PL 08/03/1977 - 30473CITY OF� FRIDLEY �
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
,.� AUGUST 3, 1977
s.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Harris called the August 3, 197?, Planning Commission
meeting to order at 7:40 P•M-
ROLL CALL=
ilembers Present: Storla, Bergman, Harris, Peterson, Gabel,
� Langenfeld
Members Absent: None .
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
APPR4VE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES� JULY 27, 1977
Mr� Langenfeld indicated that on Page 2, fifth paragraph, second
sentence, should read, ^He felt they could at l�ast commit themsQlves
to the fact that discrimination did/did not exist•^
Mr• Langenfeld indicated that on Page 3, sixth paragraph,
�and cry to the Ci�y for assistance later on^ should be added to
the existing sentence-
�� Mr• Langenfeld irdicated that on page °, third paragr�ph, second
sentence, should read, ^He felt that the areatest percentage of
the sign should be the establishment and not the product^•
Ms• Gabel asked that on Page ?, paragraph 3, the first sentence
be changed from, "Ms• Gabel said that that type of sign would
indicate a special need and a Special Use Permit would be allowed•^
to ^Chairperson Harris suggested that that type of sign would
indicate a special need and a Specia� Use Permit would be allowed•^
Ms• Gabel said that she had not made that statement� �
Ms•�Gabel corrected the third paragraph on Page 7, the se�ond
• sentence• She said that it presently said, '°She said that City
needed some control on these types of signs and as long as that
`��A��:�° control was present, she would be comfortable allowing some
businesses to use this type of sign"• She said that she wanted it
to read, ^Ms�• Gabel said that the City needed some control on these�
types of signs and as long as that control was present, she would
be comfortable with it providing that criteria established for a
• Special Use Permit took traffic pa�tterns into consideration^-
,��
Ms• Gabel indicated that on Page ?, paragraph 8, the MOTION read
°'Illuminated sign which changes in either color or in intensity
of light or is�animaiced, or has flashing.or intermittent lights
{including traveling el�ctronic message centers or electronic
message centers which change more than once every 15 minutes
except one giving time, temperature, or othet^ public information}
be allowed only in C and M Districts {and not in any R Districts}
by Special Use Permit ONLY^•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 197? Pa�e 2
Ms- Gabel wanted that particular motion 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 message centers
which change more tMan once every 15 minutes} be allowed only in
C and M Districts {and not in eny R Districts} by Special Use
Permit ONLY^•
Mr• Boardman suggested that the Sign Ordinance indicate that .
all Message Center signs would require a Special Use Permit•
Chairperson Harris said that the intent of the Planning Commission
was to do just that• �
Ms• Gabel felt that the part of the item that read ^which change
more than once every 15 minutes^ should be left in the Ordinance•
Chairperson Harris indicated that the ^every 15 minutes^ could be
made part of the criteria that would probably be set up later•
There was some discussion regarding the statement ^electronic
message centers which change more than ance every 15 minutes�•
Ms• �abel felt tha� the statement should remain in the Ordinance•
Mr• Bergman indicated that if that statement was left in, a
business {such as Twin City Federal} that had a sign with the
time/temperature would have to obtain a Special Use Permit and
a variance in order to have their sign•
�
Chairpersan Harris felt that �ublic service signs were actually
�--.
advertising signs• He said that the information draws the attention
of the public to the sign that has the business' identification
on it•
Mr• Boardman suggested a section be set up regarding those signs
which require a Special Use Permit•
Ms• Gabel indicated that the Sign Comrnittee felt very strongly
about that phrase regarding ^every 15 minutes^ and she didn't want
to lose a^handle^ on it•
Ms• Gabel indicated that on Page 8, the second paragraph,
^Mr• Langenfeld quoted January 11� 1977, Appeals Commission Meeting
minutes, which stated that•••••^ should be inserted ahead of the
first sentence in the second paragraph- -
Ms• Gabel indicated that on Page 9, the sixth paragraph, should
read, ^Ms• Gabel said that the intent of the Sign Committee
should be to identify an establishment and not to advertise a
product^• �
Ms• Gabel indicated that on Page 11, Pa�ragraphs 4, 6, 8?, should
reference ^variances^ and not ^Special Use permits^• �
�
PL'ANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 19?7 Page 3
Ms• Gabel corrected the fifth paragraph, page 13, to read,
^Ms• Gabel said that the Committee's definition of a readerboard
�� should be that a readerboard could be a
..........�
Ms• Gabel said tha� on Page 14, item 5{c}, second paragraph,
should read, ^Ms• Gabel said that the Sign Project Committee
had wanted a 100 sq• ft• sign- She felt that the emergency
� sign in {c} should be much larger•••••••^•
Ms• Gabel indicated that on Page 17, item ?, third paragraph
second sentence, should read, ^He requested Ruben to work some
on this item^- .
Ms• Gabel corrected the second paragraph in item ?, page 17,
ta read, ^Ms• Gabel responded that generally the idea was if
the sign was SOi delapitated, it must meet the code; or,
if because the sign had been repaired and then brought SOi
into compliance with the code, then the total sign would have
to be brought up to code-^ She said that this was the paragraph
that {as stated above} Mr• Acosta would try t� ^clean up^•
Ms• Gabel explained that the point that was trying to be made was
that if someone had a sign and started to repair it or fix it up
and by fixing it, they wind up bringing it SDi into compliance�
then they would have to bring their total sign into compliance•
MOTION by Ms• Gabel, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, that the
/', minutes of the July 27', 1977, Planning Commission meeting be
approved as amended• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously• The minutes were approved at 8:05 P.M-
RECEIVE ENVIR�NMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION �INUTES: JULY 19, 1977
Mr• Langenfeld added the title, ^Councilwoman^ to Carroll Kukowski's
name listed under Members Present an the first page of the minutes-
He also corrected the spelling of touis Doyle listed under
Members Present•
Mr•. Langenfeld corrected the spelling of Mr• Loken's name on
page 5, third paragraph•
Mr• Langenfeld indicated that the July 19, 1977, meeting had been
a very interesting meeting• He said the the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency had given a really nice presentation•
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Mr• Storla, that the Planning
Commission, receive the Environmental Quality Commission minutes
of July 19, 1977, as amended• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously• The minutes were received at B:13 P•M•
n
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 4
RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 26, 19??
MOTION by Mr• Bergman, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, that the �
Planning Commission receive the Community Development Commission
minutes of July 26, 1977•
Mr• Langenfeld indicated that the word ^PARK^ should be used
when referring to the Island of Peace ^Park^•
Chairperson Harris wanted to know who was responsible for all
the dead trees on Gil Hodge's Island• .
Mr• Langenfeld indicated that they were the responsibility of
the City• He said that since the Island was to be left in its
natural state, he didn't think the City would get a crane and
a ferry and go and start taking the trees down• '
Chairperson Harris indicated that the City had a Shade Tree
Ordinance-
Mr• Langenfeld said that it was, indeed, the responsibility
of the City• �
Mr• Bergman indicated that the Commission had reviewed the proposed
Parks and Open Space Plan and he said that the Staff had done
a sizable job and put forth much effort into that ^preliminary^
proposal• He pointed out that the Commission had motioned to
concur with the Parks & Open Space Plan with the considerations ^
that were listed on Page 5 of the minutes•
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, Lhe motiori carried
unanimously• The Community Development Commission minutes
were received at 8:20 P-M-
RECEIVE PARKS & RECREAT�ON COMMISSION �INUTES: JULY 25, 1977
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr• Berg�an, that the
Rlanning Commission receive the Parks 8 Recreation Commission
minutes of July 25, 1977•
Mr• Langenfeld asked for the actual dates involved when, on
page 3, paragraph 5, first sentence, ^�r, Kirk informed the
Commission that most of the summer programs were ending that
week and the following week^-
Mr• Peterson responded that the weeks referred to were the
weeks of July 25, 1977 and August 1� 1977�
�,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 5
�r• Bergman thought it was great that there were lights on the
�„� Tennis Courts• However, he said that he drove past the Courts
on a particular rainy night, and the lights were on in the
Tennis Courts; and,.of course, there was no one playing tennis•
He felt, that since everybody is concerned about energy conservation,
that perhaps something could be done to remedy that particular
situation-
Mr� peterson indicated that that had been mentioned before• He �
explained that the lights were on a timer and he posed the
question of ^who do we have to turn the lights off on the nights
it rains^• Ne said that Fridley no longer had a Park Ranger•
Mr• Peterson mentioned that the Tennis Courts definitely did
get a lot of night use and that there was no �eighborhood
objections to the lights remaining on until midnight•
Mr• Peterson pointed out that-the Commission was not solving
all the problems in the Riverview Heights area.but that they
were making an effort to satisfy the Community to give them
a variety of activities within the allotted space {he referred
to Item t on Page 5 of the Parks 8 Recreation Commission minutes}-
UPON A VOICE. VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
The minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of
July 25, 19??, were received at 8:23 P.M-
,�^
1• CONTINUED: PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANtE
Chairperson Harris brought Mr• Boardman and Mr• Bergman up to date
on what had transpired at the previous meeting•
Mr- Peterson commented that he felt the previous meeting had been
a very worthwhile and productive meeting• He said that the meeting
had probably been one of the best planr�ing Commission meetings
that he had attended for as long as he had been on the Commission
{3+ years}. .
There was some discussion regarding the sign companies and their
objections to Fridley proposing�to not a11ow diNY billboards in
the City• Ms• Gabel pointed out that the original intent of the
Sign Ordinance, when it was first written, was to at some point
in time, going to eliminate billboards• She questioned how much
legal ground that knowledge gave the City, but that had been the
original intent•
i�
PIANNING CbMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 197? Page 6
Chairperson Harris indicated that the existing signs would be
�grandfathered^ in• He said that the situation would be that
there would be no new billboards and also any sign that was over �
50i destroyed or whatever, couldn`t be replaced-
Mr• Bergman said that that was not the total view taken two
years ago when it was tried to tie in the life span of each
of the existing billboards to a^lease termination date^ and
.at that point, out they would have gone• He went on to say
that the City Council had backed off on the end dates that
had been proposed by the Planning Commission•
° Mr• Boardman pointed out that by forbidding billboards, to a
certain degree, tity would be intruding on a citizen's right
of free speech• He said that when that ^free_speech^.started
to make aesthetic impositions on the Community�, that would be
where the Courts would start drawing the line• Mr• Boardman
wasn't sure how the determination was made as to whether a
billboard was aesthetically pleasing or not•
Chairperson Harris said that City cannot dictate to the Sign
Companies what they put on their signs {as long as it wasn't
obscene or pornographic}• He said that City cannot control
the advertising that was on the sign itself once a permit was
issued for the sign• Chairperson Harris felt that the City
did have the right not to issue a permit for a sign•
Ms• Gabel commented that there were two states that did not
have billboards — Vermont and Hawaii• She alsa said that �
Brooklyn Park did no� have or allow billboards-
Mr• Boardman had questions regarding Readerboards• He asked
that if a Readerboard was allowed with a Special Use Permit,
then would advertising signs be allowed with a Special Use
permit; and if advertising signs would be allowed with a
Special Use Permit, then wouldn't the billboards be back in the
realm of a Special Use Permit• He wanted to know how the bill-
boards and other advertising signs would be handled• He felt
that the item would cause some conflicts•
Mr• Boardman pointe� out that a readerboard_could be allowed
by a Special Use Permit and that readerboard could be an
advertising sign• He said that the Ordinance then read that
advertising signs would not be allowed-
Ms• Gabel said that as she had stated at the previous meeting
that traveling message centers would be brought into the same
thing that Mr• Boardman was pointing out; if the message was
advertising a product, then it would not be allowed•
n
-� -P
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page ?
Mr• Langenfeld pointed out that the Commission had been referring
,r"� to Readerboards, as such•
Mr• Boardman said that the Commission was saying that advertising
on a readerboard would be allowed, but that advertising signs were
not allowed•
Mr• Peterson pointed out that what the Commission was most .
concerned with was the bus.inessman within Fridley that depended
on Readerboard advertisement for the economic well—being of
their Company•
Mr• Boardman wanted to know if the Commission was trying to control
Readerboards or the allowable free—standing adyertising sign
with the Special Use Permit; and, if so, he wanted to know what
criteria they planned to use•
Chairperson Harris indicated that Mr• Boardman's statement was
correct• He said that the criteria would be th�e size, the
construction, and there would be some�statement regarding the
health, safety, and welfare for the location of ic{�e signs• He
felt that a readerboard at.certain locations could very well be
de�rimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the general
public• He said that if the person applying for the Special
Use Permit did not meet the criteria, then he would not be
issued the permit•
�
Mr• Boardman said that the Ordinance 4�ould not al�.ow any
advertising signs in any districts except under special conditions
allowed by Special Use Permits• He indicated that those conditions
would be to allow advertising signs of a certain square footage,
as an integral part of an identification sign that is directly
� related to products and services available upon that site
Mr• Boardman indicated that under the district regulations
80 sq• ft• would be the maximum size per development• He said
that within that maximum 80 sq• ft• City was indicating the
maxi_mum square footage of readerboard or advertising which would
all have to fall under that 8� sq• ft• He wanted to know if
the Commission wanted to put a maximum size on the readerboards•
Ms• Gabel felt that if a business had a readerboard, that would
be the sign• She said that the maximum of 80 sq• ft• had to
be adhered to anyways•
Mr• Boardman agreed.that the readerboard size would not have to
be limited since only 80 square feet of signage is allowed•
He indicated that he liked the section that restricted the
total square footage of signag� to 80 square feet•
r'�
PLANNING COMMISSION.MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 8
Chairperson Harris commented on the message center signs as to
whether they were public service signs or.not• He wanted to
know how the existing Ordinance handled the signs, such as
the Twin City Federal Time/Temperature signs•
Mr• Boardman said that the existing Ordinance allowed the
time/temperature signs•
Chairperson Harris thought that the Twin �ity Federal time/
temperature signs were very clever advertising signs• Ne said
that a person's attention is drawn to the sign to read the time/
temperature, and at the same time the person also reads the
Twin City Federal"sign•
Mr• Bergman said that the same type of advertising is done by
Perkins when they use the American Flag•
At that point a brief discussion arose discussing the proper
respect that should be shown to the American Flag•
Ms• Gabel felt that it was most disrespectful that {Perkins}
leaves the American Flag outside during inclimate weather•
She said that it WAS NOT ALLOWED to be left outside during
inclimate weather, whether it is lighted properly or not•
Mr• Boardman indicated that Item 12 of the Definitions {204-02}
of the proposed Sign Ord�nance should be changed to read,
• 12- Changeable Copy Sign {Au'comatic}: A sign such as
an electronically or electric�lly controlled time,
temperature and date sign message center or reader
board, where different copy changes are shown on the
• same lamp bank•
He removed the words ^public service^ from the description•
Mr• Boardman indicated that Item 29 of the Definitions {204•02}
of the proposed Sign Ordinanc� should be changed to read,
'� 29• Reader Board: Denotes a manual changeable copy sign•
He added the word ^manual^ to the description•
Mr• Boardman indicated that Item 33 of the Definitions {204•02}
of the proposed Sign Ordinance should be changed to read, �
33� Sign Area: The total area of the sign including the
border and the surface which bears the advertisement•••--
Mr• Boardman indicated that Item 9 of Signs Prohibited in all
Districts {214•031} of the proposed Sign Ordinance should read,
9• Illuminated sign which changes in either color or in
intensity of light or is animated, or has flashing
or intermittent lights-
,�
�
�"1
� �N
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 9
Ms• Gabel asked about the definition of flashing signs•
�
_ Mr• Boardman said that a definition of flashing signs had been
added to the proposed Sign Ordinance•
Ms• Gabel asked if the City had turned their sign off yet•
Mr• Boardman said that the City had been ordered on 08/01/77 -
to turn their sign off•
Chairperson Harris indicated that it had taken touncil actian
• for the City to follow their own Sign Ordinance•
Mr• Boardman indicated that Item 15 of Signs Prohibited in all
Districts {214•031} of the proposed Sign Ordinance should be
eliminated entirely from that section and moved to a new section
that would follow section 214•043 and name the section
^Signs Permitted With Special Use Permits^• He felt that a
separate section was needed for these special �igns•
There was some discussion on Section Z14•048 {a} regarding
t.he requirement of a comprehensive sign plan for multiple use
buildings of three or more businesses••••
Mr• Boardman indicated that the Sign permit is issued to the
owner of a building and generally office space is leased from
the owner of the building and he would be the one who would
�� have to submit a plan•
Mr• Boardman indicated that City would have no control over the
types of businesses in a building; they would have control over
the sign only•
Mr• Bergman wanted to know the number of Special Use Permit
involvements that were being proposed•
Mr- Boardman indicated that the only Special Use Permit
involvements would be for the changeable copy signs•
Mr- Bergman asked if there would ever be a possibility that
a special use permit request would be denied far the time/
temperature type sign•
Chairperson Narris indicated that in certain cases that type of
sign would be disapproved• If the Commission felt that that
sign would be detrimental to health, safety, and welfar� of the
general public, the request for a Special Use Permit would be
denied•
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 197? Page 1U
Mr• Boardman next discussed the Section 214•05 {General Requirements}
item 3{Fees}• He wanted to know if the Commission wanted the �
item to read as it originally was, ^The�annual permit fee and
expiration date shall be as provided in Chapter 11 of this code��
Mr• Boardman felt that the word ^annual^ should be deleted•
Mr• Peterson indicated that the word ^annual^ had been removed .
at the previous meeting• He said that he had made the MOTION
and Ms• Gabel had seconded it, to change the item to read,
^There shall be a one-time permit fee^•
Mr• Bergman asked that it be indicated somewheres in the Ordinance
that there will be semi-annual i�spections•
Chairperson Harris said that inspections would have to be done
by policy• � �
Ms• Gabel said that if the inspections had to be done by policy�
they wouldn't be done at all-
Mr• Boardman indicated that the City can't charge mo�e for a
Permit than it would cost the Administrative Staff to issue that
permito
Mr• Bergman said that that was the idea behind the semi-annual
maintenance program, to defray'the cost of the inspections•
Mr• Boardman disagreed with the idea of charging a business th�t ^
ha� a good sign and kept the 51gh well maintained an annual __,
inspectian fee-
Ms• Gabel indicated that that was the Chamber of Commerce's
feelings also•
Ms• Gabel said that presently there was no system for maintenance
and there would continue to be no system for maintenance, so she
wanted to know why the City was writing a Sign Ordinance•
Mr• Boardman said that if the Commission wanted a system of reviewing
all the signs every two years, then they would have to.find.a
system of charging for it• " -
Mr• Bergman indicated that it had been the general idea to set
up a citizenry committee to find out what the citizens wanted not
what the Staff wanted• He said that a key concern of that committee
h a d t o d o w i t h t h e a p pearance of the signs• He felt that a
citizenry committee was a good focal view regar ding a p p e a r a n c e•
He didn•t feel that the citizenry view should be white-washed by
way of administration costs-
n
-. �.�
+- �"`;';P ;���= ��,k �' ' , ,� � , �:. ` �,_���` ' �s'
PLdNNING COMMISSION MEETING -'�G[�`�T��3, 1�977. �' �:� 4i�• P� e 1y . -
. � ._ , _ �: - , �:'• ��'
.__ .'_��. �; s K; -t � �:,
Y ; ' : ' _. � ' ,_ ' . . � .
.+' 1 €;: a. cCs ��, � .. ll'<. '
Ms• Gabel indicated that she ;h�l�;vc�t,��l� a.n ,�aw�ar' of de�,�:eting the fr�� '-,
but she had understood that it�wQC�Y�#.,no� r�e,�:.t�;e ylele7t:iQn of ��
�, the inspections • She said tha��,.��f4�„��a�.� �it�y��yi�.d.� n.o hav��;; any , �;;�
provisions to have some type. o� t���.�tenanQe�,a�d� eM�'a,rcem�n�� ��ien �
the City did not need a Sign. p�d:�aan.���•� �.,�h�;��dic�t,�.�l, th�at �he �� �..� .;
did vote for the one-time pecmit ti�e�� beca��ek�;�Ia.e da.c����r�= �:h �,�;�_.:� '`
what the Chamber of Commerce ha�l�s��d;��ut:�,�f,�,,�he;�Ci��r cou-�;�ln ���# £�.:
fin d some way to enforce/maintain the Or d�ina�nce�, the`rt the Sa.gra` d����� 's��
Ordinance would be worthless. _ �-� t��. '„
r: a ,� �
� � �- �i'-: ,. � == , � � t � -��, ; , �'i�
Mr• Peterson said that he took,,ex�e�ti.on t.� ��he �fact,��hat when j��� �..
. one talked about a citizertry� c� omm��tee, i� ,..�.�rr�= o�.�';� ;��cjn 4, y��'�;6�; �� 4,.
Committee, there was no way thet� Sta�f sc�entif�a��,�r =x �ide sE�"� �-R=
that the members had been a.cr,qss-sec�,�on ;of�th� c�t����is ��;�-.::�. �:
He felt that it should very carefull�i be _and�c'at�d =���r,�� .,3�. �G ��,�, �
� Committee was composed of citiz�ns that , w�re appointe�i ,l�ati�;;��° sa�d�
that it was not really a citizenry_committeer which r..e�,� r..�.�ec�e��.-,
the total opinion of the citizens o� Fridley� ;�- ,;�, �.�-, ��; �a��.. •�1�` �
� y � ..i'_ =.2i � r� •.�! �
thairperson Harris said that the Chamber of ;�p�n�re� hzad ha;d� ;�
��x.-:
their fair ^shake^ at the previous meeting ,.;_�� � �� �� ; .,;? 'r
� 3 c.� e �� �k? � ,.aa E} .
x a ' �-'�
Mi^• Peterson said that the� had been hearc��a�� �t�Q�r ,���.��,r ,�, ;s"�
meeting, but pointed out that th� .�ommiss�h :�ta��:��i'r�,�.�n�,�+ �- �:y f��`���`�`:9
changing some of the things tha� th� Chamber. �of_:, � yy A;4 �,r� :
'Ce�rtees,� �� .
most adamant about . _ :.i J,,�� � .� , ��� _ � �, :� ,�,� ;
t . _ f.�:a • , � � � . ,
- _ a �t �.
/� Mr. Peterson pointed out that of al�:,,.the t m�� � s �
residential block, no one had ev�r�-_a People in his �, ti? �:�
pproach�d hzm regarcl�.� ,�d � �_�� f _
a n y t hing a bou t signs� He wante d to know whe�e ;:the ^drav�^ {��;7.:; ;,:��,.
was coming from to have a Sign Qrdinance �_�,� �$� ��sa�.�; !�, d"�'��;��� 4�,�-,,�� � a:;
believe that the Council was beinc�. flooded,,,�ith,;e�t�.��r��a'=��� :,�� ����T��
. objecting to signs• He wanted to,: �k�.ow wh��, t.�e � b�.� ,�R��^;�,�,.:� �,�-�,,�= �,r�
for getting rid of signs was = ccaming �rom�:_, � s:,�� a q�:��.�$, ����-, �,��,�
: � ,—. ; —a , ; , _ _; «�z = �` ,-.:A ��' t <. � •r' '
� � � :s ! s.y �«�.
Ms• Gabel pointed out that the ori�inal i�e� was ;no� ,�c�.�lirr��.nate �;
all signs but to clean-up the .signs� y She ��t�� F��:��,:�h� �Sig-�_ -.:��� �����
Project Committee wanted to clean-�p..the �s�c�n� :�Ch�t ���,dl�.0 ��,�i�..-� �`
to m-ake it more aesthetically p1:Qasing. _ o� __, - wy. �;�. �,�:_� 3� ;�. •�
� � r . n� -.4 �, , � -,�:� � = .
ilr • Bergman said that the Prca:�.�c� ;�i¢��,t�� w�s � a � ��,��,�,:p�r ,�,�� , �� �:;�a �' •
committee• He said he wasn'ts sw� .of` tta�i��.�na.��at�.q�� �- �-a �;��.
their qualifications, and he s�aid.; �h�t �tl:�y�di� ¢r�o.� ������� ;,� �
t h e t o t a l ci tizenry o f Fri d l�y���a�;e,,� h����w�r�,.t�� ,��,f��q ,,.� ,'
people • He said that the intent df s�ttir� �,�. �� �
Committee was to -� � ��� - ��#-s�ec"t°s _ s:� , �F�: '
get citizenry input,: He agreed thet it had �
been done in a limited fashion. He said that �he people
weren't necessarily neighborhood representatives, but they
were in essence a Citizenry Committee•
�
PLANNING �OMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 12
,�:
Mr• Boardman pointed out that a Project Committee was not set
up to get a total cross-section view of a problem. He said a -
Committee was set up for looking into some of the problems and �
to come up with certain recommendations to help solve some
of the p�oblems that the Commission would not have time to get
involved in all the details/problems• He said that the Staff "
did want to get all the input it could from the citizens, but that
a Project Committee was set up to look at a certain p�oject/
problem. � -
Ms• Gabel pointed out that a Project Committee had to operate
on a very limited basis in terms of making any decisions• She
said that a Committee generally did not have any Staff resource
o� any legal aid. She indicated that one point that kept coming
across was that the present Sign Code was not being enforced• She
felt it was important that some means was found to make the Sign
O�dinance work once it was finished• She asked what good a
Sign Ordinance was if a way was not decided to make it work•
She indicated that she was all in favor of not putting that burden
on the business-person• �
Mr• Bergman said that there had been enough discussion regarding
the disadvantages of charging the business person the inspection
fee• He wanted to know what would be a better method• He said
he liked the results of the inspection fees� He pointed out that
the project committee had not been limited in their vision and they
had said that the maintenance was not being enforced and the
appearance was bad•
. �
Mr• Peterson felt that the Sign Project Committee had donQ a good
job that had involved a lot of hard work• He said that his only
objection was, that in definition, they were the citizenry of
F�idley because that they were not� He said that the Committee
was a group of citiaens that had been given an assignement•� He
didn't believe that the City should place a burden on the citizens
of Fridley who had the ^misfortune^ of owning a business and
providing services and employment opportunities within the City•
He had gotten the impression many times that the Planning
Commission was trying to put the business in Fridley out of
Frid�ey• He felt that if City would charge a business person an
inspection fee for his sign, the effect would not solve any
problem especially since there has been a sign at the Mall that
had been present for many years from a defunct business and the
sign is still there. He said that the City could have �harged -
all they wanted and that sign would have continued to become
more and more delapitated•
n
.;�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 13
Mr. Boardman said that if the City got into systematic enforcement
of the Sign Ordinance, it would involve a great deal of Staff time,
^ Staff that the City didn't have, Staff that would be taken from
� other important issues facing the City. He indicated that there
were many City Codes that should have systematic enforcement. He
said that the City had to �ely on the citizens' complaints and
visual inspections• He said that Staff did take City tours every so
� often and would make notes of the things that needed repair• He said
�hat letters would be sent to those businesses that were in
violation of the code.
Mr• Peterson explained that reasoning behind changing the item
to a^one-time permit fee^ had been the understanding that the
person who had the sign would have to maintain the sign and if
he received a complaint from the City, then he.could be told to
either take the sign down or repair it•
Chairperson Harris explained that the enforcement on any of the
signs that required a Special Use Permit, it could be added
into the criteria that the sign would be reviewed by Staff
annually. •
Ms• Gabel said that generally the signs that needed Special
Use Permits were the more expensive signs and those people
are most likely going to properly maintain their signs•
Chairperson Harris pointed out that the Special Use Permits
� were required for all changeable copy signs that would
include any readerboards, manual or automatic• He said
that he was sure that one of the criteria for the Special
Use Permit would be i�he item indicating that there would
be an annual inspection.
Mr. Bergman pointed out that the Sign Project Committee had
gone through the city of Fridley with the specific purpose of
observing the signs. He said that the general public� did not
pay as close attention to all the signs as did the Project Committee.
He indicated that the Project Committee had studied all the signs
and had reported that the maintenance was not good• He said that
unless the Commission went out and paid equal attention to the signs,
they had no right to say that the signs looked good and didn't
need enforced maintenance•
Ms. Gabel indicated that the maintenance on MOST signs in Fridley
was lousy.
Mr• Storla inquired when the first complaint on the King Chalet
sign was received•
Mr• Boardman explained to the Commission.the variety of actions
that had taken place regarding the King Chalet's sign•
�,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 14
Ms• Gabel felt that the City's ^complaint system^ was not adequate
enough because she didn't think that the City handled complaints �
properly• �
Chairperson Harris asked how many signs, totally, there were in the
City of Fridley that would have to be included in an annual
inspection• -
Mr• Boardman commented that there were close to 5,000 signs in
, Fridley that would have to be inspected annually•
Mr• Storla left the Planning Commission meeting at 9:28 P.M.
� because of previous committments.
There was a discussion regarding the cost of hiring one full-time
Sign Inspector who would inspect all the signs in Fridley on a
bi-annual basis• The cost for this proposed Sign Inspector would
be charged back to the businesses in Fridley that would be having
their signs inspected•
The question of the costs of sign permits came up.in the discussion•
Mr• Boardman told the Commission that the fee for a Sign Permit
for a sign up to 40 sq- ft• was $10. He said that the fee for
a Sign Permit over 40 sq• ft• was $25.
Chairperson Harris felt that the Permit Fees should be the same�
as the proposed fee schedule would be the same• He didn't like ^
the idea of th� two separate fees being charged far the sign
permits.
Ms• Gabel agreed with the decision that the City could not
enforce all the codes that were in existence• She pointed out
that there were some codes that more obviously would need
enforcement than others• ,
Ms• Gabel indicated that it had been OBVIO�US to the Sign Project.
Committee that most people were not maintaining their signs
Mr• Boardman indicated that he had personally d�iven around the
City of Fridley and he had made it a point to look at the signs-
He didn't see that there was that much of a maintenance problem.
Ms• Gabel indicated that she had voted to delete the annual fee,
and she didn't want to have to add the extra staff, but she did
want to know how to enforce sign maintenance better than it was
presently being handled•
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUS� 3, 19?? Page 15
Mr• Boardman indicated that possibly more staff time could be
devoted to the enforcement of sign maintenance• He said that
^ possibly three times a year Staff personnel could spend a few
hours touring the city• He felt that by driving out in the
community they would be able to catch a lot of the maintenance
problems•
Mr• Boardman felt that most of the signs in Fridley were kept
up and properly maintained because the business person that put .
that sign up is using the sign as the identification sign and
that person would want the sign to be in good order and to look
nice• Mr- Boardman felt that 85i - 90i of the signs in Fridley
are properly maintained• He didn't believe that the annual
fee would achieve what the Sign Code wanted to achieve- He wasn't
sure it was worth the cost of a Sign Inspector just for that
10i — b5i that were in violation• '
Ms• Gabel said that when she voted for the one-time permit fee
that she had been ur�ler the impression that there would be
some provisions provided to enforce the proper.maintenance of
the Sign Ordinance• She felt that if there was a way Staff
could handle this without a permit fee, she indicated that it
would be acceptable to her•
Mr• Bo�rdman said that the Staff would much rather increase their
staff time for that purpose• He felt that Staff would be able
to catch the majority of the problems
�"'� Mr• peterson said that he understood Mr• Boardman said that
the planning Commission would send both the July 27th and the
August 3rd proposals on to City Council• He wanted to know .
exactly what the procedure would be•
Chairperson Harris indicated that if the Pla�nning Commission wanted
to, both proposals could be sent on to City Council•
MOTION by Mr• Bergman, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, that the
planning Commission reconsider Section 214•OS {General Re�uirements},
Item 3{Fees}• Upon a voice vote, Mr• Bergman voting aye,
Ms��Gabel abstained, and Mr• Harris, Mr- Langenfeld, and
Mr• Peterson voting nay, the motion failed•
Ms• Gabel indicated that she had abstained because she felt that
she couldn't misrepresent what had come out of the Sign Project
Committee but she also couldn•t misrepresent her own feelings•
MOTION by Mr• Pete�son, seco��ed by Ms• Gabel,-th�t the Planning
Commission send the proposed Sign Ordinance as-emended on to
City Council, but the Planning Commission would have a chance to
proof-read the Ordinance at the next meeting before City Council
acts, so that corrections, if any, could.also be included•
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
�� Chairperson Harris dec�ared a short break at 9:56 P.M-
Chairperson Harris called the meeting back to order at 10:06 P.M•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 197? Page 16
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, that the
Planning Commission suspend the rules and handle CODE OF ETHICS �
next on the agenda• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously•
3• CONTINUED: CODE OF ETHICS:
Mr- Bergman indicated that the Community Developmen� Commission
had discussed the Code of Ethics at the July 26, 1977, meeting•
He said that the Commission had moved to accept the Code of
Ethics as st�ted• ,
Mr• Bergman said that the three Commission members that had
been present at the July 26�h meeting individually had no problems
with the Code of Ethics• He said that not much thought had
been given as to whether anyone else would have personal problems
with it•
Mr• Langenfeld said that he had called each member of the
Fridley Environmental Commission in order to get their inputs
regarding the Code of Ethics• He said that Bruce Peterson
had said he was for it but he felt that the penalty was too
severe and suggested something to the effect of dismissal-
He said that Dave Sabistina said that he couldn't see that
particular code of ethics applicable to any of the Commission
people• He felt that the Mayor and other ^high city officials^
should be subjected to the Code- Mr• Langenfeld said that
Le� Ann Sporre said that it �auld be a�onderful and felt it should �
be applied to all the Sta�f• She had said that Fridley was now -
a large City and they should have such a Code of Ethics•
Mr• Langenfeld said that Connie Metcalf was on vacation and
couldnYt be reached-
Mr• Langenfeld said that he liked the proposed Code of Ethics•
He felt that in certain cases a conflict of interest would h�ve
been detrimental to the decision making process at any level•
He said that he agreed with the Code� He indicated that he
felt the penalty was too severe• He felt that dismissal would
be �adequate penalty �
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by �s• Gabel, to accept
the Ordinance establishing a Code of Ethics for City Officials
as written bearing in mind the comments made by the various
Commissions• �
M�. peterson questioned the legality of the Code of Ethics in
terms of discrimination• He didn't feel that Section 3�•01�
Subdivision 3, second sentence, ^Financial interest shall
apply.t,o real or personal properties owned by the person making
the disclosure and by said persvn's spouse, children, mother or
father ^ should apply• He felt that that statement was a real
invasion of�privacy• �
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 19?? Page 17
Ms• Gabel said that she had been led to believe that there were
� some:amendments�to the Code of Ethics� She wanted to know if
perhaps what Mr• Peterson was saying was not one of the
amendments•
Chairperson Harris said that the Planning Commission could
recommend that as an amendment -
� Chairperson Harris said that he would have problems with that
section of the Code of Ethics• He said that, indeed, he could
disclose any financial interests that his children had since
• they were minors• He said that there would be no way he couid
. disclose what financial intersts his parents had if they chose
not to tell him•
The Commission members were curious as to where this Ordinance
came from• � .
Ms• Gabel said that the Code of Ethics Ordinance was modeled
after the Golden Valley �ode of Ethics•
Mr• Peterson felt that the Ordinance establishing a Code of Ethics
for City Officials, as written, was an invasion of privacy• He
felt that since he chose to serve on the Commission that his
family shoul.d not have to diclose their financial interests� Ha
said that they were not the ones serving on the Commission and
^ that they had the right to their privacy•
Mr• Bergman said that he was mainly looking at the intent of
the Ordinance and that he was in favor of the intent•
Mr• Peterson said that he was in favor of the intent also
� because he was in favor of good government• He said that
the intent was good but if a bad ordinance Was being written
then he suggested cor�ecting the.Ordinance and keeping the
intent and limiting the scope of who it would apply to•
Chairperson asked if the person making the motion wanted to
amend the motion to concur and motion to strike the words
^spouse, children, mother, father^ from the Ordinance• .
Mr• Bergman said that he felt that the word ^misdemeanor^
should be changed to dismissal•
Chairperson Harris said that the Planning Commission could
make an amendment to the motion that was on the floor at
that time to make the above changes, without first acting on
the original motion•
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Pa e 18
Ms•°'�Gabel said that City Council had already passed the first ,—,
reading of the Code of Ethics• She wanted to know what would
happen to the suggestions that were made that night•
Chairperson Harris said that the City Council could amend the
Ordinance before the second reading•
There was a brief discussion regarding the word ^misdemeanor^
and what could result from that severe of a penalty•
Mr• Bergman referenced section 3D•31 of the Code of Ethics•
He thought the word ^Permanent^ should be added to the
comment, ^•••each member of any commission or committee
shall file,•-•••^• The new statement would read, ^••••each
member of any permanent commission or permanent committee••-^-
Mr• Peterson felt that committee should have been striken
completely from the Code of Ethics•
Mr• Langenfeld referenced the second sentence under Subdivision 1
of Section 3U•�1 of the Code of Ethics• He read the sentence,
^In recognition of this goal, there is hereby established a
code of ethics for public officials� elected and appointed,
and for top level city employees•^ He then went on to read
the definition of ^top level city employees"• He said it
stated, ^the term top level city employee shall include the �
City Manager etc•^ The reason Mr• Langenfeld brought this
item up was that he definitely thought that the City Manager
should be included in the Code of Ethics• He said that the
City Manager sets the policy as to the City Attorney, etc•
Chairperson Harris said that the.Ordinance specifically
spelled out the Commissions, the Council, and the City Attorney-
Mr• Langenfeld pointed out that if some of the amendments that
were indicated were redundant to an already existing amendment,
then City Council could decide what to do since the Planning
�ommission did not have a copy of the amendments•
Mr• Peterson suggested that Section 30•01, Subdivision 3, the
second sentence be changed to read, "Financial interest shall
apply to real or personal properties owned by the person making
the disclosure^• He said that he would like to see the remainder
of the sentence deleted•
��
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 19
� Mr• Langenfeld said that since this Ordinance is different and
unique from the usual ordinance, he felt that the penalty of
misdemeanor was too severe and he wanted the penalty to be
dismissal of the individual•
Mr• Bergman referenced Section 3�•31� subdivision 1• He said
that it should read, ^within 3� days after the effective date
of this code of ethics, each member of any permanent commission
or permanent committee shall file, ••••^•
Mr• Bergman said that Section 30•10 should read, ^The provisions
of the code of ethics shall be applicable to all members of the
city council and the following advisory bodies: {here list all
permanent commissions�that are subject to thi•s ardinance}n•
Mr• Peterson wanted to know which corporations or interests he
would have to list under Section 30•31-
Chairperson Harris said that he would only have to list
the corporations or interests that he had within the City of
Fridley- .He indicated that where the person was employed
Would have to be listed if that Company was located in the
City of Fridley or did business with the City of Fridley-
Mr• Bergman said that the statement
would have to be included someplace
,� a person should sign his name-
Discussion took place regarding the
of Si and 10i• Mr• Peterson made a
to be consistent throughout the Code
the Si to 1�X-
^to the best of my knowledgew
in the Ordinance before
disclosure percentages
motion to amend the motion
of Ethics and to change
UPON A VOICE.VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
The motion to accept the Ordinance establishing a Code of Ethics
for City Officials '_. bearing in mind the comments made
by the various Commissions along with the proposed amendments
would go to City Council by the next meeting when they would
have the second reading-
Chairperson Harris indicated that the Chamber of tommerce was
upset due to some letters that had been written in the area
of code enforcement• He said that the Chamber wanted to form
a citizens advisory committee• He said that the committee would
have a meeting on August 19, 1977, because they believe that there
should be some revisions to the Zoning Code• Chairperson Harris
said that he had offered them his services to act as a liason
between the City/Planning Commission and the advisory committee•
��
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 197? Page 20
Mr• Peterson confirmed the fact that there are some very unhappy
people• He in�ormed �hairperson Harris that he had volunteered
for a lot of work•
Mr• Boardman explained to the Commission members the situation
they were talking about• He said that about one year ago
the City started a City Beautification Program• He said that
they got together with the Chamber of Commerce to get their
help in upgrading some of Fridley's business community• He
said that letters were sent to businesses in the community
asking them to volunteer information as to how to beautify
their property•-
Mr• Boardman said that the reason the City did this was because
there was a Section of the City Code that st�ted that existing
properties must reach the listed conditions by the year 1974•
He said that the City had been reluctant to enforce that section
of the code• . - �� �
Mr• Boardman went on to explain that the City�had tried to
get compliance of the section through a volunteer program•
He said that Staff had gotten very poor response in that
aspect on a volunteer basis• He said that the next step
that the City took was more of a full compliance aspect•
He said that code enforcement letters had been sent out
notifying the businesses that they were in violation of
certain sections of the City Zoning Ordinance•
Mr• Boardman said that the Staff had not received that many
negative responses to their letters-
Chairperson Harris indicated that that was not the ^story^
that he had heard• He wanted to know if the Planning
Commission wanted a representative from the Planning
Commission to meet with the representatives of the Chamber
of Commerce•
Ms• Gabel felt that Chairperson Harris would be able to
ex�lain different aspects of the Zoning Code because he
works with it all the time•
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr• Bergman, that thairperson
Harris be the official representation of the Planning Commission
to act as a.liason between the Commission and the Chamber of
tommerce's advisory Committee- Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously•
/"1
�
�,
P�ANNING �OMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 pa�e 2_
2• CONTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE
�, Mr• Bergman commented that during previous meetings it had been
_ agreed that the Planning Commission would keep the wording of the
Residential Maintenance Code slanted towards maintenance rather
than provisions•
Mr• Boardman suggested that section 220•17, Item 1, be reworded
to read, ^Kitchen Facilities: Kitchen facilities in every
unit shall be maintained in the following manner:^
There was some discussion regarding�whether a heated water supply
is required in a Kitchen unit•
Mr• Peterson stated that if the Uniform Building Code stated
that a person has to have a hot water heater Yn the building,
that would cover any requirement- He didn't feel that the
Residential Maintenance Code would have to indicate that one
was required• He felt, that as long as the Building Code
stated that he had to have a hot water heater; all this Code
should indicate is that it is in proper working condition•
In reference to Item 220-17 Item 1� A, Mr• Peterson suggested
that it be worded, ^Where a kitchen sink exists, it must be
in proper working condition^-
Mr• Boardman made reference to Section 220•16, Item 1,
� ^Minimum Plumbing Standards: All plumbing in every dwelling
unit and all shared or public areas, shall be properly installed
and maintained in a sanitary, safe, and functioning condition,
and shall be connected to an approved utility system in a manner
prescribed by the ordinances, rules and regulations of the City
of Fridley, and by the laws of the State of Minnesota-^ He felt
that this item took c�re of all the discussion that was being
had regarding the proper working condition of kitchen sinks and
exactly how specific the Code should be•
Mr• Boardman didn•t think it wa5 necessary to list each individual
facility in the plumbing system• He felt it would only be
redundant to what had already been stated•
Chairperson Harris said that Section �20•17, Item 1• A• was taken
care of by Section 220•16 and should be scratched•
The Planning Commission next discussed Section 220•17, Item 1.6.
Mr• Peterson said that the Maintenance Code should be more concerned
about the fact that a dwelling has a counter top that half the
linoleum is gone and it is open so that water can get in and breed
germs than if the cabinets are 20 square feet or whatever• He
felt the code should address the issue and not address matters of
construction• -
�
PLANNING C4MMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 �Page Z2
Mr• Boardman suggested that Item B of Section 220-1? be reworded
to, ^Cabinets, shelves and counterltable�s be of sound construction
furnished with surfaces that are easily cleanable and that will
not impart any toxic or deleterious effect on food•"
The discussion we�t on to Section 220•17, Item 1• C•
Mr• Boardman suggeste� that Item 1•C of Section 220�17 be reworded
to, nA stove or similar device for cooking food, and a
refrigerator or similar device for the safe storage of food,
shall be properly maintained with all necessery connections for
safe, sanitary, and efficient operation-^
Chairperson Harris indicated that Section 220•17, Items
2{Toilet Facilities}, 3{Lavatory Sink}, and Item 4{Bat�tub
or Shower} are all handled by Section 220•16 and should be
deleted from Section 220•1?-
Mr• Bergman left the Meeting at 12:19 A•P1-
Mr• Boardman indicated to the Planning Commission that he was
aware of what �he Commission wanted in regards to the
Residential Maintenance �ode• He suggested that he go through
the remainder af the Code for the next meeting at which time
he would present to �he Planning Commission a rewrite of those
items that needed changing•
Chairperson Harris said that the Planning Commission would
want to look at Section 220•43 {Compliance} item by item•
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Ms• Gabel, that the
planning Commission continue the Proposed Maintenance Cod�-
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously•
'ADJOUR�MENT
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Ms• Gabel, to adjourn the
August 3, 1977, Planning Commission Mee�ing• Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
Chairperson Harris declared the meeting adjourned at 12:26 A-M-
Respectfully submitted,
i�%� �
MaryLee Carhill
Recording Secretary
n
n
