PL 02/27/1980 - 6673f
City of Fridiey
AGENDA
- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, FESRUARY 27, 1980
CALL TO ORDER:
RDLI CALL: �
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: FEBRUARY 6, 1980
1. RECEIVE TWO PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES FROM SPRING LAKE PARK
A. Rezoning to allow mini-stora9e garages on the
property abuting 8325 University Avenue N.E.
B. Special Use Permit to do filling and grading on
the property immediately East of 1115 Osborne Road.
(Should be on Council agenda in Spring lake Park
March 3, 1980)
2. RECEIVE PACKET FROM NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY:
RE: Coal-fired Power Plant in Twin Cities Area
3.
4.
5. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: FEBRUARY 12, 1980
6. RECEIUE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: FERI
7:30 P.M.
PAGES
1 - 10
11 - 12
SEPARATE
WHITE
SALMON
YELLOW
PINK
7. RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COhA1ISSI0N MINUTES: FEBRUARY 13 6REEN
1980
8. CONTINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 205 ZONING SEPARATE
9. OTNER BUSINESS:
ADJOURNMENT:
CSTY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COr4IISSI0N MEETING, FEBRUARY 6, 1980
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Harris called the February 6, 1980, Planning Commission meeting
to order at 7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Mr, Harris, Mr. Treuenfels, Mr. Hora (for Mr. Langenfeld),
Mr. Oquist, Ms. Hughes, Ms. Schnabel
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
Bob Schroer, 8100 University Ave. N.E.
Roger Jones, 7620 University Ave. N.E.
Warren Johnson, Northern States Power
APPROVAL OF JANUARY 23, 1950, PLA2INING COMt�1IS5I0N MINllTES:
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to approve the
January 23, 1980, Planning Commission minutes.
iLs. Schnabel stated that the follo*�ing ch3nges should be made:
Yage 2, last paragraph, add the following sentence: "The other possibility
would be a renewal fee."
Page 4, third paragraph fzom bottom, second line, delete "normally would be"
and insert, "possibly could be". She also wanted Yo poinC out in that
same paragraph that, "There always is an appeals process even if something
is written into the ordinance."
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON HARRIS DECLARED THE MINUTES
APPROVED AS AMENDED.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSZDERATIO� OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. �'80-01,
UNIVERSITY INDUSTRIAL PARK,BY ROBERT SCHROE�Z: Replat of the NSd 1/4 of
the SW 1/4 of Section 2, T-30, K-24, City of Fridley, Mn, Anoka County,
except that part taken for State Highway No. 47; except tne South 284
feet ot the West 460 feet and except the West 1+60 feet lying northerly
of the south 666 feet. GeneraLly located between 7Ncn Avenue and
81st Avenue N.E., on the West side of University Avenue.
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconde3 by Mr. Oquist, [o open the public hearing fi�r
P,�, 9f80-01, by Robert Schroer. Upon a voice vote, all vol-ing aye, Chai.rman Harris
declared Che nublic hearing open at 7:40 P.M.
PLANNING COI�'R�IISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 6, 1980 PAGE 2
Mr. Boardman stated that Staff had looked at this proposed plat, and there
are several things within this plat that should be put into the record. All
the easements are recorded on this plat, but some easements are missing on
an exist3ng water Line along TH 47, so a 2�-foot easement should be shown on
the plat along that sewer line. That comes in on Block 1, Lot 1, and Block 2,
Lot 1. •
Mr. Boardman stated that with Block 3, Lot 1, which is a commercial property,
and Block 4, Lot 1 and 8, which are shown as M-1, they may have the same
problem here as they had with the Paschke property where the setback on
industrial property has to be 100 feet off any commercial property. It may
give some problems as far as the setback for building. They may want to do
the same thing they did with Mr. Paschke and that is, along with the plat, to
recommend that a variance be granted stating that all loading and parking be
in the rear yard.
Mr. Boardman stated they have not yet rec.eived any drainage plans as far as
ponding or stormwater run-off, so that should be a stipulation under the
building permit.
Mr. Boardman stated that in this plat, it shows 81st Ave, on the north. He
stated they have had a discussion with the gentleman just north of this
property who owns the driving range and is not happy with 81st Ave. going in.
However, Staff feels 81st should at least connect to Ranchers Road; whether it
go through to Main St. at this time probably is not necessary. If 81st Ave.
was not tied into Ranchezs Road, they would have to deadend Ranchers Road,
which is not a good situation, and the Engineering Department would prefer to
see it attached at that point.
Mr. Hatris asked how they would handle the ponding.
Mr. Boardman stated they do not aecessarily look at on-sfte ponding as a
requirement. They look at water retention. If the builders can figure out a
way to hold water on the rooftop or in the parking lot so that the rate of
run-off is not greater than the existing property, that is generally what
they look at. They go by the same regulations they must meet when they go
into the Rice Creek Watershed District.
Mr. Roger Jones stated he owned the Fridley Golf. Range at 8100 University.
Ae stated he was not agafnst the development or the plat; he thought that was
good. He stated he could appreciate the fact that the City did nct want to
deadend streets, but he had to look out for his own interests and the fact
that his driving range would go out of business if Slst went in because of
the narrowing of the property, and because of the possibility of damage to
automoUiles on the road from stray golf ba11s, He stated he thought he saw
that all the properties could be served with utilities in the proposed plat,
and would not need a through street. If the City was to develop the area
between 79th and 81sL', which is a normal growth area and let that build up,
it seemed like the wise way to go. If they put in Slst Ave., they are trying
�:
' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 6 1980 PAGE 3
to develop 79th and the whole package at one time, and the growth is not
there at this time to do it. He also felt it was putting an undue hardship
on the existing property.owners to pay assessments, taxes, etc., waiting,for
development to come from 79th on through.
Mr. Harris asked what Mr. Jones thought of the proposal to just put 81st Ave.
to the new proposed Ranchers Road.
Mr. Jones stated he was not in favor of it, �ecause it was doing essentially
the same thing as having 81st all the way through, as that was his working area.
Mr. Harris stated that if this land was platted and Ranchers Road was put in
and a service drive and both streets were made deadends, there would be a
problem with emergency vehicles--fire, police, and also snowplowing. Maybe
it would be possible to put in 81st so a loop would go around onto Itanchers
Road.
Mr. Jones stated that would still create a problem for him. He did not know
how to get away from the situation. Cars have to travel along the road, and there
is no way to control a golf ball. �
Ms. Schnabel suggested that Mr. Jones put up some kind of screening--fencing
and trees or shrubs--that would help block the flight of a golf ball. There
must be other golfing ranges with the same problem.
Mr. Jones stated he presently had a fence which was quite worn, but he believed
the fence was about 20 feet high. They still lose about 6-7,000 golf ba11s a
season that go over the fence, so the fence was not totally effective. A 30-foot
high fence would probahly contain considerably more golf balls.
Mr. Schroer stated that he and Mr. Jones had talked about this several times.
He stated he felt the biggest problem for Mr. Jones was the amount of assess-
ments going on his property, and he c::uld appreciate Mr. 3ones' concern. He
stated they were going to put in 81st a couple of years ago, but decided it was
not necessary at that time. He felt it was getting more necessary now. Was
there any way the assessments could be delayed or something to help Mr. 3ones'
situation?
Mr. Boardman stated he thought there has been some deferred payments on
assessments; however, the assessments have to be paid at the interest rate
at the time the assessments are paid, so interest raCes could be consideraUly
higher at that time. It might be better to pay the assessments now, rather
than ten years from now.
Mr. liarris stated chat he had reviewed his notes and it appeared that about ten
years ago when hir. Jones came in for a special use permit to build a golfing
range,there was so:ne discussion and Mr. Jones understood that at some point in
time, something else was going to happen to l�is property besides a driving
range. As Mr. }iarris remembered, the Planning Commission said the reason they
were recanmending a special use permit was because there was not much activity
in the area, and they would lilce to see the driving range in that area to kind
of get Chings moving.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 6 1980 PAGE 4
Mr. Jones stated that, yes, he had understood that. He stated he also under-
stands that Mr. Schroer needs access to his property for development of that
property. His question was: Is it really necessary to go in and do this now
as it is somewhat stopping the operation of his 12 acres?
Mr. Harris asked Mr. Jones if he had thought of platting his property in the
near future.
Mr. Jones stated that, yes, he had, but, until the area from 79th to $lst is
developed, built, and sold, it seemed foolash for someone to skip over that
property and build on property farther out.
Mr. Boardman stated that there is development at access points, and access
points are at 79th and Slst. Generally, development is done first at the access
points and then development is done inside. Mr, Jones' property is at an
access point, so his property could possibly be developed before Mr. Schroer's
interior lots,
Ms. Hughes as&ed Mr. Schroer that on the Iots along 81st Ave., what kind of
businesses would be going in there? Were they businesses that would attract a
lot of people and generate a 1ot of traffic? Would these businesses require
t'he development of 81st?
Mr. Schroer stated khat the commercial business would generate a lot of traffic,
but the industrial business would not. He stated, yes, it would require the
development of 81st.
Ms. Hughes asked what the time schedule was for the street construction.
Mr. Harris stated that the streets would probably be done by fall of 1980.
Mr. Aarris stated again, that in an industrial area, they cannot put in dead-
end streets because of emergency vehicles. Although the City does have some
cul-de-sacs, they are not a11 that successful.
Mr. Jones stated he was not asking for a cul-de-sac, and he was not out to stop
the development, but there has to be some workable soLution, rather than putting
an undue hardship on an individual. If they could put in a street that would go
back to Ranchers Road, he would go along with that and would work around that.
He would maybe need assistance in putting up a retainer wall to protect cars
and people from stray golf balls. Also, if there was same way to get deferred
assessments, so that when rfr. Schroer's property was developed, then the rest
would be ready for development. Ae felt there was too much land to be
developed and they were trying to do it too soon. If 81st has to go in, he
would prefer to see it stop at Ranchers P�oad.
Mr, Oquist pointed out that if they stopped 81st at Ranchers Road, before
long, they will have developers of the other properey coming in wanCing Slst
continued all the way to Main St, -
PLANNING COMMISSION 13EETZNG JANtJARY b 1980 PAGE 5
Ms. Schnubel atated that she was very sympathetic to Mr. Jones' problem. She
£elt unccenfortable as to how to solve the dilemma thaC the development of
81st Ave. would present to Mr. Jones and his property, but she also felt that
in the City's best interest, the development of Blst was bound to come soon,
if it was not due right now. From 24r, Schroer's standpoint, the development
of 81st was probably crucial. She thought the point Mr. Jones made was yery
valid in the delineation of streets and the philosophy behind the way those
streets are platted. She did not see an answer that would accommodate both
people.
MOTIO N by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by 2",�. Hughes, to close the public hearing on
P.S. �I80-01, by Robert Schroer. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris
declared the public hearing close3 at 9:05 p.m.
Mr. Oquist stated he agreed with Ms. Schnabel that it is inevitable that 81st
is going to be developed. He also appreciated Mr. Jones' diiemma, but did not
honestly know what could be done.
Mr. Aarris stated that, as far as the financial burden, maybe the Planning
Commission could reco�end to City Council that assessments be delayed to a
laCer date.
Mr. Boardman stated that he would Like Mr. 3ones to think about that, because
inCerest rates could go higher.
MOTION by Ms. Aughes, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, that the Planning Commission
Yecommend to City Council approval of Preliminary P1at,i'.S. fl80-01, by Robert
Schroer, being a replat of the NSJ.1/4 of Section 2, T-30, $-24, City of Fridley,
Mn, Anoka County, except that part taken for State Truck Highway Ab. 47' except
the South 284 feet of the West 480 feet and except the West 460 feet lying
northerly of the south 666 feet, generally located between 79th Avenue and Slst
Aven�e N.E., on the West side of University Avenue, with the following stipulations:
1
2
An acceptable storm water drainage system be designed for the plat.
That a 20 foot easement be dedicated for Block 1, Lot 1, and Block 2,
Lot L
3. That 81st Avense N.E. be extended from Main street to University Avenue
i:N.E .
4. That the assessments to the property owner be delayed, if the o�aner so
wishes
Ms. Hughes stated that if there was not excellent control of water in Yhis plat,
she would hope that whatever means available are taken to prevent any develop-
ment of the land.
CARRI
Y.
S DECLARED Ti� MOTION
Mr. Harris stated khey should discuss the drainage situation. It was his
feeling that he would like to see the Engineering Department do a comprehensive
study of the whole area as far as drainage. This study should be pointed to
the possibility that at some future date, the City acquire land for a holding
pond in an advantageous area near the Cracks. Now is the time to do it before
there is a Lot more development in the area.
PLANNiNG COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 6 1980 PAGE 7
3. RECEIVE LETTER FROM
MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the letCer dated
January 29, 198Q, from Central Genter for Family Resources. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the motion carried unanimously.
4.
SUN OF
MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, Co receive the Fridley Sun
article dated January 30, 1980.
Mr. Johnson stated he was with the North Division Office of NSP, and he was
the lisison worker with the communities of the North Division, of which Fridley
was one. Ae had a little background in this plant siting and was present at
the meeting to try and answer any questions the Planning Commission might have.
Mr. Johnson stated that the article in the paper was factual. The reporter
had appeared at the Metropolitan Council meeting and this information was
relayed to him aC this time.
Mr. Johnson stated that one of the reasons the site was selected was because
NSP was asked by state and private groups to investigate the possibility of
putting a smaller plant in the metropolitan area, Che plant to not only develop
electricity, but to be used for co-generation, either steam or water, for
industrial and residential use. With that in mind, they looked at various
spots and tried Co pick locations in all areas of Che metropolitan area.
Mr. Harris asked if NSP was aware of the proposed park across East River Road?
Mr. Johnson stated that, yes, they were. They had met with Mr. Boardman and
have reviewed plans, and they feei they are not enfringing on the park property.
Mr. Harris asked how NSP would draw water from the river.
Mr. ,7ohnson stated they would draw water from the river in a closed circuit
in about 12-inch pipes underground, so there would be no visual impact.
Mr. Harris stated thar he assumed the coal would come by rail.
Mr. Johnson stated that, yes, that was the reason for the siYe by the railroad.
Mr. Aarris stated he was concerned about where NSP would stockpile the coal.
Mr. Johnson stated he did not know the exact location, but it would probably
be somewhere close to the railroad tracks.
Ms. Hughes asked Mr. Johnson to describe the configuration of a 200-megawatt
plant. •
Mr. Johnson stated Chere would be one stack, one water-cooled tower, The
building itself would probably be 150 ft. tall with a stack.
PLANNING COFIlKTSSION MF.ETING FEBRUARY 6 1980 PAGE 8
Mr. Johnson stated this plant would add 75-100 employees and would bring in
approximately $600,000-700,000 in taxes to the City every year.
Mr. Johnson stated that NSP will setect 3-4 sites to be turned over to the
State. The first thing they have to do is go before the Minnesota Energy
Agency and �rove their need for the plant. After that they have to go before
the Site Selection Approval committee with the Minnesota Equality Board.
Each one of these will have a public hearing with input. An environmental
impact statement will also have to be made. A11 of this will take approximate2y
2-3 years, and then the State will decide where the plant will be built. NSP
hopes to make their selection of the sites they feel would be most valid for
their usage within the next 2-3 months.
Mr. Harris stated that the City CounciZ had informally directed the Planning
Commission to study this NSP site in Frid2ey and get back to City Council
with a recommendation. He asked Mr. �ohnson if he would supply the Planning
Commission with as much information as possible for the Planning Coa�ission to
study, they could get together again for further discussions. He would also
like enough copies so the Environmental Quality Cocrmission, Community Development
Commission, and the new Energy Co�ission couid also study it.
Mr. Johnson stated he would get this information to Mr. Boardman, and then
the PLanning Commission could contact him when they would like him back again.
Mr. Harris thanked Mr. Johnson for coming to *_he meeting.
Ms. Hughes stated she would like someone to keep track of the Certificate of
Need, because without a selection of site, Fridley �aould not normally be
notified of this. Maybe N5P could keep the City informed about that.
Ms. Hughes stated she would like to draw the Commission's attention to the
articLe, third paragraph from the bottom on the right, where it states: "NSP
is uncertain at this time tahether a new coal-fired plant is licensable in
the Twin Cities atea". That is probably because o£ the sulphur oxide emissions
in the Twin Cities area wl�ere there is still some violation, Ms. Hughes stated,
Those standards are being reviewed now and could legally change.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPEE;SON HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION TO
RECEIVE THE ARTICLE IN THE FBIDLEY SUN CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. CONTINfJED: PROPOSED CHAN�ES TO CHAPTER 205. ZONING:
MOTZON by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Hughes, to continue discussion on Proposed
Changes to Chapter 205. Zoning. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson
Harris declared the motion earried unanimously.
6. RECEIVE JANUARY 22, 1980, ENVIRONMENTAL QUILITY COMMISSION MINVfES:
MOTION by Mr, Treuen[els, seconded by Mr. Hora, to receive the January 22, 1980,
Envirocmiental Quality Canmission minutes.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUHRY 6, 1980 PAGE 9
Mr. Boardman stated refexred tc the motion made by the Environmental quality
Commission on page 2 recoimnending that Planning Commission and City Council
send a Fridley representative to the MPCA Board meeting on Feb. 26, 1980,
reflecting the concern of airport and freeway expansion. Mr. Boardman stated
that the MYCA Board acted on this on Feb. � instead of Feb, 26. He stated
that this motion was taken directly to Gity Council on Feb. 4, the Gity Gouncil
passed a resolution supporting the prioritization by the MPCA for noise control
for airports and highways, and Mr. Virgil Herrick hand delivered that resolution
to Che MPCA Board meeting. Mr. Boardman stated he did not know what action
the MPCA had taken regarding this resolution.
Mr. Hasris stated that regarding Ms. Sporre's statement on page 5 where she
stated that Mr. Harris should not make statements that, "planes have to land
somewhere", he would appreciate it if l�is. Sporre would not take his statements
out of context.
Ms. Hughes stated the same Ching was true of the statement she had made in
the Dec. 5, 1979, Planning Commission minutes that "air quality reviews on
current Highway 10 were so bad, there was no choiee except relocation." Ms. Sporre
had also taken that out of context. The discussion had been Chat with the
currenC Highway 10, the air quality reviews were so bad, you couldn't possibly
expand current Highway 10. If you were going to build a highway, it would
have to be the relocated Highway 10. That did not say one thing about the
desirability of building the new highway.
UPON A VOTCE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYC, CHAIRPERSON HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION TO
RECEIVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CO�ISSION MINiTTES CARttIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. RECEIVE JANUABY 24 1980, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES:
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to receive the
Jan�ary 24, 1950, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes.
Mr. Harris stated he had some discussions with members of the HRA. The HRA
was having a meeting with one of the developers on February 7. Ae stated Che
HRA would like some input from the Planning Commission sometime down the line.
Mr. Harris stated he told the members that he did now think it was the proper
time for the Planning Commission to give input and told them that when the
HRA had something mor.e definite, the Planning Commission would be happy to
give their input.
Mr. Boardman stated the Planning Commission will have to get invol�xd after
the HRA makes a selection of a developer and they get inYo actual commitments.
Now was not the proper time.
Mr, lIarris staCed that members of the Planning Covmiission were invited to
attend the HRA meeting on Feb. 7 as individual citizens.
PLANNING COI�fISSION MEETING, FE�RUARY 6, 1980 PAGE 10
8. OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr, Aarris stated that Mary Cayan and himself had attended a meeting with the
Anoka Cwnty Welfare and had some discussions with them. There was a meeting
scheduled for 10 a.m, on Thursday, Feb. 7, with the CAP Agency. 8e stated he
could not believe the lack of coordination between the agencies--the left hand
did not know what the right hand was doing, He stated that after all the
meetings, they would try to put the whole thing together as a package for
the Human Resources Commission. The Human Resources Commission would then
make recommendations. Hooefully, the Planning Commission will also see the
package to act on it and send rec�mendations on to City Council,
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTZON by Mr. Hora, seconded by Ms. Hughes, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a
voice vote, a1Z voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the February 6, 1980,
Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully su mitted,
i
Lynn Saba
Recording Secretary
0
� � 1 ,1,I
CITY OF SPRING LAKE PARK
o�zcr�. �.zcaTZC�r
. ..
Public Hearirrg befoxe the City �l�uiing �d Zaning CoanLi.ssi.an� ...
To Whcnn •It May Cancern:
�
Notice is hereby givm that there will be a Public HPa�-+ng of the
Plarming and Zoning Conmission of the City of Spring Lake Park in
the 5pring Iake Park Comrnmity Caiter at 1301 - 81st Avenue N.E.
an 19�p_, in the Council Chambers at
7:30 •:. to cansi t e o 1rJ,aing mafter.
Applicant: Thomas Cooper
Location : The property abutting 8325 University Avenue N.E.
• ..
Petition:_ The applicant requests rezoning of said property from
C-2 to I-1 for the purpose of constructing mini-storage
garages. The property is legally described as Dutlot
10, Terrace Manor 3rd Addition. �
Arry and all persons desiring to be heard shall be givai an opportzmi.ty
at the abwe stated time and place:
. ./��� � ��G-F�
��B. Bus ,
City C1erk-7.Yeas�ser
Publish . February 15, 1980 � _.
O
��
GTl7� OF SPRING IAI� PARK
o�'zc�. rum,icaTZON
! j �.2'
. ..
Public i3earir�g .be_"foXe the Gity Pl�ning and Zoning Conm�ssi.on�
To kfiom' It May Concern:
Notice is hereby given that there will be a P�ablic Hpa,-;nv of the
plarming and Zoning Ccmmissian of the City of Spring Iake Park in
the Sprin� Iake Park Comrnn�ity C�ter at 1301 - 81st Av�sue N.E.
� 19��, in the Co�ci1 Chan�ers at
7:30 : to consx t ie o laaing 'mafter.
Applicant:. Joseph Kurak
Location : The p�operty immediately East of 1115 Osborne Road �
.
Petition: The applicant reqiaests a Special Ose Permii to do filling
and grading of the property legally described as the East
140 £eet of Lot 9 and Lot 10, except the East 6b feet thereof,
Auditors Subdivision 124.
Any and all persans desising to be heard shall be given an opport�siity
at the abwe stated time �d place.
-�m��f �, ����
s s� ,
City Clerk-Treasiser
Publish . February 15, 1980 � ;_
0
SPECIAL
HOUSING'AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MEETING
JANUARY 29, 1980
CALL TO ORDER: .
Chairperson Larry Commers called the January 29, 1980, Special Housing &
&edevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Larry Co�ers, Russeli Houck, Elmars Prieditis,
Carolyn Svendsen, Duan•: Prairie
Members Absent: None '
Others Present; ,Terrold Boardman, City Planner
Mary Cayan, liuman Services Assistant
Marvin Brunsell, Finance Director
Leon Madsen,
Dean Doyscher, Professional Planning & Development, Mankato
Steven Dooley, 4411 Aldrich Ave. No.
Michael Parlin, 6025 - 3rd St. N.E,
T. E. Kersey, 8025 Eastwood Dr., Moundsview
APPR�VAL OF JANUARY 24, 1980 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES;
MOTION by Mr. Houck, seconded by Ms. Svendsen, to delay approval of the
January 24th minutes until the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Chairperson Commers declared the motion carried unanimously.
1. DISCUSSION OF NEGOTTATION FOR 6025 - 3RD STREET: MICHAEL & DIANE PARLIN•
Mr. Boardman stated that the Authority had received a memo dated January 29, 1980,
which laid out the process for negotiation for the purchase of the property
at 6025 3rd St. N.E. He had also attached copies of the appraisals and review
appraisals for the AuthoriYy's review. The �ack page was the first appraisal
which came in at $22,500. That review appraiser report is the second fran che
last page which says the recommended offer should be in the range of $23,000-
$27,000. One of the reasons the first appraisal came in so low was because
Curt Larson took the whole property, 120 feet, as one lot. The review appraiser
did not take it that way. He thought the range should be higher because of the
amount of land available.
Mr. Boardman stated that on October 19, 1979, the City made an offer of $22,500
to the Parlin's, but the Parlin's did not accept the of£er. Mr, Boardman made
the.suggestion that the Parlin's had a right to get their own appraisal. They
did so. That appraisal was $29,000 on pecember 28, 1979, and was the First
sheet attached to the memo, A review appraisal was done cn Sanuary 10, 1980,
and this review appraisal came in at $26,500.
SPECIAL
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING JANUARY 29 1980 - PAGE 2
Mr. Boardman stated that a second negotiation meeting was held on Jan. 16, 1980,
at which time an offer of $26,500 was offered to the Parlin's. The Parlin's
refused that offer. After that offer was refused, the City negotiated an
offer of $29,491,88 which would fall within the range of attorney fees,
inflation costs, and additional planning fees if the City was to continue
acquisition through the condemnation process. At the January 24, 1980,
Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting, this negotiated offer was brought
before the Authority for approval of purchase, but the action died for lack of
a second to the approval motion.
Mr. Parlin stated he felt the o£fer of $26,500 was a low offer. The only
reason he was considering that offer was because he had found another house
about a month ago. Part of this program was relocation which was one of the
reasons for his considering settling for $26,500. He felt confident he could
get $29,000 plus specials, and he wasn't ready for any $2,500 penalty for
tearing the house down. He stated it was not his idea to even sell the house
or the property in the first place. He stated he had had many reaitors wer
Yhat have estimated the property anywhere between $30-40,000. He had c�e
all the way down to $26,500 because he is tired of fighting �'ridley. Ae ei[her
wanted to be left alone to fix up the house or get the $26,500.
Mr. Co�ners asked Mr. Parlin that if the Authority voted to offer $26,500,
would that be acceptable to him?
Mr. Boardman stated that Mr. Parlin was talking about $26,500 plus the City
covering assessment costs, which is the offer of $29,491.88.
Mr. Co�ners asked Mr. Parlin that in regard to the condition of the house,
has he had ongoing discussions with the City Building Inspector?
Mr. Parlin stated that, basicaZly, yes. When they had first moved into the house,
they had applied for a HUD home improvement grant, which was denied because of
the condition of the house.. His bids were in the range of $9,000 to take care
of everything--roofing, siding, electrical, plumbing, foundation, heating, '
but it did not meet with the definition of standard housing. Ae stated that
now he had a better income. Last year he tore off the roof of his garage and
applied for a building permit to fix it, but the City called him and told him
not to bother because the City was going to buy his land. So, he waited, and
all he waited for was $26,500. He stated he just wanted things decided.
Mr. Boardman stated he felt $29,491.88 was a fair price for the land. The
values of the land in the area have been going anywhere from $14-17,000 for
just land. Another thing they looked at was the nature of the program, and
part of that program is to remove substandard structures and relocate families
into safe conditions. When the Building Inspector reviewed this building under
the program, he felt it should be condemned. Considering the nature of the
program, he did not know any community, other than Minneapolis, that condemns
property. They should not count on the City of Fridley red tagging that
structure and making the family move, because he was sure the City would not.
SPECIAL
HOUSZNG & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING JAN[JARY 29 1950 - PAGE 3
Mr. Boardman stated he needed some actian on this. if the Authority did not
want to accept the offer of $29,491.88, he would suggest they make a motion
to eiCher make a lower offer so there can be some action or that they break
off negotiations at this time and move on to a different property. He felt
Chey owed that much to the Parlin's.
Mr. Boardman stated he had prepared a letter dated January 28, 1980, to the
Parlin's making an offer of $26,500, based on the review appraisal, to he
transferred free and clear of any assessment cost to the City. If Che Parlin's
refused this offer, the City could then send a letter breaking off further
negotiations.
Mr. Commers stated he thought the Authority was in agreement that this was a
fair price for the property. The Authority did not want to get involved in the
questions of the values of property. The problem was the way this came up and
the way it was presented.
Mr. Boardman stated it was his fault in not getting the information to the
Authority soon enough for them to review.
Mr. Commers stated he felt the Authority should take caxe of this matter and
then get some guidelines set down so this doesn't happen again this wa� in the
future.
MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE SECONDED BY MR. HOUCK TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY OF
FRIDLEY MAKE AN OFFER TO MICHAEL AND DIANE PARLIN OF $29,491.88 FOR THE
PIIRCHASE OF THEIR PROPERTY AT 6025 3RD ST. N.E, UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL
VOTING AYE CHAIRPERSON COM�IERS llECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Boardman stated he would also like the Authority to act on Resolution No.
HRA-5 1980, which was the resolution approving the acquisition of
6025 - 3Yd St. N.E. This motion died tor lack of a second aC the last meeting.
MOTION BY MR. PRZEDITIS SECONDED BY MR. HOUCK, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION N0. ARA-5
1980. UPON A VOICE VOTE AI.L VOTING AYE CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRZED UNANIMOJSLY.
Mr. Commers stated they should make an item on a£uture agenda to come up
with guidelines on exactly what should be considered when block grant things
come up in the future.
Mr. Boardman agreed that it would be very helpful.
2. DISCUSSION OF CENTER CITY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS:
Mr. Doyscher stated that he felt the critical issue in selection was the
level at which the Authority felt canfortable ;ln making that decision. He
stated he and Mr. Boardman had a Lot of data in terms of background that
might be heipful, but the questions the Authority had in mind were the most
SPECIAL �
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING JANUARY 29 1980 - PAG$ 4
important. When it all canes down to a decision, it gets fairly subjective,
and they will make their own best personal judgements at that time. He
stated he had written up a Iist of pros and cons £or some general considerations
that would help raise questions for the Authority to follow up on. These
pros and cons are for Phase 1 only.
INTERNATIONAL MULTI-HOUSING, INC. JOINT VENTURE DEVELOPERS
iIMI) • iJVD)
Pro Con Pro Con
Intensity of
land use &
level of
co�itment
U�Y�[`.
Use of land
SiLe design
Neighborhood
impact
OVERALL
D$VELOPMENT
Overall site
development
With strong
market, more
development
will occur.
Appropriate
use of site
Site uses topo-
graphy well &
offers addtl.
room for expan-
sion of mare
office space.
Better design
Parking less
visible.
Improvement
over existing
use.
Proposes
development of
all phases,
Very strong in
Phase 3 area
(shopping ctr.)
Will do 40-
SO,Q00 sq. ft
of office
space.
Very costly
alternatives -
requires addtl
deoelopment to
support the
parking,
Negative in
terms of
tzaffic demands
with total
development.
Very weak on
housing proposal
and health c1ub.
More positive
than IMS--one
phase develop-
ment of 72,000
sq. ft. of offfce
space.
Appropriate
use of site
No expansion
possible in tezms
of office space.
Site uses topo- Because of parking,
graphy well and it leaves little
accomplishes all open landscaped
needs for devel- area and few
opment, public spaces.
Appropriate
use - improve-
ment over
existing situa-
tion.
Not only uses
Phase 1 area,
but Phase 2 &
supplies park-
ing for both.
Bldg. substanti-
ally high (7
stories) & could
be v3sually nega-
tive to surround-
ing neighborhood.
Large surface park-
ing, alot of black-
top & increased
tzaffic.
Does not propose
development in
aay other pltases.
.
SPECIAL
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT .A13THORITY MEETING JANUARY 29 1980 - PAGE 5
Overall siCe
utilization
Overall traffic
or publ3c
movement
Quality of
proposal
LNTERNATIONAL MUI.TI-HOUSII3G, INC. JOZNT VEAITURE DEVELOPERS
iIMI) (7VD)
Pros Cons Pros Cons
Phases 1,3, &
4 are strong in
terms of pro-
posal. Phase 2
well coordinated
in terms of over-
all site con-
straints.
Peak period
traffic which is
easier to accom-
modate. Parking
appears adequate
Pedestrian move-
ment strong.
Good develop-
ment expertise.
Phase 2 raises
covanunity ques-
tions and market
realization
questions.
Late night
traffic - more
intense traffic
& ev�ergency
vehicle access
di£ficult to
attain.
Overall develop-
ment not as well
researched &
financing back-
,ground, necessary
for decision,
not well pre-
sented.
Offices appro-
priate & good
understanding
of office
development.
Parking appears
to be adequate.
Appropriate
access controls
� utilization
of Sth St.
Well researched
with strang
understanding
of financing.
iaell presented
& substantial
knowledge of
local situaCion.
Too much retail
rental space for
east side of
Univ. & that loca-
tion may work nega-
tive on overall
development scheme
for shopping on
other side. Space
utilization is
limited.
That intensity
wi11 create more
traffic. Tends to
create continuous
traffic, rather
than peak demand
traffic. Pedestrian
movement concepts
are weak.
Numbers sti11
weak, & that,
in fact, numbers
may not be
acceptable.
Mr. Doyscher stated he had thought about the 1oca1 developer versus the
outside developer. He thought the pol3tical consequences are harder for
an Authority to make when it is a local developer. His experience told him
that local developers frequenely perform betCer, because they put some pride
at stake. That is assuming they are axpexienced and have good team members,
and from what he has heard of JVD, Chat was the case. On the other hand,
it is sometimes better to work with outside developers in terms of local
situatirnis .
SPECIAI.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETTNG JANUARY 29 19&0 - PAGE b
Mr. Doyscher stated he raised this issue only for each member of the Authority
to think about. Zf any member feels it could become a problem, it would be
helpful to have the City Attorney look at it and make an opinion. He said
that because he felt any redevelopment effort Iike this wili run into both
legal and political flack at some time.
Mr. Co�ners asked if they had any conflicts with JVD, because of
Mark Haggerty's law firm being the City prosecuting attorneys?
Mr. Doyscher stated he could not answer that question.
Mr. Commers stated that the question from the onset was: Should anybody be
eliminated or not eliminated because of that relationship? He would not think
it did, but it was one thing that should be looked into.
Mr. Prieditis stated that any designed project at this conceptual stage is
going to change. As far as design for the total development, IMI's was great.
It looked like both developers were deeply interested.
Mr. Prieditis stated he saw the problem of getting people from one side of
University to the other, and IMI came close to a solution hy suggesCing a
mini-bus. He did not know how realistic that was.
Mr. Prieditis stated that as far as experience, the architectural firm he
works for (part of JVD) has a Iot of experience in a lot of building types,
That was not to say that IMI could not accomplish the same thing, although
he was not familiar with IMI. He thought in either case, the developers should
look and compare some of the costs and figures because it could be a guide
to see where they stand in terms of tax increment dollars they would be getting.
Mr. Prieditis stated that with the parking ramp, it seemed to get extremely
expensive. It was something you did not question for downtown Minneapolis,
but he realized there was not enough room for parking on the ground. He
stated he felt the Authority should look at Phase 1 again, because in trying
to go beyond that, it got very loose in design.
Mr. Prieditis stated he had no lrnowledge or background of the financial
capabilities of either of the developers. IAff 's presentation was extremely
exciting, but it may be an unrealistic development. JVD expressed they would
not be interested in the whole thing, and that could be a negative. He had
the feeling TMi was probably more interested in the shopping center than
anything else.
t4r. Doyscher stated that is why he had asked IMI what phase they felt most
comfortable with, and they had said Phase 3, the shopping center. When he
looked at their development, it was very obvious they ttad a very sophisticated
understanding of a shopping center,
SPECIAL
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHOftITY MEETIIQG JAN[1ARX 29 1980 - PAGE 7
Mr. Prairie stated he had a lot of the same thoughts as those expressed.
Both developers had good points and some points that he had questions about.
He had a hard time visualizing the shops, but he did not have a lot of
background in that area, As he looked at the two developers, with JVD he
recognized the architectural firm and the general conCracCOr had been around
far a number of years, a factor that was important and held a lot of weight.
IMI's group was about 1'� years old. He also stated it was hard to see far
ahead past Phase 1.
Ms. Svendsen asked that if the Authority chose JVD f.or Phase 1, would that
leave Phase 3 open for IMI if they wanted it?
Mr, Doyscher stated he felt that was an option.
Mr. Co�ers stated that in terms of c w�mitment, there was no question that
from an economic point of view, this thing has to be divided into phases.
What can they do to try to get some co�itment or assurance that the balance
of the phases will be done so they aren't le£t with sanebody just picking off
the plum of the deal and not going any further?
Mr. Doyscher stated he felt, first of all, that the City had an obligation to
make a ccmmitment that they would do Phase 2, and that level of commi.tment
would be initially notifying the property owners and leasees of the City's
intent to do so. He [hought the City of Fridley was very hesitant to move
that fast.
Mr. Commers stated that he could not make much sense out of the numbers.
First of all, from the amount of bonding the Authority had discussed, ,TVD
was asking for $1/2 million over what the Authority had discussed--$1 million
versus $1� million. He stated the Authority needed to see figures to sub-
stantiate that, they needed to see figures to substantiaCe the oCher costs,
and they also needed to see what was being talked about in tax foregiveness.
The Authority had never considered tax foregiveness.
Mr. Brunsell reviewed some of the figures in the Tax Revenue tables in the
JVD proposal.
Mr. Doyscher stated that the financing and the figures will be vague until
the Authority has selected a developer and negotiations are started.
Mr. Coomiers asked what the next step was for the Authority.
Mr. Boardman stated the next step was sitting down and posing s�e of these
questions to each of the developers individually.
Mr. Brunsell stated he coul.d go over the financial tables in the JVA proposal
and have them rerun for the Authority to have at their next meeting.
SPECIAL
AOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTf10RITY MEETING JANUARY 29, 1980 - PAGE 8
Mr. Boardman stated another thing the Authority could look at is that most
of the JVD figures are based on a ten-year program. The Authority may want
to look at it based on a 20-year program.
Mr. Commers st,ated he thought that the Mayor had made some suggestion abaut
the City participating in Phase 1 with the parking ramp. .That was something
the Authority could look into.
Mr. Doyscher stated that the developers names should also be run through the
bonding agencies.
Mr. Boardman stated that IMI would put togethex their financial information
and try to get it to the Authority befoze their next meeCing.
The Authority set Thursday, February 7, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. as the meeting
d8te to meet with-each developar individually, setting a time of one-half
hour for each group.
The Authority set Thursday, February 21, 1980, $s the meeting date to make
a final decision on the developer.
ADJOURNMENT:
Chairperson Commers declared the Special Aousi.ng & Redevelopment Authority
meeting adjourned at 10:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
�-y� : �L �� }-L
I,ynne Saba
Recording Secretary
�
MEMO T0: Peter 7reuenfels, Human Resources Conmission Chairperson
Richard Harris, Planning Commission Chairperson
MEMO fROM: Mary Cayan, Numan Services Assistant
MEMO NO.: �80-OS
MEMO DATE: January 17, 1980
RE: The Fridley Ministerial Association
Meeting of January 3, 1980
Attendance at the Association meeting ofi January 3, 1980 revealed the
followin9 about the church — sponsored delivery of human services in
Fridley:
* The Association coordinates church services on an informal basis
only.
* Each church works almost exclusively with the youth and adult
mem6ers of their own parish.
* Church programs primarily reach Fridley residents.
* Examples of programs offered by Fridley churches are:
]. P.E.T. courses
2. Crisis counseling
3. Youth retreats
* 7he Association cited a need for community service outlets in
Fridley for post senior high school young people.
cc: Jerrold Boardman
M[MO T0:
MEMO FR0��1
Peter Treuenfels, Human Resources Commission Chairperson
Richard Harris, Planning Commission Chairperson
Mary Cay�n, Human Services Assistant
MEMO NO.: �i80-14
ME�O DATE: 3anuary 31, 1980
RE: Meeting of Januery 23,
School Director.
1980 tiaith 7om Myhra, Community
°The Community Education program offers a variety of programs and ser-
vices including tre follovting:
}. Classes which vary from session to session in response to com-
munity interest
Z. GED classes
3. Congregate dining averac,�7ng 50 persons a day
4.. Publ;cacion of the Fridley Community Services Directory.
5. The Creative Play Center sponsored by KY.Y.K for pre-schoolers
and their parents
6. Meeting facilities for cemmunity groups.
°The Community Education Budget for FY 'IIO is balanced.
°Pfr. Myhra sugges±ed that a rcpre�entative from the Il�man Resources Ccm-
missio>> attend the quarterly City-Scticol bfeetings.
°The Conuniinity Educatinn arogram no longer dispei°ses grant monies to lo-
cal groups. We received a copy of tLe Com;nunity Education Guidelines
for fundir.g prnposals for consideration in the development o+ tihe City
of Fr•idley guidelines.
MC/sk
a
MEMO T0: Peter Treuenfels> Chairperson of the Numan Resources Commission
Richard Harris, Chairperson of the Planning Commission
MEMO FROM: Mary Cayan
PAEMO NO.: #80-17
MEMO DATE: February 17, 1980
RE: Meeting with Mary Zagaros, Anoka County
Community Action Program, February 7, 1980.
A. The activities of the CAP office are divided in the following areas:
1. Community Organization - organize special interest groups, advocate
for the rights and interests of low-income people, and provide a
wide range of information and referral services.
2. Energy and Housinq - operate programs to make homes more energy ef-
ficient, to reduce fuel comsuption and the cost of heating. Materi-
als are provided at no cost to low-income and senior citizens to in-
sulate and make minor repaii°s. Home rehabilitation grants are avail-
eble to accomplish major rehabilitation involving handicapped acces-
sibility improvement, energy efficiency and health and safety factors
to income qualified persons.
3. Energy Assistance Office - disperses legislature funds for energy
fuel assistance.
4. Headstart - directs a family centered, preschool, chi7d development
program for 3 to 5 year olds. Includes education, parent involvement,
resource materials, program for children with special needs, health
and nutrition. Also operate the Homestart program in which teachers
give lessons i� the home and provide materials for use at home.
5. Senior Outreach - insures that seniors in Anoka County are given the
opportunity, information, and support necessary to choose whether or
not they wish to participate in programs and services desiqned for
their benefit. Provides informatiori about senior clubs, transporta-
tion, legal services, health care, housing and social services. Five
senior citizens currently serve as outreach workers.
B. Other organizations which are currently housed, or planned for the near
future, in the Riverwood school building are:
1. Quad 70,001; youth service agency
2. H.I.R.E.D.; employment service
0
3. Career Counseling Workshop
4. Metropolitan State University
5. SACA; a branch food shelf
b. Anoka County C.E.T.A. office
7. Office for Court 5ervices
8. Group therapy treatment program for family sexual abuse
C. The CAP agency is funded from various sources including the following:
1. Community Services Administration
2. Oepartment of Energy
3. Department of Labor
4. Department of Health Education and Welfare
5. Title III
6. Department of Economic Opportunity
7. Private funding and donations
D. Ms. Zagaros stressed the extreme lack of coordination of services in
Anoka County and expressed an ir�terest in attempting to bring service
providers together to discuss their programs and to share their con-
cerns with one another. She stated that thisisavery difficult thing
to acheive since people are very concerned with protecting their own
"tarf" within the human service system.
cc: aerrold Boardman, City Planner
Members of the Human Resources Commiss�on
MClsk
� CTTY OP FRIDL�Y
APYEAL5 COi�i'�4ISSION :�%�E'tINGi Fi.BRUARY 12`1��0
C�T,I, TO ORDER
Ghaixperson Schnabel called the Februaz•y 12, 1980, meeting oP
the e�ppeals Commission to order at 7s40 P.irt,
ROLI; CALL
__...--
m
Membexs Present: f�1s. Schna8el, bis. Gabel, 1�Ir. Barna
Members Absent� tir. Kemper, i,Ir. Plemel
Others Present, t�Ir. Darrell Olark, City of I�ridley, Chief
Building Official •
I�Ir. Gregory Persing. 7419 Lakeside Road N.E.
APPRQVAL OF APPEALS CO'tv�MI5SI0N i2INUT�S: DEC�f�iBER 11 � 1979
&Ts. Schnabel stated that she would like it noted, that regarding
the five-car garage variance request, stated on pages 7,8, and
9 of the r�.�nutes, that the City i�:anager had stated at the
City Council meeti.ng, tha't the Fire Department didn't have any
problem with that garage, and that they didn't require a firewall,
so that then the City Council did approve it.
t�10TI0N by P•is. Gabel, seconded by i��r. Barna, that tl-.e Appeals
ComMission minutes of Decenber il, 1979. be approved as written.
UP�[Q A VOICE VOTE, ALI, VOTING AYE, CHAIRL'dONiAN SCHNABEI, DECLARED
'�HE ,'."�TION CA2RZEL' UIVANI6'iOUSLY.
1. JARIANt`•� R%aUEST PURSUANT TO CHAPTuR 20� QF THE b'�I�1��'� T�^T
aAD N.E. Bequest by Gre�ory Pe��sing�l9 T,�.keside Road
. .�,�`Fridley, i�iinnesota 5��32)
MOTIDN by P�Is. Gabel, seconded by f�9r. Barna, to open the Public
Hearing.
UPON A V4ICE VOTE, ALL VOTI:�fG AYF„ CHAIR+`JOidAN SCHNABLE DEGLARED
THi PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7s4V� P.iN1.
Chairwom�n Schn�bel read the staff report�
• ADMINISTRI�TIV£ S'::i1PP REPORT
7419 Lakeside Road iV.E.
A. PUI3I,IC PURT'OS� SERVED IIY .T2EQUIRL';t"tiNT:
Section 205.053, 4C, reyuires a rear yard depth of nat:.less than
25 percent of the 1ot depth, ;aith a�minimum af 2� feet and no
� more than 40 feet required.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide rear
yard space to be used far qreen area which enhances tne
neighborhood. '
��
Appeals Commission Po9eetin� Februarv 12, 1980 Page 2
B. STATED IiARDSHIP:
The hardsfiip is financial in that t�e existing
addition both need the variance and to make the
to Code would entai,l moving the entire house or
and building a new one.
C. AD24INISTRATIVE ST}1FF P.EVIEW:
house and the
structure conform
,tearing it down
The Persings to date have not supplied us with the evidence to
substaritiate a fi:nancial hardship; "the difference,between buildina
the addition with garage and house modifications versus building
a new house in front of the existing house and then removing the
existing house.
The existinq house appears to be bu�ilt on a slab some thirty
years ago and the garage is about ten years old and may also
have a slab foundation, Both structures have hi� roofs and
therefore both roofs would have to be modified it the addition
was placed between the two existing structures.
The City would require that both existing structures have £rost
£ootings unless an engir.eer designs and certif ies the connecti.on
bet[aeen the new and eaistinq structures.
Given all these facts, we question the economic savings, if any,
"` netween the requested addition and the cost of buiidinq a new
house in front of tr.e existing one. Other. a3vantages, such as
a larger rear yard, would be gained by building a nec� house.
We would certainly not discouraye the planned im��rovements to
this lot, however we do feel the petitioner should study every
aspect of the impro"ve,-nent.
If the Board approves this request, tfle staff would recommend
the stipulation that the foundation and structural connections
bet�veen the new and the old portions be designed by an engineer
and that since the improvement consis�s of mare than half the
value of the iiouse, the existing house m�,ist be made to meet a11
existinq buildinq Cades.
P�Zr. Persing, the petitioner, was presez�t for the request.
The Commission members, along with t:lr. Persing studied the
survey, and plans of the proposed addition.
P,ir. Persing stated that the addition was needed for extra
living space, and that it was financially ieasible for them
to add an addition on to the present siructare, and hring the
present structure up to code, easier, �han it would be if they
had to build a new home, then havin� to remove the present
structure, because they still have a mortgage on the present
home. ' ,
.A��* e3r..5 fi0[19p1i;�"u�51071 Ic1eeL1l.1c: r eui-uciL v ic, �7� : ._ �`'^- '.
G�1r. Persing further stated that they.are looking into all the
different aspects, and arrangements in obtaining more living
�pace. He stated that they wanted the vasiance granted at this
time, so that they would be able,to ee} estimates from the
necessary people for this addition. H� stated that then they
would further explqre the di_fference firiancially, of this
proposed addition, versus building a new structure on this lot
and thei removing the old house. � '. '-
Ms. Schnabel questioned Mr. Persing on their plans for the
roof line?
Mr. Persing stated that they would have to convert it f�om
the present gable roof to a hip rooY. "
Ms. Schnabel questioned if the Persings had planned on having
the work done for them by a contractor, or if they planned to
do most oi the woxk themselves?
Mr. Persing stated that they would have some of the work such
as tMe framing, etc., done for them, axid they would do most of
the finishing themselves. He further stated that they wanted
to`,get the outside completed, so that it wouldn't be a1z eyesore
to the neighborhood, and thzn complete the interior as time
and money permitted..
h1s. Sehnabel questioned if whether they had spoken to any
of the neighbors about this addition?
Mr. Persing stated that the contact that they have had with
some of the neighbors, nothing negative was said about the
a,ddition. ne iurther stated that thev have Iived there for
about two�and one-half yeara.
R:r. Barna questioned if they were going to have someone do the
excavating, and the blockwork?
P�ir. Persing stated that yes they would have someone contracted
for that work.
Nis. Schnabel, questioned isir. Clark to what the City would require
t+ir. Persing to do in terms of tying to�ether the existing
slab, and the new addition together?
Mr. Clark stated tha't if the Persin�'s wculd excavate down
to expose the block, the City �Chen cauld come out._and.determine
�if the„y would need an engineer design the foundation s�r��em.
Discussion ensued on the various methods, and means of,tying
the two structures together.
Mr. Clark stated that he wouZd recommend that the Persings
look into the aspect of having a new hon�e built. He stated
Av,�eals Commission hleetinP Februarv 12. 1480 Pa�e 4
that in rough figures he felt that it would cost about $10,000
more to have a new home built, and that would only give them
about 134 square feet less room than having an addition put on.
Mr. Clark further stated that at this time the bank that he
checked with was only allowing a maximum of �15,000 for home
improvement loans.
Nrr. Persing stated that he was aware of the maximum .oi the
$1�,000 for home improvements, an3 that he would check into
both building a new home and putting on the addition.
Ms. Gabel questione� the petitioners to what type of he�t
they now have? •
Mr. Persing stated
with the addition,
installed.
t;hat they now have eleetric heat, so that
they would have to have a new furnance
MOTION by tiis. Gabel, seconded by D�r. Ba.rna, to close the
Public Hearing.
UPQN A VOICS VOTr, ALL VOTING AYF'� CHAI�WOMAN SCHNABEL� DECLARED
THE PUBLIC HEARInG CI,OSED AT 8:1� P.i�'i.
Mr. Barna stated that he had no problem with the back, side
or front yard setback, because of the parks in the area, and
the other house ali�ments in the neighborhood.
2+Ts. Schnabel stated that she was i�apressed with the obvious
care that this house has been given, s4 that she stated, she
felt coniident, tha� any work that the petitioners would da
would be done well.'
DZOTION by D:s. Gabel, seconded by Blr. Barna to approve Variance
Request pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley city code, to
reduce the rear yard`setback from the required 35 1/2 feet
(2�0 of the lot depth) to 22 feet, to a11ow the construc+ion of
a 23 ft. by 34 ft. addition that wi11 connect an existing
house and garage, located on Zot 11, Block 1, Dalberg 9ddition,
the same being 7419 Lakeside Road N.:. (Request by Gregory
Persing, 7419 Lakesi�e Road N.E., Fridley, t�iinnesota 5543z)
with the following stipulationss
1. That the £oundation, and the structural c�nnections between
the new and the old port?ons be designed by an engineer.
2. The existing house must be made tD meet a7.1 existing build-
ing codes.
3. If the petitioner does in tha future deczde to build in
front of the existing house, a new house, that the existing
house not be used as a residence.
UPDN. A VOICE YOTE, ALL VO`PIiiG AYi:, CHAIRJJOiyiAIY SCHNABEL, DECLARED
THE I`t`i0TI0N CARRIED UNANTi�:OUSLY.
-,�
2. O�HER BUSINESSe
Mr. Clark stated that as requested, he has pr�vided the Commission
rnembers with a copy of the Uniform IIuil.ding �ode ozi fire�walls an8
o�en space requirements.
MOTION by:�1s. Gabel, seconded by tair. Barna, to receive the
copy af the Uniform Building Code oS the Fire Code. . .
IIPON A VOICE VOT�, ALL VOTING AYE, CHA�.;iWOi�IASI SCHNABEL, DECLARED
THE te0TI0N PASSED UNANII.�.OUSLY.
Nir. Clark explained the code to the Commission members, •and.
gave exanples of how to interpret the code. He s�tated that
tne City oP Fridley was in the Fire Zone 3 oP the Code.
Discussion ensued regarding wood-burnir.g appliances, and the
requirements for their installations.
i�is. Schriabel questioned if any of the Commission m snbers were
able to attend the meeting this last Saturday on "Borty Foot
Lots". as �he was out of town on that date?
lt7's.'Gabe1 stated that due to family illness' she.was not able
to attend.
Mr. Barna stated that he had to work t;hat day, arid also was
not able to attend.
Discussion then ensued on what tv;r. Barna stated was the results
oi that meeting that he h�d heard.
ADJOU RNi�iENT
I�70TION by "r:1s. Gabel, seconded by Is1r. Barna, to adjourn the
February 12, 1980 meeting of the Appeals Commission.
UPOPi A VOICu VOTE, AI,L VOTING AI'�, CHAIRddOPdAN SCHNABEI,, DECLAR�D
TIiE C�TEETING AQJOU;�IED AT 8s j5 P.ivi.
Respectfully submitted,
fD�"�� C'� ,
Elaine Reed, Recording Secretary
,��
.
��'
[onc nlq„r,my
can>s��y,,,�
Sars 1�sl�ny
Cnl G Al�arkipo(
£n�iiuernr9
��� ' ' . . , :.. .
,y �
C._.�' �C/�(/�./��J�C! �EiJ�ry /�,� . Uta'S �r,yl,,.,:y �cs i�E. :
• � ' lil;nn.roP.zrs31.
� , • � �Il �i `� 4 8'�'t>,�:��� � �'v �.,y�p. i 8 V �s. �Irnnrso/a '
.f!/rrsd 4-GQ�a
-- En�ineers � Surve�ors ----= � � ` ,
���F��;�..� s���C� cU�� 4��U"'.7C:��' �c��
. .
, � ` j�
— '� ct' � . i
� V . ��
, g
' •f i ,�-'�;-- '� �-
� , ;: .
v
'� , `�C �� . ,, , .' � . . } ._.
�.1��J�\i ��� � e� . ..
��vii ii% �n � _ .
L_.___ V
3y I r _ f... �r �
r 1`J
' �aJ h 1 � M _ . ..
.. �� . . . � . . ..
�' 1_� � c� l. `��' ,�i . � . .
�n `� i. .. ' � . .
,.R..�.ri' _ki5r,vo �
`
G✓'� ♦ �. ' . � . ..
. ... �. .._ ._ ^ ..
---,�—� —�':-- _
c� : . . . ;c7 � \�bw. . � .
�, 1 .�, .� ya� H.�,:���•�,�4. "�
._- .. _ —
�_.. 1 . . '�. ` � .
.
:�; . _ . •
�'1�]i �IIT'i�`Oi:..�..`v:5 �2 w'1(i v : J.C�._:O: �S .SU��fl:'�..1D!1 }1.C�• lfl(1. Ann,Y3 (`qpntpy If_n[�nsni'g
d��scribed �s comm:nciag at the Sout�west corr.er of said L�t 3(al�o beit;g Yhe
So:+th�rest corncr of the hortheast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 bf ihe t;o:theast 1/4
of Section 12, Township 30, Ra��e 24); Yhence !iorih 1°--OG'-3G" Fast (said. basrin�
is assumed) along ti�e »'est linc of said i,ct 3 a distanc.e of 1TB,SE3 Pe::t to Yhc
actual p�int of heFin:�in;; of the tract to be described; thence t.o;�Ch 09°-J7'-15"
CaSt a distancc of J.67 fceC; th�nce ;{orth and parallcl �:ith the 4desC line of said
Lots 2 and 3 a distar�ce of 95 fe�:; thence South II�°-37'-15" :•'ast '.c thc 'rl�s:
Iine of said Lot 2; thr.nce South alonf; the wes* line of said Lots 2 and 3 a dista�rc�:: �
of 95 fcet to the actual point of bep,innin,. Subjcct to �in eascr.+ent for road
purposes over thc �Iest .S fae.t thereof. /
�,,"-G'�it!"l G"� O " �� / / %��i'-r„r� / ���/`.�+�I r• i
�� � ,/ " � � . � .
9
9
�:,;Y.,� �
_, �
.�. � a ' �C
:-. ....
L � _A -5 _
� �? ,� f � \
�:° .n I �.� �
�� � { �
� � .q� �1 � 1 �
w
Y `a � �n.. • � r
't' = � � o C � ii ��� c .
�?.� c , �' ` ���
,. � . � ��'+ `
��'�.. � � � .
� �' s` � >
s :
� , � ` � 1
rr- c � _�
,� r � .�
. 3. �' � � -�a
c � '!� �
o $ '-`� �. _. _
p° ;1 ,5'W ' !6'1 -
iq�:.
rrd �� "�°'-'' 1?r+vr '
� � bJ'�f �Lr ?: �.6f ^ _. {
_.. _. �_ .
� �'itr+ `,p( }. Jf; ? , ,r
—.—r�—
�)(titaz:t:� �'.•,t�tl.Drc}:,S ., �
,
II�</1"G:� CCrI;��� !.':�! I,Si; ts u kv,- c.:� c.,�r.ct �c�, rsa�fcPi:n �,Pa scrvz f�'/i;t l�„nd;r;; s:�i�: <b�u o'scrvJ:J /amd.c.m1 �
t���Y/uahcn:/'r.Ui.:�ildL�S,d:rrrcn,t:..��;t�rii�'CG'xn>ao'unat��+,�fo.7�,ti•itrr«�<r.i://c'id./.SSU.-�z�.^d�Jc.Cli',�y '•°�-`l;y
a�' ��A'�s!:,�__ _. A.DtJ_.�.�.
r�� ' SUl�ii/f2L�rVJ lNGl�t�£F.:�^lrVu, i+tJC. �
� � !(�y��irrrS ! Striiif-rs � ' �
^ �, , � ,. . �y_I ' .�i _.�.�._;. .
', �/ ' .����_... J'-�..�.
; �6' ` ��:tn i - ! . .tin'
�
m
COMMUNI�7i DEVELOPMENT CO�IISSIQN
I�ETING -
BBBAUARY 12, 1980 -
CALL TO URD88z
t�&irperson Dquiat called the February 12,
mee�#ag to order at 7:33 p.m.
RO�I. CA%T. •
1980, Commuaity Development Cou�ission
1!Iembets Present; LeRoy Oquist, Conaie Modig, A1 Gabel, Kenneth Vos,
Sharon Gustafson
Membera Absent: None
Otitera Present: Bill Deblon, Associate Planner
ApY�OVA3, pF JANISARY S, 1980 COMM�SNITY DEVELOPMEI3T COMtSISSION MINUTLS:
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mz. Gabel, to approve the January 8, 1960,
Co�+unity Development Ccmmission miautes as wriYten. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, Gbaispereou Oquist declared the motion carried unanimously.
1.
Di4ISE 8Y PERMIT:
�,.., . . . ._ _ _ _ ---__ _ _ ___""------
Mr. Deblon stated this was a regulation proposed by the Minnesota Pollution
-Coutrol Agency, and if adopted by the P.C.A., would require an airport to have
a perm;it for expanding or improving its facility. Prior to the issuance of the
permit„-'Che-operators wouid have to show that the airport was within state
atandards for noise. The history hehind th3s regulation was that the Fridley
�vironmental Quality Commission had requested something from the MPCA to conttol
sirport noise. NPC-5 was the response from A1 Perez and Daryl Korpela of Che
Noise Section to that request. The director of the P.C.A., Terry Aoffman, has
decided that the nine-member Citizen's Board should determine the noise priorities
before hte P.C.A. moves ahead on this proposal. That meeting was on February Sth.
Mr. Deblon stated that the City Council passed a-resolution that"tiiey waitted".to
mee the nine-member Board estab'lish airport noise as a priority. This resolution
was hand-delivered to the February Sth Board meeting. Ms. Lee Ann Sporre of the
Bnvizonmental Quality Commission had attended that meeting and had reporeed that
th3ngs were still up i he air and nothing has been decided as Terry Hoffman,
Executive Director of th .C.A., has given Che Board an unlimited time to
decide on the priorities.
Hr. Deblon stated that the Planning isssion had raised the question of why
ttae MPCA couldn't enforce the state stan s right now. Mr. Deblon stated that
iC`takes a lot of monitoring and studying t'" termine exactly whaC the problem
was, �rho the violator was, etc. The rIl'CA now h hat informaeion as far as 'itain
Cities International was concerned, but they have told by their legal staff
CONANNZTY DEVEi.OPMENT COMMISSION MEETING FE$RUARY 12 1980 YAGE 2
that, with the permiC procesa, they will have a better court case. It is the
MPGA's feeling that Twizi Cities'Ynternational could come into compliance with .
state noise standards tom�rrow bp using techniqnes such as disbursing the air traffic,
- using all runways, vsing differential land fees,,and using NorthwesC Airlines's new
take—off procedure which is qaieter and uses less FueL
Mr. De61on stated he would like the Coumiission to review this permit.; Ae felt
it was a very positive appzoach to controiling airport noise.
Mr. Oquist stated he questioned why a permit system is required to make an
sirport adhere Co atate standards. Why is a:permit more enforcea6le than the
state law?
Mr. Deblon stated, again, that the MPCA could eaforce the state noise atandards,
but that the petmit would make for a better case ia court. _
Mr. Oquist stated it still did not make sense to him. He did not understand why
the issuing of a permit makes a better court case, because all they can do is
enforce the state law. He stateH he felt the document was badly written and there
is no purpose and no scope. He atated that on page 3, paragraph (ii), the
last sen[ence which stated, "All such studies shall be conducted in accordance
with test procedures aud c w�puter modeling techniques approved by the Director."
He stated it did not make sense that Terry Aoffman, Che Executive Director of
the MPCA, aione, should have the suthority to approve,
i1s. Modig stated that if the staCe laws are already not enforceable as state law,
how can it be more enforceable with a permit2 Ir seemed to her like a duplica-
tion of a law that is already there.
Dr. Vos stated that to him a permit means pexmission, and if an airport does not
do what it had permission to do, then that permissian is xevoked, This permit
gives permission, but does not include any revoking. He would rather see the
permit written, not so mu¢h on modificatiom, kut more on needing a permit to
operate. If an airport doesn'C adhere to standards, then the permit is taken
awap. .It seemed to him this permit was more like a building permit philosophy.
If it is really the noise that is causing the problema and the Agency wants to
put sane teeth intb it, he:did not think this permit would give them the teeth
they want. Maybe the MPGA is the wrong agency to have that kind of clout.
Mr.,OquisY stated the peYmit does not stop the airport from operating, whether
in compliance or non-compliance with state noise standards. The permit stops
ihe airport frcm finishii�g,a project that was started after the permit was
enforced. He felt this pertc+it does not control the noise; it is just to
conCrol construction, HSs'recommendation would be to just have a permit to
operate an afrport; and if thae"airport is in violakion, the permit to operate
should be revoked.
�
. CQMFIUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMi4iS5I0N MEETiNG FEBRUARY 12 198Q PAGE 3
The Commission stressed that they are concerned about airport noise and do see
it as a problem, buC they did not feel the NPC-5 AirporC Installation Noise
Permit attacked that problem in the magnitude the Coamission felt was necessary.
Mr. Deblon stated he wanted to see the City support samething that would tell
the MPCA and the nine-member Boaxd that the City was concerned about airport
noise; and they would like to see something. The NPC-5 Noise Permit obviously-
aas not the answer as the Gommission members were not happy with it. The NPGS
Noise Permit, DraFt IZ, was just the first attempt, and maybe it.could be modified
or changed, but it has the potentfal for improvement. The MPCA needs sup.port.
If the City Cwncil feels airport noise is a priority; then the Coummission should
urge them Co adopt something and give them official support.
Dt. Vos stated that just because the Commission did not support this regulation
did not mean they dfd not recognize the problem and would not support something
else'Ehat was better.
A
2, DISCU5Si0I3 OF AIRPORT TASK FORCE MEETIfIG;
r'�
MY. IIeblon stated that the City Council has chosen at this time not to officially
name anyone to that Task Force. He stated he will be attending these meetings
as staff, but not as a member of the Task Force.
-__.rlr, Deblon sCated that at the first meeting on Jan. 31 in Blaine, he:�e�eived -- ._
,___information on-tfie scheduling of the grogram. Tfie first mee[ing*s tQp.i,C& ��re;-
Introduction to Gitizen Participation Processr Pu61iq Issues and Concexns: Mastei
' Plan Technical Analysis - status. The r�ain ti}ing they did was_:arr�n_ge the Task
Force. Ae stated there was some heated discussion as vnosY.of:tfie peo� Chere
3id not want anyone on the Task Force e�ccept thnse in [he 11-city area surroauid-.
1ng the airport. `They wanted the Task Force to include only the neople immediately
affected by the noi�e,
Mr. Deblon sCated TRA is the consultant hired to conduct Che public hearings.
TRA"felt they are an independent firm with no preconc,eived notions who will
run the Task Force'and pass rec w�mendations on to MAC (Metropolitan Airports
Coam�ission) of what they think shouLd be doae to the airpore. MAC has desig-
nated Anoka County Airport as intesmediate, but there are alternatives.
�.
COMMUNITY DEVELOYMENT COMMiSSTON MEETING FEBRUARY 12 1980 - PAGE 4
Mr. Deblon stated that the City should be receiving all thoae alternatives and
other documents at the Artoka County Libsary. He stated 200 people were inter-
viewed and there were 180 different ideas. The cnnelusion was there was a
geaeral lack of cammunication. The Task Force is going to be that vehicle to
keep the people informed of what is going on with the Anoka Co�nty Airport.
Mr. Deblon urged each Canmission member to be on the Task Force as a•concerAed
citizen. �
MOTION by Ms. Madig, seconded by Mr. Gabel, fio receive '�he Citizens Advisory
Task Force for the Anoka County-B2aine Airport Master Plan" literature. Upon
a voice vote, all vocing aye, Chairperson �quist declared the motion carried
uaanimously.
3. DISCUSSION -0F 40-FOOT LOT PUBLIC HEARING OF FEB, 9, 1980 at 9:30 A.M.:
Mr. Deblon stated he ha� not been able to get any Anformation on what happened
at this public hearing.'
Mr. Oquist stated this was in regard to the man who had purchased five 40-foot
lots in Fridley and wanted to build on them. Apparently, the judge felt that
the Cit� Council did not give the man his due procesa so the City Council was
instructed by the judge to open the puDlic heariag on 40-foot lots and give
the man his due process.
4. DISCUSSION OF ATTACHED TNFORM.�TION:
A. Fridley Residential Maintenance Code
Mr: Deblon stated that at the last Covm�ission meeting, the Commission
members had some questions about condo canversion and mittimum maintenance
codes. $e had included Ordznance No. 673 for the Commission's
information as this was Fridley-'s hiaintenance Code. He pointed out
that pages 184^187 applied ta R1, R2, R3, and R4, but from page 187 - on
onty applied to R3 where the general safety, healLh, and welfare would
apply to multiple dwellings. •
Mr. Oquist stated the Coum�issian's concern was that when an apartment
owner starts selling off individual units, there be some control to
assure that thnse units are in good shape, and this ordinance did not
do that.
Mr. Deblon stated it did na�, but it did show the Commission members
what Frid2ey'has for minimum building code and ttte basie requirements
for R3.
B, Condo Conversion Newspaper Artieles
Mr. Deblon stated these articles
for the Commisaion's information.
were interesting and were included
COA8�it1NITY DEVELOPMENT COMMiSSION MEETING FEBRU�tRY 12, 1980 PAGE 5
S. OTHER BUSINESS: '
Mr. Gabel atated that when the Commission reviewed the Comprehensive PLan,
tfiey did not see the maps that showed areas where hovsing units � �
required by Metropolitan Council might be located. 'Mr. Boardman had these
maps at City Council. He would like to know why the Cammission had not seen
thpse maps, and he was concerned because 92-95' houses proposed were in;the'area
in which he lives, which has a higher density Chan auy of the other areas,
Mr. Deblon stated that the map identified the open land tha[`would be potentially
developable for that type of housing, but 3t has not been said that it will be
housing.
Dr. Vos stated he was also a little surprised, because.the Co�ission reviewed
the document without th� maps, although they were supposed to get them. At
that time, the maps were not a high priority and they were to review the
Coanprahensive Plan for policies as quickly as possible. Now it seemed City
Council was spending more time on the number of housing units and the maps,
because of what Mr, Herrick was saying aboub the impact of the Comprehensive
Plan versus the zoning ordinance. The Commission never had that kind of dis-
cussion at all, He asked Mr. Deblon what stage the Camprehensive Flan was at
now.
Mr. Deblon stated he believed the City Council had just approved the Compre-
hensive Plan for review to the adjacent communities.
Ms. Malig stated that this Co�oission had never been involved in any input
into the Center City Project and she resented that. This Commission should
have been able to give some input.
Mr. OquisC stated that for the next Co�ission meeting, he would like a
presentaEion on the CenCer City Project and the status with the developers.
Ms. Modig stated there has been a lot of community concern about the fire at
the Fridley Senior High School and the Fire Department's involvement in that
fiYe alarm and how the schools are not working with the City Fire Department
Yegarding laws. She was also concerned because the schools are a part of
this co�unity. There seems to be no co�municatian between the schools and
the City Fire Department, and the schools should be in compliance with state
f3re codes. It was tser infom�ation that there was no visible check system on
the alarm at the high school to see whether the alarm was on or off. There is
some ordinance about smoke alarms being required every so many feet and they
are not aY the high school. She stated she would like. to know the relntionship
between the City and the schools as far as fire controls or safety measures
required by the schools.
_ "+� '
COtIl�![JNITY DEVEI.OPMEN2 COMMISSION MEETII�, FE$RUARY 12, 1980 - PAGE 6
Mr. Oquist asked Staff to chec[c with the City Fire Department and the School '
District 14 to find out this information. , _
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Dr.. Vos, seconded by Mr. Gabel, to ad�ourn the meeting. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Oquist declared the February 12, 1,980,
Coamunity Development Coumiission meeting adjourned at 9:13 p;.m.
ites ectfully s hmitted,
L e Saba
Recording Secretary
....
a
.� .
HUMIIN RESOURCES CONP4ISSION
MEETTNG
FEBRUARY 7, 1980 .
CAI,L TO ORDER:
Chairperson Treuenfels called the February 7, 1980, Human Resources Co�ission
meeting xo order at 7:32 p.m.
ROLL CAI,L :
Members Present: Peter Treuenfels, Mary van Dan, MaYlyis Carpenter,
Wayne Saunders, Wayne Welch
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Mary Cayan, Human Services Assistant
APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 6, 1979, HUMAN RESOURCES COMNLLSSION NIINUTES:
�OTIOW by Ma. van Dan, seconded by Mr. Saunders, to approve the December b, 1979,
Human Resources Co�ission minutes as �aritten. Upon a voi.ce vote, all voting
aye, Chairperson Treuenfels declared the motion carried unanimously.
1. INTRODUCTION OP 1JAYNE WELCH NEW COii'�i1ISSI0N MEMBER:
Mr. Welch stated he has lived in Fridley for ten years and has two children.
He is a professor at the University of Minnesota in the College of �ducation
and teaches courses primarily in program evaluation. BeLore coming to Minnesota,
he was at Harvard University for four years,primarily involved in curriculum
developmeat for high school curricula and also program evaluatiun and testing.
Mr. Welch stated that one of the reasons he said yes to serving on the Human
Iiesources Coumiission was because he was interested in seeing whether or not some
of the education evaluation processes they were developing had any application
in local government.
Mr. Treuenfels thanked Mr. �delch for his introduction and welcomed him to the
Commission.
2. DISCUSSION OF TEIE STATUS OF FINE AP.TS IN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY:
Mr. Treuenfels stated the status of fine arts in the City of Fridley was not
good at this time. He st;�te.d he had put an item in the City Newsletter to
try to generate interest aud had received only one phone call.
�'!
HUMAN RESOURCES CONR✓iISSIQN MEETING rEBRUARY 7, 1980 - PAGE 3
Ms, van Dan stated that from her past experience at Lynwood Manor Nursing Home,
she knew that many of these churches have very acCive senior programs where
they. visit the nursing homes and hospitals.
Mr. Treuenfels stated they were very interested in learning more about the
churches' programs.
Ms. Cayan stated that she wanted to emphasize that there was a real lack of
coordinaCion among the churches themselves.
Meeting with Community Schools on Jan. 23, 1980 -(Memo �80-14, dated 1/31/80
from Mary Cayan)
Mr. Treuenfels stated that Mr. Myhra had suggested that a representative from
the $uman Resources Commission attend the quarterly City-School meetings. He
asked Mr. Welch if he would be interested in attending these meetings.
Mr. Welch stated he would be willing to attend these meetings whenever possible.
Ms. Gayan stated she would notify Mr. Welch of the date and time o£ the next
City-School meeting.
Ms. Cayan stated that attached to the memo was Coamunity Education's "Guidelines
for Funding Proposals°. About two years ago,when they were putting to�ekher
some programming, Community Educatioa @id a aeed� as�essment znd a sur�aey in
the co�unity. Based on the needs assessment, they made a l.ist of prioritie3;
and from the list of priorities, they accepted proposals and ranked the� against
the 3ist. She stated that Community Educatioa no ionger accepted proposals for
funding, but she had used these Guidelines as a guide when putting together the
"Guidelines for the Prioritization of Funding Requests" that the Co�nission would
be looking at later.
Meeting ���ith Anoka County Social Services on 3an. 25, 1980 -(Memo �k80-16,
daL-ed 2/4/80 from Mary Cayan)
Ms. Cayan stated this meeting was with Sheldon Olkon, who gave a very basic
explanation of the various services offered by Anoka County. He gave them
an organizational chart of the Social Services Division and a booklet on the
Comprehensive Health Program. These two programs have just merged into one
department and, because it is so recent, all the details have not yet been
worked out. So, this information is outdated but the best he could do.
Mr. Welch asked where Anoka County Social Services received their funding.
Ms. Cayan state3 they have a variety sources--some federal grants, some state
monies and some county monies. Right now they are doing a nee3s assessment,
because they feel Anoka County is not getting its fair share of state monies.
She sCated she would check into that further.
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMLSSION MEETING PEBRUARX 7, 1980 - PAGE 4
Ms. C1yan stated that Mr. OLkon thought the City of Fridley was doing an
exceptiocal thing in going out and checking to see what was in the community
for funding. He suggested Chat they meet with the CAP Agency and contact
Don Wegscheider of the City of Coon Rapids. �
Ms, Cayan stated that they received the revised copy of the "Directory of
Community Services from Anoka County". This will prove very helpful when
it comes time to look at funding proposals.
Ms, Cayan stated that what Mr. OZkon had stressed aad what has been coming out in the
meetingsis that there is no coordination of services in Anoka County. No one
knows what the other is doing.
Ms. Cayan ctated she will report on the CAP meeting and the meeting with
Don Wegscheider of Coon Rapids at the next Commission meeting.
4. DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR THE PRIORITIZATION OF FUNDING
REQUESTS:
Mr. Treuenfels stated that the Commission had talked about guidelines for
fu.^.ding last year, a*.td at that time, felt perhaps there wasn't a need for such
a formal appr.oach to the problem of fi:nding and priori.tizing. However, it was
the view of cha Planning Commission and the Citv Counei.l that guidelines �aoulc!
Ue heipful in handlin� fundit�g requests,
Ms. Cayan stated tl7at she ttad put tegether the "Prcposed Guidelines fer the
Prioritizatior. of Funding Requests" based on guidelines from other romnunities
and organizations an3 in goir.g through the minutes ef both tne Planning
Coumission and Human Resources Commission to try to find out what the commission
members wanted incorporated in the guidelines. She stated that Mr. Boardman
felt that the point system (the last page) was the most practical and subjective
way of ranking the requests. He teit that since they were not able to do a
needs assessment, this was the most feasible alternaCive.
Mr. Treuenfels thanked Ms. Cayan for putting this together.
The Co�is�ion members reviewed the "Guidel.ines for the Prioritization of
Eunding Requests" and made recommendations for changes,
Ms. Cayan scated she would incorporate these changes into the "Guidelines" and
have the revised copy for the Commission members to review and discuss at Cheir
next meeting.
5. RECEIVR LETTER rROM CENTRAL CENTER FOR FAPIILY 12ESOURCES TI�ANKING THE
COrIDiISSIONS AND COUN^IL FOR $S,ODO:
MOTION by Ms. van Dan, seconded by Ms. Carpenter, to receive the letter dated
1/29/SO irom Central Center for Family Resources. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Chairperson Treuenfels declared the motion carried unanimously.
HUMe1N BESOURCES COMhnSSION MEETING FEBRU�RY 7, 19�0 - PAGE 5
(, OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Affitmative Action Repozts
Ms. Cayan asked if the Commission members would like to continue receiving
the Affirmative Action Reports put together by the City.
Mr. Treuenfels stated that they should continue receiving these reports
as it was an essential part of human resources. "
B. Handicapped
Ms. van Dan stated she had little success in getting anyone from Camp Courage
to do an accessibility study of Fridley at this time of year. She stated
that the Governor has declared May state-wide ac "Handicapped Month". At
that time, maybe she would have a better response from Camp Courage. She
has been very personally interested in getting an evaluation o£ the
accessibility of programs in the City of Fridley.
Mr. Saunders stated he would contact the Council ior the Handicapped and
try to get someone to come to the March meeting to speak to the Co�ission.
ltD30t,3ItI�SENT :
PSOTION by Ms. Carpenter, seconded by Mr. tdelch, to adjourn Y.he m=eting. Jpon
a voice vote, all voting aye, Chaisperson T.reuer.fels declased the F'ebrva*y 7, 19$D,
Human Resources Coffsnission meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Resgectfully submitted,
���pG�d�[�
Lyncte Saba
Recording Secretary
PARKS AND RECREATION COI�'4�ffSSION
MEETING
FEBRDARY 13, 19&0
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairperson Hughes called the February 13, 1980, Parks & Recreation Commission
meeting to order at 7t32 p.m.
ROLL CALL•
Members Present: Barbara Hughes, Jan Seeger, Betty Mech, Dave Kondrick,
Dick Young
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Charles Boudreau, Yarks & Recreation Director
Bob Barnette, Councilman-at-Large
APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 12, 1979, PARKS & RECREATION CONAffSSION NffNUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Mech, to approve the December 12, I979,
Parks & Recreation Comm3ssion minutes as written. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, Chairperson Hughes declared the motion carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF A6ENllA:
The following additions were made to the agenda:
"Springbrook Building Update" - Item E under DirecCOr's Report
"Recycling" - Item F under New Business
MOTION by Ms. Seeger, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to approve the agenda as
amended. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Hughes declared the
motion carried unanimously.
1. DIHECTOR'S RL'PORT:
A. Winter Ice Maintenance
Dr. Boudreau stated that the Co�issioners had probably heard from the residents
of Fridley that the winter ice has been less then successful this year; however,
the last three weeks they have been able to maintain playable outdoor ice.
The temperatures have just not cooperated this year� Y'hey have not been able
to get their equipmenC onto the lake areas, because it has not been safe.
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1980 - PAGE 2
Dr. Boudreau stated that quite a few people have been using the areas they do
haVe, In an attendance.report as of Feb. 3, the highest use areas were Locke
and Commons, then Ruth Circle and Hayes. One oE the least used areas is the
Burlington Northern area with 184 skaters with a warming house compared to
Flanery that had 943, so Burlington Northern is not even comparing. That was
important, because next year they may just keep the ice but suggest there not
be a warming house. Craig had to be closed because of a Lack of warming house
attendants. ,,,
Dr. Boudreau stated he would have a complete report at the end of the season.
Weather permitting, they would attempt to maintain the ice through the
month of February.
Ms. Seeger stated that she has been checking Ruth Circle and she would saq that
in the winter with the ice, the park is used more than in the summer. She felt
the ice in the neighborhood parks is very important, both recreational and
hockey. The warming house at Ruth Circle is very important as the kids don't
even go skating until the warming house is open.
B. City/School Meetings
Dr. Boudreau stated that he did not know if the Commission members were aware
that once every 3-4 months the City Staff ineets with School District 14 staff
to hash out problem areas. They are in the process oL trying to redesign that
City/School meeting format to incLude interested City Council members, interested
School Board members. He was wondering if there was any interest on the part of
the Parks & Recreation Commission to attend these quarterly meetings. These
meetings are generally luncheon meetin$s around 1i:45 - 1:30 p.m. He stated the
City wil2 set up the next meeting sometime the second week in Apri1 and they
are planning for an early evening meeting to see �f the}* can get more attendance,
It is a very constructive method of trying to correct some of the problems
#acing the school and the City.
The Co�ission members did express an interest in attending these meetings,
but most of them could aot attend unless these meetings were in the evening.
Ms. Hughes asked Mr. Boudreau to inform the members of these meetings, and they'
would arrange to have at least one person in attendance on a rotating basis.
C. MRPA (Minnesota Recreation & Park Assoc., Ine.) Communication
Dr. Boudreau stated the Commissioners had received a copy of a letter asking
for the Parks & Recreation Co�ission to get involved in the 1980 Legislative
Committee o£ the MRPA. If the Commission feels this is a valuable input to
the state association, they may want to have a Commission member serve on that
Co�ittee, He stated this is just beginning in the State oE Minnesota where
the state organization is more or less monitoring and trying to push for
favorable legislation for the recreational profession. Many other states have
a lobbyist who lobbies strictly for recreation and park legislation.
PARKS & RECREATiON COMMISSION MEETING FE$RUARY 13, 1980 - PAGE 3
Mr. Kondrick stated he would be interested in serving on that committee.
" Ms, Hughes appointed Mr. Kondrick to represent the Co�ission and attend these
meetings.
D. Possible Recreation Center Cammittee
Dr. Boudreau stated they had gotten very favorable reaction to the proposed
park program for Fridley Co�unity Park at 69th and IIniversity, He has met
with seVeral groups, and they have been successful in obtaining a$5,000 cash
donation from FYSA toward the development. They have also been successful in
obtaining $60,000 from the VFW toward the development of the field areas, That
will be coming Co the City in the amount of $12,000 per year for five years.
For that $60,000, one of the fields wi11 be named the VFW Fie1d. That presenta-
tion will be made to City Council on Feb. 25.
Dr. Boudreau stated he thinks iC has now come to the point wheYe he would like
this Commission to take an active part in possibly establishing a Recreation
Center Committee--a citizens' committee of 7-10 people active in the co�unity
who would like to see a recreation center. Ae has three people who have expressed
interest in serving. They are willing eo heip generate the financial backing
and aiso the community interest that will be needed to come up with th2 total
picture--the athletic area and the recreation facility. He would be happy to
have any comments the Co�ission might have on the make-up of this committee.
Mr. Young state3 that an organizaticn such as the VFW that is contributing such
a large amount should be fnvited to have someone on that committee.
Dr. Boudreau stated he would like to issue an invitation to all organizations
in the City and to any other interested citizens, possihly through the weekly
Recreation Report.
Mr. Young stated he felt the co¢miittee should have as wide a view as possible
by having a youth representative, representation fram the Fridley Ministezial
Association, representation from the Chamber of Gommerce; senior citizens, etc.,
as that is the way to meet all the needs of the people.
Ms. Hughes asked if the Commission agreed that there is a need and an interest
and that the Recreation Center Committee is a,desirable approach to the project2
The Co�issioners concurred with the idea of establishing a Recreation Center
Committee.
Dr. Boudreau stated that he would envision this cwmnittee being chaired by a
citizen, not connected crith City Hall in any way, and would be strictly a
citizens' committee that would look into the facYs, financing, and seeing if
this is what the residents of Fridley xeally want. He saw iC as really being
an extension of what they started two years ago with the Nei�hborhood Park
Committees. He would like to go back to these same people to see if they are
interested in this type of project.
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 13 1980 - PAGE 4
RY Mlt. KONDRICK
Il�
EXPLORE ALL POSSIBILITIES
COMMUNITY PARK.
\
Ms. Hughes stated the Co�ission would like to have a wide range of representa-
tion on this committee to reflect interest and population groups within the
City; for example, the youth, senior citizens, Lions C1ub, �iFW, American Legion,
Riwanis, Fridley Ministerial As�oc., Chamber of Cou�erce, and School District.l4.
A VOIC� VOTE, ALL VOTING A`iE, CHAIRPERSON HUGHES DECLARED THE MOTION
Ms. Hughes asked the Commission members to write down specific groups they
feel should be represented on the co�ittee. If the City Council approves the
Co�ission`s r2co�endation for a citizens' committee, they can then come up
with a structured type of committee and try to write a charge for the conmittee
in terms of needs assessment, typ.e of faciLity, etc. ._ . •
Ms. Seegez and Mr. Young agreed to work with Ms. Hughes on coming up with a
charge for the committee if approved by Ci[y Council.
' S. Springbrook Building Update
Dr. Boudreau stated it was out for bids, and the bids should be ia sometime
near the end of February and then they wiZl be open publicly.
__
Ms. Hughes asked who made the final approval on tlie bidding documents and the
plans? •
Dr. Boudreau stated that it all went through City Council witli the authority to
receive bids:' Mr, Boardman, because he has training in the architectural field,
along with Mr: St, �lair, went over the plans and bidding documents in detail.
Ms. Hughes stated it should be recorded that the Parks & Recreation Commission
did not have any fnput into the final stages of the building plans or the
bidding documents.
Dr. Boudreau stated, however, that the Coumiission, along with Springbrook
Natvre Center Foundation, was kept abreast of the plans. He stated the way
they have bid the facility is to try to get the shell built with as much space
as possible, using volunteer groups to help with interior wa12s, ete.
II. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT:
A. City Band & Orchestra Cocicert
Ms. Hughes stated that last Sunday, she attended the City Bank & Orchestra
concert as a representative of the Parks & Recreation Co�ission. The City
does fund these two activities, and they were very complimentary of the City's
support.
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1980 - PAGE 5
Ms. Hughes stated the band was 19 years old. It is a very good recreation for
people and they do perform some civic activities, such as the 49'er Days and
these kinds of concerts.
B. "Friends & Neighbors"
Ms. Hughes stated she is hosting a show on Cable TV called "Frieads'& Neighbors".
She had Connie McMillion on and this will be aired in about two weeks. She
stated Ms. McMillion was an absolutely super person,.who did,a great job in
selling the recreation program. Ms. McMillion may be interested in taping �ome
craft classes Chat could be available at the library.
C. Springbrook Nature Center Foundation Contract
Ms. Hughes stated that at one of the Planning Commission meetings where they
had received the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation report, there were
questions and concerns from some of the members about whether or not it was
appropriate for Springbrook to indicate they were ready to turn the facility
over to the City. She was qot at that Planning Commission meeting and was not
able to convey to them at that meeting that it was her impression that the Parks
& Recxeation Co�ittee was not upset about the City taking title to the facility
and integrating it into the Fridley park system and that, indeed, it would'be
appropriate. At the next meeting, she did tell them, and the Planning Co�ission
notv understands that the Parks & Recreation Ca.nmission does r,ot see any problem
with it.
III. NEW BUSINESS:
A, Councilman-At-Large, Bob Barnette
Mr. Barnette stated that he was here to speak about Springbrook Nature Center.
This all goes back to the old Springbrook/golf course situation. He stated
he had not lost interest, but, in fact, had gained interest in it.
He stated that at the Jan. 9, 1980, Planning Coumdssion meeting, the Planning
C�mission discussed the letter from Springbrook Nature Center Foundation, in
which Springbrook stated they have chosen to discontinue their lease with the
City. Springbrook`s five-year lease expires this month and they are not going
to renew their lease with the City. That tums the responsibility of the park
and the building and any operaCion and maintenance back to the City. He
re£erred to the .Tan. 23, 1980,. Planning Commission minutes, first page, where
Ms. Hughes stated that "the Park Commission was not upset because the Foundation
had not renewed their contract. The Commission felt what was set out to do by
the Springbrook Park Foundation had been aceomplished and Che City should take
over the park at this point." He asked the Commission members if they agreed
with that statement?
The Commission members sCated they did agree with Ms. Hughes' statement.
PARKS � RECREATION COPAfI5SI0N MEETING FEBRUARY 13 1980 - PAGE 6
Mr. Barnette asked the Commission if they had any idea of what it is going to
cost the City to operate and maintain the park oace the building is built?
He assumed it would have to be a park budget item for the operation of the
nature center.
Dr. Boudreau agreed that it would most likely be part of tlie Park, Recreation,
and Natura2 Resources budget.
Ms. Hughes stated that the Co�nission had not developed any'kind of budgets
on that;;in fact, Mr.�Barnette should be aware that the Co�ission has very
little input into the budget pxocess and the way it is handled within the City.
Mr. Barnette stated he has kept a11 the information on this since 1969. Zn a
public hearing back in 1974, the question was asked of the Naturalist of Wood-
lake Nature Center: "What did it cost Richfield in 1973 to operate Woodlake?"
His answer in the minutes was that it cost the City of Richfield $75,000 a
year to operate and maintain Woodlake, which had a very minimal building.
Mr. Bamette stated he is estimating, with a better building and nicer park,
that it wi11 cost the City nf Fridley $150-200,000 to maintain Springbrook
Nature Center.
Mr. Baraette stated that Springbrook is a nice nature center and he is not
knocking that. But, now they have reached another point where the Springbrook
Nature Center Four.dation is opting to get out for many reasons, money being
the major consideration.
Ms. Hughes pointed out that Mr. St. Clair, C3ty Naturalist, is already in the
budget and they are already doing some programming at the Nature Center. She
would assume that the $75,000 for Woodlake included those kinds of costs. If
they were looking at additional costs to operate the nature center ovez and
above what the City is already putting in, she was sure they were not talking
about $75,0o0 or even more than that.
Mr, Barnette stated that in the referendum back in 1974, he thought the taxpayer
was given a bill of goods that this was going to be a tax-free, no-Fridley-
monies-spent, [ype of project. It was a Z-1 vote for the nature center. The
impression he got from people and his impression was that they were going to
get something for nothing and this is not happening. Now the City is involved
in the Fridley Community Park which is a big operation, and when is the tax-
payer going to say that they have had enough?
Ms. Seeger stated that, first of all, Springbrook has done what they said they
would do. The only thing they haven't done is put the building up. She
really Eelt that what they came up with was good and of high quaZity, The
Foundation is still in existence and will be available as volunteers and as
a resouzce, so the only thing that has changed is that their lease is up.
The City of Fridiey is not being asked, do they want a recreation center for a
lot of money and do they want a buildingY The Nature Center was an issue asked
and, as a park commissioner, at least she knew what ditecCion the citizens
asked her to go. With the recreatian center, they are hoping, but haven't
been asked,
PARKS & RECREATION COPIl�ISSIQN MEETING, FEBRUARY 13, 1980 - PAGE 7
Ms. Hughes asked Dr. Boudreau what kinds of arrangements have been made on
Mr. St. Clair's time in working at the naYure center and charges to the
Foundation in terms of what Fridley had done there?
Dr. Boudreau stated that anything the City does to improve that area according
to the lease until it expires must be reimbursed to the City of Fridley for
the time speht. Rowever, in that area they have done nothing. That area is used as
an available resource for progranmiing. There is nothing in the lease that
says they cannot use thc area for active programming. They are using that as a
resource just as they would use Islands of Peace, a school yard, Innsbruck
area, etc. Mr. St. Clair has held programs all over the City, and he is not
doing the pzogramming for the Foundation.
Ms. Hughes staCed she did know, however, thaC the things Mr. St, Clair has
done for the Foundation has been charged to the Fonndation, and the Foundation
has paid for it.
Ms. Mech stated this issue was an old discussion. The money is available for
the building and the people have indicated what they want. They could argue
all night whether or not the people had been deceived, but people have been
led to expect a nature center, and the City needs a nature center.
Mr. Barnette stated he is talking about a facility that i_s going to all of z
sudden cost the taxpayers a lot of money.
Mr. Young stated that to compare this to something else--people were told that
the new zoo in Apple Valley was not going to cost anything, and every year
the zoo needs more and more money. Metropolitan Transit Commission cannot seem
to get by and keeps coming back for more money. He stated these map be silly
comparisons, but people don't get something for nothing. He sti11 feels the
nature center is the thing for this community, whether it is something for
nothing or if he has to pay L'ax dollars for it, He feels the nature center
is going to serve a greater number of people than the golf course. There is
no guaranCees that a golf course could pay for itself. With the high cost
of gasoline and the way the environment and ecology is deteriorating, the
nature center is the only lasting thing he�can leave for his children and his
children's children.
Ms. Hughes stated that bringing this topic up probably was telling the
Commission that they aught to look again at their total service needs and
whether they are meeting them. She thought that meant going back and reviewing
some of the Neighborhood Park Committee's findings. It is something they
should do in the next 2-4 months, particularly if they are going to be talking
about another major expense item in the Recreation Center.
Ms. Hughes sCated that Yhe Commission appreciated Mr. Barnette's comments
and thanked him for coming.
PARKS & RECREATION CON4IISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 13 1980 - PAGE 8
B. Lease with Anoka Covnty
Dr. Boudreau stated that two Anoka County Master Plans have been encouraged
and presented to Metropolitan Council. One plan is for the Rice Creek West
Bikeway/Walkway System that would cut through Locke Park in its entirety.
This plan is high priority. The second plan is the master plan for the Islands
of Peace Regional Park (not the official name) that includes Islands of Peace
property plus burham Island plus all the Iand south of 694 and west of East
River Road. The Caunty has taken the position in one o£ its'nolicies that _..
any time it causes an influx of people or programs upon a local community by
one of its programs or facilities, it should operate and maintain that facility.
Mr. Boudreau stated the Commission members had a copy of a memo he had written
to the City Manager on this subject. He thought it was time for the City to
consider a"joint powers agreement" with the County for the County to provide_all
maintenance and operational costs for these facilities. The C3ty would retain
the ownership of the land and would retain the right to review and either approve
or veto any:new developments that would change drastically the program or the land.
He thought the City should review its ordinances concerning the policing and
iire control of these areas. He thought there were some benefits the City could
arrive at by having the County perform the operation and maintenance of the
facility that was going to have a greater use to people because of the County.
The east-west bikeway/walkway system will_generate more people going througfi:'
Locke Park: If the City was going to continue the �aintenance of the facility,
it was going to cost more dollars and an increasing amount of time for a facilitq
that aas really serving a regional function. Since the CounGy has said in its
policy statement that it would provide operation and maintenance, he thought the
CiTy should strongly look at this possibility.
Ms. Seeger stated the pzoblem she had with this was the attitude of the County.
She did not know what input the City of Fridley residents had in any of the
county's kinds of developments, maintenance, or anything. The County
Commissioners` meetings were during the day, not in the evening, and it kind
of Ieft out the citizenry i£ they had co�ents, suggestions, or complaints. _
Mr. Young stated the only thing that bothered him was the fact that Locke
Park is a faciLity that is owned by Fridley, but is being used extensively by
groups from Minneapolis and other communities. With the increased popularity
of that situation, the people of Fridley won'E even want to go there.
Dr. Boudreau stated it is a regional-use facility right now that the City is
spending money on to maintain.
Ms, Seeger suggested th�t maybe the City could obtain the manpower or the
dollars fran the County and still retain the operation and maintenance. As
a citizen, she would feel better about that kind of arrangement. She would
not have to go to the Anoka County Courthouse to talk to someone about a
problem. She would rather be able to go to her local governcaent.
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1980 - PA�E 9
Dr. Boudreau stated that when he looks at the resources the City has available
and the responsibilites the City has available, and its dedication Co the other
300 + acres of land it is trying to maintain, he thought, in the Long run, the
County was in a better position to provide additional maintenance to these
regional use facilities.
Mr. Young stated that Anoka County would
from Anoka to Fridley, and he could not
way to matntain a facility.
be hauling their equipment,l5-17 miles
see where that was the most economical
Ms. Hughes sCated there were a lot of questions here that needed to be answered
before they could reco�end to City Council that the City enter into a"joint
powers agreement" with Anoka County. There are pros and cons on both sides,
She asked what the purpose was for Dr. Boudreau's memo to the City Manager.
Dr. &oudreau stated the memo was a step in initiating general discussions
regarding a long term lease with Anoka County for.Chese parcels of land.
Ms. Aughes stated Chat another item that could be added as ��r15 on the memo was:
"Are there other ways foz efficient maintenance and operation, such as grants
and aids?"
. __- -- _
__
_Mr. Konorick stated that Items 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, and 13 in the memo directly
involved money--monies that could be saved by letting the County do this on
the condition that if the City can sti11 maintain control and save dollars ior
the City of Fxidley, he thought it was a better deal and the overall program
was going to affect the residents of Fridley and not the residents of Anoka
County, He thought it was to the City's advantage to have the County do these
things. '
Ms. Hughes stated she would like the Commissioners to take a careful look at
the items listed in Dr. Boudreau's memo to see if there was anything more that
should be discussed and so they would be in agreement that they had covered
everything. .
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Young, to eontinue discussion on the
possible lease with Anoka County at Che next meeting. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, Chairperson Hughes declared the motion carried unanimously.
C. Request - City of Coon Rapids
Dz. Boudreau stated that the City of Coon Rapids was coming to the City Council
on March 3 to request the City of Fridley assist them in funding a summer
concert series. He would recounnend that the City not assist the City of Coon
Rapids finaacially since all monies to be expended and all groups performing
will be at Anoka Ramsey Community College. He felt ttc� City of Fridley has
a very tight budget in trying to capitalize on its own cultural arts programs.
0
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 13, t980 - PAGE_ 10
ryiG�,t�t��[�IK�lui � �
OR WITHIN THE CITY'S
MECH. TO
i'uC�i�+Ti[�iil
THEY
[K;ru
D. Park Improvements - Rice Creek School ••
Dr. Boudreau stated he has talked several times about improving the Rice
Creek School playground. They would Like to put in a permanent hockey rink
at Rice Creek School. They are tzying to locat� all the hockey rinks at the
schools, because they can leave the rinks up year around and it saves on
maintenance. In order to put in the permanent hockey rink, they need to change
one of the tennis courts so, in effect, they will be putting in a new tennis
court and a hockey rink end to end.
Dr. Boudreau stated they also want to revitalize the ball diamond which will
give another neighborhood facility. This pLan was given to Ray Habel, Principal
of Rice Creek School, under the pxetense that the City wi11 split the improve-
ments with the School Board, and the City will be responsible for making
improvements and having use of the facilities after school hours.
Dr. Boudreau stated they are considering reu�oving the hockey rink at Grace High
School. If Grace wishes to have a hockey rir.k, the City will put in the ice
but not the boards. They had some problems at Grace this year, hecause the
residents think the rink is a Grace High School £acility and not a neighborhood
facility.
The Coamiission expressed no objections and concurred with Dr. Boudreau's plans.
E. Proposed Fee Schedule for Adult Softball
Dr. Boudreau stated the 1980 adult softbalt league fees caere increasing some-
whaC this year. The increased costs are primarily because of increased cost
of umpires, increased cost of maintenance materials and maintenance men,
increased registration costs with the MRPA and the ASA, and the state entry
fee is included in some of this. For the men's teams, they are suggesting a
$175 fee per team and a$155 fee per team for the women's leagues.
Dr. Boudreau stated they are also suggesting they set a limit on the number
of teams allowed in each of the adult leagues this }y�ar, They felt with the
limit of fields and the use of neighhorhood parks they have, the nwnber of
teams should be limited.
MOTION by Mr. Young, seconded by Ms, Mech, to accept the proposed fee schedules
for the 1980 adult softball leagues and that there be a limit of teams in each
of the adult leagues. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson.Hughes
declared the motiori carried unanimously.
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 13 1980 - PAGE 11
F. Recycling
Ms. Mech stated she had some material about a unique recycling plant that is
in operation in Hempstead, New York. She wanted to know who would be interested
in looking at this material.
Ms. Hughes stated it was something the new Energy Coumiission might want to
investigate.
ADJOURNMENT :
Chairperson declared the February 13, 1980, PaYks & Recreation Commission
meeting adjoumed at 10:17 p.m.
Respectfully su mitted,
Lynnl�
Recording Secretary
�
��
�
'�Y4�]�i��f1�1
PLANNING COMMLSSION MLETING, FEBRUARY 27, 1980
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Harris called the February 27, 1980, Planning Co�ission meeting to
order at 7:43.
ROLL CALL;
Members Present: Mr. Harris, Mr. Treuenfels, Mr. Langenfeld, Mi. Oquist,
Ms. Hughes, Ms. Schnabel
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
APPRQVAL �F FEBRUARY 6, 1980, PI.ANNiNG COh4ffSSI0N M7B7UTES:
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to approve the
February 6, 1980, Planning Coumission minutes•
. Ms. Hughes stated that ae the City Council meeting on Monday, the City Council
received the Feb. 6, 1980, Planning Co�ission minutes and set a public hearing
for Robert Schroer's property (P.S. #80-01). The question was asked if they
needed to do anything about the water study and the answer was no, they have
this plan and everything is being done differently, so it would be appropriate
just to review the water siCuation in the planning. She stated she felt it was
very clear in the Feb. 6 Planning Coumission minutes that the Planning Commission
requested a comprehensive study of the whole area as far as a drainage system,
and the City Council was choosing not to do anything about it,
Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman to check into the situation. He stated that if
the City was going to acquire Land for a holding pond, now was the time to do
it, not after someone builds on the land.
Ms. Hughes stated she was tald that Yhe water would and is supposed to be held
on the lot until it is safe to run off.
Mr. Harris stated that it is the rate of run-off and the quality tflat is the
problem. The City is requiring a holding pond on the Sears property. What
makes the Sears property any different from this psoperty? He thanked Ms. Hughes
for this information.
Mr. Boardman stated he would check with Mr. Herrick on the water drainage plan
and get back to the Coum�ission.
UPON A VOIC& VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MINUTES APPROVED
� AS WRITTEN.
FLANNING COhB�IISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 27, 1980 PAGE 2
1. RECEIVE TWO PUBLIC HEARTNG NOTICES FROM SPRING LAI� PARK:
A. Rezoning to allow mini-storage garages on the property abutting
8325 University Ave. N.E.
Mr. Boardman stated he knew vexy little about this. This has
already gone to the Spring Lake Park Planning hearing so that
is why it was noted that the Council hearing would be on Mar. 3.
Mr. Harris asked if these storage garages would in any way adversely
affect Fridley.
Mr. Boardman stated they would affect Fridley visually, but there
was no traffic concern because the garages would generate little
traffic. Another concern would be the drainage.
Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman to contact Spring Lake Park to express
Fridley's concern about the water run-off and to find out where the
water would go and what controls Spring Lake Park planned to have on
the water run-off. If there seemed to be a problem, Mr. Harris asked
Mr. Boardman to contact him and he would try to attend the Mar. 3
City Council meeting.
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to receive the
public hearing notice from Spring Lake Park for rezoning to allow
� mini-storage garages on the property abutting 8325 University Ave. N.E.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion
carried unanimously.
B. Special Use Permit to do filling and grading on the property
immediately East of 1115 Osborne Rd.
Mz. Boardman stated the drainage for this property would go into
the Rice Creek Watershed District so there was some control.
MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to receive the
public hearing notice from Spring Lake Park for a special use permit
to do filling and grading on the property immediately East of
1115 Osborne Rd. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris
declared the motion carried unanimously.
2. RECEIVE PACRET FROM NORTHSRN STIITBS POWER, RE: Coal-Fired Power Plant
in Twin Cities Area;
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the packet of
information from NSP.
Ms. Hughes stated in the information, NSP said they have done some site layouts
on a11 of these properties and she would like the Planning Commission to request
those layouts. She also thought NSP should be asked what impact they think the
water use might have on the Minneapolis Waterworks, if any.
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 27, 1980 PAGE 3
• Mr. Langenfeld stated that the Covmmission should naturally be aware of all
the information at hand, but he wondered how much they should go into it
since Fridley might not be the site chosen.
Ms. Hughes stated that for the record, NSP has completed facility layouts for
five of the new sites and the three existing sites, and it would be interesting
to see what they are proposing. At least their first 200 megawatt plant is
going to be at the Highbridge Plant in St. Paul for co-generation. So, what
they are looking at is where the second one will be. She asked NSP at a meeting
on co-generation what they were thinking of, and it sounded as though they are
considering the three existing-plants, the cLosest to Fridley being the River-
side Plant. If that one is not one of the most viable ones, Fridley is going
to be very attractive immediately behind that, at least on this end of the
metro area.
Mr. Harris stated the more he thought about the Fridley site, the more he was
sure it was not a feasible site.
Mr. Boardman stated that the Fridley site was the smallest site and that is a
detriment.
Ms. Schnabel stated that NSP was also looking at areas where there could be
barge traffic, and thexe could be no barge traffic into Fridley or Coon Rapids:
� Ms, Hughes stated the Co�isaion should be aware that the PCA is considering,
and she thought they have started the process to redraw the lines where they
think they have a sulphur dioxide pollution problem.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DBCLARED THE MOTION TO
RECEIVE THE NSP INFORMATION CARRIED UNANYMOUSLY,
3. RECEIVH SPHCIAL HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENf AIITHORITY MINUfES OF JAN. 29, 1980:
MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the Special Housing &
Redevelopment Authority minutes of Jan. 29, 1980.
Mr. Boardman stated that at the last meeting, the HRA selected Joint Venture
Developers (JVD) as the developer for Phase l and 2 of the Center City Pro}ect.
He stated he has talked Co the Gity Attorney regarding a possible conflict of
interest, because of Mark Haggerty's law firm's association with the City, and
the City Attorney has written a memo stating there is no conflict of interest.
Ms. Schnabel stated she really has problems with this. She felt there was the
potential for a real conflict of interese in this situation, should some
�roblem arise in the development of the Center City Project, in which the
city prosecuting attorney's law firm is involved as one of the developers.
She thought that particular law firm has done good work for the City of Fridley,
and the acco�odations reached in terms of hiring the two different law firms
has worked out very well for the City, but she sees a real potential for a
conflict of interesC and a real problem in the future. She really felt that
•
PLANNING COIMIISSION MEETING, FBBRUARY 27, 1980 PAGE 4
• if the City Council goes along with JVD as the developer;for the Center City
Project, then the City should divest itself of the law firm in Cerms of the
City Prosecutor.
Mr. Harris stated he did not think that the City Prosecutor has ever dealt
with any zoning issues or building permit violations.
Mr. Boardman stated the City Prosecutor is primarily involved in police matters
and those types of prosecuting matters.
Ms. Schnabel stated she still felt the potential existed where there might
be a case where that particular law firm might be called in. Also, even
though she understood that Mr. Elmars Prieditis (member of HRA) abstained
from voting on the developer, she felt his association with the architectural
firm that is part of JVD was a little shaky. It was these kinds of things
that makes the development look kind of suspicious.
Mr. Boardman stated that the HRA was concerned about the conflict of interest
and that is why they asked Mr. Herrick for a legal opinion. Mr. Prieditis
was aware of his position and did not vote on the developer. What more could
the HRA do?
Mr. Harris stated that the conflict of interest between the City Prosecutor
and the fact that he works for the law firm that is associated with ,TVD did not
• bother him as much as the fact that Mr. Prieditis was associated with JVD
through his architectural firm. He stated that if, in fact, there was a problem
as far as Mr. Haggerty's firm with the development and the City Prosecutor had
to prosecute, it would be very simple far them ko say there is a conflict of
interest and have Mr. Herrick handle the prosecution.
Ms. Schnabel stated that she thought the City Council has an o6ligation to
review this matter and make same kind of decision.
Mr. Boardman staCed that the Co�i.ssion has to remember that the HBA is a
separate, non-profit public corporation, separated fram the City Council.
Mr. Haggerty's firm is not the proseeuting attorney for the HRA. The City of
Fridley is completely separate from the HRA. The difference is one is elected
and one is appointed.
Mr. Harris stated he has explained to the HRA that the Planning Commission
will stay out of the selection phase, but would be happy to participate and
give input in the development phase. As individuals, the Cou�ission members
could certainly raise these questions.
Mr..Harris asked Mr. Boardman about the timetable for the development.
Mr. Boardman stated that since the developer has been selected, they have
contacted both developers. One of the things the HRA made in their motion
was for Staff to work with International Multi-Housing, Inc.;(IMI) on the
potential of including one of the other phases. IMI is very interested in
�
PLANNING CO1�ffSSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 27, 1980 PAGE 5
• working in some of the other phases, preferably across University. He stated
he would be meeting with INII on Monday and with JVD the next Friday. Right
now they will have to go through the disposition docwnents with JVD and
Mr. Haggerty's fixm will try to get coumiitments on office facilities. This
whole procesa will take approximately 90 days. After the disposition documents
are completed and coa�itments are made with those documents, the City wi11
start the acquisition process with the property. That will take around six
months.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL WTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION TO
RECSIVE THE JAN. 29, 1980, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT MINUTES Ci1RRIED UNANiMOUSLY.
4. RECEIVE THE FEB, 7, 1980, HUMAN RESOURCES COPIIIISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to receive the Feb. 7, 1980,
Human Resources Covmission minutes.
Mr. Harris stated that it was his personal feeling that in talking to several
people in the County about social services and what services are available, he
has never seen such disorganization in all his life. It was his understanding
that after they got all this information together, the Human Resources Covmiission
would come up with some guidelines, and then the Planning Co�ission would talk
about it and see what role they fe1C the City should play in this.
• UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNAPIIMOUSLY,
5. RECEIVE THE FEB. 12, 1980, APPEALS CC@AffSSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to receive the Feb. 12, 1980,
Appeals Co�ission minutes.
UPONA VOICH VOTE, A,LL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION C.�RRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
6. RECEIVE THE FEB. 12, 1980, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMLSSION MINUTES:
MATION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to receive the Feb. 12, 1980,
Community Development Commission minutes.
Mr. Oquist stated that the Community Development Commission made a motion on
page 3 stating that the Covmiission did not support the NPC-5 Airport Installa-
tion Permit. As they looked at it, they saw no revoking of the permit. The
NPC-5 requires the issuance of a permit before there is any airport remodeling,
but there is no enforcement.
Mr. LangenfeLd stated the Environmental Quality Gommission had strongly wished
that th� Co�unity Development Co�ission would support the idea of a permit
process, but he appreciated seeing another viewpoint on it. The Environmental
Quality Co�ission felt that the permit process was another tool to make it
. a little more enforceable in a court of 1aw.
Pf;ANNlNG COhII�IISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 27, 1980 PAGE 6
• Ms. Hughes stated that Mr. Oquist had an excellenC point about no revoking
of the permit, and she did not know what the revoking process was. The M?CA
could issue permits, but there are provisions in the state law for revoking
permits, and that might be where this is handled.
Mr. Harris asked how can you exercise control over a federal agency because
the FAA really sets the noise standards for jet aircraft or any aircraft?
Ms. Hughes stated that through the permit, you could say you won't allow any
plane over a certain decibel level to land or won't allow operation after a
certa3n hour. The controls being used now are essentially voluntary or ones
that have been adopted in negotiation with neighborhoods and have been done,
not by the MPCA, but by MAC. If you established that the MPCA has the right
to permit this kind of facility, then it also has the right to set limitations
on how that facility is used.
Ms. Hughes stated she felt one of the reasons the permit is coming up now for
more discussion is because the current status of the congressional legislation
was to give a�five-year extension to fleet operators befQre they are required
to retrofit or install new engines.
Mr. Harris stated he would be in favor of NPC-5 if he thought it would do any
good.
. Mr. Langenfeld stated the bottom line was that it was the hopes of many that
this permit system would work and would provide the necessary teeth they are
looking for,
Ms. Hughes stated the MPCA had adopG$d the following priorities for noise
control: No. 1 for airport, No. 2 for highways, and No. 3 working with
communities on community noise control.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that when the Environmental Quality Co�ission got
started on this, they didn't know what existed and just wanted some kind of
permit process. It was the Environmental Quallty Cou�ission's hope that
there would be s�e kind of control on airport expansion through a permit
process so you wouldn't have the situation where an airport could add 500 ft.
of runway, then add to the control tower, and before long, it was a super
airport.
Mr. Oquist atated that all the NPC-5 says is that before an airport gets
a permit, it must tell the MPCA it is noC going to create more noise than
the state standards. The airport then says they wi11 not create more noise
so they get the permit and go about building. If, after building, the airport
does create more noise, it is all right, because the permit cannot be revoked
anyway. He stated he views the NPC-5 Airport Installation Permit as just a
pieeemeal kind of thing--a bandaid to put on a problem and it will not really
solve the problem.
•
PLANNING CONAff SSION MSETING FEBRUARY 21, 1980 PAGE 7
• Mr. Langen£eld asked the Commission if they would like to have Daryl Korpela
or Al Perez of the Noise Section of the MPCA come to a Coum�ission meeting to
talk about NPC-5. He felt it would be very helpful,
Ms. Hughes stated that the MPCA is seeking public c mmnent, but not in a formal
public hearing. The deadl3ne for public comment was Dec. 1, 1979, but it has
been postponed indefinitely. She believed this would be resurfacing in the
next couple of months, and then they may well have a public hearing, at which
time it would be appropriate to make some couiment. She stated she would Like
to have someone from the MPCA come to a Planning Commission meeting sometime
in the summer.
UPOI3 A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, C HAIRMt�t3 HARRIS DECLARED THE Mt7iI0t3 TO
RECEIVE THE FEB. 12, 1980, COMM[JNITY DEVELOPMENT COrAflSSION MIN[JTES CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
7. RECEIVE THH FEB, 13, 1980, PARKS & RECRBATION CON4IISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to receive the Feb. 13, 1980,
Parks & Recreation Co�ission minutes.
Ms. Hughes stated that the Parks & Recreation Conmission made a motion on
page 4 reco�ending that a citizens' committee be established to explore all
possibilities for a Fridley recreation center at the Fridley Community Park.
• She stated that one of the £unctions of this group would be to raise funds
and involve the community. From that standpoint, it would be useful to expand
it beyond the Parks & Recreation Coam�ission.
Mr. Harris stated he thought this was within the realm of the Parks & Recreation
Commission, and it might carry a liCtle more weight if it vas handled by the
Parks & Recxeation Commission. He asked Ms.Hughes what does the Parks &
&ecreation C�ission want?
Ms. Hughes stated the Parks & Recreation Co�ission generally felt they ought
to be doing it and be involved in the decisions. She stated they have been
having this argument for several months in terms of what this whole project
would be. She stated that she had said before that the Parks & Recreation
Co�ission has had absolutely nothing to say about the layout of the Sears
property plan. It was being done internally be the City Staff. Mr, Boudreau
was out making presentations to organizations asking for money to develop the
fields before the Parks & Recreation Commission even saw the plan. She was
still having problems with the co�unicationswith staff in bringing things to
the Coum�ission that she felt were appropriate things for the Commission to deal
with.
Mr. Harris stated that if the Parks & Recreation Commission had a project
co�ittee, they would study the thing and make their recoumendations Co the
Parks & Recreation Cammission.
•
PLANNING COM1�ffSSIO�I MEETING, FEBRUARY 27, 1980 P�GE 8
• Ms. Hughes stated she would like the Planning Commission to indicate if the
ciYizens' commitCee was appropriate or if a project committee was the appro-
priate mechanism for working on a recreation center in terms of defining the
appropriate facility and funding.
Ms. Schnabel stated she thought it should be the responsibility of the Parks &
Recreation Co�ission.
Mr. Boardman stated that if the Parks & Recreation Commission does set up a
project committee, it is up to the Coumiission to establish that project committee
and it does not take Planning Commission o r City Council action to establish
that project co�ittee.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that on page 9 of the Parks & Recreation Cou�ission
minutes where the City of Coon Rapids asked for funds from the City of Fridley
for their summer concernts, if these concerts were held at Anoka Ramseg,
Community College, where would the proceeds go?
Ms. Hughes stated ahe was sure the proceeds would go to the Fine Arts Co�ission
of Coon Rapids, who is running this series of concerts.
Mr. Boardman stated he had talked to Coon Rapids and has told them the process
they would have to go through to request funding. That process is the process
currently being established by the Human Resources Commission.
• UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYB, CHAIRMAN HARRI5 DECLABED THE MOTION TO
RECEIVE THE PARKS & RECREATION COtR�ffSSION MINUTES CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. LANGENFELD, TO RBCOI�AIEND THAT THE
PAAKS & RECREATION CONAfISSION ACT AS THE COrIIIITTEE RESPONSIBLE FOR EXPLORING
�
SIICH A PROJECT COMPIITTEE.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECI,ARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY,
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL V OTING AYE, CH4IRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Harris declared a ten-minute break at 9:40 p,m.
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 27, 1980 PAGE 9
• 8. CONTINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 205. ZONING:
MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to continue discussion on
the Proposed Changes to Chapter 205. Zoning at another time.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried
unanimously.
The Commission set a special meeting to discuss the Zoning Ordinance on
Wednesday, March 26, at 7:30 p.m.
9. OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Boardman stated he wanted to inform the Co�ission that on March 6, the
flood insurance peQple would be at City Aall. Staff will be meeting with them
at 1:00 p.m. and aC 2:00 p.m „ there will be a.public meeting on flood
insurance. The notice was in the paper.
ADJOURNMENT :
MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a
voice, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the February 27, 1980, Planning
Commission meeting adjourned at 1Q;05 p.m.
• Respectful�y submitted,
r//LQ, c��
Lyn Saba
Recording Secretary
•