Loading...
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