Loading...
PL 02/27/1969 - 31019�� Pl'�ANNING CO1�II�lISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 1969 PAGE 1 ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Chairman Erickson. Members Present: Myhra, Mittelstadt, Erickson, Jensen, Fitzpatrick Members Absent: None Others Present: Engineering Assistant Darrel Clark APPROVE PLANNING COI�IISSION MCNUTES: FEBRUARY 13. 1969: Me�ber Jensen called attention to a correction to be made on Page 6 of the minutes in the last paragraph as follows: "The report of the flood plain------- will be started by the first of July." Mr. Mittelstadt called attention to the error in the motion on Page 9 as follows: "---the alig�ent of Main Street -------thence deflect to the East---." MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Cou�ission minutes of February 13, 1969 be approved as corrected. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BDARD OF APPEALS MINUTES; FEBRUARY 19. 1969: ^ MOTION by Mittelstadt, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Coa�ission receive the Board of Appeals minutes of February 19, 1969. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGl� CONTROL SUBC_O1rA�IITTEE 1�IINUTES : FEBRUARY 26. 1969 : MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission receive the Building Standards-Design Control Subcoa�ittee minutes of February 26, 1969. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. . 1. PUBLIC HEA,RING: REZONII�TG REQUEST, ZOA �69-03, N. CRAIG JOHNSON AND COI�IITTEE OF FIVE: Southeast corner of 79th Way and Ea,st River Road. Rezone from C-2S and M-1 to R-3. Chainaan Erickson read the notice of Public Hearing. Mr. N. Craig Johnson and Mr. Bill Dolan represented the petitioners. According to the site plan, the actual laad area is 17 acres which would allow 296 uaits, but the actual uaits on the plans are 294. The total required parking is 441, and their actual parking is open parkiag 324, garage parking 182, making a total of 506. A rental level of $145.00 to $185.00 is contemplated. ,-�. Plannin� Co�ission Meeting - Februarv 27, 1969 p��� 2 As far as the utilities are concerned, the Engineering Assistant said that ,h sewer and water are on 79th Avenue and sewer on East River Road. The sewer lines are on the East side of East River Road. This portion of the sewer sysgemn does not run into the Riverview Heights Lift Stationa but goes direet into a gravity line on East River Road. In answer to the question of the use o£ the property North and South, he said 79th Avenue has apartment houses with probably three or four single family dwellings. The zoning on the North is multiple and as you work towards the tracks, light industrial. Orginally the zoni�g of this entire tract fram 77th Avenue to 79th Avenue was multiple dwelling except for a 200 foot strip of M-I along the tracks. A part of it was changed to co�nercial and industrial. Mr. Myhra said that norma,lly the Co�nission gets rezoning requests the other way around -- from residential to commercial. He wondered, in this instance, why we are moving from coumnercial to multiple. To the South we have commercial and industrial. Is it because right now commercial types of things are not moving? If this were put into multiple, this would tend to landlock the zoning. Mr. Dolan said he felt that the uses to the South are somewhat disconnected becauae of the creek. With the uses on the other two sides being re�id�ntial, they felt this use of the land would fit in with the neighborhood. They had not looked into a co�ercial shopping center because they felt the area would be a little too small. Mr. Myhra said one of the things he, personally, would find objections to, ,,,� and probably also the people across the street, is putting the garages facing the highway. Mr. Dolan said they thought of that, also, and had considered a brick wall. The Chairman had asked if there was anyone present in the audience who was interested in this rezoning request, and,until Mr. Paul Burkholder came in, there was none. He was asked his opinion and he said he thought it was a good project. It was probably the best use of the land and much better than a warehouse.. I�IDTION by Mittelstadt, seconded by Jensen, that the Planaing Co�ission close the public hearing of the rezoning .request, ZOA �69-03, N. Craig Johnsoa and Co�nittee of Five to rezone the southeast corner of 79th Way and East River Road from C-2S and M-1 to R-3. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Myhra said he felt a little uneasy about this rezoning, probably because in the past, for this type , dealing with multiples, he felt that gettiag the opinions of the people within the 300 feet required in the appli- cation helped the Como�i�ssion to make up their minds. Going from co�nercial to multiple, he wondered if the ma,tter of revenue for the owner should not be considered, also. Are we creating a hardship oa the owner? He found it was a difficult answer to give in that he was not certain co�ercial was suitable, but also, at the present time,.he was not too enthusiastic about the proposal. ^ Mr. Mittelstadt said this was his precinct and that in the past the - people objected to commercial, as they didn't want warehouses or that type of structures, but would like this better. This area will never go R-1 because of the railroad tracks. Planning Co�ission Meeting - February 27, 1969 Page 3 The Chairman adanitted that he, too did not feel he was ready to make up /'� •his mind this evening. Further, he would like to see the Co�nission supplied with the past history on the rezoning in this area. Mr. Jensen agreed tt►�t a little research would be in order. The Engineering Assistant volunteered that the delay at the Planning Com- mission level will not delay the hearing before Council. 1�OTION by Jensen, seconded by Myhraa that the Planning Commission table for further consideration the rezoning request, ZOA �69-03, N. Craig Johnson and Coffiittee of Five the rezoning of the Southeast corner of 79th Way and East River Road to be rezoned from C-2S and M-1 to R-3, to the meeting of March 13, 1969 to allow the Commission additional time to study the request and to allow Darrel Clark to search some of the.past history of the area. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unaaimously. 2. CONTINUED REZONING REQUEST: ZOA ��69-01, PEMTOM. INC.: That part of SE'� of Section 24 that lies North of Highway �100 right of way. Rezone from R-1 to Planned Development. The sudience was informed by Chairman Erickson that the public hearing had been closed but the floor would be open for discussion by members of the Commission. Also, if the members of the audience had any questions, they would be answered. � A petition had been received circulated by Mr. Aho on February 22, 1969. It was agreed that no action was necessary by the Planning Coa�ission, but the petition should be passed onto the Council. Chairman Erickson, referring to the letter on Page 20 of the Agenda, written at his suggestion asking the Couaty Auditor for the status of certain lots, said this was the land lying north of the proposed Plann�d Development and east of Grace High School. The West Iialf of Lot 49 was single family resideace, Lot 39 a private owner, Lot 44 two homes, and the East Salf of Lot 49, Lots 40, 45, 50, 51, 46 were listed to Arvid E. Carlson, but were probably sold in 1967 to Rodney Billman. Lots 41, 47, 48 and 52 are presently tax forfeit to the State of Minnesota. Inasmuch as Mr. Fitzpatrick would preaently arrive, and the fact that he is the Chairman of the Parks and Recrea- tion Cou�iasion, it was decided to wait until he arrived to see if the City might be interested in these lots. MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Mittelstadt, that the Planning Commission table Item �2 until later in the meet;.ng aad consider confirmation of the Public Hearings (Items 3, 4 and 5). Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion canied unanimously. (Continued on Page 4) 3. PROPOSED PRELII�av PLAT: P.S. �`69-02, AMBER OAKS. DAVID HUBERS: Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision �92. Set public hearing date. � Mr. Jensea explained that he had talked to Darrel Clark relative to thia �� request last week. Thia land is adjacent to a proposed plat which was passed Y-- to the Plats � Subdivisions-Streets � Utilities Subco�ittee last year (South- hamptoa Second Addition) and is still in an inconclusive atage. The petitioner had been asked and agreed to gather some additional information ia the neighbor- Plaaining �o�ission �Ieetin� - Februarv 27, 1969 pag� � hood. This area is exceedingly difficult bec�u�e it is ���.y ����d �ad �aooded. '� � 1`here are definit� p�oble�s to be con�isie��do Y�e �ec�nea�ded � fair amoun� of time be allowed for the Su�committee �tudy a,nd perhaps without delaying it unduly, it could be put off for a month. - ,'",, MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Mittelstadt, that the Planning Cou�ission refer the proposed preliminary plat, P.S. �F69-02, Amber Oaks by David Hubers of Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision �92 to the Plats � Subdivisions-Streets � Utilities Subco�ittee and set the public hearing date before the Planaing Coffiission to April 10, 1969. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 4e REZ�TING REQUEST: ZOA �69-04, GOR'�ON G. SWENSON: Outlot �1, Block 1, N�gel's Woodlands and the NW'� of the NW'� of Section 12 East of Nagel's Woodlands, West of Lampert's Addition, North of West extenaion of South line of Lampert's Addition and South of Osborne Road. Rezone from M-1 to C-2. ConfiYm public hearing date of March 13, 1969. MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Mittelstadt, thati the Planning Co�ission confirm the public hearing date of March 13, 1969 for the rezoaing request, ZOA �69-04, GordAn G. Swenson of Outlot �1, Block 1, Nagel's Woodlands and the NW� of the NW'� of Sectian 12 East of Nagel's Woodlands, West of Lampert`s Addition, North of West extension of South line of Lampert's Addition and South of Osborne Road to be rezoned from M-1 to C-2. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 5. REZOTTING REQUEST: ZOA �`69-05, C0�1�1ERCE PARR INVES�IJTS. ROBIItT GUZY: Lots 26 aad 27,�Block 2, Co�erce Pe�?c. Rezone from C-1 to CR-2. Coafirm public hearing date of March 13, 1969. MOTION by Mittelstadt, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Co�nission coafirm the public hearing date of March 13, 1969 for. the rezoni�g request, ZOA ,�69-05, Commerce Park Investments, Robert Guzy of Lots 26 and 27, Block 2, Commerce Park, to rezone from C-1 to CR-2. Upon a voice vote, all voting sye, the m+otion carried uaanimously. I1�I 2 COTTTINUED P'ROM PAGE 3: REZONII�TG R�UEST, ZOA �69-01, PEMTOM, INC. ; MOTION by Mittelstadt, seconded by Myhra, to remove Item 2 from the table.. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Jeasen stated that he remove himself fram further coasideration of this item inas�uch as he did have a conflict of iaterest. There were no objec- tions and the request was granted. Chairman Erickson read a prepared two sheet su�uasy which he had composed. When he came to Item �7 (Use of the area for R-3 shall be limited to areas---) he referred to the map showing uses of the proposed development. He suggested use of R-3 being left in areas 4, 6, 7, 8 aad 9, and area 5 in the southwest �' corner ahould not be R-3. Mr. Fitzpatrick entered. Plannizu� Commission Meeting - Februarv 27, 1969 p��e ,� Representing Pemtom, Inc. were Robert Engstrom and Edmund Contoski. � Reapondiag to the suggestion of removing �5 from R-3, Mr. Engstrom said he could not say positively what their reaction would be to this suggestion as it is a joint venture with Borson Construction, Inc. and they came in with a 6.5 density, which is relatively low. Their plans called for eight units to the acre which was one of the reasons why they did not put townhouses there originally. They were talking substantially price range and did feel the freeway traffic could be a factor in selling individual homes. Chairman Erickson said if they would want to replace that density in an Fasterly area of �3, he did not think he could say at this time whether or not he would vote for it. A member of the audience said that if Hathaway were cut off, then there would be even more traffic on Regis Lane. Chairman Erickson replied that he didn't kaow how you can cut Regis Lane off in that area no matter what is built up there. Another citizen wondered if a service road could be established going East adjacent to the freeway over to Silver Lake Road, but he was infozmed it would be tremendously difficult because of the terrain. The question was asked what role the Planning Co�ission would play in the closing of the Matterhorn bridge. Chairmaa Erickson answered that he did not know whether or not consideratioa would be given to closing that bridge especially as it relates to Fire and Police protection. � Mr. Mqhra referred to the paper presented by Chairman Ericksoa by saq ing he did a good job, particularly oa Items 1 and 2 on the first page. However, he did not thiak they had a complete answer to �1. He guessed the stickler is �2 -- will the developmeat have an adverse effect on the adjacent residential property. He had made some inquiry and understood it does not have any adverse effect. He said you make a judgment on belief, but then you do aot have the aaswer until it is a^-ie. Once again, it seemed the owners should not be overlooked. The Chairman .nade a good point that the City has been using the land as a park, that is the residents. We can hardly expect someone to sit with valuable property, pay taxes and expect they ought to furnish this kind of facility for the residents. �� � Mr. Mittelstadt said that he'd like to make a few poiats which he did not believe have beea thought about. It is by a study of the Univeraity of Minnesota that multip?� dwellings of one or two bedrooffis do pay for their way in a tax structure. 0� the. average, �e �axes to the school accrued from multiple dwellings of this type would be about $165.00 per child annually. Their cost to the school is about $54.00, so you can see it does pay for itself. Now this area is in School District ��13. In the City of Fridley, School District �13 is about 23% or 26% of the total area of Fridley. Therefore, the administrative cost, which would come from the entire City of Fridley in tesms of services of fire and police protection, would have a major impact on the other two school districts -�14 and �16. In other words, I am saying that 7670 of Fridley would have a municipal burden, aa increase in a municipal tax base because of the high population density ia thiss area. The major portioa of the school district is in Columbia Heights, the services are being rendered by the City of Fridley, therefore, in tex�s of any school tax gain, the major portioa of Fridley would not benefit. Plannin� Commission Meetin� � Februa 27, 1969 Pa�e 6 Mr. Myhra asked him if he were saying that this area would not pay enough ;� taxes to pay for its municipal services? Mr. Mittelstadt replied that he was � saying that the taxes collected from here go mainly to District �13 schools and yet the municipal boundaries would include all of Fridley and all would pay the tax to municipal aervices. Mr. Myhra said that, if it is self-support- ing, it woulda't ma.tter, would it? Mr. Mittelstadt replied that the services would increase and he didn't feel it would support itself. Chairman Erickson said that it seems then that what we �ust ask ourselves is what municipal services are going to be increased because of the develop- ment of the area. I presume you are considering police and fire and street maintenance, yet I find this development of the area needing far fewer streets than if it would be under single family. Mr. Mittelstadt's answer was ti�at if it were si�gle family, the number of units would be down to around two or three per acre versus 8.5 on this concept. Mr. Erickson said that if it were single family, the streets would increase in length by two or three times and would increase the maintenance budget by that. There is one important item, Mr. Mittelstadt said, that no one has com- meated on so far this eveaing and it is that approximately 97% of the public that we have heard from are against this proposal. That fact cannot be ignored. Their main argument, I feel, is the traffic problem and that argumeat has the biggest impact with me. Fridley streets are not ready for this volume of traffic nor are its traffic patteras. Mx. Myhra said he though that was a good point. ^ And, Mr. Mittelstadt continued, there is another item to consider -- the future of aa environment like Pemtom's. For the first ten or fifteen years, I am sure the project will remain in reasoaable condition, but as yeara go by, it could very well become a ghetto area with problems for Fridley that would - be unbelieveable. Mr. Myhra said that oae of the objections of the residents is for monetary reasons. fle thought that if someone wished to sell his house, it might be easier to sell if he had an "Innsbruck Sth" next to his property, but then this brings us right back to Item 7. What about the owner? What rights does he have? Does it mean because these people would like their residences to increase in value, he should be denied some tqpe of rezoning? Chairman Erickson said he had no sympathy for the owaer of the property iaasmuch as he bought the land under R-1, but because of the fact the propertq is difficult aad expeasive to develop, he personally felt the plan was a beneficial oae aad oae which would allow the land to rem�ain aa it is. Mr. Myhra said he took exception, saying he realized people have said "I purchased with the idea in mind it was R-1 and did not expect it to change", but once again they umust recognize conditiona do change. If conditions have changed, he did not think they ahould set their thoughts back. Then what bear- ing does past history have on it? At this poiat, we stop considering all changes. It still ge�s down to conflict of interests of the three parties involved: the owner, people whc ?.'--� in the surrounding are� and the Planaing Co�nis s ion . � ° Of all the co�eats he heard at the public hearings, Mr. Mittelstadt said the oaly one he felt that really held weight, was traffic pattern. Chairman Planain� Commission Meetint� - Februaxv 27, 1969 g��� 7 Erickson said that in aray type of deveiopffient, we axe goi�a� to have traffic. `", Tlzere followed a short discussion on tr�ffic p�ttexa. � , � Mr. Fitzpatrick said he could not add anything to what had b�ena ��id, Iie did aot under estimate the amount of objections and th� uuasaiffiity o!E the group of property owners directly to the West and he agreed with �he t%ixiga that are being said and, perhaps, the most legitimate is traffic. As plans go, he thought this one was a good one, although Don (Mittelstadt) has bsoaa�h� aap a question whether we are ready for any plans in tthis ar��. �i� be�i�r�d rezoni�g Planned Development does give the Planning Co�i�s�on conti.nued con- trol of the development of the area. All these tkain�s have been said and it is a matter of balaace, weighing one with another. Mr. Myhra said that this brings us back to the �oia�t� og �a�i�aa Erickson's co�ents. 1. Thinking of access to M�tterhorn Drive from diathaway asid th� closing of a street, what is the policy in the closing of the streets? Darrel Clask answesed that there was no right of way and ttiere i� no �txeet �a�eare. �ae �treet would have a 12% grade which would not be t�� ���d ��s �mm ���e�� to � hi�ia dexxsitp areae Thi� i.. � St�te Ai.al gA�tr� �� �����t �������� �ive to C�ntsal Avexiue. 2. Matterhorn has been under consideratioa for five or six years. Arthur Street has been dedicated down to the North line and with a�o re�l pl�a where it would go from there. 3. Ia getting acceptance from New Brighton for two streeta conaecting to � Silver Lake Road with the neighboring �nicipality would have to be investigated. The Engineeriag Assistant sa:.� that the Citq has set ao precedeace with New _ Brighton. They have connected up to Gardena and �ade it a tlaroea�h street to Silver Lalce Road9 a:�d al�o laav� �oazaected up �it�a �Ii�sissippi Stseet. App�r�tly their intesest iaa agre�ment are running wfth ours. 4. Caai we change setbacks as part of a plan? Chai�an Erick�oa► �aid we can malce stipulations, if necessary. Be£e�r�aa� ���ck �� Y�� ��a he eaid he had talked to the manager o£ New Brighto� a�d �:fli�y a�� w���ia� aa�til we taflce action. The suggestion was made by the City M,anager that a joiat co�itg�� �ay h�e to come out of it. He caxi aaticipate probablq some prolal� wit.Fa the joint uti�lity situatioa. Mr. Myhra said he made another note. Whenever ttaey h�ve started talking about large developmeats, they get iavolved with utilities. Darrel Clark said there is access to a large transmis�ion watermaisi runniug aap M�ttezhora Drive. From the atandpoint of sewer, we could not handle this whole area at this density. There has been some correspondence with New Brightoa and it could be solved either bq retention or perhaps all of the sewage go to New Brigl�ton. Mr. Mittelstadt asked if the City had made studies in the area for the develoQ- meat of streets aad utilities and the Engineering Assistant replied these studies are aot made until the �--aer requeats them. .�swering a question, he said the overall density of Fridley is 6.5. The Consulting Engiaeer of Pemtom's suggested three eolutions: retention tank and discharge during off peak hours; put part in FridZey and part in New Brightoa; or all go to New Brighton. All three plaas were reported to be economical as far ae the develop- ^ ment of the property was conceraed. � Planaint� Co�ission Meetia� - February 27, 1969 Pal�e 8 Mr. Eagstrom said that, regarding his presentatioa to th� Planning Co�is- �'i., sion of New Brighton, they are in no position to do anything in New�Brighton until Fridley has given a decision. Regardiag the density, Sectioa 3 on the map, they have to study quite carefully because of the freeway and the topography of the area. He said they would work with the road on the West. �'�1 The following letter from Mr. Rodney Billman, dated February 7, 1969, addresaed to the P:lanning Commission was read by Mr. Myhra: "Gentlemen: Some one and one-half yeara ago I stated to a Planning Co�ission meetiag that it was not feasible to build peraoaal residences on the North Iansbruck area for the following reasons: 1. Diffieulty of landscaping terrain, and 2. Cost of deveiopiag, particularily utility install�tions. I am still of the same opinion. The price one would have to charge a prospective home owaer for a home site in this area would, ia � opizaion, be auch that there would be no market for the s�aYe of such homne site�. I have not suthorized any one to use my name to express aa opinion differeat than the abwe. Very truly yours, Rodney W. Billmaa per LJM c+c. Gary Carlson, Borson Construction 1600 East 78th Street" Mr. Myhra said the poiat he wanted to make wae, if this was an actual fact, he teaded to agree with Mr. Billman, and believes the Planning Co�iesion will be faced constantly with developmental plans. Thoae people who have worked with Pemtom, Inc. (this includea the aeighboring communities� have been pleased with the kiad of de�•elopment they have and how carefully they are preserving the aatural terrain. A citizen asked if theae plaas were adopted, have you fosmulated what plan to use? Is there aay plan as to haw it could be altered? Chairman Erick�-n az...wered, "No° exactly as it ia very difficult to say at this time what an exact atreet pattern would be". As far as he was con- cerned, he did not believe that the traffic to the West was going to be in- creased aay greater than it would be with single family development. North and East would be easy to solve. Cars per uait would be 1� ia a�ltiple. He was certaia they were talking about 2 or 3 in siagle family type in that area. A citizen asked about Matterhora beiag a state aid street. The Engineer- ing Assistant said �.hat it is a desigaated state aid route. The deaigu has �- aot been made for Matterhorn. About 20� of Fridley streets are designated as � State Aid. L+Wery qear the City goes aver the liat, aad for varioua reasoas, some are removed and other added. Planniat� Co�ission Meeting - Februarv 27, 1969 r Page 9 � Mr. Bergman asked £or clari,fication of the parties involved in the develop- ;"�`� ment of this area,as,Pemtom, Inc. is the only one mentioned. Borson Construction9 Incorporated is the coastnictibn firm and has the other half of the project. Chairman Erickson said there is nothing to say that Pemtom will be the only one working.on this development. It is possible the development can change. This is something we know can happen, but he felt the oxdiaance will take care of that. Pemtom, Inc. is building the single family townhouses and Borson the apartment buildings. MOTION by Myhra, seconded Mittelstadt, that the P1an�ing.Coffiaission recoaanend to the Council apprwal of the rezoning request, ZOA �69-01, Pemtom, Iacorporated being that part of the SE� of Section 24 that lies North of Highway �100 right of way to be rezoned from R-]. (siagle family dwelling areas) to PD (Plaaaed Development) with the stipulations as presented in the ten (10) points listed by Chairman Erickson as follows: . 1. Access to Matterhora Drive from Hathaway be elimiaated but utility easements be retained. 2. Matterhorn Drive and Arthur Street a�ust be extended snd improved to Gardena. 3. The two streets showa on the praposal connectix�g with Silver Lake Road must be dedicated and accepted by New Brighton together with an agreement to improve such streets w3thin a reasonable time. 4. Construction on the East side of Matterhorn must be set back at least 60 � feet from the street right of way. � 5. Interior s�reet xight of ways muat be at least 66 feet. 6. The denaity of the town house acreagea ahall nat exceed 4.2. No iacrease shall be allowed in other proposed densities. 7. Uae of the area for R-3 shall be limited to Areas 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9, and area 5 in the Southwest coraer should not be B-3. 8. Approval of New Brighton for zoning of any areas overlappiag municipal boundaries. • 9. Appraval of the zoning does not necessarily meaa approval of the proposed plaa, except that the townhouse caneept is approved. 10. Receipt of any agreement from the petitioner and owaers which the City Couacil a�d City Attorney decide would be needed to prohibit aay major change in deasity at a later date, without the consent of affected residents. Mr. Myhra asked to make a.�.:atement explaining his poaition. He said, "I realized when I made this motion that I am displeasing a good 9970 of the people in the audience. I don't think we ever make these kinds of motions lightly and I'm sure you will agree that we have given this oae a lot of consid- eration. This is not so �uch a plea for your sympathy for me as a little bit r'�'� of understanding of my purpose in making this motion. As I told you earlier in my remaxks, as I see it, there are at least three somewhat conflicting interests Planaing Coa�ission Meeting - February 27, 1969 Page 10 and it is nice when you can look at one of �kae�� int�r��t� an� say, in our � judgmea�ta it overrides the othexs by such a maxgin that you caai, without az�y fear of h�ving done the wrong thing, go aliead and make that motion ox make the wish for pleasing a particular par�y. "As I look at this, I said earlier in my remarks I think th�t at� l�ast paxt of the concern here is a psychological concern on your part asaai, honestly, that must be considered. As one lady expressed it the othex a�iglat� she woaals� like to have an Edina on the north�in her backyard, a.nd I thi.r�lc �hat is a valid wish, but I am not so certain that it is the kind of thiag that we can m�ke motions on at the Planning Corc�ission. I think that we have to look at the whole base. So it gets down pretty much to this, and this is my reason for making the motion. I think in the balance, it is my feeling that the interest of the City, as I see the interest of the City, at least this situation fits tightly in this balance, and I guess what it gets down. to then is that I would like to make this motion, I would like to have it passed by this Body, in order that it gets to the Council where we get more people thinking on it. I think I could sit here two more weeks, two more meetings, and not be any further along in my own mind. It seems to me that we are an advisory body and that at this time, at lea.st as far as I am concerned, it is appropriate to move this along to the City Council and get the thinking of another body on it. And, of course, as you people know, once again there are publs.c hearings, and you people have had exnerience in presenting your case and it seems to me that it gives you a chance again to make a presentation to another body of people, and in your case, perhaps hope that they will reverse our position. n "There is one ca�nent I would like to see carried on to the Council if this bodq should vote in favor of the motion and it is that the Council should be aware that there is a sewage problem in the area that should be solved before any development can take place." Mr. Myhra added that he thought it was i.mportant enough, if agreeable with the PlaruLing Cou�ission members, to include it as Stipulation �11. Mr. Myhra amended his MOTION to add: 11. Satisfactory solution to anv pioblems that mi�ht be connected with providin� utilities for this area. .Upon a voice vote, Jensen abstaini.ng, Mittelstadt voting nay, Myhra, Fitzpatrick and Erickson voting aye, the motion passed. A citizen asked if he could have a copy of the Chairma.n's Su�ary. Chair- man Erickson said that he had no objection to the public receiving it, and he did not believe the City would object. A citizen asked if the petitions presented to the Planning Coa�ission would be passed on to the Council. He was iaformed all the petitions would be forwarded to the Council together with the petition presented this evening, but not received. The Planning Co�nission decided to pass the Chaircnan's Sunmoary to the Couacil. � Mr. Engstrom stated the project would probably be completed within four - years. Planning Coimnission Meeting - Februar5► 27, 1969 Pa e 11 �� MOTION by Fitzpatrick, seconded by Mittelstadt, that the Planaing Caa�i�sioaa� referring to the tax forfeit parcels, Lots 41, 47, 48 and 52, Auditor's Sub� division �92, reco�nend to Counci,l that the County Auditor be r�quested �o withhold thes� parcels from eale for a period of one year from now in order that the Fridley Park Department may review t�em. Upoa a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ��, � ADJOURNMENT : MOTION by Mittelstadt, seconded by Fitzpatrick, that the Planning Co�ission meeting be adjourned at 9:50 P.M. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried. Re pect u�,ly submitted ��, Haze 0'Brian Recording Secretary _ y �: � .. . ,� � � � � � � ... 4 ��. . �t � �. . � l �� , ��� � �� . ' ? ...__. ��a���_ _ �--��' �.���� � �I�,, , , , , �' ' � � �_�, . -, _ ��► ' ��,�i�- �,',I �/,, . ��'� ��. , _ ,, r,�,��, �� «. , ��/�!� �, _ � _ _ ��i► • , � ;► „ ' [� � •—�� ► ' ii L,W � r ,=. __ � , _ .: — ; �_.. ; ��. � ��,,. , _. , . _ , . . � a �� ---- -- -------- ---�------- — -- -----..�;.�. ,< --�-- �—�=� ; '�� . ���.;'. ,.. _�:'a.,x.� . . _. _ _,. .. � .