PL 02/09/1977 - 30461�
CITY OF FR.IDI,EY
PiANNING COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 9, 1977 PAGE 1
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:38 P.A�i.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Harris, Bergman, Peterson (arrived 8:15)� Schnabel, �hea
Members Absent: Langenfeld
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
1�.PPROVE PLANNING COMhiISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 19, 1977
�� MOTIQN by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planni.ng Gommission minutes
of January 19, 19j7 be approved.
Mrs. Schnabel noted that on page 11, the third paragraph, there should be
a comma after the word "continuing".
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimqtisly.
1. PUBLIC HEARING• PROPOSED PRELIMIAIARY PLAT, P.S. #77-01, ARNAL ADDITION:
BY ARNOLD ARTD ALVAN TOE:dS: Being a replat of that part of the SW � of
the NE 4 of Section 3, lying [�Jesterly of the Westerly right of way line
of Burlington Northern, Inc., lying Easterly of the Easterly right of way
li.ne of Ashton Avenue and lying Southerly of a line described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection of the South line of the SW 4 of the NE 4
and said Westerly right of way line; thence on an assumed bearing of
N. 18°26'10"4�J, along said Westerly right of way line 293•25 feet to the
actual point of beginning; thence on a bearing of West 292.20 feet to
the Easterly right of way line of Ashton Avenue, and there terminating,
the same being 8101 Ashton Avenue N.E.
MOTION by Shea, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission open
the Public Hearing on Proposed Preliminary Plat P.S. #77-01, ARNAL ADDITION,
By Arnold and Alvan Toews. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson
Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 7:1�1t P.M.
��
Mr. A1 Toews was present and stated that Arnal Addition did not need all
the land they had, but their neighbors, Berkeley Pump Company, needed more
room and wanted to bu,}r 1� acres. He explained this had never been recordec3
�:
Planning Commission Meeting - February 9, 1977 Page 2
a9 being private property� so this was what they had to do.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if Berkeley Pump had ever attempted to purchase this
property before, and Mr. Toews replied that th�s was the first time. Mrs.
Schnabel said the reason she was questioning this was she knew Berkeley Pump
had a request for a variance coming through the Appeals Commission on that
same property, and Mr. Toews said he was awaxe of that.
Chairperson Harris asked if Mr. Toews knew if it was the intention of
Berkeley Pump to put an addition on, and he replied that he didn't think
it was their plan to add on. Mr. Toews added he didn't lrnow if they could
add on if they wanted to because there was an easement involved. Chairperson
Harris said a site plan had been submitted to the City from Berkeley Pump
dated January 31� 1977, which showed a proposed addition. He noted that
it was zoned Industrial.
Mrs. Schnabel said that in reference to this, the existing building was on
Lots 3� !� and 5, and at one point they had wanted a permit to add on to the
West side of that building. She explained they were denied that permit,
but were granted a permit to add on to the North side of the building.
Chairperson Harris said it appeared from the plat that Ber keley had taken
into account the 10� drainage and utility easement on the Easterly side of
the property. He noted the property was an acre and a ha1f, so it did
conform with the zoning requirements. Mrs. Schnabel pointed out this had
been rezoned to M1 in 197�t. After some discussion on if the zoning was M1
or M2� Nlr. Bergman said it should go into the minutes that this was being
considered an M1 property.
Mr. Bergman asked what the variance was for, and Mrs. Schnabel explained
it was a setback variance to reduce the building setback from 10a� to 73�.
MOTION by Schnabel,
� the Public Hearing
by Arnold and Alvan
Harris declared the
/
seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission close
on Propose Preliminary Plat•P.S. #77-01, Arnal Addition,
Toews. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson
Public Hearing closed at 7:58.
�
��
MOTI�N by Shea, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission recommend
to Council approval of Proposed Preliminary Plat, P.S. #77-01, Arnal Addition,
by Arnold and Alvan Toews: Being a replat of that part of the SW 4 of the
NE g of Section 3, lying Westerly of the Westerly right of way line of
Burlington Northern, Inc., lying Easterly of the Easterly right of way line
of Ashton Avenue and lying Southerly of a line described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection of the South line of the SW 4 of the NE 4
�nd said Westerly right of way line; thence on an assumed bearing of N.18°26�10"[�d,
along said Westerly right of way li.ne 293.25 feet to the actual point of
beginning; thence on a bearing of West 292.20 feet to the Easterly right of
way line of Ashton Avenue, and there termi,natin�, the same being 8101 Ashton
Avenue N.E. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
�
�..�..
��'`�,
Planning Commission�Meeting - February 9, 197? Page 3
2. PUBLIC HEARING: COMMUNITY DEVEIAPMENT BLOCK GRANT PREAPPLICATION
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission open
the Public Heaxing on the Community Development Block Grant Preapplication.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declaxed the Public
Hearing open at 8:02. .
Mr. Ned Storla was present.
Mr. Boardman explained to the Commission that in 1961� the Office of Housing
and Urban Development grouped all of their funding possibilities i.nto one
lump sum and'called iti a Block Grant, instead of having twelve or thirteen
sepaxate grants. Out of that Block Grant, he continued, were entitlement
cities and discretionary funds; the entitlement cities got an automatic
grant out of those Block Grant monies, and the discretionary funds were
then opted for by a11 other bodies that want to try to get monies. Mr.
Boardman said that what they were going through now was the preapplication--
this is an application to HUD to see if they could get invited to make
application for monies.
Mr. Boardman i.nformed the Commission that a public informa,tion meeting had
been held about a week ago on the preapplication form as to what type of
p�o:iects were eligible for funding and this type of thing. He said that
actually there were three categories� but the two that were of main concern
� were:
1. Acquisition of real property for redevelopment, paxks, or any
other public purpose permitted by state and local law.
2. Acquisition,construction or reconstruction of public works such
as neighborhood and community centers, streets, stree�t lights�
wells, water and sewer lines, and pedestrian malls.
He said that some of the other eligible activities were code enforcement;
demolition, cleaxance or rehabilitation of buildings; relocation costs; and
administrative expenses.
Mr. Boasdman explained that the application was judged according to a certain
100 point scale process� and the criteria by which the preapplications were
judged were mainly based on low and moderate income housing statistics.
Mr. Bergman asked if that meant if a city had enough low and moderate income
housi.ng they would have a better chance of getting money, and r1r. Boardman
said that was right.
Mr. Boardman said there were five criteria for selection. The first one
was based on the extent and percentage of poverty and substandard housing,
and a city could get 20 points maximum. He explained that five points would
be at�arded for each of the following factors: 1. �tent (number of poverty
persons}� 2. Percentage of poverty persons, 3. �tent (number) of
t"�, substandaxd housing units, and �.. Percentage of substandard housing units.
Mr. Boaxdman said that each city was based on every other community in the
Planning Commission Meeting - February 9, 197? Page �
metropolitan area, and got a certain number of points on that scale.
Mr. Boardman stated that the second area.for criteria was the benefit of the
project to low and moderate income families, with 35 points maximum. The
third criteria, he said, was the expansion and conservation of low or moderate
income housing stock, with a maximum of 25 points. The fourth was if there
was a condition which was a serious threat to health or safety and the project
did something to prevent that (10 points maximum), and the last was that
points would be awarded when the funds would be used in combination with
funds from other Federal or State sources (10 points maximum).
Mr. Boardman said that the activities that had been set up for the pre-
application were mainly:
1. The development and enforcement of a Housing Maintenance Code -
$21�, 000.
2. The development of a Rehabilitation Grant Program -$100,000.
3. The development and operation of a Housing and Maintenance Resource
Center and Workshop - $6,000.
He stated that there were several stipulations: the grant couldn't be directed
toward a city-wide operation, it had to be directed to more of a neighborhood
operation; and any rehabilitation grants or loans had to be done in connection
with some city work in the area, such as a street improvement program. He
said the grants could be tied in with a street improvement program if the �
program had been done a yeax before or scheduled for a year ahead. Mr.
Boaxdman stated that in Primary Focus Area II a street i.mprovement project
had gone through last year, and in the Hyde Park area (Primary Focus Area I),
a street improvement program was scheduled for next year, so those two focus
areas would fit within the criteria of rehabilitation.
�
Mrs. Shea asked if the compiled statistics were based on the whole city or
just the certain areas that would receive the�money. Mr. Boardman sa.id that
the criteria was for within the areas.
' Mr. Bergman wondered how many of the public attended the public meeting held
last week, and Mr. Boardman said there were about 11� people, three of which
were not connected with government.
Mr. Bergman noted that there would be a preapplication made to the State
Office of the Federal HUD Department for $2l�,000 for the development and
enforcement of the Housing ria.intenance Code. He said that the City had
already spent six months or more developing this code, and asked if they
were already spending some of that $21t,000. r1r. Boardman said no, that the
monies would be strictly for the enforcement of the Housing rSaintenance Code.
He said they couldn�t get money to pay for something they had already done.
Mr. Bergman asked if there was some history that said proceeding with the
development of a Housing Code at city expense and then requesting funds for
��
�
��
Planning Commission Meeting - February 9, 1977 Page 5
the:en£orcement of same had a more successful ring to it (stood a better
chance of getting the money) than holding off on the development and request-
ing financing for both. Mr. Boardman commented that it was hard to say, but
he thought they did look more favorably on something that already had money
spent on it as they wanted to make sure the project was off the ground.
