Loading...
PL 02/27/1980 - 30530f` ��. . � � E; � �; CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANhTING COI�II�LISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 27, 1980 CALL TO ORDER• Chairman Harris called the February 27, 1980, Planning Coumiission meeting to order at 7:43. P.OLL CALL • Members Present: Mr. Harris, Mr. Treuenfels, Mr. Langenfeld, Yd'r. Oquist, Ms. Hughes, Ms. Schnabel Members Absent; Others Present: None Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPROVAL OF FE�RU�S.RY 6, 1980, PLANNING CONII�'LCSSION i�1II'1U'FES: MOTiON by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to approve the February 6, 1980, Planning Co�nission minutes• Ms. Hughes stated that at the City Counci.l meetirg on Mor.day, the City Council � receiv��:i �he Feb. 6, 1980, Planning Commission minutes and set a public hearing `''''-- for Robert Schroer's property (P.S. �SO-01). The question was asked if they °�''� needed to do anything about the caate� study a.nd the ans�ver was n.o, they have this plan and everything is being done differently, so it �vould be appropriate just to review the water situation in the planning. She stated she felt it was very clear in the Fab. 6 Planning Cou�ission minutes:that the Planning Commissicn requested a com�rehensive study of the whole area as far as a drainage system, and the City Council was choosing not to do anything about it. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman to check into the situation. He stated that if the City was going to acquire land for a hoZding pond, now was the time to do it, not after someone builds on the land. Ms. Hughes stated she was told that the water would and is supposed to be held on the lot until it is safe to run off. Mr. Harris stated th?�t it is the rate of run-off a�nd the quaiity that is the problem. The City is requiring a holding pon3 on the Sears property. Wha� makes the Sears property any different from �his property? He thanked Ms. Hughes for this information. Mr. Boardman stated he would check with Mr. Herrick on the water drainage plan and get back to the Comu�ission. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MINUTES APPROVED � AS WRITTEN. .. - _ s . ___ - _ _, -- . _ _ _� __�._ ._._.� _. ,__ - -1� -------__._ _ _. . .. --,?,�!�r - � PLAIJNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEI�RU.ARY 27, 1980 ___ _ PAGE 2 1. RECEIVE TWO PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES FROM SPRING LAKE PARK: -.� .M /r '1 A. Rezoning to allow mini-storage garages on the property abutting 8325 University Ave. N.E. Mr. Boardman stated he knew very little about this. This has already gone to the Spring Lake Park Planning hearing so that is why it was noted that the Council hearing would be an Mar. 3. Mr. Harris asked if these stoxage garages would in any way adversely affect Fridley. Mr. Boardman stated they would affect Fridley visually, but there was no traffic concern because the garages would generate little traffice Another concern would be the drainage. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman to contact Spring Lake Park to express Fridley's concern about the water run-off and to find out where the water would go and what controls Spring Lake Park planned to have on the water run-off. If there seemed to be a problem, Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman to contact him and he would try to attend the Mar. 3 City Council meeting. MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to receive the public hearing notice from Spring Lake Park for rezoaing to allow mini-storage garages on the property abutting 8325 Unive.rsity Ave. Pt.E. Opon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion ,.,,�'"`� carried unanimously. B. Special Use Permit to do filling and grading on the property iamnediately East of 1115 Osbome Rd. Mr. Boardman stated the drainage for this property would go into the Rice Creek Watershed District so there was some control. MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to receive the public hearing notice from Spring Lake Park for a special use permit to do filling and grading on the property immediately East of 1115 Osborne Rd.• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Sarris declared the motion carried unanimously. 2. RECEIVE PACKET FROM NORTHERN STATES POWER RE: Coal-Fired Power Plant in Twin Cities Area: MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the packet of information from NSP. Ms. Hughes stated in the information; NSP said they have done some site layouts oa a11 of these properties and she �aould like the Planning Commission to request th�ase layouts. She also thought NSP should be asked what impact they think the water use might have on the Minneapolis Waterworks, if any. ,� ;- �: .�.o�.-• , i'LANNING COPR�CISSi0P7 MEE�ING, FEBRUARY 27 , 1980 PAGE 3 Mr. Langenfeld stated that the Commission should naturally be aware of all the information at hand, but he wondered how much they should go into it since Friclley might not be the site chosea. ' Ms. Hughes stated that for the record, NSP has completed facility layouts for five of the new sites and the three existing sites, and it would he interesting to see what they are proposing. At least their first 200 megawatt plant is going to be at the Highbridge Plant in St. Paul for co-generation. So, what they are looking at is where the second one will be. She asked NSP at a meeting on co-generation what they were thinking of, and it sounded as though they are considering the three existing plants, the closest to Fridley being the River- side Plant. If that one is not one of the most viable ones, Fridley is going to be very attractive immediately behind that, at least on this end of the metro area. Mr. Harris stated the more he thought abou� the Fridley site, the more he was sure it was not a feasible site. Mr. Boardman stated that the Fridley site was the smallest site and that is a detriment. Ms. Schnabel stated that NSP was also looking at areas where there could be barge traffic, and there could be no barge traffic into Fridley or Coon Rapids. Ms. Hughes stated thz Coa�ission should be aware that the PCA is considering, �`_�,., �nd she thought they ha�re started,the process to redraw the lines where they _ think they have a sulphur dioxide pollution problem. UPON A VOICE VOTE, AI,L VOTIATG AYE, CHAIIiN1�N HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION TO RECEIVE THE NSP INFORMATION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 3. RECEIVE SPECIAL HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES OF JAN. 29, 1980: MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the Special Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes of Jan. 29, 1980. Mr. Boardman stated that at the last meeting, the HR�A selected Joint Venture Developers (JVD) as the developer far Phase 1 and 2 of the Center City Project. He stated he has talked to the City �ttorney regarding a possible conflict of interest, because of Mark Haggerty's law firm's association with the City, and the City Attorney has written a memo stating there is no conflict of interest. Ms. Schnabel stated she really has problems with this. She felt there was the potential for a real conflict of interest in this situation, should some problem arise in the development of the Center City Project, in which the city prasecuting attomey's law firm is involved as one of the de^velopers. • She thought that particular law firm has done good work for the City of Fridley, ' and the accommodations reached in terms of hiring the two different law firms has worked out very well for the City, but she sees a real potential for a conflict of interest and a real problem in the future. She really felt that � �' . PL�NG COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRU�RY 27, 1980 PAGE 4 if the City Council goes along with JVD as the developer,for the Center City "�' , Project, then the City should divest itself of the law firm in terms of the City Prosecutor. Mr. flarris stated he did not think that the City Prosecutor has ever dealt with any zoning issues or building permit violations. Mr. Boardman stated the City Prosecutor is primarily involved in police matters and those types of prosecuting matters. Ms. Schnabel stated she still felt the potential existed where there might be a case where that particular law firm might be called in. Also, even though she understood that Mr. Elmars Prieditis (member of HRA) abstained from voting on the developer, she felt his association with the architectural €irm that is part of JVD was a little shaky. It wa� these kinds of things that makes the development look kind of suspicious. Mr. Boardman stated that the HR� was concerned about the conflict of interest and that is why they asked Mr. Herrick for a legal opinion. Mr. Prieditis was aware of his position and did not vote on the developer. Wha.t more could the iiR� do? Mr. Harris stated that the conflict of interest between the City Prosecutor aad the fact that he works for the law firm tr.at is associated with JVD did not bother him as much as the fact that Mr. Prieditis was associated with JVD through his architectural firm. He stated that if, in fact, there was a problem.�='� as far as Mr. Haggerty's fira► with the development and the City Prosecut�r had to prosecute, it would be very simple for them to say there i.s a conflict of interest and have Mr. Herrick handle the prosecution. Ms., Schnabel stated that she thought the City Council has an obligation to review this matter and make some kind of decision. Mr. Boardman stated that the Commission has to remember that the HR�1 is a separate, non-profit public corporation, separated from the City Council. Mr. Haggerty's firm is not the prosecuting attorney for the HRA. The City of Fridley is completely separate fram the Hit�. The difference is one is elected and one is appointed. Mr. Harris stated he has explained to the HRA that the Planning Commission will stay out of the selection phase, but would be happy to participate ar�d give input in the development phase. As individuals, the Coa�ission members could certainly raise these questions. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman about the timetable for the development. Mr. Boardman stated that since the developer has been selected, they have contacted both developers. One of the things the HRA made in their motion was for Staff to work with International Multi-Housing, Inc.,(IMI) on the potential of including one of the other phases. IMI is very interested ia� �-• FI.t,�NiVING COAiMISSION MEETLNG, FEBRUARY 27 , 19�0 PAGE 5 working in some of the other phases, preferably across University. He stated he would be meeting with IMI on Monday and with JVD the next Friday. Right now they will have to go through the disposition documents with JVD and Mr. Haggerty's firm will try to get commitments on office facilities. This whole process will take approximately 90 days. After the disposition documents are completed and co�itments are made with those documents, the City will start the acquisition process with the property. That will take around six months, UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL�DTING �.YE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLl�RED THE MQTION TO RECEIVE THE JAN. 29, 1980, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMEIVT MINUTES CARRIED UNA,IVINIOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE THE FEB. 7, 1980, HUMk4N RESOURCES CONlMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to receive the Feb. 7, 1980, Human Resources Commission minutes. Mr. Harris stated that it was his personal feeling that in talking to several people in the County about social services and what sereices are available, he has never seen such disorganization in all his life. It was his understanding that after they got all this info�ation together, the Huma.n Resou�ces Co�ni.ssion would come up with some guidelines, and then the Planning Commission would talk about it and see what role they felt the City should play in this. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ,ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRM,AN HARRIS DECLARED THE MpTION CARRIED � - UNAIdIMOUSLY . 5. RECEIVE THE FEB. 12, 1980, �PPEALS COMMIISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to receive the Feb. 12, 1980, Appeals Coummission minutes. UPONA VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING �YE, CIiAIRMa4N HARRIS DECLARED TI� MOTION C�9RRIED UNAN.[MOUSLY . � 6. RECEIVE TI� FEB. 12, 1980, COMMiJNITY DEVELOPMENT CONI�2ISSIORT MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to receive the Feb. 12., 1980, Community Development Co�ission minutes. Mr. Oquist stated that the Community Development Commission made a motion on page 3 stating that the Commission did not support the NPC-5 Airport Installa- tion Permit. As they loo,ked at it, they saw no revoking of the permit. The NPC-5 requires tlie issuance of a permit before there is any airport remodeling, but there is no enforcement. � Mr. Langenfeld stated the Environmental Quality Commission had strongly wished that the Co�unity Development Commission would support the idea of a permit process, but he appreciated seeing another viewpoint on it, The Environmental Quality Commission felt that the permit process was another tool to make it /"'� a little more enforceable in a court of law. PGA�NG COr�2ISSI0N MEETING, FE�RUARY 2i, 1980 PAGE 6 Ms. Hughes stated that Mr. Oquist had an excellent point about no revoking of the permit, and she did not know what the revoking process was. The MPCA could issue permits, but there are provisions in the state law for revoking permits, and that might be where this is handled. Mr. Harris asked how can you exercise control over a federal agency because the FAA really sets the noise standards for jet aircraft or any aircraft? Ms. Hughes stated that through the permit, you could say you won't allow anq plane over a certain decibel level to land or won't alloca operation after a certain hour. The controls being used now are essentially. voluntary or ones that have been adopted in negotiation with neighborhoods and have been done, not by the MPCA, but by MAC. If you established that the MPCA has the right to permit this kind of facility, then it also has the right to set limitations on how that facility is used. Ms. Hughes stated she felt one of the reasons the permit is coming up now for more discussion is because the current status of the congressional legislation was to give a•five-year extension to fleet operators befQre they are required to retrofit or install new engines. Mr. Harris stated he would�be in favor of NPC-5 if he thought it would do any good . Mr. Langenfeld stated the bottom line was that it was the hopes o� many that this permit system would work and wo�ld provide the necessary teeth they are looking for. Ms. Hughes stated the MPCA had adopt�d the following priorities for noise control: No. 1 for airport, No. 2 for highways, and No. 3 working with co�►unities on community noise control. Mr. Langenfeld stated that when the Environmental Quality Co�issioa got started on this, they didn't know what existed and just wanted some kind of permit process. It was the Environmental Quality Commission's hope that there would be some kind of control on airport expansion through a permit process so you wouldn't have the situation where an airport could add 500 ft. of runway, then add to the control tower, and before long, it was a super airport. Mr. Oquist stated that all the NPC-5 says is that before an airport gets a permit, it must tell the MPCA it is not going to create more noise than the state standards. The airport then says they will not create more noise so they get the permit and go about building. If, after building, the airport does create more noise, it is all right, because the permit cannot be revoked anyway. He stated he views the NPC-5 Airport Installation Permit as just a piecemeal kind of thing--a bandaid to put on a problem and it will not really solve the problem: - � �r. , � . �"'� i"1 P'L�4ATITING COA�LLSSIOIV MEETING, FEBIZUARY 21, 1980 p�GE 7 Mr. Langenfeld asked the Commission if they would like to have Daryl Korpela or A1 Perez of the Noise Section of the MPCA come to a Cammission meeting to talk about NPC-5. He felt it would be very helpful. � Ms. Hughes stated that the MPCA is seeking public ccmm�ent, but not in a formal public hearing. The deadline for public comment was Dec. 1, 1979, but it has been postponed indefinitely. She believed this would be resurfacing in the next couple of months, and then they may we11 have a public hearing, a� which time it woul d be appropriate to make some comment. She stated she would like to have someone from the MPCA come to a Planning Commission meeting sometime in Che sum�mer. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, C HAIRM�N HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION TO RECEIVE THE FEB. 12, 1980, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONlMISSION MINUTES CARRIED UN�MOUSLY. • 7. RECEIVE THE FEBo 13, 1980, P�lRKS & RECREATION CONQ2ISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to receive the F�b. 13, 1980, Parks � Recreation Commission minutes. Ms. Hughes stated that the Parks & Recreation Co�nission made a motion on page 4 recommending that a c3tizens` committee be established to explore aZl possibilities for a Fridley recreation center at the Fridley Co�unity Park. She stated that one of the functions of this group would be to raise funds and involve the community. From that standpoint, it would be useful to expand it beyond the Parks & Recreation Commission. Mr. Harris stated he thought this was within the realm of the Parks & Recreation Commission, and it might carry a little more weight if it was handled by the Parks & Recreation Commission. He asked Ms.Hughes what does the Parks � Recreation Commission want? �is. Hughes stated the Parks & Recreation Conunission generally felt they ought to be doing it and be involved in the decisions. She stated they have been having this argument for several months in terms of what this whole project would be. She stated that she had said before that the Parks & Recreation Coum�ission has had absolutely nothing to say about the layout of the Sears property plan. It was being done internally be the City Staff. Mr. Boudreau was out making presentations to organizations asking for money to develop the fields before the Parks & Recreation Commission even saw the plan. She was still having problems with the communicationswith staff in bringing things to the Commission that she felt were appropriate things for the Co�ission to deal with. Mr. Harris stated that if the Parks � Recreation Commis.sion had a project co�ittee, they woulti study the thing and make their recoIInnendations to the Parks & Recreation Com�►ission. ,� PL�NG CO:�"IISSION MEETING, FEg�Ua°s�iY 27, i980 PAGE 8 Ms. Hughes stated she would like the Planning Commission to indicate if the citizens' committee was appropriate or if a project committee was the appro- priate mechanism for working on a recreation center in terms of defining the appropriate facility and funding. Ms. Schnabel stated she thought it should b� the responsibility of the Parks � Recreation Commission. Mr. Boardman stated that if the Parks & Recreation Commission does set up a project coa�n►ittee, it is up to the Coum�ission to establish that project committee and it does not take Planning Commission o r City Council action to establish that project coffiittee. Mr. Langenfeld stated that on page 9 of the Parks & Recreation Commission minutes where the City of Coon Rapids asked for funds from the City of Fa�idley for their summer concernts, if these concerts were held at Anoka P.amse� Community College, where would the proceeds go? Ms. Hughes stated she was sure the proceeds would go to the Fine Arts Commission of Coon Rapids, who is running this series of concerTcs. Mr. Boardman stated he had talked to Coon Rapids and has told them the process they would have to go through to request funding. That process is the process currently being established by the fluman Resources Commission. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED TI� MOTION TQ RECEIVE THE P�RKS & RECREATION CONlMLSSION MINUTES CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY MS. SCHN�IBEL SECONDED BY MR. LANGENFELD TO RECOMNLFND THAT THE pARKS & RECREATION COI�SSION ACT �,S THE CONI�IITTEE RESPOi�TSIBLE FOR E:YPLORING THE POSSIBILITIES FOR THE FRIDLEY RECREATION CENTER IN THE FRIDLEY C ON1�'�IIUNITY PARK• AND THl�T IF AT SUCH TIME IN THE FUTURE IT IS DECIDED THAT A SEPAR�TE CITIZENS' COMMITTEE IS APPROPItIATE THE P�RKS & RECRE�TION CON.Q�IISSION �PP�JII+TT SUCH � PRQJ�CT CON��ITTEE . UPON �S VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN NARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY MS. HUGHES SECONDED BY MR. LANGENFELD TO CONCUR WITH THB RECO:�'A'�NDA- TION M�,DE BY TiiE PARKS & RECRE�.TION CO�SSION ON PAGE 10 OF THE FEB. 13, 1980, NftNUTES THAT TIiE CTTY COUNCIL• NOT CONSIDER FUNDING FOR THE COON RAPIDS CONCERTS. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HlARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION C�IRRIID UNt4NIM0USLY . Chairman Harris declared a ten-minute break at 9:40 p.m. -�r � P"'�,ANN7NG CON�+iISSIO� MEETTNG, FEBi:Uf�ttY 27, 198U P%GE 9 "�, • 8. CONTINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 205. ZOI�TING: MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to continue discussion on the Proposed Changes to Chapter 205. Zoning at another time. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. The Commission set a special meeting to discuss the Zoning Ordinance on Wednesday, March 26, at 7:30 p.m. 9. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Boardman stated he wanted to inform the Coumnission that on March 6, the flood insurance people would be at City Hall. Staff will be meeting with them at 1:00 p.m. and at 2:�0 p.m., there will be a.public meeting on flood ' insurance. The notice was in the paper. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the meeting. U�on a voice, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the February 27, 1980, Planning �� Coamnission meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. ; ``'� Respectfully submitted, �� L Saba Recording Secretary �