Loading...
PL 03/09/1977 - 30463►^�'1 CITY OF FRTDLEY PLANPIING COAIMISSION MEETING MARCH 9, 1977 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER; Chairperson Harris called the meeti.ng to order at 7s33 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Harris, Bergman, Langenield, Lynch (sitting in for Shea), Peterson (left 10:10 p.m.), Schnabel Members Absent: None Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City P].anner MOTION ty Peterson, seconde3 by Bergman, that the Planning Commission amend the ag�nda to include an item conc�rning an alleged home occupation at l�591 � 212 Stieet in Fridley. Upon a voice vote� a11 voting aye, the motion carried urianimously. DISCUSSION ON ALLEGr'� HON1� OCCUPATION AT lt591 2 2 STREET, FRIDLEY Chairperson Harris explained he had requested this item to be on the agenda as he had received a phone call about one and a half or two weeks ago concerning a use that a particular property was being put to at �.591 2 2 Street in Fridley. He stated that an addition was being built to a garage which was apparently being used to paxk a truck with siding and for storage of siding material, etc. NIr. Haxris said a building permit had been issued in November of 1975, and this had gone before the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals at that time. He explained that variances were granted and a Special Use Permit was granted for this particula.r item, and since then it didn't really appeax that the property had been used exactly for what the Special Use Permit was intended at that time. 1�7r. Donald Kopecky� I��91 2 2 Street N.E., Fridley; Diane BZpes, 1�601 2� Street N.E,� Fridley; rir. Adolph F. Bipes9 1�601 2� Street N.E.,� Fridley; and Mr. Chaxles Howe, 1�560 3rd Street N.E., Fridley� were present. Mr. Kopecky pointed out on the photographs the addition to his gara.ge. He eYplained that the trailer with the tires was brought in on Wecinesday, Thursday he couldn't pull it eut because of the snoc�, and Frid�,y he removed it. He said that the ad�ition on the garage was st�.rted on the 28th tand � then it snowed for three•days and rained ior two days, so he only had about three iaorking days to put it up so far. He said that now, since the complaint ` which he heard about on Aionday, he returned the siding and it would take Planning Commission Meeting � March 9, 1977 Page 2 another four weeks to reorder the siding because it was a special order � so now everything would sit for another four weeks. Mr. Kopecky said he h�d never gone before the Planning Commission or the Board of Appeals concerning this, but had just received a building permit. He stated he was following th� directions of the building permit and had a fire wall, removed the swimming pool, and the 20 X 28 addition would be used for a storage shed. Chairperson Harris commented that the night he was there, there seemed to be a lot of equipment stored in the yard, ladders on the roof, trailers, etc. He explained that a�.iR-1 district meant single family dwellings, not a commercial area. He asked if Mr. Kopecky was operating a business out of his home. Mr. Kopecky replied he was siding and roofing subcontractor and he did store some material on his property but didn't just throw it out in the yard. Chair- person Harris noted that was where he saw it piled, and that was what the neighbor had been complaining about. rTr. Kopecky explained that while he was building the addition some material was stored in his yard, along side of the garage. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the addition was to be used as a storage shed, and Mr. Kopecky sai.d it was, and ��ould not be for an automobile. He explained he would be storing material he had left over from his job. Chairperson Harris asked about the trailer that was sitting there� and Mr. Kopecky replied he used that for work. Mr. Harris asked what the tires in the back yard were used for� and Mr. Kopecky said they were used for docks up at the lake. Mr. Boardman explained that home occupation was actually operati.ng a business r'�, out of your home, and it must be completely operated out of the residential building structure itself. He said that the Code was somewhat eague on what home occupation was, but it did not allow employees, did not allow over a certain number of cars for the operation and did not allow a retail operation out of a home, but would allow an office and that type of thing. r1r. Boardman said they i�ad allowed a certain amount of storage in an outer shelter as lon g a.s that storage was inside and concealed. He explained that when that storage material came outside, that was when there was a problem. He said that all storage materials must be stored within a structure. Mr. Kopecky said that was why he was building the storage shed, and he was not selling anthing out of there. Mr. Langenfeld vi.ewed the photographs and asked what was on the trailer. P7r. Kopecky said the trailer contained tires which he laid�'.axound a lake for a snowmobile race. Chairperson Harris stated that the gentlemen who registered the complaint felt there was a commercial enterprise in a R-1 district. Mr. Howe stated that he had called Mr. Harris originally to ask about the apparent change of a R-1 district into a commercial/residential district. He said that in talking to the five closest neighbors around the axea to see if any vaxiation had been approved, he found the answer was negative. Mr. Howe explained he had been told by the school districts that an� building used for the storage of commercially-used goods was a commercial building. He added that whether this was true in Fridley, he didn't know, but it was true in the school district he worked in. Mr. Howe continued that if the area changed from � �� Planning Comrnission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 3 �� a R-1 to a cornrnercial zoning, all the property owners felt they would be taking a financial loss. He said they were asking if this was being rezoned to commercial� and if they had to give vaxiation to a 30 x!t5' building before it could be built. , Mr. Boardman stated that there had been no petitions for rezoning in the axea. He explained that this was an addition to a present existing garage so no Special Use Permit was necessary rn it since it wasn�t a 2nd accessory building. Mrs. Schnabel stated that there had been no vaxiance on this� either. Chairperson Harris said that it seemed like they were awful close to the back lot line, but P�ir. Kopecky said he knew who PZr. Harris was thinking of and it wasn't him, but another siding contractor. Chairperson Harris asked if it would be possible that the neighbors would feel better if all of the materials used in P�Ir. Kopecky's operation were stored inside and not visable to the other property owners. Mr. Howe said they would also like a guarantee from the Planning Commission that there would be no cYiange in the zoning from R-l. Chairperson Haxris said that without a Public Hearing and action by the Planning Gommission and also action by the City Council, there would be no rezoning. He said that was a guaxantee� and to get anythi.ng rezoned was a tough project. Mr. Howe said that in other words, even if the building appeared to be commercial and could be construed to be commercial, it could not be rezoned out of a�R-1. He then asked what the limitations were on home occupations, and Mr. Langenfeld read the definition of'Yhome occupation out of the zoning � ordinaxice book. Mr. Kopecky said he understood the problem, but he had to build the shed before he could store the material in it, and if people kept complaining about it the material would be outside until he got it done. He stated that he thought he t�as doing pretty good on it as he had gotten it roughed up in less than three days. Chairperson Harris noted that it seemed the permit was issued in 1975, but Mr. Kopecky said he had gotten the permit last November. Chairperson Harris asked if it would be reasonable to assume that he could keep all the outside material in the shed a.fter the shed was completed, and N�r. Kopecky �eplied he could. Mr. Langenfeld asked if he had people coming on the premises to look at any of the goods, and Mr. Kopecl:y replied he did not, although occasionally a truck would come from the waxehouse and deliver goods to the garage. Mr. Langen�eld asked what the average inventory was that he had on hand at a given time� and Pir. Kopecky answered $1,000 at the most. H� added it probably averaged about $600 a month. Mr. Bergman asked the size of the accessory building, and Mr. Kopecky replied ihe addition was 20 x 28'' plus the gaxage which was 2!