Loading...
PL 11/19/1997 - 30851� �, � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING CO1�lISSION MEETING, NOV�TR 19, 1997 CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Savage called the November 19, 1997, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. .� . Members Present: Members Absent: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig, Larry Kuechle Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Al Opsahl, 5388 Horizon Drive Ralph & Joan Groenke, 112 Horizon Circle Virgil & Elvira Landgraff, 521-53rd Ave. NE Joseph & Margaret Pisansky, 5313 Altura Rd NE Marvin & Marion Thour, 5237 Horizon Dr. NE AppROVAL OF NOVEI�ER 5 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: OM TION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the November 5, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTL, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DLCLARFFD THis MOTION CARRIID �NAN'IMOU3LY. l. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AREA MEETING• AREAS #5 AND #6 Ms. Savage stated the purpose of the meeting is to solicit comments about the future of the City. The City is beginning'a process to update its comprehensive plan. This meeting is one of six meetings which the Planning Commission is conducting to get residents' ideas about the future. It is not the purpose of the meeting to discuss individual problems or issues which you may now have with the City. Rather, the Planning Commission encourages residents to provide comments about the City's future and what goals you think the City should pursue. Mr. Hickok stated this is the fifth planning area meeting out of six that will be held. This meeting is for Planning Areas 5 and 6. The next planning area meeting will be held December 17 for Area 7. Any person who has been unable to attend the planning meeting for their area is invited to attend the next meeting. If unable to attend that meeting, residents can return their surveys to the City. ��, �� PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, NOVEI��ER 19, 1997 PAGE 2 Mr. Hickok stated the comprehensive plan is a text accompanied with land use maps and an implementation plan. The first comprehensive plan for the City was adopted in 1980 as part of the Minnesota Land Planning Act. At that time, the City pulled together information on land resources and development. The Act also was a stimulus for soliciting public interest in the physical, social and economic issues within the City. The information in the 1980 plan is now dated. This current process will allow staff to gather information and set the course for the future. Mr. Hickok welcomed audience members. This has been a process that has been very enlightening. Staff have received many interesting comments which will be considered as the process moves forward. The City's goal is to have the comprehensive plan put together over the course of the next year. The plan will come back to the Planning Commission for review as chapters are completed. The completed plan is due to the state by December 31, 1998. Mr. Hickok stated surveys were sent out to residents. Blank forms are available for comments for those audience members who prefer not to speak. These forms can be filled out and given to staff. Ms. McPherson stated she was responsible for mailing the surveys and compiling the information for presentation to the Planning Commission. This meeting is with Planning Areas 5 and 6. On October 27, staff mailed 1,122 surveys and invitations to residents in those areas. As of November 14, staff had received approximately 81 surveys for a return rate of about 7.2%. The average return rate has been about 7.Oo to 7.5�. Ms. McPherson stated Planning Area 5 extends from I-694 south to the border between Fridley and Columbia Heights and west of Highway 65. Planning Area 6 is the area north of I-694 to Locke Lake and Rice Creek and west of the Burlington-Northern railroad tracks to the Mississippi River. Ms. McPherson reviewed the demographic information for both planning areas. Respondents in Area 5 were of a more mature age group being predominately 55 and over. Respondents in Area 6 were predominately in the 21 to 40 age range. In terms of length of residency, those in Area 5 generally had lived in the community more than 30 years. Area 6 had more respondents that had lived in the City less than 5 years. Ms. McPherson stated, in order to track the responses regarding issues, the questions asked in the survey requested essay-type �"'�, answers. She attempted to categorize those responses into the issue areas of parks, City services, property upkeep, ameniti:es, n PLANNING CONIl��lISSION MEETING, NOVEr�ER 19, 1997 PAGE 3 City government, taxes, people, access and location, traffic and speed, safety, land uses, image, and schools. Areas 5 and 6 had more comments relating to property upkeep including code enforcement, junky yards, inoperable vehicles, property upkeep, etc. As has been consistent with previous areas, what people like most about their area is their neighbors and the people.in their community. The issue area of land uses could include requests for upscale restaurants, comments about apartment buildings, comments about a busineas or parcel in the City, etc. There were some very strong negative comments about land uses in the City in general and also in the neighborhood of Area 5. Ms. McPherson stated Area 6 had more positive comments about parks and City services including recycling and the snow plowing and atreet maintenance. Comments regarding access and location have been consistent throughout the areas. This planning area commented more so about the City's image or lack thereof. Most of those comments related on the lack of a downtown or City center area. Most folks in Area 6 commented that they like their neighbors and feel good about the people in the immediate area. Ms. McPherson stated concerns were expressed about apartment � buildings and lack of or inconsistent code enforcement of property upkeep. There seems to be a need for street lights on some streets. This comment was difficult to pass on because we did not know which street(s) were of concern. Several comments were made regarding the perception of increased crime coming from Columbia Heights, Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center. Many respondents like their neighbors but some felt isolated. Most of those comments came from Area 6 which may reflect the fact that there are more new residents. Ms. McPherson stated the purpose of the comprehensive plan is to set forth the long range plan for the community and to set goals and objectives. The Planning Commission is trying to find out what residents want Fridley to be in the year 2010. We want to hear concerna and also possible solutions to those concerns. Ms. McPherson stated the forms provided ask two questions: 1) Fridley were to be the ideal community in the year 2010, what characteristics or experiences would you expect it to offer?; 2) What is Fridley and what role(s) does Fridley play in the larger metropolitan area? Ms. Savage opened the meeting for public comment. If and Mr. Landgraff stated he understood that the ordinance today says that if junk and things like that are not visible from the street �, there is nothing that can be done about it. He has a situation where the neighbors have to look at junk but it isn't necessarily PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING, NOVEi�ER 19, 1997 PAGE 4 visible from the street. He thought there ahould be an ordinance to cover that. These things become a blight to the City and devalue the property. It is just not a nice neighborhood like in other communities that have an ordinance to cover that. Mr. Kondrick asked if this junk he referred to was in the backyard. Mr. Landgraff stated it is in the backyard and the side yard. There is a variety of junk that most people throw away which they store in the yard. He did not think the neighbors should have to look at it. � Mr. Pisansky stated he lives behind the apartment building on the corner of 53rd and University Avenue. Altura is about 200 feet around the corner from the apartments. The apartment is a two- story building with a split entry and with about 7 units. He has lived in this location for four years. He has had trouble with the kids that were first living in the apartments. He called the owner of the apartments and wanted to make some kind of arrangement to keep the kids from riding bicycles through his yard. There was no fence there. He had to put up a fence in order to keep the kids out and.to keep them from riding their � bikes across his yard. He spent $800 for the fence and he planted trees. The kids went over the fence and ruined two trees that he planted. Residents keep moving in and out but, since he put the fence in, it hasn't been too bad. Mr. Pisansky stated all fall he has been raking leaves. There is a big tree on the apartment property, and he gets leaves from that tree. He has asked for assistance in raking but they would not help. He called Mr. Schneider and told him they have had the electricity out twice because there are big dead branches on this tree. This tree is leaning toward his garage. If that tree falls on his garage, he is going to be responsible for it. That tree is in bad shape. He thought it should be taken out. He called someone from the University of Minnesota to look at it, and he said it could go down at any time. He thought it should be checked out again. That tree should go down. If that tree falls on his garage, he does not intend that his insurance should pay for it. Mr. Thour stated he lives in Area 5 south of 53rd Avenue. He and his wife have been their for over 41 years. He thought a lot of this planning we are doing now should have been done back then. It is too late to change what he thinks are some serious mistakes. It is the traffic situation. Since building Holiday, Home Depot and those other businesses, they have constant trucks down their � street. Signs were finally posted saying "No Trucks" but it does not mean anything because it is not enforced. PLANNING CO1��IISSION MEETING, NOVED�ER 19, 1997 PAGE 5 �� Mr. Thour stated they also had a bad experience this summer. Some of the neighbors had relatives visiting with their motor homes which they parked in the driveways. They hooked up their sewers which leaked onto the driveways creating odors and an eyesore. They found this after they had returned from their trip out west. They also found motor homes parked out on the street. Someone finally came out and told them they could not leave them there. There were even buses there. In order to rectify anything in this area, we have to call someone. There is no one there enforcing this. They have cars speeding down the street really fast. When he was younger, he was able to help control some of that. He is only the crime watch captain, and he cannot enforce that law. We have to call the proper authorities. Mr. Thour stated he does not want to come up and just complain about these things because they have been there the whole time and love Fridley. They have good neighbors. He thought the Planning Commission in many cases has done some good things. Also, on 53rd where those trucks come down, they cannot make that turn with those semis. They have to go out into the other lanes. Whenever he goes to that intersection, he parks way over so they can get � through. Before that, they were knocking down the signals. That � should be changed somehow. Those trucks are going through a residential area. The area is unique because you cannot get to all those businesses without going through residential. They do have some other minor problems there. All in all, the neighborhood is good. Mr. Thour stated he was hoping to see some of the younger residents there because the future of the City is in their hands. He hoped staff did send out some more surveys or have another meeting. He talked to others in the area who did not know there was a meeting. Ms. McPherson stated, according to the mailing list, they tried to contact every residential parcel in the area. She did get some letters returned stating no forwarding address but they tried to reach everyone. Mr. Thour stated the parks are good. They are not large and do not have a football or baseball field. They do have a skating rink, and they have improved the playground equipment for the smaller kids. He thought that was a good job and felt that those responsible for that should be commended. Mr. Pisansky stated he has raked leaves for two yeara, and the apartment building owners have done nothing over there. He wished n the City would send someone out there and see just how it is behind that building. The neighbors there are wonderful and are � PLANNING COl�lISSION N�ETING, NOVII�ER 19, 1997 PAGE 6 behind him 100%, but they are not here. He would like to have the City look at it. The leaves are not raked. The grass is not mowed. Residents are driving cars up onto the property. The owners have not touched this property at all. He also picks up their garbage thrown out in back of the apartment building. Ms. Savage asked if staff was noting the comments and if they had a response to the comment regarding a"junk" ordinance. Mr. Hickok stated he is taking notes and will follow through on the issues stated. Regarding code enforcement, the City has a systematic process that started in May, 1997. Through that process, staff is making their way over the next two years through the entire City notifying property owners where there is junk, inoperable vehicles, vehicles parked on the lawn, general upkeep of their property, and a wide variety of code enforcement issues. When an issue is found, a letter is sent to the owner informing them about what the code says. A follow up inspection is done to make sure the owner is following through. Over 700 cases have been initiated this year. Between 85% and 90% of the cases are resolved on the first notice. As staff drive through on a follow up inspection, a much smaller number of residents have been ^ notified. The areas from which the audience reside have not yet been inspected. Unfortunately, we do not have a large staff so it will take time to get there. It is a thorough inspection process and one with which we have had great success. In those areas that have been inspected, we aee a difference. Over the course of the next two years, staff will be making their way through the entire City. Mr. Hickok stated he thought this initial blanket inspection is going to be one where we find a lot of issues where folks simply did not know what the code says and what it is they need to do in order to rectify the situation. After the first series of inspections will be a maintenance program to make sure that it is not going backwards. The level of understanding goes up as folks are educated. Another benefit is that folks are not having to complain about their neighbors. At the end of the education process, a small percentage of the cases actually go to court, a citation is issued, and a legal follow through is done. Staff is optimistic about the program. Mr. Kondrick stated a comment was made about campers and recreational vehicles parked at residences. What is the ordinance regarding these vehicles parked in yards, etc.? Mr. Hickok stated there are situations where campers will sit on the street for an extended period of time. He believed a speaker /'1 talked about the issue where someone will spend part of the year here parked in the street in a camper. The off street parking � PLANNING COl�lISSION MEETING, NOVII�ER 19, 1997 PAGE 7 regulations apply. Vehicles must be moved every 24 hours. Police will chalk vehicles to make certain they are moving. When they see electricity hooked up, there may be people actually living there. The City notifies the property owners. One may get an occasional guest where they pull their motor home up by the garage. But for any length of time, that is putting another demand on property where the City would encourage them to find an alternative site. The City does not have an ordinance which specifies the number of daya allowed. This is something tY�at staff will speak to property owners about and let them know this is an impact on their neighborhood. For the most part, people are very good about not wanting to put that impact on their neighbors. Mr. Saba stated many comments were made about apartment building upkeep. This seems to go hand-in-hand with high density housing. The Metropolitan Council is also asking suburbs to increase density. How do we balance the two? How do we try to maintain a good neighborhood and City situation and still satisfy the Metropolitan Council? Mr. Hickok stated it is important to know that density and property upkeep are issues that should be separated. Though you ^ may draw some parallels between multi-family properties and their upkeep and density, the City does have a rental inspection process in place. The Fire Department works with the Planning staff to make sure that code enforcement efforts are addressing issues on the outside of the units and the rental inspection folks are dealing with issues on the inside. Both of the departments deal with the owners of properties. Hickok stated that he did not think that multi-family just by virtue of being multi-family is going to be a problem and a burden on the neighborhood. We do have to raise the level of understanding and knowledge of what is and is not acceptable on properties. We have a rental owners coalition designed to bring property owners together to talk about issues, help one another get over hurdles they are having with rental properties, and to keep close to those folks. He thought it was important to let them know we are observing their properties and to make sure those properties are looking good. Mr. Hickok stated, as the Metropolitan Council asks cities to consider increasing density, much of what cities are hearing is that they are short on the higher density end. In this community, we have a very good mix. The City does not have a lot of high density land left. As we look into the future and into redevelopment, we certainly keep looking at what the best density is for an area. The recent project in the southwest quadrant is a higher density project. This was carefully thought out and the neighbors considered. That project has an owners association for �, maintenance and the City will work with that association. � PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, NOV�ER 19, 1997 PAGE 8 Ms. Savage thanked the residents for coming. Comments will be noted and passed on to City staff and the City Council. 2. INFORMAL DISCUSSION REGARDING POSSIBLE ORDINANCE CHANGES REGARDING TEMPORARY OUTDOOR DISPLAY. SALE OR PROMOTION OF MERCHANDISE Ms. McPherson stated staff has put together some information to address the temporary outdoor sales and display of inerchandise. The issue is that the zoning code is not clear on whether or not we permit or prohibit temporary outdoor sales of inerchandise, such as tent sales, the "Marlboro" product giveaway vans which may park at a service station, "farmer's markets" or fresh produce stands, etc. This past summer we saw a number of tent sale requests including requests from World's Greatest Deals, Target, United Stores, Slumberland, etc. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council has directed staff to put together some research and try to come up with some guidelines which may regulate this type of activity. Staff were directed to amend the ordinance which would allow staff to administratively issue a license or permit. Staff searched the Internet and talked to other communities to see what they were doing. Regulation of n this type of activity varies greatly from no regulation to very stringent regulations. Ms. McPherson stated staff looked at three options for the City to pursue. The first option is to clearly prohibit outdoor sales and display in all commercial districts. The advantages are that this reduces enforcement costs by the City, and there are no permits to administer or revoke. The disadvantage is that it eliminates special marketing efforts by the business community such as 49'er Days and similar activities. Ms. McPherson stated the second option is to allow temporary outdoor retail sales, display or promotion of inerchandise by administrative permit (limited to two or three per year). The advantage is that it clearly establishes standards of performance of such activities. It prohibits on-going outdoor display or merchandise and provides an opportunity for the business community to conduct special promotions. The disadvantage is that it requires administration of the permits, inspections of sites, and compliance of business with ordinance standards. Ms. McPherson stated the third option is to allow outdoor retail sales, display or promotion of inerchandise as an accessory use subject to certain standards. The advantages are that businesses would not be regulated regarding outdoor sales and display. The �� disadvantage is that this would no longer be a temporary activity and possible negative impacts to aesthetics, parking, traffic, � PLl�1�iNING COI�lISSION N�ETING, NOVII�ER 19, 1997 PAGE 9 etc. Ms. McPherson stated, based on the regulation for temporary and the recent adoption of the temporary outdoor food sales ordinance, staff is recommending the Planning Commission recommend the City Council pursue an ordinance change which would regular outdoor displays, sales and promotion of inerchandise via an administrative license. Page 4 of the staff report contains proposed ordinance language for such an ordinance. Under the Local Business District Regulations, we would allow as an accessory use the temporary outdoor display, sales or promotion of inerchandise subject to certain conditions. The owner shall obtain a license from the City prior to the start of the event and this license will be required whether merchandise is sold or given away. Three events per year would be permitted no closer than 45 days apart. Each event can be no longer than 10 days in length. The merchandise as displayed should not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic or be displayed on a boulevard or landscaped area. The display area cannot impact parking supply. For tents, the property owner shall also obtain a building permit and comply with the Uniform Building Code related to tents. The City will charge a fee of $75.00 for thie license. �� Mr. Kondrick stated, regarding the number of occurrences per year and the 45 day rule, Memorial Day and July 4th are less than 45 days apart. He would assume that if an event were allowed three times it would not be poesible to have it on both of those holidays. He liked that idea. That would automatically mean that if someone had an event on Memorial Day they would not have one of the 4th of July. Ms. McPherson stated, if someone wanted to sell on the July 4th holiday, they would need to start earlier for Memorial Day. Mr. Hickok stated the City has not been bombarded with requests. Allowing three events per year is generous. Mr. Kondrick agreed that this is generous. Ms. McPherson stated, if the commission feels three is too generous, this can be adjusted. The City Council will informally discuss this in December or January. They will have another discussion with the business community once the City Council has reviewed it. Ms. Savage stated this is the beginning of a procesa, and it does not mean that this will remain as it is. � Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. These are suggested points. � PI.ANNING CON�IISSION MEETING, NOVEN�ER 19, 1997 PAGE 10 Ms. Savage stated she thought the concept was a good idea and that they were headed in the right direction. Mr. Oquist stated the language refers to the property owner. If someone rents Columbia Arena for a car sale, who is responsible to get all the necessary things taken care of? Would it be the County because of Columbia Arena or the person putting on the event? Is property owner the correct term to use in this ordinance? Ms. McPherson stated yes. Staff may have to fine tune the language. Regarding car sales, car dealers and those activities which require a special use permit prior to commencement of the activity which requires Planning Commission review. This ordinance would not apply to what the City is doing for automobile sales. Mr. Oquist stated this would not apply to automobile sales. Does that have to be stated? Ms. McPherson stated staff could clarify that. Automobiles, boats, RV's, garden centers and nurseries already fall under a �� special use permit category in the ordinance. They felt those activities should remain as a special use permit and come before the Planning Commission. Ms. McPherson stated, regarding the term property owner, the person holding the activity could potentially be the person coming to the City, getting the paperwork, and helping the owner fill it out. Staff want the owner to sign acknowledging an activity is taking place on their property. For example, the Marlboro van coming to Super America for promotion of their product would require a signature of someone at corporate Super America so they will be included in the loop. Mr. Oquist stated he read this as saying the property owner is responsible. That is not necessarily true. Yes, we want the owner to be informed and acknowledge that this is going on. For instance, Jacob's Trading recently had a semi in their parking lot promoting battery operated cars. He does not know if that person owns that property or leases. He thought this needed to be clarified. Who pays the fee - the property owner or the applicant? Would this ordinance then apply to that promotional deal in the parking lot? Did they come in and ask for a permit to close off their parking lot and hold this activity? Ms. McPherson stated typically they have been very good about �—.� getting the proper tent permits. Staff did not know about this particular promotion. That activity would be covered by this PLANNING CONIl�lISSION N�ETING, NOVENN�ER 19, 1997 PAGE 11 language. Mr. Hickok stated it is a good point about the property owner. Staff looks at it as a very deliberate approach to have the property owner responsible. Their site plan is involved, the circulation for the customers of the principle users can be affected. Staff wants them informed so they are fully aware of it. They want the owner involved and to help control and enforce the activities. Ms. Savage asked how this would work for a farmer's market or stands for fresh fruit or vegetables. Is there any interest in that? Ms. McPherson stated they have in the past had, prior to the outdoor food sales ordinance, requests for produce stands. Staff basically said the City did not allow outdoor sales. In the last year or two since the ordinance, they have not had the requeste they previously had. In the case of a produce stand, we may require them to go through th� outdoor food sales process. There is a special use permit provision in the food sales section which allows for continual sales of food products throughout the summer season. They would probably put food or agricultural vendors �� under that particular section of the ordinance. As proposed, most of the outdoor agricultural vendors want to have sales from the end of July through October, every weekend or all week long. They want six weeks of sales. The produce stands are better covered by the outdoor food ordinance. Mr. Oquist asked, if it falls within these guidelines, they could just come in and get a license and that would be it. Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. Mr. Oquist asked what would happen with organizations such as churches and schools wanted to hold an event. Would that apply or is this strictly commercial? Ms. McPherson stated the way this ordinance is proposed they would not be allowed to do that. With the current residential zoning classification, their activities do not include those types of events. If you want to add that to allow some flexibility, they could work that into the ordinance. Mr. Saba stated he thought that put them at a disadvantage. These events occur occasionally such as an auction, the St. Phillips garage sale, bazaars or festivals which are fund raisers for churchea or schools. � Ms. Savage asked why these are not permitted. ^ PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, NOVII�ER 19, 1997 PAGE 12 Ms. McPherson stated the current ordinance does not address this. This is very similar to why we are addressing this particular ordinance change. The code is silent on outdoor displays and sales of inerchandise. That is also true of residential districts where most schools and churches are located. While the City has never "cracked down" on these activities at churches and schools, this may be an opportunity to clarify those sections of the ordinance saying that churches and schools can do this type of thing if they get a permit or license or we could allow a mechanism to waive the fee. Mr. Hickok stated he thought it would be appropriate to add in churches and schools. Currently, whenever there is a tent, the building and fire departments have been very diligent about making sure the tent has the proper fire rating, fire extinguishers, etc. Ms. Savage asked, if a person wanted to have a large party at their house with a tent, are they supposed to get a permit for that. Mr. Hickok stated they should. Tents come with a fire rating. � When they are rented, rental agencies have been very good about sending along the right tent with the right information. The code is silent on that. Mr. Saba stated he liked the idea of including churches and schools in the process of applying for a permit but to waive the fee. This would happen mostly when they are having fund raisers. Mr. Kondrick asked if there was any liability to the City if someone had a tent and for some reason someone got hurt. Mr. Hickok etated anytime there is something that happens the City may be looked to. There may be a claim made that the City should have done more about it. If someone has a tent with a large occupancy, they should make certain it has all the fire ratings. That is one thing the building and fire departments are very clear about. If something should happen, it would be their lack of knowledge as the problem. Mr. Saba stated, if you look at this strictly, you could not hold sporting events such as a football game with an event in the parking lot. He thought they needed to be careful there. Mr. Hickok stated, when they talked about the numbers, they were thinking about commercial entities and the impacts on parking lots. As you think about the language for churches and schools, n you may want to think about a separate paragraph about the standards by which they would need to abide. A site plan would be � � � PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING, NOVII�ER 19, 1997 PAGE 13 an important piece to make sure it is compatible, that it would not cause problems, etc. If you are not comfortable with that, leave more flexibility and discretion for those entities. These are not the typical entities they have been concerned with in the past. Mr. Saba stated they are on kind of dangerous ground when they talk about celebrations and similar events by churches and schools, fundraisers, etc. He thought they should put in language that addresses that issue. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to include language to address events conducted by churches and schools. Ms. Savage stated the Commission would not at this point make any firm requirements, but the concerns are noted. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would look at this fairly shortly. Staff will include in their memo the points discussed at this meeting. Staff may amend the proposed language to reflect these comments so the City Council can further discuss them. The Planning Commission will host a bueiness ownera meetings to talk about the language and get feedback. Staff will prepare the ordinance language for some time in March or April of next year. At that point, you will see more formal standards. 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF OCTOBER 9. 1997 OM TzoN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting of October 9, 1997. TJPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGB DBCLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNP�I�TIMOIISLY. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 1997 O IO by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the minutes of the Environmental Quality & Energy Com�ission meeting of October 21, 1997. IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGL DECI�ARED TI� MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 22. 1997 T O by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the /...� PI�ANNING CO1�Il��lISSION MEETING, NOVII��ER 19, 1997 PAGE 14 minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of October 22, 1997. IIPON A VOICF VOTT, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DLCLARLD THE MOTION CARRIED 'ONANIMOII3LY. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Kondricic, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the meeting. IIPON A VOICT VOTls, ALL VOTING AYL, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DLCLARLD TI� MOTI ON CARRI ED AND THE NOVSN�FsR 19 , 19 9 7, PLANNING CONII�iI S S I ON MEETING ADJO�RNED AT 8:52 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � , � � '� � � Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary � � �� �� � ,-4, r •, S I G N— IN S H E E T PLANNING COMMISSION.MEETING� �November 19, 1997.