PL 04/07/1982 - 30573CITY OF FRID�EY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL-���, 1982 --
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairwoman Schnabel called the April 7, ]982, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 7:31 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Kondrick, Ms, van Dan,
Mr. Svanda, Mr. Saba -
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner "
Bob Schroer, 490 Rice Creek Blvd.
Mark Haggerty, 6441 University Ave. N.E.
Henry Sandbulte, 287 - 120th Ave. N.E.
Leo VanderBroek, 11861 Flintwood
Ellsworth & Florence Hinz, 384 - 66th Ave. N.E.
� Patricia Hardel, 332 - 64th Ave. N.E.
Herb Bacon, 159 Logan Parkway
Bill Sledz, 321 University Ave. S.E.
D. C. Savelkoul, 6315 Univeristy Ave. N.E.
Marietta Anderson, 11003 Terrace Rd.
APPROVAL OF MARCH 24, 1982, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
MOTION BY MR. OQUIST� SECONDED BY MR. SABA� TO APPROVE THE MARCH 24� 1982�
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLA.RED TXE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING RE UEST, ZOA #82-02 ROBERT SCHROER: Rezone
Tract B, C, and D, Registered Lan Survey No. 9, from C-1S loca7 shopping
areas) to C-2S (general shopping areas) to make zoning consistent with use,
the same being 6520, 6530, and 6536 East River Road N.E.
MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY MR. SABA� TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEA.RING ON
ZOA #82-02 BY ROBERT SCHROER.
UPON A VOICE VO1'E� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLA.RED THE PUBLIC
HEARING OPEN AT 7:34 PM.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGz APRIL 7, 1982 PAGE 2 ��1
Mr. Boardman stated the property is located on East River Road and Mississippi St.
That is the area where there is a gas station, the #1 Nealth Club, and a vacant
property to the north. The present zoning is C-]S.
Mr. Boardman stated when the #1 Health Club came in, it was Staff's determination
that a health club was allowed in a C-1S zone. After the building was up and
operating, it came to the City's attention that there was another operation going
on, other than the health club, and that operation was a massage. He stated a
massage parlour is not allowed in a C-1S zone.
Mr. Boardman stated since that time, the City Council has passed an ordinance cal7ed
a"Sauna License Ordinance" which restricts a massage parlour in a C-1S zone and
allows it only in a C-2S zone. At this time, Mr. Schroer is making an application
for a rezoning of that particular area to C-2S.
Mr. Boardman stated there are three properties involved--Tract B, Tract C, and
Tract D. Tract B is the vacant property, Tract C is the #1 �ea]th Club, and
Tract D is the gas station. Tract D is also a non-conforming use because a gas
station is not allowed in a C-1S zone, a7though it has been in that operation
for quite some time. When the gas station was built, it was an a77owed use, but
with the changes in the code, it has been grandfathered in and exists as a legal
non-conforming use.
Mr. Boardman stated Mr. Schroer owns Tract B and Tract C, and the owner of Tract D
(gas station) is in agreement to the C-2S zoning which is being proposed at this
time. Staff feels if they are going to rezone two of the properties, they should
rezone all three at one time to make the area consistent.
Ms. Gabel asked what would happen to the massage parlour operation if this
rezoning request was denied. _
Mr. Boardman stated they would not be able to operate a massage parlour in that
location. A health club operation would be allowed, but not a massage parlour.
He stated the City allowed a health club with the idea it was going to be a health
club, but the use was changed after the building was purchased by contract for
deed from Mr. Schroer and renovated.
Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Schroer if he had a written agreement from the owner of
Tract D(gas station) that the owner is in agreement with this rezoning request.
Mr. Schroer stated the owner of Tract D is in agreement with the rezoning, but
he did not have a]etter of agreement. �
Ms. Schnabel stated she felt that from a legal standpoint as far as the City is
concerned, they should have that proof of agreement. If the Planning Commission
approves this rezoning request, one of the stipulations shou7d be that a letter
be on file.
�
�
�
PLANNING COMM�SSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1982 PAGE 3
Mr. Bill Sledz, 321 University Ave, S.E., stated he currently has a purchase agree-
ment on Tract B. He stated he is buying Tract B for the purpose of putting in a
garage or just to enhance and protect the property they own behind it (the 144-
apartment complex - 6540 East River Road). They would also have purchased Tract C
if they had moved a little faster, but they learned a health club was going in there,
and a health club was fine with them. He stated it was his understanding that the
gas station would not be affected if the zoning did not change because of the
grandfather clause.
Mr. Sledz stated that if this operation is going to exist in this location, they
would like to see it return to a health club and not a massage parlour. They do
have a purchase agreement on Tract B that is binding and can be exercised, and for all
practical purposes, they are just waiting for title. If the owners of the health
club bought the building from Mr. Schroer and it was Mr. Schroer's understanding
that it was going to be a health club, he fe7t those people.should abide by that
and not change their operation. He stated he has an investment in his property,
and if Tract C ever became available, he wou7d be interested in purchasing it.
Ms. Schnabel stated she had a problem in that she cou7d not recall where the City
has rezoned a property to make it consistent with the use of the property, usually
the property has to be consistent with the zoning.
,�
Mr. Boardman stated it has been done in situations where they are making non-
conforming uses into conforming uses. If nothing else, he would recommend the gas
station be rezoned to C-2S because the gas station is allowed in C-2S. He stated
' he also has a problem with a rezoning in a situation 7ike this where a property
was developed under a C-1S zone for a specific use and then that use, whether right
or wrong, has changed. He did not feel the Planning Corr�nission was necessari7y
obligated to rezone just because a use is there that was created illegally.
Mr. Schroer stated the City had determined the zoning was right for a hea]th club,
but when the operation was changed to a massage parlour, there was no zoning for
a massage par]our, and there was no one in the City who knew they needed a new
license for a massage parlour. The point he wanted to make was that the operation
did not have to fit into a C-1S or a C-2S zone at that time, because no zoning
existed for it.
Mr. Boardman stated this is an interesting situation, The way the code was set up,
there was no zone that sa�d a hea7th club was al7owed or a massage parlour was
allowed. When the health club came in on this site, Staff made the determination
that a health club was a local business and, therefore, would be al7owed in a
C-1S zone. A massage parlour is no� necessari]y a local business. The codes were
very vague and left it to the discretion of City Staff to decide what was allowed
or what was not allowed. At that point in time, Staff did allow a hea7th club.
He thought that if a massage parlour Fi.ad been proposed on tFiis sfite, there would
have been some discretion as to the type of zoni.ng where it would be a7lowed. At
^ that time, a massage par7our would not have been a]lowed in a loca7 business zone.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1982 PAGE 4
Mr. Boardman stated the
three properties shou7d
shopping (C-1S).
real issue is whether tt�e Planning Commission fe]t these
be zoned to general shopping (C-2S) or remain as ]oca]
MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY•A�2. OQUIST, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON
ZOA ,#82-02 BY ROBERT SCNROER.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE�CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED TbiE PUBLIC HEARING
CLOSED AT 7:56 P.M.
Ms. Gabel stated the fact was that Staff had made the determination to a]]ow a
health club, regardless of whether there was any zoning at that time that allowed
a massage parlour. What they have now is after the fact when they are being asked
to change the zoning to meet the need when it is normally done the other way
around. She stated she had a real problem in doing that. She stated she was
not interested in changing the zoning of the gas station as�there isn't really a
need for it4 It car� eacist there as a legal non-conforfttirtg ttse. If the owrrer of
that property wants to have an officia7 rezoning, that person can make the request.
She felt that in some ways, Staff was mislead in seeing this as a health club
ancl it turned out differently, and she did not see that as a reason to change the
zoning.
Mr. Saba stated he agreed with Ms. Gabel.
Ms, van Dan stated she also agreed with Ms. Gabe7. There was also the fact that
neither �he owners of the health c]ub or the gas station were present at this
meeting to speak their wishes, and she did not think the Planning Commission
should recommend any changes unless they were present.
MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE
' DENIAL OF REZ0111ING REQUEST� ZOA #82-02� BY ROBERT SCF�20ER TO REZOAIE TRACT B� C�
AND D� REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. Z9� FROM C—IS (LOCAL SHOPPING AREA5) TD C-2S
(GENERAL SHOPPING A.REAS) TO MAKE ZONING CONSISTENT WITN USE, THE SAME BEING
6520, 6530, AND 6536 EAST RIVER ROAD 1V.E.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIAIG AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCXNABEL DECIlARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Sc.hnabel stated .the minutes would go to the City Council on April 19th and when
they set- the publ i c hear�ng on thi s reqiaest everyone� �Noul d be noti fi ed� agai n�.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #82-02, NOBLE
NURSERY; INC. :�o use a 50''T�y�5'�area of �lenar� par�'�ot or the
sa e of nursery stock, and Christmas trees, in season, per Section 205.107,
3, N, of the Fridley City Code, to be located on Lot 9, Auditor's Subdivision
No. 94, the same being 5351 Central Avenue N.E.
�
�'`�
MOTIOA► BY 1�. SABA� SECONDED BY MR. RONDRICK, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON �
ZOA #82-02 BY NOBLE NURSERY� INC.
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1982 PAGE 5
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARING OPEN AT 7:59 P.M.
Mr. Boardman stated this is an application for a specia] use permit for a nursery/
Christmas tree lot located in Menards' parking lot. In 7978, a permit was issued
to Menards for a garden-type use in the parking lot for a one year period of time.
At that time, the City Council suggested that if there were ever any more requests
for this type of use, it was not to be located in the parking lot. He thought
discussions at that time with Menards was that any use shou7d be a7ong the
building itself as it would be a more appropriate place than in the parking lot
area.
Mr. Kondrick asked why the City Council felt it was not a good idea to put any
future garden areas in the parking lot.
Mr. Boardman stated they have a]ways tried not to increase �hese temporary types
of uses that are not we71 maintained, that are put up temporarily and are not a
year-around facility, By putting it in the parking lot, there is no possibi7ity
of any landscaping or screening to make it more attractive, other than the plants
that are brought in and sold.
Mr. Mark Haggerty stated he is the attorney representing Noble Nursery, Inc. He
i"'� stated Mr. Henry Sandbulte and Mr. Leo VanderBroek, principles of Noble Nursery, Inc.
are also in the audience. He stated Noble Nursery's primary location is just north
of Fridley in Blaine on Highway 65, and that is where they would maintain most of
their inventory. -
Mr, Haggerty stated he would like to give the Comnission a litt7e background on
how this came about. When Noble Nursery, Inc., entered into the lease agreement
with all the Menards in the Twin Cities area, they were told there would not be
any problems. There was money paid for that arrangement. He stated they did not
realize there were any problems or any restrictions until after the lease arrange-
ment was signed. They also did not know about the previous one year specia] use
permit.
Mr. Haggerty stated he has talked to Mr. Boardman and the neighbors who live
behind Menards. He stated he hoped to reach a compromise that would be workab7e
for everyone. One of the objections is the traffic flow and the size of the
nursery area, and that is why they have designated a 50' x 75' area. Noble
Nursery, Inc., is intending to put a nice wooden fence around the area, and tl�ere
will be a very small portable wooden A-frame shelter in case of bad weather.
They will try to make the area as attractive as possible. He stated if the Commission
members wtished to drive by Noble Nursery in Blaine, they would find it is a very
attractive operation. They would keep the bulk of their stock at the main nursery.
They would primarily have display trees and for people who wanted to make big
orders, they would take delivery at their Blaine operation. That was part of the
compromise when they discovered there might be a prob7em. The operation would
� only run from whenever the City Council approved the request until the end of
June and from Dec. 1 to Dec. 25.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1982 PAGE 6
Mr. Haggerty stated Mr. Boardman had mentioned the problems with temporary uses.
He stated the point that should be looked at in a situation like this is that
the only time they can sell this type of nursery stock is ear7y in the year, and
presumably the people who are buying the nursery stock live within the City of
Fridley and are beautifying the City of Fridley in their yards. He felt there
was a residual benefit to the City of Fridley and to the citizens of Fridley by
having this conveniently located in Menards'parking lot.
Mr. Haggerty stated that, as far as location, they would prefer to have the
location they have proposed (southwest corner of the parking lot), but they are
willing to work with any stipulations the Planning Commission and City Council
might make. They will keep the area as sma17 as possible and wi17 c7ean up the
area after they are done. He stated Menards has indicated they do not want them
located next to the fenced area, because Menards feels there could be more of a
traffic flow problem in that area. �
Mr. Leo VanderBroek, 11861 Flintwood Ave., stated it would be a very nice, attrac-
tive operation. There wi71 actually be two structures, the A-frame shelter, and
a greenhouse-type structure to protect the bedding p7ants in case of freezing
weather.
MOTION BY 1�2. OQUIST� SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TO CLO5E THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ^
SP #82-02, BY NOBLE NURSERY� INC.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING
CLOSED AT 8:28 P.M.
Mr. Oquist stated he felt the best location for the garden area was in the proposed
area in terms of both traffic flow and visua7 affects.
