The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 12/17/1975 - 7526�, CITY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MfETING DECEMBER 17, 1975 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COi�+MISSION MINUTES: DECEMBER 3, 1975 RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMFNT CONNiISSI�N MINUTES: DECEMBER Z, 1975 RECEIVF APPEALS L�JNiNiISSION N3INJTES: D�CEMBER 9, 1975 AND RECfI��E MEMO TO THE FR?DLEY CIi RQM BIL.L NEE:ON - VARIANCES PROCEUURES, DATED DECEMB�R 11, 1975 RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUT�S: DECEMBER 4 i 9 5F� �� . ? a. RE Ut�1NfENDATION OPd NU�IAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MQYION to recognize the S.A.C.A, or•ganizatian -�and endorse their princ�ples and furtr�er reccmmPnd the City o� Fridley all�cate a fair share sum of $500 �or the express purpose of develaping an Informat�on and Referral service. RECEIVE CQPY QF CI7Y OF FRiDLEY`S RECOMMENDATION 0(V 7HE PROPUSE� R�LES AND RECULATIONS QF THE MEQC ! CONTIPIUED: R�ti'IEtd GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PP,RKS & REGREl�i�I�UN l>UMPIISSION SE7. UP 7I�lETI��LE FOR STUDY OrJ THE PROPOSED �1l�G PL1?�J � a � � � 1� i �,�Y ` ,�� - �, „� � HPRENENSIVE PAGES 1 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 33 34 - 3fi. 37-41 � 42 - - 44 Separate Pacl�et .�. `:- I i � �.� ►4 � #� � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: CITY OF FRIDLEY DECEMBER 3, 1975 Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Scott, Bergman, Harris, Members Absent: Ivone Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Lee Ann Sporre, Member Irene Maertens, League PAGE 1 Peterson, Drigans, Langenfeld Planner of Environmental Quality Commission of Wom�n Voters Observer � APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: NOVEMBER 19, 1975 Mr. Langenfeld said that on page 3 of these minutes, the second paragraph where he was asking about the Human Resources meeting with Jo Ann Rice of the Fridlzy Sun, he wasn't asking how she looked, so he thought the wor� appearance should be changed to attendance. Mr. Scott said that on Page 7, third paragraph, he didn't know if that paragraph said what he meant. He meant that the Planning Commission member cou�d vote his position at the member Commission but should vote his Commission's position at the Planning Commission meeting. Nir. Boardman said that a vote on the P1anning Commission level should be the Commissioner's conviction on an issue, and there may be things brought out at the Planning Commission level that could ch�nge how a Commissioner may want to vote. MOTION by Peterson, seconded b� Scott, that the Planning Commission minutes of the November 19, 1975 meeting be approved with the appropriate changes. Upon a voice vote, a1Z voting aye, the motion carried unanimousl�. RECEIVE APPEALS CONMISSION MIRUTES: NOVEMBER 26, 1975 MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive the Appeals Commission minutes of the November 26, 1975 rrieetinq. Mr. Drigans said that as the Planning Commission hadn't received these minutes until the meeting tonight, he would explain the action taken by the Appeals Commission. Mr. Dric�ar�s sa�d there ti�ere three items on zhe ag�nda for this meeting. Two of them were for Paco Masonry, Inc., and he would just explain the variance requests because these buildings were on the Planning Commission agenda. They have dealt with this type of reyuest before, so there was nothing different. HE said the iirst r�equest was a little bit different. He said that Target had requested a height increase in their sign on their property. He said this was an $8,0�� improv�ment, and they arere going to do some additional upgrading of their exits and egr�sses. The Appeals Commissian had some trouble with this request and tabled it, The trouble was that the sign would not be relocated, merely the height of the sign raised an additional ZO feet. With the additional height, there will still be a problem of visual sighting of the sign when you are coming North on Central Avenue, because of surrounding buildings. When ■I Planning Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 2 you are approaching 53rd Avenue, it was very difficult until you are almost Gn top of 53rd, to identify the sign. The Commission felt that they would like Target and the sign consultant to look for somp type of alternative, possibly a �. relocation of the sign. We fe1t that the hardship of being located at a low � � elevatian, was a hardship, however Target has been thAre for over 8 years, and as most people'knew where Target was located, and ha�� to get there, that this compensated for this hardsh�ip. Mr. Drigans said that they didn't feel that raising the sign woul� be the proper soluti�rr because they were more concerned about Central Avenue �han any other direction., He said that with the addition of the nevr bank in this area, and any ather development that could come in, they wouldn't be able to see this sign even if it was raised twenty feet. He said that Target wouldn't be able to do any thing until Spring when the ground thawed ou�. He said the plan was jus� to add to the height of the sign, and to increase the footing, so there was no problem with the Appeals Commission tabling this item. Mr. Langenfeld said he noticed on the motion to table this item that the Appeals Commission members were asked to go out and lcok at this sign. What were they going t�. be lookirg for? �r. �rigans said th�y were going to drive all four directions to see, from their own point of view, how much a 20 foot increase would add �o �he visibility af the sign. He s�'�� he had already done this himself, and he said it would increase ±he visi�ility but there would still be a problem as you come down Centrai P,ven��e. He said the sign company was also going to look into the situation. Mr. Urigair: said the questi�n was that even though there was a hardship because of the lc;::_ion of this business at a low elevation, would it enhance the community to a�i�w a variance that would allow this sign to be increased by 20 feet, and would this solve tr�e problem? This was wha� we had to study. UPON a voice vote, aIl votin� az�P, the motion carried unanimou.sl�. RECEIVE ADMINTSTRATIVE STAFF REPORT FOt� J760 ELM STREET N.E. BY PACO, �1ASONRY, IP+�, RECEIVE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT FOR 7790 ELM STREET N.E. BY PACO, MASONRY, INC. Chairman Harris said these �wo reports could be handled together. Mr. Jerry Paschke was presert to represent Paco Niasonry, Inc. MDTIOnT by Scott, seconded by .Peterson, that the Planning Comm�ssion receive the admin.istrative staff reports for ?7S0 and 7790 Elm Street N.E. by Paco l�fasonry, lnc. U�an a voive vot_e, �CQt,tp�Bergman, P�terson, Drigans, Langenfeld votinq aye, Harris, absta�r.ii��, the motion r_arried. ADMINISTR�TIVE STAF� REPORT . 7760 �lr� S�reet t�. �. by Paco t�asonry, Inc. DESGRTPTION: Thi s penni t i s far� �F�e cor�s�ruct� a�: of a 1 d2' x 99. E�' , 1 Q,1 �19 square �oo�G s�aeculative br�ildi►-�g lracattd at 7��0 Elm Si:r�e� N.E. The praperty is zorec� M-2 (hea�,°y industraai areac�. The k�uilaing will be cor�struc�ed �1 of a C�n�bi nGti c�n of cc�ncr�te ��l ack a�� i_�; i c� to n�atch mucF� � � t°r�e r�ew �i ' canstr��t.�inn that is t�4ir�g de`°e�ia��d �rE �:f�� f�ea. The �iruposed struGt�re „ presen�ly canforms t� the z�r�ing code} excepr for the rear yard se�ba�k � and th� sidEya��d s��back:. T��se excep►.:��ar�s ha��c� I.�een recr�rnmer�ded for ap�rt�va 1 k,y the A�pea1 � Con,rn� ss � or�. i�Se pa rki ng for it'�i s s�ructure i s � � . ,� Plann�ng Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Pac�e 3 being pravided by a joint parking lot �o be shared by I%��0 Elm Stree�. This parking lot meet4 the re�uirem�nts far batP� str�uctures, accordir�g to tt�e zanir�g codeo ENGINEERING: The drainuge or� the praper�y wili be toward Flm Street. 7here is na ant�icipated engineering pr6blems. ENVIRONP�IENT: No anticipated r�av�mful enviror�riicn�al cffec�s. Building should be beneficial to total zmpl�ovem�r►� af tr�e Onavray area. STTPULATIONS: lo ComplEte landsc�ping as per office capy dated 12/2/75. 2. Written agr�eement to be submi�ted ta the Ciiy by the adjacent property ov��ner st�awirrg dpp�ova� 6fi �he zera� lat 1i-n� s�tF�ack for building. 3. Submit letter tc, tt�e City statir�g that� praperty �vill not be sold withou� joirr� parking agreement with 7790 Elm 5treet N.E. AD��IINISTRr1TTVE STA�F REPGRT 779Q Elm Street N.E. - by Paco Masonry, Inc. DESCRIPTIOIV: This permit is for the construction of a�9:5' by 51', 5,074 square foot speculative building located at 7790 Elm Street N.E. The property is zon�d M-2 (�e�vy industrial al�eas). The bu�lding will be constructed of a combinatian of concrete block and brick t� match much of the new construction that is. being developEd in the area. The proF�osed structur� presently confor�� to the zoning code, except for the rear yard setback and the sidcyard se�back. These exceptior►s huve been recorru�»ndEd for- appraval by �he Appeuls Comn�issian� The parking for this siructure is being provided by a joint parking lo� to be shareci by 77G0 Elm Street. This parking 1o.t, mEets the requir�Ements far both struci.ures accQrding to the zoning caci�. ENGINEERING: 7'he drainage on the property wiJl be toward C1m Street and 78th Avenue N.E. There is no anticipated engineEring prak�lems. ENVIRONMENT: No anticipated harmful environmental effects. Building should be. • a�benefit to tata�l�improvemen� of the Onaway area. �!� Planninq Commission MeetinQ - December 3, 1975 Page 4 STIPULATIONS: 1. Complete landscaping as per office copy dated 12/2/75. ri 2. Submit letter ta the City stating that property will not be so1d without joint parking agreement with 7760 Elm Street N.E. Mr. Drigans said the variances the Board of Appe�ls had recommended far approval was to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 7 1/2 feet and the side yard setback from 20 feet ±0 0 feet for 7760 Elm Street N.E. The reason we allowed the rear yard setback was because the alley had been vacated. The zero feet was in concert with what has been allowed in tl7is area when there has been an adjoining building that could be built, wall to wal1. The stipulation vaas that an agreement from the adjacent property owner on the zero side yard setback be'acqu�red and`a copy�subE�itted.to the City. Mr. Drigans said 'cha� the varias7ce � � i790 �lm Str�et N.E. v�as to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 7 1/2 feet and reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 35 feet to 28 feet. He said the reason for the 28 feet was to keep this building ;n line with a building across the street. Mr. 8oardman said the City had not received that agreement as yet. Mr. brigans said that with these two buildings, this area is close to being com:�letely developed. Mr. Boardman said that these two bu�ldin�s would have a jo�nt pa�king lot �. and we need a letter stating�that the pro�er-ty would not be'sold wi�hout a �' joint parking agreement betw�een 7760 and 7,'90 Elm Street N.E. Mr. Paschke asked Mr. Boardman to prepare the necessary agreements and he would come in and sign them. . Mr. Harris said that if he voted on these proposals there would be conflict of interest, so that was why he was abstaining. MOTION by 5cott, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission concur with the administrative staff reports and the recommendation from the AppeaZs Commission for 7760 and 7790 Elm Street N.E. by Paco Masonry, Inc. Mr. Qergman said he was concernnd ak�out tl�e �ercentage of land area used for ihe building and parking lo-cs. He ��rondered if this left much green area. Mr. Drigans said the code a�lo;�s 40�o coverage by tr��e building, and if these buildings didn't meet that requirement they would have had to get a variance on this, so these pro�osed buildings do meet the lot coverage requirements of the code. L"pon a voice vote, Scott, Bergm.an, Pet�°rson, �irigans, I�ngenfel'd voting aye, Harris abstaining, the motion carried. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: RE UEST FOR A SPECIAi_ ?ISE PERMIT, SP #75-27, BY MARGARET Q_�--- MERRELL: To allow a second accessory b�ildinc�, a 2�3' x 32' detached garage,,.-1 en Lots 9 and l0, alack 3, Plym��ith 1!,ddi��ion, per Fridley City Code, Secti� 205.051, (2,A), the same being �!832 2�i2 Str�et N.E. Planning Commission Meetinq - December 3, 1975 Paqe 5 MOTION by Scott, seconded by the Public Hear.ing on the request ^ Merrell. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 Ftearing open at 8:03 P.M. � �► Peterson, that the Planning Commission open for a 5peci�l Use Permit, SP #75-27, by Ma.rgaret voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the PuUlxc Mr. & Mrs Lloyd Merrell were present. Mr. Boardman said this lot was 80 feet by 130 feet and was located at 4832 2 1/2 Street N.E. He said'the existing house was 24' x 32' and an existing storage shed 12` x 20'. He said that this request was to allow the construction of a 32' x 28' detached garage. He said that it was his understanding that this garage would be used t� stone a truck. He said that Mr. Merrell was in the siding business and when his truck was stored outside, this siding did get bent by the children in the neighborhood. Mr. Boardman said that if there were no complaints from the neighbors on the construction of this second accessory building, the staff saw no problem with the request. He said the City did not have a verified survey of this lot. He said the setback requirement for a detached garage was 3' and without a s�,�rvey, we request that `hey st�y 1 1/2 times the d�stance from the property line. They will meet this requir�ment by constructing tl�is garage 4 1/2 feet from the property line. Mr. Peterson asked if all the neighbors had been notified of this request? Mr. Boar`dman said that everyone in Block 3 and the west side of Block 2 had been notified of this request. There were no neighbors at this meeting. Mr. Merrell said he proposed to have two 9 foot doors on this garage. He said he was self employed and he sometimes has material on his truck for the next job. He said the planks were 24' iong and this was the reason he needed such a large garage. Mr. Harris asked him if there would be any utilities in this garage. Mr. Merrell said just electricity. � Mr. Drigans said he had some reservations about the size of the garage. He said the garage would be 896 square feet, and the house was only 768 square feet. He said the residential garage would be larger than the residential house. He wondered if this was in keeping with the neighborhood. Mr. Langenfeld asked if this garage would be used primarily for his truck and storage for his business? Mr. Merrell said it would be used to park his truck. He said that when he finished one job and was ready to go to another job, he did stop at the warehouse to load his truck. He said that this material would be stored or� his truck for not more than two days. He intended to park two cars in this garage also. Mr. Langenfeld said then there wouldn't be any siding stored on this property for re-sale. Mr. Merrell said he was a sub-contractor and did not sell the jobs. Mr. Harris asked f�r. Merrell what was the purpose of the storage shed. Mr. Merrell said they used it f�r the storage of the l�wn mower, the snowmobiles, and some material he left over from siding jobs. Mrs. Merrell presented an agreement signed by Georgia Kramer of 4820 2 1/2 Street, the neighbor closest to this proposed construction, which stated that she had no objection to the construction of a 2£�' x 32' garage on this property without the required certificate of survey that the City ordinarily requires for all new construction. , �� Planning Commiss�on Meetinq - December 3, 1975 Page 6 MOTION by Drig��ns, sec.onded by Peter.son, that the Planning Commission receive the agreement siqned by Georgia Kramer oF 5820 2 I/2 Street N.�. and witnessed by Clayton L. Edstrom, Jr. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the mo�,ion carried unanimously. � Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Merrell if he had discussed this proposal with the Robinette's and the Kim residence? Mr. Merrell said he had discussed this with the Robinette's and they had na objection. He said the Kim's were from Korea and only one of them spoke Eng�ish, and then not too well. He said he explained what he wanted to do, but he di�n`t know if they understood it or not. Mr. Drigans said he was concerned that the garage would be used for the storage of material, and the truck would sti71 be sitting outside. Mr. Bergman��aid he was concerned about the ratio of the house and garage. He was concerned about what extent this garage would be from the residential nature of this area. He said that this lean�d towards a commercial use on this property. Mr. Bergrnan asked if th�re was anything in the City Code regulating the size of an accessory building to the �rimary building on a lot? Mr. Boardman sa'id the or�ly requirement v�as that any seconci accessory building over 240 square foot required a Special Use Permit. He said that it this wasn't the second accessory building, there would be nothiny in the code to prohibit'�he construc��,on �f this garage after a building perm�t had been obtained. Mr. Drigans asked what ��ould happen if he attached this garage to the siorage shed? Mr. Boardman said ther. he could construct the garage witho!�t a Spe�ial Jse Pe•rmit also, because it wo�ild be all one accessory buildinc�, �r if 'sce wanted to tear dotim t�ie shed, he wouldn't need a Special Use Permit for this�� garage either. , � Mr. Scott asked if we had no cantrol of the size of structures on residential �ots? Mr. Boardman said that the Cod� reouirement was that only 25% l��ot coverage was allowed, but the house, storage shed, and proposed gara�e were still under that 25% requirement. h1r. Peterson ulondered if it was wi±hin the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to question the size of a building in relation to a primary structure. He said they could recemmend approval or �enial of the Special Use Permit, but �Co debate that recommendaticn based or the size of a man's house h� felt was out of the jurisdiction of the Flanning Commission. I�r. Drigans said he wouid concur wiih that, and let the City Council deal with that aspect of this proposal. Mr. Scott said this was a question that should be addressed by the Community Uevelopment Commission, as to whether there should be some controls on the size of accessory buildin5s, or if this would infringe on individual freedom. Mr. Harris asked if this garage would b� higher than the house? Mr. Me•rrell said it wouldn't be. He said he had abeut $5,000 worth of equipment on his truck and he was anxious to store it inside � structure. Mr. Harris asked if he could attach this garage to tize house? Mr. Merrell said he didn't want to do this because he couldn't get into the back yard with his boat and camper then �' �� He saia that where he proposed t� locate this garage, he would have 17 feet � Planning Commission Meetinq - December 3, 1975 Page 7 between the corner of the house and the corner of the garage for this purposP. Mr. Bergman said that from the Community Development standpoint he was � disturbed 6y a trend towards the square footage of what could be a commercial use being larger than the primary use, which was residential. He said he felt this was in conflict with the residential atmosphere. He said this Special Use Permit request was based on hardship, and he would like to�know v�hat this hardship was based upon. Mr. Merrell said he did not operate out of his house. He said the only material he would have on the premises was what he had on his truck for the next job. Mr. Bergman said the alternative to this would be to rent a garage in a commercial area to park this truck. t�r. Merrell said he would have to buy another car to drive back and forth to this truck. Mr. Langenfeld said that besides the size of the garage, and the commercial flavor that has been part of this discussion, what was there to�stop any other tradesman from putting a't'r�:a�k in,their garage. He was sure there were electricians and plumbers who had materials an �their trucks. He said he felt that �he request for a Special Use Permit for�a second accessory building was for use as a garage and not for the storage of materials, except the materials that were on the truck. He thought there could be a stipulation that the only storage of material was on the truck and not in the garage. Mr. Harris asked how you would enforce that? Would you have someone run down there every day to see if the material was on the truck or piled in the garage? Mr. Harris said that after Mr. Merrell parked the truck and two cars in this garage, he would still have four feet on each end. He didn`t think this garage had to be as iarge as they were requesting. Mr. Merrell as�ed if any �� garage was ever too large? Mr. Drigans said he had to go back to Mr. Peterson's statement and agree that there was nothing in the code that said you couldn't build an accessory building larger than the primary building. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on a request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-27, by Margaret Merrell. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:29 P.M. t�r. Harris said as far as he could recollect, there weren't any commercial enterprises in this particular area. Most of this commercial development was on Main S�reet. Mr. Scott said he v�ould like to abstain from voting or this request because of a personal conflict he had in protecting the rights of a property owner which may be in conflict with harmony of the wommunity and our zoning ordinances, and he didn't thinic there was sufficient in�ormation in this area, to make a judgement on it. Mr. Peterson said he respected Mr. Scott's viewpoints, but on the other hand it would seem to him that we have taken steps to protect the adjoining property owner's by sending them a notice of this Public kl�arinc�. There was ^ no one here to protest this request, and the'neighbor'closest to the proposed garage has signed an agreement that they have no objection to this request. Mr. Scott said he agreed with that, but his conflict was that we might be setting a precedence. Planning Commission Meetinq - December 3, 1975 Page 8 Mr. Peterson said that zn our dis�ussion we have determined that this proposed garage was not in conflict with �ny of our codes. We have all agreed that if this was a smaller building, we wouldn't have even questioned it. � MOTION by Peterson, second�d by LangenfeZd, that the Planninq Commission recommend to Council approval of a request_.for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-27, by Maryaret MerreZl, to a11ow a second accessory bui.Zding, a 28' x 32` detached garage, on Lots 9 and 10, B1ocY. 3, Plymouth Addition, per Fridley City Code. ' 5ection 205.051, (2,A), the sarrte being 4f332 2 1/2 Street N.E. -- •• �• � . Mr. Bergman said he felt this garage was in violation of the code because our code says that a second accessory building should only be 240 square f�et, and th-is was 896 square feet. Mr. Peterson said that if he correctly read the code, it was because there was a secondary building on this lot that was 240 square feEt was the reason a Special Use Permit was needed for the garage, not because the proposed garage was in violation of any code. Mr. Boardmar. said this was carrect. Mr. aoardman sai� the reas�n a Special Use Permit was se-� up for second accessory buildings over 240 square feet was so they would have a handle on it if there were any special problems vrith this second accessory building. Mr. Harris said he thought the size of the structure was not in keeping with the residential atmosphere of the neighborhood. He didn't think the - petitioner had to have this large a gara�e, and that was why he was not in. favor this requ�st. He said he would have votecl in favor of the request if the garage wasn't so large. He said he could sympatf�ize with the petitioner wanting to get an expensive piece of machii;ery in out _�f the weather and t� protect his invest- � men�. Mr. Bergman sc�c� he agreed with Mr. Harris. � Mr. Merrell said 'r�=re was a 24' x 32' garage at 4839 2 1/2 Stree� �i.E. which was only 4' sm: , r than the garage he was proposing to build and he thought this garage : ' upgrade the area and not downgrade the neighbarhood. t�r. Harris asked if r�eighbor only had the one accessor�� b�.�ilding? Mr. Merrell said he did. Harris said wnat you were asking �'or was 1;i36 square feet of accessory b;, �s on your lot. He already had 2G-0 square feet and the proposed garage �,< ��6 square feet. Mr. Scott sa �ci f-;.� �hought h1r. Merrel l should be commended for trying to get this truck off c;� the street. Mr. Langenfeld askeci if i;he storage s�ed was anchored. Mr. Merreli said it was and he had also just pu�; r�e�,N aluminum siding on it. P�1r. Langenfeld said this storage shed would not then be easily removed. UPON A VOICE VUTE, �riyans and Petersor� vot.ing aye, Bergman and Harxis voting nay, and Scott and Langer.fe.Zd abstaining, the MOTION FAILED. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commissi�n send the request for a Specia.I Use Permit., SP #75-27, by Margare� Merrell, to a1low a second accessory building, a 28' x 32' detached �araqe, on Lots 9 and 10, BZock 3, PZymouth Addition, per Fridle� City Code, Secticn 20.5.051, j2,A), the sarae be�nq 4&32 2 1/2 Street N,E., on to Council withouf: a r�carnr��ndation. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, thc� motion carried unanwmvusZy. ' 1 Chairman Harris �xcused P1r. Drigans fram the meeting at �3:45 �ecaus� � Planning Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 9 he had to return to vrork. � Mr. Merrell asked if this proposed garage hadn't been the second accessory building, would he need a Sp�cial Use Permit? Mr. Boardman said no,he wouldn't. Mr. Merrell said he had a friend on 46th Avenue who had a garage and had gotten a permit from the City to have a storage shed without going thr�ough the Special Use Permit process. Mr. Harris sai� that if Mr. Merrell already had a garage, then he could have the storage shed, but beca�.�se he already had the storage shed, the garage had to be considered as the second=accessory building. Mr. Merrell felt he would be better to move thE storage shed off his property until he had the garage built and then come in and get a special use permit for his storage �hed. He said it soun�ec� like it would be easier to get a special use permit for the storage shed than the garage. Mr. Harris said he should argue this out with the City Council because they had the final say on this req�aest. Mr. Merrell said he would rather have had a re o ndatian for approval by the Planni�g Commission than no recnmmendation. � Mr. Ik��s said he was close to having a recammendation for denial, so he should be happy that it went the way it did. . Mr. Langenfeld said the rea�on he abstained was because while he was in favor of the Special Use r�quest being approved for a garage, the s�ze of the garage kept him from vol;ing for �pproval. 1'1 t�ir. Scott said he didn't �dant Mr. Merr�ll to leave this meeting feel ing that tl�e Planning Commission didn't have cai�cern for his rights as a property owner, as it was just the size of this garage which made them have reservations in considering this reru�st. He said•that if there hadn't been this concern, they would have vo�e� for denial, instead af leaving the decision up to the City Council. NOTION by Scott, seconded by Bergnan, that the rules be suspended for the purpose of making a motion to direct the Community Development Commission to address itself to this type of prob3em and then make a recom�rnendation to the PZanning C�mmission on how to handle such problems. Mr. Qoardman said this could be-handled when the Community_I�evelopment_ Commission reviewed th� zonTr�g c�de. Mr. Narris fe�t that this would be too far into the future, an� they could just review this aspect of it at this time. UP�l7 A VOICF VOiL, a1Z �,roti<2; ��e, the mot�:ori c.a.rr.zed unanimously: 2. PUQ[_IC HEI�RING: RE7..CIdI��lia !?EQUEST, 7_OA #75-06, BY UNION OIL COMPANY: To � rezone part �f`�Lot �(s Aud�tor's Subdiv�sion NQ. 25, from C-1S (iocal shopping areas) to C-2 fc�enE�°al sh�;p�ing areas) to make zoning cansistent with use as a service static�n, �#�e same being 5695 Fiackmann Avenue N.E. 3. P(�g(�T,, HE�RI;�G: EtEQIJEST FOR A SPFCIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-28, QY UNION OIL C�Oi��P�ti,Y:��io ��er;T�it the c�antinuation of an eristing service station, per � Frid�ey C�vy Cod�, Sectien 205.051, 6(3,E), on part of Lot 1, Auditor`s Subdivisi�n P•lc�. 2.5, the san7e 't�eing 5595 i-lackmann Avenue N.E. �� Plannin� Commission Meetinq - December 3, 1975 Paqe 10 MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission open the Pvblic Hearings on a rezoning request, ZOA #75-06, and a request for a � Special Use Permit, SP #75-28, bu Union Oi1 Company. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris decl�red t_he Public Hearings open at 9:03 P.M. Mr. Glenn Hubbard, represent�ng Unie� Oil Company, Mr. & h1rs. L�wis Nedlund, who own the property just West of this proposal, and Mr. Glenn Nelson of 5747 Central Avenue N.E. we�e present at the meeting. Mr. Boardman said that Unicn -0i� Coi7pany first asked for rezoning and a Special Use Permit back in 1972, in order to bring their property into compliance with the City Code. At that tir�e, we were having a revitilization of the intersection of NackmaE�n Avenue, C�ntrai Avenue, and Highway #65, and the plans had not been finalized. The rezoning wasn't denied, but Union Oil was asked to 4�ait until the road pian had been established. Now, we do have approval for the prcliminary plans far this intersection, as shown in the agenda. The r"inal p�ans are now be�ng drawn up by the State Highway Department. Therefore, Union Oi? C�mpany has again submitted their request for rezoning and a Special Use Permit. Mr. Boardman said the present zoniny was C-1S (local shopping areas) and the request was to change this to C-2 zon�ng (general business areas), which woul� make the use of the pro�erty for a service station consistent with our zoning code. Our present code requires a service station to be in C-2 zoning with a Special Use Permit. A service station was not an allowed use in C-1S zoning. Mr. Boardman said the staff felt they would go along with the rezoning � request and approval of the Special Use Permit. We do need some additional easements for Hackmann Aver�u�. He said that th�is should be one of the stipulations of the rezoning: Mr. Harris �sked hct� much of an easement was needed? Mr. Boardman said the plans wer�� in the process of being drawn up, but he believed they needed a 10' easement on trie South side of the property on Hackmann Avenue. Mr. Harris asked Mr. G1enn Hubbard how much this easement would affect the operation of the service sta.tion. Mr. Hubbard saiu it depended upon how much boulevard was required. He said there was a i0' boulevard there now, and with this ease- ment, it would hring it up to the present inside curb. He said that Union Oil Company wasn't too concerned about that now, because they did intend to rebuild this station and move it to �he South on this property within the next 18 months. He said that any hardship they had, they �ould live with until that time. He said they needed a minimum or 1�' from thF island to the curb, and he didn't know if they� would have i:hat. Mr. Hubbard said ±hey had heer. operati�?g under the present zoning since 1954. He sa�d they i�ad been in the �or�rect zoning until the zoning code was changed in 1969. He said with the chanyE in the street, they would have to relocate the building so they would have better access for this station. Mr. Boardman said that as �che finai plans were just being drawn up for the intersection, they were not sure as to the actual amount of easement needed. He sai� they may an3y have �o take an e�ser�ent on the�Northwest corner of the property. He said they had originally thcught they would need a 10' easement across ihe entire front of the �ar�perty. Mr. H��bard said that if they could � have the 14' on a temporary basis,:he didn't tF�ink they would have any problem. �irs. Nedlund asked if whe.� the station was "relocated, would this be any� Planning Commission Meeting - December 3, 1°75 Page 11 � closer to the house at 930 H��ckmann Avenue than it was at the present time. Mr. Hubbard said it wouldn't be. They would be relocating further South on the lot but it would be in line with the present location. Mr. Glenn Nelson said that Union Oi1 Company had been a good neighbor, but he was concerned that any further commericalization of this area could change the residential atmosphere pf the area. h1r. Hubb�rd said that at the time of their previous request, there was a loop back plan, and they had intended that a 7-11 Store would be going in on their vacant property, but there were no plans for this property at this time. Mr. Louis Hedlund said that they felt that Union �il Company had been a good neighbor. He said his prime concern was what type of business could be located in C-2 zoniny, if Union 0il ever decided to go out of business at this location. Mr. Boardman checked the zoning code and determined that there were a lot of similar uses that were a1lowQd in both zonings. The only things that we.re allowed in C-2 zoning and not C-�S were bars and taverns, co�mercial recreation, restaurants, excluding "Drive-Ins", hotels and motels, hospitals, , clinics, nursing homes, convalescent homes, homes for the elderly, vocational � trade schools, laboratories, medical, dental and optical, and harmless an'd inoffensive laboratories accessory to permitted uses, in same building, and theatres, lodges, assembly halls, and auditoriums were allowed in both zonings but in C-2 zoning they could seat more than 30U people. Mr. Boardman said another difference in the zonings were that there were no uses allowed in C-1S zoning with a Special Use Permit, while there we�e uses allowed in C-2 zoning with a ^ Special Us� Permit. Mr. Hedlund said that they felt that what ever Union Oil Company wanted to do on this property, they were in favor of it, but they wanted them to be able to do that without rezoning. Mr. Harris said the problem was that they couldn't do what they wanted to do, without rezoning. Mr. Peterson said it bothered him that � company came into Fridley and invested it's money in good faith and has paid taxes for many years, then we changed our zoning code, and they have not been able to expand their business or have the same due process as other businesses in Fridley, and he felt this was an inequity. He said they have wanted to upgrade this property since 1972 and they are still waiting. � Mrs. Hedlund asked if there was any control the Planning Commission could put on this property if it was zoned C-2 as to what type of business could be located on this property. Mr. Scott said they could not control any use allowed in C-2 zoning a�ymore than they could control any C-1S use allowed, if this property was not rezoned and Union Oil Company sold the property. Mr. Harris asked'how large the property was that Union Oil Company was asking to have rezoned. Mr.' Boardman said he thought it was approximately 20,000 square feet. Mr. Peterson said the size of the property wouTa preclude a lot of the uses allowed in this zoning because it wouldn't be large enough for a beer tavern or trade school, hotel or motel or some of the other uses ^ allowed because after they had the building up, they wouldn't have room to meet the parking requirements. He said the size was best suited to a service station use. Planninq Commission Meetin �- December 3, 1975 Page 12 MOTION by Scott, seconded b� Peterson, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing_on rezoning r�quest, ZD�i #75-06, by Union OiI Comgany. Upan a voice dote, a1l voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed� at 9:46 P.M. . . , . . _. t10TTON by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommend ta Gouncil approval of the rezoning request, ZOA #75-06, by Union Oi1 Company, t'o rezone from C-�S (Zocal shopping areas) to C-2 (general business • areas), _ part of Lot l, Auditor's �u�division No. 25, to make zoning consistent with use as a service statior., the sam� being 5695 Hackmann Avenue N.E., with the stipulation that they provide the necessary easement for highwa� purposes. Mr. Scott said he was going to vote against this motion because he felt it was inconsistent with the zoning of the surrounding area and was a classic example of spot rezoning, which effEC�s may have serious long range implications that we are totally at present totally unaware. He felt there were adequate means for the operator, cr owr,er, to improve the property as it was presently zon�c�, and inher��t business opporturities caused by such improvement, and because of the opposition of the surrounding property.owners. UPON A Voice vote, Bergman, Harris, Peterson, Lanqenfeld voting aye, Sco�t nay, tl�e motion carried. Mr. Hedlund said he didn't understand what a Special Use Permit was. Mr. Boardman explained it to hirn. He explained that if the Special Use Permit was granted to allow the operation of a service station on this property, that . the Special Use would only be in effect as long as the property had that use. If the use changed, and it was somethi:�g else that requir�d a Special Use �,,,� Permit, there would be another Public Hearing, as on this Spec�al ��e. Mr. Hedlund said he didn't want it to appear that he was in o�pasition to anything that Union "76" wa.nted ta do. He said they had b�en a go�d ne�ghbor and they have always kent their promises. He was just worried about what purpose this property could be used for if Union Oil Company sold the property. Mr. Scott said this was why he vot�d against the rezoning. He felt the service stati�n could upgrade their property without rezoning. Mr. Boardman said you have to take into considera�;?on how much money a company would want to spend on a non-conforming use, becaus� if tf�e struc�ure was damaged more than 50% by wind or fire, they couldn't r�built this property and would be forced to sell it, and that was placing a�~eal hardsnip on ihis property owner. Chairman Harris said the rezoning of this property had already been disposed of, and they were considering -che Special Use Permit. P1r. Langenfeld said there vaere 2� prcperty owrers notified of these requests and only two property owners appeared at tMis rneeting, so he didn't feel there was much opposition to these requests. He said that the people who spoke on these requests were not opposed to Union Qil Company either updating their present structure, or rebuilding, so there was no total disayreement: Mr. Harris said that with the easement that would be needed for highway �urposes, we would be making par� of this b��siness inoperable, so that �vould be an additional hardship on this property owner, if he couldn`t rebuild the station. Mr. Harris said we could st�pulate that annual�y, plus there be another review at the permit fer a new building. this Special Use Permit be reviewec�� time they request a building Planning Commission P1eeting - December 3, 1975 Page 13 Mr. Nelson said his only objection was to spot rezoning, but he trusted Union Oil Company to do what they said they would do. � Mr. Peterson said he thought it was commendable that Union "76" has the type of relationship with their neighbors that they would come to a public hearing and state that they trust Union "76" and Mr. G1enn Hubbard to do what Mr. Hubbard said they would do. He said he wanted to thank Mr. Hubbard for being that good a neighbor in our community. Mr. Scott said that even though he voted against the rezoning, he had no objection to this service station operating on this property. He said that for this reason he would be in favor of granting the Special Use Permit. Mr. Boardman asked Mr. Hubbard if he had any objection to the City putting a two year time limit on this service station either being upgraded or rebuilt. Mr. Hubbard said he had no objection. N� said tre rebuilding of this statian was not in this year's budget, but with the two year timetable, he was sure it would be rebuiTt in that time. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearinq on a request for a 5pecia� Use Permii, SP #75-28, by Union OiI Compan�. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 10:15 P.M. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of a Special Use Permit, SP #75-28, by Union Oil Company, to permit the continuation of an existing service station, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, B(3,E), or part of Lot 1, Ruditor's Subdivision No. 25, � the same beinq 5695 Hackinann Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: �, 1. This Special Use Permzt be subject to annual review, with emphasis on their housekeeping, etc. 2. That within two years the Eity u�ould like to have this operation updated. 3. When a building permit was re��esi�d for either major remodeling of this service station or to construct a new service station, this Special Use Permit be reviewed. UPON a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Harris declared a recess at 10:20 P.M. and reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 10:35 P.M. 4. RECOMMENDATION DN PROP�SED RULES AND REGULATIONS FROM THE (�IP�NESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL �UALITY COUNCIL MOTTON by Langenfeld, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission receive the memo from Jerrold 3ourdrnan to Dick Sobiech, dated November 25, 1975. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, th� motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 14' t�lEMO T0: h1EP�0 FROP:1: Dick Sobiech, Pub17c G��orE;s Director Jerrold L. �oardman, City I'lanner ME�10 DATf : November 25, i 975 RE: Minneso��a Environn��ntal Q�!ality Cou��cil's �roposed Ru1es and Regulai;ions Tf�e 1��I� nnesota Envi romm�nta i Qual i iy Counc7l uras es�tabl i sl�ed by the State Leg�i sl ati�re under the t�1i nne,ota Env i r�onmental Fo i i cy Act of 1973. The purpose of which ��ras prom�tio��, ec�;acation and prot:ectior of the State`s en��ronn,er►tal charact�r. Under this act, �he t�1inr�esota E+��vironmental Quali�;y Counci�i �-aas giv�nthe aut��orii:y to estab1ish ru1es and rr�gulations to carr•�� out �;h� intent of the 1�::i. f,owever, beca.u�e of the ext�nt o� the responsibilities, i:hey quic�:ly.��:�r�e boggeG do�vn. f��r �i�is reason tf�ey i?aci a consul tant s'cudy the �Y�atter ur� sug�cst a poss� hlE� sal u �i on to the �robl ��n�. The ccns±�l±a:�i: re�ort s��c�qest.ed 1:!�� d��:P►� ��ra1 i�ation of res�or�si bi l i-t.�� of enforcing tl�e F�c� �;o thev�ta�;e, Cuunt�� an�t local units of governmeni� tr:at are mor� directly related ta tr�e contrc�? Uf environmental concerns. �ecause of �;hi s move, they fel t that Lhe �nvi roi�men�cal i sJUL� ��JOUI d be brauc��i � up early in the perrrit process ins�ead of af�er• most of the �amage i�ad aireaciy been done. � ' The f"ridley Ci'ty Counci i, �n January 20, i 97��, �'oted to ��o,�F: 4�r�i t!� �he P1iri�eso�ta Environmei�tal (?ualit�� Councii �n settin� up a_n orc�inancc tha�: coul d be used to carry out �l�e i�itent of the Mi n��2s?ta �r�vi ronment:�� P�1 i cy r� S� �? `' , i1 �.) �� L� Q Act. Th��se ru i �s and ;�egu i a.f.�i or,s are pri �.�a�� ly th r�r or��s tc cfa,�i , t�1i nnesoi:a Envi r�onmen�ta i Quai i t� Counci i ur�ci wi 11 sE�'; i::��r �� cund r,�or�: �cr 7ocal ordinanc�s. • . '. In goi n� throunh t�e nroposed � ul��, �{nd regul �.'.:i oF�� , there are a f��-,� areas that should be carefiully ioor:eca at �n order t� ir�«k° this � n��or� c��-f�ect-ive working document. � 1. T sirong'y urge that the t�1i ��nes�i.a Envi r.onmenial Q��al i �y GOUt1C�i 7 lo�k fo�° a moti°e effect�ve framel�rarE: ��rliich we«Id al?ow for ?unc� ��ar�ge envi ronmental pi anni i7g to de �ermi ne everal l effects or cle�re� c�p��: i�-t on the environment. Thr� rules and regulatio��s tiiat are hei;�c� �:��o�:osed may �� necessary for St07 Cju(� PffdY'�i,�, flOt�Jt'V�Y', t�,Ey �►n�y �n �;il^ �OriC� Y'ilti �Tc detrimen�tri� t0 �;f1� �0 �� PV� � 0��17�{l� 0�� d C1;I17111Ui1'1 t�'. F�T' �;ill � 1'�dSOp � steps ►r�ust be take�i for the �:otal er;vironm�:►��1 pla��ning Gnu �?a� just hi � and miss under the proposed rules. Ret� i i zi ng that �nti 1 env�i �r��nenia i pl a�,;� i ��y car� be uccaa��l i�'�,�d, �.;.c= efforts to coritroi E�n��;ron�nentai entangl��i;��n';.s must con2e by U�ay o�� sorne establ � sl�e� rul e, ano i�oul d:�e ��ore e�i�ec�i vely ii� ncS � e:f ai: �: h�i 1°vel of agency respansi�ie 1=0?� t�� i�suance of pers»its. �1 2. Under these ru�:es ar;� ��:'�ra?�.�tions, ti�e public agenc�ies. arc� r�s�or�sibl�, f01" t,�?P. prepa�a �i c�� cr 1;�i� �ti�,'l Y'4I1i�1�C1+�� (iOCUlI1C'tl i;S e�tl �;il i10 i�'2�:�115 n�' COfi{r�:41-�._ sation i;Q CGV('Y' �:�1� COS� 0� �tlt� (�1'l?})�P'd�:.lOtl Qi' SllC{1 C�OCUI�IEiii;S. �1 � • 3. Under ^tE(?C lfi (�:�) 4, ii�� I��ir�>:.�s�t.1 Cnvirenm��;�t �' C�.;�,�li i:,�; C;r�unc�il roi�y �' �1.1j1j.?�C��'.'.(lt t:�',�'. 111:1t��lt.0i"'}f f,ifi'.('.(J()Y'lf?5 �'U�' i��l �l;Vl1�U!�i�lt.'�li:tt� �SS�:��.;11��1it: �VO1'Y- sheet wi thou 4�� p�ibl i��c<tr�i �.�y ��m.ace ,s . A1 t.f�►ou�i�� <� ;��.�bl i ��}eari ng }�rocess Planning Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Paqe 15 is more bulky in this instance, I feel that it is a necessary part in maintain�ing the control at the local level. � � 4. Under MEQC 26 (c) 6, the time periods are too broad and inconsistent. . They should all,o�ti� for straight time periods s�;cf� as �"30��days aft.er the � draft EIS is filled", and "... for 20 days to allow.... . � n 5. ��EQC 27 (a) &(b) are unclear as to whatconsi;il:utes a major ac�ion of more than local significance. This would make local decisions iao o�eri to challenge through the Minnesota Environmental Quality Co�n�2ci1. I��eel tha�; this is a very important area of concern and shculd be bet�ter qualified. 6. i��EQC 27 (c) 2, rcquires a jud�errent on the c�,�!��'ativ� e�'�ect o� related or future actions. This could give very f�lse �read�ngs uue i,c unwarra.ti�ted specuiation and should relate itself more to in:luced effec�;s as a resu;t of this or other simultaneous actions. 7, i�iEQC 30 (b) 3, the anticipated environmental ef�ects sr�o;��d be sc statec so as nat �to burden those persons or grou�.�s of persons u�i tf� detai l ed , co��nlex and/�r expert testimony, but should be able to be �ransmitied to th� ��1EQC in layir�ar.s terms. This should be spelled ou� mare clearly. s. NEQC 30 (e ), 1;h�re i s no ti me l i m� t p1 ac�d o�� the �e�tti n7 of i:k�n pu5lic hearing cn a challenge for a negative deciaraticn notice... 9, 'h��QC 35 (a), no time limit is set for nocice of permi� application. � As previousl�y stated, I feel that this type of action bas�d on Envirorm��!�ta1 Qualit.y Council rules and regulations should only be a action and steps should be iaken to encouraye environmenta.l planning as C�oss-��lc. . JLB/de the h4i►�nescta temporary as soon Mr. Scott said he would like to publicly acknowledge the tremendous job that Mr. Boardman has again done on this recommendation. He has adequately expressed the concerns of the Human Resources Commission in his report to Mr. Sobiech, especially para�raph 7, which was �hat we were specially concerned about. He also expressed the same general conformation in other paragraphs of this document. The Human Resources Commission felt that the spirit and intent of this memo was certainly consistent with the idea of promoting human concerns as was expressed by our mation to the Planr�ing Cammission after our review of this document. Mr. Langenfeld said that due to a lack of a quorum, the:Fridley Environmental - Quality Commission had not had a meeting on this proposal. He said that he then asked each member of the Commission to mak� their own review and to make their recommendations in writing. He said he hadn't received any written recommendations, but he had talked to Brother Sullivan on the telephone, and had taken notes of that converaation. He said the concerns expressed by Brother Sullivan were that he wasn't an expert on terminology, but he felt the proposed rules and regulations were very thorough. Nowever, under MEQC 22, Purpose (b), in relatiqn to the information document to justify an action etc., he felt that this was a guide �� Planning Commission Meetin�_- December 3, 1975 Page 16 only, and that the entire context of these impact statement rules were lacking force. He could not see any means of enforcing it. He has also indicated his concern relating t� the cost to a municipality or to an individual devel�per� He would also like to know the �verage cost of preparing an environmental impact statement. He mentioned that in regards to page 12, under N�QC 27, where they mention "Major Action" and "Locai Significance", that he would like to have these spelTed out, as the terms were too vague. This concluded 6rother Sullivan's comments. � Mr. Langenfeld said that Mrs. Lee Ann Sparre, another member of this Commission, was in the audience and would make her concerns known in person. Mrs. Sporresaid the view she would express would be her own and not the opinion of any other organizatior of which she was a member. She said she had looked over Mr. Boardman's mem� and sne agreed whnlPheartedly. The only comment she would have would be to re-enforce the statements made in paragraph l,_arid-she thought the ques�tians raised in paragraph 5-were valid, but the vunerability rem�ins �ecause the State h�s �een �ax in providing technical assista.n�e for local government. She said she did agree t{�a'r, we should have some decision making at the local level, and that this was the �deal. However, the proposed rules and regulations pase two major deficiencies. The rules and regulations include little or no guidance on the significance factor. To equip the local gevernments w�th the right to decide was i�eal, however, the thresholds in the proposed rules and regulations are set so high tha� most decisions would not go through an environmenta�l assessm2nt staiEment. �s an :�>�ample of this, as you look thr�ugh this proposal, you can see wh�t kind c traffic patterns they a�e��e r—�� pro�csing for an environmental �ssessment L�aorksi-,eet. Those are very majur thresholds, and those, in effec�, would nat halt action. She said that wP��r Paul McCarran brougr�t the Norihtown proposal to the Metropolitan Council; they determined that this wauld rot have enough environmental impact for an environmental impact statement. We now know that this had a significant environmental impact, and will have far reaching ramifications. She thought that with today"s v�iews, we would l�rarot �o ao through some type cf environmental assessment prior to commitment. That legal tool was not available to citizens at th�t time. Mrs. Sporre said the second deficiency was the need for criteria in procedural review by the sub-po�aers of the Environmental Quality Council, in other µro rds, a regional board for lacal governments. The document speaks very little about that type of processes. She said she also felt quite strongly that in the State of Minnesota, they will have to provide more technical assistance to local units of gc�vernment, which should be provided by the State. She fel� this was needed f�r gu;dancE and shoula be provided for in the rules and regulations. The decisions then :;ould be based on the environmental data and implemented by the local government, who H�ould have that kind of knowledge in harid, before becoming deep�y entrenched in any-development. It was very difficu�t for the public to ge� access ta information prior to decisions. She thought it shauTd be re-enforced that the State make that kind of technical assistance available. Mrs. Sporre said she objected ve�,y strongly io a section of P�1EQG 3�, that required 500 signatures as an imaortan� factor. She said thP yuestion ought r�o�� to be r�aised as t� whether trere were 500 valid signatures, but whether there - � Planning Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 17 was potential for significant detrimental environmental effects. If one citizen can raise the case, and show just cause, that ought to trigger the process. � She said just think about a town where everyone was employed by one company, � you couldn't expect the company to take a stand against themselves. Mrs. Sporre said she felt the proposed rules and regulations did very little to integrate with local decision making processes. She said that because the thresholds were set so high, they have ignored the strong policy statements that were set up by the legislature in the Minnesota Environmental Policy Flct, and that the proposed rules and regulations had eroded away the commitment the public had when the MEPA was established. She felt this kind of system was not likely to inspire an environmental conscience or increase the environmental integrity of local government, and will merely serve to antagonize them. Mrs. Sporre said she thought it was most important for the State to provide technical assistance to iocal communities who were trying to ge� into an environmental planning program. She said that Fridley has asked for this technical assistance, and to her knowledge, had not received this aid. She thought it was desirable fior a community �o be self-sufficient, but there were many technical questions that have to be raised. She said that it was very common for a lot of small communities not to have a planner, much less a technical staff necessary to evaluate environmental problems. She said that you have to remember that environmental problems were not confined by the boundaries of one community, but can cover large areas, and this was where the state concept for the best use of our resources was developed. She also felt that you shouldn't have to get the State for this technical assistance, but that the State should be making the effort to promote and encourage environmental planning at the local level.� � Mrs. Sporre said that in summary she would like to say that the statements Mr. Boardman had made in his memo were ��alid, but they needed to be re-enforced. She would also like to know if the Planning Commission was going to make a recommendation to the City Council on the action to be taken on this proposal, and if that recommendation would then become the position of the City of Fridley? r'1 �hairman Harris said she had asked a pretty tough question. Mrs. Sporre said the reason she had asked it was because she didn't feel that this proposal had gone through extensive citizen input. She didn't think the citizens of Fridley were aware that there would be a position taken on something that would have a long-range effect. She said that if the P1ar,ning Commission recommen�ation was going to the Council on December 8th, and the Council had to vote on it that night so the recommendation could be taken to the Minnesota Environmenta� Quality Council on Tuesday, then she thought it sh�uld be noted that the Planning Commission had not had this document long enough to give it a fair evaluation. Mr . Scott said that t�1rs. Sporre had appeared at the Human Resources Commission and had spoken in general terms as she had at this meeting, The Human Resources Commission was in agreement with her presentation, and he would supqort herposition, by a motion, about the point she brought up about lack of review, because there was no question �n the seriousness of this proposal. Mr. Boardman said the City had received this proposal about 15 days before the public hearing date set by the Minnesota Enviror.mental Quality Council, and then we were allowed 20 days after this hearing to make our position known. Chairman Harris asked what the big hurry was on all these types of things. He said it happened all the time, and that everything we got from the State said �_� �� P1anning Comrnission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 18 we had to have an ans��er back in 15 days, or 20 days. He said he wondered what they thought we had here in Fridley. t{e said that the Council, the Planning � Commission and member Commi;sions met t4��ice a month, some only once. He said that this was an important decision to be made, and we shouldn't have to hurry our recommendation. He couldn't see whv they had to be in such a hurry that they seemed to »ant to cram these proposals down our neck without giving us a chance to look at them. He said the same thing happened on the Shoreland Management Act. We prepared a position and went to the public hearing, and all we got was a fast shuffle. Mr~. Scott said he was in total aqreement with Mr. Harris' statement. Mr. Langenfeld said he had felt tne same way every since he had seen this proposal. Mr. Harris said th� thing that bother�d him about this proposal was that we have handled the private section pretty we11, but how about the public sector? The people they never address was the Minnesota�'Highway Department. He said that to mai:e his.�ai�t, he �•rauld brin� u� that �n this �ind of weathEr the highway department just loved to go aut and dump all kinds of salt on the highways. That runs off into the ditches, and f:rom the d�tches ii goes to Moore Lake, and eventually ends up in the rivers and streams and ponds all over the State. He sa�d that nobody goes over and slaps ti�e wrists of the Highway Department. He said he felt there wasn't o�e mechanism in ihese proposed goals and objectives to police the Highway Departme��t, and in his estimation, these were the people �that committed the ��est heinous crimes against the environment. Mr. Langenfeld thunked Mrs. Sporre for her comments, and said he had a few of his own as Chairman of the E��viron�ental Quality Commission. Mr. Langenfeld � said the only place he could agree with this proposal was on page 8 where they start talking about 50 tons of s�:lfuric acid, and major mining operations, etc., but he said he was in 100% agreement with,the comments from Brother Sullivan and Mrs. Sparre, es�ecially as to the eiifarcErient procedure. He said he felt there was no real �uide for local governn�ent, and was not related to dec�ntralization at all, which awhile ago �vas their main con�ern. He said you would have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to comprehend this proposal, which meant that you would have to be a very well educated person to inter�ret this proposal correctly. He said he felt the �nvironmental asses�ment w�rksheet would be an attempt to put on paper a guide to furtner your impact statement proeedures. He said the entire documer.t was without "teeth" er "bite" to it, as far as enforcement. He said he felt that yo� would definitely need to have technical kno�nrle�ge and know-how. Ne said he couid not say `�� approved of this proposal as it was presented. Ne said tf�at �n regard �o M��. Qoardman's memo, he was especia?ly in agreement with paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8. Mr. 8ergman asked ifi anyoi�e thought the generai intent of the proposed rules and regulations were gaod? Mrs. Sporre said she didn`t, because the intent was the Minnesota Enviror.mental Policy Act. This was an attempt to show what that intent was, and the basic principals c�f i;nat Act have be�n eroded away by this proposal, She said wnen the ��EPA was written, they didn't intend to have an interinediary proposal such as the enviromental assessment statement, which would not stop development, but to go with an environmental inkpact statement process, which would act as an injunction, until an environmental assessment could be de�termined. ,� Mr. Bergman saiu 6�e was �ai probubly as well informed on this as some other people were, but it ��as his un�erstanding that the environmental assessment Planning Commission t�eeting - December 3, 1975 Rage 19 worksheet was a preliminary worksheet that the possible effect, in broad terms, and ta � environmental impact would be subsequently building permit. If the developer did not worksheet so that this determination could not be issued. He asked if fie was not cor was the control? � r'1 must be filled out to determine determine whether or not an required, and the control was by prepare an environmental assessment be made, then a building permit would rect in this assumption in that this Mr. Boardman said he would try to clarify this. He said that up to this time, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council were dealing on a daily basis with the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act. This Act gave them the authority to review assessments to see if they were going to have an impact or not. The Minnesota EQC found that in most cases, the impact or the assessment that they were reviewing was already 25% to 50% completed. They then asked themselves what they could do to push this avrareness to a place where it would be know before development started. They decided they had to put this awareness at the level where permits urere yranted. They want all the facts before any development starts, to use in an env�renmental assessment. Ne said that to defen� the MEQC a little bit, he thought �his point was good. They coui:' not write into their controls that every building permit in the State had ta "�e reviewed by them before a permit could be granted. He said their antici�: d approach through these proposed rules and regulations was to make that ,�reness known to the local units of government, where permits were granted. :;e said there were very many weak areas in the proposed rules and regulations, as far as controls. He said he thought this was wh�re local government was going to have to step in and say� that these rules and regulations were fine �s far as State and County levels, but they were weak as far as local controls. The local unit of government will have to determine what controls they need far their local permits, so tney are done in the same manner. He said some of the protection clauses in this proposal were weak and needed some work, but the idea. behind it was good. He said there were some things they couldn't relate to because of the way that MEPA was written.. It did allow them to set up rules and regulations, but it did not grant them the authority to waive this review with an environmental plan. He said he thought the environitiental plan was of key importance to your local units of government, as well as at the State level. He said that if these controls were put on without any environmental planning, he thought`it wauld be more detrimental to the total dnvelopment of a community than not having a plan at all. Mr. Boardman said that another thing that really bothered him was that they are putting the responsibility in at the local level without any means for the local unit of government to recover its costs. We have no means of assessing any property or any developer. if we have to prepare an assessment on a property. It would be our responsiblity to do that, and yet we have no authority to charge anyone for this. Mr. Bergrnan said the local unit of government wouldn't have to issue a building permit until all this had been done. Mr. Boardman said we wauld not have to issue a permit, but we would have to write this additional delay into our environmental programs. We are going to have to take this a lot farther than what the State has. They have taken it to a certain point, and then they have dropped it. He said there Gaas a large area beTow these rules and reguTations that was a big void. We will have to make determinations at the local level and determine what ass�ssment process we would have to go through in order to get that program working. It will have to be written into this program that if an assessment was required, we would not issue the building permit, until an assessment has been processed. .Mr.tangerfeld said that'if he looked at this proposal, as far as it went, he coul� agree with it, but he couldn't agree to it in relation to Fridley. It Planning Commission Meeting - Decembe1r 3, 1975 Page 20 would have to be our q�als and ��t�s that would have to fill that void that Mr. Qaardman mentioned, y� said we have talked about this ordinance before, and this could be used to pick up the missing element. �� Mr. Harris said he was not worried ab�u� us, he was worried about them. Mr. Petersan said he got a little h�ated on this subject also. Somehow we seem to feel that we can get technical adv�ice fr•om the State, and expert advice an how to run things. He �aid the largest single offer?d��r, as i�ar as being detrimental to the envi rcnment, P,Gs been uni':.s of gover�nn�er�t, u �c+ ��y are going to be asked to gi�e Fr�idley techn�i�;ul advice. Their advice weul� probably tell us how to pol?ut� faster. He said that we wo�Eld ue asking pLople who work for the State for ad�+ice, w,�en th�y know ►;othing ahoat th�: particular probl ems i n Fri dl ey. He sa � d i•?li%?; e�i th�r he d; dn' � urdvrstand "�rs . S�or1�e , or else she had talked two Si�e� of �the street, He said you coulcin"t a�� ;he State to run this and send the e>cr�E�r�±s in to do al1 of th�se th�inys fo�� s, without them not even bothering ��a gEt our con�e�t. They arP just goir�� tr, bulldaze. :e said that a yeaw ayU, i-�e n�4��e;�c�i �4o E��avG �l�c p��;v�1�.ge �f traveiling to Russia. They have tne �ESt goverr�i�ent ex.nerts of any country in the world, and everything w�s run from the centr�.l governmEnt and .yei; t��y probably have more pollution tl�arr any country i� the world also, esp�c:aily in the fii el d of human ri ghts . Ne sai d t��at � n R��ss�i a the p1 ann i r..g goes frorr the top to the bottom. He said that �n ti�is ccuntry, vJe plan from the �ottni�� to the top, and he got very upset wher� we ask the "c�mel to come in��a the �en�t'�, �rzd th�is was just what we were dning when we t�sk for more technical advic;e ��r��n the State, more experts, and more peoplE who are more r�served fra!r the s��e, then you were campounding your troubles. He sa�id he couldn't uno.erst��r,u �tnz Nurr�an Resources Commission endarsi►�g this, :��h�r� i� was ai�i er��asion o� �rhe princ�pl�s � of human rights. t�1r. Scott sai d they ��ere��' �c encior. s i ng r�avi ne� the Sta�e comi ng -i nto Fr� dl ey to tei'i us what to do, what we svere endors ; n� w�s �l�at the average ci ;,�� zen di dn't have the expertise to combat this sart of th�r�c�, anc� without this exper��ise, they have to have help. tde want the 5tate to have this typz of Pxpertise available for the at�erage citizen so ti�ey can d�termine if a proposal wou�d be d��rimental to the environment. h9r. Bergman said that maybe the City of Fridley better start estabiishing that expertise then, because if we w�ant to have cantrol we better have �I�e tools to control the result. To ask "big brot'r�er" to come an� do all the wo!�k far us, but leave us in control, was �n co�ple`e conflict. Mr. Scott said he didn't think ther� was anyone in Fridley wha v��s a comple�te expert on the environ��ent. P�1r. aeier�son said h�: d;dn'� {cno�r if �t��ere was anyone at the State level thai s,►as ei�her. . Nir. Langenfeld said ihat when they f�irst got going en an envir�flnmen��a7 ardinance, in which they wo«id have c�b�Zazned tli� asslstance of "biy �r•other°, he personally did n�t feel �t?�at they �•!ould be completely dependent up�n t6�e State, however, whnn you have technical assistance and help that wa�rd be r�a�i1yava�1a�le, h� cauldn't. sP� rit�ytk��ing wrong with trying to seek this knowl �dge. he asked how e1 se were 1ti-C� ga�� ng io get thi s experti se? ''-1 Mr. °eterson sa�id t;��at 3�e un�:�ers��ad (��rs. S�arre to sGy s�veral ti��nes ±hat the Sta�e shoul d pr�tJi �le ih� ex��rti s� i n eva i uati c�n envi ronmental i�r��uct for cammuniti�s. Mr. �cott asf;eci P•�r,. S��;~N if she v�ould 17ke to answer this. Plannin� Cornmissinn Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 21 Mrs. Sp�rre said that sh� had said that the ideal situation would �e to maximize all the decision making at the local level, but she said there was good precedent to show that local government has not been accountible for � their decisions. They operate out of self-interest, without regard for their neighbor. She said that Fridley had been �he victim of some of these decisions. She felt that we just didn't live in Fridley, we live in the State of Minnesota. The place where we begin the theory of discretion was at the local level, but you have to get local units of government to have environmental awareness. She said that �vhat she was advocating was that the State do the thing that little Grow Towns��ip cannot do, afl� that was make available the data. I� the data was available, little Graw_ �awnship can make decisions that were accountable to the next generation. She said that for example, when they prepared North Park for an environmental assessment, they used every type of expert available. She said she thought ihere was a corporate conscious that would respond to providing an environmental assessment, if the data :�:as available. This data has to be provided early in the planning process. /'`r � Mr. Bo�rdman said they did not bring out the point in the rules and regulations, because they are not by law, authorized to do so, but he tnought 4vhat was needed at the local level was mandatory planning, with mandatory planning at the State level also. Mr. Harris said that"supposedly they have_always had it at the State level, but he was still more worried about that level, than the local level. Mrs. Sporre said they were not trying to get rid of planning at any level. She thought there should be State planning, Metropolitan planning, and local planning, but they had to start inter-acting with one another, and that would make them good neighbors. Mr. Harris said that would be fine that all the communities down the line get on the band wagorl and pull together, and then what happens. The Highway Departm�nt goes their merry way, and the Army Corps of Engineers go down and dredge the river, and they don't care where they throw , this material. Mrs. Sporre said this was still a deficiency in the propased rules and regulations. Mr. Harris said that he would like to see all the communities working together, but then we have "big brother" who can't even clean up their own mess, coming in to tell us how to clean up ours. He said that the government � should lead, not follow. He said we have a corpoation in Fridley called the F.M.C. Corporatior. The only permits that Fridley could require from them was for the very small building sitting out in front. He said that on all the other buildings on this site, they could do as they pleased, and Fridley couldn't say boo. We have another plant in that area called the Minneapolis Water Works, and we can't even go inside the fence there, and they do as they please. He said it was the same old story in that we can make the little guy conrorm, but how about the rest of them. He said this was his major objection to this proposal. They want �veryone else to da it, but t�ig government doesn't want to do it themselves: He saic! it wasn't only this plan, but every other plan, and he thought the-legislature should be made more aware of this. Mrs. Sporre said she didn't think the Flanning Commission or the City Council could address itself to all the problems with the legislation of these plans. Mrs. Sporre said that with these proposed rules and regulat�ons, the State staff was proposing legislation. They have changed significantly the intent of �.� Planning Co��ission Mectin� D�cember 3, �975 Page 22 �the legislature. Mr. Boardman said he th�ught the only thing they could address at this �`1 time was how this propasal ��as goin� to affect local levels of government. Mr. Bergman said he felt that Fridley could handle whatever this was all about. He said he �hought there were definitions lacking and you might find some specifics that r�eed clarification, etc., but he had confidence in the City administration and in the governmental bodies of Fridley, that if there was expertise required, that they wi11 develop or get the expertise that will work within this framework. He said he wasn't worried about it at the local level. He said he fir�7�ly agreed vrith Mr. Harris in the application to "big brother��, and them keeping their skirts clean. He said it bothered him to sit here and listen to peoQ�e say that Fridley couldn't handle this b ecause where would they get the expertise.� He said he didn't buy it at all to have "big brother" send down the expertise. He believed that our recommendations ought to be couched in the atmosphere that we agree that responsibility ought to be �rovi�.�� at the io�a? l�ve?s �n�± G�!Q acce�t the responsibility along with that delegation of control. Give us the job and we can handle it. He thought this was a better attitude tf�at saying that we aren't competent and neither are they, and the��, and they. He said he felt that the City could get guidelines and do their job responsibly. Chairman Harris said t�;ey were going to have to make some kind of a recommendation on this proposal, and he wished they had more time. Mrs. Sporre said that she felt that this was an attempt to put accountibility tr.here i t bel ongs . She sai d her reinar4cs �aere nat meant to be an attac;k on Fri dl c-�'1 or any other c�mmunity. It was an atiemp� to make good neighbors out of our neighbor��ng communities, an� make Fridley a goo� neighbor to other communities. Mr. Boardman said that this proposal was strictly a stop-gap measure. They are saying that they realize that there �as vaguer environmental planning that has to be done, ho��vever, we d�n't have the equipment to do that at this tim�, so what we have to da was to set up som� type of rules and regulations that will try to catch as much as they couid. He said that this was all this proposal was. Mr, Boardman said he was surperised that th� MEQC had put in as much time and effort�into this proposal as they did, t�u� that this proposal was no good if there was not a follow-up on environmental planning. All these rules and regulations aid was to lay out cert�in things that have to have an environmental impact statement, and there was no actual control at a�level importan� to local units. Mr. Narris sai� that if the pro�osal stays the way it was now, it would die on the vine for lacic of fir7ancing. He said OSHA was a very good example af �his. The gover�meni oec�ded it rr�oulc� be a good idea to have ari Occupaticna�l Safety and Health Act, and tk�e�r set all kinds of strident rules and regulations. They put penalties and teeth in this Act, like yau wouldn't believe. The trouble � was that they didn'� finance i� becau�e there wer°e no provisions made for financing. This was finally tut~ne� �ver to the S�a�p, because ��vhen the Federal government was running it, they had tflrep inspec�or°s to cover a regional 7 state area. Mr. 6oard�nan said this was �xactly wrr;at was happening here. The Minnesota E�vironmental Quality Coiancil didn`t ha�e �ither ttre manpower or the money � to handle enviranmental i�n��zut siateinents at the State level. Mr. Scott said he agre�d to what haci been said about "big brother". _He said Planning Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 23 that we have hired these "experts" and had a concern that for documents such ^ be available,because how can We combat we can't taTk in their terms. no�r they are running us. He still as this some expertise would have to detrimental environmental effects if Mr. Peterson said that he wasn't advocating that Fridley be an island uato itself, but he just did not have the confidence in central government dictating to us what was going to happen. Fie said that Russia had more planners than any country in thP world, bar none. He said the reason for the great pollution there was because there was no check and balance. He said that when you give the riynt to the State for mandatory planning, we give up our right to checks and balances. We maybe don't like law suits and they might be expensive, but they are an effective check and balance. He said we haven't developed anything better than that, and if you set up a court system within the bill itself, then you do away with the judicial review that we have now. This was what happened with OSHA. There was no judicial review within OSHA. You are guilty, become some inspector says you are guilty. Three people can interpret the same law differently. He s�id �that one person gets caught for this, and one person gets caught for that, and the other one is let go. He said that when they set the rules, they both regulated and referreed the..ball game. He said this was wh,y he objected to bringing in expert people to tell you what to do. Ne said they may be experts in their own point of view, but there might be other people who disagree, whose opinions might be just as valid. Mr. Boardman said when he was talking about mandatory planning at the local level, he was talking about all communities having mandatory planning. � This would give us a handle on what other communities are trying to do and how if could affect us. Without mandatory planning, we have no idea what another community was going to do. ^ ' Mr. Langenfeld said that if these rules and regulations were accepted, then the City of Fridley and all other communities would have to foliow them. Mr. Boardman said and regulations that we use this proposal as a was significant. they were very vague at the local level, so our rules set up could be more restrictive. He said you couldn't guideline because there were no guidelines as to what Mr. Harris said he didr't see how the Planning Commission could make a recommendation even after having spent this much time on it. Mr. Boardman said they were going to have to make some type of recommendation.. He said this wouldn't have to be on the prc�posed rules and regulations because they weren't going to affect Fridley that much. Mr. Harris said we can say that these proposed rules and regulations are deficient in some areas, and then they will ask us how they could be improved. We haven`t had time to come up with the things we would really like to see in this proposal. - Mr. Boardman said he didn't think the procPss would bather us too much, but there were some major points that should be brought out, and he thought they would have to be brought out to the MEQC. One of the points was environmental planning. Another point was the cost factor because he thought there should be some means that a local government could assess to cover thei'r costs for preparing an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Mr. Baardman asked �� « Plannin� Commission Meetin�� Qecember 3, 1975 Paqe 24 the Pla�ning Commission to ch�ck what were mandatory categories for Environmental Assessment Worksheets at the l�cal level (MEQC, a, 3). There was no commitment for a community to go any farther than this. There was no commitment as far � as drainage. He said the points on mandatary planning, and that �his was binding on all communities, were not too clear. It had to be determined what was a n�ajor environmental action �nd hotid we cauld determine what environmental siynificance was. Mr. Langenfe1d said he thought the MEQC should be mad� aware just how difficult these propased rules and regulations were to evaluate. He said they weren't prepared to make a recommendation. Mr. F'eterson said that he thought th�y all had the same basic concerns, but there was wide divergence on how this could be accomplished. Mr. Scott said they should have had time to work these problems out. t�r�. Board�nari sa � cl i�e il"ar� ��i1 WOY�k i nea wi tri ir�i s type af �roposal �o•r some time, and he did feel quitP strorzgly about the points he had made in his memo. Mr. Peterson said that he knew ti�ey all agreed that environmenta7 controi was important. h10TION by Scott, secon�ed by Peterson, that the P.Zanning Commission recommend to Gouncil that they supported the po�nts made in the memo from Jerro.Zd Boardman to �ick Sobiech, dated November 25, .Z975, but we feel the implications of this action 1�ave serious lony range connotations that were not adequately addressed •'�1 in these prnposed rules ann' regulations, and we feel very strongly that we were not provided w�.th adequate time in which to prepare a proper position on this proposal, and remonstrate the 1dEQC with not a1_Zowing us� enough time to Y.'u11.y study this proposal. h1r. Langenfeld asiced if it was possi�le to give Mr. Boardman permission to g� through these minutes and put the Planning Commission concerns in outline form and submit that to the MEQC? He said these would just be the major points �f discussion. Mr. 6oardman said he wau1d �rite up an outline for the State if this was what they wanted. The other mempers of the Planning Commission concurred. UFON a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chair•man �larris said he �ust did�`t f�eel that the Planning Commission had done a proper job on this proposa1. 4. ADDI � IONAL DATA OTJ PROPt)SED (;OMPREHEt�SIVE� l�OUSIhG PLAN Mr. Boardman sa�d this was just the c�ntinuing process of distributing the data on the proposed compref�ensive h�using plan to a11 Commissions and the Coun�il as it 4�as prepar•ed. The Plannin� Commission didn't have to do anything with this material, except look it ov�r, until they got the input from the memb�r Commissions. �1 5. CONTINUED: REVIEW OF CGMMISSION'S GC�LS AND OBJECTIVES � � Planning Commission Meetin__�__-_ D�cember 3___,,___i975_ Page 25 Chairman Narris said they or�ly tiad the Parks & 2ecreation Commission goals and objectives 1e f t t a r e vi ew but because of the lateness of the hour, � it wou�d perhaps be better to continue this until their next meeting. MOTION by Scott, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission postpone their review of tf�e Yarks and Recreation �ommission goals and objectives until. the December 17, 1975 Planning Commission meeting. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 6. DISCUSSION ON INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Peterson said he would like the Planning Commission to be thinking of some ground ru�es on what amounted to an informal public hearing such as we had this evening on the prop�sed rules and regulations from the MEQC� He said that no matter what proposai they were discussing, and the fact that it was not advertised as a public hearing, should not preclude any citizen coming to the meeting and speaking their mind on such a proposal. He said this ��as what happened at the Parks & Recreation Commissi�n meetings all the time. What he was looking for was some means, that ai�ef�� every one in the aud�ence h�d had the chance to speak, that there be some way for the public no� to ;oin in the deliberations of the C�mmission after they had received the public input. He said it was very disconcerting to have citizens arguing with the Commission when they were making their deliberations. Chairman Harris said they should addr�ss themselves to this problem, and be thinking about it. He said that when citizens were present under such situations they probably could handle this by making a motion to open an informal public ^ hearing and a motior to close the informal public hearinc�. He said they could discuss this at a future meeting. ADJOURNf�iENT c MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Scott, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, all votzng aye, Chairman Harris declared th� Planning Commission meeting of December 3, 1975 adjourned at 12:27 A.M. Respectfully submii;teds r'1 �� 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMP�ISSIO� MEETING OF DECEPIBER 2, 1975 Chairman Bergman called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M. MEMBERS PRESEPdT: Bergman, Lindblad, Oquist ME�IBERS ABSENT: Forester OTHERS PRESENT: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Leon Madsen, Deputy Assessor for the City of Fridley Ray Leek, Planning Aide 1. APPROV�tL Or MINUTES FR0��1 THE OGTOBFR 1, 1975 MEETING P�10TIOtd, by Lindblad, seconded by Oquist to approve the minutes of the October 1, 1975 meeting as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried. 2. DISCUSSION OF TAXATION AND ASSESShiENT PROCEDURES Mr. Leon Madsen, Depu�y Assessor for the City of Fridley, was the guest speaker at the meeting. Mr. �1adsen stated his main concern for coming ta the meeting was with the commissions feelings on assessments. He referred to the minutes of the Community � Development rr�eeting of Se{�tember 17, 1975. He said he wo�ld like the Commissior to have a clear view of assessing. Mr. P1adsen stated that there were no local tax laws. The State governs all tax assessing laws. The primary objective of property taxes is revenue for the communities to function. P�1r. Oquist asked if the City had to be under State controlled tax law. Mr. h1adsen stated that all communities have to function under the St�te iaw. The �ity can only hire the assessor to work for them b�at the State controls all tax la��as. Ti�e assessments for school taxes are also set up under State 1aw. There are no local laws involved. Nir. 6ergman asked what extentthe County was involved in tax assessments. Mr. Madsen stated that the County helps figure out the tax assessments for small communities ��ho d� not have enough tax base to support a tax assessor. �1r. Oyuist stated that he would like to see a uniform tax program where everyone wauld be taxed fior his land at a flat ratE. Mr. �•1adsen stated that we needed a tax based cn a value almost related to income tax. Tax based �r your ability to pay. i>1r. Madsen said that there is n�� a State law called tf�e circuit break system which no�v will give additional property tax relief based on income ror people over 65. � Mr. Oquist asked iF the State over sees the communities to see if they are taxing �n the proper hasis. COMMUNITY DEVELOPME�lT COMMISSION NEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 1975 PAGE 2 � ��,. I ��r. Madsen stated they did. He also stated you can only assess at the beginning of the year. Mr. �ladsen stated he personally reviews 25% of the property every year. Taking each district in turn and adding on to property assessments of owners that have improvements valued at more than $1,000.00. He stated that they have never increased the value of a persons property for keeping up their property. Mr. Bergman said that we have had encourag?ment from the City to have hard surfaced drive4vays put in near your home if you do not have one. But anyone �rho puts in a new driveway is subject to increasing taxes. Mr. P�tadsen stated that the taxes only run about $5.50 to $6.00 on a new driveway. Mr. Lindblad stated that a loto� people ha•�� been misled to believe their taxes would be much higher if they put in new improvements. � Mr. Bergman said he has read in the newspa;�ers 4rhere other cities are also trying to seek a break for home improvements. Mr. ��ladsen stated as for the elderly moving out of Fr`�dley because of taxes we are right in the middle of the ratings (45th) and are really no worse off then any other community. � Mr. Lindblad said that he would like to see more improved tax laws so we can look forward to future years with less worry. Mr. ��adsen stated that he would like to see the school tax laws eliminated from the State. Mr. Bergman stated that the Community Development Commission wanted ways to make Fridley an outstanding community within the State, But if all communities , will receive the same treatment there is nothing we can do to improve Fridley as far as tax adjustments is concerned. Mr. Madsen stated that setting up a study group and lobbying would be the only ways to he1p change tax laws. Mr. Boardman stated that a Resolution from Council would have to be obtained before lobbying. � committee would have to be set up to come back with a report. That report would be sent or to the City Council. They could accept or deny the report and a resolution would or would not be passed, If passed the Council would be the lobbying force to tr�e St�te. Mr. ��tadsen stated that the Muskey Bill is a move by the Federal government to get involved with property taxes. The Muskey Bill includes the assessing of property at 10% of market value. tde now assess at 5%. Mr. Bergman thanked Mr. P1adsen for his tim�, all of the memk�ers of the commission ^�, were very pleased with the in�'ormation and suggest�ons offered ta them at this meeting Mr. Madsen suggesied that �the schoo� board sei up a little bit rr�ore of a�d elab�rate program to bring this type of informatio� to the high scho�l stud�nts. So that when they are out on their o�m they are bei;ter ir�formed about taxes. � COMMUNITY DEVE�QPMENT C0�1MISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 1975 PAGE 3 �S SUBCOMMITTEE ffr. Qergman asked the Commission if they wanted to use a subcommittee. Mr. Boardman stated that if this commission feels there is a need to do a study or report on tax reform then they could form a subcommittee to help prepare the report. Mr. Oquist asked if we vrant to do anything about this at this time. t�r. Qergman stated that there is really n�thing there because it is State controlled. Mr. Lindblad said that we should have special guide lines set up first before fcrming any k'nd of subcommittee. MOTIO� by Lindblad, seconded by Oquist, that we table our tax discussion for future reference,for further consideration and possible project subcommittee. UPO� A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried. 3�. DISCUSSION OF THE 3.2 BEER ORDINANCE 602 OF THE CITY CODE FOR ZONING RECOMME�DATIONS FOR 3.2 6EER ESTABLISH�1ENTS � Mr. Boardman stated that in a recent request for a 3.2 beer license fcr Bryant Franklin it could not be denied because our zcning code does restrict the use of 3.2 beer according to the use of the property and does restrict it according to proper�T zoning. Bryant Franklin`s principal use is a Flea Market and the serving of beering woul� be a secondary use. Mr. Oquist asked how does use ar�d zoning relate. t�9r. Boardman stated it is classification. If you open up and operation of 3.2 beer and the actual operation is 3.2 beer then the ardinance applies. If the principal operation is something else there �s nothing in our ordinance that applies or permits denial of the lic�nse. There is nothing in our present ordinance that limits it to any type of business. � Mr. Lindblad stated he could not see wliere it was wrong to issue a license to Bryant Franklin. �ir. Bergman asked what kind of lice�s� was req�ired. Mr. Boardman read section 60?_.03 of the zoning code which states "No person � shall vend, deal in ar dispose of by gift, sale or otherwise, any non-intoxicating malt liquor without First having obtained a license to do so from the Council". Mr. Oquisi said we should sp�cii�y the areas where it can be used. Do not use the words secondary and primary �n the ordinance. � 29 COMP�U�dITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MFETING OF DECEP�IBER 2, 1975 PAGE 4 f10TI0N by Oquist, seconded by Lindblad, to recommend a change in the ordinance to read that 3.2 beer licenses can be granted as a principal use only in C2 and C2-S districts. As accessory use to a principal operation in all other zones accept an R1, R2, and R3 zone. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting nay, the motion did not carry. MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Oquist, to defer the discussion of 3.2 beer Ordinance at the next meeting. UPON A VOICE UOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried. 4. REVIEW AND DISCUSSTON OF FIRST DRAFT OF COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN Mr. Board�ran intr�duced h1r. Raymond �.eek t� the commission. Mr. Leek discuss�d the Comprehensive Housing Plan uaith the commission. Highlighting the main topics such as the purposes of the plan, survey and analysis, projection of trends into the future, and the policy development of proposed plan. POINTS HIGHLIGHTED AND DISCUSSED The population has shifted downward. The City's population is expected to reach 36,000 by 1980 according to one Metropolitan Council estimate rather �, than 39,000 as estimated in 1973< Population characteristics was discussed and the decrease in students in the school system. Standard of living in Fridley is at the middle income level. 16.2% of all households in Fridley are at the low income level, and 70% of all renters in Fridley are below 50% of i�letropolitan Median Income and are paying more than 25% of their income for rent. The houses in the city are classified in new, good, fair, or poor condition. The homes in the city are 6,179 in either good or new condition, 227 are in fair condition and less than l% are considered in poor condition. f•9r. Oquist stated Lhat the housing in the City is much higher now and people are moving to outlying areas because of this. Mr. Leek stated that the problem areas of Ft�idley are located North of Holiday Village, University Avenue, and along East River Road. � � � �� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COf�1NiISSION MEETING OF DECEM6ER 2, 1975 PAGE 5 MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Oquist, that the commission receive and review the Comprehensive Housing Plan and discuss any questions and recommendations at our next meeting. UPON A VOICE VUTE, all voting aye, the motion carried. PU6LIC �JORKS DEPARTMENT Mr. Lindblad wishes to commend the City of Fridley for their excellent job in sno�,r plowing last wee(:. Chairman Bergman adjourned the meeting at 10:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � �� ARLENE L. Sh1ITH Secretary , CITY OF FRIDLEY �� THE MINUTrS OF THE API'�AIS COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE MEI.TING OF DECEMBER 9, 1975 The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairwoman Gabel at 7:35 P.M. ^ p��Mg�RS PRESENT: Gabel, K2mper, Plemel MEP4BEI2S ABSENT: Drigans, Wahlberg OTHERS PRESENT: Howard Mattson, Engineering Aide ,''� APPROVAL OF APPEALS COPIMISSION MINUTES: November 25, 1975 MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Kemper, to approve the minutes of the November 25, 1975 meeting as written. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. 1. A RE U�FOR A VARIANCE OP' SEC�l'ICP1 214.053, 2, FILDLEY SIGN ORDI?1AP10E, TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF A I'RLE STANDIIQG SIGN FROM TiiE MAXIMUM OF 25 .�"'EET TO 55 FEET TO ALLO�� AN EXISTING FREE ST7�2dDING SIGN TO BE RZ�ISED AN A?_` ��=�'IONAL 20 FEET, THAT IS LOCATED ON PARCrLS 1150, 221U, AND 2400, AUDITOR'_ SUBDIVISION #155, THE SA�liL; BEING 755 - 53IL� AVLNUE P1.�. , FRIDL�Y, MINN�SOTA. ('.:l�lQUEST BY _ TARG�T S`�OFZ�S, INC. , 755 - 53RD AV�NU� N.E. , FRIDLEY, MIN�7ESOTA. ) Chairwoman Gabel explained that this item had been withdrawn by �he petitioner and therefore no action by the Board was necessary. 2. A RE UEST FOR A BLAPIKET VARIANCE OF SECTION 214.053, l, TO ALLOW BOTH ROOF SIGNS AND A FREE STANDING SIGN FOR A COf4P�1ERCIAL SIiOPFTNG CENTER TO ALLOL4 ROOF SIGI�� 2�0 BE RE�INSTALL�D ON THE SHOPPING CENTER (STORIQ DAI�IAGE REPAIR) LOCATED ON PARCr'! ` 1500, AUDITOR' S SUBDIVISION #�g, THE SAh4E BEING 6225 HIGH��IAY #�65 N.E. , FRIDL__: , MINNESOTA. (RE UEST BY MR. MAX SALITERI`-9AN, 25 UNIVERSITY AVENUE 5.E., MINNEAPOLIS, MIIVI�ESOTA 55414. ) PROTION by Kemper, seconded by Plemel, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. Mr. Wyman Smith, attarney for the �etitioner, was present to present the request. Mr. Smith explained that the shopping center used to have roof siqns for each individual business in the center along with the center identification sign and tlie King Chalet pylon sign. He said when the wind storm removed the roof signs and damaged the structure, some tenants moved out of the center. He said now Mr. Saliterman has a tenant that has signed a lease, but the City won't let this business put up a sign because having the King Chalet pylon does not meet Code. Mr. Smith said that he and the City Planner, Mr. Boardman, had talked about this request several times and Mr. Boardman felt very strongly about getting a definite time set as to when the King Chalet pylon sign would come down. He said he has talked with Mr. Saliterman about this, and Mr. Saliterman has agreed to use the "Payless Shoe" business sign as standard size for other signs going up on the building and he also is going to paint thc� structure and install grass anci shrubbery but he will not specif_y a date as to when the King Chalet pylon will come down. Chairwoman Gabel asked ti�hy Mr. Saliterman won't take tr.e sign down as the King Chalet is no longer a business in i�liis center. Mr. Smith said hv personally felt the sign was rediculous but questi.oned why, since the sign is stz-ucturally safe, does it have to come down. He added he didn't think the City had a righi: to say when it would come down. He s�id Nir. Saliterman has somewhat agreed to take �"` the sign down but the problem seems io be wllen, He said someone had to pay $8,000 to $15,000 for tl�at sign and he didn't feel it �aas the City's right to � say it had to be thrown awa.y. . The Minutes of the Appeals Commission Mceting of December 9, 1975 Pa e 2 k-, Kemper questioned what the ilardsl�i�� was for this zequest. r1r. Smith replied at the center has vacant st:ores that are being l�ased out and the new businesses need signs. He added he could see where the City could say that before the King Chalet location of the center is reoccupied, the pylon would have to be taken ^ care of but he didn`t think that the pylon should be tied in with allowing signs for the other business locations. Mr. Mattson stated the City Code says there can't be both roof signs and a business pylon sign at the same location so none of the r.ew businesses can be issued permits to erect their signs until the King Chalet pylon is taken down or a variance is approved. Mr. Plemel stated the roof signs or� this center have been a hodgepodge and now at least they will all be unifonn in height, and will meet the Code for square footaqe. Chairwoman Gabel questioned whether thc� City has a code on non-conforming signs. Mr. Mattson said that there is such a code and read this to the Board. The Code states, "P7herever a non-confor_ming permar.ent si.•n use has been dicontinued for a period of three (3) months, such use shall not thereafter be continued unless in conformance with the provisioris of this chapLer." Chairwoman Gabel then questioned why this siqn hadn't beerz taken care of previously as the King Chalet has been gone from the center for over 1 year. She asked if Mr. Saliterman had been asked to take the sign down when it had no longer been in use for 3 months. Mr. Mattson replied that he did not kno�� if this had been discussed with P�4r. Saliterman or not. Mr. Smith said another reason Mr. Salii.errnan could have for not takiilg this sign down yet would be to wait and see if he could get a restaurant into tlie Y.ing " Chalet space and if it is a business with a name to sell, they might be able to sell t:he Council on having a waiver to use the �ylon. He said Mr. Saliterman might be thinking of this and doesn't want to tear the sign down right away until he fin.ds out what is going to happen. Nir. Mattson added it would be up to the Council to decide whether that sign could be used by the new tenant or not. Chairwoman Gabel asked how many new roof szgns would b� put up right away. Mr. Smith said two signs with a possible third. MOTIOtJ by Plenlel, seconded by Kemper, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, tnere being no nays, the motion carried. Mr. Kemper said it a�pears that the hardship is that the shopping center won't get off the ground unless the new businesses can have si_gns. He said he felt that approval of the roof signs, except for the ICing Chalet space, would be in o.rder, wi.th the King Chalet spac� held in abey�znce until. such time as there is a tenant and then have the item cam� uack for considerGtion. Mr.. Plemel said he pr_obably fel_t more strongly t:han T��r. Smith that people should be able to do what they want on tr.e.ir property as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, but he added t�iat he felt the King Chalet p_r�1on s�.:�n should come down to be in compliance with the City Code. Chairwoman Gabel said she agreed that the hardship was that the Uusinesses need signs but she al.so wanted the pylon io be rem�ved. -� � � Thc Minutes of the Appeals Commission Meeting of December 9, 19`r� Page 3__ R - MOTION by Plemel to deny the request for roof s:igns until the second pylon sign . is removed. MOTION DIED FOR Lt�CK OF A SECOND Mr. Kemper stated the Board is here to try and analize the hardship as it applies to a Code. He said he would admit tl-iat the Code is such that the sign should have come down a long time ago but he didn't know if that was really the Board's problem now. He said he felt t�:c� new businesses need their siqns to get the shopping center off the ground. F�e said he would go along with not permitting the vacant King Chalet location to have any sign until the pylon sign is taken care of but he felt the others should be allowed signs at the agreed upon standard size. MOTION by Kemper to approve the blanket variance for roof signs on the shopping center, except f�r the vacant King Chalet space, with the stipulai�ion that the King Chalet pylon be removed by March l, 1976. Seconded by Plemel. Chairwoman Gabel asked Mr. Smith if he could quarantee Mr. Saliterman would take down the sign by March 1, 1976. Mr. Smith sai�'. he could not quarantee that it would be tal:en down by that time but he added that the expiration date of the liquor license that the City is holding for Mr. Saliterman expires on either January 1, 1976 or February l, 1976 so he felt that if the sign was going to be used, that everything would be decided by March 1, 1976. MOTION by Kemper to amend his motion to approve only 3 new roof signs instead of a blanket variance on the shopping center. Seconr.'.��ci by Plemel. A voive vote upon the amendment, there being no nays, the amendmei; to the motion carried. A VOTE UPON THE AMENUED DZOTION, all voting aye, the amended motion carried. 2. �CEIVE PARTS OF THE COMPREH�NSIVE HOUSING PLAN: Table of Contents, Footnotes, and, Comparison of Proposed Housing Goals With The Metropolitan Council Housing Plan. MOTION by Plemel, Proposed Housing carried. ADJOURNr�'IENT : seconded by Kemper to receive the various parts of the Plan. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion The meeting was adjourned by Acting Chairwoman Gabel at 1�:30 P.D4. Respectfully sul�-nitted, �J ) c.� �^ � f�i., �_(! � MARY HIiJTz Secretary`� , , • � �.� _.. � A,,................__..�—�� ,,..,. ,�'' � ry:: �___.�_-� f __.� ��;%% t `�y � � �'\ h1Efvi� �fG: �ridi,�>y C�i,y Cc�«��s.r.�i MEMO FROP�t: Bi 11 NF� �E: V:��;ar�ce Pr•uc�dures D�c�mber �'�1975 cc: Planning Comn;is;io� Appeal s Comn2� ��a��.�i�� T�15 'CS ti:a C:1cY'liy C"�� Y'C'.lilcl"k� C0�?Ct?Y'f?11ZC� '�E.I° �J�„OE:!7SE.'�? c�ri't?it�Ii1Ef�?; CC% g�Vi: l;il� u0c""� f: ! r't�")!?� "o. � S �f�e po'r,(C'r �;0 �1"%ln"L Viit"1 dtl:'.i'S ?.0 l.h� �tii1'1 ilt� �_?Vd '1 il �,C�:ilc' r, i;" .r, t�� ,� t;�..�� s e � t;::�.t;i. �:0 '.�n:�E-'1�5COY'�' �fic3'i. Y all7 C10fi Qp�p$�Ci �!:G QiV"if��j T,;�P L�Q':�T"('f C;1- {�if�c :�'.iS �.� ' S �. 'ri:� ;JT �`.!lj;fiU�'�f �.y. ;. �;�?� Il+< 'EEl��tt �1�Cc1U$E.' �}lf' j' e�!"E' l�ri^'i:.j �i� �'y' i i�lSiw , i.(: ,' , , _ .. � , : �.. ! ,q .' ...vy .0. �-n^ ,.i. � �... � . '�'Y`�L'tCl? L;S�' E�r?C,�C!.)k''cl{ ��ii`UCI��+`.�� l,lit`-�.'v iil1�' U1� i7�i t� frv5�j�i'vi��1,i) uicz�:�.. �vG1�Cj i.}..�'��. r��?��r�us t��,;�- t�ic, Gounc�i i. 0 E3ut; � c1��; Y�+�,rt,� tE> r��se c!=c:;��io�s ab�ut -the sui�i��icicr��.,� ,,�` �,; s,;t�; �t ;., �.�.� c��,r3�c.c�"t5� 'rR'? ':;il:: �,.C1iC'.tii�i:Tr'C�"�f �i11G iiS 4^!� ilcAV� U5c:Q lii 8�1.�1:'�.;�:°,. � 7 �..: �ii'!li 't �'I:ii<�`..'>c� (::(;;iliTiE?�l�u� 11?':j' �;l �;il�ut; T tfllllK t�12 i.3Y'OC2S5 i S � E'SS i I?c'.!1 sNrl�a �� i; SiICt�,��%j i'at; i"I'G ��.".y i101,' �l� �)i)ltlt-''�;'i£.?�'�it;C�E?Y' 'u� clilj! j.'�f_'t°:aG�rl v'1'' F'�:):;�. �zJ`�C! �:�1i` '�St.�T�1:', �i.i';U tE'1�'. SUCCE'.S�T'��' �O�tY"�S Ui� ��7y�c^:��5 �i:VE? T:ri�;E'r �l.t1G�� Ji:�� lii:r' �tt?ii� � �;iif' �.C, ;._ �;i �%; j' �OUY1C7 1 S {�i�'4+� m�,�? C�VEY' �.�i�' yPdi"S . e e «r�� T ITII'S' 'L� � �<:r � �1l�'�.; ��V'ia�"�' pi" ;;�tE: C'�,}-'��?Sii7't 1 i C'v 1�Oi' 1N�1di: 7 COilS �t��Y"' ��lY �E: iili��iC C.Y � U�'.i'iu iii u�i �� ::� Li i � � <'.,- I ; ..'�� . �� 7�:� l:_ i:�.�i?�'tal•n 1 �� 'I t"! G �E'" �??T]C��'CiC� `LC7 Sc�, V : `� � i SiO�'.?C�� r CS�s:� (?:_� �' ..__. ��..� `��_��-- } �"r3n"C .,•� ,;��t `,�v4.�r-!4 j-Z?r:?� 'r,'.c cl ��t�$1C Ci��."Y`ICi� ?�)C'�,c"�`.;�� "ii-.'� l'�!'. �j�lu� , .ef'� � ,.. 3 - � .z t -i � ' �(• j:�'° OVt?iii� [ � �i?C� �Ot1C� i:`�'k"�ill �U�'tf'!C ?ilrt,+'i�._.°;i: re�' �.� ._'.)�1- i(. i._il L t,- .. �� i. i i�, �Y°e�, sur�;��1,.: i ti �,,,,+�r�,, ;��.� i n i�i�� w�ts : r�;g Or�i-i r�ance. ��i; 't;;, t}f L.;?t.;�..�E' G. 1"��L'.Vciil� C;U;'iS'lUE'"�i�101i "if }7?C3�71�' Cs 0�_'.1�:,�u. ;.0 �a.i :, �� a ,� s I. � a- 1 '1 ��-.r r. ° '�� 4 �1^ ��` [)�"'I�lS�"li i,.i':c�.�(. �1Zt��'i��.' �.�1. c t, iJIU��,'�4. � , r�. .:. 'i'E' i l=� ..�'� � , �1L : 1 �': � ('.X: i , �� , F .a � -' c '.: : �< 1 ��'_t�l�'J�� $:�1;' C`t?i,;F%".ti1C. COf:S'ii.�F�},�di�it�Sl, Si;O � %': !, f?;s:... '�,!ll. `b�cat`iJilC;i' /��;1 . Ii;iCai1C� �:0 j;(IE`. i)uSl� �`v'r:lS a,�� .��;�� i�; ;��_ar�-�asU e` �r�e 7_c�n�� n-�; La�r�? 1. i `_��, Ci��(�°5 i;i; (d�� i3cat"dsltl�.l, Or' �f�t� ��'I,;�1"f1:;i?Vf �1lilJf ?L: '?cil'''i�'! �- (_,t,,'f � �� 'i�l"�i� '�.'�i � .:t?C`.. �a��}�L �i) �;�1� �Gill t"iij �..�',t': :iii.' ;;`llr,'s^i,li�7p^i:' �jUS�'i�y' �.. �'�.i"�iu11C;f:o 'r�ti ' ' . . L _ . 1 f �l �Y'. , � A.. . . t...t � . ,� �` lll';='';" 1!�'.?'OI ":'�u)'i` C,(rP,�:1C�d?"t�tit.lU� ��; ��iL 'LE..'S'i: ':t�y.,, „ _ . ... . . . . � ! i `� �'�{'k �'j �i/ ; ,,, ry �n �� r � � � ( ,^ 1� 71 i;i� 1"t1;?t:l`iiri�:{it i#ri+: �:.:r�.`7�('{. 0 • �� ..._.____..� To : Friu i ey C��ty �'ounci 1 :� page 2 Fror�: Eill ��e Z"� l.n� Re: Variance Procedures Woi�ld the strict appiica.t;c�� of t!�c, law rFSUIt in an unreasor:ab�e restriciion on the u�e of the �rc:p��r�ty�: � i-'.e ;t�c?gestF.d that c��is test would have speciai mer�i t�i n��oi�si dera�ci cr� raY c�c�<.' s`r�ar��d i ots or� _! ot� wi ti� sp�c ; al terrai n probl ei,�s .) s Lt1�'lCl� S�'� IlE?E'Ci ��.C) �IG �aC.i: i;u iliz�iGS ii�i" u ri0i��cii� w i'��t Jn ±h�' �ur+�. ti?�± ±he en�tire c��r��.�f��it� h�s ari it�v��trnent �ii� it-ie %o�-ing Lar�a. And we are all the -_-�.___. __----- ----- • beneficiar�A�=s a�` r�r•evious irn��?�iance �nd en�Fc3r~cc:rn��t of �t. We h�ve, in a very rea� sen�f�, a stc4�arc;shi��.�t��t just for tho�e who �1ive i�eY•e ro , but arz ot��o;��ia�� A,�� t� th��s:� �-:r�� comp1`ied 11rith it in the past, and to thos.e who ��i �I �I �! � ve h�N� � n ti7c fut�r��. S� i:herP is, a pubi �c ir�t.c.�r��st i:`r��L gc�; far bey�nd the interest of the immedia�;� neiqhu�r°s.. The ��:c�si��rs an vari��nce�� are a�itl�uys �ery ��ifi��icuit f��r me, because deep in my i�eart I ��aa.�� s�o� e r�scr��rn �7 ons abo u� the ui t�mate val i di ty of some ef thG pro- vis`i:J+Es cf� ti�� r��ing L�4,�, . Fcr �xa;�� i{V i I'r� rct at al l suti'•' t��=± t"z ide�a� communi ty i s compri sed of haus�s a�l bu� i�� ri a st�ai;h� raw. ��_,�; ��a'� h�:p�lens �'tr� ��c, ��. ,'c ��s �;,��a;�? c ha�re ��reed wi th, and i t's what we as �Ct;�;1� � i f?i�flilJC-}"S uY`F �14�'I iy�?(� r:U '°�_l��j�Gf i. i�il?'�I! ? 4�� ci�anged...dSSU1111i1C! anyone e�Sc war�ts 4o cl�a��e it. j��u� ,� ;;,Ant�7 ��,,;;�� -(�;s,c± L;�::�:��I when I ccns�der v�riances. I ask myself§ ho�-J wo�1 ��i i v � ��-;� thi s var�?ncr� � f nc�ti�i ng had ��e�r� bui �11; i r the area? Am T �.lY'2�d1'!'� �:�� i%i;J".' "ci�� e„rlll�t`," Ci)�iStY'l.'C��Ok"t Y'�'C�i��' �!lC� Sc'�.iTle trea±m�nt? �� 110�, �,�hat jus�;s��s t"is cas.�:> 6•,h<�� justi;';F:,s, ��?=; T4�at�s i��!�iui� i ��tai��id I��:e c� see defin�d. Perh� r,s ��t� :!i' i say: ? , `J: �;,��;1 � .i�z;;i-��.v• ;�avr� rh� c�r.z,�!.}1 �� g<�r� �.e �;h�.t�� a si ngl e f�up"��r.`.' iAt1G u S1GF-•L'u,,. � i U ��F f1i �{tJ�1K. `� Z. "Z t.h�tll: t�i.�'' �;:s�J�3 ,C 111i,2Y'E'"i: i�l '��I?li'�;, i'i�i' �USfi'if1PS � ' , � ^� < °rr;r��,.�zr_� ��° �i�� i;st:r::ct.,�„�; ��; , "f:�.rn;ly r�.1�m" to . l: _,. : ,� � r.M is �}i�li�� a� l� .i�:� !.i .{'� �� i 6:Q1�� i i J. .� ! 11 a. °�Che ��.;::r;.�:<,r ?��a ;�ax t�as[. ,j�3s�:�� i:a5 �v�� variar�ce. � � .� ''ti To: Fr�a�Ey Cit.y Counc�l page 3 �� Frcm: Bi11 N�� Re: Vari�nce FNacedurEs 4. "Tirnes and lifestyles have changed." 5. "Environmental cor:sidet�aLions justify" (ie: prr}tect a 4ti�ater�,;ay �r sav� a s�b� �-�.nt; a1 treH. ) 6. "The p,�uposal is aes�tE�ei.ically pleas?r�g."• 7. "�he co��muni t� (or n�i g��borfioud ) neecis �:hi s, an� a var ma��ce se?rns to �e rhe only way �to get it�" a��er tV�e years, at �ne time or another, I V�c1vC� ratior�a�izecl a favora3le votrs as� a vaN�ianr.� f�r each cf these reasons... and frankryy, I am not satisfied tf�at ��,�-;y �re s;��i icien��ly �v,;e�l aefined. 1 hcpt� ��;;a � the �aa,^d ot 1'�pp�al s, as the,y ��du�r �ak� �siei r new responsi bi 1� t.y; �tif � s i '�e a.ul Q Lo ue��l o� � cl Par se#�. o-f gu i d�l i nes ihat i s res�r,ns � ve to �the pi°a�J o �m 5 arr.-; at i:ti:,� same time responsib�i� t� t'r�e �pirit ai= tl�e Zo�inc L�we 1��td/h�' Wi'lliam J. �!ee Mayar � � MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION December 4, 1975 Barbara Shea, Bill Scott, Grace Lynch, Nancy Lambert Harold Belgum Kay Popoff - S.A.C.A. Mary Mary Sallstrom - S.A.C.A. Denise Lynch Y.P.C. Betsy Lind - Y.P.C. Ned Storla - Y.P.C. Lisa Treuenf els - Y.P.C. Tjark Chairperson Scott opened the mee�ting at 7:35 P.M. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSIOTS OPERATTONS: f �� Mr. Scott explained his pro�osal far future Human Resources Commission op�rations. He stated the proposal would ensure that the Commission gives appropriate consideration to actions which come before the Commission. !� In his proposal, one Commission member wouid be responsible for developing a position paper on any item which would pertain to his or her special interests. After presenting his or her position paper to the Commission, the Commission would review it and make recommendations to the Plannirig Commission. If an item did not pertain to any single member, the Commission would review it as a commi�ttee of the whole. and either act on it or send it back to the Planning Commission with no action taken. Mr. Scott stated this would hopefully be a rare instance (acting as a cammittee of the whole). The Commission felt Mr. Scott's proposal was a good one and that it would work quite well. Ms. Lambert stated tnere was a problem with the Fine Arts Committee which was recently formed in Fridley. She stated the members would like to �ut �n a play. However., there is a lack of funds for a project such as this. She adde�, if the Committee was under the guidance of the CitS=, it would be a real problem to have to get a requisition �very time they needed funds. They would have the same problem if they were under the guidance of the community schools. She added they were -trying to determine whether they should exist as an independent body. Mr. Scott suggested ris. Lamber.t contact Judy Erpelding of Medtronics, ^ other businesses, or t7ie State Arts Couneil as possible sponsors of the Play. r�, � � HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSZON M�E�7�G ��GE 2 REPORT ON YOUTH PROJ'ECT COMMTTTEE'S SURVEY: � MOTION by Barbara Shea, seconded by Nancy Lambert that the Commission hear a report from the Youth Project Committee. Upon a voice vote, a13 voting aye, tlze motion carried unanimously. Ned Storla, Chairperson of the Youth Project Committee, explained the survey was distributed in Columbia Heights, Spring Lake Pa.rk and Fridley. Approximately 1,000 copies had been distributed. However, the Committee had a return of anly 100. Mr. Storla added he felt this was a relatively poor return. Ms. Lambert asked Mr. Storla whether he had any idea as to the reason for the poor return. Mr. Strola stated many of the yoi:ng people felt it was urireasonable for the Y.P.C. to really do any- thing about their problems and interests. Also, many of the students didn't really care. Mr. Scott commended the Com,•n.ittee for its efforts and stated despite criticism from adults about the contents of the survey, the Committee showed extraordinary effort in putting together, distributing, and compiling the results of the survey. He added this indicated dedication, ingenuity, and initiative on the part of the youn� people. Mr. Scott asked the Committee to review the survey and make reeommendations to the Commission as to what the establishment could do to respond to the needs of the young people as pointed out in the survey. S.A.C.A. PRESENTATION: Copies of S.A.C.A's budget and statement of purpose were passed out to each Commission member. (They will also be included as attach- ments to the minutes.) Ms. Sallstrom stated they had submitted an application for funds to the National J.C. Project. Approximately 280 applications were received, and 80 projects were granted funds. Unfortunately, S.A.C.A. was not among tne organizations receiving funds. Mr. Scott asked Ms. Sallstrom what her. idea of an I� R service was. Ms. Sallstrom stated she would like to set up an emergency mobile unit which could aid many persons calling S.A.C.A's I� R service. However, in some caJes, a person calling the service would merely be referred to the proper organization. She added the service would not m�rely be a tape--recorded voice, but a Iive person. Ms. Sallstrom stated S.A.C.A. is or ganization. It a.s a'�neighbor It eannot be narrowed down. not only a food and shelter helping neighbor" organization. n HUMAN R�SOURCES COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 3 Ms. Popoff stated they have sent out approximately to large and small businesses soliciting funds for organization. She added they have conducted church and also contributed to Santa Anonymous. She added also been recently publicised in the Sun Newspaper. 450 letters the S.A.C.A. drives S.A.C.A. had Ms. Lyneh stated she felt th�s was the type of organization the Comm�ss�on shou7.d dea�. with. This deals with helping people. �'he Comm�ssion �elt �t �ould �.�ke to contribute specifically to th.e I� R Service of S.A.C.A. S�nce S.A.C.A. deals with Fridley, Spring Lake Qark, and Columbia Heights, the Commission felt it would like the City of Fridley to donate one-third of the funds needed for the I� R serv�.ce. Tn�.s �-�uld amount �to $500. �'IOTION By Nancy Lambert, seconded by Barbara Shea, that the Human Resources Commission recognize the S.A.C.A. or anization and en orse their princi les and further recommend the City of Fridley allocate a fair share sum of 500 for the express pur os o developing an I� R serv�ce. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. �� It was decided Grace Lynch would attend the next Planning Commission � meeting and present the Commission's request to the Planning Com- mission. � CONSIDERATION OF 3.2 BEER ORDINANCE: Mr. Scott suggested the Commission appoint Grace Lynch to review this document to determine the human impact and the unconscious sexual biases within the ordinance. He adderl the Commission could make its recommendations at its next meeting-after reviewing Ms.�Lynch's paper. . . MOTION by Barbara Shea that the Human Resources Commission assign the responsibility for determining the human resources ramifica- tions of the 3.2 beer license requirements to Grace Lynch and that she report ba�k at -the January Human Resources Commission meeting. Seconded by Nancy Lambert. Upon a voice vote, all foting aye, the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF UISSOLVING SOME PROJECT CQMMITTEES: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9, Chil�/Day Care , Gommunity Facilities, Housmng, Lan� Use I � R Services Humanitiss Housing/Public Accomodations Fine Arts Human Right� Communicdtions Recreational n _ r � � . . � �.. . � `�/ . 'I HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETSNG ii PAGE 4 d CONSIDERATION OF DISSOLVING SOME PROJECT COMMITTEES: (cont.) 10. Citizen Grievance Procedure (Ombudsman) 11. Corrections _ 12. Library Mr. Scott stated the Commission had indicated to persons serving on project committees they would only serve until the comple- tion of the goals and objectives. He asked the Commission for their feelings on what they could do to express their gratitude for the diligent work they had done. The Commission agreed it would be best for Chairperson Scott to send each project committee member a letter thanking them for their efforts. MOTTON by Nancy Lambert, seconded by Grace Lynch, that the Human Resources Commission dissolve the above listed project committees which were established for the sole purpose of developing goals and objectives. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � The Tenant/Landlord Project Committee is still in effect. ,� n HUMAN RESOURCES AWARD: The Commission tabled this item until the next m�eting. CONSIDERATION OF COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN: Mr. Scott explained he had assigned this item to Barbara Shea. He stated at the next meeting, Ms. Shea will report bacic to the Commission with her recommendations, and the Commission will act on her recommendations. MOTION by Grace Lynch, seconded by Nancy Lambert, that the Commission appoint Barbara Shea to develop a Human Resources Commission position on the Comprehensiv;e Housing Plan. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION FOR DEVELOPING POSITION PAPER ON UNCONSCTOUS BIASES: MOTION by Nancy Lambert, seconded by Barbara Shea, that the Commission appoint Grace Lynch to develap a Human Resources position paper to assist staff and other commissions ir� eliminat- ing unconscious biases in language contained in official documents. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. n 0 ' \ HUMAN RESOURCES COMMTSSTON PAGE 5 DATE FOR NEXT HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING: The Commission will meet the second and fourth Thursdays of the month in January because the first Thursday falls on New Year's day. ADJOURNMENT: �� MOTION by Barbara Shea, seconded by Nancy Lambert, to adjourn the Human Resources Commission meeting at 9:35 P.M. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unani:nously. Respectfully submitted, %��,�� ,� . Holly onsager i Recording Secre�ary � � �. Minnesota Room 100 550 Cedar St. Paul, 560•3450 �d � c�� Yr�le � � � ANOKA C�JUNTY 6431 UNIVERSiTY AVENUE fVE FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 December 9, 1975 Environrnental Quality Council Capital Square Quilding Street Mn 551i0 Re: Statement for Inclusion into the Public Records on MEQC Rules and Regulations. Public Hearing on Navember 12, 1975, From the City of Fridley Gentlemen: We, at the City of Fridley, fiully realize the importance oi the pro- tection of our environmeni for ourselves and for coming generations. This realization has provided the impetus for major strides by the City in pro- moting environmental awareness �ior the betterment of our society� The City has actively sought caoperation with the State in establishing a model for an environmental ordinance �vhich would �llor�� for environmental planning, in ordei° to promote a better understanding of the �nvironmental consequ:nces of our actions. T�e ru1es and reg�!la;;ions proposed by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council for �he implementation of the P•9ir�nesota Environmental Policy Act oi 1973 are in concep�, valid. Howeve�, there are some major problems with the rules and re�ulations as they are laid out. l. We s�rongly urge that the Minnesota Fi�vironmental Quality Council develop a mor�e effective framework wh�ch would allow for long range environmental p?anning to determine overall effects of dev- elopment on the environment. The rules and regulations that are beir,g proposed may be ne�essary as a temporary measure for control- iing har•i��fui impacts on the environm�nt, however, they may in the lc�ng run, be very detrimentai to the total economic development of a com��uni�y. �or th�s reason, we feel that immediate efforts should Ue advanred far i;�he inclusion o�F environmental planning as a more effect��ve me�ns of es��ironmental control and implementation c�f the Minn�sota Environn�ental Policy Act. 2. The rules at�d �egulations are extremely limited in relating only on impacts on nhysical enviranmental changes. There are other impacts that should aiso ae considered in a soc:io-economic overail picture. 3. 1�EQC (a)(�I)(ee) The in ordnr to initiate staternent sh��ld be initiate a review bv require�7ent t;hat 500 persons must sign a petition a rev;rw �is acceptable except that an additional included to allow any governmental agency to resol uti on to the NiEQC. � ,�-. Minnesota Environmental Re: Proposed Rules and City of Fridley Paqe 2 Quality Council Regulations �� 4. Under MEQC 26 (3), the threshold of the mandatory categories are so higP� that a major portion of environmental decisions could go through without any er�vironmental assessments. A major number of these would be under local government jurisdiction. This void, with no uniform means for local controls, further emphasizes the impor•tance of envir- onmental planning in order to coordinate local environmental decisions. 5. Under these rules and regulations, the public agencies are responsible for the preparai;ion of the environmental documents with no means of compensation to cover the cost of the pr�paration of such docurients. 6. Under MEQC 26 (a) (4), the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council may supplement the mandatory categories for an Environmental Assessment t�lorksheet ti�vi�:hout a public hearing process. Although a public hearing process is more bulky in this instance, we feel that i� is a;iecessary part in main'taining the control at the local level. 7. Under MEQC 26 (c)(6), the time periods arp too broad and inconsistent. They should allow for straight time periods such as "30 days after the draft EIS is filed"y and "... ior 20 days to allow....". 8. MEQC 27 (a)(b) These are unclear as to what constitutes a major action of more than local significance. This would make local decis�ons too .-� o en to challenge through the Minnesota Environmental Quality Coui�cil. We feel that this is a very important area of concern and should be better qualified. 9. MEQC 27 (c)(2) This requires a judgement on the cumulati��e effects on related or future actions. This could give very false readings due to unwarranted speculation and should relate itself more to in= duced effects as a result of this or other simultaneous actions. 10. MEqC 30 (b)(3) The anticipated environmental effecf;s should be so stated so as not to burden those persons or groups of persons wi�;h detailed, complex and/or expert testimony, but should be able �o be transmitted to the N1EQC in layman's terms. This should be spelled out more clearly. 11. MEQC 30 (e) There is no time limit placed on �he setting of the public hearing on a challenge for a negative declaration notice... 12. MEQC 30 (e) The statement which excludes oral argument before the Environmental Quality Council should be excluded. Oral test�mony is a vital nart of the public hearing process, not only for those persons who wisi� to voice their opinion, but for those persons who are merely ir�terested in ar� issue. Written testimany excludes all p�rsors except t��e drafter of the testimony and the MEQC, and do�s not allow for public airing of an issue. � 13. MEQC 35 (a) No time limit is set for notice of permit applica�tion. .-1 .-r Ninnesota Environmental Re: Proposed Rules and City of Frid�ley Pae3 Qu�l i i:y Counci 1 Regulations � 14. MEQ� 39 (a) This is unclear as to the cost incurred by the submitting agency. This should be strictly a one time publication cost only, and not a continuing cost, for the monitor. The costs to the local agency throughout this entire document should be re- examined. Qy forcing local governmental agencies to cover environ- mental u+ocumentation costs without any rneans of compensation would be a weakening of the enti��e rules and regulations through inaction, in establishing more meaningful local controls. 15. We want to str�ngly object to the MEQC on their public hearing process which they are following for the review of the proposed rules and regulations. The importance of this issue is not reflected in th� time limit allotted for our review. These rules and regulations set the ground work for iocal units of government in the development of e m�ironmental policy. There are many major issues that need careful study in o•rder to fully comprehend the long range effects of this document. ,4n a.p�rcpriate time ��able has not been allowed under this public hear�ing process and has seriously affected this review. It is under �this protest that our comments are forwarded to the MEQC. JLB/de Sinc ely, . � � ,�� ERROLD L. BOARDP�AN rv Ci ty P1 ari�er Rep�esentative of the City of Fridley