PL 11/14/1990 - 30728�
,-�
,--�
�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETINt�, NOVEMBER 14, 1990
M�MM�Yw��ww��Y�Y�Y�YtiN��MM��wIrNMM�N��MMNNMMMMMMMMMNMNIr�YN1►MNNIrMM�ArtiN��tiM
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Betzold called the November 14, 1990, Planning
Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Don Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba,
Sue Sherek, Paul Dahlberg, Diane Savage,
Connie Modig
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Pat Boyle, 6261 Rainbow Drive N.E.
Jack and Corine Rirkham, 430 - 67th Ave. N.E.
APPROVAL OF_OCTOBER 24, 1990. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES•
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the
October 24, 1990, Planning Commission minutes as written.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(� AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP
#90-07. BY PAT AND RITA BOYLE:
Per Section 205.07.O1.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to
allow a second accessory building in excess of 240 square
feet on Lot 1, Block 2, Sylvan Hills, generally located at
6261 Rainbow Drive N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to remove
this item from the table and reopen the public hearing..
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIN�3 AYE, CHAIRPER80N HETZOLD
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC BEARING OPEN AT
7:32 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the
intersection of Rainbow Drive and the West University Avenue
Service Road. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family
Dwelling, as are the parcels to the north, south, and west.
University Avenue is to the east of the property.
n,
�
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING, NOVEMH$R 14, 1990 PAGE 2
Ms. McPherson stated the request is to allow the
construction of a 624 sq. ft. second accessory building.
The Zoning Code requires that special use permits be granted
for all second accessory buildings over 240 sq. ft.
Ms. McPherson stated this special use permit request was
first heard by the Planning Commission at their June 20,
1990, meeting. At that time, the Commission tabled the
request at the request of the petitioner as there were two
issues that needed to be resolved. One was what the
building would look like, and the other was the final
location of the building.
Ms. McPherson stated staff's proposed location is the
required 17 1/2 feet from the east property line, as well as
3 feet from the rear property line.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner submitted a variance
request to the Appeals Commission on October 30, 1990, and
the Appeals Commission voted to recommend to City Council
that the required side yard setback of 17 1/2 feet be
reduced to 4 1/2 feet which will allow the petitioner to
place the accessory building closer to the existing garage.
The City Council will have to take final action on the
variance request on December 10, 1990.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner submitted construction
plans which shows the accessory building will be
architecturally consistent with the existing house. The
existing house is built of stone construction, but the
profile of the roof line and basic structure will be
similar. The accessory building could also be painted to be
consistent with the trim on the house.
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the special use permit
request, SP #90-07, to the City Council with three
stipulations:
1.
2.
3.
The accessory building shall be architecturally
consistent with the existing house.
The height of the accessory building shall be
limited to 14 feet.
The variance request, VAR #90-30, by approved by
the City Council.
Mr. Dahlberg asked what happens if the variance request is
''-'� not approved by the City Council.
r"1
,-'�
PLANNINa COA�lI88ION MEETINa. NOVEMH$R 14, 1990 PAdE 3
Ms. McPherson stated the accessory building could still go
on the site in the location proposed by staff. There are no
issues of lot coverage or other setback requirements.
Mr. Kondrick asked if the petitioner, Mr. Boyle, was in
agreement with the stipulations.
Mr. Boyle stated he had no problem with the stipulations.
Ms. Sherek asked if the petitioner is proposing to put in a
hard surface driveway to the new building or will it be just
for auxiliary storage.
Mr. Boyle stated he has an existing driveway, and if the
variance is approved, he can use the existing driveway for
his existing garage and the proposed accessory building.
The building will be used as a second garage for cars, boat,
etc.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the
public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRILD AND THE PIIBLIC BEARIN(i CL08ED AT
7:38 P.M.
Mr. Dahlberg stated he questioned whether it is appropriate
to include stipulation #3. What this stipulation is saying
is that the Commission is voting on the special use permit
and recommending approval if the variance request is
approved. However, if the variance request is not approved,
then the special use permit would not be valid. Whether the
variance request is approved or not, the petitioner can
still build the accessory building if the special use permit
is granted.
Ms. Dacy stated the Commission could delete stipulation #3.
Staff included that as a stipulation because they do that
for all multiple sets of applications; and, staff was not
sure if the Commission was comfortable with saying that the
accessory building is all right with or without the
variance.
