Loading...
PL 03/08/1978 - 30487CITY OF FRIDLEY � � PLANNING COMMISSION MFETING � '� MARCH 8, 19 8 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Harris c�7.led the I�arch 8, 1978, planning Gommission meeting to order at 7:39 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Shea, Bergman, Harris, Peterson, Schnabel Langenfeld � , None Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Mra Peterson arrived at the Plan.ning Commission me�ting at 8:30 P.Me Ms. Schnabel arr°iv�d at the Planning Commission meeting at 8:59 PaM. Ai'PROVE PLAI�TING COPZMISSSON MINTTTES: FEBRUARY 8,� 1978 MO�i'IO1V by i�Is. Shea, seco�ded by Mr. Bergman, to approve the February 8, 1978, Planning Commission minutes as ��ritten, Upan a voice voteq all voting aye the motion carried unanimously, ^ 1 � CQNTIrdUE� F 0�7 .�ANTTARy ���_] c�,7�� pTTRT IC H�9RINC. REQUEST FOR A '�P�c:T.G 1, i1SE 1'ERM i T, S� �78�01 m BY MENAR� CA�H �"JAY LUMBER: PER FRIDLEY CZTY CODE, SECTION 20j.101 � 3, RT� TO AI,LO'dU THE DEVELOPME or a 5,000 S�UARE FOOT GA.RDEN CENTER IPd THEIR PA.RIiING LOT, ON LOT 9, AUDITO�' S SITBDIV]:SION N0. 94, THE SAME BEIIVG 5351 CENIRAI, AVENU� NaE. Public Heari�g Open. Chairperson Harris indicated that a meeting had been held on February 15, 1978, at 7:3a P.M� NZro Harris said that it was a Workshop--type meeiing that included the riayox, Mr, Schneider (the Ward Councilman), Mr. Menard, Mr6 Seeger, ana several of the concerned citizens of the area, and�himself. He said that seve�al problems �vere discussed that were connected �vith the Menard Cashway Lumber Company. He said that th� potential problems were also discussed that could arise from the proposed Garden Center� He indicated that he felt some agreement� �re�e reach�d. Chairperson Harris said that Mso Mary E. Gooney of 759-113th Aveo N.Eo had called hi� explaining that she was not able �o attend the meeting; He said that she sstresse� her opposition to the proposeci Garden Centero �, � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 8, 1978 Pa�e 2 Chairperson Harris said that a list of three items was agreed upon at the February 15, �978 meeting: . a) Public Address System off' ezcept in emergencies. b) Eliminate the noisy air conditioning system. c) Truck deliveries between the hour� of 8:00 A.M. and. 9:00 P.M. ONLY Chairperson Harris asked if these three items had beea taken care of. Mr. Menard of Menard Cashway Lumber, 5351 Central Ave. IVE, said that they had shut off the Public Address System outside the rear building area. He said that there had not been a truck at the operation before 8:00 A.M. or after 9:00 P.M. since the meeting. He said that he. built a saw shed to eliminate some of the noise that the saw was making� and he said that the air conditioning system was being worked on by Minnegasco. Mr. Seeger of Menard Cashway Lumber Company said that he had receided a complaint that truck noise was coming from the direction of the building at 6:15 A.M. on a given morning. He said that they had checked all the Guard's records, and no truck was reported near their operation at that time.' He �vasn't sure where the noise was coming from. Ms. Mary Le Mathetivs of 1259 Skywood Lane N.E., said that the Menard� s dumpster iruck was emptying the dumpster located on the left side of the Menard's building. She said that the dumping occurred at 6:15 A.M, on a Saturday morning. Mr. Menard said that they had no records of the fact that the dumpster was emptied at that time on any Saturday. Ms. Mathews pointed out that the lumber inventory in the Menards yard was above the fence. She �ranted to know when they would be made to abide by the present codes,. Chairperson Harris asked Ms. Mathews if there had been any improvement at all since the February 15th meeting. Ms. Mathews said that she actually hadn�t been home that much. However, she said that the noise was still bad. She did indicate that she had not recently heard i;he Public Address System. She said that Menards s�ill hadn�t cleaned up their operation from the visual aspect, Ms. Mathews felt that Menards was a��cheap" operation. She said that Menards did not want to put money into the cleaning up of the operation. She had come to the realization that she doesn't believe that Menards will ever be cleaned up. She said that �he tivas very bitter over the whole situation. She didn't feel that Menards was really compatible t�rith the area. She said that it ��1as obvious that they moved into the wror.g area and were allovaed to expand at v�ill. Now she wanted to know what could be done from the citizenry viewpoint. '�1 � ,� � PLANNING COI�IMISSION MEETING - PfARCH 8, 1978 Pa�e 3 �'� t�fe, Seeger said that in the past six months Menards had done almost � everything possible to�restore �ome good-wi1T in the neighborhood. He said ihey had black-topped the rear area, they had fixed-up the racks, they provided trash barrels in the parking lots and replaced them when they vrere desi;royed by people. He said that they _quit pushing snow on property that didn�t belong to them. He said Menards had the loud speakers turned away from the neighborhood residential area and then shortly after that they had the Public Address system turned off entirely at the rear of the rvilding. He said that they had built a savr shed to help eliminate the noise. Mr. Seeger said that Menards no longer allovred the trucks to make delive�ies or pick-ups before 8:00 A.M. or after g:00 P.Me He said that he felt that Menards was trying to do their best to cooperate. He said that I�enards was really trying to do the right things. Chairperson Harris tol.d Mre Menard that there was a City Ordinance that said storage should not extencl above iche feneesA � Mr. Boardman said that storage material had to ��e screened from the Public Right of Way. He said that a11 materials that were screened had to be scree�ed two feet beloau the highest level af t�ie fence with the maximum heigh� of the fence being eight feet. Mro Lang of 1278 Skywood Lane said that he mainly oPposed the Special Use Permit because of the �raffic problem. He said tha� �� the Garden Center woul3 only add �o alr�ady existing traffic hazard. He said that he felt tha� orice the intersection improve�ent was � finished, he bvould have no objections to Menards addin� a Garden Center� He felt that the presen� time was bad for �uch a venture. He didn�t feel it was the proper time to encourage additional usage o� the area0 Mse Mathetivs wanted to know how the Menard Cashcvay Lumber Company could be considered a"compatible" operation. She said that no one really gives her any ans�vers. She said that the Company originally went in �he area as a sm�ll remodeling opera�Eion and �vas allowed to expand campletely at �ville She didn°t feel it was fair that the residents in the area merely had to '�live" with the fact that the operation is in existence, She said she wasn�t actually suggesting that Menards completeiy pull out of �he area but �nerely reduce back to its.original intent0 She felt that as a citizen she had been cheated. Chairperson H�rris said i;had the only answer he had was that there was nothing in the Zoning Codes that prohibited that parti�ular t�*pe of operation. He said they were trying to.make the best situation of wha� they had0 He said they only had the codes that were in existencee Ae said they could only try to work together to try to make the whole situation a lot more liveable for everyone involved. PLANNING COMMISSION ME�TING - MARCH 8, 1978 �Pa�e 4 Mr. Langenfeld addressed Mr. Lang. He said.that he understood his position as far as the traffic problem in that area, however, he � r'"� personally felt that traffic alone was not enough to deny the Special Use Permit. He said that if it could de.iinitely be proven i� was against the health, safety, and welfare of the people, then possibly it could be a reason for denialo Mr. Lang agreed that his objections addressed a potential problem. He wanted to know if everyone 1ras going to tivait until some tragedy happened before ac�ion would be taken. He felt that the City should try to preaent tragedies from happening. He said that the proposed garden center would only add to the problem. He sa�.d that if the h'ighway improvement was not scheduled for this time, he would have no objections. He said that the issue was an unusual situation. He said that not adding to the already existing confusion in that area was the responsibility of the City, He said tha�; the least amount of traffic should b� encouraged to use that area during the time of the construction. Mr. Langenfeld deiinitely agreed vaith Mr. Lang's comments. He said that he felt the whole area wa� abnormal as iar as traveling and the traffic situationa He said that .Mr.,"Lang's comments would be kept in mind by the Commission in making their aecision. Mr; Langenfeld asked if Ms. Mathews was satisfied with the meeting that had been conducted on February 15, 1978. � Ms. Mathews said that she had no� been home much during the time � since the meeting. She was upse't by the 6:15 A.M. incident with the trash recepticle truck.and she said she had occasion to be home that afternoon (March 8th) an.d that the noise was extreme, She said that she �aanted Menards to lower the level of their storage so that _ it tis�asn't over the fences, She indicateci that the main reasons for that request was that b� lowering the stacks, Menards would have to lower their inventory and thus they �vould cut the loading and unloading of _the lumber. She really believed that Menards had been�.allowed to e�and at free will and she felt that if thsre was a code that could control thei.r expansior� then she �vanted to see that code enforced. Mr. Langenfeld said that at times the Commission came across situations which perhaps as individuals they were not entirely for or �vhatever . (not saying they were for or against the present issue), but he esplained that they had to abide by certain rules and regulations and with the particular issue it was zoning9 etc, He explained that no ma'tter hotiv much the commission m�mbers did or did not like a situation there was not much the,y could do �ther than abide by those rules and regulations. He went on to explain that Menards was requesting a Special Use Permit. He sai.d that the Commission coul.d set certain .stipulations on that permit that could establish a l.ot of control by the City on the Operation. ,� . . . .. ..... ... PLANPdING COMMISSION MEFTING - MARCH 8, 1978 Pa�e 5 Mro Lan�enfeld said that in the Planning Commission meeting minutes �� ai Ja�uary 25, 1y78! he had pointed out that in the past Menards had not alvrays been cooper�tive with the City ana he definitely agreed that a complete study of the fire lanes, traffic flow and general safety, and proper removal of rubbish and proper clean up of �;he premises take place daily. He said that in other wor.ds to give Menards a mear.s of showing ihe City a genuin� display of "good faith". He felt that since the door had been opened bettiv�en the parties invol�red in the conflict that perhaps an agreement could be made. Mr. Langenfeld asked �vhere the greenhouse would be lo�cated. Mr. Seeger said tha� it would be located next to the building, to the North. Chairperson Harris asked how much ad�.itional traffic Menards' garden center tivould generate. Mre Menard said that they estimated the sales to be approximately �75,OU0 for the oper.ing periode He pointed out that due to the time involved Vaith obtaining the Special Use Permit, he wasn't sure � he would have the time enough �o order all that he warited to for the Garden Center ventur�. He said that he didn�t have a figure of how many adciitional people �vould be genex�ated� He said that he �„ expected that a great number of tn� garden centEr customers would be �eople 'that already patronized Menardso Nlra Lang said that he felt Menards had to have some estimated fi�ui�es b�iore they ever decided to take on sucn a venture, He said that any business had to justify a garden center before actually putting one in. He said that there had to be a definite profit r�alized and that Menards must have had some f�gures to base that expected profit on. Mro L�ngenfeld indicated �hat AZenards had said that� the Garden Center was experimental. He said that possibly during that experiment, Menards �vould then estimai�e exactly wha� amount of business the Center t�riould generat�. Mr. Langenfeld stated -Ehat he couldn't understand tvhy there v�as so much trouble tivith the particular �situation. He hoped that P�Ienards and the ritizenry could res�lve their problems and act accordinglyo He said that he had never seen such a situation that keeps coming up all the time as problems. He hoped �that with Mi•. Seeger's help� tY�e situations c�uld be resolved. /^, � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 8, 1978 Pa�e 6 Chairperson Harris asked about Menard�s plans for a"hoop house". Mr. Menard said that the easiest way to protect the smaller plants would be by use of a hoop house. He said that the poles supporting the hoop house �vould be anchorecl by cement blocks. Chairperson Harris asked if it was planned for a In other words� he wanted to kno�� if it tivould be of the season as well as all the fencing, etc. temporary structure. removed at the end Mr. Menard said that at the end of the "season" everything would be removed from the parking areao Mr. Seeger said that some of the plans for the Garden Center were vague because of the delays they �vere ha�ing getting the Special Use Permit. He said that they hadn't gotten to the point of the actual planning because they wanted to make sure they could get a Permit. Ms. Mathevrs said that she strongly opposed Menard�s Garden Center. She said it would add to the already deteriorating situation of noise and visual pollution. The intersection vaith its forthcoming upgrading ti�rould lend to an already existing traffic hazard. She_felt that at that time� the proposed addition af a Garden Center �rould only contribute to the already deteriorating environment on the hoa�es in the areao MOTION by �Is. Shea, seconded by Mr� Langenfeld, to close the Public Hearin.b, tTpon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unani�ously� The Public Hearing vras closed at 8:31 P.Mo Ms. Shea said that she had mixed feelings on the issue. She said that she didn't like the "hoop houGe" that Menard�s was proposing. She said tha-t the traffic in the area couldn�t possibly get any bA�orse. She said that a person actually took their lives in their own hands vahen they traveled in that area, She said that it �vas greatly against the public heal�h, safetys and U�elfare. � Mr. Bergman said that he felt awk��ard about the conflicts that ti�rere involved t�rith the request. He said that there really wasn't much that could be done about some o£ the problems because 'chey tivere caused by the Zonings of the area, He felt that the cause of some of the problems ruas merely the incompatioility of the different zonings abutting each other. He said that since they ��rere in the process of reviewing the Zoning Codes, some of those issues �vould be studied at that time. � �1 � pI�ANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 8, 1978 Pa�;e 7 � Mre Eer�man agreed that there was a traffic problem in the area. He '��rsona_lly didn�t conclude that the difference in the amount of traffic generated by the addition of the Garden Center would specifically change the situation from non-hazardous to a hazardous. Mr. Bergman said that Menards would have to abide by the ordi.nan,ces governing the outside storage o� his inventory. � Mr. Bergman said that directly effecting the request, the Garden Center would not be adjacent to the residential area. He said that if: was well screened from the residential area. He didn't think that it had any direct bearing on any o� the residential conflicts vrith M.enai�ds� Mro Langenfeld said that his general opinion was that if the entire situatian auas to be improved, then the improvement shoul�d be made by Menards improving the �xisting facility. He said that he did not feel that Menards �rrould suffer a hardship in the event that the particular garden center did not existo He said that perhaps in �he coming yearsy the traffic flow r�ould ba improved and Menards history would most likely be a diiferent story. He said at that time, perhaps, the Commission could act again on the issue. Mr. Baardman said that from a Planning standpoint there vaere � eal problems ti�r� th the reques-�, He sa� d that the City of �'rid? ey v�as ,,,� t-rying to eliminate the temporary-type requests. He said that �a�cause of the type of situation and because ii; �vas a temporary operation it appeared to be a liaphazard operation. H� said that it seemed to be merely thro�Am together• He said that the fence in existence on the Menards property was basically less than desirable type of fencinga He said that it has been banged around and had many dents in it. He said that from the visual aspect, it just didrl't look good. He said that Menards didn't appear to tivan�L to make any type of financial commitment to make the operation ti��ork, He said they merely vranted to try it as an experimen� at the expense of the neighbors and the Cityo He felt that the purpose would be defeated by allo�ving anything but a total commitment by a business �or this type oi an out- side operation. Chairperson Harris reminded the Commission that there were certain vehicles that the Commission co�a.ld use if, in i�s wisdom, decided to permit such an operation, and that was by use nf stipulations on the Special Use Permi�o MOTION BY Mr. LangenY°eld, seconded by Ms. Shea9 that th-e Planning Commission recommend denial of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #78-01, by Menard Cashtivay Lumber: Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, 3,N, to allow the development of a 5,000 square foot garden center in th�ir parking lot, on Lot g, �luditor�s Subdiv:i.sion No. 94, �th� same being 535i Central Avenue N. E. � PLANNING C�MMISSION MEETING - MARCH 8� 1978 Pa�e 8 Mr. Langenfeld said that some of the reasons for his recommending • denial .vrere that he did not feel that the lack of a garden center would create a hardship on the existing business. He said that it was a speculative venture that Menards was hoping to undextake and �' '� `the temporary nature of the entire garden center concept did not meet to his liking. He said that he was deeply concerned about the already abnormal traffic situation. He sai3 that he was not anti- business� but he .felt it was tr,e proper motion to make. . Ms. Shea said that Mr. Menard had mentioned the possibility of returning next year with the request for a garden center and she hoped that he would decide to do that. She said that maybe a one- year cooling off period might be a good idea. She said that possibly by next year they ��ouldn't have the mau� underlying problems. Mr. Bergman re-enforced Ms. Shea's commentso He felt that without question the underlying neighborhood problems had put an excessive burden on the issue. He said that he hoped Menards paid some attention to the discussion that had gone on arid he hoped they �qould re-address th� request at a future timeo Chairperson Harris said that he would vote against the motion because he didn9t feel there was a strong enougli case for denial. • He said that the traffic situation tivas not the petitioner's problem� he said it vaas the City's. He said that the situation between the 'neighborhood and Mr. Menard had been an on-going situation which he didn't feel the City� in the past� had done its best to resolve until recen�ly.. He dic�n't belie.ve that the manner in which the ,,.� �vhole situation was handled vaas in the best interest of the City, ' the neighbors� or Mr, Menard. Chairperson Harris said that he clid not like semi-temporary operations. However, he was not certain that the City really vranted that garden center at that location, arid that maybe i�l another year it would be decided that it would be better at a differenic location, if a't all. He said that he had not heard a valid reason to deny the Special Use Permit request. Chairperson Harris reminded the Commission that the burden of denial for a Per�it was upon the Citys He said tha�C the burden of proof for a variance was upon the petitioner to show a hardship. Mr. Boardman said t�at he was not necessarily a�ainst the granting of a Special Use Permit for the Garden Cer�ter in general. He tivas against the temporary feature of the garden cenicere He said it was the type of thing that the City of Fridley was trying to clean-up. He said the temporary garden cente� at that location �uould be ai the exper�se of the visual aspects of the entire shopping center. Mr. Peterson said that a precedent had been established tivhen the City allowed Holiday Vill�ge to "try out" their garden center for a number of years. He fe�t that the City had an obligation to encourage that type of operation' He said that the City did have an obligation to help businesses in the City. �� �i — � PLAI�NING COMMISSION MEETING - M�RCH 8� 1978 Pa�e 9 — �fi1ro �oardman said that the City of Fridley could not continue to allo��r temporary operations v�ithin parking lots to see if they will or vrill not "�vork". He said that he r�ally felt there were other locations in the Menard�s opera�ticn where they could "try" a garden center on a tem�orary basis v�There it woulcln�t contribute to the visual pollution in the area. Mr. Bergman said tY�at even though they were unable to come up with a specific code related to the reasons for denial, he felt that there were many concerns that were �11 relating to the outside expansion of the Menard�s activity. Mr. Langenfeld emphasized the f�.ct that he vras not against business. He said that he was a�vare of the procedures �n �rhich Special Use Permits could or could not be denied, especially in the legal aspects. He felt that the whole sii;ua-tion was very interesting because he lvas getting the feeling that any time a citizen ti�ranted to request something that could be hard to ge'�' that perso�i could apply for a Special Use Permit and because of the legal aspectis they would be able to be granted the Permit ._ and they �vould have the Commission "licked�' ! U1'ON A VOICE VOTE� Ms, Shea� A4r. Bergman� and Mr. Langenfeld voting aye; M�. Peterson and Mr.. Harris voting riay; and Ms. Schnabel abstaining; the motion carried. � !"1 C:?a.irperson Harris indicaied -that th� request for a S�ecial Use Permit, ti��' ;�78--�1' by Nienard Cashtivay Lumber: Per Frid.ley City Code� �ection Z05o 101,39N� to allativ trie developrnent of a 59000 sc�uare ioot garden ceriter in t�ieir parking lo-t, on Zot 99 Aud.itor's �ubciivisior_ Nc� 94, . i;he same being 5351 Central Avenue NE i�as recommended to City Council for denial. He said that it v+rould go to Ci�ty Council on March 20� 1g7$� �. VACATION REC�UEST SAV �78--01 BY JOSEPH SINIGAZIO: VACATE � L AD A T T A 0 H OF LOT 1�BLOCK 19 • PLYMOUTH ADDITTON� AND ADJ�CENT TO AND NORTH OF LOT �0, BLOCI{ 8� P L Y M O U T� i A D D I T I O N� E A S T O F 3r d S T R E E T NF Al�TD ti'UEST OF UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE.) Mr. Boardman said that the request was to vacate 1�8th Avenue betvreen University Avenue and Third Street. He said it vras similar to tivhat had been requested on L�7th �lvenuee He said that the reason for the vacation rec�uest was to make another buildable lot in the areae - Iie said i;hat there was a lot to the south of 48th Avenue that tivas 38.1 feet and �rith trie �acation9. it tivoul.d result in a buii dable lot. He said tliat th.e street involved tivas 60 feet vride. He said that �here was a storm and sanitary se�ver in the street. He saic� that utility easments would have to be maintained at the time of the vaca�i�ns � PLANNING COMMISSION M�ETING - MARCH 8, 1978 Pa�e 10 � �, Upon further investigation� Mr. Boardman discovered that the sewer systems in the street didn't appear to be connected to anything and it wasn't kno1�n what it was used to drain. He said he vrould� of course, checl; further on the problem. Chairperson Harris said that as it stood9 Mr. Sinigalio had a 38foot lot and Nith the 30 feet from the stree� vacation� he would have a�esulting 68 foot lot vrhich could be used figuring his total lot area, However, Mr. Harris pointed out, he may not be able to build on the north 2� feet of the 1ot. Mr. Boardman explained it vaould be possible to construct a living structure vrith a detached garage tucked behind the house and the drive�vay over the utility easement, it would be possible to build a 33 foot wide house, without variances. Mr. Bergman asked ti�hat the condi�ion o�' the street was. Mr„ Sinigalio said tha�t He said that the street plotived in the winter. it was blacktop bu� had no cur.b system., did not cross U�.iversity Avenue but was Chairperson Harris sa:id that the Commission should have an opportunity to talk to the adjacent land o�vner. Mr. Sinigalio asked what would happen if the ad�iacent land odvner didn't �vant the extra 30 feet that would come from the vacation oi the street. Chairperson Harris explained to Mr. Sinigalio hova street dec�ications came about and the proper procedure that �rould have to be followed vrhen vacating the street. He said that in the event the adjacent land owner did not want the other � feetp P�r. Sinigalio would have to obtain a deed from that person for �hat other 30 feet. Mr. Bergman suggested that the petitioner keep in touch tivith Mr. Boardman to see yahat he found out about the sevJer systems in 1�8th Avenue. He said that Mr. Boardman�s findin�s may have some effect on how interes�ed the petitioner vrould still be about the vacation request. MOTION by Mr. Bergman, seconded by Mr. Peterson, that the Planning Commission continue the Vacation Request, SAV #78-01, by Joseph Sinigalio: Vacate 48th Avenue NE (adjacent �o and South of Lot 16, Blocl� 1, Plymouth Addition, and adjaceiit to and North of Lot 30, �lock 8� Plymouth Addition9 East of �rd Street NE and 1'dest of University Avenue NE) un�il such time that utility neec�s had been identified and checked out and identification and contact of the other property otivner has been accomplished and a� the petitioner's satisfaction to return. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimouslyo Chairperson Harris declared a break at 9:35 P.�e ,� � PLANriIPtG COMr4ISSI0N M�rTING - MARCH 8, 1978 Pa�e 11 ^ 3� n NDI�VG OF Mr. Boardman said that it regarded the HUD program.° He said that it would be used to get monies released for the Program. He said that what the Commission had in their possession was a copy of the environmer_tal review. He said that notz.ces had been put in the �apers f�r res�onse by M arch 10, 1978. He said that they received no responses Q he said that af�er March 10th ano:ther notice would be put in the papers asking for release of funds. He sai.d that it would be published March 15, 1978, He said that the,y vrould request the release of funds by letter, to HUD, on March 20, 1978, for the rehabi.litation program. MOTION by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the Environmental Review Record and concur ti}rith same. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mso Schnabel men.tioned two newspaper articles she had tall�ed abov.t at a previous Planning Commission meeting. She felt that the articles did pertain to the Hyde Park area and could be items that r�ay be discussed regarding the reh�bilitation of that area. She said that one of the points arldressed the taxing issue. 1$ �'Localities s�iould revise their t�x codes so that families who improve their hones needn"t fear immediate, high p��operty- tax hikese Sta Louis offers a 10-year abatement, for instanceo And an Bostomos r�odel, ci�ies shoul� set up one- stop officies to help people tivith rehabilitation problems.�� � She said 'that the other point addressed the building codes: 2. "Cities mus�t cuic do�an on the underbrush of -regulationss permits, and special. taxes imposed on "reha.b" activity� They shoul.d enac-� separate housing codes for rehabilitation sometivhat less stringen� than those for ne�v housing. �� �lse Schnabel explained tha� it had to be realized that a great deal of the brork that ti�ras being done on rehabil� tai:ion was being done by the ocrnere She said that md.ybe some of the codes �vere t�o stringent and possibly codes cauld be adopted that tivere a little-more lenient so that the hame o1rner could bring the house into "safety" but r_ot be burdenec� by great costso . Mr, Boardman said that it could possibly be sen� to Conmunity Develop�ent for their research and discussion, prior to the Planning Commission actually discussing it. i"� PLANNING COMMISSION ME�TING - MARCH 8, 1978 Pa�e lZ Mr. Boardman said that he didn't think there �vould be a lot of "do it yourself�' type ite�rs covered by the HUD program. He s�id �--� that since Federal monies would be involved, before any money would _ be �eleasedn, inspectors tivould have to go to the site and make sure that the job �vas done correctly and that it vras up to the code. He said that the Ci�y was recommending that contractors be hired to do the �rrork so that the �vork would have to be done correctly�before any money would be released. � Ms. Schnabel was not in full agreement with that concept. Chairperson Harris said that he didn't think the City had the choice. He said that the bvay the State-vride building code vras set up tivas that the City could not be more restrictive or less restrictivea He said that if a City was to have a building code it had to adopt that particular building code. He said to get variances to the Building Codes vaas a very difficult process. Mr. Boardman said that he had ��aritten to the City of St. Louis asking for more information on the 10-year tax abatement programo He said that he still had not received a response to his reques�. Ms. Schnabel felt thai there tinrere many people in the Hyde Park area that could be reluctant to do some improvement because of the taxes that would be assessed on the property. J�. RECEIV� LETTER TO RICH1'�RD_HARRIS FROM RESERVE SUPPLY COMPANY � � MOTION by Mr. Peterson9 seconded by Ms. Shea, to receive the letter to Richard Harris from Reserve