The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 10/03/1973 - 31156� CITY OF FRIDLEY �� ' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 3, 1973 PAGE 1 �,��,.�, �'-;:�: CALL TO ORDER: Acting Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 8:05 P.M. ROLL CAI.L : Members Present: Harris, Lindblad, Drigans, Blair Members Absent: Fitzpatrick Others Present: Darrel Clark, Community Development Adm. Jerrold Boardman, Planning Assistant 1. CONTINUED: JOHN DOYLE REQUEST FOR A REAL ESTATE OFFICE: 6305 EAST RIVER ROAD Mr. John Doyle and Mr. Jeffrey Carson,�an attorney�representing Nlx. Doyle, were present. ,� - Mr. Carson said he was representing Mr. Doyle and he would � loke to present this request in a form of a memorandum which � states:� i . � � "On or about May 3, 1972, John Doyle (d/b/a/ Leigh Investments, ,' Inc.) presented an application to the Planning Commission for a , rezoning of h.is pro�erty on 63rd Way and East River Road, Fridley, Minnesota, to CR--1 class. Thi,s culminated in a denial at the regular Council meeting of June 19, 1972. The feeling was at that time, however, that people living in.the area were�not opposed to the requested use, but were opposed to the rezoning. This was so indicated in the minutes of both the Commission and the Council. r1 �"K_ � At the time of the beforementioned hearings, a comprehensive plan was being developed for a number of areas within Fric7ley, the area in question being one of these. Since that decision of Jun.e 19, 1972, the City Council has adopted, for the area in question, a proposed zoning of "high density". This, to a large extent is due to the fact that the area is in a transitional stage and it is apparent that the R-1 zoning classification will not be ap= �ropr�.ate. k'rom my discussions with some of the neighbors immed- iately �urrounding Mr. Doyle°s property, it is apparent that they realize a change is imminent and are anxious for a decision to be made with respect to their property. It was also my impression that these people were not unilaterally� opposed to Mr. Doyle's use of his property as a real estate business. The area in question is shown on the attached map. Also, for your information, I Yiave attached a list of those neighbors we were able to ascertain to be within 300 feet of the designated property. With this background in mind, we chose not to reapply for a zoning change. This, in part, was brought about by the Board's � Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 1973 Page 2 ��"'� strong recommendation that rezoning would not be viewed favorably at this time. This left us the sp�cial use or variance alternatives. Minnesota Statutues 462.357, Subd. 6, seems to eliminate.the variance: /"'1 �^ "...The Court of Appeals and Adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for �n the zone where the effected persons' land is located." On the other hand, the leading case of Zyllka vs. City of Crystal 167 N.W. 2nd 45; 283 Minn 196 (1969) suggests that a special use might be in.order. There the Minnesota Court indicated that a special use permit was properly within the discretion of the govern- i�g body. They went on to say that where an ordinance does not specify standards, as is usually the case when final authority to determine whether a permit shall be granted is retained by the Council, an arbitrary denial may be faund by a reviewing court when the use is compatible with the basic use authorized within the particular zone and does not endanger the public health or sa�ety or the general welfare of the area affected or the community as a whole. This view is confirmed by�Section 45.191 of the Ordinances of the City of Fridley where it is set out that a reasonable degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain uses is given the City Fathers. Generally, when passing on a special use permit, the governing bodX looks to.the �ollowing; health, safety and welfare of the commun,�ty �,ncludi.ng traffi.c hazards, land valuations, compatibility o� uses and the overa7.l character of the area as it is, and as it is to be. The comprehansive plan has ind'icated that East River Road which is adjacent to the property in question is a major source of traffic congestion and danger. Also, the entire area in question was proposed as a high density use rather than R-1. It is apparent that Mr. Doyle°s proposed use of his property for a small, local real estate office, will not add to the traffic hazard already existing in the area. Likewise the health, safety, and general welfare of the community will not be affected. The operation as he proposes to use it, would certainly be compatible with the existing homes in the area. It is uncertain at this time what effect, if any, there would be on land values. I expect that in the long range, after a serious rezoning is contemplated for the entire area, the net effect of land values will be to increase. Foz these reasons we are making application of a special use permit under section 45.5, Subsection 4, of the�Ordinances of the City of Fridley, a copy of which you have before you. It is my belief that Subsection 4, entitled "Other Uses", may be interpreted to mean, other uses similar to those specifically set out in your . ordinance as permitted uses by special use permit. �I�th this in �� mind, and the realization that the area is in a state of flux, I i'` am asking both the Planning Commission and the City Council to use the reasonable degree of discretion permitted them by State law and , to make a determination that a special use permit be granted to Mr. Doyle." � Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 1973 Page 3 �� Mr. Clark said the Council sent this down ta the Planning Comm�ssion to see if they could determine how this request could be handled within the confines of our present ordinances. At the present time, we cannot accept the application of a special use permit. Tt will be up to the Council and the City Attorney to determine �rom any recommendaion made by the Planning Commis- sion whether or not we can accept this application. Mr. Harris said the recommendations made in the Comprehensive Qlan are just guidelines. Just because this is considered a chang- ing area, it does not mean that rezoning is imminent. If the fee owners of the proper�y want it to stay R-1, it will stay R-1. Mr. Clark asked Mr. Carson if he would explain how he interpreted �ubsection 4 and why he felt Mr. Doyle could apply for a special �se" permit undex this subsection. Mr. Carson said this subsection is headed "Other Uses" and says "For other uses, other than dwelling units, permitted uses and uses requiring a special use perm�t," �ndicating or suggesting that other uses other than those listed for a special use permit could be allowed, otherwise, why this section on other uses. I am not presenting this as an argument, only as a rationale to allow my client to apply for a special use �2,z'I[ll.t , n Act�,ng Cha.