Loading...
PL 02/23/1977 - 30462� � �; CITY OF FRTDLEY PLANNING COP�iMISSION MEETING � FEBRUARY 23, 7-97'7 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson I�arris called the rneeting to order at 7:31� P.M. ROLL CALL: Niembers Present: Harris, Bergman, Langenfeld, Lynch (sitting in for Shea), Schnabel Members Absents Peterson Others Presents Richard P1. Sobiech, Public Works Director MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission accept the agenda as a.mended. Upon a vo�_ce vote, all voting aye, the motion caxried unanimously. APPP_OVE PLANNING COI��hiISSION MINUTES: FEBRUARY 9, 1977 Mro Langenfeld stated that it was not his wish to go into a lengthy discussion on the East River Road Project Committee, but the IIzvironmental (auality Commission did want to commend the Planning Corunission for iter�z �3 on page l2 of the minutes. He sai.d he would like to bring out that in item #1, "the plan to reduce the width of East River Road is in conflict with the present trend of traffic volurne", was not totally correct. He stated that if the proFosal taere to take place the road would be widened by about 7�. Mr. Langenfeld referred to item �2 on page 12, and said that the consultant who actually drew up the Northtown Corridor Program as well as the Minnesota Department of Transportation stated that the traffic would actually be reduced if and when this corridor was finis.hed and would be directed down University. He said that it conld be reduced from the present 18,000 to 20,000 to 12,000 to 15,000 cars. Chairperson Harris said that he thought the intent of Mr. Bergman's motion was not the reduction in width, but the reduction in lanes, and Mr. Bergman agreed. Mr. Langenfeld said that the idea of the proposal was to have two fast-moving lanes i,rith the other lanes to be used for e�;iting, and so on. He explained the taay it was now and st�ated he hadn't brou�ht the plan with the progosed changes as he just wanted to make a statement instead of discussing it over again. Planning Commission Meeting - February 23� 1977 Page 2 Mr. Ber man said that he thou ht Mr. Lan enfeld�s �� g g g point was well taken. He stated he would like a_change made on page 12, and would like item #1 to read "That the plan to reduce the number of lanes of East River Road is in conflict with the present trend of traffic volume'�. I�Ir. Langenfeld said again that it was not the intent to reduce the lanes, and Mr. Ber�man commented that his impression was that was one of the major dii'ferences. He asked Mr. Langenfeld if it wasn�t true that the number of lanes of active traffic vrould be reduced by the proposed plan, and P•?r. Langenfeld replied not really. He added that that idea had been the fallacy of this entire proposal, and.explained that there would be two main lanes moving North and South with the other lanes for exiting and so forth, so they wouldn't be eliminating any lanes at all. He added that right now it was almost impo�sible to get across the on-coming traffic, and.the East River Road Project Cornmittee's proposal would make it possible to do that. He stated it was only his itent to try to clarify that. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission minutes of Febru.ary 9, 1977 be approved as amended. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. LOT SPLIT RE�UEST L.S. #77-01 ABLE ��JELDING INC.; Split off the South feet of Lot 7, Blocic 1, Onaway Addition 7860 Main Street N.E.) fi and add to Lot $, Block l, Onaway Addition, (781�0 Main Street N.E.) °°to be used as part of a parking lot. Mr. Jim Pariseau was present to represent Able Welding. Mr. Sobiech stated that the intent of the request was to obtain five feet of property from 7860 and add it to 781�0, which would then allow them to construct additional parking facilities. He said that they felt they needed additional parking in the area, and they would have a joint parking arrange- ment between 7860 and 781�0. Mr. Sobiech said that it should be noted that a check was made to ensure the area coverage regarding the potential transfer of properties, and in the case of 7860 they would still be below the 1�Oo area requirement even though they would be giving up five feet of their property. �� Chairperson Harris asked about the side lot setback, and Mr. Sobiech replied there was nc problem in that joint parking was allowed by code. He said the only requirement would be that with construction of the parking lot they would be required to be 5� away from the building. Mr. Sobiech added that there was some confusion between Staff and the petitioner in that Staff was expecting there would be a drawing tonight which would show the plan, and there was none. He stated he had sketched in the proposed plan on page 17 of his agenda, and showed it to the Commission. He explained that at the present time at 7860 (where Able Welding presently resided) there was a parking facility adjacent to the existing building with angle parking and a driveway back into the alley. Mr. Sobiech stated he had noticed ��for sale�� signs, and asked the petitioner if it was his intent to move into the other facility. �, p�iseau replied it was not. He explained that part of the -� � 0 � ,� !'�`� Pl�nning Commission Mecting - Febru�ry 2�, 1977 Pag� 3 7840 building u�as for rent right now, and part of his building was either for sale or rento He said�that they had 6,000 square feet and only needed 3,000 for their operation. Mr. Sobiech said there did exist a present parking facility of about six parking stalls together with sorne additional parking (about seven stalls) off of the alley to the `�dest of the 7860 structure.� He stated that the intent was the Southerly five feet of Lot 7 would be attached to Lot 8, and the property owner at 7840 would construct a driveUray identical to that to the North with approximately six angle parking stalls and utilize the common driveway. Mr. Pariseau explained the problem at 78l�0 (Creative Gears) �ras that they only had approximately six parking spaces in the back and their employees were parking in the street. He said they needed the area to park as it vaas a large building wi�th only six parking spaces. Mr. Sobiech said that norMally they didn't know what was going to go in a spec-type building (which 781�0 was i•rhen it was constructed) so they make a determination percentage wise from manufacturing to warehouse to office. He said that for a 1/�. type office, 1/1� manufacturing and 1/2 warehouse, the six stalls would have been fine, but when a paxticular outfit carne in like Creative, apparently they need additional stalls. He said that in -�h�.�s particular case Staff would encoura�e this type of thing to solve the parking problems they had. T•ir. Sobiech pointed out that right now their landscaping and green areas were pretty well taken care of, with berming that hid the parking a.reas that they a.lready had. 2,'Ir. Bergman asked if the problem could be solved without the lot split. Mr. Sobiech replied it couldn�t because a building perriit was required and the City could only issue a building permit to one parcel of property, and at this time they didn't have enough property to construct the parking lot they wished. He added that if they had an additional five feet of their own they wouldn't have had any problem. Chairperson Harris asked if the 5� line split the center of the common driveway. Air. Sobiech replied it didn't and explained that at the present time the driveway was at that 5� mark. hlr. Paxiseau explained there was a curb in there right now at the end of the drive, and 7860 owned five feet South of the curb which left 78�0 only about twelve or fourteen feet to their building and they needed the additional �ive feet to have angle parking. Chairperson Harris asked what the total distance was between the two buildings, and NIr. Sobiech replied roughly about 55'. Mr. Pariseau showed the Commission the floor plan of his building and explained they had !�0' to the end of their lot, and pointed out the existing curb and angled parking. He saa.d he believed the building was set right in the middle of the lot. Mr. Bergman asked if there was some kind of a purchase agreement for that piece of property subject to the lot split approval. Mr. Pariseau said Plarining Commission Meeting - February 23, 1977 Page � there was, and explained that Mr. Herrick had drawn up a purchase agreement ^ which had been signed.by both parties. Chairperson Harris asked if a common parking lot agreement was necessary before the lot split could be granted. P�Ir. Sobiech said yes, and also as far as the driveway was concerned so tha-t they each would have easement to the other facility. P�r. Pariseau informed the Commission that the easement had already been drawn up also. Mrs. Schnabel, noted .an error on the application form, and said the M-1 classification should be changed to M-2. Mr. Bergrnan asked for clarification as to why a letter of.agreement con- cerning common parking facilities was standard and normal practice before approval of this kind of request. r1r. Sobiech explained the code allovred paxking facilities in an area to be shaxed by two or more premises. He said that in order to ensure understanding that certain joint parking facilities can be used by these two premises, the two owners must get together and ensure there is pro�3er understanding th at they each have use of these facilities together vrith the common easement and the understanding that the property itself has access to this parking area. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission xecommend to Council approval of Lot Split Request, L.S. #77-01, Able Welding Inc.: Split off the South 5 feet of Lot 7, Block 1, Onaway Addition, (7860 i�7ain Street P1.E. ) and add it to Lot 8, Block l, Onaway ,�'� Addition, (781t0 Piain Street N.E.) to be used as xa.rt of a parking lot, subject to the pravisioning prior to Cotuzcil attention of a dimension plan describing the request, the letter of common parking agreer�ent, and any related easement or o�her pertinent documents. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 2. RECEIVE MEMORAND[JA1 FROM DAVID NEti��AN TO VIRGIL HERRICK DATID JANUARY 12, 977 MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commissian receive the memorandum from David Newman to Virgil Herrick dated January 12, 1977. Mrs. Schnabel explained that this memo came to her about two weeks ago in response to a call she had placed to Mr. Herrick asking for two opinions, which appear on page 18. She said she had also received pages 19 and 20 with her letter, and recorr�nended that copies be given to members of the Planning Commission as well as the City Council. Mrs. Schnabel stated that page 18 really referred to questions from the Appeals Commission, and pages 19 and 20 referred to questions from the City Council. Chairperson Harris asked who David Newman was, and Mr. Sobiech replied he thought he was like a legal aide and was an associate of Mr. Herrick's. �� Mr. Langenfeld said that the Commission might recall that he abstained _ from voting when the motion on the moratorium was made� and his reasoning Planning Cornmission Meeting - Februa.ry 23, 1977 Page 5 ��, ' behind this was explained on paoe 20 where it stated '�...the comrnission l must repor�, its findings to the council indicating its recommendation as to approval or disapproval". He sa.id he thought they.had to either approve it or disapprove it9 and that rJas why he had abstained. Mr. Langenfeld said that novr he was hung up again because in reading this he assumed a moratorium �aas proper as long as it �ras reasonable and not discrirninatory, but in reading page 20 he was lead to believe that they must make their minds up one way or the other concerning a Special Use Permit. He added that the very last paragraph almost led him to believe that was definitely so, and said he would like clarification on this. Chairperson Harris stated that as he read it, one page gave one opinion and the other page gave another opinion. P�Zrs. Schnabel said that as she read the letter it struck her tha� perhaps in one way the City was within their prerogative to declare a moratorium because the planning study was in progress at the �time. Hoiaever, she continued, it also pointed out that a Special Use Permit should be granted if the applicant complied with all the zoning requirements and that only in the case of adversely affecting tlle public health, safety or general welfaxe is there good reason for either denying or granting a moratorium. RZrs. Schnabel said that at the time Naegle's request carae through one of Nir. Harris� chief concerns was the proximity of that sign to the railroad tracks and how that would affect the safety of the public. She said that her guess was the City Council could base their moratorium judgement on that question. ' %~ Mr. Langenfeld said he fully agreed, but he felt they were supposed to ' say yes or no to the L,pecial Use PerrLit and then go the route of the moratorium. Cha.irperson Harris said that as a general statement that was true, but in this particular case he felt the procedure they had fallowed was correct. Mrs. Schnabel suggested that another procedure they cou].d follow in the future might be that they should as a body either approve or deny the request and then make an additional motion ior a moratorium. P•Zr. Bergman saad that would confuse him a little;�he didn�t lmow how they could vote yes on a request and then recommend a moratorium. Mrs. Scr.nabel stated that she felt it was their obligation, from what she had read, to either approve or deny any request that carle through them, but they could additionally recommend that Council declare a moratorium. Mr. Bergman questioned hoVr they could possibly link in a sequence the recommenda- tion to approve something and then, as a second step, the recommendation for a moratorium on what has jus� been approved. He said he couldn't understand how those two could be linked together, but could understand a denial followed by a moratorium. Chairperson Harris said that he thought that before they took any further action, and he wasn't really clear whether this was entirely legal, they should at least recommend the upcoming change in the sign ordinance and then base their recommendation of Naegle's request�on that recommendation � to improve the sign ordinance. Mr. Bergman asked if he was suggesting that administration should automatic- ally place the Naegle request back on th eir agenda after they had reviewed Planning Commission Meeting � Februaxy 23, 1977 Page 6 and rnade a recorr,�nendation on the improvement of the sign ordinance. 2�Ir. 'r� Harris said that was correct, and that would be the reasoning for the mora- torium. Mr. Bergman commented that he was not.sure that was entirely fair to Naegle. Chairperson Harris stated that as far as he was concerned, Naegle had privileged�inforr�ation and abused that privileged information at the time they rnade the request. He said they knew there was a new ordinance coming, ar�d he thought the reason they made that request was to get in under the wire. He explained that the Sign Ordinance Committee had used them as expert advisors on the new ordinance, and that was the thing that really disturbed tsim about the whole affair. Mr. Bergman said that his only thought was that Naegle obviously met all elements of'the existing ordinance. He said that assuming that the new sign ordinance involved some chan�es which Vrould now be in conflict with the old Naegle request, he felt that they should at least have the opportunity to modify their request to match the proposed neta ordinance. Chairperson ' Haxris agreed, and said his main concern was that he thought there was a flaw in the existing ordinance as far as proximity to existing railroad crossings went. He asked when they could expect a report from the commiitee. Mrs. Schnabel said the report had to be in about the middle of March to start the various steps through Planning Commission to City Council, etc. Mr. Bergman commented that the first time he saw a date printed in an official document was along with ihe Council granting the moratorium, but h.e,Taould have to go back to those minutes to see wh�.t that was. Mrs. Schnabel said that the committee really had to get done at least a mor�th before that date. � Mr. Bergman stated that the Sign Ordinance Committee was having some trouble as another member dropped out, and they were down to four members. He said he had suggested to Pat Gabel that rather than bring in a new member cold at this point in time, perhaps the four remaining members were enough to polish the thing off, and she agreed to give it a try. Mr. Langenfeld said that he �ras going to use this memorandum as the next thing to the Bible with regard to Special Use Permits. He stated that his personal opinion was that Naegle could say that they didn't feel this was reasonable time now on the moratorium based on the status of the project committee. He said they could use that as a recourse to make the Planning Commission come to a final decision if they wanted to, and this could definitely prove to be a major problem later on. Chairperson Harris commented that if the ordinance hadn't been in the works, he didn�t think they could have declared a moratorium. He added he didn't think it would have even been brought up, and thought this was a special case. Mrs. Schnabel noted it was interesting that the memorandum stated the City Code said that once there had been an application they must hold a Public Hearing within sixty days, but it didn't say when they must act on it. She said they could keep tabling something indefinitely if they chose to do so. Mr. Bergman referred back to page 18 and read "Economic feasibility - does this mean economic hardship? Generally I would conclude yes". He stated ^ that was very confusing to him, and he couldn't even relate to it. He asked Planning Commission Meeting - February 23, 1977 Page 7 �"`� — if A4re PJevrman �ras trying to say the two terms were synonymous. P�Irso Schnabel explained that ��as the Appeals Commission's question to the legal office. She further explaineci that in the conter.t of the ori�inal memo something had been mentioned about economic feasibility and it had been worded in such a way that they had wondered if, in that contex'c, it also could mean an econornic hardship on the part of the petitioner. She said it was on the basis of that sentence that �hey asked for iurther clarification of that � term. Mr. Bergman noted the exaxnple given under that issue on page 18, and said they had taken a look at the total neighborhood and as a result of a study oi the total neighborhood determined that it was ecoriomically feasible to build a thirty-�nit instead of' having the ten-unit, remodeled; but they had not really addressed the hard�hip question. Mrs. Schnabel said she though'-� he was misreading it, and what it.z,ras saying was that it would have been a hardship on the petitioner to remodel the ten-unit apartment because he never would have derieed enough income out of the rental units to ma:he it pay for himself. She said that instead the petitioner wanted to build a thirty-unit instead of remodel the existing ten, and the court upheld his request. Mr. Bergman said that made sense, but went back to the first paragraph ��hich read "Ho�aever, I do not believe that; economic hardship would apply where the economic hardship is the property or�nier hiriself. A destitute r,�,l property owner does not constitute economic feasibility". I�Zrs. Schnabel said she agreed this was very fuzzy wording, but thought that because a person was destitute it didn't give tr�ern the right to rec�uest a z*ariar�ce that was too far out. She said that was not econoMic hardship. I�ir. Bergman noted the person could request it, but they shouldn't approve it. He added he thought that was contrary to somewhat normal practice, and cited an example of an upstanding, tax paying, citizen of Fridley who came in with an econornic hardship problem. He asked if they weren�t going to be attentive to the problem tha,t poor citizen had. Nss. Schnabel said she didn't think all that came out at the Public Hearing, and petitioners who ca.rie before the Appeals Comr�ission did not give them their income tax stater�ents. She ° said the Appeals Commission didn�t know whether or not the petitioner had the means to finance whatever he proposed to do. For all we know, she said, that petitioner could be rolling his last nickel around in his pocket or he could have a bank account worth millions. rir. Bergman referred to the example given on page 18, which the court approved. He said that seemed to be in conflict with the input he was receiving. Chair- person Harris explained that what they were saying was thai; every property had to stand on its own merits whether the petitioner was financially solvent or not. He said it depended on the property itself whether there was economic feasibility, and had nothing to do with whether the petitioner had a million dollars or ten cents. He added that he thought that was basically what they had been doing, and said that as he read throuvh this it struck him that the Appeals Commission had been using its own good sense and should continue to �, Planning Commission Meeting - February 23, 1977 Page 8 do that. He commented that if you ask a lawyer for an opinion he will give you two of them, and you can pick the one you want. Mr. Bergman said he noticed an interesting �erm on page 20--"conditional special use permits". Mr. Sobiech said that most of the permits they issued were conditional because they say the.Special Use Permit is approved with certain stipulations, and those are the conditions. Mr. Bergman read to the Commission from page 19 of the agenda, "The Planning Commission must hold a public hearing on the application for a special use permit within.60 days. The Comrussion must then report its findings to the Council indicating its approval or denial." He noted it didn't say they must take action within that sixty days, and asked if there was an implied time frame in there. Mrs. Schnabel noted. it said "reasonable time" in the following paragraph. P•1r. Sobiech said they would also look back to previous procedures, and added that if the Planning Commission indicated at a hearing that they needed certain information and would have it within one or two meetings, he didn't think that would be unreasonable before giving the recommendation. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. RECEIVE LETTER FROM JIM HARRINGTON,� COT�'�?ISSIONER, MINNESOTA DEPARTP•ZENT MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission receive the letter from Jim Harrington, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Transportation, dated February 8, 1977. Mr. Sobiech said that this correspondence at this time was for inforriational purposes, and for everyone in Fridley to begin thinking about the type of input they would like to provide: Chairperson Harris stated he thought they were looking for more than that, and read aloud items one through three on page 22. He said he thought they were asking the Commission to do two things: 1) Discuss the transportation issues they thought were most important and send the list to them by May 8� and/or plan to attend one of the riarch or April regional public meetings to present the views in person, and 2) Designate and identify someone who would be the r7n/�T/PLAN liaison. rqr. Sobiech said that was right� but they wanted to pass this information out to everyone and set this up for a conference meeting with Staff, City Council and the Planning Commission and then determine how to proceed. He noted they would still have a month after everyone provided input to take the action they wanted. He said this was just to let everyone know it is coming and will be up for discussion at the conference meeting. �� � � � Planning Comrv_�sion Meetirig - Febru�ry 23, 1977 �ag' 9 r"� '�'1 Mro Bergman suggested that it rnight not be out of context to set up a project corrunittee to review the total city roar��ra,y/street system. I�4r. SobiECh said that might not be too bad, but tYiought the problem t•�ould be the timing. He said it ti�ould depend. on how quickly sor�ething could be put together a.t the projec'c committee level, and said that hopefully by that time period the transporta.tion plan would be complete (mid 197a)• I`�'• Harris said he didn�t think so, because it really took three years to d.o that who7_e thing and it a11 had to come together in the last year. Mr. Langenfeld noted from the letter that they ��ere asking for help, and asked if it,would be out af order to have someone like rSike Paripovich attend the meetings fronl a proceciure standpoint. Chairperson Harris said they could designate anyone they tiTanted, but thought they had to as�c the City Council. P�Ir. Sobiech said this was what they iaould discuss at the conference MePting. Chairperson Harris said that obviously the easiest way out would be to send a Staff person, but that cost money because it would take somebody's time, and he t'tiought Staif had enough to do. Ms. Lynch said it looked like they wan ted a list of priorities by May 8th, and added that she would like to emphasize that she hoped they would look at other trarisportation than just iraproving the road strlicture. ,�� Chairperson Harris suggested that I'-Zr. Sobiech find out when these Meetings were proposed and some more about the prerequisite for the liaison (if they are looking for Staff personnel, a political representative, etc.). He said that Maybe with that information they could rnake a determination at the conference meeting. I�s. Sobiech said he t,rould obtain more facts. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion caxried unanimously. I�. RECEIV� ENVIRON:�IENTAL QUALITY CO��ZISSION P�IINUTES: FEBRUARY 15, 1977 Ai0TI0N by Langenfeld, seconded by Berbman that the Planning Commission receive -the F�vironmental Quality Commission minutes of February 15, 1977. Mr. Langenfeld commented that this was another case where they received the minutes right at the meeting, and said he would like permission to point out the highlights. Iie stated that in the discussion of the F,hvironmental Education Program they talked about the best way to inform people of the nature axeas, parks, and everything combined--a means to make the citizens aware that such things exist. He said they were hoping to obtain some kind of funds and found that they could not do so. He said he would appreciate everyone reading this, and it could be discussed again at a later date. rir. Langenield said that with regard to rioore Lake, they knew that the City � was going to hire a consultant, so there was nothing for them to do. He said he would like to comment that before they had the particular meeting when the movie was shown with PCA, he had planred to appeax before the Parks Planning Cornmission Meeting - Februaxy 23, 1977 Page 10 � and ftecreation Comrnission because he had quite a bit of information to present to them as they wanted to make a decision as to if they felt rioore Lake should be recreational, and so on. He stated that all this information in turn lead the City to go the route of a con'sultant. Mr. Langenfeld said he believed they had some funds available and were trying to obtain other sources of funds, but once this was acquired to obtain a consultant it would open the door for the City to have the proper continued research on these lakes. He added that if they obtained the proper studies on the lake, then they could deterriine which route to follow, and then the proper procedure would be to keep the lakes clean. Mr. Sobiech noted that on page 5 of the �vironmental Commission minutes it indicates the Moore Lalce item was in the hands of the City who had hired a consultant. He said it should say "which is in the process of hiring a consultant". He explained that at this time they had not hired anyone to do it. Mr. Langenfeld said he had been lead to believe that from the conversation with Steve Olson, and that was why it came out that way in the minutes� NIr. Sobiech said that Rice Creek and Locke Lake had been studied by Hickok & Associates, and maybe the tone of the discussion was it would be ap�ropriate for the same consultant to do the 1�Ioore Lake study. Mr. Langenfeld commented that the study would be beneficial because, according to the PCA, this particular lake would have top priority. ?ie said that the Commission might recall that back in 1973 he chaired the first Moore Lake citizen committee, and they had come to about a 50/50 decision then that a study should be made. At that time, he said, the cost was in �, the axea of $10,000 to $11,000; now the cost was between $15,000 and $17,0�0. He stated that taas a good exaznple of inflation, and added that it was his understanding that they had available about $7,000 to apply to thz study. Chairperson Haxris asked what Ms. Sporre was digging for concerning Dan Huff�s budget. RZr. Langenfeld said they were talking about funds available for nature areas or parks education, and they were iaondering if they could get involved to promote this educational-type thing to the citizens. He stated that then they got goi.ng on the budget of Dan's, which he believed was specificall� designated for tree removal, studies, etc., and could not be used for the educational-type service they were discussing. Chairperson Haxris read from page 5 of .the �viron.mental Commission minutes, 'fi�Is. Sporre stated that out of the park project committee came a statement which concerned her about coordinating the use of the naturalist�s prograr► budget. That was why she wanted the feelings of the Commission'�. P4r. Harris said that NIs. Sporre had called him the other day and wanted to know if the F�vironm�ntal Commission couldn't take over Dan Huff's budget as she wanted the IIivironmental Commission to become an"operative commission" like Parks and Recreation. Mr. Langenfeld s aid he would try to narrow this down to a more understandable position, and explained that when the Park Project Corunittee became involved it seemed there might be possible funds in the Naturalist Program. He said they found they could not obtain those funds, and that was basically the - summary of those three pages. ,.,.� Planning Cornmi.ssion AZeeting � F��bruary 23, 19?7 Page 11 � Mr. Lan�enf'eld said tha1; the only comment he would like to make on the East � River Road Project Comrnittee Report was there wasn�'c too much goin� on right nowo He cor.unented tha� it seemed possible the citizens might break away and go on their o�m, whicri they had the right to do. �, � Mr. Sobiech referred to a sentence in the last paragraph on page 6, �rhich read, "They are a li�:tle bit disappointed tha-t the City of Fridley does not appear to be doing anything to expedite getting that function performed by that end of the job that t•ras done by Anoka County". He said that for an update, the PTR project design report which is required for all Federally funded projects had been submitted by the county, reviei�red by the Federal people and returned �;o the counttr which was now in the process of rnodifying it according to the concerns of the Federal people. He continued that it wauld be subMitted back to the Federal people for their review before actual plans star�;ed running out of the presses, so to speak. He said ne was a little confused as to what they e�cpected the City to do, and asked if they were referring to the speed study at that point. He noted �hey were talking about the East River Road project corunittee and then they started talking about the speed limit question, and then they were wondering why the City of Fridley wasn't doing anything. hSr. Sobiech said they had provided resolutions to the county, and at Staff level had provided accident data to the State. He asked rTr. Langenfeld if there was anything in particular that they felt the �City wasn�t providing. Nr. Langenfeld said he was at a little bit of a loss to answer that question specifically, but it could be that they felt 'che City should have pushed the lights and speed more than they had. P7r. I,angenfeld said they had briei'ly discussed the Water Quality P9anagement Planning Session, and asked the Planning Commission to bear in mind tne motion on page 8 made by Lee .4nn Sporre. Chairperson Harris commented that they could ask for it, but he didn't.think they would get it. I�Tr. Langenfeld noted that when this j•Jater Quality P�Ianagement program had been discussed, the metro area was one of the least prioritized for funding. He stated that there was a great deal of confusion as to non-point pollution and point pollution, and Metro Council chose to take one route and follow � that. � Chairperson Harris said that as he understood that, I�Ietro Council felt it would be economically not feasible to try to ha.ndle both programs, and also not economically feasible to try to handle the non�point source pollution. He stated they felt it was much easier to go to the point source pollution situation and try to do a good job on that with the funds they had available. Mr. Lan�enfeld explained that point source pollution was that which car,ie about from poor sewage, drainage of oil, etc. (from a source that you could put your finger on). He said he would like to indicate that when they were watching the PCA movie, it showed a picture of all the rain water gushing out of the drainage system, and the comment was made that that water was more polluted than human waste. He further explained that non-point pollution could be something like soil erosion; a nature-caused thing and not man-made. Planning Commission Ateeting - February 23, 1977 Page 12 Chairperson Harris said that wasn't quite the way he read it. Non-point, � he said, would be something like wash-off of fertilizer or drainage off of highways. Mrs. Schnabel asked what percentage.would be that type of run-off, and Mr. Langenfeld said he didn�t think there had been a designated per- centage. Mr. Langenfeld stated the last item they covered at their meeting was the environmental seminars, and urged the members of the Commission to attend. Mrs. Schnabel,stated it was unfortunate that these minutes couldn't come to the members of the Planning Commission sooner because they had now spent twenty minutes discussing them, and if they tiad been able to read them prior to the meeting they could have saved that time. She noted these minutes were taken the same time as the Appeals Commission minutes, which had been included in the agenda. Mr. Langenfeld commented that in addition, if they would have had to wait two more weeks to have them included as part of the agenda they iaouldn't have been as fresh in his mind. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion caxried unanimously. 5. REC01�9�7ENDATION CPJ THE PROPOSID CHANGES IN CHAPTER 212, MINING, OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE Mr�: Langenfeld reminded the Commission that this had kept going back and forth for some time, and finally with aid from Staff it was now in line I,.� with what the Conunission had been after. He said that had brought him to think about the Maintenance Code and how long they had been working on that, and wondered if the same thing shouldn't be applied. Mr. Bergman suggested that this might be a good time for a short coffee break as covering this item might take some time. Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 9:05 and reconvened the meeting at 9:15 P.Pi. Mr. Langenfeld stated that most of the Commission members might recall that tk� were given the Piining Ordinance 212 to look over, and really didn't know how to go about it. He said they had started to go into it word by word and were told not to do that because that was a Staff function. He said they had then reviewed one permit submitted by X campany and found a great deal of information was missing. Mr. Langenfeld said they had wanted a revised application, and a copy of this was shown on page 31�. He stated that this application coincided with the ordinance and both would work jointly as far as the finding and purpose as indicated. Mr. Langenfeld referred the Commission back to page 25, 212.01 Finding and Purpose. He said he thought this would basically explain the route this ordinance was intended to follow, and Environmental Quality definitely agreed with this.ordinance with the idea they hoped the burden of the cost would go on the applicant to pay for some of the time spent by Staff. Mr. Bergman said that personally, he had not taken the time to look this �^'°� over as thoroughly as he would like. He added that he thought a lot of _ � :� Plannan� Cairuni:;sion t�ieet2ng � Febr�uary 239 1977 Page 13 �'�1 _' time had been spent putting this together, ancl he would like to su�gest they �reat this somewhat generally tonight with the idea of deferment prior to action to provide them i;ime to do it,justice. A1rs. Schnabel asked if there was a tirne element involved, and Mro Langenfeld replied not to his kno�rled�;e. 2�r. Sobiech added that generally, this time of year was not conducive to mining operations anyway. Mrs. Schnabel.stated that she•had reviewed the ordinance and would li�e to ask some questions. She noted that the title of this was "212 Plining"� and asked if it couldn't be called "Land Alteration/?�Iining" since the application perr�it called fora.T�nd Alteration/Aiining Permit. I•Ir. Langenfeld said they had thought that by using the U�ord t1mining'" it would include all of the functions that had to do with any mavement of earth. I�ir. Sobiech said that a further explanation �*ould be that the Land Alteration section was covered by the Uniform Building Code, which they �7ere also mandated by. He said that at S�aff level, clarification between land alteration and �niningz•ras that mining was more of a cor2m�er•cial-type venture (there was actually someone removing things selling it off the site), whereas land alteration vJas more in the area of filling instead of an actual extraction and selling. He further explained that mining vaas where a property owner actually hired someone to come in and remove sorlething (such as peat), and the person who was hired arranged for fill after the peat removal. Mr. Bergman said that on the new application for the land alteration/mining � permit he noted there was the reference to chapter 212. �ie asked if this permit didn't actually have a broade.r reference than limited to ?�2. .T.r. Langenfeld said he thought the intent was 212 as it applies. NTrs. Scru7abel said that then the other land alteration chapter should be listed also; either list them all or don't list any. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the mining code then, as stal;ed, had nothing to do with the private development of an area as it•would pertain to building a development of some type. She asked if it related strictly to the removal of minerals for resale value. Mr. �obiech said that was correct, and added that for further clarification, for development of private property they had a building permit for control. Air. Langenfeld said he would like to indicate that was where th2 Commission had gotten all bogged down. He said they had the Uniform Code mixed up with the �lining and everything else, and they tried to train their thou�hts to two separate things and then proceed. He added that he would like to make it fln record that he felt that Staff did a real good job in pulling this together. Mrs. Schnabel referred the Commission to item l�a on page 28, "Machinery sha11 be kept in good repair and painted regularly'�. She said that she got hung up on "painted regularly'� because she was back to thinking about the Maintenance Code and the question of hoVa far government regulates an �individual with their private property. She said she really had some difficulty in her mind making that requirenent. Mr. Langenfeld said that � he agreed with her, and it had only to do with appearance. He added he thought it would be imposing a hardship to require t}iat. Chairperson Planning Commission I�Ieetir�g - February 23, 1977 Page ].1a. Harris commented it would be impossible. He said that any front-end loader or bulldozer that had been caorking in sand, dir� or gravel had no paint left on the bucket or the trac}:s. r1r. Bergman commented it would be an economic hardship to trT,� to keep it painted. Mrs. Schnabel questioned 5b on page 28, and asked for P�Ir. Langenfeld�s definition of "��eekdays ". He said that would be P�Ionday, Tuesday, �•dednesday, Thursday and Friday. t�irs. Schnabel said that the definition in the dictionary was any day of the week except Sunday. Chairperson Harris said that if it was only P�onday throu�h Friday it would wor� a hardship on the homeowner because that tiaas usually the day the indiv�dual got a load of black dirt, sand, etc. •I�Zr. Sobiech stated that was a good point and suggested they should leave the statement as it was. Mr. Langenfeld commented he felt )�a should be changed to eliminate "and painted regularly". r1s. Lynch said she understood they didn't want the machinery to sit on the premises and rust, but on the other hand she felt )�a was a little bit riuch. Chairperson Harris commented that was really an arbitrary judgement type thing. Mrs. Schnabel questioned the second sentence in the bottom paragraph (2) on page 29, a.nd Mr. Sobiech said that should be "per acre or fraction �hereof". r1rs. Schnabel also questioned "dit on page 35, and P�'!r. Sobiech sald that should read "7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.". Ms. Lynch noted that 212.07 Standaxds on page ?7 referred to fencing, and asked what kind that would be. NSr. Sobiech said what they had in mind was really a snow fence type thing to prevent easy access. Ms. Lynch said she was thinking of the safety factor, such as collections of water and the safety of children. She asked if this 1�' fence would keep children out. Mr. Sobiech stated it would hinder them as they wouldn't be able to walk right in. He explained the inten�t vaas not to malce it such that a Cyclone fence was necessary with an expense that would make it economically unfeasible, but they felt that the 1�' fence would deter to the point where it would be less accessible. I�ir. Langenfeld commented that the fence also made it a trespassing situation if someone were to go on the premises. MS� Lynch said that really wouldn't make any difference to the younger children, and that was what she was concerned about. l�ir. Sobiech said it should be noted that the majority of these operations were of a temporary nature; they usually went through a construction season. Chairperson Harris referred the Commission to 212.01 Finding and Purpose on�page 25. He said he found that paragraph kind of alarming, and especially the first sentence "...mining is a basic and essential activity making an important contribution to the economic well-being of the commun- ity". He stated he disagreed with that, and felt thaic every operation they had had in Fridley so far had not exactly been that. Mr. Sobiech sa.id his only comment would be that the basic intent of a mining situation was to remove unsuitable building-type materials and replace them with suitable materials such that the property could develop. Mr. Harris said ^, T1 i"1 Planning Cornmission ?-leeting - February 23, 1977 Page i5 ^ that the next sentence stated, hoi,Jever, "The economical availabili�;y oi -� sa.nd, �ravel� rock, soil, and other mat�rials is vital to the continued growth o1' the regiori and the City". Eie said that they were really talking about more than just the black dirt situ�tion. .'4r. Sobiech said he vrould point to �;he Dailey iiome situation, and ri�,ht now i�ith the grades they had they couldn't develop it. i'�Irr. I�arris suggested that would be land altera- tion. I�7r. Sobiech sa.id yes, but he could be actually selling the material to some other owner who i�ras going to Y�uild his ot�ra home. Chair�erson Harris said that brought up an interesting point9 and stated he wouldn't like to see the operations that were occuring in Osseo corne to Fridley. He said he couldn't really see where that t�Tpe of operation U�ould be of econornic benefit to Fridley. He said he could see i•�here the selling of iill was of benefit �o the total community, but he couldn't see where the selling of sand and gravel from a hill to a ready-�nix operation in P-Zinneapolis . or Osseo was an economic advanta.ge to the City of Fridley--not unless Fridley put a ton tax on the material leaving the City limits. Mr. Sobiech said he had a good point. Chairperson Harris said that his problem was, it sounded like they were promoting that type of aperation9 and he certainly hoped that was not the intention. P�ir. Langenfeld said the intent taas not to prornote it, but to recognize the existing. Tir. Harris said he understood that, but when they started saying "economic well-being of the corur�unity", i� told him th�y wanted a little more mininge Mr. Langenfeld agreed it was implying that. Mr. Harris said that �odaing the people in the construction business� � if this was published they :aould interpret it that wa�t. He said he would like to have the first paragraph reworded saying they recognized the situation with the soils in Fridley and it was an advantage if the un- buildable soils were removed and suitable soils were replaced to bring them up to buildable sites. Mr. Sobiech suggested that they word it as to what their intent really was inst�ad of promoting a mining operation. T�Ir. Harris said that �,ras correct, unless their intent was a tax for any material leaving the City of Fridley, tahich he didn't think was such a bad idea. He suggested that if the material stayed within the city limits it wouldn't be ta�:ed, but if it leit the city he felt it should be. P•is. Lynch asked how they could control that, and how the destin.ation could be determined. P�1r. Harris said that a lot of other people did this. He suggested that everyone be taxe:d regardless, and if the material stayed in the City of Fridley the person who rought it could apply for a rebate on the tax. ris. Lynch suggested that if the r►ajority of it stayed in Fridley they would actually be losing money because of the administrative costs. Air. Harris said the situation was such that most of it didn't stay in Fridley. Mr. Bergnan said he would like to follow up on this thought with a little different slant. He said that in talking about finding and purpose he t,rould like to point out that while mining of r,iinerals, soils, etc. was • recognized as a common and normal private enterprise, it did in fact have �, Planning Commission Meeting - February 23, 1977 Page 16 � a detrimental affect to the City in terms of the results of soil-condition, � geographical affect, etc. He said that therefore, to get compensation for the adverse affect, the City trould put a tax on it for that reason (they would collect some roy,alty to compensate for that). Mr. Langenield said that was why the bond was posted, though. rTr. Sobiech said he thought they did get into that later on in that sarne paragraph, when it said, "The City further finds that it is not practicable to extract minerals required by soc�y ��ithout disturbing the surface of the earth and producing waste materials. The danger exists that noncompat- ible land uses could unnecessarily deny the benefi�t of these materials to society in the future. It is further fo�and that the character of Mining may create undesirable land and water conditions which can be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare and proper�:y rights of the citizens of the City of Fridley". RIr. Bergman noted that nothing in there would return the surface to its original or better condition, but would try to control it to less than disaster. Mr. Sobiech said it was a relative situation when they talked about leaving it in as good shape as when they started, because from a developer's point of view its original condition might be detrimental to him. He said that the only vaay it would be worse in its final condition than in its original condition was if the site was eventually going to be used for a nature- type situation, such as a park. He said that if the end product resulted in a building on the site, he didn't think it was deterimental. ,� Mr. Bergman suggested that a time limit should be put on it. He said that if the purpose of the excavation was to put a building on it, he would agree with P�Ir. Sobiech, but if the purpose was to haul out thousands of tons of gravel and eventually some years later plan a developr�ent in there, then in the interim period there was a detrimental situation in there. Mr. Sobiech said they should try to control the bad effects of the situation. Mrs. Schnabel noted that in the F�vironmental Commission minutes �;here was a mo�ion made that the application procedure be reviewed on a yeaxly basis to make sure that the burden of the cost for the evaluation of a develop- ment was on the developer. l�Ir. Sobiech said that yearly review would be a cal.culation of the time Staff spent on the processing of the application to make sure they were collecting enough money for services rendered. He sai.d they would also revieti� the starting and stopping times of these opera- tions to make sure they were operating properly. He added that those costs that would be reviewed on a yeaxly basis would also include inspection time. Chairperson Harris said that the whole question of bodies of water disturbed him a little. He s aid that if the fi�al plan called for bodies of water, would that be for drainage retention? And if so, he said, then they would get all mixed up with public waters and things of that sort. He explained he was referring to 6d and 6e on page 29, and thought that should be addressed specifically. . /"'� Mr. Sobiech said that his i.nterpretation was the resultant body�of water that was formed because of some excavation would not remain. Mr. Harris - Plannin�; Corrunis: ion i�ieeting � Febxv.ary 2j, 1977 Page l7 ^ ' said he was wondering how they would address the situation if the body of � water did rernain. �e added lie felt it d�as a littl.e fuzzy. i�7r. �obiech stated it ��asn't their intent to create any retention basins. ?�1r. Langenfeld added that Ly the same token, it was not the intent to have a big hole remaining whether there was wat�r in it or not. Ifr. Sobiech agreed tha� a clarification was required, �id that retention ponds resulting from excavation should be in line with overall storm sewers. He suggested thafi. under (e) on page 29 item iii be added sayin�, this resultant water body coulcin't remain over a certain length of timeo Mr. �obiech stated that Staff could mafe some clarifications and amendrnents and bring those changes back, and maybe the Planning Commission could come to a conclusi�n at the next rneeting. �� MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the recorlmendation on the proposed changes in Chapter 212, I�fining, of the Fridley City Code be continued until the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the raotion carried unanimously. 6. PROPOSED REGIONi�L TRAILS POLICY PLAN FROM i-IET�.OPQLITAI� COUP?CIL MQTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergrnan, that the Planning Cor�rnission receive the proposed regional trails policy plan fro.n Y�;etropolitan � Council and the accompanying let�,ers froni Air. Boardman. Mr. Sobiech stated tr.at P�ir. Boardman had ?°ece�_ved these recor�endations from the Metro Council, and in his review he i'�lt two comments �;ere necessary. First, he continued, in the regional designation of the trail system they designated 73rd Avenue instead of what the City felt should be in the area of Rice Creek, i•7r. Sobiech added that together with not being on the alignment of Rice Creek� they also designated it as a snowmobiling/horseback trail and Staff felt that was not appropriate for the City of Fridley. The second comment, he said, V:as to mention the concern for the regional facility in relation to the T�Iississippi River and Critical Areas designation. Mr. Sobiech stated they did not want snowmobiling and horseback riding down 73rd Avenue, but did want biking and hiking down by the creek. He said that basically, what they were doing was follewing up on what had been previously suggested. He stated that at this time they felt this was for inforr�ational purposes only, unless the Commission felt some modification to the correspondence was in order. I�4ro Langenfeld noted tha� the word "vicinity" had been misspelled in the letter from Mr. Boardman dated February 22, 1977. UPOIV A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. MpTION by Lynch, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission approve ^ the letter to Pir. John Boland irom I�ir. Boardman dated February 23, 1977 concerning the proposed regional trails policy plan. Mr. Ber�man asked to what extent the map which was attached and referred to in the letter was consistent with the eaisting bikeway system. Mr. Planning Commission Meetin� - February 23, 1977 Page 18 Sobiech replied that dras rrhere their plan now called for bike trails and bike routes. He added. they were tryin� �o get the regional system to match theirs. UPON A VOICE VOTE,.a�l votin� aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Schnabel asked who would be responsible for the cost of developing these trails that were being proposed. Mr. Sobiech replied that he believed it would be funded by State and Federal only. Mr. Bergman said that his impression was that if the letter and attached map that P�Ir..Boardman proposed to send out was approved as part of the Regional Tra.ils Policy Plan, it would be a real benefit to- getting t:�e bikeway system ir�pleraented. 2�Ir. Sobiech said that was correct, and that was the whole purpose of it. He added it would be very costly to construct the bikeway in these areas to the standards that were accepted for biYeway/ walkway systems. Mr. Langenfeld said that if they could prove that they could make the groper connection between the metro ar�a and surrounding areas, the funding possibilities would be great if they could be designated regional. Mr. Bergman asked if anything had been said regarding timing, and Mr. Sobiech replied no, they were still in the draft stage. Mr. Bergman ct�ommented that the sooner this was adopted, the better. He added that funding was the criteria in the timing on these, so he was curious as to timing as it could be a real boon..irlr. Sc�i�ch said he would try to find inforrnation concerning.the timing on this. Mr. I,angenfeld asked if this particular item would be included in the overall regional special use. I�s. Sobiech replied the trail system did take i.nto account the special use areas. Pqr. Bergman said he had one comment on the letter, and that was where Mr. Boardman said he would like to suggest the following "corrections'� to the plan. He said that made him want to look for a list of errors. Mr. Sobiech suggested that "modifications" might be better. 7. REGIONAL SPECIAL USE POLICY PLAN Mr. Sobiech explained that rir. Boardman, as Head of the Planning Department, reviewed what the Aietro Council had put out and had determined that what they were proposing did not exclude the Springbrook Nature Center or the Islands of Peace as Special Use facilities. He said it also should be noted that this was bei.ng reviewed by Dan Huff and the Depaxtment of Paxks and Recreation, and they would come up with their own comments which would be part of the input at the Aiaxch 3rd meeting. . MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Lynch, that the Planning Commission receive the Regional Special Use Policy Plan. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. r'�'1 � /�`` \� � ��� Plannirig Commission Meetirip; � February 239 1977 Pa�e 19 Mrs. Schnabel noted that her copy o.f the plan had some pages rnissing and duplications of otriers' and the otYier r�ernbers said �;he sarne vaas true of their copiese Mr. Sobiech said he would find out what happenedo 8. CONTIIdUID : PROPOS� I�7AIT� i EPdANCE CODE MOTIOPI by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld� that the Planning Cor:unission proceed with the I>.aintenance Code iri the following manner: 1. The first item for consideration would be the drafting of the Maintenance Code pertinent to residential rental units inspected on a systeraatic basis. � � 2. The second task would be adoption of a Maintenance Code for single fa.�-ni.ly' housin� which is o�f:ner-occupied, w�ic:�i would relat� �o voluntary inspection of said progerties. 3. The third item in tYie process of deliberation trould be the Plaintenance Code on a sale basis of residential properties with special attention to ir�rnediate health and safety hazards. 1�. The fourth item for consideration woul� be inspection of the entire City properties on a systematic basis. The above four steps shall refer to structural and/or interior• maintenance . �. The fifth step would be to exterior maintenarice properties. review of the "Loning Code with reference on residential, commexcial and industrial Chairperson Harris commented that he felt ;�l� �•rould be a monumental task, and didn't knotia if they had either the funds or the resources to handle that. P1r. Sobiech suggested that maybe they snould dVaell on the systematic rental and then lead into the possibilities of salev He added that perhaps the intent of tne motion would be that ai'ter a certain period of experience with the previous enforcement procedure, they would proceed into the next phase to see if it t+ras feasible. Mr. Langenfeld said it was his impression tha� the motion was presenting to the Commission a general outline as to how to approach the Niaintenance Code. PSrs. Scanabel said she thought they wanted to focus on certain areas in ter�ns of a riaintena,tzce Code, and this outlined a certain procedure. hlr. Langenfeld explained that when they hit the "systematic" paxt they could go after it at that point. Mrs. Schnabel explained that #2 was voluntary inspection of single family housing, and {}l� took it out of voluntary into involuntary. She said she n thought they should review whether or not they even ��anted to do that. Maybe, she continued, their decision would be that they didn't iaant to, but they should cross that bridge at �,hat time. Planning Commission P�Ieeting - February 23, 1977 Page 20 Ms. Lynch stated she didn't think the City could enter somebody�s house and ^ inspect it vrithout a search vraxrant, and only then iaitn a good reason. Mrs. - Schnabel said she thought they were jumping the gun on that discussion and suggested they wait for that discussion until ihat -Lime came. Mr. Langenfeld said he wanted to stress that he thought the intent of the Commission and the City Council was to assist the citizen in this case and not be an oppressor. He added that he thought this Commission was aware that they should walk into this water of ma.intenance slowly so they didn't step into a hole. Mr. Bergman agreed, and said they should try not to play "Big Brother". Mrs. Schnabel said she thought that several points came out in the discussion with the City Council on this. One, she said, was that the goal should be to maintairi the character and the integrity of�the neighborhood; nurnber two �ras that the emphasis should be on maintenance and not upgrading; and nwnber three vaas that the property rights of the ot�mer had to be regarded in any of their decisions. Mr. Bergman said he would like to commend Mrs. Schnabel on her motion, and he felt positive about everything except Item �.. However, he said, if it �aas a general direction-type procedure, he felt it was fine. UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11 voting aye, the motion carrie� unanimously. Mr. Bergman said he would like to �.sk a general question. He said that ,;� when they talked about maintenance, exterior came to his mind; he couldn't get a grip on interior/structural. He said he was sure they were not as obvious or apparent or meaningful to pedestrians and drivers through the City as was the exterior. P�ir. Bergman continued that he had felt when they had started that they were talking about naintenance as related toward the present trend toward blighted areas, which was the visual aspect of the thing. He said he felt some priority or emp;�asis to