Loading...
PL 10/08/1975 - 31191'� . � � CITY OF FRIDLEY � PLANNING COMMISSI4N MEETING GCTOBER 8, 1975 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: • Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL: � Members Present: Scott, Bergman; Harris, Peterson, Drigans, Langenfeld Members Absent: None Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, Planning Assistant � Steven Olson, Environmental Officer APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 24, 1975 Mr. Olson s�id that on page 17 of the minutes, the second paragraph from the bottom of the page after the motion, a statement attributed to him was made by Mr. Oliver Erickson. � � Mr. Harris said that on page 22 of the minutes, the last paragraph should read, �� "Mr. Harri s sai d that Mr. Boardman had a copy o�F � s i gn o rd i n a n c e that the Ci ty of St. Paul ma adopt, and perhaps that could be studied also." MOTIDN by Peterson, seconded by Be�gman, that the Planning Commission approve their minutes of the September 24, Z975 meeting as corrected. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanirnously. RECEIVE ADDENDUM �0 THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES:, AU�UST 25, 1975 Mr. Peterson said the Hockey Association wanted him to �xpress their appreciation io tiie Chairman and other members of the Planning Commission for ge�ting them on the Councii agenda. They were a little disappointed in the Council's action because although they stated that they wan�;ed good ice this winter, they didn't follow through with the recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission. MOTIOIV b� Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive the addendum to the Parks � Recreation Commission minutes of the August 25, 1975•rrieeting. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE HUh1AN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 18, 1975 Mr. Scott said that on page 26 of these minutes it says that the dedica�tion of the library wauld be at 4:OQ P.M., and it should say from 3�0 to 4:00 P.M. He also gave some background to the William Kunstler controversy and said the article in the newspaper was quite �accura�te. . MOTION by Scott, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Corr�nission receive the minutes of the September 18, 1975 Human Resources Commission meeting. Upon a voic� vo�e, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE PARKS � RECREATION COMMISSION MIfVUTES: SEPTEMBER 22, 1975 � . MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission receive thE Parks & Recreation Corrunission Minutes of the September 22, 1975 meeting. Upon a voice vote, aZI voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � Planning Commission Meeting - October 8, 1975 ��'�� ��Page�2� " � a. Lots 1-2-3, Block 15, Fridley Park Addition � Direct City Council to release the three lots on 64th and Ashton from red tag. Mr. Peterson said that this was a situation where when any tax delinquent property becomes available, the Parks & Recreation puts a red tag on it because it might fall into the a11-over program af land acquisition, because this was the type of land we should get. He said.the Park Director said this property was not needed, and based on that we recommended thai these lots be released, unless the Planning Commission felt differently. Mr. Boardman said this was in the South Half of Section 15, and was in a� . area designated as Neighborhood 9, which has a popul��ion of 232 people. Ne said � the recommendation for this neighborhood was that at present the low population in this area doesn't warrant additional park land and accent should be placed on access to adjacent park facilities. With the bikeway system, we would have that accesse Mr. Peterson said that this property wasn't large enough for anything but a tot lot. Mr. Boardman said that there were 13 children between 0 to 5 years old and 26 children between 6 and 15, so this was noi a good�area for a tot lot. Mr. Harris said there was only one tot l.ot in this entire area. Mr. Boardman said some sort of agreement should be worked out with Stevenson Schdol and the Island of Peace. Mr. Peterson said they did work with the schools on park programs. They hav� ' put in jungle gyms on school property so there would be a universa�l appeals to all age � groups. He said the top priQrity in this area was access. � Mr. Boardman said the park survey shows that the area between 64th Way to Mississip�i was not adequately served by parks, but he didn't know if the population in this area would justify the purchase of property. He said that v�hat they had anticipated in this area in_the comprehensive plan was that this was a changing area. We anticipate that future growth in this area would be more the apartment type develop- meni, and that any recreation area that would be needed be provided by the developer of the complex. Mr. Harris asked what they could do for the people in this area�now? Mr. Boardman said the �ain problem would be in providing access across East River Road. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Peterson if he could bring this to the attention of the Parks & Recreation Department. Mr. Peterson said there weren't very many 4� and 5 year olds in this area, and with the park budget for ��ext year, they weren't going to be able to provide as many services as they did this year. They have higher priority areas, where they can serve 200 people, so this was a low priority area. We can contact the school, and see if an agreement could be r�ached to provide some recreation there. There was no money to pick up the delinquent taxes and assessments, so this was why we recommended releasing these lots. . � MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission concur with the.Parks & Recreation Commission and recommend to Council that Lots l, 2 and 3, Block 15, Fridley Park Addition be released from the red tag for park acquisition. Upon a voice /�`�� vote, �11.voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 30, 1975 MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the J`'1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 8, 1975 Page 3 Appeals Commission minutes of the September 30, I975 meeting. Upon a voice vote, aZI vofing aye,-the mbtion carried unanimously. � a. Planning Commission recommendation on Appeals Commission alternate procedure for handling variances on residential property. � . � Mr. Drigans said this had been discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting but no recommendation had been made. Ne said that they were asking �hat Ordinance No. 584 be amended to include this recommendation and also to include something that had just been policy before. This was the notification of all adjacent property owners within 200 feet of the variance locati�n. . Mr. Drigans said the problem was the amount of time it takes to process a variance (about six weeks) and this was a�particular hardship in a residential area. • The Appeals Corr�nission felt this was a particular problem for people who did not know the procedure to follow when they wanted to bui1d a garage or an addition to their home. These people are usually not in the construction trade, and they want to modi�y their residence i:: some way, and are usually going �o do the job themselves. They dr•aw up their plans, have the financing, and then come in for a building permito .Then they find out they need a variance which has to be approved before the building permit can be issued. When they find out they will�have to wait a�minumum of s�i���weeks to get variance approval it creates a lot of animosity. Residents relt they were be�ng harassed by the administrative staff. When they appear before the Appeals Commission they usually say they didn't know they would need a variance. The Appeals Commission felt r.-� could make the final decision on. � only). All other zaning districts for'the Appeals Commission to give there were some variances the Appeals Commission These would be on residential property (R-1 Zoning would go through�the normal procedure. In order final approval four things would be necessaryo 1. There would have to be unanimou�s' agreement of the Appeals Commission. 2. The staff would have to concur with the recommendation of the Appeals Commission 3. The general public attending the meeting or responding to the notice of the public hearing would have no objections. � 4. The petitioner would have to be in agreement with the recommendation. . If there was any disagreement, the variance would go through the normal procedure, and would be forwarded to the City Council for final recommendation. �� � Mr. Peterson said he thought the recommendation was a sound one, and one that he agreed with, but he was curious as to why staff agreement was included. In his opinian., the staff function was to advise and carry out, and with this recommendation, the Appeals Commission was giving staff line responsibility. He said he got nervous and upset about giving staff �ine responsibilities because this tends to take staff out of the relationship they were supposed to have and puts them�in�the.area where the Cammission and general public are supposed to be. Mr. Drigans said the reason they included the staff was the fact that the staff deals with the building code on a daily basis. They know what variances have be�n �, granted in an area, and what type of variances have been granted before. Their function was one of review to see if something was a.consistent variance.. They have the records. V He felt that staff input was good input and provided another check and balance. Mr. Peterson said he �vould suppart this recommendation either way, but if the Planning Commissio� Meeting - October 8, 1975 � Page 4 ✓� Appeals Commission agrees on a variance unanimously and the adjoining neighbors concur, he thought this was all the checks and balances needed. Mr. Scott said he supported the recommendation. He said that he noted�that u�der the section Project Committees, this section of the ordinance did not have the statement that the project committee shall be chaired by a member of the Commission. He said he would like that statement taken out of the ordinance for the Human Resources Commission. Mr. Boardman said this was an oversight and would be added to the Appeals Commission section along with the other amendments. Mr. Scott said he would still like to see this section taken out of their section of the ordinance. They have so many project committees going that this stipulation only allowed the Commissioner to give "tokenism" to the pro3ect committee. He said � that most of thei�. project committees meet weeklyy an� each Commissioner was in��olved with more than one project committee, so this was creating a real hardshipe He said the reason they had asked to meet t�vice a month was because the second meeting was going to be a Human Resources Forum meeting, so they could get reports and give direction to the project committees. He said he had no objection io a Commissioner ac•ting as li���on. Mr. Boardman said he would try to get this request on the conference meeting of the Council, and Mr. Scott could discuss this with the Council at that time. Mr. Peterson said he agreed with Mr. Scott, because the Commissioners from Parks & Recreation didn't fieel they had this much time to give to project committees either. r, . MOTION by Drigans, seconded by 5cott, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council that Ordinance 1Jo. 584 be amended to inc.Zvde the recommendations of the Appeals Commission from their meeting of September I6, 1975. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. _, Mr. Scott said he should have brought it up at the time the Human Resources minutes were'received that there was a recommendation that the traftic hazard presented by Burlington Northern's electrical signals at.the s��itch yards on Northbound . East River Road at night b� brought up at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Sco�t said maybe staff could check on this. RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MINUTES: OCTOBER 1, 1975 Mr. Bergman made som� correc�ions to the Goals and Objectives of the Community D�velopment Commission for clarification. (*Note: These corrected goals and objectives will appear in next agenda). MOTIDN by Bergman thar the PZanning Commission receive the amended goals and' objectives of the Community Development Commission. � _'. Mr. Drigans said po�nt of order. He said that as these goals and objectives were going to be discussed la�er on in the agenda, they should be received then. Mr. Bergman revised his motion, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission � received the amended Community Development minutes of the October 1, 1975 meeting. Upon ' a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the m�tion carried unanimously. , . .. .... Planning Commission Meeting - October 8, 1975� '�� ""' " Paqe'5' "� 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL�USE PERMIT, SP #75-26, BY NIDIA K. FIOAG: � Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, 3, F, to allow a day care.center on Lots 12, 13 and 14, Block 17, Fridley Park Addition, the same being 6255 East River Road N.E. �; � No action needed. Withdraw by�petitioner by telephone call October 7, 1975. Mr. Boardman said the petitioner, stated she was withdrawing this request because the house on this property would not meet the State requirements for licensing. Mr. Scott asked if the petitioner stated why this would not meet the State requirements. Mr. Boardman said no. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #75-05, BY ROBERT OLMSTEAD: To rezone fro�n C-1S local shopping areas to R-2 two family�dw7ling areas Lot 14, Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, except the East 225 feet, being that part of Lo� 14 not zoned R-1 (single family dwelling areas), gener•ally located at Fireside Drive N.E. and Cei ,:ral Avenue N.E. Mr. Robert Olmstead was present. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Langenfeld, that the P1ann.�ng Corrmliss.i'on .open the Public Hearing on rezoning request, ZOA #75-05, by Robert 0lmstead. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 9:00 �.M. Mr. Boardman said there was a petition to receive on this requesto Mr. Harris�'said this was peti�ion Noo 19-1975�dated October 8, 1975 which rea�d "We the undersigned prope�°ty owners of single family dwellings and residents of the area around and adjacent io Lot 14, Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, al1 lying in the North Half of Section 12, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesoia, generally located at Fireside Drive N.E. and Central Avenu� N.Ee, hereby petition the Planning Commission of the City of Fridley to deny ihe requesi, ZQA #75-05, to rezone the C-1S District to any zone other than R-1. That the undersigned represent the majority of single family dwlling-property.owners a�ound and adjacent to ihe above mentioned property and hereby volun'carily signi�y our objection to such rezoning requests and respectfully request the Planning Commission to deny such reques�s." Mr. Harri� said there were signatures from 15 residences in the area. (Only six �n the 350' radius of the proper�y). ' MOTION by Scott, seconded by Langenfeld, that the PZanning Commission receive - Petition No. 1975, in opposition to any rezoning exce,pt to R-1. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � Mr. Boardman said the first re� t to split �this lo� was back in 1965, which subsequently was dropped. In �i�i�� was a petition to split one lot from the commercial property and to allow this split off lot �o be developed as R-2. At �ihe time of this request you could construct a double bungalow�on commercial property. The requesi was to split off 75' b�t when this wa� recorded at the County, it was recorded as 80 feet. The presen� lot split request was going to match up with whai the Gounty had, so there will be twc� 80' lots and one 90' lot. Under the present zoning ordinance, you cannot building R-2 in a commercial area, s� this was the reason for the rezoning request. You also cannot building a double bungalow on a 75' lot. Mr. Robert Olmstead said that with the clarify the legal descripicion once and for all lo� split reqUest they were trying to because this had become ar�mish-m�sh beteveen�; _ .. . � . . .. .. .. . .. . .. . .... .. Pl anni ng Corr�ni ssi on Meeting - October 8, 1975 � � ' � ' � � " � ' " � � paq� ' 6 1965 and 1967. � Mr. Harris said the lot split request was actually the next item on the agenda. - Mr. Olmstead said that in answer to the petition against this rezoning of this property, the double bungalow that would be built on parcel 930, the parcel closest to the present R-1 zoning, would be a split entry type of construction, and would fit into the residential atmosphere of the area. He said they already had a buyer for � this parcel, and if this rezoning went-through wi-thout a hitch, he�did have the f�nancing. He said they would have to break ground be�'ore the end of the year. Mr, Olmstead presented a picture of a split entry double bungalow that had been built.in another area that wou1d be the same as what they were proposing to build on this property. He also presented pictures of the property and the homes adja�ent to this property. Mr. Olmst�ad said the old piano store was on this property. Mr. Harris asked if the piano store would be ta'r'n dovrn. Mr. Olmstead said he had oral agi�eerre� � that i t woul d be. � Mr. Olson said that there had been complaints on this piano�store, but�the structure was s'ound so it could not be condemned. It has been boarded upe Mr. Harris said when this was rezoned, the piano store would become a legal. non-conforming use, and he thought it should be a stipulation of the rezoning that it be removed. Mr. Boardman said �hat just South of 'this property, the zoning ►�aas C-R1 and thi� was where the Planning Commission had just approved a building permit for a commercial enterprise of office and staraye space. South of that was the Frontier Club. Across !�� ti�e stree�r from this proper�y it was zoned M-2 (h�avy industrial) and kitty-corner `A- , fro�n the property was the mobile hom� park. He said thatjust North and East of this .property it was zoned R-1. Mr. Dale Hagen, 7478 Hayes Street N.E., said he was r,epresenting the people who had signed the"petition..� He said his house was built in 1965 and happened to be the first house in thP area�. He said that subsequently the other homes were bui1� and they h�.d�all been well maintained, so this was a nice area of Fridley. They all felt that single family homes were the best use•of this.vacant property. He also stated that the old piano store was a safety hazard to �he area. He said that although �his was boarded up, it was always being 6roken in�roy and it looked like a junk yard. He said he had talked to Judge Wargo, the owner of the property,'and also to Counci7o He said that both the Mayor and his Councilman, Walt Starwait had been out to see him about this property, but so far nothing had been done. At this poin� there was a discussion between all members of the Planning Commission, staff present, and with Mr. Hagen, in which the following points were made: 1. If this property wasn't rezoned, it could be developed commercially. 2. The R-2 zoning would be a good buffer between the corrnnercial and industrial area and the existing R-1 property. 3. The property owner was pe�itioning to have this property zoned R-2, not R-1, � and the P1«nning Commission and Council could not rezone proper�y to a _� . different zoning than what the property owr.er wanted unless they were prepared ° to defend that change in court. The property owner has his rights. 4. The Planning Commission kept asking P�Ir. Hagen i�F he understood their positior, � Planning Commission Meeting October 8, 1975 "'����Page'� "__ and the alternates, and Mr. Hagen kept saying.that he did, but he still didn't want the property rezoned to�anything but R-1. Mr. Hagen asked the Planning Commissi�on that if the neighborhood got together and could negotiate the purchase of this property, �if they could then requ�st that it be rezoned to R-1. Mr. Harris said that they could, in that event. Mr. Hagen said he was disappointed that the other people who signed the petition were.not Nresent at this meeting. They had said they would be here. � Mr. Olmstead said he had talked to the people who owned the residential property closest to the property he wanted to rezone. He said he didn'� hear about any opposition, they just listened and didn't giv.e much response. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Hagen and Mr. Olmstead what they thought the value of their property would be valued a� by the tax assessor. Mr. Hagen. said the value of the homes as given by the assessor's office would be around $28,000. �r. Olmstead said he didn't know what value the tax assessor would put on ihe doubie bungal�wy but it would cost about $53,000 to build and the owner would live in one unit. ".�r. Drigans said he didn't feel that this would be detrimental to the residential area, and might be more of an improvement. Mr. Hagen said he had ng doub�. that these would be fine double bungalows, but single family homes would be �inet°. MOTION b� Bergman, seconded by Scott that the Planning CommZSSion close 't�ie Public Hearing on rezoning.request, ZOA #75-05, by Robert O'mstead. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 10:20 P.Mo ^ MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission recommend �-° to Counci? approval of the rezoning reques�t, ZO� #75-05, by Robert Olmstead, to rezone from C-1S (Ioca1 shopping areas) to R-2 (`tArG familc,� dwella.ng areas) ,�t 14, Auditor` s Subdivision No. 129, except the East 225 feet, beinq that part of Lot 14 not zoned R-.I (sing.2e family dwelling areas) generally Iocated at Fireside Drive N.E. and Centr.a.Z Avenue N.E, with the s�tipulation that the oJ_d piano store located on Parcel 9zQ, and addressed at 7451 Central Avenue N.E., be removed before the secona` reading of the ordinance on this rezoning. Upon a voice vote, a1Z voting aye, the motion carried� unanimously. � 3. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #75-08, BY ROBERT OLMSTEAD: To split off Lot 14, Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, except the East 273 feet, into three building sites, Parcels 920, 925 and 930, the same becoming the first three lots on tf�e North side of Fireside Drive N.E. off Central Avenue NoE. Mr. Harris said this had been discussed during the Public Fiearirig on rezoning. MOTION by Drigans, $ecanded by Bergman, fhat �he Planning Cammis�ion reco:nn�nd to Council approval of the lot split request, T�.S. #75-08o by Rohert Dlmstead, to split off Lot 14, Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, except the East 273 feet, into three huilding sites, Parcels 920, 925, and 930, the same becaming the first three lois on the North side of Fireside Drive N.E. off Cenfral Avenue N.E. Upon a voice vote, ai1 vo�inq aye, the motion carried unanimously. ' Ghairman Harris declared a recess of the Planning Commission meeting at 10:35 P.P�1. `� and reconvened the meeting a� 10:50 P.M. 4. CONTINUED: REVIEW OF RROPOSED JUNK VEHICLE ORDINANCE,. SECTION 123 Planning Commission Meeting - Octobmr 8, 1975 Page 8 � Mr.'Olson said that the recorrenendation from the Environmental Commission� had been incorporated into the ordinance in paragrapfi 123.03 which read that this �� ordinance would not apply to a single inoperable vehicle which is in the reasonable process of restoration to�an operable vehicle, provided such yehicle does not . constitute a nuisance. One other point that was.made clear to him in ta�lking with Howard Rick, a Lieutenant in the Police Department was that we no longer have a Chief of Police, so the first sentence in paragraph 123.04 should read " The City or its duly authorized agent..... Mr. Olson said he took this phrase from the . � Abandoned Motor Vehicle sec�ion of the code. � The other question that was raised at the previous meeting was on impounding. He said that in checking with the police department on abandoned motor vehicles, they have incurred a little over $200 in expense and this was projected to be about $400. This was expense the City never got a return on. He said he thought that referring the junk vehicle ordinance to Chapter 114 of the code with the statement that "Such vehicle shall be impounded until lawfully claimed or disposed of in accordance with Chapter 114 of the City Code" was good rather than to set up a different method for this ordinance. Mr. Olson gave each Planning Commission member a copy of the contract for� Towing, Storage and Impounding of Vehicles for the City of Fridley held by Shorty's Towing. He said that Sec�ion 6, A, s�ates that on City ordered -tows of abandoned Motor�Vehicles.....the City guarantees payment of towing charges in accordance with the contract rates9 and in�addition, the City wi11 pay the contractor storage under contract rates not to exceed the amount received from the sale of such vehicle at public auction. He said ihe normal procedure was when an abandoned motor vehicle was removed from public proper�ty or on private property without the consent of the propErty owner, was that'SFiorty would be notified and he would go in and remove such vehicle.to his storage area. A letter is sent to the owner that the vehicle can be claimed. If the vehicle was claimed, there was no expense to the City. If the vehicle was never claimed, then Shorty takes it to his storage yard and the City receives a bill for no more than $10 if it was just towed away and the fee would be $20 if it had to be dollied and towed away. The City was not charged a storage fee. � Then, there would come a time when the vehicle would be sold at public auction if.. not claimed, to recover the money. If the vehicle was s.old for say $20, that money would go directly to the City to pay the towing charge. If the vehicle was sold for .$25, the City would get the $20 and Shorty would get the $5 to pay for the storage charges. He said that if a vehicle had been stored for 10 days and the s�:orage fee should be $30. Then if a vehicle was sold for $55, $20 of this would go dir��tly to the City to pay for the towing bill, $30 would go to Shorty`s for the storage, and the extra $5 would go to the general fund. � _ Mr. Harris said this was fine as long as scrap iron�was valuable. Mr. Olson said that if the junk vehicle ordinance was adopted, he didn`t feel they would be, impounding more than 4 cars a year, because this would be used as a last resort when the problem couldn't be dealt with in any other way. He just couldn't foresee a problem with this section of the ord�nance. He said he felt it wou1d be good to have this leverage to work with, and it would be a tool to help enforce this ordinance. Mr. Olson said he cbuld issue a citation also, and hopefully this would go back into � the general fund. Mr. Harris said he was just concerned about the taxpayers picking � .' ��p the bill for junk cars, but•it didn't seem as this was .going to be that large of ' an expense. � . , I i�� I Mr. Bergman said he only had one question on this ordinace, and that was the 96 � hours. Mr. Olson said he would be willing to change this to 10 days, because this ' had been a concern of the Environmental Commission also. He said he. had used 96 �.-��'� . �, � ' , ��� Planning Commission Meeting - October 8, 1975 �� '��" �'�Qage_ 9�' hours because this was the time in Chapier 39 of the old code. � Mr. Bergman said he felt 10 days was more realistic. He said he also had a question on the timing. .If someone called in and complained about a junk car . that had been. on a property for two weeks, would.the owner of the vehicl�e already be in violation of this ordinance? Mr. Olson said no. It would be 10 days after notification by the City. Mr. Bergman said he thought this was what the ordinance should say, rather than have it impl.ied, Mr. Olson said this would be included in . the final draft of the ordinance. Mr. Olson said he woul.d be using Paragraph 123.03 the most in this ordinance. He said this would be used to either have the junk car removed from the pnoperty, or they would have to make it operable or license it, or else store it in��an enclosed building. Mr. Olson said the purpose of this ordinance was to keep junk cars out of residential areas. MOTION by Bergman, seconded b� Scott, that the PZanning Commission recommend to Council approval of ihe proposed junk vehicle ordinance, Chapter 123, as amended at this meeting. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Scott said they should handle Item 7 on the agenda as th� next�iiem,�because the City calendar had to�go �o press: C�iairman Harris agreed. 5. REVIEW CALANDAR DATES�FOR COMMISSION MEETINGS � Mr. Boardman explained that there had to enough time between the Commission � meeting and the preparation of the Planning Commission agenda so that the minutes of the Commissions could be prepared. ° Mr. Bergman said the Community Development Commission �vould mee� on any Tuesday that was open. ' ' Mr. Drigans said the Appeals Commission would.continue to meet two Tuesdays a month according to their present schedule. Mr. Bergman.said the Human Resources Commission wanted to meet twice a month instead of once� because the second meeting would be the Human Resources Forum meeting. He sa�d they wanted to meet the first and third Thursdays, except in January, a�hen it would be the second and fourth Thursday. - Mr. Boardman said this was in conflict with the Env�ironmental Commission who had asked previously to meet the third Thursday of the month. He said the same secretary t�ok the minutes of both these Cor�nissions, and they were public meetings, so this could also be a conflict for citizens who might be interested in both Commissions. He said it would also be a conflict for staff. Mr. Boardman said it has happened that he had to attend a Community Development Commission meeting and the Environmental Commission meeting on the same evening. .� . Mr. Langenfeld asked if the staff could poll the Environmenta1 Cor�miission members the next morning to see if they would agree to a different Thursday. He �� couldn't agree to a different Thursday because they had made a motion to meet on the third Thursday. Mr. Olson said he would do this. Mr. Boardman said he would fit the Parks � Recreation Commmission into the . . ... .. Planning Commission Meeting October 8, 1975 �������������Page_10���� � schedule. Both Mr.� Bergman and Mr. Langenfeld said there was a possibility thai � their Commission's might want to meet twice a month also, as their work load got heavier. . � �6. CONTINUED: REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGE� IN SECTION 115, SWIMMING POOLS � � MOTION bu S�ott, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission continue until Octolaer 22, 1975 the review of �the p:z�c+`pos�d changes' in SectiDn115, Swimming Poo1s. Upon a voice vote, all Voting aye, the ircotion carried unanimously. 7. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF COMMISSION'S GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Mr. Boardman said the Parks & Recreation Goals and Objectives were not ready for this meeting, so this item could be continued. Mr. Bergman said he felt that the other Commission's had met the time limit set by the Planning Commission, and he felt they were a little remiss in not b��ing rear.�y to start on this review. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Drigans, that the PZanning Commission rece.�ve the Goals and Objectives from the Cammunity Development Commission, the Environir[ental Commi.ss.ion and the Human Resource Commission. Upon a voice vo�e, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Scott .said there would be some corrections made in the Human Resource Commission goals and objectives also. 8. DISCUSSION Mr. Harris as�ed Mr. Olson if he had received an answer to the storm sewer water' �going into the sanitary sewe�rl�hhehhadd bven thisgproblemntohTom Colbera�,�but he the Bayer plat. Mr. Olson s 9 . hadn't received an answer as yet. Mr. Bergman, Mr. Langenfeld, and Commission should be more expedicious the meetings could be shorter. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Harris all agreed that the Planning in the handling of their business so that MOTION by Scott, seconded .�y Bergman, that the meeiing be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Planning Commission meetir.g of October S, 1975 adjourned at 12:03 A.M. � Respectfully submitted, ti�c� orothy Eve on, Secretary __ �� s ��. o�- �; ��>sf � �� �� � ��l 9 � �` 1�a�- /�1� � � � � ���- �s s� . ti -� ��Jo- ���-�-