Loading...
PL 05/07/1980 - 30535�� ^�, �•. �, CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COIrIINISSION MEETING, MAY 7, 1980 CALi. TO ORDER : Chairman Harris called the May 7, 1980, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Mr. Harris, Ms. Schnabel, Mr..Langenfeld, Mr. Oquist, Ms. Aughes, Mr. Wharton Members Absent: Mr. Treuenfels Othegs Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner John Flora, Public Works Director APPROVAL OF APRIL 23, 1980, P'LANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTTON by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to approve the Apri1 23, 1980, Planning Commission minutes as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. 1. RECEIVE APRIL 15, 1980,.ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COD�'LCSSION MINUTES: MOTTON by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Aughes, to receive the April 15, 19�80, Environmental Quality Co�ission minutes. � Mr. Langenfeld stated that at the Environmental Quality Commission meeting, Che Cou�ission members were wondering if the City has taken any other position on the Anoka County Airport since the City Council Resolution ��139-1977 on Dec. 22, 1977. Mr. Boardman stated the City's position has p'rimarily been a"wait and see" status. They have just gotten the information that State Representative Paul McCarron taeked on a rider at the State Legislature which pretty much killed any further study on th e Anoka County Airport. So, at this time, unless Metropolitan AirporCs Couimission takes it to court and gets that ruling thrown out, the airport iss�e has been tabled. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLA,RED THE MOTTON CARRTED UNANIMOUSLY; 2. RECEIVE APRIL 16, 1980, PARKS & RECREATION CONIl�iISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the April 16, 1980, Parks & Recreation Comunission minutes. Ms. Hughes asked the Planning Co�ission members to note the motion made by the Parks & Recreation Commission on page 14 regarding the Joint Powers Agreement when the J oint Powers Agreement was discussed later in the meeting. Mr. Harris stated the Commission would discuss the Joint Powers Agreement under "Other Business". _ �-.. FLANNING CON�'LLSSION MEETING MAY 7 1980 PAGE 2 • � . � Ms. Aughes stated the discussion by Tim Turnbull of the Fridley Police Depart- ment on police calls to Locke Park was interesting. The main conclusion of that discussion was that, while there were a number of ca11s to Locke Park, these were not huge numbers, and the Police'Department probably does not think of Locke Park as being a very serious area and one that demands constant control, even though a Neighborhood Crime Perception survey indicated that the Locke Park area was an area people would most avoid because of fear of crime. Ms. Hughes stated the Co�nission will be talking about what kinds of secuxity or techniques might be used to improve the situation in Locke Park and what 'they might ask other city departments to try to doe UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN flARRIS DECLARED Ti� MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY: 3. RECEIVE APR.IL 22 1980 ENERGY CONIMCSSION MLNUTES: MdTION by Mr. Wharton, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to receive the April 22, 198f1, � Energy Commission minutes.� � Ms. Hughes stated she wondered if people know about the kinds of energy materials available at th� Fridley LiLrary. She knew there were supposed to be some energy materials at the library fram a previous project. Mr. Wharton stated the Energy Comunission has not yet examined the library to- �� � see what energy resources are available, but it is the intention of the Co�nission to do that before the consideration of any dissemination of energy in.forma.tion. here at City Hall. Ms. Hughes asked what the resolution was of the discussion about the City Council adopting the Proposed Energy Policy. . 1Kr. Wharton stated that the Energy Commission would like t� use the Energy Policy as the document they could start working with. Before the Energy � Cammission can do that, it must be adopted by City Council. Mr. Boardman stated that there is going to be a joint meeting between the City Council and the Energy Co�issioa, at which time the Energy Policy will be discussed. That meeting has not yet been scheduled, but hopefully it will be scheduled this month. � IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CAr�RTED UNANtMOUSLY: Mr. Langenfeld stated that on page 8, the Energy Commission made a motion �to City Council, through Planning Coumnission, recommending that Betty Enkhaus and Dennis Andersoa receive special recognition for their.contributions to the Energy Project Committee. He stated he would like to see the Planning Commission concur with that moti�n. • � ;� PLANNING CON112CSSION MEETING, MAY 7, 1980 PAGE 3 MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded b Mr. Langenfeld, to concur with the Energ Co�ission's motion and r�couunend to City Council that Betty Enkhaus and Dennis Anderson receive some ty e of recognition for their valuable contri- butions and efforts to the Energy Pro ect Committee. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTTNG AYE, CHAIRMAIJ HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: 4. RECEIVE APRIL 29, 1980, APPEALS CONI�2ISSION MCNUTES: ,MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, secon.ded by Mr. Langenfeld, to receive th e April 29, 1980, Appeals Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNAN.CMOUSLY: 5. CONTINUED: PROPOSED CH�NGES TO CHAPTER 205. ZONING MOTION by Mr. Langeafeld, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to discuss the Proposed Changes to Chapter 205. Zoning after "Other Business". Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman flarris declared the motion carried unanimously. 6. OTHER BUSINESS• ^ A. Joint Powers Agreement �., . Mr. Boardma� stated the Planning Commission had asked the City Council to delay this item until their May 19th meeting. So, there was no action taken by the City Council at their May 5th meeting until they receive further inf ormation and some action from the Planning Commission. Nis. Harris stated that Ms. Hughes was going to have some further information for the Planning Cov�aission at this meeting. Ms. Hughes stated she did look at the title documents for Locke Park, and there are no restrictions within those documents on the use of the property. It was purchased from the Douglas Chapel, the heirs to the Locke Estate, for $1.00. The one reservation they had was that no intoxicating beverages be used in the park. Ms. Hughes stated she also looked at the $50,000 expense report made by the park.supervisors. This $50,000 was an estimate only for Locke Park e�:penses and did not include Islands of Peace or any es�imaCes for police protection. It was strictly for the maintenance-upkeep kinds of costs for �ocke Park. So, from that standpoint, there are no restrictions, and if the County took over the maintenance of Locke Park, there could be a savings Co the City of Fridley of as much as $50,000. � ^ PLANNING CaNII�ISSION MEETING MAY 7 1980 PAGE 4 Ms. Hughes stated she could not locate any copies of any Park Commission minutes from back in that era so there is no documenta- tion in terms of whether there were any kinds of promises made to the people on how that land would be used. Ms. Sughes referred to the motion made by the Parks & Recreation Commission on page 14 of their April 16 minutes, in which the Commission recommended a number of changes to be tonsidered by City Council and City Administration, with the idea that the City would came back �ith some kind of document for the Parks & Recreation Commission's review. If the Planning Commission concurs with these changes to the Joint Powers Agreement, she would recommend that the Planning Commission ask that the Joint Powers Agreement be referred back in its final forna to the Parks & Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission prior to final signing and co�nitments. Mr. Harris asked Ms. Sughes what her feelings were on the Joint Powers Agreement. Ms. Hughes stated it was her personal feeling that they should not go with a Joint Powers Agreement. She realized the�e are not very good argumPnts against what appears to be a big savings of $50,000 to the City and the kind of trust the park staff has with the County.. She stated she is basing her feelings on what she suspects some of , the o14 Cimers in the community are going to say and that is that ^ Zocke Park is our park and the City is giving it away. She stated it also removed the jurisdiction and the body to whom citizens could complaia farther away fram the citizens. She thought that was important, partially because of the number of citizens bordering the park. Ms . Hughes stated an.other thing that •bothers her is that the CouY�.ty is not going to be responsible for patrolling things that happen in. the park, except through whatever service the park ranger can provide, and the park ranger's only resort in any kind of trouble is to call the Fridley Police Department. That seemed to be a much more important problem to deal with and one that wouldn't change at all . Ms. iiughes stated she views Locke Park as the cornerstone of the park system and one the City ough� to maintain complete control over. She did not think $50,000 was that critical to the City. Mr. Boardman stated he did not see the Joint Powers Agreement as losing control of the park or losing the right of the people to come to the City Council to complain or issue a complaint to get action in the park, if action cannot get done at staff level. If they cannot get that kind of action from Anoka County, then with one year's notice, the City has the authority to take the park back again. � PLANNZNG CQMMTSSION MEETING, MAY 7, 1980 PAGE 5 !'�` Ms. Hughes stated that one of the changes recommended by the Parks � Recreation Commission was that the City and County have an annual meeting in order to review, preview, and approve all plans, w ork programs, and developments. It did not say "who" the Ci�y and County was, and she did not want that to be just staff people. She wanted it to be policy-making levels or at least advisory levels, such as City Council, Board of County Commissioners, appropriate city staff (Parks & Recreation Department, City Engineering, City Manager, City Planner, etc.) and city commnissions such as the Parks & Recreation Commission and the Environmental Quality Commission. Mr. Oquist stated he did not know why the County would even want to enter into an agreement with the City. The City was, more or 1ess, handing them a$50,000 maintenance bill and what benefit would it be to the County? He asked if the County had been approached as to whether or not they are even willing to enter into an agreement of this type before all the effort is spent on itZ . Mr. Boardman stated that right now it has primarily been staff-to- staff discussions. He stated he felt there has always been a certain amount of concern by the City Council that not enough is being done for Fridley. Although Fridley pays a majority of the tax base in � Anoka County, Fridley does not get the "benefit of the buck". .He stated that one of the things they are looking at is that the County . needs a trail system through Locke Park and the County has.to have � some kind of agreement with the City for use of the area to run � the trail system through Locke Park. Ms. Schnabel asked if it was possible to sign an. agreement with the County that just allows the County to pay the City so mich for maintenance? Mr. Boardman stated he did not think the County would ever pay the City to maintain a city park. He stated this Joint Powers Agreement has not yet been brought to the County Board, and the County maq not even go along with this Joint Powers Agreement. Ms. Hughes stated that they have to remember that $50,000 is what the City says it will save, That does not say how much money the County will put into maintenance. The clause they have in the Joint Powers • -Agreement is that they have complete contxol over the times they pick up the trash, the numbers of people and hours they spend at Locke Park. It could be considerably less than the City has done. Mr. Oquist stated he did not see anything wrong with the Joint Powers Agreement as written and amended by the Parks & Recreation Commission. He could not see the City losing anything, and the City is gaining in the fact that they will not have to maintain the park, and that maintenance, in terms of people-resource and money-resource, can be used for the� rest of the city's parks. The City could give ^ it a try for a year and could cancel in a year if it didn't work out. _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - . e.,,,�� PLANNING CONII�2ZSSION MEETING MAY 7 1980 � PAGE 6 Mr. Flora stated that on.e thing the Planning Cammission should also consider is that if the County does maintain Locke Park, then it becomes capable of getting additional funds for improvements above and beyond the Ciey's capabilities. • Mr. Boardman stated they had to look at the fact that Locke Park is a large piece of property that is tied ia with a regional system, and it does cost a lot in maintenance dollars. Why not tie that park into the regional system if they have the opportunity to do � that? The City is still providing park facilities for the residents. Ae'doubted if most of.the citizens would even notice the change, and the change could even be for the better. The City's maintenance is stretched pretty thin, an.d they have trouble maintaining the parks they. have now. I�1s. Hughes stated she has no problem with gassing th e Joint Powers • Agreement on and asking the City Council to enter into same negotiations with the County and see what happens. MOTION b Mr. Oquist, seconded b Mr. Langenfeld, to recommend that Cit Council pursue the Joint Powers Agreement as written with the following amendments made b the Parks & Recreation Commission on April 16, 19�0: III. A. County Responsibilities: 1 To provide maintenance routinely on a schedule of ^ grounds, buildings and picnic shelters. 2 To provide maintenance routinely on a schedule of trails and parking lots. , 4. To provide effective tr�e disease control program in concurrence with City of Fridleq tree inspector. Add- 10. The Count and Cit to have an annual meeting in order to review, preview,.and approve all plans, work programs, and developments. III B. City Responsibilities: Add- 4. The Cit and Count to have an annual meeting in order to revie�o, preview, and approve all plans, work programs, and developments. The Planning Comm�ission also recommends the f ollowin� stipulations: 1. That in III A.10 and IIa B 4 the "City" and "County" be defined as the City Council, Board of County Commissioners, and a pro riate cit commissions such as the Parks & Recreation Commission and the Enviroimnental Quality Co�nission. 2 That any changes to the Joint Powers Agreement as written and amended must be brought back to the Planning Commission for its review. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARR.l'S DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNAIJIMOUSLY. � � �� � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 7, 1980 PAGE 7 B. HUD-Section 202 Application by Spring Lake Park; MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to receive the HUD-Section 202 Application by Spring�Lake Park. Ms. Schnabel stated that in the application, it states it is housing for "elderly-handicapped", not elderly and handicapped. If that is the case, is there going.to be an age limitation in this building? Mr. Boardman stated that Section 202 is a handicapped section. They are required to have handicapped units; and handicapped units are not discriminated against by age. However, if they cannot fill those handicapped units, those units cannot be used for young people or families but must be used for the elderly. So, what is meant by elderly-handicapped is that both elderly and handicapped people can use these units under Section 202. Ms. Schnabel stated she was a little disappointed in this project, because there is a need for families to be housed where the head of the household is handicapped. One and two-bedroom units do not encompass families per se, and three bedrooms are more accommodating for families with a handicapped head of the household. Mr. Boardman stated that the program for handicapped families is ^ more under the Section 8 new construction where so many units must - be set aside as handicapped units. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHATRMAN HARRIS DECLARED Tf� MOTION CARRIED UNAl�lIMOUSLY: C. Memo dated 5/6/80 from Mark Scott, Chairperson of Anoka County� Communications Workshop, re; "Using Cable TV Access Channel for Communicating wi.th the Fridley Community"; MOTION by Ms. Sughes, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to receive this memo into the record and that this memo be referred to all Fridley Co�nission members . Mr. Harris stated the chairpersons should take this memo.back to their commission.s for diseussion. � UPQN A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED TAE MOTION CARRIED UNANTMOUSLY. D. Election of Vice-Chairperson of Planning Commission; Mr.Harris declared the naminations open for vice-chairperson. MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to nominate Ms. Schnabel for vice-chairperson of the Planning Commission. PLANN'tNG CO1K��SSTON MEETING, MAY 7, 1980 PAGE 8 MOTIQN by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the nominations and cast a white ballot for NLs. Schnabel for Vice- Chairperson. of the Planning Coumaission. . UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: E. Discussion on Roles of City Staff and Planning Co�aission: Ms. Schnabel stated she thought it would be a good idea for the Planning Commission to spend some time reviewing what their role is as a Planning Commission and what the role of staff is from the City Man,ager's office on down. through the various staff positions. Co�ents have been made periodically throughout the year about various staff people and what their authoritative powers are, etc., and some question about the Planning Commission's role. This discussion could take place at some time in the future when the Planning Co�ission had a light agenda, and the City Manager should be invited at that time to express his opinions. MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Oquist, that a discussion on the roles of City Staff and Planning Co�nission b� put on a future Planning Co�ission agenda. � � Mr. Langenfeld stated it would probably be a good idea for the Planaing Couniission members to review their goals and objectives on an individual �asis prior to this discussion. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CIiAIRMAN HARRIS DECLA,RED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: ' Mr. Boardman stated he would check with the City Manager to what timetable would be good £or him and he would get back to the Planning Cou�ission with a scheduled date for this discussion. Chairman Harris declared a ten-minute break at 9:10 p.m. 7. CONTINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAP�ER 205. ZONING: MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to limit discussion on Chapter 205. Zoning to not later than 10:30 p.m. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. R-3 District Regulations 205.095 Parking Requirements Page 41 - G-2. "10 feet" should be reduced back to "5" feet because of problems � with garages or second accessory buildings that are detached. '�'1 PLANNI.NG CONIl`2ISSION MEETING, MAY 7, 1980 PAGE 9 Page 42 - 205.096 Performance Standards � 3-A. Screening: In 8th line, "in view of fencing" should be changed to "in lieu of fencing". Page 43 - • 3-B-2: Ms. Schnabel stated she had problems with the City requiring how many inches apart a�3 how many feet high a planting screen has to be. Mr. Harris stated that if they are going to require this much exterior development, it is going to raise the price of a project which is intended to provide "affordable housing". � Change to: "A planting screen shall consist of a closely grown hedge, a row of trees, evergreens, or other approved vegetation." Delete 3-B-3 and change �4 to ��3. 3-E: Change to: "Where an3� multiple dwelling district is adjacent to any other residential district, there shall be a minimum � . 15 foot wide substantial planting area that shall be planted to.provide for a physical separation:" 3-F: "A11 roof equipment, except solar collectors, must be screened from public view unless the equipment is designed as an integral part of the building design and is compatible with the lines of the building as determined by the Zoning Administrator." Mr. Harris stated it seemed that in the future, a lot of innovative energy equipment is going to have to go on. the roof. Someone has already been kicking around the idea.of wind generators, and the City makes no provisions for that kind of installation. TIZe City is going to have to start looking at alternative energy devices. � Mr. Wharton stated these were areas that should be looked at in retrospect through all various zone classifications--the solar rights which the Energy Commission is getting ready to look at and the wind generator �dea. He would suggest that the Energy Commission be charged with the responsibility of making recou�►endation to the Planning Co�ission on these various areas. Ms. Schnabel stated that it may not be necessary to write some of this into the Zoning Ordinance at this time, but could be handled through a variance process or through an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance at a later time. Mr. Harris stated that the Energy Coutmission, and any other commission that wished to, should take a look at these specific items. If the Energy Commission /�1 or other commissions. have any .recoumiendat�ions, these reco�endations can be passed on to the Planning Commission. In the meantime, the Planning Commission will continue on with the Zoning Ordinance. __ _...,,,.�.,, PLAI�INING CONIMISSIC�T MEETING, MAY 7, 1980 _ PAGE 10 p� " .. 7-A; Leave in first sentence only�and delete the rest af the paragraph: "Connection to a sanitary sewer is required on each 1ot served by a sewer." 7-B; Delete: "provided the Zoning Administrator may approve other proposed water supply, if determined necessary" MOTION by Mr. Langen.feld, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to continue discussion on Chapter 205. Zoning at another meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declaxed the motion carried unanimously. ADJ4URNMENT :. MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, alI voting aye, Chairman ]3arris declared the Ma.y 7, 1980, Planning Co�mission meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully su mitted, y e S aba - Recording Secretary � � m Gr� � �"