Loading...
PL 10/22/1975 - 30429� � � n CITY OF FRIDLEY FLAh�ING CONfiY9ISSTON MEETING OCTOBER 22, 1975 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called th� meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: PAGE 1 � Members Present: Harris, Pe'cerson, Scott, Langenfeld Members Absent: Drigans (out of tawn), Bergman (hospitalized) Others Present: Mrs. Virginia Wahlberg, Vice Chairperson of Appeal� Commissian Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPROVE PLANNIN� COh1MISSION MINUTES: OCTOBE.R 8, 1975 Mrs. WaE��lberg said tha� on p�ge 9, the fourth paragraph under revie�r�ng the calandar da'ces for conu�iiss-ion meetings, ii: should be Mr. Scott making the statemeni instea�i of Mr. Bergman. � � MOTTON by Peterson, secon..ded by 5cott� that the Planning Commission Q,�prove the minui:es of the October 8, 1975 meetzng as corrected. Upon a'voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carri�d tznanimousl �J• RECEIVE Hl1MAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: OCTOBER 2, 1975 N'OTION by Scott, seconded by Peterson,.that the P1ar.ning Commission receive ihe minutes of the Human Resources �ommission meeting of Oct�ber 2, 1975. Mr. Scott said �hat on page 12 of.these minu�es there was a presentatio►i by Mary Van Dan from the Lynwood Nur�siiig Hameo He said he thought it was no�ew�rthy that this tivas the �our�h privat� busi.ness that has come to the I-lum�n R�sources Commissian, of �heir-• own vol���ion, to ass�ist the citizens afi Fridley. He said the oiher three were Unity Hospital, Medtronics, and Fridley Plumbing Company. Th�y have all come to volunteer services f.or our community. He sa�d this was a tribute to our Chamber of. Commerce. Mr. Peterson said the Parks & Recreati�n Commission had, o� d��ffereni ac�cayions; a roomful of seniar citizens at their meet�r�g asking for various services from the City. He wondered if tf�ere had k�Een any comm��nication with the senior citizen groups so tha� they tivere aware of' these offers. Mr. Scott said they took their CE'fA person off the prajEC� she was on, and assigned her to the senior citizens projFC:�t. At �he last sen-iar citizens me��ing, she made a presen�ation at� �E�at r��eeting �t the Frid'ey ��r�ited hlethodist Church. Ner project was to iden�ii`y the social service agencies in th� area that could service senior citizens.�We are trying to compile other in�crmation so we can help them in other ways. We are limited by the statemen� in �he ordinance which states that a Commission member must chair a project committee, and we don't have a commiss�on member available to chair such a projecta � � He said h� would also like to point out that there was going to be a joint � Human Resources meeting at �he library on October 23, 1975. He said 1:his was the � J fi'rs�c time this had b�en done. It will include all such commissions in th� County. He said each group would give a p�esentatian �f what they were doing in �heir . corranunity. He said �ha� Mayor Nee wo�ld be �resent to welcome these grouns. The meeting would also be attended by Mr•. 0'Qannon, the County Commissior�er, an� Ray � - � - ---- -- - -- - -- - Planning Commission Meeting - October�22;'1975���'� ������ Page 2 Bozy, who is the Humarr Resources director of the Metrapolitan Council. He said � he would appreciate it if other members of the Planning Commission cauld come � to this meeting so they could see what the Human Resources Commissions were doing in other cammunities. He said there would be se�en communities represented. �� � =.,, UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanirao�sly. RECEIVE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 1975 Mr. Peterson said it might be of interest to the Planning Commission that there seems to be a movement iri the Parks & Recreation Commission toward. the philosophy of providing facilities rather than park programs. There were a couple of reasons for this. One was to save the Eity's resources, and the other reason was that it allowed the people to have the type of program that they particularly liked. He said he thought it wou1d also be correct to say that this was not a unanimous conserisus of the Parks and Recreation, but it was the.majority at this time. He said that as the Planning Corrnniss7on studied their goals and objectives, they would note that they were more facility oriented than program oriented. MOTION b� Feterson, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Parks & Recreations Commission special meeting of October .Z4, 1975. Upon a voice vote, aIZ voting a�e, the rnotion carried unanimousl�y. 1. TRANSFER OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #74-07, FROM CLIFFORD AND ANDERSON, D/6/A AN KOP AUTO BODY: Located at 6385 University Mr. Fred Anderson was present. fY.� .�. Mr. Harris said this special use perroit had been issued to an individual, and�now this business was under different ownership. Mr. Anderson said he wasn't aware that he needed a special use permit for his business until a couple of months ago when he had an occasion to come into City Hall. He was informed af this at that time, and was told that this would be placed on the Planning Commission agenda. Mrs. Wahl6erg asked what effect this would have on the original stipulation on the special use permit that this be issued to Clifford Anderson only. She said she would interpret that to mean that Fred Rnderson should have made a new appli- cation for a special use permit. She asked if administration had addressed. themselves to the problem that it appears that Mr. Fred Anderson has been operating this business for over 9 months without a valid special use permit? Mr. Boardman said it was thought that the name could be changed on the special use permit because it was exactly the same operation that had been approved on the original special use permit. He said the City had received no complaints on this operation, and the present operator of the business was living up to all the stipulations of the original special wse permit. Mrs. Wahlberg said she thought the stipulation was very clear that the special ;^ use permit had onjy been granted to Clifford Anderson as long as he was the operator of the business, so she didn't see how administration could make that kind of decision. � e Plannin Commission Meeting - October 22,�1975 Page 3 ,.� Mr. Peterson asked if when a special�use permit was issued to an operator . if there was anythir�g put on a deed or a license, so a new operator would be aware that a special use permit was needed? Mr. Boardman said there wasn't any license required, and this property was leased, not purchased. He said there . was no record on the deed anyway: Mr. Peterson asked if there was any way a prospective buyer could be made-aware that a special use permit was need2d? Mr. Boardman said that he felt that anyone contem�alating operating a business in Fridley should stop at City Hall to see if there were any special things needed to operate that business. He said the only way that staff could stay on top of these things would be to �o to an occupancy permit. He said they would need three or more inspectors if the City was going to require an occupancy permit every time a business changed hands. Mr. Harris said he made the original motion back on May 22, 1974, and it was the feeling of the Planning Commission at that time that there was concern about tl�e operatior of this business, and they thought that Mr. Clifford Anderson would abide by'the stipulations of the special use permit, but they didn't know what subsequent aperators would do, and they may not have operated the business in the same manner. This was why the special use permit was tied to the operator of the business instead of to the property. He said there was limited parking cn this property and they didn't want unrepaired cars standing around,'or.parts from cars thrown around outside of the bui�lding. He said he thought that they felt at that time that they would want a new owner to come in and apply for a new special use permi�. � � Mr. Peterson said he agreed with the previous�recommendation, but it then " � seemed to him that the City should set up some type of system so they would be aware of when a business changed hands. Mr. Boardman said he didn't see how this could be handled under the present conditioris, but if the City did deny the new owner a special� use permi'c, he thought� the new owner would have�iegal recourse from the past owner because he hadn't made him aware of this special requirement. . Mr. Langenfeld said we could probably add another stipulation that in the event this busir�ess was sold, the present operator notify th� new owner that this business required a spe�ial use permit. Mr. Harris said that if this was go.ing to be handled as a transfer, i:hey couldn't add stipulations to the original special use permi�. They would have to have a new request to change stipulations. Mr. Langenfeld said it was mentioned in the original minutes that this operation had io be checked by the Fire Marshall and the Electrical Inspector to make sure everything was up to Code. He askecS if this business was still up to Code? Mr. Boardman said he was sure that it was. He.said there would be periodical inspec- tions made by the Fire Marshall because of the paint baoth. . Mr. Scot-� said thai he agreed that there probably should have been a new • special use permit requested by the new owner, but from the discussion it would . seem that the new owner was fulfilling the stipulations of the original special ' use pet,mit. Mr. Harris said he felt he didn'i want to cause a hardship for the ,� present owner as long as he was operating under thestipulations of the special - use permit. MOTION by Sc�tt, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommend to Ceunci.Z approval of ,the name transfer from Clifford Anderson to An.,Kop�,�lu�o;rBody `"� � i�, /'1 Plan�in Commission Meetinq - October 22, 1975 Paqe 4 on Special Use Perrazt, SP #74-07, for 6385 University Avenue N.E. Mr. �cott said he thought the Planning Commission was going to have to address itself to this kind of probiem on special use pervnits. Fte said he was sure tha� the staff did not let this happen on purpose, and there should be some way the problem could be handled. Mr. Harris said he could foresee a problem in transferring the name to An Kop Auto Body, because this bu�iness could change ownership and sti11 keep the same nam�. He thought the special use permit should be transferre:d from individual to individual rather than by business name, otherwise we would lose control. Mr. Scott said he would WITHDRAW his mot�on. Mr. Peterson said he would WITHDRAW his second. Mr. Anderson said he ran hi� business on a car in and car out basis. He had to repair or paint one car a day in order to stay in business. He sa�id he would like to find a largerr area for his operations, but this wouldn't be for one or two years. He said his lease ran from month to month. He said this was his first business venture, and he had learned a lot in the past year. Ne said he was young, but that regardless of his age, he still should have been made aware that he needed a special use permit by the previous owner. Mr. Boardman said he could have been faced with buying a business that could not have continued if a special use permit had been denied. Mrs. Wahlberg explained to Mr. Anderson that the questions the Planning Commission had were not directed against him. It was just a problem they were trying to resolve amongst themselves. She asked that a copy ofi the stipulations on this special use permit be given to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Anderson read them, and said he would agree to all the stipu1ations. Mr. Boardman said that sending or�t a renotification af an existing Special Use.Permi� would not accomplish much. He thought the main concern should be that the present operator .had kept this a clean operation. Mr. Scott said he would like to see Fred Anderson be allowed to continue his business, but how it could be handled, he didn't know. Mrs. Wahlberg said that when any Commission deliberates on any reques�, and to the best of their ability comes up with a stipulation, then it distur.bed her to think that this stipulation could be ignored. She felt that the new owner should petition separately. Mr, Harris said if they were going to ask for a new request for a special use permit, he thought the petitioner should be allowed to operate while this`process was going on.' He said that if they were going to change any of the stipulations then this would have to be done. If we only recommend a change of name, then he thought that could be done without a new request. . Mr. Peterson said if the na�e was transferredfrom Clifford Anderson to Fred Anderson, and all the stipulations stayed the same, he could see no problem with this. They could address the problem of how this could have been handled better as a separate issue. He said he felt they had- an obligation to protect the buyer in a case like this. He said he thought the property owner should be told that a business couldn't be operated on this property without a special use permi�, �nd he should give this information to anyone w b was going to rent thi�s property. Mr. Scott asked if this Special Use Permit could be issued on the property? � Planning Commission Meeting - October 22, 1975 Page 5 Mr. Harris said he wouldn't be in favor of any special use on the property. They would lose all control of this operation then. � � � Mr. Langenfeld said that as long as none of the stipulations were changed on the special use permit, he couldn't see any problem of transferring the name. . He said that if they wanted the property owner to make any future tenant aware , -. � that a special use permit was necessary for this operation, that could be a separate motion. Mr_ Scott said this motion could notify the property owner that ' when the present operator's lease expires; any future lessee should be made aware . that a special use permit was necessary before he cauld o�erate this business, and � if it was goi.ng to be used for some other purpose, the City shou1d be notified.� MGTIDN by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the P3anning Conun.ission recommend to Council approval of the transfer of Special Use Permit, SP #74-07, from Clifford Anderson to Fred Anderson, and that aZ1 the stipulations stay the same as in the minutes of the Planning Commission of May 22, I974. Mr. Harris said the reason this was tied to the opera�or of the business was because we were trying to eliminate multiple sales of the business and ending up with an operator who was not as careful to main�tain a clean opera�ion as the present operator was. Mr. Scott said th�t i� another operator let this business deteriorate, the City would get complaints, and if he hadn't applied for a special use permit, this would be a way of closing_down a poor operator, so m��be this was a good: r'°'� stipulation. • � Mr. Pe.tersan said he wanted to speak in favor of the motion because he didn't think we should place any hardship on the present operator because from all reports he was rurining a clean operation, but he also shared Mrs. Wahlberg's concerin on how we could keep control of special use permits that were granted to individuals. He said that maybe the Chairman of the Planning Commissioi� could request that we get a legal opinion from the City Attorney on how t;his could be controlled, and how we could give protection to any subsequen�t owner so he would be aware of this requirement. Chairman Harris directed staff to seek such legal opinion. Mro Anderson asked how long this special use would be in effect? Mr. Harris said it would be in effect as long as he operated t{�e business and did not violate any of the stipulations. ° Mr. Boardman said he would like to see people encouraged to come into City Hall when they wanted to start a business in Fridley to find out if there were any special requirements for that business. He said that perhaps there would be some way that the Chamber of Cominerce and �he City could work together on this. Mr. Boardman said if a new business required some type of license_or a new sign, this would be one way to catch these things. UPON A VOICE VOTE, a1.I voting aye, the motion carried•unanimously. '�`` Chairrrian Harris directed that a letter be sent to Mr. Ryan, the owner of this building requ�sting him to inform ar�y subsequent purchasers of this business • � that they have to get approval of a Special Use Permit before their business goes in�o operation. � ^ Planning Commission Meeting - October 22; 1975� �� Page 6 2. CONTINUED: REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TN CHAPTER 115,.SWIMMING POOLS, OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE Mr. Langenfeld said that in reading this ordinance over, he wonder�d. where the figures under Paragraph 115.01, 2, of 250 square feet and a volume of 3,250 gallons came from. � Mr. Boardman said that a lot of this was regulated,throu9h..the-.S�ate � Department af Health. He said that the Amerir,an Public Health.Associati,an also has ordinances and regulations covering private swimming pools. Mr.�:Boardman said the things that had been deleted and added were just to clarify the�existing ordinance. Mr. Scott asked if the Environmental Commission had looked at this- ordinance. Mr. Boardman said they had, and passed it onto th2 Planning Commission without a recommendatione Mr. Langenfeld said this.was before the Environmental Eommission at the same meeting as the junk vehicle ordinance. He read the motion made at that meeting which was made by Erickson, and seconded by Sporre, to pass i;his ordinance on to the Planning Commission without recommendationa� There was a unanimous vo�e. • Chairman Hari°is asked if there was some reason they didn't want to act on this ordinance? Mre Langenfeld said he could refer to �he minutes, because �hese were public recorc�s. He said that after the motion was made, Mrs. Mar.tin r"� asked why they were get�ing these ordinances, Mr. Olson said that when he � started working for the City of Fridley, it became his job �o enforce these Codes. He said he had �apdated the junk vehicle code, the swimming pool code, �. � and the refuse code almost a year�ago,'and they have sat in limbo since that �ime. Since he was the Environmental Officer acting as liaison to the Environ- mental Cormnission, he thought this was a good.way to get these proposed changes moving. � i�, Mr. Boardman said that in reviewing the proposed changes, that all additions were underlined, and all deletions were bracketed. The Planning Commission review�d the ordinance i�em by item. The fo1lowing discussion will only note the items where the Planning� Commission�did not agree with the�propo�ed changes. � � There were questions on Sectior� 115.16 Fencing, which rep7aced sec�ion 115.09 in the existing ordinance. In Paragraph 1. It read: The fencing shall effec�tively prevent the entrance of children and be without hand or foot rails that would enable a person to climb over it. In no instance, shall the fence allow a six (6) ir�ch diameter object to pass throu h it. The under.lined sections are the addit�ons . Mr. Langenfeld asked the purpose of this was so a small child could nat get fall into the pool and possibly drown. ordinance were for heal�h and safety. the 6" requirement. Mr. Boardman said through a fence opening and accidently He said all the requirements of this Mr. Scott asked how a fence could allow a 6" diameter objec� to pass through it. The fence can't allow that. That's like telling a bus not to let arms protrude from the windows. Mr. Boardman•said probably the wording should be Planning Commission Meetin - Oc�ober 22, 1975 . Pa e 7 In no instance shall a six (�) inch diameter o6ject 6e ab�e to pass through a n f.ence.. Mr. Scott said when the word effectively was added to that first sentence, it seemed redwndant. Mr. Boardman said that maybe Mr. Olson thought this would hold up better in court. Mr. Langenfeld said he felt this word s•hould come out also. Mr. Boardman said he saw no prob1em in taking out the work 'effectively'. In Paragraph 2 in this same section 115.16 it read: 'The fencing shall be at least 4 feet high and entrances sha11 be equipped with self-closinq and self-latchinq gates capable of being locked. Mr. Boardman said the present ordinance says that these gates must be capable of be�ing locked, but this was no longer in the State Code. They now say they must be self-closing and self- latching. . A general disc�ssion followed about the safety �actor of swimming pools and it was the concensus of opinian that almos�c any child could climb a four foot fence, and the requirement s�ould bE ct�anged to 6 fieet. They felt ihaL this especially app ie o a c ain in ence, ecause ey thought.small children could climb a four foot chain link fence. � There was some discussion about making �his a screening fence to act as a noise barrier and to eliminate nuisances, but this.was nat agreed upon by all members. Some thought this was a too restrictive requir.mer�t. � Mrs. Walhberg asked where safety devices were handled in �his ordinance, n especially in public pools. Mr. Boardman said tMis v�as covered in P.���graph � 115.18 where State Health Department rules were adop�ed by reference. This section was reviewed in the State Nealth Department rules, and Mrs. Wahlberg , said it was her concern that there were a sufficient number of lifie saving rings and hooks provided, and also that enough ladders were provided. . Mr.�Boardman said that Paragraph 11�.19 was the start of the regulations for private pools. Mrs. Wahlberg asked by w,hat authority the City could regulate private pools? Mr. Boardman said by the authority.of �his ordinance. 'T:t was�the consensus o-f the Planning Commission that in ordinances like this the right� of proper�ty owners were taken away. They felt these righ�s should be protected. In Paragraph 115.23 Inspection, they want this to read: " The City shall be permit�ted access to all ublic swimming.pools for purposes of inspection of the pool and equipment at reasonable times and as often as�deemed necessary to ensure compliance with this Chapter. Access to private�pools shall be with owners permission or due process. (The underl�ned portion being what the Planning Commission wanted added to this paragraph.) Mr. Boardman said he thought this section of the code was to allow inspection of the pool during construction. He said he was sure that the inspector did not go around checking the water quality of private pools. He said that it would only be for reasons of health or ;afety that these pools would be checked after the original construction. - � Mrs. Wahlberg asked if there was any regulation on where you should drain the water when it�was necessary to pump water�out of a pool? Mr. Boardman said � he didn't think this was covered in the ordin.ance. Mr. Harris said he�wouldn't want�them to be drained into the sanitary sewer. Mr. Peterson said that any one who er�ptied a pool in his area would be draining it into Rice Creek, because that Planning Commission Meeting - October 22, 1975 ° Page 8 was the natural drainage. Mrs. Wahlberg said she didn't tfiink that would be such a probl.em because any chemicals in the pool water would be so diluted �, by the time the water got to the Creek. Mr. Harris said he was more concerned about the water going into a sanitary sewer, because that was metered�, and the City had to pay for every gallon'of water. He said that somewhere in this ordinance he would like to see the statement that the water pumped from swimming pools not go into the sanitary sewers. Mr. Boardman said that could probably be worked into the ordinance. The next section of the code th�t was discussed was 115.25 Nuisance Prohibi�ed. This was an added section to the present code. It read. "No person shall operate, maintain or permit any swimming pool that creates a nuisance by annoying, injuring or endangering the safety, health, comfart or repose of �he public." The Planning Commission felt the wording should be checked on':this section of the� code. Mr. Har�is said that some of the questions the Planning Commission`had on this ordinance should be answered before it was sent on to the Council. MOTION by Scot�, seconded by Peterson, that the proposed changes in Chapter 115, 5wi�ning Poo1s, of the Fridley City Code, be continued until November 5, 1975. Upon a voice vote, aZl voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � 3. REVIEW 3.2 BEER LICENSE REQUIREMENTS ^ � Mr. Scott said there had been a lot of controversy on this subject, and he �hough� it would be appropriate to send this down to some of the other Commissions, � . to get �heir input befare the Planning Commission acts on this. He said he knew the Human Resource Commission would like to look at this. He thought ��� P�rks.� . . Recreation Commission would like to look at tihis because of the beer consumpt9on in the parks, and also Community Development. Mr. Boardman�said �he key issue that was brought u� in th�s ordi�ance was where we should allow this type of op�ration, and what should be the parking requirements and other related questions.. � Mr. Peterson said there was a separate ordinance adopted c�ncer.ning beer consump�ion in the parks, so he didn't think the Parks & Recreation Commission would be involved in this ordinance. Mr. Scott said that he thought that all the ordinances that addressed themselves to the problem of beer should be in one ordinance. We shouldn't baffle the people with having to look up three ordinances on beer. Mr. Langenfeld said that if 3.2 beer is described as non=intoxicating, then why can't minors have it. Mr. Scott said .these were the kind of questions ihat were asked at t'he Council meeting. Mr. Harris said he beliv.ed this definition was given to 3.2 beer by the State Legislature. . Mr. Harris said that Section 603.OE1 Persons Ineligible had a catch-all phrase in it. It states thdt 2. Who is not of good moral.�. character and repute. If applicanthas been an owner, manager or employee of a�saloon, hotel, restaurant, � cafe, tavern or other business of a similar nature, the City Council may consider the applicant's past performance record in determining whether a license shall be granted or renewed. � Planning Commission Meeting - October 22, 1975 Paqe 9 � Mr. Harris asked how it could be determined if some one was of good moral ' character and repute? Mr. Scott said it could be that the person had committed a felony. Mr. Harris said that was not admiss,ible as evidence in a 1icense hearing. � . He said th.e second part of this section was questionable also, and he thought this should be checked by the City Attorney. � Mr. Boardman said we could send this ordinance to the Human Resources Commission on this aspect of the ordinance and send it to the Community Development Commi;ssion � � on the zoning questions. Mr. Peterson sai�d he didn't think the Parks & Recreation Commission would want to look at this ordinance at this time. He said that after � the other Commissions had reyiewed it, and if they recor�nended that the ordinance on beer in the parks be combined with the other ordinances, they could look at it �' at tha� time. Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to have the Environmental Commission look at this ordinance also. C.hairman Harris di:rected that the 3.2� beer license requirements be reviewed� by the Human Resources Commiss�on, the Corrunu��ity DevelapmEnt Commissio��9 and the Environmental Commission. MOTION by Scott, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission continue the review of the 3.2 beer license requirernents unti.Z they get the inpui from the Sub-Commissions. Upon a voice vote, a1.Z voting aye, the motion carried unanimous.Iy. MOTION by Scott, seconded by Peterson, that flae P.Zanning Commission suspend their ru.Ies and handle�the .Zast item on their agenda at this time. Upon a voice �''1 vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 4. RECEIVE LETTER FROM CHAM6ER OF COMMERCE MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commi.ssion rece:ive the letter from Edward H. Dunn, Jr., Manager of the Fridley Chamber of Cominerce, dated Oc�ober 9, 1975, and addressed to Mr. Dick Harris, Chairman of the Planning Commission. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye; the motion carried unanimousl�.. Mr. Scott said he wanted to call everyone's atttention to the last item from the City Council meeting of October 20, 1975. The Mayor has asked the Planning Commission members anc! the members �'of al l Commi ssi ons to � attend the October 27�h conference meeting of the City Council to discuss how the reorganization was working. He thought this fell into the same category as this letter. - Mr. Scott said that he thought they could handle this request to have an economi�c Commission by making this a project committee of the Community Development Commission, but he thought that as there was no one present at this meeting representing that Commission, that they would be remiss in taking action at this time. He also thought this would be a good item to brin�.up a� the Octobe� 27th meeting with the'Council. Mr. Boardman asked the purpose of bringing this item up at that meeting. Mr. Scott said it could be use� to illustrate how a project committee could work. �`� Mr. Peterson asked why the decision was made to drop the Industrial Development Commission a�; the time of the reorganization? P9r. Boardman said this was not an • � active committee and it was feli that this could be a project committee under Community Development also, or eise by the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Scott said Planning Commission Meeting - October'22, 1975� ••�� " ' Pa e 10 it was in the best interests of the City to cooperate with the Chamber of Commerce to the fullest. � Mr. Peterson said that as a member of the very inactive Industrial Development Commission, he.just wondered what happened to it. He said it would seem to him that if the Planning Commission felt that industrial development was good, then it was more important than to be a project committee under Community Dev�lopment. Mr. Boardman said he was not saying that this should be a project committee under the Community Development Commission, but he thought a lot of what they did could. be handled by �he Chambe� of Commerce. He �hought what a project commitee for ind�s�rial development should concern themselVes with was tax financing, etc., to e�courage industrial development. Mr. Peterson said that one of the companies he had worked for had been interested in moving their company, and the haphazard way this had been handled had really been an eye-opene� to him. He didn't think it was any way to encourage industrial development in Fridley. He said that if something was good for ttie City. of Fridley, then it should be structured di�ferently He said the Chamber of Commerce had no authority to act as the official represen�- ative of Fridleyg per se; because this wa� a non-profit organizatio�� and it has other things to do. It's main function was to encourage the businesses that were already in existence. . Mrs. bdahlberg said she did not tMink it was up to the Planning Commission to establish an industrial Development Commissione That would be up to the City Counci 1'. Mr. Peterson said that was true, but he also thought the Planning Commission ^ should be taking a stand as to whether.industrial development was good for the City of Fridley or not. Mr.e Scot� said this could still be a project committee - to help formulate a policy. � Mr. Harris said he �vould like .to meet with Mr. Dunn and Mr. Mittelstadt to �ind out their thinking on this problem. He asked Mr. Boardman to coordjnate a meeting time, and ta le� him know ►�ahen he could meet wi�tH them. Mr. Boardn�ian said he would do�that. Mr. Peterson said he did not think it was necessary for Mr. Mittelstadt ta be at this particular mee�ing, because his term was cancelled at the s.ame time that Mr. Peterson's was as iar as being chairman of the Industrial Development Commission. He though� Mro Harris should just mee� with Mr. Dunn, and he didn't think they would be reaciy to discuss this witF� Council' at the meeting o� October 27th. � ' � Mr. Boardman said the .information they were looking fon from the Project Committees was a way to make some things easier to do, and other things more difficult to doo W� wan� them to do the resea�°ch, and then make a recommendation. Mr. Peterso�i said that if the Council was going �o consider the deletion of the statement that every project committee had to be chaired by a Commission member, then he thought the Planning Commission should take a stand on this recommendation. MOTIO�V by Scott, seconded by Peterson, tlaat the Planning Commission recommend to Council' deletion of the Iast sentence under project committtee, which sta�ed �hat each �roject committee must be chaired by a member of the Commission. Pl�nning Commission NVeeting - October 22, 1975 ' � Page 11 Mr. Langenfeld said the Environmental Commission has already made�that recommendati.on which would be reflected in their minutes. � Mr. Boardman said that at this time he was not prepared to make a formal statem�nt. He would have this prepared before the Council meeting. He said he wo�ld not have any problem w�th eliminating having a member of the Commission being the chairperson, but he would still like to see a liaison connection between the Cor�nission and the project committee. The reason he would like to see�this vras number one, it gave the citizen group a person to contact so they were not wasting their time on a lot of things the actual Commission did not want, and number �wo, by not having a liaison connection between the Commission and projec.t committee, yQU are wasting the Commission's time too, by having the entire project committee reporting back to the entire Commission. Mr. Scott had two charts, one showing how project committees would work under' the present ordinance, and the other chart showing how the project committees could work without the statement that a member of a Commission had to be a Chairpersdn of a project committeeo He said he would be presenting this at the Counci�l meeting. Mr. Peterson.said he wou7d like to speak in favor of the motion. He said the Parks & Recreation Commission would like to have about 10 project committees. If a member of the Commission had to chair a project committee, he knew as a practical matter, that they would not be wil}ing to do so because they would not have the time. If this statement was deleted, they could appoint a citizen to chair a prQject commi�tee, and they could bring the report back to the Parks & Recreation Commission. '� � Mrs. Wahlberg asked i� it would be possibl� to change the statement to read � ." The chairman of a project committee may be a Commission member". This would not limit it to a commissian member only. This way, if a Commission member had . a particular interest in a project committee, he might choose to chair the meetings. She said she agreed wiih Mr. Boardman that the Commissions would lose a degree of control when you di�fuse �he various committees, because there was a certain amount of input 'chat the Commission member� could bring to a project committee. Mr. Langenfeld said he could foresee a problem for the Human Resources Corronission in going too fast and taking on too much at one time. Mr. Scott`�said it took a lot oT research for each area in which they have concerns. He said they have established 8 broad areas which were developed at their seminars.� He said they want to find someo�e to investigate day care centers. They would like to have a committee for the problems� of senior citizens. He mentioned that this group had to quit mee�ing at City Hall because they couldn't get in and out of the facility. He said they were also concerned abou� having some input about help for the mentally retarded in Fridley. He said that all �hese things needed research and the ci�izens who would be working on these concerns, and the other areas they were already working on, would be making their reports at the second meeting of the Commission each month. He said ihat would be the liaison and it would allow the different groups t� have interface with each other. Mr. H�rris said they should wait until they had met with the Council to get their input on this ques�ion. �� Mrs. Wahlberg asked P7r. Scott if he would be willing to amend his motion, so tha� instead of deleting �he statement, to change the sentence to read, " The project committee may be chaired by a memb�r of the Commission." Planning Commission Meeting - October 22; 1975� � Page 12 Mr. Scott said he would WITHDRAW�his motion. Mr. Peterson said he would � WITHDRAW his seeond. � MOTION by Scott, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council that in the section of Ordinance No. 'S84 that deals with project co�nittees, that the Iast paragraph be changed to read "The project committee may (delete sha11) be chaired by a member of the Commission. Upon a voi¢e�vote, Scott, Peterson, Harris and Wahlberg voting aye, Langenfeld abstaining, the motion carried. ' Mr. Langenfeld said he abstained from voting because the Environmen�al Commis- sion had already voted to have the sentence deleted. � 5. PLANNFNG COMMISSION REVIEW OF COMMISSION'S GOACS AND OBJECTIVES Chairman Harris said they would start this review with the goals and objectives of the Environmental Commission. Mr. Langenfeld said the Statement of Purpose was an introduction to the goals and objectives. Mrso Wahlberg asked why this statement didn't read "The Fridley Environmental Cor�nission recognizes that individuals are not separate from their environment....." She said the statement which recog��izes that man is not separate from his environ- ment was leaving out half the population. n Mro Langenfeld said he thought some of the words sho�ld be defined. He said biosphere m�ant all life contained in an area. Mr. Boardman said that stewardship ` meant a constan� watch. Mr. Boardman said thai environn�en� was ihe to�al surround- - ings and ecology was a natural habitat. � Mr. Harris asked why this was not stated so tha� everyone could understand it. Mr. Langenfel�d said that in Goal 2, the objectives could have been condensed to only f, but there were others who thought tf�e additional goals. were important enough to add to goal 2. � Mr. Harris said he had a problem with i. This states "to foster innovative community design". He said that innovative dESign was a catch-all phras�e for something that was not here yet, and may never get here. Mr. Harris said he liked the objective-m, under the second goal. "Ens�re�rnore. effective.citizen participation through such measures as a�iequate public notice and �eview"; and in St. Louis Park they have a sign whiGh states that a certain proper�y was going to be rezoned. It has inserts in the sign so it can give the date of the hearing, and what.rezoning is being requested. This sign is pu� on the � property that was up for rezoning and is part of the hearing notice. He said he thought such a policy would solve a lot of problems. On object�ve b, under the second goal, which read "Promote the reduction of unnecessary and wasteful practices in the utilization of our renewable and non- renewable resources and the generation of solid waste", there was a lot of d:scussion which started with Mr. Harris' comment on the conservation of water. He said he thought a lot of water was Wasted on the watering of lawns. There was a general discussion on how people fertilize their lawns, then pour a lot of water on them to make them grow, and then use gasoline opera�ed lawn mowers to keep it cut. They thought this objective was something the entire country should be using Planning Commission Meeting - October 22, 1975 Page 13 as a guide. � Mr. Peterson asked how the goals'and objectives of eaGh Commission would be handled. Mr. Harris said the goals and objectives would be reviewed by the Pl.anning Commission and they would be used as the basis for the Planning Commissions goals and objectives. He said this would be an on-going thing because the goals and objectives would change as situations chang�d. He said this was just the beginning. He said the Planning Commission would have to�be flexible enough to adjust to the community needs as they arise. Mr. Scott said they had someone working on a referral�service. He said �here was a federal iaw which stated that there should be referral service available. He said this referral service could be at the metropolitan level, the County level, and even at the local level. He said the person working was having a hard time putting a handle on this. What Mr. Scott would like would be for the different Commissioners to bring this up at their meetings to get some input to see what� kind of inf�rmation �these people would like to have available at �he l�Jcal level. He said he knew there would be some duplication of services, but he thought it would be a good ser�ice to �he community to have some type of referral service locally. Mr. Boardman said they should determine if this should be handled as a private or public service. Mr. Langenfeld•said that he noted in the other Commission's goals and obj.ectives that there was meniion of the environment, so the awareness was already starting. . � � . � Mrs. Wahlberg said these goals and objectives could help the Appeals Gommission in some of icheir decisions. She said they were not always sure that some of thr� decisions that they had to make would enhance the community. " Chairman Harris thanked the members of the Planning Commission for all the hard work they�had done on the goals and objectives, and fo'r getting them done so promptly. He said he appreciated ail the hard work that. had gone into them. Mr. Boardman said it should be explained to �he difrferent Commissions that these goals and objectides may not be used exactly as they were written, but would be used by the Planniny Commission as a guideline to establish their own goals and objectives. � � 6. BIKELANES Mr. Harris asked why the bike lanes were so wide, and'why they dipped in at the corners. Mr. Boardman said this was something the County did, and they didn'1: coordinate it very well with our bikelane plan. Mr. Boardman said they wanted to maintain a two lane system on the highway, and with the wide stripe to show that 1:his area was not for motorized vehicles. They reasorr they were dipped at the corners was beca�se they needed a turning lane for cars, and they wac�ted to channel the b'ikelane over to the corner at intersections. Mro Harris said he thought they were going to have problems with these bikelanes. Mr. Boardman said he didn't like the way it was done, but it was done before he knew anything about it. • � Mr. Langenfeld said the lane change on East River Road had caused quite a� - problem too. P1_anning Commission Meeting - October 22, 1975 ' Paqe 14 ADJOURNMENT: n MOTION by Scott, seconded by Peterson, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Planning Commission meeting of October 22, 1975 adjourned at 1Z:30 P.M. I n � .._� � Respectfully submitted, e������c� �JJUl7/j� Dorothy Everi on, Secretary �; S \