Loading...
PL 02/14/1990 - 30715n CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING� FEBRIIARY 14� 1990 MMMMNMNNNNIrNMMMMMNMwIrMIrIrIrlrMIrNNNN�I►�►M�YwMMNN�M� V M�Y�YMMMMMIYIrMMMMNM�Y�YIrMM CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Betzold called the February 14, 1990, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Don Betzold, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Alex Barna, Paul Dahlberg Members Absent: Dave Kondrick Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator APPROVAL OF JANUARY 31. 1990. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to approve the January 31, 1990, Planning Commission minutes. ^ Mr. Betzold stated that on page 5, last paragraph, 7th line, the word "everything" should be changed to "anything to him that". OPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N HETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY AND THE MINIITES APPROVED AS AMENDED. 1. 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROPOSAL: Ms. Dacy stated the proposed 1990 allocation is $104,291. Staff proposes that $70,000 be committed to the Riverview Heights project, and $33,291 be committed to Human Services. Anoka County requires $1,000 be allocated for its administrative services. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve the 1990 CDBG funding request. The distribution will allow the City to continue to acquire properties in the Riverview Heights Floodplain and provide year-to-year continuity in the level of funding to the Human Service activities. Mr. Saba asked if it is realistic to still call the Riverview Heights area a floodplain district. The reason he is questioning it is because of the controls at the Coon Rapids Dam and on the Mississippi River. Ms. Dacy stated that as long as it is designated as a floodplain on the flood insurance rate maps and based on the elevations, they �"'� � PLANNINa COMMISSION MEETING. FEB. 14, 1990 PAGE 2 � still must maintain it as a floodplain district. It is all in Zone A. Ms. Sherek stated that it might be a good idea to seek a new map from the Corp of Engineers for flood plain designation. She stated Mr. Saba is right in that there is more flood control at the Coon Rapids Dam. Mr. Barna stated that at some point after the house on parcel #6 is removed, he would like to see some type of hard surface parking area put in because the existing parking area is mud. There is a need for a parking area. Ms. Dacy stated Michele McPherson has been doing a park plan for this area for her college thesis. She stated she would pass this suggestion on to Ms. McPherson to see if she can incorporate that into her plan. The Riverview Heights Park plan will be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. Ms. Dacy stated that the house on parcel #6 is being acquired now with last year's grant money. The estimated value to acquire the house on parcel #5 is about $97,000 which does not include relocation expenses. Parcel #4 will be about the same amount of ^ money. Mr. Barna stated he would recommend that the house on parcel #4 not be acquired. It is a newer house. It is slightly above the elevation of parcels #5 and #6 and not as critical to the access to the park. Ms. Dacy stated that is something they can consider. Mr. Dahlberg stated it would depend on what the Parks and Recreation Commission wants to do with parcel #4. If they feel parcel #4 will not necessarily impact the park, then maybe they are willing to let that residence remain. If he owned that house, he would not mind being the only residence next to a park; and he did not think the o�aner of that parcel would be opposed to remaining, even though they are aware of the acquisition process. This should be discussed with the homeowner also. Mr. Saba agreed with Mr. Dahlberg that the Parks and Recreation Commission should be made aware of this suggestion to not acquire parcel #4 and see how it impacts their planning for the park. Maybe the Planning Commission can discuss this again at a future meeting. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to City ^ Council approval of the 1990 CDBG funding request in the amount of $104,291 ($70,000 - Riverview Heights project; $33,291 - Human Services; $1,000 - Anoka County administrative services). PLANNINa COMMISSION MEETING, FEB. 14, 1990 PAGE 3 �"'� IIPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPER80N HETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 2. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIOIJ OF THE FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FIPTDING THE MODIFICATION OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NO. 1 THROUGH 9 AND THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN RELATING THERETO; AND THE ESTABLISI�IENT OF PROPOSED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 10 AND THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTIOAT OF THE PROPOSED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN RELATING THERETO TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY: Ms. Dacy stated that at the last meeting, staff thought they would be creating tax increment districts for two parcels--Northco and Pro Engineering. Pro Engineering could not consummate a purchase agreement with Serve America. The state law for creating a tax increment district requires that the Planning Commission pass a resolution stating that the proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this parcel as commercial. The petitioner will soon be submitting an application to rezone this parcel to C-2, General Business District. ^ MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to approve Resolution No. - 1990, "Resolution of the Fridley Planning Commission Finding the Modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1 through PTo. 9 and the Approval and Adoption of the Modified Redevelopment Plan and Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan Relating Thereto; and the Establishment of Proposed Tax Increment Financing District No. 10 and the Approval and Adoption of the Proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan Relating Thereto to be Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City." IIPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON HETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 3. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET AND DRAFT SCOPING DECISION DOCiJMENT: Ms. Dacy stated the memo dated February 7, 1990, went to the City Council on February 12 as an information item. The City Council members were instructed to give staff a call prior to the deadline for submitting comments on the EAW by Wednesday, February 21. Mr. Dahlberg referred to page 2 of the memo, last item under Item A: "Acquisition of park and ride station sites on existing urban economic development and tax increment financing commitments". He n did not see that as a completed statement. � � �, PLANNINa COMMI98ION MEETING, FEB. 14, 1990 PAGE 4 Mr. Dahlberg stated he would like the statement amended as follows: "The EIS will address the adverse economic implications of acquisition of property for park and ride sites on existing urban economic development and tax increment financing commitments." Mr. Dahlberg stated that the statement made by staff for page 14, item 1.6 (page 2 of inemo), was very nicely stated. Nir. Dahlberg stated that under the "Summary", item 4(page 3 of memo), he would like it amended as follows: "Economic impact and relationship to the City's redevelopment plan, i.e., loss of land for development/redevelo�ment and/or taken from tax rolls". Mr. Dahlberg stated he would like a little more discussion on page 14 of the Draft Scoping Decision, second bullet, last sentence which says: "In addition, in the adopted comprehensive LRT system plans for Anoka and Hennepin County, guidelines were established that call for each planning jurisdictions of municipalities to revise its comprehensive plans to reflect the adopted LRT systems..." He stated they are being told that this is going to happen and that the municipalities now have to revise their comprehensive plans to make it fit. What are the implications from that statement on the process the City has been going through relative to revising the Comprehensive Plan? Ms. Dacy stated "Transportation issue since it i metro area. that when the Planning Commission reviews the Chapter", the City will need to address the LRT s an adopted regional policy to pursue LRT in the Mr. Dahlberg stated that potentially the Comprehensive Plan can have a significant impact on any proposal that is made. For example, the City of Fridley might want to stipulate that in order for LRT go through Fridley, the City would require certain landscaping be done, maybe additional right-of-way be included. Maybe the City will decide they want a buffer between the frontage road the tracks. The City should be able to make recommendations to the County Rail Authority that in order to go through the City of Fridley, the City would like to make some minimum requirements relative to landscape treatments, buffers, etc., things that the City believes should be a part of the proposed plan for the system. Mr. Saba stated he agreed. The City has to take a position now. If they don't take that position in the Comprehensive Plan, then they will not have a leg to stand on. He disagreed that the Regional Plan overrules the local Comprehensive Plan. It was his understanding that the local comprehensive plan is a governing document. If the regional plan can take precedent over the local plan, then where it does it stop? Ms. Dacy stated the law has been changed to give the Regional Transit Board more power and strength to oversee the LRT process. PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING, FEB. 14. 1990 PAGE 5 �� The City can try and set some minimum standards in the Compre- hensive Plan. Another issue that is going to be critical is that the LRT planning process may precede the comprehensive plan planning process. So, the LRT planning process could be the only time they have the opportunity for input. Mr. Dahlberg stated they are talking about the visual concept in saying that the City would like to make some recommendations for minimum requirements along the LRT line. Their statement about visual impacts is: "EIS will address visual impacts of Stage 1, and it will include an overview of future landscaping and street scaping concepts throughout the system." They will have what they deem to be their minimum requirements. However, it should be looked at, like any code or ordinance, that those are minimum requirements. The Uniform Building Code has minimum requirements; the State of Minnesota Building Code has maybe more stringent requirements; then the City or municipality also has the opportunity to impose more stringent code requirements if they deem them to be appropriate. In this case, he thought if the City sets minimum standards and it turns out the EIS' minimum standards exceed the City's, so be it. But, the City should make recommendations at least for some minimum standards, and he did not think that is addressed in the EIS. � Ms. Dacy asked if the Commission wanted this bullet deleted from the issues that the EIS will not address, because they want it addressed. Mr. Dahlberg stated, yes, it should be addressed in some shape or form. Maybe staff can discuss this to see how it should best be handled. Mr. Barna stated the EIS should be forced to look at the City's comprehensive plan, especially the development plans for the southeast corner of 73rd and University Avenue. Mr. Dahlberg stated he also felt strongly that the issue of pedestrian traffic across University Avenue and the rail line should be addressed in the EIS . How is a handicapped person or elderly person going to get across the rail line on University Avenue. They are being told that the timing of the lights at