Loading...
06/24/1992 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1992 7:30 P.M. Public Copy Planning Commission City of Fridley AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1992 7:30 P.M. LOCATION: Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: May 27, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #92-06. BY MICHAEL BARGY: Per Section 205.07.01.C. (1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow a second accessory building over 240 square feet, on the West 82.5 feet of the East 247.5 feet, except the South 150 feet thereof, of Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, generally located at 1568 Ferndale Avenue N.E. CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #92-02, BY MYRON AND LILLIAN OSTLUND: To split the below referenced property into two separate parcels: The East 83 feet, front and rear, of Lots 6 and 14, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 10, Anoka County, Minnesota, also the East 83 feet of Outlot A, Dennis Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plats thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds, Anoka County, Minnesota. Generally located at 1400 - 66th Avenue N.E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY'S REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, AND APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE MODIFIED INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR THE CITY'S TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NO. 1 THROUGH No. 12 . THIS PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF 59TH AVENUE AND MAIN STREET APPROVE 1992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING REQUESTS RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 4, 1992 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF MAY 14 , 1992 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 19, 1992 Planning Commission Agenda June 24, 1992 Page 2 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 21, 1992 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1992 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 4, 1992 (Minutes are included in the item above; 1992 Community Development Block Grant Funding Requests) OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURN: . CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 27, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Betzold called the May 27, 1992, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Don Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Brad Sielaff Members Absent: Connie Modig, Diane Savage Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Gerald Pehl, 1250 Mississippi Street N.E. Russell Humphrey, 8100 East River Road APPROVAL OF MAY 13 , 1992, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to approve the May 13, 1992, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #92-05. BY GERALD AND DOROTHY PEHL: Per Section 205.08.01.C. (1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow a second accessory building over 240 square feet on the North 213 .0 feet of that part of Lot 15, Auditor's Subdivision No. 88, lying East of Moore Lake Highlands First Addition, except the South 85 feet thereof and also except the North 33 feet thereof, generally located at 1250-1260 Mississippi Street N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:32 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the intersection of Mississippi Street and Pierce Street and west of Central Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 27, 1992 PAGE 2 Ms. McPherson stated the property is zoned R-2, Two Family Dwelling. There is additional R-2 zoning to the south, C-1, Local Business zoning to the east, and R-1, Single Family Dwelling zoning to the west. Currently located on the property is a two family dwelling. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting a special use permit to allow the construction of a 22 ft. by 24 ft. second accessory building in the southeast corner of the property. The proposed use of the accessory structure is for a woodworking shop. The accessory structure will have one 8 foot overhead door which will face Pierce Street on the west wall of the accessory structure, and there will be a standard service door to provide access into the structure. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing to locate the second accessory structure over an existing ten inch sanitary sewer line. The City does not have an easement for the location of this sewer line; however, the Engineering Department has surveyed the property and located the sewer line and has drawn up an easement document which has been given to the petitioner for execution. The petitioner's legal counsel will review the document prior to executing the document with the City. The easement is necessary as it allows the City access onto the property should the line need repair or maintenance. Ms. McPherson stated a hold harmless agreement should also be executed between the petitioner and the City to ensure that the City will not be held liable if the structure is damaged in any way should the City need to access the utility line for maintenance and repair. Ms. McPherson stated the Commission has a memo from the Engineering Department stating the City has no problem with the location of the proposed accessory structure. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing that the structure will be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling, and no additional curb cuts will be required for the accessory structure from either Mississippi Street or Pierce Street. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner needs to be aware that the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the use of the accessory building for a home occupation. A section of the Zoning Ordinance regarding home occupations was included in the Commission's agenda packet. Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit request, SP #92-05, for a second accessory building over 240 square feet, with the following stipulations: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 27, 1992 PAGE 3 1. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling unit and shall not exceed 14 feet in height. 2. The petitioner shall convey a ten foot utility easement for the sanitary sewer line. 3 . The petitioner shall execute a hold harmless agreement which releases the City of any liability to the accessory structure as a result of repairs or replacement of the sanitary sewer line. 4. The accessory building cannot be used for the conduct of a "home occupation" as defined in the zoning code. Mr. Pehl stated woodworking is his hobby and he is now nearing retirement. He has always had his shop in the garage, and the cars have had to sit outside. He would like to build the second accessory structure for his woodworking shop. He will then be able to have his cars and his woodworking equipment inside. Mr. Pehl stated he will need to provide a curb cut to provide access to the structure in order to bring in tools and machinery. Mr. Betzold stated his only concern would be the noise of the machinery. Should they put a restriction on the hours of operation? Mr. Pehl stated he had a woodworking shop in his garage when he lived in New Brighton from which he moved a few months ago. He never had any complaints from the neighbors. He seldom works late at night. Mr. Pehl stated the building he is proposing will be fully insulated so the sound will be muffled. The machines are also not running continuously. He will certainly make every effort to not disturb the neighbors. Mr. Saba stated he did not think they want to add any stipulation regarding hours of operation. Any complaints can be handled through the normal code enforcement process. Ms. Sherek agreed. She stated that where this property is located on Mississippi Street, the people in this area are certainly used to living with noise. Ms. Dacy stated staff wanted to make the home occupation ordinance clear to the petitioner, because what may be a hobby now for retirement may turn into some type of small business in the future, and staff wanted to make sure the petitioner knew that would be contrary to the ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 27, 1992 PAGE 4 Mr. Pehl acknowledged that he understood the ordinance requirements. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:45 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend to City Council approval of special use permit, SP #92-05, by Gerald and Dorothy Pehl, per Section 205.08.01.C. (1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow a second accessory building over 240 square feet on the North 213.0 feet of that part of Lot 15, Auditor's Subdivision No. 88, lying East of Moore Lake Highlands First Addition, except the South 85 feet thereof and also except the North 33 feet thereof, generally located at 1250-1260 Mississippi Street N.E. , with the following stipulations: 1. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling unit and shall not exceed 14 feet in height. 2 . The petitioner shall convey a ten foot utility easement for the sanitary sewer line. 3. The petitioner shall execute a hold harmless agreement which releases the City of any liability to the accessory structure as a result of repairs or replacement of the sanitary sewer line. 4. The accessory building cannot be used for the conduct of a "home occupation" as defined in the zoning code. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on June 29, 1992. 2 . REVIEW OF RESEARCH REGARDING CAR WASHES IN THE C-1, LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT: Ms. McPherson stated that at the last meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed two items for the property at 8100 East River Road. One item was a rezoning request to rezone the property from C-1, Local Business, to C-2, General Business. The second item was for a special use permit to allow a car wash in the C-2 district. Ms. McPherson stated the Commission directed staff to conduct an analysis to determine if it would be feasible to amend the C-1, Local Business district, to allow car washes as a special use PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 27, 1992 PAGE 5 instead of pursuing the rezoning request. Staff has conducted that analysis. Ms. McPherson stated that staff examined other communities' ordinances regarding car washes, and the results of that analysis were included in the agenda packet. The results were that communities are typically limiting car washes to their higher intensity commercial and industrial districts. The results were not conclusive as to whether or not car washes were allowed by right or by special use. Each community had some additional restrictions depending upon where the car wash was to be located. For example, while Maple Grove permitted a car wash by right in the commercial district, the property was not permitted to abut a residential zoning district. There were some additional parking requirements. Ms. McPherson stated staff also researched the issue of whether or not a distinction was made between roll-over car washes as proposed by the petitioner or the tunnel style car washes such as Riverside Car Wash. Ms. McPherson stated staff looked at the different locations in the community which are currently zoned C-1, Local Business, and a map was included in the agenda packet. Of the eight locations which are zoned C-1, Local Business, four of the locations are adjacent to residential districts and four are located adjacent to other commercial districts. Obviously, the impact of the car wash would be greater to the adjacent residential properties versus the adjacent commercial properties. Ms. McPherson stated staff tried to objectively look at the advantages and disadvantages of amending the C-1 zoning district to permit car washes as a special use. The disadvantages tend to outweigh the advantages. The advantages are that there would be minimal impact on adjacent commercial properties, and it would allow greater flexibility for the property owner to market and to use the property. Ms. McPherson stated the disadvantages to amending the zoning ordinance would include the increased traffic, the potential hours of operation, the noise of the car wash, especially dryers and the accessory vacuum cleaners, adequate buffering standards, and the possibility of increased air pollution as the result of the increased stacking of cars. Ms. McPherson stated she spoke with the petitioner, Mr. Kisch, who estimated that between 150-200 cars visit his Maple Grove car wash on an average busy Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. He estimated that the car wash at 8100 East River Road would probably have half that number of cars. Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending that the Planning Commission not consider amending the C-1, Local Business, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 27, 1992 PAGE 6 regulations to allow car washes as a special use permit. However, if the Commission chooses to recommend that the City Council consider amending the C-1 ordinance, staff has three recommendations: 1. The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing and invite those residents adjacent to the four locations of C-1, Local Business zoning. 2. The Planning Commission should develop specific standards to address the impacts of noise, hours of operation, traffic, buffering, etc. , which must be met prior to issuance of a special use permit. 3. If the zoning ordinance amendment is approved, the petitioner, Don Kisch, will be required to file and receive a variance for those items which do not conform with the C-1, Local Business district regulations. 3. (TABLED 5/13/92) PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #92-03 , BY DON KISCH: Per Section 205. 14.01.C. (6) of the Fridley City Code, to allow a motor vehicle wash establishment on Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey No. 125, generally located at 8100 East River Road N.E. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to reopen the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:55 P.M. Mr. Humphrey stated he is the manager of the store at 8100 East River Road, and he is representing the petitioner, Mr. Kisch. He stated the car wash will improve the property. As far as the neighborhood is concerned, input from the neighborhood indicates that they would really like a car wash at this location. It would be more convenient for them. Mr. Humphrey stated that as far as the stacking of cars, they seldom see more than 3-4 cars at any one time, and these cars would be behind the property. Mr. Betzold stated the streets in this area are pretty narrow, and East River Road is very busy and getting busier. There might typically be only 3-4 cars in line at one time, but there are going to be peak times during the year when there is too much congestion at that point of East River Road or on the already narrow streets. Are they trying to put too much on this property? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 27, 1992 PAGE 7 Mr. Humphrey stated he understood Mr. Betzold's point. However, the length of the car wash itself is 5 minutes or less. The way it is proposed, the cars would enter from Fairmont and go behind the building. He just does not anticipate more than 3-4 cars at the same time waiting for the car wash. The most cars he has ever seen at one time is 5-6 cars at the Maple Grove site which is a very large station. Mr. Humphrey stated they feel the addition of the car wash will give them the opportunity to increase their regular business. That store has been down for so many years, and they are trying to upgrade the property and make it a successful business. Ms. Sherek stated Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Kisch may well do a wonderful job now, but in the future when the property changes hands, the City does not know what is going to happen. The procedure to remove a special use permit once it has been granted is almost impossible. She has a problem with amending the C-i zoning to permit any more intensive uses adjacent to residential areas. She stated the other consideration is that overuse of a property also causes a lot of problems. Mr. Saba stated he agreed with Ms. Sherek. When they allow a more intensive use next to a residential district, they have to be concerned with the neighbor who is trying to enjoy his/her property. Even though they had discussed at the last meeting that the roll-over type car washes are less noisy and intensive than the standard tunnel-type car washes, he did agree that they really do not belong next to residential neighborhoods. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:05 P.M. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend to City Council denial of special use permit, SP #92-03, by Don Kisch, per Section 205. 14.01.C. (6) of the Fridley City Code, to allow a motor vehicle wash establishment on Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey No. 125, generally located at 8100 East River Road N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Dacy stated that on June 1, 1992, the City Council will establish the public hearing on the rezoning for June 29, 1992. The special use permit will also be heard that night. Along with the rezoning and special use permit, staff will include the analysis and the Planning Commission minutes on the C-1 option. - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 27, 1992 PAGE 8 4. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRPERSON: Chairperson Betzold declared the nominations open for vice- chairperson. Mr. Saba nominated Dave Kondrick to continue as vice-chairperson. Hearing no other nominations, Chairperson Betzold declared the nominations closed. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to cast a unanimous ballot for Dave Kondrick as Vice-Chairperson of the Planning Commission for 1992-93. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE THE APRIL 21, 1992, ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the April 21, 1992, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE MAY 7, 1992, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the May 7, 1992, Human Resources Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the motion carried and the May 27, 1992, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8: 10 p.m. Re pectfully submitted, '0(4- 1(41‘ Ly a Saba Recording Secretary a r C7 STAFF REPORT Community Development Department Appeals Commission Date Planning Commission Date : June 24, 1992 City Council Date REQUEST Permit Number SP #92-06 Applicant Michael Bargy Proposed To allow a second accessory building over 240 square feet. Request Location 1568 Ferndale Avenue N.E. SITE DATA Size 11,480 square feet Density Present Zoning R-1 , Single Family Dwelling Present Land Use(s) Single family Adjacent R-1 , Single Family to the North, South, East, and West Zoning Adjacent Land Use(s) Single family to the North, South, East, and West Utilities Park Dedication Watershed District Rice Creek ANALYSIS Financial Implications Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan Compatibility with Adjacent Zoning and Uses Environmental Considerations RECOMMENDATION Staff Approval with stipulations Appeals Commission Planning Commission Author MM/dn SP #92-06 • Michael Bargy • . . . • • I THIS IS A COMPILATION OF RECORDS AS THEY APPEAR IN THE ANOKA COUNTY OFFICES AFFECTING THE AREA SHOWN. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE USED ONLY FOR r 30, 824 REFERENCE PURPOSES AND THE COUN TY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY IN- ACCURACIES HEREIN CONTAINED. FRIDLEY . 5.3924 i 15 w000l I.-Me . C) N.E. CORNER — , •• ' A k •I Si...A.,..T.P.L,V.,. •,' z . • 'r-,• '''''1 Toi .:74, ;zr..1 -.,;,.....:!.ROI j"=::;----7e I':.:•171 . • ... .." . • .n , let. ' ''' •'-',L ' "• '' t M 0 -., '. ' ''). i'.- f• ; *;-• 1 0 g , ,„ .-e . . • ; -L -1 .4. ss,.... .. !. ,---- IBIE 1,- ,AAMEA,1 /,.. ' ... , ' '11. "-.'1'. f- 1 .s-- 'r ' rliA 6 : •'. mir'''' .or ;I - -- - ... - 0 • HILL ' 1 ' /". -.". , :. .... 44. ..if , t , *5. /VI, ,r • ,.o.)/ -,` , ! 1.:i. <re ie.' -...--, CREST ' .DRIVE• : ,': 7. ' ..'" : ' '4') I.' ' . . • ..i '''-- • . .,,,. .,,,. ‘- 'I.:: e . •.Ula 4 "''' :'. ... I , .... •.... ,.... .-.....,so e •,!... 1 , e, ...-.__,.. L. ..". -444- ••1' ' 1.. "'- 2 i' 1 ..1\41 .• , *friliffClt , 7•,:- , '-. ,......,,,.,.# 411 4•117' _,,I., •,,, 4.t , ,, ,,tr. sitliilli :;‘).0!_,.,,•, -s, • -..-„..:' _ s‘ ,..ii. ..,...,. ,.. s., IF;7,;‘• . ',1:57 ., i v3.-it,.. 1 ' .,. i ? .. ,.. DRNE .. • „ ,., ., i .„., , 2 - , ' ±-' '' er ' •,- . 1 Ve04 rIsAl • Ns- • ---. . — s-- 4 ' .1.00-kz ; • • -i„ , ,, I , , —. . t.,.,---: .,..,4 —. ....= • -, , . ..) --. -- ,,,, i + • 5;;.,I • P i -,,,,,r tool/Ai- :0"-,'"te' -, 1 • , •.- ,. A- 0° t‘ , 't'n e e.00,, ., , . . . • , %10 (...) or - . ...'.....e".- - -.6----!--60 fft; - ., . m . • 16 . •. , ... 'r'. ,• s; „.,* . .. „,-- L. .. ''''' li'l '''' 1 ''' * '^A;'Acb8. HiL .. 0 /0 ,:.: 1 .-.! , - 1 ••‘ .-..'A.,a ,,, - - ° N ,,,„, , .:-.•-..„. , 17•s•.1 ........f/ e'n illt,,.,.. ........ -...-,A ta ME L91.AND', GARDENS , , ,. ,. .., ,,,,,,, ,— • —....„ , , e ''''f.:., - ..-I • 1. .....„.._:'-'., ,IARDE ELEMENTARY -. 7 .: is ti, • 4/ • . 't - . • '.•- It -•- • ('',SC OOL -:1- 2.0-1 . • % 22 Z5 ?13 24 25 ' 2 :," to) .. 'i. • 1., .4 ..: ,,1.. ...,,— V .,„„.0 ' ,.-- .., • ,0 , -i v" %t, ,, ,i 1- ' .•1'7:'-7..::',-;,.%•;.-- 1 L.N4 A3 t : I *•''1 41 ''' ' ..... " f>se , 12.75 zzs $ 4, . ..- x‘..: ''' to, .‘ _,"'..!''',..-ri t..........'.... It...L.L.' 1.,./f) ;;;5-c-:. I ik:.' ,,, , . "1• -7.1,..":GA , NA'', ;6.5"--:.-. .e. —,,---AV1ERLIE•'—'44 •..., t)- (e) • i - B7 7.f...t. "-4- -..... ..5 AVENUE - '..--i' (....., 't. t') ,,,71 , ,,r.,•”,, ,.:,-''''' r 1.1 ,1 ,.. -...,. I u. H '' ets,c„ 2c".- 32 -I•C 2 "8 34 ',(' s6l4k---"7-- ° e•I ,‘,..„, . ,,,,,,-;T C)'— 0.,1/ cet /12 , I . . , - 4'. '....,4..... . 442 I (Alte k , 4 ,._, 1 V., , ,_ 38“a...) , 42 lt r ,,t 1 . HIGH 4AE ! , i • • ,' a_ , ,..y.,-1 (l) 1 1 / , . 0 • ,... • . . 4 4 1 ). (c '. i I . , : (no '44- 0 4 .,. ' '4) ( (..,4(") 1 1 .4 • I 1 T 46 , I 1. 48 45 • - * SCHOOL ADDITION ...._. , 1 i, 1 ,,.: z , ‘ 4 ' 4 . .1 1..°) : I ., I • . . 0°' / I yam(' •t, • • ,:., $/ 40 50 .. 1 p . ' '. , ',7 , l'. , . c _...•4, ,;,...-.--' 1F, . 1 .....,, 4...,,, •,„:„... _........... •:7--) ._., E//4 CORN R A ,4 I /A7N—SERLICK, " /4"AGES SEC. 14 * CD / ,..;; ,-.:,..".....:,-•'..---;:.:::.,;. 14 ROLAND W. ANDERSON COUNTY SURVEYOR Zr.....1 .. .... A4101,COO., ........0(44• ..7.7,74' • . ...----;.;........4 r 1 LOCATION MAP a SP #92-06 • Michael Bargy r /,s S; 4DV OAN- — "'`" , 6 s �4 I �, • ` 9E/� .� MANOR-�� j 4 �s e s "'Left JC�LJ , . / —7 1 1 i 6 }! - I �� <<CR Ti DRIVE / 9 �p /s • � '` 5 zti 3.fie 4MB ' �� V a OAKS z . orb► Aah i� OR, E. i4b;!r47k , tji9H /0 „s waPrez� i -- s E z • PwN , t � � �' EL ,►LAND • _ r,Anc - I P '. rc I -- ., �7 • 7 `_y�Q/TH ACADEMY e. rt �3e .as II v - ,Q G ,L -g` a ArDZWY • E '61 GARD W A J i ! .4/ t2 13 44;; / 267I 29 - _ 2 r 1 _f :::,4- '..,) 1 .4 W 3 f GRACE HIGH — �qo„. r. . .�s s. 13 / L, Q/ 5 11 1 • ,1 3 _ 22 / 1 T J'��' N Q .. r, `�I '► Z B SCHOOL ADDITION �, c:: I N i� t c 5-W 9 pq K '� \ 10. S._';' C? P's ft rci c ...� , Ezra K af •- a , pp' iC..T/9 " Too ict i ___ mwsem cx �, r , , 1 1 1 - ,� \\ ' .. . . -- -___521 AO •�� -• L )' - ,r _ 1 I ZONING MAP Staff Report SP #92-06, by Michael Bargy Page 2 Request The petitioner requests that a special use permit be granted to allow construction of a second accessory structure over 240 square feet. The request is located at 1568 Ferndale Avenue N.E. Site Located on the property is a single family dwelling unit with an attached two car garage. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are all adjacent properties. Analysis The petitioner is proposing to construct a 20' x 22 ' detached accessory structure. The petitioner is proposing to locate the structure three feet from the side and rear lot lines as required by code, and intends to use the structure for storage purposes. The addition of the structure to the lot does not adversely impact the lot coverage, nor will it adversely impact adjacent properties. The accessory structure cannot exceed 14 feet in height, and cannot be used for any home occupations. Recommendation As the proposed accessory structure does not adversely impact the subject property or adjacent properties, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of special use permit request, SP #92-06, to the City Council with the following stipulations: 1. The proposed accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling unit, and shall not exceed 14 feet in height. 2. The accessory structure shall not be used for a home occupation as defined in the Zoning Code. 3 . If necessary, the petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway to the accessory structure by June 1, 1993. SP #92-06 ' Michael Bargy 1 1; N /., • - • -72, > 1 . . 5 ! of • i k I , i . 1 I . , I 1 1 • 1 • : . • , . : •. , , 4,----, -c > 3 •r)c-A--\ ; (---- 1 i I , 1 . ob I • 1 . i ; . . .. . . I i . 6 ) 12N5 ! "4! i . 'I MS- I aa -15 1 > < zz _ _ . , • SITE PLAN ,_ r PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. on Wednesday, June 24, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #92- 06, Michael Bargy, per Section 205.07.01.C. (1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow a second accessory building over 240 square feet, on the West 82.5 feet of the East 247.5 feet, except the South 150 feet thereof, of Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, generally located at 1568 Ferndale Avenue N.E. Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than June 17, 1992. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department at 571-3450. DONALD BETZOLD CHAIR PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: June 9, 1992 June 16, 1992 CITY OF FRIDLEY rip 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FRIDLEY,MN 55432 — J (612)571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM PROPERTY INFORMATION site plan required for submittal; see attached Address: 15G rerwdaje Ave- N E Priatey `MN 5.5 k 33- Property Identification Number(PIN) # 24 310 s4 41' OO 2 g Legal description:The 6 z.5"4 ee4- o4 Tr a Eas4- 47.5-fee c,4-4 ke=sac t sc o f' of .04 -r 7, o ,vuA"+o rS Swbd:vit ion. ��.. Lot 7 Block Tract/Addition Current zoning: ResI(JP...tioj Square footage/acreage %A t X too Reason for special use permit To bV i SIn'tt. 4v' si-o Section of City Code: `J Have you operated a business in a city which required a business license? Yes No ,rX If yes,which city? If yes, what type of business? ' Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes Nu • FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title) (Contract Purchasers: Fee Owners must sign this form prior to processing) NAME Pith/ - ADDRESS /5(o Fern- � It Ave. IU E. rr Ale/ MA/ S5' DAYTIME PHONE 639—0/to 6 SIGNATURE 0.4,,I,f,V $ tj, DATE spa f g o'L PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME MI civet getk- ADDRESS i 5 (, g P-evvl.Ale A_ILQ AlF Wit''i d l ey DAYTIME PHONE 63d-O/6 _ SIGNATURE 1 o� g DATE Fee: $200.00 $100.00 for residential 2nd accessory buildings Permit SP# '?i-0 Receipt# Application received by: Scheduled Planning Commission date: ( .l_f/�,Q� Z 19 q 7--- Scheduled City Council date: SP #92-06 Planning 6/5/92 Michael Bargy MAILING LIST Council Michael Bargy Current Resident Mauricio Garcia 1568 Ferndale Avenue N.E. 6021 Benjamin Street N.E. 6075 Woody Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 James Roussin Yul Choi Paul Agnew 5995 Benjamin Street N.E. 1566 - 61st Avenue N.E. 6069 Woody Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Paul Spencer Walter Kycia Robert Allie 6020 McKinley Street N.E. 1572 - 61st Avenue N.E. 1313 Hillcrest Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Robert Gillitzer Paul Pugsley Thomas Manning 6011 Benjamin Street N.E. 1578 - 61st Avenue N.E. 1315 Hillcrest Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Yui Cheng Tam David Nelson Richard Palmer 6035 Benjamin Street N.E. 1579 Ferndale Avenue N.E. 1329 Gardena Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 John Bolich, Jr. Terry Clasen Planning Commission Chair 1580 - 60th Avenue N.E. 1573 Ferndale Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 City Council Members Thomas Harrington Charles Borgan 1590 - 60th Avenue N.E. 1567 Ferndale Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Charles Majeske Rodger Sorsoleil 1570 - 60th Avenue N.E. 1561 - 60th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Wesley Long Jeffrey Sliter 1560 - 60th Avenue N.E. 1567 - 60th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Gilbert Sakariason Sheldon Tarman 5965 Oakwood Manor N.E. 1581 - 60th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Gilbert Haugen Darlyne Rekucki 1560 Ferndale Avenue N.E. 1591 - 60th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Mark Zaver D. Hunt 6040 Benjamin Street N.E. 6020 Benjamin Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Elmars Prieditis Michael Evans 6031 Benjamin Street N.E. 1561 Ferndale Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 STAFF REPORT Community Development Department Appeals Commission Date Planning Commission Date : June 24, 1992 City Council Date REQUEST Permit Number L.S. #92-02 Applicant Myron and Lillian Ostlund Proposed To create two single family lots from one. Request Location 1400 - 66th Avenue N.E. SITE DATA Size 20,708.5 square feet .47 acres Density Present Zoning R-l , Single Family Dwelling Present Land Use(s) Single family Adjacent R-1 , Single Family Dwelling to the North, South, East, and West Zoning Adjacent Land Use(s) Single family to the North, South, East, and West Utilities Stubbed to second lot Park Dedication $750.00 Watershed District Rice Creek ANALYSIS Financial Implications Outstanding assessments from Creek Park Lane Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan Compatibility with Adjacent Zoning and Uses Environmental Considerations RECOMMENDATION Staff Approval with stipulations Appeals Commission Planning Commission Author r>M/dn L.S. #92-02 . Myron/Lillian Ostlund '2 SEC. /3, T. 30, R 24 CITY OF FRIDLEY 13 i2 CD1 I?kV COR+R r .SAC./3 ,,. �.. ,a,.[M1',- VW ' ro s:-"`R f , ,.. -1 .e. e"'r'„_ .,,_ r y,._ `. �.. -.: ,�',.- 1_ C4llN n—RoAB--=H-"--- 7r h `,:dho.4 (' h C7 (� ., (v. L(1 7 8'b ,'�D y Q i0 1 J t:P,9.x'r,r1JSC.)J a Z R C �i '. X^a-- _-' 16 1 17' 18 19 1204.?.?!--' RI rfr/^') x`1• cr 6. G, ,yel ',/"... F b A z, (320) (QC/ r:7 �iff�i g ��� 0 xx,,i , y360) ' 42 : E 40 (F hr) x'i L -�'�a 'VIG� a e,.arR.rr h pta0 .4{rT �ZO©© " ,• 1. ryJ- ^`- (aC/>� Y�--- L O� �; PSG\ ''a y N� C ( 4,gag •6 ~ {(r S/h✓M F/or.`F • - C./c _,, � ✓,Pb,-�Matr/R #t Gfj /�.s i..i../.) • ..'3 ,,,.... fe,/.i. avnor • ., ROAPI Er D f -M'`- --- ' *� .` +"� I 2 '' 3� "'" "-,. 1 ••' el( .J:(rzo,- Ca) r. ��,+ O tidy J) — /Ar, y GRG /�. r.i... 6rF� r (2od R P,) l9 I< 4 K,'' 0 �,, , ` ? oCa. • r P ,' °." ' PRE T Fi, -1 4 42;7 :-I \ �' i.e.r x <,/rri:4AV , 2 Br t I J +: � �..iiy) fire �� eek � � Yy4s 0 •• ra. z9W � :� A a ,/,r;... E 4 0 4 En) i�" «.. .. „ ' ��ti T` ze,o) �' 2� G "�jENN/$ � „ . •s'•. f (isso)0� I )P 1 - i--Z_ c T�' 2.s 3? 2 t ( rvsJ • F K,^ /o ) 9, ?' —:-c- `' .dn.i ry,` 'n P�n4 r T NEE •E7 �r I �,„J �A ZB a((,w„) ti0) F(r eby d" ,I^r 60 "u -YYs1 "r�� �� LGB l,; �1 9 bD/T/ON i a29, J...n.., - W) • eV)�/ ., .. .. 3 ,�,� d-: [ zo )/r �, x,zg ,3 // ri o 9 (<1 41 4 Q (ass) e „ I u .. ., r .:,f�r h Nn//9 t i' /2t: x/f /2 4o- /IA I .r E /«) . 6 e ! +. ILA i,,���>: s i"/' a£ /s /. ;.r 466TH AVE. N.E. ..c:.a- �'n/y�' a [/J ... () ,9rd Jr' !,� 7'/ `yam'' 1'1/6_ p0.03oPT..) Q a v" / . /f r IMP )i f^7/f /7 /O Nr / r /D Y lr �Ya ( ei : ./� ., - Y i f t /c t i : /s • »:41.N.C-; r"(Z 4 G res.) i+.,,:�+�"i.. m I e 4)4. i z�^s x °�,; c @ �- 6 6 T�I� U! AVE. W e.,..... O u :a x �lr,:? a Roo r a W a 9b / p G`ip' (Teel F Oa ,t - S4 LANEz = • :''/� 1.)l,'^ i,I G- ,' Q O 3QOi,� ;�{ '^vb+JE,az . i .�.,)Z9u(�- 2 u1J/ r /M • .. ET' Sa,._ r �� h?6 3 Y :b,az 13 9 /3Njj 2 E�- . /.. ler) �- C»'�. d v.>: ,_ .CREEK.�P° "(m\S N' � `C 1- 4 !4 i...lf� cvu :� / 2 7x t .- `.�/ ,1iq-4.-4 N Pa '/50� I 5 s2 0a 3 k•P V a /a ,,.,0= ,, "Nfr "' :�' ��- ; , ,.r';+ a), E) .1 t2, ,,,,,)st 4•)zsI c� W sa 71 • i kt a .. 1+. ° yi ° z . ) T T i : Q zf �71T J i vie- e.0 7,.ho f') CR K0PARKFLN. x:, ; / 1 t-- Y 1 . tJ s /O�x-4 S( - , 4,e/ r.;C^') : 2 ,n• R I- O a ,i„; 2,-- {o'/o (.a ('+)°'j 14141 r` ' S ,u0 ,,., A �,;W ODS�i .. �' O. (a`) (+� /i , 20 a .// E : 9(")a „e i rC) rz. w) i,: 1 ; iQ• © a' � . C) , `f?11ar %; ; O ,., JIz M,f ,° , --,u; -ter,- ,`Se se i .\' a t. „`, / � re �(")�. STREEY " ERT 11 I EC./ 24 O 13 q 15 , / LOCATION MAP L.S. #92-02 Myron/Lillian Ostlund 1 l 1 • � � vr. • • • i _ },fir,-(� 4. .1��.:V.•� .M`1� - /6 /7 /8 /. Zo :t ys0 W •• • r 4 lc, 1 '�� ',), itact - .rw'"-1,., 1. ¢ O••�•� •� • �• .11 48 H.AVE? // iy'IL,,..� „ . r F d • urd‘ .A4 ,, V r • 4 �i` •7 I- 1 wg• .> � t t .ey� r RIC (:`REEK'., o; r- :-, . , ;•• 1• •o• 1 I f PARK' - a iI • •••• • 4-M 4".6. 4 w` d' 6• cd • IC 4. • • ta,; 4-N 4 . MELT: -•c-1re c:%.:7 .a . i / r - ;(47 R • .1- id ilk.P.• —__,,„,,r,.,r.aird•%,„_ ''. .00' I aI • f • G. r•.....• ....,.... ze _ •.•.•.• 0 et]• V• - A P C'. , . 3 6 il .4 • ......... :14 sc., „4 , 7 ) .. . - ii 49_4 / 4 ' :i • �n ��.1 t s W4t. -Z9 _0 -• •• • •TH AVE. N. O - al a • i i - , I i I I 'Cm 66 H. rQ • •.••• lillaii'e4 7"1. -- 0 I 2 7 /Z 3 plaltr$4.:•••,:•:• Z �'�� PR ) ' l y ' Q 4 O a ,r - 4 :CI ,121 i'r �'u _ i, I :atriI , T V • r 1'1 , / cr Z) • 1 I 3 ' - 6 VI wt al -4 i itilelliasi Pitattlitiallirr lel" I. - ME _ UICCIQCt001 - - CTOGCT • ZONING MAP Staff Report L.S. #92-02, by Myron and Lillian Ostlund Page 2 Request The petitioner requests that a lot split be approved to split 1400 - 66th Avenue N.E. into two residential lots. Site Located on the property is a single family dwelling unit with an attached two car garage. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, and there is similar zoning to the north, south, east, and west. Analysis The petitioner is proposing to subdivide the south 120 feet of the subject property in order to create a second lot fronting on Creek Park Lane N.E. The proposed lot split would create two single family lots; one of 10, 001.5 square feet, which will be the new lot, and one of 10,707 square feet, which will be for the existing dwelling unit. The proposed lots meet the minimum requirements for lot width, lot area, and setbacks for the existing dwelling unit as required by the R-1, Single Family Dwelling district regulations. Utilities were stubbed to the lot line when Creek Park Lane was constructed in 1984. There are outstanding special assessments of $13,737. 37 which will need to be paid at the time the lot is sold or prior to issuance of a building permit. A park dedication fee of $750.00 will also be required to be paid at the time of issuance of a building permit for the vacant lot. Recommendation As the proposed lot split creates two lots which meet the minimum requirements of the R-1, Single Family Dwelling district regulations, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the lot split request, L.S. #92-02, to the City Council, with the following stipulation: 1. A park dedication fee of $750.00 shall be paid at the time of issuance of a building permit for the vacant lot. L.S. #92-02 Myron/Lillian Ostlund P HENNEPINCOUNTY SURVEYS TAOL1611EO ISOd MINNEAPOLIS SURVEYS. LAND SJR ` ^ YOTS C. F. SANDHOF 0410 PALM STREET N.W. REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF- STATE OF MINNESOTA CIVIL ENGINEEF LSTAOLISNEO 1900 SUNser 4-7655 LICENSED SY ORDINANCE OF CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS OWNER JAMES NELSOI 326 PLYMOUTH BUILDING FEDERAL 8-0721 SURVEYOR INOL.STRIAL — JUDICIAL HENNEPIN AT SIXTH • MINNEAPOLIS 3. MINNESOTA LTA0L161-1EO 1022 BUSINESS — TOPOGRAPHICAL uthtpor'' tll.lCA1'C METROPOLITAN L. CITY LOTS — PLATTING SURVEYORS. ESTABLISH MYRON OSTLUND • • 460--4 • 66 A vE: j\i. r . . .• I • 4,- - IR it /4� 1a if ' ` -. 83' •1 ci i iO i i . - L i f ttl C't j r . :. ' '.1.. ! I'c 4 •- LAC/ 4,5 • I 4' ii} T , .. r_t `i ! 1 a • i i t- l .. "I .- =f Aid 4 I I n;.- ' • WE HEREBY CERTIFY TH.I. THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT PLAT OF A SU • THE EAST 83,0 FEET; FRONT AND REAR• OF LOTS 6 AND 14,, REV I SED Au: SUBDIVISION NUMBER 10, ANOI .A COUNTY 1 MINNESOTA ALSO THE EAST 81 OF OUTLOT A, DENNIS ADD I T I ON ,ANOKA COUNTY,MINNESOTA ACCORDING 1 RECORDED PLATS THEREOF ON FILE AND OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF REGISTER IF DEEDS,ANOKA COUNTY,I`�I NNESOTA AS SURVEYED BY US THI DAY OF JULY, 1970R • i SITE PLAN INJ CITY OF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER•6431 UNIVERSITY AVE.N.E. FRIDLEY,MN 55432•(612)571-3450• FAX (612)571-1287 June 5, 1992 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The City of Fridley Planning Commission will be holding an informal hearing on a lot split, L.S. #92-02, by Myron and Lillian Ostlund, to split the below referenced property into two separate parcels: The East 83 feet, front and rear, of Lots 6 and 14, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 10, Anoka County, Minnesota, also the East 83 feet of Outlot A, Dennis Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plats thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds, Anoka County, Minnesota. Generally located at 1400 - 66th Avenue N.E. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, June 24, 1992 at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. at 7:30 p.m. Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department at 571- 3450. Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than June 12, 1992 . DONALD BETZOLD CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF FRIDLEY IJ 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FRIDLEY,MN 55432 — (612)571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LOT SPLIT APPLICATION FORM PROPERTY INFORMATION - site plan required for submittal; see attached 1 j Address: /4 0c — ;f� ,4lie, /( Property Identification Number (PIN)_, (PIN)' 3 3 -2.4— yEs. 93,k � t fear Of,O 1 7 /lti/7:4$4W'03"_.3vi"Le al description: e.0) ?i, ff 41r Dego, Lot ` Block Tract/Addition Current zoning: Square footage/acreage 2 O/V8,6-s'1, Reason for lot split: ' r j'/ of Ltc 1C / �ll Have you operated a business in a city which required a business license? Yes No X If yes, which city? If yes,what type of business? Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title) (Contract Purchasers: Fee Owners must sign this form nor p ocess g) NAME c'l c t dries Zi//d n 1 i?0 ADDRESS /¢470— G�� se, /Vt. ic/1 DAYTIME PHONE 7e? �939 SIGNATURE)iy ��...,Q (11J14.,, i DATE =13-9 PETITIONER INFOR/MATION NAME /1''f,--e;�• '. .tiff �/// 4 /VI 0s 17,47 / ADDRESS '4 -- -03 ed/c 4/4 /d-41/ /Ifs g/ DAYTIME PHONE i'cf e.'73" SIGNATURE/114, /ALL, oz.LJ DATE Fee: $100.00 ✓ C c' Permit L.S. # '9 Z—pZ ipt# I Application received by: o� Scheduled Planning Commissio da : Scheduled City Council date: Planning 6/5/92 L.S. #92-02 MAILING LIST Council Myron and Lillian Ostlund Myron and Lillian Ostlund Herb Egeness Clem Coverston 4130 - 3rd Street N.E. # I03 1465 - 66th Avenue N.E. 1424 Creek Park Lane N.E. Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Myron and Lillian Ostlund David Larson Planning Commission Chair 1400 - 66th Avenue N.E. 1410 - 66th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 City Council Members Bernard Kreins Russell Japs 1362 - 66th Avenue N.E. 1422 - 66th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Robert Nelson Gary Braam 1439 Mississippi Street N.E. 1436 - 66th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Douglas Nyberg Jack Krichen 1376 - 66th Avenue N.E. 1450 - 66th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Joseph Menth Roger Riebel 1388 - 66th Avenue N.E. 1475 Creek Park Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Curtis Loschy Robert Traczyk 1399 - 66th Avenue N.E. 1455 Creek Park Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Roland Zacharias Carolyn Geyer 1387 - 66th Avenue N.E. 1425 Creek Park Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Robert Bridgeman Daniel Arnold 1375 - 66th Avenue N.E. 1405 Creek Park Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Kenneth Bigelow Robert Swanson 1363 - 66th Avenue N.E. 1400 Creek Park Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Tor Gloppen Steven Gaynor 1421 - 66th Avenue N.E. 1414 Creek Park Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 1 / Community Development Department PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: June 19, 1992 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consider Approval of a Resolution Finding the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for a Redevelopment Project , for Sheet Metal Connectors, to be Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan State Statutes require that the Planning Commission review an amendment to a redevelopment plan prior to adoption by the City Council and the Housing & Redevelopment Authority. The proposed amendment is to add a vacant parcel of land to the redevelopment project area. A tax increment district is not proposed to be created. The purpose of the addition is to assist the relocation of Sheet Metal Connectors from Minneapolis to Fridley. The subject parcel is six acres in size and is located west of and adjacent to Main Street. The property was originally owned by Glacier Park Company, the real estate arm of Burlington Northern Railroad. Sheet Metal Connectors constructs the duct work and associated metal parts for heating and ventilating systems. The company proposes to construct a 100,000 square foot building on the property. The company will employ up to 50-60 employees. No outdoor storage is contemplated with the proposed development, and at this time, no variances appear to be necessary. The Housing & Redevelopment Authority is considering assisting the location of Sheet Metal Connectors with a loan. In order for tax increment monies to be expended, the land area must be included in the redevelopment project area. The site has been zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial since 1958. The proposed use is compatible with the zoning and appears to be compatible with the residential neighborhood across the street. Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution. BD/dn M-92-412 • RESOLUTION OF THE FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY WHEREAS, the City of Fridley's Housing and Redevelopment Authority is proposing that the City modify its Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 to reflect increased geographic area, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469 . 074, inclusive, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and has determined its consistency to the Comprehensive Plan of the City: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION that the proposed modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 is consistent with the Fridley Comprehensive Plan, and the Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed modification. Adopted this 24th day of June, 1992. Chairman ATTEST: r 1 N<<' • "�. ' [ 4 ofFridley6 `Z�; .�y^`;44:C f " it City < •:%.;-,h :: ,111 Redevelopment Areas ` fir ` ,a�• '., =.I. f2! and � """" 1 Tax Increment Districts I \iigam°rim :Z , !,[ : '1 al I ° / Javow �� , , . .._ , __. . --, \. . , --ling.4 : . ....._ Imi_1111111 111, 1 ' ...*. ill _. / 13t : ! �� 441,4, ,,,,, .: ,..., ,ijv ...ii r.,„,. „,,,.. .11, ,,, ,, T.F,_ _ • • . \ _.=, , 4 , . „ , , „ iiiRr ',0:1-7:1111 -n: I 3e-4 Li". MO - r 7e)7,0 .111ate'. �, lig f / ‘ 04 g ly g lii, Fir" All___ • . / 6i) Lie- 7' L!TIi= 6 , f-D lisigl..4:i...9,:fit-: -...:.:-.2,.--r::::-.:-.i.;:- - • 1 ---1, / _E-= ;--J° 1,:4;f1:tn''). '1'...:--.4:::.':::::'....; ...:::L _ ____....-."....' — ii- n ./ I iiiiir I i 11""iti. ill ',„ iz5:-!: --T-' ' E I N Vw a laA.:1 L16 r.--...A1P-"-n\ " oil. / *---Ar; i I ii�i .. - ow ,� 1 ,- © Ufa 1811 _: 1 , , ... 0 0 i GEE( f -F , „fir � W 6 taw,, _,_ PROPOSED ADDITION TO( ' :' REDEVELOPMENT AREA NO. 1 I`: .. . a� r '` ...., A ' . : ,,,:„.„. .....4;:„,„,.... _ ____. ::„ , ? Iii �a11a0, no 11 ` i ,� i 1 . - --H ,- / ,414, -.:.7s—6°17_4 ri..., - --1.- ....411a ,, •:, - LI irgr? :7-.•..,1 i ; :I/ "CI 1, -;=;:- = 1141 ti - 1-- ,.1 - c-. 1.1 13, rfic),,,, ,„1----D-T---., :._ . , : ,,, _ , , _,-_,.: pi-JA --�,,it - i I;i: u.. . . i I UI '` _ __ ® Parcels within Tax Increment DistrictsI1. ,� .__ I ��D� , Redevelopment Area Number 1 J � ' 1. � � • , I = T�MN •,�J Y,'? I IP :-^n� ' i�L "ii / , L , L ii i ._ �. _ ; NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF FRIDLEY COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the City Council of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, will hold a public hearing on Monday, June 29, 1992 commencing at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. , Fridley, Minnesota, relating to the approval and adoption of the Modified Redevelopment Plan for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's Redevelopment Project No. 1, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.074, inclusive. The hearing is also relative to the approval and adoption of Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for the City's Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1 through No. 12 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive. Copies of the documentation relating to the above proposed actions will be on file and available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office. The property proposed to be included in the expansion of Redevelopment Project No. 1 is described below and set forth on the following map. P.I.N. 22-30-24-14-0003 This property is generally located at the intersection of 59th Avenue and Main Street. Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than June 22, 1992. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department at 571-3450. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL William W. Burns City Manager See attached map 1 / Community Development Department PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: June 16, 1992 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Steven Barg, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Human Resources Commission's Recommendation for Allocation of 1992-93 CDBG Funds for Human Services On June 4, 1992, the Human Resources Commission (HRC) reviewed applications for human service funding and developed its recommendations. Attached is a table showing each organization, the amount requested, the level of funding recommended, and last year's allocation (if applicable) . In addition, a copy of the HRC's June 4, 1992, minutes is also attached. Please review the HRC's recommendations and provide additional input/suggestions that represent your concerns on this matter. The City Council will consider this item at its July 6, 1992, meeting. SB: ls M-92-395 HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1992-93 CDBG FUNDS FOR HUMAN SERVICES Last Year's Amount Amount Allocation Requested Recommended Alexandra House $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 Anoka County Career Consortium N/A 1,526.50 500.00 Anoka County C.A.P. 5, 100.00 7, 686.00 5,100.00 Arc of Anoka County 2, 000.00 3,000. 00 1, 000.00 Ariel Productions N/A 9,500. 00 0 Central Center for Family Resources 3,400.00 5,000.00 1, 000.00 Community Emergency Assistance Program 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000. 00 Family Life Mental Health Center N/A 5, 000.00 1,000.00 Fridley Senior Center 4, 500.00 5,000. 00 5, 000.00 North Suburban Consumer>Advocates for the Handicapped 1,000. 00 2, 000. 00 0 North Suburban Counseling Center 3,400.00 5, 000.00 1,000. 00 Northwest Suburban Kinship 500.00 3, 000.00 0 Northwest Youth & Family Services 1,500. 00 3, 049. 00 1,500. 00 RISE N/A 4, 000. 00 0 St. William's Church N/A 1, 000.00 1,000.00 Southern Anoka Community Assistance 7,588. 00 8, 000. 00 7,942 .00 TOTALS $68,761. 50 $31, 042 .00 CITY OF FRIDLEY HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Sherek called the June 4 , 1992 , Human Resources Commission meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Sue Sherek, Sue Jackson, LeRoy Oquist, Jack Velin Members Absent: Charles Welf Others Present: Steven Barg, Planning Assistant APPROVAL OF MAY 7 , 1992 , AND MAY 21, 1992 , HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the May 7 , 1992, and May 21, 1992 , Human Resources Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SHEREK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION by Mr. Oquist_, seconded by Mr. Velin, to approve the agenda as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SHEREK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. OLD BUSINESS : a. Review CDBG Proposals/Determine Funding Recommendations The Commission members agreed to use the following "Fridley Human Resources Commission Guidelines for Prioritizing CDBG Human Service Funding Requests" : Prioritization will include, but not necessarily be limited to, consideration of the following points: 1. New or Expanded Program HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1992 PAGE 2 A. The program is a new program providing an innovative response to a community need. B. The program represents a significant increase in the level of service previously provided. 2 . Organizational Need A. The program is not viable without further financial support. B. There are few, if any, alternative sources of funding available. 3 . Community Need A. The number of Fridley residents served is high in relation to the amount requested. B. The program is meeting an important community need. C. The program does not overlap with servicesprovided elsewhere in the community. 4 . Program Quality A. The applicant demonstrates the availability of an effective staff. B. The applicant has a realistic view of resources and limitations. 5. Budget A. The budget is reasonably accurate given the objectives of the proposal during the grant period. B. The total amount requested is reasonable in view of: (1) the overall budget. (2) the proportion of Fridley residents served to the total number of clients served. C. The administrative costs and program service costs are in reasonable balance. RISE - requesting $4 , 000. 00 Ms. Jackson stated it is her understanding that capital equipment cannot be funded with CDBG funding because it does not meet the CDBG guidelines. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1992 PAGE 3 Ms. Jackson stated that RISE should be informed that the Commission recognizes that they perform a valuable service and the automatic tape machine is a very good idea; however, the Commission cannot consider their proposal because the CDBG guidelines exclude capital equipment. Amount Recommended for Funding: 0 NORTH SUBURBAN KINSHIP - requesting $3 , 000. 00 Ms. Jackson stated she is not comfortable with funding this request. Mr. Oquist agreed. He stated that Mr. Welf had brought to his attention the following facts: North Suburban Kinship has no board of directors so there is no governing body; in addition to the Director's (Ms. Doody) salary, there are dollars budgeted for a receptionist which. appears to also be Ms. Doody. Ms. Sherek stated it is her feeling that 90% of the money that is being expended is for Ms. Doody' s salary, and she did not believe they should support that effort any longer. The Commission members agreed to not recommend funding to North Suburban Kinship based on the following guidelines: 1. New or Expanded Program This is not a new and innovative program. 2 . Organizational Need There are other areas of financial support. Applied for United Way, was turned down, and has chosen not to reapply. 3 . Community Need A small number of Fridley residents are served. The program does address an important community need. 4 . Program Quality There is no governing board of directors overseeing the credibility of the program. 5. Budget The budget is not reasonable because 90% of the money goes for salary and benefits for one individual . Amount Recommended for Funding: 0 ANOKA COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM - requesting $7 , 686. 00 HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1992 PAGE 4 Ms. Sherek stated she would suggest the following: 1. That they fund the Senior Outreach Worker at the same level as last year ($5, 100) ; and 2 . That the Commission and ACCAP request that the City Council consider funding the Senior Outreach Worker on an annual basis out of the General Budget. Mr. Oquist concurred with Ms. Sherek' s suggestion. The Commission members agreed to recommend funding to ACCAP for the Fridley Senior Outreach Worker at the same level as last year ($5, 100) , based on the following guidelines: 1. New or Expanded Program Although the money is not being used for a new or expanded program, the money is being used to sustain a worthwhile program. 2 . Organizational Need Fridley' s CDBG Human Service funding is the only source of funding for the Fridley Senior Outreach Worker. The program is not viable for the coming year without other resources, and the request is reasonable in view of the services provided. 3 . Community Need The Fridley Senior Outreach Worker serves Fridley' s low and moderate income seniors. 4. Program Quality The program quality is good. 5. Budget The budget is reasonable. Amount Recommended for Funding: $5,100.00 NORTHWEST YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES - $3 , 000. 00 Ms. Sherek stated she would like to continue to support this program at the same level as last year ($1, 500) and see if the organization can reach and serve more Fridley residents in the coming year. The Commission agreed to recommend funding this request, based on the following guidelines: HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1992 PAGE 5 1. New or Expanded Program The Commission needs to see the organization is are able to reach and serve more Fridley residents. 2. Organizational Need The organization uses many alternative sources of funding and collects from insurance as much as possible. 3. Community Need Yes, it is an important community need, but the organization does not reach many Fridley residents. 4. Program Quality The program quality is good. 5. Budget The budget is reasonable. The organization tries to get money from many other sources. Amount Recommended for Funding: $1,500 COMMUNITY EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM - requesting $2 , 000. 00 Ms. Sherek stated one thing she really liked about CEAP's operation is that they are developing a "mentorship" program for the people who are repeaters. That is a new program, so they have added a new component to their program. Ms. Jackson stated she was impressed that CEAP asked for the same amount as funded last year ($2 , 000) instead of increasing their request. The Commission members agreed to recommend funding for this request based on the following guidelines: 1. New or Expanded Program This is not a new or expanded program. 2 . Organizational Need CEAP has many sources of funding. 3 . Community Need The community need is high. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1992 PAGE 6 4 . Program Quality CEAP has added a "mentorship" program which is a new component to their program. Location is convenient for those people who live in the upper end of Fridley who cannot get transportation to SACA in Columbia Heights. 5. Budget CEAP is very careful to make sure that the Fridley CDBG money is used for Fridley residents. Amount Recommended for Funding: $2,000 SOUTHERN ANOKA COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE — requesting $8, 000. 00 Ms. Sherek stated that SACA has increased in their professionalism and the way they operate the program over the years. There is a broad base of community support, and it seems to be a well managed program. The Commission agreed to recommend funding based on the following guidelines: 1. New or Expanded Program It is not a new program. 2 . Organizational Need SACA relies heavily on contributions from the communities they serve. 3 . Community Need The community need is significant and SACA is careful to allocate the money from Fridley for Fridley residents. They have good accountability. 4 . Program Quality The program quality is very high. SACA has a good reputation. 5. Budget The Commission was impressed that once SACA realized they did not need to maintain certificates of deposit for a building, SACA is using that money for special things. Amount Recommended for Funding: $8,000 HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1992 PAGE 7 ST. WILLIAMS CHURCH - requesting $1, 000. 00 Mr. Oquist stated one thing he thought was rather interesting was that St. William's did not ask for funding last year, because they honestly did not think they needed the money. And, they do need it this year. That is good management of money and program. Ms. Sherek stated she liked the central location. It is very easy for people in this part of the City without transportation to access the facility. Mr. Oquist stated St. Williams also communicates with the other food shelves to avoid duplication. Ms. Sherek stated that St. Williams, SACA, and CEAP are very good at communicating with one another. She believed this might be a contributing factor of why the food shelves are beginning to see their programs level off. The Commission agreed to recommend funding based on the following guidelines: 1. New or Expanded Program It is not a new or expanded program. 2 . Organizational Need There is a need. St. William's has other sources of funding including its own. 3 . Community Need The program is meeting an important community need. Ninety- nine percent of the clients are from Fridley. St. Williams is communicating with other food shelves in the area to avoid duplication of services. 4 . Program Quality The program quality is good. The location is good. 5. Budget St. William's seems to be managing their budget very carefully, especially in light of the fact that they did not seek CDBG funding last year. Amount Recommended for Funding: $1,000 NORTH SUBURBAN CONSUMER ADVOCATES FOR THE HANDICAPPED - requesting $2 , 000. 00 HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1992 PAGE 8 Ms. Sherek stated NSCAH has not yet expended the $1, 000 1991-92 CDBG monies for the designated project. Ms. Jackson asked if a survey to identify persons with physical disabilities who live in Fridley is a service that is really needed. Ms. Sherek stated that if this is a survey that the City of Fridley identifies as a need, the City has other ways of conducting that survey. She did not feel NSCAH has a clear plan for what they would do with the results of the survey. She did not see the need as being particularly important. Ms. Jackson stated NSCAH has not made use of the results of the Coon Rapids survey in a clear manner, other than to increase their mailing list. Ms. Sherek stated the results from the Coon Rapids survey should have told NSCAH that their survey techniques are not working. Mr. Oquist stated that it is possible that a survey of this type should be sponsored by the Human Resources Commission. The Commission could designate the need for that survey and make it a City-sponsored program to make the survey worthwhile. Ms. Jackson stated NSCAH should finish their previous project before they start work on another one. The Commission agreed to deny funding based on the following guidelines: 1. New or Expanded Program The program is not clear, and it is not clear what would be done with the results of this survey. 2 . Organizational Need The survey is viable, but it could possibly be done by the City or some other source. 3 . Community Need There is not a clear community need for the survey, because it is unclear how the results would be used. 4 . Program Quality The Coon Rapids ' survey had low results which indicate that the surveying technique was not as effective as it should be. 5. Budget HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1992 PAGE 9 The budget is a guess and not well planned. The Commission did think the idea is worthwhile, and the Commission might wish to approach the City Council about using internal needs to conduct such a survey and make the results available to NSCAH. If there is a program NSCAH would like to initiate based on the information, the Commission would be open to that. Ms. Sherek stated that under the American Disabilities Act, it would be valuable for the City to know where the physically handicapped people live. They should survey not only the residents of Fridley, but the work places in Fridley as well. Amount Recommended for Funding: 0 ARC OF ANOKA COUNTY - requesting $3, 000. 00 Ms. Jackson stated Arc expects to serve 29 residents of Fridley, and they are requesting $3, 000. Is that amount reasonable? Ms. Sherek stated that based on the proposed program and the effort it is going to take to build these support groups, she did not believe the amount requested is unreasonable. The idea of building advocacy groups is very important, but she did not think Arc has a very clear idea of how they are going to reach the parents of the very young children with developmental disabilities if those parents do not already have school age children. That disturbs her, because the early intervention is most valuable when the children are very young. Ms. Jackson asked if it is possible to recommend approval of some funding, contingent upon Arc submitting a more detailed plan? Ms. Sherek stated that is a good idea. It is her feeling that Arc needs a plan for how they are going to reach the developmentally disabled who do not already have siblings in the school system and who are not on public assistance. Mr. Velin stated they do receive quite a lot of funding from United Way. The Commission agreed to recommend funding based on the following guidelines: 1. New or Expanded Program It is an expanded program. 2 . Organizational Need The program is probably viable without further financial support, because of the size of the organization. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1992 PAGE 10 3 . Community Need The community need is not clearly defined. How many of the 29 children to be served meet the low to moderate income guidelines? 4 . Program Quality Arc has a good reputation for their programs. This is probably a good program and a good need. 5. Budget The amount requested is reasonable with respect to what they want to attempt to do, but the Commission's main concern is the outreach. Ms. Sherek suggested informing Arc that the Commission is concerned about the viability of its program and the capability of outreach and is recommending $1, 000 to be used for outreach to publicize this program to the medical community and the Fridley community. The outreach must be geared to reach individuals who do not have current contact with the public school system, including Early Childhood and Family Education. The Commissioners agreed with Ms. Sherek' s suggestion. Amount Recommended for Funding: $1,000 CENTRAL CENTER FOR FAMILY RESOURCES - requesting $5, 000. 00 Ms. Sherek stated an interesting point that came to the Commission's attention during the presentations at the last meeting that the Commission was not previously aware of was the fact that when the Fridley money runs out, the money just comes from Anoka County. So, if the money is going to come from Anoka County irregardless, why does Fridley need to provide funding at all? Mr. Velin agreed with that. The Commission members reviewed the guidelines: 1. New or Expanded Program It is not a new or expanded program. 2 . Organizational Need The program is viable without Fridley' s support because any families who do not get funding are covered by Anoka County funding. 3 . Community Need HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 4 1992 PAGE 11 The community need is very important. 4. Program Quality The program quality is very good. 5. Budget The budget is reasonable. The organization is trying to use a lot of resources and it charges fees. Ms. Sherek stated 19% of Central Center's money comes from Anoka County, 3% comes from state funding, and 16% from United Way. They have Anoka County subsidy, Anoka County court-ordered, and an Anoka County contract. Of the total budget of $467, 000, they receive $140, 000 from Anoka County and State Intervention Funds. Ms. Jackson asked if there are any people who would not be covered under the Anoka County contract who would be unable to pay and whom the City of Fridley should be subsidizing. How do people qualify for funding under the Anoka County contract? Mr. Oquist stated he did not think they can recommend funding the $5, 000, but maybe they can recommend funding close to what Central Center received last year - $3,400. Ms. Sherek suggested they discuss the remaining organizations before recommending funding for Central Center. Amount Recommended for Funding: to be determined later NORTH SUBURBAN COUNSELING CENTER - requesting $5, 000. 00 The Commission members stated the same comments on the guidelines for Central Center for Family Resources also apply to North Suburban Counseling Center: 1. New or Expanded Program It is not a new or expanded program. 2 . Organizational Need The program is viable without Fridley' s support because any clients who do not get funding are covered by Anoka County funding. 3 . Community Need The community need is very important. 4. Program Quality HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1992 PAGE 12 The program quality is very good. 5. Budget The budget is reasonable. The organization is trying to use a lot of resources and it charges fees. Amount Recommended for Funding: to be determined later FAMILY LIFE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER - requesting $5, 000. 00 Ms. Jackson stated one good point made by Ms. Mickman about Family Life Mental Health Center was that sometimes people want to get away from their community for treatment and that sometimes people should have a choice as to where they go for treatment. Family Life does serve 94 people from Fridley. Ms. Sherek stated that it is possible that some of the 94 people were served at Family Life because the other two counseling facilities could not take them at the time they needed service. She did agree there is a place in the scheme of things for all three of these organizations (Central Center for Family Resources, North Suburban Counseling Center, and Family Life Mental Health Center) or they would not have all flourished as they have. They all serve somewhat different purposes. Family Life does somewhat heavier psychiatric care as opposed to counseling. The Commission members reviewed the guidelines: 1. New or Expanded Program It is not a new or expanded program. 2 . Organizational Need There is an organizational need. 3 . Community Need There is a definite community need as demonstrated by the fact that 94 Fridley residents were served even though the organization is located in Anoka. There was $21, 700 worth of counseling to Fridley residents. 4 . Program Quality Program quality is very good. 5. Budget HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1992 PAGE 13 The fact that a large amount of money is donated by their psychiatrist is very commendable. That is saving everyone money, and the City should support that effort. Amount Recommended for Funding: to be determined later ALEXANDRA HOUSE - requesting $4 , 000. 00 Ms. Sherek stated Alexandra House is the only facility serving all of Anoka County right now. Ms. Jackson stated one thing that impressed her is that the staff person is "on-call" , not sitting at the hospital, and there are many on-call volunteers. Mr. Oquist stated he was also impressed about the number of volunteers trained to help. In today's environment, this is becoming more and more of a need. Ms. Jackson stated it is important to have someone at the hospital to meet with these women personally. It does not help for a nurse to just hand the woman a brochure on Alexandra House. Ms. Sherek stated she really liked the way Alexandra House is handling this program. She liked the fact that the staff person is spending time at the hospital to re-establish contact with the various shifts of nurses who are actually working there. Mr. Oquist stated Mercy Hospital is also asking Alexandra House to establish the same program at Mercy. Mr. Jackson stated she was impressed by the fact that there is a Fridley officer on. the Board of Directors. That speaks well for recognizing Alexandra House as part of the Fridley community. The Commission agreed to recommend funding based on the following guidelines: 1. New or Expanded Program It is a new and expanded program in its second year and deserves continued support. 2 . Organizational Need There is an organizational need. The organization needs some financial support. The organization is also using a lot of volunteer support. 3 . Community Need There is absolutely a community need. There is no other way to provide this community need. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1992 PAGE 14 4 . Program Quality Program quality is excellent. 5. Budget Budget is reasonable and is handled well, both with the paid staff and extensive use of volunteers to stretch the resources. Amount Recommended for Funding: $4,000 ARIEL PRODUCTIONS - requesting $9, 500. 00 Mr. Oquist stated the project presented is a wonderful idea but it is not something CDBG Human Service monies should be used for. Ms. Jackson stated it is not really focused on meeting the human needs of disadvantaged people. Ms. Jackson stated she applauded the fact that Mr. Rasmussen is going to donate equipment and time. Mr. Velin stated that Mr. Rasmussen also said he would hire low income kids and would work with the Kids for Saving Earth Club. Ms. Jackson that what Mr. Rasmussen is proposing is very important and positive, but it is not a sufficiently pressing need to supercede some of the other human service need requests. However, the Commission hopes Mr. Rasmussen gets some alternative funding or support. The Commission members agreed to not recommend funding based on the following guidelines: 1. New or Expanded Program It is a new program. 2 . Organizational Need There is not an organizational need, although it is a wonderful idea. Mr. Rasmussen stated he would go ahead with the project whether or not it is funded. 3 . Community Need There is not a real community need. It does not meet a need that would supercede some of the other human service needs. 4 . Program Quality HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1992 PAGE 15 The program quality is good. 5. Budget The budget is good. Amount Recommended for Funding: 0 ANOKA COUNTY CAREER CONSORTIUM - requesting $1, 526. 00 Mr. Oquist stated the Anoka County Career Consortium is not part of the State Job Training Program; it is a group that is associated with the Anoka Technical College and other junior colleges around the area. The Consortium was formed to teach people how to write resumes and do career planning. Ms. Jackson stated that the application states that the Anoka County Career Consortium is a public agency, a department of the County. Mr. Sherek stated it is not a department of the County, but it is using the County as a fiscal agent as a qualified organization for seeking funding. Ms. Jackson stated that even though the program is rather unclear, if it does help one low income person get a job, at $35 it is a pretty good bargain. Ms. Sherek stated she would like to see the City give them some seed money to get this new program started and to show them there is support from the Fridley community. The Commission agreed to recommend funding based on the following guidelines: 1. New or Expanded Program It is a new program. 2 . Organizational Need The financial organization seems fine. 3 . Community Need The Commission believes there is a community need. 4 . Program Quality The Commission does not know the program quality, and if the organization reapplies for CDBG funding next year, the Commission would like them to bring data on the type of people HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1992 PAGE 16 who received the scholarships, the circumstances, and the results. 5. Budget No past budget history Amount Recommended for Funding - $500 FRIDLEY SENIOR CENTER - requesting $5, 000. 00 Ms. Jackson stated that in listening to the presentation for both the Companion Program and Chore Services Program, it was an excellent value for the dollars. The Commission agreed to recommend funding based on the following guidelines: 1. New or Expanded Program It is not a new or expanded program. 2 . Organizational Need A lot of money for the Chore Services Program comes from the people who request the chores. The Senior Companion Program requires local matching funds. Both programs are not viable without local funding. 3 . Community Need The community need is very high. 4 . Program Quality The program quality is excellent. 5. Budget The budget is reasonable and the program serves Fridley residents. Mr. Oquist stated the community has a basic responsibility to take care of its senior citizens. Amount Recommended for Funding: $5,000 The Commission agreed to recommend a reduction in funding to $7 ,942 from $8,000 for SACA and to recommend funding $1,000 each to Central Center for Family Resources, Family Life Mental Health Center, and North Suburban Counseling Center. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1992 PAGE 17 MOTION by Mr. Velin, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend to City Council the following allocations for 1992-93 CDBG Human Service funding: Amount Amount Requested Recommended Alexandra House $ 4, 000. 00 $ 4, 000. 00 Anoka County Career Consortium 1, 526. 50 500. 00 Anoka County Community Action Program 7, 686. 00 5, 100. 00 Arc of Anoka County 3 , 000. 00 1,000. 00 Ariel Productions 9, 500. 00 0 Central Center for Family Resources 5, 000. 00 1, 000.00 Community Emergency Assistance Program 2 , 000. 00 2, 000. 00 Family Life Mental Health Center 5, 000. 00 1, 000. 00 Fridley Senior Center 5, 000. 00 5, 000. 00 North Suburban Consumer Advocates for the Handicapped 2, 000. 00 0 North Suburban Counseling Center 5, 000. 00 1, 000. 00 Northwest Suburban Kinship 3,000. 00 0 Northwest Youth & Family Services 3, 049. 00 1,500. 00 RISE, Inc. 4, 000. 00 0 St. Williams Church 1,000. 00 1, 000. 00 Southern Anoka Community Assistance 8 , 000. 00 7, 942 . 00 $68,761. 50 $31, 042 . 00 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SHEREK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Sherek stated that the Commission would like to point out to the City Council that the method used for determining the allocations of 1992-93 CDBG Human Service funding is not an iron- clad criteria. They used the five major guidelines and a consensus method of decision-making. They did not use a strict point system; they used a consensus system, which is a valid decision-making system. Ms. Sherek stated that if the Council has any directives regarding the CDBG process for next year, the Council should submit those directives to the Commission by January 1993 to allow the Commission adequate time to consider them prior to the granting process. Ms. Jackson stated that if the Council has any ideas for targeting needs, they should let the Commission prior to January 1993 . Ms. Sherek stated that if the Council would like any suggestions from the Commission, they should also let the Commission know. 2 . NEW BUSINESS: HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1992 PAGE 18 a. Discussion/Consideration Regarding Recommending Ongoing City Support from the General Fund for ACCAP (Senior Outreach Worker) Ms. Sherek asked staff to contact representatives from Anoka County CAP about this. She stated she is willing to represent the Human Resources Commission at a City Council meeting sometime this summer with representatives from ACCAP to discuss the possibility of the City of Fridley supporting the Senior Outreach Worker on an annual basis through the General Fund. Mr. Barg stated he will call some surrounding cities (Blaine, Coon Rapids, Roseville, Columbia Heights, New Brighton) to find out how other cities fund their senior outreach workers. b. Consideration of Possible Items for Remainder of 1992 Dental issue c. Resignation of Jack Velin On behalf of the Commission, Ms. Sherek thanked Jack Velin for his years of service to the Human Resources Commission and wished him luck as he joins the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Ms. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Velin, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Sherek declared the motion carried and the June 4, 1992 , Human Resources Commission meeting adjourned at 9 : 10 p.m. Res ectfully s bmitted, e Saba Recording Secretary CITY OF FRIDLEY SPECIAL HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 10, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Sherek called the Special June 10, 1992, Human Resources Commission meeting to order at 5: 30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Sue Sherek, Sue Jackson, LeRoy Oquist, • Charles Welf Members Absent: Jack Velin Others Present: Steven Barg, Planning Assistant RECONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FROM RISE, INC. , FOR 1992-93 CDBG HUMAN SERVICE FUNDING: Ms. Sherek stated that in consideration of the CDBG issue at the regular meeting on June 4 , 1992, the Commission was operating on an incorrect assumption that the amount of monies requested by RISE, Inc. , was for a capital expenditure which would not qualify under CDBG rules for Human Service funding. Upon further review and in a conversation with JoAnn Wright of Anoka County, Mr. Barg found out that since the capital expenditure would be for a piece of equipment used in the normal course of RISE's business, as opposed to a capital fund drive for expansion or something similar, the equipment would qualify. Ms. Sherek stated the purpose of this meeting is two-fold: (1) to review the five guidelines the Commission used for determining whether or not to grant CDBG funds in order to determine if RISE qualifies as having a high priority need• and (2) if RISE qualifies as having a high priority need, how does the Commission propose to redistribute the funding to meet that need? Mr. Barg stated Ms. Wright stated there is a definite separation between capital equipment that is used for the regular purpose of the organization and capital equipment used for some type of expansion of a facility or something outside the normal use of the agency. Ms. Wright concluded that the automatic tape machine is within the normal realm that could be purchased with CDBG funds for use by RISE employees. Mr. Oquist stated he still believes that this request should not be funded out of CDBG Human Service funds. SPECIAL HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 10, 1992 - PAGE 2 The Commission members reviewed the five guidelines for priori- tizing human service funding requests: 1. New or Expanded Program Ms. Sherek stated this is not a new or expanded program. It is a new piece of equipment to operate in the business, but RISE will not be changing their business or expanding that business. Mr. Welf stated that what wasn't said by the representative at the June 4, 1992 , Commission meeting was more important than what was said. That is, if he (the representative) was making ,a case for making more jobs and turning out more production, he would have said they have an opportunity to do more work. But, that was not said. Mr. Welf stated he believed the purchase of this equipment is actually cutting down on the amount of work instead of providing more work for more people. It might provide some training, but he didn't know. Ms. Jackson stated she believed the reason for the automatic tape machine is to be more competitive in the job bidding process. 2 . Organizational Need The program is viable without further financial support. It is a matter of whether the program can be enhanced. Ms. Sherek stated that regarding the issue of alternative sources, since there is a minimum of two manufacturers of said equipment in this metropolitan area, she did not feel it is necessary for RISE to request CDBG funding for a piece of capital equipment. Ms. Sherek stated another issue is, why does it have to be a new piece of equipment? Why can't RISE go area-wide to companies that do similar packaging and ask for retired equipment? Mr. Welf stated another question is: Why doesn't RISE use their own money? They have plenty of it. If they want to improve their own bidding, why don't they improve their own bidding? Ms. Sherek stated RISE is not a for-profit organization. Mr. Welf stated the bottom line looks pretty profitable to him. SPECIAL HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 10, 1992 - PAGE 3 3 . Community Need This program does meet an important community need. The sheltered workshop and the training are very important. Ms. Sherek stated that this service is not being done elsewhere; however, she did not believe the ability to carry out this community need would be substantially enhanced by this money. Mr. Welf stated they are only talking about the Fridley community. Ms. Sherek stated they can't only talk about the Fridley community, because the other monies RISE receives are not dedicated strictly to the people for the communities from which they are received. They have to look at the overall program. Mr. Oquist stated the number of Fridley residents is also one of the considerations, though, and the number of Fridley residents served is high. But, the money requested is not going to enhance that or increase the number of Fridley residents. Ms. Jackson stated she can understand why RISE has different cities pay for different things, because it is easier and all the cities benefit. Fridley residents are benefitting from equipment that another city purchased, but she believed RISE might have more success if they were able to show how many residents would benefit from each city. Ms. Sherek stated she did not know what the net effect of that would be, because she is not convinced that the amount RISE would be requesting from Fridley would be any different. Instead of asking for monies for one thing, there may be a laundry list. Mr. Welf stated that then they should make it clear what that laundry list is. 4 . Program Quality The program quality is excellent. Ms. Sherek stated RISE does an outstanding job with respect to the availability of staff and their use of resources, but she did not think that this piece of equipment would have that much impact on the quality of the job they do. SPECIAL HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 10, 1992 - PAGE 4 5. Budget Over time, the budget has remained proportionately the same as shown at this time. Ms. Sherek stated the size of RISE's budget and the amount of money they are turning over in the course of year, parti- cularly in these manufacturing sectors, serves also as an indicator that acquisitions of this type could probably be built into their budget. Mr. Oquist stated the purpose of RISE is to employ the handicapped. If they buy a machine, they have replaced people. Where it took three people to package, maybe now it only takes one person to package. Maybe those two people could be used somewhere else in the organization--maybe. He would be willing to consider the RISE funding request if more CDBG monies were available. Mr. Oquist stated another problem he has with the RISE request is that it does not have a direct effect on people. The purchase of an automatic tape machine will allow RISE to do their business better, but there is no guarantee that they are going to increase the number of people served in any way. This is just helping a business. Ms. Sherek agreed. If RISE is already competitively priced within industry, by recommending funding for capital equipment that other organizations must purchase, would the Commission be permitting a non-profit organization to undercut other organizations in this community that might be bidding for the same work? In looking at the entire scope of how they recommended the remaining CDBG funds, this type of capital equipment does not conform with what they did for everyone else. They did not recommend funding for any other equipment kinds of things. They recommended funding to go directly for basic human needs--food and shelter. In these tight times and with the number of hurting people, that is where the money needs to keep going. Mr. Welf stated times are only going to get worse. Mr. Welf stated that any funding to any group from now on should be considered very strongly on the basis of what the organization is doing for Fridley citizens because of the tightness of budgets in other communities as well as in Fridley. And the other communities are going to be forced into it, just as Fridley is forced into it, whether they like it or not. SPECIAL HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 10, 1992 - PAGE 5 MOTION by Mr. Welf, seconded by Ms. Jackson, to make the above discussion part of the record and that the original recommendations for the 1992-93 CDBG Human Service funding remain the same as discussed at the June 4 , 1992 , Human Resources Commission meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SHEREK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Jackson stated that it is important to emphasize in letters sent to these organizations that the Commission commends them for what they are doing and that they provide a very valuable service, but it is unfortunate that there are a large number of people who have immediate needs. Ms. Sherek stated that in all the letters to the organiza- tions, it should be pointed out that there was over $68, 000 in requests and there was only $31, 000 available. It should also be emphasized to the organizations that were not funded or that were funded at less than what was requested, that they were not singled out to be omitted from funding and that it was a very difficult decision for the Commission. Ms. Jackson stated the organizations that received funding should somehow be informed that they were very fortunate and that the money should be used well . ADJOURNMENT: Chairperson Sherek declared the June 10, 1992 , Special Human Resources Commission meeting adjourned at 5: 50 p.m. Res ectfully submitted, L e Saba Recording Secretary 1 J