Loading...
09/02/1998 - 00003403CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 • • •G� G Chairperson Savage called the September 2, 1998, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p. m. :• _ Members Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig, Larry Kuechle Members Absent: Dean Saba Others Present: Barb Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Carol Hogan, 7813 Madison, Spring Lake Park Jim Rhode, 39 - 77th Avenue N.E. Dick Reiling, 8050 Ranchers Road Joe Ratshe, 7779 Beech Street C. M. Peterson, 7791 Elm Street Councilmember Bob Barnette Bob Egerer, CeIINet Data Services Shirley Barton, 5331 - 5th Street Tom Stimack, 5331 - 5th Street Douglas Petty, 7805 Beech Street Jason Reiling, 8050 Ranchers Road Richard Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace Keith Graham, Ulteig Engineers Gary Brewster, Roslyn Park Wesleyan Church Harvey Teske, 4800 Flag Avenue N., New Hope David Johnson, 6300 Georgia, Brooklyn Park Mark Koegler, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. •••:• • • • • ••; - �►► ► •►�►� •► ►� ► MnTInN by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the August 19, 1998, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 2 PlBL1C; HEARINC�� C;nNSIDERATInN nF ZnNINC� TEXT AMENDMENT, ZTA #98-01, BY C;ELLNET DATA SERVIC;ES �MSP�, INC; : To allow the location and development of Microcell facilities within the City of Fridley for the storing, processing, filtering, and forwarding of communication data within the Public Safety and Utility bandwidth licensed by the Federal Communication Commission, including any antenna attached to such device, generally located in the City of Fridley. MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the request for a zoning text amendment, ZTA #98-01, is by CeIINet Data Services to allow the location and development of microcell facilities. Their request facilitates the eventual storing, processing, filtering and forwarding of communication data within the public safety and utility bandwidth as licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Hickok stated the Planning Commission considered this request at their meeting of August 19. At that time, the Commission considered language modifications to the City's existing telecommunications ordinance, Ordinance No. 1112. The modifications were kept specific to "Automatic Meter Reading Systems/Devices". Cellnet's interest in providing language in the code along with the placement of these devices would allow Cellnet's client, NSP, to utilize their locations for these devices. Additional text amendments would be necessary if service providers chose to expand the use of the public utilities structures for items other than these meter reading devices. This is very specific for meter reading devices. Mr. Hickok stated an element that raised questions for the Commission and the petitioner was on page 3, paragraph (3) of the proposed language which stated that a site plan prepared to an engineer's scale would be required. This language has been replaced to read, "A location plan matching the public utility structure identification (address) and the appropriate Automatic Meter Reading Device." This modification will require a packet of attachments from the petitioner to include a matrix for the label descriptor to match the map location labels, cell identification number, latitude, longitude, street address and NSP pole identifier address. With this modification, staff recommends approval of the zoning text amendment, ZTA #98-01. Mr. Kuechle stated this does not say anything about a requirement for the accuracy of the latitude and longitude data. Is this something that should be specified? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 3 Mr. Hickok stated that for that reason, staff is asking for the NSP address. Each pole has an address and an identifier number. NSP is willing to provide a GIS map with all of those points identified so that staff can take the matrix and those identifiers and be more precise on latitude and longitude. Latitude and longitude has a degree of error. Though it is important because the City will ask for it from other users, they will not rely entirely on it. The next user will ask for the NSP address so they know precisely on which pole the device is going. Mr. Egerer stated that after the last meeting, he did some checking. The surveys they did with GPS were done with a differential which places the accuracy within one to five meters. He is happy with the new language. They have no issues. MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:38 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated it looks as though everything has been taken care of to the satisfaction of the Commission as well as CeIINet. MnTInN by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend approval of Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #98-01, by CeIINet Data Services (MSP), Inc., to allow the location and development of Microcell facilities within the City of Fridley for the storing, processing, filtering, and forwarding of communication data within the Public Safety and Utility bandwidth licensed by the Federal Communication Commission, including any antenna attached to such device, generally located in the City of Fridley, as amended. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Hickok stated the City Council would consider this request on September 14 2. PlBL1C; HEARINC�� C;nNSIDERATInN nF REZnNINC�, ZnA #98-02, BY RnSLYN PARK WESLEYAN C;Hl1RCH: To rezone property from R-2, Two Family Units, to R-3, Multi-Family Residential, so that all of the contiguous Roslyn Park Wesleyan Church property is located within a single zoning district, generally located at 5300 6th Street N.E. 3. PlBL1C; HEARINC�� C;nNSIDERATInN nF AN ALLEY VAC;ATInN, #98-02, BY RnSLYN PARK WESLEYAN C;Hl1RC;H: To vacate all that part of the alley in Block 15, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, Anoka County, Minnesota, which lies between the Northerly line of 53rd Avenue N.E. and the Southerly line of 54th Avenue N.E. in said Block 15, generally located at 5300 6th Street N. E. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 4 Ms. Savage asked that the rezoning request and the alley vacation be considered together. MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:40 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated Roslyn Park Wesleyan Church is requesting a rezoning and an alley vacation. Mr. Brewster is requesting a rezoning of a portion of the property from R-2, Two Family Residential, to R-3, Multi-Family Residential. Currently, half of the church property is zoned R-2, and the other half is zoned R-3. Mr. Hickok stated the church properties are located on 53rd Avenue between 5th and 6th Streets. The property to the east along 6th Street is zoned R-2. The property to the west along 5th is zoned R-3. The church has a master plan for eventual expansion. Having two zoning classifications makes the planning difficult. Mr. Hickok stated Mr. Brewster has also requested an alley vacation. An alley currently exists which bisects the church property. The Planning Commission considered these requests at their meeting of August 19. Residents who use the alley identified themselves as not being in support of the alley vacation request. The City Council requires a 100% support of the petitioner prior to vacation of an alley. As a result, the Planning Commission tabled the request to this meeting to allow the petitioners time to work through the issues. The petitioner has prepared an alternative solution, and the elements of this solution have been outlined in a letter to the Commission dated September 2, 1998. In this letter, Mr. Brewster requested that both items be considered under the one petition. Mr. Hickok stated staff has reviewed the rezoning request, and the request meets the criteria utilized when considering a rezoning. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the rezoning request, ZOA #98-02, without stipulations. Mr. Hickok stated that regarding the alley, the church is requesting a partial vacation. In lieu of the alley across the church property, the church is prepared to provide at their cost a new hard surface blacktop driveway with curb and gutter, and is prepared to offer a perpetual easement as a solution for those who wish to have the alley continue to their properties to the north. Mr. Hickok stated the request for a variance was made in the letter. This refers to Section 211 which requires that a petitioner of the adjoining properties be included showing full support and allowing 100% vacation of the alley to occur. Unlike Section 205, the Appeals Commission and City Council can grant a variance to the performance standards of Section 205. Section 211 is not open to variance; therefore, a variance is not the appropriate mechanism to allow further consideration of this vacation. The Commission can PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 5 recommend a partial vacation for City Council consideration if you feel this is appropriate. Section 211 allows for the vacation of a portion of the plat provided that all the owners in such a plat join in the execution of such instrument. If the alternative arrangements are suitable for those who utilize the alley and they support the request, the intent of Section 211.10 has been met. Mr. Hickok stated the proposal by the church is for the vacation of a portion of the alley that is on their property. The church is planning two future expansions. The first is to the south and the second to the west. At the time of the second expansion, they will need an accepted parking plan and will need room where the alley exists now. Mr. Hickok stated the alternative being suggested for the neighbors in lieu of the current alley would provide a driveway entering from 5th Street and extending to the alley. As part of that, the church has indicated they would make this a hard surface drive with curb and gutter, and would provide an adequate turning radius so that anyone using the alley would be able to make that turn without complication. Mr. Hickok stated staff was able to contact one of the property owners to the north who spoke in opposition. She indicated she did not have an issue with the alternative as long as the alley functions properly in its alternative form. One of her concerns was that water exists currently in the alley and hoped that the new access plan would not exacerbate any run off into that area and cause further problems. As with all projects if this were to move forward, the engineering staff would have to approve a drainage plan for that alternative access. He believed this concern had been addressed. Mr. Hickok stated that if the sentiments of the individual are accurate and others who spoke in opposition concur, staff recommend approval of the request to vacate only the church portion of the alley with the following stipulations: The petitioner shall record an easement to allow garage access for the homeowners at 5329 5th Street N. E., 5331 - 5th Street N. E., and 5367 - 5th Street N. E. and any other property owner north who may require alley access. 2. The petitioner shall record an easement over the alley to allow access to the utilities. 3. The petitioner shall record a new easement to allow a utility access alternative prior to issuance of the proposed church expansion on the west end of the existing church structure. 4. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a special use permit prior to expansion of their church facility. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 6 5. The petitioner shall record an easement to provide Amoco continued rights across the former alley. 6. The petitioner shall provide the improved asphalt or concrete access to 5th Street in accordance with a plan to be submitted and approved by the City prior to installation. 7. The petitioner shall not alter the alley across their property, or in any way limit access by the adjacent property owners, until the new access has been completed. 8. The petitioner shall hold harmless the City from any damage or injury that occurs on or over the alley area in the interim, or beyond the vacation approval and completion of the drive access alternative for the residents still wishing to utilize the alley north of the church property. 9. The petitioner shall provide reasonable seasonal maintenance as necessary to assure access to and from the non-vacated portion of the alley. Ms. Modig asked, when the church makes the access across the church property to the alley, will that turn allow access for emergency vehicles, such as a fire truck, etc. Mr. Hickok stated the proposal is to provide access for radius turn movement for vehicles with trailers, such as a vehicle pulling a boat trailer, and also a radius to accommodate an emergency vehicle would have to be approved by staff prior to implementation. Staff would make certain that emergency vehicles, utility trucks, etc., could use that turn. Mr. Brewster stated several members of the property improvement committee were also with him at the meeting, Mr. Harvey Teske and Mr. David Johnson, along with a surveyor/engineer from Ulteig, Mr. Keith Graham. He thanked staff for their extra work and for letting them come back with a revised plan. The term Mr. Hickok has used is a modified approach to vacate the alley. The premise of their coming with a revision is that the alley which has not served 100% of the residents who have property adjoining the alley and that it has not been a maintained alley. The alley has not been maintained and is subject to a tremendous amount of erosion. They would like to help remedy that and to continue to provide an access for those neighbors without impeding them by bringing in property lines, changing them, etc. It is their desire to bring that part of their petition as a modification to the code. Mr. Graham may be able to speak to the question about the turning radius for the access. They would be providing an access to the existing alleyway that is not vacated. Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner knew if anyone was in opposition to the revised proposal. Mr. Brewster stated they were not aware of anyone. They visited and contacted those who were involved in the change of that. Mr. Hickok came out, did a site view and went through PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 7 the property. The neighbors were there to visit about that. In their visits or in their correspondence, they have not had any indication that this proposal would have any opposition. Ms. Modig asked if the petitioner had any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Brewster stated he did have a question about the last stipulation regarding maintenance. They would provide maintenance as far as seasonal access is concerned. They would not directly be using that drive themselves especially in the winter but understand that it would need to be accessible for those who would be using it. The alley itself is primarily maintained in the winter by Mr. Stimack. They have participated in a cost share but it has been primarily his responsibility. Ms. Modig stated she understood he took that on in order to have access to his garage. In order to have access, that easement still must be available. She asked the petitioner if they were questioning what maintenance must be done. Mr. Brewster stated, yes. Mr. Sielaff asked what was done before for the other access. Mr. Hickok stated it sounds like it was a shared responsibility and the owners shared responsibility to shovel so they could get in. Mr. Brewster's responsibility is to keep the access available for the neighbors. Mr. Brewster stated that is what he understood. For those who use the alley, that is something they would have to work out themselves. The Stimack's have another access with their own driveway. For the lady that is next to them, this is her only access. Mr. Sielaff asked if there needs to be a stipulation that the maintenance is a shared responsibility. Mr. Brewster stated they would provide the driveway for access. The other mechanics would be something to be worked out. Mr. Sielaff stated that as long as it is maintained, he does not care. Ms. Modig stated this has the potential for being a real problem. It is not clear unless we have an indication about who will plow the driveway and maintain it in the wintertime. Mr. Brewster stated the way they see it is they are responsible for clearing the access. He would like to seek a cooperative way of doing that, probably a cost share. Ms. Savage asked the petitioner, in the event they were not able to do that, would you take on that responsibility. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 8 Mr. Brewster stated, yes, especially of the vacated alley. The access would be additional for them to assume. Ms. Modig stated she felt this needed to be more specific. Mr. Hickok stated they are asking for reasonable seasonal maintenance. If that means a shared agreement, then so be it. Ms. Savage stated she believed the petitioner has indicated he understands and is willing to accept the responsibility if need be and is willing to work something out. Mr. Kondrick asked if it was correct that people would be able to get from the church parking lot going north. Mr. Hickok stated, yes, there would be a connection to the alley. Mr. Brewster stated, by doing this, it enables their future plans for the expanded parking. It not only gives immediate access for the residents but sets it up for future expansion. Mr. Oquist asked if this would be sufficiently marked so that people attending church services and/or activities do not park in that alley area and block the entrance. Mr. Hickok stated that was an excellent point. He believed the design for this would be done in a way that the north curb becomes the permanent concrete curb and gutter for the future drive aisle for the parking lot. He understands they will have an asphalt curb which would then be taken out at the time of the parking lot expansion. He understands that this is a short-term solution to provide drainage until the parking lot is completed. Mr. Oquist stated there is a type of concrete curbing that is not a whole curb but still allows for drainage. He also does not want to block the alley for emergency vehicles. Mr. Hickok stated this could be stipulation #10. Mr. Graham stated he was the surveyor for the project. There is a 16-foot turning radius on the curb. This is fine for automobile traffic but it is tight for emergency vehicles such as fire trucks. There is room for a 22-foot radius coming off the easement to the alley to the north. They would work with the engineering department to, if necessary, relocate that easement a bit to accommodate the necessary turning radius. They would have to talk to the traffic engineers because this depends on the type of vehicles expected in that area. Mr. Oquist stated he thought that should be another stipulation. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 9 Mr. Kuechle asked Mr. Graham if there were parking spaces blocked out along the side of the access drive. Mr. Graham stated there are parking stalls and a drainage pond to the south. They will stretch the easement out to the alley. Rather than a turning radius, he would prefer to see the south line extended all the way to the alley so there will be room for snow removal and snow storage. If they can box that out rather than putting in a specific radius, that allows room. The civil engineer would have to make the decision along with City staff as exactly how best to handle the run off coming from the alley. Ms. Modig asked if that is something that is automatically done or would that require a stipulation. Mr. Hickok state stipulation #6 covers that in that the staff would need to approve the plan. Ms. Modig stated she is concerned about the neighbors that were at the last meeting. Did staff hear from them and does staff know that there is no problem with this proposal? Mr. Hickok stated he talked with Ms. Barton who is a co-owner of the property with Mr. Stimack. She stated she would be talking to Mr. Stimack. She did not have any concerns other than to make certain that this was engineered properly. If Mr. Stimack had additional concerns, she would have him call. Staff did not hear from him. As to the other property owner that spoke, he was concerned about the garbage pick up in the alley and being able to get in and out. Mr. Hickok was unable to contact him. Mr. Kondrick stated that if they can assure the turning radius, that problem is solved. Mr. Sielaff asked if they were notified a second time of this public hearing. Mr. Hickok stated, no. They attended the last meeting and were made aware at that time of this meeting. Ms. Modig asked if they had the signatures needed in order to do this right. Mr. Hickok stated that although they do not have the signatures for 100% vacation north to south, according to Section 211, the property owners that abut are supporting it. According to the other owners, he has heard verbal support from one property owner. It does make it difficult. The City staff, Commission and City Council would be most comfortable with a written confirmation. As long as they are okay with the alternative, he thought that would be the equivalent of 100% support. Ms. Savage stated it is clear that they did know about the meeting and had an opportunity to write or call. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 10 Mr. Brewster stated that after the last public hearing and hearing the response from the neighbors, they addressed a letter to them and discussed this with those concerned. That is why they have an agreement to go ahead with the modification. They took steps to find a reconciliation. Mr. Stimack stated he has no conflicts with this issue as long as the turning radius is provided and it does not interfere with the drainage. That should be it. MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:12 P.M. Mr. Kuechle stated he thought they had resolved the issues that were contested. He would recommend approval of both the rezoning and the vacation request. Mr. Oquist stated he would amend the stipulations. Mr. Kondrick asked if they should say something about marking the alleyway. Mr. Oquist stated he thought that should be one of the stipulations that the new alleyway be sufficiently labeled to prevent parking in that area. MnTInN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend approval of a Rezoning, ZOA #98-02, by Roslyn Park Wesleyan Church, to rezone property from R-2, Two Family Units, to R-3, Multi-Family Residential, so that all of the contiguous Roslyn Park Wesleyan Church property is located within a single zoning district, generally located at 5300 6th Street N. E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MnTInN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend approval of an Alley Vacation, SAV #98-02, by Roslyn Park Wesleyan Park Church, to vacate all that part of the alley in Block 15, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, Anoka County, Minnesota, which lies between the Northerly line of 53rd Avenue N.E. and the Southerly line of 54th Avenue N.E. in said Block 15, generally located at 5300 6th Street N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall record an easement to allow garage access for the homeowners at 5329 5th Street N. E., 5331 - 5th Street N. E., and 5367 - 5th Street N. E. and any other property owner north who may require alley access. 2. The petitioner shall record an easement over the alley to allow access to the utilities. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 11 3. The petitioner shall record a new easement to allow a utility access alternative prior to issuance of the proposed church expansion on the west end of the existing church structure. 4. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a special use permit prior to expansion of their church facility. 5. The petitioner shall record an easement to provide Amoco continued rights across the former alley. 6. The petitioner shall provide the improved asphalt or concrete access to 5th Street in accordance with a plan to be submitted and approved by the City prior to installation. 7. The petitioner shall not alter the alley across their property, or in any way limit access by the adjacent property owners, until the new access has been completed. 8. The petitioner shall hold harmless the City from any damage or injury that occurs on or over the alley area in the interim, or beyond the vacation approval and completion of the drive access alternative for the residents still wishing to utilize the alley north of the church property. 9. The petitioner shall provide reasonable seasonal maintenance as necessary to assure access to and from the non-vacated portion of the alley. 10. The petitioner shall receive approval for the turning radius which is to be adequate to handle emergency vehicles. 11. The alley shall be sufficiently labeled to prevent the entrance from being blocked. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Hickok stated the City Council would consider this request on September 14 4. PlBL1C; HEARINC�� C;nNSIDERATInN nF A SPEC;IAL 11SE PERMIT, SP #98-15, BY Lnl1C;KS & ASSnC;IATES, INC; , nN BEHALF nF SPRINT SPEC;TRl1M: To construct a wireless telecommunications tower as defined in Section 205.29.2 of the Fridley City Code, pursuant Section 205.29.5C in an M-2, Heavy Industrial Zoning District. Ms. Savage stated the request for a special use permit, SP #98-15, had been withdrawn. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 12 5. PlBL1C; HEARINC�� C;nNSIDERATInN nF ZnNINC� TEXT AMENDMENT, ZTA #98-02, BY THE C;ITY nF FRIDLEY: To create a new zoning district for industrial lot below one and a half acres in size, with special attention in the Onaway Addition located north of 79th Avenue, east of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, west of University Avenue, and south of 85th Avenue. MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:15 P.M. Ms. Dacy stated the zoning text amendment, ZTA #98-02, is being requested by the City of Fridley. The purpose of the zoning text amendment is to create a new zoning district in the Onaway Addition and, secondly, staff is asking the Planning Commission to evaluate a smaller minimum size requirement from 65,330 square feet to 62,000 square feet in the M- 2, Heavy Industrial, district. Ms. Dacy stated the Onaway Addition is located in the northern part of the City with 77th Avenue along the south boundary, Main Street to the east, 79th Way on the north, and the railroad tracks to the west. Ms. Dacy stated the background of why this request is being brought to the Planning Commission's attention is that over the last two or three months the City has become aware of the small lot areas in this subdivision. The Onaway division was originally subdivided in 1911 and was originally intended for a residential development. However, that area when it was incorporated into the City of Fridley in 1958 was zoned industrial and planned for industrial since that time. Staff went back and looked at the code from 1958. At that time, there was not a minimum lot size requirement for development in industrial areas, and a minimum lot area did not appear in the zoning requirements until the 1960's. In the Onaway district, most of the building took place in the 1960's and 1970's. In 1973, the code had an exception phrase. For the M-2, the minimum lot size was 1.5 acres except for lots subdivided in a plat prior to the effective date of that code. Permits were issued and buildings constructed. Apparently in the early 1980's when the City code was recodified, the ordinance changed such that in the M-1 area there is a 3/4 acre lot size or 32,070 square feet; M-2 was listed at 1.5 acres or 64,140 square feet. Ms. Dacy stated the City had a variance request this spring that was denied because of some of these minimum lot size requirements. In the approach of a special zoning concept, they had to balance between the typical health, safety and welfare concerns that the zoning code is intended to protect versus what is there already. The minimum lot size is there to PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 13 make sure there is adequate separation between buildings, provide green area, adequate parking for employees and guests, etc. The analysis included 54 parcels in the Onaway district. There are 200-300 parcels community-wide. A matrix for the Onaway district was provided in the agenda packet. Ms. Dacy stated next is to determine the minimum lot size requirement because two out of the 54 could meet the 1.5 acre requirement. If the majority of the sites cannot meet the current requirement, what is the City's goals? What does the City want to accomplish? Staff looked at the range of lot areas. The majority seem to be between the range of 10,000 and 20,000 square feet. Staff did evaluate looking at a 20,000 square foot lot size but that would require a displacement of businesses. From a planning standpoint, the larger minimum lot size has more area for flexibility, expansion and create an assurance of adequate room on site for development. In this case with an existing development, you have improvements already in place and are not dealing with any vacant land so to speak but rather dealing with a pre-existing condition. Ms. Dacy stated that based on staff s analysis, the majority of the lots could meet a 10,000 square foot lot size requirement. There were eight or nine parcels that could not meet that. However, half of those were part of an adjacent owner. There were four properties that could not meet the 10,000 square foot requirement. Ms. Dacy stated, for the M-2 lot size and changing the minimum lot size from 1.5 acres to 62,000 square feet, through this analysis staff did find there are other lots in the immediate area that are just shy of the 1.5 acres. If they reduce the lot size to 62,000 square feet, her initial thought was that they could resolve the nonconforming status for three lots. She did find that there are eight lots in the immediate area that range between 42,000 square feet and 57,000 and 58,000 square feet. It may be wise for the City to evaluate the zoning of those sites to M-1 to keep them in a conforming status. That however is a future issue. Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending a new zoning district, S-3, Onaway Special District, which is set up exactly as the M-2 with the same uses, the same special uses, the same landscape requirements, the same design requirements, except that the minimum lot size would be 10,000 square feet, lot width of 80 feet, and reduced setbacks. Ms. Dacy provided a handout outlining the requirements for the S-3 district with those requirements highlighted that are different from M-2. Ms. Dacy stated the second recommendation by staff is for the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council to change the minimum lot size from 1.5 acres to 62,000 square feet. Ms. Dacy stated, third, with the Commission's concurrence, she would like staff to continue their research about the lot areas and evaluate rezoning eight properties to M-1. Those owners were not part of this notification so staff would like to meet with them to talk about that and to pursue another solution on those sites. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 14 Ms. Dacy stated that in the Onaway District, the majority of the lots can meet the 10,000 square foot lot size. The four lots that cannot meet that requirement are located between Beech and Elm just north of the 77th Avenue right-of-way. This consists of two single family homes toward the east, and Rhodes Lock and Glass and a floor covering business to the west. Those lot sizes range from 7,600 square feet to about 8,748 square feet. These four lots would be nonconforming. She thought the owners of the two single family homes have been aware of this issue for several years. In the future, the intent would be, as any of these four lots are abandoned or destroyed, they would try to join lots together in order to get the minimum size. Mr. Kondrick asked the total square footage of those four lots combined. Ms. Dacy estimated the four lots to be about 30,000 square feet. Mr. Oquist stated he thought 7864 and 7872 Elm were under 10,000 square feet as are lots on Main Street. Ms. Dacy stated they checked the ownerships and many of those parcels are tied together under one owner. Ms. Dacy stated that regarding the eight properties they are evaluating in the M-1 district fall between 33,000 square feet and 65,000 square feet. One parcel is located at the northwest corner of Ranchers Road and 79th, two are on the opposite corner of the intersection, another parcel is down Ranchers Road, and two parcels are just north of the Dairy Queen on Main Street. They are looking at the M-1 zoning and bringing that requirement down. Some of the owners have not been notified regarding this issue. She would like to do some additional research to check the lot sizes that are showing on the plat versus what is showing up on the GIS system. Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission is asked to recommend a zoning district that would apply only to the Onaway Addition and, in effect, rezone it from M-2 to S-3, Onaway Addition Special District. She did get a telephone call from one of the property owners who suggested putting the words "Heavy Industrial" after S-3 to denote that people know it is an industrial area when they call in doing zoning checks. Mr. Sielaff asked if the nonconforming lots were residential.] Ms. Dacy stated two are residential and two are commercial. There is another house on Elm Street that is being leased to a relative of the owner. There was at one time a house on the other side of the street also but that is now gone. Over time, the nonconforming properties are being eliminated. Ms. Modig asked if there are any other areas in the City that fall into this category. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 15 Ms. Dacy stated this is the only place in town. There are other older industrial plats in the salvage yard area on 73rd and an outlot property on the other side of the railroad tracks near Springbrook. Those are zoned M-1 and very small. The conditions that exist here warrant special attention. The purpose statement on the first page tries to get at that issue. Ms. Sielaff stated this is considered a special district. How would other zones be determined in this special district? Ms. Dacy stated right now the area is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. If the City Council approves the request, the area would be S-3, Onaway Heavy Industrial Addition. If a building burned down, then the minimum lot size must be 10,000 square feet. The new set of standards would be used when someone comes in for an application. Mr. Sielaff asked if the use would change. Ms. Dacy stated the uses would be the same as those in the M-2. There should not be any issues about the use. The intent of this district is to get at the lot area and some of the environmental issues. The City has two other examples using the special district approach. First is the S-1, Hyde Park, area which extends from 57th to 61 st. Second is the S-2 district which includes Lake Pointe and Christenson Crossing. Mr. Oquist stated this ordinance would be put into effect on properties that will apply in the future. This does not affect existing properties. Is it correct that this does not require a current business to change to agree with this ordinance? It is only after something affects the property. Ms. Dacy stated this was correct. This only comes into effect if something happens and only if a building is destroyed beyond 50% of its value or if they want to expand. Otherwise, there is no change. Ms. Savage stated she wanted to clarify that this would change the minimum lot requirements in an M-2 district from 1.5 acres to 62,000 square feet. This is a zoning text amendment. If the Planning Commission should recommend approval, procedurally what happens next. Ms. Dacy stated the City Council will hold a public hearing on September 14. The City Council will conduct a hearing, then they must adopt an ordinance to officially include the S-3 district and implement the proposed changes including the reduction of the minimum lot size in the M-2 district to 62,000 square feet. Ms. Sielaff asked that in the special district, they are tending toward a certain lot size. What is confusing him is the use issue. What happens if a building is destroyed or the property is sold? Ms. Dacy stated the uses that are permitted in the S-3 district are the same as those PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 16 permitted in the M-2 district. If you have a building and it burns down, if the lot is 10,000 square feet then it is not a problem. Mr. Sielaff asked what would happen if a residential building burned. Ms. Dacy stated a residential building right now is not a permitted use in the M-2 district. The S-3 also does not permit residential use. If one of those homes burns down, they will not be able to rebuild. It would need to be an M-2 use. Mr. Reiling stated he is a property owner and is the sacrificial lamb. His property burned down on Hickory Street last February. Due to the fact of the zoning requirements, they were not allowed to rebuild. Consequently, he now has a vacant lot. It seemed to him that the text amendment for the S-3 would take care of his problem and those of many other folks in the same situation. He would be in favor of the amendment. Mr. Rhode stated he has concerns. He has one of the four lots that will not be in a situation to benefit. There is a floor covering business next to him on the corner and then two houses on the other side. He did not know what the lot sizes were for the four lots. He has had his lot surveyed and he had 8,775 square feet. The lot is 75 feet in width. If, for example, a neighbor's building burned down or if a residence burned, would they condemn the lot? If there is 30,000 square feet, this would them make three lots. That is hard to divide. Ms. Dacy stated staff is not suggesting condemnation. They are saying these uses are allowed to continue as they currently are forever. However, if his structure was to burn down or become damaged beyond 50% of the value, he would not receive a permit to rebuild. If the single family home to the east should come up for sale, staff would try to encourage as large of lot size as possible so that two adjacent owners could bundle two lots together and get a bigger lot. If he and the floor covering business owner wanted to join together to share a building and join the lots, that would be okay as well. Staff is suggesting that over time there must be at least a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Until structures are destroyed, the City will not initiate a condemnation. Mr. Rhode stated he had a survey to see what he could do. He would have to ask for too many variances so he did not go further. He has kicked this around for the last four or five years. This issue does concern him. It is not worth it for him to do anything to it. He cannot grow. He deals with retail which is not his main business. His main business is mobile. The shop does fine for his purposes. In order for him to stay here with the property he has, it is worthless and has no value if the zoning will not accommodate anyone with that lot size. The value is nothing if you cannot do anything with it. As far as accommodating the majority, that is good but that still leaves him as the minority. If he was at 75 feet on the width and 8,500 square feet, he would have a lot that he could construct a building and could still run a business on a profitable basis without buying land and moving out. He is PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 17 about 1,300 square feet short of the minimum lot size and 5 feet short on the width. There are only four lots, but he thought it was something to consider. If he moves, he will move to Elk River or some place to the west. This has been an issue that he has kicked around but he has never pursued. If he put money into buying lots, he did not think that was the place to do it. Mr. Oquist stated that under the existing zoning if something should happen to his property, he could not do anything with it either. Either way, he cannot do anything. Either way, he still has the same problem. If they try to accommodate everyone, they have to drop it way down. They are trying to correct as best they can. Mr. Petter operates a business at 7805 Beech Street. Typically, the buildings and lots on his street are the same size. None of them would be able to rebuild. Under the proposed rezoning of that area, it works very well for him and he was sure it would work well for everyone on his street. He supports it. It cannot happen too soon as far as he is concerned. Ms. Hogan stated she owned property at 7800 Main Street. She did not know she had a problem until she met with City staff. She is in support because it would help her. Mr. Harris stated he owns property in the Onaway Addition. He had some things he wanted to clarify. The map did not show the vacated alleys. It shows only dedicated alleys. In the block between Elm Street and Main Street just north of 77th Avenue, has the north/south and east/west alleys vacated? In the next block to the west, Block 7, the north/south alley is vacated but the east/west alley is not. If they vacated the east/west alley, it might help those properties along 77th Avenue gain a few square feet. All of those alleys are unimproved but they are dedicated. The next block to the north are improved alleys and are in use. Mr. Harris asked that on some of the figures provided by Ms. Dacy, when taking the square footages, were the easements omitted. It appears that, especially over in area of East Ranchers Road, the numbers do not reflect the easement areas. There are drainage and utility easements in the rear, and he assumed they were part of the total square footage. Ms. Dacy stated she was assuming they included the area of easement. One of the things she can do is check the officially recorded plat for some of the lots versus what is in the GIS which comes from Anoka County. Mr. Harris stated on Lot 5, Block 3, he came up with 60,814 square feet. On the interior lots, he came up with 62,055 square feet for Lot 6, Block 3. It appears they are not taking into consideration the 10-foot drainage and utility easement on the back lot lines. On Lot 6, there is a 15-foot storm sewer easement on the north lot line. Perhaps they are losing some figures because of the easements. Mr. Harris asked how this ordinance would affect property owners who are operating at that PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 18 particular time. It would probably have no affect on normal operations but it would on real estate sales. If an existing, nonconforming use, by Minnesota law an owner is required to divulge that information to the potential buyer. That does affect the property value. Mr. Oquist stated there is the same situation with an M-2 zoning where it would truly be nonconforming because of the 1.5 acre requirement. Mr. Harris stated that was true except when they were built. These were built in the 1960's and 1970's. The 1973 code was not officially recodified until, he thought, 1983. There were public hearings held in 1981. For some reason in 1983, they dropped the phrase that was in the previous codes that alluded to plats and subdivisions prior to the existing code. He did not know why it was dropped in the M-2. In the M-1, it is still there. It has not changed in the residentials. That basically stayed all the same. He did not know why they are singling out M-2. MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:48 P.M. Ms. Modig asked, regarding the information on the alley easements for those four properties that are nonconforming, how much difference would there be in the square footage if the alley were vacated. Ms. Dacy stated it would bring them closer. Rhodes Lock and Glass is just shy of 9,000 square feet. If the alley were vacated, it could add approximately another 640 square feet which gets him closer. The two single family residences get a little closer. The floor covering owner is just shy of 8,000 square feet . At a minimum, the City does not want to continue to encourage the continuation of the nonconformance. If those were to be redeveloped at some point in time, you would have the owner of Rhodes Lock and Glass or the floor covering people expanding into that area which would be certainly something that is possible. It takes time and money. Mr. Harris asked if it was possible to take the whole 16 feet of the alley and add it to the southerly properties making a deal with the people to the north. It could make those four lots more viable, and it would help solve Mr. Rhode's problem. Ms. Dacy stated it was possible. What would happen is that when an alley is vacated, half goes to one and half goes to the other. The owners would have to deed the northerly feet to the owners to the south. Based on what has been happening in other areas, either this block develops and one or two buildings face 77th Avenue or the westerly two and the easterly two join together and one faces Elm and one faces Beech. The City wants to head toward consistent development that fits a pattern in the neighborhood. 10,000 square feet was to accommodate a number of owners in the area. They must determine just how low they will go and still have a reasonable industrial development. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 19 Ms. Modig asked what the lot sizes were in neighboring cities. Ms. Dacy stated they had surveyed other first ring communities. St. Louis Park and Golden Valley had situations that were most applicable to Fridley where they had pre-existing industrial areas. Golden Valley did not have a minimum lot size requirement as she recalled. St. Louis Park was beginning to evaluate their industrial area for redevelopment. Other communities are all over the board on the nonconforming lot issue. Some communities are very strict about making that, if over 50% is destroyed or damaged, then they will not permit reconstruction. Other communities will allow it if it is a lot of record and meets 80% of the lot area. Here, 80% of 1.5 acres would result in the same issue in this subdivision. They looked at the aerial, how the subdivision was developed, and tried to do what made sense. Mr. Rhode asked that if one of those houses went up for sale, can they be sold and be a house again. Is that grandfathered in? Ms. Dacy stated, yes. Mr. Rhode stated that if it is damaged to over 50%, then the use would have to change. Ms. Dacy stated this was correct. MnTInN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend approval of Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #98-02, by the City of Fridley, to create a new zoning district for industrial lot below one and a half acres in size, with special attention in the Onaway Addition located north of 79th Avenue, east of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, west of University Avenue, and south of 85th Avenue. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MnTInN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to modify the minimum lot area in the M- 2, Heavy Industrial, district from 1.5 acres to 62,000 square feet. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Modig stated staff had received a comment about including heavy industrial in the title of the district. Does the Planning Commission need to take action on that request? Ms. Dacy stated staff will take care of that change. The City Council will consider this request on September 14. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 20 . � • - ►7��if3�tiri73�1��[i ► _ ► � elill�Il�[ - : ► Nl��� ►� _ : . . �73 : Mr. Koegler stated, in May and June 1998, they held two vision sessions. They got a lot of good information out of the sessions which will be used in various portions of the comprehensive plan. One of the intentions behind that effort was to lay the foundation and to help establish the course that the comprehensive plan will take. As part of that, they asked participants a variety of questions. A summation of the responses was included in the agenda packet. Basically they asked what they wanted the community to become in the future and what the strengths would be. The challenge coming out of that is to distill that down into series of statements that they can use as a kind of guidepost as they go through the comprehensive planning process. Mr. Koegler stated that from a planning perspective, what they heard from the participants was that this is the vision, this is the direction they want to go in the planning process for the future of Fridley over the next 10 to 20 years. Furthermore, they refined that with what they term a set of guiding principles which are a bit more specific. The intention is for this to become a comparison tool not only as they go through the planning process but also after the comprehensive plan is adopted. Tonight, the Planning Commission has an opportunity to provide input on the direction that this is going. Mr. Koegler stated this becomes some of the information which they will refer to during the planning process. With gathering input from the community, they have tried to broaden that as much as possible. To the degree that it is possible, they try to make the input portion of the comprehensive plan a grass roots effort. How do they get people involved? He thought the vision process was an excellent start. The intent was to take this further to come up with what they think is an appropriate statement of vision and an appropriate set of principles to help guide this effort. It is their intention to take that out and test that in the community at large, that is to provide people a chance to comment. How to do that or the mechanics will be worked out. Perhaps there will be a supplement in the Fridley Focus or some other vehicle to literally get this into every household in the City, offer people a chance to look at this information, have some background on what it is all about, and have them provide some feedback. That is where they are going with this. Their intention was to put this in front of the Planning Commission and the City Council for input on the direction, perhaps change a few things, and then go to a broader public basis for input. Mr. Koegler stated the statements in the memo are ones that were drafted based upon the information gathered at the meetings. This is their first attempt to translate. The intent is to be a target to be shot at, modified as appropriate, so they can make this part of what ultimately will become the comprehensive plan. Mr. Koegler stated they obtained a broad base of concepts and ideas as well as some specifics and point of views. At this beginning point, it is important that the words they are putting on paper capture the essence of what they heard. The vision statements whether it is a corporate vision or something else is one of those flowery statements. This has some PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 21 elements to this. They also heard some things that are represented that people thought they have a unique city for a variety of reasons. There are tremendous strengths in the community. He tried to extract some of that in how the community evolved, importance of the neighborhoods, importance of the schools, the fact that the City has a wealth of opportunity, are some of the kinds of ideas they tried to touch on in this broad based statement. Mr. Koegler stated the subsequent pages contain guiding principles which are more specific. They heard people talk about housing, diversity, employment, environment, etc. They heard the nature center mentioned over and over again. They have tried to spread out that fabric of the community so that knowledge can be applied to other parts of the City. The river is another example where people felt this was a hidden resource. Many of the people who pass through the City have no idea, unless they look at a map or cross a bridge, that Fridley borders the Mississippi River. Mr. Koegler stated that as they get comments on these items, they will go back and modify. Mr. Kuechle stated he attended the meetings. As you look at the group, the demographics of those who attended those meetings tended to in his age group and older. It seems as if there is a problem in trying to involve the younger generation in these things. What ideas did Mr. Koegler have about that? Mr. Koegler stated that when they got done with the first session and saw the composition of the group, he would agree that one group demographically was over represented. They can only do their best effort. They try to get people there and they succeed at various levels. When they left that night, there was not a younger segment. Ms. Dacy tried to get younger participants. It is difficult. Overall, the participation level was outstanding. They had a lot of very good critical thinkers who came to that meeting who were not afraid to give their views. Regardless of the demographics of the group who provided the ideas, the ideas were very sound and across the board. Now they are trying to go one step further and put this out in front of everyone. The attempt is to get this in front of everyone so they have a chance to provide comment. As far as participation, this does not end as far as the comprehensive planning process. There will be opportunities for people to look at things and participate. It would probably come as no surprise to the Commission that, as people see this, people react to things. That will pull in some different segments of the community. Ms. Modig stated she received a long phone call for a survey that asked a lot of these questions. She is interested so she was willing to participate. Was that a part of this process? Ms. Dacy stated the City did a number of surveys. There was a business survey and a community survey once every two years. That was one that took place this past fall. They do have those results and they did share that with Mr. Koegler. The City Council uses the information from those surveys. The City Council takes that information and asks the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 22 department heads to come up with their goals and objectives with the survey results in mind. Ms. Modig stated this information includes that information very well, but in order to involve the normal citizen it needs to be shorter. Mr. Koegler stated these were companion efforts. They did see the results of the survey, and that made them more aware of the issues of the community. Ms. Savage asked if they would be mailing out the memorandum. Mr. Koegler stated, no. It is their intention to put together some kind of a flyer or supplement with a brief explanation of what this is all about - here is what the community has told us is important, here is the direction we are going, etc. - and ask for some comment. The vision statement seen here will be in that piece of correspondence. Ms. Savage asked if they were planning to mail out some things. Mr. Koegler stated the mechanics of that is yet to be determined. The intent is to saturate the community. They are aware there are some mailing restrictions with any certain list they might take. Mr. Oquist asked how close the City was to sending out the quarterly newsletter. Ms. Dacy stated the timing of that edition is that they wrote a summary of what happened at the meeting. The deadline for their articles was the last week in August. They did include a summary and what to expect. Ms. Modig asked if the City has a website. Ms. Dacy stated the website is under construction. It should be online in the next few months. Ms. Modig stated, if they have some responses coming in, they could incorporate that into their address so people can respond via that medium also. They might then have an opportunity to get comments from the younger generation. Mr. Sielaff stated he would like to get a sense of what ultimately ends up being a principle or a guiding principle. Is it just two or three people coming up with the same idea or an idea coming up several times? Mr. Koegler stated the statements came out of ideas expressed many times over during the two sessions. Ultimately, what goes into these is at the discretion of the Planning Commission and City Council. These are represented on a broad base coming out of these sessions. It is also supported by some of the survey information. Ultimately, as they PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 23 continue with the comprehensive plan, they will have more opportunities. They will be putting together plans and concepts that come back to these principles. They heard, for example, people say they were looking for some kind of commercial focus. They had some fun with that. How do you bring vitality and commerce to create a place where you want to go? He thought they would have an opportunity to test some of those thoughts to see if they are on track. He felt strongly that these come from a body of support. Mr. Sielaff stated the next step is to go out to the entire community and get their input. Do they have a plan to determine what comes back from that process? Will that end up being a principle? Mr. Koegler stated it is random. They have to wait and see what they get back. They do not expect a tremendous response rate. A certain portion of the population will take an interest. They will collect all that and come back. Then the Planning Commission will have an opportunity to look at it and determine if this makes sense. That becomes a collective decision. The intent is to represent a consensus. Ms. Savage asked if there will be another Planning meeting on this to hear the public response. Mr. Koegler stated yes. That very likely would be integrated with the opening portions of the comprehensive planning discussions so they would combine those two agenda items. Mr. Sielaff stated he did not see the role of the Commission at this point. Once this information comes back, they would do something at that time when the initial process is finished. Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission is a advisory commission to the City Council. Anything on the comprehensive plan will be brought to the Planning Commission's attention. Mr. Koegler will be going to the City Council meeting on September 14. Staff wanted to discuss this with the Planning Commission. Also, the more they talk about the more they get the word out. They wanted to start with the Planning Commission to see if they are on the right track. For those who attended the vision meeting, is what Mr. Koegler put together accurate? Did he interpret the comments correctly and/or in a way in which the Commission feels comfortable? Ms. Sielaff stated he attended one of the meetings. This is broad enough to incorporate everything. Ms. Savage agreed. She did not see anything that was not a part of what was generally talked about. She thought they had done a good job. Mr. Koegler stated they would continue to keep the Planning Commission involved as they continue with this process. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 24 � ■ 11 \ � ■ \ • •�i 11 � \ ■ � \ �. : � �'11 \ � ■�: r 11 \ MnTInN by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes of the Emergency Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting of June 26, 1998. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. : : . ►� ► `�i7�r:l�e�irelil. . • • : . �IiI.yI�[ :. : � • ' ►� ► � . • : � ►� ► MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the minutes of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting of August 6, 1998. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. • : . ►I ► • . � � ••: ► :•►►I ► � � ' r :. \ G •1111 •\ 11 \ Mr. Sielaff stated these minutes had not yet been approved by the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission. MnTInN by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to receive the minutes of the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting of August 10, 1998. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ci . : : yl�l��� Mr. Hickok stated provided an update on City Council actions. Upon request, he provided an update on the status of the Lake Pointe development. �� • :►►I ► MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE SEPTEMBER 2, 1998, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:35 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PAGE 25 Respectfully submitted, Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary