Loading...
PL 02/25/1981 - 30553CITY OF FRIDLEY � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 25, 1981 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the February 25, 7981, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. Harris, Mr. Treuenfels, Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Svanda, Mr. Oquist, Ms. Hughes, Mr. Wharton Members Absent: None Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Bill Deblon, Associate Planner Kathleen Ca7lahan, League of P�innesota Cities Thomas Brickner, 6249 Ben More Drive David Harris, 470 Rice Creek Blvd. See attached 7ist APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 4, 1981, PLANNING COP�MISSIOV MINUTES: � MOTION BY MR. TREU'ENFELS, SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA, 2'O APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 4� 1981, PLANNING COMMIS5ION MINUTES AS W.RITfiEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOfiING AYE, CHIiIR1�7AN HARR.ZS DEC.LARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLTC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED NOTSE ORDINANCE MOTION B% MS. HUGHES, SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONSIDERATION OF A Pt70POSED NOISE ORDINANCE. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN NARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:35 P.M. ' Mr.`Boardman staied the Noise Ordinance vras discussed at the last two Planning Commission meetings. He stated that Ms. Kathleen Callahan of the League of Minnesota Cities was in the audience. P1s. Callahan, Mr. Deblon, and himself would be glad ��o answer any questions the Commission might have. � Ms. Schnabel stated that on agenda page 16, u��der Section 124.04 Central Air Conditioning Equipment, how do Fridley residents know they are required to get approval from the City berore�installing cer�tral air conditioning units? � Mr. Deblon stated that under the current State Building Code, a permit is required for any electrical or heat�ng, and the City has adopted that State Code. '� When a permit is obtained for any electrical or heating, this requirement could be enforced. PLANNING COf�MISSION MEE7ING, FEBRUARY 25, 1981 PAGE 2 ,--,� Ms. Callahan stated that most central air conditioning units are still put in by contractors, and contractors are usual]y very conscientious about a City's rules and regulations and usually don't get the citizens into problems. The problem exists when the resident purchases an air conditioning unit from a store and ins�a1ls it himself. She stated that when a City adopts new legislation, she usually recommends that the Ciiy utilize ways to a7ert the citizens to these new pieces of legislation, such as a community newsle�ter, Welcome Wagon, newspaper, or alert key vendors in the community--whatever system works best for the community. Ms. Schnabel asked if it was possible that the noise levels of the newer air conditioning units are of a lower frequency that is not as annoying as the older models, and did Ms. Callahan foresee in the future that the newer units would be quiet enough so as not to cause a disturbance and an ordinance such as �his would not even be necessary? Ms. Callahan stated that no matter how quiet an air conditioning unit is, there is al�ays the situation where �he unit is adjacent to a neighboring bedroom window or another window. There will always be problems when houses are close together. She stated that Ms. Schnabel was correct in that the newer models are getting quieter. Hov�ever, she doubted they would ever get to the point where the City would not want this requirement. . �"1 Ms. Schnabel asked if Mr. Herrick, �the City Attorney, had reviewed this proposed , Noise Ordinance. Mr. Deblon stated that Mr. Herrick and Mr. Carl Newquist, City Prosecutor, had received copies of the Noise Ordinance to review. He stated the Commission had a copy of a letter ,From Mr. Newquist regarding the Noise Ordinance that�should be received into the record. MOTION BY MR. WHARZ'OIV, SECONDED BY MS. SCHNAEEL, T.O R.ECEIVE INTO THE RECORD A LETTER FROM CARL IVEWQUI5T, CITY PROSECUTOR, REGARDING THE PROPOSED 1VOISE ORDINANCE. Ms. Schnabei asked what Mr. Deblon's:reaction was to Mr. Newquist's statement that he feels the ordinance is somewhat redundant and already exists in some of the other city codes? �Ir. Deblon stated his reaction was that they should �ite that, and in some �eGtions they have cited the fact that these already exist elsewhere in the code and have cross referenced. Mr. Newquist still felt it was redundant and had suggested that Staff ge� an opinion from the City Attorney as far as,cite and cross referencing other things in the code. Ms. Hughes stated that redundance is perhaps not required in a lot of instances, b�t if she thought the problem was being taken care of and enforced i� other codes, she would not even support this kind of an ordinance. Her major complaint � is with the noise levels. Mr. Ne��quist's letter sounds as though they could prac�tically junk the whole ordinance. She stated that maybe they should �ust be making sur� that every ordinance in the City is enforced. '-�'— � PLANNIidG COMMISSION MEETING, FE�RUA�Y 25, ]981 PAGE 3 Ms. Callahan stated she felt that many of Mr. Newquist's comments were directed at the League of Minnesota Cities' model ordinance, which is kind of a grocery list. She siated she and Mr. Deblon spent a long time trying to tailor the model ordinance and Fridley's ordinance is not the League's ordinance at all. Same of the things Mr. Newquist suggested in the letter, she and Mr. Deblon agreed were appropriate, and she thought some of those changes had already been made. Ms. Callahan stated Mr. Newquist had a concern about the "Receiving Land Use Stanciards", Section 124.02, which are the quantitative "guts" of the ordinance. It was �iis thinking they are real7y only zoning standards and should be put in the Zoning Code. Ms. Callahan stated that while ihe standards should 6e in the Zoning Code as weil, they do not only speak to the issue of how land is being used now, but they also speak to the issue of how land can be used later on. Ms. Callahan stated she did think they shou7d keep the"Motor Vehicle Noise Limits" under Section 124.03, whether they adopi them by reference or enforce them. Most cities site them by reference if they start an enforcement program. Ms. Callahan stated Mr. Newquist had concerns about the"Public �uisance Noises", Section 124.06. She stated that while these are very vague in nature by the way they are listed, these are situations where most cities have found it virtual7y impossib7e �o do quantitative la��a enforcement. They are trying to create a � document that helps the City enforce in a reasonable way that is fair. Rather than rely on simple state language that can designate anythir�g as a pub�ic nuisance, they identii'ied specific actions that th�e Ci�y of Fridley iderrtifies ahead of time as public nuisances. She sta�ed they worked on this ordinance with a number o� attorneys for quite a. long time and they feel they came up with a good document. However, t,�hether this is what the City of Fridley wants in the document is a totally different question. Ms. Callahan stated Mr. Newquist had a prob1em with "Noisy Parties or Gatherings" (Item C in Section ]24.06). He had stated he did not think the City had any problem with it right now. She stated this might be something the Police Depart- ment should respond to. Most cities don't feel they have a handle on this kind of situation and need any tool they can get to alleviate those kinds of situations. She stated she felt there is a dif�erence between the parties where there is disorderly conduct and the parties that are just noisy. UPON A VOICE VdTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CNAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED h1R. NEWgUIST'S LETT�R RECEIVED INTO THE 12ECORD. Ms. Schnabel referred to agenda page 18, Section 124.08, "Powers and Duties of the Noise Cc�ntro] Officer". She stated there is nQ further reference to a "noise control officer"; therefore "no�se control officer" should be deleted as that person is not referenced anywhere else in the document. Mr. Harris stated he objected to the listing of "Outdoor Power Implements" in !�1 Section 124.05 Operational Limits. When they s�art listing things, the list is usua]ly inconiplete, and some or the things are inadequate. He stated he also PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 25, 1981 PAGE 4 had a problem with the curfew hours. He thou�ht 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on � weekends and holidays was not being reasonable. Ms. Ca1lahan stated this was a]ocal kind af issue. The �ity of Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Bloomington felt 9:00 a.m. was appnopriate because of the density in population. There is a trade-off here, and that is the kind of thing the Planning Commission and City Council should make a decision.on. These times came from an analysis and survey held by �he Pollution Control Agency. Mr. Harris stated the problem with this is that the City does not have the enforcement capability to catch, for example, the person speeding down Central Avenue at 6:00 a.m. Mr. Oquist stated he did not have a problem with "Operational Limits", but he did have a problem with the list of outdoor power implements. The Operational Limits is putting a control on noise during certain hours. It is not 7imiting or restricting the�se of power equipment entirely, just during cer�ain times. MOTIQN BY MS. HUGHES, SECONDED BY M5. SCHNABEL, TO RECOMMEND THE DELETIDN OF "DRIL7�S" FROM ITEM #2, OUTDOOR POWER IMPLEMENTS" IN SECTTON 124-05. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DE�LARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY. Mr. Oquist stated �he ordinance might be hard to enforce, but it is a tool for n enforcement. Without �he ordinance, they can�ot en•�orce anything. Mr. Harris stated the major problem he has with the whole ordinance is equal and fair enforcer�ent. He sta-ted he would like to talk to Mr. Herrick in depth about this ordinance. Ms. Hughes sta�ed it seemed to her that wi�h an ordinance like this, it was a case of whether or not the City wan�ts a nice community for people to live in, and that is what they are really trying to do with this ordinance. Before this comes back on the agenda, she would like to ask Staff to have an updated version of the Noise Ordinance with all the changes so the Planning Commission �vould have the form Staff would like the Planning Commission to recommend on to City Couttcil. M�1'IDN BY MS. HUGHE5, SECOIVDED BY MR. OQUIST� TO CONTINUE DISCUSS.TON ON THE PROPOSED NOI5E ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2, PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION 4F A PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #8]-02 HEATHER HILLS WEST, BY THOMAS BRICKNER: 6eing a replat of Lot 1, Block 3, Moore Lake Hills Addition, a single family dwelling area gerterally located on the East side of Central Avenue N.E. at 6175 Central. ''� r"1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEQRURRY 25, 1981 PAGE 5 MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MR. SUANDA, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #81-02, BY THOMAS BRICKNER. UPON A VOICE V02'�, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC $EARING OPEN AT 8:37 P.M. Mr. Boardman stated this property is off Old Central, just north of Woody Lane. This used to be church-owned property, and the church is interested in selling. Mr. Brickner has a contract for purchasing the property based on approval of the plat. He stated Mr. Brickner is in the audience. Mr. Boardman s�ated that Mr. Brickner is proposing a road that comes in off Centra] Avenue and ends in a cul-de-sac. The reason he is proposing at this time is he is attempting to save as much vegeiation as possible. He either plans to move the existing house on to one lot or tear the house down. The City's overall plans for improvement of this area, when development daes come, will be some connection from Ben Mare Drive to this road system. Mr. Boardman stated that all the lots are acceptable and are all over 9,000 sq, ft. Some are 90 -�t. lois and are 85 ft. lots. Mr. Brickner is planning on building very nice homes on those lots. Mr. Tom Brickner, 6249 Ben More Drive, stated he lives in this area. He stated he would be glad to answer any ques�ions the Commission might have. �'1 Mr. Ralph Skinner, 6217 Centra] Ave., stated his property abuts this area to the north, and he is perfectly in agreemeni with Mr. Brickner as far as the development of this area. There is a lot of property lyting there that is not being utilized, and this development will be very advantageous to both the people who live in this area and to the City. Mr. Walter Rydberg, 6127 Woody Lane, stated he and three other people in the audience own property that abuts this property on the southern end. They are concerned about the terrain and the big tal] pine trees that might have to be removed. Mr. William Gagner, 6125 Woody Lane, stated he lives next to Mr. Rydberg. He is concerned about the grading and the natural grade. Mr. Brickner stated there was no doubt that this is a difficult piece of ground to work with. He is certainly going to try to save as many trees and preserve the beauty of the area the best he can. There is going to be some unusual construction, and each home will be custom-designed to fit each lot. P9r. �kinner stated that with regard to Mr•. Brickner's developing ability, he is acquainted with t,rhat Mr, Brickner has done. He stated he is very confident in Mr. Brickner's past perforr�ance, and A1r. Brickner will not do anything in the neighborhood except to benefit and create an environment and an atmosphere that wiTl be advantageous to every home owner in the area and to the City of �-� Fridley. He builds the finest and develops in such a way that the houses look �-'` - as though they grew out of the ground instead of being put together. .