Loading...
PL 03/06/1996 - 7066- .�. PLANNINC COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1996 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC C�PY (Please return to Community Development Dept.) � r CITY OF FRIDLEY �, AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1996 7:30 P.M. LOCATION: Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLI�NNING CUMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: February 7, 1996 Chapter 205.07, entitled R-1, One-Family Dwell6ng District Regulations, by adding subsection 205.07.06.A.(3); and Chapter 205.08., entitled R-2, Two Family Dwelling District Regulations, by adding subsection 205.08.06.A.(3). The purpose of this ordinance amendment is to limit frorrt yard driveways and parking stalls in single family and two family zoned districts to no more than thirty pereent (30%) of the ^ calculated front yard area. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMI�SION MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 1996 RECEIVE THE MfNUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CIUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 16, 1986 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION M�ETING OF JANUARY 24. 199fi RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5. 1996 OTHER BUSfNESS: Discussion of upeoming minor amendment to the City's CompreF�ensive Plan related to non-point source po{lution. ADJOURNMENT �-'� � � �"'� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNINt� COMMIBBION MEETINt�� FLBRZTARY 7, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Newman called the Febru�ry 7, 1996, Planning Commission meetinq to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Dave Newman, Diane Savaqe, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modiq Members Absent: Dave Rondrick Others Present: Barb Dacy, Communitg Development Director Scott.Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant A1 Stahlberg, 8055 Riverview Terrace Ted & Audrey Theilmann, 1540 Rice Creek Road Darrel & Melodee Madsen, 7191 East River Road Pete Panchryshyn, 7155 E. River Road Curtis Barsness, 6581 Central Avenue N.E. Robert & Doris Nelson, 1439 Mississippi St. ^ Paul Wilson, 635 - 57th Avenue Mark Jacobson, 509 Cherry Lane Mary Matthews, 1259 Skywood Lane N.E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to approv� t�ie aqenc�a. IIPON A VOIC$ VOT$� ALI� VOT3NQ AYB� CHAIRPLRSON NBWPLAN DECY�ARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 3. 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTESa OM TION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Savage, to approve the January 3, 1996, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPBRSON NEWMA�T DECLARED THB MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 110, ENTITLED "PIIBLIC NiTISANCES". IN ORDER TO CLASSIFY GRAVEL AND�OR DIRT DRIVEWAYS AS A N[TISANCE AND PROHIBIT THEIR USE MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by.Mr. Oquist, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearinq. r1, PLANNIN� COMMISSION MEETINa. FEBRIIARY 7. 1996 PAGE Z � IIPON A VOICB VOTI�, ALL VOTINa AYB, CHAIRPLR80N �TLWMA�T DECLARFD THE MOTION CARRIED �TD TH� pUgLIC BEARINO OPEN A't' 7s35 P.�. Mr. Hickok stated staff held a public information meetinq regarding this item on January 31 in order to provide an opportunity to ask questions and to get more information to provide a more complete presentation. The meeting was attended by approximately 30 people, and through that process staff received very good comments. Mr. Schneider, Assistant Planner and Code Administration Officer, and Mr. Hickok attended the meeting. Mr. Hickok stated the history of the gravel driveway issue dates back to the mid-1960's. In 1969, the City of Fridley adopted an ordinance that required all parking surfaces be hardsurface. Tiae issue has been on the books for many years. In-the late 1980's, there were a number of calls gen�rated related to the surfacing requirements, vehicles improperly parked, etc. As staff continued with the code administration process, they monitored the complaints to evaluate whether or not these are scattered issues or wYiether these are issues that should have formal action. It has been from that time to 1993 that staff had a consistent number of complaints related to the surfacing of properties where vehicles were being parked and the side effects ,-� of not having a hardsurface drive. In 1993, staff brought the issue to the Planning Commission. At that time, the Planning Commission and staff did study to de�ermine what would be the appropriate recommendations to forward to the City Council related to these issues. The City Council was also interested in the outcome of the discussion as they are aware of the number of complaints that were generated due to hardsurface drive non- compliance. The Planning Co�ission through the process determined that there were five stipulations they would like the City Council to consider: 1. Approved hardsurface materials should consist of concrete, bituminous, brick, and/or concrete pavers. Mr. Hickok stated staff reconnnends, in addition, that the materials have a suffiaient PSI rating to support motor vehicles. 2. All driveways should be paved within five years from the adoption of the ordinance; when the property is sold; or when a permit is required by the City. 3. A separate compliance deadline should not be established for property owners with driveways in excess of 50 feet. 4. A hardsurface requirement not be imposed-for secondary/ accessory structures beinq used for storage facilities. �-°�,, e d ,� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 7 1996 PAGE 3 5. An assessment process be made available to homeowners. Mr. Hickok stated the Planning Connnission also considered the following rationale for hardsurface driveways: 1. Promotes visual appeal and neat appearance of sinqle family properties . 2. Restricts vehicles to one area of the lot instead of allowing them to be scattered across the yard. 3. Eliminates the nuisance of qravel being sprayed on neighboring yards and avoids unsiqhtly ruts and ditches. 4. Eliminates problems created by blowing dust. 5. Protects soil from contamination due to oil and other vehicle fluids. 6. Serves to maintain property values by promoting a more attractive appearance. 7. Reduces the maintenance costs incurred when ruts are "evened � out" or gravel is replaced. 8. Promotes parking requirements consistent with that of other zoning districts. 9. Prevents soil and qravel from eroding onto the street and being deposited into the City's stor� sewers and detention ponds. Mr. Hickok presented photos from the file that had been used to illustrate the situations described above. Mr. Hickok stated the City, as they considered this issue and an amendment to the ordinance, also looked at recent improvements in terms of aesthetics and felt these recommendations are consiatent with other improvements the City is doing through the housing rehab program, the nuisance abatement ordinance, rental rehab program, and scattered site housing program. Mr. Hickok stated other related issues in the agenda packet talks specifically to the gravel, dirt and unpaved driveways. The term "nuisance" had some contention in and of itself at the neighborhood meetinq. Those attending the meeting asked how this relates to other nuisances. It comes down to the issues of health, safety and welfare and the above rationale. .^ Mr. Hickok stated staff and the Planning Commission in 1993 considered what the implementation would be for an ordinance such PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRIIARY 7 1gg6 p�a� 4 as this. Staff notified 328 property o�mers by mail of the neiqhborhood meeting and the pending ordinance amendment. In addition to those attending the meeting, staff also received calls from over 30 residents who had already paved their driveways. There may be more residents in the community w�io have paved their driveways of whom staff are not aware. Mr. Hickok stated this public hearing is a part of the process. The issue will then go before the City Council in late February or early March. The City Council will conduct a public hearinq, and then hold a first and second reading before the ordinance qoes into effect. Mr. Hickok stated included in the agenda packet was a copy of a memorandum from Mary Matthews, who was unable to attend the neighborhood meeting, e�cpressing concern about the extenuatinq circumstances at her property. Mr. Hickok reviewed some of the comments from the neighbor meeting. Someone expressed felt an aqgregate surface of 3/4-inch may be appropriate rather than requirinq a hardsurface drive. In response to the washout effect, it was asked why this was an issue and why this was any different from the silt that is at the drives to some businesses. Regarding the grandfather clause, � what about those who have existing gravel driveways. The issue is that of parking and the parking surface. Others felt the driveway requirements should be considered a zoning issue rather than a nuisance. A homeowner brought in a property diagram showing a very long driveway and they had also granted an easement to a neighboring proper�y to have a long drive on the property as well. Would both these driveways need to be hardsurface and who would be responsible for the cost? In another case, a homeowner has paved their driveway to what is considered a quiet riqht-of-way. Under the proposal, this would not be given separate consideration because of the length. Another question involved future buyers. When a property is sold, the homeowner must provide such information to prospective buyers. What about the situation where an alley serves private drives? These would have to be taken on a case-by-case basis. In the case of a shared driveway, the homeowners would have to work this out individually. Mr. Hickok stated, as far as legal implications which goes back to the grandfathering, there was a question about an unimproved portion of a driveway that had touched the right-of-way at one time and, as improvements were made, there is now a gap. Staff is now seeking additional information on this situation. The owner had a letter from the City about the right-of-way modifications. This is a unique situation and we may have to work with the Engineering Staff to see what is the best solution. �, ,'".� � ,'"� PI�ANNIN(3 CO��IlKISBION MEETIN(�, FEBRIIARY 7, 1996 PAGTs 5 There was also an issue about hardsurface driveways that are not maintained. Mr. Hickok stated persons at the meeting felt the word pnuisancep puts an ugly umbrella on this issue. They do not feel they are a source of a nuisance. That is an issue that speaks to the rationale for the ordinance. Though their drive may be well maintained, the issue is one of where to draw the line. The line was drawn when the�City made a decision in 1969 to require hardsurface. Mr. Hickok stated seepage is an issue. Is seepage any better on asphalt than on aggregate? Staff feels it is. The idea is that asphalt is a porous material and some oils will seep into the asphalt bed or wash off. Nonetheless, this is a way slowing down that direct spillage and/or seepage into the soil. Mr. Hickok stated someone asked, of those 328 properties, how many complaints were generated. Staff does not have a number. The ordinance amendment was driven by the complaints. Ms. Modig referred to the shared driveway. If the owner has five years and the property is sold, what happens then? Mr. Hickok stated he would expect the requirement would be revealed at the time of sale. It may be that certain lending institutions would want that corrected at the time of sale. It may be that the existing property owner would need to separate the dr�Lve and hard-surface or come to an aqreement with the prospective buyer about the installation. Mr. Saba asked if there were situations where paving would cause water drainage problems. Mr. Hickok stated there are times when people want to widen a driveway toward an adjacent property. We ask_the property owner to control runoff to an area that can handle the runoff. If the area sheet drains, this must be kept away from granular soils and severe slopes so they do not cause further erosion. These are design issues specific to the site. Mr. Newman asked if the amendment also deals with the issue of property owners who do not have a properly maintained hardsurface driveway. Mr. Hickok stated the ordinance actually talks to improving to a standard.. Specifically, it would boil down to an interpretation unless you would suggest modified language in the text. It would require an interpretation if similar characteristics were becoming evident on an old blacktop drive, for example, that had eroded away and causing runoff conditions. PLANNING COMMIBBION MELTINa FEBRIIARY 7 1gg6 pA(3E 6 Mr. Newman referred to Section 110.11, Compliance. He did not think the languaqe was comprehensive enough to address hardsurface driveways that have fallen into disrepair. Staff may want to iook at this before this goes to the City Council. If a driveway has eroded away and has qaping holes, it would probably fit. However,.a driveway with one or two biq holes but is mostly hard surface may not fit. He asked staff to look at this section. Mr. Oquist asked how many driveways remain unsurfaced. Mr. Hickok stated there may be as many as 40� of 328. Staff had a strong response from those who had their drives hardsurfaced. Ms. Modig asked how this affects those who have a hardsurface driveway and have made a gravel area for cars to park to the side. Does that mean they would be required to hardsurface the area where they park the cars? Mr. Hickok stated, if a person has a hardsurface and chooses to park off to the side, they could choose whether they needed that added space or whether to park on the drive. Commission members had no further questions of staff. Mr. Newman opened the discussion to the gublic. Mr. Theilmann stated he has a driveway with crushed rock. The driveway is 175 feet long and ends in a 50 foot x 25 foot parking area for relatives and visitors. At the end of the driveway, he has a five foot apron of asphalt going onto Rice Creek Road to handle any stones that may come down the driveway. The driveway leads through six pine trees that are about 30 fest tall and goes between a rock garden and two flower beds - one measuring 20 feet x 40 feet and the other 20 feet x 50 feet. He does not feel like. having asphalt or concrete running through these flower gardens. The driveway was set up about 1925. He and his wife have lived there since 1951 and have not had any trouble with the driveway as it is. He does not see why he would have to hardsurface it. They have a double garage in the back with a cement floor. Aesthetically, he thought they would have to agree that flower gardens and pine trees do not look nice with a cement or asphalt driveway. What do they do then? Mr. Newman asked, if the ordinance is passed, would he be exempt because of the length of the driveway. Mr. Hickok stated no. Long driveways would be included in the requirement. Mr. Theilmann stated, from their point of view, they don't see that it would devaluate their property as it is. As far as � � ,�""� pLANNINa COMMISSION MBSTINa, F$BR�ARY 7, 1996 pAa� � having space, blowing dust, and the other items on the sheet of paper, they have two lots with a driveway runninq through the middle. They do not consider it a nuisance or have any trouble with neighbors or anyone else as far as the driveway is concerned. They have never had a complaint as long as they have lived there. �Ie thought this was going overboard. The driveway has never caused any problem at any time. If he blacktopped it, he would then have to coat is once a year which he does not now have to do. Mr. Barsness stated he purchased his house in 1968. He has been a resident for 28 years. He showed drawings of his property. The house was built a long time ago and the lot �aas muah larger than what it is now. When he bought the property,.they came in from Highway 65 and turned around in the yard. The neighbor has a house from the 1960's and he has a lonq driveway also. Mr. Barsness has a 26 foot easement from Centrai Avenue that he would have to pave. The asphalt for the drive would cost over $3,000 and that would not be what is being asked. That does not include any parking space and no turnaround space. He showed another drawing showing what he would have to pave to be legal and this would cost over $10,000. The property is appraised at $55,600. The City says they want to condemn substandard housing. The only �''�� think substandard about his house is that it is very small. When he sells that house, a developer or contractor will buy it and make it into two or three lots. That is where he will get his money. The asphalt will not be worth anything to them. He is in his 50's, works at Onan and hopes to work there until he reti�es. $10,000 out of the equity of his house to put in a asphalt driveway is 1/5 of the value of the property. Iie does not have the money and would have to borrow it. Mr. Saba asked the length of the driveway. Mr. Barsness stated the driveway from the street to the ol.d garage is 150 feet. From the property line, it is about 125 feet. The area is front of the two garages is already concrete. He started putting in concrete and got the first one done. He did not get the second one done. He was doing the work with the help of friends. He cannot afford to hire someone to put in concrete. He does not know what to say except that he cannot spend $10,000 on his driveway. His driveway is crushed asphalt. It doesn't blow around. It does not rut. It doesn't get muddy. It doesn't wash away. It has Class 5 underneath it. The original driveway was juat sand. It has very low upkeep and does not track into the street. Mr. Barsness stated it is downhill into his yard. As far as �„` vehicles dripping, it would wash into his yard and not into the street. He has had trouble in the past when the City has flushed fire hydrants that it washes out his driveway. This is the PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINQ FBBRQARY 7 1996 PAGB 8 � opposite of what is being said. The City determined a few years ago that 66th Avenue N.E. was the narrow side of his�lot and was the front of his house. At that�point, all of his parkinq was done in the backyard and he enters from the side street. In some of the pictures, people are not parking in their yard. The� are parking on City property. They are parking on the easement. Why not say that is our property and don't park on it? Because he parks in the back and enters from the side street, he did not see how this was different from those who park in an alley. It is not an aesthetic problem because it is in the back of the yard. Mr. Barsness stated he looked at his options. He could wait five years, he could wait until the City takes him to court, he could install a small amount of asphalt in the front and use the old garage. That qarage has never been used for a garaqe. He has a shop there with metal and woodworking tools. He could park his cars on 66th or on the asphalt next to it and that would be cheaper. He would like them to consider some of the consequenaes of this. Mr. Saba stated he doesn't want anyone to feel that the Commission is calling them a nuisance. That is a term that is used for ordinances. What you are giving us is very valuable input as to the extent of this ordinance proposal and whether or � not we recommend that this ordinance go to the City Council. The public comments provide extremely valuable information and that is what-we are here for. Mr. Baxsness stated one of the reasons he objects is that his house does not have that much value. To hit us with that expens� is difficult. He started working in 1967, was making money and raising a family. Over the years with wage compression, loss of purchasing power, etc., he earnings have eroded. Mr. Newman stated, on the diagram showing the additional area paved, what does that area serve? Mr. Barsness stated he has two Jeeps and a van parked in the area. The rest is a turnaround area. The traffic in that area has really gotten bad. When he moved in, there were four lanes of traffic and now there are two. He sometimes has to wait five minutes or more to pull out of his driveway because of tha traffic. He bought the property because he likes the space. He would hate to not use it because it is too expensive. He cannot justify buying another place because he is so close to work. If he sold the property, he would have to add to the value to get a townhouse further out. And that would be about all he can afford right now. Mr. Hickok stated there was a discussion regarding assessment. ;�'`�� According to State law, the City does have an assessment ability � pLANNING COMMI88ION ME$TING FSBRIIARY 7 1996 p�G$ 9 to help provide loans at 7� interest for 5 years which is in'the agenda packet for consideration. Also in the packet is information on lot coverage. With the long driveways and large paved surface area, staff has suggested 30� lot coveraqe for the front of the property. Mr. Jacobson stated he would like a hard paved driveway. It would be nice. He has lived here for five years. He had planned to have it done when he moved. He could not afford then and he cannot afford it now. He does not see it in the future. His house is only $53,000 in value. He is a single homeowner and just barely getting by. He cannot afford more payments for things he does not need. The driveway is now rock and sand. It is 120 feet long and the estimated cost is $3,000 for tar. 8e wanted a concrete pad by the qarage to park his motorcycles but that estimate was $5,000. He does not see how they can make him spend $3,000 or $5,000 for something he does not have to have. Mr. Madsen stated the p�operty mentioned earlier at Ashton which is paved to the right-of-way is their propert�. He has letters from the City and the County saying they can cross over the easement for a driveway. They built their hous� in 1984 and were to code with the driveway when they put it in. The City Council ;,-� said Ashton Avenue would not �e put in. Will they have to pay for paving that since they were up to code in 1984? They have paved their driveway already to property line. It is then Class 5 and gravel to the bike path. Mr. Newman asked if Mr. Madsen owned that property. Mr. Hickok stated they do not. The Madsen's paved out to where their private property ends and terminated the asphait at �he edge of a public right-of-way. It was the City's decision not to complete Ashton. That caused the property-owner to make a longer distance trip out to East.River Road. Staff has taken Mr. Madsen's commants back to the Public Works staff to get more history and to get a sense of the City's position on this particular issue. Mr. Newman stated this did not answer the question. He believes, with the ordinance as proposed, Mr. Madsen would not be obliqated to provide a hardsurface driveway on property he does not own. Mr. Hickok stated the only variation is where the apron crosses the public right-of-way out at the boulevard, but this is a circumstance that the property owner has a very wide right-of-way that is meant to be a street so it is quite different from the standard. ,�. Mr. Madsen asked, since it was the City's decision not to put in the street, are we going to have to pay for it. PLANNING COI�IISBION MEETINa, FEBRIIARY 7, 1996 PAaB 10 Mr. Hickok stated he thought this was a unique situation and staff will work with Mr. Madsen on this. The Madsen�s have done what is required and that is to provide a hardsurface drive on their property. He did not believe they would be required to anythinq beyond that. Mr. Stahlberg stated he would like to co�end the City Council for what they are doing. He has been working in his neighborhood to qet something done. The only thing he questions is that five years is a long time to qet this done. That seems like a lonq time. He thought two to three years to get the pavement in would be suffiaient with five or six years to pay. In his neighborhood, it is part of the problem addressed with the junk vehicles. They tend to go hand-in-hand - unfinished driveways with extra vehicles. Again, he felt two to three years time to install the pavement with five years to pay would be the way to go. Ms. Matthews stated she has a concern. When they considered Fridley for building, they decided to consult a landscape architect if the lot was buildable because of its uniqueness. Will the City allow variances? Mr. Newman stated variances are granted for zoning ordinances. r—,, This is not under the zoning ordinance but under the public nuisance ordinance. Therefore, there is no provision for granting a variance. Ms. Matthews stated, 33 years ago when they decided to build in Fridley and when they contacted an azchitect because of the lots� uniqueness, the City said this lot was buildable. They worked with a landscape architect because they wanted to restore it to its natural style. It has never been a nuisance. On the driveway, they went back four to five feet to get the gravel out of the street to avoid the problems with flushing hydrants. They tried to accommodate the City there. When the architect designed the drive, they designed it with a firm base on clay with crushed rock. It has been there for 33 years. It was designed to provide drainaqe and prevent erosion. If it was hardsurface, they will have erosion problems. On each corner, they have dug in drainage basins so the water will go down and pipes are installed underground so the water will drain out. For 30 years they have considered this so they could build there, qot the okay to build there, and all of a sudden it is not right. She does not understand what her alternative is. Mr. Newman stated, if the ordinance is passed in its present form, she probably would not have any alternative. Ms. Matthews asked what happens then when the hill erodes, which �"�, it will. Then who pays for that? There is no way to contain the ,'"'� �; pLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING, FEBRIIARY 7. 1996 PAGE 11 drainaqe. They are on top of a hill. The only flat surface of their yard is the driveway into the garage. She considers this a unique problem. Are there qoinq to be exceptions considered? Are you going to categorize all non-paved driveways into the same category as the slides shown where the drives obviously are eroding into the street? Mr. Newman stated, if this issue is dealt with under the public nuisance chapter, there are no provisions or exceptions. If it is dealt with as a zoning issue, there are provisions for variances. Mr. Savage asked if Ms. Matthews was saying that, if they built a hardsurface driveway, they would have more erosion. Ms. Matthews stated yes. They are at the top of the hi11. When they designed it, they dug very little into the hill so as not to disturb the natural upheaval from the glacial flow. Every edge of their yard drops right down into a ravine. They framed the drive with 8 x 8's. It is a clay surface. Yt is hardsurface. This was done on the advice of a landscape architect and their architect in order to have drainage and save the hill. If they are going to hardsurface the drive, there is not place for drainage. Their neighbor has a hardsurface driveway and he has erosion problems. Mr. Newman stated the drive then absorbs some of the water during a heavy rain and, therefore, they do not have the runoff. Ms. Matthews stated yes. This is how it was designed. When they built their house, they checked into this. This was a precaution at the time. If it is a nuisance, it is one thing and, if it is zoning, it is another thing. If so, she is caught. She would hope the City, if it is not disturbing anyone and not disturbing the City and with the apron back into the yard, that would take care of it. She would be willing to take care of the drain problems of the turnaround. This has been there for 33 years and she would hope the City would not put them all into a ncookie mold". She understands the aesthetics. This is detrimental to her property. She has been written up several times in the paper for trying to be an alte�rative property and returning it to nature. If I have an alternative property and it does not conform, she is perplexed. She submitted a letter and copies of articles from several newspapers. Mr. Newman stated the Commission received only a copy of her letter. The City Council will be conducting a public hearinq on March 18. He suggested Ms. Matthews provide to staff ahead of time any articles, letters, and/or photos she would like to City ,---> Council to receive. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINQ, FEBRUA..RY 7. 1996 PAa$ 12 � Ms. Matthews stated the pictures shown are legitimate issues. There are others who are not problems, and she did not think it is fair to put those in the nuisance category. When they spend time and money to maintain their property, she did not see how �eY � � put in that category. Mr. Newman stated he understo�l her point. However, there are laws that say cities cannot be arbitrary. When passing an ordinance, they need to have clearly defined rules. That is where it becomes difficult, and that 3s where the Commission needs your input. Ms. Matthews asked, if they comply by making a driveway and their property erodes, what is her recourse. There are exceptions and people have done things for years. They have paid taxes, improved their property, and have a lot the way they want it. Now the City is making this blanket rule. OTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive into the public record the memo from Ms. Mary Matthews regardinq this issue. IIPON A VOICL VOTB, ALL pOTINa A7[R� CBAIRpER80N NEWMAN DECLARLaD T88 MOTION CARRIgD DNANIMOIISLY. ^ Mr. Nelson stated he has lived at 1439 Mississippi Street since 1951. They raised nine kids. They are nQw retired and cannot afford a driveway. The driveway slopes downhill. There is no water going up hill to the �treet. They put in crushed rock, and the driveway is as solid as the street. It was put in many years ago. They have two driveways - one goes behind the house. They have to turn around in the yard because of the heavy traffic on Mississippi Street. There is no way to have a driveway go all the way to the garage. That is a long way. Mr. Saba asked the length of his driveway. Mr. Nelson stated he has a 100 foot lot. It would approximately 100 feet down to the garage. In 1960's, he had 100 feet all the way from Mississippi Street to the creek. The City bought the land and built a school. They tore do�n the school in 1980. If he had that land now, he could sell it and put in a driveway. All he has left is 300 feet with a big garden in back. He is retired now for 12 years and does not have the income to do these improvements. The company he worked for went out of business forcing him to retire early so he has limited income. He cannot afford to put in a driveway. The driveway is as hard as it can be and there is no rock, water or gravel going up hill into the street. He has crushed rock that he keeps packing down. He did not know what this would do to people who cannot afford it. He �"�, �,.� PLANNINt� COMMI88ION MEBTIN(�. FEBRIIARY 7. 1996 PAaE 13 did not think it would make sense for them to go into debt and make payments with his circumstances. Mr. Barsness stated he would like to clarify his statement when he showed the second drawing �ith the asphalt. That area is all grass that he drives on. You �an drive on grasa occasionally and not kill it. If the ordinance passes, he would have to put asphalt down if he wants to drive on it. Mr. Hickok stated at the neighborhood meeting staff provided estimated costs of services available to property owners, as follows: Concrete - $2.50-$4.50 per square foot Pavers - $6.00-$10�.00 per square foot Pigmented Concrete -$4.00-$5.00 per square foot Asphalt - $1.25-$2.50 per square foot Chip Seal - up to $3.50 per square foot Mr. Newman asked if there were any additional comments from the public. There were no further comments. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by l�r. Saba, to close the public � hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL 00TINa AYE, CHAIRPERSOW NEWM�iN DECLARLD THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARIldt3 CLOSED AT 8:55 P.M. Mr. Newman stated staff would like the Planning Coa�mission to pass a motion recommending the ordinance to the City Council or to form a recommendation we would like to make to the City Council. Mr. Oquist asked why this was in the public nuisance section as opposed to the zoning section. Is it not a zoninq issue rather than a public nuisance issue? Ms. Savage asked what the effect would be. Is there �ome purpose that would benefit the City to have this under a nuisance? Mr. Hickok stated, under the zoning section, there is a provision for hardsurface drives for every property constructed after 1969. It was deemed a nuisance for code purposes in that, if it was only those drives from homes constructed after 1969 that the City is concerned about, the zoninq section would cover that. There would not be an ardinance amendment necessary. There should not be an existing property constructed after 1969 writh anythinq but a hardsurface driveway. It the other properties that predate this ordinance. The nuisance - health, safety and welfare - !-�� characteristics descri.bed in the rationale points to something beyond just those homes. It is a bigger picture. The City's PLANNINa COMMISBION MB$TING. F$HRIIARY 7. 1996 PAGB 14 � interest is to eliminate the problems that were spelled out that are nuisance characteristics as defined by law. Mr. Newman stated, to clarify, that the zoning ordinance is not the vehicle to use to address a lawful non-conforminq use. However, by addressing it as a nuisance and by settinq a time period by which that non-conforming use will be amortized, under the law the City can go back retroactively and apply that. Thie cannot be done under the zoning ordinance. It must be done under nuisance. Mr. Hickok stateci this was correct. Ms. Savage asked about the hardships expressed by the property owners: Has the City considered any other way to address that other than the loans? Mr. Hickok stated, according to State law, the City has a window of time from 0 to 30 years for assessments. It is up to the City to determine where they will fall within that window of time. Whether or not the City would structure it in a way that would run a longer period of time than five years or whether or not there are other interest opportunities, the law is specific about the range and the City does have some discretion. There have ^ been situations where the assessment is a deferred assessment. Staff recommended what they thought would be a reasonable interest rate and a reasonable length of time. Mr. Oquist asked if this would be an assessment against the property for the amount of the improvements to be paid in five years with interest. So, it would be handled lilce �.n assessment taxed against the property. Mr. Hickok stated yes. The principal amount would vary. The interest rate would be 7�. Ms. Savage asked, if there is a very unique situation, is there any provision or discretion in the City's enforcement of the statute or any solution. Mr. Hickok stated, unfortunately, if this is in the nuisance section of the code, staff does not have the latitude to say there may be unusual situations. Ms. Savage asked, if the ordinance is passed, would the only recourse, in Ms. Matthew's situation, be a lawsuit. Mr. Hickok stated he would like.to think there are desiqn alternatives. The chip seal surface is one example which gives a more natural look but is a bit more expensive. The City�s �"'� Engineering Staff work with difficult situations and perhaps � PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa, FSBRUARY 7, 1996 PAQ$ 15 could achieve a look that is natural and meets the intent of the code. Mr. Newman stated staff would like to think they could find a design alternative, but if not, the only recourse is litigation. Ms. Savage stated she was basically in favor of the ordinance. It is in the best interest of the City. There are obviously some problems, and she did not have the answer. Her general feelinq is in favor of �he ordinance. � Mr. Oquist agreed. He has a dilemma is that he can appreciate the hardships that may come out of this whether they be monetary or a problem with the property. When looking at all the driveways, he thought it was in the best iflterests of the City as a whole. Mr. Saba stated he liked the intent of the ordinance and he was in support of this ordinance a few years back. Tonight he heard some real concerns. He cannot see forcing people into lawsuits or placing financial burdens on the backs of residents, especially those with extremely long driveways or extenuating circumstances. It does not make sense.to pave 175 feet of �,,.� driveway. There must be some li.mit. They had talked about limits before and it is time to talk about it again. He cannot support the ordinance as it is. Ms. Modig agreed. She has a problem with the individual cases as presented. If these cannot be dealt with on an individual basis in some manner, she did not think they could ask someone to spend $10,000 on a property that is worth $55,000 or undo landscaping that was okayed 35 years aqo. She has a problem with it being called a nuisance. She wouid like to see it in a category where cases could be dealt with on an individual basis and be subject to variances so those with a hardship can deal with it. She cannot support it the way it is. Mr. Saba wondered if there could be an incentive to pave those driveways that need paving. In situations like Ms. Matthews', we should not be forcing her into a different situation. It looks as though she has tried to look at all the alternatives, has worked with an architect and a landscape architect, and has a neat piece of property. To make her change that to samethinq she does not like is something he did not think the City should be doing. They had talked about an assessment. Instead, is there some kind of assessment incentive without passing an ordinance to provide an incentive to pave the first 75 or 50 feet. Being forced to pave 175 feet creates more problems that it solves. He did not know how to handle the problem driveways. Even on �� asphalt, dirt and oil gets on the driveway and heavy rain washes that out into the street. It does not completely solve the PLANNINa COMMISSIO� ME$TINa FEBRIIARY 7 1996 PAG� 16 � problems of silt and oil washed into the street. He looks at it as more of an aeathetic problem. As an aesthetic problem, he felt it should be solved by working with the residents and by providing incentives rather than by an ordinance. Mr. Newman asked if the assessment system was now in place. Mr. Hickok stated yes. That is where their list oriqinated. There are some economies by usinq the Cit�r contractor. Mr. Saba asked if people were contacted and made aware that the city contractor was available. Mr. Hickok stated yes, people are contacted annually. The City has not had as much activity as they had hoped. Ms. Modiq stated staff had indicated this action was due to a lot of complaints. She assumed that was because of the type of parking that is taking place on the property. She sees two different issues. One is an issue of people who are parking junk cars on their property and the other involves those wlio take care of their property but who cannot or choose not to pave their driveways. She thought these were two different issues. Mr. O ist stated a ^ Qu property owner has five years to do something about the driveway and another five years to pay for it. Is that correct? Mr. Hickok stated, if the owner decided to wait the full length of time, this is correct. Mr. Oquist stated, in response to Ms. Modig's statement, unless we can start to define what the driveway is, how do we prevent cars from being parked all over the yard. He was in that dilemma when he moved into a home with a crushed rock driveway, but he did surface the driveway. While it was a hardship, he had the driveway surfaced. That is part of the next part of the ordinance. If you do not define a driveway and the boundaries of the driveway, how do you define where you can park a car? In addition, it is an aesthetic thinq. We must get some of these driveways cleaned up. While crushed rock is a qood surface, it needs to have additional rock added because it sinks. Mr. Newman stated, when we talked previously, the issue that seemed to surface at that time was the fact that under the ordinance we were restricting parkinq to a hardsurface area; but in those cases where there was not a hardsurface driveway, the issue was how to prohibit and regulate random parking. At that time, he was opposed to this. He is still opposed to it. S.ome of the alternatives are to have crushed rock with a minimum size. j-1 There is some way to define a driveway area and parking surface. ,� pLANNING COMMI88ION MEBTINa. FEBRIIARY 7. 1996 pAa�� He thought they could define or regulate where that is goinq to be. Perhaps we indicate that is must be an area that is clearly define and contains aggregate no less than one inch in diameter, it cannot be wider than the garage area or no wider than 24 feet, and/or indicate that parkinq needs to �cur on that driveway surface. In this way, we can define parameters. He kno�e they will get into the issue of inoperable vehicles, but perhaps we can say in the ordinance that, if you do not have a hardsurface driveway, then we will set a li�it to the number of cars that can be parked there. It seems there are other alternatives to be considered. From an aesthetic standpoint, many of these driveways are unacceptable. He was not sure there are not other solutions short of a bituminous surface. Mr. Newman stated, from a financial standpoint, he knows that staff and the City are concerned about the quality of housing and want to maintain the quality of housinq. His concern is that some of these individuals who are goinq to be hard pressed to pay for the driveway. They may be divertinq funds for that driveway when in fact they should be using that aoney to reroof their house, repaint, or do other necessary maintenance that would have an effect on the neighborhood. � Ms. Savage stated she realizes that for those people who spoke this is a grave problem. To put it in perspective, these are a handful of people who are having problems. She still thought that basically the ordinance is in�the best interest of the City. She would not like to see it lessened but rather see the individual problems handled and still keep the ordinance. Otherwise, if you are going to chip away at the ordinance, it will not solve the problem. When living in a City, you need to have a hardsuxface driveway. Mr. Newman stated that is the reason they previously talked about the alternative of requiring the drive to be paved upon sale. People who moved here many years ago have seen the tone of the neighborhood change. Staff felt this would be a way to address the need and the new person would need to make the transformation. Two more public hearings will be held. He suggested a motion to reco�onend that the Planning Commission recommend approval only if there were appropriate amendments that would allow flexibility to address situations where it is not a public nuisance or where it creates a financial hardship. If the staff and/or Council could come up with a solution, he thought they would be more supportive of the ordinance. If they cannot, then the alternative is that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council considering an alternative approach where they look at alternative surfaces such as crushed rock not less than one inch in diameter, clearly define the driveway area usinq r--°� minimum widths, where they provide for a minimum apron area to PLANNINa COMMISSION ME$TINa. FEBRIIARY 7. 1996 PAGS 18 �, avoid runoff and erosion in to the street, and consider restricting the number of cars parked on a non-hardsurface area. Mr. Saba stated he has sympathy for the qentlemen who has a driveway at the back of the lot and who has a driveway with trees. Perhaps we have to talk about some type of a maximum, such as 100 feet, where they have a hardsurface or crushed rock surface up to a specific limit. When a homeowner has a long driveway that is part of the landscape, he was not sure that crushed rock would serve any purpose. He supported Mr. Newman�s proposal. Mr. Oquist asked if crushed rock would cause a financial burden for those with a long driveway. Mr. Newman stated some of the driveways already have rock. Some will have a financial hardship but he thought it would be reduced. The City also needs to consider the quality of housing. OTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend to the City Council approval of the ordinance only if the ordinance is amended to provide for flexibility to address situations where it is not a public nuisance or where it creates a financial hardship; if that cannot be accomplished, the alternative is to ^ modify the proposed ordinance to allow for alternative surfaces such as crushed rock not less than 3/4 inch or one inch in diameter, to clearly define the width of driveway area, to provide for a minimuan apron area where the driveway enters the street, and to consider restricting the number of cars parked outside on a non-hardsurface area. UPON A VOICE VOTL, ALL VOTIN(� AYE, CHAIRpERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED QNANIMOIISLY. Mr. Newman stated the Planning Commission acts in an advisory capacity. The City Council will consider this item at theix meeting of March 18. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REVISION TO SECTION 123 ENTITLED "JUNK VEHICLEg" AND SECTION 114 ENTITLED "ABANDONED MOTOR VEHICLESp MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTL� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRpBRSpN NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THg pUHLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9s25 P.ffi. Mr. Hickok stated, at the direction of the City Council, staff is presenting modifications to the sections of the code that deal � with junk motor vehicles. The purpose is to increase the � pLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. FE�RIIARY 7• 1996 PAGE 19 effectiveness and efficiency in resolving �unk vehicle code issues. Staff has proposed an ordinance modification to include the following: � 1. To incorporate the definition of "unsafe for operation" to include reference to any state, local or federal regulations including but not limited to Miaulesota State Statutes 169.468 to 169.75. 2. To include any vehicle which is not regularly used on City streets as an abandoned, junk or unsafe vehi+cle. 3. To increase the expediency of junk or unsafe vehicle processinq and abatements by using a 5-day notification period which exceeds the 72-hour minimum required by law. 4. To detail the notice, reclamation, and pubic sale requirements concerning abated vehicles. 5. To implement a hearing prvicess for aggrieved vehicle owners. 6. To include a one-year sunset date from the effective date of this ordinance. �"1 Mr. Iiickok stated this ordinance was deemed necessary as staff worked through different code situations in the field and determined there is overlap in the two sections of the code, and need some efficiency in addressing the issues with unsafe or inoperable vehicles. Included in the agenda packet was a handout that indicated what staff would look for in the field for unsafe conditions and junk and/or inoperable conditions. Staff's recommendation is that.a vehicle owner be given notice and qiven five days to correct a situation if the vehicle has either two of the unsafe or one of the junk/inoperable conditions. Mr. Hickok stated the recommended moclifica�tions were included irt the agenda packet with the proposed changes indicated. Mr. Oquist stated he supported the ordinance. He felt the City could not be tough enough. When talking about vehicles, do they need to be motorized vehicles? WYiat about recreational vehicles that are'parked year-around and seldom used? What about a trailer home parked on a resident's property, damaged a number of years ago, still parked there and still damaged? Is that considered a vehicle? Mr. Hickok stated motor vehicles are defined in state statutes as being self-propelled on the highway. The question of the trailer is considered, if demolished, an open storage situation. Staff !'�` can look at that under a separate section of the code. PLANNINa COMMISSION �E$TINa. FEHRIIARY 7. 1996 P�aB 20 Mr. Newman stated, is summary, staff is going to broaden the definition, speed the process, provide administrative safeguards so we do not infrinqe on anyone•s riqhts, and then look at it again in one year to see if it is working. Mr. 8ickok stated this was correct. Mr. Stahlberg stated he has been workinq on this for some time. Regarding the�junk vehicle ordinance, Section 114.01, the � newspaper refers to, in the last sentence, the City Council having significant concerns, amending this section, and talks abou� violations that occur through March, 1997. He did not understand that. Mr. Newman stated that is what requires the City to come back in one year and revisit this issue. Mr. Stahlberg stated Mr. Newman had mentioned something about l.imiting the number of vehicles in a household. He did not see that in this proposal. Mr. Newman stated it is not in this proposal. That is a part of the recommendation concerning hardsurface driveways and the sugqestion that parkinq areas be defined. Mr. Stahlberg asked what would be done in the case where someone who does not have garage. Mr. Newman stated he did not want to discuss what he has not seen. If the City Council wants to pursue, staff must work with the city attorney on how to proceed. Mr. Newman asked if there were any additional comments regarding the ordinance amendment. There were no further commer�ts. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICB VOTE � AL7, pOTINt� AyE � CHAIItpER80N NEWMAN DECLARED TH8 MOTION CARRIED AND THg ppgLlC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:35 P.M. The Commission expressed their support of the ordinance amendment. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of the proposed changes to Section 114, Abandoned, Junk or Unsafe Motor Vehicles. IIPON A VOICE VOTF, ALL pOTINQ Ayg, CSAIItpER80N NEWMAN DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED IINAmMOQBLY. � �• �"'� PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEBTING, FEBRIIARY 7. 1996 PAG$ 21 Mr. Newman stated the City Council would consider this item on March 18. 3. �iTBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REVISION TO SECTION 128. ENTITLED "ABATEMENT OF EXTERIOR PIIBLIC NiTISANCES" MOTION by Ms. Savaqe, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the readinq of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTINa AYS, CSAIRPER808 NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND T8g PIIBLIC HEARINt3 OPBN AT�9:37 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the proposed amendment process allows the City to re-enter property within a reasonable periad of time once a nuisance has been abated. The City had a situation where they went throuqh an abatement process. It is an elaborate process in which, after the City has provided notification, allows the owner to appeal the City's view of what is happening on their property. The City has the authority to remove a problem deemed a public nuisance. This amendment provides assurances that the condition does not re-occur. Mr. Newman stated, for example, he dumped 50 tires in his � backyard. The City comes in and removes them. He does not reclaim them, but gets another 50 tires and puts them in the backyard. He does not sign a release of property form. Does the City have to restart the process from the beginning? Mr. Hickok stated it basically piggy-backs on the initial notification if it is deemed the same or similar and that person's right to appeal. As an enforcement body, the City woulcl be able to back on that property and clean it up. Mr. Newman stated the release of property is not the operative. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. The release of property is a safeguard they would use. Mr. Newman asked if anyone had any further questions or comments. There were no additional comments or questions. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALI� VOTINa AYE� CHAIRPERSON NEWMA�T DECLARED TH$ MOTIOM CARRIED AND T8S PIIHLIC HEARINQ CLOSED AT 9540 P.M. �IOTION by Ms. Savaqe, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of the proposed changes to Section 128, Abatement of �, Exterior Public Nuisances. PLANNIN(3 COMMISSION MEBTINL� FEBRIIARY 7 1996 PAGE 22 ^ IIPON A VOICS VOTS� ALL VOTINa AYS, CHAIRP1:R80� 1�iSWffi�T DLCLARTD T88 MOTION CARRIED OBA�TIMOIIBI.Y. 4. RECEIVE THE MINITTES OF THE pARIt.S ANp gECRE_A�ON COMMISSION �EETING OF DECEMBER 14 1996 OTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Savage, to.receive the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of December 14, 1995. IIPON A VOICS VO'1'$o ALL VOTIMO AYS, CHAIRPERBOH NEWMAN DECLARED THR MOTION CARRIED �ffi�iNIMOIIBLY. 5. ]�2ECEIVE THE MINQTES OF THE HOIISING & REDEVELOPMENT ATiTHORITY MEETING OF JANIIARY 11 1996 OTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting of January 11, 1996. IIPON A VOICL VOTL, ALt, pOTINt� AYl:, CHAIRpER80�i NEWMA�T DECLARLD T�E MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 6. OTHER BUSINESS ^ a, Pr000sed Redevelopment of Frank's Used Car Site Ms. Dacy stated 1996 will be different. Progress has been made on the Southwest Quadrant and it looks as though the project is headed for approval perhaps by the end of this month. Lake Pointe development has been progressing as well. The City Council is now focusing on the former Frank's Used Cars site and redevelopment in areas throughout the City. There are a number of commission appointments pending. The City Council sees this as an opportunity �o bring a diverse group onto the commissions. If Planning Commission members have anyone in mind, please bring those names to the City Council. Ms. Dacy stated in 1996 the Commission will hear about the Livable Communities Act, a recent initiative taken on by the Metropolitan Council to assist communities with redevelopment sites, such as Frank's Used Cars. The Metropolitan Council will have an informational meeting about this act and the funding pragrams they have available. She invited Mr. Oquist as chair of the Human Resources Commission to attend. Ms. Dacy stated the Human Resources Cominission would be asked to review the preliminary Housing Action Plan before it comes to the Planning Commission. Staff will also be looking at a fair housing ordinance. � %'!'� PLANNIN« CO�I88ION MEETINt,4. FEBRIIARY 7. 19 9 6 P,AGE 2 3 Ms. Dacy stated she would provide an update on what the City Council and Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) have reviewed so far on the Frank's IIsed Cars site. Staff has warked with the heirs of the property and closed on the property in December. Staff is now working on the acquisition of the two properties to the south. Staff has prepared some development options for the Planninq Commission's input. Mr. Hickok and Ms. McPherson will talk abau* the processes and see if the Planning Commission concurs. Mr. Saba asked if the City Council had already made a commitment as to the housing for Hyde Park. Ms. Dacy stated there has been a commitment on the part of the City Council and HIZA to Hyde Park as their first focus area. This includes some remodeling proqrams, rehab loans, etc. Through the scattered site program, they acquired some lots on which sinqle family homes will be constructed. They are now looking at owner-occupied townhomes on the Frank's site. The City and HRA are connnitted to changing the face of that neighborhood. Mr. Saba asked if input from the neighborhood had been sought �"� regarding this site. Ms. Dacy stated they have not at this point, but they intend to do that after the proposals are reviewed by the appropriate bodies. If anyone has concerns abo�at the site, staff wants to know now. The idea of owner-occupied townhomes came up as part of the focus groups that were held last year. There are people in the neighborhood who see opportunities for redevelopment. Ms. McPherson presented conceptual drawings for the proposed redevelopment area. The area includes the Frank's IIsed Cars site, the vacant lot to the north, 58th Avenue and 57th Place, and the City Manager is working with the two property owners to the south. The total area is approximately 2.5 acres. Ms. McPherson she worked on a variety layouts and redevelopment options for the site. The three options include sinqle family, townhomes, or a senior development. She reviewed each of the options. Ms. McPherson stated the single family option would provide a typical subdivision style which would yield seven units. The lot frontages would range from 75 feet to 90 feet. Ms. McPherson stated the townhome option would yield � approximately 17-18 units with four possible layouts. The first would have two private cul de sacs providing to access to clusters of units. The second would be a more traditional row PLANNINa COMMISSION MSETINa, FEBRIIARY 7, 1996 PAdS 24 � house style facing 3rd Street with a smaller cluster to the south. The third would be similar with smaller blocks of units facing 3rd and a smaller cluster to the south. The fourth would have blocks of units each facing a private road which would . provide access to the units. Ms. McPherson stated the last option is an apartment which could yield 51 one-bedroom apartments for seniors. The buildinq would be three stories with underground and surface parking on the site. Ms. McPherson stated these options were presented to the i�2A and the City Council. The direction and concurrence was that the owner-occupied townhomes would be the recoannended option. � Mr. Newman asked if that recommendation was financially based or if there were other reasons. Ms. Dacy stated it was a mixture of both. On the financial side, the single family homes would have a net cost $300,000. The owner-occupied townhome option does cost some money but perhaps half of the detached option. The townhome option also provides the opportunity to gain some variety in sizes, heights, values, etc. �^� Mr. Saba asked if there would be some kind of theme. Ms. McPherson stated staff talked about what would happen along the edge, how that would be presented as the entrance into Fridley and that amenities would be very important. They see a process very similar to the Southwest Quadrant in which neighborhood participation is valuable. They could help set the design guidelines and/or theme for the project. Mr. Saba asked, in the second townhome option presented, would each unit have a two-car garage. Ms. McPherson stated-yes. Mr. Oquist asked if staff had considered carrying the same theme from the Southwest Quadrant into this project so it carries through. Ms. McPherson stated they had talked about picking up some of the design guidelines. Ms. Dacy stated they had also talked about carrying through the fence. She wants to pick up some of those elements. Mr. Newman stated Stonegate has two-story, zero lot line � properties. Did staff consider that? �, PLANNING COMMISSION ME$TINa. FEBRIIARY 7. 1996_ PAG$ 25 Ms. McPherson stated staff did not look at a specific design because they would be getting neiqhborhood input. Witii the footprints as presented, a two-story desiqn could fit. Mr. Newman stated, if he lived there, he would be concerned about the townhomes. He was not sure that juat doing 7 split entry home would make a statement to people as they enter Fridley. If we are qoia�g to have additional developments, we could do single family with a higher density. It may require a shorter setback or require front porches. If he lived in Hyde Park, he would be excited about it because you are doing something there rather than isolating. With the townhomes, residents are looking inward and are not a part of the neighborhood. The townhome owners in many cases have a different lifestyles than those in a single family home. Ms. Dacy stated, if staff went to the neighborhood, presented this information, and then involved them in coming up with some minimum design criteria to develop a request for proposal, staff would then go to the market and have a design to bring back. Ms. McPherson stated staff would show residents pictures of othe� developments to show them what they may see on the site. �� Mr. Newman agreed they needed phatos. Many developers want to copy their last development. This is small enough that we could get someone in there and see if it would work. If it does, we then have a springboard to replicate that throughout the community. Ms. Dacy stated the City Council and HRA want owner-occupied townhomes. They preferred the fourth townhome option. Staff is asking the Planning Commission's opinion. Staff wants a sense of what you would like to see on the site. Mr. Newman stated he thouqht they would have a problem selling single family units nearest University Avenue. The units nearer. the neighborhood would be more desirable. Ms. Dacy stated the row house style may provide an opportunity to return to the idea of a front porch, a smaller setback, a garage in the rear accessed by an alley. Mr. Oquist asked if they had considered the one-story cottage. Ms. Dacy stated the original one-story empty nester was bigger and would bring down the density. The desiqn could have a one- story unit at the ends with two two-story units in the middle. �^, Mr.,Oquist liked the first townhome option with two cul de sacs. It somewhat creates the neighbnrhood �cept. The residents PLANNING COMMIBSION MBETING FEBRIIARY 7 1996 PAGE 26 �"� there may not be a part of the neighborhood because they are goinq to be mobile, workinq people. They likely are not going to be "into the neighborhoodp as much. He thouqht it was a nice pro j ect. Mr. Stahlberg asked if staff had an idea of what senior housing demand is qoinq to be in the next few years. He understood that Spring Lake Park has senior hausing mare like townhomes where each entrance is separate and each has a garage. It is like individual housinq and might be something to look at. He grew up with an alley and does not want to be near another. They tend to collect the junk, trash cans,� etc. Ms. Dacy stated there is a high amount of senior demand ir�to the next century. Low income senior housing is in great demand. There is a three-year waiting list at Village Green and a one- year waitinq list at Norwood Square. The market rate senior has a tremendous demand. The demand is there. There is also a demand for the younger crowd as well. Mr. Newman stated, if he was retiring in Fridley, he was not sure he would want to be backing onto University Avenue. While there is demand for that type of housing and people want townhomes, he was not sure that that location is where they will want to be. He thought this location would attract a young, first time home �^ buyer. Mr. Hickok stated he thought people want to come to a common area where people can get to know their neighbors. On the first townhome option with the cul de sacs, there could be some nice amenity in the open space between the units to provide an attractive area that would appeal to different ages. ADJOURNMErTT MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the meeting. IIPON A VOIC$ VOTB� ALL pOTINa AYS, CgAIRpgggpN pgWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIBD AND THE FEBRIIARY 7, i996, PLANDTINQr.COMMI88IO�T MEBTIIJG AD.TOIIRNE:D AT 10 t 15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � � ,� , ✓ Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary r"� � /"� �1 �1 S I G N- IN S H E E T . PLANNING COMMISSIUN.MEETING, �,�� ,� . DATE: March 1, 1996 � � MEMORANDUM PLANrTING DIVISION TO: Plannin� Commission Members FROIVI; Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott I�'ickok, Planning Coordinator Kurt Jensen-Schneider, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Thirty Percern Front Yard Hard Swface Lot Coverage / Public Hearing BACKGROUND: At its, June 23, 1993 meetin� the Planning Commission received into the record a letter from Kathy McCollom (Ezhibit A). Ms. McCollom introduced concems about the amount of- hardsurface allowed om a�y one propesty. Upon receiving this information the Commission ��oiced concems about frout Yard Parking and dire�ted staffto fiuther review the issue. In reviewing ttris issue a lot coverage study and a sel� site anal�is were conducted. The results of th� study a� analysis were lrighli�hted in a J�ily 29, 1993 memo to William Burns. �'his memo and a copy of the site analysis and study are attached for your rewiew (Ea6ibit B). Ia a January 4, 1996 memo to William Bums, staff recommended procee�n� with a junk velucle, unpaved driveway, and nuisance abatement ordinance modificatioa Also included in that memo was the recommendation to consider a thirty percent (30'/0) frovt yard hard surface coverage requirement (Ezhibit G�. Since that time, A revision to the City �ode of ordinances has been drafted and the junk vehicle, unpav� driveway, and nuisance abatement revisions will be acted upon by the City Council on or about Apri18,1996, Tbe relationslup betw�► these ordinance changes and a hardsurface lot coverage requirement have created thE appropriate time to revisit the hardsmface coverage issue. A hardsuiface coverage requirement such as this will provide the necessary direction for residents who wish to modify their e�usking drive�vay, or install a new one. This revision. would be consistent with the unpaved driveway ordinance now before the Council. Thiriy-Percent Froirt Yard Hard Surface Lot Coverage / Public Hearing March 1, 1996 Page 2 SUGGESTID MODIFICATION• Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider an ardinance modification that would limit front yard c�riveways and parking stalls in t�th Single Faznily (R 1) and Two Family (It 2) zoning districts to no more than thirty _percent (3p•/o) ofthe front yard area. To illustrate tlris requu'ement several sample diagrams have been developed for your review (Eahibit D�. This recommendation would take the form of and ordinance amendment to the Performance Standards section of the R 1 and R 2 codes. Specific language for the.ce amendments is listed below. 205.07.06 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (R 1) (3) No more than thirt�percent 30`/0l of the froirt vard area of a lot shall be surfaceci wit blackton concrete or other hard surface material »proved b,y the C•rty for drnewav or parkin�stall purposes zos.os.06 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (R 2) � (3) No more thaa th�rty cent (30%) of the front yard area of a lot shall be surfaced � with blackton concrete or other hard surface material approved bv the Cit,v for dnveway or tiarking stall P oses RECONIME�TDATION: Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on March 6, 1996 to receive public commerrt. � � J&T�DisI�cated bJkr Pgm TEL= June 2�,1943 TO: D�vid Ncwntan, Gh�ir Planning 4ornmission �1ZOM: KuLhy McCollom 197 Longfellox► Strcet IV.E, Fridley, MN 55432 7iiA-8038/Homc �i2] -4038/Work Jun 23 93 10=54 No.001 P�.02 JRE: Pulatic Hearing-June 23, 19931I-I�rd Surface Parking Urdinance Secause of a prev;c,us co�mitmcni, I will not bc ablc to atEend this public hearing �n regards lo the reviscd sqrf�ce ordinanee. -- . ^ However, I wouid Yibc to address my conccrnc with tbe wording ot this upcoming reviESioa. SineC yoa arc alrcady Changiag the ordinancc, I wouid like tc� sce a statement ih�l discasses thC omount oi ht�rd sarface that can be nn any one prd�riy. I have done some personal research wilh aiher Cities in the metro area and havc found that u�osi af tl�ese Citiac 6ave a perccntage of allowablc ht�rd surfacc on prapc:rf,y. �, The reason for tbe time and energy I'in putting inw l.I�is is persoaal #o myself and my neighhors. The person living next w me loves cars and trucls. He just reccnlly put in a new driveway and h� i1, compktcly filled with vchicle.