PL 01/07/1981 - 30550,'�1
�1.
.r
CITY OF FRIDL'EY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETiNG,'JANUARY 7,,1981
CALL TO ORDER: .
Chairman Harris called the January 7, 1981, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 7:37 p.m. -
ROLL CALL: �
Members Present: Mr. Harris, Mr. Treuenfels, P�Is. Schnabel, Mr. Oquist,
e Ms. Hughes, Mr. Wharton ,
Members Absent: Mr. Svanda
(�thers Pres.ent:
Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
Bill Deblon, Associate Planner �
Ed Clausman, 4544 Meadow Road, Minneapolis
David Steiner, 1 0532 Zion, N.W., Coon Rapids
Ray Cunnir�gham, D. A. Fa►°r Qevelopment Corp.
Mary Knutson, D. A. Farr D�velopment Corp.
Br:an Goodspeed, 731 Rice Creek Terrace
Stan Thompson, 4760 - 747 Lane N.W., Anoka
Rick Martin, 5275 Edina Ind. Blvd.
Rob Taylor, 5275 Edina Ind. Blvd.
Darrell Anderson, 15 S. 5th St., Minneapolis
Gerald Paschke, 59Z0 N.�Kirkwood Lane
Dr. Brandjord, Skyline Veterinary Hospital
APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 17, 1980, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: •
1�10Z'ION Bi' N�2. TREUENFEL5, SECONDED BY MS. HUGHE5� TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER Z7� 1�80,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTEa AS WRITTEN.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED"THE MOTSON CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF AGEN�A:
A10TION BY N�2. WHARTON, SECONDED BY MS. SCHNABEL, TO AMEND THE AGENDA IN ORDER
THAT "REVISION TO PLAT 6� OF THE DARRELL FARR INNSBRUCIC NORTH PROJECT" BECOME
ITEIt #1.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHATRMAN HARRIS DECLARED T�E MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. _
.?
p
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 7, 1981 PAGE 2
1. REVISION TU PLAT.6 OF THE DARRELL FARR INNSBRUCK NORTH PROJECT:
Mr. Boardman stated that when Mr. Farr went through with the original Plat 5,
he had approval for Plat 5. Plat 5 inc]uded all of the area which is now
classified as Plats 5 and 6. Plat 6 is the second. phase of what was generally
called Innsbruck 5t{� Addition. The original Plat 5 had some garage spaces.
They have now eliminated 16 garage spaces which had been set up b�fore.
According to the Platting Ordinance for amendments, al] that is required is
that "ea�h proposed change sha17 be submitted before Planning Cot�nission for
a report.thereon". It requires public hearing before City Council.
Mr. Boardman stated that Mr. Ray Cunningham of the Darrell Farr Development
Corporation was in the audience and would answer any questions the Planning
Commission might have.
�
Ms. Schnabel �asked that other than the eliminaiion of the garage section, was
that the on}y modification that would be made? Would the units remain the same?
Mr. Cunningham.stated that was correct, and the units wou]d remain the same.
The reason they eliminated garages was because the first 30 units did not call
for the�-extra garage spaces. Rather than plat them, they decided to eliminate
the garage, spaces. The area will-remain open natural space.
�1
Mr. Harris stated that as he remembered in �he original plat, there was supposed �
to be some information and upgrading of certain services (as-builts, etc.� furnisht
to the City, These had not been done. It was also his understanding at the
time of the original plat, that sewer and water were to be built to city speci-
fications. Had that been done? '
Mr. Boardman stated the City has approved all the servfces. What they had been
missing was the as-builts. They did have a►t�eting that day and did receive
some drawings. At this time, the City has no problems with this.
MOTION BY MS. FIUGHES, 5ECONDED BY 1�IR. WHARTON, TO REFER THE REVISION TO PLAT 6
OF HE DARRELL FARR INNSBRUc:K NORTH PROJECT ON TO CITY COUNCIL WITH NO FURTHER
QUESTION5.
UPON A VOICE VOTF, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRZED .
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A RE UEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT,
SP #80-12, BY AFFILTNTE VETERINARY SERVICE: Per Section�205. 0, 3, p,
to a ow a Veterinary Eme►^gency C inic in Moan Plaza Shopping Center, the
same being 6201 University Aver�ue N.E.
MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECDNDED BY MS. 5CHNABEL, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC XEARING ON
SP #80-12 BY AFFILIATED VETF.RINE7R1' SERVICE.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOI'ING r�YE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS.DECLARED TNE PUBLTC HEARING �
OPEN AT 7:49 P.M. , �
� F
r_
r"�
r''�
r"1
�
.,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 7, 1981. . PAGE 3
Mr. Boardman stated the location for the Veterinary Emergency Clinic is the
Moon Plaza Building on the University Service Road. He stated he had received
the drawing from the group of doctors proposing the.project, and he showed
this drawing to the Planning Commission. He stated this would be an emergency
shelter and would.be occupied only at night and on weekends. The dogs will not
be kept at the clinic.
Mr. Boardman stated that the present Zoning Code states that any veterinary
or animal storage location is required to have a concrete ceiiing. The Planning
Commissian has recommended that this requirement be eliminated, but it is still
a requirement at this time. In this situation, if the Planning Commission
recor�nends approval ofthe special use permit, the petitioners will have to go
for a variance. Mr. Boardman stated the doctors were in the audience and would
be willir�g to answer questions.
Dr. Ed Clausman stated he is the President of the Affiliated Veterinary Service.
He stated this is a new concept in the Frid]ey area, and he would be glad to
outline what 'they are proposing to do. He stated the Affiliated Veterinary
Service would like a special use permit to locate their business in Moon Plaza
Shopping Center: They are interested in leasing the area available on the
southerly portiQn of the shopping center to offer emergency veterinary service
to the people of Fridley and surrounding communities'. This service would consist
of after-hour emergency veterinary care to pets in the area that need life-
supporting treatment. The facility will operate only between the hours of
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, and from 12:00 noon on Saturday
to 8:00 a.m. Monday morning. Most of the animals (80%+) will be treated immediately
and sent home with their owners. If needed, they will be taken to the regular
veterinarian the next �ay. Pets requiring observat�ion during the night will be
released before 8:00 a.m. the following morning. The premises will be completely
vacated during the day.
Dr. Clausman stated that professional services of this type will offer the
following advantages to the people of Fridley:
1. Emergency veterinary service would not only be available to the
people of Fridley, but would be close at hand.
2. Their professional services would be available also to help the
Fridley Police Department with any after-hours stray or injured �
animals.
3. Having their facility operated during the night would act as a
deterrent to crime or an early detection of fire.
Dr. Clausman stated their
�vhich is a very low volume
set up because there are a
The veterinary profession
center with a veterinarian
faster service than they c
night.
projected volume would be from 3-8 clients per night,
and would not affect traffic. Basically, they are
certain number of emergencies with pets at night.
has found that if they can establish an emergency
on duty, people can go there and get better and
an by calling their regular veterinarian during the
z.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 7, 1981� PAGE 4
Dr. Clausman stated they would have two peopl� on duty during the night--the
veterinarian and the veterinarian technician.
Dr. Clausman stated they started one emergency clinic about two years ago in
St. Louis Park, and it has been very successful. The reason for starting
another clinic is because of the distance people would drive to get treatment
for a pet. He stated there would be no noise,. becaus.e the animals are sick,
and there would be no odor problem. They do not have any odor problems at the
clinic in St. Louis Park. �. �
Mr. Wharton asked if there would be any hazardous gases stored for anesthetic
purposes.
Qr. CYausman stated they wouTd not. They may have oxygen. The main purpose
of the clinic is to stabilize the animal and get it to its regular veterinarian
in the morning, so it is only a life-supporting kind of thing. They would have
the minimum-amount of emergency-type drugs.
Mr. Wha.rton asked if the animals would be left unattended at any time.
Dr. Clausman stated the definitely would not.� The clinic is responsible to
20-25 veterinarian hospitals that use it, and the concept is that th� veterinarian
be there.at all times.
Ms. Schnabel asked how an individual would know about this clinic.
Dr. Clausman stated that they are listed i.n the yellow pages of the �elephone
book, but most people are referred by the regular veterinarians who use the
clinic. They have also picked up some publicity because of public interest.
They have been on television a couple of times and have hand-outs. As they
are around longer, more and more people will know about it.
Ms. Hughes asked how sanitation would be handled.
Dr. Clausman stated that any clean-up or dispos�l of animal waste would be
done through the regular sanitation channels.
Mr. Boardman stated that City Staff was not concerned and did not feel the
waste would be,of any volume or any extent that it could not be disposed of
through the regular garbage pick-u�. Since the operation is strictly during
the night and on the weekend, Staff did not fee7 there would be a noise pro6lem.
Dr. Brandjord of the Skyline Veterinary Hospital stated their debris is picked
up two times a week. When they initially opened up, it was only once a week.
They have never had any problems with odors. There are no con�agious diseases
they are dealing with that are going to be- concentrated. Any animal that
comes into the hospita] is already walking around the streets,
Mr. Harris stated there probably should be some sound-proofang board put on
the common wall.
�
�^,
�
: -.�.,�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 7, 1981 PAGE 5
�°'.1 � . .
MOTlON BY MS. HUGHES, SECONDED BY MR. OQUI5T, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON
SP �80-12 BY AFFILIATED VET�RINARY SERVICE.
UPO1� A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRi��IAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING
CLOSED AT 8:1 7 P.M.
MOTION BY MS. HUGHES, SECONDED BY MR. TREUENFELS, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF A REpUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMTT, SP �}80-12, BY AFFILIATED
VETERINARY SERVICE: PER SECTION 205.101� 3, p, TO ALLOW A VETERINARY ER9ERGENCY
CLINIC IN MOON PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER, THE SAME BEING 6201 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.,
WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS:
1. THAT THE CLINIC BE USED FOR EMERGENCY PURPOSES ONLY WITHIN THE
HOURS SPECIFIED--6:00 P.M. TO 8:00 A.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, AND
12:00 NDOIV SATURDAY T� 8:00 A.M. MONDAY, AND AT A111Y TTME DURING
OFF.�CIAL HOLIDAYS.
2. THAT SOUND PRODFING BE .R�QUIRED ON THE INTERIOR WALL FOR THE REAR
'' TREATMENT ROOM UP TD THE EXISTING RE52'ROOM FACILITY.
3� THAT_THE OWNERS BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SANITIdTION AT A MINIMUM OF
�'f�70 TIME5 A WEEK.
� Mr. Wharton stated he took..exception to the sound �roofing. Sound control is
done by two different methods--by adding mass to the wall (and he did not fee]
,� that was prudent at this stage) or by putting a sound ab�orbent mat_erial on the
wall (and he did not think that would be sanitary in that particular area of
the struc�ure).
MDTION BY MR. WHARTON, SECONDED BY MS. SCHNABEL, TO AMEIVD THE MOTTON TO DELETE
STIPUIfATION #2 REQUIRING SOUND PROOFING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, WHARTON, TREUENFEL5, SCHNABEL, OQUIST, AND HUGHES VOTIIVG
AYE, HARRIS VOTING NAY, THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED 5-1.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF SP #80-12 WITH. STIPULATI0111S CARRIED
UNANII�tOUSLY.
Mr. Boardman stated this would go to City Council on January 19; however, they
would probably,delay this until the variance caught up and then handle both
requests at the same time.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZQNING REQUEST, ZOA #80-05, BY
WINFiELD DEVELOPMENT, INC.: o rezone ot 2, except t e�dort er y 0
feet, an Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 inclusive, Block 1, Paco Industria] Park,
from C-2 (general business areas) to M-1 (light industria] areas) to allo�v
the construction of a 98,000 square foot building to be used for office
and office warehouse, light manufacturing and service, the same being
1151-5251 Commerce Circle East.
r'1
� d
... .. ... ..... .... .. ....
PLANNING COMMISSION MEE7ING, JANUARY 7, 1981� � PAGE 6
MOTION BY MR. TREL�NFELS, SECONDED BY MR. [4I��RTON,-TO OPEN THE PUBLiG HEARING
ON ZOA #80-05 BY WINFIELD DEVELOPMENTS,TNC.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HA.�2RIS DECI,ARED THE pUBLIC HEARING
OPEA1 AT 8: 3.I P. M.
Mr. Boardman s.tated that page 18 of the agenda showed the layout of the
Paco Industrial Park located on University Avenue south of 73rd. When the plat _
was firs� approved and zoned, the properties to the west, Lots 10-13, were
zoned heavy industrial, the properties located in the center were zoned light
industrial, and the prop�rties along University Avenue were zoned commercial,
C-2. The cornEr property, Lot i, Block 1, is currently being developed as an
office structure. �
Mr. Boardmarr stated the proposal f rom Winfield Deve7opments,Inc., more closely
fit into a light industria1 type of development. It is an office/warehouse
type of �aciYity, possibly looking at showroom with storage space, one-story
type of facility, with truck loading areas, Staff felt this would probably be
more closely related to the M-1 district and suggested that Winfiield Development,
Inc. , have' thi s.rezoned 'to an M-1 di stri ct.
Mr. Boardman stated the buildirg rronta�e would be faeing University Aven{ie.
The loading area would be along Commerce Circ;e. Within -�he proposa], there
will be berming with retaining wails for screening protection. It will be
landscaped along the street side of the screening. The landscaping will be
the same as Mr. Paschke has done with his office building to maiiitain the same
type of treatment all along the front. �
Mr. Boardman stated water is being piped into the storm sewer system, All the
water has approval through thP Rice Creek Watershed District and is being stored
in the community park area.
Mr. Harris asked if the petitioner would like to speak on this item.
Mr. Rob Taylor stated he was t�tith Winfield Developments,Inc. He stated they
felt this was an exciting sfie for an office/warehouse type of facility. It
is their intention to establish, recognizing two things--the park to the south
of their property and the office building to the north. It is their intention
to take the end units of the building and establish office faci7ities facing
north and south at those points. On numerous occasions, they have discussed the
pros and cons of commercial development. It is their understanding that the
physical shape and configuration of their pr•nposed building does comply with
the City's commercial rules and regulations; however, they wanted the flexi-
bility to allow light industrial uses into the development, rather than run
the risk of losing a potential tenant. _
Mr. Taylor stated they did an extensive study o�' the area, they worked with
the City, they got information from local real estate agent, and with the
concerns the City Planning Department had with.a long commercia1 dzvelopment,
the�� came to the conclusian that this kind of development best fit the site.
�
'�
�,
�
�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 7, 1981 � PAGE 7
Mr. Taylor stated they wou]d be doing exi:ensi've landscaping along both
University and Commerce Circle. They will be low�ring the dock level of
the loading areas 48 inches. They also will be taking up the retaining walls,
holding back the berms an additional four feet, which will adequately screen
the area from Commerce Circle. They are making provision far the ten foot
bicycle path easement. He stated their architect, Mr. Darrell Anderson,
was present to answer any technical questions the Commission might have.
Ms. Schnabel asked if Winfield Developments,Inc., owned the land, if they had
financing secured, and if they had commitrr�nts for potential tenants.
Mr. Taylor stated they have an option on the property from the developer of
the industrial park, based on rezoning and a few other contingencies. At this
time, they have not secured financing. At this time, they do not have any
commitm�nts for future tenants. Some of the tenants will be i`rom expanding
existing businesses that are already their tenants. They have three buildings
under constructi.on at this time southwest of Minneapolis, and they do not have
any tenants for them. It is not unusual for them to start construction on a
building wi�hout tenants lined up. Basically, that is the way they operate,
build a buiJding, finance it, and then lease it out.
Mr. Paschke stated that when they p�anne.d the whole park, the Gity felt this
should be corru�nercial property. He stai:ed he went along with t�iat and designed
� Paco Industrial Park with the intention that �this would all be commercial develop-
ment. He stated he did not agree with the proposal to change it to M-1 zoning.
If Winfield Developments,Inc., was looking in Fridley for property, there was a
lot of property just north of this property that was already zoned for light
industrial. ,
Mr. Paschke stated his main objectian was that the 800 ft. long building was
like putting a screen a]ong University Avenue which was almost two blocks long.
He still felt that Lots 4, 5, and 6 were possibly a decent area for M-1 zoning,
but he still felt Lots 2 and 3 should remain commercially-zoned property. He
thought it was very unfair after he had gone in wi�h the intention that it would
all be commercial, and then to rezone it to M-1.
Mr. Harris asked if the petitioner had any al�ernative plans to what was being
proposed.
Mr. Taylor sta�ed their architect, Mr. Anderson, had gone over several different
schemes and configurations, and because of the shallow depth and the cost of land,
they felt the proposed plan was the best type of development because it did not
increase their site coverage, but did provide exposure onto University. They
felt it would have a very positive affect on the community. It is a large
building, but they have built large buildings before. They feel they can use
the size as an asset in terms of tenants.
Mr. Rick Martin stated they sincerely feel
n under industrial zoning. They have a lot
industrial, as tenants usually take better
they can provide a nicer building
more aesthetic control under
care of their space.
'a
!,
PLANNING COMMISSION M�E7ING, JANUARY 7, 1981' PAGE 8
. . �",
Mr. Paschke st�ted he had two main objections'to the rezoning--the size af the
building and the length of the buiiding. He would not object to that same
building going on Lots 4, 5, and 6,.
1y10TION �Y MS . HUGHES � SECONDED BY 1:'S . 5CHNABEL, TD CLG5E THE PUBLIC I�EARIIJG ON
ZOA #80-05 BY WINFIELD DEVELOPN�NTS, INC.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE', CHAIRM�IN HARRSS DECLARED TI�E PUBLIC HEARING
CLOSED AT 9:31 P.M.
Ms. Hughes stated it seemed that whol� area is light industrial kind of usage.
If she iooked at the city as a who�e and what they are looking at in redevelop-
ment of Center City, she did not like �he idea of a commercial strip there,
and she did not like the idea of encouraging commercial development in this spot.
She did not�like the loading dock arrangement tha� is proposed on the property.
One problem she could see was how it V�ould look from the new community park.
She thought �he view from the park was noic going to be the best. Was therz good
rationale �or having strip commercial development alor�g there? Wouldn't it
detract.from the Center City-type p�^ojects?
Ms. Schn.abel stated she had a very hard time unders�:anding the philosophy of
reviewing an entire plat one year ago and just six months ago approving a plat
which included commercial along Universit� Avenue. Now, they are being asked to
rezone that strip. �he had heard that there are enough commitments �o make �"'�
i�r. Paschke's of�ice building wor�ht��hile as a commercial endeavor versus an M-1
district. She is not convinced that there is a strong�r need ¢or M-1 than ther�
is for existing commercial. Beyond this, it bothered her that the petitioner
has said �ihey do not have financing secured, and that they�havs an option on the
property. If they give approval to the rezonir�g, and for some reason,.the plans
fall through, the City wili be sitting with that proper�y rezoned to M-1. She
was not convinced the Planning Commissi�n should go back on rezoning they had
done just six months ago, and she was not convinced there has been established
a need for more M-1 than commercial.
Mr. Oquist stated he felt the same way as Ms. Schnabel. They d�d approve this
plat just six months ago as conunercial.
Mr. Harris stated that as he remembered and he had gone on record stating that
he f.elt commercial would be a natural extension of the industrial park, commercial
not being walk-in freight, bu� office-type business, as opposed to retail trade.
As recently as two months ago, at the City Council meeting regarding industrial
revenue bonding on t1r. Paschke's office structure, r�e went on record stating
they felt the office structure was a natural extension of the industrial park
and that it would benefit the industrial park, as well as benefit the whole
city of Fridley. He did net think they had ever in�ended it to be retail trade,
walk-in freight, or strip commercial, but should be some type of office.
Mr. Boardman stated it has always been the plan of the Planning Department to
restrict strip conunercial. If it was the intent of the Planning C�n�nission and ^
the intent of the City Council to have this ofifice, then the City would have _
_��.
. �
PLANNING COMPIISSION MEETING, JANUARY 7, 1981' PAGE 9
� : .
zoned it an office zone. He stated he did nQt think they wanted retail trade
in that area, such as a McDonalds, Burger Chef, Perkins, etc., which they could
have with a commercial zone.
Mr. Hat•ris stated his main objection was an 800 ft, long building.
Mr. Wharton stated he could not undersiand why the Commission was hung up on
zoning the property from one zone to another, They sriould be happy to rezone
it from one zone to another as long as the petitioner was willing to pay a
$250 fee:.for it. They were not wearing out property lines. .
MOTION BY MS. 5CHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. TREUENFELS, TO RECOMMEND TD CITY COUNCIL
DENIAL OF REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #80-05� BY WINFIELD DEVELOPMENTS� INC.
Ms. Schnabel stated the reason for this motion wus because of her concern that
the petitioner has not secured any financing, a need has not been demonstrated
for this �ype of building, and no specific tenants have been lined up. She
would,�like to see these kin�s of things tied down before the Planning Commission
approved any rezoning, and she was concerned about rezoning so soon after the
plat was rezoned, which she felt was, in effect, spot rezoning.
Ms. Hughes��siated she could not see any real detriment to the proposed project.
This is as viable a proposal as they often ge� on any rezoning, special use
;.-� permits, and dozens of other things. 7here is the question of being stuck with
a rezoned propertys except that she agreed with Mr. Boardman that this was the
most appropriate use for this property,unless ii was zoned CR-1 or CR-2 limited
. to just office space, and thaL would take a rezoning also. She stated she would
vote against this motion. � .
Mr. Oquist stated he also agreed with Mr. Boardman, that M-1 seemed the most
reasonable use for this parcel of property.
Mr. Harris stated his biggest problem was the 800 ft. long building. He thought
if the building had a break in it, he would feel more comfortable with it,
(Mr. Wharton left the meeting at 10:10 p,m.)
UPON A VOICE VOTE� NARRIS AND 5CHNABEL VOTING AYE, TREUENFELS, OQUIST, AND
HUGHES VOTING NAY, CKAIRMAN HARRI5 DECLA.�2ED THE MOTION FAILED 3-2.
MOTIDN BY MS. NUGHE5, SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF REZONING REQUEST, ZOA �80-05, BY WIIVFIELD DEVELOPMENTS, INC.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, NUGHES AND OQUIST VOTING AYE, HARRIS, TREUENFELS, AND
SCNNABEL VOTING NAY, CHAIRI��AN HARRIS DECZARED THE MOTIOlU FAILED 3-2.
Mr. Harris asked if there was some way this buil.ding could have some division
in it so that it was not one solid front, that the area towards the north be
�..1 left as a C-type zoning and that the southern 2-4 lots be left as M-1 type
�zoning with a ph,ysical separation of same feet of green area between the two
buildings.
Mr. Taylor stated they were willing to work with their architect to redraw the
si�e plan.
,a
4
� Y
PLANNING COMMISSION MEE7ING, JRNUARY 7, 1981 PArE 10
. . �
MOTION BY MR. OQUIST � SECONDED BY 1�2 . TREUENFEI�S � TO COlt'TINUE DISCUSSION OIV
REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #80-05, BY WINFIELD DEVEIAPMENTS, IIVC.: TO REZONE LOT 2
EXCEPT THE NORTHERLY 50 FEET, �1.�VD LOTS 3� 4, 5 AND 6 INCLU5iVE, BLOCK 1, PACO
INDU�TRIAL PARK, FROM C-2 (GENERA� BU52NE5S AREAS) TO M-1 (LIGHT INDU5TRIAL
AREASJ TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 98,000 5QUARE FOOT BUILDING TO BE USED
FOR OFFICE AND OFFICE WAREFiOUBE, LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND 5ERVICE� THE S� BEING
7151-7251 COMMERCE CIRCLE EAST, AND Tn RL'QUEST CITY COUIUCIL TO SET A PUBLIC
HEARING FOR ZOA #80-05 FOR FEBRUARY .9, 1981.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALI, VGTING AYE, CHASRPdAN HARRIS DECLARED THE B90TION C.AItRIED
UNAN�MOUSLY.
4. CONTINUED: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED �iOISE ORDINANCE
MOTION BY MS. HUGHES, SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST, TO CONTINUE THE CON5IDERATION OF
A PROPOSED NO.ISE ORDINANCE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION C�IRRIED
UNANIPIOUSLY. "
5. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEAF2ING: AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY �
� CODr, GENERALLY KNO N S THE FRIDLEY ZONING CORE
MOlION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY M5. SCHNABEL, TD CONTINUE 2'HE AMENDMENT TD ��
C13APTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTSNG AYE � CHAI.RMt�117 H�1RF2IS DECL.z1REt7 THE MOTION CARRI£D
UNANI�?OUSLY. '
6. RECEIVE QECEMBER 9, 1980, C�MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COP1MISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MR. TREUENFELS, TO RECEIVE THE DEC. 9� 1980,
COMMUNZTY DEV�'LOPMENT COMl�12SSION MINUTE5.
Mr. Oquist restated the concern expressed by Ms. Gustafson and the other
commission members about the purpose of the comrnission.
Mr. Boardman stated he has discussed this issue with his staff. Mary Cayan,
staff inember to the Human Resources Commission and the Energy Commission, is
sending out a lette►° to each commission discussing what has been accomplished
in 1980 and, for the new year, laying out some possible goals for the commission
to accom�,lish. He s�ated he did n�t like a commission relying only on staff
to bring items before them. It sometimes becomes a burden for staff to search
for items to bring before the commissions. Staff has �oo heavy a workload to
act as coc+rdinator for the commissions. He stated he did not feel it was
Staff's job to be the coordinator of a comrhission. Staff`s job is to provide
and supply in-formation to the commission and help the commission accomplish
whatever �ask� that commission is trying to do, Staff needs direction from
the commission for goals, etc. �
- -�--
� � -
�,.-� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 7y 1981� � PAGE 11
Mr. Boardman stated the Gor�munity Development Commission may want to respond to
some of the things he just stated.
Mr. Boardman also stated that the question of whether the Community Development
Commission has a role or a function should be considered by both the Community
Development Commission and the Planning Commission.
Mr. Harris suggested that the Community Development Commission talk about their
role at their next meeting.
Mr. Boardman stated there was a definite need to redefine the goals of the
Community Development Commission.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRNIAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
7. RECEIVE-DECEMBER 10, 1980, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES:
MO'l'ION BY MS. RUGHES, SECONDED BY MR. TREUENFELS, TO RECEIVE THE DEC. 10� 1980,
PARKS & RE'CREATIpN COI�LNII'5SION MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRI5 DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
� UNANIMOUSLY.
� 8. RECEIVE DEC, 11, 1980, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES:
MOTION BY MR. TREUENF'EL5, SECONDED BY. MS. SCHIVABEL, TO RECEIVE THE DEC. 11 � 1980,
NOUSING � REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRP?AN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARFtIED
UN.�INIMOUSLY.
9. RECEIVE DECEMBER 16, 198Q, ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BIr MR, pQUIST, SECONDED BY D?R. 2'REUERIFEIS, TO RECEIVE THE DEC. 16, .I980,
ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTESa
UPO1V A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
10. RECEIVE DECEMBER 16, 1980, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MS. SCHNABEL, TO RECEIVE THE DEC. 16� 1980,
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES.
Regarding the permit application for proposed dredging of the Mississippi River,
Mr. Harris stated that Rimanco, Inc,, should take a look at the river sand they
� will be dredging for fill as this material just does not compact well.
� Mr. Boardman stated that if Mr. Harris has a concern with the compaction of
the fill, he may want to pass this recommendation on to the Sta�te Highway
Department.
0
rr
' > .-
PLAIdNI�G COMMISSION h9EETING, JANUARY 7, 1981 � PAGE 12 �
. . � _�
UPOP: A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AI'�, GHAIRMAN �iARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
11. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Proposed Amendments �o LQCaI Comprehensive Plans_
Mr. Boardman stated Metropo7itan Council is having a public hearing
on the amendment process. They have c�one through a whole series of
�reetings and are making some revisions to their amendrnent process
to �he comprehensive plan. That meeting will be on Jan. 22 at 2:0a p.m.
at Metropolitan Council. At this point in time, the City is pretty
much supportingt�e posi�ion �aken by the League of Municipalities.
That position is th at the city has some choice as to what gCes to
Metropolita�n Council, and that the process be in conjunction with
hearing processes that are already or primari]y set up with the citi�s.
B: Letter from Metro oli�an Gouncil re: Cho�sin Sewa e, Solid, and
Slu ge�Disposa3 Sites
Mr. Harris si�ted there is going to be a meeting regarding this .
.at�Coon Rapids City Hall on Jan. 29, at 7:30 p.m. He felt it was
very impor�tant that the City of Fridley be represented at this mee�ting.
i�"1
MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, 5ECONDED BY MR. TREUENFELS, TO RECO.�II�9END Z'O
CITY COUNCZ'L Z'HAT A REP22ESENTATIVE' FR�M TI�E CITY OF F12IDLEY BE
APPOIIVTED TO ATTEND TI:IS MEETING.
UPOR1 A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN� AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANTb?OUSZY. '
ADJOURNMENT:
. MOTION BY MR. TREUENFELS, SECOM�E� BY MS. SCHNABEL, TO ADJOURN THE 1NEETINGe
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRI5 DECLARED THE JANUARY 7, 1981,
PT11'iNNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:59 P.M.
Respec�t�ully submitted,
,� 1��.
Ly e saba
Recording Secretary
.,
'-1