PL 01/19/1977 - 6602� �--_ '
City of Fridley
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMTSSION MEETING JANUARY 19, 1977
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL•
APPROVE PLANNING COM�IISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 5, 1977
1.
PUBLIG HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED PLAT, P.S.
#76-12, 7ARG T DITION, BY OP SH PPES OF AMERICA, INa:
eplat of all of Lot 10, part of Lots 1 and 12, Auditor's
Su6division No. 155, as per legal notice, generally located
South of I:694, West of Highway #65, North of 53rd Avenue
N.E., and East of the Target parking lot.
2. PUBLIC
A SPECIAL USE
soff drinks and a retai outlet, per Fridley City Code,
Section 245.101, B, (3,b,}, on Lot 10, and parts of Lots 11
and 12, Auditor's Subdivision No. 155, located South of I.
694, West of Highway No. 65, North of 53r� Avenue N.E.,
and East of the Target parking ldt, the same being 785
53rd Avenue N.E.
3. CONTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE
4. CONTINUED:=HUMAN DEVELOPMENT GOALS & OBJECTIVES
5. CONTINUED: SECURITY 60ALS & OBJECTIVES
6. RECEIUE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 11, 1977
[�
7. RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COhA1ISSI0N MINUTES: �ANUARY 6, 1977
8. RECEIVE COhMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: JANU0.RY 11,
1977
ADJOURNMENT:
f
'�.
7:30 P.M.
PAGES
1 - 10
11 - 16
17 - 19 &
13 - 16
Separate
20 - 21
22 - 25
26-31
at meeting
at meeting
€ y�`�cnY.>,-�v�^...- : ��.n p( �� . .
f y
f
�
f
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 19� 1977 PAGE 1
CALL TO ORDSft:
Chairperson Aarris called the meeting to order at 7:l�8 P,M.
ROLL CAI.L•
Members Present: Harris, Bergman, Langenfeld, Schnabel, Shea
Members Absent: Peterson
Others Present; Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
APPROVE PLANNING CANR4ISSION MINUTFS: JANOARY S, 2977
2�TION by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission
minutes of January 5, 1977 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, all
noting sye, the motion carried unanimously.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF-� PROROSID P%AT. P.S
ewuiiivn� ui rvr uiavraavwr �u�u:u�i�n� ia.v. .cy�o.. ..0 � v� .. �..�
part o£ Lots 11 and 12, Auditor's Siibdivision No. 155, as per legal
notice, generally located South o£ I. 694, West o£ Highxay �/65, North
of 53rd Avenue N.E., and East o£ the Target parking lot.
MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Her�nan, that the Planning Commission open
the Public Hearing on bhnsideration of a proposed plat, P,S. //76-12, Target
Addition� by Pop Shoppes of America, Inc. Upon a voice vote, all voting �ye,
Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 7:53 P.M.
Mr. Dmnett R. Albergotti� Real Fstate Negotiator £or Dayton Hudson Properties;
Mr. John Zavitz of Pop Shoppes of America, Inc.; Mr. Bill Jaeger from Kraus
Anderson of St. Paul Company; Mr. Jon Pope, architect for Plagerso McGee, Inc.;
and Mr. Bob Harvey� Box 3764, Minneapolis� were present.
Mr. Boardman directed the Conmdssion to turn to pages 15 and 16 of their
agendas xhich shoxed the general location oi' where the replat was going to
take place. He explained this ras East o£ the present Target parking lot,
behind IInbers and the gas station� and would be divided into three separate
lots. He said that this was to allow for two or three separate developments,
and the larger lot on the North side o£ the property xas proposed £or Pop
Shoppes of America. He stated that access into this area would be through
private easement Yrom Target o£f of 53rd to service these three lots.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page 2
Chairperson Harris asked iY this Was on part of the blacktop portion o£ the
parking lot, and Mr. Boardman replied that the lots themselves were not, but
the driveway easement would be on the Easterly end of the blacktop portion.
Mr. John Zavitz explained that the head offices of Pop Shoppesoof America
were in Denver, and there vere 19 other locations in the United States. He
said they would be opening fourteen neyr centers this year, one o£ which was
the 'Itrin Cities location. Mr. Zazitz said that basically what they xere
trying to do xas deliver soft drinks to the public at lower than normal
cost as they manufactured and retailed on the same premises. To date, he
said, they have enjoyed quite a bit o£ success both in Canada and here, and
were just beginning to scratch the surface in the U.S. market. He stated
that to date they had been able to satisfyr all concerns with regasd to
environmental issues, noise levels, etc., to the satisfaction of all City
Councils. Aesthetically speaking, he continued, they did not look like a
manufacturer, but a retailer. He told the Commission they sold 26 different
flavors in two sizes� in plastic cases� and returnable bottles only. He
explained that people could mix and match £lavors as they xished.
Chairperson Harris asked what the zoning was, and Mr. Boardman replied it
was C-2S and that was the reason they uere going xith the Special Use Permit
on it. He euplained the operation of this type of shop would be similar to
that o£ a dairy. He stated they mixed the so£t drinks at the plant and
stored them there, but they had a major retailing operation £rom the store
also so there xasn't a major handling of the shipping of the bottles. He
said they xould ship to about three or four other retail stores in the
metro area, but it was a major retail operation. Mr. Boardman said that
all three of the parcels met the requirements as far as square footage
under a C-23 zone and lot sizes vere adequate. He added that one of the
stipulations they would xant to put on the plat would be some definition of
roadrqy in the parking lot area itself. He said he had received a letter
from Target on access that he vould like entered into the minutes.
Chairperson Harris read the folloxing letter to Mr. Boardman, from Jack
Franzen, Building Services Manager for Target Stores, dated January 19,
1977: In the event that the County Highx�r Department does gb ahead
xith its planned improvements along $3� Avenue, specifically including
the revised eastern most access routing into the Target Fridley parking lot�
Target rrill define the access road xith curbings, plantings, or some other
method acceptable to the City of FY�idley and Target. This is to promote
more orderly traffic £low through the Target parking lot £acility.
MOTION by Shea� seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Cormnission receive
the letter to Mr. Boardman from Mr. FY�anzen dated Janusry 19, 1977. Upon
a voice vote, all voting �ve, the motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Schnabel noted that the proposed plat was to divide the property into
three separate lots, and asked if the Special Use Permit would cover all
three lots. Mr. Boardman exglained that the Special t3se Permit was for just
the Northerly lot. He said that lots 10, 11 and 12 xere the existing lots,
and they extended to Highzray 65. He explained that was sn old lot description
PZanning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Pege 3
on Target and xas only used as definition to shox xhere the nev plat would be.
Ae said that actually it xould be platted out to lots 1� 2 and 3. Mrs.
Schnabel asked if the other txo lots would remai.n vacant, and Mr. Boardman
replied that xas correct. Mrs. Schnabel asked if it was necessary for Pop
Shoppes to get some type of agreement yrith Target for use oP the roads,
and Mr. Boardman said they would have to have easements drawn up £or use
of the properties� and he thought that could be handled xith the platting.
Chairperson Harris agreed it should go xith the final plat. Mrs. Schnabel
asked about utilities in that area� and Mr. Boardman said that utilities
would be sereiced to all three properties off of 53�.