-�� PLANNIfJG COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 25, 1981 PAGE 6 �1 �r. Harris asked who would main�ain the ponding area, the City or the property owners? He stated that with all the ponding areas the City requires for new development, someone should figure out how much it costs the City to maintain these ponding areas each year. Mr. Boardman stated they could extend the property line and just retain a drainage easement and have the property owners maintain the ponding area. Mr. Harris stated he liked that idea better. Ms. Schnabel suggested that the lot line of the lot next to the ponding area be moved over, and that lot split in half to make an additiona] buildable lot. Mr. Boardman stated that maybe Mr. Brickner could work it out with another buildable lot so that the drainage easement went across all three of those lots. This is something Mr. Brickner is going to have to look at �hen he gets his final plat. MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, 5ECONDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO CLOSE THE PUBLTC HEARING ON PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #81-02� BY THOMAS BRICKNER. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHATRMAN HARRIS DE'CLA.RED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:28 P.M. /"1 MOTIQN BY MR. OQUIST, SECOIVDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO RECONIMEND TO CITY COUNCIL ,, APPROVAL OF PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #51-02, NEATHER HILLS WEST, BY THOMAS BRICKNER: BEING A REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 3, MOOR� T�AICE HILIS ADDlTION, A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AREA GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CENTRAL AVE. N.E. AT 6175 CENTR2�L, SUBJECT TO ENGINEERING STANDARDS FOR ROAD RIGHT—OF— WAY AIVD AIVY NECES5ARY ENGTNEERIIVG EASEMENTS b�IITHIN THE PLAT . UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED iJNANIMOU5LY. Mr. Boardman stated the final plai will go to City Council for setting a public hearing on March 16, and will go to City Council for a public hearing on Apri1 13. 3. LOT SPLIT RE UEST, L.S. #81-01, BY THOMAS BRICKNER: Split off the East 300 feet of Lot 19, Au itor s Subdivision No. 22, the same being 6229 Central Avenue N.E. Mr. Boardman stated this request was also by Mr. Brickner. This lot is located north of the proposed plat. Mr. Brickner does have a purchase agreement from the owner of the property to split off the 300 feet of the lot. If the Planning Commission and City Council approve the lot split, Mr. Brickner will purchase the property. P�Ir. Boardman stated that if the Planning Commission does approve the lot split, � he would recommend a stipulation that this lot not be built upon until it gains � access from the south o�° from Ben P1ore Drive and built only in a manner consistent with further development of that area. Otherwise, he would recommend denial. �� n PLANNING C0�IMISSION MEETING, FEgRUARY 25, 1981 PAGE 7 Mr. Br.iekner stated he had no problem with �hat stipulation. He stated he would not even ask for a building permit the way Ben More Drive is right now. Ms. Hughes stated the property owner had not signed the lot split application, only Mr. arickn�r had signed it. She stated the Planning Commission could recommend on the lot split, but befare it goes to City Council, the property owner should sign the application along with the fee owner. P1s. Hughes stated she had no problem with this lot split request if they can limit the building on the lot. There certainly needs to be some platting in order to get the best use out of the property. MOTIDN BY MS. HUGHE5, SECQNDED BY MR. TREUENFELS, TD RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF LOT SPLIT REQUF5T, L.S. #81-01, BY THOM1dS BRICKNER: SPLIT OFF THE EAST 300 FEET OF LOT 19, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVI5ION NO. 22, THE SAME BEING 6229 CENTRAL AVENUE N.E., WITH THE FOLL06�ING 2'WO STIPULATIDNS: Z. THAT NO BUILDING TAKE PLACE ON THIS PROPERTY UNTIL THE PROPERTY IS SERVICED DIRECTLY BY A PUBLIC STREET. 2. THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER SIGN THE LOT SPLIfi APPLICATTON. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECL.�RED THE MOTION CARRIED UNAN'IMOUS.LY. � 4. LOT SPLIT RE UEST, L.S. #81-02, BY A& R DAVID HARRIS): Split off the North 233 feet of the West 230 reet of � e NE /4 of the Nl� 1/4 lying Eas�t of Highway P��o. 65, subject to the rights of the pubiic over the North 33 feet and over the LJest 20 feet th�refor for highway and driveway purposes, subject to easement from East 5 feet to NSP, subject. to road easemen� to Viron Realty, From the West 600 feet of the Pdorth 330 feet of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4, Section 12, to make Ciiy records agree with County records, the same being 7699 Viron Road, N.E. (Frostop) Mr. Boardman stated this is the same problem ihey have had in the past. The County records lot splits without getting the lot splits approved by the City. He stated this property is ]ocated on Osborne Road and Highway 65. The property that is split at the record of the County is ihe Frostop, so that the taxes were split up, but specia] assessments were not split up, because the lot split was never approved by the City of Fridley. Ne stated Mr. Dave Harris is asking that this split be approved by the City so that all the special assessmenis on his record are clear. Mr. Boardman stated that the County is proposing a street improvement all the way frorn University Ave. to Old Central. The County is planning some inter- section improvements, and this area is one of those intersection improvements. There are problems right now with aceess and entrance onto Viron Rd., because it comes in on an intersection. Tha� whole area �s qoing to be a center line median, therefore, there will be no access to Viran Road at the north end. The ^ City is looking at their normal loopback system which will provide a loop around the corner property. In order to do this, they need right-of-way dedication. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 25, 1981 PAGE 8 � P�r. Boardman sta�ed they have talked to Mr. Dave Harris and the owner of the Frostop about this lot split. The owner of the Frostop is proposi.ng within the next two years to cons�ruct a sma71 office facility on this location. The property is presently zoned C2-S. It is Staff's recommendation that when the owner comes in for a building permit to start construction, he be asked to rezone that property to C-2. Wi�h this portion of dedication for right-of-way, the City will deed back to him a portion of Viron Road. The City is looking at a 60 ft. right-of-way, of which a portion of that right-of-way wi17 be taken from A & R (Dave Harris). Mr. Dave Harris stated he thoug�t this was a housekeeping kind of thing, and he really felt they were talking about two different things: (1) the lot split; and (2) the intersection and road control. � Mr. Harris stated that when the building permi� was granted in 1963, in effect, the City did cr,eate a lot split. Last year when he v�ent back to correct the survey on the properiy, it was determined that this property was not part of the whole nine acres that was in existence at the time, because the County had taken the split and recorded it. The City had not done this, so he has been payinq the other property's assessments since 1964 as part of the property he had retained. Now the'City is proposing to put in another road or loopback system, so virtually, he would be paying for that road all over again. He stated that back in 1970, when the Ci�y came in and did some improvemen�s, i� was asked if the City would ^ put in a loopback sys�em, and the City was no� willing to do it at that ti�ne. So, this is a comp7ete change. He paid for it once, he should not have to pay for it a second time. Mr. Harris stated that was a separate issue, and the issue here tanight is to do some housekeeping and bookkeeping to make that lot split not subject to conditions of this road. It virtually has been split and operating since 1964. It is unfortunate that the City did not catch this sooner. Mr. Harris stated he is willing to work with the Gity on traffic control, but he did not care for the way things have been laid out at this point. He was not in a position to agree to the loopback until the lo� split is approved. Mr. Boardman stated that before the lot split is approved, he would like a condition on it that Mr. Dave Harris work with the City to come to some equitable agreement for road right-of-way. (Mr. Wharton left the meeting at 10:15 p.m.) MOTIDN BY MS. HUGHES TD CONTINUE LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #81-02, BY A& R (DAVE HARRIS) . TFIE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SEGOND. Mr. Harris stated h� objected to Mr. Qoardman's recon�nended stipulation. The City is giving more back to the owner oi the Frostop than he is giving up. He stated he was giving up