The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 02/04/1976 - 6578y L � � v CITY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 1976 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PAGES APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: JANUARV 21, 1976 1- 22 PUBLIC HEARING 23 - 39 RECOMMENDATIONS DISCUSSION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK 6RANT APPLICATIONS VE � �i � � � � l._..' CITY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUkRY 4, 197fi CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISS:ON MINUTES: JANUARY 27, 1976 APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL PUBLIC HEA��ING MINUTES: JANUARY 28, 1976 RECGtiM[PJDA� IONS ON THE AD�JPTTO� OF T;�E �QMPREHE[�SIVE HOUSING PLAN DISCUSSION OF COMMUNITY DEUELOPMENT BLOCK GRAtdi APPLICATIONS 7:30 P.M. PAGES 1 — 2 2 23-39 �._ �-;< "� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: CITY OF FRIDLEY �ANUARY 21, 1976 Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL: PAGE 1 Members Present: Scott, Qergman, Harris, Peterson, Langenfeld Members Absent: Drigans Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Councilman Walt Starwalt AGEflDA MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, te adopt an amended agenda which deletes the Administrative Staff k4port for Bur2ington Northern because the petitioner wished to have this postponed, and add an Administrative Staff Repork for Medtronic, Inc. and minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission. Upon a voice vote, a1Z voting aye, the amended agenda was adopted. APPROVE PLANNING CQMMISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 7, 1976 - MOTION by Scott, seconded by Bergman, that the P.2anning Commission minutes of the January 7, 2976 meeting be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, a11 �. voting aye, the motion carried unanimovsly. � . RECEIVE APPEALS COP1;dISSION I�IINUTES: JANUARY 13, 1976 � � MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Conur+ission receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of.January l3, I976. Chairman Harris said the Comprehensive Housing Plan had been discussed at this meetTng, but there didn't seem to be any action taken. Mr. Boardman said there was a scheduled meeting of the Appeals Commission on January 27, 1976, but so far there weren't any other items for this meeting, so he didn't know if this Commission would meet again on the plan. As Mr. Drigans wasn't present at this meeting, he couldn't ask him. If they did meet and maKe any recomntendations, we would try to have a rough draft of that recommendation for the January 28th Planning Comnission meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, aI1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPP4ENT COMMISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 6, 1976 Mr. Bergman said the second item should be "Continued Discussion of 3.2. Beer Ordinance. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Corrm:ission receive the Consnunity Development minutes of the January 6, 1976 meeting as am�nded. Mr. Scott said the Human Resources Commission was still working on the wording of the 3.2 [3eer Ordirance. He asked Mr. Boardman when this was supposed to come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Boardman said there was no set -�- , Planning Commision Meeting - January 21, 1976 Paqe 2 time limit on this, as the Comprehensive Housing Plan was top priority at this time. Chairman Harris said he noted that the Community Development Commission � was going to set up a project committee for the sign ordinance. Mr. Bergman said this had been discussed at this meeting but they havR since changed their mind. The motion that was made at the January 20th meeting was that thzy recommend to the Planning Commission that t�e City Administration be asked to prepare a rewritten sign ordinance, covering the problems as they see them. Our reasoning for this was tfiat the City Administration does not sit in with sub-committees, and we felt that a sub-comm9ttee would definite7y need that type of guidance to even determine what the apparent problems would seem to be. He said this would be in the minutes that the Planning Commission would receive at their next meeting. Mr. Harris said then there would be Mr. Bergman said their r•ecommendation to ha�! previ�;�sly state�J. some action taken on the sign ordinance. the Planning Commission was what he Mr. tangenfeld sai� he thought it should be on record that the Planning Commission was not against sigr+s as a group. The reason the billboards were handled the way they were was because they were trying to enforce the ordinance. He said that he had heard rumors that the Planning Commission was totally ag«inst billboards and signs, and that was not true. UPON R VOICE VOTE, aZ1 voting age, the motion carried unanimousZy. RECEIVE HUMAN RFSn�!RCES COP4MTSSION MINUTES: JANUARY 8, 1976 � MOTION by Scott, seeonded by Peterson, that the Planning Commissior, receive the Nur,7an Resources Commission minutes of the January 8, 2976 meeting. Mr. Scott said 'ne would like the Planning Commission to note the date of the meeting and the motion made on Page 3 of these minutes, wher•e we established three awards to be awarded annually to an individual in Fridley, an organization in Fridley, and a business institution in Fridley. Ne said that subsequently the Columbia Heights Human Rights Commission passnd a similar motion, and they got the publicity. UPON R voicc vote, a1I voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE ENUIRONMENTAL OUALITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES: �ANUARY 13, 1 MOT.tON by Langenfel6, seconded by Scott, that tPie Plannlny C�mmission receive the mi.nutes of the n^nvironrnental QuaZity Corrunission's�specia2 meeti:rg on January� 23. 1976. � . Mr. Scott said that on the first page of these minutes on the discussion on the Comprehensi�te Housing Plan, the second paragraph, he would like to express the dismay of the Human Resources Commission at the apparent sterotyping of low income people with criminal activities. This was certainly not witt�in the goals of developing human dignity. � Mr. Langenfeld said this was from the Human Resources point of view. Mr. Scott said this was from the human point of view. Mr. Langenfe]d said he respected ��_ � Planning Commission Meeting - January 21 1976 Page 3__ Mr. Scott's comments, but everyone doesn't think like Mr. Scott. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Scott if he had noted the motion made on page 3 of these minutes. Mr. Scott said he had, but he thought he had already made his point. Mr. Harris told Mr. Langenfeld that there seemed to be some paradoxes in the motions passed at this meeting. He said that maybe he could expiain some of them to him. He said that on page 3, the motion regarding Section 8 housing seems to be in conflict with the motion on page 4, where they accept the first housing goal. Mr. Langenfeld said the first motion was more an emphasis on a strong maintenance code and the last motion was just an agreement to the primary housing goal. Mr. Langenfeld said that he did thank Mr. Scott for his corrnnents, because it would make people aware that they wer. makina prejudicial statements, whicF� was probably noi their intent when the statement was made. UPON a voice vote, a12 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIUE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSIOP7 MINUTES: DECEMBER 22, 1975 MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the December 22, 2975 m.eeting of the Parks & Recreation Coramission. SMr. Peterson said he would just like to call it to the attention of the Planning Commission that the Farks & Recreatior Commission has been attracting large delegatiens to their meetings lately. Mr. Scott said he would like to commend Mr. Henry Peterson's statement on a bandstand. He thought this was a super idea. He said the fine Arts Committee was in the process of assembling some tvpe of orchestral group, and Pir. Peterson may want to contact them to iielp in a fund raising effort. Mr. Peterson said that P1r. Henry Peterson took this proposal to the 45'er group, after meeting with the Parks & Recreation Commission, and the 49'er`s have adopted this as one of their projects to raise funds. He said he would tell Mr. Peterson about Mr: Scott's suggestion. He said that the proposal that Mr. Peterson had brought to the Corranission was a very nice structure and would be a multi-purpose building which could be used for other things other than band concerts. Mr. Langenfeld asked if this was going to be located in the naturai sand dune area. Mr. Peterson said this was one of the sites looked at, but s�aff favors a site on the East side of Moore Lake, North of the beech area. This wo�.!ld tend to be for tiie benefit of� those using the beech, but far enough awav from ±he road to yet away from the noise situation. There were park bencnes and picnic tables and the 49`er's in conjunctior, with the Lion's would probdbl� want to make it even more of a family picnic area for band concerts, or plays, or what have you. � Mr. Lar,genfeld said the reason he asked this question was because there was already heing opposition formed as to the use of the sand dune area for this p�ir��ose, P;r. Peterson said the Cor�nission had talked about the noise level of the concert ;tself, so tha± people couTd enjoy the band concert oi� outdcor theatre, er whatever was b�ing presented. They were also concerned about �-�*�� - planninq Commission Meetinq - January 21, 1976 Page 4 ,. having adequate parking and tfiat there were the proper amount of ingresses egresses.so it wouldn't cause a traffic problem. It was due to all these considerations that staff felt the Moore Lake site was the best ciioice at point in time. and thi� Mr. Scott said he would like to see this used for an annual orator's contest. Mr. Peterson said he would like to make one more comment. He said that the Parks & Recreation Commission felt very badly Vihen it has to turn down a committee such as had appeared before us asking for iinprovement in their park. Somehow the stark reality of economic accounting and the wishes and wants of the people do not always come out to the same formula. This was the problem that this Commission was always struggling with. . UPON a voice vote, aIl voting age, the motion carried unanimoi:sly. RECEIVE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT: 6970 CENTRAL AVENUE N.E., PIETRONIC, INC. MOTION by Scot�, seconded by Peters-on, that the Planning Commission receive the Administrative Staff Report fo.r 1letronic, Inc., 6970 Centra2 Avenue TJ.E. � ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPQRT By: Medtronic, Inc., 6970 Central Avenue N.E. 6ENERAL DESCRIPTIQN: This permit is for an addition on the South side of the Medtronic � bui�ding to enclose an open space area< This addition will increase their manufacturing area. The addition will have a brick exterior which wilt match the existing bui7ding. EN6INEERING: No engineering problems are anticipated. ENVfRONNENTAI: The R�ce Creek Watershed Ristrict has reviewed the pluns and have noted no negative impact from this project. Construct�ior� will tal:e place this winter and the frazen greund cor�dition wi11 prevent the creek banks from collapsing, which cou'ld hap�en during spriny andsumner constr��ction. BUILDING PERMIT STIPULATIONS: None. Mr. Harris asked where this addition would be. Mr. Boardman said it would be in the back of the huilding on the Creek. He said they had already gotten the approval of the Rice Creek Watershed. Mr. Langenfeld said that under environmental, it states that the construction would take place this winter to prevent the creek banks from collapsing. Wh� would happen if the ground was not frozen? Mr. Boardman said the purpose of having the permit issued at this time. He said they will blade off.the snow so the ground wili be frozen hard so they can use heavy equipment, and the entire Froject will be done wiiile the ground was frozen. Mr. Langenfeld asked _ __. : �-ti� , Planninq Commission Meeting - January 21 1976 Page 5 if this would require any shoring? Mr. Boardman said it wouldn't require any more shoring than they already have. Mr. Harris asked about the drainage � in this area. Mr. Boardmah said it would be the same as they have now. He said they had undergroundsystems for the drain-off now. Mr. Langenfeld asked if we always accepted the findings of the Rice Creek Watershed on developments such as this? Mr. Boardman said that anyone in the Watershed District did have to get a perrait from them, but they did not have the final decision. The City could intervene if they disagreed with their findings. The Planning Conenission had some question as to whether there was an appeal section in the rules and regulations of the Rice Creek Watershed District. They asked Mr. Boardman to obtain copies of these rules and regulations and also for a map of the Watershed District. Mr. Boardman said he would do this. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, the motion carried unanimously. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDFRATION OF A REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #75-07, BY LEROY T. HALUPTZOK: To rezone Lot 18, Block 2, Central Uiew Manor Addition, except the East 125 feet thereof, from C-1S (local shopping areas) to M-1 (light industrial areas), '•the same being 1244 73 1/2 Avenue N.E. Mr. John G. Bell, attorney representing Mr. Haluptzok, was present. � MOTICN-by Scott, seconded by Bergman, that the PZaruting Cormnission open the Public Hearing on rezoning request, ZOA�k75-07, by Leroy T. Haluptzok. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris opened the Pub2ic Hearing at 8:30 P.M. Mr. Boardman said the general area where this property is located also had Central Auto Parts and Fridley Auto Parts. This was an existing residential structure that they propose to use for the sale of parts for antique autos. They would be selling a combination of used parts and new parts that are made for antique and classic automobiles. He said this property was presently zoned C-15, and in order to operate what we have to classify as a junk yard, it has be to rezoned to M-l. This will also need a Special Use Permit. There was one problem that was noted after this request was made, and that was that Lot 17, Block 2, Certral View Manor, will still be zoned C-1S. This lot shou7d be rezoned to M-7 also and then the entire block would have M-1 zoning except the east 125 feet of Lot 18 which will have to keep the C-1S zoning because there was a service station on this property. This rezoning request should be contingen± upon Lo± 17 being rezoned to M-1 also. Chairman Harris asked how big Lot 17 was. Mr. Boardman said it was 60' by 194'. Mr. Harris said it wouldn't meet the requirements for an M-1 zone either. Mr. Boardman said that if it was the same zoning as the balance of the block, it could be combired with other property. Mr. Bergman asked the zoning of the other property in this area. Mr. � Boardman said the property to the South was zoned M-1. Kitty corner from this property it was zoned M-2, and the properiy across the street on Central Avenue was zoned C-1S. ��r ", Planninq Com mssion Meetinq - January 21, 147& Page 6 Chairman Harris asked Mr. Bell if he knew who owned Lot 17. Mr. Bell said he didn't. Mr. Boardman said it was owned by.Jim Halupzok. � Mr. Narris said they felt it would be good planning to request the owner of Lot 17 to rezone this lot from C-15 to M-T a1so, to make the zoning consistent with the balance of the block. Mr. Betl said he didn't know the present use of this property, but he would check this out with his client. Mr. Harris asked if there would be any dismantling of autoinobiles on this property. Mr. Bell said no. He said there would be parts of dismantled auto- mobiles stored on this property, but they wouTd be dismantled before they were brought to this property. He said the small parts would all be inside but there would be some outside storage of the large parts. Mr. Langenfeld asked why this request was for M-1 zoning? Mr. Boardman said that the nature of this business, which has to be termed a junk yard was on7y al]owed in this zoning. He said it would be allowed in M-2 also, but M-1 zoning was more compatible with the residential character of areas close ta this propert;�. Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. 6e11 what he thought of the termirology of calling this business a junk yard. Mr. Bell said that his client was ready to meet all the requirements of the zoning code and the special use permit, and while this would not be a junk yard, what was in a name? Mr. Bergman asked Mr. Bell how he would describe the activities that would be carried on on this property? Would you describe it strictly as sales or would there be dismantling, or assembling or restoration of autemo�s. Would there be metal machine work going on? Mr. Bell said there would not be dismantTing, there would not be restoration, there would be no torches out cutting up parts, it would be strictly sales. He said the parts would be dismantled before they were brought to the property. Mr. Bergman said that anything that was brought to this property would be in a saleable condit;on then. Mr. Bell said yes. Mr. Bergman then asked Mr. Boardman if our Code excluded this type of sales from a co�nmerc�ai use. Mr. 8oardman said it did because it had to be called a junk yard� because of the outside sl:orage of auto parts. Mr. Bergman said there were other commercial operations that had outside stor•age, so we were making a particular distinction because this was the outside storage of auto parts. Mr. Boardman said he didn't see any other way of doing this 5ecause a junk yard was not allo.•1ed in C-1S zoning, only in M-1 and M-2 zoning. Mr. Langenfeld said he d�dn't agr•ee with the junk yard terminology. He asked Mr. Bell what span of years these antiyue auto parts would covzr? F1r. Bell said that these would be for antique and c7assic automobiles. Fle said he would like to have it stated that these were parts for antique and classic cars because all of the parts woul� not be antique. Some of them were new parts for antique and classic cars. He said because the parts Fvere for classic cars also, he really couldn't state what would be the newest year th� would have parts for. These would generally be pre-World War Ii cars. Ne said there might be some from right after the war like an Eds�l. He said that he personally had had a 55 Studebaker, and his son defined that as a classic. Planning Corrmission Meetinq - January 21, 1976 Paqe J Mr. Boardman said that in response to Mr. Langenfeld's question on � the terminology of this business as a junk yard, under coirmiercial use, such ``as a service station, it does state that service stations are not allowed to store on their property any wrecked, abandoned, or junked automobiles, or the sare or dispTey for sale of used cars. He said that the Code defines junk yards as any place where two or more motor vehicles not in running condition, or parts thereof, are stored in the open and are not 6eing restored to operation, or any land, building or structure used for wrecking or storing or such motor vehicles or parts thereof; and including any farm vehicles or farm machinery, or parts thereof, stored in the open and not being restored to operating condition; and including the commercial salvaging and scavenging of any other good, articles or merchandise. Mr. Langenfeld and Mr. Bergman said that made it quite clear that this operation would have to be classified as a junk yard. Chairman Harris said this should probably have been discussed when we were considering the Special Use Permit. He said that if the Planning Commission should recommend approval of the rezoning and special use request, they would have to be careful so that this operation stayed the same as they were stating at this meeting, or we could end up with another junk yard operation in the fullest sense. 7his could be handled with stipulations on the Special Use Permit. Chairman Harris asked if the existing house would be torn down. Mr. Bell said no, there would be shelving put in, but it will be used pretty much � as it was. Mr. Boardman said he had a couple of questions. He said this house would have to remodeled to the extent to make it accessible to the handicapped. It wiil have to meet the State Building Code, Chapter 55, for the the handica�ped. He said they wouldn't have to put in restroom facilities for the handicapped, but they would have to put in a ramp, 1" in 20 ft., and the doors will have to be 3'1" wide. N? said that the type of storage they would have in this house might be too heavy�a load for the floor structure of a residential building. Mr. Bell said that whatever Mr. Haluptzok had to do to meet the Codes would be done. He said there �vould be a solid wood 8' fence. Mr. Boardman said the storage of material could be no greater than 6'. Mr. Harris said there was a parking lot to be put in in the front. Mr. Boardman said they would be allowed to go with five parking stalls at this time, with room for five more if they should be needed. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Cormnission close the Public Nearing on rezoning request, ZOA #75-07, by Leroy T. Haluptzok. Upon a vo�ce vote, all votin9 aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:00 P.M. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Scott, that the PZanning Commission recommend to Council al>Prova2 of the re2oning request, ZOA #75-07, by Leroy T. Haluptzok, to rezone Lot 28, II2ock 2, Central View Manor Addition, except the East 125 feet thereof, from C-1S (1oca2 shopping areas) to M-Z (light industriaZ areas), the same being 1240 73 2j2 Avenve N.E. wzth the stipulation that app2ication be made � to rezonc I.ot 17, Qlock 2, Centra2 View�Manor, from C-IS to M-1 a1so. UPON a voice vote, .111 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. aergman said that he had no objection.to this property beiny rezoned but he still felt awkward because the commer��a1 operation that was described .� � :,� Planninq Commission Meetirq - January 21 1976 Page &_ couldn't be in a commercial zone. Mr. Harris said he believed this was a quirk in our zoning ordinance. Mr. Peterson said he agreed with Mr. Bergman but we can't hold up the petitie� while we change the Code. He said the petitioner seemed happy to operate under the existing Code. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-29, BY LEROY T. NALUPTZOKi P�r Fridley City Code, Section 205.131, 3, A,g) to allow the sale of parts for antique autos in M-1 Zoning (light industrial areas) located on Lot 1S, Block 2, Central Avenue Addition, except the East 125 feet thereaf, the same being 1240 73 1/2 Avenue N.E. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Corrunission open the Pub2ic Hearing on the request for a.Special Use Permit, SP �75-29, by Leroy T. Haluptzok. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harrzs declared the Public Nearing open at 9:03 P.P4. Mr. Bell said the Plannirg Commiss;on had already discussed sorne of the modifications that would have to be ma�e beFore this house could be used for the sale of parts for antique and classic auto parts. Chairman Harris •told Mr. Be17 that any sign they wanted for this business would be a separate permit and would h�ve to meet the requirements of the sign ordinance. Mr. Harris said that sometimes there was confusion when someone requested a Spec�al Use Permit and a building permit that the sign permit was separate also. Mr. Peterson said that Cnairman harris had mentioned earlier that care • should be taken in approving the Special Use Permit and he would like Mr. Harris to state his thoughts on this matter. Mr. Harris said he thought there should be stipulations that there be no dismantling or stripping of automobiles on the premises. There should a7sa be no baling a]lowed. Mr. Boardman said that there should be no junk yard operation, just the storage of parts to be sold. Mr. Harris said there should not be storage af old cars or any restoration done on the premises. These were all stipulations that he would like to see on this permit. Mr. Bell said that from wnat Mr. Haluptzok told him, this would be consistent with what he planned to de on this property, so there wouldn't be any objection to these stipulations. MOTIOA' by Peterson. seconded by Lanyenfeld, that the Pulbic Hearing be cZosed on the request for a Spec.ial Use Permit, SY #75-29, by Leroy T. Ilaluptzck. Upon a voice vote, aZl votiny age, Chuirman Harris declared the Pablic Hearing closed at 9:10 P.M. MOTION by P�iersvn that the Flanr.ing Commissioi� recommend approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-29, by Lexoy T. Halupzak wi.th the stipulations that have been n�ent9.oned and any other stipulations that the staff�thoaght should�be included�after. farther resear.ch. Mr. Boardman asked if tiie Planning Commission thought it wouid be bette� to state "to only allarr° instead of m�nticning all ihe things tt;ey wouldn't allow, such as allow the storage and sales of dismantled parts foi° antique and ,�,a-.,.,. Planning Commissian Meetin January 21 1476 Page g_ . � classic cars. � . Mr. Peterson WITxDRE47 his MoTiox_ � MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the Citg Council of the request for a Special Use Permit_, SP #75-29, by Leroy T. Haluptzok, as indicated by Fridley City Code Section 205.131 3, (A,8) to a11ow the storage and sa2e of parts for antique cars on Lot 28, Block 2, Central View Manor Addition, except the East 125 feet thereof, the same being 1240 73 I/2 Avenue N.E. with the stipu2ation that we make certain 'that the primary use be adhered to, with no dismantling being aZZowed on the premises. Mr. Bell said the question had come up previously on what was an antique car. He said that this would include classic cars. Mr. Langenfeld sairl he would amend the motion to include classic cars, seconded by Mr. Peterson. Mr. Boardman said the primary use under the Section of the Code stated says junk yard, and that was the operation we didn't want to allow. Mr. Langenfeld said the worL+ primary was used in the motion just to denote that the primary use of the special use permit would be the storage and sales of antique and classic auto parts, not the primary use under this section of the Code, but he didn't like the word "only". Mr. Bergman said � maybe they could use "liMited to" and then exclude the other uses. Mr. Boardman said they could exclude dismantling operations, restoration and bal ing. . , Mr. Langenfe2d WITHDREW his MOTION, with the concurrence of Mr. Peterson, who had seconded tlxe motion. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Comraission recommend to Counci2 approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-29, by Leroy T. Halapzok, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.131, 3, (A,8) in M-1 zoning (2ight industria2 areas) located on Lot Z8, Block 2, Central View Manor Addition, except the East 225 feet thereof, the same being 2240 73 2/2 Avenue N.E. This Special Use Permit 2imited to the storage and sales of dismantZed parts for antique and cZassic cars, excluding any disrnantling operation, restoraticn, or ba2ing on the premises. Upon a voice vote, a12 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP �175-30, BY REED BECKLER: Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, 3, N, to allow mobile home sales in C-2S zoning (general shopping areas) to be located in the vicinity of the Southwest corner of the parkin9 lot at Holiday 4illage North, on part of Lot 13, Auditor's Subdivision No. 155, the same being 250 57th Avenue N.E. Mr. Reed Becker was present. � MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission open the Pub2ic Aearzng on a reqaest for a Special Use Permit, SP H75-3U, by Reed Beck2er. Upon a voice vote, a12 voting aye, Chairman Narris declared �h� Public Hearing open at 9:18 P.M. 6",.�mm3 �lanning Commission Meetinq - January 21 1976 Page 10 . � Mr. Baardman said the Special Use Permit request was to a11�w the set-up and operation of a mobile home sales lot or area within the area of Holiday Uillage North parking lot. The location of the area would be in the South parking 1ot behind Holiday Uil7age North abutting I.694. They � would be utilizing approximately 120' by 300' of space for this type of sales operation. He said that the City administration had a meeting on this request this afternoon and we are having some trouble with this type of an operation, Ne said they discussed what this request was for, and what type of lease operations could be handled under a Special Use Permit. If a Special Use Permit was granted on a lease operation such as this, what was to stop Holiday Village North from asking for other Special Use Permits for other lease operations on this lot. Mr. Langenfeld asked how many units would be involved in this operation. Mr. Boardman said they were talking about 10 units plus an office. Mr. Langenreld said it seemed l�ke they had just talked to Holiday Village North about cleaning up their, parking lot, and this was nothing against the petitioner, but it seemed like they were going right back into cluttering this parkiny lot. Mr. Boardman said the staff had a problem in determining how much of a parking lot could be used for ihis type of�lease operation. Mr. Harris asked what this would do to �he total number of parking spaces needed for Holiday Village North itself, Mr. Boardman said this wouldn't hurt their parking requirements. Mr. Peterson asked if he understood correctly that this was not to be a part of Holiday Village North's oper�ation, but was to be a separate lease operation. Mr. Eoard�an said this would be a separate operation run by Mr.� Beckler. Mr. Bergman asked if it was normal procedure for a lessee to request a Special Use Permit, rather than the property ovaner. Mr. Boardman s�1d the property owner had signed the request also, but Mr. 8eckler was the petitioner. Mr. Boardman said that if this Special Use Permit was granted, the staff fe7t there were several things that should be done. They felt that the Special Use Permit should be grante� to Holiday Village, not to the lease operation. The reasons for tt�is was because we want Holiday Village to be responsible for this lease operation. He said that the office for this sales lot would have to be hooked up to sewer and water. He said this office would have to meet Chapter 55 of the StatP BGilding Code tc meet the handicapped requirements. We also feel that Holiday Village North should have no other outside Special Use operations. We feel that this operation should have a permanent set-up, so that if this area �r.�as used for some other lease operation at a later time, there �xould be a periranent area for this type of use. By this we mean perrranent landscaping, permenent curbing and this type of thing. We would like to see this be at one iocation, so that na matter what type of lease operation came on this property> it would always be in the same location. Mr. Beckler said that he had approached Hoiiday Villa9e several months ago and this was why there was a rezoning of the property. He said thai Holiday would be doing extensive landscaping because of this rezoning. Ne said tha' when he applied for the Special Use Permit, he was under the impression tha�e should be applying personaliy, as opposed to Holiday. He said that in just the last day or two they had come to the conclusion that Holiday should be applying Plannin Commission Meetin - Januar 21, 1976 Page 11 for the Permit. Mr. 6rad Steinman, who works with real estate for Holiday was unable to come to this meeting. Mr. Beckler said he has talked to Mr. � Steinman and he said that if the Special Use Permit was issued to Noliday, they would be satisfied with that. Mr. Beckler said he had some plans with him showing how the ten units and the office would be laid out on this property. He said that if the office had to be hooked up to sewer and water, they may change this on the plan so there wasn't so far to go. He said that all the units would be l0' apart Mr. Harris asked if this sales lot would be next to the existiny building. Mr. Beckler said it would be about 130' away from the building. He said the area where they proposed to have the mobile home sales sias now full of snow. Mr. 6eckler said that they proposed to have around their office some astro turf, green grass type, and also some redwood chips and some large planters. He said this area was all blacktopped and he didn`t think Holiday wanted to tear it up and landscape it. Mr. Langenfeld asked what type of advertising signs they planned to use. Mr. Beckler said he was open to any suggestions the Planning Cnmmission miaht want to make. He said they planned to set the sales lot up`to make it �ice and showy. Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Beckler about the lease. Mr. �eckler said they had been talking about a year to year lease because he thought this would be what would be stipulated on the Special Use Permit, but they would like a three year lease. � Mr. Peterson asked Mr. Beckler if he was now in the Mobile Home business. Mr. Beckler said he was. He said he worked in St. Paul in the 5 Star Mobile Nome Sales lot. Mr. Beckler said the operation here would technically be a sales lot, but it would not be like other sales lots in the area. The majority of our business G�as selling mobile homes where they sit. He said they would like their sales lot to look as much like mobile homes already placed on perman- ent lots as much as possible. He said this wouldn't be,a case of high-turnover where we would be moving these units in and out. He said a lot of their homes were already set up in mobile home parks, and were sold there. Mr. Scott asked Mr. Beckler if he was aware that this area had been used for the parking of,employee's cars. Mr. Beckler said he was, but it wasn't used extensively. Mr. Scott said he tvas concerned with vandalism in this area, because there had been instances of theft ard vandalism to the employee cars when they were parked in this area, but probably Mr. Beckler intended to have more lighting in this area. Mr. Langenfeld asked if they were going to take any precautions against vandalism. Mr. Beckler said they would be setting up a security system. He said various security guards would be patrolling it _.St night, and of cource some one would always be there during the day. He said it would be in their contract with Holiday that they assume responsibility for the lights in this area, and the lights would be on all night. Mr. Langenfeld asked if this would be a distraction to the homes in the area. Mr. Beckler said the homes would have their backs to the high�aay, and � people would notice that there was something different in this section of the parking lot, but he didn't think it would be a distraction. Mr. Beckler said they have wanted a location in this part of the City. He said th.ey could service the parks in this area. Ne said that one of the Pianning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1976 Page 12 problems with mobile homes. People will sell them a mabile home, but no one was willing to sell it for them. We feel we can be of great assistance to t�. We also help with the sale of repossessions• We feel that this section of the parking lot was just empty now, and if we can make it nice, it will he p our bus;ness and make this part of the parking lot nicer for Holiday Village North also. Mr, Langenfeld said the Planning Comnission had been concerned about the area of the parking lot where the garden center used to be, and we didn't want a reoccurence of th�s, 6ut he said he could see from the p7ans and from Mr. Beck]er's cor,versation that this proposal would enhance this area. Mr. Beckler said he had talked to Mr. Steinman of Holiday, and he was agreeable that there be no other lease operation on this lot. Mr. Peterson asked if ±he ten units of this proposal would al] be new mobi7e homes. Mr. Deckler said there would be new and used units on the lot, but ihe older un?is would aii be reconc'stioned an� would l�ok nice. Mr. Scott said that he just wanted to voice his concern that Heliday had knowledye that they wanted to have this lease operation in this section of the parking lot, and yet when they were questioned about the parking lot during the public hearing on rezoning, this was not mentioned. Mr. Harris said that about 7 or II years ago Holiday had in this area what was called a slippery seal slide, and it did not work out very well. He said he was nct trying to downgrade Mr. Beckler, but we heard many of the same things he had said, wneri this slide was proposed. He said he was • not sure of all the problems, and things he had heard a6out were hearsay. He said that from past experience, he was a hesitan� about`this proposal. Mr. Langenfeld said he felt that there was a lack of control on the slippery slide proposal than there would be on this operation. Mr. �angenfeld said there could be stipulations placed on this SpeciaJ Use Permit, including an annual review, so he felt this operation could be controlled better than the slide proposal. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Becklerif h� knew the new location of,the garden center? Mr. Beckler said he didn`t. Mr, Harris said he thought Mr, Steinman said that this would be moved further South on the lot from the previous location. Mr. Qoardman said that if this Speciai Use Permit was approved, he would l�ke to see some permanent type landscaping in this area. He vaoul� want this to be a permanent type location so that if the mobile home sales should teave this 1oca±ion, and No7iday wanted another 'ease operation on their proper�y, it would always be at this location. tie said he would like to see the offica for this sales lot moved up into a more iandscaped area and cfiange the lay out of the lot. Mr. Beckler said that if they were operating on a one year lease, he didn't think they woul� iti�art to be tearing up blacktop to have more permanent type of landscaping. Ne said he could see Mr. Soardman's point about pennanent type landscaping, but he didn't know ho�v he wanted them to approach tliis. Mr. Boardman said that tnis was in the context that this be a permanent locatiory�or a lease operation. He sai� that what he was t�inking about was +earing �ip � of the blacktop area, putting in concrete curbing, and allowing for space and also allowing for areas where there would be landscaping. He said he was not necessariiy talking about Mr. Beckler's operation, he said he was talking about Planning Commission Meetinq - January 21 1976 Page 13 an operation that Holiday Village would have to make a committment to. � Mr. Bergman asked Mr. Boardman to re-read the list of stipulations suggested by administration. He said he would like to get Mr. 6eckler's reactions to them. Mr. Langenfeld said he felt that Mr. Boardman was asking for stability and didn't want a hit and miss type of operation. Ne said that Mr. Beckler had stated that there wasn't too much traffic behind� Holiday, and he wondered how he was 9oing to get the people to this back lot. Mr. Beckler said they were hoping that people driving by would notice the location and they would be advertising. He said their concept would be different say than from Certified Mobile Homes over on Highway #65. He said they would be trying to show people when then drive by that there was a location there. He said he didn't feel this was a convenient location, but there would be a lot of visibility of the lot. Mr. 8ergman said he would like to have his question answered. Mr. Boardman read the stipulations worked out by the administration. They are as follows: 1. No expansion beyond the 10 units plus the office. �r. Beckler said they would h�4e no problem with this as long as they � had enough space to move the units in and out. 2. The office be hooked up to City sewer and water. Mr. Beckler said they would agree to this but they would want to move the location of the office to have it closer to the sewer and water lines. 3. Meet the requirement of Chapter 55 of the State Building Code which was the requirements for the handicapped. Mr. Beckler said they would have no trouble in providing the ramp. He didn't know about the widening of the �oor. He said they hadn't had to meet that requirement at their other loca�ions. Mr. Bnar�mar told Mr. Beckler to check with the State to find out what handicap requiremPnts they �auld fiave to meet. Mr. Beckler said he would do this, arid would meet all tne requirements of the Code that applied to them. 4. No other outside operations be allowed which require a Special Use Permit Mr. Boardman said they should bear in mind that Holiday would need a Special Use Permit for their garden center. Mr. Qeckler asked Mr. Boardman if they were asking Noliday to choose between this proposal and their garden center? Mr. Boardman said the staff vias concerned about how many Special Use Permits might be requested for the parking lot of Holiday Village for sales operation. � Mr. Beckler said they would be agreeable that there only be one lease operation allowed. 5. The areas should be designated where operations needing a Special Use Permit would be located, and these areas should have pern�anent facilities on them, such as permanent exterior landscaping. Planninq Commission Meetinq - January 21, 1976 Page 14 Mr. Boardman said he wasn't saying where this area had to be, but if the mobile home sales lot was going in at the proposed location, then that shouTd be a permanent type location. He said that Ho7iday was a retai] typ operation with a large parking lot, and they wouldn't want them to lease out small parcels of this lot in a series of }ease operations: Mr. Beckler said that if Holiday made this a permanent location and the lease operation didn't work oat, they would haye an area with al] these permanent things such as landscaping and concrete curbs, then what would they do with it. Mr. Bergman said this was what they were saying. Holiday should consider the risks before they make a committment for this proposal. Mr. Beckler asked Mr. Soardman if they should draw up the proposal or if Holiday should draw it up, or if Mr. Boardman was going to draw it up. Mr. Boardman said it would depend upon the Planning Commission on how many Special Use Permits they were going to allow on this property. If they were going to allow the yarden center and one lease operation, then he wouTd want Hol;day ta draw up p?ans for permanent locations far these two operations. This would include grassy areas, trees and lanseaping, and concrete curaing. Mr. Beckler said that Hcliday and himself had agreed on what they had already discussed, but he had no signed agreement wiih HoTiday. He wanted to wait until he had approval of the Special Use Permit. MOTION by 5cott, seconded by Beraman, that the Plenninq Commission cZose the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-30, by Reed Beckler. Upon a voice vote, a12 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the � Public i7earing closed a� ZC:00 P.M. MOTION by Langenfeld, seoonded by Peterson f�r discussion, that the Plar.ning Commission recomzrend to CounciZ approvaI of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-30, by Reed BeckZer, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.Z01, 3. N, to a11ow fiobiZe home sa2es in C-2S zoning (yeneral shoppiny axeas) to be located in an area 12C' x 3Q0' zn the vicinity of the Southwest corner of the parking Iot ac Xoliday Village North, on part of Lot 23, Auditor's Subdivision No. 155, ' the same being 250 57th Avenue N.E. with the fo2lowing stipulations: 1. This S�xciaZ Use Permit, SP #75-3D be granted to Zyndale Termina2 Company (HOliday Village North) instead of the petitioner. 2. No expansion beyond the 30 mobile homes p2us the office. 3. The office be hooked up to City sewer and water. 4. This operation meet all Yhe State Codes including Chapter 55 whiciz include the handicap req�irements. 5. No other outside operations be allowed which require a Special Use Perini t . 6. They must designate the arezs where operations needing a Specia) Use Pernit wi2Z be 2ocated, and these areas must have permanent facilities onthem, such as permanent exterior Zandscapzng. These • permanent locations mast be worked out with the City of Fridley. 7. This Spec.ial Use PermiL- be suHject to annual review. �_� . Planning Commission Meeting - J�nuary 21, 1976 Page 15 8. That the advertising for this operation meet the reguirements � of the sign ordinance. 9. No major alterations to the blacktopping except fot Zandscaping. This landscaping be done by property owner, and not the petitioner. 10. No ❑sed mobile homes be placed on this Zot that would be an eyesore to the pubIic. Mr. Bergman said he was having trou6le with some of the stipulations and he would"like to suggest they be restated. Mr. Scott said he didn't 1ike the stipulation about used homes being an eyesore. Mr. Boardman asked them how old the used mobile homes would be. Mr. Beckler said they wouldn't be older than 1970. Mr. Iangenfeld, with the concvrrence of Mr. Peterson who had seconded the motion, WITHDREW HIS MOTION. � MOTION by BErgman, seconded by Scott for discussion, that the Planning Conm+ission recommend to Council approval of the request for a SpeciaZ Use Permit, SP #75-30, by Reed Beckler, per Frid2ey City Code, Section 205.ZOI, 3, N, to a2low mobile home sale in C-2S zoning jgeneraZly shopping areas) to be Zocated in an area 120' x 300' in the vicinity of the Sonthwest corner of the parking Iot at HoZiday Vi2lage North, on part of Lot 13, Auditor's Subdivision No. Z55, the same being 250 57th Avenue N,E., with the following stipuZations: � 1. This Special Use Permit, SP �75-30, be granted to Lyndale Terminal Company jHo2iday Village NorthJ instead of the petitioner. 2. No expansion beyond the IO mobi2e home: units plus the office. 3. This office be hooked up to City sewer and water. 4. No other outside 1ease aperations be allowed which require a Special Use Permit.on fhis property. 5. A1Z facilities stipulated : must be insta2led in a permanent fashion. 6. Permanent landscaping and aesthetic plans Be developed with City Administration. 7. This Special Use Permit be subject to annual review• Mr. Langenfeld said he thought it should be a stipulation that this operation meet all the sign requirements of the Gode. Mr. Bergman said he felt that everything to do with this operation would have to fall within the _ Code. i•1r, Peterson said he had no problem with this motion except stipulation number 7. He said the problem with this stipulation was that he himself was a businessman, and when he started something he didn't know if'he would be � making money the first year. He said that by making this subject to annual review it might be a form of City harrassment, which he was very much against. He thought the operator should be given time to get this business going F�e said no one wou1G be willing to spend much money on a project if they could be put out of business in a year. Plannin� Commission Meetina - �anuarY 27, 1976 Page 16 Cha�rman Harris asked Mr. Peterson what limit he would put on this operation as far as review of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Peterson said he didn't see how you could give them less than three years. a Mr. Langenfeld said fie didn't see this as a harrassment, it was just to make sure they were complying with the stipulations of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Peterson said that compliance was assumed for^ a Special Use Permit, and if there tivasn't compliance, the Special Use Permit could be revoked. Mr, Boardman said he hasn't always agraed to time limits on Special Use Perniits because once th;y have_been approve�, it wouTd be hard to revoke them. He said you woul� nave to prove that this was detrimental to the health, safety and weifare of the cammunity. Mr. Bergman said the reason he added this stinulation was because everyone on the CommissiGn seem?d to have some concerns about this request. He said the pet�tioner did r!ention that he would have a year to y2ar lease, although he would orefer a three year lease. Mr. Peterson said he believed the petitioner sa�d the time of th2 ;e�se deaen�'ed upen ttie terms ur:der which hp ��+a� given Special Use °ermit approval. Mr. Boardman said the P}annfng Cnmmission should remember that tfiis Special Use Yermit was not being approved Po�° Mr. Beckler but for the property owner. Mr. Ber.9man AMENDSD tke MOTIOn� to delete Stipulati.on 7; thaf- tlae SpeciaZ Use Yermit_ be suhject to anr.ual review. Seconded kg Scott. Chairman Harris said he was going to vote against the motion because in his opinion Lhis woul� be setting a bad precctlenc?, by doing this. Ne didn� th�n!� ma�ile hom� sales, or �eo�t-a-car. o� s',ippery seal s?ides, or whateve was part of the r.ormal operation of Holiday_Village North, or Target:5tores, or Holly 5hoppinc3 Center, or Menards, or Skywood Mall, etc. He said he felt these other prop°rties would be withir, ±heir rights to request other ancillary uses of their p�rkinc lotsi He said iie couldn'i t.hink of one of them who didn't have a correr of their parking Tat that couldn'� be put to so:�ie other use. He said he d�idn't feei this was a proper use to go along V'+'ILI1 �he present use of the property. UPJIJ a roli ca31 vcte, n^�rgman, Peterson, Langenfeld voting aye, Harris and Scott botiny nay, the motion car.ried. Chairman Harris declared a recess of the Planning Comrr,fssion meeting at 10:35 P.M: and reconvened i�he rreeting of Jaruary 27st a* 10:G5 �.DS. MOTZON by ,��'j+"°n. seconded b1 Peterson. to alter the order cf tl:e ar.ten3ed agenda to alloe� CounciLnan Wa1t 6tarwalt to speak. Upon a veice vote, a22 voting aye, the motion carr.ied unanimoasly. Mr. Starwalt said he was here speakiny as a ritize❑ and not. as a represent- ative of the C�ty Council. He said that as a citizen there aaere a couple of things that wee'e a little distu�bing to him. He said they would be discussing this at the Council Conference i�leeting on Jaruary 26, 1976. Mr. Starwa7t said that in the meeting of January 7th of the F':�.nning Commission the phrase 'diverse Tife stylQS' had beer� disturb�n9 to hinr. H said he personalTy felt there or?re a few life styles th�at we cauld do svitho . He said that if they were ,yo;ng to open up Fridley to a?1 life ;t.yies, he was against it. He emphasizeci that this was his opinion and not that. of the City Planning Corrnnission Meeting - January 21 1976 Page 17 , , Council. He said that on page 7 of these same minutes the Planning Commission approved of Goal #2 which read "Provide for and maintain, without discrimination, • a diversity of suitable housing and living environments within the community." Mr. Starwalt said he was not sure what the Planning Corranission meant by that goal, and he had toyed with some wordina, and he was not suggesting that the Planning Commission latch on to this wording, but he was just expressing his viewpoint, and a viewpoint which he thought was held by a lot of peopl� in his area. He said he would change this goal to read "Provide for and maintain. without discrimination as to race, creed, or color, suitable, conventional, family oriented housing and living within the community." He felt that if we got away-from the family unit as the dominent force in society, the further he felt that we were breaking down society. He said he may be old-fash7oned and out of tune with everyone, but he really didn't think so, so he had offered these thoughts for the Plannin9 Commission's deliberations on anything it might apply to. s �- Mr. Scott said that the statement that Mr. Starwalt made was almost the same as a 9oa1 that had been recommended to the Planning Commission from one of the member Commissions. We took it out because we felt we wc�ld have to mention other things also, like reli9ion. He said without religion, it could be interpreted that we didn't want Jews in our community. He said that when you talk about traditional family units, he said that he knew that ours society was becom'rng permissive, but there were widaws and widowers that maintain family units, which would not be considered a conventional family � un�it. What are you going to do with them, throw them out? Mr. Langenfeld said Mr. 5tarwalt was just trying to say that tne family unit was the basic unit of society. Mr. Scott said he would agree with that. Mr. Starwalt said the fact that there were people who were widows and widowers maintain a family life was just a part of life. He just felt that the statement "without discrimination" was too broad, and there viere some people they should discriminate against. Mr. Scott said the problem with that was who were they going to discrim:inate against. It would have to be spelled out just who you wanted to discriminate against. He said we were dealing with the Minnesota Human Rights Act also. Mr. Starwalt said that he thought the traditional family unit was very important to society and he thought there had 6een latas passed that were not good for society, even if they were on the books and we had toadhere to them. Mr. Starwalt said the other item he wa�ted to discuss was in the Environmental Commission minutes of December 18, 1975 , where they had discussed how the City could determine who was of good moral character. He said that this left him wiCh the feeling that it woul� be recommerded that this statement be taken out of the 3.2 Qeer License requirement. It said that it would be hard to prove that someone was not of good moral character. He said he was opposed to having this requirement taken out of the beer or iiquor license requirements. He felt that this should stay in the ordinances, and try to uphold high moral character even if it was a tpugh requirement to determine. Mr. Boardman said he had discussed this wiih Dick Sobiech and he had indicated that the attorney had recomir.ended that tnis statement should be taken out. Mr. Starwalt said that at a Council meeting tlie Mayor had asked the City Attorney if this wasn't standard Phraseology in these types of ordinances and he said that it was. He said he didn't care how �.nany attorneys said it should be taken out, he still felt this should be in the ordinai�ces and �--�, A Planninq Commission Meeting - Januar� 21, 1976 Page 18 we should try to uphold 9ood moral character. Mr. Starwalt said he had one more thing to discuss and this was a concensus of the Coun�il, and this had to do with signs. He said the Planni Commission had labored hard and tediously with the billboard ordinance, and you realize that we changed some of your recommendations which were maybe to your dismay. The consensus of the Council was that it had not and will not out]aw signs. The Cour�cil does uphold and respect the need for reasonable signs. It appears to us that the original ordinance was an attempt to virtually outlava certain types of signs. He said he knew this wouldn't solve their probiem, but they wanted the Plenning Con�ission to keep doing the job, and the Council thought they were doin� a tremendous job. Mr. Langenfeld said that he had mentioned at the beginning of the meeting ihat it was not the Planning Commission's intention to be anti-billboard or anti-signs. We were just trying to enforce the existing ordinance. Mr. Starwalt said the Council recr.�nized. their dilemma and are in sympathy with you with the problems in this area. Chairman Harris said it was the intent of the P"lanning Commission, at a future date, to make some recommendaLions to amend the sign ordinance, but you understand that we have been a bit on the busy side, and it was a matter of priorities. Chairman Harris said that Mr. Starwalt was welcome to stay for as much of the meeting as he would care to sta,y. It would proba6ly be late. � 4. CONTINUED: PP,OPGSEQ HOUSING 60ALS AND OBJECTIVES MOTION by T.angenfeld, seconded by Peterson, to receive the staff summary of the proposed hoasing goals and objectives. Upon a voice vote, aZl voting aye, the motion carr.ied ❑nanimous2y. Mr. Bergman said that from the motion he made at the last meetin9, he had expected a staff summary of all goal areas made by the member Commissions. Mr. Boardman said he would be preparing those for other goals, but the priority at this time was to agree on the housing goals and objectives before the Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Housing Plan. Mr. Boardman said they had already established their housing goal which was to "Provide for and maintain in the community, 4�ithout discrimination, a diversity of suitable housing and living environments for all persons." Ne said he had come up vaith six housing objectives from the recomnendations of the member Conimissions, he had alsoshown how these objectives could be implemented, but that was only for reference, and these did not have to have any recommendations made on them at this meeting. 7hey should concern then�se7ves wit{-� just approving the objectives. Mr. Boardmar said the first objective was to "Assure safe and healthful conditiens in all housing and encourage consideration of the qualities of privacy, comfort and other amenities." • � h10iI0N by Petersvn, seconded b� .Scott, that the Planning Commission approve of t1�e first objective whiclz r��uds as follows: l�ssure safe and healtC�fa1 conditions in a1Z housing and encoura�e consideration of the qualities of _ ,�,,,,,.�., Planning Commission Meeting - January 21 1976 Paqe 19 privacy, cpmfort and other amenities. Upon a voice vote, alZ voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. .! Mr. Ha rris_ sai,d the second proposed objective was " Assure that housing will be provided at a cost each individual and household can afford without compromising essential needs." Mr. Langenfeld said he didn't see any goal that pertained to the elderly. Mr. Boardman said that under this goal they would try to take advantage of all the programs that were availab1e. This would include Section 8 housing through the Metro Council and the HUD block grant, and other programs would have to be researched because he wasn't aware of all the funding that could be applied for. Mr. Langenfeld said he knew they were going to be asked at the Public Hearing where the funds were coming from and if they wouldn't be paying for this funding through their income tax. Mr. Boardman said these programs already had the money set aside, and it would be spent, so we should try to get a fair share for Fridley. He said that he thoughi they were including the elderly in this objective statement. Mr. Bergman said that in his terminology to assure meant to guarantee, and he didn't think we could guarantee that everyone could to provided a house that would not compromise their essential needs. Mr. Peterson said that if we were only going through this exercise to get federal monies, then he wanted no part of it. He said if we were developing a comprehensive housing plan to make Fridley a better place to live and to develop the kind of corr�unity we want. The other Planning Commission members � agreed. Mr. Boardman said that this was not the end statement of the housing plan, definitely not. Mr. Peierson said that then this would be the answer to the people, that the objectiVe of this plan was to make Fridley a better place to live. Chairman Harris said why don't we say that. He didn't see this statement any place in the plao. Mr. Starwalt said that he agreed that the purpose of the comprehensive housing plan was not to get Federal money. We also agree that if we are going to participate in certain desirable forms of Federal funds, we do have to comply with certain things. He said this would not be compromising the Council or the community. He said that making Fridley a better place to live was the number one objective, but in the process of doing that we can also put ourselves in the position where we can partake in federal matching funds situations where they do occur, in a manner in which he thought they all could live with. Mr. Boardman said he didn't know huw this statement should be handled. He said he didn'tnecessarily feel that.�his had.to bea goal statement in t6e_tiousing plan. He said maybe this could be a statement of purpose for setting up the goals and objectives. Chairman Harris said he thought this would clear the air on a lot of things. Mr. Boardman said he agreed with Mr. Bergman that the word 'assure' should probably not be in this objective. IdB�ION by Sergman, seconded by Peterson, that fhe Planning Commission � approve as the second objective "Encourage programs to provide housing at a cost individuals and famiIies can afford withou� compromising essentiaZ needs. Upon a vo�ce vote, a1� voting aye, the motion carried una�imously. °�'^'s�' Planni�g Commission Meeting - January 21 1976 Page 20 Chairman Harris read the third proposed objective "Promote the preservation and upgrading of existing residential neighborhoods." Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Boardman to define a residentiat neighborhood.• Mr. Boardman said it was a group of residential housing units that utilize similar City services and are surrounded by similar barriers. It was made up of similar typES of people. Chairman Harris said that was a neighborhood. Mr. Bergman said he wanted the word neighborhood replaced by housing. Mr. 8oardman said he would agree with that. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Corr¢nission approve the thir.d goal objective to read " Promote the preservation and upgra�ing of existing residentzal housing." Upon a voice vote, aZl voting aye, the motion ' carried unanimousZy. Chairman Narris read the fourth goal objective which read "Promote a sufficient variety of ho��sTng types, designs, sizes, ownership and occupancy situat�ions, and env�ronments to allo� all individuals a choice of housing suited to their needs." Mr. Scott said he felt the 2nd and fourfih object�ve were the same thing and one should be deleted. Mr. Sergman said he felt the 2nd objective had to do with economics and this goal had to do with promoting a variety of housing types. MOTiON by Scott, seconded by LangenfeZd for discussion, that th.is goal objective. be approved cl?angzng a1Z indiv3duals to aSl people. • Mr. Langenfeld said he would li!:e the other members opinion on this goal statement readina "Promcte a sufficient variety of housing to allow all people a choice of housing suitable to their needs." Mr: Bergnian said the goal objective as originally stated he thought was wordy and redundant. He said that if some one asked us how we were going to a17 this h ere, it would be difficu]t to come up with an answer. He said design, sizes, ooanership, etc. would be impossible to promote. He said he thought this was taking away the builders prerogatives. Mr. Scott said he thought what this goal objective was trying +_o say was that there were more ways to build houses than crackerboxes. Mr. Narris said the new State requlations on the saving of enel°gy was going te restrict this goal objective. In his opinion, this regulation was going to tend to promote the crackerbox house. Mr. Bergman said this was all going to be relat3ve to cost. You could st�ll get what you want, it wi1l;Sust cost you more. U�n a vr.ice vote, Scott voting aye, baZance oE votes nay, the MOTION FATLED.- � � � � � � MOTION by Bergman, _seconded by Yeterson, that the Planning Cormnisszon approve P.?:e fourth goal objective which cei11 read "Promote a sufficient variet� of housing to a11ow people a choice of selection. Mr. Scott said fae would speak against this motion, because this wordin� ta�as aLnest the same as in the goal statement. He thought the orig nal 9oa1 objective sunported tne goal sta±ement. Mr. Peterson said the goal statement we are providing, and in the goal objective was allowing people a selection. _�� Plannin Commission Meetinq - January 21> 1976 Page 21 UPON a vaice vote, Scott voting nay, the other 4 members voting aye, the � motion carried. Chairman Harris read the next proposed goal objective. "Develop and maintain the neighborhood concept as a basic physical planning unit for citizen interaction and residential development." Mr. Bergman said the way this goal objective was written,it was out of context of the goal area of housing. Mr. Boardman said he would agree. He said this would probably be under an "Economic Vitality" goal which would be considered at a later date. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, the the P2anning Commission delete "Develop and maintain the neighbarhood concept as a basic physicaZ planning unit for citizen interaction and residentiaZ development" from the Housing GoaZ Objectives. Upon a voice vote, aI1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimous2y. Chairman Harris read the next proposed goal o4jective: "Promote Metro- wide housing development framework policies, where possible, so as to fulfill the City's role as a Metropolitan neighborhood." Mr. Bergman said he felt the words "where possible" were redundant. � Mr. Bergman asked if we promoted P1etro-�ide housing development framework . policies would we become a Metropolitan neighborhood? Mr. Boardman said we were a Metropolitan neighborhood. Mr. Boardman said this would probably be a better statement if it started with incorporate rather than promote. He said that then the "where possib1e" part of this goal objective should be left in the statement. He said that we may not want to promote all their framework policies. ' MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission approve the goa2 objective '.'Incorporate Metro-wide housing deveZopment framework policies, where possible, so as to fulfi2l the City`s role as a Metropolitan neighborhood." Upon a voice vote, a1Z voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Scott, that the fourth goel objective as originally stated be added_.as a new goal objective, Th_ MOTION DIED for Iack of a second. Chairman Narris asked if there were any other goal objectives that the Planning Commision felt should be included. There was no response. REVIEW OF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN 1tOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission tabZe the review of the Proposed Comprehensive Housing Plan until thezr meeting of January 28, 1976. ADJOURNMENT: � MOTSON by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Planning Commission meeting of January 2I, 2976 adjourned at 12:55 A.M. City of Fridley PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING MEETING - JANUARY 28> 1976 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: � Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Scott, Bergman, Harris, Wahlberg, Langenfeld Members Absent: Peterson Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Dick Sobiech, Public Works Director Ray Leek, Planning Interne Nancy Reeves, Metropolitan Council Barbara Shea, Vice Chairperson, Human Resources Commission PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED COMPREHENS NE HOUSING PLAN MOTION by Scott, seconded by Bergman, tfiat the Planning Coimnission open the Pub2ic Nearing on the proposed Comprehensive Housing Plan. Upon a voice vote, a1I voting aye, Chairman Xarris opened the Public Xearinq at 7:38 P.M. Mr. Jerrold Boardman, City Planner, gave the following presentation on the Froposed Comprehensive Nousing Plan. • Housing was a basic need to provide good quality life for any human being. Housing was one of the largest single investments that any person would probably make in their lifetime. When people look for housing, there were several things :� thay they were looking for, such as health, security, social relations, status, correnunity faciilites and services, privacy, access and environment. These services are all basic to the quality of life. For this reason, it was impor•tant that we pian for housing. This was the purpose of the Comprehensive Housing Plan. The Compr•ehensive Housing Plan was made up of three areas. The first a:rea was survey and analysis, which was comprised of a survey of existing housing costs, past housing trends, expected fu.ture housing trends, if they • continue like past trends, as well as social-economic conditions in the cominunit�. These, together with the housing goals that have been laid out by the community, are the main thrust in implementing this plan. The implementation process 4vas a very important aspect of the plan. There was no real need for the plan if it couldn't be implemented. To take a closer look at the plan, the first thing that should be discussed was the growth trends in the community. The population gains for Fridley were quite extensive fi�om 195Q to 1960 and up to 1970. We are seeing a leveling off of our population which �•�as similar to what had happened in Columbia Heights where their population peaked out in 1970. We expect Fridley's population to peak out in 1980 to 1990. With this> we willfind our population stablizing and may even see some reduction of population. He said that an important factor was that our community was maturing. In 1360 the median age in Fridley was 2U.8 and by 1970 it was 22.0. This means that there has been a drop in persons between 0 to 18 years old and an increase in the number of people between 18 to � 65. One thing that was not characteris±ic of a maturing community that toe have #ound was in the eTderly. Although the elderly were increasing at the same rate, this rate �1as 2.1 in 1960 and 2.1 in 1970. We had anticipated a greater rate of growth in the over fi5 age group. �� '—�. Planninq Commission Special Public Hearin�Meeting-Januarv 28, 1476 Page 2 �i� In this Comprehensive Housing Plan there characteristies of Friddey, These map seri.es we are making changes on.the maps to make the shows the percentage of population in block g The largest concentration of the elderly was South of 61st Avenue where about 20% of the pe the elderly were pretty much spread over the are maps showing the social are somewhat confusing , but m more clear. The first map roups 65 years of age or more. � along University Avenue and ople w�re elderly, but actually community in a range of O,to 5%. Another social-economic condition in the community was the poverty lev� . el incomes. We have a map showing where househo9ds below poderty level are located with 0-5% of the population and 5- 10% of the populaiion, tdetro Council has another indication of low and moderate income housinq which " ey use for a lot of their funding review and this was below 50% of the - Metro median i.ncome. There was a:map in this plan showing a breakdown of this giving the areas of 10-2Q% and 20-40Y where incomes were below 50% of the Metro median income levei. Some other pertinent information we have in . this plan as to low and moderate income housing was that-we have approximately 250 households below the federally defined poverty level income. �f these 250 households> we on'y have '3 that �,re recei��ing some form er public . assistance. He said this imba7ance could bF becauss some people ��rere nat a�rtare,. ttiat some form of federal assistance was available to them. He said that federal assistance was going to a dispr000rtibnate aribunt of oeople wiih incomes over the poverty level. 250 households abcve the federaily defined poverty level are receiving some form of federal assistance. He said this could include aid to dependent chi7dren and food stamps. Another thing that was quite apparent was that some of the households below the 50% federally defined poverty level income were paying more than 25Y of the�ir income for housing. This 25% figure was used for federal funding and by the Metropolitan Counc � and they felt ihat this was the mo"st that s�iould be paid for housing withoui� jeopardizing other needs and wants. When you pay more than 25� of ydur inconie for housing you start cutting down on other essentiai needs of the household. A1so, as far as the incomes below the 50% of the Metropo}itan Area;median incomes, we estimate thai, we have approximately 1,504 households or 16:2% of a71 households, having an income below the 50% Metropolitan Area median income level. This was a 1975 estimation. There are 9,400 households in Fridley, This covers the social-economic data. Housing Characteristics was th2 next item in this plan. In this plan our social-economic data was basically taken from the 1970 census. We have interpolated that up to 1975 data where we could. The social-economic data was presented on block group. All of our housing data was 1975 data which has been taken from our assessing files. We have broken this down block by block, and this was not by bluck group. We know where our housing units are as far as housing data, whereas our social-economic data was pinpointed in generat areas. Under our housing data, we are looking at out past development in housing and estimating our future development in housing. Housing development will continue to grow while our population was stabilizing and would possib7y drop. One of the things that affect this was that our family sizes were decreasing. Therefore you need more housiny to maintain the same population level. He said that Chart #4 sho�,+rs our hausing growth from 1975 to 2000 assilming our present land use. We only have so much residential land left as we are about 85% developed. Without any rezoning or any change in residential land use,� we would probably end up with something less than the 14,000 housing units t t we shoEV on this chart. Assuning certain development j?ressures and.certain development trends, like whether apartment monies will break loose because o� �� . Planning Commission Special Pu61ic Hearinq Meetinq - January 28, 1975 Paqe 3`�� more monies available or a lower percentage rate for mortages. The dotted line on this chart show the potential of housi,ng growth. Out of a total of 9,400 � housing units, approximately 6,131 are 'single family owner-occupied units. There are also approximately 2,881 multiple units and close to 406 motiile homes. The mean value ranqe far owner-occupied homes was somewhere in the ran9e of $20,000 to $25,000. In this range we have 39% of all our housing units. This $20,000 to $25,000 was structural value, and does not include land costs. You can assume that the land costs range anywhere from $8,000 to $15,000. This will give"you some idea of the market value of homes. In looking at our housing stock, the break-off range for low and moderate housing was aroun $20,000. Approximately 1,000 owner-occupied single family units range in a value of less than $20,000. A high proportion of these are in the �1II,000, �19,000 to •$20,000 range. A lower proportion are in the range of what we would call low and moderate income housing. We also have approximately 730 multiple dwelling units currently renting for less than $150 per month. That was also the break- off range of low and moderate income housing for rental structures. In looking at housing characteristics and housing supply, we have four condition levels. These are new, good, fair and poor. Fair and poor conditions are those housing units that need considerable work as fa��as maintenance and st�u�tural damage. Poor, the structure was still habitable, but should be torn down. We have approximately 11 units in the communit,y that were classified as poor. Under fair we are talking about considerable preferred maintenance or damage to structure, items beginning to show were damaged window frames and sills, floors and the roof may be beginning to sag, and there has been considerable wear and tear on the structure. On Chart #5, we have approximately 997 low to moderate owner-occupied units. Of these we have approximately 227 units in fair condition and 11 units in poor condition. This means there are approximately 759 units � in good condition. As far as the rental structure, we have found some error in this. We show 729 lotv to moderate rental units, with no units in fair condition and no units in poor condition. In talking to the City Assessor, he estimated that about 5% of the rental structures were in fair condition with none in poor condition. This would mean that about 50 rental units would be in fd�r.condition �nd 679 units in good condition. We are going to be doing more checking in to this, but all the records are at Anoka County,�but he- thought the figure given to them by the assessor should be pretty accurate. We have a map showing where the highest percentage of residential structures in fair and poor condition are lacated. Another characteristic of housing which we have to correlate with the four conditions of housing, new, good, fair and poor was the age of the structure. We have maps in this plan showing the location of structures by age. Most of the housing structures in the City are r.elaiively new housing. 65q of our housing was in the 0 to 20 years old range. About 20� to 40`/ of our housin9 was in to 20 to 30 year range. Age characteristics of housing has close correlation to fair and pcor conditions. The next classification of housing by age was for housing over 30 years old. We are talking about 51 to 20% in this area. Another thing we look at when we look at present and past characteristics of housing was what was happening i� the core City and what was happening in Columbia Heights, and how all of this relates to Fridley. Fridley has to look carefully at past happenings and trends in Columbia Heights and Northeast � Minneapolis in order to get an idea of what kind of trends will be affectin9 us. We have taken a look at Columbia Heights quite carefully and have found that Columbia Heights, about 10 years ago, had many of the characteristics that Fridley was-showing in some of its areas today. Columbia He.ights,population has leveled off, they have started to drop in population, the population has matured �"�.� , �s R. Planning Commission Special Public Hearinq Meetina - January 28, 1976 Paqe 4 at somewhat a faster rate than Fridley. This started in Northeast Minneapolis. approximatel,y 15 years ago. This characteristic that started in Northeast Minneapolis, happened in Columbia Heights, and was now starting to happen ir� Fridley. Columbia Heighis has taken action throu9h different Federal programs and has turned this arcund somewhat, because of preservation programs they have gone into. These trends basically follow different planning theories such as the concentric ring theory, which refers to zonal rings when a certain level of population was reached, and the housing levei reaches a certain point, they are compatible and they move into a ring further out. We can see these patterns happening in tVortheast Minneapolis'and Columbia Heights and see it starting to happen in FridTey. Taking all this data and putting it together, we can see some areas where this was happening. W2 caTl these primary focus areas. We have basical7y three areas where these conditions are starting to affect the housing. The first area was what was knewn as the Hyde Park Area. We do have some speciaT problems in this area because sone of the residential areas have been zoned to commercial, and w�s nct being developed as commercial use-. There was quite a mixture of housin9 types in this area, such as apartments and single family homes. There was a high concentration of the e7derly living in this area. We have a lot of housing in this area that was in fair condition and there are trends of deter- ioration. The next primary focus area was the Riverview Heights area. There are specTal problems with this area also because part of it was in the flood plain. Potential development vias being curtaiYed as far as development in the flood plain area. Anotrer pctential area �aas in the Plymouth area in the southern part of Frid7ey. This was once a part of Columbia Heights and the housing in this area vra, characteristic of the housing in Columbia Neights,�is Fousing stock was bui�t when Columbia Heights wa� deveioping. In looking at tfie survey and analysis in this plan, we have to say what does this mean and what was happening, We can come up with certain implications if the City cantinurs in the trend that it was going. The City was maturing. Our population was grc,wing o7der. We have seen a decrease in our population between O to 18 years ar.d an increase in our popu]ation between the ages of • 18 to 65. Presently we a}°e ��ot she�aing an increase in the elderly, 65 years and older. This was probabl,y due to several reasons. We may not be providing enough housing opportunities to make it possible for elderly residents to remain in the community. Another facter could be accessibility for the elderly. If services were not readily availab�le for the elderly, they qenerally have to move to where the services are, Ne said there srere more elderly moving to Columbia Heights from Fridley than Lhere were elderly moving from the core City into Columbia iieights, because Co7umbia Heights has a pretty good proqram as far as fahding �„r thP at�ar7v k�a r�n sPe an aut-miaration of residents over 65 years old from Fridley. Flnother ir^^l�cation wa of an aid for low and modera*e income Fridley. 7here were apprex;mately l, ranges tk�at are actually habitable un and 729 are rental units. 226 of the focus areas tfiat:fiave beenpr�eviousle approximately 1,504 households with i mean income. Alihough the r�gures ct number of hnuseholds that were in nee thosa househoids were not living in t of those people wnose inr,ome was belc teve� that were payi��; more than 25% tliA M�trn Ccw ncil astimains of c1o5P. >±hat there may be a need for some kind �eople thet were presently living in �$8 units in ttie low and moderate income its. 759 of these units were owner-occupied owner-occupied units are in the primary described. At the same time there �aere �comes below the 50� of the Metropolitan ose as far as the units available and the d of those types of units, it seems L!r hose units. We do have a high percentl� N the 50% metropolitan median family income of their income for rente;l units. Therefore, to 2Q0 to 300 subsidized housing units are Planninq Commission Special Public Hearinq Meetinq- January 28, 1976 Page 5 � fairly accurate as to what the comnunity could absorb. Another indication of ^'% � this was the information we have received>�n the number of households that were actually receiving some type of federal aid. There were only 13 households � below the poveriy level who were receiving some type of federal aid. It was ; evident that there were federal programs that were available that were not being � used by those households. In contrast to this there are 250 households above the poverty level who were getting some form of federal assistance. This was quite a relative difference. Another thing that should be pointed out in our implications in the survey i and analysis was that the City population in the future would reach a peak and level off and will most likely decrease until it reaches some type of stabilizing point, where the population fits the housin9 or the housing fits the population. There were three areas in Fridley that if they were allowed to continue as they were 9oing, would continue to deteriorate and affect other areas. What we found in the survey and analysis has to be related to what the area housing goals should be. There has to be an implementation program, which will hopefully be a viable progra� that could be followed, and if i.t was folloWed would carry out the objective of the housing goal. There were three areas in the implementation plan. The first area was housing preservation. The second area was getting involved in aid programs to help those persons who need Federal funding or some type of aid for low and moderate income people. The third area was more of a code revision area aad policy formulation. The recommendations that were made in the plan were made before the Planning Commission established the total goal area, therefore there will be some changes in the implementation section. There was nothing in the plan to implement the fifth � �objective which was to incorporate Metro?wide housing development framework policies, where possible, so as to fulfill the City's role as a Metropolitan neighborhood. No type of implementation for this objective was in this plan. Since the housing stock in our community was in relatively good condition, what we were talking about was a low percentage figure as to fair and poor housing conditions. Therefore, our primary effort was for housing preservation. There were several ways to 90 as far as developing housing preservation. One key point was getting people involved in their neighborhood. The City should • direct some of its efforts in defining what the neighborhoods are and strengthen their visual> spatial add social cohisiveness, and try to develop programs where � the people can be involved. Another thing the City can do was public improvement. This would include updating street lighting, curbing, and just general street maintenance adds to a community. A neighborhood that was starting to deterioraie gets the feelin9:that they are being left out by the City. When the City shows an interest, it also brings back the interest at the neighborhood level., Another recomnendation was to continue the development of the bikeway-walkway system to increase accessibility 6et�xeen residential neighborhoods. This particular recomnendation should be expanded to include other means af accessi6ility and not limit it to the bikeway-wa]ko-iay system. There was also a recommendation that the City be the prime mover in developing a resource center on housing maintenance and rehabilitation. This resource center could probably be handled through,the.information and referral service. This would provide the names, phone numbers and other " of information for people who were interested in rehabilitating or remodeling their homes. T,iis wasvaluable information that they presently do not have. Another thing that the City could make available �. were warkshops on home improvements which could 6e given by our building inspectors. This would allow people to co�e in and understand what the City codes were and what the building codes were all atout. These recommendations are all important as far as preservation of housing units. � s .�S Planning Commission Special Public Hearinq Meetinq -JanuarY 28, 1976 Paq_e 6 Another area the City should be lookinq at were aid programs. There are szveral programs that are available. One of these was Community Development funds, which was a block grant program. Most of the funds that t�ere availabl through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that were avai�le three or four years ago have now been grouped into one block grant. The community could use this money as leverage money for local lending institutions, which would be the same as the City subsidizing low interest rates on housing loans. It could also be used as direct grants for nousing rehabilitation. Another thing these block grants could be used for wouid be to improve downtown areas, and improve accessibility to these areas, and other things related to low to moderate income people, as well as related to improvements that would improve the City as a whole. Another source of monies availabl2 for remode7ing and . neighborhood preservation would be tlie Mtnnesota Housing Finance Agency, which were subsidies ?n bank interest rates. 7�jis would save the applicant 2 to 3% on home improvement loaris._ Another area of funding that would be available would be under Section 8 rent subsidy program. This wo�ld be direct rental subsidy to persons. Before this time, a lot of rental subsidies went to housing units. 7he total after effeci of that type of program was a lot of sium areas, or a concen�ration of 7ow incorre housing, 7here was a 7�c of problems with this. Under the new program they were subsidizing people and this would make units available throughout the entire community. People with low to moderate incomes can find places to live throughout the community with these rent subsidies.. There are several alternatives for applying for Section 8 funds. One alternative was to do this through our own Housing and Redevelopment Authority, or else contract with Metro Council and Metro Council wi11 give use some aid as to appiication and dispersement of funds, We could let the Metropolitan Council do it a]1. We wou7d liave a contract with Pietro Council and let them do the accounting procedures, the application proc.edures and the screening. The oi� thing we would do on this would be the inspection of the units, or we could contract with Metro Council for making application and handling accounting procedures. The City Staff would make the necessary client contact, provide a lay out of housing units available for Section 8 funds and also make the inspections. For code revision and policy formulatibn, the City should re-evaluate their: current land usaqe in order to determine if we have an adequate balance between comn�ercial-industria7 and residentia� ]and use. This was very important. Another thing that shou7d be looked at was the present Zoning Codes to determine if they were a viable means ef ensuring human.scale in the City's residential deveiopments. We may be discriminating in our zoning code against low and moderate income housing. Another recommendation was�that the City continually look for r,ew federal, state and local programs the community could use fow the preservation of housing a7ong with aid programs. Something that could be added to this plan was to determine the social impact of housing on the cemmunity. This could be studied as one of the impiementation procedures �f the plan as we71 as taking a look at Metropolitan Coancil's development framework policies on housing to see how well these policies coiald be implemented in our plan. Mr. Boardman said he would answer any yuestions anyone had on this plan. Mr. Scott said the Human Resources Commission was concerned that the citizens be informed of the program,s and pol�cies of this plan and in this � regard they had invited Mancy Reeves of the Metro Council Housing Division to present some facts about housing subsidies and statistics her office has �� C �. � w Planninq Commission Special Public Hearing Meeting-January 28, 1976 Pa9e 7 � gathered concerning these facts. He Would like to have her called on to explain in layman's terms, what some of these subsidy programs are and the resuJts her office has achieved from them in the Metro area and areas around our community. She will also be available to answer questions from the audience. Mr. Scott said there were many forms of subsidized housing and he'asked Nancy Reeves to explain the different programs. Ms. Reeves said there had been various types of subsidized housing avai3.able through •the years. Among them were 236, 235, Title I, Title II, etc. She said that rather than talk about numbers, she would just talk about the basic. types of subsidized housing. One type would be where a building was constructed, and then families or the elderly are able to live in this building. This building cou1d be owned by the City or Housing Fluthority, or under private ownership under what was formally called the 236 program. These are areas where you do have an identifiable building where people can say this was subsidized housing. In general these building have been for the elderly and have been quite successful. In other cases, it might be a building for families, or primarily foi� famiiies, and in many cases these buildings have been somewhat less desirable, not entirely successful. Now there was another type of subsidized housing that has not been � tried before, at least not on the scale that it was being done now, and that was what was currently known as Section 8. It provides under this program for a scattered side approach for subsidized housing, both for the elderly and for families. For families it was the best type of housing subsidy that has been provided by the Federal government, in that it allows the family the apportunity � to select a housing unit on its own. It doesn't direct them to a single identifi- able buiiding. It provides for scattered sites within a community rather than impaction within certain neighborhoods of low income people. For this reason, this was the program the Metro Council was operating and as far as they could see it was the most successful program for most communities to use. Mr. Scott asked Nancy Reeves a couple of questions on subsidized housin9. He asked if anyone from Soviet Russia or Communist China had made application for assistance.. Ms. Reeves said not in this area. Mr. Scott said then it was safe to assume that they viould all be Americans �aho applied for this assistance. Mr. Scott said that Columbia Heights had Section 8 housing and he wondered if Ms. Reeves knew how many applications they had received. Nancy Reeves said they � had just finished a comprehensive report on this and maybe you would be interested on how this program was going. She said that over all they had 13 communities partiCipating in the program. Overall there have been about 1200 people that have applied for this program, including 76 applicants in Columbia Neights and 52 in Coon Rapids. These were the two communities in Anoka County who were participating in the program. Mr. Scott asked how many of the 76 applicants in Columbia Heights were from the inner City. Ms. Reeves said that Columbia iieights had three applications from the center City and Coon Rapids had none. Mr. Scott asked how many people from Fridley applied? Ms.-Reeves said there weren't any currently in Columbia Heights, but in Goon Rapids there were three former Fridley residents who were receiving subsidized housing. Mr. Scott said then he could assume that all the wino's and derelicts and drug addicts were not lined up to board a bus on the 3rd Avenue bridge to come to Fridley to apply for Section � 8 subsidized housing. Ms. Reeves said we have'had some applications from the center City for tfie program, but as she mentioned before, there were already 13 communities with Section 8 subsidized housing, and within a few months there wi11 probably be 13 more comnwnities participating in the program. So far, no co�nunity has been impacted with center City residents. In fact the total number Planninq Com m ssion Special Public Hearinq Meeting-January 28, 1976 Page 8 of center-City residents who have been able to parfiicipate in this program �O right now in the suburban areas was about 32. � Mr. Scott said the reason he was asking these questions because it had , come up in th�s community that if �!e have subsidized housing, all ihe derelicts ! from the center-City were going to come out to Fridley when in fact your figures 1 indicate that this was not true. What was resulting was that Fridley residents y were leaving Fr9dley to go to the communities that they could afford to live in. Ms. Reeves said this was happening in other communities that did not have this � program. Mr. Boardman said that.he had received a butletin from HUD in the recent ; past in which it stated that the 235 program vrould be available but in a different e form than in the past. He asked Ms. Reeves if she could explain that program. Ms. Reeves said that the 235 program was one she didn't mention because it was i not currently in eTfect, but it will be in a somewhat modified form in effeet = in the near future. This was a mortgageassistance program for home_ownership. This wouid be primarily fow moderate income p^ople. The income limits would be relatively high for this program. It.wouid be an interest subsidy so tliat people buying a home would probably pay a 5% interest rate and a lower than average � down payment. Mr. Boardman said this would be similar to the rental subsidy 'g' program only it would be interest subsidy for home owners. Ms. Reeves said x that this generally would be administered by housing developers. It will not § be able to be used for hpusing that svas already developed, but for new housing ; that was about to be put on the market.through primarily the larger developers. ; Mr. Boardman asked if Ms. Reeves office would be haridling this program. She s said no, this would be handled through the developers. Mrs. Wahlberg said ihat Ms. Reeves ga.ve the figure of 76 for the number• of applicants for Section 8 housing in Columbia Heights. She gave the figure af 3 from the inner-City. How many �n�ere from Columbia Heights that applied? Ms. Reeves said she had two sets of figures. One set were of all the people � that applied, anc the other set was that of those that applied who were currentlY 9etting assistance. We only have a 500 unit program and we cannot assist eveyone who app7ies. For this reason we do not know how many people who � have �pp]ied from Fridley for these programs in Columbia Heights and Goon Rapids, � we only know that three people from Fridley are now getting assistance in Coon Rapids. She said she coul�n't answer where al� the people were from that applied � in Calumbia Neights because many of the a�plications were in the various process j steges. She said that currently there are 17 people who are receiving assistance , in Columbia Heights, and of tEiese 1;, 13 are from Co7umbia Heights. Three of them were from Minneapolis and St. Pau� and 1 was from Caon Rapids. The program does allow them to mave to any of the subur6s that were participating in this program so they do move around a litt7e. Nancy Reeves said there were genera7ly two age groups that applied for this program, Either its people who have yrown up in a community and suddenly are out on their own and are set±ing up households and find that they can't afford to live in the community tnat ihey have grown up in, or its people �aho are finally growing old and their income �,ras soing down. They maybe can no ionger afford to live in the cornmuriity that they hav2 liroed in all their tives. These are the two primary groups who have been applying for assistance under this com�un�itiesn mThisCwassonetofathehbe�iladvantages ofutherprogramnpius�the m� ticatf:ered sites. ��hir,h �oesn't create nroblem areas of any kind. �'� _.. 31 Planninq Commission Special Public Hearinq Meetinq -January 28 1976 Page 9 Mr. Scott said there have been suhsidized �ro�rams that have caused �roblems • but this Section 8 program doesn't seem to be that type of program. Was there any evidence that Section 8 was causing any kind of concentrations that caused problems with other progr.ams. Ms. Reeves said no and especially with the Metro program HRS in l3 cortmunities and we will be doubling th�5 program so that no community have to carrry a large share of the burden. It will be so spread out that not only will the people in the program have a choice, it will be spread out over so many corrmunities that no one community should have any pro6lem with this program. Mr. Boardman said that Fridley had recently been put into a priority I housing area. How will this affect us as to federal funding for this Section 8 program? Ms. Reeves said that what that means was that Fridley was a first priority candidacy by having a good level of services and facilities available. This includes shopping facilities, schools,"churches, and all the other things that make a community a nice place to live in. We feel that subsidized housing should be in communities that have convenient locations because people with less money probably can't afford to dri.e as far f.or.the things that they need. . Because of this a first priority area was encouraged to provide a good share of subsidized housing. She said she didn't know what number had been assigned to Fridley, but that was a relative thing that depended on federal funding. Mr. Boardman said that under the allocation plan the number was 248 units. He asked how they related to the allocation plan as far as to monies available. Ms. Reeves said she wasn't sure just what material Mr. Boardman was talkinq about at the moment, but that the number 248 was re�resentatiueof the amount.of housing subsidies that could be provided in Fridley over a three year period, primarily � through Section 8 rental subsidies or in terms of a new construction subsidized housing program, or perhaps a combination of the two. This would not include other types of programs which were not included in this figure. Mr. Boardman asked if we would be guaranteed that figure if monies were available? Ms. Reeves said the�efigures were a11 dependent upon �12,000 units worth of housing subsidies coming into the Metropolitan area.,during 1976 to 1978. This would be about 4,000 units a year. If that many do come into the Metro area; and we are hoping that they will, then that will mean if Fridley has applied for housing in those numbers, that certainly they should receive it. Mr. Boardman asked what was. the responsibility of the community if those funds were not available. Ms. Reeves said the number 248 was arrived at as a percentage fi9ure.of the total P4e�ro areas share. Mr. Boardman said this number was set up on the basis of if the funds were available then. Ms. Reeves said that was correct. Ms. Reeves said that first priority communities however, are the most strongly encouraged to apply for subsidized housing, even in some cases, to apply for more than your share. ' Mr. 5cott said he had been looking at the 1976 area plan for programs for the ageing under Title III. This plan says a bill proposed by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency would set aside $150,000 for the development and marketing of new housing alternatives for older persons, and if this money was appropriated during the next legislative session, area agency staff would provide technical assistance to those who were working on the designs of these housin9 alternatives for older persons. Ne asked if anyone on the staff of Metro Council had same kind of a handle on this. M,. Reeves said she couldn't give a complete answer on this. � We have a separate progrm at the Metro Ccimcil called the Ageing Program and that would be the staff that was mentioned. We have taken a number of surveys on atternate housing for the elderly, but these surveys do not lead to just one answer, or to or�e conclusion. She was sure that the City could get assistance from the Metro Council if Lhse funds become available for that use. Planning Commission Special Public Hearing Meeting-Januarv 28 1976 Pa e 10 � — Mr. Bergman asked Nancy Reeves if when any subsidy funds were app)ied to property, if that affected the real estate taxes? Ms. Reeves said that some subsidized housing programs did have an effect on the tax ievy, in fact� every subsidized housing program today, with the exception of Section 8 existing housing program, has had an effect on the property tax levy. Section 8 housing remains privateiy owned and remains on the tax ro71s at the full rate, because tne property was not publicly owned in any way and the assistance was assistance provided to the tenant and not to the owner. In the case of Section 236 multiple type family subsidized housing, the assessment wou7d be at 50% of the normal rate. In public housing where the housing was owned by a housing authority they have what they call a payrrient in lieu of taxes, which was 6ased on the rent collected in tfie building. This generally ainounts to a much smaller amount than what would be collected for the normal tax levy. Mrs. Wahlberg asked if the monies available for Section 8 housing was used for rehabilitation of existing housing or was it used for new construction? Ms. Reeves said i± was used for both. She safd it �,ras used in three different W3ys, and she had discussed mostly the use of Section 8 funds f�or rent subsidies� wtsich•had nothing to du with the structure, other than the fact that a siructure used for this subsidy has to be in good condiiion.and was inspected annually. Other than ihat, this was not a new censtruction program or a rehabilitation program, however, both of these aiternatives are available under a new law. These have not been used successfully to date, but she understood that they would continue to try to use these programs. Mrs. Wahlberg said the reason she had asked this quesiion was �ecause that earlier in the presentation it had Ueen stated that there were 238 owner occupied units and 50 rental units that were 9n fair and pcor candition: If these were rehabilitated, would they meet th the Metropo7itan Cawr,ci7's ai7ocati0n plan for somevahere between 200 to 300 uni�r were we talking abeut additicnal units tha+:, the City must bring in to meet the �teiro Cuuncii's pian. Mr. Boardman said we were net talking about units per se, we were talking about subsidies for persons. A lot would depend upon the value of the structure after it was rehabilitated. Nancy Reeves said that the Metro Council had a separate al7ocation p7an for"rehabt7itation. They are two separate plans with separate numCers, etc. The 248 units that were designated for Fridley was for housing subsidies to be provi�ed to people who were currently renting. housing of some kind. Additir�nal subsidies for rehabilitation would be a completely separate activit� with separate g�als, etc., and would not necessarily be subsidies to the renter ar to the homeot�rner to Iower his monthly housing costs. Tfiey would improve the heusing in the community but they wouldn't necessarily make it more afferdab}e. That's the basic difference. They were both worthy goals.' Mr. Langenfeld askecit�s. Reeves if they had noted any movement of peo�le back into the eenter City. Ms. Reeves said there was a definite economic iinbalance in the cen±er cities. "ihe n?ore weaitiiy, more affluent residents tend to leave the r.enter cities and the lower income people tend i;o stay, and other lo�a income people tend to meve ir*, We i�ave seen some �ndications that this was being � reversed a Tittie bi�, but it was not something that was happening in rapid process. Mr. Sobiech asked if community r2sidents were given priority in the screening process for Sect�an 8 suhsidized housiny? Ms. R2eves said the latest word from ' HllD, which provides the funds for this program, was that resident preference ! was s�mething that they woi�ld no longer accept in the rules for operating a� housing authority. The program we iiave right now has no residency preference, i the similar programs that �ere operating in Minneapolis and St. Paul had no residency preference, 4lthough ather City programs do. This Section II program I � � Planning Commission Special Public Hearing Meeting-January 28, 1976 Paqe 11 does not, and for that reason we cannot exclude other people from participating in the program. This was how Fridley people were able to make application in . other cities and why there were three Fridley residents in the Codn Rapids pragram. Nowever, the way we have been operating our program was to divide up the 500 units that we have, giving a share to each community, using a formula which allocates units on the basis of our allocation plan, plus the supply of rental units available for use under this program, in each of the communities. This. share ranged from 15 units fbr Robbinsdale to 81 in Brooklyn Park. The way people are selected for this pro9ram was that those who apply in each separate comnunity are put in a pool for that correnunity. The lowest income people within each of those pools are selected up to the quota that has been established for that particular community. In this way, we do try to protect the interests of each community that was participating in this plan. Mr. Langenfeld said he thought people i,n the co�nunity would be interested in knowing where the funds came from for Section 8 subsidized housing. He said he knew that it came from the taxpayers, but if this money was available, he thought the people in Fridley should get their share back to improve their property. Nancy Reeves said that as far as where the money came from, it came from the Federal Treasury. The Metro Council applied to HUD for these funds and the application was approved on June 30, 1975. This was for a 5 year program of providing rent subsidies for 500 housing units at any one given period of ' time, over a five year period. The total amount of money�in the contract for � this five year program was about six million dollars. This money does come from the Federai Treasury through the State office of HUD. Each state has � an office and each state was allocated funds through some magic formula that the federal government has. That money was in turn split about 50� to the Metro area and about 50% to the balance of the State. Within the Metro area, different housing authorities were invited to apply and the units allocated were'based on those who had successful applications for funding. If you are interested in who did get funding last time around, approximately 800 units were funded. Metro Council got 500 of them on behalf of the 13 communities who had participated, 100 units went to the City of St. Paul; 50 units went to Dakota Caunty and their housing authority, and additional units went to the City of Bloomington, South St. Paul, Mankato and St. Cloud. We intend to . apply to the federal government for additional funds to expand the program and to provide this opportunity in many more suburbs this year. Mr. Langenfeld said then it would be correct to say that monies are available and that as taxpayers we fiad contributed our share to these funds and we should take the opportunity to get this back in the form of rental subsidies. Nancy Reeves said she couldn't agree more. Mr. Langenfeld said that if we didn't apply for these funds �de good lose out on this available monies. Ms. Reeves said that many communities did not have the staff or the expertise needed to get these funds, and although it was not fair, this was the way the game was played. For this reason, many co�nunities have not had the opportunity to get their share back. Mr. Langenfeld said that communities can be penalized on other funding, due to a point system, if they do not apply for certain funds. Nancy Reeves said she looked at it the other way in that they were rewarded if � they did apply. Mr. Bergman said he knew tiiis was an awkward question but he asked Ms. Reeves if to the extent that she knew how the federal system works, �f she would �� Planning Commission Special Pubdic Hearing Meeting-January 28, 1976 Page 12 "`�� care to give any opinion as to what extent a Fridley application for Federal housing assistance, at the present time, would have any effect on either pr t or future tax requirements? Ms. Reeves said that was a heavy one. Mr. Ber�i � said if she would like to pass, that would be alrigfit. Ms. Reeves said sfie really didn't feel qualified to answer this question. The only thing she could say was that appropriations were made by Congress for Section 8 housing program � at a certain level of dellars to be used throughout the country. There have always been more applications than fundsavailable, so there has never been aro instance where funds have been turned back to the Federal government. If you were concerned that by Fridley appiying for funds would increase the federal budget, she d:dn't think ihat would happen, but on the other hand, Fridley not applying for Federal funds would nat iower the federal budget either, because someone else would get the funds. Mr. 8ergman said that in the Metropolitan Council process did it work in such a fashion that unsatisfied requests affect tfie Metropolitan Counci3's requests for th? following year. Mr. Boardman said he was asking if the demand fior funds affects the Metropo]itan Council's request for funds from the fe�eral government. Ms. Reeves said this was true. She said the number of requests for rent subsidies.unde,r the Section 8 progra.: did show that there was a need for this type of program in the Metro area. Mr. Langenfeld said he thought that one of the main points that Mr. Boardman made in his presentation was the fact that our housing could continue _ to deteriorate. If the City of Fridley did not apply for these funds then we would have to keep up our own community by perhaps drawing out of our own general funds. By doing that, the individual citizen would have additional tax dollars used when the money f�r federal funding programs was already set aside for these programs. Nancy Reeves said this was not only true in Section 8 housing, b in terms of rehabilit:ation and community development funds that were availa� both at the feder�s7 and state level. There were several pools from which money can be obtained and she thought that FridTey would 6e more than eli9ible to • apply for any of them. Mrs. Wahlberg said tfiat Ms. Reeves had said there were 13 communities participating in Section 8 housing and they hoped.,to double that amount. Rt the same time the dollar amount available and the number of applications available would remain constant, or are you going to double that a1so. Ms. Reeves said that would have to be doubled also. Right now we have 13 canmunities � with 500 units to giVe out. Those 13 communities were not going to lose any of those subsidies. We rntend to add approximately that many more communities and to apply to the federal goverment for at least 500 more subsidy units, and perhaps we may be ab]e to yet more. In 1976 we intend to apply for sorae additionaT funds to add soine much sma)ler communities, communities without staff or t.hr capability and wouldn't be able to operate a large scale program, It wauld be a aifferent tYpe of program entirely. Fridley would be the group wtrere vre were talking about an earlier application. Mrs. Wahlberg said that it there o-iere 76 applicants in Columbia Heights, would it be reasonable to expect that Frid]ey would be allocated a similar number. Do we have any idea of hoo-r many V�>or>le we could help with this type of program. Nancy Reeves said that 76 people did ap�ty for rent subsidies in Columbia Heights, but the number of units LhnC h��d br.cn allocated to Columhia Heights was only about 35. She said the applications liad been running about double as to the number of rental subsidy wiits avai}ab1c. For instance there have been about 1,200 applications for the 500 units ava�le. She said that looking at Fridley being in a first priority area, w'rth �3 lar number in the aTiocation plan, coupled with t.he fact that you h�+ve well aver 2800 rental units in the community, �aany of them within the rent lic�it currently � prescr;bed for the Section 8 existing housing program, these factors would j �� Y�� Planning Commission Special Pub]ic Hearinq Meeting-Januarv 28 1976 Page 13 lead Ms. Reeves to believe that Fridley would receive a respectable share ofi these housing units, if they were participating in this program. She said she � could not make a commitment, but she thought it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 units. She said it was all relative and it would depend upon the other co�nmunities who would be joining this program. Mr. Scott said he wanted to thank Nancy Reeves for coming to this Public Hearing on her own time, and he thought she typified the spirit of cooperation a person can receive when they go to the Metro Council. Chairman Harris said he had a couple of questions about the survey. He said that Mr. Boardman said there were 250 households below the poverty level who were not receiving any public assistance. �Mr. Boardman said we had approx- imately 2.7% of our housefiolds who were below poverty level. Of those b�1ow poverty level (2.7%) we have approximately 13 households receiving some form of pubiic assistance. Mr. Harris asked how many households who were above the poverty level were receiviRg assistance. Mr. Boardman said this was approximately 2A0 hooseholds. Mr. Leek said poverty levels were determined by the size of the household. Mr. Leek said this public assisiance could include aid to dependent children, so the implications that 240 households were over the poverty level and receiving some type of public assistance might not imply what it seemed to imply. Mr. Boardman said that all types of public assistance was included and there were several programs that did not relate to poverty which were available. He said the point they were trying to make was that out af 250 househalds under the poverty level, only l3 were getting some type of public assistance. � Chairman Harris asked if the 25% figure thet was used for the amount of income that should be spent on rent was gross income or net income. Nancy Reeves said it was gross income. Barbara Shea, Uice Chairperson of the Human Resources Corr�nission, said she would like to state the position of this Commission on the proposed Comprehensive Nousing Plan. "The Fridley Human Resources Commission had reviewed the Comprehensive Housing Plan. The general feeling is that this plan will serve the needs of the citizens of this community very well. The fact that our elderly population has not increased possibly indicates that it may not be financially feasible for many of our citizens to remain here while living on a fixed income. The same criteria would apply to newly marrieds. The cost of housing units is often not within the reach of many young people, causing them to go elsewhere. It is the responsibility of the community as a whole to help thesesame citizens, some of who helped establish our City and others who would like to help i� building our future, to remain here by providing accessible and suitable housing. The liuman Resources Coitimission recorrenends that renovation of problem areas begin as soon as possible, and further� that the City apply for available funds in order to establish a subsidized housing program. We recommend that subsidized housing be scattered throughout the City. The Human Resources Commission would like to commend the City Staff for its work on this pian. We feel that this plan meets the goals and objectives as outlined by the Human Resource Comnission and urge implementation as soon as possible." � Mrs. Shea asked why streets in the problem areas had not been repaired? Mr. Sobiech said they had been repaired under the street repair program, but when they had been origina?ly improved they were improved to what was known as a sub-standard section when compared to today's standards of concrete curb and gutters and blacktop surfacing. In the Hyde Park area, there was a zoning problem ��s � Planning Commission Special Public Hearing Meetin9-January 28, 1976 Page 14 and we tiaould like to straighten that problem out before going in to makP - improvements. We wouldn't want to put in curb cuts for driveways for sin91 family residences and apartments when there was a potential that parcels cou be combined into large parcels. This wouldn't fi± into the street pattern very well. In the other area, this was scheduled for street improvement in i976. Mrs. Shea asked if there were any houses that should be demolished. Mr. Boardman said they had 11 ho�ses t(�ai were classified in poor condition, but before we say any af them should be demolished, we would have to take a look at each house. Mr. Sobiecn said there was a difference between habitable and poor. Just because it was c7assified as poor in this�housing plan did not mean that it was not ha�itable. Before somethir�g can L�e demolished, it would have to be declared an unsafe structure and declared a pubTic nuisance. Mrs. Wahlberg said the Appeals Commissi�on had discussed this Comprehensive Housing Plan in detaiT at their last meeting. She said that several of the questions that had been raised a� this ,ieeting had been raised at that meeting. She thought the consensus of opinion was that the question of the ePderly vias of the utmost concern of the Appeals Conmission. It was our feeling that as a community we should take some positive action towards senior citizen housing. This was the area that we see as the first goal. The second concern seemed to be the preservation of our exist�ng housing. We vrere not saying that one had more priority over the other. We saw the two going hand in hand and we would like to see both programs addressed to, but our main concern was the elderly. Mrs. Wahlberg asked Mr. Boardman if he N�as familiar with the Operation Need Program that took place in Northeast Minneapolis ?ast year? Mr. Boardman s� he wasn't. Mrs. Wah7k�e�°g said this �fas a prograin s�ras a community project i which senior citizen and low income hous4ng was �dentified. These were privately owned housing units that needed atteniion. She said she couidn't remember which group sponsored this, but it was probably more than one group. They went to painters and paint suppliers, electricians, plumbers, etc., and then they set aside ai least two week ?nds, and got high school students to participate. They were taken in car loads to a specific house, and for instance, this entire house was pairted in one day. Mr•s. Wahlberg s�id she was throwing this idea out as a community concept for something that could be organized within our community. Mr. Boardman said this would go alony ��rith our concept of getting neighborhoods involved in their neighborhaod. He said orc�anizaiion like this would fit into this concept also. Mrs. Wahlberg said it also bothered the Appeals Commission that when the Plan talked about providing 200 to 300 units of subsidized housing it gave no idea where these units were going to go and there was a big difference between 2QQ units anG 300 units. i�1r. Boardman said they were not talking about 2-00 to 300 additional units. We are talking about utilizing 200 tQ 300 either exisLing units, or as federal funds become available, whether this was 235 programs or 236 programs. We were not necessarily talking about additional units, He said the 200 to 300 unit figure that was used in the plan was somewhat based on Metro Council's allocatfon figure before tney came up with the figure of 248. The Plan was trying to lay out a method of af:taining that range. Mrs. Wahlberg said this 248 figure was based on what? Mr. Leek said it was based bn the level of services available in a community, the number• of jobs the community can proy�e in relation to its populatiom, access on a tran>portation route, the need o� - families who.could use a rent subs�dy, and it was also based an tne total population. There were approximately five factors which go into the formulation of tfiis allocation.that the Metro Council uses. As further clarification, the 200 to 300 unit figure was based on tfie ;act that there were five proposed 3� Planninq Commission SPecial Public Hearin Meeting - Januar 28, 1976 Pa e 15 allocation plans just prior to the adoption of Section 8 housing. Those figures � were in this range depending upon the number of factors that ��rere used in �he calculations, which was approximately 200 to 300 for the City of Fridley. Mrs. Wahlberg said that if some of the housing that was rated as fair and poor was rehabilitated would this go into the 248 figure, if they were rental units, for instance. Mr. Boardman said we were looking at two different things that would be happening, maybe at the same time. We were looking at a preservation program in which we can rai`se the quality of some of our poor an� fair housing conditions. At the same time, we were looking at a subsidized program ,aher� it might be possible that some of these units could be utilized in that sub�idized program, however, there were other existing units within the community thaL were presently in good condition that could be used in this subsidized rental program also. He sa4d that by rehabilitating some of our housing stock, the value could change from say $18,000 to $25,OOQ and push it out of the range of the subsidy program. However, we do have enough other housir� units to fill the need for that program. Mr. Leek said that in addition, whether or not a unit can be utilitzed under the Section 8 program depends upon whether it comes up for rental. If any of those 200 to 300 units in the City that could be rehabilitated came up for rental and were in the appropriate range, they could be utilitized, but if they were owner-oc�upi.ed, ihen they couldn't. Mr. Boardman said then N�hen we were talking about rehabilitation or preservation of housing stock, we were talking about other programs. Dne � was to subsidize the interest rate on home improvements, and another program would give direct grants to people for this same purpose. Mrs. Wahlberg asked if in this 248 figure if they were talking about any new construction. Mr. Boardman said they were talking about any existing construction, any new construction, or any program where we can get subsidies from the federal goverment. In this case, maybe we were talking about Section 8 funds because Section 8 funds were more readily available. This was an existing rental program. Mr. Langenfeld asked how the City could control that the people who needed assistance got it, and the people who could probably help themselves did not get this assistance? Mr. Boardman said this was a problem with any program. He said there would be certain income limits before they can make application. He said that information would have to be made readily available so that people were aware of programs that they could apply for beca�se they had such a need. He said there should be an education program so that people rea1ly know what these programs could do. He said there would be a screening process before the funds were allocated. Chairman Harris asked Mr. Boardman to read the goal area and the objectives for the record. Mr. Soardman said the goal area for housing was "Provide for and mai�tain in the eorununity, without discrimination, a diversity of suitable housing and � living environments for all persons". Ne then read the five objectives which are as follows: 1. Assure safe and healthful conditions in all housing and encourage �Planning Commission Special Public Hearing Meeting - January '28, 1976 Page 16_ consideration of the quatities of privacy, comfort and other anienities. � Mr. Boardman said it had 6een the concerrr of the Appeals Commission on how these objectives were going to be carried out. When this plan was adopted, the City would establish policies or what wouid be called program plans. We will take a look at the objective for the community and our program plan would be laid out along the lines of what we have in our implementaticn section of the plan. These program plans would be initiated by City Administration through the Commiss ons. Under this first objective, we were currently working on a housin9 maintenance code. Tfiis housing maintenance code wili be ready to go with the adoption of the Comprehensive Housinq Plan. We wiil be able to bring this to the Commission's right after the adoptian of this Plan. 2. Encourage programs to provide housing at a cost individuals and families can afford without compromising essential needs. Mr, ioardman said that some of the pragram ptans that we were considering. at this iime was arr app7ication for a Community Development Block Grant funCS. He said the deadline for this application v�as March 15, 1976 and hopefully if this plan was adopted by the Council before that date, we will have our application in for Community Development 61ocK Grant funds. Rnotner possitiility for funding would be the Section 8 funds. Tho application for those funds wouid probably come up in early March. If the City Council had adopted this plan before that time, or gives any indication that they vaant us to apply for these funds, we are ready to go on tliat application. 3. Promote the pres°rvation and upgrading of existing resideniial hou�g. Mr. Boardman said a program plan under this objecttve would be finding people for a resource center�, probably under the information and referral service. Another area was something like Mrs. Wahlberg had mentioned earlier, and that was a self-heip informational center. 4. Promote a sufficient variety of iiousing to allow ali peop7e a housing choice. Mr. 8oardman said that under this objective we would probably want to consider our present ]and use availibilities. This type of program would take quite some time, but it would eventually satisfy objeciive Number 4. 5. Incorporate Meiro-wide hous9ng deve}opment framework policies, where possible, so as to fu7fill the City's role as a Metropolitan neighbor- hood. Mr. Boardman said that under tF�is objective we would want to carefully review what the'Metr•onolitan Council's fr�jmework policies lay out and where those poiicies fit into o�ar community, and implement those policies in our impiementation prograrn. ' Mr. Boardman said the goal statement and goal objectives had been established by the Planriing Commissi.o�i. � MOTION by Scott, seconded by Langenfeld, fhat the Planning Commission close the Public Nearin9 un the propo�ed Comprehensive Housing P2an. Upon a voicc> vote, all votinq aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Itearing Planning Co�nission Special Public Hearinq Meetinq - January 28 1976 Page 17 � c2osed at 9:35 P.M. Mr. Boardman said that the staff did anticipate that by the next Planning Commission meeting that we would have the map changes for this plan, and the Plan would 6e put in order so that the Planning Commission could adopt the Plan at their next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Bergman, that the meeting be adjorned. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Planning Cotmrtission Specia2 Pub2ic Xearing meeting of January 28, 1976 adjourned at 9:40 P.M. � Respectfully submitted, �� Dorothy Eve�p'son, Secretary � � � , -.,�� . .- r- ' f �� 4� ��°. ; � 60AL AREA: NOUSING j, GOAL: PROVIDE FOR AND i4A1NTAIN IN THE COMMUNITY, IJITHOUT DISCRIMINATION, � A DIVERSITY OF SUITA6LE HOUSING AND LIVING ENVIRONf4ENTS FOR ALL PERSDP;S Objectives: ' (1) Assure safe and healthful conditions in all housing and encourage consideration of the qualities of pri:vacy, comfort and other amenities. (2) Encourage programs to provide housing at a cost individuals and families can afford k�ithout compromising essential ne2ds. (3)' Promote the preservation and upgrading of existing residential housing. (4� Promote a sufficient variety of housing to allow all peop7e a housing choice. (5) Incorporate Metro-wide Housing development framearork policies, where possible, so as to fulfil7 the City's ro7e as a Metropolitan neighborhood. � e 6. . .. ! CITY OF FRIDLEY � PLANNIN6 COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 1976 � CALL Tp ORDER: Chairman Harris called the meeting to arder at 7:50 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members A65ent: Others Present: PAGE 1 Scott, Bergman, Harris, Wahlberg, Langenfeld Peterson Jerry Boardman, City Planner Ray Leek, Planning Interne Pat Brennen, League of Women Voters Representative MOTION by Scott, seconded by Langenfeld, that the agenda be amended to allow a group of young people to make a pzesentation to the Planning Coacnis- sion. Upon a voice vote, aIl voting aye, the motion carried unanimous]y. Mr. Mark Treuenfels, 5248 Horizon Drive N.E. said he would like to pre- sent a proposal for a Teen Ce�ter. The proposal was presented to Chairman Harris. Mr. Treuenfels said that the results of a survey by the Fridley Youth Project Committee indicated a desire for a teen center by Fridley teenagers. This teen center vrould serve as a meeting piace for youth where social con- tact would be possible. This would be an alternative to present facilities, supp7ying recreation at a minimal cost. We will ask the City Council to grant the usage of the unoccupied library space across from the police station. If the space was obtained, we propose to stock it with the following facitities: 2 coin operated foosball tables, 2 ping-pong ta6les (park department), pinball machine (coin operated), furni- ture, which would include tables and chairs, carpeting, and possibly a used TV (to be donated), and a movie screen and projector, to be borrowed from the Fridley Li6rary when needed. To get this organized, a temporary board,coersTS!ting of Mike Marsnik, Pat 0'Neill, Bernie and Pat Klein, Ned Storla, Mark Treuenfels, and Sr. Elizabeth of Grace High School. would draw up a charter providing for the means of elect- ing a permanent board. We would also promote public interest by advertising in local school and City newspapers, putting posters up in schools and writing P.A, announcertients. The temporary board will then be in charge of organizing the election of the permanent board, and will disband. The permanent board will write rules and regulations which will govern the use of the youth center. The board will be available to the membership and responsive to requests. It will be in charge of finances and funding. Upon drafting a charter, it will be submitted to the City Council for approval. As for legal responsibility, we would ask for the Council's advice and assist- ance. We intend to get some funding fran donations from Fridley businesses, community education, a small membership fee ($.50 ?), and profit from the coin operated facilities, We intend to have volunteer counselors, mainly from the Fridley churches. He said that St. Williams Church had already guanteed five counselors. Mr. Treuenfels asked if there were any questions. Planning Commission Meeting - February 4, 197b Paqe 2 Mr. Treuenfels said the proposal he had presented to the Planning Commis- sion was much more detailed than what he had presented at this meeting. He said they may be hiring a part time director for �his teen center if it was necessary. Mrs. Wahl6erg said it was mentioned that they hoped to get funding from the Fridley businessmen and from the coin operaied machines. She asked if they had any estimate of how much funding they would need. Mr. Treuenfels said there was no way of estimating the funding they might need at this time. He said that if they hired a professional director, this would make a difference in the funding requirements. Mrs. Wahlberg asked if they were asking the City to donate this space free for your use, including the heat, electricity, etc. Mr. Treuenfels said they would be able to take care of the maintenance of this room. Mrs. Wahlberg asked Mr. Boardman if the City had anticipated any use of this 1ibrary space? Mr, Boardman said they were doing a utilization study at the present time, to see if we need any additional staff space. He said this study should be completed in early March, so that at this time he'could not make a determination as to whether or not we do need that space. Mrs. Wahlberg said she knew that some of the staff were using that space at the present time. Mr. Boardman said it was being used 6y the Planning internes and Planning aides at the present time on a temporary basis. Mr. Boardman asked Mr. Treuenfels what hours of operation they were think- ina of with this proposal, and how would they conflict with the normal City basiness hours. Mr. Trueafels said he didn't think it would interfere with the normal oper•ations of the City. They intended:to have it open after school and week-ends. It would probably be open six to 8 hours. Mr. Boardman said he could see some conflict in having a teen center so close to the operation of City government. There would be a certain amount of noise being gerierated from this area, especially with jute boxes. Game tables and other uses of this room would generate noise, we have had a similar problem with the foosball ta61e and the ping-pong tables in the Parks and Recreation Department. The Parks and Recreation Deparment has had to limit the use of these facilities quite sev�rely due to noise which has hindered City aperations. Chairman Harris said it might be well to send this proposal down to the ii�mber Cononissions so they could study it and come up with some recommendations. Mr. Scott said this item was on the Human Resources Agenda for February 5, 1976. He said this FridleyYouth Project Committee was a project comnittee of the Human Resources Commission. Chairman Harris said he was thinking more of the Parks & Recreation Comnission taking a look at this. Perhaps they could come up with an alternate location. Mr. Scott said that many proposais for teen centers fail, and for this rea- son the Youth Project Committee had been in liaison with the University of Minnesota Center for Youth Develop�nt and Research for advice and assistance with this proposal. This Center has agreed to provide professional'staff support for activities the Youth Project Cor,miittee would want to take on this matter. Mr. Treeenfels said they were studying successful teen centers in other cities. Planninq Corrmission M�eting - February 4, 1976 Page 3 Mr. Bergman said that it would seem that this group had spent some time on this proposal. He asked Mr. Treuenfels if their group felt that they could adequately control such activities. He said he was referring to overly-active customers, noise, etc. � Mr. Treuenfels said they had thought about that, and this was the reason they were seeking volunteer counselors, and this would give them adult super- vision if it was needed. Mr. Boardman said he didn't know the relationship between the police and youth, but he wondered what effect there would be to having the police depaPt- ment across the hall from the teen center, as far as attendance. P�r. Treuenfels said they had already anticioated this and in surveying the youth, they found that 20 out of 25 didn't mind this at all. Mrs. Aelen Treuenfels said this was a two way relationship. She thouaht she should find out how the police felt about haying a_teen age center across frbm their department. She said she talked to Sgt. Kennedy and he thou�ht it was terrific and said he would be willing to appear pefore the City Council on this proposal. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Conmu:ssion receive the proposal for developing a Fridleg Youth Center. Upon a voice vote, a12 voting aye, the motion carried unanimovsly. Mr. Bergman, chairman of the Comnunity Development Commission and Mr. Langenfeld, Chairman of the Environmental Quality Commission both said they would like their comnissions to look at this proposal. Chairman Harris said it could be sent to all the member cortmissions then. Mrs. Wahlberg said the Appeals Conanission would look at it and make some comments, but she didn't think they would be caning up with any specific recomnendations. MOTION bg Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the pro{�osa1 for develop- ing a Fridleg Youth Center be sent to aII the member Commissions for their review and cou�ents. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting age, the motion carried ❑nanimous2y. APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 21, 1976 Mr. Scott said that on page 16 of these minutes, he had made the motion to alterthe order of the amended agenda to allow Councilman Starwalt to speak instead of Mr. Bergman. Mr. Bergman agreed with this. MOTION bg Scott, seconded by Bergman, that the PZanning Co�nission approve the Planning Cormnission minutes of the January 2I, 2976 meeting as corrected. Mr. Langenfeld said he realized the secretary and Planning staff had been 6usy because of having three Planning Commission meetings in a row and also making changes in the Comprehensive Housing Plan, but the fact that they had only received these minutes this evening, he found it difficult to approve them. Mr. Scott said the members could take time to read them. Mr. Harris said he had atMeady delayed the start of this meeting 20 minutes to give the members a chance to look over the minutes, but there was a lot of reading. Mr. Bergman asked if it wasn't the normal procedure for the Planning Commission to get their agendas prior to the week end, and this included the minutes. Mr. 1 Planning Camiission Meetin9 - February 4, 1976 Page 4 8oardman said this was normal procedure, but tast Friday the only item ready for the agenda was the Planning Comnission minutes of the January 21st meeting. We were waiting for the Community Development minutes because we wanted their recortunendations on the Comprehensive Housing Plan. The secretary for that Commission expected to complete these minutes on Monday. Instead of this happening, the secretary became ill and has been hospitilized all of this week. By that time, the Planning Commission secretary was working on the minutes of the January 28th Planning Cottxnnission meeting, which weren't com- pleted until this morning. It was due to this set of eircumsta�ces that the agendas were not delivered at the normal time. He said he wanted the January 28th minutes ready for this meeting. We did not have any other items for the age�l�a because the Comprehensive Housing Pian was a separate book. Mr. Scott said this was the first time the Planning Comnission hadn't received their agendas well in advance of the Planning Carrnission meeting, and it was due to unusual circumstances. MOTION by WahZberg, seconded by Langenfeld that the Planning Commission minutes of January 21, 1976 and January 28, Z976 be tabled until the next meeting. Chairman Harris said that a motion to table superceded the motion for approval. Upon a voice vote, WahIberg and LanqenfeId voting aye, Scott, Bergman, and Harris voting nay, the motion faiZed. Chairman Harris said that they could now go back to the mai� motion. Mr. Langenfeld said it wouldn't be in the best interest of the Planning Commission to approve these minutes when they hadn't been completely read through. Mr. Scott said Mr. Langenfeld should speak for himself. He had read the minutes a�d ' and was Pamiliar with them. Upon a voice vote, on the original motion made for approval of the minvtes, aZ2 voting age, the motion carried unanimouslg. APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL PUBLTC HEARING MINUTES: JANUARY 28, 1976 MOTION by Scott, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Conmtission approve the Speclal Public Hearing minutes of Januarg 28, I976. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting age, the motion carried unareimously. RECOMMENDATION ON THE ADO?TION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN MOTION by 5cott, seconded by Wahlberg, that the PZanning Corimu:ssion recommend to CounciZ a{loption of the Comprehensive Hovsing Plan as written. hTi�. Boardman said we have changed the format so that it was more readable. We did make the change that Bill Drigans suggested 6y fiaving the goals and objectives in the front of tfie book. We have taken the guess work out of the maps by putting each section on one map. We have reduced the maps so they are the same size as the balance of the book. We did group all the charts together under the appendices: The maps:were grouped together the same way and the housing data and information along with the popu1ation data and information were also in the appendices. Planning Commission Meeting - February 4 1976 Page 5 Mr. Boardman said it should be noted that under Policy Development and Tmplementation Plan on page 14, vie did add the housing maintenance code. This had,6een left out, and it was not our intention to leave this out of the plan. (A,2). Under A, 4, we did have just the continuation of the 6ikewayFwalkway plan and we fiave added the study of other transportation forms. We felt it was necessary to study these also to increase ac¢essibility in the City. He said they also made an addition under E. on page 16. We added "The City must rea7ize that its zoning policies have a great impact on the long-range d"evelopment of Fridley.It should therefore examine and judge each proposal for future development for its effects on the environment, the Metro region and the quality of life in Frid7ey." Mr. Boardman said put in both the figure low-t,o-moder_ate income these figures Bad been bases their figures on with Metro Council and instead of the previous 349 instead of 228 out those were the major changes in the plan. They also and percentage where possible. He said that in their level housing, they had to change the figures because 6ased on the structure value only and Metro-Council market value. We rejuggled our figures to agree HUD figures, so we only have 349 owner occupied units 745 units. We now have 138 problem units out of the of the 745 units. Mr. Scott said he woald Iike to amend the motion, seconded by Wahlberg, to request the staff to identify by title what the charts consist of, and identify the map series bg what the uaps pertain to, and inc2ude these in the table of contents. Mr. Boardman said they intended to have an expanded table of contents when this plan was printed. Mr. Bergman said the motion on the floor was a very encompassing motion, and he would like to test a part of it. He said thet on page 15 of the Plan he said the three proposals to apply for funds which were to make application £o HUD for Caienunity Development funds, to make application for Minnesota Housing Finance Agency funds and to make application for Section 8(rent subsidy� funds. He said he was a little bit concerned at our last meeting. He said we all recognize the benefits to our community and certainly to selected applicants. However, there was a negative side. He said that as he understood it and recalled from the last meeting, for all but Section 8 fiousing, the property involved was not taxed at the going rate. In other words, the rest of the comnunity su6sidizes the property tax. This was the property involved in both the Minnesota Finance Agency and Comnunity Development funding, so we are recamnending a tax subsidation program. Mr. Scott said we were not. No where in this document were we recortmending such a program. Mr. Bergman safd he agreed with Mr. Scott in that it was not so stated in this document, but we are in effect recommending subsidy programs that were not going to be taxed at the going rate. Mr. Scott again said no. Mr. Boardman said the only property that would not be taxed was when the Federal Government owned that housing, or the Housing Authority owned that housing. Mr. Bergman said that under 236 Housing the assessment rate was only 50%. Mr. Leek said that they had to bear in mind that the Comprehensive Housirig'Plan was not recortmending that they apply for Section 236 housing. Mr. Bergman said they were recom- mending that Minnesota Finance Agency funds be apptied for. Mr. Leek said that had nothing to do with the tax subsidation program that Mr. Bergman was referring_to. Mr. Boardman said that Minnesota Housing Finance agency was a subsidy to be used �n making low interest housing rehabilitation loans. It was a subsidy Planning Cor�nission Meeting - February 4, 1976 Paqe 6 on mortage loans and has nothing to do with the tax situation. Ne said that on page 16 under G, they did state that "Ii is further recommended that the City continually review existing federal, state and local programs for commun= ity development funds. The City should make application to those programs for which it is eligi6le." In this case, he said they would have to keep a continual watch on what federal programs were available, and not just limit ourselves to tfti�se three programs. Mr. Bergman said that another thing that bothered him was the person pre- senting the availability of these funds obviously was in a very positive frame. She talked about the 13 eommunities which were already under Section 8 housing. She said this was a great program and that next year they plan on having 26 communities participating in this program, and more the follow- ing year. He said that someone else mentioned that we had already paid our way. He said he had no quarrel with that, but where was the line between what we have paid for and requesting programs that will raise the federal taxes. Mr. Boardman said that he thought that you would find that in a deterior- ating co�nunity that if some action was not taken, this deterioration will tend to continue, if not exhilarated, Steps have to be taken and monies have to be provided from sanewhere, if not fran the Federal government, then either State or local government. How much would local governments be willing to spend for the preservation of neighborhoods. He said it was pointed out during the previous meeting that if Fridley did not apply for Federal funds, how much difference would that make in Federal taxes, as far as their spending goes. He:said that whether Fridley curtailed asking for funds or made application for funds, it would not stop the Federal govern- ment �rom allocating funds for certain projects. Pat Brennen said there had been studies made, and it cost a lot more to rehabilitate areas t�at were in a bad state of deterioration than it cost for programs of preservation, so if you were balancing these programs, it was much better to apply for preservation funds than to finance a full scale program for deteriorated housing. She said this was the League of Women Voters stand. Mr. Scott said he shared Mr. Ber�nan's concern the way Federal funds were circled around in ever increasi�g amounts, and cbmmunities trying to get their share of these funds. He thought this problem was best addressed at the ballot box. He tfiought we had sufficient problems in our comnunity so that we should take advantage of federal programs that had already been funded. He said we shouldn't deny the people of Fridley the use of these funds just to prove a point. Mrs. Wahlberg said that as long as there are governmental agencies which are out selling these programs to the conriwnities, whether we care to join them or not would not affect the amount of money that we were going to pay into these programs. If we chose not to join these programs, we are still going to be taxed equally as much. If we don't buy it, they will go out and sell it to someone else, and we will still end up paying for it no matter what. This was the viclous circle tfie government has placed us in, and in self-defence, we have to try someway to get our money back. She said she thought this was the leverage they have been using in many places. Planni�g Co�nis5ion Meeting - February 4 1976 Page 7 Mr. Bergman said that he agreed with many of the things that had been said, and this was why he had brought up the subject so it could be discussed in this way. He said he did not mean to imply that he had taken one side or tfie other as a firm position. He said he agreed with Mrs. Wahlberg, 6ut he did get tired of politicians saying that the public was demanding more services, therefore, we need money for these programs. He felt that with these recommendations that we were part of that public who were making these demands. He said we were an awfully small fish in the stream, 6ut we were joining. Mr. Harris said that Mr. Bergman had a valid point, and someday the government was going to have to sit down and work out some priorities. He said he was also concerned about what they had been discussing, but the alternatives, and he was thinking about the deterioration of the City, was not very promising, and we would like to help provide the City with weTl- kept homes. Mr. Bergman said that private enterprise or personal initTative were not mentioned as alternatiues. Mr. Harris said there was an alternative by which private enterprise coiild do the job, but that would need help from the legislature and that was tax incentives. He said it was his feelin9 that you could do away with all rehabiTitation programs if we went to a system of tax incentives. Pat Brennen said that the Michael Servetus Church had some property which they would like to develop as senior citizen hausing. She asked if anyone could tell her how they could get federal funding help with this, Mr. Boardman said she should get in touch with the State HUD office, and see what type of funding was �vailable for private developers of housing for the elderly. Mr. Scott said there was a 1976 Area Plan for Programs for the Ageing under Tit1e TTI. He said she should check into that program also. He said it was 6efore the legislature at the present time. Mrs. Wahlberg said the program she had mentioned last week which was a self-help neighborhood plan was developed by the Northeast Kiwanis Club. They applied for federal funding, and the City of Minneapolis gave matching funds. There was a slide presentation that was available if anyone was interested in this. Mr, Bergman said the proposed Comprehensive Housing Plan was very well done. It was very well organized. It has been greatiy improved since the ori�inal draft was presented. He said he thought the administrative staff should be cortxnended on the many hours of effort and organization and talent that have gone into this Plan. Mrs. Wahlberg said she thought it was terrific that for the first time Fridley has an understanding of where they're really at. She thought this was Something that as a City we have needed for a long time. She felt this was really going to be a help to the Appeals Cortenission. Mr. Boardman said . said that when all the goals and objectives had been developed, thert they would really know where they were at. Mr. Scott said the Human Resources Comnission had given their plaudits at the last meeting. Pat Brennern said that maybe the Metro Council had done Fridley a service by requiring this Housing Plan for funding applications. Mr. Boardman said he took a different view. He said this Plan had been coming for a long time whether _ _ _ _. _. __ _ _ _ _ _ Planning Comnission Meetinq - Fe6ruarv 4 1976 Page 8 fridley was pressured into it at this time or not. It was a matter of priorities. He said the prime issues that were at hand right now were the goals and objectives. He said it was �ust a matter of putting the program to � ther and getting it going. He said it might take two or three years longer, but we will get there. UPON a voice vote on the motion as made and amended, a22 voting age, the mation carried unanimous2y. Mr. Boardman saa.d the Public Hearing on.the Eomprehensive Housing Plan before the City Council would be on Pebruary 23, 1976. Mr. Boardman said he wanted to commend Ray Leek on his work on this plan. He said he had been working 40 hours a week on this plan since last July. Chairman Harris said he did a very good job. Mr. Scott agreed that it wa� a beautiful job. DISCUSSION OF CONMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATIONS Mr. Boardman said the deadline for Comnunity Development Block 6rant applications was March 15th. We do have to have two public hearings on this application. The Public Hearing by the Planning Commission will be on February 18, 1976. We are getting it pretty well organized and should have it ready by the beginning of next week. Mr. Boardman said he felt this Community Development Block Grantapplicat�on would be in line with a lot of things that were in the Comprehensive Housing Plan, so the Planning Comnission could probably handle this without sending it down to the member Commission�, �art of the reason being time. He said we have to get the two public hearings in so we can make application, and the City Council could have its public hearing on March 8th. This way we would have time to make any changes before the deadline of March 15th. Chairman Harris asked about the Housing Maintenance Code. Mr. Boardman said it was included as a recomnendation but it would not be going along with the Plan. It wilt be coming early in March. It will be sent to the Planning Comnission and from there down to the member Commissions, probably. He said the Comprehensive Plan was just a recortmendation and as those recomnendations were implemented they would be coming to the Planning Commission. Mr. Boardman said he would have Ray Leek give some background on these Cortmunity Development Block Grants. Mr. Leek said he had a couple of Federal registers that outlined the act that sets up Camiunity Development Block Grants if anyone was interested in looking at them. He said that essentially what the Community Development Block Grant Program was, was a new approach.�o allocating funds that were already exis�ing. As one part of the Housing and Coirmunity Development Act of 1974, this Grant Program consolidates numerous special purpose programs into a single package. In other words, funds can be used for a wide range ofcomnunity improvement programs. The program was administered by HUD. The iist of eligible activities for Block Grants that each community receives, includes land acquisition, the making of public improvements which can include such things as installation of storm sewers where appropriate, building com= munity facilities for the elderly,or for the corrQnunity's young. Another activity that was eligible was housing rehabilitation, which was a recortmenda- ti:on included in the Plan. Code enforcement was another eligihle activity. Any unit of local government can apply for funding. What happens in the State Planning Commission Meeting - February 4, 1976 Page 9 of Minnesota was that fran the basic amount that was available, certain entitle- ment cities and urban counties (Minnesota only has one urban county and that was Hennepin County) get a certain percentage of those funds. These funds are taken off the top and what was left were called discretionary funds, which every other loca1 unit of government may apply for. That means that whoever makes application was in competition for the remainder of those funds. He said the funding would 6e about two million dollars this year. Mr. Leek said that each cormnunity had to make a preapplication which goes to their regional development corimiission, which in our case was Metropolitan Council, for review. Metro Council sends their reviewal comrnents v�ith the application on to HUD. This was reviewed by HUD, and if it was found to con- form to the general guidelines and the program was found to be warranted, then that community was invited to make a final application, which would include a housing systems plan, in our case the Comprehensive Housing Plan. Mr. Leek said this was basically the way Cortmunity Development Block Grant applications were handled and he would try to answer any additional questions the Planning Comnission might have. Mr. Scott said that last year HUD received 100% more applications than they had money, so there was a lot of competition for these funds. Mr. Boardman said that in the metropolitan area there were three entitlement cities which were Minneapolis, St. Paul and Bloomington. These and other entitle- ment cities in the state receive automatic funding off the top of the money available, tD c�rttinue certain programs that they already have. After these entitlement cities it goes down to urban counties. Hennepin County was the only urban county in our area. He said that last year most of the entitlement cities made application, and it ended up that all the comnunities in Hennepin County blocked together under Hennepin County's urban county portion. They couldn't get any money by going it alone, so they grouped together under urban county, and they all got funded under urban county. Mr. Leek said that after the top had been taken off the funds by entitlement cities and urban counties, it left 1.2 million dollars in�discretioriary funds for the entire state. He said that meant that only 16 communities outside of the metropolitan area received any funding. It was expected that there wouldn't be much rtare in discretionary funds this year, maybe 20% more. Mrs. Wahlberg asked who would make the decision on how much money would be applied for and what it would be used for.within the City of Fridley. Mr. Boardman said that the administration was writing out certain programs that we feel would be eligible for application. This would be subject to the recomnendation of the Planning Cortmission and approval by the City Council. Mr. Boardman said he didn't know if they had any chance of getting any funding but they would have made a start. Mr. Langenfeld asked if Mr. Boardman could explain then what they meant when they said at the last meeting that Fridley had a top priority rating. Mr. Boardman said this 4aas two different things. We are in the top priority as far as housing goes, but as far as any HUD Corranunity Development Block Grants go, we were probably sitting pretty low on the totem pole. Applications are 9iven higher priortity if they relate to housing as to over crowding and the Planning Comnission �eeting - Pebruary 4, 1976 Page 10 deterioration of the housing stock. These are the two criteria that they judge all applications. - Mr. Scott said he thought there was more than that and that they had almost as complicated rating system as the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Leek said he had been to a workshop which pertained to applications being made by communities in the Metro area. The Metro Council in evaluating the applications that come before them have actually three criteria they use. One was that there was a concentration of low to moderate income groups in the community. Another was that the applications address residential needs in terms of rehabilitation. The third was that there be a stimulation of reinvestments in blighted areas, so that programs would not only be govern- ment subsidized but would have funding. Mrs. Wahlberg said she didn't see how Fridley could meet the criteria for over crowding or for deterioration of housing to get these funds. Mr. Boardman said that was the problem. He said that with these criteria it was easier for small towns to meet these criteria than first ring suburbs, but that did not mean that the first ring suburbs weren't having a problem with housing starting to deteriorate. He said these smaller towns were older than Fridley, so their housing stock was older and there was over crowding so they met the criteria set down by HUD. Mr. Boardman asked Mr. Leek to relate some of the programs that would be mentioned in Fridley's Hud Block Grant application. Mr. Leek said that one of the programs they were talking about in our application was the establishment and implementation of the.strueiural. and exterior housing maintenance code; and systematic enforcement ofi that code in primary target or primary focus areas that were talked about in the Housing Plan. We are also applying for the HUQ money for purpose of housing rehabil- itation. In other words the money would be used to help make home "rehabilitation loans within the City. We are also talking about using that same HUD money to establish counseling or a referral service, whereby there would be a central fi}e of resources of who to go to and where to go if you want help in rehab- ilitating your home or making home repairs. This was the major thrust of the application that we are developing. We did talk about a couple of other things. We talked about the developing and helping to implement an information and referral service that ser5ices fridley, this would not preclude helping an existing service. Another type of program that we were making applfcat�on for was the continuation of the City bikeway/walkway system and a study of any other form of transporation and implementation plan for a transportation system within the City of Fridley. We were talking about the construction of a senior citizen center to provide the necessary services for the City's elderly population. Mr. Boardman said another thing they had discussed was the acquisition of land in the Riverview Heights area. This was in the flood plain area. Mr. Scott asked about the downtown area. Mr. Leek said that when you talked about downtown rehabilitation programs and industrial oriented programs, you were talking about two different things. Mr. Scott said he was talking about helping the cortanercial ce�ters in Fridley. He said that an internal transporte- tion system in Fridley wouldn't do any good if you didn't have any place to go. Planning Corrmiission Meeting - February 4, 1976 Page T.1 Mrs. Wahlberg asked if there was any single proposal in this application that was for senior citizen housing? Mr. Boardman said that at this time, he was not all that convinced that we need a specific senior citizen housing program. He said he would like how the Section 8 subsidized housing program affected the senior citizens in our community. Mr. Scott said tfiat Wyman Smith had already approached the Human Resources Comnission about senior citizen housing on part of the Michael Servetus property. Mr. Scott said that at the present time, only 2.1% of the population in Fridley were senior citizens. Mrs. Wahlberg said that as she had mentioned at the last meeting, the Appeals Comnission was concerned about senior citizen housing, and that although the senior citizen population probably didn't warrant a separate housing program at this time, most of the land in Fridley was already in use, and she thought that land could be set aside for this purpose, and be used at a later date. She felt that senior citizen housing, in order to be effective, shauid be close to shopping and other facilities. She said that a lot of citizens in Fridley had parents who were senior citizens and would like to have them live in Fridley. Mr. Boardman said you would have to have a Housing Authority to provide senio� citizen housing, and this was still some where down the line. Mr. Scott said he thought the it�ms that Mr. Leek had mentioned that would be in the application for HUD Comnunity Deve1opment Block 4rant funds sounded good. Chairman Harris said the only problem would be to get HUD to give us the money. PLANNING AND ZONING INSTITUTE: FEBRUARY 25 & 26, 1976: "THEY NEVER LISTEN TO US" Mr. Boardman said that ds many members of the Piapning Commission who could arrange to attend this Institute session should try to do so. Chairman Harris said he would try to arrange to attend. Mr, Bergman said he would try to do so also. The other members said they would see what they could do about attending. Mr. Boardman said they should let him know by February 13, 1976 so that all the reservations could be made at one time. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Scott, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, a21 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the P2anning Comuussion meeting of February 4, 1976 adjourned at Z0:02 P.M. by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, � ��i./ Dorothy Eve on, Secretary ,/ f/ �°�v[ b �l� A' `°U �L, , ' 9�-� G `7 1 � � � 2� �, �i��`�- �"��` %��'��. ,�� . „ ,� �, �e r-> n � 7Y'�t., e ,-, �e �C '�l:J L �c-�{f�p l.►�IT2.PATR��k �j�-� 3�l��Z�'"i �f � Jp �o�. �r?��/� �6c� �.� %r�$�. ��, �i: �I � i ; �, �_ .s-.,.�,--.�. , ,� �_ �_ ��