Mr. Boyle stated that if the variance is not approved, he
will not build the accessory building 17 1/2 feet from his
side yard.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to
recommend to City Council approval of special use permit, SP
#90-07, by Pat and Rita Boyle, per Section 205.07.O1.C.(1)
^ of the Fridley City Code, to allow a second accessory
- building in excess of 240 square feet on Lot 1, Block 2,
r"�
PLANNINa COMMIB�ION ME$TINa. NOVEMBER 14. 1990 PAGE 4
Sylvan Iiills, generally located at 6261 Rainbow Drive N.E.,
with the following stipulations:
1. The accessory building shall be architecturally
consistent with the existing house.
2. The height of the accessory building shall be
limited to 14 feet.
QPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTINa AYE, CBAIRPER80N BETZOLD
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
Ms. McPherson stated both the special use permit request and the
variance request will go to City Council on December 10, 1990.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REGISTERED LAND SURVEY.
P.S. #90-06. BY GLACIER PARK COMPANY:
To replat that part of Lots 2 and 3, Auditor's Subdivision
No. 78, Anoka County, Minnesota, generally located north of
I-694 and west of Main Street N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Rondrick, seconded by Ms. Savage, to waive the
reading of the public hearing notice and open the public
hearing.
� IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIN(� AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIHLIC HEARINa OPEN AT
7:95 P.M.
Ms. Dacy stated that since no one was in the audience
representing the petitioner, the Commission might want to
table this item until later in the meeting.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to table P.S.
#90-06 by Glacier Park Company until later in the meeting.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINa AYE� CHAIRPER80N BLTZOLD
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
3. CONSIDERATIOAT OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 205 OF THE
FRIDLEY C_ITY CODE ENTITLED. "ZONING". BY AMENDING SECTIONS
205.03� "DEFINITIONS". AND SECTION 205.07, "R-1 ONE FAMILY
DWELLING DISTRICT REGULATIONS"
Ms. Dacy stated there have been articles in the Fridley
Focus about this ordinance amendment, and staff has received
a number of calls regarding this issue.
Ms. Dacy stated this ordinance amendment was originally
brought to the Commission's attention at their October 24,
'"', 1990, meeting at the request of the City Council. The City
- Council is concerned because they have received complaints
r"�
�
PLANNING CO1rII+�lIBBION MEETINa, NOVEMBER 14, 1990 PAGE 5
about single family homes that have been converted into
"illegal duplexes"--two dwelling units in one single family
home. The Council is concerned that this eroding the intent
of the single family district.
Ms. Dacy stated the current ordinance does prevent the
creation of a second unit within a single family home. It
does permit the rental of a guest room for up to two people-
-the difference being that a guest room is defined as not
having a kitchen.
Ms. Dacy stated the Council felt that because of the
violations that have been occurring in the City, the current
ordinance is not strong enough. So, the proposed amendment
would still permit guest rooms, but no other portion of a
dwelling could be rented to a person(s). Based on the
advice of the City Attorney, there could not be a
discrimination between a related individual and an unrelated
individual.
Ms. Dacy stated that at the October 24 Planning Commission
meeting, a number of individuals testified regarding
different situations which the proposed amendment would
prevent. These situations were:
1. Tdhere an elderly person would rent out part of the
home to an individual in order to be eligible for
state assistance.
2. Where a rental situation exists for a family
member who must, in order to participate in other
social service programs, be paying rent.
3. The split level homes constructed on the west side
of 7th Street in the Alice Wall Addition.
Ms. Dacy stated that based on the Commission's direction at
that meeting, staff tried to determine ways to permit some
of these naturally occurring incidences but still try to get
at the Council's intent of trying to prevent some of the
nuisances. She stated that it is not easy.
Ms. Dacy stated that the staff's analysis included
evaluating and comparing existing situations within the City
(chart was included in the agenda packet):
1. A typical single family home with the rental of
guest rooms as now permitted.
2. The experience of the split level homes in the
'"� Alice Wall Addition on the west side of 7th
� STreet.
�
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa. NOVBMBER 14, 1990 PAGE 6
3. The living situation exemplified by Roger Stein at
the October 24, 1990, Planning Commission meeting.
4. An elderly person living in a single family home
wanting to rent out a portion of the home for a
person to assist them, or an elderly person who
wants to live with their adult children.
5. Homes which we have issued rental licenses to,
including 541 - 53 1/2 Avenue, 7430 Able Street,
4042 Main Street, 6070 Central, and 6428-30
Dellwood Drive.
Ms. Dacy stated that if it is the intent of the City council
to prohibit the creation of two units in one structure/
create a duplex, thereby eroding the intent of the single
family neighborhood, then they must create performance
standards to ensure the "accessory nature" of these living
areas. Therefore, the following standards should be imposed
as part of a rental license for an "accessory apartment":
1. Require owner-occupancy of the structure.
^ 2. Limit the size of the living area of the accessory
apartment so that it is clearly subordinate.
3. Regulate outdoor impacts, i.e., a separate
entrance into the accessory apartment can only be
created at the side or rear of the home and that
there shall be no substantial exterior
architectural changes to the single family home
such that the home appears to be a two family
dwelling.
4. One accessory apartment shall be permitted per
single family dwelling.
5. The accessory apartment must meet the Uniforna
Building Code and Uniform Fire Code.
Ms. Dacy stated staff believes these requirements will
regulate and keep out the types of situations they believe
the Council is trying to prevent. They do not believe they
will get a lot of applications at this point in time and
believe they have the staff on hand to handle a license
application procedure. In the long term, they do expect
that these types of license requests would increase given
the demographics of this society and might help them catch
those situations that are illegal. It seemed that the
^ original ordinance would prevent living situations that the
- City Council had intended to affect.
r"�
�
�
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. NOVEMBER 14, 1990 PAGE 7
Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending that the Commission
endorse the concept of permitting a mother-in-law/accessory
apartment as an accessory use in the R-1, Single Family
District, subject to receiving a license. Incorporated into
the ordinance and prior to the issuance of a license would
be the following standards:
1.
2.
3.
The owner of the single family home must occupy
the dwelling.
One accessory apartment per single family
dwelling.
The secondary living area must comply with
building and fire codes.
4. A separate entrance to the apartment must be
located on the side or rear of the house to
maintain the single family appearance; exterior
stairways shall not be added to single family
structures unless required by the Uniform Fire
Code.
5. There shall be no substantial exterior
architectural changes to the single family home
such that the home appears to be a two family
dwelling.
6. Establish a minimum size of the apartment such
that it is clearly subordinate to the principal
use of the single family home.
Mr. Saba asked how they are going to address the current
violations--the homes that have already been modified for
two families.
Ms. Dacy stated staff is still discussing the issue of the
7th Street homes, which is different from the other
situations looked at by staff, but they would still have a
three year amortization period for the other violation
situations.
Mr. Betzold asked if the license process would be difficult
enough to discourage renting.
Ms. Dacy stated that is the reason for the requirement for
owner-occupancy. If the owner of a property is required to
live in the home, that owner has a vested interest in seeing
what happens on his/her property. If the owner is affected
by a"bad tenant", then the owner is going to take more of a
direct interest in the property than the absentee landlord.
n
PLANNING COMMISBION MEBTINt�. NOVEMBER 14. 1990 PAC,E 8
What is ironic is that the houses on 7th Street are more
towards a duplex than any other situation with an absentee
landlord, yet the City has had no complaints or any problems
from that neighborhood. So, there are a lot of these
situations that exist in single family areas without any
problems.
Mr. Jack Kirkham, 430 - 67th Avenue, stated he and his wife,
Corine, would like to present to the Commission a letter
dated November 12, 1990, addressed to Barb Dacy and the
Planning Commission. He read this letter to the Commission.
He stated this letter addressed the article they read in the
Fridley Focus about the proposed ordinance. Their letter
stated their opposition to the proposed ordinance which
would prohibit the renting of any portion of a single family
home to blood relatives.
MOTION by Mr. Rondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive
into the record the letter from Jack and Corine Rirkham
dated November 12, 1990.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
^ Mr. Betzold asked Mr. ICirkham how he felt about the person
who wishes to rent out a portion of his/her house, not to
take care of an aging relative or a child who suffers from
mental illness, but to gain the extra income, and the
neighbors are now complaining that it is changing the
character of a single family neighborhood, creating more
traffic, etc.
Mr. Kirkham stated that was a hard question to respond to,
because that type of situation did not bother him. He cited
the example of a divorcee on a limited income who must rent
out the basement in order to stay in her home. There is
another family in the same neighborhood, with 2 adults and
two grown children. They have 6 vehicles and a single car
garage, but he did not know of anyone who has complained
about it. He stated it is hard for him to respond to people
who are upset about other people who wish to have someone
else live in their home..
Mr. Kirkham stated he did not see how licensing would
resolve this issue. For example, if his neighbor converted
his basement to living space with a kitchen, etc., and he
complained about this situation, the neighbor could then go
to the City and obtain a license. Then his complaint would
no longer be legal and nothing would be resolved.
/`� Ms. Dacy stated they have to start somewhere to control what
� is appropriate and what is not appropriate. What they are
�
n
�
PLANNIN(� COMMI88ION MEETIN(3, NOVEMBER 14, 1990 PAC�E 9
trying to avoid with the proposed standards is an absentee
landlord situation where a two story house is being rented
to two families.
Mr. Saba stated the really gray area seems to be the
definition of a single family home and the definition of a
duplex. Maybe they need to just enforce the zoning code.
It is important to protect the integrity of the R-1 zoning.
The other thing he saw of value is the owner-occupancy
standard.
Ms. Sherek stated the City should never get into the
position of legislating who can live in a building in terms
of: Can five unrelated individuals live in a building or
not? She did not think a license procedure is appropriate.
She did not see a problem with 3-5 complaints per year.
Ms. Modig stated she believed they should leave the
ordinance as it is now and not make any changes.
Mr. Dahlberg stated that in a situation where they have
several people living in a building, they need to be
concerned about the life safety issues. A lot of these
types of arrangements do not meet the life safety
requirements. What percentage of people who remodel their
homes ever come in and apply for building permit?
Ms. Dacy stated they have only been able to catch this type
of situation when some of the rental areas are for Section 8
clients, because HUD requires certain size egress windows,
etc. Pat Wolfe, the staff person who works with Section 8,
has said that some of these units could occur without her
knowledge, and it could be a very dangerous situation.
Mr. Betzold stated he is not opposed to any of the standards
recommended by staff. They seem to be getting hung up more
over the licensing issue than they are on the standards
presented by staff.
Ms. Dacy stated the issue they are discussing is not so much
the standards as the level of control.
Mr. Kirkham stated it seemed to him that the timing is not
good for this proposed ordinance change. All the
sociologists are reminding them of the good old days when
they had extended families where people took care of their
own, and they didn't have to have so many nursing homes,
state homes, etc. Sociologists are recommending that people
get back to those good old days. The state and federal
governments are faced with building and maintaining more and
more facilities to take care of those people who cannot take
care of themselves. This proposed ordinance would make it
r"1
n
�,
L
PLANNIN�3 COMMI88ION MEBTING, NOVEMHER 14. 1990 PAGE 10
much more restrictive and would discourage people from
trying to take care of their own.
Mr. Kirkham stated he also thought the licensing procedure
is not good because it puts the emphasis and burden on the
homeowner. He resented the additional governmental
restrictions and would resent having to go and ask for a
license just to take care of his own family. Maybe the
people who need the license are the people who are trying to
make a profit by renting out part of their home.
Mr. Dahlberg stated he disagreed. If they are going to
require a license in one instance, then they should require
that a license is necessary in every instance.
Ms. Sherek stated she agreed with Mr. Rirkham in that she is
flatly opposed to having to get a license to have a relative
live in her home at any time under any circumstance. It is
nobody else�s business if someone lives in the basement of
her home. If the home is unsafe, then that is her problem.
Ms. Modig stated there is also the situation of having older
children living in your home. Would she need a license to
allow her own children to live in her home? She would
definitely be opposed to that.
Mr. Betzold stated he still thought the present code needed
a little more clarification to provide a little more
enforcement.
Mr. Saba stated they should be able to have the ability to
require the licensing procedure for the renting to non-
related individuals only.
Mr. Dahlberg stated that is discrimination.
Ms. Sherek stated they are already discriminating, because
right now they do not limit the number of related
individuals living in a home but they do limit the number of
unrelated individuals to five.
Mr. Dahlberg stated he disagreed. Just by virtue of saying
a person has to come in for a license if the person is
unrelated is discriminatory, because they are not saying the
person who is related has to come in for a liaense. If they
are going to require a license, then they have to require it
of everyone.
Ms. Savage stated what is legally discriminatory is what the
courts say is legally discriminatory.
PLANNINa CONIIKIBBION MEETINa� NOVEMBBR 14. 1990 PAGE 11
�"�
- Ms. Corine Kirkham stated that Jack's mom lived in their
home in the "mother-in-law apartment" for several years. If
she had not been related, they would not have allowed anyone
else to live in their home. Their adult children have also
made use of this apartment. If these people had not been
related, they would not have felt obligated to share their
living quarters. She did not think they can say it is
discrimination. If it is family, you help them out. She
stated renting to related people is very different from
renting to unrelated people.
Mr. Saba stated that maybe they need an opinion from the
City Attorney as to whether it would be discriminatory to
require a license for unrelated individuals only.
Ms. Modig agreed they need a legal opinion, but she had a
real problem with the whole licensing procedure.
Mr. Betzold asked if the Commission had any problems with
the six recommendations made by staff.
Ms. Sherek recommended that along with item #6, they include
a maximum size of 35% or 800-900 sq. ft.--something to
indicate that there is definitely a smaller self-contained
^ unit within a larger home.
Mr. Betzold stated if there is a hardship by holding to a
certain percentage, that can be addressed through the
variance process. He believed they should have a maximum
size, and he would go along with 35�a.
Ms. Dacy stated that based on the plans she has worked on,
she would feel more comfortable with 40�.
Mr. Betzold asked staff to get a legal opinion from the City
Attorney on licensing for unrelated individuals versus
related individuals and to draft an ordinance for the next
Planning Commission meeting.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REGISTERED LAND SURVEY
P.S. #90-06. BY GLACIER PARK COMPANY:
To replat that part of Lots 2 and 3, Auditor's Subdivision
No. 78, Anoka County, Minnesota, generally located north of
I-694 and west of Main Street N.E.
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Modig, to remove this
item from the table.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BLTZOLD
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
�
�
�
�
�
PLANNINa COMMIBBION MEETINa. NOVEMBER 14. 1990 PAGE 12
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing to
subdivide the property into four tracts. The principal lot,
Tract A, will meet the minimum lot area and lot width
requirements for a buildable lot. Tract B will be reserved
for the Burlington Northern rail yards. Tract C could be
used by Burlington Northern at some future time for private
access to Tract B, but is not a buildable lot. Tract D will
be dedicated to the City for right-of-way for Main Street,
which would allow a future Anoka County road improvement
proj ect .
Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the registered land survey
with the following stipulations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Clean the parcel of I-694 construction debris and
re-establish vegetative cover by June 1, 1991.
A park dedication fee of $.023 per square foot
shall be paid at the time of construction on Tract
A or if Tract A is resubdivided.
Tracts B and C are not buildable lots.
Tract D shall be dedicated to the public for
street and utility purposes.
Ms. Sherek stated she would like to see stipulation #1
changed to require all the tracts to be cleaned of
construction debris.
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Rondrick, to recommend
to City Council approval of Registered Land Survey, P.S.
#90-06, by Glacier Park Company, to replat that part of Lots
2 and 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, Anoka County,
Minnesota, generally located north of I-694 and west of Main
Street N.E., with the following stipulations:
1. Al1 four tracts must be cleaned of I-694
construction debris and vegetative cover re-
established by June 1, 1991.
2.
3.
4.
A park dedication fee of $.023 per square foot
shall be paid at the time of construction on Tract
A or if Tract A is resubdivided.
Tracts B and C are not buildable lots.
Tract D shall be dedicated to the public for
street and utility purposes.
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETINGi. NOVEMHER 14. 1990 PAGE 13
r"1
- IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIN�3 AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on
December 10, 1990.
5. 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR:
MOTION by Mr. Rondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to approve
the 1991 Planning Commission calendar with the deletion of
November 27, 1991.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINa AYE� CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
6. RECEIVE OCTOBER 1. 1990, PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive
the October 1, 1990, Parks and Recreation Commission
minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTINC� AYE, CBAIRPER80N BETZOLD
DECLARTD THE MOTION CARRIED DNANIMOIISLY.
^ Mr. Rondrick stated he wanted ta alert the Planning
Commission about the Parks and Recreation Commission's
concern about the new Target Greatland which is proposed for
the old YMCA site. The Commission is concerned about the
impact on Springbrook Nature Center. They need to watch
this very carefully to make sure the City can restrict the
negative impact to the Nature Center as much as possible,
both environmentally and visually.
Ms. Dacy stated the developer, First Western Development,
will be submitting a rezoning application for some of the
property to go from M-2, Heavy Industrial, to C-2, General
Business, to match the remaining part of the property.
There will also be an application to plat the property into
four lots, one lot for the shopping center, and another lot
for the Target Greatland, a loopback parcel, and an outlot
for the wetland area they are required to maintain. So, the
Commission will have a chance to discuss concerns and issues
when these items come before them.
7. RECEIVE OCTOBER 4, 1990, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive
� the October 4, 1990, Human Resources Commission minutes.
�
PLANNIN(3 COMMI88ION MEETIN�3� NOVEMBER 14, 1990 PAGE 14
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINt�i AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD
DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED �NANIMOIIBLY.
8. RECEIVE OCTOBER 11. 1990. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive
the October il, 1990, Housing & Redevelopment Authority
minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPER80N BETZOLD
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
9. RECEIVE OCTOBER 10. 1990, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the
October 10, 1990, Appeals Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD
DECLAR�D THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
10. OTHER BUSINESS:
a. Landscape Ordinance Amendment
�� Ms. Dacy stated that regarding Commissioner Saba's
concern about the landscaping ordinance and that it
does not adequately ensure proper screening of
commercial and industrial developments adjacent to
public parks, staff reviewed the remaining developable
land located adjacent to public parks. With the
exception of the First Western Development site at 85th
and University Avenue (Target Greatland), all
properties adjacent to public parks have been
developed. She stated the First Western Development
site will be buffered from Springbrook Nature Center by
the Springbrook Apartments and by the permanent
wetlands (265 feet x 460 feet) which will be developed
as part of the proposed project.
Ms. Dacy stated part of the Landscaping Ordinance will
require the developer to plant 360 trees, 260 of those
have to be perimeter trees and 100 have to be part of
the interior landscaping. The Nature Center is very
concerned about the impact of seeing a portion of the
building. The remaining part of the shopping center
and Target will be screened by the Springbrook
Apartments. This area should be substantially
reforested as much as possible so that screening
occurs.
�
PLANNINt3 COMMI88ION MELTIN(�. NOPEMBER 14, 1990 PAGE 15
�
Mr. Saba stated he was hoping to see some teeth in the
ordinance that would address this issue and basically
create a precise requirement in the Landscape
Ordinance. He is concerned not only about screening
the building but also screening the parking lot from
Springbrook Nature Center. He would like to reduce the
visual impact to the Nature Center as much as possible.
Ms. Dacy stated they do have the teeth now in the
revised Landscape Ordinance. In the old ordinance,
they did not have the requirement of planting of 365
trees nor did they have the setback of 265 feet.
Again, this is the last situation where parkland is
wide open adjacent to a development.
Mr. Saba stated he is not so much concerned about the
265 foot buffer. He is just saying there should be a
dense planting of trees, whether it is a wetland, or
additional rows of trees, something to protect the
Nature Center so the development does not become a
visual blight to the park. The ordinance does not say
where the 365 trees have to be planted.
Ms. Dacy stated the City will require the developer to
r.1 plant as many trees as are necessary to screen that
area. Staff has asked the developer to specifically
show them the plan.
Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission will be able to
review the plan and applications probably on January
23, 1991.
b. Stonybrook Diversion Project
Ms. Dacy stated the Commission members had received a
copy of a memo from Mark Winson dated November 9, 1990.
In the 1992 Capital Improvement Plan, the City
currently has a project to divert storm flows in
Stonybrook Creek to the ponds in the Springbrook Nature
Center. The proposed plan is to create a ditch along
the east right-of-way of the Burlington Northern tracks
from 78th Street to the south end of the Nature Center.
The City has contacted Burlington Northern to obtain an
easement, and it appears that the railroad will grant
that request.
Mr. Kondrick asked what will happen to the flow in
Stonybrook Creek as it passes from the railroad tracks
to the Mississippi River.
'"'1 Ms. McPherson stated the proposed project would reverse
the flow of the water. Right now the water flows from
�
PLANNING COMMIBBION MEETINa� NOVEMBBR 14. 1990 PAG� 16
Springbrook to the south, and they want to reverse that
and have the water flow into Springbrook first before
it is released into the rest of the system.
Mr. Kondrick stated he lives on Stonybrook Way, and he
will be asked by concerned neighbors about what will
happen to the flow of water and if the creek will dry
up.
Ms. McPherson stated she did not know the answer to
that question, but would ask Mark Winson, Assistant
Public Works Director.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the
meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold
declared the motion carried and the November 14, 1990, Planning
Commission meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Res�ectfully sub 'tted,
. � �t_Q. �'�-�'�
Ly �' Saba
� Re ding Secretary
,�-'1