�rman Harris said �Yiat under Section 45.052, Paragraph � 2, under "i7ses Excluded" it states "Any use not specifically per- mitted in the preceeding paragraphs of th�s section." He asked Ntr. Carson how he interpreted this statement. Mr. Carson said he interpreted this as not excluding what th�y proposed under "Other Uses". In other �words, other uses are permitted, similar to those that are permitted. In the new code, Section 45.19, it states that the purpose of a special use permit is to provide the City of Fxidley a reasonable degree of discretion in dete,rmining the suit- ability o� certain types of uses etc. That's what we're asking:is that the City of Fridley exercise that reasonable degree of dis- cretion to allow this request to be handled as a special use. Mr. Clark said he didn't want to give his interpretation of Subsection 4 but he would like to give the Planning Commission some- thing for thought. It depends upon how you pause when you read this paragraph. I believe that this subsection means that when you are considering a special use permit for the reasons enumerated �.n this section, that then the requirement for setbacks, buildings, parking,� landscaping, screening and exterior materials shall be at least comparable to similar uses in other districts. In other words, for other uses, other than dwelling units,� permitted uses and uses requiring a special use permit, the requirements change, � and they have to go to the section of the code where these things are allowed without a special use, and�use those requirements. n Mr. Carson said that refers to other sections of the Zoning Code �f � and that is what he has done also. Mr. Clark said that in other sections of the code, it does have the statement that other retail or wholesale sale or service uses which are similar in character to ' those�enumerated above, will not be dangerous or otherwise detri- Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 1973 Page 4 ,., mental to persons residing or working in the vicinity thereof, � or to t.ie public welfare, and will not impair the use, enjoy- ment or value of any property, but not including any uses ex- cluded herei��after. In other words, in the C-1 section of the code, for instance, if it says.a creamery can be allowed with a special use permit, then an ice cream making plant could be allowed because this is similar in nature. This is not what Subsection 4 says. Mr. Clark said that if the Planning Commission was favorable to this request, they could recommend to the Council that this be allowed under a special use as the ordinance ' reads if they agree with Mr. Carson's interpretation, or else recommend that the code be changed to allow a real estate office in the uses enumerated under the Special Use section. m Mr. Carson said he believed the Council felt that changing the code was the ?east desirable recommendation. Mr. Drigans said he questioned the statement in the second pazagrph of the memorandum where it states that in your discussion with the neighbors, it is apparent that they realize a change is imminent and are anxious for a decision�to be made with respect to theiz property. He asked Mr. Carson if he could elaborate on that statement. ^ Mr. Carson said the neighbors are under the impression that � rezoning is imminent. They have expressed frustration because tliey would like to know what is going to happen in this area. He - . said he thought his was up to the Council to decide. Mr. Drigans said he thought this was up to the fee owners of the property. Mr. Clark said that according to the ordinance the City can start the rezoning process, but the property owners can come back to the City if they feel they are being hurt financially by the change. He said that the City in�stitutes a zoning change very �seldom. Mr. Harris said his feelings we.re that according to the Sth amendment to the Constitution that people have the right to life, liberty and property, t_irough due process. He said he wasn't an attorney, but I think if rezoning was iniated by the City where I live, and it was zoned R-1 and I wanted to continue to live there, I think we'd all be up seeing the judge in Anoka County. Mr. Carson said he thought Mr. Harris was right, but on this particular area, they have the railroad on one side, and improvement of East River Road to handle more traffic flow, and they are hold- ing up the improvement of some of the streets in the area until they determine whether this area is going to retain its character. Mr. Harris said a comprehensive street plan was developed about five years ago. The City is going through the City section, by � section, until all the streets are improved as to curbs, gutters, �-: sewers and storm sewers. As this area was paved in 1956, it has a low priority in relation to areas that have no improvement. 0 �� Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 1973 Page 5 Mr. Drigans said that Mr. Doyle came in a year ago for re- .zoning so he could operate a real estate office, and this was denied. I would like to know the status of this business at the present time. Mr. Clark said he was there about three weeks ago, and there was a woman tlzere to answer the phone and it was not being used as a residence. Mr. Doyle said he had to start using this house because he had to move from his former office in July. He wrute a letter to the Council dated August 13, 1973 requesting that he be able to use this residence �or his business while they studied how this could be allowed in an R-1 area. Mr. Carson said the Council gave Mr. Doyle ttiis permission, while they were exploring if this could be allowed with a variance or under a special use. Mr. Blair asked Mr. Doyle if he was going to make any ir.iprove- ments to this propE�rty. Mr. Doyle said the improvements he ia?teSls.