PL 07/13/1977 - 30471�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 13, 1977
CALL TO ORDERs
�hairperson Ha�ris called the July 13, 19??, Planning Commission
Meeting to order at 7:35 paM.
ROLL CALL: .
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Others Present:
Storla, Bergman, Harris, Peterson, Gabel �
Langenfeld
None
Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
APPROVE PLANNING COMf1ISSI0N MINUTES: JUNE 22, 1977
Mr• Langenfeld corrected the ^Members Present^ listed on Page 1
to read •••••• Bruce Peterson• He indicated that the ^Members
Absent^ should read Bob Peterson.
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Mr• Storla,
,t.� Planning Commission flinutes of June 22, ],977, be
��' amended- Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the
�" unanimously-
�
� '�_�
AMEND THE AGENDA
that the
approved as
motion carried
MOTION by f1r• Peterson, seconded by Ms• Gabel, to amend the �
agenda to include item 5A, REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L•S. �77-07,
K.B.M. INVESTMENT COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY WYMAN SMITH�••••••-
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
7,. CONTINUED� PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT,
Sp �77-04, APACHE CAMPING CENTER� Per section 2�5•101,
3N� of the Fridley City Code� to allow sales and service .
of recreational vehicles, on Lot 1, Block 1, Pearson's
Second Addition� the same being ?701 East River Road N.E.
Public Hearing open.
Mr- Boardman presented the site plan from Apache Camping Center
to the Planning Commission- He said that the landscaping plan
had been drawn up by an architect- He pointed out that there
had been a meeting at the site involving Apache Camping Center
personnela��thatetimegthatSwereerequestedttolbe incorporateden
drawn up
into the Special Use Permit if it was granted•
The Planning Commis�sion studied the plan they had before them.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 19?? Page 2
Chairperson Harris wanted to know how many customer parking places
were being provided.
Mr• Pawelski of Apache Camping Cente� explained that there would ���
be enough parking space to accommodate 14 cars.
Chairpersan Harris questioned the number of tent trailers and
regular trailers shown on the plan.
Mr• Pawelski indiceted that they were showing the maximum number
of units that would be on the lot at one time•_
' Chairperson Harris asked if Apache Camping Center had had a chance
to look over the nine stipulations.
Mr• Pawelski indicated that they had reviewed the nine �
stipulations and were in agreement. He said that Ms. Martin
had requested most of the items to be included as stipulations
should a Special Use Permit be granted.
Mr. Pawelski felt that the number of kinds of shrubs being
required at the front of the building would obstruct the view
of the showroom from the street. He said that with some extra
care, the existing shrubs should be adequate.
Chairperson Harris questioned one of the stipulations dealing
with making sure the Special Use Permit would not be applicable
to any other business-
� �
Mr. Pawelski clarified that Ms. Martin didn't want the Special �
. - Use Permit to be allowed for use by someone else, should the
Camping Center move away at a future date.
Ms. Martin of 133 Stonybrook NE explained that she understood
that a Special Use Permit was issued to the owner of the property
and since Apache Camping Center would only be leasing the building
she didn't want to have t4 contend with an undesirable business
{used car lot, etc.} should the Camping Center move at a
future date.
Chairperson Harris explained that unless another Camping Center
moved into that building, the Special Use Permit would not
pertain. He said that each different business would need a
separate Special Use Permit. He indicated that the permit would
be issued for the outside storage of recreational vehicles.
� I
� -� �
� � '��� �
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Page 3
Ms. Martin said that she and the Apache Camping Center are in
,'�, agreement on the thoughts, but she wanted to be assured that
they are in agreement on the words. She didn't want to have the
thoughts misinterpreted• One thing in particular she wanted
to have the wording exact regarding the displaying of vehicles
in front of the showroom. She wanted it to read, ^two cement
slabs adjacent to the showroom with one vehicle each on each
of the slabs. She felt that the way it had originally been worded,
it could have been interpreted as two vehicle on each of the
slabs, resulting in a total of four vehicles displayed in front
� of the showroom. She said that she and the Apache Camping
Center had agreed on a total of two vehicles displayed in front
of the showroom. . �
At the request of Mr• Langenfeld, Chairperson Harris read the
nine stipulations to the audience. Mr• Pawelski clarified some
the the items as Chairperson Harris read them.
Mr• Pawelski indicated that he would be meeting with the owner
of the property regarding the nine stipulations. He said that
they were in agreement to fix the building, but didn't feel they
should have to handle the total expense of upgrading someone
else's property•
Ms. Martin explained that she had noticed twosemi-truck trailers
were being stored at the rear of the property. She said that
�` there was no objections to the ones present�y there- S�e asked
that since the Special Use Permit would be issued to the property
owner� would he be able to use that permit to enable him to park
more of the semi-truck trailers on the property. She indicated
that if that could happen, then she felt that there would be
a lot of objections. She was sure that the neighborhood did
not want any semi-truck traffic in the area. She also felt that
it would be aesthetically unpleasing to have semi-truck t�ailers
kept at the rear of that property.
Ms. Martin continued to say that she understood that the trailers
did belong to the owner of the property and not Apache Camping
Center• She only wanted to know if the owner would have the
right of outside storage-
Mr• Wormsbecker of 13401 Southridge Road indicated that basically
the �ear of the building in question was only being used as
cold storage and that it shouldn•t be considered as a warehouse•
Mr- Boardman explained that if semi-trucks were going into the
area and delivering merchandise to be stored, then the building
would be considered as a warehouse and warehouses were not allowed
in the zoning presently on the property=
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Page 4
M s. Martin wanted assurance that the �.eighborhood would be
protected from that type of situation being allowed. She felt
that the Permit should be worded NOW to assure there would be
no misinterpretation of the intent of the Permit. ,
Ms. Ma�tin indicated that there would be definite opposition to
�' a warehouse in the area.
�.
� � Mr• Langenfeld indicated that if the stipulations were incorporated
� into the Special •Use Permit, that, in itself, would put a great
' deal of control on the property. He explained that if in the
event the neighbors felt that a warehouse operation was taking
place, all they would have to do is call City Hall and someone
would be sent out to the property to check-out the complaint.
M s. Martin explained that that was why she felt the stipulations
should be incorporated into the actual Permit — to be sure
the neighbors had a valid complaint should different occasi.ons
arise•
Ms. Gabel wanted to know how long the trailers had been on the
property.
Ms. Martin indicated that she hadn't realized the trailers had
even been on the property until the night she met with the
personnel from ApachE Camping Center at the sit�e•
�"1
Mr• Pawelski didn't know the answer either• He was again in
agreement with f1s• Martin• He said that Apache Camping Center
didn't want to have the trailers parked on the property either•
He felt that the more room the owner utilized, the less room
they would have for their Camper business.
Mr• Peterson questioned the stipulation stating, ^Drive way on
East River Road not to be used by customers^. He wanted to
know how Apache Camping Center would be able to cont�ol what
driveway a customer would use-
M�. Wormsbecker explained that there was a driveway onto the
property directly from East River Road- He said that Apache
Camping Center would keep the gate on that driveway locked so
as to discourage anyone from using the driveway. He indicated
that Apache Camping Center intended to�use the driveways located
on 77th Street•
Mr• Pawelski explained that there could be occasions when Apache
Camping Center would want to use the gate/driveway on East River
Road but that it would only be an occasional ci�.cumstance and
that eustomers would never be encouraged to use that part,icular
gate/d�iveway-
�,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Page 5
�''1
M�• Bergman pointed out that there was an e�ror on the plat.
He said that the two cement slabs in front of the showroom
� had not been indicated• �
Mr• Storla asked what type of security lighting Apache Camping
Center planned to use.
Mr• Amundsom of Apache Camping Center indicated that it would
• only be security"lighting and would only illuminate the
Camping Center•
In answer to a question by f1r• Langenfeld, Mr• Pawelski indicated
that the business hours of Apache Camping Center would be:
Monday — Thursday 9:00 A.M. — 8:00 P.M.
Friday 9:00 A.M. — 6:Q� P.M.
Saturday 9: OU A. M.— 5: �0 P.M .
Closed Sunday
He said that he felt the latest they would ever be open would be
9:00 P.M. He again indicated that all ingress and egress to the
Apache Camping Center would be vie ??th Street.
Mr• Pawelski said that they had studied the landscape plan. He
indicated that basically it was an agreeable proposal and that the
�"'` ohly problem was that Apache Camping Center planned to get with
.,� the landlord to discuss the plan and to find out if he would
handle some of the expenses involved with upgrading his property•
,^,
Mr• Langenfeld wanted to know the terms of Apache Camping Center's
lease agreement• .
i'4r• Wormsbecker indicated that there wasn't an actual lease
agreement• He said that it was still a negotiable thing-
Mr• Pawelski said that when Apache Camping Center found out that
they needed a Special Use Permit, they decided to first find
out if they could get the Permit before they decided on the terms
of the lease.
Ms. Gabel asked what kind of lease Apache Camping Center
anticipated. .
M�• Amundsom indicated it would be app�oximately a three-year
lease {minimum}.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Pa e 6
Mr• Pawelski wanted to know why Apache Camping Center had to
replace all the shrubs presently on the property.
Mr. Boardman said that the landscaping architect had agreed that
some of the existing shrubbery could remain as long as the
entire property was upgraded.
Mr• Langenfeld wanted to know the purpose of the six foot redwood
fence .
M r. Boardman ind�cated that the six foot redwood fence was
basically for decorative purposes.
Mr• Peterson felt that the showroom should not be obstructed by
landscaping-
Mr. Boardman explained that the proposed landscaping would not
block the showroom visibility. He said that the City was only
suggesting the ideas. He indicated that Apache Camping
Center would have to submit a landscape plan for City approval
before they would receive the Permit. He said that the Permit
would be held up until the landscape plan met with City Council
approval-
Mr. Bergman said that when a business had a glass-front
that. the City should be careful not to require anything
would conflict with the visibility of that showroom.
Due to a misunderstanding, the Public Hearing had been
at the June 22, 1977 meeting; therefore, it came to the
attention that the public Hearing had not been opened.
showroom,
that
closed
Commission's
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr• Bergman, to open the
Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Peterson, to include
all the previous informal discussion into the Public Hearing.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr• Peterson, that the
Planning Commission receive the nine stipulations. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
Chairperson Harris requested a show of hands of people who were
in the audience regarding the item.
MOTION by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to close the
Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously and the Public Hearing was closed at 8:35 P.M.
�
n
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 19?7 � Page ?
�� Mr- Pete�son indicated that the landscaping needs had to be
verified.
After some discussion, Chairperson Harris and Mr• Boa�dman
came to the agreement that the City Council had final
arbitration regarding the approval of the Iandscaping plans.
MOTION by Mr• Bergman, seconded by Mr• Peterson, that the
Planning Commission recommend to City Council �he approval of
. the Request for a"Special Use Permit, SP �77-04, Apache Camping
Center: Per Section 205.1�1, 3N, of the Fridley City Code, to
allow sales and service of recreational vehicles, on L�t 1,
Block 1, Pearson's Second Addition, the same being 7701 East
River Road N.E. subject to the following stipulations:
1} That the development of the property be generally
consistent with the plat plan {Exhibit A} submitted
by Apache Camping Center, co�rected to show two
concrete slabs adjacent to the showroom-
2} That landscaping be imp�oved subject to the approval
of City Staff, with showroom visibility acceptable
to the tenants and adjacent neighbors-
3} That there be no outside loudspeakers.
�
�� 4} That outside lighting after 10:00 P.M. be limited
� to security lighting of the property {the illumination
. being such a nature that it would not be annoying
to the adjacent neighborhood}. .
�
5} That there be the maximum of two units {one on each
concrete slab located adjacent to the showroom} displayed
in front of the showroom.
6} That there be no test driving in the residential area.
?} Any unsightly storage be stored at the rear of the
property {behind the building}.
8} That the driveway on East River Road not be used by
customers.
9} Sales of motorcycles and snowmobiles be excluded.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion ca��ied unanimously•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN6 — JULY 13, 1977 ' Pa4e 8
2• PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT,
SP �7?-07, ANDREW R. EVANS: Per-Section 205.051, 2A, of
the Fridley City Code, to allow the construction of a !-'`
second accessory 5uilding, a 27' x 24' attached garage,
on the East 167 feet of Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92,
the same being 6040 Benjamin Street N-E.
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Bergman, to open the
Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
' carried unanimously• The Public Hearing was opened at 8:51 P.M.
' M �• Boardman indicated that there would be a second accessory
building. He said that they presently had an attached garage
and that they were building another attached garage at the rear
of the house. This would be considered a second accessory
garage-
Mr. Langenfeld asked what the purpose would be for the second
accessory building. .
M r• Evans said it would be used for storage of a car/boat/
snowmobiles and other items that needed to be stored•
Mr• Langenfeld asked if the accessory building would be compatible
with the existing building.
Mr• Evans said that the buildings would all be�the same — stucco� �
color� etc. �
Mr• Peterson wanted to know what the access would be to the
building.
M r• Evans said that there would be an additional driveway. He
explained that they were located on a corner lot and that the
second driveway would enter f�om the street to the garage at a
different point than the already existing garage•
Ms. Gabel asked on what street the current driveway existed.
Mr• Evans explained it was presently on Benjamin Street and the
other driveway would be on Ferndale Avenue•
Mr• Boardman showed the Planning Commission the proposed plan fo�
the additional structure. �
Mr• Bergman wanted to know the size of Mr• Evans' current garage
Mr• Evans wasn't sure of the dimensions, but indicated that it
was a single ca� garage• •
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JllLY 13, 1977 Page 9
Ms. Gabel showed concern for the elevation of the house in relation
to the proposed deck/patio. She wanted to know if it would
,-� encroach on the neighbor's privacy.
�
Mrs. Evans explained that they weren't really close enough to
anyone to encroach on their privacy. '
M s. Gabel asked what the dimensions were of the lot.
M�• Boardman indicated that the lot was 165 feet from the back
lot line to Benjamin St�eet.
Mr- Bergman wanted to know what Mr• Evans planned to do with
all the buildings — single car garage and oversized do�ble
garage• �.
Mr. Evans indicated he had two cars, one boat, two snowmobiles,
and other normal miscellaneous items that needed storage.
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to close the
Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously- The Public Hearing was closed at 9:00 P.M.
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr• Storla, that the Planning
Commission recommend to City Council the approval
of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP �77-07, Andrew R• Evans:
Per Section 2�5.051, 2A, of the Fridley City Code, to allow the
construc�tion of a second accessory builaing, a 27' x 24' attached .
garage, on the East 16? feet of Lot 7, Auditors's Subdivision � .
No. 92, the same being 6040 Benjamin Street N•E. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP �7?-08,
ROGER STENE: For r�taining thP use of both existing
'`^'-:�-� attached garages, and to permit an existing drive to his
�� .
._ ,. ot^iginal 12-1/2 ft x 2� ft garage to remain as is, per
Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, 2, A, �, located on
Lot 1, Block 5, Brookview Te�race Third Addition, the
same being 870 Pandora Drive N.E.
�Please note that when the permit for a second attached
garage was issued on Mey 26, 1972, it was stipulated that
the driveway to the original garage be removed, and the
original garage be used just for storage-
MOTION by Mr• Bergman, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to open the
Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously• The Public Hea�ing was opened at 9:04 P.M.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION.MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Page 1�
M r• Boardman pointed out that the main thing that should be
brought out was that in 1972, when a Permit was granted to build
an additional garage in the rear yard, it had been stipulated �
that the original driveway was to be removed and the area filled
in and landscaped. The permit also stipulated that the original
garage was to be used for storage only• He went on to explain
that the petitioner was now before the Planning �ommission for a
Special Use Permit that would enable him to use both garages
and both driveways.
Mr• Stene explained to the Planning Commissio� that he was aware
of the fact that�he hadn't complied with the stipulations of the
Building Permit that had been granted in 1972. He told them that
his original intent, when he built the new garage was that he
planned to put a print shop in his home• He said that sinc� that
time he had almost gone.out of the Printing business and
he doesn't plan to finish the original garage into a workshop
as he had p�eviously intended to do• He said that now he
preferred to use the original garage as storage for material
he sells out of his home- He indicated that the material is
drop shipped at his home from the Manufacturer-
Mr• Ste�e went on to explain that the City had advised him
of the violation fou� days after he had parked his third new
car in the original garage. He talked to Ron Holden of
Fridley City Hall to find out what he ha� to do to resolve the
problem. He said he had been informed by City Hall that he would
have to apply for a Special Use Permit in order to legally ,�
continue using the original garage/driveway. He quoted to the ,
Commission exactly what he had been told by City Hall:
^Request for Special Use Permit for second accessory
building• This permit will not require any additional
construction• It would only allow the present hard
surface drive off of Pandora Drive to remain• This was
originally stipulated to be removed on the Building
Permit. The garage door would remain as is in either
case. The property owner can drive over the lawn and use
the garage for car storage in either case-^
Mr• Stene showed the Planning Commission a copy he had of the
original Building Permit- He also presented a petition that had
been signed by his adjacent neighbors approving of his current
intention. He indicated that only two of the neighbors wouldn't
sign the petition; one was an employee of the City and he was
not permitted to sign the petition and the othe� p�rson lived
directly behind Mr• Stene and he had refused to sign.
Mr- Stene showed the �Planning Commission a picture of his house
as it currently appeared. He informed the Commission of all
the articles he needed all the additional space for — three cars,
two boats, six bicycles, snowblower, lawn mower� and other
miscellaneous items. He said he really wanted to be able to �
pa�k all his cars i�side rather than having them parked outside• �
He cited many incidents of vandalism that had occurred in the
past years• He said he had had at least $5,000 worth of
vandalism done, primarily to his vehicles.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Page 11
� Mr• Langenfeld pointed out that Mr• Stene had been required to
remove the driveway to the original garage in 1972 and_that he had
not removed it. He wanted to k�ow if by this request Mr• Stene
� was trying to make right his violation• �
Chairperson Harris said that he felt the intent of Mr• Stene
was to rectify the violation•
Mr• Stene said that he wanted to be at peace with the neighbors
. and with the City"and that he was willing to do whatever was
necessary to rectify the matter• He especial.ly wanted to have
� some type of peace with the neighborhood in hopes �hat possibly
some of the vandalism would stop•
M r• Bergman wanted to know if Mr- Stene planned to leave the
garages exactly as they were.
Mr• Stene said that there wnuld be no construction involved-
Mr• Langenfeld wanted to know why Mr• Stene had posts in
his front yard.
Mr• Stene indicated that after having ten ^yard jobs^ done last
year he decided to have the posts installed- He said that it
had cost him close to $1,5�0 to repair damages done by the
�, ^yard jobs^- He said he felt better {and safer} having the
posts present• He indicated that he took pride in keeping his
yard nice and he couldn't figure out why someone wanted to
keep ruining it• He said that he had even had his Home Owner's
Insurance dropped by one Company because of the unusual amount
of damages and vandalism claims they had to cover.
�s. Gabel wanted to know what type of business Mr• Stene was
operating out of his house. '
Mr. Stene indicated that he sold ink rolls. He said he had put
a print shop in his basement and operated it for 12 years. He
said when he had put the second garage on, the original garage
was primarily used as an access to the Printing Shop, plus
storage• With his decision to take a new course of employment,
Mr• Stene decided on the particular course of employment of
selling ink rolls. He said that he did have to keep some
inventory but that the total space utilized in his house was
an area 1-1/2 feet by six feet. He indicated that he would
primarily use the ga�ages for storage• He said that he wouldn't
be using the garage.as any business venture. He indicated that
there would be no workshop or office put into the garage.
He said he would basically use the garages as storage for his
personal belongings. •
�^.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Pa�e 12
Mr• Langenfeld asked if Mr• Stene stored goods for resale in
his house.
Mr• Stene estimated that he stored approximately $750 —$1,000 !�
wo�th of inventory.for resale in his house.
Mr. Langenfeld wanted to know why Mr• Stene had not done�as the
stipulations had required.
M r• Stene said that he had not been prepared to finish the
original garage at the time he built the additional garage.
He said that there seemed to be too many other things that
seemed more pertinent to him than removing the existing
driveway. He said that he wasn't sure of which direction he
planned to go with his future and since he had decided against
having the workshop, he just never got around to removing the
driveway.
MOTION by �r• Peterson, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to close the
Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting•aye, the motion
carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:22 P.M.
Mr- Langenfeld read the definition of a Home Occupation that
came out of the Code Book 205.02 because he felt that the
Commission first had to determine if a home occupation did exist.
Chairperson Harris indicated that at present there was a
business in existence; however, he was not sure if there had �„�
been a business venture in the past.
MOTION by Mr• Bergman, seconded by Mr• Peterson, that the
Planning Commission recommend to City Council the app�oval of
the Request for a Special Use Permit, SP �77-D8, Roger Stene:
For retaining the use of both existing attached garages, and to
permit an existing drive to his original 12-1/2 ft by 22 ft
garage to remain as is, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.U51,
2, A, located on Lot 1, Block 5, Brookview Terrace Third Addition,
the same being 870 Pandora Drive N.E. �
M r• Bergman said that even though Mr• Stene had been in violation
of a previous Building Permit, he felt that Mr- Stene had a
�easonable request.
Mr• Langenfeld wanted to know if there was any ordinance to
curtail home operations.
Mr• Stene said that he had been confronted at the time that a
semi-truck had jack-knifed in that intersection. He had been
told at that time that a home operation/business would not
get involved in anything involving color TV, nothing that
involved a lot of traffic {he pointed out that Beauty Shops
did not violate•the ordinance and that for sure his business
did not generate as much traffic as a beauty shop}, and that a �
home business could not result in any offensive noise to the '
neighborhood. He said that any construction equipment had to be -
stored in an enclosed building and that an 18 x 24 sign was
allowed but could not be directly lighted.
,�
PLANNIN� COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, �977 � Page 13
Mr• Langenfeld asked if any insurance company had denied him
coverage because of his home operation-
Mr• Stene said that he had never been cancelled by an insurance
company because of his home business. He said that his business
was not even large enough to require a fire extinguisher. He
said that he indeed had fire extinguishers, but he did so mainly
for his own safety and peace of mind•
Mr• Stene apologi'zed to the Commission for not compling with the
previous permit.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unaniroously�
4. PUBLI� HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP �77-09,
SHERWOOD JORDAHL: Per Section 205.051, 3D� of the Fridley
City Code, to allow the construction of a double bungalow
in R-1 zoning {single family dwelling units}, on Lot 6,
Block 2, Spring Va11ey Addition, the same being 1441-1443
Rice Creek Road N.E. .
MOTION by Mr- Peterson, seconded by Ms. 6abe1, to open the
Public Hearing. �pon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously- The Public Hearing was opened at 9:33 P.M.
�'� Mr. Boardman indicated that the petitioner was requesting a
Special Use Permit to enable him to build a double bungalow on
an oversized R-1 zoned lot• He said that the petitioner met
all the code requirements as far as lot size, etc. but that he
needed the Special Use Permit to allow a double bungalow on a
R-1 lot.
M r- Jordahl sho�ed the Planning Commission a plan of the double
bungalow indicating a few changes that had been decided since
the drawing up of the plan-
Mr• Peterson asked if Mr• Jordahl would be living in part of the
double bungalow. �
Mr• Jordahl indicated that he would be living in part of the
p�oposed double bungalow.
Mr• Herbert Hart of 1450-64th Avenue NE voiced definite objection
to the constructing of a double bungalow on that lot. He said
he had brought his house five years prior after spending previous
years in a double b�ngalow• He didn't like the idea of the
constant turnover that went with rental property- He said that
too many times people rent the property that are basically
undesi�a6le- He felt that rental property completely sur�ounded
by single family dwellings was a bad idea.
; -�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Page 14
Mr• Langenfeld asked if Mr• Hart was still in objection if the
double bungalow was owner occupied. �"~
Mr.Hart said that owner occupied would be better but that he
still opposed•
In answer to an inquiry from the audience, Mr• Jordahl said that
the double bungalaw would be in the $90,000 range. He said that
there would be approximately 1,000 square feet on each floor•
� Ms. Karla Larson of 7528-75 Ave NE pointe� out that a$90,OD0 home
would have to indicate that a reasonably stable family would �ave
to live in the other part of the double bungalow since the rent
would have to be in an awfully high bracket-
Chairperson Harris wanted to know if all the property in the
area had been developed or built on-
Mr• Boardman explained what existed near the lot in question•
He went on to discuss where all the homes near the lot in
question were located. �
Mr• Bergman asked if Mr• Jordahl owned the prope�ty•
M r- Jordahl said that he did own the property-
Mr• Langenfeld asked if Mr• Jordahl planned to make the double �
bungalow his permanent residence. �
Mr• Jordahl said that he hoped to make the house his permanent
residence• He said that he and his family liked the area and
that they would like to be able to build a home that would help
pay for itself.
Chairperson Harris asked if it would be feasible for Mr• Jordahl
to build a single-family dwelling•
Mr• Jordahl said that he wanted to build a double bungalow and
did not want to have to consider building a single-family
dwelling•
Mr• Langenfeld want�d to know if it would cause Mr- Jordahl an
economical hardship if the request was denied.
Mr- Jordahl indicated that it probably wouldn't cause an
economical hardship but he felt.it would be easier and better
if the request was granted.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 197? Pa e 15
� Mr• Bergman wanted to know why the proposed house�would have a
� 60 foat setback from the property line.
Mr• Jordahl said that it had been recommended to him by the City
so that his house would be in line with the other houses in the
area.
At that point there was a discussion amongst the Planning
Commission and Mr• Boardman regarding required setbacks.
Ms. Gabel asked Mr• Jordahl if he realized that there was some
incompatibility created by his building a double bungalow in an
area of single-family dwellings. ' �
M r• Jordahl said that he felt the main concern of the
neighborhoods regarding rental property would be the undesirability
of tenants- He felt that there would be no problems involved
since the rent would be in the upper bracket numbers.
A person from the audience stated that he felt the double bungalow
would actually be a nice a�dition to the area. He didn't feel
it would depreciate the value of the other homes in the area
at all•
Ms. Gabel asked if Mr• Hart felt any differently about the
n propo�ed double bungalow after hearing the different discussions.
Mr• Hart said that it was still a shock. He said that perhaps
it would really be fine and everything would work out, but he
still felt it would be nicer if a single-family dwelling was
constructed on that lot•
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to close the
Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously• The Public Hearing was closed at 9:55 P.M.
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr• Peterson, that the
Planning Commission recommend to City Council the approval of
the request for a Special Use Permit, SP �7?-09, Sherwood Jordahl:
Per Section 205.051, 3D� of the Fridley City Code, to allow the
construction of a double bungalow in R-1 zoning {single family
dwelling units}, on Lot 6, Block 2, Spring Valley Addition, the
same being 1441-1443 Rice Creek Road N.E.
Mr. Langenfeld pointed out that City Council would have to have
a 4/5 vote to approve the Special Use Permit.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Page 16
Chairperson Harris indicated that he was voting against the motion
because he felt there would be an incompatibility in the area.
He felt that a single-family dwelling would be better.
Ms. Gabel indicated that she would be voting against the motion
for reasons of incompatibility. She said that there were all
single-family dwellings in the a�ea and she felt it would be a
spot rezoning.
Mr• Bergman pointed out that �there wasn't any objections obvious
since only one person had showed up at the meeting to voice•his
objection.
Mr• Langenfeld didn•t feel that the general welfare of the public
was being jeopardized.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� Mr• Langenfeld, Mr• Peterson, and Mr• Bergman
voting aye; and Ms. Gabel and Chairperson Harris voting nay,
the motion carried.
5. PIJBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF REAPPROVAL OF MEADOWMOOR
TERRACE SECOND ADDITION, P.S. �77-05, BY GARY D AIGLE:
'{Formerly P-S. �64-04}, being a replat of the North 163.64
feet of the South 551 feet front and rear of the Northwest
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 12, T-30,
R-24, Anoka County, generally located East of Central
�Avenue N.E. and West of Arthur Street N.E, on
th� South side of 76th Avenue N.E. �
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded
hearing• Upon a voice vote, all
unanimously- The Public Hearing
by Ms. Gabel, to open the public
voting aye, the motion carried
was opened at 10:00 P.M.
Ms. Karla Larson was representing Mr• Gary D Aigle.
Mr• Virgil Ishaug
Mr�s . Ray C zypta
Mrs. John Hennes
M�s. Jan Thomas
Mrs• Peggy Strasser
Mrs. Susan Thomsen
Mr• Fred Limesa�d
Mrs. Sharon Limesand
1373 - 75 Ave NE
7620 Bacon Drive NE
76�U Arthur Street NE
1463-75 Avenue NE
7508 Arthur Street NE
1483-?5 Ave NE
1409-76 Ave NE
1409-76 Ave NE
All the above people were present at the meeting regarding the
above item.
i--�
.—,
�
��
�
i
�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Page 1?
Mr- Boardman explained that originally a plat went through in
1.964,• At ihat time he explained it had not been recorded to the
,.=1 County and has not been recorded in the County since.
He said that according to Code, they have to have a plat recorded
in the County within 90 days otherwise they have to get
reapproval from the City• He said that at this time they are
requesting reapproval on the plat- He indicated that
there had been some recommendations that should be placed on the
plat that were not on the plat previously, namely the
easements needed — a ten foot walkway easement along the south
side of lots 1& 2, Block 1, for access to th� City Park property�
. also five foot drainage and utility easement along the street
side of all the lots.
�
/��.
Chairperson Harris wanted to know why the City needed additional
easements over and above the already requested 60 feet.
M r• Boardman indicated that he wasn't sure of the reasoning
but that it was standard procedure in the Engineering Department.
Ms. Gabel wanted to know if the easement could be used in the
frontage setback requirements•
M r• Boardman said that the property owner couldn't build on the
easement but that they could use the footage when determining
the setback•
thairperson Harris asked Ms. Karla Larson if she had had an
opportunity to see the proposed plan.
M s. Larson discussed the proposed plat with the Planning Commission.
Mr• Limesand wanted to know what would be built o� the lots
that were being discussed.
M s. Larson indicated that there would be 13 single-family homes.
She asked if the audience was concerned that the plans would be
fo� low housing development•
The audience indicated that that was their main concern.
Ms. Larson indicated that the lowest price that would be
paid for any of the homes would be $49,900 and the cost would
only go up from that point. She explained that there would be
seven styles that would all be different.
The audience was very much against any type of home that would
resemble the 235 Program homes that had been build in the area.
Ms. Thomas wanted to know if there would be any guarantee that
all the homes wouldn't be th�e same. •
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Page 18
Ms. Larson indicated that they couldn't really know before the
lots were sold but again emphasized that it was not low income
housing and that i� would be unlikely that all the homes would
be exactly the same.
Ms. Peggy Strasser wanted to know if the seven homes would be
built and then used as display models.
Ms. Larson said that there would be no model homes built. She
said that people would go into the Realty office and decide
what they wanted'and then the home would be built to their
specifications.
Mrs. John Hennes said that when the 235 Program was brought into
the area they had been told that there would be a variety of
homes but because of the water table, they ended up all being
built as split entry homes. She wanted to know if the City
could check the water table to insure that that wouldn�t happen
again•
Mr• Bergman indicated that the Planning Commission was talking
about.the approval of a preliminary plat and the approval of
that plat would not be any guarantee of the type of house that
would go on the lot nor would it involve any commitments as to
what would go on the lots. He said that the decision would
not tie the lots to anything other than a single-family dwelling
and the size of the lot.
Mr• Boardman said that the City didn't have much control over
whether a developer would or would not develop low income
housing• He indicated that the original 235 Program is no
longer available• He said that the only types of Programs
available would be �he type of individual subsidy prog�ams
or mortgage loan programs. He said that the City didn't always
have the control and that most of the time it would be between
the developer and HUD�
M�- Peterson indicated that the City has developed through the
various hearing processes within the City a housing goal as far
as housing is concerned and part of that goal was to encourage
all types of•housing within the City of Fridley-
Mrs. Ray Czypta indicated that the point they wanted to make was
that the area already had low income housing and that they
didn't want any more• . -��
Chairperson Harris suggested that the neighbors concerned about
this item get together with Ms. Larson and discuss with her the
things they were concerned about. He thought that they would
get more satisf.action letting the developer know what they
would and wouldn't like• He was sure the developer wanted to
be in harmony with the neighborhood•
�-,
�-.,
�,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Page 19_
� Ms. Larson again pointed out that she was almost sure that the
developer didn't want to construct housing for low income programs.
She invited the neighbors to stop by the office at a�y time and
they could discuss all the plans that the developer had.�
M �• Boardman pointed out that in 19�3 there had been a lot split.
He explained that the lot split split off parcels 950 and 955
and the rest of the plat was parceled off as 960• He said that
the plat was first presented in 1964 which was 11 years after
the lot split. He said that the original plat was in erro�• .
He gave the information to Ms. Larson and asked that she submit
it to Suburban Engineering and then get in contact with City Hall•
Chairperson Harris explained to the audience that there had been
� a lot split on lots 7, 8 Block 2 which would be the west end
. of the property• He indicated that the lot split took place in
1953 and if the people that split the lots had�received a
mortgage, then a plat had to have been approved-
MOTION by Mr• Bergman, sec�nded by Mr• Langenfeld to close the
Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously• The Public Hearing was closed at
10:4? P.M.
n M s. Gabel indicated to the audience that they should definitely
get together with the developer of the land and voice their
oppositions• She said that the Planning Commission really
couldn't do a lot regarding the styles of the houses. She said
that they, as the general public, could make themselves heard
by going directly to the develope� and letting him know..what
they did and did not want.
MOTIOb by Mr• Bergman, seconded by Mr• Peterson, that the Planning
Commission recommend to City Council the reapproval of
Meadowmoor Terrace Second Addition, P.S. �77-05, by Gary D Aigle:
{Formerly P.S. �64-04}, being a replat of the North 163.64 feet
of the South 551 feet front and rear of the Northwest Quarter
of the Northeast Quarter of Section 12, T-30, R-24, Anoka
County, generally located East of Central Avenue N.E. and West
of Arthur Street N.E.� on the South side of 76th Avenue NE
with the following adjustments and/or corrections:
1} That Lot 7& 8, Block 2, be removed f�om the Plat.
2} That five foot easements as recommended by City
Engineering be included {76 Avenue, Garfield St�eet,
and A�thur Street}.
3} A five foot easement off Lot �& 2 of
five .foot easement off lot 1, Block 1,
to p�ovide egress to the park property
Block 1 and a
Don' s Sth,
to the west•
�
�
- UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried una�imously-
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, Z977 Page 20
n
✓ 5A. REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. �77-07, K.B.M. INVENSTMENT
COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY WYMAN SMITH: Split the balance of
Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No• 108, into the following
three parcels: A: The West 96 feet of that part of the
South 213 of Lot 4, A.S. �108, Anoka County, which lies
North of the South line of the North Half of Lot 4, Subject
to easement for ?3 1/2 Ave N.E. the same�being 1601-?3 1/2
. Avenue N.E.' B: That part of the South 2/3 of Lot 4,
A.S. �108, Anoka County, which lies North of the South line
of the North Half of said Lot 4, except the West 96 feet
thereof, subject to road easement for ?3 1/2 Avenue N.E.�
the same being 161�-73 1/2 Avenue N.E., and Parcel C: The
South 1/2 of Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No• 108, Anoka
County, subject to road easement for 73 1/2 Avenue N•E•
Mr• Mark Haggerty and Mr• Zollie Barrett we�e present to discuss
the item.
Mr• Boardman explained that what they wanted to do is divide the
lot into three parcels of land. He pointed out that an area
had previously been vacated and split. He said that they wanted
to divide part of the lot into two parcels and the other half
of the lot into one parcel {south half of lot 4}.
�,
Mr• Haggerty explained that all the parcels would be very deep �
but not wide enough• He said that adjacent neighbors had been
cont�acted but that they didn°t wish to sell any of their prcperty-
He pointed out that originally when it had appeared that Lakeside
would have been continuing down, the lot would have been
155 x 85 feet and that would have resulted in a large corner
lot. When the City �acated Lakeside he said that 25 feet was
added and the decision made the lot a non-corner lot. He
pointed out that even if only one house was put on the two
parcels, th�y would still need a depth variance because there
would only be 85 feet. He felt that splitting the parcel would
be feasible• He said that they would be able to maintain a
quality building and, obviously� would be able to keep the costs •
down.
Mr• Haggerty felt that this was a hardship situation•
Chairperson Harris asked about the setbacks in relations to the
p�oposed cul-de-sac in the area.
Mr• Boardman explained that the houses would have to be placed
as far to the left of the property as possible• He also pointed .
out that•because of the fact that the street never went in, it
had created a hardship mainly because the lot had already been
split and had been predestined what the lot depth could be• He ,�,
said that with the vacation of the street a depth problem was
crea�ed. He felt�that it was indeed a hardship situation.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Page 21
MOTION by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr• Bergman, that the Planning
Commission recommend to City Council the approval of the request
� for a Lot Split, L.S. �77-D7, K.B.M. Investment Company,
represented by Wyman Smith: Split the balance of Lot 4, Auditor's
Subdivision No. 108, into the following three parcels:
� A} The West 96 Feet of that part of the South 2/3 of
Lot 4, A.S. �108, Anoka County, which lies North of the
South line of the No�th Half of Lot 4, Subject to
easement for 73 1/2 Avenue N.E., the same being
� 1601 - 73 1/2 Avenue N.E.
, B} That pert of the South 2/3 of Lot 4, A.S. �108,
Anoka County, which lies North of the South line of
. the North half of said Lot 4, except the West 96 feet �
thereof, subject to road easement for 73 1/2 Avenue N.E.,
the same being 1611 -?3 1/2 Avenue N.E.;
C} The South 1/2 of Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No� 108,
Anoka County, subject to road easement for ?3 1/2 Avenue N.E.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris declared a short break at 11:15 P.M.
Chairperson Harris called the meeting back to order at
11:25 P.M.
6. RECEIVE LETTER FROM HERMAN BERGMAN, CHAIRMAN COMMUNITY
� DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, DATED JUNE 2, 1977
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, that the
Planning Commission receive the letter from Herman Bergman,
Chairman Community Development Commission, dated 06l02/77.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
M r• Bergman requested that the name of Kraig Loftquist be
removed from the list of names that the memo was mailed to.
Chairperson Harris thanked the Sign Committee for their diligent a�ork.
Mr• Bergman indicated that Ms. Gabel had put in many hours on
the Sign Ordinance.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that it had been.a job well done•
7• CONTINUED: PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE:
MOTION by Mr• Bergman, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, that the
Planning Commission receive the letter from Ms. Pat Gabel,
Chairperson of the Sign Project Committee, regarding the
Maintenance and.enforcement. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
r—.
the motion carried unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Page 22
Mr. Boardman started to go through the Sign Ordinance explaining
the changes that previously had been made. He explained
that most of the definitations had 6een left as they we�e. He
said that a few changes had been ma�e and some cutting had been �"�
'done if the item hadn't been needed or appeared elsewhere in the
Ordinance.
Ms. Gabel indicated that the �ommittee understood that that
could happen since they did the definitions first and had decided
to put everything that they thought might apply•
Mr• Bergman wanted to know if all the changes that had been made
at the Community Development meeting had been�incorporated
into the Ordinance.
Mr• Boardman said that the changes/corrections had al� been
incorporated except for one that had been erroneously overlooked
but he said that it would be put into the Ordinance.
Mr• Boardman explained that the very first portion was SIGNS
PROHIBITED IN ALL DISTRICTS: {he went on to list the signs}
All permanent signs placed within the street right-of
way except for government signs.
Signs or wall graphics that contain words/pictures that
are obscene•
Signs painted directly on the building•
Portable signs except thase unde� Uses Permitted in all
zonings-
Signs that resemble official traffic signs or signals that
bear words used for traffic control {Stop, Go, Slow, etc•}•
Signs by reason of size, location, movement, content, color
o� manner of illumination may be confused with traffic
control signs.
Projecting signs, motion signs, illuminated signs that
change in either color or intensity of light or is animated
or has flashing intermittent lights including traveling or
electronic message centers or electronic message centers that
change more than once every 15 minutes except one showing
time� temperature, or other public information•
t1s• Gabel was concerned with this wording because
she was aware of a person who would be going before
City Council requesting a variance and she would
be very much against the fact of having a traveling
electronic message center on 52nd & Central Ave NE•
�-.
�
r"�,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Page 23
Ms. Gabel wanted the words ^that change more than once
� every 15 minutes^ removed. '
Mr• Peterson wanted to know if Ms. Gabel was totally
against traveling electronic message centers or just
against the particular one on 52nd & Central•
Ms. Gabel said she was basically against the signs
in general• She didn't want to see the major highways
to turn into highways of flashing message centers-
Advertising signs except those allowed only in C1, C2, CR1,
C1S, C2S� CR2, etc.
Signs located within corner setback requirements. �
Roof signs. �
Revolving beacons, zip flashers, and similar devices and
other sources of lights that changes intensity are prohibited.
Portapanels and readerboards except�those dispensing public
information.
Pls. Gabel asked about Drive-In Signs. She said that
. the readerboard outside the Drive-In Theater was
,.-1 vital to the livelihood of that Theater. She said
that the original intent of the Project Committee
was not to get rid of the readerboard at the Drive-
. In Theater or City Hall or Bob's Produce but rather
aimed at disposing of the ^B1ue Signs^ that some
fly-by-night outfit sold throughout Fridley that were
now falling apart and aesthetically unpleasing in general.
There was some discussion amongst the Commission
regarding the actual definition of a reader board
and what would be allowed to be displayed an a
Reader Board.
Chairperson Harris suggested saying that NO Readerboards.
would be allowed except by Special Use Permit.
Ms. Nancy Jorgensen of Naegele, 1700 W 78 St, Minneapolis, spoke
in favor of Signs/Billboards. She felt that billboard advertising
was very vital to the livelihood of many industries and businesses
in Fridley {she had a list of several in Fridley}. She also
mentioned that it was also a very vital livelihood for Naegele•
Chairperson Harris brought up a par-t of the Sign Ordinance that
read ^a sign which is used to advertise products, goods, or
services^ would be p�ohibited.
�
� Discussion ensued regarding signs that could be eithe� an
- identifying sign or an advertising sign and who would determine
exactly what the sign was being used for•
Basically the question arose of where the line was drawn between
identification signs and advertising signs.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Page 24
Ms. 6abe1 said that the item had to be readdressed and worked
on by the Project Committee• �
�
Chairperson Harris wanted to know if the intent was to eliminate
any more billboards in Fridley-
Ms. Gabel said that that was the Project Committee's intent.
Ms- Jorgensen felt that the Committee was shutting down an
avenue of advertising for many business people in the City
of Fridley• She,said that it was one of the least expensive
• method of advertising• She felt that the Committee was
making a mistake.
MOTION by Mr- Bergman, seconded by Mr• Peterson, that the '
Planning Commission diseuss the Proposed Sign Ordinance at the
next meeting• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously-
8. CONTINUED: PROPOSED HOUSING �iAINTENANCE CODE:
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr• Bergman, that the
Planning Commission continue the Proposed Housing Maintenance
Cod� at the next meeting• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously•
9• � RECEIVE FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION �INUTES: ,---,
JUNE 21, 1977 _ �
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, that the
Planning �ommission receive the Environmental Commission Minutes
of June 21, 197?• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously•
Mr• Langenfeld urged the Planning Commission members to attend
the slide presentation of the Noise Pollution Seminar sponsored
by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on July 19, 1977, at
?:3U P•M• He felt that the meeting would be most worthwhile•
e
.�-.
�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 paqe 25
1�• RECEIVE APPEALS �OMMISSION MINUTES: JUNE 28, 1977
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Gabel, that the
Planning Commission receive the Appeals Commission Minutes of
June 28, 1977.
Ms. Gabel asked that the last paragraph on Page 73 be changed
to read ^Ms. Gabel felt that something could possibly be done
administratively to enable the Appeals Commission to approve
variances of the type that had been discussed regarding
Mr. Chies". -
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
11. RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES:
JUNE 27, 197? �
MOTION by Mr- Peterson, seconded by Mr• Bergman, that the �
planning Commission receive the Parks and Recreation Commission
Minutes of June 27, 197?• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously•
M r• Peterson explained that there were several items/comments
� in the minutes that would have to be inclu�ed in the Parks
and Open Space Plan.
Mr• Langenfeld informed Mr• Peterson that the Environmental
Quality Commission had been deeply concerned that they had not
been invited to the meeting when Mr• Ton Petrangelo spoke on
" the subject of the Rice Creek Water Shed District.
Mr. Peterson explained that the idea of inviting Mr• Petrangelo
to speak came up when it was discovered that no one on the Parks
and Recreation Commission really knew for sure how the Rice
Creek Watershed District related to what the City was doing with
parks 8 Recreation.
M r• Langenfeld indicated that he wasn't quite so upset since he
was now aware of the reasoning behind the decision.
12. OTHER BUSINESS
A} City Manager•s Letter regarding Code of Ethics
Chairperson Harris indicated that the Planning
Commission members were to take the letter to their
respective Commissions and discuss it• He said that
the Planning Commission wou3d discuss the letter at
�-, the July 27, 1977, meeting.
t
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Page �6
�
�
B} Pa�ks and.Open Space Plan �
Mr- Boardman indicated that all the members of the '
Planning Commission had received a copy. He said that
discussions would begin next month so the Planning �
� Commission members were requesteci to review the Plan
before that time• ,
C} Revising the Planning Commission Meetings
Mr• Boardman indicated that the Planning Commission
Meetings would be revised so that all the Public
Hearings would be taken care of at the first meeting
of the month and the general business would be .
�handled at the second meeting of the month.
He felt that by so conducting the meetings, everything
would be handled in a^cleaner^ and more efficient
manner•
A�DJOURNMENT :
MOTION by Mr• Bergman, seconded by Mr• Peterson, to adjourn �
the July 13, 1977, Planning Commission Meeting• Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
�--,
Chairperson Harris declared the meeting adjourned at 1:05 A.M. :
Respectfully submitted,
� �
MaryLee Carhill
Recording Secretary
!'