treat the exterior bit, and asked the feelings of the other Commission members. Mr. Langenfeld said he had a good��point, but it was possible to have a beautiful exterior and the inside structure could be ready to collapse, or there could be actual �ealth hazards. Mr. Sobiech suggested that in the spirit of the previous rnotion the Planning Commission direct Staff to prepare standards in the area of maintenance (not upgrading), together with the enforcement that would allow them to take care of the first item (rental properties�. He said that together with that� they could address the exterior development of the zoning code. He said that it wouldn't be very difficult to provide recommendations for exterior maintenance as they got into the interior standards and enforcement procedures of the rental properties. iie added that he thought they could bring those two together. rirs. Schnabel said she felt the Zoning Code had some specifics currently in it that would deal with exterior maintenance that might be applicable. �"'� _,� � �,� P1�.nn:in� Cornrr,ission ��Ieetin� �- Februar�� 23, 1977 Pa�e 21 Chairperson Harris said the readin� he go�; irorn.the discussion was tha�; they were to test the water �on the T•Iaintenance Code. He said he thought they should �take one step at a time and handle the .fi-rst item and see hoVT that worked. P�Ir. Sobiech said they could do that, but he didn't i:hink it ��ould be any additional vaork to have a couple of thin�;s together. Mr. tiarris said 'ne thought t?�ey should take it in the elements. MOTIOPJ by Langenf. eld, direct 5�aff to focu� relate to mairitenance to rental. seconded by Schnabel, that the Plannin� Com:nission on the firs� item, st;ressing the standards as they and then the enforcer��ent for a systematic approacn Nir. Sooiech said he could see where they ceuld tone dotim the 12tP thick document they had. He said they could put in general requirements that affected all residential, then put in specific ones for R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-l�� then at the end put in the paragraph regarding the systematic approach to rental and then tl:e voluntary approach to single far►ily. He said they would dwell on the health, safety and welfare iterns' and would not talk abou-� bringing tnem up to the existing code. Chairperson Harris agreed. He•said that as long as the wiring, for instance, i�as good enough fifteen years ago, then as long as it was in good repair it was �ood enough now. He said they �rere not stating that just because it'is 1977 a resident had to have a major overhaul of the house �;o come to present-day building codes. He added that that ,aas t,rhat rlinr.eapolis had done� and he thou�ht they were dead wrong. I�ir. Harris said that as long as sornething tiaasn't a fire hazard, perhaps it was alright. Ms. Lynch asked hoia they would deal taith a situation where a house was inspected, even on a voluntary .basis, and it was faund that there t•rere hea�th hazards that t•rould be expensive to correct and the person didn't have the money. Chairperson Harris said that if it occurred in a specific area, such as the Hyde Park area, it might be possible to get a grant. He said there were some prograrns for specific items, and he thoubht the county had one. r1rs. Schnabel added that there tiaere low-cost loans available. r1r. Bergrnan asked what the enforcement procedure would be under the hor�estead, single-family voluntary inspection process. r�Ir. Sobiech replied there wouldn't be any. He explained the ordinance would be providing a service to the homeowner for his informational purposes. He added that if there was a definite health hazard, that would take it away fron the voluntary basis, but it i�rould be a little tricky. He said they could address that when they came back with an appropriate proposal. Z•Zs. Lynch said if there was a definite life and death situation and the City di.dn't do anything about it� they might be liable if the place burned dotan or the furnace gave off a poisonous gas. Chairperson Harris said that he thought on the voluntary ins�ections the City should have a disclaimer thai: the property owner signed at the ti�e of inspection removing the City from any liability. Tirs. Schnabel said another point was, if the City Inspector missed something which eventually caused a fire, the City might be respcnsible. rSr. Harris said he felt there should be a disclaimer to protect them from a law suit. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Planning Cornmission P�eetin� - February 23, 19?7 Page 22 9. RFCEIVE APPEALS COi�-4ISSIOPd I�tIPNTES : FEBRUARY 15, 1977 �''` MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the Appeals Commission minutes of February 15,.1977. Upon a voice vote' all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that the variance request �ras on the same property the Planning Comraission had the Lot Split request on at the last meeting. 10. REC�'IVE HUi•�N RESOURCE CCP•II:ISSIOPJ T•ZIT�UTES: FEF3RUA.'�Y 3, 1977 r70TI0N by Lynch, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission receive the Human Resource Commission minutes of February 3, 1977. Mr. Langenfeld referred to the second sentence at t,he top of page 3, and asked aUout the "lot" tax. The Com�nission decided it should read "lc�r'r tax. Mrs. Schnabel referred to the bottom paragraph on page two of the minutes, and asked where the figure $13,000 came frorn. Ms. Lynch replied that was the base figure, and was always the same arnount. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 11. OTHE..R. BUSINESS ; Mr. Langenfeld raised the question of the election of officers, and wonciered if he could get a clarification of the exact time this was supposed to take place. Mrs. Schnabel said that the appointments were made in April and she thought they had the elections in P4ay sa the new board membErs could have one month to see the whole group in action before votin� on officers. Mr. Sobiech said that to help even further, the Council was trying to make appointments in r�arch so there would be a tt�o-month initiation. P-1r. Bergman read from the ordinance that the terms expired April l, but no date for election was given. Chairperson Harris sug�ested that the Planni.ng Commission could pass a resolution designating a time frame when the member commissions would hold an election for Chairperson. ?�Ir. Sobiech read, "Follolaing the appointment of inemberships (��hich would be April 1), the Commission shall meet, organize and elect officers as it deems desirable". He.said he didn't think it would be out of line for the Planning Commission to adopt a policy. ,"� MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission, in keeping with the intent of the ordinance, adopt the policy that member commissions hold an election for chairperson and vice chairperson at their first meeting in May. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. . Mrs. Schnabel said it was her understanding that the Planning Commission had •`� carried over the discussion of the proposed intersection of 53rd and Central " �� Plann.ing Commission 1�eetin�; � February 23, 19?7 Page 23 n, Avenue from their last meeting pending further information. Mr. Sobiech said he couldn' 1: cor�;nent as he didn't knotia where it was a�t this time e IL1rs a Schnabel explaineci the inf'ormation that vras needed, and A1r. Sobiech said it took sorae tirne to go throu�;h the files to find the ac�cideni; records because of the way they were filed. MOTION by Schnabel9 seconded by Langenfeld, �that trie Planning Commission continue the discussion of the proposed irnprovernent at the inter�ection of 53rd. and Central Avenue N.L. until the next rrieeting. P�qr. Bergman said th�y had previously discussed the traffic problem there, and pointed out that the bikeway/walkway plan called i'or a bilceway trail across �hat intersection, too. He said he Vaas wondering if_in the present- ation back of any relative data, that fact ought to be kept in mind� and perhaps included in i,hat pac�:age also. Air. Sobiech said that right now he was correct; there was no room for cars let alone a bikeway system, but plans called for additional area for ihe bikeway system. I�irs. Schnabel noted she had brought that up at the last r�eeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADJOURPJMENT : MOTIO?�? by Schnabel, seconded bf Bergman, that t.he Meeting be adjourned. � Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson ?�iarris declared the Planning Cor,unission meeting of February 23, 1977 adjourned at 11s23 P.r1. Respectfully submitted, _ � ,-,. - . Sherri 0'Donnell Recording Secretary t .�,..�,.