PL 08/04/1982 - 30580�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING� AUGUST 4, 1982
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairwoman Schnabel called the August 4, 1982, Planning Comnission meeting to
order at 7:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Ms. Schnabel� Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Svanda, Mr. Kondrick,
Ms. van Dan
Members Absent: Mr. Saba
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
APPROVAL OF JULY 14, 1982, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY 1�5. GABEL� SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA� TO APPROVE TRE JULY 14� 1982�
PZANNING COMMISSION lr1INUTES AS WRITTEN.
^ UPON A VOZCE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CXAIRWOMAN SCXNABEL DECLARED THE M0170N
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. REVIEW OF SECOND DRAFT OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO REPLACE CHAPTER 217
PL TTING BY C APTER 2, S BDIVISION:
Mr. Boardman stated the Planning Commission is not required to take any action
on anything other than Section 205 of the City Code; however, Staff did want to
bring this to the Planning Co�nission for their review and comments prior to its
going to the City Co uicil on August 16.
Mr. Boardman stated the Platting Ordinance is controlled somewhat by Minnesota
State Statutes on platting. There were some changes that were recommended by
the State Statutes, and with those in mind, Staff went through the platting
ordinance. He stated Staff is in the process of going through all the codes,
the platting ordinace being one of those ordinances. While they were making
modifications according to the state law and modifications according to the zero
lot line, they went through the rest of the ordinance and tried to clean up the
language so it was easier to read and easier to clarify what a subdivision is.
They are saying a subdivision is any platting of land, any registered ]and survey,
or any lot split. He stated that in the old ordinance, there was a lot of con-
fusion in the language, so they tried to set it up in an order where they first
have some related definitions, and, secondly, have a 7ay-out of what a subdivision
is and under what condit:ons are required to follow this ordinance as far as a
subdivision.
�' Mr. Boardman stated that before, any time anyone split a parcel of land that
was under 2� acres, that person was required to go througb a platting process.
According to state law, that has been changed to 5 acres on any commercial/
industrial property and 20 acres or larger on any residential property.
PLANNING CON�IISSION�MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1982 �� PAGE 2 �
Ms. Schnabel stated that under "Lot Split" on page 2]1-05, she noticed the
elimination of the notification of adjacent neighbors. It seemed to her that
a lot sp]it sometimes has a very great impact on adjacent neighbors.
Mr. Boardman stated that under state law, a pub7ic heariag is not required for
a lot split.
Ms. Schnabe] stated she thought there should be notification on a lot split for
the neighbors' protection.
Mr. Boardman stated if a lot split doesn't meet City Code, it requires a variance,
and a variance requires notification. But if the lot sp7it meets all the qualifi-
cations of the City Code, then the question is why should a lot split affect the
neighbors and why should there be a notification to the residents?
Ms. Schnabel stated she thought with a lot split they double the neighborhood
density on that particu]ar parce] of land, and it happens unbeknownst to the
existing neighbors. She just felt that notification to the neighbors wou]d be
the proper thing to do.
Mr. Svanda stated that in ]ooking at the timing of the p7atting process, they
are looking at a minimum of six manths to go through the process. He felt that
process was too long.
:�
Mr. Boardman stated state ]aw allows th�n 120 days to go through the process. _
Mr. Svanda stated he would just like to see that process a little shorter, just
to speed it up for the project propoer who typically has a lot at stake. He felt
that the more time you allow� the more time you take.
Ms. Schnabel noted that under "Application" on page 211-08, no fee was mentioned.
Was there a plat filing fee?
Mr. Boardman stated there is a fee. He stated he would check into that and be
sure that it is stated somewhere in the ordinance. �• �--� .
Mr. Boardman stated there are some modifications being done right now to the
Platting Ordinance. He stated they have gone through and relooked at the pro-
visions that have all been crossed out in this draft. The reason they re]ooked
at the provisions was because none of these provisions are in the state code,
and these provisions are things the City of Frid]ey requires. He states some
of these provisions will be put back in; however, they did leave out "alleys" as
they are not trying to promote alleys.
Mr. Boardman stated he would give the Commission members a final copy of the
ordinance after the City Counci] reviews it and gives their final approval.
MOTION BY MS. VAN DAN, SECONDED BY AB2. KONDRICIC, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
THAT� IN TXEIR DELIBERATION OF AN QRDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW CAAPTER 21.I ENTITLED �.,,
�SUBDIVISION'� TBEY REVIEW THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S SUGGESTIONS AND COMMENTS �
MADE IN TBESE PlINUTES.
f; PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1982 ��� ��� PAGE 3
,
UPQIV A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� C�IAIRWOINAN SC.fINABEL DECLARED T8E 1�lOTION
CARRIED UNANIAlOUS.LY.
2. DISCUSSION OF VIRGIL HERRICK'S MEMORANDUM ON SPECIAL USE PERMIT VARIANCES
R REZONING CH NGES:
Ms. Schnabe] stated one of the key statements in Mr. Herrick's memo of Aug. 2, ]979.
that the Planning Camnission must remember when they are recomnending approval
or denial of a special use permit was on page 3, bottom of page:
"Where zoning ordinance expressly authorizes a proposed use by special
use permit in the discretion of the governing mody of a municipality,
a denial of the permit must be for reasons related to public health,
safety, and general welfare."
Ms. Schnabel highlighted the fo]low�ng statements from Mr. Herrick's memo:
Page 4-"In short, a denial would be arbitrary, if it is established that
all of the standards specified by the ordinance as a condition to
granting the permit have been met."
"Where a special use permit is issued subject to conditions, the
conditions must conform to the following standards: '...to protect
�'� the pub7ic health, safety, convenience and welfare, or to avoid
traffic congestion or hazard, or other dangers, or to promote
conformity of a proposed use with the character of the adjoining
property and uses, and the district as a who]e, or to protect such
character.' Section 205.196."
Page 5-"The app]icant for a specia'1 use permit has the burden of proving
that the proposed use would meet the standards required by the
ordinance for issuance of a special use permit."
Page 6-"Failure of governing body to record contemporaneously the facts
and legally sufficient reasons for its denial of special use per-
mits constitutes a prima facie showing of arbitrariness in the
denia]."
Under II. Variance:
Page 8-"The applicant has the burden of proving undue hardship due to
unique circumstances and that the granting of a variance wi]1 be
in keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance.
The Court of Zy]ka v. City of Crystal, supra, noted that an appli-
cant for a variance has a much heavier burden of proof than an
applicant for a special use permit."
Under III. Rezoning:
�,
Page 11 -"A rezoning is reasonable and not arbitrary when it has a reason-
able relationship to the promotion of the public health, safety,
order, or welfare."
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING; AUGUST 4, 1982 _ PAGE 4
�
,
�
"Similarly, a rezoning classification is not disu^iminatory if
is reasonab7y based in the public po]icy to be served."
"A rezoning is confiscatory where it results in the taking of a
private property right for a public purpose without due process
and without compensation."
Page 12 -"Rezonings, therefore, have been challenged on the ground that
property areas in the area affected invested in their property in
reliance upon its then existing zoning as well as upon the zoning
classification in force in neighboring properties or in neighbor-
ing areas, and that a rezoning which changes that zoning depreciates
the value of the land and is unconstitutional as confiscatory.
There is, however, no merit to this contention."
3. RECEIVE JULY 20 L1982, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY 1�S. GABEL� SECONDED BY AlR. XONDRICIC� TO RECEIVE THE JULY 20� 1982�
APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CliAIRW�MAN SCXNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUS3Y�. , .
�
4. RECEIVE JULY 15, 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES:�.
�
MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY 1rIS. VAN DAN, TO RECEIVE THE JULY 15, 1982�
HOUSING 6 REDEVELOPlNENT AUTXORITY 1NINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CXAIRWQMAN SCXNABEL DECLARED TXE.INOTION
CARRIED UNANIINOUSLY.
5. RECEIVE JULY 21,1982, SPECIAL HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES:
MOTION BY l�t. OQUIST� SECONDED BY 1`!S. GABEL� TO RECEIVE TXE JULY 21, 1982�
SPECIAL I�OUSING 6r REDEVELOPMENT AUTBORITY MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE 1NOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT:
1HOTION BY D�2. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRIQC, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON
A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE AUGUST 4, 1982,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:15 P1N.
Respectfully submi ted,
.
yn Sa a
Recording Secretary