MOTION BY MR. OQUIST� SECONDED BY MR. SABA� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST� SP #82-02� BY NOBLE NURSERY� INC.� TO USE A
50' BY 75' AREA OF MENARDS' PARKING L04' FOR THE SALE OF NURSERY 5TOCK� AND CHRISTMAS
TREES� IN SEASON� PER SECTION 205.101� 3� N� OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE� TO BE
LOCATED ON LOT 9� AUDITOR�S SUBDIVISION NO. 94� THE SAME BEING 5351 CENTRAL
AVENUE N.E. ••
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DSCLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Schnabel stated SP #82-02 would go to City Council on April 19.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CFIAPTER 205, FRIDLEY
7f1NTN� fl A CF �.OF. . E' .Rltl FV' �' .TTY � EODE: - Y� A�DING EETIO : 05. 3� E I LED
MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY �2. SABA� TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN 5CNNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARING OPEN AT 8:35 P.M.
�
'� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, ]982 PAGE 7
Mr. Boardman stated there are three Housing & Redevelopment Authority redeve]op-
ment districts in the City--the Center City Redevelopment District. the Moore
Lake Redevelopment District, and the North Area Redevelopment District. What
the City is attempting to do is establish a district similar to other special
districts that have been established in the City that will a71ow the development
of these redevelopment districts by plan. Any development within a special
district or any property that is zoned an S-2 district would require a plan to
be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council. The purpose of this
special zoning district is to:
1. Allow mixed use development within specia] redevelopment districts.
Right now there is no zone, other than a RUD (planned unit development)
z.one,which requires 20 acres for development. There is no special zone
that allows mixed use.
2. Allow the maximum flexibility in the promotion of the district.
Redevelopment districts are very difficult to develop and sometimes
there are a lot of special conditions in order to promote and get
a development.
3. Allow development by plan which is acceptable and in the best interest
of �he City and overall district and development plan.
Mr. Boardman stated the process by which they would go through approva7 of an
S District is similar to the process they are following tonight. They would look
!'� at what property they would want to rezone as an S-District, and then that
property would be submitted on a rezoning process. The Planning Commission and
City Council would have the opportunity to review any zoning issue and the
property owners within 350 ft, would be notified. After that rezoning, the
Planning Commission and City Council would be able to respond on particular plan
and plan elements in that zone.
Mr. Boardman stated that included in the plan wou7d be al] site p7ans�showing the
lacation of buildings, off-street parking, street and utility 7ocations, access to
and from the project, grading plans, storm water plans, and landscape plans. These
would come to the Planning Commission and City Council, along with a written staff
review and a report from the HRA on any special conditions or considerations.
Mr. Boardman stated they are referring to this as the "redevelopment district
ordinance" that would allow them to establish with special consideration in those
districts that are presently redevelopment zones or those districts that have the
potential of becoming future redevelopment districts.
Mr. Oquist stated the ordinance "allows for the mixed use development within
special redevelopment districts". How do they control that mixed use? Are they
going to put any limitations on the kinds of things they are going to allow in
an S-2 District?
Mr. Boardman stated the city attorney has reviewed this ordinance, and he felt
they were pretty well covered. The ordinance states that the uses permitted are
,� "those uses which are acceptable to the overa]1 redeve7opment p7an and specific
development plans as approved by the City". It also states that it excludes uses
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1982 PAGE 8
unacceptable to the overall development plan as determined by the City. So, it
does give the Planning Commission and City Council full control on the types of
uses that will be allowed within that plan. It is a planned unit deve7opment
and is not a zoning issue. They are rezoning by p7an because they wan.t the f7exi-
bility that is not built into the normal zoning code, That flexibility is a
mixed use type of deve7opment.
Mr. Saba asked what happens five years from now when someone goes in and buys a
building and then wants to convert that building for a different use. Would the
City go through the approval process at that level, because it is already zoned
a special district?
Mr. Oquist stated there needs to be some boundaries on the ordinance under "Uses
Permitted".
Mr. Boardman stated that was a very good point, and there sfiould be some change
in the language. He stated he would work out some new wording.
Mr. Oquist stated he felt the ordinance should be recommended for approva7, with
the wording change, because it does give the City the capabi7ity of classifying
areas.
�
Mr. George Meissner, 373 Mississippi St. N.E., stated he was a]so concerned about ^
the section on "uses permitted", which states: "Those uses which are acceptable
to the overall redevelopment plan and specific development plans as approved by
the City." He stated the statement does seem very vague. He did not know how
the City was ever going to determine what uses were acceptab7e or were not
acceptable, if they were ever put to a real test on what would or would not be
permitted. He stated if Staff can get that c7arified adequately, he would be
satisfied.
Mr. Boardman stated that what is meant in that statement is that,in the approval
of the plan, if they approve a shopping center, that is a shopping center use
and not each individual use within the building itself. Then each of the individua]
uses within the shopping center must comply with the shopping center use. He
stated he will be adding some wording to the effect that, "each individual use
must comp]y with the overall use (such as a shopping center)".
Mr. Meissner stated the concept sounds good as presented; he just hoped it works
out as well as it sounds.
MOTION BY MR. SABA, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON TNE
PROPOSED �
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIIVG AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED AT 9:06 P.A?.
�
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING� APRIL 7, 1982 PAGE 9
MOTION BY MR. OpUIST� SECONDED BY MR. SABA� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE
APPROVAL OF CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 205� FRIDLEY ZONING
ORDINAIVCE OF TFIE FRIDLEY CITY CODE� BY ADDING SECTION 205.23 ENTITLED� "S-2
SPECIAL ZONING DISTRICT"� WITH THE STIPULATION THAT 5TAFF CLA.RIFY THE LANGUAGE
WITfi REGARD TO THE USES OF VARIOUS STRUCTURES WITHIN THE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Sahnabel stated this would go to City Council on April 19.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #82-03, CITY OF FRIDLEY: Rezone
B oT'�CC s I' ;�; �, �, and�,�Zee's Addi� on t"�ri�'f ey ar c, an Parcels 5000
and 5050, from a mixture of R-1 (single family dwelling areas), C-1 (local
business areas), C-2 (genera] business areas), M-1 (light industria7 areas),
and P(public facilities areas), to S-2 (Specia7 Zoning �istrict), genera77y
]ocated between University Avenue N.E, and 5th Street, and from Mississippi
Street N.E., South to 63rd Avenue N.E. (but exc7uding Block 1, Auditor's
Subdivision No. 59 - Parcels 100 and 105 - Frid7ey Bank property).
MOTIDN BY MS. VAN DAN� SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST� TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARIIVG ON
ZOA #82-03 BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY.
�
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARING OPEN AT 9:09 P.M.
Mr. Boardman stated that since 1978, they have had a Center City Redevelopment
District� which includes Holly Center, the property across from Ho17y Center,
10,000 Auto Parts, all the way down to 61st Ave. With these properties, it is
the City's intent to develop a Center City cohesive development. They developed
a six-stage development program within the district. This went through public
hearings in 1978, and the district was approved and set up by the City'Council.
Mr. Boardman stated that since 1978, they have worked on severa7 developments.
They tried to pull in an office bui7ding north of City Ha17 which did not work.
They tried a retail development across from Holly Center which did not work. One
reason is that the financing has been very difficult. At this point, they are
putting a proposal together south of City Hall for a 28,000 sq, ft, medical
clinic facility with a possible expansion by 1986 of an additiona] 28,000 sq, ft.,
and also a 30,000 sq, ft, office building.
Mr. Boardman stated it is their intent with this development to narrow 64th Ave.
from 40 ft, to 26 ft, for circulation, do some landscaping, and create a public
plaza development. That public plaza development with the landscaping will be
consistent throughout the area and wi17 start the development of their theme
throughout the entire Center City area.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1982 PAGE_ 10
Mr. Boardman stated that at this point in time, the HRA is going to be hfiring a
landscape architect by competition. That landscape architect will do the detailed
design for the area with conceptual designs and tie it through the whole district.
In order to be consistent with the area, they are looking at rezoning this area,
because it currently consists of 5-6 zones. The City is requesting the rezoning
of this area to S-2 to allow them the flexibility to develop this concept. When
actual detailed plans are available, they will be submitted to the Planning
Commission and City Council for approva7.
Mr. Boardman stated that in the next 3-4 weeks, they will also be hiring a traffic
designer who will be ]ooking at the whole traffic design.
Mr. Boardman stated the Fridley State Bank has requested they not be included in
the S-2 District.
Mr. Don Savelkoul, 6315 University Ave. N.E., stated he is the attorney for
Fridley State Bank and the owner of the property. When they heard of this
rezoning request, they met with Mr. Boardman and Mr. Qureshi, the City Manager.
The Board then met, and they advised the City that they did not want to be a part
of the S-2 District. He stated they have no opposition to the district or to the
plan, but at this particular point, they do not want in any way to be inc7uded in
the district. They have been in their location since 1962. They have 12,000
depositors and 50 employees. He s�ated they are in a very competitive industry. �,.�
Over the past 20 years they have had to expand twice--they have had to revamp
the parking lot and their drive-in facilities, and probably will have to do it
again. He stated their traffic pattern requires every inch of ground they have.
They would have complete confusion if they had to integrate the bank property
with the parking lot for the clinic. Their responsibility as a banking institution
is to operate effectively and competitively. They want to handle their own traffic
the way they want to handle it. They will be happy to meet with the City and
Mr. 8oar.dman on any common problems, but they would very much appreciate it if
the Planning Commission would exclude the bank property from this rezoning request.
Mr. Haggerty stated he agreed with Mr. Savelkoul about the bank property being
excluded. Mr. Haggerty stated he represented all the private owners of the building
north of City Hal], and he is also the developer of the office building. He
stated that from their perspective, the type of zoning being proposed and which
is used in a number of other cities.for redevelopment purposes is really the only
way to go. He stated it makes sense to exclude the bank property , because it
is not really going to be redeveloped as such, while all the other land included
is going to be redeve7oped. He stated the new zoning could save a lot of time
and possibly some legal problems in the development of, not only the office
building, but also the clinic.
MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK� TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC XEARING ON
ZOA #82-03 BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRW0INAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC ^
XEARING CLOSED AT 10:00 P.M.
�`1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1982 PAGE ]]
MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF REZONING REQUEST� ZOA #82-03� G'3Z'Y OF FRIDLEY� TO REZONE BLOCKS .Z�
2� 3� 4� �AiD 5� REE'S ADDITION TO FRIDLEY PARK� A1VD PARCEIS 5000 AND 5050� FROM
A MIXTURE OF R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AREAS)� C-1 (LOCAL BUSIAIESS �REAS)�
C-2 (GENERAL BU5INESS AREA5)� M-.I (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREAS)� AND P(PUBLIC
FACILITIES AREAS) TO S-2 (SPECIAL ZOIVIIVG DI5TRICT) , GEIVERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN
UNIVERISTY AVENUE N.E. AND 5TH STREET� AND FROM MISSISSIPPI STREET N.E.� SOUTH
TD 63RD AVENUE N.E.� BUT TO EXCLUDE BLOCK 1� AUDITOR'S SUBDNI5ION NO. 59
(PARCEL5 .I00 AND l05) FRIDLEY BANK PROPERTY.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CXAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIA90USLY.
Ms. Schnabel stated ZOA #82-03 would go to City Council on April 19.
5. RECEIVE MARCH 11, 7982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT Al1THORITY MINUTES:
MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY Ag2. KONDRICK� TO RECEIi7E THE MARCH 11� 1982�
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTIDN CARRIED
� UNANIMOUSLY.
6. RECEIVE MARCH 16, 1982, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMNIISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY l�t. 5VANDA� SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TD RECEIVE THE MARCH 16� 1982�
EIUVIRONMENTAL �UALITY COMMISSIDN MINUTES.
Mr. Svanda stated they are working on publicizing the Fridley Recycling Week,
April 18-24.
Ms. Schnabel suggested that Mr. Svanda may want to get this information out
through any existing neighborhood groups.
Mr. Saba also suggested that Mr. Svanda contact the Minneapolis Star & Tribune
to see if a full-page ad could be placed in the paper showing the locations of
all the recycling centers throughout the Twin Cities area.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL �ECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. RECEIVE MARCH 23, 1982, ENERGY COMMISSION MIIVUTES:
MOTION BY 1�2. SABA� SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA� TO RECEIVE THE MARCH 23� 1982�
ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES.
^ UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, ]982 PAGE ]2
8. RECEIVE MARCH 24, ]982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES:
MOTIOAI BY MS. VAN DAN� SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST� TO RECEIVE THE MA.RCH 24� 1982�
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� AI�.L VOTING AYE� CHAI'RWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT•
MOTION BY 1�i. SABA� SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TO ADJOURN THE 1NEET.ING. UPON A VOICE
VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCXNABEL DECLARED THE APRIL 7� 1982� PLANNING
COMMIS520N MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:30 P.M.
Respectfully sub itted,
�
y aba
Recording Secretary
�
