PL 09/13/1989 - 30708CITY OF FRIDLEY
��
PLANNING COI�iISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 13, 1989
___,.�.,..____,...,....._________....».,....»_............___.,.,______.....,...,...._..______
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Betzold called the September 13, 1989, Planning
Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL•
Members Present: Donald Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba,
Sue Sherek, Alex Barna, Paul Dahlberg
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Jerry Brill, Ashland Oil
Jack Lemley, Ashland Oil
Darrell Olson, City Sports
Mark Langer, City Sports
David Larson, 7890 Hickory Street N.E.
/'1
APPROVAL OF AUGUST 30. 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to approve the August
30, 1989, Planning Commission minutes as written.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP
#89-12. BY ASHLAND OIL CO. (RAPID OIL):
Per Section 205.14.01.C.5 of the Fridley City Code to allow
a motor vehicle fuel and oil dispensing service on Lots 1
through 3, Block 6, City View Addition, the same being 5701
University Avenue N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to waive the
reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY AND THE PIIHLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:36 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated Ashland Oil, who owns the parcel in question,
is proposing to demolish the existing Rapid Oil facility located
at 5701 University Avenue N.E. The parcel is zoned C-2, General
�
�
�
��
PLANNINa COMMISBION MEETING, BEPTEMBER 13, 1989 PAGg 2
Business. The existing building sits on the eastern portion of the
lot with the asphalt area toward the University Avenue frontage.
The petitioner currently owns Lots 1- 7 of this particular area.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner recently applied for two
variances, one for lot area and one for building setback to
University Avenue. After reading staff's recommendation for the
variance request, the petitioner withdrew that request and is in
the process of rezoning Lot 4, which is currently vacant and is
zoned R-2, Two Family Dwelling, to C-2, General Business. The
rezoning will allow Ashland Oil to combine Lot 4 with Lots l, 2,
and 3 and create a building site which will conform with the
current Zoning Code. For the rezoning, the petitioner has
submitted a revised site plan which shows the alignment of the
building which conforms to all the required setbacks, as do all
hard surface areas.
Ms. McPherson stated staff realizes that the initial application
was for Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Block 6, and staff is recommending the
Planning Commission recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP
#$9-12, by Rapid oil, contingent upon the approval of the rezoning
of Lot 4. She stated staff is recommending the following
stipulations:
1. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted to be
approved by the Engineering staff prior to issuance of
a building permit.
2. Ashland Oil shall record the easement and restrictive
covenant required from the previous special use permit
process for the site at 75rd Avenue and Highway 65.
3. The petitioner shall combine Lots l, 2, and 3 with Lot
4 into one tax parcel.
4. Approval of the special use permit shall be contingent
upon the approval of the rezoning application of Lot 4.
5. No building permit shall be issued until the
contamination clean-up has been completed and has
satisfied MPCA standards.
Mr. Betzold stated the Commission members had received a copy of
a memo dealing with soil contamination on this site.
Ms. McPherson stated soil testing and water testing is being done,
both on this site, and on the Hardees Restaurant site. Staff is
recommending five stipulations with the recommendation of approval.
Of the five, one stipulation is that Ashland Oil will not be issued
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BBPTEMBER 13, 1989 - PAGE 3
a building permit for their new building until the contamination
clean-up work has been completed and satisfies MPCA standards.
Mr. Betzold stated another issue is that this particular area of
University Avenue is being looked at as a possible corridor for
light rail transit. Has staff had any input from the County as far
as a"park and ride" facility at this location?
Ms. Dacy stated the Anoka County Regional Railroad Authority is
still in their design process. The Committee has identified the
intersection of 57th as being a potential target for a park and
ride site. The Authority has also considered some of the Planning
Commission's recommendations about possible park and ride
facilities at the vacant property on Osborne Road and the Immanuel
Christian Center's parking lot. However, there has not been any
formal review by the Anoka County Regional Railroad Authority
regarding Rapid Oil's site plan. They are still investigating
various locations.
Mr. Dahlberg asked if staff has discussed with the petitioner some
of the issues the Planning Commission discussed regarding light
rail transit for this particular site.
,� Ms . Dacy stated that in a conversation with Bob Mikulak at the time
of Ashland Oil's application about 1/2 month ago, she made them
aware that Anoka County is considering University Avenue as a light
rail corridor, but she did not discuss specifics.
Mr. Jerry Brill, attorney representing Ashland Oil, stated they
have never been aware of a consideration of light rail transit for
this area. This was the first they had heard about it.
Mr. Dahlberg stated that in initial discussions with the Anoka
County Regional Rail Authority, they had illustrated that there
would be several options available relative to where parking areas
could be located near this intersection. They had suggested there
could be some on the west side of University Avenue and pedestrian
traffic across University Avenue to get to the LRT stop. The
Planning Commission's discussion suggested they would rather see
the park and ride facilities on the same side of University Avenue
as the stop (east side of University Avenue). The Commission
suggested that the site at 57th and University might be an
appropriate location for a park and ride facility.
Mr. Brill stated that regarding the property, he had raised the
question to Ms. Dacy about the need for a special use permit. They
initially started with a request for a variance, and it turned into
a request for a special use permit. There had been a direct
� service station on this property for quite a number of years before
it turned into a Rapid Oil Change facility. Staff cannot find any
records that there has ever been a special use permit issued for
� PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. BLPTEMBER 13, 1989 - PAGE 4
either the direct service station or the Rapid Oil Change. If that
is the case, it becomes a nonconforming use. Staff has suggested
that the special use permit procedure was added to the ordinance
after the use was already there. He questioned whether they really
needed a special use permit or if they can just continue the same
use. If it is a nonconfornaing use, they might not be able to
expand without a special use permit, and this might be considered
an expansion.
n
^
Mr. Betzold stated the City Attorney could look at this issue
before this item goes to City Council. However, the City
Attorney's position might be that even though it is the same
service, by the fact that the facility is going to be torn down and
rebuilt, the City wants the property to be legal nonconforming.
Ms. Dacy stated she did discuss this issue with the City Attorney,
and that is another part of the analysis. She wanted to clarify
that there has always been a request for a special use permit. It
did not originate as a variance and turn into a special use permit.
There has always been a variance and special use permit, and the
variance has turned into a rezoning.
Mr. Brill stated they want to improve the use of the property.
They are losing customers because the facility is old and out of
style.
Mr. Kondrick asked if the petitioner has any problems with the five
stipulations recommended by staff.
Mr. Brill stated they are in agreement with the stipulations.
Mr. Betzold stated the fact that Ashland Oil wants to improve the
site is very much appreciated. He stated by Ashland Oil bringing
in this request, it is going to force other governmental entities
to make some decisions regarding the long range plans for this
site.
Mr. Jack Lemley, Ashland Oil, stated Ashland Oil is losing money
with this old Rapid Oil facility. The facility does not look good,
and people are going elsewhere. They have seen an increase in
business at their new 73rd Avenue/Highway 65 Rapid Oil facility.
They want to get rid of the eyesore and get a new facility in there
that they and the City can be proud of and appreciate.
Mr. Kondrick stated he was just real concerned that the petitioner
understand that light rail transit might be going in.
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the public
hearing.
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. BEPTEMBER 13. 1989 - PAGE 5
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(� AYE � CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7s50 P.M.
Mr. Betzold asked if this special use permit request should be
called to the attention of the Anoka County Regional Rail
Authority.
Mr. Dahlberg stated he would suqgest that before Ashland Oil would
elect to proceed with any potential development on the remaining
property they own east of the subject site, they contact the County
to discuss their options at that time.
Mr. Dahlberg stated that regarding stipulation #2, that Ashland Oil
record the easement and restrictive covenant required from the
previous use permit for the site at 73rd and Highway 65, he did not
think that issue should be tied to this request, even though it
should definitely be done by Ashland Oil.
Ms. Dacy stated she respected that opinion. Staff wanted to alert
Ashland Oil that this item has not been done.
Mr. Lemley stated he was not aware this had not been done, and
stated he will make sure the easement and restrictive covenant for
/"'� the 73rd and Highway 65 site are recorded at the County.
The Commission members agreed to delete stipulation #2 from the
recommended stipulations with the assurance from Mr. Lemley that
this will be taken care of by Ashland Oil.
MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to
City Council approval of Special Use Permit, SP #89-12, by Ashland
Oil Company (Rapid Oil), per Section 205.14.O1.C.5 of the Fridley
City Code to allow a motor vehicle fuel and oil dispensing service
on Lots 1 through 3, Block 6, City View Addition, the same being
5701 University Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations:
1. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted to be
approved by the Engineering staff prior to issuance of
a building permit.
2. The petitioner shall combine Lots l, 2, and 3 with Lot
4 into one tax parcel.
3. Approval of the special use permit shall be contingent
upon the approval of the rezoning application of Lot 4.
4. No building permit shall be issued until the
contamination clean-up has been completed and has
� satisfied MPCA standards.
�1
�
�
PLANNINa COMMI38ION MEETINa. BEPTEMHER 13. 1989 PAGE 6
�
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE � CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED T8E
MOTION CARRIED QNANIMOIISLY.
Ms. Dacy stated that the Planning Commission will hear the rezoning
request by Ashland Oil on September 27. At the petitioner's
request, the special use permit will be held until both the special
use permit and rezoning can be h�ard at the City Council at the
same time.
2. PUBLIC HEARIATG: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP
�89-13. BY WAYNE DAHL:
Per Section 205.07.01.C.1 of the Fridley City Code to allow
a second accessory building to exceed 240 square feet on Lot
20, Block 1, Sandhurst, the same being 177 Hartman Circle N.E.
Mr. Betzold stated the petitioner, Wayne Dahl, has
the special use permit and vacation applications
accessory building be tabled. He stated that since
be republished and the neighbors renotified, there
open the public hearing.
requested that
for a second
this item will
was no need to
3. PUBLIC HEARING: COATSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP
#89-14. BY TED HAINES AND DIANE JORGEATSON FOR CITY SPORTS:
Per Section 205.14.O1.C.3 to allow enterprises having
merchandise in the open and not within an enclosed structure;
per Section 205.14.O1.C.8, to allow exterior storage of
materials and equipment, located at 7191 Highway 65 N.E.
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to waive the
reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOIISLY, AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:03
P.M.
Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission considered a rezoning on
the subject property at their June 21, 1989, meeting. On July 24,
1989, the property was rezoned from R-3, General Multiple Dwelling,
to C-2, General Business. Originally, as a stipulation of the
rezoning, the Planning Commission recommended a stipulation
regarding no outdoor storage or outdoor sales. After the Planning
Commission meeting, the petitioner requested an opinion from the
City Attorney as to whether or not that stipulation could be
imposed. Included in the agenda packet was a memo from Mr. Herrick
dated June 29, 1989, in which Mr. Herrick stated that the Code for
the C-2 District does authorize the outside storage of recreational
vehicles, boats, etc., upon obtaining a special use permit. Mr.
Herrick stated: "It is my opinion that because the Code provides
for outside storage, either with a special use permit or if the
stored materials are screened, a prohibition against all exterior
storage would subject the City to a claim that this property was
�r�
PLANNINa COMMISSION MEETING, BEPTEMBER 13. 1989 - PAGB 7
being singled out for more restrictive treatment than other C-2
property."
Ms. Dacy stated the proposed exterior storage is to be located at
the rear of the building and in the parking lot. The area for
exterior storage behind the building will be for vehicles that are
waiting to be serviced. The area to the rear of the lot will be
used for water toys, snowmobiles, and trailers.
Ms. Dacy stated the second request is for permission to display up
to four ��units�� or vehicles in front of the building at the
southwest corner. The petitioners� intent is to display either
four snowmobiles, four personal watercraft items, or four all
terrain vehicles (ATV's). The petitioners are proposing to add
another four foot section of the sidewalk to provide extra room
for the overhang of parked cars as well as to make room for the
four vehicles to be displayed. The vehicles are to be confined to
the sidewalk area immediately adjacent to the curb island at the
southwest corner of the building. The petitioner wants to display
these vehicles during business hours, 9:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. on Saturday.
Ms. Dacy stated that in evaluating this request, staff looked at
^ past applications in the City of Fridley as well as existing
conditions of the character of the area. Typically, the policy has
been to try to restrict outdoor storage and outdoor display so that
it does not cause a severe visual impact. Given that some of the
existing uses to the north (SuperAmerica) and south of the site
(All Season's Mobile Home Sales) did receive approval for outdoor
storage and outdoor display, what is being proposed, in staff's
opinion, would not cause a serious visual impact along the
corridor. As far as outdoor display is concerned, the proposal is
limited to four vehicles during business hours only and will not
occur overnight. As far as the outdoor storage area, the building
acts as effective screening of the storage area behind the
building. There are existing mature trees between the proposed
storage area and 72nd Avenue.
Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending the Planning Commission
recommend approval of SP #89-14 with the following stipulations:
1. The display vehicles shall be located at the southwest
corner of the building on the sidewalk.
2. The storage areas shall be screened with an eight foot
chain link fence with slats.
3. The materials to be stored shall not exceed the height
,�., of the fence.
�,
,�
�"�
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING. SEPTEMHER 13. 1989 PAGE 8
4. The petitioner shall submit a landscaping plan to include
the installation of ivy plantings along the chain link
fence line exposed to 72nd Avenue and trees and shrubs
to replace any dead or dying vegetation along the 72nd
Avenue boulevard and to provide additional screening
along the street.
5.
6.
The parking spaces along the south side of the building
shall be five feet from the building.
Permission to display four vehicles does not include
cars, boats, or recreational vehicles.
Ms. Dacy stated the petitioners contacted her prior to the Planning
Commission meeting to clarify the intent of stipulation #6. The
intent of this stipulation is to state that the primary merchandise
is snowmobiles, personal watercraft, and ATV's, smaller vehicles,
and staff�s recommendation is not to allow the larger vehicle that
would impose more of a visual impact. Recreational vehicles could
include mobile homes, campers, etc.
Mr. Darrell Olson, representing City Sports, stated they are also
requesting barbed wire for security purposes.
Ms. Dacy stated the City has, in other applications, restricted the
use of barbed wire. However, as pointed out by the petitioners,
some of the junkyards just two blocks north do use barbed wire as
a security measure. It is staff's recommendation to not permit the
barbed wire, because it is one more item on the fence that would
not give it a clean appearance.
Mr. Barna stated that regarding stipulation #6, the Commission
needs to define what the four ��vehicles° are so there is a
limitation on the size of those vehicles.
Mr. Olson stated he is in agreement with the stipulations including
the restriction of the space. They would still like to have barbed
wire on the fence. Customers' snowmobiles are stored in the area
behind the building and anyone could climb the fence and steal
parts off the snowmobiles. They need the security that barbed wire
can give them.
Mr. Olson stated that regarding stipulation #6, he would have no
problem with specifying what the vehicles are as suggested by Mr.
Barna.
Mr. Betzold stated he could appreciate the petitioners� need for
security. He did not know how they could prohibit the use of
barbed wire.
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. BEPTEMBER 13, 1989 - PA(3E 9
Ms. Sherek asked if the petitioners had explored any other
alternatives for security such as an alarm.
Mr. Olson stated they intend to put an alarm on the fence in
addition to the barbed wire.
Ms. Sherek stated she also could appreciate the petitioners' need
for security.
Ms. Sherek asked if the rear storage area was for the petitioners'
stock in trade or customers' vehicles.
Mr. Olson stated it will be their stock. They do not intend to
rent space and store customers� property.
Ms. Sherek stated that regarding stipulation #1, she would like it
to be more specific to limit the display vehicles to the sidewalk
area only so that vehicles do not end up being displayed out on the
right-of-way.
Mr. Dahlberg stated that regarding stipulation #3, were the
materials to be stored to not exceed the height of the fence at 8
ft. or the top of the barbed wire?
�
Ms. Dacy stated the materials should not exceed the height of the
fence at 8 ft.
Mr. Dahlberg stated the height should be defined in stipulation #3.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(3 AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
PIIBLIC HEARING CL08ED AT 8:20 P.M.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to City
Council approval of Special Use Permit, SP #89-14, by Ted Haines
and Diane Jorgenson for City Sports, per Section 205.14.01.C.3 to
allow enterprises having merchandise in the open and not within an
enclosed structure; per Section 205.14.01.C.8, to allow exterior
storage of materials and equipment, located at 7191 Highway 65
N.E., with the following stipulations:
1. The display vehicles shall be confined to the sidewalk
at the southwest corner of the building.
2. The storage areas shall be screened with an eight foot
chain link fence with slats.
�� 3. The materials to be stored shall not exceed the 8 foot
height of the fence.
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 - PAGE 10
4. The petitioner shall submit a landscaping plan to include
the installation of ivy plantings along the chain link
fence line exposed to 72nd Avenue and trees and shrubs
to replace any dead or dying vegetation along the 72nd
Avenue boulevard and to provide additional screening
along the street.
5.
6.
The parking spaces along the south side of the building
shall be five feet from the building.
Permission to display up to four snowmobiles, personal
watercraft, and ATV's. This does not include cars,
boats, or recreational vehicles.
Ms . Dacy stated this item will go to City Council on October 2,
1989.
4. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION. SAV #89-04. BY DAVID LARSON:
To vacate the west 27 feet of a 57.5 foot existing east/west
easement on Lots 7 and 8, Block 4, Onaway Addition, generally
located a 7890 Hickory 5treet N.E.
,� Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner, David Larson, is the owner of
Minnegold, Inc., located on Hickory Street N.E. next to the
Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. The property is zoned M-2,
Heavy Industrial. Approximately midway through the parcel there
exists a 30 ft. drainage/utility easement that extends into the
parcel 57.5 ft. This easement was dedicated when Hickory Street
was vacated to ensure there would be adequate sewer service to
adjacent properties. Within the easement there is a sewer line.
� The sewer line deadends on Mr. Larson's property.
�
Ms. McPherson stated Mr. Larson is proposing to vacate 27 feet of
the 57.5 feet which would allow approximately 11 feet between the
building and the manhole for service vehicles' access to the sewer
line.
Ms. McPherson stated staff has discussed this vacation with the
Engineering Department, and they do not foresee any need for the
extension of the sewer line farther into the site and, therefore,
had no objection to the vacation of the easement.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the vacation, SAV #89-04, by David Larson,
with the following two stipulations:
1. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for
Engineering staff's approval prior to issuance of a
building permit.
� PLANNING COMNiIBSION MEETING� SEPTEMBER 13. 1989 - PAGE il
2. A landscape plan should be submitted for staff approval
prior to issuance of a building permit.
Mr. David Larson stated he has no problem with the two
stipulations. There already is a retention pond on site, and it
will be engineered. The landscaping will be done nicely. He
stated he did not know the vacation process was such a lengthy
process. He would like to construct the addition yet this fall.
If he cannot build this year, he does not know if he will do it.
He asked if there was any way this process could be speeded up.
Ms. Dacy stated staff has discussed this with Mr. Larson. She told
him that on Monday, September 18, staff is asking the Council to
go ahead of schedule and establish the public hearing for October
2, and also schedule the first reading of the ordinance on October
2. The second and final reading will be on October 23, 1989.
Typically, the Council holds a public hearing and does not read
the first reading until two weeks after the public hearing. In the
past, the City has allowed a land alteration permit and grading to
occur prior to the second and final reading at the applicant's
risk.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Barna, to recommend to City
,� Council approval of vacation, SAV #89-04, by David Larson, to
vacate the west 27 feet of a 57.5 foot existing east/west easement
on Lots 7 and 8, Block 4, Onaway Addition, generally located a 7890
Hickory Street N.E., with the following two stipulations:
1. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for
Engineering staff's approval prior to issuance of a
building permit.
2. A landscape plan should be submitted for staff approval
prior to issuance of a building permit.
The Planning Commission also recommends that staff expedite this
vacation request as quickly as possible.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLX.
5. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION. SAV #89-05 BY WAYNE DAHL•
To vacate the south five (5) feet of a ten (10) foot utility
easement in Lot 20, Block 1, Sandhurst, the same being 177
Hartman Circle N.E.
Mr. Betzold stated this item will be republished and the neighbors
renotified.
�
�
��
�
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. BEPTEMHER 13, 1989 PA(�E 12
6. RECEIVE THE AUGUST 10. 1989, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY MINLTTES :
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the August
10, 1989, Housing and Redevelopment Authority minutes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. �
Mr. Dahlberg referred to Item 10-a of the August 10, 1989, Housing
and Redevelopment Authority minutes on SBF Development Corporation,
in which Mr. Robertson stated: "SBF Development Corporation is
proposing the redevelopment of the old Cub Foods Store site on the
southwest corner of University Avenue/Osborne Road. Contrary to
their expectations and their reassurance to the City Council that
they would be able to secure total financing for the project, they
are asking the City to underwrite about 10� of what is represented
as a $5 million project."
Mr. Dahlberg stated the City has been very cooperative in granting
them a rezoning, a plat, a vacation, and variances to allow them
to go ahead with this development. If the City is going to be
participating in another manner financially, then the City should
be able to re-review and reconsider some of the variances, etc.,
the developer requested. Personally, he still did not think this
was a very efficient or appropriate site development. Every
indication he had received earlier was that because SBF Development
was not asking the City for any financial assistance, the City was
willing to let them have the variances because it was a project the
City wanted to have happen.
Mr. Dahlberg stated Councilmember Billings was at the meeting to
hear this discussion, and he would like the HRA to be made aware
of this also.
The Commission members concurred with Mr. Dahlberg's comments.
MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to direct staff to
express to the HRA the Planning Commission�s feelings regarding the
financial assistance being requested by SBF Development
Corporation.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
7. RECEIVE THE AUGUST 22 1989 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the August
22, 1989, Appeals Commission minutes.
PLANNI_NG COMMIBSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 - PAGE 13
�
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINa AYE � CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
ADJOURNMENT•
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to adjourn the
meeting. IIpon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Chairperson Betzold
declared the september 13, 1989, Planninq Commission meetinq
adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
� ���
Lyn Saba
Rec ing Secretary
��
��