The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 10/25/1989 - 7104^ PLANNING COMMISSIOAT MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1989 7:30 P.M. Barbara Dacy Planning Coordinator � �S .-, City of Fridley A G E N D A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1989 7:30 P.M. LOCATION: FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER, 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. CALL TO ORDER• ROLL CALL• APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: October 11, 1989 CONSIDERATION OF REVISED SITE PLAN FOR OSBORNE CROSSINGS SBF DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -- REVIEW PROPOSED LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY/ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19. 1989 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 2. 1989 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1989 OTHER BUSINESS• ADJOURN• .-� � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 11, 1989 ��_��___��_-______��____�_��_��___-_-_ CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Betzold called the October 11, 1989, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Don Betzold, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Alex Barna, Paul Dahlberg Members Absent: Dave Kondrick Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Donald Tessmer, RMS Company Steven Hardel, RMS Company Jay Andrea, 670 Janesville Street, Pete Shifstrom, 8420 East River Road, Coon Rapids � Chris Denardo, 10715 Linnet Street, Coon Rapids APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 27 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the September 27, 1989, Planning Commission minutes with the following amendment on to the motion on page 11, item 5: "seconded by Mr. Saba" should be changed to "seconded by Mr. DahlberQ". IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING, ZOA #89-05, BY RMS COMPANY• To rezone Outlot 1, Nagel's Woodlands, from C-2, General Business, to M-1, Light Industrial, the same being 990 Osborne Road N.E. _ Mr. Dahlberg excused himself from discussion and voting on this issue, because he is the architect for RMS Company. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED � THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:32 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCT. 12. 1989 - PAGE 2 Ms. McPherson stated RMS Company currently owns the building at 980 Osborne Road, which is adjacent to 990 Osborne Road. The small outlot is zoned C-2, General Business. RMS Company is proposing to construct an addition onto their existing building and a minor portion of that addition will encroach into the outlot, therefore, the petitioner is requesting the outlot be rezoned to M-1, Light Industrial. Adjacent parcels in the area are currently zoned M-1, Light Industrial, including the parcel with the existing building. Ms. McPherson stated that since the existing building is on M-1 property and adjacent parcels to the west and south are also zoned M-1, it would be appropriate to rezone the small outlot to M-1, Light Industrial. This will allow RMS Company to add onto their building and be in compliance with the Zoning Code. The remainder of the parcel will be used for employee parking. Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rezoning request with three stipulations: 1. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. A landscape plan with underground irrigation shall be submitted for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. The rezoning of Outlot 1 of Nagel's Woodlands shall be contingent upon approval of the variance request, VAR #89-26. Mr. Tessmer stated he had nothing to add. He stated they are in agreement with the stipulations as outlined by staff. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Mr. Barna stated the Appeals Commission recommended approval of both variances requested by RMS Company on October 10, 1989. He stated he had no problem with the rezoning request. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Barna, to recommend to City Council approval of a rezoning, ZOA #89-05, by RMS Company, to rezone Outlot 1, Nagel's Woodlands, from C-2, General Business, to M-1, Light Industrial, the same being 990 Osborne Road N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for ^ approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. '� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCT. 12, 1989 - PAGE 3 2. 3. A landscape plan with underground irrigation shall be submitted for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The rezoning of Outlot 1 of Nagel's Woodlands shall be contingent upon approval of the variance request, VAR #89-26. DPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated that on October 23, 1989, the City Council will set a public hearing for this item on November 13, 1989. 2. CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION TO COMBINE THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION AND ENERGY COMMISSION: Ms. Dacy stated that this subject was discussed by the Planning Commission several months ago. The Environmental Quality and Energy Commissions are now embarking on a solid waste fact-finding process by interviewing various employees from other cities and counties regarding their approach to recycling. ^ Ms. Dacy stated a factor in that fact-finding process is the ability to get quorums on both commissions. That has been a factor for the last year. .-.. Ms. Dacy stated at a recent Council meeting, Councilmember Billings initiated this request. The Energy Commission and Environmental Quality Commission have reviewed the proposed changes to Chapter 6 of the City Code regarding Commissions. Included in the agenda was the proposed changes along with a copy of Chapter 6 showing where the proposed changes would be. Ms. Dacy stated, essentially, the Environmental Quality and Energy Commissions would be combined into one commission and would have seven members. The impact on the Planning Commission would be that there would be five members plus two at-large members appointed by the Council. She believed that is consistent with the Planning Commission's original discussion and direction. Ms. Dacy stated staff would like the Commission to review the proposed changes to Chapter 6, recommend any changes, and direct staff to schedule the first reading of the ordinance to change Chapter 6 before the City Council on October 23, 1989. Mr. Saba stated both the commissions would like the membership to stay at seven members. It will help in being able to have a quorum for meetings. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCT. 12. 1989 - ____ PAGE 4 Mr. Dahlberg stated there is quite a diversity among the EQC and Energy Commission members in terms of interest and e}cpertise. Zt is healthy to keep the membership at seven members to be able to retain that interest and expertise. Mr. Dahlberg stated they would like the flexibility that if, at some point they cannot maintain a membership of seven, they could reduce the membership to five. Mr. Betzold stated it is a good idea to merge the two commissions. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Council the approval of the Commissions, of the City Code and Commission and Energy Commission Mr. Barna, to recommend to City proposal to amend Chapter 6, combine the Environmental Quality into one commission. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 3. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED STATION LOCATIONS ALONG UNIVERSITY AVENUE• Mr. Robertson stated that since the Planning Commission last discussed the proposed LRT system, staff has received some updated information from BRW that staff feels warrants more review by the -- Planning Commission. The Planning Commission might want to consider updating some of their recommendations about locations and type of station. Mr. Robertson stated that at the February 8, 1989, meeting the Commission did not know the parking requirements for commuter stations, and the Commission recommended station locations at 57th Avenue, Mississippi Street, Osborne Road, and 81st Avenue. BRW now feels that the commuter ("park and ride" as opposed to "walk and ride") station on University and Mississippi will now require 300 parking spaces. That is approximately equivalent to the two Target parking lots. BRW states the 10,000 Auto Parts parking lot will only accommodate 125 spaces, so they are asking about the use of other Municipal Center parking facilities. He stated the new parking ramp was built to handle the overflow parking and help correct the parking problem the City already has in Center City, and the use of these facilities was discouraged since the office building is not fully leased and an expansion is planned for the Fridley Plaza Clinic. Mr. Robertson stated the next dimension of this problem is that the Center City redevelopment is about 2/3 completed. However, they still have a 10 acre parcel in the southwest quadrant, and the HRA is looking at three proposals for it at its October 12, 1989, meeting. The question is: Do they really want to jam up the intersection with 300 more cars in the morning and 300 more cars in the evening where, during the day, there is going to be ,--. „..� PLANNZNG COMMISSION 1�EETING, OCT. 12, 1989 - PAGE 5 .-.. nonproductive use of that land? Perhaps the solution would be to convert the "park and ride” station originally conceived for University/Mississippi to a"walk and ride" station and "drive up and drop off" station and then provide those additional "park and ride" facilities at Columbia Arena. Mr. Robertson stated staff is asking the Planning Commission to reconsider Columbia Arena. Does it make sense to have a"park and ride" station at both Columbia Arena and Osborne Road? Mr. Betzold stated that if there is a station at the intersection of Mississippi/University, isn't it going to be second nature for people to park in the City's parking lot anyway? They are going to have 300 cars parked there even if they do not have room for them. Mr. Barna stated people will park there or at Holly Shopping Center or on the residential streets. Ms. Sherek asked if they want to add 300 additional cars to the intersection of 73rd/University in a residential area that is going to be newly burdened with the Northco development. Probably a minimum of 1/2 those cars will be during rush hour adding to an already horrible traffic situation on 73rd Avenue. Mr. Robertson stated 73rd Avenue is going to be widened. Ms. Sherek stated it is not the width of the street that is the problem; it is the volume of traffic on the street, and that volume will be increased by putting a commuter station at Columbia Arena. So, are they improving a situation or making it worse? Ms. Sherek stated if they have a choice between putting a"park and ride" station in an area that enters and exits in a residential area or in a commercial area, she would vote for the commercial area, whether it is Osborne Road or Mississippi Street. Mr. Dahlberg stated that in the early stages, there was minimal discussion about this, but it seemed it was always intended that the LRT would go on the east side of University Avenue. It appears to him that there is more land available for parking facilities on the west side of University Avenue. Mr. Robertson stated he believed the east side of University Avenue was chosen because of the availability of right-of-way. Mr. Robertson agreed with what Mr. Betzold had said earlier that even with a"walk and ride" station on the southeast corner by the Target building, they are going to get a certain amount of renegade parking in the area. The idea would be to try to make a"park and '� ride" station as attractive as possible and the parking as close to the station and loading platform as possible. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCT. 12. 1989 - PAGE 6 Mr. Betzold stated that the Columbia Arena location seems ideal because the lot is available during the day. Mr. Dahlberg stated that is true; however, it was BRW's original analysis to utilize the property Northco now has, not the Columbia Arena lot. Mr. Robertson stated that was true; however, he has now been informed by BRW that they will consider the joint use of the Columbia Arena lot because it is already an Anoka County facility. Mr. Dahlberg asked the capacity for the Columbia Arena lot. Mr. Robertson stated they are not sure, but know it can hold in excess of 300 cars. However, there is still the remaining problem of traffic on 73rd Avenue. Mr. Dahlberg stated he believed some of that traffic will be distributed onto 69th Avenue. They are assuming all the traffic will be coming east and west on 73rd Avenue to get to the station, but that is not necessarily the way it is going to work. Mr. Robertson stated that is an excellent point, and they should get a follow-up projection from BRW on what percentage of traffic i� will come east/west on 73rd Avenue and what percentage of traffic will come north/south on University Avenue. Ms. Sherek stated another way would be to get an analysis of how traffic could be rerouted to 69th Avenue to distribute the traffic. Mr. Barna stated there has been some discussion about the frontage road being eliminated at 73rd Avenue. If that is the case, traffic would have to go through the Northco development to and from 73rd Avenue. Mr. Dahlberg stated that when staff asks for follow-up information, the information be based on two scenarios: 1. If the frontage road is not there to 73rd which forces all the traffic to 69th or through Northco's development to get to 73rd Avenue. 2. If the frontage road remains so traffic can get onto 69th Avenue and 73rd Avenue. Mr. Robertson stated the question is: Will the "park and ride" people arrive at the station all at once or earlier than people arriving to work a� the Northco development? If the latter is true, then that would spread out some of the traffic. � ^ PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, OCT. 12, 1989 PAGE 7 Mr. Betzold stated another question that can be asked of BRW is that if BRW is committed to having a"walk and ride" station at Mississippi/University, where will the cars be parked and how can the City control the parking situation? Mr. Dahlberg stated if the northeast quadrant of University/ Mississippi becomes a 125 car lot, how is the parking to be controlled? By permit for LRT? Mr. Dahlberg stated he had a concern regarding 73rd Avenue. Of all the east/west streets in Fridley that provide access to University and Highway 65 and Central Avenue, 73rd Avenue is the only street without stop signs, and that is why it is used as heavily as it is. It would seem to be wiser to have Osborne Road as the street without stop signs or have Osborne with traffic controlled intersections. Mr. Betzold stated when they first started the LRT discussions, they agreed that at some point the public should become involved. He is now getting very concerned about making these kinds of discussions without any public input. He felt they are getting to the point where they should have a public hearing fairly soon. Ms. Sherek stated they have to give this a lot of consideration. � There are other sites they could be looking at for the "park and ride" stations. Once the LRT is in, it is going to be here for a long time. If it means exploring the idea of having the corridor run down the west side of the street with a pedestrian bridge over University Avenue, then maybe they should do that. Mr. Dahlberg stated the Commission's recommendation was that if the corridor is on the east side that they retain all the parking facilities on the east side as well. Now, they might have to compromise and say they will allow it on the west side only if there is a pedestrian walk bridge over or under University Avenue to the station so pedestrians do not have to compete with the traffic on University Avenue. Ms. Dacy is that process. for its process. has made It might does not stated her understanding of the public hearing process BRW is still going through the preliminary engineering Then Anoka County will forward the plan to each community review and approval. She thought that was a 6-9 month Even with the change from last winter to this winter, BRW the demand projection of 300 cars at the intersection. be more harmful to go to the public now if Anoka County have adequate information. Mr. Robertson stated a public information meeting was originally scheduled by BRW for September but it had to be cancelled. .-.. Mr. Betzold stated it is a valid concern that they do want to have all the information together before going before the public; but PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCT 12, 1989 - _ PAGE 8 "~ the Commission does not control this process. He is afraid that there is going to be a point in time when a lot of rumors and misinformation can start coming out, and he did not want someone to point to the Fridley Planning Commission that they were the ones who made the decision without public input. Mr. Saba stated it could be worse, though, if they do not have adequate information. Mr. Robertson stated he would forward the Planning Commission's concern about public input to BRW. Ms. Sherek stated that when.they do have a public hearing, she would like representatives from BRW to attend that meeting. Ms. Sherek stated she felt BRW does have to make a decision on the corridor first before they can start talking about stations. MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Saba, that the Planning Commission recognizes the updated information presented by staff and is willing to update their recommendations after staff gets more information on the following issues: 1. The closing off of 73rd; directing traffic to 69th; or ^ traffic through the Northco development to 73rd. 2. The traffic assignments east/west on 73rd Avenue and the impact of that traffic on the residential area to the north. 3. The impact on renegade parking in the Center City area if there is a"walk and ride" station located at University/Mississippi. 4. The implication of parking facilities on the opposite side of the roadway from the rail right-of-way with a pedestrian bridge. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 4. REVIEW PROPOSED CHANGES TO LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS_ IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS: Ms. McPherson stated the reason for the initiation of the code change was in response to a variance request by Cortron Manufacturing in September 1989. In the discussion at the City Council meeting, it was discussed that information be gathered on how other cities handle lot coverage requirements. That information was included as items B and B2 in the Commission ---� agenda. �„ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCT. 12. 1989 - PAGE 9 Ms. McPherson stated, as proposed, the increase by 10� of all the lot coverage requirements would occur for both commercial and industrial districts. Staff has recommended, however, that the increase only be allowed in industrial districts as the lot usage in commercial districts in usually more intense, the parking requirements are higher, and the ratios are greater. In industrial districts, many times the e�ansions that cause the increase in lot coverage are usually for warehousing and some manufacturing uses. The parking ratios are 1 parking space for 2,000 sq. ft. so the parking demand is not as greatly increased as the retail use which is 1 parking space for 150 sq. ft. Ms. McPherson stated also included was a list of lot coverage variances that have been requested in past years. As stated in the memo dated October 6, 1989, all lot variances were within industrial districts. Ms. Ua�y stated it was, Councilmember Billings' proposal to increase lot covera�� by 10� as a special use permit (Exhibit A). Mr. Dahlberg asked why the special use permit situation would be any better than just increasing the allowable lot coverage by 10� to 50$ without a special use permit in the M-1 district. .- Mr. Barna stated maybe the Council could just give the Appeals Commission some direction that the Council was comfortable with variances for lot coverage up to 50�. Ms. Dacy stated that to choose between amending the ordinance or considering each case on a variance basis, she would recommend that the ordinance be changed so that there could not be a challenge if a variance was denied for whatever reason. Mr. Dahlberg agreed with Ms. Dacy. He stated it should not be a variance situation, but what is the benefit to having it allowed with a speci�� €�se permit? Ms. Dacy stated staff's initial concern was to make sure that the requests would have adequate parking, to analyze the long term situation if the use was to change over in the future, and to look at adjacent uses. In the case of ELO Engineering, there was an issue about shared parking. Ms. Dacy stated the City has the burden of proof to show if there are any problems with the special use permit. Mr. Barna stated that with the ELO Engineering lot coverage variance, it was revealed that there was insufficient parking. The Appeals Commission put on a contingency of gaining additional property which ELO was not able to do and, therefore, denied the '-• variance for a variance from 46.5� to 49.5$. Handling it that way has kind of limited lot coverage to 45-47�. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCT. 12, 1989 - PAGE 10 Ms.�Sherek stated that if someone comes in requesting an increase in lot coverage from 40� to 50� and the ordinance says 50$, doesn't the petitioner still have to demonstrate adequate parking? If they cannot meet their parking requirement, it makes no difference if there is a special use permit procedure or not. The value she saw in the special use permit process is if the ordinance is set for 50�, then they will get requests for 55�. Mr. Saba stated the whole electronic industry and sheet metal industry is changing, and corporations are requiring more space for storage of inventory in their buildings. By denying this type of lot coverage, they could lose a lot of business. That is what is happening to companies like ELO Engineering. Mr. Betzold stated the variance process is always available, but then the burden is on�the petitioner to show a hardship. If they go ahead and increase lot coverage to 50� with a special use permit, then they are saying it is all right, and the City has to come up with good reasons why the request should be turned down. They have only had five lot coverage variance requests in five years, so he really did not see this as an issue. He would almost rather see a sunset provision where there would at least be some review at some point in the future so they do not have a needless procedure on the books. Ms. Sherek stated allowing 50� lot coverage with a special use permit is still the same thing as allowing 50�, but the City is requiring the petitioner to jump through some hoops. She felt they should either allow 50� or just leave it as it is now. Mr. Barna stated he basically agreed with Ms. Sherek. If they are going to have a percentage at all, he liked what some of the other cities are doing where the setback requirements and parking requirements basically control the lot coverage. Mr. Dahlberg stated the danger there is if they increase the number too much (and 50� is not outrageous), they have to take into account that there is parking lot and hard surface that has to be accommodated on the parcel. At around 40� lot coverage and adding the parking and hard surface, the total building and hard surface area on the lot could be at approximately 75-80� maximum. That is all right, but as soon as they start to increase the lot coverage to 50�, then maybe the total developed piece of property including parking and hard surface is closer to 90�, and that becomes a little more difficult to deal with. The objective is to have some green space and landscaped treatment on each parcel. Ms. Sherek stated maybe they should add an additional statement that says the total lot coverage cannot exceed a certain percentage. .� .�. � ^ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCT. 12, 1989 - PAGE 11 Mr. Dahlberg asked staff if there has been any language to that effect in other cities ordinances. Ms. Dacy stated some ordinances do not have a building coverage; they will have a total impervious surface. She stated the City's parking setbacks and building setbacks are set up so that 88� of the lot can be covered. She stated staff looked at that option, and they could state in the ordinance that lot coverage maximum is 88�, but they felt uncomfortable stating that. On the other hand, they looked at what would happen if they reduced that to 75$ or 80$ total. Based on how Fridley has developed, they would probably render a number of properties nonconforming because basically everyone has built to those �arking and building setbacks in the commercial and industrial districts. Mr. Barna stated that with the variance process, they look at each individual lot and each individual situation. Ms. Dacy stated staff wants to avoid the variance procedure, because of the hardship test. She would rather have the special use permit process rather than the variance process. Mr. Betzold stated the issues are: " 1. Should they go to 50� lot coverage? 2. If so, should they also require a special use permit? Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission must remember that the proposal is to increase the lot coverage by 10� for more than one story buildings. Mr. Dahlberg stated he would like to consider Ms. Sherek's suggestion about an additional statement that total lot coverage of building and hard surface will not exceed, in this case, 88�. The Commission members agreed to limit the amendment to industrial districts only. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Barna, to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed change in the Zoning Code for lot coverage in industrial districts only as follows: (4) The above maximum lot coverages in (1) may be increased by ten percent (10�) of the lot size; however, in no event may the total impervious lot surface exceed 88� of the total square footage. Ms. Sherek stated she did not want to require a special use permit ^ for the increase in lot coverage. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCT. 12. 1989 - PAGE 12 � Mr. Dahlberg stated he would rather see the special use permit included as part of the proposed change, primarily from the standpoint that if they do it at 50�, then it will be easier for people to go after larger percentages. Most people will look at this and say 40� is allowable, and the special use process to get more than 40� might deter some people. Mr. Betzold stated he did not know if the special use permit adds any protection, because a person or a company still has to get a building permit, and there are requirements with the building permit, i.e., parking requirements. Ms. Dacy stated Fridley's parking requirements are based on square footage, not on employee generation, so they could get a very small warehouse with a large number of employees, or vice versa. Staff is evaluating whether or not they want to change that to require one space per "x" amount of employees on the largest shift. Ms. Sherek stated that is not an issue before the Commission now, but her opinion on that is that commercial property changes hands frequently enough that the parking should be planned to the highest density of employees that are anticipated in that type of building at any point, not necessarily for the use currently in the building. Ms. Sherek stated she did not think they wanted to get into that -- kind of evaluation, because that is more or less saying that the use to which the building is put today is its use in perpetuity. Whatever the parking requirement is at the time a person or company comes in for a building permit, whether or not there is a special use permit, that parking requirement has to be met. If they do not change that and someone comes in with an unusual situation, there is always the variance process. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, BETZOLD, SHERER, SABA, BARNA VOTING AYE, DAHLBERG VOTING NAY, CIiAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4-1. Mr. Dahlberg stated he does not object to the 50� lot coverage, but does feel the special use permit should be included. 5. REVIEW PROPOSED CHANGES TO PARKING STALL SIZES: Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending a change in parking stall sizes from 10 ft. x 20 ft. to 9 ft. x 20 ft. (Option #3). Staff feels the double striping is reasonable. Mr. Dahlberg stated he would like to discuss the issue of compact parking stalls. Most municipalities have some language in their parking ordinances relative to allowing compact stalls. Stall widths for compact spaces vary from 7.5 - 8.5 feet, and percentages of allowable stalls vary from 10-50� of the total in a given '"' parking lot. He was not sure he advocated compact stalls, but he . ^ PLANNING COMMISSZON MEETING, OCT. 12, 1989 PAGE 13 was sure that on occasion a developer is going to request some compact spaces. Ms. Sherek stated compact spaces work fine in a parking ramp or against a wall where the appropriate signage is posted that it is for compact parking only so it can be somewhat controlled. Mr. Dahlberg asked the Commission if they wanted to add some language that relates to the issue of compact spaces. Ms. Dacy stated some compact parking is fairly common now. She has seen as high as 20� of a parking lot for compact stalls. Mr. Dahlberg asked if compact stalls have been allowed by variance. Mr. Barna stated they have never granted a variance for parking stalls below 9 feet. Mr. Dahlberg stated that he did not see too much benefit for compact stalls. Nine feet will make a significant difference in Fridley. If they get any requests for compact stalls, then those can always go through the variance process and be judged on an individual basis. � MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to the City Council approval to amend the definition of a parking stall size from 10 ft. x 20 ft. to 9 ft. x 20 ft. with double striping and retain the language regarding the reduction of stall depth when abutting a boulevard (Option #3 as presented in the staff report). IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTZON CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 6. REVIEW PROPOSED CHANGES TO SIGN ORDINANCE: Ms. McPherson stated staff incorporated the suggestions discussed at the September 27, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. Staff has also received sign ordinances from other cities, the result of which are in the "Signs" chart located in the agenda. The chart was limited to deal with those issues that were discussed at the September 27th meeting: campaign signs, temporary signs, porta panels, banners, streamers, etc. Mr. Barna referred to Section 214.04.09, Signs Prohibited in All Districts: Any signs which are attached to trees, fences, utility poles or other such permanent supports, not specifically intended as sign structures. Mr. Barna stated chain link fences often have the manufacturers' identification logo on them. Could some wording be added that ^ allows this type of signage, also warning signs such as "No Trespassing", etc., on fences? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCT. 12. 