Loading...
PL 01/06/1982 - 30568<� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 6, 1982 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the January 6, 1982, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. Harris, Mr. Saba, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Erickson (for Mr. Svanda), Mr. Oquist, Mr. Kondrick, Ms. van Dan Members Absent: None Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Don Hanson, representing Servomation, 7490 Central Ave. N.E. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 9, 1981, PLANNING COPMIISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY 1�2. SABA� TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 9� I981� PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN. /'1 UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #81-08, BY SERVOMATION CORPORATION: Split off t� East �3.96 feet of the�VortTi 33� feet of t�e SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 12, T-30, R-24, subject to the South 25 feet taken for 74th Avenue N.E. (Fireside Drive) so the property can be sold, the same bein� 1201 Fireside Drive N.E. Mr. Harris stated this was not an official public hearing, but they would handle it as an informal public hearing. Mr. Boardman stated Servomation built a building on this property 2-3 years ago. The back portion of this lot is presently vacant. Servomation is requesting a lot split on the westerly portion of their property. That lot split entails 1.85 acres. It is zoned M-1, so it is adequate size for that type of zoning. Mr. Boardman stated Staff has no problems with the lot split, except they would require a 20 ft, road/utility easement along the south portion of the whole property. The primary reason for this easement is there is no sewer and water available to that lot, and they would want that availability for sewer and water to the lot. There is no water in Fireside, and they would have to come in off Old Central.with a water line. Ri�ht now they only have a 50 ft. right-of-way for road in there, and they wouldn t have enough room for water lines. That is n PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 6, 1982 PAGE 2 � the reason for an additional 20 ft, easement. Also, another reason is that, at some point in time, the City may want to put in a turn lane on Fireside. Mr. Boardman stated that Engineering would also require an easement on the 25 ft. triangle on the corner of Fireside and Old Central. They have been picking up these triangles on al] lots for expansion of radiuses. Mr. Harris stated that with the existing 50 ft. of road right-of-way and with an additional 20 ft. road/utility easement, that was 70 ft, of right-of-way, and that was pretty wide. Normally, the City doesn't go with anything over 66 ft. If, in the future, the City does put in a turn lane, they would be cutting into the property owner's landscaping, which the City requires the property owner to put in. Mr. Boardman stated he personally did not see tha� happening in the near future, This area would have to develop pretty heavily to warrant that kind of development. He stated he felt the City would probably be satisfied with a total of 66 ft., instead of 70 ft. Mr. Harris suggested that Mr. Hanson consult his legal counsel regarding the park fee on the road/utility easement. MOTION BY MR. OQUIST� SECONDED BY MS. VAN DAN� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL � APPROVAL OF A REpUEST FOR A LOT 5PLIT� L.S. #81-08, BY SERVOMATION CORPORATION� TO SPLIT OFF THE EAST 263.96 FEET OF THE NORTH 330 FEET OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 12� T-30� R-24� SUBJECT TO THE SOUTH 25 FEET TAKEN FOR 74TH AVENUE N.E. (FIRESIDE DRIVE) SO THE PROPERTY CAN BE SOLD� THE SAME BEING 1201 FIRESIDE DRIVE N.E., WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIDNS: 1. THAT A I6 FT. ROAD/UTILITY EASEMENT BE RETAINED TO THE SOUTX 2. TAAT A 25 FT. TRIANGLE EASEMENT BE RETAINED ON THE CORNER OF OLD CENTRAL AND FIRESIDE DRIVE UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Harris stated that L.S. #81-08 would go to City Council on Feb. 1. He recommended that all interested parties be in attendance at that meeting. 2. RECEIVE NOVEMBER 24, 1981, ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK� TO RECEIVE THE NOVEMBER 24� 1981, ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. RECEIVE DECEMBER 1, 1981, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: ^ MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY 1NS. VAN DAN� TO RECEIVE THE DECEMBER 1� 1981� PARKS & RECREATION COMMI5SION MINUTES. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 6, 1982 PAGE 3 Ms. Gabel stated she had read the information about the proposed recreation building in the winter program brochure recently mailed out. She expressed concern about the high membership fees. Mr. Kondrick stated the dollars talked about are rough estimates. The dollars charged are less dollars than would be charged for membership in another type of facility. A little less money is being charged right now at the Brooklyn Center community center. However, a lot of the monies at Brooklyn Center come from the day-by-day charges for use of the pool, sauna, etc. He stated the fees were of concern to the Parks & Recreation Corronission and to many people. One thing that is going to be attractive is that memberships will probably be offered for a 3-month period, a 6-month period, etc., as opposed to a one lump su�, Mr. Saba suggested that the membership fees be broken down; for example, a membership fee for use of the racquet ba71 courts, a membership fee for use of the swimming pool, etc. Ms. Gabel stated she was concerned that the way the information was presented in the brochure, people are going to say they cannot afford the $200 yearly member- ship and therefore will vote against the building. It was not explained in the brochure that there were several alternatives to the yearly membership, and she � did not feel the brochure was put together very well. Mr. Harris stated that Tf the thinking was along the lines that so many member- ships at $200 were needed to defray the expenses on the maintenance, maybe some- one should rethink the budget on the maintenance. What bothered him was how this $200 figure was arrived at. Mr. Saba stated this whole building should be self-sufficient in every way possible. He knew it was probably not going to be, but it should be aimed in that direction. To take one activity and have that activity subsidize a lot of other activities that are seldom going to be used or possibly not used at al] is not fair. For example, if he bought a membership to use the swimming pool, he is also subsidizing, for example, the auditorium which he may never use. Mr. Harris asked if the recreation building doesn't go, did the recreation building project committee look at any other facilities in District #14, such as the junior high school? Mr. Kondrick stated that, yes, the project committee had looked at all other areas. Representatives from all the schools came and spoke to the committee on what possibly could or could not be done. Mr. Harris asked that if the recreation building is voted down, is there any possibility that a community center could be worke�-out for the junior high facility, keeping in mind that the facility might be closed for school use? n _ Mr. Kondrick stated that possibility was talked abolit, and it would appear that it would cost a great deal of money to refurbish the building to make it the type of building that is required with the same type of services as the new " facility. - . - - - -- - - - . . - ,''� �- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 6, 1982 PAGE 4 Mr. Oquist stated maybe the City will have to rethink what is really required. What is really needed in this community? Mr. Harris stated that if the recreation building does not go, they may have to take less than they really want. Mr. Kondrick stated it isn't a question of the building and what is contained in the building as far as requirements. After extensive research, the project cormnittee recommended those things they felt were really needed in the community. Even if they had access to one of the schools, the cost of refurbishing it is astronomical, in addition to the fact that the new building will be much more energy efficient than the old building, so a lot of those things have been considered. As far as sacrificing and dropping into a lesser situation, that is always possible if the people decide they do not want this new facilrty at this point in time. Mr. Harris stated that District 14 (understanding that District 14 is only part of the City) has severe financial problems, and there is the possibility that one of the solutions is to have a referendum to increase the millage. That is why he brought this up and they may be asking the electorate for two levies instead of one. Ms. van Dan stated that one of the big things was that the seniors had requested � a senior citizen room in the new facility. Now, there is a senior drop-in center at Parkview. Is that going to make any difference in the new facility? ^ � Mr. Kondrick stated he did not feel it was going to make a big difference. He stated the Commission has spent a lot of time talking about the seniors' needs. He felt the senior drop-in center at Parkview was a good thing, but they still� plan on having a room in the new facility for the seniors that they can use most of the time, keeping in mind that this room would a7so be accessible to other groups of people. Mr. Erickson stated he thought the City shou7d take a good close look at the need for racquet ball courts in the new facility, because of the fact that private industry seems to be meeting that need. They are expensive to play and expensive to maintain. Mr. Kondrick thanked the Commission members for their suggestions and concerns. He stated there are quite a few meetings planned in January and February to get information out to the peop]e, and an informational discussion will be shown on cable TV. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MINUTES RECEIVED. 4. RECEIVE DECEMBER 3, 1981, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTIDN BY MS. VAN DAN� SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO RECENE THE DECEMBER 3� 1981� HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES. ,_.,, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 6, 1982 PAGE 5 Ms. van Dan stated the CAP Agency had many programs planned and excellent plans for 1980-81-82 and into 1983. As a result of the cutbacks, the Human Resources Commission feels they will probably be getting a lot more funding requests from each of the individual cities. That is why, in reviewing their funding guide- lines. she would like to change it a little and weigh the requests a little differently so they are definitely sure a high percentage of Frid]ey residents are receiving the services and that it is all non-profit and not any private sector groups, as they have had in the past. She wanted to make this comment so the Planning Commission knew why the Human Resources Commission was re-reviewing their funding guidelines. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE DECEMBER 8, 1981, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. OpUIST� SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO �CENE THE DECEMBER 8, 1981� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIDN MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CXAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE DECEMBER 10, 1981, HOU�...ING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: �, � MOTION BY MR. OQUIST� SEC011TDED BY MS. GABEL� TO RECEIVE THE DECEMBER 10, .I981, NOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. RECEIVE DECEMBER l5, 1981, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO RECEIVE THE DECEMBER 15� 1981, APPEAIaS COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. OTHER BUSINESS: a. Proposed 360-Unit Apartment Complex Adjacent to Springbrook Nature Center Mr. Kondrick stated that at the Nov. 4, 1981, Planning Commission meeting the Commission looked at and approved a rezoning request by Mr. Dave Harris in order to allow the construction of a 360-unit apartment complex. He stated he wanted to go on record that the Parks & 1 Recreation Commission was very concerned about a number of things: n - �� . i . - � `. _. .- - � ,� n PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 6, 1982 PAGE 6 1. The impact the complex would have on Springbrook Nature Center. 2. The height of the buildings being proposed. 3. Water quality and the levels of water in relationship to Springbrook Nature Center and what it may or may not mean if the buildings are built. 4. The possibility of destroying the water recharge system in this area. 5. The bikeway along the edge of Springbrook Nature Center was a concern to some of the members of the Parks & Recreation Commission. Mr. Kondrick stated that when Mr. Harris brought this proposal before the Planning Corronission, these types of things were discussed briefly. It appeared that those things had been thought about and planned for, but he asked Mr. Boardman to clarify some of those things. Mr. Boardman stated they are concerned,not on]y with Mr. Harris' proposal, but any proposal in that area. Drainage is going to be a key consideration in the development of the North Area, and that was the reason for setting up a tax increment district. He stated they are working closely with Siah St. Clair, City Naturalist. They will probably be starting some soil borings within the nature center pond area itself to see what the soil conditions are, to see what they have to do as far as grading in that area and bringing it into a drainage retention pond area with dam facilities, etc., in order to satisfy Mr. St. Clair and the needs of the Springbrook Nature Center. They are also looking at an overall drainage system and how they are going to pond and filter that water before it gets to Springbrook. Mr. Boardman stated that as far as the bikeway, they feel that is probably the best access to get people from South Fridley north to the nature center. Their initial plans were for coming up along the railroad tracks, but they had problems because they wanted to have limited access to the nature center and how did they bring the people in from the railroad tracks? So, at this time, they have changed their thinking and are bringing the bikeway in through the Main St. area. Mr. Harris stated that when the Planning Commission looked at Dave Harris' proposal, he really felt the problems involved with drainage and that particular type of thing were engineering problems and were solvable. The one concern that was not brought out at the Planning Commission meeting was the affect of that many people in close proximity to the nature center. Mr. Kondrick stated that was discussed at the last Parks & Recreation Commission meeting, and they felt that many people are going to affect all of Fridley--all of theparks.and particularly the nature center. They did not know the answer for that, but it was definitely a concern. ^ But, he felt the over-riding concern was the water tables and the , quality of water in Springbrook. r-0, � � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 6, 1982 PAGE 7 Mr. Kondrick stated the Parks & Recreation Commission will be happy to hear that a lot of thought has gone into this. b. Proposed Neighborhoods and Names for Use with Neiqhborhood Sign Program Mr. Boardman stated that at the last meeting, the Planning Commission discussed neighborhood signs and the Planning Commission made a motion recommending that the City run a contest to come up with a new city logo. He stated the City Council acted on this at their last meeting. The Council approved the city logo as it is now and did not want to run a contest for a new logo, they approved the street signs and logos, and they approved the concept of neighborhoods and neighbor- hood signs, but they did not like the neighborhood sign itself. Staff is now working on a redesign of the neighborhood sign. He stated the City Council suggested the neighborhoods and neighborhood classifications be sent down to the Community Development Commission for input as to the names and locations of neighborhoods. If this is all right with the Planning Commission, this will go to the Community Deve]opment Commission at their February meeting. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MR. ERICKSON� SECONDED BY MR. 5ABA, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE JANUARY 6� 1982, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:06 P.M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, � Y E SABA RECORDING SECRETARY