Loading...
PL 08/06/1986 - 30609CITY OF FRIDLEY `"'� � � � � - � � -� PL-ANN�NG �COTM9ISSION MEETING, AUGUST 6, 1986 CALL'TO�ORDER: Chairperson Billings called the August 6, 19�6, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. ROLC CALL: Members Present: Steve Bi7lings,�Dean Saba, Da�re Kondri�k, Sue Sherek, Da7e Thompson (for-Rich Svanda), Donald Betzold, A1 Gabel Members Absent: None Others Present: Jim Robinson, Planning Coordinator Jock Robertson, Community Deve7opment Director Bever7y Thurston, 100 Hartman Circ7e Steve Shorma, 5916 Oakwood Manor Tom & Ha7fr�de Manning, 1315 Hillcrest Dr. Ed Kaspszak, 1317 Hil7crest Dr. Pa�l & Roberta Tumms, 1310 Hillcrest Dr. George Bacon, 1336 Hillcrest Ur. Richard & Jeanne Lindqwist, 1326 Nillcrest Dr. Olga Palmer, 7329 Gardena Ave. ,�-, Gay & Spencer Minear, 1291 Gardena Ave. Leo Foco, '1345 Gardena Ave. APPROVAC OF JULY 23, 7986; PLANhJIIV�'COI�IIS�ION�ld1TNUTES; MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONd�ED BY MR. 5ABA� TO APPROVE �'HE JULY 23� Z986� PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE5 A5 WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIIUG AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED. 2'HE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY. ._.. _ .. ..... ..... .... ...... ...... .. ... ...... __.... ..... .............. 1, pUBGIC ��FIEARING: CONSIDERATION ' OF `A' SPEEIAL `I1�E `PLI3�F�F;'S� `��6�=1�0 ` ' BY � u• n r n r�ev . Pe`r�Section 2Q5.07.7, C, 2 of tfie Fridley City Code to a71ow a day care facility on Lots 2, 3, and 6, except the south 200 feet thereof, Meloland Gardens, all located in Section 24, T-30, R-24, Anoka County, Plinnesota, and Lot 4, Meloland Gardens, located in Section 24, T-30, R-24, Anoka County, Minnesota, and Lot 5, except for the Westerly 110 feet of the Southerly 200 feet, P1eloland Gardens located in Section 24, T-30,�R-24, Anoka County, Minnesota, and Lot l,.�cept for the Southerly 210 feet, Meloland C�ardens, located in Section 24, T�30, R�24, Anoka County, Minn�sota, and Lot 17, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, Ano[�a Couniy,7�ainnesota, and Lot �3, Blocfc 3, Moore Lake Hi�lls, Anoka County, l�innesoia, and Lot l and Auditors Su6' division No. 92, Lot 17, may be encumbered by a recreational lease running in favor of the City of Fridley. PLANNING CO��ISSION P�EETI_NG, AUGUST 6 1986, PAGE 2 ,,—� - MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY M5. SHEREK, TO WAIVE THE FORMAL .READIPIG OF THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AND TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARSNG. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLING5 DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:35 P.M. Mr. Robinson stated this property was located north of Gardena Ave. and just east of Gardena Lane, approx. 11 acres. Faith Academy was formerly Gardena Elementary School. He stated the proposal was for a day care/latch key facility for up to 40 children. As per city code in an R-1 district, a special use permit was reqaired for this type of use. The pet�itioner had stated that quite a few of the children using the day care facility would be brothers and sisters of children going to Faith Academy so there would be a good deal of over7ap in terms of the constituency. Mr. Robinson stated Staff was recommending the following stipu7ations: 1. Petitioner to provide a plan for an additional 14 parking sta]ls, to be 67acktopped and curbed by Oct. 31, 1986. 2. Petitioner to patch curb and stripe existing parking lot by Oct. 31, 7986. �--� 3. Grassy areas to be maintained on a regular basis. 4. Petitioner to combine individual lois into one tax parce7 as requested by City Assessor prior to occupancy. 5. Building and rooms used to meet 1Ninnesota Uniform Fire Codes and Life Safety Code #101 regarding windows, smoke detection, emergency lighting, sleeping area, and exits. Mr. Robinson stated that in determining the parking, it was a litt]e difficult because school was not in session so there were very few cars in the parking lot during an inspection. However, on an aerial photo taken in April 1985, it showed the parking lot overly full and that was why the City was requesting additional parking stal7s. He sta�ed Gardena Ave, has no parking on the north between 8 a.m, and 6.p.m. Monday - Friday, so that further frustrated the parking situation. Ms. Beverly Thurston stated if the special use permit was granted, she would be the director of the day care center. She stated she had discussed the stipulations with their lawyer and they agree to the things that need to be done. They are more than wi7ling to do whatever is necessary to bring the day care facility up to code. They feel an additional day center is needed in`Fridley. They also feel, as stated by Mr. Robinson, that the majority of the day care chi7dren will be brothers:and sisters of chi�dren who are already attending Faith Academy and the latch key children wil7 be children already � attending Faith Academy. PLANNING CO�MI_SSION MEETING; AUGUST�6� 1986 PAGE 3 � Mr, Saba asked what Ms. Thurston intended to do a6out p7ayground equipment. Ms. Thurston stated the children will be outside some part of the day, and there wi71 be a need for more playground eqnipme��. Right now they are waiting for the special use permit 6efore expending any money on playgron�d equipment. Mr. Saba stated t��re was a swamp behind Faith Academy, and in talking to some neighbors, he had been told that children froro Faith Academy do go down there. Ms. Thurston stated there was a stipula�ion of the State Licensing Committee that day care children must be watched very carefully. She could not speak for what goes on at the school at the present time, but she could speak for the day care center. She stated she has been in day care for many years--at The Learning Tree for many years and another day care center before that. She could assure the Planning Commission members that no day care center children would be al7owed near the swamp. A7so, the day care childr.en would not be outside at the same time as any of the school age chi7dren. That was also a stipulation made by the We7fare Dept. Mr. Saba asked if the p7ayground area would 6e fenced. Ms. Thurston stated the Welfare Dept, would determine whether the area was � safe enough to leave the area unfenced. If they fee7 the area is not safe enough, they will require that the play area be fenced. Mr. Tom Manning, 1315 Hil7crest Drive, stated that quite a bit of the play- ground equipment on the east end of the property was quite a way from the school, and that neither the property nor the p7ayground equipment has been maintained. Wi71 the day care children be using that equipment that has not been maintained and is located farther from the school? He would be concerned for the safety of the children. Ms. Thurston stated she had not looked at the existing playground equipment; however, they will want playground equipment to be much closer to the school. They would also not use playground equipment that was no� safe. That would not be allowed by the We7fare. Ms. Thurston ��ated she also wanted to point ou� that while they are asking for licensing for 40 children, that was actually for 20 preschool chi7dren and 20 latch key children, So, 40 chi7dren would not be outside on the playground equipment at one time. Even if they were fu17, there would only be 20 day care children. The latch key chi7dren would prohably not be on the playground as they will be using the gymnasium and another room in the building most of the time. Mr. Manning stated Faith Academy has not maintained the cutting of their grass, even though the neighbors have called them several times. He stated he also n noticed 5-6 windows broken and a broken door. Those were also safety concerns. PLANNING COM�ISSION�MEETING, AUGUST 6, 1986 PAGE 4 �, Ms. Jeanne Lindquist, 132b Hillcrest Dr., stated tha� when the school was Gardena Elementary, it was kept up nice.. Now with Faith Academy using the school, the ground are noi taken care of. She sta�ed she wou7d not want to live next to the school. Mr. Steve Shorma, 5916 Oakwood Manor, stated the playground equipment on the east end of the property was a hazard... A question he had was if a playground a rea was bui7t for the day care center, would it be accessible to other children in the neighborhood after school hours? There was no� a lot of play- ground equipment in this area for the children. If the playground was fenced and not open to the neighborhood, some neighborhood child could get hurt trying to get into it. Mr. Shorma stated the back side of the building was uncontrolled, unwatched, and vandalism does occur there. He stated that when buses are parked outside the school, h� once found same chi7dren playing in a bu� 6ecause the bus door was� left open. Ms. Thurston stated the playground area wi77 be fenced on7y if they are required to by the We7fare Dept. If it was not fenced, it could certaanly be used by the neighborhood cfiildren. If the playground area was fenced, she did not know what kind of liability Faith Academy would have, if any, if a neighborhood child got hurt. She would have to discuss with their attorneys. ^ Mr. Kondrick asked Mr. Shorma if he was su estin that the existin 99 9 g playground equipment tnat was substandard should be removed. Mr. Shorma stated that a good portion of the equipment should be rem��ed. What equipment that was in fairly good shape was equipment that was there before Fa�th Academy moved in--the merry-go-round and rocking horse. This playground equipment was built as a school project and would probably be good for a back- yard but between the chi7dren of the neighborhood using it plus Faith Academy children, it was in disrepair. Mr. Shorma stated that with regard to the poor maintenance of the grounds, it did not do any good to contact Faith Academy as they have not done anything. The area has been mowed twice this summer with a tractor and mower which leaves the grass 3-4 inches tall and leaves gouges all over. He stated the neighbors have fixed one basketbal] court themselves, because Faith would not repair it. and three neighbors on.the east end mow the grass there. He stated the neighbors are concerned as to whether Faith Academy was going to upgrade things or continue to maintain things on a haphazard basis. Mr. Robinson stated the City was aware of the poor maintenance of the lawn, but they were not aware of the unsafe playground equipment. Mr. Ed Kaspszak, 73�7 Hillcrest Dr., stated he would suggest that the special use permit be authorized for a two-year period subject to renewal. The � reason for that was this was a new application in a largely residential area, , and Faith Academy could come back in in a year and ask to extend the same � PLANNING CO��ISSION MEETING AUGUST�6; 1986 �� PAGE 5 special use permit to 80 or more children. He had no problem with 40 children, but he would have a problem with a lot more than that. The Commission should make sure the provisions specifically provided for no more than 40 children and that Faith Academy must reapply again in two years. If there were still problems, tha� wou7d give t�e City an opportunity to correct those problems. Mr. Kondrick asked if there was any law that would prohibit Faith Academy froro having more than 40 children. Ms. Thurston stated their license will be for 20 preschool and 20 latch key children. It was true that in the coming years or at any time, they could increase that number; however, she could assure the Commission and the neigh- borhood that they would never increase the number by very much. For one reason, the school was for grades K� 12, and there would not be room for many more chi7dren. The only way she could foresee the number of day care chi7dren being increased was if the school became so overcrowded that they decided to split the grades into two 6ul�ldinqs, one for �lementary and one for seconda�y. If tha� s�ould ever happen in the future, then there might be room for additional day care and latch key children. At the present time, there would not be. She stated she would have no o6jection to a stipulation that limited them to 40 children. Ms. Olga Palmer�_�329 Gardena Ave. stated another issue that should be brought n up was the garbage. She stated she has personally called the City at least _ 3-4 times to see if they can get �aith Academy to get rid of their garbage. She has also cal7ed Faith' Academy, They have one small sized dumpster. They put their garbage in p7astic 6ags, and the garbage is usua7ly laying all over the ground. The dogs get into the garbage. She has 7ived in Fridley for 17 years, and this was the first year they have had trouble with raccoons. According to the park naturalist, the reason was because of the garbage in the area. She believed Faith Academy should be required to have garbage pick-up more than once a week. Sometimes the garbage was not even picked up once a week. Ms. Palmer stated there was broken glass around; the students at Faith are very careless and throw pop bottles. There are beer parties in the back parking lot. She stated the area definitely needs more control. Mr. Kaspszak stated these problems have existed since Fa�th Academy moved into the school. There are a lot of parties in the back and that was the reason for 6roken windows and de6ris, The only way that can be solved is throug� patrolling by the Police Dept, or the neighbors. Ms. Palmer stated Faith Academy has not been a very good neighbor. They have never given the neighborhood a very positive image of their school. Once tney even left a bus engine lying_ on the ground for about 4 mo. and � this was a hazard to the chi7dren. She had called the City and asked the City to have Faith remove the 6us engine. If�Faith Academy is that careless � and kindergarten children are allowed outside, what is going to happen with the day care facility? � n PLANNING CON�j1ISSI0N'MEETING; AUGUST 6; 1986 PAGE 6 Ms. Palmer stated the day care facility will bring added traffic into the area, and they already have enough �raffic. There is not enough parking as it is now. She stated the parking lot was usually filled, and people park on the grassy areas. Mr. Ro6inson stated maybe tFie additional 14 parking spaces wou]d not be enough, inasmuch as they do not seem to have enough parking for the existing facility. This would have to 6e resolved before the City Council meeting. Ms. Sherek stated the City should request �aith Acaderoy to provide thero with information on how many parking stal7s they actually have based on dimensions of the area at this ti�e. It was difficult to say how much more parking they would need when they do not know ho� many parking spaces they are now using. Ms. Pal�er asked if the day care faci7ity would be operated 12 mo/year or just during the schoo7 year. Ms. Th�rston stated the day care faci]ity wou7d be operated 12 mo./year. Ms. Sherek stated it might be helpfu7 for a representative frora Faith Academy to attend the City Counci7 meeting as we71 as Ms. T[wrston who was representing the day care facility. Ms. Thurston stated she served on the Faith Academy Board of Directors and would relate the concerns expressed by the neighbors. Mr. George Bacon, 1336 Hillcrest Dr., stated he thought there was an agreement between School Dist. 14 and Faith Academy that the p7aygro�nd would be main- tained and useable to the chi7dren in the local area. NIOTION BY MS. 5HEREK� 5ECOIVDED BY N112. KONDRICK, Z'O CLO5E THE PUBL.iC HEARING. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIIVG AYE, CHAIRPER50N BILLINGS DECLARED TNE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:10 P.M. Ms. Sherek stated that in view of the fact that there was a swamp behind the schoo] and the concerns expressed by the neighbors about the poor maintenance of the property, she fe7t one of the stipulations that should be passed on to ihe City Council was that the play area for the preschool chi7dren should be fenced. Mr. Kondrick stated he agreed with that. He also agreed that the P]anning Commission should have some type of review (9 mo. � 1 yr.) and they should limit the day care facility to 40 children. He a7so thought they should recommend to the City Council that the City start to enforce the existing codes that govern this property and the special use permit that Faith Academy has at this time and get this property looking good again. ,..1 Mr. Saba stated he had a problem with granting a special use permit for a � day care facility in light of the concerns e�cpressed by the neighbors and the apparent violations of the existing special use permit. It was his feeling _.. PLANNING COh11NISSIO�I � MEEf ING� � AUGUST :6 s� 1986 ���� � PAGE 7 �"1 that granting an additional specia7 use permit when conditions for the existing specia7 use permit were being vio7ated did not set a very good precedent and that proof should be shown-by Faith Academy that they can live up to the ordinances, 6e a good neigh6or, and take care of some of the pro6lems before the issuance of a new special use permit. He also agreed with the stipulations stated by staff and expressed by the Commissioners about ]imiting the children to 40 and having some type of review. Mr. Betzold stated he fe7t that if the Planning Commission were to recommend approval of the specia7 use permit, even though the code was to be enforced, he felt some of the concerns expressed by the neighborhood should also be added as stipulations: (1) garbage removal �2) safety factor of the playground eqaipment (3) repair of broken windows and doors. If they identify these.as some of the conditions, then it gave them a basis for renewa7 to make sure those things were corrected. Mr. Saba stated he wou7d 7ike to see this special use permit request delayed until Faith Academy cleans up the �isting va.o7ations. If the special use permit for the day care faci]ity was granted, then Faith Academy cou7d post- pone making those improvements. They have seen that happen with other properties in the City. He thought granting special use permits to people or businesses that have not been good neighbors in terms of upkeep of property was a real problem. � Ms. Sherek stated she agreed with Mr. Saba. As a workin g parent, she knew there was a desperate need for day care in Fridley, especial7y ]atch key. But, on the other hand, if �aith Academy was not being a good neighbor now, what made them think tfiat wit�i �0 more children Faith would be a better neighbor? Mr. Betzold siated he did not think there was anyone in the audience who really opposed the day care center, and he did not think any of the Planning Commission members were opposing the day care center. The concern he had was that if the City went ahead and issued a special use permit even for one year, it m�ght be very di�Fficult and probably impossible for the City to revoke the permit once the prograro was in and operating. He wou7d rather have the program not begin and then possibly a year from now if Faith Academy was still interested, they could reapply and if things seemed to be going better and the neighbors were satisfied, then a special use permit could be issued. If the P]anning Commission recommended denial of the special use permit, this sent a very strong signal to Faith Academy that there are changes that have to be made if they want a special use permit for a day care facility. Mr. Bil�ings stated he a7so agreed with what Mr.Betzold had said. At this point it was up to Faith Academy to prove that they deserve a special use permit for the day care facility. If the City was to grant the special use permit and review it in a year, it would then be up to the City to prov� why Faith Academy should not have the special use permit. � � �'1 PLANNING COMP�ISSION MEETING, AUGUST 6,�1986 PAGE 8 MOTION BY MR. KOINDRICK� SECO�IDED BY 1�2. BETZOLD� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #86-Z0, BY FAITH ACADEMY FOR THE FOLLOWING REA50NS: I. HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS OF TXE PROPERTY AND pLAYGROUIVD EQUrPAiENT . 2. APPARENT LACK OF CONCERN BY PETITIONER TO REMEDY THE5E POOR CONDITIONS. � Mr. Thompson stated he was not sure that Faith Academy had�been aware of the severity of their vio']ations of their special use permit or how unhappy the neighborhood was, and he was a litt7e uncomfortable voting against the special use permit, especially before giving-Faith Academy a chance to speak for themselves. As far as the vandalism, he fe7t Faith Academy was a victim in that case, and he fe7t the City had srnne responsi.bility in he7ping to patrol the grounds and protect them from that vandalism. UPON A VOICE VOTE� BI�LINGS, 5ABA� KONDRICK, SHEREK, BETZOLD� GABEL UOTING AYE� THOMPSON VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON BILLING5 DECLAR,ED THE MOTION CAR.RIED. Mr. Billings stated this would go to the City Counci7 on August 18. . ___ _ _ _ _- . _ 2. CONSIDERATION OF RECODIFICATION OF�CHAPTER�6�OF'THE FRIDLEY CIT1f CODE ISSIO S: Mr. Robinson stated tha� at the 7ast meeting, the Commission had request�d that language be added to Chapter 6 that would state that any commission's vice� chairperson should si.t on the Pl.anning �ommission when the chairperson cou�dn't�attend H� stated that under 6.03.4. 1Nembership of Planning Commission, the following wording had been added: "E. At any meeting of the Planning Comtnission, if any commission member is unable to attend, the vice-chairperson of their member corrmission(s) may serve in their stead." He stated this would solve the problem of the appropriateness of the vice-chairperson..sitting in the chair- person's seat at the Planning Comraission. In the past, they have also had commission members who were neither the chairperson or vice-chairperson but designated by the chairperson to attend the Planning Commission meeting. This new wording would restrict that, but this wording might be more appropriate. MOTION BY 1�2. SABA� SECONDED BY MR. K011TDRICK� 1"O RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE RECODIFSCATION OF CHAPTER 6 OF TNE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, COMMISSIONS. UPON A il02'E, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPER50N BILLIINGS DECLARED THE MOZ'ION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHING TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT #7: Mr. Robinson stated that as the Commissioners recalled, Winfield Developers recently requested and received a special use permit to place office/warehouse � in an industrial development, located on Lot 4, 5, 6, Block 1, Paco Industrial , Park. Part of the program called for tax increment financing assistance because of bad soil problems. This area was not present]y in a tax increment district. PLANNING COMI�IIISSION�MEETING;�AUGUST'6;�]986 � � � �� � PAGE 9 � MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO APPROVE THE E5TABLI5HMEIVT OF TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT �7 A5 OUTLINED BY STAFF. UPOIV A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED �'HE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. CONSIDERATION�O� ESTABCISIiING TAX�INCRE�9ENT DISTRICT #8: Mr. Robinson stated:at this time the Shorewood Inn was contemplating ex�ansion Lo their lounge and dining areas and im r�vemen�ts to parking an lan scaping. In conjunction the S orewoo Inn has purchased about one acre of property just to the east of the existing business, and the owner has asked the City for assistance on the write-down. In order to assist, the City would li�e to establish an economic development district for the restaurant so the City can benefit from the improvements in terms of increased taxes from that project. MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, 5ECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, �'O APPROVE 2'HE E5TABLI5HME111T OF TAX INC.REMENT DI5TRICT #8 A5 OU'l'LINED BY 5TAF'F. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPEBSON BIZLIN�S DECLARED �'HE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. . . ._ . _ . . __. ..__ . _ 5. DISCUSSION 0� CON�1l1NITY DETIEL' OPINEIVT � COINMISSION: � Mr. Robinson stated that at tfie last meeting, the Co�nnission had discussed the fact that with the resignation of LeRoy Oquist, the Community Development Commission was now down to three members, and that the Community Development Eommission has been fairly inactive for about a year. Mr. Robinson stated he had inc7uded in the agenda the Community Deve7opment Commission "Purpose", the 1984 Commission workplan, and mint�tes of the last three meetings. Mr. Robinson stated one thing that was important was a seven-member Planning Commission and the fact that the Community Development Commission has been a valuable commission in the past. Perhaps the Planning Commission members could come up with some ideas for the comrnission's future direction or some ideas on how the Community Development Commission could help the Planning Corruni s s i on i n terms of a s tudy group . Mr. Gabe] stated the Community Development Commission has not met in about five months. They now only have three members. He stated he fe�t if the cornnission had a better direction, it could be a good viable commission. He stated he felt there were things going on in the community that the �ommunity Development Commission could be involved in. An example was the redevelopment of Commons Park. He stated Mr. Oquist had commented many times that the Community Development Commission always seemed to get things after they bad already happened. � PLANNING_COMMISSION MEETING; AUGUST 6, 1986 PAGE 10 � Mr. Saba stated there were many instances when things come before the Planning Commission when neighborhoods are in the process of being dramatically c�anged through deve7opment. Thos°� were prime areas tha� could 6e looked�:at by the Community Deve7oproent Commiss�bn��to look at the 7ayout of the community and find out what developmen� was gol'ng to 6e going into those neighborhoods. The Community Deve7opment CoTrQnission could come up with some preliminary recommendations so that when a situation did arise, those recommendations � could be passed on to the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Kondrick stated things just happen too fast, and there was actually no time for a corrunission like the Comnunity Development Commission to look into these kinds of things. Mr. Betzold stated another factor was that the community was about 90% developed. In most of those areas, the deve7oper can probably get a permit to do what needs to be done without,too much city involvemen�. Developers do haae to come before the commissions for specia7 use permits, variances, etc., and then the coirunissions 6ecome invo7ved. The Community Deve7opment Commission, as important as it was,might add one more hurdle to a developer. Mr. Kondrick agreed. He was no� so sure the Crn�nunity Dev.e7opment Corarnission was really necessary. In a way the Planning Commission was a"community deve7opment commission". How much more input coald they really get from a ^ Community Development Commission than they ge� from staff and some of the other pertinent commissions? It was a point of frdstration fe7t by Mr, Oquist, and he agreed with.Mr, Oquist. Mr. Robi nson state`d �th�at when the Communi t�.. Devel o�pm�nt Commi ssi on was established, there were some long range goals such as a bikeway/walkway plan, a comprehensive plan, etc., but those things have been a�complished. Ordinance review and allocation of CDBG funding are things which are currently reviewed by the Community Develapment Commissi:on4 Mr. Billings stated that instead of just looking at the negative aspect, they should look at the positive aspect. What areas could the Community Development Commission be involved in that no one was doing at this time? Mr. Saba stated one thing the Commission had looked at in the past and could probably look at again was con�ininuity of the neighborhoods--to see if something could be done to increase the cohesiveness of the neighborhoods. Mr. Betzo7d stated "community development" implied looking at th e overall community to see what needed deve7oping. Maybe they didn't need a commission to 7ook at the overal7 community, 6ut maybe they needed to take a°�nore local at things like neighborhood improvements--to look at individual sections on an ongoing basis--what can they be doing in conjunction wi�h the other commissions like the 'Parks & Recreation Commission or the Human Resources Commission and try to tie in with those commissions. It might be a way to � get more neighbors invo7ved in the city processes. � � � PLANNING COMMISSION �EETING, AUGUST 6, 1986 PAGE 11 6. Mr. Robertson stated that Planning�CoTrunissions were original7y established with emphasis more on the planning, the research and development, and then as kind of adjunct, got responsibil.ities for some of the operations like rezoning, specia7 use permits, e�c. One possi6i7ity was if the Planning Commission could accept their role as sort-of short-range operational-type planning, primarily in the regulatory area, whereas the HRA is the operating arm of the City as sort of tFie development corporati�n. The HRA has taxation and spending powers the Planning Commission doesn't have. Then, they could look at the Community Deve7opment Commission as the Pl.anning Commission's longer range research and development policy analysis, policy formulation arm where the Planning Commission wou7d route the types of operational decisions that require short turn-around times. An examp�e: certain specific neighbor- hoods. General policy question: What about the townhouses and left-over land parcels in single detached residentia7 �eighborhoods? Mr. Billings stated it looked 7ike the Community Deve7opment Corarnission could be a viable commission. He stated he had no problem with wha� Mr. Robertson was suggesting:that would help the Community Development Commission continue to be a viab9e commission.: Mr. Robinson asked �r. Gabel to go back to the Cammunity Development Commission and ask the re��ining commission members how they felt about what was discussed at this Planning Commission meeting, and if they, in fact, wanted to continue the commission. Mr. Bil7ings stated this item would be continued until they received fu�ther input from the Community Development Commission. RECEIVE �OTION �RO� PARKS ��RECREATION C(l1�lISSION��INUTES OF JUL� 14, i986: Mr. Robinson stated that at the July 14th meeting, the Parks & Recreation Commission had made a motion to urge the City to sell the triangular piece of property on Creekpark Lane to Mr. Brickner. Mr. Kondrick stated there was now some talk that the property should not be sold but added to the property to the north of it making another park across the street from Creekridge Park. Mr. Robinson stated he believed that on Aug. 4, the City Council had passed a motion stating they would not be interested in expanding the park north of the street. Then the idea came up that staff be directed to study the selling of the lan.d to the highest bidder. He stated that this was rea7ly a moot issue at this time. The reason the motion was in the agenda was because it was missed at the las� meeting. There was no action required by the Planning Commission. PLANNING COM�ISSION MEETING; AUGUST 6,�1986�� � � PAGE 12 � . . . . . . ..... . ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... . ....... 7. RECEIVE JlltY 10; ]986, � HOUSING &� REDEIIEL' OP1�lENT � AUTHORIT�! � INI�IUTES: MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, 5ECONDED BY MR. 5ABA� TO.RECEIVE THE JULY 10� I986 , HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT Ai7THOl32TY' MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOT�NG AYE� CHAIRPER50N BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTIOIV CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. RECEIVE JIJLY 29; 1986, APPEACS` COI�dI��ION ]�INUTES. Mi nutes were not avai 7 ab� e at tFie ��neeti ng. 9. OTIiER BUSIIVESS: a. Election of Vice-Chairperson Chairperson Bil7ings declared the nominations open for vice�chairperson. Mr. Saba nomina�ted Dave Kondrick for vice�chairperson. Hea�ing no other nominations, Chairperson Bil7ings declared the nominations closed. n MOTIOIV BY 1�2. SABA, 5ECONDED BY M5. SHEREK, TO CA5T A UNAN.TMOUS BALLOT FOR DAVE KOND.RICK AS V2CE-CHAIRPER50N O,F� THE PLANNING CONIMISSION. UPON A VOICE VOTE, �ALL �70TING AY`E, CHAI.RPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTIOIV BY MR. BETZOLD� 5ECONDED BY MR� KONDRICK, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLI111G5 DECLARED THE AUGU5T 6� 1986, PLANNING COMMI55ION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10;05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Sa a Recording Secretary � '� �,���'�� e �.� �� � � � �� ��i- e.✓,t � �o r�a- ��� � ut�'�"a� �'� V� �,�� • � �t fi�rl r�a,�r /�lar�n, r, g. � I�%s �� �1� l �4�. � �- �jab er�a Tt� ri11'� s �rE o � G. � %�l. �i� CD �' C�� L� .. k�, � ��,, ti.�,.�. l �1 �� S�' � 6 �a.kw o� � ��o #������ L . h e!, � • 3 '� ,n ��g �., � �� � /1 0 . (' �J4 y ��' � �4 � � l� � �rw �%N [etr �Ei �o c� _ , . �,� � r � ; �. 131� / 3 /� 13r7 i� �1 I c�r�� � u t � I��ll�'�t�s %h�t.r►o r �i►� d . � . � �� ��. �;-�'� � �r �r���� : � � t a �� ��• !3 14 N�; I�cres�' ��• �.�• / 3 3 +�o I�rGL e�sY`�1� , ���d►g, � �Q���� �� � 3�� j� : � c c.�«. .,� Q,.�. �.� � � �[c�� �In��- j�vs.F,�d � �' � �t4� I �t 9/ �SardGna� ���. /�rid /e� /3�� ���,� �� ��,� �� ��,�.� .�_ . � ,.