� x 28'. Mr. �ergman noted that was roughly 1300 squaxe feet, and asked what the finished square � footage in the home was. Mr. Kopecky replied the home was 1120 square feet� so he could still build three more square feet if he wanted to. P18nning Commission Meeting - Maxch 9, 197? Page � N1rs. Schnabel asked if the garage or the addition were heated, and Mr. Kopecky � said that he heated the front one when he worked on his snovamobiles. Mrs. Schnabel asked when he contemplated completion of the storage shed� and Mr. Kopecky replied it would be about four weeks because he had to wait for the siding. Mrs. Schnabel asked if he could store material in there now, and Mr. Kopecky replied he could as he was just waiting to finish the exterior at this point. , Mr. Peterson said that in the past the City Attorney had said there was nothing in the ordinance that said they could limit the size of a secondary building, axld he didn't see where they had a legiti.mate complaint unless he had missed something. Chairperson Harris pointed out it did not fa11 within the ordinance as a home occupation with storage of material outside' and that was the basis of the complaint. Mr. Langenfeld said he thought there was some problem where Mr. Kopecky had been mislead as to what he could and could not do, and Mxr. Harris said he believed that was correct. Mr. Howe stated that nobody in the area had ever complained about the home occupation; the question was the building storing commercial goods, and the other property owners were scared that the area might be rezoned. Mr. Langenfeld asked how Nir. Howe, as the person submitting the complai.nt, would like to see this situation rectified if the axea remained in its present zoning. Mr. Hoi�e saa.d he was just worried about ca.rs, trucks and people going.in there with children in the area, and having the area rezoned to commercial and taking a loss on his residential property. Mr. Langenfeld ^ asked if Mr. Kopecky had any plans of expanding his home occupation� and he replied he did not, and he was not selling material or having trucks come in there. Mr. Bergman sai.d that as far as the rezoning went, a rezoning would have to be initiated by the property owner and would require a Public Heaxing before this body at which time Mr. Howe and the other concerned neighbors would have a chance to present their views. He said he didn't think it was very probable tha�t this would be rezoned, and added there was quite a process involved in that. Mr. Howe saa.d that at one time multiple dwellings had been considered for the area, and the neighbors had to keep fighting the rezoning. Mr. Peterson asked if there had been a sign advertising a commercial venture at this paxticular location, and Mr. Howe replied there had been at one time, but not any more. Chairperson Harris asked if it would relieve the feaxs of the surrounding neighbors if Mr. Kopecky kept a11 his materia.ls stored inside instead of outside, and Mr. Howe replied he was no� worried about the outside storage as much as the rezoning. Mr. Langenfeld recorrmiended that as the Planning Commission they recommend to Mr. Kopecky that he take a11 the necessary efforts to clean up the outside materials and get them undercover in the storage shed. He then told Mr. Howe � that if this home occupation showed signs of expanding the City would have / / � Plannin� Commission Meeting - March 9� 1977 � Page 5 ,''`� to step in and abolish that. Both parties agreed. Chairperson Harris said that if the neighbors still felt there was a problem he would suggest that they write a letter to be put on file with the City so that they would have a record of the concerns. Mr. Peterson suggested that Mr. Howe and the five neighbors put their objections in a letter regard- less if this was settled or not� and tha-t way �here would be a record even if the property changed ownerships. A2rs. Schnabel suggested that Nir. Kopecky also document his side of it, stating his current home occupation and that he had stated at this meeting that he didn't intend to expand his business. Mr. Langenfeld said that personally he was glad to see this come before the Planning Commission because it could be a potential time bomb, and by coming to this meeting they had clarified the situation at hand. APPROVE PLANNING CO2�Q�lISSION MINUTES: FEBRUARY 23, 1977 Mrs. Schnabel said that she had two minor corrections. On page 7., she noted that the 9th line in the second paragraph should read nitself " instead of "himself"; and the second paragraph on page 21 should read "...on a�systematic approach to rental." "-' Mr. �,angenfeld explained that the point he was trying to make at the top=of page 10 k*hen he said "...if they felt Mocre Lake should be recreational� �'1 and so on" was he was trying to express whether Moore Lake would be a swimming beach or just plain recreational such as fishing and/or boating. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission minutes of February 23� 1977 be approved as amended. Upon a voice vote� a11 voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 1. CONTINLIID: RECORII�IF�NDATION ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN CHAPTER 212 MINING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission receive the revised copy of Chapter 212, Mining. Mr. Boardman pointed out what had been eliminated in the first paragraph under 212.01 Finding and Purpose, so the first sentence would read "The City of Fridley recognizes that surface mining exists and that this mining can be an aid to the preparation of development sites." Chairperson Harris said he felt much better about that. Mr. Langenfeld pointed out that although the word '�vital" had been struck from the first paragraph, it was s1;i11 in the second paragraph. r1r. Board- man suggested that the second paragraph read Q'The purposes ��i this ordinance axe: To provide for the economical availability of sand, gravel, rock� soil and other materials." The Commission agreed. ^ � Mr. Bergman noted that this was called �'Ati.ningit� yet in the body of the document other terms such as "extraction'J� '�alteration'�, etc. were used. Planning Commission Meeting - March 9, 1977 � Page 6 He asked if it was the intent of this document to specifically address ~' mining as opposed to extraci:ion or land alteration. Mr. Langenfeld said that he interpreted this to be entitled "Mining" with the terms "extraction"� "alteration", etc. to be a function inside the mining. He added that these things were necessary before mining could be done. P�Irs. Schnabel pointed out that there was a separate ordinance that dealt with land alteration, and this should not be interpreted as the land alteration ordinance. Mr. Bergman said he thought this was fairly confusing in the way it was written. He said that in looking at the permit application data in the previous mi.nutes, he noted they were talking about land alteration/mining. Mr. Langenfeld explained that the permit was designed to serve a dual purpose for mining and land•alteration� but agreed it could be a little confusing. - Mr. Bergman noted that half�ray down page 1 the code read "To establish uniform and reasonable limitations, safeguards and controls in the City, for the future production of said materials". He suggested that the word "production" be changed to "mining". He also noted that near the bottom of the same page, item 2 talked about an"extraction permi.t". He said he felt they should use coirmion terminology so this would be less coniusing. Mr. Peterson sicated that he grew,up on the Iron Range, and one of the things he learned was that mining was mining and extraction was extraction; they were two completely dif�erent operations, He said he had problems classify- � ing taking black dirt or gravel as a mining operation. PZr. Langenfeld said that was correct as stated, but for six months the k�vironmental Commission had discussed that particular point. He said that to try to resolve it , they had thought about changing the name of this ordinance, but they just came to the conclusion that "�•lining" would be adequate in this case. He added that he realized the necessity of discussing these items, but by the same token the measure and scope of the operation so conducted in the City was so limited that he felt this ordinaxice would be appropriate. . Mr. Bergman said that regaxding item 2 on the bottom of page 1, he would suggest they were talking about a mining permit rather than an extraction permit. Ms. Lynch questioned the wording of item 2, and Mr. Boardman said it should read Extraction permit or mining permit. Mr. Bergman stated that would be acceptable. Mr. Bergman read to the Commission a portion of item 1 on page 2, which said "The City shall review the facts and determine whether an emergency exists and sha11 by written memorandum, authorize commencement of the emergency exception." He said he was a little concerned that somebody might die before that written memorandum got back in order for emergency work to take place to preserve life or proper�ty. He said he would suggest the phrase "by written memorandum" be scratched; he thought that maybe in certain cases to preserve life somebody from the City might have to agree over the telephone. Chairperson Haxris said the way he read this� the City was requesting the work to be done; the City was the initiator, not the ^ property owner. � i Planning Commission Meeting - March 9� 197? Page 7 '� Mr. Peterson said that if somebody got caught in a cave-in and had to wait ten days for a memorandum granting permission to dig him out� he might be pretty unhappy when he did get out. A4r. Bergman saa.d that was his point. He said he did not read this to be limited to the City doing some work; his view was the opposite--the operator would have to call the City and get from them a written memorandum for authority to commence emergency proceedings. Mr. Langenfeld said that in regard to that same paragraph, he didn't believe that meant human life. He sai3 he thought it meant natural life� and pointed out the reference to "eneironmental i.mpairment" in the last sentence. I�1r. Peterson suggested that point 1 under 212:05 be rewritten to clarify what they were trying to get at. Mr. Bergman agreed. Mr. Bergman referred to point 2 under 212°05, and suggested changing 60 days to 30 and 90 days to 60. Mr. Peterson wondered why anybody should be given any tune at all.to apply. Mr. Boardman said they had to have a certain amount of time to prepare the documents that were required under this ordinance, and it was also protection for the existing operations. Mr. Peterson noted that in 60 days a lot of material could be hauled out. Mr. Boa,r�drnan said then Mr. Peterson was talki.r�g about�requiring them to apply immediately and then i;hat application process may take b0 days to issue a permit. Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to see 15 days and 30 days, but Mr. Harris said there had to be notification time and engineering that had to be done on some of the property. ^ Mr. Peterson said that if someone came into the City and wanted to build on a lot, they had to get a permit before they could build. Here� he said, they were allowing someone to haul their City away and didn't require them to do anything for sixty days. Chairperson Harris commented tha-t he thought this was meant for existing operations. Mr. Boardman said that'actually, that paragraph was really meaningless anyway because they had already shut down the operations until permits were issued. I��s. Lynch suggested striking the word "but" in the third line of that paragraph� and putting '�30 days'� i.nstead of "90 days" so they would have to apply right away. Mr. Peterson agreed. He said he realized there had to be processing time, but he didn't see why they had sixty days to apply for the permit. 1�2r. Boardman suggested making it stronger than that and shutting down the process until the permit was issued. Mr. Bergman stated that in general, he thought they were overdoing this a little. He thought some of the Corrunissioners had a specific operation in mind, which he thought taas somewhat affecting their reasoni.ng here. In general, he said� he thought that anybody who was in business now would certainly put up a high legal squawk if the new ordinance put hi.m out of business. He thou�ht that was unreasonable and also illegal. Mr. Peterson said he didn't feel it was unreasonable if someone was deiacing the Ci�y and leaving it. He added that he was not thinking of any one partic- ular operator� but he just thou�ht that they had been.the least requiring of � that operation than anything they had in the whole City. rlr. Bergman said ' he thought it was prudent of them to do something about it� but he thought it had to be done in a reasonable� business-like fashion. Planning Commission Meeting - March 9� 1977 Page 8 Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to point out that the old 212 did not have �` any control whatsoever, and that was why he was favoring this and felt it was the formation of a good ordinance. He said it was a difficult kind of thing to take caxe of, and recommended that items 1 and 2 under 212.05 be clarified. Mr. Bflardman asked if they wanted to make the ordinance effective immediately, and Mr. Harris said he thought 30 days to make application with the City able to extend the time for the initial application to 60 days. Ms. Lynch sa3d she felt they should make application right away. Mr. Boardman noted that he didn't see any time period written in after that application was made for them to get all of the requirements fulfilled. He asked if they could be operating within that period of time after application was made. He sai.d there was nothing that said the operation had to be shut down if the materials were not gathered within a certain period of time. Chairperson Harris said that was a good point. � Mr. Peterson said he really couldn�t see the hardship of requiring them to apply for the permit immediately and then have a timetable for it to be completed. Mr. Boardman suggested they make application within 10 days, which would give enough correspondence time. Chairperson Harris suggested 15 days� and Mr. Boardman said he thought ten days would be enough. Mrs. Schnabel asked if a person who was not currently in operation but made an application for a permit would be allowed to commence t,�.th any mining until �hat permi.t was approved. Mr. Boardman said he would not be allowed to do '^ any mining until the permit was issued. After iurther discussion, the Commission decided there should be fifteen days for notification and 60 days to bring it in to compliance. The Commissioners agreed that 75 days total should be a reasonable amount of time. Mr. Bergman referred to 212.06, item l� which talked about a mineral extraction permit. He asked why mining permit wasn't used. Mr. Langenfeld answered it was because in the process oi mining� mineral extraction took place. Nir. Bergman felt they should use consistent terms. 