�. Currently, ac thc ordinance rcarl.s, thi.c person could derade to blacllop his whole front ttnd backyard lp i,dd more cars and trucks to his current collectian. This is clearly t� possibility bccaus� he doesn't really live on the property t�nd uses thc small house to store personal itcros And uses Ehe backyard te house his lwo dogs. Hc IivGS across thc slrcct with a girlfricad: I would hopc y�u would look at this siluation and advise me with ypur cummenis. Thank. you in advance for your revicw of my position. EXI-�IBIi A � _ � . DATE: TO: Community Development Department PLArnvnvG D�sioN City of Fridley July 29, 1993 William Burns, City Manager FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director - Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Steve Barg, Planning Assistant Steve Steiner, Planning Intern SUBJECT: Parking Ordinance Amendment During the public hearing regarding the parking ordinance amendment conducted by the Planning Commission at its June 23, 1993 meeting, the Commission received into the record the attached letter from Rathy McCollom. In her letter, Ms. McCollom expressed concern regarding the amount of area that a property owner could pave for vehicle parking and storage. The Commission voiced some concern regarding how much parking may be permitted in the front yard and directed staff to further review this issue. RESEARCH Lot Coveracie Currently, the Fridley Zoning Code limits lot coverage to 25o"oii all single family residential sites; 300 on other residentially zoned properties. However, this -requirement applies only to buildings and does not include parking facilities. Staff contacted other cities to determine if their lot coverage requirements included all impervious surfaces; not only buildings. Only the Coon Rapids ordinance requirements include parking facilities as well as buildings. - Two communities (Brooklyn Park and St. Louis Park) limit the amount of hardsurface area in the front yard to 30% and require all parking on said hardsurface area. Selected Site Analysis Staff identified and analyzed several sites regarding total impervious surface in the City of Fridley to further clarify this ���'�'� � _, P Parking Ordinance Amendment � July 28, 1993 Page 2 issue. Al1 sites used in this study appear to have an excessive amount of hard .surface parking, except for one standard residential property which was used for comparison purposes. A copy of the results of this analysis is attached for your review. ALTERNATIVES Staff has identified three possible alternatives in addressing this matter. These are as follows: . l. Limit the total amount of i.mpervious surface to some percentage of the overall site. 2. Limit the percentage of hardsurface coverage permitted in the front yard. � 3. Do nothing. SiTI�II+SARY As previously indicated, this information has been prepared in response to the concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Please �"`� provide further direction should you wish staff to look into antending the ordinance to restrict the amonnt of hardsurface parking permitted on residential properties. - SB/dri M-93-435 /�` 0 F'" K 't � � ' 3 I�-� µ' O n. N- m � � m � o �- °d m m w � �C � r N. p � �1 � � v~i m �' � � �r- m ►v o � �'' � m �' a x � K x K ►G K ►G ►C z ►C fG FG � m m m m o m N N �!! fA U� � K rC ►G ►t fA fC � N OI� N [�11 N (A N .-. .-. t-�•-. U1 U1 — � � O F-�� l-�- F�- ct O F-' t-' O f'! rt X 1 Q N O O N (�D iZ N � < w c� � (� v'.�. .� ... 0 � �C ti r'! N � � C c-mt fi �h (D t� G "G � o fD Af '�C ti' � ¢ n �u m a� � �� x ow w w �v N O � o� Q. ct O M O F�-� hS m O A• N N� �m �� �� F�- c � E t�- !�+ ti' � N N f� ►'i O N N F�- I C I N r�- N � � n N � � � � f�. fD m n � x �- N- F-� � � � � �i fn (D - � � O � � N b' C r- N- A� � m �D � � ct N z z �"! >C N tv �' � A� O� fD h! A•� N� � cNt A.rt� ct� C� c�t� rp�io ��f�.wtt xn ��c w� �. ��' ��moQ. �� £ �� �w�� v�" �' n a n� � x N- rr � °� n N `� f-L �" (] t�, �' ct �' � K O � 't7 � N c�t U�i K ►� 1 ct 7r O O Itfi � � tt � � w m x � N ,K r 0 rr 1 Z K O C (D fi A� fD �i (D ('} � fi �? O Fi rt N . L3' � cf' � 0 ft � � W C N E A� 'C N O � tD K •J r O � n O C � � G� � � H � d K � -. i�� �""\ ��, i � Brooklyn Center No requirement PARKING RESTRICTIONS Brooklyn Park ° No requirement. Does have front-yard restrictions; must park on a driveway, which must not take up > 30% front-yard area. Burnsville No requirement. Must not have more cars than area to park them. Columbia Heiqhts No requirement. Driveways shaZl not exceed 22 feet in width. Coon Rapids Maximum of 30% for LDRl and LDR2. For MDR (4 to 9.9 units/acre), two-family dwellings must have less than 50% coverage of buildings, driveways, and paved areas. Edina In R1 Districts, for lots 9,000 square feet or less, buildings must cover no more than 25%, or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. � For lots greater than 9,000 square feet, buildings must cover no more than 30%, or 2,250 square feet, whichever�is less. In R2 Districts, buildings must not cover more than 30% of the lot. Code also gives maximum driveway widths, and minimum distances between driveways. Golden val�ey No requirement. Maplewoad No requirement. New Briqhton No requirement for R-1 (lots 10,000 square feet or greater), but for both R-lA and R2,.floor-area ratio must not exceed 30%. Also gives maximum widths for driveways. Raseville For Rl it is 300, for R2 it is 400. St. Louis Park For both Rl and R2, it is 30%. Parking on the front yard is prohibited unless it is the only practical place to park. Total parking and driveway area must not occupy more than 30% of the front-yard area, and a bufferyard must.be built. ,^ Sprinq Lake Park For R1, it is 30%, and for R2, it is 50%. � A SAMPLE OF LOT COVERAGES (TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE) IN FRIDLEY i� All coverages are in square feet. R1 6600 Brookview Drive lot: 21,497 house: 1,056 garage: 620 driveway: 2,535 coverage: 200 1153 Mississippi Street lot: 22,500 house: 1,092 garage: 720 driveway: 500 + about 900 gravel coverage: 15% 6320 Quiacy Street� lot: 10,125; house: 1,212 + about 80 (shed) garage: 484 driveway: 1,700 + about 2,400 gravel coverage: 58% 43 62 1/2 Aay lot: 8820 house: 950 garage: 384. driveway: coverage: 161 Hartman Circle lot: 16000 house: 1485 garage: 550 .� driveway: 840 - coverage: 18% 219 Loqan Parkway lot: 20000 house: 3075 garage: 900 driveway: 1200 coverage: 260 R2 70-80 63 1/2 Aay lot: 11,040 house: 1,588 garage: O driveway: 840 coverage: 22% �\ � '"1 A SAMPLE OF LOT COVERAGES (TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE) IN FRIDLEY 90-100 63 1/2 Aay lot: 10,056 house: 1,588 garage: 0 driveway: 840 coverage: 24% 380 57th Place lot: 9600 house: 1564 garage: 0 driveway: 900 + about 600 in rear coverage: 32a 390 57th Place lot: 9600 house: 1564 garage: 1,056 driveway: 900 + about 1300 in rear coverage: 50% /"�. , i-� c 0 r � � . Community Develapment Departm:ent G DIVISION DATE: ; . January 4, 1996 City of Fridley TO: William W. Burns, City Manager FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Diredor Scott I�'ickok, Planning Coordinator Kurt Jense� Schneider, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Counc� Info�mation - Properiy Improvemem Ordinance Changes Staffhas prepar� add'ih'arn�l information on the progerty improvemea�t ordinance 4sst�es foF Council consideration. This will include additionai information on unpaved driveways and further modifications to the proposed junk vehicle and nuisance abatement provisions. UNPAVED DRIVEWAYS Cost: November 20, 1995 conference meeting staff recommended that the City Couricil pursue an m�ce which would require all non-hardsurface driveways to be paved. In considering this idation several concerns were raised. More specifi " o�ation alwut a homeowne,�'s cost of improving their driveway is provided in attachment The cast savings for the resident could be significant if they use the citie's asphaldconcrete or. The Citie's contractor cost may vary from year to year. The 1996 pricing info 'on is being prepared by the engineering department at this time. A typical asphalt driveway ould cost at least $1,250. Property Valuatioa: The tax implicatioas ofpaving a driv are minimal. A concrete surface will cause a$300 increase in the assessed value of the hom . the assessed value of the home. The most tfiat it incr� the ap�al of the home and Financial Assistance: An asphalt surface will cause a$200 increase in i rtant benefit of a driveway improvement is Minnesota. State Statute limits any special assessment of this G/��'��� C to no more than a 30 year r'� �� ,� Council Information - Property Improvement Ordinance Changes January 4, 1996 Page 2 term. The Council could set the interest rate as it sees fit. Staff recommends that the assessment option be included as the only financial assistance tool made available to the residents. Paving a drive�ray is an eligi'ble cost in the City's loan program (CDBG doe.c not include this expense). Coupling the assessment option with the reduced cost of using the City's contractor will significandy aid the property owner. Inctuding an administrative c�rge with the special assessment may help to cover the cost of administering the assessment. For se " r, or low income residents a deferred assessment optian could be made ava�able. Providing ese residents with a deferred assessment activated by the sale of the property would delay e cost burden and place it upon the next property owner. Staff recommends that all driveway ents take the form of a 5 year term at 7 percen� Staff also recommends that a administrative charge be added to the assessment total and that a$1,250 minimum be r if a resident wishes to use this option. �ce;��tamle Materials: Staffrecommends that approv� Irar ace materials ha.ve sufficient P.S.I. ratings to support motor vehicles and consist of concrete, bituminous, and brick In addition, an acceptable �.-� driveway may be constructed using a poro s pavement system (pavers). This system would consist of interlocking, prefabricated, perfora d blocks laid on a soil base and providing a stable pervious surface far low volume vehicul se. A por.ous pavement system would be acceptable for all areas of the drivewa.y except the ea which parking regularly occurs. To ,� prevent the seepage of velucle fltuds, an uniMerrupt ardsurface would be required on the parldng/storage portion� of the driveway. Reatal Property: Several of the known gravel driveways exist on rental properties. f the 514 registered. rentat properties approximately 30 of them have gravel or dirt dri . The impact of requiring rental property owners to pave their driveways will be signi t if they own numerous properties. Tlze positive impacts to neighborhoods in which these r tal properties are clustered will also be signific�nt. Staff recommends that rental prope owners be pemutted to use the City contractor as well as the special assessment option. Lot Coverage: Staff believes specific language involving the lot coverage aspects of a hardsurface drivewa.ys in the front yard should be included. Lot coverage requirements wauld eliminate concerns about paving entire front yards. Paving a limited area may also help to limit the number of vehicles stored on the property. The Cities of Brooklyn Park and St. Louis Park, have a maximam front yard hardsurface coverage of 30 percent. Sta.ff recommends amending the ordinance to stipulate a maximum hardsurface coverage of 30 percent in the front yard. � Council Information - Property Improvement Ordinance Changes January 4, 1996 Page 3 To proceed with the implementation of an ordinance modification requiring all non- hardsurface driveways to be paved staffwould: 2. Notify all affected property own�s (approx. 328) and invite them to an informational meetiag the latter part of January. a Planning Commission public hearing to amend the zonin� ord°uiance 7, 199� 3. A Ci Counc� established public hearing for March 4, 1996 .Y t1NK VEHICLES . At the November 20, I995 co ence meeting staff recommended that the City Council pursue an ordinance which would clarify and en the junk vehicle enforcement options. In considering this recommendation several concerns w e raised. Inspection Garages: The original pro�sal included a clause ' which vehicle owners would be required to certify their car as operable and safe using a co ct insgection garage. Upon further consideration by staff and concerns expressed by the C cil this clause has'�been removed. The concerns about disparity among garages and the 1 al significant enough to �withdraw it from the dr� inspection requireme,nt will not detract frqin the Unsafe vs. Inoperable: issues around requiring inspections are dinance. Staff believes the lack of garage of the ordinanceo The administrative decision of determining when a vehicle is nsid was a concern To clarify the conditions in which a vehicle y junk/unsa.fe vehicle notification form is attached as exhibit 5 day natification period a vehicle owne,r e�xpresses a significant � of their vehicle� staffw�7t administrativety eacte.nd the corredion dead period. Vehicles will be removed only if.they maintain one (1) conditions, or two (2) or tnore'unsafe conditions. ered unsafe or inoperable be impounded a deta.iled ff at any time during the iship regardiag the repair �e for a re,asonable time ol{ more jank/'moperable � � �"� �-.,\ Council Information - Property Improvement Ordinance Changes January 4, 1996 Page 4 � �, Date: To provide for a test period with arry junk vehicie ordinance changes it was suggested that a one (1) year "s�u�sex" be mcluded After one (1) year, staffw�71 provide a report to Council about the program and make a re�ommendation to continue or repeal the ofdinance. Sta.ff recommends it is apprapriate to provide a one yeaz"Sunset Date" with the proposed changeso Pub� feedback during this trial period may be very helpful. Ordinance Mo�ification Highlights: 1. Inco orate a definition of "unsafe for operation" to include reference to any state,�pcal, or federal regulations inciuding; but not limited to Nfinnesota. State Statutes�`169.468 to 169.75. 