PL 10/14/1992 - 30762.�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMI38ION MEETING, OCTOBER 14, 1992
�Mw�M.Y�YM MM MMMMMMMMwNMM �Y�YMMMMlYMMIY�Yw�Y�MN�Y MMNN�YM�YM�YNMMMMM�YMIrNM�Y1YIr�YMM1r
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairperson Betzold called the October 14, 1992, Planning
Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Don Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba,
Sue Sherek, Diane Savage, Connie Modiq,
Brad Sielaff
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Justin Droessler, 8141 Riverview Terrace
Bob Schroer, 7620 University Avenue N.E.
Andy Lindquist, 200 Ely Street N.E.
Bob Lehraz, 490 Rice Creek Boulevard
Peggy Smith, 170 Liberty Street N.E.
APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 9; 1992, PLANNTNG COMMISSION MINUTES•
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to approve the
September 9, 1992, Planning Comm.ission minutes as written.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIAPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF i� SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP
#92-10, BY JUSTIN DROESSLER: ^
Per Section 205.24.04.(D) of the Fridley City code, to allow
construction in the CRP-2 District (flood fringe) on Lots 31
and 32, Block S, Riverview Heights, generally located at 8141
Riverview Terrace N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Savage, to open the public
hearing. �
IIPON A VOICE VOTE i ALL VOTING AYE � CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARI1�iG OPEN AT 7:32 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the intersection
of Riverview Terrace and Hugo Street. The property is zoned R-1,
Single Family Dwelling. The petitioner is proposing to construct
�� .
PLANNINd COMMI88�ON MEETINd, OCTOHER 14, 1992 PAGE 2
'�
a 20 ft. by 24 ft. attached garage onto the existing single car
garage and single family dwelling unit.
Ms. McPherson stated that in addition to the �pecial use permit,
the petitioner has also applied for a variance. The variance
request was to reduce the rear yard setback from 29 feet to 8 feet
to allow the proposed accessory structure to be constructed. The
total addition would enlarge the petitioner's existing single car
garage to a three-car garage.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located in the CRP-2 or Flood
Fringe District. The Zoning Code does allow construction in the
Flood Fringe District; however, a special use permit must be
granted by the City prior to construction of either habitable or
accessory structures. Habitable structures are required by Federal
Law and the Zoning Code to be constructed one foot above the
regulatory flood elevation. However, accessory structures can be
constructed below the regulatory flood elevation if they are
floodproofed according with to applicable regulations. If the
special use permit is approved, staff has stipulated that the
expansion of the accessory structure would be floodproofed in
accordance with the applicable regulations.
Ms. McPherson stated the Engineering Department had requested that
� the petitioner execute a 20 foot street and utility easement along
Riverview Terrace for the future expansion of Riverview Terrace to
meet Minnesota State Aid Street Standards. However, staff has
since been advised by the City Attorney that the City cannot
require the petitioner to sign the easement as a condition of
approval. Therefore, stipulation #1 as recommended by staff should
be struck by the Planning Commission.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner does have the option of con-
structing a detached accessory structure which would not reguire
a setback variance. The Appeals Commission recommended that a
variance only be granted to enlarge the existing garage to a two-
car garage, which would reduce the rear yard setback to 18 feet
from the requested 8 feet. �
Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the special use permit request
either for the first proposal of the expanded garage or for the
second proposal of the detached accessory structure, with the
following stipulation:
1. The expanded accessory s�ructure shall be floodproofed
in accordance with all applicable regulations.
Mr. Betzold stated that in the past whenever they have had a
request for construction in the floodplain, the Planning Commission
� has usually recommended that the petitioner sign a hold harmless
agreement to prevent any lawsuit against the City. Has the City
PLANNING COMMIBSION 1�EETING. OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAGE 3
Attorney ever given any opinion on whether or not a hold harmless
agreement should be required?
Ms. McPherson stated the City Attorney has never given any
indication as to whether or not a hold harmless agreement should
be required in all instances or only be required with the construc-
tion of habitable space. A hold harmless agreement would
specifically state that in addition to the special use permit, the
City acknowledges that the petitioner is.constructing in the fiood
fringe, that it is possible the property may flood; however, while
the City is granting permission for the construction, it is not to
be held liable for any damage that would occur as a result of the
City granting the special use permit.
Mr. Betzold stated he would like the City to require a hold
harmless agreement whenever there is any construction in the Flood
Fringe District.
Mr. Betzold stated that in the staff report, staff had also
recommended a second stipulation: "Variance request, VAR #92-19,
shall be approved."
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner's preferred option is to expand
the existing garage which requires the variance. However, it would
� be possible to construct a detached accessory without violating the
setback requirements to the Zoning Code. He has enough space to
meet the 3 foot setback required in_the Zoning Code. Therefore,
she believed that stipulation #2 is no longer necessary.
Mr. Droessler stated he had nothing to add to the Staff Report.
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:55 P.M.
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to City
Council approval of Special Use Permit, SP #92-10, by Justin
Droessler, per Section 205.24.04.(D) of the Fridley City code, to
allow construction in the CRP-2 District (flood fringe) on Lots 31
and 32, Block S, Riverview Heights, generally located at 8141
Riverview Terrace N.E., with the following stipulations:
1. The expanded accessory structure shall be floodproofed
in accordance with all applicable'regulations. �
2. The petitioner shall sign and record against the property
a hold harmless agreement which releases the City from
,,,,,� any liability.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. OCTOBER 14. 1992 PA�E 4
IIPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL. VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON HETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY.
Ms. McPherson stated that the variance request and special use
permit request will go to City Council on November 9, 1992.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT. P.S.
�92-06. LYNDALE GARDEN CENTER � BY ROBERT SCHROER OF EAST RANCH
ESTATES: �
To replat Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates 1st Addition; Lot
1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates 3rd Addition, including that
part of vacated 77th Avenue; the south 33 feet of Lot 5, Block
2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition, including that part of
vacated 77th Avenue; and Lot 4, Block 2, East Ranch Estates
2nd Addition, except the east 200 feet thereof, as measured
parallel with the east line of said Lot 4, and also ,except the
west.il5 feet of the east 315 feet of the north 160 feet of
said lot, Anoka County, Minnesota, generally located at 7620
University Avenue N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to open the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AY$, CHAIRPERSON HETZOLD DECLARED THE
� MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:00 P.M.
Ms. McPhersfln stated the property is located at the intersection
of the West University Avenue Service Road and Osborne Road. In
the past year, the City has processed several land use requests for
this parcel, including a rezoning, a lot split, and a street
vacation for the redevelopment site. In addition to the plat
request, there is also a variance request regarding the rear yard
setback, the required number of parking spaces, and, while not
associated with the plat, there was also a sign variance request.
The variance request was reviewed by the Appeals Commission on
October 6, 1992.
Ms. McPherson stated that during the original review of the
proposed development, it was the intention that Bob's Produce would
continue to own the entire redevelopment parcel and would lease a
portion of the site or building to Lyndale Garden Center as a
secondary tenant. This particular request is generated as a result
of Lyndale Garden Center wanting to create its own lot for fee
simple ownership. The request is similar, but more complicated,
to the request by Skywood Mall and Kelly Inn to divide ownership
along a zero lot line. Unlike that request, the buildings are at
a 90 degree angle to one another versus at the same building line.
Ms . McPherson stated this plat request is unique in that the parcel
is uniquely shaped. There are also easements held by the
'� Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and the St. Paul Waterworks
which limit the site's developability. The buildings are located
PLANNING COMMIBBION MEETINa� OCTOHER 14, 1992 PAGE 5
on the site due to the location of the easements. Due to these
factors, a typical subdivision cannot occur on this site. The lots
meet the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for C-3,
General Shopping Center District.
Ms. McPherson stated that while the variance request is�to reduce
the required number of parking spaces from 102 to 13 based on the
development which includes a large amount of outdoor sales space,
the Lyndale Garden Center parcel can accommodate approximately 97
parking spaces, which is only 5 short of what is required by Code.
Ms. McPherson stated the lots continue to function as one develop-
ment; therefore, staff is recommending that cross parking and
access easements be executed between �the two lots in order to
provide access and parking as long as the development exists.
Ms. McPherson stated the rear yard variance is to reduce the rear
yard setback from 40 feet to 0 feet; however, there is a minimum
of 85 feet between the rear of the Lyndale Garden C�nter building
and the southerly lot line of Lot 5, Block 2, East Ranch Estates
2nd Addition. The distance separation between the southerly lot
line and the building to the north does far exaeed the 40 feet
required by Code. Zero lot lines are permitted in the C-3, General
Shopping Center District; therefore, a variance is not necessary
,^ to create the zero lot line for the existing buildings.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission recoipmend approval of the preliminary plat request with
the following stipulation5:
1. Variance request, VAR #92-21, shall be approved.
2. The petitioner shall execute cross parking and access
easements between Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1, Lyndale
Garden Center Addition.
3. The petitioner shall submit a drainage plan and drainage
calculations for the redevelopment parcel.
4. The petitioner shall execute and record against Lot 1,
Block 1, LyndaTe Garden Center, a detention pond or storm
water pond maintenance agreement.
Mr. Betzold stated that if something happened to the existing
building and the owner decided to rebuild in the same location, is
that desirable c�r should the Commission put in some contingency
that would change the configuration of the property?
Ms. McPherson stated the original redevelopment proposal looked at
tearing the existing building down and moving it north of the MWCC
� sewer easement. However, due to soil problems, the petitioner
opted not to do that and is proposing to construct the addition as
PLANNING COASMISSION MEETING� OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAGE 6
%'�
proposed. She is not sure that by approving the plat, the City
could legally require either the current owner or a future owner
to relocate the building in any other location except where it is
proposed. The City granted several variances to the existing
parcels as they are currently legally described. Staff would
recommend that the Planning Commission not stipulate where the
building is to be located. .
Mr. Bob Schroer stated he had nothing to add to the Staff Report.
He stated Barbara Dacy and Michele McPherson have done an out�
standing job in their assistance with this project.
Mr. Saba stated that if this plat request is approved, he would
like to add a s�tipulation as a reminder to staff that a landscape
plan shall be submitted and approved by the City.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to elose the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BET20LD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CL08ED AT 8:15 P.M.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend to City
Council approval of Preliminary Plat, P.S. #92-06, Lyndale Garden
� Center, by Robert Schroer of East Ranch Estates, to replat Lot 1,
Block 1; East Ranch Estates 1st Addition; Lot 1, Block 1, East
Ranch Estates 3rd Addition, including that part of vacated 77th
Avenue; the south 33 feet of Lot 5, Block 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd
Addition, including that part of vacated 77th Avenue; and Lot 4,
Block 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition, except the east 200 feet
thereof, as measured parallel with the east line of said Lot 4, and
also except the west 115 feet of the east 315 feet of the north 160
feet of said lot, Ahoka County, Minnesota, generally located at
7620 University Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations:
1.
2.
3.
Variance request, VAR #92-21, shall be approved.
The petitioner shall execute cross parking and access
easements between Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1, Lyndale
Garden Center Addition.
The petitioner shall submit a drainage plan and drainage
calculations for the redevelopment parcel.
4. The petitioner shall execute and
Block 1, Lyndale Garden Center, a
water pond maintenance agreement.
record against Lot 1,
detention pond or storm
5. A landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by the
� City.
PLANNINa COMMISSION MEETIN6. OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAdE 7
� -
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYB, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
Ms. McPherson stated that on November 9, 1992, the City Council
will establish a public hearing for November 23, 1992.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING ZOA #92-06 BY
THE CITY OF FRIDLEY:
To rezone the following properties from M-2, Heavy Industrial,
to M-3, Outdoor Intensive, Heavy Industrial:
Lots 9-22, Block 13, Spring Brook Park Addition
Lots 14-35, Block 12, Spring Brook Park Addition
Lots 18-31, Block 5, Spring Brook Park Addition
Lots 22-27, Block 4, Spring Brook Park Addition
Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Mar-Len Addition
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter
of Section 3, Township 30, Range 24, lying easterly of the
easterly right-of-way line of the railroad, southerly of the
�..� North 135 feet of said Quarter, and northerly of the South 844
feet of said Quarter, except that part taken for road; subj ect
to easements of reaord.
The South 844 feet of that part of the Southwest Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 30, Range 24,
lying easterly of the easterly right-of-way line of the
railroad; except that part taken for road; subject to
easements of record.
Parcel A, that part of Lot 1, Block 1, Mar-Len Addition,
according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County,
Minnesota, lying west of the East 230 feet thereof and lying
north of the South 60 feet thereof.
Parcel B, the East 230 feet of Lot l, Biock 1, Mar-Len
Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka
County, Minnesota, and the South 60 feet of that part of said
Lot 1, lying west of the East 230 feet thereof.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINa AYE, CBAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC BEARING OPEN AT 8:20 P.M.
�� Ms. McPherson stated this request is to follow up on the City's
adoption of the M-3, Outdoor Intensive, Heavy Industrial District.
�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAGE 8
The City has created a third industrial district from the M-1,
Light Industrial District, and M-2, Heavy Industrial District. The
purpose of the M-3 district was to create a district in which those
uses which require a large amount of outdoor storage would have to
be limited and controlled in that particular district. Staff was
specifically concerned about trucking terminals and outdoor storage
yards. The City Council had a desire to have more control over
where those types of uses would be located in the City. During the
evaluation and creation of the ordinance, staff looked at three
options:
A.
B.
C.
Create M-3 zoning district in text omly.
Create M-3 zoning district in text and on map.
Maintain current ordinances.
Ms. McPherson stated the City Council chose Option B to create the
text, create the new zoning district, and rezone certain parcels
to M-3 district.
Ms. McPherson stated that while adopting the M-3, Outdoor
Intensive, Heavy Industrial zoning district regulations, the City
also amended the M-1, Light Industrial and M-2, Heavy Industrial
zoning district regulations in order to eliminate the outdoor
intensive uses from those districts. The properties to be rezoned
contain.outdoor intensive uses and they are generally located north
of 79th Avenue, west of University Avenue, and east of the railroad
tracks. These properties include Park Construction, ANR Trucking,
Joseph Land Trucking Company, the small vacant piece just east of
Joseph Land Trucking Company, and a vacant piece west of Hickory
Street and east of the Burlington Northern Railroad Tracks, just
�outh of the Springbrook Nature Center.
Ms. McPherson stated the proposed rezoning brings the trucking
terminals and construction companies into conformance. At the same
time, the M-3 district still allows those uses which are currently
permitted in the M-1 and M-2 districts, so the properties still
have a wide variety of uses. The adjacent roadways have been
designed to accommodate the amount of daily truck traffic in the
area associated with these uses. It is the City's opinion that
this area of the community is best suited for the M-3, Outdoor
Intensive, Heavy Industrial zoning classification.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending tliat the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the rezoning of these parcels from
M-2, Heavy Industrial, to M-3, Outdoor Intensive, Heavy Industrial.
Mr. Betzold asked if the businesses located
will be allowed to do
^ allowed to do in M-2
in the M-3 district?
anything different in
districts. Are there
in the new M-3 district
M-3 that they were not
any more restrictions
PLANNING COMMISSIO� MEETING. OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAGE 9
�
Ms. McPherson stated the only significant difference is that
trucking terminals and outdoor storage yards are permitted in the
M-3 zoning district and are no longer allowed in the M-1 or M-2
districts. There are significant landscaping and screening
requirements for these types of uses.
Mr. Kondrick stated he has driven by Park Construction recently,
and their gravel pile is very high, beyond what he would think
would be an acceptable height. Is there any way to restrict the
height of the gravel pile?
Ms. McPherson stated Park Construction is issued a rock crushing
permit every two years. That would be the vehicle by which the
City could control the height of the piles of dirt, asphalt,
concrete chunks, etc. As of right now, there is nothing in the
ordinance that deals with this particular issue.
Mr. Kondrick stated he believed the Planning Commission should be
notified when the rock crushing permit is going to be reviewed by
the City Council.
Mr. Andy Lindquist, 200 Ely Street N.E., stated that he lives
across the traeks from the proposed rezoning. He asked if it would
^ be possible to grandfather in the outdoor intensive use so the
existing businesses have their current abilities, rather than to
rezone the property? He understood that staff is saying the use
of these properties is going to remain the same, but with the
rezoning, he could see these businesses getting away with more and
more before the City finds out and cracks down on them.
Mr. Lindquist stated he agreed with Mr. Kondrick, that the gravel
pile at Park Construction is horrible. His neighbors complain
every time it is windy and the dust from that pile blows all over.
Mr. Lindquist stated one of his neighbors who could riot attend the
meeting asked him to submit a letter to the Planning Commission.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Savage, to receive into the
record a letter from Edward Bishop, 212 Ely Street N.E., in which
Mr. Bishop stated that he is opposed to the rezoning and that the
Planning Commission should consider the impact this rezoning will
have on the residential neighborhood and Springbrook Nature Center.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIATG AYE� CBAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED iTNANIMOIISLY.
Mr. Lindstrom stated his neighbors also complain about noise from
Park Construction, especially when the concrete is being crushed.
When the City is reviewing the rock crushing permit, he would also
'� like the City to consider, not only the height of the gravel pile,
but also the hours of operation.
�
n
P_LANNING COMMI3SION MEETING. OCTOBER 14. 1992 PAGE 1Q
Ms. Dacy stated that in the four years she has been with the City,
she has not received any complaints from the neighbors about Park
Construction's operation. She would encourage the neighbors that
if there are problems, the City staff needs to know about those
problems. The Council will react to the testimony of the neighbors
at the public hearing on this rezoning.
Mr. Betzold stated he would also encourage the neighbors to contact
not only City staff, but also City Council members, so the Council
members are aware of these problems.
Ms. Dacy stated the rock crushing activity will still require a
special use permit under the M-3 zoning, so the City still has the
ability to enforce stipulations if they have a documented record
of noise issues and complaints over a sustained period of time.
Ms. McPherson stated the City has adopted by reference the MPCA
standards which would require Park Construction to comply with air
pollution and dust standards. The City has limits on hours of
operation in general. The City also has a noise ordinance and the
City�s Code Enforcement Officer or police will take sound tests.
Additional staff people are also a�ailable through the MPCA to help
mitigate some of these issues. But, first, the City has to know
about these problems.
Mr. Saba stated tMat if they do not have height restrictions now
for Park Construction, they should address that now, not wait for
another two years.
Ms. Peggy Brown, 170 Liberty Street AT.E., stated that noise from
Park Construction has been a problem, but she now knows what the
neighborhood has to do to bring that issue to the Council. She is
not concerned about the height of the gravel pile other than from
a safety standpoint when children climb on it. She stated her only
concern with the rezoning to M-3 was that these businesses were
going to be allowed more than they were allowed in M-1 and M-2
zoning, but she no longer has that concern.
Ms. McPherson stated the other issue is that once they have
property that is nonconforming, policy-wise it becomes very
difficult to deal with. With Park Const�ruction, there are other
avenues to explore to correct any violations.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public
hearing. .
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND T$E PIIBLIC BEARIN�3 CLOSED AT 8:45 P.M.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend to City
Council approval of Rezoning, ZOA #92-06, by the City of Fridley,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINd� OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAGE 11
�
to rezone the following properties from M-2, Heavy Industrial, to
M-3, outdoor Intensive, Heavy Industrial:
Lots 9-22, Block 13, Spring Brook Park Addition
Lots 14-35, Block 12, Spring Brook Park Addition
Lots 18-31, Block 5, Spring Brook Park Addition
Lots 22-27, Block 4, Spring Brook Park Addition
Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Mar-Len Addition
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter
of Secton 3, Township 30, Range 24, lying easterly of the
easterly right-of-way line of the railroad, southerly of the
North 135 feet of said Quarter, and northerly of the South 844
feet of said Quarter, except that part taken for road; subject
to easements of record.
The South 844 feet of that p�rt of the Southwest Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 30, Range 24,
lying easterly of the easterly right-of-way line of the
railroad; except that part taken for road; subject to
� easements of record.
Parcel A, that part of Lot 1, Block 1, Mar-Len Addition,
according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County,
Minnesota, lying west of the East 230 fect thereof and lying
north of the South 60 feet thereof.
Parcel B, the East 230 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Mar-Len
Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka
County, Minnesota,. and the South 60 feet of that part of said
Lot 1, lying west of the East 230 feet thereof.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
4. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 3. 1992, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING•
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kohdrick, to receive the
September 3, 1992, Human Resources Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE � CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. �
5. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 10, 1992. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MINUTES•
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the
September 10, 1992, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes.
PLANNING COMMI38ION MLETING. OCTOBER 14. 1992 PAGE 12
�
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALI�VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. .
6. RECEIVE SEPTEMBE 14, 1992. PARKS & RECREATIC?N COMMISSION
MINUTES•
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the
September 14, 1992, Parks & Recreation Commission minutes.
OPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECI,ARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOOSLY.
7. RECEIVE_OCTOBER 6, 1992. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the
October 6, 1992, Appeals Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
ADJOURNMENT•
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to adjourn the
� meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold
declared the motion carried unanimously and the October 14, 1992,
Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. �
Re pectfully s mitted,
e Saba
Recording Secretary