complex was rezoned, the buildings were sold while they were being built and Council accepted the overall plan from Maurice Filister and then later on, after he completed a few, Mr. Filister came in and asked for a registered land survey. It was not until he completed the complex that he split them up and they are individually owned by individual mortgage companies. They were platted after they began building. There were no problems in regard to the requirements of land, but Mr. Filister came beforb the Council and had a Registered Land Survey approved. Chairman Erickson said he would not say he would object to the plat after the project is developed. Mr. Minish said that plans do not always develop the way they are presented. MOTION by Harris, seconded by Minish, that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed preliminary plat, P.S. #70-04, Five Sands, by Five Sands, Incorporated, being a replat of Block 2, Pearson's 1st Addition and Parcel 8400, as it was presented for the following reasons: 1. The lots are too small for 59 unit buildings as proposed. 2. The creation of lots without public access. 3. If platted now, the City will lose what control it has over the project. 4. This was not part of the original plan when presented for rezoning and building concept approval in 1969. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. REZONING REQUEST: ZOA #70-06, SID BADER: Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision #108, to rezone from R-1 to R-3 -- the South 301 feet. The Engineering Assistant explained this request was brought before the Plan- ning Commission earlier this spring by Mr. Pritchard who is no longer interested and now resides out of state. Mr. Zwicki, the property owner, is being repre- sented by Mr. Sid Bader. MOTION by Minish, seconded by Schmedeke, that the Planning Commission set the public hearing date of December 9, 1970 for the rezoning request, ZOA #70-05, Sid Bader, of the South 301 feet of Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision #108, to be rezoned from R-1 to R-3. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT: SP #70-12, ALVIN A. NITSCHKE: Outlot 1, Rice �.. Creek Plaza South, Lot 32, Block 4, Lowell Addition to Fridley Park together ? with the vacated street between before mentioned parcels. MOTION by Fitzpatrick, seconded by Minish, that the Planning Commi ttion con- firm the public hearing date of December 9, 1970 for the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #70-12, Alvin A. Nitschke, to construct a two family dwelling in s CITY OF FRIDLL'Y PLANNIN2 COMMISSION PMTITF, .. MARCH 21.y 1979 1 A CA11 120 ORDER: Chairman Barris called the March 21, 1.979, meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. Storla, Mr. Oquist, Mr. Harris, Ms. Suhrbier (for Mr. Peterson) Ms. Gabel (for Ms. Schnabel), Imo'. Langenfeld Members Absent: Nis. Schnabel, Mr. Peterson Others Present: Ray Leek, Associate Planner 1. APPROVE PLANINI1Z COK74ISSION MINUM: FEBRUARY 28, 1.979: MOTION by Mr. Ian„enfeld, seconded by tL-. Oquist, to e.pprove the February 28, 1979, iiuutes of the Planning Co�nission. UPON A VOICE Vd1 A, ALL VOTING AYE., ClittIRMAN HARRIS DIECLARED THE LOTION CARRII'D U14AKI tOUSLY. 2. AP1'R0%7E, 1-Y AIvNING CONAISSION M.I'IIIYA l S: MARC11 1, 1979: 1,10TION loy 14 . Gquist, seconded ay Ms. Gabel, to approve the I�!aruh 7, 1979, minutes of the Planning Cc=ission. UPON A VOTC.'E VOA b, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIR IAN HA'IRIS D.T9CLA.RED THE MOTION CARRIED UadAN11:0USLY. 3. PUBL.;-C ITARING: COiVS19 It-01011 or A PR tr'OS?D PREL7t 11ITIPRY PI L� P.S. %'T9~01s JAY PARK AlADDIT'T0�11 m� 11Y1"J.-AT s 74 � ,SC � — A t � 't 1.. ; _ _ A. I�771��.,K+�: Iit.1t1� �� reera;la� oa a ecsk. Plaza, South Add at.*oxz, t6 at mart of lot 32, Blcck 4, Lowell Addition to Fridley Park, lying North of the South 2.7 feet thereof, inc-UldirA that part of St. Croix Street adjoiningg, lyLo-Z South of Outlet 1, Rice Creek Plaza South Addition, to allow a. three unit tmn,,�houae c?e:velopirtnnt to be sold separately, generally located on the East side of J,%in Street in the 6600 block. MOTION by Ifr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Storla, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VO171 ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLAXED THE PUBLIC HEAR NG OPEN AT 7:35 P.M. Mr. Leek stated that after Staff Review, City Staff had no problem with the request for a plat. The purpose of the; reque,t is to change existing units into essentially ownership units. Staff determined that if the plat is approved, there would have to be a request for variance for the townhouse size requirements and that the to•,ahouse ordi-nance requires a minimum area for development of ten (10) acres. The area of the lot in question is roughly 1/3 of an acre. But City Staff would have no problem with that. PLANNING COMMISSION MELTING MARCH 1979 PAGE 2 I Mr. Nitschke stated it was a nice structure and would make a nice single family dwelling. One has 1120 square feet with two bedrooms up and a full basement. Another one has about 1200 square feet, and the one he is living in is a little larger than the other two. A member of the audience asked if they were talking about existing structures or if they were planning to add one. Mr. Harris stated they were talking about existing structures. There were no further comments from the audience either for or against the request. Mr. Oquist asked if he understood it properly that these were existing units, pre- sently rental units, and the petitioner wanted to sell them. 1-1r. Nitschke stated that was correct and he lived in one of the units. He would like to sell the other two rental units singly. Mr. Oquist asked if they needed a repl.at for that. Mr. Langenfeld stated they would have to make them separate parcels in order to be sold separately. Mr. Oquist asked if the lot would be sold with the house, and if garages were there. Mr. Harris stated that was correct. Ms. Gabel asked if the petitioner would need variances for zero lot lines. Mr. Harris stated that was correct, they would need variances. Mr. Leek stated that in light of the fact that they were townhouses, they might not require variances for the setbacks for zero lot lines, but would for the size. W. Harris stated that it appeared there were two garages for the three units. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Nitschke stated there were four garages, two doubles and two singles. Mr. Harris stated that the two single garages would also be split. Mr. Nitschke stated that was correct. MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Ms. Suhrbier, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:4o P.M. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Leek if they would need any additional easements for the replat. Mr. Leek stated there were none he was aware of. r'j.AtJI I 0i IIS TION IMTIT x MARCH 1 9 - PAGE 3 • 1C Mr. Harris asked Plow the utilities fed into the units, if there were three separate: drops into -the units. Mr. Nitschke stated there was one line for water and one line for sewer. The water could be metered separately, and he suggested there be an association agreement for the sewer. Mr. Harris agreed there should be an agreement and asked about the power. Mr. Nitschke stated the power was separate and also the gas was separate. Fir. Harris asked if there were three separate meters. BIr. Nitschke stated there were two electric meters on the middle house. Ilarris stated there should be an agreement regarding the meters being on that building. 11x. Nitschke agreed. Idr. Harris stated that he had noticed there was a drainage and utility easement across the front of the proposed Lot 1 and the proposed Lot 3. He asked if that was an old easement. Mr. Leek stated he was not sure and would have to check. Mr. . Harris stated it looked like part of e vacated alley, and wondered if they were retaining any of that alley for drainage and utility. Mr. Nitschke stated he had purchased part of t1int property from the City. When he first purchased the lot,, there was a vacated street on the north side of the lot, so lie purchased part of that from the City and ujoved 1-is lot up a little further so an additional 26 feet could be Fadden' to the park. He was not aware of a drainage easement. Mr. Harris stated that since they were replating, they should masse sure the drainage and utility easements show on the replat. PdOTTON by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Oauist, to reco=end to Council approval of the proposed preliminary plat, P.S. #79-0l, Jay Park Addition, by Alvin A. Nitschke: Being a replat of Outlot 1, Rice Creek Plaza South Addition; that part of Lot 32, Block Ir, Lowell Addition to Fridley Park, lying North of the South 2.7 feet thereof, including the West half of vacated alley adjoining and including that part of St. Croix Street adjoining, lying South of Outl.otl, Rice Creek Plaza South Addition,, to allow a three unit townhouse development to be sold separately, generally located on the East side of Ifain Street in the 6600 block, with the stipulations that Stuff look into the utility factors in regards to separate meters for water, gas and power and also to my Ice certain there are no problems with setbacks and easements especially in regards to dr inare and utilities, and also hake certain that the drainage and u ility easements are shown on the new plat. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIIIIAN ffRRIS DECLt#IiED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING CON34ISSION I=ING MARCH 2I 1912 PAUL 4 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP7t9-02 BY IRVIN K R ST: Per Section 205.051, 21 A, of the Fridley City ode, to a ow the construction of a second accessory building for storage of an antique automobile, on Lot 11., Block 2, Rice Creek Terrace Plot 40 the same being 6871 7th Street N.E. NOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by; Ms. Suhrbier, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYES CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:50 P.M. Ms. Gabel stated the correct addross was 6841 7th Street R'E, not 6871. Mr. Leek stated that after Staff �eview, Staff had one concern. He referred to page 39 of the agenda book and stated there was no planned entrance to the pro- posed garage for the storage of that automobile. Staff was concerned that if at sometime an entrance was planned, the side yard which exists for that purpose and the rear yard which exists for than purpose was rather small. They were also concerned regarding a chancre of owIaership in the future, so they would like to see the petitioner attempt to getbasement from his neighbor in the event an entrance to the garage was proposed in the future. The other comment from Staff was that the proposed accessory structure is somewhat larger than they would recommend. Mr. Koret asked what the Staff would recommend in regards to size. Mr. Leek stated he believed Staff wanted approximately 300 square feet. Mr. Harris stated 300 square feet w uld be about 15 x 20. Mr. Korst stated he had orJ_ginally lanned to make it 20 r. 22, but found it was just as economical to go 22 x 22. Nor. Leek stated that in the proposed changes to the zoning code, they would be looking at 2.40 square feet as a maxi um without a Special Use :Permit. Anything over that would require a Special Us Permit to a maximum size of 400 square feet. Mr. Harris stated that would be 20 x Mr. Korst stated 20 x 20 would not be a problem. His intention was not to have a driveway because the cars don't go in or out that often. He would not use them if it was snowing or raining. He uses them maybe three tunes a year. Ms. Gabel stated it didn't look like t ere was enough room between the existing garage and the fence to get the cars t ough, especially in the winter. Mr. Korst stated there was, and he woul not take the cars out in the winter. Ms. Gabel asked about the trees in the ackyard. Mr. Korst stated they would not remove of the trees. PLANNING COMMISSION 19EETING,APRIL iL-1-9-72 PAGE 2 t 1D 1 3. RECEIVE APPEALS C01414ISSIOTI MINIUS: APRIL 10, 1979: �w . MOTION by tds. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to, receive the April 10, 1979, minutes of the Appeals Commission. Ms. Schnabel stated that the discussion starting on page 4 of the minutes centered on the item that had been before the Planning Commission previously. The item was a request by Alvin Nitscheke, 6661 Main Street, to rezone his property. It came to Appeals with a variance request. She stated that she was quite shocked when she went over and looked at Mr. Nitscheke' s property because she did not realize from the Planning Commission minutes that there was a multiple use on this piece of property. She did not know if the Planning Commissioners had looked at the property, but it didn't come out in the minutes, and it bothered her tremendously. Mr. Oqui_st asked what she meant by a multiple use. Ms: Schnabel stated there was a commercial use in the garage. Part of the garage was converted into a State Farm Insurance Office. So it is a commercial use of the property as vell as being a tri-plex. The commercial use is an open violation of our zoning code, but that was not the question that the discussion centered around. As you can tell from the list of questions at the end of the minutes, they had a lot of questions concerning this piece of property and others that will come up like it. They were not zeroing in on this piece of property per se, other than it has brought to their attention many questions concerning density, how the City would like to see property reclassified in the future, lot sizes with regards to these types of requests and a lot of other questions they felt should be discussed before the Board of Appeals made a decision on this particular request. She assumed that the commissioners had read the minutes and either had questions of their own or some answers to the Appeal's questions. She felt they had some problems with the current zoning ordinance and they should perhaps address these problems in the new zoning ordinance as they rewrite it. One of the questions was the number of units. Do we still want to require a minimum of 60 units in a new townhouse development? That is what our code currently requires. It also requires. 5 acres of land, and so many square feet per unit comes down to 60 units as a minimum development for town- houses. Another question was in regards to existing units. If there is an existing unit in an R-1 District it requires more square footage than the same existing unit built in an R-3 District. There was a discrepancy there in our configurations. There was a discrepancy in our zoning ordinance concerning garages. There was one set of rules for townhouses and another set of rules for double bungalows. That was not necessarily consistent in terms of rental. property, yet we see that kind of property also coming before them for a reclassification such as this. There was a difference in subletting. If you have a townhouse development in an R-1 Zone, you cannot sub- let that property. It must be owner occupied. The same is not true if it is in an R-3 Zone, yet it could be the same building in both zones. There were a lot of questions they felt the Planning Commission should look at and scene of the sub- commissions might also want to look at them also. She stated that first of all they should try to zero in on this particular type of situation so that the Appeals Commission could act upon it. Maybe the thing to address is existing units and then get into new development after that. CITY OF i'RIDLEY PLANNING COW-IISSION 1,TZT7N'NG - APRIL 18? 1979 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the April 18, 1979, meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL- Members Present: Mr. Treuer,fels, Mr. Oquist, Mir.Harris, Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Hora (for Mr. Langenfeld) Members Absent: Ms. Suhrbier, Mir. Langenfeld (arrived at 9:45) Others Present: Mr. Boardman, City Planner Mr. Leek, Associate Planner Mr. Nitscheke, 6661 Main Street N.E. 1. APPROVE PLANNING COMWIISSION MINUJES: APRIL 47 1979: MOTION by Mis. Schnabel, seconded by Mir. Oquist, to approve the April 4, 1979, minutes of the Planning Co=ission. Mir. Harris asked Mr. Boardman how the Council reacted to the Planning Commission's statement regarding the six members on the Environmental Quality Commission. Mr. Boardman stated those minutes had not yet gone to Council. They would come before Council on April. 23, 1979. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLABED THE MOTION CARRIED UNAN11,10USLY. 2. APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: APRIL 11., 1979: MOTION by Mir. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve the April 11, 1979, minutes of the Planning Coimnission. Ms. Schnabel stated that she wished they had more time to read the minutes. She asked how far they got in the discussion. Mir. Harris stated they had a rather lengthy discussion on housing. Mr. Boardman stated they brought up highlights throughout the document and did not really start with goals and objectives. They discussed issues primarily. Mir. Harris stated they discussed housing and the attitudes towards it and what we thought our attitudes should be. He felt it was a good discussion. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLAIINT15 COMIS�])ION MFT,''. MG, APRIL lfj 1979 PAGE 3 Pr. Harris stated that as he sees it, the basic question is whether we should allcrdr these particular types; of units that are now existing to be sold as town- houses. Mr. Boardman stated that at the Appeal' s meeting he had brought up the question of density and felt the Planning Commission should discuss it also. First of all, the Staff checked with other. Communities to find out how they were handling these types of requests because they are getting more and more of them. A majority of the caTimunities contacted felt that if, in the existing properties the densities don't change, the 'type of ownership didn't really matter. The things they should look at are the things that would be common or would require an agreement between owners, rather than looking at whether they are going to allow it or how they're going to split it. Regardless of what they do, they would still be looking at the same density of living units. Mr. Harris stated that N•ras true, but control was a different thing.- In this parti- cular case, instead of one (tmer to deal with, we would dealing with a committee. Mr. Boardman stated they would have to deal with three individual owners. sir. Harris stated that the ordinance requires in townhouses some sort of a management organization to take care of the grounds and so forth. Mr. Boardman stated that he sees no difference legally in this situation than in a one ownership situation. Ms. Schnabel stated she did not agree entirely. If he was talking about an apart- ment complex converting to a condominium, she could see that arrangement in a different light than a small isolated unit 11he that because an apartment complex that goes condominium generally has an area of land that has b�-.en more specifically developed to that type of multiple existence. It has common g)'ounds, parking spaces and a number of things that are more geared towards that type of density and the internal aspect of whether it is one--person owned or multiple-u,•med in the condom- iniurn sense doesn't necessarily alter that as much as an isolated building does. She sees a difference between a single free-standing unit like this and a larger complex development. Mr. Boardman stated that he agreed there was a difference. He felt they should look at definitions of the different types of units which they never had in the code. A definition of a condominium refers to ownership of an apartment. It means private ownership of an apartment with no land involved. A townhouse is private ownership of the property with ,just the proporty under the building as ownership. A patio home is generally classified as from one to four units set extremely close to other units of its type which require land ownership more than ,just underneath the unit. Maybe they should look at these definitions and see if they are going to allow definitions of this type and under what zones they would be allowed in. First they should deal with the existing situation and density has been brought up time and time again. If the densities are the same and will remain the sauce then what difference does it make whether it' s a home ownership type of situation, or apartment ownership type of situation or whether it' s a rental type of situation if the zones are correctly zoned for those types of uses. Home owner- ship, even in a condominium ownership where they have a lot of people on a committee involved in it, they still have home ownership which means that they have somebody that's taking better care of the property because they own it and have an investment in it. PLANNING COIVISSION NMTING, APRIL 181* 1979 - PAGE 4 --- - l F Mr. Boardman stated that he questioned whether it made that much difference as long as the densities remained the same because the purpose of zoning in the first place is density. Ms. Schnabel stated that it stru4 her in reading the minutes that the attempt was to reclassify it into what is so called the easiest classification to work with. It seems that someone went through the code book and took a look at what required the least amount of variances and came up with the realization that a townhouse would require the least amount of variances, so they recommended to the petitioner that he apply for a townhouse. Maybe this piece of property and others like it would be better off with an R-1 classification even though it requires more variances than a townhouse classification. Mr. Boardman stated he would have some real problems with that because that would vary the density in an R-11 it would vary the lot size in an'R-11 and they would end up with a 30 foot lot instead of a 40 foot lot which they were not allowing other people to build in an R-1. He felt there were some real problems with re- zoning to an R-1 just because they were trying to control ownership on a piece of property. He did not see where there was a problem in trying to control ownership. Whether they had ownership or rental in a situation like this he did not see any problem because the density was set for R-3 and it was being developed for R-3. The reasoning behind the townhouse definition of it was because they had no other definition that would allow this type of split ownership where they had houses butting right up next to each other. Is. Schnabel referred back to the question of owner occupied direllings, because this was one of -the key points in this issue. The selling point was that if it became a townhouse it would be owner occupied and as a result there�,woul.d be more pride in the property, the dwelling would be kept up better, etc. She stated that was not required under our code. If that was an R-1 zone it must be owner occupied. In an R-3 zone, which this is, it does not have to be owner .occupi.ed. So a person could come in an buy one of those units and turn around and sublet it. Mr. Boardman stated he would question that because if they require owner occupied in this in an R-1 zone yet they don't require owner occupied in an R-1 zone in a, residential area for a single family house. He questioned the reasoning behind that. Ms. Schnabel stated that she agreed with Mr. Boardman but that's the way the current code book reads. She brought it up because she felt it was important for them to discuss it and understand it so that when they do rewrite the code they would have a better idea of where they are going and what they want to say. Mr. Boardman stated he understood that but felt that going to an R-1 zone and then bringing variances to allow this would be opening them up for other areas such as 40 foot lots or 50 foot lots being split into two ownership units and dividing the 40 or 50 foot lot into two 20 or 25 foot lots as long as they had 31000 square foot. They would run into real problems with that whereas if they look at existing pro- perties and allow existing properties by density and then set up some controls on new property such as a patio home development; as least they could handle the PLANNIP'G COI,FIISSION I ' ' TNG, APRIL lei, 1979 - PAGN 5 1G existing properties based on density and look at ideals for density on the new units. He felt the whole issue came down to the fact that the zoning is based on density. They were trying to protect a certain density within an area and there were other things that entered into that such as setbacks and those types of things which establish standards within an area. Those standards are set based on a density. Mr. Harris asked if this was zoned R-3. Mr. Boardman stated that was correct. Mr. Harris asked if in a townhouse association the lands were held in common. Mr. Boardman stated that in some situations they were but in this case it would not be that way. In this case, the way it's set up, the lot lines were being divided all the way through the lot so each unit has a separate yard -area. Mr. Harris stated that bothered him. I,^s. Boardman stated that each of the units would be responsible for the maintainence and upkeep of their yard area. Mr. Oquist asked why that bothered Mr. Harris. It's no different from a single family private dwelling. Mr. Harris stated they should loot: at what could happen. If they split it up into three parcels, he assumed there would then be three !different tax statements, three different water mQ.•ers and three different gas meters. Mir. Boardman stated that would depend on how the utilities were set up. In this case there might have to be a common utility agreement. He was not sure what the situation was on that. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Nitscheke if he had one water meter or three. Mr. Nitscheke stated that he had one water meter. Mr. Harris stated that if they in fact split it into three ownerships, they should have three different water meters. Mr. Boardman stated they would be looking at that or comparable agreements for the use of the utility. Mr. Harris stated the problem was that if someone didn't pay their bill, what would they do? Turn the water off on the other two? Mr. Nitscheke asked what they did in townhouses? Mr. Harris stated that townhouses were a separate deal because that was held in common by the association. Mr. Boardman stated that in a townhouse, the lands were held in common, but the utilities were separate for each unit. i PLANNING COMMISSIa4 ,TING, APRIL 18, 1979 ___ _ PAGE 6 Mr. Harris stated that then if they did divide it into three parcels they would have to have three tax statements. Mr. Boardman agreed and stated they would also have to have preferably three water and sewer hook-ups. But it may not work that way. They might have to have some kind of agreement with even the potentiality of having a sewer and water fund available for repairs and that type of thing in which those people would have to put money in escrow. Mr. Harris stated that essentially then they were talking about getting to an association type setup for some of those things. If certain repairs were needed on the building, like the roof, how would they handle it if all three parties didn't agree on the need for repairs? Mr. Boardman stated we wouldn't handle that, it would be up to the people. Mr. Harris stated they were putting themselves into a very strange situation. Mr. Boardman stated it was the same situation in a townhouse where they had eight units side by side. He didn't understand Mr. Harris' s point. Ms. Schnabel stated that she was not too hung up on that and that's a problem those people would have to worry about and hopefully they would hire attorneys to handle that. Mx. Harris stated they would be creating the situation. He would be more com- fortable with this proposal if they handled this particular piece of property just like they handled their other properties. Instead of splitting it up into three separate lots, they should have the people form an association and the association would be responsible for the exterior of the property. Mr. Boardman stated that what he was saying then was they should sell the land only under the building similar to a townhouse. Mr. Harris stated that was correct and he would feel more comfortable. He stated they could be putting themselves in a box with the 40 foot lot business by doing something like this. Because we would be creating small lots that are substandard lots. Mr. Oquist stated that these units were joined together by common walls, they were not individual lots and individual buildings. It' s like a zero lot line. Ms. Schnabel stated they could not know what would develop in the future if they did develop this into three individual substandard lots. One point brought up was that if you had two adjacent 40 foot lots and someone came and he and the other owner wanted to tear down the dwellings on the adjacent 1* foot lots and put two buildings together with a zero lot line. One on one 40 foot and one on the adjacent 40 foot, would 'we permit that. Mr. Oquist asked what was wrong with that. PLANNING C01%VNISSION MM,TING, APRIL 18, 19'f9 - PAGE '( lI Ms. Schnabel stated there might be nothing wrong with it, and it's very similar to what' s happening here. Mr. Harris stated there was nothing wrong with that if they allow construction on 40 foot lots and it has been City policy to not do that. ' Mr. Oquist stated that then the assumption Ms. Schnabel made was not valid. Ms. Schnabel stated there was another example that had been brought up. What if someone owned two structures on two separate lots and they decided that, since we were allowing tri-plexes to be made into townhouses, assuming that' s what we do, why don't they build a building in the center and attach the two that are separated now by the building in the center. And say those are each on 40 foot lots which would make an 80 foot width. Now they would have a new structure that straddles the middle so then why not go through and separate these and make three separate lots out of them. It becomes very complicated. As land becomes more valuable, these are the options. Mr. Harris stated he was not too concerned about whether .they allow this or not but more the way in which it is done. If we split this up into three separate sections, we would be dealing with three different people as far as the exterior of the building. Mr. Oquist asked what they were doing with a double bungalow with two owners. Ms. Schnabel stated that by definition they can't turn a double bungalow into a townhouse. Mr. Boardman stated they were getting requests to allow two owners in a double bungalow and they should discuss that also. One of the problems we have is our definitions. Mr. Oquist stated that one definition they have not talked about is tri-plexes or row houses. Mr. Boardman stated that the situation they had was by definition of some of the current projects is tangible. It' s a home that has more of an ownership than just under the building itself. It has a land ownership that is broader than just the building. A townhouse definition is the land under the building is the ownership and the rest of the property is common property. In a condominium, just the unit is owned with common ownership in the facility. We have problems in here because our townhouse definition does not say that. It does not say ownership just under the building. Na•. Boardman read the townhouse definition as follows: "Structures housing three or more dwelling runts, continous to each other, only by the sharing of one common wall, such structures to be of the town or row house typs as contrasted to multiple dwelling apartment structures. No single structure shall contain in excess of eight (8) dwelling units and each dwelling unit shall have separate and individual front and rear ettrances." Mr. Harris stated they don't even allude to the amount of property. Ms. Schnabel stated that it did address that later on in the code. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING? APRIL 18, 1979 - PAGE 8 - . Mr. Boardman read from the Special Requirements in the code book as follows: "Any and all common open space shall be labeled as such" . It doesn't say that any property under the building has to be common or open space. He continued reading "and as to its intent or designed function and provisions for maintenance ownership, and preservation shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the "Apartment Ownership Act" . . . and it' shall include all proposed covenants, restrictions and easements to run with the land together with any provisions for release from same; provisions for dedication of easement for public streets . . . modified as deemed necessary by the City Council. . . the development in R-1 shall consist of owner occupied units . . . and membership in the townhouse develop- ment shall be made a part of the agreement of the sale of the dwelling unit." Nowhere in the classification of townhouses do they talk about whether that owner- ship has to be just the ownership under the building and any and all ownership of the outside lands as a common ownership. So based on our definition of what a townhouse is this would also fall under our definition of a townhouse. The only difference is that we've got the 3,000 square feet which is a requirement for .an R-3, they've got the front and rear entrances which is a requirement, but the only difference is that it says that every townhouse plat has to have five acres. That' s why they need a variance. Mr. Oquist asked if a townhouse required an association. Mr. Boardman stated it does not require that. If there is common ownership of any of the utilities or property, then there has to be an association to govern those things as deemed. necessary by the City Council. He stated they could have a town- house development without common ownership. That's the way he reads it. Ms. Schnabel stated that under the Final Plan, a copy of the bylaws of the proposed association of owners is required. Mr. Boardman stated he understood that to mean only if there was an association. If there isn't common ownership then they don't need an association. The way the present code for townhouses is layed out, it doesn't say they have to have common ownership of property. Ms. Schnabel stated that we should put that in our new zoning code. I,fir. Treuenfels stated that he understood that some of the utilities in this case, especially the water, was served through a common meter, so this would require an association and bylaws. Mr. Boardman stated that he was not saying they would not need an agreement in this particular case. They would have to have agreements for usage of that water and of how they would pay for that water and the agreements would I-eve to be filed with the deed when anybody purchased into that property. All the code says is that it must be submitted with the plan for review with the City Council and the Council can modify it if they chose. But it doesn't say they have to have common ownership of land and it doesn't say that this is not a townhouse because it fits the town- house definition. It says a townhouse can be built in an R-3 zone and the only requirement it doesn't meet is the 5 acre parcel. PLANNING C0114ISSI.ON TTEETEC, APRIL 181 1979 - PACE 9 1K Mr. Harris stated that then they have to get back to some basic philosophy. Are we going to allow this particular type of activity? And also are we going to allow the individual ownership of a double? If we agree to allow it with a tri- plex then it follows that we should allow it with a double bungalow. Ms. Schnabel stated that this is where we get into the question of density. What type of density do we want on a multiple living building. Mr. Harris stated there would be no problem with a row house but if it' s a multiple story like a duplex there could be a problem. Mr. Boardman stated that in order to qualify as a townhouse, there cannot be one unit on top of another. So in that situation, we wouldn't be able to allow a split or we would have to split it under a condominium type situation, or a co- operative type of situation, which is similar to a condominium. The problem is that the existing density is there and do we allow that density to continue? We may have to allow that density to continue because it' s existing. What kinds of problems would we have if we go to ownership on those density or if we don't go to ownership on the density? He doesn't see any problems other than 'legal problems and those legal problems are the problems of the people who buy into it. Mr. Oquist asked .if we as a City should be concerned about the welfare of owners. Mr. Harris stated that as far as general health and safety goes, yes. Mr. Oquist stated that he meant should the City be concerned if the owners cannot agree on repairs or kinds of siding, etc.? Mr. Harris stated that in a way we should because right now we require a license for this particular unit and it's controlled by the maintenance ordinance. We are supposed to make inspections of the unit. So, because it' s rental property, there are some basic things we can do to keep a handle on it: If we go to this particular type of operation, we don't have that control. Mr. Boardman stated that are we saying then that we like rental property because of more control over rental property and therefore should we rent out all our single family homes because the ordinance states that in order to rent a single family unit a license is needed? With the license we can control the upkeep of single family units. Do we want that control? lvt% Harris stated that his point was if they were sold as individual units, then the City does not require a license. If there was an association, he felt the property stood a better chnnee of staying in good condition than if it was just three separate parcels. He would feel better about an association as far as the grounds held in common. Mr. Boardman stated that he felt there should be some common agreement between the property owners for maintenance of the structure, etc. if there was common owner- ship of the property. However, the way it' s platted there would be no common owner- ship. Mr. Oquist stated there was common ownership because there was a common wall between the units. i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 18, 1979 - PAGE 10 1L Mr. Boardman stated that there were no common walls, there were double walls which- is a requirement of townhouses. It is also a requirement of owner occupied units. He explained that there were two series of studs with a common space between those studs. The reason for that is legal. If one owner causes damage to a wall, it is his responsibility to repair that damage. The Building Code requires two separate stud walls between two owner occupied units. Mr. Oquist stated that was a contradiction because there was another place in here that required they share a common wall. It was in the townhouse definition. There- fore we do not have townhouses in Fridley because they do not share a common wall. Mr. Boardman stated that rental units such as apartments do not require double walls. Owner occupied units do require double walls. Mr. Oquist. asked if in this case there were double walls. Mr. Boardman stated that was correct. Mr. Schnabel stated that if Mr. Nitscheke didn't live there, then he wouldn't of had to put up double walls. This points up discrepancies in the zoning ordinance that we should review. She asked what kind of walls a double bungalow would have. Pfx. Harris stated double bungalows were rental units, therefore they did not require double walls. Mr. .N.arris stated that we cann't go through and plat this because it doesn't fall within the guidelines of our platting ordinance for minimum lot size. Mr. Boardman stated that the only thing it says is that a townhouse must have 3,000 square feet. Mr. Harris stated that no matter what they call them, they are making three separate parcels out of a< piece of ground whether it' s R-1, R-2 or R-3 that's 80 feet wide and 140 feet deep. Essentially they are cutting 80 feet into three pieces. Mr. Boardman asked if that wasn't what they do in a townhouse plan. Mr. Harris stated those were common grounds. What we're doing is platting sub- standard lots. If something happens to the structure, we are left with a parcel of ground zoned R-3 with less than 30 foot lots. Ms. Schnabel stated that the Planning Commission had already approved the preliminary plat on this. Mr. Harris stated they may have made a mistake. If they go ahead and do this they would be jeopardizing the 40 foot lot deal. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 18, 1979 - PAGE 1j,. . 1M Mr. -Boardman stated they would have to decide on how to handle the issue. Mr. Harris stated that if they do it according to the townhouse ordinance, and they are calling this a townhouse, they could say that all they were buying is the land under the townhouse and the rest of the land would be held in common. Mr. Boardman stated that was not a requirement of townhouses. Mr. Harris stated they could make it a stipulation. Mr. Boardman stated that our definition states strictly what a townhouse building is' and in the townhouse area of the Building Code there is no requirement for ownership of the land just under the building. Ms. Schnabel stated that maybe it was something we could make as a stipulation in approval of the plat no matter what plat it is. Mr. Harris stated he felt very uncomfortable that they did it this way. If some- thing happened to it and it was totally or over 50% destroyed what they have created is three R-3 lots of about 26 x 135 feet. Mr. Boardman stated that the main thing they should do is change the definitions. The Commissioners concurred. Mr. Boardman asked what they were going to do with condominiums? What is our direction going to be for the ownership for the previous densities which are rental? Mr. Harris stated they were not changing the density. They would not be doing any- thing different from what they were doing now. Nr. Boardman asked if they would have a problem with people coming in and ask to do this. All they want to do is change the ownership, not the density. Mr. Harris stated that was the key point. He wanted to make sure that people who buy into this are protected. Also, he wanted to make sure that the City and the surrounding residences are protected from the standpoint that the property will be maintained. His third concern was with public services. That the City doesn't have a problem when they are sold. Mr. Boardman stated that then our primary direction would be similar to some of the ' other communities. They don't have any problem as long as the density doesn't change and that there are association bylaws that are drawn up and attached to the deed. Mr. Harris stated he would have no problem with that. i Mr. Boardman stated that the main point would be to get definitions of condominiums, townhouses and patio homes. The Commissioners agreed. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL lbi 191(9 - PAGE 1'=" Mr. Boardman showed the Commissioners a design of a patio home. 1 �, Ms. Schnabel stated she was not sure she liked the concept of a patio home in terms of density. Mr. Boardman stated they may have to look at that type of units based on the changing patterns of home ownership. Ms. Schnabel stated that in the new proposed code she didn't see where they had spelled out R-2 or R-3 for condominiums. Mr. Boardman stated they didn't and that was something they would have to get into. Ms. Schnabel stated they should discuss the 5 acre minimum for townhouses. That is the question before Appeals in the variance request. Mr. Oquist asked why we had a restriction of 5 acres. Ms. Schnabel stated it probably came about when land was cheaper and more available. Mr. Boardman stated that they were looking at developments like the Darrell Farr Development where they have common recreation areas, etc., and in order to provide all the amenities that go along with townhouse Living, they felt that 5 acres was necessary. He questions the need for that at this point in time. Mr. Harris asked to see a copy of the plat the Planning Commission had approved. Mr. Boardman showed the Commissioners a copy of it. He stated that if they wanted to do it like s townhouse, they would have to tactually plot out 6 parcels and the rest with common ownership. Mr. Harris stated he felt very uncomfortable with the way that plat was. Mr. Boardman stated that it boiled down to a policy decision. Mr. Harris stated he felt they should plot it into 6 parcels with common ownership for the rest of it. Mr. Boardman asked