07/30/1990 CONF MTG - 5127/
�
C�NOF
fRIDLF.Y
CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING
JULY 30, 1990 - 7:30 P.M.
CONFERENCE ROOM A
1. 1989 Year-End Comprehensive Financial Annual Report
and Management Letter.
2. Solid Waste Fact-Finding Final Report.
3, Mother-in-Law or Accessory Apartments,
4. Proposed North Gateway Redevelopment Plan.
/
�
cinr oF
F�a�
C011�W1UNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDLIM
DATE: July 26, 1990 � �-
TO: William Burns, City Manager`,�.
FROM: Jock Robertson, Community Development Director
Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator
Lisa Campbe �, Planning Assistant
BIIB.7ECT: Solid Waste Fact-Finding Final Report
Attached please find the Solid Waste Fact-Finding for Council
Consideration on July 30, 1990.
Summary Recommendation
It is the Commission's recommendation that the Council continue to
provide curbside recycling services under the current method of
open refuse hauling and a single contzactor for recycling services.
The Commission also recommends that Council consider the purchase
of containers for city-wide distribution to residents. The
Coaunission believes that this short-term strategy will result in
continued growth in participation and in the City reaching 84� of
the December 1993 abatement goal established by the State.
As grant revenue begins to fall below contract costs, the
Commission recommends the Council beqin charging the residents an
annual recycling fee in the amount of that shortfall. Under the
current programming method, the Commission estimates that grant
revenue will begin to fall below costs in 1993. The shortfall for
1993 is estimated at $17,102.60. Including $8,000 in
administrative cost, the charge to the residents for 1993 would be
$3.50 for the entire year.
In the event of a shortfall in grant revenue and the Council does
not wish to charge residents, the Commission recommends the Council
consider the Licansing approach as the alternative method of
service. Under Licensing, contract costs to the City would be
eliminated and the cost to the residents �rould increase by $3.00-
5.00 per month or $36.00-60.00 annually. Licensing would allow
residents to select their provider and their level of service.
Solid Waste Fact-Finding Final Report
July 26, 1990
Page 2
Licensing requires siqnificant government involvement in develcping
performance standards, and service under this method can be
erratic. For these reasons, the Commission suggests that if the
Council wishes to pursue the approach that the refuse hauler be
invited to fully participate in the implementation process.
I,C:ls
M-90-515
SOLID WASTE FACT-FINDING REPORT
Prepared by Lisa Campbell
for
The City of Fridley
Environmental Quality and Energy Commission
July 26, 1990
I. BACKGROUND: REGIONAL POLICY AND LOCAL RESPONSE
The disposal of garbage in Minnesota was once simple. You
placed your garbage outside on the curb and the refuse hauler
picked it up and took it to the local open dump. There it was
either burned or left to decay. The result of this solid
waste management system was air pollution and groundwater
contamination.
In the early 1970's, the State banned burning of garbage and
open dumps. These methods were replaced by sanitary landfills
constructed with liners, monitoring wells, and other technical
devices. Even with these systematic improvements, groundwater
contamination persisted. Concerns about contamination made
siting new landfills difficult; landfill space was declining
rapidly.
In 1980, responding to these public health and land space
concerns, the Minnesota State Legislature passed the Waste
Management Act (WMA). The initial intent of the WMA was to
monitor the landfill siting process. In 1984, the WMA was
amended to prohibit unprocessed waste from going directly to
the landfills by 1990. Under this amendment, the counties in
the metropolitan area were required to abate 15� of their
waste stream by 1990.
The Metropolitan Council was given the responsibility of
developing a Regional Solid Waste Management Policy. The
focus of this policy has been recycling and resource recovery
(incineration). The Metropolitan Council directed each of its
counties to develop solid waste management plans. As part of
this process the County of Anoka established abatement goals
for each of its communities. In 1985, the City of Fridley was
the first in the County to provide a curbside recycling
program to its residents.
Financinq
Since 1985, the City has incurred $134,789 in contract
services and received $97,372 in grant monies and, therefore,
expended $37,417 from the general fund for curbside recycling
collection services. Until 1988, the grant revenue paid for
contract services. At that time, the City Council approved
a short-term policy of allocating funds from the general fund
to pay for the shortfall in grant revenue.
Contract services constitute the greatest cost associated with
the curbside program. This cost has increased 420$ since June
of 1985 to the present. In 1985, the City incurred $13,149
in contract costs for a twelve month period. During the 1990
calendar year, the City expects to incur $68,404.44 in
contract costs.
��
SCORE Funds
In 1989 the State Legislature passed SCORE (The Governor's
Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment) and extend
the 6� sales tax to refuse hauling services. In 1990, this
extension is expected to generate $33 million for local
recycling programs. These funds will be distributed to the
counties on a per capita basis. For 1990, Anoka County
expects to receive $491,572 in SCORE funds. In 1990, under
the current Joint Powers Agreement, the City of Fridley will
receive at least $110,690.00 or as much as $127,930.00. Anoka
County will be releasing a total of $981,270 in grants to its
communities. These funds consist of SCORE, Metropolitan
Landfill Abatement, and Anoka County matching funds.
SCORE funding will provide great financial relief to the City
of Fridley this year. The reliability or longevity of SCORE
funds, however, is questionable. During the 1990 session,
there was a proposal to cut 1990 SCORE funds going to the
counties and cities for the last six months of the year by 8�.
This proposal failed, but proposals for funding cuts are
expected in 1991. SCORE funds have only been allocated
through 1991, which leaves the possibility that this revenue
to the cities may be substantially reduced or used for another
purpose. After 1991, it becomes the responsibility of the
County to maintain adequate funding to its cities. County
staff recommends that cities not rely on SCORE funds in
developing long range programming options.
Fact Findinq Process
In early 1989, the Council, along with the Environmental
Quality and Energy Commission, became concerned about the
rapidly increasing cost of providing a curbside recycling
program and the declining grant monies. In addition, new and
changing requirements from the state and county placed
additional demands on the City's programming. As a result,
the Commission and the Council initiated a series of fact-
finding meetings. Representatives from other counties and
municipalities were invited to speak. These meetings were
termed the Solid Waste Fact-Finding Process. This
investigation focused on the alternative methods of providing
curbside recycling programs. Other typical solid waste
program components such as the drop-off center, yard waste
management, household hazardous waste, or special collections
were not addressed.
The goal was to analyze different
determine which would be the "best
Fridley. Cost of service, government
-2-
methods of service to
fit" for the City of
involvement in providing
II.
or regulating service, and abatement performance were the
guiding concerns during this process. A citizen survey was
also conducted to determine current attitudes about recycling
issues. See Attachment #1.
This report contains the results of the fact-finding process
and analysis of different programming strategies. The
proposed recommendation is based on the principle of providing
cost efficient service to Fridley residents and meeting the
county abatement goals.
REVIEW OF THE FOUR RECYCLING APPROACHES
Evaluation Criteria
The primary criteria in evaluating the method of providing
service were: (1) The level of local government involvement
required; (2) additional costs; (3) abatement levels; (4)
flexibility in service; and (5) who will bear the cost under
each system.
In general, we have assumed the following biases:
1.
2.
The preferred method of service should require limited
government involvement.
The preferred method of service should allow residents
the flexibility to choose their provider.
3. The preferred method of service should limit additional
costs to the City to the minimum cost required to meet
the State mandated abatement goals.
4. Service should be reliable and predictable.
5. The preferred method of service should limit additional
costs to the City to the minimum cost required to meet
the State mandated abatement goals.
6. The preferred method of service should limit additional
costs to residents to the minimwn cost required to meet
State mandated goals.
open refuse collection �rith a sinqle contractor for recyclinq
pick-up: This is the current system. Under this method,
the refuse hauler is responsible for providing pickup of
refuse, yard waste, and wood brush and billing the resident.
The City contracts for recycling services and at this time
does not bill the residents.
This method of service meets four of the six performance
standards. Under this method, residents choose their own
-3-
hauler and level of service, and service is reliable and
predictable. Disadvantages include government involvement in
the providing recycling services and high contract costs.
Abatement levels under this system are considered excellent
at 40 pounds per participating household. Participation at
47$ is good.
The cost incurred by the City program is between $5, 040 to
$7,308 per month for recycling services. These expenditures
are currently reimbursed by grant funds. The cost to the
resident is between $13.00-18.00 per month for refuse
services. This approach was also preferred by the residents
responding to the citizen survey.
Licensinq: Under this method, the refuse haulers would be
required to provide refuse, recycling and yard waste pickup
as a condition of their license to operate in the City.
Haulers would set prices. Residents would select their own
hauler. City government would mandate the level of service,
regulate the service delivery, and require regular service
reports.
The licensing option meets three of the six performance
standards. Licensing would allow residents to choose their
own hauler and level of service. Additionally, licensing
would eliminate contract costs for the City. Dakota County
staff reported good monthly participation and abatement rates
in their cities that rely on licensing. Average monthly
participation is 70$ of all households, and average monthly
pounds per household abated is twenty-five pounds. The cost
to the resident of this approach would be between $18.00-23.00
per month for refuse, recycling, and yard waste pick-up. This
figure includes an additional cost of $3.00-5.00 a month for
recycling services or between $36.00-60.00 annually.
Significant government involvement in developing and enforcing
service performance standards is the major disadvantage of
licensing. Haulers would be required to present weigh slips
documenting tons abated. Cities in Dakota County did
experience some initial difficulty in obtaining weigh slips
from their haulers.
Service is difficult to predict. There have been problems
with the individual providers offering a lower level of
service than what is required. To mitigate this problem,
Dakota County staff suggested involving the haulers in the
implementation process and conducting an extensive public
information campaign.
Consortium collection: This is a variation of organized
collection. Under this method, the City would work with
existing haulers, encourage them to form a consortium, and
-4-
allow the consortium to bid on the City's contract. The City
would be divided into zones based on existing market shares.
The consortium would bill the residents and be responsible for
service complaints. The service components would be limited
to those included in the contract.
Consortium collection meets only two of the five performance
standards. This method would restrict the residents' ability
to select their provider and level of service since both of
these components would be determined by a negotiated contract.
Abatement would be moderate to good. Contract cost to the
City would be eliminated since the consortium would bill the
residents directly. The cost to the resident would be $18.00-
23.00 per month for refuse, recycling, and yard waste pick-
up. Additional cost to residents under this approach would
be between $3.00-5.00 a month for recycling services or
between $36.00-60.00 annually.
The greatest disadvantage of consortium collection is that it
requires considerable government intervention in determining
what se elthesehservi ces wi 1 be ffered withi �the�Cityhen,
and wher
Orqanized collection: Under this method of service, the City
would contract with a single contractor in order to provide
refuse, recycling, and yard waste pickup for its residents.
The service components would be limited to those included in
the contract.
This method satisfies one of the performance standards.
Abatement levels under this approach would be 100� greater
than abatement under our current System. The major
disadvantage of organized collection is significant
government intrusion. A single contractor aral Waste
responsible for providing refuse, recycling, and y
pick-up. The resident would have no flexibility in either who
provided the service or what level of service was available.
The cost to the resident would be between $18.00-23.00 per
month for refuse, recyclables, and yard waste pick-up.
Additional cost to the residents under this approach would be
between60300o annually ont �pleaseeCSeelCharts Aeandr Beunder
$36.00
Attachment #2•)
III. EXPECTATIONS OF THE FRIDLEY RECYCLING PROGRAM
State and Countv
As stated earlier, in 1984, the Waste Management Act of 1and
was amended to include requirements for planning of
implementing landfill abatement programs like the City
Fridley's curbside recycling program. Under this amendment,
-5-
counties in the metropolitan area were required to abate 15�
of its waste by 1990.
SCORE was passed in 1989, and the abatement requirement for
metropolitan counties was increased to 35� by December 31,
1993. The County estimates that the City of Fridley would be
required to abate 8,300 tons in order to meet the 35$ goal by
December 1993.
Expected Program Performance
The City of Fridley will abate 5,236 tons or 62� of the
estimated 8,300 tons by December 1993. Of this amount, 72�
will be abated through the curbside program, 26� will be
through the drop-off, and less than 1� through the office
paper program. Limited program expansion will be needed to
abate 8,300 tons by December 1993.
Residents' Expectations
The survey results indicate that Fridley residents want the
curbside recycling program expanded to include multi-units,
containers, and more promotion. Residents are also interested
in expanding the curbside program to include plastics. It is
not clear whether residents would be willing to pay more for
these expansion items. These program expansion items would
cost:
Containers
Multi-units
Plastics
Promotion
Total
$ 85,120.00 (7,000 households)
173,665.80 (25 lbs/3,938 households/month
29,232.00 (+$8/tons or $92/ton)
4,400.00
$292,417.80
IV. EXPANSION OPTIONS: ANALYSIS OF COST AND EXPECTED ABATEMENT
A. Containers. Sixty-eight percent of the residents
responding to the survey said they would recycle more if
they had containers. The addition of containers to the
curbside program would increase participation from 40�
to 70� and curbside abatement from 3,780 tons to 5,056.8
tons by December 1993.
These assumptions are made based on the City's pilot
project for containers that was conducted in conjunction
with the Fridley Lions Club. Project area participation
has been between 60� and 100$. Depending upon the time
of year, city-wide participation is 44� to 60�. With
containers, participation is approximately 30� greater.
With containers, total tons abated by December 1993 would
be 7, 003.9 tons or 84� of the estimated goal of 8, 300
tons.
�
B. Promotion/$ducation. The survey results indicated that
23� of the nonrecyclers needed more information about the
recycling program. What the effect increased promotion
would have on participation and abatement is not clear.
Cost of increased promotion would depend on the type of
promotion. If the program brochure is published twice
a year, promotion costs would double from roughly $3,120
to $6,240. If the promotional effort relied heavily on
educating volunteers, there would be no cost increase.
C. Multi-Units. Based on the survey results, 73� of the
multi-unit residents want the curbside collection
recycling program to be expanded to include multi-units.
For each multi-unit added to the program, abatement will
increase by 25 pounds per month. One multi-unit
participant will add l, 050 pounds by DeceYaber 1993 . Four
hundred units will add 210 tons, l, 200 units will add 630
tons, 1, 800 units will add 945 tons, and 2, 300 units will
add 1,207.5 tons by December 1993. Additional cost and
tons abated by December 1993 depends on the number of
multi-units participating.
D. Plastics. The curbside program to include
add one ton a month in abatement at a cost
that ton. By December 1993, 42 additional
abated at a total cost of $29,232.
RECOMMENDATION•
plastics would
of $696.00 per
tons would be
Based on a complete analysis of findings compiled during the Solid
Waste Fact-Finding Process, the Environmental Quality and Energy
Commission has considered the following goals in developing its
recommendation:
Goal #1: To ensure the availability of SCORE funds to cities
after 1991.
Goal #2: To increase participation to 70� in 1991.
Goal #3: To prevent sharp increases in contract cost incurred
by the City as contract fees begin to exceed grant
revenue.
Short Term Programming Stratectv
Method of Service
The Commission recommends that the Council consider continuing to
provide curbside pick-up of recyclables under the current method.
Advantages of the current method are the current method preferred
by the residents, abatement performance is good, service is
-7-
reliable, and residents are able to choose their provider and level
of service for refuse hauling services. The disadvantag and the
current method is high contract costs to the City,
Commission is concerned about the ability of future grant revenue
to cover estimated contract costs.
The Commission estimates that grant revenue will begin to fall
short of contract expenditures in 1993. SCORE funds have only been
allocated through 1991, after which it becomes the responsibility
of the counties to maintain adequate funding to the cities. In
1990, a proposal for an 8� cut of SCORE funds going to the cities
failed. The Commission expects that similar proposals will be made
in 1991. Estimated shortfall in grant revenue for 1993 is
$17,102.60. This estimate is also based on estimates of increasing
contract costs and declining grant revenue.
If Council wishes to provide service under the current method ests
grant revenue is less than contract costs, the Commission sugg
the Council consider charging the residents for the service.
According to the Finance Department, charging the residents would
require additional part-time staff, at an additional cost of
8,000.00 a year. See Attachment #3• Based on these costs, the
residents would be charged $3.50 per household for the entire year
in 1993. This annual cost to the resident is lower than the annual
cost under Licensing, Consortium, and Organized Collection of
between $36.00-60.00.
The Commission is concerned about the availability and level of
SCORE funds beyond 1991. The Commission recommends that the
Council consider SCORE funding as an agenda item in its 1991
lobbying efforts of the legislative delegation. The Commission is
interested in participating in any lobbying efforts the Council
deems appropriate.
Participation
To reach 80-100� of the 1993 abatement goal, of 8,300 tons the
Commission is certain that there must be an increase in
participation. To increase participation from 40� to 70� in 1991,
the Commission recommends that the Council consider the purchase
of containers. With containers, the Council can expect to abate
a total of 7,003.90 tons or 84� of the December 1993 goal of 8,300
tons.
The cost of containers, a two stackable crate system, for 7,000
households would be $85,120. Administrative, distribution and
promotional cost for the first year would be $6,000. Total first
year costs would be $91,120. Within the 1990 Anoka County Solid
Waste Grant to the City, $38,000 is available for containers.
Residents could be billed $7.16 per household to capture the
remaining $53,120. Alternative financing strategies are identified
in Attachment #4.
-8-
Long Term Programming Strateaies
In the event of a shortfall in grant revenue and the Council does
not wish to charge the residents for the service, the Commission
suggests that the Council consider the Licensing approach as the
preferred method of providing service.
The major advantage of licensing is the elimination of contract
costs to the City without significantly reducing the level of
abatement. Under the current system of open refuse with a single
contractor for recycling pick-up and the addition of recycling
containers, it is estimated that 5,056.8 curbside tons would be
abated by December 1993, at a contract cost of $424,771.20. Under
a licensing approach with containers, 4,966.5 tons would be abated
during the same period, a loss of 90.3 tons. These estimates
assume a participation rate of 70� before licensing is implemented
and a drop to 60� for three to six months during the transition
from the current system to licensing. Under the licensing
approach, contract costs incurred by the City would be eliminated.
The resident would pay $3.00-5.00 per month for recycling or
$18.00-23.00 per month for refuse, recycling, and yard waste pick-
up.
8ervice Zones
The Commission recommends adjusting the licensing approach to
include service zones. This approach is used by the City of
Woodbury with good results. The City would be divided into four
zones of roughly 1,750 households each. Service in zone 1 would
occur on Mondays and service in zone 2 would occur on Tuesdays,
etc. This approach would require that refuse and recyclable
collection occur on the same day. The benefits of amending the
licensing approach to include service zones are that participation
is less likely to fall and the visual and social impact of the
containers is maintained. Without service zones, there would be
more confusion about what day is recycling day. Containers would
be set out on different days throughout the City, and their full
impact on participation would be lost.
Additional Considerations
One disadvantage in changing to a licensing approach is the
confusion created by the change. The change in the program will
create confusion. Consequently, participation may fall over a
three month transition period and then a slow growth in
participation over the subsequent three months.
Another disadvantage of the licensing approach is the additional
cost to the resident of $3.00-5.00 per month or $36.00-60.00
annually, compared to no annual cost under the current system, or
-9-
a cost of $2.00-5.00 annual�y if the resident were charged for the
service.
Under this approach, there is the potential for the refuse haulers
to fail to deliver the level of service required. The Commission
recommends that haulers participate in the development of licensing
requirements. This would result in licensing requirements that are
based on the expertise of the refuse haulers and requirements that
are acceptable to the haulers. The Commission also recommends a
public information effort that educates the residents about the
licensing requirements. Both these strategies should reduce the
likelihood of failure to deliver the required level of service.
In December 1989, the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission
met with the City's refuse haulers to discuss the licensing
approach. Their response was mixed. They would prefer that no
changes be made in the City recycling program, but if changes were
made they want to be part of the implementation process. They
asked to be given the opportunity to review and comment on any
proposed changes. They should be brought back into this process
very soon if the Council wishes to pursue this recommendation.
Pass Throuqh Fundiaq
The Commission recommends that any available grant funding be used
to avoid additional costs to residents of recycling services. This
could be done by passing through the available grant revenue to the
refuse haulers in the form of a capital assistance low interest
loan, a per household payment, or a per ton payment. The purpose
of the pass through would be to avoid additional cost to residents
and to assist the refuse haulers in meeting the licensing
requirements. Implementation of the Council's preferred pass
through strategy will need further research.
Other Programminq Strategies
The Commission does not recommend expanding the curbside contract
to include multi-units. The curbside program could not be
expanded to include multi-units without substantially increasing
contract costs. The estimated cost would be $173,665.80. This
activity could be incorporated into the 1991 workplan by
establishing the number of multi units that should be recycling by
January 1992. It would be the role of the City to provide
substantial technical assistance to the owners or managers of
multi-units who wish to establish recycling programs for these
Fridley residents.
The Commission does not recommend expanding the program to include
more than one direct mail promotion per year. The emphasis on
promoting the recycling program should be placed on education.
Educating residents on the how to's of participating in the
curbside program, and ways to reduce waste, could be done through
-10-
volunteers. For instance, volunteer groups could be recruited to
educate residents by conducting a forum on waste reduction, or to
distribute curbside recycling reminder posters. Such groups
include the Lions, the Fridley League of Women Voters, and the Boy
Scouts. Also, cable TV could be better utilized.
T�e Commission does not recommend expanding the curbside program
to include plastics as an acceptable material. There are
sufficient opportunities to recycling plastics available to Fridley
residents. The drop-off site takes four spec3fic types of plastic
bottles and the Goodwill in Columbia Heights takes a wide range of
plastics. Staff has already approached the City's drop-off site
contractor with a request to expand the types of plastics it
accepts.
-11-
ATTACHMENT �1
BIIRVEY RESIILTS
Purpose
The purpose of the survey was to provide direction to the City
Council regarding the handling of recyclables and disposal of
refuse, by measuring resident attitudes, awareness and recycling
habits. The survey analysis included the following information:
Importance of the solid waste problem, awareness of Fridley's
recycling program, frequency of recycling, materials recycled,
satisfaction with current program, incentives to increase
participation perceptions of the City's information on recycling,
reasons for recycling awareness, and use of drop-off and compost
sites, attitudes towards mandatory recycling, attitudes towards
increase in costs to consumers of waste disposal and recycling
programs, preferred method of collection, attitudes toward leaf
pick-up programs, and attitudes toward curbside recycling
containers.
Methodolocrv
C. J. Olson Associates was hired to develop, conduct, and complete
the survey analysis. Once the final questionnaire was completed,
four hundred phone interviews were completed from February 28 -
March 7, 1990. Interviewing was conducted between the hours of
5:00 and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays. A computer-generated
random sample of households within the city limits of Fridley was
purchased from a professional supplier and provided the sample for
this survey. The sample size of 400 results in the statistical
reliability of plus or minus 5 percent at 15 percent confidence
level. Following data collection, responses were coded, the data
entered, and data tables of the results were produced for this
analysis and report.
Findincrs
The survey reveals the following indications:
Method of Service
41� of all respondents prefer our current method of service.
Public Information
More public information is needed on the recycling program. This
may mean increasing the frequency of the distribution of existing
information. This assessment is based on the survey data:
23� of the non-recyclers need more information about the
program in order to begin recycling.
Attachment #1
Page 2
21� of the multi-unit residents said they are unaware of the
City recycling program.
36� of all respondents are not aware of the drop-off center.
Willinaness to Pay More
It is not possible to predict how residents as a whole would
respond to paying more for recycling services from the survey
results.
Of the total respondents to this question, 45� said, no, they would
not be willing to pay more, 42g said they would pay more.
Investigation of the responses by income, show that the $25,000-
39,000 income group would not be willing to pay more. Over 50� of
the respondents who make $40,000 or more would be willing to pay
more.
Multi-Unit
73$
Containers
of the multi-unit residents would like to see the City
institute a curbside recycling program for multi-units.
A significant majority of the residents stated that they would
recycle more if containers were provided. This assessment comes
from the following survey data:
68� of the total respondents said they would recycle more if
they had containers.
'�
�
N
.,.�
�
�
�
�
O
�
-r-1
�
�
0
�
�
O
U
�
�
•,�
N
�
G1
U
-�
a
�
�
� •rl
r-I rl
� �
-� U
`� a
�o
d U
a�
� �
OU
Attadunent #2
Chart A
�
O N
O
� . \ � �
U� N� N O ri 'd +�
1 C �. M .C, e-I -rl -rl
�.�c z° z° �� N `I � � a�'i �
�--i � � � W a
U O
� �
\
0
O N
. \ O
U r�-I N �I � u 0 � � �
. M �i � b �
�, •a � z° z o � °° `; � � v, �a
��� � `� �°� bo a x
U � ,C
� � � �►
\
� N
O � � �
� N N �I � Ic1 t� ,C O 'd �-+
�, �+ � � � r�-I to O � � x
� ,� � a
a� �
a � �
�
'C o .N
� � �
-� � ^
V � �G N Lf� � N�
� M � � � � �1 � :ir
a�i a�� �s� � a�
� �� ►n � ° -�w � � i s�
U d 0�) ?+ >+ � � A� ��-I �.�j Ul rt
i�-� -U a� � N O � U ��
�� N� C wU ,�0., a'A
u u°'i a�z v az° xz
�
� �
� .1� 9 U
� � O � d
� a�i W W U v ���-�i +� � �• N
a� � o s� o -� +, +� �s +� � � �n �
�� � U 7r N O� O� d � -�
G 9 � '� d � � i� -�f +� � � � � �
i-i r1 U-�-1 U� i-� -rl � � '� � O f2� A
p� O -r1 > -rl c» +� U -� � � � 'N �d i-i O O
O� �� .[W 00 'L O O� � ,C
c�H ua � o u+� �u ua �a 3 �
Attadunent #2
Qzart B (page 1)
mb
�s a b v e
� OW �Aa�10 p R +�i3 A�
a1 �.1 CI d! i� +> >r O G'� 'O
tn v� +�ca� a m�+ar�o
a a�i�°+ c�o°�� � � .av°�o
�A ��co a � �����
U� 0�1 O�•�1 O CJ tA 10 1+ ��► �
RU O.-1+i 01 • OaDCGO
'O O�.�I p��?i i� .-1 i� O O�
W U �0 O A ?C .1 -.1 aD U Y1
'� o�ca d a� aa v�+
�.Ni 9� C! a� O'O a1 .� A O+� Rt O
a.1 tn s� 01 3 '.� R.-� � W�+
�w+ tr a+ ai a a ai ��. m t� �•-� v
F� � .��1 d O .��i p � A ��.1 .��I !: � +U1 ipl
O tq iC +� t� i+ CI i+ CI A �►i-1 +1 tT•-I i� i�
m O�> 4� O 3+ i� +1 �+1 .�1 Ir A
wc,ubu oa� u� w3Aac�i
�� �
-�G�1 A ,�pK0+y�10� >+
OO �N ?� 0�0 �A� ia�A A�
a1 N R ,R y�+ O R7 �
tq OU m m �+iGO-•�im •�'�O
v�i t@�'�i �O � � 330U�a�1�-�i3�
� +�+tA � O � A � ��'�0+�► �� !�r ��
Z �► �.�t 6 +� -y•�� -y.� .i Q m C1 -y.� �O •
�� O� N S�•t a G�1 1� ia �+� � A �A l� 1�i �
v, m�+ o a d b o o.c �+ �o �' s o Y+ a►
C 3 vl U � W W O+ O.0 .-i O � ?G
o as� �., ma a�a��aba�r�+
�u �w a►o odmaodaoarw
�, � ao U31+m3�+e0C)1+13
� m b c a .y�+ � i
O G C 41 t�d CI 'O U i� Ol A i� S�m+ r�-1 O � N
� � do ai m� cr .��as� aa►�aa�om aa,+
�+m o►�N � on.�db a do �oo.,00aa�+�o �
W -.� al i� 1� W G G A O� pC k3 i-1 H� A 3 1� A al 01 � 01 N
�7 30 +�UU�A U��� 3�1�m O.C.�C�mOtll�+�id'Q�
�7 N .-i -.� id O +1 � O+ fa C! 'C 3� Y.t 1� � G i0 ?G 'O 1C
�' aa a+s+ a�ad m.-�>a� �+sod oac�r►+.�o
u �d oro�•.�a +�mm ,��od a3o .��o� drt��
m � �.+ .� w�+ a a �a � as b+ e. a�+ .� � m •�+ s o
C9 C� w++ v� -.i Q O a► � a! �.-, -.i � w J�+ A 3� +� m 3 O
N V? W q O q CI �, .0 i� a! �. r1 d �cf CC MI R ri a1 i, +�
r� -.i C! +i 10 C1 LL �0 O�-+ ?� U N i► 10 C► i0 A w a�
�7 � N 'C1 +� R 'O � 'O S.� 'O d w A 'O Sa �y R ti � +i 1+ 'Q
U r.l tl� O GI .-1 O C+i .0 Yl +� +1 r0 .q +i i� O.0 N N 3�+'Cf +� Ol 01
� Cl � 1� � Q Q! � CI � r1 1A N 01 D+ i3 O i�► i� i� dl .-1 �'-1 i�
u womoo a�cq w.-�m.a�n •�.a ada ayad�v
a � am m a n.� ��° m a.'{aa m� 3 m�b sA a� 3�x s
�+ M N i0 O� O m
O W O w+i �►+ 1 R m
�► C� O d+ C t� A >+J� O�
b+ V-.� U� C O rt r-1 r. i� .q i.� +1 O
A R! O+1 fa ri O�.�1 C O i� .0
�.1 1.1 � � -.�I r1 ?i b+ +1 .'T. 0� dl N �C • aD �0 ?�
•-� � d i0 i� +� i� O A C! R! G! m �1 +� R. ?� �-1 >+
� K t11 L� O b+1 la 00 +i U C•i .0 �.�1 A�•�1 �
xc°�o+ $'os�a ma"i a"iY'� a��.�bAu
Q Li1�+a1C1b+ .0 NVtTM�A 41�3 �W
mar-'+ aac�a ++ m.•�a ar� �+m �'�. �,
av+o .4+w°"� o ���mmtr a�wa�+a,►'Q
w c � � o p w d �� erw �a o� -•� �b
m•��i' dcaio>, �Cm�. ao �+.� •wad
a�nar ,�o�s+u �a �a+y, m�mb+ o�r
a m.�.awd mmda.-�v o+a ��a,00
a.� Y+ +� -.� a m a o, �� o a• a w.c ,i ��+
ar v s+ m a oo s� n �� �>. �� ��+ o� �•+ b-•+
� o a a an �o d �.r w w s� � o o.-� ,c ��.-� m�-, �
3w v� o��� 3 m a► o�+ d s a o o arY+ a o 0
E� f�1+wAirbw Ec�3Am.C�
. m
R ?� �
O U A
J� W GC �S��i
� � � �.�i W �
O W r1 � S.� A
a w a o a�
Attac�ment #2
Chart B (Pa9e 2)
m a
c°1i m � .p�► � �,
3 U � H +�i -�
�+ « a+ a m a � u
N O w o�+ a! G�1 G tA O U ; 41 a1
al +i 1 U� �0 ad !.� id 1� rc-
o� ++ ►� o a m ,c .a s� a.c m�3
i0 U O t� �0 � 01 dl 3� O Cl M'C
a ar+� �°°a� o �i +��obm��
o�m � w°c..�+� �'i � a��>.�mm
u+� m ..+ �+ a► b d a o a m o v �+
�� ua d►.►�m �+ sad�+'� m
a�iu°"� �.-°, a'�o°omeaoa�i .'�'i�°o°ia°1onc°�
N � A�+ � U U ii +� O+� r1 .-1 M r+ q
+� m W i0 G C U 41 A�► a� O w!•�
c.,v, b a dw o�o-•, x'� o� a o�+�'
�oo+ ar� �ovaa�+►+.�ae ,�mdar ca
o+a� b� m o.��br+�ood +��obu.�o►�
oai� >'i �aQaa�Ia9�l+sc�i3 �-�imao>p���
aa �C�WfaU.�l�aro a�ac'�i►�7AC��J
0 41 y
.°•+ a�i O i� i1 � .0 • N m
m N � }�i � m O'd 01 O +�
rl 9+ a1 10 Q�.i V C� w1
V1 O U -�.i A 1�► � y tA O�?� m
H G+i UR CtA N al1+�A
o-�7 � 0�1 A� � V /-'i1 +�i . � W m �I �W
iC +y� tA �0 .�I 1� �0 R tA � O w C .-1
� O � 'C: U 'O :�a • � :1 R Ri O 'i la tll .R
QIl +i -.1 +1 .-1 i�► ?i N O-•� w�l +f d) 0)
aa > ac�>am mo>+��a.
