12/02/1998 - 00003428CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 1998
• • •G� G
Chairperson Savage called the December 2, 1998, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 0:00 p. m.
:• _
Members Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba,
Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig,
Members Absent: Larry Kuechle
Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Paul Bolin, Planning Assistant
Mervin Herrmann, 278 Mercury Drive
Dr. Paul Westby
Peter & Myrtle Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive
���:• � • � ►�: : ••; - �►► ► •►�►� •► ►� ►
MnTInN by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to approve the September 2, 1998,
Planning Commission minutes as written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
► :•� •► • '
Mr. Hickok introduced Mr. Paul Bolin, Planning Assistant, who joined the staff at the
City of Fridley early in November. Mr. Bolin came from the Arrowhead Regional
Planning Commission.
1. PlBL1C; HEARINC�� C;nNSIDERATInN nF SPEC;IAL 11SE PERMIT, SP #98-17�
BY WENC;K ASSnC;IATES, INC; :
Per Section 205.09.02.C.(7) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to allow a chiropractic
clinic in an R-3 District on Lot 9, Auditors Subdivision No. 88, South 150 feet,
front and rear, of Lot 9, subject to easement described in Document #25150 filed
June 15, 1957, generally located at 6431 Highway 65.
MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public
hearing notice and to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► � 11 : : " : ' !
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:34 P.M.
Mr. Bolin stated the petitioner is requesting a special use permit to allow a chiropractic
clinic in a high density residential area. Hospitals and clinics are permitted in this area
as a special use. The site is located at 6431 Highway 65.
Mr. Bolin stated the zoning code allows hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, convalescent
and homes for the elderly with a special use permit in the R-3 districts. This property is
currently zoned R-3, General Multiple Units. Zoning to the north and east of the
subject parcel is R-1, Single Family; to the south is R-2, Two Family; to the west is R-1,
Single Family, as well as single family zoning across Highway 65.
Mr. Bolin stated staff recommends approval of the special use permit. Clinics are a
permitted special use in the R-3 zoning district. The request seems to comply with the
requirements for the special use permit. The proposed parking facilities are more than
adequate for the demand that will be generated by patients and employees of the
chiropractic clinic. In addition, Dr. Westby has met with City staff to ensure that parking
will be adequate, there will be acceptable fire protection, there will be curbing around
the parking lot, and the landscaping will be adequate. Dr. Westby has also agreed to a
stipulation required by the Fire Department to extend the frontage road that exists
along Highway 65 in order to provide adequate fire protection to his property. By
extending the frontage road, the fire trucks will be able to access the property very
easily.
Mr. Bolin stated that in addition to the landscaping and parking areas, Dr. Westby has
tried to minimize the number of existing trees that will be taken down, and the holding
area for the storm water run-off has been incorporated into the landscape plan for the
property. With easy access to Highway 65, the small amount of traffic generated by
this use should not impact the surrounding neighbors. The property is proposed to be
fenced and screened with landscaping so as to not affect neighborhood properties.
The proposed use will not place an unreasonable demand on existing public utilities or
services. To date, City staff has received no comments from surrounding property
owners concerning this special use for the property.
Mr. Bolin stated staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following
stipulations:
1. The property owner extend and pave the frontage road along the west side of
the property while maintaining the width and style of the existing paved portion
of the frontage road.
2. The property owner must install an asphalt driveway connecting the parking lot
to the extended frontage road, in order to provide necessary room for adequate
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► � 11 : : " : ' !
fire protection.
3. Parking lot must be lined with a concrete curb.
4. A total of 17 parking spaces, including one handicap space, shall be provided
on-site.
5. Final drainage, landscaping, and irrigation plans shall be submitted with building
permit application.
6. Petitioner shall execute a storm pond maintenance agreement, requiring
petitioner to maintain the storm pond.
7. Petitioner shall obtain a variance for driveway (extension of frontage road)
allowing the setback from the right-of-way to be 0 feet rather than the required
20 feet.
Ms. Savage asked if the variance request would be going to the Appeals Commission,
and if Planning Commission approval was subject to approval of the variance.
Mr. Bolin stated, yes, the variance would go to the Appeals Commission on December
23 and was subject to approval by that Commission.
Mr. Kondrick asked Mr. Bolin to explain the last stipulation.
Mr. Bolin stated the frontage road comes in from the south and turns out to Highway 65
right on the corner. The Fire Department has asked that Dr. Westby extend the
frontage about 3/4 of the way across his property in order for fire trucks to get in and
turn around. Currently, the right-of-way is the property line.
Dr. Westby stated he has no problems with the stipulations, and he had nothing to add
to the staff report. He has looked for property for a long time. He believes this property
is an excellent piece of property for a clinic. He is looking forward to being there.
Mr. Kondrick asked the petitioner when they would start business there.
Dr. Westby stated that depends on the weather. Hopefully, they will be done by March
or April. If the weather continues to be mild, perhaps sooner.
MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
!►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► � 11: : ": '� •
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:48 P.M.
Mr. Kondrick stated the request looks reasonable. He thought it would be okay and the
neighbors made no comments.
MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend approval of Special
Use Permit, SP # 98-17, by Wenck Associates, Inc., to allow a chiropractic clinic in an
R-3 District on Lot 9, Auditors Subdivision No. 88, South 150 feet, front and rear, of Lot
9, subject to easement described in Document 25150 filed June 15, 1957, generally
located at 6431 Highway 65, with the following stipulations:
1. The property owner extend and pave the frontage road along the west side of
the property while maintaining the width and style of the existing paved portion
of the frontage road.
2. The property owner must install an asphalt driveway connecting the parking lot
to the extended frontage road, in order to provide necessary room for adequate
fire protection.
3. Parking lot must be lined with a concrete curb.
4. A total of 17 parking spaces, including one handicap space, shall be provided
on-site.
5. Final drainage, landscaping, and irrigation plans shall be submitted with building
permit application.
6. Petitioner shall execute a storm pond maintenance agreement, requiring
petitioner to maintain the storm pond.
7. Petitioner shall obtain a variance for driveway (extension of frontage road)
allowing the setback from the right-of-way to be 0 feet rather than the required
20 feet.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Bolin stated the City Council will consider this request on January 4, 1999.
2. PlBL1C; HEARINC�� C;nNSIDERATInN nF ZnNINC� TEXT AMENDMENT, ZTA
#98-03, BY THE C;ITY nF FRIDLEY:
To amend the zoning code to allow daycare centers in churches, schools, or
other places of worship having a lot area of at least 12,000 square feet, located
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► � 11 : : " : ' !
on a local access street, in an R-1 zoning district, as a special use with specific
performance standards, per Section 205.07.01.C.(4) of the zoning code.
MnTInN by Ms. Modig, 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 7:45 P.M.
Mr. Bolin stated the request for the zoning text amendment comes from City staff to
allow day care centers in churches, schools, other places of worship, and other
buildings having a lot area of at least 12,000 square feet, located on a local access
street in an R-1 zoning district as a special use with specific performance standards per
Section 205.07.03.C.(4) of the zoning code. In addition to the current performance
standards identified in the code for day care centers, additional performance standards
are recommended in order to have a day care center on a local access street. These
standards include a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet, adequate area for a
playground, adequate safe vehicle access areas to drop off/pick up children, and
compliance with County and State standards regulating day care centers.
Mr. Bolin stated several churches have asked the City to investigate the possibility of
amending the zoning ordinance to permit them to operate a day care center on a site
when it abuts a local access street. Current regulations for day care centers in
churches, schools and other buildings in residential zones require them to be located
on arterial and collector streets as a special use but not on local access streets.
Currently day care facilities are permitted as a home occupation in the R-1 through R-4
districts, as a special use in the R-1 through R-4 districts provided they are located in
churches, schools or other buildings located on an arterial or collector street, but they
are permitted as a special use in the C-1, Commercial district. They are a permitted
use in the C-2 and C-3 districts. They are a special use in the CR-1 office district and a
special use in the M-1 and M-2 manufacturing districts. In addition to the churches
contacting City staff to investigate the possibility of changing the zoning text, the
Chamber of Commerce also brought this to the attention of City staff as well.
Mr. Bolin stated that in September, the City conducted a survey regarding day care
centers in churches. The survey was mailed to 254 households within 350 feet of all
churches within the City of Fridley. A total of 96 surveys were returned or about 38%.
Out of the surveys returned, 72% indicated they would support a zoning change to
allow day care centers in churches located on a local access street; 12% indicated they
have had difficulty finding day care in the City of Fridley; and nearly 38% indicated that
if a day care center was allowed on local access streets, they would have some
concerns about increased traffic, traffic speed, possible parking problems, and quality
and professional care of the children.
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► � 11 : : " : ' ! .
Mr. Bolin stated staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment with a
change in wording. Section 205.07.01.C.(4) would read, "Day Care Centers provided
that they are to be located in churches, schools, places of worship, or other buildings."
This leaves out the reference to whether it is an arterial, collector and/or local street.
The amendment would add, (d) The minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet.
Mr. Sielaff suggested they take out "churches" and just say "places of worship".
Mr. Bolin stated the statement would then read, "Day Care Centers provided that they
are to be located in places of worship, schools, or other buildings."
Mr. Bolin stated that upon further review, staff would like to recommend that the
Planning Commission amend the following sections in the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zoning
districts for consistency. The R-2 Zoning District Section 205.08,01.C.(4), the R-3
Zoning District Section 205.09.01.C.(3), and the R-4 Zoning District Section
20510.01.C.(4) would be amended to read, "Day Care Centers provided that they are to
be located in places or worship, schools, and other buildings." In each of the above,
item (d) would be added to read, "The minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet."
Mr. Kondrick asked what criteria is used to determine what is an adequate area?
Mr. Bolin stated that as each place of worship, school and/or other building desires to
open a day care center, they will have to come in and go through the special use
process. There are minimum requirements already in place for day cares based on the
size of the center as to what they need to have for playground equipment, play areas,
etc. Staff will look at this on a case-by-case basis.
Ms. Modig stated licensed day centers in homes are only allowed to have a certain
number of children of certain ages, etc. Does this address home day care centers?
How would staff know how many children these centers are going to have?
Mr. Bolin stated this does not pertain to home day care centers. For those located in
places of worship, schools or other buildings, staff would look at the State licensing
guidelines which allow so many children per day care worker. There are also square
footage requirements.
Ms. Modig stated she understood each case would be considered individually. The
amount of playground area required is determined by how many children, their ages,
etc. She thought this would vary. Some of the day cares centers will only take children
of certain ages. Kids in a church day care center would likely be of different ages. Is
that addressed somewhere? She is concerned that the City is going to set limits about
playground area, and then have to come back and get another special use permit to
change it because they want to have more children or children of different ages, etc.
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► � 11 : : " : ' !
Mr. Bolin stated that as far as that goes, they must go by the State guidelines.
Mr. Sielaff asked if day cares needed to be licensed by the State. The amendment
does not say anything about having a license.
Ms. Savage stated the Commission did not have the full text so they do not know what
is in the code already. Are these other requirements - adequate playground area,
adequate safe vehicle access, etc. - already in the text they are amending?
Mr. Bolin reviewed the complete text for the Planning Commission. "Day Care Centers
provided they are to be located in churches, schools or other buildings located on an
arterial or collector street. At least one off street parking space shall be provided for
each 100 square feet of useful day care floor area. Reduction of parking spaces may
be allowed when under provisional space required for parking stalls. Due to the
particular age of the proposed use or other considerations this would be an
unnecessary hardship, adequate open space shall be provided to satisfy the total
number of required parking spaces. When the provisions for required parking spaces
is inadequate, the City may require additional off street parking.
Mr. Sielaff asked if these were the requirements of the State.
Mr. Bolin stated these are the City requirements. The City only addresses the parking
needs.
Ms. Savage stated this does not specifically say that they are to comply with County
and State standards recommended for day care centers. Is that somewhere else or
does that not need to be in there?
Mr. Hickok stated staff's intent is to echo the State licensing requirements. Anything
over a home day care of a certain standard needs to be licensed by the State. Any day
care facility for the number of students they have in a church or school must be
licensed by the State. If they modify it, they would to have a modified license by the
State and would need to come to the City to have the City sign off on that modification
to their original license. There is a system of checks and balances between the State
licensing for day care and what the city is suggesting here. If the Commission feels it
is necessary to do so, they could support a stipulation that says they would abide by all
State and County licensing guidelines as well.
Ms. Savage stated it seemed to her that they should have notice of that.
Mr. Sielaff asked if they could just say that they need to be licensed.
Mr. Oquist asked if the State requires playground facilities as part of the license.
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► � 11 : : " : ' ! :
Mr. Hickok stated, yes. They have requirements for play facilities based on the number
of students, for certain muscle activities, and indoor and outdoor activities. The City
would echo the State requirements.
Mr. Sielaff stated the term, Aother buildings@, is pretty broad.
Mr. Hickok stated that as staff did their analysis, there are some situations where we
have buildings in an R-1 district that may be candidates for day care facilities that are,
in some cases, existing nonconforming. One example is on Highway 65 that is an
office building that has adequate road access but by zoning is in the R-1 district. If a
day care was interested in locating in that facility, they currently would not be allowed
unless we added the words other buildings. There are rare opportunities for day cares
in those type of situations. Staff's intent was not to exclude those but to provide that as
an opportunity also.
Mr. Sielaff asked that in the State licensing, are there some restrictions as to what sort
of buildings can have day care centers?
Mr. Hickok stated the safety of the children are considered in every licensure of a
facility. The State looks at the facility, the roads kids would be expected to cross to get
to the playground, etc. The City recently had an experience with a modification of an
industrial zoning to allow a day cares in some of the multi-tenant industrial buildings.
The way some of the industrial complexes are set up, they could have a day care
facility for the workers in the complex. Staff talked to the State about separating the
uses in that building and the need for safety precautions.
Ms. Savage asked if the concerns addressed by the people in the surveys had been
addressed.
Mr. Hickok stated staff had done some research on the traffic generation.
Mr. Bolin stated staff did some checking through the Institute of Transportation
Engineers. Every few years they come out with a book on trip generations by different
uses. For day care centers, the a.m. peak hour traffic by employees was 7 trips per
employee. In the afternoon peak hour, this drops to 6.5 trips per employee. Those are
the best numbers staff can get as far as traffic generation. They seem to be fairly
accurate.
Mr. Herrmann stated his concern would be the church across the road. That has an
access to the north side and another access that goes from the south to the slip on to
University Avenue. He would guess that 9 cars out of 10 cars, except Sundays or
church services, come from the north down through there to use that slip on drive. That
would be dangerous. The church does have gates on the south side. If the gates were
closed, he would have no objection to a day care center. Someone mentioned arterial
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► � 11 : : • •: • � •
roads. He asked what Mercury Drive would be considered.
Mr. Bolin stated Mercury Drive would be considered a local access street.
Mr. Herrmann asked if this would require them to close the access to that street.
Mr. Hickok stated the modification of the code would take off the requirement that they
be on a collector or arterial street and say that day care centers could be in a
neighborhood church. This would not by the way it is worded say that they would need
to close off that gate. If the church were interested in having a cay care center, they
would be required to go through the process and, at that time, staff would evaluate that
particular building. If staff felt it necessary, if they agreed, and if the operation could
function properly by doing that, that would be a suggestions and perhaps a stipulation
of that special use permit.
Mr. Herrmann stated that with outdoor play areas, there are cars going between the
church house and the church itself. There are not as many cars in the other areas.
This means traffic on all four sides of the building.
Mr. Kondrick stated they would look at all of these things separately and look at each
case individually.
Mr. Herrmann stated that when saying Aother buildings@, he could see some
stipulation so the Planning Commission and City Council would have to pass on that.
He did not think that was the idea of this. He thought it was Aother buildings@, that
would fit. He has no objection to having it if they want it. The church put those gates in
when they had a minister with small children. He has now moved.
Mr. Sielaff asked if the recommendation is that they have a special use permit.
Mr Hickok stated, yes, the modification is a provision to the existing language in the
special use permit section of the code for the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts. If an
application was made for a special use permit, the neighborhood would be notified.
Mr. Eisenzimmer stated they have a church, Michael Servetus, at the end of their
street. When they extended the street, it was mentioned they would never have a day
care center in that church. He felt that if they were going to have day care centers in
churches, then the churches should pay taxes on those properties. He does not
believe that they should be supporting day care centers in churches, and plow streets
for them so they can have cars go in and out to deliver and pick up the children. The
street he lives on is a dead end street. It would increase the traffic tremendously if they
had a day care center at that church. He did not think they could stand the extra traffic.
Right now, the church has caused an increase in traffic on Saturdays and Sundays.
They said just Saturdays and Sundays to start out with, and now it is every day that
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► � 11 : : " : ' ! 1
they have something going on during the day and at night. He did not feel the City
should let churches have day care centers at any point. Let this be provided by the
people who are doing it now, instead of letting the churches do it who are non-profit
organizations and who do not pay taxes. He can see other buildings that have a large
enough area to build these centers but he cannot see it in the churches. The churches
are making a profit and not paying taxes for it. The taxpayers have to hold up their
end. He did not think it was fair. He asked how many churches had applied for these
special use permits.
Mr. Hickok stated, to date, the church who has expressed the most interest is the Valley
View Christian Church north of I-694 along Matterhorn Drive. The Rainbow Day Care
currently exists in the Fridley United Methodist Church on Mississippi Street. They
joined in the discussion with the Chamber of Commerce and the Valley View Christian
Church as they approached the City. The City has had discussion with those two
churches. Beyond that, staff did not hear back from any other churches expressing an
interest.
Mr. Eisenzimmer stated he thought the church is just taking money away from people
who want to make a living at it. The churches charge for the day care. If they are
going do it for free, that is fine. If they are not going to provide this free, he cannot see
where they should have a day care center. He feels that if they are going to make
money with it, they should pay taxes on the buildings they are using for the day care
center. The citizens pay for the maintenance of the streets. He thought they should
look into this more carefully before rezoning things, or the city will have them wanting
bigger buildings too.
Ms. Savage stated there currently is a provision that churches can have day care
centers as long as they are in residential areas and as long as it is on an arterial or
collector street.
Mr. Eisenzimmer stated it now must be on a street that is accessible by more than one
way. This church is on a one-way street. The cars come down there pretty fast. If they
are late for work, they drive down there pretty fast and they don't care who lives in the
area. They are having problems with traffic just from the church activities now and he
does not want additional traffic.
MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:19 P.M.
Mr. Kondrick stated he had no problem with the request. He would tie this in with the
State regulations to make sure they are on the right track.
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► � 11 : : " : ' !
Mr. Oquist stated it is still a special use in the ordinance which means each church has
to be evaluated on its merits so there will be the opportunity to discuss it.
Mr. Saba stated any safety requirements should also be enforced.
Ms. Modig stated she had no problem with the amendment since each request will be
reviewed on an individual basis.
Mr. Sielaff stated he wanted to review the modifications. These include that the day
care centers have to be State licensed day care centers; the centers can be located in
places of worship, schools or other buildings; and the minimum size is 12,000 square
feet.
Ms. Savage stated she would like to include that the day care centers must comply
with County and State standards.
Mr. Sielaff stated he thought they just have to see they have to be licensed. They must
comply with the County and State standards in order to receive a license.
MnTInN by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of Zoning
Text Amendment, ZTA #98-03, by the City of Fridley to amend the zoning code to allow
day care centers in places of worship, schools, or other buildings; having a lot area of
at least 12,000 square feet; and licensed; in the R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 zoning districts
as a special use with specific performance standards.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Bolin stated the City Council would consider this request on January 4, 1999.
; �■■�� ■ •�• � \��� �� ■ ' �\\ \ �1111 �\
11 \
MnTInN by Mr.Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the 1999 calendar for the
Planning Commission meetings as follows:
January 6 July 7
January 20 July 21
February 3 August 4
February 17 August 18
March 3 September 1
March 17 September 15
April 7 October 6
April 21 October 20
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► � 11 : : " : ' !
May 5 November 3
May 19 November 17
June 2 December 1
June 16 December 15
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
� � ■ 11 \ � ■ � • • � i � " � � 11 11 � \
11 \
MnTInN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the August
26, 1998, Appeals Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
� ■ 11 \ � ■ ' 11 C � • •�� � ■ ■ �
� 11 11 � \ 11 \
MnTInN by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the minutes of the
September 9, 1998, Appeals Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
• C ■ 11 \ � ■ ' 11 C � •�� � ■ ■ �
� 11 11 � \ 11 \
MnTInN by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes of the
September 23, 1998, Appeals Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
: . ►� ► • . � ..; -•:. :- : : ' •►
• ►� ►� • ► ►� ►
MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the August
3, 1998, Parks & Recreation Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► � 11 : : " : ' !
i � ■ 11 \ � ■ ' 11C � � •�i '��► �.
. . � � \ � 11 11 � \ 11 \
MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the
September 14, 1998, Parks & Recreation Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
� � ■ 11 \ � ■ ' 11C C •�i ■ 11�\
: � : �1111 �\ 11 \
MnTInN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes of the
September 11, 1998, Human Resources Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
� : . ►� ► • . • •: : ••; . ►�_► : • :
• ►� ►� • ► ►� ►
MnTInN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the minutes of the October
1, 1998, Human Resources Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
� ■ 11 \ � ■ \� 11C C •�� ■ 11_\
G • G •1111 •► 11 ►
MnTInN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes of the
November 12, 1998, Human Resources Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
� ■ 11 \ � ■ ' 11 C � •�i ■ � \ �.
: � �'11 \ � ■�: 11 \
MnTInN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the
September 3, 1998, Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
!►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► � 11: : ": '� •
: ■ 11 \ � ■ � �C : •�: ■� \ :.
G � •'11 ► ' ■•G 11 ►
MnTInN by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the minutes of the October 1,
1998, Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
� � ■ 11 \ � ■ ' 11 C C • � i \ C � \ 11 \ �
� � :. \ : �1111 �\ 11 \
MnTInN by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the
September 15, 1998, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
: . ►� ► • . • •: : � ••: ► :•►►� ► _
� � :. ► : • ►� ►� • ► ►� ►
MnTInN by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes of the
October 20, 1998, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
• . :: ►
Mr.Hickok provided an update on current planning issues.
�� • :►►I ►
MnTInN by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to adjourn the meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE DECEMBER 2, 1998, PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:42 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► � 11 : : " : ' !
Lavonn Cooper
Recording Secretary