more. He felt th� Planning Commission should grant the lot split, and then they can start fram zero oo� the raad right-of-way agreement. � �'1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 25, ]981 PAGE 9 Mr. Qoardman stated tha� should still be a condition so that.when this goes to City Council, they will have the road worked ou� between Mr. Harris and the owner of the Frostop. MOT20N BY MR. OQUIST, 5ECONDED BY MR. TREUENFELS, TO RECOMMEND TD CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. N81-02, BY A& R(DAVID HARRIS) TD SPLIT OFF THE NORTH 233 FEET OF TH� WEST 230 FEET OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW l/4 LYING EA5T OF HIGHWAY NO. 65, SUBJECT TO THE RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC OVER THE NORTH 33 FEET AND OVER THE WEST 20 FEET THEREFOR FOR HIGHWAY AND DRI[VE�AY PURPOSES, SUBJECT TO EASEMENT OVER E.�ST 5 FEET TO NSP, SUBJECT TO ROAD EASEMENT TO VIRON REALTY, FROM THE WEST 600 FEET OF THE NORTH 330 FEET OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE �l 1/4, SECTIaN I2, TO A9AKE CZTY RECORD5 AGREE WiTH COUNTY RECORDS, THE SAME BEING 7699 VIRON ROAD N.E. (FROSTOP), WITIi NO 5TIPULATIONS. Ms. Hughes stated she felt this was the wrong thing to do until they get some commitment on the street matter because of the City's responsibili�ies in ierms of public health, safety, and welfare. UPON A VDICE VOTE, HARRIS, TREUENFELS, SCHN1dBEL, SVANDA, AND OQIiIST VOTING AYE, HUGHES VOTING NAY, CHs�'aIi?MAN HARRIS DECLARED 2'HE MOTION CARRIED. 5. RECEIVE JANUARY 27, 1981, ENERGY COh1MISSION i�•1INUTES: �1 MOTIO�I BY MS. HUGHES, SECONDED BY MR. TREUEN'FELS, TO RECEIVE THE JAN. 2?, 1981, ENEP.GY C01�1MISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAIV HARRIS DECLARED Z'HE MOTION CA.RRIED UNANl'MOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE FEBP.UARY 5, HUM�N RESOURCES COMMTSSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. TREUENFELS, S'ECONDED BY MS. SCHNABEL, TO RECEIVE THE FEB. 5, 1981, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIlVG AYE, CHAI.RMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTIOIV CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7'. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 10,.COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COh1MISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MR. 5VAIVDA, TO RECEIVE THE FEB. 10� 1981� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES. Mr. Oquist stated that the Community Development Commission has proposed an ordinance for licensing condominium conversions. They cannot prevent condo conversion, but they are trying to be assured that the City is notified when there is a plan to conver�. Mr. Oquist stated the Commission had requested that N1r. Herrick clarify paragraphs 3 and 4 of Mr. Herrick's Jan..23, 1981, ,�"'1 memo regarding condo con�rersion licensing ordinance. Mr. Oquist stated that hir, Deblon had �n�ritten a memo dated Feb. 20 clarifying Mr. Herrick's paragraphs, but Mr. Oquist s�ated tliese sounded like Mr. Deblon's opinions and not Mr. Herrick's. He stated he was not willing to accept Mr. Deblon's explanation. PLANNING COMP�ISSION MEETIPJG, FEBRUARY 25, 1981 PAGE 10 �, Mr. Boardman stated he would recommend this i�em be continued until they get Mr. Herriek's clarifica�ion. This will be put on the Planning�Commission agenda as a regular agenda item. UPON A VOSCE VOTE, �lLL VOTING AYE, GHAIRMAN FIARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UIVANIMOUSLY. 8. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 10, 1981, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. TREUENFELS, TO RECEIVE THE FEB. 10� .I�82, APPEAIS COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALZ T10TING AYE, CHAIRMAN NARRIS DECLARED THE M02'I'ON CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY. � 9. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 11, 1981, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTIDN BY MS. HUGIiES, SECONDED BY M5. SCHNABEL, TO RECEIVE THE FEB. .tl, 198Z, PARKS & RECREATION COMMIS,�ION MINUZ'ES. ' UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE 1�IOTSON CARRIED UNAIdIMOUSLY. 10. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 129 1981, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: i"� MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MS. SCHNA,�EL, TO RECEIVE TFiE FEB. l2� 1981, HOU5ING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTE5. Mr. Boardman stated that in regard �o the Nioore Lake Redevelopm�nt Area, this would.again be on the Planning Commission agenda on March 4. In the establish- ment of a redevelopment district, they are going to iieed a resolution passed by the Planning Commission that says these redevelopment plans are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Fridley. Mr. Boardman reviewed the layou�t of the overall plan for the°Moore Lake Redevelop- ment Area. Ne s�tated the Pla�ning Commission wi71 be receiving a copy of the redevelopment plan and the tax increment plan prior to �the next meeting. He stated they are looking at the establishmer�t af this district by the end of P9arch. Mr. Boardman stated that in setting up a redevelopment district and a tax increment disirict, the City is required to ta7k to the taxing jurisdictions, but they have no authority over the action taken by the Cily Council. He stated he will be talking to the Dist. 13 Schoal Board on March 13, the Dist. 14 School Board on March 17, and the County on March 10. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARR25 DECLARED THE MQTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � ��. PLANNIPdG COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 25, 1981 PAGE 11 � ----•--- —_ ._-- 11. CONTINUED: PUaLIC HEARING: AMEPjDP�(ENT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY C DE __GEiJER LY .NO,��f AS E�tI LE Z NTNG C UE MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECQNDED BY MR. QQUIST, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARSNG ON THE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 205 OF TNE F'RIDLEY CITY CODE. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN H.�RR.IS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Receive letter tram Barl�ara Shea, dated February 13, 19�1 (A copy of a letter sent to Northern Cablevision) MOTION BY MR. TREl1ENFELS, SECONDED BY MS. SCHNABEL, TO RECEIVE A LETTER FROM BARBARA 5HEA DATED FEBRUARY 13, Z981. UPON A VDICE VOTE, ALL VOTTNG AYE, CHAl'R1��1AN NARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMDUSLY. B. Letter from Cliff Ash, Chairperson of �he Charter Commission Mr. Harris s�ated that the Charter Cammission is in need of 5-6 �,� new member$. He stated i7` anyone was ini:erested in serving on the Charter Commission, or if the Commission members knew of anyone intere,�ed in serving, th�y cou7d coni:act Mr. Ash. ADJOUP,NMENT: MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. TREUEI�iF�'L,S, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPOld A VDICE VOTE, AZL VOTTNG AYE, CHAIR�IAN HARRIS DECLARED THE FEBRUARY.25, 1981, PLANNING COMMISSIOIV MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:35 P.M. � Respectfully submi�ted, .' ��_ CZ��'� ' �.�'�- Ly-nne Saba Recording Secretary V,"� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 25, 1981 PAGE 12 NAME Walter R. Rydberg George Leich Rick Brickner Donna Gorski Scott Kohanek Mark Bue William Gagner George R. Skinner W. Jane Skinner Lars Adolphson Dorothy Miles Ervin A. Kassow Dorothy Welch Judith Myrlie AD�RESS 6127 Woody Lane N.E. 2939 Girard 1233 - 12t�t Ave. N.W. 6245 Een More Drive 6116 Central Ave. N.E. 6229 Central Ave. N.E. 6125 Woody Lane N.E. 6217 Centra� Ave. N.E. 6217 Central Ave. N.E. 6137 Woody �ane N.E. 1370 Rice Creek Rd. N.E. 1440 Ri ce C�reek Rd. N. E. 6115 Woody Lane N.E. 8Z0 Lone Oak Rd., Eagan, Mn. (owner of 6229 Central) ��_ �1_ P"� z -..� � Ma.rch 2, 1981 To: Members of the Fridley City Council and Planning Co�mmission n From: Richard H. Harris It has been brought to my attention that certain members of the City Council feel that I have misrepresented their poaitiona on certain items. In response to these accusations, I have never knowingly or willingly miarepresented anyones position. I unfortunately may have misunderstood their statementa and for �his I apoligize. However, I reserve the right to disagree with the policies and or positions of the Council or any of its members and intend to speak out on those differences in a clear voice. I will exercise these rights that are guaranteed under the First Amendment to the USA Constitution and also as a resident and ta�ayer in the City of Fridley. I will therefore ask for written directions from the City Council pertaining to Planning matters. � � Richard H. Harris � � e C � ;s - ' To: Fridley City Council � From: Richard H. Harris March 2, 1981 It has come to my attentioa that a"positive case" has not been made for the recommendations made by the Planniag Commission ia the aew Zoning Code. Therefore, I would like to euplain the reasoning behind this Co�issioners vote for the reco�ended changea. The newly reco�ended Comprehensive Plan has a provision aad etatement that says, " The City of Fridley will provide the opportunity for affordable housing in the City of Fridley". The criteria by which the reco�endation wae arsived at are as followa. 1. Using a standard length block of 600 ft and=varying depths. Also using a figure of $50/ front ft. for sewer, water, curb, gutter and streets, $4/100 sq. ft. for atorm aewer assesament and $1/sq. ft. for raw land coste. These figures are arbitrary aad may varq up or down in any particular plot. Example A: 75 ft. frontage lots with 9000 sq. ft. area as per present code 600 ft. long block x 120 ft. lot depth = 72000 sq. ft. total area $ 1 sq. ft. raw land cost x 72000 sq. ft. _$ 72000.00 $ 4/ 100 sq. ft. storm sewer charge x 72000 sq. ft. �$ 2880.00 $ 50/ front ft. for s,w,c,g, �nd street x 600 ft. m$30,OOO.AO adding all extended figures for the model block =$ 104,880.00 Divi$ing 75' front foot lots i.nto 600 front foot block � 8 lots Dividing $104,880 total land coet for block by 8 lots a$ 13, 110 cost per lot ,� Example B: Using 60 front lots with 9000 sq. ft. total area 600 foot long block x 150 ft. lot depth = 90,000 sq. ft. $1/ aq. ft. raw land cost x 90,000 sq. ft. ffi$ 90,000.00 $4/100 sq. ft storm sewer eharge a 90,000 sq. ft =$ 3600.00 $50/froat foot for s,w,c,g, and street x$600/ft.= $30,000.00 addin� ab�ove figures togeEhera $123,600.00 Dividing 60'front foot lots into 600 froat ft. block = 10 lots Dividing $ 123,600 by 10 lots =$ 12,360 cost per lot Example C: ' Using 60 front ft. lots with 7500 eq. ft. total area 600 ft. long block x 125 ft. lot depth m 75000 sq. ft. $1/sq, ft. raw land coat g 75,000 �$ 75, 000.00 $ 4/100 sq. ft storm sewer charge z 75000 sq. ft. �$ 3000.00 $ 50/ froat foot for s,w,c,g, and street x 600 front block ft. Adding a�ove figures together =$ 108,000.00 Dividing 60' front ft. lots into 600 ft. blocks = 10 lots Dividing $ 108,000 by 10 lots m$ 10,800 coat per lot As you can see there is a lower Comparing the three examples: A. 75 ft. lots with 9000 sq. ft. B. 60 ft. lots with 9000 sq. ft. C. 60 ft. lota with 7500 sq. ft. ° $ 30,000.00 iot cost oa the 60x125 ft. lots by $ 2,310.00/ lot. area = $13,110 per lot area = $12,360 per lot S1e8 m $10,800 per Iot ^ These examples do not take iato accouat any realtors commission or develo era but oaly gives an example of what can be done. P profit, � �. There are other advantages to smaller lots such as, it would reduce land grading and � landscaping construction coets, allow for lower land maintenance cost over the years � of occupancy, afford energy savings do to less grass cutting. Smaller lots would allow for smaller structures on the lot based on the number of people living in the residence, which brings us to the reco�nendation to change the section of the code on minimum house. This recommeadation propo�es to remove sq. ft. limitation in the present code and tie house size to the Building Code which regulates the house size to number of rooms. AS the past Census has shown the family size is getting smaller, so larger living units are not necessary. Also from and Energy stand point, I believe in the future it will be necessary to have smaller, better built, better insulated housing uaiits in order for us to afford to live in them. There are several other factors in housing costs which cannot be addressed in a Zonin g code, such as building cost, interest rates, contractors profit and real estate co�issions. To s� up, as you can see there are sevesal factora in the cost of a housing unit, lot cost, building cost, interest rates etc, but if the initial land and building costs can be reduced there raill be less total interest to be paid on the unit along with smaller real estate co�issions and contractor profits, because they are figured on a percentage of the total unit cost. But, there is more thati the initial unit cost which goes into providing a� affordable housing unit, there is the so called living cost of a unit, which includes the Energy cost and maintenance of the unit, and rnot b�east of all Taxes. I have a background of 25 years of engineering, construction and realestate, also 11 yeara experience in volunteer public service, having served on the Planning Co�ission and its various �eP co�issi.ons. I believe I have the knowledge and experience to have a creditable opinion, as I have been reasonably successful at my endeavors. At no time was any consideration given to so-called benefits that T1 building contractors or land owners might receive from these changes. Please note I refer to the statement of providing the opportunity for affordable house and not to be confused with I,ow and Moderate income housing. � n �. • Richard H. Harris