Loading...
PL 11/03/1976 - 30455CITY OF FRIDLEY PLAI�NING COMMISSION MEETIIdG -�ovEr7B�x 3, 197b PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7;36 PerT. ftOLL CALL: Members Present: Harris, Bergman, Langenfeld, Peterson, Schnabel, Shea Nembers kbsent: None Others Preserits Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPFOVE PLANNIIJG C�MMISSIOId � P�TINUTES : OCTOBER 20, 1976 T1 � Mrs. Shea stated that she would like to rebut Mr. Boardrnan's statement on page 19 under Human Development Goals and Objectives. She expl�.ined that the reas�n for delay was not that this had been sen�i to Human Resources as it had come right back from her Commission, but it w�.s just the lateness of the hour that had caused it to be tabled so many times. Chairpeison Harris said it was so noted. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Corm�is5ion minutes oi October 20, 197b be approved as written: Upon a voice.vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTIQN by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman9 to add the Change in P�innesota State Aid Designation item to the agenda. Upon a voice vote, all voting a;�e9 the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Harris stated they would rnake the Change In Minnesota State Aid Designation Item 8 on the agenda. le PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT P.S. #76-11 REAL ESTATE 10 ADD�TION, BY FRANCIS J. GIRDLF�i.: Being a replat of Lot , except that part thereof lying West of the Northeasterly xight of way line of the outer drive of State Trunk Highway �{65, ancl except that part ^ thereof lying East of a line drawn from a point in the North line of , said Lot 5, distant 1,505.96 ,feet West from the N.E, corner thereof to a point iri the South line of said Lot 5, distant 1,393.62 feet West from the S.E. corner thereof, Auditor�s Subdivision No. 25, the same being 951 Hillwind Road N.E. Plar�ning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1976 Page 2 Mr. Francis Girdler was present, along with Councilman Walt 5tarwalt; Mr. and a`�1 Mrs. Harry C. McKinley� 1010 Lynde Drive; and Mrs. Jerome Johnson, 1000 Lynde Drive. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on the Proposed Preliminary Plat' P.S. #76-11� Rea1 Estate 10 Addition, by Francis J. Girdler. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the F'ublic Hearing open at 7s1�0.. Mr. Boardman explained to the Planning Cornmission that they had seen this item before; it had gane past the time limit on it so it had to be brought back again for a plat. He stated they t�ere talking ahout parcel 1300 along Hillwind Road, which was peing served with sanitary sewer that was coming in from PolY Street. He said �hat the Cit,y did have easement for that sanitary sewer to parcels 1300 and 1130, and water was being provided �.o this property from Hillwind Road. Nir. Boardman added that the development of the property would be for office use, and it was zoned CR-1, which was �ffice zoning. Mr. Girdler stated that the reason this hadn't gone through beiore was that the owner of the property to the North and behind didn't �w�t to provide the easement to them, but apparently wanted thern to buy the lot to the Nor�h. He explained they hadn't purchased it but another party had, and the new neighbors to the North joined in putting the easement all the way througl��. Mrs, Schn.abel asked if the property to the North was zoned R-1, and Mr. ,-� Boardman said it was R-3, and there was R�3 all the wav around, P�Ir. Girdler exp.lained that the one house that was in there (two lots a�aay) was also zoned R-3. Mr. Bergman asked if he understood that administration had looked at this in regaxd to proposed water service and sewer�, and there was no additional concern for ather utility easemen-t for electrical, telephone, drainage, or gas. Mr. Boardman said those were all in Hillwind Road. Mr. Zangenield asked if there shouldn't have been an Administrative Report on this, and Mr. Boardman replied that was not required. Councilman Starwalt st�ted that he�was present at the request of a constituent, and had a couple of questions regarding this. He asked if there was any construction undertaken at the present tirne on this property, and P4r. Boardman replied there was not any that he was aware of. Mr. Girdler added that to the North there was, but not on this property, and said this was not a rezoning, Councilman Starwalt asked when this property had been rezoned, and Mre Boardman replied it had been rezoned �;o CR-1 about t�ao yeaxs ago by an ordinance ��.9lt. Mr. McKinley stated that he was a bit concerned as he didn't really understand what the plans �rere for that property. He said he understood there would be a real estate office in that area, but there was already construction started on a building and he just wanted to find out what was going�on. Chairperson Haxris said that if he remembered correctly, Mr. Girdler was completing a request by the City for replatting this from the time of the rezoning. Mr. ^ ` Boaxdman agreed� and said that was one of the stipulations on the rezoning. Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1976 Page 3 Mr. Boardman explained that because of the lot description they had requested �''`1 a replat instead of a lot split. He said the actual legal description would have been too long and lengthy on this, so they had req�ted it be replatted instead. He further explained that ths building that was being constructed was not on this property in question� but on the property just North of this. Mr. McKinley asked if there ti�ould be a real estate office there� and N1r. Boardrnan said he believed that was the intention and it was zoned praperly for that. Mr. MeKinley asked.if there would be approximately 125� of fronting, and Mr. Boardman said that was correct. Mr. McKinley asked what the depth would be�, and Mr. Boardman referred him to page 27 of the agenda which sho�ed the layout of zahere the building would be located. He explained there would be a minimum of a 35� setback, and a double row of parking in front of the building would pu� it back about 80'. 2�1r. McKinley asked if there would just be the real estate office or if anything further to �he East was plar�ned. Mr. Boardman said jus� the one building would be allovred on the property. Councilman Starwalt stated that a pre-fab home had been mentioned, and explained that.as he recalled when it was before Council nothing was�said about pre-fab and he just understood the residence that was going in was a single-family residence. Chairperson Harris s aid that a single-family residence was allowed under this zoning, and Mr. Girdler said they were referring to a Wausaw home. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the home that was being constructed to the Northr�a.s being builic by �Ir. Girdler, and he replied it was not, Mrs, Schnab�l nated that on the iorm Mr. Girdler had filZed out for this request it stated a real ^ estate office building9 �.nd asked if there would be other offices. Mr. Girdler- replied there �rould not bee just their own facility. �1 � Mrs. McKinley asked if this construction would leave the way open for multiple dwellings in this axea. S�ie explained the apartment building in back of the property in question was charging their tensnts ex�ra ren't for allowing them to have pets. Mrs. McKinley said they had gone through the expense of put�;ing up a Cyclone fence to keep their dog in because of the leash law, and the apartment dwellers exercised their animals freely out there. She explained they would like to keep other multiple dwellings out of there because there was never enough room for the children and there was also the pet problem. She stated she was Urondering ii the.replat would in any way possibly a11ow a rezoning. Chairperson Harris said that this had nothing to do with rezoning, and explained this was already zoned commercial. He said that to rezone would take another Public Hearing by the Planning Commission, a Public Hearing by the City Council and final action by the City Council. Mr. Harris asked if the problem regaxding the dogs was that they w�re running loose. Mrs. r7cKinley said that most ran loose, and only one appeared to be on a leash. She stated there taas a large Siberian Husky, a water spariiel, and a couple of German Shepherds. Chairperson Haxris s aid that Fridley did have a leash law and a dog patrol, and if the animals were unleash�d perhaps the City Staff could look into it. rirs. Shea �ommented that the dog patrol was only available�in the mornings, which was•quite disconcerting. Mr. Harris said that perhaps the situation should be examined and remedied. - Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1976 Pa�e � MOTION by Peter the Public Hear 10 Addition, b motion carried son, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission close ing on the Proposed Preliminary Plat, P.S. #76-11, Real Estate �''1 y Francis J. Girdler. Upan a voice vote, all voting aye, �he unanimously. Mrs.Schnabel said that she was a little disturbed that they had one little section of land that was commercial; that bothered her more than the replatting process, but she said it was beyond their scope at this point. She added that she didn't understand how one lot in the middle of all the R-3 go-t a commercial zoning on it, as that entire area was strictly either R-1 or R-3 with the exception of the corner where the filling station was. Chairperson Harris commented tha.t he didn't know hovr it happened as it occurred before he was on the Planning Commission. P�Srs. Schnabel stated that it was going to seem a little strange when that area got filled in9 and P4r. Harris agreed but said the�e was nothing they could cio about it now. Ti0TI0N by Bergman� seconded b;� Zangenfeld, that the Planning Commission recomrnend to Council approval of the propc�sed preliminary plat, P.S. �76�11, Real Estate 10 Addition, by Francis J. Girdlers Being a replat of Lot 5, except that part thareof l,ying West of the Northeasterly righ-t of way line of the auter drive of State Trunl: Highway �}65, and except that part thereof lyin� East of a line drawn from a point in the North line oi' said Lot 5, distant 1,505.96 feet West from the N.E. corner thereof to a point in the South line of said Lot 5, distant 1,393.62 feet West from the S.E. corner thereof, Audi�or's Subdivision No. 259 the same being 951 Hillwind Rodd id.Eo Mr. Langenfeld stated that he agreed with PZrs� Schnabel in regard to the /� spot zoning, but fel� thEy had no recourse but to grant the preliminary plat under th.e conditions. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. LQT SPLIT REQUESTe LoSa ,�76�10, BY THOP�iAS SKIBAs Split La�t 11, Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, into three parcels as follows: Tract a: Al1 of the West 165 feet of Lot 11, A.S. #129, lying Northerly of the South 11�7 feet thereof: Same as 1465 Onondaga N.E. (already built upon), Tract B: The East 75 feet of the West 165 feet of the Sou-th 1l�7 feet of Lot 11, .A.Se #129, same being 11�67 Onondaga N.E, (vaca.nt)$ and Tract C< The West 90 feet of the South 11�7 feet of Lot 11, AoS. �1299 the same being 7�t20 Bacon Drive NDE. (vacant). Mr. Th�mas Skiba was present. Mr. Boardman explained that this was a simple lot split, and Mr. Skiba wanted to divid� the property that was located on Lot 11 into three parcels: one 90' and two 75�• He said there was a house presently existing on the 9�' p�'�el. Mr. Skiba stated that Bacon Drive was i.n and went a11 the way through from Onondaga Street to 75th. i"� Planning Commission Meeting - November 3� 1976 Page 5 � Chairperson Harris asked how far the house on Tract C was off of the proposed center lot line bet�een C and B, arid Mr. Skiba replied approximately 32'. Mr. Harris asked if there was some reason hir. Skiba was mairitaining 90' on the lot that t�e house was already on, and Mr. Skiba explained he had purchased the balance of the property which resulted in A and B from the owrier of the original property, and this was iahat the original owner wanted. He explained he did not own Tract C. Chairperson Harris asked if drainage and utility easements wexe provided, and lylr. Boardman replied that none were needed on the property. He explained that had taken 20' for the street and all utilities were i.n the street. Mro Boaxdman said that as far as he was aware, they didn't have any problem as far as easements. Chairperson Harris noted that there appeared to be an alley or access easement that ran doum the side of the property to Lot 5. He said it was just to the West oi the property and appeared to be about 20' wide. Mr. Skiba explained that�this was a piece of property the original owner had let go tax forfeit; he had traded the 20' that was used for Bacon Drive for this 20', so it vras part of the parcel. Councilman Starwalt explained that the strip in question at one time did belong � to Mr. Flannery, but was traded for street access. He stated it went back to early days of survey when things didn't quite line up as well. NIr. Sta.r�walt ^ explained that origirially it was not r;r. Flann-eryps, but h� ended up acquiring it simply because nothing else could be don e with i�t; originally it was not a part of this property, but did become a part. He explained it was an agree- ment between Mr. Flannery and the City. Chairperson Harris said that then the 20' was part of the property now, and Mr. Starwalt said that was correct. He said that it was tiis impression that the property now ]_ooked at as A, B and C did include �he 20�, but two years ago it didn�t. Mr. Peterson asked if he was correct in saying that the 90' that was presently shown as Tract.0 included the 20' they were discussing, and Mx�. Starwalt said that was correct. Mr. Boardman stated that then the dark line on page 30 should include the 20' strip. Chairperson Harris said he was wondering about the legal description on A& C, and ii i-� shouldn't.somehow include tha� 20'. He said that Lot 11 would have been replatted when this other parcel was acquired to include the property. Councilman Starwalt said that to his lmowledge it t,ras replatted approximately two years agoa Mrs. Schnabel asked wha� the date of the survey was, and Mr. Boardman replied it was done on October 21, 1976. Chairperson Harris suggested they check to see that Lot I1 was replatted to make sure that the 20� was included. Mr. Baardman said they V�ould check that out in time for the Council meeti.ng. He asked the Commission if they wanted this to go on to Council, or if tYiey would prefer �o have it come back to the Planning�Commission. Chair- person Har°ris said it was up to the members. Mr. Peterson asked Mr. Skiba if timing was of importance to him so he would appreciate it being handled at this m�eting, and Mr. Skiba replied it was. � Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1976 Page 6 Mr. Bergman said he was a bit confused about the street pattern and right of ^ way. He stated that looking at Bacon Drive on page 30 of the agenda, there appeared to be a 3�' dedication off of Hitzeman Addition. Mr. Boardman explained the City did have a 50� right of way off Bacon Drive; the 30' off Hitzeman and the 20� to the west. Iie explained that the 20' was the same 20' that appeared on page 29 maxked "taken for�street"� and was an ex�.sting right of way. MOTIOP�i by Peterson, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of Lot Split Request L.S, �{76�10, by Thomas Skibaa Split Lot 11, Auditor's Subdivision Nv. 129, into three parcels as follo��rs: Tract A: All of the West 16� feet of Lot 11, A.S. #129, lying Northerly af the South 11�7..feet ther.eofs S�ne as 1l�65 Onondaga N.E. (already built upon), Trac� B: The East 7� feet of the West 165 feet of the South 11t7 feet of Lot 11, k.S. #129,� same being 11�67 Onondaga N.E. (vacant)� and Tract C: The West 90 feet of the South 11�7 feet of Lot 11, A.So ��129, the same being 7It20 Bacon Drive N.E. (vacant), with the stipulation that the replat is as the Planning Commission understands it (the 20' noted on page 30 is indeed included in the 165� as shown on page 29) and l�qr. Boardman is to have that assurance before it goes to City Council. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 3 e COIdTINUID a REVIEW OF P�OPOS� t�IA.INTENANCE CODE �� MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Peterson9 that the Planning Commission hold � this discussion on the proposed maintenance code to 2 hour ma3cirnum. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bergrran stated that he had gane through i.nitial parts of the maintenance code and found a lot of personal disagreement with what he had gone through. He said he would be glad to briefly run through what he was talking about for other members to comment. . Mrs. Schnabel said that before he proceeded, she was wondering if anything had been done concerning breaking up i�he maintenance code i.nto various sections as discussed a� the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Boardman said that there were four sections in the proposed r�aintenance codeo residential, exterior maintenance for residen-tial, commercial and industrial, and exterior maintenance for commercial and industrial. rirs. Schnabel noted that they had also talked about breaking out apartments and mobile homes from R-1, and P�Ir. Boaxdman said they' could easily be broken out because they were in sepaxate sections of the code. He said that it was his understanding that the intent for tabling ��as to give direction to the subcommissions. Mr. Boardman explained this would be sent down to the member commissions and at that time the Planning Commission should give them some direction as to what to look at. He said he was wondering how this would fit i.n as far as breaking down the code and that type of discussion. Chairperson Harris suggested sending the member commissions one section at a time. � � � Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1976 p$g� 7 Mr. Peterson stated that although he hadn�t been at the October 20th meeting, he had tried to sense the direction of the discussion in the minutes and it seemed to him that-one of the things everyone was concerned about was the invasion of human privacy. He stated that in light of what Mr. Boardman U�as saying, he thought that the Planning Commission should ask the Human Resources Commission to look at -this from the standpoirit of invasion of privacy. Mr. Peterson added that it also seemed to him thai the �nJironmental Quality Commission should look at it from `t�e standpoint of Urhat it does to the total communityo He stated that taa.s what he thaught they were looking at in their action a-t this meeting in terms ot sending it to other member comn►issions, and suggested asking the member commissions to look at the specific areas where they had concerns rather than the members of the Planning Commission spending time discussing the specific concerns tonight. Mro Bergman commented that he felt there was a lot more to do with it than that. He said he read through section 220.22 and had come up with a lot of questions. He said he didn't vrant to sound derogatory on this, but asked what they were trying to do. Chairperson Harris asked if he could interrupt, and suggested that perhaps they could iron out the procedural end of this first and then discuss Mr. Bergman�s concerns with it at that time. He stated he was in hopes of giving the member commissions the direction they had talked about from the Human Resources aspect and Enviroru-�ental, aspect, and suggested that perhaps they should :first carve it up into the pieces they � ��anted to send to thern. Mr. Bergrnan st.ated that he did not agree they should send them this proposed code. He said 'chat he got the irnpression t'�at somebody did a lot of library work and pulled -together a lot of dialogue from different sources and put down whatever appeared relative. He said that this seemed to result in some� w�hat overbearing dialogue, s�i�ch as in the Pr�amble, 220.02.. He stated that 220.03 was primarily direci,ecl at construction codes other than maintenance, and he thought it was a dupl.ication oi' construction code reference. Ms. Bergman said he didn�t think theg had to take everything out of the I�ealth Inspector's Godes� building codes, Safety Inspector�s Codes or all trades codes and put them together in something like this. He said he thought they should adopt them by reference relative to construction and cut this down by 60% or more and address this as a maintenaizce codey which is what the title is. He added that in the Scope, 220.039 %rhat he was talking about became fairly obvious. h�ro Bergman stated there were a lot of duplications in the proposed mainLenance code9 and even the Health Inspector was brought in thei•e and he didn't lmat� why the Hea.lth Ixlspector should be included in the maintendnce codee Mre Bergman read one of the objectives under 220.01� to the Corrunissiona "To correct and prevent conditions that adversely affec'� or are likely �o adversely affect the life, safet,y, general weli'are, and health, including the physical�. mental, and social well being of persons using non-residential facilities ivithin Fridley��. He said he didn't lmow why they were doing a11 that as an objective. � � Mr. Bergman stated that another objective, to provide minimum standards for heating, sanitary equipment, lighting, and ventilation necessary to health -� and safety, was another duplication of other codes. He said that providing Planning Commission Meeting - Novemb�r 3, 1976 Page 8 minimum standards usually applied to a construction code rather than a maintenf"1 ance code, and he thought a lot of this would be difficult to enforce. He added that also, there was no definition of maintenance in the proposed code, and he thought it was Vaay overdone in general. Mr. Bergman said he also thought this idas discriminatin� against lo�r and maderate income people, as the City could go into their homes and tell �;hem they have to put in windows, etc.9 because their house doesn't come up to this standaxci. gir. Bergman said he felt there was a sizable rework of this code before sending it down to member corrm�issions, and repeated that he felt i.t t�as overburdening and t��ay overdon�. He s��ated that ii the purpose of the code was Vrhat lle thought it was 9 it should be rnore inclined to treat exterior aesthetics. He added that he didn't see why they had to tell someone that everythir.g mus-t be water-tight from a r�aintenance view, as the home otaner should be concerned with tha�. He stated he wa.s not sure that was an axea where the City had to get involvedo Mr. Boardman replied that in some cases, such as rental properties, they should get involved. He explained that if the maintenance on the property went �ra,y dot,m, the livability could be detri-� mental �o the health, safety and well being of the people yaho lived there. Mr. Peterson stated that basically what Nfr. Boardman was saying was that they were putting tobether a residential atad non-residential maintEnance code so the City could qualify to get rent subsidies through HUDe Nr. Board- man said that taas not true, and that they didn�t need the housing mai.n�enance code to get rent subsidies. He stated that one o?' the stipulations t,hat the Planning Comm�,�sion placed on gcing to the Sectior. 8 prograrn was that a � housing maintenance code be developed. Mr. Boardman said they had pulled °-' ordinances together that other conununii;ies i•rerz using, and also reierred to a standardized housing maintenance ordinance. He explained they had been in contact zaith St. Louis Park9 Bloomingten, Richfield, Brooklyn Center, New Brighton9 and Moundsview, and right now taere gathering information on how those communities maintain them, what type of personnel they use9 and the cos� of the program to them. He saa.d that it seemed to him -�hat St. Louis Paxk taas probably the City i.n the rnetro area that was doing the most with the program as far as going out and requiring lrork --Lo be done at the time of change of ownerships and this ty-pe of thing. Mr. Boardman further explained that in most cases the codes were set up strictly on a complaint basis, and most o� them dealt s�.rictly with apartments and did not go into residential. I�ir. Boardman said that -they had put together something that may be a little overburdening and may be hard -to enforc�' but sugges-ted that the� Cominission work on it and cut it down, and at some point make a good code that was enfo�°ceable and would serve its purpose. Mr. Langenfeld said that he agreed with Mr. Bergman, and added that he felt it looked like maybe some of the inter ns just threw• this code together. He stated he felt that this was a violation of the original housing plan� and although they did want a maintenance code he felt this particular one was very discriminatory. Mr. Langenfeld said that in respect to -�he �hvironmental aspects, it seemed to him that m�st of the code applied to already existing � �l � Planning Cammission Meeting - November 3, 1976 page 9 dwellings. fie said he felt that the major part of the environmental impact had already taken place. He suggested that perhaps this proposed code could be used as a guideline in order to obtain Fridley�s maintenance code. Mr. Langenfeld said that with regard to Mr. Bergman's statement, he felt that tahen you spoke in terms of maintenance, underneath that tliere would be various forms of constructione He explained that in order to maintain anytliir�g there had to be forrns of construction. P�Ir. Peterson asked what is was they really baanted to accomplish with this code. He stated that tirhen 'che Comprehensive Housing Plan was adepted there was a plank in it that said something about maintenance, but he didn't recall any specific objective that they hoped to cover under that plank of maintenance. I�Zr. Peterson said he recalled the Chairman said at that time it made him nervous and thought it would be a rather explosive issue. He added that he still didn't lmow what they were trying to accomplish, and when they started writing a code without knowing what they really wanted to accomplish they wandered and nothing really happened. Chairpersan Harris suggested that perhaps they should define maintenance. Mr. Bergman said he had thought that they would be addressing aesthetics; neighborhood preservation, zahich is primarily an appearance factor� and control of degradation, which is primarily an appearance factor. He stat.ed ',e had tnought it was primarily an aesthetic concern. Mr. Boardman explained that a housing maintenance code was not set up necessarily for the outside maintenance of the house, but also for the structural maintenance of that house. He said that if there was structural damage to the house which made that house a hazard to live in or at least detrimental to the health, safety and weliare of that person, there should be some code to require the repair of that structurea Mr. Bergman asked if they didn't have that now, and if a Building Inspeetor couldn't go to that house and say the structure was de�crimental to the health, safety and �elfare of the occupants. P�1rr. Boardman said they did not. Mrs. Shea asked if there hadn't been a complaint recently concerning an apartment in the City being unsafe, and under what rule the City could act on that. Mr. Boardrian re.plied �;hat they might go out and talk to.the.apart� ment owner about it, but they had no authority i;o enforce any repair or maintenance of that structure. Chairperson Harris stated that brought up ano�ther �oint, and asked for what reason they b�ere licensing apartments. Mr. Boardman said that the Fire Marshal did inspect the apartments9 but only those public axeas such as entrances, exits and that type of thing. Mr. Harris noted there was a fee for the licensing procedure, and asked what the City did for that fee. Mr. Boardman replied that as fax as he ]mew, it was for the fire inspection. Mrs. Schnabel stated that she thought when the code talked about minimum standards and said there must be a table or counter for food preperation, n it was getting beyond the scope of what they meant Uy maintenance. She said she thought there were a number of things they should get at in a maintenance Planning Commission Meeting - nlavember 3, 1976 Page 10 r"� code: 1) Exterior maintenance of the property throughout the City in regard to private residential, rental properties and businesses, and 2) Something. that would deal with interior minimum structural design which would be beneficial for the health and safety of' th� persons in these structures, but most specifically in regards 'to rental property as well as public places. Mrs. Schnabel suggested they might have some type of maintenance code built around those t�ro specific concep-ts (interior and exterior), with a view totaards deterioration, particularly in ren tal property, as opposed to getting into such minute detail as there appeared to be in the document they had noVr.. A1r. Peterson stated that h.e had two c,uestions: 1) In many households the�e was a shortage of cash with quite regu�ar frequency� and if a Building Inspector told one oi these homeowners tYiat he had to do certain repairs to his dwelling and it ��ras beyond that person's means a�t that time, were they going to kick him out?, and 2) Is the licensing of the apartment a yearly thing? Mr. Boardman replied it was, T�1r. Peterson said that then he felt the licensing should be strengthened to take care of what they were looking far as far as protecting the renter. He s�ated that if the tenant and the apartment owner got in a dispute over the color of paint, this was beyond what the City government was me ant to do . Airs. Schnabel said that there were certain minimums which rent�l property must main�ain� such as heat� lighting, proper safety exits9 etc. I�frr. Bergman said he didn't �hink the Ci�y should get into the hea'ting question. He stated that the Building C�des required adequate systems, and. what the person �, set the thermostat on should be between the occup�a�t snd the rnariagere T�irsa � Schnabel pointed out that the City of P�iinneapolis did have a regulation �rhich stated that a minimurn of 68�F. mus� be mainta.ined in a rental structure, and she didn't think that �ras uniair. 2�iro Peterson commented tha-t he could see jahere stairways and lighting should b� maintained so the structures would.n't become dea"�h traps. Chairperson Harris stated tha� their time limit �ras almost up, and suggested. that the Commi.ssion members take this vnder consideration and go home and think about it. He said that then at the nex� rnee-ting they should put forth some ideas on irha� they though� should be in tlie rnaintenance code and give direction to Staffe I�40TION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Cornmission consider the proposed maintenance code and be prepared to contribute ideas on what they thought should be in the ccde at the next meeting, and at that time give direction to Staff. Upon a vaice vote9 all voting aye9 the motion carried unanimously. 4. CONTINUED: HUT�iAN DEVELOI'r7ENT G�ALS AND OBJECTIVES rir. Boardman said that at this time he was looking for direction on Htunan Development Goals D200 and D300. He said they had response back from the Human Resources Conunission, and his meaning in the Planni.ng Commission minutes� �� Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1976 Page 11 of the last meeting was not to say that the Human Resources Commission was being sloia, but felt that the member commissions should have a chance to review the total package. He explained that instead of separating the goal statements and sending them do�m every time there was a ne�a one, he thought they should wait until the whole package was put together and send the r�hole thing. Mr. Boardman said that he thought the Goal Statements had been approved in the t�hole Human Development area, and now the Program Objectives had to be approved. ��r. Bergman said he had looked it a11 over and thought it looked grea� with one exception, and that was Program Objective D310. He stated �hat implied hiring someone to be that "clearing-house of information", and he didn't agree U�ith that. Mr. Boarc�ran said they wouldn't be hiring any more people, and explai.ned what he meant was the City of Fridley would have such an attitude that the ci�izens could call for information. P�r. Bergman asked if he would be willing to change �'position" to "posture", and Mr. Boardman said that iJOUld be fine. � � Mrs. Schnabel noted that D300, D310 and D330 �aere all dealing with public information and wondered if Mr. Boardman really wanted three separate . delineations of what appeared to be three very similar-�ype operations, Mre Boardman replied he did, and explained that D300 was a genera.l Goal Statement. He said he felt there were four areas in which they eould breal: ^ this dov,�no 1) Become an information storehouse for ihe residents, 2} provide adequa-te redress and reason�.ble access to the affairs�of local government, 3) Bu�ld an efficiency irato the dissemination of i.nform�tion, and �.) Promote cooperation and mutual understanding. r10TI0N by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission concur with the Goal S�atements and Program Objectiees on pages 31 and 32 of the agenda (Goal Statements D200 and D300)e Upon a voice vote9 all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 9:10 Pe�1. and reconvened the meeting a� 9:20 Porio 5. RECEIVE A'fEI��t� FROP�! JERROLD BO.�RDMAN A CITY PLANIdER � ON TiiE PREP,4RATTON OF AG�,PdDA ° 5 FOR ALL COI�1P,iISSIONS hiOTIUN by Zangenfeld, seconded by Bergman9 that the Planning Commission receive the memo to Al1 Chairpersons o£ City Commissions from Jerrold Boardman dated October 29, 1976 regarding Agendas for Meetings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Boardman stated that they were going to print with the calendax for next year, and the dates noted on page 33 of the agenda were the dates ^ being set for the various Commissions. He said tYiat he would like some ki.nd Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1976 Pa�e 12 of concurrence with these dates. Chairperson Harris noted that the calend�.r schedule was basically what they were doing now, and asked if this �as agreeable to all the Commission members. The Commissioners agreed it �as. Mr. Boardman said he also wanted to ment�on that if the Chairperson from one of the member conunissions cavld not attend the Planning Commission meeting, it was up to that person to contaci his Vice Chairperson. Mr. Peterson said that at the tirne of th� last Planning �ommission meetin� he had been out of town and his Vice Chairperson had also been out of town9 and asked what th� procedure vras at i,his point. I�ir. Boardman said tha�: if they wer� both going to be gone9 there �,rould be an empty sea.t at the Planni..ng Comrnission meeting. He added he just wanted each CY:airperson to underst�u�d it was his responsibili�ty to c�ntact the Vice Chairperson and get the information to him. 6. PECEIVE ENVIROT�IEI�TAL QUALITY CON�ITSSION MINUTrS: OCTOBER 199 197b Mr. Langenfeld staied he would like the first sentence on page � of the Fridley �Yivironmental Commission minutes to be corrected to read that his motion to.recommend the moratorium to �Lhe City Council died for lack of a second. � Pi0TI0IJ by Langenfeld, seconded by Schnabel, that the Pla.nning Commission receizre the IIzvironmeni:al Quali�ty Commissior. minu�Les of October 19, i976. ^ Upon a voice vo�e, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 7. RECLIVE A�PEAL� COMP�ZISSIOIQ MINITTr,S s OCTOB�R 2b, 1976 Chairperson Harris noted that as usual9 the Appeals Corunission was working very hard and diligently. MOTIOP3 by Schnabel, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission receive the kppeals Coriunission minutes of October 26, 1976o Upon a voice vote, all voting aye9 the motion carried unanimouslye 8e C?iAItiGE IPi MINNESOTA STATE AID DESIGPI.4TIOI� Mr. Boardman °xplained that this was something that came yearly to the Planning Commission; every yeax they summarized �,he recommended State Aid designations and the elimination of certain designatians. He stated that this item was this year's recommendations, and that the Zeigh Terrace plat was approved by the Planning Commission. He further explained that they presently had a State Aid designation on 75th Way out to East River Road, and v�ere suggesting tha� State Aid designation be changed to that portion of Osborne Way N.�. which tied up to Osborne' as per bchibit A. r'1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1976 Page 13 ��i Mr. Bergman asked if the original extension of 75th Way would be vacated� and Mr. Boardman replied they would delete that from State Aid designation but it would still be a street as there had to be a street there to serve the properties that- were off of that. Cha.irperson Harris said it seemed those t�ro intersections were quite close together, and Mr. Boardman replied they were, but that �ras the way it had been approved by the City and County. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Comrnission recommend to Council the change in 1��iinnesota State Aid designations to allow rnodifications to the intersection of Osborne Road and East River Road as follows; A. Delete the M.S.A. designation of 75th Way and add Osborne Way N.E. as per �chibit A. B. Resci.nd easement on East side of Talmadge Lane and�acquire easement on West side of Talmadge Lane as per �Zibit B. UPOIJ A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: ^ Mrs. Schnabel stated that she would like to point out to the members of the Commission the City Council minutes of their pctobe: 18th rneetin� and the discussion concerning the Appeals Commission ininutes on the request by Mr. and I�7rs. Robert Tomczak of 999 Overton Drive N.E. She said this dealt with the matter of allotaing the construction of a swimming pool in the fron-t yard9 and explained the Appeals Commission and denied the request on a vote of 3- 1 and it Vrent to the City Council. Mrs. Schnabel explained the reason she was bringing this to their attemtion was that the City Cousicil tabled that request and decided it would appear as another subject for their meeting of November 22nd when they would discuss substandard Iots. , She s aid that since they were all invited to attend ihat meeting, she wanted them to be awaxe that this would be•another item that would be on the agenda. Chairperson Harris said that he had noticed a public notice in the net�rspaper concerning an improvement to put in a railroad crossing at 79th Streets and thought that before that happened it should come to the Planning Commission. Mr. Boardman said he knew nothing about that, but would check on it. Mr. Boardman said he wanted to mention that the City Council had discussed gaxage requirements at tneir last meeting, and would be serrding it back to the Planning Commission to act on accordingly when the City did a rezoning change. He said in other words, they felt the present code �,ras sufticient now to handle the situation, and if the Planning Commission wanted to make changes it should be done at the time of recodification. Mrs. Schnabel asked ^ if the Council agreed or disagreed�with the philosophy behind the motion, and Plr�nning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1976 Page 1� P�re Boardman replied they didn't say. He stated that he wished he would have A!!� handled this a bit differently� and thought that from now on instead of sending things on to the City Council asking t•rhat they thought they should start setting them up as Public Heari.ngs before the Ylanning Commission and send it on as a resolution. P4r. Boardman said then the decision would be made at this level axid Council would have to vote it up or down. Mr. Peterson said that a1l;hough the minutes of the Parks and R�creation Commission meeting of October 26th were not yet available, they did contain a discussion on the Fridley Youth Center. He stated that each of the mernber commissions had been asked to look at �the Articles of Incorporation, and the Parks and Recreazion Corru�issiorL had studied them and decided they di�n't �rant to get involved in tel?_in� the l:icls they had to change the axticles. He Sa,id that Parks and Recr�a-�ion did decide they wanted to handle this like any other non-profit organization operating ��aithin the City of Fridley tha.t had its own Articles of Incorporationa Mro Peterson explained the agreement r;rould then be hammered out between the Parks and Recreation and that organization concerning the r.ules and terms on the way they could use the property, etco He said that for instance, the Hockey �ssociation could use the rinks, bu-t in order to use the rinks they had to agree to certain stipula-�ions with the City. Mro Peterson explained that if Parks and Recreatior. was geing to be charged with the responsibility for the Fridley Youth Center, they rrould a11ow the youtk�s to have their oom organization but wanted to s�ork w��th them concerning the a�reemen�t on how �;hey could use the propertyo He further explairaed that while �he kids should have the opportunity to run their oYm organization, Pa.rks and Recreation felt very uneasy abou�t people using n City property without any type of agreement on rules and regulations. He said tha� this �ray they saould be consis�ent with every other non-profit organization. ADJOURIv'I�N.�.NT MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the meeting be a voice vote' all voting aye, Chairperson Haxris declared the Commission meeting of November 3, 1976 adjourned at 9:lt0 P.M. Respectfully submitted, , ' % �� Sherri 0'Donnell Recording Secretary adjourned. Upor� Planning by unanimous �rote. '-