Loading...
PL 01/28/1987 - 30656�� r r"`, CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING C0�1P�1ISSION h9EETING, JANUARY 28, 1987 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Billings called the January 2�, 1987, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Steve Billings, Dean Saba, Donald �etzold, Mary Schreiner (for Dave '�ondrick) Sue Sherek, Rich Svanda Others Present: Jim Robinson, Planning Coordinator Dennis Schneider, City Council Nancy Jorgenson, City Council 6�alter Rockenstein, Faegre & Benson R. V. Pdovak, Longview Fibre (See attached list) APPROVAL OF JANUARY 7, 1987, PLANNING COP1MISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD� SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO APPROVE THE JAN. 7, 1987� PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS W.RITTEN. UP0111 A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER50N BILLINGS DECLARED THE M02'ION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIh9INARY PLAT, P.S. #87-01, LONGVIEW $ ADDITIOPJ, BY BU LINGTON ORT ERN: Consi eration of a Pre iminary P at, P.S. #87-01, Longview lst Addition, by Burlington Northern, being a replat of that part of Lots 9, 10, and 13, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78 and that part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 22, Township 30, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of a line parallel with and distant 196.00 feet westerly, measured at a right angle, from the center line of the main track of Burlington Northern and a line parallel with and distant 878.00 feet South of the north line of the SE 1/4 of said NE 1/4; thence westerly, along the said 878 foot parallel line, 554.26 feet; thence northerly at an angle 59 degrees 37 ft. to last described course (measured from East to North) 325.87 feet; thence northwesterly, deflecting to the left 60 degrees 30 ft. �o the easterly right of way line of East River Road; thence northerly along said right of way line, to the north line of said NE 1/4; thence easterly, along said north line, to its intersection with said 196 foot parallel line, to its intersection with said 196 foot parallel line; thence southerly along said parallel line, to the point of beginning. Except the North 155.00 feet thereof. Generally located north of I-694, east of �ast R�ver Road and west of the Burlington fJorthern railroad tracks. � PLANNING COP�1P�lISSION MEETING, JANUARY 28, 1987 PAGE 2 �"� MOTION BY M5. SCHREINER, SECONDED BY NIl4. BETZOLD, TO WAIVE 2'HE FORMAL READIIVG OF THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AND TO OPEN THE PUBZIC HEARING. UPON A dIOICE VOTE, �L V02'ING AYE� Cii�kIRPEBSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UiVANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC NF.ARING OPEN AT Z:31 P.M. �•1r. Robinson stated this petition was for a subdivision plat on property located on East River Road south of 61st VJay. The petition was by Longview Fibre which owns and operates a plar�t at this location. The property in question was zoned industrial. The petition includeci platting for two lots. The first lot was the replatting of existing property and also an additional five acres to the north. The second lot was for approx. 2.7 acres which would not be part of the Longview Fibre plant operation or under their owner- ship, but would remain vacant property of Burlington Northern. Mir. Robinson stated Longview Fibre's expansion plans included an addition of two phases of warehouse. The first phase was for 47,400 sq. ft. of ware- house to be constructed during 1987. Phase 2 of the plan was for �0,000 sq. ft. with construction in the next year. Total site area, including the expansion of the fi�ce acres, would be 17.9 acres. Total building area with the expansion would be 311,000 sq. ft., for a total lot coverage of 39%. The addition wauld 4i�ve 118 new pae�kir�g stalls. With 23 existing stalls, the total parking stalls would be 141 which would meet code. P�r. Robinson stated it should be noted that Longview Fibre is acquiring � additional properties, part of Lot 1, in order to meet the lot coverage requirement of not more than 40/ lot coverage. That would basically be pond- ing and green area. Mr. Robinson stated there were variances associated with this project. Those were revi�wed by the Appeals Commission on Jan. 13. The variances were for a front yard setback from the street right-of-way line from 100 ft, to 62 ft. and a rear yard setback from 25 ft. to 20 ft. Those variances were recommended for approval to the City Council by the Appeals Comnission. Mr. Robinson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations: 1. A park fee of $7,714 to be paid prior to recordin of plat (includes 5 acres of Lot 1 and 2.7 acres of Lot 2�. 2. A revised layout which provides for four feet of planting area on west side of new building to be provided for staff approval. 3. A landscape plan which addresses existing and proposed develop- ment to be provided for staff approval. 4. A building facade plan which provides architectural refinements to north and west elevations including existing block building, ;—., to be provided for staff approval. PLANNIPJG COPIP�1ISSION MEETIPJG, JANUARY 28, 1987 PAGE 3 �"� 5. A storm drainage plan to be provided for staff approval. 6. A plan to screen propane tanks which includes berming, screening fence, and landscaping to be provided for staff approval. 7. Items 2-6 above to be submitted by February 9, 1987 (two weeks prior to Council hearing). 8. Petitioner agrees to pay costs associated with relocation of 12- inch waterline around east and north of expansion. a 20-inch line to be installed on north-south segment; city to pay for costs of added size, i.e., 20" vs, 12". Mr. Robinson stated Longview Fibre has been very cooperative in trying to clean up the messy legal description which exists under the existing property. They have agreed to include the existing property in this plat in o�der to simplify the legal description. Mr. Wal;ter Rockenstein stated he was the attorney representing the petitioner, Longview Fibre. He stated Mr.Novak, Manager for Longview Fibre, was also in the audience. He stated the facility has been carefully thought out. They have a diagram showing the inside of the building. The major purpose of the expansion was to add a high-speed corregating machine to the factory which manufactures paper boxes. The length of the building was dictated by �he extreme length of this machine, and the width of the building was dictated by the amount of paper that must be stored to feed the machine to create the cardboard. Mr. Rockenstin stated the petitioner was in agreement with the stipulations. They hope to be meeting with Staff within the next week with revised land- scaping and facade plans and other plans indicated so they can make sure they have met the City's requirements and are submitted in final form by the Feb. 9 deadline for City Council approval. MOZ70N BY MR. BETZOLD� SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VQTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:38 P.M. Mr. Betzold stated he was in favor of the preliminary plat. He stated he thought this was a very good plan, and it was really nice to see all the good work Longview Fibre has been doing with the City of Fridley. Mr. Saba agreed. Mr. Billings stated that from reading the Appeals Corronission minutes, a quite lengthy presentation was made by P4r. Rockenstein regarding the need for the variances. Longview Fibre has apparently been a good neighbor in the City of Fridley. They needed this expansion, and he did not think it would adversely r'�'` affect anythi ng i n the Ci ty. PLANNIPJG COMP1ISSION MEETIPJG, JRNUARY 28, 1987 PAGE 4 MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD� SECONDED BY M5. SCH.REIIVER, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #87-01, LONGVIEW 1ST ADDITION, BY BURLINGTON NORTHERN: BEING A 12EPT1AT OF THAT PART:OF LOTS 9� 10 AND 13� AUDITOR'S 5UB- DIVI5ION ND. 78 AND THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF 5ECTION 22� TOWNSHIP 30, RANGE 24, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 196.00 FEET WESTERLY� MEA5URED AT A RIGHT ANGLE, FROM THE CEIVTER LINE OF Z'HE MAIN T.RACK OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 878.00 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE 5E 1/4 OF SAID NE 1/4; THENCE WESTERLY, ALONG THE SAID�878 FOOT PARALLEL LINE, 554.26 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY AT AN ANGLE 59 DEGREES 37� TO LAST DESCRIBED COU.R5E (MEASURED FROM EAST TO NORTH) 325.87 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, DEFLECTING TO THE LEFT 60 DEGREES 30' TO THE EA5TERLi' RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF EA5T RIVER ROAD; THENCE NORTHERLI', ALONG 5AID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NE 1/4; THENCE EASTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, TO IT5 INTERSEC- TION WITH SAID,Z96 FOOT PARALLEL LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY, ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THE NORTH 155.00 FEET THEREOF. GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF 'I-694, EAST �OF E�lS�' RIVER ROAD AND WEST OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILR(�A�D TRA�CK5, 5UBJECT TO APPROVAL O,E' THE VARIANCES AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIOIVS: I. A PARK FEE OF $7,714 �O"BE PAID PRIOR TO RECORDING OF PLAT (INCLUDES FIVE ACRES OF LOT .Z AND 2.7 ACRES OF LOT 2). 2. A REVI5ED LAYOUT WHICH PROVIDES FOR FOUR FEET OF PLANTING AREA OAI WEST SIDE OF NEW BUILDING TO BE PROVIDED FOR STAFF APPROVAL. 3. A LANDSCAPE PLAN WHICH ADDRE55ES EXISTIIVG AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO BE PROVIDED FOR STAFF APPROVAL. 4. A BUILDING FACADE PI�AN WHICH P�ROVIDES ARCHITECTURAL REFINEMENTS TO NORTH AND WEST ELEVA270N5 IPICLUDING EX25TING BZACK BUILDING� TO BE PROVIDED FOR STAFF APPROVAL. 5. A 5TORM DRAINAGE PI�AN TO BE PROVIDED FOR STAFF APPROVAL. 6. A PLAN TO SCREEN PROPANE TANKS WHICH INCLUDES BERMING, SCREENING FENCE, AND LANDSCAPING TO BE PROVIDED FOR 5TAFF APPROVAL. 7. ITEMS 2-6 ABOVE TO BE SUBMITTED BY FEB. 9, .I987 (TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO COUIVCIL HEARINGj . 8. PETITIONER AGREES TO PAY COSTS AS50CIATED WITH RELOCATION OF 12-INCH WATERLINE AROUND EA5T AND NORTH OF EXPAAISIOAI. A 20-INCH LINE �'O BE INSTALLED ON NORTH-SOUTH 5EGP�NT; CITY TO PAY FOR C05TS OF ADDED SIZE, I.E., 20" vs. IZ". UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIIVG AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. PUBLIC HEARIfdG: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERP�1IT, SP #86-17�, BY GHURGH ON THE MOVE: Per Section 05.0 .1, C, 2, of the Fridley City Code for church purposes including the use of the existing �ymnasium for church services and the construction of a 120-car parking lot, all located in Section 24, T-30, R-24, Anoka County, Minnesota, and Lot 4, Meloland Gardens, located in Section 24, T-30, R-24, Anoka County, P�innesota, and Lot 5, except for the Wesi:erly 110 � feet of the Southerly 200 feet, Meloland Gardens, located in Section 24, T-30, R-24, Anoka County, Minnesota, and Lot 1, except for the•Southerly 210 feet, P�eloland Gardens, located in Section 24, T-30, R-24, Anoaa County� ^ PLANNIfJG COP1P9ISSION MEETING, JAPJUARY 28, 198.7 PAGE 5 Minnesota, and Lot 17, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, Anoka County, P9innesota, and Lot 33, Block 3, Moore Lake Hills, Anoka County, Minnesota, and Lot 1, and Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, Lot 17, may be encumbered by a recreational lease running in favor of the City of Fridley, the same being 1401 Gardena Avenue N.E. Mr. Billings stated that before they operr the public hearing, it was his understanding that the property owner had not signed the application. M9here did the City stand on this special use permit request at this time? Mr. Robinson stated that originally when the application was pr�ocessed, the City Staff wa� informed-that tfiere woul�i.be-an as,sumption of the contract for deed with the School District, who_is the underlying �fee owner of the property. Due to s�o�e constraints tMe School Board has raised, the petitZOner has dECided to opt for �: di�,fferent �a;�a�a�i;�.l; p.roced�re whereby he wil l cash out the School Dis�;rict and become fee owner of the prbperty. It has been stated that this process could take 3-4 months to a�complish. ��r. Robinson stated there was a request that the School Board look at the proposal at their Jan. 27th meeting. However, the attorney for the School District indicated the�^e was not enough background information available to place the item on the agenda. ����rdless, the petitioner has indicated he would not be pursuing that arrangement. Sa, it would be at least 2-4 months �`' before the City would have the owner's signature on the application. Mr. Robinson stated the School Board ha5 some concerns that the proposal would be contrary to the original c�nditions pn the contract for deed which was established between Faith Academy and the School District, particularly that the open space would be maintained. Th�s could be a real stumbling block in terms of the petitioner's proposal.to construct a parking lot, Mr. Robinson stated that in discussing this issue with the City A�torney, it became apparent there were basically three actions the Planning Commission could take at this time: 1. Determine that the application is invalid and direct the petitioner to resubmit only after such time as he has acquired fee title or has the owner's signature. 2. Table the item until such time as fee title or the owner's signature is obtained. (If this action was taken, an extension to the 60-day period for the Planning �Commission to recommend ta the City Council would need to be requested in writing by the petitioner.) 3. Make a recommendation to the City Council with the understanding that the item not be placed an the City Council agenda until such time as fee title or owner's signature is obtained. �, Mr. Betzold stated this was the second public hearing they have had for Church on the Move. With the first public hearing, were they essentially in this same situation where the proper petitioner had not signed the application? r� �� PLANNIfJG COMP�ISSION P1EETING, JANUARY 28, 1987 PAGE 6 Mr. R6�inson stated that with the first petition origina:lly, Faith Academy had signed for the owner. It did come to the City's attention during the process that Faith Academy was not the underlying fee owner�, but was, in fact, the contract purchaser. Once they were into the process, it was indi- cated that fee ownership would be obtained in a short period of time during the process of review or shortly thereafter. Presently, the spec9al use permit was for major modifications to the site and the first special use permit was simply for use of the building. Mr.Robinson stated this put the Planning Commission in a dilemma because the Planning Commission was required to make a recommendation t� t{�ee-City Council within 60 days of the pub��c hearing, and it has been expressed that was the minimum amount of time it would take to close on the bond. Mr. Saba stated it did not make sense to hold the-public hearing when they do not have the owner's signature an the application. They c�u7d have the public hearing and spend a considerable amount of tir�e disGUSSing the item; but if the purchase agreement is not ma e, this public hearing weuld be moot. Mr. Billings agree��: He stated that in the past the Planning Cammission has spent hours discussing the publ��c hearing, Staff has spent numerous hours putting packages toge-ther and wor�king with the petitioner on the basis of a lease arrangement that the petitioner was going to have on a piece of property which never materialized. The City of Fridley has a lot of money invested in a project that has gone nowhere. He �ould not see any need for the Planninc� Commission to spend addi:�ional time, energy, or money on� the basis that the 'petitioner may or may not be able to do the bonds. It was his personal opinion that the application was invalid at this time and the petitioner should be told that when he gets everything straightened out, he shou�Yd file another application and come before the Planning Comrt�ission at that time. The Comm-issioners agreed with Mr. Billings. MOTIOIV BY MR. SABA, SECONDED BY MS. SCHREINER, TO DECLARE THE APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP �#86-Z7� BY CHURCH ON THE MOVE INVALID DUE TO THE LACK OF THE OWNER'S 5IGNATURE ON THE APPLICATION, AND THAT TNE PUBLIC HEARING NOT BE HELD. - UPOIU A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLlNG5 DECLARED THE r?OTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY. 3. TAE3LED-]/7/78: CONSIDERATION OF VARIA�ICE REQUESTS, VRR #86-35, BY SPRAYER SUPPLY, INC. Pursuant to Chapter 205.14.3, A, of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the minimum lot area from 20,000 sq. ft. to approximately 15,000 sq. ft.; and, pursuant to Chapter 205.14.3, c, 1, of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to approximately 11 feet to allovr the occupa- tion of an existing site, on Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 9, Hamilton's Addition to h9echanicsville, the same being 5480 - 7th Street N.E. � n PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 28, 1987 PAGE 7 MOTION BY MR. SABA, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO REMOVE VAR #86-35 FROM THE TABLE. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Robinson stated there had been some changes in status on this project since the last Planning Correnission meeting when this item was tabled. He stated the Commission had received a copy of a memo from P�Ir. Herrick, City Attorney, dated Jan. 28, 1987, in which Mr. Herrick gave the following opinion: "1. I believe that this property and the lot adjacent to the west should be combined as one parcel. 2. That the City should take the initiative to rezone this property from commercial to multi-family residential. 3. The City should attempt to negotiate an agreement with Naegele Advertising Co. whereby, either the existing billboard is moved from its present location to the westerly boundary of the adjacent boundary to the west, or that the billboard be removed from the property in total. 4. That if the billboard entertain permits to property." is relocated �r removed, the City shouid then construct a multi-fatrtily dwelling �n the Mr. Robinson stated Mr. Herrick had also stated he felt it would be a mistake for the Planning Commission to approve the variances on this property. Mr. Robinson stated the original petitaoner, Sprayer Supply, has withdrawn its application and is-locating in Blaine. The pet�tioner sited the delays by the Planning Commission as the reason for the change in location. After this request by the petitioner, Naegele has asked that this item be taken off the table and has requested that the variance request be withdrawn. Mr. Robinson stated that left them with the problem of what to do with the property at this point. What action should they take in terms of Mr. Herrick's recommendations? Mr. Billings stated that as long.as Naegele has withdrawn the request, was immediate action necessary or could they hold off for a little bit and work it into the other things being planned in this area? Mr. Robinson stated that was a viable option; however, he would not like to see it delayed too long. � Mr. Saba asked what the HRA's thoughts were regarding the recommendation by the Planning Commission that this whole block be included in a redevelopment district. ^ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGs JANUARY 28s 1987 PAGE 8 4. Mr. Robinson stated this area was presented to the NRA as part of the redevelop- ment district, and the HRA directed Staff to come up with a proposal on legal specifications for what kind of a district it should be. So, there was a chance there would be some HRA involvement in the future. Mr. Betzold stated he did not feel the,.Planning Commission had enough information at this time to make any recommendations. Mr. Robi�son stated work with Naegele to billboard. RATIO� OF AN that, along with the r�zoning effort, the City needed to see if there were any viable alternatives for the RECODIFYING CHAPTER 205 OF�THE FRIDLEY CITY Mr. Rabinson stated he would like the Commission to look at the ordinance that was hande� out at the meeting. It was updated f�trm�the ordinance included in the agenda. Mr. Robinson stated that at the last Planning Commission meeting, they saw the need to specify the types of inedical facilities a little more clearly. Mr. Betzold had recommended they use the term "health care services". �''� Mr. Robinson stated that in 1.A.(6), they were stating: "Health care services including medical, dental, chiropractic and counseling clinics." The key thing here was they were differentiating medical health service facilities from professional office facilities. In the Code, the par�ing ratio for ederything in C-1, C-2, and C-3 districts was one off-street parking space for every 150 sq. ft. of building floor area. The Code goes on to except office, and there was some confusion in the past where people have tried to say that medical clinics were offices. By separating them, they think they have alleviated that problem. Mr. Robinson reviewed a few other changes in the ordinance. MOTION BY 1�II2. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE RECODIFYING G'FlAP'2'ER �05 p�' THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS IT RELATES TO HEALTH CARE CLINIC PARKIlVG ANII 1'FIAT A PIIBLIC HEARING BE HELD TO REVIEGV THE CHAIVGES TO THIS ORDIIUANCE, THE ORDIIVANCE RELATI111G TO CHURCHES, AND THE ORDINANCE RELATING TO DUMPSZ'ER ENCLOSURES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ULVAIVIMOUSLY. 5. COPdSIDERATION OF ALTERING ING COP�MISSION AGENDA A E TO INCLUDE Mr. Robinson stated the Planning Commission has voiced smme frustration over �--� the fact that they are spending too much time on operational r�atters and not enough time on long range planning and strategic planning. To avoid getting bogged down, it has been discussed informally that there be long range planning PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIKG, JANUARY �8 1987 PAGE 9 � �, meetings. He stated he has reviewed the Charter and the Cor�rri�ssion sect�on of the City Code, and th�re did not seem to be anything in there that would prohibit the Planning Commission from doing this. It would slow down the application process somewhat. They would have to set agendas, decide what the issues are, and develop a work plan. Mr. Billings stated that after the meeting several weeks ago, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Robinson, and h�`-�a�� discussed the fact that it was nice to talk about other things going on in the City and that it was kind of refreshing not to be always battling some of the other "day-to-day" ts�aatters. They also talked about the fact that the City's Comprehensive Plan was now w�ll over five years old and obviously changes have taken place, but the Planning Commission never has time to look at those kinds of things. Mr. Billings stated at the seminar Mr. Robinson, Mr. Betzold, an� he attended about a week ago, some of these items were discussed, and it was pointed out that many Planning Commissions fall into the "zoning trap", and they do not get a chance to do any planning. He stated the discussion regarding the little strip of commercial property on 7th Street was what really brought this to his attention. Mr. Billings stated that possibly every fourth meeting could be used strictly for "planning" with no administrative things on the agenda. Mr. Betzold stated one of the justifications for getting rid of the Community Development Commission was that 95% of the City was developed, and the Planning Cor�nission could probably address the remaining 5%. That meant the Planning Commission was going to�have to actually do the job the �ommun't�y Development Commission used to do. One of the things he would like to see was a list of all the major undeveloped areas in the City. Right now the Planning Commission reacts when a petitioner co�es in with an application, but the Planning Commission shouTd have a-b��ade� vision flf what is going to happen. He would like to see them be able to plan instead of react. Mr. Robinson stated he has often thought that if they could work with the neigttbors on a�plan in a more informal basis and let the neighborhood take some ownership in the p:tan, ma�be they could _reach agreements an some of these more difficult development parcels. Mr. Saba stated that lack of information to the Planning Corr�tission has also often delayed rezoning requests and special use permit requests. The Planning Commission needs more in-depth information in order to make wiser decisions. Councilperson Schr��ider stated he thought the planning meetings were a very good idea �nd he would encourage the Planning Commission to do that. The reason for the City Council conference meetings was for the Eouncil people to talk in an informal setting and be able to talk to Staff, other commissioners, etc. That type of ineeting served an important role. The only question he �.. would have was if they would ge� a heavy load of administrative-type things � where they might need to adjust their schedu1e so they don't end up with a backlog. '"� PLANNIPJG COh1MISSION MEETI�G, JANUARY 28a 1987 PAGE 10 Mr. Billings stated he thought with an every fourth meeting, Staff should be able to adjust the administrative type of items fairly well. He had done sor�e reading on zoning and special use permits, and in terms of special use permits, specifically, the Code said the Planning Commission shall hold an official public hearTng within 60 days of the date of filing of the petition so the Planning Corronission has 2 months from the time of the filing of the petition to hold the public hearing. Then, they have another 60 days to recommend to City Council. They should be able to fit most items into that 60-day timeframe. Mr. Robinson stated he thought one of the most important aspects would be dovetailing the Planning Commission conference meetings with the City Council on a qa�rterly basis so they are not planning in a vacaum and the Planning Commission has the City Council's concurrence on whatever they come up with. P�1r. Betzold stated he did not know how often they would have to have these planning meetings. It might be irrtportant to have one or two in the near future to get a feel fo� wher�e tb�y-are`�oing; then maybe tapering off when they feel they have a good:grasp on what is happening. He thought it would also be important to have a City Council meeting where, not only the Planning Comr�rrssion members are present, but also members of all the other commissions and Staff inembers, so they can get a"state of the city" assessment. ,� hlr. Robinson stated Staff wauld like to get the Planning Comnission more in�olved in the Univer�sity Ave. Corridor Study and the development standards brochure that wo���id be used for all commercial/industrial development in the City so they would have a unified Fridley image. Other things talked about in the past was ne�ighborhood ic�er�tity--neighborhood signs and city signs. He fel t the P1 anni ng Corr�rri ssi on coul d have a maj or i mpact on t{�ese ki nds of things. MOTION BY MR. SABA, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO REQUEST THAT STAFF PUT TOGETHER A PROPOSAL FOA PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW FOR THE RESTRUC2'URIIUG OF THE PLANNING COMMI5SION AGENDA TO INCLUDE BI-MONTHLY L0111G RANGE PLANAIING MEETINGS. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSOIV BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE JAIYUARY 5, 1987, PARKS & RECREATION CflP4MISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MS. SCHREINER, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO RECEIVE THE JAN. 5, 1987, PARKS & RECREATION COMMI5SION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAI.RPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED i7NANIMOUSLY. �� PLANNING COMMISSION PIEETING, JANUARY 28, 1987 PAGE 11 7. RECEIVE JANUARY 13, 1987, APPEALS COh1R�I5SI0N P�IINUTES: MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO RECEIVE THE JAN. Z3, 1987� APPEALS COMMIS5ION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: M02701V BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO ADJOURN TNE MEETIIVG. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLING5 DECLARED THE JANUARY 28, 1987, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:32 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lyn Saba Recording Secretary r-�, �, --�"�`, _ -- _ ___. � ° � ___ �����'��i" _ _ - -- - - c..e � __ _ _ _ _. _ . .. _ __ _ - �� ���� __ _ . - - __._ _ ___ , _ - _ --_ _ ___ _ __ ___ -- __ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . _-- - ---� - - - _ _ _ _ --- - �____ _ _ ___ ��� �'���- _ _ - --- _ __ _ _ - - , _ _ _ _ . _ __ __ _ __ � r /� %� . ���f�% � J�. �C.�%7-� ��- _ (..�_./ � . - _(��fi�/2G'.l_ -- - - _ - -- -- -- ___. __ _.._ ,._ ___ ,__��_. . __ _�------ % _� Y �'� - — - � - - - - _ _ __ _ _�� __ , _ _ _ � _ _ _ _ - - _ _ � - -- - _�o �� - � ,��%�-��. _ _ - - _ � _ � -- _ _ _ -- �i?�� _ �,� �� ��� ��� ___ _ _ � � - .�`� �-- __ l��f_ �a.�r,�� � __ ___ - � _ -- - - - ���9_,�� - �_y1�_. __ _ _ _ � . ___ ____ ___ _ _ _ r��s __���. � �_�_._�,_ _ _ _ __ _ � �� .�� _ � �_ �s- ��,� _ �-�-- -�-�- -- - -- _ , - _ -- _ �.�.=�� __ _ -_ �o o � - - -- _ � _ � _� � - -- ---- - - - - � /� - : l�-v� L �?1s ?',�.��2_, __ _ �3 3 � _-��i�L�_¢-r�-t_ �,�.r�-___ _ _ 23C+� I�IuI-��fcaoc%s ToW�� �3 5' _ . _ �il�alfev �oc�levrs��n ��r� � B��JOn 6�h s�� �� �s�� � �t,� :�-�-�o2 !1� 1/� /V�UAIC � � -�.r/ Cs4s�iCavcx. ,@� �p,,�� �bPc r��°�c. ��7 G�tC�� /j y�T3 ��� ��cw G��d� y�l�-, ann , s-�--��z� ��'v � �1�� f .� Z ��`C���.�s� �� � ��z � � 7 , ����� ��` �� ���.��..- � 9� �- �� �.� s�� � - ��� /�� �'G��r�- �' %�.�— �i ���� f��� �—�� �`