Chairperson Haxris said that something about this bothered him, and asked
Mr. Boardman to go over the Focus Points again. Mr. Boardman explained
that Focus Area I was North of Holiday Village between Main Street and
University up to 61st (the Hyde Park area), and Focus Area II was 61st to�
53rd between 7th And University. Chairperson Harris asked if those were
priority one and two, and I�s. Boardman said that was correct. Mr. Haxris
said that it seemed to him that this proposal may be contradictory to Focus
Area I in its present zoning. rir. Boardmari said that only about half of
that was zoned Commercial, if that, and at least half was still residential
and was zoned as such. Mr. Harris said that until they got that situation
stra.ightened out one way or another, maybe they ought to delete the C2 axea
from the Focus Area.
Mrs. Schnabel said she disagreed with that. She stated there was residenti�
in the C2 that was really going to ruin because those people couldn't ge�
any kind lf loans to rehabilitate their housing. Chairperson Haxris said
the problem was they were running contradictory to the zoning codes by doing
t�h�s. Mrs. Schnabel said if the C2 wasn't included in the program for
^,� rehabilitation, she was afraa.d that area would get even worse and the surround-
ind areas wouldn't i.mprove their property, either.
Mr. Boardman stated that they were really not going in contradiction to what
the zoning ordi'nance said. He added that upgrading or rehabilitating the
property was allowed, but the use could not be expanded. Chairperson Harris
saa.d the thing that disturbed him was he felt they would be perpetuating
the situation down there if they did this. He said that if they kept
promoting rehabilitation and upgrading of the residential axea, it never
would go to C2.
Mr. Bergman commented that it sounded to him like an example where a.city
administration-sponsored rezoning might be a wise move. Chairperson Harris
said he discussed that z,rith some Council persons and.the consensus of opinion
was that before the City would initiate a rezoning action there, they would
like to see a petition from the affected residents and get their feelings.
He said it seemed like they were running kind of contradictory here; if
they were going to preserve the integrity of a residential neighborhood it
would be one thing, but it was not really a residential neighborhood. Mr.
Boardman said it was a residential neighborhood as the existing use was.
Mrs. Schnabel asked what the proportion of residential versus commercial was
in that C2 area, and Mr. Boardman said it was about 80% residential.
Mr. Bergman asked how they ever got single family i.n a C2 zone. Mr. Boardman
explair�ed that it was zoned R3, then in 1968-1969 the residents along there
��� petitioned for a rezoning to Commercial thinking that they could sell their
property for great profits. He added that they had a consultant do a report
on that and he recommended against Commercial zoning in there, but the City
Planning Commission Meeting - February 9, 1977 Page 6
Council at that time did their own study on it and came up with the exact �
opposite� and rezoned it Commercial.
Mr. Peterson asked how deep the C2 was from 51st� and Mr. Boardman replied
about a block and a half deep. Mr. Peterson said he traveled that street
quite a bit and found it hard to believe that that property would ever be
choice residential area. He added he thought there was some justification
for leaving it�Commercial. He said there was quite a bit of traffic and
noise in that area� and it was going to continue to be a problem. He further
added that it was not an R1 area by definition in terms of what they felt
people should be living in. Chairperson Harris commented that there was
quite a bit of Commercial in there when he stopped to think about it, and
he was uncertain about this whole deal. Mr. Peterson stated that in his
mind that was not R1 property, and they were just kidding themselves because
people were not going to be happy w:ith the noise on University.
Chairperson Haxris said that maybe what they should be doing is looking at
this as some other zoning. Mr. Bergman said it would seem odd to him� if
he was HUD� to receive a request to aid housing that was on property that
had just recently been rezoned to Commercial. He sa.i.d he thought something
ought to change, although he wasn't sure what. Chairperson Harris said
that was what had been bothering him.
Mrs. Schnabel said she thought that the City should make up its mi.nd which
way they wanted to go with this area, and if they didn't want to rezone it �—,�
back to R3 then it was useless to go through this application. r�r. Boardrian
commented that he thought the City had put quite a burden on those people;
they had come in to get it rezoned, and the City shouldn't have gone along
with them. He said the City should have used its better judgement, based
on the consultant�s reports, and not rezoned it Commercial. He stated that
the road patterns were poor and not geaxed toward Comriercial property, so
if the City wanted that to go with Commercial property they'would have to
take initiative on it through street improvement. r7r. Boardman added that
if the City went along with the scheduled street improvement plan in that
area with the road pattern that was presently there, it would practically
kill any Corranercial development in that area.
Mrs. Schnabel saa.d that she felt that the residents i.n the area living in
owner-occupied homes had something at stake, and that was their neighborhood
was deteriorating and that deterioration was encroaching on those owner-
occupied homes. She said that somehow or other those people would like to
have that axea preserved and upgraded to protect their o�m property.
Chairperson Harris suggested that perhaps they should be looking at a
special zoning for that axea. Mr. Boardman said at present there were
three zones there: R2 primarily along 61st; R3, which was the balance of
property between Main Street and 21-� Street; and Commercial in the inverted
"L" shape b�ordering University.
Mr. Bergman said that one clean approach would be to limit this application
to the presently zoned Residential portion of the block, but Mrs. Schnabel �'�
��
Planning Commission Meeting - February 9, 1977 Page 7
� disagreed. She said there were private family dbrellings that were being
rented out that were in the Commercially zoned area� and that was the area
that was deteriorating so badly. She asked if they wanted to let it just
fa11 apart with the hope that those people would sell their property commercially.
Mr. Peterson corrunented that if the area was upgraded there would still be
problems because of the traffic noise, and Chairperson Harris added that
if it was upgraded it would just perpetuate the situation.
Mr. Bergman said he thought it was a zoning question. He said that if the
zoning shown on a map was good zoning, then they �hould face up to it. Chaa.r-
person Harris asked whoever said it was good zoning, and sa.id that maybe�
what they needed was something like a�planned unit development.
Mr. Boaxdman stated that if the City went along with Commercial, the only
way Commercial would develop would be with a renewal project. The City
would have to purchase the property� bulldoze it down, and put it up for .
sale with a new road pattern. He said that the units that are along a lot
of that Commercial property axe apaxtment buildings--buildings on a Commercial
property that taould have to be torn down in order to rebuild. He continued
that the lot situation in the area was an old plat type thing, similar to
the Onaway axea, and the street pattern was poor for Commercial development.
Mrs. Schnabel said that if the City applied for a Block Grant and it became
lmown that monies were available for rehabilita.tion, some people would take
ad��antage of it and some would choose not to. She said that there may be
^ a number of those particular dwellings that were getting in poor condition,
' and those owners might choose not to apply for a loan on the chance they
could still sell the property for a commercial venture. She stated that
those residents who did decide to apply would have to be aware of the type
of zoriing they had and that there was a possibility that there was a chance
that commercial property may go in. �She said she didn't necessarily think
they should eliminate that area from the rehabilifa.tion progr,am, but thought
the people living there had to be aware of what their zoning problem was.
Mr. Boaxdman commented that he thought there would be a point in the near
future when the City would have to make a commi.tment in that area either one
way or another. He said the Hyde Paxk issue had been brought up time and
time again, and a study had been done a couple of years ago to see how it
should be developed. Mr. Boardman said the City would have to make a decision
on it at some point in time, and if they were goi.ng to go with Commercial
they should start taking a look at redevelopment in the area. He said that
if they don't want redevelopment in the axea, they �rill have to face up to
the fact that it will never be Commercial, but would be a real mess.
Mr. Bergman said he dichz�t believe the City would ever make a corIInitment.
He thought that if anything changes it would be because a commercial developer
came along and wanted that property to develop. Mr. Boardman said that the
problem with thai was it iaas not good planning and was not good for the City,
and they would end up with a mix of uses in there that were not necessarily
good neighbor uses. Mrs. Shea commented that she thought the City would
r—.� have to decide within the next month which w�r they wanted that area to go.
Planning Cormnission Meeting - February 9, 1977 Page 8
Mr. �rgman said he thought the problem was they were talking about putting
money into R1 and R3 property in a present C2 zone. He said he did feel �
fairly comfortable with the thought that as far as the preapplication grant !
went� it should not include requesting money to put into residential
property in a present and recently rezoned C2, area.
Mr. Boardman sa.id he thought they could safely mainta3n this application
mainly because the areas they were applying for were block grouP axeas.
He said that whether it was Commercial or had no Commercial , it was a
block group area. He explained that the boundaries for the Primary Focus
areas were the boundaries because the data that was available for the
areas was based on that boundary area.
Mrs. Schnabel sai.d that she disagreed with Mr. Bergman, and felt there was
a lot of potential for housing in that area. She said it was not a total
commercial area, and felt there were residential units (whether they were
Rl or R3) within that Focus Area that needed rehabilitation that might be
accomplished through a low-interest loan or a grant of some type to get
the property upgraded. She said there were some homes that were very nice,
and those people would like to preserve their neighborhood.
Mr. Bergman asked if this grant would give the property owners the opportunity
to get a low-interest loan. Mr. Boaxdman replied no, this would be a direct
grant and would cost them nothing if they met the criteria. He said that
he doubted very much if the City would want to get involved in the low-
interest loan business, but the City would do the screening for the grants.
He stated that out of this $130�000 program, money could be used for adminis- ,—.1
trative costs. �
Mr. Bergman asked what was expected of this body on this subject, and Chair-
person Harris said the Commission should recommend to Council either their
concurrence, concurrence with chan�es or their disapproval. He_explained
the Council was looking for some recor►mendation from the Pl�nning Commission,
and that recommendation had to be given tonight as the deadline was Februaz�r
18, 1977. �
Cha.irperson Harris cited an example of a house in a C2 zone that met a11 of
the criteria for a direct grant. He said that if this property owner received
a grant of $5,000 and upgraded his house, ra.ising its market value by $5,000,
this would be a non-conforming use in a C-2 zone perpetuated by the City.
Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that they also had a goal to provide low and moderate
income housing in the City. Chairperson Haxris said that if they i�anted to
perpetuate non-conforming use in a different zone, then maybe that zone was
not the correct one. Mr. Boaxdman explained that a non-conforming use was
allowed i.n a different zone and was allowed to remain a non-conforming use
as long as that use did not expand, although it could be maintained and
upgraded. TZr. Harris asked why it shou].d then be a non-confor:ning use, and
Mr. Boardman explained that they didn't want that non-conforming use to
expand or get larger. He explained that if there was a non-conforming
Corrunercial use in a Residential area, that Commercial would not be allowed
to expand with another addition to perpetuate that Commercial, although it
would be allowed to continue and could be maintained. �
�
Planning Commission Meeting -�'ebruary 9, 1977 Page 9
� Mrs. Sohnabel commented that she was sorry that the people who live in the
area hadn�t gotten a petition together up to this point as that would give
the City an idea of how the property owners felt.
MOTION by Shea, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission close
the Public Heaxing on the Community Development Block Grant Preapplication.
Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public
Hearing closed at 9:16 P.M. �
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, with the following considerations:
1) Time available appears to be limi.ted to tonight and recognizi.ng that .
this body had not had a chance to a11ow for time to explore alternatives�
and 2) Recognizmg that the zoning and actual use in Focus Area 1 are mixed,
the Planning Connnission recommends to Council that the Community Development
Block Grant Preapplication be revised to encompass�only the property
presently zoned Residential.
Chairperson Harris asked if Mr. Bergman would consider adding the following
sentence: In the event that the sections zoned C2 would be rezoned to
residential, then that also would be included in Focus Area I. Mr. Bergman
said he agreed with the thought behind that, but wondered if it was germane.
He added that one of his considerations was the lack of time.
Mr. Boardman said he wished to point out that this was a preapplication,
and;it wauld be back again if they were invited to apply for a Community
^ Development Block Grant application. He said that Public Hearings would
again be held, ar_d added that he felt comfortable with the preapplication
as it was laid out. He stated that if they started revising the preapplication
he would feel uncomfortable selling it to HUD. Chairperson Harris said he
thought they would have trouble selling it to HUD with the C2.
Mr. Peterson said that he would like to speak in favor of the� motion for
two reasons: 1) As a member of the Commission he felt more comfortable
by deleting the Commercial section from the preapplication and avoiding
spending bad money after good money, and 2) He felt ihey were highlighting
what the problem was and were sending it on for other people to wrestle with.
Mr. Boardman s aid he was not sure how Mr. Bergman's motion could be written
into the preapplication. He said that as far as policy went on enforci.ng
this, the policy could state that no grant monies would be approved in
Commercial areas. As far as the application went, he said, it was based
on the information they had broken down by block group, and data by block
was not available. NIr. Boaxdman stated that as far as the policy went in
dispersing that money out, they could say they would only give monies in
Focus Area I to non-commercial properties, but that did not have to be
wr3tten in the preapplication.
Mr. Bergman said he would like to make several comments. First, he thought
if City Administration could successfully sell that kind of thing to the
City Council, that was fine. Secondly, he said, he thought that as citizens
� and taxpayers they had some responsibility to apply some conservatism to the
��
Planning Commission Meeting - February 9, 197? Page 10
�
expenditure of their own money. He.said,that if they were going to ma,ke use
of the grant he thought they should be a little bit prudent in how they were
going to do it. He continued that his best judgement s aid that if they had
to make a decision tonight, they had to deal with the facts they had and
the situation as it exists, and he could not in good conscience ask for
government money to be spent to perpetuate the situation of Residential
property in the Commercial area. He said he did not feel the sureness that
this was the right way to go, so therefore his view was "don't spend the
money". He said he preferred to leave the motion as it stood.
Mr. Boardman stated that as he had said before, he thought it could be handled
as a policy matter. He said he preferred to leave the preapplication written
as it was because the information that was broken down for the axea was broken
down for Primary Focus Area I. He said that was done by Block Group, and
that area was a Block Group, and the criteria they had to use was based on
that area. t•Zr. Peterson commented that it sounded like what had happened
was Holy Writ and there was no way to change it. He said he couldn't see
why the application couldn't read the same, less that area that is C2. N1r.
Boardman said that would then change their data.
Chairperson Harris said that he thought ii the application was approved
as written, those people in C2 could go ahead and get those grants. Mr.
Boardman pointed out that they would be allowed to set criteria where
the C2 districts would not be eligible for the grant. Mr. Bergman questioned
that, and said that if they applied for a block grant for upgrading residential �
property and outlined the area, and then excluded half the residential
property� that was not setting criteria but changing the plan.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, Harris, Bergman and Peterson voting aye; Schnabel and
Shea voting nay� the motion carried 3- 2. ."
/
Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 9:35'and reconvened the meeting
at 9:50 P.M.
3. RECONlMENDATION ON EAST RNER ROAD PROJECT REPORT
Mr� goardman informed the Commission that the parkway suggestion from the
East River Road Project Committee had been sent down to Parks and Recreation,
Human Resources and Community Development, and they had responded. However,
he said, there was never a Planning Commission response on that information
and now it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to give a response
on that. He added that the subcommissions' recommendations were included
in the�agenda.
v Mrs. Schnabel asked if the City Council had had already acted on this, and
Mr. Boardman replied they had not. He said that the Planning Commission had
sent on to Council without recommendation the moratorium on East River Road,
and the other part of that motion (development of the parkway system) was sent �
� 1
Planning Commission Meeting - February 9, 19?? Page 11
down to the member commissions for review. He said that each one of the
member commissions had made a motion on that, and added that the Council had
approved the moratorium.
Mr. Bergman said he thought the project was disapproved. He stated that
there were two items sent to Community Development; one was the question of
designating East River Road as a parkway, the other�was a review of the
East River Road Committee plan as opposed to what exists and the county
plan which would leave the two-lane limitation existing. He said they had
been sent both questions. �
Mr. Peterson said that he thought Mr. Bergman was right. He said that
in terms of City Council action, he thought they had already acted on it
with plans to finish East River Road. They had received the input, he
continued, evaluated the information and had given permission to the county
to apply for funds. Chairperson Harris explained that the county had
applied, with City permission, to the Federal government (possibly the
Department of Transportation) for funds to do the work on that 3/� of a
mile. He said that whether the application had been approved, he didn't
know� but he suspected that if it hadn't been approved the work would not
be done.
Mr.. Bergman said that he agreed that Council had apparently taken action,
^ but it was done without recommendation from this body relative to which
! plan had the most merit (the two-lane or four-lane). He added that maybe
it was all redundant at this time. Mr. Bergman stated that he felt a bit
awkward on this as they had spent some time verbalizing about the way that
subcommittee was operating and how they were bypassing process and how they
should be going through proper channels (through EY�vironmental to Planning
Commission to City Council). He stated that this Commission hac� dropped
the ball as far as proper route because they hadn't said '�ye�." or "nay"
as to what they spent a11 their time on. Mr. Bergman said that a fair
amount of time had also been spent at Comrriission levels on this, and
Community Development had done a fair amount of research. He noted that
those minutes had come to the Planning Commission and it had been suggested
that he wait until other Com-nission reports ca�ae in, and that was the end
of it. Mr. Bergman stated that in the Community Development minutes there
were some things that were germane. He said that C.D.C. thought this plan
was ten years too early at the present time; they thought that until the
Northtown corridor was completed the trend was for more and more traffic
to come in on East River Road and that to reduce East River Road now to
two lanes was completely out of context. He added that he thought they
could a11 benefit from some mutual understanding of the scene, and his
cammission felt the subcommitte�s plan was ten years out of focus.
Chairperson Harris said that they could take action on this, but because
of the time frame he didn't think it would be worth a hill of beans. Mr.
Boardman stated that he thought a recommendation that might come out of
this on these two issues (the recommendation on the parkway system and
�`1 the East River Road Project Committee report recommendation) could be
similar to what Community Development came up with in that these two items
would be considered under a transportation plan. Chairperson Harris
Planning Commission Meeting - February 9, 19?? Page 12
commented that was part of the mandatory comprehensive planning process,
n
and this would work very well into that.
Mr. Peterson stated that basically Parks and Recreation agreed with what
Community Development had said, and their motion was very similar except
that Parks and Recreation had combined both issues in one motion.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that relating to the past studies
and discussions concerning the East River Road Project Committee recommenda-
tion, which addressed two main controversial points (1. The proposal to
reduce a section of East River Road from four lanesthe PlanningSCommission
To develop the East River Road area as a parkway),
pass on to Council their thoughts, which are:
1. That the plan to reduce the width of East River Road is in
conflict with the present trend of traffic volume.
2. That the possibility of the proposed changes might be more
feasible at the time of the development of the North Corridor.
3. That any further consideration of East River Road traffic
patterns be considered in the "Comprehensive Transportation
Plan".
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. n
Lt. CONTINUID: DISCUSSION OF T�L PROPOSID IMPROVEP�iT AT THE INTER-
SF.(:TTON OF 3RD AND CENT_RAL AVENUE N. �..
Mr. Boardman informed the Commission that the two plans that,had been
requested at the last meeting were included in the back of �he agenda.
Chairperson Harris noted that this had been precipitated by the Pako
Photo that went in the Skywood P•Zall's parking lot, and there had been
some lengthy discussion about the area % block away from the intersection
of 53rd and Central where the driveway entrance on private property tied
into aos�e�o etherstotremedy thatlsitu tion, andethat•wasw atlwas before
a prop g
them now.
Mr. Boardman stated that they had two proposa7s for street improvement
of that area, and both were in the neighborhood of about $10,000 to
$12,000. He said that was actual cost of the project improvement, not
including condemnation costs. Mr. Boardman added that he couldn't really
foresee any condemnation costs because any such costs would be chaxged
back to the property oWner through assessment taxes.
p�r. Peterson asked how the plan would affect the Pako Photo Shop� and
Mr. Boardman poi.nted it out on the plan and said that was where they
had wanted to build it in the first place. Tir. Peterson asked which �,
P1� �.� goardnan would recommend of the two plans that had been submitted, �
and he replied the first one.
P2anning Commission Meeting - February 9, 1977 Page 13
� Mrs. Shea asked how much land would be conderrmed� and Mr. Boardman replied
it would be a strip about 200' in length.
Mr. Peterson sai.d that when this had been discussed previously, Chairperson
Harris had been concerned that the Ground Round not be disturbed. He s aid
he noted on the first plan that the Ground Round paxking was left pretty
much the way it was. Mr. Boardman.said that was correct.
Mr. Bergman stated that as he understood the plan, a great portion of the
money would be spent on what is now private pro�rty� but some of it would
be spent on public street dedication. Mr. Boardman said no, that was .
already part of an urbanization project. Mr. Bergman commented that if he
was the property owner, he didn't think he would agree with the plan.
Chairperson Harris said that they had been trying to get the property owner
to do something for at least twelve yeaxs and he hadn't been willing� so
this might be an incentive.
Chairperson Harris asked if there was any information available on the
number of fender-benders in that area, and Mr. Boardman replied that there
probably were reports with the police department. Mrs. Shea said she felt
there must be quite a few, and many close calls, Y�1r. Harris said they
should get that information to go with this package if this went to Council.
Mrs. Schnabel asked Mr. Boardman why he preferred plan A over B, and he
re��ied that he felt it had better potential for traffic control. Mainly,
!'`� he said, because one lane going up with a direct lane i.nto the Skywood Ma11
would give more control at the end of the channelization area. Nlrs.
Schnabel pointed out where she thought there may be some confusion with
plan A, and Mr. Boax°dman commented that he felt there would be more traffic
confusion going with plan B, and pointed out what he meant on the diagram
of B. Chairperson Haxris said that he thought from an aesthetic-standpoint,
plan A would have sor►e merit. He noted that there would be �,bout 20'
with greenery and trees, while plan B would be just concrete ribbons and
blacktop.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if that power pole would be shifted, and Mr. Boardman
said it would. She asked if he could foresee any problem with people
crossing Central (perhaps coming from Target) and channeling into one lane.
Mr. Boardman said there would be two lanes, not one. Mrs. Schnabel noted
there was a proposed sidewalk showrr, and asked if there was a sidewalk
planned within the parking area itself. Mr. Boaxdman replied there was not.
He added that according to the bikeway plan, the bikeway would be runni.ng
straight East through this area and up the hill. Mrs. Schnabel said she
was wondering if it wouldn�t be consistent to include a sidewalk within the
parking area itself (on the North boulevaxd). She said that if there were
bicyclists going through the p�rking area, at least it would keep them off
the roadway. She noted there was also some pedestrian traffic through
there because of the bus. Mr. Boardman stated that if the Metro Transit
went along with the proposal, that property that showed a proposed sidewalk
would also be a bus turn-out area. Mrs. Schnabel commented that she still
,,""�
Planning Commission Meeting - February 9, 19?7 Page 1?�
tended to prefer plan B personally.
Mr. Bergman noted that on both plans there was a provision for a shortcut
right hand turn, and he assumed that the only reason for that was for the
convenience of the Ground Ronnd customers who �hight be parking on the other
side of that barrier. Mr. Boardman said no, the purpose was to keep traffic
from coming out of the Skywood Ma11 axea lot into that area. He explained
that was a right only in, into the Skywood area.
Mr. Peterson stated that he gathered from some of the comments that the
Commission would feel more comfortable with more data to submit with their
recommendation.
MOTIOIJ by Peterson, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission
continue the discussion of the proposed improeement at the intersection
of 53rd and Central Avenue N.E. to the next meeting, asking Staff to
provide the needed information. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously.
5. CONTINUID: PROPOSID r1AINTENANCE CODE
�
Mr. Boardman told the Commi.ssion that at Monday night�s City Council meeting
concern was expressed as to the direction the Planning Commission was going
with the Maintenance Code, and the Council at that time requested a joint
meeting with the Planning Commission for next Wednesday, February 16th. He �
stated that the only topic would be the Housing Mainteriance Code, and the
Council felt that at this time they would like to try to give the Planning
Commi.ssion some direction as to what they axe looking at. He added that
the Council did request information on the codes from St. Louis Park,
Minneapolis, etc., so they could prepaxe for this meeting. _ �
Mr. Peterson said he would like to express his confidence in �the Commission's
Chairman in that if there was going to be a joint meeting they at least get
their input into that agenda before they met.�
Mrs. Schnabel asked if there was a concern in that it was taking so long
� or in the direction the Planning Commission was going, and Chairperson Harris
replied both.
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission
continue the discussion on the proposed riaintenance Code to the next
Planning Commission meeting pending the results of the meeting with the
City Council members. •
Mrs. Schnabel s aid she would also like to recommend that Mr. Harris, as
Chairperson of the Planning Commission� have an opportunity to have some
input into the agenda for that meeting; and also that the City Council
members have a copy of what the Planning Commission was dealing with and
what they had done to date. T4r. Boardman stated that the Council had
received copies of everything the Planning Commission had. Chairperson
Harris asked what input Mrs. Schnabel would like into the agenda. She �
�.:
Planning Commission Meeting - February 9, 1977 Page 15
�"\ replied that her feeling was that at least he, as Chair of the Planning
Commission, should be apprised of what they were thi.nking of i.n terms of
the agenda and what their concerns were so he could elaborate on the agenda
if he so desired, or whatever. �
Mr. Boardman told the Commission that it sounded like the discussion at
the Wednesday meeting would be Council trying to give their thoughts to
the Planning Commission as to the direction that they think the Maintenance
Code should go. He said that they felt that maybe there is some misunder-
standing as to what the Mai.ntenance Code should be trying to accomplish,
and they want to shed some light on that. He added that Council wanted .
to add some direction to the way the Planning Commission was looking at it.
Mrs. Schnabel stated that in view of the fact that.it had t•aken the Planning
Commission this long to get through two paragraphs, she didn't find it
offensive at a11.
Mr. Bergman said that concerning the reference to time, at their first
meeting on this subject there was the understanding that the Planning
Commission was going to send the code down to the member commissions for
study. He saa.d he felt there was a lack of direction to the member
commissions and the Planning Commission was going to establish some
guidelines before sending it down to the commissions. He said he didn't
k�o.w if that was still the plan, but they hadn�t even approached that yet.
C� Chairperson Harris said he thought they had to have something to send
' to the member commissions, and right now they didn't have anything to send
to them. That was this Commission�s purpose, he said, to direct them
what to look at. Mr. Bergman stated that initially the plan was to send
it to the commissions for development, but he felt the Planning Commission
was now developing the thing and would send it to them for review.
/
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
6. OTHER BUSINESS:
Chairperson Harris informed the Commission there was a Planning Seminar
to be held at the Radisson South on February 2ltth and 25th, which would
be similar to the one he and rSr. Bergman had attended last yeax. He said
he would strongly recommend it to anybody on the Commission that would
like to go, and informed them the City would pick up the admission fee.
He said it was a two-day affair, and very worthwhile. r7rs. Schnabel said
that she would like to attend.
ADJOUR.NMENT:
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Shea, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon
a voice vote, all voting a,ye, Chairperson Harris declared the Planning
�,, Commission meeting of February 9, 197? adjourned at 10:50 P.M. .
Respectfully submitted,
C���i�.��1'�, �/t.l'in,,z�,� �/
e ri 0'llonnell, ecording becre ary
-t:.: y