PL 01/19/2011 - 30022° -�,," ,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
January 19, 2011
Chairperson Kondrick called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Leroy Oquist, Jack Velin, David Kondrick, Brad Sielaff,
Brad Dunham, and Dean Saba
MEMBERS ABSENT: Marcy Sibell
OTHERS PRESENT: Stacy Stromberg, Planner
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Manager
Mark and Janet Kreutter, 5916 — 2"d Street NE
Paul Slesar, 44 Locke Lake Road
Rick Anderson, 5948 — 2'lz Street
Rick Bistodeau, 101 — 57`�' Place
David Rust, 5735 Quincy Street NE
Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton Avenue NE
Joanne Zmuda, 6051 - 4`h Street NE
Audrey Nelson, 250 — 61 S` Avenue NE
Mike Flynn, 1220 Mississippi Street
Pat Gabel, 5947 — 2'/z Street NE
John Anderson, 5909 — 2"d Street NE
Karissah Bellagotti-DeSantis, 6144 — 5`h Street NE
Approval of Minutes: November 17, 2010
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner
Sielaff.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Consideration of a Public Hearing for Text Amendment TA #11-04, by the City of Fridley,
for the S-1, Hyde Park Neig6borhood zoning district for the purpose of making existing
non-conforming uses permitted uses, as well as minor corrections to the existing text.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Velin.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:04
P.M.
Stacy Stromberg, Planner, stated during the Comprehensive Plan process, there was a great deal of
concern about the condition of the rental housing in the S-1, Hyde Park Neighborhood zoning district. As
, �
a result, one of the action steps in the plan was to consider amending the Hyde Park zoning district to
allow redevelopment of property with existing multi-family housing to new multi-family housing.
Ms. Stromberg stated the Hyde Park Neighborhood is bordered by Main Street on the west, 61S' Avenue
to the north, University Avenue to the east and 57`h Place to the south.
Ms. Stromberg stated when the Hyde Park neighborhood was developed it was made up of a mixture of
commercial entities and all types of residential units. Currently, all but one of those commercial entities
has been acyuired and has been replaced with single-family housing. Hyde Park development is
consistent with how neighborhoods typically deve(oped before strict zoning laws were put into place.
These mixed use developments where people can live, work (shop), and play is something more and more
cities are striving to re-create, with Fridley being no different. Since this type of mixed use neighborhood
was not looked on favorably in the 1970's, the S-1, Hyde Park zoning district was adopted in 1976 to
allow all uses currently within that district to be continued but at which time a use other than a single-
family home was destroyed by more than 50 percent, only a single-family home could be rebuilt. For
example, if a 12-unit apartrnent building were destroyed, only a single-family home would be allowed to
be rebuilt on that parcel of land, unless the parcel was large enough for more than one single-family lot to
be created (platted).
Ms. Stromberg stated this requirement is a financial disincentive to reinvestrr►ent for existing multi-
famity properties owners who have no legal means in the future to recoup their investment. As a multi-
family building ages (most buildings are 40-50 years old) and the building can no longer meet the
requirements to obtain a rental license, the value of the property declines to only the value of the land.
Through staff's research it was determined that a simple text modification amending the permitted uses
section in the Hyde Parking zoning code would allow any existing uses to be considered permitted
(allowed). This would allow for reinvestment and possible redevelopment of the existing multi-family
structures within Hyde Park. Other minor modifications are a(so being made to the text to update the
code and make it easier to interpret and enforce.
Ms. Stromberg stated as stated above, staff has taken some time over the last few months to research the
existing Hyde Park code language. It determined that minor modifications needed to be made to the
language to allow existing uses, to be considered permitted uses. It also took this time to amend other
sections of this zoning code that need updating. Those sections are the purpose statement, the district
boundaries, the accessory and existing uses sections, provide clarification on the lot width and setback
sections, allow additional lot coverage, and make a minor change to the Refuse section.
Ms. Stromberg stated the following are descriptions and explanations for each code modification. When
the Hyde Park overlay district was adopted, the idea was to remove any commercial or multi-family
housing and replace it with single-family dwellings. The purpose statement within the existing Code
clearly articulates that. Staff is proposing to modify this section to acknowledge the unique
characteristics of this neighborhood that currently provide a mixture of housing types. It is the City's
goal to support the residential character of this neighborhood, while also promoting reinvestment within
existing structures and allow for future redevelopment. The purpose statement has been modified to
convey these points.
Ms. Stromberg stated the modifications to the district boundaries section is simply taking out the legal
descriptions of the existing properties and adding a section that describes the Hyde Park Neighborhood by
the streets it is bordered by. If legal descriptions are used to describe the neighborhood, it is likely there
will be a need to update it more often because, every time a new plat is created in this neighborhood, a
�
new legal description would need to be added to the district boundaries section. As a result staff would
recommend simply describing the neighborhood by its bordered streets.
Ms. Stromberg stated in this section, currently what is considered a permitted use is a one-family
dwelling. In order to allow existing uses, whether duplexes or 12-units building, to be permitted, staff
recommends adding a section to the Code that will instead read, "One-family dwellings, except for those
uses as allowed as part of section 205.23.4.C.(1). That section of Code states, "All existing uses will be
classified as permitted uses within the zoning district on the present property which they occupy". In
other words this statement clarifies that multi-family use properties are considered permitted uses that can
be reinvested in and rebuilt, but not geographically expanded.
Ms. Stromberg stated City staff determined that for consistency purposes, this section of Code should
match that of the R-1, Single Family section of Code. The existing language points to the need for a
special use permit for accessory structures, which is something that was removed from the R-1 section of
Code several years ago. Staff recommends modifying this section of Code to match that of the R-1,
Single Family zoning district.
Ms. Stromberg stated several years ago amendments were made to State Statute and our Zoning Code
that allows non-conforming uses to be rebuilt, whether the property owner chooses to replace the building
or if the building is destroyed or damaged by natural peril. Sections 2 and 3 in the "Existing Uses"
section should have been removed at the time of the adoption of this State Statue into our Code because it
is contradictory to what the State Statue allows. As a result stafi recommends removal of Section 2 and 3
in this section.
Ms. Stromberg stated within the lot width section of the Hyde Park zoning district, there is a set of
setbacks for living space and accessory structures, which staff finds confusing and unnecessary.
Appropriate setback requirements have already been established in the "Setback" section of this zoning
district. Staff recommends remova( of the setback requirements within the lot width category.
Ms. Stromberg stated when the O-6, Overlay District was approved in 2000, it recognized smaller lots
sizes, platted prior to 1955 throughout the City to be conforming. Within that overlay district there is an
increase in lot coverage requirement and reduced setback requirements, which allows for additional
opportunities development on those small lots. Since the Hyde Park zoning district also has smaller lots
sizes and reduced setback from the standard R-1, Single Family zoning code, staff determined that it was
appropriate to increase the lot coverage requirement from 25 percent to 35 percent in this zoning district
as well. This standard matches the lot coverage standard that is in the O-6 Overlay zoning district.
Ms. Stromberg stated in 2005, several parcels within the Hyde Park Neighborhood along 3`d Street were
replatted to allow for the construction of 16 new single-family homes. At that time, a text amendment
was also approved that would allow reduced side yard setbacks specifically for new construction. Staff
has determined that the reduced setbacks should apply to all properties within this zoning district and not
specifically to new construction. Since the Hyde Park zoning district allows reduced lot size, reduced
setbacks seem appropriate. This change will also be consistent with the setback dimensions used in the
0-6 Overlay district.
Ms. Stromberg stated while reviewing this section of Code, staff also discovered a typo related to the
height of an accessory structure. In all other sections of code, accessory structures shall not exceed 14
feet in height. For some reason, this section references I S feet. For consistency sake, staff recommends
correcting the 15-feet height limitation to 14 feet.
Ms. Stromberg stated this amendment is a minor change, to remove the word "Waste" and replace it will
"Refuse" which is the title of the Code section for which this section applies.
Ms. Stromberg stated along with these text amendments for the Hyde Park zoning district, staff is also
proposing the adoption of a new Transit Oriented Development (TOD) overlay zoning district. The Hyde
Park neighborhood is proposed to be included in the TOD overlay district. Uses and standards proposed
to be permitted within this overlay are covered in a separate report within the Commission's packet.
Ms. Stromberg stated staff would like to point out that even if the TOD overlay ordinance is not
approved, it would still recommend that these modifications be made to the Hyde Park zoning district
language.
Ms. Stromberg stated City staff recommends approval of the proposed changes to the S-1, Hyde Park
Zoning District. These changes will not only allow for reinvestment and redevelopment of both existing
single-family and multi-family properties, but also will help clean up some of the minor imperfections
found in the code language.
Ms. Stromberg stated this item wi(l go before the City Council on February 7, 2011, for Public Hearing.
Commissioner Velin asked if there are any buildings now that are 15 feet?
Ms. Stromberg replied, there has not been a building permit issued for anything over the 14 feet at the
midspan in the Hyde Park Zoning District for accessory structures. Again, she just thinks that was a typo.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to receive a letter from Mr. Ronald Newland. Seconded by
Commissioner Dunham.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton Avenue NE, stated she is not in Hyde Park; however, she is opposed to the
proposed text amendment. This proposed language is enacted to drastically change the character of this
neighborhood. Development staff considers the proposed language to be simple and minor in nature. The
proposed changes would alter four of seven sections of the existing Code. Perhaps the only change which
could be considered minor would be changing the word "Waste" to "Refuse" in Section 7(c); however,
this change would then reyuire the costly process to change the language in other zoning codes.
Ms. Reynolds stated although the proposed ordinance language misidentifies the sections to be amended.
The arbitrary and capricious changes to Sections 2, Purpose; Section 4, Uses Permitted; and Section 5,
Lot Reyuirements are about as minor as a heart attack. The changes included in these sections would
produce a 180-degree change to the current language and the overall character of the neighborhood.
Ms. Reynolds stated the memo dated January 19 from the Community Development Department contains
several contradictory statements. Under the heading "Accessory Uses," staff feels the ordinance should
match R-1 zoning. R-1 does not allow for R-3 multi-family housing. In the section, Lot Coverage, staff
recommends mirroring the language found in the 0-6 zoning language which allows for increased lot
coverage from 25 to 35 percent. Yet in the section titled, "Uses Permitted," principal uses, staff states, in
other words this statement clarifes that multi-family use properties are considered permitted uses and can
be reinvested in and rebuilt but not geographically expanded. Increase in lot coverage is clearly an
expansion of geographical expansion. The omission in this proposal of the desire to raise building height
4
to 45 from the current 30 would also qualify as a geographical expansion. This language will show up in
TA #11-03 which seeks to establish transit-oriented development.
Ms. Reynolds stated in the History section of this memo, staff indicates the S-1 zoning was enacted in
1976. Perhaps the action began in 1976, but the creation of the S-1 special zoning was enacted via
Ordinance 678 on June 5, 1978. When the Council agreed to Ordinance 678, one of the purposes of its
adoption was to reestablish the residential character of the neighborhood. The proposals before them this
evening will serve to nullify the contract and commitment the City of Fridley entered into with these
property owners 33 years ago. Based on the mish-mash of land uses created by the zoning laws and City
development staff at that time, it was the appropriate action to take. It is her understanding the process
began with a petition from the neighborhood to create a restricted residence district. This type of district
is supported and allowed in Minn. Stat. § 462.12. She believes this language would require 50 percent of
the property owners within the neighborhood to support the proposed language changes.
Ms. Reynolds stated staff would also lead you to believe the proposed language changes were generated
while discussing concerns with the condition of multi-family properties during neighborhood planning
meetings held in preparation for revising the Comprehensive Plan. However, they failed to include in
their memo the information found in Chapter 5 which is the Housing Plan on page 48 of the
Comprehensive Plan which states in part, the condition of multi-unit housing was evaluated separately for
the Hyde Park neighborhood. Results showed that there were not markedly lower exterior housing
conditions in the neighborhood. In fact, no multi-family properties ranked poor in this neighborhood.
Staff notes that while many multi-family structures in this neighborhood are in sound structural condition,
they are poorly designed with insufficient parking or dumpster space and there is widespread lack of yard
maintenance.
Ms. Reynolds stated it is her opinion the language currently in place would not only allow but requires
multi-family properties to meet the maintenance standards appearing in the S-1 zoning text. Staff would
also lead you to believe the existing language does not allow for remodeling or replacement of the multi-
family housing in this neighborhood. Recently this zoning language was changed to allow smaller lot
sizes for the HRA project along Third Street and updated to altow the replacement of multi-family
housing to the original footprint per changes in State Statute.
Ms. Reynolds stated currently the HRA owns several properties in the Hyde Park covered by the
scattered site language secured in the 2009 Minnesota Legislative section. The Legislature language
restricts replacement of single-family homes with single-family homes. Some of these multi-family units
belong to the Anoka County Community Outreach Program, and they certainly are not prohibited from
remodeling and upgrading by the current language. However, it is her belief that by approving the
ordinances being proposed this evening, they will be enabling the displacement of low to moderate
income families who need the close-in-proximity transportation, shopping, and recreation based on the
transfer of remodeling and rebuilding costs to increase rent. Another possible outcome would be the
increased responsibilities of taxpayers to cover the increases in rent subsidy.
Ms. Reynolds stated she could go on for quite a long time pointing out the inconsistencies and wrongness
of altering the protective S-1 zoning language. The Comprehensive Plan calls for the consideration of
amending the S-1 zoning language. This evening she would ask that they do exactly that. Consider the
changes and then cast all thought of changing the S-1 zoning as far from their minds as possible. Martin
Luther King said, the time is always right to do the right thing. They have the opportunity tonight to do
the right thing and deny this proposal. In doing so, they will be protecting the health and welfare of the
citizens who live in Hyde Park by restoring their peace of mind and maintaining their property rights
which was, at its inception, the purpose of the S-1 restricted residence district language.
Pat Gabel, 5947 - 2'/2 Street NE, stated she lives in Hyde Park. She disagrees with the majority of the
comments that have just been made. She was a catalyst for the S-1 zoning district initially back in the
1970's. There were a lot of issues at that time around the fact that the neighborhood had been rezoned
into she believed it was a C-1 or a C-3. What happened with that is people would not be able to rebuild
their homes if they were destroyed in a tornado, fire, etc.
Chairperson Kondrick asked, because the lots were too small or something like that?
Ms. Gabel replied, it was because of the zoning specifically. She thinks there were a lot of things.
People were having a lot of difficulties with their loans, insurance, and other types of things because of
that. She was the person who walked around with the petition; therefore, she is extremely familiar with
the petition and the history of this.
Ms. Gabel stated to be very specific the initial and bottom line here was always about being able to
rebuild your home. That was the most important part of why the rezoning took place. The other thing
that everybody addresses frequently and she hears it being addressed again is the density issue. In an
attempt to put it politely, the density issue has more to do with the rundown apartment buildings and the
type of neighborhood that was being created by some of the elements in the apartment buildings. She
believed currently Section 8 people will not even go live in most of those buildings. If you have ever
seen the doors that are open to some of them and looked inside, some of them are pretty bad. She
recognizes they are inspected. A tenant in there said, they do the minimum they have to do to meet Code.
The turnover is pretty dramatic. She does not think they are talking about a density issue as related to the
number of people so much as they are, what it was doing to the neighborhood. There have been DEA
agents running around the neighborhood and in and out of an apartment building. She was aware that in
this particular building there were drugs were sold. You would have had to be a little bit blind to have
missed it. This is the type of thing that goes on in there. She does not think it is density as much as it is
the issues that go with lack of maintenance and poorly kept buildings.
Chairperson Kondrick stated, it is about the quality of housing.
Ms. Gabel replied, exactly. She is not going to get into all the setbacks, etc. She thinks that is the
Commission's job to determine that. However, she does think that the text amendments keep things the
same but give multi-family property owners an opportunity. When she says, keep things the same, she
means they are not going to be adding any more high-density housing. That already exists there, but she
thinks it gives them the opportunity to have some new buildings and see some old things repaired and
rehabbed. It is going to take some time, but she thinks it would be a good thing for this neighborhood.
You are not going to make the density anymore than what is already existing, and they really do need
some cleanup in that neighborhood. She thinks it is going to take some new structures, redevelopment,
new buildings, or somebody to put some new money into the neighborhood to make it happen.
Ms. Gabel stated she is on the HRA and they are working on those lots in the neighborhood. They have
gotten some of them built but, again, the existing condition of the economy has brought that to a grinding
halt. She assumes that will go forward as the economy stabilizes and begins to pick up again. However,
she does not see this as harmful to the neighborhood at all because they are not increasing the number of
buildings. They are just allowing some new money and new development to replace some bad things that
currently exist. Therefore, she would really like to see this text amendment happen.
Janet Kreutter, 5916 — 2"d Street NE, stated she lives in Hyde Park. She does not think that anything
needs to be changed. Ms. Gabel is talking about bad areas. Every area has bad housing and has drugs.
The City of Fridley has codes to get rid of bad owners and bad buildings. If that is the issue, the City
should be taking care of that. You do not need to rezone. You do not need to reevaluate the writing. The
C�
writing is fine. It is there for a purpose. The other issues, the City should be taking care o£ That is their
job.
Karissah Bellagotti-DeSantis, 6144 — 5`� Street NE, lives in the Brandes Place town homes currently
owned by Common Bond and who get their vouches on people from Metro HR.A as well as Section 8.
The problem that she sees is the crime and the people who come in and basically kind of destroy the
community. Fridley is a nice community. For instance, in her situation she and her seven-year old son do
not feel safe anymore. She has been working with Section 8 to move. She did some checking into the
place that she lives at and, since when it was open in early 2005 until 2010, there have been 312 police
reports at this place. The majority of them are property damage to private things, such as vehicles, bikes,
or anything on the porch. She guessed there have been neighborhood disputes which are just neighbor to
neighbor. A lot of theft, and there have been some serious calls that are blocked out either due to the
ongoing investigations or they are just not public information. With this she had also received a letter
from the Section 8 coordinator in the City of Fridley and it states, "I have reviewed police reports to this
property and haven't found there is anything unusual for a complex of 16 units." Basically she is saying
the 312 police reports are not unusual. If this is not unusual, she would hate to see something just
extreme and out of the norm.
Ms. Bellagotti-DeSantis stated with her trying to move due to the safety concerns, she has gotten a letter
from Metro HRA stating that unfortunately, due to budget issues, no matter what your circumstances are
you are not able to move until further notice. This is Metro HRA and so it is not just in Fridley. She is
just asking that something be done about the crime and everything that is going on in these subsidized
housing units before anything else is built or brought to attention of councilmembers.
Chairperson Kondrick asked is she saying the crime issues she has issues with are occurring in the
Hyde Park area?
Ms. Bellagotti-DeSantis replied, no, they are happening in her area, Brandes Place.
Chairperson Kondrick asked her whether she has any problems there now?
Ms. Bellagotti-DeSantis replied, yes, she does.
Chairperson Kondrick stated so her content is crime rates are high at this present time.
Ms. Bellagotti-DeSantis replied, exactly.
Rick Anderson, 5948 - 2'/z Street, stated he agrees with a lot of what has been said tonight. We do have
high density in Hyde Park which, in his opinion, if they have a lot of people who are short-term residents
with no investment into the community, especially grouped into one area, there will be a lot of the issues
that have been talked about tonight like, poor upkeep on the housing, a lot more trash on the streets,
higher crime rates. Instead people who own a house are more invested in the community, invested in a
neighborhood.
Mr. Anderson stated, Ms. Gabel made a really good point by reinvesting in the apartment units they are
going to improve the neighborhood to some extent. We still do not have the neighborhood investment by
the citizens who are moving in. He would really like to see people who are invested in the neighborhood.
He has seen it continually go down hill for the last 15 years in their neighborhood. The trash is getting
worse, it is not what he wanted when he moved into Hyde Park. He would like to see it switch back. If
decreasing a few of the multi-family units will achieve that goal, then he supports that. He would prefer
if they do not continue adding more units.
7
Paul Slesar, 44 Locke Lake Road, stated he owns a duplex at 5835/5837 Main Street. There have been
no police calls at his place for the last five years. He tries to take care of the place. He lives a mile away
from it. There is one thing he discussed with Ms. Jones about is if his property were to be destroyed in a
fire or tornado, he would not be able to rebuild it as a duplex. He is a responsible landlord, the yard looks
decent, he tries to make sure the tenants are decent. However, if it burned and he could not build another
multi-family house, they would have a vacant lot that the City or County would end up getting in a couple
of years. He respects what the Commission is trying to do. He understands some of these peoples'
complaints but there are several landlords in the neighborhood who care about what is going on there.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Dunham.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:47
P.M.
Scott Hickok, Cornmunity Development Director, stated there is a statutory provision that talks about
replacing structures in the event of catastrophe. At one time, if the structure was damaged to 50 percent
or greater, it could not be replaced. That statute was amended and now allows the replacement of a twin
unit, for example, if it was damaged beyond 50 percent.
Mr. Hickok stated the distinction here in the Code is that part of what this amendment tries to do is
match that statutory requirement because right now the Hyde Park language does not. It takes that old
position of only allowing you to do it if it is damaged less than 50 percent.
Mr. Hickok stated some of the comments people are making are that there should be emphasis placed on
improvement of the units that are in Hyde Park. Frankly, there is a disincentive to do that because if you
own, for example, an eight-unit building that is sitting on a piece of land that can yield you two single-
family homes and your future would be those two single-family homes, how much incentive would there
be to do much to your property? It keeps going down in value, your reinvestment continues to dwindle,
and your competitive nature of the building dwindles. You have competition when you own buildings to
obtain good tenants. If you are not reinvesting in the building, the competition for the good tenant
becomes troublesome for a property owner. He thinks it is important that you understand the irony here
that what is being suggested in the text amendment is that folks be allowed to reinvest in their property.
Reinvestment beyond just putting a new roof or windows on, but actually significant reinvestment in the
property. That may allow them to compete on a better playing field, a higher level. To compete for
tenants who will certainly respect and take care of the property. When the building starts to go into
serious disrepair, it is reflected in the rents and it can bring other problems.
Mr. Hickok stated there is a bit of irony here in that what is being suggested in the Hyde Park language is
an opportunity to basically allow people to reinvest in the properties that are there. It does not take away
any values to the single-family owners except it does provide for them added lot coverage opportunity
and reduced setbacks so they, too, can reinvest in their homes. If they are right at 25 percent lot coverage
and, for example, they look over to the Gateway West development and say, hey, there are some neat
things happening with those homes, I wish I could build a family room and that added 10 percent might
altow them to do the family room. It is not meant to be an imposition on them, it is meant to clear up the
Code, provide them added opportunity, and it is really in part to inspire reinvestment in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Dunham asked Mr. Hickok, if for example, his duplex were to burn down, would he stip
be able to build a duplex by current State statute, despite what the current language says.
Mr. Hickok replied, he can, What the distinction would be there is that, according to the Statute, he can
rebuild it. He cannot geographically expand it, but he can put back on the land what he lost.
Commissioner Dunham stated so a lot of the concerns about increased density does not exist. You
cannot put more units there, but he can rebuild the units he had.
Mr. Hickok replied, in that particular case he absolutely could.
Commissioner Dunham asked, same if it is an eight unit?
Mr. Hickok replied, yes. He thinks what the confusion comes in on the density is that folks are saying,
look, we are hoping to have all of the multi-family to go away and it can be replaced by single family.
What would be the incentive for a multi-family building owner? If you own eight units on a lot that can
only accommodate two, maybe three single-family units, would you take away eight units to replace it
with three units? Would the yield be worth it for you and would you actually do it or would you just keep
competing at whatever level you could on a building you are not reinvesting in. He thinks there is a
disincentive here to fix up properties and folks are worried that if they fix the units back up, they will be
here forever. They will be here forever anyways but in a very bad condition for fear that once they take it
down, they are going to replace it with a much less yield, with two, three units on that small lot as
opposed to being able to rebuild the eight units again.
Commissioner Dunham stated and, again, you cannot prevent them from doing it anyways.
Mr. Hickok replied, no, you cannot. If something catastrophic happens to it, even if somebody takes
their own building down to the foundation, they have eight units, they are entitled to eight units. The
code change is meant to match the statutory provisions already given to folks.
Commissioner Saba stated that was the main issue was about the replacement.
Commissioner Velin stated he is concerned about the police calls and the maintenance. It sounds to him
the City is not doing that good of a job on some of these units.
Commissioner Oquist stated as he read through the changes, it seems like they are bringing it up to date
and cleaning up some of the language, and making it so it will be a more viable area with the rest of the
ordinances that they do have.
Chairperson Kondrick replied, he agrees.
Commissioner Sielaff stated, as long as we are consistent with Statutes. He would have to agree with the
text amendment. He thinks it helps the neighborhood substantially. If he knew 50 percent of them did
not want it, he would be opposed to it. From what he sees it is good.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist approving Text Amendment TA #11-04, by the City of Fridley, for
the S-1, Hyde Park Neighborhood zoning district for the purpose of making existing non-conforming uses
permitted uses, as well as minor corrections to the existing text. Seconded by Commissioner Dunham.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
0
2. Consideration of a Public Hearing for Text Amendment TA #11-03, by the City of Fridley
to consider the creation of a transit oriented development (TOD) overlay zoning district
near the Northstar train station, according to the map provided.
MOTION by Commissioner Velin to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:57
P.M.
Julie Jones, Planning Manager, stated the purpose of this district really goes back to the 2030
Comprehensive Plan and the work that went into that document. When staff went through the process,
there was a lot of emphasis and interest in creating a walkable downtown in the City of Fridley. They had
chosen to focus on 57`" Avenue as that area, and there are things in the Comprehensive Plan about
connecting Medtronic Parkway to East River Road. In relation to that, staff feels a strong purpose in this
proposed overlay zoning district is to strengthen the ties between those commercial properties on 57`�
Avenue to the Northstar train station.
Ms. Jones stated they also are very interested in tying the train station with the 50 businesses that are
within one mile of the station. There are a lot more jobs in Fridley than people in the job market, and
staff sees that train station not only serving a purpose of getting commuters into the central City to
employment in Minneapolis but also getting employees living north of here to jobs here in Fridley.
Ms. Jones stated staff is also interested in improving the pedestrian and bicycle connections to the
Northstar train station for the over 1,400 dwelling units within a one-half mile of the train station. Those
folks can bike and walk to that train station when they want to use it. Staff sees a need to create a
neighborhood identity around the Northstar station. Right now a lot of people do not even know it is
there. She stated another focus that came out of the Comprehensive Plan was the need for creating more
life cycle housing in the community, and staff feels the area around the train station is perfect for that.
Ms. Jones stated another driving force behind development of the TOD district is the legislation that was
approved a couple of sessions back to allow Fridley to be the only city in the State of Minnesota that is
allowed to create a transit tax increment financing district. Staff sees this as a great amenity to the City
because, if a transit district is created, the increment from any redevelopment in this district can be used to
fund infrastructure around the train station - things like trails, sidewalks, lighting, etc. When that happens
in that area, staff wants to make sure that the surrounding future development ties into those changes the
City would be implementing or the HRA would be implementing related to that potential TIF district.
Ms. Jones stated another factor supporting staff's efforts in putting this overlay district language together
is the fact that Fridley is part of the Anoka County State Health Improvement Program (SHIP) grant
program which is causing staff to study the City and look at its needs as far as pedestrian and bicycle
connections to support recreation and also to support people walking and biking to work or to places like
the train station to get to work. Also, Fridley is partnering with Anoka County currently in studying the
East River Road corridor. Much of that corridor includes the area that they are proposing be in the TOD
overlay district. Looking at the design needs is causing them to look at multi-modal transit connection
needs within this part of the community.
Ms. Jones stated the boundary of the district that they are proposing is going to be within a half mile of
the train station, south to the 57�' Avenue commercial area. It includes property that the Fridley HRA
currently owns along University Avenue on the far east end of the proposed district. It also includes
property that the HRA currently owns within the Hyde Park neighborhood along Third Street.
10
Ms. Jones stated the overlay district is a set of standards that is in addition to the underlying zoning
standards of a property. If a property is zoned C-2, Commercial, those standards would apply; and these
TOD standards would be in addition to those underlying zoning standards. A developer coming in would
need to submit a TOD plan, as is done now in the S-2 redevelopment zoning district. The developer
would submit a TOD plan which then would have to be reviewed by this Commission and the City
Council.
Ms. Jones stated staff is proposing there are basic design criteria that they would have to meet. What
they are proposing as far as the permitted use sections of this, they have not delineated individual set uses
as they are familiar with in the undertying zoning district language. They started to do that when they
created that language but they feared they were going to miss something that might be an essential use
they would like to see or someone would want to propose in the district. Instead they focused on
improving the language a little bit on excluded uses in the district but are leaving it up to the Council to
have final approval in the plan to decide what would be a permitted use in the proposed overlay district.
However, in set design criteria. There are exceptions to certain things. This is designed to apply only to
new development, redevelopment, or additions. The addition itself would be subject to the new criteria
laid forth in this Code language.
Ms. Jones stated fpllowing the HRA meeting recently and having the HRA review the requirements, a
suggestion was made to take another look at industrial properties. Since that meeting staff has made an
exception in the proposed Code language for additions to industrial properties. Staff agreed with the
HRA that this was a good change to make. In the TOD requirements as they are, there is this 15-foot
maximum front yard setback. If the City were to require an existing building to do that, they might end
up with a very odd-shaped addition which really does not meet the purposes they need the addition for.
Also, the City has had an exception for individual detached single-family properties in the Hyde Park
neighborhood. In other words, if a single-family home property owner in the Hyde Park neighborhood
wants to tear down their home and build new, they would not be required to submit a TOD plan or meet
some of these setbacks and design criteria proposed.
Ms. Jones stated this language staff is proposing really mirrors the language that is in the existing
commercial Zoning Code sections where the City is allowing increased lot coverage - particularly if they
have structured parking or in cases where the developer finances public infrastructure elsewhere in the
district. She showed an example of a TOD-styled development in Maple Grove, where, in one area of the
development, they set aside a very extensive plaza area that everyone in the whole commercial area can
share. It is a place for the employees to come and have lunch or for the public to enjoy. The City is
allowing for something like that to occur where a developer could finance that infrastructure possibly
somewhere else, not on their lot, but in the TOD area for the public to enjoy.
Ms. Jones stated the main change in this district that is very different than what the City has in its other
zoning districts is the setback reyuirements. Instead of having a minimum setback requirement in the
CiTy's other zoning sections, it is requiring that setbacks be no greater than 15 feet for a front yard
setback, requiring buildings to be brought closer to the street and making them more pedestrian-oriented.
Buildings also could be no further back than 15 feet on both sides of a corner if you had a corner properly.
Because the City has some properties along 57�' Avenue and 57`�' Place that have double frontage, staff
clarified in the proposed Code language that the required corner setback would only apply to one corner
on a double-frontage situation.
Ms. Jones stated another design criteria section is the height. Height is proposed to be limited by the
underlying zoning district - with the exception of Hyde Park. Staff is not sure why, but in Hyde Park
zoning, the height restriction is at 30 feet; whereas, in the R-1 Code it is 45 feet. Staff does not feel any
11
reason why Hyde Park should be different as far as height restrictions than other single-family areas. She
showed an example of a two-story townhouse styled structure that would likely be prohibited by the 30-
foot height limit.
Ms. Janes stated as far as building design, details proposed in the Code language include: Orienting
buildings to the street, no blank walis facing streets or public spaces, on street sides there be at minimum
50 percent of the linear space used for window openings and those windows to be at a pedestrian level,
loading docks be in the side or the rear yard, and use of high quality building materials.
Ms. Jones stated as far as parking requirements, the parking would need to be located in the rear or the
side of the building because of the strict front yard setback. Accommodations need to be made to provide
bicycle parking and to have it easily accessible and visible. There are allowances and encouragement in
the Code to share parking or to build �arking structures. Allowances are made for parking reductions. In
fact the Code language even prohibits excessive parking. They would only be allowed to go up to 120
percent of what the underlying zoning district parking requirements would be.
Ms. Jones stated as far as landscaping, they are trying to be lenient in the landscaping area of this Code
language because we know reducing setbacks limits the amount of green space that is available to meet
the City's very strict landscaping requirements that it has in the underlying zoning language for
commercial and industrial properties. The City is allowing some substitutions to be made in this language
allowing smaller tree varieties to be used in place of the over-story tree requirements and allowing a
developer to put money into a streetscape fund that the City is calling its "TOD Capital Project Fund."
For example, if they were required to put 50 trees on their proposed property but they only have room to
put in 25, in place of that remaining 25 trees they are required to put in, they could pay a set amount into
this TOD capital project fund. That money could then be used to put streetscape improvements around
their property or other places within the TOD zoning district. Maybe it would be used for decorative
lighting or some special planters somewhere in a public plaza that is close by to try and create some
flexibility but still provide some amenities within the district that create some visual interest.
Ms. Jones stated as far as streetscaping, the City is requiring 5-foot sidewalks to be provided in
redevelopments with clear pedestrian connections required. On driveways with connecting sidewalks on
each end, the City is requiring a colorized pedestrian walkway. Also required is pedestrian-oriented
lighting to make things safe for folks walking in the area. As staff looked at various TOD-type
developments they did not see electronic signs anywhere. They put in a requirement to have no electronic
signs which are really designed for view from great distances away. The requirements of decorative
features, such as lighting and planters, would need to be approved by the City in order that it keeps that
consistent neighborhood Northstar identity throughout the TOD district.
Ms. Jones stated they also made an allowance for special use permits for outdoor sales. Staff wanted to
create a possibility that you could apply for a special use permit to do some sort of outdoor market, such
as a farmers market or art fair. However, staff needed to create some parameters around it. Therefore,
they still kept the special use requirement in place for that so that it could be reviewed. As long as the site
had adequate parking and could create a safe place for something like this, they thought they would want
to encourage that in a TOD district to create some life and activity in the TOD area
Ms. Jones stated they did also put in a special requirement regarding maintenance. There are some
additional maintenance requirements in this proposed Code language than what the City has in its other
sections of Code that would ensure that our transit station area and the landscaping is maintained.
Typically in developments the City has had those details addressed in the development agreement, but
they just wanted to make it very clear to any developer submitting a TOD plan that they would be
expected to take care of public spaces adjoining their property.
12
Ms. Jones stated this text amendment, like the previous one they were discussing, is scheduled to have
another public hearing before the City Council on February 7. The first reading would be scheduled at
the subsequent Council meeting on February 14. The second reading would be at the March 14 Council
meeting.
Chairperson Kondrick asked Ms. Jones'to put up the TOD district map.
Commissioner Dunham asked the purpose of doing this in advance is just to define development that
would be consistent?
Ms. Jones replied, yes. There are no proposals before the City. No redevelopment plans at this time
related to this proposed language. This is something staff has been working on for probably four years to
get prepared for when the economy picks up and when development does occur. Most of it is related to
the TIF district and expecting that to happen. The City does have one vacant piece of property in the
district that we hope to see developed. They already have a master plan approved and in place. The City
is also expecting some redevelopment on the Cub Foods site. They, too, have a redevelopment plan in
place and will not be affected by this language because they already have their plans approved.
Ms. Jones stated, however, for future proposals that come in, the City wants to make sure that those
proposals match in character what is envisioned and to make sure the infrastructure improvements are
fnanced through that TIF district. Therefore, if the City is going to be investing hundreds of thousands of
dollars in special decorative lighting, style of sidewalk or trail, and landscaping, we want to make sure it
is consistent throughout this area. The City wants to be prepared for when development does occur. It is
a little too late, once a proposal is in front of us, to be coming up with the design criteria. The City was
very fortunate in the Cub redevelopment proposal, because the developer was willing to work with the
City and implemented a lot of the design features we are looking for. The City may not be so lucky with
the next developer if it does not have something like this in place.
Commissioner Dunham asked are we sure we don't want any signs in the proposal?
Ms. Jones replied, that is just no "changeable electronic" signs.
Commissioner Oquist asked, all existing ordinances, etc. apply. This is on top of that, giving some
additional restrictions or conditions, correct?
Ms. Jones replied, that is correct.
Commissioner Sielaff asked, this is a tax increment district too, does it coincide with the boundaries of
the TOD?
Ms. Jones replied, that is a different boundary. The proposed TIF district boundaries do not include atl of
the area that is proposed to be in the TOD overlay. However, everything within the proposed TIF
boundaries is included in the TOD overlay.
Commissioner Sielaff asked, does it cover just certain types of development, commercial?
Ms. Jones replied, it could be all types of development, commercial, residential, a mixed use
development.
13
David Rust, 5735 Quincy Street NE, stated he has properly at 262 — 57`h Place. He is not affected by this
because he is in a commercial zone. He got assessed about $12,000 a few years ago for street
improvements on 57`h Avenue. Now, none of those improvements are being maintained. The lights go on
and off, and a lot of the trees have been cut down and not replaced. There are trees within 5 feet of power
poles with the bark falling off of them. You call the City about trimming those trees, they do not do
anything. There are outlets hanging by the wires on those boulevards. This new ordinance is going to
mandate all this stuff and then within five years is won't be taken care of. He thinks it looks worse now
than it would have if nothing was done at all. He tried to ask before what the plan was for maintenance,
and everybody evaded the issue. Nobody takes care of it.
Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton Avenue NE, stated she opposes the transit oriented development district.
This proposed overlay district would drastically change the character of the Hyde Park neighborhood.
Although not a resident or property owner in the subject area, she offers her concerns as a private
property owner and taxpayer living in Fridley. Some overlay districts are designed to lightly blanket an
area and provide additional protections for natural resources such as the creek and river preservation
district overlay. This overlay is designed to be heavy-handed so as to suffocate the underlying zoning and
allow for the creation of high-density mixed use development. The current S-1 zoning would deny those
uses and was designed specifically to do so.
Ms. Reynolds stated the previous hearing on TA # 11-04 and this are very much intertwined. The
redevelopment overlay would leave the Hyde Park neighborhood open to undefined redevelopment. The
proposed language is more concerned with architectural features and fagade treatment than the defining of
permitted uses. S-2 redevelopment zoning is designed to benefit developers not the private property
owner. While she was researching this, the information supplied to the HRA said that it would most
mimic S-2 zoning. This evening Ms. Jones has changed that to say it would most mimic Commercial.
Now I'm confused. The proposed overlay district is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Chapter 6, Transportation Plan, does not mention its creation nor is it listed as an action item requiring
official control in Chapter 14, Section 14.1. Minnesota Statute § 473.865 states in Subdivision 2, no
conflict with plan. A local governmental unit shall not adopt any official control or fiscal device which in
conflict with its comprehensive plan.
Ms. Reynolds stated her understanding of State Statute as it deals with comprehensive plans is there is no
requirement to go forward with any kind of proposal and instituting the official control unless it appears
in that plan. Many times she has heard this body refer to a plan as being consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. In other words, meaning it is in there. The Hyde Park neighborhood already meets
the goals of this overlay. High density and multi-family housing, mixed income uses, and walkability to
shopping, transportation, and recreation. Another goal of this overlay is to promote life cycle elements by
creating a place where you coutd live without a car. However, the proposed language fails to address the
obvious encumbrances to the plan. Minnesota winters, four to six months where walking anywhere is
impeded by Mother Nature. The plan fails to address snow removal or snow storage issues created by
increasing density, other than to shift the responsibility for sidewalk maintenance to the property owner,
further complicating the lives of many seniors who live in this neighborhood.
Ms. Reynolds stated, after researching TOD's for the past six years, it is her opinion that this proposed
TOD does not meet the basic criteria for TOD's found elsewhere, such as Chicago, Seattle, and Portland.
An example of an area close by that does meet the criteria would be the light rail system in Minneapolis.
The area of proposal does not have large masses of people needing mass transit located close to where
they live. Instead it would strive to create large masses of people to shore up the underused, over
budgeted, and heavily taxpayer-subsidized system which is our commuter rail. It is unlikely that people
are going to come in on the commuter rail. In fact it is not really possible for residents to come in on the
commuter rail, get off, go do some shopping, go to the farmers market, do all these things, and jump back
14
on. The same as it is with the light rail where there are multiple trains running at multiple times. In all
fairness she would point out that in the last couple of years, the criteria have been expanded in TOD's to
include shoring up ridership of rail transit. This is no doubt a mechanism for government entities across
America to wipe the egg from the faces when dealing with failing transit systems.
Ms. Reynolds stated she would ask that the Planning Commission not support this. If you build it, they
will come, concept being proposed. The proposed TOD language has a discriminatory tone. Although
the ordinance language which states the purpose for the change in language calls for inclusion of a one-
half mile radius from the station, it focuses heavily on the Hyde Park neighborhood. Or perhaps in the
future it is the intention of deve(opment staff to expand its borders once they have this ordinance in place
that includes the language, one-half mile radius. She plotted this half-mile area onto a map, and the
results were quite scary. This language could drastically change the character of other neighborhoods -
the Bonney neighborhood, Sylvan Hills, Edgewater Garden, Rivers Edge Way, Ashton, Uplands, and the
Lakeview neighborhood, all possibly encroached upon as part of this overlay district.
Ms. Reynolds stated imagine the reaction of the Rivers Edge Way property owners who recently secured
a zoning change from R-3 to R-1 when they are notified of expansion of this superceding overlay district.
One of her greatest concerns with this overlay district is in the previous hearing, the Planning
Commission moved forward with the changes irr the zoning language. If this is approved, it does not
matter, because this supercedes that language which means that now a developer could come in and say,
well, I'm going to buy up all these houses and I'm going to build row houses because that is what the City
wants. However, the S-1 underlying would not allow that.
Ms. Reynolds stated her fnal issue is based on the process for this evening's hearing. The proper owners
in Hyde Park were deluged with notices from the City. These notices included one for street
improvement, one for TA #11-03, and one for minor changes to their S-1 zoning. However, they were
not provided with the text of the proposed ordinances until this evening. Although perhaps a useful tactic
for the development staff to create confusion, she finds it unconscionable to ask these citizens to attend a
hearing without having the opportunity to view the proposed language and prepare the comments,
whether pro or con, prior to tonight's meeting. They are being offered only one side of the story. The
side development staff wants them to hear. She would further offer that this process does little to foster
transparency in government and totally fails in creating open and honest dialogue with the citizens of
Fridley. She would ask that the Commission deny this proposal; thereby protecting the rights of the
Fridley citizens who call this neighborhood home and fought so diligently to secure the S-1 zoning.
Mike Flynn, 1220 Mississippi Street, he does not live in Hyde Park but he shares a lot of the concerns
Ms. Reynolds had. His main concern is the cost. A little bit here and there and these costs will be borne
by businesses and then residents, etc. He suspects this is going to require a lot of subsidies: Fridley, State,
and Federal. Do we know if that is the case?
Chairperson Kondrick stated he would imagine.
Mr. Flynn stated he would assume so, too. When you consider the current, $14 trillion federal debt as
well as over $8 billion in Minnesota, basically he sees it as the same thing, an excuse to prop up the
Northstar. He has lived all over the country. The last place he lived was Washington, D.C. He grew up
in Portland, Oregon. All of his siblings are out there. They just raised their rates, their fares; and their
subsidies, their property taxes, and some other taxes, business taxes, etc. specifically because of the rider-
ship issues. What happens if Northstar is defunded? What happens if Northstar goes away in five years?
Look at the debt of this country and this state. It is incredible.
15
Mr. Flynn stated there was an election back in November. This is not just related to Northstar. This is
related to what is going on in this country and the funding of all this. Specifically, the average taxpayer
subsidy for a one-way trip is $18.74. Almost $38 round trip, and that does not even take into account all
of the capital expenditures. The Anoka County Regional Authority recently voted to increase its tax levy
up to 45 percent to pay for this, and also to try and push an expansion out to St. Cloud which he thinks is
absolutely insane, having lived around the country and seen this. We are ignoring history.
Mr. Flynn stated look at light rail; it does not work. It is the most expensive form of mass transit, and
now we are going to go ahead and throw all the eggs in the basket right over here. He would like to know
if they are assuming it is too big to fail? What happens if it fails? Has anybody ever considered that or
are we assuming if, by doing this, they cannot possibly let it fail because all those poor people would then
be upset, lose their houses, etc. To sit here and just ignore the reality of history and the finances in this
state and country, he thinks it is unconscionable that there is any reason to even continue with this. There
is no reason to do this now. He has no problem with progress. He is very much for it, but he is against
any attempts to try and sustain or promote a failing entity which this is. It is not going to work. He
would love to see it fail just because it is going to take this off their back.
Mr. Flynn stated currently if you add capital and operating costs for Northstar, it comes to almost $47
one-way trip. That was back in Juty. We could provide some nice comfortable cars, pay for the parking
and garage, and still have money left over.
John Anderson, 5909 — 2nd Street NE, stated he has appeared before Council both in Fridley and
Columbia Heights in his capacity as chairman of House District 58 Republicans. He is here as a citizen
who lives in Hyde Park. He does want to dispute one thing that the previous speaker said and that is,
Northstar has already failed. It was never something that was ever going to work. It got to the point
where even Ms. Jones stated, a lot of people do not even know that it is there.
Mr. Anderson stated this TOD district is designed to do what Ms. Reynolds said, which is to increase
rider ship of Northstar, a failed project that will continue to fail and continue to hemorrhage the State and
the City and, even our federal government, with any grants they might get. This is actually the real risk to
the character of Hyde Park. What we have here is a big circle right around an area making everything all
encompassing. To make Hyde Park on equal status with some of the commercial areas on East River
Road on the other side of University, really does not make any sense and this type of TOD district is just
an act of laziness from the staff. You need to look at areas, appropriately zone them for what are the best
uses for that area. The TOD district is simply a face saving technique for the Northstar rail system.
Rick Anderson, 5948 — 2'/z Street, stated when Ms. Jones spoke about increasing the height limits from
30 feet to 45 feet, that was for single-family units or multi-family units, two levels? And the City is
adding an extra 15 feet for parking garage, is that correct?
Ms. Jones stated the 45 feet would apply to everything in the Hyde Park area. .
Mr. Anderson asked whether any building can be built to 45 feet?
Ms. Jones replied any building could be built at a 45 ft. height, which is the same restriction that is in the
City's single-family zoning language in the City Code.
Mr. Anderson stated with the example she showed the vision he had was a row of houses like you see in
St. Paul with no room between the yard. It's becoming very impersonal and he wants to know if that is
the direction they are heading.
16
Chairperson Kondrick stated he thinks that was just one example. There could be 50 different examples
that could go on in that neighborhood. It is tough to say right now.
Audrey Nelson, 250 - 61S` Avenue, stated she lives in the Hyde Park area. Her main concern is that the
people in the Hyde Park area and on the East River road side of the rail station have no incentive to even
ride the train because you can get on the metro transit bus on 61S` and University and get downtown to
your destination approximately six minutes faster than if you take the rail and you can get closer to your
destination taking the bus. There is no incentive for somebody who works further away than where it
stops at Target field.
Ms. Nelson stated also, what incentive do you have to bring people into Fridley and where are they going
to come from? They are not going to take the train from the City of Anoka/Coon Rapids to come to
Fridley into this little shopping area that has a Cub Foods, if they manage to stay in business and other
little shops. There is no incentive for anybody to come to this area. Do you really think the people who
live in this area are going to be able to sustain any businesses that may come into that area?
Ms. Nelson stated another concern that she has is with the reduced 15 setbacks. Is this area going to be
geared more towards an adult neighborhood where children will not be able to play because it is all
concrete?
Ms. Nelson stated she is all for redevelopment, but she doesn't think this is going to work.
Karissah Bellagotti-DeSantis, 6144 — 5`�' Street NE, stated nobody said anything about what this is going
to cost, the amount that is proposed for this. She is worried about existing concerns in the community,
how much money is going to be set aside to take care of existing issues before new issues arise as a result
of the proposed change.
Pat Gabel, 5947 - 2'/Z Street NE, stated there is some confusion. Along Main Street is there not
currently industrial property?
Ms. Jones replied, yes.
Mr. Gabel stated so they could build businesses that could have a lot of truck traffic and things that
would be a lot less desirable. She sees a lot of truck traffc now going through their neighborhood. In
terms of redeveloping that into something more friendly in the neighborhood, the industrial use would
certainly be less friendly to the neighborhood.
Ms. Gabel asked about the TIF fund, she thinks there is a lot of confusion. She hears people talking
about taxpayers' money to be used for this. She knows TIF is kind of a difficult subject to wrap your
mind around but, if we do this TIF district, the increment will pay for the things that we are talking about,
the infrastructure, correct?
Ms. Jones replied, right.
Ms. Gabel stated but we are not stating that the overlay is going to turn Hyde Park into a TIF district,
correct?
Ms. Jones replied, correct.
17
Ms. Gabel stated that any redevelopment that would happen would come about because the owner has
chosen to do so. It would not be something that the City would be forcing down anybody's throat,
because there would be no reason to do it and, secondly, the financing would not be there, correct?
Ms. Jones replied, right.
Ms. Gabel stated she is hearing some comments here tonight that she really has to take issue with. She
thinks the rhetoric is scarier than the map. She does not understand why people are attempting to frighten
people into something that could be really very good for this neighborhood. This neighborhood needs to
move forward. She has lived there for many years and she has seen what were hopes for what would
actually happen just by setting up an S-1 district and saying, we were never going to allow anything to be
rebuilt, except single-family homes and eventually things will redevelop and that will happen. Well,
guess what, it is not happening and it is not going to happen totally on its own. However, she thinks there
de�nitely could be some impetus for people to make those improvements if there are good things
happening around us.
Ms. Gabel stated her biggest nightmare is that Hyde Park sits in the middle of some good stuff and
becomes blighted. She thinks it is important that they are part of this and that we all go forward together.
She really is in favor of this. She thinks it is the very best thing that could happen to Hyde Park. She
does not have any illusions this is going to happen in the next year, maybe not even the next five years.
It's probably going to take a couple of decades. That is fine. But you have to start somewhere. She
thinks their goals are great and she hopes it all happens.
Rick Bistodeau, 101 — 57'�' Place, asked why does their neighborhood keep being brought up on stuff like
this? The businesses are not going to be able to afford the property tax hike for all the decorations that
are proposed for the light rail that is not being used. That parking lot is never full, there are usually only
ten cars there. Do they really need to decorate this area for something that is not being used? That is his
concern.
Joanne Zmuda, 6051 Fourth Street NE, stated she has seen four different boundaries for the TOD Map.
One is up to University, one is the service road on the east side of University, one is the east side of
Fourth Street, and if they did a half-mile radius it would bring it out to Sixth Street. What area are we
talking about here?
Chairperson Kondrick reptied, they are going by the one they were presented with tonight, with the
dotted lines.
Ms. Zmuda stated she can see the dotted line which shows her that it is on the service road on the east
side. However, in some of the maps she has seen it has been up to University. If they do a half-mile
radius it would be up to Sixth Street.
Commissioner Oquist stated the half-mile radius does not defne what they are talking about. That is not
the TOD. It has to be defined by the boundaries, not the half-mile radius.
Chairperson Kondrick stated for the purpose of this item this evening, it includes the boundaries as
outlined on that map.
Ms. Zmuda stated but there are other ones, too. When do they want to make this a Northstar
neighborhood identity and a livable community and a walkable community? We have five months of
winter. Who is going to be out walking for all the money that we are going to be sticking into this. The
bike traits, bike racks, walking trails, life cycle housing. Now they say the buildings cannot go past 45
18
feet. What happens if some big shot developer comes out here and wants to put up a high-rise? Who's to
say that cannot happen? We know how Fridley operates; what seems to be is not always what is.
Chairperson Kondrick stated what is being proposed is allowing different types of uses, but there are
restrictions too.
Ms. Zmuda stated that could change. How do you make an S-1 area like an R-1 area? R-lis residential;
S-1 is mixed. How are they compatible if you are not changing the character of the neighborhood?
Anyways, she would like to know what the east side boundary is going to be.
Janet Kreutter, 5916 — 2"d Street NE, stated she went on-line to try and fgure out how to go to the Home
Improvement show down at the Convention Center. To take it, you go to your little Fridley station and
you get on hoard. There were three timeframes in a 24-hour period. Not only that, it drops you off at the
Target Center. Fram Target Center you jump onto an MTC bus and you go to Mall of America. From
Mall of America you go to the Convention Center. She is not that dumb to take that much time when she
can just jump on the MTC and get to the Convention Center. The light rail is not convenient. It is not a
good thing. If you are going north, good luck, they do not even run twice a day during the day. It is a
failed situation. If the Commission passes this she would like to see them take this once a week
anywhere. They do not run consistently enough to utilize. People with small children are not going to
take the light rail. If you have a child that gets sick, you need convenient transportation to get back to that
child. Light rail is not convenient.
Mark Kreutter, 5916 — 2"d Street NE, stated his head hurts. He cannot understand where is this coming
from. Why do they need this? We cannot keep up with the interstates, the roads, the maintenance that we
have already. Now we are going to be introducing more? Your fathers, mothers, grandfathers, people in
this audience built these roads for us to use. We cannot even maintain them. How are we going to do
something like this in this economy? For the last 10-12 years it has been outstanding. It has been above
normal. Who says what we are in right now is not normal. Maybe it is normal. Maybe it is going to get
worse before it gets better. He does not know where this money is coming from but they are going to tax
people right out of here. This is not a high-priced neighborhood by any means.
Mr. Kreutter stated all good ideas have to be paid for. There are two types of changes: the
mental/emotional and cash change. Where is that coming from? You have donors willing to stand up and
pay for some of this stuff? You got builders ready to come in here and say, oh yah, we'll put up buildings
for you? All you have to do is maintain them? They heard from a gentleman here this evening stating
there are live outlets dangling off of light posts, the lights are flickering on and off, and there are tree
stumps. Whoever is coming up with these ideas, they better look at replacing them and just saying, your
job is null and void because we have taken problems into our own hands and taken care of them today.
Not next year's problems. We have enough issues. We do not need more.
Mr. Kreutter stated why doesn't the City look at making money instead of spending it. He will give
them a million dollar idea. There is a vacant gas station down here on University and 63`d. Why not put
somebody who has graduated mechanical school in there. Say to them, listen, we will give you this
building for three-five years and you operate it as a business. If we have anything light industrial for you
that we can bring our City vehicles in for you to service, we will take that off the money you owe us and
that is how you will pay. After a three to fve-year period it is all yours. Now you owe us taxes. Do like
we do in northern Minnesota. Create a business zone. Is that too much of an idea? Rather than spending
money on something that is frivolous, is never going to be paid for, and nobody is going to use; start
making money instead of spending it.
Chairperson Kondrick stated they are not talking about financing the Northstar rail system.
19
Mr. Kreutter replied, he is not talking about financing it neither.
Chairperson Kondrick asked him what monies is he talking about?
Mr. Kreutter asked, are developers going to come in without incentives to build all these things? No.
What is their incentive to build something that is not going to work in their mind?
Chairperson Kondrick stated that will be up to them to decide.
Mr. Kreutter asked, why is the City wasting everybody's time?
Chairperson Kondrick stated this paves the way for them so they can do something if they want to.
That is the idea.
Mr. Kreutter asked, well, are you putting the horse before the cart?
Commissioner Oquist stated, they are being proactive at this time.
Mr. Kreutter asked, how are you being proactive? We have problems they cannot solve today.
Commissioner Oquist stated they are anticipating what may happen in the future. They are not spending
any money. This is so they can have control somewhat over that area when developers come in.
Mr. Kreutter asked, why doesn't the City get together with Met Council and whoever is running this
show, come in and offer everybody in that area, we will give you so much for your house, quit claim
deed, you are gone, goodbye, it is ours. Up to University.
Commissioner Oquist asked, why would they want to do that?
Mr. Kreutter replied, it sounds like that is what they want to do.
Commissioner Oquist stated, no, not at all.
Mr. Kreutter stated they are by Parson's Electric. When they have their Christmas party, the parking is
full all the way from their business on Main Street up to Third Street. If the City's projections are
thinking about building these markets and things like that, where is that parking going to go?
Commissioner Oquist stated they are not going to build anything. They are just paving the way for it.
Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Kreutter whether he thinks things might be worse than they are five
years from today? We do not know either, but they want to plan for tomorrow. He wants to stay on track
with this issue. They have no control over the fnancing of the Northstar rail or how frequently those
trains run or any of those things. That is not what they are talking about. They are talking about making
this an area whereby people could do something if they wanted to. That is the idea. Especially in Mr.
Kreutter's area so they can make your area one where homeowners can reinvest and expand.
Chairperson Kondrick stated they are trying to make Fridley a better place to live and the Hyde Park
area a better place to live and make people want to live there. To make the whole area very accessible
and to encourage businesses to build there and to make our community a thriving one. They are just
trying to lay some of the ground work there to make that happen.
20
Commissioner Saba stated and to be more pedestrian friendly. People do not have to worry about traffic
and trucks. They have complained about for years about all the traffic. Now they are trying to reduce the
traffic and try to make this whole City more pedestrian friendly, especially this area they are talking about
here. They are not building one thing.
Paul Slesar, 44 Locke Lake Road, stated they did kind of get undulated with a variety of different letters
from the City regarding three public hearings. It would have been really nice to get this information
mailed to them at the time they got the letters notifying them of the public hearings. It would have given
them an opportunity to study and be a little bit more informed when they came in. He stated he has
property in multiple cities, he goes to a few of these hearings a year, and they typically give this sort of
stuff from the other cities so he knows what they talk about when they go into these meetings.
Ms. Reynolds asked regarding the TIF district, Ms. Jones said it did not include Hyde Park. Did it not
reach into Hyde Pack; the green map?
Ms. Jones replied, no, it does not include Hyde Park.
Ms. Reynolds asked, what about the HRA properties that are there. She thought they qualified under the
scattered site housing TIF.
Ms. Jones replied, that is a completely different TIF district.
Mr. Hickok stated the scattered site program is a different TIF district completely. The transit oriented
district only goes over to Main Street and up as was illustrated on that earlier map. You do not want to
mix the scattered site housing district which would allow up to 100 houses to be purchased throughout the
City in that program - not just Hyde Park - that is throughout the City and 22 homes have been purchased
through that program already. That is a different district completely. It is not the transit TIF district.
Ms. Reynolds asked, if the TIF district stops at Main Street, where is the incentive for developers to
develop in Hyde Park if they cannot get TIF free tax dollars for 15, 25 years?
Mr. Hickok replied that is the purpose of a TOD, to provide the flexibility for developers to be interested
to come in. The City is not offering them dollars or subsidy; it would be their dollars. To make it clear,
commuter rail, it is heavy rail, it is not light rail. They have heard people betting on and hoping even that
the train would not work; but they are also hearing people saying that the economic conditions in our City
are dreadful and throughout the state and nation. They have also seen the demonstration that Hyde Park
has done nothing in terms of producing anything new in offering incentive. Nor have some of the areas
around it done anything to offer incentive for developers to come in.
Mr. Hickok stated they have heard other citizens say they would like to see some change, see some new
tax generating entities come to town, and see some flexibility that would allow them to do that. Maybe
banking on Northstar is not right. However, staff is not saying the City is putting out a lot of money
banking on that either. It would be the private market that would come forward and the TIF district
would provide infrastructure improvements that would be in the boundaries themselves. For example, on
the JLT 25-acre site, they might get a more dense development, one that the City can be more proud of,
that would generate more taxes and help us out of a tax situation where we need revenue. We are trying to
fnd revenues. A new development there that actually has some tax-generating potential, TIF generating
potential, that money could go back into the project to entice the developer to do something even bigger,
better, more grand. That would help the City a lot. That would put revenues in the pot that would help
the City and he(p answer some of the questions that ironically they are hearing speakers tonight saying the
21
City has to do something, the City has to bring projects forward, it has to do something to take care of
problems they already have
Mr. Hickok stated how about getting some development that will actually carry some weight, and how
about opening and allowing some flexibility that would allow development to happen. These are other
people who have spoken who have said they would like to see development, why is the City of Golden
Valley, the City of Richfield, getting things that the City of Fridley isn't getting? Well, through zoning,
and opening up an opportunity here, we are opening up an invitation for flexibility.
Mr. Hickok stated speakers would have an opportunity when this comes forward that each piece, if it is
going to come under the TOD master planning guidelines, it would have to be approved by the Planning
Commission and Council. We would have the same type of hearings on every subset, every little master
plan that comes in the TOD district. So this is not the last chance people would get to speak on this. It is
an invitation to talk about other development but for developers to bring in a master plan that would have
its own Planning Commission hearing and its own City Council hearing.
Mr. Hickok stated there has been a lot of fear mongering going on. There is a nice map that shows it is
going to involve neighborhoods that it does not involve. There was discussion about boundaries lines. It
is not true. A boundary map that had that east boundary, anything but the backside of Gateway NE has
never been shown by staff. There is some fear generating discussion here that is really meant to have
folks not believe in staff and not believe in this thing. If the audience/speakers want to believe that
Northstar is the generating guide here, and that the City is putting a lot of effort into this, it may be that a
developer does not answer the call to come and build in the TOD district.
Mr. Hickok stated what staff has done is only allow an opportunity. They have not given free reign to a
developer. A developer would still need to come in with its master plan, demonstrate to the City that it
fits the TOD and it is something the City is interested in. The City has its braadest discretion in the area
of zoning to simply say, no, if they do not like it and it does not fit. They are not opening the gate very
far. This is meant to help try and solve the other problems by bringing development, revenue, and taxes
to do something different and exciting in the City they have not seen yet.
Ms. Reynolds stated the map that she created was not meant to be fear mongering. It was created based
on the language in the ordinance that talks about the purpose where it says a one-half mile radius from the
station.
Commissioner Oquist stated they are going to amend that.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Velin.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 9:23
P.M.
Commissioner Velin asked about the green spot on the map where it says, "Public Facilities," does that
mean parks? The question came up about a place for the kids to play if all this were to happen on Main
Street and down in that area. He only sees one little area on 59`h where the park is. Is there any
consideration for adding in any other parks or recreational area for the kids?
Ms. Jones replied, there are no plans to add any new parks; but any new development proposal that
would come in through a TOD proposal would have to meet the City's green space and landscaping
requirements.
22
Commissioner Velin asked whether there is a start-up date for this project or is this just in the talking
stage?
Ms. Jones replied, once the ordinance passes its second reading, and has been published, it becomes law
within 15 days.
Commissioner Dunham stated they are just trying to do a theme for this area to help improve the
surrounding areas, correct? The whole area has to have a theme and some integrity throughout it.
Ms. Jones stated, right, to try and keep the design unified in the area.
Commissioner Velin stated the reason he asks is when Cub or Tri-Land came in and said they were
going to start digging in the spring a year ago and nothing has happened, he was wondering if there is a
target date or are they just talking about maybe down the road.
Ms. Jones stated the proposal by Tri-Land is approved. This would not affect anything they have
approval for. If they fail to complete their development, according to their development agreement, then
it would apply to what they would want to do in the future. As far as the current plan, this would not
affect that.
Mr. Hickok stated there again, that is a private developer. Through their development agreement, as Ms.
Jones mentioned, they have an opportunity to within a certain window of time start their development.
However, also, that Tri-Land development is a pretty complex development. It deals with a lot of leases
in there in order to start digging ground for the first use in there. It is a complicated project.
Commissioner Dunham stated again, before they build anything or get anything done over here on the
new stuff, it has to come back here, correct?
Mr. Hickok replied, yes.
Commissioner Dunham stated so they will alt see us again. If it is a tall building they do not like; they
do not have to have it.
Commissioner Oquist stated he thinks staff should change the term, "one-half mile radius" to somehow
incorporate the boundaries of the TOD. It is not a half-mile from the station.
Ms. Jones replied, that is under "Purpose" which is addressing reducing automobile dependency. It is a
purpose statement. The actual definition of the boundary is the map they saw on the screen. That will
remain the boundary unless the Council decided in the future to change it. This is how many of our other
overlay districts defne the boundary of the overlay district.
Commissioner Oquist stated he can see where some people are really concerned even if it is just in the
"Purpose." He thinks they should maybe delete that or something.
Mr. Hickok stated studies show that people will walk a half mile to a train or bus opportunity. The
purpose was meant to say that for those folks that would walk that distance, this district also allows some
added amenities as you get closer to the station. They do understand the misconception. They can take
more of a look at that before it goes to City CounciL
Chairperson Kondrick stated that would be a good idea.
23
Commissioner Saba stated he thinks staff did a great job of reidentifying development. They are not
planning to do any development or build anything. They are trying to set the stage and control it.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist approving Text Amendment TA #11-03, by the City of Fridley to
consider the creation of a transit oriented development overlay zoning district near the Northstar train
station, according to the map provided. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. Considerallon of a Public Hearing for Text Amendment TA #11-02, by the City of Fridley
to consider clarification of the existing Master Plan Amendment fee and review procedures
in Section 205.24 of the Fridley Zoning Code. .
MOTION by Commissioner Velin to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 9:32
P.M.
Ms. Jones stated this is related to the language in our Master Plan, S-2 Overlay District. What is
happening here is in the S-2 Redevelopment District Master Plan applications section. The City always
been charged an application fee for this. However, it does not clearly state that in the Code. The current
fee of $1,500 was approved in March 2004, following a fee study. The S-2 code language does not refer
to the fee or where it is in Code. Staff proposes that the City amend the Code to refer to the fee that we
have been charging over the years
Ms. Jones stated in addition, staff proposes amending Chapter 11, Fees, to include this fee and update
some other fee changes. Council will be considering these fee changes on February 14.
Ms. Jones stated Section S.B. of Chapter 205.24 states that the HRA must submit a written report to the
Planning Commission and City Council when they review master plans. That creates a bit of dilemma
because both the Planning Commission and HRA meet only once a month, and the City has 60-day action
law that it needs to meet to review these proposals. If the City were to actually follow what it says in
Code, it would not be able to meet that 60-day action law requirement. That is really not the procedure
the City intended to follow, they intended to have the HRA simply make a recommendation to the City
Council on these proposals.
Ms. Jones states staff recommends changing Section 205.24.S.B(3) to state: "Review and
recommendation to the City Council from the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)."
This text amendment will again be heard before City Council at a hearing on February 7; First Reading of
the ordinance on February 14; and Second Reading of the ordinance on March 14.
Commissioner Saba asked regarding the fee, are they just taking it from one part of the ordinance to
another?
Ms. Jones stated the fee has always existed. Every so often they do a fee study internally and make sure
they are not higher than what it is actually costing the City for staff time to review proposals. Back in
2004, the City established that fee at $1,500.
24
Commissioner Sielaff asked so this was never in the ordinance before?
Ms. Jones replied, it was never in the ordinance; never been listed in the fee schedule.
Chairperson Kondrick asked whether there are other communities around us that charge more than
$1,500?
Ms. Jones replied, they did the analysis back in 2004; she does not recall it. She knows the actual staff
costs are higher than that. Fees cannot be more than what it costs the City.
Chairperson Kondrick asked whether the fee includes overhead?
Ms. Jones replied, part of it, yes.
Chairperson Kondrick stated if other communities are charging more, maybe that is where they need to
be.
Ms. Jones stated they always look at all that when they analyze the City's fees as to where it is compared
with other communities.
Commissioner Sielaff asked whether the language should state we recover fees based on how much staff
time is put into this rather than an absolute amount?
Mr. Hickok replied, that is a very good point. Staff has had lengthy discussion with the City's attorneys
on that. The cities that have been challenged are those that have fees that are not yuite defined and that is
when it becomes arbitrary and capricious. Where it starts to cross over into administration for user fees
where the developer comes into the thing not quite knowing what the cost of the project is really truly
going to be. It is now on record tonight but it is also known through our fee study that all of our fees,
whether it is this one they are talking about here or the other fees listed in Chapter 11, that relates
specifically to how much time it takes to process the permit or the product that the fee is for. In this case
the City does subsidize, even that $1,500, we are subsidizing something shy of another $1,000 in costs
when you figure the overhead, the publication costs, the staff time, the hearing, the printing. They do not
feel they could charge $2,500. They feel that $1,500 is where they need to be based upon those other
comparisons.
Commissioner Sielaff asked, they are being counseled it is better to charge an absolute fee for it rather
than having it be flexible?
Mr. Hickok replied, yes.
Chairperson Kondrick stated he has no problem with that; he just wants to make sure the City is
covered.
Mr. Hickok stated they feel justified with the $1,500. They could charge more and certainly relate it to
the actual cost but here is where you are asking, where does that compare to others, do we want to be in a
field that seems fair and reasonable? It is certainly more reasonable than a fee of $500. We were
subsidizing there. We are getting it closer. Are we penny for penny of what it actually costs? Not yet,
but we think we are in a margin right now, in a range, that is very safe and very defensible.
Commissioner Sielaff asked what about five years from now, does this mean that they need to approve
another fee?
25
Mr. Hickok replied, they look at them every couple of years.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 9:42
P.M.
Chairperson Kondrick stated he did not have any problem with this.
Commissioner Saba stated he did not either.
Commissioner Oquist asked, regarding the public hearings, when staff sends out the notice to the area
that is affected, do they just send a letter and none of the background data they were talking about
tonight? In other words, all they got is a letter so they did not know what they were really going to talk
about? He understands there is a lot of cost involved to make all those copies.
Mr. Hickok replied, when staff sends out the notice, they send out a description of what is going to be
heard at the meeting. They also send out the specifics of when this goes to Council/Commission, where
they should attend, and if they need additional consideration for hearing and other things. It tries to be as
specific as it can in that early stage but understand the timing of this. The gentleman talks about staff
sending out a packet. The packet went to the Commission the Friday of last week. The packet is not
ready anywhere near the time that the notice goes out to the neighborhood, and the City has a statutory
requirement to get notice out to the newspaper and the public within a certain period of time. The report
simply is not done at that time. Staff takes the time they need to polish this thing, and it is the Friday
before the Commission's Wednesday meeting.
Commissioner Dunham stated is it odd that nobody else is doing something different? They have the
same timeframe, right?
Mr. Hickok replied, he knows of no other community that is sending out the packet with the notice,
because you do not have enough time in there. The window of time does not allow for that.
Ms. Jones stated what a lot of other communities have though is that information available on the website
once it goes to the Commission. We do not have that set up yet, but are hoping to have it in place in the
future.
Commissioner Dunham asked, could they even make available to somebody the report after the
Commission has it? Offer to state that in the letter - that the report is as ready when the commission gets
it and then maybe hopefully on line?
Mr. Hickok stated there is a public copy that is here and available at the desk if anyone is interested in
asking for it.
Commissioner Dunham asked whether the letter states that?
Ms. Jones stated she believed it states for people to call staff for additional information.
26
MOTION by Commissioner Saba approving Text Amendment TA #11-02 by the City of Fridley to
consider clarification of the existing Master Plan Amendment fee and review procedures in Section
205.24 of the Fridley Zoning Code. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. Receive the Minutes of the December 2, 2010, Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. Receive the Minutes of the. November 9, 2010, Environmental Quality and Energy
Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Velin to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. Receive the Minutes of the November 1, 2010, Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Ms. Stromberg stated the February 16 Planning Commission meeting is cancelled.
ADJOURN
MOTION by Commissioner Saba adjourning the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:48 P.M.
Respectfully submitted, -��-
�:� ��_�.
�'�-�,�..� ��, ' ; ��h�,���...
Denise M. Johnson
Recording Secretary
27
� � � _,
i
I Ci i Y Or FRIDLEY
I SIGN-IN SHEET
�
' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
!� OI
�
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
Name Address/Business
�'� � h��(%��Y/'��C�R �p � ��' _ y � � � /I !'�
IV`
�j��`� Mc�, � � iN
%3� � ' � �o�� � % , Nf
/"�/�i��`���1'�!�i�i�l'lt/v ,S�%/� ' � r� �T o�"�',
V l S l�S �i�'Y � 4' �!� G Gc
' �(' S�l ��" �Z �
. � 1 i ..
�.�„arJ �IC�S� �`�3S �,�,`t��. �S� /l/_ l
, i a� � �a �-� � . � �
_ . , �. - - � -�
�
a.e \ t-��, a
Le �7�.
Q
�NK�-
�q3� �N � 5—�. � . �
s�ys �� ; f� �s; �� ,��
� �i�o2� .��d ��
�9�� �a
�
��►
9
CITY OF FRIDLEY
SIGN-�N SHEET
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
v�a� ( a.b�/
Name
Address/Business
�
ah�. � �,�r�� �w��P.svN �� o�i Z-`� Sf ,U � - -- -
%�(!l(,� MC�oRMic/� ,��5 `�% /�'�A��✓ ST. N,i�,
� -��... �
, .,�.�.� � I �l�-( � �� N