Loading...
PL 04/21/1976 - 30442� ,"� � �z J CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIIVG APRIL Z1, 1976 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Shea, Bergman, Harris, Peterson, Wahlberg, Langenfeld None � Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: APRIL 7, 1976 MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Langenfe.Zd, that the PZanning Commis- sion approve the minutes of. the Apri1 7, 1976 rneeting as written. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: APRIL l, 1976 MOTION by Shea, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Human Resources Commission m2eting of April 1, .I976. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. �"`, . Mrs. Shea called attention to the recommendation from the Youth Project Committee on the Teen Center proposal and to the motion made by the Human � Resources Commission which was to approve the resolution of the Youth Pro- ject Committee and ask the City through the Planning Commission to bri.ng the Youth Center under the.auspices of the Parks and Recreation Department. Mrs. Shea said she wasn't sure how this should be handled. She said she didn't know if this should go to the City Council before it went to the Parks & Recreation Department. Mr. Peterson said the Parks & Recreation Commission would like to review this proposal before it went to the Council. Mr. Peterson asked what the thinking was behind this recommendation. Mrs. Shea said �he Youth Project Committee felt that they would like the teen center to be under the Parks & Recreation Department, and they would like them to be the administrators. She said that the Human Resources Corrnnission felt that this committee had done all they could do. She said they had the backing of the City Manager to either have the use of the room in the Parks & Recreation Department or the room formerly occupied by the library. Mr. Peterson asked if they were talking in terms of a program or of a physical facility. Mrs. Shea said it was both. Mr. �ergman said that this proposal has been under discussion by the Community Development Commission and the majority of the members stated that they wanted to review the proposed youth center. ,•� Mr:..Langenfeld said the Environmental Quality Commission was interested ` in this proposal also, and they would like to review it. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the recommendations and prognam which resulted from the combined efforts of the Human Resources Commission and the Youth Project Committee for a teen center, be referred to the Parks & Recreation Commission, the Community Deve.Zopment Comm,ission F Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1976 Page 2 and the Environmen�al Quality Commission. Upon a voice vote, aZl voting aye, ;the mofion carried unanimously. . Mr. Keith Larson, VicQ Chaarman of the Youth Project Committee said they wou�d have a representative from this Committee at all these meetings. Mr.�Boardman said that in the Youth Project Committee's proposal they mention that a temporary youth center be established in the Civic Center. How temporary would this be? Mr. Larson said it referred to the way that all the youth centers we have screened and examined in our proposal have started, which was on a temporary basis. Either a City organization, or the Police Department, or a special interest group started such a center, and then with the development of interest of people, usually one group would take it over. Mr. Larson said the location of the teen center would be permanent. He said that as�the development of interest deve}oped in the Center, the� would be looking for people from the Police Department, peaple from the Junior and Senior High Schools, members of the Planning Commission and Human Resources Commission, as volunteers to help with tha:s Center. If they had help from all these organizatio..s, it would help decrease the staff they would n�eed from the Parks & Recreation Department. They would hope to �ventually be a self-propelled type of a center with volunteer chaperones. Mr. Peterson said that he would like to ask the staff to provide the proper information for the Parks & Recreation meeting which would be held„ on Monday, April 26, 1976. :RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: APRIL 13, 1976 MOTION by Wahlberq, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Comrrds- sion receive the minutes of the Appea.Zs Commission meeting of April I3, 1976. . Mr. Harris said the City Council had received the minutes of the Planning Commission on 40' lots and will study our recommendation �t their workshop meeting on April 26th. He said that a policy statement and recommendations on sub-standard lots would be coming from the City Council. � . Mr. Boardman said the Appeals Commission would be acting on the one request they have had on a 40' lot on April 27th, but this would then be going to the City Council, and they would�make the final disposition on this request. UPON a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: APRIL 13, 1976 MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive the Community Development Commission minutes of the meeting of ,8pri1 13, 1976. Mrs. Wahlberg asked how the development of the Sign Ordinance Project Committee was progressing. Mr. Qergman said that Dennis Schneider would be Chairing this project committee and was in the process'of forming it. Mr. Bergman said that his Commission felt that lyra K�^aig Lofquist from Naegele Sign Company had volunteered to be on this Gommission and they also wanted representation from the Chamber of Commerce. Ihey i=elt that anyone I � 1 � 1 � �� , � �. � g ,^� 2 I ;' \ ..- . r�`1 � �' \ . Plannin� Commission Meeting - April 21, 1976 Pa ec�3 who didn't live in the City should be on this Corrunittee for in.formational purposes only, and that the Chamber of Correnerce representative shouldn't vote because they had a i�ested'interest. Mr. Peterson said he took exception � to.this because this Committee was being formed to give input on changes that should probably be made in the sign ordinance, and the people who were really involved in this ordinance should be full members of this 'Corr�ni �tee . Mrs. Wah1berg asked if a member of the Appeals Commission was still being considered as a member of thi:s Committee. Mr. Bergman asked Mrs. Wahlberg to discuss this with the Appeals Commission, and then she should call Mr. Schneider and tell him which member would agree to be on the Committee. He said that they felt there should be a limit of seven people on this Committee to make it a workable group. UPON a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPFCIHL USE PERMIT, SP #76-05, BY ARLYNE R. JOHNSON: Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, ��,A, to allow the construciion of a second accessory building, a 20' x 22' detached garage, on Lot 5, and the East 1/2 of Lot 4, Block 5, City View . Addition, the same being 420 57th Place N.E. Mr. Barry Satterlee, She Sussel Company, was present to represent the petitioner. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on the request for a SpeciaZ Use P�rmit, SP # 76-05, by Arlyne R. Johnson. Upon a voice vote, a1.Z voting aye, Chairman Narris dealared the Pub.Zic Hearing open at 8:11 P.M. � Mr. Boardman said the petitioner had a single attached garage. He said this property had double access, one access fram�57th Place N.E. and the other access on 57th Avenue N.E. He said this garage would be 2��' x 22' and would meet all the code requirements. The staff had no.: objections to this special�use permit being granted. .Mr. Barry Satterlee presented pictures of the site,_ a drawing of how the garage would be located on the lot, and a statement signed by the two adjacent property owners. Chairman Harris read the statement from the two adjacent property ` owners w{�ich stated: "We the undersigned have no objection to a double garage being constructed at 42D 57th Place and the present single garage attached to the dwelling remaining open and being used as a garage." He said i� was signed by Warren Sui�derland bf 410 57th Place N.�E. and Carl Paulson of 430 57th Place N.E. MOTIGN by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Plantaing Commission receive the siqned sta�ement from the adjacent property owners. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. T�Ir. Satterlee said that Miss Johnson lived alone and for security reasons would like to continue to use the single attached garage for her personal car. She was going to�use the second .garage to store a boat and a second car. r Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1976 Page 4 MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the.�Planning Commission close the Public Nearing on a request for a Special Use Permit, SP #76-05, by Arlyne R. Johnson. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Narris declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:16 P.M. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommend to Counci.I approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, 5P #76-05, by Arlyne R. Johnson, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, 2, A�, to a11ow the construction of a second accessory buiZding, a 20' x 22' detached garage, on Lot 5, and the East 1/2 of Lot 4, B1ock 5, City View Addition, the same being 420 57th P1ace N.E. Mr. Harris as.ked Mr. Satterlee to be sure the petitioner was aware that it was a code requirement to have a hard surface driveway. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2, VACATION REQUEST: SAV #76-02, MRS. RAY PRESIEMAN: To vacate that . part of unimproved Johnson Street that lies North of 53rd Avenue and.adjacent to Lot 18, Block 2, Swanstrom's Court Addition, the same being 1391 53rd Avenue N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Ray Presteman�were present. ,, ,+�, � �; � � Chairman Harris said this request would be handled as an informal publ i c heari r�g . ,-1 Mr. Boardman said that a portion of unimproved Johnson Street was vacated in 1970. At that time, this portion of Johnson Street was not vacated because the petitioner wanted to maintain that area for an access. They have changed their minds and want it vacated now. There will have ta be an easement re�ained for drainage and utilities on the East.20' of the vacated street. Mrs. Albert Vi�llella, 5300 Matterhorn Drive N.E., said that their house was on the other side of this unimproved Johnson Street, and she wondered how this vacation would affect her property. Mr. Harris sai�d this road easement for Johnson Street was 33' which was half of an easement for a street, so it would all go back to Swanstrom's Court Addition, so this wouldn't affect Mrs. Villella's property at all. Mrs. Villella said that if the petitioner was going to construct something on this 33', then it would affect her property very much. �Mr. Presteman said that they were going to construct a new attached _garage on their property, which would•be built 2 feet from their present. property line, so the vacated street would be used just as part of the required setback. They didn't intend to t�se any part of the vacated street for any structure. Mrs. Presteman said this unimproved street has been used as a dumping ground by all the surrounding neighbors. She said there has been concrete chunks, tree branches, etc., dumped here, and she was the•only one in the past ten years who has made any effort to clean up this area. Mrs. Villella said that they had just purchased their home last spring, and they had tried to clean up the area closest to their property. �1 � � � � � Plamm �g Commission Meeting April 21, 1976 Page 5 ��s. Presteman asked the Planning Corrunission if they knew how much this vacated street would add to their real estate taxes. �r..Harris sa�d he didn't think it would raise the taxes too much because this would be considered as one building site, and although they would own all the �roperty, 20' of it would have a drainage and utility easement on it. � � Mrs. Presteman said that if the City Council approved this vacation, they would like to construct their garage before the vacation process was completed. She said that no part of the easement would be used for the construction of the garage because the garage would be 2 f.eet from their pr�SmakePa�determinationMon this,sitawouldehaventonbeCdonesby the could no City Council. Mrs. Villella asked how close this garage would be to her property. Mr. Harris said it would be 35' from her property line. She said she had no objection to this. � MOTION by �ahlberq, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning CommisMrsn recommend to Council approval of the vacation request, SAV #76-02, by Ray Presteman, to vacate that part of unimproved Johnson Street that lies North of 53rd Avenue N.E. and adjacent to Lot I8, Block 2, Swanstrom's Court Addition, the same being 1391 53rd Avenue N.E..with the stipulation that the City retain a drainage and utility easement on the Easterly 20 n feet. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. DISCUSSION ON SECOND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 1976 Chairman Harris had asked Mr. Bergman to delay the discussion of this item until the completion of the public hearing items. Mr. Bergman said he was bringing this to the attention of the Planning Commission for any treatment that the Planning Commission deemed necessary. He said the Community Dev�lopment Commission had discussed this because of a request for a Special Use Permit �on � sec��d �ccessory _ ,,_ building that was larger than the existing house, which they felt was in conflict with the primary use of a residential district. � Mr. Bergman said it was the unanimous consensus of this Commission, after in-depth'discussions, that the present ordinance was as good �s anything that we could come up with. The concerns 'sere 'that the City should not prohibit what a person could do on thein own property, and to be too restrictive was a violation of individual rights. The 25% lot cover- - - age maximum, they felt was a reasonably valid control over�the abuse of second accessory building size. It was felt that we shouldn't get too ' concerned with what kind of private business or hobby a person.might want � to conduct on their own property. Mr.�Bergman said they felt �t would be difficult to v�lidly deny an accessory building, with the burden of ?�1 proof resting on the City, and it would be difficult to inspect or control. ;� �� as to the present owner, or if the property changed owners. Mr. Peterson said he agreed with this completely. � d Planning Commission �eeting - April 21, 1976 Page 6 _ . Mr. Harris said that he agreed With this in principle, but he was � concerned with the use of some of the accessory buildings. He said that , there seemed to be more and more businesses t�at were being operated out ' of garages, and he thought this was bringing commercialism into what should '�� be completely residential neighborhoods. Mr. Boardman said the home occupation sec�ion of our code does not allow any business to be conducted from an accessory building, it all had to be confined to the residence itself. Mr. Harris felt that there were flagrant violations to that section of.the code. He said that he felt there were many body shops being operated in garages, and this was unfair to someAne. who was operating a body shop in the proper zoning and paying out for overhead, when•someone else was operating a body shop illegally in their garage, with no overhead. Mr. Langenfeld offered as a suggestion the guidelines laid out by insurance companies on what was a commercial use in a resi�dentialarea and what wasn`t. He said he felt this would be quite helpful to the Planning Commission in making a determination of what was a home oocupation and what was a commercial venture. Mr. Boardman said he felt that would be a help, but he would prefer not to have the zoning ordinance wvrked on in a piecemeal way. He said that the Planning Commissi>on would be reviewing the enbereartno�gthe�r� and he thought that the concerns that they had should P recommended changes to the code at that time. He said they could also � consider business licenses for home businesses at the time they reviewed the new maintenance code. Chairman Harri"s declared a recess at 9:10 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:25 P.M. ' 4. GOALS & OBJECTIVES Mr. Boardman said he had set up five goal areas. They were Housing, Human Development, Access, Security and Corrununity Vitality. He said the Housing Goal had been completed. Mr. Boardman said that under the Human Development Goal they would. cover Parks & Recreation.,and every thing that deals with human resources: library, fine ar�ts, the humanities, the school� and education, etc. Under the Access Goal we will handle anything that has to do with the movement af people and services, and the maintenance of those accesses. The Security Goal will har.dle individual public health and general welfare. �In-the • _ Vitality Goal they would handle anything that concerns the cora,iunity's growth. Mr. Boardman said they would consider the Human Development Goal at this meeting. Mr. Boardman read five goal statements under this goal. The first goal statement was to "Provide adequate park facilities and recreational opportunities to ensure the healih and well being of the residents and provide for a quality living environment." He then read '"�,� four other goal statements and then reviewed the Program Objectives for e � the first goal statement which were based on the goals and objectives from the Parks & Recreation Commission. � 4y � Planning Commission Meetin - April 21, ]976 Pa�e 7 � � The Planning Commission was in general agreernent with the presentation � t�y Mr. Boardman, but Mr.�Harris said he thowght they should take the material ��� with them to give themselves a chance to digest it,-and they should be ready � by the next meeti ng to review thi s�in�rst goal under Human Devel opu�ent. '..Mr. ,,' Boardman..sai� tfie Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan would be based on this first goal. 5. PERMIT PROCESS Mr. Boardman said he would like to have the Planning Commission's reaction to the staff reports used for building permit requests far�:commercial and industrial development. He said that at the present time; when someone makes a request for a building permit, we write up a staff report. He said � this was sent to the Planning Commission, who were not required to take action on the report. •It then goes to the City Council, and they are not required to take any action on these reports either. He said that the staff did wait to issue a permit until the staff reports had been through the Planning Commission and Council. He said the intent of this process was just to inform the Planning Commiss�i�on and Coaacil of what was go;ng on in the City. . Mr. Boardman said he thought that a better way to handle this, as far as the staff was concerned, was to eliminate the staff report. He said the staff reviewed all building permit requests to see that they met all the requirements of the zoning code: He said a list of permits issued would be given to the Planning Commission and Council so they would still be aware of what was being developed in the City. ' Mr. Boardman said that when the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee was eliminated during the reorganization of the Planning Commiss.ion, it was though� the administrative staff report would be a transition from this Subcommittee to a process that would still keep the � Planning Commission and Council aware of building permit requests. Now we would like to phase out the administrative staff reports. He said that by just sending a list of permits issued to the Planning Commission and Council this could speed us the issuing of permits by two to three weeks. Mr. Harris said he was concerned about developers not having any �^e�mu�se if they didn't agree with the staff's interpretation of the zoning code. Mr. Boardman said this was taken care of in the Code, where anyone could make an appeal of any staff decision through the Appeals Commissi�n. Mr. Harris said that he had no objection to building permits being handled by the staff as long as there was a way to appeal these decisions. The other members of the Planning Commission concurred. They all agreed that staff should make the citizens aware that there was an appeal process to their decisions. - 6. STREET STANDARDS Mr. Bergman said he wanted to bring up:the subject of street standards ,� with the idea that it was better to be forthright to do something other than � to complain or gripe. He said that at the last mee�ing he had asked what ! � the standard was for street width, and was told that there were many, and he was bo�hered by this. He asked if there was anything the Planning Commission could do to correct this. Mr. Boardman said that most of the streets were . . A. ._ _ . _ _ _� Plaflning Commission Meeting - Apri1�21, 1976 Page 8__ already in. Mr. Narris said he felt it was never too late to establish standards, because this was an on-going thing. Mrs. Shea felt that this could be under the Access Goal to establish standards for road width. Mr. Bergrnan said he felt a little bit embarrasseslthat at this point in time we were talking about establishing street standards. Mr. Boardman said he would ask the Engineering Department for a report on how street widths were determined at the present time. ADJOURNMENT: MOTIOIV b� Peterson, seconded by Wahlberg that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, a1Z voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Planning Comm�ssion meeting of Apri1 21, 1976 adjourned at 10:57 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ��� ���ti�� Dorothy,Evens,� , ecretary ✓ � ��� � _ _ _ ... _ .y °A