Loading...
PL 01/21/1976 - 30435e r``V•,4 -�..�� ; �' ��� :� ,, .� .�. / ", �1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: CITY �OF FRIDLEY JANUARY 21, 1976 Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL: PAGE 1 Members Presen�: Scott, Bergman, Harris, Peterson, Langenfe1d Members Absent: Drigans Others Present:. Jerrold Boardman, City Pl.anner Councilman Walt Starwalt AGEI�DA MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, to adop.t an amen3ed agenda which deletes the Administrative Staff Report for Burlington Northern because the petitioner wished to have this postponed, and add an Administrative Staff Report for Medtronic, Inc. and minutes of the Parks &'Recrea�ion Commission. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the amended aqenda was adopted. APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 7, 1976 h90TION by Scott, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commzssion minutes c?f. the January 7, 1976 meeting be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, a11 vot_ing aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE APPEALS COP4MISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 13, 1976 � MOTI�N by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of.January 13, 1976. Chairman Harris said the Comprehensive Ho�ising Plan had been discussed at this meeiing, but there didn't seem to be any action takena Mr. Boardn�an said there was a scheduled meeting of the Appeals Commission on January 27, 1976, but so far there weren't any other items for this mee±ing, so he did�i't know if this Commission would meet again on the plan. As Mr. Drigans �v�sn'� present at this meeting, he cou�dn't ask him. If they did meei and make any reeammendations, we would try to ha��e a rough draft of that recommenda.t�ion for the January 28th Plannin g Commission meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, a1.Z voting aye, the motion carried unanim�usly. RECEIVE_COMMIUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 6, 1976 Mr. Beryman�said the second item shouid be "Continued Discussion of 3.2. Beer Ordinance. MOTTON by Bergman, seconded by 5cott, that the Planning Carrmmissi.on receive the Garrmrunity Development minutes of the January 6, 1976 meeting as arrcnded. Mr. Scott said the Human Resources Commission was stili working on the� "'� �vo��ing of the 3.2 3eer Ordinance. !i� asked Mr. Boardman �vhen this was s�pposed to come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Boardman said ihere was.no.set�� Planning Commision Meeting - January 21, 1976 Page 2 time limi� on this, as the Comprehensive Housing Plan was top priority at this �ime. � � Ghairman Harris said he noted that the Community Development Commission � was going to set up a project committee for the sign ordinance. Mr. Bergman said this had 6een discussed at this meeting but they havP since changed their mind. The motion that was made at the January 20th meeting was that they . recommend to the Planning Commission that ��ie'City Administration be asked �o prepare a rewritten sign:ordinance, covering the problems as they see them. _ Our reasoning for this was tfiat the City Administration does not sit in with sub-committees, and we felt that a sub-cammittee would defini�ely need that type of guidance to e�ren determine what the apparent problems would seem to be. He said this would be in the minutes that the Planning Commission would receive • at their next meeting. � Mr. Harris said then there would be some action taken on the sign ordinance. Mr. Bergman said their recommendation to the Planning Commission was what he had �reviously sta�ed. Mr. Langenfeld said he thought it should be on record that the Planning Commission was not against signs as a group. The reason the billboards were handled the way they were was because they were trying to enforce the ordinanc�. He said �hat he had heard rumors that the Planning Commission w�as totally against billboards and signs, and that was not true.� UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIUE HUMAN RESOURCES COP�IMISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 8' 1976 � MO.'I'ION by Scott, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receiv� the Numan Resources Corranission minutes of the January 8, 1976 rrceeting. Mr. Scott said he would like the Planning Commission to note the. date of the meeting and the motion made on Page 3 of these minutes, where !Ne established three awards to be awarded annua3ly to an individual in Fridley, an organizatinn in Fridley, and a business institution in Fridley. He said that subsequently the Columbia Heights Human Rights Commission passed a similar motion, and they got the publicity. UPOIV A voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimvusl�. RECEIVE ENVIRONf�1ENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES: JANUARY 13, 1976 MOTIDN b� Langenfeld, seconded b� Scott, that the Planning Commission receive t11e .rur�utes a.f ti�e Eiivirorunenial �ivaliiy Cvm.mission's speci�l meeting ori Januar� 13, 1976. M�. Scott said that on the first page of these minutes on the discussion on the Compi°ehensive Housing Plan, the second paragraph, he would like to express ti�e dismay of the Human Resources Commission at the apparent sterotyping of 1ow income people with criminal activities. This was certainly not within the goal� of developing fiuman dignity. � Mr. Langenfeld said this was from the Human Resources point of view. Mr. ~ Scott said this was from the human point of view. Mr. Langenfeld said he res,�.�ected -.�,�,,-,...,��.� __. � . --�:. ... . �`,- Pla�ui�i�3 �. Commission Meeting -�lanuary Z1 , 1976 � Page 3 Mr.,Sr,�t#:,'=y.comments, but everyone doesn't think like Mr. Scott. �`'�� P�r°.-�„i-E�a�r��s asked Mr. Scott if he had noted the motion made on page 3 �- of thzse';,ir�.utes. Mr. Scott said he had, but he thought he had already made ' his p�in-c: K , � Mr�;-�HaJrris told Mr. Langenfeld that there seemed to be some paradoxes in the mo°tions passed at this meeting. He said that maybe he could explain some of them to him. He said that on page 3, the motion regarding Section 8 housing seems to be in conflict with the motion on page 4, where they accept the first � housing goal. Mr. Langenfeld said the first motion was more an emphasis on a strong maintenance code and the last motion was just an agreement to the primary housing goal. Mr. Langenfeld said' that he did thank Mr. Scott for his comments, because it would make people at�are that they were making prejudicial statemen�s, which was probably not their intent when ihe statement was made. UPON a voice vote, al1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: DECEMBER 22, 1975 MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the December 22, 1975 meeting of the Parks & Recreation Co�nission. I ly� ' Mr. Pete�son said he would just like �o �call it ta the attention of the Pianning Commission that the Parks�& Recreation Commission has been at�racting. larg.e delegations to their meel:ings lately. � Mr. Scott said he wauld like to commend Mr. Henry Peterson's statement on a bandstand. He thought this was a super idea. He said the Fine Arts Commi�tee was in �he process of assembling som� tvpe of orchestral group, and Mr. Peterson may w�nt to contaci: them to �telp in a fund raising effort. Mr. Peterson said that Mr. Henry Peterson took this proposal to the 49'er group, after meeting with the Parks & Recreation Commission, and the 49'er'�s have adopted this as one of their projects to raise funds. He said he would tell Mr. Peterson about Mr. Scott's suggestion. He said that the proposal ihat Mr. Peterson had brought to the Conunission was a very nice structure and vdould be a multi-pierpose building ���hich could be used for other things other than bdnd concerts. Mr. Langenfeld asked if this was going to be located in the natural sand dune �rea. i�r. Peterson said this was one of the sites looked at, but sta�Ff favors a site cn �:he East side of Moore La�ce, North of the be2ch area. This ��ould tend to be for the benefit o�� those using the beech, but far enough awav from the road to get away from the noise situation. There were park benches and picnic tabl�s and the 49'er's in conjunction with the Lion's would probabl�� want ��o make it even more of a family picnic area for band concerts, or plays, or what have you. Mr. Langenfeld said the reason he asked this question was because there �''1, was alt,eady being oppositian formed as to the use of the sand dune area for this --- pu��pose, h1r. Peterson said the Commission had talked about the noise level of . the concer� itself, so tha� people could �njoy the band concert or outdoor �heatre, or whatever was beirig presented. They were also concerned about �;��. .. Plannin9 Commission Meeting - January 21, 1976 Page 4__ having adequate parking and that there were the �roper amount of ingresses and egresses.so it wouldn't cause a traffic problem. It was due to all these considerations that staff felt the Moore Lake site was the best cfioice at this � - �..� point in time. �` Mr. Scott said he would like to see this used for an annual orator's contest. Mr. Peterson said he would like to make one more comment. He said that i��e Parks & Recreation Convnission felt very badly when it has to turn down a committee such as had appeared be�ore us asking for improvement in their park. Somehow the stark reality of economic accounting and the wishes and wants of the people do not always come out to the saroe formula. This was the problem that this Commission was always struggling with. UPON a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. R.��EIVE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT: 6970 CENTRAL AVENUE N.E., h9ETRONIC, INC. MOTION by Scott, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive the Administrative Staff Report for l�etronic, Inc., 6970 Central Avenue N.E. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT By: Medtronic, Inc., 6970 Central Avenue N.E. GENERAL DESCRIPTIONe This �ermit is for an addit�on on the South side of the Medtronic building to enclose an open space areao This�addition will increase their '� manufac�ur7ng area. The add9�ivn will have a brick exterior which wi11 '� match the existing buildingo � ENGINEERING: No engineEring probler�s are ant�l�ipat�d. EPJV I RONhiENTAL : The Ri.ce Creek t�atershed District has r�eviewed the p�uns and have noted. no negative in�pac� �rom �f�i s project�. Gons�ruc� i c�►� ��i 11 ial:e pl ace this winter and the frc,zen graund cor�di��an t��'i�1 prever�i; �he creek banks from collapsing9 WI17CIl co��d happen d�ring sprti.ng a�dsunme� constri1ction� BUILDING PERMIT STIPULATION�a Non�. Mr. Harris asked where this addition would be. Mr. Boardman said it would be �n the back of the building on the Creek. He said they had already gotten the approval of the Rice Creei: Watershed. Mr. Langenfeld said that under environmental, it states that the construc:�ion would tal�e place this winter �`o prevent the creek banks from collapsing. lelhat would �happen if t.he ground was not frozen? Mr. 6oardman said the purpose of -'"'� having the permit issued at this time. He said they will blade off ihe snow - so the ground will be frozer� hard so they can use heavy equipment, and the entire project will be done while the ground was frozen. Mr. Langenfeld asked Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1976 Page 5 if this would require any shoring? Mr. Boardman said it wouldn't require any more shoring than they already have. Mr: Harris asked about the drainage �-.� in this area. Mr. Boardman said it would be the same as they have now. He said they had u�dergroundsystems for the drain-off now. Mr. Langenfeld asked if we always accepted the findings of the Rice Creek Watershed on developments such as this? Mr. Boardman said that anyone in the 6datershed District did have to get a permit from them, but they did not have the final d�ecision. The City could intervene if they disagreed with their findings. The Planning Commissiqn�had some question as to whether there was an appeal section in �-he rules and regulations of the Rice Creek Watershed District. They asked Mr. Boardman to obtain copies of these rules and regulations and also for a map of the Watershed Dis�rict. Mr. Boardman said he would do this. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, the �^otion carried unanimous.Zy. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING REQiIEST, ZOA #75-07, BY LEROY T. HALUPTZOK: To rezone Lot 18, Block 2, Central View Manor Addition, except the Eas� 125 feet thereof, from C-1S (local shopping �area�s) to M-1 (light industrial areas), ',�he same being 1240 73 1/2 Avenue N.E. Mr. John G. Bell, attorney representing Mr. Haluptzok, was present. `'�'� MdTICN-by Scott, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearirig on rezoning request, ZOA �`75-07, by Leroy Te Ha.Zuptzoke Upon a voice vofe, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris opened the Public Nearing . at 8:30 P.M. Mr. Boardman said the general area where.this property is located also had Central Auto Parts and Fridley Auto Parts. This was an existing residential structure that they propose to use for the sale of parts for antique au�os. They would be selling a combination of used parts and�new parts that are made for antique and classic automobiles. He said ihis property was presently zoned C-1S, and in order to operate what we have to classify as a junk yard, it has be to rezoned to M-1. This will also need a Special Use Permit. There was one problem that was noted after this reques�t was made, and that was that Lot 17, Block 2, Central View Manor, will still be zoned C-1S. This lot should be rezoned to M-1 also and then the entire block would have M-i zoning except the east 125 feet of Lot 18 which will have to keep the C-1S zoning because there was a service sta�ion on this property. This rezoning request should be contingent upon Lot 17 being rezoned to M-1 a�so. Chairman Harris asked how big Lot 17 was. Mr. Boardman said it was 6�' by 194'. Mr. Harris said it wouldn't meet the requirements for an M-1 zone either. Mr. Boardman said that if it was the same zoning as �Ghe balance of the block, it could be combined with other pr°operty. Mr. Bergman asked the zoning of the other property in this area. Mr. ,� Boardman said the property to the South was zoned M-1. Kit�y corner from f this property it was zoned M-2, and the property across the street on Central Avenue w�s zoned C-1S. � Planning Com �ssion Meeting - J�nuary Z1, 1976 Page 6 Chairman Harris asked Mr. Bell if he knew wha owned Lot 17. Mr. �ell said he didn't. Mr. Boardman said it was owned by Jim Halupzok. . �. Mr. Harris said they felt it wo�ld be goad planning to request the owner � of Lot 17 to rezone this lot from C-1S to M-1 also, to make the zoning consisteni with the balance of the block. Mr. Bell said he didn't know the present use of this property, but he would check this out with his'client. Mr. Harris asked if there would be a�y dismantling of automobiles on this property. Mr. Bell said no. He said there would be pa�ts of disman�led auto- mobiles stored on this property, but they would be dismantled before they were brought to this property. He said the sma11 parts would all be inside but there would be same outside storage of the.large parts. Mr. Langenfeld asked whJ� this request was far M-1 zoning? Mr. Boardman said that the nature of this business, which has to be termed a junk yard �was only allowed in this zoning. He said it would be allawed in M-2 also, but M-1 zoning was more compat�ble vrith tne residential character of areas close 'co this property. Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Bell wha� he thought of the terminology of calling this business a junk yard. Mr. Bell said that his c1ient was ready to meet all the requirements of the zaning code and the special use p�rmit, and while this would no� be a junk yard, what was in a name? Mr. Bergman asked Mr. Beil how he would describe the activities �hat would be carried on on this pro�erty? Would you describe it stric�1y a.s sales or would there be disman�1ing, or assembling or restoration of automobile,s.� Would there be metal machin� work�going on? Mr. Be11 said there would not be dismantling, there would not be restora�iany there would be no torches out cutting up parts, it would be strictly sales. He said the parts would be disman�led before they were brought to the property. Mr. Bergman said that anything that was brought to this property would be in a saleable conoiition then. Mr. Bell said yes. Mr. Bergman then asked Mr. Boardman if our Code excluded this `y�� of sales from a commercial use. Mr. Boardman said it did because it ..d '-' be called a junk yard, because of �he outside storage vf auto parts. Mr. Ber,gman said there were other Gommercial operations that had outside storage, so we were making• a particular dist�riction because this was the outside storage of auto parts. Mr. Boardman said he didn't see any other way of doing this becaGSe a jun� yard was not a1le�ved in C-1S zoning, on1y in M-1 and M-2 zoning. Mr. Langenfeld said he dicln't agree with the junk yard terminology. He asked Mr. Bell what span of years these antique auto parts would cover? Mr. Bell said that these wou1d be for ant�ique and cJ.assic automobiles. He said he would like to have it stated that these wer�e parts for antique an� classic cat°s because all of the parts would not be antique. Some of them were new parts for an�tique and classic curs. He said because the parts were for classic cars aiso, he really couldn't state what would be the newest year they� wo�_�ld have parts for. These would generally be pre-World War II cars. He sa�id there might be some from right-af�er the war like an Edsel. He said that he personally had had a 55 Studebak�r, and his son defined that as a classic. ��,,.�.r � �, _ _. Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1976 � Page _7 Mr. Boardman said that in response to Mr. Langenfeld's question on the terminology of this business as a junk yard, under commercial use, such r�� as a service station, it does state that service stations are not allowed to store on their property any wrecked, abandoned, or junked automobiles, or the sal�e or dispTay for sale of used cars. He said that the Code defines junk yards as any place where two or more motor vehicles not in running condition, or parts thereof, are stored in the open and are not being � restored to operation, or any land, building or structure used for wrecking or storing or such motor vehicles or parts thereof; and including any farm vehicles or farm machinery, or parts thereof, stored in the open and not being � restored to operating condition; and including the commercial salvaging and scavenging of any other good; articles or merchandise. Mr. Langenfeld and Mr. Bergman said that made it quite clear that this operation would have to be classified as a junk yard. Chairman Harris said this should probably have been discussed when we were considering the Special Use Permit. He said that if the Planning Commission should recommend approval of the rezoning and special use request, they w�uld have to be careful so that this operation stayed the same as they were stating at this meeting, or we could end up with another junk yard operation in the fullest sense. This could b� handled with stipulations on the Special Use Permito Chai�nan Harris asked if the existing house would be torn down. Mr. Bell said no, there would be shelving put in, but it will be used pretty much ,,� as it was. Mr. Boardman said he had a couple of questions. He said this house ���ul� I�ave to remadeled to the extent to make it accessible to the � .handicapped. It will have to mee� the State 6uilding Code, Chapter 55, for the . the handica�ped. He said they wouldn't have to put in restroom facilities for the handicapped, but they would have to put in a ramp, 1" in 20 f�., and the doors will have to be 3'1" wide. H? said that the type of stora�e they would have in this house might �e too heavy�a load for the floor structure of a residential building. Mr. Bell said �hat whatever Mr. Haluptzok had to do to meei the Codes would be done. He.said there would be a solid wood 8' fence. Mr. Boardman said the storage of material �ould be no greater than 6'. Mr. Harris said there was a parking lot to be put in in the front: Mr. Boardman said they would be allowed to go with five parking stalls at this time, with room for five more if they should be needed�. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Ber.gman, that the Planning Commission close the Public liearing on rezoning request, ZOA #75-07, by Leroy T. Haluptzok. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:00 P.h1. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Comm�:ssion recommend to Council approval af the rezoning request, ZOA #75-07, by Leroy T,.Haluptzok, to rezone Lot 18, B1ock 2, Central View Manor Addition, except the East 125 feet � thereof,'fr.om C-1S (local shopping areas) to M-1 (light industrial areas), the same being 1240 73 Z/2 Avenue N.E. with the stipulation that application be made to rezone Iat 17, B1ock 2, Central View Manor, from C-1S to M-1 a1so. UPON a � voice vote, .�11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � - Mr. Bergn�an said that he had no objectior� to this property being rezoned � but he still felt awkward because the commercial-� operation �that was described Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1976 "' .�Page 8 - � couldn't be in a commercial zone. � Mr. Harris said he believed this was a quirk in our zoning ordinance. ��� Mr. Peterson said he agreed with Mr. Bergman but we can't hold up the petitiQner' �� while we change the Code. He said the petitioner seemed happy to operate under � the existang Code. , 2. PUBLIC HEARING: RE UES1' FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-29, BY LEROY 4 T. HALUPTZOK: Per.Fridley City Code, Section 205.131, 3, A,8 to allow the sale of parts for antique autos in M-1 Zoning (light industrial areas) a located on Lot 18, Block 2, Central Avenue Addition, except the East ° � 1Z5 feet thereof, the same being 1240 73 1/2 Avenue N.E. '� . E MOTION by Peterson,_seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission � open the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-29, by �eroy 2'. Ha.Zuptzok. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearina open at 9:03 P.M. � Mr. 6e11 said the Planning Commission h�d already discussed sam� afi.f:he f modifications that would have to be made before this house could be used.for � the sa1e of pa�ts for antique and classic auta paris.� � �'I Chairr�an Harris told Nir. Bell that any sign �they wanted for this business � would be a separate permit and ��ould have to meet the requirements of the � sign ordinance. Mr. Harris said that sometimes there was confusion 4vhen someone requested a Special Use Permit and a building permit that ihe sign permit w�s � separa�e also. � Mr. Peterson said that Chairman Harris had mentioned earlier that care �� should be taken in approving the Special Use Permit aoid he would like Mr. � Nar�,is to state his thoughts on this ma��er. Mr. Harris said he though� there should be stipulations that there be no dismantling or stripping of au�omobiles on the premises. There should also be no baling al1owed. Mr. Boardman said that �here should be no junk � yard operation, just the storage of parl:s to be sold. Mr. Harris said there � should not be storage of old cars or any restoration done on the premises. � These were all stipulations that he would like to see on this permit. Mr. Bell said that from what Mr. Haluptzok told him, this would 6e consistent with wh�t he planned to do on this property, so there wouldn't be any objec��ion to these stipulations. MOTI�N by Peterson. seconded by Langenfeld, that the Pulbic Hearing be closed on thc requ�s* for a 5pecial Use Pe.rmit, 5P #?5-29, by Leroy T. Haluptzok. Upon a voice vote, a11 votinc� aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Nearing closed at 9:I0 P.��. MOTION by Pe�erson that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a Special Use PPrmir; SP #i5--2Q. b� L�roy T. Halupzak with the stipulations that have been mentioned and any other stipulations that the � staff thouyht should�be included aftez• further research. Mr. Boardman asked if the Pianning Commission thought it would be better ^ to state "to only a�low" instead oi'am�alesnof9dismantledhparts�for antique�and allo«, such as allow the storage an --.�.--,� .. Planning Commission Meetinq - January 21, 1976 Page � classic cars. ��, Mr. Peterson WITIiDREW his MOTIDN. MOTION by LangenfeZd, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City CounciZ of the request for a Special Use Permit_, SP #75-29, by Leroy T. Haluptzok, as indicated by Fridley City Code Section 205.131 3, (A,B) to allow the storage and sal� of parts for antique cars on Lot Z8, Block 2, Central View Manor Addition, except the East 125 feet t�ereof, the same being 1240 73 I/2 Avenue N.E, with the stipulation that we make certain that the primary use be adhered to, with no dismantling bei�ng allowed on the premises. Mr. Bell said the question had come up previously on what was an antique car. He said that this would include classic cars. Mr. Langenfeld said he would amend the motion to include classic cars, seconded �:� Mr. Peterson. Mr. Boardman said the primary use under the Section of the Code stated says junk yard, and that was the operation we didn't want to allow. Mr. Langenfeld said the wor� primary wa� used in the motion just to denote that the primary use of the special use permit would be the storage ' and sales of antique and classic auto parts, not the primary use under this � section of the Code, but he didn't like the word "only". Mr. gergman said r� maybe they could use "limited to" and then exclude the other uses. Mr. Boardman said they could exclude dismantling operations, restoration and baling. Mr. Langenfeld WITHDREW his MOTION, with the concurrence of Mr. Peterson, who had seconded the motion. ' MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Corrmiission recommend to Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #7�-29�, by Leroy T. Halupzok, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.131, 3, (A,8) in M-1 zoning (light industrial areas) .Iocated on Lot 18, B1ock 2, Central View Manor Addition, except the East Z25 feet thereof, the same being 1240 73 1/2 Avenue N.E. This 5pecial Use Permit limited to ihe storage and sales of dismantled parts for antique and classic cars, exc.Zuding any dismantling operation, restorat�o�z.,. or baling on the premises. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the rr►otion carried unanimously. 3. Pl1BLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-30, BY REED BECKLER: Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, 3, N, to �llow mobile home sales in C-2S zoning �general shopping areas) to.be located in the vicinity of the Southwest corner of the parking lot at Holiday Village ' Nor'th,.on part of Lot 13, Auditor's Subdivision No. 155, the same being 250 57th Avenue N.E. Mr. Reed Becker was present. � MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld, that the P.Zanning Commis�ion ," open the Public Hearing on a request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-30, by Reed Beckler. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared �he Public Nearing open at 9:18 P.M. �lanning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1976 Page 10 Mr. Boardman said the Special Use Permit request was to a11�w the � set-up and operation of a mobi1e home sales lot or area within the area . of Holiday Village North parking lot. The location of the area would be in the South parking lot behind Holiday Village North abutting I.694. They `�� would be utilizing approximately 120' by 300' of space for this type of sales operation. He said that the City administration had a meeting on this request this afternoon and we are having some trouble wi�th this type of an operationa He said .they discussed what this request was for, and what type of lease operations could be hand�ed under a Special Use Permit. If a Special Use Permit was granted on a lease operation such.as this, what was to stop Holiday Village North from asking for other 5pecial Use Permits for other lease operations on this lot. Mr. Langenfeld asked how many units would be involved�in this operation. Mr. Boardman said �hey were talking about 10 units plus an office. Mr. Langenfeld said it seemed like they had just talked to Holiday Village North about cleaning up their parking lot, and this was nothing against the petitioner, but it seAmed like they were going right back into cluttering �his parking lot. Mr. Boardman said the sta�f had a problem in determining how much of a parking lot could be used for this type of-lease operation. Mr. Harris asked what �his would do to the total number of parking spaces needed for Holiday Village North itself. Mr. Boardman said this wouldn't hurt their parking requirements. � Mr. Peterson asked if he unders�ood correctly that this was not to be a part of Holiday Village Narth's opera�ion, but was to be a separate lease opera�ion. Mr. Boardman said this would be a separate operation run b,y Mr. � Beckler. Mr. Bergman asked if i� was normal procedure for a lessee to request a Speciai Use Permit, rather than the property owner. Mr. Boardman s�id �he property owner had signed the request alsos but Mr. Beckler was the pet�tioner. Mr. Boardman said that if this Special Use Permit was granted, the staff �elt there were several things that should be done. They felt that the Special Use Permit should be gran�ed to Holiday Village, not to the lease operation. The r.easons for this was because we want Holiday Vil1age to be responsible ior this lease operation. He said that the office for this sales lot would have to be hooked up to sewer and water. He said this office would have to meet Chap�er 55 of �he State Building Code to meet the handicapped requirements. We also feel that Holiday Vi1lage North should have no other outside Special Use operatio�s. We feel that thi�s operation should have a permanent set-up, so that if this area was used for some other lease operation at a later time, there would be a permanent area for this type of use. By this we mean per�.anent landscaping, permenent curbing and this type of thing. We would like to see this be at one location, so that no matter what type of lease operation came on this property, it would always be in �he same location. Mr. Beckler said that he had approached Holiday Village several months ago and this was why there was a rezoning of the property. He said that Holiday would be doing extensive landscaping because of this rezoning. He said that when he applied for the Special Use Permit, he was under the impression t�at �'� should �e applying personally, as opposed to Holiday. He said that in just ti�4 last day or two they had come to the conclusio� that Holiday shou1d be applying ,�� ��; -. � r.,�` �� Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1976 pa�e �11 � for the Permit. Mr. Brad Steinman, who worrks with real estate for Holiday was unable to come to this meeting. Mr. Beckler said he has talked to Mr. Steinman and he said that if the Special Use Permit was issued to Holiday, they would be satisfied with that. Mr. Beckler said he had some plans with him showing how the ten units and the office would be laid out on this property. He said that if th� office had to be hooked up to sewer and water, they may change this on the plan so there wasn't so far to go. He said that all the units would be 10' apart Mr.' Harris asked if this sales lot would be next to the existing build�ing. Mr. Beckler said it would be about 130' away from the building. He said the area where they proposed to have the.mobile home sales e-ras now full of snow. Mr. Beckler said that they proposed to have around their office some astro turf, green grass type, and also some redwood chips and some large planters. He said this area was all blacktopped and he didn't think Holiday wanted to tear it up and landscape it. Mr. Langenfeld asked what type of advertising signs they planned to use. Mr. Beckler said he was open to any suggestions the Planning Commission miaht want to make . He sai d they pl anned to set the sal es 1 ot up�`�'�o rriake j t r�i ce and show y. Mr. Lan genfeld asked Mr. Beckler about the lease. Mr. �eckler said they had been talking about a year to year lease because he thought this would be what would be stipulated on the Special Use Permit, but they would like a three year lease. ,--� Mr. Peterson asked Mr. Beckler if he was now in the Mobile Home business. Mr. Beckler said he was. He said�he worked in St. Paul in the 5 Star Mobile Home Sales lot. Mr. Beckler said the operation here would technically be a sales lot, but it would not be like other sales lots in the area. The majority of our business vaas selling mobile homes where they sit. He said they would like their sales lot to look as much like mobile homes already placed on perman- ent lots as muc{� as possible. H� said this wouldn't bela case of high-turnover where we would be moving these units in and out. He said a lot of their homes . were already set up in mobile home parks, and were sold there. Mr. Scott asked Mr. Beckler if he was aware that this area had been used for the parking of_employee's cars. Mr. Beckler said he was, but it wasn't used extensively. Mr. Scott said he was concerned with vandalism in this area, because there had been instances of theft and vandalism to the employee cars when they were parked in this area, but probably Mr. Beckler intended to have more lighting in this area. Mr. Langenfeld asked if they were going to take any precautions against vandalism. Mr. Beckler said they would be set�cing up a security systema He said various security guards would be patrolling it �.�t night, and of cource some one would always be there during the day. He said it would 'be in their contract with Holiday that they assume responsibility for the lights in t�his area, and the lights would be on all night. Mr. Langenfeld asked if-this would be a distraction to tl�e homes in the area. Mr. Beckler said the homes would have their backs to the high�vay, and people would notice that there was something different in this section of the parking lot, but he didn't think it would be a distraction. Mr. Beckler said they have wanted a location in this part of the City. He said th.ey could service the parks in this area. He said that one of the -,.�-�-��-:; `^=r . . '"`'� Planning Commission Meeting - J�nuary 21, 1976 Page 12 problems wi�h mobile homes. People will sell them a mobile home, but no one was willing to sell it for them. We feel we can be of great assistance to them. We also help with the sale of repossessions• We feel that this section' .. �;�.� of the parking lot was just empty now, and if we can make it nice, it will help ' our business and make this part of the parking lot nicer for Holiday Village North also. � Mr. Langenfeld said the Planning Commission had been concerned about the area of the parking lc�t where the oarden center used to be, and we didn't want a reoccurence oi� this, but he said he could see from the plans and from Mr. Beckler's conversation that this proposal would enhance this area. Mr. Beckler said he had talked to Mr. Steinman of Holiday, and he was agreeable that �here be no oi:her lease aperation on this lot. Mr. Peterson asked if the ten units of this proposal would all be new mobile homes. Mr. Bec��ler said there would be new and used units on the lot, but the older units �would ai3 be reu,��a��'+oned. ai�c� would look. nice. Mr. Scoti said that he just wanted to voice his concern that Holiday had knowledge that they wanted to have this lease operation in this section of the parking lot, and yet when they were questioned about the parking lot during the public hearing on rezoning, this was not mentioned. Mr. Harris said that aboui 7 or 8 years ago Holiday had in this area what was called a slippery seal slidz, and �t did not work out very well. He said he was not trying to downgrade Mr. Beckler, bu� we heard many of � the same things he i�ad said, when this si�ide was proposed. He said he was not sure of all the problems, and things he had heard about were hearsay. He said that from past experience, he was a h�sitant about'�this proposal. Mr. Langenfeld said he felt that there was a lack of control on the slippery slide proposal than there wauld be on this operation. Mr. Langenfeld said there could be stipulations placed on this Special Use Permit, including an annual review, so he felt this operation could be controlled better than the slide proposal. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Becklerif h� kneva t.he new location of,the garden center? I Mr. Beckler sai.d he didn't. Mr. Harris said he thought Mr. Steinman said that ' this would be moved further South on the lot from the previous location. Mr. Boardman said that if this Special Use Permit was approved, he would like to see some permanent type landscaping in this area. He would want this to be a permanent �ype location so �:hat if tiie mobile home sales should leave this location, and Holiday wanted an�ther lease operatian on their property, it would always be at this location. He suicl he would like to see the office for this sales lot moved up into a more land�caped area and change the lay out of the lot. Mr. Beckler said tr�at if they were operating on a one year lease, he did�r't think they would warat to be tearii�g up blacktop to have more permanent type of landscaping. He sai� he could see P1r. Boardman's point about permar�enl; type landscaping, but he didn't know'how he wanted them to approach this. Mr. Boardman said that this was in the context that this be a permanent locat,ion for a lease operation. He said ti��at what he ��as thinking about was tearing up sor� of the blackto� area, puttinc��-in concre�e curbing, and allovring for Space an�� also allowing for areas where there wo�ald be landscaping. Ne said he was not necessarily talking about Mr°. Qeckler's operation, he said he was talking about �-�� _ Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1976 Paqe 13 an operation that Holiday Village would have to make a conm�ittment to. �''� Mr. Bergman asked Mr. Boardman to re-read the list�of stipulations - suggested by administration. He said he would like to get Mr. Beckler's reactions to them. Mr. Langenfeld said he felt that Mr. Boardman was asking for stability and didn't want a hit and miss type of operation. He said that Mr. Beckler had stated that there wasn't too much traffic behin��Holiday, and he wondered how he was going to get the people to this back lot. Mr. Beckler said they were hoping that people drivi.ng by would notice the location and they would be advertising. He said thei� concept would be different say than from Certified Mobile Homes over on Highway #65. He said they wou7d be trying to show people when then drive by that there was a location there. He said he didn't feel this was a convenient location, but there would be a lot of visibility of the lob. Mr. Bergman said he would like io !rave his question answered. Mr. Boardman read the stipulations worked out by the administration. They are as follows: 1. No expansion beyond the 10 units plus the office. �r. Beckler said they vrould h��� no p.roblEm with this as long as they had enough space to move the units in and out. '� 2. The office be hooked up to City sewer and water. Mr. Beckler said they would agree�to this but they would want to move the location of the office to have it closer to the sewer and water lines. 3. Meet the requirement of Chapter 55 of the State:6uilding Code «hich was the requirements for the handicapped. Mr. Beckler said they would have no trouble in providing the ramp. He didn't know aboui the widening of the door. Ne said they hadn't had to meet that requirement at their other locations. Mr. Bnardman told Mr. Beckler to check with the State to find out what handicap requyrem�nts�they ��uld have to meet. Mr. Beckler said he.would do this, arid would meet all the requirements of the Code that applied to them. 4. No other outside operations be allowed which require a Special Use Permit Mr. Boardman said they should bear in mind that Holiday would need a __ Special Use Permit for their garden center. Mr. Beckler asked Mr. Boardman if they were asking Holiday to choose between this proposal and their garden center? .Mr. Boardman said the staff was concerned about ho� many Special Use Permits � might be requested for the parking lot of Holiday Village for sales operation. Mr. Beckler said they would be agreeable that there only be one lease operation allowed. � ,� . � 5. The areas should be designated where operations needing a Special Use Permit would be located, and these areas should have �erii�anen� . facilities on them, such as permanent exterior landscaping. � Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1976 Page 14 Mr. Boardman said he wasn't saying where this area had to be, but if the mobile home.sa1es lot was going in at the proposed location, then that should be a permanent type location. He said that Holiday was a retail type ��. operation with a large parking lot, and they wouldn't want them �o lease out small parcels of this lot in a series of lease operations: : Mr. Beckler said that if Holiday made this a permanent locatio� and the lease operation didn't woi°k out, they would have an area with all these per.manent things such as landscaping and concrete curbs, then what would they do with it. Mr. Bergman said this was what they were saying. Holiday should consider the risks before they make a committment for this proposal. Mr. Beckler asked Mr. Boardman if �hey should draw up the proposal or rof Ho1iday should draw it up, or if Mr. Boardman was going to draw it up. Mr. Boardman said it would depend upon the Planning �ommission on how many Special Use Permits they were going to a11ow on this property. If they were going to allow the garden center and on� lease operation, thEn he would want H�1 i�ay to �ra4�a up pl ans for p�rmar.ent ' ocati ons for these t��o aperati ans � This would include grassy areas, trees and lanscaping, and concrete curbing. Mr. Beckler said that Noliday and himself had agreed on what they had already discussed, bu� he had no signed agreement with Holiday. He wanted to wait until he had approval of the Specia1 Use Permit. MOTION by 5cott, seconded by Beryman, that the Planning Commission close the �'ublic Hearing on the request for a Special Us� Permit, 5P #75-30, by Reed Beck_7_er. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Pu�lic Hearing closed at 10:00 P.M. !� MOTION b� Langenfe.Zd, seconded by.Peterson for discussion, that the Planniug Commission recommend to Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75�30, hy Reed Beckler, p�r Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, 3. N, to a.I1ow xhobile home sales in C-2S zoning (general shopping areas) to be located in an area I20' x 300' in the vicinity of the Southwest corner of the parking 1ot at Holiday Village North, on part of Lot 13, Auditor's 5ubdivision No. 155, the same being 250 57th Aven.ue 1V.E. with the f.ollowing stipulations: 1. This Special Use Permit, SP #75-30 �e granted to ��'n�a1e Terminal eompany (Holiday Village North) instead of the petitioner. �. No expansion beyonr3 the 10 mobile homes plus the office. 3. The office be hooked up to City se�rer and water. 4. This operation meet a11 the .State Codes including Chapter 55 whicli inc.Zude the handicap requirements. ' S.' No other outside operations he allowed k•hich require a Special Use Permit. , 6. They must designate the areas where operations needing a Special Use Permit wi11 be Iocated, and these areas must have permanent facil.ities on them, such as permanent exterior Iandscaping. ThQSe permanent locations must be worked out with the City Qf Fridley. � 7e This Special Use Permit be subject to annual review. Planning Commission Meetinq - Januarv 21, 1976 Paqe 15 8. That the advertising for this operation meet the requirements of the sign ordinance. � j".� - 9. No major alterations to the blacktopping except�fo� Zandscaping. This Iandscaping be done by property owner, and not the petifiioner. .IO. No used mobile homes be placed on this 1ot that wouZd be an eyesore to the pubZic. Mr. Bergman said he was having trouble with some of the stipulations and he would like to suggest they be restated. Mr. Scott said he didn't like the stipulation about used homes being an eyesore. Mr. Boardman asked them how old the used mobile homes would be. Mr. Beckler.said they wouldn't be older than 1970. Mr. Langenfeld, with the concurrence of Mr. Peterson who had seconded the motion, WITHDREW HIS MOTIOh1. PIOTION by B�rgman,seconded by Scott for. discussion, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the request for a Specia� Use Permit, SP #75-30, by Reed BeckZer, per Fridley City Code, Section 205,.Z01, 3, N, to a11ow mobile home sale in C-25 zoning (generaZZy shopping areas) to be Iocated in an area Z20' x 300' in the vicinity of the�5outhwest corner of the parking 1ot at Holiday Village North, on part of Lot 13, Auditor`s Subdivision No. 155, the same being 250 57th Avenue N.E., with the following stiptzlations: ^ 1. This Special Use Permit, SP #75-30, be granted to Lyndale Terminal Company (HoZida� ViZlage North) instead of the petitioner. 2. No expansion beyond the 10 mobile home; u�eits plus fhe office. 3. This office be hooked up to City sewer and water. 4. No other outside 1ease operations be alZowed which require a Specia.Z Us� Permit.on this property. 5. A11 faci.Zities s�ipulated : musi be insta.Zled-in a permanent fashion. 6. Permanent Zanascaping and aesthetic plans be developed with City Administration. 7. This Special Use Permit be subject to annual review• Mr. Langenfeld said he thought it should be a stipulation that this operation meet all the sign requirements of the Code. Mr. Bergman said he felt that everything to do with this operation would have to fall within the ___ Code. h1r. Peterson said he had no problem with this motion except stipulati4n number 7. He said the problem with this stipulation was that he himself was a businessman, and when he started something he didn't know if'he would be making money the first year. He said that by making this subject to annual '� review it might be a farm of City harrassment, which he was very much agaihst. � He �hought the operator should be given time to get this business going .He said no one would be willii�g to spend much money on a project if they could be put out of business in a year. Planning Commission Meeting - January 2�, 1976 Page 16 Chairman Harris asked Mr. Peterson what limit he would put on this operation as far as review of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Peterson said he didn't see how you could give them less than three years. Mr. Langenfeld said he didn't see this as a harrassment, it was just to make sure they were complying with the stipulations of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Peterson said tha� compliance was assumed for a Special Use Permit, and if there wasn'� compliance, the Special Use Permit could be revoked. Mr. Boardman said he hasn't always agreed to time limits on Special Use Permits because once th�y have been approved, it would be hard to revoke them. He said you would have to prove �hat this was detrimental to the .health, safety and welfare of the community. ,�..R4 � I Mr. Bergman said the reason he added this stipulation was because everyone on the Commission seemed to have some concerns about this request. He said the petitioner did mention that he wou1d have a year to year lease, although he would prefer a three year iease. Mr. Peterson said he believed the petitioner said the '�rre of the 1e�se �1�per,de� �p�n ttie terms under which he�was given Speeial Use Permit approval.. Mr. Boardm�n said the Planning Commission should remember that this Special Use Permit was not being approved for Mr. Beckler but for the proper�cy own�r. . l�Ir. Bergman AMENDED the MOTION to delet� 5tipulation 7; th�t 'tlae Special Use Pe;xn.it �be subject �o annual review. Seconded l�y 5cott. .� Chairman Harris said .he was going to vote against the motion because in his opinion this would be set�ing a bau precedence, by doing this. He didn't thinh mobile hor�e sales% or rEn�-a-�ar9 or slipp�ry seal slides, o�° whatevPr, � was part of the normal'operation of H�liday.Village North, or Target�Stores, or Holly Shopping Center, or Menards, or Skywood Nlall, etc. He said he felt these other properties would be withiri their rights to request other ancillary uses of their parking lots: He said �e couldn't think of one of them who didn't have a corner of thei�� parking lot that couldn't be put to some other use. He said he didn't feel this was a proper use to go along with the present use of the property. . UPON a roli ca11 vote, Bergman, Peterson, Langenfeld voting aye, Harris and Scott voting nay, the motion carried. Chairman Harris declared a recess of the Planning Commission meeting at 10:35 P.M: and reconvened the meeting of January 21st at 10:55 P.M. MOTIDN by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, to alter the order of the amended aqenda to allow Councilman Wa.Zt ,Starwalt to speak. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanirnously. Nlr. Starwalt said he was here speaking as a citizen and not as a represent- ative of the City Council. He said thai. as a citizen there were a couple of things that were a little disturbing tc� him. He said they would be discussing this at the Council Con-Ference Meeting on January 26, 1976. Mr. Starwalt said that in the meeting of January 7th of the Planning Commission the phrase 'diverse life styles' had been disturbing to him. Me said he personally felt there were a few life styles that we could do without^ He said that if ��V�ey were going to op2n up Fridley to all life styles, he was against it. F1e emphasized that this was his opinion and not that of the City � Planning Commission M�eting - January 21, 1976 Page 17 Council. He said that on page 7 of these same minutes the Planning Commission approved of Goal #2 which read "Provide for and maintain, without discrimination, ,�_� a diversity of.suitable housing and living environments within the community." Mr. Starwalt said he was not sure what the Planning Commission meant by that goal, and he had toyed with some wording, and he was not suggesting that the � Planning Commission latch on to this wording, but he was just expressing his ' viewpoint, and a viewpoint which he thought was held by a lot of people in his area. Hs said he would change this goal to read "Provide for and maintain. without discrimination as to race, creed, or color, suitable, conventional, � fami]y oriented housing and living within the community." He felt that if we got away from the family unit as the dominent force in society, the further ' � he felt that we were breaking down society. He said he may be old-fashioned and out of tune with everyone, but he really didn't think so, so he had offered these thoughts for the Planning Commission's deliberations on anything it might apply to. _ Mr. Scott said that the statement that Mr. Starwalt made was almost the same as a goal that had been recommended to the Planning Commission from one o,f the member Commissians. We took it out because we felt we would have to mention other things also, like religion. He said without religion, it could be interpreted that we didn't want Jews in our community. He said that when you talk about traditional family units, he said that he.knew that oun society was becom�Y�g permissive, but �here were widaws and widow�ers t�at maintain family units9 which would not be considered a conventional family � unit. What are you going to do with them, throw them out? Mr. Langenfeld said Mr. Starwalt was just trying to say that the family �--� unit was the basic unit of society. Mr. Sco�rt said he would agree with that. Mr. Starwalt said the fact that there were people who were widows and widowers maintain a family life was just a part of life. He just felt that the statement "without discrimination" was too broad, and there were some people they should discriminate against. Mr. Scott said the problem with that was who were they going to discriminate against. It would have to be spelled out just who you wanted to discriminate against. He said we were dealing with the Minnesot� Human Rights Act also. Mr. Starwalt said that he thought the traditional.family unit was very important to society and he thought there had been 1aws passed that were not good for society, even if they were on the books and we had to adhere to them. Mr. Starwalt said the other item he wanted to discuss was in the Environmental Commission minutes of December 18, 1975 , where they had discussed how the City could determine who was of good moral character. Ne said that this left him with the feeling that it would be recommended that this statement be taken out of the 3.2 Beer License requirement. It said that it would be hard to prove that someone was not of good moral � character. He said he was opposed to having this requirement taken out of the beer or�liquor license requirements. He felt that this should stay in the ordinances, and try to uphold high moral character even if it was a_,tAUgh requirement to determine. Mr. Boardman said he had discussed this with Dick Sobiech and he had indicated that the attorney had recommended that this statemeni � should be taken out. Mr. Starwalt said that at a Council meeting the Mayor had asked the City Attorney if this wasn't standard phraseology in these types of ordinances and he said that it was. He said he didn't care how many attorneys said it shoul� be taken out, he still felt this should be in'the ordinances and -�,�.-..£.,,�.-� -'�=�..� P1 ann i nq Commi ss i on Meeti ng =Janu�ry 21 , 1976 � Pag� 18 we should try to uphold good moral character. Mr. Starwalt said he had one more thing to discuss and this was a- �� +:� concensus of the Council, and this had to do with signs. He said the Planning ' Commission had labored hard and tediously with the billboard ordinance, and you realize that we changed some of your recommendations which were ma�be to your dismay. The consensus of the Council was that it had not and will not outlaw signs. The Council does uphold and respect the need for reasonable signs. It appears to us that the original ordinance was an attempt to virtually outlaw certain types of signs. He said he knew this wouldn't solve their problem, but they wanted the Planning Commission to keep doing the job, and . the Council thought they were doin� a tremendous job. Mr. Langenfeld said that he had mentioned at the beginning of the meeting that it was not the Planning Commissian's intention to be anti-billboard or anti-signs. We were just �rying to enforce the existing ordinance. Mr. Star��ia1 t s�?d the COidC1C� � recngr.i zed thei r d21 emma and are � n sympathy with you with the problems in this area. Chairman Harris said it was the intent of the Planning Cammission, at a� fiutut�e date, to make some rer.ommendations to amend the sign ordinance, but you understand that we have been a bit on the busy side, and it was a matter of priorities. � Chairman Harris said that Mr. Starwalt was welcome to stay for as much of the meeting as he would care to stayo It would probably be late. 4. COfvTINUED: PRGPOSED HOUSING GOALS �4ND OBJECTIVES MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, to receive the staff summary of the proposed housing goals and objectives. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bergman said that from the moticn he made at the last meeting, he had expected a staff summary of all goal areas made by the member Commissions... Mr. Boardman said he would be preparZng �hose for other goals, but the priority at this time was to agree on �he housing �oals and objectives before the Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Housing Plan. Mr. Boardman said they had already �stablished their housing goal which was to "Provide �'or and maintain in the community, without discrimination, a diversity o� suitable housing and living environments for all persons." Ne said he had come up with six housing objectives from the recor��endations oP ihe member• Commissions. He had alsoshawn f�ow t{�ese objec�i.ves could be implemented, but tha-t was only for reference, and �hese did not have to have any recommendatio��s made on them at this meeting. They should con�ern themselves with just approviric� the objectives. Mr. Boardman said the ffrst objective was to "Rssure safe and healthful conditions in all housing and encourage consideration of the qualities o�f privacy, comfort and other ame�ities." N10TION approve vf conditions by Pe�erson, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission � the first objective which rea�s as follows: Assure safe and he�l�fiful in a11 housing and e.ncourage consideration of the qualities of Planning Commission Meetin - Januarv 21, 1976 � Paqe 1 9 t- . � privacy, comfort and other amenities. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ^�-�''� � Mr. � Harri s, sai d the second proposed objective was " Assure that housing will be provided at a cost each individual and household can afford without compromising essential needs." Mr, Langenfeld �aid he didn't see any goal that pertained to the elderly. Mr. Boardman said that under this goal they would try to take advantage of all the programs that were available. This would include Section 8 housing through the Metro Council and the HUD block� grant, and other programs would have to be researched I�ecause he wasn't aware of all the funding that could be applied for. Mr. Langenfeld said he knew they were going to be asked at the Public Hearing where the funds were coming from and if they wouldn't be paying for this funding through their income tax. Mr. Boardman said these programs already had the money set aside, and it would be spent, so we should try to get a fair share for Fridley. He said that he thought they were including the elderly in this objective statement. Mr. Bergman said that in his terminology to assure meant to guarantee, and he didn't think we could guarantee �hat everyone could to provided a house that would not compromise their essential needs. Mr. Peterson said that if we were only going through this exercise to get federal monies, then he wanted no part of it. He said if we were developing a comprehensive housing plan to make Fridley a better place to live and to develop the kind of corr�nunity we want. The other Planning Commission members agreed. Mr. Boardman said that this was not the end statement of the housing � plan, definitely not. Mr. Peterson said that then this would be -�he answer - to the people, that �:he obj:�ctive of this plan was to make Fridley a bet�cer place to live. Chairman Harris said why don't we say that. He didn't see , this statement any place in �he plan. Mr. Starwalt said that he agreed that the purpose of the comprehensive housing plan was not to get Federal money. We also agree �hat if we are going to participate in certain desirable forms of Federal funds, we da have �o comply with certain things. He said this would not be compromising the Council or the corrununitye He said that making Fridley a better place to live was the number one objective, but in the process of doing that we can also put ourselves in the position where we can partake in federal matching funds situations where they do occur, in a manner in which he thought they all could live with. Mr. Boardman said he didn't know how this statement should be handled. He said he didn'tnecessarily feel �hat.yhis had to bea goal statement in tb��housing plan. He said maybe this could be a statement of purpose for setting up the goals and objectives. Chairman Harris said he thought this would clear the air on a lot of things. Mr. Boardman said he agreed with Mr. Bergman that the word 'assure' should probably not be in this objective. A?a�Z'ON by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission approve as the second objective "Encourage programs to provide housing af a cost � individuals and families can afford�without compromising essential needs. Upon : a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the mofion carried unanimously. :;,:. � ��-�-�- Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1976 Page 20 Chairman Harris read the third proposed objective "Promote the preservation and upgrading of existing residential neighbo�hoods." Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Boardman to define a residenti.al neighborhood. Mr. Boardman said it was a group of residential housing units that utilize similar City services and are su�,rounded by similar barriers. It was made up of similar types of people. Chairman Harris said that was a neighborhood. Mr. Bergman said he wanted the word neighborhood replaced by housing. Mr. Boardman said he w�uld agree with that. �� P � � MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission approve the third goal objective to read " Promote the preservation and upgrading of existing residenfial housing.�� Upon a voice vote, aI1 voting aye, the motion ' carried unanimously. Chairmar� Harris read the fourth goal objective which read "Promote a s� fficient ��a�i�¢y of housinn tynes, de�igns, sizes, ownership and occupancy situations, and environments to allow a'ii individuals a choice of housing suited to their needs." Mr. Scott said he felt the 2nd and fourth objective were the same thing and one should.be deleted. Mr. Bergman said he fel� �he 2nd objective had to do wiih economics and this goal had to do with promoting a variety mf housing. types. MOTION by 5coit, seconded by Langen�eld for discussion, that this goal p,�+)@C��ve. I�e approued changing-a11 znciividuals to a11 people. � Mr. Langenfeld said he would like the other members opinion on �this goal statement readina "Promote a sufficient variety of housing to a11ow all people a choice of housing suitable to their needs." Mr. Bergman said the goal objective as originally stated he thought was wordy and redundant. He said that if some one asked us how we were going to a�l this here, it would be di-�f�cult to come up with an answer: He said design, sizes, ownershi�, etc. would be impossible �.o promote. He said he thought this was �aking away the builders prerogatives.; Mr. Sco-tt said he thought what this goal objec�ive was trying to say was that there were more ways to build ho�ses than crackerboxes. Mr. Harris said the new State requlations on the saving of energy was going to rest��i�:t this goal object;ve. In his opinion, this regulation was goir�g to tend to promote the crackerbox house. Mr. Bergman said this was all going to be relative to cost. You could still get what you want, it�will:just cost you more. U�on a voice vote, Scot� voting a�e, balance of votes nay, the MOTION FAILED. � A9bTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission • approve �1ie fourth goal objective which U�ill read "Promote a sufficient variety of housing to a11ow people a choice of selection. Mr. Scott said he would speak against this motion, because this wording � was almost the same as in the goal statement. He thought the orig nal goal objective supporte�+ the goa? staten�ent. �lr. Peterson said the goal statement we are providing, and in the goal objective was allowing people a�se7ect�ion. ��;,�.,�=�_, .��". Planninq Commission Meeting - January 21, 1976 Page 21 UPON a voice vote, Scott voting nay, the other 4 members voting aye, the motion carried. Chairman Harris read the next propos�d goal objective. "Develop�and maintain the neighborhood concept as a basic physical planning unit for citizen interaction and residential development." Mr. Bergman said the way this goal objective was written,it was out of context of the goal area of housing. Mr. Boardman said he would agree. He said this would probably be under an "Economic Vitality" goal which would be considered at a later date. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, the the Planning Commission delete "Develop and maintain the neighborhood concept as a basic physical planning �nit for citizen interaction and residential development" from the Housing Goa.Z Objectives. Upon a voi�e vote, aZ1 voting a�e, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Harris read the next proposed goal objective: "Promote Metro- wide housing development framework policies, where possible, so as to fulfill the City's role as a Metropolitan neighborhood." Mr. Bergman said he felt the words "where possible" were redundanta Mr. Bergman asked if we promoted Metro-�iide housing development framework � policies would we become a Metropolitan neighborh�od? Mre Boardman said we �'�1 � were a Metropoli�tan neighborhood. Mr. Soardman said this would probably be a better statement if it started with incorp�rate rather than promote. He said that then the "where possible" part of this goal objective should be � left in the statement. He said that we �may not want to promote all their framework policies. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that fhe PZanning Commission approve the goal objective '.'Incorporate Metro-wide housing development framework policies, where possible, so as to fu1fi11 the City`s role as a'Metropolitan neighborhood." Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimousl�. MOTION by 5cott, that the fourth goal objective as originalZ� stated be added_.as a new goal objective. The MOTI0IV DI.ED for lack of a second. Chairman Harris asked if there were any other goal objectives that the Planning Commision felt should be included. There was no response. REVIEW OF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE HUUSING PLAN f�OTION by Bergma.n, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission table the review of the Proposed Comprehensive Housing P1an untiZ their meeting of January 28, 1976. . ADJOURNMENT: ,^ MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declar�d the Planning Commission meeting of January 21, 1976 adjourned at 12:55 A.M. Planning Commission Meeting - Januar 2i, 1976 Page 22 Respectfully submitted, C�/��� ,�-P�.� Dorothy Ev son, Secretary ,��� � �