Loading...
PL 10/05/1977 - 30477CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 5� 1977 � CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Harris called the regular October 5, 19?7, Planning Co�mission meeting to order at 7:40 P.M� ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Shea, Bergman., Harris, Bob Peterson, Schnabel, Bruce Peterson Langenfe� d(Bruce Peterson was his representative) Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPROVE PLt�.NNING COMMISSIOIV MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 28, 1977 MOTION by Mr. Bergman., seconded by Ms. Schnabel� to approve the September 28, 19?7, planning Commission minutes. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COMMI�SION MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 26., 1�77 MOTION by Ms. Shea� seconded by Mr. Bruce Peterson, to rece3ve the �arks & Recreation Commission minutes of � September z6, 1977. IIpon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTTON by Mr. Bruce Peterson, seconded by Mr. Bergman, to receive the Environmental Quality Commission minutes of September 20� 1977� Mr. Bergman asked Mr. Bruce Peterson to explain what was meant in the last paragraph on page 1 of the minutes. Mr, Bruce Peterson said that the Commission wasn't comfortable as to the way the parks were being catagorized. Mr. Bergman questioned the recycling project. Mr. Bruce Peterson said that it would probably be a recycling center. He explained that the Commission hadn�t actually discussed the item as much as they had �ranted to. He said that Ms. Metcalf would be giving a report at the next meeting. �� �, � � PLAIVNING COMMISSION MFETING - OCTOBER 5: 197�� Pa�;e z UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, ihe motion carried unanimously. The Environmental Quali�y Commission minutes of September 20' 'i977� were received at 7:50 P,M. 1. CONTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE Mr. Baardman explained that Staff �ras in the process oi rewriting the Cod�e. and.: making all the changes an.d corrections. He said that it �ras the intent to send it to the City Attorney for his concerr�.s and remarks and then bringing it back tc the Planning Commission at the October 1g, 1977, meeting. MOTION by Mr. Bergmans seconded by Mr. Bruce Peterson, to continue the Proposed Maintenance Code until the October 19, 197?, Plannir�g Commission meeting. Upon a voice votes all voting aye,the motion carried unanimously. 2. CONTINUED: PARKS & OPEN SPACE PL�N: Mr. Boardman explained that a slide presentation had been given on this sub�ect. He said tha-t what should be done is to go through the Plan Booklet and describe what was being done and what would be done. He said that it was the overall intent at that time to try to �et items straightened out in the booklet and then have a Public Hearing on the document and then send it to City Council. Mr. Bergman commented that Mr. Ray Leek had given a presentation and that he had done a very good job. Mro Boardman said that it would be given again at the Public Aearing meeting. Mr. Boardman said that the exact layout of the Plan.aaas basic. He said that the main part of the document was in section 1� STJM�i.ARY OF FINDINGS and section 5 POLICY & RECOA�MENDATIONS. He explained how many of the statements were arrived at and where the information came from. Mr. Boardman said that to come up with the Plan that Staff had gone through the areas and the parks. He said that they had hired a part-time laridscape architect who had been working with the City as to what could be done with the Park Systems. Mr. Boardman said what was trying to be d.one was to put together what the City would classify as a Park System and how it would relate together vJith the utilizai�n of park facilitiesm 4A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - OCTOBER�19��� 4� �..� Mr. Boardman said that the SUMNIARY OF FINDING� (section 4) was based on the goals establishecl by the Planning Co�ission for Parks and. Recreation. He indicated that basically the City lacked a stan.dard criteria for stategic distribution of funds that were available fbr the Parks and Recreaiion Systems development. Mr. Bob Peterson pointecl out that the City belonged to the citizens and they were the ones that would use the Parks and Recreation systems and they should be the mosi important concern. Mr. Boardman said that what was planned was to develop a long-range plan for the Park Systeffi. He said that the City needed something to move towards for the future. Mr. Boarclman said that there were several iteffis brought out under -�he �'Objective�' portion of the Plan that relate to Citizen participation an.d the need for citizen participation. Ms. Schnabel asked how much of the Plan a�as influenced by the factors of �he econo�ics of the population, the age population, and what the trends were. Mr. Boardman said that what had to be looked. at in the development of a Park System was the flexibility of the park. � He said that they u�ould develop a system flexible enough to make changes wi.thout a great costQ He said thai ihe parks should be able to be utilized by all age levels. Mr. Bob Peterson said that in a practical sense it �as not that great of a problem because so man.y of the parcels of lan� were of such a size that there wouldn�t be that much that could be done with them. He said that there bvere relatively £ew areas that would fit into a to-tal City picture as far as being used as a P ark System. Mr. Boardman said that the Plan.ning Commission should discuss the Parks and Open Space Plan. He said that the first three sections vJere basically clear and not much that could be challenged. He felt that the discussion should begin at Sec�ion 4� Su.�mary of Findings. Mr. Bergman wanted ia know if the Parks 1�epartment �as p�omot,_ng this Plan or aa�s the City pramotin� it• Mr. Bob Peterson said that it was basically put together for funding purposes. Ae said that the Parks & Recreation Commission helped in laying down. a planning tool. He said that much of their time had been spent on the Plan. He said that the Commission me�nbers had not gone through all ^ 13 of the neighborhoods �o d�cide step-by-step exactly �rhat should happen in each neighborhood as to the Park System. � PLANNING COMMISSIOiV MEE� NG - OCTOBER 5, �� pa�e 4 Mr. Bergman asked if the Parks & Recreation Commission had revie�rred the plan in detail. Mr. Bob Peterson said that three meetings had been spent discussing the Plan. He said ihat the Commission had not entireZy olecided on every issue in the Plan. Mr. Bergman wanted to kn.ow if the Plan, was a Specific PZan or just a General Plan. Mr. Boardman said that �vhen Staff �rent through the Plan, they d.id go through all the parks and fa.cilities and. did do a lot of concepts plans. He said. that with the development of � parks and Recreation Plans there would be actual detail drawings of each of the park areas. He said that v�hat vJas intended was to go to each of the neighborhoods and hold neighborhood. meetings and have discussions bvith the neighborhoods and develop a plan for a neighborhood park facility and set up a booklet on each of the neighborhood park facilit$es, He said tha� a Public Hearing �rould be planned for each neighborhood park facility. Mr. Bob Peterson felt that �he Plan was actually a Staff recommendation. He didn�t feel that the Parks & Recreation Commission or Parks Director had been that much involved in terms of the whole program. � Mr. Boardman said that the Parks & Recreation Director had been ineolved in the development of the Summary oi Findings and in the implementation phases of the Park Plan.. �� Mr. Bergman said that he had had the general impression that the Parks & Recreation Commission would spend a considerable amount of time on the Park Plan. He said that he had recently gotten the impression that the Parks & Recr�ation Commission had not spent the time that would have been neec�ed for the Plan. Mr. Boarclman said that the Plan was a general guideline for the development of a parks and. recreation system. He said that the specific details of design would be presented at a later date. He sa3d it would be an implementation phase of the Program. Mr. Bergman sa�.d that there was a plan. for every park in the Plan� He was concerned about those plar�.s. Mr. Board�an expl ained that they were concept plans. He said they indicated work that Staff had done when they went out to the parks. He said that the plans were meaningful to Staff as far as giving them an idea of what was in the park and �hat concept could be developed for that park. He said that the actual plans would. only come about after considering citizenry input. 4C PLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING - OCTOBER 5� 1977 P a�e 5 Mr. Bob Peterson explained that at a Parks & Recreation Commission �eeting it had been decided �hat there would be �"'�, no detailed plans for any park until the Commission had its input and that the citizenry input was in the plan. He said ihat the Plan was presently an overall planning tool but that specifics had not been aclded to it. There was a brief disucssion regarding .se�eral. grants. Mr. Bergman ind.icated that the Community Development Commission had discussed the Parks and Open Space Plan at their July 26, 1977� meeting. He wanted to know what happened to the recommendations made by that Commission regarding the P arks Plan. Chairperson Harris said that as the d.iscussion came to the items that the Commissions had discussion, it would be up to the representative of that Commission to input their ideas. Mr. Bergman wanted to know if the recommendations made by the Planning Commission would be included into the Plan. Mr. Boardman said that if they got the in�ut before the minutes would have to go to City Council, then usually the recommendations �vould be ix�cluded. ^ Mr,. Bergnaar�. expressed much concern that had been indicated at the Comffiunity Development Commission that it disagreed �vith the sizing of the neighborhoods. He said. that one of their recommendations had been that neighloorhood areas be reviewed for uniformity in size, population, and �aatural barriers. He used t�e example that five separate neighborhoods put together took up less area than neighborhood 13. His concern was that to some extent the identification of an area as a neighborhood would have some effect on the attention it got on the amount of park area or the fund3ng or the grouping of a neighborhood re�resentation. He felt th.at the delineation of neighborhoods �vas mos-t unequitable. Mr. Bob Peterson pointed out that the Project Committees that ha.d been set up had not have that complaint. Fie said. that the Committee had not been concern�d about the problem that Mr. Bergman and Community Development felt existed, /'� �D PLANNING COMMISSTON M�ETING - OCTOBFR 5� 1977 P a�e 6 � MOTION' by Mr. Bergman, seconded by Ms. Schn.abel, that Staff reeiew the delineation of neighborhood areas in order to make them more equitable as to size� population, and natural barriers. Ms. Schnabel noted that there was also a disparity in the ratios of paYrks to people in the Plan a1so. Mr. Bergman said that there was bound to be disparities when existing areas were inventoried. He said. that one of the purposes of inventory �aas to adjust disparities. Ms. Schnabel said that �ossibly th� plan was to increase the acreage for parks where possible to make it more equitable in the neighborhoods. Mr„ Bergffian said that since it �vas a long-Pa.rigE Plan he felt that if there �vere errors in the Plan, the tiffie to correct those errors were in the beginning. He also said that the purpose for reviewing the Plan �ras to try to improve the Plan. He fel� that there was a gross inequity in the size and population represented in the Plan, UPON A VOICE VOTE, Bergman voting aye, Shea' Harris, Bob Peterson� Schnabel� and Bruce Peterson voting nay. � The motion failed. Mr. Bob Peterson said that he did not necessarily agree with al1 the findings and points in the Plans but he said that after the three meetings there had been a consensus tha-t all the Commission members did feel comfortable with what had been reviewed and sent to the Planna.ng Commission v�ith the understanding that there �vould. be later changes to the Plan. because it was not that inflexible. Ch.airperson Harris read the Ob�ective 1 in Section 1�, Summary of Findings: Develop an order of quality park facilities that will be flexible to the changi�.g needs of the community. Mr. Bergman said that the Finding ��Most of Fridley's parks are lacking in those elements of landscape architecture (ie� trees' shrubs� shade� interestin� use of grading) that enhance a�ark�s recreational value�� could result in too much landscaping to the extent that it might not be iunction.al for active sports such as playing ball. �"� 4E PL�NING COMMISSION ME�TING - OCTOBER 5� 1 77 P a�e 7 L} F � Mr. Bob Peterson said that tha-t wanted the parks on1.y others �rho only wanted many He said that the compro�ise looked at as ta ivhat it was of Fridley. � � there were some Commission members to be trees, shrubs� e�c., an.d d.ifferent ball playing fields., tvas that each par� had to be intended to do for the citizenry Mr. Boardman said that elemen.-ts of landscape did not a�.v�ays ffiean only trees, shrubss flo�rerss etc. He said that it �rould a�so include buffering that may be needed 3n parl� facilities and. the total layout of the park facility. Mr. Bob Peterson said that the intent had been to perserve the integrity of each individual. park to best perform all the functions that it could perform in a neighborhood. Mr. Boardman said that the concept plans that were in the Plan were solely for the Staff. Fie said that they �ere Staff ideas that came about only to help estimate costs of d.eveloping different park sys�ems. MOTION by Mr. Bruce Peierson� seconded by Mr. Bergman, to change the wording of the second Find.ing to read, "Cooperation and coordination among States Metropolitan, County and �lunicipal levels of government and school districts need to be improved in order to ensure against d.u�lication of iacilities and waste of resources available for recreational development��. OPON A VOICE VOTE' Harris' Sch.nabels Shea and Bruce Peterson voting aye; Bergman and Bob Peterson voting nay; the motion carried. Mr. Bruce Peterson aaid tha-� The Fridley Environmental Comm3ssion had wanted to have t�functional classiiication�' in the first finding uncler Objec�ive 1 defined better. He wanted to know wh.at type of tha.ngs would be used as a basis to the classifications. Mr. Board�an explained that the basis would be gieen in the definition of each park classiiication, He said that a Regional Park�s basis for determining would. be based on certain items and that tivould be listed under the classification of "Regional Park�'. He said that what was being sai.d by that particular ��Finding09 was that the City lacks a classificatzon system for its parks. Mr. Bergman clidn�t like the idea that the sntire section of Summary of Findings was �.egatiee. He said that Fridley d�d have many positive points, such as it has f3ve natural park sys-�e�s. Ae felt that the positive points could be listed and indicate that the Fridley Park Systea� was good but that it could be bet�er by....�etc. PLANNSNG COMMISSION MEETING - OCTOBER 5� 1977 Pa�e 8 � Mr. Boardman said that the Summary of Findings was meant � to reflect what Staff found as items to be improved in the System. He said. that �the Plan didn't say that the System uras good or bad.� it merely states what would be needed to improve the Parks System. He said that the Sum�ary of Findings �rras the initial stage in order to set up an implemen�ation process in order to de�relop so�ething that was �►an.ted in the City. Chairperson Harris declared a ten minute recess at 9:29 P.M. Chairperson Harris read the Objective 2 in Section 4� Su.mmary of Findings: Provide innovative park design with a balance of functional and aesthetic consideration creating substantial recreational, educational� and psychological experiences� Mr. Boardman said that it was most deceiving when one talked about the amount of space of park lan.d because the actual park facilities that are serving the nea.ghborhoods and people, the City of Fridley was actually very short on park facilities. � Chairperson Harris sai.d that Finding �1 y. could.n't be implemented in all the parks, since some of the parks wouldn't be large enough to handle all ihe items mentioned.. Mr. Boardman. said. that most of the neighborhood parks sh.ould have the items that w�re listed. Chairperson Harris said that when you mentioned having "A.dequate and convenient toilet facilities, parking areas, seating accomodations and cirinking fountains�', a great deal of expenditures as to the buildings, etc„ �ould have to be considered. He saici tha-t even with "grant�� money the costs for heats lights, etc. �rould need a substantial amount of City money. MOTTON by I�r. Bob Peterson, seconded by Mr. Bruce Peterson' that objective 2 be left open until the item could be �.iscussed at the other Commission leeels. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously, Chairperson Harris said that the entire Parks and Open Space Plan b�ould be left open for discussion. �. �� G PL�NNING COMMISSION MEETING - OCTOBER �, 1977 Pa�e 9 �}! Chairperson Harris read Objective 3 in Sec�ion 4, Summary of Findings; Promote people-oriented parks through active citizen participation. Mr. �ob Peterson said that if the Planning Commission in its collective wisdom would be able to devise a plan that �rould ensure representative citizen participation, he said �hat the Parks & Recreation Commission �vou:Ld appreciate the benefit of their combined wisdom. Chairperson Harris sa:id thai he agreed with the first finding under Objective 3. Mr. Bob Peterson said that two mailings every year are mailed out to every resident in the City of Fridley listing the entire Park and Recreation Programs for a six-month period of time. He said that the effor�ts had been �ade to inform the g�ublic of what was available. Chairperson Harris said that perhaps th.e information contained in those mailings could have been better assembled. Mr. Bob Peterson pointed out that at the active part of the Parks & Recreation programs that the City of Fridley gets a lot of citizen pax�ticipation at the organ.ized level. He said that much citizen input is received from the � organized level because the City has Fridley citizens running the active activities (ie soccer� football, hockey, etc.). He said that the Parks and Recreation Co�nmission meets r�ith the people running the activit3es on a scheduled basis to get the citizenry input on the actiee part of the programs. He said that they ha.ven't been very successful getting input from the passive part of the program. There was so�e discussion �egarding th.e method of signing up for th.e d.ifferent types of programs being offered. Mr. Boardman com�ented th.at the sign-up part of the programs could be done at the neighborhood parks� if the Park System �vas improved., Mr. Bob Peterson com�ented that when Fridley was a younger community, the pressure had been to develop the active type activities rather than the passive types. He said that it had been only recently that the passiee-type things evere being requested (ie fishing docks, etc.) Mr. Berg�nan said that Frid.ley had much area devoted to the passive activity� MsA Schnabel said that emphasis has not been made to the n fact that those passive areas exist. MOTION by Mr, Bob Peterson, seconded by Ms, Shea, that the Planning Commission continue the Parks ancl 0 en Space Plan. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the mo�ion carried u�.aniffiously. �'`, PLANI�TSNG COMMISSION MEETING - OCTOBER 5� 197� Page 10 3. WORK SCHEDULE Mr. Board.man. said that at the October 19, 1977a Planning Commission meeting he �rould have a Work Schedule for the members of the Plann3ng Commission. He explained a few of the items that he �ras aware of that the Planning Con�mission would have to consid.er and revie�v. 4. ADVISORY STANDARDS F4R LAND IISE REGULATION Mr. �ob Peterson was concerned about the last tauo paragraphs on P ag� 8 of the booklet. "The various organizations which have recommended standards for lot size and house size do not recommend standards for garages. These organizations have recommended. stand.ards for density or lot size and house� size because they have a clear relationship to the p�^otection of health and safety. Garages do not have as clear a relationship to the grotectio� of health and safety. Although g�r�ges are a desirable amenityp particularly in the Minnesota climate, they are not a necessity, Garages are an accessory structure for the purpose of convenience„ The elimination of a garage requi�ment is one of r"'� the most obvious ways to provide for reducing the initial cost of a house.�t Chairperson Harris felt that the Planning Com�ission did consider Garages having a clear relationship to the protection of health and. safety. The members of the Planning Com�ission agreed w�.th Mr� Harris. Chairperson Harris said that the City of Fridley did require garages on most properties. Chai.rperson Harris said that the City of Fridley was being accused of adding to the price of �he houses by requ3ring a garage., Chairperson Harris wanted to know how much of the items in the bookle� would have to be adopted by the City of Fridley. Mr. Boardman said that at that time, none of -the items would have to be adopted. He said that it would be a large debatable issue similiar to the Mandatory Planning. He said that there was presently not enough backing to push the issue through the proper channels. �"'\ 4I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - OCTOBER 5, 1977 Pa�e 11 �a J Mr. Bob Peterson asked ii the Metropolitan Council had voted � or adopted this item. Mr. Boardman said that he wasn't sure. He said that the Metropolitan Council was supporting the i�em. Mr. Bergman saial that he could understand how the Metropolitan Council had arrived at some of their conclusions. He said that it had been stated in the booklet that the purpose of this item was to make recomm.endations on ways to supply modest cost housing. He said that they were looking at tivays to simply cut the costs of h.ousing. Mr. Bob Peterson said that he felt the report had addressed the same issues that Fridley was concerr�ed with only they had. reached different conclusions than the City of Fridley. Mr. Board�an pointed out that some of the recommendations were to allo�r smaller lot sizes, smaller house sizes, and dropping the garage requirements. Chairperson Harris said that the Advisory Standards for Land Use Regulation would be closely considered when the Planning Commission went over the Zoning Codes in November. He said that cities should carefully study their land usages to enhance modest cost housing. � Mr. Boardman said that the housing issue was a major concern. He said that cities were creating the problems of less home sites available. Chairperson Harris asked that each of the Commission members give careful considerations to the ��,A.dvisory Standards for Land Use Regulation" booklet. ADJOURNNIENT MOTION by Mr. Bob Peterson, seconded by Ms. Shea, to adjourn the October 5� 1977, Planning Commission meeting. Upon a voice vote, all vo-ting aye, the motion carried unanimously, Chairperson Harris declared the meeting adjourned at 10:40 P,M, Respectfully submitted, MaryLee Carhill Recording Secretary ��