Mr. Nitscheke if he had a problem with that. Mr. Nitscheke stated he would not. Mr. Harris asked if the attorney had seen this. Mr. Boardman stated that he had looked at it and stated he didn't have any problems with it as long as it met the requirements of a townhouse and as long as they got a variance. Mr. Oquist stated that the attorney also wanted to review the association by laws. Mr. Harris stated he would feel much better with it this way. PLANNING C014MISSION MEETING APRIL lby 1979 - PAGE 13 l0 Ms. Schnabel asked if the Commissioners then felt that the 5 acre requirement is still valid. Mr. Harris stated that on all new construction, yes. Mr. Oquist stated he wasn't sure he would go along with that. Mr. Boardman stated there were ways to get around that. Mr. Harris stated that they should maybe set up the townhouse ordinance a little bit different. Mr. Oquist stated he would like to eliminate the term 5 acres and set a certain percentage for green area. Mr. Boardman stated that was already said. In an R-1 they are allowed 1 unit for every 9,000 square feet, in an R-2 they are allowed I unit for every 5,000 square feet and in an R-3 they are allowed 1 unit for every 3,000 square feet. Mr. Oquist stated they could then eliminate the 5 acres, but in an R-1 area for single family they have a 2% lot coverage for green area. Maybe, they should do something like that for townhouses. Ms. Schnabel asked why they said so many square feet in R-1, so many in R2, and so many in R-37 Mr. Boardman stated that the philosophy was that they want to maintain a certain density in each zone. Mr. Leek stated that the philosophy derives basically from the values of the community. Mr. Harris stated that he would like them to retain the 5 acres for a townhouse development because it has worked fairly well up to now. He asked Ms. Schnabel if she needed an answer immediately. He felt this should be talked about. Ms. Schnabel stated that if what they have discussed is the direction they want to take and if they want to make a proposal and vote on it, she would then take that back to the Board of Appals and they would. act on the request. They had tabled the request. If the Planning Commission felt it needed more discussion, maybe they should table the discussion. She also asked if the Community Development Commission would be interested in looking at it. Mr. Oquist stated that he felt they would. He felt the first eleven questions were things they should talk about when they discuss the ordinance. Ms. Schnabel stated that her impression from this discussion was that provided the proposal for replatting would be changed,at the Council level, then philosophically, the Planning Commission would have no problem with.any tri-plex being converted into a townhouse classification if it falls into the townhouse guidelines discussed here. In other words common property and individual property ownership. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 18 1979 PAGE 14 1P Mr. Oquist stated he would like to clarify one point. When we talk about common property, it is the land left over. The association would be responsible for maintenance of the common property and the building maintenance. , That would be part of the by laws. Ms. Schnabel stated that then shd understood that they had no problem with converting tri-plexes such as this to townhouses provided the lot size remains generally common property with the land under the building having individual ownership and as long as the density doesn't change. She could take this back to the Appeals Commission and felt that the rest of these questions should be discussed along with duplexes and double bungalows. They had also touched on the park and open space situation. If the density isn't going to change, that would not make any difference. She said they had also discussed taking, for example, the strip of land across the street from Mr. Nitscheke's property, which is currently zoned industrial, and re- zoning it R-3 and a series of townhouses were put on the property. It would be less than a 5 acre site, but would be compatible with the neighborhood. Would they like to see something like that done? Mr. Harris stated he would like to think about that. Ms. Schnabel stated that another thing they had discussed was the number of garages. She understood that there was no requirement for number of garages in a townhouse . development, but there is a garage requirement for duplexes, double bungalows, apartments and single family. Mr. Boardman stated there were no requirements for apartments. That was parking spaces. Mr. Harris stated they should address that in the townhouse ordinance. Ms. Schnabel stated that there should be something in the minutes to indicate if they have had a change of mind on the re-plat. Mr. Boardman stated that since Planning had already responded to the initial plat, they could say it's an indication of the Planning Commission that the policy for converting this type of unit must be similar to a townhouse area which would require common open space plans and that they recommend .that these type of situations be considered in the re-writing of the ordinance for policy direction and in the mean time the Appeals Commission could. act on the variance with those conditions. Ms. Schnabel stated that Appeals had no power over the re-plat. Mr. Boardman agreed and stated that should be included with the platting. He felt there should be an indication to the City Council that this should be looked at by separate ownership under the units with common ownership of property and they should make a recommendation to Council that the plat should be modified to reflect that. Ms. Schnabel suggested that the Appeals approve the variance with the stipulation that Planning reconsider the replat. IIS PLANNING COMMISSION IETING, APRIL lb 1979 - PAGE 15 -- 1 Q MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Schnabel,. that in light of recent discussion and a review of the proposal, the Planning Commission wishes to change it's recommendation concerning P.S.79-01 as follows: That the property under the existing dwellings become private ownership and the rest of the land become ground held in common which would be consistent with existing townhouse developments as currently known in Fridley and the Planning Commission further recommends there be association by laws to control the operation of those common properties. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel stated that she would take that back to Appeals and they would act in light of this discussion. Mr. Harris asked for more discussion on the Appeals minutes. Ms. Schnabel st-ated that the rest of the items could be discussed when they review the zoning code. . Mr. Harris stated they could then vote .on receiving the Appeals minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIR1,1AN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: APRIL 5, 1979: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to receive the April 5, 19791 minuses of the Human Resources Commission. Mr. Harris stated that the discussion with Mr. Saunder°s at the last Planning Commission meeting indicated that the Human Resources Commission would like the chairman of the Planning Commission to present the proclamation for the Year of the Child to the City Council. Is that what the Human Resources Commission decided? Mr. Treuenfels stated that they had decided to put it before the Planning Commission and see what the Planning Commission wanted to do. Mr. Harris asked when they wanted this to come before the Planning Commission? Mr. Treuenfels stated he would like it to be discussed tonight. lie pointed out that a copy of the proclamation was on page 1 of -the minutes. Mr. Harris stated that after they receive the minutes, they could make a motion regarding this. Mr. .Langenfeld asked if they had selected a person for the Handicapped Awareness Week? Mr. Treuenfels stated that he had contacted his friend and his friend was interested and would speak on what life was like for a handicapped person and also the legal aspocts of being handicapped. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL ld 79 - PAGE 16 Ms. Schnabel stated that it had come. to her attention during the elections last year that one of the problems handicapp d people had was getting to the voting places. Mr. Treuenfels stated that they should a more aware of the problems of handicapped people to attend all civic functions i cluding voting because of the inaccessibility of buildings. He indicated that they ould look into having a central location for handicapped people to vote at. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHA MAN HARRIS DECLARED THE, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission concurs with and encourages the HumanResources -Commission to present the proclama- tion for the Year of the Child to the ity Council. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Treuenfels who th y wanted to make the presentation. Mr. Treuenfels felt it would be nice i both Mr. Harris and himself made the presentation. Mr. Barris dgreed. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHA N HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE CONiRY'1ITY DEVELOPMENT COM SSION MINUTES: .APRIL 10, 1979: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. hnabel, to receive the April 10, 1979, minutes of the Community Development Co ission. Ms. Oquist stated that Mr. Boardman and Mx. Leek had presented the Comprehensive Development Plan. Two of the members d- dn't have a copy, so they scheduled a special. meeting for next Tuesday to fin lize the discussion. He also stated they had held elections and he was elected c airman again. UPON A VQ.I.GE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHA N HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Harris declared a recess at 10: 5 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 10:25 P.M. 6. CONTINUED: DISCUSSION ON DRAFT OF C 11PREHENSIVr DEVELOPI%TNI' PLAN: Mr. Harris stated that at the last meeti they got into land use patterns. The minutes of the last meeting indicate they had a long discussion on residential land use. He asked Mr. Leek where he wan ed to start the discussion. Mr. Leek stated that he would like to loo at the input from the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mr. Harris stated that in view of the fac that the commission member from Parks and Recreation was absent; tonight, they s ould hold off on that. Mr. Leek agreed. 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 felt 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. 1 i I E 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 o 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. t Mr. Harris stated this whole subject should again be put on the Planning Commission agenda. ADJOURNMENT: I 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, At ++ I Lyn Saba Recording Secretary i T •_ 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. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously, and the public hearing opened 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.- MOTION icense:h10TI0N 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 HEAR-ING ON FINAL PLAT P.S. #79-01 JAY PARK ADDITION BY ALVIN A. NITSCHKE T6_661, 71, 81 MAIN STREET N.U� __ 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 Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 1 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 i i 1-48 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 I 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 was for approval based on the platting of the property. He stated what c 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. Ile 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 1 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 "condominiumize% 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 i 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. 149 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 ` 1 felt part of the premise of setting up a townhouse development area was to have a fairly large development area to insure professional maintenance. 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 jthere were several and pointed out some of them. Mr. Sobiech stated another way to approach this would be to rezone to Isingle 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. i 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. 1 Mr. Qureshi stated, as far as 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 E i would be binding on the property owners. (11 Mr. Sobiech stated in the Innsbruck North development, the City had an agreement that was binding cn the original developer and the City would have the right to enforce the developmental agreement. i 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, of the property, he felt the City would have as ' as far as maintenanceP P 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. I Mr. Nitschke stated he didn't feel uncomfortable with any of the by-laws I he has seen. Is was his understanding that the covenents are binding to j 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. ]50 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. r MOTION by Councilwoman Moses tc 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): NOTION 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 I 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 $3.51. 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. Sobiech 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 Linder project ST. 1978-1 at a cost of I $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. j 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. (Official Publication) PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY TO WHCUNCIL OM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the City Council of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Monday,May 14,1979 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M.for the purpose of: Consideration of a Final Plat, P.S. #79-01, Jay Park Addition, by Alvin A.Nitschke,being a re, Plat of Outlot 1,Rice Creek Plaza South Addition; that part of Lot 32, Block 4, Lowell Addition to Fridley Park,lying North of the South 2.7 feet thereof, including the West half of vacated alley ad- joining and including that part of vacated St. Croix Street adjoin- ing,lying South of Outlot 1,Rice Creek Plaza Addition,to allow an existing tri-plex to be sold as three individual townhouse units, lying in the North Half of Section 15, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka,Minnesota. Generally located at 6661,6671, 6681 Main Street N.E. to Anyone brlAereernce to above be rwilb heard at this meeting. WILLIAM J.NEE May(April 25&May 2,1979)—FRIDor PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the City Council of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Monday, May 14, 1979 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of: Consideration of a Final Plat, P.S. #79-01 , Jay Park Addition, by Alvin A. Nitschke, being a replat of Outlot 1 , Rice Creek Plaza South Addition; that part of Lot 32, Block 4, Lowell Addition to Fridley Park, lying North of the South 2.7 feet thereof, including the West half of vacated alley ajoining and including that part of vacated St. Croix Street adjoining, lying South of Outlot 1 , Rice Creek Plaza Addition, to allow an existing tri-plex to be sold as three individual townhouse units, lying in the North Half of Section 15, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. Generally located at 6661 , 6671 , 6681 Main Street N.E. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. WILLIAM J. NEE MAYOR Publish: April 25, 1979 May 2, 1979 r _ - 3QQ APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 10, 1979 PAGL�, 4. .p Ms. Schnabel stated that the Planning Commission felt there was no problem with in this type of request based on the fact that the density was not changing. , 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 pproved the lot split on this request, and felt they had- made an error when they a after reviewing the Appeals Commission minutes and having more discussion at the ed that rather than treating this property Planning Commission meeting, they decid 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 andtherest of the lanare would be held in common. This is what the motiaa on page l5refers 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 w zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission could be answered as they draft the ne 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 easked Mr. Nitscheke if he cuncurred with her summary of the events of the Planning ion 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. i CITY OF FRIDLEY 3PP APPEALS CO,,W!ISSION P,,ETII1G - APRIL 2I+, 1979 CALL TO ORDER: Chairwoman Schnabel called the April 24, 1979,. meeting of the Appeals Commission to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLI. 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 COM;vIISSION 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 151 the last line, the word "maybe" should be inserted after the words "was that". UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNUEL DLCLARED THE MINUTES APPROVED AS CORRECTED. 2. ETIECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON TO SERVE FROM 5/l/79 to 5 1 80: MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Nir. Barna, to move this item to the. end of the ahenda. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWO,iAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE M(YPION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. TABLED: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, A VARIANCE HAS PEEN RERUr,S ED 120 REDUCE THZ MINI,14 ,4 JTEA ROI, A U11-HOUSE D•EVELOX—!,E T FROM 5 _ACRES O .25 ACRES, O ALLOid AN EXISTIidG TRI-PLEX TO 13E SOID AS THREE Ii;,DIVIDUAL' TWN OUS'S LLOCA'iLD AT 6651 ---06711-730 1 1,LAIII S`IREE-1 N.E. Request by Alvin A. Iditscheke, 6661 Main Street N.E., Fridley, rim. 55 }32 1,DTION by Ys. 