1989 -_ PAGE 14 � Ms. McPherson stated staff will amend that section. Ms. McPherson stated staff improved the definition for banners and pennants. They also added a definition for non-profit organization. She would like the Commission to discuss the non- profit organization issue, as well as Exhibits A and B in the agenda which deal with specific language for signs by non-profit organizations. Ms. McPherson stated under "Political Signs", they made the suggested recommended changes to the size of the signs and made the time limits a little more specific. There really wasn't a consensus on the amount of deposit for political signs, so staff used the $200 deposit which is consistent with the other temporary fee requirement. Mr. Saba stated he agreed with that amount. Mr. Barna stated the person or organization can always go before the City Council to have the fee waived. Mr. Betzold stated he has trouble equating businesses with political candidates, and he thought $100 would be more reasonable. Mr. Barna stated the sign ordinance does not prohibit roof signs. There is still a roof sign on what used to be Raphael's which should have been removed years ago. Roof signs should be prohibited in the City of Fridley. Mr. Betzold agreed with the prohibition of roof signs. Ms. McPherson stated she thought there should be some clarification on special event signs. Did the Commission want bills and posters to require a deposit also? They have added the language that prohibits such signs on utility poles and non sign-like structures. Mr. Betzold stated after what he saw this summer where the use of posters was abused in the City of Fridley, he never wanted to see anything like that again. People should be discouraged from putting the bills and posters on utility poles. Garage sale signs can always be put on posts in the ground with the property owner's permission. He stated he is less concerned about the garage sale notices that are put up and taken down within a few days, than he is about the bills and posters. Mr. Barna stated the ordinance should address recycling signs. They should be allowed in the public right-of-way. Ms. Dacy stated those signs could be added to the list of signs ^ permitted in all districts. . � � � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCT. 12, 1989 - PAGE 15 Ms. McPherson stated at the last meeting, the Commission discussed the issue of requiring two permits per year for non-profit organizations. In going through the ordinances received from other cities, there were two cities, Champlin and Brooklyn Center, that allowed non-profit organizations special consideration for signage, banners, porta-panels, etc., over business temporary signs. That is the language in Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Does the Commission want to include that type of language in the ordinance or do they want to change the temporary sign ordinance to allow more signs? What does the Commission want to do to resolve the issues of the churches and schools and other non-profit organizations in the issue of two permits per year? Mr. Betzold suggested that rather than say "non-profit" organizations, they refer to them as "community organizations". Non-profit does have a very specific meaning. The non-profit organization has to have some connection with the City of Fridley as they do not want non-profit organizations from another city wanting to put up banners in the City of Fridley. It should be a civic community organization located within the City of Fridley. Ms. McPherson stated that under "Special Event Signs", item B states that "Signs over the public right-of-way must have City Council approval." However, the two exhibits from Champlin and Brooklyn Center call out the fact that there might be signs existing that are not on the property where the event is being held, and they have restrictions on those signs that are allowed. That becomes another issue. Does the Commission want to allow signage on property other than that owned by the organization? Mr. Barna stated some non-profit organizations such as the Jaycees do not own their own property. Ms. Dacy stated she did not think they should be encouraging off- premise signs. Al1 signs should be on the owner's property. Mr. Dahlberg stated it is virtually impossible for the Commission to anticipate and come up with language for every conceivable situation that can occur in the City of Fridley. Ms. Dacy stated both the Champlin and Brooklyn Park ordinances would be good if they want the ability for the Jaycees or Lions Club to put up off-premise signage for special events. Those ordinances list specific standards for signs on or off the organization's property. Mr. Betzold stated Exhibit B spells out the requirements a little better. Mr. Saba stated Exhibit B seems easier to understand and allows a little more leeway for non-profit organizations. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCT. 12, 1989 - PAGE 16 Ms. McPherson stated the language in Exhibit B does not include a permit, but they could have the organization fill out a permit so the City knows when the sign is going up, when it will come down, and who is the responsible party. Ms. Sherek agreed there should be a permit, but she also thought there should a refundable deposit. Mr. Dahlberg stated that since it is a temporary sign, a deposit would fall under that category. Mr. Dahlberg suggested the following changes to Exhibit B: (1) Add some language that states that all signs except readerboards shall not exceed a certain square footage. (2) Signs shall not be posted in excess of �9-} fourteen (14) days prior to the event and shall be removed no later than �e� ;T; five (5) days following the final date of the event. (4) He would suggest staff add a statement similar to one Item 1 in Exhibit A: "If building mounted, these signs shall be flat wall signs and shall not project above the roof line. If ground mounted, the top shall be no more _ than six (6) feet above ground level." Ms. McPherson stated they will add an item (7) and item (8) to Exhibit B for controls on the permit and the deposit. Mr. Betzold stated he would like the definition of non-profit organizations changed to community organizations that include non- profit organizations, churches, civic organizations, etc., located within the City of Fridley. Mr. Dahlberg stated wherever non-profit organization occurs in the ordinance, it should be changed to community organization. Mr. Dahlberg stated he again wanted to raise his objection to signs over the right-of-way, even the language does state that signs are allowed over the right-of-way with Council approval. He personally objected to those signs across roadways. Mr. Dahlberg stated the ordinance refers to the number of permits allowed with specific instances based on zoning. It doesn't specifically address the issue of non-profit organizations. Non- profit organizations fall into a separate category. It was his personal opinion that it would work better to include in Section 214.16 under Sign Permit Requirements a chart or table that illustrates the number of permits allowed and how many permits per year for each of the zoning districts and/or types of uses, i.e., � non-profit organizations. It is like taking item 6 out of the - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCT. 12, 1989 - PAGE 17 �- other sections and consolidating each one into the sign permit requirement section. Ms. McPherson stated right now the interpretation is that non- profit organizations can only have two permits per year which would include up to 12 signs for each permit. Did the Commission want to change the "two" to a larger number? Mr. Dahlberg stated he would suggest they look at a larger number. Mr. Barna agreed. Since non-profit organizations are dependent on volunteer workers, it is hard to say how many special events they will have. Mr. Betzold stated he did not see any organization having that many activities where it would be a problem. Ms. Dacy stated she would prefer to have the non-profit organizations not even referred to in the original ordinance but in a completely separate section. Ms. McPherson stated non-profit organizations could be added as item (9) in Exhibit B. � Mr. Saba and Ms. Sherek agreed that the non-profit organizations should be included in the chart or table in Section 214.16. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council approval of the amendments as discussed, to incorporate Exhibit B to cover community organizations, and to request those requirements be included in a table or chart for easy perusal. �PON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 7. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 11 1989 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES• MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the September 11, 1989, Parks and Recreation Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to adjourn the meeting. IIpon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the October 12, 1989, Planninq Commission meetinq adjourned at 9:50 p.m. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCT. 12. 1989 - PAGE 18 � Respectfully submitted, ,� ti.� Lyn Saba Recording Secretary � .-. �--. � � � PLANNING DIVISION � MEMORANDUM c�nroF FRlDLEY DATE: October 20, 1989 T0: Planning Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: SBD Development Item on the Planning Commission Agenda I You will find that review of SBF Development`s revised site plan is scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting. As of today, staff has not received a plan from Mr. Jerry Farrell. We expect to have this plan by Monday. Staff will deliver this entire item to your home Monday afternoon. Thank you. MM/dn � .--. LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA � 0 .-., 6. LANDSCAPE REQUIRF:MENTS � A. Scope. All open ar�eas of any site, except for areas used for parking, dr:Lveways, or storage shall be landscaped and incorporatec! in a landscape plan. B. Plan Submis:�ion and Approval. (1) A land��cape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit or pri��r to approval of outside improvements not relateci to building improvements. (2) The fo:llowing items shall appear on the landscape plan: a . Ge�neral 1)� Name and address of owner/developer 2)� Name and address of architect/designer 3;� Date of plan preparation 4; Dates and description of all revisions 5;i Name of project or development 6;i Scale of plan (engineering scale only) at no smaller than 1 inch equals 50 feet 7;1 North point indication b . L<indscape Data 1;� Planting schedule (table) containing: a) symbols b) c) d) e) f) .-` g) Quantities Common names Botanical names Sizes of plant material at time of planting Root specification (B.R., B & B, potted, etc.) Special planting instructions r � ---y 2J� Existing tree and shrubbery, locations, common names and approximate size 3J� Planting detail (show all species to scale at normal mature crown diameter, or spread for local hardiness zone) 4)� Typical sections in detail of fences, tiewalls, planter boxes, tot lots, picnic areas, berms, and other similar features. 5)� Typical sections of landscape islands and planter beds with identification of materials used. 6y Details of planting beds and foundation plantings. 7`� Note indicating how disturbed soil areas will be restored through the use of sodding, seeding, or other techniques. 8; Delineation of both sodded and seeded areas with total areas provided in square feet, and slope information. 9;i Coverage plan for underground irrigation system, if any. 1c)) Statement or symbols, to describe exterior lighting plan concept. c. S��ecial Conditions: W2iere landscape or man-made materials are used tc� provide required screening from adjacent and nEaighboring properties, a cross-section shall bE� provided through the site and adjacent p��operties to show property elevation, existing biiildings and screening in scale. C. Landscaping Materials. All plant m��terials shall be living plants. Artificial plants are ��rohibited. (1) Grass �3nd ground cover. a. G�round cover shall be planted in such a manner a:a to present a finished appearance and r��asonably complete coverage within twelve (12 ) mc�nths after planting, with proper erosion cc�ntrol during plant establishment period. � E:xception to this is undisturbed areas c�ntaining natural vegetation which can be maintained free of foreign and noxious materials. � b. Accepted ground covers are sod, seed, or other organic material. The use of rock and bark mulch shall be limited to rea around other veg tation (i.e. shrubslt h s edging � o t. 'V (2) Trees. � a. O�verstory Deciduous. � c. 1) A woody plant, which at maturity is thirty (30) feet or more in height, with a single trunk unbranched for several feet above � the ground, having a defined crown which looses leaves annually. 2) Such trees shall have a 2 1/2 inch caliper minimum at planting. Ornamental. 1) A woody plan� w ich at maturity is less than thirty (30) in height, with a single trunk unbranched for several feet above the ground, having a defined crown which looses leaves annually. 2) Such trees shall have a 1 1/2 inch caliper minimum at planting. Coniferous. 1) A woody plant, which a maturity is at least thirty (30) feet or more in height, with a single trunk fully branched to the ground, having foliage on the outermost portion of the branches year-round. 2) Such trees shall be eight (8) feet in height at planting. (3) Shrubs. a. Deciduous or evergreen plant material, which at maturity is fifteen (15) feet in height or less. Such materials may be used for the formation of hedges. Such materials shall meet the following minimum standards at time of planting: .-� 1) Deciduous shrubs shall be thirty-six (36) inches tall. 2) (4) Vines. Evergreen shrubs shall be in five (5) gallon containers. Vines :�hall be at least twelve (12) inches high at plantiiig, and are generally used in conjunction with walls or fences. (5) Slopes and Berms. a. E� F�Lnal slope grades steeper than 3:1 will not be� permitted without special approval or t��eatment such as terracing or retaining walls. E�irth berm screening parking lots and other oF�en areas shall not have slopes exceeding 3:1. A minimum three (3) foot berm is required. D. Perimeter Z,��ndscaping. (1) In orde:r to achieve landscaping which is appropriate � in sca]Le with the size of a building and site, the minimum standards apply: a. Oiie (1) tree for every one thousand (1,000) sc�uare feet of total building floor area or one (:l) tree for every fifty (50) feet of site pEarimeter, whichever is greater. A minimum of tiiirty (30) percent of the trees required will bE; coniferous. b. T��o (2) ornamental trees can be substituted for e��ery one (1) overstory deciduous shade tree. Iiz no case shall ornamental trees exceed fifty (°i0 e required number of trees. c �irking�area�� een ie b ilding and frontage �:reet shall be ed in the following m�inner: l;i A continuous hedge of minimum of three (3) time of planting; or 2 ;I plant materials; feet �in height at A continuous earth berm with slopes no greater than 3:1 and a minimum of three (3) feet in height; or � 3;1 A combination of earth berms and plant ,-� �� ---. � E. F. materials such that a minimum of three ( 3) feet of continuous screening is achieved. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping (1) All parking areas containing over seventy-five (75) stalls shall include unpaved, landscaped islands that areas reasonably distributed throughout the parking area to break up the expanses of paved areas. In addition, landscaped islands shall be provided every two hundred fifty (250) feet or more of uninterrupted parking stalls. (2) All landscaped islands shall contain a minimum of one hundred eighty (180) square feet with a minimum width of five (5) feet and shall be provided with deciduous shade trees, ornamental or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch, and/or shrubbery, in addition to the minimum landscape requirements of this ordinance. Interior parking landscape area trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree for each fifteen (15) surface parking spaces provided or a fraction thereof. Parking area landscaping shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a six (6) inch raised concrete curb. Screening and Buffering (1) Where the parcel abuts a property zoned R-1 or R-2, there shall be provided a landscaped buffer which shall be constructed in the following manner: a. A screening fence or wall shall be constructed within a five (5) foot strip along the property line(s) abutting the R-1 or R-2 district. Said fence or wall shall be constructed of attractive, permanent finished materials, compatible with those used in the principal structure, and shall be a minimum of six (6) feet high and a maximum of eight (8) feet high. Chain link fences shall have non-wooden slats when used for screening purposes; or b. A planting screen shall be constructed in a fifteen (15) foot strip and shall consist of healthy, fully hardy plant materials and shall be designed to provide a minimum year-round opaqueness of eighty (80) percent at the time of maturity. The plant material shall be of sufficient height to achieve the required screening. Planting screens shall be maintained in a neat and healthful condition. Plants which have died shall be promptly replaced. --� c. If the topography, natural growth of vegetation, permanent buildings or other barriers meet the standards for screening as approved by the City, they may be substituted for all or part of the screening fence or planting screen. (2) All loading docks must be located in the rear or side yards and be screened with a six (6) foot high minimum solid screening fence if visible from a public right-of-way or if within fifty (50) feet of a residential districts. (3) All external loading and service areas accessory to buildings shall be completely screened from the ground level view from contiguous residential or commercial properties and adjacent streets, except at access points. G. Credit for Large Trees The total number of required overstory trees may be reduced by one-half (1/2) tree for each new deciduous tree measuring four and one-half (4 1/2) inches or more in diameter, or each new coniferous tree measuring twelve (12 ) feet or more in height. In no event, however, shall "-' the reduction be greater than twenty-five (25) percent of the total number of trees required. H. Credit for Existing Trees The total number of required new overstory trees may be reduced by the retention of existing overstory trees provided that the following conditions are satisfied: (1) Such trees are four ( 4) inches or greater in cal iper measured six (6) inches from soil level. (2) For each existing tree meeting the requirement, two trees as required in section may be deleted. (3) Proper precautions to protect trees during development shall be indicated on grading plans submitted for plan review. Such precautions are outlined in section These precautions shall be included in the landscape surety. I. Irrigation. Underground irrigation shall be required to maintain all landscaped, boulevard, front and side yard areas. � J. Installation. ,,,,,, (1) The following standards shall be met when installing the required landscaping: � � a. Plant materials shall be located to provide reasonable access to all utilities. b. All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot occupied by the use, building, facility or structures to be screened. No screening or buffering shall be located on any public right-of-way. c. Sodded areas on slopes shall be staked. d. Seeded areas shall be mulched with straw to prevent erosion. Hydro mulching is acceptable. e. Oak trees shall be surrounded by snow fence or other means at their drip line to prevent compaction of their root systems. (2) The applicant shall have three (3) years within which to install the required landscaping if the following minimum standards are met: a. First year 1) All grading is completed, including installation of berms. 2) The required irrigation system is installed. 3) Areas to be seeded and/or sodded are installed. 4) Screening for adjacent residential areas is installed, if required. � b. S cond year . 1) Perimeter landscaping is installed. 2) Interior landscaping is installed. 3) Fifty (50) percent of the required overstory trees are installed. c. Third year Any remaining landscaping shall be installed. ^ d. The City shall retain the required performance bond until installation of all landscaping is F ^ � � ��`�l, complete. K. Main ena ce. (1) The property owner shall be responsible for replacement of any dead trees, shrubs, ground covers, and sodding. If any plant materials are not maintained or replaced, the property owner shall have, upon written notification from the City, one growing season to replace said materials before the City shall maintain or replace said plant materials and assess the property for the costs thereof. (2) Screen fences and walls which are in disrepair shall be repaired. L. Compliance. Existing uses shall comply with the screening requirements listed in this section at the time alterations are made on the building or premises. Compliance by existing uses shall not be required if the City determines either that because of the unique character of the existing use compliance is not needed to promote the welfare of the City or that compliance is not reasonably possible because of the existing � development. � . � CITY OF FRIDLEY JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION/ ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Dahlberg, Environmental Quality Commission, called the September 15, 1989, Joint EQC/Energy Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Bruce Bondow, Paul Dahlberg, Dean Saba, Steve � Stark, Richard Svanda Members Absent: Bradley Sielaff, Wayne Wellan Others Present: Lisa Campbell, Planning Assistant Bill Burns, City Manager Nancy Jorgenson, City Councilmember Dennis Schneider, City Councilmember Ed Fitzpatrick, City Councilmember Marilyn Corcoran, Recycling Coordinator, City of Brooklyn Park � APPROVAL OF AUGUST 15 1989 JOINT E4C/ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Svanda, seconded by Mr. Bondow, to approve the August 15, 1989, minutes of the Joint EQC/Energy Commission meeting as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON DAHLBERG DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. NEW BUSINESS: a. Presentation by Marilyn Corcoran, Recycling Coordinator for the City of Brooklyn Park Ms. Campbell stated that this Commission has been directed by the City Council to look at several different recycling approaches, approaches in different cities. Ms. Corcoran has been the Coordinator for the City of Champlin and currently is Coordinator for the City of Brooklyn Park. She also serves as Mayor of the City of Dayton, so can appreciate the City Councilmembers' point of view as well as that of staff. �-. JOZNT E4C/ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, BEPT. 19, 1989 PAGE 2 Ms. Corcoran stated that the issue of recycling is a very gray issue. There is no right or wrong, but rather what — feels good. Care must be taken in setting up a system; howpver, adjustments can be made. She understood Fridley's current system to be an open system of refuse hauling with a number of haulers and they are free to seek customers throughout the City. And there is one contractor for recycling which is done on a schedule. Ms. Campbell stated this is correct. The City currently has 7 refuse haulers. The recycling program has a twice a month pick-up on Friday, with the north half of the City being served on the lst and 3rd Fridays and the south half of the City being served on the 2nd and 4th , Fridays. Ms. Corcoran distributed copies of the General Collection Information. In the City of Champlin, the haulers created a corporation, or consortium, among themselves, and the City negotiated a contract with that consortium. It is allowed under State statute, which was tested and the State court allowed. Municipalities no longer have to be afraid of anti-trust issues. The haulers seemed to be concerned about that. It is very difficult to get the haulers to agree to get together. They are private businessmen and don't want to deal with other entities or groups. � Mr. Svanda asked if the Champlin contract is for all waste collection or just recycling. Ms. Corcoran stated this includes all waste. This can be negotiated. In Champlin, there were 6 haulers collecting at random 5 days per week. The City Council there wanted to maintain the livelihood of the haulers but did not want to go to a one hauler system. They realized the current system was not cost efficient, hard on the roadways, and there was garbage out every day for pick up. They brought in an outside person who is experienced with consortiums who worked with the haulers and helped them develop their consortium, Champlin Refuse, Znc. Mr. Dahlberg asked if the proposed method was brought to the City by the haulers rather than to the haulers by the City. Ms. Corcoran stated that the City said the haulers would need to organize or the City would go out for bids. Councilmember Schneider asked the purpose for doing so. � . � .-�. � . JOINT E4C/ENERGY COMMISSION MSETING, B$PT. 19, 1989 PAGE 3 Ms. Corcoran stated that part is for the public safety and the roadways. Councilmember Schneider asked if this is significant. Ms. Corcoran stated that refuse trucks are historically overloaded and almost never meet the weight limits. They are not taken off the road in the spring either. Now that the trucks are weighed in, they are less apt to be overweight. They can now be ticketed, and they are now more careful. The other public safety factor is the number of trucks. Mr. Dahlberg stated he has seen garbage trucks driving on the wrong side of the road and backing up in and out of driveways. Ms. Corcoran stated there are other kinds of violations. The first step that Champlin took was to go through their resolution of intent to study organized collection. After the resolution, the work begins with the haulers if that is what is chosen. The haulers organized into a corporation. The City worked with the City staff, City administrator, City attorney, the haulers, haulers' representatives, and their attorneys to work out a contract to include the requirements for collection. The costs were determined by an auditor and then reviewed by the City auditor. This was done in a very open, organized, and legal fashion. Ms. Corcoran stated that after the City had gone through all areas, they had a contract with all 5 haulers. The City was divided into 5 zones with each zone having the same number of customers as the hauler had before. Households were divided by percentage of customer base. Each hauler received a"piece of the pie", and this is working. Ms. Corcoran stated that every hauler was required to provide each of their customers with a 90-gallon container. That is the volume base limit. What is billed to the household on a monthly rate is for the pick up of 90 gallons each week. If there is extra, the household must call the hauler and the household is billed for the extra. The rates are consistent. The service is consistent. All haulers are required to provide compost collection as part of the contract. Champlin had a spring clean up day. It was not cheap, but it is the most popular thing the City had done. "Stuff" was placed on the curb on a given day, and the haulers picked up. Appliances were also picked up by an appliance company. JOINT E C/ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, B$PT. 19, 1989 PAGE 4` Ms. Corcoran stated the City chose to ge billing. They were not involved before decided to put it on as a utility charge of that portion, and they did. It actua quite well. There were some phone benefit of the City doing the billing is business there is a large percentage of pay. This must be figured into the co the City takes over, the City has t collect unpaid utilities, so there is collection so you h estimated 10� who When you put it on t that everybody part control over that private system. people know there is service. They are t involved in the this. The City and take charge lly was accepted calls. Another that in private people who do not st factor. When he authority to no real loss of ave saved money there. There is an have no garbage collection at all. he utility bill and make it mandatory icipate, it is possible then to have which cannot be dine in an open, When the bills are out monthly and no out, people start opting into the paying for it anyway. Councilmember Jorgenson asked if the City of Champlin provides a discount for senior citizens. What the City of Fridley has done on water and sewer is provide a discount if under a certain income. Ms. Corcoran stated rate if they are eli Whatever is used on well. Champlin has fills out a form for not billed for that instances like that. haulers, but it was quality service. senior citizens are given a reaucea gible for Section VIII, low income. the utility bills is used on this as a snowbird eligibility where a person a two-month absence. They then are period. There are not that many We had some who did want to change alright when they knew they would get Councilmember Schneider asked how long this had been in effect. Ms. Corcoran stated 18 months. Councilmember Schneider asked how deeply involved the City became. Did this involvement require extra people? Ms. Corcoran stated that the billing took extra time during the initial entry, but after that the only time is to go into the computer program if there should be changes. Councilmember Fitzpatrick asked the population of Champlin. Ms. Corcoran stated 15,000, probably slightly higher now. � � � JOINT EQC/ENERGY COMMI88ION MEETING, BEPT. 19, 1989 PAGE 5 � Mr. Dahlberg estimated that would be approximately 4,600 � stops. Ms. Corcoran stated that would be household stops. There is an annual option where zones can be adjusted. When this was first set up, it was taken into consideration that one hauler was in a fast growing area. The system in Champlin is working well. It is a small city and they have an exceptional group of haulers. Two of the haulers did not want organized collection, but now they are doing fine. Councilmember Schneider asked if this was self- sufficient. Ms. Corcoran stated yes. Mr. Svanda referred to the information provided stated $18.00 per month is charged from the City to the homeowner. He felt this would be a significant increase for residents of Fridley. Councilmember Jorgenson stated one hauler in Fridley is currently charging $18.00 per month. Mr. Bondow stated the hauler's market share has been ^ locked in. Is this adjustable? Ms. Corcoran stated that through the bylaws this can be changed. The City must be notified of changes in structure. This would apply also if a hauler was bought out. Councilmember Fitzpatrick asked if the haulers are paid the same. Ms. Corcoran stated the haulers are paid by the number of stops they make. But because the stops are concentrated in one area, the hauler can serve more customers in less time. Councilmember Fitzpatrick asked if this might get out of proportion. Ms. Corcoran stated that is the reason for reviewal each year or it can be opened at any time. Ms. Campbell asked Ms. Corcoran to further explain the impact on staff. � JOINT EQC/$NERGY COMMISSION 1rI$ETING, BEPT. 19, 1989 PAGE 6" v Ms. Corcoran stated the person in utility billing was busy during the entering, but did not require any extra ___. help. Ms. Corcoran took all phone calls and it was really busy for two weeks. Part of it comes from the fact that no matter how much information is out there citizens do not read it. Other calls were "I don't have garbage", "I don't need service", etc. Mr. Saba asked about those people who don't generate much garbage. Ms. Corcoran stated it exists but yet there are no exemptions from other services, such as taxes for parks, schools, etc. even if the family does not use. Councilmember Schneider stated that in the open system there is a one can rate. Ms. Corcoran stated this could be done in the contract. Everyone could be offered a 60-gallon cart. Ideally, there are also 90 gallon and 30 gallon carts available. There are container options available. It is not cheaper necessarily, but it is easier to monitor and handle. When the Champlin program was put together, the carts were owned. When the haulers buy new carts, they offer choices. Councilmember Jorgenson asked if any of Fridley's haulers ^ used carts. Ms. Campbell stated several haulers use carts in some neighborhoods and in other cities. Mr. Svanda asked why haulers would offer a choice of different sized containers. Ms. Corcoran stated each size of container has a different rate. Councilmember Schneider asked if Champlin has had any rate increases. Ms. Corcoran stated there has been one increase. Councilmember Schneider asked from whom does the citizen feel the rate increase is coming. Ms. Corcoran stated that those who do not read available information perceive it is from the City. Those who are more aware know it comes from the hauler. � , JOZNT EQC/ENERGY COKMISSION l�IEETING, BEPT. 19, 1989 PAGE 7 Councilmember Schneider asked if residents complained at , the City Council meetings. r Ms. Corcoran stated she was not aware of any complaints at Council meetings. One thing that may be of benefit in Fridley is that some of the maj or changes in cost have already taken place. With any luck at all it is conceivable that you could take on a system and you could stabilize the cost as opposed to have it go up faster. Councilmember Schneider asked if Ms. Corcoran had data on that. The logic sounds good. They are clearly efficiencies. There is also competition. If he does not like a hauler, he can go to the next hauler. If you change that, this runs the risk of being government controlled and there is no competition. Ms. Corcoran stated, on the other side, as an example, if you have a good base of haulers and you have another hauler that wants business, they offer less per month so everyone switches because it sounds so good. Then the others get squeezed out. You may or may not end up with good quality service. Ms. Corcoran stated that the system in Brooklyn Park is not quite so organized but is working. There are 6 licensed haulers. Brooklyn Park has 26 square miles and ,,! an open system. Several years ago, about 1981, they decided for public safety reasons that they would go to a 5-day zone system. There are five collection days, Monday through Friday. On Monday, all 6 trucks move into the Monday zone. The recycling collector also picks up the same day as refuse haulers. On Tuesday, all trucks pick up all materials in the Tuesday zone. The haulers are licensed, and they have been asked to provide volume based fees. All have some kind of volume based system, although it not always easy to determine. The City does not do the billing and cannot give rebates for recycling. It would be nice to reward recyclers with a lower utility bill, but this cannot be done. Councilmember Schneider stated that the haulers still compete but don't have garbage through the City. Ms. Corcoran stated that all trucks are in only one zone on any particular day of the week. This includes the refuse haulers and recycling contractor. Mr. Bondow stated that it seems likely that the haulers would still put on the same number of miles. .-.. JOINT EQC/$NERGY COMMISSION MEETING, SEPT. 19, 1989 PAGE 8� Ms . Campbel l stated this is one method to keep the system open, and the garbage is out on the same day as the � recyclables. Mr. Svanda stated that the haulers could have a few stops one day and many stops another day. Ms. Corcoran stated that it does happen. It is not always efficient. Councilmember Schneider stated the biggest thing is that it allows the recyclables to be collected on the same day. Ms. Corcoran added that the trucks are not running all over the city all days of the week. Councilmember Jorgenson asked how the City keeps track of the tonnages. Ms. Corcoran stated that all trucks go to Hennepin County sites where they are weighed, and the City gets a report from them on the weights from the County. It was at one time estimated. It is now more sophisticated. They don't need weight on the refuse, but they get an accurate tally. For recyclables, the City gets tonnages on a daily basis. Councilmember Jorgenson stated it is important that the City get accurate figures. Councilmember Schneider stated the more successful one is with their recycling programs, the more it costs. Ms. Corcoran agreed. One problem the City of Brooklyn Park has is with scavengers. Many cities have come to charge for picking up recyclables on a per stop basis. Brooklyn Park's bid is $1.29 per household per month. Councilmember Schneider stated the way the process is set up there is no incentive to try to get on the bandwagon to recycle. The more you recycle, the more you pay. Ms. Corcoran stated that when paying by the ton, this is correct. Mr. Svanda stated that from strictly a financial stand- point this may be correct. Ms. Corcoran stated recycling is a cost avoidance. � .1 � . JOINT BQC/$NERGY COMMISSION MEETING, 88PT. 19, 1989 PAGE 9 Councilmember Fitzpatrick asked how Brooklyn Park handled apartment buildings. Ms. Corcoran stated these are a problem. There are few success stories at this time. Inside collection, limited space, fire codes, outside storage, restrictions for dumpsters, parking requirements, lack of space make this a difficult issue. These are handled on a one-by-one basis. She has an apartment/condominium unit both interested in recycling. They are looking at each independently. They work with the building management, residents, collectors, and owners. Councilmember Fitzpatrick asked about their charge for services. Ms. Corcoran stated it is 92 cents per unit and that includes that the collector would include an outside container. They are going to start a program after Christmas as a pilot to see how it works. They are waiting for the final word to go ahead from the association. Waste Management is looking at putting in carts and sharing space with the existing dumpster. Materials are brought down to the dumpster area and can be co-mingled. They will try to see if it works. Of all the cities, Brooklyn Park has some of the toughest restrictions. If it can work there, it can probably work ^ anywhere. Fire codes in multi-family is not as big an issue as food containers if they are not rinsed out. It is necessary to get the material outside as quickly as you can and as easily as you can. Cost would be less. Also, because it is a complicated thing, it would probably not be half the cost but it would be less. Brooklyn Park has a drop off site. The City can provide containers to those in multi-family buildings and suggest that they bring to the drop off site until the City can provide the service to them. Brooklyn Park has 6,000 multi-family units. Councilmember Jorgenson felt that as in Champlin the $18/month for garbage, recycling, and administration may be a cost effective measure. Mr. Bondow stated that Champlin is paying $18 for 90- gallons to be picked up. He is getting 60 gallons picked up. Ms. Corcoran stated that because the routing system is more concentrated, it should not cost as much to collect. That is one of the major changes. Losses in billing is another factor. The municipality is already sending out bills anyway. It isn't going to cost much more for one � JOINT E4C/ENERGY COKMISSION 1dEETZNG, SEPT. 19, 1989 PAGE 10 t more line. Zf the hauler is going to do it, it is their time plus postage. Multiply that by the process and you ^ should end up with less. Mr. Bondow asked how the rate is established. Ms. Corcoran stated this was part of the negotiated contract. The haulers provided tonnages collected. Mr. Bondow asked if this was annually renegotiated. Ms. Corcoran stated it was review, unless something happens to make it necessary to do so sooner. Mr. Bondow asked if this was based on a cost audit of the hauler. Ms. Corcoran stated it was and can be opened anytime. Mr. Saba asked how much resistance was demonstrated. Ms. Corcoran stated that, when she came into the picture, there had already been several meetings and feelings had mellowed out a bit by that time. Haulers did not want the City to go out for bid. They were willing to negotiate and to listen. It depends on the haulers. A great deal of credit goes to Mr. Chuck Hutter, who worked with the haulers, and worked with the consortium. He � helped put this together for the haulers, negotiated with Champlin to come up with a contract. They are a managing agency for CRI. They do the reapportionment of districts. Mr. Dahlberg asked if there had been discussion with the consortium to get the reaction as to the success or failure of the program. Ms. Corcoran stated she has talked with haulers. Ace Sanitation was successful the old way but also understands that things change. Walz Brothers wants Brooklyn Park to go to organized collection. Mr. Saba stated the rules are the same for everyone. What about those persons who are disabled or elderly who cannot bring their refuse or recyclables to the curb? Ms. Corcoran stated they try to avoid differences, but there are those few exceptions that feel they need to have some help for pick up at the door, they can make arrangement with their hauler, but generally there is an extra charge. � � JOINT EQC/$NERGY COMMISSION MEETING, SEPT. 19, 1989 PAGE 11 Mr. Saba asked if the containers were "pest" proof? �" Ms. Corcoran stated the containers provided in Champlin are from three different manufacturers. They are heavy plastic, molded, with a hinged cover. These are more pest proof than those in Brooklyn Park where you see anything out there, mostly bags and boxes. She suggested that those interested drive through Champlin on Monday, Thursday, or Friday to see the system. The operation is clean, everything is in containers at the curb, and there is not a major problem with blowinq. � � Ms. Saba asked if there is a limit on leaves and yard waste. Ms. Corcoran stated there was no limit at the time she was at Champlin, but this may have changed. Mr. Saba asked how they enforce keeping everything separate. � Ms. Corcoran stated that, if the hauler recognizes, they will take it out and set it alongside the curb. Ms. Saba asked if anyone has calculated cost figures on any savings that may have been realized. Ms. Campbell felt BFI would probably know. Ms. Corcoran stated there is a third option used in Medina which would be to divide the city into zones and bid out each zone. You could end up with one hauler or three haulers, depending on the number of zones. They divided because they are a diverse city with different restrictions and different services in different areas. They had three different bidders and they accomplished the same thing. If you live in an area, you are served by one hauler. Mr. Saba asked how they separated the large manufacturer and commercial customer from the household. Ms. Corcoran stated that no city she is aware of has incorporated commercial/industrial into organized collection. Mr. Saba asked about those with home businesses. Ms. Corcoran stated these would be considered residential. JOINT EQC/$NERGY COKMISSION l�tEETING, 8$PT. 19, 1989 PAGE 12 < Mr. Saba asked if a person would be excluded if in a commercial district. Ms. Corcoran stated that commercial haulers come in at different times. The organized type of system deals only with residential service, not commercial. When you have a business in the home, you don't have a dumpster. In cities she has dealt with, commercial and residential areas are concentrated in areas that are fairly well defined. Mr. Dahlberg stated that is those municipalities where a single hauler contracts with the community, rates are lower. Through analysis and involvement in Champlin and Brooklyn Park, there must be some drawbacks to a single hauler system. Ms. Corcoran stated that you would end up with a monopolistic system. Once you have gone to bid, the only ones who can really do the j ob at a low price are the big companies. The risk then in going out for bid is enjoying the lower rate, but once there is no competition, what are your choices left. One thing cities forget is that they do have another option which is to go into it themselves. The major argument is protection of the independent businessman. There is talk about developing a regional solid waste commission to oversee activities such as the public utilities commission. There is then some control over rates. Rate increases must be justified. They could shut down and we would be captive. There is politics involved. It is more cost effective and you can bring the price down. Mr. Dahlberg stated Columbia Heights was the most expensive at $8.20 per month per household which takes into account recycling as well. Councilmember Schneider stated he had information which stated there had been a 60� rate increase. Ms. Corcoran stated the rates are very stable. Ms. Corcoran stated the average rates in Hennepin County are between $18 and $22 per month. Councilmember Schneider expressed concerns about a public commission. There is evidence that it does not work. With competition, the rates drop dramatically. This theory of getting the government involved and models show it doesn't work. ,-. � � JOINT EQC/ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, BEPT. 19, 1989 PAGE 13 Ms. Corcoran stated that in some areas garbage hauling '.--. has been a service, but in this area it has not. Mr. Dahlberg stated there has been enough land to get rid of the refuse. Mr. Schneider stated refuse still goes somewhere. Ms. Corcoran stated that this part of the process, to argue the different issues and try to balance them out and come up with what feels good. What works in one community may not work in another. You can live with it the way it is. Bloomington requires all products to be picked up. It is working, but the small haulers may not � survive long because they cannot compete with that kind of business demand. Councilmember Schneider stated that, from the City's perspective, what serves the residents must be efficient. Ms. Corcoran stated there is a mandate as an elected official to look out for what is best for the majority of the people to be served. Someone will not be happy, but you try to serve the greatest majority. Not everyone can be pleased and still provide the best service. Mr. Svanda asked what the City of Dayton does. ,-. Ms. Corcoran stated that Dayton has three haulers. They have just started a twice monthly curbside system. They are doing something similar to Medina with zones. Road maintenance is a major consideration. Dayton has not done anything yet, but she didn't think there would be much trouble due to the limited number of haulers. Mr. Dahlberg felt �it would be interesting to keep on discussing this issue and see where it takes you. Mr. Saba felt the system in Champlin does not create an incentive for recycling. Why separate when it can be thrown in the trash? Mr. Svanda asked if this was allowed. Mr. Saba stated that in Minneapolis a person can be fined for putting recyclables in the garbage. Councilmember Jorgenson stated she did not want to be policing garbage. Mr. Saba would like to see a rate incentive. � JOINT E4C/BNERGY COIdMIBBION KEETING, BEPT. 19, 1989 PAGE 14 < Mr. Dahlberg stated this will be monitored at the point of disposal. The hauler will be fined if bringing � recyclable materials to the site. Mr. Svanda stated the tipping fee is higher for recyclables. Mr. Dahlberg stated then the hauler cannot pick up that household's refuse or they must charge more. Mr. Saba stated that lack of incentive for recycling, those who do not have garbage at all. Councilmember Jorgenson stated she had a price reduction of only $1.50 when going from a 90-gallon container to a 60-gallon container. She has been doing a lot of door knocking and has heard most about recycling and garbage rates. How do you encourage people to recycle? She would not suggest going to a 90-gallon cart, but rather a 30 or 60-gallon cart and charge for what they put in the waste stream. Councilmember Fitzpatrick asked where those people at the door got that idea. Mr. Stark stated all his neighbors are wanting to change companies. They thought it was the garbage haulers that caused the increase. Al1 rates went up. .-, Councilmember Schneider felt that with an organized collection the citizens would wonder why are the City was allowing price fixing. Mr. Saba felt the City should get some of the money they are charging for recycling. Mr. Svanda found it hard to believe there was that kind of a savings but should look at it. Mr. Saba stated in Fridley recyclables are picked up every other week, and other cities have weekly pick up. Councilmember Jorgenson stated people don't know how much it costs to get rid of recyclables. Councilmember Schneider felt the cost of recycling and the cost of disposal should be the cost of the manufacturer when the product is made and sold. Mr. Bondow provided as an example the purchase of appliances. When people look at disposal costs, they will want something that lasts longer. The disadvantage � . ^ JOZNT E C/ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, SEPT. 19, 1989 PAGE 15 in Champlin is no incentive for a good system on the part of the haulers. They have their route and guaranteed customers. Mr. Dahlberg thought it would be interesting to ask if the City were not involved in billing, what the haulers would charge. Mr. Saba stated that Champlin gets an administration fee. Councilmember Jorgenson stated that if there is a costumer that does not pay, the City can prosecute. We do for sewer and water. Councilmember Schneider asked why should the City should get into that. Councilmember Jorgenson stated she had a senior citizen this year that had no garbage collection. This is only for as long as she pays her bill. When it is on the City system, it can be guaranteed that it is paid. Councilmember Schneider felt that argument could be made on a lot of thing. It is proven that private enterprise works. Mr. Saba stated that argument could be carried out over and over. What is best for the City? He is not ^ convinced that Champlin's method is the way to go, but one advantage is people realize they are paying for recycling and refuse and could have recycling incentive. People would understand they are saving some money and are doing some good by doing so. There is some control. Councilmember Jorgenson stated the disadvantage right now is there is no incentive to recycle. Councilmember Schneider stated that from the financial view there is no reason to have the incentive. Mr. Saba stated that if the haulers pick up recyclables, the City is protecting itself. Councilmember Schneider stated he would like to hear what Bloomington is doing. Mr. Svanda suggested having someone from the Office of Waste Management come and talk about pros and cons of the different options. Ms. Campbell suggested that Glynnis Jones, consultant, come in discuss pros and cons of different approaches. � JOINT EQC/ENERGY COMMISSION l�IEETING, 8$PT. 19, 1989 PAGE 16 ° Mr. Svanda felt it should be someone who can provide an �- impartial view point. Mr. Burns suggested having 3 or 4 come back a second time for a panel discussion to compare systems. Mr. Dahlberg stated, if we are going to do something like that, it might be useful to have a public meeting, bring in anyone interested to ask questions and also invite the haulers. Ms. Campbell stated the haulers want to be included in this process. Mr. Bondow stated he would like to hear the haulers perspective. Mr. Svanda felt the attitude has changed dramatically from a few �years ago. Ms. Campbell stated one hauler wants to limit the number of haulers and keep fees in a certain price range. Haulers could be asked to come in for a separate meeting or to be part of a panel discussion. Mr. Svanda would prefer to have the haulers come in separately. -- Mr. Burns stated that at some point a more definite calendar needs to be set up. The group has got about a 13-14 month window. The City is almost ready to bid the recycling contract again. Somehow we should get time lines, so we can be assured of moving to certain levels at a specified time and manner. Mr. Dahlberg felt this could be determined later in the meeting and identify those people to come in and talk with the commission. The commission has also discussed meeting every two weeks. Mr. Burns stated the 14 months doesn't mean we have 14 months to make a decision, may have 6 months. Mr. Saba felt goals should be established and what situation will meet the majority of goals. They have to look at the cost of containers, incentives for recycling, look at every issue, and find out which of these systems meets most of our goals. Otherwise, they could end up not any smarter than they are now. There are things he liked and did not like. If they get people in and talk .-. � JOINT 8 C/$NERGY COMMISSION KEETING, SEPT. 19, 1989 PAGE 17 1 to them, they will find out there is a mixture of systems , they want to focus on. � Mr. Burns stated that one thing that is obvious is that there is a lack of consensus. Part of what was seen as the purpose in having these sessions is that perhaps this would move us toward a consensus and to educate us. The group would be in a better position to set goals later after we have talked about it. Mr. Saba thought it necessary to look at objectives, perhaps as the commission talks to others. Ms. Campbell thought the idea of getting our feet wet first is a good one so we don't have preconceived ideas. Mr. Svanda felt the objective was to collect information now. Mr. Saba agreed, but also set goals along the way. b. Review Bid Specifications for Recommendation to Council Ms. Campbell stated that basically these bid specifications are for a 12-month contract from 1/1/90 to 12/31/90. It does not change the program. Specifications are status quo. The reason is that the � planning process is on-going and when changes occur they should be put into the process. Ms. Dacy suggested adding language about the hauler assisting to publicize the program. Mr. Dahlberg stated is appears as if the option of adding other materials to the recycling program if they should become viable. Was that part of the specification previously? Mr. Saba also felt they should be able to take out materials that are not marketable. Ms. Campbell felt that option should be brought to the City by the hauler. Mr. Svanda asked what household dry cell batteries were. Ms. Campbell stated basically flashlight batteries, which must be disposed of in a manner that complies with state law. Mr. Bondow there is a provision in Section 2 listing items to be collected. He also noted some typographical errors and inconsistencies in terms in the various .-� JOINT EQC/ENERGY COKMI88ION MSETING, BEPT. 19, 1989 PAGE 18 documents, and provided his notes and comments to Ms. Campbell for her review. ,_.., Mr. Dahlberg also noted some inconsistencies. In Exhibit A, he asked if the document could be called an advertisement for bids. Ms. Campbell stated no, it can be changed very little. Mr. Bondow referred to Citywide Curbside Collection of Residential Recyclables in the second paragraph. Other names are included on other documents. Ms. Campbell asked if inembers wished to make changes to the status quo, nature of the bid specifications, etc. Mr. Svanda felt the contract was basically status quo. Changes can be made if we change mode of operation. Mr. Saba had no major changes. Mr. Bondow fundamentally agrees with the document other than as noted. Mr. Dahlberg suggested some modifications. On page 3, paragraph 2, collection hours, he could not get recyclables out that early. He would put out the night before but not on East River Road. Can this be changed? � Ms. Campbell stated that 7:00 a.m. has been the set-out time since August 1988. Mr. Dahlberg felt the containers has made recycling a lot easier. Are there other people missed because of the time change? Ms. Campbell stated there have some misses because of the service problems they had earlier in the year, and people are not used to the driver coming on time. Mr. Dahlberg referred to page 5, #10, severe weather. If hauler or company makes determination that they will not pick up, how are residents to know. There should be a process so that residents know the collector has determined it was severe weather and won't pick up. Mr. Saba felt this was few and far between and didn't think it will be a major problem. It is like garbage collection. There are times it doesn't get picked up because streets are not plowed. Severe weather is for everybody. � - JOINT EQC/BNERGY COI�MISSION MEETING, SEPT. 19, 1989 PAGE 19 � Mr. Dahlberg used, as an example, if he put materials out -�,,,, and it doesn't get picked up, will he as a customer be discouraged from recycling. Mr. Svanda felt information could be put in the quarterly newsletter once this contract is executed. Mr. Dahlberg was concerned about communication. Mr. Stark didn't know how one could deal with it in the bid contract unless you say it will be picked up on the next day. Mr. Dahlberg suggested that the contractor be responsible for the mailing if they don't pick up. Mr. Bondow asked how much that would cost. This will be built into the price of the bid. Ms. Campbell stated the hauler could put an announcement on a station such as WCCO by a certain time. Mr. Dahlberg wants to make it clear in the specifications that if there are implications to the hauler if they miss a pick up due to severe weather, what those implications are. ,..-.. Mr. Dahlberg referred to #12, test area. What is it and what does this mean. If a pilot study is requested by the City that they want data collected no compensation would be provided Mr. Campbell stated these are pilot areas, and what the contractor is trying to assure is profitable volume of recyclables. Mr. Saba asked if there would be no compensation for the test area. Ms. Campbell stated the City would not compensate within a 10� range. Beyond 10�, it becomes unclear. Mr. Dahlberg referred to page 7, #17. The coverage listed does not correlate to insurance coverage as listed in the contract. Ms. Campbell stated the contract level is correct. Mr. Dahlberg referred to page 7, 18, regarding a bond. #19 in the contract also mentions a bond. If they are the same, then they should be Iisted the same. � JOINT EQCj$NERGY COI4IISSION ISEETING, SEPT. 19. 1989 PAGE 20 . Ms. Campbell stated performance bond is term. The contract contains 3 month contract revenue. Mr. Dahlberg referred to the agreement, and recommended omitting all of the paragraph after ... recyclables. Mr. Dahlberg referred to page 3, termination. What is the penalty for termination? Ms. Campbell stated that if cashing is a breach of contract, the City would pursue a performance bond. Mr. Dahlberg stated the agreement should state forfeiture of performance bond if less than 90 days. If there is a penalty against contractor for forfeiture, there should be a penalty against the City should they terminate the contract. Is a penalty warranted and what is included? He suggested contacting the City Attorney for an opinion. Mr. Dahlberg stated the first date of advertisement is October 11. MOTION by Mr. Svanda, seconded by Mr. Saba, to make revisions and submit to City Council for consideration and approval. � UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON DAHLBERG DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ^ 2. OLD BUSINESS• a. Combining the Commissions Ms. Campbell stated that Councilmember Billings, with assistance from Mr. Saba and Mr. Dahlberg, presented to the City Council new language to amend the commission ordinance in order for the EQC and Energy Commissions to combine formally and obtain a quorum more easily. It is important to get this done in order to have a quorum. Ms. Campbell expressed appreciation to Mr. Saba and Mr. Dahlberg for facilitating. At this time, Ms. Campbell asked for any disagreements or additions to the language. Basically it discusses what commission members wanted. Mr. Dahlberg asked where this was taken from. Ms. Saba stated it was taken from the Charter, EQC and Energy Commissions and combined the material. Ms. Campbell recommended, under 6.08, regarding membership, to add language to the effect that the membership be no greater than 7, or no less than 5. _.... . ^ , JOINT BQC/BNERGY COMMISSION MEETING. 8$PT. 19, 1989 PAGE 21 These conditions to be specific to this commission. Through attrition we would go to a 5-member commission. There has been talk about maintain a 7-member commission. Mr. Saba would like to maintain at 7 members and asked Ms. Campbell to make language changes accordingly. Mr. Dahlberg asked, at council conference meeting, what was the result of the discussion? Ms. Campbell direction was recommendation approve. stated there was no objection. Their to get language in order and get a to bring to Planning, and they would Mr. Saba stated there was a conflict under 6.03.04.C. The Planning Commission membership is being enlarged by one person and the at-large positions are not chairs. Mr. Bondow recommended deleting paragraph C which is redundant with A. Mr. Saba recommended deleting 4B and 4C and substitute the paragraph on the following page. Paragraph D then will become paragraph C. MOTION by Mr. Bondow, seconded by Mr. Stark, that the proposed changes to Chapter 6 to the Commission of the � City Code be recommended per the amended draft, be revised and submitted to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council for approval. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON DAHLBERG DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. b. Tire Recycling Ms. Campbell stated she is now in the implementation stage. The City Council has approved to move forward for October 28th for a one-day pick up for Fridley residents only. Mr. Dahlberg asked, if prior to City Council approval, did she talk with those who had donated funds? Ms. Campbell stated the City Council said to proceed with notifying those who have provided funds for their approval to use the funds. Letters were send out today. Mr. Dahlberg felt there would not be a problem. Ms. Campbell stated the City has donated $10,000. �-. JOINT E4C/BNERGY COI�MISSION MEETING, SEPT. 19, 1989 PAGE 22 � 3 . OTHER BUSINESS : ,_.� ' a. Mayoral Letter Re: Compost Mr. Stark stated this is something he teaches at compost schools which is what to do with the finished product. In a survey of farmers in five counties, farmers were asked what it was worth to them. Few were interested if it cost them anything . I f it was brought to them and applied for them, then they would take it. Farmers in the survey would not pick up. Mr. Bondow asked if farmers have to add a lot of nitrogen to the compost. Mr. Start stated farmers won't have to add nitrogen if it is composted. If they add leaves, they may have to. Mr. Dahlberg requested the commission be informed if the mayor get response. Ms. Campbell stated there has been problems with illegal dumping at the compost site and north of the site, ie. wood, brush, branches. She has asked that we share the cost of putting No Dumping signs up which seem to have an effect. b. Next Meeting Ms. Campbell recommended meeting on October 3 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss issues that have come up. Commission members concurred. c. Monitoring Well Mr. Stark asked Ms. Campbell to find out why there is a monitoring well outside of Hayes School and if there is a problem. Ms. Campbell stated she would inquire. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Bondow, seconded by Mr. Svanda, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON DAHLBERG DECLARED THE JOINT EQC/ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, .� )� '�� (/C�� Lavonn Q�oper �� Re�rding Secretazy � � . � CITY OF FRIDLEY PARRB l�ND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1989 w. w�. ww. w.w. � ww.►..ww.ww.w. w..... rw.r.r. r.r r rrw.wM�w.ww. ww...w..r.►w..�.rw.w.w...w.►�...�.�r rw�.�. r.......►w CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Kondrick called the October 2, 1989, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Dave Kondrick, Mary Shreiner, Dick Young, John Gargaro, Tim Solberg Members Absent: None Others Present: Jack Kirk, Director of Recreation and Natural Resources Ralph Volkman, Public Works Superintendent Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Mark McCown, Fridley Jaycees APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 11 1989 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ^ MINUTES• MOTION by Mr. Young, seconded by Mr. Gargaro, to approve the September 11, 1989, Parks and Recreation Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMODSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION by Ms. Schreiner, seconded by Ms. Gargaro, to put Mark McCown of the Fridley Jaycees as the first item on the agenda and to add a"Request for Rental of the Showmobile" as item b under "New Business". IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON 1CONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY AND THE AGENDA APPROVED AS AMENDED. 1. MARK McCOWN. FRIDLEY JAYCEES: Mr. McCown stated he was at the meeting to thank the Commission for allowing the Fridley Jaycees to run their tournament on Labor Day weekend. He stated the tournament was successful. He believed the Jaycees had left the fields in .--. PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 1�IEETING, OCT. 2. 1989 PAGE 2 good shape, and he hoped the Commission would look favorably on their running a tournament again next year. 2. STAFF REPORT• a. Park Maintenance Report Mr. Volkman stated staff has cut the expenses down on the Moore Lake hockey rink. Instead of the $11,600, they have reduced the cost to $4,400. At the last meeting, he stated $4,000 had already been allocated, so they are requesting $4,400 from the Commission. The cost of the lights was $2,200 and the cost of the liner was $3,000. He believed they can reduce the $2,200 for lights by $800. They still have some wooden poles from the Locke Park complex that they can use. � Mr. Kondrick stated the Commission members really appreciated the time and effort staff has put forward in the past month to reduce this cost. Mr. Gargaro stated that according to the September minutes, Mr. Jacenko, President of the Hockey Association of Fridley, stated that last year there were 96 children in the House program and 46 children in the Traveling program for a total of 142 children in the hockey program. The City already gives the Hockey Association $4 per player, and this would be approximately another $60 per participant. He had mixed emotions either way. He stated he really likes the sport, he was involved with the Hockey Association for many years, but they have to look at the cost and determine whether they can justify another $60 per participant for every hockey player in the City. They do not spend that kind of money for other sports organizations. Mr. Kirk stated this rink would not be put in just for the Hockey Association but for all the residents in that area of the City. When they first looked at this a year ago, the Moore Lake area was one area of the City that really did not have any hockey rink for general public use. There is an argument that ties in with the Hockey Association in that 1/4-1/3 of all the hockey players happen to live in the Briardale Park area; but, this would be a public rink and would not be strictly scheduled for the Hockey Association. -� ' � Ms. Schreiner stated this is far enough away from the Benjamin/Briardale area that the children will come by car anyway. So, the question is: Does the City of ^ Fridley have enough rinks already, and does the City really need another rink? Originally, the people from , '^ PARRB !►ND RECREATION COMMISSION 1riEETING, OCT. 2. 1989 - PAGE 3 the Benjamin/Briardale area wanted a hockey rink in the park, but it was not feasible. Mr. Young stated the Flanery Park is not too far from the Benjamin/Briardale area, and there is a nice rink and warming house there. Mr. Kirk stated Flanery Park and Madsen Park do have rinks, but the Commission members should keep in mind that there are a lot of Fridley residents who live in the Spring Lake Park School District. Teams from Spring Lake Park utilize these parks very heavily now. Madsen and Flanery are probably used 4-5 nights a week by Fridley children who participate in the Spring Lake Park programs. Ruth Circle is also used quite heavily by the neighborhood children from that area. Mr. Kirk stated the rinks at Stevenson, Hayes, and Commons are scheduled quite heavily, as was the one at Locke which has been removed. Hockey has a short season of only about eight weeks, and they use the facilities constantly during this period of time. Mr. Solberg stated that, as far as hockey in Fridley, -� they do try to get a fair amount of hockey playing in, but they do try to utilize the outdoor rinks whenever possible. Indoor ice is very expensive. The cost of hockey in general is hurting the program right now. He stated that if a hockey rink is installed at Moore Lake, it will probably be one of the most heavily used rinks. Mr. Solberg stated as far as the proximity to other rinks, he thought there is a mental block between Central Avenue and Commons, whether it is justified or not. He thought there is also a fair amount of people even within the Moore Lake area in terms of the hockey program that would use the rink. Mr. Solberg stated he would also agree with Mr. Kirk, that he did not see this rink as necessarily being just for Fridley hockey players. He could imagine lots of people skating on it. Mr. Kirk stated this would be a hockey rink, not a recreational rink. There is a recreational/general skating area at Briardale Park. Mr. Young stated if there is a family or a group of people out skating on this rink, can people with hockey sticks force them off the rink? This could create some '� animosity. PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION I�EETING, OCT. 2, 1989 - PAGE 4 ^' Mr. Kirk stated he did not foresee that as a major problem, because they have done that at Commons. People soon realize this is a hockey rink facility. It is then the job of the warming house attendant to enforce some rules. Mr. Kondrick stated the question facing the Commission is: Are there enough people in the sport of hockey to justify spending additional dollars to build another rink? Mr. Gargaro stated that according to the organized portion, no, but how many recreational-type hockey players are there? Mr. Kirk stated he could not give any numbers, but on an average winter day, there can be a lot of people out playing pickup games of hockey. Not too many rinks stay empty on nice winter days. He stated he believed that Moore Lake would be one of the most heavily used rinks. MOTION by Mr. Gargaro, seconded by Mr. Solberg, to authorize the expenditure of $4,400 to install a rink at Moore Lake until the liner needs to be replaced. At that time, the Commission will re-evaluate the use of the �. rink. Mr. Solberg stated that if the life of the liner is going to be part of the motion, he would also like them to have some method of finding out the amount of use on the rink. If the numbers are high, then they also have to take that into consideration. Mr. Kirk stated the warming house attendants keep track of attendance at each hockey rink location. Mr. Kirk stated the reason they removed the hockey rink from Locke Park was because the numbers had declined. UPON A VOICE VOTE, RONDRICR, YOIING� GARGARO, AND BOLBERG VOTING AYE, SCRREINER ABSTAINING, CHAIRPERSON RONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. Ms. Schreiner stated this is a lot of money, and she cannot support the motion. Mr. Volkman stated deflectors have been put on the tennis court lights at Commons Park. The City has received many complaints from people in the neighborhood about the brightness of the lights, and the deflectors should help that situation. '"` J PARKS l�TD RECREATION COMMISSION l�IEETING, OCT. 2. 1989 - PAGE 5 .-. Mr. Volkman stated that after they receive approval from the City Council, they will be removing the park equipment from John Erickson Park. b. Proqram Report Mr. Kirk stated the Fall Festival at Springbrook Nature Center on September 23, 1989, was very successful. Attendance was approximately 750 people throughout the day. Mr. Kirk stated the fall programs are under way and are being well attended. One program that is very successful is the "4-Man Passing Football League". It started in Fridley about 13 years ago, and is now run in almost all the metro recreation departments . It is a 4 man game rather than�the 7 man touch football. It is a passing football league which is designed to take out the roughness of the sport. They now have 28 teams in Fridley, up 10 from last year. The teams play on Sunday afternoons, scheduled around the Viking telecasts. Mr. Kirk stated the plaque commemorating Mary Olson has now been installed at Plaza Park. � Mr. Kirk stated at the June 5, 1989, meeting, the Commission members had a request from Mr. & Mrs. Pettis, 5176 Hughes Avenue N.E., who live next to Summit Square Park. They had requested the City share in the cost of installing a semi-privacy fence. The Commission had recommended to the City Council that the City would pay for one-half the cost of the fencing and installation of a 4 ft. chain link fence along the park property. After the Commission and Council meeting, Ms. Pettis called him to tell him that they would not be installing the 4 ft. chain link fence, but would be installing a privacy fence. 2. NEW BUSINESS• a. Koore Lake Concessions Mr. Kirk stated he is expecting a request from Paddy Wagon Concessions to renew their contract with the City to sell concessions at Moore Lake Beach for the summer of 1990. Mr. Pat Demars of Paddy Wagon Concessions was excellent to work with, and there were no problems with his operation. He stated Mr. Demars' bid was $1,000 or 10� of the gross sales. Early in the summer, Mr. Demars gave the City a check for $1,000, and two weeks ago Mr. � Demars sent another check for $216. a . PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 1dESTING. OCT. 2, 1989 — PAGE 6 ^' Mr. Kirk stated that when a request is received from Paddy Wagon Concessions, the Commission can evaluate the request and make a decision at that time. � Ms. Schreiner stated that if Mr. Demars is considering a request to renew the contract with the City, she would like it to be fairly soon. Mr. Kirk stated he will ask Mr. Demars to have his request in for the November meeting, if he is interested in renewing the contract. b. Request for Rental of 8howmobile Mr. Kirk stated the City has received a request from Bob Schroer, Bob's Produce Ranch, to rent the Showmobile for his upcoming Octoberfest on Sunday, Oct. 15, from 1- 4 p.m. The Minnesota State Band, a 40-50 member festival band which plays authentic German Octoberfest music, would perform on the Showmobile. Mr. Kirk stated he had explained to Mr. Schroer about the rental fee of $600 per day and the $600 damage deposit. He also explained that extra staging costs another $200. � Mr. Kondrick asked if the Commission wanted to establish a precedent to allow businesses in Fridley to rent the Showmobile. Ms. Schreiner stated she thought this would promote the City of Fridley and create a good image for the City. It would be good business for the City and for Bob's Produce. Her one concern would be liability insurance. MOTION by Mr. Gargaro, seconded by Ms. Schreiner, to allow the rental of the Showmobile to Bob Schroer of Bob's Produce Ranch, for Sunday, October 15, 1989, at the regular rental fees. Mr. Young stated his biggest concern is that people in the community are going to see the Showmobile labeled City of Fridley sitting on a private business parking lot. There are some possible repercussions that could come back to the City because of that. Should the Commission be concerned about that? He stated Bob's Produce is willing to rent the Showmobile, but what happens if a bar or tavern decides to rent the Showmobile? Are they going to want to rent it to a different type of business such as a bar or tavern? Yet, if they rent to one business, then they have to rent it to anv business. '� , � .-� � PARRS l�ND RECREATION COMMISSION I+IEETINQ, OCT. 2. 1989 - PAGE 7 Mr. Kondrick stated that is what he meant by his earlier statement. What are the repercussions going to be by setting a precedent? Also, are there going to be traffic problems, health or other hazards, and is the Commission in the position to be able to determine that? Or, if a Fridley bar or tavern wants to rent the Showmobile, but wants the Showmobile in another community for an event, are they going to allow that? They have never discussed the possibility of a Fridley business renting the Showmobile, but the event or activity is in another community within the 25 mile radius already established by the Commission. Mr. Gargaro stated• he did not see any problem with renting the Showmobile to a Fridley business as long as it is within the Commission's qualifications. If they do not like the original qualifications, then the Commission should change them but not mid-stream. Mr. Young stated if they agree to rent the Showmobile, where do they stop? Can someone then come in and request to rent a front end loader, etc.? It is one thing to rent the Showmobile to other communities, but it is another thing to rent to private businesses or individuals. Mr. Kondrick stated they should ask the City Attorney's opinion about any legal ramifications resulting from the rental of the Showmobile. If the City Attorney has any concerns, then the rental to Bob Schroer will not go through. OPON A VOICE VOTE,� 1CONDRICR, BCHREINER, GARGARO, AND SOLBERG VOTING AYE, YOIING VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON 1CONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4-1. MOTION by Ms. Schreiner, seconded by Mr. Solberg, to direct staff to ask for a legal opinion from the City Attorney as to whether the City should or should not rent the Showmobile to any private parties or groups within the City limits, other than municipalities. IIPON !1 VOICE VOTE, RONDRICR, BCHREINER, YOIING, AND SOLBERG VOTING AYE, QARGARO ABSTAINING, CHAIRPERSON 1CONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4-1. Mr. Gargaro stated he hoped there is no problem with renting the Showmobile, because he would like to see the Showmobile out and being used, other than just 4-5 times a year for City use. It is good advertising. e PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ME$TING, OCT. 2, 1989 - PAGE 8 ^ Mr. Kondrick stated if a Fridley organization or business wants to rent the Showmobile but wants the event in another community, does the Commission refuse that request? The Commission should address this at some time. Mr. Young stated that if they do to rent the Showmobile to Bob Schroer, then there should be a sign that says "rented from the City of Fridley" so people know a fee was paid and that it was not just lent to him, so there is no criticism of City staff or officials. Mr. Schreiner stated she agreed with Mr. Gargaro, that it is good for the Showmobile to be out and seen. It creates good will, especially with businesses within the City of Fridley. 3. OLD BUSINESS• a. Softball Tournament Rental Policy Mr. Kirk stated the Commission discussed this at their last meeting and recommended it be discussed further at this meeting. He stated there are several key areas: 1. Fees charged -� The fees have not been adjusted since the policy was formed in 1984. The fees are: $600 - non-profit Fridley organization $1,000 - profit Fridley organization $50 - concession rental $100 - cleanup deposit 2. Should non-Fridley organizations be allowed to hold softball tournaments at the Community Park? 3. The number of tournaments in a season or month or all encompassing. When the policy was set up, it was for two tournaments per month, May - August. This year they deviated from that policy, because they had two tournaments in September; however, they did not go over eight tournaments for the season. Also, trying to avoid having tournaments back-to-back. Mr. Young stated the concession rental fee should definitely be increased. The rental fee is for the use of the concession stand on Saturday and Sunday, the use of the equipment, plus the fact that City staff must move ^ out the City's supplies on Friday and put them back on r � PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MSETING, OCT. 2, 1989 - PAGE 9 � Monday. Also, some money should be set aside for the replacement of existing equipment when it breaks down. He would suggest the rental fee be increased from $50 per weekend to $50 per day. Mr. Kirk stated what Mr. Young said is very true. Sometimes, the City's supplies must be taken completely off site before a tournament. Mr. Kondrick asked Mr. Kirk if he had any recommendations. Mr. Kirk stated he did not recommend any change in the field rental, even though it has not been changed since the policy was established. The fees are reasonable in comparison to other communities. Non-profit organizations such as the Lions Club and the Jaycees give a lot back to the City. Mr. Kirk stated he would recommend the Commission consider increasing the rental fee for the concession stand. People using the concession stand use the popcorn machine, hot plate, freezer, coffee machine, microwave, etc. .-. Mr. Gargaro stated $50 per day seemed reasonable. MOTION by Mr. Gargaro, seconded by Ms. Schreiner, to increase the concession stand rental fee from $50 per tournament to $50 per day. DPON � VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRZED IINANIMOIIBLY. The Commission members agreed to not change the tournament fees. Mr. Kirk stated that staff does not recommend adjusting the two tournaments per month. This saves on the wear and tear and maintenance of the fields and gives the residents of Fridley an opportunity to use the fields for unorganized play. Also, for City programming purposes, Friday nights are used for makeup games due to rainouts. There is a Sunday night league that has to go to Commons whenever there is a tournament. Mr. Kirk stated the Commission previously wanted to address the question of whether or not they should expand the availability of fields to outside organizations or teams. � e � PARRS lrND RECREATION COMMISSION 1�IEETIN(3, OCT. 2, 1989 — PAGE 10 ^' Mr. Gargaro stated he is in favor of leaving it the way it is--for Fridley profit and non-profit organizations only. Ms. Schreiner stated she thought the reason they limited the availability of the fields to Fridley organizations only in the beginning was because they were concerned about overusage. Now, she thought maybe they might want to open that up to outside organizations for more revenue. Mr. Kirk stated he believed a majority of the people who play in the tournaments are from outside Fridley, even though the business or organization running the tournament is from Fridley. They are able to showcase the facility, and they get many positive comments on the facility. Mr. Kirk stated they are almost to capacity now with just Fridley organizations. He would also be concerned that the care given the park from outside Fridley organizations might not be the same as it would be from Fridley organizations. Mr. Kirk stated they received $8,500 in fees from seven � different tournaments in 1989, the end of May through the second week in September. Mr. Solberg stated that since they already have seven tournaments, he did not see much sense in opening it up to outside organizations. If, in the future, they are only getting 3-4 tournament requests a year, then they can discuss the possibility of opening it up to outside use, but keeping Fridley organizations as a priority. Mr. Kondrick asked if they should run more than 8 tournaments and possibly run them through the month of September. Mr. Kirk stated he would recommend they keep the number of tournaments at 8 in the months May through September. Staff really discourages tournaments in May. MOTION by Mr. Gargaro, seconded by Mr. Young, to continue with the policy of 8 tournaments maximum per season, May 1 through September 30,at Community Park. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. .-� , r �-. PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION I�EETING, OCT. 2. 1989 - PAGE 11 b. RivervieM Heiqhts Park - Presentation by Michele McPherson Ms. McPherson presented the conceptual plan she has developed for Riverview Heights Park. She stated the park is very long and linear; however, there are three definite spacial zones: the area around the Findell house, the open area where the houses were removed, and the open undeveloped area. Ms. McPherson stated there are some definite physical attributes (edges) that the park has. One is created by the bluff line and the residential houses and the other is created by the river. Ms. McPherson stated she is still reconumending keeping the parking towards the top of the park, allowing only pedestrian traffic to come through, enhancing attributes the park already has, and emphasizing a pedestrian entrance at Bellaire Way. Ms. McPherson stated she has chosen plant materials that will enhance the native trees and shrubs, etc., that already exist in the park, along with the existing wildlife habitat and hopefully provide an educational experience which potentially could become an offshoot of the Springbrook Nature Center programming. Ms. McPherson stated one important thing in making this park successful is the neighbors as they can help care for it and watch over it. The Commissioners thanked Ms. McPherson for a good presentation. Mr. Kondrick and presented plan. ADJOURNMENT• stated the plan Ms. McPherson has worked on seems like a very attractive and functional MOTION by Ms. Schreiner, seconded by Mr. Solberg, to adjourn the meeting. Opon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Chairperson Rondrick declared the motion carried unanimously and the October 2, 1989, Parks and Recreation Commission adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Res ectfully s mitted, � � ^ Ly e Saba Recording Secretary � CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 10, 1989 ��__��_�� CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Barna called the October 10, 1989, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Alex Barna, Diane Savage, Kenneth Vos, ' Jerry Sherek, Larry Kuechle Members Absent: None Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Paul Dahlberg, 6664 East River Road Donald Tessmer, 6890 Channel Road Steven Hardel, 1010 Osborne Road Kenneth & Catherine Anderson, 132 River Edge Way N.E. �-. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 19 1989 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to approve the September 19, 1989, Appeals Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 1. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUESTS, VAR #89-26, BY RMS COMPANY• 1. Pursuant to Section 205.17.03.C.(1).(a) of the Fridley City Code to increase the required lot coverage from 40$ to 41.5�; 2. Pursuant to Section 205.17.05.D.(5).(d) of the Fridley City Code to reduce the hard surface setback from a building from 5 feet to 3.5 feet; To allow the construction of an addition on: Parcel A• That part of the Northwest Quarter of Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, t-. v APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 10, 1989 PAGE 2 --� described as follows: Commencing on the North line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 12, at a point 34 rods East of the Northwest corner of said Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, thence East on the section line 10 rods; thence South and parallel with West line of said Section 16 rods; thence West parallel to the North line 10 rods; thence North to the point of commencement; excepting therefrom, However, the East 104 feet of the foregoing described parcel and subject to a public roadway over the North 33 feet thereof. Parcel B• Outlot 1, of Nagel's Woodlands. Parcel C• All the land, if any, lying East of Outlot 1, hereinabove noted as Parcel B, and West of the parcel of land hereinabove noted as Parcel A and lying between the Westerly extension of the North and South lines of that land hereinabove noted as Parcel A. The same being 980 and 990 Osborne Road N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. � MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Savage, to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:37 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated RMS Company is located at 980 and 990 Osborne Road. It is in an M-1, Light Industrial District, and a portion of the site is also zoned C-2, General Business District. On October il, 1989, the Planning Commission will hear a rezoning request from RMS Company to rezone that portion of the parcel from C-2 to M-1, Light Industrial. Ms. McPherson stated RMS Company is proposing to build an addition to its existing building. In order to build the addition, RMS Company is asking for a variance in hard surface setback from the building along the north portion of the building from 5 feet to 3.5 feet and a lot coverage variance from 40$ to 41.5�. Ms. McPherson stated that if the 5 feet of hard surface is maintained in front of the building, the driveway width would have to be reduced to 18 feet, the 20 foot hard surface setback from the right-of-way could not be met, and the required number of parking stalls could not be created. Ms. McPherson stated the City tries to maintain as much green area ~ as possible in front of the building. To reduce the driveway width C APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 10. 1989 ____PAGE 4 accommodate a change in grade from the parking surface to the floor elevation of the building. They have included a 30 ft. wide drive aisle for that parking area. The requirement is 25 ft., so they can reduce that 30 ft. down to 25 ft. If they went to 28 ft., that would mean 2 ft. more in landscaped area. Mr. Dahlberg stated they concur with staff's recommendation to the Appeals Coaunission to recommend approval, but they would also like to have some determination from the Commission relative to the lot coverage. His only concern is that if the code is changed to allow an increase in lot coverage by special use permit only, he would not want RMS Company to have to come back and go through the special use permit process for lot coverage. They are going through rezoning and variances, and once that is done, they would hope they could just get the special use permit if it is required, rather than going through the special use permit process. Ms. Dacy stated staff is not recommending that the Appeals Commission not take action on the lot coverage request. If the variance for lot coverage is granted, the petitioner would not have to come back for a special use permit. Mr. Barna stated he would like the recommendation on the variance for the case, in calculating the depth of the variance is still needed. Mr. Dahlberg agreed. Commission to make a hard surface setback in stall, a portion of that MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:02 P.M. Mr. Kuechle stated he would vote in favor of both variances. It seems the variance of 40� to 41.5� is fairly insignificant. Regarding the hard surface setback, he would strongly recommend the petitioner pursue the approach of making the curb as close to 5 feet as possible without going with the concrete wheel stops. Ms. Savage agreed with Mr. Kuechle. Mr. Sherek stated he would vote in favor of both variances. Dr. Vos stated both variance requests seem quite reasonable. Mr. Barna also agreed with the other Commissioners. OM TION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend to City Council approval of variance requests, VAR #89-26, BY RMS Company: 0 --� � .-� 0 � ,,^ APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 10, 1989 PAGE 5 1. Pursuant to Section 205.17.03.C.(1).(a) of the Fridley City Code to increase the required lot coverage from 40� to 41.5$; 2. Pursuant to Section 205.17.05.D.(5).(d) of the Fridley City Code to reduce the hard surface setback from a building from 5 feet to 3.5 feet; With the recommendation that the curb be made as close to 5 feet as possible and still maintain the 18 ft. stall depth allowed by City Code, to allow the construction of an addition at 980 and 990 Osborne Road N.E. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTZNG AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on November 13, 1989. 2. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE RE4UEST, VAR #89-27, BY KENNETH ANDERSON• Pursuant•to Section 205.07.03.D.(3) of the Fridley City Code to reduce the required rear yard setback from 27 feet to 21 feet to allow the construction of a porch on Lot 20, Block l, -- River Edge Addition, the same being 132 River Edge Way N.E. MOTION by Mr. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE PIIBLZC HEARING OPEN AT 8:10 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated this property is currently zoned R-3, General Multiple Family. To the south is the Robert Louis Stevenson Elementary School. Currently, the petitioner's existing garage is set away from the house, and the petitioner is proposing to construct a new garage, 24 ft. x 34 ft. in dimension and to construct a three-season porch. Ms. McPherson stated if the variance is granted, it would also have to address the garage unless the petitioner wishes to move the garage forward or shorten the length of the garage. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has other alternatives to utilize the green space in the back yard. There is ample room to construct an separate gazebo that could be screened-in. The petitioner could also stretch the porch more to the east, or the petitioner could construct an unenclosed deck off the rear of the house. Staff is cognizant of the fact that the only property the porch would be impacting is the ballfield of the adjacent school ^ property; however, because there are other alternatives, staff is recommending denial of the variance. � 3°IPPEALB COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 10, 1989 PAGE 6 —. Mr. Kenneth Anderson, 132 River Edge Way N.E., stated that in square footage, they are only asking for 25 square feet. Otherwise, he would have a porch that is only 5 feet wide. He cannot expand to the east because he has two windows (a kitchen window and bathroom window), and because of the walkway to the elementary school. He stated the School District took almost 300 ft. of his lot for a walkway. Dr. Vos stated this is a fairly narrow lot which means the house had to be set back quite far. The biggest part of the lot is in the southwest corner where they cannot build. Then, the walkway took more off the lot on the east side. Mr. Anderson stated the way the house and garage is laid out now, they have only bits and pieces of green space. He could move the garage forward a little bit, but the porch is the problem. If he does not get that extra 25 sq. ft., the porch will only be 5 ft. wide. Mr. Anderson stated a gazebo is not at all the same thing as an attached porch. Mr. Anderson stated if he moved the garage forward, he would not be able to have a door from the garage into the porch. There is `'' a jog in the house now, so that he could go from the garage into the porch. Otherwise, he would have to put a door into the living room. OM TION by Mr. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING l�YE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE POBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:25 P.M. Mr. Sherek stated part of the public purpose for this part of the Code is to preserve green space. Because of the lack of neighbors to the rear, the fact that this plan will increase the green space, and the fact that a door will be covered which will stop some energy loss, he would be in favor of recommending approval of this variance. Dr. Vos stated that in looking at the constraint on this lot, there is a small radius in the front, which made it difficult to put a house on the lot. Part of the hardship is the configuration of the lot and the walkway easement which was not part of the lot originally. He would be in favor of recommending the rear yard variance from 27 ft. to 21 ft. that would affect both the garage and the porch. He did not think it was a very good idea to move the garage forward. .-� � APPEALS COMMI88ION MEETING OCTOBER 10 1989 PAGE 7 Ms. Savage stated she is in favor of the variance. It is clear that the public purpose is being served by providing more green areas. It seems to be a good plan for the property aesthetically and it makes good sense for the living situation. Mr. Kuechle concurred. He thought the intent of the Code is being met. The green space will be increased, and the driveway will be reduced. Mr. Barna agreed. There will be more green space by the removal of the existing garage and driveway, and he is in favor of enclosing the rear door of the garage to preserve energy loss. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend to City Council approval of variance request, VAR #89-27, by Kenneth Anderson pursuant to Section 205.07.03.D.(3) of the Fridley City Code to reduce the required rear yard setback from 27 feet to 21 feet to allow the construction of a porch on Lot 20, Block 1, River Edge Addition, the same being 132 River Edge Way N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOOSLY. Ms. Dacy stated this will go to City Council on November 13, 1989. .-- ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Savage, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Chairperson Barna declnred the October l0, 1989, Appeals Commission meetinq adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Res ectfully s bmitted, / �_� Ly rre Saba Recording Secretary �