Loading...
PL 12/08/1976 - 30457r"'� � , CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMIGSIOPI MEETING - DECF�IBER 8, 1976 PAGE 1 �4LL T� 0 ORDER : Chai�person Harris called the meeting to order at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Harris, Bergman, Langenfeld, Schnabel, Shea Peterson Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MIIdUTES: NOVEMBER 17, 1976 MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission minutes of November 1'j, 1976 be approved as written. Mrs. Schnabel noted that she had been listed as present, when actually Mrs. Gabel had attended that meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11 voti.ng aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. CONTINUID: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA �76-06, BY GFARGE- TOTi�N MOTE INC.: ezone from M-2 heavy in us ria axeas o C- general business areas), that paxt of Lot 2', A.S. #78, lying Westerly of the Westerly right-of-way line of Main Street N.E., lying Ea,sterly of the Easterly railway right-of-way line of Burlington Northern, Inc., lying NortherZy of the Northerly right-of-way li.ne of 'Interstate High- way #b91�, and lying Southerly oi 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 �rJesterly 218.16 of the described property, subject to easement to Northern States Power Company, the same being 5b00 Main Street 1V.E. Public Hearing open. r�ir. Robert H. Brokopp and Mr. Dave A. Oleson were present representing Burlington 1Vorthern, Inc.; r1r. Ken C. IVielson was present representing :--� Burlington Northern Land Development Corp.; and Mr. Carl George was present representing Georgetown P�otel, Inc. Planning Commission Meeting - December 8, 1976 page 2 7 A Mr. Boaxdman informed the Corrnnission that this was a continuation from the last meeting, and they did have representatives present from Burlington Northern and B� L at this meeti.ng to answer any questions they might h�ve. Mr. Robert Brokopp of Burlington Northern stated that the Burlington Northern Land Development Corporation had been formed two years ago to try to develop property compatible with Burlington Northern. He sa.id they had properties in some lacations that weren�t specifically industrial, and they felt that they should possibly develop thos� as commercial. He expYained there were tl�ree railroads combined which had large land owning interests in various parts of the country� and there had to be some t�e 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 esta�e departments-�property management, &esources� and Burlington Northern Land Development Corporationo Mr. Brokopp said that in trying to do the best they could with their property the situation arose along Main Street and b9t�. He explained they had created the Northtown Yaxd, and it was thought that perhaps they should consider putting a motel-type arrangement in to handle the crews from Northtown. Mr. Brokopp stated that it never really got to the point where they' could consider that as a project, but when they were in contact wi.th Mr. George with regard to the crew handling facility he saw there would 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 advantageous was the site that was in question--north of 691� and west of Main Street. He explained it was zoned M-2, heavy i.ndustrial, and they always intended to develop it that way. He said they had the property since 1965, and the reason it hadn't been developed was they were not sure what the plans were for the Northtown Yard. He explained it was for that reason they hadn't been able to develop the property industrial, but they still planned to. Mr. Brokopp stated that they had the Land Development Corporation to develop the property because they didn�t lmow how it would work out; they wanted the highest and best use for the property. He explained that wi.th the Gearge- town Mo�el they could see where they could give up a little corner of the property which wouldn�t lend itself as well to industrial as to the motel operation. He added that they didn't feel the mo�el operation would be i.a,compatible 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 accommodate the Georgetown Motel operation. rirs. Schnabel asked if the property had always been zoned M-2, and Mr.. Brokopp replied that they had orRmed the property since 1965 and it had been zoned M-2 then. N1rs. Schnabel asked if he could foresee in the future any chance the railroad company itself would use that property for any other operation or if they were looking for other companies to use that property instead. Mr. Brokopp replied they had used it in connection with their operation and were trying to make final plans for the property, which was � rather difficult to do. He said they primarily would be interested in getting other industry on the property. Mrs. Schnabel asked if then there were no major plans for that property by -the railroad� and Mr. Brokopp said Planning Commission Meeting - December 8� 1976 Page 3 ;''� no, not at the present. He explained ' and they were only five years o1d as easy ta formulate plans. this was in the th��es of plarining a combined company, and it wasn�t that Mr. Langenfeld said that their main concern at the last meeting was the future development of the properties North of the Georgetoum project� and the Commission was hoping the railroad might have some indication as to what they intended to do with the remaining portion and if they had any plans for the portion immediately adjacent to the Georgetown Motel project. Mr. Brokopp replied they had no immediate plans, but he would envision some- thing similar to what was developed along East ftiver Road and 69lt in the Southeast eorner. Mr. David Oleson, also representing Burlington Northern, Inco, stated they had brochures showing pictures of their property and giving information on it. He sa3.d they �rere sent to respond to inquiries promoting the property for industrial use� and passed out copies to the Commission. He explained they promoted it for industrial use and it was their intention to continue to do that. N�r. Oleson explained that the Georgetown plan was brought to them by the Land Development Corporation, arid Burlington Northern was basically acquiescent to that request by saying that this axea would not deter from their efforts to locate industry--at least to the best of their judgement at this time. Mr. Bergman asked if it was the rai.lroad's intention that the land from �'~` the proposed Georgetown paxcel all the way to 61st Street presently zoned � M-2 be deneloped as M-2, and Mr. Oleson said that was correct. Mr. Bergman said he was a bit concerned about the piece between the proposed George- twon parcel and the tracks, and commented that the Commission 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 always a need to preserve some area for trackage for new industrial facilities� so certain clearance areas had to be maintained. Mr. Brokopp stated tk�at another reason might be that for years the Highway Department had been unhapgy with the underpass on 69l� under their tracks. He explained that underpass had been built to accommodate Highway 100 and was not built to freeway standards. Mr. Brokopp said the Highway Department had come to tihem and said they would like to rebuild that bridge to highway standards, and the railraod felt that they should provide a wide enough bridge to put additional tracks across there. He explained the reason �as the trains were increasingly longer with more cars on them, and in order to bring the �ains in it may be necessary to put additional tracks along the East side of their present tracks� and that would require additional right-of-way. He further explained that the 218.16 feet of the parcel of land was predicated for additional right-of-way if the bridge on 69l� got changed and a larger one was built. He commented that he had no idea where that stood with 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 Georgeto�m was to have an exception of 100', but `� their operating department didn't think that would be sufficient to allow the �, ,� Planning Commission Meeting - December $, 197b Page � 7 � motel operation to expand. He stated they then discovered that property yrould be needed for trackage� so he thought the width got expanded North and South in order to arrange for this. Mr. Carl George stated he hadn't known that property would bE used for additional trackage for Burlington Northern, so he thought if it was criteria for the rezoni.ng he would offer to pick it up. Mrs. Shea asked if the Georgetown Motel couldn't go back, if they would ask for more property on the side to expand. Mr. George replied that they felt within a two-year period there would be a need to expand� so then they would have to go to the side or to another location. Mr. Brokopp added that it depended on the State Highway Department and what they would do, and their plans for the longer tr�ins� etc. He explained they were taking this as they went so it wasn't easy to answer questions like that. Chai.rperson Harris asked if the remainder of the land behind the proposed Georgetown Motel deyelopment would be similar to the type of operation described in the brochure Mr. Oleson had passed out. Mr. Oleson replied hopefully, yes� but it was difficult to see what type of proposals would come to them. Mr. Harris said that he was a bit confused at this point as they had seen a brochure at the last Public Hearing put out by B N L that described the use for the remaining property as something else. Mr. Brokopp agreed that wouid get confusing� and expla:ined that his company �'` forr�d the other company to handle the many, many properties they had that .' ' couldn't be categorized as either industrial or operative. He said that while it may seem strange to the Commission that they were both advertising for this property, it was really for the good of the company. Chairperson Harris stated he understood that� but Burlington Northern was advertising it for one thi�g and B N L was advertisi.ng it for something else. He said h3s question was� "what are you trying to sell it for?" He read to the Commission the site data brochure by B K L Development Corporation which stated the property could be used for office buildings, multi-fami.ly, warehousing� industrial potential, etc. Mr. Harris sai.d they had two different stories from B N L and Burlingtan Northern. Mr. Brokopp stated that the primary concern was for establishing industry along their lines of growth. He stated that the Land Development Corporatian was formed to handle some of the lands that weren't perhaps compatible for either industrial or for operative. M.�. Brokopp explaaned that they did get into a cross over on this particular property because there were some areas like this Georgetown site that could be used better�for the motel operation than for the industrial operation. He said they had finally deter- mined that the Georgetown site was better for a motel and they were willing to go that route, and t_ne rest they felt should be developed industrial. He added that they felt that anything a1�ng rails should not go any other way unZess some circumstances dictated otherwise. He said, however, they did have to thi.nk of what was economically best and if it was found that perhaps an � apartment complex would be financially beneficial� they would be back before the City asking for that. However, he said, at the moment their primary i^ ,� Planning Commission rleeting - December 8� 19?6 Page 5 concern was for industrial development of that property. Chairperson Harris said they understood that, but the railroad should under- stand the Gity�s position. He stated if the City �ras to operate under those circumstances �ust described, they would get into a mishmash of zoning that would borderline spot rezoning. He said that from his standpoint he agreed with the Georgeto�rn concept along the hightiaay and the industrial back� but a strip of commercial, a strip of multi-family� a strip of industrial and then another strip of corrunercial was not good planning. He said he saw nothing but headaches as far as traffic patterns, utilities, and getting along with the adjoining residents.. P+�'. Boardman pointed out it was the City�s prerogative to turn down any future requests for re�oning if it did not follow what they felt was a normal process. Chairperson Harris said that was correct, but he felt these things should be stated at the onset of the development. Mr. Brokopp stated this was a desirable property for industrial development� and the only reason they hadn�t developed Maan Street property was because they T�rere waiting to see how the Northtown yard turned out. He said they had discussed how a motel would be campatible rdith industrial property, and had noted that the property itself wasn�t too visabie from the interstate. He explained that Holiday Village shielded most of it, and people were too intEnt on driving through the underpass to pay much attention to it. He stated that if the motel was located there and people had the chance to swing into the motel� there would be a lot of people that would be influential in the industrial development of the area. He added that once they got into the area there could be more development, and one development could lend itself to another development. N1r. Brokopp added that they looked at it i.n the vein that the motel would add to the development of the industrial property, and if industries did get in there the salesmen would possibly be having their meetings at the motel, etc. He saa.d that normally they wouldn�t ask for rezoning awa,y from industrial, but they were tryi.ng to be as honest and forthright as possible. Mr. Ken Nielson. of Burlington Rlorthern Land Development Corporation stated that what the Commission had heaxd so far was the Burlington RTOrthern�s viewpoint of �rhat the property was to be used for. Ae stated the eote was not in on what the remainder of the property would be utilized for. Mr. Nielson said that surely the Commission could understand that Burlington 1Vorthernts Industrial Development wanted to protect everything along the rails, and he thought that was understandable from the standpoint it was getting harder and harder to locate good property �rithin a respectable proximity of the metropolitan axea on which to locate industry. He stated that he thought their industrial development in Fridley so far had been of good quality; but from a corporate standpoint, looking at all the facets of the problem, they felt it also had potential for use as commercial, office, warehousing, multi-family, etc. He stated that based on their ability to come forth with a proposal and submit it to the Board of Directors, this property could be available to B N. L Devel- opment for other uses besides industrial. 7D Planning Commission Meeting -.December S, 1976 Page 6 � E n, i hir. Nielson stated that he didn't think that any of the representatives present would 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 an area that was sensitive and had a number of uses. He stated that on their property between 61st and 69l� they had multi-family, single-family and commercial a11 within 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 far as the motel was spot zoning� and B N L looked at this as the first step in obtaining the highest and best use of the property. He explained that B N L was in competition with Burlington Northern's Industrial Deeelopment Department in finding a use for the prop�rty and finding a developer. Chairperson Harris asked if Mr. Nielson felt that all of the potential uses he had listed i.n the brochure were compatible zoning for the area, and Mr. Nielson replied there was no firm development for the land. He stated the data sheets were just trying to generate interest� and they didn't like to come in and go with a piecemeal development step by stepe Mr, IJielson said that the problem was here the Industrial Development Department didn}t like to paxt with industrial.land i:n locations such as this because it was of prime concern to them, and they were reluctant to give B N L more than they needed in an initial first step. He stated they. would be making a cohesive effort to have a logica7. and harmonious usage along Main Street. n Mr. Langenfeld 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 whichever one sold would be the one to go, and then they would be back before the Planning Commission asking for the necessar�� zoning at that time. Mr. Brokopp sa.id it was al.ready zoned for industrial development, so they wouldn't have to come back before the Planni.ng Commission if it went industrial. He said it would be just in the event they weren't able to locate industry there and B!�• L was able to locate some commercial development. Mr. Boardman asked if proposals by B N. L had to be reviewed by Burlington Northern bef'ore they would lease that property, and Mr. Brokopp replied yes, Burlington Northern would have the first directive as to what the property would be used for. Chairperson Harris asked if they were selli.ng any portion of this particulax tract. Mr. Brokopp replied they didn't like to sell it, they preferred to lease� but the way financing was th.ese days they had to sell. He explained it was difficult for 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. N[r. Brokopp said that was what they were trying to come up with now, but it was difficult to plan because they were not sure about the bridge over 69l� 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 Northtown yard initial construction. He added they ,� had been trying to get the thing platted, but the City asked questions about zahat they were going to do with the property behind what they wanted to plat and the railraod couldn't answer that yet. Planning Commission Meeting - December 8, 1976 page 7 7 F �-; � Cha.i.rperson Harris asked how the utilities and the internal roadway system for the motel would be handled if the City looked favorably on the rezon�ng for Georgetown. Mr. George answered that they had two entries off of Main Street. He s aid they lmew where the sewer was and had gone over this with Mr. Clark's office, a.nd had been over the power set up with the power compzny as far as transformers and would haae total electric heat3ng. Mr. George sa.id that with the proper engineeri.ng and inspection they could put the sewer in themselves--building those lines and maintaining them, ari they would belong to the City. He said they would be in the public right-of-way. Mr. Harris asked about going back into the property itself, and Mr. George replied they would build those lines themselves and maintain them. He sa3.d they intended to run the sewer line into the right�of-way and along the West side of Main 5treet to the buildings themselves, and then go from there back in�to the property with the sewer system they would need to give the sewage system to all the buildings. He said it would be the same thing with the water s�stem. N1r. George added they were a11 set with the power company, and the electrical system was all engineered. He stated the only thing they might use gas for was the laundry system, but they could also go electrical. He said the rest would be a11 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 with a plan, but it depended on what ', came along. He stated they weren�t going to do anything that would get haphazard� but would get with Mr. Boardman and work out a plan that would be acceptable. Mr. Langenfeld asked what the minimum term for a lease agreement was, and Mr. Brokopp replied that generally they were cancellable on thirty days notice. He added that the term could be from five years to fifteen or twenty. N1r. Langenfeld asked if there were any kind of clauses in the agreements which would give them the right to suddenly decide that �they needed the property for their own uses. Mr. Brokopp said that there were times when they did need the property--it didn't happen very often, but it could. Mr. Bergman stated that he felt 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 paxticular facility 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 owner�s request to rezone the property, and was wondering what elements were 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 who could give a long-term lease which they needed for financing. He said all the items had been worked out for long-term leasing, and it would be about a 25-year lease. He added it had been agreed upon between the Lega1 Department of B N L and Burli.ngton Northern's attorney, and the investors '`�, were a11 set, so there was nothing that was left to chance. Mr. George stated the feasibility studies had been run and the site plan had been made. �� � �� ,� Planning Commission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page 8 Mr. George stated that in a lot of situations the rezoning request would 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 Planni.ng Commission and asking for the rezoning. IMr. Bergman asked if he was saying they had a long-term lease signed by both parties and a financing document signed subject to rezoning approva,7:. Mr. George replied that was correct; the documents �rere made and approved and were just subject to rezoning. MOTION by Shea, seconded by Langer�feld' that -the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on Rezon�ng Request ZOA #76-06 by Georgetwon Motel� In�. Upon a voice vote, all votirr� aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:35 P.M. Mrs. Schnabel sai.d that since she wasn't at the last meeting her lmowledge of what preceded was basicallyr what came through the minutes, and she was a little up in the air as to what precisely the�r wished to do this evening. She said she assumed they wanted to act on the request for rezoning� but beyond that in terms of the rest of the property, she was V�ondering if the Commission felt they wanted to take some other action. Chairperson Harris said he didn't lrnow if they could really do axiiything about the rest of the groperty, but they had wanted to talk to representatives from B11 L and Burlington Northern to get their thQUghts. 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 what was going to happen. Mrs. Schnabel said it appeared that their intent was that they always intended it to be zoned heavy industrial. and they still do. She added she thought it would be difficult for the Commission to make a recommendation or do anything other than act on the request that was before them tonight•. Chairperson Harris saa.d that was correct. Mr. Langenfeld said he wanted to thank the people from Burlington Northern for coming in� and he could see that they did have a plan to establish a trend when they started the Georgetown praject. He said he wished to make one correction, and noted that it had bee<� indicated in this evening's discnssion that salesmen might be having meetings at the proposed motel when Mr. George had indicated at the previous meeting that there wouldn't be any meeting rooms or convention rooms. MO TION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Comrnission recoirmiend to City Council approval of Rezoning Request, ZOA #76-06, by Georgetown Motel, Inc.: Reaone from Pq-2 (heavy industrial axeas) to C-2 (general business areas), that part of Lot 2, A.S. #78, lying Westerly of the Westerly right-of-way line of Main Street N.E., lying Easterly of the Easterly railway right-of-way line of Burlington Northern, Inc., lying Northerly of the Northerly right-of-way line of Interstate Highway #69l�, and lying Southerly of a line drawn Westerly at a right angle to the East line of said Lot 2, from a poi.nt on said Ea.st 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. 7G ; �"� 7H Planning Commission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page 9 _ — Chairperson Harris said he wished to make a statement at this point. He said he hoped that before any further advertisements were sent out on Burlington Northern land and before a sign was put up advertising the property� that they could stop in and take a look at the comprehensive plan and get a feeling of the City as to the direction the City would li�Ce to head on that particuiax paxcel. He said he spoke to the pa.rticular flyer which a�.luded to the site along East River ftoad and the proposed development which stated "suitable for strip commercial, office business, restaurant and multi-family use." Mr. Harris commented that he did not feel that all of those proposed uses were really compatible with the area. He said he felt that before a sign was put up some of the rail�oad representa- tives.should stop in for a i;hat with City Administration and get a consensus of opinion. . M�rs. 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 flow problem as well as working with the owners of the property. She stated . she was specifically concerned that they avoid the type of situation they had on East River Road now where property was sold or rented to a couple of commercial ventures, and they had a real.traffic hazaxd. Nirs. Schnabel saa.d she could see the same thing happening in this area because it was fairly landlocked by residential. areas and she would very much like to see the City address this problem as well as the property owners, and the time to do this was 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 would come, the type of clientele� etc. Mrs. Schnabel said she understood that but was not concerned with just the traffic generated from the motel 'but raas talking about the entire area as it started to develop. She pointed out � that r�ght now there were only two funnels of traffic out to University Avenue' and suggested an alternative plan be made or another access to the area. Mr. Harris pointed out that no one knew what was going to happen-- not Burlington Northern, B N L or the City. He sa.id it could be one large development or five developments of one acre apiece� so they didn�t know how much traffic would be generated. Mrs. Schnabel said she a.greed, but they had the same problem before and now they had a serious traffic problem as a result of it. Mr. Bergman said he wished to comment that it had been gratifying to listen to the representatives from Burlington explain that they had been doing a lot of thinking and planni.ng the best they could, and they were 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 say one more thing concerni.ng the develop- 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 somebady came along and wanted that street area. He explained that in the plat for the industrial center where Wickes and those people �rere, they created street areas but � they didn't dedicate street areas. He said they gave the streets outlot numbers for each projected street axea� and when Plywood Mi.nnesota went in that was immediately dedicated to the City for street purposes. Mr. Brokopp stated that the next year the road that went from the entry of the development Planning Commission r�eeting - December 8, 1976 Page 10 � I /'� � to FI�IC and around the pump house was dedicated to the C3.ty. He further explained that la.st year when Sylvania went 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 autlots together arid have one big piece that was served by roadways. P4r. Brokopp sai.d that was sort of what they were envi.sioning here; they �rere trying to develop a plan that would set up the same type of thing. He added they had agreed with the City there would b� an entry at 57th. Mr. Langenfeld stated that if they came up with a development plan� the City would certainly like to see it. Mr. Brokopp stated that he had talked w3th Mr. Sobeich and they were t�ying to get sometY�ing to him. ` UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST ZOA #76-07 BY ROBERT A. SCHROER; Rezone Lots ,� 7 and , Block 2, East Ranch Estates Second Addition� irom M-2 (heavy industrial axeas) to M-1 (light industrial areas)� located between 77th Avenue and 79th Avenue N.E. on the Ea.st side of Rancher�s Road N.E. Mr. Robert Schroer� Mr. Jerry Paschke� and Mr. Ji.m Benson, representi,ng Mr. Paschke, were present. �� � � MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on Rezoning Request ZOA #76-07 by Robert A. Schroer. Upon a voic� vote, a11 voting aye, Chairperson Harris declaxed the Public Hearing open at 8:53. . . Mr. Boardman showed the Corrunission a plat plan for the buildings that axe being developed in the Onaway Area. He pointed out the four lots that were in question and expla3.ned they were presently zoned M-2 but Mr. Schroer wished tk�em to be zoned M-l. He explained the rest of the property was presently zoned C-2. Mr. Schroer explained that one reason they wanted to change to M-1 was because they had a gotential 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 would hinder the area. He said he had the builder and the real estate man with him to help answer any questions. Mr. Boardman said he thought there had previously been some concern as to what �rould happen in this area as fax as road. layouts, etc. He said the City did have road easement in this area for development of these commercial properties. He s�aid he had talked to Mr. Schroer a few days ago as to how that would best be developed, and he had suggestecl a cul-de-sac to serve the interior properties. Mr. Boa,rdrnan said that at that time he felt that maybe the best way would be to keep this as a commercial-type development with that ,..1 type of a service road i.n there. He explained that if they put in a cul-de-sac off of Rancher�s Road, it would pretty much eliminate any practical commercial use other than maybe an office facility, and also might predicate a rezoning 7J �� Planning Commission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page 11 request to an industrial-type development. Mr. Schroer explained that when the plat was layed out in �70 or �71 there was an error (he pointed it out on the plat), and it had been discussed by himself� r1r. Boardmari and Mr. Sobeich. He explained that because of that error they were thinki.ng about the cul-de-sac, and the cul-de-sac could serve the same purpose as the service road, but he wasn't opposed to either way. Mr. Bergman asked if lots 1 through S were a11 presently undeveloped� and Mr. Schroer said that Uras correct. Mr. Boardman said there was also the possibility of expans�.on by Datsun. He added that he thought at this ti.me, and depending on the type of layout that went in there, he would prefer to see it remain commercial rather than see any o� it go to industrial. He said that the difference between heavy industra.�1. (M-2) and light industrial (M-1) was that the M-2 properties were required on an acre and a half and tend to go to an ownership-type operation. He said that the requirements on M-1 properties were half what they were on M-2, and they tended to be smaller buildings. He said they also attracted grow:ing operations that needed a place to go io for awhile until they out- grew it. Mr. Boaxdman said they would prefer it to stay M-2 to get the type of industry that was developing across the street. Mr. Bergman asked about the allowable uses on M-2 and M-1, and A7r. Boaxdman � replied the uses were quite similar. He said that some uses in M-2 were not a7.lowed in M-l� such as very heavy manufacturing. Mr. Schroer said that M-2 did allow outdoor storage and r1-1 did not, and Mr. Boaxdman commented that on M-2 you could not have outside storage without screening. Nlr. Jim Benson of Thorpe Brothers stated he was representing Mr. Paschke� and informed the Co�nission that Mr. Paschke had built ten buildings in the Onaway Area and only one was a lease building. He stated that all the buildings were well-kept and Mr. Paschke had brought in people who were long-term businesses and good busi.ness enterprises. He said that out of a11 the buildings that Mr. Paschke had built there was only one that had any blight around it, and there the owner should be given stricter control. Mr. Benson stated that the people that were attracted to this area were small, growing companies, and the m�.rket was for small buildings. He said the �irst two proposed buildings would be 12,325 sq. feet each, and Mr. Paschke was developing to a 35% density instead of the !�0% allowed by code. Mr. Benson said that Mr. Paschke had changed the look of his buildings to almost commercial-looking, and thEy would not look like industrial factories. He showed photographs to the Commission, and summed up by saying that this was an opportunity for Mr. Paschke to Meet a11 the codes, ask for no variances, and develop Mr. Schroer�s land. Mr. Bergman asked what the actual reason was for the rezoning request. He asked if it wasn�t true that anything Mr. Schroer could build in a. M-1 could „� also be built in a M-2. Mr. Boardr�an replied that the rezoning request was '"� because the type of buildings hlr. Paschke wanted to build he wanted to split. Mr. Boardman explained he wanted to have separate ownerships on the buildings, Planning Commission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page 12 7� ^ and in order to reduce the lot area to three quarters of an acre it was �° necessary to zone it down to M-l. Mr. B�rgman commented that then he warited the flexibility of being able to put in a lower square footage tenant and get better density than he could if it remained M-2. Mr. Boardman said that was correct, as for P�i-2 they would have to have an acre and a half per owner- ship. Mr. Benson commented that there weren�t any 2l�,000 squaxe 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 leit as M-2 Mr. Paschke would have to pass and look ior another area as he would not go out and build a 24,000 square foot building on pure.speculation. A1r. Bergman saa.d that �ri.th an i,ndustrial building, frsquently the building got built to a laxge size with flexibility to subdivide the buil3ing to bring in customers of small�r sizes.. Mr. Benson asked if he was eluding to the 1�0,000 square foot building wi.th ten bays of l�,000 square feet each. He saa.d that contractors used to buiid small buildings, but in about 1969 small buildings became uneconomical to build so contractors staxted building what they called multi-tenant buildings. Mr. Benson said that people have been leasing these buildings since 1969 and now they are tired of having ten companies in one building, they see the rent being poured down the drain and no equity built up, and they have not been able to take advantage of depreciation so they were comi.ng out of these buildings. He stated that these people were now looking for sma11 buildings as they had no control over the parking lot in the multi-tenant buildings or the lawn being mowed, and they wanted pride of ownership and their own name over the front door. ^. � Mrs. Schnabel commented that in M-1 and M-2 raw materials could be stored outside the building if they were totally screened. She asked Mr. Schroer if the intent of the rezoning request was to sell the entire strip of land. or to lease it, and he replied that Mr. Paschke had options on the entire parcel o.� properties. 1�'• Boardman stated that one thing that should be considered somewhat on this was the layout of the entire section, and what would be the best way to develop this as fax as road patterns in the area. Mrs. Schnabel saa.d. that brought up another question. She said that if they were considering going off of Rancher's Road and cul-de-sacing, was that plan predicated on the sale of this? She asked if they were going to dedicate land for doing this before they sold the existing propsrties they had now. Mr. Schroer answered that it would be dedicated before they sold. Mr. Boardman said that a lot of this may depend on if Datsun wanted that back property, because if Datsun wanted that property there would be no reason for putting a cul-de-sac in that particular area. Mrs. Schnabel asked if that was done and the property had to be reduced, if they would still be within the 3/1� size for an M-1 zone. Mr. Schroer said he believed so, and Mr. Boardman commented that they would have to be. Mr. Bergman stated that the street pattern had been discussed at a previous Planning Comini.ssion meeting, and asked if they hadn�t gotten involved in � a dedication at that time. Mr. Boardman pointed out on the plat the 50' and 30' that had been dedicated, and Mr. Bergman co:nmented that he thought they Planning Commi.ssion Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page 13 7 L /'1 �� had covered this subject once as far as their thoughts toward street patternsR Mr. Boardman wondered if this was what they wanted or if a cul-de-sac pattern �ould be more feasible. Mr. Schroer stated that he thought it would depend on what went in there, and Mr. Bergrzan agreed that might be the qualifying factor. Mr. Schroer said that they had discussed the cul-de-sac, and Mr. Paschke was not opposed to it. Nis'. Boardman sa3d he thought he �rould like to see a more substantial cornrner- cial develQpment� rather than a strip right up the line Taith frontage on University; and maybe a s�condary commercial development within that area. He stated he felt that would be more in keeping with the total comprehensive plan. A7rs. Schnabel said that she didn't lrnow if Mr. Paschke was planning to make any of the parking areas joi.nt parking lots, assuming he bought the entire strip. She stated that certa.inly a street going through there would have some affect on his plans� a1so. Mr. Paschke said he had no plans for joint parking, as he didn�t think they would need it. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission close the Public Heaxing on Rezbning Request ZOA #76-07 by ftobert A. Schroer. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:25. ,� Mr. Langenfeld noted that no fee was listed on the rezoning request, and Mr. ! Boaxdman said there was a$155 fee� which had been paid. Mr. Bergman stated he had the impression that the property owner appaxently had planning substantiation for the rezoning request and he felt no quarrsl between a transition from N�2 to M-1 to C-2S. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Rezoning Request ZOA #76-07 by Robert A. Schroer: Rezone Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8, Block 2, Ea.st Ranch Estates Second Addition� from M-2 (heavy industrial areas) to A�1-1 (light industrial areas)� located between 77th Avenue and 79th Avenue N.E. on the East side of Rancher's Road N.E. Mrs. Schnabel noted that Mr. Boaxdman had stated earlier that he tended to feel this shoul.d remain M-2 zoning, and asked if other than the concern for the nature of the ownership if there were any other concerns. Mr. Boardman replied that generally smaller buildings were built in a M-2 zone with the idea of possible room for expansion. He said that with M-1 there usually wasn�t room for expansion, so if their business expanded there usually started to be outside storage and parking lots started to be used for storing materials, etc. He said that this was generally the type of situation they saw in the Onaway Area. r�rs. Schnabel asked if the City had given any thought to an overall.plan � for that one strip of lots five through 8 in terms of its compatibility with � the property across Rancher's Road to the West. Mr. Boardman said he thought it was compatible use; M-1 and M-2 usually did get along as fax as uses of Planning Commission Meeting - December 8, 197b page 11.� 7� � � property went. He said he thought he would prefer that where they did have an opportunity ta develop on a laxger parcel of property where�there was a possibility for expansion on that property, that they go to that type of development. He stated he didn't have any quarrel with the design of Mr. Paschke�s buildings; he thought rir. Paschke did a good job and in most cases his tenants were good tenants. Mr. Boardman said anot_ier thing about this was there was no room on these properties for outside material screening. He said the property was pretty much taken up by the building and the paxking lot, and when ma.terials sta.rted moving.outside there was just no room for screening. ' Mrs. Schnabel asked if it �;as just coincidence that one section appearec� to be quite well developed and.the other portion didn+t seem to have very much. Mr. Boardman explained this was bec�ause of soil conditions. Mrs. Schnabel said she was ju�t curious because obviously there hadn�t been a problem developing w3th M-2. Mr. Bergman stated that he was feeling just a bit uncomfortable with some of this discussion. He said he was not sure he could accept that a change i.n zoning from M-2 to M-1 would result in a11 the differences that had been described. Mr. Langenield stated he could see what Mr. Bergman was getting at. He said that they were sayi.ng in an M-1 there wasn�t room for expansion, so now they were going to go to a smaller type structure with room to expand, but eventually that structure would expand and reach the same category as /� the M-1. Mr. Bergman said he was confused by Mr. I,angenfeld� comment, and �, Chairperson Harris said he understood what Mr. Zangenfeld was driving at but it got confusiTrg because sometimes they were saying M-1 when they meant M-2, and vice-versa. Mr. Harris explained that if a given company was to move into a building of 12,000 square feet and they expanded to their. maximum � limit of �1t�000 square feet, at some point in time all of a sudden 21�,000 square feet would no longer be large enough for them and you were right back where you staxted. Mr. Boardman commented that there �rould be rooni for outside storage inst�ad of just parking and buildi.ng. Mr. Bergman stated that the key distinction he gathered between the two zoning categories was the property owners and developer�s industrial market input concluding there is a maxket for industrial buyers for ownership of a li.mited-size building, and they want to be able to get within that limited size. Chairperson Haxris said that it was much easier to sell or lease a 12,000 square foot building than a 21�,000 square foot building. He stated that the problem that had arisen in the area with the acre and a half lots was that the people who had built there were not efficiently using their land; if some of those companies were to expand they would have a great deal of . difficulty as there was no place ior them to go. He stated that two things entered in: land costs and land preparation costs. Mr. Harris said that if the land was 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 paxticular sites that axe built on now are on pretty reasonably solid ground, so consequently a builder could afford Planning Commission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page 15 %�� � � to go w�.th a smaller building.. r7r. Harris said that on the East side of Rancher�s Road the soil condition was such that land preparation was going to be expensive and also because land costs were higher. � Mr. Langenfeld asked if there was any problem with drainage, easements, etc.� and Mr. Boaxdman replied there was no problem. U�N A VOICE VOTE, Bergman, Langenfeld, Schnabel and Shea voting aye and Harris abstaining, the motion carried. Cha3rperson Harris stated his reason for abstaining was because he was a property owner within the 3.r�ea and would be. affected by this. 3. LUT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #76-11 BY ROBERT A. SCHROER: Split off the Souther y 1 0 feet of Lot , Block 2� East Ranch Estates 2nd 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 were present. Mr. Boaxdman showed the properties referred to in the lot split to the Commission and stated the lot split would predicate two ownerships for the development of the building. He explained the lot split i�ould be at the line that would go right between the buildings, so there would be a back n to back wall ("0" lot line). He said he had originally suggested that the r entire thing be shifted 15�, but by doing that it would make the lot size smaller than the 3/4 acre. He added that this would be consistent with M-1 zoning, and each one was somewhat over 3/1� acre. Mr. Boardman stated that the square footage needed was 32,670� and there was 3l�,655 actual, so i� was in accordance with what was required. He added that he would still like to see this shifted somewhat to pick up more green around, but it would meet the zoning code the way it was set up. There followed some discussion on various ways to shift this to get more green area, but Mr. Paschke pointed out that the way it was there would be room for more parking if it was required� but if it �ras shifted there wouldn�t be. He said that the way it sat they could come within 5� of the property li.ne, and Mr. Board- man sai.d he $greed with the points taken. Chaa.rperson Haxris asked how the�r were going to get the utilities in, and Mr. Schroer replied that the utilities were in. Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to imow if the entire lot 8 was going to be sold to one party or if just the Northerly hal.f was going to be sold at this time and the Southerly half not sold if this 1ot split was approved. Mr. Paschke saa.d that he would buy the entire lot 8 and develop the build- ing, and he may have two owners or possibly one. r1rs. Schnabel said her concern was building on the ��0" lot line and the problems that might arise �rith that if he was not going to buy the whole lot 8 at once. ��� � Planning Commission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page lb 7 0 MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Lot Split Request L.S. #76-11 by Robert A. Schroer: Split off the Southerly 160 feet of Zot 8, Block 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition, to make two buildi.ng sites, the same being 7875 and 7895 Rancher's Road N.E. Upon a voice vote, Bergman� Langenfeld, Schnabel and Shea voting aye and Haxris abstaining, the motion carried. Chai.rperson Harris stated his reason for abstaining was because he was a property owner withi.n the area and would be affected by this. Chairperson Harris declaxed a recess at 9:55 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 10: 15 P.M. tt. VACATIOIV REQUEST: SAV#76-07, CITY 0�' FRIDLL'Y: Vacate existing un- needed roadway easement in consideration for additional roadway ease- ments being acquired, located on Lot l�9, Revised Auditor's Subdivi�ion 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� n and showed them the two areas where`_the City wanted to vacate road ease- % ments they presently had. He explained that one was located on the rev�.sed Osborne Way and the other was where 75th was do�m by the St. Paul Water<�Torks. He pointed out where they wanted a 30� triangle dedicated and another axea dedicated. Mr. Boardman stated they had contacted St. Pual Water Works and had gotten verbal agreements, and documents were being drawn up for the exchange of easements. Mrs. Schnabel asked Mr. Boardman if the City had reacted in any way to the request from the neighbors who live along 75th in regard to the drainage problem, and he replied that that was supposed to be taken care of with the new Osborne Way. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council the approval of Vacation Request SAV �76-07, by the City of Fridley: Vacate existing un-needed roadway easement in consideration for additional roadway easements being acquired, located on Lot J�9, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, generally located on Talmadge Lane and 75th Way N.E. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. S. CONTINUID: PROPOSID MAINTENANCE CODE: Mr. Boardman stated that they had gone through to a certain degree the �\ direction that the Commission had given last time. He explained the code had been revised and put into a certain order that was acceptable _" according to safety, health and appearance. He added that he was stiTl going through it somewhat to check on the different property standards, FHA and.that type of thing. r1r. Boardman further explained he had an inter.n �rorking on this and was just about ready to present it. Planning Commission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Pa,ge 17 7P � - � 6. CONTINUID ; HUMAN DE�TELQPP•1ENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES rlr. Boardman inforrned the Commission he had nothing further on this at the present time. 7. RECEIVE PAAd{S & RECREATION COMMISSION MIANTES: NOVEMBER 15 1976 MOTION by Shea� seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission receive the P�rks & Recreation Commission minutes of November 15, 1976. Mrs, Shea eommented that she had noticed Nir. Langenfeld had requested that the initials be clarified, and they weren't. She said she would appreciate 't2'18t 8.1.$O e Mr. Langenfeld stated that he had read about the Ea.st River Road project under 1Vew Business and he wished it to go on record that Jan Seeger was the only one who spoke up in behalf of the idea. UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 8. RECENE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COriMISSIOAT MINUTES: NOVEhhiBER lb 1976 � Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to make a couple of correct3.ons, and � pointed out the last sentence in the first paxagraph 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 pa�e 55 was not his conversation with ti�Ialt Starwalt, but this.took place with the Chairman of the Project Committee during a City Council meeting. MOTIQN by Langenield, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the Environmental Quality Commission minutes of November 16, 1976. Nir• Boardman noted that there had been some discussion under the F�viron- mental Education Program concerning the E�vironmental Commission trying to get review power over the budget for the naturalist. He said that any- thing other than discussion on that topic, such as a motion, would be out of the scope of the ordinance that was established for the E�nvironmental Commissian. Mr. Langenfeld said he had one other correction, and stated that on page 55, the seventh sentence should read "He said he believed these goals and objectives had an environmental impact that involved the entire City��. The word "statement" should be eliminated. Chairperson Haxris said he was wondering about the mining ordinance, and where they were on that. Mr. Langenfeld said they had instructed the City n to use the model ordinance from Metro Council and incorporate the needed environmental aspects of that into an ordinance that could be drawn up by the City and the II�vironmental Quality Commission would review it. Right Planning Commission Meeting - December 8, 1976 Page 18 � � now, he said, the permit they use for riining was the only governing instru- ment as far as restricting any unnecessary mining. Mr. Boardman informed the Commission that at this time they had issued two permits on it, and since that time had issued a tag to one of the operators who was to have had an appeaxance in court today. He explained that the City had told him in a letter that ii the debris continued he would be jeopardizing his permit. Mr. Boa,rdman stated that they had not issued a permit to Chines at this time, and said they were applying to Anoka County for a clean demolition land fill in the area. Mr. Boardman said he hac3 talked to Bob Hutchinson on this and he thought they would make a recommenda- tion to Anoka County that this application be denied. He explai.ned they did have several problems with Chives� property that they intended to get into when they regiewed it according to the model ordinance. Mr. Langenfeld said that if the members of the Commission were interested in more specific answers to this question, they could be found in the last two motions on page 51. He explained that they would like to see the ord3,n- ance in concurrence with the permit. P7r. Boardman saia they had the power to do this through the ordinance they presently had in the application process, as there was a statement in that application for stipulations that allowed some flexibili�y with Staf'f to issue stipulations on the property. He added that most of the applications were pretty and cut and dried. (� Chairperson Harris asked if the permit that was issued to Minnesota Transfer was issued to Minnesota Transfer or to their subcontractors. Mr. Boardman reglied it had been issued to their contractor. Mr. Harris said that as long as they were talking about this, he would like to throw out an idea and get the Commission's thoughts on it. He stated that for years and years everybody said peat was a nasty substance and tried to get rid of it, but i.n the past few years it hadn't worked out that way. All of a sudden, he said, it got fluffed up and called 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 was wondering about having a black dirt tax. Mr. Boardman asked for what purpose, and Mr. Harris replied to help defray the costs of administrating the ordinance and it also might be a good way 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 paying millions of dollars and they ran their school districts off of it. He asked why they couldn't use the same rationale on taxing black dirt in Fridley to help capitalize the park improvement plan, and said it would be the same as taxing any other mi.nable product. r�7r. Boardman said he didn't lrnow what the state tax laws said concerning this. Mrs. Shea suggested directing. Staff to look into this. UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11, voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Langenfeld said he wished to make a couple of statements in regard to f� the Environmental Commission. fie noted that many negative feelings and ideas came out from these various meetings and Project Committee meetings. He 7Q Planning Commission Meeting - December 8, 1976 page �9 7R ;� stated that the ultimate goal was for the overall betterment of the City and yet here and there they were being accused of violating a charter, and he didn't think they were. He also said that the East River Road Project Committee had been termed as an ��interest " group, when it wasn�t intended to be so. He said that he thought some of the Commission members were familiar with the onslought of citizens from East River Road that came in about 1968 and kept the City Council busy for many meetings, and at least they had accomplished that now the citizens were discussing their problems with the Project Committee, who discussed it with the Fridley �nvironmeri�al Commission, and in turn it was discussed at the Planning Commission. He said that the citizens were airing out their feelings at these various meetingss and what took place was a good form of citizen input as well as a controlled-type meeting. Mr. Langenfeld explained that they hoped to use Ea.st River Road as�,a pilot type thing to go into problems of other roads, maybe extending to Highway 65, etc. ��1 r Mr. Langenfeld said he got a little uptight when he heard they were violating a charter. He stated that this was the very nature of the reason why the ordinance was changed for citiz�n participation, and he didn�t think Envir- onmental should drop the ba11 just because other Commi.ssions did. He explained that when people started talking about the environment, they were dealing with something a lot broader in scope than hockey, football or a play. He stated that F�vironmental was unique and different, and perhaps that was why this Commission was so grossly misunderstood at times. 9. RECEIVE APpEALS COMMISSION �IINUTES: NOVEMBER 22 1976 MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission receive the Appeals Commi.ssion minutes �f November 22, 1976. Mrs. Schnabel said the Commission might be interested �Eo note that this wa.s intended to be a$I�0,000 house and was on a 50� lot. She saa.d it was a littie shocking to find out what you could get for $�.0,000. Mr. Bergman commented that he thought this meeting was more interesting than usual, and noted that Mrs. Schnabel had asked if there would be a garage and the builder expla�ned they would not build one but would provide space for one. He noted that a refrigerator, dishwasher and carpeting were included, and thought it was interesting in view of a trade-off and what a person got instead of a garage. Mrs. Schnabel agreed it was revealirzg to find out what was included for $1�0,000. Mr. Bergman saa.d that this was an example of �rhat could be built for lo�r and.moderate income having not required a gaxage. He noted that their choice could be $1�0,000 for an eleven hundred square foot new house, an appreciably lower cost for a five to ten year old house, or renting. He stated there were all those options there and he thought they had gotten themselves trapped into the fact that in pursuing the objective of providing housing for low and moderate incomes it hxlto be new, and h2d to be purchased instead � of rented. He stated that in his opinion, a low or moderate income person still couldn;t afford to buy this particular house, and Mrs. Schnabel agreed. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, the motion carried unanimously. � � � � �� Planning Commission Meeting - December 8, 1976 - �. 10. OPEN DISCUSSION Page 20 MOTIQN by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman� that the P�.anning Commission receive the letter addressed�to Councilman Fitzpatrick from George Fred- erick. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bergman asked if this was from a private citizen, and Mr. Boardman answered it was. P4r. Boaxdman informed th� Commission that there would be a meeting the following night in Coon Rapids on the Land Planning Act from Metropolitan Council. He said this would be one of the first seminars, and the City would haqe a Staff inerrtber attending and the Planning Commission was invited to attend also. He added that there would be some discussion as to the funding 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 noting aye� the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Schnabel noted that this was the memorandum the Appeals Commission wanted. � Mrs. Schnabel said she had a request to make of the persons responsible for typing the minutes for the various meetings. She noted that on the even-numbered pages the margins were run over so far that the last words were nery difficult to read when the minutes were in the book, and asked that wider right-hand maxgins be used. Mr. Boardman said it was so noted. ADJOURNMENT: MOTIOIV by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Planning Commission meeting of December 8, 1976 adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �\ � / /p���% �2:1?{�1?7/7'/l ( _//lX/i'�r'!�i� ��,. ^ Sherri O�Donnell Recording Secretary 7S