PL 04/09/1980 - 30533'�i
�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PT.ANNING COMMISSION-MEETING, APRIL 9, 1980
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Harris called the April 9, 1980, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 7;40 p.m,
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Mr. Harris, Mr. Treuenfels, Ms, Schnabel, Mr. Langenfeld,
Ms. Modig (for Mr. Oquist), Ms. Hughes, 2ir. Saba (for
Mr. Wharton of the Energy Commission)
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
Bill Deblon, Associate Planner
A1 Perez, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Mary Cayan, Human Services Assistan� & Housing Specialist
Mr. Harris stated he would like to welcome Mr. Saba as Vice-Chairperson of the
Energy Commission and he would like to welcome the Energy Commission Co the
� Planning Commission.
APPROVAL OF MARCH 19, 1980, PLA�VING COMMISSTON MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to approve the March 19, 1980,
Planning Commission minutes as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
Chairmaii Harris declared the motion carried unanimously.
1. PRESENTATION OF NPC-5 (AIRPORT :INSTALLATION T]'OISE PERMIT) BY AZ PEREZ
MINNESOT'A POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY:
Mr. Deblon introduced Mr. A1 Perez of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) and stated that Mr. Perez would give some background on the MPCA, a
history of the NPC-5 permit, and answer questions.
Mr, Perez stated that the history of the p�rmit was pretty long. The MPCA
has been working on noise since the end of 1973. The first thing they felt
had to be done was adopt noise standards, a definition of how much noise is
too much noise. They did that in 1974. S.ince that time, their maiu priority
has been on airports and highways. They feel the other noise problems, such
as loud cars, motorcycles, barking dogs, and other community noise is going
tca have to be handled at the local level. The MPCA.does not have the staff or
the time. So, their main concern has been narrowed to airports and highways,
and most of their efforts are going that direction besides helping local
communities start noise programs.
��
PLANNING CON�IISSIDN MEETING, APRIL 9, 1980 PAGE Z
Mr. Perez stated their work with the airports started in 1974 with the adoption
of the noise standards. They started monitoring Twin Cities Interttational
Airport to determine if their proposed standards at�that time actually reflected
what people were telling them. They very quickly found it was very difficult
and frustrating to monitor an airport of that size. They realized thaC if they
were going to define the problem around the airport, they had to do more moni-
toring and needed new equipment. The found new equipment was going to cost
a half million dollars so they designed some new equipment that was built by
a local electronics technician. They paid $200/unit and bought 15 units.
After announcing this to the public, they soon had 400.families who wanted to
do mo�itoring for the MPCA.
Mr. Perez stated that with families doing the monitoring, they were able to
spend more time around the airport and discovered that Northwest Airlines was
using a unique take-off procedure. Nobody believed that, but it is now the
procedure being used throughout the country. They found out for sure that the
main problem caused by an airport was not so much that the aircrafts are noisy,
but it was the management of the airport. Since the impact of the Northwest
aircrafts was dramatically less than other airlines, it occurred to them that
airport noise could be controlled.
Mr. Perez stated that, fram that standpoint, they began tc think about a strategy.
So far, everything they have accomplished at the airport is as the result of
conveying knowledge to people who can make a difference. They are working �
with everyone concerned, iiicluding Metropolitan Gouncil and other agencies.
It lzas become obvious to them after six years that it is an age where people
won't do things out of- just good will. Unless the MPCA lays down a very strict
process, they are not going to solve the noise problem in Minnesota. He did
not mean only Twin Cities International, but also other airports in Minnesota.
Mr. Perez stated that people are being hurt by noise. The effects of noise on
people cause high blood pressure, birth defects, psychiatric problems from loss
of sleep, and they are learning more and.more. But, people seem to treae
noise as a nuisance and eizher get used to it or m ave. It would be very
difficult for the people around Twin Cities Intemational to move. There are
approximately 150,000 people and 50,000 homes, so this problem has to be taken
seriously.
Mr. Perez stated that after a long struggle and dealing with all kinds of
agencies, they have decided the best way �o go is through a permit process.
The permit process not only deals with the existing problem, but hopefully
will prevent problems from developing. They started looking at what shape this
permit should take and the first approach �aas both an operational and installa-
tion permit. They offered the first few drafts for couunents fxom a panel of
the Agency. This panel is made up of airport, operators, pilots, and citizens.
After the input, they found everything they were propo�ing was illegal. So,
they decided to go one step further,streamline the process, clarify the language,
and make a permit that caoul.dn't be challenged on any basis. When you deal
with only the operatians of an air�ort, you deal with the rederal Government,
and iC seems like anytime there is a hint that the F.A.A, might have control, �
the MPCA loses control at the lo�al level. One thing they do have control
over is �he development of an airport as it is pretty much a local, state
dec�.sion. In order to avoid poss3Ule conflicts in court, they threw out the
operational part and kept only the installation part.
�
PLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 9, 1980 PAGE 3
Mr. Perez stated that in the last couple of years because of the Airport
Development Fund which is ending pretty soon, they have seen a tremendous �
amount of modifications being proposed by airports in a hurry to get things
done. So, they felt that it was important that the permit process be instituted
as soon as possible. It is clear that airports are not going to remain the
way they are today. The deregulation has proven that planning and projections
are fun, but you never know what is going to happen. They have seen a 25%
increase in commercial air t-raffic at Twin Cities International in the last
year. That presents a problem to Twin Cities Interna�ional and an even greater
problem to other airports around Twin Cities International.
Mr. Perez s�ated this was the history behind the installation permit, and they
must address the problems now. Even Twin Cities International today is a
manageable problem if they take the time to manage the airport. When people
think of noise, they only think of the intensity of the noise--they don't think
of the duration of the noise. That is what he means by managing the problem.
He stated that we utilize the F.A.A, to manage the control of the air traffic,
but these are Minnesota airports, they are owned by us, and it is very sad
that the F.A.A, is not doing more to make those airports operate the way they
should and could. Ae stated he would like to see this permit approach given
a chance.
Ms. Hughes stated that Mr. Oquist of the Co�unity Development Co�ission, who
was not at the meeting, was concerned about no revocation procedures, the
� idea being that if you give a permit, can you ever revoke a permit. Maybe
Mr. Perez could comment on what the Agency can do and where that is covered
in the law.
Mr. Perez stated that the proposal only affects about 20 airports in Minnesota--
90,000 or more annual operation. In order to get a permit, an airport has to
demonstrate compliance to state standards, not only noise standards, but also
air, water, and solid waste standards. Mr. Perez referred �o the-NPC-S permit,
page 4, B-3: "Decision. The Agency sha11 not grane an installation permit
unless the Agency determines that the airport as proposed to be constructed
or modified will comply with the noise standards of 6 MCAR � 4.2002 and the
requirements of all other applicable pollution control statutes and rules."
Mr. Perez stated that for an airport, that means either doing something to
meet the law or asking for a variance to the law, which the MPCA does grant
through a hearing process. Once that is decided and the airport has the
variance or has met the law, then the Agency will consider the application.
The airport must prove the impact of that modification, and that impact will
be such that it will not exceed the law. What if something happens? He referred
to page 4, C-1 under Permit Conditions; "The following conditions apply to all
permits issued under .this rule. (iii) The Permittee sha11 install or modify
and operate th e airport covered Uy the permit in accordance with plans and
specifications submitted to the Agency and referenced in the permit." He
stated that if anything changes, the permit just vanishes, The airport has
to operate under that condition. �
�
PLAPTNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 9 1980 PAGE 4
��
Ms. Schnabel stated that maybe that is where the concern is. That is being
assumed, but maybe because there is nothing in writing that says, for example:
"If the permittee fails to meet the specifications as established within this
documenC, the Agency has the authority to close an airport down or establish
fines, etc." She stated that maybe that should be written into the documene.
There is nothing in the permit that says what the next course of action is
after construction or modification is completed, and the airport has failed
to meet the specifications.
Mr. Perez agreed that it was something that should be �aritten in to make it
more clear, but in reality any airport that violates these regulations is
subject to civil or criminal penalties.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that the reason a11 this was taking place was because
of the Environmental Quality Commission's concern about possible expansion at
Anoka County Airport. As they were going through this, they wondered if there
was some way of bringing this to the attention of the proper legislative people
to stop this kind of expansion. At that time, they did not know if a permit
process did or did not exist, so they took it upon themselves to implement a
process or see if one existed in order to stop any kind of piece-by-piece
expansion.
Mr. Langenfeld read a letter dated Dec. 19, 1979, which was addressed to
Terry Hoffman, Executive Director of the riPCA. This letter was written by ^
Bi11 Deblon on behulf of the EQC. In this letter, the Environmental Quality
Commission recommended that the MPCA adopt a regulation such as NPC-5, Draft II,
calling for con�tol of noise pollution at airports. The Commission also
recommended that enforcement provisior�s and criteria for permit revocation be
included in the regulation. Mr. Langenfeld stated these recommendations were
from a motion made by the Cou�ission at that time.
Mr. Langenfeld referred to NPC-5, pa�e 3, item 2, Permit Application, stating
that the National Environmental Policy Act could be a form of enforcement.
Also, the fact that a noise study has to be conducted was another means of
control. �
Mr. Perez stated that it was his opinion that many things can be done and
this permit is the way it can be done. With noise, there are no federal
standards. Congxess said the main responsibility to control noise rests with
state and local governments. He agreed �ith Ms. Schnabel that it wouldn't hurt
to add more enforcement language, but if the�MPCA fails to enforce the permit,
it is up to local government, not anly to�enforce, but local government has
the obligation by law to enforce it. If they get tangled at the state level,
he hoped the local governments would not hesitate to enforce it.
Mr. Harris stated that if the MPCA would issue a permit to Anoka County Airport,
for example, for expansion of their facilities, and for some reason or another,
the airport does not follow the procedures and are in clear ciolation, did
Mr. Perez thin.k the MPCA could shut the airpo�t down? That is what it boils
down to, because action is what counts. The only way to get the airport to ^
comply is Ly shutting it down.
�
PL�NNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 9, 1980 pAGE 5
Mr. Perez stated that Mr. Harris was right, but he had no answer for that
que�tion. Legally, it can be done, but it boils down to the question; Is
goti�ernment willing to do this? Ie is a policy decision that has to be made
b_y t he Attorney General.
Mr. Harris asked that if the MPCA goes with the perntit process, the question
is: How is it going to be enforced?
Mr. Perez stated the answer was, civil or criminal. The Legislature has given
the MPCA tremendous authority. The question is whether they are going to be
able to exercise that authority, and that answer can come only from the
Governor.
Mr. Harris stated he would like to express his individual concern about Anoka
County Airport. He stated that Twin Cities International is obvinusly more
suited for commercial-type passenger operation than is Anoka County. It seemed
to him that the logical thing would be to move air freight and that type of
operation into Anoka County and leave Twin Cities International to the large
cammercial jets. So, in 2-3 years it would be possible to land 727's at Anoka
County Airport, because 727's are used for air freight. That could make Anoka
County Airport a very busy airport as air freight is a big thing. If there.
is a permit process, but there are no provisions to make that permit strict,
it means nothing.
�� Ms. Modig stated this was the Community Development Commission's concern.
' Having a permit was not the problem. There are laws now that supposedly cover
all these things, but if th.ose current laws cannot be enforced, how was the
permit going to be any more enforceable th.an the law?
Mr. Perez stated that the only way Anoka County�is going to remain acceptable
and the few violations corrected is through a process that will address the
problem before it develops. Right now,the law does not require Anoka County
Airport to tell the MPCA anything, because the MPCA does not have a permit for
noise. Anoka County Airport could build a terminal, because they do not need
a.water pollution or air pollution or solid waste permit. So, with Anoka
County Airport, particularly, this noise permit is the only way they can look
at the impact b�fore it happens. Yes, there is a law, but it is only triggered
by a violation.
Ms. Schnabel stated that Mr. Perez has stated the MPCA has two avenues; civil
and criminal, t,�hat happens if the Executive Director, the person responsible
for proceeding with an action, fails to be persuaded that a situation exists
which is in violation of this permit?
Air. Perez stated that the M1'CA Board is a 9-member citizen board. He works
for that Board. Tf a citizen is concerned about rhis happening, that person
should go directly to the Board, and the Board wi11 rule. The Board has been
known repeatedly to disagree with the Executive Director and the staff.
�1
PLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 9, 1980 __ PAGE 6_
Mr. Langenfeld stated the Environmental Quality Commission had expressed their '�
concern through the motion and letter written to the Executive Director.
Mr. Perez stated that letters u�ean a lot to the legislative agencies, but to
the MPCA, people mean a lot. He stated that if they wanted to make an imp�ict,
then somebody should be at the MPCA Board meeting on April 29 at 10:00 a.m.
when the NPC-5 will be discussed. That presence is very important as the
Board listens to citizens, members of city boards, and City Council people.
Mr. Perez stated it was his personal decision that if this permit process is
adopted, they are going to da something about it. The language was important,
but the MPCA has that capability, even though it is not clearly spelled out
in the permit. This has been worked out so there is not going to be any issues
of pre-emption.
Mr. Perez stated that the state noise standaxds do izot prevent degradation of
the environment, and right now they have a pretty nice environment in this part
of the city. The state standards do say you can produce noise up to a certain
limit, and there is not going to be health problems, but the quietude might
disappear. He did not want people to think that things were going to remain
the same by adopting this procedure. It wi11 get noisier, but notso noisy as to
affect people's health.
Mr. Langenfeld stated he wanted to personally thank Mr. Perez for coming to
the meeting, and asked Mr. Perez if he hacl any comments or rscommendations for �
the Couimission. �
Mr. Perez stated he would hope the Commission would take this seriously. Ae
would hope that they would continue to push the MPCA by suggesting things and '
keeping track of what the MPC�: is doing. He stated tney sr�ould keep on writing
letters or attending meetings and speaking abou.t what is going on in their
co�nunit3�. If the MPCA does not feel the pressure, nothing happens. He also
strongly recommended that the City send someone to the April 29 MPC.A Board
meeting to voice the City's concerns.
Mr. Harris also thanked Mr. Perez for coming and talking to the Coam�ission.
MOTION by Mr Langenfeld, seconded by Ms Hughes, to recommend that the City
Council support the MPCA in the ado tion of a re ulation such as NPC 5 Draft II,
December 12, 1979, calling for control of noise pollution at airports, and in
reviewing NPC 5, Draft II, caould recommend tha� enforcement provisions and
criteria for permit- revocation be included in the iegulation.
Ms. Hughes stated she was not sure if thi� process would get done in time to
be much help for the Anoka County Airport, but there was always some hope that
the Anoka County Airport would not move too fast and could be controlled by a
�ermit, if the permit process was started quickly. She stated the MPCA's
authority to act is in the state statutes, and they can enforce it. She felt
the Direceor of the MPCA was very environmentally-conscious. She would like
to see them give the rIPCA all the support they can, and what is left is the ^
Environmental Rights Act--anybody can sue.
�
PLAI�INING COi�'IISSION MEETING APRIL 9 1980 PAGE 7
Ms. Schnabel stated she got the feeling that Mr. Perez was very comfortable
with this document and felt there are enough safeguards to enforce it. He
did agree there should be some different language, but he felt that ultimately,
even if this doesn't work, they will still have the civil and criminal court-s
to back them up.
Mr. Deblon stated the key thing is that if you put too much teeth into a process
like this, you will have federal pre-emption.
Mr. Harris stated he felt it was better than nothing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTTON
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. RECETVE MEMO FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER DATED MARCH 27, 1980
RE: TI3E CITY'S COURSE OF ACTION REGARDING ALLEY VACATIONS:
MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to receive the memo from the
City ManagF�r dated March 27, 1980.
Mr. Boardrr,an stated it was determined by the City Council that the City should
not reques� vacation of any alleys and and property owner who wishes to request
a vacation will be advised to get a 100% agreement of the property owners affecfied
�"� in order for the City to waive the f ee. �
Mr. Harr�_s stated this puts them right back at the beginning again.
Mr. De�t.ion stated Staff did a survey and so a lot of people were left wondering
what is happening. He would like some direction from the Planning Commission
as to ��hether Staff should send letters n otifying these people of where the
City now stands on alley vacations. �
Mr. Harrfs stated that, yes, anyone interested in this item has the right to
know the City Council's decision on it.
Ms, Schnabel stated she felt this decision by the City Council was very discouraging.
Mr. Harris asked if the City Council was prepared to mainta�n unimproved alleys?
Mr, Boardman stated it was not the responsibi�ity of the City Council to
maintain unimproved alleys--it was �he responsibility of the property owners,
just like boulevards.
UPpN A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Harris stated that the Planning Commission was supposed to have a joint
meeting with City Council on Monday, April 14, and this was an item that should
^ be discussed with the City Council.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 9, 1980 PAGE 8
�
3. RECEIVE GUIDELINES FOR THE PRIORITIZATION OF FUNDING REQUESTS--FINAL DRAFT: �
MOTION by Mr.. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to receive th4 "Guidelines
for the Prioritization of Funding Requests".
Mr. Boardman stated these guidelines have been approved by thP Human l:esources
Commission and are before the Planning Commission for its approval.
Ms. Iiughes recommended that the title be amended to read: "Guidelines for
Setting Priorities of Funding Requests". The Commission concurred with this
amendment.
Ms. Hughes stated that on the second page, item 3, where it said, "a listing
of other sources of funding available to the applicant", was that sources from
which the applicant can receive funding or a list of foundations from the
library?
Mr. Boardman suggested that the wording of ��3 be changed to: "A listing of
specific and anticipated sources of fundiug available to the applicant.'! The
Commission concurred with this change.
Ms. Hughes stated that on ��'6; the word, "excepted" should be chan�ed to
"expected".
Ms. Schnabel stated that� on the third page, she did not see anything _ �
about looking at a total percent of the dollars out of the budget . `-'
that are used for staff versus actual services provided. For example, the
State of Minnesota has very strict guidelines in terms of agencies requesting
funds from private individuals. Maybe this should be in the guideliues.
Mr. Treuenfels staeed the only place that was touched on was in D-3: "The
administrative and program service costs are in reasonable balance." He
stated that what was really in question was the administrative costs ve-ssus
the services provided.
Mr. Harris stated he caould rather leave this up to the discretion of the
Human Resources Commission.
AZs. Schnabel stated she would hope that the Human Resources Commission would
scrutinize this care£u11y when they received funding requests.
Mr. Boardman stated this program was not going to be that extensive, and they
will let people know that the basis of the decisions will be strictly based on
priorities set up by the Human Resources Commission. It is going to be a
subjective decision made somewhere down the line. He would suggest that the-
Human Resources Commission clearly lay out reasons why they have made a certain
decision. If the reasoning is valid, that will be laid out when the recou�enda-
tion goes to City Council. _
Mr. Treuenfcls stated the Human Resources Co�m►ission would be very happy to ^
supply reasons to both the Planning Commission and the City Council. �
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETT:IG, APRIL 9, 1980 PAGE 9
Ms. Hughes stated she fclt B-2, "This service does not overlap with services
pravided elsewhere in tt:e community" was extremely restrictive. She was very
uncamfor-table with that, because she could see the need sometimes to have more
than one organization in the city addressing the same program or same need.
Some organizations are limited by staff and budgets and sometimes the first
organization cannot haadle any more people or whatever, so there is plenty of
need for setting up a:�econd group.
Mr. Treuenfels stated this is only one of a number of points that would be
taken into consideration. The point here is if there is an organization that
does the job we11 in the sense of being able to serve al1 the people in need
of that particular service, then another organization trying to muscle in and
get funding from thc� city would be reminded that the taxpayer is paying for this
and that the�need 1-�:s to be established of why a second organization is actually
needed.
Mr. Boardman suggF�;ted that B-2 on the third page be reworded as follows: "The
extent this servi:� does not overlap with other services provided elsewhere
in the community.' The Commission concurred with this change.
Mr, Boardman st��ed that the Planning Commission's role wi.11 be to look at
the Human Resou7�.es Commission's reasoning behind their decisions. The Planning
Commission cannat change the Human Resources Commission's recommendations, but
will be allowe,:. to make additional recommendations that will go on to City
� Council.
Ms. Hughes st;.*_ed that since the Human Resources Commission has a particular.
mission outl.-�;�ed for them in dealing primarily with the human resources in the '
community an, some proposals come to them dealing caith environmental matters,
will the Hu�::.n Resources Commission seek the advice of the Environmental Quality
Commiss:.on �: will they feel competen� to rule on the quality of an envirorlmental
application!
Mr. Treueniels stated it was a point well taken. After the Human Resources
Commissio:. has looked ae an application dealing.with environmental matters, it
is possil,e they would confer with the commission also concerned with �
environmc l:tal matters . '
UPON A�� ,-�ICE VOTE, ALL VOTTNG AYE, CHAIRMAN �IARRIS DECLARED THE MOTZON TO
REC�IVE '�_'HE "GUIDELINES FOR SETTING PRIORTTIES OF FUNDTNG REQUESTS; AND TO
ALSO CC;CUR WITH THE SUGGESTED CHANGES, CARRIED UNA�OUSLYa �
4. CO:rINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 205. �O1�T.CNG:
MOTI��: by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to cliange the agenda and
move '°Proposed changes to Chapter 205. Zoning" to the last item on the agenda,
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried
unaT �,.mously, .
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 9, 1980 PAGE 10
5. RECEIVE M�1RCH 12, 1980, PARKS & RECREATION COM'�1ISSION MIN[ITES: �
MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, tt� receive the March 12, 1980,
Parks & Recreation �ommission minutes.
Ms. Hughes stated the trip to the Brooklyn Center an�� St. Louis Park recreational
facilities was very informative. Brooklyn Center's community recreational
center was a very nice facility and very well maintai:ed. St. Louis Park's
facility tumed out to be mostly ice arena with an ou•.3oor swimming pool and
little other facilities. That facility was poorly maiittained. Neither of the
facilities or their programs were seli-supporting. Sh: stated the Parks &
Recreation Commission may have the opportunity to visi�: the recreational center
in Rochester, Mn.
UPON A VOICE�VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLE::ED �HE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY:
6. RECEIVE MARCH 13, 1980, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTFi01:'ITy MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recei��� the March 13, 1980,
Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes. o
Mr. Boardman stated that .staff has a meeting with JVD (Join;'_ Venture Developers)
on Friday. They do have a timetable and there wi11 be a dec:.sion-making point
sometime in July. At tha� time, the HRA wil.l make the detezctination whether the �
project with JVD is go or no go. Staff also has a meeting n�.�{t week with IMI
(Tntemational Multi-Housing, Inc.) on IMI's proposal for Ph�.�e 3 of the
development. ,
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLAREDITH', MQTIQN CARRIED
UIVANI.MOUSLY ; �
7. RECEIVE MARCH 13, 1980, EIWIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONINIISSION MIi',TTES:
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mre Treuenfels, to receive •he
March 13, 1980, Environmental Quality Commission minutes. _
M�. Langenfeld stated that the Environmental Quality Commission ha: a new
member, Jon Erickson, who is replacing Connie Metcalf. He stated ��.� also has
Marvin Hora's resignation to present to the Commission. Mr, Hor_a i� resigning
because of family and job co�itments.
Mr. Langenfeld stated he wanted the Planning Commission to note the '�st four
paragraphs on page 3 which contained important information.
Mr. Deblon stated that in reg3rd to the LDN (level of day/night noisej
comparative methodology being used by ehe consultant, TRA, according t:�. the
MPCA, the LDN does not reflect violations of state noise standards bec��.tse
they are an average of an average. He stated he felt unless they can g;'t
the L10 contours, they �oon't really Icnow cahat the noise impacts will be �n
the various alternatives.
^
�
PLAIQIVING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 9, 1980 PAGE 11
Mr. Deblon stated that the Anoka County Task Force was having an open house
at Blaine City Hall on Sat., May 3. •.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, AZL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MQTION CARRIED
UNAATIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms Hughes, to receive Marvin Hora'�
resignation to be forwarded on to City Council Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously
8. RECEIVE MARCH 25, 1980, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr.. Langenfeld, to receive the Mar, 25, 1980,
Appeals Commission minutes,
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HAgRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CAT�R,I�D
UNA�OUSLY:
9. RECEI�'E MARCH 27, 1980, ENERGY CONINLCSSION NLLNUTES:
MOTION by Mr, Saba, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to receive the March 27, 1980,
Energy Commission minutes.
� Mr. Saba stated this was the Energy Commission's first meeting and was basically
an organizational meeting. �
Mr. Harris stated that in answer to M�. Wharton's question about whether the
Chamber of Commerce had an energy committee, to his knowledge they did not,
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN Ht�RPIS DECLARED THE MOTTON CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY:
10. OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Treuenfels stated that the Human Resources Gommission has asked him to
bring a question before the Planning Commission. He stated the Human Resources
Commission has been approached by the State Department of Human Righ�s with
a newly proposed method of settling possible grievances th at result from alleged
discrimination of one kinr� or another. This method is called the "N'o�Fault
Grievance Procedure". The Human Resources Commission would like to know the •
feelings of the Planning Commission as to whether the Human Resdurces Commission
should get into the settling of gri�vances due to discrimination or even
if this was a proper area for the Human Resources Commission to get into.
Mr. Boardman stated this was something brought up to the Planning Commission
about a year ago by the Human ltesources Commission. At that time, the Planning
Commission asked some very valid questions as to ho�o it �oas going to be handled,
who was going to be responsible for handling it, and how it was to be staffed,
He stated he had not�read the new document, but h� would be concerned about
� the staffing requirements.
PLAN1�tING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 9, 1980 � PAGE 12
�
Ms. Cayan stated that it would involve staff time, processing, and a great deal
of commission time. Fram what she can gather, it would take at least 3-4 hours
of staff time per grievance. It would also involve training time for staff.
Mr. Harris stated this was another item that should be discussed with the
City Council at the meeting on April 14.
Mr. Boardman stated they could aiso contact Coon Rapids to see how many grievanees
the Coon Rapids Human Rights Commission handles. -
Mr. Boardman stated that a person living at 198 Mercury Drive, which is a
corner 1ot, lias the continual problem of people driving up over the corner of
his lot. This person wants to put in a split rail fence out to the curb and
along th.e curb to the street. Mr. Bvardman stated he has advised this person
that he would prefer that not be done. Mr. Boardman stated he would suggest
that this person put some big rocks or boulders on the corner if that is the
direceion the Planning Cottmnission would like him to take.
The Commission concurred with this suggestion.
Mr. Boardman stated it is again ti�e for junlc yards to renew their licenses.
''1
He stated that the Co�ission might recall that Sam's Auto Parts was one junk
yard that initially got a special use permit to put in classic auto parts. The
problem is that the owner is not specializing in classic auto parts as specified
under that special use permit and has not been for about thre.e years. Did the
Planning Commission want to star� enforcing the special use permit or make the
owner come back for a new special use pe�mit or an amended special use permit?
Mr. Harris stated something should be done because the operation was a change
from the original special use permit. He sl.ated that the Coff�mission should
have all the information on it first and then they can take another look at it.
Mr. Harris stated that he had talked to Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, about �
joint meeting between the Planning Commission and the City Council. If there
were no objections, this meeting will be held Monday, April 14, at 9:00 p.m.
He stated that same of the items to be discussed are expense accounts, the
drainage issue, person to attend the MPCA Board meeting on April 29, and the
"No-Fault Grievance Procedure" proposed to the Human Resources Co�sission.
Mr. Harris stated there is a planning seminar called, "Planning Quiet
Communities" to be held on Thursday, May 8. Any of the Commission members �
wishing to attend should contact Mr. Boardman. .
PLANiVING COMMISSION MG�TING APRIL 9, 1980 PAGE 13
� Mr. Harris stated he has had some discussions with Larry Commers, Chairperson
of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority about the concerns expressed by the .
Planning Commission. Mr. Commer� was also concerrled about the Planning Cou�ission's
concerns. Mr. Commers stated he would like the Planning Commission to become
more actively involved with the HRA, and Mr. Harris had told him he thought
the Commission should do that on an individual basis at this time and not as
a commission.
Mr. Harris stated he also had thP opportunity to discuss with Mr. Commers
the city prosecutor's position and Mr. Prieditis' position with the HRA, and
he thought they have worked out a solution. Mr. Commers has gotten some legal
advice on this, and to ensure the integrity of the HRA, the HRA will set up a
written policy or procedure which will be followed by anyone having a possible
conflict of interest at any time on any item. Mr. Harris stated he thought
this was a very good idea.
Mr. Harris stated it would behoove the Planning Commission members as private
citizens to attend HR.A meei:ings and be involved in the HRA's determinations.
11. CONTZNUED: PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPT�R 205. ZOI�TING:
MOTIDN by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to continue this item at another
meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion
carrieci unanimouslq.
� ADJOURAL�`'IENT:
MOTION by Pds. Modig, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to adjourn the meeting. Upon
a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the April 9, 1980,
Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:45 p,m.
Respectfully submitted,
� /�°4..
Lyn e Saba
Recording Secretary