0 0� o o�� a� a�,c m ar a
ai � a a a �u� oa a o�b�+�
�
� � sP � a� m
O ao�+ o�i�oi oaD aeol .-mi
� o� ++ i ai o a+ m m ++ a► �v a a►
� N N R O� 00 i► e0 .-1 01 +� C .-1 ?�+-I O YI +� A
�a► aonro ar a.�c um ua>o am i
3 a O C� ►� m m+i ro+i as T! G F3 O,i .0 de �o .Q
o N m o �+ s� m a-+ tr � t+ s+ r+ �
a �+N b>e o u,-.+m� sa,a �a'� ►+aam
O G W N+i O .0 O ri A � C! �.I 10 N dl a1 p O
u ..+ m o Ts o+•-� � � a► a �+ .� .-� .a o m .� .c o
mu .•�.•, � a�a .-� � �++ •aoma+
H� �� �o.�-�a �a�io�a01e� ci°i�i''ia�i�mom.�0c"m�o�
U� 41 :1 �+�I al 'CS RI 10 1a +1 +i dl V rl :I f4 :1 al 10
a .�,o► maou b�s� bd a�tT�+��A.�-•+.imd3t+
� av� >.3"� mo��a� �as+�'ai°>Crro��°�
u +�+�m� ar�o-•�oa o,com�ara►dqoa.�o
.�+ � s+ ro a a, u o u.c W U s� 10 v1 A r1 3a M i0 0C i0 V
�uda � i � i i i i
�v a►
om b � v° mwm +�+.�
C+ U,V-i > m � C N m A V tll
K A m O Ir 41 R M +� U fr fa
+� l� � A H� CI � O� f� 4! U'O � O�
.��ar dao� m aaeoaea�,a�i s��
a a v� � o+ a m a a.�+ ++ �+ o a► �
ao a�i �+ m .adao�a+��.�ax �o
�uc ++��a °o �,�asararooa► �+ o+
CI d+i U U O .0 O'O �� 41 1x�+ � W m 3 O.�-1.��1
W.-i .-i GI +1 U O C O R f+ i0 ?� w d O W'�
�b+U r+.[N+� UAUO��Ualrli0 W�
w��, Oa+frro �� UU b A � �
m�•+o �+•�da carosa► m�►+�aa. o�+w
a�nd a�a-►+ a►¢svav�mm.va►�a bo
a � o �o �+ w � m ++ ++ o Ts ►� .c
m�� o�.�� �o�g��'�mom�m ��� �
o3w° +�o� aawam�°�a+c°��ao c°���
aooa i � � i� i �
m
m
s�+ m a
� � �
� � a
� a �
u � �
c
.�
Attad�nt #2
Chart B (page 3)
.. �,,
�+ � o
m -°� °a
a d +°, �
� a c°�i
U � N i�.i
as o � Q'
NU � .��.
b �� �
Ot�i1� A
a
�
a
�
1 U
�d ��d �
d N t�i c�i o• 3 1�i
�n ocp1i om°amo�b
H Cl+i W�N�iON
a �a�i mi `���.o
a -.� �n .-� o>.-- o+ N
� �+x a m� m� m
m� .0 �U-V U..�i
� R 3 ?�
W O +� �� � ��
N � t'ii +'�+ 3� 1p1i cn
�
� a
o+ °
�Wi � a�i � H +�+ ..�i c c� •
a �i0 x��3mU �-ai
U � m m t��i ���� �
YlU � O�tTCO
C4 C� sab+3atRNw
H V� 1.1.��1 � R� al :'�
WV ay s0�1 V C�;��,q
a �C.1 fJ I�ib ��
O 0�1 �
b+ U -:>i -.�i
-. ��i Lpi N U
� Ct� C�1 U
'xp. V b+ b i�r
mm� �N
� !T U b+ W
W C ?� 41y
a N d � U N
a .c a o � ..�i
oaw° a��
a
.° a
ac
c�
��
d�
��
�m
�a
�
Attac�unent #3
CZTY OF FRIDLEY
M 8 M O R A N D II M
TO: LISA CAMPBELL, PLANNING l�BSOCIATE
FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FZNANCE DIRECTOR
JOLIE BIIRT, FINANCE DZRECTOR
BIIBJECT: ADMINIBTRATIVE COSTB l�SBOCIATED WITH CHARGING FOR
RECYCLING BERVICES
DATE: MAY 24, 1990
Within the last two years we have done a thorough analysis of the
Utility Billing function. Modifying the procedures allowed us to
eliminate a part time position. Consequently, our existing
personnel is fully saturated and will be unable to incorporate
another billing service without additional help. We believe that
an additional staff person would be needed for approximately 10-15
hours a week. ($6,000 - $8,000 estimate)'
Justification for this staff include the followina:
We would need to establish a separate fund to account for the
charges.
We bill by district and would need to maintain additional
receivable accounts.
The computer will have to be set up to handle the change. (One
time cost, fairly minimal)
The actual bills will take longer to print.
Additional time will be spent with new residents explaining the
charge.
Additional time handling calls explaining the charge and
complaints.
Potential overflow for calls regarding pickup information.
If a utility bill is unpaid we would have to certify it to the
taxes increasing the complexity of that process.
If we were to provide bins to the residents:
There would be additional impact on our department for distributing
bins to new residents and/or replacement bins.
We would also need storage space for bins to distribute.
Staff would also need to be identified to maintain our inventory.
CONTAINER PIIRCSASS l�ND DISTRIBIITION
C08T 88TI1�SAT88 1990
Exnenditures
ATTACHI�tEEId'r #4
Revenue
Containers $85,120 $41,000 (grant)
Administration 3,000 � 44,119 (fees)
Distribution 1,000
Promotion 2.000
TOTAL $91,120 S85.Z29
Revenue minus Expenditures equals Cost to the City
$85,119 - $91,120 = - $6,001
REPLACEMENT CONTAINER PIIRCSASE 11ND DISTRIBIITION
COBT ESTIMATE 1991
Exnenditures
�tevenue
Containers $2,188.80 $2,188.80
Administration 3.000.00
TOTAL $5,188.80 $2,188.80
Revenue minus Expenditures equals Cost to the City
$2,188.80 - $5,188.80 =.- $3,000.00
Assumgtions
The figures above represent staff's estimates on the budget impact
of the purchase, distribution, and replacement of containers for
the years 1990 and 1991. These estimates assume the purchase and
distribution of seven thousand sets of containers in 1990 and that
residents will be charged $7.16 per set to cover a portion of the
cost of the containers and all administrative cost. The
administrative cost during the first year would be roughly
$6,000.00. The cost for replacement containers and administration
to the City during the second year, 1991, would be roughly
$3,000.00. This estimate assumes that new residents will pay the
full cost for the containers and that containers will be replaced
at a rate of 15 households per month or 180 households per year.
Attachment #4
Funding Strategies
Page 2
The City could solicit roughly $22,000.00 in contributions from
civic groups to cover part of the cost of the containers. This
would reduce the charge to the residents to $4.00 per household.
It would be possible to stagger the purchase of the containers over
two funding periods by purchasing 3,500 sets in the last quarter
of 1990 and the remaining 3,500 sets during the first quarter of
1991. This would reduce the cost to the City of purchasing the
containers and may eliminate the need to bill the residents.
Also, there is grant money available from the Metropolitan Council
for containers. The next application cycle begins in November
1990.
�
�
unroF
F���
COl1�IMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 13, 1990 � �
To: William Burns, City Manager�;�"
FROM: Jock Robertson, Community Development Director
Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator
Steve Barg, Planning Assistant
SUBJECT:
Mother-in-Law or Accessory Apartments
Attached is our analysis of the above-referenced issue for the July
30, 1990 City Council Conference meeting. We are recommending that
the City Council adopt an ordinance amendment as represented in
Attachments 3 and 4 in the attached memorandum. We want to
emphasize that these changes merely formalize our current policies.
They do not adversely affect the ACCAP Share-a-Home senior program.
Further, the proposed regulations o ot regulate the number of
outside entrances into a single family home. It formalizes our
current interior door policy.
BD/dn
M-90-495
�
�
crnr oF
F���
DATE:
TO:
COl1MAUNITY DEVELOPMENT'
DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
July 13, 1990
William Burns, City Manager
FROM: Jock Robertson, Community Development Director
Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator
Steve Barg, Planning Assistant
SUBJECT:
Problem Definition
Mother-in-Law or Accessory Apartments
This issue centers on the definition of a dwelling unit. What
constitutes a dwelling unit? When does a single family home become
a two family dwelling? Mother-in-law or accessory apartments have
confused the traditional definition of a dwelling unit because they
not only constitute an independent rental unit, but they also
remain part of the single family home. Most communities have
sought to achieve a balance to permit the existence of mother-in-
law or accessory apartments, but at the same time, maintain the
single family character of the home and neighborhood.
Existing Definition
A dwelling unit is currently defined in the zoning ordinance as a
unit which is completely separated from another living area. In
other words, an individual would not be able to move freely between
the two living areas. This interpretation evolved into an informal
��door policy" where there can be only one door separating the two
living areas instead of two. This is usually the case with split
level homes, where one door is located at the entrance to the lower
level, but there is none to the upper level.
If the homeowner complies with the door policy, the homeowner still
has the ab.ility to establish an accessory apartment without
changing the character of the single family home. However, if they
cannot comply with the door policy, then the unit is illegal. The
ordinance amendment recommended in the February 8, 1990 memorandum
(see attachment #4) refines the definition of a dwelling unit to
clarify that an accessory apartment would not be considered a
dwelling unit if one can still access the unit through the main
living area.
Mother-in-Law/Accessory Apts.
July 13, 1990
Page 2
Advantages and Disadvantaaes to Mother-in-Law or Accessorv
Apartments
The U.S. Census reported that there were 2.5 million mother-in-law
or accessory apartments created between 1970 to 1980. Most were
created without legal authority, but were created because of three
factors. First, the household formation rate has increased, and
second, a build-up of surplus space in single family homes has also
occurred as the population grows older and the younger family
members have sought housing on their own. Finally, the increasing
cost of housing has also been a factor in the increase of mother-
in-law or accessory apartments.
The advantages of accessory apartments are exemplified by the City
of Minnetonka's ordinance. It establishes specific purposes of
permitting accessory apartments as a conditional use in the single
family district. These purposes are consistent with the typical
advantages identified in planning literature and by experience by
communities across the nation. They are:
1. Efficient use of existing single family housing stock in the
City.
2. Homeowners can enjoy the benefits of rental income and take
advantage of unused space. This is a special advantage for
senior citizens or handicapped persons who would like
assistance for housekeeping responsibilities (i.e. the Share-
a-Home program by ACCAP).
3. Mother-in-law or accessory apartments can also provide housing
which allows privacy and independence for older family
members.
4. These units can provide an inexpensive means to meet the needs
of the growing number of smaller households, both young and
old.
5. The units can provide households for the population at a
variety of stages in the life cycle.
6. Provision of this housing can be accessed by both�low and
moderate income persons.
The traditionally perceived disadvantages to mother-in-law
apartments or accessory apartments are as follows:
1. They change the single family character of the neighborhood.
2. Speculators could buy houses to convert them into illegal
duplexes/build new single family homes to convert.
.
-
Mother-in-Law/Accessory Apts.
July 13, 1990
Page 3
3. There is a potential for absentee landlords.
4. Additional members in the dwelling unit may cause additional
code violations.
5. Increased traffic may occur.
Many communities across the nation have come to realize some of the
advantages the accessory apartments offer, but at the same time,
the communities attempt to regulate them to insure that the
community's standards are maintained.
How to Control
In reviewing the literature regarding this issue, the following
"lesson" was identified: "The presence of an ordinance permitting
accessory apartments does not necessarily stimulate conversion to
accessory apartments, and the absence of one does not necessarily
discourage them." (Planning Advisory Service Report regarding
accessory apartments).
On February 8, 1990, we forwarded to the City Council our analysis
of the illegal conversions of single family dwellings into two
family dwellings. Our recommendation in that memorandum
recommended that the City Council consider an ordinance amendment
to include an intent statement in the R-1 section of the zoning
code, which makes a clear statement that two family dwellings are
not permitted in the R-1 zone. Further, the proposed ordinance
revised the existing definitions of a Dwelling Unit, One- and Two-
Family Dwellings. As a result of this memorandum, the Mayor was
concerned about the impact of the proposed ordinance amendment on
the home sharing program for seniors administered by ACCAP.
We have determined that the ordinance amendment proposed in the
February memorandum would not affect this program. The proposed
ordinance amendment legitimizes the City's existing policies
regarding mother-in-law or accessory apartments.
Existincx Code Provisions
It is important to understand the existing code provisions:
1. Guest rooms may be rented to no more than two persons,
provided that no kitchen facilities are provided. This is a
permitted accessory use in the R-1 district.
2. The definition of "Family" permits up to five unrelated
individuals within a single family home and an unlimited
number of persons related by blood or marriage. Therefore,
a scenario could exist where five unrelated individuals can
Mother-in-Law/Accessory Apts.
July 13, Z990
Page 4
occupy a single family home and also have a guest room rented
to two people. Also, a large family could live in the same
house with another family if they are related by blood or
marriage.
3. There are existing single family homes in the City which have
two kitchens, but are not renting rooms.
4. The City has currently been enforcing its informal "door"
policy. We have required that one of the doors separating two
living areas must be removed. By removing the door, free
access is provided between the two living areas, therefore,
an argument cannot be made that the door provides separation
between the two areas. This policy was used in correcting the
violations in the Alice Wall Addition (across from the
Municipal Center) and has also been useful in other cases
which have occurred over the last year.
5. Double bungalows/duplexes were penaitted by the City as
special use permits in the R-1 district, prior to the
ordinance change in the 1970's. The ordinance at that time
permitted a duplex to be constructed (two separate entrances,
two separate utility services) which is different than the
intent of a accessory or mother-in-law apartment.
Please see attachment #1 for the list of current code provisions
and their citations.
In summary, while the existing code prohibits creation of a
separate dwelling unit within a single family home, the code and
staff's interpretation have provided flexibility for homeowners to
create a mother-in-law or accessory apartment without creating a
separate dwelling unit.
1988 Discussion
The City Council discussed this issue in April and May, 1988. The
City Council inquired at that time whether or not the City could
allow an extra living area for relatives or extended family, but
prohibit the renting of such a living area for profit. At that
time, the City Attorney's office stated that such an approach is
illegal and awkward to administer.
Also at that time, staff prepared draft amendments to the code
regarding this issue. Staff also briefed the City Council on our
informal policy regarding doors between the two living areas (see
attachments #5 and #6).
Mother-in-Law/Accessory Apts.
July 13, 1990
Page 5
T�vel of Control Continuum
Attachment #7 depicts a continuum of the level of control that the
City can implement to regulate accessory apartments. On one end
of the continuum is the most restrictive regulation where the
apartments would not be permitted, and at the other end, the most
permissive regulation would be to permit accessory apartments by
right with no conditions. In between these two extremes are
different mechanisms directly related to the level of control,
including the special use permit process and a licensing process.
With the special use permit or the licensing options, the City
should amend the ordinance to include a list of performance
standards tailored to address the typically perceived negative
impacts of an accessory apartment, including increased traffic,
code violations, changing the single family character of the
neighborhood, and the potential for absentee landlords. The
standards that have been used by other communities in the past, and
which could be included to mitigate the disadvantages, are as
follows: �
1. The City could require that an accessory apartment can only
occur in an owner-occupied single family dwelling.
2. There is a maximum of one accessory apartment per single
family dwelling.
3. If there is a separate entrance to the accessory apartment,
it must be located on the side or rear of the house in order
to maintain the single family appearance.
4. The size of the apartment could be regulated such that it
would have to be clearly subordinate to the principal use of
the single family home.
5. There shall be no substantial exterior architectural changes
to the single family home.
6. Access to the primary unit and between the areas must still
be maintained.
The City of White Bear Lake and the City of Minnetonka have two
different means to address this issue (see attachment #$ and #9)•
The City of Wlzite Bear Lake permits an accessory apartment only for
seniors or the handicapped. The City of Minnetonka permits an
accessory apartment by conditional use permit in the single family
zones.
The City of White Bear Lake adopted the senior/handicapped only
provision in 1988. Previous to that time, the City permitted
Mother-in-Law/Accessory Apts.
July 13, 1990
Page 6
accessory apartments as a conditional use pernait. The City
received three applications, two of which were denied and one
withdrew. The City Council then amended the ordinance only to
limit accessory apartments to the seniors and handicapped.
The City of Minnetonka permits accessory apartments as a
conditional use permit in the residential districts. Since 1986,
they have had three applications, all of which have been approved,
with little or no controversy.
The ordinance amendment proposed in attachment #3 and #4 will
clarify that a single family home cannot be converted into a two
family dwelling. It will still, however, permit an accessory
apartment opportunity for single family homeowners who want to take
advantage of the additional rental income. Zt is both restrictive
and permissive when the option is located on the continuum.
Recommendation
Staff maintains its original recommendation to the City Council in
February 1990 to consider the proposed language change in
attachments #3 and #4. As a second alternative, staff recommends
that the City Council consider amending the ordinance to permit
accessory apartments as a special use permit, subject to several
performance standards which would control the appearance of the
home, traffic impacts, and require that the home be owner occupied.
� 1. R-1 District
ATTACHMENT ## 1
CIIRRENT CODB BROVISZOI�lB
- The rental of quest rooms to not more than two (2) persons per
dwelling unit (205.07.O1.B.d) .
2. Definition of a"Guest Room"
A room or qroup of rooms intended for living or sleeping for
compensation, occupied by one (1) or more people, in which no
provision is made for cookinq (205.03.33).
3. "Dwelling Unit"
A single unit providing complete independent living facilities for
one (1) or more persons including permanent provisions for living,
sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation (205.03.26).
4. "Dwelling, One-Family"
A detached building designed exclusively for occupancy by one (1)
family (205.03.24).
5. "Dwelling, Two-Family"
A building desiqned exclusively for occupancy by two (2) families
living independently of each other (205.03.25).
6. "Dwelling, Multiple"
A building or portion thereof designed for occupancy by two (2) or
more families living independently of each other (205.03.23).
7. Definition of "Family"
An individual or two (2) or more persons related by blood,
marriage, or adoption, including foster children and bonafide
domestic servants, subject to the following conditions:
A. More than f ive ( 5) unrelated persons 1 iving in a dwel l ing
unit shall not constitute a family.
B. A group home which is a federal tax-exempt non-profit
organization shall not constitute a family if the total
persons other than the live-in staff or principal
occupant exceed five (5) (205.03.27).
8. "Uses Excluded"
Any use allowed or excluded in any other district unless
specifically allowed under Uses Permitted of this district are
excluded in R-1 Districts (205.07.02).
9. Not in Code:
Door Policy. One of the interior entrance doors between the two
living areas must be removed so that there can be
free access between living areas.
I V;e�il C. Hccrick
, jama D. Hocfc
Gre� V. Herricic
ot c�
Dsvid P. Newman
ATTACHMENT #2
HERRICK & NEV��'I�N
AT'I�ORNEYS AT LAW
MEMORANDUM
T0: Jock Robertson, Cortmunity Development Director
Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator
Steven Barg, Code Enforcement Officer
FR014: Virgil C. Herrick, City Attorney
DATE: December 12, 1989
RE: Illegal Duplexes vs. Mother-in-Law Apartments
This memorandum is in response to your memorandum to me dated November
30, 1989 regarding the above subject. I have spent a substantial amount
of time researching the broad area of restrictions on unrelated people
occupying single-family homes. In doing this, I have reviewed two rather
extensive articles in American Jurisprudence, the first entitled "What
Constitutes a Family Within Meaning of Zoning Regulation or Restrictive
Covenant" and the second entitled "Validity of Ordinance Restricting
Number of Unrelated Persons Who Can Live Together in a Residential Zone".
I have attached a copy of each of these articles to this memorandum.
The broad question is what can a city do to restrict the type of occupancy
in a single-family residential area. While the courts come to different
conclusions, they are in agreement that the definition used in the
ordinance must be strictly applied. If the definition of "family" does
not exclude a particular use, the city cannot administratively deny
that use. If, for example, the city ordinance does not prohibit unrelated
people or does not limit the number of unrelated people who may live
in a single-family home, the court will not uphold a city's attempt
to limit the number of unrelated people regardless of how iarge that
number may be.
In your above memorandum you ask three questions. The flrst question
is:
1. "Can a statement be made in the zoning code, Section 205.07.02,
Uses Excluded , which makes a clear statement of intent that no
« ��
apartments should be created which are rented to unrelated individuals
to the members of the single-family home." -
In my opinion, the City can prohibit the rental of apartment units
in a single-family residential area. The customary way to do this
Suite 205, fi�Wt [Inivecsity Avemu N.F., Fridley, T�linnesoca SS432, 612-571-3850
Memo to Robertson, Dacy, Barg
Dec. 12, 1989
Page Two
would be to provide in the ordinance that occupany of a single-family
�esidence is restricted to a family (which is defined in the
Definitions Section) living and cooking together as a single
housekeeping unit. This would prohibit apartments regardless of
whether they wouid be rented to related or unrelated individuals.
If the City is to permit apartments, that is, a seaarate �g �
unit having independent cookin nd bathroom�facilities, then it�,
wou e p�nion at the ordinance cannot discr�mina e etween
nt unless the numb r I
re l a t e d a n d u n r e l a t e d o c c u p a n t s o f t h e a p a r t m e � I`
of unre la te d eo l e i s e x c e s s i v e o r i n e x c e s s f th e nu
established in the zoning co e �n the Fridley case, 5 unrelated
�niv� uas.
The sec.pnd question asked is as follows:
2. "What is the current case law, and can the City limit the number
of u�related individuals via the definition of a"Family". As it
is now defined, the zoning ordinance does permit up to five unrelated
persons in a dwelling unit."
The United States Supreme Court in the case of Belle Terre vs. Boraas,
decided 1974, held that zoning ordinances having the affect of
restricting the number of unrelated persons who may live together
in a residential zone are not in violation of the 14th Amendment
�' regarding equal protection and do not impermissably affect
associational interest provided that the zoning ordinance bears
a rational relationship to a permissable State objective. The court
went on to state that State objectives advanced by zoning ordinances
regulating the number of unrelated persons who may occupy a single
residential unit are said to include:
(1) Control of population density.
(2) Maintenance of the residential character of the neighborhood.
(3) Control of parking and traffic facilities.
Yarious State Supreme Courts have followed the U.S. Supreme Court
decision; however, other State Supreme Courts have held that this
typQ of rottriction ic in violation of tho itatQ constitution� and
have declined to entorce the 11m1tation on the number ot unrelated
people that may live in a single-family district. It does
`� e r•oma Pn„rt 1+�e �nade a findina On th15 QUESL10n.
I would be of the o �nion that if the ord�nance �s ro erl drafted
t e Minnesota District Court wou up o �t, and it probab y would
pe ona e
The third question that is asked is as follows: �
3. "What is the current case law, and can the City limit the number �
of family members of a blood relation."
Memo to Robertson, Dacy, Barg
Oec. 12, 1989
Page Three
I have not found any cases relating to an attempt to put a �umerical
limitation on the number of family niembers who tan live in a
single-family home. One of the comnents in the first AmJur article
states as follows: °An absolute numerical limitation imposed by
an ordinance might have disasterous affects on the stability of
traditional families, the object in many cases to be preserved by
the zoning ordinance." As one cortmentator has observed: "If the
zoning ordinance were allowed to limit the number of family members
per home, the affect on traditional family would be dramatic: either
procreation would be curtailed, extra children would have to be
sent elsewhere to live, or the whole family would be forced to move."
I would not recommend that the City attempt to place any numerical
limitation on the number of an immediate family who could live in
a single-family home.
If the City were to attempt to place a restriction on the number of
an extended family that could live in a single-family home, I think
it should be done in terms of stating a limitation as to the number
of related people excluding the imnediate family and that this limitation
should be tied to a square footage limitation per individual. If you
will read the attached AmJur articles, you will note very little has
been discussed in regard to attempting to limit the number of related
people that can live in a single-family home. However, there are cases
that have held that related people are not a family because they are
not living in a single-dwelling unit; that is, the structure was divided
into apartments with separate cooking facilities, bathroom facilities,
etc.
As a practical matter, I think the definition of family and dwelling
units in our present ordinance could be improved and it might be
advantageous to state the stated objectives in terms of: (A) Controlling
population density; (B) Maintaining the residential character of the
neighborhood; and (C) Controlling parking and traffic facilities. In
looking at the memorandum of February 17, 1989, from Barb, Terry and
Steve to Bill Burns, I believe the first three recomnendations should
be implemented. I don't have an opinion re9arding recommendations four
and six. I do not feel that a special use permit would be required
in ordor to implQment tha ordinance. particularly if tho suqqested chan�es
are edopted.
YCH:Idb
Enclosures
ATTACHMENT �#3
pROPOBED CODB CiIliI�1GE8
1. Amend definition of "Dwellinq Unit" to better define what
constitutes a separate dwelling unit:
a. If access can be qained without enterinq or passing
through any living space of another dwellinq unit.
b. If it can be separated from the other unit.
c. Facilities for cookinq, sleeping, and eating, are
provided.
d. Used for residential occupancy. See attachment �4 for
exact lanquage.
2. Add sentence to "Uses Excluded" section:
�a. "Further, one family dwellings shall not be converted to
two family dwellings by creating a separate dwelling unit
within a one family dwel2ing."
ATTACHMENT �#4
23. Dwelling, Multiple.
A building or portion thereof designed for occupancy by two (2) or
more families living independently of each other in separate
dwellina units
24. Dwelling, One-Family.
A detached building desiqned exclusively for occupancy by one (1)
family a*+d containina one L1� dwellina unit.
25. Dwelling, Two-Family.
A building designed exclusively for occupancy by two (2) families
living independently of each other and containinct two (2) dwellinQ
units.
26. Dwelling Unit.
°�� i' `''+ '�v` ` r" � One or more rooms
.
connected toaether but which are separated from anv other dwellina
— - • - - . . . . ------ --.,...�, �„�e n cc�r�arate _
11uc cilucai�. a.a.a�.. ..
livinq and sleepina and used for,residential �urposes. A room or
_ . _ , , _ _ � _._ . } , F �l,cv rnnta 1 n
unit.
ATTACHMENT #5
!�l�D T0: Nasim� 4ureshi, City Manager
l�EM� iRCM: Jock Robertson, CbRm�nity I�velapnezt Director
l�ENp nATE : May 13, 1988
�ING: Illecpl D�pleaoes
As a follow up to City Co�cil review of ny April 9, 1988 memo to you
regard.ing illegal duplexes, Co�cil directed staff to explore two vther
alternatives:
1. ('nutd tihe �inotP f�,�ily C,ode allow an extra liviaq arpa fnr relativPS or
PYtPn�Pn family but Fro ibit_the rentina of s�ch a livin9 area for
�i After consultation of David Newman, City Attorney► we have
concluded that this approach is probably illegal and awkward to
a�ninisrter. Previo�s opinic� issued by the Minreapolis City Attorney's
off iae regarding the saane questions in Minneapol is' proposed 'mansion
zone" referred to cvnstitutional issues in attempting to limit occupants
of housing to family and relatives through the zoning ordinance.
fl�rther, the attempt to make a3ninistrative decisions on vhether a
'prof it" is being made would involve pouring through check books,
financial statements and tax returns and would probably require the
se rv ioes of a CPA.
2. Ho� d�s the d�finitir�n of dw211 in4 ��r+it in �1+a Z�r1Ln� Cdd2 ��re with
�� � for cit� 1 icense '��� ions? Licensing and inspect i ons
Sectim 220.05 �ses the same definition a� dwellin9 unit that appears in
the zaning Code Section 205.03. Bath would be changed to the Edina
dwelling u�it definitia� as o�lired in my mano to you of April 29, 19Q8.
Hoi+►ever, the definitirns for claelling and multiple dwelling in tiiese two
eecticns aze different ar�d probahly should be standarclized the r�ext time
with the City ordinanaes oodif ied. l�rare imp�rtantly, the 1 ioensing and
ir�spectians prooedire allvws the applicant to declare the type and the
nunber af dWell ing �nits in ar� apgl icatian f or a 1 icense.
Based an the above a�ncl�sicns I reaaaiaend that if the CitY ��ncil wishes to
prooeed on ref ining the aef initions between duplexes and Bingle facnily
residerx�es, we use the modif icatidzs to a def initions 23, 24, 25 and 26 of
the Zaning Code as attached to my April 29, 1988 memo and also attached
bereto.
�,R/c�
ac: David N�wm�
M-88-132
Ai IAVt1MtIV 1 �b
l�MD Zo: �ock xot�ertson, aoam�nity nevelopa�t
!�D FRGM : Dar r el CL az k, �i ef Buil di ng Of f ici al
lQrD DATE: Marcfi 30, 1988
RET�ARDII�: Meeting With Dave Newmarti Regarding �o-Fanily Haaes
On Mar� 29, 1988, Jim Robinson, Lisa Campbell and myselr met With Dave
t�k�rman, City Attorney, an the subj ect of how to interpr et and enf or oe tt�e
tses of hanes for tw�fanily dretling units. We discussed and reooc�►ized
that in the past and up u�til j�st receritly, ve have �sed tt�e p�rtion of tne
Code where it defu�es a'fanily", wtu� is:
FAt+III.Y. An individual or two (2) or more persons related by blood,
marriage or arioptirn, including foster children and bonai ide domestic
servznts, subject to the fnllcwing conditians:
A. lbre than five (5) �airelated persons living in a dwelling unit shall
rnt oonstitute a fanily.
S A gro� hane which is a federal tax exempt n�nprofit organization
shal� rot o�nstitute a family is tne total persons other tt�an tne
live-in s�aff or principal ooc�pant e�aceecis five (5).
T�is definitian was �sed beca�e we know of several hames that are indeed
being ovcupied by a fanily that is related by blood or marriage and do have
two kitd�ens as well as ather separate facil ities.
�is brings �s to the prohlen af haw row to apply the present Code �ii ormly
to any given circ�ansrtanoes. �e possihle alternatives are:
l. Cbntinue to interp�et and enforce the Code as previously done by only
limiting the nunb�er af �nrelated people living in a�nit.
2. Write letters to require tlterations to change the physical
�aracteristics of the structures lazown to tis by:
A. Renaving all iriterior pntranoe doors that separate living areas•
S Rena�ing any locres and leave interior entrance doors to separate
living areas.
G Remwing one cf the interioc �ntrance doozs and f rame to one a� tre
living areas - lxks on renaining door would be opticnal.
P,lteratirn 'C" is the are Mr. Neamran tnought we should use if a retroactive
d�ange is to be made. �
� !le�no to Jock Robertson
- Mar d� 30, 1988
Re: tieeting on Z1�+o-Fanily Hanes
page 2
If we are to oontinue to use alternative '1", nc Code char►9e t'rould be
neaessary, irowrever if it is the City's desire to plaoe niore c�ntrc�l wer haw
btructures are built arid �sed, then we should probably change some of the
text at the Zming Cade. Items to be a�nsidered could De:
l. Limiting the nunber af kitchens. �
2. How the levels and flocrs on ane level are aooessed.
3. Recvcing the n�snber af �nrelated people that wnstitute a family to less
than f ive.
4. Zf living areas are to be restricted, then some means of allawing blood
related living area separatirn may have to be addressed tnrouc,� a special
�se permit with �iform stipulatians on hvw tney a�uld be granted.
Mr. I3�wr.�n would rather rot �se a special �se permit as a tool to control as
he feels it may be hard to acininister.
The letters to the six knawn structures in Alive Wall Addition have not been
sent yet, therefore a rather short period of time should t�e �sed to determine
j�st exactly wt�at we want to say in the letters when they are sent.
DGC/mh
CC: Lisa Campbell
Dave Newman, City Attorney
J im Rcb i ns on
0
0
ATTACHMENT #7
H�iH -wrna3w Mo�
�,
�,b
., �
��
�. m
A
�
� �
�vb
d� �
a3a
�
� �
b+'O
+� H
� A
'd
�+ G
A �0
�
i� �
.-I
��
al -.1
aa
x
m e �+
a� 3
aaprdi�'i
at+ u�
d�oc�
tA r0 O
a�+ a
�>�o
�-+oo
rC .-I U 'O
�
v
�
3�m
m �
C b
N G
� �
am
�
o i o
c�+�
m v .� �
.1 = � m �
��bNv
aUi�roa►G�
a a► y c+ o�o
v, a �n �o -� .k
�
°a
d! A
al U 41
10 ia -•1 i� �•
a W � � .+pS
b���r7
V � iti ?� �+
Q� �-i .a Id
N G� 41 O a1
W O ►+
O +� O
aaoaa-,
03+3 d�>+
+1 A i� i.i U
v a a +� Y+
�+ d a a .�
A m d CTd O
Y+ � a, a �+ a
rC i�+ 3 +� s+
►�iOm�UR!
a�aa�--�
a
0
�
�
v�l
A
+�1
i.'
