Loading...
PL 01/21/1981 - 30551� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANU/�RY 21, 1981 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris ca]led the January 21, 1981, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. Harris, Ms. Schnabel, Ms. Modig (for Mr. Oquist), Ms. Hughes, Mr. Wharton . Members Absent: Mr. Treuenfels, Mr. Svanda Others Presen�: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Bill Deblon, Associate Planner � Rick Martin, 5275 Edina Ind. Blvd. Rob Taylor, 5275 Edina Ind. Blvd. Darrel7 Anderson, 15 S. 5th St., Minneapolis W. G. Doty, 175 Logan Parkway N.E. Gary Wellner, 6221 Sunrise Drive N.E. �'"1 See attached 1 i st APPROYAL OF JANUARY 7, 1981, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MS. MODIG� TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 7, 198I, PLANNING COMMISSION 1�IINUTES. Mr, Harris ir�dicated that pn�pac+e 8, second parGgraph from the bottom, the words, "walk-in freight", :�houl� be dele�ed. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIIVG AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MINUTES APPROVED AS AA'IENDED. 1. CONTINUED: DISCUSSION ON REZONING REQUEST, Z�A #80-05, BY WINFIELD DE�ELOPM�NTS, INC.: To rezone Lot 2, except t e Nort erly 50 fee�, and ots 3, , 5 an inclusive, Block 1, Paco Industrial Park, from C-2 (general �usiness areas) to M-1 (light industria] areas) to allow the construction of a 98,�00 square foot building to be used for office and office t��arehouse, light manufacturing and service, the same being 7151-7251 Commerce Circle East. Public Hearing closed. 1�10TION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECOIVDED &Y MS. XUGHES, TO REOPEN TFIE PUBLIC HEAP.ING ON ZOA �%80-OS BY WINFIELD DEVELOPMENTS� INC. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN NAP.IZIS DECLARED THE PUELIC AEARING REOPENED AT 7:35 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 21, 1981 � PAGE 2 ^ Mr. Boardman stated he had met with �infield Developments, Inc. He stated they have drawn up a new development as suggested by the P1anning Commission at their last meeting. They have split the building. They are proposing that the building�on the north remain commercial zoning, and the building on the south go to M-1 industrial�. There are 40 feet between the entrances of the two buildings, and 50 feet between the part of the building that go in. Mr. Boardman stated that Mr. Gerald Paschke, one of the neighbors who objected to the development, has �rri��en a letter to Mr. Harris, Chairman of the Planning Commission. One of the conditions Mr. Paschke would l�ke to see is that the property on the north end, Lots 2 and 3, remain commercial, and the three lots to the south, Lots 4, 5, and 6, be zoned industrial for development. Mr. Boardman stated that Mr. Anderson, architect for Winfield Deve7opments, Inc., was in the audience and would answer any questions. Mr. Darrell Anderson stated he thought one of the primary reasons the proposal was objectionable was the overall length of the project. They have now come back and have demonstrated they can split the building. They have lost some square footage.� They now have 94,000 sq. ft. Their intention is still to have the similarly low profile structure. Mr. Anderson stated ihere was sor�e concern at the last meeting about the docks � facing south towards the new communi�y park. They have redone the building so the docks face to the north. Mr. Anderson stated another concern. at the last meeting was the height of the structure and what is going to be seen. He stated that, in traveling past the struc�ure, people are really only going to see the foliage and the walls, and only about four foot maximum height of the structure is going to show behind the walls. . Ms. Schnabel asked if Winfield Developments, Inc., was still requesting the entire strip to be rezoned to M-1, or in view of the fact that they had changed one building to office and the other building to light industrial, were they splitting the zoning into two sections? Mr. Taylor stated they have had discassions with the City Attorney and are, hopefully, going to receive an opinion from tt�e City gttorney which would allow the office/warehouse type of use that is contemplated in both buildings to be allowed in a commercial district. With that in mind, they.can delete � the rezoning of the northern building and retain it as commercial. That would preclude manufacturing t�pe uses, but it'would•allow the office/warehouse, So, in essence, they are changing their zoning. Mr. Harris stated he �ad received the letter from Mr. Paschke dated Jan. 16, 1981, in which Mr. Pas�hke ha� sta�ed he was unable t� attend this Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Paschke had stated the Paco Industrial Park opened less than two years ago, and he felt that, given reasonable time, future development will be '"� satisfactory to all. Mr. Paschke stafied he felt the best plan would be for �� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 21, 1981 PAGE 3 Lots 2�and 3 to remain cornmercial and Lots 4,.5, and 6 would make a good industrial site which., if done properly, would not distract from the Park to the south, the office building to the north, or the rest of the industria]� prpperty to the west. Mr. Paschke had stated rezoning the entire property from commercial to industrial and constructing two buildings would not be acceptable to him. In his opinion, there should be a commercia7 buffer between the office building and the industria] area. He also fe7t the property does not meet any of the requirements for zoning (hard�ship or need). � MOTION 8x MS. HUGHES, SECONDED BY 1�II2. WHARTON, TO RECEIVE INTO THE RECORD THE LETTER FROM GERALD W. PA5CHKE DATED JAN. 16, 1981. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIR70USLY. MOTION BY MR. WHARTON, SECONDED BY MS.,HUGHES, TO CLO5E THE PUBLIC HEARIIVG ON ZOA #80-05 BY WINFIELD DEVELOPNIENTS� INC. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY. Ms. Schnabel stated that at thelast meeting, she had stated she was opposed to the rezoning. Since then, she has spent some time doing some background work. � She felt the Planning Commission was under a false impression at the last meeting. She had checked to see when the property was actual7y platted and zoned, and it was approved by the City Council in Feb. 1979. At the last meeting, they were led to believe it was only six months ago, when it actually has been almost two years ago. She had also checked the Planning Commission and City Council minutes, and the basic concerns for the entire a�Aea at the time che platting occurrecl were with: (1) the se�tback requirements, basically along 73rd Ave. What was gaing to happen with the buildings built on 73rd because of the difference in zoning across the street? and (2� the drainage problem. � Ms. Schnabel stated there was not alot of discussion in the Planning Commission or City Council minutes in terms of concern over this.strip of land a]ong University being commercial and M-1 and M-2. Ms. Schnabel stated she still has the concerns she expressed at the last Planning Commission meeting as to what happens if this land is rezoned and these developers are unable to either secure financing or proceed as proposed. She would like the Planning Commission to consider a stipulation, ii� they do approve the rezoning, that should this proposal fall through �for any reason, the rezoning would revert back to the original �zoning. Ms. Hughes stated she liked the split in zoning. She has had some further thoughts about the need for office space in the Twin Cities,and northern suburbs. She had done some looking at trends, and she has changed her mind a little bit in terms of the kind of need and desirability of that kind of space. She stated she was not so concerned about al] of the lots remaining commercial. She would just as soon give a straight rezoning and was comfortable leaving it that zoning for whatever developer comes along. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 21, 1981 PAGE 4 n Ms. Modig stated she did not like spot zoning�, altnough this proposal seemed like a good use for that l.and. She stated that if this development falls through for any reason, she would feel more comfortable having the rezoning revert back to commercial. �OTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. WHARTON, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #80-05� BY WINFIELD DEVELOPMENTS�INC.� AS PROPOSED ON THE JANUARY 21, 1981, SITING DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS A AND B: TO REZONE ONLY LOTS 4, 5, AND 6 INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 1, PACO IIVDUSTRIAL PARK, FROM C-2 (GEIVERAL BUSINESS AREAS) TO M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREAS) TO ALLOW THE CC�NSTRUCTION OF A 94,000 5QUARE FODT BUILDING TO BE USED FOR OFFICE AND OFFICE WAREHOUSE, LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE, THE SAME BEING 7Z51-7251 COMMERCE CIRLE EAST, WITH THE STIPULATION TNAT THE DEVELOPER WORK WITH CITY STAFF IA1 COMING UP WITN A FAIR PORTION OF ROADWAY COSTS FOR TNE CITY ROAD GOING I1VT0 THE CITY PARK FACILITY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOFILD ALSO RECOMMEND THAZ' SHOiTLD THE DEVELOPER FAIL TO DEVELOP THE PROPOSED SECTION AS SHOWN ON EXHIBTTS A AND B, THE REZONING REVERT BACK 2'O THE ORIGINAL C-2 ZONING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRM�IN HARRIS DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED UNAIVIMOU5LY. Mr. Harris stated ZOA #80-05 was recommend for approval to City Council,and. the public hearing wil] be held on Feb. 9, 1981. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA �80-06, BY W. G. DOTY AND ^ G RY A. ELLf�ER: Rezone the following described parcels from M-1 (light incus�irial areas) to R-3 (general multiple family dweilings): That part of Blocks 8 and 9, Lowell Addition to Fridley Park, lying South of the North line of Sylvan Hills Plat 8, together with the Easter7y one-half of vacated Elm Street, and that part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 7, Lowell Addition to Fridley Park,lying Southerly of the Wester7y half of vacated street, located South of Mississippi Street, N.E., and East of the Bur7ington Northern right-of-way. MOTION BY MR. WFIARTON, SECONDED BY MS. HUGHES, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HTARING ON ZOA #80-06 BY W.G. DOTY AND GARY A. WELLNER. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:23 P.M. Mr. Boardman stated this property was located in Sylvan Hills which is a residential area. The property is presently zoned industrial. The property to the ac�rth is zoned M-2, built on by RAO Manufacturing which presently has an industrial structure. The property due east is presently zoned R-3, multiple family structures are located there. The property to the south is all single family homes, and the property t� the west is industrial (the rail- road tracks). n �.—, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 21, 1981 PAGE 5 r"'1 Mr: Boardman stated that Mr. Doty and Mr. Wel7ner, the petitioners, are.in the audience. They would like to have this property rezoned to residential; however, at this time, they do not have any plans as to what kind of residentia] will be developed. Mr. Doty stated he wanted to maintain some flexibility, and the most flexible zoning is R-3. Mr. Doty stated there is multiple residential adjacent to this property. He and Mr. Wellner are looking for a down zoning from light industrial (M-1) to R-3. He stated he would be willing to answer questions and would be interested in hearing any objections. Mr. Boardman stated they have an unusual situation here where an industrial piece of property is locked against a residential area. There is no other access to the property unless the property was purchased by RAO Manufacturing and utilized this properiy for development. Right now, the only access to this piece of property is through the residential area; �therefore, it is something that should be considered in the discussion tonight. Mr. Harris asked how large the parcel of land was. Mr. Doty stated it was 88,000 sq. ft. This.area would comfortably take a 34-unit building with garages. �1s suggested by Mr. Boardman, R-3 gives them some flexibility, and they wou1d rather go R-3 than industrial. He stated he i"� has no plans at this time. He has some thoughts, but wi17 go w�th whatever is financially feasible. If the ]arge multiple complex is not feasible beca�se of financing, they would have the.flexibility to go into quad-homes-- that kind of thing. . ^ Mr. Harris asked if anyone in the audience would ]ike to speak to this item. Mr. Robert Lee, ]30 Satellite Lane, stated he was involved with this, because, being in real estate, he had worked with this piece of land for about ten years. He stated would ]ike to tell the Planning Commission some of the problems with this land. Mr. Lee stated the land was ou�med by Erick LeVine (Carlson-Levine, Inc.), who developed the whole area of Sylvan Hil7s. Mr. Lee stated he sold most of the land in Sylvan Hills, and one of the questions asked by the new owners was what was_going to be done with the land. He told them he did not know, because it was zoned industrial. At the time, he thought that some- time in the fut.ure, the land might have one-story renta] units for storage, which would not dis�urb the residential area, or single family homes. Mr. Lee stated that Satellite Lane is a very narrow street; it is only�about 60 feet wide and is one of the narrowest s�reets in the area. Traffic is very bad on that corner. Mr. Lee stated this particular land is also high--about 8 feet higher than the street. Because of the sewage lift station, because of the sewer in the street, and because of the multiple family units already on Satellite