PL 07/27/1977 - 30472�
CITY OF FRIDLEY�
PLANNING COMMISSION P1EETING
JULY 27, 1977
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Harris called the July 27, 1977, Planning Commission
Meeting to order at ?:41 P•M-
'ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Member Absent:
Others Present:
Storla, Harris, Peterson, Gabel, Langenfeld
Bergman {Oquist}
Ruben Acosta — Planning A•ide
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES= July 13, 197?
MOTION by Mr� Langenfeld, seconded by Ms• Gabel, that the
minutes of the July 13, 19?7, Planning Commis5ion meeting
be approved as written• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously•
RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES- JULY 7, 1977
MOTION by Mr• Storla, seconded by Ms• Gabel, that the Planning
Commission receive the Human Resources tommissior� minutes of
� July 7, 1977•
,-�
�
Mr- Langenfeld pointed out that, indeed, the discrimination
problem would have to be watched at the Commissions•
�1r• tangenfeld expressed surprise at the resignation of
Mr• William Scott• He felt that Mr• Scott did a good job
for the Commission-
Mr• Storla commented that in Mr• Scott's letter he stated that
he had an increase in family obligations that he felt so
important that he would have to give up some of his time at
the Commissions and the Human Resources Commission was one of
the one he was giving up-
Chairperson Harris wanted to know where the Human Resources
Commission was going on the discrimination complaint-
Mr• Storla said that they had a task force look into the
comp2aint and the Commission would take their recommendation�
He said that because af the complexity and importance of the
complaint there would be a motion to recommend that
Ms• Marty Will get legal advise in this case- He said that
the Commission didn't really have the staff to do this type
of investigation•
�
0
PL'ANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Pa�e 2
Ms• Gabel felt that the HUman Resources Commission was in no
position to make any type of recommendation of that nature•
Mr• Storla said that the Commission had been asked to take a
position on the problem• He didn`t feel that there was enough
known to make any recommendation• .
Mr• Langenfeld thought that Ms� Will wanted this complaint to
be heard so that the facts would be available on record for a
future time•
Mr• Storla said•that they would be deciding on what they planned
to do regarding the Commission's stand but that no more discussion
would be done on this at this level•
Mr• Langenfeld felt that the members of the Commission could
take some stand just from their own background and knowledge•
He felt they could at least commit themselves to the fact
that discrimination should not/would not exist�
Mr• Langenfeld felt that the State would be getting into this
complaint before long•
Mr• Storla commented that the complaint had to go before
the City Human Rights Department before it could go before
the State•
Chairperson Harris said that the Planning Commission would make
no motion on the item because it was decided that the members
of the Commission would need more information•
UP4N A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the
The minutes of the July 7, 1977, Human
meeting were received at 7:SD P•M-
motion carried unanimously-
Resources Commission
RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES= JULY 19, 1977
MOTION by Ms• Gabel,
Planning Commission
July 19, 1977•
seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, that the
receive the Appeals Commission minutes of
Ms• Gabel explained that the Commission had discussed the conflict
of interest memo• She said that the Appeals Commission
concurred with the memo as it effected them�
Mr• Langenfeld asked what had occurred regarding the request for
the variance of the Interim Development Regulations for the
Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area by Mr• Richard H• Netz•
n
i"�
,�
�,
.-�
,
��
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 3
Ms• Gabel responded that there had been some problem with that
item• She explained that there was a time that Mr• Netz could
have built a house on that property without making a variance
request• She went on to say that the person who had received a
variance in January to build a house across from the lot in
question had experienced several problems• {Ms• Gabel commented
that she didn't think that the lot had been banked properly•}
Ms• Gabel went on to say that
he expressed the feelings that
Mr� Netz planned to landscape
real major problem•
she had talked to Dick Sobiech and
because of the manner in which
the lot that there should be no
Ms• Gabel felt that the land would errode more'_if left alone
than if it would be landscaped/terraced as Mr• Netz proposed
to do-
Ms• Gabel explained that there were problems and the Appeals
�ommission could not agree on the item, so they decided to
forward it on to City Council with no recommendation�
M's• Gabel reflected on the-fact that when people do build along
the river bluffs, they were putting a lot of money into the
property and since, obviously, they would want to protect their
houses and pro�erty, they wouldn't build without kr�owing all the
problems that could be encountered•
Mr• Langenfeld believed that Mr• Netz was fully aware of the
problems he was going to encounter-
Ms- Gabel said it had been made very clear to Mr• Netz that
the �ity would not be liable in any way for any problems that
he would have•
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously• The minutes of the Juiy 19, 1977, Appeals
�ommission meeting were received at ?:56 P•M-
1-9 CONTINUED: PROPOSED tHANGES IN SIGN ORDIN�NCE
Bob Schroer - represen�ing Chamber of Commerce and
Duane Prairie - member of the Sign Ordinance Project�Committee
were pr.esent to discuss this item•
Chairperson Harris went through the sign ordinance starting with
Section 214•031 Signs Prohibited in all Districts• He explained
that the definitions were basically good as written and they
should be used as needed in discussing the items•
Mr• Prairie asked how much of the original Sign Ordinance had
been changed�
Ms• Gabel commented that much of it appeared to remain the same•
Mr• Peterson commented that some of the,changes that had been made
definitely needed more work regarding the warding•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27� 19?? Page 4
214•03 General Provisions for all Districts
• 2b4•031 Signs Prohibited in all Districts
1• permanent signs other than Governmental signs
erected�or temporarily placed within any street
right-of-way or upon any public easement•
Mr• Schroer asked if the word ^street^ applied
to the City's highways also•�
� Chairperson Harris said yes, all public land•
Mr• Schroer asked how a permanent sign could be
temporarily placed•
Ms• Gabel indicated that there existed permanent
signs.that were on wheels• She said that they
were basically ^portapanels^-
2• Signs or wall graphics that contain words or
pictures or obscene, pornographic or immoral
character, or that contain untruthful
advertising• �
No Comments•
3• Signs painted directly on buildings•
Mr• Schroer said that someone should be able to
obtain a variance from this• He explainetl that
sometimes ^decor^ dictated a certain era that
didn't yet have sign letters• He felt that that
type of thing should be considered a reasonable
request for a variance•
Ms• Gabel explained that this item was currently
part of the Ordinance and the Sign Committee
had decided to keep the item•
4• Portable signs {except for those provided for �
un.der ^Uses Permitted in all Zoning•^}
Chairperson Harris indicated that this item was
covered later in the Ordinance•
5• Signs which resembles an official traffic sign
or signal or bears the words ^stop, go, slow^
or similar words used�for traffic control
{except for directional signs on private property•
No Comments•
�
,^
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 5
6• Signs which by reason of size, location, movement,
content, coloring, or manner of illumination may be
confused with a traffic control sign, signal or
device, or the light of an emergency or road equipment
vehicle, or which hide from view any traffic, street
sign, signal or device•
No Comments•
?• Projecting Signs
• Ms• Gabel said that the biggest change on this
item was the definition:
27• Projecting Sign: A sign, other than a
wall sign, which is at�tached to and
projects from a building structure•
Mr• Acosta explained that Staff had tried to make
the definitions as brief as possible• Their
intent was to make the Sign Ordinance consistent
with the existing Ordinance•
Mr• Schroer asked if this item was presently in
the Zoning Code•
Mr• Acosta said it was presently in the Sign Code•
�� Ms• Gabel explained that generally a projecting
sign projects from the building, can be seen from
both sides, and usually swings•
8• Motion Signs
�`�`
22• MOTION SIGN: A sign which revolves,
rotates, has any moving parts, or
gives the illusian of motion•
No Comments•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 6
9• Illuminated sign which changes in either color or in
intensity of light or is animated, or has flashing or ^
intermittent lights {including traveling electronic
message centers or Electronic message centers which
change more than once every 15 minutes except one giving
time, temperature, or other public information•
Discussion took place regarding the difference
in illuminated signs and flashing signs•
Mr• Acosta felt that the definition of illuminated
signs would cover flashing signs•
Ms• Gabel said that if the City was prohibiting
flashing signs, then she felt that it was
necessary to have a definition of flashing signs�
Chairperson Harris said that the definition for a
Flashing Sign would be inserted�as �39 on Page 5•
Mr• Schroer disagreed 10Ui with this item• He
couldn't understand why there was an objection
to this item• He wanted to know why this sign was
being opposed•
Ms• Gabel explained that with a major freeway and
three other major highways running through the city
that Fridley could become a City of traveling signs•
She agreed that many were attractively done but
she didn*t like to think of what could happen if
this item was left open-door policy•
Mr• Schroer felt that the present City restrictions
would take care of the problems that Ms• Gabel
was anticipating•
Ms• Gabel felt that the present restrictions
would possibly take care of the Freeway but she
was mainly concerned about Central Avenue,
University Avenue, and East River Road•
Mr• Schroer indicated that basically the signs are
being allowed except they can only change every
15 minutes• He wanted to know what the difference
was if it changed constantly or every 15 minutes,
the sign was still present-
Ms• Gabel felt that the signs were traffic hazards•
Mr• Schroer asked why public information could be
allowed but commercial enterprises were not being
allowed to advertise this way• n
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 19?? Page 7
�� Chairperson Harris said that all ^Illuminated
Signs^ should be allowed by Special Use Permit
only• He felt that even signs that gave public
information could be a safety hazard if placed in
. the wrong place•
Mr• Peterson said that there were legimate
reasons for businesses to want to advertise by
using an electronic message center• He felt that
the City should encourage business enterprises
in Fridley rather than discourage it by forbidding
different avenues of advertising•
Ms• Gabel said that that type of sign would
indicate a special need and a Special Use Permit
would be allowed• She said that City needed
some control on these types of•signs and as long
as that control was present, she would be
comfortable allowing some businesses to use this
type of sign-
Mr• Schroer felt that the City had control already
on where a sign can be placed, etc• He felt that
that should be ample control• He did indicate
that he appreciated the position that the Commission
�'�`� was taking•
Mr• Prairie indicated that the reason the Sign
Project tommittee had gone �hat way was because
they didn't think it would effect too many people
in Fridley•
Ms• Gabel pointed out that that mode of advertising
Was extremely expensive; therefore, it wouldn't
effect too many people in Fridley• She said tha�
Ralph Carpenter from American Sign had showed some
slides to the Project Committee that pictured some
of the new techniques that could be done with the
electronic message centers• She said that, indeed,
it was most impressive•
Some discussion took place regarding how much could
be shown on a flashing message center to have the
message be effective•
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld,
that �9 be reworded to read ^Illuminated sign which
changes in either color or in intensity of light
�or is animated, or has flashing or intermittent
� lights {including traveling electronic message
centers or electronic messag�e centers which change
- more than once every 15 minutes except one giving
time, temperature, or other public informaiion} be
allowed only in C and M Districts {and not in any
R Districts} by Special Use Permit ONLY^•
PLANNING tOMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 8
Mr• Langenfeld pointed out that by
Use Per.mit the advantages are that
be put into the hands of the City•
using a Special
the control would
f7s• Gabel said that she had learned something
interesting• She said that different sign
companies say different things to different
people• When a petitioner went before the
Appeals Commission, they said that even though
the ordinance allowed only a certain size sign,
the sign company said that they didn't carry that
size, so the petitioner would have to get a.
variance to have a different size sign, when in
reality Sign Companies can make—up any type
and size sign•
Mr• Peterson commented that he wasn't concerned
whether major companies would be able to have their
signs all over Fridley• He said his major concern
was that the businesses of the citizens of Fridley
won't be able to get their message across to their
customers and they would be the ones most hurt-
Mr• Schroer felt that that type of sign was the
up—and—coming sign in Fridley•
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion
� �� carried unanimously• No• 9 would be amended to
read, ^Illuminated sign which changes in either
color or in intensity of light or is animated, or
has flashing or intermittent lights {including
10-
traveling electronic message centers or
electronic message centers which change more than
once every 15 minutes except one giving time,
temperature, or other public information} be
allowed only in C and M Districts {not in any
R Districts} by Special Use Permit ONLY^•
Advertising Signs {except window signs allowed only in
C1, C2, CR1, tR2, CS1� and CS2 Zoning Districts
Franchised trademarks pertinent to the Business}
�{Mr• Acosta had read this item because of a
change that had occurred in the wording}
or
.
Mr• Peterson pointed out to Mr• Schroer that the
reason for this change was because of the discussion
that had occurred at the last meeting• He said
that the Planning Commission felt that many times
that Franchised trademarks were very pertinent
to the success of that person's business•
�
�.@
�
,�
i'�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 9
�'� Mr• Prairie felt that this would result in people
put�ing up cheaper and less attractive signs•
�
�'`,
Mr• Acosta indicated that the intent is to get
more consistency in the signs in Fridley to give
a more aesthetically pleasing appearance-
Mr• Langenfeld said that the cost factor would
have to be considered when it came to the message
being conveyed• He felt that the biggest percentage
of the sign should he the establishment and not
the product•
Mr• Peterson said he wouldn't be totally comfortable
telling Fridley businesses not to go into coop-
advertising with a vendor•
Chairperson Harris indicated that perhaps it
should be stated that a certain percentage of
the sign had to be the identifying name•
Ms• Gabel said that the intent of the sign
should be ta identify an establishment and not
to advertise a product•
Mr• Prairie said that the cost of the sign had to
be considered• He said that a local businessman
would probably have only X number of dollars for
advertising purposes• The big vendor companies
have many more dollars for advertising purposes•
He said that most times the big vendor companies
are willing to give a local busin�ssman an
identification sign that had a certain product
advertised on the same sign• He felt, that by
having the opportunity to obtain a sign in that
manner, generally the local bu�iness would end up
with a nice, exp�nsive type sign• He felt that
if these signs would be forbidden, then the local
businessman would have to settle for a cheaper,
less appealing identification sign because that
would be all they could afford-
Mr• Acosta felt that even though the expense was an
important part it should not overpower the intent
of the City• He said that the ^line^ had to be
drawn someplace•
PLANNING �OMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27; 197? Page 10 _
Mr• Langenfeld asked Mr• Schroer how effective/
necessary a sign was once a person's good will
had.been established•
Mr• Schroer felt that it was probably more
necessary/effective since a person would have to
keep up that good will by reminding the
customers that certain products are available-
Mr• Storla left the Planning Commission meeting at 9:08 P.M-
due to a previous commitment•
Mr• Langenfeld stated that he felt advertising
was an essential part of a business•
Mr• Schroer didn't believe an Ordinance was
necessary- He felt that a good understanding
amongst City personnel would result in some
system that would enable compatibility in a
decision• He felt that as long as there would
exist a way to appeal a tity's decision, that
would be aIl that would be necesasry•
Ms• Gabel wanted to know if there would be a
workable solution to the differences of opinions
regarding this sign�
Mr• Acosta pointed out that no matter which
direction City went or what they did, someone would
get hurt• Most Ordinances/restrictions will not
let someone do something that some person wants
to do•
Mr• Peterson said he would strongly object to any
regulation that would have no appeal system built
into it• He did not believe any administration
existed to be served• He said that Staff was
there to serve the public• He was upset because
there was continual reference to ^Staff wanted
this, and Staff wanted that^• He said that Staff
should be providing information- He said Staff
should be carrying out directions, but that the
citizens that lived in Fridley and paid taxes in
Fridley should be making the decisions and if the
City would write any Ordinance that would allow no
appeal procedure, he would become very upset•
Mr• peterson went on to say that when Staff refuses
a request by a citizen, that Staff should also
explain to that citizen the appeals procedure and
layout the steps that could be taken • He pointed
out that many times the citizen can't afford the
fees involved with an Appeal, so they have to take
whatever City Hall says, even if that person felt
very strongly the opposite way•
�
/"�
�
_�
�a
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 197? � Page 11
,.,� Mr• Langenfeld stated that�he would feel very badly
' as a member of the Planning Commission, if a major
� business or industry from Fridley left the City
because of a difference of opinion regarding a certain
sign or avenue of advertising and then relocated
in anather city that would allow the sign or mode
of advertising that they had wanted•
Ms• Gabel said that the Sign Committee had not
di,scussed that aspect of the item•
Chairperson Harris pointed out that a variance
procedure was part of the Ordinance and he felt
that each problem would be handled on an '
individual basis•
Mr• prairie pointed out that sometimes the cost
involved with getting a Special Use permit would
be more than the sign itself•
Ms• Gabel said that economics was a big factor•
Mr• Peterson said that Item 10 should be continued
to enable Ms• Gabel to do some additional work to
better explain exactly what the considerations
would be to justify a Special Use Permit to allow
� for this type of sign•
Ms• Gabel indicated that the existing signs would
be ^grandfathered^ in and as long as the sign was
maintained and didn't become over 50i delapita�ed,
a Special Use permit would not be required• She
said that it would mainly effect a new business
and a new sign•
Chairperson Harris said that the advertising signs
in Item 10 would also include billboards•
Mr• Schroer said he didn't think billboard advertising
was as big an issue as the signs previously discusse�d•
�hairperson Harris asked how much of the local
businesses advertised with billboards•
Mr• Schroer said that indirectly they benefited
from billboard advertising if they carried the
product that was being advertised-
Mr• Schroer said that the Chamber of Commerce was
not quite as concerned about billboard advertising
�.,, as they were about local advertising signs•
0
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY.27, 1977 Page 12
11• Signs located within corner setback requirements
{Ordinance No• 205•154{3}
No comments•
12• Roof Signs
28• ROOF SIGN: A sign which is erected, constructed,
, or ettached wholly upon the roof of a building•
There was discussion regarding the definition of
roof• Some buildings have two roofs and the
question arose as to which roof�line was considered
the roof of the building•
Mr• Acosta was going to help explain the definition
of Roof Signs in cleaner, more �oncise wording•
13• Revolving beacons, zip flashers, and similar devices,
including any sources of light which changein intensity•
14-
15•
No comments•
Porta-panels
Mr• Prairie said that these signs are the most
unappealing signs that exist•
Mr• Schroer also
could be totally
least objections•
felt that this is one sign that
removed and there would be the
Ms• Gabel felt that forbidding these signs would
effect/hurt the least number of people• She said
that these signs appeared to be the most offensive
sign in existence•
Readerboards {except those signs dispensing public
information} by Special Use Permit only•
Ms• Gabel explained that what the Sign Committee
was trying to eliminate was the ^junky^ blue signs
that were sold to businesses throughout Fridley
by some ^fly-by-night^ sign business•
Chairperson Harris wanted the parenthesis scratched
on the description• �
Mr• Acosta indicated that if the Commission would
grant one business a Special Use Permit for a
readerboard, they would have to be consistent
and allow a like-business to also have a readerbo�--'
�
a
�^,
/'�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION f1EETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page b3
^ '���''� Chairperson Harris said that City would have to
. � set up guidelines or standards or some type of
policy and if a petitioner met those guidelines,
. then they could obtain the Special Use Permit• '
Mr• Peterson asked what the fee for a Special
• Use Permit was• �
•� Mr• Acosta said it was $120•
' Mr• Schroer said that if a business felt a need
. for a readerboard, then he should be allowed to
have one•
Ms• Gabel felt that the definition of a readerboard
should be that a readerboard could be a free-
standing sign, but a readerboard could not be
attached to.a sign that was not a readerboard-
Ms• Gabel indicated that if an advertising sign
could be used for identifying purposes only, then
in reality, th.e traveling message centers would
not be allowed at alls
Chairperson Harris pointed out that that problem
� mas solved by requiring a Special Use Permit for
all traveling/flashing message centers•
MOTION BY Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld,
to change item Z5 to read, ^Readerboards by Sp�cial
Use Permit only^• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously•
214•D32 Signs Permitted in all Districts
1• Address Signs: Each dwelling, business, or building
must have a minimum of one address sign, minimum of
3-b/3^ high,.maximum of 18^ high, illuminated or
reflective, attached io the dwelling and visible from
public right-of-way•
Mr• Prairie wanted to know if residents would be
forced to remove trees, etc• to enable the address
sign to be visible from public-right-of-way• �
Mr• Acosta said that the address should be visible,
but the resident would probably not be forced to
r-emove trees, etc• He said that'the person would
� be encouraged to indicate the address on the house
,-1 in addition to another place that wouid be visible
' from the public right-of-way• �
,
.�. .._,
,�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 197? Page 14
, 2• Bench Signs: To be permitted only at bus stops; cannot
� be any larger than or extend beyond any portion of the
bench•
NO Comments•
3• US• FLAG following Title 36, section 173-178 of the
U• S• �ode, State Flag, Corporate F1ag•
�• Mr� Langenfeld corrected the abbreviation for
United States• He said it should be U•S-
4• Directional Signs: {public and private} •
{a} Maximum four {4} square feet per facing;
{b} Minimum ten {10} feet from street right-of-way;
{c} Except that a sign directing the public to a
hospital may be a maximum of twenty-four {24}
square feet in area•
No Comments
. 5• Institutional Signs:
��
{a} Maximum twenty-four {24} square feet; �''�` �
{b} Minimum ten {10} feet from street right-of-way, '
except on corners• j
{c} Except a hospital emergency sign which is �located ,
on the premises may be fifty {50} square feet in ��
.�
area• �
Ms• Gabel felt that the emergency sign in {c}
'should be much larger to be sure that people can
see the sign• She felt that the sign should be
large enough to see without having to look/search
for it• .
MOTION by Ms• Gabel, seconded by Mr• Peterson, to
change the wording of {c} to read, ^Except a
hospital emergency sign which is located on the
premises may be one hundred {1�0} square feet in
area^• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously•
Chairperson Harris read through the remaining items• There were
no comments/discussion until .Item 8, C, 2• ,
�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, b977 Pa e 15
8, �,2• Signs shall not be erected more than 45 days prior to
an election•
. Ms• Gabel felt that the way this read, that if a
person erected a sign before the primary election
� and that person was successfu�, then the person �
would have to remove the signs after the primary
and then put them back up for the General
' Election•
" MOTION by Mr- Peterson, seconded by Ms• Gabel,
that item 2 6e changed to read, ^Signs shall
not be erected before the closing of filing for an
election^• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously•
Chairperson Harris, again, continued reading the Ordinance• There
was no comment/discussion until item 8, �, 5•
8,C�5• Any political sign larger than 3 sq• ft• must be placed
1D feet from public right-af-way-
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld,
to change the wording to read, ^Any political sign
larger than 3 sq• ft• must be placed 3 feet from
public right-of-way^. Upon a voice vote, all voting
,� aye, the motion carried unanimously•
,^�
Mr• Storla returned to the Planning Commission meeting at
10:45 P.M-
Chairperson Harris, continued reading the Ordinance•
There were no comments/discussion until.item 214•045, {D}.
214•045, {D} Wall Signs: Wall Signs area shall not exceed 1•5
times the square root of the wall length on which the
sign is to be placed•
Mr� Hamernitc {City �ouncil - Ward 1} questioned
the formula to determine the size of a wall sign•
Mr• Prairie said that the wording was wrong•
He felt that the wording should be checked
because originally when the Sign Committee decided
upon the formula, that the signs to be allowed
would be very ample/adequate in size•
Discussion then continued to item 214•048
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING = JUL� �7, 197? Page 16
2b4•048
{a} Within sixty days {60} of the adoption of this
code, all owners of shopping centers and multiple
use buildings must submit � comprehensive sign
plan for their center or building to the Zoning
administrator for approval•
Chairperson Harris felt that rather than the word
�multiple use building^, it should be more
specific and say a building with three or more
uses•
Ms• Gabel explained that this Was aimed mostly
at new shopping centers/multiple use buildings
or for the situation that the signs would become
more than SOi delapitated — then that establ-ishment
would have to submit a comprehensive sign plan•
Discussion took place regarding how to define
a multiple use building•
Discussion then continued to item 214-DS
214•OS GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
3• Fees
The annual p�rmit fee and expiration date shall be
as provided in Chapter 11 of this Code•
Mr• Acosta quoted a statement that Mr• Boardman
had made regarding the fees� He said the feeling
was that City was penalizing the person who does
a good job with his signs, keeps them maintained
properly, and who adheres to the regulations•
Mr• Boardman felt that by charging an annual fee
makes that person come up with the fee every year
even when he is doing a proper job of m�intaining
,the sign• It was felt that a one-time fee would
be best and if a person does abuse the code by
not maintaining his signs, then that person would
be penalized and charged a fee in addition to
having to fix/clean-up the sign in violation•
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Ms• Gabel,
to have the wording of item 3 changed to read
� ^There shall be a one-time permit fee^-
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously-
�
�
�
_� �
�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 19?? Page 1?
214•05 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
7• Existing Signs
Mr• Peterson commented that ^in compliance^ was
referred to many times• He wanted to know what
that phrase meant•
Ms• Gabel responded that generally the idea that
was trying to be put across was that a total sign
would have to be in compliance or else taken down•
Chairperson Harris felt that this entire item
needed ^cleaning up^• He requested Ms• Gabel
to work some more on this item•
Chairperson Harris requested that the words ^his^ be removed
from the entire Ordinance-
Discussion then went on to item 214•06
214-�6 ENFORCEMENT .
Mr• Prairie wanted to know who would remove the
abandoned Signs•
0
� Ms• Gabel said that the City would remove the signs
and that the costs would be assessed against the
property• She explained that because the City would
send the notice of violation both to the permit
holder and the landowner, sometimes the owner would
put pressure on the permit holder to repair/replace
the sign•
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld to continue
the Proposed Sign Ordinance until the next meeting so that
Ms• Gabel would be able to do more work on different points
that had been questioned� Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously•
Mr• Schroer thanked the Planning Commission for letting him take
part in the meeting•
Chairperson Harris declared a short break at 11:24 P.M-
Chairperson Harris called the meeting back to order at 11:34 P•M-
MOTION BY Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Ms• Gabel, to suspend the
rules in order to handle the memo on the Code of Ethics• Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the mvtion carried unanimously•
r^� Mr• Ed Hamernik, City Council - Ward 1, was present•
0
=PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 1a
Mr- Hamernik explained that the memo had been discussed at the
City Council meeting and that he had several objections to what �
was being proposed- He wanted to present a minority recommendation
on how this ordinance should be handled• He said that in principle
he agreed to what was trying �o be done• �is primary objection
Was that the proposed was more cumbersome than necessary• He felt
the subject could be handled ^cleaner^ and still provide the intent
of what is desired• He felt that exposure by an individual
at the time a specific item was being discussed would satisfactorily
handle the situation• He felt that a written d-isclosure was not
really providing any benefit• He didn't like the idea of having
� the type of information that was being discussed put in a file
subject ta public access• He also didn•t see any benefit City
would get from having that information in a file• He was ,
interested in seeing a much reduced fcrm of this ordinance based
primarily on public disclosure at the time of discussion and
do away with the filing and the need for rather strict enforcement•
He felt that if a written disclosure was desired he strongly
recommended it be limited only to elected officials or people
�ho have a binding vote in a discussion• He felt that the City
Charter did address this issue and he felt this only made it
somewhat redundant• He felt that as far as Commission members
other than the Appeals Commission this Ordinance would put an
added burden on them• He said that there were perhaps some
people that wouid resent having to do this type thing and since
they are volunteers, he was not in favor of subjecting them to
this type of thing• He felt that some of the requirements in the �
Ordinance was bordering on invasion of privacy especially on the
volunteer group• He felt that the elected group of officials,
when they decide to run for office, does open themselves up
to a certain amount of public scrutiny• He really didn't believe
that a volunteer should have to be subjected to this Ordinance•
Chairperson Harris asked Mr• Hamernik what his thoughts were
on the section on the City Attorney and Senior Administrative Staff•
Mr• Hamernik felt that this was strictly an Administrative issue
and should be left up to the Eity Manager•
Mr• Peterson said that he objected to City Council delegating
their authority through the City Manager• He felt that if the
City Attorney and the Department Head should disclose, that that
should be a Council decision, because they are the one that a
citizen can talk to and they have to answer to the citizens
at the polls and the citizens had no way of talking to the City
Manager and he objected to the City Manager making that type of
decision in terms of ethics in the City•
�,
y
�
0
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 page 19
�'� Mr• Hamernik responded that the Charter had been recently changed
where the City Attor.ney is now hired by the City Manager• He felt
that since the City I�anager is the Administrative Officer of the
City and anything the people below him are asked to do or rec�uired
to do, he felt that it should come as a directive from the City
Manager• .
Mr• Langenfeld said that he definitely felt that it was borderlining
invasion of privacy• He objected to the fact that ihe information
would be written and could be available to anyone and he felt that
it wasn't anyone's business outside of the City's files• He felt
that the penalty part was very severe• He indicated that if
this Ordinance should pass as written, then he��felt that the City
Manager should also be a part of this disclosure•
Ms• Gabel indicated that the App�als Commission had discussed
this item• She said that the Commission had made a motion
that concurred with the Ordinance as it effected them• She said
that she had talked to Mrs• Schnabel on this and she didn't
express any problems with this item•
Mr• peterson said that he had not discussed this item at his last
meeting of the Rarks and Recreation Commission and indicated that
any comment he would meke was entirely his own opinion and he was
not speaking for the Commission•
�
Mr• Storla commented that the Human Resources �ommission had not
discussed this item yet•
Chairperson Harris felt that more thanAanyone else on the Planning
Commission, that he was effected the most� At that time, he made
his public disclosure to be included in the minutes:
^Property in the City of Fridley in which Richard Harris
has an interest•
{y} 6200 NE Riverview Terrace {Home}
Lot 2, Block 3, �ulianne Addition
{2} Lots 5 g 6, Block 3, East Ranch Estates, Second Addition
{the same being 7701, 7703, 7765 Main Street NE}
{3} �ots 1 thru 11 and 26 thru 37, Block 8, Onaway Addition
{the.same being 13, 15, and 17 — 77th Way NE
?710, 7720, 7780 and 7790 Main Street NE}
Principal in H& R Enterprises and also principal in the
Dick Harris Company^. .
�,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Pa�e 20
Mr• Hamernik felt that Chairperson Harris had handled this in an
appropriate manner that could effectively handle the entire
situation•
Mr• Peterson said that he had been approached by several citizens
from Fridley regarding the item in discussion. He said that
these citizens felt that this Ordiance would tend to limit or
cause people not to volunteer to serve on a volunteer committee•
Chairperson Harris spoke in defense of the Ordinance• He said
that for too long�Government has gotten a^black eye^• He
said that if this was a way of rebuilding confidence in the
City Government, then he was for it•
Ms• Gabel agreed and said that if Ci�y could do anything to
promote some �aith in government, then it had to be good•
Chairperso� Harris felt that if someone had something to ^hide^,
then perhaps they shouldn't be serving•
Mr• Hamernik felt that if people who had an interest in the city
and who were business people were wanted to serve on the various
Committees, he didn•t wantc to see an Ordinance that would prevent
these people from volunteering because they felt their privacy
was being invaded• He still felt that the same effect would be
gained by a verbal disclosure at the time of discussion-
Chairperson Harris exp].ained that the letter indicated that it
was directed by City Council that any comments regarding this
propo�sed Ordinance be directed to them•
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Mr• Peterson, that the
Planning Commission receive the Code of Ethics Ordinance• Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously�
Mr• Peterson indicated that he believed in good government and.he�
believed in credibility and he believed in not having a conflict,
of interest, but he found it difficult to see why you need to,,;,
disclose the financial facts of your �ompany just because it, _
happened to be located within the City of Fridley and you
happened to be on the Planning �ommission or any o�ther Commission•
He felt there would be chance for other people, who might be
competitors, to use that information because once it was filed
it would become public record-
Chairperson Harris indicated that generally for all the items
listed, they are already in public record someplace•
Discussion took place regarding exactly how much would have to be
disclosed upon request and the people that would have to be
disclosed-
Some members felt that only the person on the Commission or the
actual p�ritnshouldnet includehany otherkrelativenorlspousere•
They fel
�"�
�,
,�
�
�
0
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 page 21
Mr• Peterson said that he agreed in principle with what the
Council was attemptinq to accomplish•
(�r• Langenfeld said that the credibility of City Government
was essential• He felt that disclosure of some of the requested
information could lead to unpleasant situations for an individual
on the Commission-•
Mr• Peterson felt that this item could be handled in one paragraph
by merely stating that the member had no interest in a company
that would benefit by doing business with the tity or where they
could influence policy, etc•
Mr• Peterson indicated that he didn`t agree with having to
disclose the interests of father/mother/sister/�brother etc•
He felt that that was oversteppi�g certain boundaries-
Chairperson Harris felt that there wasn't even the right to
look at the adult child's financial record• He wanted it
to be limited to {at the maximum} the member and the spouse•
Mr• Peterson said that according to all the things being tried
,,� to get equality for each person, he felt that the City was taking
a step backwards• He said that just because he wanted to be on
the Planning tommission, his wife, just because she was married
to him, would have to disclose her interests• He felt that this
would be an invasion of her privacy•
Chairperson Harris pointed out that the way the laws are written
in the State of Minnesota, all the properties are held in common•
He said that if they are living together, they would have a
common interest•
Mr• Storla felt that it wouldn•t include the spause if they
weren't living together or were divorced•
Mr• Wamernik indicated that he personally had nothing to hide
and his statements were not some personal vendetta to try to
prevent the ordinance from being implemented, but said that he
really didn't�want something put into an ordinance that would be
difficult to maintain and that was not easily workable and he
didn't think that in its present form, the ordinance would be
followed•
Mr• Peterson said that he would like to comply with the City
Manager's request• He said that he didn't like the time table•
He said that he would like the Parks and Recreation Commission
�, discuss this item also•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 22
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr• Storla,•that the Planning �"� �
Commission continue the discussion of the memo on the
Code of Ethics• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion ,
carried unanimously•
Mr• Peterson requested that Mr• Boardman insure that this item ?
appears on the next agenda of the Parks and Recreation �
Commission meeting� �
2• CONTINUED: PftOP4SED MAINTENANCE CODE
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Ms• Gabel, that the Planning
Commission continue the Proposed Maintenance Code• Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously-
3• RECEIVE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: LETTER
FROM ZOLLIE BARATZ, Z& S MANAGE(�1ENT CO •, DATED
JULY 15, 1977• �
MOTI4N by Ms• Gabel, seconded by Mr• Langer�feld, that the
Planning �ommission receive the letter from Zolli.� Baratz•
Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously•
ADJOURNf1ENT
MOTION by P1r• Langenfeld, seconded by Mr• Storla, to adjourn
the July 27, 1977, Planning Commission Mee�ing• Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously-
Chairperson Harris declared the meeting adjourned at 12:33 P-f1-
Respectfully submitted,
/��'/ ,
MaryLee Carhill
Recording Secretary
n