Loading...
07/10/1996 - 00003598CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Kondrick called the July 10, 1996, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. NEW MEMBER: Mr. Kuechle has been appointed to the Planning Commission and represents the Appeals Commission. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig, Larry Kuechle Members Absent: Diane Savage Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Yung Nguyen, 7300 E. River Road Dat Tran, 7300 E. River Road Steven Hardel, 1010 Osborne Road N.E. John Weber, Stone Construction, Inc. Samir Awaijane, 5096 Hughes Avenue APPROVAL OF , 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the June 19, 1995, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. l. (Tabled from 6/19/96 meeting) PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #96-12, BY DAT TRAN: Per Section 205.07.O1.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow accessory buildings other than the first accessory building, over 240 square feet, on Lot 3, Chesney Acres, generally located at 7300 East River Road N.E. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner had not yet arrived at the meeting and asked that this item be considered later in the agenda. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #96-13, BY SAMIR AWAIJANE: Per Section 205.14.O1.C.(5) of the Fridley City Code, to allow automobile service stations and motor vehicle fuel and oil dispensing services in order to construct a 2,800 square foot automobile repair shop; and per Section 205.14.O1.C.(2) of the Fridley City Code, to allow automobile agencies selling or displaying new and/or used vehicles on property generally located at 970 Osborne Road N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:36 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the request is for 970 Osborne Road. The property is located south of Osborne Road and is surrounded by industrial uses to the west and south and commercial uses to the east. A pre-existing garage-type structure has been removed from the site. Mr. Hickok stated the request proposes two uses in the building. A portion of the building would be used for office and five stalls in the parking lot would be used for auto sales. The auto sales display portion of the parking lot would be closest to Osborne Road. The rear portion of the building would contain an auto repair shop. Mr. Hickok stated staff has evaluated the request based on code requirements and the use as it relates to the surrounding area. The property was at one time zoned industrial. The site was purchased by RMS when RMS was looking to expand. At the request of RMS, the property was rezoned to M-1 and then eventually back to C-2. The site as an industrial site was substandard. The site does serve the proposed use very well. Mr. Hickok stated the dimensions of the lot are unusual in that the property has a diagonal cut which causes a setback issue on the rear corner of the building. All setback has been met with the exception of 7 feet on the southwest corner. Mr. Hickok stated staff has determined that the uses as proposed are appropriate for the location. Staff recommends approval of the request for a muffler and brake shop and automobile sales agency with the following stipulations: General Site Stipulations PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 3 l. A final grading and drainage plan and calculations shall be submitted prior to issuance of the building permit. The petitioner shall comply with all stipulations recommended by the City Engineering staff upon review of the final grading and drainage plans. 2. The petitioner shall apply for and receive the appropriate permits from Anoka County for work in the road right of way. 3. All signs shall comply with the City Sign Code. 4. All vehicles shall be entirely parked on a surface of asphalt or concrete, which shall be lined with concrete curb. 5. All lighting shall be downcast and shielded against horizontal glare. 6. The landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planning staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. The site plan shall be modified so that the southwest corner of the building meets the 25-foot setback. 8. A performance bond of 30 of the construction value of the project shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. The petitioner shall execute and record a stormwater maintenance agreement for the property. 10. The petitioner shall grant the City a 30-foot drainage and utility easement along the south property line. Repair Garaae Stipulations 11. Repair activity beyond the scope of this application shall constitute the necessity for an additional special use permit. 12. The use shall not provide for the outdoor operation of lubrication equipment, hydraulic lifts or service pits; or the outdoor display of inerchandise. 13. The property shall not be used as a place of storage or depository of wrecked, abandoned or junked motor vehicles. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1996 PAGE 4 14. All vehicles associated with this use must be parked on site. Automobiles being serviced may be parked for a maximum period of forty-eight (48) hours at any one time. Automobile Sales Stipulations 15. The use of streamers, pennants, and flags is prohibited. 16. The petitioner shall comply with the temporary sign ordinance for all temporary signs on the property. 17. The petitioner shall apply for and receive the appropriate City car sales license. 18. There shall be no test driving of cars in the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Mr. Oquist stated stipulation #7 indicates the site plans will be modified to take care of the 25-foot setback issue. Would that be moving the building toward Osborne Road and, if so, how far? Mr. Hickok stated the building could be moved 7 feet and resolve the problem. There is a parking bay near the landscaped area and one close to the building. Prior to the meeting, the designer for the project talked about the potential for eliminating the 5 spaces near the building and bumping the building forward. They are 5 stalls over the requirement so they could meet the parking requirements if they did so. Staff believes that, with the state licensing guidelines for auto sales requiring a minimum of 5 parking stalls, they would be most comfortable with having 5 parking stalls for auto stalls and having the others relate to the square footage of the building. Staff suggests the petitioner diminish the wide area between the rear of one stall and the rear of the other stall in order to move the building forward. Mr. Weber stated he has had several discussions about the setback and the question was whether this is a side yard or a rear yard. We talked about clipping the corner of the building which is awkward. One discussion measured 25 feet in line with the west wall of the building and that is how the site is laid out. We are trying to maximize the area in front of the building and that is the ultimate goal. Mr. Kondrick asked what the 7 feet would mean to the petitioner. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1996 PAGE 5 Mr. Weber stated they had originally tried to put another row of parking into that 43-foot space. Commercial zoning requires 20- foot stalls. They could not come up with another way to get more parking in that space. Even with parallel parking, there then needs to be 2 drive aisles in order to meet the requirements. They would like to leave the building as it is. It would serve their purposes the best. Mr. Oquist asked if the petitioner could apply for a variance and leave the building where it is. Ms. McPherson stated they could request a variance which must be reviewed by the Appeals Commission. The Planning Commission could act on the request tonight amending stipulation #7 to say the petitioner must adjust the site plan to meet the setback or apply for and receive a variance. Mr. Oquist asked if the petitioner had seen the stipulations. Mr. Weber stated the stipulations are essentially from the ordinance. The only problem is the setback requirement and the difference in interpretation of how to measure that setback. Mr. Hickok stated, if the petitioner were to apply for a variance, the next deadline is July 19 and the City Council would approve on August 24. Mr. Weber stated that time frame was not an option. Mr. Kondrick asked why the building could not be placed more to the east. Mr. Weber stated that reduced the area in front of the garage doors to the side parking lot. The drive aisle is also reduced by 7 feet. Ms. McPherson stated, when the parking stall overhangs the curb, the stall can be shortened to 18 feet. Mr. Hickok stated it sounds as though there are concerns about narrowing the aisle widths. Staff would be concerned that organized parking in front of the building would be an issue. If we were to diminish that front area and then have double or triple depth parking of cars, there would be concerns about safety and also site organization. There is a concern that, if they lose some parking spaces, cars may not be parked in stalls. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1996 PAGE 6 The code is clear in defining the stalls and providing aisle widths that are appropriate to allow vehicles to pass through. Mr. Hickok stated parking lots must be painted and illuminated. We have not had a situation where a sales lot has used anything other than striped stalls. It seems a practical solution would be to shift the building forward and the parking forward. It would diminish the driving aisle to 40 feet. Mr. Weber stated he discussed this with Mr. Awaijane and it seems appropriate to move the building 7 feet north (parallel to the west property line). Mr. Hardel asked what kind of grading would be on this property. He lives next door and has water problems. The lot itself is lower than his lot but the petitioner is hauling in fill. He is concerned about how far up they are filling. He is also concerned with the black top at the VFW. There is a lot of water in the spring. Mr. Hickok stated the Engineering staff has reviewed the request and has determined that off-site drainage currently flows west through the site along the south or rear lot line. There is a stipulation that would require that they create a 30-foot drainage and utility easement to allow the flow to continue and to have a pond agreement and a pond created to hold water on site to pre-development levels. Mr. Hardel asked what happens if that does not work as intended. Mr. Kondrick stated the Engineering staff feel confident they can do that with the drainage plan so the drainage does not infringe on anyone else's property. Mr. Hickok stated the City has a standard performance bond requirement to insure the improvements are done according to the requirements. The criteria for these requirements are based on the 100-year storm requirement. Mr. Weber asked what the agreement for stormwater ponds involved. Mr. Hickok stated there is a non-point source pollution requirement for commercial and industrial properties that the post-development run off be no greater than the pre-development run off. The maintenance of the ponds would be taken on by the individuals. Such an agreement is filed with the property. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1996 PAGE 7 Mr. Weber stated run off come through this property from other properties. They will be ponding only their own run off and they are leaving a channel for the run off from neighboring properties. They do not feel they should be responsible for erosion or maintenance problems caused by the other properties. Mr. Kondrick stated the City's concern is that the run off from this property is handled properly. Mr. Weber stated he thought that an agreement recorded on the property is appropriate, but he does not feel the run off from other properties is their responsibility. Mr. Awaijane asked why the VFW next door was not required to provide a pond when they improved their parking lot a year ago. Mr. Hickok stated there are pre-existing non-conforming conditions around the development. When you are developing later, it seems unfair when the neighbors do not have to pond. This occurs because the laws have become more strict and staff must adhere to those laws. Also, we cannot stop what has been naturally occurring along the lot line in natural drainage ways. The petitioner is being asked to continue to allow this to happen as it did in the pre-development state. The ponding is related to the subject parcel. Finally, on the parking lot issue, there are times when parking lots or roofs themselves are designed to hold water for a period of time and control run off. Mr. Weber stated they have engineered the parking lot to meet the 100-year requirement. The neighbors run off could affect the integrity of the pond in future years. Mr. Hickok reviewed the stormwater maintenance agreement. Mr. Oquist asked if the issue was not the maintenance of the holding pond for the run off on their property. There is a drainage ditch which is behind the holding pond to handle the run off that has always been their from the neighbors property. It is separate and brimmed so it does not get into the holding pond. Mr. Weber stated, if that ditch is not maintained, it could damage the pond. Mr. Hickok stated maintenance is a separate issue. In the event where a property owner upstream causes a problem for this site, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1996 PAGE 8 he thought the Engineering staff has been careful to make sure that they are distinct uses and it is meant to run past and be a separate channel. Ms. McPherson stated the agreement is a standard template. It is not unusual to amend the agreement to meet specific situations. Mr. Weber stated he would like to have this issue cleared before the City Council meeting. Mr. Sielaff stated the agreement should state specifically what the petitioner is responsible for. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:20 P.M. Mr. Saba asked if they should add a stipulation to address the striped parking spaces. Mr. Hickok stated yes. He suggested the stipulation read, "Vehicles on site are to be parked in striped parking stalls of the code required dimensions leaving drive aisles to meet the minimum code requirements." MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #96-13, by Samir Awaijane, to allow automobile service stations and motor vehicle fuel and oil dispensing services in order to construct a 2,800 square foot automobile repair shop; and per Section 205.14.O1.C.(2) of the Fridley City Code, to allow automobile agencies selling or displaying new and/or used vehicles on property generally located at 970 Osborne Road N.E., with the following stipulations: l. A final grading and drainage plan and calculations shall be submitted prior to issuance of the building permit. The petitioner shall comply with all stipulations recommended by the City Engineering staff upon review of the final grading and drainage plans. 2. The petitioner shall apply for and receive the appropriate permits from Anoka County for work in the road right of way. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1996 PAGE 9 3. All signs shall comply with the City Sign Code. 4. All vehicles shall be entirely parked on a surface of asphalt or concrete, which shall be lined with concrete curb. 5. All lighting shall be downcast and shielded against horizontal glare. 6. The landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planning staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. The site plan shall be modified so that the southwest corner of the building meets the 25-foot setback. 8. A performance bond of 30 of the construction value of the project shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. The petitioner shall execute and record a stormwater maintenance agreement for the property. 10. The petitioner shall grant the City a 30-foot drainage and utility easement along the south property line. 11. Vehicles on site are to be parked in striped parking stalls of the code required dimensions leaving drive aisles to meet the minimum code requirements. Repair Garage Stipulations 12. Repair activity beyond the scope of this application shall constitute the necessity for an additional special use permit. 13. The use shall not provide for the outdoor operation of lubrication equipment, hydraulic lifts or service pits; or the outdoor display of inerchandise. 14. The property shall not be used as a place of storage or depository of wrecked, abandoned or junked motor vehicles. 15. All vehicles associated with this use must be parked on site. Automobiles being serviced may be parked for a maximum period of forty-eight (48) hours at any one time. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1996 PAGE 10 Automobile Sales Stipulations 16. The use of streamers, pennants, and flags is prohibited. 17. The petitioner shall comply with the temporary sign ordinance for all temporary signs on the property. 18. The petitioner shall apply for and receive the appropriate City car sales license. 19. There shall be no test driving of cars in the adjacent residential neighborhoods. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated this request would be considered by the City Council on July 22. 3. (Tabled from 6/19/96 meeting) PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #96-12, BY DAT TRAN: Per Section 205.07.O1.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow accessory buildings other than the first accessory building, over 240 square feet, on Lot 3, Chesney Acres, generally located at 7300 East River Road N.E. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to remove the request from the table. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED AT 8:25 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated this request was tabled at the last meeting. The petitioner is requesting to construct a second accessory structure in the rear yard measuring 24 feet x 26 feet. An existing 20 foot x 22 foot two-car garage already is located on the property. At the last meeting, staff recommended denial due to the number of access points. Discussion centered around whether the petitioner would remove the hard surface parking area to reduce the access points to two. It was left that the petitioner would contact staff as to whether the family was willing to pursue that recommendation. Staff did not hear from the petitioner prior to the report being sent out. As staff understands, there is no change. Staff, therefore, is again recommending denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1996 PAGE 11 Mr. Tran stated he has discussed the issue with his family. If necessary, they will remove the other driveway so they can construct the garage. Ms. McPherson stated the Planning Commission could approve the request with a stipulation requiring that the first hard surface drive be removed. Mr. Sielaff asked if the first garage would stay. Mr. Tran stated yes. Ms. McPherson stated there are no curbs on that portion of the property. Mr. Kondrick stated they would recommend the petitioner remove the asphalt and then sod or seed. They will have access to the garage and a new driveway to a new garage located at the rear of the property. Ms. Modig stated the property currently has six cars. If the petitioner removes the hard surface area, will the cars be parked in the new driveway. Ms. McPherson states yes. No cars will be parked on the street. The ordinance requires vehicles to be parked on a hard surface. MOTION by Ms. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:31 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #96-12, by Dat Tran, to allow accessory buildings other than the first accessory building, over 240 square feet, on Lot 3, Chesney Acres, generally located at 7300 East River Road N.E., with the following stipulation: l. The existing hard surface driveway shall be removed and the area shall be sodded or seeded. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1996 PAGE 12 Ms. McPherson stated this request would be reviewed by the City Council on July 22. 4. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE HOUSING ACTION PLAN Ms. McPherson stated the Livable Communities Act is set forth by the state. As part of that, the City must come up with a Housing Action Plan which is an inventory of what the City has, where it is located, what type of population is being served, etc. The City hired a consultant to prepare an Action Plan along with a number of maps. Ms. McPherson reviewed the maps and the information represented. Mr. Saba asked how affordability was determined. Ms. McPherson stated affordability is based on paying 300 or less of your income for housing. Mr. Saba stated he would like to see the housing stock improved to a higher level. Mr. Sielaff asked if there was some significance in determining the number of affordable homes in the City. Ms. McPherson stated it is important because the City is part of being in the Livable Communities Act. There are certain requirements that need to be met in order to participate in the funding that is available. Ms. McPherson stated the City has a number of programs in place to assist people to maintain and upgrade their homes. The next step as part of the housing plan update is to look at areas where we might go in and do redevelopment. We could also look at remaining commercial and industrial properties and possibly consider rezoning them to residential. These are the next steps which are to identify those projects to upgrade and provide more choices in new housing possibilities and still maintain affordability. The benchmarks are set to try to have a balance between affordability, lifecycle housing, etc. The Human Resources Commission reviewed the maps and the plan. Their comments are incorporated into the draft. Unless the there are any major objections, staff would like the Planning Commission to recommend approval to the HRA and the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1996 PAGE 13 Mr. Saba stated he could not see providing more multi-family 3-4 bedroom units. Ms. McPherson stated that three 3& 4 bedroom units could be provided by new construction or it could mean remodeling existing 1 or 2 bedroom units and combining them into a 3-4 bedroom unit. Mr. Hickok stated, because we have some buffer in our benchmarks, it is possible to take some of the smaller 1 and 2 bedroom units and upgrade them. It is possible to make some of these 3-4 bedroom units and make them be more competitive in the market. There is room and a niche for this type of housing. We are above our benchmarks for the units we have discussed. Mr. Saba stated his concern is having that large of a family in an apartment building. He felt that bigger families in an apartment may not be desirable and should rather be in a house. There are also those who allow others to live with them resulting in over-crowded conditions and can also result in increased crimes. Mr. Hickok stated there are those because of changes in lifestyle who choose to live in a larger apartment. Ms. McPherson stated she did not think conversion of 1-2 bedroom to 3-4 bedroom would occur without help from a non-profit organization. This also provides housing for those who are in transition and seeking a home. There is a need for this type of housing. Some families are moving to other communities because they cannot find adequate housing here. Mr. Oquist stated the Human Resources Commission reviewed the plan and had some minor changes. Regarding the argument of overcrowding in the apartments, this can also happen in the 1-2 bedroom units. Ms. Modig stated, while the things mentioned by Mr. Saba do occur, she felt these were not the norm. Mr. Kondrick stated he also did not agree with having additional 3-4 bedroom apartment or rental units. Mr. Saba stated he would prefer to upgrade the current housing stock. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1996 PAGE 14 Mr. Sielaff stated the intent is to be rental. Is it necessarily low income? Ms. Modig stated not necessarily. She did not think we, as a commission, can dictate who lives where. It is not reasonable to say that if a person needs more than 3 bedrooms they should buy a house. Mr. Hickok stated they have discussed if 3-4 bedroom units mean a certain level of rental. His experience has been, while managing a 250-unit complex with 20 units of 3 bedrooms, that all those units were rented by families who lived 6 months here and 6 months elsewhere. They wanted a place to accommodate their lifestyle. We also know we have a demand for senior housing in our community. There are others who may be in different lifestyle choices. If that is the case, we are not providing those opportunities. Ms. McPherson stated the City currently has 144 3-bedroom units or 4.60 of the total. The number of affordable units could be decreased. The number of low and moderate units and moderate to upper income units should be increased. We need more of those units for the high end. We will need 500+ by the year 2015 to maintain our benchmark. If the Commission objects to the 3-4 bedroom, that is okay but we need to find a way to get more non- affordable units in the community. Ms. McPherson stated, if the Commission agrees in general with the plan, she would suggest they recommend approval with the City Council but that you strongly object to increasing the number of 3-4 bedroom units. Ms. Modig asked if the Commission would agree to saying to maintain and upgrade the multi-family units that contain 3-4 bedroom units. That would upgrade the existing housing but not add additional units. Mr. Kuechle stated, if there is an objection, we should say so. Mr. Oquist stated, if you object, eliminate it from the plan or make a statement that we have concerns about 3-4 bedroom apartments. Mr. Kuechle stated, if that is the primary concern, that should be the primary emphasis of what we say. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1996 PAGE 15 Mr. Kuechle stated, in general, we agree with the statements but we have serious concerns about increasing the number of 3-4 bedroom apartments and the problems that come with it. Mr. Sielaff stated the problems are the same. If we are concerned about this issue, perhaps we should cap rental units. Ms. McPherson stated there is a certain financial responsibility when you are talking about non-affordable units. Regarding the issue of overcrowding in rental units, that is the responsibility of the property owner. Not all the problems of a building are the responsibility of the tenants. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba, that, in general, we agree with the statements but we have serious concerns about increasing the number of 3-4 bedroom apartments and the problems that come with it, and recommend removing the statement on page 42 which says, "Provide additional 3-4 bedroom non-affordable units." UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MR. KONDRICK, MR. SABA, MR. OQUIST, AND MR. KUECHLE VOTING AYE, AND MS. MODIG AND MR. SIELAFF VOTING NAY, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A MAJORITY VOTE. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of the plan as amended. UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MR. KONDRICK, MR. SABA, MR. OQUIST, MR. KUECHLE, AND MS. MODIG VOTING AYE, AND MR. SIELAFF VOTING NAY, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RESOLUTION FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA #1 AND THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS #1 - #3, #6, #7, AND #9 - #14 Ms. McPherson stated the City is expanding the redevelopment project area associated with the tax increment financing districts in order to allow the HRA to assist Wallboard, Inc. in constructing a 30,000 square foot building in the industrial park south of I-694 and east of East River Road. The Planning Commission's role is to adopt the resolution confirming to the proposed modification to the redevelopment plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1996 PAGE 16 MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend approval of a Resolution of the Fridley Planning Commission Finding the Modification to the redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 to be Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 29, 1996 MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the May 29, 1996, Appeals Commission meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1996 MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the minutes of the June 3, 1996, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend that the City Council formally honor or recognize Onan Corporation who received the Minnesota Governor's Award for pollution prevention. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE JULY 10, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 10, 1996 PAGE 17 Respectfully submitted, Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary