PL 12/22/1976 - 6600�
t�
�
PLANNTNG COMMISSION MEETING
CITY OF FRTDLEY
A G E N D A
DECEMBER 22, 1976
CALL TO ORAER:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVE PLANNING COFA�IISSION MINUTES: DECEMBER 8, 1976
1. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMTT, SP
#76-18, NAEGELE OUTDOOR 1�DVE�7ISIN�COMPANY: To allow
the construction of a 10 x 2 il oard, per Fridley
City Code, Section 214.042, to be 3ocated on Lot 5,
Revised auditor's Subdivision k77, the same being 151
Osborne Road N.E,
2. GQNTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE:
Continue until January 5, 197J
3. CONTINUED: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND OSJECTIYES
Continue until January 5, 1977
7:30 P.M.
PA6ES
1 - 20
21 - 26
4_ RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: DECEMBER 2, 27 ' 35
1976
5.
6. RECEIVE COMMUNITY
ADJOURNMENT:
DECEMBER
At Meeting
At Meeting
\
�
�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DECF2IBER 8, 1976
PAGE 1
CALL TO ORDEit:
Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:3z P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Harris� Bergman� Langenfeld, Schnabel, Shea
Members Absent:
Others Present;
Peterson
Jerrold Boardrnan, City Planner
APPR08E PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: NOVEMBER 17, 1976
MOTIGN by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission minutes
o£ 13ovember 17, 1976 be approved as uritten.
Mrs. Schnabel noted that she had been listed as present, when actually Mrs.
Gabel had attended that meeting. �
UPOH A VQICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
1. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUFST, ZOA �76-06, BY GEOR4E-
genera us�.ness areas), that part of Lot 2'� A.S. #78� lying Westerly
of the Westerly right-of-w�y line of Main Street N,E„ lying Easterly
o£ the Easterly railway right-of-way line of Burlington Northern, Inc.�
lying Northerly of the Northerly right-of-way line of Interstate High-
uray J/691t, and lying Southerly of a line drawn Westerly at a right angle
to the East line of said Lot 2, from a point on said East line distant
507.60 feet Southerly from the Northeast corner o£ said Lot 2, except
the Wester7,y 218.16 oT the described property� subject to easement to
Northern States Power Company, the same being 5600 Main Street N.E.
Public Hearing open.
Mr. Robert H. Brokopp and Mr. Dave A. Oleson were present representing
Bur2ington Northern, Inc.; Mr. Ken C. Nielson was present representing
Burlington Northern Land Development Corp.; and Mr. Carl George was present
represent3ng Georgetown Motel, Inc.
Planning Coinmission Meeting - December 8� 1976 page 2
Mr. Boardman informed the Cotmnission that this was x continuation from the �
last meeting, and they did have representatives present from Bur2ington
Northern and B� L at this meeti.ng to answer any questions they might have.
Mr. Robert Brokopp of Burlington Northern stated that the Burlington Northern
Land Development Corporation had been formed two years ago to try to develop
property compatible with Bur2ington Northern. Ae saic3 they had properties
in some locations that weren�t specifically industrial, and they felt that
they shou2d possibly develop those as commercial.. He explained Lhere were
three railroads combined Khich had large land owning interests in various
parts ot the country, arid there had to be some tie to get all of these
properties managed correctly. Mr. Brokopp stated they a2so had a third
divi.sioa, Resources, which controlled the timber, oil lands, etc.; so they
actually had three real estate departments--property management, Resources,
and Burl3ngton Northern Land Development Corporation.
Mr. Brokopp said that in trying to do the best they could.t.'ith their property
the situation arose along Main Street and 69�t. He explained they had
created the Northtown Yard, and it was thought that perhaps they should
consider putting a motel-type arrangement in to handle the crews from
Northtown. Mr. Brokopp stated that it never really got to the point where
they could consider that as a project, but when they were in contact with
Mr. George with regard to the crew handling facility he saw there would be
a nee9 for a facility in the vicinity of East River Road and 69ly. He said
the piece of property that seemed to be most advantageous was the site that
Nas in question--north of 691t and west of Main Street. He explained it was �
zoned M-2, heavy industrial, and they alw�ys intended to develop it that way.
He said they had the property 5ince 1965, and the reason it hadn't been
developed was they were not sure what the plans were for the Northtown Yard,
He e�cplained it was for that reason they hadn't been able to develop the
property industrial� but they still plantted to.
Mr. Brokopp stated that they had the Land Development Corporation to deveZop
the property because they didn�t lmow how it would work out; they wanted
the highest and best use for the property. He explained that with the George-
town Motel they could see where they could give up a little corner of the
property which wouldn't lend itsel£ as well to industrial as to the motel
operation, He added that they didn't feel the motel operation would be
i:ncompatible with the adjacent industrial they have planned £or the rest o£
the property, and urged that the zoning be changed in this unique situation
to accommodate the Georgetown Motel operation.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if the property had always been zoned M-Z� and Mr.
Brokopp replied that ihey had owned the property since I965 and it had been
zoned M-2 then. Mrs. Schnabel asked if he could foresee in the fhture any
chance the railroad company itself would use that property for any other
operation or if they were looking for other companies to use that property
instead. Mr, Brokopp replied they had used it in connection xith their
operation and were trying to make final p2ans for the property, which was
rather diSficult to do. He sai.d they primarily would be interested in �
getting other industry on the property. Mrs. Schnabel asked if then there
were no major plans for that property by the railroad� and Mr. Hrokopp said
Planning Commission Meeting - December 8� 1976 . Page 3
no� not at the present. He explained this was in thethroes of planning
�and they were only five years old as a combined company, and it wasn�t that
easy to formulate plans.
Mr. Langenfeld said that their main concern at the last meeting xas the future
development of the properties North of the Georgetown project� and the
Commission was hoping the railroad might have some indication as to what
they intended to do with the remaining portion and if they had any plans
for the portion immediately adjacent to the Georgetown Motel project. 'Mr.
Brokopp replied they had no immediate plans, but he would envision some-
thing similar to what xas developed along East River Road and 694 in the
Southeast corner,
Mr. David Oleson� also representing Burlington Northern� Inc., stated they
had brochures showing pictures of their property and giving information on
it, Se said they were sent to respond to inquiries promoting the property
for industrial use, and passed out copies to the Commission. He explained
they promoted it for industrial use and it was their intention to continue
to do that. .Mr. Oleson explained that the Georgetoxn plan was brought to
them by the Land Development Corporation� and Burlington Northern was
basically acquiescent to that request by saying that this area would not
deter from their efforts to locate industry--at least to the best o£ their
judgement at this time.
Mr« Hergman asked if it was the railroad�s intention that the land £rom
the proposed Georgetown parcel all the xay to 61st Street presently zoned
�M-2 be developed as M-2, and Mr. Oleson said that was correct. Mr. Bergman
said he was a bit concerned about the piece between the proposed George-
twon parcel and the tracks, and commented that the Commission had been a
little surprised that the rezoning request did not expand westerly to the
trackage. Air. Oleson replied that one`of the reasons might be that there
was always a need to preserve some area for trackage for new industrial
facilities� so certain clearance areas had to be maintained. Mr. Brokopp
stated that another reason might be that for years the Highway Department
had been unhappy with the underpass on 6911 under their tracks. He explained
that underpass had been built to accommodate Highw�y 100 and was not built
to f�eeway standards. Mr. Brokopp sai.d the Highway Department had come to
them and said they would like to rehuild that bridge to highway stattdards,
and the railraod felt.that they shouZd provide a wide enough bridge to put
additional tracks across there. He explained the reason was the trains were
increasingly longer with more cars on them, and in order to bring the trains
in it may be necessary to put additional tracks along the East side of their
present tracks� and that would require additional right-of-way. He £urther
explai.ned that the 218.16 feet of the parcel oP land was predicated for
additional right-of-way if the bridge on 694 got changed and a larger one
was bu31t. He commented that he had no idea where that stood with the state.
Mrs. Shea asked if it hadn't been discussed at the last meeting that perhaps
Georgetoxn might like to pick up that property later. Mr. Brokopp replied
that the original plan £or Georgetown was to have an exception of 100�� but
their operating department didn't think that would be suf£icient to allow the
Plenning Commission Meeting - December $� 1976 Page �
motel operation to expand. He stated they then discovered that property would �
be needed for trackage, so he thought the width got expanded North and South
in order to arrange for this.
Mr. Carl George stated he hadn�t known that property would be used for
additional trackage for Burlington Northern, so he thought if it was criter3a
for the rezoning he would offer to pick it up.
Mrs. Shea asked if the Georgetorm Motel couldn�t go.back� if they would ask
for more property on the side to expand. Mr. George replied that they felt
within a two-year period there uould be a need to expand� so then they would
have to go to the side or to another location. Mr. Brokopp added that•it
depended on the State Highway Department and whai they would do, and their
plans for the longer trains� etc. He explained they were taking this as
they went so it wasn�t easy to answer questions like that.
Chairperson Harris asked iP the remainder of the land behind the proposed
Georgetown Motel development would be similar to the type of operation
described in the brochure Mr. Oleson had passed out. Mr. Oleson replied
hopefully, yes� but it was dif£icult to see what type of proposals would
coma to them. Mr, Harris said that he was a bit confused at this point as
they had seen a brochure at the last Public Hearing put out by B N L that
described the use for the remaining property as something else. Mr.
SroYopp agreed that would get confusing, and explained that his company
forired the other company to handle the many, many properties they had that
couldn't be categorized as either industrial or operative. He said that �
while it may seem strange to the Commission that they were both advertising
for this property, it wes really for the good of the company.
Chairperson Harris stated he understood that, but Bur].ington Northern was
advertising it for one thing and B N L was advertising it for something else.
He said h3s question was, "what are you trying to sell it for?" He read to
the Commission the site data brochure by B N L Development Corporation
which stated the property could be used for office buildings, multi-family,
warehousing� industrial potential, etc. Mr. Harris said they had two
different stories from B td L and Burlington Northern.
Mr, Brokopp stated that the primary concern was £or establishing industry
along their lines of growth. He stated that the Land Development Corporation
was formed to handle some of the lands that weren't perhaps compatible for
either industrial or for operative. M,. Brakopp explained that they did
get into a cross over on this particu3ar property because there were some
areas like this Georgetown site that could be used better £or the motel
operation than for the industrial operation. He said they had finally deter-
mined that the Georgetown site was better for a motel and they were willing
to go that route� and the rest they felt should be developed industrial. He
added that they Felt that anything along rails should not go any other w�y
unless some circumstances dictated otherwise. He said, however, they did have
to think of what was economically best and if it was £ound that perhaps an
apartment complex would be financially beneficial� they would be back before
the City asking for.that. However� he said� at the moment their primary
Planning Commission Meeting - December 8� 1976
Page 5
� concern was for industrial development of that property.
Chairperson Harris said they understood that� but the railroad should under-
stand the City's position. He stated if the City was to operate under those
circumstances just described, they would get into a mishmash of zoning that
�ou2d borderline spot rezoning. He said that from his standpoint he agreed
kith the Georgetown concept along the highway and the industrial back, but
a strip of commercial, a strip of multi-faznily, a strip of industrial and
then another strip of commercial xas not good planning. He said he saw
nothing but headaches as far as traffic patterns, utilities, and getting
along with the adjoining residents.
Mr. Boardman pointed out it was the City's prerogative to turn down any future
requests for rezoning if it did not follow what they felt was a normal
process. Chairperson Harris said that was correct, but he i'elt these things
should be stated at the onset of the development.
Mr. Brokopp stated this was a desirable property for industrial development�
and the only reason they hadn�t developed kiain Street property zras because
they xere waiting to see how the Northtown yard turned out. He said they had
discussed how a motel would be compatible vi.th industrial property, and had
noted that the property itself wasn't too visable from the interstate. He
explained that Holiday Uillage shielded mosi of it, and people were too
intent on driving through the underpass to pay much attention to it. He
stated that if the motel was located there and people had the chance to
�swing into the motel, there would be a lot of people that would be influential
in the industrial development of the area. He added that once they got
into the area there could be more development, and one development could lend
itself to another development. Mr. Brokopp added that they looked at it in
the vein that the motel would add to the development of the industrial
property, and if industries did get in there the salesmen would possibly be
having their meetings at the motel, etc. He said that normally they wouldn�t
ask for rezoning away from i.ndustrial� but they were trying to be as honest
and forthright as possible.
Mr. Ken Nielson of Burlington Northern Land Development Corporation stated that
what the Commission had heard so far was the Burlington Northern�s viewpoint
of what the property was to be used for. He stated the vote was not in on
what the remainder of the property would be utilized for. Mr. Nielson said
that surely the Commission could understand that Burlington Northern's Industrial
Development wanted to protect everything along the rails� and he thought that
was understandable from the standpois�t it was getting harder and harder to
locate good property withi.n a respectable proximity o£ the metropolitan area
on which to locate industry. He stated that he thought their industrial
developanent in Fridley so Far had been of good quality; but from a corporate
standpoint, looking at a7.1 the facets of the problem, they felt it also had
potential for use as commercial, of£ice� warehousing, multi-family, etc. He
atated that based on their ability to come forth with a proposal and submit
it to the Board of Directors� this property could be available to B N, L Deve1-
opme�t for other uses besides industrial,
Planning Co�mnission Meeting - December 8� 1976 Page 6
Mr. Nielson.stated that he didn�t think that any of the representatives present �
xould suggest that they intermingle land uses along Main Street such as having
commercial, industrial and sticking in a few multi-family units. He said
they thought it was an area that was sensitive and had a number of uses. He
stated that on their property between 61st and 69)y they had multi-family,
singZe-family an@ commercial all within that area; and he thought the key
ingredient was how these land uses interfaced, Mr, Nielson stated he didn't
think that what they were proposing as far as the raotel was spot zoning,
and B N L looked at this as the first step in obtaining the highest and
best use of the property. He explained that B N. L was in competition fri.th
Burlington Northern's Industrial Development Department in finding a use
for the property and finding a developer.
Chairperson Harris asked if Mr. Nielson felt that all of the potential uses
he had listed in the brochure were compatible zoning for the area, and Mr.
Nielson replied there was no firm development for the land. He stated the
data sheets were just trying to generate interest, and tktey didn�t like to
come in and go with a piecemeal development step by step, Mr. Nielson said
that the problem was here the Industrial Development Department didn't like
to part with industrial land in locations such as this because it was of
prime concern to them, and they were reluciant to give B N L more than they
needed in an initial first step. He stated they would be making a cohesive
effort to have a logical and harmonious usage along Main Street.
Mr. Langenfeld said that as far as a business standpoint was concerned and
in reference to the two brochures (one light industrial and one general �
business type zoning), he got the impression that whichever one sold would
be the one to go, and then they wou]d be back before the Planning Commission
aski.ng for the necessary zoning at that time. Mr, Brokopp said it Has
already zoned for industrial development, so they wouldn�t have to come
back before the Planning Commission if it went industrial. Ae said it would
be just in the event they weren't able to locate industry there and B t? L
was able to locate some commercial development.
Mr. Boardman asked if proposals by B N L had to be reviewed by Burlington
Northern before they would lease that property, and Mr. Brokopp replied yes,
Burlington Northern wou2d have the first direotive as to what the property
would be used for.
Chairperson Harris asked i£ they were selling any portion of this particular
tract. Mr. $rokopp replied they didn't like to sellit, they preferred to lease,
but the way £inancing was these days ihey had to sell. He explained it was
difficult for them to get a£inancer for a term lease. Mr, Harris asked how
the road situation and utilities would be handled in the event they did not
sell� but leased the rest of the property. Mr. Brokopp said that was vhat
they were trying to come up with now� but it was diYficult to plan because
they were not sure about the bridge over 6q1y and all the other things involved.
He stated they had been trying to get the plat completed that was agreed
upon at the time of the Northtown yard initial construction. He added they
had'been trying to get the thing platted� but the City asked questions about �
what they were going to do with the property behind what they wanted to plat
and the railraod couldn�t answer that yet.
�..:
�
Planning Commission Meeting - December 8� 1976 � Page 7
�Chairperson Harris asked hox the utilities and the internal roadway system
for the mot¢1 would be handled if the City looked favorably on the rezoning
for Georgetown. Mr. George answered that they had two entries off of Main
Street. He sai.d they knew where the sexer was and had gone over this with
Mr. Clark�s o£fice, and had been over the power set up with the power company
as far as transformers and would have total electric heating. Hr. George
said that with the proper engineering and inspection they could put the
sewer in themselves--building those lines and maintaining them, and thQy would
belong to the City. He said they would be in the public right-of-way. Mr.
Harris asked about going back into the property itself, and Mr. George replied
they would build those lines themselves and maintain them. He said they
' intended to run the sewer line into the right-of-way and along the h7est
side of Main Street to the buildings themselves, and then go from there
back 3.nto the property with the sewer system they would need to give the
sewage system to all the buildings. Ae sai.d it would be the same thing xi,th
the water system. Mr. George added they were all set with the power company,
and the electrical system was all engineered. ile stated the only thing they
might use gas for was the laundry system, but they could also go electrical.
He said the rest would be all electrical.
Chairperson Harris asked about the road system in this particular parcel in
the event that they found some other users and leased the land to them.
1•'ir. Oleson said that most of their inquiries started around five acres plus�
so it was very feasible it could go for one project on one five acre parcel.
Mr: rrokopp stated they would come up with a plan, but it depended on what
came along. He stated they weren't going to do anything that Would get
�haphazard, but xould get with Mr. Boardman and work out a plan that would
be acceptable,
Mr. Langenfeld asked what the minimum term £or a lease agreement was� and
Mr. Brokopp replied that generally they xere cancellable on thirty days notice.
He added that the term could be from five years to fifteen or twenty. Mr.
Langenfeld asked if there were any kind of clauses in the agreements which
would give them the right to suddenly decide that they needed the property
for their own uses. Mr. Brokopp said that there were times Nhen they did
need the property--it didn't happen very often, but it could.
Mr, Bergman stated that he felt a little concerned that this process was a
bit different from the norm in that it seemed Mr. George had a plan to build
a particular £acility on a piece of property, and this requires a rezoning
in order for him to do so, rather than a rezoning coming prior to a specific
huilding plan. He stated they were talking about a property owner's request
to rezone the property� and was wondering what elements were yet incomplete
prior to the actuality of the construction of the motel. H1r. George stated
that it had been worked out so the property could be transferred to B N. L
who could give a long-term lease which they needed for financing. He sai.d
all the items had been worked out for long-term leasing, and it would be
about s 25-year lease. He added it had been agreed upon between the Legal
Department of B N L and Burlington Northern's attorney, and the investors
were all set� so there was nothing that was left to chance. Mr. George
� stated the feasibility studies had been run and the site plan had been made.
Planning Cammission Meeting - December 8� 1976
Page 8
Mr. George stated that in a lot of situations the rezoning request wou2d be �
made prior 'to all of this expense, but they £elt they couldn't do that on
this one. He said they felt everything had to he worked out prior to them
coming before the Planning Commission and asking for the rezoning.
Mr. Bergman asked if he was saying they had a long-term lease signed by
both parties and a financing document signed subject to rezoning approval.
Mr. George replied that was correct; the documents were made and approved
end were just subject to rezoning.
MOTION by Shea� seconded by LangenPeld, that the Planning Commission close
the Public Hearing on Rezoning Request ZOA #76-06 by Georgetwon Motel� Inc.
Upon a voice voie, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public
Hearing closed at 8:35 P.M.
Mrs. Schnabel said that since she wasn't at the last meeting her ]mowledge
of what preceded was basically what came through the minutes, and she was
a little up in the air as to what precisely they wished to do this evening,
She said she assumed they xanted to act on the request For rezoning� but
beyond that in terms of the rest of the property, she was wondering if the
Commission felt they wanted to take some other action. Chairperson Harris
said he didn't know if they eould reslly do anything about the rest o�'
the property, but they had wanted to talk to representatives from B N. L and
Burlington Northern to get their thoughts. Mr. LangenfeZd commented that
they had wanted to see if there was some comprehensive plan so they would
at lease have a general idea of what was going to happen. �
Mrs. Schnabel said it appeared that their intent was that they always
intended it to be zoned heavy industrial and they stiTl do. She added
she thought it would be difficult for the Commission to make a recommendation
or do anything other than act on the request that was before them tonight.
Chairperson Harris said that was correct,
Mr. Langenfeld said he wanted to thank the people from Burlington Northern
for coming in, and he could see that they did have a plan to establish a
trend when they started the Georgetown project. He said he wished to make
one correction, and noted that it had been indicated in this evening's
discussion that salesmen might be having meetings at the proposed motel
when Mr. George had indicated at the previous meeting that there wonldn't
be any meeting rooms or convention rooms.
MO TION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the PZanning Co�mnission
recommend'to City Council approval of Rezoning Request, ZOA #76-06, by
Georgetown Motel, Inc.: Rezone from M-2 (heavy industrial areas} to C-2
(general business areas}� that part of Lot 2� A.S. #78, lying Westerly of
the Westerly right-of-way line of Main Street N.E., lying Easterly of the
Easterly railway right-of-way line of Burlington Northern, Ine., lying
Northerly of the Northerly right-of-way line of Interstate Highw$y �!694�
and lyi.ng Southerly of a line drawn Westerly at a right angle to the East
line of said Lot 2} from a point on said East line distant 507.60 feei
Southerly from the Northeast corner of said Lot 2, except the Westerly �
218,16 of the described property� subject to easement to Northern States
Power Compar�y� the same being $600 Main Street N.E.
Plannin� Commission Meeting - December 8� 1976 Page 9
� Chait�person Harris said he wished to make a statement at this point. He
said he hoped that before any further advertisements were sent out on
Burlington Northern land and beSore a sign was put up advertising the
property� that they could stop in and take a look at the comprehensive
plan and get e feeling of the City as to the direction the City would like
to head on that particular parcel. He said he spoke to the particular
flyer which alluded to the site along East Ri.ver Road and the proposed
development which stated "suitable for strip commercial, o£fice business,
restaurant and multi-family use." Mr. Harris commented that he did not feel
that all of those proposed uses were really compatible with the area. He
said he felt that before a sign was put up some of the railFOad representa-
tives should stop in for a chat with City Administration and get a consensus
of opinion.
Mrs. Schnabel said that she was a bit concerned about the traffic patterns.
She noted that as this area developed the City should address the traffic
flow problem as well as working with the owners of the property. She stated
she was specifically concerned that they avoid the type of situation they
had on East River Hoad now where property c�as sold or rented to a couple of
commercial ventures, and they had a real traffic hazard. Mrs. Schnabel said
she could see the same thing happening in this area because it was fairly
landlocked by residentia]. areas and she �rould very much like to see the City
address this problem as well as the property owners, and the time to do this
was now--before it was too far developed. Chairperson Harris stated they
� had discussed the tra.t'iic patterns at some length at the previous meeting,
including how the people would get there� from what direction they would
come, the type of clientele, etc. Mrs. Schnabel said she understood that
but was not concerned with just the tra£fic generated from the motel but was
talking about the entire area as it sLarted to develop. She pointed out
that right nox there were only two funnels of traffic out to University
Avenue� and suggested an alternative plan be made or another access to the
area. Mr. Harris pointed out that no one Imew what was going to happen--
not Burlington Northern, B N L or the City. He said it could be one large
development or five developments of one acre apiece� so they didn't knorr how
much traf£ic would be generated. Mrs. Schnabel said she agreed, but they
had the same problem be£ore and now they had a serious traffic problem as
a result of it.
Mr. Bergman said he wished to comment that it had been gratiiying to listen
to the representatives from Burlington explain that they had been doing a
lot o£ thinking and planning the best theycould� and they xere concerned about
it. He stated he felt they had a good exchange and he appreciated their
thoughts and statements.
Mr. Brokopp said he would like to s�y one more thing concerning the develop-
ment of streets. He said that was somewhat of a problem because the minute
they planned the street and layed it out� then they £ound somebody came along
and wanted that street area. He explained that in the plat for the industrial
center where Wickes and those people were, they created street areas but
� ttiey didn�t dedicate street areas. He said they gave the streets outlot
numbers for each projected street area� and when Plywood Minnesota went in
that was immediately dedicated to the City for street purposes. Mr. Brokopp
stated that the next year•the road that xent from the entry of the development
Planning Commission Meeting - December 8� 1976 Page 10
to FMC and around the pump house was dedicated to the City. He further explained �
t,hat last year when Sylvania vent in they dedicated that street, so now if
someone came in and wanted the entire remainder of that property where there
were streets projected but not dedicated they could lump all the outlots
together and have one big piece that was served by roadways. Mr. $rokopp
said that was sort of what they were envisioning here; they were trying to
develop a plan that would set up the same type of thing. He added they had
agreed with the City there would be an entry at 57th.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that if they came up with a development plan� the City
would certainly like to see it. Mr. Brokopp stated that he had talked xith
Mr. Sobeich and they were trying to get somet�.ing to him.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
2.
,. ... ,, .,� � .,� .,�,,,. �, � .,,. .. .... .. .,..,. n
frora M-2 (heavy industrial areas) to M-1 (light industrial areas},
located between 77th Avenue and 79th Avenue N.E, on the East side of
Rancher's Road N.E.
Mr. Robert Schroerg Mr. Jerry Paschke; and Mr. Jim Benson� representi.ng
Mr.. Paschke, were present.
MOTTON by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission �
open the Public Hearing on Rezoning Request ZOA #76-07 by Robert A. Schroer,
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public
Hearing open at $:53• '
Mr. Boardman showed the Commission a plat plan for the buildings that are
being developed in the Onaway Area. He pointed out the four lots thai
were in question and explained they were presently zoned M-2 but Mr. Schroer
vrished them to be zoned M-1. He explained the rest of the property was
presently zoned C-2.
Mr. Schroer explained that one reason they wanted to change to M-1 was
because they had a poLential buyer for four parcels of property. He said
there was a more limited building construction in a M-1 than a M-2, so he
didn't think it would hinder the area. He said he had the builder and the
real estate man with him to help answer any questions.
Mr. Boardman said he thought there had previously been some concern as to
what would happen in this area as far as road layouts, etc. He said the
City did have road easement in this area for development of these cormnercial
properties. He said he had talked to Mr. Schroer a few days ago as to how
that wou2d best be developed, and he had suggested a cul-de-sac to serve the
interior properties. Mr. Boardman said that at that time he £elt that maybe
the best way would be to keep this as a commercial-type development with that
type of a servi.ce road in there. He e�cplained that if they put in a cul-de-sac
off of Rancher's Roadt it would pretty much eliminate any practical commercial S
use other than maybe an o£fice facility� and atso might predicate a rezoning
planning Coimnlssion Meeting - December 8, 1976 � Page 11
� xequest to an industrial-type developanent.
Mr. Schroer explained that when the plat was layed out in '70 or '71 there
rras an error (he pointed it out on the plat), and it had been discussed by
himself, Nlr. Boardman and Mr. Sobeich. He explained that because of that
error they were thinking about the cul-de-sac, and the cul-de-sac could serve
the same purpose as the service road� but he wasn't opposed to either way.
Mr. Bergman asked if lots 1 through 8 xere all presently undeveloped� and Mr.
Schroer said that was correct. '
pfr, Boardman said there was also tts possibility o£ expansion by Datsun.
He added that he thought at this time, and depending on the type of layout
that went in there, he would prefer to see it remain commercial rather than
see any of it go to industrial. He said that the difference between heavy
industrial (M-2) and light industrial (M-1) was that the M-2 properties were
required on an acre and a half and tend to go to an ownership-type operation.
He said that the requirements on M-1 properties were half what they were on
M-2� and they tended to be smaller buildings. He said they also attracted
growing operations triat needed a place to go to for awhile until they out-
grew it. Mr. Boardman said they uould pre£er it to stay M-2 to get the type
of industry that was developing across the street.
Mr. Bergman asked about the allowable uses on M-2 and M-1, and Mr. Boardman
repiied the uses were quite similar. Se said that some uses in M-2 were
� not alZowed in M-1� such as very heavy manufacturing. Mr. Schroer said
that M-2 did allow outdoor storage and M-1 did noi, and Mr. Boardman
commented that on M-2 you could not have outside storage without screening.
Mr. Jim Benson of Thorpe Bmthers stated he was representing Mr. Paschke�
and informed the Commission that Mr. Paschke had built ten buildings in
the Onaway Area and only one was a lease building. He stated that all the
buildings were well-kept and Mr. Paschke had brought in people who were
long-term businesses and good business enterprises. He said that out of
all the buildi.ngs that Mr. Paschke had built there was only one that had
any blight around it� and there the owner should be given stricter control.
Mr, Benson stated that the people that were attracted to this area were
small, growing companies, and the market was for small buildings. He said
the first two proposed buildings would be 12�325 sq. feet each, and Mr.
Paschke was developing to a 35% density instead of the 1�0� allowed by code.
Mr. Benson said that Mr. Paschke had changed the look of his buildings to
almost commercial-looking� and they vould not look like i.ndustrial £actories.
He showed photographs to the Commission, and summed up by saying that this
was an opportunity for Mr. Paschke to meet all the codes, ask for no
variances, and develop Mr. Schroer's land.
Mr. Bergman asked what the actual reason was for the rezoning request. He
asked if it wasn�t true that anything Mr. Schroer could build in a. M-1 could
also be built in a M-2. Mr. Boardman replied that the rezoning request was
because the type o£ buildings Mr. Paschke wanted to build he wanted to split.
� Mr. Boardman explained he wanted to have separate ownerships on the buildings,
Planning Commission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page 12
and in order to reduce the lot area to three quarters of an acre it was �;
necessary to zone it down to M-1. Mr. Be�rgman commented that then he wanted
the Tlexibility of being able io put in a loWer square footage tenant and
get better density than he could if it remained M-2. Mr. Boardman said that
was correct, as for M-2 they would have to have an acre and a half per owner-
ship. Mr. Benson commented that there weren�t any 2�,000 square foot
buildings in the whole area, and the market was in the 10 - 12,000 sqaare
foot range. He added that he thought if it was left as M-2 Mr. Paschke
would have to pass and look Yor another area as he would not go out and
build a 24�000 square foot building on pure speculation.
Mr. $ergman said that with an industrial building, frequently the building
got built to a large size with flexibility to subdivide the building to
bring in customeis of smaller sizes. Mr. Benson asked if he was eluding
to the lt0,000 square foot'building with ten bays of lt,000 square feet each.
He said that contractors used to build sma21 buildings, but in about 1969
small buildings became uneconomical to build so contractors started building
what they called multi-tenant buildings. Mr. Benson said ihat people have
been 2easing these buildings since 1969 and now they are tired of having
ten companies in one building, they see the rent being poured down the drain
and no equity built up, and they have not been able to take advantage of
depreciation so they Nere coming out of these buildings. He stated that
these people were now looking for small buildings as they had no control
ove� the parking Zot in the multi-tenant buildings or the lawn being mowed,
and they wanted pride of ownership and their own name over the front door.
Mrs. Schnabel commented that in M-1 and M-2 raw materials could be stored �
outside the building if they were totally screened, She asked Mr, Schroer
if the intent of the rezoning reqnest'was io sell the entire strip of land
or to lease it, and he replied that Mr. Paschke had options on the entire
parcel of properties,
Mr. Boardman stated that one thing that should be considered somewhat on
this was the layout of the entire section, and what would be the best way
to develop this as far as road patterns in the area. Mrs. Schnabel said
that brought up another question. She said that if they were considering
going off of Rancher�s Road and cul-de-sacing, was that plan predicated on
the sale oF this? She asked if they were going to dedicate land for doing
this before they sold the existing properties they had now. Mr. Schroer
ansx�ered that it would be dedicated before they sold.
Mr. Boardman said that a lot of this may depend on if Datsun wanted that
back property, because if Datsun wanted that property there would be no
reason for putting a cul-de-sac in that particular area. Mrs. Schnabel
asked if that was done and the property had to be reduced, if they would
still be within the 3/�t size for an M-1 zone. Mr. Schroer said he believed
so� and Mr. Boardman commented that they would have to be.
Mr. Bergman stated that the street pattern had been discussed at a previous
Plenning Commission meeting, and asked if they hadn't gotten involved in �
a dedication at that time. Mr. Boardman pointed out on the plat the 50' and
30� that had been dedicated, and Mr. Bergman cormnented that he thought they
Planning Commission Meeting - December 8� 1976 Page 13
� had covered this subject once as far as their thoughts toward street patterns.
Mr, Boardman wondered if this was what they wanted or if a cul-de-sac pattern
would be more feasible. Mr. Schroer stated that he thought it would depend
on what went in there, and Mr. Bergman agreed that might be the quali£ying
factor. Mr. Schroer said that they had discussed the cul-de-sac, and Mr.
Paschke was not opposed to it.
Mr. Boardr,ian said he thought he xould like to see a more substantial commer-
cial development� rather than a strip right up the line with frontage on
University; and maybe a secondary commercial develo�nent within that area.
He stated he felt that would be more in keeping tirith the total comprehensive
plen.
Mrs. Schnabel said that she didn't imow i£ Mr. Paschke xas planning to make
any of the parki.ng areas joint parking lots, assuming he bought the entire
strip, She stated that certainly a street goi.ng through there xould have
some affect on his plans, also. Mr. Paschke said he had no plans for joint
parking, as he didn't think they would need it.
l�lTION by Bergman, seconded by langenfeld, that the Planning Commission
close the Public Hearing on Rezoning Request 20A /fTb-07 by Robert A. Schroer.
Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public
Hearing closed at 9:25•
Mr. Langenfeld noted that no fee was listed on the rezoning request, and Mr,
� Boardman said there was a$155 fee� which had been paid.
Mr, Bergman stated he had the impression that the progerty owner apparently
had planning substantiation for the rezoning request and he ielt no quarrel
between a transition £rom M-2 to M-1 to G2S.
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Langenfeld� that the Planning Commission
recommend to City Council approval of Rezoning Request ZOA ¢/76-07 by Robert
A. Schroer: Rezone Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8, Block 2, East Ranch Estates Second
Addition� from M-2 (heavy industrial areas) to M-1 (light industrial areas),
located between 77th Avenue and 79th Avenue N.E, on the East side of
Rancher�s Road i3.E.
Mrs. Schnabel noted that Mr. Boardman had stated earlier that he tended to
feel this should remain M-2 zoning� and asked if other than the concern for
the nature of the ownership if there were any other concerns. Mr. Boardman
replied that generally smaller buildings were built in a M-2 zone wi,th the
idea of possib2e room for expansion. He said that with M-1 there usually
wasn't room for expansion, so if their business expanded there usually started
to be outside storage and parking lots started to be used £or storing materials,
etc. He said that this was generally the type of situation they saw in the
Onax�y Area.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if the City had given any thought to an overall.plen
�for�that one strip oS lots five through 8 in terms of its compatibility with
the property across Rancher�s Road to the West. Mr. Boardman said he thought
it xas compatible useg M-1 and M-2 usually did get along as far as uses of
Plenning Commission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page 1�
property went. He said he thought he xou2d prefer that where they did have
att opportunity to develop on a Iarger parcel of property where�there was a
possibility for expansion ott that property, that they go to that type of
development. He stated he didn�t have any quarrel with the design oF
Mr. Paschke's buildings; he thought Mr. Paschke did a good job and in most
cases his tenants were good tenants. Mr. Boardman said another thing about
this was there was no room on Lhese properties £or outside material screening.
He sai.d the property was pretty much taken up by the building and the parking
Zot, and when materials started moving outside there was just no room for
screening.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if it was just coincidence that one section appeared to
be quite rrell developed and the other portion didn't seem to have very much.
Mr. Boardman explained this was because of soil conditions. Mrs. Schnabel
said she was just curious.because obviously there hadn't been a problem
developing with M-2.
Mr. Bergman stated that he was feeling just a bit uncomfortable with some
of this discussion. He said he was not sure he cou1Q accept that a change
in zoning £rom M-2 to M-1 would result in all the differences that had been
described. Mr. Langenfeld stated he could see what Mr. Bergman was getting
at. He said that they were saying in an M-1 there wasn't room for expansion,
so now they were going to go to a smaller type structure with room to eacpand,
but eventually that structure would expand and reach the same category as
the M-L Mx. Bergman said hs was confused hy Mr. Langenfeld� comment, and
Chairperson Harris said he understood what Mr. Langenfeld was driving at but �
it got confusing because sometimes they were saying M-1 when they meant M-2,
and vice-versa. Mr. Harris explained that if a given company was to move
into a building of 12,000 square feet.and they expanded to their maximum
limit o£ 21t,000 square feet, at some point in time all o£ a sudden 24,000
square feet would no longer be large enough for them and you were right back
where you started. Mr. Boardman commented that there wou2d be room for
outside storage instead of just parking and building.
Mr, $ergman stated that the key distinction he gathered between the tuo
zoning categories was the property owners and developer's industrial market
input concluding there is a market for industrial buyers for ownership of
a limited-size building, and they want to be able to get within that limited
size.
Chairperson Harris said that it was much easier to sell or lease a 12,Q00
square foot building than a 2l�,000 square foot building. He stated.that the
problem that had arisen in the area with the acre end a hal£ lots was that
the people who had built there were not e£ficiently using their land; if
some of those companies were to expand they would have a great deal of
difficulty as there was no place for them to go. He stated that two things
entered in; land costs and land preparation costs. Mr. Harris said that
if the land was purchased xhen Mr. Schroer could afford to be more reasonable,
then the buyer could af£ord to put a sma2ler building on that many square
feet of land. He added that those particular sites thst are built on now
are on pretty reasonably solid ground, so consequently a builder could afford �
Planning Commission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page 1�
� to go with a smaller building. H�. Harris said that on the East side of
Rancher's Road the soil condition was such that land preparation was going
to be'expensive and also because land costs were higher.
Mr. Lengenfeld asked if there was any problem with drai.nage� easements, etc.,
and Mr. Boardman replied there was no problem.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, Bergman, Langenfeld, Schnabel and Shea voting aye and
Harris abstaining, the motion carried.
Chairperson Harris stated his reason for abstaining was because he was a
property owner within the area �nd would be affected by this.
3. IAT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. //76-11 BY ROBIIZT A. SCAROER: Split o£f the
Southerly 1 0£eet of Lot � Hlock 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition�
to make two building sites, the same bei.ng 7875 and 789s Rancher's Road N.E.
Mr. Robert Schroer, Mr. Jerry Paschke, and Mr. Jim Benson were present,
Mr. Boardman shoHed the properties referred to in the lot split to the
Commission and stated the lot split would predicate two ownerships Yor the
development of the building. He explained the lot split would be at the
line that would go right between the buildings, so there would be a back
�to back wall ("0" loi line}, He said he had origi.nally suggested that the
entire thing be shi£ted 15'� but by doing that it would make the lot size
smaller than the 3�1+ acre. He added that this would be consistent with
M-1 zoning� and each one was somewhat over 3/� acre. Mr. Boardman stated
that the square footage needed Was 32;6%0' and there was 32t,655 actual, so
it was in accordance with what was required. He added that he would still
like to see this shi£ted somewhat to pick up more green around, but it
would meet the zoning code the way it was set up. There followed some
discussion on various ways to shift this to get more green area, but Mr.
Paschke pointed out that the way it was there would be room for more parking
if it was required� but if it was shifted there wouldn't be. He said that
the way it sat they could come within 5� of the property line� and Mr. Board-
man said he agreed with the points taken.
�
��hairperson Harris asked how they xere going to get the utilities in� and
Mr, Schroer replied that the utilities xere in.
Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to lmow if the entire lot 8 was going
to be sold to one party or if just the Northerly half was going to be sold
at this time and the Southerly half not sold if this lot split was approved.
Mr, Paschke said that he would buy the etttire lot 8 and develop the build-
ing� and he may have two ovners or possibly one. Mrs. Schnabel said her
concern was building on the "0" lot line end the problems that might arise
with that if he was not going to b�y the xhole lot 8 at once.
Plsnning Commission Meeting - December 8� 1976
Page 16
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commi.ssion
recommend to City Council approval of Lot Split Request L.S. #76-11 by
Robert A. Schroer: Split off the Southerly 160 feet of Lot 8, Block 2,
East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition, to make Lwo building sites, the same
being %875 and 7895 Rancher's Road N.E. Upon a voice vote, Bergman,
Langenfeld, Schnabel and Shea voting aye and Harris abstaining, the motion
carried.
Chairperson Harris stated his reason for abstaining was because he was a
property owner within the area and would be affected by this.
Chairperson Harris deolared a recess at 9:55 P.M, and reconvened ihe meeting
at 10: 15 P.M.
4. VACATION REQUEST: SAV#76-07, CITY OF FRIDLEY: Vacate existi.ng un-
needed roadway easement in consideraiion For additional roadway ease-
ments being acquired, located on Lot 1t9, Revised Auditor's Subdivision
No. 77, generally located on Talmadge Lane and �5th Way N.E.
Mr. Boardman c3irected the Commission to turn to page 39 in their agendas�
and showed them the two areas where`:the City wanted to vacate road ease-
ments they presently had. He explained that one was located on the
revised Osborne Way and the other was where 75th was down by the St. Paul
WaterriiTOrks. He pointed out where they wanted a 30� triangle dedicated
and another area dedicated. Mr. Boardman stated they had contacted St.
Pual Water Works and had gotten verbal agreements, and documents were
being drawn up for the exchar�ge oi' easements.
Mrs. Schnabel asked Mr. Boardman if the City had reacted in any way to the
request from the neighbors who live along 75th in regard to the @rainage
problem� and he replied that that was supposed to be taken care of with
the new Osborne Way.
MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission
reeommend to City Bouncil the approval of Vacation Request SAV //76-07,
by the City o£ Fridley: Uacate existing un-needed roadway easement in
consideration for additional roadway easements being acquired, located
on Lot lt9, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, generally located
on Talmadge Lane and 75th Way N.E. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously.
5. CONTINUID: PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE:
Mr. Boardman stated that they had gone through to a certain degree the
direction that the Commission had given last time. He explained the
code had been revised and put into a certain order that was acceptable
according to safety, hea7.th and appearance. He added that he was still
going through it somewhat to check on the dif£erent property stendards,
FHA and,that type of thing. Mr. Boardmen f�rther explained he had an
inter.n working on this and was just about ready to present it,
�
�
�
Planning Commission Meeting - December 8, 1976 pgge 17
6, CONTINUED: HUMAN DEVELOPP�TlT GOALS MI➢ OSJECTIVES
� Mr. Boardman informed the Cotmnission he had nothing further on this at the
present time.
7. RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COMMIS5ION MINUTFS: NOVII�IDER 15 1976
MOTION by Shea, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission receive
the Parks & Recreation Commission minutes of November 15, 1976.
Mrs. Shea commented that she had noticed Mr. Langenfeld had requested that
the initials be clarified, and they weren't. She said she would appreciate
that also. �
Mr. LangenfeZd stated that he had read about the Easi River Road project
under New Business and he wished it to go on record that Jan Seeger was
the only one who spoke up in behalf of the idea.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
8. RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COAQfISSION MINUTES: NOVEA�BER 16 1976
Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to make a couple o£ corrections, and
pointed out the last sentence in the £irst paragraph on page 57 should
� read "environment and industry" instead o£ °industry and industry". He
stated he also wished to bring up that the conversation referred to in
the £irst paragraph on page 55 uas not his conversation with l•dalt Starwalt,
but this took place with the Chairman of the Project Committee during a
City Council meeting.
MOTION by I,angenfeld� seconded by Hergman� that the Pla�ning Commission
receive the Environmental @uality Commission minutes of Novenber 16, 1976.
Mr. Boardman noted that there had.been some discussion under the �viron-
mental Education Program concerning the D-evironmental Conmiission trying
to get review power over the budget £or the naturalist. He said that any-
thing other than discussion on that topic, such as a motion, zaould be out
o£ the scope of the ordinance that was established for the k�vironmental
Commission.
Mr. Langenfeld said he had one other correction, and stated that on page
55� the seventh sentence should read "He said he believed these goals and
objectives had an environmental impact that involved the entire City", The
word "statement" should be eliminated.
Chairperson Harris said he was �ondering about the mining ordinance, and
where they Here on that. Mr. Langenfeld said bhey had instructed the City
to use the model ordinance from Metro Council and incorporate the needed
� environmental aspects of that into an ordinance that could be drawn up by
the City and the �vironmental Quality Commission would review it, ftight
Plsnning Commission Meeting - December 8� 1976 Page 18
now� he said, the permit they use for mining was the only governing instru-
ment as far as restrieting any unnecessary mining. �
Mr. Boardman informed the Commission that at this time they had issued two
permits on it� and since that time had issued a tag to one of the operators
who was to have had an appearance in court today. He explained that the
City had told him in a letter that if the debris continued he would be
jeopardizing his permit. Mr. Boardman stated that they had not issued a
permit to Chives at this time, and said they were app2ying to Anoka County
for a clean demolition land fill in the area. Mr.. Boardman said he had
talked to Bob Hutchinson on this and he thought they Nould make a recommenda-
tion to Anoka County that this application be denied, He explained they
did have several problems with Chives' property that they intended to get
into when they reviewed it according to the model ordinance. •
Mr. Langenfeld said that if the members of the Commission were interested
in more specific answers to this question, they could be found in the last
two motions on page 51. He explained that they would like to see the ordin-
ance i.n concurrence with the permit. Mr. Boardman said they had the power
to do this ihrough ihe ordinance they presently had in the application
process, as there was a statement in that app2ication for stigulations that
a2lawed some flexibility with Staff to issue stipulations on the property.
He added that most of the applicatioas were pretty and cut and dried.
Chairperson Harris asked if the permit that was issued to Minnesota Transfer
was issued to Minnesota Transfer or to their subcontractors. Mr. Boardman
replied it had been issued to their contractor. Mr. Harris said that as long �
as they were talking about this, he would like to throw out an idea and get
the Commission�s thoughts on it. He stated that for years and years everybody
said peat was a nasty substance and tried to get rid of it, but in the past
few years ii hadn't worked out that raay. Al1 of a sudden, he said, it got
fluffed up and ca7.led hlack dirt and was sold for a tremendous price. He
�stated that our neighbors to the North on the Iron Range had a commodity
they sold called taconite� and they taxed it� and he was wondering about
having a black dirt tax. Mr, Boardr.ian asked for what purpose, and Mr, Harris
replied to help defray the costs of administrating the ordinance and it also
might be a good way of pumping a little money into the park capital budget.
' Mr. Boardman said they were not supposed to have anything over that permit
£ee� but Mr. Harris pointed out that the iron mining companies were paying
millions of dollars and they ran their school districts off of it. He asked
ehy they couldn't use the same rationate on ta3cing black dirt in Fridley to
help capitalize the park i.mprovement plan, and said it would be the same as
ta5cing any other minable product. Mr. Boardman said he didn�t ]mow what
the staLe tax laws said concerning this. Mrs. Shea suggested directing
Staff to look into this.
UPON A VOICE UOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. LangenPeld said he wished to make a couple of statements in regard to
the F}ivironmental Commission. He noted that many negative feelings and ideas
came out from ihese various meetings.and Project Committee meetings. He �
Planning Commission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page 19
� stated that the ultimate goal was for the overall betterment of the City
and yet here and there they were being accused of violating a charter, and
didn�t think they were. He also said that the East River Road Project
Committee had been termed as an "interest" group, when it xasn�t intended
to be so. He said that he thought some of the Commission members were
familiar with the"onslought of citizens from East River Road that came
in about 1468 and kept the City Council busy for rneny meetings, and at
least they had accomplished that now the citizens were discussing their
problems with the Project Committee, who discussed it with the Fridley
Ni�vironmen�al Commission� and in turn it xas discussed at the Planning
' Commission. He said that the citizens were airing out their feelings
at these various meetings� and what took place was a good £orm of citizen
input as well as a controlled-type meeting. Mr. Langenfeld explained that
they hoped to use East River Road as.a pilot type thing to go into problems
of other roads, maybe extending to Highxay 65, etc.
he
Mr. Langenfeld said he got a little uptight when he heard they were violating
a charter. He stated that ihis was the very nature o£ the reason why the
ordinance was changed for citizen participation� and he didn't think �vir-
onmental should drop the ball just because other Commissions did. He
explained that when people started talki.ng about the environment, they
rrere dealing with something a lot broader in scope than hockey, football
or a play. He stated that Ehvironmental rras unique and dif£erent, and
per'�aps that xas why this Commission was so grossly misunderstood at times.
� 9. RECEIVE APPEAIS COMMIS5ION MINUTES: NOVII�iBER 22, 1976
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission receive
the Appeals Commission minutes of November 22, 1976.
Mrs. Schnabel said the Commission might be interested to note that this
was intended to be a$1t0�000 house and ;�as on a 50� lot. She said it was
a little shocking to find out what you could get £or $1�0,000. Mr. Bergman
commented that he thought this meeting rtas more interesting than usual,
and noted that Mrs. Schnabel had asked i£ there would be a garage and the
builder expla�ned they would not build one but would provide space £or one.
He noted that a refrigerator, dishwasher and carpeting were included, and
thought it was interesting in view oF a trade-of£ and what a person got
instead of a garage. Mrs. Schnabel agreed it was revealing to find out what
was included for $�t0�000.
Mr. Bergman said that this was an example of what could be built for low
and moderate income having not required a garage. He noted that their choice
could be $110,000 for an eleven hundred square foot new house, an appreciably
lower cost for a five to ten year old house, or renting. He stated there
aere all those options there and he thought they had gotten themselves
trapped into the fact that in pursuing the objective of providing housing
for low and moderate incomes � haitobe new� and had to be purchased instead
of xented. He stated that in his opinion, a low or moderate income person
� still couldn�i afford to buy this particular house, and Mrs. 5chnabel agreed,
UPOH A VOSCE VOTE, AI,L VOTING AYE� the motion carried unanimously.
planning Commission Meeting - December 8� 197b
Paga 20
�
10. OPEN DISCUSSION
MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Bergman� thai the Planning Commission
receive the letter addressed:.to Councilman Fitzpatrick from George Fred-
erick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Bergman asked if this was from a private citizen� and Mr. Boardmen
answered it was.
�., goyrdman informed the Gommission that there would be a meeting the
following night in Coon Rapids on the Land Planning Act from MetrApolitan
Council. He said this would be one of the first �eminars, and the City
would have a 5taff inember attending and the Planning Commission was
invited to attend also. He added that there would be some discussion as
to the funding sources,
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission
receive the memo from the City Attorney on 5pecia2 Use Permits. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Schnabel noted that thi� was the memorandum the Appeals Coimnission
wanted. �
Mrs. Schnab�hesm.�i.r�iutes for theQVarious�meetings.thSheenoted that�onithe
for typing lns were run over so far tYcat the last words
even-nwnbered pages the marg�
were very difficult to read when the minutes were in the book� and asked
that wider right-hand margins be used. Mr. Boardman said it was so noted.
ADJO� T'
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by LangenSeld, that the meeting be adjourned.
Upon a voice vote, a7.1 voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Planning
Commission meeting of December 8� 197b e.djourned at 11:00 F•M•
Respectflilly su�nitted,
��.(.� '. /�']'.�jyyrofo�-
' Sherri 0'Donnell
;
Recording Secretary
i
.
OFFICIAL NOTICE
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the
Planning Commission of the'City of Fridley in the City Nall at 6431
University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, December 22, 1976 in the �
Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. to consider the foliowing matter:
A request for a Special Use Permit, SP �76-14,
by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company, to
allow the construction of a 10 ft. x 25 ft.
billboard, per Fridley City Code> Section 214.042,
ta be located on Lot 5, Revised Auditor's Sub-
division No. 77, lying in the North Half of
Section 10, T-3Q, R-24, City of Frid]ey, County
of Anoka, Minnesota.
` Lying approximately 60 feet North of the �sborne
Road right of way and 800 feet East of East River
Road N.E.
Generally located at 151 Osborne Road N.E.
Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter may
6e heard at this meeting.
Publish: December 8, 1476
December 15, 1976
�
�
RICHARD H. HARRIS
CHAIRMAN
PLANNING COMMISSION
_�
�-- ,zl
CITY OF PRIDLEY MINNGSOTA , - r-2
' PLANNING AND ZONING f�ORM
NUMI3ER ,ff 7( /� � 7'YPE OP RGQUEST
� APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE NP.EGEI,E OIITDOOR ADV. Rezoning
Address 1700 WEST 78TH STREET Y. Special Use Permit
Telephone Number 866-3381 � _
PROPERTY OIVNER'S SIGNATURE �ffr: `�'a A, tch _
Address 620 tiarquette Avenue
Approval of Premin-
inary $ Cinal Plat
Streets or Alley
Vacations
Other
Telephone Number 335-2101 e-��
Fee o2o Receipt
Street Location op Property Osborne Rd.btn East River Rd.
and University Ave.
Legal Description of Property Lot 5, revised auditors sub-division 7
County- Plat 54148, Parcel 900
Present Zoning Classification hl-2 Existing Use of Property Vacant
Acreage of Property
No. ����'
,
Describe briefly the proposed zoning classification
or type of use and improvement proposed Outdoor Advertising Structure
-- , �S 1SZ ��
�Has the present applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split or
variance or special use permit on the subject site or part of it? yes X no.
{t7iat was requested and when?
The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all residents and owners of property
within 3Q0 feet (350 feet for rezoning) must be attached to this application.
(b) This application must be signecl by all o�oners of tlie property, or an explanation
given why this is not the case. (c) Responsibility for any defect in the proceedings
resulting from the failure to list the names and addresses of all residenYs and
property o�.mers of property in qucstion, belongs to the imdersigned.
A sketch of proposed property and structure must bc drawn and attached, shoiaing tlie
following: 1. North Direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on the lot.
3. Dimensions o£ property, pxoposed structure, and front and side setUacks.
4. Street Names. 5. Location and use of adjacent existing buildings (ivithin 300 feet).
The undersigned hereUy declares that all the facts and representations stated in this
application are true and correcL.
AATE j%/3�7(� SIfNA7lIRG�Ix,�P,I`����C
(APP AN7')
• Date File�l ��/s 7 Date of Nearing •, °,?6- /�?� �/.Ii
Planning Commission Approved City Council Approved
(dates) Denicd (datcs) Denied
�.
����
�
i
n
LJ
SP �76-14
Sign Location:
Sign Company
l51 Osborne Road N.E.
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company
SIGN INFORMAI'ION
1, Height (25') 25' (greater than 10' above ground}
2. Area {300 Sq. Ft.) 250 square feet
3. Distance Between Signs (500') greater than 500'
4. Setback From Street Right-of-way Lines (30') greater than b0'
5. Distance From Street Intersection (500') greater than 500'
6: Distance from R-1 Uses (500') qreater than 500'
7. Gondition Status (All Metal) Meta1
8. Zoning (C-2S, M-1, M-2) M-2.
Conforms to existing sign ordinance
No variances needed
a
m. _. ^�
.
• �r
: � �_,
�,.
PAYMENTS SUBJECT.
'f0 SECtTFTr��' pER�IT
�
.. ^�
NAEGELE OCITDQOR ADVERTISING COMPANY, INC.
�
� Ground Lease No 9°2 �._
AGREGAt[NT ot lua.c m:idc Ihis_�n �lay o[ ��� l4� by and between
i%1/%. f'A2 � /�. Y/r��� ... _.. s Lessor and
:GELE OUTDOOR
The Lessur Jocs hci
fur tha mrm i
and ending nn
CO.. 1NC., u Lesuc.
Icasc anJ demise to
thc cntire plot or prcmises deuriFed as follows:
�.� ti � f�i, i� T�S..J"7 7 Aive
beginning on. WeJ
rla3r OI_
_. .d �. a.d
�n� c��Y or_�---id—/��..
� day of �P��- � �9-Z�-
��J . 19_, at the yeariy rrn[al
�S a2�Js D c7 ) payable in equal_�—Al V�+-Y installments at the office ot the Lessee with the right to the Lessee
to extend Chis lease from year to yeur upon the samr terms and conditions. it being understood that this lease shall automalically renew
iLxlt trom pear to year after the term Aereof. the totai of such er[ensions not to excttd ten years.
The Ltsue shal( have the riSht to ereci, place and maimain advertising sign strudurts and equipmrnt therefor on ihe demised
premises enJ post, paint, ilhiminate and maimain advertisemenu on such strucmres. All slrucwres, equipmen[ and ma[erials placed upon
lfie seid premises by thc Lessee shail aiways remain Ihc perconal property of. and may Ix removed by the Lessee at any time priar to or
within a reasonable time after Ihe expiration of the term hercof or anp extension thercof. �
Lessor Kuaranrea �o Lessee Gee access to and use of anc part of any gmurtd or structure on said premises es may be nemssary for
ssee to hang scaifofds, or cons[ruc�, pust, paint. illuminate. repair or rrmove its adoertixments and strucmres.
If at any lime (a) the sigm or stn�cmres of the Lessee on the demised premises :hall be or become rntirely or partially obscured ot
stro��ed; or Ibl the said premises �hall be or hecome unsafe for the maimenance of the Lessee's strucmres thercon. or unable w support
wch structures: or Icl the value of said location Ior adverrisin6 purpous shall he nr become dimini,hed; or (d) there be a temporary or
permanent divercion o( traffic from the street nr streets adjacent w, or Ir.�ding lo or past, the said premius, or a change in the direction of
traffic on such street or strcets: or �N the Lessee be unaMe to obtain 4nm the- authoriticc having 7unsdiction any necessary permit for the
ereetion or maintenance oC auch �iFn or sigrts (ot spe.ial or stanlarJ size, design �nd cmrstruction) as th>_ Lessee may desire to construn
or maintain for the purpose of i:s busincss: or (q the Lessec b� preventiJ by any prescnt or fuuvo law or ordinance, or by the authorities
having yu[isdiction. from construc�ine or maimaining on said D�emises cuch signs ioi special or standard size, JesiFn and constructionl, as
the Lessee may so desire to canstruct ur maimain—then and in auch evcnt. at �he option of the Lessec. �his lease shall termina[e on
iitteen (15) days' notice in u•ritine w the Lessor. by registered mail addre..ed to him at hrs addrcss choM'n helow. or such othet address as
Ihe Leuor may hcreaf�er in xriting specify, and thc Lcswr agrces thcreupo� to returr. to the Lec.ce any rent paid {n advance for the
unexpiieJ term: provided, hnw�evcr, that if the wnditions Jescribed in (al. lbl. (cl and fd) hereuf, nr any of them, sha0 a[ any time tem-
porarily erist, then the Lexsec shaf{ at its option, in lieu of xuch urminaiion nf this Ir.i<c, bc entititd to an abatement o( the renr payable
hereunder, for and during �he period nf the exiscence o[ +uch conditiont or any of �hem, and to the murn of any rent paid in advance for
the pariaf of such abatement. //�
The Lessor reprecents and Wanants that_ �F,L_l�__the .. L/�� _—of the premises al+ove
deuril+eJ and has authority tu make this Ieace and. cnvenants that he wi11 noi permit any adioining premi.es, owned. or enntrolled by
him, to be uscJ fnr adverti.inc purpoacs or �wrmit Lessce's siRns �o Sr ul.slru<[cd.
lt is czpressly underctood tfiat neither thc Lesu+r nor thc Lesxc i. hnunJ by nny s[ipntatinns, represcnt�tinns ar aFreements not
princed or wriUCn in thi. leasc. This Icau shall inure ro the I+enefit o( :md he AinJinc u{+on tFk perxnnal rcpresenla�ivex, succasors and
aaxigns of thc p�nics httna '
� Lesue hereby sc.crves thc rigDL and snid riFfit i� F*aMed to Lcccec ta+ xclt, assign anA set nver all o( the Les.ce's riFht, tiUe nnd
inlCint �n ihis IeasC [n any fin:mcially re<ponsiNe us�ignre upon the capre.. anJ w�riilen :�ssumption M1y the a.aignee of all. of ihe oFli�eation.
of Ihe 4esxee herein nameJ and u�n xuch xssumption, l.eccee shall hr fiJly dixharFeJ from any anat r0 �+hliFalions under this ins[rument.
In the event th.^.t the lessor gives 30 day nntice o�' the sale�or devein=ment
of the ��ro^erty, this �rrr.er�ient taill be c mcelled and ti�e
�
the lessees ex�ensc. L1-ASE Z':ST3ZCPIQN — NO
�AF.GF:LF. OUlDUOR ADVF'RTItiINC CA., INC. I.I+StiPfi
r;ns removed at
(L. S.1
__..._Mk1rcz�__ _—._ ---
<i �
� � �J
� �(
,. �s�i � _ U l.�J Nf .� 't
i�.: T7 TH 4"�A M=E. -l�— , '�, ...�._� .. '
, . •. __ .---�.���--• --- --_.._ . r:
� �.�%d.ri� ' a�., 5 ..��, � ' . . , � �: . . ��
�3�:�����0�0.� ;; �,i���� y� � :o. . .. . � �S
II � . z �( ,.'F • . �.:i oo) a � ° S :
(/ /p/� :^/ ; �. n �y . � :
� : \'.�: ,�,f.•�.(.� d/ �.�: �,,ti, � fvra , ��. �'. Q�' � . F
" Y � � , / i
, . • �': �?'{_ ' � _. s'�i. Wi' `1 � �. ., w i . - � ± t
�e 1J� � w � r
�6Qp `v /1 ,.�•J� I �..1 r• :� w � ;� ;
'�. IfC 1 /� flAi / �:
� pY� :� > C��d�" i� . . A r f'
�' � �, e.. �;/}I�'� '/�7C�� � ' `l � - � ` ? i
��'' . � /6 , ,�;:�, � -� _,- � . . i;
� �i T.�61�9-,,����N�idj° � " � `:
� r `� ,J. t,.+ o ' � `; .�'i I � - � �" �L�+ 1 - i 4
r +' ���, ... '!�'f `lo / `, '�6" ` ' i �
Kv F''"
�•---- :'"'_'-
� D'��'
,
\ '`1i'!"'-i / I / i. '_'+\ ' �k
�: �i
'y\;� _?e�9�'� � :� rrs5 � i;
Y ;�\ � = / � _ J 1 ,
yi? � ` % ^^ / � �.
. �
; � . ,�bo�- ',�6.a� , . , / `� �<
`_ // 9 ����pt'+ ' �` / �
.,
°�'' �' -. �i$� '%�,o� �, i `�,Cj1ON / a+
.:... : �- j fo /� �` S , G1,n� ,
aW ti� U
p0 � �F/% �� � � � � ~. � � �
� , ��• � / / � � � � - ,`�` o (�C� 1
lA' � = ' ,.
�
', i` `�,� i3 � R S � `�. a x , ,� , `. �, ,
V � �s `l:� o � A � , ,
� • / �,1�''� , '" � �e`,
p N 1_ , �; .
�PU � 2 _:,;.� � ,/-�
� �' �SGo �a so9 -' `''`� � ��- - � ,
�«o� .
' 4 0 � �i� ' F: - ' � 5� ae� <
I� 41���c��C7 r�' :.�s�sl3 ,- ; d� /�"P � �
� ;,:,, y „ ,, ;
, , , ,
�� . _ "`-c7 tC1 � �
, ''' _�' ss ; , � ' � ( 4 _ �, � � , ° . � ��y >:.' ;; �,� <: �
�:. : r,s � - , .; ,. =� � o
o c i; .>•� Q� "��°�s�!��KS �i, , C;'`� _
p �''j �;r� � ����� . � �e ` ,��_��� ,� '
�i��':°6 .Q�p d..G=., �, � - —� _i��� �, - _ __- ------ - ;
a
° 9 �Ias ' �.,.:• �hi�' � \ °`« ��s- -
� ` .. .. , +
,�� , .. � �.� , � , 4 �; :1'�i ', o ;
. �, , -
-�� � a � \ �y�4�. ` - - ------__
4 m � '.
. � � '� ; ' �� ' �'; °�',1 ; _ __ � ,
�.- ,. � � �_ �� • � ':1 4 � >
,. . , :: • -� � �
r �• •.r� �. `i .. J -� '/I'In ' ,) � � ` .�, � r
� q�1�9 .. �
" �' l .' � 39 . c- ,
i t'. •--, ' :,* ,,, .
,. , �'�. � `.', � � ` _ � 6'- ;� ; i.<.���o�
�n M r �. ; ' � , , �� � , . .
�., ��D; ' i�o , �q '�>�� ,'
� � -�� .���,���
�. ' Ny ,�'I " ' ` i
�. ��, ,,� k ,,�• �,.,. ':�'�. , : , ��
.�� � � � k � �. ,{y. a�:,y t
\��� O1 , �• ..\� . MS' ^°/' Y, 11i•
I�: i. , _ . �
'�p'�,� �o �� ' �.`��L-�. ��� `�'��`
� 1 L U/f�l�. : .� ' �,� q ,, � �- . %
�3p 2 5 . . � , � � , !
C �-� � � �, � ,��s� e �'/�: : �3-� -��4 �
' f';�'c �' i .� r • '� x� .r °.;i�' ; � .
.
:
-- � �
i
. .�
t� S
� �
� �
CITY OF FRIDLEY
1
PLANNING PMI'�SION ME�TING - DECErffiFR 22� 1976 PAGE 1
CALL TO ORDffit •
Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7s32 P.M.
ROLL CALL•
Members Present: Harris, Bergman, Lengenfeld, Peterson, Schnabel, Shea
MemUers Absent: None
Others Present: Darrel Clark, Co�unity Development Administrator
APPROVE PL6NNING COI�R�IISSION MINUTES: DECH�iBF.R 8, 1976
Mrs. Schnabel noted that on page 18, the last sentence in the second para-
graph should read "He added that most of the applicat�ons xere pretty cut
and dried".
?1r. Lengenfeld stated that on page 19, the second sentence in the second
paragraph should read "he didn't think the Hhvironmental Commission should
drop the ball..."; and the last sentence should read "environment" instead
of °ffiivironmental".
I�TION by Shea, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission minutes
of December 8, 1976 be approved as corrected. Upon a voice vote, all
voting sye� the motion carried unanimously.
1.
OUTDOOR ADYSE%TZSING COMPANY: To allow the construction oi a lU� a�
b oar , per Fri ey C ty Code, Section 27.1�.0l�2, to be located on
Lot 5� Revised Auditor�s Subdivision /�77� the same being 151 Osborne
Road N.E.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission open
the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit� SP //7b-lly
by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 7:37.
Mr. Ronald L. Mielke� representing Naegele Outdoor Advertising was present.
Planning Coimnission Meeting - December 22, 1976 Page 2
ADMINISTRATIYE STAFF REPO&T
Sign Location: 151 Osborne Roade N.&.
Sign Company: Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company
J"
SIGN INFORMATION
1. Height (25') 2$' (greater than 10� above ground)
2. Area (300 Sq. Ft.) 250 square Feet
3. Distance Between Signs (5�') g='eater than 50�'
4. Setback From 8treet Right-of-way Lines (30'} greater than 60�
5. Distance From Street Intersection (500�) greater than 500'
6. Distance from R-1 Uses (500�) greater than 500'
7. Condition Status (All Metal) Hetal
8. Zoning (C-2S, M-1, M-2) M-2
Con£orms to existing sign ordinance; no variances needed.
Mr. Clark stated that this did meet all the ciiteria as Far as advertising signs
or billboards. He explained that this would be located on Osborne Road
about midvay between the tracks and Main Street on the North side� and North
of the St. Paul Water Works. Mr. Clark passed out to the Commission copies
of Planning Coimnission minutes from 1975 x�ch discussed several requests
concerning existing billboards, and explained that those stipulations
went to the City Council and the Council approved the Special Use Permits
changing one oP the stipulations and omitt3ng one other (item 2). He
pointed out that item 5 stated that the permit would run concurrent with
the lease, and the Council added it xould not exceed £ive years be£ore it
should be reviexed again. Mr. Clark i.nformed the Cotmnission that all the
signs would be reviewed in November o£ 1980.
Mr. Langenfeld asked what this sign was going to display, and Mr. Mielke
said it uould be changing every month. He added there was a lease restriction
s�ying there vould be no tobacco or liqnor advertised, but it xas strictly
comnercial.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if there xere any other billboards along Osborne Road
betxeen East River Road and Uninersity, and Mr. Clark replied there xere
none on Osborne at all in the City of Fridley. Mr. Mielke added that it
Was xritten in the lease that upon sale or developnent o£ the property the
sign xould be taken down.
Planning Commission Meeting - December 22, 1976 Page 3
Chairpersan Aarris asked if this Was a double-Yaced sign, and Mr. Mielke
replied that was correct. He said it would be back-to-back, advertising in
both directions. Mr. Harris asked what the distance was from the sign to'
the railraed right-of-x�y, and Mr. Clark said it was approximately 1�00'.
Mr. Harris asked how far it was from the sign to the entrance on Main Street,
and Mr. Mielke said he just lmew it xas greater than 500'. He added there
was a sign on the property at the present time whic h said "For Sale". Mr.
Harris asked xho owned this property� and Mr. Mielke replied Esrl Patch.
Mr. Harris comnented there xas no wqy of telling hox large a chunk he had.
Mr. Clark noted that lt3Erg' was the Prontage along Osborne from the railroad
right-of-rqy to his East line, and the sign vould be sitting in there. Mr.
Mielke stated the sign would be located 70' Yrom his West propeity line, so
Chairperson Harris figured it would be 3�' from the right-of-way.of the railroad.
Cha3rperson Harris asked about the height of the billboard, and Mr. M�elke
replied it xas 25' to the top of the board and xas 15� off the ground. He
said the size would be 10 x 25�� and it would be all steel. He showed the
Coimni.ssion photographs of what it vould look like. Chairperson Harris asked
about the mansard shoxn in one of the photographs, and Mr, Mielke replied
it had been removed at the city's request and at the advertising company's
expense,
Mrs. Schnabel asked i£ there xould beAlights, and Nr. Mielke replied there
would be no illumination as it vould be too expensive. Mrs. Schnabel asked
what Was going to happen to the "For Sale" sign on the property, and Mr.
Mielke ansirered that as far as he lmev� it would stny there. Mr. Mielke
pointed out that there was a 60� easement by the St, Paul Water Works, and
over 60' setback off the highway, so they xere over double vhat the required
setback xas.
MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by I,angenfeld� that the Planning Co�nission
close the Public Hearing on Special Use Permit Request SP �76-1l� by Naegele
Outdoor Advertising Company. IIpon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson
Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 7:$3 P.M.
Mrs. Shea stated that she xould like it in the record that Human Resources
ras opposed to any non-conforming billboard in the City. She said it xas bad
enough to give a Special Use Perm3t to one that was in� but even xorse to
put a nex one in where there xasn�t one. She added she was maridated by her
Connnission, and she had to oppose thia billboard.
Mr. Bergman said he rrould like to recognize� first of all, that the requested
billboard did conform in each item to present Fridley code; they had revieTas
in the past �here it almoat seemed like a rarity. Houever, he continued, he
xanted to remind the Planning Coa�ission that there was a Project Coirmiittee
assigned to reviewing the sign ordinance £or the City of Fridley and that
conanittee had been working diligently in reviev oY a fairly detailed,
lengtY�yy and cumbersare oxdi�ance. He pointed out they had been doing this
for about ten months snd were nearing completion so that this Plaruiing
Carunission might possibly be reviewing a reconnnended ordinance change as
Planning Co�niasion Heeting - December 22� 1976 Page !t
early as Harch or April. Mr. Bergman said he would feel quite avkward iP
the Planning Commission at this time xas to approve construction of another
billboard in the City� possibly in conflict x&th the ef£ort that has been
going on. For that reason, he sai.d, his view was tovard suggesting a
moratorium on new billboard construction until they received the ordinance
review, or at least in this particular case deferring this request for a
nev billboard until the results xere received from the Project Comnittee.
Mr. Langenfeld stated he saw what Mr. Bergman xas trying to say� but xondered
if they didn't have to make their judgement on the existing ordinance.
Chairperson Harris said that wasn't exactly true. He eacplained he had
attended a meeting in Coon Rapids last week and this particular item had
come up in discussion xith the people from Metro Council� and there xas
a provision in the lav that alloxed for setting up an interim ordinance
or a moratoriwn while the present ordinances were being re-evaluated. He
said that rhether or not this �ould apply to billboards or signs� he did
not lmox. He added they hadn't sgecifically discussed it in that character�
but there xas a vehicle for vrhich there could be a moratorium.
Mr. Peterson stated he thought they were stretching the point in terms of
coming up tirith a nex ordinance since the Project Co�aittee xas doing a
study to make a recoimnendation to the Planning Co�nission vhich in turn
made a reco�gsdation to the governing boc�y. He said the Project Coimnittee
vas a study couunittee created by a member Comoission, and xhen they were
talking about revising a code they irere talking about City Council action
as only the City Council had the authority to make the change. Chairperson
Harris pointed out that the Planning Commission could recoimnend a moratorium,
end the Council could decide to place a moratorium on all signs.
Mrs. Schnabel stated that she xould like to concur xith Mr. Bergman's thoughts
on this Imowing that the Project Comnittee had been vorking very long and
hard on this and has had representatives from advertisi.ng companies and
representatives from the coimm�nity on that study coimaittee. She stated she
vould feel inclined to ask the petitioner to either agree to a tabling of
the request until such time that the report is ready from the Project Conmii.ttee,
or iP that was unacceptable, request the City Council to declare a moratorium
on construction until such time that they had a chance to review xhatever
changes were recoaartended by the I'roject Commi.ttee.
Chairperson Harris stated that he sav one basic problem with this particular
application that hadn't been d3scussed. He stated he Yelt there vas a
deficiency in the present signing ordinance because it spoke to distance
Prom in�ersections� distanee Prom center line of right-of-xay, distance
from R-1� parks� schools and public lands� but it did not speak to distance
Yrom railroad crossings. He said he thought iY the ordissnce was to be
looked at from the standpoint of 500� from en intersection (and he assumed
that xas put in because oP safety), then certainly a railroad cvossing should
be in there. He said he thought it was just an oversi�ght,_and added he was
wondering xhy 500' vas used as distance from an intersection.
Plenning Commission Heeting - December 22� 1976 Pege 5
Alr. Clark stated it was probably chosen beaause oY safety, or spacing could
be another reason. Mr. Mielke sai.d he could see no problem With safety
xhatsoever and again pointed out it xould be 15' off the ground. Mr. C�.ark
stated the safety concern xas not the obstruction of view but distraction�
and Mr. Harris pointed out that 9�atrak came through that intersection at
70 mph.
Mr. Mielke stated he xould like to return to Mrs, Shea's cormnent for a
moment, and said he agreed about non-conPorming aiggs. He said that in
the past the City had passed ordi.nances and he had to go according to
what those ordinances said� and this sign xas conYorming. Mrs. Shea
said she realized the sign xas conforming, but didn't agree urith the
City Ordinance and couldn't back any new billboazds in the City.
Mr. Lengenfeld sai.d that he Yelt if a moratorium ras declared� Naegele
should have the existing fee carry over to the point when this was discussed
again. Mr. Clark agreed.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by 5chnabel� that the Planning Commission�
recognizing there is a$i� Ordinance Project Cortunittee and that Coimnittee
has been reciexir►g the present ordinance for approximately 10 months and
is indicating that this body mi.ght be revieWing the results of proposed
sign ordinaz►ce changes srithin the Harch to April time frame, table thes
request for a Special Use Permit, SP #76-1.l; by Naegele Qutdoor Advertising
Company, subject to the receipt end review of the Project Connnittee input.
Chairperson Harris stated that a tabling motion was a non-debatable motion,
and Mr. Berginan said perhaps he should have used the xord "deYer".
Mr. Bergman AMENDID the MOTI4N to chenge "table" to "defer". Agreeable to
Mrs. Schnabel.
Mr. Mielke stated that he had gone in accordance srith xhat the ordinence
said nox. He said that the compietion date for tha sig� was on or before
December 31, and if this xas deferred to March or �'pril his contract would .
not be any good. He noted that the Project Committee had been working on
this for ten months alreac�y� and said it could possibly be longer than March
or April beYore the study was completed--possibly eoen a year, and they did
have the ordinance as it stood right nox.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that he personally thought the moratorium would not
hold xith this particular type of subject. DIr, Hergman pointed out his
motion vas not for a moratorium, but deferring action.
Chairperson Harris said he thought that deferring action for three to four
months was not a reasonable length oY time, in all deference to the Project
Committee. He stated he would be prepared to act on this tonight.
Mr. Peterson stated that he spoke against the motion. He said it was fine
for people on various commissions to be agai.nst billboards, and he was sure
that in every action that was taken in this City there would be people xho
were against that particular action. Hovrever, he said, there were things
Pl.anning Cormnission Meeting - December 22� 1976 Page 6
going on in the City all the time, and there was elxays a compromise in
terms of wishes no matter what happened in any level of government. He
said there was an ordinance on their books as far as the City vas concerned
which xas to be a guideline in terms of operating. He stated that nox they
were s�ving they did not like the way the City operated so therefore they
were going to defer taking action on something in hopes that it xould be
changed to something they liked better� and from that standpoint he could
not support the motion. Mr. Peterson stated they should either deny the
petitioner's request and he could take other action, or they shouldgrant
it. He added that they could beg the question on az�y ordinance they had.
Mr. Langenfeld said that the petitioner approached them in good £aith on
the basis of the existing ordinance, and nov they rrere in eYfect saying
"sorry, Buster, you are out of the picture until somebody makes a decision".
Mrs. Schnabel stated she took eacception to that remark because the motion
was a recommendation to the City Council, it vas not final action on this.
She said xhat they were recoimaending in the raotion xas simply that the
City Council itself declare a moratorium on any f�rther billboard construc-
tion until such time the ordinance has been reviewed. She said they xere
not saying "sorry, Buater"� but vere saying this was the reco:mnendation
and the City Coungal could either agree or disagree.
Mrs. Shea stated that theppetitioner was correct in that this ordinance
would not be finalized until a year from now as it xould take that long
for it to go thrwgh channels, have all the Commissions review it, etc.
She stated she would still vote against it, but they did have an ordinance
nox that she thought they had to make a decision on.
Mr. Bergman said that he had mixed emot3ons on this as the petitioner did
come in good fatth and was conforming to the ordinance. He said he would
like to talk a bit about the approach to the sign ordinance, and he thought
there xere at least two approaches. He stated he didn�t really lmov if
there were members on the Coaaai,ssion xho xere Ylatk� against signs, but he
thought the Cocmussion looked at this in a couple of different vievs. Mr.
Her�nan stated that one line of thought safd that signs were important
for local businessmen to adveFtise their business� as being dif£erent from
a billboard which was not beneYiting a local businessman directly. He
said that Naegele and other similar companies were in the business of
making income from putting up billboards, as opposed to a small local
businessmen putting up a sign to attract business to his shop, so there
vas some distinction. He stated that again the word "moratorium" had
come up� and explained that the motion did not provide £or a moratorium.
He said iY they wanted to consider that as a second motion, that would be
more proper. Mr. Mielke said that their signs vere requested by the people
in Fridley, such as Kennedy Transmission� McDonalds, Northtown, etc. He
said the people emphasize that they do need the coverage i.n Fiidley.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� Bergman, Schnabel and Shea voting aye� Harris and
PetBrson wting n&y and Langenfeld abstaining� the motion carried 3- 2.
Mr. Langenfeld said he abstained because he xould rather see the Commission
vote directly torrard the petition that xas before them, and also because
Planning Comaission Meeting - December 22, 197b Page 7
he didn't feel they could really do this in accord�ce xith the existing
sign ordinance.
Mr. Clark suggested that there might be a time limitat3on on hox long
the Co�.i.ssion could defer action, as there Kas on rezoni.ng (60 days). He
thought Special Use might have the same length of time, and he thought it
was unreasonable to de£er action for a year. Mrs. Shea said she had the
feeling this would Yorce City Council to make a decision. Mr. Clark read
to the Co�mrtission feam the City Ordinance which sai.d they would have to
approve or deny the request within sizty dqys.
Mrs. Schnabel said she thought the point was this mqq not be the only
request that dame before them xithin the next fesr months.
HOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Coimaission reco�rannend
to City Council that a moratorium be placed on all new billboard construction
xi.thin the City of Fi�idley until such time that the present sign ordinance
has been adequately revietired.
Mr. I,angenfeld stated he vas still vondering if they could actually do that.
Chairperson Harris said they could make the recommendation and Council
would then have to research the situation rith their legal staff and they
had the final sqy on it. He added that there was a vehicle within the lav
whereby they could declare a moratorium.
pSr, Hielke questioned the moratorium, and stated they did have the ordinance
at present and he vas proposing a conformi.ng sign.
Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to make a statement that had to dovnrith
the City Attorney's memorandum on Special Use Permits. He said he realized
they were not talking about Special Use Permits directly in this motion,
but it did center around the xhole disaussion. He read from page 2"The
Planning Co�aission must draft findings and report the same to the Council
indicating its recouunendation as to approval or denial and specilying what,
iY any, conditions are necessary regarding features of the proposed use
of the building".
Mr. Bergman said he would like to reYerence back to Mr. Clark's statement
that the Council must take action within sixty dqys. He said he didn't
think that xas quite as clean as the implication, because deferring, in a
legal sense� m&y be considered taking action on the item. He added that
no where in the ordinance did he see discussions on under rrhat conditions
deferments could be made� and he knew that rras a coimnon alternative. Mr.
Bergman said he uas not an attorney either, but when somebody said "take
action^, he would question whether or not a deferment wouldn�t qua],ify as
taki.ng action. Ghairperaon Harris,said he didn't think so. He said he
thought the intent of the ordinance was either to approve it or deny it.
Mrs. Schnabel said that she would like to suggest that one of the alternatives
that the City Council had in addition to approving or denying sras to table
it. She said that she thought they were begging the question by jumping to
Planning Commission Meeting - December 22, 1976 Page 8
legal opinion on exactly what the City Attorney would reco�mnend in this case.
She said she would guess that this was not the first time this has come up
in the City of FYidley and probably not the last, and she thought the City
Attorney rrould have some opinion on it.
Mr. Ber�nan said he thought the second motion did give the City Council the
third alternative--that o£ moratoriwn.
UPON A vOICE VOTE� Harris, Hergman, Schnabel and Shea voting �ye, Langenfeld
snd Peterson aoting n�y, the motion carried 1� - 2.
2. CANTINUED: PRAPOSfiD HAINTENANCE CODE:
Continue until January 5� 1977.
Mrs. Shea said she would like to recommend to StaYf that they look in Coluirm
One of tonight�s newspaper. She informed the Commission that Sprin� Lake
Park's City Council would be looking at cockroaches, etc.� as the result
of a compiaint from an apartment dweller.
3. CONTINUED: FNMAN D&VFSAPi�NT GOAIS AtiB OBJECTIVES:
Continue until January 5, 1977.
!�. RECEIVE HUMAN RFSOURCES COMNIISSION MIl�IUTBS: D&CEMBEft 2, 1976
MOTION by Shea� seconded by LangenYeld, that the Planning Commission receive
the Human Resources Gommission mi.nutes of December 2� 1976.
Mrs. Shea said she would like to bring to the Co�mnission's attention the
motion in the second to last paragraph on page 28. She stated the Red Cross
requested the City of Fridley to buy one "baby" for the C.P.R. Program� and
explained that C.P.R. stood for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. Mrs. Shea
said they were hoping to buy ten "babies" and 10 "Annies", and explai.ned
that these xere dolls xith electronic parts so the students could practice
resuscitating a heart. The "babies" vere infant dolls and the "Annies" were
the large ones. She said that the courses they offer would be free, and
the people �rho have gone to this s�y it is vital to people of the Comunission's
age group on up. The "babies" cost $160 and the "Annies" $320.
Mr. Clark asked hox long the class xas, and Mrs. Shea replied 8- 12 hours.
Mrs. Schnabel asked i£ the resuscitation xas dif£erent from the type of
resuscitation given to e person rrho has shock, and Mrs. Shea replied that
the heart stimulation was more importatit in this one. She explained this
was more for a heart attack patient, and this wasn't the Red Cross life saving
course. Hrs. Schnabel said she thought the costs were quite high for the
dummies� and Mrs. Shea explained these were different from the ones used
in the life saving course. She said these had electronic heart beats that
must be stimulated by the students to pass the course. Mrs. Shea stated that
the idea o£ the Red Cross xas to reach everybody in Fi'idley �rith this course,
and they wsnted ta get at least ten each of the pp�ies" and "babies".
Planning Cormnission Meeting - December 22, 1976 Page 9
Mr. Clark commented that he felt this vas a great program; the only question
he had was whether the City xould be better off buying these for the Fire
Department so that they would be right here for our own Police and Fire
Departments. Mrs. Shea said that from uhat she understood, it xas very
difficult to get enough "dummies" together at one time to tzach enough people.
She eaplained that Spring Lake Park had txo but xould not let them out of
their schools, and Columbia Heights had two but wouldn't let them out o£
their Fire Department. Mr. Clark said the Fire Department operated the same
course through the Red Cross, and explai.ned they already had an "Annie" and
it xas all over the City constantly. He said they were all stretching £or
the same thing--to teach the people hox to do this.
Chairperson Harris asked if the City donated $160 to buy a"baby", where it
would go. Mrs. Shea said it xould go into Anoka County as part of Anoka
Couniy and they would pool their resources and travel about the county teach-
ing this course. She explained their goal was to blanket the county with
these courses so everyone xould end up going to one rrithin the next year.
Chairperson Harris commented that this was the one time he could remember
that he felt $160 wasn't enough for a program. Mr. Clark said he wasn't
speaking against the program--he thought it aas great and everybody should
take it. His only question to Council vould be that they research the
resources they have locally and see if it could be better used here or there.
In having it here, he said, our oxn Police and Fire ➢epartments would have
better access to it; wheress in a County program it might only come here
once every three months or six months.
Chairperson Harris said that perhaps they should b�q tvo babies; one for
here ead donate one to the County. That xay, he said� Fridley would have
a big one and a little one for its ovn use. Mrs. Shes asked what shape
the Annie vas in� and Mr. Clark replied that it kas almost worn out. He
explained they had two--one was practically worn out and the other Was
relatively nex but didn�t record. Mr. Clark said he thought that Staff
could pull together a better recommendation for the City Council. He thought
by the time it got to the Council Mr. Hughes would have a better report
prepared. Chairperson Harris noted tha.t this would come out of Auman
Resource's budget� and Mrs. Shea said she xas aware oY that.
UPON A�iOICE VOTE� all voting sye, the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Shea, seconded by LangenYeld� that the Planning Com¢nission recoimnend
to the City Council donating a$160 pbaby� to the Anoka County Red Cross
and purchasing for the City a"baby" and an "Annie" £or the C.P.R. Program.
Upon a voice vote, all voting �re, the motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. 5hea pointed out thst the �noka County Community Action Advocate Program
wuld be on their agenda next month, and invited anybody rho xould like to
listen or comment to attend. Also, she said� there xas a letter to the
editor tonight in the paper regarding this.
t�.
Planning Commission Meeting - December 22, 1976 Page 10
5. . RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATIOii CO2�t1ISSZON MINUTFS: DECII�ffiER 13� 1976
t�TION by Peterson, seconded by Schnabel� that the Planning Commission
receive the Parks & Recreation Coimnission minutes of December 13, 1976.
Mr. Bergman asked wby n3ght flooding xas better than d$y flooding� and Mr.
Reterson replied because there xas usually no wind at night and because o£
lower temperatures the freezing time xas usually quicker. Also, he said,
xhen the rinks xere flooded during the day there xas the added problem of
kids coming home from school and walking across the rink before it had set.
13r. Isngenfeld stated that on page 6� under New Business and the Request
by Lion's Club, he happened to be that person referred to rho made the
verbal request concerning Moore Lake. Mrs. Shea said that as long as they
xere on the subject oY Moore Lake, she Was xonderi.ng why that uas one of
the fex parks in Fridley where the gates where kept locked. Mr. Peterson
stated he couldn't ansver that other than the Pact it xas for safety as
it xas a hazardous area.
Chairperson Harris asked if the xhole Moore Lake situation wasn't a losing
battle, and Mr, Peterson said that the Parks and Recreation Commission
was going to have to make a decision on that in February. He said they
would have to decide if they were going to have a swimming program this
year and if it was worth the effort because of S�ti�ner's Itch, lov water
level� etc. He added that they had asked StaPf for a recoimnendation, and
Mr. Langenfeld conenented that even if the lake vas closed for svimming�
people xould still sxim there anyrray, rlr, Peterson stated he would hesitate
to close down the lake because he felt anyone Who lived in the State of
Ninnesota should lmow hox to svim, and there rras a large number of kids
in Fridley vho had learned to sxim in ?foore Lalce. He added that here they
were learning to swim in lake conditions, and i£ that was closed down there
xas ao place to take them.
Mr. Langenfeld said that the problem of S�ri�aner's Itch would relate indirectly
to the Water Quality Management Planning Workshop which Would be conducted
by Metro Council as they would be discussing swimming and fishing. Chair-
person Harris said he real3zed Moore I.ake xas all they had, but perhaps
they should look at it for what it really xas. He stated it really wasn�t
a lake, but a drainage retention pond. Mr. Peterson agreed, and said that
xhari the nomenclature of a lake vas maintained then there xere these conf7.icts.
He added that it could be treated srith chemicals that vrould be safe to the
people and to the ducks. Mr. Langenfeld said he agreed that it really wasn't
a lake� but in terms of area that the xater enveloped it �ras considered a
lake.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting sye, the motion carried unanimously.
6. RECEIVE COMM(3NITY DEVEI.OPME[�T COl•Aff�SSION MINUTFS: DECII�ffiER 1!t 1976
MOTION by Berginen, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receine
the Community Development minutes of Decamber llt, 1976.
Plenning Coaunission Meeting - December 22, 1976 Page 11
Mr. Bergman asked the Commission to note on the last page of the minutes
that Comrnunity Development received and accepted Mr. Schneider�s letter of
reaignation from the Community DeveloFxnent Commission and from Chairmanship
of the Sign Project Committee, and they also approved Mrs. Pat Gabel as
the replacement Chairperson for the Sign Project Co�nittee,
Mr. Bergman stated he would like to discuss a rather controversial item,
th�t being the recommendation on mA*�m++m sizes of accessory buildings. He
said that Por the record� there vas an error halflray doti+n the £ourth para-
graph on page 2. It read "After the second one� he can huild up to 21t0 sq.
£t. srith no problem"� but should read "After the Pirst one...". Mr. Bergman
said that in response to the last paragraph on page 3, they had been asked
si.0 months ago to revierr the ordinance xith regard to second accessory
buildings� and nox they had been asked to reviev all accessory buildings.
His Bommission found that there xere controls o�er the size, and a nwnber
where they applied. He stated one vas lot line setback, one vas the 25�
lot coverage control, one vas the control of a Special Use Permit� and
another one xas finances. Mr. Bergman said he was expecting Mr. Boardman
to be at this meeting ae he was going to ask him to repeat another control
that vas not brought to anyone�s attention at the previous Special Use
requesta which Mr. Boardman had found somewhere in the back section of the
ordinance. He stated it was an ordinance in xhich any buildings in a
back yard had to conform to some percentage in relationship of back yard
total depth, and possible total sridth. Without concluding on this, he
ssid, he got the impression that the Planning Commission had approved at
least one second accessory building xhich was of such a size that it Was in
violation of the code. Mr. Clsrk said he �rould try to find what Mr. Hergnan
xas referring to.
Mr. Bergman said they had talked about putting a limit on in the ordinance
oP so many square feet. He said that would take it out of the Special Use
Permit category and put. it in the ordinance as a control. However, he
continued, the same person that came before the Planning Conunission and
justified a Special Use Permit xith a hardship case (i.e., keeping his
truck, storing entique cars, etc.) could go before the Board of Appeals
�rith the same hsrdship case requesting a variance. He stated that they
conclnded that there wasn�t much di££erence.
Chairperson Harris stated that there was a definite di£ference, and a varience
was en eniirely d3fferent ball game than a Special Use Permit. He sai.d that
the burden of pro�f for denial of a Special Use Permit lied vith the City�
whereas the burden of proof for the need for a variance lied uith the petiti,naer.
Mr. Bef�nan stated Cormnunity Development Pelt they had to consider the magni-
tude oY the problems and they concluded that there rere very few� and could
lo'gically be treated on an individual basis such as they did. He sai.d he
was also reminded that this bo�y voted to approve the two Special Use Permits
in consideration o£ reasons given by reque�tors� and he didn�t think if they
had gone before the Board of Appeals they would have taken a different course.
Hrs. Schnabel said she had Pound the item that Mr. Bergman had referred to,
and read to the Commission: "Aceessory buildings 3n the aggregate occupy
not more than 35� o£ the area of a required rear yard". Mr. Clark stated
the trick was to find the area required� and to do this you had to go back
to the rear yard requirements Which said the depth of it had to be 25% o£
Planning Commission Meeting - December 22� 1976 Page 12
of the lot depth, not less than 25 feet and not more than 1�0 feet. He said
that therefore a lot of 80� x 120' would have a 30' rear y ard requirement,
vhich xould be 8l�0 square feet maximum £or an accessory building. Mr. Bergman
commented that he thought one Special Use Permit they had granted exceeded
that� and Chairperson Harris agreed, Mr, Peterson said he thought that
particular petitioner had a larger lot� so the ratio would go up. Mr. Harris
recalled this man had a siding truck he xi.shed to keep in the accessory
building,
Mr. Bergman said that they xere not aware of any real problem vrith the size
oF the first accessory building, so they got back to the old question of the
secnnd accessory building xhich they had covered before, and that is what
prompted Mr. Oquist�s corrunent. He repeated that Community Development felt
there were some controls, and the requests should be judged on their merits.
Chairperson Harris said he would like to pose this problem: Suppose a man
came in and said he wanted to build a second accessory building snd wasn't
quite sure what he wanted to do xith it but did want it for storage and to
put some cars in, etc., snd then ended up in the body shop business. Mr.
Bergman co�ented that NIr. Lindblad+s approach srould be to grant the building
because it would be better to have him do that in the garage than out in the
yard. Mr, Harris said that his argument to that would be it xas a commercia�
enterprise in an R-1 district and should not be allowed. Mr. Bergman said
he Would be in violation oY the code� and Mr. Clark said he would be conducting
a home occupation outside the main d�relling. There folloxed a lengthy
discussion on home occupations� and t4r, Clark read the definition of home
occupation and said he thought it was a little unclear.
Mr. Ber�nan said he thought they �rere talking about a couple o£ different
poi.nts here. He said they vere addressing if an accessory building o£ az�y
size should be allowed or should it not� and really they couldn�t even hendle
that problem. He stated that all it boiled down to xas that if the ordinance
was changed,iit xould run through the Board of Appeals instead of the Planning
Conunission� so Coauaunity Developaient Pelt they should leave it the vey it xas,
Mrs, Schnabel stated that they had an ordinance right nov vhich established
the line of procedure for Special Use Permits, and to run it through the
Board of Appeals Would require a change in the zoning ordinattce. She said
she hadn't been prasent at the meeting vhen the requests came through the
Planning Corrmiission for the permits that had been discussed, but she was not
sure that running it through the Board of Appeals was necessarily the w�y
to go on that. Mrs. Schnabel said that when something xent through the
Board of Appeals it more or less passed this Coimnission, and she thought
the Planning Coimnission had a little more suthority to get into the business
use of that type of dxelling than the Board o£ Appeals did. She stated that
for that reason, she thought it should keep going through the Planning
Commission.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting sye� the motion carried unanimously.
��`
Planning Commission Heeting - December 22, 1976 Page 13
Chairperson Harris asked if the Planning Conmussion was in concurrence xith
Coimmmity Bevelopment.
MOTION by Peterson� seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commi.ssion concur
trith the Co�unity IIevelopment Cormnission that the ordinance on maximum size
of accessory buildi.ngs remain the same �rith no change.
Mrs. Schnabel stated that she thought they should extend their appreciation
to Comm�mity Development far looking at this again, and Chairperson Harris
said he vould also like to extend his appreciation but intended to vote
against the motion. He commented that he did believe they had to tighten
up on the R-1 areas. Mr. Clark suggested that it might be better to look
at the ho�occupation definition and better clarify that and tighten it up.
Chairperson Harris said he would like to treat everyone equally, and he
couldn't see wi�v they should allov one particular line of endeavor to
operate in home occupations and not another particular line. He said he
ras certainly not pushing for back-yard body shops and felt they should
leave the co�nercial enterprises to the commercisl areas as that xas why
they had zoning.
Mr. Clark said the other problem was some of these may not be home occnpation
people; they could be painters xorking Yor someone else and storing paint
and tarps in the garage. Chairperson Harris said the problem xas, that type
of thing tends to overflou; the manmrith the siding could start out that Kay,
but pretty soon it wasn't big enough. He said that soon things started to
be stored outside, which didn�t do the integrity of the R-1 neighborhoods
aqy good. Mr. Harris sai.d the question xas how to limit this. He said he
didn�t have much bad Feeling about the person vho brought home one car and
fized it inside the garage as that Wouldn't disturb the neighbors� but pretty
soon there was one parked outside and soon another one, and the neighborhood
deteriorated.
Mr. Bergman co�ented that he had mi.xed feelings on this� as about 48T
egreed frith Mr. Harris and the other $2;g leaned tovard the other side.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, Bergman, Langenfeld, Peterson, Schnabel and Shea voting
�ve, Harris voting a�y, the motion passed 5- 1.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Clark pasaed out to the Commission copies of a document concerning the
208 Management Planning Sjrmposium. Mr. LangenYeld explained that Ms. Larson
from the League of Women Voters had asked the Fhvironmental Quality Cou¢aission
if they would mi.nd sponsoring this symposium. He said that the Commission
took this up and xas in favor �£ it snd in £avor of sponsoring this type of
thing, Hoxever, he stated, it came to their atte�tion th�t they might be
erroneously sponsoring a private organization and they Were Honderi.ng i£ it
ras permissable £or a Commission to sponsor a private group. Mr. Langenfeld
said that gersenally he Pelt they could sponsor this because it was an
environmental teaching and educationaJ. process, and sai.d he was merely
. �_n _ _ _ ,
Planning Conunission Meeting - December 22, 1976 Page 11�
bri.nging t�is beYore the Planning Cocmaission Por comments concerning sponsor-
ship and insight as to i£ they could sponsor this organization. He added
that iY they did sponsor 3t, all they asked the Fhvironmental Co�nission to
do xas to help with the publicity if possible.
Mr. Clark asked if the program involved cesspools and sgptic tanks, and Mr.
Langenfeld said it concerned vater management, Mr. Clark said that iP all
it entailed was cesspools and septic tanks� it really didn't involve Fridley.
He said that he thought it was probably good that Cormni.ssions want to sponsor
something, but he believed that before they did they should bring it to the
Planning Couenission and the Planning Co�noission should make a recommendation
to the City Council,
Chairperson Harris asked if this 208 was a document, and Mr. Langenfeld
explais�ed that was the title that had been assigned to the program. He
said that whenever they talked about vater quality� they might just refer
to it as 208.
Mrs. Schnabel suggested that there may be a lot of residents in E�idley
who had lake cabins and would be interested in this program.
MOTION by LangenYeld� seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Coimnission
recornnend to City Council that the F%idley Flivironmental Quality Co�mnission
sponsor the Water Quality Management Planning Workshop. Upon a voice voie,
all noting �ye, the motion carried una�imously.
Mrs. Schnabel brought up the subject of the Union 76 station, and asked
if one of th�der stipulations didn't have somethi.ng to do with the physical
building itself. She said the reason she asked xas because none of that
ceme up in the minutes of the City Council meeting, and added that they
did approve it with their own stipulation--a fence. She said that there
was nothing about direction arrovs. Mr. Peterson pointed out that the
City Council had the right to either accept or reject the Planning Commission's
stipulations. Chairperson Harris commented that doors on restrooms should
be required in the building code.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTI013 by Shea� seconded by Langenfeld� that the meeting be adjourned.
Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the
Planning Commission meeting of December 22� 1476 adjourned at 10:11 P.M.
RespectfUlly submitted�
��,n,' ���
z,� � �
Sh rri 0'Donnell
Recording Secretary
d��y
ew �
flUMAN RESOURCES COI�i•IISSZO*I
MEETING
DECEMBER 2, 1976
MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Shea, 1IaroLd Belgum, Grace Lynch, Harold Scott
MEM&ERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Iris Korwich, 10184 Nightingale St. N.W., Coon Rapids - C.P.R. Red Cros:
Sandy McKenna, 2ll3 - lOSth Lane N,Ld., Coon R3pids - C.P.R. Red Cross
Greg Brzining, 608 LincoLn Ave., St. Paul
Richard Kahn, 7900 Xerxes Ave. So., Mpls. - Canadian Financial Corp.
David Lubinsk, 6181 - Sth St. N.E,
Monte J. Bute, 1615 S. Ferry, AnoY.a - Anoka County Co�unity Action
Dennis Schneider - Councilman-elect
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Shea cailed Che meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
APPROVE NOVII�ER 4, 1976, HUI�fAN RESOIii;CES COtII�ffSSION MEETSNG 24I\UTr.S:
MOTIO\T by Harold Belgum, seconded by tidilliam Scott, to approve the November 4, 1976,
Human Resources Commission meeting minutes as written, .Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, the motion carried unanimoUSly.
Mr. Scott stated that he had read in the paper that the Planning Commission had
eoted in favor of the garage requirement. He wanted Co emphasize again that the
. Human Resources Commission does not condone tl�e principle of a garage requirement
as a stipulation for building as stated in their motion in the September 2, 19J6,
minutes.
CONTINUED: MINI-GRANT PROGhAM:
Ms. Shea stated she had called the bureaucrats in Tdashington azid talked to five
different people and they are noco going to send further information on this.
Mr. Scott stated that this ties in so closety with what is set aside in the budget
for Human Resources and he was wondering that when this comes up, the Commission
could simultaneously get tiie breakdoc.n� of what is set aside in Chat budget so they
can make a judgment of both at the same time. '
Ms. Sliea stated that this seemed like a very good idea.
s��r:+�
AUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MIiJi'fING DECEM;3ER 2, 1976 PAGE 2
MOTION Uy Grace Lynch,
until the next meeting
unanimously.
RED CROSS - C.P.R.:
seconded by Harold Belgum, to table the Mini-Grant Program
Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried
Mr. Scott stated he wanted to bring to the Commission's attention that heart problems
is the No. 1 killer in the country. There is a program being launched by a sub-
covunittee of the Anoka branch of the American Red Cross for Anoka County residents
that has real merit. He wanted the Commission to liseen to Ms. McKenna's presenta-
tion of this program, and he would like to see the Commission participate in this
program with a donation:
Ms. McKenna stated that C.P.R. means Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and it is the -
art of manual technique of reviving someone immediately afte.r a heart attack. It
means that before emergency help arrives, a person can save a victim from a heart
attack. Only we can stop the heart attack from being the No. 1 killer. The doctors
know how to stop the heart attack; it is a matter of us getting ho the victim before
the doctor does. There is a nationwide program being launched right now as far as
C.P.R. is concerned. Seattle, Washington, is THE place in the counCry to have a
heart attack because the C.P.R. program is so extensive and launched there, Ms. McKenna
stated that they, on the Red Cross branch committee,feel it is very like.y Anoka
can be Seattle �62, but theq need to launch the progranz and make everyone aware that
therc is a way tu get to a victim immediately. In order to do,that, they have to
make the public aware of the program, they have to be aole to r+.in the classes, and
to run the classes, they r.eed the equipment. The equipment consists of a dummy on
which is done L'he demonstration of artificiai respiration and artiiicial circulatic
This equipment' is expensive--the regular "�nnie" costs $320 and the "Baby" costs
$160. In order to get the county going and in order to get classes set up in ez�ery
town in Anoka Cotimty, they figure they need $4,000--10 "Annies" and 10 "Babies".
They are hoping to achieve this by the end of February 1977. After they realize
their equipment, they wili Ue going to the community schools, high school curriculums,
industries, and any cpecial interest group that desires to have a class. What
they are asking of the Human Resources Co�ission is $160 to buy a"Baby".
Ms. McKenna stated that some private institutions do own this equipment. They have
found out from par[iat resulbs from a survey that the private institutions that
do own their own equipment have bought them with their own allotment and they do
not loan them out unless the class is offered in their facilities.
MOTION by William Scott, seconded by Harold Belgum, that the I3uman Resources
Coumiission recommends that, if money is available, $160 go to the C.P.R. Fed Cross
to buy a"Baby". Upon a voice vote, all voting aye., the motion carried unanimously.
ANOKA CO'JNTY COMMIJNITY ACTION - ADVOCATE PROGRAM:
Ms. Shea stated that the Commission members had all. received a copy of the
"Request for an Advocate Program".
h�
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION P�ETING DECEMBER 2, 1976 PAGE 3
MY. Bute stated thaC this is not a CAP project. This has been put together by a
group of low income people in the coimty--8�/ of the work, writing, and researching
has Ueen done by the low income people. Tre prupasal itself is going to be put
forward formally by a group called the Anoka County Equal Rights Organizing Committee.
Mr. Scott stated he is not sure this is the approach to use to solve the welfare
� problems if there are problems. If there is an indictment against the weifare
department of Anoka County, Chen someUody has got to at least identify these
. problems and bring them to the attention o£ the proper authorities so some action
will be taken. He thinks they should be attacicing the welfare system. He doesa't
think hiring three advocates is going to do the job.
Mr. Belgum stated'he did not agree. This is a very modest program to try to alleviate
some of the harassment and embaxrassment that welfaie people have to endure.
Mr. Bute stated thaC this was a good discussion but the problems in this county
are not going to be solved by this type of discussion. He listed some of the
terrible things that are going on to the welfarE recipients in Anoka County; they
are life and death situations. It sounds nice to do it in a harmonious manner but
it only means one thing. It means the same thing as reconciliation. One side gets
everything and the other side gets reconciled to it.
MOTIG,9 by Harold Eelgum, seconded b;> Grace Lyncl:, Lliat t!ze Human Resources Commission
endorses the "Request for an Advocate Program".
MOTION by William Scott to anend the above motion to also read that tSe Com�ission
recou�ends the reduction Ln one advocate for a ene year p�riod and funded for a one
year period as a demonstration projece.
The motion to amend died for lack of a second.
UPON A VOICE \TOTE, SHEA, LYNCH, BELGUhi VOTING AYE, SCOTT VOTING NAY, THE P'i0TI0N
CARRIED.
Ms. Shea thanked Mr. Bute for attending the meeting.
A 95 REVIEW (144 Unit Apartment Complex) ALICE WALL ADDTTION:
Mr. Richard P.ahn was at the meeting to represent Mr. Wall.
Mr. Scott stated he wanted to know �ahat the rental rates would be on these apart-
ments.
Mr. Kahn stated that as the project is planned, there wi11 he efficiency, one-
bedroom, and [wo-bedroon apartments. Rouohly, the rents will run $190/month fot
the efficiency, $230/month for the one-bedroom, and $270/month for the two-bedxoom.
�
,� �
°'' RUMAN P.ESOURCrS COi'Il�IISSICtd MEETINGa nECCM13ER 2, 1976 PAG� 4
Mr. Kahn stated that as listed in the questionnaire, there are 144 units at this
time. Of those 144 unir>, 58 of those wi11 Ue s�Usidized under the Federal Section ,.
program. The tenants who live in these units wi11 pay 25% of their income for rent.
Mr. Kahn explained to the Commiscion that the Section 8 funds that would be made
available for this project would come from the State Housing Finance Agency. That
is where the project is y,oing to be financed with a mortgage. Those funds will be
made available wiLh contracts expressly for this project. They will not come out
of any pool that had been otherwise reserved for the City of Fridley, so that to
the extent these units are made a�;ailable on this project, they would be over and
above any other Section 8 units that would be coming to the City of Fridley through
an allocation from the Metropolitan Council, HUD, or from wherever they might get
them. There is a different maximum rent schedule for new construction, They are
quite a bit higher so that, in iact, these rents are under the limits for new
construction and anybody who shcws up and their income is under the Section 8
maximum income, they will be able to rent that unit by paying 25% of their income.
Ms. Lynch asked the question that of these 58 uni[s, are'they going to be efficiency,
one-bedroom, or. two-bedroom?
Mr. Kahn stated that it hasn't been decided for sure yet. He assumes they would
be spread out among the three. The units would also be spread throughout the
building. They would not all be cJ.ustered together, and the units :hat would be
subsi.dized woul.d be exactly the sarnn as tt�e other unit's.
Ms. Lynch staCed she would like to see these apartments actually specified as
efficiency, one-bedroom, or twu-bedroor,i.
Mr. Kahn stated that subsidy will. be available for the 58 unzts. They will`do
everything they can to fi11 these miits with people who are eligible for this
subsidy program, Under the law, :'tf no one shows to rent one of these units, the
unit can be rented to someone who can pay full rent. He doesn't think this will
happen--he feels they can easily fi11 the units up with people eligible for the
subsidy program.
Mr. Belgum stated his concern aUout how the people eligible for this program would
hear about it.
Mr. Kahn stated that one way is advertising in newspapers oriented to minority
and 1ow incame groups. Another t�ay is putting posters in community centers, clinics,
etc. He said from the State, included in the mortgage, they will have a budget of.
almost $30,000 to conduct advertising and marketing for.this project, so that what
needs to be done can be done.
Mr. Kahn stated that for very low income families, ttiose families wi1T pay only
15% of their income, so there is a potential for serving people of very low income.
I
.�_. �
RESOURCES
1.
Mr. Scott expressed his concern about a dwelling of this type attracting an increase
in crime. He asked Mr. Kahn if he or that corporation had ever studied that problem
to see how it could best to alleviated.
Mr. Kahn stated [hat he doesn't work for the Wa11 Corporation; he works for the
Canadian Finance Corporation who is doing work for Mr. Wall. He said Chey very
possibly will be the management agents for this projecl-. What they have done,
for example, in their projects is they have a man who manages their projects who
has a graduate degree in social work. This man has special training and is capable
of dealing with people. This man manages the project in Golden Valley, which
consists of 274 units. There was an article.in the paper recently, and they found
that there were no problems with extra police calls there. They feel it partly
reflects the fact that the man knows how to d�al with people and is doing a good
job. The State requires that you come in with some kind of plan indicating that
you will bring in qualified people and the fee allowed is sufficient to get the
qualified people, Mr. Kahn said, if they manage this project, he can guarantee
that this wi11 be done. They have on their staff a man who is a trazned social
worker and he coould at least be going about the setting up of comprehensive social
services programs for this particular project. In addition to him, there would
also be a resident manager on the site trained by this man and trained in the areas
needed,
Mr. Scott told Mr. Kahn that if they ever document what this social worker does,
the Co�ission wouLd be interested in having a copy. The Commission doesc't want
to burden private businesses, but they do expect them to carry �heir fair share.
They want to make sure they don't create problams.
Mr. Scott noted that from the "Civil Rights Im�act Questionnaire" that Mr. Wall
has previously been involved in a number of publicly-financed projects constructed
and operated in accordance with all applicable equal opportunity requirements. He
asked Mr. Kahn if he knew of any of these.
Mr. Kahn stated that Mr. Wall has an apartment bui2ding ir! South Minneapolis called
the Friday Street Apartments, 3030 brew Avenue. He also built one of the senior
citizen high rises in the City of Minneapolis in South Minneapolis. A construction
company that Mr. Wa11 owns has built a number of public schools in this area and
hospitals and facilities like that. i4ost of those projects did involve some kind
of public funding and the construction contracts all had standard equal opportunity
requirements. That Mr. Kahn knows of, Mr. Wall has never been cited for £ailure
of this.
Mr. Scott asked Mr. Kahn if Mr. Wall could make a conenitment to work with the
Chamber of Commerce, as well as the Apartment Owners' Association and this Commission,
in the event there are tenant/landlord problems to at least set the groundwork for
resolving tenant problems and resolving the problems equitably to all parties. The
charge of this Commission is to resolve harmoniously these kinds of things within
the community.
Mr. Kahn stated he is sure Mr. Wall would be happy to do that.
��
HUMAN RESOURCBS COMNIISSION M.lETING, DECIiMPER 2, 1976 PAG� 6
Ms. Lynch brought up the problem that �here are no three-bedroom apartme.nts and
there is not enough space for children.
Mr. Kahn stated Chat right no�a the way they are proceeding with this project, there
are specific plans which have. been approved by the City of Fridley. As they were
approved for the 144 units, the,� did not include any three-bedroom apartments.
The State Housing Pinance Agency is encouraging them eo look at this again to
determine whether or not tl�ey might want to include three-bedroom units for this
reason. It is possible that they could be added. If three-bedroom units are added
to the project, they wouldn't be able to do it unless the Fridley Planning Commission
and City Council approved it. But, it is being explored right now. If three bed-
room apartments are added, the efficieecie� would he reduced by 15 and 15 three bed-
room units would be added.
MOTION by �+Tilliam Scott, seconded by Harold Belgum, that the Human Resources
Commission forward the A-95 on this project to Metro-Council with the Commission's
recommendation for approval noting the fact that it does not meet the needs of the
larger families and that this Commission strongly urges the addition of fifteen,
three-bedroom apartments. Upon a vozce vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
Ms. Shea thanked Mr. Kahn for attending the meeting.
Mr. Y.ahn stated he would like to come l;ack when they re2ch thaC point in time to
talk abcut how to structure an advertising pro�rnm for the people who wnuld be
c!ost in need of these units.
OTHER ]3USINESS:
Mr. Belgum stated that about two weeks ago, he had met with Mayor Nee and presenCed
him with the ideas N.r. Belgum�had presented to the Commission that maybe a city
gouernment at the stage of development that Fridley is should begin to look at some
of the non-physical, non-traditional potential functions of city gover:w�ent, which
would include things like developing a better human relations climate in the city,
promote communications inside the city, somehoa letting the Ciey develop as an
organism with neighborhoods as organisms, communities as organisms, so that the whole
eould be articulated and become a coeunanity. What made Mr. Belgum decide to do
something was when Mr. James Hill, Public Safety Director, stated that Fridley has
no self-identity. Mayor Nee stated he agreed and he and the City Council have
tried to do many things to to try to improve the quality of human life. Mr. Belgum
tallced briefly �aith Mr. Ed Fitzpatrick and Dennis Schneider, with others and, of
course, this Comnission, and there caas general agreement that there is a need for
better intercommunications in the City of Fridley. There has been growing dis-
affection with the Sun Newspaper. � . �..
Mr. Belgum introduced Mr. Greg Breining cahom he had known quite a few years
ago as a journalist and whom he had �aorlced with on the Fridley Sun for about eight
months, Mr. Breining knows Fridley, he has grown up here, has attended the
University, and has a degree in Journalism.. Mr. Breining has worked on the
I
.''.�
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMiSSiON MEETIA'G DECEMBER 2, 1976 PAGE 7
Minnesota Daily in several positions including management. He has had a lot of
excellent experience. He has done some free lance writing, he has written for
the volunteer magazine for the conservatio�t department, and he has said he is
interested in the problem of a newspaper in the City of Fridley.
Mr. Breining stated that one proposal is that of a city-owned newspaper. He said
a journalist's first reaction to the idea of a city-owned newspaper is one of panic.
It is a little frightening to think that you are going to put that independent
voice under the auspices of local government. On the other hand, it is a very
intriguing idea, especially where a commercial paper such as the Sun Newspaper has
failed to maintain professional standards or has failed to give voice to that
community or provided that community with any identiCy. It is very interesting
to have a newspaper that is owned by the people and for the people that is demociatic
in its foundation as we11 as its ideals.
Mr. Breining stated he had talked to a number of people at the University about this.
One particular person had pointed out a report done in 1947 called "� Free and
Responsible Press" by the Hutchins Co�ission. This Commission was funded Uy Time,
Ine., which is quite a conservative foundation; but, nevertheiess, they came up
with some rather liberal ideas in talking about the role of the press and how it
could be funded. One of the things they talked about was a publicly funded press,
not to displace the private publisher, but to supplement private newspapers because
those newspapers just weren't doing the ;ob. There have been a couple of p*ebiems
with newspapers recently. First is that recently ae have seen a grzat conccntration
of press ownership with very few publishers owning many papers as well as ra3iu and
television stations. It is no longer possible to crank up a pr.intin� press i�i the
basement and turn out our own newspapers so, in effect, cae are relying on a vcr,�
small number of people to represent the people's voice in the comm:inii-y. Of ccurse,
these few publishers have their own invested interest--they are in business to make
money. Secondly, the news has become an institution. As the Hutchin.s Comc�issior.
noted, "The need of the consumer to have adequate and uncontaminated roental food
is such that he is under the duty to get it; and because of this duty, his interest
acquires the stature of a right. It becomes legiti.maCe to speak of the moral right
of inen to the news they can use." Another problem of publishers Sl.'TV1Tlg suburbs
such as Fridley is aggravated by the fact that a suburban newspaper is often not
very profitable. The.community struggles to maintain its own identity but often
Loca1 issues do not seem as important to many people as regional issues, since cr,ey
buy the newspaper of a larger parent city such as the Miruieapolis Star and Tribune.
So,private publishers have a problem in serving a community such as Fridley. The
Sun has not been entirely successful. It is not a Fridley paper; they have a
Fridley front page, and the rest of the paper is a Fridley-Columbia Heights-Slaine,
Coon Rapids paper.
Mr. Breining stated one of the things to think about is setting up the paper using
some sort of subsidy from the city government or perhaps getting the city involved
in printing its own papers. It's a very dangerous idea in some respects because
you do have that conflict, but it has worked in similar situations; although, from
what he has been able to find out, no city has tried to do exactly that. One
example is the Minnesota Daily, where there is one body, tUe University of Minnesota,
that publishes a newspaper. This newspaper is often quite critical of its parent
�,.
�.i� �. . . � � .
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION,MP:�TING DECENIBER 2 1976 YAGE 8
organization and m�nages to get away with it. Considering the sorts of people =
working on it, it does a very good job oi presenting the need and provides the f
identity of the University. He thinks a city could do something similar, being ?
careful when it began to ensure that the city fathers (City Council, Mayor) did
not have anything to do with the editorial comment. Zn the case of the Minnesota
Daily, they have set up a"publications board". If you were to do something like
this in Fridley, you could have a publications board that is elected with a member
from, say, every nine precincts. Perhaps, on this board you could have the editor �
of the paper and a member of the Council.Al1 other people would not be connected �
with city government in any way. One of the responsibilities of this board would
Ue to set very broad policies of. the_paper and do the hirir.g and firing. The
City Council would do nothing to set general policy and could not hire or fire
anyone. Their responsibility would be setting the budget. In the case of the
Dai1y, it is supported by 25 % from the University and the rest from advertising,
so the financial base of the paper is split so that no one interest group has
absolute r.ontrol over the paper. Mr. Breining thinks the city could do something
very similar to this. He did talk to a Proiessor Everett Dennis, who said He has
not heard oi anything Iike this done but thought it was intriguing. Zt would
probably get a lot of attention, maybe even national attention if tried. Mr. Breining
stated he was here simply to propose the idea and see if it is of interest. He `
admitted he was a little hesitant at first, butthinks it is interestang and thinks
it could work.
Mr.'Bel.gum stated he would like to pick �p Mr. Bre?ning's idea that there is a
danger in putting a newspaper next- to the political structure; Uut, democracy is �
supposed to be an oagoing expression of the majority. The problem saith the election �
system is that it isn't an �ngoing expression of the liyes of the people; it is a �
biennial expression or a quadrennial expression and limited to picicing between t:ao
people. The more he thought about this, he thinks it is in har.mony with the �
intentions of the people in electing the mayor and councilmen. It seems to liim
that the electioii of officers would, upon ref:ectioa, really welcome an organ that
was not owned Uy a private organization but was owned by the people who elected �
it.
Ms. Shea stated she can see this coming under the goals and objectives.
Mr. Scott stated he is very intrigued with the idea of a city-owned newspaper.
Personally, he feels that this community could support a weekly newspaper, and
he thinks it could even support a daily newspaper. Iie said he is intrinued with
the idea of this city trying to seek its identity. He said he particularly likes
one aspect of tiiis cahole thing and that is the electoral process, using precincts
or whatever.
Mr. Belgum stated that if the Commission wants to think seri�usly about a public
press, as Mr. Breining said, it is a novelty. News is a puUl'ic utility. He
stated that they would malce news if they could interest the City of Fridley in a
public press. It wouldn't have to slay public; it could very we11 move, if enough
money and interest were put into it, to the status of a non-profit corporation.
He said we have the possibility of Uacking away from the traditional model newspaper.
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION NIl'sETING DECLi'il3ER 2 197G PAGE 9 ��
MOTION by Aarold Belgum, seconded by William Scott, that the Human Resources
Coum�ission endorses in principle the following quote written Uy the Hutchins
Conenission in its 1947 report entitled, "A Free and Responsible Press": "The
need of the consumer to have adequate and uncontami.nated mental food is such
that he is under the duty to get it; and because of tliis duty, his interest
acquires the stature oE a right. It becomes legitimate to speak of the moral
right of inen to the news they can use." Upon a voice vote, al.l voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by William Scott, seconded by Grace Lynch, that the liuman Resources
Cownission create a"Fridley Community Newspaper Froject Committee" and that
Harold Belgum be appointed to this project couunittee to try to get assistance
from other interested citizens. Upon.a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
NFr. Belgum stated he would like to thanlc Mr. Breining for bringing the Commission
these ideas and for his remarkable excerpts from t?ie Hutchins Commission's 1947
report.
ADJOURIvTi�IIiNT:
MOTION by Grace Lynch, seconded by Harold Belgum, to adjourn the meeting at
9:57 p.m, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
, :�
Respectfully submitted,
r
t�lid. c' ✓'fZ�
Lynd�, Saba
Recording Secretary