04/17/2000 CONF MTG - 4678�
�
CITY OF
FRIDLEY
SPECIAL CONFERENCE MEETING
CITY COIJNCIL AND
PI�A►NNING COMMISSION
April 17, 2000
Fridley Municipal Center
Meeting Room 1 (I.ower Level)
1. Council/Commissions Survey Results.
2. Other Business.
�
L
ClTY OF
FRIDLEY
MEMORANDIIM
Memo to: The Mayor and Council and Planning Commission
From: William W. Burns, City Manager ,��'
Subject: Joint CounciUPlanning Commission Meeting
_Date: April 12, 2000
William W. Burns
City Manager
I would like to suggest that we focus on the following survey items at our meeting on April 17. The
meeting will be held in Meeting Room 1(lower level) and will begin at 6:00 p.m. We will serve
beverages and a light supper. I expect that we should be able to conclude the meeting by 8:30 p.m.
• Question #37 - Front Yard Setbacks
� Question #38 - Mother-in-law Apartments
• Question #39 - Residential Lot Size
� Question #42 - Redevelopment Priorities
• Question #43 - Prioritization of Future Redevelopment Strategies
• Question #44 - Apartment Rehabilitation
� Question #45 - Affordable Housing
As we consider each question, I would also suggest that we use the following procedure:
• Hear a brief staff presentation regarding the justification for the survey question.
• Hear Council and Planning Commission questions regarding the survey question.
• Discuss Council and Planning Commission responses to the survey question.
• Jointly rank the item as a high, medium or low priority item for future discussion.
Finally, are there other issues that Council or the Planning Commission members would like to discuss?
And it's that simple. Thank you for participating in this planning process.
Attachment
, . !,
�
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEIf
MEMORANDI�M
Memo to: The Mayor and Council and the Fridley Planning Commission
From: William W. Burns, City Manager��
Subject: Planning Video
Date: Apri114, 2000
William W. Burns
City Manager
There are some underlying assumptions in the City's comprehensive plan revisions that we may or
may not have faced directly. The last iteration of the Land Use section of the plan that I read
assumed that we should encourage higher density development in Fridley that is well connected by
bikeways and walkways. It also assumes a move away from the automobile as a basic form of
transportation and a move toward mass transportation. Additionally, it reflects a vision of Fridley
with coffeehouses and other public gathering places and a population that is connected by a variety
of public and private outdoor amenities. In this new, more ideal Fridley, we have the option of taking
public transportation to metropolitan area attractions; however, it seems that under our "model" we
will have become much more inwardly focused and "community" oriented. Also in this vision, in
addition to higher density, we encourage more mixed uses than what we currently have. It's a vision
of first floor deli's and barbershops that sit beneath residential units. It's also a vision of people
turning to the Fridley portion of the Mississippi River as a recreational and perhaps even retail
center.
Early this year when I solicited questions for the Council/Commission survey, our planning staff
submitted the questions on front yards, mother-in-law apartments and lot area requirements. The
broader question inherent in all three of these questions is whether or not Fridley, as it evolves in the
21 St century, should move toward higher density and implicitly toward the broader dream that is
reflected in our comprehensive plan amendments. It seems to me that this is a very important issue
for our citizens.
In view of the importance of the issue, I thought it might be interesting to produce a video for our
cable television channel. The video, as I envision it would include two Planning Commission
members, two Council members, Scott Hickok and yours truly as moderator. Since both the Council
and the Planning Commission appear to be nearly evenly divided on these density issues, it would be
good to have a pro-density and an anti-density advocate from each group. I also think it would be
good to have participants ponder the issues ahead of time and be prepared with thoughtful comments
on the density issues as well as on the broader vision for Fridley. The goal would be to create public
awareness of these issues and the broader context in which they are set. We would also hope to get
citizen feedback that may guide us in our future decision making.
I have prepared the attached outline and questions on the density issues. Would four of you be
willing to volunteer to discuss these questions in a cable television show that we would produce on
either Tuesday, April 25 or Wednesday, Apri126 at 6:00 p.m.? Please 1et me know what you think at
our joint meeting on Monday, April 17.
Attachment
. _�.
Questions for Planning Video
Purpose of the video: To highlight some very important planning issues that will be
discussed later this year and in 2001. Through discussion by
Planning Commission and Council members, we hope to create
awareness and interest in these issues by Fridley citizens. We also
hope to generate feedback.
The issues:
• Front Yard Setbacks
• Mother-in-law Apartments
• Residential Lot Size
Introduction of Program
(To be completed later.)
Questions
1. In our CounciUCommission survey, it was suggested that we try to encourage families
to stay in Fridley by making it easier for them to build room additions, and porches in
their front yards. Currently we have a 35' setback requirement that does make
allowances for vestibules that occupy no more than 50 square feet of the required front
yard and porches that extend no further than 10' into the required front yard. Three of
our five Council members said they would liberalize the front yard requirements, two
said they would leave things as they are. Four of the seven Planning Commission
members would keep things as they are, and three would liberalize front yard
requirements. That was a pattern that repeated itself in each of these questions.
• Scott Hickok, let's start with you. The question came from staff. By raising the question,
the implication is that we should consider some change in our front yard requirements.
Why do you suggest that? What would the City gain by allowing room additions and
decks to be built into the front yard?
• Commission Member A: I have no idea how you answered this question. At any rate, how
do you feel about this issue? What do you see as the positives andlor negatives of doing
what Scott has suggested?
• Councilmember A: How do you view this issue? Do you think it's a good idea to make
changes in front yard requirements? What do you see as the positives and/or negatives in
liberalizing front yard requirements?
• What about the rest of you. How do you feel about this issue?
2. In 1990 the City Council considered an ordinance that would have allowed "mother-in-
law" apartments in owner occupied single family homes. The ordinance was defeated
on a 3-2 vote. The main concern was that it would lead to illegal duplexes in single
family neighborhoods. As we considered the comprehensive plan amendments last year,
the idea arose again as a way to enable elderly residents to have in home care. It might
also provide a more acceptable and affordable means for families to accommodate
grown sons or daughters who for one reason or another have returned home.
Each of you were asked what you thought about the idea of allowing "mother-in-law"
apartments. Three Councilmembers said they would allow them. Two said they would not.
On the Planning Commission side, only three Planning Commission members would allow
them; four Planning Commission members would not allow them.
• Scott, in this case as well as in the case of liberalizing front yard set back requirements,
we seem to be moving from a suburban single-family style of living that places a premium
on spaciousness to a little higher density style of urban living that emphasizes keeping
families in Fridley. Is that what you were advocating in this question? Isn't this also an
underlying value for many of our comprehensive planning recommendations?
Councilmember B: How do you feel about "mother-in-law" apartments and the overall
shift in values toward higher density development in Fridley? Do you think that's what the
people want?
• Planning Commission Member B: What's your take on "mother-in-law" apartments?
Should we allow them? Why or why not?
• What about the rest of you? How do you feel about allowing "mother-in-law apartments
in single-family neighborhoods?
3. Our third and final planning issue has to do with residential lot area. Currently, our
zoning regulations provide two standards for lot width and lot area. Lots platted before
the end of 1955 must have a lot width of at least 50 feet and a lot area of 7,500 square
feet. Lots platted after 1955 must have a lot width of at least 75 feet and a lot area of at
least 9,000 square feet. As a result of the double standard, many of the lots in the older
sections of Fridley are non-conforming. When the homes on them are damaged by fire
or other disasters, this nonconforming status often prevents rebuilding. The
nonconforming status of the property also discourages investment in the property and
the creation of new housing in Fridley.
Given these circumstances staff asked Council and commission members whether or not we
should "liberalize" our lot width and lot area standards. Three of our Councilmembers seem
to be ready for change. One was not ready for change and one indicated that he/she was
undecided. Four of the Planning Commission members agreed with the one Councilmember
who didn't want any change. Three of the Planning Commission members seem to be ready
for some form of change.
,• • . . .
• Scott- What are other cities doing with lot width and lot area requirements? To what
extent would liberalizing these requirements be consistent with our comprehensive plan
amendments? What impact would reducing these requirements have on the City's fire
insurance rating?
• Councilmember A- What are your thoughts on lot area and lot width? Would you
"liberalize" them? Do you think community values have changed? Are people today less
likely to want large yards and significant space that separates them from their neighbors?
• Planning Commission Member A- How do you feel about this issue? Would you be less
willing to buy a 5,000 square foot lot than a 9,OD0 square foot lot? Do you think lot size is
related to the quality of life in Fridley?
• What about the rest of you. Do you think there is merit to allowing smaller lots? What do
you see as the advantages and/or disadvantages of this change from your perspective.
4. Scott, what are staff s plans for bringing these issues to the Planning Commission and
Council? Have yon forecast any dates for these items?
Before we close, I would like to thank each of you for your participation today/tonight. I would
also like to thank our viewers for tuning in. We hope you found this interesting and that you will
take the time to share your views on this subject as well. There are lots of ways of doing that.
You can call us at 572-3500 or, if you have a computer, e-ma11 us at fridley(a�ci.fridley.mn.us. You
are also welcome to attend our Council or Planning Commission meetings and to express your
views directly to Council and/or Planning Commission members.
We hope that we'll hear from you! !
�
`, - Wildiam W. Burns
M E M O R A N D l! M City Manager
CITY OF
FRIDLEY
Memo to: The Mayor and Council and Planning r�C,ommission
From: William W. Burns, City Manager ,���+
Subject: Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting
Date: April 12, 2000
I would like to suggest that we focus on the following survey items at our meeting on April 17. The
meeting will be held in Meeting Room 1(lower level) and will begin at 6:00 p.m. We will serve
beverages and a light supper. I expect that we should be able to conclude the meeting by 8:30 p.m.
• Question #37 - Front Yard Setbacks
• Question #38 - Mother-in-law Apartments
• Question #39 - Residential Lot Size
• Question #42 - Redevelopment Priorities
• Question #43 - Prioritization of Future Redevelopment Strategies
• Question #44 - Apartment Rehabilitation
• Question #45 - Affordable Housing
As we consider each question, I would also suggest that we use the following procedure:
• Hear a brief staff presentation regarding the justification for the survey question.
• Hear Council and Planning Commission questions regarding the survey question.
• Discuss Council and Planning Commission responses to the survey question.
• Jointly rank the item as a high, medium or low priority item for future discussion.
Finally, are there other issues that Council or the Planning Commission members would like to discuss?
And it's that simple. Thank you for participating in this planning process.
Attachment