PL 01/23/1985 - 30629n
CITY OF FRTDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION �EETING, JANUARY 23, 1985
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairwoman Schnabel called the January 23, 1985, P1anning Commission meeting
to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Ms. Schnabe7, Mr. Saba, Mr. Nielsen, Mr, Kondrick, Mr. Minton,
Mr. Barna (for Ms. Gabel)
Members Absent: Mr. Oquist
Others Present: Jim Robinson, Planning Coordinator
Wallace Miller, 831 - 40th Ave. N.E.
Jack Men.kveld, 1200 Mississippi St. N.�.
James N�ilson, 118 E. Main St., Anoka
Gordon Backlund, 5805 Arthur St. N.E.
Jacob Wiens, 5809 Arthur St. N.E.
(See attached list)
r''1 �APPROVAt'OF'DECE�BER'19;'1984;�P�ANNING�CO��MISSION'MI�UTES:
MOmION BY MR. KONDRICK, 5ECONDED BY MR. MINTON, TO APPROVE THE DEC. 19, 1984,
PLANNING COMM.Z55ION MIIVUTE5 AS WR2�'TEN.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIIVG AYE, CHA.ZRWOMAN 5CFINABEL DEC,T�IRED 2'HE MO�'.ZON
CARRIED UNANSMOUSLY.
1. PU$LIC
�i W!'iLLl11.G �'�AL±LGR HIVU W. H. 1'ItIVRVtLU: K@ZOf12 T1"Oill K-i �one tam�t iy
we ings to R-3 genera mu tip e dwellings) Lot 2, Block 1, and Lot 7,
Block 2, except the Southerly 100 feet, all in Brookview Second Addition,
for a townhouse-type development, generaily located on the Nortk� and South
side of 67th Avenue N.E, on Highway #65.
MOZ'ION BY MR. KONDRICK, 5ECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO OPEN THE PiIBLIC HEARING
ON ZOA #84—OS BY WALLACE MELLER AND J. A. MENKVELD.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTSNG AYE� CHA%RWOMAN SCbiNABEL DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P.M.
Mr. Robinson stated this property was located just east of Highway 65 on
the north and south side of 67th Ave. The present zoning is R-1 (single
farnily). The majority of the neighborhood is single family, although there
are some R-3 zones that are not being utilized as R-3. The plat in question
� called for 18 townhouses, 11 of them to be located on Lot 2, Block 1, approxi-
� mately 33,800 sq, ft. The density was 1 unit per 3,072 sq, ft.
�"�
._ .. .. ... ...... ..... - _. _ .. _ .
PCANNING�COMMISSIOIV'MEE7Il�G;'JAI�UARY'23;'1985'����� � � � PAGE 2
Mr. Rohinson stated 7 units, approximately 28,810 sq, ft., would be located
on Lot 7, Block 2. The density was 1 unit per 4,116 sq, ft.
Mr. Robinson stated t�at along with the plat the petitioners are requesting,
there are several varia�ces that will have to be approved. The variances
on the 1 ot to tFie nortFi. .(Lot 2, gl�ock 1) i ncl ude a dri veway setback from
rig�t-of-way from 75 ft, to 3d it.; a rigfit-af-way setback to the building
from 35 ft, to 25 ft.; rear yard set6acks from 25 ft, to 20 ft.; and a
st''deyard setbac[c from 15 ft, to 10 ft. The lot to the south (Lot 7, Block 2)
_fias fewer variances. There is a driveway setback from 75 ft, to 45 ft,; and
t�uo sideyard variances from 15 ft. to 10 ft.
Mr. Robinson stated that in general, the 18 townhouses will be "zero" lot
line construction. Each unit will have 2-3 bedrooms and double car garages
with additional sar°face parking and approximately 1,500 sq, ft. of livi.ng
area. Estimated cost of these townhouses will be $85,000 and up.
Mr. Robinson stated that in terms of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the City
does feel that multi-fam�ly hbusing is good for the City; however, along
�th that policy, the City has stated in the Comprehensive Plan that housing
should be at a density compatible with the surrounding area. In addition
to that, the City has encouraged new housing construction to be compatible
with the neighborhoods in which the housing is loe�ted.
� Ms. Schnabel as[ced if the petitioners were in the audience.
Mr. James Neilson stated he was an attorney representing the developers.
He stated there were two owners of the property. Mr, Jack Menkveld, builder
and deve7oper, was the owner of the property to the south. Mr. Wallace Miller
was the owner of the property to the north, and the townhouses would be built
by Mr. Menkveld.
Mr. Neilson stated the property was intended to be divided which means
platting. The platting would be for a townhouse development, a single famil,y
residential, owner-occupied dwelling. Each dwelling will have a tuck-under
two-car garage of 1,470 sq, ft. The estimated tax value for each parcel would
�e about $1,100 for a tota] of $19,800 for both Block 1 and Block 2.
Mr. Neilson stated that if this was a single family dwelling, no variances
�- would be required. With a townhouse development, in order to have the plat
go on record, they would have restrictive covenants and declarations for
the homeowners' association, articles of incorporation, and by-laws. These
are single family residences, not an apartment complex.
Mr. Neilson stated the developer has planned for three buildings of three
units, one building with four units and one building with five units.
Bot� the block on the south as wel] as the block on the north w�uld hold the
same amount of units if they were straight across on 67th. That was not
intended by the developer. The developer believes that aesthetically, it is
� much better to try to divide it into as small a unit as possible, Aesthetically,
it was also much better for the neighborhood.
�
_.
PCANNING COMI�IIISSION�MEETIfVG;'JANUARY'23;�1985 � ���� '� � PAGE 3
Mr. Neilson stated it should be taken into account that on the �dest side of
t�e. property, there is presently a c�iurch and church parking lot. �To the
�test of Mr. Miller's property, there is one house and further to the west
is vacant property. The area is unique because it is right next to
Highway 65. Immec�iately on the other side of the highway is an apartment
complex, as well as commercial property all the way to the north from
directly across from 67th Ave.
Mr. Neilson stated the rea] reason for asking for an R-3 zoning was in order
to build a more dense area than is allow�d for single family. I� many cities,
t�iis particular complex would be in a PUD district. Fridley has a five acre
requirement. Because there is a five acre requirement, the only zoning
perroissible for a townhouse or condominium on a small area is R-3 zoning.
In looking at density and sideyard requirements and requiremen�s for drive-
ways, he felt the R-3 zoning was really addressing apartment complexes. For
an apartment complex, the R-3 zoning would permit 17 units on the north and
22 units on the south. This was not what the developer was asking for. The
developer was merely asking for 7 units and 11 units.
Mr. Neilson stated the deve7oper had originally planned 19 units on these
t� 6-loc�s instead of 18. Because of a concern af an adjoining property
or�rner to tFie south, Mr. Orville Jacobson, the deve]oper agreed to eliminate
one of the originally proposed townhouses.
�, Mr. Neilson stated that all the st9pulations required by the Planning
De.�artroent are accepta6le; however, since the units were reduced from 19
to 18, the park fee would be reduced from $9,500 to $9,000.
Mr. Neilsoa stated Mr. Menkveld has been a builder for a number of years.
He built a number of homes in 1984, and Mr. Neilson had brought some pictures
to show the Commission some of the homes Mr. Menkveld had built in 1984,
Mr. Robinson asked what type of construction would be used.
Mr. Miller stated the �tructures would be all wood with brick fronts.
J�s. Schnabel asked if there were any comments from people in the audience.
Ms. Angela Percic, 1020 68th Ave. N.E., submitted a petition to the Planning
Commission stating that those residents who had signed the petition were
opposed to the rezoning and wanted the property to remain R-1, single family,
MOTION BY MR. 5ABA� SECONDED BY MR. 1VEILSON� TO RECE.iUE PETIT.IOIN N0.1-1985.
-�.
�
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEZ DECLARED THE MOTIOIV
CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY.
Mr. J. R. Ferguson, 6811 Oakley St. N.E., stated thESe are single family
homes in this area. What impact w�uld these proposed townhouses have on
� the neighborhood with the increased number of people living in the area and
the increased traffic?
�
... . . _.. _ .
PCANNING�COMI�iSSIOf�'MEETING;'JANIJARY'23;�1985'�" " " �� � PAGE 4
Mr. Miller stated the townhouses would have very little impact on the
current status of the neighborfiood, because directly adjacent to the pro-
posed townhouses was Higfiway 65. The traffic should not be increased on
either 68th St, or Oakley St.
Mr. J. R. Ferguson asked Mr. Neilson what was going to•happen to the value
of his property in the next 10 years if these townhouses are built.
Mr. Neilson stated that, having done this type of work for 21 years, it was
`iis opinion..tfiat the townhouses wou�d not decrease the value of Mr. Ferguson's
_horoe at all. There are rtr�ny other things th�t could be put on that property,
such as very sma11 homes, that might affect the value of his property.
Mr. Ferguson stated he was not concerned with single family homes. If the
proposed townhouse development was constructed, he would be concerned about
his property, tfie increased amount of traffic, and the value of his home in
the future.
Mr; Peter Vagovich, 6600 Brookview Dr. N.E., stated he lives approximately
1�a �t, from the proposed deve]opment. He has lived in this home for six
years. He stated one concern he had was the increased traffic. The traffic
is already heavy on Brookview brive. He stated he was against the proposal
and was in favor of single family homes. He stated there was no guarantees
that these townhouse units would not be rented. He stated there is already
�'^, quite a bit of low income throughout the neighborhood, but yet the neighbor-
hood is kept up well. He would rather take his chances with single family
homes and less traffic.
�
NJs. Martha Reckdall� 7823 Alden Way N.E., stated she was Land Managemer�t
��iairman for Michael Servetus Unitarian Churich. She stated the,y like their
location because of the �uoods and t�e quiet. The proposed townhouse develop-
ment would definitely change the environment surrounding their church. On
behalf of the Michael Servetus Unitarian Church, she was opposed to the
development.
Ms. Kellie Vagovich, 6600 Brookview Drive N.E., stated they have inquired
about real estate, and they have never heard that townhouses, duplexes,
apartment bui1dings, or multiple dwellings of any kind increased the value of
a single family home. She had always understood that they decreased the value
o�' a single familv home.
Mr. Wayne Bosell, 6821 Oakley St. N.E., stated he first moved into Fridley in
1952 with his parents. As he watched the area grow up from nothing, his idea
of zoning was a place for everything and everything in its place. He has
n�ticed that very few of the areas with single family dwellings are dotted
�ith apartment buildings or industry close by. He was for maintaining the
�e�tt single family dwelling areas as they are.
�
�
PCANNING�CO��ISSION'MEETING;'JANUA,RY�23;�]985� � PAGE 5
MOZ70N BY MR. KONDRICK, SECOPIDED BY MR. SABA� TO CLOSE THE PII.BLIC HEARING
ON ZOA #84-05 BY WALLACE Ml'LLER AND JACK MENKVELD.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN 5CHNABEL DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEA.RING CLOS'ED AT 8:37 P.M.
Mr. Neilson stated that because of the concerns expressed by a number
people, the petitioners would request that both the rezoning request and
the preliminary plat request be withdrawn at this time.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARI!�PLAT;�P:S:�#84=05;�TOWNFION1ES
'B 00 'I ';' " ' " C ' " ' D' :' ;'� ' : eing a rep at of t e
property escri e as ot , B oc , an ot , B ock 2, except the
Southerly ]00 feet, all in Brookview Second Addition.
Item withdrawn at petitioners' request.
3. LOT SPLIT REQl1EST, C:S: #85=01; Bif J; WIENS�AND�GORDON'BACICL'UND: Split
o�f—t e out 4 feet o t e ort' iF�T6� •eet o e es � feet of
Lot 49, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92 (5809 Arthur) and add to 5805 Arthur
for side yard to eliminate a variance.
Mr. Robinson stated the proposal was to take 40 ft, from the parcel to the
north and add it to the parcel to the south. The additional land will be
�"`i used as a side yard and would also e]iminate a side yard variance. This
was a simple straightforward request, except by splitting off the 40 ft,
this would eliminate a buildable 7ot. Mr. Wiens was aware of tk�is and was
agreeable to this.
Mr. Robinson stated Staff was recommending the follo�uing two stipulations:
(1) The survey be recorded with the County; and (2) The issue of a park fee
be resolved with the City Council.
MOZ'ION B% MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO RECOMMEND TO C22'Y COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF LOT 5PLIT REQUE52', L.5. #85-OZ, BY J. WIEN5 AND G. BACKLUIVD,
TO SPLIT OFF THE SOUTH �0 FEET OF THE NORTH 166.40 FEET OF THE WE5�' 210 FEET
OF LOT 49, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION N0.92 (5809 ARTHUR) AND 1�DD Z'0 5805 ARTHUR
FOR 5IDE YARD TO ELIMINATE A VARIAAICE� WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE SURVEY
.BE RECO�DED AZ' THE COUNTY.
UPON A VOICE V02'E, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED TSE MOTION
CAR.RIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Schnabel stated this item would go to City Council on February 4.
Mr. Backlund stated that he noticed the next item �n the agenda was discussion
on possible revisions to the Sign Ordinance. He stated he would like to
address the proliferation of yard signs during an election. He stated it
was difficult to maintain yard signs and they are an eyesore. He did not
have an answer to the problem, but it should be addressed as the problem
� is only going to get worse. He stated that Spring Lake Park's sign ordinance
does not allow 32 sq. ft. yard signs on R-1 property.
�
�
�
PLANNING CO��ISSION'MEETING;'JANUARY 2�, 19�5� ' � PAGE 6
4. DISCUSSION ON POSSIBCE REVISIONS IN THE SIGN ORDINA�CE:
Mr. Robinson stated Staff fs researching the possibility of revising the
City's Sign Ordinance. Primary issues they feel need to be addressed are:
1. The status of a sign variance upon replacement of the structure,
change of tenant or owner.
2. The status of legal non-conforming signs upon change of tenant
or owner, particularly w�en part of an overall sign plan.
3. The restriction of free-standing pylon sign size to 80 square
feet in area per development.
Mr. Robinson stated Staff was considering the following solutions to the
above three issues:
1. The tightening of sign variance duration to the immediate sign
and tenant/owner.
2. Removal of legal non-conforming status upon change of the message
displayed upon the sign or tenant/owner.
3. Revising the total square footage for a free-standing sign area
allowed per development to be more sensitive to the wide range of
development types (i.e, multiple tenant center vs, singular
operations) and total area of the lot and/or structure and street
frontage.
Mr. Barna asked how they would address differently a permanent faced sign
as compared to a changeab]e faced sign--where the message is changed frequently.
He stated it has been the feeling of the Appeals Commission that if they varied
a sign for a business, they varied it for that business only. It was not
intended that a new owner of a different business should continue with the
same sign.
Mr. Minton stated #1 sounded good, but regarding #2, maybe the removal of
a legal non-conforming status upon change of the message was too ambiguous
here, but a change of business even by the same owner should be an occasion
for eliminating the variance.
Mr. Barna stated it was his understanding that when a sign was altered in
any way, replaced, relocated, or damaged more than 50�, those were terminating
fac�COrs on a variance. There have been instances where the Appeals Corrrrrnnission
has made stipulations of other additional terminations on variances.
Mr. Robinson stated that was under Section 214.17.2 Legal Conforming Signs
and did not address variances.
Mr. Minton stated that it should be made clear in the code that any time a
sign is being replaced by more than 50/, the variance should lapse. This
would not include the pylon.
�
PLANNING COIW�IISSION��EETING� JANUARY 23s 19�5 pA�E 7
Ms. Schnabel stated the Commission shou7d also take a look at whether or not
there should be another section in the Sign Ordinance which dealt specifically
with, not only lapsing of variances, but when a sign becomes illegal. ,
Mr, Robinson gave an overview of what some other communities in the metro
area are doing as far as the restriction of free-standing signs for development.
The Commissioners agreed they liked the idea of total square footage of free-
standing sign area to be based en the total square footage of retail space.
Mr. Barna stated they were talking about the sign as an area designation sign
__for the whole shoppinq center not with every business in the shoppinq center
� havinq its name on the same pylon. From that point, the building sign plan
would control the individual businesses' signs.
Mr. Robinson stated that since the Planning Commission has indicated they
would like to be more restrictive on legal non-conforming signs and variances,
Staff would prepare a draft to bring back to the Commission.
Ms. Schnabel stated Staff should also look at Mr. Backlund's suggestion about
politica] signs--possibly that 32 sq, ft. �olitical signs not be a�lowed in
R-1 areas.
5. DISCUSSION ON CURBSIDE RECYCLING IN FRIDCEY:
�
Mr. Robinson stated all the material included in the Commission's agenda
had been presented to the City Council. The City Council has tabled this
item at the last two meetings. He stated the Staff is now r�ady to put
together specifications to go out for bids and proposals from the various
haulers.
Mr. Saba stated the Energy Commission has looked at the curbside recycling
program and support it 100%. The Energy Commission made a motion at their
last meeting recommending the City Counci adopt �his plan. He stated it is
a giant step in the right direction.
Mr. Nielsen stated the Environmental Quality Commissfon is firmly in support
of the curbside recycling program for the City and made a motion to the
City Council to authorize Staff to put out a request for proposals this
winter with an ultimate goal being a curbside recycling program in place by
June 1, 1985.
MOTION BY MR. MINTON, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO CONCUR WrTg THE MOT20N
MADE BY Z'HE ENVIRONI�?ENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
AU'l'HORIZE STAFF TO PUT OUT A REQUE52' FOR PROPOSALS THIS WIN�'EF2 WITH THE
ULTSMATE GOAL BE.ING A CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROG.RAM IN PI�ACE BY JUNE Z, I985.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL V02'ING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN 5CHNABEL DECT�RED THE M��°.I0111
CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY.
�
�
PCANNI�G�COMMISSION��EETING;�JANUAR�'23;�1985 � pA�E $
6. RECEIVE DECENIBER 13;�1984; HOUSING &�REDEVELOPMENT�AUTHORITY��INUTES:
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO RECEIVE THE DEC. l3� 1984,
HOUS.i'NG & REDEVELOPMENT AU!'AORI�'Y MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE�ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWQMAIV 5CHNABEL DECTIARED �"HE MOTSON
CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY.
7. REC�IVE DECEMBER�18;�1984;'PARfCS'&'RECREATION�COI�MISSION�HIINl1TES:
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. MINTON, TO RECEI[TE THE DEC. l8, 1984,
PARK5 & RECREATION COMMIS5ION MINUTE5.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIIVG AYE� CHA�,RWOMAN SCHN�BE,� DECLARED THE MOT.IDN
CARR.ZED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. �RECEIVE JANUARY�3, 1985, HUI�IAN RESOl1RCES CO�INIISSTON'MINUTES:
MO'l'ION BY MR. MSIVTON� SECONd7ED BY R�2. NSE.LSEN� TO RECE.IVE THE JAN. 3� 1985�
AUMAIV RESOURCE5 COMMI55ION M.INUTES.
Mr. Minton explained the situation with Redeemer Lutheran Church coming
before the Human Resources Commission to request an extension of time
(3 years) from the City in order to obtain funds to put in an elevator
�'"� necessary to make the new building accessible to the handicapped. He
stated the Commission will make its recommendation at the next meeting,
Ms. Schnabel stated she would be very uncomfortable wi.th th.e City coming
down hard on Redeemer Lutheran C[wrc�. when C��y Ha11 was in violation of
being totally handicapped accessible. She quoted from the Jan. 8, 1985,
Comm�nity Development Commission m�nutes: "Mr. Burch stated that block
grant money was spent last year to put a ramp in for Citv Hall. A wider
area was made so that a handicapped van could be unloaded, bathrooms were
redone to accommodate the handicapped. The only thing left, which woul�d
be long range, would be an elevator."
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECTIARED Z'HE MOTZ'ON
CARRIED UIVANIMOUSLY.
MOTION BY MR. MINTON, SECOIVDED BY MR. 5ABA, TO CONCUR W.I2'H TFIE MOT.ZON 1�IADE
BY Z'HE HUMAN RE50URCES COMMI5SION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNC.TL THAT THE
FOLLOWING ORG.�1h12ZATIONS RECEIVE 1984 CDBG FUNDS:
FAMILY LIFE MEN2'AL HEALTH CENTER —0—
NORTA SUBURBAN FAMZ'LY 5ERVICE CENTER ,S 2,960
CIIVTRAL CENTER FOR FAMILY RESOURCES 5,000
SORT (ELIMINATEDJ
' ALEXANDRA HOU5E, INC. 3 200
ANOKA COUNTY VOLUN'l'EER ALLIANCE -p_
^, ANOKA COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM F,.Z29
$17�
PCANNING COI�MISSION��EETING; JANUARY 23;'1985 ���� �� �pqGE g
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOT.ZNG AYE, CHA2RWOMAN 5CHNABEL DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOU5iY.
Mr. Minton stated that sfnce the Human Resources Commission felt the
"prevention" programming in the elementary schools was so important, they
were re-introducing a motion that the City be encouraged to expand the
"prevention" programming sponsored by the Fridley Police Dept, to all the
elementary public schools within the City of Fridley. This was deleting
the private elementary schools.
Mr. Saba stated he felt the P]anning Commission members had some misunder-
standings about this particular programming at their last meeting. He did
not ha�e any problem reconsidering the Human Resources Commission's motion.
He would like to see the Pblice Dept, expand the program to whatever facility
they feel would benefit from it, whether private or public elementary,
nursery schools, day-care centers, etc. He would like to leave that decision
up to the Police Dept.
MOZ70N BY MR. MSNTON, 5ECONDED BY l�2. 5ABA� TO CONCUR Wl'TH �'HE MOTIOIV MADE
BY THE HUMAN RESOURCE5 COMMT5520N THAT THE C2TY BE ENCOURAGED 20 EXPAND
THE '�PREVENTION" PROGRAMMING 5PON50RED BY 2'HE FRIDLEY PO,L"l'CE DEPARTMENT,
AND THAT BECAUSE OF THE NECES52TY OF 2'HIS PROGRAMI�?lNG� THE "PREVENTION"
PROGRAMMING BE EXP�JNDED AT 2'HE DISCRETION OF THE FRIDLEy POLSCE DEPARTMENT.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARR.ZED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. REGEIVE JANIJARY 8, � 1985, COf�I�UNITY � DEIIECOPI�ENT' CO�IMTSSION ��1INf1TES:
MOTION BY MR., KONDRICK� 5ECONDED BY MR. MIIVTON, TO .RECESVE THE JAN. 8, Z985,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISS.ION MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTSNG AYE, CHAIRWOMAN 5CHNABEL DECT�ARED TXE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. RECEIVE JANUARY 15, 1985, APPEACS COM�IISSION I�INl1TES:
MOTION BY MR. BARNA� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK� TO RECEIVE THE JAN. Z5, 1985�
APPEALS COMMIS5l'ON MINUTE5.
UPON A VDICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN 5CHNABEL DECLARED TNE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. OTHER BUSINESS:
a. 1985 Community �.�vElopment Block Grant (CDBG) Proposals
Mr. Robinson stated the Commission was being asked for input regarding
the 1985 potential CDBG projects. He stated this year's allocation
,�"� is $128,077 as compared to $127,840 in 1984.� It has been proposed again
to use 15% of that amount for human service grants, $19,176, leaving
$108,664. The fo7lowing projects have been proposed:
PCANNING CO�MISSION'MEETING;'JANUAR���3;�1985 �����������'���� ������ PAGE�10
1. 15/ to Human Service Grants
2, Plaza Center Projects
a. Four corner landmark - design implementation
b. Area directional signage
c. Mississippi Blvd, landscape and sidewalk improvements
d. Utility improvements (underground power) from Univ.
Ave, to Main St.
3. Curbside recycling program/subsidy (Economic development -
Jobs Creation).
4. Development of Riverview Heights Park (matching funds to
possible 1985 LAWCON funds)
5. Any project benefitting designated low and moderate income
census tracts (park project, street improvements, etc.)
Mr. Barna stated he would llke to recommend an addition to the projects
proposed-- that an elevator be looked into on the �east side of City
Hall in order to make both floors of the building totally handicapped
accessible.
The Commissioners agreed with this recommendation.
MO'l'ION BY MR. BAI�IVA, SECONDED BY MR. K02VDRl'CIC� TO RECOMMEND THE FOLLOW-
ING PROJECT BE ADDED TO THOSE PROJECT5 AI�READY PROPO5ED FOR 1985 CDBG
FUNDING: AN ELEVAZ'OR BE INSZ'ALLED ON THE E�?1ST SIDE OF CITY BALL IR1
�� ORDER TO MAKE BOTH FLOOR5 OF THE BUII,D�NG TOTALLY ACCE552BLE TO 2'HE
HANDICAPPED.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEZ DEC.LAI2ED THE
M02'ION CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOZ'ION BY MR. MINTON� SECOIVDED BY MR. SABA, 2'O ADJOURIV THE MEET.Z'NG. UPON A
VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE JAN. 23� .Z985�
PLANNING COMMISSIOIB MEETING ADJOURNED AT I.Z:00 P.M.
Respectful3y submitted,
, , �,
,
yn n ` a a
Recording Secretary
��
I
'_``"'��°`�-
�_
�� � �
� �-
� � � ,�
G� ��, i s�s�
��� �
G��n.e�
`/ i� i��ly��%
�
��� �1����-�
.� %�� �� .
� � �� �� �
`. ,
,
%,
, ,�
� .�y.:�: �' �1�rfr
� 1 � i / ,%% i
�,/ i �
,�i/ ,
, :
G��� � _ � , I !
%�, ;� / ��
i
��'�'�` �� � _
, _ _ a�
�
,I.:���
�
�'.
�
�f
��s� 7,�y� y �,�.
Page 11
�� � - �-� �, C�-�. �,�
I Z�� r�%l5��5���Pt �-;
Zl � � ` ��, .� ���
���� ��'
�s��� � r ��a.., S�- ���-
��i
� ���
� �' eo
���a
��O 6
� ���
� � -�����.
��
� ��.
��-�,-��'�'" �
��_ /� �C/�
la�/-��G� ��
/a s'� - � � G�� ���
�d�- ��' '��'�. ���
��6 � /h�-�k���Y�. �2
� � ��� ��������
� � �� �������
�0-�7 �- <
��s,us) l v ��-��
� �' �
�� � � G�� Cc� c� ,�.
���./ � .��, j'i� �
���
���
� ���
����
�' ,
;,