1�1rs. Schnabel pointed out that on page l� under definition #2� they had added "or mining permit ". She suggested that item 1 under 212.06 should read "mi.ning or extraction permit". Mr. Bergman said that then 212 Mining should be changed to 212 Mining or Extraction so there would be some consistency in terms. Mr. Boardman suggested eliminati.ng "extraction" a11 the way through� and this was agreeable to the Commission. Mrs. Schnabel said she still concurred with what Mr. Peterson said--that when gravel or soil was being removed� that saas not mining. Mr. Boardman said they taere talking about a degree; extraction was a lighter degree and mining was a heavy degree. rZrs. Schnabel asked if he was saying that for a person to remove gravel or soil he must apply for a mining permit� and N(r. Boardman said that was right. Mr. Bergman said that if they were talking about extraction as bei.ng mining �' or considered within that context� then mining should be defined as including � Planning Corrunission Meeting 4 March 9, 1977 ' Page 9 �, extraction on page 2� item !�. Mr. Peterson su�gested that they stay with "mining" and use it all the way through, and then there ti�ouldn't be any problems wi.�;h consistency. He said he would feel comfortable with that. Mrs. Schnabel said she agreed, but she thought that in the definitions� under 'fi�fining" they should include in the definition that mining sha11 be determined as extraction. hSr. Boardman suggested it read something liket "The removal or extraction and processing of minerals"� and this was agreeable to the Commission. Mrs. Schnabel noted that the references to "mineral extraction permit" in 212.06, items 1 and 2, be changed to "ma.ning permit". Mr. Bergman added that whenever there was mention of a permit it should be defined as a mining permit and nothing else. Mr. Langenfeld asked if any of the members had any problems with the 1�' � tall fence requirement. He said it seemed appropriate in his estimation. Chairperson Harris saa.d he thought it would do the job. Mr. Bergman said he was reminded that they had pr•o�osed a revision to the swimming pool ordinance from !�' to 6', and he was a little torn between reality and consistency here because he realized a snow fence was handy to put up around a hole, but on the other hand he wondered tahy they felt the need to go from !�' to 6' around a swi.mming pool. Chairperson Harris said he could see Mr. Bergman�s concern, but they didn't make 6� snow fences��only I�'. Also' he said, a b� ience axound a swimming pool was a �� permanent installation, and a 1�' fence was a temporary installatian. Mr. Boardman said the only reason they put up a.fence was to act as a deterrent to people who might want to use the axea for dumping. He added that if somebody wanted to get in badly enough, they could get in whether the fence �ras !�' or 4' . Mr. Boaxdman said that if a b' fence was required� they should just eliminate mining completely in the City of Fridley because the cost of permanent fencing was astronomical. Ms. Lynch said she had a problem with this when it talked about 1%' of water. She stated that small children could drown in less than that, and asked if this type of operation was restricted to certain axeas not close to residential. Chairperson Harris said in practicality, yes, it shouldn't be close to residential. I�1r. Peterson pointed out an area that was not fax away from a heavily-populated residential area. Ms. Lynch suggested that any time there taas any kind of excavation it should be fenced; not only when water collected. Mr. Peterson stated that a 11' fence was usually not�much of a deterrent to anybody or anythingp and I�ir. Harris added that most of the time it delineated boundaxies. A�rs. Schnabel said that going beyond water, she remembered reading about children playing in gravel pits that had been killed in land slides. She said they were not talking just about water, but all facets of this type of operation tha.t could be hazardous. Nir. Langenfeld stated that any person that was involved in this type of business would malce � sure he had proper insurance, and i.n order to get that insurance he had to ` maintain certain safety precautions. Planning Commission Meeting - Maxch 9� 1977 Page 10 Mr. Bergman said that his main concern with the fencing was safety--not '"` whether it defi.ned an area. He said he thought there was something lacking in item 3 on fencing to provide assurance of safety. If nothing else� he said� that it be controlled by a L�' tall fence of adequate structural soundness and such fashion as to eliminate any openings or ease of making same. He said it should be fortified so that it was clear that a contractor who was going to comply with the ordinance would not be leaving loopholes. Chairperson Harris said that a snow fence wasn't that bad a fence if it was properly posted. Mr. Peterson agreed, and said it was hard for little kids to crawl over. However� he continued� the problem was the fences usually weren't properly posted but more or less just strung out. Chairperson Harris suggested rewriting that section to say the fence should be of some substantial measure so it couldn't be easily lmocked down. Mr. Peterson suggested. requiring a post every 10 or 12 feet. Chairperson Harris continued on to number 1�� Appearance and Screening, and read (a) aloud to the Commission: 'tMachinery shall be kept in good repair." He said they should say �rhat they meant or leave it out. Mr. Boardman explained it meant the machinery should be operational. In other words� he sai.d� they didn't want any junk material stored there. Mrs. Schnabel noted they talked about explosives under number 5� Operating Standaxds. She asked if there was any specific regulation ior storage of that kind of material, and Chairperson Haarris said it was covered in ans�ther ordinance. �'� Mr. Peterson brought to the Commission's attention item (e) under number 6, 8ehabilitation Standards, and asked the reason for the points listed. P�1r. Boardman said this meant that after the excavating, the water bodies should be rehabilitated if a lake was going to be created. He suggested eli.minating this if the Commission didn't want to deal with lakes with this ordinance. Mr. Peterson pointed out there might be times in the rehabilitation that in the judgement oi Staff and the Planning Commission the only way it could be rehabilitated was to have a standing body of water. Mr. Langenfeld gave another example of a deep hole being dug and the side aifect was a nice, big hill, and they might feel that would be a prime area for a ski slope. Mr. Peterson suggested they might have a lake that could be beneficial to the City, but Mr. Haxris said that would be a special condition that would have to be engineered and handled differently. Mr. Peterson suggested scratching i and ii� and 2�Zr. Boardman agreed. Mrs. Schnabel referred to (f), Final Elevation, and asked if "park" shouldn't be "part"� and Nir. Boardman agreed. Rir. Langenfeld suggested that "Paid a permit fee" be scratched from item 1, 212.08. Mr. Peterson said he realized that they had people who were operating businesses and they had a certain obligation to them, but under 212.08 Fees and Bond, he felt a$1�000 per acre bond would not do much towards rehabilitating the land. Chaa.rperson Harris said he thought that was sufficient. �� Mr. Boardman also noted that number 2 under 212.08 should read "Post a -� security bond...". Planning Commission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 11 ,.-� Mr. Peterson asked if the Commission could consider Item Lt on the agenda next- -- as he might have to leave before they got to it. MOTION by Peterson� seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Commi.ssion suspend the.,rules and consider I'tem L. on the agenda. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 1�. DISCUSSION ON CHAI�IGING P�EETIPTG DATE FROM WEDNESDAY TO THUR.SDAY DUE TO CHANGE IPd PUBLICATIOId DAi'E OF THE SUN Mr. Boardman said the reason they were bringing this up was that the Sun Newspaper had changed their publication date, and instead of Wednesday they would be coming out Thursday. He explained that this would mean a delay to the present fourteen days that they required for notification �or another two weeks in most cases. Mr. Boardman explained that right now from the time an applicant submiCted his.application for rezoning or a Special Use Permit until the Planning Commission heard it would be almost four weeks because of the change in publication date. He saa.d if they moved the meeting date to Thursday it would mean about two weeks. Air. Boardman said that the only problem they had was if they changed the Pl�nning Commission meeti.ng date to Thursday it would conflict with the Human Resources Commission in April, I�qay, Augu.st and October. � Mr. Bergman asked ii" �he Fridley Sur� talked with the City of Fridley at all before changing the date, and why the date was changed. Mr. Boardman replied they changed it mainly because of the way �Lhe City Council is set up. He explained that right now they had to go to pr�nt Monday afternoon9 and the Council meetings were Monday night, so by the time the agenda got to the Sun Newspaper it was already a week old. He said that therefore they had changed their publication date to be more informational to the readers and to try to handle the news at the time it happened. Mrs. Schnabel stated that she would have a conflict as she had a aommitment on the third Thursday of every month, and Mr. Bergman said he had another commitment for every other Thursday. Mr. Langenfeld added that Thursday would also be in conflict with plans that he had. rir. Boaxdman suggested leaving the Planni.ng Commission meetings on �Jednesdays and having an extra two-week delay. AZr. Peterson sa.id he would be in favor of going to Thursday because he was a traveling salesman and the meetings now fell in the middle of the week. Chairperson Harris said his impression was to leave �he schedule as it was because it was all laid aut and the calendars were printed. Mr. Bergman noted that they all tended to frame lesser priority things axound higher priority things, and i.ri his case since the Planning Commission met on 4Jednesdays he didnft plan things for Wednesdays, but did plan other things for Tuesdays and Thursdays. He added that if the schedule date for the Planning Commission tdas changed during this coming summer, he could re�ackage around it� but his conflict continued through the school year. Chairperson � Harris suggested they conti.nue the schedule the way it was for the rest of e this yeax, then at the beginning of next year they could reschedule to Thursday and arrange the rest of the meetings accordingly. Plarining Commission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 12 Mr. Boardman said that for an example, if somebody made application on March �'�` �.th for a Special Use Permit that required a Public Hearing� they wouldn't be heard before the Planning Commission until April bth. t7r. Peterson said the one thing that disturbed him was they were creating an undue hardship on the citizenry. Chairperson Harris said it was the Chaa.rman's prerogative to call a special meeting if it was necessary� and Mr. Boardman s aid they would have to know that before they made the initial publication. Mr. Bergman said his suggestion was that they continue as they had been with review in June� which was only three months away. P�Ir. Langenfeld commented that with a11 due respect to the newspaper and the legal proceedings that took place, he felt uneasy when a newspaper changed its publication date and the City had to completely revaznp the governmental meetings . MOTION by Peterson� seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Commission continue to meet on Z�lednesday wi.th the schedule to be reviewed at the first meeting in June. Upon a voice vote' all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Harris declaxed a recess at 9:35, and reconvened the meeting at 9�:50 p.m. ,� 2. CONTIIVUID: PROPOSID MAINTENANCE CODE Mr. Boardman said that from the discussion they had at the special meeting with the City Council and from the discussion at the last Planning Commission meeting, he took it upon himself to make some changes in the maintenance code. He said they were handling strictly residential interior for maintenance purposes (not for upgrading). He said that anything that was built according to a code at the tims it was built� would be mainta.ined according to that code but not upgraded. He said they would handle the systematic enforcement of all rental properties and their services would be available under the maintenance code to a11 owner-occupied structures upon their request. Mr. Boardman explained that there were seven items that they would call immediate health and safeicy hazaxds, and these �rould require immediate response from rental properties, and if they did do a voluntary check on a R-1 those seven items would also need an immediate response from all owner�occupied units. He explained the reason they stated that was because those seven items were not only health hazard items to the property owner, but also to surrounding property owners. He said that if they came across those, even on a voluntary basis� they would require that property owner to comply with those standards. Mr. Peterson asked what this did to the industrial and commercial property' �' and Mr. Boardm�n explained this didn't affect industrial and commercial as --- • ,-�. Planning Commission Meeting - March 9� 1977 ' Page 13 ��� they were reviewed by the Fire Inspector on a yearly basis. h1r. Peterson �` commented that the Fire Inspector only looked at the property from a stand- point of safety, and if there were enough exits to get people out and no visable fire traps. He said the Inspector didn't make any i.nspection in terms of whether or not th�re were other unsafe conditions that existed. T�x. Boardman said that was where OSHA came in. Mr. Peterson said that then they had a health code and not a maintenance code, but Mr. Boaxdman disagreed. � �`'� `_ ! Mr. Bergman commented that he felt "maintenance" was an overlapping term, a.nd he could accept a maintenance code addressing the condition of plumbing when �he end point might be the concern for health. He said there was nothing wrong with having that in a maintenance code. Mr. Peterson said that when they started talking about vermin snd gaxbage, that was not a maintenance code; Mr. Boaxdrnan agreed that would be a health code. Chairperson Harris said that in his estimation, that was the reason for this code. He said that the preamble to the codes or the charter mentioned "for the health, safety and. welfare of the community". P7r. Boardman said that was included in the preamble of the maintenance code. Mr. Langenfeld said that it seemed to him they had decided ihat the definition of maintenance should be included in the preamble. Mr. Boardma,n pointed out it was included in the scope. Mr. Langenfeld asked that the spelling oi "hazards" be corrected in 220.0�.. ATrs. Schnabel pointed out that "maintenance" was defined under 220.05 Definitions, number �3. Mr. Langenfeld said he thought this body had agreed that the definition of "maintenancen would be clearly deiined and highlighted in the sc�pe. Mr. Boaxdman wondered if that was really necessaxy, but said he hadn't had time to study the new copy of the code very carefully. Chairperson Harris suggested that they receive this item and then go home and study it. MOTION by Schnabel, seconcled by Langenfeld� that the Planning Commission receive the Residential riaintenance Code. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion caxried unanimously. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission continue the discussion on the proposed Maintenance Code until the next meeting to a11ow time for the members of the Gommission to study it. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. CONTINUED: INTERSECTION AT s3RD AND CENTRAL Mr. Boardman stated that Police Department hadn't come through with the information they were waiting for yet as they had to get it from the State, but hopefully they would have that by the next meeting. Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to mention to Mr. Boaxdman something that came to her mind a week ago last Sunday. She explained that she had made the mistake of driving down Sunday afternoon to take the exit out of her Planning Commission Meeting - r�arcn 9, 1977 Page ].Lr neighborhood at 53rd and Central, and it had taken her twenty minutes to �''� get through there. She said that it happened that Menards was having a sale, and the caxs were lined up on the service road for at least a block trying to get through, and they were also lined up within the parking lot area for at least a block. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought she would be clever and cut through the parking lot and come out at 52nd, but had found another line there� also. She explained it brought to mind that maybe in the design of that intersection some consideration should be given to the i.mpact of what it would mean on 52nd as some people might choose to avoid that 53rd intersection and u�e 52nd, instead. Mr. Boardman said that he clidn�t foresee any problem, and thought that with the charinelization ii might be a little more accessible. He added he thought it would help 52nd more than hinder it. Mr. Bergman commented that just immediately East of the City right of way going into that shopping area were a couple of the largest chuckholes he had ever seen. He asked if the City of Fridley should take any concern abou�t that whatsoever. Mr. Boaxdman replied yes, as that was part of the Zoning Code. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by BergmanJ that the Planning Commission continue the discussion on the intersection at 53rd and Central until the next meeting, � Mr. Bergrr�an said that he was a little concerned that the City not be "Big ;� Brother" atid try io be a11 things to a11 people, including the spending of taxpaye�'s money to take over an internal paxking lot directional problem which should be at the expense ot the property owner. Chairperson Harris said it would be at the expense of the property ovmer as the City would condemn the property and put in the improvement, then it �rould be assessed back against the property owner that benefited from the i.mprovement. Mr. Bergman asked if tne City could ass�ss the condernnation cost. N1r. Boardman said yes, and that was why it would be better for him to give the City the right of way instead of having them condemn it. Chairperson Harris added that they were also allowed to charge 2�% of the total cost of administration fees. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the property owner was aware that these discussions were taking place, and rqr, Boardman replied not to his knowledge. Chairperson Harris said they would ta].k to him after the concrete proposal had been made. Mr. Bergma.n said he had a little trouble with those comments. He suggested that if a call was going to be made to complai.n about the chuckholes, a comment should be made about the improvements at the same time. He said he didn't think they should deliberately withhold informatione h1rs. Schnabel said she agreed� and she thought in fairness to the property owner he should be told that they were considering improvements on that intersection and he should be invited to attend the meeting that ihey discussed it at. She added that she thought that was only fair to hi.m since it represented a sub- stantial amount of money. She said it was possible that he might even have some plans of his owne Chairperson Harris commented that he doubted it since �,� �-� Planning Commission Meeting - March 9� 197? Page 15 ^ there hadn't been any plans for fifteen years, but he also believed in commun- ication. Mr. Bergman suggested the City inform the property owner tha.t they were actively reviewing plans on his property, but he didn�t see a need to do anything more than that. Mr. Boardman said he would also i.nform the property owner about the next meeting so he could attend if he so desired. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. �. RECEIVE rfAT�R.IAI, FROI�Y ?�ETr 0 COUNCIL ON MATTERS ALLEGED TO BE OF METRO- POLITAN SIGNIFICANCE MOTIOnT by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission receive �he material from rletro Council on matters alleged to be of inetropolitan significance. Mr. Boardman explained that this was for the member's review, and the �� information wasn't a matter for considera�tion by the Planning Commission at this time unless they so chose. Mr. Langenfeld said he �+Tould like to lrnow if they were supposed to go through this and determine if it was of inetropolitan significance, and Pir. Boardman � replied he would do that. He explair�ed that the State �virorurental Quality ' Council had a sta-cement in their rules and regulations that dealt with matters of inetropolitan significance, and there had never been a definition of what metropolitan significance really was. Therefore, he said, the Metro Council developed standards for determining what metropolitan signif- icance was, and that was what this information was. Mr. Bergman commented that this seemed like a take-off or a duplication of the �vironmental 7xnpact process. Pqr. Boardman said that was the purpose. He explained that under the IIZViroru�ental Impact process there was a state- ment that an environmental ir►pact statement shall be required if it was a matter of inetropolitan significance, and there was no definition af wha�t metropolitan significance was. He said that Metro Council had been given the task of determining what metropolitan significance was or standards for establishing metropolitan si�nnificance. Mr. Boardman said this was just a matter of review, and he had submitted it so the members would know some of the documents that the City was getting; no action was needed. He explained he would be reviewing it to see if any action was required from City' Staff. Mr. Lar,genfeld suggested that they just review this to the extent that they were familiar with it in case it was ever brought up again. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the rnotion carried unanimously. ^ 6. RECETVE MATERIAL FROI�i A7ETR0 COUNCIL OF THE PROPOSED AYPLICATION AWARD �- � ND DI BU LS'r�•IEPdT OF GUIDELINES F�K THE ADP�SIPIISTRATION OF PLANNING ASSISTANCE GEtAN'PS Planning Commission Meeting - March 9, 197? Page 16 MOTION by Zangenfeld, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission receive the material from P�etro Council of the proposed application, award, and disbursement of guidelines for the administration of Planning Assistance Grants. Mr. Boardman said he didn't have much to say about this at the present �ime as he hadn't had a chance to review it yet for the Public Hearing. Chair- person Aarris said he felt Metro Council had stretched the truth slightly about the amount of money they were to receive. Mrs. Schnabel said that she was really sorry she hadn't brought her notes, but at the Planning and Zoning Institute one of the seminars dealt with this subject matter and it had been explained by people from the rletro Council about the awarding of claims, applications, and how the money was broken down into the five categories. She said that when she looked at everybody who was there and how many people the total was going to be divided among, she was surprised they got as much as they did. Chairperson Harris saa.d he had attended a meeting in Spring Lake Paxk� and in their discussion he had been told they would get !�0¢ per capita � for doing this (in other words, 1t0¢ for every citizen Fridley had). He said that figured out to be roughly $12,000, and he thought that was rather lo�r. Now, he saa.d� they ended up with $8,835� which was considerably less than what they had been told to begin with. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought that was just money that had been granted for the processing of the development of the Community Development Plan (for the administrative costs of prepaxing a Community Development Plan). She added that once they had the plan, then they would start applying for grants and they might get more money, depending on the amount of assistance they needed. Mrs. Schnabel continued that there were certain communites that were going to receive a cer�ain amount of money outright, and then other communities would receive money based on need. Incidentally, she said, another thing that was brought out was on Critical Areas there was a sepaxate account to cover anything dealing with that; there was a different set of monies set aside for that. Mr. Boaxdman said they hadn't applied yet under that program because they didn't have the guide- li.nes for application at this time, but they would be making application soon. Mr. Bergman said he noticed that Fridley was not listed in the collection of F1a.l.ly Developed Policy Areas, but under Urbanizing Policy Areas' and he wondered what the difference was. Mr. Boardman replied that he would have �o look it up. He added that the impact of the classification was probably that more monies would be available for urbanizing communities than for fully-developed communities. Chairperson Harris directed the Commission to look at the Summary of Community Entitlements By County (page 65 of the a�enda), and pointed out that column 1 was the Community Comprehensive Planning Fbnd, and column 2 �, i"� �� - --�.�- - � ��'1 � _� Planning Commission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 17 was the Inventory Activities �nd. He said he thought the $8,835 was the whole amount they were to receive� and Mr. Boardman said it did look that way. Mrs. Schnabel explained that there had been $57,000 allocated for the ' Inventory Activities �and out of the total $1,050,000. She said she wished she had her notes because they explained why $57,000 had been set aside for that inventory, and she thought it was set aside for those communities Vrho had not done any work at this point on, for instance, their Community Development Plan, or didn't haz�e a base map. Chairperson Haxris said perhaps l�irs. Schnabel was right, and asked I�1r. Boardman to check into the situation. He said that his feeling was, if they were going to give the C�ty $8,835 to do the thing, then that was the kind of plan they should get--they ge-t what they pay for. He added that he didn't think the conLmunity should get into the planni.ng game and spend $2�.,000 to do the work and only get $8,835 back on the deal. Mr. Boardman said that the thing about it was, they would be doing it anyway. Mr. Harris agreed, but said they would be doing it to their own format and on their own time schedule. Mrs. Schnabel said the one thing that seemed to alarm people most at the seminar was covered on pages �6 - 1�7, under Step 1 of -the Corrmunity Comprehensive Planning F�n�. She said these were the factors and weights broken down into what they were going to use in determining how a commuriity stood in their application. She said the tvao things that seemed �o cc,ncern most of the people were at the top of page i�7--the pr�jected populatian increase and the projec�d employment increase. She stated the question had arisen several times as to how they were goin� to project those figures and what figures they �ere using for their base. Chairperson Harris said that then with the eligibilit,y and allocation criteria, the $8,835 was the maximum arnount. IJlrrs. Schnabel disagreed and said she still thought that that money was the money that had been granted to the City to cover administrative costs in developing the Land Use Planning Grant Program. She explained that when the State Legislature passed the Land Use Planning Act in 1975.they awarded the Metro Gouncil $1,000,000+, She continued that of the moniES that they were granted by the legislature, they broke it down into these five allocations based on what they felt were the specific needs to prepare documents to comply with this Land Use Planning Grant Program. Chairperson Harris said he understood that, but from reading the informa- tion provided it didn't sound to him like they automatically got the $8,83,�; he thought that was the maximum amount that had been allocated to the City. rlr. Boardman �aplained tha� the appropriation allocation to the metro area was $1,050,000; that was the whole ball of wax. He said that then the Community Comprehensive Planning Fund of $807,500 was the money they had allocated to the communities to complete the three- year comprehensive planning. He said they would apply for more funds, however, tha� was the allooation to be given to communities for carrying out the intent of the law. Of that, he sa3d, it looked like they had Planning Commission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 18 already figured the factors and weights in order to get those allocations. � Chairperson Harris asked if Mr. Boardman had given them a projection of population increase and employment increase� and Mr. Boaxdman replied that the Metro Council had done that. Mrs, Schnabel pointed out that it said a community may utilize funds granted under this section for the preparation or adoption of any required element(s) of its comprehensive plan or official controls. Mr. Boardman said that it looked like the $8,835 was the maximum amount that would be allocated to t����City, and Chairman Harris agreed. .. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye� the motion caxried unanimously. 7. CONTIN[7ED: GOALS & OBJECTIVESe ACCESS Mr. Boardman said there was one area left aiter this, and that was Corrumznity Vitality, which sisould be ready by the next meeting. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planriing Commission receine Goal Area: Access, and continue to the next meeting. Upon a voice vote� a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSIPdESS: G� Mr. Langenfeld said he had taken it upon himself to make copies of a ' portion of the Depaxtment of Natural Resources informative brochure to pass out to the members. He said he wished to bring to the Commissionrs attention the comments made in regaxd to the aeration systems as he thought they were very interesting. Mr. Langenfeld commented that every now and then the Commission talked about the 208 Water Management Program, and they now had available a 208 Planning Bulletin and he was wondering if anybody on the Commission would be interested i.n receiving that brochure. If so, he said, perhaps Mr. goa,rdman could make the axrangements. Mr. Boaxdman said that he thought this Commission was on the rnailing list, but he would check and have them staxt sending it to the Commission members. Cha.irperson Haxris said they had gotten a Public Hearing notice from the City of Spring I,ake Park concerning a request for a Special Use Permit to construct a local caxtage and freight terminal on part of Lot 7, Auditors Subdivision No. 121�, the general location being 1229 Osborne Road. He informed the Commission the Public Hearing would be on AZonday� March 28, 1977� at 7Q30 p.m. in the Spring Lake Paxk City Ha11. Mr. Boaxdman said this Special Use Permit would concern an area North oi Osborne along Highway 65, between Highway b5 and Old Central. He explained it was across the street from Sambo's, and was zoned light industrial. r4r. Langenfeld asked if someone was going to represent the City, and Air. Boardman replied that they didn't feel it would cause that much of an impact on the City's operation in that area and therefore wouldn't be worth �,heir time. /"`, � Planning Commission Meeting - March 9, 19?7 � Page 19 � Mr. Boardraan said he had been asked by Dick Sobiech to bring up for discussion the amount of inforrnation they should actually let out on the plat notifica- tions. He explai.ned they had some problems at the City Council meeting with the DeLei.er plat. The plat had been approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council, he said, and then when it got down to improvement on the road itself the people came in and said they hadn't been aware it was going to cost them any money. He said that Mr. Sobiech was �rondering if a notification should be put on the platting notice that subsequent improve- ments might aii'ect them. The problem was, he said, that the Planning Commission wouldn't lmow how much it was going to cost the citizens� or even if they would be affected at a11. He said he was wondering if the Planning Commission wanted to get into that. Chairperson Harris commented that it really was not a function of the Planning Commission to get inta assessment hearings. Mr. Langenfeld said he did think, however, it should be a known thing to the citizens involved. Mr. Boardman said it would be difficult for the Planning Commission to evaluate because they wouldn't know what the easements would be at that time. Chairperson Harris suggested that if they saw such a thing they could call it to the attention of the City Council when they sent their recommendation to them on the plat. Mr. Bergman asked if it was i;rue that platting actually could result in any costs to adjacent property owners, and Mr. Boardman said it could. He explained that with a plat there could even"be a road improvement that could � affect other property owners,.and said that Mro Sobiech was �rondering if they shouldn't notify them at the time of the plat that this platting could result in subsequent improvem�nts that might a,�'fect them. Ms. Lynch commented that she thought it was true that there was no sense in platting unless there were going to.be improvements� and she thought the people would understand that. Mr. Bergman asked at what point after the platting there was an announcement or Public Hearing regarding the specific street that would now go in there and what it would cost, if there was to be a street improvement. Nir. Boardman replied tha-t was totaZly up to the developer. Mr. Boardman suggested that he recommend to Mr. Sobiech that they leave it the wa.y it was and not make any statements that subsequent improvement might affect adjacent property owners. Mrs. Schnabel suggested that when the matter came before the City Counci]. that mention could be made that there might possibly be expenses borne by adjacent neighbors. Chairperson Harris sai.d he didn't understand where the problem was, and Mr. Boardman explained that people were obviously unaware in the Public Hearings that generally in approving a plat' improvements generally followed. Mr. Bergman said he thought a statement should be in the notice because some of those people might decide to come to the Public Hearing if they were made awaxe oi the possibilities. Mr. Boardman said he wondered if they wanted people at the Public Hearings asking what type of improvements ,� were going to be made when the Commisssion really couldn't te11 them at the � - �. Planning Commission P�Ieeting - Maxch 9, 1977 Page 20 r'—� time of the platting hoU� those things were going to affect them. Mrs. Schnabel asked when the City could tell them, and Chairperson Harris answered at the i.mprovement hearing. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council that platting notices should include a statement to the eftect that as a result of platting, possibilities did exist that improvement costs would follow, or words to that aifect. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought this would open a can of worms. She explained that while she felt the people in the axea should be aware that.lthey might be assessed for improvements, she thought in terms of the Public Hearing there would be a lot of people attending to object to the replatting of property because they might possibly be assessed. She stated she didn't lmow if that type of input at a Public Hearing would be beneficial to the discussions in terms of replatti.ng property. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought it would make an awkward situation, and would be very difficult because they wouldn't be able to give the citizens any dollax amount. She added that she thought that would make the Commission look as though they were acting almost irresponsibly; they couldntt give them any idea of how much or when, and the citizens might think the Commission was trying to hide things from them. Mr. Bergman sai.d he thought they might feel that way now. Mr, Boardman said he thought they had to look at the affect of platting on the community as �. whole, and if it was a good idea and a step forward ,—� in the development of the cornrminity. Chairperson Harris said it was even more basic than that. He said it was pretty tough to deny a plat if it followed the platting ordinance--there had to be good grounds. NIr. Bergman stated that his motion was made in support of improving public awaxeness and communica.tions� and he didn't see how it would have any affect on how they would judge a plat. He said he saw nothing wrong with public awareness--at least the citizens would be made lrnowledgeable. On the other hand9 he said, he could see where it might be a bit disruptive, but the platting ordinance was clea.r and the fact that somebody down the street might now like it because it would cost him money is not a consider- ation in the right of a property owner to plat. Ms. I,ynch stated that she agreed the public had a right to �mow, but she couldn't even imagine anybody not realizing that in the natural scheme of things there had to be progress, and if they would look ahead they had to realize that it might cost.them money. She said she couldn't see any reason the Commission should be hassled because of telling the citizens of a possibility that might not even happen. She added that she thought it would just cause problems. Mr. Langenfeld.said his vote would be for the motion simply because Mr. Bergman had added "or words to that a.ffect". UPON A VOICE VOTE, Bergman and Langenfeld voting aye, Ha.rris, Lynch and �; Schnabel voting nay� the motion failed 3- 2. Planning Cornmission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 21 i - _ �,., Chairperson Haxris said he had one more item which concerned a brochure from � the Center far Study of Local Government in St. Paul, Minnesota. He explained that planning seminars were to be held on Land Use Planning, Zoning functions, and Legal Foundations of Planning and Zoning and Subdivison Regulations. After further study, however, it was determined that the seminars had already taken place with the exception of those that were to be held out of town. Mrs. Schnabel commented that the Planning and Zoning Institute she had attended was very excellent9 and was something that anybody who was involved in city government in any way should go to. She added it was very informa- tive and very helpful, and she had enjoyed it. Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to mention the Community Noise Control meeting which would take place on April 28th, and said he would bring the information back.to the next meeting. ADJOURIV��1T : MOTTON by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that �the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Planning Commission meeting of AZarch 9, 1977 adjourned at 11:1�1 P.M. ,''�1 Respectfully submitted, . � 7 9 � Sherri 0'Donnell Recording Secretaxy r'"1 _