PL 04/20/1983 - 30591�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 20, 1983
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairwoman Schnabel called the April 20, 1983, Planning Conunission meeting
to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Menbers Present: Ms. Schnabel, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Svanda, Mr. Kondrick, Mr. Saba,
Mr. Goodspeed
Members Absent: Mr. Oquist
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
Sandra Stone, 6396 Baker Ave. N.E.
APPROVAL OF MARCH 30, 1983, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY 1►gt. SVANDA� SECONDED BY l�t. SABA, TO APPROVE THE MARCX 30� 1983,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CNAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. ITEM FROM APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15 1983
a. Variance for a fence for Ing Siverts, 6850 Siverts Lane (goes back
to City Council)
Ms. Schnabel stated that, as the Planning Comnission members were aware
from reading the March 28th City Council minutes, the City Council
voted to send this item back to the Planning Comnission, and Mr. Siverts
was to be notified in advance. She stated it was not totally clear in
the City Counci] minutes why the City Council wanted this to come back
to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Schnabel stated she has ta7ked to Mr. Qureshi, the City Manager,
Mr. Boardman, and a number of other people regarding this, including
Mr, Siverts. She stated Mr. Siverts was unable to attend this meeting
and he had asked that the Planning Commission postpone any hearing on
this item until the May 4th Planning Commission meeting. She stated she
bad told Mr. Siverts she would get back to him after this meeting.
Ms. Schnabel stated that after talking to a number of people, she felt
what happened with this whole problem was that at some point, someone
on City Staff pulled this particular item out of the Appeals Commission
� minutes and put it on the Planning Corrmission agenda as an item to be
discussed. At the time the item came to the Planning Commission on
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 20, 1983 PAGE 2 ,�,
March 16, Ms. Gabel questioned why it was on the agenda. No one seemed
to have a very good handle on why it was on the agenda so the Planning
Camnission acted on it. It was her opinion that the item should have
been deleted from the agenda at that point, because it is not the
Planning Commission's responsibility to hold public hearings on items
t6at have already had public hearings at a member comnission level. The
Planning Co�nnission's role is to merely review the member comnissions'
minutes with the idea that if any item would come from a member commission
tfiat might affect anot�er caarunission, the other commission would have the
opportunity to also review it before it went on to City Council. It was
her opinion that the Planning Commission acted in error. She thought the
Planning Cor�ission should recognize that it was an error and merely
pass on the Appeals Commission's minutes in total to the City Council.
Ms. Schnabel stated that in talking to the City P1anager, he seemed to
feel this a�as probably the best way to handle the situation and that the
City Council also wasn't really clear on why the Planning Commission
acted on this item. She thought the Planning Comnission should just take
all the information the Appeals Commission had gathered on this item,
pass it on to City Council and let the City Council act on it.
Ms. Gabel stated she was in total agreement with Ms. Schnabel's suggestion.
Mr. Boardman stated there was also some confusion on the part of the '�
City Council about what the Planning Commission's role was. He stated -
he wrote Memo #83-18 on "Planning Commission Role on Various P1ember
Commission Recammendations to the City Council". This memo has gone to
the City Council as well as to the'Planning Commission. This is his
understanding, based on the rules and regulations set up, of the process
that should be followed. .
Mr. Boardman stated that because of the way the item was put on the
Planning Comnission agenda, he could see why it was confusing to the
Planning Comnission, but it should not have been handled the way it was.
He apologized for Staff for that error. He stated that sametimes Staff
does pull out motions made by member commissions that might need action;
otherwise, those motions sometimes get lost.in the minutes. He could
not explain why this item was pulled out and not any other items.
Mr. Qoardman stated he did not feel the Planning Commission has the
role to over-rule and recorrrnend differently on an action by a member
commission unless that recommendation is based on policy.
Ms. Schnabel stated she had told Mr. Siverts she would ge� back to him
after this meeting. She had told him that she felt the Planning Commission
should be doing more housekeeping policy-type decisions, rather than
hearing this specific case again, because it has been heard by the Appeals
Commission and will be heard again by the City Council. Mr. Siverts
�,_
L
�, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 20, 1983 PAGE 3
seemed comfortable with this item going to the City C a ncil, so she did
not think there was any problem with the Planning Comnission doing that.
However, if the.Planning Commission members did not feel comfortable
doing this and would prefer to have a public hearing, Mr. Siverts
would come to the next meeting.
Ms. Gabel stated she thought the action recommended by Ms.Schnabel was
appropriate. The only reason she went along with acting on this item
at the March 16th meeting was 6ecause she was under the impression that
the City Council wanted the Planning Commission to act on it.
Ms. Schnabel stated that once the City Council reviews Mr. Boardman's
memo, she was sure they would concur with this action.
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY l�Z. GOODSPEED, TO RESCIND THE
RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THEIR MARCX 16, 1983,
MEETING (PAGE 7 OF THE MINUTES) REGARDING TNE VARIANCE.REQUEST BY
MR .� 1rII2S . ING SNERTS, AND TO RECENE TNE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES
OF FSB. Z5, 1983, IN TOTAL WITAOUT ANY SPECIFIC RECOMXENDATION ON ANY
ITEM,
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CXAIRWOMAN SCNNABEL DECLARED THE
MOTIDN CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
i�
2. RECEIVE MEMO #83-18 FROM�JERROLD�BOARDMAN ON RLANNING��COMMISSION ROLE ON
RIOUS MEFIBER COMMiSSIOP� REC0�1�I�pDATI�01�S�1`0' 'CI1`l�`COU�CIL:
MOTION BY M3. GABEL, SECaNDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO RECEIVE �lEMO �83-18
FROM JERROLD BOARDMAN.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. RECEIVE MARCH 31, 1983, SPECIAL HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES:
MOTION BY MR. ICONDRICK, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TO RECENE THE MAR. 31, 1983,
SPECIAL 90USING � REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES.
Mr. Saba asked about the situation with the hardware building.
Mr. Boardman stated the HRA has already taken an unlawful detainer action
to move them out. The HRA has also started a suit for back rent. He
stated it is very difficult to get top-rated tenants with an 18 month
lease, and this is something the Housing & Redevelopment Authority is going
to have to discuss. He stated unless the HRA is wi7ling to go with a 5-yr.
lease with options with the possibility of having to buy out the options if
development goes in, they wi71 not get top-rated tenants.
n Ms. Gabel asked about the arrangement with NSP regarding the underground
electrical line in 5th St.
PLANNING CUNq'•1ISSION MEETING, APRIL 20, 1983 PAGE 4 '"`'
Mr. Boardman stated NSP has written a letter waiving all fees on 5th St.;
however, they have made it clear there will be a charge �in the other areas.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. RECEIVE APRIL 7, 1983, HUMAPJ RESOURCES CONPIISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY 1�2. GOODSPEED, SECONDED BY 1�. KONDRICK, TO RECENE THE APRIL 7, 1983,
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSIDN MINUTES.
Mr. Goodspeed stated that at the last Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Saba
had asked about the $4,000 of CDBG monies requested by the senior citizens
and what it would be used for. Mr. Goodspeed stated that money would be used
to hire a staff person for recreational needs at the senior's drop-in center.
Mr. Goodspeed stated another question asked at the last Planning Comnission
meeting was the difference between public services versus human services.
He stated at the Human Resources Commission meeting, Mr. Boardman explained
on page 3, paragrap6 6, tFiat human services were more af the social service-
t�+�e related activities such as SACA.--6uman service organizations that provide
services in the City of Fridley. Examples of public services are the YMCA,
FYSA--other organizations that do not specifically provide a health, welfare- �
type of service but deal with recreation or recreational activities. He
stated Staff has asked the Human Resources Corrrnission to came up with some
kind of cl�arification on human services and what types of things human services
should include. Public services would then be those things not covered under
human services.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED i1NANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT:
1NOTIOIJ BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE
V�E, ALL VOTIA►G AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE APRIL 20� 1983, PLANNING
COMMISSIDN MEETING AATOURNED AT 8:45 P.M.
Res ectfully su itted,
�?.r�
y e Saba
Recording Secretary
n