Loading...
PL 04/23/1980 - 30534� ,' 1 CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANI�TING C�ISSION MEETING, APRIL 23, 1980 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the April 23, 1980, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. ROLL CALL • , Members Present: Mr. Harris, Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Langenfeld, Mr. Oquist, Ms. Hughes, Mr. Saba (for Mr. Wharton), Mr. Treuenfels (arr. 8:2Q; Members Absent: None Gthers Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner . Robert Schroer, 8100 University Ave. N.E. Irene Maertens, 144 River Edge Way APPROVAL OF APRTL 9, 1980, PLA1\�]ING COMMISSTON MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to approve the April 9, 1980, Planning Co�ission minutes as written. Upon a vo3ce vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. � APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTIdN by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to amend the agenda in order that !`Final P1at, P.S. ��'80-01, University Industrial Park, by Robert Sch`roer" can be Item l,and that "Joint Powers Agreement" be inserted , before "Con�inued: Proposed Changes to Chapter 205. Zoning". Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. 1. FTNAL PLAT, �k80-01, UNTVERSITY INDUSTRIAL PARK, By ROBERT SCHROER: Mr. Boardman stated this item was tabled by the City Council, because Mr. Schroer wanted to make some changes on the plat. They wanted to bring this back to the Planning Commission to show the Planning Commission what is g�ing to be done and get the concurrence of the tlanning Co�nission. Mr. Boardman stated the change was the shifting of the road over about 35 feet so that the depths of the lots are the same depth to make more buildable lots. He stated that Staff did not have any trouble with this change, and it would not change the zoning. Mr. Boardman stated that with this, they are putting together a storm water draitiage system for the wllole area, as requested by the Planning Commission. It has not been detailed yet as it is still in the thinking stages. In this plat, they are looking at two ponding areas. They will have to get drainage easements when that area is developed. � p'I,ANDTING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 23 1980 PAGE 2 . �l Ms. Hughes stated that if North Park is going to be used for drainage, she wanted the Parks & Recreation Commission to know what is happening before there is any kind of development. She did not want this forgotten or brought to them at the last minute. Mr. Boardman stated he would be sure it is brought to the Parks & Recreation Commission. MOTION by Ms Hughes, seconded by Ms Schnabel, to recoamnend to City Council concurrence with the street realignment change in Final Plat, P.S. ��80 O1� University Industrial Park, by Robert Schroer. Upon a�oice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimousl 2. TABLED• VACATION REQUEST, SAV ��79-03, CITY OF FRIDLEY: Vacate that portion of the alley in Block 11, Hyde Park, not vacated in Ordinance 533 between Lots 1-6 and L ots 25-30; and between Lots 14 and 15, and Lots 16 and 17 which are South of 60th Avenue between 2 1/2 and 3rd St. N.E. MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld,. seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to remove Vacation Request, SAV �e79Ch���anyHarrisideclared�thehmotionecarried unanimouslye� all voting ay , Mr. Boardman stated that with regard to the withdrawal of this request by the City of Fridley, they have received only one phone call and that was fxam Nlr. Churchill who wanted the andatronto getSlOCP/dag eementlofkthelike Mr. Churchill was going to go out y affected property owners and re-petition for the vacation. MOTION by Mr Saba, seconded by Mr Oquist, to reco�unend approval to City Council of the City of Fridley`s re uest for withdrawal of Vacation Request SAV �679-03, Cit of Fridle : Vacate that ortion of the alte in niv�n ii, gyde Park, not vacated in Ordinance 533 between Lots 1-6 and Lots 25-30• and between Lots 14 and 15, and Lots 16 and 17 which are South of 60th Avenue between 2 1/2 and 3rd St. N.E. . " UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION� CARRIED UNAIVIMOUSI,Y . 3. VACATION REQUEST SAV ��80-02, FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: ' Vacate 12 foot North-.South alley adjacent to Lots 16-30, Block 21, Hyde shik�Pro ram,Slyi�g between 58thh& 59th AvengNuEedon�3rdhSt eet. Owner p g �1 (Note change in leoal description.) Mr. Boardman stated all the affected people were notified of this vacation request, and there was no response. Ms. Schnabel sCated something should be done about the house numbers on 3rd Street as there was duplication in numbers, plus there are even and odd � numbers on the same side of the street. The problem �aas that one side of the streeC was originally University Ave. -� �� � PLANNING CONIMISSION MEETING, APRIL 23, 1980 PAGE 3 Mr. Boardman stated he would check into the process of changing house numbers and would correct that problem. MOTION by Ms, Schnabel, seconded b Mr Langenfzld, to reco�mend approval to City Council of Vacation Request, SAV ��8d-02, Fridley Housing & Redevelop- ment Authorit : Vacate 12 foot North-South alley ad'acent to Lots 16-30, B1ock 21, Hyde Park, to add square footage to the lots being used for the Home Ownership Pro ram, lying between 58th & 59th Ave N E on 3rd Street UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTTON CARRIED UNAIVIMOUSLY. 4. LOT SPLIT REQUEST L.S. �k80-01 FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: Split Lots 21, 22, 23 and 24, Block 21, Hyde Park, into 3 building sites: Parcel 1; Lots 24 and North 13,3 feet of Lot 23, Parcel 2; The Southerly 26.7 feet of Lot 23 and the Northerly 26.7 feet of Lot 22, Parcel 3; Lot 21 and the South 13.3 feet of Lot 22, the same being 5821, 5825, and 5831 3rd Street N.E. (Note change in legal description.) Mr. Boardman stated the HRA has purchased this property which is approximately 160 ft. of lot. They are looking at breaking tha�t up into three buildable sites. With the vacated alley, that gives them the required lot size of over 7,500 sq, ft. They also fa11 under the allowable 1ot wid.th of between 50 and 60 feet. There are conditions placed on those lot widths and those conditions are setback conditions fram the sideyard. They do intend to develop the buildings on thQSe sites that wi11 meet those setback conditions. (Mr. Treuenfels arrived at 8:20 p.m.) MOTION by Ms, Hughes, seconded by Mr Saba, to recommend approval to City Council of Lot �plit Request, L.S. ��80-01, Fridley Housing & Redevelopment Authority, Split Lots 21, 22, 23 and 24, Block 21, H de Park, into 3 building sites; Parcel. 1: Lots 24 and North 13.3 feet of.Lot 23, Farcel 2: The Southerly 26.7 feet of Lot 23, and t�e Northerly 26 7 feet of Lot 22, Parcel 3. Lot 21 and the South 13.3 feet of Lot 22, the same being 5821, 5825, and 5831 3rd Street N.E, UPON A VOTCE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MO'!'ION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. S. LOT SPLIT REQUEST L,S. ��80-02, FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: Split off the North 1/2 of Lot 23 and add it to Lot 24, Block 5, Hyde Park, and add the South half to Lot 22, Block 5, Hyde Park, to make two building sites frou► 3 lots, the same being 6041 and 6031_ 3rd Street N.E. Mr. Boardman stated are 3- 40 ft, lots requesting a split /'� over the 7,500 sq. that the HRA has purchased the Parlin property. There which give them a total of 120 feet of lot. They are to give them a lot size of 60' wide by 129' deep. It is tt, allowable lot size, PZANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 23, 1980 _ _PAGE 4 Mr. Boardman stated that at this point, they have not requested an alley right-of-way vacation, 6ut are looking at that possibility later. The two properties to the south are presently using the alley, but the property to the north has access other than the alley. He stated this house has already been torn down. MOTION by Y.r Langenfeld, to City Council of Lot Spl Redevelopment Authority• Lot 24, Block 5, Hyde Park Hyde Park, to make two bui 6031 3rd Street N.E. seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to recommend appro it Requ�st, L S �k80-02, Fridley Housing & Split off the North 1/2 of Lot 23 and add it , and add the South half to Lot 22, Block 5, lding sites from 3 lots, the same being 6041 IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. to and 6. RECEIVE APRIL 3 1980 SPECIAL PARKS & RECREATION COMNIISSION MEETIlVG MIN[]TE S : MOTION by Ms. Hughes, secnnded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the April 3, 1980, Special Parks & Recreation Commission meeting minutes. Ms. Hughes stated the agenda for this meeting was really to talk about the kall wall for the North Park Nature Center building because of new information. The City Manager asked at that special meeting to add the "Lease with Anoka County", and this was discussed fairly briefly. She stated she has some further information on this subject, and this will be discussed later on in the agenda. On page 6 of these minutes, the Parks & Recreation Commission made a motion listing guidelines they wanted the City Council to consider in any development of a Joint Powers Agreement. She stated she had voted "no" on this motion, because she felt it was terribly rushed and that only.one option had been looked at, rather than looking at more options that might be available to the City of Fridley. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, AiL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNAN?MOUSLY. 7, RECEIVE APRIL 3, 1980, HUMAN RESOURCES CO1�'Il�9ISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld�, to receive the April 3, 1980, Human P.esources Cou�iss.ion minutes. Mr. Harris stated that on page 4, the Human Resources Commission had made a motion that the Chairperson pursue the feelings of the Planning Commission in regard to the appropriate role for ehe Human Resources Commission in the area of the "No-Fault Grievance Procedure". He asked Mr. Treuenfels if he would like any further action from the Planning Commission. Mr. Treuenfels stated no action was necessaxy, but he would appreciate any comments the Planning Co�ission members had .on the subject. � � PLANNING CdMNIISSION MEETING, APRIL 23, 1980 PAGE 5 ,,"o'� Mr. Boardman stated the reason the Human Resources Commission was sending this through the Planning Commission was because the last time it was sent to the Planning Commission in regard to the Memorandum of Agreement, the Planning.Cou�ission had said "no", they did not feel it was appropriate for the Human Resources Commission to pursue. So, the Human Resources Commission wanted the Planning Coa�ission's reaction before pursuing the "No-Fault Grievance Procedure" any further. � Ms. Schnabel stated she did not think what was discussed before was as detailed or appeared to be as big a task as this "No-Fault Grievance Procedure". She stated she had some mixed feelings about it. Sh� was a little suspicious about the State Human Rights Department coming to the City and asking the City to do their job. She did not know if they were in any position to pay for staff time to do that, let alone assist with a11 the voluntee�r hours. Yet, she could see some validity in taking same of this information in at a local 1eve1, trying to resolve it, and hoping it would get resolved at a quicker pace than it would by going to the State, Mr. Harris stated his feeling before and still is that he has not seen a proven need for a sexvice like this in the community. Mr. Boardman stated in the document.the State Human Rights Department sent out to the communities, it says you must be careful about.ho�� you word your responses to individuals because you might be liable for court.cases. First - n of all, they are asking the City to do theix work for them, they feel they are overloaded, and they don't have the staf£ and the money to do what the State set up for them to do. He felt that one of the reasons the State Human Rights Department went to a"No-Fault Grievance Proceduxe" was because of the court cases they have to handle, so that the grievances can be worked out before they get to the State. . Mr. Boardman stated he also did not know whethe� the staff at the State Human Rights Department really want the coumnunities involved, because of their negative attitude when the City has dealt with them on the telephone. He stated there is no reimbursement to the City for staff services either. He did not know if he wanted to spend a lot of staff time on it, and he was not sure how much time it would take. It would also demand time from the Human Resources Commission. He assumed the rievance g procedures would run any- where from tenant/landlord grievances to job grievances, and he assumed they would get a full range of human rights discrimination cases or at least complaints. Mr. Langenfeld stated he thought the concept was good, but right now the implementation does not appear to be good. Here you are reaching into an area of expertise, and it could be rather touchy when you deal with individual persons and their individual problems without the proper training. Mr. Boardman stated there was one day o� training to determine whether a grievance is or is not a discrimination case. If they.have to determine that, � they better have attorneys involved. He was very concerned about that. Another concern was what it is going to look like at the city 1eve1 as the PLANNING CONIMISSION MEETING, APRIL 23, 1980 __ PAGE 6 City has no authority when people come in asking for help. They can sit down and talk with them, but can't resolve anything, and the people will wonder why the City is wasting their time. He did not feel it was realistic unless there was some reimbursement from the State. Mr. Treuenfels stated the City Ordinance that established the Human Resources Commission addresses itself to the question of possible discrimination in the City, and he felt it charges the Human Resources Coumnission to at least look at this particular aspect of involvement. He stated he would be bringing this up to the Human Resources Commission for further consideration, because he felt they were entitled to some more discussion. Mr. Treuenfels stated that the question was raised about whether people would use this type of service, but once it was established, maybe a lot of people would use it. No one can predict what would happen. Mr. Treuenfels stated the point was raised about the apparent lack of staff time, and this was an important point to be faced. He did not believe this particular program could succeed very well unless the Human Resource Commission members are willing to spend their own time on it. The matter of sitting down witizthe two parties and asking questions should be left up to the Commission members and should not involve staff. He felt the paperwork appears to be fairly minimal, and he would think commission members could do the paperwork. Mr. Treuenfels stated another point raised was the question of liability. � This is something that happens in other areas also; for example, a child getting hurt on playground equipment in a park. The question is: Would the City be willing to consider possible legal questions with respect to this particular activity of the Human Resources Commission? . Mr. Treuenfels stated that, in looking over the procedure closely, it was not necessary for the Human Resources Co�nission to be equipped to give advice as such, but merely to point out to the contending parties the procedure they could follow and tell them right fram the start that they may wish to pursue their grievance at the state level right away, Mr, Treuenfels stated these comments have been very helpful, and these comments will be passed on to the Human Resources Commission. Ms. Hughes stated she would encourage the Human Resources Commission to pursue the "No-Fault Grievance Procedure". She was well aware of a nu�ber of processes like this, whether it is called "no-fault", mediation, or just providing the opportunity to get together, that are working successfully. It was worth pursuing, because the State do�s not now provide an opportunity for a lot of these things to be done in a mediated fashion. One advantage of this procedure is that it gives an opportunity, instead of sitting around for a long time or being forced to go to court immediately. She also felt there were plenty of ways of getting out of the liability problem or the staff problem. , � �� FLAIVNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 23, 1980 PAGE 7 Mr. Boardman stated there are a lot of agencies and groups presently working on discrimination--women�s groups, unions, etc. How much'�of this would ovexlap in other areas? What would the City be accomplishing, other than starting the paperwork for the State? Mr. Aarris stated that Mr. Treuenfels should discuss this further with his commi.ssion. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HA,RRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSZY; . � 8. RECEIVE APRIL 8, 1980, COP�'lUNI7.'Y DEVELOPMENT CONIMISSION MIN[JTES : MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to receive the April 8, 1980, Community Development Commission minutes. ' Mr. Oquist stated that the Community Development Commission was still con- cerned about what should be done as far as a bikeway system on Mississippi Street. � Mr. Saba stated that in light of the energy situation and the promoeion at the state and federal levels of using bicycles not only as a hobby, but as a primary means of transportation for some people, he felt i� was something i"'� that should be strongly reconsidered. We have to reconsider the use of _ roads, not only for motorized vehicles, but also for bicycles and walking. Mr. Boardman stated that because of the volume of traffic on Mississippi, the County has said there needs to be four lanes of traffic. Mx. Harris stated it seems much more dangerous to have on-street parking on Mississippi on what is supposed to be four lanes of traffic than to have a single lane each way. Mr. Boardman stated that with the development of the Center City Project, they are proposing an off-street bikeway system from the University inter- section over to at least Village Green and 7th Street. From there, it is possible they could cross Mississippi at 7th St. and get to Hayes Elementary School,but there it is deadended. Ms. Schnabel stated that, at this time, she would like to raise a concern about a handicapped person who rides a motorized wheelchair down Innsbruck Parkway. She�felt it would be a good cautionary measure for Fridley to post some type of signage so people would be aware that there is a handi- capped person in that area. No action was taken on this concern. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRTS DECLARED THE MOTION �--1 CARAIED UNANTMOUSLY; PLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 23, 1980 PAGE 8 9. RECETVE APRIL 10, 1980, HOUSING & REDEVELOFMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: �%=� - 1 MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to receive the April 10, 1980, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes. Upori�a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. 10. RECEIVE APRIL 15, 1980, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to receive the April i5, 1980, Appeals Commission minutes. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. 11. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT: Mr. Boardman stated the J oint Powers Agreement went to the City Council on Monday, April 21, and they tabled it until the May 5 meeting in order to get a response from the Parks & Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission. Ms. Hughes stated she was in the position of suggesting that this item be tabled a little longer until they know exactly what they want. The Parks & Recreation Commission has had four discussions on the Joint Powers Agreement. It was first taken to the Parks & Recreation Commission at a regular meeting in February, at which time they were presented an agreement almost identical to this one. She has been told this is similar to a joint powers agreement � the County has with another co�nunity to run a park. At the February meeting, the Parks & Recreation Commission asked and was told there was no rush, so it was delayed and they did not take any action or finalize anything at the , second Parks & Recreation Commission meeting. At the April 3 special meeting, Che City Manager brought it up, even though it was not on the agenda. Because the City Manager said it was critical the Commission act on it that day, they came up with a list of guidelines. At the April 16 Parks�& Recreation Commission meeting, she asked that this be put on the agenda, and at 10:30 pem. they were presented with the draft Joint Powers Agreement and told again it was not going to City Council right away, that the City Council would take suggestions, and it would come back to the Commission before any further dis- cussions with the County. At the April 16 meeting, the Commiasion added a few things to the qualifications and were specifically told this would not go to Cit3• Council on April 21. Ms. Hughes stated she was not happy that this thing was moving so fast and did not think it was essential to do so. She has talked to Metropolitan Council to see what their time schedule is on this, what kinds of deadlines there are on money, and any other kind of deadlines. .The City Council has told her that Anoka County and Ramsey County have filed a joint plan on the trails and the whole reason for the Joint Powers Agreement is to accommo- date the trails through Locke Park. Anoka County has approved theirs, but Ramsey County has not, although they are expecting to act on it this month or next month. Ramsey County sent their plan to Metropolitan Council and asked for a preliminary review before they vote on it. Metropolitan Council ^ staff has reviewed, made appropriate comments, and has transmitted it back � ��1 PLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 23, 1980 " PAGE 9 to Ramsey County. The other permits that wou2d be required before Metro- politan Council can give final approval on the trail plan are one fr�► the Rice Creek Watershed District and one from the Department of Natural Resources, because one of the proposals is to have a pathway under Hwy. 65 in the culvert of Rice Creek. She stated the Metropolitan Council people 6 told her that it would probably take up to a year to get the DNR's permit. The money is not going to disappear, the money has been approved and desig- nated for the first phase of development of the Rice Creek Trail System, and there is no deadline on tl�at running out. There was a plan for the first phase development money that had been submitted., Metropolitan Council is willing to change the designation from what it had been to allowing trail development and installation of a traffic signal at Hwy. 47 and 69th, and that is apparently the reason for pushing to get the Joint Powers Agreement. Whatever Metropolitan Council approvals there are on the total plan on the signal and the funding will be contingent on getting all the other permits in order. Since the timetable is as much as a year away, she did not see the reason for the rush to get the Joint Powers Agreement. Mr. Boardman stated that a lot of times trails have been approved in sections. Metropolitan Council can approve the Anoka County section of the Anoka County ' Master Plan of that trail without necessarily having the Ramsey County Master Plan approved. ,If they can get the Anoka County Master plan.approved by Metropolitan Council, then they can utilize monies that are available this �"� year for development of that signalization. The Metropolitan Council has just � developed a policy that they are not going to get into reimbursements again, so the City is afraid that they are going to lose the percentage match that the Metropolitan Council was going to pay for that signalization. What that means is that one portion is being paid for by the County, one portion is being paid for by the City, and the City's portion is being assessed to the property owners. Without that match, the assessment amount is going to increase to the property owniers. The City is very concerned about that, and feels it is very important to move ahead as quickly as possible. As far as he understood it, the Metropolitan Council does not need the DNR approval for the Rice Creek Plan in order to approve the Anoka County Master Plan. Ms. Hughes stated she was just reporting what she had been told by Metro- politan Council. What Mr. Boardman had just told the Planning Commission was the first time she or the Parks &.Recreation Commission had heard this kind of detail, and it was one of the most irritating facets of why there was such a rush. Ms. Hughes stated there has not been any attempt by city staff, the City Manager, the Planner, or the Park Department to develop any alternatives to this broad Joint Powers Agreement that deais only with Locke Park-- originally presentied to include the Islands of Peace. Ms. Hughes the Parks & Recreation Commission has not had satisfactory answers with respect to the restrictions within the deed to Locke Park, except the ,� broad general statement from staff that there was not any problem, She has had enough of these communication problems wi th city staff that she has "" decided to check over the dePd herself and has made arrangements to do that on Friday, April 25. P'LANNING C�'IISSION MEETING� APRIL 23, 1980 __ ,pAGE 10 Ms. Hughes sCated the thing th at concerns her, although not all the Parks & Recreation Commission members, is that there will be a complete loss of control of what happens in the area of Locke Park. Ms. Hughes stated the Parks & Recreation Commission did give the City Manager a list of general guidelines as something useful for beginning discussions with the County on a Joint Powers Agreement, but they were not telling the City or recommending to the City Council or the Planning Comnnission th at these would be the only and final recommendations and that the Joint Powers Agreement should be approved and signed. i Ms. Hughes reviewed the changes recommended by the Parks & Recreation Commission under the"County Responsibilities" on page 2 of the proposed Joint Powers Agreement. She stated the Parks & Recreation Coumnission had recommended that there be an annual meeting betweeri the City and the County to approve plans and developments. This recommendation had been put under "V. Capital Improvements" on page 4. She stated this joint meeting was not to be just for capital improvements, but for maintenance plans and absolutely everything �hat was planned for the park for that year. Mr. Harris referred to page 5, "VII. POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION; The County agrees to furnish the special park patrol personnel requ��ed to assure the safety and well being of the park users and protection of the facilities." He asked Ms. Hughes to expand on that statement. . ,� Ms. Hughes stated that the Joint Powers Agreement was partially sold on the ` idea that the City would save $50,000 a year on maintenance and police and fire. But the way it came back is that the City is going to continue to provide the normal police and fire protection. The way the City Manager envisioned it was that the park patrol would keep tabs on the park on a certain schedule, and if the park patrol needed help, they would call the Fridlev police. The park patrol does not have an.y police powers. Ms. Hughes stated another thing she would like to check out is the saving of the $50,000. How much can be attributed to Locke Park, how much can be attributed to Islands of Peace, and how much of it is police funding? She did not have the answers to these questions. Ms. Hughes stated she was not opposed to having the County share the costs, but she would like to see what the possibilities are for such things as a trail easement in a very small area of the park and what the County would pay for that easement versus having all the maintenance. She would like to see if there was a payment plan of some kind whereby the City could contin�e to do the maintenance and the County would pay the City. None of these options have been pursued. Mr. Boardman stated these options have been discussed somewhat between staffs. As far as the County paying the City for maintenance, there is no way the County would go for that. As far as purchasing easement to cross the park property with a trail, Metropolitan Council would not go along with that. ^ Metropolitan Council would scratch the whole trail system if that was the case. �� PLANNING COMNIISSSON MEETING, APRIL 23, 1980 �PAGE 11 Mr. Boardman stated the usership of Locke Park i� primarily residents out- side of the City, although city residents do get use of it. The��City is paying for and providing a regional park facility for regional park usership. Ms. Hughes stated again that it was her personal feeling and real concern that the City will lose complete control of Locke Park and not�have much to say about it. She would want to see the City have cantrol over the complete development of Locke Park, to have some control on the picking up of garbage, sweeping,mowing, etc,, and those things they wi11 not have control over. The park is in the middle of Fridley, is quite visible, and a lot of the credit or discredit is going.to come to the City whether or not the County is involved. Mr. Harris stated thaG on the surface, he was in favor of having the County take over the maintenance of Locke Park for regional park usage for the simple reason of the money the City would save on maintenance, money that could be used in the rest of the park system and recreational programs. He would appreciate Ms, Hughes researching this inform�tion to see how much money is really involved. Also the researching of the deed might clear up a lot of questions. Mr. Harris asked Ms. Hughes how she felt the�character of the park would change if the County takes over the maintenance and operation under the n Joint Powers Agreement? � Ms. Hughes stated there were already trails running through the park; obviously, the trails would be wider and better maintained, planned and developed than those now. If the County does as well as they do in a lot of their other ' parlcs, Locke Park could be as well or better maintained than it is now. The first page of the Joint Powers Agreement gives the impression that the park is going to be overrun with people, and she did not believe that was going to be true. If it is true, then the City is in worse trouble, be�ause there are homes along the park and people wi11 be complaining. She stated it was Jan Seeger's concern that the City was moving the controls of the park farther away and citizens cannot approach the County as well as they can approach the City. . Mr. Boardman stated they have to be careful about imposing too many restric- tions on this thing. They don't want to lose the regional trail systeu�. He felt the regional trail system is a good thing. It is providing a regional bikeway system that wi11 eventually allow them to link up with the whole regional bilceway sys�em from Lino Lakes to the Minneapolis trail system and farther. Ae said they are trying to accomplish what the Parks & Recreation Cornmission really wanted and that was adequate control of the property without the expense to the City. The other thing they were looking at was some scheduled maintenance on the property and that schedule would have to be approved by the City of Fridley. They are looking at a savings of money that could possibly be put into other neighborhood facilities and park programs. If they can provide the same service to the residents of Fridley � without the cost, it is a bonus. PLANNING CONIMCSSION MEETING, APRIL 23, 1980 _ .PAGE 12 Mr. Harris asked Ms. Maertens if she would like to make any comments regarding the Joint Powers Agreement. �� Ms. Maertens sCated that she felt the commissions were being bypassed again. She questioned what the real purpose of the Planning Commission was if these things do not go in a routine fashion through Planning Commission so the citizens of Fridley can be aware of these things. Ms. Maertens stated she has some problems with the Joint Powers Agreement. She did not feel anything about what is going on in this area--the Rice Creek Trail System or the Joint Powers Agreement--has been heard in the community. Ms. Hughes was hearing things from Mr. Boardman for the first time at this meeting, and a11 this information should have happened and discussion taken place long before this point. If the Joint Powers Agreement was presented in February, why the urgency now? The thing about the deadline being right now is a detriment to citizen input. She stated it was difficult enough for citizens to have an impact on government, and it was difficult even in the City of Fridley. She did notthink they should be removing these kinds of things fram local government, at least without adequate public hearings so people could really know what is going on. Ms. Maertens stated that the removing of maintenance co�ts on to another level of government seems like a sma11 thing, but it isn't. She found a number of things wrong with it, and one of them was that she believed the City would � generally lose much control and say so over what happens at Locke Park. Whether or not the City actually owns that land, it is perceived as being owned by the City of Fridley and is a local parlc. She thought people would have difficulty dealing with the regional usage of the park without having had the opportunity to discuss it first. She stated she also felt the City did not have to give their parks away. NL�. Boardman pointed out that there is a te�nination clause with .3ny joint powers agreement, and a joint powers agreement can be terminated by either pariy. If Anoka County is noL doing what they are supposed to be doing and not doing it to the satisfaction of the City Council or if the City starts receiving complaints from the citizens because of it, that joint powers agree- ment can be �erminated. Ms. Hughes stated she f.elt Fridley was in a very strong negotiating position with Anoka County, because Anolca County wants the trail system. She thought that was a key element in this issue, and the City ought to be able to use that to get �ahat they want the most and not give the park away. Mr. Boardman agreed that the City is in a very strong position, but they also have to be careful about how they are putting it down. If Anoka County says "no", then Metropolitan Council will say "no" and there will be no trail. He stated they have to have some type of agreement, whether it is the Joint Powers Agreement or ano�.her one. A possibility would be having the County just maintain the trail. ^ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 23, 1980 PAGE 13 � Mr. Harris referred to page 3, Item A-9, under "County Responsibilities; To establish and to collect user fees, if any, after concurrence by the City Council." He stated that statement bothered him as parks are supposed to be free . � Mr. Harris asked Ms. Hughes.what she would recommend the Planning Crnnmission do with this item. � Ms. Hughes stated she would recommend that the Planning Commission ask that the Joint Powers Agreement not be rushed until the Parks & Recreation Commission and other interested commissions and the Planning Commission have these questions answered. She did not think the Planning Coumtission should oppose the joint powers agreement approach. She stated she would be bringing more information back to the Planning Co�ission. MOTION by Ms, Hughes, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, that the Planning Commission urge the City Council to move very slowly with the Joint Powers Agreement, but to pursue some tentative negotiations with Anoka County in relationship to required joint powers on the trail system. Mr. Treuenfels stated the comment was made that the public didn't seem to be informed about what is happening and maybe the motion should be expanded to urge the City Council to publicize and have a public hearing. � Ms. Maertens stated she did n.ot thin�C a public hearing �aould draw the �eople. � If staff would take some of the responsibility for public relations and get � this information released, through the Fridley Sun or through the City quarterly newsletter, that would be helpful. Mr. Harris stated he felt the City did as good a job as any level of govern- ment in the metropolitan area in trying to keep the citizens informed. Mr. Harris stated he felt the Joint Powers Agreement should be continued by both the Planning Co�ission and the City Council and sent back to appropriate member commissions for their study. , Ms. Hughes withdrew the motion with the concurrence of the seconder, Mr. Treuenfels. MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr Treuenfels, to recommend that the City Council continue the Joint Powers Agreement until their meeting on Maq 14, �980, at which time the Parks & Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission wi11 have developed further information. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CAP�RIED UNANTMOUSLY: MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to continue the Joint Powers Agreement until the next Planning Commission meeting. Upori a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. � 0 PLANNING CQMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 23, 1980 .PAGE 14 MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to place the Joint Powers AgreemenC item on the Community Development Coamiission meeting agenda fflr May 13. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,.Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. 12. CONTIDTUED: PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 205. ZONING: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to continue Proposed Changes to Chapter 205. Zoning. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. . � 13 . OTfiER BUSINESS • A. Spring Lake Park Public Hearing Notice MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to receive the Spring Lake Park public hearing notice for a special use- permit to install three 10,000-12,000 gal. inground tanks to dispense gasoline at a proposed superette at 7730 Tyler St. N.E, Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman to check into this and if there were any problems to have someone attend the April 28 public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED � THE MOTION CARRIED UNATTIMOUSLY: g. Amendments to Housing Chapter, Metropolitan Development Gu�de, and March 1980-September 1983 Subsidized Housing AllocatiQn Plan Mr. Boardman stated this was for the Commission's- information. C. Joint Meeting with Energy Commission and City Council Mr. Saba stated that the Energy Commnission would like to schedule a meeting with the City Council as soon as possible to discuss the proposed Energy Policy tor the City of Fridley. He stated the State has passed a bill and the Governor has signed it which will provide $1.2 million in planning money ior various cities throughout the state. This money will be available in the fa11 of 1980. Tn talking to Bill Davis of the Minnesota Energy Agency, Mr. Davis stated it would be very helpful if the City had an ener�y policy in effect prior to applying for that aid. Mr. Boardman stated he was aware of this information and would Cry to get this meeting scheduled as soon as possible. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 23, 1980 PAGE 15 �� D. "Energy Survival:. The First Step" - Seminar Mr. Harris stated �his seminar would be held on May 1-2 at the Hilton Inn in Minneapolis, If any of the Commission members were interested in attending, they could contact Mr. Boardman. ADJOURNMENT : . MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the April 23, 1980, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, .Q L �, Saba Recording Secretary � 0 ,