Loading...
PL 05/07/1975 - 30419CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETI�G MAY 7, 1975 . ,PAGE 1 �"1 CALL TO ORDER: 'Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 8:30 P.N�. RpLL CALL: Members Present: Harris, Lindblad, Drigans Members Absent: Meissn�r, Peterson Others Present: .James Langenfeld, Ex-officio Member Jerrold Boardman, Planning Assistant APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSIOIV MINUTES: APRIL 23, 1975 MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission approve their minutes of the Apri1 23, 1975 meeting as -��ritten. Upon a voice vote, a11 , voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: APRIL 29, 1975 l MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Board of Appea.Zs Subcommittee meeting of April 29, 1975. Upon a voice vote, a1.I voting aye, the motion carried unanimovsly. � 1. CONTINUED: REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT; L.S. #71-08, BY CLIFFORD J. THOE: To split off the Westerly 70 feet of the Southerly 123 feet, except for that part taken '� for high�vay purposes, of Lot 18, Block 2, Central View Manor, to split the residence from the service station property, the same being 7240 Central Avenue N.E. Mr. Clifford Thoe and Mr. Charles Jordon, lessee of the service station,.were present. � Mr.-Harris said that in the Planning Commission agenda they have an agreement between Lyndale Terminal Company (Holiday!;� and the City of Fridley, as a sample agreement, and he couldn't see that this agreement was pertaining to the type of situation on Mr. Thoe's property, so it wasn't any help in determining what could be done on this lot split request. Mr. Drigans said this was a very difficult problein. Mr. Boardman said there wsre several points to make on this request. He said that the parcel the petitioner wanted to split off would be too smallof a lot for commercial zoning, and it didn't meet the minimum requirements of a residential lot either because it was only 6300 square feet. This house was a legal non-conforming use and if it was destroyed over 50°� of its value, it could not be rebuilt. If this happened, this lot could not be used for either commerical or residential use. Mr. Boardman said that Mr. Jordon was willing to purchase the service station, but not the residence, so this was the reason for the lot split. If Mr. Jordon could purchase just the service station property he was willing to make certain improvements to this property. These improvements would not be made without the lot split or if the purchase was not completed. Mr. Boardman continued, that the Planning Commission would have to determine, if by approving this lot split, the improvements that would be made to the commercial use of the property would justify this approval, and would �� Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1975 � Page 2 � �ustify the problems we could �ave l�a�ter on; because of this lot split. � � Mr. Drigans said that if the Planning Commission were in�lined to approve this . lot split, they shouTd look at what kind of improvements they could expect on the service station property. Mr. Harris asked if the entire lot met the requirements for a commercial lot. Mr. Boardman said the �tire lot was around 20,000 square feet, which was the requirement for a commercial lot. He said the requirement was for 20,000 square �feet or 160 foot frontage at the setback line and was an either/or situation. If the 6300 square feet were split off this parcel, then nei�her parcel would meet this requirement. He sai� there would have.to be an easement for water service also, because the house gets it water from the service station. Mr. Drigans asked what was stopping the service station lessee from improving the property under the present circumstances? Mr. Boardman said he didn't want to put a lot of money ir��:o property he did not own. Mr. Drigans asked if this property couldn't be owned under joint tenant, so .� the lot split wouldn't be needed? Mr. Harris said they could, but then they would �both have title to the entire parcel. Mr. Drigans said he thought there should be some type of legal agreement that could be drawn up so the r�esidence wouldn't have . to be split from the service station. He said that this property wouldn't be worth much to anyone if it was split up into small segments. He said they already share water facilities, and there could be many problems in ihe future, if this lot split was granted. Mr. Harris said that if there was a contract drawn up, giving each �, party their rights and obligations, this would be a better way to handle this property. Mr. Boardman said he didn't know if a legal agreement between the two parties would satisfy the requirements for a mortgage commit m en t on the service station property. He said mortgage companies were pretty skeptical the way it was. �r. Lindblad said he thought we had a bad situation now, with one parcel, and if there were two parcels, there would be twice as many problems. He said the house couldn't be rebuilt now if it was over 50% destroyed, and if something would happen to the service station, that could be rebuilt because it was proper�y zone�, but you would be allowing construction on a sub-standard lot. � Mr. Boardman said that if this lot split was approved, and'the house was destroyed, the City would almost be obligated t� lEt a commercial enterprisP go on this lot with variances, because we created this situation with the approval of the lot split. He said the only thing that the Planning Commission could do, if this lot split was granted, was to stipulate that when the house was gone, no building could ever be built on this parcel, either a residence or a commercial enterprise. Then an adjacent owner might buy this parcel. Mr. Harris said that if an adjacent owner didn't buy the parcel, it would go tax forfeit, because it was a useless lot ° by itself. Mr. Drigans said he still felt that a legal document could be drawn up so this l�ot split would not be necessary, and yet it could meet the requirements for financing. � � Mr. Lindblad said he couldn't recommend approval of this lot split because � he thought they would just be creating a problem for the future. He said that if the residential property were split off from the service station, the station owner, :� Planning Commission Meetinq - May 7, 1975 - Pa e 3 whether it was this station owner, or one in the future; would never buy the residential property as long as they didn't�have to. He thought a legal agreement would be better for everyone concerned. Mr. Langenfeld�said this agreement could be as joint tenants in common and show it "as their interest may appear". Mr. Harris said it would be up to the financial institution as to what kind of legal agreement they would accept and still be willing to give financing, and they may be able to draw up some private covenants that the financial institution would accept. Mr. Thoe asked!if the ordinance read right now that if his house was destroyed over 50% he couldn't rebuild? Mr. Harris said that it did. Mr. Thoe said that if this happened, who would be the loser except himself? Mr. Harris said that suppose that consequence did�happen and Mr. Thoe.;was left with this lot, which would leave him the choice of selling to either ofle of the adjacent property owners. Then suppose to all intents and purposes, they offered h.im next to nothing for this property. If Mr. Thoe was left with a lot that he couldn't do anything with and he couldn't sell it, in seven years it would probably go tax forfeit. Then the City and the County are left v��ith a parcel of unbuildable, unusable land that�we created with the approval of the lot split. This was what the Planning Commission was trying to avoid. Mr. Thoe asked if the City wouldn't let that house be rebuilt to keep the taxes coming in? Mr. Harris said they would not, because this was•a legal non-conforming use. It was a zoning problem more than the size of the lot. He said that if there were no service station on this property, and the only thing on this parcel was the house, it still could not be rebuilt if it was destroyed more than 50% of its value. ,-� Mr. Boardman said the City could not grant�a variance on what was allowed in ' a zoning district. The City does not allow a house to be built in a C-2 zone, �-and the nroperty would have to be rezoned to R-1 to allow a house to be rebuilt on this property and the City was not in favor of spot rezoning either. Mr. Boardman said tnis house was built in 1949. When our zoning ordinance went into effect in January of 1956, this property was zoned C-2, and it has been zoned C-2 since that time. Mr. Thoe said there had been a lot of discussion of the City's point of view. He thought there should be consideration of the resident, especially as he was an old timer in Fridley. He said ivhat if he was ill or crippled or something and was ' depending upon this property. Mr. Lindblad said that was why he was better off to �leave this an one parcel, because if this lot was split, he wouldn't have any bargining power then, because the lqt would be useless. � Mr. Thoe said he thought the residence would sell in nothing flat if he put it up for sale. He thought resale would be no problem. Mr. Boardman said that if this was handled by a legal agreement., this agreement could cause a problem if this property was sold, because someone else might not want to take over such an agreement. Mr. Drigans said the reason we are in this position was because the station . operator wants to improve the service station, and before he does this, he wants to purchase the station. Mr. Drigans said h� didn't feel this was enough of a hardship to warra�t approving the lot split. ' Mr. Langenfeld said he felt that if this residence was up for sale and the • prospective buyer knew that this property was a legal non-conforming use with the �� restrictions on rebuilding the house, that would make the saleability almost nil. � Planning Commission Meeting - Ma i, 1975 Paqe 4 Mr. Boardman said that he,�as a planner, would have to recommend that this lot split be denied, and forego the beautification of .this property at this time, and hope that in five, six,.or eight years into the future, that someone would come along ^ who would be ready to purchase the entire parcel. He said we had to think of the preseqt and the future. If this lot split was granted now, what problems would we hav� in the future. �Mr. Harris said he thought they would be creating a monster. Mr. Boardman said he thought it would be in the best interests of Mr. Thoe to sell this as an entire parcel also. Mr. Thoe �aid that Mr. Jordon has worked up a good busines5 in the service station, and it would.all be for nothing if he couldn't purchase this property. He sai d he t hought this had been continued by the Planning Commission so they could come up with an alternate solution. Mr. Harris said that was true, and he was very sorry, but they hadn't been able to come with any alternative to make the lot split.feasible. The only alternative they could see would be to seek legal counsel a��d find a legal means to settle this problem. Mr. Drigans said the Planning Commission didn't feel this parcel was large enough to be chopped up into smaller parcels. Mr. Harris said he thought the Planning Commission should make their recommendation I to Council, and in the interim, the petitioner should seek legal advise and see how this could be handled without a lot split. He said that Council would have to make � the final determination, anyway. ' � �� Mr. Boardman said that if the petitioner could work this out legally, he could � withdraw his petition, and this wouldn't have to go to Council. The only action the Planning Commission could take would be to approve or deny the lot split request. They couldn't make a decision on any legal agreement. He told Mr. Thoe that this agreement could cover the splitting of assessments also. � Mr. Harris said that if a motion was made for denial of this request, the reasons f-or the denial should be given. Mr. Langenfeld said he thought the Planning Commission was in agreement that this was a unique situation and they might be creating a hardship for the petitioner in suggesting that he get legal counsel, but he thought that in doing this, the petitioner would be saving himself a lot of trouble in the long run. This lot spiit could be a big headache in the future. Mr. Harris said he agr_eed. Mr. Drigans said he �hought this request had been at this level for a long time, and it should be passed on to the City Council. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindb�ad, that the PZanning Commission reco�end to Council denial of the request for a Lot Sp1it, L.S. #71-08, by CZifford J. Thoe, to split off the Westerly 70 feet of the 5outher1y.123 feet, except for that part taken for highway purposes, of Lot 18, BZock Z, Central View Manor, to split the residence from the service station property, the same being 7240 Central Avenue N.E. for the following reasons: �., 1 The Zot split would create two substandard Iots, in whic� one would be completely unbuildable. � . .-�� .... i � Planning Commissi.on Meeting - May 7, 1975 Paqe 5 ° 2. A situation exists whereby both structures obtain water from the same service. . 3. One of the reasons for the zequest was because the service station Zessee wanted to purchase the service station portion of the property to improve the property, and there may be a.Zega1 means for settlirig this problem between the two parties without a lot spZit being granted. 4. This would not be prudent City planning. UPON a voice vote, aIZ voting aye, the motion carried unani�ously. 2. PUBLIC HEARIN�: REQUEST FOR A S�PECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-03, BY ORVILLE JACOBSON: To allow the construction of a second accessory building, a 24' x 24' garage on the South 100 feet of Lot 7, Block 2, Brookview Second Addition, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, 2, A, the same being 6606 Brookview Drive N.E. ' � Mr. & Mrs. Jacobson were present. MOTIDN by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-03, by Orville Jacobson. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris dec.Zared the hearing open at 9:34 P.M. Mr. Boardman said this was an extra large lot, 100' x 215' and the pres�nt 20 ft. x 14 ft. garage would be moved and used for a storage shed. This would be � behind the new 24 ft.x 24 ft. garage. He said that because of the large lot, the . staff saw no problem with this request. Mr. Drigans asked what was north of the Jacobson property. Mrs. Jacobson said it was an empty lot. ' Mr. Jacobson said he would move the existing garage.onto a slab and it would be anchored down. Mr. Drigans asked if there woul!d be access to the garage that was being moved .so that it could be used for the storage of automobiles. Mr. Jacobson said there wouldn't be enough room, because there would only be 13 feet between the house and the new garage and the fireplace and some shrubs took most of that room. Mrs. Jacobson said they planned to store a camp trailer in the old garage. Mr. Drigans asked if they had talked to any of their neigh6ors about this request. Mr. Jacobson said they all got notices of this request, and they only had one close neighbor. Mr. Harris asked if there would be any utilities in this garage. Mrs. Jacobson " said there would be electrici:ty. ' Mr. Boardman said the staff had�received a letter for the Planning Commission from t�ie Michael Servetus Church. . n MOTION by Lindblad, seconded bg Drigans, that the PZanning Corrmiission receive the letter from Michael Servetus Chvrch. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman � Narris read the letter which stated that they had no objection to this request. �l - Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1975 ' Page 6 Mr. Harris asked if the new garage would match the existing structures on � the lot. Mr. Jacobson said it would have dertical siding instead of horizontal, but it would all be painted the same. n �-� Mr. Langenfeld said they should stipulate that the old garage be used for storage and not for any commercial enterprise. MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Drigans that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the'request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-03, by Orville_ Jacobson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the hearing closed at 9:45 P.M. . MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by•Drigans, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approv�l of the request for a 5pecial Use Permit, SP #75-03, by Orville Jacobson, to a11ow the construction of a second accessory building, a 24 ft. x 24 ft. garage, on the 5outh 100 feet of Lot 7, B1ocY. 2, Brookview 2nd Addition, per Fridley City Code, Sectic� 205.051, 2, A, the same being 6606 Brookview Drive N.E., with the following stipulatiohs. 1. The single car garage not be used for a commercial enterprise and that it be placed on a pxoper foundation. 2. Both accessory buildings match the appearance of the house. 3. Both garages meet alI the code requirements. UPON a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #75-03, CITY OF FRIDLEY: Rezone from M-2 heavy industrial areas to E-2 general business areas , a previously public owned parcel, part of Lot 38, Auditor's Subdivision No. 39, so thi.s property will be zoned to conform with the present use, the same being 3720 East River Road N.E. MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Drigans, that the PZanning Commission open the Public Hearing on the rezoning request, ZOA #75-03, by the City of Fridley. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the hearing open at 9:55 P.M. � . • Mr. Boardman said the City purchased this property in 1955. When the zoning ordinance was adopted in January, 1956, it was zoned M-2. Our deed was recorded on this property in 1960, at the time of the building permit, and since that time, the building has been sold, and it was no longer a public use. The property then reverted back to M-2 zoning, however, there was a commercial establishment on this property, and it should have been rezoned to the proper zoning at the time it was sold. Mr. Harris said there was an addition put on this building at the time of � purchase by private ownership. Mr. Boardman said that 'George Is In Fridley' wanted to do some remodeling of that portion o� the building that used to be the Fridley liquor store, and in order to do this, the property had to be rezoned. Mr. Lindblad asked why they couldn't have liquor est�blishments in M-1 and M-2 zoning? Mr. Boardman said the zoning code would have to be changed to allow such a use. �� �� Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1975 Paqe 7 � Mw. Drigans asked 4rhat the zoning was said it was all M-2 and it was owned by the would be spot rezoning. on the surrounding property. Mr. Boardman Metra Sewer Board. Mr. Drigans said this Mr. Langenfeld said he thought this operation would need a Special Use Permit for a recreational faci7ity. Mr. Boardman said this request had nothing to do with anything that the owner might need to develop this property, and any requ�sts needed to develop this property would have to come from the owner. This rezoning request was just to.get this property into the proper zoning for the existing use. Mr. Langenfeld said he sees the sign for a game room everytime he goes by this operation. Mr. Boardman said that under C-2 zoning, under accessory uses, it does allow recreational facilities which are open to the public. Their main business would be liquor, so a recreational facility would be an accessory use. Mr. Drigans said that if it wasn't that the Metropolitan Sewer Board owned the property around {his operation, he would be reluctant to favor spot rezoning. Mr. Boardman said the effects of having a commercial enterprise in this area was perhaps not all that great, because this was surrounded by a public area. .� MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the iezoning request, ZOA.#75-03, by the City of Fridley. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris dec.Zared the hear�ng closed at 10:20 P.M. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Harris, that the Planninq Commission recommend � to Council approval of t1-ie request for rezoning; ZOA #75-03, by the City of Fridley, to rezone from M-2 (heavy industrial areas) to C-Z (general business areas), a previous- �• 1y public �wned parcel, that part of Lot 38, Auditor's Subdivision No. 39, so this property wi11 be zoned to conform with the present use, the same being 3720 East River Road N.E. _ Mr. Harris said he hoped the Council und�rstood that this was spot rezoning. UPON A VOICE VOTE, a.Z1 vot:ing aye, the motion carried unanimously. 4. REQUEST FOR TREE REMOVAL: ISLANDS OF PEACE Mr. Harris said it was his understanding that the Parks & R�ecreation Commission had not acted on this request as yet due to an oversight at their last meeting. Mr. Boardman said there werQ two ways the Planning Commission could handle this. They could table the request until after the Parks and Recreation Commission had made a recommendation, or review the request at this time, and suggest denial or approval, subject to the Parks & Recreation Commission recommendation. � � Mr. Boardman said these were not diseased trees, but in order to get a bridge in that would meet the handicap requirements, they were going to have to do some regrading in the area. They wouldn't know how many trees they would have to remove until actual constructionstarted,. They were asking for removal of a maximum of ten trees, but they hope it will be much less than that, and would make an effort to save • all the trees. It was just in case they have to remorre some trees, they want to have ^ prior approval, so that construction wouldn't have to be held up, once it starts. �Ir. Boardman said the City does have a regrading plan, but it doesn't show � Planninq Commission Meeting - May 7, 1975 � Page 8 which trees might have to be removed, because this was a heavily wooded area, and it would be impossible to draw in the trees. �1 . � Mr. Lindblad said that if they had to remove trees to provide a ramp for the handicapped, then they will have to remove the trees. Mr. Boardman said they � were only asking for approval to remove a maximum of ten trees. MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Drigans, that the Plannning Commission recommend approval of the request for the removal of a maximum of 10 trees on the Islands of Peace, to a11dw co�struction of a ramp for the handicapped, subject to the recommendation of the Parks & Recreation Commission. Upon a voice vote, a.Il voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION REORGANIZATION STRUCTURE Mr. Boardman asked the Planning Commission to look at Exhibit B, and said that all the changes +hey had recommended were underlined. He said that when he went through the ordii�ance, he �ried to see that everthing was consistent. Mr. Boardman said there were some major changes in the Parks & Recreation Com- mission. He said the paragraph on Powers was removed, and the City Attorney said that paragraph was illegal, so it was just as well it was out. � � Mr. Boardman said we added 'Purpose' to the Planning Commission, Parks.& Recreation Commission, and the Appeals Commission. He said the Environmental Quality Commission already had this section, and it was included for the new Commissions. The only other thing that had been changed considerablY was that we added 'Organization' � to all Commissions. n Mr. Boardman said the other things that were underlined are either changes in titles or in the number system or clarification of existing paragraphs. Mr. Langenfeld said the Environmental Quality Commission minutes hadn't been completed yet, but they had made two recommendations. He said one af the stipulations had been met in that all the Commissions follow the same form, and the other stipulation was that it should be mandatory that each ward be represented on each Commissiona . Mr. Boardman said that the Council follows that as much as possible now, and.we . did state that an attempt be made to have representation from each ward. Mr. Drigans said it was not always possible to find someone in each ward who was willing to serve. He felt that at the Commission level, it was important that each member consider what was best for the entire City, and that it was less significant than which ward they came from. He said that it was important that the persons appointed to Commissions have a willingness to serve, the capability to serve, and the 1:ime to serve. He felt it was more desirable to find well qualified individuals and as they were all volunteers, it was more important to find people who w�uld serve , the entire City. Mr. Langenfeld said that at-this meeting he did stress that the qualifications were important. Mr. Boardman said he was anxious to have these changes on the May 12th Council agenda, the date of the Puk�lic Hearing, because he thought these changes would make it a much better ordinance. . � Mr. Drigans asked what changes had been made.inthe Park & Recreation Commission? Mr. Boardman said that on page 3 of the first ordinance that starts out,'under Scope, 2nd paragraph, "The Parks and Recreation shall advi�e the City Manager and City Rlanninq Commission Meeting - May 7, 1975 Pa�e 9 ^ Council..........., that has all been found illegal by the City Attorney, and it was sugges��ed that this be removed. Also under the old ordinance there was a Section 101.04 Power. This section has been changed to read 'Organization". Every � thing tha� was under Power, has been changed to fit Organization. � Mr. Drigans said what happened to the thing about the land, the budget, arid what happens to gifts and what have you, was this only to Council? Mr. Boardman . said this was only for Council, because the Parks & Recreation Commission does not have the legal authority to do this. Mr. Boardman said the only difference between the other Commissions, and the Parks & Recreation Commission was under Funds and Annual Report and Program. Mr. Drigans said that in the second paragraph under - Scope in the amended ordinance (Exhibit B) it says, "The Parks and Recreation Commission shall advise the City Council, upon a policy review by the Planning Commission, in , the development of programs.......Mr. Drigans said it seemed to him that in the matters relating,to the recreational programs, that the Planning Commission should review those in terms of policy review, to see if those are th�e programs in long r�nge � community planning, that meet the goals of our recreational activities< Mr. Boardman said this was what that paragraph said. He said the entire paragraph reads, "The Parks and Recreation Commission shall advise the City Council, upon a policy review by the Planning Commission, in the development of programs to give increased effective- ness and direction in implementing established City goals, p�licies and framework, � and recommend actions as needed to �provide park and recreational opportunities." Mr. Boardman said �'vhat th�s was saying was that anything the Parks & Recreation� Commission sets up in implementing goals and recommendations, has to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Drigans said that under Reports, it states that in � matters relating to the recreatian program, it will go directly to Council. He felt this was a conflict. Mr. Boardman said that was his mistake. He then questioned whether this should be taken out altogether, since it was being covered under Scope. h1r. Drigans said he felt the Human Resources Commission was the weakest part of the reorganization. Mr. Boardman said this would be handled in the goals �nd objectives. He said that everything that would be done would have a human element to it. If you set up a goal in transportaion, that had a human aspect to it. How was the goal that would be set up on transportion going to affect the elderly? Would the transportation system developed allow them to have full use of the Me�ropolitan . area? He said he felt the City needed that Commission in order to provide the impetus as far as the human element in aur community. , Mr. Boardman said he thought Mr. Drigans had made a good point on the Report portion of the Parks & Recreation Commission. Mr. Boardman said he knew the Planning Commission didn't want to get involved with the budgetary process, but the concern of the Planning Commission was that what they were providing through the recreation budget� fits into the goals and objectives of the Community. Mr. Drigans said that . maybe the Parks & Recreation were spending too much money on one group and not enough on another, when it comes to recreational activities. This would not be meeting the broad recreational goals of the community. Mr. Boardm�n said this would not necessarily show up in budgetary reports but in the capital improvement program. Mr. • Drig ans � said the Planning Commission wouldn't see that. Mr. Boardman said they �would see the capital improvement program. Mr. Harris said this wouldn't tell us if they were spending $100,000 on softball and $5.80 on the�hockey program. Mr. � Boardman said he didn't think they would want to get involved in'�.the budget, and ^ X what should be �eviewed by the Planning Commission are the recreational programs, capitol improvements and their facilities. Pianning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1975 � Paqe 10 Mr. Drigans said that the Planning Commission would like to know the money ,�,: being spent on various programs, not to give approval or disapproval of the money being spent, but just to use it for a yardstick to weigh against other recreational programs. Mr. Boardman said what the Planning Commission wanted. to know was what � recreational programs were being provided, and what facilities were being used for these programs. Mr. Drigans said they would want to determine if the amount spent on any program was justified by the participation of the residents of Fridley, or are tax dollars going for facilities for people who iive outside the community. Mr. Drigans said they just want to review the budget in terms of participation. Mr. Boardman said they could leave Annual Reports out of the Parks & Recreation Commission and change Report to read the same as the Environmental Quality Commissi,on. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council Exhibit B, as amended, and with the changes made in Exhibit B as discussed at this meeting. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Note: Exhibit B as presented to the Council for their May 12, 1975 Agenda included all the changes mentioned in the motion. 6. RECEIVf BIKE�AY PROPOSAL MOTION b� Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that'the PZanning Comrnission receive the Bikeway Proposal and have it put on their May 2 1, 1975 agenda for discussion. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimous�y. �� 7. SET INFORMAL HEARING ON VACATION REQUEST, SAV #75-03, BY MACHINING, INC.: To vacate the alley between Ashton Avenue and the railroad tracks in Block 5, Spring Brook Park Addition. MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Con¢nission hold an informal hearing on a request for a vacation, SAV #75-03, by Machining, Inc., on May 21, 1975, and that a11 affected property owners be notified of �his hearing. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously, � $. SET DATE FOR WORKSHOP MEETING Mr. Boardman said that the Planning Commission usually had their workshop meeting the same night as the Public Hearing meeting of the Council. This would be May 12th. The Council will be having the Public Hearing on the Planning Commission reorganization on that daie, and he though� as many members as possible from the Planning Commission should be at the Public Hearing. Mr. Harris said he agreed, and urged as many members as possible to come to �his meeting. He said the workshop meeting could be changed ta Wednesday, May 14th. Mr. Harris declared that the workshop meeting of the Planning Commission be held on the 14th of May at 7:30 P.M. . ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Drigans, that the meeting be adjourned. Up�n a . voice vote, a11 voting•aye, Chairman Harris declared the Planning Commission meeting v'�� of May 7, 1975 ad�ourned at 11:22 P.M. Res ctively submi ted, oro y ve on, ecre i�Fyi �