Supply Company. Chai:rperson Harris said that the letter tvas in response to a discussion that Dick Sobiech and he had with Mr. Robert J. �dJanzong oi ihe Chamber of Commerce. He said that the letter ti�ras letting them knctiv that they could go ahead ��rith the tivork of reco�ificationo IIPON A VOICE VOT�,, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously at 10:03 P.M, 50 MOTION by Mr. Peterson9 secondecl by Mr. Langenfeld, to receive the minutes of the January 30, 1978' Parks and Recreaiion Commissiono Mr, Langenfeld said that sonetimes a ve�y important item could be in a letter that could be very pertinenta He wan�ed to knosv if referenced letters�could be made a part of the minutes. Mr. Boardm�n said tha� the Commission generally cliscussed the parts of letters that they feli. �vere pertinent and tnat ti��ould be lvritten up in �he minutes. Iie didn't feel that in most cases it ti�rould be � necessary to include the actual letters as part of the minuteso � UPON A'VOICE VOTE� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. The minutes tivere received at 10:08 P.M. ..�,, .. �1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - M�RCH 8, 1978 Pa�e 1 6. ES COMr2ISSI MOTION by Mso Shea, seconded by Mr. Bez�gman, to receive the February 2, 1978 Human Resour�es Commission minutes. Chairperson Harris said that he �uas sorry.to hear that Ms. Shea would no longer be Chairperson of the Human Resources Commission. He said that the Planning Commission was sorry to lose her. Chairperson Harris asked �vhat was happening regarding the Tenant/ Landlord Project Committeee � M s. Shea felt that the Committee was presently looking for direction. She said that the Committee wanted to be more of an action group rather than an education-type group. Mro Boardman said that it �hould be pointed out �co the Committee that if they vrant to have action items it would have to be a recommendatian that would have to be acted upon by the City Council, He said that if the City Council approved an action committee, it could give the authority to the Committee to do such items. He said that at i'che present time the Tenant/Landlord Project�Committee did not have the authority but ��ranted to have the action iter�s. Mse ShEa said tnat originally the Project Committee was set up as an i"� education grou� but that they no lon�er wanted to do that. sJPON A VOICE VOTE9 all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously� The Human Resources Commi�sion minutes of February 2, 1g78 vrere received at 10:11 p�N[, . 7. RECEIVE !�FP'vALS COMMISSION MINUTES• FEBRUARY 1�, 197� A�OTI�ON by Msa Schnabel, seconded by Ms. Shea, to receive the Appeals Commission minutes of February 14, 1978. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motiorl carried unanimouslyo The minutes were received at 10:14 P.M. �� , MOTION by Mr. Bergman, seconded tr�e Community Development Commission SSION MIP1U by Mro Langenfeld, to receive minutes of February 14, 197g� Mr. Langenfeld noted the resignation of rqr. Lindblad. He said that he had contributed a great deal in the last fedv years. Mr. Bergman said that there was a brief discussior� regarding.the Advisory Standards for Land Use Regulationsa He said that under the subject of garages8 Communa.�:y Development Commission restated � its consensus that garages should be a requirement. PLANNING COt�IMISSION MEETING - MARCH 8, 1978 Pa�e 14 Mr. Bergman said that Community Development would like to be kept aware of Noise Ordinance revisions particularly concerning snowmobiles He said that Community Development wan�ted to maintain the position !� they presently had with the Environmental Quality Commission. - Mr. Langenfeld asked for an explanati�n of the first sentence of the fourth paragraph on Page 3 of the minutes, He said tha�C the word "if" seemed very strong. . � Mr. Bergman indicated that the word �'if" could be removed because there was snowmobiling allowed in the City of Fridley on the Sears property. Mr. Bergman said that Community Development �vas getting back into the "act" regarding Bike�vay/l"Jalktiaay Plan. He felt that policy and direction had to be resurfaced regarding the Bikeway/[�lalkway Plan, He said that they vrould probably looking for direction from the Planning Commission. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The February 14, 197$, Community Development Commission minutes were received at 10:23 P.M. 9. SSION MIPIUTES: MOTION by �ir. Langenield, secandec� by Mro Bergman, to receive the Environmental Quality Commission minutes of February 21, 1978. Chairperson Harris asked what was happening on the Recycling Center. Mr. Langenfeld said that Connie Metcalf tivas working on it. Mr. Bergman said that in the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of February 8, 1978, he m�de the statement: "P�r. Bergman referred to to the Recycling Project Committee Report. He explained the workings of a Recycling Collection Center in Ste Anthony� He said that it wouid be worthwhile for someone from the Environmental Quality Commission to do an observation on that center.'� Mr. Bergm�n ��as disappointed that the minutes did not read that the other members of the Planning Commission also gave full support to that statement and sugges-tion. Mr. Langenfeld said that he did indicate to the members that the Planning Commission members all believed Mrp Bergmans suggestion was worthsvhile. Mr. Langenfeld referred to Page 2 of the minutes, the secnnd paragraph. He wanted to emphasize the comment made by Ms. Sporre as to tivhere the threshold �vould be in regards to the Noise Impact Statement. He wanted to create an awareness of the fact that a threshold definitely was important. � �'1 . _� _, PL�'1P1A1�TdG COP�IMISSION MEETING - MARCH 8, 1�7$ � pa�e 15 Crairperson Harris wanted to know what was mean� by "Noise Impact ;,y S��t�ment�'. Mr„ Langenfeld quoted a statement, '�The general provisions of the Im�act Statement - No owner of any land shall commence cons'truction or cause construction to be commenced on any structure covered by �his section unless a Noise Impact Statement has firs� been approved as provided in this section.�' � Mr, Langenfeld then quoted another statement. "The Idoise Impact Statement - includes all residential, office, commercial, industri�l, etc." Mr. Langenfeld sai.d that it came ta the general conclusion of the Environmental Commission thai those statements were too harsh and r�ore restrictive than ever. He �anted to l�.no�v where the ��].ine�� b�as to be dratirn for the threshold, He said ichat the Environmental Commission ti�rantec� to completely abolish it, however9 he said that the provisions of a Noise Impact Statement should still be available. Ghairperson Harris said that �he Environment�.l Commission should arrive a�t some recommendations and then the Planning Commissior. could discuss them. Mro Langenfeld said that a Noise Impact Statement was a ver.y valuable tool to have avail�ble, but they wera not putting it in ,� tl�ie Ordinance as such. � Mr, Langenfeld r�ferenced the third paragraph on Page 6 of the Environmental Commissior� meetin� minutes. '�The Eizvironmental Corr�nission highly reco�mended that if �he Planning Com�ission members knew of anyone interestec�. in serving on the Recycling Project Committee, they submit those names to either Ray Leek or Connie Metcalf.rr UPON A VOICE VOTE, all votin� aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Environmental Quali'�.y Comr�ission minutes of February 21, 1978 were received at 10; 33 Y.P�2. � 10. RECEIVE AM�NDED PARK & OPEN SPACE PLA1V (TENTATIVE) Mr. Boardman said that Staff �vas in the process of revising the Park & Open Space Plan� He said that it would be before the Planning Coinmission on March 22, 1978, He indica.ted that Mr. Charles Boudreau would be at the March 22r.d meeting, He said that a Public Hearing tvas scheduled (tentatively) for April 5, 19?8. Mr. Boardman said that the Planning Commission lvould_ receive a copy of iche Park & Open Srace Plan before the planned meetings. 11. OTHER A) ADVISORY STANDARDS FOR LAND USE REGULATION Mi�. Ba�rdman explained that the pamphlet from the Tie�ropolitar� �1 Council had gone through all the Commissivns. He said that recommendations had been made and it was now up to the Plan�ing Commission as to what they wanted io do with the issue. rLK�v,v�,vc� l:Ui`9M15:i1_U1V Mr,�;1'1NG MARCH 8, 1978 Pa�e 16 Mr. Bergman said that there had been a misunderstanding regard3.ng the Adivsory Standards for Land Use Regulation pamphlet. He said �hat the Community Development Commission had understood that r� the information was just for informational purposes and th�y had� not revievred the issue or made any recbmmendations. He said that Community Development ivanted to re-look at the article. Mr. Boardman said that it had been the original intent, but that different Commission had made recommendations. He sa9:d that he would have the item put on the Agenda for Community Development. Mr. Boardman suggested that the Planning Commission discuss the Advisory Standards for Land Use Regulation at the time th�y discussed the Zoning Code, . B. MEP�O TO NASIM M. QURESHI FROM DICK SOBIECH Chairperson Harris explained that Mr. Q�areshi had received a mem� on the subject of HUD Small Cities Program. Mr. Boardman explained that the Program had changecl somevrhat in that Comprehensive Programs tivere being looked at this year in which the City would be applying for a three-year step Program. He said that if the Program was approved it would approve monies over a three-year period in which the City of Fridley would be funded certain numbers of dollars for those three years. He indic�ated that it tivas merely a tentative program that was �ap for discussion. He said that the City Council would discuUs it � at their March 27, 1978, discussion meeting0 He said that the City didn't have all the information necessary because the � Federal Government hadn't writ�en all the rules and regulations for the Program. He said that he ha� submitted a list of recommendations for projects and programs over that three-year period. He said that all the Planning Commission members would - receive a copy of that list. C. MEMO TO DICI{ SOBTECH FROM JERROLD L. BOARDMAN RE: GENERAL MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld� seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to receive the memo to Dick Sobiech from Jerrold L. Boardman regarding General Poli�y for the Enforcement of the Housing Maintenance Code. Mr. Boardman said that Item 3a was set up on the Staff time that tivould be available. He said that it tvas set up on the basis of every tv✓o years because the Planning Commission evanted a review of the Housing Maintenance Code and the operation of it after a tti�ro year period. Mr. Bergman had questions -regarding #5 of the memo. He said he had kno�vn of cases �vhere an inspector had been invited into a building `for helpful advice only to end up with the o��rner being issued tickets for a number of items that t�ould have to be corrected within a certain period of time or else fines �vould be levied. He didn't want to have � that sort of thirig happening. i"1 .� `. PLANNING COMMISSIOld MEFTING - MARCH 8, 1978 Pa�e 17 Mr. Boardman indicated that if an Inspecotr came across one of t�e seven immediate health/safety hazards' that the ovrner would � be informed that the particular item/s tixrould have to be corrected. He said that the violation/s �aere not only hazardous to the � immediate home o�vner but dvould also be c'�angerous to surrounding neighbors. He said that those would be �he onl.y items i;hat the Inspectors �vould be able to issue tags for. Ms,.Shea pointed out that the Appeals Process could be ex�rcis�d if the home o��ner felt the tag issued was unjustified, UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. The memo �ras received at 10:y.? p.M, D. HITMI�N RFSOURCES COMMISSION MEETING• MARCH 2, 1978 MOTION by P�s. Shea� sec�nded by Ms. Schnabel, to receive the March 2, 1978, minutes of the Human Resources Commission meeting, Ms. Shea said that the item she wan.ted to discuss �vith the Planning Commission tixras the Request for Funding for a Medica? �thiGS Program by Ro John Singh' Ph.D. Ms. Shea indicated that Mr. Singh had stated that there would. be no philosophizing in his presenta�ions, He said that he would simply pres�nt the rights of the citizens along with the laws governing tr�ose rights. �"'� Ms. Shea sai� ichat the Hu�an Resources Mr. Singh's request was ivorthtivhile as Ci.-ty of Fridley and they had voted to City to heJ.p sponsor iche Program. � Commission felt that a Pilct Program for the request for y�,500 from the Mr. Boardman. said that the Grant Application had been submitted in error. He said �hat tr.e names of the City of Fri.dley, the Human Resources Commission, and Nis. Shea had been used ti�ithout going through the approval of City Council. Ms. Schnabel felt that hospitals should sponsor that type of funding rather than �he City of �ridleye Chairperson Harris didn't fe�l that the Ci�y of Fridley should enter into the issue. He felt that it was something that probably should be done, but felt it �a►ould be better i-F sponsQred by hospitals, etc. . Mso Shea agreed� except she pointed out that part of Mr. Singh�s presen-L-ation tivas presenting thE riglz�ts of the lay-people which was not altivays tivhat was hearc� from the Medical professian. PT,ANNING COMMISSION MEETING�- M�RCH 8, 1978 Pa�e 18 . Mr. Peterson said that there tivere several points that he was in disagreement with: . 1) 2) It ��ras not really the City�s function; ti'�hen people start discussing Euthanasia and Abortion an area that the City of Fridley did not belong existed. He didn't feel that a person could discuss those.particular items tirithout some tyne of philosophizin� or some type of ethical, religious position� and that was not the City's responsibility. Mr. Langenfeld agreed that various rights,should be brought �o the attention of the lay-people that they may not be ativare of. He said that if the request ti�ras approved as tivritten, it would give the Planning Commission's stamp-of-approval and �the City's endorcement and therefore he could not agree tivith the Human Resources Commission. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The minutes were received at 1�:58 P.1�4. MOTION by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, that the Planning Commission not concur ��rith the Human Resources Commission recommendation. as far as funding �vas concerned. Chairperson Harris said that he felt it d�ras a worth��dhile pro ject but titaasn't sure it should be a'� a City level. UPON A VOICE VOTE9 Mr. Bergman, P�Ir, Harris� Mre Peterson, Mso Schnabel' and Mr. Langenield voting aye; Ms. Shea voting nay; the motion carried, . E. ENERGY COMMITTEE 0 Chairperson Harris indicated that a Ms, Iiarper from the State of Minnesota Energy Commission met �vith him and Mr, Boardman regarding the formation of an Energy Committee for the City of Fridleyo Chairperson Harris said that a Energy Committee should be established directly under the Planning Commission because of the vride realm of interest in the item� He said that the first item that should be established �vould be a Scope of the Project and try to set up a recommendation for an Energy Policy. He said that the rest of the "package" tivould probably be handled with a separate project committee or an on-going Commission. Mr. Boardt�.an said that the direction the Energy Committee �rould go tivould to set up a City Policy on Energy and �vithin that Policy there may be recommendations for the carrying out of the Energy-iVide Program that could possibly include C�TA personnel tliat could include housing evaluations that �vould provide services to the people to evaluate their energy consumption �vithin the residential units. He said that it �vould be the direction that �vould be desired from the Energy Committee. V � , � /"~ � �� � �"1, PLANNING COt9MISSION M�ETING - MARCH 8, 19� Pa�;e 19 r. r ��� Chairperson Harris pointed out that at the present time, the �� �nergy area tivas not an area where Staff had a lot of �xpertise. ' He felt that the people on the Energy Committee wauld have to be people knor�ledgeable in the Energy area. Mr. Boardman said t;hat he �rrasn't sure hov�r far the City of Fridley �vould ��rant to �et into the Energy issue, He said that definitely a scope/objectives had to be set up�for the limits upon �rhich the �nergy Committee �vould onerate and that had to be set by the Planning Commission. Chairperson Harris indicated that it �vas brought up mainly for �thinking matter at that time. He asked that the Commission members give the subject some thought and possibly come up with a Scope and decide tilfhat areas the Energy Committee should get into and it would be discussed again at another Planning Commission meeting. P�r. Boardman said that he definitely tivanted to hear from the Planning Commission �vhat direction they felt thai; the Energy Committee should goo F. LETTER OF P.�SIGNATION I'ROM HUBERT F. LINDBLAD Mr. Bergman read the letter of resignation Iiuber+ F. Lindblad. ���Ihile I have enjoyed n serve the Community of rridley on various several years, I find I novr have toa many committments to contin�ae. Therefore� I am resignation from the Co�munity Development FeUruary 15� �978.,' � given to him by the opportunity to committees the past conflicting personal submitting my Committee effective MOTION' by Mre Bergman, second�d by Mro Peterson, that the of resignation from Hubert Fo Lindblad be received by th.e Planning Commission and sent on to City Council tirith tlle that a replacement be named at the earliest opportunity. letter request UPON A VOICE VOT�� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Harris said that, �irith regrets, the letter vras received and would be sent on to City Council at 11:13 P,M. ADJOURNI�ZENT MOTION by 1�4r. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Bergman, to adjourn the March 8, 1978, Planning Commission meetingo Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11;13 p�M� Respectfully submitted, � MaryL Carhill Recording Secretary