0
�+
a
lOd1N0� Ol ldOd�3 3A11Va1SiNiWaV d0 13A31
�
m
>
�
�
E
�
m
d
v
J
0
�
�
Z
0
U
�
�
Q
3
LL
O
�
�
�
?
H
2
O
U
�
m
>
:.
v
L
r
�
d
�
v
a�n� No. aB-9-no
o � �
ATTACHMENT #8
AN C�II�AM.'8 A�'��IDINO 98LTI�1 1�03.020, ��3D. 4f � 1���� ��•�� A t��1
� 1�II'�S BBAit I/11� !l�tlC'IPAL � (AL�
S�C7I'IQi � 1302 .125 CAtl� "� � ��9 � S�lICF9/NAt�DIC�►�'�" •
� CITY QOl�1CII.� t�F 'ii� CITY OF d�TB �AR 1J1� D�3 �:
S�C.TI�I I. 8ec.-tiar 1303.020 � 8��bd. �f �d 1�03 .030. 8ubd. �o of ths Cit� fLnicipal
p� to �ooessor7 �srtaenL are bereb7 a�d�e�d Lo re�d �s follu+s:
SBL`1'IQ�1 1903.020
9ubd. 4f . licse Aooeaso='7 Ap�rta�°v faz� 8eniors/Rsr�dicai�ped. -�s
specified in 9ectian 1902.125
9�CTPIQd 1303.030
gubd 4c . i�e Aooe�aso='7 wP�"�ae��v !or 9eaiors/He�di�'dPPed. - ae
specified in 9�e�c.Ytian 1902.125
gBCfION II. 3action 1302 is herebY e�esded a�s fall°'''s b% tbe °dditim of 3ectian
1302 .125 WhicD ahsll be nsm�d "Kame Aooesg°rY w��-'n� For Seniors/He�dicai�eci�� :
�G'TIC�1 1302.125 � i+i.�.a °'""°� .'.� :�•.°"•�•srn � �cA9/HAAIDICJIF�SD.
��, 1, e. ltie gapose of thia �ection is to p�o�►ide star�►T'd�
for the esteblishment ar�d use of bame aooesso='9 aPartaents � for persane �o
are either over 55 �ears of a�e or tserdics�ped� in aa►er-�oocupied sin�le
family basPS located �+�ithin any residential zanin� diatrict +ih�ere a sinale
familY ha�e is s penitted use.
Sui�d. 2. AvQlicetion. 9ub,ject to the ncx�oonfonir� uee Pcovisiasa of
�S �e ��1 ��ooess�.y spa►rtaents estsblished sfter t2�e efiective dstx
of this vode (Dec�t�er 23, 1983) ahall co�Pl7 s�ritb t2re pro�isicns af t�is
Sectioc�.
9ubd. 3. Fnyced�:.�s �:�d P�n�i'�,a. !11 ho� �3^:9 a�-'`�ts thall
require s canditiannl use penit. Applicant8 for suah s pe�it shall follaa
the spplicstian prooediaes
for : oand.itianal use P�r�.it p�'°'`�i� �' �tim
1301.050 oi thia oode.
3ubd. 4. Rea��ireo�ta. All lw�e acoesscr'7 sPsi'taer'ts shnll «�■iP1Y �+ith
the folla�+'in� reQui='e�ents �
a.
b.
Aooesso:'9 aPn�'t��s s�all be locsted in existin� si,n�le family
st:v�ctua�es cn17; the aa�er of the sin�le faaily stn�ct�ae shall
reside in the principal stivetiae. 'ilie aoveesor7 �P�'�tof t2►el
i.e�in ari aooeasory renta►1 apart�nt, o�� ��°OC"�'
principel stnrtiae. '1!►ere shsll be ac sepe►t"ste a��erah,ip of the
ecoessor'9 res�� �='��t . � .
pnly c�xt,erior �odificstians, Wh.ich in the J�t�1t of City Co��cil,
do not detract fras the sin�le family charecter of tbe nei.�b�ifiood
a�hnll be penitted tor ar� accesao:9 aP�rta�e�t P�'�ided all other
applicnble requiz�e�ents of tbe City's sa�n� o�J�� °i'e �t.
-2-
c. A sepdrste axt�erior antr�r�ce to the a�ooesson �s�t �' � i''°�i�.
ArLy exterior alteraticcse or ocpsr�sioc� a�hsll De oo�st�� of
siailar site� oolor� �r�d t7Pe of tst,erials �° the P�'�ipnl sinale
taaily �it prwided thst t� �rcicsed r��pa at' stai�s7s are
uR.iliud to aooeaa either tAe pcis�'7 or �ooesoo:'7 �s�i� �d pc�orided
thst not �ore l2�ar� ane entrer�oe taoes the ssoe cit,� street.
d. Interior er�d exterior �oditiostiane Lo crest� • bsrrier lree
�+elli.n� �e,Y be req�ired after oonsideri,n� ooc-�Ps�t �obility.
e. AooessorY sParta�ts ahsll not acceed ei�ht 6u�dred ei�LY 18801
squsr�e feet or forty (40) peroent of tbe hsbitable ares Within tbe
sin�le family hcre� *�ic�ever is less.
�, '1l�e �nit shall hsve s f lo�r a:�es of iwt less t�� t� h��
t�enty (220) squdre feet.
2. �e is�it �hall be �ided �rith a separate closet.
3. 'h�e �nit ahsll be prwided ++ith s kitc�xn •ink � 000kin�
sppliarr�e aid ff�Le1l'°1�St�� thirty t30) inches �ts fr«tt.lear
wrki.rvt sPe�
4. Aooesaor9 aP�"�� aball oonfo� to the Mir�e�sot8 3tete
Buildini �e �9��t8 ax�oernin� adequste li�ht.
ventilstian, aini� roo� di�ensione ar�d satutstion.
5. 'ltie �riL shall be provided xith s sep��ste bnth:�oom oontainin�
a�+ater closet. lsvsto:'Y ar�d bstAtub or sha+er.
6. '1l�e �it shsll �e�et all fire suppz�essi� and a1s� eystems as
stipulaLed ior s t�ao ( 2) fa�aily ha�e in the 1985 Build.ina Code
and adePtad bY the City of White Bear Iake.
f. No sepsrate drive�+e�v or c�ab cut ahe.11 be �r�i��i� or the
aooessory spsrt�t �it. Additicnat �psrl�in� �n7
�. lihere oonditiens or ci �eke isplementstioc� of these
atanit�..rd� for a spccific a�ces�arY s�'t�� �P�t1O�' � C�ty
Co��cil �ey, after citin� the specific proble� �ique to t1'►e aite or
�i�din,�, al,ter tbe oor�ditim of thia sectian to a11oW est,ablishn�ent
of s specific aocessory a�srtsent �it. Such alteratiana sball
beca�e psrt of the Coc�ditianal Use Pe�it.
h. U�on reoeivi.na s oonditioc�sl uee penit. the e�a�r(sf �t file on
sub,j�et p� operty s certified oa�7 oi t�►e oondiLiena►1 uee pe�it With
the Cart� liec�order. P=�oof of :�eoordin� shall be aupplied Lo the
City prior to anY relsted alterations or oo�iperia9. Tbe pe�it
�easesaupoci tra:�sfer olf�tite u�less rei' asued by ti�atl Co��cil • t
i. �e oWr�er �rill obtain a certificste of oocvpancT tos' the c�ditionsl
use er�ce a yeer in the ■onth of Jar�uarY for the durstion of tbe uee,
pres�tinQ. st the ti�e of su�ch res�e*�+1, pa'oof ir► the fom of ar�
affidavit thnt the circ�terioes tor �ich the oanditianal use Was
�car�ted hnve not cher�ed• M sc3ninistrstive fee, aa established by
Ca��cil resolvtion. si�all be c�sr�ed st the tiae of ea�ci� reneWal •
i�: �
-3-
S8L't'IQd III. s�cion isoi.oso, s�a, i. �"�" �r�t��•� i• ee�� ••�,�aaa tio
:�� �.�,.-. �rt�ent: A si.n�le rental ha�sin� tsiit tor m�crs U�r► t�o
of a�e or l�i�t� Y defir�ed
i 2) Persa�s + a� of Ni� is �t leset 'S5 Tear'� inc ipsl
by �e Hir�c�esots 9tste Ststutes. Zbe is�it i� subord,i�rte � �itier�sl
•in�le faail7 �+ellint �t use. wbicl� c� on1Y be establia��ed b7
Use Pe�it, �r�d Which is sub,ject to specitic perfonenoe �t�� •
g�,`I'iat VI. 'lbis ordinsrioe �11 take effect a►r�d be ia foroe tollaWin� iL P�-ga�e
ar�d publicstian.
Firat ReadinQ August 23• 19�8 .
g� �� Septem�er 14, 1968_ _
J i,�8 Ycr
A
. 3ie er� City Cleric
0
�, r n �in � ATTACHMENT # 9
d) mass transit facilities
e)
Zoning Ordinance
Section 300.16.
Pa,ge 64
�raG��r �t--�� � � � I
1) bus shelters subject to the following:
2)
a.
b.
screened from adjoiaing residential uses if
required by the city;
a concrete pad to be provided for the shelter
and immediately surrounding area;
c. signs to conform to section 300.30. et seq.
of the code of citp ordinances unless
determined by the city to be necessarp for
economic viability of shelter;
d. pavad bus standing area to be provided if
determined by the city to be necessary for
safe and efficieat traific flow; and
e. incorporation of architectural features
compatible with surrounding area if required
by tha city.
park and ride facilities and inter-modal transfer
points Subject to the following:
a. permitted oal� along collector or arterial
roadways as identified in the comprehensive
plan;
b. screened from adjoining residential uses if
required by the city;
c. all parking areas to be paved and maintained;
an d
d. site and buildiag plan subject to revieK
pursuant to section 300.2? of this ordinance.
accessor9 apartments
1) accessory apartments shall be allowed for the
following purposes:
a.