2. To include a�3� velucle which is not regularly used on City streets as an abandoned, ju�or unsafe vehicle. 3. To increase the using a 5 da:y no� 72 hour nofice � 4. 5. � To detail the notice, vehicles. icy of junk or unsafe vehicle processing and abatements by p�iad. This notice period would still exceed the rninimum �y State Statute_ � To implement a hearing process and public sale requirements conceming abated To include a one year "sunset date" To incorporate these changes effe�tively, the City's legal i�ehicles with Code Section 114 Abandoned Motor Y modification/combination is attached as eahibit C. vehicle owners. the effective date of the ordinance corabined Code section 123 .tunk A draft version of this ordinance Summary: If directed to proceed with the adoption of the current draft version actions would ne,ed to take place: � 1. Public notification is ordinance the follow►ng 2. A City Counc� public hearing would not be required recommended to expiain the new program during the requiring hardsurFace driveways (1Vlarch 4, 1996) a hearing is hearing for Y ^, Council Information - Property Improvement Ord"inance Changes 3anuary 4, 1996 Page 5 . 3. 4. F'ust Reading (March 18, 199� Second Reading (Aprii 8, 199� At ovember 20, 1995 conference meeting staff recommended that the City Council pursue an o' modification wluch would add additional language to the nuisance abatement ordinance. This add'ih' would allow the City to abate "same or �milar." violations from the same location within a specific tim frame following an abatement. � The oniy concems� �gr�eut". Coun persons property. Att Staff believes this a� violations as a cont proceedings could be ressed about this m�ification were with regards to the "Release of Property felt it could be revised to include fnore speciSc provisions for reentering the ed as eahibit D is a revised version of the reIease of praperiy agreement. r ent and ordinance modific�tion would allow the city to treat recumng ivati of ttie first violation Separate notification steps and abatement Sumarary: � - If directed to proceed with the modi carion of the nuisance abatement ordinance the following actions would need to take place: I. Public notification .. . 2. A City Council public h' g would not be required, but a hearing is recommended to eacplain the ri program (March 4, 1996). � � First Reading (March 18, 1996} Second Reading (April 8, 199� CONCLUSION/RECOM1VV�iENDATION Unless othervaise dir� staff will proceed with the drafting of these or ' ce modifications. The got�tial for neighborhood improvement and increased enforcement effedi ess will be a positive change for the City, ffthere is any concern or further- information is des�red ease inform staffat your earliest convenience. M-96-7 KJS:kjs ��, �� ..� �C � � 1 ��� 3�, r�g�����'i .,� � �. � _' � . ��` k t' ' ;G�• Sn� xj ��� Y*����: �: ���." �\ l� .....�� N t �,� :r i':.':,..., � i���` �' ' �- �,�� ; :. �- - ���, ; �� � ���,��°`�� °:� � -� �" . �` �� ��; � �" �. � ���: �� ��. y� � � �'�..' �, . �t� �i��^ ,����� ���' # '�'' ti+s �'� t �4 s,,t �� ,�.�� �" �2 � `�„��' ��;� �; '� � j 5' � � �� _\ 4�e`� 's z��� � �' � �2E .»T Q 4 i ` `4�$G• }'3: L�� � ; `A�.. : ' .. ; t .r 6X "3 ��$} i.✓�•+a : .i � a` � y' 4� � t � #' �� � ... � Yr,"�+ .'�,r `4����.'(: F�j"� }}�d �x We.ivv�""4T � �� i � �+'2� �^�`. '$., y -4�- "�,y z.. � .<'C �� &�'y �'� � � '��# d"`''d,�;?.F�,� , `�'' { '� � k � �3 : � � y� z i �� x% :,..� �rT r� Y,,,� `� �'±�ytt�'::'.. ��`' �� ��� a�. � . ai � �i��;� ���` , 4 � t� .r Yi ` ���1' ,(� 4b �yL�, � � �T4 `...��'e��� .rr��� - i:� .�id� " e.Ll°i�. `� ttw.i'1`c_ � "'`E �� �. ��� � � �� � m�l�`��. , . _ ��� { .� . a# } N �p�V�d a� •�S�Ei: 3�` : _3`'• .'.:. ", , s _ � � � � i � I i 9$� � � .�s_ . : �'� • � "' -4 r� � °�� _ � r` � � � f:� '�d`i%` '� ��Y 4 ni �. ei a^a�� ., y,� y � ,. � � +� �P � l {� � � N �� � E, T '"Y �'W "'f f " l'�'4 �.3'r +p �a.? 9 Y �n �, i` 't £� � . i $ �'§ �t �,�R"' �± �.:" t �y,�'��y„ � 5^i� �. �^'f �' �: s 9' 'xt,�7 : u,;�a! �c��� % n "*s'��'^��� �.�*+,�"..�`i3, � �s6`�`.� ,,��&.�,q�1�`=+# s.t��� # n r,,� a. � s� , `� ' �s�s � t i +�-; � ' � , � ��� . y ; � : �y, n �, F"' � �' +€ � : a ,q�xai ( K�+ �t� j� 1 �rYh �,* ^� Y � C . 1 y� ���'"�={'�^x � _ '^�,.t � i �n ��� �Q pk � �& � .'yr,p f �Bi p �f �, ` : �� ;" _ '��� 3t's��{�`�v,� � � .�� e.'2 c „ � °�`4� 3�'.::S�GaA�'� �Y' , , r._ '�t� 'xY . . _.v. .^�1�.:. w. . �L �'�3'�KW ." i.,= .<.",5�a a nr ' � � # � � �'�S�y'' � � m.d� '�•s � � � �� � ` � � � :: , � .., ,�" . - ' -r,-.. c $� � � 'q � � $� i, u�� m a � � � r� �`�'�e f�`i$ �NR' yy,�, �°y`����,,,la, � `� �?d�:! � $ � �'A'� ) #a ,t t '���.f -f'�� ;'�•.�- ���������a: `�t ,� �,E; �a� �S p� � ��� �, � � �,�'t ,�d . Y �. 'v '� � �u i a +�`.4 �'r,�'�� p ro�- �� �' ,� �, <. � � �,:�°� '� x �`� , r'�c�pa�' �'�, ��" �lr-!. .�� �' `� r �nn i � �,�c^ae�3�� �,.:�,�# 'a."S "� '� i����. � � � 4��� �"'�� ;; �2 �'', ,� . � ����� ��'1 _ �„_ `�� r; _ � ��s _ _�.;� ���°. f r � w ��� 4`�. ^ h4�i 5%. � rY b �m,' � i,, �°� � -" > r ss3'�' s-"� a ,r' s=�,,�,��� '��`�r` tdr��� .>� ;t.�".�� $ , + � ���� �} �� a a` � .`.}��� � ��" y���4. � �"�� � ������A �i�`�`��k�'� a :'� t i; ., r -a �. �: °} ,s�a+'�.S � �3 "3' +�, s� T x� ��... ; � �4 ��' �ss.. � � t 4�'`4 �� � � � �� i� ���iiT� '� �' � �� ��""�'"� .�'' @ s$ s �� , � y,�,s.'� S �� 4.., � , _�, � �� y 1 � �1��°Y � � �' ��k � {��: ��A • itl�y$`� I � � , ", '� �' a . �. . + t�' Y a � °y t �� �a�� � i �� ����� `�� f� �W �,v� a .<"s " �:: 3����'. ',� ` ' �,�: � _. ,� �. - y� -� � r �' � C ��. �, ay'��-�`, "t: � , i .-.'�s r ��� cr�x �� a � e �� f _.4�; � � �d,l fi n�i . . .��� �� . �!` - ° � "°� ���,... � 5 � �t�# R � �� e �, s.,� ; Y,9 y � ��a�, ' ������ , r �� � �� •� �y�R 'N�„ �, �'. ...� . �,. `"��' � °.°�'�`,^:�. �« �t„ ��`_t '`?;_ I . i �'�f" . , * ��' ; �,5. ;?�� �� �" � : t � Y A � ��'S� �' ��-s �S`'� �`�� rUS„s�"�a.���.�.�_� � � 4r`��y.`�? S.�q�. � � �,F f '�x y, .. "� K` S� F �'r# �d �� .: .� P .�$ � � �� yqy � f ro �� _y� ¢ � �= �+i. Jt . N� . � 5 "M �f K� - x� i �: ; � ��w n°r s� �`'.-,� � � � � ��. . , g :. .. �r ° � � �.. a :� ro r ,� � �,^ . _ � "t �,e �, � , �"... ���T ;����j���� � �.c,:� t...� •��} aro�•, � ,r�� �,,� :. � �"t ,�A�` ;�� � �T' � ����� a 7�r f � m'n N' .� a tt� ��� �Y-" °�x� a` � F A � '�N7 , . � ���.� 3� y i A� � 7 .a+>�. .�_. ����...' ��l,c�+�e �p..,m��rm1 , .,... `�....., t.���. Y L��� - � `�' �}� �� ��5 � ,€' � ff4 J1 �� � � l � �� 3R ��' � t+•s . A� _ _. . . . s_a3- � ,..,�.�. � • � Ai' ig� � � k #';» � f �'` � �€�� � ,��" ��*�" '�'�� �,'�.. � � � �� �it�. sk ��'��.` � 3 a�, � y� � ; aw y• ��y $� . � fi ��v���}, � ' ; , !j'�f sL i ^{P°T' �,:�+5."S' ,1� '�'r9. � :Z 1��,.' ae '::a7/ � ; �� �Pt � :yo. _.1 ��� � �� � � ��y� '.� rm t.��" iK��t s � .�.�'.� "� o� � � ��� � � L 7"�"3 -a � �� e`r �r �i �'a"�'f4 { x `, � � y: . � �. �� t ic ° � ��.� � � � �r,�,�,.., �,� � t e � ,�' a+ .�.' u� + . � °a � y��'r r.�, '� �� �w r�+`��. <.. { ���N i ����A+��'k:d �� 1�� �, �' . . � �a�¢ r'�*� �� �� ,�,�'�"�' .�* t "�, �r� 6 t�+- , s� �� . � � _ '� �� � �': �� f � � '�& �y � ,� � m� � �`�y �����= � � �,�� �, y ��i ��:�,, �' ' � � i'.vt�n.�3%"�',-��t .� a�:�`,�"'O,r`ka�'� r3r'r ._ �-.� FN:+h,. . ,-r? , ,..a�{t � _: �.� �I �MOR�vDUNr PLAS�TNING DIVISION DATE: March 1, 1996 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Information 11Aemo - Revision to the City's Comprehensive Pfan Regarding Nonpoint Source Pollution INTRODUCTION: This Comprehensive Plan amendment does not require action at this meeting. If the Commission concurs, a public hearing will be scheduled for April 3, 19�, for formal review and action. � ISSUE: In August 1995, the Metropol�an Council approved an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Pfan. This amendment did allow the City to change its land use designation from Industrial to Commercial on a 14.5 acre site. The impetus of the City's requesf was its desire to acxrommadate Home Depot USA At that time, the Metropolitan Council stipulated that their approval was tied to a requirement that the City amend its Comprehensive Plan to coincide with the City's existing ordinance language. The City's nonpoint ordinance was adopted to protect the environment and was an attempt to comply with the Metro�litan Council's earlier mandate regarding nonpoint source �Ilution. The Metropolitan Council rec�nized the City's effort as having the impac# they had hop� for� but asked that we now do the Comprehensive Ptan housekeeping to complete the pr�ess. � � Revision to the City's Comprehensive Plan r"� March 1,1996 Page 2 SUGGESTED COMPREHENSNE PLAN AMENDMENT: MODEL LANGUAGE FOR ITEMS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR REVIEW 1. PROPOSED COMIPREHENSNE PLAN AMENDMENT The City af Fridley will apply National Urban Runoff Pr�ram (NURP) standards for the design of new starmwater ponds and the MPCA's urtian best management practices titled Prote�tinc� Water Qualitv in Urban Areas* to the review of any proposed development occwrring in the City of Fridley to reduce nonpoint source pollutant loadings in stormwater runoff. The City of Fridiey will incorporate these standards and requirements in its stormwater management plan and land use controls to implement this policy. 2. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FQR PREPARING AND ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO LOCAL STORMWATER PLAN AND LAND USE CONTROLS � The City of Fridley will prepare and adopt specific amendments to its stormwater plan and land use controls by May 6, 1996. The Metropolitan Council will be notified after the amendments have f�en adopted. 3. STATEMENT OF COOPERATION WITH DNR FOR THE REVISION OF SHORELAND REGULATIONS The City of Fridley will work with the Department of Natural Resources to adopt the revised shoreland r�ulatians consisterrt with the DNR's schedule of priorities. The Metropolitan Council will be notified following the date of their adoption. (This statement may be an administrative action and included in the letter submitting the plan amendment to the Council for review. It does nof require official action by the locat govemment.) *The tocal govemment may adopt standards and other requirements that are equivalent to NURP and the MPCA's urban best management practices if it c.hooses. This is explained in the Council's Interim StrateQv to Reduce Nonaoint Source Pollution to the Minnesota River or Interim Strateqy to Reduce Non�oint Source Poltution to All Metrouolitan Water Bodies. If the local govemment chooses the altemative of adopting equivatent requirements, it should provide a copy of these for ihe Council's files. r ,�-� Revision to the City's Comprehensive Plan March 1 � 1996 Page 3 � RECOMMENDATION• Staff has offered this as an information item and, unless othervvise directed, will schedule a public hearing for April 3, 19�. SH:sh M-96-109 �. ���