PL 01/25/1978 - 6626z�
� . _ , ,s-
City of Fridley
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSI4N AGEN6A JANUARY 25, 1978
CALL T0 4�DER:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSIQN MINUTES: JANUARY 9, 1978
1.
: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT, 5P #77-77, BY SUPERAMEK1cA: 1'er rr�aley l.1Ly
Code, 5ection 205. 3, 3, €, to allow the construction
of a Superamerica Station Convenience Store, on Lots
27, 28, 29 and 30,,Block 4, Hamilton's Addition
to Mechanicsville, the same being 5667 University Avenue
Northeast.
Public Hearing open
Receive Petation #2-1978
2. P
FOR A SPECIAL USE
SP #78-01, BY MENARD CASHWAY LUMBER: Per tr9dley
City Co e, Section 0. 0, 3, N, to allow the
development of a 5,000 square foot garden center is
their parking lot, on Lot 9, Auditor's Subdivision
No. 94, the same being 5351 Central Avenue N.E.
3. PRESENTATIQN BY ENVIRQNMENTAL COMH�IUNITY SERVICES, ING.
4. RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 5,
1978
5. RECETVE PARKS & RECREATION CDMMISSION MINUTES:
JANUARY 9, 1978
6.
7. CONTINUED: PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN
8. OTHER BUSINESS:
ADJOURNMENT:
7:30 P.M.
PAGES
1 - 19
20 - 23
24 - 37
38 - 49
50 - 56
57 - 66
67 - 71
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEE�'ING
JANIIARY 25. 1978
CALL TO ORDER:
Ghairperson Harris
Commission meeting
ROLL CAS.�LL:
Members Present:
Members Absent;
Others Present
ealled the January 25, 1978, planning
to order at 7;37 P,M.
Shea, Bergman, Harris, Suhrbier, Schnabel,
Langenfeld
Peterson (represented by Suhrbier)
Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
APPRdVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINIITES: JANUARY 11, 1978
MOTI�N by Ms. Shea,
Plannin� Commission
as written. Upon a
carried unaniraously,
1.
seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, that the
approve the Jasauary 11, 1978, minutes
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
CQDE� SECTION 205.131, 3� E, TO ALLOAI THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A SIIPERAMERICA STATION CO�ENIENCE STORE, dN LOTS 2�, 28,
29 and 30, BLOCR �, HAMILTON'S ADDITION TO MECHANICSVILLE,
THE SAME BEING 5667 IINIVERSITY AVEFIUE NE
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
Mr, Boardman said that much discussion had taken place at
the prenious meeting. He said that Superamerica had some
revised plans for the Superamerica Station Convenience Store,
Ms. Schnabel asked why it was necessary for Superamerica to
request a Speeial IIse Permit,
Mr, Boardman said that the station previously located on the
lot had been at that location before Special IIse Permits were
required for Gas Station operations,
Mr. Michael Holt and Mr. Timothq Kortrem were present at the
meeting representing Superamerica.
Mr. Holt showed the Commission a revised plan for the
Superamerica Station Convenience Store. He indicated the changes
that had been made to the driveways servicing the station and
that by moving the proposed building approximately 15 feet they
were able to provide for the required 15 parking spaces as well
as set up a feasible route the gasoline trucks could nse so that
the trucks would �tot have to go throu�h the residential area.
PL9NNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANIIARY 25, 1977 Pa�e 2
Mr. Bergmaxa said it was an improved plan and that it was much
better than the previousl plan.
Mr. Holt said that he had talked to Superamerica managemettt
about providing a sign for Ms. Mathisen (3t�8-57 Ave NE)
and they ir�dicated they would provide her with a sign that
would iadicate that her driveway auas a PRIVATE DRIVEWAY and
that it should not be used.
Ms. Schnabel asked if there would be signs at the entrances
and egresses that would indicate entrance only or exit only
and if so how would the signs be posted.
Mr. Holt said that the driveway to the rear of the lot would
have a sign that would indicate f�exit only, do not enter�'.
He also said that there eaould be directional arro�rs on the
blacktop.
Ms. Schnabel asked ii there would be additional signage in
the ground that arould indicate exit only.
Mr. Holt said that they would hane signs in the ground,
Ms. Schnabel asked if any signs would indicate such things as
"no left turns" or ��no right turns�� or "right turns only��,
Mr. Holt said that they would provide such signs if the Commission
felt it would be necessary. He didn't think they would be
necessary in that the patterns would already be established
because of the island that was located in 57th Avenue.
Mr. Boardman said that it had been suggested at the previous
meeting that at the e�.t closest to the service lane and
57th Avenue there would be a sign indicating ��Exit to
University Avenue+� with an arrow that would direct the traffic
around the station or around the area.
Mr. Holt said that Superamerica would comply with that request,
Chairperson Harris asked if the station would be open 21� hours
per day, every day of the week.
Mr. Tim Kortrem said that it was being discussed that the proposed
Superamerica Station Cottvenience Store would be open 24 hours a
day. He said that the particular locatioxi had not been fully
established as yet. He said that actual business would dictate
the hours it would be opened.
Chairperson Harris asked what type of products would be dispensed
at the Superamerican Station Convenience Store.
Mr. Holt said that the Store would handle convenience items such
as paekaged food, rolls, milk� bread. He said it would handle
no fresh produce. He said they would have bulk oil and some
automobile related products.
RLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANIIARY 25. 1978 Pa�e 3
Mr. Carl Paulson of �30-NE 57th Place wanted to submit a
supplement to the original petition that had been si�tted
by the residents in the neighborhood. He said that the
petition itself dealt with mostly the human aspects and
that the supplement petition dealt with property owners.
Mr. Paulson said that it was an Impact Statement whieh was a
supplenettt to the petition, re: Superamerica Request.
"The following criterion .represents a mutual
correlative to the contents of the aforesaid
petition.
The petition deals with matters serving jointly
both property owners and residents on a lease
bas�s or otherwise enjoined,
The fo�.la�.ring are parts or elements, maybe not
all of them, you will be considering conjuctively:
I. First of all: Is there a need?
II. Reduction of real estate values.
III. Deviation from previous use.
IV. The matter of saturation (used in the
broadest sense)
V. And an overall adverse affect,��
Mr. Paulson said that the people ixi the area were adverse to
the night-time operation.
Chairperson Harris said that a petition had beett submitted
to the Commission. He said that it was a petition to the
Planning Commission, City of Fridley.
�+We, the signatories to this Petition do hereby request
that an all-night operation applied for by the applicant
in the name of Superamerica Station Convenience Store, be
rejected.
UPe submit our request, in part, on the basis of six pages
of criteria calling attention to pollution hazards and how
to curtail them. Peace and composure are closely related
to restful sleep.
we summarily reject any notion that we be held responsible
by word or otherwise for the ridiculous overbuilding of
gasoline stations in years past.
We further reject any suggestion that fenced walls with
ballasts can serve as adequate grotection, against polluted
particles moving with the wind in varied directions, and
noise pollution.
We reserve the right to seek redress through the courts,
should this become our only recourse.
PLANNING COR4iISSION MEETING - JAN�ARY 25 1978 Page 4
We reject installations of added lighting such as might
adversely affect nearby residents at times when they look
forward to a time of restful sleep. Night time was made
for sleep!
Also� we are aware that hold-ups and shoot-outs cannot be
ruled out around an all night operation.
6�e are opposed to added traffic after-hours, such as would
be of convenience to inconsiderate drivers who are protte
to rev-up motors, added to quick starts, sometimes coupled
mith loud voices.
We want nothing added to overall late night problems,
such as are experienced along well traveled roads, such
as University and 57th Avenue going eastward.
Finally, we reject the proposed operation as we know it.+�
Chairperson Harris said that there were 39 names on the petition.
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld� seconded bq Ms. Schnabel, that the
Planning Commission receive the petition and the Impaet Statement.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Paulson said that it had been clearly stated and that the
people who signed the petition had done so with the enthusiasm
that went uith the acceptattce of the idea of rejecting the proposed.
Mr. Gordon Jorgenson of 2225 Chalet Drive said that he owned
the property located at 56yt� Fourth Street NE. He said that his
property cotttained a senen-unit apartment building. He said that
the people in his building were very much against the proposed
Superamerica Station Convenience Store. He said that they mainly
opposed the 21� hour operation, He said that the points they
had indicated they were opposed to were the added noise from the
traffic; the increase o£ cars using the parking lot as turn-around
area; and the people who lived on the West side of the building
were concerned about the lighting, especially during late night.
He said that he personally was against the proposed operation
and that people in his building had also indicated their opposition
bq signing the petition.
Chairperson Harris asked if there had been traffic problems
previonsly when Phillips 66 had owned the building,
Mr. Jorgenson said that it had added to the traffic in the
area; but he said the people were mostly against the 2y.-hour
operation.
Ms. Schnabel said that if the petitioner was allowed to proceed
with his plans, the Commission could establish hours that the
operation could be open; she wanted to know if the people in
Mr. Jorg�nson�s building had a preference to the hours it could
be opeaed.
PLANAING COMMISSION MEETING - JANIIARY 25� 1978 Pa�e 5
�r. Jorgenson said that he had delivered the petition to the
people in his building as it was written. He said they seemed
to be basically concerned about the late night noise and the
additional lighting all through the night.
Ms. Schnabel said that 5uperamerica had stated they itttended
to have the lighting directed do�anwards and awaq from the
adjacent properties.
Mr. Jorgenson said that the lighting could be improved using
that manner but that the problem wouldn�t be eliminated.
Ms. Grace Mathisen of 34$-57th Place NE said that she didn't
have much to add to what she had stated at the previons
meeting. She said that it wouldn't make any difference
whether the store was a night or day operation, the traffic
would be much greater in the area than before. She said that
the lights of the operation weren't just the lights located on
the property but would involve the lights of the traffic.
Mr. Langenfeld read from the Code all the businesses that
could be established on the lots in question. He said that
the location was zoned C-2. He felt that a much less desirable
situation could be established at that location than a
Superamerica Station Convenience Store.
Mr. Paulson said that Mr. Lan$enfeld had made a good point
but that he felt the people in the vicinity did have a
right to say what could be established at that location.
Mr. Jorgenson said that the location �as probably too small
for many of the other uses that had been indicated by
Mr. Zangenfeld. He said that it seemed that the people in
the vicinity wanted an opportunity to listen to a proposal
for some other type of operation.
Mr. Holt said that in regards to the all-ttight operation
Superamerica did operate some of the stations on established
hours rather than 24 hours. He said that they would agree
to keep the same business hours as the other businesses in the
area. He pointed out that the property was zoned commercial
and they had presented plans for a commercial operation.
Mr. Bergman asked if Superameric would be interested in the
location if the Commission would indicate a stipulation that
closing times would have to correspond to the closing times
of the other businesses in the area.
Mr. Holt said that they would be ittterested.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 25, 1978 Pa�e 6
Mr. Boardman asked if Superamerica planned to have a lighted
c anop�.
Mr, Holt said that they would have a lighted canopy but that
no li�hting would spill from the operation. He said all the
lighting would be directed downwards,.
Mr. Boardman asked how high the proposed fencing would be.
Mr. Holt said they would have a six foot fence plus a hedge.
Mr. Boardman asked how high the lights of the operation would
be.
Mr. Holt said that they would be 13 feet.
Mr. Jorgenson didn't believe that a six ioot fence would protect
the area from 13 foot lights. He also doubted the statement that
no lighting would spill from the operation. He also questioned
the traffic-flow diagram.
Mr. Boardman said that at the previous meeting there had been
concern regarding gasoline trucks as far as how they would ingress
and egress from the property. He said that in order for the trucks
to sernice the station and not have the trucks go into the
residential area that the diagram indicated the route the trucks
would be directed to take. He said that the gasoline trucks were
owned by Superameriea and that the drivers eould be told that
it was the route they had to use.
Mr. Boardman said that Superamerica would do some signing to
indicate to the automobile traffic the desired directions.
Ms. Schnabel asked if the Commission could stipulate the route
the trucks servicing Superamerica would have to utilize.
Mr. Boardman said it was the Commission's Option.
Mr. Paulson explained to the Commission that Ms. Mathisen's
house had been built while Fridley was a Township; therefore,
he said that it did not have the normal setback from the street,
He said that her �arage was situated almost right next to the
curbing and her house right next to the garage, He said that
she was really located very close to the proposed business.
He wondered if the minority had as much rights as the majority.
He said that the distance from her house to the proposed
establishment had to be eonsidered in the issue.
Mr, Paulson felt that the air pollution in the area was already
existent without adding to the problem.
PLANNII6G COMPSISSION MEE`PING - JANUARY 2, 1978 Page 7
Mr. Paulson said that there was already too much noise in the
area. He didn't believe that a fence did anqthing to control
the noise, He said that the noise seemed to merely "bounce"
over the fence,
Mr. Paulson said it �rould behoove everyone to consider all
the aspects involved,
Mr. Boardman asked how the people would feel about the
operation if it would close at nights at the same time as
the othes businesses in the area.
Mr. Paulson said that they have lived with it. He said that
they didn't like it, He felt that it would depend upon the
proximity to the operation.
Ms. Mathisen indicated that if the operation closed at the
same time as the other businesses in that area would most
likely help the traffic situation, She said they wouldn't
have as much as night lighting or noise and that would be
a positine aspect. She said that it still wouldn't eliminate
the traffice conjestion and ttoise in the area, She felt that
the area she lived in was not a regular situation as far as
traffic, noise, and pollution were concerned.
Mr. Holt said that the Superamerica Station Convenience Store
would not generally add to the traffic in the area. He said
they would exist on the traffic that was already present in
the area. He didn't feel that they would measureably increase
the traffic.
Mr. Jorgenson indicated that he wo�ld drive out of his way
to go to a Superamerica Station mhen that station dropped its
gasoline prices. He said that at those times, there would
be cars lined up at all the pumps and five or six waitin�.
(He was referring to a Superamerica Station located at
50th & Central Avenue). He said that when the cars were lined
up at the Station that the cars would overflow onto to 50th,
causing conjestion in the area, He said that since he would go
out of his way for gasoline, that most likely other people
would also. He felt that Superamerica did measureably add
to the traffic conjestion in the immediate vicinity.
Mr. Tim Kortrem explained to the Commission the basic Super-
America Station gas pricing policy. He said that they try
to keep their gasoline prices competitive to the other stations
in the area. He said that Superamerica Stations basically tried
to live off the existittg traffic flow of the areas, but he said
that there may be customers that would drive out of their way to
patronize the establishments. However, he felt that the
majority of people did not drive too far out of their way to
buy gasoline.
MOTION by Ms. Shea, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to close the
Public Hearing. IIpon a voice vote, all voting aye, chairman
Harris declared the Public°.4earing cld&ed at 8:37 P.Pd: _
PLANNING COMMISSION MEE"PING - JANUARY 25� 1978 Page 8
M�TION by Mr. Lan�enfeld� seconded by Ms. 5chnabel� that the
Planning Commission recommends denial of the request for a
Special Use Permit� SP #77-17� by Superamerica: Per Fridley
City Code, Section 205.�3�► 3• E, to allom the construction of
a Superamerica Station Convenience Store, on Lots 27,28,29 and
30, Block [�, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, the same being
566'� University Avenue Northeast.
Mr. Langenfeld said that the reasons for his motion to deny were:
1. There had been 39 people that had petitioned against
the request.
2. In regards to the substantive requirements of
Special Use Permit must be subject to certain
conditions and the conditions must conform to
following standards:
. To protect the Public Health, Safety� and
lNelfare
F�
the
. To ae�id traffic conjestion or hazard or other dangers
To promote conformity of a proposed use with
the character adjoining property and uses.
Ms. Schnabel said that she believed the Superamerica Station
Convenienee Store could very likely generate additional traffic
in the area even though they had stated they didn't feel they
would measureably increase the traffic in the area. She said
that this point was a point that was contrary to the petitioners
of the neighborhood,
Mr. Bergman said that while the ordinance provides for gasoline
stations OR retail stores in the zoning of the property, what
was being requested uras a combination of gasoline and retail.
Ae said that even though it was a fine point it was pertinent
because of the amount attd type of traffic and the operating
hours that would be innolved,
Ms. Shea said that she was against the raotion because she felt
that Mr. Holt had done ever.ythin� he could to try to satisf.y
the neighbors and agreeing to any stipulations that the Commission
had felt would be necessary.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, Mr. Bergman, Ms. Suhrbier, Ms, Schnab�l,
and Mr. Langenfeid voting aye; Ms. Shea and Mr, Harris voting
nay, the motion carried.
Chairperson Harris said that the recommendation to deny would
�o to City Council on February 6, 1978.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JANUARY 25. 1978 Pa�e 9
2. PUBLIC HEARING: RE UEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PEI�fIT SP
—01 BY MENARD CASHV9AY I,IIMBER: PER FRIDLEY CITY
CODE� SECTION 205. O1, 3, N, TO AI,LOW TFiE DEVELOPMENT
OF A 5s000 SQIIARE FOOT GARDEN CENTER II� THEIB PARKING
LOT, ON LOT 9� AIIDITOR'S SUBDIVISION N0, 94, THE SAME
BEI�G 535� CENTRAL AVENIIE NE
MOTIDN by Mr. Bergman, seconded by Ms. Suhrbier, to open the
Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman
Harris c3cclared the Publie Hea'ring �pen af 8:44 P.M.
MOTION by Mr. I,angenfeld, seconded by Mr. Bergman, to receive
the correspondence from Hagerty, Candell and Lindberg
attorneys at law, regarding Mendard, Inc, and the drawings
regarding Mendard, Inc. Upon a voice note, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Boardman said that the Special Use Permit was bein�
requested for an outdoor garden cenier to be located in
the Menard s parking lot. He said that Menard's was attempting
to decide if they wanted to operate a garden center or not,
He said that the garden center would initially be an e�eriment
to see if zt would or would not be to their advantage,
Mr. Boardman explained the different dramings that had been
received by the Commission. He said that his suggestion to
Menard, Inc. was to place the proposed garden center next to/
along side the main Menard Cashway Lumber building.
Mr. Charles Seeger representing Menard Cashway Lumber said
that the Special Use Permit would be to enable them to sell
trees, shrubs and like items since they did carry lawn and
garden supplies in their main store. He said that initially
it would be an experiment to determine if the garden center
would be a profitable venture for Menard� Inc. He said that
the garden center would be constructed neatly. He said they
would have bark chips on the ground with a split rail fence
completely around the center, He said they would se1Z trees
and shrubs, etc. and he didn�t feel anything in the center
would detract from the looks of the propertg.
Chairperson Harris asked if the garden center would be next
to the building,
Mr. Seeger explained on the drawings where the garden center
would be located. He said it vuould be located in front of
the aorth side of the main building. He said that the garden
center would be approximately 5,000 square feet.
Chairperson Harris asked if the garden center would abut the
adjacent property.
Mr. Seeger said that that the garden center would not touch or
join or border on any adjacent property.
PLANPING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 25 1978 Pa�e 10
Ms. Schnabel asked if the area would have additional lighting.
Mr. Seeger said that there would be no additional lighting used
in the Garden Center.
Ms. Schnabel asked if the garden center would have some type of
greenhouse.
Mr. Seeger said that they would decide on the greenhonse only
if the decided to keep the garden cexiter operat3ng. He indicated
that for the present time, Menard, Inc. was only looking at the
Garden Center from an experimental standpoint.
Mr. Bergman asked if the Garden Center vaould be strictly a
seasonal operation.
Mr. Seeger said it would be a seasonal operation. It wonld
operate from Approximately April 1 through approximately
the middle of July.�
Mr. Bergman asked if the ordinance specifieally addressed this
type of situation in the Special Use Permit.
Mr. Boardman said that it stated that all outside sale of
materials must be completel,y screened, If the outside sale of
materials was not screened it would have to have a Special Use
Permit.
Mr. Bergman asked that the Ordinance regarding screening be read.
Mr. Boardman read the ordinance that pertained to screening.
It read that a special use permit was required if the
enterprise had merchandise in the open and not under the cover
of the display station.
Mr. Seeger said that the initial objective was to test market
the program,
Mr. Boardman indicated that with the addition of the 5�000
square foot garden center, the Menard� Inc. would have adequate
parking facilities.
Ms. Mary L. Mathews of 1259 Skywood Lane N.E., explained that
Menards had originally proposed that the product lines they
proposed would have been consumer oriented such as furniture,
carpet, domestic paneling, cabinets, millwork, appliances and
remodeling material, They had intended to be stri�tly cash and
carry and they did not intend to service large contractors.
She then went on and explained all the ehanges in policy ihat had
since occurred on the propertp as well as reviewed correspondence
that had been written regarding the property, She wanted to know
why the public was now being requested to appear at a public
hearing vahen they had never been asked for their input on all
the other actions that had been taken. At this point, Ms. Mathews
presented pict�.res to the Commission showing exactly what the
Menard operation looked like from her property. The pictures
depicted aiso the screen that was presently being used on the
property.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 25, 1978 Pa�e 11
Ms. Mathews wanted to know why the neighborhood's input was being
asked regarding the installation of a garden center when they
weren't asked when the ��huge�� lumber exparision took place.
Mr. Boardman said that it was mainly because of the nature of
the request for the garden center where merchandise would be
in the open and not under cover of the display showroom. He
explained that Menards was required to apply for a Special Use
Permit to have such an outside display.
Mr. Boardman said that Menards was allowed to have storage
of inerchandise solely intended to be retailed. The code read,
��all raw materials, supplies, finished goods, semi-finished
products and equipment, not including motor vehicles, shall be
in an enclosed building or screened on all sides from public
view by fence or other approved screening which �vas two feet
higher than the highest item to be stored". Mr. Baardman
explained that the above was an allowed usage. He said that as
the garden center �vould not be totally screened� it-required
a special use permit. He said that one of the requirements of
the Special IIse Permit was the notification of property owners
within 206 feet of the property.
Ms. Mathews felt that she needed legal consultation and asked
that the �ity Council not take action until she had the time
to do so. She explained that the problems with the Menards
operation had gone on for over 2} years and evett though Menards
�sa they want to be �tfriends�+ they have aot done one thing that
they said they would do at all the meetings they have had.
Ms. Mathews indicated that Mayor Nee had suggested at one of
tk�� meetings �hat had he�n held with Menards, that a density of
use study be conducted. She wanted to request that that study
be done.
Chairperson Harris explained that the action at ��is time was
to reeommend to City Council and that the final action would
be taken by the City Council. He said that there would most
likely be time between the action taken by the Planning Commission
and the time it went to City Council for Ms. Mathews to get
legal consultation.
Mr, Boardman said that if the Planning Commission sent their
recommendation onto City Council, it would be handled by City
Council at the February 6� 1978 meeting. He said that If
Ms. Mathews felt that wouldn't be enough time to adequately
prepare for legal counsultation� he suggested she bring it up
to the City Couttcil at that time for their consideration.
He said that final action would not necessarily have to be
taken on February 6, 1978.
PLANI�IING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 25, 1978 PaKe 12
Mr. Bergman said that two things were really being discussed.
One was the Special Use Permit request which the Ordinance
does provide for under certain conditions. He said it was
the matter of whether or not the zoning code or the city
ordinance provide for the type of thing that the p�titianer
was requesting to do. He said that the other thing being
discussed was the question of neighborliness on the part
of Menards where there �as always background of citizenry
complaints and an impression of lack of attention by Menards.
He said �hat eight separate letters had been included in the
package that the Planning Commission had before them
regarding nuisance type subjects. He said that he had the
impression that the neighbors are basically upse�with
Menards in general.
Chairperson Harris said that it was his assumption that
it was much �+deeper�� than the fact of Menard's neighborliness.
Mr. Boardman said that Menards was located in a C25 zone.
He explained that the inside operation was definitely a
retail operation. He said that what made this particular
operation questionable for this particular zoning was the
outside lumber operatioxi that they were presently innolved in.
However, he said that the outside lumber operation was the
accessory use of the storage of inerchandise solely intended
to be retailed by a related and established principle use,
Ms, Mary E. Cooney of 75g-113th Avenue NE said that she
owned Lot 8 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 9�., She said that
she was definitely against Mexiards having a garden center.
She said that she had had so much trouble with Menards. She
said she had all their trash on her property, She said she
had hired someone to cut the grass on her property because
Menards had complained her grass needed cutting, She said that
the person she hired �vouldn't cut the grass because he �vas
afraid of wrecking his motver on all the trash that was on ihe
property. She said that instead of Menards having their snow
hauled away, they dump all the snow on her property. She said
that Menards refused to pay her rent for the property. She said
she sent them bills but that they totally ignored them. She
said she didn't want any more garbage and the garden center would
only increase the garbage already present at that location.
Chairperson Harris pointed out that the Garden Center mould not
abut her property,
Ms. Cooney said it didn't matter, She was still against any
garden center going in at that location� She didn't like the
idea that she had to pay taxes on her property and then Menards
is able to use it free of charge. She said that the Menards
operation was already a dirty operation and they didn't need
a garden center that would only add to ihe trash problem,
PL�NNING COP�IMISSION MEETING - JANIIARY 25� 1978 Pa�e 13
Ms. Suhrbier indicated that in a letter dated April 20, 1977,
Mr, Lawrence F. Menard had said he had offered Ms, Cooney the
proposition that he would keep her strip of land picked up, mowed
and maintained short of vaatering and landscaping,
Ms, Cooney said that Menard's couldn't keep their own property
clean and she wanted them to leave her land alone, She said
that she would gladly take care of her property once they
removed their trash from it. She asked if there weren't any
codes to take care of the trashy conditions of Menard's.
Chairperson Harris said that something would be attempted to
take care of the problems,
Ms. Cooney said she would gine Fridley a chance to do something,
She said that if they didn't want to have Menard's clean up
their property she was going to contact the State Health Department.
She said that she did not want any garden center going in on
their property, She sug�ested they put the garden center inside
their building if they feel they have to have one. She said that
she had enough rubbish to clean up from them now, and she didn't
want a garden center in the parking lot that would only add to
the trash problem.
Mr. Ron Lang of 1278 Skywood Lane brought up the point that there
was already so much traffic problems in the area at present. He
said that shortly work was to be started at the intersection of
53rd and Central. He said that the highway work itself will add
to the confusion, without also trying to experiment with a
garden cexiter. He said that if Menard's really wanted to attempt
to experiment with the possibility o£ a Garden Center, they should
wait until that intersection improvement was completed. He said
that they really wouldn't get an accurate study while that
construction was taking place.
Mr. Lang suggested that a Special Use Permit not be granted
at �#�.s time. He felt they should wait until that intersection
update was completed,
Ms. Schnabel was
the Fire Lane in
they did not have
building.
concerned that Menard's did not properly maintain
front of their building, She also said that
delineated pedestrian path in front of the
Mr. Seeger said that during the winter they did have trouble
keeping the cars parked far enough away from the building. He
pointed out that the garden center uuould not be in operation
in the winter, so it would not add to that particular problem.
He said that in the summer people would be able to see the
lines, and usually abided bq parking where it was indicated.
PZANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANIIARY 25. 1978 Pa�e 14
Mr. Seeger said that they did offer to clean up Ms. Cooney's
property of not only the debris that was from their operation
but also any debris that would come off the freeway. He said
they had been told tb stay off her property.
Mr. Seeger said that the PA Systems have been repaired to the
best of their ability. Ae said that the systems have been
turned away from the neighborhoods. He said that they have
decreased their use of the paging system to about six times
a day compared to much more at this time last year.
Mr, Seeger said that Menard's had completely repaved the entire
rear section of the parking lot. He said they had put up
fences when they �ere requested to. He felt they had done
about all they could possibly do. He indicated that he could
appreciate the surrounding home owner's feelings and he said
Menard's had tried to be reasonable people and get along with
the community.
Chairperson Harris asked if Mr. Seeger was prepared to discuss
some of the items that were mentioned in a letter from
Hagerty, Candell and Lindberg, Attorneys at Law. He said it
was his feeling that a Special Use Permit would probably compound
some of the problems.
Mr. Seeger said he could discuss most of the situations.
Chairperson Harris asked what the Garden Center's hours would be.
Mr. Seeger said they would be the same as the store hours, Iie
said it would not be a late night operation,
Chairperson Harris said that it was stated that Menard's seemed
to be rather unbending in their position regardiag some late
night operations involeing drop-shipment of lumber.
Mr. Seeger said that they presently did not encourage shipments
arriving after 5:00 P.M. He said on occasion trucks did unload
their shipments after that time, however, he said that since
they had been requested to cease their late night drop-shipments
they had not done so. He said that Menard's would eontinue to
hold such evening trucking to a minimum so long as it was able
to do so and carry on its business
Chai.rperson Harris said that the PA System situation seemed
to be the greatest problem area.
Mr. Seeger said that the use of the PA System was decreased
considerably. He said everything has been done to the best
of their ability. He said it was not Menard's intention of
aggravate anyone. He mentioned that they did have a business
to run.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 25, t�8 Pa�e 15
Mr. Langexifeld indicated that Mr. Seeger had always� in the past,
worked with the City to the best of his ability.
Mr, Seeger indicated that Menard's had not been drop shipping late
at night since the issue was made last spring. He said they
had rare, occasional problems when they had a great deal of
merchandise being received from the distribution centers. He
said on such a given day, they have had up to five tractors
break down which would leave the remaining tractors to do all
the hauling. He said� that since people were usually waiting
for the merchandise, the unloading would have to continue until
it was completed.
Mr. Seeger said he wasn�t sure of what actually started the
problems or when, but he said Menard�s did not wish to have
these problems on a continual basis. He said he was willing
to uork with the people and the city to preserve the integrity
of the business.
Mr. Bergman referenced a letter dated April 19, 1977 to
Mr. Larry Menard regarding refuse storage and collection.
He said that in the letter the Menard�s-Cashway Lumber
company was informed they were required to clean and maintain
the areas free of all the refuse found deposited there. Iie
said the letter was directed towards the drainage ditch north of
the parking lot. He asked if it was Ms. Cooney's property that
the letter was referring to.
Ms. Cooney's brother said that it was common for Menard's
to dump trash on that property all the time.
Mr, Bergman said that Mr. Steven J. Olson� the Environmental
Officer, had directed Menard's to clean up that property, but
he understood the fact that Ms. Cooney did not want Menard's
on her property.
Ms. Cooney commented that that was exactly what she wanted
Menard's to do. She said she would cut her own grass and
maintain the property herself. She said all she wanted was
for Menard�s to clean up all their trash from her property.
Mr. See�er said that had been their original intent. He said
they had agreed to clean up the property and to maintain it
for Ms. Cooney also.
Ms. Cooney said she vrould take care of her own property; she
just wanted them to keep their trash off of the property.
Mr. Seeger said that those terms would be most agreeable to
Menard's.
PI,ANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANIIARY 25. 1978 Pa�e 16
Mr. Langenfeld pointed out that in the past, Menard's had not
always been cooperative with the City. He also said that �rif+i
they went with Mr. Lang's su�gestion he definitely agreed with
a complete study of fire lanes, traffic flow� general safety,
proper remoaal of rubbish, and proper clean-up of premises daily.
In other words, he said, give Menard's a means of showing City
a genuine display of good faith.
Mr. Dennis L. Schneider, Second Ward Councilmember, indicated
that the problems with the Menard�s operation had been going on
for a long time. He said that one point in time there had been
a meeting between the residents attd Mr. Menard at City Hall.
He said that everyone came out of that meeting thinking that
an agreement had been reached; however, nothing really changed.
He said that it was his general feeling that Menard's had
not been cooperative. He said they had not responded to the
correspondence that the City Attorney had sent them. He
believed that something did have to be done,
Chairperson Harris suggested that Mr. Schneider, Mayor Nee,
himself, and the neighbors have another meeting to attempt
to solve the problems involved with the situation at hand.
Mr. Seeger said that he was sure that some type of agreement
could be reached at such a meeting. He said that there was
really no way they would be able to make 100% of the people
satisfied 100% of the time.
Chairperson Harris said that it had come to the point that
something definitely had to be done. He said that he understood
that Mr. Seeger only worked for a Company and that there was
an expense point to consider as far as Menard's would go on
remeding the problems but he felt there was some common ground
that could be found to help solve the situations. He said he
didn�t think Menard�s wanted the bad public relations, and the
City did not want any more of the ��mess�� to continue, and the
residents wanted some solution to their problems.
Chairperson Harris asked if that would be agreeable to the
residents that were present at the meeting.
Ms. Mathews said that it was most agreeable with her. She hoped
that the planned meeting would finally take care of the problems.
She said she would wait until after the meeting to decide if she
would still need legal consultation.
Mr. Lang pointed out that most of the nuisance complaints
were not a11 costly items to correct. He said that they
basicallq needed cooperatxon.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 25� 1978 Pa�e 17
MOTION by Mr. Bergman, seconded by Ms. Suhrbier, that the
Public Hearing: Request for a Special Use Permit� SP #78-01, by
Menard Cashway Lumber: Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, 3,
N, to a11ow the development of a 5�400 square foot garden center
in the parking lot, on Lot g, Auditor's Subdivision No. 94�
the same being 5351 Central Avenue N.E. be continued until such
time that there has been a meeting of Menard's management, of
concerned citizenry� and City administration to resolve existing
conflicts/grievances. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris declared a break at 10:20 P.M,
3. PRESF�TTATION BY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMIINITY SERVICES INC.
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld� seconded by Mr. Bergman� that the
Planning Commission receive the correspondence from the
Envirnomental Community Services Inc. dated January 23, 1g'78,
regarding litter receptacles and litter pickup for both Cities
and Shopping Centers in the local area. Upon a voice vote�
all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Boardman indicated that the gentlemen from the Ennironmenial
Community Services, Inc. were present at the meeting to give
a presentation of a trash receptacle/advertisement scheme that
they had. He explained that the reason the item was brought
before the Planning Commission was because of the advertising
value of the trash receptacles that they had. He s�id that
it m�y have been in violation of the Sign Ordinance because
it could be classified as a�'billboard use«. He said that
the billboard type use would only be allowed in specific cases.
Mr. Richard C. Gillespie, President of Environmental Community
Services, Inc., located at 2810 - 57th Avenue North, Suite 435�
Brooklyn Center 55430. He introduced to the Commission the
other members of the Company.
Mr. Jack Lindskog� a retired Chief of the Navy, who
had much experience in Quality Control. Mr. Gillespie
commented that it was his belief that to make the
tusiness successful the key would have to be quality.
He said that Mr. Lindskog was the regional planning
director of the Metropolitan Area.
Dr. Vernon L. 5tintzi, who had extensive years in
executive management� was a professor in a graduate
business school. Mr. Stintzi was the Regional Manager
for the Metropolitan Area. He would be working with
the City making sure the Company adhered to the contracts
as well as perform all the promised services,
PLANNING COMMIS5ION MEETING - JANIIARY 25. 1978 Pa�e 18
Mr. Gillespie said that, at the suggestion of Mr. Boardman�
he had contacted Mr. Mark Haggerty, the President of the
Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Gillespie said he had spent close
to an hour with the gentleman and that Mr. Haggerty had
been very favorable to the idea. He said that many of
the ideas of the Environmental Communitq 5ervices, Inc, were
in close relationship to some of the ideas that the Chamber
of Commerce were thinking of in terms of possib� garbage pick-up
ideas.
Mr. Gillespie said that some of the services that would be
provided by �nvironmental Community Services, Inc. would
be:
Trash receptacles at no cost to the City.
Trash pick-up at no cost to the eity.
The units would be kept clean and maintained at no cost to
the City.
They would provide liability insurance at no cost to the
City.
A tamper-proof unit would be provided
Low cost advertisement would be offered to businesses
Would adhere to community standards on advertising.
He said they would not discriminate but they would
not try to seek pornographic advertising or liquor
adnertising.
Mr. Gillespie said that there were three ways to lose a
business:
1) Poorly managed;
2) "Lousy�� idea;
3) Poorly funded.
Mr. Gillespie said that they intended to make sure they moved
at a pace that they were properly funded. He said that after
they had 60% of the advertising for 100 units; then they would
have another 100 units and so on.
Mr. Gillespie said they had a service that was timely in keeping
with the philosophy of the area business people.
Mr. Gillespie said that they intended to be a permanent business
arhich would take a leadership role in environmental services.
Mr. Gillespie pointed out what would be needed by the City of
Fridley:
1) Approval to place the units;
2) Place to put the trash at no cost to them;
3) Cooperation of placing the units.
Mr. Gillespie said that it wasn't the intent to place units
where trash receptacles wouldn't be needed.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 25, 1978 Page 19
Mr. Bergman wanted to know exactly who would be burdened with
the cost of the litter receptacles,
Mr. Gillespie explained that the Gity of Fridley would basically
not be a cnstomer and they would not pay the cost. He said that
the businessperson of Fridley would be the custom� . He said
that the City of Fridley could buy advertisement and they would
hane to pay the same price which would be between $18 and $25
per month.
Mr. Bergman said that there seemed to
in the proposal:
The City of Fridley for approval
The Gustomer for advertising to
and the Environmental Community
waste receptacles,
be three parties involved
of the waste receptacle;
go on the waste receptacles;
Services� Inc, that owned the
Mr. Bergman asked for confirmation of the fact that there would
be no cost to the City of Fridley.
Mr. Gillespie said that the customer would pay the cost for
advertising ott the waste receptacles; he said there would
be no cost to the City, other than someplace for the
Company to put the trash.
Mr. Bergman asked if the City would have the opportunity to do
some "free�� advertising on the waste receptacles.
Mr. Gillespie said that when the Company had sides not being
used on the waste receptacles� they would make those sides available
free to the City, He said that they would have to pay for
their own signs.
Ms. Schnabel asked if the Company had a contract with any other
city at the present time.
Mr. Gillespie said that they did not have any contracts at the
present time, He said they had talked to people in Brooklyn Park�
Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, Minneapolis, St. Paul,
and Fridley. He said that they haven't talked to anyone that
didn't think it was a good idea. He said that they were getting
good receptivity from all the communities. He said that the
only thing that had to be looked at were the Ordinances of the
communities.
Mr. Boardman asked how the Environmental Community Services� Inc.
would maintain the litter receptacles.
Mr. Gillespie said that they would have milar linings in the
receptacles that they would take out the old one and replace
vrith a ttew one each time. He said that they also owned a
power washer unit that fit in the back of a pick up. He said
that the units would be spray cleaned and wiped down each time
the trash was picked up. He said they would clean them in all
seasons� He said that they would wash the insides of the
units as it would be necessary,.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANIIARY 25. 1978 Pa�e 20
Mr. Gillespie said that keeping the units clean was a very
important part of their Company. He said what was being sold
to the community was a clean unit, good advertising, and the
type of service that could be depended upon,
Mr. Langenfeld asked that since the name of the Company was
Environmental Community Services, Inc.� did they plan to provide
any other types of services to the communities other than what
had already been discussed.
Mr. Stintzi said that they wanted to go into the schools and
meet with the superintendent(s) to get their assistance in
trying to start some project-type activity for the students.
He said that he felt the Company would be able to get into
some of the other angles of the business through suggestions
and ideas from the schools.
Mr. Langenfeld said that the unit did appear to be a sturdy
unit. He said that it seemed that the Company was providing
a loi of services and he wanted to know how all those services
could possibly be paid for.
Mr. Gillespie explained that it was a good business, He said
that each unit had four sides, and each side would cost between
$18 and $25 to advertise on them.
Mr. Gillespie said that the whole keq to the business being
successful was ��service". He said that if they didn't keep the
units clean and if they don't provide good adnertising and if
they didn't satisfy the businessperson that they were gettin� a
good deal at lovu cost advertising, then they wouldn't be able
to get people to advertise.
Mr, Langenfeld asked if the Company would go into recycling
the litter.
Mr. Gillespie said that it would probably be explored. He
said that they would have to have the complete plans before
they would ever venture into such a thing. He cited an exaraple
where recycling was attempted without firm plans and the people
ended up with mass quantities of trash and not knowing exactly
�uhat was �oing to be done tai�h it.
Mr, Gillespie felt that the young people in the communities
probably had many good ideas that could be explored. He also
said that he totally believed in the "self-interest'� motto. He
believed that there had to be something in a venture for the
other person as well as for himself. He said that if
Environmental Community Services, Inc, was not going to make a
profit, then they best not go into the business.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANIIARY 25, 1978 Pa�e 21
Mr, Bergman asked if people would really pay to put advertisement
on trash receptacles.
Mr. Gillespie said that it would be pedestriax� advertising.
He said that the advertising would be easier to see than the
advertisin� that was put on top of buildings and high in the
air. He said that the advertising would be eye level with the
people walking and people driving on the Gtreets.. He also
pointed out that some of the smaller �bu�inessp�rple could not
afford to adnertise on the big billboarcts,
Ms. Suhrbier asked how often the trash would be picked up from
the receptacles.
