Loading...
PL 06/18/1980 - 6683PLANNING COt4MISSION MEETING City of Fridley ' • AGENDA W[DNESDAY, JUNE 78, 1980 CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL• APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: JUNE 4, 1980 APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSTON MINUTES: SPECIAL MEETING, �UNE 9, 19II0 7:30 P.M. PA6ES 1 - 14 1 - 5 1. PU[3LIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP �80-05 BY 20 - 26 REYNOLD E. S4lANSON: Extension of a Special Use Permit to continue as a mobile home sales lot, on the 4lest 375 feet of Lot 3, A.S. #89, subject to street and utility easement over the West 40 feet, per Section 205.101, 3, N, of the Fridley City Code, the same being , 7151 Highway �65 N.E. 2. RECEIVE ENERGY COMMISSI�N MINUTES: MAY 27, 198Q ORCHID 3. RECEIVE COMI�SUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMhiISSION MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1980 PINK 4. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: JUNf_ 10, 1980 YELLOW 5. CONTINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 205. ZONING OR�INANCE SEPARATE � 6. OTHER f3U5INESS: � � ADJOURWMENT: � _'i�'". e City of Fridley AGENDA —� "- � PLANNING COP4�IISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1980 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: . ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUT�S: JUNE 4, 1980 APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: SPECIAL MEETING, JUNE 9, 1980 -�`"_ 1. PUBLIC HEARING• REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #8U-u5 �r REYNOLD E. SWANSON: Extension of a Special Use Permit to continue as a mobile home sales lot, on the West 375 feet of Lot 3, A.S. #89, subject to street and utility easement over the West 40 feet, per Section 205.101, 3, N, of the Fridley City Code, the same being 7151 Highway #65 N.E. 2. RECEIVE ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 27, 1480 3. RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1980 4. RECEIVE APPEkLS COMMISSION MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1980 5. CONTINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 205. ZONIN6 ORDINANCE 6. OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURNMENT: c CITY OI' FRIDLEX PLANNTNG CO2�IISSION MEETING, JUNE 4; 1980 CAZL TO ORDii: Chairman Harris called the June 4, 1980, Planning Co�ission meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. Harris, Mr. Treuenfels,.Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Langenfeld, Ms. Hughes, Mr. Wharton, Mr. Oquist (arx. 7:30 p.m.) Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Jackie Judlicki, Administr.ator, Fridley Convalescent Center Charles E, Johanson, 424 Rice Creek Blvd. Lloyd Larson, 7549 Lyric Lane James Summers, 7553 Lyric Lane Bruce Barsness, 7589 Lyric Lane Edna Barsness, 7589 Lyric Lane ' Elsie Nielsen, 7583 Lyric Lane Jerome W. Buhn, 7573 Lyric Lane LaRue Buhn, 7573 Lyric Lane Janice Carroll, 7567 Lyric Lane Dwight K. Beglau, 7553 Lyric Lane • Mr. & Mrs. Julian Boydo, 7593 Lyric Lane xIr. McKabow, 7593 Lyric Lane APPROVAL OF MAY 21, 1980, FLANf7ING CONA2ISSION MINUTES: MOTION uy Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to approve the May 21, 1980, Planning Commission minutes as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. 1. RECEIVE PfAY 13 1980 COMM[JNITY DEl7ELOPMENT COMhffSSION MINUTES: MpTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to receive the May 13, 1980, Community Development Coummission minutes. Mr. Langenfeld stated that on page 4 of the minutes, regarding Ms. Modig's concern that the letter City Council sent Co MPCA supporting a noise regulation such as NPC-5 did not reflect whaC was intended in the Planning Commission's motion, Mr. Flora had suggested that the Planning Commission write up a sample letter of transmittal for the City Council's signature and approval to avoid misunderstandings. Ms. Schnabel staCed that before a letter is written, perhaps Mr. Flora, if he Was the one responsiUle for writing the letter, should check with the appro- priate staff people involved to get all the pertinent details that should go into the letter. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1980 PAGE 2 Mr. Treuenfels asked Mr. Boardman if he would obtain a copy of the letter written by the City Council with reference to this subject. Mr. Boardman stated he would try to get a copy of this letter for the Planning Commission members. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIIQG AYE, CEiAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; 2. RECEIVE MAY 14 1980, PARKS & RECREATIOP COMMISSION MINUTES: t�TiON by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to receive the May 14, 1980, Parks & Recreation Cou�ission minutes. Ms. Hughes stated she wanted to point out that the Parks & Recreation Commission did give preliminary approval to $117,599 in Proposed Capital Outlay for 1981. The Co�ission will take final action at their June llth meeting. Ms. Hughes stated that on page 12, there was a motion to reco�end approval of a test tournament by Bob's Produce softball team. In the vote in the third paragraph, it should be changed to read, "Chairperson Hughes declared the motion failed because of a tie.!' She stated this item was talcen to the City Council on Monday, May 19, and the City Council approved that particular tournament"on a test basis without setting any kind of precedent. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTZNG AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. RECEIVE MAY 20 1980 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COf�SISSION MiNOTES: MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr, 1Yeuenfels, to receive the May 20, 1980, Environmental Quality Go�ission minutes. Mr. Langenfeld stated that the Environmental Quality Co�ission was going to become involved again with the noise ordinance. They will probably get involved 3n clean-ups. They also talked a little about the feasibility of using cahle TV to discuss some of these items. Mr. Langenfeld stated that an article by Charles Weaver, Metropolitan Council Chairperson, regarding the Anoka County Airport was included for the Planning Commission's informaEion. Ae stated he was very displeased with that article UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE MAY 27, 1980, APPEALS COI4IISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Ms. Hughes, to receive the May 27, 1980, Appeals Commission minutes. . ..�., PLANNZNG CONA'CCSSION MEETING JUNE 4 1980 PAGE 3 Ms. Schnabel stated that on the request for a variance at 5750 Main Street on pages 1-3, it should be noted to the City Council that the drainage aituation was a real concern Co the neighborhood. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTZNG AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: 5. PIJBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP 4k80-04, FRIDLEY CONVALESCENT HOME: Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, 3, F, to allow an entrance from Lyric Lane because of expansion of the nursing _ home, to add clerical, office and classroom-meeting space, located on Lot 1, Block 1, Maple Manor Addit3on, the same being 7590 Lyric Zane N,E., Fridley, Minnesota. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Langen£eld, to open the public hearing on SP �80-04 by the Fridley Convalescent Home. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the public hearing open at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Boardman stated that he would give a little background on this item. When the nursing home was progosed on this site in 1968, the Planning Commission and City Council recommended a special use permit with the determination that there be no access off Lyric Lane. The reason this has come back to the Planning Commission for a special use heaxing is because what is being proposed is something that was suggested not take place in the original special use permit. This special use permit request is for a modification of that recommen- dation or stipulation on the 1968 special use permit approval. The Fridley Convalescent Home is proposing an addition to the office administration area with an access road coming in to the parking area that goes past the front of the building as a drop-off point. This access road would be a one-way in off of Lyric Lane. This is in violation of the original special use permit. Mr. Boardman stated that Staff has several problems with this, primarily access problems. If this is approved for any reason, Staff feels this drive, instead of coming in at an angle onto Lyric Lane, should be dropped back a little bit more and brought more out on a right angle onto Lyric Lane. Regard- less of whether or not the driveway is approved, Staff feels that additional plantings and screening should be put around the parking lot to screen it from the residential neighborhood. Ms. Schnabel asked if Staff had any other alteYnatives to recommend. Mr. Boardman stated the only other alternative without access to Lyric Lane would be a roadway that would completely circle the building. He did not know if that was the best alternative, because there are residences all along there. Mr. Johanson stated he was sitting on the Planning Coam�ission 15-17 years ago, and he was the one who made the motion not to allow access ont•o Lyric Lane, However, at that time, the area was being zoned for apartments, and now it is a nursing home. He stated there is a real need for the access, and parking PLANNING COP�iCSSION MEETING, 3UNE 4, 1980 PAGE 4 is a real problem. He stated they could be very proud of the parents and relatives who visit the older people in the nursing home and getting in and out of the nursing home is very hard. At this time, they cannot drive up to the ' front door, They have to drive to the back of the building and walk around to the front door. Mr. Johanson stated there really is no outside recreation area for the residents, and te could not see where this would hurt the neighbors on the other side. He felt they haae done a good job with screening, and what they have done in pratecting the neighbors should speak quite well. Ms. Schnabel stated she had read all the minutes and in£ormation attached to the agenda, and she could find no reference where it specifically stated that there shall be no access off Lyric Lane. Ms. Hughes stated that on page 19 of the agenda (Regular Council meeting of Ocb. 21, 1968, page 24), there is a motion made by Councilman Samuelson to "concur with the Board of Appeals with the exception that the egress and exit should be on Madison St. and upon submitting more complete plans showing just what land was involved". She thought that sounded like a stipulation. She wondered if the Planning Commission couldn`t proceed on the basis that there was such a stipulation. Did Mr. Johanson agree there was a stipulation of no egress onto Lyric Lane? Mr. Johanson stated he did remember the stinulation, but did not remember the dates. Mr. Harris asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak to the item. Mr. Buhn, 7573 Lyric Lane, stated he thought he was at the meetings when that stipulation was made that there be no egress onto Lyric Lane. He didn't think the traffic has decreased any on Lyric Lane and felt that a driveway into the nursing home would only increase the traffic. He was in complete agreement with the nursing home wanting a nice area outside for the residents, but why clutter it up with a driveway? Mr. Johanson stated that Co put in a circ2e driveway, they would have to come in off Madison and go all around the building. They would like to be able to have some of the people come in off Lyric Lane, discharge a resident at the front door, drive to the parking lot, and exit onto Madison. They are having very heavy traffic access on Madison because of Unity Hospital and the doctors' parking lot. Because of the nursing home's small parking lot, a lot of people are parking on the street and in the hospital parking lot in order to visit parents or friends. He really did not believe the access onto Lyric Lane would increase traffic on Lyric Lane. Ms. Nielsen, 7583 Lyric Lane, sEated she lives almost across the street from the proposed driveway, Right now they have more traffic than they can bear. Unity Hospital has an entrance onto Lyric Lane which is supposedly an employees' parking lot, and that traffic is heavy during the changes in shifts. She �� PLANNING COt�ffSSION MEETING JUHE 4 1980 PAGE 5 atated that their children all walk to schooL as there is no bus service on the area from Madison to Jackson on Lyric Lane. The children have Co walk in the street because there are no side�valks until they get to Osborne. Her main concern was the children, and she would hate to see a child hiC by a car because of that driveway into the nursing home. Mr. Langenfeld asked how Ms. Nielsen felt the traffic would actually increase. He had the impression from what he had already heard that the traffic already existed, and this access would not necessarily incYease the traffic. Ms. Nielsen stated that right now the heaviest traffic occurs during the changes in shifts at the hospital. It was her feeling that by putting in a driveway to the nursing home, there would be �isitors coming and going all day long.and it would increase the traffic. The employees would also use that entrance. Mr. Buhn stated that a good portion of the traffic now going off Madison that drops off people at the nursing hame and the nursing hame employees would start coming in through the driveway on Lyric Lane. He asked if it was possible to change the entrance to the nursing home as long as they would be remodeling and continue to use Diadison as the main entrance? Mr. Johanson stated it was not possible to rearrange administration, plus the fact that there was a setback needed f:om Madison. The setback from Lyric Lane still meets city code, He stated there is no basement under a good share of the building, and the building was not really built to increase the size of it. By adding on to the front, they don't have to depend on the other utilities in the nursing home and can build on for less money. He stated the nursing home really cannot afford even this. The State sets the rate they can charge for a patient and the nursing home has to live within that budget. Mr. Su�ers, 7553 Lyric Lane, stated he has lived on Lyric Lane since 1968 and watched the nursing home being built. He stated the nursing home does not use the front door at all. As he has observed, the traffic for the people _ ___ _ coming to the nursing home comes off Osborne, goes down Madison into the nursing home parking lot, and leaves on Madison. This new proposed driveway would increase the traffic in front of their homes. He was also concerned about the children caho have to walk. Ms, Judlicki stated, that as Mr, Suvm�ers has stated, most of the traffic does come off Osborne Road. She stated the only people using the Lyric Lane access would be relatives of residents in order to drop the residents off at a central location. Right now all Che residents have to c wie through the west entrance. That means all the traffic is coming through the living quarters of the residents which makes privacy almost impossible. The new driveway would take the traffic to the main area of the nursing home. The employees and staff would continue to use the parking lot off Piadison. Mx. Langenfeld asked Ms. Judlicki approximately how many people she felt would be dropped off at the main entrance in a day.- PLANNLNG COF4ffSSI0N MEETING JUNE 4 1980 PAGE 6 Ms. Judlicki stated it would be 4-5 residents at the most, This access would also be easier for ouYings when they hire a bus or a van, because it would be easier for the residents to get on and off a bus. Mr. Barsness,7589 Lyric Lane, stated he was concerned about the traffic. They, would like to think of Lyric Lane as a residential street, and now 3t was in danger of being a too heavily traveled street. He stated k�e also had a second concern not yet mentioned and that was the fact that directly east of the nursittg home is a large apastment complex. The apartment complex has a parking lot running north and south with one entrance onto Osbome. He did nct live in the neighborhood at the time the complex was built, but he under- stood that the apartment complex also came before the Planning Commission to have an access onto Lyric Lane, and that access was denied. He stated there are still a number of cars who use Lyric Lane to get to the apartment complex parking Iot anyway. He stated they do not want to deny anything to the elderly, but if an access is allowed onto Lyric Lane for the nursing home, it would be pretty hard to deny the easement for the people in the apartment complex. The neighborhood definitely does not want an easement for the apartment c�plex, Ms, Hughes stated that if there was a front entrance, was it the intention of the nursing home to close off the west entrance? Ms. Judlicki stated theg would not close that entrance because of the employees and other people who regularly use it now. Ms, Schnabel stated she was not totally convinced that putting this driveway in was going to increase the traffic that much. As she saw it, the driveway would be used on two occasions. One would be for dropping off the handicapped oY elderly person at the front door, and the other would be in inclement weather when there are several passengers in a car and those passengers are dropped off ab the front door. Othenrise, if she were a visitor who had a relative in the nursing home, she wo�2d not use the front entrance at a12, but would always take Madison, park in the lot, and walk to the easiest or closest entrance. From a practical standpoint, she could not see how this proposal would increase the traffic that much over what currently existed. From what she has heard so £ar, the traffic is really related to hospital traffic or possible apartment traffic. Mr. Harris asked how many residents are intiie nursing home. Ms. Sudlicki stated there are 129 nursing home residents. Ms. Hughes,asked Ms, Judlicki what happens to the people visiting the residents who are handicapped. Ms. Judlicki stated they are dropped off at the west entrance. They have a handicapped parking slot by the west entrance, but it is on a slope so it is very difficult for a person handicapped in any way. Ms. Hughes stated that with the driveway being one-way to the west, this would require anyone using the driveway to make a left turn off Madison and a left turn o£f Lyric Lane unless the traffic was coming from the east on Lyric Lane. This could be a dangerous traffic situation if there are people atacked up to turn left. She was also concerned about whether school buses or vans could make that turn easily. ._ . . ._. .. _ .__ .... ._ ,. . . . . . ....��1.'. PLANNING COMhffSSION MEETING JiJNE 4, 1980 PAGE 7 Ms, Nielsen stated there was also the problem in the wintertime when the snow is piled up, This would make visibility very difficult and could be an even greater danger to the children. Mr. Buhn stated that Mr. Johanson had said that the reason for enlarging the nursing home parking lot and getting more parking at Unity is because they can't handle the amount of cars they have now. That has to be proof that the neighborhood is going to be subject to mose traffic than it has now. Ms. Carroll, 7567 Lyric Lane, stated she lives practically across the street from the nursing home. Aer children walk to school, play and ride bikes in the street, and she is concerned about the traffic. Mr. Johanson stated that rather than do anything to upset the neighbors across the street, they would rather do nothing, He has been on the Hospital Board since the day the City put him on the North.Suburban Hospital District. They have worked with the people on Lyric Lane and have planted trees and done everything to keep good relations with the neighbors and would like it to stay that way. He was concerned about the children a1so, buC he could see a real benefit to Che older people living in the nursing home to have that entrance. That entrance would be very little used. Ms. Barsness, 7589 Lyric Lane, stated she was also concerned about the Eraffic and the children walking. She works at Unil'�> and walks to work. It is especially dangerous in the wintertime. She is opposed to the access off Lyric Lane. - � Mr. Oquist stated that the concern expre�sed by Mr. Barsness was something the Planning Coum�ission should discuss, and that was regarding the apartment buiLding complex, If they allow the entrance for the nursing home, they would have to consider the apartment complex also. Mr. Tr�uenfels asked anyone in the audience to answer a question and that was how much they would estimate the traffic to increase if this particular drive- way ofi Lyric Lane was put in? Ms. Nielsen stated that, after the nursing home addition, she would estimate an increase of 50 or more cars in a 24 hr. day. Mr. Suc�miers.stated he agreed with that figure and further stated that most of those cars would probably come off Madison, make a left-hand turn onto Lyric Lane, and a left hand turn into the nursing home driveway, which would put traffic across the westbound traffic that is coming down Lyric Lane right now, The co�ent was made that this would be a one-way entrance, but he felt that even though you put up signs, people are going to go both directions. Mr. Harris asked where the deliveries are made now. Mr. Johanson stated that a11 deliveries come to Che rear of the building. All mail deliveries come to the west entrance. _-,��, PLANNlNG COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 4 2980 PAGE 8 Mr. Summers stated that most of the neighbors have expressed their opinions that they are concerned ab wt the traffic. They do not look forward to seeing a driveway added and not one of them is in favor of the driveway. Mr. Johanson had already stated that if this was not agreeable to the neighbor- hood, he would gn along with that. Mr, Johanson stated that, yes, they probably would; however, if they spend money to go around the back, they will not have the money to spend on the land- scaping they had planned, They are trying to do the nicest thing foY everyone. Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Johanson that if the driveway was not agreed upon, how great a hardship would it be for xhe nursing home? Mr, Sohanson stated they have been planning this for close to a year, and they would probably try to come up with an alternative p1an. They feel there is a rea2 need for the expans{on. Ms. Hughes asked about the Hospital Board for the nursing hame that Mr, Johanson had talked aboat. Mr, Johanson stated the Hospital goard con§ists of three members who run the nursing home. They are Betty Wall of the North Suburban Hospital District, Dean Tollefson of the First Nat�onal Bank in Blaine, and himself. MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr.Langenfeld, to close the public hearing on SP �80-04 by the Fridley Convalescent Home. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the public hearing closed at 9:07 g.m. Ms. Hughes asked if there was enough access to the building for fire emergencies. Mr, Boardman stated that fire access is made primarily from the street, and there is no problem with that. the Mr. Yer Fridley Cit ic Lane because of and classroom-meet ile Manor Addition, the s • the following reasons; __1.. There appears to b ,.__ . presented by the p 2. There are some pot in terms of a traf tioners. Permit, SP 9P80 de, Section 20 ansion of the space, located 90 Lyric Lane '. lming need fox ems with the o. ecause of a le t might be set for other access onto Lvric Lane. �end to City Council by the Fridley 1, 3, F, to a11ow an ing home, to add Lot 1, Block 1, , Fridley, Minnesota, access as PLANNiNG COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 4, 1980 PAGE 9 Ms. Hughes stated ehat it appeared to her that the parking lot that is being considered to be added only encourages the use of the west entrance in the back. If they really want to encourage use of the front door, they should consider using the large area to the east in some kind of a parking lot that would include a driveway turn-around. The concerns of a disturbance to the nursing home residents by havin� a drive close to them can easily be accommo- dated on that lot by moving the parking lot away from the residents and having a large grassy area between the building and the parking lot. They could still have the drop-off by having a one-way drive that comes in close to Lyric Lane. This should all be considered by the traffic people. _F, Mr. Langenfeld stated it was his opinion that the traffic was definitely a problem. The petitioner has stated he may consider an alternative method. At this point in time, he could see the feasibility of such a drop-off for the residents; however, he was inclined to go with the motion to deny entrance off Lyric Lane. Mr. Treuenfels stated that one of the reasons for denial in the motion was the possible precedent they would be setting fror other driveways onto Lyric Lane. He would like more information on what they would be geCting into with some- thing like this. Mr. Boardman stated that the reason this driveway petition was brought to the Planning Co�i.ssion was because of some questions in the original special use permit as to whether a driveway would or would not 6e allowed to Lyric Lane. In reviewing the previous minutes and information, Staif fel't this would require an amendment to the special use permit apgroved at that time. That is why it is before the Planning Commission. He stated that anyone has the right to have access onto a street. If the apartment building wants access to Lyric Lane, the Staff would most likely say "no" to that access. There is nothing in the city codes that can stop that access. It is primarily an administrative judgment, and if the apartment building disagreed with that judgment, then they can appeal the staff judgment. Mr. Harris referred to page 15 of the agenda (Minutes o£ the Board of Appeals, Nov. 6, 1968) noting the second stipulation in a motion made by himself: "The new plot plan is agreeable with egress on Madison St." It was the Board of Appeals feeling at that time, and he has not seen any reason to change that feeling in the past 12-13 years, that they wanted accesses to the project off Madison St. because they felt any turning on Lyric Lane would present a safety hazard. That was the reasoning for the "no egress" for the apartment building and the nursing home. Under the present proposal, it was his opinion that the turning from either direction would create a traffic hazard with the amount of traffic already on Lyric Lane. It was the Board of'Appeals feeling, and was still his opinion, that they wanted to see uninterrupted traffic flow down Lyric Lane. Mr. Boardman stated he had a question which dealt with the code requirements on setback of parking as compared to setback of driveway. In a driveway situation, there is no setback from the right-of-way, primarily because that driveway has access/egress oif the street and therefore alTows a driveway to go to the property 1ine. When they run into problems is when a driveway PLAh'NING COt�LCSSION MEETING JUNE 4 I980 PAGE 10 becomes part of a parking lot and there are no accesses off to the street. Therefore, they look at it as a setback of 20 ft. from the property line. If this driveway is not accessed off onto Lyric Lane, then would the Planning Coo¢nission view it still as a driveway or a driveway as part of a parking lot and therefore have to meet the 20 ft. setback requirement? If it has to meet a 20 ft, setback requirement, then it cannot Ue located in the front yard without a variance. He posed this question for the Planning Co�ission's consideration, because the Planning Commission may or may not have to act on it at sometime itt the futuze. � Ms. Schnahel stated that in thinking about the motion, she had decided she would vote against the motion for the following reasons: 1. She did not think the circumstances of the handicapped have been truly addressed in trying to decide how these people are going to be easily picked up and dropped off at the nursing home, specifically if the entrance is not permitted. The petitioners have indicated they are having difficulty currently with their handicapped people trying to get them in and out, and she did not think they have really addressed the needs of those residents of our city. She has had quite a bit of experience recently with nursing home patients and can relate to the problems these people are experiencing in trying to provide a11 services to their residents. She found the best argument against the driveway was the argument of additional deliveries, the mail, United Parcel Service, etc. She agreed with that concern, but perhaps those issues could be solved by specifically delineating special areas for package deliveries, other than mail. 2. In talking about putting one driveway on that side of the street, they fail to realize that across the street each one of the people in the audience represents a driveway that does come out on Lyric Lane, maybe another ten driveways coming out on that side of Lyric Lane, with the same situations existing--that there are children walking in the street, there is traffic, and the many other things brought up at the meeting. Because of that, she felt it was hard to find a real reason not to provide the access to the nursing home via only one driveway. She could not, in good conscience, deny the nursing home thati easy access. Mr. Wharton stated he agreed with Ms. Schnabel and would also vote against the motion. He felt L-his driveway off Lyric Lane is a very prudent driveway. He felt the petitioners have shown a need and he has not been convinced during the meeting that the traffic is going to increase on Lyric Lane to any degree over what residences on the nursing home side of the street would have or what he has on the other side of his street by having residents who back their cars out of the driveways, Children run a much greater risk by having neighbors across the street with driveways into each home than he felt the residents along Lyric Lane would have with one driveway across from them going into the property only, PLANNiNG COi�LCSSION MEETING 3UtdE 4 1980 PAGE 11 Mr. Wharton stated that the idea of a driveway going over to the east end of the property with a cul-de-sac or parking lot is not going to be a convenience, because cars out of necessity coould be going east, discharging their passengers on the south side of the driveway. The passengers would have to walk across the driveway to get into the building, or else Che car would have to proceed to the cul-de-sac to turn around and come back west to discharge the passenger. This could be more of a hazard than a benefit. Mr. Oquist stated he did not think the question had 6een answered about the precedent setting regarding the possibility of the apartment complex wanting access onto Lyric Lane. Mr. Iiarris stated that from a practical standpoint, he felt if they start allowing accesses, they will be setting a precedent. Staff can say "no", but the apartment people sti11 have the right to come in and ask for a variance or mitigation of the circumstances. Ms. Schnabel stated she disagreed with that. IC was a completely different situation with a whole different set of hardships. The apartment complex would, in effect, be creating a whole new street from Lyric Lane to Oshorne, which would be a completely different situation from that of the nursing home. Mr. Boardman agreed with Ms. Schnabel. Ae stated there are two completely different situations with two different prncedures--a variance procedure requires proof of a hardship, whereas, under a special use permit, no hard�hip is reqcired. ' Mr. Langenfeld stated this was a very dif£icult thing to make a decision on. He was very much aware of the needs of the handicapped people by nature of his profession. It was his hope that some alternative decision might be made that would meet the needs of the citizens as well as the handicapped and the nursing home. Ms. Rughes stated she works with handicapped p ersons every day and is we11 acquainted with some of the problems they have in gaining access to buildings. She did not think any of the considerations suggested in the motion were an imposition on the handicapped. What the petitioners presented was not informa- tion about how desperately they needed access for the handicapped,with the exception that they don't want them coming in the west door because o£ the problems mentioned. She felt it was not the Planning Commission's job to plan the access to the building, but to let the petitioner go back and make some new plans xnd arrangements. Mr. Harris thanlced everyone for coming and stated this would go before the City Council on June 16. ��..a PLANNiNG COIIl�IISSION MEETING JUNE 4 1980 PAGE 12 Ms. Hughes stated she would suggest that the Energy Co�ission meet with someone from Unity Hospital to encourage carpooling and vanpooling by their employees. (Ms. Hughes left the meeting at 9:48 p.m.) Chairman Harris declared a ten-minute recess at 9:49 p.m. 6. COT_�'PINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 205. ZONtNG Page 50 205.12 P DISTRICT REGULATIONS 205.121 Uses Permitted Mr. Harris stated that at the last meeting, there was same discussion regarding Item 1, Principal Uses, and that some of these uses should require a special use permit. Re had suggested that the Commissioners think about this and bring back suggestions and concerns at this meeting. Ms. Schnabel stated that sir.ce this particular item did refer to parks and the development of parks, she would like to delay the item until Ms. Hughes could be present to discuss the item. MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to table discussion on "Principai Uses in P District Regulations" until such a time as Ms. Hughes can be present for r.he discussion. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. Page 51 205.122, 205.123, 205.124, 205.125 �kl. Change "any other district" to "those districts" Page 52 205.13 C-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS 205.131 Uses Permitted 3-D. Change to -"Banks, financial institutions, and other uses having drive-ia facilities." 205.133 Lot Requirements and Setbacks 1. Lot Area - should read: "Minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet is required." llelete "Lot Width" - Item 2 PLAbTNING C�5SION MEETING JUNE 4 1980 PAGE 13 Page 53 205.135 Parking Requirements 4�1. Delete "and that those stalls be provided upon request of the City when and if a parking problem occurs". Ms, Schnabel suggested that "at the discretion of the City" b� inserted after "reduction of parking stalls would be allowed", PaRe 54 #2. "Will be required" should be changed to "will be provided" Delete all of first Item �k4, "Design Requirements" Page 55 �4-F-1. "minimum should be changed to "maximum" Page 56 M(lTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Wharton, to delete d�4-A "Parking sta11 designation." Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. Page % Change all of Item I as followsc I. Loading Docks The space needed for the outside loading and unloading facili.ties must be adequate to handle the loading and unloading needs, without obstructing public right-of-way, J. Chan�e "Zoning Administrator" to "City" K. "to be approved by the Zoning Administrator" should be changed-to "to be approved by the City" �k5. Change "Zoning Administrator" to "City" and delete "striping" in 8th line, 205.136 Performance Standards #1-A, Put a period after "zoning" in first sentence. Add Item B as follows: "The City Council shall require a Special Use Permit for any exterior storage if it is demonstrated that such storage is a hazard to public health, safety, and general welfare. �� PLI+�NG COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 4 1980 PAGE 14 MOTION by Mr, Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to continue discussion on Proposed Changes to Chapter 205. Zoning. Upon a voice vote; all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission set Monday, June 9th, at 7;30 pm,as a special meeting to discuss Chapter 205. Zoning. ADSOURNM[iNT: • MOTION by Mr. Wharton, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the June 4, 1980, P1an:ting Commission meeting adjourned at 11:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lyn1 Saba Recording Secretary CITY OF FRIDLEY SPECIAL PLANNtNG COt+AiISSION MEETING, JUNE 9, 1980 CALL TO ORUER: Chairman Harris called the Special Planning Coumiission meeting of June 9, 1980, to order at 7:38 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Eresent: Mr. Harris, Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Langenfeld, Ms. Hughes, Mr. Oquist, Mr. Wharton Members Absent: Mr. Treuenfels Others Present; Jerrold Boardman, City Planner CONTIN[7=D; PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 205. ZON2NG Page 50 205.12 P DISTRICT REGULATIONS 205.121 Uses Permitted Mr. Harris stated it was his feeling that all of Item ��1-B (public parks, playgrounds, athletic £ields, golf courses, airports, parking area) shouid require a special use permit when improvements are made, because he felt these improvements impacted the neighborhoods. He stated that at the last Planning Coumiission meeting, this item was tabled until Ms. Hughes could be present to express her feelings. M(YfION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to remove the item from the table. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declaYed the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Hughes stated she has problems with special use permits. The philosophy of public use without a public hearing is that the determination is made somehow that it is for the overall public good, and Che body making that determination can put the proposed facility wherever that body chooses. Those considerations are considerations of noise, traffic, etc., but when you start naming how that decision is made, all those things are what are normally required and expected in a public hearing. Mr. Boardman questioned at what stage should public hearings be held--at a master plan stage or aC the actual development stage, and to what extent should they control it? Ms, Iiughes stated she did noC think they could be ef£ective unless they kept track of every sCage fran very early on up. She really felr it meant a series of public hearings. SP�CIAL PLANAING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 9, 1980 PAGE 2 Mr. Boardman stated he did not see where they would want to have public hearings on public improvements in the Zoning Ordinance, because he felt the public heaxing stage should be a lot sooner than those improvements. Ms. Schnabel agreed that she did not think the Zoning Ordinance was the place to write in the demand for public hearings. Maybe this is the kind of thing that should be turned aver to the Charter Commission and let them review it. Mr. Harris stated he did not care how it was done as long as it got done. The Planning Commission could have the Charter Commission review public hearings and submit a report back to the Planning Cou�ission. He asked Mr. Boardman to write a letter to the Charter Co�ission for the Planning Commission's signature. Mr. Boardman stated he would check with the City Attorney to make sure the Charter Commission was the right place for Chis to go. i�l-F. The Coumdssion asked Mr. $oardman to rewrite this paragraph to make the meaning more clear. Page 57 . 205.13 C-I DISTRICT REGULATIONS 205.136 Performance Standards iF3, ScYeening - Same changes as in R-3 District Regulations �k3-C-1. Change to read: "Any off-street parking area which has more than � 4 spaces and adjoins a residential zone.^ �3-D. Change to read: "All loading areas must be located in the rear or side yards, and be screened from public right-of-ways or adjacent residential zones with a 6 foot minimum solid screening fence." Page 58 �E3-H. Change "except solar collectors" to "alternating energy devices" Page 59 �5. Landscaping Mr, lIarris stated that it was his concern that with so many restrictions on small C-1 lots, it could make them literally unbuildable. Mr, Boardman stated that the Planning Commission might want to consider putting a percentage on a building permit on the cost of construction that wouid go into landscaping. Some other coum�unities have been doing this. Right now Staff has ,control over the landscaping, but it gets done unevenly, SPECIAL PLANNiNG COMbfISSION MEETIDIG, JUNE 9, 1980 ___ PAGE 3 Mr. kiarris stated he could understand Mr. Boardman's point in wanting same guidelines, but there has to be some sensible point to control landscaping. Ms. Hughes stated she thought there was a reai limit to what could be done. She objected to.too many requirements,but she could appreciate that Fridley is a mature community and inCerested in some of the amenities. She did not Ehink it should be left to the discretion of the seaff, because it did get applied unevenly. She could appreciate Staff's reasoning for wanting some standards to go by. She was willing to say a minimum figure in the building permit, because that probably would be negotiated anyway. __- . Mr. Boardmau stated he was really concerned about the people who plan the cost of a building but don't plan for the cost of the landscaping. If some- thing was in the books that said a percentage of the construction cosC is going towazds landscaping, it forces them to have Co plan ahead. Ms. Schnabel stated she has always been very strong on landscaping. Besides providing the amenities, it is good tasCe, and as a commun3ty, they should start encouraging good taste. Landscaging reflects a co�unity that has gone beyond the growing sCages and begins to show roots. She felt strongly that landscaping should be required, but she was not sure there should be a dollar figure or even a percentage put cm it. • Ms. Hughes stated there were three options in requiring landscaping: (1_) outting a percentage on the building permit; (2) a minimum set of dollar figures; or (3) leaving as is with total control by the City. Mr. Boardman stated he thought lZ% of the total construction costs would be a good figure for landscaping. T&e Planning Co�ission concurred with 1'�% of the total construction costs as a requirement for landscaping. MY, Soardman stated he would wri.te that into Item ��5-B. Ms. Schnabel stated it should aiso be termed "natuYal landscaping" to avoid artificial landscaping. �5-D. Change "facilities" to "access" �7, Essential Services - same changes as R-3 District Regulations Page 60 205.14 G2 DISTRICT REG[ILATION5 205.141 Uses Permitted #1-M. Change to read: "Other retail or wholesale sale or services which deal directly with the customer for whom the good or services are furnished and are similar to those specifically allowed above," SPECIAL PLANNING COMMTSSION MEETING, JUNE 9 1980 PAGE 4 ��2-A. Delete "Signs" Page 61 �k3-E. Change "shoutd" to"must!' in the second line. ik3-E-1. Put a period after "defiuition" and delete rest of paragraph. Delete d�3-E-2, ��3-E-3, and �'�3-E-4. Page 62 Delete 4�3-E-8. �3-H. Change to read; "Facilities which may require exterior storage of materials," Page 63 �3-J-2. Delete "the building shall be air coaditioned" #4-B. Change "shall be required" to "may be required" Mr. Boardman stated the bike rack requirement should be included iu a�l commercial and industrial districts. 204.142 Uses Excluded �1-A. Change to read; ��A minimum lot area of 20,OD0 sq, ft. is required." Page 64 205.145 Building Requirements Delete �kl-B Page 65 205.146 Parking Requirements #1. Same change as C-1 bistxict Regulations Delete #3-I, J, K, L as it is out of order. Page 67-68 $4-F. Change "minimum" to "maximum" ,�4-I, J, K, L- Same changes as C-1 bistrict Regulations " �PS. Parking Lot Permit - Same changes as C-1 District Regulations SPECIAL PLAAINING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 9 1980 PAGE 5 205.147 Performance Standards �1-A. Same as C-1 District Regulations Page 69 �3-A & B. Same changes as R-3 District Regulations �3-C & D. Same changes as R-3 District Regulations Page 70 . �3-H. "except solar collecCors" changed to "alternate energy devices" - Same as C-1 District Regulations Pa e 71 �5-B. Same change as C-1 District Regulations �7-A & B. Same changes as R-3 Dis'trict Regulations Pages 72-80 205.15 C-3 DISTRICf REGULATIONS Mr. Boardman stated the C-3 Districts were all of the previous C-2S zones. He would incorporate the same changes as per C-2 District Regulatians. M�TION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Oqu3st, to.continue discussion on Proposed Changes to Chapter 205. Zoning. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENf• MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Wharton, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all wting aye, Chairman Harris declared the June 9, 1980, Special Planning Covmtission meeting adjourned at 10:06 p.m. Respectfully s bmitted, . L e Saba Recording Secretary � <'A �'� j � � • . . . � . . . � . , � . . � - . . I' ZU .,' i PU[iIIC NEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COt•i1�ISSION 9 — . Notice is hereby given that there wi11 be a Public•}learing of the Planning Commission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on tdednesday, June 18, 1980. in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of: � Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit, SP #80-05, by Reynold E. Svranson, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101 (3N) to permig r- . the entension of the present Special Use�Permit : for a mobile home sales lot, 7ocated on �the r. West 375 feet of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision • No. 89, subject to a street and utility easement over the �lesterly 40 feet thereof, lacated in the South Half of Section 12, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of,Anoka, Minnesota. _ Senerally located at 7151 Highvray #65 N.E. � Any and a11 persons desiring to be heard shall be given an.opportun�ty at the above stated time and place. � Publish: June 4, 1980 � June 11, 1980 � RICHARD N, HARP.?S • CHAIRMAN PLANNIKG GOMMISSION � � . MAILING LIST SP #80-05 Reynold E. Swanson 418 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Donald Harstad 7101 Highway #65 N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Joseph P. Miller, Jr. 1305 72nd Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 James R. Determan 2297 Stinson Blvd. New Brighton, Mn 55112 Determan Welding & Tank Service, Inc. 12EI1 72nd Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Rustic Oaks Corp. 1200 72nd Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 N. H. Geraux 7191 Highway #65 N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Tillie C. Berglund 7112 Central Avenue N.E. fridaey, Mn 55432 Wade L. Norton 835 Columbia Blvd. Minneapolis, Mn 55418 Mr. & Mrs. Robert Rosecrans 1163 Norton Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Jerry 0. Sympson 1175 Norton Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mary Brent 1215 Norton Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Harry Dettman 20fi4 Hastings Ave. Newport, Mn 55055 ' 21 Planning Commission 6-5-80 Mr. & Mrs. Kurt Nordenstrom 1245 Norton Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Ruth J. Norton 1251 Norton Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Debra Masingill 1275 Norton Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Kenneth Kowalke 1152 Norton Avenue N.E. fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Louis Gray 1770 Norton Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Ellsworth Berkstrand 1200 Norton Avenue N.E. . Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Daniel Mabel 1214 Norton Avenue N.E. Fridley, PiN 55432 Le Roy Smith 940 44th Avenue N.E. Minneapolis, Mn 55421 Target Stores, Inc. 777 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Mn 55402 � ���_c_� fQ.��., ��. � �.�.7��„ ari�� �r.c�.,'v.� , � All Seasons Mobile Homes, 7151 HIGHWAY 65 N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE {612) 571�0070 April 21, 1980 The City Council City of Fridley 6431 University Ave. N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Re: Special Use Permit Gentlemen; � t1C. SP �7n-16 I am writing in rega.rds to the special use permit granted by you to operate a mobile home sales, owned by me, at 7151 Hi�hway #65 N•E• The existing permit expires this year and I am requesting a renewal be gr�nted for a period oi three (3) Ye�'s. This time period will coincide with my new lease, from June 26, 1980 throu$h June 26, 1983� a copy of which I have enclosed. I have operated at this location for the past eight (8) yeara. I think it has been managed 3n a business like manner and has been an asset to your city. I will continue to own and operate it if this permit renewal is granted. Your consideration is greatly appreciated. If any other inYormation is reQUired or necessary please contact me at this oPfice. Thartk you for your past and future help. i S cerely �i =���� Reynold E. Swanson President Enel. !� 22 ,., � �-�.� a; ..,, � 560-3J: G3 � I t �s��y o f `�Y«lle�y ' APlOKA CQUNTY 643t UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE FRIDLEY, MINNESOT,a 65432 December 31, 1974 I Reynold E. Swanson j 418 Rice Creek Blvd. � fridley, Mn 55432 Re: Special Use Permit, SP #74-16, for Mobile � � Home Sales Lot, 7151 Highway #65 N.E. : ; . E Dear Mr. Swanson: k . � This is to natify you that the Fridley City Couneil at their � regular meeting on December 16, 1974, approved your request for a � Special Use Permit, SP #74-16, for a Mobile Home Sales Lot to be � located at 715i Highway 65 N.E., with the following stipulations: � OPERATOR � 1. A Special Use Permit io operate a mobile home sales lot is given only to Reynold E. Swanson as an individual and he will be the operator of the business. If the business changes hands or he no Tonger is the majority owner and operator of the business, the permit will be null and void, and tiaould have to 6e reviewed by the City Council before transfer. OFFICE 1. The office trailer will be blocked on concrete blocks and the base wili be skirted with aluminum. The office will be connected to utilities; such as water, sewer, gas and electricity. 2. Two restrooms will be installed in the office for the public's use. 3. 7he office trailer will be taxed as a permanent structure. MOBTLE HOMES LOT 1. 7here will be no permanent residents in.the mobile homes and no repairing or storage of damaged trailers.. 2. There will be a minimum of 10 feet of space between trailers. 1 2. The public and employee parking lot areas to be blacktopped by October 1, 1975. 7he area on the West side of the lot wilt have more rock and additional •' w Reynold E. Swanson ! 2� _ � SP �74-16, for Mobile Home Sales Lot, 7151 Highway #65 N.E. December 31, 1974 Page 2 planting and no existing trees will be removed. Precast curb will be put along the entrance and along the parking area for the - customers. 3. The land will be kept clean and free of all debris, junk, and unsight7y material and all green areas will be kept free of weeks, cut and weTl groomed. 4. There will be no washouts on the property due to surface drainage and if there are any, these will be filled in and taken care of immediately. LIGHTING _ 1. Adequate security lighting (a minimum of two lights at the East end of the lot) will be installed for better observation by the police. SIGNS . 1. The existing sign will be used, but.there will be no flashing or feeling of motion in the light. 2. The Operator wi11 comply with the requirements of the Sign Ordinance regarding banners, pennants, etc. PERMIT 1. This Special Use Permit be issued For a maximum of five years or to run cancurrently with the lease, which ever is less. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 560-3450. Sincere}y, � DARREL CLARK Community Development Administrator �C/de • ` Rl. P.)4.r/ Q `` .�r n/4-1-6- i��y.iiv�.0 a.. {V. 375 f�. of Lot 3, Aud. 5ub 1'S9r � � P./, 23S+S7! d a• sz'R+' � : D ovs' „� T Mo.O' . . � L Z80.O' S.pi� A�nii c�3/s/....,r/x I 7//As. . 1 I \ s� � � p � .�.e>r... � — 1 (�J i i� � . h, � .i//.Y.PS6/J (fGJf` ; ` i � CG. � r/!G. � r n i it��--r ' �-��.�' �� �*:: -� � �i � �::� -,n... • � � ! , r �,�� � 4' �� �� .c• i � `i � � � � � ��'• �.������ t . '�nJ f. � : i'ilwi/e KX.iifd � , - - ! � ��- � I � e 3� `� %A�y' � � c . �3 � l� , i _>Y,_, _ �. � _ . _I Y` .. . .... �8,,...... y. ....- �,�_ ' i - / � - � ' �1`i f �1�� `F��� � `� ? �j'd.:��-S G ' � r�; j' \1 . • � i �: i :f �`��o � ��� QIt' �` oo�`^/ I � y ' � . —.'to' - 7cL . I � Z���p�. •/Sa.... / . : 1 � � V ' '1• • �. � �O�) � � � �+, ;: �j'-.'; - j 25 1 i ': ` ��' _l._._, ~_ �' ���� � ��i i � s � "" �� h �P � ,-- ' : '�5 /G l7 /6 � /9.2[`4�:1.- � i � . . ;. .y °! �_ � ,,... �..f�:�.,: :�� ;' '„' �! . t ( � �) rJ,� ��.. � .�.�..... . T---..�...._'_ . Ld v.. � srr/-... . , r� ' � z , � . -,, , � � � ' iYlineerol�/n,.Jrstii�/ • � h Psidi/ac.(/iri��N+f.r�� 3� . ! . �� 1 . __ s�� r � (.slo/ � � . � ezo� rs.s,)� � G'e°�sma<R�>e 1 j t2S) : . . . � . � �Ei+s/rYc � '� � . �. 1���--- SI��L�l1�'IS�C� � .ntn �:�,� : � . � r: � �.FZS� ��.. R�o� �(cY�1 � O Srt Nvfc � `� p . ... /10:.. . ..:a', .. Cc� Lc�iaYivns GY�i/ P ��.�.�1 :: `:. .. 2a.. � ... � !3d' )3 ioS T_'__^'. t .: -� 3 5 oi '�� � ` f (se) �J1 ` o � � I .� � u �� � . iPlO �C�:O� �C J� h y I F.*r//� \" �£i ���".f �.��<"� ., �� � �Q � i\,C`Jaan 1. �� ,, � . : � �, . ., �;ExM, �'�I � ; �:� �° � ry > ,, ., �" '� �:. r�.f\-!�l�i��j " P.3�lf's� isa _ � . PY! I._ �_ : (ooa> (�o�o; � 2I ��'O� ! . (,ayo>, � � �J _�� .�� � %icru) �!.^'edfron:cr, /nc. (68a) # �' 3n<__ - :""'"''tc9..-' • 91e, �` �� � �� t- ic' :'_ �:w�s ' a. �----1_e., � ICarc� 6 {l�.P�.:�v/.d �..._.. � �. ' � -- ' • � �t. F, •!.. � \. `�.: , y� i . `1�� ,r r�. b '��.�� ' ; � °-��r h -%. '. r tr�i z.z�:' � , L./�/.�:Y�00.0• T� L:P./..p?i�00.� s: d d°t7f'Li' i g�. . P,, ' �, • g Y `P �` . ., k . n� Y � `i n�.,"� %S S: } . ���'�^'"�'�r' �.> ro � � Yi � 9l+�+V.g ,r z ��. _ , � ��-.�-r t..:. t�ti}" ` ' �� . �-�. .� d'�L' . �.zy� _`.r:r. }r ,. � . � �� �.4.+s�{x ' �� ' � �T '�^� � �� �U' •��i'�i �rfl z.; �. - F � �'�'�d y ,�'�` `� ���.- � . '}s e..�- 'w � ,t .:5 '°�/n'"�"E :"t"�}l ' . �am, �° =��Bfi iicm i�&},�, r . �������� * �' r a :�x��`a � . �gl �� � " � ' , -, ° � • �i! � �- �n�$�'. ,�+�.�8� c 9 �A[�}� �� F . „.._ 1. 114TIi' 4 �'. � _ �� � � F� b��i _si _ v; k� s''- . '(h � �'���' Y r ' . . �ti� �. � �Y�'^�i� �'f S+�AFV�'' , :,'��te ��t�7' '`�R`�E�y9 ��. �'�.- ��is . ����'.'.:.,t �~ }� : -_ . -,.,.n:.,..�.��� .. .. . . - __ - _.. . . . . .. . ... .,_._.. . _ _ ... .. ... .. . .. . t` p� �-�, �}czac, cua.P sav�,.r �.i,..g.+� �$ 3�' � _ ���i.ORt 8i4�C318'%'VE �,���� CQ �., � �: �„ �� � F ��� �%6�'�Ted P��3'►t? ` a' . ��{+e+b . F� .Q5�f�.�Y "a .. .. _ �. . .... .. ...... ..... .... ...... �:, 1: �. ; , �- �, l . �`: �: � .. .' .�. Si<i..:-:. _ �omfastt� x x "s#� ,A u � �". �� � � � ' � •�,: � �t��,�=5-� C}S'8�. A�ETE �-;. �fd�ita&C<; Cp 1M �, �' ,� � e1�1�`'i��3`capqcity, °." .� �;r;<;�. �'� c+Lh�r � , ��s�st �i�4►t�t �.�" 1�iiaircescta f�e�a �e��.�rls�ts, �ts �� � �� � .t�C��ai 8j1E�d , �e� t��zi 1se. iais� = °��� ��o.f� of#- `"� w �tu�i-Ci��,��tll�y �c: `~ r �; � i , �' r �i�� 3 �` �a�issiou 3e�iceF ��icn feels ''= i�en;bu� ;�str#3t�i' plan� �g �n t�Jai�� a c,�rves- ae Sn �d 1; cu�to�Y € �� ` �i�; � �t��,���� � a�€ � � ; .-� �� w� � ���i � �Q �5������ ��.a�u�$�,� � ,� _ r., a�,s •a it�'lE'8 "�T.'$��4 '�J:73c; ��ties- 3e � � 83so - � �� � :����??�S. residen � `. tns�l�� s� vsnCilation �: i. � �i��� -ef�ici€�3t , !, ,..' Et��t �,�� �B',S. ti*eYy �; ��a•�, 1�hi6�'�£aAd- L���- ' �o�x' �Pt�'roved ��_ �� F�a'�#��'tf�iraugh s ; �i t��`��2'rs' eleetric r � +' t =�� ��.Cft3es I.�o� tie � ��a�a �neaa S13�La3kiitCt��'� �� ���a ,t < Lt��� ,<s� ��'� �� i�ir� th�y _ ; `r �r�� isu�+�r ifght s ; - �._f : ;, F , i ✓ j� ; i � � . .- � � . . . . .. xa�ii�!'v � �e �� ;�� :$n �� r'` �aa �tt�' g� �a t��,� � ���: ,�. } Cµ`K �. � � � , � - � 4 � �d;t�8 YD� ��18:: .-.: �,'-�:� � �� �� _.�?� Y�4� CErnC ;�i'i i� ��i �� �e„ rat iif , ,. , � � �.aAi s ' �ties, , _: �; �t�,t3on �� St. ;i� Ai+ ��� ��re � �'; J:y , �$; Cime �.n iC�b Wias ;; sa that ra.plaan3ng �� iaid taut, � < "� : �€ � �h� � '. �' +�1�iss3ott ;+ v.. Ft: tliey catt = rq�1d be , g� �,'d3th�� ar'f,�t stap �� r�i+ flne ..;. �5�.'fsOIE 3.Ai0 [��rYt�� OY �-- h„£2L�Y �. °�O � �'$C�l4S.tY'ys . �td ,fi11: 3a38> i f i�ag' ,t�gethEtt jects was Library., �:? 2A8Ygiy . �.-. ;. �'.: ed in is' fa shoat�ng �. e�-viewing , ,� •-.,� �-s n'.. � 3j� � �d � p}� �'� Ti.ia�' ' i". �!d ^`d :� �,A�y . ���'#� � . is. �`_z, +. F t �F. � , =� , -�' �..S�R. ` ��. � �' . � �� �r. `' e� +'sd. � "N � r ' r .>� .s3 � Iia,.�j f . , �,w��� > ..� ' �: - .,; tt] bE�'jiI�.IIB�� `�oS i ��� � . , �041$�t $� 4ECF ":K Cli- , Fr" �5:;�_ . '�.iniii�fxl�1f4f13iw� �i@ #� �� ;. RL€i� . �2f�"-'n� j� _ s.., Z�� �' � ��".j�'g9�iQi1�.S� ���. ry I& k raio�f cem �f �U�� �te i thet E �r 4 r, � > 4 .,_ � �� �# . - j „�. � R� � �'�i�'`�,��„_s�S�S3 � '��� � �'i�nme�tce . ��CL�e �:�s� #t hsve �vd�'ved,E �t�,� �ambar . ° I a' � ' � t � ;��c��ci�1 '� ���� � ; � E�7t'�$. .[tP �t��at�p CU :t�a�c��_ a�i;a�+�.ng ouC � �, >a�a�uC �Is� �'Ld h� to f�i.��!e��i#��lt in;dastriel ° [l� ttr �#���:geople, aud ��st�on�C��ci �et fh,�se ? ' o��ld � . t�er atul r � �: 'g�* A��a �bl£�5hed a ' �s� �� i�o �ave � ta� to. lt� �e, a�ecmd ;d� �+�d of who Che `� :'. s�� � � cs,€ t��i.u.g � ,. yj , � °J ��v��+'SL'�.�fM�+A4CLit1�1T t y » �`?rx•.7�am �aC� �t#ertd. k t�iut� C�t ��se, He s� tv�: C+t����Al auc� ask > ;tt�.8� ��rniesi� !c� 'sam�� �#Tce �haC or �c$�t�'�� �� �=suggestioas •� �-� �:: � if� t�ic� `�s�aee "b3� the " �!i$kY��89=�tYi� tF12 �t�r�:�.� resck ��t'f�;�e husiuess , ' a.,�1c�T�e�:s�.tuaCfnn. - 1 t�i8' �::a�m�s��ira to get 5 ] � � iCDDi'�'f,�#S�� �f1CY� . ►r� +� . ��ors� o� Che� x� �i ;�t� � �,# have E ��e�t�� ,a�et,itig with =i�' t�a�h'� tite3Y �. st�tB� �k��E 1f they �� teph, ' �-'k ,:�.�:E�E �_ �°� � �.: �� . .�.: �� .g' : ... � e�..;� ��� - � ���ry;��� q. - � � S�1,L� , IIi ����� � tffit?& C�t¢ F�ip� 6 i h�+,� 1 . �i�¢, f�ttiA �aa r. ��vi isx 6� 1 ii.11;t wi 'ePtri� # cts aatd' �olntt�r3 ��:-.. � .� �� ��:�� �r . � ; �: '�� < �l ��s `� ; X i. �6 >. ,; .: ,; �, , ux >s: � �Y �fi �^: g -.. .:�i} ji.itlx,�.: �.:: 4iS„lx.�$i@' '�< u �-�.. �.:: �a�tl�nts (TkirA�= ,: ty � • ¢ .3� �3xte ,' � ,> �i�s. � maxi >= ,�t,ed b3� rrdinstor, by : ; ;; �g attd thase t.by. the L �'�gg t Syatem� �attd .s:-gattici- ;' i jrear. - : � �� �"'< � �� ��� #� � ��� F : ��� �� � �` � � � , ,� '7 9' , ����,� ..� . PiK&E � ��� b��' ;: b�g, ;�S . i 3 ?� !+ " . - xi�t'+''���s^... '+r "`s . � : ' -.. � �"`Mti;�� ri ^ . ; - > r� �., , � � � �_ � ' `�d hp 1�„` .. _ . . �� ukzrn tk�e_meetfag� : ��. G' .N v l. L'e LL�� � ���} ��� � ' �! �+ . � ,� k L ini *`svn'' � - J` .4 �- — ♦ � . �.. 'S z � C Y Y ,` �; . v::& . .. 4",.�:.. � �+�V id � k i� � '�< �; � �;, ��,: , :.t , t � 3 < { 2 F.: �#- ; s iz'. u <�: �' , ; � i i i S 1 � 1 3, 1 . �,< ;, � .' � � ,j ; � . ;. � . . $? S� � b ' M , ., :'�=. � " � � CONB�ItINITY DEVELOPMENT COYRIISSItni _ _ _ _ � MEETING JUNL 10, 1980 CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Oquist called the June 10, 1980; Coum�unity Development Coam�ission meeting to order at 7s36 p.m. R6LL CAI.L: Members Present: LeRoy Oquist, Kenneth Vos, Sharon Gustafson Members Absent: A1 Gabel, Connie Modig Otkers Present: Bill Deblon, Associate Planner APPRflVAL OF MAY 13 1980 COt�MUNITY DEVELOPMENf C(klMiSBION MINUTES: M(�LZON.by Ms. Gustafson, seconded by Dr. Vos, to approve the May 13, 1980, Community Development Commission minutes as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Oquist declared the motion carried unanimously. 1. BIKEWAY GRANF PRELIMLNARY PLAN APPROVAI.: Mr, Deblon stated that the City had received a Zetter of preliminary plan approval from MnDOT. Now the City has to prepare a final plan. He stated it looked like the money was there for this bikeway project if the City can meet the requirements in their final plan. Mr, Deblon stated this was a good project, and he would encourage the Commission members ta go out and walk along the project area. He stated it was important to get as much supportfor this bikeway as possible. When the bikeway gets underway, the Conm�ission might play a vital role in public partfcipation. 2,: CENTER CITY PROGRESS: Mr. Deblon stated that at this time JVD (Joittt Venture Developers) is still in the process of doing a marketing analysis, JVD has to present their complete proposal to the Housing & Redevelopment Authority at the HRA's Suky lOth meeting. At that time,the HRA will make the iinal decision on d�1D's proposal. COrP11TNITY DEVELOPMENT CONAtCSSION MEETING JllNE 10 ' 19$0 PAGE 2 3. UPDATE ON UNUSED ALLEY POLICY: Mr. beblon stated that in December 1979, Staff did an alley survey and compiled the data from tMe responses t}�ey received. At the City Council Conference meeting on Mar, 24, 1980, the City Conncil decided they did not want the City to vacate alleys or initiate any action itself, but would waive the vacation fee on a vacation request where there is lOCP/, agreement of the property owners affected. • Mr. Deblon gave the Commissioners a copy of a letter from the City Manager regarding the "City's Coi�xse of Action Regarding Alley Vacations" dated Mar. 27, 1980. He a2so gave the Commissioners a copy of a letter written by Jerrold Boardman that wiil be sent to property owners on a block where there appears to be 10�/ agreement to removing the alley dedication. This letter also stated that the City Council has decided to waive the required fee for alley vacations for those blocks that are in 10�/ agreement o£ the action. Mr. Deblon stated he wouj.d enewrage the Commissioners to continue to be aware of this item as it may need to be brought up again. Dr. Vos stated he was also going to suggest that the Commission wait and see what kind of response the City gets to Mr: Boardman's letter, If there isn't much response, the Covm3ssion may want to ree,ommend to City Council, througli Planning Commission, that another look Ue taken at alley vacations. 4. STATUS OF FRIDLEY C�tUNITY PARK: Mr. Deblon stated that arbund the end of March 19$O, presidential policy froze LAWCON monies in order to cut back on Federal spend3ng.. This policy withheld $166,000 for the development of the Fridley Co�unitq Park. Congress had `45 days to reseind an this money. Congress did not act so the money ia supposed to be released again. The City's project has beett sent to the Heritage Conservation Resource Seroice (formerly the Bureau of 0utdoor Recreatian) in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the G#ty is expecting to receive something in writing ver�+ soon that the money is on its way.-. ADJQURNMENT : MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Gustafson, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice voCe, aZl voting ape, Chairperson Oquist declared the .7une 1Q, 1980, Coc�unity Development Commission meeting adjourned at 8:30 p,m. Respectfully su mitted, Lyn Saba Recording Secretary � APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING City of Fridley TUESDAY JUNL 10, 1980 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairwoman Schnabel called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. 5he then introdu�ed the new recording Secretary, Patricia Rindahl, to the Commission members. ROLL CALL: Meinbers Present: Virgfnia Schnabel, Patricia Gabel, Alex Barna, Jim Plemel Members Absent: Richard Kemper Others Present: Darrel Clark, Chief Buildir.g Official APPROVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUT�S: MAY 27, 1980 Ms. Schnable asked that the word "was" be changed to "what" on page 5, fifth paragraph, aed also that the wprd should be "thought" on page 14, fourth �aragrph on the third line dow. MOTIOH by Barna, seconded by Gabel, that the Appeals Commission minutes of May 27, 1980 be approved as amended. Upoa a voice vo*_e, all voting aye, Chairwoman Schnabcl declared the motion carried unanimously. 1. T'ABLED• AAfENDED REQUEST FOR VARIANCES PTTRSUaNT T0 CHAPTER 205 OF FRIDLEY GITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR A DOLBL FROM I0.000 SQUI�.T?� FEP:T Tn 7,8�(? SO�AP.� F]:Ei: '�`D HEDUi;E 7'HE DRIt%EWti SC RIGHT-OF-WAY F'ROM THE GARAGE STALI.S FOR A DOUB E FLOOR AREA .PROM TtIE RE ET. TO ALLOW rA ONE FAMIL FOR M[1bTIPI,E r SSIi�G �436 STH STREE'P N.E., FRIDLEY, P. Sth Street N.�., Fridley, Piinnesota 55 Mr. King,-the petitioner, was present. `, TO 20 PEE'S: AND R�DUCE THE STALLS TO 2 STALI.S: ?ND FEET TO APPROXIMATELY 59Q Request by Harlan King, - _--- _ . _ . � .•iOTIp�'by Pir. Barna, seconded by P1r. Plemel, to remove from tFe table. �" _ _ . ___.._ .. � UPOY A V'�ICE '?UTF; ALT �T6TI*?G AY.°,, =-CfIAIP.S•IOtSAN SCHYIABEL DP,CLAlz�?, '1't?F. ML)TIC1A?- CARRIED C:3APIIT1pU5T.Y. Chairwoman Schnabel said the staff report had been sead at the May 27th meeting. Mr. Clark stated that the requested 590 squate ft. wauld be an allowable size for an apartment but noC for a two. family dwelling. Also, the TJniform Buidling Cr�de requiremenCs are for one room in an apartment to be 150 square ft., while a bedroom must be 70 square feeC. Ms. Schnabel stated the Appeal.� commission eould require more footage for rooms in the dwelling. She yuestianed Mr. King on whether or not he could turn the gatage entrance to have the driveway run parrel to the a11ey. Appeals Cor�mission Meeting June 10 1980 pafiQ 2 Mr. King said he preferred not to do it that way because he would lose too much yard space. He still preferred to set it back 20 feet from the alley. Mr. Plemel asked if the upper level was the same square footage of the basement? __ _____._ �, _: K�� said that it was. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded hy Ms. Gabel to close the pub2ic hearing. Upon a. voice vote, all voting aye, Chaiiwoman Schnabel declared the public hearing closed at 8:20 p.m. Ms. Gabel said it was her understanding that one time the petitioner owned enough land to do this without a square footage variance, therefore his hardship was really self-ivaposed. " � Mr. Clark agreed Mr. Bazna asked Mr. Clark if the requirments were for a double entrance. Mr. Clark stated that one exit was required. MOTION BY Mr. Barna, seconded by AYr. Plemel, to approve the variances as requested. - -- - - Ms. Gabel, and Mr. Plemel could not agree that the hardship was such that four_� _.._ .. variances should be granted. Ms. Schnabel stated thatmore and mo�e people would be wanting to convert single- family dcaeliings into two-family dwellings and that the Comn.ission would have to adopt a policy on this issue. She also said that the cost of housir.g was so prohibitive for many people, so that the Commission was granting more variar�=s for ;emodeling than iC hac, flone i;� the past. Mr. King said that he was going to school at the present time, and the unused space in his home was being taxed. He stated that friends had encouraged hi.m to go ahead and convert his home int6 a two-fami.ly dwelling without the Commission's approval. However, he believed in applying Sor a variance'permit. Now, he questioned i.f he was r i.ght . Hr. Barna agreed that tit. King could do that, ar.d that was why he made the motion in favor of this request so that Mr. King could do the converting legally. UPON A VOICE VOTE ON THE MOTION THAT ALL FOUR VARIANCESnaE G� �EWO� 'Schnabell and Barna, voting aye, Mr. Plemel and Ms. Gabel voting y, declared the motion failed because of a tie vote. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to recommend to City Couneil,.fhrough the Planning Commi.�sion, Co approve one variance to reduce the driveway setback from public right-of-way from the required 25 feet to 20 feet. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYfi, CiIAIBWOMAN SCHNABEL DECI,ARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Clark stated that un3er the law, persons related by marxiage or blood are permitted to live in the same house. Mr. Schnable stated that this did not necessarily mean a separate apartment, and the term Mother-in-I.aw apartment was not used nny more. Chalrwoman Sclmabel sCated that there should be clarification as to whether the housing unit should be called a Uungalow, duplex, or basement apartment. She told Mr. King that this request would go to the City Council on the 7th of July. Pirs. Schnabel suggested that Mr. King talk to Jerry Boardman, the City Planner, about this property. •A i: APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNG 10 198U Mr. King asked if he could rent the basement apaitment as just a room? Page 3 Mr. Clark said that Mr. King could rent aroom oue to college sCudents. He said that under Section 205.051 (assessory uses) of the Fri.dley City Code, he could not rent his�basement apnrtment out to more than 2 oersons. Ms. Schnabel said that this section of the Code applied to R-1 zoning and Mr. Kings house was in R-3 zoning. She again suggested that Mr. King talk to Mr. Boardman of the City.=Planning Department, as he may be able to come up with another idea on the request. . Mr. Glark said the request would go to Council on the firs[ Mnnday in Suly. 2. VARINACE THE LOT 1, SLOCK 1, PARKVIEW OAKS FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA,. (Request Minneaota 55432). G. Sallese; fa�7 Lane N.E., Mr. Sallese the petitioner, and hi_s builder; Mr. Melcher, were present. MOTION by Mr. Earna, seconded by Ms. Plemel, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAZRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED TAE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:25 P.M. Chairwoman Schnabel read the staff report. ADMINISTRATIV� ST11FF REPORT 1811 liathaway Lane N.E. PUBLIC FURPOSE SERVED IIY REQUIREt•SENT:, Section 7.05.653, 4B, requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet for living area. • Section 205.154, 6, requises a chimney to extend nbt more than 2 feet into a zequired yard. Public purpose served by these requirements is to ma�ntain a minimum oP 20 feet between.living areas in adjacent structures and 15 feet between garages and�livinq areas in adjacent structuzes to reduce exposure to conflagration of fire. It is also to allow £or aesthetically pleasing open areas around residential structures. 0 STATED fII�*2DSkiIP: "Need above grade family room and energy fireplace. Not sufficienC eating ar.ea in the yresent kitchen a.rrangement and the kitchen zs to dark at present. This addition will provide needed area iusCead of moving." . ' � ---_.._ � f V � � � I i . , �,.., Appeals Commission Meetin_g____ June 10,_1980 Rage 4'_ C. ADMINISTf2ATIVF. STAFF RFVIEU7:� The existing garage is 7 or. more feet away.£rom the west lot line, the _ petitioner 4roul.d likr to consCruct tiving area above the existing garage. " Tiiey also want to build a 1 foot chimney up the outside of the new con- struction t•;hich will be 6' from l:he e+esL- Sot line. The�_efore, the vari_ance approval necessary to complete the constxuct,i�n is to redace the side yard . for. living area fmm ZO feet to 7 feet and the side yard for a chzmney from S f.eet to 6 feet. If the f3oard approves this reque�t the stafE has no sug9ested stipulations. Mr. Clark asked the petitioner fiow far from the Iot line the actual chimney would I be? _ _.. _: , A1 Melcher ��ated that the gazage was going to be 20 feet wide by 22 feet deep, and the problem was that there was a s� fooe easesnent on the side of the house. He asked if he could be aJ.lowed to go 9 inches into the easement. Mr. Clark said that I✓a. Melcher should get letters from tI}a utility companies to extend the chimney 9 inches irito the easement. If must also be approved by the City Council and it was the (iWUnci1 who coul.d allow the encroachment into the utility easement if the utility companies did not object. Mr. Melcher asked if NSP was the only utility company involved, Mr. Clark told him that all the utility companies were involved. Mr. Melcher said that this was not impossible, but just ahout. Chairwoman Schnabel said that the request would not have to come bactc to the Appeals Commissi�n., if the approval was obtained. Mr. rfetc:�er stated thar_ there were approximately 17.5 feet between living azeas. Mr. Sollese stated that the present size o£ his home was too small for his fzunily of 4 people, and that was.wyy he was requesting the vari.ance. Chairwoman Schnabel asked if there was anyone in the aud�ence who wished to speak on this variance. There was no response. Ms. GaUe1 asked the petitiqner how big his present kitchen was. Mr Sollese said there was not enough room Co eat. Mr. Plemal asked Mr. Sollese if he could do without the fireplace, tir. Sollese said he wanted to use tfie f.ireplace for supplemen.tal heat for the house. Mr. Pfelcher said that the chiunney could be pulled back 5 inches into the �arage. Ms. Gabe1 said that would cur_ doc.m on tlie �arage'space. Mr. Melcher said he would prefer moving the chimney into the garage rather Ehan apply to the utility compan.ies for an encroachment into an ease�ent. Chairwoman Schnabel said the variance would be granted with the stipulation that the u[i13ty companies allow tP,e encroachment unless the petitioner decided tu extend the chimney into i'he garage area. If the petitioner decided to move the chimney into the garage, and stay o£f t,ie easement, the item would not have to go to the Cj.ty Council. Pfr. Clark stated that 3f the peti.tioner was to alter the plans to meet lhe 6 foot set- bacic, the Commission could approve this request. _ . „,�,,, Appeals Commission MeeCinR June 10, 1980 Page 5 MOTION hy Mr. Plc.�el, seconded by Iis. Gabel to close the pvblic hearing. UPON A VOIGE VOTE� ALL VOTING AXE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CL�SED AT 8�45 p.m. MOTION hy Mr. Plemel, seconded by Ms. Gabe1, Y.l�at tlie Appeals Commission recommend to�City�(:ouncil, through Lhe Ylanning Gommiseion, that tihe cariance to Xeduce�the side yard setback from the required 7.0 feet to less than b feet be approved with the stipulation that the petiCioner cannot encro�ch into the easement without City Gouncil approval. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SC€INABEL DECI,ARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOJSLY. 3. VARIANCE REQU&ST PURS THE R�QUIRED SIDE YAR 10 FL+ET TO 4 lI2 FEET TO BE USED FOR ENLARG OF LOT 22, EXCF,PT THE THEREOF; BLOCK 2, SPR FOR STREET, TEIE SAME Uy Henry Gunnick, 767 TO OF THE KITCHEN Street N.E., Mx. & i�irs. Henry Gunnick were presenl-. E FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDU IDE OF A DWELLING PROM THE R FT. 9DDITION TO AN EXISTING FAMILY ROOM AREA, LOCATED ON URED ALONG TIiE EAST AND WEST DITION SLiBJECT TO THE SOUTH N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (R dley, Mn 55432) MOTZON by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Gabel to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCEINABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 8:50 p.m. CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL re.ad the staf£ report. A E.'�' AUMItdISTRATIVE STAFP REPORT � 7677�Arthur 5tteeL N.F YUBLIC PURPOSE S�RVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 2C5.0�3, AB, requires a minimum side.yard setback of 10 feet fc�r living area. � Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a minimum o£ 20 feet between living areas in adjacent structures and 15 feet between garages and living areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure to o�en areas around residential structures. STATED HF�I2DSHIP: "�de were unable to build a home with a fu>1 basement during the origina]. construction. This has created a space shortage that has limited the £ree movement of the wheelchair in the family room and ki.tchen area." . C.� ADMINISTRATIVE STAL'P RliVIFtti: This same petitioner was granted a variance on rear yard setback in May o£ 1978 (from 3h to 22 feet). It should a'lso be noted that they could add 12' to the north.of the £amily room or 6 ieet to the east without a variance. Also for some reason the nor.th/south dirt�en�ion of the iot has been reduced by a 1xttLe over 1£oot {1,1!"i) Lharefore, note that the setback off the south line is 33.4 ir.stead of the required 35 feet. Appeals Commisaion Meetin� June 10 1980 PaRe 6 If the addition�is made it will be overlooking the rear yard of the vacant lot to tho east, that lies only 4.5 feet away. Thercfore, it is staff recommendation that the request be denied, or if approved, no. windows be allowed along the etist side to maintain some deqt�e of rear yard privacy for the lot to the east, a2so that the so�th setback should be approved. 2gr. Clark said that he had talked to ICarla Blomberg, who is Ehe developer of the property on the South side of this house, and she said she had no objection to the variance being granted. Mrs. Gunnick said thac the present 12' by 24' living area was not large enough for tter whee2 chair to move around in, and if there were other people in the room, it becaue tno congested. Mrs. Kurtznolan, owner of the property to the east side of the house, said that she did not object ta the addition to this house. Her house sits north of this house, and her lot is over 300 feet long. �en if Mrs. Kurznolan were to split off the south half of her property, the lot was over 100 feet wide and it was felt that any new house could be placed so as not to be bothered by this addition. (The new lot would be approxi.mately 150' x 100'). Mrs. Karla Blomberg spoke in favor of the addition and showed the Commission members the house plans. Mrs. Sc'nnabel asked if the proposed addition �:ould be appoximately the same size of the existing deck? Mrs. Gunnick said it would be as wide (22') bur would be about 2 feet shorter: Mrs. Schnabel asked if the trees growing behind the deck, and serving as a screen from the property to the east, were on the lot line. Mrs. Gunnick said yes, they were on the property line. Mrs. Schnabel asked Mr. Clark if, in view of the comments of the neighboring property owners, the staff would withdraw their objections? Mr. Clar[c r•eplied that yes, the objection would be withdrawn, especially in light of the large lot size of the property to the east. MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABE7. DECLARRD THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:12 p.m. MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission recommend approval of the variance reyuest to reduce the living side of a house from 10 feet to 4 1/2 feet, to allow an addition at 7677 Arthur Street N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCI�NABEL DECI.ARED TH� MOTION CARRIED UNAI�IMOUSLY. 4. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE PURSUAh"T TO CHAPTER 205. OF THE FRIDLEY CITI CODEi TO IIj17 Coon Rapids, Pfi lel �fi :la [�)4t�IIii�Miir:\: TO i1ECHANICSVIL7,,�, THP 5�1� BEING 5450 Request by Richard Traczik, 12315 Gladiola, Mr. Traczik, the petitiorier, was present. •. Appeala Commission Meeting, Sune 10, 1980 Page 7 k i M � MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded Uy 24r. Rarna, to ope.i the public hearing. UPON A VOICE � VOTE� ALL VOTING AY�, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARI'sD TNE PUBLZC HEARING OPEN AT 9:15 p.m. ; Chairwoman Schnabel read the staff report. . . . RDMTNZSTRI�T:CVE S77�L•'F REPORT 5450 - Sth Street N.E. A. PUI3LIC PORFOSE SI;FNF•.D BY RI:QUIREMENT: Section 2C5.073, A?3, i13, requires a minimum side yard of 35 feet where a side yarcl abuts.a street of a corner lot. publ.ic purpose served by this requi.rement is to mai.ntain a higher degree of traYfic visibility and to reduce the "line of siqht" encroachment inte� the adjacent property owner's front yard. B. � STF�TED HARDSHIP: "Need variance of 3 feet so thar 6 18 £oot wide units can be built." c. �ruNZSTFaTn� s�rnrr rEVZEw: Since the 32 ioot side yard is going to be use� for landscaping, the traific vi�ibility can sCill be adequately maintained. Therer"ore, if the Board o£ Appeals recommends approval we have r.o stipclations to recommend. ' . Mr. Clark said that the petitioner want� to build an rental unit apartmeat buildi.n� of a townhou�e design. The•building will be �et 5ack 32 feet fron the cornex, and will be lan3ccaped. Acroos the street is the wall for the Freeway, and across the street on the front is the driveway from the other apartment complex. Mrs. Plemel asked if the apartment buildings were subdivided into townhouses what variances would be necessary. Mr. Clark stated that the present ordinance could not allow it. There would have to be a condominium oxdinance passe3 in order to germit such a conversion. MOTION by Ms. Gabel, VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, p.m. . seconded by Mr. Barna to close the public hearing. UPON A VOIC� CHAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARETi THE PUBLIC I�EPRING CLOSED AT 9:25 MOTION by Ms. Gabe.l, secoaded by Mr. Barna, that the Appeals Commission reconunen�l to Council, through the Flanning Commi.ss9.on, that the variance request to reduce the side yard se.tback from 35 feet to 32 feet, to a1J.ow the construction of a 6 unit apartment building at 5450 St}i Street r.E. be appro�+ed. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOtiAN SGRTIAI3EL D�CLARED THE MOTIQN CA£�RIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Clark told the petiCioner ihat this item would go to the City Council on July 7th. � �l CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING CdrAffSSION MEETING, JUNE 18, 1980 CALL TO ORDER• Chairman Harris called the June 18, 1980, Planning Co�ission meeting to oxder at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. Harris, Mr. Treuenfels, Mr. Langenfeld, Mr. Oquist, Ms. Hughes, Mr. Wharton Members Absent: Ms. Schnabel Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Reynold Swanson, 418 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. APPROVAL OF JUNE 4, 1980, PLANNiNG COI�IISSION MINUTES: Y�TION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to approve the lune 4, 1980, Planning Commission minutes as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL PLAA7NING COP8�fI5SI0N MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 9, 1980; MOTION by Mr. Sune 9, 1980, a voice vote, unanimously. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to approve the Special Planning Commission meeting minutes.as written. Upon all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried 1. PUHLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP �680-OS BY REYNOLD E, SWANSON: Extension of a Special Use Permit to continue as a mobile home sales lot, on the West 375 feet of Lot 3, A.S. iF89, subject to street and utility easement oveY the West 40 feet, per Section 205.101, 3, N, of the Fridley City Code, Che same being 7151 Highway �k65 N.E. I�TION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms.Hughes, to open the public hearing. on SP �k80-OS by Reynold E. Swanson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the public hearing open at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Boardman stated that this was brought to the City Council and then the Planning Coumission in May. At that time, it was determined by the Planning Coumission that a new special use permit be applied for and that a public hearing be conducted. This has been done and this item has c�e back to the Planning Commission for action. PLANNING COP4ffSSI0N MEETING, JUNL 18, 1980 PAGE 2 Mr. Harris explained that the reason this was brought back to the Planning Coum�3ssion was because it appeared that the special use permit had expired, according to the expiration date,and also because there were some modifications that should have been made within the context of the special use permit. Mx'. Harris asked Mr. Swanson if he would like to make a statement. Mr. Swanson stated he has tried to operate within the City laws and guidelines for-the past eight years, and he will continue to do so. If there have been any problems, he has aever heard about them, and he has been complimented by the City for some of the things that he has done such as plantings, shrubbery, etc. Mr. Boardman stated that Staff has reviewed this and sees no problems. Mr. Swanson has done everything he was supposed to do within the stipulations of the special use permit. He would reco�end that the Planning Co�ission grant the special use pexmit and not put in any stipulations of review on the special use permit. Mr. Boardman stated the question the Planning Caanm�ission had previously was whether the permit should expire or whethez it should be handled with a review process. The difference is that if they make the statement to have the special use permit expire, the applicant has to reapply and the neighbors have to be notified. On a review situation, no public hearing is required, and the special use permit would be reviewed every five years. MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Hughes, to close the public.hearing on SP ��80-OS by Reynold E. Swanson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the public hearing closed at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Treuenfels stated he did not concur that there be no stipulations on the special use permit. He felt a periodic review of the special use permit would be beneficial and five years migfiE be an appropriate time period. Ms. Hughes stated that the only thing that could be reviewed is whether or not the operation was still sale of mobile homes. Since that is the only thing the special use permit is granted for, it would get reviewed automatically if there was a change in that use. Unless they were going to review other people's special use permits, she did not like the idea of reviewing this operation just to see how well it was doing. She disagreed with the need for a periodic review, because the special use permit would be automatically reviewed if there was a change in the special use. PLANIVING COI�ICSSION MEETING, JUNE 18, 1980 PAGE 3 Mr. Oquist stated he also did not think a review process was necessary. If they were to go with a review process, he was not sure that five years would be the right timing to coincide with lease periods. Mr. Boardman stated that if there is a violation of the special use permit, other than what is clearly listed on the special use permit, it can be brought back at any time and that special use pexmit can be removed. Ms. Hughes stated she understood Mr. Langenfeld's motion to be the granting of the special use permit to the property for the use of a mobile hame sales lot and nothing else. Mr. Langenfeld stated that was correct. UPON A VOICE VOTE, HARRTS, LANGENFELD, OQUIST, HUGHES, AND WHARTON VOTING AYE, TREUENNELS VOTING ftAY, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED: Mr. Harris thanked Mr, Swanson for coming and stated this would go before City Council on July 7, 1980, 2. RECEIVE MAY 27, 1980, ENERGY CONIMLSSION NffNUTES: MOTION by Mr. Wharton, seconded by Mr, Treuenfels, to receive the May 27, 1980, Energy Co�ission minutes. Mr. Wharton stated he would like to point out some important items in the minutes. On page 5, item 4, the Energy Commission discussed solar access. He stated that this past week, the City of Minneapolis adopted a solar access ordinance. Mr. Wharton stated that the Energy Co�ission would be looking at various sources of solar ordinanee model material. Mr. Wharton stated that on page 6, item 5, the Energy Commission had a discussion regarding identifying energy management within the husinesses and corporations in the City of Fridley. The discussion included the Energy Co�ission's question about what exactly was the duty of the Energy Co�ission in that regard and what route should be taken to identify these people. Mr. Boardman was present at that meeting, and Mr. Boaxdman had suggested that an Energy Co�ission member attend a Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors' meeting to discuss this subject. Don Wall will he attending that meeting with Mr. Boardman. Mr. Wharton stated that on page 7, item 6, they divided the Zoning Ordinance into five sections to be reviewed by the Energy Co�ission. They will be reviewixtg those sections at the next meeting. Mr. Treuenfels stated tttat on page 8, Ms, Cayan had stated that an "Emergency Plan" has been prepared and can be activaked bq the Civil Defense Director, Jim Hill. He asked if it would be possible to get a copy of that plan. Mr. Boardman stated he did not know if this plan had even been approved by the City Council, but he waild check into it. UPON A VOICE VOTE, AIS, VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECL.SRED THE MOTION CARRIED UNADiIMOUSLY: PLANNING CO�II•IISSION MEETING, JUNE 18, 1980 PAGE 4 3. RECEIVE JUNE 10, 1980, COMMUNITY DEVELOPM6NT CON1AffSSION MLNUTES: I�TION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to receive the June 10, 1980, Co�uniCy Development Commission minutes. Mr. Oquist stated the Commission members had wondered about the status of condominium conversions. Mr. Boardman stated the State of Minnesota has a new law on condominiums. He thought the direction the City may be taking is the setting up of what they wi.11 call a condominium zone, maybe an R-5 zone. This would mean that any change of an existing unit to a condw�inium would have to be rezoned. Through the rezoning process, they could control condominium conversion. UP� A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAft AARRIS DECiARED THE M�ION CARRIED UNANiMOUSLY: 4. RECEIVE 3UNE 10, 1980, APPEAZS COPII�ILSSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to receive the ,Tune 10, 1980, Appeals Co�ission minutes. Mr. Boardman stated that on page 1 there was a request for a variance to allow a one-family dwelling to be converted to a two-family dwelling by building an apartment unit in the basement. The Appeals Cou�ission denied the request for the variance, but suggested that th3s idea be reviewed by the Planning Coum�ission at some point in time. Mr. Boardman stated he had talked to Ms, Schnabel about this subject. He stated this will probably be an issue in the near future. They will need to decide whether they want to look at increased densities within single family dwellings, because it is going to happen. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CI�IAIRMP+N HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNAPIMOUSLY; S. CONTIN[TLD: PROPOSED CHAAGES TO CHAPTER 205. ZONING 205.16 CR-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS 205.161 Uses Permitted Page 80 Delete �3-A, B, C, D, E Page 81 Insert 9�4-B: "Bike racks may be provided in an area that is convenient to each major building entrance, but which will not disrupt pedestrian or vehicular traffic or fire lanes." PLANNlNG COMPiISSION MSETING, JUiRE 18, 1980 PAGE 5 205.163 Lot Requirements and Setbacks Delete ��2 Lot Width Page 82 �k4-B-1-B: "eighty (80) feet" should be changed to "thirty-five (35) feet" 205.165 Parking Requirements 9k1 - Same change as C-1 District Regulations �2 - Change "will be required" to "will be provided" Page 83 Delete ��3-A, D, G, H ,�r`3-F - Change to read: "Storage - At least one (1) off-street parking space for each 2,000 square feet of storage space." Page 84 ��4-F, H- Same changes as C-1 District Regulations Page 85 ik4-I, J, K- Same changes as C-1 District Regulations 4k4-I. Loading Docks - Same changes as C-1 District Regulations �k5 - 5ame changes as C-1 District Regulations Ms. Hughes stated she saw this as a transition between co�ercial and residential, and she would think they would want the CR-1 District regulations closer to the residential district than the cnmmercial district in terms of stringency. Mr. Boardman stated that any zone that comes up to a residential zone is going to have to meet certain standards, so the standarda are protection for the residential. If an industrial district abuts a residential district, there are "x" amount of setback requirements, landscaping requirements, protection of parking, and loading and unloading areas that are away from residential. Ms. Hughes stated she understood that, but she also understood the CR-1 district might be one or two lots and could be surrounded by R districts. PLANNING COM•flSSION MEETING, JUNE 18, 1980 PAGE 6 Mr. Boardman stated that most of the CR-1 districts are either close to conmercial or close to intersections. He stated that the commercial regula- tions are more stringent than the residential regulations. Mr. Harris stated he felt they have endeavored to protect the residential districts in all zones, and he felt they had co�itted themselves to that a long time ago wi.th the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Hughes stated that was her concern--that they make sure they carefully protect the residential districts, and if that means making them aloser to a C district, that is what she intended. Page 86 �F3-A & B- Same as R-3 and C-1 District Regulations Page 87 Delete ik3-F. 4k3-H. - Same as C-1 District Regulations Page 88 #S. - Same as C-1 District Regulations �k7-A & B- Same as C-1 District Regulations Page 89 205.17 CR-2 DISTRICT REGULATIONS 205.171 Uses Permitted �kl-B - Delete "offices which generate excessive traffic flows" Add �kl-C: "The uses are major facilities requiring minimum of 100 parking spaces.° Delete �k2-D 205.172 Uses Excluded �1. Change "Section 205.161" to"Section 205.171" 205.173 Lot Requirements and Setbacks Delete �2 Lot Width PLANNING COMhuSSION MEETING, JUNE 18, 1980 PAGE 7 Page 91 205.175 Parking Requirements �3-F. Reword to read: "Storage - At least one (1) off-street parking space for each 2,000 square feet of storage space." Delete 4k3-G. Open Sales Lot Pages 92,93,94,95,96 Changes same as C districts Mr. Harris declared a ten-minute break at 9:05 p.m. 205.18 M-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS Mr. Harris stated that it seemed the only difference between the M-1 and M-2 Districts was the lot size. It did not make much sense to have both districts. Mr. Boardman stated he did not like having two districts and thought they could create one industrial district with a 3/4 acre 1oY size. The limit of 3/4 acre lot size would have some control on the plat size. After that, a company could buy one or two lots depending upon the size of the building and the parking they would need. MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Wharton, to eliminate the M-2 District and have only an M District. A11 special uses currently under M-2 would be handled with a special use permit under the new M District. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRI�fAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANiMOUSLY: Page 97 205.181 Uses Permitted �61. Principal- Uses Ms. Hughes suggested that the Co�ission keep in the listing of operations (under 4k1-A)and �1-B on page 97. On page 98, she would suggest that under 4�3 "Uses Permitted with a Special Use Permit", they include the list from page 108 which was undex the M-2 District. The reasoning for this would be to make sure they had some kind of listing so people would have examples of what is allowed. ,��1-A. Change to "Manufacturing, fabricating, and processing businesses" After some discussion, the Commission decided to delete the listing numbered : 1-37 under 9k1-A, PLANNING COt�LLSSION MEETING JUNE 18 1980 PAGE 8 �1-B. Change to; "Wholesale, manufacturing, construction or service uses which will not be dangerous or otherwise detrimental to persons residing or working in vicinity thereof, or to the public welfare, and will not impair the use, enjoyment or value of any property,but not including any uses excluded hereinafter." Page 98 Delete 4k2-A 4k2-D-3. Change to: "No detached dwelling unit shall be permitted in this district." �63. Uses Permitted with a Special Use Permit - Delete A-G and insert a paragraph such as: "Any manufacturing business determined to have the potential of disrupCing the general health, safety, and welfare shall require a special use permit .'! Page 99 Add 9k4-B: "Bike racks may be provided in an area that is convenient to each major buildiug entrance, but which will not disxupt pedestrial or vehicular traffic or fire lanes." 205.182 Uses Excluded ikl. Change "Section 205.171" to "Section 205.181" The Co�ission members discussed the possibility of listing "junk yards" under "Uses Excluded". They decided not to exclude junk yards, but to allow them only with a special use permit with stricter restrictions. 205.183 Lot Requirements and Setbacks Delete 4�2 Lot Width Page 100 �4-D-1. Change "M-1 District" to "M District" �k4-D-1-a. Insert the word "closer" after the word "or" in the 4th and Sth lines. Pages 101, 102,_103, 104 Same changes as C districts PLANNTNG COI�ffSSION MEETING SUNE 18 1980 PAGE 9 Page 105 205.186 Performance Standards �k3-F. Reword as follows: "All raw materials, supplies, finished or semi- finished products and equipment, not including motor vehicles, shall be stored within an enclosed building or be screened on all sides from view of a public right-of-way or an adjoining property that is a difEerent district by a fence or other approved screen with the height of the fence not to exceed eight (8) feet ...." Delete �'k3-F-3 Page 106 �k5. Change same as C-1 District Regulations Pages 107 - 115 Delete all of M-2 Distr3ct Regulations MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to continue discussion on Proposed Changes to Chapter 205. Zoning at the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. 6. OTIiER BUSINESS; A. Comprehensive Plan - Implementation Section Draft MDTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to receive the Comprehensive Plan - Implementation Section Draft. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Boardman stated this was for the Planning C wmiission to review and then send hack to City Council. B. Spring Lake Park Public Hearing Notice Mr. Boardman stated this was the official notice from Spring Lake Park regarding the construction of a 60-unit apartment complex far the elderly. This item had been tabled prior to the May 27 Planning & Zoning meeting and was rescheduled for the June 23 meeting. He stated the Planning Commission was primarily concerned about the quantity and quality of water run-off. He stated he would not be able to attend that meeting, but would attempt to contact someone at Spring Lake Park before that meeting. Mr. Harris stated he also would not be able to attend that meeting. PLANNlNG COMhffSSION MEETING JUNE 18 1980 PAGE 10 AATOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the June 18, 1980, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lyn Saba Recording Secretary