the intersection will not change. A person cannot get across University Avenue now and with an additional 35 ft. of right-of- way, a person will not be able to cross at this intersection. Mr. Betzold stated the fallacy also is that right now all there is now is a bus stop, and it isn't used that much. Now they are talking about an LRT line which will encourage more people to try to get across. ^ Mr. Dahlberg stated the EIS should not only address the impact, but it should also include in any proposed plans, pedestrian bridges i� � PLANNINa COMMI68ION MEETINa. FEB. 14, 1990 PAGE 6 over University Avenue, specifically at Mississippi Street, potentially at Osborne Road, and possibly at 57th Avenue. The City should not have to pay for these pedestrian bridges. The LRT is compounding the problem of pedestrian traffic across that major thoroughfare, and it is a major issue that should be included in any future plans and paid for by the LRT system. Ms. Sherek stated another point is that west of University Avenue at Osborne, it is all industrial. As soon as the LRT goes through, any vacant property will develop. 4. 1989 WORKPLAN EVALUATION AND ESTABLISH 1990 WORKPLAN: Ms. Dacy stated this was postponed until more Planning Commission members could be present. She would like the Commission members to do an evaluation of the major issues the Commission discussed in 1989 and discuss items for 1990.• Mr. Betzold stated he has spoken to the Mayor Nee, and it might be helpful to have a joint meeting with the City Council on the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Barna stated there should have been better communication between the City Council and Planning Commission regarding the Central Avenue Corridor. Mr. Saba agreed and stated there probably should have been a joint meeting at the very beginning of their discussions. Mr. Dahlberg stated the Comprehensive Plan is probably the major issues the Commission will be discussing in 1990, other than dealing with proposed development plans throughout the year. They should have a joint meeting with the City Council to just address the Comprehensive Plan in order for the Commission to get a good understanding and working knowledge of the Comprehensive Plan, what they perceive their goal to be for the Comprehensive Plan, and to understand the Council's concerns and desires relative to how the Planning Commission addresses the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Betzold reviewed the list of issues considered by the Planning Commission in 1989: 1. 2. Comprehensive Plan - They do need to meet with the City Council. Light Rail Transit Issues - They have done an excellent job with the little area they had to work with. They don't have the ability to make a big impact. n 3. Zoning Ordinance Amendments - They have had some discussions, but these discussions have been kind of haphazard. PLANNINa COMMI88ION ME�TING. FBB. 14. 1990 PAGE 7 r"1 4. Osborne Crossings - This is now a dead issue. They did have a good discussion with the petitioner; however, the Commission might have handled the discussions a little better. Mr. Saba stated it might have been better to have had Council input in the beginning. Ms . Sherek stated that maybe when there is no opportunity for joint meetings on various issues, the Commission should invite the Councilmembers to attend the meetings. Mr. Dahlberg stated he has attended Council meetings; and when there is a specific issue that deals with a specific issue that the Commissioner represents, the Council will acknowledge that publicly and encourage the public to speak to the Commissioner. He stated it is interesting how the Planning Commission takes the initiative to be involved in what the Council is doing, and maybe the Council will also take the initiative to be involved in what the Planning Commission is doing. Granted, the Council's commitments to meetings and times is much greater than the Commission's and it sometimes more ^ difficult for them to attend more meetings; but it is a two-way street and maybe they can achieve some balance. 4. Central Avenue Corridor Study - discussed earlier 5. 1989-90 CDBG Funds - The Human Resources Commission does the most work on this. 6. Combination of the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission Mr. Dahlberg stated he still had a concern about how the Osborne Crossings project was handled. He wondered if there is some evaluation the Planning Commission can go through to say, did they react adversely to a petitioner to the extent that they left a bad taste in the petitioner's mouth. Mr. Barna stated he did not think that was the case. Maybe they need a better way to look at a project and the seriousness of a developer. Mr. Dahlberg asked if there was something the Commission can learn from that particular project that will help them in reviewing future projects. � Ms. Sherek stated the lesson to be learned here is that whenever a development seems too much for the property, the Commission PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING, FEB. 14, 1990 PAGE 8 �^1 should be adamant about insisting that the developer scale the project down to a reasonable level. Ms. Sherek stated that the Planning Commission should think about the fact that if they set up a land use that is marginal to over- utilization of a piece of land, right in the beginning where they have the controls, it is only going to get worse. There is so little land to be developed in the City of Fridley. It is nice to get land developed and on the tax rolls, but they do not have to develop it by putting in projects that are going to be problems 20- 30 years from now. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Barna, to adjourn the meeting. IIpon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the February 14, 1990� Planninq Commission meetinq adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Res ctfully sub itted, Lyn Saba ^ Recording Secretary �