Mr. Gillespie said they would be emptied as often as would be
necessary.
Mr. Langenfeld asked if any type of study had been conducted
indicating what type of return the individual who used that
type of advertising got.
Mr, Gillespie said that that type of study had never been
conducted. He did indicate that a survey had been conducted
in some communities that had similar Services and that 97�
of the people surveyed had been "for�� the units and had
liked the way the advertising was presented and they liked
the style of the units. He said that the units would be
tamper-proof containers that would be for gsdestrian use only.
Mr. Boardman said that one of the things that was being requested
by the City of Fridley was a�'place to put the trash at no cost
to Environmental Community Services Inc.t� He wanted to know
what they meant by that request. Ae said that the City of Fridley
was not in the rubbish hauling business. He said that they did
not have a City Dump.
Mr. Gillespie said that there were some cities that did have
areas wheretrash haulers could dump at no cost to them.
He said that the Company did not want to have to build their
own dump someplace to haul the trash out of the City of Fridley.
He said that if the City of Fridley had an agreement with some
place where they were presently having the rubbish hauled to,
his Company would want to buy into that agreement.
Chairperson Harris explained that Fridley did not have a City
Disposal area. He said that presently each resident of Fridley
contracted on their own to have their tra$h hauled away by private
haulers.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 25� 1978 Pa�e 22
Mr. Boardman said that Environmental Community Services� Inc. had
mentioned that the City would have some type of control over the
type of desigtt of adaertisement that would be used. He wanted to
know what they meant by that statement„
Mr. Gillespie said that they would meet with the City to get
their assistance in developing the quality control of the signs.
Chairperson Harris
special agreements
Services. He said
for any �egulation
said that to do the above� it would take some
between the City and Environmental Community
that the City Ordiaances did not provide
of advertising copy,
Mr. Gillespie said it could be written into the contract/
agreemexit.
Mr. Boardman asked what type of arrangement could be made
with the Company to have trash receptacles in the Park Facilities.
He said that if they decided to use that type of receptacles in
the Parks� they probably wouldn't want the advertisement on them;
however? they may want to utilize them for notification of
park/playground activities that were available. He wanted to
know what type of costs they would be ta7_king about.
Mr. Gillespie said that there may be a point that the City of
Fridley would want to purchase some of the receptacles themselves.
He said he would be auilling to indicate what the Company paid for
the units� and with a reasonable profit� they would sell the
units to the City. He said there would also be a possibility of
a lease agreement between the City and the Company where the Company
would own the units and the City of Fridley would rent them, He
said that in that case� they would piek up the trash and maintain
the units the same as they would do for the other units that
wonld be used for advertising purposes.
Mr. Boardman asked what the tops of the trash receptacles were
made of.
Mr. Gillespie said they were made of fiberglass.
Mr. Lindskog explained that there was a new plastic in existence
called lexan which was a very durable plastic that had eight times
the resiliency chan there was in fiberglass. He said
that if the Company would discover that due to weather conditions
or vandalism the fiberglass wasn't holding up, the Company would
have to provide the more expensive lexan cover.
Mr. Langenfeld asked if there would be a"blanket" lia6ility
insurance coverage for all the units in the City of Fridley.
Mr. Lindskog said that the issue would be discussed with the
licensed insurance carrier for the State of Minnesota_
PI,ANNING COPRMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 25z 1978 Pa�e 23
Chairperson Harris asked how the proposed signage fit into the
present Sign Ordinance in the City of Fridley.
Mr. Boardman said that the "Billboard'� definition was
��advertisement on a property that doesn't pertain to that
property+'. He said that the proposed signage would fit into
that definition if the advertisement on one of the sides of
the container was not located at the same location as the
trash receptacle.
Mr. Bergman said that a billboard was clarified as a permanent
structure also, and the proposed signage did not fit that
classification. He didn't believe tha� the current sign ordinance
related to what the Environmental Community Services Inc. was
proposing.
Chairperson Harris asked what size of advertisement would be
put on the litter receptacle,
Mr. Lindskog said that the signs would be 21 inches by 22 inches,
He said that he realized that what they were proposing was a
unique thing and that the item would most likely have to be
carefully reviewed.
Mr. Lindskog showed the Commission an example of the types of
bolts that would be used to secure the top of the container to
the cement unit. He also explained to ihe Commission how the
signs would be inserted into the units. He said that a good-
type of plastic would be covering the face of the advertisement.
Mr. Siintzi indicated that the Company rotated the panels during
the first week of each month. He also pointed out that the
entire unit would be rotated at least once every 75 days so that
no one side/panel would constantly be located at the same angle,
Mr. Langenfeld said that from the Environmental standpoint the
litter receptacles were aesthetically pleasing and feasible.
Chairperson Harris asked what the Environmental Community Services
was looking for from the Planning Commission,
Mr. Gillespie said they had submitted an agreement that theq
wanted �o get approved,' Ae said that they were basically looking
for the City Council approval to be able to locate their trash
containers on the streets of Fridley. He said that the sooner
they could get approval� the sooner they could get contracts for
the advertisements� and the sooner they would start to receive
the income.
Mr. Lindskog said that they were not requesting a short-sited
venture. He said they wanted a long (ten year) contract to let
the City of Fridley know that they truly intended to be around
for a long time.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANIIARY 25. 1978 Pa�e 24
Chai.rperson Harris explained that the contract would probably
only be agreed upott for one year to enable the City to be sure
that what was being proposed was really what they wanted. He
said that there would most likely be options on that contract
for renewal.
Mr. Boardman said that what had to be considered from the City�s
standpoint was whether they would allow that type of advertisin$
operation. He said it would have to be decided if permits would
be needed for those signs; and if they were needed, do those
signs fall within the regulations of the Sign Ordinance. He
said that if they did not fall within the regulations of the Sign
Ordiaance, what types of variances would be needed or what kinds
of amendments to the Sign Ordinances would be needed to allow that
type of advertisement or that type of signage.
Mr. Boardman said that it was certain that the City of Fridley
would want control of the signs that went on those trash
receptacles. He said that the City would want limited control
over the copy of the signs.
Mr. Gillespie said they were open to any attd all competition.
He said that the operation was not patented nor was the trash
receptacle,
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Ms. Shea� that the
Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the
concept of the refuse disposal units as proposed by Environmental
Community Services Inc. within the legal limits of the sign
ordinance which may require some amendment and with the understanding
that the Citq� by contract� with Environmental Community Services
would have limited control over the copy of advertisement placed
in the units.
Chairperson Aarris said that there should be a contract between
Environmental Communitq Services Inc and the City and it would
have to be stated exactly how they intended to handle the business
as well as the dumping arrangements. '
IIPON A VOICE UOTE, a11 voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
4. RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES• JANUARY 5, 1978
MOTION by Ms, Shea, seconded by Mr. Bergman, that the Planning
Commission receive the January 5, 1978 minutes of the Human
Resources Commission.
Ms. Shea said that some recommendations were made on the Maintenance
Code that the Commission wanted to go onto City Council.
UPON A VOIGE V�TE� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
The minutes were received at 11:�0 p,M,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 25� 1978 Pa�e 25
5.
MOTION by Ms. Sxhrbier, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, that the
Planning Commission receive the Parks and Recreation Commission
minutes of January 9� 19?8.
Ms. Suhrbier said that on Page 61 she hadn�t felt that the
actual item was made clear. She said they wanted to work for
the younger kids to get earlier ice time at the arena.
Chairperson Harris said that he had discussed that item with
Mr. Kordiak and Mr. 0'Bannon and they would be looking into
the obtaining of earlier ice time as well as more ice time.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously. The minutes were received at 11:1�1 P,M.
6.
MOTION by Mr. Bergman} seconded by Ms. Shea� that the Planning
Commission receive the January 10� 1978� Community Development
Commission minutes.
Mr. I,angenfeld referenced page 68} the third paragraph.
He felt that the statement could be interrupted as
��nit-pi cking�� .
Mr. Bergman said that Community Development was unanimous
in agreeing that when they would go through the Ordinances
they would review it, approve it, and make any recommendations
or stipulations that theq felt would be necessary. He said
that the Commission felt that they should not nit-pik words
They felt that ihey should review the ordinances in terms of its
content, general direction; challenge it as to whether it would
be good for the City. He said it was felt it should be decided
if the ordinances were meaningful and if they would be reasonably
enforceable. It should also be decided if the particular
ordinance being reviewed made sense for the City of Fridley.
Ehairperson Harris wanted to know what was meant by the statement
made by Mr. Acosta on Page 69, third paragraph.
Mr. Boardman said that what was usually being looked for when
a proposal goes before the Commissions was a feel as to the
direction that the proposal shauld go. fie said they wanted to
know if the content of the Plan was adequate to do the things
that the Commission felt the Plan should do. He said that if
was decided that it wasn't adequate� then they wanted to know
why it wasn't adequate. He said they didn't need to know all
the little word changes unless the change of words would change
the entire meaning of the statement.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 25, 1978 Pa�e 26
Mr. Boardman said that hopefully when the proposal was typed
in final form, all the words would be put in the proper
perspective, He said that as long as Staff gets the general
direction� they can work from that point. He felt that many
times the Planning Commission "wasted" a lot of time nit-
picking words.
Chairperson Harris felt that anything to do with the Community
was the responsibility of the Commission. He felt that
sometimes a lot more time had to be spent going over proposals
because of the content of the proposal.
Mr. Boardman stated that he believalthe Parks and Open Space
Plan was probably the single� most important document the City
of Fridley would put out this year� because it would have the
most meaningful effect on the citizens. He felt that a lot
of ineaningful discussion had been occurring at the Planning
Commission level. He indicated that he still was concerned
about some of the nit-picking that had gone on.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
The minutes were received at ii:59 P�M,
MOTION by Mr. Bergman, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, that the
Planning Commission concur with the Community Development
Commission to recommend to City Council the discontinuance
of the Bikeway/Walkway Project Committee, and that any further
involvement be referred to the Community Development Commission.
In addition, that City Council send to current members of
the Bikeway/Walkway Project Committee a notice to this effect
and a thanks for their efforts.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
7. CONTINUED: PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN:
MOTION by Mr. Bergman� seconded by Ms. Shea� that the Planning
Commission continue the Parks and Open Space Plan. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously at
12:03 P.M,
8. OTHER BUSINESS
"BEST HOUSING BARGAINS ARE IN THE INNER CITIESN
Ms. Schnabel had a copy of this article from the Sunday,
3anuary 22, 1978� newspaper made for each of the members of the
Planning Commission. She pointed out that two of the items
she had bracketed in the article that she felt the City of
Fridley could take into consideration.
Ms. Schnabel explained that at the January 2G, 1978� Appeals
Commission meeting they heard the requests to construct houses
on 40 foot lots. She said that the result of the meeting was
that there was a motion to deny the requests.
PLANNING COMMISSIQN MEETING - JANUARY 25, 1978 Pa�e 27
She said that with all the reviewing of the situation of 40 foot
lots� she has had a lot of problems of what was to be done with
the rehabilitation of a lot of the existing structures in Fridley
that needed work done to bring them up to habital dwellings as
well as substantial homes to have on the tax roles.
Ms. Schnabel said
Commission so that
she had bracketed.
that she brought the article to the Planning
they might discuss at some time the two points
Ms. Schnabel said that the one point rras that perhaps there
should be a separate housing code for the rehabilitation�
somewhat less stringent than those housing codes for new
housing. She said that the fact was that in rehabilitating
dwellings� a lot of the �ork sometimes was done by the
individual that owned the dwelling.
Ms. Schnabel said that the second point was that the city of
St. Louis offers a 10-year abatement on property ta3c for those
people that improved their homes. She felt that was another
thing that the City of Fridley could consider especially in
the Hyde Park area. She said that perhaps if the people in
the area had some type of tax abatemeat they may be more
willing to put their money into their own homes.
Ms. Schnabel requested that the item be put on the Planning
Commission agenda in the near future.
"ENERGY COMMISSION"
Chairperson Harris indicated that
Council lNorkshop meeting would be
Commission��. He said that if any
Commission had any thoughts on the
attend that meeting.
at the January30� t978� City
discussing the ��Energy
of the members of the Planning
item, they should plan to
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Ms. Shea, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to adjourn the
January 25� 1978� Planning Commission meeting. Upon a voice
vote� all voting aye� Chairman HaYris�deelared the_Pj.anning
Commission meeting of January 25, 1978 adjourned at-22s09
PS. M.
Respectfully submittea,
�'J�,,,�, _9,ez� `
=%��
MaryLee Carhill
Recording Secretary
1.:�%S�� �"'�`v,•j/ C�7i�e,`..-' G��Z�
- N _
_ ' � l9 �� _ _
; G����
__ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _
_ �-� �'' ��-- -- _
__ _. _- _ - _ _
�_____ .
- - _ .- _
__ �_ _ _
- . ��� -- � _ _ �� ����� ��s� _
U.�,.�� -, <<
_ , _ _ _
_ _- -_ _ _
- � _ - _ ___
___ � __- _ - __ a�� s �� ;� . ��. _ _ _
--- --- - �'�-,�-� - _ _ _ - -- - - ��-�. � � �, _
_ _ _ _���i � __ __ __- - - /� z�.�.,w-� �.��-- _ _
_ _ -- _ _ /y� i1���� __ _ _ - --- ,�zsy ��.��,�--- _ - -
_ _ _ �%v���� ca��- �.�,� �
_ _. _ _ _ _ ___
_ . _ __._____ _ __ _ _ ____ _
_ __ _ _ __- ___ _ _ __ . _