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
_