��
c.
more efficient utilizatioa of the existing
single family housing stock in the city:
en j o�ent of the benef its of rental . income .
decreased housekeepiag responsibilities or
the compaaionship of tena.ats by persons
residing in houses M►hieh are too large for
their present needs;
provision o! housing �+hich allows pri�acy and
independence !or older lamilp members; and
2)
3)
�
preservation
maintena.nce
single family
Zoaing Ordinance
Section 300.16.
pa,ge 65
of property values and
of the character of existing
neighborhoods.
for the purpose oP this subdivision, the folloWing
defS.nitions shall apply:
a, age - a►ge of the house shall be datertained by
reference to the data of the issuance of the
certiflcata of occupa.nc� or shall be fixed as
six months after tha date of the issuance of
the building permit if no certificate of
occupancy was issued for the house;
b. housekeeping unit - J�►11 persons residing
aithin a single family house whose
relationship includes a substantial amount of
social interaction including the sharing of
housekeeping responsibilities or expenses or
the taking of ineals together;
c. living space - The area arithin a house which
is suitable for human habitation lncluding
suitable finished basement areas but
excluding garages, services areas and
uafinished portions of the building;
d. owner - The person aho holds fee title or is
a bona tide purchaser under a contract for
deed of the property:
e. unit of housing - One or more rooms designed.
occupied or intended for occupanc� as
separate living quarters. with cooking�
sleeping a.nd sanitary facilities separate
from those of another unit of housing and
intended for the exclusive use of a single
housekaeping unit; and
!. temporary absence - Establishing residence
outside of the T�+in Cities metropolitan area
for a period not to exceed 12 months but
during which period the subjact properts
continues to be the applicant's legal or
principal residance.
no accessory apartment shall be created or used
except in conformity with the following:
a. to be created only on property zoned for
single family detached d�+ellings and no more
. than one apartment to be created in any
d�►elling;
Zoning Ordinance
Section 300.16.
Page 66
b. structures in which a.n accassor� apartment is
created to be or�ner-occupied, with the owner
residing in eithar unit on a continuous basis
except for temporary absences throughout the
period during which the permit is valid;
c, aga of structure to ba a minimum of tWo years
as of the date of the issuance of the
conditional use permit;
d. adequate off-street parking to ba provided
Sor both units of housing Mrith such parking
to be in a gara.8e. ca.i'port or on a pa�ed area
specilically intended for that purpose but
not w3thin a required turnaround;
e, m�y �be created by t�e conversion of living
space M►ithin the housa but not by conversion
of garage space unless space is available for
a two car garage on the lot r+ithout the need
for a variaace;
f. apartmant to be clearly subordinate in size
to the main unit;
g. exterior �haages to the house to be kept to a
� minimum and 'not substantially alter the
single famil� character of the structure:
h. no apartment to be created except in
compliance with all applicabl�e building,
housing. electrical. plumbing, heating and
related codes of the city; .
i. to be permitted only where it is demonstrated
that the accessory unit M►ill not have an
undue adverse impact on ad�acent properties
and where •there will aot be a substantial
alteration of the character of the
neig,hborhood; aad
j. all other provisions of this or dinance
relating to single tamily dr+elling units to
be met, unless specilically amended by this
subdivisioa.
f, structures�xhich eareacnottialsolnused mfor esidential
purposes
1) located only in proximity to a collector or
arterial roadrra� as designated in the
comprehensive plan or otherrrise located so that
access can be pro�ided aithout conducting
significant tratf ic on local residential streets;
�
�
c
c�
�
.�
�
�
�
�
w
i
,O
�
�
�
�
�
�
V
�
�
V
�
■�
�
�
�
.�
�
s
�
�
�
O
_
�. ��
�o�y��
~�����V
.�a ���P �
�
E.��==c~
E Yi���i�
8` � f • fi�.�
2�o„fE�,C
'e- Et E�
:����._ r
s� �,< �
�A �`��EE
� � V � y V � �
,�Y k `a�.��
oF .r �
�A ��g:��
���.e�`_�
� �� `!!S�
.�:=_ �
€rEe�"��
��Z�;���a
� ��
���-
�^
�rg?«
���
o��'
��.� �
a�
��I� � •
,���€�
��SR,�S �
� �
E�3���i� $'.s_�-�±
���e�. � �ii��
����6�����a�a
���a������€�
�y==$p��g�a.��e�
"�.YCe=��� ���2r
t,.a��-�a�._.
�:�gF��:_���«��
ATTACHMENT #�0
5
���g� ��
�
a� � E ��_a
���g���
� a,� �
e ��f � �-`
��g���� ��
o_ � r
��r����5a
'�� ������a
�� ���s����
���e���g���
��������s���
a��;; s "���$�
.
r�- s�_�a =.
c�a5 �@a�����
F
�;
� N
�
�S a��o:
� ��
���>8���
�u�S$SE'e 3
$���€�ga�
�t'a��_�c
�
=8������
E � � `.�
���_ "o�
�;g �;�� �
3<���:=
�� a:i s�
h�e�cs
�wY.�a�
���€����
����:
= a� g�
�c7 `
� y.Q � �
��s�—�
'' ��`;
�g�gC����
>
'.7rg =s��
�� ��
��� ����
�Y g�
�j����
Sa°i7 E� �J�
�a. »
st• =� �s
�'��.� � �
�<C'C� gL�
5��� ����
� ����� ���
e
$a
iC �a
��
. �r
�
F�
p
�B
�'
�
��
��
��
��
��
��
' ��
��
s
��
�� �r
t�����a�`$
�Q����a� �'.�
. � � ��
�
�y�l� �2 ��
����� r��5a��
go�;y=���a�
<
�
������:���.
t
t
c�nr oF
FR! DLEY
C01�/IMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT'
MEMOR.ANDUM
DATE: July 27, 1990 '
TO: `�william Burns, City Manager�l�
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Jock Robertson, Community Development Director
Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Proposed North Gateway Redevelopment Plan
The purpose of the Gateway Plan is to provide a long-term strategic
redevelopment plan to guide decision-making for the area along the
University Avenue corridor from the City limits to 61st Avenue.
We have divided the corridor into two parts, North and South, at
I-694. The Gateway Plan encompasses both the east and west sides
of University Avenue, with heavier emphasis on redeveloping the
properties on the east side of University Avenue. We also included
land use alternatives if LRT is constructed. These are our
preliminary recommendations for review and comment by the City
Council and HRA (in fact, it is this type of analysis we would like
to include in the Comprehensive Plan).
Because of the ongoing consideration of the Winfield proposal at
57th Avenue, we developed the attached study of the North segment
of the corridor. A residential option and a commercial option are
proposed. We recommend the residential option, with certain nodes
of commercial development at 57th Avenue and 61st Avenue. An all
commercial option would not be feasible given the difficult
accessibility, shallow lot depths, and potential impacts to the
neighborhood.
The redevelopment of the area would begin with the development of
a tax increment district for the redevelopment of the northeast
corner of 57th Avenue and University Avenue. This has been
commonly called "the Winfield Development" and would include the
Rapid oil, the old Shorty's Towing, a dupZex, and the vacant
parcels to the east of Rapid Oil. The Plan would then move north
toward 61st Avenue and would include either expanding the current
commercial zoning district to 4th Street or would redevelop the
commercial properties to a residential use, either medium or high
density residential (R-2 and R-3). These options would continue
north to 61st Avenue. The Alano building located between 60th and
61st Avenues would remain as a quasi-institutional/office use, as
it is compatible with both commercial and residential uses.
North Gateway Plan
July 27, 1990
Page 2
When creating the Winfield tax increment district in Phase I, the
City would also cross University Avenue and include Frank's Used
Cars and the Holiday parcel within the tax increment district.
This would allow opportunities to upgrade the landscaping along the
south side of the Holiday parcel and would allow for a residential
redevelopment of Frank's Used Cars parcel, bringing it into
compliance with the S-I, Hyde Park, zoning district goaZs.
Later phases of the proposed Gateway Plan would encompass those
parcels south of 57th Avenue and east of University Avenue. These
would include the residential properties east of SuperAmerica, and
also the Motor Valet parcel. Should LRT become a reality, these
parcels could become a park-and-ride site for LRT riders and also
a bus transfer site. If LRT does not become a reality, these
parcels would then be redeveloped either with a commercial option
to 4th Street or redevelop the Motor Valet site as additional
residential housing.
The City Council and HRA should review these preliminary concepts
and provide comments and direction.
NIl�I/ dn
M-90-516
a
��
o°
� Q
� ��
�nu��r i�t9
� ❑ o
� � a
�
� � d0
a C]� 00 � o
� : ��� o
�� o
e - � � o
o Q� � 8 ❑o
� po
a o
� aD �
o� °0 0
� a fl
o�a �
. o
LS
at
n
o'
�
�
0 Q Q
. � Z��
L
.•
.
0
f�
�
0
0
a
0
� J �
� r���
■
.
�:� ��
��������
�
��
�
, i
��� �
� �
� ' =�
, ,�
�
�,
a
°� q
0
�
yi09
4i6S
.��
0
0
.
x
�
e
�
6
m
�
�
>
a
�
�
�
�d'
Of
to
�
3
r
�
_
0
�o
�
�
0
U
m
�
�
>
a
�
.�
i
�
>
C
�
0
_t _ _
�
��
o°
a L
o a
�
� O
o �
� _
a �
0
� �
a �
� ¢
� nc
c B
w
o°
¢
,��
u
�
�
�o 0
a
,� 4109 �
Oo c
O �
9 c
0° x
a W
fl
��
�
❑
�y yi69
�
�
0
�
�
0
�
�
w
•
C
lLJ
m
�
�
m
Q
�
r
t0
�
�
af
fD
A
W
3
o�
S
�
�
�
L
�
O
V
m
�
c
>
a
�
r
�
�
C
�
d
.� _.:r
�
�
��
o°
D Q
o �'�
NIU�AY �i�9
�
� n
� d"
� � �0
a �� �
¢ �� �
8
° � Q� �
���� d��� ���
�
� � �
�I
� f
�
� /�=�
O
�
�
>
�
�
T
� �
0 O �
D p � �
a L �
� �
❑� E.0
o �,
o � v=
�o � a �
O
� yio4'+�` Z � � 'C
n ,� � L
9 \� p 3 mV
=
o°=��{ a�
=g �� W
o �� � _ a
�a a �
.
c, : � �
� � 3 d .
� o � >
� � �
V364
� �
r ���
. �
'� z
r� ��
�
�
�a
�{'�
�����
�
�
,' �
.
0
��
o°
� Q
o ��
.eu•�v 1.��
a
�
� 0
� ° °
¢ � E� �
8
0
o Q,� �.
0
O o ° D
°� � o0
o� 0
� �
O � a
�S �
��
��
y �� a
� .F ❑ Q
�
I � �E �� I
� � e �,
- ►�-�....�..� �.
� L� = - �
�
�
��, — _ — -- —
i
i
, � i
� `
� ,1
r �
�
n
�
� �� ,
O
�
�
>
�
�
�
_ �
❑o �
D p � �
0 w, �
❑ D m �
0 ° �o ;
0
0 0 =
° ,� m L
0
0
� Y109 rZ � 'G
11 L
°�° , � W o
� C)
g =�� 3 � m
0� �� r� a d
o �����`'
� Wa
�/ a �
� � 3 `
� �
� m>
(�, c� �
4�S
� u
1� �g
• �� � iL
G �����
� o� a
yics
�
�
��
W�
�����
