Loading...
PL 05/04/1977 - 30467�II � 0 CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COP7MISSION f1EETING f�ay 4, ],977 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Harris called the mee��.ng to order at 7:40 P.M. R4LL CALL: �1embers Present: Members Absent: Others Presen�: Shea, Bergman, Harris, Peterson, Schnabel,�• Langenfeld None Jerrold Boardman, Ci�y Planner . APPROVE PLANNING COf1�1ISSI0N MINUTES= April 2�, 1977 I�rs� Shea requested �ha� tche Mo�ion on page 32 be correct�ed� She st�,ted tha� �che Motion was not ca�ple�te and should read ^��.�� that a memo be sen� �o aZl Corr�missions bei�ore �their next meetings sicating Lha� elections are 'to be held and steting �che dutcies and obligations ot= members of ichose commissions and officerG of those co��nmissions � �"� f1ro Langenfeld indicated tha� Page 1 ROLL CALL, th� last narne listed as Meml�ers Presen�c is spelled wronga Lagenfeld shauld be Langenfeld� f1r. Langenfeld indica�ted thatc on Page 14, first paragraph, the sen�ence reading �'He indicated �hat many people think that this projec�c will be subsidized, therefore, that it would be sub- s�andardw, should read ^He indicated that since this project would be subsidized, �hat some people felt it would be sub- standard�" f1r. Lanqenfeld �elt that the word "think^ gives �he impression that people are thinking of something tha� does not exis� when, in fact, it is a subsi.dized projec't. �1ro Langenfeld corrected the seventh paragraph from the top of Page 31�� It should have read ^Mr. Langenfeld asked the Cammission not to call. a Special Interest Group^ and not �••-�.•a Special Interest meeting� MOTION by Mrs• Shea, seconded by Mr• Bergman, that the Planning Commission minutes of April 2D, 1977, be approved as amended• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, 'che motion carried unanimously- � Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, Z977 � Page 2 1• CONTINUED= PUBLIC HEARIPdG= REZONING REQUEST, ZOA �77-01 � BY GARY PETERSON� Rezone from C-1 {local business areas} to R-2 {two family dwelling areas}� Lots 3, 4, 22 and 23, Block 2, Meadowmoor Terrace, to allow the construction`of double bungalows/duplexes, the same being 1326-28 Osborne Road NoE�, 1344-46 Osborne Road N•E., 1345-47 Meadowmoor Drive NoE•, an� 1331-33 Meadowmvor Drive N�E- MOTION by Mrs• Shea, seconded by Mr. Bergman, Hearing rezoning reques�, ZOA �77-01, by Gary voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris Public Hearing open at 7:45 P��• Mr- Gary Peterson was present� to open the Public Peterson. Upon a declared the MOTION by Mrs� Shea, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission receives the three let�ers from Mr• Peterson, Mr. Richard S• Carlson {Briar Homes, Tnc-}, and Mr. Edward Chies� Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously and the letters were received� Chairperson Harris i,�dicated that the letters were part of the file and would go to City Council� Chairperson Harris asked if Mr� Boardman had any additional comments on this item. f�r a Eoardman ans��►ered that he did not a Chairperson Harris asked �Ir� Peterson if he wished to address this subject- I�r. Peterson commented tha�t he didn't have anything to say o�her than that he had put in for a rezoning and wanted �o know if it was going to be allowed or not� Chairperson Harris asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the request. Mrs� Ri.chard f1orin of 7635 Meadowmoor Drive wanted to know what the three letters received by the Planning Commission concerned• Chairperson Harris informed her who the letters were from and proceedecl to read the letters to the audience• Mr. Richard Morin of 7635 Meadowmoor Drive indicated that he had no objection to duplexes/double bungalows going in on Osborne Road� He said that his objec�ion was building duplexes/double bungalows on (�eadowmoor Drive• He indicated that they {Mr. Morin and the people accompanying him} had been to a previous meeting and had, at that time, voiced their objections• He also said that at the previous meeting they had been under the assumption that a11 these lo�s were zoned R-1� not C-1• Mro Morin indicated that the neighbors would like to see the lots on f1eadowmoor Drive zoned as R-1 and anything that Mr• Peterson wanted on Osborne Road- _� � � Planning Cammission �eeting —�ay 47 1977 Pa�e 3 r"`� Mr• Morin con�inued by stating that presently �hey have ?0 children on one block area on Meadowmoow Drive• He objected to eight more �amilies with �he average of 2•5 children per family moving into the_areao Mrs� Richard �orin said �hat another objection she had to double bungalows was �he upkeep� She indicated that even though it had been stated that these double bungalows would be owner occupied, the owners could move out in a couple o� days and the pro�erty would be �otal ren�al° rohertelistke��tu� andythemes the ren�ers don°'c car� how the p p y P P double bungalows begin to look shabby, �herefore, making the whole neighborhood look shabby� �rs� Douglas Pavlik of 7651 Meadowmoor Drive wanted to know if anyone checked into the fac� 'chat the neighborhood dzdn°t know �hat the lo�s were zoned C-1• She indicated tha� there was concern among the neighbors that they had been told �hat all these lots were R-1 la�s� Chairperson Harris commented that he suspec�ed that whoever called Ci�y Hall.d�d not specify the particular lots when they asked what the zoning was. ��s� �orin said tha� shE �old City Ha�l wha� lots she u�an�ed � to kno�� about� She said she indicated -the �wo vac�n�. lo�s on Me�dvwmoor {one fronted on Old Cen�ral and f1eadowmoor} and two other vacan� lots �hatc were jus't on fleadowmoor� She said that she was told that all the lots were zoned for sir�gZe f amily houses- r� Chairperson Harris said �that it was possible she had been informed this; however, he said that the lotcs had been zoned C-1 since about 1959. � I�r. Langenfeld indicated that the problems brought up at this meeting and a�c previous meetings had been breught before Council by one of the Council members and these problems were in the minu�es as items to be looked into• Mr� Boardman indicated that in regards to upkeep, the City covers every sicreet once a year• Mr• Richard Morin indicated to the Planning Commission that the neighborhood turnout was not as good as the last time because some people were intimidated by what had been said at the last meeting• At the previous meeting� the neighborhood presented a petition to the Planning Commission indicating their wishes to keep the lots zoned C-1� They wer.e informed at that time what could go on the lots as a C-1 zoning• �Ir. f1orin felt that the Commission had painted a bleak picture for the neighbors. He also•felt that many peopl.e didn't show up because they felt there wasn't any use to• Mr� Morin again indicated t�hat, for the records, he would still rather see these lots remain C-1 than to see double bungalows/duplexes built on the lots• He said that he had taken his name off the petition because of what the Commission had said� however, Planning Commission �eetin� — Ma� 4, b977 Page 4 he indicated he wanted his name put back on the petition• His Y.: reasoning was that if the lots were zoned R-2 then it would be over with and they would have to live with the double dwellings for a long time-� However, he said that if left as C-1 perhaps ,� they would have a chance �or a compromise with Mr. Peterson• , Chairperson Harris defended th� Commassion and City Staff saying that it had not been their intent to intimidate the people• He continued by saying that their inten� had been to inform the neighbors• Mr• Morin said that the effect was intimidation even if it wasn'� the intent Mr. Chuck Lindman of 1378 Meadowmoor Drive pointed out that there were still many names on the petition ar�d the people would still like �he lots �o remain C-1 rather than R-2• Mr. Lindman also indicated that since �eadowmoor Drive was not a through-traffic street, he didn't think anyone would want to build any business on those lots• He continued to say that Mr• Peterson would probably have to take a loss if he did put some type of business on these lots. Mr. Lindman said that he felt �r• Peterson wanted R-2 because of more profit. Mrs. Morin indicated to the Planning Commission �hat she and her husband wanted to put their names back on the petition• Chairperson Harris said that that would be possible if the ^ petitian had not gone to City Council- Mrs� Morin indicated �hat she had heard rumors that nobody would buy lots for private homes on �eadowmoor. She said that they had talked to the Real�or and he had indicated that he already had people who wanted to build on Mead�wmoor• Mrs. Morin said that she made �he sta�ement far Mr� Peterson's benefit, so he would know that �he Real�or had ir�dica�ed that there were people interested in buying �single family dwellings on those lots. Mr• Bergman asked for someone to refresh his memory regarding Lots 5 and 21 on the East and Lots 2 and 25 on the West. He wanted to know if these lots were developed and wha� they were zoned as. Mrs� Morin indicated that a11 the other houses in the area were single family� �� Plannin� Commission �leetin� — May 4, 1977 Page 5 � Mr. Boardman indicated that the lots East were single famiZy dwellings and the lots West were commercial� Mrs. Morin said that she only meant tha� there were no other multi-family hames in �he area. Mro Morin indicated �hat the commercial buildings all face on Central Avenue. Ne �aid tha� �wo of �he duplexes would f ace Osborne Road• He continued to say �hat they were only concerned wi�h the building of duplexes on Meadowmoor Drive �rs. Schnabel wan�ed to know if the concensus of opinion of �he neighbors that were present was that they did not want any of the prvperty rezoned or specifically �hey didn't want the two lots an �eadowmoor Drive rezaned• �r� �orin indicated that they either wanted the lo�s to remain C-1 or R-1, bu� �hey did not want the lo�s rezoned to R-2 on Meadowmoor Drivea He said they weren9t concerned abou'c �he lo�s on Osborne Road Chairperson Harris asked Mrs� Schnabel if she Mad handled this particular i�em in the Appeals Commisszon Mee�ing o� April 26, 1977� He also wan�ed �o �now �he recommendation made. � �rsm Schnabel indica�ed that �hat �he Appeals Commission.did not handle �his item because the pe�itioner was not present at the - mee�ing. She �lso said tha� �here was no per�on from the neighborhood presen� at �he mee�ing. She said that the Commission feZt they wouldn°t act upon i� until such �ime as either �he petitioner reques�ed to come before �he Appeals Commission or ° some person from the neighborhood made a request. The Commission felt that there wasn'� enough information to go on sa the item was �abled• Mr. Bergman wanted �o know what the item was that had gone before �the Appeals Commission. �Irs. Schnabel indicated that it was a request for a reduction in lot size for R-2• Mrs• Morin' indi.cated that she had called City Hall to talk to someone regarding the meeting for that night. The person she talked to told her that it wasn't necessary for the neighbors to appear because no matter what decision was reached, it would be based upon the contingency �hat the lots were.rezoned• �`'1 Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, 1977 Page 6 Chairperson Harris said that he objected to what Mrs. Morin had been told• He indicated that if Staff was passing out that type of information, he objected• ' Mrs� Schnabel indicated that she was really sorry to hear what Mrso Morin had said� She told �rs. Morin that they rely on the opinions of the adjacent neighbors to the property that is before the Appeals Commission• She indicated that the comments are used by �he Appeals Commission so that �hey can make a decision a� the Appeals Commission level• She continued to say that if the Commission doesn't hear from anyone, they can only assume that everyone is in agreement with whatever appeal is coming through� Mrs• Schnabel did indica�e that what �rs. Morin was told was true, that whatever decision was reached, it would be besed on the contingency that the lots were rezoned• Nevertheless, Mrs. Schnabel felt that Mrs. Morin should have been told to attend the Appeals Commission�meeting• . �ro Boardman asked been told �ha� she Commission meeting• for a verification that Mrs. Morin had did not have to come Vo the Appeals Mrs• Morin indicated that she had been told �hat it was completely un�ecessary. Mr• Langenfeld indicated that on this particular ^subject� he felt the people had been terribly misinformed in more ways than one. Chairperson Harris suggested that this item be added to the agenda for �the evening to be discussed later, a-Fter the Public Hearings. Mr. Bergman also felt that there was a lat o1F confusion on this subjeet. He indica'ted that the petition seemed �to be the last thing comple�cely firm as to who was far and who was agains�t �he request. Mr. Bergman wan�ed confirmation that this petition was placed into record as it stood as of the last meeting that was held on this subject. . Chairperson Harris acknowledged that this had been done- Mr� Lindman indicated that any names that were left on the petition still preferred to see C-1 than R-2 zoning on the lots. He also said that if there was any problem, he would be able to get the entire block of Meadowmoor Drive to sign the petition� � � � Planning Commission Meeting — Ma.y 4, 1977 Page 7 '� Mr. Bergman asked �r• Peterson if he was aware that there was a fair amount of neighborhood opposition and confusion as to the neighbors unders�anding his rights as well as their own options�� He con�inued to ask �r• Peterson if he had any contingency plans to develop the property as C-1, if the rezoning request was not approved• Mr� Peterson responded tha� he would probably build a warehouse and office spaceo Chairperson Harris responded �ha� warehouses are no� allowed in C-1 zones- Mr� Pe�erson clarified his s�atemen� as saying office and warehouse� not just a warehouse- Mr• Bergman asked.�r- Peterson if there was some hardship in his ability to develop the lots as C-1 or leave �he lots for future developmen� as C-1� He wanted �o know i� this was part of �r� Peterson°s reques� for �he change� Mra Peterson indica�ed tha� there was no identif�able hardsi�ipa Mr• Pe�erson felL �ha� R-2 would be be�ter as a buf�er zone� � Mra Bergman asked �r• Peterson �hat if after lis�ening to �he neighbors objections, if he would reconsider zoning the lo�s fronting on �eadowmoor to R-1- �r� Peterson indicated that he would have to give the'matter some though'c. He said tha� there was definitely a financial dif�erence in selling R-y compared with selling R-2 and that the difference wauld have to come out of his pocket� Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Boardman about �he lot sizes. Mr� Boardman responded that one lo� on Meado�wmoor was 120 feet deep with 75 foo� �rontage and the o�her lot on Meadowmoor was 120 fee� deep with 65 foot frontage and 90 foot rear. Chairperson Harris asked was 75 feet. Mr• Boardman said yes- Mr. Boardman if �he normal R-1 lot Chairperson Harris continued by saying that 9,000 square feet was the minimum R-1 lot size; therefore, it appeared that the lots on Meadowmoor would be considered as minimum R-1 lots• , � Planning Commission �eetinq — May 4, 1977 Pa e 8 Mrs. Schnabel indicated to Mr• Boardman that the Code Book stated �. that the lot width at the set back on a �-1 lot should be not less than 160 feeto Mr. Boardman said that the lot width of not less than 160 feet or 20,000 square feet. Chairperson Harris told Mrs. Schnabel that by putting all four lots together, a person would have a buildable C-1 lot. Mrs� Schnabel indicated th�t if the two lots on Osborne Road were rezoned, and �he lots on Meadowmoor were kept as C-1, then the result would be an unbuildable C-1 lot� Mrs. Pavlik wanted to know if the lots on Meadowmoor were the normal R-1 lot size, would the lot be big enough to build R-2's. Chairperson Harris indicated that he would need a variance• He then asked Mr. Boardman what the minimum lo� size was fnr an R-2• Mr. Boardman said that the minimum lot size was 10,000 square feet. Chairperson Harris said tha� at presen� these lots did not make minimum square footage- Hz indicated that the lots were presently 9,�00 square feet� �rs• Schnabel indicated that the variance requests were the reasons the subject had been brought before the Appeals Commission. She said thaL the four lots individually did not meet the minimum square footage of 10,000 square feet. Mrs. Morin wanted to know if the variance requests would be before the Appeals Commission again� Mrsa Schnabel said that the items were tabled until the petitioner requested to again appear before the Appeals Com�ission� Mr� Morin indicated that they had been led to believe that the Appeals Commission meeting was inconsequential. He said that actually �he Appeals meeting was the key meeting because if they had won their appeal at the Qppeals Commission meeting, Mr. Peterson wouldn't be able �o build R-2's on those lots. Chairperson Harris indicated that because of the misunderstanding regarding the neighbors attendance at the Appeals Commission meeting was the reason the Planning Commission was going to have a discussion later in the evening. � �'1 Planning Commission Meeting —�ay 4, ti977 Page 9 Mrs� Morin wanted to know Mr. Peterson's reasons for not '� wanting to build R-1's on the lots- Mr. Peterson indicated that he would have to give the idea some though�. Mr. Walter Lizakowski of 14Q2 �eadowmoor Drive indicated that he fel� the main objection to the R-2's was thE amount of children that could possibly�be added to the already over- whelming amoun� presen�ly on Meadowmoor Drive� �r. Morin said that they presen�ly had a high instance of vandalism mos�ly caused by children and he didn°t feel that more children should be added. Chairperson Harhis asked �r� Peterson if he wan�ed his reques� to stand as sta�ed or if he wished to change i� in any way. Mro Peterson wantec to know how he was to go about changing the request, i� his decision was �o change i�� Chairperson Harris said that since they were down-z�ning, he would be able to just sta�e to the Planning Commission whatever change he would want. � Mr� Peterson wan�ed �o give �he subject some �h�ugh�m He said he would le� the Planning Commission know ei�her by telephone or letter. Chairperson Harris indicated �ha� �he Planning Commission could continue by making their recommendati�n �a Council and then Council would set up a public hearing to hear �he matter and then make a decision. He said that �he CouncilPs decision would be finale He �old Mr� Peterson tha� the Planning Commission only makes recommenda�ions �o the City Council� Mr� Peterson wanted to know if it would be permissable to let City Council know at the time they set the Public Nearing � if he wanted to change his requesto ��, Chairperson Harris said it would be okay as long as it was before City Council made publication of the P•ublic Hearing Mr� Peterson wanted to know when exactly he would have to notify someone as to changing his request� Chairperson Harris indicated that the Planning Commission Meeting minutes would go to City Council on May 16, 1977, at which time Council would set a Public Hearing. Planning Commission Meeting-- May 4, 1977 Page 1U t�- Mr� Langenfeld wanted to be sure that the neighbors were aware ^ af what could be established in a C-1 designation� _ The neighbors in the audience said that they were aware of the possibilitieso Mr. Langenfeld indzcated to the neighbors in the audience that if he had in any way imposed upon them or put them ^on the spot^ it had no� been his intention. MOTTON by hlr• Peterson, seconded by f1rs. Shea, to close the Public Hearing on the Rezoning Request, ZOA �77-D1, by Gary Peterson• lJpon a voice vote, all vo�cing aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:23 P.M. P10TION by Langenfeld �to deny the rezoning request, ZOA �77-01, by Gary Pe�erson: Rezone from C-1 {local business areas} to R-2 {two family dwelling areas}, Lo�s 3, 4, 22, and 23, Block 2, Meadowmoor Terrace, �co allow the construc�ion of double bungalows/duplexes, the same k�eing 1326-28 Osborne Road N�E�, 1344-46 Osborne Road N�Eo, 1345-47 Meadowmoor Drive N�E�, and 1331-33 f1eadowmoor Drive NoE. due to the objec�ions from the neighborhood� f10TI0N DIES FOR LACK OF SECOND• MOTION by f�rs. Schnabel, seconded by �Irs• Shea, that the n Planning Commission recommends to City Council the approval . of the rezoning request, ZOA �77-01, by Gary Peterson: Rezone from C-1 {local business areas} to R-2 {'two family dwelling areas}, Lots 3 and �, Block 2, f1eadowmoor Terrace, to allow �he construction of double bungalows/duplexes, the same being �326-28 Osborne Road NoE� and 1344-46 Osborne Road N.E.� AND recommend to City Council the denial of the rezoning request, ZOA �77-�1� by Gary Peterson: Rezone from C-1 {local business areas} to R-2 {two family dwelling areas} Lots 22 and 23, Block 2, f1eadowmoor Terrace, to allow �he cons�ruction of double bungalows/duplexes, the same being 1345-47 f1eadowmoor Drive N.E� and 1331°33 fleadowmoor Drive NaE. Chairperson Narris did not like the Motion by Mrs• Schnabel because that proposal would create an unbuildable C-1 1ot• He said he would rather have someone recommend the rezoning of the lots on Osborne Road to R-2 and rezoning the lots on Meadowmoor Drive to R-1� Mrs. Schnabel indicated that the petitioner had not requested for a rezoning as such� Chairperson Harris said that the Plannang Commission could recommend such a rezoning� �, �"� Pl.annin� Commission �eeti_ng — May 4, 197? Page 11 Mr. Boardman said it would be best to deny the rezoning and leave all the lots as C-Z• Mr• Langenfeld said that that was why he had made his particular motion as such� He recommended that the request that was before the Planning Commission be denied� Mr. Bergman stated �hat ta recommend that the reques� be denied wouZd penalize iche requester as to tzme �o change his mindo Mr. Boardman pointed ou� thatc the Planning Comrnission could only make the recommendation to City Council to deny the request and that �the decision wauld be made at �the Cour�cil Zeve1 and any arrangements could be made at that �ime� f1rs� Schnabel indicated that her in�ent in making the mo�ion was to grant �he pe�titioner the ability to �u�t R-2 dwellings on the icwo lots on Osborne Road• She sazd that she understood �that an unbua.ldabTe C-1 Zot would result, however, her intent was to hope �hat the ac�ti on would, in a sense-, force f1r• Peterson to rezone �he lots on f1eaaowmoor Drive to R-1e f1r• Bergman hoped �he PJ�anning Commission wo�ald take a posi�ive positzon, includinc� possibly �heir �choughts as to how the Commission hopecl �he petitioner {rJOUid change his request, �nd pass � on to the Ciicy Council tho�e fchoughts assu�ning that his request Would be cons�.s'�en� with the Planning Commission. Therefore, f1r. Bergman v�ted againsL Mrs. Schnabel's mation. f1r• Peterson didnot think the mo�cion by Mrs. Schnabel was in line wi�h wha� the pe�itioner had requested. f1rs. Schnabel indicated that the pe'citioner w�s requesting rezoning on �wo parcels of land and she recommended approving one and denying the other� At this point there was discussion among the Commission as to whether the land was one or two parcels. Chairperson Harris said that the Public Hearing notice indicated the lots as �wo parcels of land; one located at 1326 and 1344 9sborne Road N.Eo and one located at 1331 and 1345 Meadowmoor Drive N.E. Mr� Langenfeld felt the commission should stick to the petition itself� He said that the Commission couldn°t split something that k�asn't in the form of the petition� Mr• Langenfeld again indicated that his motion had been to deny the stated request by Mro Gary Peterson. �� ,.�Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, 1977 Page 12 r"� Chairperson Harris indicat�ed that it was in the Ordinance �hat the Planning Commission was allowed to recommend a lesser zone wi�.hout re-publication• Mr. Boardman said that the policy stated that this could be done at the petitioner's request, but that the petitioner had not made a request. He continued to say that the Planning Commission did have the authority to recommend any rezoning on a lesser basis wi�hout re-publication• f1rs. Schnabel said that �the Planning Commission's motions are only recommendations to the City Council and not final approval• She said that �he pe�itioner had �he option to change his request at the City Council level� UPON A VOICE VOTE, 2 voting aye and 4 voting nay, the motion failed : I�r. Bergman �.ndicated that the Planning Commission was opposed to the total and specific request o-� rezoning four lots to R-2� Ne also indicated the the Commission would be unfavorable towards a�-1 development of the four lots. Therefore, he said tha� a compromise would be in the best interest of the general nei.ghborhoodo He con-�inued by saying that a valid land use � of the four lo�s would seem t� be for lots 22 and 23 to be rezoned for single family development and that lots 3 and 4 be rezoned for buffer zoning for duplexes• I�OTION by �Ir• Bergman that since the petitioner had indicated some in�terest in the above modification and with the anticipation that I�r� Peterson may choose to change his request, �1r� Bergman suggested that the request be passed on to Council with �he Planning Commission's though�s• MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND� MOTION by �1r- Peterson, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, �that the Planning Commission recommends to City Council the denial of the rezoning request, ZOA �77-�1, by Gary Peterson: Rezone fram C-1 {1oca1 business areas} to R-2 {two family dwelling areas}, Lots 3, 4, 22, and 23, Block 2, Meadowmoor Terrace, to allow the construction of double bungalows/duplexes, the same being 1326-28 Osborne Road N.E�� 1344-46 Osborne Road N.E.� 1345-47 Meadowmoor Drive N•Ee, and 1331-33 hleadowmoor Drive N.E� with �he understanding that the City Council would read all of the minutes of the Planning Commission to find out the intent of the neighbors as well as the intent of �he Planning Commission UPON A VQICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Harris indicated that the rezoning request ZOA �77-01 � by Gary Peterson had been recommended for denial and that the request would go to City Council on May 16, 1977, and that a date for a Public Hearing would be set at that timeo He also said that tf�e audience would be notified by mail of the date for tha� Public Hearing• r'�1 Plannin� Commission Meeting — May 4, 1977 Page 13 Mrs• Pavlik wanted to know was going to be dor�e regarding the rezoning and the size of the lots. Chairperson Harris indicated tha� �the subject would have tco be appear before the Appeals Commission� However, he s�ated that if the pe�tition�r decided to go along wi�h the previous discussions regarding �he f1eadowmoor Drive lofcs, he would not have ico go before the Appeals Commission• Chairperson Harris indicatced that f1r. Peterson migh�t have to go be�ore the Ap�eals Commissaon regarding the lo�ts on Osborne Road. Mr� Morin reques�.ed to be notified if the subject went before the Appeals Commission again� �Iro Boardmen indica�ted that usually people �ren°t no�ified on an item �hat had been previous�.y tabled- Chairperson Harris indica�ted tha�G it would be best, in this part�cular case, �o no�ify �the people �that would be concerned• I�r� Morin assured fche Planning Commission that zf �they would be natiried, �hat there would be a good turn-ou�o ��ir� Boardman said �chat the people would be notified by mail. � 2o PUBLIC HEARINGa CONSIDERATIOlV OF P.S• �77-03, IWEN TERPACE, of Part of Lo�s 3, �I, and No� 25, generally loca�ed ' 1000 Block of Lynde Drive NoEo and West of Fillmore PRELIMIPJARY PLAT BY A� Ts GEARMAN: Replat 5, Auditor°s Su di.vision immediately South of �he N• E�, East of Polk Street S�ree� N�Eo MOTION by Mro Bergman, seconded by �1r. Peterson, to open the Public Hearing on the Consideration of a preliminary plat, P.S= �77-03, Iwen Terrace, by A. T• Gearman. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Nearing open at 8:40 P.f1. f1OTI0N by Mr- Lange��Feld, seconded by Mr. Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive the memorandum to Jerry Boardman from Thomas A Colbe�t, Assistant City Engineer, dated f1ay 4, 197� regarding the Iwen Terrace Plat• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously and the memorandum was � received� Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, 1977� Page 14 z°`Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Boardman to give the background on this item. , . � Mr� Boardman indicated •that the proposal was to plat some open property between Polk and Fillmore Streets N.E�� just south of Lynde Drive• He said that presently there was a large ponding area on this property� He con�inued to say that there was a proposed plat on this area a� one time to make buildable sites out of the area, however, that plan fell through and this proposal t�as what came ou� of it• He indicated that the proposal was for six lo�so Mr. Boardman showed the Planning Commission a copy of the proposed pla�� He indicated �hat the lots are lar,e having be�ween 87 & B9 feet in width and about 304 feet deepo He said that it was the inten� of the city to retain a drainage pond on the back portion of �he property with drainage easement picked up on lots 4& 5o He said that the ponding area would drain of� drainage into the sewer system on Polk Street� Mrs� Shea wan�ed to know about the easements- Mr. Boardman indicated on the drawing the easements that the City wanted• Chairperson Harris wanted �o know if Lot 4 would be buildable. �'1 Mro Boardman indicated on the drawing an area tha� would be regraded and he said that �here would be a sizable area to build on this lot. He indicaiced, further, that at the time they were not sure of �the exact angle of the 1ot but said that before the final plat went to City Council the angle of Loic 4 could be changed� He said that the drawing would be reworked and proceeded to show the Commission differen� areas that would be reconsidered= �1ro Bergman asked �1r� Boardman what the depth of lots would be� Mro Boardman indicated that the lots would be 304 fee�, of which the City would take 75 �eet to allow for ponding area� �Irs� Schnabel asked why the City wan�ed a curved easement on Lot 4 rather than make a right-angle turn onto the connecting street� Mr� Boardman indicated that it was mainly because of the slopes of the hillsides• He said that the angle o� the curve had not been decided yet�' He indicated that before the final plat went before the City Council he would be �eeting With the Engineering Departm.ent to determine actually how much easement would be needed� . . �"'1 Planning Commission Meeting —�ay 4, 1977 pa�e 15 ^ Mrs. Schnabei showed concern about the panding area in terms of high water levels- She a�anted to know zf the drawing was showing the pond at its highes� level or at its present�level• Mr. Boardman indicated that it was shown at its current wa�er level� �rs. Schnabel s�id that at times the pond had been known to become quite large• Mr� Boardman said that the proposed pla� had been to �he Engineering Departmen� and they felt tha� the 75 foot easement on each side, wi'ch a rnodification of �he drainage area, would handle the higher wa�er levels• Chairperson Harris asked if �he Ci�y was presently dumping wa�er into the pond- �re Boardman indicated on �he drawing the present areas that are draining in�o �he pond which in turn wen� to Moore Lake. Mro Eoardm�n also indicated �hat �he ponding are� was a �emporary solu�ion to �he present plata He said �hat if the pe�itioner, at a la'cer date, deczded �o spli� the 'lo�s, then drainage would have �o go o��o Po?k �treet and arould be �aken � care of by a new storm sewer system. Howev�er, he said tha� �he pond was a solution to �he drainage tha� was presen�ly �here� �r� Langenfeld wanted �o know if the Rice Creek Water Shed Distric� had any au�hori�y in the proposed pla�• Mr. Boardman indicated that any proposals for drainage into Moore Lake are sent �o the Rice Creek Water Shed District. Mrs. Schnabel wan�ed to know if the intent was to drain the pond en�irely in the future. Mr. Boardman indicated that the in�ent presently was to try to limit the drainage going into Moore Lake� Mr� Iwen {works for Mr. Gearman} indicated that presently this pond drained into Moore Lake• He said that the water level of the pond had to be kept down, otherwise the people in the area would have water in their basements. Mrs. H• C• McKinley of 101� Lynde Drive said that they never had water in their basements until someone s�arted dra�ining the pond the last time {the year of the big tornado}� She continued to say that the basements had always been dry because Lynde Drive was high and on solid ground� /'`� ❑ Plannin9 Commission Meeting — May 4, ],977 Page 16 Chairperson Harris wan�ed to I:now a.f i� was Mr. Iwen's in�ent ^ to make the pond into a drainage retention pond• Mr• Iwen said that it was his intent to rr�ake it into a drainage retention pond� Chairperson Harris asked what he planned �o do with the pond� He wanted to know if Mr� Swen planned �co dig it or dredge it or put in control structures, or basically what did he plan to do� Mra Iwen indicated he wanted to leave the pond as it presently was� Mr. Boardman indicated that the Engineering Department recommended six stipulatcions be placed on the Plat� Mrs� I�cKinley wanted to know what tche zoning was on the six lots� f1r. Boardman indicated 'cha� �he lots were zoned R-Z• Mra Boardman wanted the following six stipulations r�ad into the record� 1• Comments and any pertinent requiren,Fnts if any, mus� be obtained from iche Department of Natural Resources regarding allowable al�teratzons to the existing wet /"� land within �his plat prio�^ to approval• 2o A?5 foo�; drainage and utili�ty easement along the east lot lzne of lots 4, 5 and 6 and along the west lot line of lots 1� 2 and 3� 3- A 24 foot drainage and uti.li�cy easement cen�tered over the common lbt line of lots 4 and 5. 4o A 5 foot drainage and utili�ty easement along all proper�y l�nes not previously mentioned• 5. Unless expressly prohibited by the Department of Natural Resources, the own2r should relocate the existing drainage ditch presently centered on lot 4 to the cornmon proper�y line of lots 4 and 5, and an appropriaite inlet s�ructure 'to be constructed as a connection to the existing storm sewer line on Polk Street. A timetable of one year would be appropriate with an acceptable performance bond of $2,000.00• An alternative would be the acceptance of an agreement together with an escrs�w of $2,000.�0 for such construction in the future. n � Planning Commission Meeting —�ay 4, 1977 Page 17 6� A tri�ngular s�reet and utilit� easement over the southwes� corner af lot 4, for future street and utility purposes, the dimensions of which to be determined by the Engineering Division and property owners prior to submissaon of final plat. As �ra Boardman read each of the stipulations, he clarified sorne of the s�a�emen�s to be sure �ha� everyone clearly understood each poin�� Mr• Bergman wanted to know if the Engineering DeparLment°s recommenda�aons �or drainage easements and systems would be an improvement from the present flooding situa�ionse Mr� Boardman said �h�t it was his understanding fr.om Engineering tha� what they were basically doing was �aking wha� was already existing, obtaining easements, and ge�'cing a utili�y and drainage easement centere� over the common line be-tween lo�s 4 and 5, �o allow Lot 4 to be buil� and also �o get drainage out to the Polk Street storm sewer sys�em� �ra Boardman didn°� know if the Engineering Depar�ment felt �ha� �his system would bP better. All �re Boardman kne_w was Vhat �hey planned to maintain t'r.e exis�in� system unti� there �' was furLher developmen� in �he area. Ne cont;�ued �o say that if there was to be an addi�ional re-plat of the property, then something would have Lo be d�ne with the s�orm sewer system in �he area �o handle the additional drair�age� He said tha� there was presen�ly a ponding area on �he property because of the incomplete developmen�. Mr. Bergman indicated �hat �he reason he asked the question was that it was his impression �ha� i� was no� specifically part of the reques�or4s in�en� to improve on the flooding problem� Mr� Iwen wasn't aware �hat there was a flooding problem� Mre Bergman indicated that he felt that it was the time to address tha� problem� Mrs. McKinley wan�ed to know what flooding problem �r• Bergman was talking about. Mr• Bergman said that she had commented about having water in her basement� Mrs� McKinley said that there had been no problem in the last few years because the pond had been low� 1`,^` Mr. Peterson wanted •to know if Mrs. McKinley had water in her basement in 1975- 1 , ��� Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, 1977 Page 18 Mrs• McKinley explained tha� two things had happened the �ear of the "big^ tornado. The first thing was that the tornado took the roof off the apar�ment building and then bounced down to the swamp and she indicated tha�t her house "sang^� She said that every wire and pipe in iche house vibraiced and made a very eerie sound� She continued to say that that was the same year that a construction company tried to drain the swamp• f1rs� flcKinley said that the first few years they lived in the house they never had any water problems• The first time they experienced any prob�.ems was �he year mentioned above and she couldn'tc say which of the i.tems, the tornado or the draining of the swamp, caused the water problem. f1r. Peterson again asked if Mrs• McKinley had water in her basement two years ago when the water was so high• f�rs. McKinZey indicated that she did• Mr� Iwen i�dica�ed �hat there was presently a drainage syst�m out of the pond• He said �chat possib�y the sysicem was too high� He continued �o explain that there was a culvert and tha� when iche wa�er got just so h�gh in the pond, it drained in'to the stcorm sewer on Polk and then into h1oore Lake. He sai.d that no matt�r how much rain we got, the pond shauldn'fi. raise any higher �han a certain level- Chairp�rson Harris wanted to know how large the outcfall s�ructure was. Mr. Iwen said that the struc�ure was a makeshific, temporary thing with no piping• He said tl�at it was jus� a culvert in a sicorm sewer and when the water got tco a certain point in �he swamp, it would just drain off. Mr• Iwen indicated �that he believed that it would �take about two years to get the legal i�ems worked out regarding the corner• Mrs. McKinley wanted to know when the work would be started if the lot did get re-platted� Mro Iwen guessed that it would be Fall before any work got startedo Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Iwen if he had had a chance to read through the six stipulations. Mro Iwen indicated that he had read them�through and the only item he questioned was Item 6.^A triangular street and utility easement over the southwest corner of Lot 4, for future street and utility purposes, the dimensions of which to be determined by the Engineering Division and property owners prior to submission of final plat^� �"� �, r�'� �1 /"� � planning Commissi�n Meeting — May 4, 1977 Page 19 Mr• Twen wanted to know if this stipulation would le�ve a buildable 1ot. Mr• Boardman said �hat there would be no �roblems and Mr. Gearman would have a buildable lot• Mr. Iwen indicated that ever��hing on the list was agreeable to him. Mr. Rober� Prois of LDU❑ Lynde Drive N.E� indicated �hat his family enjoyed �he pond and the na�ural setting and he wanted to recommend that the City buy this parcel of land and leave it in i�s natural s'catee Mrsa �eKinley indicated '�hat she �elt the whole block enjoyed the land in its n�tural sta�e and fel� that a park would be idealo However, she said if tha� couldno� be done, then R-Z would be be�ter than a lot of things �hat couZd happen �o these lots� She did indicate �hat she would like to see the pond left natural. She said �h�t most of the neighbors enjoyed �he birds tha� came to the pond. She also said that if people l�e�•t dra� ning and moving the nai,ural wetlar-�ds, tfti� children two or three generations from now wouZdnet even know wha� a water bird looks like. Cha,_rperson Harris wanted �o know i�' this ponding �rea encompassed entirely on the area in ques�ion• (�ro �oardman indica��ed that �the panding area also went back into Lots 6, 7 & �� � Mrs� McKinley wanted to know what was going to happen to �he natural drainoff from the service road� Mr� Boardman indicated it would go into the road. �ir. Iwen indicated tha� he wanted the pond- He said that they could have gone into the area and filled �he pond and made 2� to 30 lots to build on. He poin�ted out that he was only planning to have six lots and he planned to keep iche pond. One of the reasons he gave was that it would have been too expensive to go into the area and build a developrnent with 20 to 3� houses. He said he would have had to put sewer and water, streets, curbs, and� gu�ters. He said that by doing it the way he proposed, he already had sewer and water on both Po1k and Fillmore Streets and he could leave the pond in its presen� state• , Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, 197? Page 20 Chairperson Harris wanted to know what f1r• Iwen planned to do with the lots. Mr. Iwen indicated that the lo�s would be sold for individual homes- flrs• McKinley wanted to know if I�r. Iwen planned to build the homes himself• Mro Iwen didn't wan� to say whether he would buzld the homes or not• i�rs• McKinley wanted to know if �here would be any restrictions on 'the homes � f1r. Iwen said that he didn't believe there would be any other than the same restrictions placed on eny home in the area. Mrs• f1cKinley felt tha� th�re would have been a bigger turn outc ifr more people could have figured out wha� �the Public Hearing no'cice was trying to say� Chairperson required by property. Harris indicated that �he Planning Commission was law to publish �the legal descrip�ion of the Mr• R� M. Frank of 557,2 Fillmore Street wan�ted to know if an individual eould buy one o� the six planned� lots and then break �ha't lot into two lots� thereby creating a possibility of 12 lo�ts ins�ead of the original plan of six loics � Chairperson Harris indicated that a person would be able to make a request to spli'� the lot; however, whether the Ci�y would allow it would be another mattera P1r � F rank wanted to �now if there was enough square footage to make these lots into two lots• Chairperson Harris said that he assumed there was enough square footage on the lots to enabJ.e a possible lot split. Mr� Frank wanted to know if Lot 4 would be a buildable lot• Mr• Iwen said that he was told it would be a buildable 1ot� Mr• Frank wanted to know if the replat was being requested to make Lot 4 buil:dable• � ,^ i "1 n Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, �977 Page 21 �r. Iwen indicated tha� �he purpose of the replat was to make all six lots buildable� �r. Frank wanted �o know when the new s�reet would be put in. Mr• Iwen indicated that he didn°� plan to put a stree� in� �r. Boardman pointed out on a drawing �o �r4 Frank the area he was referring to and zndic��ed �ha� the stree� would come at the time when whoever owned the back Iand decided wh�t �hey wan�ed �o do wi�h the property� �r- Frank wan'�ed �o �now ir the entire are on the drawing was zaned as R-1• Mr. Boardman again pointed out on the drawing the areas zoned as R-1 and the lots �hat were zoned R-3o MOTION by Mr� Langenfeld, seconded by Mr� Bergman, to close the Publie �earing o� �he considera�ion o� a preliminary p1��9 p�S� �77-D3, Iwe� Terrace, by Ae T� Gearrnanm Upon a voice vote, �•�., all vo�in.g aye, Chairperson Narris dzclared the Public Hearing closed a� 9e1p P@�o Mr� Bergman asked �ro Iwen if he felt any particular burden or had any strong objec�ions to the six condi�ions and stipula�ions recommended by �he Engineering Division Mr� Iwen only asked tha� he was left with six buildable lots. �OTTON by �r• g�rgman, se�onded by �r. Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the consideration of a preliminary plat, PoS� �77-p3, Iwen Terrace, by A� Te Gearman: Replat of Part of Lots 3, 4, and 5, Auditor'.s Subdivision No� 25, generally located immediately Sou�h of �he 1�Oa Block of Lynde Drive N�E�, East of Polk Street N�E� and West of Fillmore Street N�E� subject to the six stipulations recommended by City Engineering• Mr• Langenfeld wanted i� to go on record that the comments and opinions of the Rice Creek Wa�er Shed District should be considered- Chairperson Harris indicated that these would be considered- Mrso McKinley wanted to know why the Rice Creek Water Shed District had to be consulted- (� t� Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, 1977 Page 22 � Mr• Langenfeld said that Mrs• MeKinley had showed great concern of the pond and it was Mr• Langenfeld°s opinion that the Rice Creek Water Shed Dis�rict was very concerned about the deletion of wetlands, ponding areas, etc• because of the ef�ect it has on the surrounding areas in regards to eliminating the natural wa�er resources� Chairperson Harris also indicated tha� the pond dumps into Moore Lake which in turns dumps into Rice Creek� He said that that was another reason �o consult �he Rice Creek Water Shed District. UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, �he motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Harris indicated that the Planning Commission would be recommending to Ci�y Cou�cil approval of the consideration of a preliminary plat, PoS� �77-03, Iwen Terrace, by A� T• Gearman subjec� to the six s�ipula�ions recommended by City �ngineering- ' Chairperson Harris said the item would go to the City Council on May 16, 1977, and they would se� a date for Qublie hearing• n 3� PUBLIC HEARING� CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, ,� p�S� � 77-04, NORTON AVENUE HO�ESITES, BY WY�AN SMITH= Repla� of Lo� 13, Audi�or°s Subdivision Noe 89, except the Easterly 200 feet thereof, generally located on �he South side of Norton Avenue where it intersec�s with Central Avenue N.E= MOTION by Mr� Langenfeld, seconded by P1rs. Shea, to open the Public Nearing on the consideration of a preliminary plat, P•S. �77-04, Nor�on Avenue Homesites, by Wyman Smith. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 9:15 P.M� Mr• Wyman Smith of 125D Builders Exchange Bldg� was present. MOTION by Mrs• Shea, seconded by Mrs� Schnabel, that the Planning Commission receives the le�ter from Mr. Jerry P Sympson• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously� Chairperson Harris indicated that the letter was received and that it would go with the file to the City Council. r"'� Plannin� Commission Meeti�g — May 4, 1977 Page 23 � Mr• Boardman indicated that the proposal was for six lots and that portion of Lot 13 minus the 200 �eet to the Easts He said that �here h�d been a mix up with the S�arf in that Mr• Smith didn't have 442 feet but rather had 475 feet. �r� Boardman indicated that Mr. Smi�h had another drawing that he had sketched ou�. Mr. Wyman Smith gave the background up to the point of the mee�ing� He indica�ed that by using the 475 feet, he could have five lots o� 79 foot wid�h and one lo� of ��-foot width• He said that by doing it �hat way all sir, lo�s would have over �he 75 foo� minimum requiremen�o Mro Boardman said tha� he had laid it ou� as �wo lots having 75-foot width and four lots with 80-foot wid�h and then �r� Smith would have five feet of ou�-lo�. He indicated that with �he five �oot out-lot, the 15D fee� on the corner could possibly have two single famzly Zo�s, if f1r. Leroy Smith so desired� Ey having the five �oo� outlot, �r� Wyman Smi�h could sell or give the five fee� �o �r� Leroy Smith, �hereby giving Leroy the required amoun� of square foo�age without having to go throu�h a lo� split• P1r• Wyman Sm�th indica�ed •tha� �he corner lo� could not be taken care oi� �he way Mr� Boardman sugges�ed because �-.` �r� Leroy Smi�h had �25,DD0 involved and a person couldn°t ge� �hat kind of money out of two dwelling lots� Mr. Wyman Smi�h sugges�ed that the �ive lots with 79-foot width and one lot with 80-foo� width be laid ou�- Mro Boardman indica�ed that the requirements of the lots would be �hat the City would need five foot utilt�y and drainage easemen�s along the side of each of the lots and �en foot utility and drainage easements along the back� Mr� Boardman asked �r. Smi�h if he was aware of the park fee that would be involved with the plating- Mr. Smith indicated that he was not aware of this park fee• Mr� Boardman explained that there would be a park fee that turns out �o be ten percent of the land vaZue of the property which would equal approximately �038 cents per square foot. Mro Smith wanted to know what he was to do next. Mr. Boardman indicated that the final plat would have to be drawn up for City Council- • �� 4�'r Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, 1977 Pa�e 24 �OTION by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Bergman, to close the Public Hearing on�the consideration of a preliminary plat, ^ poS� �77-04, Norton Avenue Homesites, by Wyman Smith• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:25 P.M. MOTION by Mre Peterson, seconded by Mr. Bergman, that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval _ of a preliminary plat, P�S� �77-04, Nor�on Avenue Homesi�es, by Wyman SmZth= Replat of Lot 13, Auditor°s Subdivision No. 89, except the Easterly 2�0 feet thereof, generally located on the South side of Norton Avenue where i� in�ersects wi�h Central Avenue NoE. Upon a voice vo�e, all voting aye, the motzon carried unanimously• Chairperson Harris indicated �hat the consideration of a prelzminary plat, PaS• �77-04, Norton Avenue Homesites, by Wyman Smith had been recommended to City Council for approval. He said that i� wou�d go to Council on �ay 16, 1977, and they would set a da�e for a Public Hearing- Chairperson Harris declared that the Planning Commission would take a�en minu�e break at 9:35 P.�. Chairperson Harris called the meeting back to order at 9:45 P.�� MOTTON by Mr� Pe�erson, seeonded by �r� B�rgman, that the �^ Planning Commission move Item B o� the Ag�nda to ILem 4. Upon a voice vo�e, all voting aye, the mo�ion carried unanimously• 8. STAFF ACTIVITY REGAR�ING INFORMATION TO CALLERS- Mr� Pe�erson said that he shared the entire Planning Commission°s embarrassment at the statement that was made• He felt that �he Staf� should be very careful about suggesting that people no� appear in front of commissions that are meeting if the people are effected because if the commissioners volunteer their time, then it is impor�ant tha� if the people have anything to say, they should be encouraged to be at the meetings Mr. Bergman commented tha� the entire item F�ad been a very confusing i�em. He felt that the public should take more time in developing their thoughts and their positions• He also indicated that the people in the audience should be more careful about stating their requests when they call City Hall for information• He cit�d the example where Mrsa Morin indicated she called City Hall and asked someone if she was required to attend the Appeals Commission meeting• Mr. Bergman stated that N0, she wasn't required to attend the meeting. � /"1 ��`Plannin� Commission �eeting — May 4, 19?? Page 25 Mr• Bergman did say that rather than just sayi,ng N0, the Staff person eould have informed the caller thai; itc might be to his benefit and thaic he should attend� f1r� Bergman sta�ed that very possibly �he people are asking the wrong questions or are using the wrong wards when stating a question because tnere ��as too much indication of confusion and misguiding for it to all be one-sided. Mra Peterson statecl that �he Staf� people that understand the Ordinances and are workzng at City Hall -�ull time sould have a lit�cle more burden on them �han does the ci�izen who is not as well informed� Staf� person should have realized tha� when the caller asked af she was required, the caller really meant was anything going to happen of importance� Mra Pe�terson felt the staff should be discerning enough to understand even if the wrong word might have been used- Chair�erson Harris said tchat a policy or procedure had to be set up on how to hand7.e instances such as �this� (�r� Boardman cornmentced th��t prior to that �ime, there had been no policy or procedure regarding thi� p^o�lem� He wenic � on ta say �hat there w�re going to be corrections rnade� He stated that staff was planning to set up a seven-day time requirement before any applicafcion had ico go to paper for Public Hearing Notice or any application notice tha� would have to be sentc with an agenda� He said �hat Staff would require seven-day application time during which time �the application would be reviewed by all Staff personnel and then, and only th�n, would thatc item be pu�� on an agenda or set up for a Public Hearing� Mr• Boardman indicated thatc �the second thing �hat would happen would be a Staff Checklist� Ne said �hat on Friday, �1ay 6, 19?7, a Staff Checklist Procedure would be set up in which a checklist shee�t would be attached to all Building Permits and all applications for rezoning, special use permits, etc• and it would go through the entire review process• It would then be returned to one person who would be the responsible person for following the request through. He indicated that i� would be returned to him if it was an application for the Planning Commission and that he would have a complete handle as to all the recommendations from the other areas� He indicated that other requests and applications would be sent to the appropriate person responsible� � /"'', Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, 1977 Page 26 Mr� Boardman also discussed with �r. Sobiech the giving out of information• He indicate� that since the secretaries did handle much of the load for the Administrative Staff9 that the secretaries be informed that certain information would have to be given out by cer�ain personnel• He said that a firm conclusion had not been reached but the problem was being worked on• � Mr. Langenfeld indicated tha� he fel� it e�fected bo�h the Commission and �he audience wher� the people joined forces and talked about an item and then came to the mee�ing with just one idea in mind, that being �HAT THEY WANT, and then when any person on the Commission tried to inform them or educate �hem, i� would turn into an accusation that the Commission had tried to in�imidate �hem. He felt that sometimes the Commission was faced wi�h a men�al block �hat had to be pe�e�rated before the item cauld even be discussed• Chairperson Harris indicated that the problem with mis- information from Ci�y Staff was tha� it was worse than no in�orma�ion at all• He said that �he people would get �he misinformation and �hen �hat would be changed and the� �he people get defensive and belligerent. Mr• Boardman indzca�ed that �here had been several cases when a person wauld �onsul� �he City on a piece of property and ask how many uni�s they couid build on this piece of property. He continued to say that without any further information on that piece of property, they could only tell what would be possible on tha� much square foo�age of land� Chairperson Harris said that the requestor should be asked exactly what specific piece of proper�y he was talking about• Mr. Boardman said tha� even with �hst in�orma�ion, they would have to take the time to layou� the building and layout the parking lot. He indica�ed tha� usually �hey inform the person that according to the Code he would be allowed to build eight units on that property if all of the other requirements were met. Mr. Boardman said that then the person is tald to draw up a site plan and bring it in to City Hall and they could discuss the plan further• Mr Peterson mentioned to Mr. Boardman that perhaps many of the requests were from Real Estate Agents who would want the information to be able to tell a poten�ial buyer= � � �"� Planning Commission �eeting — May 4, 1977 Page 27 � Mra Boardman indicated that they still could only tell the person that according to the square footage, he would be able �o build a certain amoun� o� units but that there would be other code requirements that would also have �o be me�o Mro Boardman cited an example �o the Commission� Mr. Peterson suggesed that in certaan cases the requestor be given a copy o� the Code and have him discuss it with his attorney rather than Staf�� saying anythinga Mr� Boardman said tha� usu�lly they indicated that according to the square footage �hey could be �hinking o� that certain amount of units• Then the req�estor would be given a copy of the Ordinance �nd would be inrormed �hat those would be the ordinances �hat would have to be me� and before �here ��ou1d be any more discussion on �he plan �he requestor would have to have a si�e plan• Mro Bergman said �hat he felt tha� �he number of units that would be allowed was a��easo�able question �or a citizen to ask and �hat Sta�� should give him an answer• Mrs� Schnabel men�icned L-ha� in th.e Appeals Commission that most of the members go out and do a si�e �nspection an eacF� piece of proper�y tha� would go b�far� the Commission� She �� said �hat they do this in��e�tion indivi�ually and on their own time� She ind�ca�e4 tha� particularly when there was an appeal 'chat was unusual in nature and would present some distinct problerns to the adjacen� neighbors, she has gone �o the site and talked to �he neighbors about the request. She said �hat �he Appeals Commission had a par�icular request that was appearing for the second �ime and when she was at the site, she talked with a neighbor who indicated tha� she was no� going to �he meeting. �rs� Schnabel �alked with �he neighbor and indicat�d tha� the Appeals Conimzssion needed their input and it turned out that �he neighbor had been opposed �o the particular �equest and because of �rs. Schnabel's encouragement the person went around the neighborhood and had a new petition signed and that neighbor and several others appeared at the meeting� �rs� Schnabel indicated that she didn't like to ^hand°hold^ people from their homes to the mee�ing but she was concerned about the person at the meeting �hat indicated that she had called and had not been encouraged to attend the meeting� Mrs� Schnabel said thet she would like to see a memo sent to the Staff indica�ing that any time there is a public hearing and someone calls regarding that meeting, that the person calling definitely be encouraged to go to the meeting• �� Planning Commission Meetiny — May 4, 197? ' Page 28 Chairperson Harris cited an example to the Commission �hat a person would call City Hall and ask what a particular address was zoned as and they would be told, �or example, R-1� He said that then the reques�or would say �hank you and hang up and City Hall would have no idea what was across the street or in tihe neighborhood• Then when the owner of some adjacent property wants to build some f actory or something on his proper�y, the citizen would be upset because he had been told by City Hall that his lot was zoned as R-1- thairperson Harris indicated tha� the citizen didn't always have the exact facts. He said that the citizen had been told that HTS lot was R-1 but there had been no indication that the adjacen� lot was also an R-1 lot• Mr� Boardman indicated tha� the only way to correc� that �ype of misunderstanding would be to ask the person calling �o go into Ci�y Hall and review, with a Staff inember, the Zoning �ap� Chairperson Harris wanted to know if some�hing could be mailed to a person requesting zoning information, showing them the zonings near them- Mr� Boardman indicated tha� an abunaance of requests come_ into Ci�y Hall each day, and to do,tha� type of mailing would be quite an additional expendi'cure just for mailing cos�s• Chairperson indicated �hat �he present way the zoning information calls were being handled was not adequate• Mr� Boardman felt that the number of complaints rec�ived compared to the amount o� informa�ion that wen� out of Ci�y Hall each day was relatively small� �r• Boardman indicated that misunderstanding was in �he information• He went on to caused by some Real Es�ate that he had talked to City lots were zoned whatever. it seemed that the main area of area of reques�s for zoning say tha� �he pr�blem could be Agent telling a perspective buyer Hall and had been �old that the Chairperson Harris suggested that when a person would call City Hall to request informa�ion on zonings that the person be requested to go to City Hall and discuss their question with someone who could explain the exact zonings in the particular area • Chairperson Harris theh asked Mr� Boardman if this procedure Gould be implemented• Mr• Boardman said that the requests for zoning information could�be handled as outlined by Chairp�rson Harris• n r"'� � �^, Planning C�mmission Meeting — May 4, 1977 Page 29 ^ 4. CONSIDERATION.OF THE RECOM�ENDATION FROM THE APPEALS CO��iI�SION THAT PROPERTY OWNERS OF RESTDENTIAL PROPERTY W THIN FEET OF ANY OPERATION APPLYING FOR BEER, WINE L QUOR LICENSES BE NOTIFIED•OF THIS APPLICATION� �"1 � Mr� Boardman indicated �hat at �he time the Beer Ordinance was reviewed, the City Attorney suggested tha� such notification should nflt be a condition of the licensing but should be a condition o� the zoning• Therefor�, it was not writ�en into the Licensing Ordinance• Mno Boardman indicated that at the presen� time Staf� was working with the City Attorney on the conditions for notifications. He re�ues�ed �hat the Planning Cornmission table the item un�il S�aff received further response �rom the City At�orney. �ra Peterson asked if Chairperson Harris wanted the item continued so it could go to other Commissions or did he wan� �he i�em back on the agendaa MOTION by �r. Peterson, secanded by �rso Shea, that the Planning.Commission continue �he considera�ion of the recommenda�ion from the Appeals Commission tha•� property owners of residential property within 2D0 fee� of any opera�ion apply�ng for beer, wine or liquor licenses be notified of �his applica�ion until tche firs-� meeting of July so �hat each member Commission would have a chance fco review i�t. Chairperson Harris asked that �che City Attorney research in particular Item 11, in Ordinance �435, Secf.ion II — Conditions of Li.cense: 11• Any police officer, or any properly designa�ed officer or employee of �the City shall have �the right to enter, inspec�, and search the premises of the licensee during �the business hours without a warrant- He requested that the City Attorney kept in mind the Fourth Amendment to the UoS. Consti�ution: ^The righ�t of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, pepers and effects agains� unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searc'hed, and the person or things to be seized•^ - Planning Commission Meetin� — May 4, 1977 Page 30 Chairperson Harris also reques�ed the City Attorney to keep in mind the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.So Constitution that states: h �` ^All persons born or naturalized in the United Sta�es, and subject to the ,jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the Si:ate wherein they reside� No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of ci�izens of the United Sta�es; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, libertcy, or proper'ty, without due process of law, nor deny �o any person within its jurisdiction the equal pro�ection of the laws•^ Chairperson Harris felt tha� this Ordinance was �nconstitu�ional• Mr Peterson acknowledged �o Chairperson Harris that he agreed comple�ely with his sta�temento He also said that the Ordinance made references to persons 2], years of age and he indicated that presently the legal age is 19 years• He indicated i�hat he thought the entire ordinanc� needed rewriting• Chairperson Harris also didn't like the wording of Section 9— Persons Ineligible for L�cense• In par�icular he ques�ioned the second item "Who is not of good moral character'°• He wanted to know �he definition of �'good moral character�'. UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voti.ng aye, the motion carried unanimously• The considera�ion of the recommendation from the qppeals Commission that property owners o� residential proper�ty within 200 feet of any operation applying for beer, wine, or liquor licenses be no�tified o�F this application will be con�inued a�t the -iirst Planning Commission mee�ing in July• Mrs• Schnabel asked �1r. Boardman i-F he expected to have the City Attorney's response before the first mee�cing in July• i�r� Boardman indicaf�ed that he should have the City Attorney°s response be-Fore July• Mr- Peterson indicated that on f1onday, May 9, 1977, the Parks and Recreation �ommission would be having a special meeting regarding the Commission's goals and objectives and other forward looking things and he extended an invitation to the Planning Commission members to attend• Chairperson Harris indica�ed to f1r. Peterson that he had a petiicion for the Parks and Recreatian Commission- �"1 �"'� MOTION by Mr� Peterson, seconded by Mrs. Schnabel, that the Planning Commission receive the petition and forward it on to the Parks and Recreation Commission for inclusion on their agenda- Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried � and the petition was received and forwarded• � '� Planning Commission fleeting — May 4, 1977 Page 31 MOTION by �ir� Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Bergman, to receive the Park and Open Space Plan• �IroBoardman distributed a copy of the Plan to each member of tche Planning Cornmission indicatzng that Staff had completed their version and that it was to go 6efore the Parks and Recrea�ion Commission� He explained that there were a few maps s�i.11 missing from the document and that they would be distributed �o the Commission members in a few days- �Irs� Schnabel w.anted �to know if a small map delineating the neighborhoods would be included• Mrm Boardman indica�ed that the particular map f1rs� Schnabel had referred �o in addition to several other maps would be distribu�ed in a �ew days� Mra Peterson pointed out to the Cotnmission tha�c the Parks and Open Space Plan �efleeiced the thinki��g of about 120 people �hatc had served on �he neighborhood committees one year ago� n Mr� Boardman said that �the Parks and Open Space PZan a�as quite an ac�ion plan• He said �hat it made some very strong recommendations, some or which migh�t b� controversial; but said - that i� a�as a document �that Staff fe?t was essential ta �he Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the future development in the City of Fridley� UPON A VO�CE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimouslyo The Planning Commission received the Parks and Open Space plan� 5. CONTINUED% PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE� Chairperson Harris indicated that this i�tem would be deferred until later in the meeicing� 6. RECEIVE APPEALS COMf1ISSI0N MINUTES= APRIL 26, 1977 MOTION by f1rs� Schnabel, seconded by Mr� Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the Appeals •Commission Minutes of April 26, 1977. Mr� Langenfeld said that he really liked the way the Appeals � Commission.minutes are set up regarding the Administrative Staff Report. He indicated that it would save time if the Planning Commission had a similar form to refer to on each n of the items discussed at the meetingso Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, 197? Page 32 Mrs• Schnabel indicated that the entire Appeals Commission � felt that the Administrative Staff Report was a very helpful tool� Mr. Boardman asked Chairperson Har.ris if he felt an Administrative Sta�f Report was actually needed or if the oral presentation was adequate• Chairperson Harris indicated that a S�aff Repor� would be helpful� He asked �r• Boardman if �here would be staff available to make Administra�ive S�aff Reports for �he Planning Commission. Mr. Boardman indica�ed that he could possibly delegate the task of producing Adminis�ra�ive Sta�f Reports to another person, but �hat he personally would not have the time• There was some discussion on the reasons for a rezoning request to be before the Planning Commission a� the same time tha� a variance request was before the Appeals Commission• Mr• Boardman wan�ed to know if a rezoning was approved with a certain thing in mind that would require a variance, would the Planning Commission be pu�tz�g a burden on the Appeals ^ Commission to grant �he variance• � Chairperson Harris said �ha� if the �ity Council approved a rezoning as it stood, they would be giving tacit approval to the variance request. Mr� Boardman indicated that the whole purpose of �he re-organization of the Planning Commission was done so that all the information would come together a� the Planning Commission and they would make a full recommendation to the City Council taking into consideration the variances and the rezonings that would be needed• He felt that the position of �he Appeals Commission was a recommending commission for the Ci�y Council, with �heir recommendations going through the Planning Commission• He felt it �as very essential that some�imes the Appeals Commission would have action on a variance request before the Planning Commission acted on a rezoning request- Mrs• Schnabel indicated that sometimes the Appeals Commission was very uncomfortable handling a variance request on some property before a rezoning had been approved� She felt that when a petitioner went before the Appeals Coinmission for a variance request with a plan in which there would be alternatives, she didn't think it appropriate to hear the request before �� the Planning Commission had acted on the rezoning• Planning Commissian �eeting — May 4, 1977 Page 33 r„� Mr. Boardman indicated tha� the Planning Commission should present to the City Council a^full pic�ure^• He also felt that the petitioner should ha�e �he R=ull picture� of the different Commissions responses before he goes before the City Council- Mrse Schnabel and t�ra Boardman discussed -For a shor� time their reasons for and against the handling o� a variance reques� by �he Appeals Commission before �he Planning Commission had approved the rezoning• Mr. Boardman felt that a clear picture is not given �o Ci�y Council when too many differen� things on the same property go to the Ci�y Council at dir�erent times• Chairperson Harris said �hat the inten� o� the way the Planning Commission was set up was to present a comple�e package to City Cou�cil on a project with all the materzals and recommenda�ions all toge�her• UPON A VOICE VOTE, all vo�zn� aye, the motion carried unanimously and �he Planning Commission received the App�als Cornri�ission rriinutes of April 26, 1977. 7m RECEIVE Ea. 1�VIRONI��NTAL�UALITY _ 0��1S�SI0�1 �1INUTE� = ^ APRIL 7,9, �977 MOTION by h1ra Langenfeld, seconded by �1rs• Schnabel, �that the Planning Commissi�n receive th� Environmen�al Quali�y Commission minu�es o-F April 19� 1977a (�r• Langenfeld indicated that the Environmental Commission was going to embark on a Noice Pollution Ordinance very shortly� �1r. Langenfeld referred to the statement he made +L-hat he would appear before C�.ty Council with the request by League of Women Voters �or thE Environmental Quality Commission to co-sponsor a public meeting on ^Energy^ on �1onday, April 25th•.-m� Mr. Langenfeld indica�ed that the date was actually �1ay 2, ],977� Mr� Langenfeld told the Planning Com�nission about the May 2nd meeting. He explained that he worked �the Environmental Resources simulator. He expTained that the top of the machine had knobs representing our means of energy and the bottom of the machine had knobs representing our energy consumers {such as automobiles, industries, agriculture, etc}• He explained how he worked the machine and said that the goal was to try to make the energy resources last for 500 years. He said that ^ after many tries, they made the resources last for about 683 years but that they had completely cut out automobiles, airp].anes, and air conditioners- He explained that the whole purpose of that machine was to show that by merely conserving on one thing was certainly not going to solve any problems. � Planning Commission Meeting — May 4, 1977 Page 34 Mrs• Schnabel said that she was pleased to see that the � Environmental Quality Commzssion was going to follow up on �he request from the Appeals Commission regarding the East River Road traffic problems• Mr. Langenfeld indicated that he had used the 7-11 Store �o be loca�ed at 79�h and East River Road as a�case^ item �o try to show the Environmen�al Quality Commission how involved jus� one particular problem could get. He also said that he hoped that the East River Road Project�Committee could provide �he necessary informa�ion that had been reques�ed� UPON A VOSCE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously and the Planning Commisszon received the Environmental Quality Commission �inutes of April 19, 1977- Chairperson Harris discussed items received from �ro Mike E� 0'Bannon and Mr� Al Kordiak� He also had a copy of the Annual Financial Report from the City of FridZey� Mr� Langenfeld, �rs� Schnabel, and �rsm Shea requested to receiv� a copy of the Annual Financial Repor�� ADJOUR�!t�1ENT= �10TION by Mr� Langenfeld, seconded by f1rs. Shea, �hat �he � Planning Commission tnee�ing be adjourr�ed= Upon a voice vote, - all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Planninc� Commission mee�ing of f1ay 4, 197? adjourned at 7,�:55 P�M� Th� Planning Commission decided to have a one-hour Workshop on the Prop�sed Main�enance Code� Respectively Submitted, %������ MARY LEE CARHTLL, Secretary �