Loading...
PL 11/19/1986 - 30653� CTTY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COPM�ISSIOPJ �IEETING, NOVEPI6€R 19, 1986 . ................................... CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Billings called the November 19, 1986, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL: Mer:�bers Present: Steve Billings, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Donald Betzold Members Absent: Richard Svanda Others Present: Jim Robinson, Planning Coordinator Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Dennis Schneider, Councilper.son Nancy Jorgenson, Councilperson-Elect Mr. & P�1rs. Richard Lindquist, 1326 Hillcrest Dr. Helfride P1anning, 1315 Hillcrest Dr. Connie P1odig, 1330 Hillcrest Dr. Edna Hinytzke, 1328 Hillcrest Dr. ^ Steve Shorma, 5916 Oakwood h1anor Yoava Klucsar, 1337 Hillcrest Dr. Charles Cook, Coon Rapids _ . ... . ...... ...... ..... ��APPROVAL OF' �JOVE�76ER' S; 1986; � P'LANNI�JG' CO�IMISSION' hhINI�TES: MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MR. 5ABA, TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBEI4 5� 1986, PLANNING COMMIS5ION MINUTES A5 WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER50N BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED I7NANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATIOPJ'OF A PRE'LIMINARY�PLAT, P:S. #86-06, �E1� OA�S;�61''C� ' S� eing a rep at of a part o ot 22, B oc 3, Moore a e i s, noka County, Minnesota, lying southerly of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the northeasterly line of Lot 21, Block 3, P9oore Lake Hills, distant 35,00 feet northwesterly from the northeast corner; thence southwesterly to a point on the south� westerly line of said Lot 22, distant 42.00 feet northwesterly from the southwest corner of said Lot 22 and there terminating. Except that part thereof lying northeasterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the north line of said Lot 22, distant 5.00 feet westerly from the northeast corner; thence southerly to a point on the south line of said lot, distant 60.00 feet westerly from the southeast corner. Subject to easements, if any, and that part of Lot 21 and 22, Block 3, Moore Lake Hi11s, Anoka,County, P1innesota, lying easterly, southeasterly and north- easterly of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the northeasterly line of said Lot 21, distant 212.00 feet southeasterly of the most northerly corner of said Lot 21, thence southwesterl�� of the most PLANNI��G COP�1MISSIOPd � 1�1EETIfJG; � NOVE�1BER' 19; '] 986 '�� PAGE 2 northerly corner of said Lot 21, thence southwesterlv, at a right angle to said northeasterly line, to its intersection with line A, hereafter described, thence southwesterly, along said line A to its intersection with a line described as beginning at a point on the north line of said Lot 22, distant 5.00 feet westerly of the northeast corner, thence southerly to a point on the south line of said lot 22, distant 60.00 feet westerly of the southeast corner, thence southerly, along last described line, to the south line of said Lot 22 and there terminating. Line A is described as beginning at a point on the northeasterly northeast corner, thence southwesterly to a point on the southwesterl�r line of said Lot 22, said point distant 42.00 feet northwesterly from the southwest corner of said Lot 22, and there terminating. Subject to easements, if any, and the east 600.00 feet of the south 200.00 feet of the north 882.5 feet of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 24, Township 3A, Range 24, located in Anoka County, Minnesota, generally located south of Hillcrest Drive and north of Gardena Avenue. MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO WAIVE THE FORMAL .READING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING NO2'ICE AND OPEP7 THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:33 P.M. � UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIIVG AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE �.., MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY. Mr. Robinson stated this property was located south of Idloore Lake H111s and north of Gardena Ave. The property involved three parcels of land for a total of 3.25 acres. One parcel (2.75 acres� was owned by Oliver Erickson, another parcel had been subdivided off the back of an existinq singl�e family lot and was owned by the Bacons, and Lot 22 was owned by the Johnsons. TNe layout for the plat consisted of a 330 ft. roadway with a cul-de-sac at the end. The roadwav was an extension of the existing 60th Ave. The right-of-way for the road was 60 ft. with the actual surface of the road plus or minus 30 ft. The radius of the cul-de-sac was 80 �Eeet in diameter. , and the actual surface area for the cul-cfe-sac was 80 ft, in diameter. Mr. Robinson stated there were seven lots, and all the lots were greater than 9,000 sq. ft. which was the minimum required by code. All the lot widths were greater than 75 ft, which was also the minimum required by code. The plat was laid out such that the road was at the bottom of a ravine with all the lots on the adjacent side slopes. The developer had stated that most of the homes, because of the uniqueness of the site, would be architecturallv designed homes. v Mr. Robinson stated the property would be serviced by utilities which would include a 6-inch water line which was a continuation of an existing water line from 60th Ave. which would come down and loop up and between Lots 21 and 22. The loop was consfstent with the Public Works Department's requirement for looping a water line. That water line would be 6 inches througlaout tbe plat. �' There would be a�anitary sewer line which would also be looped from 6Ath Ave. � PLANNIP�G CONq'7ISSION � �EETING, rJOVE�IBER' 19; 1986 � � � � � � PAGE 3 Because of -the difference in elevatior�s of��he existing sanitary sewer line and the proposed line,.the new homes wou]d all feed into a_ lift.station at the end of the cul-de-sac. - - Mr. Robinson stated the storm water seemed to be the critical issue with this plat. Presently there was a pipe which opened onto the property frc�m 60th Ave. and that water was allowed to drain into the open area. With the plat, the petitioner was proposing to pipe that storm water into a storm drainage pond at the end of the cul-de-sac. He stated the City has received a storm drainage plan prepared by Suburban Engineering, and the project must receive Rice Creek Watershed District approval before the plat is approved. The City engineers are reviewing the drainage plan with the developer and are not yet fully satis- fied that it is a workable solution. They will contfnue to refine it so the area will not be affected by the drainage. At this point, it was not clear whether all the storm water could be handled on site and whether, in fact, a storm pipe will be needed. Mr. Robinson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations: 1, Developer to provide a re�ined drainage plan one week prior to next plat hearing. �� 2. Developer agrees to pay assessments for all public improvements necessitated by the plat. 3. All proposed waterlines to be 6-inch in diameter. 4. Provide easement for storm drainage system. 5. Sanitary sewer lift station to meet Public Works requirements. 6. Provide a plan and necessary easements for private utility servlces. 7. Provide a 20-ft. setback.easement along the north ]ine of proposed Lot 5. 8. Developer agrees to preserve trees to the greatest extent possible. 9. Park fees of $1,500 per lot to be paid with each of the seven building permi ts . 10. Retaining wall in cul-de-sac right-of-way to be a minimum of 10 ft. from curb; materials and design to be approved by City Staff, I�r. Charles Cook stated they are aware of the drainage which seems to be the major concern. Regarding the drainage, it was his understanding that lils obligation was to provide a drainage plan that dealt with the excess water � created from the develop�rent of the site so that ultimately there would not be any more water leaving the site than presentiv is leaving the site in its PLANNI�JG COI��ISSION �EETING, NOVENI6ER � 19; � 19�6 PAGE 4 undeveloped stage. They employed Suburban Engineering to do the drainage nlan, including extensive drainage calculations, and it was his understanding that drainage plan did meet that requirement. The drainage plan was submitted about a week ago, and Mark Burch, Asst. Public Works Director, was looking at it in great detail because there was an existing flooding concern in this area. In the event Mr. Burch did not agree with the water retention designed in the plan, they do have the capabilit,y of retaining approximately twice that amount of water by altering the design. Mr. Cook stated Mr. Burch and Cit�r Engineering were working on cost estimates for a storm sewer system. In reviewing some of the approximate cost estimates, he had determined that his project could not absorb the entire cost of a star� drainage system. P1r. Betzold asked if Mlr. Cook would be able to build the types of homes he wanted to without very many variances to the city code. f�r. Cook stated the footprints for the homes within the setbacks were restricted, specifically on Lot 7. It was possible to build a large home on Lot 7 and stay within the required setbacks if it was designed pronerly. Mr. Betzold stated he would strongly urge Mr. Cook to try to keep the homes �-,� within citv code if possible. He asked how well Mr. Cook w�s going to be able to "p�'eserve the trees_to tMe greatest extend possible'? Mr. Cook stated the entire site was wooded, and as in any project, they will tru to preserve trees. It was in his economic interest to keep the trees which are part of the appeal for the lots. Councilman Schneider stated that if a storm �ewer system was needed, would it be possible to require a bond for a year or two to couer the cost of the storm sewer system in case there was a problem? Mr. Robinson stated that seemed like a viable alternative. Mr. 8illings asked if it was Staff's understanding that it was the develoner's responsibflity to see that no water leaves the site at a greater rate or � lesser quality than is leaving the site at this time, regardless of where the water was coming from now? Mr. Robinson stated he believed that was a true statement. Mr. Robinson stated the pond water elevation was normally at 938 ft. above sea level, and the walk-out homes are at 941 ft, above sea level, so the water would probably run between 1318 and 1320 Hillcrest. They want to make sure that overflow does not�get any worse. ^ Ms. Sherek asked if it was correct that the develor�er was not responsible to correct existing water problems. If these homes routinely get water in their backyards in the spring, the deve7oper would still be able to build his homes and not be responsible for correcting an alreadv existing prob]em? � PLANNIfJG COFI�ISSION MEETING; �OVEP�BER 19; 1986 � " � � � � � � " � � � � ' � � � " ' PAGE � 5 Mr. Robinson stated �e believed that was true. P�s. Connie Modig, 1330 Hillcrest Dr., stated that because of the way the lots were laid out in this development, was the developer planning on 6ringing in any fill or would he build on tfie property as it is? She was concerned about fill because that would affect the water. Mr. Cook stated they will be bringing in 1,500-2,000 yards of fill which was not a very extensive amount. This fill would be used primarily to bui�l.d the road base where the existing 60th Ave, terminated and where there was!about a 6 ft.drop. The building pads themselves would not require any fill. Ms. Sherek asked if any soil tests had been done on the building nads. Mr. Cook stated official soil tests had not been done. He had �xamined the soil in some areas with a post hole digger, and he had found good quality buildable sand under the top soil. However, they will have soil borings done prior to any site work. That is required by FHA. Ms. Modig stated she liked the idea of as many trees as possible being saved. She was concerned about the impact on the neighbors in terms of taxes in the future. The price ranges being talked about for these new homes would impact ,.-� on their property taxes. She stated buying property on the inside of Hillcrest Drive seemed to be less expensive than buying property on the outside of Hillcrest Drive. She was concerned about that and how this development would affect that either up or down. Ms. �odig stated an environmental impact statement had been talked about earlier, and she understood that this propertv did not require one; however, she felt it was possible to ask for an environmental assessment worksheet that would possibly answer some of the questions regarding the affect on the wildlife, water, etc. She knew these things eould not be answered at this meeting, but there were questions that should be answered. Mr. Robinson stated an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) addresses air quality, water quality, noise, traffic, ete. In this case, he felt the pr.imary environmental concerns were the storm water drainage and the existing trees. Obviously, because of the deve]opment, there was goinq to be less habitat in the area. In his opinion, an �AUI would not uncover any new problems. It was up to the Planning Commission to determine if they wanted to require an EAW. Ms. Modig stated she was concerned, not only about the wate r and the trees, but also about the wildlife. They bought their home in this area because of the wildlife (owls, geese, ducks). She stated she was not against the development, because it was part of progress, but she also believed that the development had to be done in,a proper manner to protect as much of the ^ wildlife and trees as possible. � PtANNING C01�MISSI�� MEETIPdG, NO�EMBER 19, 1986 . ..PAGE 6 Mr. Paul Colstrom, 1338 Hillcrest, asked what provisions had been made for a fire hudrant or lighting. Mr. Cook stated that a fire hydrant would go in on the cul-de-sac, and lighting would be determined by the City. Mr. Robinson stated a light in the cul-de-sac w�s city policy. Mr. Colstrom stated he agreed with h9s. Modig about the concern for the wild- life. He had pictures of deer in his backyard, and he would hat e to see much of the wildlife disturbed. P�r. Betzold stated this was a unique piece of property, and they �o a�ant do want to make sure things are done right. He was �oncerned about the preservation of trees. If the Planning Commission approves this preliminary plat at this meeting, it will go on to the City Council. Tf the City Council approves it, the developer can begin develo�ing the property. He stated that once development starts, it is too late to start over. The Planning Commission has only seen the lot lines. They have not seen the home designs nor will the City Council when they get this request. Staff will be monitoring it, but did the Planning Commission want more involement than just their vote at this meeting? Did the Planning Commission want this matter brought back to them � when there were more pians regarding the home designs, drainage plans, trees, etc.? Those were some of his concerns. Mr. Saba stated the trees could be saved in the initia] development, but some- one who buys the property two years from now could cut all the trees down. The Cit� really has no control over that. He felt the biggest concern he had heard at this meeting was the drainage, and Councilperson Schneider had suggested a bond be required so if there were some problems, the money was there to pay for the installation of the storm sewer. He thought that would alleviate a lot of the concerns. He knew there was a concern for the wild7ife, but he did not know what they could do about that. The developer would want to be sensitive to that issue because he wants to sell homes. He stated Staff will be monitoring this and will be working closely with the develoner on the t�pe of housing that goes in on these lots. � Mr. Kondrick asked if it was fair to insist on the issuance of a bond if the developer receives approval from the City Council that everything in the project seems to be fine. Ms. Sherek stated the cost of puttin� in a storm sewer system ma� equal or exceed the cost of the propertv after it is developed. The idea of setting it up so that the developer could be responsible for payin� for a storm sewer some day did not seem feasible for this size of development. Mr. Robertson stated that in answer to the inquiry about preserving the trees, ^ maybe stipulation #8 could be changed as follows� "Deuel.ope�.agrees_to preserve trees to the'�eter�inat�on �nd�satisfaction'of�the�Citv�Staff." That stipulation would t en go on recor wit t e p a an wou � e noted by any future purchaser of any lot. ,� PLANNING COP�IISSION �IEETINf;, NOVEP�I6ER 19; 1986 � �� � � pAGE 7 Mr. Cook stated they have to be very careful in the lanquage because a home- owner may want to take down trees for whatever reason. He felt it was a tough limitation to monitor and was very subjective. People who are buying $200,000 homes are going to be very careful about cutting down trees anvway. Mr. Robinson stated someone could buy the property, move in, and then want to cut down trees to put in a swimming pool. !�las the Cit,v going to monitor that? He felt the best the City could do was control the buildable site and the location of the homes, making sure the develper is sensitiv;e to the concern of the City and the neighbors regarding the trees. Mr. Cook stated that regarding the wildlife, the plat only borders on about 1/3 of one of the ponds, and there was another very sizeable pond further east. He did not think there would be a very great impact on the wildlife because there are lots that border all these lots right now. Mr. Cook stated he would be ver�v uncomfortable with the concept of posting a bond for the cost of a future storm water system, regardless of uvhether the cost was $20,000 or $200,000. The engineers that review the drainage calcula- tions are preparing very conservatively;so are the Rice Creek Watershed District Board because the�r have liability. If they approve something and there is flooding later on, people can sue the City, so they are not going to put them- �—�, selves in that position. The system being proposed by him was designed to retain the water in its present design and he had the capability of retaining substantially more than that. It was a nice theory �o get the site deve7oped; but then five years from now if there is flooding, everyone is going to point the finger at him. What if a fair amount of this water is presently percolating here and what if the silt builds up and plugs that percolation, that would not be his fault. Or, wtaat if the schoo] builds an 80-car parking lot and adds a sanctuarv and their designed drainage svstem does not work causing the flooding, then he was the one with a posted bond. This made him ver� uncomfortable. Mr. Cook stated he really believed that the eng�neers, as concerned as thev were, were going to make sure his system worked. Mrs. Richard Lindquist, 1326 Hillcrest Dr., asked th�t if �his development was approved with the proposed drainage plan, but in the future there was flooding and a storm water system was needed, who would pay for it? Mlr. Robinson stated City Staff would have to determine that a storm water svstem was needed and staff would have to come up with a cost. Public hearing notices would be sent out to everyone affected. The City Council would then decide who was benefitting fror� the storm sewer system and those peonle would then be assessed. P1s. Sherek stated she did not think the..question of who were the benefitting parties could be answered by this body or even by the City Council in an�i � concrete way on a hypothetical basis. Enganeering drawings wou7d have to be prepared first, a determination of who was benefitting would have to be made before anyone could say who would pav for a system like this. She did not think they could even hazard a guess at this point in time. PLANNING COP�M�SSION �EETING, NOVENIBER 19; 1986 � PAGE 8 MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD� 5ECONDED BY MS. 5HEREK, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HF,ARING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING C�OSED AT 8:50 P.M. Mr. Betzold stated he felt a little uncomfortable wfth this because two major variables were not available to them. They do not know what the Rice Creek Watershed District thinks of this plan, and they do not know what information the City �taff vras going to come up with regarding the cost of a storm water system or other options that might be ava9l��le i�F the cost of a storm water syster� was prohibitive. When this goes to City Council, tfie City Council should have that full picture. Any recommendation the Planning Corim�ission makes should reflect that the Planning Commission d�d not have all the information the� needed regarding this development at this time. Mr. Robinson stated it was within the Planning Commission's right to table this item and defer any action until more information was available to them. Ms. Sherek stated she would be more comfortable tabling this item until they have seen an accepted drainage plan. Mr. Saba agreed. He stated there were a lot of variables in the drainage plan. � However, he wondered if a lay-over for two more weeks to look at the drainage pland would create an economic hardship for Mr. Cook. Mr. Cook stated any delay was not desirable, He did have time limits on his options on the properties. He stated the P.iverwood Plat a�year ago did not have the final drainage plan even at City Council, and t e ity Council a�proveci the plat subject to the drainage plan being worked out satisfactorily with Staff. Mr. Billings stated that was an alternative open to them, but the Riverwood site did not involve the concerns being expressed for this site. MOTION BY M5. SNEREK, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO TABLE FURTHER CON52DERATION OF PRELIMIDTARY PLAT, P.S. #86-06, VALLEY OAIGB, BY CHARLE5 COOK UNTIL TNE DECEMBER 10, 1986, PLANNING COMMI5SION MEETING. P1r. Kondrick stated he did not understand wh they were tabling �his for two weeks. Stipulation #1 stated that the developer had to provide a refined drainage plan one week prior to next plat hearing, so the developer cannot go forward until this stipulation was met. Mr. Robinson stated they do not usually have a drainage plan when they come to the Planning Commission, but it has been determined that tk�e drainage is a key issue and that the present plan does not meet the needs of the neighborhood. Mr. Billings stated he would be concerned that if the Planning Coriui�ission n made a recommendation to the City Council at this meeting, th.at all t[Ze ansr�ers regarding the drainage would not �ven be ready in time for the public hearing at the City Council. He would rather have it come back here so they know the drainage questions have been answered before going on to the City Council. - .._ .. ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ,,, ...�...�..�• ,,..�_ P_L_ NNIPJG COMNIISSION'MEETING; �P�OVE(�BER'19' `1986' ' ' � �'� ' PAGE�9� � ►? e e e e e e e e �..�...�w� Mr. Cook stated he wanted to again state that his project could not support the cost of a storm water system. If it is determined tFiat a storm system is needed to handle the drainage, his project is dead. His only other alter- native is to retain the water on site. That determination requires in-depth engineering study by people qualified in that area such as Suburban Engineering, Mark Burch, and the Rice Creek Watershed District Board. Mr. Cook stated that at this time,Mr. Burch had not completed his analysis of the proposed drainage plan. He had made the comment that he questioned the plan. Mr. Cook stated he has stated that he can increase the retention capacit,y if they need to do so to achieve on-site retention. He has no choice because he cannot afford the storm sewer. When this goes to City Council, he will have to have on-site retention and it will have to be a plan accepted by Mr. Burch. Mr. Robinson stated that any change in the lot lines, easements, etc., so this to send it on to the City Council. the drainage plan could alter the plat, was not in the state they would like UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL.VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLIPIG5 DECLARF,'D THF. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Billings stated that when this comes back to the Planning Commission on n Dec. 10, he would like Staff to get the answers to the following two questions raised by Mls. P1odig: (1) Will the new development affect the valuation of the existing properties in the area? (2) Is there a discrepancy in land prices with regard to the inside of Hillcrest Dr. versus the outside of Hillcrest Dr.? Mr. Billings stated that regarding the concern expressed by the neighbors about the impact on the wildlife, he asked Staff to send a letter of inquiry to the DNR and also to ask the City Naturalis�:p Siah St, Clair, to visit the area. Ms. h1odig stated she would like to be notified when Mr. St. Clair visits the area. 2, COrJSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST; SAV #86=06; 6`��CHARLES�COOK: Vacate easements for pu�6Tic�iTi�ies�"escr e�as oT ows: e south 5 feet of Lot 22, Block 3, Moore Lake Hills and the south 5 feet and the east 10 feet of Lot 21, Block 3, Moore Lake Hills, generally located south of Hillcrest Drive and north of Gardena Avenue MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MS. SHEREK, TO TABLE THI5 ITEM UNTIL THE DECEMBER Z0, 1986, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLING5 DECLARED TH.E MOTION CAR.RIED UNANIMOU5LY. � ..... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... .... . .. . � PLANNIPJG COMMISSION r�EETING; � NOVEPI6ER' 19; � 1986 � � � � ` '� ` ' ' �' ' ` '" ` `' ' ` ' � ' ' ` `PAGE' 10 , 3. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 23, 1986, HOf1SING � REDE11ELl�PI�ENT AUTHORITY SPECIAL G � � S: MOTI0IV BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MR. SABA� TO RECEIVE THE SEPT. 23, 1986, HOU5ING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPECIAL MEET2IVG MINUTE5. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLING5 DECLARED THE MOTIOIN CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE OCTOBER 9 1986, HOUSING & REDEVECOPI�ENT AUTHORITY h1INUTES: MOTION BY MS. SHEREK.o SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO RECEIVE THE OCZ'. 9� 1986, HOU5ING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES. i1PON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER50N BILLING5 DECLARED 2'HE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY . 5. RECEIVE OCTOBER 28, 1986, APPEACS COFI�9ISSION �I�INfJTES: _.._.�_ MOZ70N BY MR. BETZOLD, 5ECONDED BY MR. KOND.RICK, TO REC$�'VE THE OCT. 28, 1986, APPEALS COMMIS520N MINUTE5. � UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER50N BILLINGS DECZARED 2'HE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY. 6. RECEIVE OCTOBER 28, 1986, ENERGY COMMISSI�N P1INUTES: MOTION BY MR. SABA, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TD RECEIVE THE OCT. 28, 1986, ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VDICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER50N BILLING5 DECL.�IF2ED THF. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7o RECEIVE NOVEPIBER 3, 1986, PARKS & RECREATIOPJ COP1MISSION �IINIJTES: MOZ701V BY MR. KONDRICK, 5ECONDED BY MR, SABA, TO RECEIIIE THE NOI�. 3, 1986, PARK5 & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTE5. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER50N BILLING5 DECLARED THF. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY. 8. OTHER BUSINESS: a. Annual Planning Institute Mr. Robertson stated this seminar was for Planning Commissioners and elected officials and would be held in St. Paul on Dec, and Jan. 21. ^ He stated it was a good introduction to new Planning Commissioners and new Council members. It was also a good tune-up for commissioners who PLANNING CON'�1ISSION P9EETING, NOVEMBER 19� ]986 PAGE 11 have served for awhile to review changes in state law, case law, new development and practices, etc. He stated he would highly recommend this seminar and any Coromissioners who wished to attend should contact him. b. Dumpster Screening Code Change Mr. Robinson stated this was a redraft of an ordinance change that would affect all commercial, industrial, and R-3 zones. Basically, they were saying that the dumpster area should be screened from view from any pub7ic right-of-way and residential areas, not necessarily from all four sides, and has to be architecturally compatible with the principal structure. Mr. Robinson stated posts would be required in front of the corners of a71 enclosure sides exposed to veh�lcular movement. Mr. Robinson stated gates may not be required on an enclosure if the open area would not cause the receptacles to be visible from�the public right- of-way or residential view. If a gate was required, it should be opaque and constructed out of sturdy treated wood or a slatted chain link fence. Mr. Robinson stated restaurants shall have fully enclosed dumpsters with r� latching gates. Mr. Robinson stated receptacles which do not require screening shall be maintained in a clean and orderly fashion. Mr. Billings stated he was concerned with the definition for "restaurants", because there are other establishments that create the same kind of food wastes. Ms. Sherek stated they had the same problem with the unenclosed dumpsters in R-3 zoning and with establishments such as Super America stations where waste pours over the top of the dumpsters. Maybe they should say dumpsters that include food wastes should have latching gates. Mr. Robertson and M,r. Robinson suggested that 7.D.(d} be reworded as follows; "Establishments that generate commercial food wastes shall Fw ve fully enclosed dumpsters with latching gates." Ms. Sherek stated that would include hospitals and nursing homes, for example, that are not restaurants but generate food wastes. M02'ION BY M5. SHE.REK, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO RE�'OMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE DUMPSTER SCREENING CODE CNANGE_AS SIIBMITTED BY 5TAFF WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: 1. D.B.(d). "E5TABLISHMENTS THAT GENERATE COMMERCIAL FOOD WA5TES �.,\ SHALL HAVE FULLY ENCLOSED DUMP5TERS WITH LATCHING GATES." 2. 2'HE CODE INCLUDE R-3 ZONING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOZ70N CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. �"'1 PLANNIPdG COMP1ISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 1986 PAGE 12 ADJOURf�MENT: MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO ADJOURN 2"HE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTI1l1G AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE 1VOV. 19� .Z986, PLANNING COMMI5SION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:40 P.M. � Respectfully submitted, Ly , aba Recording Secretary � r� „ , ! _ "-���.. . '_.�_ __'f� -�.,.�_..` ._.. -.._.e__._ ____.s _ _ _'___ _�._�. .'_��. '.__ � . .�.,.w"'�_. _...”' _""`"`""_' ``•�Il�r� �/� _""'.�___-�._�..._.__,_'-"`--.�_"�.Y.'. . ��� -_1.�_-��,��L:�._.__�_..vs__"_'"__...��__ . . ' "'____"._ "____�__'"__.' __�."'_._ ___...___ _.._._ -�� --��� .��_ ��� ��.�,�-����_� ___ _-�------�------- r � '_Z^���� - � / >���� � ` / l/'� ` _ - -��2!C_ __: �__� __ l�S' d %� �� �C , �—___.__ _ _� _ .__ _ . __... P ' e ,/ �!�-t�-1--�- - --- � 12-�1--�e-�---- _--- ---�- �` --�--�1�.��- ! -_ ___ . - -- _ __�_ - _--- -___-.__-_-__-_ ` _ __-- _ � _-__- --_-_ _ - �_� �� _ �. . � _ -____ --., , _ ______ _ __ _ _�____ __ ___�___ _ � , ---- - ----- - -- - ----- - - _�--�____-------�___ 13� ��.r�� ----- ----- --- -------..��---- J � -- - - ---- --� -- ____-__.__���� __ _ � _ _ _ __. � � ____ . _---- � --- __ _-� -__ -----___���� ,�_ �,- ---- _ - , - --_ - , - --- - - _ __ __ _ -� --- - --- - ------ -- S'_�� _ �_ ------___ ---------_ G� /��� --- ----- - ----__ --------___---- --------------------- --- -----� -----.-__-_ -- - -- --- --- - - --- ----- -�,''�-_ _____