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 Appeal: Commissioners have been given copies of the Planning Co=,ission 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. ��S COPNISSION M STING, APRIL 2�+, 1979 - -PACE-3 3RR • Mr. NJ.tscheke stated that his contention was that in order to reconstruct the, liuilding, 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. Ile 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 galls. 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. M'r. Moravetz stated that there should also be a separate meter for the cormon 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. Mor avetz 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. Mx. 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 - ~PAS 3$S Mr. Barna felt the-question had been well covered, but he asked if it was a replat or 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 particulax .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 a acre townhouse or a 22 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 Mx. Barna, seconded by Mr. Plemel, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CIIAIRWOMAN 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. ry 3TT iPPEALS COI�IISSION MIE`1'ING _AI�fiIL 2I�, 1979 - PAGE 5 MOTION by Mr. Barra, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to recommend approval of the variance requ'eUt, _pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the minimum area for a townhouse development frrrn 5 acres to .25 acres, to allow an existing tri-plex to be sold as three indiv:i.dual 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 SCINABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANII,2USLY. 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 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 df the property be held in common. Ms. Gabel stated that she felt that Council should be made aware of the 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. UPOI`r A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANII FOUSLY 4. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE, PURSUANT TO CHAPT-TR 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO. REDUC:r; TIII� SIDE YIT�D SLaI'i;ACK FROM `TE P=.Ti'v1i;IJif REQU:LRE15,hT OF 10 FEET TO. S•9 FEET TO ALLUJ THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 16 TOOT BY 32. FOOT ADDITION TO `.PILL REAR OF A HOUSE AT b517 P E;'IC CKIY SIREET N.E. AN ADDI IOIdAL' VAR IT IS I.< � ED BECAUSE AT 1i TIKE?, OF Tlii COIi J i ,iti'i'IOIJ O)' T: OiZIGIE;AL HOUSE `i': FROIiT YARD SEFBACK j?AS REDUCED TO 33 FEE'T !NS'JEAD OF TFLN; REQUIRED 35 FEET. Request by Richard Kok, 651'( McKinley Street N.E., Fridley, Y-n. 55 E3 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. 14.s. Schnabel read the Administrative Staff Report as follows; ' -- -- -- - 163 REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 21 , 1979 PAGE 3 SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, SF? #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 ADDITION, BETWEEN 48TH AND 49TH AVENUE, AND 2ND AND n` 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. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 24,1979 - TABLED VARIANCE REQUEST BY ALVIN A. NITSCHKE, 6661-6671-6681 MAIN STREET: Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated this variance request is related to j 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. i 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 IST 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 i 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. I _ - 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 pol-icy 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 [IUD 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 j to applicants that meet the criteria that is set up. i Mr. Sobiech stated a preliminary application was submitted to HUD and in j 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 I 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. i t 173 THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF JUNE 4, 1979 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was. called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Mayor Nee. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Nee led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Councilman Barnette, Councilman Schneider, Councilwoman Moses and Councilman Fitzpatrick MEMBERS ABSENT: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING, MAY 14, 1979: I MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING.NiEETING, MAY 14, 1979: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL MEETING, MAY 15, 1979: I MOTION by Councilman Schneider to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONTINUED BOARD OF REVIEW, MAY 21, 1979: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. REGULAR MEETING, MAY 21, 1979: MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Mayor Nee requested the addition of the 'following item: "Consideration Giving Concept Approval to Establishment of a Motor Bike Recreation Area". MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to adopt the agenda with the above addition. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: dl There was no response from the audience under this item of business. OLD BUSINESS: RECEIVING REPORT REGARDING CONVERTING EXISTING TOWNHOUSES INT-4._.C_ Q L NIUMS AND _.__.------ CONSIDERATION -CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT AND VARIANCE, JAY PARK, ALVIN NITSCHKE, 6661-71-81 MAIN STREET TABLE 21 79 : - !f 1.7 4 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 tertian 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. I Mayor Nee felt, as the ordinance stands now, this is Y 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. l Mr. Sobiech stated, in this case, i;t is the economical or financial hardship that is involved. i 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 i 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. I He pointed out that you would not only be creating them with the existing double bungalows, but would circumvent the present ordinance. 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 Fitzpatrick 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. j Mr. Herrick felt it was done in order to provide a variety of housing and that i it is cheaper to construct a double bungalow on one lot then two single i 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 h now, or with some simple modifications. i Councilman Fitzpatrick stated he was not prepared to allow building on 30 i foot lots. j Mr. Qureshi stated it is a question on whether the Council wishes to permit more rental units or more private ownership. IMayor 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 i 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 it as a 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 i 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. I 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: RECEIVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 1979: 'RE-ZONING REQUEST, ZOA #,=79-02, BY WILLIAM" J. HART (6431 HIGHWAY #65)• MOTION by Councilman Schneider to set the public hearing on this rezoning request for July 16, 1979. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a I voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #79-04, BY JOSEPH PERROZZI (8161 RIVERVIEW TERRACE): i Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated a special use permit is required due to the flood plain zoning of the property and, in conjunction with the special use permit, variances are requested for waiver of the setbacks. Mr. Sobiech stated the entire lot is not in the flood plain, but only the area ! along the front of the property. He stated, in this particular case, they would be raising the first floor with pilings and then raising the lot to insure no impact or minimal impact on adjacent properties. Mr. Sobiech stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of this special use permit at their May 23 meeting. j Mr. Sobiech stated he was confident that this drainage plan, as set up, will j handle the drainage. He stated there was discussion at the Planning Commission j meeting about the amount of slope on the swale section, but he felt it was j adequate. i Mr. Sobiech stated the petitioner did propose a certain dimension house for the property, however, it was recommended that the house be redesigned to eliminate the need for the side yard variance, which was denied by the Appeals Commission. He stated the Appeals Commission did, however, approve a variance for reduction in the area of the lot. Mr. Sobiech felt this was a very good plan as compared with others in the area. 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 j very general rule and depends on a situation-by-situation application. . I , _ i