Loading...
PL 03/09/1977 - 6605�, �� , � CITY OF FRIDLEY AGENdA PLANNIN6 COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 9, 1977 CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALI: APPROVE PLANNING COhU1ISSI0N MINUTES: FEBRUARY 23, 1977 ]. CONTINUED: RECOMMENDATION ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES I See agenda of 2-23-77 2. CONTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE 3. CONTINUED: INTERSECTION AT 53RD & CENTRAL 4. . 5. RECEIVE MATERIAL FROM METRO COUNCIL ON MATTERS ALLEGED TO BE OF METROPOLITAN SI6NIFICANCE 6. RECEIVE MATERIAL FROM METRO COUNCIL OF THE 7 CONTINUED: GOALS & OBJECTIVES: ACCESS ADJOURNMENT: 7:30 P.M. PAGES A 1 - 23 Additional material at meeting Separate Material At Meeting 24 - 39 �� .: 0 � � �� czTr or F�znv�x PLANNING CO^ff�?ISSION ME�TIDIG - FEBRUARY 23, 1977 CALL TO 03D�?t; Chairperson I3arris called the neetinp to order at 7:3i� P.P1. ROLL CALL: PAGE 1 Members Present: Harris, Bergman, Langenfeld, Lynch (sitting in for Shea), Schnabel Members Abs=nt: Peterson Others Present: Richard N. Sobiech, Public liorks Director MOTION by Langen£eld, seconded by Schr.abel, ihat the Planning Commission accept the agenda as arnended. Upon a voice vote, al7 voti.n� aye, the motion carried unanimously. APPROVE PLA;INIIdG COP•AiISSIOT•I T�fIRUTES: Fr.BKUARY 9� 1977 Mr. Langenfeld stated that it was not his wish to go into a lengthy discussion on the East River Road Project CornmitteeJ but the DZVironmental :�uality Commission did �aant to corunend the Planning Corumission £or iten //3 on pa�;e 12 0£ the ninutes. He said he rrould like to bring out that in item #1, "the plan to reduce the width of East River Road is in con_''lict with tr.e present trend of tra£fic volume", was not totally correct. He stated that i£ the proposal were to take piace the road would be widened by about 7�. P4r. Langenfeld referred to item �2 on page 12, and said that the consultant who actually drew up the Northtown Corridor Program as well as the t4innesota Department o£ Transportation stated that the traffic would actually be reduced if and when this corridor was finis.hed and kould be directed down University, He said that it could be reduced from the present 18,000 to 20,000 to 12,000 to 15,000 cars. Chairperson Harris said that he thought the intent of Mr. Bergman's motion was not the reduction in width, but the reduction in lanes, and Mr. Bergman agreed. Afr. Langen£eld said that the idea o£ the proposal was to have two £ast-moving lanes with the other lanes to be used for exiting� and so on. He explained the way it was now and stated he hadn't brought the plan with the proposed changes as he just wanted to make a statement instead of discussing it over again. Planning Commission Meeting - February 23� 1977 Page 2 Mr. $ergman said that he thought Mr, Langenfeld�s point was well taken. He stated he would like a change made on page 12y and would like item �1 to read °That the plan to reduce the number o£ lanes of East River Road is in conflict with the present trend of traffic volume", Mr. Langenfeld said again that it was not the intent to reduce the lanes� and Mr, Bergman commented that his impression was that was one o£ the major di££erences. He asked Mr, Langen£eld if it wasn�t true that the number of lanes of active trafiic would be reduced by the proposed plan, and t�s. Langenfeld replied not really. Ae added that that idea had been the £allacy o£ this entire proposal, and.explained that there would be two main lanes moving North and South with the other lanes for exiting and so forth, so they wouldn't be eliminating any lanes at all, He added that right now it was almost impossible to get across the on-coming traffic, and.the East River Road Project Committee's proposal would mal:e it possible to do that. He stated it was only his itent to try to clarify that. MOTIpN by Bergman� seconded by Schnabel� that the Planning Commission minutes of February 9, 1977 be approved as amended. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously, 1. LOT SPLIT -Ol, ABLE WELDING _ , , .,_...... �� �..a.,� �uu� and add to Lot 8� Block 1� Onaway Addition� to be used as part of a parking lot. INC.: Split off the ion %860 Main Street N.E.) (781�0 Main Street id,E.} Mr. Jim Pariseau was present to represent Rble Ydelding, Mr. Sobiech stated that the intent of the request was to obtain five £eet of property fron 7860 and add it to 78l�0, which would then a11ow them to construct additional parking facilities. He said that they felt they needed additional parking in the area, and they would have a joint parking arrange- meni between 7860 and 781�0. Mr. Sobiech said that it s$ould be noted that a check was made to ensure the area coverage regarding the potential trans£er of properties� and in the case o£ 7860 they would still be below the 1�0% area requirenent even though they would be giving up five feet o£ their property. Chairperson Harris asked about the side lot setback, and P1r. Sobiech replied there was no problem in that joint parking was allowed by code. He said the only requirement would be that with construction of the parking lot they would be required to be 5� away from the building. Mr. Sobiech added that there was some confusion between Staf£ and the petitioner in that Staff was expecting there would be a drawing tonight which would show the plan, and there was none. He stated he had sketched in the proposed plan on page 1'] of his agenda, and showed it to the Commission. He explained that at the present time at 7860 (where Able Welding presently resided) there was a parking facility adjacent to the existing building with angle parking and a driveway back into the alley, r9r. Sobiech stated he had noticed ��for sale" signs� and asked the petitioner if it was his intent to move into the other facility. Mr. Pariseau replied it was not, He explained that part o£ the � � U ►�I Planning Cor,vnission Meeting - February ?3� 1977 Page 3 � 7840 buildin� vras for rerit right now, and part of his building was eit.her for sale or rent. Iie said that they had G,000 square feet and only needed 3�OG0 for their operation. Mr. Sobiech said there did exist a present parking £acility of about six parking stalls together with some zdditional parking (about seven stalls) of£ of the alley to the ;-7est of the 7b60 structure. He stated that the intent was the Souther7y five feet of Lot 7 would be attached to Lot 8, and the propertp owner at 7840 would construct a driveiaay identical to that to the P3orth with approximately six angle parking stalls and uti-lize the common driveway. Mr. Pariseau explained the problem at 78a0 (Creative Gears} .ras that they only had approximately six par'.ring spaces in the back and their employees were parking in the street. He said they needed the area to park as it fras a large building with oaly six parking spaces. Mr. Sobiech said that normally they didn�t know iahat was going to go in a spec-type building (which 781�0 was t;hen it was constructed) so they make a determination percentage wise £rom manu£acturing to frarehouse to office. He said that for a 1/!t type office, 1/1� mznufacturing and 1/2 taarehouse, the siY stalls ro:ould have been fine, but wher. a particular outfit car:e in like Creative� apparently they need additional stalls. He said that in this particnlar case Sta£f would encoura�e this type o£ thinp to �o?ve � the parking problems they had, i;r. Sobiech pointed out t!-iat rig::t now their landscaping and green areas were pretty vrell taken care of, with berming that hid the parking areas that they alread� had. Mr. Bergman asked if the problem could be solved iaithout the lot split. Mr. �obiech replied it couldn't because a building perr�it was required and the City could only issue a building permit to one parc°1 of property� and at this time they didn't have enough property to construct the parking lot they wis?ied. He added that if they had an additional five feet o£ their o-�rn they wouldn't have ha3 any problem. Chairperson 13arris asked i£ the 5' line split the center of the common driveway. P9r. Sobiech replied it didn't and explained that at the present time the drivee:ay was at that 5' mark, blr. Pariseau explained there r:as a curb in there right now at the end o£ the drive, and 7f360 ov.•ned five feet South o£ the curb which le£t 7840 only about twelve or fourteen feet to their building and they need�d the additional five feet to have angle parking. Chairperson Harris asked what the total distance was between the two buildings� and Mr. Sobiech replied roughly about 55'• Mr. Pariseau showed the Commission the floor plan of his building and explained they had !�0' to the end of their lot, and pointed out the existing curb and angled parking, He said he believed the building was set right in the middle of the lot. � 2•'1r. Bergman asked if there was some kind of a purchase agreement for that piece o£ property subject to the lot split approval. P1r. Pariseau said Planning Commission Meeting - February 23, 1977 Page 4 there was, and explained that Mr. Herrick had drawn up a purchase agreement � which had been signed by both parties. Chairperson Aarris asked i£ a common parking lot agreement was necessary before the lot split could be granted. Mr. Sobiech said yes� and also as far as the driveaay was concerned so that they each would have easement to the other facility, Mr. Pariseau in£ormed the Commission that the easement had already been drawn up also. Mrs, Schnabel noted an error on the application £orm� and said the M-1 classification should be changed to t4-2. b]r. Bergman asked for clarification as to why a letter of._agreement con- cerning common parking facilities was standard and normal practice before approval o£ this kind oS request. NIr. Sobiech explained the code al2owed parking facilities in an area to be shared by two or more premises. He said that in order to ensure understanding that certain joint parking facilities can be used 'oy these two premises� the two owners must get together and ensure there is proper understanding that they each have use of these facilities together with the cor,imon easement and the understanding that the property itself has access to this parking area. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval oF I.ot Split Request, L.S. #77-01, Able Welding Inc.: Split o£f the South 5 feet of Lot 7, Block l, Onaw�y Additieny (7850 2�fain Street N.E.) and add it to Lot 8, Block 1, Onaway � Adflition, (78lt0 Piain Street Id.E.) to be used as �art of a parking lot� subject to the provisioning prior to Council attention of a dimension pIan describing the request, the letter o£ common parking agreenent� and any related easement or other pertinent documents. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 2. RECEIVE hfEI�iORANDUP� FROM DAVID N�^ASAN TO VIRGIL AERRICK DATE➢ JANUPRY ,o ,ov� MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Schnabel� that the Planning Co:imission receive the memorandum from David Newman to Virgil Herrick dated January 12, 1977. Hfrs. Schnabel explained that this memo came to her about two weeks ago in response to a call she had placed to Mr. Herrick asking £or tiao opinions� whfch appear on page 18, She said she had also received pages 19 and 20 with her letter� and recommended that copies be given to members of the Planning Commission as well as the City Council, Mrs. Schnabel stated that page 18 really referred to questions from the Appeals Commission, and pages 19 �d 20 referred to questions from the City Council. Chairperson Harris asked who David Newman was, and Mr. Sobiech replied he thought he was like a legal aide and was an associate of Mr. Herrick�s, � Mr. Langen£eld said that the Commission might recall that he abstained from voting when the motion on the moratorium was made� and his reasoning Planning Cornnission Nieeting - February 23, 1977 Page 7 � behind this w2s explained on p�ge 20 vrhere it stated "...the com�oission nmst report its findin„s to the council indicating its recosunendation as to approval or disapproval". ile said he i,'r.ou�ht they had to either approve it or di�approve it� and that V�as w7� he hzd aostained. Tfr. Langeni'eld said that norr he was Yiung up again because in reading this he assuned a moratoriu:� was proper as long as it was reasonable and not discririinatory, but in readin�; page 20 he was le�d to believe that the,y must make their minds up one vray or the other concernir,g a Specia]. Use Fermit, iie added that the . very last par2graph almost led hi.^•, to believe tnat was definitely so, and said he i�rould like clari£ication on this. Chairperson Harris stated that as h� read it, one page gave one opinion and the otner p�e gave anot:^.er o�,inion. P-irs. Scnnabel said that as she read the letter it struck her tnst perhaps in one way the City c�ras within their prerogative to declare a rooratoriu.M because the planning study vras in progress at the time. Hoi�rever, sne continued, it also oointed out that a Special Use Permit should be g^anted if the applicant complied with all the zonin� .^ecuirements and t�at only in the case of adversely affecting the public health� sa£ety or general welfare is there good reason for either denying or �ranting 2 moratoriuri. Iirs. Schnabel said that at the time Naegle's request ca^�e througn one o£ P��r. Y.arris� chie£ concerns u�as the proxi;aity of th�t sign to the railroad tracks and how that would a££ect the safety of the public. She said that her guess was the City Cuuncil could base their morato;i;ua judgement on ihat ouestion. ' � Mr. Langenfeld said he £ully agreed, bui he felt they were supposed to say yes or no to tne �.pecial Use Perriit and then go the route oi the moratoriun. Chairper;on Hzrris said that as a general statement that was true� but in this particular case he felt the procedure they ha3 followed was correct. Mrs. Schnabel suggested that another procedure they could £ollow in the future night be that they should as a body either approve or deny the request and then make an additional motion ior a moratorium, ilr. Bergman said that �aould confuse hin a littls; he didn't lmo�,� ho�a they could vote yes on a request and then reco^unend a moratorium. i4rs. Schnabel stated tnat she felt it was thei: obligation� ;rom what she had read, to either approve or deny any reauest that ca�e through them, Lut they could additionally recommend that Council declare a moratorium. PIr. Bergman questioned horr they could possibly link in a sequence the recorunenda- tion to approve something and then, as a second step� the reco�n-�endation for a moratoriuri on what has just been approved. He said he couldn't understand 'now those two could be linked together, but could understand a denial followed by a moratorium. Chairperson Harris said that he thought that before they took any flirther action� and he wasn�t really clear whether this was entirely legal, they should at least recommend the upcoming change in the sign ordinance and � then base their recommendation of Naegle's request on that recommendation to improve the sign ordinance. Mr. Bergman asked if he was sug�esting that administration should automatic- ally place the Naegle request back on their agenda after they had reviewed Planning Commission Pteeting - February 23, 1977 Page 6 and made a recommendation on the improvement of the sign ordinance. NIz�, � Harris said that was correct� and that would be the reasoning for the mora- torium. 2�r. Bergman comrnented that he was not sure that was entirely fair to Naegle. Chairperson Harris stated that as iar as he was concerned� Naegle had privileged information and abused that privileged information at the time they made the request, ile said they knew there was a new ordinance coming, and he thought the reason they made that request was ' to �et in under the wire. He explained that the Sign Ordinance Committee had used them as expert advisors on the new ordinance, and that was the thing that really disturbed h�n about the whole affair. Mr, Bergman said that his only thougnt was that Pvaegle obviously met all elements of the existing ordinance. i�e said that assuming that the new sign ordinance involved some changes which would now be in conflict with the old Naegle request� he £elt that they should at least have the opportunity to modify their request to match the proposed new ordinance. Chairperson Harris agreed� and said his main concern was that he thought there was a flarr in the existing ordinance as far 2s proximity to existing railroad crossings went, �e asked zahen they could expect a report from the committee. Mrs. Schnabel said the report had to be in about the middle o£ March to start the various steps through Planning Commission to City Council� etc. Mr. Bergman commented that the Sirst time he savr a date printed in an official docunent was along with the Council granting the moratorium� but he would have to go back to those minutes to see h*h3t that was. P1rs. Schnabel said that the committee really had to get done at least a month before that date. � Mr, Bergman stated that the Sign Ordinance Commiitee was having sone trouble as another member dropped out� and they were do.an to four members. He said he had suggested to Pat Gabe2 that rather than bring in a new member cold at this point in time� perhaps the four remaining members were enough to polish the thing off, and she agreed to give it a try. Mr, I,angenfeld said that he Yras going to use £his memorandum as the ner.t thing to the Bible with regard to Special Use Permits. He stated that his personal opinion was that Naegle could say that they didn�t feel this was reasonable time now on the moratorium based on the status of the project committee. He said they could use that as a recourse to make the Planning Commission come to a final decision i£ they wanted to, and this could definitely prove to be a major problem later on. Chairperson Harris commented thaL i£ the ordinance hadn't been in the works� he didn't think they could have declared a moratorium. He added he didn't think it would have even been brought up� and thought this was a �pecial case. Mrs. Schnabel noted it was interesting that the memorandvm stateci the City Code said that once there had been an application they must hold a Public Heax�ing within sixty da}rs, but it didn't s�y when they must act on it. She said they could keep tabling somethin� indefinitely if they chose to do so. Mr. Bergman referred back to page 18 and read "Economic feasibility - does � this mean economic hardship? Generally I would conclude yes". He stated that was very conflising to him, and he couldn't even relate to it. Ae asked Planning Cor�ission Meeting - I'ebruary 23� 1977 Page 7 � if hir. New:nan wa, tryin6 to say the two terms were s�monyreous. ;9rs. Schnabel explained that was the Appeals Cor,mission's question to the legal ofSice. She £urther explained that in the context of Lhe original meno something had been menticned about econo*sic feasibility and it had been worded in such a way tnat they had o�ondered if� in that conte�_t, it also could mean an econo^+ic hardahip on the part ef the petitioner. She said it was on the basis o£ tnat sentence that they asked for further clarii'ication of that term. 14r, Bergman noted the example gisen under that issue on page 18, and said they had taken a look at the total neighborhood ar.d as a result o? a study of the total nei�hborhood deternined that it was economically feasible to build a thirty-nnit instead oi' having the ten-unit re�nodeled; but they had not really addressed the hards'.^.ip question. Dirs. 5chnabel �aid she thought r,e was misreading it, an3 what it.:�ras saying was that it would have been a hardship on the petitioner to reroodel the ten-unit a�artrent because he never would have derived enough inco;^.e out of the rental units to maxe it pay £or himseli. She said ihat instead the petitioner wanted to build a thirty-unit instead of remodel tne existing ten� and the court upheld his request. Mr. Bergman said that made sense, but crer.t back to the £irst paragraph which read "Ho:aever� I do not believe that economic hardship �aould aoply where the econornic hardship is the propert;� oHner hii:�self. A destitute � property o•�aner does not constitute econonic feasibility". .ss. Sclm a:,ei said she agreed this vras very iuzzy �:ording� but thought that because a person was destitute it didn't gi:*e them tne right io request a vari�ce that was too £ar out. She said that was not econo:�ic hardship. Pir, Berg:�an noted the person could request it� but they shouldn't apD:ove it. Fe added he thought that was contrary to someuhat nor:�al practice, znd ciie3 an example of an upstanding, tax paying� citizen of Fridley w?�o c2me in with an economic hardship problem, He asked i£ t�ey weren't going to be attentive to the problem that poor citizen had, 2�irs. Schnabel said she didn't ihink all that came out at the Public Hearing� an3 petitioners wno carie before the Appeals Corm7ission did not give them their income ta:c stater�ents. She said the appeals Commission didn't know whether or no+ the petitioner had the means to finance whatever he proposed to do. For all we know, she said� that petitioner could be rolling his last nickel around in his pocket or he could have a bank account worth millions. Mr. Bergman referred to the example given on page 18, which the court aporoved. He said that seemed to be in con£lict c,ith the input he was receiving. Chair- person Harris explained that what they were saying was that every property had to stand on its own merits whether the petitioner taas £inancially solvent or not. He said it depended on the property itsel£ whether there was economio feasibility� and had nothing to do with whether the petitioner had a million dollars or ten cents, He added that he thought that was basically what they had been doing, and said tliat as he read through this it struck him that the � Appeals Corunission had been using its own good sense and should continue to Planning Commission Afeeting — February 23, �977 Pa�e 8 do that. He commented.that if you ask a lawyer for an opinion he will give � you two o£ them, and you can pick the one you want. Mr. Bergman said he noticed an interesting term on page 20--"conditional special use permits". Mr. Sobiech said that most o£ the permits they issued were conditional because they say the Special Use Permit is approved with certain stipulations, and those are the conditions. Mr, Bergtsan read to the Commission from page 19 of the agen3a� "The Planning Commission musi hold a public hearing on the application for a special use permit within 60 days. The Commission must then xeport its findings to the Council indicating its approval or denial." He noted it didn�t say they must take action within that sixty days, and asked if there �aas an implied time frame in there. Mrs. Schnabel noted it said °reasonable time" in the following paragraph. ?1r. Sobiech said they would also look back to previous. procedures, and added that iF the Planning Commission indicated at a hearing that they needed certain iniormation and would have it within one or two meetings, he didn't think that would be unreasonable before giving the recommendation. UPOSd A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. RECEIVE LETTER FRO'.•i JP? HARF3ITiGTON CO'.�fISSIONER D1INIdESOTA DEPAt2TT'fENT OF TRAnSP�J�T9TI0N, DAT� FEBRUAf?Y , 1977 • MOTION by Bergrnan� seconded by Langenfeld� that the Planning Commission receive the letter from Jim Harrington� Commissioner� P.innesota ➢epartment o£ Transportation, dated February 8, 1977. Mr. Sobiech said that this correspondence at this time was for inforcnational purposes, and for everyone in Fridley to begin thinking about the type of input they would like to provide. Chairperson Harris stated he thought they were looking for more than that� and read aloud items one through three on page 22. He said he thought they were asking the Commission to do two things: 1) Discuss the transportation issues they thought were most important and send the list to them by May 8� and/or plan to attend one of the March or April regional public meetings to present the views in person� and 2) Designate and identify someone who would be the Pin/DOT/PLAN liaison. Mr. Sobiech said that was right� but they wanted to pass this information out to everyone and set this up for a conference meeting with Stafi'� City Council and the Planning Co.�runission and then determine how to proceed, He noted they would still have a month after everyone provided input to take the action they wanted, He said this was just i.o let everyone know it is coming and will be up for discussion at the conference meeting. � Planning Corunission Meeting - February 23, 1977 Yage 9 � A1r. Bergman suggested that it might not be out of context to set up a project committee to revievr t�e total city road�•ray/street systen. l:r. Sobiech said that might not be too bad, but thought the problem crould 'oe the timing. He said it v!ould depend on how quickly somethin� could be put together at the project committee level� and said that hopefully by that time period the trar�sportation pla� would be complete (mid 1978). Iir. Harris said he didn'ti think so� tiecause it really took th^ee years to do that who]_e thing and it all had to come together in the last year. t4r. Langenfeld noted £ror:i the letter that they were as'.�cing for help, and asked if it would be out of order to have someone like T:i�e Paripovicn attend the meeiings frorn a procedure standpoint. ChairaFrsen iIarris said they could designate anyone the;,r �ranted� but thought they rad to asF tne City Council, i•Ir. Sobiech said this was what they would discuss at the conference meeting. Chairperson Harris said that obviously the easiest way out Vrould be to send a Sta££ person� but that cost money becavse it vrouln t�Jce somebody's time� and he thought Staf£ had enough to do. Ms. Lynch said it looked like tnef wanted a list of priorities Uy l:ay fith� and added that she would like to e^phasize that she hoped they would look at other transportation than just improving the road sts�uc�ure. � Chairperso^. Harri, suggested that iir. Sobiech find out c.hen tnese raeetings were proposed and some more about the prerequisite for the liaison (i£ they are looking For Staff personnel, a poli+ical rep^esen'tatine, etc.). He said that raybe viith that in£or:^ztion the�r could nake a detcrrnination at the conference meeting. A?r. Sobiech said he rrould obtain more £acis. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting a}e, the motion carried unaninously. !�. RECEIV� ^"dVIRO's`TNTAL QllALITY COI°!�IISSION 1TINUTES: F�33F.LA:�Y 15, 1977 P10TIOT1 by Langenfeld, seconded by 3er�uian tnat the Plannirg Co:2mission receive the r.`Yivironrnental Quality Co::�,iission minutes oi Februaxy 15, 1977. Mr. Langenreld commented that this was another case where they received the minutes right at the meeting, and said he �,+ould like permission `„o point out the highlights. tIe stated that in the discussion of tne Fhvircnm�ntal Education Prograri they talked about the best way to inform people o£ the nature areas, parks� and everything combined--a means to make t?�e citizens aware that such thin�s exist, He said they i•rere hoping to obtain some kind of fl�nds and £ound that they could not do so. He said he caould appreciate everyone reading this� and it could be discussed again at a later date. � Mr. Langen£eld said that with regard to Pioore Lake� they knew that the City was going to hire a consultant� so there was nothing for them to do. He said he would like to comment that before they had the Pear1before�the1Parks when the movie was shown with PCA, he had planned to app Planning Corrunission Meeting - February 23� 1977 Page 10 and Recreation Corunission becaUSe he had quite a bit of information to present � to them as they 4ranted to make a decision as to if the,y £e�t I•Soore Lake should be recreational� and so on. He stated that all this information in turn lead the City to go the route of a consultant. t•1r. Langenfeld said he believed they had some funds availab2e and were trying to obtain othsr sources of funds� but once this was acquired to obtain a consultant it rrould open the door for the City to have the proper continued research on these lakes, He added that i£ they obtained {:he proper studies on the lake, then they could determine which route to follow� and then the proper procedure would be to Yeep the lakes clean. Mr. Sobiech noted that on page 5 of the �vironmental Commission minutes it indicates the Ploore Lake item was in the hands of the City who had hired a consultant. He said it should say "which is in the process of hiring a consultant". He explained that at this time they had not hired anyone to do it, rir. Langenfeld said he had been lead to believe that from the conversation with Steve Olson, and that was why it came out that way in the minutes. Mr. Sobiech said that Rice Creek and Locke Lake had been studied by Hickok & Associates� and maybe the tone of the discussion was it would be appropriate £or the same consultant to do the Pioore Lake study. Mr. Langen£eld commented that the'study eaould be beneficial because, according to the PCR� this particular lake would have top priority. He said that the Commission might recall that back in 1973 he chaired the first Moore Lake citizen committee� and they had come to about a 50/50 decision � then that a study should be made. At that time, he sa-d� the cost was in the area of $10�000 to $11�0003 now the cost was between $15�000 and $17�000, He stated that was a good example of in£lation, and added that it was his understanding that they had available about $7�00� to apply to the study. Chairperson Harris asked what Ms, Sporre was digging £or concerning Dan Hui'f�s budget, idr. Langenfeld s aid they were talking about £unds available for nature areas or parks education, and they were wondering if they could get involved to promote this educational-type thing to the citizens. He stated that then they got going on the budget af Dan�s� which he believed was specifically designated for tree removal, studies� etc.� and could not be used for the educational-type service they were discussing. Chairperson Harris read £ron page 5 of the F� vironmental Commission minutes� 'T:s. Sporre stated that out o£ the park project com�nittee carne a statement which concerned her about coordinating the use o£ the naturalist�s program budget. That was why she wanted the feelings of the Commission°. D1r. Harris said that his. Sporre had called him the other day and wanted to lmow if the Fhvironm�ntal Commission couldn�t take over Dan Hu££'s budget as she wanted the Flivironmental Commission to become an"operative commission" like Parks and Recreation. Mr. Langenfeld said he would try to narrow this down to a more understandable position� and explained that when the Park Project Committee became involved it seemed there might be possible funds in the Naturalist Program, He said they found they couid not obtain those funds� and that was basically the - � summary of those three pages. Planning Cortimission ?-]cei:ing - February 23, 1977 Page 11 � P-fr. Lan�;enfeld said that the onJy corunent Le uould like to make on the East River koad Project Co:;ti�ittee Rep��rt rras tt:er� wasn�t too much going on right noa�. He co:s;nented that it see�ned possihle the citizens mig:it break away and Eo on their oim, v�hicn they had the rignt to do. t4r. Sobiech referred to a senter,ce in the last paragraph on oa�e 6, which read, °They are a little bit disappointed tnat the City of Fridle;,� does not appear to be doin� anything to expedite getting tnat flmction perfor:ned by that end of the job tnat iras done bJ Anoka County". fIe said ihat for an update, the Pl':? project design r•e�ort w�ich is required tor all rederall;,� funded projects nad been submitt�a b�r the ccunty� reviec:ed by the Federal people and returned to the count,� „,�ich >ras noia in the process o£ modifyin� it according to the concerns of t;e rederal people. 3ie continued t?�ai it would be sub:�itted 'oack to the Federal people for tneir review be£ore actnal plans started running out o£ the presses, so to spea�. He said 'ne i-ras a little con£used as to vrhat they expected the City to do, and asked if the;r � were referr_ng to tne sa°ed stn��; at that point. He noted they were talking aoout tha East River :?oad proje��� cor�ittee and then t�e3 started talking about tne speed limit question, and then they were wondering o:hy the City of Fridley wasn't doing anything, I•;r. Sobiech said they had pro��ided resolutions to the count3r� and at Stai£ level ha3 provided accident data to the State, ile asked P;r. Langenfeld i£ there was an,ytning in particular that they felt the City wasntt provid_ng. I�;r. Langen£eld said he o:as at a'ittle bit of a loss to ansv:er that question specificzlly, but it could be that they felt the City should 'nave pushed the lights and speed r�ore thzn � they had. i;r, langenfeld said they had brieSl�� discussed the �r+ater Quality ;?anagement Planning �ession, and asxed the Planning Co;mnission to bear in nind t�e motion on page 8 made by Lee Ann Sporre. Cnairperson Harris co;n:ented that they could ask Por it, but he didn�t tnink thef caould get it. I:^. Langen£eld noted that iahen this i�;ater �uality ,�lanagemer.t progra;: had been discussed, the metro area �as one o£ the least prioritized £or funding. He stated that there was a great deal of coa£usion �s to non-point pollution and point pollution� and Metro Council chose to take one route and follow that. Chairperson Harris said that as he understood that, Pietro Council felt it would be econo.mically not £easible to try to handle both progra�s, and also not economically £easible to try to handle the non-point source pollution. He stated they £elt it was much easier to go to the point source pallution situation and try to do a good job on that with the £un3s they had available. Mr. Langenfeld explained that point source pollution rras that which cane about from poor setiaage� drainage of oil� etc. (from a source that ,you could put your finger on), He said he would like to indicate that when they were watching the PCA movie, it shoc•red a picture of ali the rain water gushing out of the drainage system, and the comment was made that that water was more polluted than human waste. He further explained that non-point pollution � could be so:nething like soil erosion; a nature-caused thing and not man-Made. Planning Commission 4leeting - February 23� 1977 Page 12 Chairperson 2iarris said that rrasn�t quite the way he xead it. Dion-point� � he said, would be something like wash-off of fertilizer or draina�e off o£ highways. Mrs. Schnabel asked what percentage would be that type of run-o£f� and Mr. LangenFeld said he didn't think there•had been a designated per- centage. Mr, Langenfeld stated the last item they covered at their meeting was the environmental seminars� and ur�ed the members o£ the Comrnzssion to attend, Mrs. Schnabel stated.it was un£ortunate that these minutes couldn't come to the members of the Planning Corunission sooner because they had now spent twenty minutes discussing them, and if they had been able to read then prior to the meeting they could have saved that ti;ne. She noted these minutes were taken the same time as the Appeals Commission minutes, which had been included in the agenda, idr, Langenfeld commented that in addition, if they would have had to wait two more weeks to have them included as part of the aoenda they wouldn't have been as £resh in his mind. UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 5. RECOPa•IEPIDATIOti ON TfiE PROPOSED CHANGES IN CHAPTfft 212, t4ININGLCF THE FRIDLEY CZZ'Y CGDE PSr. Langenfeld reminded the Corrunission that this had kept going back ahd forth for some time, and £inally with aid from Staff it was now in line • with khat the Commission had been after, He said that had brou�ht him to think about the Maintenance Code and how long they had been working on that� and wondered i£ the s�ne thing shouldn't be applied. Mr. Bergmar, suggested that this might be a good time for a short coffee break as covering this item might take some time. Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 9:05 and reconvened the meeting at 9;1s P.M. Mr, Langenfeld stated that most of the Commission menbers might recall that ti�were given the Alining Ordinance 212 to look over, and really didn't know how to go about it. He said they had started to go into it word by word and were to7d not to do that because that was a Sta£f function. Ke said they had then reviewed one permit submitted by X conpany and found a great deal of information was missing. Mr, Langenfeld said they had wanted a revised application, anfl a copy of this was shown on page 31�. He stated that this application coincided with the ordinance and both would work jointly as far as the finding and purpose as indicated. Mr. Langen£eld referred the Commission back to page 2�, 212.01 Finding and Purpose. He said he thought this would basically explain the route this ordinance was intended to follow, and E�vironmental Quality definitely agreed with this ordinance with the idea they hoped Lhe burden of the cost would go on the applicant to pay for some of the time spent by Staf£. Mr. Bergman said that personally� he had not taken the time to look this • over as thoroughly as he would like, He added that he thought a lot of ' Planning Commi^,si.on Meet�ing - February 23, 1977 Page 13 � time had be:en ,pent putting this togethe.r, and he wvuld like to sug�est they treat this somer;hat generally tonight orith the idea of def'erment prior to action to provide the^� tirr�e to do it justice. Airs. Schnabel asked if there was a time ele;nen� involved, and Mr. Langenfeld replied not to his kno,aledge. P4r. Sobiech added tnat generally, this tir..e o£ year vras not conduci.ve to mining operations anyroray. Mrs. Schnabel stated that ,he had reviewed the ordinance and i,ould like to ask some auestions. She noted that the title o£ this was "27.2 t•iining", and asked if it couIdn't be called "Land Alieration/Ilining" since tne application perciit called forzIa:d Alteraticn/�'ining Permit, hir. Langenfeld said they had thought that by u�ing the Viord °mining" it would include all of the £unctions tt-,at had to do with an� movement o£ eartn. :'r. Sobiech said tnat a further explanation .:ould be that the La*�3 blterati.on section was covered by the Uni£orrx �uilding Code, which the1� vrere also mandated by. He said that at Staff level, clarification between land alteration and miningti,ras that mining was more of a com�ercial-type venture {there was actually someone re:rovir.g thin�s selling it of£ tne site)� whereas lar.d alteration was more in the area o£ filling instead cf an actual extraction and selling. He further explained that mining was ia�ere a property owner actually hired so:aeone to cor�e in and remove sor ei!:ir.o {such as peat), and the person wno was hired arranged for fill after the peat reraoval. • Mr. Bergman said that on the new application £or the land alteration/rr:ining permit he noted there was the reierence to chapter 212. He asked if this permit didn�t actually have a broader reference than limited to 212, Pir. Langenfeld said he thought the ir.tent was 212 as it applies. 1L �. Schnabel said that then the other land alteration chapter should be listed also; either list them all or don't list any. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the mining code then, as stated, had nothing to do with the private development of an area as it would pertain to building a development of some type. She asked if it related strictly to the rer�oval oF minerals for resale value. P1r. �obiech said that c:as correct, and added that for further clarification, for development of private p:operiy they had a building permit for control. A;r. Langen£eld said he ;•iould like to indicate that was where the Commission had gotten all bogged doi�m. He said they had the Uni£orm Code mixed up with the hlining and everything else, and they tried to train their thoughts to two separate thinos and then proceed. Iie added that he would like to make it on record that he felt that Staf£ did a real good job in pulling this to�etner. Mrs. Schnabel referred the Commission to item l�a on page 28, "P•?achinery shall be kept in good repair and painted regularly". She said that she got hung up on °painted regularly" because she was back to thinking about the 14aintenance Code and the que;tion of how Far government regulates an �individual with their private property. She said she really had some � difFiculty in her mind making that requirenent, p1r. Langenfeld said tnat he agreed with her� and it had only to do with appearance. He added he thought it would be imposing a hardship to require that. Chairperson Planning Comrnission 19eeting - February 23, 1977 Page 1!� Harris cornmented it would be impossible. He said that any £ront-end loader � or bulldozer that had been working in sand, dirt or gravel. had no paint left on the bucket or the tracks. 1•ir. Bergman commented it would be an economic hardship to try to keep it painted. Tirs, Schnabel questioned 5b on page 28, and asked for Mr. Langenfeld�s defini.tion of "weekdays". He said that would be P•Ionday� Tuesday, !:lednesday� Thursday and Friday. Mrs. Schnabel said that tne definition in the dictionary was any day of the week except 5unday. Chairperson Harris said that i£ it �ras only Monday throug:n Fri.day it would work a hardship on the homeov,�ner because that tiaas usually the day tlze individual got a load of black dirt� sand, etc. Air. Sobiech stated that was a good point and suggested the;� should leave the statement as it was. Mr. Langenfeld commented he felt 1�a should be chan�ed to eliminate "and painted regularly". Ms, Lynch said she understood they didn't :�ant the machinery to sit on the p^emises and rust� but on the other hand she felt 4a was a little bit much. Chairperson Harrzs commented that Was really an arbitrary judgement type thing. Mrs. Schnabel questioned the second sentence in the bottom paragraph (2) on page 29, and Mr. Sobiech said that should be "per acre or fracLion thereof". Nlx�s. Schnabel also questioned "d'� on page 35� and Mr. Soiaiech said that should read "7:00 a.m, to 7:00 p.m.". Ms. Lynch noted that 212.07 5tandards on page 27 referred to fencing� • and asked �:hat kind tnat would be. Mr. Sobiech said what they had in mind was really a snota £ence type thing to prevent easy access. Pfs. Lynch said she was thinking of the safety factor, such as collections of water and the sa£ety of children. She asked i£ this 1�' £er.ce would keep children out. Atr. 5obiech stated it �rould hinde: them as they wouldn't be able to walk right in. He explained the intent was not to mace it such that a Cyclone fence was necessary with•an expense that would make it economically unfeasible, but they £elt that the 1�� fence would deter to the point where it would be less accessible. Mr, LangenFeld comnented that the fence also made it a trespassing situation if so=:zeone were to go on the prernises. MS� Lynch said that really vrouldn't make any difference to the younger chil.dren� and that was what she was concerned about. Dir. Sobiech said it should be noted that the majority of these operations were of a temporary nature; they usually went through a construction season. Chairperson Harris reFerred the Commission to 212.01 Finding and Purpose on page 25• He said he £ound that paragraph kind o£ alar�ning, and especially the first sentence "...mining is a basic and essential activity making an important contribution to the economic well-being oF the commun- ity��. He stated he disagreed with that, and felt that every operation they had had in Frid2ey so far had noL exactly been that. Dir. Sobiech said his only comment would be that the basic intent o£ a mining situation � was to remove unsuitab2e building-type materials and replace them with suitable materials such that the property could develop. Mr. Harris said Planning Commission 1•ieeting - rebruary 23, 1977 Page 1� � that the next sentence stated� ho:�rever, "The economical availability of sand, gravel� rock, soil, and other naterials is vital to the continued growth of the region and the City", fIe said that they irere really talking about rnore than just the black dirt situaLion.. P7r. Sobiech said he Urould point to the Dailey }3ome situation, and right now with the grades they had they coulcin't develop it. Idr. Harris sug[;ested that r�ould be land altera- tion. A;r. Sobiech said yes, but he could be actually selling tne material to some other owner idho was going to build his own ho::e, Chairpersen tiarris said that brought up an interesting noint, and stated he wouldn't like to see the operations that were occurir.g in Osseo corne to Fridley. He said he couldn't really see where that type of operation brould be o£ economic benefit to Fridley. He said he could see where the selling of £ill was of benefit to the total community, but he couldn't see Frr.ere the selling of sand and gravel £rom a hill to a read;�-:�ix operation in 1`.inr.eapolis or Osseo was an economic advantage to t�ie City o£ rridley--not unless Fridley put a ton tax on the rnaterial leaving the City linits. ?;r. Sobiech said he had a good point. Chairperson Harris said that his problen was� it sounded like they :aere promoting that type of operation, and he certainly hooed that v:as not the intention. 1:r. Langeni'eld said tae intent t•:as not tc pro:*:ote it, but to recognize the existing. I�ir. Harr=s said he ur:derstood that� but trner. they started s�ing "economic trell-being o£ the comrr�unity", it told him they wanted a little :�ore mining. �;r. Langenield agreed it Vras ir.;plying that. Mr. Harris said that knew�_ng the people in the constructior. basiness, � if this iaas published they :aoalci interpret it that way. ?:e said !:e �-:ould like to have the Tirst paragraph :e�,�orded saying they recoonlzed the situation trith tne soils in Fridley and ii 4i2S an zdvantabe i£ the un- buildable soils were removed 2nd suitable soils rrere replaced to bring ther:� up io buildable sites. P4r. Sobiech suggested that the,y :aord it as to what tlieir _ntent real].y was instead o£ pronoting a minir,� operation. i9r. Harris said that ::�as correct, unless their intent Vras a tar. £or an� material leaving tne City of Fridley, vihich he didn�t tnir.k itas such a bad idea. He sug�est�d tnat if the material stayed within t:;e cit;y limits it wouldn't be tax.ed� but if it le£t the city he felt it should be. i:s. Lynch asked how they� could control that� and hotu the destir.ation could be deter:�ined. 1�ir. Harris said that a lot o£ other people riid this. He suggesteri that everyone be taxe:d regardless, and if the material stayed in the Cit;; o£ Fridley the person who bou�ht it could apply for a rebate on the tax, r;s. L;;nch suggested that if the majority o£ it sts�-ed in Fridley they would actually be losing money because of the acL�inistrative.costs. PIr, harris said the situation was such that most of it didn�t st�y in Fridley. pir, Bergman said he iaould like to £ollow up on this thought with a little different slant. He said that in talking about fin3ing and purpose he tiaould like to point out that while nining of minerals� soils� etc, was recognized as a common and normal private enterprise, it did in Sact have � Planning Commission Meetin� - February 23, 1977 Page 16 a detrimental a£fect to the City in terms o£ the results of soil condition, � geographical affect� etc. He said that therefore� to get compensation for the adverse affect� the City :•rould put a ta�c on it for.that reason (they wou2d col.lect some roy.a]ty to compensate for that). Mr. Langenfeld said that was why the bond was posted� though. Mr. Sobiech said he thought they did �et into that later on in that sarne paragraph, when it said, "The City further £inds that it is not practicable to extract rninerals required by socity rrithout disturbing the sur£ace nf' the earth and producing waste materials. 'Ehe danger exists that noncompat- ible land uses could unnecessarily den,y the benefit of these materials to society in the future. It is further £ound that the character of minin� may create undesirable land and water conditions t�rhich can be detrimental to the health� safeiy azd t�relfare and property rights of the citizens of the City of Fridley". i�ir. Bergman noted that nothing in there would return the surface to its original or better condition, but vrould try to control it to 2ess than disaster. Mr. Sobiech said it was a relative situation when they talked about leaving it in as good shape as when they started, because from a developer�s point of view its original condition mi.ght be detrimental to hin. He said that the only vray it would be worse in its final condition than in its original condition oras if the site was eventually going to be used for a nature- type situation� such as a park. He said that i£ the end product resulted in a building on the site� he didn�t think it r�as deterimental. • Mr. Bergman suggested that a time limit should be put on it. He said that if the purpose o£ the excavation was to put a building on it� he would agree zaith Ptr. Sobiech� but if the purpose was to haul out thousands of tons of gravel and eventually some years lat'er plan a developrnent in there� then in the interim period there was a detrimental situation in Lhere. Mr. Sobiech said they should try to control the bad ef£ects of the situation. Mrs. Schnabel noted that in the F�zvironmental Commission minutes there was a motion made that the application procedure be reviewed on a yearly basis to make sure that the burden of the cost for the evaluation of a develop- ment was on the developer, Mr. Sobiech said that yearly review would be a cal.culation of the time Staff spent on the processing of the appiication io make sure they were collecting enough rwney £or services rendered. He said they would also revieir the starting and stopping times of these opera- tions to make sure they were operating properly. He added ttcat those costs that would be reviewed on a yearly basis would also include inspection time. Chairperson Harris said thai the whole question of bodies o£ water disturbed him a little. He said that if the £inal plan called for bodies of water, would that be £or drainage retention? And if so} he said� then they would get all mixed up with public waters and things of that sort. He explained he was referring to 6d and 6e on page 29� and thought that should be addressed specificatly. Mr. Sobiech said that his interpretation was the resultant body of water that xas formed because of some excavation would not remain. Mr. Harris Plcanning Commiesion i4eetin� - Fe:�ruar,� 23, :t977 Pagc• 17 isaid he was wcndering how the;r woc1:: address i;he situation if tne body of water did rerna�n. He addE;d 'ne ielc it was a little fuzzy, is. °obiech stated it wasn't tneir intent to crea*e sn,� re�ent9.on basins. ;dr, Lan�enield added that by tY,� ��ne token, i� was not the intent to have a big hole remaining :ihetY;er tnere was wzter in it or ::�t. 1?r. Sobiech a�reed that a clarification was required, and t�:a� reteniion ponds resulting irora excavation shoulcl be ir. line '.;ith overali s�ora'� sewers, i(e sug�,esied that under (e} on pa;;e 29 itern iii `�e added �a5ir.g ttiis resultant water oody couldn't remain over a certain length of ii:�e, I4r. �obiech st2:ed that Staf£ could Ta:ce so�:e clarifications ar:d a^�endu�ents and bring those cha,ges back, and maybe t7e P'_anning Com�nission cculd co:ie to a cenclusion at the next meeting. AfOTION by Berg:�an� seconded by LangenFeld, ttiat the reco:uaendatior. on tne proposed cnanoes in Chapter 212, ::ining, o= thU rridley City Code be continue3 u;.til the neYt :^ee �ing. Lpon a vozce vote, all votir.g aye, t:e motion carried una-�inously. 6. PROPOSI:D P.EGZO�z1L TRAILS PCLICY Yi.AI'd FRCi: :.�'1�OPOLITA�1 COU::CIL T�fOTIOIr` by Langenfeld� seconded by 3ergsnan� ':^.a` tne Planr.in� Co:�r2ission rec:aive the prop�sed regicnal. trails policy plu� from Ptet^opo].i;an • Council and the accompanying lette:�s fro*n i•:i . yoa: dinan. rSr. Sebiech stated that hlr. �oar'c.ria^- had received these recorv�.end2tiens from the lietro Co�.u�cil, and in his revie:•r ne iel't two conunea�s c��ere necessary. First, he continued, in the re�ional designation of tne trail system they designated 73rd Avenue instead o£ what the City �'elt should be in the area of Rice Creek. i:r. SoUiech added that togetner tiaitn not being on the alignment of Rice Creek� they also designated it as a snoonnobiling/herseback trail and Sia:i felt that was not appropriete for the Cit�� of rridley, The second con�Tent, he said, was to mention the concern for the regional £acilit3� in relation to the I•Iississippi 3iver and Critical Areas designation. Mr. Sobiech stated they did not want snowmobiling and horseback riding down 73rd Avenae, but did want biking and hiking down by tne creek, !?e said that basically�, what they were dcing was follewing up on what had been previously su6gested, He stated that at thi_s time they felt this �ras for infornational purposes only, unless the Commission felt some modification to the correspondence was in order. t�1r. Langenfeld noted tliat the word "vicinity" had been misspelled in the letter from rir. Boardman dated February 22, 1977• UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � MOTION by T,�mch, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission approve the letter to t•ir, John Boland from I?r. Boardman dated FeUruary 23, 1977 concernin� the proposed regional trails policy plan. Mr. Bergman as4ed to what extent the map which was attached and referred to in the letter was consistent with the existing bikeway system. P;r. Planning Commission Meeting - February 23, 1977 Page 18 Sobiech replied that was where their plan now called for bike trails and � bike routes. He added they were trying to get the re�ional system to match the3rs, UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously, Afrs. Schnabel asked who would be responsible £or the cost of developing these trails that were being proposed: Mr, Sobiech replied that he believed it would be funded by State and Federal only. Mr. Bergman said that his impression cras tnat if the letter and attached map that T,r:.Boax•dman proposed to send out was approved as pa.rt of the Regional Tra41s Policy Plan, it would be a real benefit to getting the bikeway system inplemented. 24r. Sobiech said that vras correct� and that was the whole purpose of it, He added ii; would be very costly to construct the bikeway in these areas to the standarcis that were accepted for bikeway/ walkway systems. ?�1r. Langenfeld said that if they could prove that the;� could make the proper connection between the metro ar�a and surrounding areas, the funding possibilities would be great if they could be designated regional. Mr. Bergman asked if anything had been said regarding timing, and P1r. Sobiech replied no, they were still in the draft stage. Pir. Bergman commented that the sooner this was adopted� the better. IIe added that funding was the criteria in the timing on these, so he was curious as to timing as it could be a real boon, chir. Scbiecii said he would try to find . information concerning the timing on this. Mr. Langenfeld asked if this particular item wou7.d be included in the overall regional special use. rs. Sobiech replied the trail system did take into account the special use areas. Mr. Bergman said he had one comment on the letter, and that was where Mr. Boardman said he would like to suggest the follotaing "corrections'� to the plan. He said that made him want to 2ook for a list of errors. Mr. Sobiech suggested that ��modiFications" might be better. 7. REGIONAL SPECIAL USE POLICY PLAN Mr. Sobiech explained that P.r. Boardman� as Head of the Planning Department, reviewed what the Metro Council had put out and had deter:nined that what they were proposing did not exclude the Springbrook Nature Center or the Islands of Peace as Special Use facilities. He said it also should be noted that this was being reviewed by Dan Huff and the Department oF Parks and Recreation, and they would come up with their own comments which would be part of the input at the March 3rd meeting. MOTION by Bergman� ,econded by Lynch, that the Planning Commission receive the Regional Special Use Policy Flan. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� � the motion carried unanimously. Pl-anning Cornrnission t'leetin;{ - F'°bruary 23, 19"T7 Page 19 . Nrs. Schnabel noted th�t her copy of the plan had some pages nissing and duplications oi' otr;ers, and the other �;e;abers said the sarie was true o1' their copies. Air. Sobiech said he would f'ir.d eut what happened. 8, COi3TIP3U?'n: P'OPOSED :S1T_Tdirl;At?�T', ".CDi: MOTSOPI by Schnabel, seconded b� i,an�°:�feld� that the Pl�.nnin�, Co:�.n�ission procee3 i•rith the I:aintenanca Code in tne f'olloo�ing manner: 1, The first item for consideration would be the dr�£tin� o£ the Maintenazce Code pertinent to residential rental �u�its ir.specte3 on a syste:natzc basis. 2. The second task viould be adoption of a Mainten2nce Code for single family nousing :ahic}i is ow'r,er-occupied� c-�hich would relate �o voluntary ir.spection of said progerties. 3. The third item in the process of deliberation rrould be the t•iaintenance Code on a sale basis of resideniiai properties witn �pecial attention to icunediate health and sa£ety hazard�. !y. The Fourth item for consideration vzould be inspection cf the entire City properties on a systematic 3asis. � The above £our steos shall refer to structural andfor interior maintenance. 5. The fi£th step riould be revie4r o£ tne Zoning Code iritn reference to exterior maintenanca cn residential� couvnercial 2nd industrial properties. Chairperson ?;arris commented that he Selt �`/lt would be a roonu;�ental tasL-, and didn't Smo�.a if they had eitner tne funds or the resources to handle that, t]r. Sobiech suggested that maybe they should de�ell on t�e syste:aatic rental and then lea3 into the possibilities of sale. i1e added that perhaps the intent of the motion rrould be that after a certain period of experience with the previous enforce:ent procedure, they would proceed into the next phase to see if it was f'easible. Mr. Langenfeld said it v:as his impression that the motion was presenting to the Commission a general outline as io how to approach the Maintenance Code. Airs. Scnnabel said she thought they wanted to focus on certain areas in terms o; a 2•Saintenance Code, and this outlined a certain procedure. Mr. Langenfeld explained that when they hit the "systematic" part they could go after it at that point, Mrs. Schnabel explained that �/2 was voluntary inspection o£ single family . housing, and j{Lt took it out of voluntary into involuntary. She said she thought they should review whether or not thev even wanted to do that. Afaybe, � she continued� their decision would be that they didn't iaant to� but they should cross that bridge at that time. P�anning Commzssion t�eeting - February 23, 1977 Page 20 Ms. Lynch stated she di.dn�t think the City could enter somebody�s house and � inspect it without a search c�arrant, and onlf then witn a�ood reason. P7rs. Schnabel said she thought they were jumping the gun on that discussion 2nd suggested they wait Yor that discussion until that time carne. t4r. Langenfeld said he wanted to stress that he thought the intent of the Commission and the City Council rras to assist the citizen in this case and not be an oporessor. He added that he thou�ht this Commission was aware that they should walk into this water of maintenance slo;,�ly- so they didn�t step into a hele. 2�Ir. Bergman agreed, and said they should try not to play "Big Brothcr". Mrs, Schnabel said she thought that several points came o�L in the discussion with the City Council on this. One, she said� was that the goal should be to maintain the character an3 the integrity oi�the neighborhood; number two vras that tl-ie emphasis should be on maintenance and not uograding; and nurnber three was that the propert5* rights of the ovmer had to be regarded in any of their decisions. Nir. Bergman said he rrould like to commend Mrs, Schnabel on her motion, and he felt positive about everything except Item 1�. Ho:rever, he said, i£ it was a general direction-type procedure� he £eIt it was fine. UPON A VOIC� VOTE� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bergman said he iaould like to ask a general question. He said that � when they talked about maintenance, exterior came to his mind; he couldn�t get a grip on interior/structural. He said he was sure they were not as obvious or apparent or meaningful to pedestrians and drivers through the City as was the exterior. tfr. Bergman continued that he had felt when the,y had started that they were talking ahout maintenance as related totaard the present trend tor*ard blighted areas� �ahich was the visual aspect of the thing. He said he felt some priority or emnhasis to treat the exterior bit� and asked the feelings of the other Commission members. Mr. Langenfeld said he had a good�=point, but it was possible to have a beautiful exterior and the inside structure could be ready to collapse� or there could be actual health hazards. Mr. Sobiech suggested that in the spirit of the previous motion the Planning Commission direct Staf£ to prepare standards in the area of maintenance (not upgrading), together with the enforcement that would allow them to take care of the first item (rental properLies). He said that together with that� they could address the exterior development o£ the aoning code. . He said that it wouldn�t be very difficuli to provide recommendations for exterior maintenance as they got into the interior standards and enforcement procedures of the rental properties. He added that he thought they could bring those two together, rlrs. Schnabel sai.d she felt the Zoning Code had some speciFics currently in it that would deal with exterior maintenance that might be applicable. � Planning Cosamission i;eeting - i�ebrna.y 231 197% Pa�e 21 sChairperson Harris said the readi:ig he got S'rom the d:.scussion tiaas that the`� were to test the water on the ,iain�epa�ce Cr�dc, He said he thougnt the�� should ta:te one �tep at a tirne and h2s�dle tiie Sirst itern and see hotia that taor]<ed. I;r. Sobiech sa�.d they could do t!:at� liut he didn't thin}: it orou=_d be any additi.onal Vrorl; to nave a couple of thino-s together. I;r. Harris said he thought they should ta�:e it in the elements. � � MOTIOri b�� Lr:ngenfeld, direct Staff to Pocus relate to Maintenance to rental. seco: ded by Scnnabel, that the Plannin� Corlsission on the f'irst iteT, stres;ing the standards as thev and ther. tae enfcrce:°,ent for a systernatic aaproacc 1•4r. Sooiech said he could see r:here they conld tone doom the 1'-�" thic'.c document they had. He said the� could i�a� _n general require:�ents that affected all residential, then put in speci£ic ones for R-1, B-2, R-3 and R-4� then at the end pui in �:�e ;%aragraph regardi:,g the syste�_at•�c approacn to rental and then the volwn�ary approac': to sir,gle fa�:ily. �:e sa�.d �ne;; would dwe11 on the nealth, �aiety and :reifare itesls, ar:d i•rculd not talk about brinsing t:�em up to the existing code. Cnairperson Ha:ris agreed. He said that as long as the wiring, °or instance, was good enough fiiteen years ago, then as long as it was in good ^ega�r it v�as good enough now. iie said the�� 1:-ere r.et sta+ing that jusi because it is 1977 a reeident had to have a najo: evernaul ai the h�u�e t� co^�� to present-day building codes. IIe added �ha`.. that caas ��!:at i:inr.eacolis had done, and he tncugnt they r;ere dead ti+rong. T`r. Ha:ris said that as long as �omething wasa't a fire hazard, perhaps it was alright. P1s. Lynch asked ho�-* they would deal with a situation wnere a l:ouse caas inspected� even on a i�oluniary basis� and it vras Sour.d that t:^ere r:ere heal�h hazards tha� trould be exoensive to ccrrect and the person didn't have the money. Chairperson iiarr_s said that if it occurred in a specific axea� such as the iiyde Parlc area� it mzght be,possible to get a grant. He said there were some prograrns for speci£ic items, and he thou�ht t;^,e county had one. 1ss. Schnabel added that there were loror-cost loans a=;ailab:e. 1�tr, Bergman asked what the enforce�ent procedure ��ronld be under the hociestead, single-family voluntary inspection proce,s. NIr. Sobiech replied there irouldn't be any. He expl�ined the ordinance would be providing a servi-ce to the homeowner for his informational purposes. He added that if there rras a definite health hazard� that would take it ati�ay fron t!:e voluntary basis� but it would be a liitle triciy. ?le said they could address that cihen tney came back with an appropriate proposal. Ms, Lynch said if there was a definite life and deatli_situation and the City didn't do anything about it� they might be liable if the place burned down or the furnace gave o££ a poisonous gas. Chairperson Harris said that he thou�ht on the voluntary inspections tne City should have a disclaimer that the property owner si€;ned at the time of inspection removing the City from any liability. P1:s. Schnabel said another point was, if the City Inspector missed something which eventually caused a fire, the City r�i�ht be respcnsible. PSr, liarris said he felt there should be a disclaimer to proiect them from a law suit. llPON A VOICE VOTE, all votin� aye, the motion carried unanimously. Plannin� Commission Meeting - February 23, 1977 9. REC�IVE APPrALS COt^9IUSI0?i I;INUTES: F}:ARiJAP.Y 15, 1977 Page 22 t40TI0D1 by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the Appeals Corru,i:;sion minutes o£ February 15� 19%7. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. T4rs. Schnabel pointed out that the variance request was on the same property the Planning Comaission had the Lot Split request on at the last meetin�. 10, RECEIV;� Hi?i4AA R�SOLiP�CE CC,•"°iIS5I0^] t�1ItNTES: rE?RUA.�tY 3, 1977 t•tOTI0P1 by Lynch� seconded bv �chnabel, that the Plannin� Commission receive the Human Resource Commission rninutes of February 3, 1977• Mr. Langenfeld referred to the second sentence at the top of page 3� and asked about the "lot" tax, The Cormtission decided it should read "low" tax. PSrs. Schnabel re£erred to the bottom paragraph on page two of the minutes, and asked where the figure $13�DOQ came from. Ms. Lynch replied that was the base figure� and was always the same ar?ount. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 11. OTIiER BUSINF.SS: Mr. Langenfeld raised the question of the election oi ofiicers, and wondered iF he could get a clarification of the exact time this eras supposed to take place. �1rs. Schnabel said that the appointments were made in April and she thought they had the elections in P4ay so the new board members could have one month to see the tirhole group in action before voting on of£icers. Mr. Sobiech said that to help even further� the Council was trying to make appointments in Piarch so there would be a two-month initiation, P•Ir. Bergrnan read from the ordinance that the tezr�s expired AFril l, but no date for election was given. Chairperson Harris suggested that the Planning Commission could pass a resolution designating a tirie frame when the member corn�nissions would hold an election £or Chairperson. ":�Ir, Sobiech read, "Following the appointment of inemberships (vrhich would be April 1)� the Commission shall meet, organize and elect officers as it deems desirable". He said he didn't think it would be out of line £or the Planning Commission to adopt a policy. MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Cor,unission� i.n keeping with the intent of the ordinance, adopt the policy that member commissions hold an election Sor chairperson and vice chairperson at their first meeting in P1�q. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. Tirs. Schnabel said it was her understanding that the Planning Commission had carried over the discussion of the proposed intersection of 53rd and Central � � . Planning Corrunissia� Meei;;'.n�, - Februa.r,� 23, 1977 Fa�� 23 � AvEnue 1'rom their last meet.in�; pendin�; furt:ier information. i:r. Sobiech J• said he couldn�t cor�ment a� he didn't 1a�o:: tirnere it was at this time. Schnabel exp].ained the infor^�ation that ti:as needed� and ;;r. So'.^.iecn said it took some ti;a� to go througn ihe fiies to £ind the accid�nt records because o£ the vray tney vrere filed. MOTiOi+ by Schn.:bel� �econded by Langen�eld, that the Planning Cercmission continue the discussion of the propos°d icrnrove:aent at t?ie intersection of 53rd and Central Avenue Pd.u, until the next r�eeting. P�fr. Bergman sai.d �ne;,r had previcnsly discussed tl-,e tra££ic p^oblem there� and painted out that the bike.ray/wai:�wa;� plan cailed !'or a bi=:e.:'ay trail across that inter�ection, too. He said he was sronderin� if in the preser�t- ation back of 2ny ^elative data, tnat £act oaght to be keot in :aind� and perhaps incluned in that packa�e also. T-`r. Sobiech said that right no.r he was correct; there was no rocm for cars 1et alone a bike;ray system� but Dlans calied �or a3diticnai area for the bike�ray syste�. I`.rs. Schnabel noted s:e had 'oroug:it that up a� t'.:e last r,eeting. UPON A VOICr, VOTn, all voting aye, the motion carried unanir..ously. AIl JOUH]`^4�NT : hiOTIGN by Schnabel� seconded by Berg���n, ihat the raeeting oe adjournzd. � Upon a voice cote, all voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Planning Co;.�^�ission meeting o£ Februaz-y� 23, 1977 adjourned at 11:23 P•���• Respectflzlly submitted� ��1�/� ^r-'riJ f % !US /Yl; !/,°r'�" � � Sherri O�Donnell Recording Secretary � 4 � � ` �'�N Ct'���y t� / 7 n• 300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 812, 291-Fi359 February 2, 1977 TO: Metropolitan Area Citizens and Government Officials Attached is a redraft of the Rules and Regulations for the review of Matters Alleged to be of Metropolitan Significance that has been amended to reflect the testlmony received at a Public Hearing conducted on July 19, 197b, and the recommendations made�by the State Office of Hearing Examiners . This redraft is now ready for further public comment. For this purpose, a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 16, 1977, commencing at 1:30 p.m. and reconvening at 7;30 p.m. in the Metropol.itan Council Chambers, 300 Metro Square Building, 7th and Robert Streets, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101. The Metropolitan Council is directed by Minnesota Statutes to adopt regulatiens establishing standards, guidelines and procedures for determining whether any �proposed matter is of "metropolitan significance" and to establish a procedure for �the review and final determination of such matters. . � All lnterested persons are invited to parucipate in this public hearing prxess. Stater.�ents r.tay be made orally or submitted in writing at the hearing. In addi�ioa, written statements may be submitted by mail to Mr. Howard Kaibel, State Office of Heartng Facaminers, 1745 UniversityAve., St. Paui, Minnesota 55104. Peraons wi�hing to speak at the hearing may register in advance by contacting the Metropolitan Council at 291-6482 or by writing the Metropolitan Council. The p:ocedures fer coaducting this hearing will be those established by the State Board of Hearing Examiners in Minnesota Regulation H.E. 101 et. seq. Addttionai copies of the proposed rules may be obtained free of charqe by wr:::ng the Metropolitan Counci:, 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Iv?innesota 55?O1 or by calling the Council's Public Ir.iormation Office at 291-64E4. A written summa.y describ:r:g the basis for the composition of these proposed regulations is being prepared and will be available from the Council by February 2i, 1977, Stncerely, ^�,,,.�- ''�- r�` John Buiand Chalrman An Agency Created co Coordinote the Ylanning and Devolopment o[ the Twin Clties Metropolitan Area Comprieing: Aaoka County O Cacver County o Dakota County U Hennepin Couaty O Ram�ey Couaty o Scott County o Wu�hington County •.-- ,c,.� '� METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 300 Metro Square Butlding, Saint Paui, Minnesota 55101 � PROPOSED RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE REVIEW OF MATTERS ALLEGED TO BE OF METROPOLITAN SIGNIFICANCE HF.ARING DRAFT Approved by the Me�opolitan Counctl January 13, 1977 The Public Hearing on this draft wlll be held at 1;30 P. M. and 7:30 P. M. Wednesday, March 16, 1977 in the Metropolitan Council Chambers 300 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Streets � St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 � . i � �_J MC . 1 MC . 2 MC . 3 MC . 4 MC . S MC . 6 MC . 7 MC . 8 MC . 9 MC .10 MC.11 CONTENTS Page PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1 STANDARDS FOR DETERNIINING METROPOLITAN SLGNIFICANCE 1 LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXEMPTIOI3 2 CATEGORIES OF EXEMPT MATTERS 2 INITIATION 3 COMMENCEMENT 3 METROPOLITAN SIGIVIFICANCE REVIEW 4 COU2�iCIL DETERMI23ATION 7 TERMINATION, SUSPENSION, TIME CHANGE 8 GENERAL REVIEW PROVISIONS 8 DEFINITIONS 10 ..� �� � METROPOLITAN COUNCIL OF THE 1W(N CITIES ARER Rulas aad RequlaUOns CAAPTER 1 PROPOSED RULES AND REGtJIATLONS FOR THE REYIEW OF Ml11T£RS ALI.EGED TO BE OF MESROP0ISTAN SIGNIFICANCE I �� ti MC.1 PURPOSE AISD SCOPE, The purpose of this Chnpter is to lmpiement Minn. Stats., Sectton 473.173, as emended by I.aws of 1976, Chapter 321, Sectlon 2, which reQuires that the Metropoliun Councll adopt and put Into effect requWllons esWbllshinq standards, quidelines and procedures for determininq whethet any pcoposed matter ls of inerropolltan alqnlficance. Th1s chapter shall qovem the review of all proposed matiera alleqed to be Of inetropolltan slqnlficaace tntttated pwsuant to the a6ova statute. It is the puzpose oi thene regulattons co assure that the total effect of a proposed matter of raecopolltan etqn[flcance �s consldered and the orderiy and economlc development of the area !s iuomoted, thereby protecting the health, aafety, and wettaza of the residenca of the area. A metropolltan slqniflcance revlew wtll be completed. by the Councll wlthin ninety (90) days foilowlnq commencement un2ess exteuded pursuant co these regulaLOns. A�AC.2 STANDARDS FOR DEfEANIINIIdG METROPOLITAN SIGNIFIGANCE. ihe following effeets listed Sn paragraphs A and B are the exclusive standarde for deteemininq whether a proposed matter 1s of inetropoliian siqnlficance, Unless euempted pursuant to these regulatirns, a proposed matter shall be detemiined to be of ine�opoliun siqnlficance lf the Caunciltinds that it may cause aay of the following effects. Proposed-matters which [he CouncSl finds wlll not result !n oae of the listed effecW shall be determiaed to be not oi metropolitan siqntficanca, The standards llsted in para4rapha MC 2 A and g shall become effective immediately upcn adoptiou� oE [Aese regulatlons. A. Metropolitan 5ysiem Effects 1. The dlscharqe of HRy thousand (50,600) or mae qallons � sewage per � day aad a subetantlal effact ai a recetving publ2c sewer facilftq or on the plans for such a facSlity caitalned fa a metroPOlitan sYStem Dlan. 2. Aviolatim of cr an amendment to a co¢�dttSOes, relatinq te sawage efEluent, cmtatned in a Naticeal Pollution Dischatge Ellailnatim System Permit far tha discharqe of sewaqe efAuent 1n the metrapolitan azea. 3. ?he constructirn of anp publtc sewer facSlity Sn crnIIic6 with an approved loca! camprehensive sewer plan or a metropolitan sqstem plan, 4. The generatim of ten ffiouyand (30, 000) or mare vehicle Mps per day c� ana tha�sand (1,000) x mcse vehicle trips in any oae hour and s substaatial affeM ca a netro- politan tsanspccta tion facility or ai a plan far such a facility cca�taused !a a metropoliwn system plan, 5. A aubstantial effect an the loeatlrn, funotion, or practieal service capacity of the whote or any segment of an existing setropolitan �an.qpartatian facility or cn a pJm tar such a facllity c�tained in a metropolitan system plan. 6. A substantlal effact m the loeation, size, fimcdan er character of: a. An exiaiing ar proposed reqimal racreailon open spaca designated ln a metropolttan system plan whose houndades are delineated in a metropoiitan 6ystem plan a a master plan approved by cha Mstropolltan Co�mcil pursuant to Mlnn. Stat, Sec:lon 473,313, ar h, The Minnesota Zoologlcal Galden � 7. A subsunUal effect m the lacatian, size, functirn, or character of an exfsting me4opalitan a irport, or an sirpa-C a airpat aite deslgnated as a planned metro- politan alrporc faclltty whose boun�azies are daltn�aced in the airport chapter of the � MeROpo2ftan Development Guide or 1n an aicpare master plan which has been accepted by the Metropolttan Councll, ��� ��8 F• :.� � -2- g. The issuance of a land use permlt 1n an outlYln4 commmity for a crttical devalopment which could reasma5ly Se expected to Lead Lo: � �. ���a, �� tl�e premature expanaim, crnstruetlon oc exteneian of use fn exceas of cayacity ot a public sewer facillty w a�metropolitan transpartation facility, x b. the dlsruptlm of aqricultural use 1n a c�marctnl agrScultural area, 9, Locat GwemmenWl Unit Effect, A euhstantial effect on existing s planned laM use a development wiihin a local govemmental imit other than the sttus qovemmenwl tmSA MC. 3 LOCAL COMPREHENSNE PIANS E7�MPTIODi A. Whea a local qwemmental imit has adoAted a local comD�ehenstve plan which has been approved by ihe Metrapolitan Council pursuant to Saws 1976, Chapter 127, Sectim 15, then a proposed mattet aited 1n that local qwemmental unit sdall be determtned to 6e of � matropolltan sSgniflcance mly !f: 1. It cnusea the effects listed in Metropolitan Siqnificance Siandarde I� 2 A 2 a D�tC 2 B, ac 2. The proposed matter 1s lncrosistent with those elements of the local eanprehensive plan whickt are subject to Co�mcil madlficatl� purstwnt io Laws 1976, Chap!er 127, and would result in the utiAizatirn, exsenstrn, a expanafo� of a metropolitan system plan !n canIIict wtth any mefiopolitan system pian or pnrt thereof, � B. pricc to the adoptiai of a local eomprehensive plan !n accadance vvith Laws 1976, Chapter 127, Sectlan 15, and on :he recetpt of a petition fram a lacat 4o'+emmenWl unit having a caaprehensive plan adopted prior Eo January 1, 1976, a an outlying eommnnity, tk:e Co�cil aAall re-evaluate.that cemprehensive plan and assess its adequacy as a substitute Eor ffie sWndaals set foN.h in MC 2 A, The Councll may Snitiate such a review on its own motion absenL the su4missian oF a peritirn. Fo11ow1nq re-evaluatfrn, the Camci! may by resolutic� act to exempt proposed matters in all � part of thaC qwemmentaI unit from ali or part of the metro- potitan slqn[flcance sundards set forth in MC 2A a� to apply the standa�s set fccth Sn MC 3 A. MC.4 CATEGORLES OF EXEMPT MATT£AS. Proposed matters within the followfng cateqwfea shall not be determlaed to be af inetopolitan s ignificance and shall be exempted from a stqaificance review by tha Chairman la accordance with MC 6 D a by the Council tn accondance wtth MC 8 B or MC 10 C. A. previous Apprwal. Any proposed matter of a meuopolitan eommissfon or the Metropolitan Altports Conmissirn which Ss withln an azeals) of commission operational autharity cs which has been ar will be sub)ecc to apprwal by the Co�ail as part of a aetro- polSian syatem piaa; any proposed matter whlch has been previwely approved by the Counc;l 1n accardanoe wlth Mlnn. Stat. , 1975 Supplement, Seatiat 473.167; or any propo�ed matter far which a final determinati� has been aeade p�ssuant co these zegulatice�s unless the pro- pased matter has been macarially alteted subse9uent ta tbe final determination, B. Exclusive Comprehensive Review, Any proposed matcer sublect ro revfew and ayproval purauant io the Power Plant Sltlnq Rct, M4tn. Stat., Sec2lms 116C.51 io 116C,69, as amended. C, Emetqency Matter. Any proposed matter which must be immedlately undertaken to prevent ar mitiqate an emergency. In determinlnq the existence of an emecqency matter c�- slderatian shall be given to the prabable consequences of the alleqed eme�qency, the degree to which tY�e alleged emergency circumstances were rea5onably foreseeable, ths availa6iLity of altemate means of alleviating the er.ien7ency, and the proba6le effecc of tha proposed matter fn preventinq a mltiga[Snq the emetqency eStcumstanees, D, Miner Alterations, My proposed matter crosisting exclusively of ad:nintstrativa or � malntenance actritty, a the transfer of ocmership, ar ths operation, restcretlon, raplaceaeni, reCatstructlon, repair a minor alteration or a3dition to an existinq ?uhlic � p�ivate scrueiure or facllity, or to lands or wa:ers within the neVOpolltan area which lnvolves rnly a aegliqible �. expansirn a ehanqe of use or use lntensity. -3- ' ' E. Veated R14hts. Any proposed mattcr far which all applleable land uee permib have �'�. been iasued and on which subsiantial constructlon has caremenced prior to the Inidatim of a siqnificance review and any proposed matterfor whtch all applicable land use permits dave . basn isnued .prior to the eifective date of [hese regula[ians and m whlch substantial cros�uecirn haa commenced wlthln sUC (6} mrntba fallowlnq the eEfectfve dato of theae regulatims. � MC. S IIJIT7ATION A. initlatas. A slgnificanee roview of any propased matter may be fnlciated an follavs: 1. Upm passaqe by the Council of a rosolution adaptinq an adu to commence a 6lqniflcance revSew, or 2. Uprn the receipt of any of the tollavinq docuaents requestlnq a significance raview whlch are accompanled by an adequate itsformntica submlasim: a. A rasolvtlm from a situs qovemmentnl �mit. b. A resolutirn froa aa aHected local qovernmental �mit, school dlstict ar � other lndapendent c�misaim, . c. A petltion signed by at least five thousand (5000) restCenu of the metopolitan area eighteen (!8) years of aqe or older or Lhat numbet of rasldents aiqhteen (16} years of aqe or older of an affected local qovem- . meatai unit which equals or exceeds fifty parcent 150X) of those persons who voud in thac local govemmental unit durtnq the most recenrly held qeneral e1�cUOn. Tfie peution shall deslqnate at least one and no more than three pecsons to act as initlators on behalf of the petlttoner. d. A resolutim �s letter &om a duly authaued exewuve officer ar qavem- inq body pf aa aSected siate agency, � e. A resolutirn ar 1Mter from a duiy auLhafsed executive officer ar qovernlnq bady of an affected spmsa. � f. A reaolutirn from an affected metropolitan commtsstrn. ' B• Infamatlrn 3ubmissiw. An lnformation submissirn fr� the lnitiate shall ccntafn all Snfamation, fact and opinian Niihln thefr knowladqe beazinq rn the applicabflity of these regularirns u+d the siqnificance and effect of the proposed matter which concaSns at least the [ollOW Snq: -- I. The names and addressea of the initiatar, the spmscr and the situs 4ovemmental �it{s3: 2. A deseiptim o� the proposed matter lncludlnq its planned character, location, functlat, uaa azsd size; . 3. A statament of the stnndazds crnxaiaed 1n MC 2 whicE lt is alleged caused � the proposed c�iter Co be of matropolitan slgnlficance, and a dlscussicn ef why St 1s not exempt pwrsuant to tifC 3 or 4, Snclvding facts and opinia� uprn which Sueh� statement and discusslai are Dased; 4. Infarmatlrn submisaims accompanying reanlutims ar letten submltted pursuant to MC 5 A 2 b, d, e, or f shalf lnelude a statement of affect contalnlnq a dlscussion of the alleqed effect(s� the Qroposed matter wiil have on exSsting cr planreed land use ar developroent, ar on other respansibtlities ar activtties oE the submittor. MC, 6 COMMIIYCEMENT A. A slqnifieance review fnlUated by the Council shall commenee m ths day follavinq the adoptirn by the Couneil of an arder to commence a significanca review. � g, Upm the recefps. in accadance with MC 5 A 2 of a resolntion, petitim, ar letter of initiatim, accompanied by an lnformanon submisston, the Cousicil Chairman shall immediately ' examine the materia! end determSne if; 1. It complies wlth and satlsffes the requfremenu cmcained ffi MC 5 A and I� 5 B ; and ��� �7 � -4- 2. The siqnificance raview han been lnitiated fn bad faith ar 1s a aham, capriciaus, or trlvolous tnittatica; and . 3. The infamatirn submissirn transmitted tn connectlan with ;natters lniitated pursuanEto MC 5 A�2 b, d, e, oc f makes out an arquable clafm (arguably demrnstrates) that the e�cistlnq or planned land usa a development or responsib111ttes a acuvitiea of the su6- mittar wlll be affec:ed by the proposed matter; and 4. The proposed matter is exempt pursuant to MC 9, C. 1n maklnq the determlaatiain requ7red pursuant to MC 6 B, the Chalrman may meet with the initiator, sitas qwemmental imit and the spansar and additiaia! Snformatirn may be requested and consldered, D. If the Chalrman detarmlaes that the lnttia2Las compiies wtth and satisfies the re- Qufrements, !s not fn bad faith, presenu aa argua5le clalm, and Ls not exempG, he shall Smmediately commence the significance review by lssuing an ader f� eommencemen[ eEfective as of che da:e of the receipt of the resolutirn, peti[irn a Letter of fnttiatlon and an adequate infcrma:ton sub- missirn. If the Chatrman determines that the init7atton dcee not compiy with cr satisiy the re- quirements, is in bad faith, dces not presen[ an arquable claim, or 1s an exempt matter, he shall determine not to commence a stgnificance review a� shall L-anediately lnfortn the personis) requestL�g the initlatirn, che siws qovenmentat tmit and the sponsor of that detetrtfnatt� and the basis therefore. A statement that a determina:iai na to commence a signifiaance revieN lwe been made shall be published � the next followlnq issue of the Councll bulletin. E. Person(s) requesttng Lhe inittation, the situs governmental untt, and the sponsor may appea! the Chairman's declsion not to commence the signlfieance revlew to Ltie full Council by subaLLtting a petition for review withtn seven (7) days followtnq notification af the Cha'uman's determinatfon. On appenl, the Counctl shall revlew the pettilon at a public hearinq and may dtrect the issuance of an order for eommeneement. - F. S3otice. of the commencement ot a significance review shall be served 'ny ffie CouneA m the 1nitlata, spmsor, situs qovemmental imit(s) , adjacent govemmental �miis, metropolitan , commissims and theMetropolltan Land Use.advtsoryCommltteewlthinflve (5) days following the � determinatlm xo commence a siqnificance review. The notice shall conwtn the adar for com- mencement, Lhe Lz![iatinq documencs, the lnfarmattcro subm3ssion or a 3uamary thereof, and an ader to .he sp�sor not to commence constructirn, 3r.d a schedule for the me2opolttan significance teview, Notice that a significance review hns been commencad shall be pu513shed in the next follaving issue of the Coimcll bulleiin and when appropriate in LSe State Reqisier. � AZC, 7 MEfROPOLITAN SIGNIFICANCE AEVIEW A. Signiflcance Revlew Committee. ImmedlatelY follawlnq tha ccanmancement of a sig- aificance revlew, the Chairman shall appo7nt a siqnificance rev3ew committee composed of na mara than seven (7) or less than three (3) lndivlduals all of whom aze members of the Council or the Metropolltan Land Use Advlsory Committee. At least one Me�opolitan Land Use Advlsory Canmittee mec�6er and one Council member shall be appointed to all stqnificance review committaes. B. Dele9aticm ?o Hearinq Exantner. At any time priar to the commencement of the pu611c hearing ca�dutted �ursuant to MC 7 I ihe efgnlflcance review commiieee may deleqa*.e its resprnsibllity for the conduct of relevant p�tians af the significance review, Sncluding the �wblie hearing, to a hearinq exa�niner. A hearing held by a heazing examiner shall be concucteci in accadance with the Requlaticns of tne Sta:e Office of Fiearinq Exaniners :or Caitested Cases, Minn. Iteg. HE 201 to 222, as a:nended, to the extent such regulatims ar_ not lnconsistent with the tLnes periods and procedures specifled L� ll�ese regulations, The report of any hearing examiner appofnted by Lye slqntficance review commSttee shall be vansmitted to the siqniflcance revlew commtttee. The siqniflcance review committee shall review the repoK and may adopt the repoK as the siqnificance revtew eommittee findings and recommendatiqls or c�sider it in adopting committee findinqs and recommenda[ims pursuant to MC 7 L. C. Prellminary Scatement. 1. The sponsor, iniiiator a:id sftus gwammental �mlt(s) shall and any cL`�er persen may submft to the siqnlfSCance review committee or hearL�q examiner a preSlminary s.ate^fent eantals�lnq tnformatica�, fac[s and opLzlons bearfaq on he applicabiliYy of these regula[lrns, Wa stgntficance arni e:fect of :he proposad matter, and the appropriate remedy withln twenty (20J days followinq the issuance of the order fa commencemenc, In addit:on, the spmsa shall' � -s- ledieata all other qaremmental revlewa and approvals required !a cannectia� with the pro- poaed matter and thetr currant sWtus. � � 2.� The sponsx, and situs qwarnmenta! unit(s) shall submlt to the slgnlficance revlew Commlttee or heatin4 examiner all plans, and other informatlm relevant to the slqnlfl- cance review submltted 6y the sp�sar to any lacal qovemmen[al unit requ4ed to approve the proposed matter and a copy of any ffndlnqs, roport ot determinatirn cmcemlaq the proposed matter of auch governmenWl �it(sy. + D. Addltiaial Iniormatim. Any paRy ar penan may voluntattly submtt additicna! ' written infamation relevant to the significanee revtew to the sL�nlficance review committee � or hearinq examiner at any tLne, priar to the close of the �publlc heazing recad, 31 E. Sllpulated Prxedure. Wlthln no sooner than fifteen (15)days or later than thlrtY (30) daya followSnq the eommencement of a stqntftcance revtew, the persons who are then partles to a stgnlftcance revlew and the algniflcanae review commlttee may exeeute a sttpulatlon pzescribtng a almpllfled procedure for the conduct of a stgnlficanee revfaw by the significance revtew comm- lttee. No stlpulation may ba executed with regard to a slgnlftcance revtew delegated to a Hearin4 �aminer�. � A sripulatlon proced�ae c�ay addresa and modify requlremenu contained heteln relating to addltlonal informaUon, dtscovery, the slqntflcance revtew report, public hearing procedures, and the �ansmisslon and servlce �of notice, findlnqs, and recomnendallons, reports, and other�dxuments and communlcalions. The sUpulatlon procedure may not contain requlrements oc provisions inconaistent with staruiory requlraments and shall become effecuve only on the execuuon by all parttes and stgnificnnce review committee. F. Dlscwery. 1. Diacovery 1n cannectim with significance reviews ca�ducted by a hearing examiner shall be qoverned by Minn, tteq. HE 214, as amended. 2. Upm the request of the signiftcance reviaw ccmmittee a Camcil, any partY � � to a eiqniflcance review shal! fumish to the slqnifieance review canmittea or the Coimeil any recads, documenu, a other data and tnfamation which the party may have that !s relevani to � ffie sl4ntflcance review undet conslderatlonandallowthesiqnlflcancerevlewcommitteeorCOUnctlor anq member, employee, aqent, or designee oE the Councll or the committee when aurhaized and uprn the prasentation af proner credentials to enter upai thelr property, premises or sl.e of the propaaed matter for the purpase of cbtainSng infcrmation Q e�camin2nq reco�ds or caiductLlq surveys a tnvestlgatims relevazft to tha s7gnfftcance revSew �afder considerat!a�, Uprn app:oval by the heaNnq examiner or the chalrman of tha significance revizw commLttee, any party may propound wrlttea lnterroqataries to any other party whfeh shall be answered aprn a schedute approved'cy tha chauman ar the hearfn4 examinu. � r.�� 3. Any pers� may examine and copy all records, documenes, survays, lnformaUOn, aM other data relevant to a aignificance ceviaw under consideratirn wnic:f is in the possessirn of the signlficanee reviaw committee whieh has not been determined to be confidentlal pursuant to MC 10 j and any party may request the vobmtazy disclaseue mtd submissim of infumatfcn to him Dp anY other Pa�tY. 4. Uprn the motion by a�ar[y, the aiqnificanee review committee may ader the dlscovery and production of any material or lnfmnaCim relevant to rhe sfqnificanca review whlch ta na determined to be crnfidential pursuant to MC 10 j. Up� the failure oi a party to reasaiably eomply wfth an order mada pursuani to this suie, the sfgnificance review committee may ader that the sub)ect matter of the ocder fx discovery ar any other relevant fact shall be taken as established fa putposes of the signlficar.ce review Irt accadanea with the cla3m of the pacty requesting the C�der � refuse to allow ihe party failinq to comply with the ader for discow_ry to suppert a oppose deslqnated claims � defenses or prohIDlt h[m frootlntrcducinq deslqnated aatertal htto . evld�ce. G, 3cope and Aavtew, The slgnificanca review caonmittee may consider all standards aet forth !n �IC 2 and bfC 3 1n crnnection with lu stqnlfScance review of a proposed matter, raqardiess of whether tssue Ss raised la che infmnatim submissirn, H. Siqniticanca Revlew Report. A: least ten (10) days prtar to ihe public hearinq em- ducted by the stqnlficanee revlew committee or the hearfnq examiner, [he chalrman of the Cowcil shai! have a written report prepared discussinq all information ehen subml[ted :vith reqard :o the prepaaed mattec. � To �tse exteni practicable, the Chairman of the Coimcil shall hold a conference to dlecuss informattrn received. RYar to che prapazation of this sepat, notice of this ean:erence �� � � � -� shall be aansmitted to all paRiee. The reput nhall be sent to all pareles and made avallable for 32 lnspee:ion and copyln4 by any other persan. Partiea may submie statements emceming the eattents of thls repa-t to t2�e siqniftcance review committee at any t3me priar to tha closa of the recad of [he publlc hearing conducted pwsuant to MC 7I. Thla report shall be prese�ted at ehe hearSnq held. pursuant to MC 7I, and iu author(s) ahall be sw* ject to euaminatim [herem. The repat ahall contaln: 1. A discusslrn of all lnfamatim submitted and collected ca�cernlnq the proposed matter includinq *ha sources of such lnfamaticai, any lnadequacies Sn the lnformatim and [he reasm therefor, and a list of all persrns crosulted and requested to ewhmtt fafcrmatian: 2. An obSective descripclon of the propased matter, fBfE[8[ICIil9 Llid fI19CLLS9UIQ disagreements regarding facts about the propesed matter; 3. An obiective deseiptica� cf the propased matter's posslble c�sistenefes and 1n- cansfstencies wtth and effect upen metrapotltan system plans and effect(5) m oLkar local qav- emmental �mits; an objective discusslm of disaqreemertts rega[dlnq the facts as to the proposed matter's emsistency and effect; and lnformaticn ragardinq lssues to be addressed at the public hearin9: 4. A discussim of posslble nadifications to the proposed matter u to any ma�o- politan system plan(s) which could be made co el3minata inconslscencies a to alleviate adverse aHects of the propoaed matter, 5. A synopsis of any repa[s x findinqs of any other public aqency relatlnq to the �oposed matter. I. T1�e signi8cance review committee or a hearinq examiner appointed by the committee, shall hold at leas[ rne public hearing casceminq a proposed matter sub)ect to a siqnlf:cance re- view followinq notice to all partles at which all parties and other pecsais shall de qiven an oppatunity to speak and to present lnfcrmatlon on the apylicablllty of these requiatims, the signifltance of the proposed matter atxi the review remedy. NoCice of this public hearing shall be published 1n the Council BuLetin, served on all parttes at Least fifteen (15J days gricr to the hearing, and !f approFrfate, published Sn the S!ate Reqistsr and newspaper(s) of qeneral clrculatian. Standing ccmmlttees of tFe Co�cil cr the.yletropolitanIand UsaAdvisoryCommittee may hold meettnqs regarding �':e proposed matter and prepare and cansmit such infamaticn, - comment or recommenda[irn [o the significance review caamittee as they deem appropria.e, J. Publlc Aearing Procedutes. Publlc hearings held punuant to biC 7I shall be candueted !n a:nanner designed io p�otect the riqhts of all persrns and oaRies and ensure fundamental faimess. Public hear]nqs ecnducted by a hearing euam3ner shall be gwerned by Mkfn. Reg. HE 2�1 to 222, as amended. The follawing procedures shall qovem pucllc hearinqs amducted by the siqnificance review commttcee: 1. pnly evidence f�mally presented td the siqnificance revfew committee shall be caisidared in making the find]nqs and recommendatims of the sigaificance review committee, 2, pll evidence recelved shall be submitted und=r oath and made a pa:t of the record, 3, All witnesses shall be subJect to cross examinatim by the parttes, the aignifl- cance review eommittee and the Crnmcil. 4-, The chairperson of the siqnlfieance review commitiee may, on the requast of any party ar ai his/her ocvn initfative, limlt the amount and seope of du�ect and uosa e�:nina^San and pcesentaritit. S. 1LL1 hearings shall be transcrtbed ar tape-reco�ded. K. Bu=den of Proof. 2he burden of proof as to any lssue of fact 1n a slgnificanee rev:ew shall be by a prep�derance of the evldence, and the obligatirn to satlSEy the initial burden of prooi m any such issue shall be that of the oarty asserting that fact, Proposed natters decermined by the situs gwemmental unit to be consiscen2 cvi..h the local eomprehensive ptan adopt_d pursuant to IaNS 1976, Ch3?ter 127, Section 15, a accepted putsuant co MC 3 p sha11 be presucr.ed to present no substaaiial conflict wlth the metropolttan system plan. ' � � -�- L. Committee Flndlnqs and Recommacdation. Followin4 tha public heazlnq and the teeeipt of the report ot the hearinq examiner, lf any, the siqntficance ravlew committae shall adopt a eanmlctee repat reqacdin4 �se proaaaed matter which shall contaln the following: 1. A recommendatlrn Nat: ,�� a. The proposed matter is exempt pursuant to A� 4, ar that the proposed ma[ter dces not cause the affect eet forth in any of the standards crntained 1n �IC 2 a MC 3, as applicable, cc that tha proposed mauer 1s not of inetropolitan sig- ntficance; a b. That the requSatims aze applicable, that the proposed matter satisfies me a more of the standards 1n MC 2 a MC 3, as apDlicable, and that the proposad mntter ts of ineuoPolitan siqnlficance: ar . c. That based aa� tha lack of ade9uate auppatln9 lnfccmatirn, the signlficance teview should be auspended at thts time. 2. A statement of the atandards and exemptimo ca�sldered in the alqnificanca review d the praposed matter. " 3. pn ydentificacion of the metropolltan system plans or pares thereof a adverse aifects cn another lxal qovemmental usix which wero oaasidered by the siqn5ficance review • cm�mittee. . 4. Flndings conceminq the appiicability of the requlatirns and the effects of the proposed mauer Sn relation to che standatds. S. A reeommendacim as io the remedy which the Crnmcil should adopt with regazd to the Proposed matter, � Transmissirn and Service of Flndings and Recommendation. The fSndiags and " � recomme�aticn of the significance revtew canmitt.ee shall be served on all•pazties and � l�omediately transmltted to the Crnmeil. All lnformatim and mateHal crosldered by [he sig- pifieance review committee shall be made availabie to Councll memben in accadance with Camcil prxedure. MC. 8 COUNCIL A. The Co�mcii shall ccmalder the commlttee flndlnqs and recommendatims and all lnfamatlan submitted during the siqnificanca review pri� to tha close of the publlc heazing. The Camcil may ho13 additional mcetings to c�sider the proposed matter ar duect the siq- aificance revtew committee to engage in further speciiic significance review activity, B. Follavinq ccrosideratka of tl:e flndin4s and recommendatims, tha Crnmcil shall by resolutirn adopt a final determinatirn with regard to each proposed matter subject [o a siq- nificance review. The final determinatiai shall he transcribad Sn writing aztd shall ecntain ftndings and caiclusirns supportlng :he Camcil determination. The final determinatim shall crnWln the following: . 1. A determinatiai tha[ the proposed matter is exemp[ p�asuant to MC 4, or thas tde �oposed matter does not eause the effeeu set forth in any of the standazds contained in MC 2. and that tha propased matter 1s not of ine�opolitan siqniflcaace; x . 2. That the requlaitons aze appilcable, that the proposed matter wtll cause one or mxa of the effects set forth ln MC 2, and that the matter ts of inetropolltan stqnificance. C. in the event that the Counctl determtnes that the proposed matter ia of inetropolltan slqnlficance, the Councll's ftaal determinatlon shall in addltlon contain the followtnq; M 1. A determinatlon as to whether the procedure to amend a metropolitan system plan ahoutd be instltuted to ensure consistency of the proposed matter wtth such plans toqether w[th a qeneral statement reqarding the necessary amendment; and/or 2, M order susDending eommencement of constructlon on the proposed matter for a speclfled perlod of tlme whteh may not exceed a perlod of one year from the date of the flnal determinaUon. An ordar of suspenslon may also contain condltlons or modiflcattons 34 � i -8- to the proposed mattar which tf compited wlth would cauas tha Councll to ellm�nate the euapenalon tn accordance with MC 10 G tnctudinq but not llm�ted to measures whtah would: m.. Mlnlmlze effects upon metopol![an eystem plans a on another lxal governmental unit tncludlnq chanqes in the iype and ln[enetry of use or the locaUOn, maqnitude oc desiqn of tba proposed matter, and/ac b. Con�ol the tlminq and sequence ot the proposed mafter, tncludlnq the datea for cammencemenC and compleuon. 3. A determinatlon that the mattar la of mahopotlmn slqnlftcance but not appmprtate for tha exarctse of the power of suspenalon or amendment. D. Servlce, Determination. Coplea ot the flnal determinatlrn shall be served upon all parues wlthin seven (77 days foLLowiaq tts adoptton. MC. 9 TERMINA110N, SUSPENSION, TIME CHANGE A. Bad Fa[th. � The Counell may disaLLSS with pre)udice the siqntflcance review of any proyoaed matter which lt flnds has been tnSUated ln bad faith, or which !s a sham, capricious, or frlvotous case. No such determination sha:i 6e made wl[hout allowing the parties to heaz, rebut, and present evidence regardlnq Lhe same. � B. Wlthdrawal of Revlew. At any time durinq the conduct of a slqntflcance revlew, the lnitlator u sponsor may petitlon the Counell to withdraw the proposed matter from siqniflcance revtew, sattinq focth the ceasons for svch a request. The Councll may, by resoluLon, grant such a peUqon and allow a proposed matter to be wlthdrawn ftom stqniflcance revlew only in tl�a event that the wlihdrawal does not adversely affecC the right of any party. C. Settlement. The partlen to a algntficance review maY execute an agreed sPttlement wlth regard to anyproposed matters sub�eai to a siqnlflcance review at any tlme prlor to the ' tssuance of a ftnal determination. Such an agreement shall be tn v+riiinq, slgned by all parttes, a� shall be subjeet to Council acceptance w rejectton. ' D. Sunpenslon. 1. The Council may suspend a signlficance review for not mwe than ninety (90) days to awalt the decision of another publlc agency which ts required 6y law ro revie�x the proposed matter. In the event that such publlc agency denles authorizatloa for the proposed matter, the Councll may, by resoluiion, dismisa the metropolltan siqnlftcance review. 2. The CounGll may suspend a siqnlftcance rovlew to awattthe productlon of adequate supportin9 informatlon. 3. The sponsor and initiator may agree to suspend any of the tlme pertods speelfled f� a aLgnLficance revlew. Such an agzeed suspension must be approved by the significance revtew committee. MC, 10 GENERAL REVI£W PROV[SION.S A. Time Perlods. As used ln thts chaptei, a spectfled num6er of days refers to ealendar daya grovided that where the ftnal day ef the tlme peciod fails on a weekend or holiday, the pertod shall be. eactended to the next tmmediate workinq day. B. Implementatlon Hold Durinq Revlew Perlod. No person sha11 eommence consGUCtlon ot other aeUvity on a proposed mat[er after the commencement of a metopolitan slqnifieanee review and until the Cotinclt's issuance of a finai determinatlon coneeming the proposed matter or the expira4on of the stqntficance revlew period, whichever occurs first. .� --� M C, Letter of tnierpretation. The Council may, by resotutlon, on the petition of any person prtor to the commencement of a slgnificance review, or on Its own inittative at any tlme, issue a letter of interpreuuon wtth regard to the meaninq and effect of any provtsion tn these . requlaUons as to any proposed matter. A letter of lntezpcetation may determine that a �� � '9— .� matter la exempt pursuant to MC J or 4 w ffiat a Droposed matter !s �ot of ineuopolttan dqniilcanee beaause !t would not result M�the Lhreahold qenesation requlred by MC Z A 1 and 4 or that a proposed matter ls not a erltical development or withtn the commerclat agrlcultura! area as requlred by standard MC2 A 8. A letter of tn[erpratatlon m.ay noC determine the eonslstency or effect of a matter wtth reqard to any metrcaoiltan stgnificance s2andard contalned !n MC 2 or adopt the remedtes spectfied in MC 8 C. The Councll shall determine whether to lssue such a letter only fcilowing consideratton af the request at a public heartnq, nottce of whlch shall be publtshed tn the Councii bulletin at teast thlrty (30) days tn advance ofthe meettng. 2he Counct! may request the aubmission o£ appropriate lnformation hom any person tequesting a letter oi tnterpretatlan, and from all other potentlally tnteresied persons. A letter o£ tnterpreWtlon shall he bindiaq on all persons and partles tncluding che Comcll acid may prevenYthe inillatlon of a me�opolttan siqniflcanee review. p, Revtew Coordination. The Councll may by order dlrect the ccordinatson of a siqnlflcanCe review wlth ihe revlew of a proposed matter batng conducted pwsuant to the Environmental Impact StaCementraWew process, Mtnn. Stat., Section 116D,04, as amended, or the Crltical Areas Act, Mlnn. Swt., Chapter 116G, as amended. To ihis end, the Council may enter into a jo4nt aqraement wlth the Mlnnesota Environmental Quality Councll enablinq. the Counc[i ac a Jotnt panel w conduot a coordinated review of any proposed matter subject W a meCOpolltan slgnlficance review, E. Mulllple or Phased Proposed Mattet. A multfple or phased prcposed matter is - one whlch is dlvlded lnto separaie staqes or seqmeata, oae or more of which, or the tataliYy of whlch may be of ineu�opolltan slgniflcance. S[qniflcance revlew of a mulUple or phased proposed mattet may, at the discretion of the Couacil, consider the total pro)ect or any � separate lndependently vtable staqe or seqment. In determining Sndepeadent viability, - the Counctt shall cor.eider whether the particular suge is vlable wl[hout subsequent development, the eMent of the Snteaeiatlonsnip between the staqe and subsequent development " Md whether the stage would fozeclose modlflcaitons to ameltorate a mettopoltwn system effect. � My siqnlficance review oE a separate ataqe or seqment of such a proposed matter shall be wtChout prejudice W ihe subsequent siqnlHeance revtew of otherfuture stages or segments. 3;; F. Matertal Alteratlon. My proposed matter which has 6een materially altered subsequent to a final determinaUon pursuant to these requlattens may be subject to a new significance revtew pursuant to these requlations. Any party to a previous si4niflcanca review of the proposed matter, and any person ellqlble to initiate a metsopolltan slqnifieanee revlew, may � petltton the Councll to maka a detecminatton of whether a proposed matter has been materlally altered subsequent to a previous signSEicanee raview. Such a determinatton shall be made after approprlace notice to ali persona who were partles to the prevtous si9nlilcance review. and follewinq opportunity to hear, present, and rebut evtdenee regazdtnq the aaterial alteratlon. G, iltminaLOn of Suspenslon, The sponsor of any proposed aeat[er suspeaded by a final determination may peUtlon the Counctl at any time following servSce of the final determinatlon to consider the ellmination of the suspenston because of compliance with condltlons or modlfications contalned 4� tha flnat determination. The petitlon for conslderallon shall be aecompanled by an affldavtt of the sponsar cerlfying eompilance �with the eondltlons w modlflaatlons contatnad in the determination. ?he Councll shall constder each such petltlon bui may refuse tp consider Lhe elimination for good cause. in the event that the Council determines ta consider the petiUOn, the Council shall schedule a publlc hearing for � tlta F�Posa of sueh considerinq the eliminailon and shall notify all parUes to the slgniflcanca review of such hearing at least fifteen (15) days tn advance. All parttes a other persons may piesent infoimetton, fact, and opinlon, eoncernlnq the compllance wlth the condtCloris oT modifioations contalned Ln the finai determinatton. H. Rlqht to Counsel, Any party may be repcesented by leqat counsel d�slnq a metropolltan slqnficance revlew. � I. Recenclon and Avallablltty of [nformation. A11 non-confldenCial lnformatlon or copies of the same submittad by any person or pazty, and the hearinq record, staff reports � and determinatlons mada by the significance review committee, hearing oSlcer, if any, or . the Counctl in connectlon wlffi a meCOOOlitan siqnificance revlew shall be kept on ftle at the Cauncil for a perfod of at least three i3) years following the completion of a signLficance Levlew and shall be available dwtnq [he perlod of revlew to any person or party for review, Snspection, and copylnq at the Metropolttan Comcll offlces during normai 4ustnass haurs, � � � -io- � i. ConfldenUaLInfarmatton. The sponsor�or tnttlator of a slqnificanea revlew may � � Ldontlfy certain Informatlon as confidenttal and decline to submlt such tnformatton or request `�� by leGer etther eontatntnq such Inforr.wllon or specifylnq the nateue of the sub)ect tnformatlon, the juatlftca8on for the requesi for eanfidenual trsatmenE and a certification 1n writinq that aubstanttally identical Informatton Is not avallable to the public, thac the heaztnq offlcer a cfiafrman of the si4nlflcance rev�ew committee certtfy that the materlal !s conflCentlal. Materlal whlch is confldentlal and conftdentlal bustness lnformattan may he eectifted by the chalrman of the slqnlflcance review committee or hearinq officer as eonftdentlal. Matecta! certlf[ed as confidentlal shall be retained by the chalrman only for the duration of the s14n1f1cance revlew., be examined only by the siqnifleance revtew committee and hearing examiner and shall not be lntoduced, dlseloaed or otherwise made available to ' the public for examination, lnspeetion oc copying unless expressly permitted by the party clalmtnq lts confldenttallty. A leitez requesttnq the cerUflcatlon of information as confidenttal shall be supported by a certiflcatlon in wdttnq under oath that subs:aMtally ldentical lnformatlon ls not avatlable to the publlc or by an optnton of comsel for the party clalallng confldentlallty certtfylnq as to the basls of auch conftdenUallty. R. Severabiltty. The provistons of thts chapter are severable and if any sectlon, aubsectfon, cIause, sentence, pa2graph or other provislon of Nese requlations is held Snvaltd for any reason, such lnvalidiiy shall not aiieet ihis chapter as a whole or the valldlty of any other section, subsecUOn, clause, sentence, or other provlslon wntch can be qlven efiect wlihout the Invaltd pmvision. L. Judtcial Review. The )udictal revlew of any flnal deelsion made puzsuant to these regulaUOns shal! be conducted tn accordance with the provislans of the AdmtNSVative Psocedures Act, ;vllnn. SWt. Sectlon 15,0924 to I5.0426, as amended. A final determination adopted by the Council pursuani to MC 8 B, a determinatlon by the Counc(1 not to commence a slgnificance revlew pursuant to MC 6£ and a letter of tnterpreution issued pursuant to MC 1Q C which precludes a stgniftcance revlew constttute final declslona by the Counctl fo� purposes ot )udlcial revlew. • ;` MC. 11 DEFINITtONS A. As used tn thls chapter, the followinq terms sha!! have these meanings: 1. "AdJacent qovernmental unit" means atl local governmental units and l�uiependent commisslons whose }urlsdictioa includes u adloir.s, in whole or in part, that of the situs qovemmental unit(s). 2. •pdopted compcehensive sewer pian" means a comFrehensive sewer policy plan submitted to aixi approved by the bietropolitan Waste Control Commission in accordanee wlth Minn. Scat. Sectlon 473.513 whtch has been adopted by the submltting lacat govem- mental unit. 3. "Metropolttan Land Use Advisory Committee" ar ^Advlsory Commtttee" means an advisory commtttee established by the Metropotican Councll pursuanc to Laws 1976, Chapter 127, Secuon 3. 4. "Airport master pian' meana a land use and develogment plan for an airport ew�miniaq descrlptions of at least ihe followlnq; the real properry comprtsinq the atrport, atrcraft nolse zones, and atcport alz space zanes. 5. 'Commercial-agrlcult�ual area' mearts a land area wlthin the commerclaI- agricultural texritories delineated in the Developmeni Framework Chapter of the E4etropolitan Development Guide which the Counctl determines because af ihe pcedominanc land use pattern and/or locally adopted ptans and ordinances, ts land used primarily for the growlnq and/or productlon of field crops,livestxk, and iivestock products for the production of lacome. 6. "Comprehenstve plan" or "local comprehenslve plan" means a comprehensive plan for a county adopted pursuant to Minn, Stat. Sectto� 394.23, a comprehensive pian for a muntclpality adopted pursuant to Mlnn. Siat. Section A62.355, and a comprehensive plan for a tovm adopted pursuant co Mlnn. Stat. Section 366,14 � other enabllnq law. 7. "Chairman" means the chauman of the Metropolitan Counell. -11- t 8. "Constructlon has eosmenced" meana to have enqa4ed in a conunuous � ' progmm of constructlon or development activtry tncludtnq alte cleerance, excavauon, gradtnq, dredgtng, or land filling ln preparatlon for the erectton, estabtlshment or � placement of a proposed matter. Snterrupt[ons resultN4 from acts of God, strtkea, 11U4atlon, or other matters eeyond the control of the sponsor shall be consfderad ln datermtnla4 1f the constructton pzagram is contlnuous. 9. "Crttical developmenY means the dlvislon of Land lnto three (3) or more yercels o[ lots which if totally occupted by dwelling units would result In a density of yreater than fort/ (90J units per square mile in any section, ar portlon thereof In Ne rural aervtce area, ln any section wlthln whtch a parcel or lotls located; or the eonsCUCtlm or placement of dwellinq units in prevlously platted or unplatted areaa whlch would result in the same denstty; or the const[ucUOn or establishment of a restdenttal, commercial, or indus7tal use foc whlch a aew natlonal pollution dtacharqe ellmlzatlon system u state disposal sysiem permtt must be lssued. ' 10. •CounclI bulletln" meana a newsletter publlshed by the Counell at leasi once a month, containln4 a summary of prevlous Counctl actlons and upcoming Council meetings, Council hearinqs, and other matters. 11. �"Independent commisslon, board er ngeacy" means qovernmental enttttes wlth jurisdlctlons lylnq tn whole or tn pazt within the me7opolltan area, lncludinq lndapendent or speelal school disCicts whose administrative offices wese tocated wtthln the meuopolltan area as of April IS, 19�6, but not includinq the mecopolitan Commtssions. 12. 'Initiator" means any person requestlnq the tnit[auon of a metopollWn siqnlficance revlew pursuant to MC 5 A hereln. 13. 'Iand use permlt° means a bulLdinq pecmlt, final plat approval, zontng amendment, speclal or eonditlonal use permit, subdlvtslon or planned mit development � � � permit � variance. - �� 19. °Local qovernment unit• or •unit^ means any city, town or comty � located ln whole o: tn part wlthln the metropolttan azea. !'1 �.�J 15. "Metropolltan azea" means the area over which the Ma�opolltan Council has �uHShcctlon, lncludlnq only the couattes of Moka, Carver, Dakaq, Hemepin, Ramsey, Scott attd Wash[ngtcn. 16. 'Metropolitan commisslon" means theMettopoIitan�vasteControlCom- mtsston, the INetopolltanTrensttCommisslon, and oNer such commisslons as ti�e 1e91slature may hereunder desiqnace. 17. "Metropolttan oomeil' or "counc[1' means tbeMecopolltanCounctl eshbllshed by Sectlon 473.123. ' 18, "Me�opolitan slgniflcance review" M"slgnificance review" raeans a review conducted by the Metopolitan Couneil pursuani to these regulatlons. � 19. "Metropolitan system plans" means the atrports portlon of the Adetopolltan DavetopmentGuide and the poliey plans, development proqrams and capital budqets icr metopolitan waste contol, transpctttatton and reqional recreatlon epen space. 20. "Me7opolitan �ansportation facility" means transit facilities and routes owned, operated, or constructed 6y the ,btetropolitan Transit Commission, and principal � and lntermedtate acterlal roads, highways, freeway5, and interchanqes thereon desiqnated �. . � as part of the meROpolltan hlqhway system in the transportatton pollcy ptan adopted pursuant to Mlnn. Stat. Seetion �473.146, Subd. 3. � I .�� -iz- 21. "Outlytnq communittee' are: In Anoka County In Henneofn Counri � Andover Bethel Blatne � Bwns Townshlp Centerv[lle Columbus Townshtp Ease Bethei Ham Iake , Ltno Lakes Linvrood � Townsh Ip Oak Grove Townsh[p Ramsey St. Francia ;n Carver Counri all local governmenS units In Dakota Counri Castle Rock'lownshtp Coates Douqlas Township Empire Townahip E�aeka lbwnship Fa[mington . Greenvale iownship Hampton � - -Hampton Township Hastings Inver Grove Eeights Lakevtlla Marshan Township ' M(esvtlle New 1T[ec Nlninger Township Randolph Randolph lbwnshlp . Ravenna lbwnship Roseaaunt 3ctota lbwnship Vermlllton Vermtllion lbwnshtp Waterford lbwnshtp Brooklyn Park Champlin Coicoran Dayton Greenfield Hassan Townshtp Harover Independence Loretto Maple Gmve Mapte Platn Medtna Mlmearlsta - � Orono Plymcuth Aocldord Roqers St. Bonifactus In Ramsey County No local qovemment tut[ts In Soott Counri All 1op1 r,overnment unl:s In Waehlnvton Counri Afton .Bayport Baytown TownshtP Cottage Grove Denmark Townshlp Dellwood Grey Cloud Townshlp Forest.Iake Yorest Lake Townshtp Hugo Lake ESmo Takeland Lakeland Shores Mazine May lbwnship New Scandta Townshtp Oakdale Oak Park Hetghts SL Crotx Beach St. Mary's Point Sttllwater St[llwater Tpwnship West Lakeland lbwnship Woodbury 1he entlre jurisdtctton of the above llsted local qovernmental untts shall be toneldered an outlying community unless and unttl an exemption ts spectfically authorized in accordance with MC 3 B. . 22. "Party" means the lnittator, sponsor, and sttus governmental unit(s) and any persoe whose teqalrights, duiies � privileges may be substantlally affzcted by a stgniftcance revlew who is admitted as a party by the slqniflcance review committee, heartnq examiner or Council. The Councit shall not be a party to a siqnitieanae review except when ti initiates the review pursuant to MC 5 A L. M 23. "Person" means any individual, association, Rust, parmershlp, )oint venture, publ(c or private corporatlon, the '.�tetropolitan Council, a metropolltan • CommiSSion, a loCal governmenial unit, an independene commisston, s.ate agency, or � any govemment w governmencal subdlvtsion unit, or agency other than a court of law. .�� -13- 24. "fedtlon" seana a dxument conta/nleq alqnatures submltted to the Councll pursuant to MC 5 A 2 C, whlch contalns, at the tima thac such slqnatucas . are ylaeed ehereon, a description of what the petitian !e for, a refvence to these requlaLons, end a brlef summary of the reason for the petltlon. � � 25. "Yroposed matter" means a proJect or actlon involvinq the constrvctlon, lnatallatlon, establishment, sltlnq, demolltion, reconsuuctSon, or lmprovement of any structure orfacllltY, or the subdlvislon ar drillinq, wctactlon, cleazlnq, excavallon or . other alteratlon of any lands or waters, planned or proposed to be underWken, by any peraon In whole oc tn part withln the metopoUUn area. 26. "Publla agency^ means a local governmental unit, metropolltan eommisslon, tndependeat commisslon, state agency, or any qove[nmen[ ar � qoveramental subdlvtston, unit � aqency other than a court of law. 27. "Publlc sewer fac�ltty means sewaqe collectors, wnklines, tnter- eeptors, ueatment wocks and other sewage eollection and treatment faclllttes owned, eonstructed, or opemted by a publlc aqeacy. � 28. "Review period" means the nlnety (90) day perlod for a me7opoliWn slqnlficance review which begfns on the effective date of an order tn commenee a siqnificance revlew lssued pursuant to MC 6 and automatically terminates on the �Nnetieth day following unless a suspension of the review perlod ls authorized � pursuantto these regulattons. 29. 'Servlce" or "serve" means personal servlce or servlce by first class U.S. mall, postaqe prepaid and addrassed W the person or party at hle last known address. Sarvlca 6y mnll shatl be complaca upon the placi� af the item to be s�ved in the mail. 30. "Sewaqe ef:luenY means ueated sewaqe. 31. "Sltus qovemmentai unit' means the lxal qovemmental unit(s) withln whlch a proposed acatter will be located. � � 32. "Sponsar" means any person propostnq to undertake or develop a proposed matter. 33. "SWte agency means the Stata of Minnesota or any agency, boazd, eommisslon, department, ot educatLOnat tostlatlon theceof. 34. "Substanttal" ls a relattve term, the meaninq of which 1s to be gauqed by all the elrcums�nees siuzoundlnq the transacllon, in reierence to whleh the expresslm has been used. It Smports a conslderable amouni or value in opposltion to that which is lnconsequenUal or small, someth[nq serious aa opposed to tivial, something essential, matertal w fundamental. . 35. "Substantial effect• as used ln MC 2 A meann an effect which is substaaUal ta nature includinq, but not ltmited to, one whlch would result tn: (a) The ut111zatlon or loading of any part of a me�opolitan system beyond � a safe, healthy, or eHteient planned, operating or allxated capactty; or (b) A physical or operational modlflcatlon of any part of a metr000litan . sysGam to enable 1C to iunctlon in a safe, healthy, aad efficient manner; or (c) The preemptton of land planned for future use by a metvpotlun system; or (d} A proposed use ln eonfllct or incompatlble wlth the phystcal or operatlonal plans for a meuopotimn system. - 36. "Vehlcle utp" means a one-wayJoumey by motorized vehicular means Mbetweentwo points. � U 4�$v.- --• C,aG i � �I� � � � � o� � wr T��� �� Pr �'tiv ciT� / � . /:�� .. .� ♦ . . .. �, ;,i.�,' ( �. ��; / � �X � � �a % ��- ✓� y �J ;� ,/ � ,� /_ . j- .. � "/ `� ��iL.�� � .. �U 300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-6859 � � February 22, 1977 TO: Netropolitan l,rea Citizens and Government Officials Attached is a draft cf the proposed Aonlication, Award and Disbursement Guiri�- lines for tr:e Administration of ?lannina As�istance Gcants prescribed in L:e Metropclitan Land Plan:ing Ac:. A public mee�ng on these Guideliaes has been scheduled for'i?iursday, �riarah 17, 1977, at 3:00 p.m. in the Meuopolitan Councii Ghambera , 3 Q0 hTerro Squa:e Building, 7th and Robert Streets , St. Pau? , Niinnesota 55i0:. The Guidelines establ!sh the criteria and administrative procedures #or the disb�rsement c; $1.1 mil?ian in grant funds, apprapriated by the Legislature to assist iocal governr.ients in the Metr000litan Area to develop comprehensive piar.s as specified by rhe Netropolitan Land Planning Act. The Council is directe.�'. by the Act to a.:opt unifor,n procedures for �l:e award ar,� disburemen: of grar.ts. The dtaft has be�n pre�ared by the Land Use Advisory Committee and approved �y the Physical Develaoment Co:nmittee for discussion. A lis: oi the allece�ons *o communities and ceunties which wou!d result from the adoption of L'�ese ^vuida- lfnes is also 3ttac5ed. A11 inter2sted persons are invited to participate in the meeYing. �Ne expec: YHa: many oeooie may wisn to comment on the pr000sed Gaideline�, and the:�fore encourage you to call. tl:e Council at 291-6d82 and let us knotiv in u.:var.ce i: }•�a wish to speak. Those who register iirst H�fll be schedu:ed to speak first. "vVritten commer_ts may al�o be submitted prior to L`�e meeting or until Nlarch 31. Additional copies of the proposed Guidelines are available free of charqe from the Councii's Puclic Inforr.iatior. Office at 291-6964. I hope that you sviil be abie to attend this meeting and offer your cammer.ts. A,lternative.y, I ancoi:rage you to send wr.ttea comments *.o me. SinG�`��''�.�-�'— _ john Boland Chairman An Agonoy Croated to Coordinate the Planning and Davelopment ot tha Twin Cltiee Metropolitan Area Comprieing: Mokn COUnty O Carvet County o Dakote County o Hennepin County O Ramsey County O Soott Couaty o Wa�Lington County ��� .. �(s� � - 9 - ^ � 91NGTON COUNTY (Continued) `—�Freestandlna Growth Centers: Forest Iake (BaypoR (Oak Park Heights (SUllwater Subtotal Rural; Subtoul Tota 1 Metropolttan Area Total (1) (2) f3) (4) 2,107 . -- ( . ( 1,226 1,000 ( ( 961 1,000 (2,000 (11,990 3 196 ( � � 7,490 � 2,000 2,000 11,490 26.973 5 000 � ////// 31,973 26,973 5,000 ////// 31,973 591,791 512,000 $2,000 5105,797 5807,491 557,000 514,000 5878,491 COUNTY PLANNING ENTITLEMENTS VJhich Would Result From Adoption of the Guidelines Recommended by the Iand Uee Advisorv Committee Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey scat Washington S 23,587 10.442 31,357 ( ( 32,250 ( 9,654 21,710 S129,000 T��Y � J (11 (2) HENNEP` � (Conttnued) Rogers St. BoNfacius , Subtotal 19. Total RAMSEY COUNTY Fully Develooed: Palcon Hel4hts Iauderdale - St. Paul Subtotal Urbanizing• Arden Hills Gem Iake Litile Canada Maplewood Mounds View New Brighton North Oaks North St. Paul Roseville Shoreview � Vadnafs Heights White Bear Iake � White Bear�Township Subtotal Totat � � ;OTT COUNTY Developina Frinae: Savage Subtotal 694 1,000 7,000 (3) �//// �4� 1,694 1.667 Cr:y 6,523 ��" $265,964 516,000 ////// 5261,964 2,724 991 ,610 4,085 632 9.547 13,889 3,753 6,044 1,475 2,652 30,009 9,593 5,114 6,524 1 ^� 1,000 f/��// /��/// �///�/ ��///� /�//�/ /��/// �/���� ������ �///// ////// 2,724 991 4,085 632 5,547 13,889 3,753 6,044 1,475 2,652 1Q,009 9,593 5,114 6,524 $132,469 51,000 � /////� 5133,469 5 503 � -- ////// 5,503 5,503 -- . ////// . 5,503 FreestandSna Growth Centers: ( Belle Plaine 1,016 -- ( jordan. . 1,453 � � 1,000 ( � New Prague 1,036 -- (5,000 (17,761 Frior Iake � 2.134� -- � - � Shakopee � 6•1Z2 ( �Subtoul 11,761 1,000 5,000 . 17,761 R��ral: Subtotat Total WASHINGTON COUNTY Urbanizinq: Birchwood � Dellwood Sandfall , Mahtomedi Newport Oakdale Pine Springs � St. Paul Park. Willem3e Subtotal Develooina Frinae: Cottage Grove Lake Etmo Woodbury Sutitotal 23 SSS I 000 ////// � 24,555 zs,sss i.aoo ////// za,��s 540,819 52.000 55,000 � $47,819 500 666 2,058 2,632 1,766 13,165 526 2,019 1 _000 1=000 1 _000 1,000 5 ������ ����// ////// ////// /��/// �/�/// �///�/ ////// 1,500 666 3 ,058 2,632 2,766 13,165 526 3,019 �14�.696 -' ////// 14.696 6,252 � -- ////// 6,252 12 460 -- ////// 12,A60 33,908 -- � ////// 33,408 .i � DAKOTA COUNTY (Continuea7 Developinv Frinae: [nver Grove Hel9hts Snbtotsl -2- 6+c► (i) (2) (3) (4) 14 763 -- //U// � 19,763 SA,763 " ////// 14.763 Freestandinq Growth Centers: ( � � Farmington 1,990 -- - Hastings 6,117 -- (4,000 (25,798 Lakeville 8,245 -- < < Rosemount 5 446 ( < -- Subtotal 21.798 '- 4,000 25.798 Rural• +- SubtoW I Total HENNEPtN COUNTC Fullv Devetooed: Bloomington Brooklyn Center Crystal £dina Hopkins Minneapolis Richfield Robbinsdale St. Anthony St. Louis Park � Subtotal � Urbanizinq • Brooklyn Park Champlin Deephaven Excelsior Golden Valley Greenwood � Long Lake Medicine Iake Mianetonka Minnetonka Beach Mwnd New Hope Osseo snorewood .. Sprinq Park Tonka Bay Wayzata Woodland Subtotal Develooina Frinae: Eden Prairie - Maple GPove� Minnetrfsta , Orono Plymouth Subtotal Ru�a�, Corcoran Dayton Greenfleld Hanover Hassan Township Independence Loretto Maple Plaln� Medina n..,.rs...a 27 467 11 000 ///��/ 38,467 27,467 11,000 ////// 38,467 $132,575 512,000 54�,000 5148,575 20,054 7,895 5,113 30,701 3,873 79,936 6,089 2,746 2.947 19,044 3,232 1,207 970 5,491 399 669 344 13,436 305 2,051 4,911 1,065 i,as� 757 442 1,896 11,193 8,743 2,667 2,874 3.376 3,212 1,952 409 2 ,216 2,910 soa 678 2,280 61 i,000 1, 1,000 1,000 i _000 1=000 1,000 1,000 1,000 8,000 1,000 1,000 i,000 1,000 1 000 l//lll ////// ////// ///�// ////// /�//// ////// ///�// /1//// ///�// ////// ///�// �/��// l/!/ll ////// ///f// ///�// ////// ///�// ////// ll//!/ ���/�/ ////// ////// i///i/ ////// �///// ////// ////// ////// //// / 20,059 7,895 5,113 10,701 3,873 79,936 6,089 2,746 3.747 5 19,044 3,232 2,207 970 5,491 � 349 1,869 1,344 13,436 1,305 2,051 4,911 2,065 i,as� 1,757 1.442 1,898 66,511 11,193 8,743 2,667 2,874 40,515 9.378 3.212 1,952 409 3',216 2,930 i,soe 1,678 2,280 1,619 �i i ! �' � SUMMARY OF COMMUMTY ENTiTLEMENT3 BY COUNTI Which Would Resutt from Adoptlon of the Gvidelines Recommended bv the Land Use Pdvisorv Commtttee (3� �1) (2) County Assistance Community Inventory to Freestanding Comprehensive Activities Growth ptannina Fund Fund Centers Fund County/_ Pall„c _Y Area ANOKA COUNTY Fullv Beveloped: Columbia Heights Hilltop Subtotal UrbanSzing: CSrcie Pines Coon Rapids Fridley � Lexington Sp[inq Lake Park . Subtotal � Develoo�°?� Andover Blaine Lino iakes Ramsey Subtotal � Freestanding Growth Center: Anoka Subtotal Rural: Subtotal Totat CARVE�C�U'`FTY Developina Frinae: Chanhassen Victoria SubtoW l Freestandina Growth Centers: Ghaska Waconia Subtotal Ru�_l: Subtotai Total DAROT_____ A ��?T'�°TY Fully P,�d� , South St, Paul , Subtotal Urbanizing: Apple Valley � Burnsvitle Eagan I1lydale Mendota Mendota Heights Sunfish Iake West St. Paul Subtotal [ev�ua�y ��� .+., � �` �i�i (4) otal ������ 3,634 3,639 ] 000 ////// 1.684 684 5,318 4,316 1.000 /////� 1,484 17,065 8,835 I,215 1,961 30.560 4,720 17,705 4,615 q.096 31,136 r /, -' /. '_ � 1,000 � 1,000 � /� // // -' ////// 1,484 19,065 8.835 2,215 1.961 31,560 4,720 17,705 4,615 9,096 31,136 6 55> __ 1,000 6,557 5,557 28,155 599,726 7,346 846 8,192 6,010 1,227 7,237 4, 56,000 $1,000 �2,000 ) - � 32,155 5106,726 7,346 846 8,192 � 9.237 1 9,237 28 718 ° """ - 36,718 zs.�ie s.000 ////// $44.147 � S6,000 SZ,000 554,147 ,917 14,105 18,915 19,204 432 502 4,869 506 5.097 63,630 1,000 ////// ��/�/� ��/�/� ��/�/� ////// ////// ////// i///// c 14,105 18,915 19,204 432 1,502 4,869 506 5,097 64,630 .� ' C � H Y b u ro ' o w T Y C 7 r � �a C � F FW WU u=[. 43 M (7 �1 C7 dN F Z � F U [.N�7 m C W C O M N � V M � t1 6 N N t Y P L H y u � e C 0 m S� O w U A G U N A A 7 U Z V � G 0 o a d v d � � ;L 2 H N A 3 O O M .c a T X ro 3 ..�. m .Wi �, U L O. C m 5 3 � .�C U �A m � G O o ++ W m m N 1�J N a�i u U � +�+ C 4 m � m C m +1 C W 1�+ L m G "m o �M U O .�C a+ u m t� ++ A � m G �A � ++ T U � L rom� m��O ti U m O N a �n t v�o M ClY NS y a+ b � G O. mmm R N 4 �W O O aJ +1 U m N L w +�+ 7 S�i d & N N > ANa uem w �o E rn� E Y NM �d G � H ti Ey W SQi .� ro��oa N B X .Y �A g N N FU+�+3 s U G m L m a 0 m ro .� a ai � � � � O U � a m L 0 � C a Y O S d .�+ O � m e�+ W a! H C (� G M N U a+ a E 'O s U +� F '+ 3 a C O ? u C w � m °a N .0 y u m ..�i u C L M �L d a m 4 N � C 6 U � 3 R Ha V o T � �tl 2 a a m s W f W d a a U � v � f y� �r 4� ! v A a ti > � � � u v Y C d U � L O M V C � C u m d 4 � n r e d i+ .� a M O N N w .. ti 0 N .i �+ M 3 � O U d s � H 0 u. b ��q 1m+ ' � W2 ao s� N F aa �U H oa xa a w .c F t+ F O �a E c� O U d t L 1�a �tl C a m w m a � y C 0 u° W Q E N z O O m 4 m a u U A u G O U A 0 a W O � z M N A E 7 z m 0 Z a � F 1 .1 rl a n m m � N e a � w w m 4 7 rn .a w . � N c �g @ O U O � � W O U s N L � rl � L O u r-I N 1'f • v v �+ m d y c m a J� C p7 4 il C � S� � m � O N Y C O U .. m � u r W w 0 C a < � � U a +� � m S� L N r-1 N U O a b C .� � e .�1 m W H N L N � A U O a T N C 7 O U Y L m O u N m u ti G .� � v �+ m ti rl L �.i G E O V F u m m u 0 w n V m � d s H m � C w v C ro N �+ m N y a d 4 � y c 7 O & � d � .d N N O F b A m m .d a O U ro d t 0 � u � � m A u N � m G O .i L a U +1 � a a A v 0 N s y O m Y H d ❑ u 3 O t c m u m s N N 3 N � U m m O N i � c a � � N L +�1 C +� � v y m ti .� � y C 7 O u m t w � � 3 q d L � F r b � O U A rl N +1 3 m ✓ H 0 w w m oi N G 0 ti � b U rl a a � W L' L b a .� y � .,� s 7 U i U N y y m m a L m 0 s m e 0 M L N U .�1 .i a y ro N w m t � O m m �.1 2 O U m e ~ o $ � M y �' C y A M 4 � v 3 � �� � G� n � . a rn w f+ t O - U ++ a+ N N m 4 �. p d V O M� d m � w .Gi a m• 7 i+ . m U 'O ro y G N .� �tl .�1 � ' 7 m � C a o w + Q O. �O 3 �. d p' d � w 3 w m c M � 'S� t � y m w y > y O N M C u m a � m i �+ � � y C L s p ..� A O � ro = U � d �°i �a' u y m U C � y m .�I W W N b M m y 0 w O W d U ti 0 m C q � L e � � u m a � Y � U s N � Y m D Y rd Y � ei F mw � i+ O ,Q '� y M N w ,e �o o n P U X " m d � ..C1 �.CI L % y C W �° L s � e m m u° � q U u 4 £ c"� S a° u � u rn e a � � � m G � ' Y � � K O � T N a 7 O U m � L � R 0 a u i-�I O m m M m L CO w ,i O p e. u a -� °n o. u �0 W M 4 u h 8 N W i_._ . _ _ _ _. 1� �/ zo N �U �a �pa U� \ W� O' rql Y9 H � � o °i �� � �o�a o+m �' �>�i aF ° �`, "d$ w u O � W O �J 7r f.' N � � � w ro '�'��.�; a �y� N��°1� �a�i� w ��-°�u �v�ay r-� N�n V � �-Ci� � S �I N �'f C m a oi M 0 < X J m a � y � � m R F ! J.� 1 O � � m f � i O � u i 0 I � y . � 4 9 N O W m �0 M y °r o N E • v° m y � 7 V 2 � v a° m a" w W O N 0 o a � .� m M 11 Z � F O e�l N � `r 1 Y �./ i ii m w L O N � q U ' m s c -�i m E w m .i Y � u ' w � m 0 .�1 G �Y � m f�n � A L 7 r m G d � i -�i � � O I O N O C y � M d � O� O O C i ..Fi w e o � °w o o �O i u y m Y 1 R M J� O C +� fi A i 10 G t+ O, �V w A e m Q m v i ..�i C � � j N CI O m 7 � m � .~.1 10 i E N w b J V a N � 7 m c O o 3 y �a � � + � c e m O N •.a L 3 u 6 ^� +� Y m A � O � d u a v 4 m 0 U � X O 3 I y I O i � � M �� .+ i � � M 1 O� � � 8' a a " G�� �a.i �� ��� +1.^ � N w � G.�+ N 4 O U�I'g � > t� � 8 Ei .� � � sC ai O. a g � � M � H � �q O 5 y � � .� i� i d d +i i� � d w � M d t y 'tl O Y �+ � � c o w w +�+ v w y ~ U E '^i rl +1 11 pi 6 Q M °' m �7 ^� v m i�i b m E }�j � C U A y ..�i v V +�e 3 & y E U � m �.�i O . �, o y q ..m+ i0 m m a m o a a m �° u 7 � a�i ai 8 O � O +C+ ++ N r� N W w +� w E +q+ � � � N N O a �C � om ati y � . ,t+ a o o +� �� � w W G +� U O o a e a`"i a o e ro � A �i � � m � P u a w a•�a .�+ a� N i � � « ,� Y a � H U m tl ro O � W �.1 � q ro � d a W 4 ro b v a � m � 0 �.1 > v w d � C .� y A 9 C � a � M m c F v N E U m u +1 G � U d � m 7 O W 0 � � U S� 7 0 C a m u c O � W a d U C m a+ m w w ai a � N y M fq N +/ O N a c .a a+ � �i X 6 d a s Y � m A L M m U ++ m 3 � N � � C � � U C a F W Y .y A W M M U � a m m c�0 L v � � w a ° �O O � � W o .. a M N U � o N W � � .i y a+ a u m W W 10 31 N � m^ � +i W u i°+ � E m 0 10 E yN � y u � m O � 4 w +� � N O Y O T V � .�i m u x �.�i �a 3 � .�i n o +�+ o e O � ^U+ � a m +�i C E� 4 +� � V q t C O r w c �e a L m N N .Y O � W 3 N L U m t �.�i N > u ✓ a� .a � +� M ro a � e w � � u •M N N o. m u a�i w � y �.i G E U F J� N y 0 n u W L Y i� a W : e o v � d u - w u+ m t 'O r � W M T 'O a u x � � a .�/ �.Gi � X y E N �s c � c m m °u �. e N m ai y � s s � . � m ro Y T 0 a P G .a C 4 i b L L a 0 N Y a .i N ti y s o � ti w d O �G o -mi u � ro � � u a e Z a 4 b �� �� �� �� W .. o� �y � u E .� s �oi [r 7 Z �O E H � oa �a U X H 3 � � pa p H L Sa�.� � f�1 C[��� ' U � 1l C W Lp YI $Y °'�p'� '�,°o �6�� N >>�J� ' MLIE rdN1�IR � �m H � u .�i C 6 u w 0 E Z 0 m H N a u u Y U m A u z � C o a d .� Z E � � � p °' 'i .a 4 O � "'� w � N y N � ��mwp ��ia- M� � iG .�1 N NI 4�. 4 q M ... - . . -dj . .-I - .. .., Y .y w 1 � il W +i ' i•i m � ?� 10 m � m N N R �C a�+ a�i H N `� � . �L �C L 7� W� � . � �`" v m a m �.Wj G ✓ U Y m � M p � X m �'' e b a s a o m „ „ .'�i a a�i u R L t u w w rn �+ • o w e ro v-G+ � m �' '� '+ ..yi C 11 E m 7 U � yW � U W 0� T7 ii W U M U O G N N C � O N .�i 3 O aO.' A O q G a+ t A V. W q 'i N O � � .,�j q q '� O O � d �p g � U V Y M .�G N w = � O y O t�i 0 m m � 3 r a � m a`� m w t 6 m � d 3 m a+ � H a m p' ..�i y rt o N u d � ~ b W -O � � �•� M ..�i G � . .ba 6 � ..�i � L ^J � � A O 3 tE�7 E m i� a .O� �.j N MI � �,' .' � � ��� T.g � L C� G � � � ���g °��� � .ri m N M O y � U �-1 � Y F F y G .i d 7 .i C +� m y � � d � w �m 9 4 �. W O q U w 3 b � L d w m � 3 y �+ CN +� Po ymi � � L q � � O 'i � y� � � � � V 'I� m .� �g" m .'�i o "o a � � W U � � �! "� � 6 c� c� � G� C ..�1 W .,� r m L N � � +� � F � e O M +� � m O ~ N m A O m � � � '{ q m 0. a � � w � e v °c. o c .°. 5 m u �a M � d �' e � n M 1Xj +d R7 � .,m� 3 E u 8 j� p L C C C � W w +�i � p �+ q -� m U m d q N o m � � b ib L1 41 y a� � � ..1 U � u �. o � � y�j r�i GI W � . C w E �.�i m �O .0 . N O � 'C m t M � v " �' �' . al '1 0 O N a "� 'w y C a+ U O u v w m c a e a'�i e o � .� rt M a � U C v � a w q .�i N a N ;�;�� 1 M C 'Q � , ?� O > � r � M L .a o -�+ � m � � A C � � E O P W .M�/ O m y U m .,�� G t P N � m � N y r a+ m b �. U t U L y v +� a m w v d 6 E b °u +�+ ❑ w " m p d � 1�1 � -17- APPENDDC II COMMUNITIES EISGIBLE FOR THE 1NV£NTORY ACTPIIIY FUN� (51,006 to each listed below) Fullv Develooed Area � HSlltoo St. Anthony Urbanizing Area Bitchwood Deephaven iaadfall Lexlnqton Little Ganada Lon4 �ke Medicine Lake Mendotn Minnetonka Beach Newport Osseo St. PauY Park Spring Park Tonka 9ay Willemie Woodland Develooina Frinae None Freestandinv Grovrth Centers Bayport jordan pak park Heiqhts Rural Area Bethel Burne Township Carver Castle Rock TownsMP Centerville . Coates Cologne Corcoran Eureka Townshlp Forest take Township Greerrva2e Township Grey Cloud Township Hamburg Hampton Township Hassen Township Lakeland Shores Loretto Mayer Maple P1a5n Marine-On-St. Crolx Miesvllle New Germany New Market New Triet Nawood Randolph Rxkford Roqers St, Sonifaclus Si. Francls Sciota Toxmship Srillwater Township Vermi213on Township� Waterford Townshlp Watertown Young America i � ti� � ��� FREESTADTDING GRCIWTH POLICY AREA; Anoka gaypoR Belle Plalne Chaska Farminswn Forest Iake Hastings Jordan Iakev111e Idew prague Oak Pack HeSghts Prior Iake Rosemount Shakopee Stillwater Waconia -16- RURAL POLICY AfiEA: Afton BaytoWn Township Belle Plaine Township Benton Townshlp . Bethel Blakely TownshSp Bums Townshlp Camden Townshlp Carver Castle Rock Township Cedar Lake Tawnship Centerville Chaska Township Coates Coloqne Columbua To�mshtp Corcoran Credit RSver Township Dahlqren Townshin Dayton Denmark Township Douglas Township East Bethel Elko iYapire Township Eureka Township Forest Iake Tawnship Grant Township Greenfteld Greez:�ale To:•�nship Grey Cloud Island Township 8am 7ake Township Hamburq Hampton FIampton TownsisSp Hancoek Township Hanover FIassan Townshfp Aelena Township 8o11ywood Township Suqo Independence Jackson Township Take St. Croix Beach lakeland takeland Shores Taketown Trn+nship Tlnwood Townshlp Louisville ToNmship Loretto Maple Plain Marine-On-St. Croi�c Mazshan Tawnship - May Township Mayer Medina Miesvltle New Germany New Market . New Mazket Township New Scandia Townshlp New Trier Nininqer Township Nonvoal Oak Grwe Townshlp Randolph Randolph Township Ravenna To�+�nship Rxkford Rogers St, Bonifacius St, Fcancia St. Iawrence Township St. Mary's Point San Francisco Township Sand Creek Township _ Sciota Township Sprin4 Iake Township St111water Townshlp Vermillion Vermilllon Townshlp Waconia Townstiip Waterford Township Watertown Watertown Township . West iakeland Tovmship Youstg America YoumJ luaerica Townshln APPENDIX 1 LIST OF COMMUNTTIES 9Y POLICY AREA FULLY DEVELOPED POLICY AREA; Bloominqton Brooklyn � Center Columbia Heights Crystat Edina Falcon Heights Hilltop Hopkins Lauderdale MSnneapolis Richfleld Robbinsdale St. Acrthony . St, Louis Park St: Paul South St. Paul URBANIZING POLICY AREA: Apple Valley Arden Hills Birchwood Brooklyn park Bumsville Champlin Circle Plnes Coon Rapids Deephaven Detlwood Eagan Exceisior Fddley Gem lake Gotden Valley Greenwood Iandfall Lexington L11yda1e Little Canada Lon9 �ke Mahtomedi Maplewood Madicffie Iake Mendou Mendota Heighta Minnetonka �Minnetonka Beach Moand Mounds View New Brlghton New Hope NewpoR North Oaks Norih St. Paul Oakdale Osseo PSne Springs RosevSlle St. Paul Park Shorev�ew Sh�orewood- � Spring Lake Park . 3Ptin4 Paz'k � . Suntish Iake Tonka 8ay Vadnals Heights � Wayzata West St. Paul White Bear Take White Bear Township Willernle Woodland .- -. .B t► � DEVELOPING FRINGE POLICY AREA: Slaine Chanhas3en Cottaqe Grove Eden Prairle Grow Township-Andover Inver Grove Heights Lake Elmo Ltno Iakes Maple Grove Minnetrista Otono Plymouth Rnmsey Savaqe Victorta Woodbury �� °w.s� � .�! � -14- 5. Use of Funds. To carry out activlties specified Sn the work progtam, gmnt funds may be used to: 1) pay exlsttng staff; 2) hire new staff; 3) employ a qualffied consulWnt; 4) pay other costs attributable to the work program such as overhead, fentalof space and equipment, purchase of supplies, printing and pubtiehing. The purchase of ec5vipment, space, land or huildinqe Ss not an eliqible cost ar in-kind contrlbutlon. Services rendered by state ar federal departments or aqencles shall not be used as in-kind contsibution. The appllcant must be able to demonstrate that staff or coneultants have edvcation and experienca necessary to perform the usks assigned. 6. Records. The 4rant recipient sha11 mafntain a separate cantrol accountfor qrarttfunds received and shall maSntaln accurate and complete accounts and records relatinq to the recelpt and expenditure of any and all gmnt funds. Such recorda sha11 be maintalned for audit3ng purposee for at least three years followinq f1na1 � grant payment. The Council sha116e afforded reasonable access to the records for audicing purposes durinq buslness hours. �7{, Councll Assistance StaH from the Councll will he available to assist local units in the oreparation of apptications. X. Not!fieation � All loeal unSts will be SndlvSdually notified as to their entltlement(s) and the application guidelines on or before the date upon whlch they recelve thelr systems statements, whlchevet occurs later, or the effecttve date of these quidelines, XI, Efiective Date of Guidelines These guidelinee shalt become effective 15 days after their adoptlon by the Ceancil, 0 -13- systems statemenL ls received withlrt the pollcy area,whlchever occurs fint. 3. County Assfstance to Freestandinq Growth Centess Grants Will be awarded within 30 days of evaluatlon of the coenty s application as satisfactory. 4. Cwnty Planning Fund gmnts will be awarded wfthin 30 days of the evaluation of the County Planninq Grant aQpticatlon as eatisfactory except that awards to Hennepin and Ramsey Countles will be made within 30 days of the receipt of hoth counttes' applications. B. Concacts 1. e�� erat A11 qrants shall be awarded hy eontract beriveen the Councii and the community or county � preparinq the comprahensive plan. The grant contract scope of work �section shatl be based on the grant � application, The contract shall contnln assurances by the gtant recipient that the 25% local shaze of the work program wiLI be provided and that ihe� work program wiil be satisfactorily cacried out. 2, D��•ment ot Grant Proceeds . Grant money. shall be available to grant reciplents as follows: a. Total grant proceeds Iess than S3000: 1) ImmediateIy upon executlon of the 4�nt contract - 90'� of the total qrant proeeeds. 2) Upon comptetion of the scope of work and satis:actory evaluation of the fina[ progress report - 10� of the total qrant proceeds. b. Toui grant proceeds of 53000 or greater; 1) Lnmedlately upon execution of the qrant contact - 50% of the total grant proceeds. 2) Upon comptetion of one-half of the scope of work and satSSfactory evaluation of the midpoint progress report - 40�5 af the total grant proceeds, 3y� Upon compleUon of the scope of work and satisfaetory evaluatioa of the final progress report - 10% of the totai g2nt proceeds. v•,� 3. Proaress Renores • The qrant recipient shzll submit to che Council semi-annuat, midpoinc (if required) and final progress repoRS on forms provided by the Council. Such reports shatl outline the proqresa of - the reciplenYs plann3n4 program and highiight any difficultles enaountered. AddlUonalfunding needs ahouid be identlfied Sn the reports for Counail use Sn evaluatlnq and repor[Sng tc the legislatura the need, Sf any�, for add[tSonal funds. Finai progress reports ahall contain a statement ot ehe local share which was contrlbuted. 4, F•,aluation of Final Proaress Re4ort. Upon comp[etlon of the scope of work, the grant recipient shall . Submlt to the Council Sts final proqress repoK and request the final 10% payment. The C ounelt shall evaluate the pro4ress report and the completed work within 30 days of receipt of the final progress report to detatmine that performance was satisfactory in the following respects: a. The localshare was contibuted. b. The scope of work wae completed. 0.� The te[ma of the grant contract Were complled wtth. -iz- '- . i�y� d. The total grant amaunt being requested. - e. Additional work elements whlch might be perioimed by the county Sf more funds become avaltabie, ' f. Coptes of the Community Grant AppLlcatlons of all Freestanding Growth Centers ln the county . that wlll be recelving assi5tance. q. A eopq oE the County Board resotutLOn transmtttinq t4e applScation to the GovncLl. VI: � Unclatmed and Surnlus Funds funds identiffed as entitled to a specific Local qovernmertal unit for a specific use are deemed unclalmed !f not applied For within the Ume limits established by these guiciellnes. Unclaimed amounts in the following funds may be dlstribuYed by the Councfl as seL forth below based on demonstrated need and avallable financialresources: A. I�ventorv ActSvities Fund. DisVibuted to oLher cammunitles eilSible for this fund. 8. Communitv Comnrehensive Plannina Fund. Distributed to other communStles within the same poticy area. C. Soecial Plannlna Probiems Fund, Dlstributed to communitfes in otSer pollcy areas. D. Cwntv Assistance to Freestandina Growz4 Centers. Distributed to other eountres to assist thelr Freestandinq Growth Centers. E. Covntv P4annina Fund. Distributed io other counties. � Swplus funds, if aay, may be d1s�'Sbuted.by the Council for any leqaily authorized planaln4 p�'Pose based on demonstrated need and available financ:al resouroes. VII, EvaIuat!on of Apolicatlons All appllcations shall be evaluated•hy the Council to easure that they are satSsfactory Sn the followir.g resoects: 1. The loeal gavemmental unit Ss etigible for the grant{s) requested. 2. The proposed activSries to be funded are ellqible aMivltles . 3. The plannlnq costs to be funded by grants do not exceed 75%'of the cost to the community ar cost to the county. 4, The appllcatlon is complete.. - 5. The Snformatioa eontaSned 1n the applicatron Ss suffielent for the Gouncil to fulfill Lts leqal requirements under the Metropolitan Iand Planning Act. 2he Cwncil may requlre any additional infocmatlon necessary for !t to fulfilt these cequkements. VIII; Award of Grants A, Timinq. Grants will be awarded by the Council following evaluatlon of the appltcation as satisfactory. Grant awards will be tlmed as follows: . - 1. Community Comprehenaive PlannSnq and Inventory Activities g2nts w111 be awarded withln 30 dayy of �evaluation of the communiiy's appllcaflon as satisfactory. - 2. Special Plannin4 Problems DlscreUonary GranU will be awarded within 95 days followinq recipt of the ` last Community fXmprehenslve Planninq Grant Applicatlon L� the poilcy area or 105 days after the last final Y� . -11- b. Name and telePhone number of a locat contact persort from whom addltional information or ctarification regecriing the applScation may be obtained. c. Name of Ruml Polfcy Area communitles for which the county Ss preparing oz updating comprehensive plans and offfcial contols. d. Names of Rural Po11cy Area communities which have prepared thelr own Community Grant ApplicatSans and are preparinq their own comprehenatve plana and official controls.Copies of the applications of these communiUes must be attached. e. Namas of Ruml Poitcy Area communities and Freestandtng Growth Centers whlch have prepared theic Community Grant Appllcatlons and are preparinq theic own comprehensive plans and offlelal controls , but have InvenMry Activity Fund grant entitlements. Copies of the appiicatfotts from these � . communitiea must be attached.� f. For each community listed Sn Item C: 1) attach a Community Grant Application�whlch Ls.to be prepared by the county; 2) based on the totai of all af the ftgwas stated Sn these applications, a statement of the tota! loeal share ta he provided and the total grant amount beinq re4�sted. g..For each community listed under e above, a work program for inventory activSttes, the estlmated cost to the county, and the totaY grant amoant being requested. h. Comments on the attached applicatioas irom communities listed under d. : i, The tomi grant amount beinq requested based on item 4. The communitles ehat wffl be reeeivinq this assistance musi reflecY�lt in their applications as part of their "Outside Assistance.• j, A copy of the Covnty Board resotution transr.iittinq ffie apoLicatron to the Coune!!. D. Countv Assistance to Freestandina Growth Centers Grant Aoolication 1�. Su6missSon. £ach county sha4 prepare a County Assistance to Freestanding Growth Centers Grant Appltcation fn ordecto claim County Assistance to PreestandSn4 Growth Ceeters Funds. The applieation shall be�.submitted withln 90 days of the date upon whtch ell Freestand7nq Growth Centers in the counly have received theiz systems statements or the effective date of these guidellnes, - , whlchever occurs later. No application shall be submitted prior to receipi of systems statements by atl of the Freestandinq Gmwih Centers in the county. 2. Contents. The applicatSOn shall contain at least the followinq lnformatlon: a. Name of the cwnty maklnq applicaifon. b. Name and Lelepbone num6er of a local contaet person from whom addltional information or clarification regarding the apPlieation may be obwined,� ' c, Foi each Freestandtnq Growth Center, a stakement of: 11 the work elements io be funded . by the county'e entitlement underthe County Asaistance to Freestanding Growth Centers Fund; and 2) who w111 be pedorminq the work elements (the county or the Freeatand7ng Growth Center), aeid the cost of the activities to the county or community. - io - I 5� � c. A work progmm and cost estlmates which shalt lnclude the followtng: i 1. An outilne af the work proqram by ma�or task oc by subwsk. , � E.� 7he estimated cost of the work program by maJor task or eubtask. The ma�or tasks shatl be broken down lnto subtasks which provSde sufficfent dewil for the Councll to establbh ihe scope and eltgibllity of the work Snvolved. 3. The person(s), firm(s7 or aqency(ies) that will be performinq the maJor tasks or subtasks. 4, The estlmated completlon dates of the ma�or wsks or subiasks. d, A swtement as to whether the �+ork prograr.i reflecta the cost of updatinq a previously prepared plan andlf so, the extent to which St will be utilized in developing the communtty's eomprehene3ve plan. e. The amounts and sourees of outside assisiance thmuqh direet qrants or the value of services from the county, state or fedeml qovernment to be utllized 1n carrySnH aut the work proqram, f. The cost to the community of the work program is to be computed by subtractlnq the amount of outside asslstance from the total cost of the work program. g, A statement identifying the totai grant amount being requested, computed by identifyinq the local shaze (either Sn-cash or Sn-kind) and subtractinq !t from the totat wcsk pro4rsm cost to the cammunity. h, If appllcable, the amount of money requested and Justification for Specfal Pi,anninq Problem � Diseretlonary Funds. 1, �A copy of the resolutSon passed by the gwerning body tansmlttln4 the application to the Cwncil. 8. Cauntv Grant Anptleation 1. ,$yibmissSOn. Counttes must submit a County Gmnt Application !n order to elalm County Planninq Fund grant entitlements. A county's grant application must be submltted within 60 �?va of receipt of its spstem statement or the effective date of these 4uidelines, whlchever xcurs later. No applicatlon shall be submltted prior to the receipt oi the systems sWtement. 2. Applicatfon Content. The application shall be in a form and manner prescrihed by the Cwncil and shall contain the same informatlon wlth respect to the county as is required Sn the Cammunity Gmnt Appllcatlon, e�ccept for the Snformation reqacdinq the Specinl Plaminq Prablems Discretienary Funds and tha Inventory Acti4lty Fund, C. Composite Rural Area Appiication � 1. Submission. Eaeh county except Hennepin and Ramsey shall prepare a Composite Rural Area Appllcatlon which sha11 concain iha 4rani aopllcatlons of all Ruzal poliey Area communities. She aFP��ation shatl be submltted within 40 days of the date upon which all Rurai Policy Area communities 1n the county have received thelr sysiems statements. No applicatlon shall 6e submitted prior to recelpi of final systems statemants by all tha Ruml Poticy Area communities !n the cwnty. 2, Aoolication Contents, ihe application shall contain at teast the followfng lnfovnation; a, Name of the county makinq the appLicatlon. �g_ '. w... :�v usa the funds for eligible activitles� that witt be coordinated with the work progroms of the Freestanding Growth Centers, or whet�5er it will pass the funds on ta the F:eestand3ng Growth Centero fot thelr use ln ca[iyin9 out specified portions of thelr work proqrams. 4. Award of GranYS. The award of gmnta shall be based upon the work proqmm contained Sn the application and tha demonstratlon that the use of the funds wiil be coordinated wEth the work proqmms of the Freestnnding Growth Centera. E, Gountv PlannSna Fund 1. Etiaibiiftv and Atiocation Criteria, The counfles of Anoka, Carvet,� Dakota, Scott and Washic�.qton shail share a fund of 596,�50 (75% of the tofal county ptanning fundy. Eacfi cwnty's entltlement Som this fund is in proportion to ihe tota! entltlemeni of.each county's respective communities under the Community Comprehensive Ptanning fund. Hennepin and Ramsey Countfes sha11 share a fund of 532,25Q (ZS% of the couniy planning fund) to be allocated by the Council between the two counties based on demonstrated need and available f7nancial resources. 2. Eliaible Activitles. Funds granted under this secifon may be used only for aotivities necessary to prepare or adopt any required element(s) of the county's compzehensive ptan or officiai controts. 3. Application Guide[Snes. .Counttes shalt prepara and submlt on fornis provlded by the Council, �County Planning Grant Appllcations. . . 4. Award of Grants, tbe application. VI. Apvtication Procedures The award of County PtannSnq entitlements sball be 6ased on the work program Sn A. CommunStv Grant Apolications 1. Submission. Townships which have etected under Minnesota Statvtes 473.851 to prepare thelr own plans and cltiea must prepare and suhmit a Community Grant ApplicatSOn !n order to claim their � Community Comprehenslve Planning fund grant entitlement, Inventory Acrivity grani entitlement, and � to apply for Speclal Planninq Problems Mscxetionary gmnts. The Community Grant Appllcation sha[i ba submitted with3n 60 daya of the date upon whlch the towrtehfp or cSty receives Sts systems statement or the effeoUVe date of chese guidelines, whiehever occurs later, No application sha11 be submitted �.� prior to the receipt of the systems statement by the commurtiry. All Rural PoHcy Area cities and electing to�mships except those Sn Henaepin County shatl submlt their Commuaity Gmnt Applicatlons to the county for inclusion in the Composite Rural Area Application. All other.communitaes shall submit their Community Grant Appllcations directly to the Councfl. 2. AanlScatlon Contents. The application shall be in tha form a1d manner prescribed by the Council and shall contaln the foilowinq information: � a. HIame of the eommunity makinq the appticatSOn, b. Name and telephone number of a local contact cerson from whom additlonal lnfocmarion or. tladf2cation regardlnq the appllcation may be o6talned, � . � .�� for epecfficaliy identified inventory adivitles. 4, Award of Grants. The award of grants shall be based upon the portlon of the work proqram dealNq wlth lnventory activities. C, Special Plansina ProbSems Disczstlonarv��Fund ' - i, Allocatfon Amona Policv Areas. This fund shall 6e divided among the flve pollcy aceas in proportlon to the total of Community Comprehenslve Plannfn4 Fund grant entitlemen2s in each pollcy area. 2. Eliaible Communities. All metropolitan area communftles are eliqible for grants under thfs sectlon. Such qrants shall be in additlon to any other entitlement. Appendix I contains a 11st of eliqible communitles by policy area. 3. J'rundina Criteria. Special Planning Problems Dfscretlonary Funds shall be awarded to communities based upon demonatratlons that within or near thefr boundaries Ifes a]arqa exSStSng or pcoposed metropolitan featute or activity that siqnlficantly and demonstsatively increases the costs of preparin4 or adoptfng . any requlred element(s)� of theit comprehensive plans or offictal controls wer and above that which was accounsed for in the entitlement calcutatlons of the Community ConprehensSve PLann7nq Fund. In reviewing applications, the following critaria shail be considered: (1) the nature of the metopolltan feature or activity; (2) the uniqueness of the feature or activity; (3) ffie dfstance of L'�e feature or actrvity from the applylnq eommuniiy: L4� the avatlabiLity of other assistance fn handling the special - problem; (5) prevTous loeal or me�opolitan actior.s whic4 compound or lessen the impact of the ' me4vpolitan featvre or activity, 5. Anolicat on Gu1delL�es. Communliles withln eacb policy area may compete for Special Planning Prohlem Dlscretionary Funds by submittinq an application on forms provided by the Council, The application shall state the nature bf the metzopoiSian feature or activity and the nature and cost of the speciai plannSnq problems created by it. The Councit shall eonslder atl appliwtions by policy area and award � funds to selected eommunitles via separate grants. 6. Award of Grants. The award of Special Planninq Problems Dlscrntionary iwndn shall be based upon the applicanYs demonstration of the degree to whSch tt meets the fundin9 criteria set forth Sn 3 abwe. - D. Countv Asslstance to Freestandino Growth Centers Fund 1. Eliaibilltv and Allocation Criteria. Each county Ss allocated a grant entttlement of 51,000 per Freestanding Grocvth Center within the county, . � 2, ElSaible Activitles. Funds granted under thts section shall be used only for acYSvliies necessary to prepare ot adopt any requlred element(s) of the comprehensive pLzns or officlal controls of the county's Fteestanding Growth Centers . - 3. A�,pllcation Guidelines. £acfi county shall make a separate applicatton on forms provided by the Counctl tor the funds entitlad to them under thls secclon. The appllcaUOn ahntl state whether and how it w121 '� � _�_ ' �.�Ci c. ommunnir� ..� ..... .._.__ .. _ . . Each county shall prepare a Composite Aural Area Grant Applicat_on which shallfncluda the applications from aii the cities and tawnehips in the rural pollcy area fn the county for the Community ComprehensSve Plannfng Fund grant entitlements. Communities that are preparing thefr own eomprehensfve plans shall prepaze a CommunitY Grant Application and submit it to the oounty for incorporatlon into the countY�s Composite Ruml Area Appllcation. � q� $�,•yra o�rants, The award of CommunitY Campiehenaive Ptanning Fwid grant entrtlements shall be based on the work program in the apptication. . g, Inventorv Activity Fur.d . 1. ��� �t,�ttiv and Allocatlon CrSteria Each community Within the metroPOlitan area that has no prevlously prepared comprehensive plan, accord3n9 to the Counctl report ^Locat Planning in the'h"71n Cities Metropolitan Area• (as revised), is n[located an Inventory Aetivity Fund graat entitlemenCOf SI.00D abwe and beyond any other 4rant entitlemeni for use as set forth in this section. Commvnities allocated entitlements under thts sectlon aze listed in Appendlx II. 2. Eliafble, A�es • The funds granted by this aection may 6e used for the fo11ow5ng lnventory activittes onty: a. Base mappinq y, E�cisiing land use lnventory c. Soils and natuml features Snventory d, F�cisting public facilities tnvenYOry e. Current population disuSl�urion and analys1s of characteristics f. Ex7stin4 housing �'ventory � . � q. Economie base inveneory _ h. Current fSnancial anatysia � � � 1. ExistfnB official controis assessment 3. Agolication Guidellnes a, rommunities Within the Urban Serviee Area ehall appty to the Council for their antitlement under th7s sectlon. The appllcaYion must be completed on forms provided by the Couneil and shntl . state and identify the eliglble inventory activitles for which the funds will be utSlized. b, ommunities Outside of the Urban Service Area - The countles of Anoka, Cacver, Dakota, ScotG and Washington shall maka appiicatlon to the Comc11 for Inventory Activity Funds entltled to . ' communities within thetr boundaries. The application shall be a part of the Composlte Rural �. Area Appticatlon, and in St the county will state whether and how it w2t1 use the funds for allgible lnventory ae2iviiiea 1n eliqible commuaitSes.or tfiat tt wilt pass the funds on to 9aid communit3es i`-y . ; i = -6- 2) 1976 Estimated Populatlon - 25% 3} 1976-I990 ProJected Population Increase - 27% 4) 1976 Estimated Employment - 7% � 5) 1976-1990 Projected Employment Increase - 16% b. Step 2• Groun Communities by Policv Area � Ellgible communitSes are grouped fnto five palicy areas: _ 1) Futly Developed 2) Urb3rtizing 3) Developing Frin4e IMUSA 8oundarq) 4) FreesWndinq Growth Centers 5) Rural AppendSx I contains a listing of eliqible comma�ities by policy azea. c. Sten 3• Adiust Preliminarv °ntitlement Based on Relative Wealth WiChSn each poticy area community prellminary eatitlemenu from Step 1 are adJusted I�ased on an index of relative wealth which reflects the flnancial resources potentiallq available to eommunities thtough localtaxatlon. The Sndex of relative wealth used 1s "adiusted'reat propeKy market value per capita." The source of "adjusted teal property market value" is the Reoort from the Eaualization Aid Revfew Committee on 1975 adJusted market valuea uaed ior taxes payable in 1976. To develop the per capita fiqures , 1976 est]mated yopulation Ss used. Half of the five-factoc preallocatton is adjusted 3n im�erse proportion to the community's Sndex of relntfve wealth compazed Yo the other communities within the policy area. The other half of the five-factor preallocation is not adfus:ed. The result is that relatrvely paorer communitles' preliminary entitlements are increased, and relatively wealthier communittes' prellminary entitlements are decreased. The resultinq amount for each community 1s the respective Community's comprehensive planning fund qrant entitlement under this section. 2. Eliaible Activities. A community may utllize funds qranted under thls section for the preparation or adoption of any required element(s) of lts comprehensive plan or official controls. 3. Anolication Guidellnes a. Communitles Sn the F�tiv Develoned,Ur6anizirta Develooina Frinae and Freestand3na Gravth Po11cL � Areas The above communities shal! submit a Community Grant Applicatlon on forms to be provided 5y the Council directly to the Council for their entittement under thls fund. b. Communities ln the Rural Poiicv Area !n Henneoin Countv � , The above communitles shall submit a Community Grant A2plication on forms to be provided by the Councll directly to the Councll for thelr entitlement under thls fund. �. (such as planner , attomey, engineer, clerJc) who wilt be empioyed by the local gwemmental unit ta carcy ovt the work P�o9ram. � .. `.YY1 b. Other costs associated with the work program such as werhead, rental of space and equipment, purchasa of supplies, pdnting and publishing. c. The cost of activltiee which are part of the work program that wilt be paid for or perfoccned with ouuide asaistance. . . d. The cost of activities which are part of the Work program which W311 be paid for by funds obtained thrw4h contractual arrangements.with other lxal qwernmentat uniu. 34. Work Proqmm means a description and estimaced cost of the proJected effoR needed in ocderto develop the re4vired elements of the lxal governmenul unit's comprehenslve plan, and prepare and adopt its officfat controls. The work progmm shall be broken down into ma�or tasks and cost eatlmates shall be provided for each maJor Wsk. The work program and eost esrimates shall also he broken down into subtasks if necessary. . y, Aoorocriation Allocation, 550,000 shall be reserved to cover the Council's adminlsuative expenses. The remafninq St�,O50,OD0 made available by the Iaws 1975, Chapier;� 167, shatl be div7ded Snto five separately administered grant funds as follows: A. Community Comprehensive Planning Fund - 5807,500 g, Inver.tory Activity Fund - $57,000 . - C. Special Planning Problems Disereilonary £und -$42,500 D. CouatY Assisiance to Freestanding Grov+th Centers Fund - SIA,000 E. Cwnty P1annSng Fund -$129, 000 A. �ommunSri Comnrehensive Plannina Fund 1. Eliyfbff+tv and Allocatian Cr�ter3a. All metropolitan area communities are eliqible for and have been preallocated an entitlement calculated as set out below tn a manner whlch addresses naed and available financialresources. a, Steo 1• Aop1v Five-Facto� PrelimSnarv Entltlement The preliminary entitlement focmula diatributes to all communities a minlmum amount of 5300. The rematnder of the fund 3s prealloeated based on the five factors listed below which are lndices of comprehenslve planning�costa. Each of Lhe faelors ]s weiqhted 6ased upon the deqree to which the factor reflects ptannlnq cosia . The source of faccor lnformation for each cammvniry is current Metropolitan Council data, For communittes that are split by the metropo2ltan area� boundary, only that portion of the community whicli is within the metropolitan area is elSgible For planninq asslstsnce and !s consldered in the fo:mula, �actors and Weiahts 1) Land Area - 25 ; _q_ .:► 25, 1976-1990 Pooulation Inerease means the estlmated Sncrease in popuLation proJected to occur !n the � cotnmunity betv+een 1976 and 1990, derlved by subtractinq 19T6 Esttmated Po�ulatlon from the 1990 ProJected Population, flBUres for which are contalned !n tha Development Framework Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. if the increase Ss a negative value, zero is used for that community's poputatlon increase. 26. OffSclal Control meane interim ordlnances prepared and adopted pucsvant to Mlnnesota Statutes 462.355, Subdivlsfon A, or ordinances and regalatlons prepared and adopted afterthe adoption by the local governmental un8 of its comprehenalve plan pursuaat to b1l+uiesoW Smtutes 473.175 and 473.176. Official controls may include ordinances establlshin4 zoning, subdivlsion controls, site plan requlaYlons, sanitary codes, official maps and interim ondinances. �- 27 , Outside�ta��e I°eans the value of services rendered by covntles M their communittes or by state ar federal depar�nents or agencies in performin4 a pertion of the work program; state or federal Sunde obiained ¢om another grant pzogram SncludSnS crltical area qrants that will be used to paY for the cost of a portlon of �B ,�,1� proyram; ��3q p6tained from the counties wt of the IrrventorY Activities FVnd and County AsslStance to Freestanding Grow*h Canters fund. Zg, potiev Area means grouP1n95 of inetropolitan azea communitles as LLsted in APoendix I having similaz chamcteristies. For the purpase of these 4uidelinee, the follavin9 po11cY aceas are esublished: Developing Frin9e - �I Flilly Developed � prbanizinq freestanding Growth Centets 29. Staff ineans an employee of a local govemmental unit whose activitles aze directly attributable to the work program. 30. btask means the unit inco which a majer tnsk must be broken dwvn m provide the Council with sufficient detail to deteimine the eli4lbility and scope of work lncluded in the work program. rotus Funds means funds not orSqinally alloeated lnto one of the five plannln4 �nds set forth bY tl�ese 31. ,� guidelines or set aside by law for adm7nlstratl°n. SncludSnq L�terest eamed prior to disbursement. 32, Svstems Statement means the Metropolitan Systems Statement which ls received by a local governmental �;t pursuanttA Mlnnesota Statutea 473.855. 33 •�otal Cost of Worr ?roaram means the cost whlch must be inciuted ln order to cany art ihe 1�� 9�emmental � unit's Work progmm tncludlnq; a. The estimated amount to be pald for consultant servicen or tha cash equivalency foc the services of staff 0 b. The development of the existlr.B and proposed $�'-^ ot iar,c ana wacer c�e:,e«< o� � e w... ��= r.� .. c. The devalopment of the Protectlon ESemenc of the Innd Use Plan. , i n d. The developmenf of the Houslnv Element of the Land Use Plan. j �t:� I e. The conslderation of the impact of an aitpOrt(s) in the Iand Use Plan. . f. .�nventorv ActivitSes - necessary to develop the pubtie Facilitles Ptan ae defSned in MSnnesota $tatutea 473.859, Subdivision 3. q, The development of the Transoortation Plan portion of the Public Facilitles Pian. h. Ttfe development of the Sewer poticv Plan portion of the Public Facilitles Plan, i, The develonment of the Parks and Open Soace Plan portion of the Public FacilSfSes Pian, j. The development of Lhe �olid Waste Facilities Descrintion portion of the Yu6hc Fac111ties Plan (counies only). � . k, Inventorv Activities necessary to develop the Imolementatton Proaram (as- defined in Mlnnesota • Statu.es 473.859). - 1. The development of the Officlal Cona�ols Deseriotion por[ion of the Implementatlon Program. m. The development of the Caoital Imnrovement Proaram portSOn of the Implementation Progmm. n. The development of the Housina Imelementatfon Proamm portion of the Implementation Proqcam. o. The prepamiion and adoptSon of Official Controls. 18. Meh000litan Area means the seven-county'iWin Cities Metropolltan Area comprised of tha counties of Hennepin,. Anoka, Washington, Dakota, Scott, Ramsey and Carver, i9, Metr000titan Council or Council means an administative aqency created by Mlnaesota Sintutea, . Chaptar 473, for the purpose of coordinating the �lanninq and development of the MetropolStan Area, 20, Metropolitan *�nd Ptan�inv Act. or the Act means Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.851- 473.872. 21. :�fetr000litan Urban Servibe Area, or MUSA, means that part of the 1`Nin Cities Metropolitan Area planned to be served by centmtized Metropolitan Capitai Impmvements inctudinq publia sewer fnterceptors, freeways and ou'nlie transit by the year 1990. 22, 1976 Estimated Emolovment means the e9tlmated employmeni in a community 1n 1976 derived by: lI aub4acting the community's 1970 employment according to the U.S. Census from the 1980 projected emptoyment, the fiqures foc whlch are contalned Sn the Development Framework ehapter of the Metropolitan Developmant Gulde; 2) adding sixty pereent of the difference to the 1970 employment to get 1976 Estimated Emptoyment. 23. 1976 EstSmated Ponvlation means the estlmated pogulatlon of�a community on April 1, 1976, accordinq to Metopolitan Cwncil estimatea. 29. 1976-1?90 Enalovment Increase means the esUmated increase in emplayment pro7ected to occur in the community between 1976 and 1990, derived hy subtracti� the 1976 Estimated Employment from the 1990 Projected Emp]oyment, figures for which are contalned Sn the Development Framework Chapter of the Metropol2tan Development Guide. -Z- 8, De:rionstrated �teed means the need for funds to assSst a local governmentat unii tn developinq its �� comprehensive plan. The need ls demonstrated by the work pro4zam and cost estlmates contained 1n the local unit's apptication for ent3tlement(s) or dlscretlonary funds. 9. Entitlement means an amount of money allocated to and set aside for a local govemmentalunit for which said unit must qualify under these gvidelines and within a specified time period Sn orderto receive as a grant. 10. Gr=nt neans a subsidy of public funds �id by the Metropolltan Counoil to a local gwernmenwl unit in aid of its requlred planninq undertakinq, made in accordance wlth these guldellnes. 11. 7n-Kind Contributioa means a contribution of value other than local funds, Sncludinq value of staff services and rental valve of equipment, but does not Snclude the value of services rende:ed by counties to communit2es or by state or federal departments or agencSes. 12. Inventorv Aetivit!es means activiUes associated with collectin4, comp113ng and analyzinq basic data � necessary �for the development of the local govemmental un1Ys comprehensive �lan and the pceparation of its of:icial controls. Inventory activities Snclude the follo�+lx�g: base mappL�q, existing tand cse inver.tory, soils and natural features Snventory, historic site sucvey, exLsttng public facilltfes invenWry, Lnventory of the curtent population distrlbution and character!stics, existing hOUSinq inventory, economlc base lnventory, financial analysis of the local qovernmentai unit, assessment of exSsL'.�g official controls. 13. Land Area means the total area 1n acres of a community accordL�g to the :vletsopolitan Councll's repoR: t974 Acreace of MrD's in the ltvin Cities ?Re7onolitan Area, Resource and DeveIopment Reoort Number 1, published Sn April 1975. 14. Lead Pe*son means staff of the local gwernmental unit who will be prlmarily responsible for canyinq out the mafor tasks of the work program such as a^department head.° 15. Local Govemmental Unit or Units means all clties, countlea aad towna lying in whole or tn pact within the mearopolitan area, 16. Locat Share means that po[tlon of the Cosi to the Commwliy or Cost to the County bome by the local gwernmental unit; includee Sn-klnd contributions and funds obtained by ihe counties through contractval • aqreements with its communitles: does not include outside asslstanee. 17. Maior Tasks means the maJor components of a local govemmental unit's work pro4ram, The major tasks are: a, Ilrventorv Activities necessary to develop the iand IIse Plan as defined in �Ilnnesota Statutes 413.854, Subdivision 2. z/io/�� APPLICATION AWARD AND DISBURSEP+SENT GUIDELI,IES - i, 4� . MEIROPOLTTAN LAND USE PIANNING GRANT PROGRAM - � ��� - t, Purpose. The purpose of these guldelines is to provide guidance to locat govemmental units 1n the metropolitan area regarding the application, award and disbursement prodess for grants for comprehensive planning under the Me4opolitan Land Planninq Act. ti, Authoritv. The Metropolitan Councll is authorized to prepare and adopt quidelfnes establishing uniform procedures for the award and disbursement of planning assleiance gmnts pursuant to Mlnnesota Staiutes, Sections 473.854 and 473.867. IIL. o e These guidelines shall govern the Metropolitan Council's adminisiration and distribution of ptanning assistance 4ranu funded by Minnesota Laws i976, Chapier 167, to Metropolitan Area 1oca1 qovemmer.tal uniu - for use in the pre�paration of plans required by the MetopolStan Iand Planning Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.851- 473.872. These 4uidellnes� do not govem the adminlstration of any other Council gmnt pro4ram or qmnts made by the Minnesota State PSanning Aqency under Minnesota Laws 1976, Chapter 167,� forland use or critical areas planr.ing. N. Definitions l. Available Finar.cial Resources means the following types of resources availa6le to a local govemmental unii for developing� paR or atl of its comprehensive plan; 'revenues potentfal3y available to a local govemmental unit through the local tax levy; revenues from state or federal gmnt programs; the value of seivicas of county, state or fede2l employees directly assistinq the Local qovernmentai wnit. 2. Communitv means all cities and towns lyinq in whole or in part withln the metropolltan asea, 3. Comorehensive PSan means�the elements described Sn Minnesota Statutes 473.859, Subdivisions 1 to 4, , which a looa! qovemmentat anit ts requlred to prepaze, inciuding the land use ptan, t4e pubtic facilities plan and the :mplementatSOn program, except that a locat governmental unit's comprehensive plan shall not include any part of� the� land use plan, fac111ties plan or implementation program whiah a locai govemmentai unti's sYSlems statement e�iudes from the required content. 4. ConsvlWnt means a qualified professional, not a member of a local govemmental unit's staff; ineludes engineers, ptanners and attorneys. 5. Cost io Communitv Cost to Countv means the remainlnq cost of the work program after subtractinq the total Outside Asaistance from the Totat Cast of the Work Pro4ram. 6. Countv means the countiae of Hennepin, Anoka, Washtngton, Dakota, Scosl, Ramsey and Carvet. 7, �v means a calendar day, Sneiudinv 'n'eekends and holldays. In cases where a given time period ends . ... .. ___._� ��all svm�ri �n fhP tPt(L WOC�CIIIC �BV. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL � �� 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 0 APPLICATION, AWARD AND DISSURSEMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OP PLANIVING ASSISTANCE GRANTS TA$LE OF CON'I'ENTS Paqe Part I: Application, Award and I7lsbursement Guidelines .... 1 Part II: Appendix I- List o£ Communities by Policy Area ,., 15 Appendfx II - Communities Elig3bie for the Inventory Activity Fund Appendix III - Sample Application Forms DRAFT For Public Meeting Thursday, March 17, 1977, 3:00 P.M. Metropolitan Council Chambers -� -_ �: OFFICIAL PUBLICATION NOTICE OF HEARING CITY OF SPRING LAKE PARK Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Spring Lake Park in the City Hall, 8429 Center Drive N.E., on Monday, March 28, 1977, at 7:30 p.m. to consider the followinq: Request for a lot split to build an office and shop for a printing and design company on portions of Lots 22 and 23, Auditors Subdivision No. 152• The general location of said request is 7705 Central Avenue N.E. Any and all persons desiring to be heard in regard to this matter will be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. .ti�t'��i/i- ���/''G41� �" onald B. Busch, Clerk-Treasurer � _ ����z���� ` �r� � . �� ___� �. � ,_- � r�. �.. - �. _.. � - � _ __ _ �,�'�'y' _ _ _ ,� ��1//'""J _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - f/OUJ� ' ___ . ...�._ ..-- ��.-�-�s _ _ ___ _ _ yl.��r�- � ��_ �% �` �, ��. ����� �c���_ 2--i s-r �.� - � - � �'�l 7� �- � -� � � D l -� z � �- i/ / kor6cKy L/,f"/� a� oz��/' ,r.� ix� �� � , �'. _ zr ot.ti,.�� d'� : � .� _ _ G• _=l G7 _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ - _ _ - _____ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __ __,_ w,�. . , , ��-. �. �� � � •, � , f � << �zTi ar' 'rxrnL� PBANNING COI�AfISSION MEETING MARCH 9, 1977 PAGE 1 CAIS, TU ORDIIt: Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:33 P.M. ROLI. CALL: Members Present: Harris� Bergman, Langenfeld, Lynch (sitting in for Shea), Peterson (leYt 10:10 p.m.), Schnabel Members Absent: None Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner MOTION by Yeterson, seconded by Ber�nan, that the Planning Conanission amend the agenda to include an item concerning an alleged home occupation at lt591 2� Street in Fridley. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION ON ALLSGID HOME OCCUPATION AT �tS91 2� STREET, FRIDLEY Chairperson Aarris e�cplained he had requested this item to be on the agenda as he had received a phone call about one and a half or txo veeks ago concex�iug a use that a particular property was being put to at Lt591 2� Street in Fridley. He stated that an addition was being built to a garage which Nas apparently being used to park a truck with siding and for storage of siding material, etc. Mr. Harris said a building permit had been issued in November of 1975� and this had gone before the Planni.ng Commission and the Board of Appeals at that time. He explained that variances xeae granted and a Special Use Permit was granted for this particular item� and since then it didn't really appear that the property had been used exact],y for xhat the Special Use Permit was intended at that time. Mr. Donald Kopecky, 1y591 2� Street N.E.� Fridley; Diane Bipes� 4601 2� Street N.E.� Fridley; Mr. Adolph F. Bipes� 1�601 2� Street ffi.E.� Fridley; and Mr. Charles Howe, 1�560 3� Street N.E., Fridley, were present, Mr. Kopecky pointed out on the photographs the addition to his garage. He explained that the trailer with the tires t.*as brought in on Wednesday, Thursd�y he couldn't pull it out because of the snow, and Friday he removed it. He said that the addition on the garage was started on the 28th and then it snoved £or tkseeedays and rained for txo da�ys� so he only had about three working days to put it up so far. He said that now, si.nce the complaint which he heard about on Monday� he returned the siding and it would take Planning Co�aission Meeting � March 9, 1977 Page 2 another four weeks to reorder the siding because it xas a special order so now everything would sit for another four weeks. Mr. Kopecky said he had never gone before the P1Anning Com¢ission or the Board of Appeals concerning this, but had just received a building permit. He stated he xas following the directions oY the building permit and had a Yire xall, removed the swi:mning pool, and the 20 % 28 addition vould be used for a storage shed. Chairperson Harris commented that the night he was there, there seemed to be a lot of equi�aent stored in the yard, ladders on the roof, trailers, etc. He explained that anR-1 district meant single family dvellings� not a commerc#�1 area. He asked if Mr. Kopecky was operating a business out of his home. Mr. Kopecky replied he xasasiding and roofing subcontractor and he did store some material on his property but didn't just throzr it out in the yard. Chair- person Harris noted that xas srhere he sax it piled, and that xas what the neighbor had been complaining about. Mr, gopecky explained that xhile he �ras building the addition some material vas stored in his yard� along side oP the garage. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the addition was to be used as a storage shed, and l�ir. Ropecky sai.d it was, and xould not be for an sutomobile. He explained • he xould be s�oring material he had left over from his job. Chairperson Harris asked about the trailer that xas sitting there� and Mr. Kopecky replied he used that for rork. Mr. Harris asked what the tires in the back yard were used for� and Mr. I{opecky said they vere used for docks up at the lake. Mr. Boardman explained that home occupation xas actually operating a business out of your home, and it must be completely operated out of the residential buildittg structure itself. He said that the Code xas somexhat vague on xhat home occupation vas, but it did not allow employees, did not a11ov over a certain number of cars for the operation and did not allow a retai.l operation out of a home, but vould allow an ofPice and that type of thing. Mr. Boardman said they had allowed a certain apwunt of storage in an outer shelter as long as that storage was inside and concealed. He ezplained that when that storage material came outaide, that was xhen there was a problem. Ae said that all storage materials must be stored irithin a structure. Mr. Kopeclqr said that was wt�y he �+as building the storage shed, and he was not selling anthing out of there. Mr, Langen£eld vi.eved the photographs and asked what xas on the trailer. Mr. Kopecky said the trailer contained tires trhich he la�ddaround a lake £or a snowmobile race. Chairperson Harris stated that the gentlemen who registered the complaint felt there was a crnmnercial enterprise in a R-1 district. Mr, Aoxe stated that he had called Mr, Harris originally �o ask about the apparent change of a R-1 district into a commercialjresideniia7. district. Ae said that in talking to the five closest neighbors around the area to see if any variation had bsen approved, he found the ansrrer was negative. Mr. Hoxe explained he had been told by the school districts that any building used for the storage of co�ercially-used goods Kas a commercial building. He added that xhether this was true in F�idley, he didn't Imox� but it was taue in the school district he worked in, Mr, Hrnre continued that i£ the area changed £rom Planning Cormnission Meeting - March 9� 1977 Page 3 a R-1 to a commercial zoning� all the property owners £elt they would be taki.ng a financial loss. He said they Xere asking if this vas being rezoned to cormnerciel� and if they had to give variation to a 30 x!t5' �ilding bePore it could be built. Mr. Boardman stated that there had been no petitions for rezoning in the area. He explained that this vas an addition to a present existing garage so no 8pecial Use Permit was necessary m it since it xasn't a 2nd accessory building. Mrs. Schnabel stated that thsre had been no variance on this, either. Chairperson Harris said that it seemed like they were atiri'ul close to the back lot line, but Mr. Kopeclqr said he lrnew xho Mr. Harris vas thinking of and it wasn't hirn� but another sid�ng contractor. Chairperson Harris asked if it xould be possible that the neighbors would feel better if all of the materials used in Mr. Kopecky's operation vere stored inside and not vi.sable to the other property ovners. Mr. Howe said they would also like a guaraniee from the Planning Commission that there would be no change in the zoning from R-1. Chairperson Harris said that srithout a Public Hearing and action by the Planning Coimnission and also action by the City Council, there xould be no rezoning. He said that xas a guarantee� and to get anything rezoned was a tough project. Mr. Howe said that in other words, even i£ the building appeared to be coimnercial and could be construed to be coimnercial, it could not be rezoned out of anR-1. He then asked what the limitations were on home occupations, and Mr. Langenfeld read the definition of home occupation out o£ the zoning ordinance book. Mr. Kopecky said he understood the problem, but he had to build the shed before he could store the material in it� and if people kept complaining about it the material xould be outside until he got it done. He stated that he thought he vas doing pretty good on it as he had gotten it roughed up in less than three d�ys. Chairperson Harris noted that it seemed the permit was issued in 1975, �t Mr. Kopecky said he had gotten the permit last November. Chairperson Harris asked if it kould be reasonable to assume that he could keep all the out�tde aaterial in the shed after the shed xas completed, and Mr. Kopecky replied he could. Mr. I.angenfeld asked if he had people coming on the premises to look at any of the goods� and Mr. Kopecky replied he did not� although occasionally a truck kould come from the warehouse and deliver goods to the garage. Mr. Langenfeld asked vhat the average inventory was that he had on hand at a given ti.me, and Mr. Kopecky answered $1,000 at the most. He added it probably averaged about $600 a month. Mr. Bergman asked the &ize of the accessory building, and Mr. Kopecky replied iLe addition was 20 x 28�, plus the garage which was 21t x 28', Mr. Bergman noted thst was raughly 1300 square £eet, and asked what the finished square footage in the home was. Mr, Kopecky replied the home was 1120 square £eet, so he could still build three more square feet if he wanted to. Planning Commisaion Meeting - March 9� 1977 Page �t Mrs. Schnabel asked if the garage or the addition xere heated, and Mr. Kopecky said that he heated the front one when he worked on his sno�+mobiles. Mrs. Schnabel asked when he contemplated completion of the storage shed, and Mr. Kopecic,y replied it would be about four Weeks because he had to Hait for the siding. Mrs. Schnabel asked if he could store material in there now, and Mr. Kopecky replied he could as he was just waiting to finish the exterior at this point, Mr. Peterson said that in the past the City Attorney had said there Was nothing in the ordinance that said they could li.m3t the size of a secondary building� and he didn't see where they had a legitimate complaint unless he had missed something. Chairperson Harris pointed out it did not fall within the ordinance as a home occupation with storage o£ material outs3de, and that was the basis of the complaint. Mr. Langenfeld said he thought there xas some problem where Mr. Kopecky had been mislead as to xhat he could and could not do� and Mr. Harris said he believed that rras correct. Mr. Aowe stated that nobody in the area had ever complained about the home occupation; the question was the buildzng storing coimnercial goods, and the other property ovners vere scared �hat the area might be rezoned. Mr. Langenfeld asked how Mr. Howe� as the person submitting the complaint, would like to see this situation recti£ied if the area remained in its present zoning. Mr. Howe said he was just worried about cars, trucks and people going in there with children in the area, and having the area rezoned to coimnercial and taking a loss on his residential property. Mr. I.sisgenfeld asked if Mr. Kopecky had any plans of eapanding his home occupation, and he replied he did not, and he xas not selling material or having trucks come in there. Mr. Her�nan said that as far as the rezoning went� a rezoning would have to be initiated by the property ojrner and would require a Public Hearing before this body at which tvne Mr. Hose and the other concerned neighbors rrould have a chance to present their vi.ews. He said he didn't think it was very probabl� that this would be re2oned� and added there was quite a process involved in that. Mr. Hove sa3d that at one time muli}i�ple dwellings had been considered for the area� and the neighbors had to keep fighti.ng the rezoning. Mr. Peterson asked iF there had been a sign advertis�ng a commercial venture at this particular location� and Mr. Hove replied there had been at one time, but not any more. Chairperson Harris asked if it xould relieve the fears of the surrounding neighbors if Mr. I{opecky kept all his materials stored inside instead o£ outside, and Mr. Howe replied he was mo� worried aUout the outside storage as much as the rezoning. Mr. I,angenfeld recorrunended that as the Planning Co:maission they recommend to Mr. Kopecky that he take all the necessary eE�orts to clean up the outside materials and get thmn undercover in the storage shed. He then told Mr, Howe that i£ this home occupation showed si�s of expanding the City would have Planning Co�nission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 5 to step in and abolish that. Both parties agreed. Chairperson Harris said that if the neighbors st�ll felt there was a problem he would suggest that they write a letter to be put on file vi.th the City so that they xould have a record of the concerns. Mr. Peterson suggested that Mr. Hosre and the five neighbors put their objections in a letter regard- less if this was settled or not, and that w�y there would be a record even if the property changed ownerships. Mrs. Schnabel suggested that Mr. Kopecky also document his side of it� stating his current haane oocupation and that he had stated at this meeting that he didn't intend to expand his business. Mr. Langenfeld said that personally he was glad to see this come be£ore the Planning Coimnission because it could be a potential time bomb, and by coming to this meeting they had clarified the situation at hand. APPRAYE PLANNING COMMISSION MIIdUTES: FEBRUARY 23, 1977 Mrs. Schnabel said that she had txo minor corrections, On page 2, �he noted that the 9th li.ne in the second paragr�ph should read "itself" instead of "himselP°; and the secnnd paragraph on page 21 should read "...on a systematic approach to rental." Mr. Langenfeld explained that the point he was trying to make at the topeof page 10 xhen he said *..if they felt Hoore I.ake should be recreational, and so on" Was he was trying to eapress whether Moore Lake would be a sw3mning beach or just plai.n recreational such as iishing and/or boati.ng. MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Lengenfeld� that the Planning Coimnission minutes of February 23� 1977 be approved as amended. Upon a voice vota� all voting �ye� the motion carried unanimously. 1. DSID GHdNGES IN CHAPTIIt 2 MOTION by I,angenfeld� seconded by Schnabel, that the PlAn�g Cotmnission receive the revised copy of Chapter 212, Mining. Mr. Boardman pointed out vhat had been eliminated in the first paragraph under 212.01 Finding and Purpose� so the first sentence Would read "The City of FY�idley recognizes that surface mining e.usts and that this mining can be an sid to the preparation of develoFanent sites." Chairperson Harris said he felt much better about that. Pfr. I.angen£eld pointed out that although the word "vital" had been struck from the first paragraph� it was still in the second paragraph. Mr, Board- man suggested that the second paragraph read �The purposes of this ordinance are: To provide ior the economical availability of sand� gravel� rock� soil and other materials." The Commission agreed. Mr. Bergman noted that this was called "Mining"� yet in the body of the documgst other terms such as °extraction", "alteration", etc. were used. Planning Cormnission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 6 He asked if it was the 3ntent of this document to specifically address mining as opposed to extraction or land alteration. Mr. I,angenfeld said that he i.nterpreted this to be entitled "Mining° with the terms "extraction°, °alteration°, etc. to be a function inside the m�ning, He added that these things were necessary beiore mining could be done. Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that there was a separate ordinance that dealt with land alteration, and this should not be interpreted as the land alteration ordinance. Mr. Ber�nan said he thought this was fairly conflising in the xay it xas written. He said that in looking at the permit application data in the previous minutes, he noted they were talking about land alteration/mining. Mr. ?,angenfeld explained that the permit was designed to serve a dual purpose for mining and land alteration� but agreed it could be a little confusing. Mr. Bergman noted that halfl+ay do�n page 1 the code read "To establish uniform and reasonable limitations, safeguards and controls in the City, for the future production of said materials". He suggested that the word •production" be changed to "mining^. He also noted that near the bottom o£ the same page, item 2 talked about an *extraction permit". He said he felt they should use cotmnon terminology so this would be less confusing. Mr. Peterson stated that he grew up on the Iron Range, and one o£ the things he learned vas that mining was mini.ng and extraction was extraction; they were two completely di£ferent operations. He said he had problems classify- ing taking black dirt or gravel as a mining operation. Mr. Langenfeld said that xas correct as stated� but for sis months the Fhvironmental Commission had discussed that particular point. He said that to try to resolve it they had thought about changing the name of this ordinance, but they just came to the conclusion that "Mining" xould be adequate in this case. He added that he realized the necessity of discussing these items, but by the same token the measure and scope of the operation so conducted in the City was so limited that he £elt this ordinance would be appropriate. Mr. Bergman said that regarding item 2 on the bottom of page 1, he would suggest they vere talking about a mining permit rather than an extraction permit. Ms. Itiynch questioned the wording of item 2, and Mr. Boardman said it should read E�traction permit or m�n;,,g permit. Mr. Bergman stated that xould be acceptable. Mr. Ber�nan read to the Commission a portion of item 1 on page 2, which said "The City shall reviex the facts and determine xhether an emergency er.ists and shall by written memorandum, authorize comnencement of the emergency exception." He said he aas a little concerned that someboc�y might die before that written memorandum got back in order for emergency vork to take place to preserve life or property. He said he would sgggest the phrase °by �rritten memorandum" be scratched; he thought that mqybe in certain cases to preserve life somebody Yrom the City might have to agree over the telephone. Chairperson Harris said the way he.read this, the City was requesting the work to be done; the City was the initiator, not the property owner, Planning Commission Meeting - March 9� 1977 Page 7 Mr. Peterson ssid that if somebody got caught in a cane-in and had to wait ten days for�a'memorandura-�r.auting permission to dig him out, he might be pretty unhappy when he did get out. Mr. Bergman said that was his point. He said he did not read this to be limited to the City doing some work; his view was the opposite--the operator vould have to call the City and get from them a written memorandum for authority to commence emergency proceedings. Mr. Langenfeld said that in regard to that same paragraph, he didn�t believe that meant human life. He said he thought it meant natural li£e, and pointed out the reference to "environmental impai.rment4 in the last sentence. Mr. Peterson suggested that point 1 under 212.05 be reimitten to clari£y what they rrere trying to get at. Mr. Ber�oan agreed, Mr. Bergman rePerred to point 2 under 212.05, and suggested changing 60 days to 30 and 90 days to 60. Mr. Peterson xondered xk�y ar�ybody should be given any time at all to apply. Mr. Boardman said they had to have a certain amount of time to prepare the documents that were required under this ordinance� and it was also pro�ection for the e�cisting operations. Mr. Peterson noted that in 60 days a lot of material could be hauled out. Mr. Boardman said then I�. Peterson was talking about requiring them to apply in¢nediately and then that application process m�y take 60 days to issue a pexmit. Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to see 15 d�ys and 30 d�ys, but Mr. Harris said there had to be notification time and engineering that had to be done on some of the property. Mr. Peterson said that if someone came into the City and vanted to build on a lot, they had to get a permit be£ore they could build. Here, he said, they were allowing someone to haul their City a�ray and didn't require them to do az�ything for sixty days. Chairperson Harris covmented that he thought this vas meant for existing operations. Mr, Boardman sai.d that actually� that paragraph was really meaningless any�ray because they had alreac�y shut down the operations until permits vere issued. Ms. Lynch suggested striking the word 'but° in the third line of that paragraph� and putting "30 days" instead of °90 days° so they would have to apply right away. Mr, Peterson agreed. He said he realized there had to be processing time� but he didn�t see why they had sixty days to apply for the permit. Mr. Boardman suggested making it stronger than that and shutting down the process until the permit was issued. Mr. Berga,an stated that in general, he thought they �ere overdoing this a little. He thought some of the Comnissioners had a speci£ic operation in mind, *ahich he thought kas somexhat affecting their reasoning here. In general, he said� he thought that ar�ybo�y rho vas in business now would certainly put up a high legal squaxk i£ the new ordinance put him out oY business. He thought that cras unreasonable and also illegal. Mr. Peterson said he didn't feel it was unressonable if someone was dePacing the City end leav3ng it. He added that he xas not thinking of any one partic- ular operator� hut he just thought that they had been the least requiring of that operation than ap�yth�mg they had in the whole City. Mr, Bergmen said he thought it was prudent of them to do something about it, but he thought it had to be done in a reasonable� business-like fashion. Planning Commission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 8 Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to point out that the old 212 did not have any control Hhatsoever� and that was why he was favoring this and felt it xas the Yormation of a good ordinance. He said it was a dif£icult kindoof thing to take care oP� and recoaanended that items 1 and 2 under 212.05 be clarified. Mr. Boardman ssked if they wanted to make the ordinance ePfective immediately, and Mr. Harris sa:i.d he thought 30 days to make application with the City able to extend the time for the initial application to 60 d�ys. Ms. Lynch said she felt they should make application right away. Mr, Boardman noted that he didn't see any time period written in after that application was made for them to get all of the requirements fulfilled. He asked if they could be operating within that period of time after application xas made. He said there was nothing that said the operation had to be shut down if the materials Were not gathered xithin a certain period of time. Chairperson Harris said that Was a good point. Mr. Peterson said he really couldn't see the hardship of requiring them to apply for the permit i�ediately and then have a timetable for it to be completed. Mr. Boardman suggested they make application vithi.n 10 d�ys� r+hich would give enough corresgondence time. Chairperson Harris suggested 15 d�ys, and Mr. Boardman sai.d he thought ten dr�ys would be enough. Mrs. Schnabel asked if a person who was not current�y in operation but made an application for a permit would be allowed to commence vith any mining until that permi.t xas approved. Mr. Boardman said he vould not be allowed to do �y m;n;ng �til the permit sras issued. After further discussion, the Commission decided there should be fi£teen days for notification and 60 d�ys to bri.ng it in to compliance. The Commissioners agreed that 75 d$ys total should be a reasonable aznount of time. Mr. Bergman referred to 212.06, item 1� jrhich talked about a mineral extraction permit. He asked w}�y mining pex�ait xasn�t used. Mr. Langen£eld enssrered it was because in the process of minin�� mineral extraction took place. Mr. Bergman Pelt they should use consistent terms. Mrs. 5chnabel pointed out that on page 1� under definition #2� they had added "or mining permitp. She suggested that item 1 under 212.06 should read "mining or extraction permit". Mr. Hergman said that then 212 Mining should be changed to 212 Mining or Dciraction so there would be some consistency in terms. Mr. Boardman suggested eliminating °extraction° all the vay through, and this was agreeaBle to the Commission. Mrs. Schnabel said she still concurred with what Mr. Peterson said--that when;_gxsvel or soil was being removed� that was not mining. Mr. Boardman said they xere talking about a degree; exiraction was a lighter degree and mining was a heavy degree, Mrs. Schnabel asked if he Was s$ying that for a person to semove gravel or soil he must apply for a m;.,�„g permit, and Mr. Boardman said that was right. Mr. Bergman sai.d that if they were talk' � about extraction as being mining or considered fiithin that context, then mining should be defined as including Planning Co�+ission Meeting - March 9� 1977 Page 9 extraction on page 2� item !t. Mr. Peterson suggested that they st�}* xith "mining° and use it all the way through, and then there wouldn't be ariy problems with consistency. He said he would feel comfortable with that. Mrs. Schnabel said she agreed, but she thought that in the definitions� under "Afi.rting" they should i.nclude in the definition that mining shall be determined as extraction. Mr. Boardmsn suggested it read something like: "The removal or extraction and processing of mi.nerals�, and this xas agreeable to the Commission. Mrs. Schnabel noted that the references to "mineral eactraction permit" in 212.06, items 1 and 2� be changed to "mining germit^. Mr. Bergman added that whenever there was mention of a permit it should be defined as a mini.ng permit and nothing else. Mr. Langenfeld asked if any of the maebers had ar�y problems with the 1�' tall fence requirement. He said it seemed appropriate in his estimation. Chairperson Harris said he thought it vould do the job. Mr. Bergman said he was reminded that they had proposed a revision to the svi�rrining pool ordin�ce from !t� to 6'� and he was a little torn between reality and consistency here because he realized a snow fence was handy to put up around a hole, but on the other hand he rondered why they felt the need to go from 4' to b' around a s�i�ing pool. Chairperson Harris said he could see Mr. Sergman's concern� but they didn't make 6' snow fences--only 1�'. Also, he said� a b' Fence around a sxirmning pool was a permanent installation, and a!t' fence was a temporary installation. Mr. Boardman said the only reason they pnt up a fence was to act as a deterrent to people who might want to use the area for dumping. He added that if somebody Wanted to get in badly enough� they could get in Whether the fence xas 1t' or �i'. Mr. Boardman said that i£ a 6� fence vas required� they should just eliminate mining completely in the City of F�idley-because the cost of permanent fencing was astronomical. Ms. Lynch said she had a problem with this rrhen 3t talked about 1�' of xater. She stated that small children could drown in less than that, and asked if this type of operation aas restricted to certain areas not close to residsntial. Chairperson Harris said in practicality, yes, it shouldn't be close to residential. Mr. Peterson pointed out an area that vas not far away from a heavily-populated residential area. Ms. Itiynch suggested that any time there was any kind of excavation it should be fenced; not only when water collected. Mr. Peterson stated that a 11' fence rras usually not much of a deterrent to anybody or anything, and Mr. Harris added thatxanost o£ the t9me it delineated bovndaries, Mrs. Schnabel sai.d that goi.ng beyond water, she remembered read9ng about children playing in gravel pits that had been killed in land slides. She said they were not talking just about water, but all facets of this type of aperation that could be hazardous. Mr. Langenfeld stated that any person that was involved in this type of business would make sure he had proper insurance� and in order to get that insurance he had to maintain certain safety precautions. Planning Commission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 10 Mr. Bergman said that his mai.n concern xith the fencing was safety--not whether it defined an area. He said he thought there was something lacking in item 3 on fencing to proroide assurance of safety. If nothing else� he ssid� that it be controlled by a 1�� tall fence of adequate structural soundness and such fashion as to eliminste any openings:, or ease of m�lcing same. He said it should be fortified so that it xas clear that a contractor who Was going to comply with the ordinance would not be leaving loopholes. Chairperson Harris said that a snow fence wasn't that bad a fence if it was properly posted. Mr. Peterson agreed� and said it was hard £or little kids to crawl over. However, he continued, the problem was the fences usually weren't properly posted but more or less just strung out. Chairperson Harris suggested rermiting that section to s�y the fence ahould be of some substantial measure so it couldn�t be easily lmocked down. Mr. Peterson suggested requiri.ng a post every 10 or 12 feet. Chairperson Harris continued on to nwnber 4� Appearance and Screeming� and read (a� aloud to the Conmlission: "Machinery shall be kept in good repair." He said they should say what they meant or leave it out. Mr. Boardmen explained it raeant the machinery should be operational. In other words� he said� they didn't want any junk material stored there. Mrs. Schnabel noted they talked about explosives under number 5� Operating Standards. She asked if there was any spec3fic regulation for storage of that kind of material, and Chairperson Harris said it was covered in another ordinance. Mr. Peterson brought to the Cotmnission's attention item (e) under nwnber 6, Rehabilitation Standards, and asked the reason for the points listed. Mr. Boardman said this meant that after the excavating, the vater bodies should be rehabilitated if a lake was going to be created. He suggested eliminating this if the Commission didn�t want to deal with lakes with this ordinance. Mr. Peterson pointed out there mi.ght be times in the rehabilitation that in the judge.raent of Staff and the Planning Commission the only v�y it could be rehabilitated was to have a standing body of water. Mr. Langenfeld gave another example of a deep hole being dug and the side affect was a nice, big hill� and they might feel that vould be a prime area for a ski slope. Mr. Peterson suggested they might hane a lake that could be beneficial to the City, but Mr. Harris said that would be a special condition that would have to be engineered and handled differantly. Mr. Peterson suggested scratching i and ii, and Mr. Boardman agreed. Mrs. Sehnabel re£erred to (f), Final IIevation� and asked if "park" shouldn't be "part"� and Mr. Boardman agreed. Mr. Langenfeld suggested that "Paid a permit £ee" be scratched irom item 1, 212.08. Mr. Peterson said he realized that they had people who were operating businesses and they had a certai.n obli.gation to them� but under 212.08 Fees and Bond, he felt a$1,000 per acre bond would not do much towards rehabilitating the land. Chairperson Harris sai.d he thought that vas sufficient. Mr. Bosrdman also noted that number 2 under 212.08 should read "Post a security bond...". Pl,snning Con¢aission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 11 Mr. Peterson asked if the Commission could consider Item !t on the agenda next as he might have to leave before they got to it. MOTION by Peterson� seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Co�ni.ssion suspend #�e,rules and consider Item 4 on the agenda. Upon a noice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously, 4. FRAM WEDNESDAY TO THURSDAY DUE Mr. Boardman said the reason they were bringing this up rras that ihe Sun Newspaper had changed their gublication date� and instead of Wednesd�}r they would be coming out Thursday. He explained that this Would mean a del�y to the present fourteen days that they required £or notification for another two xeeks in most cases. Mr. Boardman explained that right nor from the time an applicant suhmitted his application for rezoning or a Special Use Permit until the Pleaning Conmoission heard it irould be almost four weeks because of the change in publication date. He said i£ they moved the meeting date to Thursd$yr it xould mean about two weeks. Mr. Boardman said that the only problem they had was if they changed the Planning Co�nission meeti.ng date to Thursday it vrould conflict vrith the Human Resources Commission in April, May, August and October. Mr. Bergman asked if the F�idley Sun talked wi.th the City of Fridley ataall before changing the date, end why the date was changed. Mr. Boardman replied they changed it mainly because o£ the w�y the City Council is set up. He explained that right nov thzy had to go to print Monday afternoon, and the Council meetings raere Mond�y night, so by the time the agenda got to the S7ui Nerrspaper it was already a week old, He sai.d that therefore they had changed their publication date to be more informational to the readers and to try to handle the news at the time it happened. Mrs. Schnabel stated that she would have a conflict as she had a commitment on the third Thursday o£ every month� and Mr. Ber�nan said he had another coimnitment for every other Thursday. Mr. Langenfeld added that Thursday would also be in conflict with plans that he had. Mr. Boardman suggested leaving the Planning Commission meetings on Wednesdays and having an extra two-week del�y. Mr. Peterson said he aould be in £avor o£ going to Thursda,y because he was a traveling salesman and the meetings now £ell in the mi.ddle of the xeek. Chairperson Harris said his i.mpression xas to leave the schedule as it was because it was all 3iid out and the calendars xere printed. Mr. Bergmen noted that they all tended to frame lesser priority things around higher priority things� and in his ease since the Planning Corrmiission met on Wednesdays he didn't plan things £or Wednesd�}*s� but did plan other things for Tuesd�ys and Thursd�ys. He added that if the schedule date for the Planning Co�mnission was changed during this coming summer, he could repackage around it� but his conYlict continued through the school year. Chairperson Harris suggested they continue the schedule the way it was for the rest of this year, then at the beg�*+n;ng of next year they could reschedule to Thursdqy and arrange the rest of the meetings accordingly. Planning Comnission Meeting - March 9, 197T Page 12 Mr. Boardman sai.d that for an example� i£ somebo�y roade application on March l�th for a Special Use Permit that reguired a Public Hearing� they wouldn't be heard before the Planning Commission until April 6th, Mr, Peterson said the one thing that disturbed him was they xere creating an undue hardship on the citizenry. Chairperson Harris said it was the Chai.rman's prerogative to call a special meeting if it xas necessary, and Mr. Boardman said they crould have to ]mow that before they made the initial publication. Mr. Bergman said his suggestion was that they continue as they had been with reviex in June, which was only three months avap. Mr. I.angenfeld commented that �rith all due respect to the nexspaper and the legal proceedings that took place� he felt uneasy when a newspaper changed its public�tion date and the City had to completely revamp the governmental meetings. MOTION by Peterson� seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Co�nission continue to meet on Wednesd�y with the schedule to be revi.esred at the first meeting in June. Upon a voice vote, all voting �ye� the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 9:35� and reconvened the meeting at 9:50 p.m. 2. CONTINUID: PROPOSID MAINTENANCE CODE Mr. Boardman sai.d that £rom the discussion they had at the special meeting with the City Council and £rwn the discussion at the last Planni.ng Coimnission meeting, he took it upon himself to make some changes in the maintenance code. He said they were handling strictly residential interior for maintenanc$epurposes (not for upgrading). He said that anything that was built according to a code at the time it xas built� would be maintained according to that code but not upgraded. He said they xould handle the systematic enforcement of all rental properties and their services vould be available under the maintenance code to all owner-occupied structures upon their request. Mr. Boardman explained that there were seven items that they xould call i�nediate health and safety hazards� and these would require immediate response £rom renta7. properties, and if they did do a voluntary check on a R-1 those seven items xould also need an iimnediate response from all owner-occupied units. He explained the reason they stated that was because those seven items were not only health hazard items to the property owner, bnt also to surrounding property owners. He said that if they came across those, even on a voluntary basis� they tirould require that property rnmer to comply wi.th those standards. Mr. Peterson asked what this did to the industrial and commercial property, and Mr. Boardman explained this didn't aPfect industrial and cwrmercial as Planning Gosmnission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 13 they were reviewed by the Fire Inspector on a yearly basis. Mr. Peterson coimnented that the Fire Inspector only looked at the property from a stand- point of safety� and if there were enough exits to get people out and no visable fire traps. He said the Inspector didn't make any inspection in terms of xhether or not there were other unsafe conditions that existed. Mr. Boardman said that xas xhere OSHA came in. Mr. Peterson said that then they had a health code and noi a maintenance code� but Mr. Boardman disagreed. Mr. Bergman commented that he felt "maintenance " was an overlapping term, and he could accept a maintenance code addressing the condition of plumbing when the end point might be the concern for health. He sai.d there xas nothing wrong rrith having that in a maintenance code. Mr. Peterson said that when they started talking about vermin and garbage, that vas not a maintenance code; Mr. Hoardman agreed that vould be a health code. Chairperson Aarris said that in his estimation, that was the reason for this code. He said that the preamble to the codes or the charter mentioned "for the health, safety and velfare of the community". Mr. Boardman said that vas included in the preamble of the mainteaance code. N1r. LangenYeld said that it seemed to hi.m they had decided that the definition of maintenance should be included in the preamble. Mr. Boardman pointed out it was included in the scope. Mr. Langenfeld asked that the spelling of "hazards" be corrected in 220.01�. Mrs. Schnabel poi.nted out that "maintenance" was defined under 220,05 Definitions, number 113. M:'. Langenfeld said he thought this body had agreed that the de£inition of �'maintenance* vould be clearly defined and highlighted in the scope. Mr. Boardman xondered if that xas really necessary, but said he hadn't had time to study tha new copy of the code very carefblly. Chairperson Harris suggested that they receive this item and then go home and study it. t+�TION by Schnabel, seconded by Langen£eld� that the Planning Commission receive the Residential Maintenance Code. Upon a voice vote, all voting �ye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Langen£eld� that the Planni.ng Comnission continue the discussion on the proposed Mai.ntenance Code until the next meeting to allov time for the members oP the Comnission to study it. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. CONTINUID: INTERSECTZON AT 53RD AND C�fITRAL Mr. Bosrdman stated that Police Department hadn't come through xith the i.nformation they were waiting for yet as they had to getiit from the State, but hope£ully they would have that by the next meeting. Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to mention to Mr. Boardman something that came to her mind a week ago last Sundqy. She explained that she had made the mistalce of driving down Sunday afternoon to take the exit out o£ her Planning Co�mnission Meeting - March $, 1977 Page 1!� neighborhood at 53rd and Central, and it had taken her tventy minutes to get through there. She said that it happened that Menards was having a sale, and the cars were lined up on the service road for at least a block trying to get through, and they were aleo lined up xithin the parking lot area for at least a block. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought she would be clever and cut through the parking lot and come out at 52nd, but had found another line there, also. She explained it brought to mind that maybe in the design of that intersection some consideration should be given to the impact pf what it would mean on 52nd as some people might choose to avoid that 53rd intersection and use $2nd, instead. Mr. Boardman said that he didn�t foresee any problem� and thought that with the channelization it might be a little more accessible. He added he thought it xould help 52nd more than hi.nder it. Mr. Bergman commented that just immediately East of the City right of way going into that shopping area were a couple o£ the largest chuckholes he had ever seen. He asked if the City oF Fridley should take any concern about that uhatsoever. Mr. Boardman replied yes, as that was part of the Zoning Code. MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Con¢nission continue the discussion on the intersection at 53rd and Central until the next meeting. Mr. Bergman said that he was a little concerned that the City not be "Big Brother• and try to be all things to all people� including the spending of taxpayex's money to take over an internal parking lot directional problem uhich should be at the expense of the property owner. Chairperson Harris said it xould be at the expense o£ the property owner as the City would condemn the property and put i.n the improvement� then it xould be assessed back against the property owner that benePited from the improvement. Mr. Bergman asked if the City could assess the condemnation cost. Mr, Boardman said yes, and that was why it �rould be better £or him to give the City the right of w�y instead of having them condeum it, Chairperson Harris added that they were also allowed toecharge 2�� of the total cost of admi.nistration fees. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the property ovner xas aware that these discussions were tsking place� and Mr, Boardman reglied not to his lmowledge. Chairperson Harris said they xould talk to him after the concrete proposal had been made. Mr. Bergman said he had a little trouble xi.th those coirmments. He suggested that if a call vas going to be made to complain about the chuckholes, a comment should be made about the improvements at the same time. He said he didn�t think they should deliberately trithhold inYormation. Mrs, Schnabel said she agreed� and she thought in £airness to the property owner he should be told that they vere considering improvements on that intersection and he should be i.nvited to attend the meeting that b�egiidiscussed it at. She added that she thought that was only fair to hi.m since it represented a sub- stantial amount of money. She said it xas possible that he might even have some plans of his own. Chai.rperson Harris comnented that he doubted it since Planning Commission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 15 there hadn't been any plans for fifteen years, but he also believed in cormrtun- ication. Mr. Her�nnan suggested the City inform the property owner thet they rrere actively reviexing plans on his property, but he didn't see a need to do anything more than that. Mr. Hoardman said he would also in£orm the property owner about the next meeting so he could attend if he so desired. UPON A VOIC& VOTE� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 5. �• � �� � : MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission receive the material from Metro Council on matters alleged to be of inetropolitan signiPicance. Mr. Hoardman explained that this was for the member's review, and the information rrasn't a matter £or consideration by the Planning Commission at this time unless they so chose. Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to lmov if they were supposed to go through this and detarmine if it was of inetropolitan significance, and Mr. Boardman replied he would do that. He explained that the State ffiivironmental Quality Council had a statement in their rules and regulations that dealt with matters of inetropolitan significance, and there had never been a definition of what metropolitan significance really was. Therefore, he said� the Metro Council developed standards for determ�ning xhat metropolitan signif- icance was, and that rras what this in£ormation was. Mr. Ber�nan commented that this seemed like a take-off or a duplication o£ the Environmental Impact process. Mr. Boardman said that Was the purpose. He ezplained that under the Fhvironmental Impact process there was a state- ment that an environmental impact statement shall be required if it was a matter oi metropolitan significance� and there vas no definition o£ what metropolitan significance was. He sai.d that Metro Council had been given the task of determining what metropolitan signi£icance was or standards for establishing metropolitan significance. Mr, Bosrdman said this was just a matter o£ revierr, and he had sutxnitted it so the members would ]mow some o£ the documents that the City was getting; no action xas needed. He explained he xould be reviewing it to see i£ any action was required from City Staff. Mr. Langettfeld suggested that they just revietr this to the extent that they xere fecailiar with it in case it vas ever brought up again. UPON A VOICE VOTIs'� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. . .e � �;-�:-. y;•� Planning Coimnission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 16 MOTION by Langen£eld, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Cocmnission receive the material from Metro Council o£ the proposed application, award, and disbursement o£ guidelines for the administration o£ Planning Assistance Grents. Mr. Boardman sai.d he didn't have much to say about this a� the present time as he hadn't had a chance to review it yet £or the Public Hearing. Chair- person Harris said he felt Metro Council had stretched the truth slightly about the amount of money they were to receive. Mrs. Schnabel said that she was really sorry she hadn't brought her notes� but at the Planning and Zoning Institute one of the seminars dealt with this subject matter and it had been explained by people from the Metro Council about the suarding o£ claims� applications� and how the money was broken down into the Yive categories. She said that when she looked at everybody who was there and how mar�y people the total was going to be divided among� she xas surprised they got as much as they did. Chai.rperson Harris said he had attended a meeting in Spring Lake Park� and in their disnnssion he had been told the� would get !�0¢ per capita for doing this (in other words, !�0¢ £or every citizen Fridley had). He said that figured out to be roughly $12�000� and he thought that was rather lov. Nox� he said� they ended up rrith $8,835, Which rras considerably less than what they had been told to begin xith. Mrs. Schnabel sai.d she thought that was just money that had been granted for the processing o£ the develo�egt o£ the Cormnunity Develop�ment Plan (for the administrative costs of preparing a Coimnunity Develo�xnent Plan). She added that once they had the plan, then they would start applying for grants and they might get more money� depending on the amount of assistance they needed. Mrs. Schnabel conti.rrued that there were certain coimnunites that xere going to receive a certain aznount of money outright, and then other communities would receive money based on need. Incide�tally, she said, another thing that was brought out was on Critical Areas there was a separate account to cover anything dealing with that; there xas a different set of monies set aside £or that. Mr. Boardman said they hadn�t applied yet under that program because they didn't have the guide- lines £or application at this time, but they would be making application soon. Mr. Bergman sai.d he noticed that FY�idley was not listed in the collection oP Fhlly Developed Policy Areas, but under Urbanizing Policy Ar'eas, and he vondered xhat the difference xas. Mr. Boardman replied that he xould have to look it up. He added that the impact of the classification xas probably that more monies rrould be available £or urbanizing communities than for flAly-developed communities. Chairperson Harris directed the Commission to look at the Swmnary of Community F2ititlements By County (page 65 of the agenda)� and pointed out that column 1 was the Community Comprehensive Plp*+n;ng �d� and column 2 Planning Co�nission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 17 Was the Inventory Activities Fland. He said he thought the $8,835 vas the whole amount they Kere to receine� and Mr. Boardman said it did look that w�y. Mrs. Schnabel explained that there had been $57,000 allocated for the Inventory Activi.ties Fund out of the total $1�050,000. She said she aished she had her notes because they explained 3�hy $57��0 had been set aside for that inventory, and she thought it vas set aside for those comnunities xho had not done any work at this point on, for instance, their Coimnunity DeveloFanent Plan, or didn't have a base map. Chairperson Harris said perhaps Mrs. Schnabel was right, and asked Mr. Boardman to check into the situation. He said that his feeling vas, if they were going to give the City $8,835 to do the thing, then that vas the kind of plan they should get--they get xhat they pay for. Ae added that he didn't think the community should get into the planning game and spend $21�,000 to do the work and only get $8,835 back on the deal. Mr. Boardman said that the thing about it vas� they would be doing it anyW�y. Mr. Harris agreed, but said they would be doing it to their own £ormat and on their oxn time schedule. Mrs. 5chnabel said the one thing that seemed to alarm people most at the seminar was covered on pages 1�6 - 117, under Step 1 of the Community Comprehensive Planning FUnd, She said these were the factors and weights broken dosm into what they were going to use in determining hox a coimnunity stood in their application. She said the two things that seemed to concern most of the people were at the top of page l�7--the projected population increase and the projeehademployment increase. She stated the quest�on had arisen several timesaas to ho�r they xere going to project those figures and what figures they xere using for their base. Chairperson Harris said that then rrith the eligibility and allocation criteria, the $8,835 xas the maximum amount. Mrs. Schnabel disagreed and said she still thought that that money xas the money that had been granted to the City to cover.-adrninistrative cast6s in developing the Land Use Planning Grent Prograzn. She explained that when the State Legislature passed the Land Use Planning Act in 1975 they axarded the Metro Council $1,000�000+, She continued that of the monies that they were granted by the legislature, they broke it doxn into these five allocations based on what they felt were the specific needs to prepare documents to comply with this Land Use Planning Grant Program, Chairperson Harris said he understood that, but from reading the in£oraa- tion provided it didn�t sound to him like they automatically got the $8,835; he thought that was the maximum amount that had been allocated to the City. Mr. Boardmart explained that the appropriation allocation to the metro area was $1��50�000; that was the xhole ball of wax. He said that then the Community Comprehensive Planning riind o£ $807,500 was the money they had allocated to the co�nunities to complete the three- year comprehensive plenning. He said they vould apply for more funds, however, that xas the allocation to be given to communities for carrying out the intent of the law. Of that, he said, it l�oked like they had �. , Planning Coirunission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 18 alreacly figured the £actors and weights in order to get those allocations. Chairperson Harris asked if Mr. Boardman had ginen them a projection o£ population increase and employment increase� and Mr. Boardman replied that the Metro Council had done that. Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that it sai.d a community may utilize £unds granted under this section for the preparation or adoption of any required element(s) of its comprehensive plan or official controls. Mr. Boardman said that it looked like the $8,835 vas the maximum amount that would be allocated to �hfiCity, and_Chairman Harris agreed. , UPON A VOICE �OTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 7. CONTINUID: GOALS & OBJECTNFS: ACCFSS Mr. Boardman sai.d there was one area left after this� and that was Con�unity Vitality, which should be rea�y by the next meeting. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission receive Goal Area: Access, and continue to the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, all noting qye� the motion carried unanimously, OTHFR BUSINSSS: Mr. Langen£eld said he had taken it upon himself to make copies of a portion of the Department oP Natural Resources informative brochure to pass out to the members. He said he wished to bring to the Co�¢nission�s attention the comments made in regard to the aeeation systems as he thought they`�+ere very:interes�ing. Mr. Langenfeld commented that evdry now and then the Conunission talked about the 208 Water Management Program� and they nox had available a 208 Planning Bulletin and he was wondering if snyboc�y on the Commission xould be interested in receiving that brochure. If so� he said, perhaps Mr. Boardman could make the arrangements. Mr. Boardman said that he thought this Commission was on the mai.ling list, but he would check and have them start sending it to the Coimnission members. Chairperson Aarris said they had gotten a Public Hearing notice from the City o£ Spring Lake Park concerning a request for a Special Use Permit to construct a local cartage and freight terminal on part of Lot 7, Auditors Subdivision No. 12ly� the general location being 1229 Osborne Road. He informed the Coirunission the Public Hearing xould be on Monday, March 28, 1977, at 7:30 pr�m, in the Spring Lake Park City Hall. Mr. Boardman said this Special Use Permit would concern an area North of Osborne along Highsr�y 65� between Highwqy 65 and Old Central. He explained it vas across the street from Sambo�s� and was zoned light industrial. Mr. Langenfeld asked if someone was going to represent the City, and Mr. Boardman replied that they didn't £eel it would cause that much o£ an impact on the City's operation 3n that area and therefore wouldn't be srorth their ti.me. Planning Cormnission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 19 Mr. Hoardman said he had been asked by Dick Sobiech to bring up for discussion the amount of information they should actually let out on the plat notif�ca- t�ons. He explained they had some problems at the City Council meeting tirith the DeLeier plat. The plat had been approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council, he said, and then when it got dot+n to improvement on the road itself the people came in and said they kadn't been axare it was going to cost them any money. He said that Mr. Sobiech was xondering i£ a notification should be put on the platting notice that subsequent improve- ments might af£ect them. The problem xas, he sai.d� that the Planning Commission wouldn�t lmow how much it was goi.ng to cost the citizens, or even if they would be af£ected at all, He sai.d he xas wondering if the Plarming Commission wanted to get into that. Chairperson Harris commented that it really was not a function of the Planning Conenission to get into assessment hearings. Mr. Langenfeld said he did think� however� it should be a ImoWn thing to the citiaens involved. Mr. Boardman said it would be difficult for the Planning Co�nission to evaluate because they wouldn't lmow vh�t the easements would be at that ti.me. Chairperson Harris suggested that if they saw such a thing they could ca11 it to the attention of the City Counbil r�hen they sent their recommendation to them on the plat. Mr. Bergman asked if it was true that platting actually could result in any costs to adjacent property o*mers� and Hr. Boardman said it could. He explained that with a plat there could even be a road improvement that could affect other property owners, and said that Mr. Sobiech was wondering i£ they shouldn't notify them at the time of the plat that this platting could result in subsequent isnprovements that might affect them. Ms. Lynch commented that she thought it was true that there was no sense in platting unless there Were going toobe improvements, and she thought the people would understand that, Mr. Bergman asked at Khat point after the platting there vas an announcement or Public Hearing regarding the speci£ic street that Nould now go in there and what it would cost, if there was to be a street improvement. Mr. Boardman replied that was totally up to the developer. Mr. Boardman suggested that he recommend to Mr, Sobiech that they leave it the way it was and not make any statements that subsequent improvement might affect adjacent property owners. Mrs. Schnabel suggeated that when the matter came before the City Council that mention could be made that there might poasibly be ezpenses borne by adjacent neighbors. Chairperson Harris said he didn't understand where the problem vas, and Mr. Boardman explained that people vere obviously unaware in the Public Hearings that generally in approving a plat, improvements generally folloxed. Mr. Bergman said he thought a statement should be in the notice because some of those people might decide to come to the Public Hearing i£ they were made aware of the possibilities. Mr. Boardman said he wondered i£ they xanted people at the Public Hearings asking what type of improvements were going to be made when the Commisssion really couldn't tell them at the Planning Co�nission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 20 time oY the platting how those things were going to affect them. Mrs. Schnabel asked when the City could tell them� and Chairperson Harris anawered at the improvement hearing. MOTION by Hergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the PlAn*+;ng Cormnission recommend to Council that platting notices should include a statement to the ef£ect that as a result of platting, possibilities did exist that improvement costs would follow, or words to that af£ect. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought this would open a can of worms. She explained that While she felt the peop�e in the area should be aware that;they mi.ght be assessed for i.mprovements, she thought in terms of the Puhlic Hearing there would be a lot of people attending to object to the replatting of property because they might possib�y be assessed. She stated she didn't imow if that type of input at a Public Hearing would be beneficial to the discussions in terms of replatting property. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought it xould make an awkward situation� and Would be very dif£icult because they xouldn't be able to give the citizens any dollar amount. She added that she thought that would make the Coimnission look as though they were acting almost irrespons�bly; they couldn't give them any idea of how much or xhen� and the citizens might think the Commission was trying to hide things from them. Mr, Bergman said he thought they might feel that way now. Mr. Boardman said he thought they had to look at the affect of platting on the community as a whole, and if it vas a good idea and a step forward in the developnent of the community. Chairperson Harris said it xas even more basic than that. He said it was pretty tough to deny a plat i£ it followed the platting ordinance--there had to be good grounds. Mr. Bergmsn stated that his motion vas made in support oP improving public awareness and coimmuiic�tions, and he didn't see hox it would have any affect on how they would judge a plat. He said he sarr nothing wrong irith public awareness--at least the citizens would be made knorrledgeable. pn the other hand, he said, he could see where it might be a bit disruptive� but the platting ordinance was clear and the fact that somebody doxn the street might nox like it because it would cost him money is not a consider- ation in the right of a property ovner to plat. Ms. Lynch stated that she agreed the public had a right to lmow, but she couldn't even imagine anybody not realizing that in the natural scheme oi things there had bo be progress� and i£ they vould look ahead they had to realize that it might cc3a�ethem money. She said she couldn�t see any reason the Coimnission should be hassled because of telling the citizens o£ a possibility that might not even happen. She added that she thought it would just cause problems. Mr. I.angenfeld said his vote would be £or the motion simply because Mr. Bergman had added "or xords to that affect°. UPON A VOICE VOTE� Bergman and I,angenfeld voting �}*e� Aarris, Lynch and Schnabel voting nay, the motion failed 3- 2. Planning Commission Meeting - March 9� 1977 Page 21 Chairperson Harris said he had one more item which concerned a brochure from the C�mter for Stuc�y of bocal Government in St. Paul� Minnesota. He explained that planning seminars vere to be held on Land Use Planning, Zoning functions� and Legal Foundations of Planning and Zoning and Subdinisan Regulations. After further study, however� it was determined that the seminars had already taken place sri.th the exception of those that were to be held out of town. Nlrs. Schnabel commented that the Planning and Zoning Institute she had attended Was very excellent� and was something that anybody who was involved in city government in any wa�y shou].d go to. She added it was very in£orma- tive and very helpflil., and she had enjoyed it. Mr. I,angenfeld said he vould like to mention the Conununity Noise Control meeting which vould take place on April 28ih, and sai.d he would bring the information back to the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Bergman, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Planning Goc�ission meeting of March 9, 1977 adjourned at ll:ltl P.M. Respectfully submitted, v�/isrirril t %A II�YJi�iol� Sherri 0'Donnell Recording Secretary