Loading...
PL 12/08/1976 - 6599� � � City of Fridley AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1976 :CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROYE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: NOVEMBER 17, 1976 �. CONTINUE�: PUBLIC HEARING: RFZONING RFOI1fST_ 70A �r io-uo, �r UtUK�tIUWIV MUItL, 1NG.: Kezone from M-2 heavy in ustria areas to C-2 general business areas), tflat part of Lot 2, A.S. #78, lying Westerly of the Glesterly right-of-way line of Main Street N.E., lying Easterly of the Easterly railway right-of-way line of Burlingon Northern, Inc., lying Northerly of the Northerly right-of-way 7ine of Interstate Highway #694, and lying Southerly of a line drawn Westerly at a right angle to the East line of Said Lot 2, from a point on said East line distant 507.60 feet Southerly from the Northeast corner of said lot 2, except the Westerly 218.16 of the described property, subject to easement to Northern States Power Company, the same being 5600 Main Street N.E. Public Hearing open. 2. PUBLIC HEARdNG: ..� ��....��... ..........w .�v�.i .i� v� i uu� vf v�Vbl� Lp LPJL Ranch Estates Second Addition, from M-2 (heavy industrial areas) to M-1 (light industrial areas), located between 77th Avenue and 79th Avenue N.E. on the East side of Rancher's Road N.E. 7:30 P.M. PAGES 1 - 23 24 - 30 31 - 35 3. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: LoS. #76-11, BY ROBERT A. SCHROER: 36 - 37 Split off the Southerly 160 feet of Lot 8, Block 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition, to make two building sites, the same being 7875 and 7895 Ranchers Road N.E. 4. VACATION REQUEST, SAV #76-07 CITY OF fRIDLEY: Vacate 38 - 39 existing un-needed roadway easement in consideration for additionai roadway easements being acquired, located on Lot 49, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, generally located on Talmadge Lane and 75th Way N.E. 5. CONTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE: 6, CONTINUED: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Separate Separate 7. RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: NOVEMBER 15, 40 - 48 1976 8. RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES:_ NOV_EMBER 16, 49 - 57 Planning Correnission Agenda '� December 8, 1976 Page 2 � � �, J PAGES 9. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: NOYEMBER 22, 1976 58 - 60 10. OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT: �` J ; , +s CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - NOVEM3ER 17, 1976 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER.: Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Harris, Bergman� Langenfeld, SchnabelJ Shea Members Absent: Peterson Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSIGN �fINUTES: IdOVEPfBER 3, 1976 � MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea� that the Planning Commission minutes of November 3, 1976 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously, 1. PUBLIC AEARING: REZONING RBQUFST: 7.OA #76-06 BY GEQRG�TO'r:N .M.G1'�L 1NC.: Rezone from M-2 heavy industrial areas to G2 general business areas , that part of Lot 2, A.S. (�78� lying Westerly o£ the Westerly right-of-way line of Main Street N.E., lying Easterly of the Easterly railway right-of- way liae o£ Burlington Northern� Inc., lying Northerly of the Nortiierly right-o£-way line of Interstate Highway /{69�t, and lying Southerly oS a line drawn Westerly, at a right angle to the East line of said Lot 2, from a point on said East line distant 507.60 feet Southerly from the Nortneast corner of said Lot 2� except the Westerly 218.61 feet of the described property, subject to easement to Northern States Power Company� the same being $600 D1ain Street N.E. Mr. Carl George was present representing Georgetown Ptotels. MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Gabel� that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on rezoning request ZOA �76-06, by Georgetwon t4otel, Inc. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Public Aearing open at 7:1t0. Mr. Boardman explained that this was a rezoning request to allow a motel-restaurant � facility on Main Street across from lioliday Village North. He said there were several things the Commission would have to take a look at� and one was what Planning Commission Meeting - Novemher 17, 1976 Page 2 the total area was 2oned (14-2). He stated they rrould have to make some determination at this meeting or in the next few meetings whether that zoning �� was actually a proper zoning in the area; and if they did rezone that property� what was going to happen to the rest o£ the M-2 and was the rest of the M-2 properly zoned? Mr. Boardman showed the proposed plan to the Commission� and explaine;d it was a resketch done by City Staff. He stated that the proposal that was submitted had more parking than was actually needed and the driving aisles were �ri.der than what was needed. He pointed out that the new plan showed more landscape areas within the same context of the motel system, and this had been approved by Mr. George. i+Ir. Boardman explained the proposal was in two phases. He said there would be a fast-food restaurant that would also serve beer� wine� and that sort of thing. Mr. Boardman said there would be three units; 2Lt units in the first one and also {:he main o£fice o£ the motel, and the next two units would be 1t0 units each. He showed the area where an additional 1�0 units were pro.posed for the future� and added that the Georgetown Motel system was a chain motel system throughout the United States. Chairperson Harris asked if there vras anything they could do to clean up the legal description. Mx'. Boardman replied that the only way they could do that �wruld be riith a plat, and he didn't think Burlington Northern wanted to plat at this time. Ae stated that he had talked to Burlington Northern�s Land Development Company this afternoor.. and they handled real estate for anything � other than industrial. He explained that when they got prospective buyers or developers in this area� they went before the Burlington Northern Board of Directars and they turned the property over to the buyer. Mr. Carl George approached the Board and explained that the proposed motel had been under consideration for development £or approximately 1� years. He said they had £irst met with P1r. Clark and the City I�;anager concerning this particular area� and they told the Georgetown people to proceed and get everything done and then bring it, in to see if they� could get the parcel rezoned. He explairied the motel would serve both railroad employees and commercial travelers. htr. George stated they had a choice of four different areas that the Burlington Northern owned and they chose this one because oF the proximity to Hwy. 691� and also because it was close to the railroad crew of£ice. He added that they wanted to be in an area that was compatible to this particular kind of business� and the area South of 691� was pretty well developed. Mr. George said it was his understanding that the City itself would like to see something other than inriustrial in this particular area North b£ 69�t, and they had made the siLe plan with that in mind, He stated it would be a good area Sor their business and it could be the beginning of starting either commercial or residential in that area. bSr. George said that concerning B N L� the,y did handle everything other than the industrial. He explained they were created by Burlington Northern to � Planning Commission Meeting - November 17� 1976 Page 3 do this and to develop this land faster. He stated that in a lot of areas 'S commercial has grown up around railroad land and industrial has groxn up around it, and the industrial wasn�t compatible. He said they Selt this plan was compatibles and that was why they picked that particular parcel. Mr. George stated that their motel system kas a little different than the Holid�y Inn or Ramada. He said that they were basically a motel, not a convention center. He stated that their rooms were the same size (11t' x 21�')� carpeted, indivi.dually temperature controlled and air conditioned and contained a 19° color television set. He said they had taken out the things that rrere not necessary for a motel such as catering services� etc.� as this was reflected in the cost of the rooms. rir. George explained that most catering departments in the large motels did not show pro£its, so that cost went into the cost o£ the rooms. He said that although they felt those are needed� they also felt there was a need for a motel that had the comfort o£ their rooms without all the extras. He stated that they didn't make £ood people out of their employees� and that was why they located a restaurant along with their motel. He said in this instance it would be a£ull-service restaurant open from 6:00 A.M. until 1:00 the £ollowing morning. It would have a menu that was more varied, he said, than Sambos or Country Kitchen, and the restaurant would carry itsel£. He said they felt food service was very important� and just a block Prom their location was a 21�-hour Country Kitchen. Pir. George stated that their motel rooms carried no overhead other than the overhead oY the room itself� and that was vrhy they were able to rent the � rooms for $10 single and $12.s0 doubie. As far as the construction� 2�e said, theirs was equal to or better than Holiday's, He stated that they had a good quality room� and they didn't construct the building for a fast dollar but tried to determine what the customer needs were now and what they would be £ive or ten years £rom now. He inforrned the Commission the outside of the motel would be of cedar and brick� the interiors were a washable-type textured coating, and the ilirniture was built by one of the foremost manu£acturers oY motel furniture. The bathrooms xould be very similar to those of Holiday, he said. Mr. George said that their motel had all the comforts but didn't have the meeting rooms9 ball rooms� or catering services of the larger chains. Mr. George said that in their £easibility study done in this area, they expected this unit to run at 95ro occupancy. He said he felt there was a need in the area for a unit and felt this was a good location for it. He added that they actually £elt this would upgrade this particular area or at least be a"foot in the door" for other commercial ventures in that area. He showed the Commission data sheets put out by B N L on the area, and said that if this was changed from industrial to commercial they would like to have a feasibility run on the need for office buildings because thay also developed office buildings. He stated that if there was a need, he thought this would be a good spot because they usual�y need a place off a main freew�y and with a lot of parking space. _ He said he would be happy to anscaer any questions. Mrs. Shea stated she had been concerned with the rest of the propertg, but he had answered most o£ her questions concerning that. Mr. George said � � Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1976 Page � that they were looking for uses for it. He explai.ned that they couldn't ask for rezoning at this time for that property without going through both Boards � (the Board of Burlington Northern Industries and that of B N L Development)� and a use had to be found first. He said the land had to be turned over from Burlington Northern to B� L� and both Boards had to decide if it was a good use. He said they would then run a MAI and that told whether or not it should be a profitable project. Mr. George said that when these thin�s were done the area would be open for other ventures going into that property, as the data sheets stated. Mrs. Shea said that the only access that would be acceptable to her would be right past Holiday (57th)� otherwise there would be traffic going through residential areas. Mr. Boardman said the only access that they had to the motel Srom b9� was on University� 57th and Main Street. Mr. George stated that all of the railroad personnel would be bussed by the motel to and from. He said that in other words they would not drive� but be picked up by a motel van at the yard office and taken to the motel� and back to the yard office by the van. Mr. Bergman noted that this property and the property North, West and South was all zoned M-2 and asked what the zoning was for the Holiday property. Mr. Boardman replied it was C2-S, rlr, Bergman asked zvhat Mr. George�s arrangement would be with B N I, if this motel came to pass� and P�ir. George replied it was a lease. He said they had a 2$-Year lease with a 25-Year option� and they did have clauses worked into the leasing arrangement where every £ive years it was reviewed for the valuation o£ the land. He explained it was not � open for any type of negotiation, and if the land didn't go up in value there would be no change in the lease. Mr. Bergman asked what escalat4on guage was used� and Mr. George said it was done on the basis of the MAI appraisal. He explained that five years from the time of ttae signing o£ the lease, another appraists7 Urould be done. Mr. Bergman said that he was not familiar Vrith the motel operation directly tied in to the railroad personnel,or railroad operation, and asked if Burlington Northern had any other such arrangements in the 'I`�rin Cities. 2dr. George replied they did not� but they hoped to have the same arrangement in other cities. He said that no�r the railroad personnel were housed in some of the hotels in doHntown Minneapolis because they couldn�t af£ord to house them in the very best motels. Re explained that this way they would have new facilities to put then in with transportation flirnished� and for the motel it worked very well because they were guaranteed a certain number of people per d�y for occupancy which guaranteed pro£itability for the mote L Mr. Bergman stated that he felt a bit awkward with this piece. He said that within a large P42 they were talking about rezoning a small portion, and felt it almost bordered on spot rezoning. He said he was looking at the site data Which apparently considered the possibility of additional commercial development to the size of this total site. i�ir. Bergman noted that Mr. George had described a process where it would be out of context for Burlington Northern to come in with a rezoning request for this entire parcel rat}ier than this small corner with the understanding that if the larger scale plan developed then another � �� � Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1976 Page 5 '�section would be rezoned a piece at a time to the extent of this total parcel. Mr. George said if they could find a use for it, that was correct. He added that those data sheets went out to developers throughout the country. Mi'. Bergman asked if the code speci£ically precluded construction of a motel in an industrial zone, and Mr. Boardman replied it did. Mrs. Gabel stated that she was concerned about the traffic, and said there was a good deal of congestion at the corner oS University and 57th already. Mr, goardman said he didn't see any problem with the tra£fic at all with the signalization there. Nir. Bergman commented that he thought the traffic would be reduced i£ this was commercially used as compared to industrially used. Mrs. Gabel said she felt that wasn't necessarily true. rlr. Boardrian said he thought they would find there wouldn't be that much o£f-the-highway business. He said he thought the majority o£ the business would be industrial and railroad business� and with that probably most oF the traffic pattern to and from the motel would be South� along Main Street. Mrs. Gabel stated she thought the traffic by Holiday was about at its ma�cimum. Mr. George said she was probably talking about 1�:30 or 5:00 in thE afternoon� and the traffic trying Lo get off of 69�t to the motel would be at ?:0`� or 8:00 P.M. and not the 3:30 to 5:30 rush'hour. He explained the men would be'bussed in crews of £ive to ten people at a time� and the main time for checking into a motel ti•ras usually from 6:30 to 8:3� Y.Pi., not the rush hour. Mrs. Gabel said another concern she had was that Staff shoald see there was •proper screening or some type o£ buf£er from the residential area across the street, and also so the traffic r�ouldn't somehow end up going down residential streets. Mr. Boardman said that the actual motel construction would be quite a bit Soath of the intersection of 57th and 1•iain. He said it was actually across Yrom the rear paz'king lot of Holid�y Village North, and he didn't think there would be a lot of traffic that would go I3orth on Aiain Street North o£ the $7th intersection. He said there was room £or extensive landscaping, and he just didn't think they were going to £ind that kind of a problem as far as the use of Main Street. Mr. Boardman said he did have several other concerns on the property as far as possible usageof the entire section that went to 61st, Mrs. Gabel said it did seem to be spot rezoning without lm owing what was intended for the remainder of the strip o£ land� and added she would feel more comfortable if the whole parcel would be rezoned. Mr. Langenfeld commented that he could tell be listening to Pfr. George that his clientele wouldn't be walking into a"surpirise". He stated the Commission was basically concerned with the zoning, and the City would like to see this land utilized to the best possible advantage. He said that in listening to the discussion he felt that a motel and restaurant would be complimentary to the other surrounding businesses. He stated he noticed Mr. George had projection figures of 95% occupancy� and asked i£ he could tell from that projection approximately how many people a day would be involved in this on an average. Mr. George said there xould be approximately 60 people a day from Burlington Northern� with space for more. He stated tha�tlevana� lY they would like to have 2500 occupancies per month, or 81� pe P � Mr, Langenfeld asked what the actual dimensions were that they should be concerned about, and Mr. Boardman replied it was 551•3' in depth and 366.>� Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1976 Page 6 wide on Main Street. Mr. Langenfeld asked how many square feet that was, and � Mr. George replied it was !�+ acres� or 1II8,000 square feet. Mr. Boardman said that was about one tenth of the total property. Chairperson Aarris stated'the first thing on his list of concerns was road patterns. He noted the rnain access to the motel complex was 694 to University� University to 57th and over to Main Street to the motel. He said it was also - possible to get in there off of Main Street from the South. He asked if Mr. George was looking £or any other access besides those two routes, and P9r. , George replied he was not. Chairperson Harris noted that the area was approximately !�+ acres� and asked what minimum lot size was on commercial. DSr. Boardman said it was 20�000 square feet� so they were way over. Mr. Harris said he wanted to get into the construction� and asked what total units would be built at the time of onset of the proposal. Mr. George said two !t0's and one 2�t unit would be constructed at the time of onset (101� units)� along with the restaurant. Chairperson Harris asked if there was going to be a recreation area� and tfr. George replied there was not. He said, however, that if they had an expansion and they saw it was necessary, they r�ould look into it. He said that in motels they had Found that pools }iad a 5� usage o£ the total occupancy o£ the motel on a twelve-month basis� and there were many problems with vandalism with pools.' Ms': George explained that they were dealing primarily xith the commercial traveler who was on the road ten or eleven months out of the year and whose expenses had gone up and was looking for some way to cut costs. He said� howeve` that they did have corporate accounts; for instance, in DeKalb they had all of General Electric's business, all of Continental Telephone's business and a good part o£ DeKalb Bag�s business. Ae said that they did have a lounge 2nd game area and each unit had a 19'�color television se�� but there was no pool� dancing facilities� etc. Chairperson Harris asked where other such motels were located presently� and Mr. George said they had one operating in DeKolb and had plans for units in Davenport, Staples� Jamestorm, Fargo� and Davenport. He said they were also looking to Denver� Colorado and Aurora� Illinois. Mr. Lan�en£eld asked about employment as far as the City o£ Fridley was concerned, and Mr. George said they had a manager� a twenty-£our hour room clerk set up� and maids. He said that most of the maintenance was done by contracts, for instance, they had a permanent contract with RCA Sor the maintenance of all the television sets. Ftr. George said that in the restaurant they would have cooks, dishwashers� waitresses� etc. Chairperson Harris asked if they had taken signing for access into consideration, and Air: George replied they had a sigri system that told people where to exit and which way to turn. He added that they also had a mailing system that went out� and in tliis area it would probably go to about 2,000 businesses. He explained that this was how they recruited the business Prom General Electric in DeKalb; they have an open house and invite industrial and commercial people � Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 197b Page 7 � in to see the rooms and khat the charges are. Chairperson Harris asked Mr. George if he was aware there vas another complex in Fridley that went by the name of Georgetown� and t�Ix�. George replied he was aware, but there was no connection. Mr. Boardman said he was somewhat concerne3 about the property that is West o£ this facility that is still owned by Burlington Northern in the back. He asked Mr. Beorge•why he hadn't purchased all the way back to the track. Mr. George replied they very possibly will, but right now they saw no need to pay lease on that ground. i�e said he rrould like to put another building there if this zoning went through as he actually saw a need for 2$0 - 300 rooms in that complex before they were done with it. He explained they had to pay lease money on every square foot of ground so they took just what they needed� but they could come back and pick up additional property. Mr. George further explained that the parent corporation bought a particular ariount of stock in B N L Corporation� and B N L bought the prope.^ty from the parent corporatior�. He said that usage had to be developed before they could actually go to the Burlington Northern Board and say they had use ?or that land, He said tlzat studies had to be made so they could be assured of a profit on that project before they could ask for the ground. Mr. Boar4'man said he was concerned about rezoning in step phases. He said � that once they started developing this into whatever they felt it should go, they•should have some guarantee that they hould not be stuck with 2 mishrr.ash of industrial uses� residential uses and com�ercial uses. Chairperson Harris said he would like to talk to the gentlemen i'rom B N L Corporation, because tiz thought their advertising on this particular parcel was misleading, He said he thought they should come to the City and talk about it on a total develop- ment package. Mr. Boardraan said he £elt uneasy in several ways. He said he would like to see the whole thing rezoned to a different zoning as he didn't think the industrial zoining was needed. He said he £elt it encroached on the residents of the area.to the East and the North. A1r. Boardman said he would like to see some multiple or some kind of residential development on the Northern portion of that� and maybe some compatible oFFice or commercial South of that. Nowecer� he said� he felt uneasy when it was zoned industrial and there was nothing coming out that could show tnem this was the way they want it developed. He added he would like to see a trend established, Chairperson Harris said he would like a comprehensive plan� and asked what their comprehensive plan said about this. Mr. Boardman said the comprehensive plan £or this area said it should be industrial� but he didn�t agree. He stated that one of the reasons it needed an immediate revamping was because they had looked at it as if the City uould not initiate any rezoning� and therefore they had handled most areas as they were presently zoned. He said that he strongly felt this area should not go industrial� and'said he might also add they presently had three industrial buildings on this section. � Mr. Langenfeld said he suported Mr. Boardman�s statement� and he thought that due to the maturity of the City and the changes that have taken place, the industrial designation oY that entire area was really not appropriate. Mr. Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1976 Page 8 Boardman said one of the problems was it was all well and good to say this area not go industrial, but the fact of the matter was it was presently zoned industrial, He suggested they get some kind of concept ideas £rom Burlington � Northern as to what they would like to see in there. Cha3rperson Harris said that it must be obvious from Aurlington Northern turning the property over to B N L Development that they do not intend on running the thing as an industrial site. He said that B N L handled just commercial and no industrial� so their intent must be in a direction other than heavy industrial. Mr. Boardman said that in talking to B N L, their real problem was they did not get any property turned over to thern� nor did they get the opportunity .to rezone property, unless Burlington Northern wants it rezoned. He stated Lhat Burlington tlorthern did not want it rezoned unless they had suitable clientele at the time� and added that E?urlington Northern wanted the most options avail- able to them with the least restrictions. 1;r. Harris said he tnought that B N L should come in to the City, or perhaps Burlington Northern should come in. He explained to D4r. George that they had dealt with Burlington Northern before. He said they had a stiritch yard wtiich started out to be a 23 �llion dollar operation and now was around �B million� and not all of the commitments made at that time have been realized� and that was six years ago, He said that therefore he had a little trouble trusting Burlington Northern implicity, Mr. Langenfeld brQUght up the pro'alem of drainage, and Mr. Boardman said that Burlington Northern did have a storm sewer pipe along their property and it might be possib].e to connect with that; otherwise they would have to get � permission £rom the State Highway Department to drain off of their drainage right-of-way. 2�frs. Gabel asked if extra drainage iaas needed to handle that, who would pay for it? Mr. Boardman said it would have to be the property owner, and he didn�t foresee any costs to the residents. Mr, Bergman asked if there were any other concerns of a utility nature such as water� and Mr. Boardman replied that water and seVrer would be extended down from 57th to the properi:y. Mr. Bergman asked hotia critical timing was to Ns. George, and Mr..George replied that timing was very critical. He stated that prints were drawn for the project� and thev had expected the railroad to have moved faster in their development of the leasing arrangements and things like that. He added that they were thinking that this would have been done itt April� and they just had the land signed over for zoning in October. He stated that even if there c�ras 2!t - 30" of £rost this coming April, they could still start. I�ir. Langen£eld asked if it was their goal to co:pplete building number 1 by the end of 1977� and A?r. George said the whole complex would be completed by then. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the Rezoning Request ZOA i{76-06 by Georgetown Motel, Inc. Upon a voice vote� a7l voting aye} Chairperson Iiarris declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:00. �' Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1976 Page 9 MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission defer . Rezoning Request ZOA #76-06, by Georgetown Motel, Inc., with the following considerations; 1. That the presentation made by Mr. Carl George is of a generall;� favorable impression with regard to the motel and specific property development. 2. This body is in general concurrence with re2oning the present industrially zoned land £rom b9� to its extension to 61st Street. 3. That the Planning Commission is in general disagreement with parcel by parcel spot re2oning. �. That the Planning Commission request from the property oxner a comprehensive plan concerning the intended use of the total industrially zoned parcel. Mr. Boardman asked if that was actually what they wanted� or if they wanted an opportunity to talk to Burlington Northern about proposed development in the area. Mr. Bergman said the motion requested a plan from Burlington P7orthern, and until he saw that he wouldn�t lmoor how to respond. He stated that the motion did require more than conversation. Mr. Boardman said th2t his impression from dealing with Burlington Northern and talking to B ry L was that their plan in the area was industrial until proven otherwise. . h4r. Langen£eld noted that Nr. George had a tentative timetable wt:ich would be altered as a result of this motion� 2nd it would detain him a bit, He stated that he personally felt it would be un£air £or Air. George to feel that the Planning Commission was detaining this, and it Viauld be more appropriate to say that if Burlington Northern had procided better in£ormation to consirier this further the Planning Commission would have been able to act immediately as far as zoning. Mr. Boardman said he did ask a representative from B N L to attend this meeting� but he declined, He added that he thought they should get somebody from Burlington Northern as they were the controllers of the property, Mrs. Gabel said that she realized it seemed unfair to detain him or mal<e him � extend his timetable� but on the other hard if she had to vote yes or no at this time she would have to vote no, She stated that after looking at the site plans� it just boiled down to the £act that £rom what they are using as criteria on there as potential developers� it could end up to be a hodgepodge. She added that if they were asking for the whole thing to be rezoned, she would have no objection to that� but right now it was just a potential mess. Chairperson Harris sai.d that he didn�t see this as a spot rezoning and he certainly wanted to ,ee that 176� that runs next to the tracks included in G2 zoning� and he shared everybody�s concern on the remainder oF the property. He added that he thought this particular development would be a great plus for the City� and he agreed with h1r. Geor�e's concepL. Mr. Bergman said that he did� too. He stated that although he may not have adequately complinented the concept � PZanning Commission Meeting - November 17� 1976 Page 10 put forth, he thought the City would like to have it. He said that they were concerned with the total development of the property and that it be done in � some planned fashion� and would like to see a better plan of the property. Mr. Langenfeld said that it seemed strange that Burlington Northern� having such a large strip� didn't have a better overall fliture plan for the properties they owned. He said he felt that Burlington Tdorthern should have been more informative to 1•fr. George as to the possibilities of what they intended to do to the North of the proposed motel site. A'Ir. George stated they had gone over that� and thought office buildings would be compatible to this project. He said he was under the impression that office buildings came under commercial zoning, and said they wanted to have a feasibility study done on the need for office buildings. He said he had also asked about the possibility o£ housing £or older people and i£ there was a need for that� so they were looking to other uses for this parcel, Mr. George said that they felt this was now their land for a period of fi£ty years and that B N L actually no longer had a right to it i£ it was rezoned. He said he could see Lhe Commission�s concern about the rest oF the property because it did not have frontage, and anything that didn�t have frontage was not going to be condusive to something desirable,commer- cially. Mr. George said he could remedy that by including that strip in the rezoning request and pay the lease on it� and that way they would have it when they were reac�y £or additional buildings to go on it. He said that they were asking for the rezoning because they were obligated on the land £or a period of fiity years, and it was actually the same as rezoning subject to purchase. He said he had worked with these people for two years on this project, and with the City for a year or so. He stated he lmew the £eelzng was the land was still industrial� but if Georgetown Motels didn't have faith in �n�se � people that it would not be used .for industrial they would never have made a million dol7.ar investment in this project. He said that as a matter oi £act� his organization would 2ike to be the users of part oF the property and iaould like a feasibility study rvn on it for office space. Mrs. Gabel asked if Burlington Northern had indicated how they wanted this zoned� and Mr. Boardman replied that the only indication he had gotten was they were looking for the maximum number of options. He stated that right now he didn�t think they would want to tie themselves into a different zoning as it was presently M-2� which is the highest possible land use that is available. Chairperson Harris stated that it seemed to him it would be to Burlington Northern�s bene£it to have some sort of idea as to what would fit into this, He said he was under the impression the reason IIiirlington Northern set up B.N.: Land Development was to get this land that had been laying dormant for fi£ty to one hundred years into production. He added that it would seem to him that in order to do that they should have some idea as to what woixld work well on that land. Mr. Roardman said he thought the motivation behind that was they had to start paying taxes on all this unproductive land, and now the problem was how to promote the property as fast as they could without having to go through a feasibility study on every piece of property. Mr. Langen£eld commented that he thought he already knew what their comprehensive plan was� and that was i£ the dollar was right for a particular piece af'land� that was the way it was going to go. � .. Plenning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1976 Pa�e 11 � Mrs. Gabel asked where the City stood as far as saying to Burlington fiorthern that they would like to hare this land rezoned commercial and developed that way. Mr. Boardman said he didn't think the City wanted to tell Burlington Northern they had to rezone this because right aiaay there would be a legal fight. He said the land was presently zoned industrial property, and Burlington Northern was looking for other possibilities of development. Mr. Boardman said he had one other question� and asked if the Commission £elt that a motel was compatible use to that area if the rest of the property North of the motel remained industrial, and if so� why the table? Airs. Gabel comrnented that she felt it was spot rezoning unless the whole thing was rezoned. Tir. Bergman said he would like to answer that question� and stated he was concerned that it be parcelled up in logical planning parcels and the strip between the rezoning request and the railioad. tracks he £elt should have been part of the rezoning. Chairperson Harris said that he was not sure that the M-2 uas compatible with the C-2. Chairperson Iiarris said that from his own standpoint, he thought Mr. George's proposal was compatible wit}i the total area� and he thought that caas ;�hat they were trying to looic at--the total area and not just the existing zone. He stated that perhaps this would be a progressive type zoning operation, and he hoped it would be a step. l�ir. Harris said he didn't lmow iS they needed a comprehensive plan, but did think they should talk to the oeople from B N L and £ind out what direction they kere looking at. He said he also felt they should talk to someone about the particular ilyer 24r. George had shown them • which said "potential corrunercizl". UPO'.V A VOICE VOTE� Harris� Be:gman� Langenfeld and Gabel voting aye, Shea votins nay� the motion carried 1� - l. Chairperson Harris said he would like B N L or Burlington Northern to come in to the City Sta£f and ask £or assistance in deci.ding vrhat could be done witn this parcel. Nu's. Gabel commented tnat she thought the point was they had to look out for the future of the entire city. Iir. Boardman suggested to ;•ir. George that he make the initial contact with B N L or Burlington ivorthern to meet'with the Planning CoruTission on December 8th. 2. LOT SPLI^1 RE�^UEST: L.S. �j76-12, 3Y DICK GPEGOR: Split the balance of Lot 31� Auditor's ;ubdivision 129� lnto cwo bu�ldirg sites� each 13S' a 110' which excepts the West 129 feet o£ the South � o£ Lot 31, and excepts the North �, and allows £or a 2S' road dedication for 73� Avenue. Lots will be addressed on 73rd and 73=� Avenue Ar.E. Mr. and Mrs. Dick Gregor were present. Mr. Boardman explained that this was a lot split request to split the East hal£ of lot 31 in half North and South, and he thought this was in keeping with the area. He suggested there be a stipulation that the 25' street . dedication occur at this time on 73� Avenue. Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1976 Page 12 Chairperson Harris asked if bloek 31 was all under one ownership, and Mr. Gregor said he only o�ned the portion Easi of the existing structure. Mr. Boardrnan stated tie had been under the impression those were under the same ownership� but regardless of that� they would have to have that 25� street dedication. He said they would have to deal with the owner of the West portion of block 31 individually. Chairperson Harris asked i£ the remaining lot sizes would be sufficient, and T3r. Boardman replied they would have a 92.75 width. He stated the depth would be approximately 13%�� so the lots would probably be around 12�000 square feet. Mr. Harris asked if there were any other easements required, and Mr. Boardman said there were not. Mr. Harri.s asked if Jim Lund hadri�t purchased some o£ that land tax forfeit so the county had a little bit wider right-of-way on 73rd, and Mr. Boardman replied tha.t was correct. Mr. Langen£eld asked iY the West portion of Lot 31 would be split some time in the future, and Chairperson Harris noted there was a structure in there now that sat almost in the middle o£ the lot� so he doubted there would be a split. Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Gregor if he was in agreement with the dedication of the 25' street easement, and he answered that he was. MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Lot Split Request L.S. //76-12, by Dick Gregor; Split the balance of Lot 31, Auditor�s Subdivision 129� into two building sites� each 138' x 110' which excepts the West 129 £eet of the South � of Lot 31, and excepts the North izj and allows for a 25' road dedication Por 73� Avenue. Lots rrill be addressed on 73rd and %3� Avenue N.E. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. REVIEW OF SPECIAL USE PERNiIT SP //75-28 a building permit to construct a new se Commission minutes 12/3�75). IOPd OIL COh:PANY: Request for e station. 5ee Planning Chairperson Harris said that one of the stipulations of the Special Use Permit had been that when they came in £or a building permit request that this be revie��ed Uy the Planning Com�r�ission again. Mr. Boardman informed the Commission that Union Oil was planning a self- service type concept� and the only building they would have was an attended station. He said they would be takin� the presenL building down, and there were well-designed landscape areas within the concept itsel£. Mr. Boardman said that the redesign o£ the intersection there did create some traffic concern within this property� and it looked like they had taken that into consideration. Mrs. Shea asked the size o£ the cashier station, and Mr. Boardman in£ormed her it was 11�� x 8'. � • • Planning Commission Meeting - tlovember 17, 1976 Page 13 Chairperson Harris asked if this met the requirements for restrooms, and Mr. � Boardman said that Darrel Clark and looked at it_so he imagined it met the requirements. Mr. Harris noted there was a folding curtain on the restroom, and that did not meet the handicapped code. Air. Boardman stated he didn't think this would fall under the handicapped code requirements, and before any permit was granted it would have to meet all necessary code reauirements. Mr. Bergman commented that he �ould be amazed if this met code it it was to be used by the public. Chairperson Harris stated it must be open to the public because he saH it contained display racks so they must be selling things over the counter, and noted that the back o£ the shelf xas the screening wall for the bathroom. Chairperson Harris suggested that they could make stipulations on the Special Use Permit� but h1r. Boardman said they couldn't make any stipulations that would be more restrictive than the Uni£orm Building Code. In other words, he explained, if they had a 3' door and the City wanted them to have a 3-�" door� they couldn't make that a requirement, .'�Ir. H2rris said that i£ this structure met code� he thought they should write some letters. r;r. Boardman said that if it didn�t meet the bcilding code, it would meet the building code before it was built. Chair�erson Harris said he would think that the Union 76 Company could a£ford a door £or the restroom. Mr. Bergman said that compared to the way other gas station operations got treated which also required special use permits in their zoning, he thought perhaps they were being a bit oppressive on th:i.s particular opera�ion. i�;r. � Harris said he thoug!�� the inteat of this was an annual rer-ievr by �taff� and this was done as a matte: of procedtre for rnost Special Ose Permits. Mr. Bergman commented that he didn't understand the tra£fic pattern. He said he had never seen a self-service station that co�r,plicated, and thought it was very curious. Chairperson Harris said he thought they would have some direction signs or arrows, and he thought there should be di:ection arrows on the driving surface. T70TION by Bergman� seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Coranission recommend to Ciiy Council approval of Special Use Perrnit, SP �{75-28, Union Oil Company; Request for a buildin� permit to construct a new service station, and the proposed building plans, with the following stipulations: 1. That traffic patterns be heuvily indicated on the physical site. 2. That all applicable codes be strictly checked wi.th concerns £or sanitary facility adequacy, for the handicapped in particular. Upon a voice vote, all voting �e, the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 10:20 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 10:35 P.Pi. � Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1976 Page 15 Mr. Bergman gave one other defi.nition of naintenance which he said came faom � out of a contract he had for maintenance� being °the preservation of that which exists". He thought the code discussed something other than that. For example� he said� upgrading was not maintenance� or having to add a window was not maintenance. He stated that i£ they wanted to address things like that they should not call it a maintenance code because the definition didn't apply. rqr. Langen€eld said he felt in a way it was similar to an insurance concept. He stated that when a loss occurred� the idea behind the insurance was to replace that property to the nearest or same condition it was before the loss. He said he £elt they should try to keep this dwelling in as close to the same type condition as it was at the time of purchase. Mrs. Gabel said she didn�t think Lhey could use existing conditions because existing conditions may not be sa:e, hSrs. Shea suggested using the word "standard". She added that �.�hen they were talking about some oi' this proper�y, rental homes� etc., some were substandard and pretty bad and the occupants couldn�t get help. i�[r. Bergman corrJnented that the rent hould go up with the improvemer,ts� and i�rs. Shea agreed that was true. Chairperson Harris said that was a real tough problem. He added that so many tim� the lovr-income got all wrapped up in substandard, and that shouldn�t be, t•ss. Shea said that the low income person didn�t know where to go for help, and i4' the City couldn't help, who could? Atr. Bergman stated they could move out and find a place that did have a toilet, heat, or whatever. I�rs. Shea said the rent would then be $200, which they couldn't afford, t3r. Bergman said if they reGuired all those things o£ the dW�elling �h�;r �.e:e in, iL uould te �200 a r,onth also. Ae stated that a person who was managing rental property couldn't be told to spe-id ! $2C,000 upgrading that property and not raise the rent. Mr. Langen£elri sairi that it was human nature that a person c,�ho didn't actually own his property didn't treat it the same as i£ it caas his own, and that was where tne deteriora- tion took piace. That in turn� he said� forced the larid owner to say he couldn't afford to fix it and then he got a lower-income type of person in there and it just snowballed. Mrs. Gabel said tlat then t.hey should realize that if these things laere to be brought up to minimum standard there would be that many more pecple applying for assistance. Ps. Boardman said that in order to get assistance on housing anyway� it had to meet certain code standards. Mr. Bergman said that on the subject o£ Sire inspection, what codes did the Fire Inspector have that he now followed. He said he would like to suggest that the Commission ask that type of question applicable to every trades or maintenance or housing elenent that ti�ey had. He suggested that wherever there was some inspection function, appraisal function or requirernent funct�on such as HUL's requirements� or seme other body that had some inspection codes, that the City of Fridley judge whether or not those were adequate and if so, merely re£erence them and delete them £rom duplication in the maintenance code and get on with what was left. Chairperson Harris asked the Commission xhat they thought should be in a maintenance code, hir. I.angenfeld said he thought it should contain some cormnon sense. He said he would like to see it start off with definitions� and added that so many words just didn�t have to be i.here. Afrs. Gabel stated � that she didn�t think there was a need to get so cumbersome. She said the Planning Commission Meeting - November 17� 1976 Page 16 City should require adequate heat, adequate water and sewer, adequate ventilla- tion� non-toxic paint� no holes in the £loors� etc. 5he suggested they just � use basic things, and said this didn't have to be so complicated. Mrs. Gabel stated that if the carpet was worn that was not a safety hazard� but if there was a hole in the floor, that was a safety hazard. As for the exterior, she said the roof shoulcln't leak, the foundation should be checked so rodents and pests couldn't get in, etc. Mrs, Shea stated that she liked Mr. Langenfeld�s idea of dividing the code up, and she would also iike to see three separate sections: R-1, Single Family; R-2 and R-3= Multiple Uwellings; 2nd R-4, Mobile Homes. Mr. Bergman as�ed if there should be two sections under R-1--owner occupied and rental. Mr. Harris said pe:haps there should, but he didn't Imow why R-1 owner occupied should be any different than R-1 rental. Mrs. Shea said that would depend on the way they were enforced, but the standards should be the same. i�ir. Harris said that en£orcement should have two sections. He continued that R-2 and R-3 were almost always rental� but R-2 could address both owner-occupied and rental, such as a double bungalow. He asked why they would want to handle the standards any di£ferent in a R-2 and a R-3 if it was owner-occupied. Mrs."Shea suggested putting R-2 with R-1 and leaving R-3 by itself. r1r. Bergman suggested one section on single-£amily dwellings and one on multiple� and merely break those into ewner-occupied versus rental. rlr. Boardman said that the problem with that was they had a certain control on rental property that was not F-l; they licensed R-3 but did not license rental R-1 or rental R-2. Chairperson Harris asked i£ it was agreeable to the Commission to run R-1 and R-2 togetner� and have R-3 be a separate section� and they agree�i it Vras. • Mr. Harris said that R-!� �.*ould be like R-1 except it would be mobile homes. Mr. Harris stated that the code should then be broken down into those sectians� and each handled separately. Mr. Boardman said that ihe total package they had been presented with was a four-section document: Structural R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-lg �terior maintenance; Commercial - Industrial; and Exterior for Commercial and IndusLrial, He said that perhaps they should ask if they really needed the exterior maintenance for residential and commercial� or if instead o£ providing maintenance codes they should require more stringent regulations or definitions within the zoning code itself. He asked if those standards of maintenance should be layed out in this� or if they wanted to try to put more standards within the zoning code as far as what was classified as �'shall be in good maintenance", Chairperson Harris said he iaould like to handle this as an entity by itself without getting corvnercial and industrial in it. Tir. Boardman corrsnented that most communities only handled residential maintenance. Chairperson Harris asked what was covered regarding exterior maintenance, and Mr. Boardman said that was talking aUout removal o£ snow and ice from parking lots� steps� walkways, etc.� and also exterior 2ighting. He asked i£ they wanted this type of thing in there or if they wanted to handle this under the zoning code. T�Ir. Harris commented that it sounded like R-3. rir. Bergman asked if there was anything in the City Ordinance right now which said the wa3kways in an Ft-1 area must be shoveled� and Dir. Boardman replied there was not as • the walkways they had were maintained by the City. Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1976 Page 17 Mr. Langenfeld stated they had already broken this doti,m into three divisions� � and he would now like to see them determine minimum standards for each of the three units and simplify this thing. He said that to try to answer Mr, Boardman�s question� he really didn�t think they wanted a whole pa�e on every- thing. He said that through the discussion he suggested they might £in3 a mini.imnn standard would apply to all of the units� and they could progress i'rom there. Chairperson Harris said he thought Mr. Boardman's question was whether or not they wanted to include the exterior mainten�:nce in this code� and A;r. Bergman said definitely.' Nr. Langenfeld said he was suggesting a general outline so they could really tack this thing. 2�,r, Harris said maybe they could bre�k each one of the thr�e sections'they had into subsections--interior maintenance and exterior maintenance. Mr. Boardman said that he would like to lmow exactly what they wdnted to include in the maintenance code. Did they want to include just residential or residential and comrnercial; exterior and interior or just structural? He said that before they broke one portion of that dowm into H-1, �-3 and R-�� mayUe they should make so�e determination as to what tney s.a�ted to include here and t:hat other areas could handle that. Chairperson Harris said that they had to start so:�eplace� and he thought they had decide3 to start out vrith the residential in three s�ctions: R-1 zn3 R-2, R-3, and �-!�, and under each of these section� have a suosection of interior main�enance and exte-rior maintenance. He explained it cras just an organizationai thin�, � and he thought it raould be r.mich easier this t•;ay for pevple to find a certain sect�on. t4r. Bergman su�gested that peraaps subjects shoald be ite;riized. and then hir. Boardman could £ill in from thai t��e of outline. The Commission concurred, and decided the suojects should be health, safety� and appearance (for lack of a better term). P9r. Boardman said safety o�ould be anything that would be hazardous such as structural or any physical defect that could cause injury or harn to the occupant. 2•1r, Bergm�n thougnt electrical and gas services should also be included under safety. He added he was thinking of a Fi:teen- page docwaent maximum to cover all residentia7.. i�ir. Boardman said the only y:ay they could get fifteen pages mzximun would be to co:.�bine areas Y:ii_cn said the sane thing. He said if they could categorize items inte cr.e sectior. when they were identical it would save paper and not be so repititieus, Chairperson Harris asked what else should be included in tne outline besides health, safety and ,ppe.sance. 1�;rs. Gabel suggested they go with iliat, and they could � ways add more if they found something else. Pir. Eoardman said they would also have a de£inition section� and they used building co3e de£initions. Mr. Board.*nan sugPested they also include enforcement, and N;r. Langenfeld suggested responsibili.ty. The Commission decided responsibility would come under enforcement, i�1r. Bergman commented that safety was an awflilly broad section. He said he would put gas and electrical service under a hazard section, and put shoveling sidewalks under safety; the need for adequate heat and adequate plumbing would fall under health� but adequate � Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1976 Page la ventillation would be under safety. Chairperson Harris noted that their time limit was almost up� and suggested the Commission let the City run with this general outline and see what could be put together £or them. Mr. Boardman mentioned that he thought they would be surprised that a lot o£ what they mentioned was in the proposed code. Mr. Bergman said that before they got in any position to fir.alize this� he would like to see a list of present applicable cones and enforcement that concern themselves with the same kind o£ things that they were discussing here because there was no sense in duplicating sometning that everybody else . was already doing and had a license to do. He said he was thinking oi' the Fire Inspectors� State Health Department� Department of Labor and Industry� etc, Mr. Boardman said that caas why he thought that perhaps they should elir,unate the industrial-commercial section o£ the maintenance code� but they might want to keep an exterior maintenance code on industrial-commercial. 5. CONTINUED: HUMAN D�VELOPMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Mr. Boardman informed the Commission that this was not ready, but would be continued to the next meeting. � 6. RECEIVE PAFiKS & RECREATION CONSMISSION MINUTES: OCTOBER 2S, 1976 � P-10TION by Shea� seconded by I.angenfeld, that the Planning Commission receive the Parks and Recreation Commission minutes of October 25� 1976. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. Mr, I,angenfeld commented that he would like tA.HeA•S meHe£suheestedlthey be defined� such as F.Y.S.A.� H.A.F.� N:.A.H.A., gg spelled out when they are first used, and a£ter that just ihe initials could be used. Chairperson Harris said he had a good point� and P1r. Boardman said it was so noLed. 7 RECENE HUT7AN RESOURCES MINUTFS: NOVEt•;BER l�, 1976 MOTICn by Shea, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Corunission receive the Human Resources Commission minutes of November !�� 1976. Mrs. Shea stated that Mrs. Lambert had resigned and she wanted to urge that somebody be appointed as quickly as possible to take her place. Chairperson Harris said that regarding the discussion withEs�eciallll�hehsaid, Public Safety Director, he found the figures astound�ng. p Y� in the area of juveniles. He stated this was very disturbing, and asked i£ � Human Resources was going to try to come up with any recommendations. Mr's• Shea answered that this was just informational for them and the public. She Planning Commission Meeting - November 17� 1976 Page 19 said they Here trying to find out what the Police Department was doing. t�h^s. � Shea explained that most o£ them didn't see what the Police Department was doing� and that was important. She added that Mr. Hill didn't feel this was a major problem, and they really weren't so bad off compared to some other cities. Chairperson Harris said the report disturbed him because it looked as if there was a trend developing. He asked if Mr. Hill had any recommendations that the City could do or areas they could rrork in to help this situation. h�s. Shea replied that h;r, Hill had said finding more jobs would help. She explained that the major cause was just plain nothing to do� and jobs were not available. Mrs. Gabel asked i£ Mrs. Shea didn't feel t�is was indicative of the need for the Youth Center, and �4rs. Shea replied that Mr. Hill thought one could worx, but he wasn't real enthusiastic. Chairperson Harris stated that this cahole thing might be the product of an affluen� society. t4rs. Gabel said that brought up an interesting point, and asked if these juveniles who were picked up were £rom affluent homes, t9rs, Shea stated thaL P•Sr. Hill didn't have records on that. Mr. Boardman said that even more disturbing, �5� o£ all persons arresteri for murder were under the age of 25, 77� of all persons arrested £or rob3er� �*ere under the age of 25� and 85� o: all persons arrested for bur6lzry were under the age of ?5. hlr. Langenfeld con�ented that the claims £or theft kere setting to be tremendous. • Chairperson Harris said he didn't nctice :nuch discussion in t,ie report ^elating to druos, and he wondered how much o� the 85� in t�e burglary was related to try:ing to procure money fcr drugs. A,rs. Shea said that tnese £igures were £rom the F.B.I.� and Ns. Hill had co:��r,znted he didn't rely on them too r:u;,h. t�tr, Langenfeld said he would like to bring the Commission's attention to ihe second to last paragraph on page 1t7, v*hich state3 that if the youths were kept busy or interested in something� there v:ould be a redaction in crime. Chairperson Harris said he would like a copy of this sent to School Disir�ct ll�, and N,r. Bergman suggested including District 13, a1so. I•"s. Langenield suggested the Smi Newspaper. i;rs. S?�ea said they had tried to get this in the neiaspaper� but they wou14'n't prin.t it. Mr. L2ngen£eld suggested th2t perhaps churches would be interested in this� and said they snould get it rtoving out o£ the minutes and into the eyes of the public. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ASOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Gabel, that the report by James Hill, Public Sa£ety Director, be sent to all school districts and the Sun Newspaper ti,ith a cover letter £rom the Planning Commission. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. S RECEIVE APPEALS CO?Q�fISSION MINUTES: NOV��BEft 9, 1976 • MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Gabel� that the Planning Commission receive Planning Gommission Meeting - November 17, 1976 Page 20 the Appeals Commission minutes of November 9, 1976. � Mrs..Gabel said she would like to comment that they had a request £or a sign variance by Perkins Cake and Steak that asked £or a variance from 80 square feet to 119 square £eet. She explained that when they got into this at the meeting it turned out the sign was only d�.3 square feet� but had been deter- mined in its rectangular shape, Ms. Boardman said that the square footage on the 2ctual application did state 118 square feet, and the sign ordinance said a sign could only be 80 square feet. Mrs. Gabel asked if they should address shapes of signs in working on the sign ordinance, and Mr. Boardman said it should be BO square i'eet regardless of shape, Mrs. Gabel said that P4rs. 5chnabel had asked her to remind all the members of the Novernber 22nd meeting with the City Council, and to ask i•1r. Boardman if he had come up with some type of outline or agenda concerning the �0' lots. Mr. Boardman said that would be ready. __ _ UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 9. RECEIVE COMhNNITY DEVETAPt✓FSdT COMMISSION MINUTES: NOVF�7BER 9 19�6 MOTIOP+ by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the Community Development Commission minutes of November 9� 1976. Chairperson Harris noted that the Sign Ordznance Project Committee was coming � along� and asked if rir. Schneider would have this ready before he resigned. Mr. Bergman replied he would not� and explained that Air. Schneider would be chairing one more meeting in December and would hand in his resignation at the next Community Development meeting. He stated that the Sign Committee would have been short a Chairman� and it did make Community Development short a member. He explained that at the last Sign Committee meeting, the subject of replacement had come up and it worked out very we1L He stated they had something between an elected replacement and volunteer, and explained that Mrs. Gabel had agreed to chair the Sign Committee through the completion o£ the project. He added that while they were short a member o£ the Project Committee, he thought it would be £inished up with the present membership and Mrs. Gabe:l chairing, He stated he thought they were doing a good job, and commented that there was a lot o£ detail. A4r. Bergman mentioned that they had talked toward a March completion goal of the Project Committee� and Mrs. Gabel said she hoped that could be achieved. Mr. Bergman asked i£ he should write a letter concerning a replacement on the Community Developnent Coirunission, and Pir. Boardman said he was sure that Mr. Schneider would submit a letter to the City Council. h;r. Bergman noted that it seemed to take a long time to get a replacement. • Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1976 Page 21 Mr. Boardman said that in the Cormnunity Development minutes there xas a motion to be acted on and sent to the City Council� and it had to do with the � Bikeway/ Walkway Plan. Mr. Bergman explained they in Co;nmunity Development had agreed that the ball was with the City rather than the Bikeway/Walkway Corrmiittee� and from that point Com�unity Development indicated concern for lack of action. Mr. Lan�enfeld corunented that he concurred with the motion reflected in the minutes, Mr. Boardman stated he thought all they would need was a concurring motion� and said that actually the motion k�ould go to the City Council whether the Planning Comriission acted on it or not. Chairperson Harris cornmented on the item o£ receiving the Articles of Incorporation of the Fridley Youth Center on page 6 of the C.D,C, minutes, and said the last paragraph didn�t make ser.se. l�+lr. 3ergman said that paragraph 5 on page 6 should be revised to read "The Corunission :�er�bers expressed concern over the possibiiity that tne FY-idley Youth Center erould not be able to use the pump house at Locke Pzrk. It had been their clear understanding tnat the pump house had been assigned £or that purpose." b1r. Bergmzn said that C.D.C. £elt ccncern that the Fridley Youtti: Center might be dropped. Ghairperson Harris said he would like to :�:ake a report on the Fridley Youth Center to Lhe Commission, He explained that the Planning Corunission's mee�::igs had been lengthy and arduous, and he hadn't i�ad a char.ce to £ill t�e �o::.mis�ior. in on what the Project CorLmi�tee had accorlplished as £ar as the Frid].ey Touth Center. He stated they had dra�.,n up the Artir.les of Incorpora.ticn as guidelines and wanted them submic�ed to t!ae Cit,y Attorney to get ever,y�thing • in the right context. He explained they i'eli the5• had to �et t;c- ball movir.o and that was tahy the push was cn to get it into the City Council's h�:nds so they could direct the City Attorney to carry on this iunction. ,�ir. 9ar:is explained thqrfelt at this ti:ae tnat the pump house facility was not goin6 to be adequate� an3 they tried to deal with District 11t fo^ the use of the Ha;;es School annex and so far had run into a blank wall. He said he ha3 gone te 'the School Board members infor:�ally and tried to set up lines oi co^:aur.icat�or. between the City Council and tne Sc}:ool Bcard, not or.ly in the area o£ the Fridley Youth Center but in other areas as *,:ell. Chairperson Harris stated th2t � rneeting had been sei up and there s�:as an agenda and they were going to start discussing some items that relat.ed to both schools and the City, but he hadn�t heard the results of it. He hoped there had been some lines of coramunication established and ma��be they could start working together. He co.�c-�ented that he just could not believe at the time he made the approach that the City and the Schools keren't cooperating better than they had been. i�'r. Aarris said the School District had the £acilities, and as the City grei�r they needed facilities, I�;r. Boardman said that the thing that concerned him was that it was the tax payer§ money, and the tax payer�s couldn't use it, Chairperson Harris said it was his feeling that i£ the pump house was used, there would be 50 kids standing out,ide. Mr. Bergman reminded the Commission that C.D.C,'s recommendation x�as specifically City Hall space, recognizing they had to look at priorities. Iie stated he still felt that was a good • recommendation in his opinion, UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Planning Corrmiission Meeting - November 17, 1976 Page 22 Mr. Bergman asked the Commission to notice on pages 2, 3 and � that Community Development reviewed the East River Road proposal and did make an attempt to � do this in what they felt was a proper £ashion. Ae explained they had looked at the goals and objectives; and Mr. Boardman had come in with the Metropolitan Council traffic projection which was a�reat disaPpointment because it didn't treat East Rzver Road at all, although an earlier City of Minneapolis trans- portation plan did. He pointed out that they did end up making the motion which appeared on page �. Mr. Langenfeld said ne would preSer not to go into the East River Road item and asked the Co��ission members to wait and refer to the upcoming minutes from the last Fridley Environmental �sality Commission meeting. He explained they would shed a little light on the entire subject. t�1rs. Gabel noted tha� Mr. Paripovich had tests run on the noise level� and they Sar exceeded standards. Mr. Langenfeld said that would be in the minutes at the next meeting, MOTIO'1 by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission concur with and pass on to City Council concern for the lack of timely progres, in the completion of bike:aay/walkway implemeniation plans as described in the Community Development motion as follows: '4�fOTION by Dennis Schneider� seconded by William Forster� that the Corununity Development Commission goes on record as being disappointed with the progress being made towards implementation of the Bikeway/Walkway Plan� specifically with regard to the develop:��ent and en£orcement of ordinances rep lating use of bikes and the b'ikr:vray system, with regard to the overall effectiveness of the current educational prog�•�un being conducted� and with regard to the level o£ signing . currently in existence; and that the Cor�mission recommends to City Council that all practical e£forts be taken to expe3ite imylementation of this p1an." Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the r.iotion carried unanimously. Mr. Langenfeld informed the Comc2ission that the Metropplitan Council was having local Government Planning 19oricshops on the Land Pianning Act. Mr, Boardman adde3 that they were having them at several locations� and the one he was going to uras at the Coon Rapids City Ha71 on December 9�h. Mr. Langenfeld said the workshop would cover the hoers and whens of the Act and what it means to local planning. He said it would provide information on the status of £unding to assist local planning, and provide a directory for comnunities seeking prof- essional pl2nning assistance. Chairperson Harris asked how much this would af£ect them, and i�r. Boardman said it would af£ect them. He said they would be revieiaing the present comprehensive plan and making recommendatiors on that. Mr. Boardman brought to the Commission�s attention the report on itodest Cost Housing i'rom the Private Housing Advisory Committee of Metropolitan Council that was handed out at the meeting. He said he would like the members to review it� and although the Public Hearing was scheduled for the next night the records were held open for thirty days so if someone wanted to make a comment on it they could so so at the next meeting. He stated that • Planning Commission Meeting - November 17� 1976 Page 23 as far as Staff was concerned� he thought they followed the recommendations � by the MMA. He explained that the h�•� was supposed to be a representative body of inetropolitan communities� and hopefully they were looking out for our interests on this, Mr. Boa:�an explained thattheir position was that there were some points in this that could be handled in the co„�unities, however� they were putting the burden oF the cest of housing mainly on the general municipalities. He said they �aere leaving out one major point, and that was the financial institutions. 1r, noardrr,an said financial institutions hadn't even been considered in this modest cost housing. MOTIO:�' by Lar.ger.feld� seconded by Berg:��ans ihat the Ylanning Commission receive the report on Modest �ost F:ousing. Upo�i a voice vote, all voting ay-e, the motion carr�ed unanimously. Chairperson Harris said he had o.e ot?:er ite*�� and that was to remind the Cor.rmission o£ the November 22nd disccssion on 1�0� lots with t�e City Council. He info:med the members it would 'ce '�`.onday evening at 7:3� in the Con:;,u,itv Room, and urged them al1 tc attenc. t90T'vid U�r Shea, seccr.ded by Beror;�r., '<,^zt t}i� meetirig be adjourned. L'po:� 2. 701C° VCii,B� all rotin� 8,)'�� �}t21?'�CI'SOI' i?dT'P15 LEC1U.'EG tt?� ��2l::ilrif; � Coranission meeting of November 1"(, 1y76 adjonrned at 12:20 °.I�i. Respectfully submitted, �Xi��,�rr,�%/�' ( �!� �,/1J"�Y;�_' F� Sherri 0'Donnell Recording Secretary � � C� � OFrICIRL ROTICE CITY UF FRIIILEY PJBLIC ffEAltlt�G EEfGR[: TI1E PLi^=.`i'iIiIG CC;7,'•lIS5I0N TO 4tH0"i FT hiP,Y CONC�Ri�: �do±ice is nereby c,i:2r� �':at tf,ere �•;ill he a Public Neariny cf the Plar:r,ir;g Ce,.;�.issi,:� e'i T.�e Ci�y c` Frid?ey in �he Cit;y ;{aii a� E431 UIl7Y0fSi±`• lil'�:'_:IUB �:OY'i�iP;i�� Oli ��!^:f'.-_'- , � — _ . ._ ;c.a� , ilov2mber 17 , 1976 a1: 7:30 P.f,. in tne Cc�.�ncil Ch�.:t_ �or ,..,_ p:..-ro;e of: Consider�a�ien rezciir.y �� t , °? n _. _ re�;�,_s , ZOn ,. 5-..0, by f•.nr i�Ei,O`N� t- �. ` .� f:0 t•'c'Z�itl° fi"O�il i �-Z (h��a�.; ,�i�st .' :.. e, , �� C-2 (e�nera i business area::1� I�at �. � uf �n; ?, �.ud:ter's SuL�i+,�ision No, '!8, r"�.r:sl:, ,..�` '1i�,�;c. a, l;ing l;es±�r;y, of ti;e t,'esi�rl� ,r;g! .-o�;-,;a';�1,re or� i^.air Stre�t �d.E., l;ing « _ c` t,��e � _��-ly ra:lti;av riaht- 0�-4i". / ,.�� C ,� 'i �;�.` LIl2i`I:, IrC., lY�^`� f�orther�. .�� �,� ,_ �'��°';y riyl�t-of-r:ay line of Inte, t�te iii ,; . „�a, and lyi��9 Sou�� e�-iy c= a ii:�:_ :;r.t>�-� ;.,_:_ri;, a� a ri;:�,t angie to ±'ie Easi lin2 of s:�id Lot �, fr�T: a �3inG cn said E_. lire dis�������� �01.60 f��� Sc�u�:�.arly fro�n the ?lcr_!�.ea<_� C01'll-'_'t' G"� Sd';d ' Gi. C� ::?;CC.j�T, ��le P�2St(.'1'�y �i�. 6� feet of t1?e de,c,.;"� ; pr�o.��'y, subjact to e��em2nt to f�or�hern S�z;�es Fo°..er Co�-��c��y, all lyirg in the Sou�h Haif c� �ecticr� ?2, T-30, R-24, C9ty of Fridley, Count; of Ai�o4;a, �•1ir.nesota. Gereraily loca.t�d at 5600 t'ain Street N.E., just North of intersta�e "do. G94 0� the 4Jest side of Main S�reet N.E. Anyone desiring to be hear•d ti•�ith reference to the above matter may be heard at this tir„e, Pubtish: No��ember 3, 1476 November 10, 1970 RTCHARD CHAiRt�tAN PLANNIf�G HARRIS COi�1MISSION ��yL6 � � cz�7� ot r�:ru?,,:�� ;ai;�r:r:sorn , � PI.!�,;;�ili::; AtiG 'T,O:;1t;C 1'Qi.h , 11!)FiRI7t _f} ,:� %7 r' ;i �- - �'�- ' , „� -- /�� �. APPL7C.�.,1''S SI( � ifLiizc� C _• , _ _ ,��e ��sf�_ Address Georc�etcn�r� Itotc_l,--Ir_c__"1 i;.��,iilt:on C�lvd � � Peot���ia, �?llir.oi; G1502 Tcle�;;�onc: ;�u;s?,c:--- � `��,.; � ,, % � -' q:,_<_ - _ _,--- — LU:;:�I �.� >l; :�d "t.3C. r / . YR01'ii1�.11 G`%N�R`� �Et�� �i[u::li ,-y,,_,' —_ .V_ . _i_._�...;CA�. i-� - - - ,- r.r�n1 i\(1(ll (�S' � ' V __' _� _' �"_l ±'_ _ ' � � "__.'-'�:�_-ilfv i J�:(�, �o. Tc2cphone i•;�:.z���r__°---- �,�� TYPE OF RGQUGST x Rezoning Special Use Pcrrii; Approval o` !'rec;:: inar� fi l�inai Pi::t- Stre�; : or Allc, V'acatio::s , ���1C7 Fcc � 1 00 '.:^cci; � *!o. - ,- ,....,. �� - . n -. ,__, .,��� �*..r:, � Stii'ee1, i,ccat�.,� �� F, _,�.�, ------ .---- _ _ }'c.' c Ci, lulci�� t.o�. s Sub.,. \o. !�s r I.Cf,'�a. �)E'SCI11��7.0:1 O �'��pl�c;: _ } � —' _ _ �'__� : \����11 i:. �>)�.�� a._ ._,�_. __._.___�__� �P1CSCili. zV;:l]l�; C1:i.5;3.ilC:l� ______ ..._'':•15i.lil� j)%2 Of �'`:D`JCP'j'`;72P_P _--.-- -"' �1 - � Acrea�;e o� F�•oy ='. �}�---�_b0 ----- P°�cribe Lricfly ti�e proposed znninU cia_ :i`i__�, or tyne ef u,e ard .- _;ro�,._,.....« t,i�r,r:_ f-7. C-2S x h�atel. Restaur.ni '� Hc4S t�1C �71'CiPC It °P�') 'C.� � i: j'I' �'.ii j. O�t� �lt �O TG7,OP.E� D11t� O�Ji.2�R H IOi SE �'_i. 02' V87'1.2T1CG Ol Sj�:.Cl.[i: '.]�C p0..:..:_� CI: C.1., c�Ll:)2Ct S1��C Oi Ll'nT't Di ].t� �'C`� 1, 110. 'lt'hat �;as rc;uesL��_ an4 •��Jicu`i_— �. T'}le ll���•_•,ir,r.ed u�i�e,star:l> that: (a; a list of all residents a�d o•.�ners o•.` prone�-t_ within 300 fcet (i�0 iee� fo: rc�o::'_-,^.g) ^ust be attached to this applicati.on. (b) Thi.s arplicsti.on must b: signed l�y all oi�ners of the pronert}�, or an e�planat�c giJen i•;hy t'�i-s is not the case, (c) Responsi.bilit?� for any de.ect in the proceec,i:__ resiil�iizo fi•on i�lic failure to list t�:c nai�es an:i add:esses of all residents anc! pTO�JCI'L}' Oi�ilC1�5 OL �TOI;E)PL}' ].il fi:1�S�iOli� �C�vii�;_ t0 i.il� L`:1'�CT'S'-� �'--'=:• A sketch of proposed proi�ert}' ai:d structure n:ust be dra�an and wttached, sho:ainr the follo�ainr: L P:orth Direction. 2. I.ocat_ion of proposeJ structure on t11e lot. 3. Dimcnsior.> o£ yroperty, p���?�=-'-� ��rucYure, and fro�it nnd sidc setU��ks. 4. Strcct t�a�:�es. S. Locatior anc'. usc cf adj:�ent existing buil_lin,s lwttLin .i�� : The undcrsigned hereby decla;es tLat all the facts and rei�resenta*_iens stated in t?�= application are trtu a�id correct. , . � � � : ��� ;, �_�:c. nn1•r: ��-i � -'7: �� szctin•r��� i ( , !' % r l� �n�-��LZC,1�; � � '=72`__—___ —` _ n3t� r�i��a Datc of llcari Planniiil; Ccn�,;ni_;_:i.o�l Ap, rnvc�l (datcs) �enic.i_ City Council Approvcd (datcs) Uenicd_ MAI�I�iG LjST � ZOA �176-06,_Georqeto��m Protel, L_r.. Mid1and Co-op 5320 i+tain Stree± Pl.F. Fridley, Nm 55421 Carl T. Geo���e Gecrgeto;,;r: ;';u*=}, Inc. 41�i Har�ilto:� `';s�d. Peoria, iilir,�is 61FS2 Quriin�*on 'I�r?!,er�, :r�c. C/0 J. �. Ker;cr;�, 1/6 East 5t; Screet St. Paul, t;ir�i;esota 5510; Hul'i day ;+i 1'._g�� Nor� t,r 4567 ld�s; �O±h Stt��;et B1oc;minaro;�, r,'irme,,,::ia 5543,' (Jero;t:;• Jer,ser �Y'dCl�;;� ��:cj�lrl?it�. I , LJ � Planniny Cemmission 11/�/76 �__ Council M° vR ... � � "P4.���e'�i"?p.�€F9F�� �i � e : .- ...e 5 �w/ d "3 �g ..�. �z`,a? � i � i'� o ev `s,R�.d / . � r. ,^,a. r-,��. i����: �l c�.a,.� Cr,r:�:rani �v i; . i.dri� i.n istrator 6��I Dni-�crsit�- ,., id. i. Fridlcy, r.s;;ir. 5545? De�.: liarr��l: . s�n�t�r, iais s�virrGS crs�v•rrl� •row�r:R • dll IIamilton lioulevard • PliOR1A, ILI,InOIS, G1602 • Phone 309/673-u�9� Octob�r 15, 1976 �]IIC�.OS°il \-`l.l `�il''_1 i1.77.� `L}i2 �._._i i.1Ci1 f'�7. r:lc T'. a(;:':1PC; Ci' L}l�- �.:_'�1 `O:' ���"�:ir=...-�i 17i•O�� ��°��- �R ��221 S�t'eG" ln _F'T .1�_r;' 1:•JT 5 I��v�r��. B.Ilii %7 I-(:5� .�at!��.. HItiO Li!CZ) .,'(i c!T'E. ;1��^ Di-iP.9 �f�,r the ,:o; _t and a ciie�l. ro- ,_ ' s3�t` `o�co-�cr tlie re- EU111R`� �rC. l� .:tl.i' Ot:l:'.-C lI'_{O7'iIl31.i(??l OT' i1�3`P1'1�31_C �t:'E' 71eB(��:''. 1J1C.'E?SC' 1Rr0?'lIl ll5 3RC1 }ti8 l�'ll�_ a2l t11C-IR t0 VOU 35 560ii £15 jJGS- Sl�J1C. 1 lYOUi'..1 i?�i;7'CC:l:'ti' 1'O;'.Y' lii�0'."�I1111`� lIlc Oi zoning iie �ri��g as soon as �'ou pessibly us can be preserit ior tlie ncai•i�ig. I�opi;ig to hear fro�-� pou socn, I reT:.air. C'I'G : j e F;nc . the date o* tl:e can so tLat some oE Sincerely yoin•s, � „ i' l_�C! J' , l/ . `✓''`/ "r-- �' Ca�l `f. Geor�e ^'i r �/ ,�� / , ' = � ; / �, �},. J� J�� /; ! � l l '% � � ,'i �;r�% F ' _%'i �;r s'a �� ,;����-�, �,� � �-,A--�,, � � ;:�� � ,� �d-- �,.� �._. b. 6437 Ut114':r;S;TY AVEt;Uc N.E., FP,!DLBY, MINN�SOTA 55:"s2 TELcPHOtl[ (672}571-3550 OctoF.er 19, 197b j, ,� CarT T. Gerrge 'I� Geor;e±� ;� >�o±els l Suite l iib Sa,�ir�g� Ce,:�er To,--_r 411 Har��i �i ton Boul e•dar�i Peoria; ?ilinois 6i50� � � � r� Dear 14r. G�org�: }=,:t'�-7�1•`..'-_-�C��1 �Ji ��. _;. � _. ._ �ii J`�'_�E �'t"�p=�t _ . , 1'1 G I _ , ':` t ��..". , �C!� l.� ci rtC Ci1���1., :(ir,..r �r.rE. ..iVt VU�V n :��/.;� �,'I ri.,:.-li,_ ����.��' 1'_ZU�l;ll� _ i�3s �P.c'� C_';?1 �I�J.�J:i. �7 � r't-�i� '�:.;�(� checi;, a�� �g �..; � � ,:;!Fr .,o. ,.. , t _ �- . _-� t�i.�. c�l�^,;^ . ritl�'� a�':f� . li � ,_ r,''[ _ ''p : � . � , ,. �� '�' preces� �, ��`at >r� sr>1E r,ci b: � � � ��; ,�, -_;i -_- � Nct�re� � �� I �,r. � ` - . ..1r c ?5t � .e -.9Y i � a�. �� ._ , - 50 ±hc�sll:lf'p::'�c� �^ '8� C-. .,. ..� � � � � - -�j ... �:I f i 1�� .,. � �J� .... IIiE ��iLi2 �i.dU�C'. fDY' 2:�iC 1'�ZGtil!l� 1`;"ti� GC dS fO��G;;S: �'�OV�iT��;CY' �/� I�/O - �U���iC iir'dl"IRG :.�TO(2 tii�' ��d�iii��l,j ���':-..���?Ofi �P.CE'IDD°1" 6� �9/v - �l�r; �OJil�ll _ i'°L PUF11C li_u�'ii�� January 10, iS77 - Fu�'i� H:;arli;g b�fore ti�e Ci�y Counc�l January 17, T9;a - Ci.*.y Cni�ncil f;nal decision If you are c,o;ng to foliarr this schcd�rle, it ti•.ill be neces:ary for ;o:! to submit your f�e bJ Ncver:�er i7, 1975. Aiso> it G�:ill 62 necessar: to sub:�,it a landsca-,c p;�,n �r;u ei�v.;±i,�;i C�1'd;-rings �]E'Oi"fE' f:�it ���C!\'8T1:',�� iiih i�eet;;;g. If l� i5 �)OSSiJi�?s i 4;'OJ!C ��.. �^ I ` get these dral��inos berore P;c;e��.��r 1G, 1476 su I�•�iil hav� �-,._ to r�4iA�,��_...� proposal. I 4'/UU��] d�SO �li:? t0 f'��t 4;1t�7 \`Oi! Ol" �Oi:^ 1'GN'%�5.^'!`�3i.;'185� SC`i��':'::� before that rieeting, to di,cuss possible sti�ulatiors. Please contact n;� cn an appropriai:e date �'or this ir��tiny. If you have any further cuestions, p7ease feel free to contact me at 612- 571-3450. ;�; cc: Darrel Clark ;; :. �a ' '' . JLEI/de r.j''�'✓} . Sincerely, JE�ROLD L. [iOARU�;AN -J— ----- City Plannei� ,, ( I � � � M � � ft3 �� . ___'� 't J; +:_ � � * --- i � � y,( .; :� - � .. - �-i--' � ` � t • li � I � �. �1 � �, �' t � �`i � � �• � _. � f/i M) � fi�i.R�e F I !rl�• .F.s.f n �r �6 �r ..� _.,.. /F z r_, � �-- � "�2. _ -�� �� � -...,_ _,.., Ilj ' _ .. . ;•:.i, .. __. _c r :....:r'�.'__.'_.____ _". i , � + �� � t : j;' 1 �rf �y_ � �. k !. .�'..--'�4 'I 4�� ' � l � �! � � �� � � � ' �s F � ` � � !I \ A._ 1 ; � ` \ � J� 1 � �� I � + I +__ i � � Y I� � �. c� . � .__ �.�,f . .Y � ��oJ . ., . _ � �L-'o?' /8'e�fFwm �i<if.e F,j.:,o. f' c.sA.r�:-r,lr�s a c�. ._..�d.�s...hC ..� A 67 � �._ � ,�,-r� � �- ° -, � �, �� _� � � �'���_�_. ��cl� _ ,� 53i}} ;_�_�_._.� _.__.� �/���p �� .�; ;o '= fi,?Z .,a`! i� �,�;t� .�i i X.%'O� ' �� --. e• �� � i u` � - _ °" i � ! �JD^�^�,-� �,_.1.� 4 .tlJi ..j� � i ii ll f.�-� �� � 7. � i it r'i' �/rit � � � k-, � { 7 e � ��: �' ° r> i , E _ __-___ ; � J� lI� f~�7 F'��%I'�/� i:�/. ���I � t ,� !' 1 ,��r ?r� �-r, �:. ti �; __ ._ . �.____ n�.��.; _.___� C1 S � i . i � `_ _ _ � � �,-� i � t t� � i / ' � , .; �..s_( i �r ✓; " j ; E � ( , � � _ � � � �. � .. d_... .__�._.... ...��. _......__ ;_.._... _.r=__ � f g ' . � ,. � �.,. � ?' f 4 r - .,. ;; , ,�. (� ?` � U !.§�r'... . .. Va � u w � �,� � — ".. si . ra 1 � 9. � � � : i.rrrn� � _ �) � i f`�^_� z t� ..�uc .... >m '-•r=`—�.. ,�_, 31 ( . 1 __�'�rv-zj w +r /� Y �.�e�r,� . ���, �� �'�,I ,: � � Oj AF__r�_�__�___� Ji- . �/'? � �` .. ..,.. ♦, � , � Ti.� '� { �i3TdJ' "_"' -�e -`{.�. .!. 'I � a. '` "__"_"% �_f � _- '�y,� "_'�-- ' �'i .. ' ` --. • -_o'___ ' � Sg f�- ..-.i-� ! � -___.i_'___'_ �` �� —�—_�~ ,` �E�---------�`��:�..`}� r �,���� ' '_.�}–____ _ -_--- � , a --,�.., ... _ ____---_ -f ---�- � � y - -- > —_ _ ----�_ -- — — --- — — — — _ __ , i<...•.r � �'.ir:�) /ynt/o/e ��c�.i ,,.�. �� L Ei l� l�. v 6.� ^. f`e i_= . Y \ 1 �.4 li1 V'rp � � a�� l/%'ii K�. `�.� y� ,,. ',. "'.., '��, . , >° .�- u - •`--e��:-r--'`• � ,�`'�� _��"' ��sn.`� Fu� `�,i�" m "' __'_' - --- • - � � i.. �r ' �. i ' a — —_--" `-� W ;� -,-�-'----- –�- --- � \' _ �.: • , _� � _ 4 ` ,: -,S TAT � � � ___ __ __ I_ ' � ^ ' _ //a' Zr, � I ' L i �xr� . '� I - - y � \.. ,� � ' rz zs��� 2 � S�RVICe ...RD�� � �k �.. .� _r--_ _� ! �_ ____ _ ,..______ ______ _____ �, � ''� ;r5�;n..�:, �, r�t 1 ''�� � . � I 1 � � l�a �-� ;��� '� �� i ?=�A o , ��� I� i �'q��.;� li � . a �� � I� �� I� }t }y'� � + I � y. h:'I �� �� . �_�g� �% � t �_ � � � i � 4i , b i I � �51•� l l I �i\ ,\I t � �.. ' 1 j f �` � , \ i V r� �. � >� � ,< s � I _----i � . a ' � e l f' i / x . .' ' ` I ' '.'.j��� ..�_ - 1 �.N �{ 1 f - / Le -i �' r . !:._1 \ i _._ .. Yi � . � ��' i� / . �. � 1 � 1 f j �.� ,t� � .� �i'';�. %�' `�� I.%: �/ /f - � . . � Y� V /1 4 �.: l � < %!\ ��.'. ..` . ..<� _ ._ � r"a / .. i � — k-- � --` y �1 � �r. r� � : - � S � L �� t O � � � � L' � � . ��/ 1 J/ ry � f ,� i � I ! � � �� ; l 'I ; _..�i:l - ._ . 1- -i/,� � 1'- '�.1 � _ �4 r - - — `: , � r / : '� � �.J�� �-`// / . Vf• j i// . 11 � / i ��� : i , � �i. - . � -� . �_ ..��iiiii . . ,�i.. . . -_ i : � 1 � � , ;.i:- y .t i c . I _ r �r ` ' � �..._�_...... ,� %7 '�� '°�l ���� � f-� 1'�. i � rt�U:S � � Y ✓ / � �� n\ �.' ` �/�. hFr� / J f a?I' I.tiy 'L% �� � j, � � '''�'' �r '.t � �� �F�� ; o ��a i �q,� �' X�Q� � t � y �' � •�� � r1 � ��. h . � " i ! -s 1 � �� I! � �� ,;� � ,�, Y �S' !y, I: I � ,S ( _ T } Ifi �� / V ' ' _ v a �- ... j'- . ' . � '� �.i � � t ��i. � ��l z ..�� \ . '.� i �a?V : e d L . •+ � <s � --- - ; `"`t � 'r- � � . r, � k t � � % r r I i . � � .. � I iE-t ) � � � � . ._ _" .__ �� / � t • - , , � I L �� •�. J ��:' , �I I S i' I i r - . � ! f 4 .i J; j I i' — _._ F � � a . [ [ ;C .... ' . .. i. - - - . �.._. — 5i. � ' - r _ i -_ . ♦ 'z� " ��� `� �� '�' _ - .. � L. � _ _, ' _ ,�2 .�. 2 � - _ _ C " __ <:� ' a��,.� ..i✓ . .. _. - �a. = i'�� _ -.. - �_� : i s _ '` �� ' — i� l \e _-. T ` .._ 1 � .. �... -._ - • 9. 1 .-��4. - � _ � � � � I � ' :f _ _ ,_ � ��� � �� . . J t15 �, � , 1 � \ - � � -�-' � i �;� �/ -�'_ -�J , .-���-_.`_ �� � i � • ; � OFFICIAL IIOTICE CI7Y OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC NEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COt4MISSION TO WHOM IT At4Y CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that there wi71 be a Public Hearing of the Planning Cor�mission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Mortheast on l•;ednesday, December 8, 1976 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of: Consideration of a rezoning request, ZOA #76-07, by Robert A. Schroer, to rezone Lots 5> 6, 7 and 8, Block 2, East Ranch Estates Second Addition, from M-2 (heavy industrial areas) to M-7 (7ight industrial areas), all lying in the South Half of Section 2, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota, Generally located between 77th Way N.E. and 79th Avenue N.E. on the East side of Ranchers Road N.E. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter may be heard at this time. Pu6lish: November 24, 7976 Oecember 1, 7976 RICHARD N. HARRIS CHAIRMAN PLANNING COh9�tISSION 31 ..., __�_ � l � C� CITY OP FRIDLCY D1INNGSOTA PLANNING ANU ZONING FORD1 NUM6GR ��%� 7� ��7 � APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE` uu�'�r /�. J=u.;,.�.< Address /ur:7 /•/�:,/�,°:"J�/�`� ✓���. ,�.� Telephone Kumber 5 7�' „'.G=� � � „ j PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE�:(���"�' ✓y,s Address �-.cu �5:� � TYPE OF RCQUEST � Rezoning 32 Speciai Use Permit Approval of Premin- inary F Final Plat Streets or Alley: Vacations Other Telephone Number , Fee Receipt No. �C 3 �J Street Location of Property �, "; j. d;v: %� ;%-1 i/� 9r/,� Legal Description of Property;. i; i_j L�,y"� (�L��t z i �<; yn��=}' �-%'�r�; 2nin Rna,r�•� � Present Zoning Classification r'1-� Existing Use of PropertyVj,�;i,_�a;,,�Jy Acreage of Property ;,q.�,,=; Describe briefl�� the proposed zoning classification or type of use and improvement �roposed ��`-r7<,,� � ./ .J � ��11��4^1I �° -.'+�el.' ?��/c �� :/ i.`ns- J; �r" Has the preser.t applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split or variance or special use pernit on the subject site or part of it? yes ,\ no. What was requested and when? The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all residents and owuers of propercy within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) must be attached to this application. (b) This application must be signed by all owners of the property, or an explanation given wliy this is not the case. (c) Responsibility for any defect in the proceedings resulting from the failure to list the names and addresses of all residents and property owners of property in quest'ion, helongs to the undersigned. A sketch of proposed property and structure must be dravm and attached, showing the following: 1. Nortli Direction. 2. Loca�ion-of proposed structure on the lot. 3. Dimensions of property, proposed structure, and front and si.de setbacl;s. 4: Street Names. 5. Location and use of adjacent existing buildings (within 300 feet) 'Che undersigned hereby declares that all thc facts and representations stated in this application are true and correct. �1 , �� ; �� ��� UATE Jll�-�JL, SIGNATURG ��1.:�-�'�// r�icX✓✓11�, (APPLICAN'l') Date Filed Date of ficarin� /�? - .�' ?� Planning Commission Approved (dates) Denicd City Council Approved (dates) Denied ry� v Planning Cormnission 11-23-76 MAILING LIST City Cauncil ZOA q76-07 Robert Schroer Robert A. Schroer 7620 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Win Stephen's Datsen North 7810 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley Development, Inc. c/o Terrence Troy 580 Northstar Center Minneapolis, Mn 55402 Evans Products Canpany 7710 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Elko-Kenn�dy Properties 10246 Berkshire Road Bloominton, Mn 55437 ; Paul Emerson R. Route 1 Lake Elmo, Minnesota Harris Erection Company 6210 Riverview Terrace Minneapolis Mn 55432 Talco, Inc. 7835 Main Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Consolidated Container Corp. 763 Nortfi 3rd Street Minneapolis, Mn 55401 Frank's Nursery C/o Gerald Schroer 7424 Lee Avenue North Minneapolis, Mn � � � ' � '�t--.. S.W. CORNER SEC.2 . �� II I' �' �� �� �� I� e _� I� �•. 1" •..�/ , `� t ._ ..r, J � :•...:w.... R . � 1 � 3 GJ � r� : . . . � `�, :,.i � �.-. �� :"�. �83RD a�Fv �� — . <. f — . �. �iJ � �' I 8157 A WYLD`NO00 LAME � 2onsd R�aid�ntiot Zon�d kbuatnd �� � � '� ��'f'! � � '�����f + � �� �, 1 ������ � Z onsd � s MAN04 ' lib0 T! % 4 t � ' E s= y � 7 y� a . 1/ � �0� SC� DI S rt.�w«�t. �..—a � r � UNIiY HOS°IT�L • _ i • ��y -'.N.-�' `t.� `V // / '. . 1." /� 2 T5 TN AY£ M.E. /�6 1 t��^-:TT�T—�F��'��1 .0 a `�;/\ '\./. ,orm �f5-be LOT SPLIT APPLICATIOPd CITY OF FRIDLEY a, u�i � i� k W d 5 2s o � � U � ld Qj -N � '[.1 CN�/ +� � 0 3 � a �.�+ `� .� � q +.�-� `° .0 � W O � U o .a m •.� �� o m � a +� o� +� �d 01 O U 'C W 7 m m o u •.� a,' R U1 +�' � APPLICANT• :(�'', i,1'i /�" _- '•i�� = ADDRESS: �: , vl��.� < .; � 'Y �`i � � S �� j �" -- Street City Zip Code TELEPHONE � � 7�� - !�"I� S � l -Gr� � � Home Business PROPERTY 04INEk3( S� s'.' �". = nnnttESS(Es TELEPHONE �(S vity 3� . t� 's Name Lot Split � h' �-ii Date Fi].ed: Fee:���i'�Receipt !E � D3° Council AcLion:llate Rg+1ARKS : Street City Zip Code Home Business Properi;y Location on Street or EXact Street Address (IF ANY� �f �'/� Zl ,�r�.�� /�� ��� �' �Y ) / �� � �i �� �L JC (/ .� � / - � i� �G:� c-�sc/ -.l" !-L .Y�.�f� lc-,��.<✓ IJ /�' �' �C�.�/[.•-,i :-�`-- Legal Description o£ Property: pSy; � t: , � � � y � � 1��.7 -� i <J %iCf �/ �- �i .� ;1- �?'e=�;- /�. ?'%;�_/:� .�:,� �%.�GL,_� ���° � Area of I'roperty sq. ft. tion The undersi�ned hereby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this application are�true and correct. "� . DATE: �l :�.r�7� SIGNATURE v''^'��/ �'?'. ✓�� `_ - RELOIJ FOR C7TY itSE OPiLY (See reverse side for additional instructions� PI,.ATS & SUfiS: Date of Consideration - Remarks: � PLANNSNG CONAIISSION: Date oi' Consideration - Remarks: CITY COtiNCIL: Date o£ Consideration - Remark�: . .. . . _. ._'"' . . � � .. .. . . . _' ' . . _ . _. ... . .. . _ .. _. .._. . h4.�. - ii.:.� _: �_,- . . -. .. ..._ -.;.r�._...._ .��.... . . ... . _ .. ..}�� . t,pl. . . . ._ . . ... " -.e_. . . . . .. . - . C; •. e . � � � .•:;! ,'" i - ' . 3 � '� -� 3'7 . . . t ; rt t✓� 4?Y'ilrlvv* _ � .�_ . s6 � + S .. . ... . . l 1��. 13 .�'A}. �}'#;`YI�k,J ' b aEX�IBZT $' r p' f! a {.� '. ;" r f'� xt'vt � x`'- �': r, �'� . � 4 Y ,'r :. y,�ai ' ¢i�„6� '7 �t i` r K�' . .� � � P�20F•OSGiJ `•Su9O1vi5�ON � CI= _ . • �A�T �dA�°��! ���A��� �����'�� � ��,°��e���-�:: � CIiI Of fO�OCFY '- L- A 7�- u N� �y�M�Y OF INOA'I ��� • . . L� tV Y1 L Q p� ( C_. L T uL 1'Y ) i1 �15 �� ,} . - � . Na�l4��.nq{A�SW�e��SW}�q'He1w�-1:�r�r�xp'30R?�a'!�.' r'�: ra f�. ...-� � I � - . MheP'a ,f . r . � ' f . 14QQ:t1 Y 7l' � a`Y9f+lL'y �t if r� I • \:%.a�.:rs_� .iY � ii�%� e.f .� a %. �i ��` * � �.vi �a� •s:f 1 � . ' . �.. "a�9� '�+.aot-- � -.' a fatwl_AVENUE- � s . �-usaa." .. � . . . , rT'T� � »,a e"_ ' : .`a .-. � \ i . � � �a w .. sv : �. � i ,�y ' _ '_ '� wi� "1� .:'' ••'' i ��' s} +r rarr��w. , r ru� •• � I . , . �f� ... n . �� ` t��� �" `� 9 �i y `<'�`. * ��, 2�! �. �is ��� . [OT l �� i .r. � i � ,� _ �� z_ 5'[_�-� /, • ' } �� , � ' i � s .`�.t ��'ij�#;p+�� Z z s BLOCK l�� � d y ` = S �. r . 1 � . '� . . a • , y ; ' = E i�� . .� ; }. T �s.-�-. n � �t +v � `i" 'g': � O � • . r• � ,' � I � ���{ �r� ;./���Z,�`�� fS -._ �SO - ..' � Z y i . F O I � I 'c �i is ° e�='v� �r y�'� °� a i � u ; � �r; �6d x • �; � `,�' S ; l�� > ; .` � . �; Z r Q ; . i �- -t . ^ �'�'�` y �ff � -F �n � F. � _ t�L ' n � � � e � � ' a� .'r-� . . .:� �� -c, vi � F�..' rC .r �-__:, a � . n+� m_ee �/� b�w ' F f� •`j t 3' *-L.: � st°1' Q. __."..M+�v.w' A.g�.wwn�w . ti7MS�. 4'�i%YS�Y"n �'-C��.x �`�f4 . . iF N • I} , , `.�, xu ' • � p .i 1 � }I ;F�R�'�� ..a r.5!'7.'• '� - :�q t. i' }. � ^ . �� � i � �e 1 -^.� � '4�X � �ti i� 1�� t �:i � ~ 3 � IS � . {� -!} [ u� .,. q . , • .� .t;'" �. S �" .�� . � g . ', 013 .rs0 , �. '�4 `.3t�� y s:t�{ � '`': y{ r��Z _� ' (� ! . Li v sw 1 0 1 0 � 1 j �. wb. t. � ! i �� �v � �!o Y i z � G �y •' . .�� i c.� _. ' t f3t'� �, 't`� 'dz : j ti' �:' a , r ; ° =l 1 . • f f.. p !i A . : �M . q I ; 1 � jN � .i+ �I !; g3 � h .. k.` .t :. ��ri?. � ? � �. '°"�-�-D . �s ' . . . �S �`;� t:� 'J' �'t � x.Z t K n ? z . A i r>� � + .�- �p!a� � �is� � .. c y a6 i :T y. ,v� H�•�, 1a� �- ' �.� . � V= � � T .[� �i �.. �pu � .'�IY i{laQ _ " r �.,{1 Vt^^ -� '%` -9 .�?.�. 'f � � C'` ` � w�i i m � c }�_ .: p.+N'ms..., j �-rMTto.c � 1. - �tA�iTf*`� �r- �r t--�-- _ - i ' t wy.w�+.�..s.. � I .��_ Ce-s-:��(y�,�.� �� �.mm4 r I� ��' �. E .0 - N .._ e4 e.-`� r i ;�v r i•� ._ i• i t i { 6 �. � -. _ ..t ` .j. .. .Iu�a�� �r < �' -s'4 �w��> i:�� f � �—y s.__. ,�J�, � ' -��j. � . � � '4 " � .li . �i ��' -� l �Fl�` a5 X' Y`jv y j Y ;a31.� � . 1(•�� ¢� !' . . � „ * �.�� ' ti�.. -.:�•d< ..i-'t�a`. R.�,e.r f ��.. . { z• G Y Y �� �� -`g�5 gs'•..3 a '^�r ? I�- � rv: � t e i% z s t`z � . :�i;. ; �x �,f � :_ : Y{� �'' �•,, �. .° < �a .+� s °� � 3± i s� ,�: ,*t // �O.S G� I", 3. tr • . � ._. t �s�f. f41 a Y SS - aP ! �- � 1 � gi 1i � 3 'i� f`1.' � t 4 t� �, � � � s 1 _�_� e 1 - � K„ ! P�ui'r. -fl�t �.- J 4�.�: 4 � �� • � _ ' � ! � N 'r . . �,� � a. �•� 'M+.-.. � f �, i �. - �� • � ' . C + � ,. a� � 3 ��m �i�' i��w _ W viao. s ��� r p,�. o ' .. t} .. 2." .��i•�vx 4 .q.v.w.0 = balw-r�- __,,.�1_Kx �S- f �. �, Q �-. .� Z �':.t�. a.� . F �'-' � � - . •'r"w a. ~ � �' f � , 1I }' �''� t^ � ��e t mS��' � f! � ii c :4 4 � � _ � . ��� .. = C '� "t 2 r." Ft Mi :. � c � S, �%'s° W p w� e _ .,, e. . F- . , 3 �w , � . � S'j-= S . 4 J� �:� . � W � � ._ ei- i (i� t� . Vo Qs \v' S � il3 � 4 0 � 5 4�>L1� �•A C - ti� : a N {Fjf�i � , • x,b� � . 1) �- , ;S � y �� 6 r � -� - : : , �� ,� -' e < � � w ' I � � . . .. � _ r- a � •3 � � �1 �.^° _ , r ' I'�� : , u 'e. � - j�r �? �I�a� � �` `r` � �. P � ! , b �''i�� � � 46 ' .: r � i�.. , . �F�a „W+'IA G.b.La�'Se..V� SMd E• s� t�l , t �O . r . : �c� ; v` - •n*� wn �, =' - �' f � ; _ �' ' � -: ; �� , v ' � _ '. " . v ' wn . ,.. . . \ \ . � •e•,� mu. � —1180. 47 — � � % '` ��' , ��.. � t �. ,�t c C EZ`,.�. �� �� Sw.Ml.�olnSNty�IA�SW�q�S<e{�a1,Tw.�.Ip70�R�y.xf I ` � �-.s�- n 7'I� \�: �// ••. � . .� 1, , ; � � ., ,,�. ��., _ r--; ; ; 1� _ ,:: .:• .. .. -r ,- f- v . � , � �_ � r ,` �:. , '; ;' .,� . + !:. r'' 1 ' .MF �� b.o..,4,.ue.�.o..o,�..d �-` .: � v' ���UBURBtiN � :;� � � S.C�I2: I�—' IOO'- i _� NGINEERING�SNC _ e D.nale..�o+�ro+w�7+1�+a��Il'! .i. T .y' ,�n..,,.otia. ,b.V<..rJoa,95� .•. -�a Q a .,.L,;Q,,,�, $:� .;�..'`. �1_:• r.: � 1� \ � � CITY OP PRIDLEY MINNBSOTA ^�) PLANNING AND ZONINC FO[tM NUMI3ER ��Y'Y � %` D % APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE City of Fridley Address 6431 University Avenue NE Telephone Number 571-3450 PROPER'fY OtVNER'S SIGNATURE Address Telephone Number Same Street Location of Property Talmadge Lane & 75th Way �8 TYPE OF'RGQUEST Rezoning Special Use Permit Approval of Premin- inary $ Final Plat _� Streets or Alley Vacations Other Fee ;� ^,,�e� pt No. Legal Description of Property Lot 49, Rev. A.S. #77 � Transitory road- Present Zoning Classification R�1 Existing Use of Property Way easement Acreage of Property 0.11± Aeres Describe briefly the proposed zoning classification or type of use and improvement pmposed Vacate existing un-needed roadway easement in consideration for additional roadway easements being acquirec Has the present applicant previously sought to rezonc, plat, obtain a lot split or variance or special use permit on the subject site or part.of it? yes X no. What was requested and when? The undersigned undcrstands that: (a) a list of all residents and owners of property within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) must be attached to this application. (b) 17iis application must be signed by all owners of the property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. (c) Responsibility for any defect in the proceedings resuiting from the failure to list the names and addresses of all residents and property owners of property in question, belongs to tlie undersigned. A sketch of proposed property and structure must be dra�on and attached, showing the following: 1. North Direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on the lot, 3. Dimensions of property, proposed structure, and front and side setbacks. 4. Street Names. S. Locati.on and use of adjacent existing buildings (within 300 feet). �The undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this application are true and correct. DATE Dec. 2, 1976 Date Filed SIGNATURE (APFLICANT) Richard N..Sobiech Public Works Director Date of Hearin� Planning Commission Approved (dates} Denied City Council Approved (dates) Denied � � J . � � • '^, 1y . . � . '-/G{'.?! ;.! '��n � y • � " ��� �1. •I ' � � ,, �\ � �\y pp'.�ry�j t / —z� � u�-. iS=a1 e(!``..e `-.-__, .'r%r'� � \:A �"� \ P��• _ .- / 'l'c �� � � � ,......, 1.,a. y' . �.� . � . ----Q'�"� �'ti y,L� - \ ' �\ � ,' 'l 'o v ` ' ' �_ � _ �� ' .:9`,>;�%.'�=. J .� c� -p � v�'�' �asf . �� - \ - �+' Y �..i ;, N ` m m �� :�� �„•'\ � � -?--- `°,— .�c ''-t,-_�C' ,\ � �:. -�i -�i �;'' �Y ' 1_._'�.: -�£N f �:. �.J O � ` ioi! � y� y� �6' �.\�_� � A � .. � � ,.\\ �� �o "� � y ' � � ' �1 � ��..3 N A �; ,,�.+�� �T1t } °j � �: . � � ..,:. ° _,u„ :� �%'� `'... � � , i;. .. "'.� "` s�\�: e :,. ` - �� --� � z v `!, / . - � V� � �� �=�r � f- �' \ �^' m m ,+� '� v. , , --�' r , • r: , .v t-� ; . �J `�'� o ° .. � .e T � W O � f, � O rv�ti�\ �'`�.:, � c.'""�. , ^, . p� � � I'' � � � -Q't < t ` F , �� . p �� � � { �,�, �a � yt ,..� , a C� �G� �3-' \ __ � i v:.1 ��1� ` -i = ' �: a.'�..�cti a -: � i'� V, \.� c.\\ ` 1� � �i.���y m m s /,t `. '�l � � � �� + �`'�'w� �`' q' ���v��� S � � F� �� ''. l� � � o� '. 1 ! 61.. p(. Vj s � fy �. � gi". l . 'J� q� / /• �� 1 ' j � L {{ 1 l. . j%.' � j � `�j � � ;''�. ���� A\ � �`. T.LIi � �. � • ., �� u. , /j :� -wj ' c,x :. __ `t° ' � � � � �•.. � �J :• � "(1`: S Oi� "'+.. . �'o \ �.n 1e o � e q t {�. p` ��y j `� ' � _ !.'^��r /� ` (.IJ % � ��J �i � �`�*` ��� `j � i � � � -Y � .� �afC',�. �,�, :`� , , �.� u''' _ s . cs .��._. ` �-� 11 ��� + � `, W tir...��(h� I ' - ..' .ag„ 3 �n �1�. 1 •, :] `' \: ;'� d � � ., _ � � '+9 f i17� �. ' r ,i ��'�r � ...� ,.� (� aiy%��.� i y,.._ .����w.5��¢ Y., � �r aa,s � .. � � � '� � ., -� i- t T s j ...�z :. 1 . M1 / o �i %� -� � __ .f , :l 1 i .. I - �1 �..ea C . „y1 , i £Fb°� 1 � U'v � � 1 � �'� t � � ., ----' .—�� ,..� � _, - ��_ :. e!��l p .; �<.,rs,.' ��' . �. ,,� .,YA,; 1� Y , ` - 9 � �, � � w � ' (' � V�� � �'�"i ��li :. . 7 a T. c . �.. �; .� 1a q � �o ; Jn � -� i i�`^t , +. '�1 v -� t yi/ � � y� � � ��,��1 .-as7C ..-1�-i� �Ylf" 7^ t :.,�,�� 4 - i � .,K,. � e JJ c:- � �- _ "li � '. r � � .�'�/ ad }g' .+ Q` � p :,� .�%C .'i.� 4 (fl ie� /0 ' r4� FNY'• �\O . � - � � 4..i , � � � lil�.^Y } � � 1/ l `_; � � � � �. r� .___ , �' _ = crJ: 1 l'� / � 1 4.� �+m� V \C � . r+�' J '_1.r � r7c3 -w ' . �. J P'� �--�,' ob-'.t . 9 ° � 4 �� `, h �t r> t 3 � � ` \ ,{�� .� - yt f t .d -.{p y L J � � r e -i . ?� �fll _i .. [ �w 3 / f.�=� �. � '�' :,xr� ` � '! y��%� °', pe C r x - j � � � ry ��` �� a3 ' +. r� `� \ Jl � �= � �S� " � . -� � ` " � �1 � � n 4a �� � n` � � y � 4 �' • v'�� V ' � � � � i:y �7:V� 1�,.�'W �'�)` '_y ny • "'�,� .: � \� �+ s > j • � �'� a --{j .� � -� `:. �,� :�' � . ,�3'� U' \ '� ti�� :>li n �� � y?l 4 ('y{�;���• 9 S�Y��ty \� �. `� � �! � _ _ 9 ; y- � �" L•�r� ~ J.I \�' ��? � 1�3 1` 1 ��: � ,: -�u.—_'_._ I `� y�:: a •:�" :'\ / 1 C. r i (�.� \� � ',°. a,e,: - 1 � �\` �F �+:i �,, - :.,� ; , ; " °1� �°� � �/� ;;� h ° ,� � 'y , � �� � c� �� � ,. � o -�'�` �. ; . .� '--�.:- sT.3e --- . �,'i� _ cd ir ^ j � C3�,_,\ i� c�� i1 4 ('L ! . `T i�.yV�J �� •I /' � � �.... V / . � A P Q v ,�\. ;� p \ `� \ �\� :yr��l � ` , Vy.` `n /� i� .) .% � w j ���� o,-r� ; �, f/. i�'� 'r os , � , �, ; ,, ,r-�� : y FT' c `. �a. , . � � -.� ' i� � \ - ; � i i F, Ci3 � ., Y, fi :: �- �.. r;su:} �� �;� y�\�» � .D` � i � n3 � �\ \ i- ,�' - �.., ,. ,'i � n, t".''ii -�' � LJ1 ° _- _ ' � i , ` },a � t",� j' "�- s? � � ^,1 , "' _ �,--�� � � �i;��'�;�Jw'� » � y . � ; �.` I '' �;s�"��'� `�—'= •� '� I � +^T1-' � ..",�-'� /�� " G: J + �. � 1 �-• .� ;. w� i: D r".rs' <"e[/ i,:�.,f' . .L�?�{��� �„ . . �n %' -^ - 1�.1 " >• � t� ad(V'�r �_r=� --� � . n . - � O�� ___ �' �s=". � �� '-lin9nl -- „ml o( � �-�� `•, ,' S; .,L uD9 RN' ' ' _��il�-� ea �_� _ ..... f / �.,.�� j . . arvs' �4 � y,�..�[---- ip/iuo,f' '� �' ` '^% . � ._ � � . _��� � p 2� tr 1 t 1 � � ,, � � CITY OF FRIDLE7 '_. PLANNING COMMISSION MESTING - DECF?SBER 8, 1976 PAGE 1 CN�ti1��TiZTi .i� �;� � Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at %:32 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Harris, Bergman, Langenfeld, Schnabel, Shea Members Absent: Peterson Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPRAVIs PLANNING COA4IISSION I�IINUTES: NOYSMBEEi 17, 1976 iiDTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Con¢nission mi.nutes of November 17, 1976 be approved as written. Mrs. Schnabel noted that she had been listed as present, xhen actually Mrs. Gabel had attended that meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting qye, the motion carried unan�mous�jr. 1. REZONING BEQUFST, ZOA �'/6-06, BY GEORGFr gener s ess areas), that part of Lot 2', A.S. //78, lying Westerly of the Westerly right-o£-xqy line of Main Street N.E., lying Easterly of the Easterly railway right-o£-xe�y line of Burlington Northern, Inc., lying Northerly of the Northerly right-of-v�y line of Interstate High- wa}* #694� and lying Southerly of a line draxn Wester�jr at a right engle to the East line oP said Lot 2, from a point on said East line distant 507.60 feet Southerly from the Northeast comer of said Lot 2� except the Wester�y 218.16 of the described property, subject to easement to Northern States Porer Company, the same being 5600 Main Street N.E. Public Hearing open. Mr. Robert H. Brokopp and Mr. Dave A. Oleson xere present representing Burlington Northern, Inc.; Mr. Ken C. Nielson vas present representing Burlington Northern Land Developnent Corp.; and Mr, Carl George xas present representing Georgetovn Motel, Inc. Planning CiF�mnission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page 2 Mr. Boardman informed the Coimniss3on that this was a continuation from the last meeting, and they did have representatives present from Burlington Northern and B� L at this meeting to ansxer any questions they might have. Mr. Robert Brpkopp of Burlington Northern stated that the Burlington Northern Land Development Corporation had been £ormed tvo years ago to try to develop property compatible xith Burlington Northern. He said they had properties in some locations that weren�t specifically industrial, and they felt that they should possibly denelop those as coimnercial. He explained there were three railroads combined which had large land o�ning interests in various parts of' the country, and there had to be some tie to get all of these properties managed correctly. Mr. Brokopp stated they also had a third division, Resources, which controlled the timber, oil lands, etc.; so they actually had three real estate departments--property management, Resources, and Burlington Northern Land Development Corporation. Mr. Brokopp said that in trying to do the best they could with their property the situation arose along Main Street and 694. He ezplained they had created the Northtevn Yard, and it xas thought that perhaps they should consider putting a motel-type arrangement in to handle the crews from Northtoi+n. Mr. Brokopp stated that it never really got to the point vhere they could consider that as a project, bnt vhen they rrere in contact with Mr. George with regard to the crew handling facility he sa� there vould be a need for a facility in the vicinity of East River Road and 691+. He said the piece of property that seemed to be most advsntageous Stas the site that was in questione-north of 691� and west o£ Main Street. He explained it was zoned M-2, heavy industrial, and they alxays intended to develop it that way. He said they had the property since 1965, and the reason it hadn't been developed xa� they xere not sure what the plans vere for the Northtorrn Yard. He explained it vas £or that reason they hadn't been able to develop the property industrial, but they stillgplanned to, Mr. Brokopp stated that they had the Land Developsnent Corporation to develop the property because they didn�t lmov hox it xould work out; they xanted the highest and best use for the property. He explained that with the George- toirn Hotel they could see whare they could give up a little corner of the property which wonldn�t lend itself as xell to industrial as to the motel operation. He added that they didn�t feel the motel operation xould be incompatible with the adjacent industrial they have planned for the rest of the property� and urged that the zoning be changed in this unique situation to aeco�nodate the Georgetorm Motel operation. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the property had always been zoned M-2, and Mr, Brokopp replied that they had or,med the property since 1965 and it had been zoned M-2 then. Mrs. Schnabel asked i£ he could foresee in the future any chance the railroad company itsel4 xould use that property for any other operation or if they xere looking £or other companies to use that property instead. Afr. Brokopp replied they had used it in connection xith their operation and were trying to make final plans for the property, c+hich xas rather difficult to do. He said they pri.marily vould be interested in getting other 3ndustry on the property. Mrs, Schnabel asked if then there were no major plans for that property b� the railroad, and Mr. ffiokopp said � Planning Commission Meeting - December 8� 1976 Page 3 no� not at the present, He explained this �as in the t��eea= of planning and they xere only five years old as a combined compar�v, and it wasn�t that easy to formulate plans. Mr. Langenfeld said that their main concern at the last meeting xas the future develop¢nent of the properties North of the Georgetown project� and the Coimni.ssion was hoping the railroad might have some indication as to what they intended to do with the remaining portion snd if they had any plans �or the portion immediately adjacent to the Georgetoxn Motel project. Mr. Brokopp replied they had no immediate plena, but he vould envision some- thing similar to xhat xas developed along Esst River Road and 69� in the Southeast corner. Mr. Dsvid Oleson, also representing Burlington Northern, Inc., stated they had brochures shoving pictures of their property and giving information on it. He said they were sent to respond to inquiries promoting the property for industrial use, and passed out copies to the Conunission. He explained they promoted it for industrial use and it was their intention to continue to do that. Mr. Oleson e�cplained that the Georgetown plan was brought to them by the Land Deaelopment Corporation, and Burlington Northern xas basically acquiescent to that request by saying that this area xould not deter from their efforts to locate industry--at least to the best of their judgement at this ti.me. Mr. Bergman asked if it xas the railroad's intention that the land from the proposed Georgetovn parcel all the vay to 61st Street presently zoned M-2 be developed as M-2, and Mr. Oleson said that xas correct. Mr. Bergman said he was a bit concerned about the piece betxeen the proposed George- twon parcel and the tracks, and coimnented that the Comnission had been a little surprised that the rezoning request did not expand westerly to the trackage. Mr. Oleson replied that one of the reasons might be that there was alx�vs a need to preserve some area for trackage for nex industrial Pacilities� so certain clearance areas had to be maintained. Mr. Brokopp stated that another reason might be that for years the Highv� Department had been unhappy with the underpass on 69�t under their tracks. He explained that underpass had been built to accoamodate Highwa4y 100 and xas not built to freewqy standards. Mr. Brokopp said the Highx�y Department had come to them and said they xould like to rebuild that bridge to highwa4y standards, and the railraod felt that they should provide a xide enough bridge to put additional tracks across there. He explained the reason was the trains rrere increasingly longer with more cars on them, and in order to bring the trains in it m�y be necessary to put additional tracks along the East side of their present tracks, and that vould require additional right-of-xay. He further explained that the 218.16 feet o£ the parcel of land xas predicated £or additional right-of-waty if the bridge on 691t got changed and a larger one was built. Ae commented that he had no idea where that stood xith the state. Mrs. Shea asked if it hadn't been discussed at the last meeting that perhaps Georgetown might like to pick up that property later. Mr. Brokopp replied that the original plan for Georgetoen xas to have an exception of 100�� but their operating department didn't think that vould be sufficient to allov the Planni.ng Cc>�nnission Meeting - December 8� 197b P�Be �+ motel operation to expand. He stated they then discovered that property xould be needed Sor trackage� so he thought the width got expanded North and South in order to arrange for this. Mr. Carl George stated he hadn't Imoim that property would be used for additional trackage for Burlington Northern, so he thought i£ it was criteria for the rezoning he would offer to pick it up. Mrs. Shea asked iP the Georget�n Motel couldn't go back, if they xould ask for more property on the side to expand. Mr. George replied that they felt xithin a twwyear period there vould be a need to expand, so then they xould have to go to the side or to another location. Mr. Brokopp added that•it depended on the State Highway Department and what they xould do, and their plans for the longer trains� etc. He explained they xere taking this as they xent so it xasn't easy to anssrer questions like that. Chairperson Harris asked if the remainder o£ the land behind the proposed Georgetwn Motel development would be si.milar to the type o£ operation described in the brochure Mr. Oleson had passed out. Mr. Oleson replied hopefully� yes, but it was difficult to see xhat type o£ proposals would come to them. Mr. Harris said that he vas a bit conf�sed at this point as they had seen a brochure at the last Public Hearing put out by B N L that described the use £or the remaining property as something else. Mr. Brokopp agreed that xould get con£using, and eaplained that his company £ormed the other company to handle the many� many properties they had that couldn't be categorized as either industrial or operative. He said thatw while it may seem strange to the Commission that they xere both advertising for this property, it Was really £or the good of the company. Chai.rperson Harris stated he understood that, but Burlington Northern was adnertising it £or one thigg and B N L was advertising it for something else. He said h�s question was� "irhat are you trying to sell it for?" He read to the Coimnission the site data brochure by B N L Developnent Corporation Khich stated the property could be used for office buildings, multi-family, warehousing� i.ndustrial potential, etc. Mr. Harris said they had two different stories from B N L and Burlington Northern. Mr. Brokopp stated that the primar� concern uas for establishing industry along their lines of gronth. He stated that the Land Developnent Corporation xas formed to handle some of the lands that weren't perhaps compatible for either industrial or for operative. 2�. Brokopp e�cplained that they did get into a cross over on this part�geiar property because there vere some sreas like this Georgetoxn site that could be used better £or the motel operation than for the industrial operation. He said they had finally deter- mined that the Georgetoxn site r�ras better £or a motel and they were xilling to go that route, and the rest they felt should be developed industrial. He added that they ielt that anything along rails should not go a�y other rray unless some circumstances dictated otherwise. He said, hoxever, they did have to think of rrhat was economically best and if it uas found that perhaps an apartment complex xould be finang�811y beneficial, they would be back before the City asking for that. Hovever, he said, at the moment their primary Planning Co�mnission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page 5 concern was for industrial developatent oP that property. Chairperson Harris said they understood that� but the railroad should under- stand the City�s position. He ststed i£ the City xas to operate under those circumstances just described, they would get into a mishmash of zoning that would borderline spot reaoning. He said that Yrom his standpoint he agreed with the Georgetofrn concept along the highvqy and the industrial back, but a strip of commercial� a strip o£ multi-family� a strip of industrial and then another strip of cotmnercial was not good planning. Ae said he saw nothing but headaches as far as traffic patterns� utilities, and getting along xith the adjoi.ning residents. Mr. Boardman pointed out it was the City�s prerogative to turn doxn aqy future requests for rezoning i£ it did not folloW vhat they felt was a normal process. Chairperson Harris said that vas correct, but he felt these things should be stated at the onset of the develo�nent. Mr. Brokopp stated this xas a desirable property £or industrial develo�snent, and the only reason they hadn't developed Main Street property was because they xere waiting to see how the Northtown yard turned out. He said they had discussed hov a motel would be compatible irith industrial property, and had noted that the prgperty itself wasn�t too visable from the interstate. He explained that Holiday Village shielded most of it� and pepple were too intent on driving through the underpass to p�y much attention to it. He stated that if the motel xas located there and people had the change to swing into the motel, there would be a lot of people that would be in£luential in the industrial developnent o£ the area. He added that once they got into the area there could be more developnent� and one development could lend itself to another developanent. Mr. �okopp added that they looked at it in the vein that the motel xould add to the develolxnent of the industrial property, and i£ industries did get in there the salesmen xould possibly be having their meetings at the motel, etc. He said that normally they wouldn�t ask for rezoning aw�r from industrisl, but they xere trying to be as honest and forthright as possible. Mr. Ken Nielson of Hurlington Northern Land Development Corporation stated that xhat the Co�nission had heard so Yar vas the Burlington Northern�s viewpoint of vhat the property xas to be used for. He stated the vote was not in on vhat the remainder of the property Trould be utilized �or. Mr. Nielson said that sure�y the Co�nission could understand that Burlington Northern's Industrial Develo�xnent wanted to protect everything along the rails, and he thought that Was understandable from the stsndpoint it was getting harder and harder to loeate good property within a respectable proximity of the metropolitan area on which to locate industry, He stated that he thought their industrial develoFsnent in Fridley so far had been of good quality; but from a corporate standpoint, looki.ng at all the facets of the problem, they felt it also had potential for use as corrmercial, office, warehousing� multi-family, etc. He stated that based on their ability to come forth with a proposal and submit it to the Soard of Directors, this pro�erty could be availab2e to B N. L Devel- opment £or other uses besides industrial. Planning Coaeaission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page 6 Mr. Nielson stated that he didn't think �at any of the representatives present xould suggest that they intermingle land uses along Main Street such as having commercial, industrial and sticking in a few multi-family units. He said they thought it was en area that was sensitive and had a number of uses. He stated that on their property betxeen 61st and 69�+ they had multi-family, single-faraily and commercial all irithin that area; and he thought the key ingredient was how these land uses interfaced. Mr. Nielson stated he didn't think that what they were proposing as £ar as the motel xas spot zoning, and B N L looked at this as the first step in obtaining the highest and best use of the property. He explaiaed that B N L xas in competition with Burlington Northern's Industrial Developnent Department in finding a use for the property and finding a developer. Chairperson Harris asked if Mr. Nielson felt that all of the potential uses he had listed in the brochure rrere compatible zoning for the area, and Mr. Nielson replied there was no Yirm developanent for the land. He stated the data sheets xere just trying to generate interest, and they didn't like to come in and go with a piecemeal develop¢nent s�ep by step. Mr. Nielson said that the problem was here the Industrial Development Department didn't like to part with industrial land in locations such as this because it xas of pri.me concern to them, and they srere reluctant to give B N L more than they needed in an initial first step. He stated they xould be maki.ng a cohesive eYfort to have a logical snd harmonious usage along Main Street. Mr. Lsngenfeld said that as far as a business standpoint was concerned and in reference to the two brochures (one light industrial and one general business type zoning), he got the impression that rhichever one sold would be the one to go, and then they xould be back before the Planning Coimnission asking for the necessary zoning at that time. Mr. Brokopp said it was already zoned for industrial develoFmment, so they xouldn't have to come back be£ore the Planning Commission if it vent industrial. He said it xould be just in the event they weren't able to locate industry there and B v: L xas able to lgcate some coimnercial development. Mr. Boardman asked if proposals by B N L had to be reviexed by Burlington Northern before they would lease that property� and Mr. Brokopp replied yes� Burli.ngton Northern vould have the first directive as to what the property would be used for. Chairperson Harris asked if they vere selling any portion of this particular tract. Mr. Brokopp replied they didn�t like to sellit, they prePerred to lease, but the vay financing was these dqys they had to sell. He explained it was difYicult fos them to get a financer for a term lease. Mr. Harris asked how the road situation and utilities would be handled in the event they did not sell, but leased the rest of the property. Mr. Brokopp said that was what they xere trying to come up with nov� but it rras difficult to plan because they xere not sure about the bridge over 691t and all the other things involved. He stated they had been trying to get the plat completed that was agreed upon at the time of the Northtovn yard initial construction. He added they had been trying to get the thing platted, but the City asked questions about what they were going to do with the property behind xhat they wanted to plat and the railraod couldn�t answer thatyget. Planning Cownission Meeting - December 8� 1976 Pege 7 Chairperson Harris asked hor the utilities and the internal roadway system £or the motel would be handled if the City looked Yavorably on the rezoning for Georget�vn. Mr. George easwered that they had two entries o££ o£ Mai.n Street. He said they lmew where the sever was and had gone over this with Mr. Clark's office, and had been over the po1rer set up with the poxer company as far as transformers and would have total electric heating. Mr. George said that with the proper engineering and inspection they could put the sewer in themselves--building those lines and maintsining them, and they would belmng to the City. He said they rould be in the public right-of-w�*. Mr. Harris asked about goi.ng back into the prQperty itself� and Mr. George replied they would build those lines themselves and maintain them. He said they intended to run the sewer line into the right-of-vay and along the West side o£ Main Street to the buildings themselves, and then go from theie back into the property xith the sexer system they xould need to give the sewage system to all the huildings. He said it vould be the same thing xith the xater system. Mr. George added they xere all set xith the poi.ter compar�y� and the electrical system was all engi.neered. He stated the only thing they might use gas for xas the laymdry system, but they could also go electrical. He said the rest xould be all electrical. Chairperson Harris asked about the road system in this particular parcel in the event that they found some other users and leased the land to them. Mr. Oleson said that most of their inquiries started around five acres plus� so it was very feasible it could go for one project on one five acre parcel. Mr. Brokopp stated they would come up �rith a plan, but it depended on uhat came along. He stated they weren�t going to do ar�ything that would get haphazard� but xould get with Mr. Boardman and �rork out a plan that would be acceptable. Mr. Langenfeld asked what the minimum term for a lease agreement xas, and Mr. Brokopp replied that generally they xere cancellable on thirty days notice. He added that the term could be from five years to fifteen or twenty. Mr. Langenfeld asked if there were any kind of clauses in the agreements which would give them the right to sudden%� decide that they needed the property for their own uses. Mr. Brokopp said that there xere times xhen they did �heed the property--it didn�t happen very often, but it could. Mr. Ber�nan stated that he Yelt a little concerned that this process was a bit different from the norm in that it seemed Mr. George had a plan to build a particular £acility on a piece of property, and this requires a rezoning in order for him to do so� rather than a rezoning coming prior to a specific building plan. He stated they were talking about a property orner's request to rezone the property� and xas xondering xhat elements xere yet incomplete prior to the actuality of the construction of the motel. Mr. George stated that it had been worked out so the property could be transferred to B N. L vho could gine a long-term lease which they needed for Pinancing. He said all the items had been xorked out for long-term leasing, and it would be about a 25-Year lease. He added it had been agreed upon between the I.egal Department of B iV-L and Burlington Northern's attorttey, and the investors were all set, so there xas nothing that was leit to chance. Mr. George stated the feasibility studies had been run and the site plan had been made. Planning Coimnission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page 8 Mr, George stated that in a lot oP situations the rezoning request xould be made prior to all of this expense� but they felt they couldn't do that on this one. He said they felt everything had to be worked out prior to them coming before the Planning Co�ni.ssion and asking for the rezoning. Mr. Bergman asked if he was saying they had a long-term lease signed by both parties and a finaneing document signed subject to rezoning approval. Mr. George replied that was correct; the documents were made and approved and n�ere just subject to rezoning. MOTION by Shea, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Co�mnission close the Public Hearing on Rezon3�►g Request 7AA #76-06 by Georgetxon Motel, Inc. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:35 P•M. Mrs. Schnabel said that since vha xasn't at the last meeting her lmowledge of rrhat preceded was basically what came through the minutes, and she xas a little up in the air as to xhat precisely they irished to do this evening. She said she assumed they vanted to act on the request for rezoning, but beyond that in terms of the rest of the property, she xas wondering if the Commission felt they xanted to take some other action. Chairperson Harris said he didn�t lmow iY they could real�y do anything about the reat o� the property, but they had wanted to talk to representatives from B N. L and Burlington Northern to get their thoughts. Mr. Langenfeld commented that they had wanted to see if there was some comprehensive plan so they would at lease have a general idea of vhat xas going to happen. Mrs. Schnabel said it appeared that their intent vas that they alxays intended it to be zoned heavy industrial and they still do. She added she thought it would be difficult for the Co�ission to make a recommendation or do anything other than act on the request that was before them tonight. Chairperson Harris said that xas correct. Mr. Langenfeld said he vanted to thank the people from Burlington Noathern £or coming in� and he could see that they did have a plan to establish a trend when they started the Georgeto►rn project. He said he xished to make one correction, and noted that it had been indicated in this evening�s disgnssion that salesmen might be having meetings at the proposed motel xhen Mr. George had indicated at the previous meeting that there wouldn't be any meeting rooms or convention rooms. MOTION by Langenield, seconded by Bersnan, that the Planning Con¢nission reco�nend to City Council approval of Rezoning Request, 7AA �76-Ob, by Georgetorrn Motel, Inc.: Rezone from M-2 (heavy industrial areas) to C-2 (general business areas), that part of Lot 2� A.S. #78, lying Westerly oP the Westerly right-o£-xqy line of Main Street N.E., lying Easter�y of the Easterly railway right-of-way line of Burlington Northern, Inc., lying Northerly of the Northerly right-of-way line of Interstate Highx$y //691y, and lying Southerly of a line draxn Westerly at a right angle to the East line of said Lot 2� from a point on said East line distant 507.60 feet Southerly from the Northeast corner o£ said I.ot 2� except the Westerly 218.16 0£ the described property� subject to easement to Northern States Power Company, the same being 5600 Main Street N.B. Planning Commission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page 9 Chairperson Iierr3s said he xished to make a statement at this point. He said he hoped that before any further advertisements yrere sent out on Burlington Northern land and bePore a sign xas put up advertising the property� : that they could stop in and take a look at the comprehensive plan and get a feeling o£ the City as to the direction the City would like to head on that particular parcel. He said he spoke to the particular flyer xhich slluded to the site along Sast River Road and the proposed develoFnaent which stated °suitable for strip corrm�ercial� office business, restaurant and multi-family use." Mr. Harris commented that he did not feel that all of those proposed uses xere real�}* compatible �rith the area. He said he felt that before a sign was put up some of the railEOad, representa- tives should stop in £or a chat vith City Administration and get a consensus of opinion. Mrs. Schnabel said that she was a bit concerned about the traffic patterns. She noted that as this area developed the City should address the traffic flov problem as well as working with the os+ners of the property. She stated she was specifically concerned that they avoid the type of situation they had on East River Road now xhere property was sold or rented to a couple of coimnercial ventures� and they had a real traffic hazard. Mrs. Schda�el said she could see the sazne thing happening in this area because it was fairly landlocked by residential areas and she vould very much like to see the City address this problem as well as the property owners, and the time to do this xas now--before it was too far developed. Chairperson Harris stated they had discussed the traffic patterns at some length at the previous meeting� including how the people would get there, from what direction they xould come� the type of clientele, etc. Mrs. Schnabel said she understood that but xas not concerned with just the traffic generated from the motel but was talking about the entire area as it started to develop. She pointed out that right nox there xere only two fUnnels of traffic out to University Avenue� snd suggested an alternative plen be made or another access to the area. Mr. Harris pointed out that no one lmev xhat was going to happen-- not Hurlington Northern, B� L or the City. He said it could be one large development or five developments of one acre apiece� so they didn't lmow hox much traf£ic would be generated. Mrs. Schnabel said she agreed, but they had the same problem be£ore and now they had a serious traf£ic problem as a result of it. Mr. Bergman said he wished to co�nent that it had been gratifying to listen to the representatives from Burlington explain that they had been doing a lot of thinking and planning the best theycould� and they xere concerned about it. He stated he felt they had a good exchange and he appreciated their thoughts and statements. Mr. Brokopp said he would like to sa�y one arore thing concerning the develo� ment of streets. He said that was somewhat of a problem because the minute they planned the street and layed it out� then they found somebo�ly came along and xanted that street area. He explained that in the plat for the industrial center rrhere Wickes and those people were, they created street areas but they didn't dedicate street areas. He sa:i.d they gave the streets outlot numbers for each projected street area� and frhen Pl.yvood Minnesota went in that was itr¢nediately dedicated to the City for street purposes. Mr. Brokopp stated that the neact year the road that xent £rom the entry o£ the development Planning Commission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page 10 to FMC and arovnd the pump house xas dedicated to the City. He further explained that last year when Sylvania rent in they dedicated that street, so now if someone came in and wanted the entire remainder of that property Where there were streets projected but not dedicated they could lump all the outlots together and have one bigppiece that was served by roadwqys. Mr. Brokopp said that was sort of what they xere envisioning here; they were trying to develop a plan that xould set up the same type of thing. He added they had agreed with the City there would be an entry at 57th. Mr. Langenfeld stated that if they came up with a develoFanent plan, the City would certainly like to.see it. Mr. Brokopp stated that he had talked yrith Mr. Sobeich and they xere trying to get some�l►ing to him. UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting �ye� the motion carried unanimously. 2. uouv�ac u�w �� v� 1 ... ..� uiv�. �� uu.av aw���.ii a...uvcv v- .a.. �i from M-2 (heavy industrial areas) to M-1 (light industrial areas), located between 77th Avenue and 79th Avenue N.E. on the East side of Rsncher's Road N.E. Mr. Robert Schroer; Mr. Jerry Paschke; and Mr. Jim Benson� representing Mr. Paschke, vere present. MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commi.ssion open the Public Hearing on Rezoning Request ZOA #76-07 by Robert A. Schroer. Upon a voice vote� all voting �ye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public xearing open at 8:53. Mr. Boardman showed the Commission a plat plan for the buildings that are being developed in the Onax�y Area. He pointed out the four lots that were in queation and explained they rrere presently zoned M-2 but Mr. Schroer irished them to be zoned M-1. He explained the rest of the property Was present7y zoned C-2. Mr. Schroer eaplained that one reason they vanted to change to M-1 xas because they had a_potential buyer for four parcels of property. He said there was a more limited building construction in a M-1 than a M-2� so he didn�t think it xould hinder the area. Ae said he had the builder and the real estate man xith him to help ansrer any questions. Hr. Boardmsn said he thought there had previously been some concern as to what would happen in this area as far as road layouts, etc. He said the City did have road easement in this area for developinent of these coironercial properties. He said he had talked to Mr. Schroer a few days ago as to hox that vo�ld best be developed, and he had suggested a cul-de-sac to serve the interior properties. Mr. Boardman said that at that time he felt that maybe the best x�y �rould be to keep this as a co�mnercial-type develoFanent s�ith that type of a aervice road in there. He explained that if they put in-a nul-de-sac oPf of Rancher�s Road, it would pretty much eliminate any practicsl coirmiercial use other than maybe an office facility, and also mtght predicate a rezoning Planning Commission Heeting - December 8� 1976 Page 11 reqnest to an industrial-type development. Mr. Schroer explained that when the plat was 1$yed out in 'TO or '71 there xas an error (he pointed it out on the plat), and it had been discussed by himself, Afr. Hoardmen and Mr. Sobeich. He explained that because of that error they were thinking about the cul-de-sac, and the cul-de-sac could serve the same purpose as the service road, but he vasn't opposed to either wa�y. Mr. Bergman asked if lots 1 through 8 Were all presently undeveloped� and Mr. Schroer said that xas correct. Mr, Boardman sai.d there rras also tts possibility of expansion by Datsun. He added that he thought �t this time, and depending on the type of layout that went in there, he xould prefer to see it remain commercial rather than see any oP it go to industrial. Ae said that the di£ference betfreen heavy industrial (M-2) and light industrial (M-1) xas that the M-2 properties were requ3red on an acre and a half and tend to go to an ownership-type operation. He said that the requirements on M-1 properties xere half rrhat they were on M-2� and they tended to be smaller buildings. He said they also attracted growing operations that needed a place to go to Yor awhile until they out- grew it. Mr. Boaz'dman said they would prefer it to st$y M-2 to get the type of industry that xas developing across the street. Mr. Bergman asked about the allowable uses on M-2 and M-1, and Mr. Boardman replied the uses were quite similar. He said that some uses in M-2 were not allowed in M-1, such as very heavy manufacturing. Mr. Schroer said that 1+�2 did allow outdoor storage and M-1 did not� and Mr. Boardman coimnented that on M-2 you could not have outside storage xithout screening. Mr. Jim Benson of Thorpe Brothers stated he was represetting Mr. Paschke, and informed the Conmi.asion that Mr. Paschke had built ten buildings in the Onav�y Area and only one vas a lease building. He stated that all the buildings r�rere xell-kept and Mr. Paschke had brought in people who were long-term businesses and good business enterprises. He said that out o£ all the buildings that Mr. Paschke had built there xas only one that had any blight around it, and there the ormer should be given stricter control. Mr. Benson stated that the people that were attracted to this area were small� groxing companies� and the market was for small buildings. He said the first tvo proposed buildings xould be 12,325 sq• £eet each, and Mr. Paschke xas developing to a 35X density instead of the !�0% alloxed by code. Mr. Benson said that Mr. Paschke had changed the look o£ his buildings to almost commercial-looking� and they xould not look like industrial factories. He showed photographs to the Commission� and summed up by saying that this was an opportunity £or Mr. Paschke to meet all the codes, ask for no variances, and develop Mr. Schroer's land. Mr. Bergman asked vhat the actual reason xas for the rezoning request. He asked i£ it wasn't true that anything Mr. Schroer could build in a� M-1 could also be built in a M-2. Mr. Boardman replied that the rezoning request vas because the type o£ buildings Mr. Paschke wanted to build he xanted to split. Mr. Boardmen explained he wanted to have separate ownerships on the buildings, Planning Commission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page 12 and in order to reduce the lot area to three quarters o£ an acre it vas necessary to zone it down to M-1. Mr. B�rgman commented that then he wanted the flexibility of being able to put in a lorrer square footage tenant and get better density than he could i£ it remained M-2. Mr. Boardman said that was correct� as for M-2 they xould have to have an acre and a half per owner- ship. Mr. Benson commented that there weren't any 2lt,000 square foot buildings in the whole area, and the market was in the 10 - 12,000 square foot range. He added that he thought if it was left as M-2 Mr. Paschke would have to pass and look for another area as he xould not go out and build a 2l�,000 square £oot building on pure speculation. Mr. Ber�nan said that with an industrial building� £requently the building got built to a large size xith flexibility to subdivide the buil3ing to bring in customers of smaller sizes. Hr. Benson asked if he was eluding to the 110,000 square foot building with ten bays of 4,000 square feet each. He said that contractors used to build small buildings� but in about 1969 small buildings became uneconomical to build so contractors started building what they called multi-tenant buildings. Mr. Benson said that people have been leasing these buildings since 1969 and now they are tired oP having ten companies in one building, they see the rent bei.ng poured down the drain and no equity built up, and they have not been able to take advantage of depreciation so they xere coming out o£ these buildings. He stated that these people urere now looking for small buildings as they had no control over the parking lot i.n the multi-tenant buildings or the lawn being moxed� end they wanted pride of ownership and their own name over the front door. Mrs. Schnabel cotrmented that in M-1 and M-2 raw materials could be stored outside the building if they xere totally screened, She asked Mr. Schroer if the intent of the rezoning request xas to sell the entire strip of land or to lease it� and he replied that Mr. Paschke had options on the entire parcel of properties. Mr. Boardmen stated that one thing that should be considered somexhat on this *Itas the layout of the �ntire section, and what would be the best vay to develop this as far as road patterns in the area. Mrs. Schnabel said that brought up another question. She said that if they xere considering going of£ o£ Rancher's Road and cul-de-sacing� was that plan predicated on the sale of this? She asked i£ they were going to dedicate land £or doing this be£ore they sold the existing properties they had nox. Mr. Schroer ansxered that it xould be dedicated before they sold. Mr. Boardman said that a lot of this may depend on i£ Datsun wanted that back property� because if Datsun xanted that property there would be no reason £or putting a cul-de-sac in that particuZar area. Mrs. Schnabel asked if that xas done and the property had to be reducecl� if they would still be within the 3/1� size for an M-1 zone. Mr. Schroer said he believed so� and Mr. Boardman cotmnented that they rrould have to be. Mr. Bergman stated that the street pattern had been discussed at a previous Planning Commission meeting� and asked if they hadn�t gotten involsed in s'dedication at that time. Mr. Boardman pointed out on the plat the 50' and 30� that had been dedicated, and Mr. Bergman commented that he thought they Planning Cwmnission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page 13 had covered this subject once as far as their thoughts towaxd street patterns. Mr. Boaxdman xondered iP this was What they xanted or if a cul-de-sac pattern would be more feasible. Mr. Schroer stated that he thought it vould depend on what went in there, and Mr. Bergmsn agreed that might be the qualif�ing Yactor. Mr. Schroer said that they had discussed the cul-de-sac, and Mr. Paschke was not opposed to it. ASr. Boardman said he thought he would like to see a more substantial co�ner- cial develop�rtent� rather than a strip right up the line with frontage on University; and maybe a secondary coimnercial developnent xithin that area. Ae stated he felt that would be more in keeping with the total comprehensive plan. Mrs. Schnabel said that she didn't Irnox if Mr. Paschke was planning to make any of the parking areas joint parking lots, assum3ng he bought the entire strip. She stated that certainly a street going through there would have some aYfect on his plans� also. Mr. Paschke said he had no plans for joint parking, as he didn�t think they would need it. tlOTION by Ber�nan� seconded by Langenfeld� that the Planning Co�ission close the Public Hearing on Rezoning Request ZOA �76-07 by Robert A. Schroer. Upon a voice vote, all voti.ng aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:25• Mr. Langenfeld noted that no fee vas listed on the rezoning request, and Mr. Boardman said there was a$155 fee� w3ich had been paid. Mr. Bergman stated he had the impression that the property owner apparently had planning substantiation for the rezoning request and he felt no quarrel between a transition from M-2 to H-1 to C-2S. I�TION by Bergman� seconded by Langenfeld� that the Planning Coirunission reco�mnend to City Council approval of Rezoning Request ZOA #76-0% by Robert 6. Schroer: Rezone Lots 5, 6, '] and 8, Block 2, East Ranch Estates Second Addition� £rom M-2 (hesoy industrial areas) to M-1 (light industrial areas)� located between 77th Avenue and %9th Avenue N.E. on the East side of Rancher�s Road N,E. Mrs. Schnabel noted that Mr. Boardman had stated earlier that he tended to feel this should remain M-2 zoning, and asked if other than the concern for the nature of the ownership iY there were aqy other connerns. Mr. Boardman replied that generally smaller buildings xere built in a M-2 zone xith the idea of posaible room £or expansion. He said that xith M-1 there usually wasn�t room for expansion� so if their business expanded there usually started to be outside storage and parki.ng lots started to be used for storing materials� etc. He said that this was generally the type of situation they sa�r in the Onaxay Area. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the City had given ar�y thought to an overallpplan £or that one strip of lots £ive through 8 in terms of its compatibility with the property across Rancher's Road to the West. Mr. Boardman said he thought it xas compatible use; M-1 and M-2 usually did get along as far as uses of Planning Commission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Psge ].Lt property went. He said he thought he xould preYer that where they did have an opportunity to denelop on a larger parcel of property where•there was a possibility for expansion on that property� that they go to that type o£ development. He stated he didn�t have any quarrel with the design of Mr. Paschke�s buildings; he thought Mr. Paschke did a good job and in most cases his tenents xere good tenants. Mr. Boardman sai.d another thing about this vas there xas no room on these properties for outside material screening. He said the property xas pretty much taken up by the building and the parking lot� and when materials started moving outside there was jnst no room for screening. Mrs. Schnabel asked i£ it was just coincidence that one section appeared to be quite well dweloped and the other portion didn't seem to have very much. Mr. Boardman explained this �ras because of soil conditions. Mrs. Schnabel said she was just curious because obviously there hadn't been a problem developing xith M-2. Mr. Bergman stated that he xas Peeling just a bit uncomfortable rrith some of this discussion. He said he xas not sure he could accept that a change in zoning from M-2 to M-1 xould result in all the differences that had been described. Mr. LangenYeld stated he could see xhat Mr. Bergman was getting at. He said that they rtere s�ying in an M-1 there wasn't room for expension, so nox they xere goin� to go to a smaller type structure vi.th room to expand, but eventually that structure would expand and reach the same category as the M-1. Mr. Bergmen said he vas con£used by Mr. Iangenfeld� comment, and Chairperson Harris said he understood what Mr. Langenfeld was driving at but it got conflising because sometimes they were saying M-1 xhen they meant M-2� and vice-versa. Mr. Harris explained that i£ a given company rras to move into a bu8lding of 12,000 square feet and they expanded to their mazimum limit of �,000 square feet� at some point in time all of a sudden 21�,000 square feet weald no longer be large enough for them and you xere right back where you started. Mr. Boardman coumiented that there xould be room for outside storage instead o£ just parking and building. Mr. Bergmen stated that the key distinction he gathered betveen the tvo zoning categories xas the property owners and developer's industrial market input concluding there is a market £or industrial buyers for ownership of a limited-size building� and they xant to be able to get y+ithin that limited size. Chairperson Hsrris sai.d that it xas much easier to sell or lease a 12,000 square foot build:i.ng than a 24,000 square foot buildigg. He stated that the problem that had arisen in the area with the acre and a half lots xas that the people xho had built there vere not ef£iciently using their land; if some oF those companies xere to expaztd they xould have a great deal oY difPiculty as there was no place for them to go. He stated that txo things entered in: land costs and land prepsration costs. Mr. Harris said that if the lend xas purchased when Mr. Schroer could afford to be more reasonable, then the buyer could afford to put a smaller building on that many square feet of land, He added that those particular sites that are built on norr are on pretty reasonably solid ground, so consequently a bu3lder could afford Planning Commission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page 15 to go with a smaller building. Mr. Harris said that on the East side o£ Rancher's Road the soil condition was such that land preparation xas going to be expensive and also because land costs were higher. Mr. LangenYeld asked if there was any problem xith drainage, easements, etc., and Mr. Boardman replied there was no problem. UPON A VOICE VOTE, Bergman, Langenfeld, Schnabel and Shea voting aye and Harris abstaining, the motion carried. Chairperson Harris stated his reason for abstaining rras because he was a property owner crithin the area and rrould be a££ected by this. 3. IAT SPLIT RE,U&ST: L.S. �76-11 BY ROBFI2T A. SCHROER: Split off the outher 1 0 eet of Lo , B ock 2, IIast Ranc ta es nd Addition, to make two building sites� the same being 7875 and 7895 Rancher's Road N.E. Mr. Robert Schroer, Mr. Jerry Paschke, and Mr. Jim Benson xere present. Mr. Boardman showed the properties referred to in the lot split to the Coimnission and stated the lot split xould predicate txo ovnerships £or the develo�nent o£ the building. He ezplained the lot split would be at the line that would go right between the buildings� so there would be a back to back wall ("0" lot line). He said he had originally suggested that the entire thing be shi£ted 15�, but by doing that it would make the lot size smaller than the 3/L1 acre. He added that this would be consistent xith M-1 zoning� and each one was somevhat over 3/11 acre. Mr. Boardman stated that the square footage needed vas 32,670� and there xas 311,655 actual, so it was in accordance kith vhat xas required. He added that he rrould still like to see this shifted somevhat to pick up more green around, but it xould meet the zoning code the x�y it �as set up. There £olloxed some discussion on varmous wa�ys to shift this to get more green area� but Mr. Paschke pointed out that the xay it rras there rrould be room for more parking if it zras required� but if it was shiPted there xouldn't be. He said that the vqy it sat they could come xithin $' of the property line, and Mr. Board- man said he agreed with the points taken. Chairperson Harris asked hox they xere going to get the utilities in, and Ah�. Schroer replied that the utilities rere in. Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to Imox if the entire lot 8 xas going to be sold to one party or if just the Northerly half was going to be sold at this time and the Southerly half not so2d if this lot split xas approved. Mr. Paschke said that he would buy the entire lot 8 and develop the build- ing� and he may have two or�mers or possibly one. Mrs. Schnabel said her concern was building on the "0" lot line and the problems that might arise xith that if he xas not going to buy the tirhole lot 8 at once. Plenning Coimnission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page 16 MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Couuoission recommend to City Council approval of Lot Split Request L.S. #'T6-11 by &obert A. Schroer: Split o££ the Southerly 160 feet of Lot 8, Block 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition, to make two building sites� the same being 7875 and ?895 Rancher's Road N.E. Upon a voice vote, Bergman, Langenfeld, Schnabel and Shea voting a�ye and Harris abstaining, the motion earried. Chairperson Harris stated his reason for abstaining was because he ues a property oxner xithin the area and would be affected by this. Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 9:SS P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 10: 15 P.M. l�. VACATION RSQUEST: SAV�76-07, CITY OF FRIDLEY: Vacate existing un- nee ed roadxay easement in consideration for additional roadxay ease- ments being acquired� located on Lot 1t9, Revised Auditor's Subdiv3sion No. 77� generally located on Talmadge Lane and 75th Way N.E. Mr, Boardman directed the Commission to turn to page 39 in their agendas, and shorred them the two areas wheretthe City wanted to vacate road ease- ments they presently had. He explained that one was located on the revised Osborne Wqy and the other was irhere 75th was down by the St. Paul Watee�cWorks. He pointed out where they xented a 30� triangle dedicated and another area dedicated. Nr. Boardman stated they had contacted St. Pual Water Works and had gotten verbal agreements� and documents xere being draxn up for the exchange o£ easements. Mrs. Schnabel asked Mr. Boardman i£ the City had reacted in any xay to the request from the neighbors who live along 7$th in regard to the drainage problem� and he replied that that was supposed to be taken care of with the new Osbome Way. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Ber�nan, that the Planning Co�nission reco�nend to City Council the approval of Vacation Request SAV /%76-07� by the City of Fridley: Vacate existing un-needed roadw�y easement in consideration for additional roadway easements being acquired� located on Lot �t9, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, generally located on Talmadge Lane and 75th Wqy N.E. Upon a voice vote, all voting qye� the motion carried unanimously. 5, CONTINUF.D: PROPOSID MAINTENANCE CODS: Mr, Hoardman stated that they had gone through to a certain degree the direction that the Cortmussion had given last time. He explained the code had been revised and put into a certain order that xas acceptabZe according to safety, health and appearance. He added that he xas still going through it somewhat to check on the different property standards, FHA and,that type of thing. Mr. Boardman further explained he had an inter,n working on this and xas just about ready to present it. Planning Comnission Meeting - December 8� 1976 Page 17 6. CONTINUF�?= HUMpN DEVEIAPM�4T GOALS pND OBJECTNES Mr. Boardman informed the Concnission he had nothing further on this a� the present time. 7. RECTsIVS PARKS & RECREATION CONAffSSION MINUTES: NOVII�IDER 15, 1976 MOTION by Shea� seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Co�nission receive � the Parks & Recreation Commission minutes of November 15, 1976. Mrs. Shea commented that she had noticed Mr. Langenfeld had requested that the initials be clarified, and they veren't. She said she xould appreciate that also. Ptr. Langenfeld stated that he had read about the Eest River Road project under Nex Business and he wished it to go on record that Jan Seeger was the only one vho spoke up in behalf of the idea. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 8. RECfiNB ENVIROHISIIITAL QUALITY CO?AffSSION MII�iUTFS: NovEPIDSEt 16, 1976 Mr. Lsngenfeld said he srould like to make a couple of correct�ons� and pointed out the last sentence in the first paragraph on page 57 should read °environment and industry" instead of "industry and industry". He stated he also wished to bring up that the conversation referred to in the first paragraph on page 55 xas not his conversation vith Walt Starvalt, but this took place srith the Chairman of the Project Co�nittee during a City Council meeting. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the Phvironmental Quality Co�ission minutes o£ November 16, 1976. Mr. Boardman noted that there had been some discussion under the F]�viron- mental Sducation Program concerning the hhvironmental Coimnission trying to get revierr poxer over the budget for the naturalist. He said that any- thing other than discussion on that topic� such as a motion, would be out o£ the scope of the ordinance that vas established £or the Fhvironmental Commission. Mr. Langenfeld said he had one other correction, and stated that on page 55, the seventh sentence should read "fie said he believed these goals and objectives had an environmental impact that involved the entire City". The word "statement" should be eliminated. Chairperson Harris said he was xondering about the mining ordinance, az�d rrhere they were on that. Mr. Langenfeld said they had instructed the City to use the model oxdinance from Metro Council and incorporate the needed environmental aspects of that into an ordinance th�t could be drarn up by the C1ty and i�he F]�vironmental Quality Con¢nission would review it, Right Plenning Coimaission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page 18 nox, he said, the permit they use for mining was the only governing instru- ment as far as restricting any unnecessary mining, Mr. Boardman informed the Comaission that at this time they had issued two permits on it� and since that time had issued a tag t000ne of the operators vho xas to have had an appearance in court tod�y. He explained that the City had told him in a letter that if the debris continued he would be jeopardizing his permit. Mr. Boardman stated that they had not issued a permit to Chives at this ti.me� and said they were applying to Anoka County for e clean demolition lsnd fill in the area. Mr. Boardman said he had talked to Bob Hutchinson on this and he thought they would make a reco�mnenda- tion to Anoka County that this application be denied. He explained they did have several problems with Chives' property that they intended to get into vhen they reviewed it according to the model ordinance. Mr. Langenfeld said that if the members of the Covunission were interested in more speci£ic ansxers to this question, they could be £ound in the last two motions on page 51. He explained that they Would like to see the ordin- ance in concurrence with the permit. Mr. Boardman said they had the poxer to do th8s through the ordinance they presently had in the application process, as there was a statement i.n that application for stipulations that allosred some flexibility xi.th Staff to issue stipulations on the property. He added that most of the applications were pretty and cut and dried. Chairperson Aarris asked if the permit that xas issued to Mi.nnesota Transfer xas issued to Minnesota Transfer or to their subcontractors. Mr. Boardman replied it had besn issued to their contractor. Mr. Harris said that as long as they xere talking about this� he xould like to throw out an idea andgget the Coaanission�s thoughts on it. He stated that for years and years everybody said peat rras a nasty substance and tried to get rid of it, but in the past few years it hadn't worked out that x�y. All of a sudden, he said, it got fluffed up and c��.led black dirt and was sold for a tremendous price. He stated that our neighbors to the North on the Iron Range had a commodity they sold called taconite� and they taxed it, and he xas xondering about having a black dirt tax. Mr. Boardman asked for xhat purpose, and Mr. Harris replied to help defr�y the costs of administrating the ordinance and it also might be a good v�y of pumping a little money into the park capital budget. Mr. Boardman said they were not supposed to have anything over that permit fee, but Mr, Harris pointed out that the iron mining companies Were p$ying millions of dollars and they ran their school districts off of it. He asked why they couldn�t use the same rationale on ta�cing black dirt in Fridley to help capitalize the park impronement plan, and sai.d it would be the same as ta:; � any other minable product. Mr, goardman said he didn't Irnov xhat the state tax lavs said concerning this. Mrs. Shea suggested directing Staff to look into this. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Langenfeld said he xished to make a couple of statements in regard to the �vironmental Co�mnission. He noted that maz�y negative £eelings and ideas came out from these various meetings and Project Co�i.ttee meetings. He Plenning Commission Meeting - December 8� 1976 Page 19 stated that the 131timate goal was for the overall betterment o£ the City and yet here and there they vere being accused of violating a charter, and he didn�t think they rere. He also said that the Bast River Road Project Conwittee had been termed as en "interest" group� xhen it Kasn't intended to be so, He said that he thought some of the Co�ission members were familiar with the onslought of citizens from East River Road that came in about 1968 and kept the Gity Council busy for msny meetings, and at least they had accomplished that now the citizens were discussing their problems with the Project Committee, uho discussed it with the Fridley H�vironsthbal Cotmnission, and in turn it was d3scussed at the Planning Coimaission. He said that the citizens were siriag out their feelings at these various meetings, and xhat took place was a geod form of citizen input as well as a controlled-type meeting. Mr. Lengenfeld explained that they hoped to use East River Road asaa pilot type thing to go into problems of other roads, m�ybe extending to Highway 65, etc. Mr. Langenfeld said he got a little uptight when he heard they vere violating a charter. He stated that this was the very nature of the reason why the nrdinance was changed for citizen participation� and he didn't think H�vir- onmei►tal should drop the ball just because other Co�issions did. He explained that vhen people started talking about the environment, they were dealing taith something a lot broader in acope thsn hockey, �ootball or a pl�}*. He stated that Fhvironmental xas unique and different, and perhaps that rras xhy this Co�ission xas so grossly misunderstood at times. 9. RBCENS APPEALS CA2R�ffsSIOA MINUTFS: NOYffi�BER 22, 19i6 MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission receive the Appeals Commission minutes oY November 22, ].976. Mrs. Schnabel said the Commission might be interested to note that this Was intended to be a$l�0,000 house and was on a 50' lot. She said it xas a little shocking to find out rrhat you could get Yor $li0�000. Mr. Bergman co�ented that he thought this meeting xas more interesting than usual, and noted that Mrs. Schnabel had asked if there vould be a garage and the builder expla�ned they would not build one but xould provide space for one. He noted that a refrigerator, dishxasher and carpeting were included, and thought it xas interesting in view o£ a trade-of£ and rrhat a person got inatead of a garage. Mrs. Schnabel agreed it xas revealing to find out what was included for $li0,000. Mr. Bergman said that this xas an example oP jrhat could be built for losr andrunoderate income having not required a garage. He noted that their choice oould be $l�0,000 Por an eleven hundred square foot nex house, an appreciab�y lower cost for a five to ten year old house� or renting. He stated there xere all those options there and he thought they had gotten themselves trapped into the fact that in pursuing the objective o£ providing houring for low and moderate incomes it hadtobe nex, and had to be purchased instead of rented. He stated that in his opinion� a lorr or moderate income person still couldntt afford to bqY this particular house, and Mrs. Schnabel agreed. UPON A VOICE �OTE� AlL VOTING AYE� the motion carried unanimously. � Planning Commission Heeting - December 8� 1976 Page 20 10. OPF.�i DTSCUSSZON MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Ber�nan, that the Planning Coffinission receive the letter addressedtto Councilmen Fitzpatrick Yrom George Fred- erick. Upon a voice vote, all voting e�ye� the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bergman asked i£ this was from a private citizen� and Mr. Boaxdman ansvered it was. Mr. Boardman informed the Co�aission that there xould be a mesting the follrnring night in Coon Rapids on the Land Planning Act from Metropolitan Council. He said this xould be one of the first seminars, and the City would have a Staff inember attending and the Plenning Coimnission xas invited to attend also. He added that there would be some discussion as to the ft�nding sources. MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission receive the memo from the City Attorney on Special Use Permits. Upon a voice vote, all voting �e, the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Sehnabel noted that this was the memora�dum the Appeals Conaaission xanted. Mrs. Schnabel said she had a request to make of the persons responsible for typ�ng the minutes for the various meetings. She noted that on the even-numbered pages the margi.ns were run over so Yar that the last words were very difficult to read xhen the minutes srere in the book, and asked that xider right-hand margins be used. Mr. Boardman said it xas so noted. ADJOURNMII4T: I�TION by Bergman� seconded by Langenfeld, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Planning Conanission meeting of December 8, 1976 adjourned at 11:00 Y.H. Respectfully sutxni.tted, \]O �n �l [ J/LY�IX/lfa �/'-(. Sherri 0'Donnell Recording Secretary , 9 � �.�-�-_ _. �. _ ��� �� � � - � ���''-�*�--� __ - : , �,� ! ( -, iit 1.' �_l9%� ,,. . _ _ ._ _ -- - -- / �iL�,�.s%� �J � � `'"`",�-- _ _ _ -- l/ __ __. ��.f � �%�!!Y//� _ � _. .._. . . ..... . _. ..... _ . _ . . .. �°� --�! ���� ,�/V � , —/1/j,� /�I�l, �� w��,9�:�a� `��`' ! ; � � _ �J �'I .( �-c-�� �o ,-6�7 �� , �� � sf� � _ _ /,�/ � ��„�,��i �� ���.- � ` r �j � ����� �� �. ! � (P � �T�Sr, ���t� v �.ober� __ �Zhn�h �c�tne,�P�` G��D iZ,�v�o.v �r�c� � .r���� yg� �1�4 C�C��K ��v�, �„�.� _ /'� �?� �� .�,��� _ -� � _ �� 7�3 S l.�.` �-� � 1,.�-n �, _ Sg.26 PU � �i�.. �(R7o 6(� `, c �� _ __ _.. _ _ _- _ _.__ _ __ _ _