PL 01/19/1977 - 30460:""'1
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 19, 1977 PAGE 1
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:It8 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Harri�, Bergman, Langenfeld, Schnabel, Shea
Members Absent; Peterson
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman� City Planner
APPROVE PLANNING CO2��IISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 5, 1977
N[0?'ION by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission
minutes of January 5, 1977 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, a11
�, voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF.�A PROPOSID PLAT, P.S. #76-12, TARGET
ADDITION, BY POP SHOPPES OF AMERICA, INC: Replat of all of Lot 10,
paxt of Lots 11 and 12, Auditor's Subdivision No. 155, as per legal
notice, generally located South of I. 691�, Zaest of Highway #65, North
of 53rd Avenue N.E., and Ea.st of the Target parking lot.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission open
the Public Hearing on consideration of a prop�sed plat, P.S. #76-12, Target
Addition, by Pop Shoppes of America, Inc. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
Chairperson Harris �declared the Public Hearing open at 7:53 P.M.
Mr. Etinmett R. Albergotti� Rea1 Estate Negotiator for Dayton Hudson Properties;
Mr. John Zavitz of Pop Shoppes of America, Inc.; Mr. Bill Jaeger from Kraus
Anderson of St. Paul Company; Mr. Jon Pope, architect for Plagerso McGee, Inc.;
and Mr. Bob Harvey, Box 3761�, Minneapolis� were present.
Mr. Boardman directed the Commission to turn to pages 15 and 16 of their
agendas which showed the general location of where the replat was going to
take place. He explained this was East of the present Target parking lot,
behind �nbers and the gas station, and would be divided into three sepaxate
lots. He said that this was to allow for two or three separate developments,
a�d the larger lot on the North side of the property was proposed for Pop
�' Shoppes of America. He stated that access into this area would be through
pri�rate easement from Target off of 53rd to service these three lots. .
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page 2
�
, �
Chairperson Harris asked if this was on part of the biacktop portion.of the
. parking lot, and Mr. Boardman replied that the lots themselves were not, bu�
the driveway easement would be on the Easterly end of�the blacktop portion.
Mr. John Zavitz explained that the head ofiices of Pop Shoppes of America
were in Denver, and there were 19.other locations in the United States. He �
said they would be opening fourteen new centers this year, one of which was
the Twin Cities location. Mr. Zavitz sa.id that basically what they were
trying to do was.deliver soft drinks to the public at lower than normal
cost as they manufactured and retailed on •the same premises. To date, he
sa,id, they have enjoyed quite a, bit of success both in Canada and�here, and�
were ju'st beginning to scratch the surface in the U.S. market. He stated
that to date they had been able to satisfy a11 concerns with regard to
environmental issues, noise levels, etc., to the satisfaction of a11 City
Councils. Aesthetically speaking, he continued, they did not look like a
manufacturer, but a retailer. He told the Commission they sold 2b different
flavors in two sizes, in plastic cas�es, and returnable�bottles only. He
explained that people could mix and match flavors as they wished.
Chairperson Harris.asked what the zoning was, and Mr. Boaxdman replied it
was C-2S and that was the reason they were going with the Special Use Permit
on it. He explained the operation of this type of shop would be si.milax to
that of a dai�y. He stated they mixed the soft drinks at the plant and
stored them there, but they had a major retailing operation from the store
also so there wasn't a major handling of the shipping of the bottles. He ,�.�
said they would ship to about three or four other retail stores in the `
metro area, but it was a major retail operation. Mr. Boardman said that
all three of the parcels met the requirements as far as squaxe footage
under a C-2S zone and lot sizes were adequate. He added that one of the
stipulations they would want to put on the plat would be some definition of
roadway in the parking lot axea itself. He said he had received a letter
from Taxget on access that he would like entered into the minutes.
Chai.rperson Haxris read the following letter to Mr. Boardman, from Jack
Franzen� Building Services Manager for Target Stores, dated January 19,
1977: In the event that the County Highway Depaxtment does go ahead
with its planned improvements along 53rd Avenue, specifically including
the revised eastern most access routing into the Target Fridley paxki.ng lot,
Target will define the access road with curbings, plantings, or some other
method acceptable to the City of Fridley and Target. This is to promote
more orderly traffic flow through the Target paxki.ng lot facility.
MOTION by Shea, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission receive
the letter to A9r. Boardman from Mr. Franzen dated January 19, 1977. Upon
a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Schnabel noted that the progosed plat was to divide the property into
three separate lots, and asked if the Special Use Permit would cover all
three lots. Mr. Boardman explained that the Special•Use Permit was for just
the Northerly lot. He said that lots 10, 11 and 12 were the exis�ing lots, �,.
and they extended to Highway 65. He explained that was an old lot description
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page 3
!
r'�� � on Target and was only used as definition to show where the new plat would be.
He said that actually it would be platted out to lots 1, 2 and 3. Mrs.
' Schnabel asked if the other two lots would remain vacant, and� Mr. Boardmas� �
replied that was correct. Mrs. Schnabel asked if it was necessary for Pop
Shoppes to get some type of agreement with Target for use of the roads,
and Mr. �Boardman said they would have to have easements drawn up for use
of the properties� and he thought-that could be handled wi.th the platting.
Chairperson Harris agreed it should go with the final plat. N1rs. Schnabel
asked about utilities in that a'rea, and Mr. Boardman saicl that utilities
� would be s�rviced to all three properties off of 53rd.
Mr. Jon.Pope, axchitect, explai.hed that the water would be brought in
off of 65 to the rear of the building. He said that a pole would be placed
at the Southwest corner of the lot, and electrical power would be brought
underground to the site. Chairperson Harris asked about the other lots,
and Mr. Boardman said he would imagine it would be easier and better. to
have the water and sewer service for the other properties off of 53rd.
Mr. Bergman said he expected sizeable water requirements for this activity
and noted an eight inch water line was planned. He asked if there were
any pressure or �apacity problems in this location, and Mr. Boardman replied
there were not. Mr. Bergman said it would appear that all the utility
installations took place on private proper.ty so no easements would be
involved� and Mr. Boardman sa.i.d that was correct.
�"`� Chairperson Harris asked if a drainage easement would be needed in there,
• and N1r. Boaxdman replied that the lay of the land took care of it mostly.
He explained that the drai.nage off of a11 three of these lots would be
onto the Target paxking lot where there were catch basins which would handle
it.� Mr. Bergman said he assumed that some kind of written agreement would
be in order between Pop Shoppes and Taxget attesting that drainage was
agreeable between the two parties. He added that he thought it was more
normal that any place of business would ta.ke care of its own surface
drainage rather than drain off someplace else. Mr. Boardman said that
was the only way they could handle the surface drainage� and pointed out
that the catch basins in the Target parking lot had the capacity to handle
it with no problem. Mr. Albergotti said it was handling it right now.
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission close
the Public Hearing on consideration of a Proposed Plat, P.S. #76-12,
Target Addition, by Pop Shoppes of America. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting
aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:12 P.M.
Mrs. Shea stated she had some reservations about this simply becau�e of
the intersection� and asked if the county had given a timetable regarding
the planned improvements there. Mr. Boardman said that 53rd should hopefully
be done this summer. Mrs. Shea said she hated to see anything go in there
unless something was done with that intersection. Mr. Boardman explained
that the improvements were being tied in with the urbanization project from
^ Columbia Heights all the way through, and there were presently some difficulties
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 197? Page %
with Columbia Heights which would hopefully be resolved before March. r"�
Mrs. Schnabel asked if that meant that if there wasn't an agreement by March
nothing would be done at all, and Mr. Boardman said that was right. Chair-
person Haxris said he certainly hoped that didn't happen, and asked wHat the
problem was with Columbia Heights. Mr. Boardman explained the Highway Depart-
ment wanted to widen the road, but the local businessmen didn�t want to lose
the on-street•parking around 1�Oth. He further explained that the urban-
ization project went from 37th to 53rd, regaxdless of what community it was
in, and if any part of that project fell through the whole project would fa11
through. Mrs. Schnabel asked why something couldn't be done on 53rd by
itself, and Mr. Boardman saa.d it was because there wouldn't be any state
monies for it. He added that if it was going to be improved by itself� that
would be the county's responsibility. Mrs. Schnabel said that it seemed to
her that something should be done on 53rd at a minimum, regardless if the
other project fell through. Mr. Boardman said this was not to say that 53rd
wouldn't be done at a later date if that project failed, but it wouldn't
be done this year.
Mr. Bergman stated he thought the things they had been discussing were of
some relative bearing, but not an overriding beaxing, on the question of
replatting the property.
A40,?'ION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, tk�at the Planning Commission .
recommend to Council approval of Proposed Plat P.S. #76-12, Target Addition,
by Pop Shoppes of America, Inc.: Replat of a11 of Lot 10, part of Lots -�,..�
11 and 12, Auditor's Subdivision No. 155' as per legal notice, generally
located South of I. 691�, West of Highway #�65, North of 53rd Avenue N.E.,
and Ea.st of the Target parking lot, subject to a plan defining the accessway
extending to all three of the proposed lots with the authorizing signature
from Target or its paxent company. Upon a voice vote, a.11 voting aye, the
motion carried nnanimously.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP�76-16, BY POP
HOPPES OF AI�IlERICA, INC.: To permit the bottling of soft drinks and
a retail outlet, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, B, (3,�,)� on
Lot 10, and parts of Lots 11 and 12, Auditor's Subdivision No. 155�
located South of I. 69l�, West of Highway 1Vo. 65, North of 53rd Avenue
N.E.� and East of the Taxget parking lot, the same being 785 53rd
Anenue N.E.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, that.the Planning Commission open
the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #76-16, by
Pop Shoppes of America, Inc. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair-
person Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 8:23 P.M.
The same people were present as for the first Public Hearing.
Mr� goardman said that as was discussed before, Pop Shoppes would be doing
mixing of the pop� storage of that pop and retail sales of that pop within ^
,,.�>,:
Planning Corr¢nission Meeting - January 19, 1977 . Page 5
/r"�
�� that building. He said that as far as they could tell, it fell under the �
category of reta:i.l or wholesale sales or service uses, such as creameries
and dairies, where there was the mixing of a product and storage of a product
for retail sales. Chairperson Harris stated he had a slight problem With
that� and sa.id it looked like either a M-1 or M-2 use to him. Mr. Boaxdman
said they had felt the retail operation of Pop Shoppes was more characteristic
of C-25 zoning, and probably over 50� of the retail sales in the metro-
politan area would be handled out of this location.
Mr. Zavitz stated that what they t'ried to do was manufacture and sell
directly to the public. He said Pop Shoppes could be compared to McDonalds
because their process was one where they took concentrate� mixed it with
water and carbon dioxide, and bottled it for sale to the public for con-
sumption off-premises. He said they were specialists in soft drinks as
opposed to hamburgers, and their bulk was consumed off-premises. He added
that they were not at all different from a bakery or a Dunkin' Donuts cha3.n •
for on-premises.and off-premises consumption. Mr. Zavitz stated that they
had never gone into a Eity where they hadn't had to ansu'rer questions of
this nature because there was no particular zoning anywhere that he had
found where they could just walk in and operate. because people didn't
recognize their particulax use. He said he thought the Commission was
probably concerned w�.th "degree "; what was manufacturing and what was
retailing. He stated that because they made something they were manufacturing.
�� Chairperson Harris said that as he looked at the plan, he saw one �ales
�� area� one production area, and another area possibly 3- 1t times as laxge
as the other two labeled "warehouse". rir. Zavitz explained that was mainly
to hold the empties and the full bottles ready to move onto the floor. Mr.
Boardman noted that under accessory uses it did�allow for storage of inerch-
andise.
Chairperson Harris asked if in the event this went over well, and he assumed
it would, if they would propose an expansion of this facility on this paxtic-
ular property or if they would build another. Mr. Zavitz sa.id they couldn't
get too much more equipment in tha.t area as they were at their capacity� and
they would generally build another one. He added that right now their facility
in Duluth was serving a 60-mile radius, and this proposed facility would
probably serve a 20-mile radius.
Mr. Bergman asked if it was the intent to do bottling at this plant, do
product sales, and from the bottli.ng capacity also to ship product to
other retail outlets. Mr. Zavitz saa.d that wa$ correct. He stated they
would ship to their own specialty sources such as West St. Paul and Knoll-
wood� where.they were building free-standing stores. He showed the Commission
a picture of one of their free-standing retail markets. Mr. Boardman asked
if they had any wholesale operation going out to supermarkets or other
chain stores� and Mr. Zavitz said definitely not as it was a11 an internal
process. �
�, Mr. Bergman asked how many outlets this waxehouse facility was designed to
service. Mr. Zavitz replied that depending on how successful they were�
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 19?7 � Page 6
�
they were planni.ng on opening 4- 6 outlets. He added that the plant was ,
designed to make about a half million cases of soft drinks a yeax. �
Mr. Langenfeld asked if there would be any non-returnable bottles� and Mr.
Zavitz said there would be only returnable bottles. Mr. Langenfeld asked
if they would be using caustics, and Mr.. Zavitz replied they would� but
they went through a recycling process. Mr. Langenfeld asked how they
disposed of the caustic material, and N1r. Zavitz answered that the caustic
solution was only 1�% in their product; it was a very low percentage and
it would go into the sevrer system at some point. Mr. Langenfeld asked how
long Mr. Zavitz thought the bottling machinery would be in operation during
the day, and he replied that during the suirmier they generally�ran two
shifts, five days a week, and in the e�i.nter months probably one shift. He
added that during the Christmas period they usually ran one shift or 1 2
shifts. Mr. Langenfeld�asked how noisy the equipment was, and Mr. Zavitz
replied they had just met a decibel level of 65. He added they were meeting
both the OSHA and environmental controls.
Mr.� Langenfeld asked if some of the public watched the bottling of the pop,
and Mr. Zavitz replied that the bottling process was in open view to the
public and they invited schools to come in on tours to watch the pop being
bottled. Mr. Langenfeld asked about the water treatment axea designated
on the plans, and Mr. Zavitz explained that a11 of the plants had to have .
wa:;er treating equipment as it was part of the policy of the bottling plant.
He said it was very simp�e filtration of city water. Mr. Langenfeld asked .^
if they would be using stainless steel tanks, and how many they would be
using. Mr. Zavitz answered that they would only be using stainless steel,
arid there would be two 1�00 gallon tanks and two 200 gallon tanks. Mr.
Langenfeld asked if there would be somebody checki.ng the bacteria count,
and Mr. Zaeitz said yes, eery definitely. He explained that each week
samples were sent to their lab in Denver, and they were very critical about
quality and their standards were extremely stringent.
Mrs. Schnabel asked what type of volume they expected with regard to retail
sales and customers coming in. Mr. Zavitz stated they have gone from a
grand opening in Buffalo twelve weeks ago where they sold 21,000 cases in
two days, to areas where they had sold as few as 7,000 cases in a week. He
added that general]:y s.peaking, a customer would usually buy l� - 2 cases;
on a Saturday they might sell 1,000 to 1,500 cases. He said it depended on
the maxket and the time of year. Mr. Zavitz told the Commission that their
customer flow was rapid as it only took about four minutes fram the time
they entered the parking lot to the time they left. Mrs. Schnabel stated
that using the figure of two cases per customer, he was saying that an
average Saturday might generate about 500 to 750 customers in a store. Mr.
Zavitz replied that was eorrect, and added that they were busy about the
same time as Target and had about the same type of market. Mrs. Schnabel
asked if they would be open approximately the same hours as Target, and Mr.
Zavitz replied exactly the same.
M'rs. Schnabel asked if they had trucks that would be doing the shipping to ,.—�
the other stores� and Mr. Zavitz said they would use a local broker to do it. �
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19� 1977 � P�e 7
�� He said tfiey had anywhere from�four trucks a week in the winter to ten
trucks a week i.n the summer� and they didn't have as many trucks as a
normal grocery store would have. He commented that loading would be done
in the rear and would be screened. Mrs. Schnabel asked how many park�ng
stalls would be xequired, and Mr. Boardman s aid that under C-2S it would be
three stalls for every 250 square feet within the actual retail use area�
under the storage area one stall ior every 2,000 square feet was req�aired,
and under the actual bottling area one stall for every I�00 square feet would
be required. Mrs. Schnabel said she was concerned'abou� the number of
• parking spaces available since the maximum i.n a day might be 750 cars,
assuming there was just one customer per car. She said she was wondering
if the 68 car stalls provided vrould be adequate. Mr. Boar�iman•said that
the rapid turn-over rate of about four minutes per customer had to be
considered. %'1r. Zavitz said that in their experience they found it to be
more than adequate, and it was to their detriment not to have sufficient
parking. He said that there might be two weekends when the parking wouldn't
.be adequate, but 95% of the time it would be. He added that in the initial
- stages when they were educating the people about their operation it would
ta.ke a little longer, but after that it would take about four minutes. He
sa,i.d that they employed off-duty policement during any special promotion.
Mr. Langenfeld asked if they could foresee any drainage problems, and Mr.
Boa.rdman replied they couldn�t. Mr. Zangenfeld asked how many employees
they would have, and Mr. Zavitz replied they would have about six full-time
� people in the production area, two in retail, two in accounting and general
management, and approximately ten to fifteen part-time students. He said
that they hired only local people, and the General Manager would be from
the Twin Cities. He added that they tried to keep �heir work force down
to a m:inimum force of highly productive people.
Cha.irperson Harris commented that it seemed he had heard this all before
with Plywood I�Zinnesota, and they were in a M-2 zone. He asked how they
justified this. rir. Boaxdman said he didn't see Pop Shoppes in an i.ndustrial
zone� but saw it more as a retail-type operation similax to a bakery. He
said they were not a wholesale operation but a retail operation, and had to
rely on a retail maxket. A7r. Harris asked what their justification was on
Plywood Minnesota,.and rir. Boardman replied he didn't lmow. Mr. Harris
asked about Wickes, and Mr. Boardman said that the largeness of that operation
was probably the reason it was in an industrial area. He said they had a
very, very laxge wholesale-retail-storage operation, and just merely the
size of the thing was probably the reason. �
Mr. Langenfeld said that as far as classification for this, he looked at
it as a consumable product and not a finished product, thereby distinguishing
it from heavy manufacturing and so on. Mr. Zavi.tz said that as he read the
zoning, his operation related very directly to the dairy type of use. He
sa.id that was:a filling operation also, and a heavier manufacturing use than
Pop Shoppes.
� Mr. Bergman said he saw the middle position of the type of activity they
were talking about, it being in between the twa possible tioning categories.
Planning Con¢nission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page 8
He sai.d that he thought of the two� the Special Use Permit raithin the cor�mer-
cial was the better way to go. .
P�rs. Schnabel poi.nted out that under C-1 and C-1S zoning was listed bakeries,
cafes, confectioneries, ice cream and soft drink shopes including the
preparation of food products for retail sales from their sites only. Mr.
Boardman said that was the reason they were looking at a Special Use Permit
under C-25.
Chairperson Harris asked where they would go if they needed additonal
ing, and Mr. Zavitz said that they had 2.3 acres. He said that their
normal site was one acre� so there would be room to expand parking.
that they wouldn't have to be prompted if they needed more.
p ark-
He added
Mr. Langenfeld asked how long they had been in existence� and Mr. Zavitz
replied since May of 1969. 1��'. Langenfeld asked about the subsidiaries,
and Mr. Zavitz explained that Pop Shoppes International was owned by the
Canada Developmen� Corporation which owned Texas Gu1f and a�number of other
companies. He said the company that owned 20% of Pop Shoppes of America,
which taas a subsidiary of P.S.I., was a company called gnasco which was
the parent of S& W Foods, Progressive Foods;�a tobacco company, Tenderbox
Chain of Smoke Shops, etc. He said they had other subsidiaries and a number
of other trademarks.
Mrs. Shea asked if everythirig had been worked out with Dnbers to their
satisfaction, and Mr. Zavitz replied it had.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea�•that the Planning Commission
receive the letter to Mr. Harris dated January�l7, 1977 from Mr. Hyman
Edelman concerning IInbers Restaurant, and the accompanying letters marked
as F�chibit A and �hibit B. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
Mrs. Schnabel noted a reference to a pylon sign in the letter t•o Mr.
Birnberg from rTr. Albergotti dated January 5, 1977 (bchibit B), and asked
if Pop Shoppes had a standard sign that they used for identification.
Ntr. Zavitz replied they did� and showed the Commission pictures of what
the sign would look like. Chairperson Harris asked what size the sign
would be, and Mr. Zavitz replied generally the largest allowable. He
said that actually it was usually a standard !� x 6, 21t square foot sign.
Mrs. Schnabel noted that in the past Target had made a request to raise
their sign, and the request was turned down, so there may possibly be a
restriction on height. Mr. Harris pointed out that although they could
discuss this as part of the Special Use Permit, any signing done had to
have a special permit. Mr. Zavitz said he was familiar with that, and
would work with the sign people and Mr. Boardman on that.
Mr. Bergman commented that administration had apparently gone. over these
plans to some extent, and asked if there should be any stipulations for
the Special Use'Permit, such as dealing with the landscaping. Mr. Boardman
�
n
�
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 � P�e 9
I
�, said they hadn�t gone over it in any great deal yet, but didn't th3.nk they
would have to stipulate it with the Special Use Permit.
i -
Mrs. Schnabel stated she did have some concern with the traffic flow, and
was thinking more of the very busy times when perhaps the traffic from
Target.V�ould cut across the parking lot to the Pop 5hoppe. She said there
would be no internal control of that traffic because the parking lot was
not separated from the roadway itself. Mr. Albergotti and Mr. Pope showed
the Commission a map depicting the relationship between the Pop Shoppe
building,_the Taxget building, Dnbers Restaurant and the gas station. They
pointed out a ring road which they said would allow a good flow of traffic. Mr.
Albergotti said that at' one point they did have curbs in there but- when there
was snow in the parking lot people couldn't see them and drove over them
and damaged their cars� so they were taken out. He stated that if they put
them in a.gain they would alao put in landscaping and trees so they would
be vi.sable.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if 53rd was improved if they would implement a plan
of traffic control, and Mr. Albergotti said that was correct. She then
asked what their intentions were if 53rd was not improved, and Mr. Albergotti
sa3.d they would do something. He explained �here was money in their budget
to do something, and it was just a matter of deciding how the improvement
' would be handled. He added that they were also concerned �rith the traffic
flow at that intersection, and assured the Commission that Target would do
something. Mrs. Schnabel asked if he was talking about putting some type
� of barrier down each row. Mr. Albergotti saa.d they would be putti.ng up
barriers every so often, but not down each row. He explained that at the
� end of each row there would be a curb with landscaping to delineate that
it was an access road.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if Dnbers had made any request, or if they anticipated
using another access down onto Dayton Hudson property. Mr. Albergotti
saa.d he �thought bnbers would like that very much, and they had asked
Dayton Hudson to thi.nk in terms of a road connecting the properties. He
pointed out that would make a whole different situation where people would
be taking shortcuts through IInbers, and he personally didn't think it was
a good idea. Nir. Harris commented that the grade ciifferential was consider-
able� and asked if there would be a retaining wa11. Mr. Albergotti said
that when the hill was graded down there would be a contoured landscaping.
He said there was about 12' of difference, but it would be a gradual thing.
Mr. Haxris thought they might have to use a modified retaining wall.
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Shea� that the Planning Commission close
the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #76-16,
by Pop Shoppes of America� Inc. Upon a�yoice vote, all voting aye,
Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:10 P.M.
Mrs. Schnabel said she did have some concern on the zoning of this paxticular
property, and was nat sure that light manufacturing would fall under this
definition. However, she said, she didn't necessarily see any other way
� to go on it. Chairperson Harris said he couldn't see an alternative either,
� and�he thought they.were correct with a Special Use Permit.
��
Planning Commissipn Meeting - January 19, 197? � Page 10
Mrs. Schnabel said that aside from .that, her other concern would be with �
the traffic flow, and she felt fairly comfortable ndw that it would be
pretty well taken care of. She said her biggest hope was that the State -
and the County would get their act together and get that area improved.
Mrs. Schnabel said she thought the bulk of the traffic going into there
would be people going to the Target area to begin with, and she didn�t
think Pop Shoppes would generate that much more additional traffic in
itself. She added that if the internal traffic system was improved, that
might i.mprove the whole situation itself.
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission
recommend to Council�approval.of the request for a Special Use Permit�
SP #7b-16, by Pop Shoppes of America, Inc.: To permit the bottling of_
soft dri.nks and a retail outlet� per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101,
B, (3�0), on Lot 10, and parts of Lots 11 and 12, Auditor's Subdivision
nto i55, located South of I. 69�., West of Highway No. 65� North of 53rd
Avenue N.E., and East of the Target parking lot� the same being 785 53rd
Avenue N.E. '
Mr. Langenfeld suggested the following stipulations be included in the
motion: 1) Strict compliance with the terms of the ground lease regarding
visibility restrictions (as stated in Exhibit B), 2) Complete study done
on retaaning �ralls, and 3) Reasonable judgement be used as to traffic
patterns in accordance with City Staff recommendations.
Mrs. Schnabel said the only stipulation that she thought necessary would s..,�
be fallowing the intent of the letters that were received., She said that
was not to say the others weren't important, but she thought the petitioner
had indicated they intended to do those things in good faith. Mr. Harris
said he thought the grade change could be handled with the building permit.
Mrs. Schnabel AI�'�NDID the MQTION to include the stipulation that the intent
of the letters of agreement between the F�nbers and Dayton Hudson be followed.
Agreeable to Mr. Langenfeld.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voti.ng aye� the motion carried unani.mously.
Chairperson Harris declaxed a recess at 9:20 and reconvened the meeting
at 9:35 P.M.
3. CONTINUID: PROPOSID riAINTENANCE CODE
Chairperson Harris said he had one criticism, and that was his copy was so
bad he couldn't read it and there were no page numbers. The Commission
agreed they did not have very legible copies.
Mr. Bergman said that he had read a portion of this and had arrived at the
feeling that they still weren�t in concert as to what the content of the
maintenance code should be. He said he thought they had agreed�they were ��,
�.,.._ .. �. �
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page 11
�. going to try to reduce this down by adheri.ng to the maintenance considera-
tions only, rather than construction, and yet whoever was putting this
together wasn�t following that. For example, he said� there was still a
requirement in there that every room have a window. .
Mr. Boardman said he didn't feel they had gotten that far. He said that
at the last meeting it had been discussed and the Commission wanted,it
broken down into a more clear direction. He stated they had put it into
consistency and related it accordi.ng to health and safety items; their
efforts had been in the organization of the code for a mare proper review.
Mr. Bergman commented that he didn't see a definition of maa.ntenance in
the proposed code. Chairperson Harris suggested that perhaps they could
start with the introduction and take it section by section to get started
on it someplace. Mr. Bergman said he thought they had agreed on a
definition of maintenance, and he had looked for that definition as a
gauge in the review. Mr. Langenfeld said he had provided a definition
a� one point. The source was the American Heritage Dictionary, he said;
and the definition was a) The action of continuing carrying on, preserving
or retaining something b) The work of keeping something in proper condition.
Mr. Bergman said he recalled Mr. Langenfeld reading that, and recalled
hunself referencing another document where maintenance was described as
��tre caxe and caretaking of that which exists. He said it would then be
out of line to say someone had to put a window in a wall because maintenance
� means care for what already existed rather than build more. Mrs. Shea
noted that the Building Inspector could set that aside, so there was a way
out.
Mr. Bergman said he thought a definition of maintenance belonged in th�
front of the code, and what followa should be consistent with that defin-
ition. Mr. Boaxdman said he thought it should be in a preamble or the
opening statements.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that he thought the preamble was redundant and
suggested eliminating the first sentence to si.mplify and shorten it.
Chairperson Harris noted that this preamble was longer than the preamble
to the constitution, and the whole country was run by that. Mr. Boaxdman
said they were not only talking about maintenance, but blighted premises
and structures harboring conditions dangerous to the public health,
� safety, and general Vrelfare of the people. He said they were also saying
that faulty design or construction, failure to keep them in a proper
state of repair, lack of adequate lighting or ventilation, inability to
properly heat, etc.� were causing this disproportionate amount of expenditure
of public funds for public health, safety and welfare. Chairperson Harris
questioned the last statement concerning public funds� and asked if that
was what they were really doing. Mr. Boardman said this referred to crime
prevention, fire protection, and things like that. Mr. Harris asked if
there wasn't a window in somebody�s wa11, if they would be expending those
� ftiinds. Mr. Boardman stated it was in the interest of public�health, and
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 • Page 12
was req�ired in the State Build�ng Code for a reason.
Mr. Bergman said that then a house may exist prior to code (for example by
way of a"grandfather" clause) that was acceptable from a building code
construction control, but now they were coming up with a maa.ntenance code
that said it was not acceptable. Mr. Boardman said what they were saying
was because that structure existed the way it was and met code because it
was "grandfathered" in, it may be a fire hazard. Since in was a fire hazard,
he continued, there should be some repair vrork dorie to that so it was no
longer a fire hazaxd and there wouldn't be an expenditure of public monies
for the protection of that structure. Mr. Bergman said that meant that
somebody had to decide what was a fire hazaxd and what wasn't: He stated
that Mr. Boardman was defining the previous code that existed when that home
was built as allowing a fire hazard in its design.
Mr. Langenfeld said he felt that Mr. Bergrnan had good points, but it seemed
to him that in order to use this document they had to first go through it
and condense it, and then aiter that go through it a.gain and hit on those
items that had been brought up. Chairperson Haxris suggested skippi.ng the
preamble and moving on to the code, but Mr. Boardman said they should handle
the preamble because it was the basis for the code.
�
Mrs. Schnabel asked if it was necessary to� have a preamble, and Mr. Boaxdman ,
"r:.�plied that it was necessary to have � statement saying that they lmew
what they were going to talk about. For instance, he said� if they were
going to talk about the conditions dangerous to the public health, �'�'�
safety, and general welfare, they had to know what those conditions were
to be taken into consideration. •
Mr. Bergman stated he felt they should define what they meant by maintenance,
in other words, the scope of this document. Mr. Boardman commented that
they would probably have to rewrite the entire preamble as far as the scope
and what they were trying to accomplish with the maintenance. He asked if
they were trying to accomplish, with the maintenance code, elimination of
conditions dangerous to public health, safety and welfare. Mr. Bergman
replied that in that broad of a context he would have to say no. Mr. Board-
man then asked the purpose of developing a maintenance code, and Chairperson
Harris said it was'to insure the integrity of the residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Bergman added they could accomplish that by putting an acceptable
limitation on the normal deterioration and blight of the buildin�s a.nd
facilities. � �
Mr. Boaxdman asked if they were going to attempt to correct things that .
were wrong within the buildings, and cited an example of a sta.i.rway with
no handrails. He asked if that would be a maintenance item. Mr. Langenfeld
said that in his opinion that would be a safety item. Mr. Boardman asked
if they were going to talk about the safety and general welfare of the
public, because if so, that was more than what Mr. Langenfeld�s definition
of maintenance was. Mr. Boardman pointed out that if they went i.nto safety �
in one area, they would have to go into it in other areas. Mr. Bergman
asked if there was any other code that would cover an item such as the �
handrails, and Mr. Boardman replied there was not.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page 13
� . Mr. Langenfeld said he didn't mean to sound harsh, but everytime they
started on this code they bounced all over the place. He suggested that
perhaps they could staxt on page 1 and hear everybody�s comments. Mr.
Boaxdman explained that he was talking about the preamble and whether
they wanted to just handle maintenance and preclude safety items.
Mr. Langenfeld said that in reference to the preamble, he thought that
perhaps they could eliminate the first 7 2 lines and pick it up ��here�it
staxted talking about Fridley only. He commented that he definitely felt
that they had more than maintenance actually involved here, and they were
going to end up talking about construction, main'tenance, use, and so on.
He felt they shauld condense the preamble first and then talk about it.
He added that he thought the last portion of the scope was a bit severe,
and he thought.that the purpose was sufficient.
Mr. Bergman commented that it was interesting he had marked his copy
consistent with what Mr. Langenfeld had just said. Mr. I,angenfeld gave
.the Commission a further example b� showing them his copy of the proposed
� code with his comments noted where he thought they could omit, simplify,
etc., throughout the rest of the code. P�ir. Bergman said he had started
out the same way, and then it occuzrad. to him that he didn't lmow what he
was doing, and that was when he got back to the definition item. He
asked what they were going to address in this document as he found that
�.n other concerns there was a health code, safety code, construction code
and maintenance code, and they were separate documents and each addressed
�� different things. He noted that they had a mixture here and he didn't
really imow how to deal with that.
Mr. Boardman stated that all the items.in the proposed code dealt with
construction and housing structure. �He said that there were certain
thi.ngs in construction that were safety hazards--not only to the people
who lived there but to the fire fighters if they were called in.
Mr. Bergman suggested that perhaps they should call it Maintenance, Health
and Safety Code. Mr. Boardman said that perhaps the definition of mainten-
ance is where it should be handled under this code, and suggested that
maintenance was maintai.ning the structure for health and safety purposes.
Mr. Bergman said that he didn't see how they could come up with a definition
of maintenance that was in conflict with the generally accepted and under-
stood definition of the term. Mr. Boardman read the scope to the Commission
and noted that even that dealt with more than what the simple definition
of maintenance was. PZr. Langenfeld suggested renaming it Completed
Structures Building Code as he could see where "maintenance" was starting
to throw this into different categories. Chairperson Harris commented
that he thought if they did that they would get into trouble with the
State Building Depaxtment because they would see this as an attempt to
circumvent the State Building Code.
Mr. Boardman suggested that they get back to the subject of the preamble,
� arid Mr. Bergman aga3n suggested defining maintenance. Mrs. Schnabel sa.id
that maybe they should go on the tact of what the intent of the ordinance
was� and the intent was to prevent blighted areas from occurring as well.
v as to protect citizenry in terms of health and safety from deterioration
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 19?? �Page l.l�
of dwellings within the city. Mr. Bergman asked Mrs. Schnabel if she would
bs comfortable with a"Maintenance" title then, and she replied she would
because she thought that pretty �aell defined what maintenance would be.
Mr. Bergman said he couldn't see a maintenance code telling an owner-that
he must now put up a railing on the stairway or a��indow in a wall, consid-
ering that when he had bought the house it had met any code stipulations.
Mrs. Schnabel said that they might come to those sections in the propc�sed
code and then delete them if they didn't feel they fell vaithin what the
intent of the code was. '
Chairperson Haxris stated that in his mind, a maintenance code was to
maintain status quo--keep things the way they were. Mrs. Schnabel and Mrs.
Shea disagreed with that definition. Mr. Harris said that what they were
talking about in some areas was an upgrading code; upgrading the structure
by adding windows or stairway railings, etc. He s aid that to him mainten-
ance was keeping the structure the way it was when it was built. Mrs.
Schnabel said that a structure may have been built such a long time ago .
that the construction of it, by today's standards, was not adequate. Mrs.
Shea said she felt that maintenance was maintaining a buildi.ng so it was
safe and healthy. Mr. Harris said that then that would mean upgrading
it in some areas. N1r. Boardman stated that Mrs. Shea was saying that
maintenance was maintaining a building in a health situation, and to do
that the upgrading may have to happen. Mr: Harris said he felt that was
incre than maa.ntenance. Mr. Langenfeld said he felt the whole intent of
this was to be a Structural Deterioration Preventive Code, and suggested
that as a possible title. He said then they could touch on maa.ntenance,
safety, etc.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea; that the Planning Commission
rename the proposed T�aintenance Code "Structural Deterioration Preventive
Code".
Mrs. Schnabel asked if he was speaking oi all structures whether they
were commercial, residential, or whatever, and Mr. Langenfeld replied
that the intent of the motion referred to dwellings in the "R" districts.
Mr. Langenfeld AMENDID the MOTION to read "Residential Structural Deter-
ioration Preventive Code". Agreeable to Mrs. Shea.
Mr. Bergman sa.id tliat he appreciated Mr. Langenfeld�s good intentions,
but he would hane to vote against the motion. He felt that "Maintenance"
was the proper and correct title to put on this document and felt they
should adher to that. Mr. Langenfeld coirmiented that if they did that,
much of the document would have to be elimi.nated.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, Langenfeld and Shea voting aye; Harris, Bergman and
Schnabel voting nay� the motion failed 3- 2.
MOTION by B�rgman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission
insert in the Preamble and adopt the definition of the term "maintenance"
�
�
�
�: .�
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 � Page 15
� as applicable to the proposed Maintenance Code as follows: a) The action
' of continuing carrying on� preserving� or reta.ini.ng something b) The work
of keeping something in proper condition.
Mr. Bergman read the Preamble to the Commission as he suggested it would
reasi� deleting the whole first sentence� eliminating "lack of adequate
lighting or ventilation", and after the word "City" merely adding the
definition of "Maintenance". He said he felt that would be reasonable
content.
Mr. Langenfeld stated he was in full agreement with striking the first
sentence� but couldn't�go alon� with eliminating "lack of adequate lighting.
or ventYlation" because that was i.n the preamble to make the reader aware
that these conditions can and do exist. He explained that was just �
creating an awareness of a situation.
Mr. Boardman said he thought one thing was being left out, and that�was
a statement of what they were trying to accomplish. He said that was the
purpose of the Preamble, and it should state what they were trying to
do with the code. He explained that the first seven lines were a statement
of finding, and the Preamble should also state what they were trying to
declare and what the purpose of the ordinance was. l�r. Boardman said that
' if they had to go into court with this, they would have to have a solid
statement of reason as to why they were getting into this. Mr. Langenfeld
said that as fax as he was concerned, they had that in the last half of
^ the existing Preamble. He added that one of the things that was bad about
ordinances was that they had so many words they couldn't be interpreted.
Mr. Bergman said that if they were to pursue the motion, some of this
would really be awkward. He asked if lack af maintenance of an existing
building would really necessitate excessive and disproportionate expenditures
of public funds for public health, public safety, crime prevention, fire
protection, and other public services, thereby causing a drain upon public
revenue and impairing the efficient and economical exe�cise of governmental
functions. Chairperson Harris said he didn�t think they could prove that.
Mr. Boaxdman said that because of these conditions it may be necessary to
expend more police time. He said that if an entire area was deterioration
and conditons were such that maintenance was in poor condition, more police
time would probably be expended in that area. He said that he was sure a
lot of this was written up under that premise--that more police time was
spent i.n areas where there was deterioration and more blight because the
conditions were such that they allowed more criminal activi.ty. He added
that the same may be found with the fire department in these areas.
Mr. Bergman stated he thought part of what Mr. Boardman was saying had
some truth to it, but it was greatly overdon�. He s aid he thought one
thing that was lacking here was a statement to the effect that they were
concerned about this because b].ight exp�nds and is found to be the cause
of additaonal blight. •
,�"1 .
- - -.�.�
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 � Page 16
Mr. Boaxc�man sa3d they had to have in the Preamble some kind of statement of �
finding to show why they had this code; for instance� for protection of
public safety, health, and welfare, and for the disproportionate amount
of public funds being spent and maybe even for aesthetic reasons--for�the
upgradi:ng of the general character of the City.
Mr. Bergman suggested that he change the motion to include the organization
of the Preamble and the general approach used, but to add a definition of
"maintenance" as applicable to this document. Mr.'Boaxdman said he thought
the definition of maintenance would be more appropriate in the Scope than
in the Preamble, and the Commission agreed.
�7r. Bergman AMENDID the MOTION to change, within the Preamble, the word
"dangerous" to �"detrimental", and to delete the phrase "lack of adequate
lighting or ventilation19. Mrs. Schnabel stated that she couldn't second
that. She explained that he had added deleting the phrase "lack of '
adequate lighting or ventilation" after she had seconded the motion the _
first time, and she really didn't agree with that.
Mr. Bergman AMENDED the MOTION as followsi That the Planning Commission
accept 220.02 Preamble of the proposed Maintenance Code, changing the
word "dangerous" to "detrimental". Agreeable to Mrs. Schnabel.
UP�N A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Langenfeld said that he would like to see the Commission continue to �'�1
go through the document and make notations� as he had shown everyone,
and see what they could do on that basis. He added that he felt they had
spent enough time on this for tonight. Mrs. Schnabel suggested that if
anyone cared to change any of the wording in any way, that they come to
the meeting with their new language written out so they could perhaps
proceed a little quicker. .
Mr. Bergman said he would like to suggest that they also attack "Scope"�
and Chairperson Harris agreed. PZr. Harris asked if they wanted to incorpor-
ate the maintenance definition in Scope. Mr. Boardmari commented that he
wondered if "maintenance" shouldn't be under Definitions, and noted that
under objectives there was a kind of definition of maintenance. He asked
what the Commission's feelings were on that. Mr. Bergman said he felt it
was proper to call this a Nlaintenance Code, and the definition of that
term was really what the 5cope was a11 about, and that is where it should
be. He said that he would suggest further that it could be repeated back
3n Definitions, but it was really basic to unclerstanding the Scope.
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Langenfeld, that what is described under
Scope in the Fridley Residential Mai.ntenance Code be deleted and replaced
with "The provision of this Ordinance shall apply uniformly to the maintenance
of existing structures and facilities� where applicable��. Maintenance as
a�plicable in this document is defined as follows: a) The action of
�
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page 17
�� continuing carrying on� preserving or retaaning something b) The work of
keeping something in proper condition. Upon a voice vote� all voting ay�,
the motion carried�unanimously.
MOTION by Shea, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission
_continue the Proposed Maintenance Code until the next meeting. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion caxried unanimously.
Mr. Bergman said it was his impression that with that motion as the Scope,
drastic things would happen to this docurnent, mainly in the form of dele-
tions. Mr. Boardman stated that he would have to digest that and would
see what would happen.
4. CONTINUID: HUMAN DEVELOPI�ENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Mr. Boardman said that they had gone through this briefly at the last
meeting and there had been a motion to continue so it could�be properly
reviewed, and now he'was open for questions.
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman, that.under Dl�10 the word "mothers"
be changed to "parents", and "women and children" be deleted and "a11
citizens" added. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
�� MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, that under D1t20 the words "in
order" and "mor�'be deleted. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the
motion caxried unanimously.
Mrs. Schnabel noted the words "within the Metro Area" under D5Lt0, and
asked if it was the responsibility of the City of Fridley to promote a
better understanding of minorities within the Metro Area. Mr. Boardman
said he was trying to bring out the responsibility of the City as a
broader unit than just the City itself; it did have a responsibility to
the metropolitan area also as a neighbor. Chairperson Harris asked why
they were limiting it to the metro axea, and suggested it read "Promote
a better understanding of minoritie5 and encourage programs which provide
opportunities for their development in society."
MOTTON by Schnabel, seconded by Shea, that the words "within the Metro
Area" be deleted from D51�0. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unani.mously.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, that the wo-rds "a better" be
deleted from Program Objectives D510, D520, D53� and D5lt0: Upon a�voice
vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
5. CONTINUID: SECURITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
,� ' .
Mr. Langenfeld read Goal Statement 5100, and sa3.d the first thing that
came to his mind was� "how?". He said it just seemed like an impossible
m
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 ' .Page 18
statement to make.
"civil wrongs". Mr.
of the individual".
civil wrongs, etc.
Chairperson Harris said he had trouble with the term
Zangenfeld suggested just saying "Assure the security
He said that '�security'� would involve criminal acts�
Chairperson Harris said that with the term "civil wrongs'� i.n that statement
he got the feeling they would be asked to choose up sides in a neighborhood
disagreement; i.e., kids running through a garden, etc. Mr. Boardman said
that he was thinking more in terms of wrongs of the justice system itself.
In other words� he said, discrimination against tY�e civil liberties of a
person. He said they would try to find a better term, and suggested "civil
injustice". Chairperson Harris suggested that they think about it as he
couldn�t think of anything offhand. ' .
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Schnabel, that under S110 the second
"that" tie eliminated; and under 5120 the word ��national�� be changed to
"natural". Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unan-
i:mously.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Schnabel, that the words "a11 elements
of" be deleted under S150. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion
caxried unanimously.
Mrs. Schnabel commented that she would like to lmow how they could get
,the justice system to respect the public; she didn't think it was possible.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if there should be an objective which included inform-
ing the citizenry of safety programs available to them, such as Operation
Identification, etc. She also wondered if something should be written in
that would include the services that were available to people in times of
trouble, such as the Poison Control Center, YES, Suicide Prevention, etc.
Mr. Boardman read Program Objective 5130 to the Commission, and said that
he thought they were talking about that type of.thing in there. He added
that information on that type of thing would be included under Policy
Development rather than Objective.
Mr. Boardman pointed out that on page 23, the Program Objective should be
S210 instead of S200.
Mr. Langenfeld said that regaxding page 21�, he would like to know how
security got involved with environment. Mr. Boaxdman said it meant securing
the environment for the residents.
Mr. Langenfeld read Program Objective s33a, and said he would like to see
"and eliminate" deleted. Mr. Bergman suggested it read "Elimi.nate or
control...".
MOTION by Langenfeld that the t�ords "and eliminate" be deleted from 5330.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Mr.. Bergman said that he would like to comment on Goal Statement S300�
which said "Assure �the conservation and improvement of the environment..."
He said he didn�t know how improvement could be assured, even as a goal.�
�"�
�
�,
�.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 197? • Page 19
'� He added that he would think that assuring the conservation was more what
they were talking about. Mr. Boardman stated that it was the continuation
of the conservation that exists, plus improvement on the existing situation.
He said that could be assured through evaluating problems of air, water
and noise control policies, pollution abatement policies, renewable and nan-
renewable resources and preservation of natural habitats. Chairperson
Harris asked if Program Objective S311t, Preservation of natural habitats,
would eliminate construction. Mr. Boardman said it would not as it didn't
say "a11" natural habitats.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that Program Objective s33o
be changed to read "Eliminate or control disease-carrying pests, noxious
weeds and harmful insects". Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Langenfeld read S1�3U to the Commission, and saa.d to him that just meant
getting the victims to the hospital as quickly as possible. Mr. Boaxdman
said they were referring to a natural disaster and the control a.nd policing
of the are.a so the victims could get back.to their everyday, normal life
pattern as quickly as possible. In other words, he said, a clean up and
that type of thing after a tornado.
Mxs. Schnabel said she didn't understand the term "activities". Mr. Boaxdman
said this meant the normal functional activities of the city in general,
P..1 such as businesses returning to a normal pattern of activities. Mr. Bergman
sa.id he would have thought two different words would have been used: instead
of "victims", use "casualties"; and instead of "activities", use "facilities ".
Mr. Boardman suggested eliminating "victims and activities" and substituting
"conditions".
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman, that Program Objective Sl�30 read
as follows: Help facilitate the return of conditions to a suitable
productive state as quickly as possible.. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye� the motion carried unanimously.
6. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: JANiTARY 11, 1977
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission
receive the Appeals Commission minutes of January 11, 1977.
. �
Mr. Langenfeld noted that the Appeals Commission was still going after the
economic feasibility versus hardship question as well as the devaluation
problem. He commented that he hoped they got some help soon. Mrs. Schnabel
said she had received no response yet.
Mrs. Schnabel brought to the Commission's attention the second to last
paragraph on page 6 of the Appeals Commission minutes. She said she was
amused tonight to see that Pop Shoppes had a whole book of signs, and the
,^ man had said they.would pick the largest one they could. She stated that
was exactly what r1rs. Gabel had discovered, and they should be aware of
this. . �
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page 20
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
. n
MOTIDN by Langenfeld that the second to last paragraph on page 6 of the
Appeals Commission minutes be included in the Planning Commission minutes
of January 19th so the word could get axound and a few more people could
be informed of the findi.ngs of the Sign Ordinance Committee.
Mrs. Schnabel commented that the City Council should be reading the
Appeals Commission minutes anyway, as they went directly to Council.
Mr. Langenfeld WITHDREW THE MOTION.
7. RECEIVE HUrTAN R�OURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 6, 1977
MOTION by Langenfeld, secorided by Shea, that the Planning Commission
receive the Human Resources Commission minutes of January 6� 1977.
Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to comment that she felt it was a �
shame that the Planning Commission didn�t receive these minutes until
the night of their meeting as they didn�t have the time to go through
them. She noted that these minutes were taken January 6 and weren't
included in the packet, yet the Appeals Commission minutes were taken
January llth and were included. She s aid she realized the secretary
had a tremendous amount af minutes to go through in this case, but �
thought it was unfortunate they didn�t have the opportunity to read them �
all the way through because she felt there was probably a lot of interest-
ing material in them. Mrs. Shea said that she had requested that these •
minutes wait until the next meeti.ng so they could be included in the
booklet.
Mr. Langenfeld commented that the same thing happened almost all the
time with Ehvironmental Quality Control minutes. He said that when
something like that happened, it was his assumption that the Chairperson
would indicate any highlights.
8. RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPrffiVT COMMISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 11, 1977
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission
receive the Community Development Commission minutes of January 11, 1977.
Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion.carried unanimously.
Mr. Bergman said that in their meeting with the Bikeway/Walkway Committee
they discussed many things, and on page 6 identified items of concern or
consideration.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld,.that the Planning Commission
pass on to Council the following concerns that were raised during the
Bikeway/Walkway Irnplementation: �--�,
,�
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977 Page 21
r� . .
l. The sugges�ion to identify a selected adverti•sed bi�e day.
. 2. To review the route and intersection problem at Highway 65 and
53rd Avenue.
3. The concern for other major intersectional crossings.
1�. The suggested widening of sidewalk.where bikeway joins same.
5. Commission unanimity agai,nst state licensing.
6. Request for directional arrows on bike routes.
UPON A VOICE VOT•E, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Bergman said he had come to this meeting intending to make a motion
to get�secretarial help for the Sign Ordinance Committee� but he saw that
had already been taken caxe of.
OTHER�BUSINESS: �
Mr. Boardman brought the Commission up to date on what had happened with
the East ftiver Road Project Committee. He said that on October 6th the
Planning Commission sent down to tl�e member Cbmmissions the Parkway
Development Plan; on November 1�th Human Resources acted, on November 9th
Community Development acted, and on November 15th Parks and Re�re�tion
acted. He stated there had been no action taken by the Planning Commission
on those responses, and suggested that they respond at the next meeting.
� Mr. Boardman informed the Commission that concerning the "baby" for
the Cardiopulmonaxy Resuscitation Programs, Bob Hughes had attended that
City Council meeting and said they did not need that for the Fridley
Fire Department. Chairperson Harris said he had talked to Mr. Hughes
about a week ago and found that the pr�blem was they did not have the
electronic recorder for the "baby". They needed the recorder, he said,
to tell them if the resuscitation was being done correctly to sustain
human life, and that particular piece of equipment cost about $90d to
$1,100. Mr. Harris stated that he thought this program was of utmost
importance, and this was where the City should provide a service. He
said that if it cost $1,�00 for a recorder, he thought that was what
they ought to have.
P�OTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission
recommend to Council the purchase of the electronic recorder to be used
for the education of the citizens of Fridley. Upon a voice vote� all
voting aye, the motion car.ried unanimously.
Mr. Boardman said concerning the request made by the Planning Commission
for recommendations from City Staff on the intersection of 53rd and
Central Avenue, they had two recommendations. He showed them to the
Commission and explained the differences. Chairperson Haxris asked how
much land they would have to take to accomplish this, and P•ir. Boardman
n replied it would be a strip about 200' long by 66": He added that they
were talking.in terms of a project cost of around $10,000 -$12,000, and
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1977
Page 22
that was for the actual construction. He said that if they had to acquire
the property it would be the acquisition on top of that. Chairperson �'
Harris commented that it would certainly improve things� and asked that
this be put on the agenda for the next meeting with all the pertinent
information included. •
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission
continue the discussion of the proposed improvement at the intersection of
53rd and Central Avenue until the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, a11
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. "
ADJOURNI�ZENT :
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the meeting be adjourned.
Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairperson Haxris declared the
Planning Commission meeting of January 19, 1977 adjourned at 12:00 A.M.
Respectfully submitted,
,.
.�
�
Sherri 0'Donnell
R,ecording Secretary
n
^
`..
. ��