The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 12/06/1989 - 7106^ �� `- 6 s"' 'S ° �,; PLAANING CO�ISSION MEETING AGEND�. WEDNESDAY, DECIIKBEB 6, 1989 7:30 P.M. Barbara Dacy Planning Coordinator � , • ,., W ` • City of Fridley A G E N D A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1989 7:30 P.M. �►OCATION: FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER, 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. CAL�_„=,.TO ORDER : ROLL CALL• APPROVE PLANNING CO1�IIrIISSION MINUTES: November 8, 1989 UPDATE ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS UPDATE ON SYSTEMATIC CODE ENFORCEMENT NEW COMMISSION MEMBER ORIENTATION HANDBOOI� REPORT ON AMERICAN PLANNING INSTITUTE CONFERENCE RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY COMMISSION AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 17 1989 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 2, 1989 OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURN , � ` � ,-,� �� F � , PLANNIN�3 CO1rIIriI86ION MB�TINa, NOVBMB�R 8. 1989 PAGE4�� '� � University might choose to park at Holly, so they do not have to cross University to park. Mr. Robertson stated the other concern he had was capturing the retail sales. The BRW economic consultants say that, although that might happen, they do not think that $s a significant consideration. About the possible impact on 73rd Avenue, even if they take the worst case and say there were 500 spaces at Columbia Arena and all the cars went down 73rd Avenue, that amounts to less than a 10� increase in the traffic already projected for 71st Avenue. Mr. Robertson stated staff is recommending that the City consider a combination commercial development and park and ride station at an expanded 10,000 Auto Parts site as its first priority in terms of serving the Center City area. There is also an advantage in that it is located most effectively for feeder bus traffic, because of the access to East River Road under the railroad tracks on Mississippi Street. Mr. Robertson stated staff is recommending the Planning Commission consider the Mississippi Street location as its first choice for a park and ride, understanding that it may have to be expanded and the Planning Commission consider Columbia Arena as a back-up park and ride site if they get a lot more usage over time than they can accommodate on the Mississippi/ University Avenue site. Mr. Robertson stated he has briefed Mayor Nee and HRA Chairperson Larry Commers on Monday. They aqreed with the Planning Commission that to have exclusive park and ride at the 10,000 Auto Parts site was a terrible waste of valuable property. It should only be considered as a multi-use site; in other words, a transit station, park and ride, plus some retail or office activity. They suggested that the HRA look at expanding the 10, 000 Auto Parts site along Mississippi Street which will improve the access, move the driveways further away from the intersection, and try to get more multi-use on the site. He stated he has been authorized to make an offer on the house that is for sale next to 10,000 Auto Parts. Mr. Dahlberg stated it would be more desirable, particularly from the standpoint of traffic, if they could expand the 10,000 Auto Parts site all the way to 5th Street. Mr. Barna stated the best thing would be to plan the park and ride at Mississippi but not pass up the ability to designate the Columbia Arena parking lot as an alternate park and ride. At Columbia Arena there would be no need for any property acquisition or changes. Mr. Robertson stated he has asked the BRW consultants to bring to the next meeting the feeder bus route preliminary plans for both Mississippi Street and Columbia Arena. � � `, �F�LANNING COMMI88ION MEETINa. NOV�ER 8. 1989 PAGE 3 Mr. Dahlberg stated that in his memo, Mr. Robertson had indicated that one of the key concerns is the issue of pedestrian traffic across University Avenue if there are designated parkinq spaces at either at Holly Center or somewhere in the southwest quadrant. Mr. Dahlberg stated he was not sure if he concurred that signal timing would solve that problem. What other options might be available and how can the City explore funding of those options? One option is a pedestrian bridge over University Avenue. Mr . Robertson stated that when he and Ms . Dacy met with the BRW people the previous Friday, they brought up the possibility of a pedestrian bridge. Mr. Dahlberg stated if the City says that if there is a station located at Mississippi/University, there has to be a bridge across University Avenue, can a bridge be included in BRW's construction costs and budgeting? Mr. Robertson stated he did not know the answer to that question. He stated there is the handicapped access problem which makes it even more expensive, because there has to be a ramp or elevator at each end. Mr. Dahlberg stated it would make sense that a bridge be located north at 66th Avenue, so there is enough distance for the ramp on each side. Ms. Sherek stated there is also the safety factor of children crossing University Avenue on their bicycles. Ms. Dacy stated the biggest concern with a bridge is, obviously, the cost. With the elevator, they quoted a cost of $900,000. Ms . Dacy stated the other concern is that obviously they do not have the background af the use of pedestrian bridges for LRT stations. BRW is also basing their concern on the use of pedestrian bridges in general. A bridge certainly deserves further study. There are other areas along the corridor that will not have the capacity for parking on the same side of the street as the LRT station, so the crossover issue will come up. Ms. Sherek stated if they balance the cost of using the existing parking in Holly Center for a portion of the LRT parking, using the land makes the bridge less costly. A bridge would also provide �nother enhancement for this particular intersection for all purposes, not just LRT. Nir. Kondrick stated he was not so sure merchants at Holly Shopping Center are going to be interested in having cars in their parking lot to use the LRT station. Until the 10,000 Auta Parts site can F C PLANNINa CO�II`IIBBION M��TINa, NOVffi�ISBR 8. 1989 PACE 4 ,. be enlarged to handle all the parking spaces on that site, he was not in favor of a bridge. Mr. Saba disagreed. He stated he thouqht a bridge is a necessity at this intersection, not only for the convenience factor, but also for the safety factor. He would like to see the bridge whether or not all the parking is handled on the 10,000 Auto Parts site. It will add a safety factor for children crossing the LRT tracks. Mr. Rondrick stated a bridge is a novelty thingo He did not think seniors or children are going to walk up a long ramp, across the street, and then walk down the long ramp. Mr. Dahlberg stated there was nothing that said the bridge could not be on the south side of the University/Mississippi intersection and incorporate it into the southwest quadrant development, tie it into the Center Cit�y Plaza area in some way. The biggest difficulty is dealing with the Fire Station. Mr. Dahlberg asked what was the anticipated number of parking spaces required off the site on the west side if the LRT station is located here? Mr. Robertson stated he did not know. He did know a minority would be on the Holly Center side. He would estimate 50-100 parking spaces. Mr. Dahlberg stated that even at the busiest time for Holly Center, all the parking spaces on the northeast end of the site are always empty. LRT parking would be a good use for that parking area. Mr. Robertson stated the parking spaces in the southeast corner, just south of Snyders, are used little also. Mr. Dahlberg stated he would like staff to express the Planning Commission's concern and desire to have a pedestrian bridge be seriously considered at the University/Mississippi intersection. Mr. Saba stated he had two major concerns for this intersection. One is safety, especially with children. The other one is it is a terrible waste of space for just an LRT station that may or may not go in. Mr. Dahlberg stated if the HI2A does acquire additional land to double the size of the 10,000 Auto Parts site, that becomes a pretty significant parcel. Does it make sense to make that a parking lot for small retail/office versus a pretty good sized office building project? Mr. Saba stated the City might not get the development they want on this property if the property is up for 5-8 years waiting for a possible LRT. e ) '�~J _ � S � `,_ ±� PLANNINa CO1rII+II86ION 1+IBBTZNGi, NOVSMBLR 8. 1989 PAGE 5 Mr. Robertson stated he agreed, and that is why Mayor Nee and HRA Chairperson Commers are asking staff to proceed with redevelopment to see if they can keep the following options open (listed in order of priority): 1. the rail line 2. the station 3. the parking Mr. Dahlberg stated he thought the Planning Commission has pretty much agreed that there should be a station at the University/ Mississippi intersection, whether it is a park or ride or a"kiss and ride", etc. t Mr. Robertson stated staff also discussed with BRW a two level use of the 10,000 Auto Parts site. Whether the upper level would be used for parking or for shops would depend on a market feasibility study. Mr. Kondrick stated it is nice to use the property for retail/ office use, but how will it attract customers if the parking is for LRT users? Ms. Sherek stated they could conceivably put offices and park and ride on the same site, because they could designate parking spaces that belong to just the offices. Ms. Sherek stated she is concerned about the access to Columbia Arena as an alternate site. In looking at Fridley as a whole and how people are going to get to the Arena, the access is not good. There is no access east/west. Traffic has to go up to Osborne or down to Mississippi to get to the west. Mr. Robertson stated that is why he is convinced that Columbia Arena should only be looked at as a back-up site. Mr. Dahlberg stated if it is possible to make it work at University/Mississippi, then that is where the park and ride site should be located. Mr. Robertson stated BRW has approached the Immanuel Christian Center at University/Osborne Road, and they are very interested in some type of compromise with the Rail Authority to assume some of the ownership and maintenance of their parking lot. Mr. Robertson stated that regarding the 57th site, Mayor Nee and HRA Chairperson Commers aqain feel that it is a terrible waste to use this site for only park and ride. The main reason is this is the gateway to the City. Again, they want staff to look into the F PLANNINQ COIrIISIBBION MBBTINd. NOVEI�BIt 8. 1989 PAQ�; 6� } possibility of multi-use or even eliminating the park and ride station from 57th, and if the LRT switches over to Central on the south side of I-694, plan the station on the east end of the Target shopping center. Mr. Rondrick stated the 57th Street site is elevated to the east of University Avenue, 5-6 ft. higher than the street level. Wouldn't it be out of sight of the traffic coming from the south on University Avenue? Ms. Sherek stated if the LRT is going to go along University, and there is a station at Mississippi and a station somewhere around 51st Avenue, why do they need another station at 57th? Ms. Dacy stated the main reason is for the traffic off I-694. She stated here are a lot of outstanding problems with the 57th site right now. Mr. Robertson stated Mr. Kondrick had raised a point he had not thought about and that is that if there is a park and ride at 57th and if the LRT did not have to go over I-694, it might be possible to hide much of the parking to the east. It would not necessarily need to be right at the qateway to Fridley. Mr. Dahlberg stated when the projections are made of 2,000 cars between I-69�4 and Northtown on University Avenue, he would like to know what the area of draw is. Ms. Sherek stated that more than that, they need to demonstrate how they determine how many of those people are even going to downtown Minneapolis in the first place. Mr. Robertson stated two public information meetings have been scheduled. The first one is for the Minneapolis portion only on Monday,.November 20, 1989, 7:00 p.m. at Edison High School. The second one is for the Southern Anoka County portion, I-694 to Minneapolis, on Wednesday, November 29, 1989, 7:00 p.m. at Murzyn Hall in Columbia Heights. A meeting time for northern Anoka County has not yet been scheduled. Mr. Robertson asked if the Planning Commission wished to have a briefing before that public meeting from the consultants. Does the Commission want mailing to go out to the citizens at the public meeting stage or at the public hearing stage? Ms. Sherek stated she would like notices to go out for the public meeting stage. Mr. Dahlberg stated the earlier, the better. This also illustrates to the people that the City feels it is important that they know about these meetings. , �� -w ,_�PLANNINa COMMIBBION MB$TINa. �OVFl��R A. 1989 PAGE 7 Mr. Betzold stated he would also like to see notices at the public meeting staqe. He would just as soon not have a briefing before the meeting. Mr. Rondrick stated that 20-25 years from now when in theory the LRT has expanded out to Anoka, perhaps Ramsey, East Bethel, etc., and more park and ride stations are necessary. He would then think the significance of the parking lots in the City of Fridley would be greatly diminished. He would like to have the flexibility so those parking lots could then be changed back to something else. Mr. Dahlberg stated that in the situation described by Mr. Kondrick, when an area is no longer needed for parking, is there an option where the City or HRA can own the property and lease it to the County and the Rail Authority, rather than the County purchasing the property? Ms. Sherek stated this raised a question raised by the Planning Conunission in the early discussions, and that was: Do they have to build all these stations at initial construction? BRW is saying they need 2, 000 parking spaces, but what is wrong with starting out with Northtown, Mississippi/University, 51st or Target, and then when there is the demand five years later, they build another station. Ms. Dacy stated they would have to have the land reserved under that option. Mr. Saba stated they have to be somewhat careful, because just the potential "need" for a parking lot in a certain area can stop or slow development. Mr. Barna stated his main concern about LRT is they are talking about public bodies developing the parking spaces. In looking at other cities, the vast majority of parking ramps are privately owned. Why isn't the City of Fridley looking at some type of two- level parking ramp/retail development on the southwest corner with assistance from the HRA, so that when or if the LRT does go in, they can use the extra space for retail or whatever? 2. CONSIDERATION OF CENTRAL AVENUE CORRIDOR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission spent quite a bit of time discussing this last spring and summer, and it went to the Council Conference meeting in July. She thought the Council members appreciated the exercise of going through the land use planning and intent. Their concern was there are other priorities in the community as far as development and tax increment dollars. Ms. Dacy stated that she used a diamond model to analyze the plan for improvements along Central Avenue, whether those are land use �� I PLANNINa COI+IIriI88ION M$STINa. NOVBMH$R 8. 1989 PAGB 8 or physical improvements. The four components of the diamond are Mission, Power, Structure, and Resources. Ms. Dacy stated they are looking at three phases over the next ten years. The components of Phase I respond to the Council's mission of land use compatibility and appearance. The components of Phase II depend on market forces to determine the timing of the various components. The components of Phase III emphasize economic development and redevelopment. Ms. Dacy stated staff is asking for the Planning Commission's concurrence of this phased approach with any recommended changes. Staff's intent is to present any recommended changes and this analysis to the City Council for review and concurrence. Mr. Kondrick commended staff on a tremendous outline. Ms. Sherek stated the area from Onan north on Central Avenue is in danger of becoming a slum, and it is getting worse every year. Do they want to let that happen? There are already pockets like this in the City, and do they want to add to it? By coming up with a comprehensive plan and continuing toward systematic code enforcement, and having other plans for these properties if they should go up for sale. They need to put the plan together and have some kind of "vision" of what Central Avenue should look like. With Moore Lake Commons, there is going to be spin-off development. The Commissioners agreed. Mr. Kondrick stated they have to be very specific about what they want to see along the Central Avenue Corridor. Mr. Barna stated that whether Onan develops or not, they want to see that northwest corner changed, from 73rd Avenue to Fireside. Mr. Dahlberg stated he did not think it was appropriate for the Commission, as a planning body, to dictate the types of development unless it is within a specified district like this is. Within a tax increment district, they can do that, but outside the district, they cannot. If Onan does not develop, then the district is reduced dramatically. They can change the boundary, but not significantly, because 70� of the land area has to be considered blighted. So, it becomes a very small area that they have any influence or control over. He thought a plan is qood, and this outline is an excellent beginninq. MOTION by Mr. Rondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to accept the Central Avenue Corridor Implementation Plan as submitted by staff. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINa AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOQSLY. � � � � pL�►iATNINa COIYIIdIBBION 1dS$TINa. NOVEMBER 8. 1989 PAGE _9 3. CONSIDERATION OF 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATES: Ms. Dacy stated staff is proposing two options for 1990 Planning Commission meeting dates. Currently, the Planning Commission meets the same week as the City Council. This method produces an irregular schedule and poses some problems for staff in preparing two or more agenda packets in one week. The Council wants to maintain meeting on the first and third Mondays for consistency. The Council is willing to go along with whatever option the Planning Commission chooses--the same week as Council, as it has been in the past; or, switching to the second and fourth Wednesdays. Mr. Barna stated that since the Council has decided they want to continue to have final action on all variances, because of the current process where the Appeals Commission minutes must first be received by the Planning Commission before going to the Council, this delays the petitioner up to 20 days. If they go to a new schedule, then the City Council should have some kind of pipeline where the Appeals Commission minutes can bypass the Planning Commission. Mr. Betzold agreed. The Planning Commission will receive the minutes anyway. It did not matter when the minutes come to the Planning Commission. Mr. Betzold stated he had no problem with changing the meeting dates to the second and fourth Wednesdays. If it does not work, they can always change back. Ms. Sherek stated that if they change these dates, then staff should be sure and tell builders and developers the timeline up f ront . Mr. Dahlberg stated he would like to see the Planning Commission meetings scheduled everp second and fourth Wednesdays, except in January, May, and July. OM TION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adopt a calendar for the Planning Commission for 1990, changing the meeting dates to the second and fourth Wednesdays, except in those months (January, May, July) when the second and fourth Wednesdays follow the Council meetings. The 1990 meeting dates are as follows: January 17 and 31 February 14 and 28 March 14 and 28 April 11 and 25 May 16 and 30 June 13 and 27 July il and 25 Auqust 15 and 29 September 12 and 26 October 10 and 24 November 14 and 28 December 12 a i e� ( ,� , r� PLANNING COMMI88ION 1+IEETINa, NOVEMHBR 8. 1989 PAG� lOs � � OPON A VOICS VOT$, l�LL VOTINa AYB, CSl1IRP$RBON BETZOLD DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIBD IINANIMOIIBLY. 4. RF.C_F.T� OCTOBER 12 1989 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MZNUTES• O�! TION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive the October 12, 1989, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes. IIPON A VOICS VOTE, l�LL VOTIN(3 11YE, CHl�IRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to adjourn the meeting. IIpon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Chairperson Hetzold declared the october 12, 1989, Planninq Commission meetinq adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, �� Lyn e aba Recording Secretary .� PLANNING DNISION � MEMOR,ANDUM unroF F�a� DATE: December 1,,1989 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Process We reviewed the proposed process to update the Comprehensive Plan at a City Council Conference meeting on November 14, 1989. The City Council aqreed in concept to the necessity to update the Plan and the general process; however, the City Council requested that the drafts of the proposed chapters be forwarded to the City Council prior to Planning Commission consideration. In this manner, they felt that they would be kept apprised of the issues for each of the chapters. It would also allow them to identify any concerns which should be communicated to the Planning Commission. The City Council also directed staff to prepare a plan whose contents can be politically, financially and practically feasible. The City Council was also concerned about the amount of requirements and policies that the Metropolitan Council would impose and how they would conflict with local policy. The City Council directed �staff to provide a list of issues where the Metropolitan Council's requirements may conflict with local initiatives. The Metropolitan Council has recently amended the Transportation and Waste Water Manaqement policy plans. According to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, once a system plan has been amended, local units of qovernment have nine months to amend their plans to be consistent with the revised policies. Attached is a letter to the Metropolitan Council outlining our Comprehensive Plan process. The Metropolitan Council has aeked the City to pass a resolution outlining the proposed process and statfng why the statutory required nine month time period cannot be achieved for a Plan amendment. It is intended that the City Council take action on a resolution on December 18, 1989. < t Comprehensive Plan Process December 1, 1989 Page 2 We also attended a seminar regarding updating comprehensive plans. It was qood to know that the process we have proposed is basically consistent with qenerally accepted practices to revise and/or produce a comprehensive plan. We did learn about new ideas to provide for citizen participation such as survey methods and Cable TV town meetings. We may want to consider using these tools. Also attached is an outline of the case law regarding comprehensive plans and the historical and legal perspectives of the relationship between planning and zoning (this is a good outline which should be considered for the orientation handbook). At this point in time, outlines for the Transportation and Utility chapters need to be prepared. The Parks & Recreation Commission reviewed a proposed outline at their November meeting. These outlines will be presented to the Planning Commission at the regular meeting in January after informal review by the City Council. After that, staff will be initiating the research necessary to do the basic analysis for the Environmental Resources, Housing, Land Use, and Transportation chapters. We will provide a more specific schedule of when drafts would be available at Wednesday's meeting. BD/dn M-89-726 s _ CIIYOF FRtDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIP:\L CE�TER • b�il l'NIVERSIT�' AVE. N.E. FRIDLEI'. MN ij�i? • 161'_1571-3-350 • FAX it�l �i �71-I'_�7 November 16, 1989 Anne Hurlburt Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East 5th Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Ms. Hurlburt: This is to respond to Chairman Keefe's letter dated November 13, 1989 regarding amendment of the City of Fridley's Comprehensive Plan in response to the changes made in the Transportation and Waste Water Treatment System Policy Plans. The City of Fridley will request an extension to complete a Plan amendment beyond the Statutory-required nine months. I wanted to review with you our proposed process and the reasons for our request prior to making a formal request to the Metropolitan Council. We discussed with the Planning Commission the pro:�-�.ed comprehensive plan process in July 1989. In reviewi-• :ne materials that the Metropolitan Council sent to us regardi:._ the impacts to the City of Fridley regarding the Waste Water and Transportation policy plans, we determined that a comprehensive revision of the Plan was more prudent than just amending these two chapters. The Fridley Comprehensive Plan is entitled "The Plan for the '80's", and is qrossly outdated. We believe it would be irresponsible not to do a comprehensive revision to the Plan in order to provide a proper analysis of how the Land Use chapter and Housing chapter affects the transportation systems within the City. The City Council has not been able to review our proposed Plan process until November 14, 1989 because the City Council has undertaken a number of special meetinqs in regards to the new requirements for municipal budgets. It was unable to review and concur with the proposed comprehensive plan review process until the meetinq on Tuesday night. The proposed Plan revision process is proposed to occur as follows: 1. January 1, 2990 through December 31, 1990 - prepare written drafts to the followinq chapters: a. Environmental Resources � Y � � 4 TR�INING SERVICE "UPDATING YOUR COr�RSHENSIVE PI.AN' November 30, 1989 - Bloomington, Minnesota April 5, 1990 - St. Cloud, Minnesota 0 By Peter H. Bachman Special Counsel, City of Minneapolis Assistant Counsel, Metropolitan Council 0 --�- TJs1BLE OF CONTENTS I. Introd�ction II. Historical Ovezview -- Camprehensive Planni�g In perspective A. Why Plan? 1. Effects of Industrial Revolution 2. Existing Land Use Controls Inadequate H. Sanitary Reform Movement C. City Beautiful Movement IZI. Historical Relationship of Planning and Zoning A. Early 1900's B. SZEA and SPEA IV. The Mirnnesota Egperience A. Early Attempts at Zoning Held Unconstitutional B. ZSAFED Schemes C. 1921 Zoning Enabling Legislation D. 1925 Zoning Held Constitutional E. Relationship of Planning to Zoning V. Sources of Current Zoning and Planning Authority A. Municipalities - Minn. Stat. §462.351 et seq. H. Counties - Minn. Stat. §394.21 et. seq. C. Metropolitan Area Local Units - Minn. Stat. §�473.851 to 473.871 and 473.175 VI. Minnes�ta Case Law on Comprehensive Plans VII. Moratoriums VIII. Recen� Developments Affecting Comprehensive Planning A. Shorelands H. Floodplains C. Enabling Legislation - ACSLR Bill D. Interim Uses -- Minn. Stat. §462.3597 (1989 Supp.) -2- , : , 4�.(a0�'i w'�c� �e �cea.a�.� ' �- �!�`�.� Y . ��- w� � ---�b �r� � � ` , �-I. Introduction �:(i�C�a�l b7� � V Comprehe�sive planning is a relatively recent phenomenon. In 1909, Chicago became the first city in the United States to adopt a comprehensive lplan intended to guide the future development of the city. The plan was purely voluntary and advisory. Since that time, most communities in the tDnited States have adopted some form of comprehensive plan, either voluntarily or because it was required by state law. In Minnesota, comprehensive planning became mandatory in the seven-county twin cities metropolitan area with the passage of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act in 1976. Outsid� the metropolitan area, comprehensive planning remains optional. Zoning regulations are today widely regarded as the primary land use control to implement the provisions of a community's comprehensive plan. Hut despite that, there remains an uneasy relationship between planning and zoning. Much has been written on the degree of consistency that is (or is not) required between comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances, and the answer may vary from state to state. The answer in Minnesota is particularly complex, with different requirements in the metropolitan area than in the rest of the state and with potentially conflicting statutory requirements on the consistency question. From a legal standpoint, comprehensive plans frequently come into play when there is a dispute over a proposed development. A comprehensive plan can be used by a municipality to demonstrate that the municipality's decision was not arbitrary and capricious, or on the other hand, the comprehensive plan may be evidence that a municipality's decision was indeed arbitrary and invalid where the decision is inconsistent with the provisions of the plan. Today, the world is changing at a remarkable pace. To be effective, comprehensive plans must be continually monitored and 1 Hagman and Juergensmeyer, Urban Planning and Land Development Control Law, p. 18 (2nd Ed. 1986). 2'Amcon Corp. v.. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 66, 74 (Minn. '�984) (,"Minnesota's municipal planr�ing ect . provides for the optional adoption of a comprehensive planj.�� But�see, State, By Rochester Ass'n. of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885, 889-90 (Minn. 1978) (providing that the Municipal Planning Act requires that a comprehensive land use plan be adopted before an initial zoning ordinance is adopted). -3- geriodically updated. �Any'community interested in controlling development is well-advised to maintain an up-to-date comprehensive plan and to use the plan by supporting its land use decisions w�th findings demonstrating that the decisions are based on the policies and provisions of the comprehensive plan. II. Historical Ovezview -- Comprehensive Planning In Perspective 1 A. Wtny Plan? -The industrial revolution, along with increasing urbanization, brought new lan use prob ems. Existing controls were not adequate �� `�;�'.y �-� Go�X-�� 1 `� -Problems included inadequate sewage disposal; litter, dirt, odor and rampant disease in slum areas; iraadequate yard space; great fire danger; and other problems associated with locating incompatible uses in the same or adjacent structures and with the lack of ac�equate infrastructure. -�y the 1840's, a typical American city "was ciaaracterized by filth, stench and stagnant water in ttae streets, backyard privies, dampness, and the absence of sunlight in residential space. As a result, deadly diseases such as yellow fever, cholera, typhoid, typhus, scarlet fever and diptheria were commonplace. Backyards, gullies and even public streets became repositories of all kinds of waste m�tter, and drainage ditches became choked wit� debris, including fecal matter and animal carcasses." -It was not until 1842 that New York City opened its first public water piping system. -In 1878, a yellow-fever epidemic in Tennessee killed o�rer 10$ of the population of Memphiso -Existing land use controls, pri�arily based on nuisance theory or private restrictive covenants, were not adequate. . � , � i� . `, / �� , � .; � � � � � � , 3 Hagman and Juergensmeyer, supra at p. 14. -4- Y � ` ! , H. Sanitary Refor�a Movement.4 -Roughly 1850-1900. -Public water and sewer systems were built and building cocles were adopted. -Gradual recognition of the public interest in regulating certain uses of private property. C. City Beautiful Movement.5 -Roughly 1890-1920. -Groundswell of grass roots concern for the appearance of cities, which all too often were cluttered, dirty and had little or no significant architecture to mention. -Resulted in the formation of local village improvement associations, advocating such things as street lighting, paving, parks, litter clean up, etc. By 1901 there were over 1,000 village improvement associations. -The public call for adequate land use controls increased. -Chicago adopted first comprehensive plan in 1909. III. Historical Relationship of Planning and Zoning A. Early 1900's. -There were some early attempts at zoning-type regulation, many of which were struck down as unconstitutional unless a nuisance was present. -It became clear that if zoning-type regulations were to be upheld, it would be as an exercise of the police power, i.e., the power reserved to the several states to protect the public health, safety, welfare and morals. Because citfes have only such powers as are delegated by the states, it was� also clear that 4 For a general discussion, see Id. 5 For a general discussion, see Id. at 16. -5- enabling legislation delegating authority from a state to its cities was a prerequiaite for municipal zoning. -New York City shepherded zoning enabling legislation for the City through the New York Legislature and in 1916 became the first city to adopt a comprehensive zoning ordinance, dividing nearly the entire city into zones and creating zones for all uses. -The ordinance was upheld as ccanstitutional by the New �,QFk_ C_�rt„ of AnQea s in �92 and the zoning boom was on. -Cities around the country began clamoring for zoning enabling legislation from their respective states. -By about 1920, Commerce (under Hmover) undertook legislation. the United States Department of then Secretary of Commerce Herbert the task of drafting model enabling -T°he first version of the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act ("SZEA") was released in 1922. The first printed version was published in 1924, and revised again in 1926. Many thousands of copies were distributed. -By 1923, 208 municipalities, representing forty percent of �the urban population, had adopted zoning ordinances. -In 1926, the issue of zoning8 reached the U. S. Supreme Court, and it was upheld. �y that time, 564 cities and towns had already adopted zoning ordinances. � H. SZER and SPEA -The original intent of the Department of Commerce was to publish the Standard City Planning Enabling Act ("SPEA") before the SZEA, but the strong political demand for zoning enabling legislation led to the 6 Lincoln Trust Co. v. Williams Building Corp., 229 N.Y. 313, 128 N.E. 209 (1920). � D. Callies and R. Freilich, Land Use, p. 4(1966). a village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926). � ' publication of the zoning act first.9 The SPEA was ' ` not published until 1928. -The reversed publication order, more or less of an historical eccident, has contributed greatly to the lack of integration betwe�n planning and zoning. -The SZEA was very �uccessful. All 50 states eventually adopted zoning enabling legislation based at least partly on the SZEA. The SPEA was not nearly as successful. -The SZEA required zoning to be "in accordance with a comprehensive plan." The SPEA made planning optional, and talked in terms of a"master plan" rather than a "comprehensive plan." -Many communities adopted zoning ordinances without , • ever making �he comprehensive plan upon which zaning �� was supg�osed to be based. Most courts addressing the issue of what was meant by the requirement that zoning '� be "in ac�ordance with" a comprehensive plan, held �J�� that no separate comprehensive plan document was necessary. After all, how could it be? Most states adopted zoning enabling legislation before planning I enabling legislation and made planning optional. Thus, the "in accordance with a comprehensive plan" requirement is satisfied in most states if a rational scheme is embodi� within the four corners of the zoning ordinance. Several states such as Oregon, California and Florida have stringent planning requirements and do require a separate comprehensive plan. -More and more states seem to be finding a need for better planning and are moving toward requiring separate comprehensive plans. There is currently a bill introduced in the Minnesota Legislature to, among other things, make preparation of �1 separate comprehensive plan mandatory state-wide. Some states, like Florida, are even moving to centralized comprehensive planning at the state level. 9 D. Mandelker, Land Use Law, p. 75 (2nd Ed. 1988) 10 E.g., Kozesnik v. Township of Montgomery, 131 A.2d 1(N.J. 1957). 11 S.F. 1510; H.F. 1654 (1988 Sess.) -7- IV. The Irlinuiesota Bsperienoe. A. Early Attempts at Zoning Held Unconstitutional. H. b + C s -In the early 1900's, the Minnesota Supreme Court was very protective of the righte of private property owners. L�ocal regulations were frequently stricken dowm unlesa they were clearly regulating nuisances. -In 1913, the Minnesota Legislature authorized cities ov�r 50,000 to create residential districts from which coanmercia1,12industrial and apartment uses could be pr�hibited. In 1916, the Minnesoia Supreme Court held that prohibiting a retail business within a =esidential district was beyond the legji�imate reaches of the police power and therefore void. ZSAFED Schemes. -O�n the belief that payment of compensation for the taking of the right to develop apartments or commercial uses would overcome the constitutiona2. problems, a ZSAFED (Zoning by Special Assessment Financed Eminent Domain) w�� authorized in Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth to allow single family residential districts. -The ZSAFED legislation is an interesting use of eminent domain to buy development rights financed by special assessments against the benefited property. Appraisers established the net benefit or damage to each parcel in the district. Benefited properties were assessed the value of the benefit, and damaged property owners were paid a condemnation award. The total special assessments levied in a district were limited to the amount of total damages, plus costs. -When challenged, ZSAFED was originally stricken down on the theory that a condemnation ag�inst an apartment house is not for a public purpose. The decision 12 1913 Laws of Minnesota, Ch. 420. 13 State v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226, 158 N.W. 1017 (1916). 14 1915 Laws of Minnesota, Ch. 128. See generally, Hagman and Juergensmeyer, Supra at pp. 348-53. 15 State ex rel. Twin City Hu Houghton, 14� Minn. 1, 174 N.W. 88 -8- and I Co. v. � ` � w�s criticized and on rehearing, one Justice reversed hie position end ZSAFED became constitutional. The opinion �;aontains an excellent discussion of conditions et the time and chronicles the public call for city planning. -While zoning under the police power was still unconstitutional, the forces for planning and increased control of private property were building in Minnesota. C. 1921 Zoning Enabling Legislation. -In 1921, the Legislature authorized cities over 50,000 to l�egulate the "location, size and use" of buildings. In 1923, the law was amended to allow the regulation of "the height of buildings, the arrangement i9f buildings on lots, and density of populetion." The constitutionality of this legislation was questionable at the time. D. 1925-Zoning Held Constitutional in Minnesota. -In 1924, Minneapolis adopted its first comprehensive zoning ordinance. Charles Beery was denied a permit under the ordinance to build a four-family flat in a residential district and he sued. In a landmark decision, the Minnesota Supreme court noted the problems caused by poor living conditions in congested areas and the resulting decline in property values, and overruled its previous cases and held that a fair zoning ordinalr�e is a valid regulation under the police power. This decision was one year before Euclid. E. Relationship of Planning to Zoning. -In the early Minnesota zoning enabling legislation, comprehensive plans were optional, but were supposed to be "in accordance with" the zoning requlations. Note that the comprehensive plan was supposed to be in accordance with the zoning and not vice-versa. 16 1921 Laws of Minnesota, Ch. 217. 17 1923 Laws of Minnesota, Ch. 364. 18 State ex rel. Heery v. Houghton, 164 Minn. 146 (1925). � C � � � V. Sources of Current Planning � Zoning �uthority �ti A. Municipalities -- Minn. Stat. 84�.351 et seq. -Applies to all cities and towns.19 -Defines "comprehensive municipal plan" and "land use plan". -muthorizes municipalities to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan. -Requires at least one public hearing, with 10 days prior published notice, by the planning agency prior to adoption of the plan by the planning agency. Following planning agency action, the city council may be resolution and by a two-thirds vote of all its members adopt and amend the comprehensive plan. Home rule cities can vary the resolution and two-thirds vote requirements by charter. City council action must be preceded by whatever notice and hearing requirements are specified in the local ordinances. -There is no requirement that zoning ordinances be consistent with the comprehensive plan for cities, towns and counties outside the metropolitan area. -Once a comprehensive plan is adopted, however, the statute does require that: [N]o publicly owned interest in real property within the municipality shall be acquired or disposed of, nor shall any capital improvement be authorized by the municipality or special district or agency thereof or any other political subdivision having jurisdiction within the municipality until after the planning agency has reviewed the proposed acquisition, disposal, or capital improvement and reported in writing to the governing body ... its findings as to compliance of the proposed acquisition, disposal or improvementl� with the comprehensive municipal plan. 19 For towns, See also Minn. Stat. §§394.33; 366.10-366.181; and 368.01. 20 Minn. Stat. 5462.356, Subd. 2(1988). -10- 0 a i ` � -A municipality's subdivision regulations must be consistent with its official map (an "official map" is a term of ert not to be confused with a comprehensive plan or land use map) if one esists and with its zoning ordinances. A municipality may (but does not have to) require consistency between2�he subdivieion regulations and its comprehensive plan. -A copy of a�unicipality's comprehensive plan must be filed with each contiguor�a� municipality and with the regional planning agency. H. Counties -- Minn. Stat. �394.21 et seq. -Applies to counties having less than 300,000 population. -Defines "comprehensive plan". -Authorizes counties to prepare and adopt by ordinance a comprehensive plan. "A ccmprehensive plan ... when adopted by2�ordinance shall be the basis for official controls." -Upon request of a municipality, a county may prepare a comprehensive plan for the municipality. The plan is not binding "until official controls are adopted �� the municipality 'in accordance with' the plan ..." -Prior to adoption of a comprehensive plan, a county must hold a public hearing and publish notice of intent to enact at least 10 days in advance. C. Metropolitan Area Local Units -- Minn. Stat. §§473.851 to 473.871 and 473.175 (1988). -The MLPA was adopted in 1976. -It governs comprehensive planning activities of all cities, counties and towns in the seven-county metropolitan area. 21 Minn. Stat. §462.358, Subd. 2a (1989 Supp.). 22 Minn. Stat. §462.36, Subd. 2(1988). 23 Minn. Stat. §394.23 (1988). 24 Minn. Stat. �394.32, Subd. 3(1988). -11- -�ts purpose is to "establish requirements and' � procedures to accomplish comprehensive local planning w�th land use controls consistent with planned, orderly and staged �evelopment and the metropolitan system plans . . ." � The provisions of the MLPA supersede the provisio�s� of Ch. 462 and Ch. 394 wherever a conflict may exist. -All "local governmental units" (i.e., cities, counties and towns) in the metropolitan area are required to prepare comprehensive plans and submit them to the Metropolitan Council for review. -The comprehensive plans must not "have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans," or the Metropolitan Council can require a modification of a local unit's comprehensive plan to 2�ssure conformance with metropolitan system plans." �[etropolitan system plans include the Metropolitan Council's policy plans for se_wers; ai�or_ts; ar s and op�n space; and trans or ation. -The MLPA contains detailed requirements for the content of comprehensive plans, including a land use plan, public facilities plan and implementation program. -The implementation program of the comprehensive plan must describe the "official controls" that will implement the plan. -Official controls include zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, site plan regulations, sanitary codes, building codes and official maps. -Section 473.865 imposes a rigorous consistency requirement between planning and zoning as follows: Subdivision 1. Each local governmental unit shall adopt official controls as described in its adopted comprehensive lan ��G� 25 Minn. Stat. §473.851 (1988). �? + 26 Minn. Stat. §473.858, Subd. 1(1988). 27 Minn. Stat. §473.175 (1988). -12- � � and shall submit copies of the official ' c controle to the council within 30 days following adoption thereof, for information purposes only. Subd. 2. A local governmental unit ehall �n t edopt any official control or fiscal `�evice which_�� in confligt_ w�th its comprehensive plan or which permits activity in conflict with metropolitan eystem plans. Subd. 3. If ar� official control conflicts with a comprehensive plan as the result of an amendment to the plan, the official control shall be amended by the unit within nine monthe following the amendment to the plan so as to not conflict with the amended comprehensive plan. -These provisions must be reconciled with a 1985 amendment to both the MLPA and Chapter 462 providing that "If the comprehensive municipal plan is in conflict with the zoning o��iinance, the zoning ordinance supersedes the plan." To say the least, iec Lc iation is difficu�t. . VI . Minnesota7 se�"L�w- on �Co�m r�ei ensiv Pl / p �G�`/� A. General Framework for Judicial Review of Land Use Decisions. When confranted with a challenge to the granting or denial of a rezoning, conditional use permit, variance, subdivision or other land use decision, a reviewing court will look to see if the decision is reasonable. Assuming the decision is within the scope of the police power, (i.e. rationally related to protecting the public health, safety and welfare), a decision is reasonable if: (1) it is based on a legally sufficient reason; and (2) supported by facts in the record. Decisions which are arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable will be stricken down. Generally, a city ("city" as used herein includes counties and towns) must etate the reasons for its decision in writing and in more than just conclusory fashion. The challenger normally bears the burden of 28 1985 Laws of Minnesota, Ch. 62, codified �t Minn. Stat. §§462.357, Subd. 2 and 473.858, Subd. 1. -13- showing that the stated reasone are without factual support or are legally insufficient. Where the city fails to adequately record its reasons, the burden may shift to the city to demonetrate that its decision is reasonable. Moet of the cases involving �oo�prehensive plans arise in the conteut wherein, a landowner or neighbor is alleging that a city's action i� arbitrary and capricious. Consistency or inconsistency with a comprehensive plan is a legally sufficient reason to support the granting or denial of most land use decisions, including rezonings, conditional use permits, variances and subdivisions. In appropriate cases, plaintiffs will attempt to staow that a city's action is inconsistent with its comprehensive plan and therefore arbitrary. The city, on the other hand, will attempt to show that its action is consistent with the comprehensive plan, or that the .action which was requested by the plaintiff (and denied by the city) is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The content of comprehensive plans thus frequently becomes the measuring stick against wtaich a city's land use decisions are determined to be either reasonable or arbitraxy. �.. . . �. •_.. . • . , • � � • B. Representative Minnesota Cases. 1. Use of Comprehensive Plan by City to Deny Special Use Permit. a. Barton Contracting Co., Inc. v. City of Afton, 268 N.W. 2d 712 (Minn. 1978). Facts Barton contractinq applied for a special use permit authorizing gravel mining on a parcel zoned residential. The Afton City Council denied the permit, stating as its reason that the use was inconsistent with its comprehensive plan. Holding A city's determination that � proposal is inconsistent with its comprehensive plan is a legally sufficient reason to deny a special use permit where there are facts in the record to support the finding of inconsistency. -14- � b. See.also Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. City ` of Afton, 323 N.W. 2d 757 (Minn. 1982); City of Mounds View v. Johnson, 377 N.W. 2d 476 (Minn. App. 1985). 2. Use of Comprehensive_Plan by City to �ecial_Use Pen Amoco Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 395 N.W. 2d 115 (Minn. App. 1986). Facts The City of Minneapolis denied Amoco's application for a conditional use permit for a twenty-four hour gas and grocery facility on South Lyndale on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Holding The court noted that a gas and grocery facility with hours limited from 6:30 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. is permitted in the district. That use conflicts with the comprehensive plan in the same way that a twenty-four (24) hour facility does, yet the Gity allows it. Moreover, the court distinguished the Hubbard Broadcasting case by saying that the Afton Zoning Ordinance identified consistency with the comprehensive plan as a factor to consider in granting a special use permit. The Minneapolis Ordinance did not. Under these facts, inconsistency with a comprehensive plan cannot be used to deny a conditional use permit. 3. Use of Comprehensive Plan by City to Deny Subdivision and Variance. Vanlandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights, 336 N.W. 2d 503 (Minn. 1983). Facts Landowner applied to subdivide a lakeshore residential lot into two lots and for three variances which would be necessary in order to build two houses on the lots. The City denied the applications on the grounds that they were inconsistent with the compreheneive plan, particularly that part requiring subdivisions to provide adequate access for public emergency and service vehicles. -15- � �L"� � �� 7C�ir �,�v Holding Inconsistency with the comprehensive plan provides a rational basis to deny an application. 4. Use of Comprehensive Plan by City to Deny Rezoning. a. Campion v. County of Wright, 347 N.W. 2d 289 (Minn. App. 1984). Facts Campion owned a parcel of bluff, swamp and plain in Wright County. The bluff and swamp were zoned for open area and the plain was zoned for agricultural use. Campion petitioned for residential zoning to allow development of houses on the site. Wright County's comprehensive plan contains goals to protect agricultural land and discourage premature, scattered development. The rezoning was denied because it was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the landowner. Holding Inconsistency with a comprehensive plan is a legally sufficient reason to deny a rezoning. In this case, there were fact issues as to whether the rezoning was actually inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The case was remanded for trial on those issues. b. City of Mounds View v. Johaison, 377 N.W. 2d 476 (Minn. App. 1985). Facts In 1981, Johnson purchased property along Highway 10 in Mounds View, with knowledge that the property was zoned single-family residential. He intended to operate a radiator repair shop out of the garage and applied for a rezoning and conditional use permit for that purpose. The City denied the application and Johnson began operating the radiator repair business anyway. The City sued to enjoin Johnson and Johnson counterclaimed for a rezoning and conditional use permit. The trial court ruled in Johnson's favor, finding that -16- . c the comprehensive plan showing the property as residential lacked viability, i.e., that commercial use was a higher and better use for the property. Holding The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that inconsistency with e comprehensive plan is a legally sufficient basis to deny a rezoning and a conditional use permit and that the trial court exceeded its euthority by substituting its judgment for the City Council's when it determined that the comprehensive plan was not viable. 5. Landowner Uses Comprehensive Plan to Compel Rezoning. Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan, (Minn. 1984). Facts 348 N.W. 2d 66 Amcon planned a$30 to $40 million high-rise hotel and office project in Eagan on property zoned agricultural. The property was designated "roadside business" on the comprehensive plan. Amcon applied for rezoning (the application was somewhat unclear as to exactly what was applied for). The City granted a PD (planned development) overlay zoning classification, but refused to change the underlying zoning from agricultural to roadside business (RB). The issue underlying Eagan said ambiguous. Holding was whether PD zoning requires an zoning which permits the proposed use. it did not. The ordinances were The court held that a comprehensive plan is advisory and not binding on the City, but that refusal to zone in accordance with a comprehensive plan designation is evidence that the City is acting arbitrarily. � Here, where Eagan failed to advance any reasons for refusing to grant RB zoning as shown on the comprehensive plan, its denial of the rezoning was arbitrary. -17- 6. Landowner Unsuccessfully Attempts to UseA , Compreheneive Plan to Compel Rezoning. a. Freundshuh v. City of Hlaine, 385 N.W. 2d 6 (Minn. App. 1986). Facts Freundshuh owned 22 acres of land in Hlaine zoned "Farm Residence" (FR-1). The property was designated as a single-family residential district on Blaine's comprehensive plan. The existing FR-1 zoning permitted eingle-family dwellings with a density not to exceed one dwelling/four acres. Freundshuh applied for rezoning to R-1 to permit subdivision on the tract into 63 single-family lots. The City denied the application and Freundshuh brought an action alleging, under Amcon, that the City's action was arbitrary because it was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Holding The court stressed that comprehensive plans were merely advisory. It found that Blaine's zoning ordinance allows single-family residences in four zoning districts, including FR-1. Thus, the zoning was consistent with the plan. The court distinguished Amcon on the basis that the Eagan comprehensive plan called for roadside business, and only one zoning designation could fulfill the plan. Moreover, in Amcon the City stated no reasons for the denial. Here, Hlaine listed extensive findings tying development to the availability of sewer and watera Under these facts, the City's refusal� to rezone was not arbitrary. b. St. Croix Development, Inc. v. City of Apple Valley, (C3-89-649) (Minn. App. October 10, 1989). Facts Developers owned two undeveloped parcels in Apple Valley, zoned R-lA (larqe lot, single-family). The comprehensive plan designated the property as D2 (1 to 6 residential units/acre) and D3 (5 to 12 residential units/acre). The comprehensive plan assumes the existence of planned roads, including showing County Road 38 ae � through street continuing past the property. The County, -18- , � however, has not set aside funding for the road and there are no plans to construct the road before 1991. The developers petitioned to rezone the property to M-4, which allowed 12 units/acre. The City denied the rezoning, finding that the comprehensive plan assumes that all necessary infrastructure is complete and the development is premature. The district court held that the City did not have a rational basis to deny the rezoning and the City appealed. The issue is whether the City had a rational basis to deny the rezoning. Holding The court found that the City's concerns over 1 traffic impacts were supported by the evidence. The fact that County Road 38 was not complete provides a rational basis to deny the rezoning under these facts. Implicit in the holding is the notion that comprehensive plans can provide for staged development tied to infrastructure development. Developers cannot compel premature rezoning where the comprehensive plan assumes the existence of infrastructure which has not yet been built. c. See also Larson v. County of Washington, 387 N.W. 2d 902 (Minn. App. 1986) (unsuccessful attempt by landowner to compel rezoning). 7. Consistency Is Not Required Hetween Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Ordinances Outside the Metropolitan Area. State, Hv Rochester Association of Neiqhborhoods v. ci� 1978). Facts . ., . A landowner owned a 1.18 acre parcel three blocks from the Rochester central business district. The parcel was zoned low density residential. The owner applied for rezoning to R4 to allow a 60 unit condominium project. Neighbors were opposed. The Planning Department recommended that the rezoning request be tabled while e etudy is done to determine whether the comprehensive plan should -19- be amended. The Planning Commission recommended '' that the rezoning be denied as inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The City Council rezoned the property to R4 without recording any writte�n reasons or findings, although some Council Members orally indicted they thought the project was necessary to serve housing needs. Four months after the rezoning, the City amended its comprehensive plan to conform to the rezoning. The issue was whether a rezoning which is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, and for which there are no recorded findings or reasons, should be invalidated as arbitrary and capricious. Holding The court said that law that a zoning comprehensive plan. true if these facts area.) it found no requirement in the ordinance must conform to the (Note: This would not be had arisen in the metropolitan Consistency.with a comprehensive plan is a factor to show that a decision is reasonable. But inconsistency with a comprehensive plan does not mean that a zoning ordinance is conclusively invalid. The court said that in looking at the record, there was some evidence of a need for more high-density housing in Rochester. Thus, the rezoning was not arbitrary and capricious. 8. Comprehensive Planning Decisions Mandated By The MLPA Will Be Upheld if Supported By A Rational Hasis. Hay v. City of Andover, 436 N.W. 2d 800 (Minn. App. 1989). Facts In 1970, Hay applied for a special use permit to develop a mobile home park. In 1973, the Minnesota Supreme court ordered that the pern►it be issued. The City of Andover issued the permit, subject to the condition that construction begin within two years of the availability of municipal sanitary sewer service. Thereafter, Andover adopted a comprehensive plan �s required by the MLPA and placed Hay's propesty in a sewer interceptor district in which service would not be -20- available until 1990 to 2000. In 1981, Hay requested that hie property be included in a different sewer district for which sewer service could be made eveilable immediately. The City denied the request based on en engineer's report detailing the costs of the project. In 1986, Hay sued the City alleging a taking of his special use permit and a 8enial of due process and equal protection and seeking damages. There were several issue was whether the denial connection was arbitrary Holding s in the case. One issue of a municipal sewer and capricious. On this issue, the court noted that the action which has been challenged is a comprehensive plan decision mandated by the MLPA. The court ruled that such decisions will be upheld if there is a rational basis for them and held that the engineer's report in 1981 detailing the cost and access problems of providing service was a rational basis. Here, there was no violation of due process or equal protection. There was no taking because Hay's interests in the special use permit did not rise to the level of "private property" protected by the constitution. The court nevertheless ordered the provision of sewer service to Hay based on evidence that there was no longer any engineering basis to deny the hookup. 9. Permitted Uses Are Conclusively Deemed to Be Consistent With the Comprehensive Plan. a. Chanhassen Estates Residents Association v. City of Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d 335 (Minn. 1984). (A McDonald's Restaurant was held to be a permitted use under the zoning ordinance and hence consistent with the comprehensive plan.) b. Chase v. City of Minneapolis, 401 N.W.2d 408 (Minn. App. 1987) (Inconsistency with comprehensive plan �is not an adequate basis to deny a building permit for a permitted use.) -21- 10. Provisions of Comprehensive P1an Must Not Be Unreasonably Vague and Subjective If Incompatibility ��Therewith Is To Be Used To Support City's Zoning Decisions. C. R. Investments, Inc. v. Village of Shoreview, 304 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 1981). Facts Developer brought mandamus action to require City to issue a special use permit to allow construction of quad homes. The city planner recommended approval of the permit. in denying the perntit, the City etated several findings, including that the proposed use is not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan. The issue is whether the City's denial is based on a legally sufficient reason supported by facts in the record? Holding Incompatibility with a comprehensive plan is a legally sufficient basis to deny a special use permit. Hut in this case, the provisions relied on in the plan were unreasonably vague and subjective and the City therefore acted arbitrarily in denying the permit on that basis. 11. In Some Cases, Your Out of Almost Anything. ve Plan Can Get You Kehr v. City of Roseville, 426 N.W.2d 233 (Minn. App. 1988). Facts Kehr owned a 1 1/2 acre parcel �n Roseville zoned R-1, single-family residential. He applied for a rezoning to R-2 to allow a 13-unit townhouse development on the property. To construct the project, Kehr also needed a conditional use permit for a planned unit development and a density variance. The Planning Commission recommended approval. The City Council denied the application without any discussion �nd without stating any reasons. After a trial, the district court ordered Roseville to grant all necessary approvals. -22- ,� Holding The Court of Appeals reversed, upholding the City Council's denial. The court noted that the total lack of contea►poraneous findings was prima facie arbitrary, but that the presumption can be overcome by evidence advanced at trial evidencing a rational basis. The court then noted that the City of Roseville had a comprehensive land use plan. The court concluded that granting Kehr's application would violate the comprehensive plan, without indicating in any way what the comprehensive plan Baid or how it was violated. "Here rational basis exists in refusing to violate a comprehensive land use plan." Id. at 236. VII. Moratoriums A. Interim Ordinance - Minn. Stat. §462.355, Subd. 4 (1988). -The statute provides in part as follows:29 If a municipality is conducting studies or has authorized a study to be conducted or has held or has scheduled a hearing for the purpose of considering adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan or official controls..., the governing body...may adopt an interim ordinance...for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. -A moratorium can "regulate, restrict or prohibit any use, development or subdivision". -The duration of year, but it months (2 1/2 counties, the years. Minn. a moratorium shall can be extended for year total). Iri not exceed one an additional 18 the case of total moratorium cannot exceed two Stat. $394.34. 29 For counties, See Minn. Stat. $394.34. -23- B. Cases. 1. Almquist v. Town of Marshan, 245 N.W.2d 819 (Minn. 1976). Facts Almquist sought to develop 26 2 1/2 acre lots for the construction of dwellings. He sought for 6 months to obtain approval of a proposed plan and then applied for a conditional use permit which w�s required to develop the property. The town a�dopted a 6 month moratorium and rezoned the property to "Agricultural Prese�vation." Issue Is the moratorium valid? Holding "Where a municipality enacts in good faith and without discrimination, a moratorium on development which is of limited duration, is valid if upon enactment, the study proceeds promptly and appropriate zoning ordinances are expeditiously adopted when it is completed." Id. at 826. Using this standard, the court upheld the moratorium. 2. Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 378 N.W.2d 826 (Minn. App. 1985) (Moratorium on building permits to preserve status quo while plans for a proposed park were clarified was upheld.) 3. TPW, Inc. v. City of New Hope, 388 N.W.2d 390 (Minn. App. 1986)(Moratorium upheld where landowner applied for a conditional use permit for a fast food restaurant and City imposed moratorium because the present comprehensive plan was "lacking in safeguards to protect the planning process" relating to the property, and time was needed for a study). VIII. ReCent Developments A. Shorelands -New rules promulgated by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, effective July 3, 1989. Minn. Rules 36120.2500 et seq. o Rivers are added to the system. -24- 6 t � c o Regulations governing steep elopes and bluff lines are edded. o Counties, and those cities designated by the Commiseioner, muet edopt or amend land use controls to comply with new rules within two years of notification by the Commissioner. o Other local governments may continue current zoning until revisions are proposed to districts bordering on lakes or rivers, at which time the zoning must be brought into conformance with the new rules. o Some grant money is available. The DNR has established funding priorities. H. Floodplains� -In 1986, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) amended its rules governing floodplains. -The DNR is in the process of contacting all communities which participate in the National Flood Insurance Program to assist in revising local floc3plain ordinances to remain in compliance with federal requirements. -Changes include such things as a new definition of "basement" and new regulations pertaining to manufactured homes. In addition, the DNR is suggesting several housekeeping-type amendments to ordinances. -The DNR has a new Model Floodplain Management Ordinance available. C. Proposed Revisions to the Zoning Enabling Legislation - ACSLR Bill -The Gflvernor's Advisory Committee on State and Local Relations (ACSLR) has been working on revising the zoning and planning enabling legislation for some time. At the end of the 1988 legislative session, a bill was introduced (S.F. 1510; H.F. 1654). The AI�I has had numerous meetings and has prepared extensive comments on the bill. -It is likely that a"delete everything" amendment will be introduced and the issue of amending the zoning and planning legislation will be considered by the Legislature during the 1990 legislative session. -25- D. New Statutes on Interim Uses -Minn. Stat. 8�62.3597 was enacted in 1989 and euthorizes cities and towns to issue "Interim Use Permits" for temporary uses which will terminate on a certain date or when a certain event happens. i�C-(�GC � �,( �G�c `/ �iGLZ � _ � v► l (� ,�� .-?iL G�f �� /� -26- / ' i , , b 1 2 3 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 il 12 13 1� 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2] 2� 2S 26 27 ze 29 �0 �1 �2 �3 �� 7S �6 03/30/89 � [REVISOR J EMW/JV 89-2792 held at the time of the sequest or during the prioz year by the person vho reaueats the change. The aftira�ative vote by a sajority of the me�obera oi the 9overninc� bodY ia required. Tbe governing body maY. by a tvo-thirds vote of its eembers, after hearin9, adopt a new zonin9 osdinance without vritten consent vhen the city planning commission has made a ausv�y oi the whole area of the city or of an area of 10 acres or more, within which the new ordinance or the amendments or alterations of the existing ordinance would take etiect. The commission ahall consider whether the number of descriptions of real estate aitected by the changes and alteratioaa makes obtaining written conaent impracticai. The commiasion ahall seport tindings and reco�mnendations in writing that include vhether in it� opinion the proposals of the governing body are reasonably related to the ovesali needs of the community, to •zistina land use, or to a plan !or future land uae. The commiasion mav report only atter it has conducted a public Aeirin� on the proposed ordin,nce, cAanaes, or alterations. Published notice of the hearing shell be given in a daily nevsoaper oi �ener,l circulation at least once each week for three successive weeks bafore the hearing. The notice shall state the time, place, and pus�se of the hearing. Subd. 9. (COMPRESE�iSIVE PLI1N COYr9S2S°P�iCY. ) Zon;n9 � shail not contlict vith and shall implement the puroose, . obiectives, and t�olicies oi the comprehensive plan. For �rposes of this subdivision, "not eonflict" means that ofticial eontrols aust not allov land use and development that vill pr�vent th� olanned land use as desiaaat�d within speciiic areas in th� coas�rebensive nlan. The aovernina body's decision as to tAe ti�ina oi tbe iapleaentation o! the cospsehensive pian sheli eot ee th� basis ior findina a conflict b�tve�n the plan and the sonina ordin�ece os subdivision � � Supd• !_ IAREA O� COIiTROLS.) Oificial controls o! counties shall ee eindinq vithia the boundaries o! a city when seauested et tRe eity nnder seetion 13 1S unroF F�a� ��: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING DNISIO�N MEMOR,ANDI,iNI December 1, 1989 Planning Commission Members Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Steve Barq, Code Enforcement Officer Systematic Code Enforcement In September 1988, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council investigate a�program of Systematic Code Enforcement. A proposed outline of Systematic Code Enforcement was presented to the City Council at its conference meeting on November 14, 1989. The City Council voiced some concern as to whether there exists a need for this proqram, but agreed to further consider Systematic Code Enforcement provided no additional staff was required and certain issues were clarified. Staff was instructed to prepare an implementation memo addressing the following items: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. What types of violations have been a problem in the past? What codes are to be targeted in this policy? Are chanqes necessary to make these codes clear, efficient and fully enforceable? What is the planned inspection schedule? What are the other "nuts and bolts" of the policy? The City Council also directed that they be provided a list of violators and the types of violations on a regular basis. The City Council also directed that the proqram be well publicized, and possibly by special mailinqs. Finally, the City Council wanted to evaluate the proqram at established intervals such as at three and/or six months after program initiation. Staff is presently,preparinq this information in conjunction with a project in which all code enforcement related ordinances and applicable zoning code sections are being reviewed. It is currently anticipated that a proposal will be completed sometime in January 1990. cc: William Burns M-89-725 � a . � cmroF �� DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVEL4PMENT DEPARTMENT M EMO RAN D UM December 1, 1989 William Burns, City Manager Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator New Commission Member Orientation Handbook The Human Resources �Commission has directed the staff liaison, Steven Barg, to assist them in preparing an orientation handbook for the Human Resources Commission. After further discussion at the recent Commission meetinq on November 2, 1989, the Commission decided that such a device would be useful for all of the commissions. To follow is an explanation of the proposed staff recommendation to the Human Resources Commission regarding orienting new commission members to the City. This issue is very timely in that two new members will be appointed to the Planning Commission and new members will be appointed to the Energy and Environmental Quality Commission and the Appeals Commission. Currently there is no formal document or notebook which contains City-related information for new members to review prior to their service on a commission. The new member is provided a copy of the section of the City Code regarding the scope, purpose, and membership of the particular commission; however, no formal process is established to welcome the new member beyond the City Council appointment. Therefore, we are proposing the following: 1. Each new commission member would receive an orientation handbook which would contain two parts. The first part would contain reference materials and information regarding elected representatives, and the City orqanization. The second part would cor►tain items specifically relating to the particular commission (see attached proposed outline). 2. Once a commission member has been appointed by the City Council, a personal meeting with the new appointee and the chairperson of the commission would be arranqed at City Hall. The appointment would be arranged by the staff liaison for the particular commission. Typically, after City Council appointment, a letter from the City Manager is sent to the i , Commission Member Orientation Handbook � December 1, `1989 Page 2 appointee to welcome the person to the commission. This letter could be used as an invitation�to�the personal meeting. This may also be an opportunity for the Mayor or a councilmember to be in attendance. 3. Given that there will be a number of commission seats available, the City Council may want to consider having the Fridley Focus feature the various commissions and chairpersons to provide more information to the community about the commissions, their purpose, and commission openings. It was intended that these proposals would be presented to the Human Resources Commission at their December 7, 1989 meeting. If possible, we would like to gain City Council comments regarding these proposals prior to the commission meetings. BD/dn M-89-712 PLANNING DIV1SlON �� MEMORANDUM unroF F�� DATE: December 1, 1989 TO: Planning Commission Members " � FROM: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Handouts from the 1989 Annual Planning Institute Attached are several handouts from the Annual Planning Institute which Z attended on November 9� 1989. The Planning Institute is designed to acquaint elected officials, commissioners and staff persons with the planning process. Please review the attached handouts for discussion at the meeting. We especially would like your comments on the handout entitled "Fourteen Ways to Build a Better Commission". r'II�!/ dn M-89-727 M i < � 1 . FOUI�TEEN WAYS TO BU I LD A B E T T E R C O MM = S S= O N Deve 1 op arid adopt byls.ws s.nd rocedures arzd stick to tl-iem . P � 2. D e v e 1 o p a n d m a k e a v a 3 1 a b 1 e t o anyone wtio wants ttiem good and r€�1 iable inform�.tion , data , a�d maps . 3. F��e:pare arYd mainta.iri an a�equate gerieral plan , r�fer to i t, arYd make CZeC 1 S 1 OZ15 that are corzs i s tent wi tti i t s p o 1 i c i e� a n d a 1 s o i m p 1 e rn e n t t h e m. 4. Anrivally reexamine w�z�.t you are doirig as a cornmissiori, how we11 y o u a r e d o i n g i t, a n d ri o w t o d o it better. 5. O u t 1 i n e a y e a.r ' s w o r k o n a c t i v e p 1 a rz n i n g a n d s t i c k t o i t. Dor1 ' t corifuse deve 1 opment permit processirsg ( rc-�active plarinirig or plari revi ew ) wi tri real plaririirig . 6. A s k t o p a r t i c i p a t e i ri p r e- paring tlze plarirzirig agency' s b u d g e t. 7. M e e t p e r i o d i c a 1 1 y w i t�z y o u r c i t y c o u n c i 1 o r c o u n t y b o a r d to excharzge ideas and to a s ss e s s y o u r m u t u a 1 o b j e c t i v e s. � s 8.• Corzs ider a publ ic forum every " y e a r o r s o. A s k p e o p 1 e ( y o u r "c1 3 ents ") lzow ttiings are going arid wlza.t ttiey want dorie � 1 f �.riYtt].1Zlg � . 9. Te 1 1 your � taf f wY�.at you want , lzow you warit material presented t o y o u, e t c. D o n' t b e a p a s- sive commission triat waits for " ttie experts " to te11 you wlzat to do riext . 1 O. A t t e n d s o m e s lz o r t c o u r s e s o n new planning t�c}.zrziques or t lz e 1 a t e s t i n 1 a n d- u s e 1 a w, a n d e x p e c t y o u r s t a f f t o d o t�-ie same . 1 1. T o u r ab o u t a s a c o rn m i s s i o n t o see what otherss are doirzg . S o m e t i m e s y o u w i 1 1 b e u p 1 i f t e d to find out lzow inany light years alzead of your neiglzbors y o u r e a 1 1 y a r e a n d s o m e t i m e s y o u' 1 1 g e t s o m e i d e a s w o r t ri borrowi.ng . 1 2. A p p o i n t a c o m m i s s i o n r e p r e s e n- t a t i v e t o a p p e a r b e f o r e t h e elected body wlzer�. i.t i.s neces- sary to explairi or se11 ari actiori . Dorz' t expect staff t o d o y o u r j o b. 1 3. Lobby for good plannirzg . I i' you don' t, w�zo wi11? 1 4. Take t ime to ori erlt new cornmi s s i orzers on tlze j ob . ( Rerneinber �zow tough i.t was to get tlze lzang of i.t wlzerY you were a rzew member of your comrnission.) CHECKLIST OF QUL•STIONS TO BE RAISED ' , ` The fo�lowing are some questions which should be raised when proposals for io�i�g amendments, variances and special use permits are brou�ht before the �lanning commission or the governing body. � ZONING ADP9END'�1ENT � � Has there been a change in the development policies of the locality? Has there been a change in the conditions in the locality such as rapid population or development change? Was there a mistake made in the development of the original zoning ordinance which needs to be corrected? Is the zoning ordinance up-to-date? . Does the proposed amendment conform to the comprehensive development plan? Is the proposed use compatible with adjacent land uses? � Is the proposed amendment and land use likely to lead to a monopoly situation so as to amount to spot zoning? Is the timing proper for the proposed rezonin�? Are all t}ie utilities available to serve the proposed development? What is the effect of the proposed rezoning on such public utilities as sanitary sekers, water, roads, shcools? Will the proposed development place an undue financial burden on the local community? � ZONING VARIANCE Does the zoning ordinance lead to practical difficulties or undue hardship on the part of the property owner in the use of his property? Is the hardship unique to the property? Is the hardship caused by any actions on the part of the landowner? Is the landoti,�ner unable to acquire adjacent land so as to meet the dimen- sional standards of the ordinance? Will the proposal alter the essential character of the area? Is the proposal in conformance with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance? SFECIAL USE PERr1IT � Is the pro�osed use specially listed under special use in t]�e zoning ordinance? Does the proposed use meet or conform to the standards listed for special use permits in the ordinance? Have all the conditions been met for issuance of special use permit in a 'holding zone or staged growth zone such as sanitary sewers, roads and other public utilities? � Does the proposed use conform in all respects to the comprehensive develop- ment plan? BEh'AR� Ol• �i ii1:SE ZU'� I NG EXCUSES 'Thcre are any number of reasons khy a�articular landowncr may want a change in the zonin� ordinance, some of which are le�itimate and some are ot. The following is a list of some of the "typical" zoning excuse� which „ave been given in the past and.which local officials should be aware of: 19hat is proposed is better than what is there. The lot is only a weed patch now, this will clean it up, You can't keep a man from using his ground. This will bring in more revenue. The owner of the ground or building can't sell or lease it in the present zoning. The owner of the ground can get more money for the ground if it's rezoned �to commercial. � There are more vehicles on the str�et than when he built there or bought the property. If we don't rezone it we are going to drive business away from the area. I promiseci the people if I were elected I would keep taxes down, I am sure he would build something good. They are too big an outfit� k�e can't deny the rezonin�. Her husband is overseas fighting, for our freedom, how can we deny it? He is just an old man trying to ma�Ce a living, this won't really hurt anyone. Service stations provide quick urban renek•al. We have to bring commerce and industry in today� not worry about a plan of tomorrow. I promised the people if I were elected I would bring commerce and industry into our city and this will be a start. We appro�red the commercial rezonin,g for the other fel low � how can �ae deny this one? We don't have any right to say where commercial or industrial developments should go. I don't see where.a few trailers are going to hurt anyone, they are better than some things. He ir�vested a lot of money in this ground and these proposals thinking the rezonin� would be granted, how can we deny it? There xs commercial zoning on the other corner, how can we deny it on this corner? Like his attorney said, "It's probably unconstitutional," and we don't kn�w for sure, k'e don't want to have to go to court, after all it really doesn't look so bad. � Y � PLANNI NG I SSUES FINRNCIRL GURRANTEES F�R IMPROVE- MENTS IN NE1�J SUBD IV IS ION � ESCRO�+I DEFOS I T - DEPOS I T OF FUNDS �ITH FiNANCIRL INSTITUTION PERFORMANCE BOND - PURCHASE OF � BOND TO COVER IMPROYEMENTS DEFE�RED ASSE55MENTS - DEFERRED � PRYMENT OF RSSESSMENTS FJR PUBLIC �MPROVEMENTS OVER TIME ! LETTER OF CREDIT - A �RIT � � INDICATING THE FINF�NCIAL RBILITY � OF LRND04+tNER TO PAY IMPROVEMENTS PLANN I NG I SSUES �� R¢ :� - SUEDIVISION EXFCT?ONS PRRKLRNJ DEDICRTIDN REQUIREMENTS DEDICr�%T ION DF 5-i Gl. � PRRKS � PRYMENT CF CASH IN D`DICFiT ION � SHOULD NOT IiVCLUDc D�AINRGc RRERS � Gr LAND FOR LI�U CF LAND S�DRM WRTE� PLANN I NG I SSUES SUBDIVISION EXRCTIONS IMPACT FEES PART OF SYSTEM OF LAND DEVELOP- � MENT REGULAT IONS RS CONTRF�STED WITH REVENUE RRISING PROGRAMS � FACILITIES AND SERVICES COVERED: POTABLE WATER PUBLIC SCHOOLS SOLID WRSTE PUBLIC LIBRARIES S��,'ERS PUELIC BUILDINGS RORDS LA1,r ENFORCEMENT PARKS � �.'i . � i l i i PLAI�N I NG I SSUES LOCATIONAL FRCTORS OF DE�iELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMEIVT s Rt�r"F�SF18 S L I T Y T O SCHO( 1l_ S_ P LAf�N I NG I SSUE� LOCRTIONAL FRCTORS OF DEVELOPMENT CCMMERCIAL DEYELOPMENT � RCCESSRBILITY TO TRFINSPORTRTION � GODD YISIBILITY TO T�AVELING r^UBLIC � CLO�ENESS T O MRR�'.ET # F�VFILABILITY OF URSAN SERVICES PLANN I NG I SSUES LOCATIONAL FRCTORS OF DEVELOPMENT MRJOR DETEFLMINANTS � TRRNSPORTATIDN FFICILITIES RVRILRBILITY OF PUBLIC � FRCILIT IES ( SE�r'ER , WATE� , ETC ) NRTURAL FEF�TUi�ES - SOILS . � VEGETRT IVE .CCVER . LAhr.ES AND RIVERS. TOPOGRRPHY PLANN I NG I ��UE� , ,� PLANN I NG I SSUES MAJOR PLANNING PRINCIPLES RECOGN�ZE DIFFE�Ef�CES EETWEEN � PLANNINC STFFtTECY FiNQ PLANNINC TPCT?CS OR TOOLS PLANNINC �TFcF�TECY MFJCR RES— � PON��BLITY GF ELECTED OFFICIALS PLANNINC TACTICS OR TECHNIQUES — # MFiJOR RESPONSIBILITY OF STAFF PLANN I NG I SSUES NEED R COMPREHENSIVE PLRN AND ZONING ORDINRNCE CONFORM TO EACH OTHER II\I ALL RESPECTS? TN�Y SHOULD �E CDMr�'ATIBLc, BUT � NE`D NDT CONFORM IN EVERY CFiSE # COMPREHENSIVE PLRNS — LODKS TO THE FUTUP,E � ZONING ORDINANCE — DEALS �JITI-i THE PRESENT 0 � � �,� �, rLM�� 1 i�u t .�JU�.� MFJOR PLANNING PRINC�PLES P! Af'JN I NG I S A P�OCESS R� � HE� � A PRODUCT PLRNNING SHDULD REFLECT � YRLUES OF THE COMMUNITY CDMPREHENSIYE PLAN SHOU!D NDT BE � AN "INSID�R" DOCUMEN� EJ� SHOULJ R`RCH OUT TD THE COMMUNITY PLANN I NG I SSUES NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PLANNING PROGRAM NEED FOR CLERRLY STr�- �`D GDALS � YqLUES RND OBJECTIYES NEED FOR TECNNICRLLY OEFENSIBLE � PLRNS AND ORDINANCES � COMMITMENT TO PLANNING PRDCESS � PDSITIYE RND PRDRCTIV= RPPRDRGH TD PLRNNING � CLEr�-RLY ESTRBLISHED FROCESS WH� PLAN? # TO RTTEMPT TO DEFiL 4�'ITH A DEVELOPMEf�IT CRISIS � Fi� R ERSIS FOR GUIDING FUTURE DEVELOPMERIT IN THE COMMUNITY � TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT � TO PROTECT NRTURRL RESOURCES r;' . �% �. :<; ;� . � F�S R LEGRL BAS IS FO� ZON ING .L<>,,l� ORDINANCES AND SUBDIYISION REGS cLEMcNT S OF FI COMPREIVHENS I� E PLRN � SUR�' EY F�ND ANRLY ` I S � ANALYSIS OF MA.?OR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES � GOALS AND POLICY FORMRTION � COMPREHENSIVE PLRN DEVELOPMENT � PLRN IMPLEMENTATION 0 The Role of the Planninq Commissioner, the Elected Official 5taff and the Board of Adiustment/Appeals in the Plannina P . « One�of the questions that frequently is raised by new members of planning commissions 'rts the respective roles and functions of the planning commission, vis a vis others. The purpose of the afternoon panel of the Annual Planning Institute is to discuss these relationships. I. PLA��NI�JG COMMISSIONS A. Functions 1. Review subdivisions and development proposals. 2. Review proposed zoning changes - zoning arr�ndments, rezonings, conditional/special use pe rmits. 3. Hold �ublic hearings on development proposals, zoning amendments, rezonings, conditional/special use permit proposals. 4. Recorrnnend appropriate actions to City Council/Board of Appeals. 5. Assist Zoning Administrator in updating Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. B. Procedures C. Its Particular Contribution to the Planning Process (or Role) 1. Realities of life. 2. Constraints and how you've dealt with them. II. BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENT A. Functions 1. Review appeals of actions by the 2. Review proposed variances. 3. Hold public hearings. 4. Options depending on community: a) Make final decisions b) Make recommendations to City Zoning Administrator. Council/County Board B. Procedures C. Its Particular Contribution to the Planning Process (or Role) 1. Realities of life. 2. Constraints and how you've dealt with them. III. CITY COUNCIL/COUNTY BOARD A. Functions 1. Review recommendations by Planning Commission on zoning changes and development proposals. 2. Review recommendations by Board of Appeals on apneals and variances. 3. Take formal action on all proposed zoning changes and development proposals. 4. Enact changes to Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. B. Procedures C. Its Particular Contribution to the Planning Process (or Role) 1. Realities of life. 2. Constraints and how you've dealt with them. IV. STAFF: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR A. Functions 1. Process applications for zoning changes - zoning special use permits. a) Collect background data and analyze proposals b) Prepare reports for Planning Commission c) Make presentations to Planning Commission amendments, conditional/ B. C. � 2. Process applications for variances. a) Collect background data and analyze proposals b) Prepare reports for Board of Appeals c) Make presentations to Board of Appeals 3. Update zoning map. . a) Update zoning map periodically to reflect zoning 4. Process subdivision applications. a) Collect background data and analyze proposals b) Prepare reports for Planning Commission c) Make presentations to Planning Commission 5. Prepare findings by Planning Commission and Board of submitted to City Council/County Board. a) Prepare findings to support recortmendations b) Make presentations to City Council/County Board 6. Issue Building Permits. 7. Provide technical assistance to Planning Commission Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. 8. Other specialized functions. Procedures Its Particular Contribution to the Planning Process (or 1. Realities of life. 2. Constraints and how you've dealt with them. Guidelines for Effective Meetings � amendments (rezonings} Appeals to be to.update Comprehensive Role) . . CITY OF FRIDLEY JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION/ ENERGY COMMISSZON OCTOBER 17, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Saba, Energy Commission, called the October 17, 1989, Joint EQC/E?:ergy Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL• . Members Present: Bruce Bondow, Paul Dahlberg, Dean Saba, Bradley Sielaff Members Absent: Steve Stark, Richard Svanda, Wayne Wellan Others Present: Lisa Campbell, Planning Assistant Bill Burns, City Manager Barb Dacy, Community Development Steve Billings, City Councilmember Ed Fitzpatrick, City Councilmember Dennis Schneider, City Councilmember Gayle Prest, Dakota County Bruce Jones, Scott County APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1989, JOINT EQCfENERGY COMMISSZON MINUTES• MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the September 19, 1989, minutes of the Joint EQC/Energy Commission meeting as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SABA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. l. NEW BUSINESS: a. Ongoing Fact Finding Process: Gayle Prest, Dakota County, and Bruce Jones, Scott County Mr. Saba stated that through fact finding, the group is trying to determine what other cities and counties are doing in terms of recycling, refuse hauling, and the relationship of those efforts. People from other areas are joining us to tell us what they are doing. Ms. Campbell stated that Ms. Prest and Mr. Jones would be explaining the system of licensing haulers used in their respective counties. � JOINT EQCfENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17, 1989 PAGE' 2. Mr. Jones is the Solid Waste Management Assistant for Scott County. The department has two full time staff. Scott County has an ordinance situation. The County has three cities, Shakopee, Jordan, and New Prague, which has contracted refuse hauling services. The rest is an open hauling system. Each resident contracts with the hauler they wish who services his/her area. Mr. Jones stated the County looked at several alternatives. One was to tell cities to meet their goal and provide an incentive knowing that a smaller portion of County is urban, the majority rural. We looked at the possibility of contracting the whole county or breaking it down into recycling districts and each area could go on a"recycling service". In discussing this with haulers, it was found that the haulers were not happy with that idea because it appeared that the companies who might get the recycling contract would also be involved in refuse collection. We came to the conclusion that the hauler would provide an additional service to the customer. Mr. Jones stated the County looked at it and talked about it for several months. It was decided to license haulers with part of the requirement being that the hauler provide recycling collection service to their customer for designated recyclables and provide recycling services to their industrial/commercial customers. The hauler must show an incentive to recycle and/or an incentive through a volume-based fee structure. Mr. Jones distributed copies of that portion of the ordinance section relating to licensing of haulers and recycling collectors and copies of the Scott County Recycling Implementation Strategy & Performance Based Funding system. In the ordinance are perks paid to the haulers when the County is provided with the tonnage collected and the original weight slip from the market. Most provide a list of those customers who are recycling. Also required is a report at year end listing by type of material all the recyclables collected and the total amount of waste collected, by tonnage or cubic yard. The County knows exactly how much residential waste is being collected. Mr. Jones stated the program has parts that need to be modified. Haulers are happy with it. Haulers have stated that this has reduced their tipping fees, etc. Participation from January 1 through July 1, 1989, from Scott County showed a collection of 1426 tons of recyclables. During the entire year of 1988, 323 tons JOINT EQC/ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17, 1989 PAGE 3 of recyclables were collected. Most of the haulers are reporting a 33� to 70$ increase in recyclables. Mr. Schneider asked how the small hauler handled recycling collection. Mr. Jones stated that the haulers, whether they have five customers or 500 customers, must do two things. They can provide the service on their own or they can contract this service out. Some of the haulers who did not want to expand did contract with a recycling service out of Chaska. The contracted haulers must also be licensed. We had three who contract with the same recyclinq service. The programs are left up to the haulers as to whether to provide bins or have customers use paper bags . The cities under contract are providing bins in the contract areas. The County is assisting the Cities with funding. Most of the haulers who have bins have elected to buy and have the customer pay for them. Several haulers have a deposit for the bins. One thing we added in July was a modified appliance program where the hauler arranges for collection for his customers. We do pay a perk for appliances and help subsidize the program. A resident will pay only $5.00 to have a major appliance picked up and taken to a recycler. The County pays $15.00. Mr. Jones stated perk payments are $16.00 per ton which includes newspaper, aluminum, glass, plastic, and tin cans for residential. It also includes office paper and cardboard for commercial. About the only appliance not included in the appliance program is water softeners because there are no companies to take them. Water softeners have few parts other than the brine tank. Most companies who provide the tank will take it and refurbish it. Ms. Campbell stated Fridley had an clean-up day several years ago, but it has not been done again. Ms. Prest stated that appliances will be banned from landfills as of June 30, 1990. Ms. Dacy asked what facilities accept appliances. Mr. Jones stated that Major Appliance has a license as a hazardous waste generator. Ms. Prest stated appliances are accepted by Lakeville/ Bloomington Appliance Center as well as scrap dealers. Major Appliance is the only company that takes the freon out. The law says that cannot go to a landfill. JOINT EQC/ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17, 1989 PAGE' 8, Mr. Jones stated three small hauler have pick-ups and pull a trailer. Another has 50-gallon drums on the trailer which he uses to collect the recyclables. One haulers stores the recyclables until he gets enough and then takes to the markets. Very few haulers go every day, but some do. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked the population of the area. Mr. Jones stated the population is estimated at 45.000. Mr. Saba asked if the County had commercial and/or industrial recycling perks. Mr. Jones stated office paper and corrugated cardboard get perks. We get information on others but do not pay perks. Mr. Burns asked how they handled multi-family dwellings and the collecting of plastics. Mr. Jones stated they are working on multi-family units. They pay perks but not required for collection. One hauler is thinking about collecting plastics. When the County feels there is sufficient market to easily process, then we will consider. The haulers get information we get. Mr. Sielaff asked if the ordinance for the City of Shakopee was the same as that for the County. Mr. Jones stated the City's ordinance is more extensive. The County's ordinance states that the City's contracts must comply with the terms of the ordinance. Mr. Saba asked if there were problems with the haulers. Mr. Jones stated that, of those who came to the meetings, less than 25$ did not like the program, another 25� had concerns and another 25� were already doing. Ms. Prest asked what the percentage of the population in Scott County lives in the three cities. Mr. Jones stated approximately 30%. Shakopee would make up about 11,000-12,000. When you look at the contract population, it would be larger. Jordan is about 3,000- 4,000. New Prague's contract covers the entire city, but only about half is in Scott County, or about 1800-2000 residents. � JQINT EQC/ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17, 1989 PAGE 9 Ms. Prest distributed copies of Update, a recycling overview, and three worksheets, Recycling, Yard Waste, and Reduce, Reuse. Ms. Prest stated that Dakota County is the third largest and fastest growing County in Minnesota. They now have over 20 haulers. Only the City of Hastings has organized collection and that is with Waste Management. Most of the population is in the northwest part of the County. The City of Farmington has municipal collection but everything else is open hauling. Ms. Prest stated that in 1989, Dakota County began the year at zero and started a program on April 1. The County offered an incentive to the cities of $20/ household if they would have a curbside program operating by April 1. Every city complied. $1.5 million was allocated to cities in 1989. If a city does not reach their goal, they do not get 100$ funding. The County pays administrative, capital and operating costs. The administrative costs probably would cover a half-time person. This is one cost the County cannot control in a City program. For capital costs, the County gives each city $10/household to buy bins. If they did not spend it, it could be put in operating costs. For operating costs, the cities will get up to $30/ton up to 9�. Some cities will meet the 9� in yard waste alone. Some cities met their goals in three months. Mr. Schneider asked if the cities were sponsoring recycling. Ms. Prest stated each city as a condition of licensing required their haulers to provide recycling pick up. They usually outlined it was to be weekly service on the same day as garbage service. Some cities have every other week, but they have lower rates. There are a few cities that did not get through the licensing procedure by April 1 so they have a contract with the haulers. All the residential haulers agreed to sign a contract. Mr. Schneider asked who bills the customers. Ms. Prest stated the County provides the cities with four payments. In turn, the haulers provide quarterly reports to the City and they must have market receipts, etc. If okay, they pay. Some cities pay $1/household to the hauler and others pay $20/ton, which is estimated to be 30 cents/household. The organized contracts that have gone out in the metro area for weekly service are usually $1.25 per household. Ours are paying $1.00. Haulers bill directly to the customer. The great majority of the JOINT EQC/ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17 1989 PAGE�10, costs are being funded from the County through the City. Mr. Schneider asked if the cities are adding additional funds. Ms. Prest stated generally no. The cities provide bins. Several have also had an extensive public education campaign. The County also put up posters and there was a big push in the newspapers. Part of the problem with Waldorf was that Dakota County went from 0 to 500 tons of paper in one month and, supposedly, Waldorf could not handle it. Mr. Schneider asked the average cost per household. Ms. Prest stated the costs to residents are between $10- $15/month. Rates will be higher. The landfill cost is $48/ton and that will be going up. On January l, 1990, there will be some fees that will be added at the landfills, including a 6� tax. In cities that pay $1/household, those fees will not go up as much as those that pay $20/ton. Mr. Burns asked who gets the $1/household. Ms. Prest stated the hauler. We did per household because the small hauler needed to know their income. Mr. Burns asked what would keep the hauler from passing the cost on to the customer. Ms. Prest stated generally there are six to seven haulers in a city. When the County looked at where haulers go, the haulers are straightening themselves out in that some are giving up accounts and not going outside certain areas. It is happening naturally. Dakota has 13 townships and one hauler serves 8 of those townships. The rural areas have fewer choices. Mr. Schneider asked if rates are up. Ms. Prest stated that rates are higher in low density areas, running about $15-$18/month. The commission should be aware that in the SCORE legislation cities will be required when licensing to force haulers to provide volume based fees. Mr. Bondow asked how SCORE defines volume based fee. Ms. Prest stated fees are volume based or weight based. Ms. Campbell stated that all haulers in Fridley have 'JOINT EQC/ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17, 1989 PAGE 11 volume based fees. Mr. Sielaff asked what the cost was to the household. Ms. Prest stated this would depend on the efficiency and dependability of the hauler. The County does not know. The County has a yard waste ban. Haulers are changing $.50-$1.50 per bag. There are 3 city sites, one transfer site, and a County site where they can dump without charge. Haulers are charged. Haulers are making up their allowances on their yard waste. Ms. Prest stated an innovative thing about Dakota County is the Recyclables Collection Center (RCC). The County is leasing the building. Haulers bring materials to the RCC. The haulers must bring in a mixed load. The RCC is getting dver 800 tons per month. The RCC is getting things from outside Dakota County. These can be dumped but are not paid for. Hauler are not required to bring materials to the RCC. They can take materials anywhere. However, transportation costs are expensive, and a hauler can dump fast at the RCC. Ms. Campbell asked if Dakota County anticipates cont�nuing paying. Ms. Prest stated the fees are adjusted quarterly. We are now subsidizing about $2.5 million. $100,000 in public education. She did not know costs for the compost site. Money comes from a grant from the Met Council, and a $2.62 tippinq fee surcharge at Pine Bend Landfill, which is about $8/ton. 50� of the waste comes there. We have worked out a formula with the other Counties so they get some of that money back too. Pine Bend is owned by BFZ. The County cannot afford to do this for the long term, but felt that an effort needed to be made. In SCORE, we estimate we will get $1.2 million over the next two years. Mr. Schneider asked what would happen if SCORE did not pass. Ms. Prest stated the County has been looking at long term funding options. We don't know what the cities will receive after 1991. There is a section in SCORE that says that counties are responsible for setting up recycling programs for cities. If county's pass on the responsibility to cities, they must provide additional funding. It is vague and there are people that are looking at it. One nice thing about Scott and Dakota Counties is that the cost can be passed on to the consumer. Markets are extremely important. She JOINT EQCIENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 17, 1989 PAGE�12 recommended talking to small haulers in Dakota and Scott County. Haulers are going to the RCC. Mr. Dahlberg asked if the County pays the total cost of the operation of the RCC? Ms. Prest stated the RCC pays haulers $15/ton for newsprint, but receives $10/ton. Glass is paid at $15/ton and hauler are also paid for cans. The County pays the operating costs of RCC, transportation costs, etc. Because of the volume, paper is going to Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa. We have many different markets. Mr. Burns asked why the County decided to get into it rather than having the haulers market. Ms. Prest stated the County felt the markets could be a problem. The County have a lot of haulers. Mr. Burns asked if they felt the haulers could not find markets themselves. Ms. Prest state Dakota has much more material per month than Scott County. Residential collections are about 100 tons/month. The RCC is widely used, and convenient hours have been set up. Mr. Jones stated Scott County had looked at haulers setting up a redemption center, but could not afford to do so. Scott County has one hauler who has a small redemption center, not on a commercial basis. The County just did not have funds and could not market. Mr. Schneider stated if Anoka County has plans for a redemption center. Ms. Campbell stated, that based on discussions earlier this year, the County is considering plans. Mr. Burns stated Anoka County was talking about buying land as a transfer station and recycling center. Ms. Prest stated their RCC was a real bear. One person is required full time to keep it going. BFI is interested in developing processing facilities for recyclables which would be available to all haulers. Waste Management is also interested. Anoka County landfill is owned by Waste Management. Haulers have dealt with these two companies. Regarding mandatory recycling, St. Paul is looking at mandatory recycling. Robbinsdale has mandatory recycling, but has not enforced. Anoka County is different. BFI and Waste 0 ' ` �JGINT EQC/ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17, 1989 PAGE 13 Management have a substantial stake. Peterson has a large operation. It is a different operation from Dakota County. The markets will be the hardest area. It is a lot easier to deal with one hauler so we go to areas where there is one hauler for pilot programs. Mr. Schneider stated that, from the consumer's standpoint, he can switch haulers if he is not satisfied. Ms. Jones stated that you can pick your own program. What Ms. Prest and he are doing can work. A lot depends � on how involved the city wants to be in it or how much the city wants to contract out and get out. Ms. Prest stated they do on a County-wide basis in Dakota and Scott Counties. Mr. Burns presented the example that, if Fridley were to do what Scott County is doing and have haulers find their own markets, what would the consequences be to the City. Mr. Prest stated the County is responsible for markets according to SCORE. What that means is something our lawyers are looking at. Mr. Bondow asked, if the County does not provide those services, how can the City move forward. Ms. Prest stated she would not implement if the haulers did not want it. If the cooperation is not there, she recommends looking at other options. Mr. Schneider asked 'if the commission had talked with the haulers. Ms. Campbell stated they had discussed requiring yard waste pick up. Mr. Saba asked if they had a contract with every hauler. Ms. Prest stated you could see if works for one year. Dakota County has 13 townships and 12 haulers signed contracts. Mr. Billings asked how many haulers in Dakota County who are also hauling in other Counties. Ms. Prest stated that most haulers also go into other Counties. Mr. Jones stated that in Scott County only about three residential haulers do not go outside the County. The JOINT EQC/ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17, 1989 PAGE'14 . 39th hauler was licensed today, but that includes commercial and industrial. Mr. Billings stated that, if he were in business as a hauler, he would like to see one set of rules everywhere he provided service. But, if it is by County, a hauler could have seven sets of rules for hauling in the metro area, rather than a hundred set of rules. He feels the County should be setting the rules. Ms. Prest stated the local input have more time to do some of these things that is not possible to do at the County level. This is needed to make a program work, especially when it comes to public information. Mr. Schneider felt that one reason so much education is needed is that we are all creating artificial markets and the incentives are not working. The consumer marginally sees volume based fees. Recycling does not mean that much to me. When going to the store, there is no price break for biodegradable goods. For the City or County, it does not make sense to push because cost goes up requiring higher taxes, higher rates, etc. The scheme of things is topsy-turvy as opposed to collecting the cost of disposal at the time of purchase. Those fees could help fund getting rid of it. Ms. Prest stated that, if you recycle, costs are not going to go up as much as if you don't, eventually. There are also studies done and 76� in the study are willing to pay more for environmentally safe products. She felt that most recycling coordinators in the metro area would not want container deposit. Ms. Saba asked about styrofoam packaging. Ms. Jones stated that is an area of concern. Something must be done on a State or Federal level. Mr. Saba felt education was important and to let people know what it costs environmentally for these products. Ms. Prest stated that environmentally sound packaging is one of the things that passed in the SCORE legislation, although it is not required until 1992. We will start seeing labels saying this is an environmentally sound product. Companies will need to apply for this, and this will be worth a lot of money for a manufacturer to get. Mr. Saba asked why it took so long to get this in Minnesota. • �JCINT EQC/ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17, 1989 PAGE 15 Mr. Dahlberg stated there was no incentive for manufactures to do so. Mr. Schneider suggested that the cost of disposing an environmentally unsound product be posted in stores. Mr. Saba felt it important that people know what it costs to dispose of materials. Or not generate waste such as through computer mail which saves paper. Recycle paper products. In Mexico, people recycle because they cannot afford not to. This is now an environmental necessity. With a heavy emphasis on educating people and by having recycling programs, hopefully you won't have the problems we have today. Ms. Prest stated recycling is part of the solution. People can make a difference and it does help. Mr. Dahlberg stated that Dakota County has made a commitment and taken a role that they are going to do something about. Ms . Prest stated that putting a tipping fee on at the landfill was an easy way to do it. Anoka County has done a lot of things. Mr. Dahlberg stated Dakota County has taken an active role with communities and assisted with funding of programs. Anoka County is taking an active role but increasing costs to the cities and residents. Ms. Prest stated that what Dakota County does costs the residents. Mr. Dahlberg felt Dakota County is still doing more than Anoka County. Anoka has higher rates than other counties in the metro area. Fees are $63 at the RDF and $45 at the landfill. Ms. Campbell stated that haulers must take materials to the RDF. When Dakota County's is on line, their rates will also be higher. Mr. Dahlberg asked if the RDF has resource recovery capabilities. When materials come from the truck, is there a system where it separates materials? Mr. Prest stated there is mechanical separation. Newspaper that has been in the trash is contaminated. Mixed glass cannot be marketed. Mr. Jones stated it cannot be dirty. This is also true JOINT EQCfENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 17, 1989 PAGE 16` , of cans. Ms. Prest stated the resident generates the garbage. The haulers have done too good of a job. Refuse was put on the curb and residents did not thing about it. We want people to think about it. This is a lifestyle change that is not going to go away. Mr. Schneider stated there has been a lifestyle change. Stores carry disposable everything. If people wanted to do more for the environment, they do not correct their � ways or they do not connect the two. Mr. Saba felt citizens do not connect the two. Advertising promoting disposables add to the problem. Mr. Jones stated that Fuji makes a disposable camera. When approached by some environmental people and asked why in this age of over-garbage and over-generation, Fuj i stated because consumers want it. Mr. Burns asked if the County had announced their plans to spend the SCORE funds. Ms. Campbell did not know their plans. Ms. Prest stated they would receive over $1 million in two years. Ms. Campbell stated this would be approximately $300,000- $400,000 the first year and the remainder the second year. . Mr. Burns asked if this was in place of or on top of funds they are now getting from other programs. Ms. Prest stated the Met Council gives such small grants that this is not an issue to worry about. Ms. Campbell stated other funds may well decline and this would replace it. Mr. Jones stated that funds from Met Council and County may end up being a wash. Mr. Burns asked if the County, after SCORE, would be in a position financially to take a more active role. Ms. Campbell stated they would have more money. The City will have more money from the County, but not all the maney it would take to do what they are doing in Dakota County. , JQINT EQC/ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17 1989 PAGE 17 Mr. Burns stated the County could impose a extra tipping fee at the RDF. Mr. Sielaff asked if there was a great deal of discretion as to how the County can spend these funds. Ms. Prest stated this was spelled out in the bill. Mr. Dahlberg asked for a copy of the bill which Ms. Campbell provided. Mr. Jones stated the bill requires more things be done, such as a quarterly household hazardous waste collection. Mr. Dahlberg asked if the MPCA would monitor? The City of Fridley applied for assistance and was denied. Ms. Prest stated Columbia Heights had a household hazardous waste collection last year. It was hard work and it was expensive. Mr. Dahlberg stated Fridley had received funds from community groups. Ms. Dacy stated that, when Super Cycle was purchased by Recomp, the City set up a 6-month contract. Super Cycle requested language that if a market is not there that the City share in the risk. Is what you are saying now is that we don't have to worry about that? Ms. Prest stated the language is vague. The County must insure markets for recycled materials. Mr. Dahlberg asked if lawyers were looking at it from the standpoint of how we get around it. Mr. Jones stated it might be set up to include buying from haulers. Ms. Prest stated that County must be sure materials are marketed. There are some undefined clauses. This is in Articles 18-25 of the tax bill. Ms. Dacy stated that earlier Ms. Prest had mentioned that cities were told that Dakota County was prepared to pay a per household rate until 1991 and now are looking at long term funding options. What was the reaction from the cities? What will happen in 1992? Ms. Prest stated the cities have not asked that question. e JOINT EQC/ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17 1989 PAGE �20' Ms. Campbell stated there may be a gap in information. She has had some meetings with the County. They are moving into a long range planning period while they are looking at a regular facility or looking at the need for one. Our role is to look at options and come back to them to look at the process. It was mentioned that at some point in the process we would want to talk to them before making a decision. Ms. Dacy recommended reviewing the SCORE legislation and see how County views and interprets. Mr. Sielaff stated there may be no immediate solution. Mr. Saba expressed concern that funds may not be made available to cities for some time. Ms. Dacy stated that, between January and June, the commission is asked to summarize goals and come to a recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Campbell stated she has Glynnis Jones scheduled. Mr. Dahlberg asked how valuable it would be to have representatives from Blaine and Columbia Heights to come. Ms. Dacy felt it important to have all options made available so that we are aware of the options. Mr. Saba stated he liked the educational information materials from Ms. Prest, such as the smart shopping. Ms. Campbell stated this is new information. We are now getting down to the nuts and bolt of the problem. Mr. Saba suggested an article in the newsletter which could state "what can you do to reduce waste in the landfill?', such as paper bags compared to plastic, bulk buying, smart shopping, etc. Mr. Dahlberg asked if there would be a meeting in two weeks. Ms. Campbell stated the last one was cancelled because she was ill. She thought the commission should try to meet on November 21 with no presentation. She suggested meeting sometime within two presentations as a commission to discuss what we have heard. Mr. Dahlberg asked Ms. Campbell to put together a summary of the presentations made thus far so the information is available to make comparisons of key issues and have 0 ♦ _�JOINT EQC/ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 17, 1989 PAGE 21 ready for the November 21 meeting. Mr. Sielaff recommended having someone from the Office of Waste Management attend a meeting to interpret the SCORE legislation. 2. OLD BUSINESS• a. Monitoring Well at Hayes School Ms. Campbell stated there was some soil contamination found at Hayes School and are required to report to the MPCA. b. Combining the Commissions Mr. Saba reported this was passed by the Planning Commission and sent to the City Council. Ms. Campbell stated they are not waiting to find out if a public hearing is needed. Ms. Dacy stated the public reading is optional, but two readings are required. November would be the soonest it would be approved. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Bondow, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SABA DECLARED THE JOINT EQC/ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:50 P.M. R spectfully submitted, Lav�n� er P ��:1_- Recording Secretary �,�. ',J � z � .. � , v CITY OF FRIDLBY HIIMAN REBOORCEB CO1+II�ISSION l�SE$TING, NOVEMBER 2, 1989 ....�_..�..�.._..�......�___�� ...............................�.......��..�....��..�.............��....�___.... CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Sherek called the November 2, 1989, Human Resources Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Sue Sherek, Paul Westby, Sue Jackson, LeRoy Oquist None Steve Barg, Planning Assistant Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 2 1989 HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MoTION by Mr. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Westby, to approve the November 2, 1989, Human Resources Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SHERER DECLARED TIiE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION by Ms. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the agenda as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SHERER DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 1. OLD BUSINESS• a. IIpdate on Orientation Manual Ms. Jackson stated she had written a letter to Fridley High School about the possibility of the Political Science group being involved in putting together an orientation manual. She stated she has received no response to that letter. Ms . Sherek stated she had left a message with a Scout leader and had received no call back. HIIMAN RESOIIRCES COMMISSION MEETING, NOV. 2, 1989 PAGEr2, , Ms. Sherek distributed copies of the "Guide to Fridley Government" that was recently published by the City and which includes a page on "Your Coaunissions". She stated they do not necessarily need a manual per se, but an introduction to each commission and how it fits into city government. Ms. Jackson stated the Guide is very nice, but it does not tell anything about each commission and does not spark anyone's interest in serving on a commission. Ms. Sherek stated maybe they need to ask each of the commissions to write a paragraph about what each commission does, and have those descriptions submitted to the Human Resources Commission in January for consideration at their February meeting. r Ms. Jackson stated she would be willing to take this information and do the writing during the summer 1990. Mr. Oquist asked if the Commission is considering a supplement to this Guide, or do they want a separate manual? He would like to have a separate orientation manual or document that would be separate from the Guide, something that can be handed out to the commission members and potential commission members without pictures, names, telephone numbers, etc. Ms. Sherek stated if they go that direction, she would like to have them include which department staff is responsible for serving each commission. Ms. Jackson stated she could see two parts to the manual: l. 2. Information to the general public More detailed information for the person who is actually interested in joining a commission Mr. Oquist stated he would like to see at least a general definition of what each commission does, so it gives a future commission member an idea of each commission's role. Ms. Sherek stated that if this is to be used as an orientation manual, another thing that should be included is a definition of how city government works. Ms. Jackson stated once they start getting the information from the various commissions, they will get a better feeling for what they should add and the type of document they want to have. �; ., •H�MAN RESOIIRCES COMMIBSION MEETING, NOV. 2. 1989 PAGE 3 Ms. Dacy stated another thing that should be included is a city map. Mr. Westby stated a good idea would be an organizational chart showing how city government and commissions all work together. This could help spark interest. Ms. Jackson stated after the manual is put together, maybe they can have a summary published in the City Newsletter and have a number for people to call who want more information. Ms. Sherek asked staff to write to the other Commissions asking them to write a paragraph describing each commission. 2. NEW BUSINESS• a. b. Consider Resiqnation of Bill Campbell Mr. Barg stated he has notified the City Manager to notify the City Council of Mr. Campbell's resignation and that the Human Resources Commission is in need of a new member as soon as possible. Review Benior Housinq Status/Discuss Human Resources Commission�s Role: Barbara Dacy, Planninq Coordinator Ms. Dacy stated that included in the agenda was a memo dated July 27, 1989, on the Senior Housing Study that was part of the information that the City Council considered at their July 31, 1989, meeting. There were a number of people at the meeting from the St. Williams parish, and the Council spent a long time discussing this issue. Her memo dated August 3, 1989, summarizes the questions the Council had which, to some degree, indicate the Council's concerns about the senior housing issue. Ms. Dacy stated the Council had a lot of questions about how much the Section 8 certificate and voucher programs can do to assist seniors. They are very reluctant to reconunend assisting housing projects with tools that would, in effect, go beyond the existing HRA policies. Currently, the HRA will give up to a certain percentage if it is a second mortgage or for soil corrections. Ms. Dacy referred to the chart attached to the July 28, 1989, memo entitled "Needs". Staff tried to show the Council a range of solutions to choose. They know from the study that there is a short term need for 72 units, and in 5 years the long term need is going to be 155 units. Staff identified at one end of the scale a very proactive approach that the City would go out and buy � . HUMAN RESOIIRCES COMMISSION MESTING. NOV. 2, 1989 PAGE �! � property, construct, and manaqe its own senior housing to the other end of doing nothing but sending study results to HUD and MHFA and hope they will change some policies. Ms. Dacy stated that after looking at this range, the Council wanted a more detailed list of the types of financial tools they can use to assist housing projects. Ms. Dacy stated it is her assumption that the Council wants a way that a project can be self-supporting, self- sustaining, and is very low risk to the City. One way of doing that is with housing bonds. She stated some of the Council members are very concerned about assisting housing projects in a tax increment district. Mr. Westby asked if there was any way the State could help. Ms. Dacy stated the MHFA evaluates communities and does its own demand projections. For Anoka County, the MHFA is estimating half of the units that the senior study estimated. Staff sent the senior study results to MHFA in hopes it might reconsider offering some type of financing package to Community Development Corporation, for example, for the senior housing project by St. Williams. Ms. Dacy stated the Council has asked staff to look at other ways to support seniors. Through MHFA, they are evaluating the rental rehabilitation program for multi- family units and existing apartment units. Staff is in the process of going through some census data to see what areas will meet the MHFA's particular tests. Council wants staff to look at other vacant sites. The Planning Commission wants staff to look at existing sites for potential options for senior housing. That is something they will do during the comprehensive plan process. Ms. Dacy stated staff is to bring back answers to the Council's questions as outlined in her August 3, 1989, memo in December. Ms. Dacy stated St. Williams has written a letter asking for a decision, so staff is attempting to do that. Their recommendations will be forwarded on to the HRA for their final consideration as far as the financial issues. Ms. Sherek stated she did not think they are being realistic in thinking the Federal government will reinvolve itself in senior housing in the near future. If the need is there, then the City has to seriously address it. � � Y•HUMAN RESOIIRCES COMMISSION MEETING, NOV. 2. 1989 PAGE 5 Ms . Sherek stated that in a conversation with a developer about recycling existing housing for senior housing, the developer stated that what a developer looks at for developing senior housing is so different than what is looked at for smaller scattered housing needs, he would think it would be seldom feasible to "recycle" these properties. One of the key things seniors look for when considering multi-dwelling housing is ground level access, and that type of housing stock just does not exist in Fridley. � Ms. Sherek stated a City Council that considers tax increment financing,for a movie theater and another mini mall to be a better expenditure of public funds than housing for senior housing for members of our community for one-half or more of their lives has a basic problem. She has a basic disagreement with that kind of philosophy. If the City can finance commercial developers whose intent is to make a profit and the City cannot finance housing for its own citizens, then they are looking the wrong way. Ms. Dacy stated the result of the senior study was that 18� of the seniors had an immediate demand. That is where the 72 units came from. They have a pending project that is really gong to fill the immediate demand. Yet, a majority of the seniors want to stay in their homes as long as possible. Part of the City's program should include funding such programs as Chore Services and have a balance that service those seniors who want to stay in their homes. Ms. Sherek stated that as people age, everything is somewhat of a temporary solution. Chore Services is a nice service, but it is a temporary solution--really more of a bandaid approach than providing some kind of transitional housing. Even transitional housing is a temporary solution. Identifying just 72 seniors in Fridley as having an immediate need for housing doesn't mean there are not a lot more people out there with the same immediate need. Housing at $1,500/month is not moderately priced. She is talking about market rental rates of $500-700/month. Mr. Westby stated he would like to see a housing project that is not a slum--a place with some amenities that some elderly people never dreamed they could have and would give them something to do. Tax-free municipal bonds would be great for a project like this. Mr. Oquist stated he, too, was concerned about the rationale for prioritizing tax increment monies. He is HUMAN RESOIIRCES COMKISSION MEETING, NOV. 2. 1989_ PAGE�6� .—. on the Finance Board at St. Williams. Part of the St. Williams project is they would be subsidizing some of the rent for 5 units, dedicating some of the money from the sale of the land. He stated there is a definite need for senior housing. One thing they have to understand is they cannot restrict the project to Fridley residents nor can they restrict it to St. Williams' members. It has to be open to the public. So, there is a project that is going to be developed, but the developer needs some help. He agreed with Ms. Sherek that the City can help finance another strip center, but cannot help finance senior housing that is really needed. Ms. Jackson stated she personally plans to call members of the City Council and express to them that they have to look at everyone's needs, the human needs, not just commercial needs. It would be good to stress this, not only through these minutes, but on a one-to-one basis with Council members. Ms. Sherek stated that it is wrong for the City to stay out of this area just because the Federal government has dropped out. Just because the Federal government drops out of certain human needs does not mean those needs go away. Mr. Oquist stated part of the rationale for the Federal government dropping out is to get it down to the City, state, and county levels where the needs really are. Quite frankly, it is better to do it at the city level than to allow the Federal government to dictate how the projects should be done. Ms. Sherek stated she is not interested in seeing the City go into the housing business per se, which was Solution A, the proactive approach, under "Needs" attached to Ms. Dacy's Senior Housing Report dated July 26, 1989. Mr. Oquist stated Solution B was more realistic. Ms. Sherek agreed, with an emphasis, if appropriate, of creating or extending a tax increment district if funding is not sufficient. MOTION by Ms. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Oquist, that because the human needs of the citizens of Fridley should be a priority, the Human Resources Commission urges the City Council to implement the following: � �- ,H�MAN RESOIIRCES COMMISSION l�ETING, NOV. 2. 1989 PAGE 7 l. If a project is located in a tax increment district, consider low to moderate financial involvement up to 25� of the project value if: a. rent levels are affordable by low to moderate income seniors ($400 - $700). b. location matches preferences in study. c. senior only. d. meets "but for" test. e. approved development plans by Planning Commission and City Council. 2. If project is not located in a tax increment district, then consider low risk, low involvement by: a. Housing Revenue Bond. b. Tax Increment Bond (� of units required to be low/moderate). IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SHERER DECLARED THE MOTZON CARRIED QNANIMOUSLY. c. Presentation on Comprehensive Plan IIpdate/Discuss Iiuman Resources Commission�s Role: Barbara Dacy, Planninq Coordinator Ms. Dacy stated the old Comprehensive Plan was termed the "Plan for the 80's", and was a document prepared to satisfy the Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976. It has some basic information in it; it has some goals and policies, but it has not been a well used document in the 1980's. Ms. Dacy reviewed the traditional definitions of comprehensive planning: 1. Physical 2. Long range 3. Comprehensive 4. Statement of Policy 5. Guide to decision making Ms. Dacy stated the City's mission is to provide a usable, worthwhile document which not only states current circumstances, but also states a vision for future years and how to get there. Ms. Dacy stated the popers involved in the plan process are the City Council, Planning Commission, the Metropolitan Council, citizen businesses, special interest groups, all other commissions. HUMAN RESOIIRCES COMMISSION l�$TING, NOV. 2, 1989 PAGE 8� , , Ms. Dacy stated the structure will include the local review process, and the plan must be in conformance with the Metropolitan Council's regional plan called the "Metropolitan Development Investment Framework". There are a variety of resources to accomplish this process that can be obtained from the City, state, and regional agencies regarding various elements of the plan. Also, this is proposed to be an in-house project. The Planning Department will be preparing much of the analysis and text. In some cases, with the transportation and land use elements, they might have to go to an outside consultant to do some traffic analyses, etc. The Metropolitan Council is emphasizing the City's role in transportation policies because they are in "a high congested corridor" (I-694). Ms. Dacy reviewed the Planner's role and the Planning Commission's role. The Planning staff will be facilitating the process of assessing the community values, the goals and objectives, and choosing alternatives. Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission will be making the decisions that shape the statement of policies and goals for this plan for the next ten years. Ms. Dacy stated that at this time the Planning Commission is reviewing tentative rough outlines of each proposed chapter. Then, staff will prepare drafts of each chapter beginning in January through July. She would like the planning and review of the drafts to be accomplished in 1990 and begin the public hearing process in 1991. Ms. Dacy stated after the Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed the proposed draft, they will conduct public meetings with homeowners groups, Chamber of Commerce, neighborhoods, etc. They can do special cable TV programs, etc. Ms. Dacy stated that based on the public meetings, they will revise the plan as necessary and submit it to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval. Ms. Dacy stated the Human Resources Commission wanted to know what kind of role they can play in the Comprehensive Planning process. She stated that in the current plan, there is no discussion about community facilities and the types of issues that the Commission has talked about in the past. Maybe this Commission can look at creating a chapter called "Human Resources". Other proposed � . .� ` `�H��IAN RLSOIIRCES COl��tIBBION ME$TINO. NOV. 2. 1989 PAGE 9 chapters the Commission should be involved in are the "Housing" and "Transportation" chapters. Mr. Oquist stated he was involved when the initial Comprehensive Plan was done, and it was done for the reason Ms. Dacy stated--because it had to be done. He stated at that time each commission reviewed each chapter as it related to each particular commission. He thought each commission should again be reviewing the data from its standpoint. Ms. Jackson stated the Commission should look at every chapter. Ms. Sherek stated it is extremely important in each of these chapters to define and underline, if not a policy, then at least a policy direction for each issue--not necessarily a mission statement for a specific issue, but an underlying policy or policy direction. That policy statement needs to be something that is gleaned from meetings with the commissions and the community that the Council, the HRA, and the Planning Commission can live with, because those are the people who are then going to have to make use of that comprehensive plan in the day- to-day decisions. Then when something comes before the Council or the Planning Commission, there is an underlying guideline already there. Ms. Sherek stated that is why a policy or direction statement would be good in each area. Also, maybe there should be a policy statement as an opening to the comprehensive plan. Ms. Sherek stated that when they get to point where they want public input, it would be nice to have an article in the Focus telling people that Fridley is developing a new comprehensive plan for the 1990's. It would be good at that time to publish the schedule, if available, of public meetings so they can get as much input as possible. Maybe some of the meetings could be televised on cable TV. d. Discussion ot Focus for the Commission for 1990 Ms. Sherek stated that participation in the comprehensive planning process and preparation of a commission orientation manual might be the two main focuses the Commission should take in 1990. In addition, they also have CDBG and senior housing. The Commission members agreed. r Y \ � � �� HIIMAN RESOIIRCES COI�IIdI88ION IiBBTIN(3. NOV. 2- 1989 p��=�.� � � ' Mr. Barg stated another thing mentioned by the Commi�v�ion in past discussions was to maybe become more visiblE in � the community--publishing an article in the Focus, sponsoring a debate, etc., to make the community more I informed on human service issues. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Mr. Westby, seconded by Ms. Jackson, to adjourn the meeting. IIPAN A VOICE VOTE, ALL �OTING ?►YE, CHAIRPERBON SHERER DECLARED T�k NOVEMBER 2, 1989, HIIMAN RESOIIRCES COMMISSION MEETING ADJOIIRNED AT 9:00 P.M. Res ectfull� submitted, Ly e Saba Recarding Secretary ,