Loading...
PL 02/24/1982 - 30570�� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 CALL TO ORDER: . Chairman Harris called the February 24, 1982, Planning Corrunission meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. ' ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. Harris, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Svanda, Mr. Kondrick, Mr. Saba, Mr. Oquist (arr. 7:55 p.m.) Members Absent: Ms, van Dan Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Patricia L. Lester, 5484 Meister Rd. W. G. Doty, 6379 University Ave. N.E. Gary Wellner, 6221 Sunrise Dr, N.E. See attached list APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 3, 1982, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: � MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY l�2. SABA, TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 3� 1982� PLANNING COMMISSION MINi1TES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. RE UEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #82-01, PATRICIA L LESTER: Split off part o�'- ot 3, oc , Ostman s� ir Ad itc� ion; describe�c as beginning at the most Northerly corner of said Lot 31; thence Southwesterly along the North- westerly line of said Lot 31, a distance of 30 feet; thence Southeasterly to the most Easterly point of Lot 31; thence Northwester]y along the North- easterly line of said Lot 31, to the point of beginning, and add it to Lot 30, Block 1, Ostman's Third Addition, the same being 6909 Nickory Drive N.E. Mr. Boardman stated the lots in question are 6901 and 6909. The request is to take a 20 ft, triangle portion of 6901 and add it to 6909. He stated Staff has no problems with this request. Ms. Patricia Lester was in the audience and stated she had no statement to make at this time. MOTION BY MS. SABA, SECONDED BY A?R. KONDRICK, TO RECQMMEA►D TO CITY CDUNCIL APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR LOT SPLIT� L.S. #82-01� BY PATRICIA L. LESTER�TO SPLIT OFF PART OF LOT 31� BLOCK 1� OSTMAN'S THIRD ADDITION, DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 31p THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTH- ^ WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 31� A DISTANCE OF 30 FEETp THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY TO THE � �\ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 page 2 MOST EASTERLY POINT OF LOT 31, TXENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG TNE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 31� TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING� AND ADD IT TD LOT 30� BLOCK 1� OSTMAN'S THIRD ADDITION� TSE SAME BEING 6909 HICKORY DRIVE N.E. � UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMDUSLY. Mr. Harris stated that L.S. #82-01 was recommended to City Council for approval and would go to City Council on March 8. 2. REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT,z L.S. #82-02, MARK ANDERSON: Split off the North �f feet of Lot 8A, l�u�itor s Su ivision No. 21 (953 Mississippi St. N.E.) to make a new buildable lot, the same being 6530 Oakley Street N.E. Mr. Boardman stated the lot is located between Oakley and Mississippi Streets. Lot 8H is a large lot, 250' x 111.37'. The lot the petitioner wants to split off is the lot along the back line in order to create a new lot. The location of that new lot creates some problems. The existing garage will be moved and relocated; however, with the existing Zoning Code, the required rear yard setback is 42 feet. The difference is about 20 ft., so the petitioner would need a variance from 42 ft. to 20 ft. The petitioner is appealing to the Planning �, Commission to approve the variance along with the lot split to avoid going through the variance procedure. He stated this has never been done before and one of the problems is that a lot split does not require a public hearing, but a variance does require a public hearing. Mr. Boardman stated he had no problem with the lot size. It is an extra large lot and can legally be split into three 9,000 sq. ft, lots. Ms. Gabel stated she agreed with Mr. Boardman. She did not feel the Planning Commission should grant a variance. The variance procedure requires a publi.c hearing, and she felt the neighbors should be notified. The petitioner was not in the audience. Mr. Boardman stated another thing is they will eventually be looking at a proposal for a bikeway/walkway along Mississippi St. and will be requesting l0 ft. easements for bikeway/walkway. Mr. Harris stated he would feel very uncomfortable acting on this lot split without the petitioner present. He wou7d like the Planning Commission members to be able to talk to the petitioner before acting on the lot split request. Ms. G�bel stated she agreed, particularly when they will be asking for a 10 ft. bikeway/walkway easement. They need more information from the petitioner. 1NOTION RY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY 1�. KONDRICK, TO TABLE THE REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT� L.S. 82-02 BY MARK ANDERSON UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRI5 DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UA►ANIMOUSLY. � �"�1 � ^ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24 1982 PAGE 3 Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman to contact Mr. Anderson and inform him of the Planning Commission's action. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING RE UEST, ZOA #82-01, BY W. G. DOTY�AND GARY A: WELCNER: Rezone t e fol owing escri e parce s from -(light in ustria areas) to R-2 (two family dwelling areas),(except if this area is platted, 1 lot will be R-1): That part of Blocks 8 and 9, Lowell Addition, lying South of the North line of Sylvan Hills Plat 8, extended in a Westerly direction to the West boundary of said Block 8, and lying Westerly of the plat of Sylvan Hills Plat 8, together with the Easterly 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 Westerly extension of the North line of the plat of Sylvan Hills Plat 8, together with the Westerly half of vacated Elm Street, generally located South of Mississippi Street N.E., East of the Burlington Northern right-of-way. MOTION BY MR. SVANDA� SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZOA #82-01 BY W. G. DOTY AND GARY A. WELLNER. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:50 P.M. Mr. Boardman stated that Mr. Doty and Mr. Wellner originally brought a rezoning request before the Planning Commission eariy in 1981. At that time, the proposal was for a rezoning from M-1 (light industrial) to R-3 (general multiple dwellings). Also included in that rezoning request was a street vacation. Because of neighborhood opposition to R-3, Mr. Doty withdrew the rezoning request, so it did not go to City Council. However, the street vacation was approved by City Council, Mr. Boardman stated this proposa] dwelling areas) and that a small determined through the plat, and the p�atting and zoning together Ri ht h was for rezoning from M-1 to R-2 (two f'1 portion at some before g now, t ey cannot split the land as zoning; however, the zoning issue is the will go or not go. For that reason, Mr. submitting only a rezoning. He asked Mr ami y be rezoned R-1. This would have to be point in time, they will have to get both it goes to City Council for final approval. far as �he actual legal description on the key issue as to whether this project Doty has not applied for a plat and is . Doty to explain his plans for development. Mr. Do�y stated this property is bounded on the west by the railroad tracks, is bounded on the north by light industrial, and is bounded on the east by multiple residential. In an attempt to get along with the people, they made the concession to make an R-1 adjacent to the one R-1 property this property abuts. He stated the zoning is presently light industrial. He and Mr. Wellner felt M-1 was not the proper use for the property in that location because of the residential neighborhood. They felt that with apartment complexes, manufacturing, and industrial that R-1 was also not a proper use for the land. For that reason, they came up with what they thought was a realistic compromise--R-2 zoning. r"� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 PAGE 4 Mr. Wellner stated that Mr. Doty has expressed his thoughts, and he is in support of this proposal. Mr. Michael Larson, 6390 Starlite Blvd., stated he wanted to point out that the drawing Mr. Doty had brought to the meeting was the first time tfie neighborhood had seen it. He stated his R-1 property was most affected by this change in zoning. He stated he and his neighbors have a number of concerns,.and he sub- mitted the following letter to the Planning Commission members: The neighbors of the Sylvan Hills area most directly impacted by the proposed rezoning, are unanimously supportive of either maintaining the current M-1 zoning or upgrading the Zoning to R-1. We cannot conceive of an instance where we would approve of an R-2 zoning for this parcel! Some of the reasons for our concerns are as follows: P�EIGHBORHOOD INCOMPATIBILITY... Our neighborhood is almost entirely single family homes with the exception of the apartments on Satellite Lane. We are roud of our homes. We work hard to maintain a pleasant appearance an ere y maintain the value of our homes. TRAFFIC & SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS... Satellite Lane is a narrow road and a�e have had to restrict parking to avoid accidents and assure the safet of our children. The proposed rezoning could allow 7 duplex structures or living units. If each of those units averaaes 1 and 1/Z cars, there would be 21 cars to park in an area comprised of a very short cul-de-sac and 14 driveways! The additional traffic would increase the traffic risks to an unreasonable level. IMPACT ON HOME VALUES... Whatever incremental profits would accrue to the developer by obtaining R-2 zoning would be more than offset b the reduction in the value of our homes. l,le are conv�nce a eve opmen un er - cou e pro i a e to the developer. Consider the new construction of an impressive single-family home at 6380 Starlite Blvd. as proof of the viability of our area. CURRENT ZONING RESTRICTIONS... We see little risk in maintaining the M-1 zoni ng because thi s property i s�essen�i a11�y�Tan�� 01 c c�e — rom an in us rial development viewpoint. Even if some industrial development were pursued, we feel confident it may be preferential to R-2 development. THE LACK OF CONCERN FOR OUR OPINIONS... At no time has the developer contacted neiohbors to discuss his thoughts and perspective. Apparently they feel they should be allowed to develop their property as they see fit to do so! The fact that the didn't do their hor�ework prior to purchase of the property doesn mean we ave o surren er our home values to their ineptitude. „� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 24 1982 PAGE 5 WE UESTION THEIR REAL INTENT... Are they seeking R-2 zoning knowing our neig or oo wi o �ec . Do they intend to then "compromise” for R-1 with alot of variances attached? Having someone propose specific construction of a planned development is one thin�. Having someone seek a change in zoning so they can sell individual lots to individual builders, is an entirely different risk. In summary, WE REQUEST AND DEMAND THAT THE REQUEST FOR R-2 ZONING BE DENIED to PRESERVE OUR EIGHBORHOOD, MAINTAIN OUR PROPERTY VALUES, AND ASSURE THE SAFETY OF UR . / � � Mr. Bill Zurbey, 'f45 Sylvan Lane, stated he has lived in this neighborhood for 19 years. Quite a few years ago, they had a sewer problem in this neighborhood, and he wondered if anyone had done any research as to whether the current sewer system would handle duplexes. � Mr. Boardman stated the sewer capacity was checked when Mr, Doty had applied for the rezoning to R-3. At that time, the City Engineering Dept. felt there was adequate sewer capacity for that type of development. Mr.Robert Olson, RAO Manufacturing, stated he was at the meeting for information, and not to approve or disapprove the proposal. He stated he understood that with the development of the property to R-2, it would increase RAO's setback to 50 ft. He stated they are now 50 ft, from the back line so there were no problems with that. He wanted to know if there were any other restrictions that would restrict the possible use of their property because of this development. Mr. Boardman stated that besides the setback requirement, there are screening requirements for loading areas. Mr. Olson stated one concern he had would be the grading required to put in these units. RAO's property is quite a bit higher than Satellite Lane. If the developer would have to dig out to lower all the units to the level of Satellite Lane, there could be quite a drop. He stated if there were no other major changes, he would have no objection to this development. Ms. Judy Kidder, 6360 Starlite Blvd., stated she supported everything Mr. Larson had said. He has done an excellent job in organizing the neighborhood as can be seen by the number of people who turned out for the meeting. She stated the neighborhood sincerely believes this property could be developed into R-1 and ^ it would be the best solution for both parties. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 PAGE 6 ^ Mr. Larson stated one of the reasons they are not concerned with the property being zoned light industrial is because they benefit from RAO Manufacturing, which is probably one of the neatest buildings, from an industrial standpoint, in Fridley, or maybe in the Twin Cities. As a homeowner, he appreciated that and wished all industrial property was maintained as well. Mr. Doty stated he understood the neighbors' feeling and was not unsympathetic to the fact that no one wants a multiple dwelling built in his/her R-1 neighbor- hood. In his 20 years of real estate, he has yet to find or witness an R-1 neighborhood that was in favor of a multiple residential adjacent to it. However, he hoped they could allay some of the neighborhood's fears. Mr. Doty stated it is not feasible or likely that anyone is going to build a double bungalow for under $120,000. He stated they have submitted some various plans as to what the structures might look like. Ne stated they are very nice units. He stated they cannot at this time make a commitment to build those units on those lots because of today's interest rates. FHA interest rates are 16z%. Financing on double bungalows would dictate they be sold to owner occupants, Mr. Doty stated they talked to Mr. Robert Olson about a year ago as far as industrial for this property. They talked about buying some property and coming in along the south side of RAO, but they discovered this was not feasible. They talked about the possibility of selling the land to RAO because of neighbor- hood opposition, but RAO felt they had sufficient land for further expansion and would not need this additional land. Mr. Doty stated the property is presently zoned M-1. They are requesting a down- zoning. He is not so certain that a plan must have neighborhood approval, and he is not so certain that a neighborhood can �emand what a private property owner does with his land as long as it is within the proper zoning requirements. Again, he wanted to emphasize that this land is M-1, it is bordered by the rail- road tracks, light industrial, and R-3 Multiple housing. They are requesting an R-2 zoning. Ms. Gabel stated Mr. Larson had made the statement about the possibility of the individual lots being sold and developed by individual builders. Would that happen or did Mr. Doty and Mr. Wellner plan to develop all of it themselves? Mr. Wellner stated it was their original intention to buy the property and develop it themselves. If the economy is such that they can develop it themselves, that is what they will do; however, they cannot guarantee that. Ms. Judy Kidder stated people have lived in their neighborhood for years. They feel that even with duplexes, there will be a constant turnover of tenants-- even in the one-half. Right now, they do not get that constant change in residents, and they do not feel it is fair to change the character of their neighborhood so much. � 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 PAGE 7 Mr. Larson stated he felt it was his and the neighborhood's concern that these lots will be haphazardly sold off to individual builders. He stated Mr. Doty showed nice drawings of prospective structures, but that doesn't mean anything unless it is tied in with the rezoning. Again, he spoke for the�neighbors when he said they are �remendously upset about this and heartily recommend the Planning Commission reject the rezoning. Mr. Frank Liebl stated he sympathized with Mr. Doty. Mr. Doty has a right to develop his property, but not at the neighborhood's expense. He stated there is already too much traffic. Because of the multiple residential north of Satellite, there is'too much density in that area right now. He stated there are also definite sewer problems in that area, and Staff should look into this problem. Mr. Wellner stated he wanted to speak as a present homeowner who has property adjacent to duplexes. His property is on Sunrise Drive, and Star Lane has all duplexes on one side of the street. He in no way thought those duplexes depreciated the value of his home, because the property owners keep them in nice condition. He has lived for many years next to duplexes. He does not have the noise problems the neighborhood is alluding to, he does not have any more traffic than living next to a single family home with 2-3-4 cars. He did not think the traffic argument was as strong as the neighborhood would like to make it, and � he did not think they could make the generalization that duplexes would devalue their properties. He stated they could do some market analysis that would show this was not necessarily the case. Mr. Dennis Johnson, 6336 Starlite Blvd., stated he ]ives on the west side of Starlite Blvd., and their children like to play at Sylvan Park. They have to cross the street to get to the park. Starlite is almost an extension of Main Street and carries a lot of traffic, much of which is above the speed limit, and the street is not safe for children. He would like to keep the traffi�c on their street at a minimum, and he felt construction of single family homes was a way to keep that traffic at a minimum. Mr. Saba stated that regarding the issue of the care of double bungalows, he has seen some excellent double bungalows, and he has seen some very bad double bungalows. He stated where neighborhoods are kept up, the double bungalows are usually kept up also, but as a neighborhood deteriorates, so do the multiple dwellings. He stated that at today's costs, there are some pretty nice double bungalows being built. He liked the effort Mr. Doty had made to put a buffer between the double bungalows and the single family residential, He stated he felt R-2 was a fair compromise. He thought they should also consider the sewage problem that has been brought up, and the City owes the neighborhood an answer to that concern. He did not know if they could address the reZOning issue at this meeting without an answer to the sewage problem. Mr. Boardman stated he would do some more checking into the sewer problems to see if there are any solutions to the problem. He stated he had discussed the �� sewer capacity with the Engineering Dept, for R-3, and they had indicated the sewer capacity was adequate for R-3. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 PAGE 8 Ms. Catherine Scherven� 131 Sylvan Lane N.E., stated she does not object to double bungalows, because she and her husband are thinking about buying one. But, she did not think this area was a good area for double bunga7ows, because of the traffic situation and the water situation. She stated that whenever there is a rain, their street runs like a river. The water comes down Starlite and down Sylvan towards the park. With more run-off from a cul-de-sac, the water situation would be even worse. Ms. Gabel stated she would like the Planning Commission to know more about the sewer capacity before ma�ing a decision, and she would like to see this item tabled. _ Mr. Wellner stated he and Mr. Doty are not asking for any platting at the present time, and it would seem to him that answers to the sewer objections could be found out between now and the time they would come forth with a plat. At that time, the City could determine whether or not the sewer capacity was adequate for the development. All they are asking for now is a rezoning, and it would seem to him that the City would have control as to whether the development could be handled by the utilities at that time. He did think it was a question that should be answered, but he was not at all certain the sewer issue should dictate approval or disapproval of the rezoning request. Mr. Oquist stated he agreed with Mr. Wellner. If there is a sewer problem, there will be one whether it is an R-2 development or an R-1 development. The sewer question has nothing to do with the rezoning. MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY 1�Z. OQUIST� TO CL05E TNE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZOA #82-01 BY W. G. DOTY AND GARY A. WELLNER. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CNAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARI2VG CLOSED AT 9:05 P.M. Mr. Oquist stated he did not necessarily agree that this rezoning request should be tabled. He stated he has always argued for the right of the owner of the property to be able to develflp the property within reason. He felt there was going to be a sewer problem no matter what kind of development went in. But, because of the density already in the area with the multip7e dwellings and the existing traffic problems, he would have to vote against the rezoning. Ms. Gabel stated there are so many other things that could be developed on this property under the current zoning, which could generate a whole different kind of traffic for that residential street. That bothered her in terms of leaving the zoning M-1. However, she agreed the density was probably has high as it should be and would be inclined to vote against the rezoning, Mr. Kondrick stated he shared Mr. Oquist's point of view on density. He would like to see the area better handled with single family residential. n �, � � � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARIi 24 1982 PAGE 9 MOTION BY A�2. OpUIST� SECONDED BY 1�2. KONDRICK, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE DENIAL OF REZONIIVG REpUEST ZOA #82-OI BY W. G. DOTY A1ND GARY A. WELLNER TO REZONE TAE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCELS FROM M-1 (LIGBT INDUSTRIAL AREAS), TO R-2 (TWO FAMILY DWELLING AREAS)� (EXCEPT IF TAIS AREA IS PLATTED Z LOT WILL BE R-3); THAT PART OF BLOCKS 8 AND 9� LOWELL ADDITIONi LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SYLVAN HILLS PLAT 8� EXTENDED IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION TO THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID BLOCK 8� AND LYING WESTERLY OF TAE PLAT OF SYLVAN HILIw PLAT 8� TOGETHER WITH THE EASTERLY ONE-HALF OF VACATED ELM STREET� AND THAT PA14T OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 7� LOWELL ADDITION TO FRIDLEY PARK� LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE WESTERLY EXTEIVSIOW OF TXE NORTH LINE OF THE PI�AT OF SYLVAN HILLS PI,AT 8� TOGETHER WITH THE WESTERLY HALF OF .�7ACATED ELM STREET� GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF MISSISSIPPI STREET N.E.� EAST OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RIGHT-OF-WAY� FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. EXISTING DENSITY 2. TRAFFIC PROBLEMS Mr. Harris asked Mr. Doty if he would like the Planning Commission to vote on the motion or did he wish to withdraw his request? Mr. Doty stated he would like the Planning Commission to vote on the rezoning request. UPON A VOICE VOTE� OQUIST� SVANDA� KONDRICK� SABA� AND GABEL VOTING AYE� HARRIB ABSTAIAIING� CAAIRMAN HARRIS �ECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Harris stated that ZOA #82-01 was recommended to City Council for denial and would go to City Council on March 22. Chairman Harris declared a ten-minute recess at 9:15 p.m. 4. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 1, 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MO,Z70N BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TO RECEIVE TXE FEBRUARY 1� 1982� XOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY M.INUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE JANUARY 26 1982, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY 1�IR. KONDRICK, TO RECEIVE THE JANUARY 26� I982, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 2, 1982, PARKS & RECREA7ION COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. OQUIST� SECONDED BY MR. SABA� TO RECEIVE THE FEBRUARY 2� 1982� PARICS � RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 PAGE 10 7. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 4, 1982, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. KONDRICIC� SECONDED SY MS. GABEL� TO RECEIVE THE FEBRUARY 4� 1982� AUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES. ' UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DEC�ARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 9, 1982, COMMUNITY.DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY 1�2. SVANDA� TO RECEIVE THE FEBRUARY 9� 1982� COMMUNITY DEVELOPINENT COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HA,RRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNAIVIMOUSLY. 9. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 16, 1982, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. SVANDA� SECONDED BY MR. SABA� TO RECEIVE THE FEBRUARY 16� 1982� ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES. Mr. Svanda stated the Commission had made two motions: (1) to recommend that n the Mayor proclaim April 18-24 as "Fridley Recycling Week" and to request City Staff to pursue activities and ideas through the media to,promote the recycling week; and (2) to recommend that the City Offices accelerate their recycling efforts and that the City collect all recyclable items to take to the SORT Recycling Center during "Recycling Week" in order to help publicize the recycling effort and set an example for the rest of the community. Mr. Svanda stated he would like Planning Commission to concur with these recommendations. UPON A VOICE VOTE�ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY MR. SVANDA� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICIC� TO CONCUR WITH THE EIWIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION�S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE MAYOR OF FRIDLEY PROCLAIM THE WEEK OF APRIL 18-24 AS "FRIDLEY RECYCLING WEEK" AND TO REQUEST STAFF TO PURSUE ACTIVITIES AND IDEA5 THROUGH TAE AVAILABLE MEDIA. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � MOTION BY MR. SVANDA� SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST� TO CONCUR WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION�S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY OFFICES ACCELERATE THEIR RECYCLING EFFORTS AND THAT THE CITY THEN TAKE THE PAPER PRODUCTS AND OTHER RECYCLABLES TO THE S.O.R.T. RECYCLING CENTER DURING RECYCLING WEEK TO SERVE AS ^ AS EXAMPLE TO THE CITIZENS OF FRIDLEY. r, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 PAGE 11 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAI,RMAIV AARRIS DECLARED TEE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Government Training Service Seminar Mr. Harris stated this seminar would be held on March 10-12 and any Planning Commission member interested in attending should contact Mr. Boardman. B. Chairman's Farewel] Mr. Harris stated this will probably be his last meeting as Chairman of the Planning Commission as he will be on vacation in March. He stated Virginia Schnabel will be replacing him as of April 1. He stated it has been a pleasure serving on the Planning Commission and working with the other Planning Commission members. He wished them all good luck. The other commissioners also wished Mr. Harris good luck. Mr. Kondrick thanked Mr. Harris for the help and good direction Mr. Harris � has given each of the Planning Commission members. Mr. Oquist stated he has very much appreciated Mr. Harris' expertise. Mr. Saba stated that Mr. Narris will be sorely missed. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN XARRIS DECLARED THE FEBRUARY 24� 1982� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �� Lyn e Saba Recording Secretary � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 NAME E. L. Rice Marijane Tessman Michael Larson A1 Ricks Jim Fischer Norris Knutson Dori s Knutson Mrs. E. W. Wetterberg Mrs. Louis Sandusky Jeane Rice Mary Hartfiel John Gilliver Gail Ahrens Thomas Christensen Ed Ahrens Robert Olson Terrance Ross Maria Zurbey William Zurbey Paul A. Scherven Catherine M. Scherven Connie Johnson Lisa Cooper Bev Waks Sheila Butler Robert Aacuira Ardys J. Smith Mary Lietzke Frank Liebl Judy Kidder Dennis Johnson ADDRESS 100 Sylvan Lane N.E. 6390 Starlite Blvd. 6390 Starlite Blvd. 161 Sylvan Lane N.E. 6312 Starlite Bvld. 6300 Starlite Blvd. 6300 Starlite Blvd. 175 Sylvan Lane 181 Sylvan Lane 100 Sylvan Lane N.E. 120 Sylvan Lane N.E. 663 - 47th Ave. N.E. 198 Mercury Dr. 190 Satellite Lane 198 Mercury Or. RAO Manufacturing,Co., 321 Hugo St. N.E. 145 Sylvan Lane N.E. 145 Sylvan Lane N.E. 131 Sylvan Lane N.E. 131 Sylvan Lane N.E. 13326 Gladiola - guest guest of W. G. Doty guest of W. G. Doty guest of W. G. Doty guest of W. G. Doty guest of W. G. Doty guest of W. G. Doty 222 Mercury Dr. N.E. 6360 Starlite Blvd, 6336 Starlite Blvd. 200 Mississippi St. of W.G. Doty /� � �