Loading...
PL 05/06/1981 - 30558� � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION P4EETING, MAY 6, 1981 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the May 6, 1981, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. Harris, P4s. Gabel, Mr. Svanda, P�r. Qquist, Ms. Hughes, Ms. van Dan, Mr. Wharton Members Absent: None Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner John Doyle, 6305 East River Road Ray Price, 77 - 75th Way N.E. James Fisher, 45 - 75th Way N.E. Robert Varhol, 55 - 75th Way N.E. Jan Dean, 65 - 75th Way N.E. APPROVAL OF APRIL 22, 1981, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MS. VAN DAN, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TO APPROVE THE APRIL 22� 1981, PLANNING COMMISSION MIIVUTES A5 WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CAAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. TABLED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT9 SP #8]-06, BY EIG INVESTMENTS, INC.: Per Section 205.0 , 3, D, of t e Fri ey City Code, to allow the construction of a duplex in R-1 zoning (single family dwelling areas) on Lot 3, Block 1, Lei.gh Terrace, the same being 31 Osborne Way N.E. MOTION BY NIR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY NIlZ. SVANDA, TO REMOVE THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #.81-06� BY LEIGH INVESTMENTS� INC., FROM THE TABLE. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MO1'ION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY MS. GABEL, SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST, TO REOPEN TNE PUBLIC HEARING ON SP #81-06 BY LEIGH INVESTMENTS, INC. n UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HA.RRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC NEARING REOPENED AT 7:40 P.M. , PLANIJING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 6, 1981 PAGE 2 Mr, Boardman stated that at the last meeting, the Planning Commission tabled this request and requested the petitioner to come back with a redesign of the structure. He stated Mr. Doyle, the petitioner, was in the audience to answer questions.� He stated this new design meets,the 3-stall requirement. Mr. Doyle stated that the new plan was redesigned to provide the 3-stall require- ment. Actually, there is a stall and one-half on one side and two stalls on the other side. He again explained that the reason for requesting this special use permit is because on two separate occasions, they have had single family homes sold on that corner lot, and both times the lenders were reluctant to pro- vide financing. The lenders did not feel that corner was the proper location for a single family home. He stated he is planning on doing some fencing along East River Road to provide�a buffer to this property. Mr. Harris asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak to this i tem . . Mr. Robert Varhol, 55 - 75th Way N.E., stated Mr. Doyle has two houses in that area already. If he puts in another house, it wiil create a fire hazard as the houses are too close together. He has one house that has been there for two ye�rs and hasn't been sold yet. r� Ms. Jan Dean, 65 - 75th Way N.E., stated it seemed strange that financing was � impossible to get for a single family dwelling because of the noxious fumes and heavy traffic on East River Road, and instead of one family being subjected to those conditions, it seemed preferable to put two families in there. She stated when Mr. Doyle purchased this property, he knew East River Road was th�re with its various problems. The lot is very sma71 and did not meet the minimum code requirements for what is needed to build a duplex. At the last P7anning Commission meeting, there was some discussion about the fact that the �t. Paul Waterworks property in the back cou7d be considered part of this property and would meet the lot requirements. She showed the Planning Commission pictures she had taken of the lot. Mr. Ray Price, 77 - 75th Way N.E., stated he was against the duplex. He stated there is already a little white house with a garage larger than the house, a large brown house, and now Mr. Doyle wants to squeeze in a duplex for two families. Mr. Jim Fisher, 45 - 75th Way N.E., stated he lives right across the street from this lot. After f�lr. Doyle puts in a fence, there is going to be only about 10 ft. from the f ront door to the fence. The big brown house ha.s no yard. He thought it would be a blight to the neighborhood to try to jam another building into this small area. Any people visiting that duplex would have to park in front of their homes as there would not be any room to park on the lot. Mr. Doyle stated he is before the Planning Commission with a special use permit request. The lot is a buildable lot, He did not know what bearing the other houses has on this project. He is trying to work with the neighborhood to build !"1 � � PLANNIPdG COMMISSION MEETI��G, MAY 6, 1981 PAGE 3 something that is going to look nice in the neighborhood, but he is having trouble getting a nice looking single family home sold and financed on that lot. He is better able to build rental property, because the lending agents' rules are different on rental property. Mr. Price stated that if Mr. Doyle was looking for the best thing for the neighbor- hvod, then he would not bui7d a duplex, because the neighborhood does not want it. A single family home would be fine. Ms. Dean stated she felt the issue of the other houses was germane to the issue, because they live there. At the last meeting, Mr. Doyle had stated he would try to get an owner occupant in that duplex. She would challenge the members of the Planning Commission to consider whether they would want to be the owner occupant of a duplex in this location. She stated there are three lanes of traffic on Osborne Way. There would not be any place for parking so close to the intersection, and the traffic light stands right on the property. Mr. Oquist stated he was looking at the other side of the issue. He understands the problem with having affordable �ousing and what young people are paying today to buy a home. Affordable housing is just not available anymore. Cities have to provide some kind of affordable housing for people,yet everybody is opposed to ^ having it across the street from them. Ms. Hughes stated there are two considerations�here, and they covered them in their last meeting: (1) the relationship to the St. Paul Waterworks property that gives the petitioner a buildable lot and could be revoked; and (2� what is the difference between rezoning and a special use permit in terms of the b.urden of proof? Mr. Harris stated that with a rezoning, it is encumbent upon the petitioner to show cause why the property should be rezoned. With a special use permit, which this request is, it is encumbent upon the City to show cause why the special use permit should be denied. So, if this request is de�nied, the Planning Commission must give substantial reasons for that denial. Ms. Hughes stated she would like to remind the Planning Commission members and the audience that they are dealing with a special use permit to al]ow a two-family dwelling unit in a single family dwelling area. If the permi� is granted, it amounts to about the same as a rezoning. Ms. Hughes asked Mr. Doyle if he had considered having two lots instead of three lots. It would require moving some houses, but would give the large brown house more yard area and would provide a larger lot to get the building farther back f rom East River Road. Mr. Doyle stated he has considered that, but in looking at the economics of it, it is just too hard to just take down houses. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 6, 1981 PAGE 4 Mr. Boardman stated again that because of a special agreement with the Water Department of St. Paul that would allow the use of the St. Paul Waterworks property as a portion of lot size, this lot meets the lot requirements for a duplex. The City Council approved the plat on May 17, 1976. He stated that even if the special use permit was revoked, the lot was still buildable because of the approval of the plat. � MOTION BY MS. HUGHES, 5ECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SP #81-06 BY LEIGH INVESTMENTS, INC. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECI�ARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:28 P.M. Ms. Hughes stated that because this lot is so small and is located off East River Road, it seems to create a lot of problems in terms of noise and vehicle exhaust emissions which would concern her about having anyone live there. It also seems out of character with the rest of the neighborhood which is single fa�i7y. Since there are going to be some bikeway easements a7ong East River Road, it seems the smart thing to do is deny the special use permit, and maybe the time will come when a single family home can be built on the lot. The special use permit seems to be a way around rezoning at this time and that did not appeal to her. Ms. Gab�l stated she agreed totally with Ms. Hughes. The neighborhood is a7l single family and this is not compatible or desirable. Ms. van Dan stated she also a�greed with Ms. Hughes. There is a 7ot of traffic in that area. She was also concerned about a two-story building obstructing the view of southbound traffic on East River Road, If fence or bushes were put in along the lot, she would also be concerned about the eastbound traffic on Osborne Way seeing the southbound traffic coming down East River Road. MOTION BY MS. HUGHES, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP �81-0&, BY LEIGH INVESTMENT5, INC.: PER SECTION 205.051, 3, D, OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DUPLEX TN R-1 ZONING (SINGLE FAMILY DP7ELLING AREAS) ON LOT 3� BLOCK 1� LEIGH TERRACE, THE SAME BEING 31 OSBORNE WAY N.E., FOR THE FOLLOWING REASOIVS: 1. TXE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON�THE LOT FROM NOISE AND VEHICLE POLLUTION. 2. TNE DANGERS OF TRAFFIC FROM A DRIVEWAY AND MULTIPLE CARS AT THAZ' LOCATION. 3. IT IS OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Ms. Hughes stated it was very obvious that the noise levels along East River Road could be very high at certain times during the day. It is an extremely busy road and when the bridge across the river is built in Coon Rapids,.particularly if there is access onto East River Road, that would make East River Road as busy as University Avenue. � UPON A VOICE VOTE, HARRIS, VAN DAN, GABEL, HUGHES, AND WHARTON VOTING AYE, SVANDA ^ AND OQUIST VOTING NAY, CfiAIRMAIV HARRIS DECLARED TNE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5-2. �....�r ^ PLANNING COMMISSIO�J MEETING MAY 6, 1981 PAGE 5 Mr. Harris stated that SP #81-06 would go to City Council on May 18. 2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #81-04, BY JOHN R. DOYLE: Split off the East 8 feet of ot 12, an split off t e West 9 feet of Lot 14, and add to Lot 13, all in Fridley Park Addition, to make a buildable lot after 32 feet of Lot 12 is taken by Anoka County, the same being 6301 East River Road N.E. Mr. Boardman stated the reason for the lot split request is primarily because of a court case that is going on right now in Anoka County. The property is located on East River Road south of Mississippi. Anoka County is presently acquiring property for expansion of East River Road. The County is planning on taking 32 ft. from Lot 12. The County is contending that what is being left is actually a buildable lot. The only way to make that determination and make that a buildable lot is through a lot split process. Mr. Doyle is before the Planning Commission and the City Council to see if the lot split will be granted. If the lot split is granted, then it is a buildable 7ot. The existing house is located on Lots 13 and 14. Mr. Boardman stated that by adding the 9 feet, then with the lot split the present lot would have a 57 ft. width and a l32 ft. depth and is 7,524 sq. ft. By code with the lot split, it is a buildable lot. The remaining lot has a 71 ft. frontage and 9,372 sq, ft. i""� Mr. Boardman stated the question before the Pianning Commission and City Council is: Will the Planning Commission and City Council approve a]ot split request? This area was platted before 1955 where a lot cannot be less than 50 ft., but can be less than 60 ft. would would require 7,500 sq. ft. � Mr. Harris stated that if Mr. Doyle cannot get financing to bui]d a single family home on the lot on Osborne Way and East River Road, how did he think he could do it on this lot? � P�r. Doyle stated he did not know. The lot does meet the requirements. What might be favorable on a lot that size is to be excused from having a garage in order to make the home affordable. Mr. Harris stated that from a community standpoint and what would be best for the City would be for the County to acquire the whole 80 ft. lot, so there is adequate open space between the highway surface and the residential area. Acquiring pieces of property here and there has been done all the way up East River Road, causing road surfaces to be too close to dwellings and driveways and accesses too close to £ast River Road. Mr. �oardman stated he felt if this lot split request is denied, there should be something in the record that states if the County does acquire this property, this property be tied together in some way with Lot l3 so the 4� ft. would not go tax forfeit. If anyone tries to sell Lot 12 off from Lot 13, they would then require a lot split. He is very concerned about having a 48 ft. lot that may eventually go tax forfeit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 6, 1981 PAGE 6 � Mr. Harris stated he is not in favor of having a structure between the existing structure and East River Road, which is a major highway, and he did think the boulevards should be wider in there. Three to five feet isn't even enough for snow storage. He stated they should not subject any more residents to being that close to East River Road. Ms. Hughes stated the Planning Commission's options are: (1) to give the lot split and presumably legally �eet all the lot requirements of the plat, but it would give them an undesirable lot; (2) if they do deny the lot split request, what is going to happen is the County will take the 32 ft. and then Mr. Doyle will h�ve a 48 ft. lot. That 48 ft, could be tacked onto the 80 ft. lot, making a 128 ft. lot, which is a big lot. From the standpoint of the City, that did not look like a very good deal. From the standpoint of the petitioner, at this point she felt there was no overwhelming reason for him to have the lot split. So, on that basis, she thought maybe the best thing for the City would be to oppose the lot split. Mr. Harris stated not so long ago, the Planning Commission was discussing 7,500 sq. ft. lots versus 9,000 sq. ft. lots. The City has taken the position that they shou]d stay with 9,000 sq. ft, lots. Community.Development has concurred with that, and in his disc�ssions with the City Council, the majority of the Council has agreed the City should stay with 9,000 sq. ft. lots. Now, to accommodate the County, the City is going to create a 7,500 sq. ft. 7ot. He felt that was being very inconsistent. � Ms. Hughes stated 7,500 sq. ft. lots work in some places, but they do not work on corners, and the theory is to have larger corner lots. Mr. Harris stated the 57 ft, lot is inconsistent with the rest of the neighborhood, which, for the most part, are residences built on 80 �t, lots. He fe7t it would be poor planning to put a residence on a sinaller lot than is normal for the area only 17% ft. from a major higtiway, which basically is what they are being asked to concur with. He stated this was not a viable building site. Mr. Doyle asked if the Planning Commission would be willing to give an east/west lot split. Mr. Harris stated he could never consider.an east/west lot split from the stand- point that it would be an absolute disaster as far as a hazard to safety. As City policy, they have tried,to eliminate direct driveways onto East River Road; wherever possible. He believed it was also County policy to deny those kinds of requests, and in several instances along East River Road, the County has denied direct access onto East River Road. Mr. Oquist stated that in thinking about an east/west lot split, it may work out better to have an east/west lot split but have the driveway from the back lot come out on 63rd with a driveway easement. Ms. Hughes stated the east/west split as Mr. Oquist has proposed wou]d haye more ^ appeal to her. �-� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 6, 1981 PAGE 7 ,'+1 Mr. Harris stated th e problem with the east/west lot split is it would still be creating two lots that are not in character with the neighborhood. MOTION BY MS. HUGHES, SECONDED BY MR. WNARTON, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST, LS #81-04, BY JOHN R. DDYLE. Ms. Gabel and Mr. Svanda stated they basically agreed with all that P�Ir. Harris has said about the 57 ft, lot being inconsistent with the neighborhood and that it is not a viable building site. .. Mr. Oquist stated he also agreed with Mr. Harris. He agreed it did not make much sense to put a single family home on that size lot to be a buffer from East River Road. But, do they have strong enough reasons to deny the lot split request? Mr. Harris stated he thought there was more to it than just the letter of the law, because there are people involved, there is the health, safety, and general welfare of the community involved in granting such a lot split. Just because the letter of ihe law says they should approve the lot split, he did not think that was a viable enough reason to approve it. People have to live there. WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE SECONDER� MS. HUGHES WITHDREW THE MOTION. MOTION BY MS. HUGNES, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL DENIAL ,�"`1 OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST, LS #81-04� BY JOHN R. DOYLE� TO SPLIT OFF THE EAST 8 FEET OF LOT 12� AND SPLIT OFF THE WEST 9 FEET OF LOT 14, AND ADD TO LOT 13� ALL IN ' FRIDLEY PARK ADDITION, TO MAKE A BUILDABLE LOT AFTER 32 FEET OF LOT 12 IS TAKEN BY ANOKA COUIUTY, THE SAME BEING 6301 EAST RIVER ROAD N.E.� FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 2. IT IS A CORNER LOT WHICFI IS REALLY TOO SMALL AND TOO CLOSE TO A BUSY HIGHWAY. 3. THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM THAT COULD BE GENERATED BY DRIVEWAYS SO CLOSE TO EAST RIVER ROAD. 4. THE ADVER5E ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM NOISE AND VEHICLE POLLUTION. Ms. van Dan stated she agreed with the motion for all the reasons mentioned and the danger because of accidents that have occurred on East River Road in the past. UPON A VOICE VOTE, HARRIS, VAN DAN, GABEL� SVANDA, OQUIST, AND HUGNES VOTING AYE, WNARTON VOTING NAY� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED TNE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 6-I. Mr. Wharton stated he had voted against the motion because he believed when a person comes in requesting a lot split and if the lot split meets all the planning of the City's platting, there is no reason to deny that lot split. Mr. Harris stated LS #81-04 would go to City Council on May 18. Mr. Doyle asked the Commission to make a policy decision on whether they would ^ allow an east/west lot split with access onto East River Road. PLANNING COMMISSION ME�TING, t�AY 6, 1981 PAGE 8 MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MS. VAN DAN, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT TKEY NOT ALLOW ACCESS DIRECTLY ONTO EAST RIVER ROAD OR ANY OTHER LOT CONFIGURATION WITH THIS LOT AS IT HAS BEEN THE POLICY OF THE CITY TO ELIMINATE ACCESS ONTO EAST RIVER ROAD, WFIEREVER POSSIBLE. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CNAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTIOIV CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. PUBLIC HERRI�G: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSEU_CONVERSION CONDOMINIUM LICENSING MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE . CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED CONVERSION CONDOMINIUM LICENSING ORDINANCE. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECT,ARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:50 P.M. � Mr. Boardman stated the only reason this is back on the Planning Commission agenda is because when the Planning Commission took action on this ordinance and recommended approval to the City Council, they did not have a public hearing ai that time. What is needed now is for the Planning Commission to take action on the ordinance with a public hearing. MOTION BY MR. WHARTON, SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO CLO5E THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE �'`i'�, CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED CONVERSION CONDOMTNIUM LICENSING ORDINANCE. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:51 P.M. MOTION BY N�Z. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MS. VAN DAN, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED CONVERSION CONDOMINIUM LICEIVSING ORDINANCE. UPOIV A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTIDN CARRIED UNAN7MOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE APRIL 14, 1981, COMMUNITY DEIIELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TO RECEIVE THE APRIL 14� 1981, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COINMISSIDN MINUTES. Mr. Oquist stated they are still discussing the purpose of their commission. Mr. Oquist stated that on page 6, because of a request by the City Council, the Community Development Commission members discussed and recommended some criteria as the minimum requirements in establishing a special use permit for two families in a single family unit in an R-1 zone. He stated the Community Development Corrrvnnission would like the Planning Commission to concur with this recor�nendation. Mr. Oquist stated there �re some things that cannot be enforced, but it has always ^ been his opinion that if you have an ordinance, at least you can enforce it, but if you don't have an ordinance, there is nothing to enforce and there is no pro- tection for the City. . �� — PLAPdNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 6, 1981 PAGE 9 r"'1 The following changes were made to the criteria recommended by the Corr�nunity Development Commission in their motion on page 6: ".,.,to recommend to City Council the following criteria as the minimum requirements for establishing a special use permit for existing sinqle famil dwellin units to allow two families in a single family we �ng unit in an R- zone: 1. Minimum lot size of 9,000 sq. ft. 2. Floor area for either family unit not less than 650 sq, ft. 3. Off-street parking, inc u�n ara e, for at least 4 vehicles 4. Cannot be permanently sea e o i.e., common entry way, one address, one water meter, one gas meter, and one electric meter) 5. Special use permit expires at sale � 6. One apartment is owner-occupied , ' 7. Conditions of special use permit on file at County with iitle 8, Conforms wit State Building Code. MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MS. HUGHES, TO CONCUR WITH TNE RECOMMENDATIOIdS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, AS AMEKDED ABpVE, ON THE CRITERIA AS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT5 IN ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY UNITS TO ALIAW TWO FAMILIES IN A SINGLE FAMILY UNIT IN AN R-1 ZONE. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES CAR142ED UIVANIMOUSLY. ' 5. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Bike Trail in Locke Park Ms. Hughes stated she wanted to alert the Planning Commission that the Caunty's plan for a bike trai] through Locke Park and along Rice Creek is creating a lot of fervor among the citizenry.. The County was about to award bids for an asphalt bike trail through the creek bed and through some marshes which would require some digging and filling, and the citizens east of Old Centra] were very upset about what was going to be done and began to ask some questions. 7here are a number of actions the citizens have taken by going to the Rice Creek Watershed District Board and the County Board. She stated they are doing a fine job in trying to get an agreeable compromise. She stat�d the Parks & Recreation Commission did not know there was going to be an 8-ft. wide asphalt path with 2 ft. of grass on either side, plus another 8 ft. of hiking� trail and about 7 bridges across the Creek between Locke Park and New B'righton. She stated the City does not have mueh say on this, other than what goes in Locke Park and not much of that either, so she felt the citizenry are doing a great deal of good and are digging up facts. She stated the Planning Commission may be seeing some petitions in the near future. �'1 PLAPJiVIPJG COMMISSIO�d MEETING, P�IAY 6, 1981 PAGE 10 r"1 B. IYDP (International Year of Disabled Persons) MOTION BY MS. VAN DAN, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO RECEIVE INTO THE RECORD THE MINUTES OF THE IYDP ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING ON APRIL 21, 1981. Ms. van Dan stated she thought this was going to be a very viable project committee, and the committee is already proposing some excellent projects. She stated the next meeting Will be on f�1ay 11, at which time the committee will develop a survey form which, hopefully, will be included in the City's surr�aer newsletter. The survey will be to try and locate the disabled people in the City of Fridley and determine what their needs are. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOUR�IP�ENT: MOTION BY 1�?R. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRI5 DECLARED THE MAY 6, .Z981� PLANNING COMMI5SION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, .� ��� L r� e Saba Recording Secretary ,� n �