Mr. Jon Pope, architect, �plained that the xater xould be brought in
off of 65 to the rear of the building. He said that a pole would be placed
at the Southwest corner of the lot, and electrical power would be brought
underground to the site. Chairperson Harris asked about the other lots,
and Mr. Boardman said he would imagine it would be easier and better to
have the water and sewer service for the other properties off o£ 53rd.
Mr. Bergman said he expected sizeable xater requirements for this activi.ty
and noted an eight inch xater line was planned. He asked if there xere
any pressure or capacity problems i.n this location� and Mr. Boardman replied
there vere not. Mr. Bergman said it vould appear that all the utility
installations took place on private property so no easements would be
involved� and Mr. Boardman said that was correct.
Chai.rperson Harris asked i£ a drainage easement would be needed i.n there�
and Mr, Boardman replied that the lqy of the land took care of it most�,�
He explained that the drainage o£f of all three of these lots would be
onto the Target parking lot xhere there were catch basins which would handle
it. Mr. Bergman said he assumed that some kind of written agreement would
be in order between Pop Shoppes and Target attesting that drainage was
agreeable betfreen the tvo parties. He added that he thought it was more
normal that any place o£ busi.ness xould take care of its oxn surface
drainage rather than drain ofi somgplace else. Mr. Hoardman sa�d that
xas the only vay they could handle the surface drainage� and pointed out
that the catch basins in the Target parldng lot had the capacity to handle
it irith no problem. Mr. Albergotti said it was handling it right nou.
MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Co�nission close
the Public Hearing on consideration of a Proposed Plat, P.S. �/76-12,
Target Addition� by Pop Shoppes of America. Upon a voice vote� all noting
aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:12 P.M.
Mrs. Shea stated she had some reservations about this simply because of
the intersection� and asked if the county had given a ti.metable regarding
the planned improvements there. Mr. Boardman said that 53rd should hopefully
be done this sw�uner. Mrs. Shea said she hated to see anything go in there
unless something Was done with that intersection. Mr. Boardman explained
that the improvements were being tied in xith the urbanization project from
Columbia Heights all the xqy through� and there were presently some difficulties
Planning Coimni.ssion Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page l�
with Columbia Heights which xould hopefully be resolved before March.
Mrs. Schnabel asked i£ that meant that iF there wasn�t an agreement by March
nothing would be done at all, and Mr. Boardman said that was right. Chair-
person Harris said he certainly hoped that didn't happen, and asked vhat the
problem xas �rith Columbia Heights. Mr. Boardman explained the Highxay Depart-
ment wanted to widen the road, but the local businessmen didn't want to lose
the on-street�parking around l�Oth. He further explained that the urban-
ization pro�ect went from 37th to 53rd, regardless of what community it was
in, and i£ any part o£ that project fell through the xhole project vould fall
through. Afrs. Schnabel asked why something couldn�t be done on 53rd by
itself, and Mr. Boardman sai.d it xas because there wouldn't be any state
monies for it. He added that if it was going to be improved by itself� that
would be the county�s responsibility. Hrs. Schnabel said that it seemed to
her that something should be done on 53� at a minimum, regardless if the
other project fell through. Mr. Boardman said this was not to s�y that 53�
wouldn't be done at a later date if that project failed, but it wouldn't
be done this year.
Mr. Bergman stated he thought the things they had been discussing rrere of
some relative bearing, but not an overriding bearing, on the questmon o£
replatting the property.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission
recommend to Council approval of Proposed Plat P.S, //76-12, Target Addition�
by Pop 5hoppes of America, Inc.: Replat of all of Lot 10, part of Lots
11 and 12� Auditor's S�bdivision No. 155, a$ per legal notice, general�y
located South of I. 69lt, West oP High�re�y �{65, North of 53rd Avenue N.E.,
and East of the Target parking lot, subject to a plan defining the accessxay
extending to all three oF the proposed lots *,rith the authorizing signature
Prom Target or its parent company. Upon a voice vote, all voting �ye, the
motion carried unanimously.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SP&CIAL USE PFRMIT SP#76-16 BY POP
FS 0 ICA C.: To permi e ot ing of soft drinks and
a retai out e, per Fri ey City Code, Section 205.101� B, (3,0,), on
Lot 10, and parts of Lots 11 and 12, Auditor�s Subdivision No. 155,
located South of I. 69:t, West oY Highx� No. 65, North of 53� Avenue
N.E.� and East of the Target parking lot� the same being 785 53rd
Acenue N.E.
MOTION by Langenfeld� seeondedbby Shea� that the Planning Commission open
the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP //76-16, by
Pop Shoppes of America� Inc. Upon a voice vote� all voting a�ye, Chair-
person Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 8:23 P.M.
The same people were present as for the £irst Public Hearing.
Mr. Boardman said that as was discussed before, Pop Shoppes Would be doing
mi.xing of the pop� storage of that pop and retatl sales o£ that pop within
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 19T7 Page 5
that building. He said that as far as they conld tell, it fell under the
category of retail or wholesale sales or sernice uses, such as creameries
and dairies, xhere there was the mi.xing o£ a product and storage of a product
for retail sales. Cheirperson Harris stated he had a slight problem with
that, and said it looked like either a M-1 or 7�2 use to him. Mr. Boardman
said they had felt the retail operation of Pop Shoppes was more characteristic
of C-2S zoning� and probably over 50',� of the retail sales in the metro-
politan area would be handled out of this location.
Mr. Zavitz stated that what they tried to do was manufacture and sell
directly to the public. He said Pop Shoppes could be compared to McDonalds
because their process was one �,rhere they took concentrate, mixed it with
water and carbon dioxide, and bottled it for sale to the public for con-
sumption off-premises. He said they aere specialists in soft drinks as
opposed to hamburgers, and their bulk vras consumed off-premises. He added
that they xere not at all different £rom a bakery or a Dunkin� Donuts chain
for on-premises and off-premises consumption. Mr. Zavitz stated that they
had never gone into a city where they hadn�t had to ansxer questions of
this nature because there was no particular zoning anqwhere that he had
found where they could just rralk in and operate because people didn�t
recognize their particular use. He sai.d he thought the Commission was
probably concerned with "degree"; xhat was manufacturing and wh�t was
retailing. He stated that because they made something they �rere manufacturing.
Chairperson Harris said that as he looked at the plan, he saw one sales
area, one production area, and another area possibly 3- 1� times as large
as the other two labeled "irarehouse". Mr. Zavitz ezplained that was mainly
to hold the empties and the fhll bottles reac�y to move onto the floor. Mr.
Boardman noted that under accessory uses it did allow £or storage of inerch-
andise.
Chairperson Harris asked i£ in the �ent this Went over �rell� and he assumed
it would� if they would propose an expansion o£ this Yacility on this partic-
ular property or iY they rould build another. Mr. Zavitz said they cou]dn�t
get too much raore equipment in that area as they xere at their capacity, and
they would generally build another one. He added that right nox their facility
in Duluth was serving a 60-mile radius, and this proposed facility xould
probably serve a 20-mile radius.
Mr. Ber�nan asked i£ it was the intent to do bottling at this plant, do
product sales� and from the bottling capacity also to ship product to
other retail outlets. Mr. Zavitz said that was correct. He stated they
would ship to their oxn specialty sources such as West St. Paul and Knoll-
wood� xhere they vere buildi.ng free-standing stores. He showed the Commission
a picture of one of their free-standing retail maskets. Mr. Boardman asked
if they had any wholesale operation going out to supermarkets or other
chain stores, and Mr. Zavitz said de£initely not as it was all an internal
process.
Mr. Bergman asked how many outlets this warehouse £acility was designed to
service. Mr, Zavitz replied that depending on hox successful they were,
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page 6
they were planning on opening 1� - 6 outlets. He added that the plant was
designed to make about a half million cases of soft drinks a year.
Mr. La�genfeld asked iP there would be ar�yy non-returnable bottles, and Mr.
Zavitz said there would be only returnable bottles, Mr. Langen£eld asked
if they vould be using caustics, and Mr. Zavitz replied they would, but
they xent through a recycling process. Mr, Langenfeld asked how they
diaposed of the caustic material, and Mr. Zavitz answered that the caustic
solution vas only 4� in their product; it xas a nery low percentage and
it would go into the sewer system at some point. Mr. Langenfeld asked how
long Mr. Zavitz thought the bottling machinery would be in operation during
the day, and he replied that during the swmner they generally ran two
shifts! five days a xeek, and in the rinter months probably one shift. Iie
added that during the Christmas period they usually ran one shift or 1�
shifts. Mr. Langenfeld asked hov noisy the equip¢nent Was, and Mr. Zavitz
replied they had just met a decibel level of 65. He added they xere meeting
both the 0.SHA and environmental controls.
Mr. Langenfeld asked if some of the public vatched the bottling o£ the pop,
and Mr. Zavitz replied that the bottling process xas in open view to the
public and they invited schools to come in on tours to t.*atch the pop being
bottled. Mr. Langenfeld asked about the xater treatment area desi�ated
on the plans, and Mr. Zavitz explained that all of the plants had to have
water treating equipment as it was part of the policy of the bottling plant.
He said it was very simp]e filtration o£ city water. Mr, Langenfeld asked
iY they would be using stainless steel tanks, and how many they would be
using. Mr, Zavitz ansWered that they rrould only be using stainless ste�l,
and there would be txo lt00 gallon tanks and txo 200 gallon tenks, Mr.
Langenfeld asked if there would be somebody checking the bacteria count,
and Mr. Zavitz said yes� very deYinitely. Ae explained that each week
saraples vere sent to their lab in Denver� and they vere very critical about
quality and their standards xere extremely stringent.
Mrs. Schnabel asked what type of volume they expected with regard to retail
sales and customers coming in. Mr. Zavitz stated they have gone from a
grand opening in Bu£falo tvelve weeks ago xhere they sold 21,000 cases in
two days, to areas where they had sold as fev as 7,000 cases in a week. He
added that generally speaking� a customer vould usually buy 1� - 2 cases;
on a Saturday they might sell 1,000 to 1,500 cases. He said it depended on
the market and the time of year. Mr. Zavitz told the Coimnission that their
customer flox was rapid as it only took about four minutes £rom the time
they entered the parking lot to the time they left. Mrs, Schnabel stated
that using the figure o£ two cases per customer' he was saying that an
average Saturday might generate about 500 to 750 customers in a store. Mr.
Zavitz replied that xas correct, and added that they were busy about the
same time as Target and had about the same type of market. Mrs. Schnabel
asked if they would be open approximately the same hours as Target� and Mr.
Zacitz replied e�cactly the same.
Mrs. Schnabel asked iP they had trucks that xould be doing the shipping to
the other stores� and Mr. Eavitz said they would use a local broker to do it.
w��
Planning Coimnission Meeting - January 19, 19%7 Pege 7
He said they had anywhere Prom Pour trucks a week in the winter to ten
trucks a xeek in the summer, and they didn't have as many trucks as a
normal grocery store would have. He co�ented that loading would be done
in the rear and would be screened. Mrs. Schnabel asked hox many parking
stalls would be required, and Mr. Boardman said that under C-2S it would be
three stalls for every 250 square feet within the actual retail use area,
under the storage area one stall for every 2,000 square £eet was required�
and under the actual bottling area one stall for every 1t00 square feet would
be required. Mrs. Schnabel said she xas concerned about the number o£
parking spaces available since the maximum in a day might be 750 cars,
assuming there was just one customer per car. She said she was srondering
if the 68 car stalls provided srould be adequate. Mr. Boardman said that
the rapid turn-over rate of about four minutes per customer had to be
considered. Mr. Zavitz said that in their experience they found it to be
more than adequate, and it xas to their detriment not to have sufficient
parking. He said that there might be two weekends when the parking wouldn't
be adequate, but 95� of the time it vould be. He added that in the initial
stages xhen they were educating the people about their operation it would
take a little longer, but after that it would take about four mi.nutes. He
said that they employed of£-duty policement during any special promotion.
Mr. Langenfeld asked if they could £oresee ar�y drainage problems� and Mr.
Boardman replied they couldn't. Mr. Langenfeld asked hox many employees
they would have, and Mr. 2avitz replied they would have about six full-time
people in the production area� txo in retail� two i.n accounting and general
management, and approximately ten to fifteen part-time students. He said
that they hired only local people, and the Gener�l Manager would be from
the 1�ain Cities. He added that they tried to keep their work £orce down
to a minimum force oP highly productive people.
Chairperson Harris commented that it seemed he had heard this all before
with Plywood Minnesota, and they vere in a M-2 zone. He asked how they
justified this. Mr. Boardman said he didn't see Pop Shoppes in an industrial
zone� but saw it more as a retail-type operation similar to a bakery. He
said they were not a wholesale operation but a retai.l operation, and had to
rely on a retail market. Mr. Harris asked vhat their justification was on
Plywood Minnesota� and Mr. Boardman replied he didn't ]mow. Mr. Harris
asked about Wickes� and Mr. Boardman said that the largeness o£ that operation
vas probably the reason it was in sn industrial area. He sai.d they had a
very, very large wholesale-retail-storage operation, and just merely the
size of the thing was probably the reason.
Mr. Langenfeld said that as Par as classification for this, he looked at
it as a consumable product and not a finished product, thereby distinguishing
it from heavy manufacturing and so on. Hr. Za*ritz sai.d that as he read the
zoning� his operation related very directly to the dairy type o£ use. He
said that was a£illing operation also, and a heavier manufacturing use than
Pop Shoppes.
Mr. Bergman said he saw the middle position of the type of activity they
were talking about, it being in betxeen the tvo possible zoning categories.
Planning Commission Meeting - Jsnuary 19, 1977 Page 8
He said that he thought of the txo, the Special Use Permit within the co�er-
cisl was the better we�y to go.
Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that under C-1 and C-1S zoning was listed bakeries,
cafes, confectioneries, ice cream and soft drink shopes including the
preparation of food products for retail sales Yrom their sites onl.y. Mr.
Boardman said that eas the reason they xere looking at a Special Use Permit
under G2S.
Chairperson Harris asked where they would go if they needed additonal park-
ing, and Mr. Zavitz said that they had 2.3 acres. Ae said that their
normal site xas one acre� so there would be room to expand parking. He added
that they wouldn't have to be prompted if they needed more.
Mr. I.angenfeld asked hov long they had been in existence, and Mr. Zavitz
replied since M�y of 1969. 1�1r. I,angenfeld asked about the subsidiaries�
and Mr, Zavitz explained that Pop Shoppes Znternational vas oxned by the
Canada Development Corporation which ovned Texas Gul£ and a number of other
companies. He said the company that oxned 20� of Pop Shoppes of America�
which was a subsidiary of P.S.I.� xas a compsny called Finasco which was
the parent of S& W Foods, Progressive Foodei; a tobacco company� Tenderbox
Chain of Smoke Shops, etc. He said they had other subsidiaries and a number
of other trademarks.
Mrs. Shea asked if enerything had been xorked out with F�nbers to their
satisfaction, and Mr. Zavitz replied it had.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Co�ission
receive the letter to Mr. Harris dated January 17, 1977 from Mr. Hyman
Edelman concerning F2rtbers Restaurant, and the accompanying letters marked
as Dchibit A and h7chibit B. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
Mrs. Schnabel noted a re£erence to a pylon sign in the letter to Mr.
Birnberg from Mr. Albergotti dated January 5� 1977 (h7chibit B)� and asked
if Pop Shoppes had a standaxd sign that they used for identification.
Mr. Zavitz replied they did� and sfioxed the Commission pictures of xhat
the sign vould look like. Chairperson Harris asked x�at size the sign
would be, and Mr. 2avitz replied generally the largest allowable. He
said that actually it xas usually a standaad 1t x 6� 21t square £oot sign.
Mrs. Schnabel noted that in the past Target had made a request to raise
their sign, end the request xas turned dotirn, so there may possibly be a
restriction on height. Mr. Harris pointed out that although they could
discuss this as part of the Special Use Permit, any signing done had to
hane a special permit. Mr. Zavitz said he xas familiar with that, and
would work with the sign people and Mr. Boardman on that.
Mr. Bergman commented that administration had apparently gone over these
plans to some extent, and asked if there should be any stipulations £or
the Special Use Permit, such as deali.ng yrith the landscaping. Mr. Boardman
Planning Commission Meeting - Jenuary 19, 1977 Page 9
said they hadn't gone over it in aqy great deal yet� but didn�t think they
would have to stipulate it rith the Special Use Permit.
i
Mrs. Schnabel atated she did have some concern with the traffic flox, and
was thinking more of the very busy times when perhaps the trai'fic from
Target rould cut across the parking lot to the Pop Shoppe. She said there
would be no interaal control of that traffic because the parking lot was
not separated from the readr�y itself. Mr. Albergotti and Mr. Pope shoxed
the Commission a map depicting the relationship betveen the Pop Shoppe
building� the Target building, Hnbers Restaurant and the gas station. They
pointed out a ring road vhich they said xould allow a good flow of traffic. Mr,
Al�esgotti said that at one point they did have curbs in there but when there
xas snox in the parking lot people couldn�t see them and drove over them
and damaged their cars, so they raere taken out. He stated that if they put
them in again they Would also put in landscaping and trees so they would
be visable.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if $3� wes imProved if they would implement a plan
o£ traf£ic control, and Mr. dlbergotti sai.d that xas correct. She then
asked what their intentions were i£ 53� was not improved, and Mr. AlbergotLi
said they xould do something. He explained theie was money in their budget
to do something, and it was just a matter of deciding how the improvement
would be handled. He added that they vere also concerned with the traffic
floW at that i.ntersection, and assured the Co�nission that Target would do
something. Mrs. Schnabel asked if he vas talking about putting some type
of barrier down each row. Mr. Albergotti said they xould be putting up
barriers every so often, but not dom each row. He explained that at the
end of each rov there would be a curb Srith landscaping to delineate that
it was an access road.
Mrs. Schnabel asked iY Dnbers had made any request, or if they anticipated
us�ng another access dorm onto D�yton Hudson property. Mr. Albergotti
sai.d he thought �inbers would like that very much, and they had asked
D�yton Hudson to think in terms of a road connecting the properties. He
pointed out that would make a vhole different situation where people xould
be taking shortcuts through A}nbers, and he personally didn't think it stas
a good idea. Mr. Harris commented that the grade differential vas consider-
able� and asked if there �rould be a retaining wall. Mr. Albergotti said
that xhen the hill xas graded dorm there yrould be a contoured landscaping.
He said there was about 12' of dif£erence, but it xould be a gradual thing.
Mr. Harris thought they might have to use a modified retaining wall.
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Shea, that the Ylanning Co�mnission close
the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit� SP #'76-16,
by Pop Shoppes of America� Ina Upon a.voice vote� all voting aye�
Chairperson Harris declared the Pub13c Hearing closed at 9;10 P.M.
Mrs. Schnabel said she did have some concern on the zoning of this particular
property, and was not sure that light manufacturing would fall under this
definition. However, she said, she didn't necessarily see ar�y other vay
to go on it. Chairperson Harris said he couldn't see an alternative either,
and he thought they uere correct xith a Special Use Permit,
-�,: .
Planning Cotmnission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page 10
Mrs. Schnabel said that aside £rom that� her other concern would be with
the trafPic flow, and she felt fairly comfortable now that it would be
pretty well taken care of. She said her biggest hope was that the State
and the County xould get their act together and get that area improved.
Mrs. Schnabel said she thought the bulk of the traf£ic going into there
vould be pepple going to the Target area to begin rrith� and she didn't
thi.nk Pop Shoppes would generate that much more additional traf£ic in
itself. She added that if the internal traffic system was improved� that
might improve the whole situation itself.
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by I.angen£eld, that the Planning Conunission
recommend to Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit�
SP #76-16, by Pop Shopges o£ America� Inc.: To permit the bottling o£
soft drinks and a retail outlet, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101,
B� (3�0)� on Lot 10� and parts of Lots 11 and 12� Auditor�s Subdivision
No i55, located South of I. 694� West o£ Highw�y No. 65� North of $3rd
Avenue N.E.� and East o£ the Target parking lot� the same being 785 $31d
Avenue N.E.
Mr. Langenfeld suggested the folloving stipulations be included in the
motion: 1) Strict compliance irith the terms of the ground lease regarding
visibility restrictions (as stated in Exhibit B)� 2) Complete study done
on retaining walls� and 3) Reasonable judgement be used as to traffic
patterns in accordance with City Staff recommendations.
Mrs. Schnabel said the only stipulation that she thought necessary xould
be folloving the intent of the letters that were received.. She said that
was not to say the others xeren�t important� but she thought the petitioner
had indicated they intended to do those things in good £aith. Mr. Harris
said he thought the grade change could be handled irith the building permit.
Mrs. Schnabel AMENDED the I�fOTiON to include the stipulation that the intent
oY the letters of agreement betxeen the Dnbers and Dayton Hudson be followed.
Agreeable to Mr. Langenfeld.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting �ye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 9:20 and reconvened the meeting
at 9:35 P.M.
3. CONTINUED: PROPOSID MAINTSNdNCE CODE
Chairperson Harris said he had one ciiticism, and that was his copy was so
bad he couldn't read it and there vere no page numbers. The Commission
agreed they did not have very legible copies.
Mr. Bergman said that he had read a portion o£ this and had arrived at the
feeling that they still weren't in concert as to what the content of the
maintenance code should be. He said he thought they had agreed they xere
� �,: �,
Planning Co�mnission Meeting - January 19, 197% Page 11
going to try to reduce this down by adheri.ng to the maintenance considera-
tions o�11y, rather than construction, and yet whoever vas putting this
together xasn�t following that. For example� he said� there was still a
requirement in there that every room have a xi.ndow.
Mr. Boardman said he didn't feel they had gotten that far. He said that
at the last meeting it hAd been'dtseassed and the Commi.ssion wanted it
broken down into a more clear direction. He stated they had put it into
consistency and related it according to health and safety items; their
efforts had been in the organization of the code for a more proper review.
Mr. Bergman commented that he didn�t see a definition of maintenance in
the proposed code. Chairperson Harris suggested that perhaps they could
start with the introduction and take it section by section to get started
on it someplace. Mr. Bergman said he thought they had agreed on a
definition of maintenance, and he had looked for that de£inition as a
gauge i.n the reviex. Mr. Laggen£eld said he had provided a definition
at one point, The source vas the American Heritage Dictionary� he said,
and the deYinition xas a) The action of continuing carrying on� preserving
or retaining something b) �he vrork of keeping something in pmper condition.
Mr. Ber�nan said he recalled Mr. Langen£eld reading that, and recalled
himsel£ referencing another document xhere maintenance was described as
the care and caretaking of that yrhich exists. He said it would then be
out oP line to say someone had to put a window in a wall because maintenance
means care for xhat already existed rather than build more. Mrs. Shea
noted that the Building Easpector could set that aside� so there was a w�y
out.
Mr. Bergman said he thought a definition of maintenance belonged in the
front of the code� and what follozred should be consistent xith that defin-
f.tmon. Mr. Boardman said he thought it should be in a preamble or the
opening statements.
Mr, I,angenfeld stated that he thought the preaioble was redundant and
suggested eliminating the first sentence to simplify and shorten it.
Chairperson Harris noted that this preamble vas longer than the preamble
to the constitution, and the xhole country vas run by that. Mr. Boardman
said they Ware not only talking about maintenance, but blighted premises
and structures harboring conditions dengerous to the public health,
safety, and general xelfare oF the people. He said they were also saying
that £aulty design or construction, failure to keep them in a proper
state of repair, lack o£ adequabe lighting or ventilation, inability to
properly heat� etc.� were causing this disproportionate amount of expenditure
of public £unds for public health, safety and wel£are. Chairperson Harris
questioned the last statement concerning public iluids� and asked i£ that
was rthat they were really doing. Mr. Boardman said this referred to crime
prevention, fire protection, and things like that. Mr. Harris asked if
there xasn�t a window in somebody's wall� if they would be expending those
iluids. Mr. Boardman stated it xas in the interest o£ public health, and
Planning Cormnission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page 12
xas required in the State Building Code for a reason.
Mr. Be�gman said that then a house m�y exist prior to code (£or example by
x�y of a"grandfather" c�use) that was acceptable from a building code
construction control, but nov they were coming up with a maintenance code
that said it was not acceptable. l�tr. Boardman sai.d what they were saying
was because that structure existed the xay it xas and met code bedause it
was "grandfathered" in, it may be a fire hazard. Since in xas a£ire hazard,
he continued� there should be some repair work done to that so it was no
longer a£ire hazard and there wouldn't be an expenditure of public monies
for the protection of that structure. Mr, Bergman said that meant that
somebody had to decide what was a fire hazard and what xasn't. He stated
that Mr. Boardman xas defining the previous code that existed when that home
was built as alloxing a fire hazard in its design.
Mr. Langenfeld said he felt that Mr. Bergman had good points, but it seemed
to him that in order to use this document they had to £irst go through it
and condense it� and then after that go through it again and hit on those
items that had been brought up. Chairperson Harris suggested skipping the
preamble and moving on to the code� but Mr. Boardman said they should handle
the preamble because it was the basis for the code.
Mrs, Schnab�� asked if it was necessary to have a preamble, and Mr. Boardman
replied that it was necessary to have a statement saying that they ]mew
xhat they were going to talk about. For instance� he sai.d� if bhey were
going to talk about the conditions dangerous to the public health,
safety, and genera7. welfare, they had to Imow what those conditions were
to be taken into consideration.
Mr. Bergman stated he felt they should define what they meant by maintenance,
in other words, the scope of this document. Mr. Boardman coirmiented that
they xould probably have to rei+x�ite the entire preamble as far as the scope
and what they were trying to accomplish with the maintenance. He asked i£
they xere trying to accomplish, vith the maintenance code� elimination oP
conditions dangerous to puhlic health� safety and velfare. Mr. Bergman
replied that i.n that broad of a context he would hace to say no. Mr. Board-
man then asked the purpose of developing a maintenance code, and Chairperson
Harris said it uas to insure the integrity of the residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Bergman added they could accomplish that by putting an acceptable
limitation on the normal deterioration end blight o£ the buildin¢s And
facilities.
Mr. Boardman asked i£ they rrere going to attempt to correct things that
were wrong within the buildings, and cited an example o£ a stairw�y with
no hendrails. He asked if that would be a maintenance item. Mr. Langenfeld
said that in his opinion that would be a safety item. Mr. Boardman asked
if they were going to talk about the safety and general wel£are of the
public, because if eo, that was more than vhat Mr. Langen£eld�s dePinition
of maintenance rtas. Mr. Boardman pointed out that if they went into safety
in one area, they would have to go into it in other areas. Mr. Bergman
asked if there iras any other code that would cover an item such as the
handrails� and Mr. Boardman replied there vas not,
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page 13
Mr. Langenfeld said he didn't mean to sound harsh� but everytime they
started on this code they bounced all over the place. He suggested that
perhaps they could start on page 1 and hear everybody's co�mnents. Mr.
Boardman explained that he xas talking about the preamble and whether
they vanted to just handle maintenance and preclude safety items.
Mr. Langenfeld said that in reference to the preamble� he thought that
perhaps they could eliminate the first 7� lines and pick it up rrhere it
started talking about Fridley only. He coimaented that he definitely felt
that they had more than maintenance actually involved here� and they were
going to end up talking about construction, maintenance, use, snd so on.
He Pelt they should condense the preamble first and then talk about it.
He added that he thought the last portion of the scope xas a bit severe�
and he thought that the purpose was sufficient.
Mr. Bergman commented that it was interesting he had marked his copy
consistent xith xhat Mr. Langen£eld had just said. Mr. Langen£eld gave
the Co�ission a further example by showing them his copy o£ the proposed
code with his comments noted xhere he thought they could omit, simplify�
etc., throughout the rest of the code. Mr. Bergman said he had started
out the same way� and then it occu�d to him that he didn't imow what he
xas doing� and that was when he got back to the definition item. He
asked vhat they were going to address in this document as he found that
in other concerns there xas a health code, safety code� construction code
and maintenance code� snd they xere separate documents and each addressed
different things. He noted that they had a mi�cture here and he didn't
really lmow hov to deal xith that.
Mr. Boardman stated that all the items in the proposed code dealt �rith
construction and housing structure. �He said that there were certain
things in construction that xere safety hazards--not only to the people
who lived there but to the £ire Yighters i£ they were called in.
Mr. Bergman suggested that perhaps they should call it Maintenance� Health
and Sa�ety Code. Mr. Boardman said that perhaps the definition o£ mainten-
ance is where it should be handled under this code, and suggested that
maintenance xas m�intaining the structure for health and safety purposes.
Mr. Bergman said that he didn't see hov they could come up irith a definition
of maintenance that was in conflict srith the generally accepted and under-
stood de£inition of the term. Mr. Boardman read the scope to the Con¢nission
ahd noted that even that dealt vith more than xhat the simple de£inition
of maintenance was. Mr. LangenYeld suggested renaming it Completed
Structures Building Code as he could see where 'hnaintenance° was starting
to throw this into different categories. Chairperson Harris commented
that he thought i£ they did that they would get into trouble with the
State Building Department because they Would see this as an attempt to
circumvent the State Building Code.
Mr. Boardman suggested that they get back to the subject of the preamble�
and Mr. Bergman again suggested defining maintenance. l�irs. Schnabel said
that maybe they should.go on the tact of xh�t the intent of the ordinance
sras� and the intent was to prevent blighted areas from occurring as well
as to protect citizenry in terms o£ health and safety £rom deterioration
Planning Cotmnission Meeting - January 19, 197'] Page ].1�
of dwellings within the city. Mr. Hergman asked Mrs. Schnabel if she would
be iamforta6le with a°Maintenance" title then, and she replied she Would
because she thought that pretty well defined what maintenance sAOUld be.
Mr. Bergman said he couldn't see a maintenance code telling an oxner that
he must now put up a railing on the stairway or a xindox in a xall� consid-
ering that when he had bought the house it had met any code stipulations.
Mrs. Schnabel said that they mi.ght come to those sections in the proposed
code and then delete them i£ they didn't £eel they fell T+ithin what the
intent of the code xas.
Chairperson Harris stated that in his mind, a maintenance code was to
maintain status quo--keep things the xav they vere. Mrs. Schnabel and Mrs.
Shea disagreed xith that definition. Mr. Harris said that rrhat they were
talking about in somear�� xas an upgrading code; upgrading the structure
by adding vindoxs or stairw�y railings� etc. He said that to him mainten-
ance xas keeping the structure the way it was when it xas built. Mrs.
Schnabel said that a structure may have been built such a long time ago
that the construction of it, by today�s stsndards, vas not adequate. Mrs.
Shea said she felt that maintenance xas maintaining a building so it vas
safe and healthy. Mr, Harris said that then that would mean upgrading
it in some areas. Mr. Boardman s�ed that Mrs. Shea was saying that
maintenance xas maintaining a building in a health situation, and to do
that the upgrading may have to happen. Mr. Harris said he felt that xas
more than maintenance. Mr. Langenfeld said he felt the whole intent of
this was to be a Structural Deterioration Preventive Code, and suggested
that as a possible title. He said then they could touch on maintenance,
safety, etc.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, that the Planni.ng Commission
rename the proposed Maintenance Code "Structural Deterioration Preventine
Code".
Mrs. Schnabel asked if he was speaking of all structures vhether they
were comm�rcial, residential� or whatever, and Mr. Langenfeld replied
that the ii�tent o£ the motion referred to dwellings in the "R" districts.
Mr. Langenfeld AMENDED the MOTION to read ^Residential Structural Deter-
ioration Preventive Code", Agreeable to Mrs. Shea.
Mr, Bergman said that he appreciated Mr. Langenfeld�s good intentions,
but he would have to vote against the motion. He felt that "Maintenance"
was the proper and correct title to put on this document and felt they
should adher to that. Mr. Langenfeld co�nented that if they did that,
much of the document would have to be elimin�ted.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� Langenfeld and Shea voting aye; Harris, Bergman and
Schnabel voting nqy� the motion failed 3- 2.
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Schnabel� that the Planning Coimnission
insert in the Preamble and adopt the definition of the term "maintenence"
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 PgBe 15
as applicable to the proposed Maintenance Code as £ollows: a) The action
of continuing carxying on� preserving� or retaining something b) The work
of keeping something in proper condition.
Mr. Bergman read the Preamble to the Co�ission as he suggested it would
read, deleting the xhole first sentence, eliminating "lack of adequate
lighting or ventilation"� and after the xord °City" merely adding the
definition o£ "Maintenance". He said he felt that would be reasonable
content.
Mr. Langen£eld stated he iras in �ull agreement xith striking the £irst
sentence, but couldn't go along with eliminating °lack of adequate lighting
or ventilation" because that xas in the preamble to make the reader aware
that these conditions can and do e�cist. He explained that was just
creating an axareness o£ a situation.
Mr, Boardman said he thought one thing was being left out, and that was
a statement of rrhat they were trying to accomplish. He said that was the
purpose o£ the Preamble, and it should state what they were trying to
do r*ith the code. He explained that the first seven lines were a statement
of £inding� and the Preamble should also state what they xere trying to
declare and what the purpose o£ the ordinance was. Mr. Boardman said that
if they had to go into court r�rith this� they would have to have a solid
statement of reason as to why they were getting into this. Mr. Langen£eld
said that as far as he was concerned� they had that in the last half of
the existing Preamble. Ae added that one of the things that was bad about
ordinances was that they had so many srords they couldn't be interpreted,
Mr. Bergman said that if they were to pursue the motion� some of this
would really be awk�.rard. He asked if lack of maintenance of an existing
building would really necessitate excessive and disproportionate expenditures
of public iluids £or public health� public safety� crime prevention� fire
protection� and othar public services� thereby causing a drain upon public
revenue and impairing the eff3cient and economical exeacise of governmental
functions. Chairperson Harris said he didn�t think they could prove that.
Mr. Boardman said that because of these conditions it may be necessary to
expend more police time. He said that if an entire area was deterioration
and conditons were such that maintenence was in poor condition, more police
time would probably be expended in that area. He sai.d that he was sure a
lot of this xas smitten up under that premise--that more police time vas
spent in areas xhere there vas deterioration and more blight because the
oonditions srere such that they allo�red more criminal activity. He added
that the same may be foand xith the fire department in tt�se areas.
Mr. Ber�nan stated he thought part o£ xhat Mr. Boardman vas saying had
some truth to it, but it was greatly overdone. He said he thought one
thing that was lacking here was a statement to the effect that they xere
concerned about this because blight expands and is Found to be the cause
of additmonal blight.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page 16
Mr. Boardman said they had to have in the Preamble some kind of statement of
finding to ahow xhy they had this code; for instance, for protection of
public safety, health� and welfare, and £or the disproportionate amount
of public Yunds being spent and mqybe even for sesthetic reasons--£or the
up�ading of the �eneral character oY the City.
Mr. Bergman suggested that he change the motion to include the organization
of the �reamble and the general approach used� but to add a de£inition of
"maintenance" as applicable to this document. Mr. Boardman said he thought
the definition of maintenance xould be more appropriate in the Scope than
in the Preamble, and the Coimnission agreed.
Mr. Bergman AMENDID the �4TION to change, rrithin the Preamble, the word
„dangerous" to °detrimental"� and to delete the phrase "lack of adequate
lighting or ventilation". Mrs. Schnabel stated that she couldn't second
that. She eacplained that he had added deleting the phrase "lack o£
adequate lighting or ventilation" after she had seconded the motion the
first time, and she really didn't agree wi.th that.
Mr. Bergman AMII�IDED the MOTION as £olloxs: Th6t the Planning Con¢nission
accept 220.02 Preamble of the proposed Maintenance Code, changing the
Word "dangerous" to "detrimental". Agreeable to Mrs. Schnahel.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting �ve, the moti� carried unanimously.
Mr. Langenfeld said that he vould like to see the Commission continue to
go through the document and make notations, as he had shos+n everyone,
and see vhat they could do on that basis. He added that he felt they had
spent enough time on this for tonight. Mrs. Schnabel suggested that i£
anyone cared to change any of the vording in any way, that they come to
the meeting with their new language r�rritten out so they could perhaps
proceed a little quicker.
Mr. Bergman said he xould like to suggest that they also attack "Scope"�
and Chairperson Harris agreed. Mr. Harris asked if they wanted to incorpor-
ate the maintenance definition in Scope. Mr. Boardmara commented that he
wondered if "maintenance" shouldn't be under De£initions, and noted that
under objectives there was a kind of definition of maintenance. He asked
what the Conm�i.ssion's feelings xere on that. Mr. Bergman said he felt it
was proper to call this a Maintenance Code� and the definition of that
term was really �rkat the Scope xas all about� and that is Khere it should
be. He said that he would suggest further that it could be repeated back
in Definitions, but it was really basic to understanding the Scope.
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Langenfeld� that what is described under
Scope iri the Fridley Residential Maintenance Code be deleted and replaced
srith "The provision of this 0rdinance shall apply uniformly to the mai.ntenance
of existing structures and £acilities, xhere applicable�, Maintenance as
applicabla in this document is defined as Follows: a) The action o£
Planning Conunission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page 17
continuing carrying on, preserving or retaining something b) The work of
keeping something in proper condition. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye�
the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Shea� seconded by Langen£eld� that the Planning Coimnission
continue the Proposed Maintenance Code until the next meeting. Upon a
voice vote� all voting sye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Ber�nan said it was his impression that with that motion as the Scope,
drastic things would happen to this document, mainly in the form of dele-
tions. Mr. Boardman stated that he would have to digest that and would
see what xould happen.
!�. CONTINUfiD: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT GOAI.S AND OBJECTIVES
Mr. Boardman ssid that they had gone through this briefly at the last
meeting and there had been a motion to continue so it could be properly
reviered, and now he xas open for questions.
MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Ber�nan, that under DI�10 the xord "mothers"
be changed to "parents°, and 'kromen and children" be deleted and "all
citizens" added. Upon a voice vote, all voti.ng �e, the motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION by I.angen£eld� seconded by Shea� that under D1i20 the Words •in
order" and °mor� be deleted. Upon a voice vote� all voting �ye� the
motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Schnabel noted the words "rrithin the Metro /lrea" under D51i0, and
asked if it xas the responsibility oY the City oY F�idley to pmmote a
better understanding of minorities xithin the Metro Area. Mr. Boardman
said he xas trying to bring out the responsibility of the City as a
broader unit than just the City itself; it did have a responsibility to
the metropolitan area also as a neighbor. Chairperson Harris asked yrhy
they were limiting it to the metro area� azsd suggested it read "Promote
a better understanding of minorities and encourage programs vhich provide
opportunities for their developanent in society."
MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Shea� that the words "within the Metro .
Area" be deleted from D$l�0. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion
carried unenimously.
MOTION by Isngenfeld� seconded by Shea, that the words "a better" be
deleted from Program Objectives D510, D520, D530 and D5�0. Upon a voice
vote, all voting sye, the motion carried unanimously.
5. CONTINUID: SECURITY GOAIS AND OBJECTIVFS
Mr. I.angenfeld read Goal Statement S100� and said the £irst thing that
came to his mind was� ^how?". He said it just seemed like an impossible
Planning Coimnission Meeting - January 19, 1977
Page 18
statement to make.
"civil rmongs". Mr.
oY the individual".
civil wrongs, etc.
Chairperson Harris said he had trouble �rith the term
Langenfeld suggested�just saying "Assure the security
He said that "secuiity" xould involve criminal acts,
Chairperson Harris said that with the term "civil rrrongs" in that statement
he got the feeling they xould be asked to choose up sides in a neighborhood
disagreement; i.e., kids running through a garden, etc. Mr. Hoardman said
that he fras thinking more in terms of wrongs of the justice system itself.
In other wozds, he said, discrimination against the civil liberties of a
person. He said they would try to £ind a better term, and suggested "civil
injustice". Chairperson Harris suggested that they think about it as he
couldn�t think of anythi.ng offhand. '
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Schnabel, that under 5110 the second
"that" be eliminated; and under S120 the word "national" be changed to
"natural". Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unan-
�unously.
MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Schnabel� that the words "all elements
oP" be deleted under S150. Upon a voice wte, all voting �ve, the motion
carried unanimously.
Mrs. Schnabel commented that she aould like to lmow hox they could get
the justice system to respect the public; she didn't think it was possible.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if there should be an objective Which included inform-
ing the citizenry of safety programs available to them, such as Operation
Identification, etc. She also wondered if something should be written in
that would include the services that were available to people in times of
trouble� such as the Poison Control Center, YES� Suicide Prevention� etc.
Mr. Boardman read Program Objective 5130 to the Cormnission, and said that
he thought they rrere talking about that type of thing in there. He added
that information on that type of thing xould be included under Policy
Development rather than Objective.
Mr. Boardman pointed out that on page 23, the Program Objective should be
5210 instead oY 5200.
Mr. Langenfeld said that regarding page 21�, he would like to Imow how
security got invo7.ved with environment. Mr. Boardman said it meant securing
the environment £or the residents.
Mr. Langenfeld read Program Objective S330� and said he would like to see
"and eliminate" deleted. Mr. Ber�nan suggested it read "Eliminate or
control...".
MOTION by Langenfeld that the words "and eliminate" be deleted from 5330.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Bergman said that he would like to comment on Goal Statement 5300,
which said "Assure the conservation and improvement of the envirorunent..."
He said he didn't imow how improvement could be assured, even as a goal.
��..:; .
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19� 1977 Page 19
He added that he would think that assuring the conservation xas more what
they were talking about. Mr. Bosrdman stated that it was the con�inuation
of the conservation that exists� plus improvement on the existing situation.
He said that could be assured through evaluating problems o£ air, water
and noise control policies� pollution abatement policies, renewable and non-
renexable resources and preservation o£ natural habitats. Chairperson
Harris asked if Program Objective S311t, Preservation of natural habitats,
would eliminate construction. Mr. Boardman said it would not as it didn't
sqy "all" natural habitats.
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Langenfeld, that Program Objective s33o
be changed to read "Eliminate or control disease-carrying pests, noxious
weeds and harmful insects". Upon a voice vote, all voting sye� the motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Langenfeld read SIy�D to the Coimnission, and said to him that just meant
getting the victims to the hospital as quickly as possible. Mr. Boardman
said they rrere referring to a natural disaster and the control and policing
bf the area so the victims could get back to their everyday, normal life
pattern as quickly as possible. In other words, he said, a clean up and
that type of thing after a tornado.
Mrs. Schnabel said she didn't understand the term "activities". Mr. $oardman
said this meant the normal functional activities o£ the city in general�
such as businesses returning to a normal pattern o£ activities. Mr. $ergman
said he xould have thought tvo dif£erent words xould have been used: instead
of "victims", use "casualties"; and instead of "activities", use "facilities".
Mr. Boardman suggested eliminating "victims end activities" and substituting
°conditions".
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman, that Program Objective S1�30 read
as follows: Help £acilitate the return of conditions to a suitable
productive state as quickly as possible.. Upon a voice vote, all voting
�ye� the motion carrie�3unanimously.
6. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 11, 1977
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld� that the Planning Commission
receive the Appeals Co�oission minutes of January 11� 1977.
Mr. Langenfe�d noted that the Appeals Commission xas still going after the
economic feasibility versus hardship question as well as the devaluation
problem. He commented that he hoped they got some help soon. Mrs. Schnabel
said she had received no response yet.
Mrs. Schnabel brought to the Commission's attention the second to last
paragraph on page 6 0£ the Appeals Commission minutes. She said she was
amused tonight to see that Pop Shoppes had a xhole book of signs, and the
man had said they wuld pick the largest one they could. She stated that
was exactly xhat Mrs. Gabel had discovered� and they should be aware o£
this.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page 20
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unenimously.
MOTION by Langen£eld that the second to last paragraph on page 6 of the
Appeals Commission minutes be included in the Planning Corrunission minutes
of January 19th so the word could get around and a few more people could
be informed o£ the findings of the Sign Ordinance Committee.
Mre. Schnabel commented that the City Council should be reading the
Appeals Connnission minutes anyway, as they went directly to Council.
Mr. Langenfeld WITHDREW THE MOTION.
7. RECEIVE HUMAN RFSOURCES CAI�4ffSSI0N MINUTES: JANUARY 6, 197%
MOTION by Langenfeld,_secarided:bg Shea� that the Planning Commission
receive the Human Resources Cominission mi.nutes o£ January 6, 1977.
Upon a voice vote, all voting sye� the motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Schnabel said she xould like to coirmient that she felt it was a
shame that the Planning Commission didn't receive these minutes until
the night o£ their meeting as they didn�t have the time to go through
them. She noted that these minutes were taken January 6 and weren't
included in the packet� yet the Appeals Commission minutes vere taken
January llth and were included. She said she realized the secretary
had a tremendous amount of minutes to go through in this case, but
thought it was unfortunate they didn�t have the opportunity to read them
all the way through because she felt there xas probably a lot of interest-
ing material in them. Mrs. Shea said that she had requested that these
minutes xait until the next meeting so they could be included in the
booklet.
Mr. Langen£eld commented that the same thing happened almost all the
time with Fhvironmental Quality Control mi.nutes. He said that when
something like that happened� it was his assumption that the Chairperson
would indicate any highlights.
8. RECEIVE COMMIJNITY DEVEI,OPMENT CONAffSSION MaIUT�: JANUARY 11, 1977
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission
receive the Community Development Commission minutes of January 11, 1977.
Upon a voice vote, all noting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Bergman said that in their meeting xith the Bikew�v/Walkway Committee
they disgassed many things� and on page 6 identified items o£ concern or
consideration.
MOTION by Bergmart� seconded by Langgs£eld� that the Planning Commission
pass on to Council the following concerns that xere raised during the
Bikeway/Walkway Implementation:
Plsnning Commission Meeting - January 19� 1977 Page 21
1. The suggestion to identifjr a selected advertised bike day.
2. To reviefr the route and intersection problem at Highxay 65 and
53rd Avenue.
3. The concern for other major intersectional crossings.
!�. The suggested widening of sidewalk where bikexay joins same.
5. Commission unanimity against state licensing.
6. Request £or directional armzrs on bike routes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Bergman said he had come to this meeting intending to malce a motion
to get secretarial help £or the Sign Ordinance Co�mnittee, but he saw that
had already been taken care of,
OTHE�t HUSINESS:
Mr. Boardman brought the Commission up to date on xhat had happened with
the fiast River Road Project Committee. He said that on October 6th the
Planning Cotrmiission sent down to the member Commissions the Parkway
Development Plan; on November l�th Human Resources acted, on November 9th
Community Developanent acted, and on November 15th Parks and Reoreation
acted. He stated there had been no action taken by the Planning Commission
on those responses, and suggested that they respond at the next meeting.
Mr. Boardman informed the Commission that concer6ing the "baby" for
the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Prograzns, Bob Hughes had attended that
City Council meeting and said they did not need that for the �idley
Fire Department. Chairperson Harris said he had talked to Mr. Hughes
about a veek ago and £ound that thaiproblem xas they did not have the
electronic recorder £or the "baby". They needed the recorder� he said�
to tell Dhem if the resuscitation was being done correctly to sustain
human life� and that particular piece of equipment cost about $900 to
$1,ID00. Mr. Harris stated that he thought this program was of utmost
importence, and this vas where the City should provide a service. He
said that if it cost $1,�00 Yor a recorder, he thought that was what
they ought to have.
MOTION by Langen£eld� seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Coir�ission
recomnend to Council the purchase of the electronic recavder to be used
for the education o£ the citizens o£ Fridley. Upon a voice vote� all
voting qye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Boardman said concerni.ng the request made by the Planning Commission
for recornmendations from City Staff on the intersection of 53rd and
Central Avenue, they had two recommendations. He sho�red them to the
Commission and eacplained the differences. Chairperson Harris asked how
much lend they z.rould have to take to accomplish this, and Mr. Boardman
replied it would be a strip about 200� long by 66". He added that they
were talking in terms of a project cost of around $10�000 -$12,000� and
. _ � ,..
Planning Co�mnission Meeting - January 19, 1977
Page 22
that was for the actual construction. He said that if they had to acquire
the property it would be the acquisition on top of that. Chairperson
Harris commented that it would certainly improve things, and asked that
this be put on the agenda for the neact meeting vith all the pertinent
inPormation included.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langen£eld, that the Planning Commission
continue the discussion of the proposed improvement at the intereection of
53rd and Central Avenue until the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Lengenfeld, seconded by Bergiaan, that the meeting be adjourned.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the
Planni.ng Coimnission meeting o£ January 19� 1977 �journed at 12:00 A.M.
Respectflilly sutunitted,
/�)7 /%
B/Tl7i / ( % Ms011i
Sherri 0'➢onnell
Recoxding Secretary
�
� �: �
���� _ _ ����
- - _--�,. - _
_ ___ _ _��/9 /y�7 . _
_ _ ��-' f� _ �: �
�� �`?%-� �
<-✓1.t�1 ��/ �����C�°-O,�/'l S7�G�Yl/ .(�(��itJ 1��a���1 E�S
�G� �� � Z A � r r Z_ /t �'/ :��t�1��t,o o�,G�C.�t � Q�iG.
�1/h�%.3�/1 �%Q, r T�raus�r�v��rso� a� J`�7` ou/ Ca_
_
� �. �6 .� �a � � Pl ���°l�L� •
�p�n/ / !�t A r v� y � .�7�� �UYiy�?e��
('G �/ 1
�� ,
__ _ -- �.=
, ' _'-`�,..
�
1