�s te make woulcl renuire no permits. He intends to paint, make.some � � • repairs•and do some landscaping. � Mr. Doyle said he knew that if he lived in the home, his real estate business would be a legal home occupation. But the house ^ is too small for his family and he would be forced to greatly � expand the dwelling. This would constitute a large investment and would be very burdensome. Mr. John Othoudt, 20 63rd Way N.E., said he can see how the City is growing: With the completion of the railroad development, I look for more industry to come into this area, because of the access to both the railaroad and to East River Road. Mrs. Gerald Gerber, 6275 East River Road, said she liked her home and it took a long time to get it the way it now is. She said she knew it was not the most desirable location but she was used to it and she likes the area. 5he said if any rezoning was going to occur, it should be for the entire area and not just one street. She said she always felt this area would stay R-1, even with the railroad so close and never thought she would have a busi- ness next door. She said as far as Mr. Doyle's proposal was con- cerned, she would rather have a neighbor-businss than a business- business next door. Mr. Loren Wolle, 33 63rd Way N.E., said he would be next door to this business. He said this was a secluded neighborhood. They are off by themselves, and that's the way he likes it. He said he had nothing personal against Mr. Doyle, but he didn't want a business next door. He asked if this area has been set aside for rezoning by the comprehensive plan. � �,�' Acting Chairman Harris said this is one of the areas studied in the comprehens�ve plan but the comprehensive plan is not a hard and fast fact. The people in the area are the ones to say what will go into the area. Mr. Clark said that before the City could rezone this area, they would have to prove that this was-�or the Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 1973 Page 6 �'�� betterment of the whole City befare they could ask proceedings. Mr. Boardman said studies were made seemed to be changing areas. Guidelines were set rezoning was not good in any area. � for condemnation of areas that up, but spot Mr. Doyle said he would like the opportunity to use this property and he will upgrade and enhance this property. I would ].ike to use this property under a special use until we know what is going to happen in this area. Mr. Harris asked that if this special use was granted, and Mr. Doyl� moved out of this property, if another real estate comgany could come in and use the property for the same use, under the same special use? Mr. Carson said he thought they would have to re-apply. P�lr. Clark said that if it was the same small type of operation, he thought the special use would still be in effect. Mr. Wolle said if this special use could continue after Mr. Uo�.l.e left the property, he would definitely be against it. He . .� , thought.it should revert back to R�-1, with no special use. � ' Mr. Drigans said that on Mr. Doyle's application for a special use permit, he was asking for parking for 10 cars and a 48 square foot lighted sa.gn allowed under CR-1 zoning in the sign ordinance. ^ iie thought this sign should not be on this application. We have �'` a separate sign ordinance. ^ �- Mr. Doyle said a more practical request would probably be to have parking for�only five cars. I have the room to provide more spaces, but my concern is not to have the street full of cars because of this request. I would like to have the sign to announce my presence in the area, a lighted sign that is 48 square feet, according to the CR-1 regulations, out along East River Road. Mr. Lindblad asked Mr. Doyle why he want to utiliz� this property for an office when there are commercial area�, like Holly Center for instance, where you could have a real estate o�fi.ce w�.thout a11 these problems . Mr. Doyle said that different real estate companies, such as Calhoun, Edina, Be].1 and one or two others, have had offices in Moon Plaza and they have all left in about a year. You do not get the traffic needed for a real estate office in that location. What T want to do is expose my business to traffic. I have done my own traffic count, and there are about 600 vehicles an.hour going past this property I have on East River Road. He said his land covers a large area, almost 3/4 of an acre.• It has a lot of trees on the property and does provide privacy for the neighbors. Thi.s, coupled with the fact that analyzing this from my point of view, that if this area isn't changing now, it will be changing. Mr. Drigans asked oil stations that have are difficult to heat, have high rent. him why he didn't try to rent some of these gone out of business? Mr. Doyle said they would require a lot of refurbishing and would � Planning Commission Meet��g � October 3, 1973 Page 7 Mr. Ron Steckman, 58 Rice Creek Way, said he was herE as an interested citizen. He said he is a salesman that operates from his home and he was in favor of Mr. Doyle's real estate office being allowed. He thinks Mr. Doyle will be upgrading the property. He said if he wanted to put up a sign with his name on it on his own property, he wouldn't want the Council to tell him he couldn't. Mrs. Gerber said she didn`t think a 4'x8' sign was going to upgrade the neighborhood. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Steckman if he had his business in his own home. Mr. Steckman said he did. Mr. Harris said that was the difference. Mr. Doyle does not live in this home. Mr. James Langenfeld, 79 632 Way N.E., said he could see more problems for the City if Mr. Doyle was allowed to operate a real estate office in an R-1 area. Mr. Drigans said we can get problems if we deny this, also. There are a lot of home businesses that don't quite meet the ordinance requirements. Mr. Langenfeld said that Mr. Doyle seems like an intelligent business man so he thought it was strange that he found himself in this predicament. Mr. Doyle said his request was similar to �1 requests made in other communities. There, rezoning to CR-1, was �"` allowed because it had the least impact on a residential area. Mr. Clark said he didn't think the City could handle this request without.a change in the ordinance. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Doyle if he had had any meetings with the neighbors on this request. Mr. Doyle said he had and he still felt the neighbors were not opposed to his request to have a real estate office. There were concerned about what changes would be made in this area. He said they talked about having a�meeting with someone who could tell th�m what plans were being considered, as long as �the City felt this was a changing area. Mr. YnTolle said that was why he was opposed to this request. Once you let something commercial into the area, it could snowball, and the area would change. Acting Chairman Harris said that although this was not a Public Hearing, he would like to close the discussion so the members of the �lanning Commission could discuss this request. Mr. Blair said he was in favor of this request being handled under a special use, with stipulations. He said he has seen this property and he believed it would meet the CR-1 requirements fo� � buffer zones, it is large enough, and on the North side there is �, screening. He said he thought the parking should be limited to five cars. He said the only other stipulations he could think of at this time is that there be no storage of materials on this lot, or improvements to the other lots. I think the sign ordinance will take care of the sign. � �''.'",�� -1, �� `� _ Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 1973 Page 8 Mr. Clark said the size of the sign could be restricted as a stipulation also. Mr. Boardman said that in reading the ordinan�e, the sign would be governed by the zone that it is in. If he wants a sign that is larger than what is allowed in an R-1 district, he would have to go to the Board of Appeals for a variance. He said he didn't see how a special use on a structure can follow thr�ugh on the sign. Mr. Lindblad said he was opposed to this request. He said more of the neighbors were against this request than were for it. He said Mr. Doyle was not living in the house and we would be spot rezoning with a different name. You've got parking, traffic and a sign. You've got a business. I have to consider if I would want this in my neighborhood or not, and I wouldn't. I feel one nei:ghborhood is as gooc7 as another, so the neighbors have to be considered in this request. � Mr. Blair said he felt the neighbors weren't objecting to the use of the property, just the rezoning. Mr. Lindblad said if anymore requests come from this area, for use different from R-1, then he thinks the area should be _ rezoned, but it was up to the residents of this area. Mr. Drigans said Mr. Doyle was in business to make money and to do this he would have to be successful. Anoka is a good area �ox xeal estate, so �,� he �.� success�ul, his business will grow and ex�and. He bouc�ht this house, not to live in, and to operate a hus�;nes�. � have to agree w3.th Mr. Lindblad, in that you can call �,t what you want, but he is requesting to operate a business in an R--]. area. I feel if we recommend a special. use, we're . tell�ng not only real estate people and other sales people, that they have a right to speculate and buy a small house so they can open up some type of small business. I think it is obvious that peop7.e in this area wouldn`t object to.having a neighbor in the real estate business,� but I consider this a business, and rT�t a nei.ghbor . Mr. Blair said what do we do about illegal home occupations. He said he knew there were people employing outside help for their home businesses. He said Mr. Doyle was honest in his request, and� we are�turning him down. Mr. Clark said if these illegal home occupations w�re brought to the attention of the City, the City could investigate and regulate them. � . �,. Mr. Clark said the special use permit was designed because - some of the lots in Fridley border on commercial, even if. they are zoned R-l. When a request is made, we look at the pros and � n � � Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 1973 Page 9 cons of the request. The question here is whether you want real estate offices to be considered in R-1 zoning. Mr. Clark said that he could not interpret the present ordinance so that real estate offices can be under a special use permit in R-l. If you want to consider this use under a special use, then I think lawyers offices should be consi�ered also, because if you think real estate offices can be considered under a special use, then lawyers offices are the only thing left out that are considered in CR-l. Mr. Clark said th.ere are three things the Planning Commission can recommend to Council. You can deny the rE.quest, you can recommend that the ordin�.nce be changed to allow real estate offices in an R-1 area, or interpret the code the way Mr. Carson does, and say that this is allowed under our present zaning ordinance. � Mr. Harris said Mr. Doyle's request has precipated this, what we recommend will not affect Mr. Doyle directly. We would not be rer.ommending that a special use be granted to Mr. Doyle. That would still have to be a separ.ate Public Hearing. We have to consider whether we want to recommend that real estate offices can be under special use or if it can be allowed under Subsection 4. Mr. Lindblad said we have these uses under our. present CR-1 zoning.. � Mr. Clark said that one thing to consider was that a special use permit is more restrictive than CR-L zoning. Mr. Harris said a special use permit is like a contract between the City and the app�_icant. Mr. Drigans said if we put.too many restrictions on this request, we might be infringing on Mr. Doyle's right to do business. Mr. Clark said if Mr. Doyle agrees to the restrictions, then he is content with the stipulations. Mr. Drigans said we do have a zone for real estate offices. When Mr. Doyle asked for rezoning, it was denied, because the people didn't want a real estate office in their neighborhood. Mr. Carson said that what you are saying is that the zoning code is the zoning code. We think this is a changing area and the zoning classification could chanre. This use will not be in- compatible with the area. You are granted discretion in inter- preting the code. Mr. Blair said he �hinks there.are other R-1 lots in Fridley that border on CR-1 uses in that ther� are buffer zones and they � � meet the required screeni.ng requirements. r , Mr. Drigans said if therE are lots like these, then I would have to conclude that there are other business other than real ' estate th<<t could go on these lots. � �er .-�. i"'� �- - � �- �"� �"�" Planning Commk�ssion Meeting - Octcber 3, 1973 Page 10 Mr. Harris asked Mr. Clark how many lots there were like this in Fridley. Mr. Clark said that any lots that are on a main arterial street would be in about the same situation. Mr. Lindblad said the purpose of the various Boards and the Council was to study each individual case and try to determine what was the best decision. As to this request, I have to take into consideration the objection of the neighbors. They bought in an R-1 ar.ea and have stated they want the area to stay R-l. Mr. Clark said this is the reason for a special use. The neighbors did object to rezoning, but with a special use, the property will remain R-1. Acting Chairman Harris asked if the other members of the Planning Commission felt this request could be handled under Subsection 4. Mr. Blair said he felt that this could be handled this way, witr� special restrictions as to the�buffer zones, etc. Mr. Drigans said his interpretation of the code is that we have a special section for real estate businesses. We can make a case for any type of office or similar occupations of selling, in Subsection 4. If that be the case, then I think we should recommend to'Council a consideration of changing the code to grant special uses to those lots that the Council.feels.ar� buffer areas between two zones and not limit it.to real estate office but for additional uses. Mr. Lindblad said he still feels that each request is an individual case. I think the us� are defined qui�te well for each zoning district. Mr. Harris asked if we should define what should be allowed with a special use permit as to other uses. Mr. Drigans said that if we do, some one will come in with a request that is not specifi- cally mentioned. . � Mr. Harris said he believes, like Mr. Lindblad, that if we were to follow the Zor.ing Codes to the letter, it would not be necessary to have a Board or a Council to decide these things. He saiel that in areas that are zoned commercial or industrial, we don't have to be so strict on what goes into these areas. When you get to R-3 and R-2, you're starting to talk'about where people live and by the time you get to R-1 zoning, you are taking about a man's home and I believe a man's home is his c«stle. If the neighbors are willing to give up their rights of privacy, then I could go along with this request. He said he feels that there should be a change in the code, to expand the uses allowed with a special use permit in Section F, of the R-1 Zoning Code. I think Subsection 4 is ambiguous and should be changed. I think the 'other uses' should be struck from this paragraph so that someone won't use this paragrph to construe other uses, to.other uses than the ones listed. Planning Commission Meeting�- October 3,.1973 Page 11 �-"-� Mr. Clark said if you ar.e going to add otr.er uses to Section F, under special use, you should include lawyers, real estate, medical and dental. Mr. Clark said that if Mr. Doyle was worried about the time element in changing the code, that this would take no longer than meeting the requirements of applying for a special use permit. MOTION by Drigins, seconded by B1air, that the Planning � Commission recommend to Council to consider amending the Zoning Code to allow real estate offices and Iawyers office to be added to a use allowed witr. a Special Use Permit in R-1, Section 45.051�, Paragraph 3, F, to R-2, 5ection 45.061, Paragraph 3, F, and to R-3, Section 45.071, Paragraph 3, H, and to add to the same three 2oning Districts the statement: A11 uses which are similar in character to those enumerated above, will not be dangerous or otherwise detrimental to persons residing in the area thereof, or. to the public welfare, and wi11 not impair the use, enjoym�nt or value of any pr�operty, but not including any. uses excluded hereinafter. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Motion by B1air to amend the motion, seconded by Lindblad, �� that the Planning Commission also recommend to Council that �� Subsection 4,, entitled OTHER USES in the Zoning Districts of R-1, R-2, and R-3, is ambiguous and very vague. This should be rewritten so that it is definite that it pertains to uses which are specifically stated as aZlowed under�a special. use permit. Upon a voice vote on the amended motion, a11 voting aye, the amended motior. passed unanimously. �, ��. 2: COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN Mr. Jerrold Boardman, Planning Assistant, made the: presentation. Mr. Boardman said the main reason for developing a park plan was that previous to this, all we have had is inventories of what we had on the plan�and no directs.on per se, as to where property is needed and what type of facilit�• was needed. This comprehensive park plan is a guideline to direct the Parks & Recreation Commission and also the Council in setting up priorities, as to which areas need parks and where they should try to acquire land for this use..� . At present we have 430 acres of park property and 100 acres of school property that could be used for recreational purposes. The goals that recreation should accomplish are: (1) physical Health, (2) mental health, (3) the social adjustment of the individ- ual, and (4) intellectual and aesthetic expression. � The way to accomplish these qoals are through the objections of the parks and r_ecreation plan. Thes� objectives are an imple- Planning Commission Meeting - October' 3, 1973 � Page 12 mentaion of the plan and an attempt to realize the goals of recreation. In order to realize these goals you have to have ��- � a guideline which you plan to follow. These guidelines are the meat of the entire comprehansive park plan. It sets up �prcvisions for the amount of park land per inhabitant, the amount per inhabitant by neighborhood and the amount of open space.that should be provided to serve an entire area. In doing this we uses stz.ndards from the Department of Natural Resourses and from other States. The Metropolitan Council is in the process of setting up different studies to accomplish . differnt goals in the Metropolitan area, but they haven't set anything up as yet. �r--, � � �^ ,� r We set up four general guidelines and in addition, the park sizes, the �opulation they should serve, and the activities these park facilities should generate. In setting up parks we have mini-parks, neighborhood parks, City wide parks, regional parks, linear parks and special use parks. The service area for a mini-park is 1/4 mile and these ar.e childrens parks for children 0 to 5 years old, who are classified as immobile. The neighborhood park area is 1/2 mile and is accessible by a mor� mobile group of 6 to 15 years old. The other four types of parks are for active or more mobile type use. The other. guidelines we have set up to achieve the objectives of the plan ar.e: (1) safety, (2) access, (3) lighting, (4) indoor facilities, (5) school facilities, and (6) activities. We felt this was the best guideline we cou�.d set up for priorities. We came up with thece goals and guidelines by basing them on an inventory and analysis which we have done ar:d we have come to cert�:in conclusions, on which the plan is based. The basic things we covered were that we took a look at all our park facilities and where they were located, plus our school facilities. We looked at the population characteristics through- out t.he�entire City. We'determined where the 6 to 15 year old group was the predominent qrap and where the 0 to 5 year old group was predominent. We broke this down into group percentages for these areas, which will be used by the Park Department. These group percentages of the different populations in different areas can be used when each park is studied separately. We can determine where we need park facilities, and when this park is being planned, we can look at this study and see who will be the users of the park,.to detmine what is needed for that park. We used the comprehensive plan changes to project the pop- ulation in differnt areas, which gives us.some knowledge of what is going to happen in a given area, how much parl� facility is going to be needed, and what type of park facility will be neede��. Planning Commission Meeting - October_3, 1973 Page 13 �''� r In Coming up with our planning implications, we felt that any part.of the parks and recreation plan depends upon access. What a circulation system does is that it not only serves as a recreation use, but joins our schools, our commercial areaS, and other population centers, so we can have pedestrian and bicycle access tr.rought the entire City. With this, we have set up a trail system that we feel will serve the City to tie our school properties, park facilities, our neighborhoods and commercial centers together. This trail system will join a Metropolitan-wide trail system, as well as providing an interious., system. � n �'`�, � . - I"� �.;; � - In looking at our population; present and future, and the population characteristics of the neighborhoods, present land available and the barriers in the City, and comparing them to the guidelines, we came up with certain planned proposals. Mr. Boardman asked the Planning Commission to look at the maps included in the plan. He said Map A shows the residential neighborhoods broken down by neighborhoods by barriers. Chart No. 1 shows presnt population, the projected population, the existing recreational area, what is recommended at present and what will be recommended in the future. These are three actual factors that determine whether a neighborhood actually needs more acreage or not. One is that there are enough existing park acre- age, but it is poorly located. The second is, that although they are in the service radius, because of certain barriers, the neighborhood might not be served. The third is that there is not enough park land ir, a neighborhood. Map P shows the mini- par service area and Map C shows the neighborhood park service arez.. Map D shows bike routes and.walkways. We feel that circulatian is very necessary to a City, not only automobile circulation, but pedestrian circulation is necessary. We do have a present problem with the increased use of bicycles. There is a safety problem with both pedestrians and bicycles k:�ecause we don't have many sidewalks in the City. Something else that should be considered in this discussion is your off-the-road vehicles such as snowmobiles, motor c�-cles and mini-bikes. These cause problems that can't be overlooked. By putting_together our information and guidelines,:we have set up a cost analysis of the trail system. Most of the trails that would be developed 'here would be developed by using the existing streets. Most of the streets are wide enough to eliminate a parking lane, and striped. In some cases where we have limited space, we could restrict one side for bicycles and one side for pedestrians. We would have about 22 miles of streets we could use and the cost would come out to about $140 per block. In the open areas, it would cost about $15,000 per mile. Each year that this isn't developed we can add 8% to the total cost. As far as funding is concerned� most of the Federal funding is going into tr;e Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 1973 Page 14 �� study phase. It would probably be four or five years before ' there will be any funds available from HUD. Anoka County is very inter.ested in this trail system and there is a good chance tY�at there could be some cost sharing with Anoka County. /"1 �� .�,r,, With this an�.lysis, we also broke down each neighborhood and gave a recommendation for each neighborhood. Mr. Drigar:s asked if this bike trail would be accessible to each neighborhood park. Mr. Boardman said it would. Mr. Drigans asked how they arrived at the cost figure of $140 per block for these trails? Mr. Boradman said these figures include curb cuts and at major intersecti.ons we might have to have bicycle lanes with curbing, as a safety factor. We will have to have regulated bike lanes at busy intersection. Mr. Harris asked how much room would be taken from the street for the trail system. Mr. Boardman said it would be about eight feet. Where we have room, we would take one parking lane. We can use street right-of-way if we have to. Mr. Clark said that on a street like Mississippi where there are sidewalks, it would be Fossible to limit one side for bicyles and one side.for pedestrians. Mr. Lin�,blad asked what they would do on residential streets. Mr. Boardman said that parking would be restricted to one side of the street. He said we have to provide pedestrian and bicycle traffic lanes. Mr. Harris said the «rgument you're going to get is that in Minneapolis there is an ordinance that bicycles stay on the street and the sidewalks are for pedestrians, and if its good enough for Minneapolis, its good enough for Fridley. Mr. Boardman said bicycles are a big recreational use at the present time. �Children ride them to school. The question is what will you spend to ensure children's safety. Iiow do you control a bicycle? Mr. Drigans said there has been a study made on accidents with a recreational vehicle and the study said that there were more people injured from bicycles than any other recreational vehicle. Mr. Clark said that what this plan is proposing is that the bicycle is the coming thing, and if you have a car parked on the street, and the bicycle rider has to go around this car, there could be someone injured. If the City feels it doesn't want to supply bicycle paths , that's fine too I guess, but if people are coing to ride bicycles, there should be a�afe means for them to get from one place to another. ' �� _.� Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 1973 Page 15 Mr. Drigans asked if there were any plans for any additional sidewalks in the City. Mr. Bo�,rdman said we are talk�ing about bicycle an�. pedestrian routes ar:d the pedestrian routes should be an sidewalks. A'Ir. Harris said he knew there were a lot of people in his own neighborhood who liked to walk for recreation. He said there is always some danger of walking in the streets, but in the winter when the streets were icy and there were high snow banks it would be extremely dangerous. He said he agreed that there should be some provision made so that pedestrians didn't have to walk on the streets. Mr. Boardman said that according to the plan, anyone should be able to gAt on this trail system and be able to walk to any p�.rt of the system. The�- will be able to walk to any park. Mr. Harris asked how they would get past the major barriers? Mr. Boardman said there are various ways this could be handled, � �• �ither•with controlled crossings, or if the barrier was wide enough, with an overpass, and other means. �"� �``= � �� f � Mr. Drigans said he would like to get into the areas of recreation as specified on page two, where you talk about the goals of recreation and you do call this a comprehensive park and recreation plan. Yet, in reading through this plan, I find very � little where you talk about the recreational programs that you • have planned. In your goals, you talk about providing physical activities, pr�viding a diversity of recreational opportunities for all ages, but yet you don't specify what these programs are. I would think that this plan is lacking in what type of recreational. activities our community provides or will provide, in such a plan as this. You talk about the parks and how they should be accessible to our citizens and what the age groups are, yet you don't go into any type of recreational program. It doesn't say what the summer program�is or what the goals of the summer program are, for instance. I think there are many, many programs that the City offers that should be included in this plan, and what the goals of these programs are. ' � Mr. Boardman said the goals of.these programs follow closely the goals of recreation. As far as individual programs are con- cerned, I don!t think in this plan that we can determine if the programs that presently exist, are programs that necessarily meet the goals or guidelines or objectives of the park plan. Mr. Drigans asked why this couldn't be determined? This plan is talking about specific goals of recreation and talking about what these goals should provide, and yet you don't go into any details as to what these recreational activities are. N1r. Blair said the park programs are constantly changing. I don't think there is any way you could spell out the programs and what the goals would be. In the plan, there is an analysis of what is in the parks, which I think.covers recreation. There is another part of the-plan where it talks about the different siz� parks and Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 1973 Page 16 �� _ what they provide. I think this is all recreation. Mr. Boardman said that if the existing programs were part of th�s plan, you would lose the purpose of the guidelines. What we are trying to set up is same type of guideline that will let us provide space for recreational facilities. We do have programs and activities that fit ir.. with our major goals, but as to the plan itself, for providing space, for providing diversity and a circulation system, these are recreational purposes. We provide lots of activities, lots of facilities in our parks. We would have to survey each a�ea to see if the facilities provided are used, or what other facilities that area might want. , Mr. Clark said that what this plan provides is space so the recreation can happen. If you were going to go into individual programs for each park, you can take Commons Park, for instance, and say that there are tennis courts, baseball diamonds, football fields', etc. � Mr. Drigans said you are calling this a park and recreation plan, and I think it is just half a plan, a park plan. I think ,� you should include what kind of recreational activities are avail- �= �, able for the different age groups. Mr. Boardman said the goals of recreation are the general goals of what recreation should accomplish. Mr. Drigans asked what the budget was of the Parks and Recreation Department? Mr. Blair said the total budget was around $435,000. Mr. Drigans said a portion of that was used for parks, another portion is used for running some type of program. I am saying that you �re providing a program, so why not say what you are providing. Mr. Blair said as show recreational areas you are talking about a far as he was concerned, the plan should and not programs. Mr. Drigans said then park plan and not a recreational plan. Mr. Boardman said we cannot provide a recreational facility plan at this time. He said we are fulfilling the recreational goals by providing the space for recreation. This is as far as we can go. In order to get a more detailed study of what should go into individual areas would require more funding. Mr. Drigans said you are already providing in this plan where the parks are and what is going to be needed and how many ^ people will use them. I think it should be put into the plan ,,�� the current uses we are making of the parks now. Mr. Boardman said this could be added in survey and analysis. 0 Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 1973 Page 17 ^�,,,,'-' Mr. Drigans said that if just the flyer.s that the Park � Department prepares were added to this plan, this would show what we now provide. Mr. Cla�k said we can find out how many people participated in each park program. Mr. Blair said he felt that program analysis wouldn't add to this plan. Mr. Boardman said if we look �:t our school system, we can see that schools were not always located in the right places. It is the same thing with parks. We might be providing facilities that aren't being used, where another facility would serve the " area better. That is why I feel t�iat showing the �acilities we have now would only be an inventory of what is available and couldn't be carried through into the future planning or plan recommendations. Mr. Lindblad asked if an area needs a park, do they take into consideration what the land will�cost to provide this facility. Mr. Boardman said this plan will set up guidelines and priarities so the Park Department and Council know where they �, should purchase or get by acquisition, the park land to fit the �"-� '- _ ,r- needs of the City . \_- . - Mr. Blair said if the facility is really needed, the City pays what it has to, to get the property, Mr. Lindblad asked if they have a plan for access to the river for boating? Mr. Boardman said this would have to be under special recreational facilities. Mr. Harris said that under guideline number 4, it says that l00 of the land area of a new residential development be used for recreational purposes. Mr. Boardman said this is in our code now, either l0o in land use or 10% in money. Mr, Clark said the old rate was 50. Mr. Harris asked how much money the City had got at the old rate, for instance, in the A1 Rose Addition. Mr. Clark said it was $15.per lot. The new rate is $150.00 per lot. Mr. Harris asked how the schools are tied to this plan. Mr. Boardman said they have shown sch�ol areas that�are available for use for recreation. Mr. Harris said the reason he brought this up was because it would seem ridiculous to him to have school property sitting idle if there were no park facilities in the area. � Mr. Harris asked if the Island of Peace was tied into the �`°� ��"�� =�'Park Plan. Mr. Baardman said this would be a special use park. �� , Mr. Harris said he thought this was a good plan. ��;T _. Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 1973 Page 18 _�""�� Mr. Harris asked if there was any provision for screening - a baseball diamond in a m�.ni-park. Jerrold Boardman.said they wouldn't put a baseball diamond in that small a park. They would go in a neighborhood park where there is more space. Mr. Harris asked about recreational vehicles in the plan. Mr..Boardman said we did touch on this in inventory and analysis and in the circulation proposal. Mr. Blair said this was hard to put in the plan because this proposal was being considered by the City Council. - Mr. Boardman said if they could provide space for mini-bikes it would be a special use park, but there is no area in the City large enough for this type of park. Mr. Lindblad asked about the funding for the trail system. Mr. Boardman said there was a State agency studying the bicycle usaqe and by 1974 there is supposed to be State guidelines established for the Metropolitan area. This is a long range program and coizld take up to 20 years to implement. We set up the trail system but we didn't set up any priorities. We left this to the Parks & Recreation Commission. There are certain areas that definitely need a pedestrian passageway. i"1 .� ..� Mr . � �and the • sharing. Harris said that when a walkway serves recreational uses school system, he thought there should be some cost Mr. Clark said tha� when sidewalks were put in on State aid routes, State aid pays for those walks. On the sidewalks for the schools, the City puts in the sidewalk and the school maintains it. Mr. Boardman said this plan goes to Council October 15th. Mr. Drigans said this is a fi.ne park plan, but not any way near a'recreational plari. MO�TION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council and to the Parks & Recreation Commission that they retitle the Comprehensive Parks and Recre- ation PZan to Comprehensive Park P1an, and reconsider the impZi- cations of a comprehensive trail system throughout the City. Mr.'Blair said he could agree with the motion on one thing but not the other. He said he believed that parks and recreation were tied together in the plan in the intent it was supposed to be in ther, and any more wouldn't matter. � ,-1� UPON A VOICE VOTE, Narris, Lindblad, Drigans voting aye, � B.Iair na �r, the motion carried. �...s �:.n------ Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 1973 Page 19 �'�.._� �i, - -t � �;°'�� -"-�:�FK LiND RIVER PRESERVATION MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE MOTION by Blair, seconded by Lindblad, that due to the Iateness of the hour, the Planning Commission continue the discussion on the Creek and River Preservation Management Ordinance until October 17, 1973. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ' Vice Chairman Harris adjourned the meeting at 12:45 A.M. Respectfully submitted, , . � • �,Z�',�-C� `�'f�-�2�-! Dorothy Eve son, Secretary � ^' _ r°,�.-°'�'";� f'�'T , �`J � . �� 1 �Fr ��- ��` . _ �� - �r. - � ' �— 0 c 0 � _Y_ . � . ;�� . �� ,i�� r' , ; ! . ` � � , ��,�,�., L, � � , � ';`i �! .- „ .�; � ,` /� �� L�- :��•�,�� . . -�,,,.�,. ��'z.T��,,�� ., ��.,�``'�� 'f --� �° .,, � �sr:=--'` � ,,,. � � . �F'�'✓? _ �y. ,x.,. ;�,c FrC.' _ '� - "-a.-. . ✓ ' �' � /� a•^ � �,Z;%,� �-�'' ��'�� w '�t--r -(�-�-��' � ':'� � /I �. %�� °�.;-.�T.�,2--`i\,� �.,% s�,.-��,/�..K-. `f � � � G��a�-�-.1 r.(�o�-��-�-- ��. ��3�73 �. F-, f.� � ,� � ;� , .�� '' / ��,�-�' � /'��1 .� ° i„ f � � - � � ��-��-� �� o-��-y��,�� ,S� /��eC�- �'G�.�,Cr�' v� r �` � -- �,x .. ' � _ . -�� _� � , _. � f <> �'� ,,��' %/� .�,�--! `�- ��f�` . �`t?� ` r ` � � - � `� i � �:/./ �,�.,� �,� _ � �.� u� �