Loading...
PLM 03/17/2021 FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAYMARCH 17, 2021 7:00 P.M. VIA ZOOM CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Kondrick called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: David Kondrick, Mike Heintz, Ryan Evanson, Mark Hansen, Terry McClellan, John Buyse II, and Ross Meisner. OTHERS PRESENT: Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager Dan Tientner, Finance Director/City Treasurer/City Clerk Cristian Chiesa, with B & D Mathews Investments LLC Scott Hickok, Community Develop Director Tom Robb, Happy Tails Rescue Foundation Laura Westphall, Happy Tails Rescue Foundation Deb Dahl, Community Services and Employee Resources Director Alyssa Kruzel, Community Engagement Specialist Jeff Jensen, Operation Manager of Streets, Parks, and Facilities APPROVE MINUTES January 20, 2021 Motion by Commissioner Meisner to approve the minutes. Seconded by Vice Chairperson Hansen. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Consideration of a Lot split, LS #21-01, by B & D Matthews th Investments LLC, for a lot split to subdivide the lot at 351 74 Avenue into 2 lots. Motion by Commissioner Heintz to open the public hearing. Seconded by Vice Chairperson Hansen. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:02 P.M. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 2 of 40 2. Consideration of a Variance, VAR #21-03, by B & D Matthews Investments LLC, in addition to the Lot Split Request, #21-01, the petitioner is requesting that a variance be approved to reduce the lot size of Tract A from 19,000 sq. ft. to 13,500 sq. ft. for the existing 8-unit apartment building. Motion by Commissioner Meisner to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Heintz. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:03 P.M. Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager, stated Cristian Chiesa, with B & D Mathews th Investments LLC, the owner of the property at 351 74Avenue is requesting a lot split to subdivide the lot to create (2) lots, one for each apartment building. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is also requesting a variance to reduce the lot size requirement for an 8-unit apartment building from 19,000 square feet to 13,500 square feet in size. Ms. Stromberg stated the property is located on the corner of the University Avenue th Service Drive and 74 Avenue. When the property was platted in 1961, it was platted as Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Melody Manor. At that time, the land was zoned R-2, Two-Family and that zoning district allowed multi-family as a permitted use. In 1962, the 8-unit building on Lot 9 was constructed and in 1963, the 11-unit building on Lot 10 was constructed. Ms. Stromberg stated in 1955, the City Council adopted a zoning ordinance that added the R-3, Multi-Family zoning district; however, it still allowed multi-family as a permitted use in the R-2, Two-Family zoning district. When the City adopted a new zoning ordinance in 1969, it revised the permitted uses in the R-2 zoning district, which stated multi-family buildings were no longer allowed in the R-2 zoning district. As a result, the subject properties were considered non-conforming. When a property has a non-conforming status, the buildings can remain as they are, but no expansions or major renovations can take place. Ms. Stromberg stated in 2003 a neighboring multi-family property owner wanted to tear down their existing garages and build new ones but, because the property was zoned R- 2, Two-Family, it was considered non-conforming. So major renovations were not allowed. As a result, the entire block between the University Avenue Service Drive and Lyric Lane; Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 3 of 40 thth and 74 Avenue and 75Avenue were petitioned to be rezoned to R-3, Multi-Family, which was approved by the Council. The change in zoning would allow the use to be conforming, and it also allowed the property owners to re-invest in their properties. Ms. Stromberg stated in 2008 the petitioner purchased the 11-unit building addressed as th 351 74 Avenue, and in 2011 they purchased the 8-unit building that was addressed as th 361 74Avenue. The 11-unit building was licensed with the Minnesota Department of Human Services to operate a Substance Use Disorder Treatment Center operated by Transformation House. When the 8-unit building was purchased, the State had an issue approving the license for the same use because the two buildings were located too close to each other. Staff advised that if the lots are adjacent to each other and are owned by the same party, they could be combined, but also cautioned that it may be more difficult to separate them in the future. The petitioner went ahead and combined the lots with Anoka County in 2011, which is a straightforward process that simply requires a form to be filled out and filed at the Recorder’s office. Ms. Stromberg stated from what staff understands, the partner of B & D Mathews Investments, LLC who filed the paperwork to combine the lots in 2011 recently passed away, and now the ownership group would like the option to sell one of the buildings. In order to do that, the lot needed to be subdivided to what it was before the combination in 2011. Which is the reason for the lot split request. Ms. Stromberg stated prior to the lots being combined in 2011, each apartment building existed on its own lot. The petitioner is simply asking to have them subdivided back to the way they were when they were platted in 1961. Ms. Stromberg stated when the apartment buildings were constructed in 1962 and 1963, the properties were zoned R-2, Two-Family, and the 1955 zoning code allowed multi- family uses by right. That code also required a minimum lot size of 16,000 square feet for an 8-unit building and 20,500 square feet for an 11-unit building. Track A is only 13,500 square feet in size, which did not meet the minimum requirements established in the 1955 code. However, the building permit issued for the Tract A property, which was addressed th as 361 74 Avenue specifically states that it was for the construction of an 8-unit apartment building. It is unclear to current City staff why the staff in 1962 would have been allowed that size of building to be constructed when it did not meet the code requirements. It leaves current staff and the City in a difficult situation of allowing a use that was permitted through the issuance of a building permit in 1962 and did not meet code requirements to continue to be used in the same manner. To legally recognize the non-conformity, staff advised the petitioner to apply for a variance. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 4 of 40 Ms. Stromberg stated the current R-3, Multi-Family code requires 19,000 square feet for an 8-unit building and 22,000 square feet for an 11-unit building, which is stricter than the 1955 code. Tract B is 23,855 square feet in size, so it meets the code requirements. Track A is the parcel that requires the variance to recognize the lot size of 13,500 square feet. We are using the current standards to request the variance from 19,000 square feet to th 13,500 square feet for the Tract A (361 74 Avenue) parcel. Ms. Stromberg stated variances may be granted if practical difficulties exist on the property. Practical difficulties are met based on the following findings of fact: Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? o When the property was developed in 1962, multi-family uses were a permitted use on the subject property and the surrounding parcels. Allowing multi-family uses is the intent of the ordinance, which is what is occupied on-site, therefore meeting the intent. Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? o The 2040 Comprehensive Plan guide this property for multi-family: so consistent with the Plan. Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? o The property will continue to be used as it has been since the 1962 and is considered a reasonable use. Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner? o Unique circumstances do exist on the property; an 8-unit building was permitted to be constructed on the property, despite not meeting the minimum lot size requirements in 1962. That circumstance was created prior to the petitioner owning the property. There have been little to no complaints or code violations on this property, so the property will continue to function as it has for the last 59 years. All other code requirements can be met, except for lot size. o This circumstance is also unique because staff today would never recommend granting a variance to lot size. Granting a variance to lot size is essentially created a new minimum in a zoning district. This situation is unique because it is pre-existing and staff would not it to be precedence setting for new developments. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? o Granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood and it will allow the City to place stipulations on the variance to help mitigate any negative impacts to the neighborhood. Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of this lot split request and of the variance request with the following stipulations as practical difficulties exist – pre-existing condition and permitted in 1962: Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 5 of 40 1. The petitioner and any future property owner shall monitor and maintain on-site parking. There shall be no off-street parking by residents. 2. The petitioner and any future property owner shall comply with all code requirements related to solid waste disposal and recycling collection. Commissioner McClellan asked how does the City avoid creating this precedence that they do not want to create for the next request that comes across staff’s desk? Ms. Stromberg replied, that is a good question and is something staff went back and forth about. Because it is a pre-existing condition and has functioned in the way that it is going to continue to function for close to 60 years, staff felt like it would be appropriate to approve the variance but keeping in mind that if somebody were to come in and develop more 8-plexes they would need to meet the minimum standards. It is not something staff is going to recommend approving again. Commissioner McClellan stated he can just see the next petitioner playing that card. Fundamentally it is a good idea. He just does not know what exposure the City might have once it is granted. The other question is what if there is a fire, and that 8-unit has to be either restored or reclaimed, would the City then end up with what would be a 6-unit the next go around or do they have this variance for perpetuity? Ms. Stromberg replied, they would be able to rebuild it as an 8-unit if this variance is approved. She will say that if they had a lot of vacant land she would be concerned about granting this variance to allow other 8-unit buildings on land that is smaller than what cod allows. Sure, it could definitely happen where somebody could see the City is doing something like this and ask the question; however, she does not see it as being a problem for the City. Commissioner Evanson asked Ms. Stromberg to briefly explain the rationale behind having a certain lot size based on the number of units in the building. What purpose does that serve? Ms. Stromberg replied, it serves several different things. We want to make sure there is enough land area for parking, greenspace, and stormwater. As they can see, these buildings in this neighborhood were constructed prior to stormwater regulations so none of them have any real stormwater mitigation. Vice Chairperson Hansen asked Ms. Stromberg if there are any scenarios staff can think of along 47or 65 that might be similar to this? Where somebody kind of went through a lot combination and may in the future consider a lot split? Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 6 of 40 Ms. Stromberg replied she really cannot. There are other properties out there that are zoned R-2 that have multi-family structures on them, and they have talked to the Council about that because they wanted to get those rezoned, so they are no longer non- conforming. It is pretty rare that a lot gets combined in a situation like this where there are two apartment buildings that were separated by a property line and then all of a sudden got combined because of same ownership. It is not something they would advise in the future. Commissioner Meisner stated the two buildings are technically on one lot now. Are they conforming? Ms. Stromberg replied, yes. Commissioner Meisner stated if they do not allow the variance, does that prevent the ability to split the lot? Ms. Stromberg replied, approving the variance will make the use of the 8-unit building conforming. They can still subdivide the lot, without the variance, the 8-unit building will then just be considered non-conforming. Commissioner Meisner stated if they split the lot but do not do the variance, then it is a non-conforming. Ms. Stromberg replied, yes. Commissioner Meisner asked whether the parking on the 8-unit lot is sufficient now for the 8 units? Ms. Stromberg replied, from what she understands, based on this user, they do not have a lot of parking needs. Potentially if they were to sell it, she could see that they may have some parking issues. That is why they put the stipulation on the variance. Residents need to park on site. It is expected that there may be guests parking on the street here and there. However, they should make sure there is adequate room in the parking lot for their tenants. Commissioner Meisner stated these are currently being run as a single group of homes for the service they provide. By splitting that are they going to sell the second lot presumably so then this lot cannot be used for that same kind of purpose? Ms. Stromberg replied, that is a good question for the petitioner. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 7 of 40 Cristian Chiesa, with B & D Mathews Investments LLC, to answer the question if the lot is going to be split, they can continue to operate what they are operating right now. Commissioner Meisner asked even though when they first bought the second lot, they were not allowed to operate the two homes together? Mr. Chiesa replied, his mother-in-law who recently passed is the person who bought the two properties. When she bought the second one, the first one was already licensed with the Department of Human Services. The application to put the two lots together has been done to make the licensing for the second building faster. He believed that with a longer process, also the second building could have been licensed at the time; but now she is not here anymore to answer the question. His belief is that she did so to have the licensing go faster with the Department of Human Services. Commissioner Evanson stated so it seems like Mr. Chiesa is not concerned that licensing would be revoked as a result of splitting the lot. Mr. Chiesa replied, not at all. Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Chiesa, they have a couple of stipulations, and does he understand them and in agreement with them? Mr. Chiesa replied, yes, they are. Ms. Stromberg submitted them to him earlier, and he repeats now they are completely fine with the stipulations the City is proposing. Commissioner Heintz asked Ms. Stromberg, if they do not grant the variance, will that affect any sale or anything in the future? Ms. Stromberg replied, potentially. She guessed it depended upon the lender and if they were going to request zoning information. Commissioner Heintz asked whether they were going to affect the petitioner’s potential sale of the building? Ms. Stromberg replied, it could potentially be an issue, which is why he is asking for the variance. Mr. Chiesa stated at this point he would like to say, if they do not approve the variance, to not allow the lot split, because they do not want to have problems in the future selling Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 8 of 40 the property that does not conform. If they decide the variance is not going to be granted, then he asked Ms. Stromberg if he could request leaving things the way they are? Ms. Stromberg asked Mr. Chiesa, meaning he would not want the lot split approved either? Mr. Chiesa replied, correct. Because he does not want to have problems in the future in case they want to sell that building. Ms. Stromberg stated she will note the Planning Commission is an advisory board to the City Council so they will make a recommendation to the City Council. She is not sure which way the Commission is going at this point but, if they are going to recommend denial of the variance, then the request will go to the Council, at that point you can decide if you want to withdraw completely. Commissioner McClellan asked whether the land has value in the future that might be greater than what exists now? Meaning could that corner be redeveloped into a bigger, broader, grander something or other. Or is it likely to stay pretty much the same for a while? Ms. Stromberg replied, that is a good question. It would take a developer or a property owner who is interested in demolishing the existing structures to build new. Commissioner McClellan stated they have seen it done before, not necessarily with the same set of circumstances. Ms. Stromberg replied, correct. It is hard to predict however, it is not in one of the City’s redevelopment areas, and there is a new condo building to the north. Scott Hickok, Community Develop Director, stated he would say the likelihood is not great. Presuming what Commissioner McClellan is thinking, that is, with the HRA and what has been before the Commission before from time to time is when the City is purchasing properties, it is consolidating parcels. Doing this in an effort to gain more land area to do a more aggressive project that provides more density and value in the housing area. In this situation, there are independent owners with units that are well taken care of and full in terms of their occupancy on a regular basis. The likelihood is not great when a building is cash flowing well for their owners and the buildings are providing housing, possibly an affordable housing opportunity in the City. Mr. Hickok stated as to Commissioner’s Heintz’s point earlier, and he thinks it was well answered, but there is one other piece he would like to add and that is he hears Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 9 of 40 Commissioner Heintz’s concern that not only will it be disclosed but could it be a problem for sale in the future. It does take it back to what it was before, and the property is asking for a variance which now helps in the sale situation. Someone in Ms. Stromberg’s office will inevitably be getting a request for a zoning letter if and when this goes up for sale. In that zoning letter it will say that a variance was granted to recognize the lot size as it exists relative to an 8-unit building. By granting this, the Commission is helping that situation. The concern they have is what about a problem in the future where it points back to it being smaller. It does identify the fact that it is smaller but also identifies the fact that a variance was granted to allow it by the City. Commissioner Buyse stated it looks like Councilmember Eggert asked a question as part of the Q&A section. He was asking if there are two separate ownerships, if the split th happens, are there any requirements or concerns for access to 74? In looking at the pictures, it is kind of hard to tell but it looks like there is a driveway that goes along the west side of the 8-plex. He asked if he was seeing that correctly? Ms. Stromberg replied, yes, that is correct. They each have their own driveway and th parking area and access to 74 Avenue. Commissioner Meisner stated given they are trying to squeeze a larger unit building into a smaller property or enable that to be okay, he can see the 8 parking spots in the parking lot. He asked whether these are all single units? Are these two-bedrooms, three- bedrooms? Mr. Chiesa replied one of the units have been modified for the purpose of the operation that is going on in the building. They have one 1-bedroom apartment and six 2-bedroom apartments, and then one unit has been opened to use as a dining area, kitchen, and so forth. Commissioner Meisner stated currently there are seven active units and six of them are two bedroom. Mr. Chiesa replied, correct. Ms. Stromberg asked Mr. Chiesa what is the driving situation for the tenants who occupy the building? Mr. Chiesa replied their clients cannot bring cars. Only staff are driving into the parking lots. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 10 of 40 Commissioner Meisner stated which is great but if this property is split and sold, then the presumption would be they have authorized an 8-unit building with at least six 2- bedroom units on this property that could be used as normal, a regular rental property, right? Ms. Stromberg replied, correct. Keep in mind that is how it functioned for 50 years before this group purchased the property and started using it as they are. Commissioner Buyse asked and how long have they been used in this current manner? Obviously not everyone had cars a long time ago. Ms. Stromberg replied, she believed ten years. She asked Mr. Chiesa to confirm. Mr. Chiesa replied, the property has been used as a substance use disorder treatment since the purchase. Since 2008, 2011, something like that. Commissioner Heintz stated as part of the stipulations they have to keep the parking within the property so if anything would change, that could affect the variance and use. Ms. Stromberg replied, yes. Commissioner Meisner asked how does the City enforce that? That would seem to be difficult to enforce or monitor if this were to be a market rate apartment, and there are two adults and some kids living in a bunch of units with two cars, how would the City monitor that? Ms. Stromberg replied, at the time this property was developed, the Code would have required one stall per unit. Obviously, things have changed since then. The City has a lot of old apartment buildings that do not meet the current minimum parking standards. They would need to work with them and let them know they are only allowed one parking stall per unit and, if they have more, they are going to have to find a different place to park them because the City has that ban in the wintertime that does not allow you to even park on the street. Hence the reason for the stipulations on the variance. Commissioner Buyse stated he always likes to be a planner, thinking ahead. Are there currently enough parking spots in the parking lot for that to be feasible, to even be an option. Currently there are six parking stops or eight? Ms. Stromberg replied, she would have to pull up the site plan. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 11 of 40 Commissioner Meisner stated he is looking at the site plan, and he sees eight parking spots in the back. They seem rather narrow and squeezed in there, but there are eight. Ms. Stromberg replied, she counts eight as well. Commissioner Heintz stated they dealt with this on the property over off of Main Street where they made sure they only had enough parking spots for one per each new apartment, and that was part of the request they did over there. They could only have one car. Ms. Stromberg replied, yes. Mr. Hickok stated he sees this, one, as a good series of questions and discussion they are having and, two, as probably a bigger factor to a future buyer than the lot size itself. As he mentioned the variance will recognize the lot size. It does take it back to a pre- condition and, as Ms. Stromberg mentioned, it is very much like apartments Fridley has throughout the City of this vintage that had a one-income household and one vehicle. The thing they have really seen as a trend that has changed is that households are going back, for one, to having transit opportunities, and less vehicles. Statistically if they are along routes where they can take advantage of that. Mr. Hickok stated also, it comes down to management. After all there is a stipulation that also comes along with this that would become filed against the property and becomes a management issue. As you are renting out units, if you can see you are renting out a two bedroom with a family of three with one adult child and all three members of the household have vehicles, there is a decision to be made about renting that unit to somebody with three vehicles when there is only one stall per unit available to folks. It really does become a management issue there, and the City expects that at some point, to answer the question about the enforcement, they may have to deal with management and say, look, you have eight stalls at your site and beyond that, parking on the street is not accepted. Commissioner Evanson stated the type of property they are talking about is not unique here in Fridley. They probably have a decent amount of inventory that fits this profile. Maybe Mr. Hickok could clarify do they see a lot of issues with landlords not adhering to the Code, having parking issues with cars on the street where there should not be, or do they generally find that Fridley landlords are managing their tenants and landlords in such a way where these would not be concerns? Mr. Hickok replied, some of those that pre-date the requirements and do not manage them well, do have parking problems. There is no question about it. That is why the Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 12 of 40 stipulation here was so important is that this owner and the future owner needs to know they are being regulated in a way that takes them beyond what this building was at the time it was built. If they were parking on the street, and they have now two cars per household and all of the units filled, now they have a stipulation, a reason to say, this is not proper. Not just snow parking regulations, but you have a stipulation on a land use approval here that says you cannot park on the street. Commissioner Meisner asked how common is this situation? Are they exacerbating a problem? They have a lot of old properties and they do not meet with current codes, etc. Should they slow down the train on this kind of thing. He knows having a variance lets the City enforce the parking on an otherwise currently non-conforming property, but are they exacerbating a problem that is kind of widespread in Fridley or not too bad? Ms. Stromberg replied, she does not see it as being an issue. They have not received any complaints really related to this one although, like the petitioner said, the clients do not drive. However, they do have a lot of other apartment buildings in this vintage and, generally, they are not getting complaints or having issues with the landlords or the apartment with people parking on the street. She does not think they are creating a problem here. Mr. Hickok stated their snow condition regulation here really changed circumstances for buildings like this where management, whether they were going to do it on their own or whether the snow conditions caused it, really have them talking about street parking. Since then they have found that even though those units that were not designed to have two cars per unit, and they do not have space to expand their parking to two cars per unit, they are either not renting them or they are figuring out a way to occupy those units and still meet the parking demands. That is not to say, in the Charles Anna neighborhood, some of those parking lots are overflowing sometimes. Those are different managers for each of the units and probably not a consistent theme as to how they are managing each of those units. Mr. Hickok stated it is not impossible to think there are problems out there. There are. However, on units like this when they add a stipulation and they know it is a transit route, it has good transportation opportunities here, that combination has caused them to say, it was not a problem in the first 40-50 years they are talking about. They are looking at taking it back to the exact condition it was then. Now there is more opportunity for the transit, the biking, the trails, and all of that the City has created. Also, they have an owner who knows they are stepping into this condition. He does not fear it, he does not think Ms. Stromberg fears it, or they would not be seeing a staff recommendation for approval. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 13 of 40 Motion by Commissioner McClellan to close the public hearing. Seconded by Vice Chairperson Hansen. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:47 P.M. MOTION by Commissioner Heintz approving a Lot split, LS #21-01, by B&D Matthews th Investments LLC, for a lot split to subdivide the lot at 351 74 Avenue into 2 lots. Seconded by Commissioner Buyse. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Commissioner Heintz approving Variance, VAR #21-03, by B&D Matthews Investments LLC, in addition to the Lot Split Request, #21-01, the petitioner is requesting that a variance be approved to reduce the lot size of Tract A from 19,000 sq. ft. to 13,500 sq. ft. for the existing 8-unit apartment building with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner and any future property owner shall monitor and maintain on-site parking. There shall be no off-street parking by residents. 2. The petitioner and any future property owner shall comply with all code requirements related to solid waste disposal and recycling collection. Seconded by Commissioner Evanson. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING: 3. Consideration of a Text Amendment #21-02, by Happy Tails Rescue Foundation, to add new code language that would allow an Animal Rescue Facility in the M-1 Light Industrial zoning district by a special use permit, generally located at 7331 Baker Street NE. Motion by Vice Chairperson Hansen to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Buyse. 4. Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #21-02, by Happy Tails Rescue Foundation, if new language allowing an Animal Rescue Facility is added to the M-1, Light Industrial zoning district section of Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 14 of 40 code, the petitioner is seeking a special use permit to allow a pet rescue center at the property located at 7331 Baker Street NE. Motion by Vice Chairperson Hansen to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Buyse. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:49 P.M. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner, Laura Westphall, who is the Director of Happy Tails Rescue Foundation (HTR) is requesting a text amendment to add the language “Animal Rescue Facility” as a special use in the M-1, Light Industrial zoning district. Ms. Stromberg stated if the text amendment is approved, the petitioner is also seeking a special use permit to allow a “animal rescue facility”, which will be located at 7331 Baker Street. rd Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is located on Baker Street, just north of 73 Avenue. It is zoned M-1, Light Industrial as are the properties to the north and south. The properties across Baker Street are zoned R-2, Two Family Units and the properties to the east are zoned R-4, Manufactured Homes. The property was developed in 1962, with the construction of an industrial building. In 1972, an addition was constructed and in 1984, a special use permit was issued to allow outdoor storage. Ms. Stromberg stated according to the petitioner’s narrative, Happy Tails Rescue Foundation mission is to support animals in need. They focus on rescuing homeless and abandoned animals from high kill shelters and Indian Reservations. Animals typically arrive a few times a week. Once they arrive, they review their paperwork, add them to their system, get their basic vetting up to date and coordinate with foster homes to have them picked up for temporary care. Most dogs head to their foster homes within hours of arrival, while the cats and small animals (bunnies, ferrets, guinea pigs, and birds) are kept on-site. They also have an Emotional Support Animal Program for Veterans, called Cody’s Heroes. This program allows military veterans to work with a trainer for 12 weeks and then they provide an animal to the veteran at no cost. This program is headed by a Purple Heart Veteran and is designed to support military veterans’ emotional needs, all while helping their rescue dogs find a new, loving home. Ms. Stromberg stated Ms. Westphall notes that they are a unique animal rescue as they have a veterinary suite with a veterinarian on staff who cares for the medical needs of their Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 15 of 40 animals. They also provide training classes for their fosters, volunteers, and staff members and to the general public on occasion. Ms. Stromberg stated the 13,500 square foot building will be used for their office space, which includes the veterinary suite, adoption center space, training space and boarding and storage space. They also plan to fence in an outdoor play area for the dogs on the grassy area south of the existing building, as shown in the cross-hatched area on the site plan labeled as “animal pickup and drop-off area.” Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner currently operates their business from 7940 University Avenue, which is a multi-tenant building. They have been in this location since 2005 and have seen significant growth, which is the reason that they were looking for a larger building and a property they could own. Ms. Stromberg stated their business does not involve dog daycare or boarding for the general public. The property and building will be used specifically for the petitioner’s rescue business needs. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is requesting a text amendment to add language to the M-1, Light Industrial zoning district, which would allow a “501c3, non-profit, Animal Rescue Facility” by a special use permit. The City code currently allows this use in our C- 2, General Business and C-3, General Shopping zoning districts, with a special use permit. The C-2 and C-3 code doesn’t specify an Animal Rescue Facility, but generally fits into the permitted uses of veterinary clinics, animal hospital, public kennels, and obedience school and training services. Ms. Stromberg stated the Future Land Use Map in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides the subject property as industrial. Industrial uses typically involve wholesaling, warehousing, manufacturing and/or production. While the proposed use is not as intensive as many industrial uses in this zoning district, the proposed use would fit and not have any adverse effects within an industrial district. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is seeking to locate the proposed business at 7331 Baker Street, which is zoned M-1, Light Industrial. Of particular importance when considering a text amendment is determining if the proposed use would be consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning district in which it would become allowable, and whether or not the proposed use would be compatible with other permitted or special uses allowed within the district. Ms. Stromberg stated the animal rescue facility use the petitioner is proposing would be consistent with the purpose and intent of the M-1 zoning district, provided specific Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 16 of 40 concerns related to the use are addressed. The petitioner and staff have drafted an ordinance that would allow a “501c3, non-profit, Animal Rescue Facility” contingent upon approval of a special use permit provided the following conditions are met: a) Animal Rescue’s shall be inspected and licensed by the Minnesota Board of Animal Health on an annual basis. b) An eight-foot solid fence must be constructed to enclose outdoor play area for the safety of the animals and the general public. c) All animals are kept inside overnight for the safety of the animals and the general public. d) Animal waste is picked up and properly disposed of daily for the safety of the animals and the general public. e) Animal Rescue use shall comply with and meet all code requirements for noise, odor, and manure removal. Ms. Stromberg stated staff has determined that if the above-mentioned conditions can be met, the proposed use would meet the purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance, as it would not create any adverse effects beyond what a typically industry may impose. Ms. Stromberg stated contingent upon the approval of the text amendment to allow a “501c3, non-profit, Animal Rescue Facility”” as a special use in the M-1, Light Industrial zoning district; the petitioner is also seeking a special use permit to allow this use to be located at 7331 Baker Street. Ms. Stromberg stated the existing property is 65,340 square feet (1.5 acres) in size and the existing building is approximately 13,500 square feet. The petitioner plans to renovate the interior space to better meet their needs. They also plan to paint the exterior of the building and update the landscaping. The current drive aisle and parking areas will be sufficient for their operational needs. Sundays are their adoption days and will be the day that sees the most traffic, an average of 25-30 people coming in search of a pet. There is sufficient parking available for a weekly event. Staff will require the petitioner to stripe the parking lot to clearly designate the parking stall locations. Training will take place between 6:00-7:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and on Saturdays. They are also proposing to install an 8-foot vinyl fence in the grass area south of the building. Installing the fence will help manage noise while the dogs are outside. Ms. Stromberg stated as part of the approval of the special use permit, the petitioner needs to meet the conditions set forth in the proposed ordinance language above. Those items will be reviewed through the building permit process and will be reviewed and inspected by staff, and is something staff will be need to check in with them on annually. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 17 of 40 Ms. Stromberg stated City staff has heard from the neighboring property owner to the south. They had general questions about the use, but no concerns after talking to staff. Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of this text amendment request and the special use permit request, subject to stipulations. Ms. Stromberg stated Staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be attached: 1. The petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to interior modifications and fencing. 2. The petitioner shall obtain a sign permit prior to installation of any new signage. 3. The ventilation system needs to be designed so that no odors will spread to the outside air. 4. The exterior of the existing building shall be re-painted within one year of issuance of this special use permit. Commissioner Evanson asked is it actually is the code what time animals are allowed to be outside? He is just thinking about whether there are barking animals. They do not want them outside too early in the morning or late in the evening barking. Ms. Stromberg replied, she did not recall if they specified in their narrative the times of days they typically take the animals outside but that definitely is something they can look at. There is the stipulate they meet the noise ordinance. Fridley’s noise ordinance does address barking dogs so they would be covered there, but they can certainly ask the petitioner if they have a specific routine they typically use because they are surrounded by residential. Commissioner Heintz asked when people are dropping off or picking up pets, is there a leash requirement or kennel type carrying requirement at all? Ms. Stromberg replied she is going to make the assumption there is, but she will have the petitioner answer that question as well. Commissioner Heintz asked whether they should put that as part of the stipulation that all animals being dropped off or taken out of the facility be on a leash and/or in their kennel type of situation, whether be a bunny in a cage or whatever. They do not want an animal getting loose and running away. Ms. Stromberg replied if the Commission feels that is a worthy stipulation they can certainly add it. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 18 of 40 Commissioner Meisner stated there is language to be added to the text amendment to the light industrial zoning. Why not just use the language that is in the C-2 or C-3 language that allows veterinarians and things like this if that would work for this. It seems they are creating a very narrow case in the M-1 Light Industrial. He asked if there was a reason they do not want to just use the same language in the C-2 or C-3? Chairperson Kondrick replied it is because it is in the M-1 Light Industrial area that they have to make it different to satisfy the necessary things they have to have in an M-1 district with some modification. Ms. Stromberg replied, correct and she would add that she did not know if they want to see retail, pet sales, in their industrial districts that is why this specific use is being considered. The existing Code related to animal use businesses is pretty outdated. They are going to be doing a major overhaul of the City’s entire City Code including the Zoning Code, so she would not want to copy the existing language. She would want to adopt language that is more applicable to today. Commissioner Buyse stated the ventilation system, as far as stipulations go, do they need to be more specific with regards to no odors will spread to the outside air, like which odors they are referencing? Because that could be taken many different ways. Ms. Stromberg replied, that actually does come directly from the existing Code language. She knows that the City’s Building Official works with the City’s new businesses in making sure they have the correct ventilation system for their use. Generally, it’s known what odor is being implied. Commissioner Buyse stated as to the stipulations regarding the painting the exterior of the building. He admittedly has never been to that part of town but based on Google images it looks like there are actually two different buildings of two different heights. The front portion, where he is guessing the offices would be, it looks like it’s all brick right now. Are they going to have to repaint that? He is guessing it would be the east, southeasternmost portion of the building, because it looks like it has been painted in the past. Ms. Stromberg replied, yes, correct. The southeast side is in really bad shape as the petitioner is well aware of. They would not requiring them to paint the brick if it is in good condition. Chairperson Kondrick stated there is nothing wrong with the brick. It is the back of the building that needs paint and renovation bad. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 19 of 40 Commissioner Buyse asked whether they need to get more granular with the stipulations so there is no misunderstanding, or they have the ability to enforce later. Do they need to have more detail? Vice Chairperson Hansen stated Commissioner Heintz’s point about the leash requirement and the potential stipulation there is a good one to contemplate, but he just wanted to verify do they not already have a leash-type of ordinance requirement already? He would also like to hear from the petitioner and how their method of conveyance of the animals will flow before they make that an actual stipulation. Commissioner McClellan stated being a 501C, non-profit, what bearing does that have on the property tax information. He asked how those types of properties are handled? Ms. Stromberg replied, she would make the assumption that because they are non-profit they will not pay property taxes. Commissioner McClellan stated so they would take a piece of property that might generate, from his experience, would be about $10,000-20,000 of property tax and that would take it to zero. Ms. Stromberg replied, correct, that is how she understands that. Unless the petitioner can tell her something else. Tom Robb, Happy Tails Rescue Foundation, stated he is the president of the foundation. Yes, his understanding is a non-profit does not pay property tax. The second point is painting. They plan on painting the building. It is in very rough shape. It is clearly understood and they would do that whether it was a stipulation or not. That is clearly not the image they want to project to the public. They want to enhance the neighborhood. Mr. Robb stated as to the leash law, the dogs are very well controlled when they are outside. They have been in Fridley for five years, and he does not believe there has been any complaints or any issues with the operation. He likes the location very much and it works well for them. They looked very hard for properties within the City of Fridley. They found one and hopefully will be able to expand their operation into that. Commissioner Evanson asked Mr. Robb if they will be retaining ownership of the building they currently own in Fridley? Mr. Robb replied, it is a leased building. They have two locations in basically a shopping mall. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 20 of 40 Chairperson Kondrick asked when customers come in and they want to drop off an animal or if they want to leave with one, how do they handle that? Laura Westphall, Happy Tails Rescue Foundation, replied most of the animals are with them because they are stray animals so they, and she is assuming Fridley has a leash law, are very strict on that with the animals. If you adopt an animal, you have to have a leash or buy a leash. All animals do have to be in a carrier if they are not on a leash. You cannot walk through the parking lot with a cat, and say a car beeps its horn, it is going to scratch you and run away. The leashes are no issue at all. It is complete expectation that any animal having to do with Happy Tails has to be controlled by the person with a leash or a crate. Ms. Westphall stated as to the barking thing, in that fenced area would be daytime hours. She is guessing Fridley also has a noise ordinance that covers hours, from whatever time in the morning to whatever time at night. They do sometimes get in late at night, but this building does have a drive-in garage door so when animals come in, they will unload them inside. They bring them out to potty one at a time on a leash so there are no dogs barking outside. Commissioner Heintz stated he appreciates them being on top of the situation with animals possibly being frightened and running off. Motion by Commissioner Meisner to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Evanson. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:21 P.M. MOTION by Commissioner Evanson Approving a Text Amendment #21-02, by Happy Tails Rescue Foundation, to add new code language that would allow an Animal Rescue Facility in the M-1 Light Industrial zoning district by a special use permit, generally located at 7331 Baker Street NE. Seconded by Commissioner Meisner. UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK, VICE CHAIRPERSON HANSEN, COMMISSIONER EVANSON, COMMISSIONER HEINTZ, COMMISSIONER MEISNER, AND COMMISSIONER BUYSE ALL VOTING AYE, AND COMMISSIONER MCCLELLAN ABSTAINING, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 21 of 40 MOTION by Commissioner Heintz Approving a Special Use Permit, SP #21-02, by Happy Tails Rescue Foundation, if new language allowing an Animal Rescue Facility is added to the M-1, Light Industrial zoning district section of code, the petitioner is seeking a special use permit to allow a pet rescue center at the property located at 7331 Baker Street NE with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to interior modifications and fencing. 2. The petitioner shall obtain a sign permit prior to installation of any new signage. 3. The ventilation system needs to be designed so that no odors will spread to the outside air. 4. The exterior of the existing building shall be re-painted within one year of issuance of this special use permit. Seconded by Commissioner Buyse. Commissioner Buyse asked Ms. Stromberg if they confirmed they need to make the stipulations more detailed or are they okay with them the way they are? Ms. Stromberg stated that is something the Commissioner should advise her on, if they feel they need to be amended. Commissioner Buyse asked the other members what they think about changing the stipulation on the painting to just what is currently painted and just refreshing it? Commissioner Evanson said it is probably unnecessary. It seems to be understood by all parties. His thought is they do not need to overly complicate it. Chairperson Kondrick stated he drove by there and it needs paint bad. They want to make it look nice for the neighbors. Ms. Westphal replied, they agree. Chairperson Kondrick stated to the petitioners, they do not have any reservations on the stipulations? Mr. Robb replied, correct. UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK, VICE CHAIRPERSON HANSEN, COMMISSIONER HEINTZ, COMMISSIONER MEISNER, AND Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 22 of 40 COMMISSIONER BUYSE ALL VOTING AYE, AND COMMISSIONER MCCLELLAN ABSTAINING, COMMISSIONER EVANSON NOW BEING ABSENT, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM OTHER COMMISSIONS – THROUGH ONE MOTION: Motion to accept the minutes from the following Commission meetings: 1. January 7, 2021, Housing & Redevelopment Authority Commission 2. January 12, 2021, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission 3. January 5, 2021, Parks & Recreation Commission 4. February 1, 2021, Parks & Recreation Commission Motion by Vice Chairperson Hansen to accept the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Buyse. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Parks Master Plan Presentation Deb Dahl, Community Services and Employee Resources Director, stated they have a fair amount to cover tonight and hopefully the Commission does not have to make any decisions; but they would love to have the Commission’s feedback and wanted to get in front of them the city’s Parks Master Plan process they are planning and now have launched into the community. They want to give the Planning Commission the opportunity to be part of second commission on board. It is certainly out in the public at this stage, but there is more in-depth information they would benefit from. Staff would appreciate any feedback or support the Commission has. Ms. Dahl stated they talked about a Parks Master Plan and they really kind of sat down and thought this sounds kind of technical and truly they want people to really find fun in Fridley. This is a fun topic for a lot of folks. It is more than just projects. It is really about finding people’s recreation and their needs through the entire City. They are excited to bring this to the Commission. They have a lot of information about systems in general, but they also have some more detailed information for them. Ms. Dahl stated just to review the City’s parks history a little bit and the reason for the plan, their process to date, and their concept design. It is always about the money, how Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 23 of 40 are we going to pay for this thing, so they are going to touch on that and then also share with them a little bit about their communications and engagements so far. Ms. Dahl stated they are intimately very familiar with this building and certainly take great pride in all of the things the Planning Commission has done for the City. For that they have led so much development in the City and helped them really redefine the City and transform it from the housing and business retail development to the Civic Campus, MnDOT project, as well as Springbrook Nature Center, and the Northstar rail site. There are dozens and dozens of these projects each year, and she is going to touch on just a few of them. They have had a lot of great press in the media and in the social media as well. Their next big wave and next big process here is the Parks Master Plan or parks system remodel. Ms. Dahl stated the parks system, in terms of a formal parks system, was established more than 50 years ago. There has been a very strong commitment from the leadership in the City and the community through parks and trails and the environment in general. They are proud of that. It is something that, for a City of Fridley’s size, it has a very large park system. Fridley has 38 city parks and 5 community or county parks with 7 of the school properties they have which also offer recreation amenities they will share and collaborate with. Ms. Dahl stated they have different park service areas over the years to address. There are 15 miles of sidewalks and 12.5 miles of trails, 6.8 miles of paths, and 10.4 miles of county trails. For a small town they really have a lot of opportunity and are really proud of the open space Fridley has and the trails it has. Ms. Dahl stated we all inherently know that parks bring great value to a city. There is an organization out there that deals with urban parks, they have been able to quantify some numbers which is important, but what does it really bring in terms of dollar or economic value to the City. They were able to find some statistics that show houses that live near parks and trails typically would create a 5 to 20 percent increase in the property values. They hear a lot of feedback from the community that they really appreciate the value of the park across the street or being able to look out and see park land. Ms. Dahl stated they know that it increases revenue for the City overall, and they know that it helps the City’s environment with water, air, trees, open spaces, and other things they enjoy. They inherently know that to be true. They have also seen what parks can do for a city, with actually attracting more businesses and residents. When people go through a community, the parks set a tone and set an image for folks who are planning to move here. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 24 of 40 Ms. Dahl stated ultimately, as they have seen with COVID this last year, people have been outside and using the park system more and more; and the parks have been very well used. The one thing people are truly appreciative of is being outside. They have been able to identify their savings to health and wellness for an individual, about $1,500 per year in health costs if you are outdoors and using Fridley’s parks system. Ms. Dahl stated in 2015 there was kind of a call to action they would call that, particularly in the Moore Lake area and the project there. There was a real strong interest from a number of people including the Parks Commission, who wanted to see some plans and redevelopment in there. They did a survey and they talked to residents, and the residents in that survey commented about not just Moore Lake but also broader needs in the community were some of the amenities that were valued and desired. That kind of got people thinking, and the Council at the time said, well, if the cost for that project is about $4.5 million, what would that do for the rest of the park system. Where would the monies be prioritized if they put it all in one basket. Ms. Dahl stated the Council tapped the brakes a little bit and said, let’s think about this and talk about it. In 2018 they were charged as a staff to really kind of help prioritize parks and increase their awareness about them, but also help them understand where some of the priorities need to be from the community. They launched “Finding for Fun” which is the Parks Master Plan which they launched in 2019. A number of the Commission members have participated in the workshops they held and provided some feedback as well as through some of the surveys. Ms. Dahl stated just as a standard on how they line up to the metro area, the national parks system suggests between 6.25 acres to 10.5 acres per 1,000 residents. The Met Council encourages a little bit more, 7 to 14 acres per 1,000 residents. In Fridley it has about 28,000 residents but it has over 21.5 acres of park land per 1,000 residents. Fridley really has an abundance of park land which is wonderful. They are the envy of a lot of other cities. They are also proud that 80 percent of the residents live within one-half mile of a park. Ms. Dahl stated while the proximity to a park is really important, what is in those parks or how people use those parks in the different areas has not really been addressed. They really feel with this Plan they want to look at the needs of those folks who are around the parks and kind of what those needs might be, not only just for amenities, but for some of the other emerging needs or trends that are out there. To line those up with the City’s neighborhoods as well. Commissioner Meisner asked regarding the acreage per resident, that includes Springbrook? Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 25 of 40 Ms. Dahl replied, yes. Commissioner Meisner asked Ms. Dahl if she knew how much it is without Springbrook? Ms. Dahl replied, she would have to check on that. She asked Mr. Jensen if Springbrook was 100 something acres? Jeff Jensen, Operation Manager of Streets, Parks, and Facilities, replied 118 acres. Substract that divided by 28,000. He does not have the answer to that either. Ms. Dahl stated a lot of Fridley’s parks are beautiful, and it is really important to note that what Fridley has they will tell a story about some of the things the City needs and the current conditions of the parks system. Generally Fridley has really nice parks, and they have a lot of nice amenities and there are some great playgrounds. What they felt they needed to do is paint a picture of some of those that really need improvement. They will see a lot of the playground amenities or the tennis court fences. Over at Moore Lake they have seen that or the fading playgrounds. Those are the things they really have to address and upgrade. They are putting this out there to drive the point home that they think it is time to do something on a larger scale. Ms. Dahl stated they asked staff early on, what do you think about the Parks system and they are talking pretty much with the maintenance staff at this point. They went out and did a very thorough assessment and looked at safety and a number of issues they felt that, while they are very proud of the parks system, they do not have a systematic long-term maintenance plan the City can speak to and say they can prevent some of the maintenance. Also, how are they going to plan for things that need to be restored or replaced. They want to build a plan to address those issues. Ms. Dahl stated many of the City’s parks do not have ADA guidelines that meet all of the guidelines that are out there. Then you have a few (?) in each park, but they do not fully equip situations for all users. They want to adjust many of those guidelines as well. It is important to note that the playgrounds were really revamped about 30 years ago. They were all done right after the tornado, the City got a federal grant that allowed the City to install a number of playgrounds, so they are all kind of coming due and their shelf life is all kind of due about the same time. Several of them are having to be decommissioned or taken out because of safety issues or parts are not available to replace. Ms. Dahl stated they asked staff, how would you rate the parks system in general. They spent a lot of time looking at each and every park and kind of graded what they thought was an A through F grade. They felt like most of the parks were just average or even less. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 26 of 40 The maintenance staff who work on those playgrounds and amenities on a daily basis, want to see an upgrade here as well. Commissioner Heintz stated to Commissioner Meisner, you take off 4.25 acres. Commissioner Meisner stated without Springbrook, they would be at about 17 or something like that which is still very nice. Ms. Dahl stated if they looked at a value of where the parks are, like if you had a house or cars, they asked how much is the City’s land really worth with the amenities and the structures they have in the parks system right now; and it is about $43 million in assets. A lot to manage and to kind of be a guardian for. Right now the City receives a little over $200,000 per year in funding from LGA or park dedication fees and grants. The City spends $233,000 a year on its average CIP projects. (?) 2019 and 2020 in there because the Civic Campus changes would have skewed those numbers as well; however, the City’s balance it has for the CIP or just parks project is about $1 million. In essence there are a lot of assets the City has that it is really only spending about $200,00 a year on to keep up. Ms. Dahl stated the other thing that is worth noting is that with this fund balance of $968,000 the City is not able to spend it on it. If the City were to make all the changes this year, and throw that whole balance at it, it would not be able to because of the policy which states the City needs to maintain a balance of 35 percent in that fund balance. They would only have about $600,000 to work with. Ms. Dahl stated they have had great successes. They are very proud of Springbrook. They have seen some great changes in the last 7 to 10 years. They can vision something very different. A lot of volunteers, the mayor, and a number of the City’s commissioners spend a lot of energy and time fundraising to build this beautiful building. They just finished changing the park shelter there which is now not just a picnic shelter but an activity center that is built and is the size of a classroom with the ability to do concessions or a small theater area inside. Mr. Jensen and his team did a wonderful job getting that constructed over this last year, and it will be open for use this year. They want to replicate that and build this image across the park system. Ms. Dahl stated as to what they have done with this Parks Master Plan so far, they have worked with City Council who wanted to be very bold and aggressive about this Plan. They held four community workshops with an outside consultant they have used for the Civic Campus as well as the MnDOT highway project studies, and they have also asked a lot of the participants in youth who use the system and the amenities, what programs they wanted. They compiled a lot of data early on in 2019. They also asked people who were in the park to tell them what they think through an App called “Social Pinpoint” and they Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 27 of 40 got over 600 responses from that. They got quite a few responses from people who said, fix the trail here, please add something here, or change some signage. They got some really good feedback from people who were in the parks. Ms. Dahl stated then they did a lot of research on demographics, and they pulled some other data together from the Comprehensive Plan and other surveys that had been done in the past. They compiled a lot of information, did inventory and assessments, worked with a consultant called HKGI who helped them develop some concept designs for Moore Lake Commons and Community. They also did some ballpark estimates for the neighborhood parks and what the rest of the system would prove out. They did a lot of work over the last year and one-half. Ms. Dahl stated what they learned from that were kind of some general themes. People wanted improved playgrounds and amenities. They wanted a place to come and gather. They wanted to see more year around use and how the trails and systems connect to each other. Also, they wanted to see some unique amenities and opportunities for some fun experiences that were different or emerging trends. They also heard back in the feedback the City needed to do more all abilities and ages; make the areas more ADA compliant. They were told and feel very strongly the communication and signage needed to change. They have had interest for technology upgrades to provide some Wi-Fi in perhaps some of the areas or park buildings so people can access their internet while they are watching the children at the playground and enjoy some of those amenities outdoors. Also, improve the lighting so it would be more accessible and safe for everyone. Ms. Dahl stated they heard very strongly that nature and year around use is a strong desire and the idea of being environmentally friendly. They are hearing more and more this is where the community desires for park and recreation. They also wanted places to gather like they talked about in those unique experiences. Ms. Dahl stated one thing that also came up was having some flexibility to meet the changing needs. When you have, for instance, a roller rink or inline skating course, is that going to be something you can adapt down the road or is it here permanently. Providing some amenities that might be able to be flexible down the road as needs and demands change. Ms. Dahl stated what they did not hear was a large cry for golf courses, water parks, and a major community center. It was pretty much upgrade what the City has and improve it. Ms. Dahl stated it was really important for staff to identify a vision. This is what they as staff really wanted to kind of gravitate towards. Not that they would see these are the exact buildings or amenities they would propose, but what they envisioned with the Civic Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 28 of 40 Campus they wanted this grand vision of something that was very well done, attractive, that looked nice, and was colorful or friendly and inviting and open. Those were kind of the themes and ideas they wanted to strive for. They also wanted to just modernize, upgrade, and really enhance what they have already. There were lots of ideas for playgrounds, some of the services out there, and more do it yourself. They have heard more for community gardens as a special interest, and then that “play for all” concept is really important. Providing something to every age group, every ability and functionality for a wide variety of needs. Ms. Dahl stated they could not do all of this internally. They needed to get some help and over this last summer and fall they started working with WSB which is a design firm, and they have been very helpful to the City in helping them shape a plan a little bit more. To provide the City with some great ideas for investments and development and how it can improve its structures. Also, how it can strategically prioritize or plan this out for the coming years; and then provide a nice process for the residents as well. Ms. Dahl stated to kind of line up all of their information and data with the Comprehensive Plan, they worked real hard with the City’s partners at the county and sports associations, Three Rivers Parks, and the neighboring cities. They have that relationship and alliances with other areas that have done this very well. Their expertise and knowledge have just been in valuable for them. Ms. Dahl stated WSB put together a very in-depth plan, and part of that process is really to look at all the things they were able to collect so far; but they also went out to every single park and did a very thorough assessment and did analysis from their perspective. WSB looked at the City’s access and some of the barriers as well as the populations in the communities, specifically that are underserved or may be some of those dense areas that are maybe some of the newer apartment complexes that are in the plan as well. They anticipated what they would be seeing here in the next 5 to 10 years with some of those apartment communities. Also, things like language barriers with some of the community populations that need some additional access. They had that expertise as well. Ms. Dahl stated WSB initiated talks with some of the groups she talked about like with Three Rivers, schools, etc. They developed plans and concept designs to help the City with a strategy on how they are going to implement this. They prepared a cost analysis for the City and estimates. Then they created a story map she will present. Also, they are helping the City kind of channel and collect the feedback and will organize it and prepare what the City hopes will be a really comprehensive report back to the Commission as well as the public. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 29 of 40 Ms. Dahl stated with the general concept designs and the goals, what they wanted to make sure on top of what the City wanted, is what they came up with was really to enhance Fridley’s unique identity and its community parks. They wanted to sort of upgrade and enhance like the City wanted to, but really to target it towards the needs of the community and then match it up with some of these trends. They have great ideas and information about what is happening nationally but also locally. Ms. Dahl stated and then how are we going to treat how these parks connect to each other. Not just by roads and trails, but even within the parks themselves, they did a lot of work. (?) revise and analyze some of the needs within a park that we already have in place. They have a very strong expertise in environmental initiatives and some of the stewardship out there. They looked at the City’s stormwater and a number of the environmental friendly pollinator gardens and how the tree management might work. Ms. Dahl stated in terms of recreation WSB looked at like they talked about, some of the diverse needs of the community and try to balance that, not just in certain areas but across the whole community so that people could enjoy the parks in the neighborhood but what is available to them within maybe more than just a half a mile. They wanted to look at specifically the demographics that Fridley has, and that is something the City did 20 or 30 years ago but what can they do for those moving into the City even now and then looking forward. Ms. Dahl stated and, then as they talked about, access to some of those underserved populations and then some of the trends they talked about. A big piece of this they are talking about, too, is how are they going to build champions and people to help the City in this effort. They are helping the City with that, not just for this plan, but for future projects in the coming years for future commissions or relationships with Council. Ms. Dahl stated and then how to prioritize. They want to do it all at once. If they are going to do stuff, let’s do it all at once but they can’t, they have to plan for it. They have to figure out how they are going to do it. They have to decide which parks or projects go first and what is more important. They helped the City with that priority as well. Ms. Dahl stated what WSB has done has been put it on the City’s website in what they called, Finding Your Fun. You can find it on the website in a lot of ways. Staff will send them this presentation and a link so they can get it more easily. Ms. Dahl stated the story map looks exactly what the Community Development team already had. This is specific to parks. What they will see is all of the parks listed out there, and then they are tabbed at the top so they will see the neighborhood parks in alphabetical order. They will see the larger parks which are identified as “community parks”, and then Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 30 of 40 they will see a section or a tab for anything that has been completed, such as this most recent playground over at Locke Park and the Springbrook projects. Ms. Dahl stated as they finish these they will have information on the website as well, and anything else that is out there for scheduled projects. What they are hoping to do is have the Planning Commission go out to these individual parks and then look at the designs under each one, the proposed plans, and then a little bit more information about each park out there. There will be some surveys out there the Commission members can click on and provide their feedback. If they see something they would like to add or change or suggest, this is what they would like them to do is provide as much feedback as they can. They are keeping the comment period open until April 30 at this point. Commissioner Buyse stated he certainly does not know what park he would put this comment under. It is probably more of a community park thing, but he just noticed the picture Ms. Dahl had for Maple Grove’s ice rink, their figure 8/track; and he has been to Centennial Parks down in the Edina area a number of times. There are massive draws for all young people and anyone. It does not matter what age you are. He cannot recommend that enough for their community if they have any ability to do that at any of their community parks. That would be a huge draw for the City and for the residents of Fridley. Ms. Dahl replied, they did put their concept in there under the Commons Park. They have an ice loop she believed it was called. Mr. Jensen replied, it is just a skating area and there are a few of them around but, yes, it is in their concept designs. They went to the Maple Grove one, it is impressive, and a lot of people use it. He believed it is in one of the concept plans for Commons Park. Commissioner Buyse stated awesome because that is certainly something that is a draw from a long ways away for a community. For Fridley that should be a priority. Ms. Dahl stated if they do not find a place to add comments, if they just want to reach out and send them an e-mail they can do that. Send it to herself, Ms. Kruzel or Mr. Jensen; and they would be happy to include all the feedback they get moving forward. Alyssa Kruzel, Community Engagement Specialist, stated yesterday she worked with the video production staff to put together a quick little 2-3 minute video where she explained how to use the story map because it can be a little cumbersome for some folks. They are working on that video and they will get that out on social media and the website as well. It takes folks through how to navigate the story map as well as how to click on park designs and review them, and then what the surveys look like as well. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 31 of 40 Ms. Dahl stated they know this is a big undertaking. It looks like they probably have something for just all about the parks, not all of them. It does not include Springbrook because that has pretty well been renovated and captured for a while. There may be a couple of things to add to that at some point, but for right now this should include a lot of the City’s parks. They want to do this in a ten-year plan. It is very aggressive to do that but at the same time it feels like, in talking with staff, if they spread this out too far there are quite a few things that really need to get done more in an urgent matter. However, if they wait too long that means some of these parks are going to have to wait a very long time to get renovated. They know the ball park kind of came in at about $50 million which is very high, but they are just going to see where people are coming in at with some of their interests and needs before they start to manage the money piece of it just yet. Ms. Dahl stated this is a very early stage of a parks master plan system. They are looking at concepts first. See what people want. Look at the data, and they will keep refining it as they go along. Funding could come from a lot of different sources. The City has its own capital projects they could use. They could do some more donations and grants and development. They could do things like round up the water bills or do something at the liquor store. Do some special events and fundraising specific to this, and those things could happen and come in down the road as we finalize the plans. They could probably do something with the park dedication fees but that is not a lot of money and is very limited since the City is pretty much built out. They could even pursue legislative action like the City did with the Nature Center or going to a statewide level. They can raise fees for the City’s programs and services, too. Ms. Dahl stated one of the bigger pieces they are going to have to really put some thought and energy around is how they could possibly bond for this and do a possible referendum. They know there are a lot of challenges with that and it takes a lot of time. They have to be methodical and put some energy around, if it is the direction they go; and they will have to spend a fair amount of time getting the word out about that. Ms. Dahl stated they also know there will probably be businesses or schools that want to do some joint projects. Maybe do some name recognition, for instance, a corporation wants to take on a particular park and they want to have some name rights with that. There are a lot of options here, and this is going to be a large undertaking just in and of itself to get to that $50 million price tag. Ms. Dahl stated right now they are in the very early stages and are just getting the word out about getting people to the website to provide that feedback, those initial reactions to some of these plan designs. They have a really impressive marketing team. Ms. Kruzel is on board for the community engagement throughout the City, and it is is going to be a large part of her job in the coming months. It is to get out in front of people and get it Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 32 of 40 out on the internet. They have lawn and park signs that are in all the parks now. With these two apps people can download on their phone immediately, and it takes them right to the parks Paster Plan information. They are trying to be as creative as they can. Ms. Dahl stated they want to spend the next month and a half collecting information from people and getting the word out to have some dialogue around this. Obviously they have the City newsletter and they have the cable TV/community video connection as well which has been very helpful in getting images and videos out there as well. Ms. Dahl stated some of the promotional items they will see are the rack card they have available at City Hall and if they wanted to have some of those staff can get those to the Commission members and they can hand those out if they are handing out or attending meetings or getting involved in groups. There is a copy of a lawn sign they have put in the parks as well. They are also trying to target, which is a great idea from the HRA, some of the neighborhoods that are making the most changes or have the most need in. They have developed a little postcard they will be sending out to some of those 7-10 neighborhoods to help them understand what could be happening with specifically their neighborhood as well. Try and customize it for these neighbors as well. Ms. Kruzel stated they are also targeting some of their communities that have low engagement as well as with those postcards, but they may not get normal responses to from reading the City newsletter or other avenues of communication by really going directly to them because of the under engagement. Ms. Dahl stated as to the next few steps, they are taking a resident survey where 400 residents are being called on a variety of City topics and Parks Master Plan was one of them. They will get some feedback from the public about what they really want to see in the Parks system. That will be a scientifically-validated survey which will help them answer that funding (?). They will be spending the next two months really hammering down as far as exploring some of these funding options a little bit more carefully. Ms. Dahl stated once they get all this data back by the end of April and the Commission’s feedback, hopefully they are going to get all the results pulled together. WSB is going to help staff analyze that and get it synthesized down to something that makes sense. Maybe there will be some recommendations or changes, but they hope to get all that pulled together so they are ready to address the public at the Town Hall meeting on June 5. They are not sure how much they will be sharing at the meeting, and that report they talked about might need some work. They are kind of tentative with some of these timeframes. After that they will come back to groups like the Commission and stakeholders to share those results as well because they know not everybody will be able to come to the Town Hall meeting. If they do decide to vote for a referendum, they are looking at something Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 33 of 40 that will happen in November of 2022. They have a little over a year maybe before they really have to hit their campaign of putting something on the ballot. Ms. Dahl stated Mr. Jensen will be giving a quick update on some of the projects going on right now. Mr. Jensen stated when they started this Plan they figured out quite early on and with direction from Council this would be a long process, kind of what Ms. Dahl mentioned. They actually thought they would try and learn some things that would help push this Parks Master Plan through and creating champions. They thought the best way to do this was to redo a park. They have been having problems with Craig Park for quite a few years. It floods all the time. That maintenance and use by the citizens is quite limited. They had years where they could not mow it, and they have waterfowl and cattails and reeds growing in it. Mr. Jensen stated they felt this was an opportunity to do some things they learned. A lot of them are like the outreach. They wanted to find out the best way to get a hold of everybody so they went through some mailings in service areas, and they got great responses which kind of fell in line with everything they already learned. They were able to get a grant from the Watershed District. They also created some designs for it which they can find on that story map as well. Those kind of fell in with the data they received from their other outreach as well with the trails, the internal trail in the park, lighting, security, updated amenities, so they can kind of meet all those and they have got great response in it. They are going to be doing an in-person outreach early this summer to finalize some of those design plans for that. Mr. Jensen stated that goes into his next one which is Locke Park playground. They kind of started their learning process if they are familiar with the new playground just east of the Civic Campus. They did outreach on that to the new neighborhoods in the Lennar Development and the Five (?) Home Development. Also the existing homes in the development to the south of there. They had a very good response on that. They had an in-person outreach campaign. People had a lot of great ideas and input. The City has great connections with the trails and they created a trail system that connects it both to the Rice Creek Trail network, the Civic Campus, they installed a parking lot, and people are extremely happy with it. It is a good example with Craig Park and Locke Park to show what they can do with this referendum. They are not painting it. They are 50 years old and the amenities are 30 years old, and they definitely need to be fixed. Commissioner Heintz stated with Locke Park it also is highly ADA accessible now, too. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 34 of 40 Mr. Jensen stated absolutely. That will be their new standard. They want to be an inviting, friendly city and to not allow access for all individuals right now is not a good thing. That is a great drive for replacing a lot of these amenities and upgrading them. Mr. Jensen stated moving onto the Civic Campus. This is a great example. They installed complete trails around the pond system. They have fountains in there, bridges over the pond, new trail connectors, lighting. It is a really great benefit. It gets used and they maintain it. One of the questions they had was maintaining it year around. They actually sweep that trail, and people can walk on it with their dogs. All winter they did so on a bare tar trail. It is unbelievable the amount of use it is getting and the amount of compliments they have got on it. Projects like this will be great champions if they can pull people from that and say, this is what they can create in the City of Fridley to make it a great place to live. Mr. Jensen stated they still have more work to do in the Civic Campus. There is quite a bit of work to do in the playground. They have trees, amenities, benches, and they want to put benches around the trails, doggie waste stations, and they also have the park lit area designated out by the round about on the southwest corner on the other side of the ponds. They are going to be doing some updates on there, but they are going to wait and find out the needs of the Civic Campus and everything before they do more. They are going to be finishing up the trails system and doing vegetation and trees and making it a very nice parklike area. However, they are going to wait until they find out the needs of the City when things open up from COVID and they finish the development around the area. They will be working on most of those this summer. Mr. Jensen stated the next thing is the JPA with Anoka County. Obviously, when they replaced Locke Park playground, that was an agreement when they removed the existing playground there. They wanted to wait until the development was in, they wanted to get feedback from Lennar and the Pulte Home area residents, and have their input as well with the existing neighborhood that was there. They need to join that onto the City’s Joint Powers Agreement with Anoka County and Locke Park. They were nice enough to let the City put that amenity on their managed property. Now with the connections with the Civic Campus, the Rice Creek trail corridor and Locke Park which is Anoka County, they have very nice pavilions and restrooms. They want to have a good working agreement with them where they can utilize the whole area. Not only can the City of Fridley residents go directly into that park and use those amenities connected to ours, but they can also come into ours, and we suggest things like improving the trail system in the park, improving the bridges. Around the park they have a request for grooming skiing trails and all of that, but they cannot do that right now with the condition. They are also in the process of working with Anoka County so that both entities can really benefit from the new development that is going in all around that area. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 35 of 40 Mr. Jensen stated the last one is Craig Park where they are trying to find champions. They did not want to just stop. Depending on funding options, if this does go into the 2022 general election for referendum, they do not want to just stop. They want to continue moving and show people what they can do and create champions. Along with the other things he mentioned such as doing updates at the Civic Campus, finishing Locke Park playground, and doing a whole large project at Craig Park, they are also looking at doing a small playground in an underserviced area to show what they can with the bigger scoped projects. Mr. Jensen stated If they look at the story map, they will see the concepts of Craig Park. There are quite a few changes in there. It is a nice big park. The City also has a couple of real small parks. They do not have room to expand and put in new tennis courts or pickleball courts. The City just physically does not have the room; however, they still want to service the residents in that area. They would like to take a real small park where they can show how much improvements they can do in the small neighborhood parks as well even when you do not have the ability to add all these extra things. You can be creative and come up with new ideas and just make the neighborhood proud of the parks. Mr. Jensen stated that is kind of in a nutshell what they are continuing to do to help support the Parks Master Plan and hopefully what they have done and what is going to happen in the next year with the Campus and how much these improvements do get noticed and used. While he is looking out the window at those ponds and the new trails and bridge they put in, it is amazing how many people are using the Civic Campus right now; and he can just see a lot more of that happening. Chairperson Kondrick stated to Mr. Jensen they did a bang up job back there. The Locke Park thing is just stupendous. If somebody was asking how they would make their park, have them drive by and look at Locke Park and say, this is what we have done, what we can do, and use your imagination and effort. You can make the thing look just like this. This is the kind of work we do and we are proud of it. He asked what kind of small park he is talking about for doing something special. Mr. Jensen stated actually the two on the list because of area, would be Jubilee and Ed Wilmes. They are two little small isolated parks. Great examples. He asked Chairperson Kondrick to also look at Locke Park by the time they do the pollinator gardens, bike racks, seating, swinging benches, security lights with cameras, and nice lawns. Ms. Dahl stated they wanted to make these changes without doing anything real aggressive or putting some money towards it and how long it would take. The finance team did the numbers and said it looks like it would take 137 years to complete the things Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 36 of 40 they needed to complete on their kind of current schedule for what the City can afford every year. That is way too far. However, it is kind of interesting how they have come to this point where they have not made any renovations for a long time. If they do not do something things will continue to deteriorate. They do not want to see health and safety hazards create any potential claims. There is a real loss of image and pride, and people do not feel so good if they are going to be around something that does not look nice or that is not safe for sure. That will impact the home and business values as they know, and there will probably be some loss of future revenue for programs the City would not be able to capture for people who want to play tennis or want to be at the parks, programs and rent shelters if they do not have it looking nice and attractive. There is kind of a loss of public support and trust. If they do nothing, please are going to say, what are you doing for us. These are our tax dollars and they expect the City to use them in a productive and healthy way. There is an impact to the leadership here in the community. As they all know if they put things off or kick the can down the road, those costs always go up. Chairperson Kondrick stated to Ms. Dahl, as to the eight items she has listed there, those are items they are going to be talking about a heck of a lot when it comes to money- making time. Making people aware of all of these things so they will understand how long should we wait, and the monies are necessary because of all of those reasons. Ms. Dahl stated they know that if they are successful, all of these great things are going to happen. They are trying to build for the next generations. They want to preserve the City’s assets. They want people to feel like there is something in this for everybody. That is the City’s goal here. They want people to be happier and healthier and safe and feel like they are getting good value here. Lots of great reasons if they are successful and they do it all right. They are going to see values of return on investment. Ms. Dahl stated they want the Commission to go out and review these concept designs. Give staff their feedback, complete those surveys, send staff those e-mails, on anything they really feel compelled to tell them. They have been in front of the public on so many things that the Commission’s expectations and what they think the community would want is really what staff is really counting on and asking for. Feel free to spread the word to people they know and ask them to go out and fill out information or comment. If they know of ways to do fundraising, they will certainly consider everything and anything at this point. Ms. Kruzel will also be sharing this idea of becoming what they are calling, a parks champion for folks who are kind of in that inner ring who are going to also be the ones who share the story for the City are going to be critical. Ms. Dahl stated if they kind of entertain new businesses that come into the City or realtors or some of these developers who are looking at ways to get involved with the City, these are great suggestions for them to contact one of our staff to try and learn more about it. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 37 of 40 It may be something which would benefit the newer businesses coming in or those who want to get more engaged in the community. Ms. Kruzel is going to be kind of their point person along with Mr. Jensen on any feedback. Commissioner Evanson stated his family was excited about the parks in Fridley. They adopted a park last year. He asked whether the Park Board has considered selling some of the park assets. It sounds like they have on an acre per 1,000 a very large park system. Rather than trying to do a facelift for such a large park system, selling off some assets to focus more heavily on maybe the more key park assets, have they thought about that as a possibility? Ms. Dahl replied, they did get a couple of questions around that. They did do kind of an initial analysis of, if they could sell anything what could they sell. Much of what the City has is earmarked or dedicated into perpetuities or once it is dedicated or provided to the City it is really not allowed to do anything with it except for maintaining it as a park or sell it. However, they have done what they thought was kind of a thorough analysis that the City is not really able to do that; but they could still put that on the table for review on a park-by-park basis. Commissioner Evanson asked if that is something that could be codified in the City’s Charter or what is it that prevents them. Mr. Heintz replied, given to the City by a builder or a family and was donated to the City, and that is the only use it can have in perpetuity. Plus, being on the Parks and Recreation Commission as long as he has, he would have a hard time selling a piece of park because who do they take it away from. Right now they have so many people within a one-half mile or less of a park. He would not want to take that park away from somebody and say, okay, now they are lowering the standard a little bit. That is why he would never vote for selling a piece of property. Ms. Dahl stated it is also worth knowing they spend a fair amount of time looking at how the parks are used and, not that they want to overprogram all these parks, but they have considered that. There are some parks that would probably just be better left naturally and maybe could be used in a different way under this new concept design. It does not mean they are going to take out all the tennis courts or playground, but there are some things that are more sustainable for the longer term. Ms. Jensen stated Ms. Dahl worded it perfectly and so did Commissioner Heintz that they did quite a bit of research on this, and the ones the City purchased and kept as a City are the real big community parks. The ones that were left by developers and stuff were chunks of land they could not develop on like Craig Park because it was low land so then they Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 38 of 40 dedicated to a park where a little one like Ed Wilmes, but they actually serve large areas. Those are actually some of the City’s most important parks. Even though it is a small little park that is only going to have a swing set, a small little playground, and a picnic table, some people because of the City’s restraints to the Mississippi River, University Avenue road, and 694, that is their only option. They just looked at those and thought it just would not be a good idea to get rid of some of the parks. The City does not have a whole lot they can get rid of legally, and the ones they could they cannot. Commissioner Buyse stated obviously it is an easy answer to sell off something and take something that somebody has been used to away from them, but he is sure there are ways they can track which parks are being used more vs. less. Ultimately that would be what they fall back on is if the numbers were not there, financially, that is the only angle at what Commissioner Evanson is getting at. He agrees with Commissioner Evanson and what he is saying. They started to explore some of the other financial options, and he knows this is just the beginning of the process, but making sure they are crossing their T’s and dotting the I’s in that respect is definitely going to go a long way. However, he always goes back to if they cannot afford what they have, well, there has to be other options. Rather than just immediately raising the tax base if you will. Commissioner Buyse stated is there a way they can mitigate some of that? Again, no one ever wants to be the bad guy who takes a park away. However, if they cannot make it nice enough to enjoy anyways why does it matter. Ultimately there are other options. They have already shown in the presentation there are tons of options out there. If they have to drive, walk, or bike a little bit further, that is part of being outside anyways. Ms. Dahl stated those points should be included in their future presentations to the public, and those would be actual questions to bring up. Commissioner Meisner stated he is in the neighborhood of Craig Park. The postcards that went out and the online survey, etc. was very good. He talked to his neighbors and everybody remembers getting one, and many of them had responded or were about to respond. The outreach, the design, the recognition of the problem was very refreshing, well presented, and engaging. Ms. Dahl stated that is going to be their motto, try and replicate as they roll out these plans to the other parks as they go. Commissioner Buyse asked Ms. Dahl what are the next steps for this plan? Ms. Dahl replied, they are really kind of in this early engagement stage of getting information out. They are taking a phone survey of residents right now through April. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 39 of 40 They are going to look at some funding options here. They will be analyzing all the feedback they get back in May, rolling out some of that feedback and results by early June, and then after that they will figure out kind of their next steps. If they did do a referendum, they are probably still going to be a year out from that. They have some time to do some tweaking and modification and meeting with different groups. If they cannot afford the 50 they have to get it down to a different level, and they will have to reprioritize with that as well. The initial steps here are just how do people feel, what do they want, give them any and all feedback and they will take it from there. Ms. Kruzel stated in the statistically significant survey there are a lot of questions around park amenity priorities. A lot of that information and a lot of the questions within the park concept design survey questions are really going to help the WSB team really kind of narrow down what some of the preferred park design options. Those design concepts are going to go through another redesign phase, and those will be updated again. Those things will kind of narrow down. If they get some comments around certain parks, that people want this, they don’t want that, that will continue to be redefined and they will have some more final sets of plans as well to help them sort through some of that funding, lowering the cost potentially, because those designs will have everything in them. They will kind of lower those designs down and those concepts. Commissioner Buyse asked, so once the plan is ultimately finalized, what regulatory bodies like this one, would this have to go through to take the next steps. Ms. Dahl replied, she is not sure she understands all of the steps, but she would say initially certainly the Parks and Recreation Commission and Planning Commission would be the first two rounds. Then if it is a referendum it goes into kind of another level as well. They will have a number of other engagement opportunities to get this information back out long before they actually ask for those decisions. This group will be in the loop on any and all updates as they go forward and recommendations and as those reports are available or if there is key information will be in as well. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Stromberg stated that Dave Kondrick has announced his retirement from the Planning Commission after 40+ years of service. Dave has been a dedicated public servant that has been supportive of staff and a great leader of the Commission. Staff and other Commissioners congratulated Dave and thanked him for his many years of service. ADJOURN: Motion by Commissioner Heintz to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner McClellan. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 40 of 40 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:48 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary