PL 12/10/1986 - 30654�
�'1
/'"'�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION P1EETIT�lG, DECE��1BER 1�, 19?36
............
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Rillings called the December 10, 1986, Pianning Commission meetin�
to order at 7:32 p,m. �
ROLL CALL:
Menbers Present:
P1er�bers Absent:
Steve Qillings, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Donald Qetzold,
Richard Svanda
Dave Yondrick
Others Present: Jim Robinson, Planning Coordinator
Charles Cook, Coon Rapids
John Nelson, Professional Ventures
John Grossman, Professional Ventures
Gidrn Bertrum, Professional Ventures
David Plitchell, representing Vantage
P1atthew Nichol, Vantage Properties
Properties, Inc.
Dave Rooney, h1adison Pizza (Rocky Ricoco)
Jack Maxwell, 2931 Partridge Rd., Roseville
(See attacFied 1 ist)
APPROVAL OF �JOVF��BFR 19, 1986, PCAN�JiNr COMh�iSSiO�J MIiNUTES:
MO_!'ION BY MR. BETZOLDy 5ECOl7DED BY MS. SHEREK, TO APPRO[�E THE �OV. 19� 1986,
P.LAINNING CONIl�1I5S201l1 MINUTES AS WRITTEN.
UPON A VOIC.E VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLA.RED Z'HE MOTIOP7
CAFtRIED UNANII�?OUSLY.
1. (TABLED fJOVEh�BER 19, 1986) - PUBLIC HEARING: COPdSIDERATION OF A PRELIh1INARY
,.S. 8�06; CCEY�OAKS; B CFIARLES�COOK: �eing a replat of that part
of Lot 22, Blocfc 3, loore Lake Hi s, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying southerly
of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the northeasterly
line of Lot 21, Block 3, P��oore Lake Hills, distant 35.00 feet northwesterly
from tFie northeast corner; thence southwesterly to a point on the southwesterly
line of said Lot 22, distant 42.00 feet northwesterly from the southwest corner
of said Lot 22 and there terminating. Except that part there-of lying north-
easterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the north line
of said Lot 22, distant 5.00 feet westerly from the northeast corner; thence
southerly to a point on the south line of said lot, distant 6(1.00 feet westerly
from tfie southeast corner. Su6ject to easements, if any, and that part of
Lot 21 and 22, Block 3, �9oore Lake Hills, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying easterly,
southeasterly, and northeasterly of a line described as follows: Beginning at
a point on the northeasterly line of said Lot 21, distant 212.00 feet south-
easter7y of the most northerly corner of said Lot 21, thence southwes�erly, at
a right angle to said northeasterly line, to its intersection with line A, here-
after described, thence soutfiwesterly, along said line A to its intersection
with a line descri6ed as beginning at a point on the north line of saici Lot 22,
� PLANNIPJG Cn�1�lISSION P1EETING; DECENIQER 10; 19�36 PAGE 2
distant 5.Q0 feet westerly of the northeast corner, thence southerly to a
point on the south line of said Lot 22, distant 60.Q0 feet westerly of the
southeast corner, thence southerly, along last described line, to the south
line of said Lot 22 and there terminating. Line A is described as beginning
at a point on the nortFieasterly northeast corner, thence southwesterly to a
point on the southwesterly line of said Lot 22, said point distant 42.00
feet northwesterly from the southwest corner of said Lot 22, and there
terminating. Su6ject to easements, if any, and the east 600.00 feet of the
south 200.00 feet of tFie nortFi 882.5 feet of_the northwest quarter of the
northeast quarter of Section 24, Township 30, Range 24, located in Anoka
County, Minnesota, generally located south of Nillcrest Drive and north of
Gardena Avenue.
PUBL�TC HEARING OPEN.
MOTION_BY MR. SABA, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO REMOVE P.S. #86-06 FROM THE
TABLE.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLIIVGS DECLA.RED THF, MOTION
CARRIED UNAIVIMOUSLY.
�1r. Robinson stated this property was located south of Pqoore Lake Hills and
� north of Gardena Ave. The property involved 3.25 acres which included a
vacant woodland and the rear of Lot 21 and Lot 22. The prelir�inary plat
included seven lots wFiicFi were centered around a proposed cul-de-sac, which
�ould 6e a6out 325 feet long. The lots all meet code as far as lot area and
lo� width. '
Mlr. Robinson stated the drainage plan had been submitted to the Rice Creek
Watershed District Qoard and City Staff for review. At the last meeting,
the key issues w�th the=plat was that the drainage plan did not provide for
an overflow pipe. There was no storm sewer in the immediate area. Since the
last meeting, Staff has �rrorked with Suburban Engineering and reached the
conclusion that although the drainage plan was adequate for the plat itself,
it did not mitigate the adverse effects it could eventually have on the
surrounding properties. Therefore, City Staff has recommended that an over-
flow pipe be installed rrrith the plan from Hillcrest west to Gardena Lane to
an exi�sting catch basin. The estimated cost was $33,00�. Fortunately, the
pipe would not have to go in the street. There was quite a bit of boulevard
and green area adjacent to the road where the PVC pipe could he placed without
tearing up the street.
Mr. Robinson stated that at the last meeting, the Planning Commission asked
Staff to look into the assessments and market values of the existing properties
in the area. He stated Leon ^ladsen, Ci±y Assessor, had written a memo (page 1L
of the agenda) dated PJov. 19, 1986. P9r. Pladsen stated in the memo that: "No
special consideration has 6een given to the existence of the vacant area now
proposed for platting. If tFie platting goes through, there will continue to
�''� be no ef.fect on value, of tfiese properties, except to the extent that land areas
are �'educed to accommodate the development. The reason for not considering the
r"'`
�'"�
PLANNItJG COP1�IISSION MEETI�lG, DECEh1BER 10, 1986 PAGE 3
open land in the value process was because of the uncertain disposition of
the parcel. It hadn`t been dedicated for any public purpose."
Mr. Robinson stated the uncertain disposition of the parcel was perhaps a
liability as much as an asset to the area.
Mr. Robinson stated that also at the request of the Cor►miission, on Dec. 1,
he arranged for and conducted an analysis of the area with Siah St. Clair,
Ci�y Naturalist, and a wildlife expert from the DNR, Lloyd Knutson. They
wal fsed the area wi th Connie 1�9odi g. �1r. Knu�son commented on the wi ldl i fe
aspects. He agreed that it was a good wildlife habitat in its present con-
dition and also agreed there would be a deterioration of habitat with the
development, as there would be with any develop�ent. They talked about ways
to mitigate the problem.
�1r. Rob1nson stated tfw t whatever stipulations thQ Commission placed on.the
deve7oper were going to be difficult to carry tfirough to suhsequent owners
of the property. One thing that could be considered was a covenant or deed
that would 6e placed on appropriate lots where the wildlife was o�timum right
no�r. It would basically call for a management-type plan and was something
the City would have to 6e involved in. The City has not been involved in
anything like this 6efore.
P1r. Robinson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Deve7oper to implement a drainage plan which meets
specifications (completed)
Developer agrees to pay assessments for all public
necessitated 6y the plat.
All praposed waterlines to be 6-inch diameter.
Provide easement for storm drainage system.
Publ i c ��Jorks
improvements
Sanitary sewer lift station to meet Public �1!orks requirements.
Provide a plan and necessary easements for private utility services.
Provide a 20-foot building setback easement along tfie north line of
proposed Lot 5.
Developer agrees to preserve trees to the greatest extent possible.
Park fees of $1,500 per lot to be paid with each of the seven buildina
permits.
10. Retaining wall in cul-de-sac right-of-way to k�e a minimum of 10 feet
from curb; materials and design to be approved by City Staff.
Mr. Cook stated Staff was recommending the storm sewer system with this
project. He was uncomfortable with stipulation #2 which stated: "Developer
agrees to pay assessments for all public improvements necessitated by the
plat." He stated he did not feel he should pay the entire bill for a storm
sewer system when he was the only developer at this time.
Mr. Billings stated that, of course, the City Council would make the final
�"'� decision regarding the storm sewer system. At the last meeting, Councilman
Schneider had stated if there was any storm sewer system, it should not be
assessed to the neigh6ors.
��
PLANNING COP�F1ISSION MEETING; DECEI�BER 10; 1936 PAGE 4
Mr. Bailey Tiller, 1535 Gardena Ave., stated he was concerned about whether
or not any water tests had fieen done on the land. How high was the water
table? He stated years ago, the water table was as high as 5 ft. from the
surface. He stated those tests should be made before any development starts.
He stated he felt the nicest thing the'City could do with this land was
leave it the way it was with the wildlife, and let the water run where it may.
Ms. Cormie P7odig, 1330 Hillcrest Drive, stated she was with the naturalist
and the DNR wildlife expert when they wall:ed the land. Her lot was Lot 24
which was adjacent io the proposed deve7opr�ient. They had some discussion about
various ways to Fiandle the pro6lem she had with the development. She was not
against the developmEnt, per se, 6ut sFie would li�e to see the wildlife main-
tatned as much as possible and left as natural as it can be. She agreed with
Mr. Knutson of the DNR that they couldn't build seven homes and not affect the
wildlife. Her suggestion was that instead of having a covenant against a17
seven lots, may6e sometlting could 6e done only on Lo� 5 where the pond was
predominately right now, leaving the water much the same as it is now, except
where the house could 6e constructed. In other words, take a portion of Lot 5
and maintain it as a separate park-like area.
�1r. Ro�inson stated there was some logic to r9s. Modig's suggestion. Lot 5
could certainly afford to be reduced in buildable area as it was over 1/2 acre.
Also, the area was irrunediately adjacent to the wetlands which was probably the
most valuable and habitable area for wildlife. A consideration such as this
might be something fairly easy to manage.
Mr. Cook stated he had some conversation about this possibility, and he had
offered 100-125 ft. of the project including some of the land as a park.
Mr. Robinson stated Staff was not proposing a park for a number of reasons:
(1) It was the City's po3icy to not maintain small parks; (2) There was
liability to the City; and (3) When there is a small outlot area, it tends
to become a dumping ground.
Mr. Robinson stated they fe7t it would be maintained better if the property
was retained by the owner of Lot 5 and the neighbors cow7d he7p by being
watchdogs in maintaining the wildlife corridor in the area.
Mr. Cook stated he could agree to something like this. They would have to
look at the site and deterrtiine what was reasonable.
Mr. Billings stated the park dedication fee on Lot 5 might be something
Mr. Cook might want to negotiate with the City Council.
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECOIVDED BY MR. SABA, TO CLOSE THE PIT.�LIC HEARIl7G.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARF,D THE PUBLIC
NEARING CLOSED AT 8;I0 P.M.
�� P7r. Robinson recommended that an elev�nth stipulation be added: "A deed
restriction to preserve the wildlife habitat c�n a portion of Lot 5 be
recorded with the plat." �
� PLANNING COP-1MISSION PIEETING, DECEP1BER 10 1986 PAGF 5
Mr. Robinson stated he should point out that on the assessment issue, although
there is some development pending on the Gardena School property he did not
believe they should maN.e the assumption that the development wou�d be approved,
and would also have to pay some assessment for the storm sewer. °It was a
possibility that the tot�l cost:would be Mr. Cook's respons�bility,
Mr, Betzold stated the issue of the natural habitat in the area was raised
not only at thfs meeting but at the last Planning Commission meeting as well.
He found it trou6lesome that a 6ulldozer could come in and disturb nesting
areas of the wildlife, but it was also distur6ing to think that over the last
30 years with all the development going on in the City of Fridley, 90% of
those people are presently living in houses that used to be some anima7's home.
The small consolation was that the City of Fridley has made a very strong
cor.�mitment to preserving some nature centers. There was one about one-half
mile from this particular area. r�ay6e some of these animals will go to that
nature area. Maybe some will eventually return if the western area of Lot 5
is preserved, but it could be a 7ong time.
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, 5FCONDF•D BY MR. SABA, TO RECOMMFND TO Cl2'Y COUNCl'L
APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY.PLAT� P.S. #86-06, VALLEY OAK5, BY CHARLE5 COOK,
WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS:
I. DEVELOPER TO IMPLEMENT A DRAINAGE PLA1V WKICH MEET5 PffBLSC WORKS
r.+� SPECIFICATION5.
2. DEVELOPER AG.REES TO PAY ASSESSMENTS FOR ALL PI7BLIC IR?PROPEMENTS
NECESSITATED BY TNE PLAT.
3. ALL PROPOSED WATERLINE5 TO BE 6-INCH DIAMETER.
4. PROVIDE EASEMENT F014 5TORM DRAINAGE SYSTEA�.
5. SANITARY 5EWER LIFT ;�TATION TO h?EET PUBLIC WORIC5 REQUIREMEIVTS.
6. PROVIDE A PLAN AND NECESSARY F,ASEI�IENTS FOR PRIVA2'E UT.TLITY
SERVICES.
7. PROVIDE A 20-FOOT BUILDING SETBACK EASEMENT ALONG THE NOR2'H LINE
OF PROPOSED LOT 5.
8. DEVELOPER AGREES TO PRE5ERVE TREES TO THE GREATE5T EXTENT POSSIBLE.
9. PARK FEES OF $I,500 PER LOT TO BE PAID WI?'H EACH OF THE SEVEN
BUILDING PERMITS.
10. RETAI11TI111G DJALL IN CUIrDE-SAC RIGHT-OF-WAY '_.^O BF. A MINIMUM OF
10 FEET FROM CURB; MATERIALS AND DESIGN TO BE APPROVED BY
CITY STAFF.
ZI. A DEED RESTRICTION TO PRESERVE THE WILDLIFE HABITAT ON A PORTION
OF LOT fi BE RECO.E�DED YJITH THE PLAT .
Mr. Svanda stated he questioned stipulation #9 regarding the park fees of
$1,500 per lot. He felt this could be discussed with the City Council as
part of Lot 5 would 6e set aside for a wildlife habitat area.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMDUSLY.
�`` Mr. Robinson stated there would be a public hearing on this item before the
City Council on Jan. 5, 1987.
n PL1aNNING COPIPIISSION h9EETING, DECE��QER 10; 1986 PAGE fi
2. (TABLED NOVET9BER 19, 1986) - CONSIDERATI(�N OF A 11ACATION REQIiFST, SAV #86-06,
BY CHARCES COOK: Vacate easements for pu6lic utilities described as follows:
t e south 5 eet of Lot 22, Block 3, floore Lake Hills,and the south 5 feet
and the east 10 feet of Lot 21, Block 3, P1oore Lake Hills, generally located
south of Hillcrest Drive and north of Gardena Ave.
MOTIOIV BY MR. SABA, SECONDED BY MS. SHEP.EK, TO RElAOVE THE ITEM FROM THE
TABLE .
UPOIU A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLING5 DECLAP.ED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
f�r. Robinson stated •�hat in conjunction �rith �h� plat, the developer was pro-
posing to vacate the utility easement on the s�uthern end of Lots 21 and 22
property and the eastern portion of Lot 21 which the developer was
purchasing a portion of.
Mr. Robinson stated the City did send notices to the utility companies.
NSP does have a power pole in that area, but the developer plans to place the
po�uer line underground.
P1r. Robinson stated the only stipulation, as related to the plat, was that a
�..� plan be provided for the private utility services,
MOTIOIV BY MS. SHEREK, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO RECOMM.END TO CITY COIII�ICIL
APPROVAL OF VACATION REQUEST, 5AV #86-06, BY CHARLE5 COOK TO VACATE EA5F,MENTS
FOR PUBLIC UTILITIE5 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE 50UTH 5 FEET OF LOT 22� BLOCK
3� MOORE LAKE HILLS, AND THE SOUTH 5 FEET AND THE E'AST 10 FEF•T OF LOT 21,
BLOCK 3, MOORE LAKE NILLS, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF HILLCRE5T DRIVE AND
NORTH OF GARDENA AVE.� WITH THE STIPULATION THAT A PLAN BE PROVIDED FOR
PRIVATE UTILITY SERVICES.
UPON ,A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAI.RPERSON BILLINGS DECLARF•D Z'HE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. PUQLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRECIP9INARY PLAT, P.S. #86-07, A R� R
SECOND ADDITION,�BY'JOHN�NE'SONc Being a rep at of ot 4, B oc 1, A& R
Addition to the City of �ridley, Anoka County, P1innesota, and tFte south
300 feet of the north 750 feet of tFie Northeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter except the east 720 feet thereof, all in Section 12, T-30, R-24,
Anoka County, Minnesota, subject to road easements of record, to allow for
the development of four separate parcels of land, generally located south of
Osborne Road and east of Viron P.oad.
M02'ION BY MR. SVANDA, SECONDED BY MS. SNEREY., TO WAIVE THE FORMAL READING OF
THE PIIBLIC HEARING NOTICE AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED AND THE PUBr,IC HFARING OPEN AT 8:25 P.M.
� PLANNIfJG C�MI�ISSIO(V P�EETI�dG; DECEh16ER 10, 198h PA�F 7
Mr. Robinson statEd this property was located east of Highway 65 ancl south
of Osborne Rd. immediately east of Viron Road. The property presently had
two zonings, most of the northerly portion was recently rezoned from C-3
to C-2, and the southerly portion was presently C-3. Item #4 of the agenda
was a request to rezone the southerly portion from C-3 to C-2.
Mr. Robinson stated that earlier this fall, the Planninc� Commission and City
Council processed a plat for A� R Addition. A1ong with the plat being
requested at this meeting, the City was requesting that additional street
easements be granted to the City. They are suggesting that the easterly 30 ft.
of proposed Lot 4 6e granted as street easement. In addition, the easterly
25 ft. of Lot 1 and Lot 3, A& R Addition, not part of this plat, be granted
as a street easement which would be recorded against that plat. They feel
these are all necessary because of the size of the proposed Lot 4 and Lot 3.
Mr. Ro6inson stated anot[�er stipulation would be that Lot 3 of the previous
plat be comb�.ned with Lot 4. The reason for that was that l.ot 4 which was
part of A& R Addition did not have its own street access which was required.
Staff was suggesting tFiat a street easement on the east be granted. In
addition, they are asking for future private driveway easements to be recorded
with those three lots. The plans for the area thus far included a Rocky
Rococo Pizza. The other two are unprograrrnnned at this time, but there was talk
P...,, of two other fast food restaurants.
P�lr. Robinson stated they fee7 that because of the nature of the development,
there would be some chance of positive benefits to connect the par�:ing lots
with private drivetvays. Perhaps in future development proposals, they will
ask for private di•iveway easements.
��r. Robinson stated the stipulations would read as follows:
i. Final plat approval contingent upon Rice Creek Watershed and staff approval
of storm drainage plan.
2. Proposed Lot 4, A& R Second Addition,to be added to existing Lot 3,
A& R Addition,to create one tax parce't; form to be signed prior to
recording plat.
3. A street easement on the easterly 30 feet of Lot 4, A& R Second
Addition,to be incorpora�ted onto plat.
4. A street easement on the easterly 25 feet of Lot 1 and Lot 3, A& R
Addition, to be filed against plat prior to recording of A& R Second
Addition.
5. Properties abutting proposed easterly street easements sub,iect to fair
share of assessments for future street and utility improvements.
6. All development within the proposed plat to incorporate integrated
lighting and landscaping elements as outlined by Staff.
7. Park fee of $5,215 paya6le with plat approval or pro-rated with each
[�u�ilding permit if Council approves.
8. A private driveway easement may be required across the west of Lots 1,
�`` 2, and 3. Dependent upon staff review of future development submittals.
�"� PLANNIf�G COMP�IISSION MEETING; DECEPIBER 10, 1986 PAGE 8
Mr. John i�elsQn, Prof�ssional Ventures, stated they had some concern about the
driveway that is proposed between the different parcels of land. They have
developed shopping centers and worfced with developers on shoppinq centers
on retail type of 6usinesses, and there were occasions when it was beneficial
to connect properties through a corronnon drivevray arrangement. There were other
occasions when businesses were not compatible or for some other restrictive
reasons such as lack of parking, when a common driveway arrangement was a
detrlment rather than a benefit. They are concerned here that if the City
requires them to put a driveway in between the two different tracts, it could
decrease the number of parking stalls they could put in. They have been
talking to one particular user for Lot 3 where it is going to be very tight
for parking.
P�r. Nelson stated perhaps they really did not need stipulation #8. Until they
have a specific use and user for the other two parcels, the access could not
be 700% resolved,
Mr. Robinson stated he agreed with h9r. Nelson. There would probably not be
a reason to connect the properties if there was going to be three fast fo�d
restaurants; however, it if was a strip center, it miqht be an advantage to
connect them. However, he would like to see them keep this option open at this
point. This was incorporated as a stipulation with the plat, and they would
�.,, also incorporate that as a stipulation on the building permit as the properties
were developed, e
Mr. Nelson stated it was their opinion that the traffic flow on Viron Road was
not very heavy. If access was properly placed to the tracts, they would
accomplish the same thing as they would by using Viron Road as an access between
tC�e three lots. However, there were occasions when a developer finds ?.-3
different property owners that find it advantageous to have the lots connected.
In that case, the request was usually made by the property owners and the City
was not usually involved in it. They are requesting that the City delete
stipulation #8.
Mr. Nelson stated they also questioned stipulation #6 which dealt with the
proposed plat incorporating integrated lighting and landscape elements as
outlined by Staff. He stated they are dealing with two national companies
right now. They are talking with one other restaurant which was not a fast
food, but full service, sit-down restaurant. He would use both these two
companies as an example because both of them had'proto-type buildings and proto-
type lights which might not be the same as the lightincr proposed by P1r. Robinson.
He did not know if it was a71 bad to have different lighting for all three
restaurants. He stated they are trying to accomplish a nice development, and
they have agreed to do a certain amount of landscapinq agreed upon by City
Staff, but for the City to regulate and specify a certain type of lighting for
the street in that area would probably be an encumbrance to them.
� Mr. Robinson stated that when the City doesn.'t take the initiative in this
kind of thing, they find they get a general hodge-podge of design elements
and they are trying to accomplish an image improvement in this area of Fridley.
This is a key intersection and a I:ey corner,and this was a good opportunity
to create an identity and an asset in this area. They were really only talkinq
,�"� PLANNING COMMISSI(�N P�IEETING, DECE�I6ER 10, 1986 pI�GE g
about 2-3 lights per parcel, which he did not fee7 would be a hardship.
Staff was willing to look at alternatives as long as they add to the quality
of the development. They were a7so proposing to include this same stipula-
tion with the rest of the development on this block.
P9r.Billings stated there have been instances in Bloomington and other southern
cities where P1cDonalds, for instance, has actually changed its building design
to meet the requirements of the cities,
Mr. John Grossman stated he was an associate of Mr. Ne7son's. They are rather
a large commercial property owner in Bloomington. In Bloomington, wherever
the City has required certain lighting, the City has furnished the subsidi�s
to provide that lighting. If the City wanted to create an image with lighting,
they should continue it all the way down to Viking Chevrolet. He stated perhaps
another a7ternative, if it was critical to the City from the standpoing of
attracting business, would 6e to palce the lights at the City's expense on the
other side of Viron Road because ob�aously a retail identity was going to be�
very important to the individual businesses moving into this area.
Mr, fJe7son asked if the City was stipulating that the lighting in the parking
lots be the same as that on the street.
r�.., Mr. Robinson stated that wou7d 6e the logical assumption, a7though he had not
` made tfiat a stipulation. They are trying to create an image from the street.
They would like tFie 6usinesses to taE:e into consideration that the parking lot
lighting should 6e compati6le with the lighting on tfie street.
Mr. Nelson stated Pladison Pizza (Roc[cy Rococo) was putting together an attrac�
tive package for this lot. His concern would t>e that maybe the developer or
user next door to Rocky Rococo wouldn't have the same package, and shouldn't
that developer or user be required to do the same type of package?
P9r. Dave Rooney, Pladison Pizza, stated he felt what they were all trying to
accomplish with the lighting was that all the lighting, including the parcel
next to them be compatible, and that they all stand out as a good commercial
development inviting business. They want their building to stand out so it
does attract attention. Their lighting package was specifically based on candle-
power--one candle foot per square foot of lot area, plus some building spot-
lighting and landscape spotlighting.
Mr. Rooney stated his concern was if the lighting on Viron Road would have
any affect on the 7ighting in the area, and would it really get lost in what
they are trying to accomplish with their oum lig�ting scheme? In terms of
the type of lighting proposed by Staff on the boulevard, he had seen that type
of lighting before, and he did not necessarily see that as a benefit to either
Rocky Rococo or the adjacent development, but more a benefit to the appearance
of the road.
��' Mr. Rooney stated if they are trying to accomplish a lighting and a real out-
standing conmiercial development area, that could be accomplished through their
relationship with the develper to the south and their own plans through
illumination and landscaping.
PLANNING COMP1_I_SSION MEETING, DECEh1QER 10 1986 PAGE 10
P1r, Billings stated he felt the intent of the City was to try to encourage a
continuity with everything that was happening on that corner so that every=
thing looked like it belonged together.
Mlr. Robinson stated they were not trying to design a total program for all
the businesses, just a uniformity in the lighting along the boulevard. And,
he thought the suggestion was good that the remainder of lighting on the
properties be at least compati6le with the color and design of the boulevard
lighting without specifically staying with tfie same 7ights.
�Jr. Rooney stated the City was recorrm�ending a dark 6ronze lighting, and their
bailding and color schemes were beige and cream colors. Their lightinq coordi-
nated with those colors. They would be concerned if they could not stay with
the same colors as their bui�cling colors. They would be happy to meet the
City on the type of lighting, strength of lighting, and height, but they did
not want the City to dictate the colors they would have to use.
Mr. Nelson stated he would have the same concern for other potential users
of tf�e properties. Perhaps it could be resolved that the interior li�hti��,
o�her than alonQ the boulevard, be discussed in detail with the p7anning staff
at the time of deve7onment.
Ms. Shere�. stated perFwps the.lr.could.a7so phrase that requirement by requiring
� that the lightang either blend with the building or with the existing lighting.
Mr. Nelson stated another way of blending the properties was through the use
of landscapina, and the 7andscaping will be reviewed by city staff.
MOTION BY MR. SABA, SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC. HEARIlUG.
-�.._ .
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER50N BILLINGS DECLA.RED THF. PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED AT 8:55 P.M.
Mr. Saba stated the concerns raised by Mr. Nelson and �1r. Rooney were certainly
valid. He would agree with the concern regardinn the private driveway ease-
ment in stipulation #8. He would like to see that stipulation dPleted.
Ms. Sherek stated if the busine�s..people feel it is to their advantage to reach
an agreement on a driveway easement, they will do it, an�I she did not think
the City should have a right to force one property owner to grant an easement
to another property owner if one property owner doesn't want it.
Mr. Saba stated he also liked the statement made by Mls. Sherek that 7nternal
1 i ghti ng be compati bl� wi th � ihe bui 1 di ng o"r w'i th -�xi�s�ti ng l.i ghti ng.
MOTION BY MR. SVANDA, SECONDED BY MS. 5HEREK, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #86-07, .A & R SECOND ADDITZ'O1V, BY
�„� JOH1V NELSON, BEING A REPLAT OF LOT 4, BLOCK 1, A& R ADDI2'ION TO THE CITY
OF FRIDLEY, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AND THE SOUTH 300 FEET OF 2'HF. NORTH
PLANNIr�G COP���IISSION P��ETiI�G; � DECE�fiB�R `10 � `1986 � � `' � � `� � ' ` � ' � ' PAGE 11
` e rw� a+-e e M� a-'- � r e!-+�i t.- .r w e e a- a
/_`�l
750 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWE5T QUARTER EXCEPT THE EAST
�20 FEET THEREOF, ALL IN SECTION 12, T-30, R-24, ANOKA CnUNTY, MINNE50TA,
SUBJECT TO ROAD EA5MENTS OF RECORD, TO ALLOT�I FOR THE DEVETAPMIIVT OF FOUR
SEPARATE PARCEL5 OF LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED 50UTH OF 05BORNE ROAD AND EA5T
OF VIRON ROAD� WITH THE FOLLOWING 5TIPULATIONS:
1. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL CONTINGENT UPON RICE CREEK WATER5HED AND STAFF
APPROVAL OF STORM DRAINAGE PLAN.
2. PROPOSED LOT 4, A& R SECOND ADDITION, TO BE ADDED TO EXI5TING
LOT 3, A& R,�lDDITION, TO CREATE ON� TAX PARCEL; FORM �'O BE
SIGNED PRIOR TO .RECORDIIVG PLAT .
3. A STREET EASEMEIVT ON THE EASTERLY 30 FEET OF LOT 4� A& R
SECOND ADDITION TO BE INCORPORATED ONTO PLAT.
4. A STREET EASEMENT ON THE EASTERLY Z5 FEET OF LOT 1 AND LOT 3
A& R ADD�TIDN TO BE FILED AGAINST PLAT PRIOR TO RECORDING
OF A& R SECOND ADDITION.
5. PROPERTIES ABUTTING PROPOSED EASTERLY SZ'REET EASEMENT5 5iTBJFCT
TO FAIR 5HARE OF ASSESSMENTS FOR FUTURE STREET AND iT2'ILITY
IMPROVEMENT5.
6. ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PROPOSED PT1A2' TO INCORPORATE .ZNTEG.RATED
- CURBSIDF. LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS AS OUTLINED BY S?'AFF.
I1�IDSVIDUAL PARKING AND BUILD2NG LIGNT2�IG TO BE rprqPAT2BLE W2TH
EITHER THE CU.RBSIDE LIGHTINC OR THE ARCHIT�CTUR�t.� CI�ABACTER .
7. PARK FEE OF $5,215 PAYABLE WI`►'H PLAT APPROVAL OR PRO-RAT.E'� WI�'H
� EACH BUILDING PF,RI�IIT IF COUNCIL APPROVES.
U,POIV A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER50N BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
�. PUBLIC HEARI�JG: CONSiDERATION OF A Rr-ZONI�lG RE�IJEST, ZOA #86-06, BY
JOHN �dFLSON: Rezone from C-3, �eneral S o�i ppina Cenfier, to C-2, General
Business, on the south 300 feet of tFie north 750 feet of the Northeast
Quarter of the PJorthwest Quarter, except the east 720 feet thereof, all
in Section 12, T-30, R-24, Anoka County, P1innesota, subject to road easements
of record, generally located south of Osborne Road and east of Viron Road.
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MS. SHEREK, TO WAIVE TNE FORMAL READING
OF TNE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AND TO OPEN THF. PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSOIV BILLIIVG5 DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:05 P.M.
Mr. Robinson stated that in conjunction with the plat, the petq_tioner was
requestinq, on Staff's advice� that tfie ptroperty wthich. t�±as recently Twin City
Mobile Homes be rezoned from C-3 to C-2. This would then allow for all future
platted properties to be one consistent zoning. This was more of a house-
fceepinq measure. He stated that usually it was the City's policy that a plan
6e su6mitted with the rezoning request, and the rezoninq was contingent upon
tFiat plan. Since tFiis was, in fact a down�-zoning and more of a housekeeping
� type of thing, they did not feel a plan was necessary at this time.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER lb, 1986 PAGE 12
1� MOTION BY MR. �ETZOLD, SECONDED BY MS. SHEREK, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARI�G.
UPON A TiOICE VOTE, ALL VOT�Z'A1G AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILL7NGS DECLARED THE PUBLIC
IiEARING CLOSED AT 9:09 P.M. � .
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SEC011�DED BY MR. SABA, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIb
APPROVAL O�' R13ZONI1ITG R�QUEST, ZOA #86-06, BY JOHN 1VELSON, TO REZONE FROM
C-2, GENERAL SHOPPING CENTER, TO C-2, GENERAL BUSINESS, ON THE SOUTH 300
�'EET OF THE NORTH 750 FEET OF THE. NORTHE'AST QUARTER OF' THE NDR�'HFVEST pUARTETt
EXCEpT THE EAST 720 FEET THEROF, ALL 27N SECTION 12,-T-30; R-24, ANOKA COUNTY,
MINNESOTA, SU�JECT TO ROAD EASEMENTS OF RE�ORD, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
OSBORNE ROAD AND EAST OE'__[�IRON ROAD. ''
UP0111 A VDICE T70PE, ALL VOTIlUG 1�i'E'; CHA�'RPERSOA� •B:�LL�BIE�S DECZARED THE ME3�'IDN
CARRIED UNANIMDPFSLY. •
5. COPdSIDERATI0IV�OF A L.OT SPL'IT,�C:S: .�86�09; ai�'VA�ITRGE'CQl'�PANIES; INC.
Split the South 60 feet of the Alorth 425.23 feet of the Sout 8 7.87 feet
of all that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Ser.tion 2, T-30, R-24�, lying westerly of the State Trunk Highway 47.
P•9r. Robinson stated this property was located on 81st and University Ave.
on the northwest corner. Presen�ly, three properties were combined into one
tax parcel. This was done in conjunction with a development agreement issued
between the City of Fridley and Vantage Companies in conjunction with the
� construction of The ulholesale Club.
Mr. Robinson stated the development ac�reement calls for a shoppinc� center
type of development with The Wholesale Clu6 on the south and then a contiguous
building and retail center of approx. 60,000 sq. ft. to the north. Vantage
Companies recently requested that the property be sp7it so that a sale of
T[te Wholesale Club could be accomplished by the end of the year. In order to
facilitate this request, it was necessary to process this lot split.
Mr. Robinson stated the legal description in the agznda was not accurate
wi�h what has actually been resolvPd recently. He referred to the memo
from Jock Robertson and Darrel Clark which pointed out the particular problem
associated with the lot split.
Mr. Robinson stated that because of the fact that the building was not fire-
rated, the Building Inspector said that any contiguous development to the
current development would be impossible if ther� was to be a transfer in
ot�m ership.� wfith two owners, there will have �o be some s,eparate open s��ce
between the Wholesale Club and any new con�t.ruction of at least 55 feet. ,In
order to� acc�mpli-sh._ti�at, tMe deve�oper is prnpas,ing to split off the-'southerly
63 feet o.f .Parcel A and estnbi r�e-ci wi�th Pa�cel C �r,wul d create .a si tuati on that
would �e �egal� in terms Qf the-_B�ilding Code,_ In ar�dition to that, the deyeloper
7s propos��x�g �to sp.l-it::aYong th� existing parcei. line between C and B: I�
order to m�intaira the �i�ntegri�y o�' the development agreement; tbere .are a
number of stipul�tioras being praposed by Staff:
��
,� PLI�NNIPlG COP�PII�SION I�EETING, ' DECE�I6ER 1 �, 19�6 PAGE 13
1. Future construction to the north of The Wholesa�e Club to be located
five feet north of new property line.
2. Existing and future building to be connected by a covered pedestrian
walkway;.tfie intervening 65 foot space to be utilized for a pedestrian
plaza with extensive landscaping.
3. _A paved access road of 20 foot minimum width with appropriate radii
�b� provided around the entire perimeter of the 6uildin� complex
(includinq future 6uildings� to provide fire access.
4. All su6sequent buildings and pedestrian walkways to be contiguous so
as to create an integrated shopping center.
5. The facades and canopies of su6sequent 6uildinas and parking areas
to be o� equal or 6etter visual quality and materials as specified
in development agreement.
6. Landscaping around subsequent bui7dings and parf�ing areas to be of
equal or 6etter visual quality and materials as specified in the
development agreement.
7. F'uture development su6mittals wfiich do not meet thQ above referenced
stipulations, as determined by Staff, shall be subject to Planninq
Commission and City Council approv�al.
8. Vantage must covenant. to retain mana.geme�t'con��rol of bpth the Wholesale
C�ub •&. all other future deve_1,opmQn� prior to recording �lot sp]at, to be
reviewed with City Attorney prior to the Council mtg of December 22, 1986.
�..� 9. Vantage Companies must covenant to build covered walkway and plaza
�r-eferenced in #2 above� as part of Phase II construction.
10. Vantage Companies must receive from 6uyer an easement agreement to
construct, operate and maintain the covered walkway and plaza (referenced
in #2 above) prior to recording lot split.
11. Cross easements for parking and access between The Wholesale Club parcel
and Phase II parcels to be recorded with lot split.
12. Stipulations to be incorporated in�o a development agreement amendment
and filed at the County in conjunction with the lot split.
Mr. Matthew Nichol stated he questioned stipulation #8. He stated he antici-
pated that Vantage Companies as part of The Wholesale Club would be involved
in the management of the common area of the facility. They also anticipate
being involved in the management of phase II, if and when that is developed,
and are working on that now.
Mr. Nicho7 stated that in stipulation #9 regarding the covered walkway and
plaza being part of phase II, he would like to further explore with City
Staff exactly what would be involved in that stipulation.
Mr. Robinsori stated that in stipulation #7, they tried to bui7d in some
general stipulations that if they cannot agree on some things, these can be
worked out with the Planning Commission and City Council.
Mr. David P�itcFLell stated tflat wh�t vantage Companies intendeci to do was get
The Wholesale Club parcel of phase I to be in�a position where it complies
�' full with the zonin re uirements as a free-standin
Y 9 q g piece of pr�perty. One
question he had was the issue of whether phase II could be contiguous with
phase I. They are sti71 looking into this issue and, hopefully, that can be
resolved before the City Council meeting.
,� PLANI�ING CO��IP•9ISSIO�J P�EETING, DECEMQER 10; 1986 PAGE 14
Mr. P�iichell stated they ui171 be supplying City Staff with copies of the
easements between phase I and phase II prior to the City Council meeting.
Mr. Nichol stated that, again referring to stipulation #8, any management
agreement covering maintenance of a common area would always have a cancellation
clause for non�-conformance. He could not tell the Commission that there
would be an absolute guarantee that for th� next five years_Vantaqe
Companies would be the management company for the property, because anyone
they enter into a contract with would not enter into a long term contract
witheut some cancel7ation c�ause whereby they have the right to replace
Vantage Companies if they have just cause.
P�r. Robinson stated City Staff will �vork with both the City Attorney and
Vantage Companies' attorneys on some refining of stipulation #8 before
the City Council meeting.
MQTIOIV BY MR. 5VANDA, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO .RECOMMEND TO CITY COi71VCIL
APPROVAL OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #86—C19, BY VANTAGE COMPANIE5, INC.,
TO SPLIT THE SOUTH 60 FEET OF THE NORTH 425.23 FEE2' OF THE SOUTH 877.87
FEET OF ALL THAT PART OF THE 50UTNWEST QUARTER OF THE 1VORTHWE5T QUARTER OF
SECTION 2, 2'-30, R-24, LYING WESTERLY OF THE STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 47�F72TH
THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS:
� 1. FUTURE CONSTRUCTION TO THE NORTFI OF TSE WHQLESALE CLUB TO BE
LOCATED FIVE FEET NORPH OF NEW PROPERTY LINE.
2. EXISTING AND FUTURE BUILDING TO BE CONIVECTED ,�Y A COVERED
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY; THE INTERVENING 65 FOOT 5PACE TO BE UTILIZED
FOR A PEDE5TRIAL PLAZA WITH EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING.
3. A PAVED ACCE5S ROAD OF 20 FODT MINIMUM WIDT11 WITH APPROPRIATE
RADII BE PROVIDED AROUND THE ENTIRE PERIMETER OF THE BUILDING
COMPLEX (INCLUDING FUTURE BUILDIIVGS) TO PROVIDE FIRE ,1CCE55.
4. ALL SUBSEQUENT BUILDINGS AND PEDESTRIAL WALKWAY5 TO BE CONTIGUOUS
SO AS TO CREATE AlU INTEGRATED SHOPPIIVG CENTER.
5. THE FACADES AND CANOPIE5 OF SUBSEQUENT BL72LDI1VGS AND PARKING
AREAS TO BE OF EQUAL OR BETTER VISUAL QUALITY AND MA2'ER2AL5 AS
SPECIFIED IN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
6. LANDSCAPING AROUND SUBSEQUENT BUILDIIVGS AND PARKING AREAS TO BE
OF EQUAL OR BETTER VISUAL QUALITY AND MATERIAL5 A5 5PF.CIFIED
IN THE DEVELOPMENT AG.REEMENT .
7. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 5UBMITTALS WHICH DO NOT MEET THE ABOVE
REFERENCED STIPULATIONS, A5 DETERMINF.D BY S�AFF, 5HALL BE 5UBJECZ'
TO PLANNIIVG COMNII5SION AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL.
g, _ VAN�'AGE l�li'7,ST CfiPTENAIVT, T0 R�'T�N MANAGEI�lENT CF3R�TR� OF BOTH THFi La7HOLESALE
CLUB A2t�D A�,L La2'HER FIITi1�E,:DEi7ELOPi��'1VT PRIDR `T�, RE�'LQRDIN� LOT: SPLIT, TO BE
REVIEbiTE7�= WITH CITY.ATTORPIEY PRTOR TO� THE COUNCIL NIEETIIVG OF ➢ECEMBER 12, 1986
9. VANTAGE COMPANIES MU5T COVENANT TO BUILD COVERED WALKWAY AND
PLAZA (REFE.RENCED IN #2 ABOVE) AS PART OF PHASE II CONS2'RUCTION.
.ZO. VANTAGE COMPANIES MUST RECEIVE FRON! BUYER AN EASEA?F,1VT AGREEMENT
�.,� TO CON5TRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE COVERED WALKWAY AND PLAZA
(REFEREIVCED IN #2 ABOVE) PRIOR TO RECORDING LOT SPLIT.
r'`'� PLANNIPJG COh1P1ISSI0N h1EETING, DECEP�1BER 10, 1986 PAGF 15
11. CROSS EA5EMENTS FOR PARKING AND ACCESS BETWEEN THE WHOLF.SALF.
CLUB PARCEL AND PHA5E II PARCELS TO BE RECORDED WITH LOT 5PLIT.
12. STIPULATIONS TO BE INCORPORATED �P7T0 A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT AND FILED AT THE COUNTY IN CONJUPTCTION WI_TN THE LOT
5PLIT.
UPON A T10ICE VOTE, ALL TIOTING AYE� CHAIRPER50N BILLING5 DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Robinson stated this would go to City Council on Dec. 22, 1986.
(Mr. Svanda left the meeting at 9:27 p.m.)
6. CONSIDERATION OF A ��ODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPP�ENT PROJECT
Mr. Robinson stated that whenever they create a new deve7opment proposal,
they are required by state statute to modify the redevelopment plan. A
public hearing was required at City Council on Dec. 22, 1986. On P�onday,
Dec. 8, he had taken this to the County �oard for their concurreNCe.
Mr. Robinson s�iated`_a motion was needed by_ the Planning Commission approvinq th,e
modified redevelopment p an for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
MOTIOPI BY MS. 5HEREK, SECDIVDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLA1V FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
(CENTER CITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA) AND TAX INCREMENT FINAIVC.I111G PLANS FOR TAX
INCREMENT FINANCIIVG DI5TRICT NOS. 1 TNROUGH 8.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAI.RPERSON BILLINGS DECLARF,D THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY.
7. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE CHANGE TO UPDATE TF1E PIEDICAL CLINIC PARKIN�
cTOninaanc nnm rur �uri�ru �nnirn�e ornriTnrnnra�rc.
Mr. Robinson stated this was precipitated by a variance request by
Wayne Dahl, VAR #86-24. The commission members had received in their
agenda a copy of a memo from Daryl Morey, Planning Assistant, regarding
this. �1r. P9orey had reviewed the parking situation for the other two clinics
in Fridley and had conducted surveys of four neighboring cities regarding
their parking criteria.
Mr. Robinson stated that as far as clinic parking, Staff was proposing that
the City Code read: "At 7east ane (1� off-street parking space shall be
provided for each 150 sq. ft. of building floor area for all medical and
dental clinics." As far as requirements for church parking, Staff was
recommending that the City Code read: "At least one (1) off-street parking
�' space shall be provided for every three fixed seats or for every five feet of
pew length in the main assem6ly hall. Additional seating may be requii•ed
for additional church activities such as day care and classroom facilities and
recreational activities."
� PLANNIfJG COMMISSION ��EETING, DECEMBER 10; 19�6 PAGE 16
Mr. Robinson stated that if the Corrunission members were in agreement, they
could continue discussion on tFiis until the next meeting when he would come
back with an actual written ordinance for the Commission's consideration.
The Planning Commission members agreed to have Staff bring a written ordinance
back to the next meeting.
8. RECEIVE NOVEMBER 13, 1986, HOUSING & REDEVECOPMENT Al1THORITY MIIVUTES:
MOTION. BY MR. SABA,SECOl7DED BY MS. 5HEREK, TO RECEIVE THE NOV. 13, 1986,
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTNORITY MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERS0111 BILLIAIG5 DECLARED TNE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. RECEIVE NOVEP16ER 18, 1986, ENVIROM`1ENTAL QUALITY COPIPIISSION PIINUTES:
1�90TION BY MS. SHEREK, 5E�ONDED BY MR. SABA, TO RECEIVE THE NOV. 18, 1986,
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTE5.
UPO1U A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CNAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
^ 10. RECEIVE PJOVEP�IBER 25, 1986, APPEALS C0�IMISSION PIIPIUTES:
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD,5ECONDED BY M5. SHEREK, TO RFCEl'UE' THE NOV. 25, 1986,
APPEALS COMMISSION MINUZ'ES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLING5 DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UIVANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTIOIV BY MI�.BETZOLD, SECOIUDED BY M5. SHEREK, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A
VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE DEC. 10, 1986,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:05 P.M.
R espectfully submitt d,
Lyn �Saba
Recording Secretary
�
� `
t .
_
(��'`:__�_._. __J.e-------._ - __ - _ .. _ _ ___ _. ----------- -, - — — __ - _ _ _ _ __ - _ _-- ---------- ----____._---,___._ _...______--___.__.�.
_ __ _- ---- -- -- _---- � - ----____ _ _ -- _ �� -_---_� �, - 6-� _� �� --- -- -- -- _ . _ _- - -___
__ __ ._.� ____ _, ___ ___ _ __. _
� _ �___ _ � _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _
_ � __ _ _ _ _�_____ ,__ _ _ _
L- .
. . . . .<� . _---- ---°--
�--- --- --° -_._- - -_ �. ._ _. �_...___..,___ _. .�_�%�_��- � -� -- -- -�----- -__._-. �'�-°- - �_.__�..._.�.-'---.. .--------
-- --- - -- __ .__ � .
/.� �- � --f.__�� _
--- - --
_ _ -- --- _ _
--- - -
-- --- --
_ - -__ __ ___ -- --------_ _ __.
---- _ ._ - - _ __ ,�� :� - - � .
- -
` ' /�31s
-_ -- -- -- --
_ -- - ---- �-�.,Q.� __�o�.� � 3 ys : ���� _ _ --- - . --_. - --- - --� .-
___ _ _-- --_ __
-_ _ - - - - - - �..a�.
- - --- -%? __ - - - ,
� _ _- - — --- v__ �-�-� __ /�� _._- -- - _- �..� i2�,
� A
- - - --- -
_ --. __ _ _ --- -
_-_ , - - - - -_- . ---_ _ _____1���_ __ �� _ _=_f___ _ e_ _ _ _ _ ___- _- ��
. __
_ _ __ ___ ._ __ _ _ _ � _ __ _ - � _ _ _____'
- - ---- _. _°��,�� / _ _��?�'i Z L� �a _�- - �. _ _ __ _ � _ �� _�� -- - — --
�- ! _ �-- /_��T�� -
___ _ ___- -_ . _-_-- _
_ ___._ _ --- -��� -- - - - ___ �� - -- ____ _ __ - - -
'---�-° - _ ---__ _-- - _ ---- _l�%�-�1��`� -i�.�`�`�--- _ _ _- - -------_ -- ------ __- - __ __
�% Q� /
at �,L. ` �/ .
- _ _ ._ � dV 1�L�1_ ,(✓�•L2��L4.�-�
-- -- ---- - - —
- - - - -- -
/�� _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - - --- ----- - -------
.
____._ // " ��,
-- -
G�� _ _- - - - -- - ---- . - -- - - - _ _ _ _
. . - ---- --- -- -- - - __ --_ _
- -- R _ _ _ _ __ -
�_'�__ 1 -- -- _ ��/�/yJ[�!� i/�i�,,, � /j'/'� //)�/j
` _.�._.._ .._ . ._,.� __."_.."__��/�� V . L._". _ _'_." " .����_ _'_ ' !..____ _ ._._. _.."__..__""_'._ j �v L �.,'_.....�._'"."".__._'
' �/�'- -----ld ����G%������..��1.._ ___..___._ _ '"' _' .""__ '."_'_._...... ._V���,_(l`� .__ . ... _ ,
_ . . . .. "_ """„_" ' .
'_.._' _'. _"_".'___._'"_._:�...'�"'.�.'__""'_
� ."_ _.". _" __ _.__ _ .- _�__. ___"_"�'""""