Lane, people are concerned because there is already i:oo much traffic on the street. and they are concerned that the sewer can't handle that many more units. ! PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 21, 1981 � PAGE 6 �1 Mr. Lee stated there have been so many accidents on that street that the City posted "no parking" signs on the street. So, there is no off-street parking. They just can't put that many more families on that street. But, this is Mr. Doty's and Mr. �Jellner's land, and they should have the righ� to do some- thing with it. , Mr. Mich�el Larson, 6390 S�arlite Blvd., stated that the mailing list shown on page 16 of the agenda excludes everyone on Starlite Blvd., of which he is one. His home:is the only home in Fridley that abuts the property, and he was not notified on the hearing on the rezoning or on the easement that adjoins his property. He stated the neighbors are concerned about traffic. Secondly, considering the number of rental units already on Satellite Lane, they feel that is more than enough for their area. He would never agree to another apartment building on that site. Duplexes might be o.k. if they were owner- occupied, but most of the neighbors are opposed to any rental housing on the site. He wo;ald also like to mention that there is quite a bit of pedestrian traffic on the easement, and that is a concern that has to be considered. Mr. Doty stated he was a little bit puzzled, becattse these people bought their properties knowing this property was zoned M-1. He and Mr. Wellner are looking for a down zoning from M-1. Mr. Wellner, 6221 Sunrise Dr. N.E., sta�ed he was the original purchaser of the property. He bought the land as M-1 with the intent to develop it light � industrial. He and Mr. Doty are now in partnership. They decided that because most of the area is residential, they should go to the best use possible in residential, which would be multiple housing. They fee1 this is considering the people who live adjacent to the property. As far as Satel7ite Lane, they now have a piece of property located on the corner which can go out Starlite Blvd. As implied, ihe traffic does not have to go up Satellite Lane. It may exit another way going out 61st and out to University. As Mr. Doty had s�ated, these people should have been aware that this property was zoned M-1, and he and Mr. Doty would be within i:heir rights to put in light industrial. But, they are considering the neighbors when they are asking for the down zoning to R- 3. Ms. Judy Kidder, 6360 Sta►lite Blvd., stated they addressed the Planning Commission three years ago concerning this land. It is a family neighborhood, and there are lots of small children. Because of the narrow street,. there are children playing in that area. There is plenty of traffic with the multiple family units already there. There is a continual change in occupancy in a multiple dwelling. This is a family-centered area, and it would really change the character of the neighborhood to continue to pull that multiple family dwelling situation into a family section. She stated they bought their house four years ago, and they were not aware that this property was zoned M-1. She did not think a lot of people knew that. Ms. Paulette Reid, 101 Sylvan Lane, stated that the site in question was not visible from her house, and she liked that. She stated it was not feasible ^ to do a lo�c of industrial things with �he land and maybe th�t is the reason _�..- r"1 � � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 21, 1981 � PAGE 7 for the down zoning on the ]and now.. She stated a lot of people were not notified about this rezoning, but they are here and that personifies the closeness they have in this neighborrhood. Mr. Dennis Johnson, 6336 traffic already going up get to the park. Starlite Blvd., stated he definitely objected to the Satellite Lane. Children have to cross the street to Mr. Jerry Severt, 100 Satellite Lane, stated he moved into his house in June. He knew there were apartment buildings there, and that was fine. But he would like to mention that he did not feel that the street could.handle any more apartments. Ne lives right on�the corner and knows the traffic situation. Ms. Caroline Johnson,6336 Sicarlite Blvd., stated there is no curb on the street and they have had people drive up on their yard. They do not need any mor.e traffi c. Mr. Wellner stated he also lives in Sylvan Hiils. He stated the sewer has also backed up at his house, but i�t is not because of the apartments or the sewage station. It is a much bigger prohlem. He also is somewhat concerned, and that is why he felt R-3 was better than light industrial for that land. Mr. Michael Larson stated he would not c�bject to RAO Manufacturing purchasing the land, because they have always main�ained their business very well. Ms. Judy Kid�er, 6360 Starl�ite Blvd., stated they are also concerned about the upkeep and appearance of apartments or multiples.. They are concerned about the appearance of the neighborhood. Mr. Lee stated the apartment buildings across the street on Satellite Lane have always maintained a very nice front, and there is no prob]em with that. Mr. Doty stated the land is presently zoned M-1 which would a17ow 1=or the construction of a 37,000 sq. ft. facility. He had talked to some of the neighbors, and had talked at some length with the City Planning Department about �ihe inherent problems. It was their thought that the mu7tiple residential was a compromise between the single family the neighborhood would like to have and the light industrial which it was possible to build with the present zoning. Ms. Schnabel stated the people should be aware that the current zoning, h1-1, allows for other things besides light industrial; for example, a cleaning plant or laundry, warehousing, retail sales building, offices, etc. SEie could understand them not wanting a large density of traffi.c through the area, yet some of these other uses might produce the same effect if developed under M-1. It seems the property is too expensive to be developed as single family resi- dential. It comes down to working out a compromise between light industria1 and the apartments. She did noi think it was realistic to deny the rezoning request and leave the �iroperty empty. There is an enormous demand for vacant land in Fridley. . � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 21, 1981 � ��� ���'� �PAGE 8 Mr. LaYSOn stated his concern was that i�f the�rezoning was passed for R-3, it was like a blank check and they would have no right later on to deny what goes in on that property. He asked if the consideration of the rezoning request could be deferred until Mr. Doty and Mr. Wellner could bring in a specific plan of what they would like to do. The main concern here is that they are losing some element of control, whatever it might be, by taking one step back on the rezoning. Mr. Wellner stated that it was a nice suggestion, but there are dol]ars and cents involved. The neighbors are asking he and Mr. Doty to put out additional money to put together a plan, because they were not able to do that at this point, Among other reasons, they do not know what monies are going to be available. . MOTION BY MS. HUGHES, SECONDED BY MR. WHTyRTON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZOA #80-06 BY W. G. DOTY AND GARY A. WELLNER. IJPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHASRI�?AN HARRI5 DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT .9:43 P.M. Ms. Hughes stated she has a lot of sympathy �or these people's argument. Ms. Modig stated she also has a lot of sympathy with the problem, but she would ^ be reore comfortable with the rez�ning if the petitioners had some type of plans. MOTIOP7 BY MR. WHARTON, SECONDED BY M5. SCHNABEL, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF REZONING REQUEST ZOA #80-06 BY W. G. DOTY AND GARY A. WELLNER. Ms. Schnabel stated she felt the neighbors had a lot of valid arguments. She was not convinced they would be any happier ��ith something under M-1, but they also did noi seem to be happy with R-3. There did not seem to be any alternatives, other �than R-1, and she had not heard the petitioners expressing the opinion that they would tvish to change the rezoning to R-1. For that reason, she would go along with denial. h1s. Hughes stated that, rather than deny the rezoning request, she would rather have a motion to continue the item and ask the petitioners to come back with some plans. Denial leaves the problem of M-1, and she was convinced that M-1 was not a good use for that site. Chairman Harris declared a 10-minute recess at 9:55 p.m. MOTION BY MS. HUGNES, SEC0111DF,D BY M5. MODIG, TD CONTINUE REZONING REQUE5T, 20A #80-06, BY W. G. DOTY AND GARY A. WELLNER: REZONE THE FOLLOWING DE5CR.LBED PARCELS FROM M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL A.REAS) TO R-3 (GENERAL MIILTIPLE �'AMILY DWELLINGS): THAT PART �F BLOCKS 8 AND 9, LOWELL ADDITION TO FRIDLEY P�IRFC, LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SYLVAN HILL5 PLA T 8, TOGETHER WITH THE EASTERLY OR�E-HALF' OF VACATED ELM STREET, AND THAT PART OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 7, IAWELL ADDITIDN TO FRIDLEY PARK, LYING SOUTHERi',Y OF THE WESTERLY HALF OF VACATED ^ STREET, LQCATED SOUTN OF MISSISSIPPI 5TREET N.E.� AND EAST OF THE BURLINGTON MORTHERII� RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND TO .REQUE5T TIIAT THE PETITIONERS COME BACK WITX PLANS, DRAtaINGS� ELEVATIONS, WHATEVER IS POSSIBLE, TO TRY TO EXPLAIN WHAT IS TO GO ON THAT PROPERTY. . n PLANNING COMMIsSION MEETING, JANUARY 21, 1981 � PAGE 9 UPON A VDICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � Mr. Harris stated Rezoning Request ZOA #80-06 was continued until the Feb. 4 Planning Commission meeting. � 3. VACATION REQUEST, SAV #80-14, BY W. G. DOTY AND GARY A. WELLNER: Vacate t at part of Minnesota Street, as laid out in Lowell A dition to Fridley. Park; or Mercury Drive, as ]aid out in Sylvan Hil7s Plat 3, now known as Satellite Lane, lying tidest of th e Northerly extension of the West 1•ine of Starlite Blvd., also being the East line of Lot 1, Block A�, Sylvan Hills Plat 3. � � MOTION BY MR. WHARTON, SECONDED BY M5. SChINABEL, TD COAITINUE VACATION REQUEST, SAV #EO-Z4, BY W. G. DDTY AND G.zIRY A. WELLNER. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VGTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARR25 DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Harrisostated this would also be continued until the Feb. 4 meeting. MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECORIDED BY MS. MODIG,.TO MOVE ITEM #6, "SPECIAL ^ CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 205.157, CREEK AND RIVER PRESERVATION DISTRICT'; TO I2'EM 4 ON THE AGENDA. � UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRM�lN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOT.ZON CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � 4. SPECIAL CONSIDERATION �F SECTION 205.157, CREEK AND RIVER PRESERVATION DISTRICT: Mr. Boardman stated it had been their intent to get this section accomplished with the Zoning Code, but due to the timetable, they have to pul�l the Flood Plain Ordinance out of the Zoning Code and recodify it based on input received from the Federal Government. If this is not adopted by Mar. 2, ]981, all of the houses in the flood plain will lose their eligibility for subsidized flood plain insurance. Mr. Harris asked how this ordinance was dififerent from the one they had reviewed in the Zoning Code. - Mr. Deblon stated there were a few different definitions and language changes. Mr. Boardman stated that, basically; there were reference changes and just minor changes. They are not changing any requirements. They still have the flood fringe that is buildable as long as it is built within the regulations. There is one change, �nd that is the Moore Lake Area. He stated the Flood Insurance Plan designated Moore Lake area as a flood p7ain area, ; � ,—�� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 21, 1981 PAGE 10 Mr. Deblon stated they were looking for a management concept for the Moore Lake area, but it is still unresolved as far as the Watershed District. This would allow them to build in the flood plain of Moore Lake. The Watershed District's policy is that there is no encroachment of building in any flood plain, so they are working v�ith the Watershed District on this item. Mr. Boardman stated he needed approva] of this document and submission to City Council. , �. . Mr. Harris stated that if there were no substantial changes and it really doesn't affect any land, other than the Moore Lake area, he did not see any problem with it. MOT�ON BY MR. WHARTON, SECONDED BY MS. HUGHES, TO APPROVE AND 5E1�D TO CITY COUNCIL THE DOCUMENT ENTITLED: "SECTION 205.157, CREEK AND RIVER PRESEIZVATiION DIST.RICT" . Ms. Schnabel stated tha� on page 6, Item #l, Structures, under 205.3105 Additional Restrictions, should be rewritten as the wording vras not clear. Ms. Schnabel stated that on page 6 and page 8, it stated that first the Appeals Commission would be handling a]1 variances, and on page 8 it stated that the Planning Commission would hear all variances. This should be rewritt�n. Mr. Boardman stated these wil] be rewritten to fol7ow the City's process. Ms. Schnabel stated that on page 7, Item #3-A under Application for Permit, the word "fol°lowing" should be deleted. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE DOCUIHENT APPROVED AS AMENDED. Mr. Boardman stated he appreciated the fast action on this by the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission mem�ers had any further questions, they could give him a call as he would still have time to make modifications before it goes to City Council. 5. RECEIVE JA�UARY 8, 1987, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. WHARTOh1, SECONDED BY MS. MODIG, TO RECEIVE THE JAN. 8� 1981, HOUSING 6 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES. UPON A VOICE YOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE JANUARY 13, 1981, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTlON BY b1S. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MS. hfUGHE5, TD RECEIVE TNE JAN. Z3, 1981, APPEALS GOMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTTNG AYE, CXAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANII�IOUSLY. \ ` � �"� � . �.., PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 2l, 1981 PAGE 11 7. CONTINUED: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED �lOISE O�RDINANCE Mr. Boardman stated that the Commission members were given copies of the revised Noise Ordinance. These are revised from camments made at staff ]eve]. Mr. Deblon reviewed the Proposed Noise Ordinance with the Commission. (Mr. Wharton left the meeting at 11:05 p.m.) � On page 3, 124.06, Item 1, the Commission recommended that "comfort, repose, health, peace, or safety" be changed to "health, safety,.and general welfare". On page 5, Item H, the Commission recommended the deletion of the words, "Opening Boxes". MOTION BY MS. HUGHES� SECONDED BY MS. SCHNABEL, TO CONTINUE THE CON5IDE.RATION OF A PROPOSED NOISE ORDINANCE. UPON A VOICE VOZ'E� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED t1NANIMOUSLY. 8. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY � CODE, GENERALLY KNOWN AS TNE FRIDLEY ZONING CODE MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MS. MODIG, TO CONTINUE �1MENDMENT T0 CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODEe UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRI�AN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY 1�ZS. NUGHES, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED TNE JANUI�RY 2Z, 1981� PLANNING COMMI5SION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:35 P.M. Respectfully subr�itted, ,�� tic�. Lyn Saba Recording Secretary � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 21, 1981 NAME Michael J. Larson Marijane Tessman Linda a. Severt Jerald Severt Tom Hartfiel Mary Hartfiel Paulette Reid Judy Kidder Bill Kidder Mary Auger Dennis A. Johnson Caroline R. Johnson Mrs. Jerome Christenson Doris E. Knutson Nerris E. Knutson 6�Ja1 ter Shupi en Bar^bara Aspenson Charles Aspenson Jim Benson Robert Lee ADDRESS 6390 Starlite Blvd. 6390 Starlite Blvd. l00 Satellite Lane l00 Satel7ite Lane 120 Sylvan Lane � 12� Sylvan Lane 101 Sylvan Lane E360 Starlite Slvd. 6360 Starlite Blvd. 634F3 Starl i te B1 vd . 6336 Starlite Blvd. 6336 S�arl.ite Blv�. 6260 Starlite Blvd. 630a Star7ite Blvd. 6300 Starlite Blvd. 6299 Trinity Dr. 6370 Starlite Blvd. 6370 Starlite Blvd. 2940 Minnehaha, Minnetonka 130 Satellite Lane � � G■� ��,....-� � .�.� ' "-._': }"- L V'�.tl � � .i_s6i�J'i3�61+E[t1YiT'Y61�Gafdtl:9�LID e� �y,�qll.ln`'l�Yiel G � � ' ��� �_a � �'; �,��4.�..� n�.�-a„�:..� , ��.�f „�...,s,,::�:�;�,.. _y.� .� -r�:� ,� �"1 G. W. PA.�C�I�� �'RO�'�RTIES �''°`�" �`-`"""�` ""°'""` '�'�''�`� 72u8 COMMEl2C� CIRCLE EAST, F�RIDLF.Y. MN 6b432 �:' , �y�."�'�' a7•r'i �t.i: < �,.t ="�C��y���' '� TF.LEP$ONIC 81Q 691-6486 January 16, 1981 Mr. Dick Harris Chairman, Planning Commission Ci ty o-F Fri dl ey Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Dear Dick: I am unable to be at the meeting to express my feelings at the second hearing on the rezoning of Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Paco Industrial Park. I have given this matter much thought over the last few weeks since the f�rst hearing. As you know, this property will be developed. The Park opened less �than �:wo years ago. I feel if we �ive it reasonable time, future developmeni wfll be satisfactory to all. In my opinion the best plan would be for Lots 2 and 3 to remain commer- cial with commercial property such as the post office, a medical clinic, good restaurant, Capp Homes, etc. I feel Lots 4, 5 and 6 would make a good indus- trial site, which if done properly, would not distract from the Park to the south, the office building to the north or the rest of the industr-ial property to the west. Rezoning the entir� property from com�nercial to industrial and construct- ing two buildings would not be acceptable to me. In my opinion there should be a commercial buffer between �the office bui1ding and the industrial area. I feel th� proper•ty does not meet any of the requiremenl:s for rezoning. (Hardship or need.) GWP:smh Sincerely, G. W ASCHKE PROPER I C��G�r` G ald W. Paschke ��� i _ �