PL 12/03/1975 - 30432�
�
;
I�j
PLANNItVG COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
CITY OF FRIDLEY
DECEMBER 3, 1975
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
PAGE 1
Members Present: Scott, Bergman, Harris, Peterson, Drigans, Langenfeld
Members Absent: None -
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
Lee Ann Sporre, Member of �nvironmental Quality Commissio�
Irene Maertens, League of Wom�n Uoters Observer
APPROVE PLANNING COMP�ISSION MINUTES: NOVEMBER 19, 1975
t�r. Lanyenfeld said that on page 3 of these minutes, the s�cond p«ragraph
where he was asking about the Human Resources meeting wi�h Jo Ann Rice o� the
Fridley Sun, he wasn't asking how she looked, so he thought �he work appearance
shau'I� be changed to attendance. �
Mr. Scatt said that on Page 7, third paragraph, he didn't �now i���hat
paragraph said what he meant. He meant that the Planning Commission mem�er
could vote h�s position at t member Commission but should vote his Co�mission's
position at Lhe Planning Comrnission meeting. Mr. Boardman said that a vote on
the Planning Commission level should be �he Commissioner's conviction on an issu�,
and there rnay be things brought out at the Planning Commission leycl that could
cliange how a Commissioner may want �io vote.
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission minu�es
of the November 19, 1975 meeting be approved with the appropriate changes: Upon
a voice vote, a11 vofing aye, the motion carried unanimously. "
RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: NOVEMBER 26, 1975
MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive
the Appeals Commission minutes of the November 26, Z975 meeting.
Mr. Drigans said that as the Planning Commission hadn't received these
minutes until the meeting tonight, he would explain the action taken by the
Appeais �ommission.
Mr� Drigans said there were three items on the agenda for this meeting.
3wo oi ti�em were for Aaco Masonry, Inc., and he would just explain the variance
requests because these buildings were on the Planning Commission agenda. They
have dealt with this type of request before, so there was nothing differen�.
He said the first reques� was a little bit different. He sa�� -�iut Target
had requested a height increase in their sign on their proper�cv. �le said this
was an �8,000 improvement, and they wer� goinq �u du s�me additional upgrading
of tiieir exits and egresses. The Appeals C�c���+,nis�io�� had some trouble with this
request and tabled it. The trouble w-�:� t�,;, the sign would not be relocated,
merely the height of the sign ra��.,�ri �.;-; additional 20 feet. With the additional
height, there will st�il bP �,�;�+�!;;em of visual sighting of the sign when you
are r•omi ng North on C:� :: �•a ��" ver�ue s because of surroundi ng bui 1 di ngs . When
Planning Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 2
you are approaching 53rd Avenue, it was very di�ficult until you are almost
on top of 53rd, to identify the sign. The Cemmission felt that they would like �-
Target and th� sign consultant to look for some type of alternative, possibly a% �
relocation of the sign. We felt that the hardship oi being located at a low
elevation, was a hardship, however Targei has been thQre for over 8 years, and
as most people'knew where 3arget was locat�d, and how to get there, that this
compensated for this hardship. Mr. Drigans said that they didn't feel that
rai�ir,g the sign would be the proper solution �ecause they were more concerned
ab�ut Central Avenue than any o�her direction� He said that with the addition
of the n�af bank in this area, and any other development that could come in, they.
wouldn't be able to see this sign even if it was raised twenty feet. He said
that Target wouldn't be able to do any thing until Spring when the ground thawed
out. He said the plan was just to add to the height of the sign, and to increase
the foo�ing, so there was no problem with the Appeals Commission tablirig �his item.
h1r. Langenfeld said he noticed on the motion to table this item �hat the
A�peals �ommission members ��ere asked �t� go out and look at this sign. What were
they going t� be looking for'� (�r. urigans said they were going to drive all four
directiQns to see, from their own point of view, how much a 20 foet increase would
add to tt�� visibility of the sign. He s�4a� he had already done ihis himself, and
he said it would increase the �isibility bu� there would s�ill be a problem as
you ca!r� c1C��rn Central Aver�ue. H� said the sign can�pany was also goin� to look into
the s;t��at,ion. Mr. Drigans said the question was that even though there �vas a
hardship because of the location of this business at a low eleva�ion, vaould it
enhance �'r�e community to alloti�u a va.riance that would allow this sign 'c� be increased
by 20 feet9.and would this solve the problem? This was what we had i:o s�tudy.
UPON a*.�oice voteo a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. `�
RECEIVE AD�INISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT FOR 77G0 ELM STREET N.E. Bl' PACO, h1AS0�JRY, IfVC.
RECEIVE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT FOR 7790 ELM STREET N.E. BY PACO, MASONRY, TNC.
Chairman Harris said these two reports could be handled togethere
Mr. Jerry Paschke was present.to represent Paco Masonry, Inc.
MOTION by Scott, seconded b� Peterson, that the Planning Commission receiv�
the administrative staff re�iorts for 7760 and 7790 E1m Street N.E. by Paco 1�Iasonry',
Fnc. Upon a voice vote, �cot,tP•Bergman, Peterson, Drigans, Langenfeld voting aye,
Harris, abstaining, the motion carried.
ADMINISTRATIVE STAF� REPORT .
776t1 Elm S�reet N. E, by Paco t��sonry, Inc.
DESCRIPTION�
This p - is f�r° �6�e cor�s�ruci:ion af a 102' x 99.5`, 1O,1Q� squar�:
foo� speculative t�uz ` lc�c�ted at 7760 Elm Sf:ree� N.E. The pp°oper�.y
is zon�d M-�2 (hea��y �nciustr7 area.$). The t�uilr�ing will be cor�s�ru��ted r�
of a cambination of cc�ncre+�e �lc► � n� l�r�ck to matr.h mucF� c►f tt��e ►�ew
construc;fi�ion that is b�ing d��e�loped ° t6�� area. ThE �iroposed s��r�uciure
pweseni;ly conforms tc� the zoning code5 �xc o►° t��e rear yard set:buck
and th� sideya►9d setbackm Thes� excep��-ior�s have recor��mer�ded �Fo►~
a�nroval �y the Appeal s Comr�i s� i or� o The pa r ki r�g fo� �: ° s s�ructure i s
Plann�ng Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Paqe 3
being pravided by a join� parking lat ta be shared by 77�0 Elm Street.
1'I�is parking lot me��4 th� r�c�uir�m�.�nts fov� k�u�:l�� str�uctur�es, accordir�g
:�;�,` �o tiie zar�ing cod�e
ENGINEERING: �
�
1'�,.
�
Th� dra�nage on the praperty wil� be taward Flm Str•eet. Th�re is na
ant•icip�ted engineering prablems.
ENV I RONP�IENT :
No anticipated P�a�mful environnler�al �ffeci;s.. Buildinc� should be
benefici�l �o totdl ir��t°ovemer�t af the Onavray area.
STT PULATI OI�S :
le Compl�te larrd�caping as per of�ice capy dated 12/2/75.
2. Writ�en agreem�nt to be
property owner showing
fov° building.
subm�tted t� �he City by the adjacen�
appraval ef �hc zer••o��lot lirie se�.�ack
3e Submi� le��er to the City s�atir�g that�property �v.ill not be
soid witho�t joint parking agreement witY� 7790 Eltri Street N.E.
AD,'�INISTRATIVE STAFF ftEPURT
7790 Elm Street N.E. - by Paco Masonry, Inc.
DESCRIPTION;
This permit is for the construction of a 99:5' by 51', 5,074 square
foot speculative building located at 7790 Elm Street N.E. The property
is zoned M-2 (�eavy industrial a`reas). The building will be constructed
of a combination of concrete block and brick to match much of the new
construction tha�C is being deve7oped in the area. The pr�posed structure
presently confor�n� to the zoning code, except for ihe r•ear� yard set�ack
and the sideyard sei�aCkd These excepti�ns have been recorrim�nded far�
approval by the Appeals Commissi�n� The parkinc� for this structure is
6eing pr°ovided by a join� pa►�king lot to be shared by 776U Elm Street.
This parking 1ot, mEets thz requirEmer�ts -Far both str�ctures according
to the zoning caae.
ENGINEERING: �
The drainage on the property will be toward Clm Street and 78th �tvenue
N.E. There is no anticipated engineering prablerr�s.
ENV I RONPRENT :
Na anticipated harmful envir°onniental effECts, Building should be.
• a benefit to tata;l-improv?mcn� af the Onaway a�°ea.
Planninq Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 4
STIPULATIONS:
1. Complete landscaping as per office copy dated 12/2/75.
2. Submit letter to the City stating that property will not be sold
4rithout joint parki�g agreemen� with 7a60 Elm Street N.E.
Mr. Drigans said the variances the 8oard of Appeals had recommended
f�r approval was to reduce the rear yar� se�back from 25 feet �0 7 1/2 feet
and the side yard se�back from 20 fee� to 0�eet for 7760 Elm Street N.E.
The reason we allowed the.rear yard setback was because the alley had been
vacated. The zero feet was in concert with what has been allowed in this
area when there has been an adjoining buil�ing that could be built, wall to
wall. The stipulation was that an agreemen� from the adjacent property owner
on the zero side yard setback be'acquired-and'a�copy•submitted.to the City.
Mr. Drigans said that �:h� variance c.• 7790 Eli7 Stree� N.E. Yvas �o
reduce the rear yard setback from 25 �eet to 7 1/2 feet and reduce �he side
yard setback on a corner lot from 35 -Fee� to 28 feet. He said the reason
for the 28 feet was to keep tr�is building in line with a building acrass �he
street.
Mr. Boardman said the City had no�, received that agreement as yet.
Mr. Drigans said �hat with these iwo buildings, this area is close to
being comnletely developed.
Mr. Boardman said that these two buildings would have a joint parking lat
and we need a letter st�ting'tha.t the prc�Y�erty would not be'sold withou� a
joint parking agreement between 7760 and 779+J Elm Street N.E. Mr. Paschke
ask�d Mr. Boardman to prepare the necessary agreements and he would come in
and sign them.
Mr. Harris said that if i�e voted on these proposals there would be
conflict of interest, so that ��as why he was abstaining.
MOTION by Scoti, seconded by Drigans, �hat the Planning Commission concur
with the administrative staff reports and the recorrunendation from the Appeals
Commission for 7760 and 7790 E1m Street N.E. by Paco Masonry, Inc.
�
,�
�
M•r. Bergman said he was concerned about the percentage of land area used
for the building and parking lots. He wondered if this left much green area.
Mr. Drigans said the code ailows 40% coverage by the building, and if these
buildings didn't meet that requiremen�t �hey wou?d have had to get a variance
on this, so these proposed buildings do meet the lot �overage requirements of the
code.
ilpon a voice vote, Scatt, Bergman, Peterson, Drigans, Langenfeld voting aye,
Harris abstaining, the motion carried.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: RE UEST FOR A SPECSA� iJSE PERMIT, SP #75-27, BY MARGARET
---�----- -----
MERRELL: 7o a11ow a secor�d accessory �uilding, a 28' x 32' detached garage �
on Lots 9 and 10, B1ock 3, P1yn���uth A��di�tion, per Fridley City Code, Secti� 1
�05.051, (2,A), the sarne being 483� 2 1/2 Street N.E.
,�Y�
Plannina Commission Meetina - December 3. 1975
Paqe 5
MOTION by Scott, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission open
the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-27, by Margaret
"'�,.•� Merrell. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public
� Hearing open at 8:03 P.M.
Mr. & Mrs Lloyd Merrell were presen.t.
Mr, Boardman said this lot was 80 feet by 130 feet and was located at
4832 2 1/2 Street N.E. He said the existing house was 24' x 32' and an existing
storage shed 12' x 20'. He said that this request was to allow the construction
of a 32' x 28' detached gar•age. He said that it was his understanding that this
garage would be used to store a�ruck. He said that Mr. Merrell was in the siding
business and when his truck was stored outside, this siding did get bent by the
children in the neighborhood. Mr. �oardman said that if there were no complaints
from the neighbors on the construction of this second accessory building, the
staff saw no problem with the request. He said the City did not have a verified
survey of this lot. He said the setback requirement for a detached garage was
3' and a!ithout a sur��ey, ta�e request that �hey s�ay 1 1/2 times the ��stance from
the property line. They will meet this r�quirement by constructing tl�is garage
4 1/2 fee� from the property line.
Mr. Peterson asked if all the neighbors had been notified of this requesi?
Mr. Boa�dman said that everyone in Block 3 and the µ�est side of Block 2 ha�
been notified of this request. There were no neighbors at this meeting.
Mr. Merrell said he proposed to have two 9 foot doors on this garage.
He said he was self employed and he sometimes has material on his truck for
�, the next job. He said the planks were 24' long and �this was the reason he needed
such a large garage. Mr. Harris as.ked him if there would be any utitities in
this garage. Mr. Merrell said just electricity. •
Mr. Drigans said he had some reservations about the size of the garage.
He said the garage would be 896 square feet, and the house was only 768 square
feet. He said the residential garage would be larger than the residential house.
He wondered if this was in keeping with the neighborhood.
Mr. Langenfeld asked if this garage would be used primarily for his truck
and storage for his business? Mr. Merrell said it would be used to park his
truck. He said that when he finished one job and was ready to go to another job,
he did stop at the warehouse to load his truck. He said that this material would
be stored on his truck for not more than two days. He intended to park two cars
in this garage also. Mr. La�ngenfeld said then there wouldn't be any siding stored
on this property for re-sale. Mr. Merrell said he was a sub-contractor and did
not sell the jobs.
Mr. Harris asked Mr. Merrell what was the purpose of the storage shed. Mr.
Merrell said they used it for the storage of the lawn mower, �ne snowmobiles,
and some material he left over from siding jobso .
Mrs. Merrell presented an agreement signed by Georgia Kramer of 4820
2 1/2 Street, the neighbor closest to this proposed construction, which�. stated
that she had no objection to the constructiooi of a 28' x 32' garage on this
n property without the required certificate of survey that the City ordinarily
�� requires for all new construction.
�
Planning Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Paqe 6
MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Petersan, that the Planning Commission
receive the agreement signed by Georgia Kramer of 5820 2 1/2 Street N.E.
and witnessed by Clayton L. Edstrom, Jr. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously. �i
Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Merrell if he had discussed this proposal with /
the Robinette's and the Kim residence? Mr. Merrell said he had discussed this �
with the Robinette's and they had no objection. He said the Kim's were from
Korea and only one of them spoke English, and then not too well. H� said he '
explained what he wanted to do, but he didn't know if they understood it or not.
Mr. Driga�s said he was concerned that the garage would be used for the
storage of material, and the truck would still be sitting outside.
Mr. Bergman 5aid he was concerned abou� the ratio of the house and garage.
He was concerned about what �xtent this garage would be from the residential
nature of this area. He said that this leaned towards a commercial use on this
property.
Mr. Bergman asked if there was anyth�ng in the City Code regulating the
size of an accessory building t� the primary building on a lot? Mr. Boardman
said the only requirement v�as that any second accessory building over 240 square
�oot required a Special Use Permit. He said that it this wasn't �he second
accessory building, there would be nothing in the code tio prohibi�'�h� construc��on
of ±his garage after a building permit had been obtained.
Mre Drigans asked what wo�ld happen if he attached this garage to the
storage shed? Mra Boardman said then he could construc� the garag� without a
Speci��l Use Permi� a.lso, because it wo�ld be all one accessory building, or if �
he wan�c�d to tear down the shed, he waulan'� need a Special llse Pern�ii, for this
yara�e either.
��1r. Scott asked if we had no con�rol of the size of structur�es an residep�tiai
lots? P9r. Board�nan said that the Code requirement was that only 25% l�ot coverage
was allowed, 5ut the house, storage shed, and proposed g�rage were still under that
25% requirement.
Mr. Peterson wondered if it was within the jurisdictian of the Planning
Commission to question the size of a bu�ldir�g in relation to a primary structure.
He said they could t^ecommend approval or dEn�al of the Special Use Permit, but
to debate that recommendation based on ihe size of a man's house he felt was out
of the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Drigans said he wou]d concur with that, and let the City Council deai
with i:i�at aspect of this propesal.
Mra Scott said this was � q�estion that should be addressed by �he Community
Development Commissions as to whether there should be some controls on the size
of accessory buildings, or if this would infringe on individual freedom.
Mr. Harris asked if this garage would be higher than the house? Mr. Merrell
s�id it wou7dn't be. I�e said he had about $5,000 worth of equipment on his
�truck and he was anxiuus to stor�e it inside a structure. Mr. liarris asked if
he could attach this garage f.� the house? Mr. Merrell said he didn't want �a �"'�,
do this because he couldn't get into the back yard with his boat and campe•r• then� !
�.=" He said that where lie prvposed to loca�e this garage, he would have 17 feet
r -
Planning Commission Meetinq - December 3, 1975 Page 7
between the corner of the house and the corner of the garage for this purpose.
,a � Mr. Bergman said that from the Community Development standpoint he was�
J`''S disturbed 6y a trend towards the square footage�of what could be a cocnmercial
use being larger than the primary use, which was residential. He said he felt
this was in conflict with the residential �tmosphere. He said this Special Use
Permit request was based on hardship, and he �vould like to�know aahat this hardship
was based upon. � �
Mr. Merrell said he did�not�operate out of his house. He said the only
material he would have on the premises was wha� he had on his truck for the next
job. Mr. Bergman said the alternative to this would be to rent a garage in a
commercial area to park this truck. Mr. Merrell said he would have to buy another
car to drive back and forth to this truck.
Mr. Langenfeld said that besides the size of the garage, and the commercial
flavor that has been part nf this discussion, what was there to�stop any other
tradesman from putting a't'r�p�� in.their garage. He was sure there were electricians
and plum�ers vaho had material�s on �heir trucks. He said he '�`elt t{�at �.he request
for a Special Use Permit for a second accessory building was for use as a garaye
and not for the storage of materials, except the materials thai were on the
truck. He though� there could be a stipula�Lion that the only storage of material
was on the truck and not in the garage. Mre Harris asked how you would en�Force
that? Would _vou have someone run doam there every day t� see if �the material
was on the icruck or piled in the garage?
Mr. Harris said that after Mr. Merre7l parked the truck and two cars in
�,..1 this garage, he would still have four feet on each end. He didn't �ihink this
. garage had to be as large as they were requesting. Mr. Merrell ask�d if any
� garage was ever too large?
Mr. Drigans said he had to go back to Mr. Peterson's statement and
agree that there was nothing in the code that said you couldn't build an
accessory building larger than the primary building.
MOTION by Drigan.s, seconded b� Peterson, that the P,Zanning Commission close
the Public Hearing on a request for a Specia.Z Use Permit, SP #75-27, by Margaret
Merrel�. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris dec.Zared the Public
Hearing closed at 8:29 P.M.
��Ir. Harris said as far as he could recollect, there weren't any com�nercial
enterprises in this particular area.. �1ost of this commercial development was
on Main Street.
Mr. Scott said he would like to absiain from voting on this rec�uest b�cause
of a personal conflict he had in protecting the rights of a property owner which
may be in conflict with harmony of the �ommunity and our zoning ordinances, and
he didn't think there �vas sufficient information in this area, to make a judgement
on it.
Mr. Peterson said he respected Mr. Scott's viewpoints, but on the other
. hand it would seem to him that we have taken steps to protect ��he adjoining
property owner's by sending them a notice of this Public �i�aring. There was
n no one here to protest this request, and the'neighbor'closest to the proposed
�� garage has signed an agreement that they have no objection to this request.
. Mr. Scott said he agreed with �ha�, but his conflict t��as that we might be setting
a precedence.
planning Commission Meeting - December 3y 1975 Page 8
Mr. Peterson said that i� our discussion we have determined that this
propos.ed garage was not in canflict with an,y of our codes. We have all agreed
that if this was a smaller bu;lding, we wouldn't have even questioned it. j.�,r'
MOTION by Pete.rson, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commzssion �
recommend to Council approvai nf a request f.or a Speczal Use Permit, SP #75-27,
by Mar_qaz•et Merrel?, to a11ow a second accessory building, a 28' x 32' detached
garage, on Lots 9 and 10, B1ock 3, PZymouth Addition, per Fridley City Code. '
Sectio� 205.051, (2,A!, �he same being 4832 2 1/2 Street N.E. '- •• ••� .
Mr. Bergman said he felt this garage was in violation of the code because
our code says that a second accessory building shoul� only be 240 square feet,
and �his was 896 squar� feet. P�r. Peterson said that if he correctly read the
code, it was because there was a secondary building on this lot that was 240
square feet was ihe reason a Special Use Permit was needed for the garage, not
because the proposed garage vras in violation of any code. Mr. Boardman said this
was correct. Mr. Boardman said the reason a Special Use Permit was s�c up for
sec��d accessor�y buildings over 240 square feet was so they would have a handle
on it if there were a�y special problems with thas second accessory building.
Mr. Harris said he thought the siz� of the structure was not in keeping
with the residential atmosphere a� ihe neighborhood. He didn't think the
petiti��ier had to have this large a garage, and tha� was why he was not_in.favor
this request. He said he woul� t�ave voted in favor of the request i� the garaue
wasn't so large. He said he could sympath�ze with the peti-i,ioner wanting to get
an expensive piece of machinery in out of ihe �veather and to protect his invest- �,
ment. Mr. Bergman sa�d he agreed ►�rith INr. Harris.
Mre Merrell said there was a 24' x 32' garage at 4839 2 1/2 Street N.E.
which was only 4' smaller than the garage he �vas �r•oposing to build and he
thought this garage would upgrade the area and not downgrade the neighborhood.
P�r. Harris asked if this rieighhor only had the one accessory building? Mr.
Merrell said he did. Mr. F�arris said what you were asking for was 1;136 square
fee�t of accessory buildings on your lot. He already had 240 square feet and
the �roposed garage was 896 square feet.
Mr. Scott said he thought Mr. Merrell should 6e comm�nded for trying to
get this truck off of thE street.
Mr. Langenfelo asked if the storage shed was anchored. Mr. Merrell said it
was and he had also jus� put new alumirium siding on it. P1r. Langenfeld said this
storage shed would no� then be easily removed.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, Drigans and Peterson voting aye, Bergman and Narris voting
nay, and Scot� and Langenfeld abstaining, the MOTION FAILED.
MOTION hy Drigans, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission send the
request �vr a Special. Use Perml�, SP #75-27, by Margare� Merrell, to a11ow a sec�nc�
accessory buildir�g, a 28' x 32' detached yarage, on Lots 9 and 10, Block 3, Plymauth
Addition, per Frs3ley Ci�y Code, Section 205.051, (2,A), the same being 4832 2 1/2
Street N.F., �n to Council withoUt a recommendation. Upon a voice vote, a1.I vo�i�'"�
ay�, �he ma�tian carried unanimously. � `
Chairman Harris excused P�r. Drigans from the meeting at 8:45 because
ti�
Planning Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 9 _
he had to reiurn to work.
Mr. Merrell asked if this proposed garage hadn't been the second accessory
building, would he need a Special Use Pern�it? Mr. Boardman said no,he wouldn't.
Mr. Merrell said he had a friend on 46th Avenue who had a garage and had gotten
a permit from �he City to have a storage shed wi�hout going through the Special
Use Permit process.
Mr. Harris said that if Mr. Merrell already had a garage, then he could have
the storage shed, but because he already had.the st�rage shed, the garage had to
be considered as the second=accessory building.
Mr. Merrell fel� he would be better to move ` storage shed off his prape��y
until he had the garage built and then come in a� �t a special use permit for
his storage shed. He said it sounded like it w� ���e easier to get a special
use permit for the storage shed than the garag�.
Mr. Har�ris said he should argue this out wi:_�, the City Council because they
had the final say on this request. Mr. Merrell said he would rather have had
a recomrr�endatian for approval by the Planning Commission than no recommendatiori.
Mr. Harris said he was close to having a recommendation for denial, so he should
be happy that it went the way it did. .
Mr. Langenfeld said the reason he abstained was because while he was in
favor of the Special Use request being approved for a garage, the size of the
garage kept him from voting for approval.
Mr. Scott said he didn't want Mr. Merrell �o leave this meeting feeling
that the Planning Commission didn't have concern for his rights as a proper�ty
owner, �s it was just.th� size of this garage which made them have rese�vations
in considering this request. He said•that if there hadn't been this co.ncern,
they would have vo�ed for denial, instead of leaving the decision up io the City
Council.
MOTION by Scott, seconded by Bergman, that the rules be suspended �or
the purpose of making a motion to direct the Community Development Commission
to address itself to this type of probZem and then make a recommendation to the
Planning Commission on how to handle such problems.
,<..R
Mr. �oardman said this could be handled when the Communi�y Development
Commission reviewEd the zaning code. Mr. Harris felt that this would be too
f��^ inta the future, and they could just review this aspect of i� at this time.
UP�N A V�ICE V�TE, aZ1 voti:�g aye, the motion carried unanimously;
2. PUBLIC HEARING: RE?ONING REQUE::'. ZOA #75-06, BY U(�ION OIL COMPANY: To
rezone part of Lot 1, Auditor'� bdivision No. 25, from C-1S local shoppi�g
areas) to C-2 (general shoppinc, .:�eas) to make zoning consistent with use as
a service station, the same be���.; 5695 Hackmann Avenue N.E.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQJEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-28, BY UNION OIL
�`1 COMPANY: To permif. the continuation of an existing service station, per
�� Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, B(3,E�, on part of Lot l, Auditor's
Subdivision No. ?_5, the same being 5695 Nackmann Avenue N.E.
Planning Commission Mee�ing - December 3, 1975- Page 10
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission open
the Public Hearings on a rezoninq request, ZOA #75-06, and a request for a
Special Use Perntit, SP #75-28, by Union Oil Company. Upon a voice vote, a11
votir.g aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearings open at 9:03 P.M.
Mr. Glenn Hubbard, representing Union Oil Company, Mr. & Mrs.
Hedlund, who own the property just West of this proposal, and Mr.
of 5747 Central Avenue N.E. we��e present at the meeting.
Lewis
Glenn Nelson
�
Mr. Boardman said that Urion Oil Gompany first asked for rezoning and
a Special Use Permit back in 1972, in order to bring their property into
compliance ��rith the City Code. At that time, we were having a revitilization
of the in�ersection of Hackmann Avenue, Central Avenue, and Highway #65, and
the plans had not been finalized. The rezoning wasn't denied, but Union Oil
was asked to urait until the road plan had been established. Now, we do have
approval for the preliminary p1ans for this intersection, as shown in the agenda.
The final plans ar°e now being drawn up by the State Highway Department. Therefore,
Union Oil Cu�npany has again submitted their request for rezoning and a Special
Use Permit.
Mr. Boardman said the present zoning was C-1S (local shopping areas) and
the request was �o change this to C-2 zoning (general business areas), which
►vould make the use of the pro�erty for a service station consistent with our
zoning code. Our present cade requires a service station to be in C-2 zoning
with a Special Use Permit. A service station was not an allowed use in C-1S
zoning.
�
Mr. Boardman said the staff felt they would go along with the rezoning
request and approval of the Special Use Permit. We do need some additional
easements for Hackmann Avenue. He said that this should be one of the stipula�ions
of the rezoning: Mr. Harris asked ho� much of an easement was needed? Mr.
Boardman said the plans vaere in the process of being drawn up, but he believed
they needed a 10' easement en the South side of the property on Hackmann Av�nue.
Mr. Harris ask�d Mr. Glenn Hubbard how much this easement would affect the operation
of the service station. Mr. Hubbard said it depended upon how much�boulevard
was required. He said there was a 10' boul�vard there now, and with this ease-
ment, it would bring it up to the present inside curb. He said that Union Oil
Company wasn't too concerned about that naw, because they did intend to rebuild
this s�ation and move it to �he South on this property within the next 18 months.
He said that any hardship they had, tihey could live with until that time. He
said they needed a minimum of 14' from the island to the curb, and he didn't know
if they would have tha�.
Mr. Hubbard said they had been operating under the present zoning since
1954. He said they had been in the correct zoning until the zoning code was
changed in 1969. He said with the change in the street, they would have to
relocate�the building so they would have better access for this station.
Mr< Boardman said �hat as the final plans were just being drawn up for
the in�ersection, they were not sure as to the actual amount of easement needed.
He said tf��ey may only h�ve to take an easement on the�'Northwest corner oi the
property. He said they had of°iginally ihought they would need a 10' easement ^
across the entire front of the property. Mr. Habbard said that if they could ,,
have the 14' on a temporary basis, he didn't think they would have any problem.
yrs. Hedlund asked if when the station was r�loCat�d, would this be any�
Planninq Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 11
'�� closer to the house at 930 Hackmann Avenue than it was at the �resent time. Mr.
Hubbard said it wouldn't be. They would be relocating �urther South on the lo�
� but it would be in line w.ith the present location.
Mr. Glenn Nelson said that Union �il Company had been a good n.eighbor,
but he was concerned that any further commericalization oi this area ��ould
change the residential atmosphere of the area. Mr. Hubbard said tha� at
the time of their previous request, there was'a loop back plan, and they had
intended that a 7-11 Store would be going in on their vacant property, but there
were no plans for this property�at this time.
Mr. Louis Hedlund said that they felt that Union Oil Company had been
a good neighbor. He said his prime concern was what type of business could
be located in C-2 zoning, if Union Oi1 ever decided to go out of �business at
this location. Mr. Boardman checked the zoning code and determined that there
were a lot of similar uses that were allow�d in both zonin�s. The'only things
that were allowed in C-2 zoning and not C-;S were bars and taverns, commercial
recreation, restauran�s9 excluding "Drive-Ins", �otels and motels, hospitals,
, clinics, nursing homes, convalescent homes, h�omes for ihe elderly, vocational
trade schools, labora�ories, medical, dental and optical, and har�less and
inoffensive l�boratories accessory to permitted uses, in same building, and
theatres, lodges, assembly halls, and au�ditoriums were allowed in both zonings
but in C-2 zoning they could sea� more than 30U �eople. Mr. 6oardman said another
difference in the zonings were that there were no uses allowed in C-1S zoning
with a Special Use Permit, while there were uses allowed in C-2 zoning with a
� Special Use Permi�.
Mr. Hedlund said tha� they felt that what'ever Union Oil Company wanted
to do on this property, they were in favor of i�, but they wanted ;the�r to be
abl�e to do that without rezoning. Mr. Harris said �the problem.was t}�:�t they
couldn't do what they wanted ta do, without rezoning.
Mr. Peterson said it bothered him that a company came into Fridley and
invested i�'s money in good faith and has paid,taxes for many years, then
we changed our zoning cade, and they have not b,-��n able to expand their business
or have the same due process as other busines;�c�,�in Fridley, and he felt this
was an inequity. He said they have wanted to u��rade this property since 1972
and they are still waiting, �
Mrs. Hedlund asked if there was any control the Plar�ning Commission could
�'ut on this property if it was zoned C-2 as to �b,ihat type of business could be
located on this property. Mr. Scott said they�could not control any use allowed
in C-2 zoning anymore than they could contrQl any C-1S use allot�>ed, if this
property was not rezoned and Union Oil Company sold the property.
�.:�Ir. Harris asked'how large the property waso-that Union Oil Company was
asking to have rezoned. Mr. Boardman said he thought it was approximately
20,000 square feet. Mr. Peterson said the size of the property wouTd preclude
a lot of the uses allowed in this zoning because it wouldn't be large enough
for a beer tavern or trade school, hotel or motel or some of the other uses
allowed because after they had the building up, they wouldn't have room to meet
the parking requirements. He said the size was best suited to a service
station use.
�
Planninq Commission Mee�ing - December 3, 1975 Page 12
MOTION by Scott, seconded hy Pet�rson, that the Planning Commission close
the Public Hearing_on rezoning r�quest, ZOA #75-06, by Union Oi1 Company. Upon l,
a voice vote, a11-voting aye, Cha.irman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed-�
at 9:46 P.M. . .. � . � - " -•
r10TTON by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission
recommend to Council approval cf the rezoning request, ZOA #75-06, by Union
Oi1 Campany, fo rezone from C-1S (local sliopping areas) to C-2 (general business
areas), . part of Lot 1, Auditor`s Subdivision No. 25, to make zoning consistent
with use as a service station, the same being 5695 Haclunann Avenue N.E., with
the stipulation that they provide the necessar� easement for highway purposes.
Mr. Scott said he was goina ta vote against this motion because he felt
it was inconsistent with the zoning of the surrounding area and was a classic
example of spo� rezoning, whicr� effec�s ma.y have set•ious�long ranye implications
that we are totally at prese�it tc,tally unaware. He felt there w��r� adequaice
means for the operator, or owrier, to impro�v�E the property as it !�. ;� presently
zoned, and �inhert�nt business opportunitie� caused by such improvc :�'c, and because
of �he opposition o� the surrounding prop::rty.owners.
UPON A Voice vote, Bergman, Harris, Petersoai, Langenfeld voting aye, 5cott nay,
the motion carried.
�
`,
Mv�. Hedlund said he didn't understand a�hat a Special Use Permit was.
Mr. Boardman expiaine�+ it to him. He explained that if the Special Use Permit
was granted to all�w the operation of a service station on this property, that
the Special Use would only be in effect as long as the property had that use.
If the use changed, and it was something e7se that requ�red a Special Use �1
Permii, there wauld be another Public Hear�ng, as on this Special Use.
Mr. Hedlund said he didn't want it �to appear that he was in opposition
io'anything that Unian "76" vaanted to do. He said they had been a c�ood neighbor
and they have always ke�t their promises. He was just worried about what. ���arpose
this property could be used for if Union Oil Company sold 'che property. ;r.
Scott said this was why he vcted agains�t the rezoning, He felt the service
station could upgrade their property without rezoning. Mr. Boardman said you
have to take into consideration how much mon�y a campany would want to spend
on a non-conforming use, because if the struc�ure was damaged more than 50% by
wind or fire, they couldn't rebuilt this property and would be forced to sell
it, and that was placing a real hardship on this property owner.
Chairman Harris said ihe rezoning of this praperty had already been disposed
of, and they were considering the Special Lse Permi�.
Mv�. Langenfeld said there ;-JEre 2� praper•ty owners notified of thESe requests
and only tv�ro property odvners appeared at this meeting, so he didn't feel there
was much opposition to these requests. He sa�d that the people who spoke on
these reques-ts were not opposed to Unian Oil Company either updating their present
structure, �r rebuilding, se i;here was no ��otal disagreemeizt: Mr. Narris said �
that with the easement that would be needed for higfiway purposes, we would be
making part of this b��siness inoperable, so that would be an additional hardship
on this property owner, if he couldn't rebaild the station. r,.,,
Mr. Harris said we could stipulate that �his Sp�cial Use Permit be reviewed; '
annually, plus there be anol:her review at the time they request a building
permit fQr a new building.
�, ��
�
f''1
I �
Planning Commission P�eeting - December 3, 1975 Paqe 13
Mr. Nelson said his only objection was to spot rezoning, but he trusted
Union Oil Company ta do what they said they would do.
Mr. Peterson said he thought it was,commendable that Union "76" has the
type oi' relationship with their neighbors that they would come to a public
hearing and state that they trust Union "76" and Mr. Glenn Hubbard to do what
Mr. Hubbard said they would do. He said he wanted to thank Mr. Hubbard for
being that good a neighbor in our community.
Mr. Scott said that even though he voted against the rezoning, he had
no objection to this service station operating on this property. Ne said that
for this reason he �vould be in favor of granting the Special Use Permit.
Mr. Boardman asked Mr. Hubbard if he had any objection to the City putting
a two year time limit on this service station-either bein� upgraded or rebuil�.
Mr. Hubbard said he had no objection. He said the rebuilding of �his station
was not in this year's budget, but with th� two year timetable, he was sure it
would be rebuilt in that time.
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Scott, that the PZanning Commission close
the Public Hearing on a requesf .for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-28, by Union
O.�I Compan�. Upon a voice vote, aI1 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the
Pub.Zic Hear.ing closed at 10:15 P.M.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Corrmiission
recommend to Council approval of a Special Use Permii, SP #75-28, by Union Oi1
Company, to permit the continuation of an existing service station, per Fridler�
City Code, Section 205.OS.Z, B(3,E), or. part of Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25,
the same Leing 5G95 Hackmann Avenue N.E., with the fol.Zowing stipulations:
1. This Special Use Permit be subject to annua.Z review, with emphasis
on their housekeepirig, etc. -
2. That within �wo years the �'ity wou.Zd Iike to have this operation
updated.
3. When a building permit was x�a�c�ev�C�d for either major remodeling oi`
this service station or to construct a new service station, �his Special
Use Permit be reviewed.
UPON a voice vote, a11 voting aae, the motion carried unanimousZy.
Chairman Harris declared a recess at 10:20 P.M, and re�:onvened the
Planning Commission meeting at 10:35 P.M.
4. RECOMMENDATTON ON PROPCSED FtULES AND REGULATIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA
ENVI�ONMENTF�L QUALITY COUNCIL
�'70TION by Langenfeld, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission receive
the memo from Jerrold Boardman to Dick Sobiech, dated November 25, 1975. Upon
a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carrie�' unanimously.
�-: � --
Planni'ng Cor�nission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Paqe 14'
MEMO T0:
h1EP�i0 FROP�I:
. ,
MEMO DATC:
Di ck Sobi ech, Publ i c IJorE;s Di rector�
Jerrold L. Eoardman, City Planner
November 25, 1975
RE: Minneso�a Environmental Quality Council's Proposed Rules and
Regul ai:i ons
The i�li nnesota Envi ronmenta i Qua 1 i �y Cvunc�i 1 vras estahl i shed by th�
State Leg�i sl ai;urE un��ler the t�9i nnesota Enu� rar��;r,nnial Fol i cy Act of 1973.
The purpose of vrhich ti�:�s promo�io:�s ec�uca�:ion and protectior of the
Sta�;e's environmental charactet°. Undet° this act, the Nfinr�esota Environmental
Quality Council ti�ras qi���n the authority to e�tablish rules and regulations
tc, c�rry out the intent of the 11c'c. Nou�e��er, because of the extent �,� tne
responsi bi 1 i ties, they qui cl:ly .ti�:ere bogged do���n. F�r thi s reason they i�aci
a consultant s'cudy the mattei� ard suggest a possiblc solu�ion to the prabl�rz.
1'he cens�l ta� 1: re;?or�t s�_tgnpsted the de�en�`r�1 i�a1:i on c�f' respor�si bi 1 i��.y c?f
enforcing the �,ct to the Sta�:�, County an�! iocal units of gover��ment t'r!a�
are more direc�iy related t� the control of environmental concerns.� G'ec4use
of thi s move, ihey fei t that �;he �nvi ronmrn�cai i ssues vao�i d be braug4� �. up
early in '�he ��r�it process ins�:ead of af�e�° most of the c�ama.ge had already
been done. � �
' The Fri dl ey Ci ty Counci 1, cn January 20, 1975 , vated� io ��rork i�,�'; tl� �he
P1int�esota. Environinental Quality Council �r seict'in� up an ordinance th:�t
coul d be used to car�°y c�ut the i ntent of the h1i nn2sota �nvi ronr�enta 1 f'ol i cy
Aci. Th�se ruies and rerulatio�s are pri;�!a���ly thP �f��ori;s �:o ��.�i:� :;�� �;he
t�linnes�.��La Envi ronmental Qual i �y Counci 1�nd ��ri 11 se;; i:�c: grou���i �-rar4: for
local ordinances. • .
'a In going through tr�e prop�se� rules und regu�a':.io�1s, �`here at�e a fci�a
areas that should be carefully iooked at in order to mz�ke this a n��re e�-Fer.tive
working document. � � � .
1, I s��rong;y ur�ge tha�: the. �1i nneso%a �nvi r.onmen�:al Qual i �y Caunci 1
look for a more �fi'ective frai�e�-�ork s�!hich arou�ld allow for long ��ange
environmen�al �lanning to determine overall effec�s o-f deve?c�pm�:n'i on
the environment. The rules and regulat�ions that are be�ny �:ror��ed may
be necessary for s�:op gap efforts, ho+;revEr, they �may in tli�� 1or7g ruii be
detrimen�t�l to ti��e total ciet��laprn�nt ar a ccmmunity. For ti�is �'�as�n
steps �nust be tak��� �� or the �:atal env � ronreental pl a��ni ng ar+ci «c � j ust hi �-
and miss undef° the �roposed rules.
Real i �i ng �hai �n�;i 1 envi •r��°+�nental pl a:;,�i i1y can bG c1CCG�1?�� 'i �4;�d, t�e
efforts to cor�trol envi�°on�;1Ct1�1� 211+.�i,�glr�r���pi��S iDUS� G0111� L�y way a� som�^
establ i she� rul e, an� �voul d�e more ef 1'ecti vely hand � ed a�: j'h�i: � evel
of age��cy responsi bl e i'or t.he i� suanr.e of permi ts .
�
��
�
2. Under �hese r«�! es anc! r�gu� ati �►�s t i,i�� pubi i c agenci �� a�^c� rc��;�a�►si b i c,
for the prep�rationeT' �Li�ie Cnv�ironmental uocu�nen�s irll"i;fl r�o m.�ns nf c�m�T��i��..
sation to ccveti° -�he cos�� oi� th� nreFar��xi.:iun of sucfi c�ocumen�s, �,,,
'3. t3nder ME(;�t' �lf� ia) �, t.li�� t�tir.nesc�i:a Cnviranm����ta� 4,aa1�1:,, c:{��.�nc'il m�}� � �
SU{���C'"tnilt t.��n m��nri:�t.ur�,� c�+:�:c�r,ries �n;^ an Er�vii°uninrr�t:�tl P,sses�mc,rt L�3o��'r.•_
shee�t wi thou � a �au(�l i c I�cat,i i�y pr�occss . 1�1 �f�uu ��I�i 1;}u`.;l i c��^ar�i ng Nroce�� �
��
, � �
Planning Comrnission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 15
is more bulky in this instance, I feel that it is a necessary part in
main�aining the con�rol at the local level. �
4. Under MEQC 26 (c) 6, �:he time periods are too broad and inconsistent.
Tfiey should all,o►,r for straight time periods s�;ch as �"30 days after the
draft EIS is filled", and "... for 20 days to allow....".
5. t4EQC 27 (a) &(b) are unclear as to whatconsti�:utes a majar aci;ion
of m��°e tllltl l�c�l signifiicance. This would riake local decisions ico
o�n to challenge through �the Minnesota Environmental Quality Cou«cii.
I i�eel tr�at thi s i s a very important area of conc;ern and shaul d be be ���ter
qualified.
6. i��EQC 27 (c} 2, t°equires a jud��rrent on the cumu�a�;ive c��'ect ��
related or future actions. This could give very f�lse rea��r�as uue ��
unwart°af�ted speculation and should rel�te itself m�re to �in�uced eff�ci;s
as a res�alt of �Lhis or other simultaneous actions.
7. i�iEQC 30 (h) 39 the anticipated environmental ef�ects sr�o�ld be se
s�tated so as not •to burden those persons or groups of �persons u�rith c'etailed,
co�n1ex and/or expert testimony, but should be able to be Lransmitted to
the f�9EQC i�n laymans ter�ms. This should be spelled ou� mare clearly.
8� NEQC 30 (e), there is no time limit �laced o�� the �ettin� of tl�e
public hearing on a challenge for a negative declaratian noti�e...
� � 9, f�;�QC 35 (a), no time limit is set for no�cice of permit application. •
� As previousl�y stated, I feel �hat this type of action based on the Minn�s�ta
Envii°onm��ntal Quality Council rules and regulations should only be a temporary
action an� steps should be taken to encourage environr�i�ntal planning as soon
as possiblc. � .
r"'�
/ ,
JLB/de
Mr. Scott said he would like to publicly acknowledge the tremendous job
that Mr. Boardman has again done on this recommendation. He has adequately
expressed the concerns of the Human Resources Commission in his report to
Mr. Sobiech, especially parac�raph 7, which was what we were specially concerned
about. He also expressed tf�e same genera�l conformation in other paragraphs of
thi5 document. The Human Resources Commission felt that the spirit and intent
of this memo was certainly c�nsistent with the idea of promoting human concerns
as was expressed by our mc�tion to ti�e Planniny Commission after our review of
this document.
Mr. Langenfeld said that due to a lack of a quorum, the.Fridley Environmental
Quality Commission had not had a meeting on this proposal. He said that he then
asked each member of the Commission to make their own review and to make their
recommendations in writing. He said he hadn't received any written recommendations,
but he had taliced to Brothei° Sullivan on the telephone, and had �taken notes of
that conversation. He said the concerns expressed by Brother Sullivan were that
he wasn't an expert on terminology, but he felt the proposed rules and regulations
were very ihorough. However, un�er MEQC 22, P��!rpose (b), in relation to the
informa�ion document to justify an action etc., he fe1t that this was a guide
��
Planning Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 16
only, and that the entire context�of these impact s�atement rules were lacking
force. He could not see any means of enforcing it. He has also i�dicated
his concern relating to the cost to a municipality or to an individual developer:,•=�
He would also like to know the average cost of preparing an environmental impact
statement. He mentioned that in regards to page 12, under h1EQC 27, where they
mention "Major Action" and "Local Significance", that he �vould like to have these
spelTed out, as the terms were too vague. This concluded Brother Sullivan's
comments.
Mr. Langenfeld said tha� Mrs. Lee Ann Sporre, another member of this
Commission, was in the audience and would make her concerns known in person.
Mrs. Sporresaid the view she would express vaould be her own and no� the
opinion of any other organization of which she was a member. She said she had
looked over P1r. Boaru�man's memo and she agreed wholehea�rtedly. The only comment
she would have would be to re-e«�rorce the statements made in paragraph 1,_arid-s6�e
thought the questions raised in paragraph 5-were valid, but the vu�erability
rema?rs because the Staie has l�een lax ir! provi�ing technical ��:�4isjan•��? �or,
local government.
She said she did agree ichat we should have some decision m��king a�: the
local level, and that this was the ideal. However, the proposed rules and
regulations pose two major deiiciencies. The rules and regulations include li'ctle
or no guidance on the significance factor. To equip the local governments
w�th the right to decide was ideal, however, the thresholds in �he proposed
rules and regulations are set so high that most decisions would not go through
an environmental assessment statement. As an example o1F this, as you look
through this praposal, you can see what kind of -traffic pat�tcrns they were �
proposing for an environmentai assessment worksheet. Those are vgr•y major -
thresholds, and those, in effect, would no� halt action. She said that wh�n
Paul McCarron brought the Northtown proposal to the Metrapolitan Council,
they determined that this wo�ald nat have erough environmental impact far an
environmental impact statement. We riow knotiv that 'chis had a significant
enviror�mental impact, and wi71 have far reaching ramifications. She thought
that with today's views, we would want to gc through some type of environmental
assessment prior to commitment. That legal taol v�as not available to citizens
at that time.
Mrs. Sporre said the second deficiency was the need for criteria in
procedur�l review by the sub-powers of the Environmental Quality Council, in
other words, a regional board f'or local government�. The document speaks very
li�tle about that type of processes. She said she also felt:quite strongly
that in the State of P1innesota, they will have to provide more technical
assistance to local units of qovernment, which should be provided by the State.
She -Feli 'chis was needed for guida���ce and should be provided �or in the rules
and regulations. The decisions then could b� Uased on the environmental data
and implemented by the local government, �aho would have that kind a-f knowledge
in harid, before becoming deeply entrenched ir� any development. It ulas very
difficult for the publii to get access to infar�r�ation prior to decisions. She
thought it shouTd be re-enforced that the State make that kind of technical
assistance available.
Mrs. Sporre said she objected very strongly �o a section of MEQC 30, that �"'�
require� 50Q signatures as an important factor. She said the questian ought no�
to be raised as �o vrhether there k�ere 5C0 valid sign�tures9 but whe,ther there
.�,;
� �
�
�'1
��
i �
Planning Commission Meetinq.- December 3, 1975 Page 17
was potential for significarit detrimental environmental e•Ffects. If one
citizen can raise the case, and sho� just cause, that ought to trigger the process
She said just think about a town where everyone was employed by one cnmpany,
you couldn't expect the company to take a stand against th�mselves. ��irs. Sporre
said she felt the proposed rules and regulations did very little to integrate
with local decisi�n making processes. She said that because the thresholds
were set so high, they have ignored the strong policy statements that were set
up by the legislature in the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, and that the
proposed rules and regulations had eroded away the commitment the public had
when the MEPA was established. She felt this kind of system was not likely
to inspire an environmental conscience or increase the environmental integrity
of local government, and will merely serve to antagonize them.
Mrs. Sporre said she thought it was most importan± for the State �o provide
technical assistance to local communities who were trying to get into an
environmental planning program. She said tha� Fridley has asked for this
technical assistance, and to her knowledoP, had not received this aid. She
thought it was desirable for a community �o be self-sufficient, but there were
many technical questions that have to be raised. She said that it was very common
for a lot of small- communi-�ies not to have a planner, much less a technical
staff necessary to evaluate environmen�tal problems. She said that you have to
remember that environmental problems were not confined by the boundaries of one
community, but can cover large areas, and this was where the state concept for
the best use of our resources was developed. She also feli that you shouldn'i
have to get the State for this technical assistance, but tha� the State should
be making the effort to promote and enco�rage environmental planning at the local
level.�
� Mrs. Sporre said that in summary she would like to say that the statements
Mr. Boardman had made in his memo were valid, bui they needed �o be re-enforced.
She would also like to know if the Planning Commission was going to make a
recommendation to the City Council on the action to be taken on this proposal,
and if that recommendation would then become the position of the�City of Fridley?
�hairman Harris said she had asked a pretty tough question. Mrs. Sporre
said the reason she had asked it was b�cause she didn't feel that this proposal
had gone through ex�ensive citizen input. She didn't think the citizens of
Fridley were aware that there would be a position taken on something that would
have a long-range effect. She said that if the Planning Commission recommendation
was going i.o the Council on December 8th, and the Council had to voie on it
that night so the recommendation could be taken to the Minnesota Environmen�al
Quality Council on Tuesday, then she thought ii should be noted that the Planning
Commission had not had this document long enough to give it a fair evaluation.
Mr . Scott said that Mrs. Sporre had appeared at the Human Resources
Commission and had spoken in general terms as she had at this_meeting, The Human
Resources Commission was in agreement with her presentation, and he wquld
supaort her.p�sition, by a motion, about the point she brought up about la�k of
rEView� because there was no question on the seriousness of this proposal. Mr.
Boardman said the City had received this proposal about 15 days before the
public hearing date se�t by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council, and then
we were allowed 20 days after this �earing to make our posi�ion known.
Chairman Harris asked what the big hurry was on all these types of things.
He said it happened all the times and that everything we got from the State said
_�--� T
Planning Commission Meeting - D�czmber 3, 1975 Page 18
we had to have an answer bacl; in 15 days, or 20 days. He said he wondered what
they thought we had here in Fridley. Ne said that the Council, the Planning ��t
Commission and member Commissions met twice a month, some only once. He said
that this was an important der_ision to be made, and we shouldn't have to hurry
our recommendation. He couldn't see whv they had to be in such a hurry that
they seemed �o �ant to cram these propasals down our neck without giving us a chance
to look at them. He said the same thing happened on the 5horeland Management
Act. We prepared a position and weni �o the public hearing, and all we got was
a fast shuffle.
Mr. Scott.said he was in total agreement with Mr. Harris' statement. Mr.
Langenfeld said he had feli. the same way every since he had seen this proposal.
Mr. Harris said the thing that bothered him abau� this proposal �f�as that
we have handled the private section pret'cy well, but how about t��e public sec�or?
The people they never address was the Minresota"Fiighway Departmc t. He said tha'c
to ma!:� h;s �oint, he would brin� up that in this kind of weathe:� the highway
department just loved to go out «r�d dump all kinds of salt on the highways. That
runs off into the ditches, and fram the ditches it goes to Moore Lake, and
eventually ends up in the rivers and streams and ponds all over the State.
He said that nobody goes over and slaps the wrists of the Highway Depurtment.
He said he fel� there wasn't one mechanism in these proposed goals and objectives
to police the Highway Depariment, and in his estimation, these were tFie people
�that committed the rnost heinous crimes ag�inst t�e environment.
Mr. Langenfeld tha�ked Mrs. Sporre ra� her comments, and said he had a few
of his own as Chairman of the Environ�en�al Quality Commission. Mre t.,_�r,genfeld �
said �he only p7ace he cou1d agree with thi� pi^oposal was on page 8� ��e ihey a
start talking about 50 tons of sul�uric acid, and major mining oper�: ,}s, etc., but
.he said he was in 100% agreement with the commen�s from Brother Sull+�an and Mrs.
Sporre, especially as to the en�orcement procedure. He said lie felt tr�ere was
no real guide for local government, and was not related to decentralization at
all, which awhile ago was their main concern. He said you would have to be a
Philadelphia lawyer to comprehend this proposal, which �eant that you would have
to be a very well educated person to interpret this proposal correctly. He said ,
he felt the environmental assessment worksheet would be an attemp� to put on
paper a guide to further your impact statement proeedures. Ne said the entire
document was without "�eeth" ar "bite" to it, as far as enforcement. He said
he felt that you would definitely need to havQ tech�ical knowledge and know-how.
He said he could not say he appwoved of this proposal as it was presented. He
said that in regard to Mr. Boardman's memo, he was especially in agreement with
paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8.
Mr. Bergman asked if anyone thought the general intent of the proposed rules
and regulations were good? Mrs. Sporre said she didn't, because the intent was
the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act. This t�as an attempt to show what that
intent was, and the basic principals of tha� Act have been eroded away by this
proposal. She said when the h1EFA was wri�tten, they didn't intend ta have an
intermediary proposal such as the enviromental assessment statement, which would
not stop development, but to ga with an environmental i� pact statement process,
which would act as an injunction, until an environmental assessment could be �
determined. � ,
Mr. Bergman said he was not p�obably as well informed on this as some
other people werE, bu� it was his understanc�ing that the environmental assessment
-�.�-,;� _
,, �,,,,�, _
�
��
r �
Planning Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 19
worksheet was a preliminary worksheet that must be filled out to determine
the possible effect, in broad terms, and to determine whether or no� an
environmental impact would be subsequently required, and the control was by
building permit. If the developer did not prepare an environmental assessment
worksheet so that this determination could be made, then a building permit would
not be issued. He asked if he was not correct in this assumption in that this
was the control?
Mr. Boardman said he would try to clarify this. He said that up to this
time, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council were dealing on a daily basis
with the Minnesota Environmer�tal Policy Act. This Act gave them ihe authority
to review assessmen�s to see if they were going to have an impact or not. The
Minnesota EQC found that in most cases, the impact or the assessment that they
were reviewing was already 25% to 50% comp7eted. They then asked themselves what
they couid do to push this awareness to a place where it would be know before
development started. They decided they had to put this awareness at the level
where permits were granted. They want all the facts before any development
starts, to use in an environmental assessmen�. He said that to defenc the
MEQC a little bi�, he thought �his point was good. They could not write into
their controls that every building permit in the State had -to be reviewed by
them before a permit could be granted. He said their anticipated approach
through these proposed rules and regulations was to r�ake that awareness known to
the locaT units of government, where permi�s were granted. He s:��.r1 there were
very many weak areas in the proposed rules and regulations, as far coti.,':rols.
Ne said he thought this was whzre local government was going to ha��_' ,� �tep in
and say� that �hese ru1es and regulations were fine �s far as State :���d County
levels, but �chey were weak as far as local controls. The local unit �f government
wil�l have to determine what controls �tr�ey need for their local permits, so they
are done in the same manner. Ne said some of the protection clauses in �his
proposal were weak and needed some work, but t�ie idea. behind i� was good. He
said there were some things they couldn't relz°�- to because of the way that MEPA
was written. It did allow them to set up rulc nd regulations, but it did not
grant them the authority to waive this review ���.h an envi�°onmental plan. He said
he thought the environmental plan was of key ;-;�ortance to your local units of
government, as well as a� the State level. He �aid that if these controls were put
on without any environmental planning, he thought'.it would be mvre detrimental to
the total developm�nt of a community than not having a plan at all. Mr. Boardman
said that anather thing that really bothered him was that they are putting the
responsibility in at the local level without any means for the local unit of
government to recover its costs. We have no means of assessing any property or
any developer. if we have to prepare an assessment on a property. It v,�ould be
our responsiblity to�do that, and yet we i��ave no author�ity to charge anyone for
this. Mr. Bergman said the local unit of government wouldn't have to issue a
building 'permit until all this had been done. Mr. Boardman said we would not
have to issue a permit, but we would have to write this addi�ionai delay into our
environmental programs. We are going to have to take this a lot farther than what
the State has. They have taken it to a certain poirit, and then they have dropped
it. He said there was a large area below these rules and reguTations '.,�at was a
big void. We will have to make determinations at the local level and de;�:rmine
what assessment process we would have to go through in order to get that program
working. It will have to be written into this program that if an assessment was
required, we would not issue the building permit, until an assessment has been
processed. ,
.Mr.tangea�feld �aid that�if he�looked at this proposal, as fiar as it went, he
coula agree with it, but he couldn't agree to it in relation to Fridley. It
��-�
:�
Planning Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 20
would have to be our goals and ohjections that would have to fill that void
�hat Mr: Boardman mentioned, fle said we l�ave talked about this ordinance
before, and this could be used �o pick up the missing element. �
Mr. Harris said he was not worried ahout us, he was worried about them.
Mr. Pe'terson said he got a little heated on this subject also. Somehow
we seem to feel that we can get technical advice from the State, and expert
advice on how to run things. He said the largest single offender, as far as
being detrimental to the environmer�t, has been units of government, and they
are going to be asked to git�e Fridley technical advice. Their advice would
probably tell us how to pollute faster. He said that we would be asking people
who work for the State for advice, when they know nothing about the particular
problems in Fridley. He said that either he �idn't understand Mrs. Sporre, or
else she had talked two sides of the street. He said you couldn't ask the
State to run this and send the er.perts in to do all of these things for us,
without them not Pven bothering io get our consent. They are just going to
bul1�oze. ? said that a year ac�u, he f�iappened to i��ave the privile.g� �f
travelling to Russia. They have the best government experts of any country
in the world, and Everything was run from the central government and yet they
probably have more pollu�cion tf�an any coun�ry in the world also, especially in
the field of human rights. He said that in Russia the planning goes from the
top to the bottom. He said that in this country, we plan from the bottom to thE
.top, and he got very upset when we ask the "camel to come into the tent", and
this was just what we were doing when we ask for more technical advice from the
State, more experts, and more people vrho are more reserved from the site, then
you were compounding your tr�i;b7es. Ne said he couldn't t�nderstand the Human
Resources Commissior� end�rsirig th�s, when it was an erosion of the principles
of human righ�s.
�1
Mr. Scott said they weren't endor.sing having the State coming into Fridley
to tell us what to do, what we were endorsit�g was that the average citizen didn't
have the expertise to combat this sor-t of thing, and without this expertise,
they have to have help. We �aant the State to have this type of expertise availabl�
for the average citizen so they can determine if a proposal would be detrimental
to the environment.
Mr. Bergman said that maybe the City of Fridley better start establishing
that.expertise then, because if we want to have control we better have the tools
to control the result. To ask "big bro�nzr" to come and do all the work for us,
but leave us in control, was in compl�te conflict.
Mr. Scott said he didn`t think there was anyone in Fridley who was a
complete expert on the environnent. M•r. Pe�tersan said he didn't know if there
was anyone at the State level that was eiiher.
Mr. Langenfeld said that when they first got going on an environmental
ordinance, in which they wou1J have ohtained the assistance of "big brother",
he personally did not feel that they r��ould be completely dependent upon the
State, however, when you have technical assistance and help that would be
readily availa�le, he couldn't see anything wrong with trying to seek this
kr�owl edge. He as ked how el s� we�,e e�e goi ng to get thi s experti se? r--�
Mr. Peterson said that he understood Mrs. Sporre to say several times that
the State should provide the expertise in evaluation environmental impact for
communities. Mr. Scott asked Mrs. Spc�rre if she would like to answer this.
-��. -n
��
�
,_:'�
,
Planning Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 21
Mrs. Sporre said that she had said that the ideal situation would be to
maximize all the decision making at the local level, but she said there was
good precedent to show that local government has not been accountible for
their decisions. They operate out of self-interest, without regard for their
neighbor. She said that Fridley had been ihe victim of some of these decisions.
She felt that we jus� didn't live in Fridley, we live in the State of Minnesota.
The place where we begiri the theory of discretion was at the local level, but
you have to get local units of government to have environmental awareness. She
said that what she was advocating was that the State do the thing that little
Grow Township cannot do, ��d that was make available the data. I� the data
was available, little Grow� T�wnship can make decisions that were accountable
to the next generation. Sfie saia that for example, when they prepared North
Park �or an environmental assessment, they used every type of expert available.
She said sh� thought there was a corporate conscious that would respond to
providing an environmental assessment, i�P the data was available. This data
has to be provided early in the planning process.
Mr. Bo�rdman said they did not bring out the point in the rules and regulation<.
bec�use they are not by law, authorized to do so, but he thought what was needed
at the local level was mandatory planning, with mandatory planning at the State
level also.
Mr. Harris said that supposedly they have.always had it at the State level,
but he was sti11 more worried about that level, ihan the local level. Mrs.
•Sporre said they were not trying to get rid of planning at any level. She
thought there should be State planning, Metropolitan planning, and local planning,
but they h�d to start inter-acting with one another, and that would make them
good neighbors.
Mr. Harris said that would be fine that all the communities down the line
get on the band wagon an� pull together, and then what happens. The Highway
Department goes �their merry way, and the Army Corps of Engineers go down and
dredge the river, and they don't care where they throw . this material. Mrs.
Sporre said this was still a deficiency in the proposed rules and regulations.
Mr. Harris said that he would like to see all the communities working
together, but then we have "big brother" who can't even clean up their own
mess, coming in to tell us how to clean up ours. He said that the government �
should lea�, not fol7c�v. He said we have a corpoation in Fridley called the
F.M.C. Corporation. The only permits that Fridley could require from them
was for the very small building sitting ou� in front. He said that on all the
oiher buildings on this site, they could do as they pleased, and Fridley couldn't
say boo. We have another plant in that area called the Minneapolis Water Works,
and we can't even go inside the fence there, and they do as they please. He
said it ��as the same old story in that we can m�ke ihe little guy conform, but
how about the rest o� them. He said this was his major objection to this proposal.
They want everyone else to do it, but big government doesn't want to do it
themselves: He said it wasn't only this plan, but every other plan, and he
thought the�legislature should be made more aware of this.
Mrs. Sporre said she didn't think the Planning Commission or the City
Council could address itself to all the problems with the legislation of tr�ese
plans.
Mrs. Sporre said that with these proposed rules and regulations, the State
staff was proposing legislat-ion. They have changed significantly the intent of
�--
Planning Cor�nission Mee�inq - December 3, 1975 Page 22
the legislature.
Mr. Boardman said he thoi�ght the only.thing they could address at this
time was how this proposal was going to affe�t loca7 levels of government.
Mr. Bergman said he felt that Fridl�y eould handle whatever this was
all about. He said he thought �there were definiiions lacking and you
might find some specifics that need clarification, etc., but he had confidence
in the Ciiy administ��ation an� in the governmental bodies of Fridley, that if
there was expertise required, ihat they will develop or get the expertise that
will work within this framework. He sai� he wasn't worried abo�t it at the
local level. He said he firmly agreed with Mr. Harris in the application to
"big brother��, and them keepir:g their skirts clean. He said it bothered him
to sit here and listen to people say that F��idley couldn't handle this because
where vrould they get the expertise. He said he didn't buy it at all to have
"big brother" send down the expertise. He believed that our recommendations
ought to be couched in the atmosphere that we agr�e that responsibility ought
to be pro�r; �!�d at the ? ocal � e�.�°1 s and ���� accent thQ responsi bi 1 i ty a iong wi th.
tiiat delegation of control. Give us the job and we can handle it. He thought
-chis was a better attitude that saying that we aren't competent and nei�her
are they, and they, and they. Ne said he felt that the City could get guidelines
an� do iheir job responsibly.
Chairman Harris said t{iey were going to have to make some kind o� a
recorr�nendation on this proposal, and he wished they had more time.
Mrs. Sporre said that she felt that this was an attempt to put accountibilit�
where it belongs. She said he� rzmarks �rere not meant to be an attacE: on Fridler 1
or any other community. It was an attempt �o make gaod neighbors ou� of our
neighbor�ing communities, and make Fridl�y a good neighbor to other communities.
Nir. L�aardman said that this proposal was stric�ly a stop-gap measure. They
are saying that they realize �hat there was vaguer environmental planning that
has to be c'�one, however, we don't have the equipment to do tha� at this time, so
what we have to do was to set up some type of ru1es and regulations that will
try to ca�ch as much as they cauZd. He s�id that this ���as ail this proposal was.
Mr. 6oardman said he was surporised that the MEQC had put �n as much time and
effort•into this proposal as �hey did, but that ��his proposal was no good if there
was nat a follov�r-up on environrnental planning. All these rules and regulations
did was to lay out cert�in th-ings that have to have an environmental impact
statement, and there was no ac�ual control at a�level importan� to local units.
f�r. Harris said that if the proposa� stays the way it was now, it would
die on t�e vine for lack of financing. Ne said OSHA was a very good example
of �his. 1're governmen� decidEd i� would be a good idea to have an Occupational
Safety �nd Health Act, and they set all kinds of strident rules and regulations.
They put penalties and teeth in this F�ct, like yau wouldn't believe. The trouble
was that ihey didn°t finance �i t�ecause there were no provisions made for financing.
This was iinally turne� over to the Staie, because when the Federal government
was runriing it, they had three ir�spectors �o cover a regional 7 sta�e area.
Mr. Boardman said �his was er.actly whut was happening here. The Minnesota �,.,
Envirorn��ntal Quality Council �idn't have either the manpower or the money � �
to handle environmental im��c� sfatemen�s a.-� the State level. "
Nlr. Scott said he agree� �:o what h��d been said about "big brother". He sai�-
_ �.�.
�
y� .� .
Planning Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 23
that we have hired these "experts" and now they are running us. He still
had a concern that for documents such as this some expe'rtise would have to
be available,because how can �,de combat detrimental environmental effects if
we can't talk in their terms.
Mr. Peterson said that he wasn't advocating that Fridley be an island
UqtO itself, but he just did not have the confidence in central government
dictating to us what uras going to happen. He said that Russia had more planners
than any country in thP world, bar none. He said the reason for the great
pollution there was because there was no check and balance. He said that
when you give the riynt to �the State for mandatory planning, we give up our
right to checks and balances. �We maybe don't like law suits and they might
be expensive, but they are ari effective check and balance. He said we haven'i:
developed anything better than that9 and if you set up a cour� system within
the bill iiself, then you do away with the judicial review that we have now.
This was what happened 4��ith OSHA. There was no judicial review within OSHA.
You are guilty, become some inspector says you are guilty.� Three people can
interpret the same l�w di�ferently. He �?id that one person gets caught for
this, and one person gets caughi for tha�., and the other one is let go. He
said that when they set the ru1es, they both regulated and referreed the..ball
game. He said this was why he objected to bringing in expert people to tell
you what to do. He said they may be experts in their own point of view, but
there might be other people who disagree, whose opinions might be just as
valid.
Mr. Boardman said when he was talking about mandatory planning at the
local level, he was talking abou�t all communities having mandatory planning.
^ �'his would give us a handle on what other communities are trying to da and how
if could affect us. Wi-�hout mandatory planni��g, we have no idea what another
communiiy was going to do. �
' A9r. Langenfeld said that if these rules and regulations were accepted, then
the City of Fridley and all other eommuni�ies woula have to follow them.
Mr. Boardman said
and regulations that we
use this proposal as a
was significant.
they were very vague at the local level, so our rules
set up could be more restrictive. He said you couldn't
yuideline because there were no guidelines as to what
Mr. Harris said he didn't see how the Planning Commission could make a
recommendation even after having spent this much time on it. Mr, Boardman
said they were going to have to make some typP of recommendation.. He said �:nis
wouldn't have to be on the proposed rules and r�gulations because they weren't
going to affect Fridley that much.
Mr. Harris said we can say that these proposed rules and regulations are
deficient in some areas, and then they will ask us how they could be_improved.
We haven't had time to come up with the things we would really like to see in
this propc�sal. , �
Mr. Raardr�an said he didn't think the process would bother us too much, but
there w�ere some major• point� �that should t,e brought out, and he thought they would
n have ta b� brough�t out to the MEQC. One o�F the points was environmental planning.
r � Another Noint vaas the cost fact.or• because he thought there should be some means
�hat ��ocal �overnment could assess to cover thei'r costs for preparing an
e��vironm�nl:al assessment or environmental impa�t statement. Mr. Boardman asked
°,��
Planning Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 24
the Planning Commission to check what were mandatory caie�ories for Environmen�al ,
Assessment Worksheets at the local level (MEQC, a, 3). There was no commitment,,�
for a community to go any farther than �his. There was no commitment as far '
as drainage. He said the points on mandatory planning, and that �his was �-
binding on all communities, were not too clear. It had to be determined what r..-
was a major environmental action and how we could determine what environmental
significance was. .
Mr. Langenfeld said he thought the MEQC should be mad� aware just how
difficult these proposed rules and regulations were to evaluate. He said
they weren't prepared ta make a recommendation.
Mr. Peterson said that he �hought the�� all had the same basic concerns, but
there was wide divergence on how this could be accomplished.
Mr. Scott said they should have had time to work these problems out.
Mr. Goardrnan sai d he had 'oeei� wor�i: � i�►g w�i th �f-�i s-type of proposal �or-�
some time, and he did feel quite strongly about the points he had made in his
memo.
Mr. Peterson said that he knew they all agreed that environmental control
was important.
MOTION by Scott, seconded b�� Peterson, that the Planning Con¢nission recommend
to Council that they supporfed the points made in the memo from Jerrold Boardman
to Dick 5ol�iech, dated November 25, .Z975, bu� we feel the implications of this �"'�,
action have seriovs Ionq range connotations t.hat were not adequately addressed _
in these proposed ruZes and regulations, and we feel very stronaly that we were
not provided with adequate time in which to prepare a proper position on this
proposal, and remonstrate the MEQC with not alZowing'us� enough time to fully
study this proposal.
Mr. Langenfeld asked if it was possible to give Mr. Boardman permission
to go through these minutes and put the Plar�ning Commission concerns in outline
form and submit that to the MEQC? He said these would just be the major points
of discussion.
Mr. Boardman said he would ��rrite up an outline for the State if this was
what they wanted. The o-�her members of the Planning Commission concurred.
UPON a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Harris said he ju�t didn't feel that the Planning Commission had
done a proper job on this proposal.
4. ADDITIONAL DATA ON PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN
Mr. Boardman said this was just the con�inuing process of distributing
the data on the proposed comprehensive h�using plan to all Commissions and the
Council as it was prepared. The Planning Commission didn't have to do anything
with this material, except look it over, until they got the input from the �,
member Commissions.
5. CONTINUED: REVIEW OF C�1h91WISSION'S G�ALS AfdQ OBJECTIVES
�`:�"
0
Planning Commission Meetir�� December 3, 1975 Page 25
Chairman Harris said �hey only had the Parks & Recreation Commission
� goals and objectives left ta review but because of �he lateness of the hour,
'�� it would perhaps be better to continue this until their next meeting.
MOTION by Scott, seconded by Peterson, that the Plannin� Corrm�ission postpone
� their review of the Parl:s and Recreation C.ommission goals and objectives until
the December 17, 1975 Planning Commission meeting. Upon a voice vote, all
votinq aye, the motion carried unanimously.
6. DISCUSSION ON INFORMAL PU�LIC NEARING
Mr. Peicerson said t��e would like the Planning Commission to be thinking of
some ground rules on what amounted to an informal public hearing such as we had
this evening on the proposed rules and regulations from the MEQC. Ne said tha�t
no matter what proposal they were discussing, arad the fact that it was not
advertised as a public hearing, should not preclude any citizen coming to the
meeting and speaking their mind on such a proposal. He said this was what
happened at the Pari<s & Recreation Commission meetings all the time. Wf�at he
was looking for was some means, thaz ari, r every or�e ir� the audi�nce had had
the chance to speak, that there be some way for the public not to join in the
deliberations of the Commission after they had received the public input. He
said it was very disconcerting to have citizens arguing with the Commission when
they were making their deliberations.
Chairman Harris said they should address themselves to this problem, and
be thinking about it. He said that when citizens were present under such situation
^ they probably cou1d handle this by ma4��►ig a motion to �pen an informal public
hearing and a motion to close the inr�' mal public hearing. He said they could
discuss this at a f�ture meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Scott, that the meeting be adjourned.
Upon a vaice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Planning
Commission meeting of December 3, .I97� adjourned at 12:27 A.Me
Respectfully submitted,
r'"'°