PL 02/10/1993 - 30765I'�1
��
'"'�
@
i
i
CITY OF FRIDLSY
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETIN(�� FEBRIIARY 10� 1993
w�wtiw�w.ww,w�w�ww.ww.wwww.w.w.�w�w�ww�w.ww,w�r�.Nwrw�w�w.w.w.w.w.w1rwrwrwwww,w.w.w.�w.w�ww.w�w,w�w.�.wrw�w�w
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairperson Newman called the February
Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL•
10, 1993, Planning
Members Present: Dave Newman, Dave Kondrick, Sue Sherek,
Dean Saba, Diane Savage, Brad Sielaff,
Connie Modig
Members Absent:
Others Present:
None
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Mike Schroer, Bob's Produae Ranch
ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRPERSON:
Chairperson Newman declared the nominations open for the office of
vice-chairperson of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Saba nominated Dave Kondrick for Vice-Chairperson of the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Kondrick stated he would be willing to continue serving as
Vice-Chairperson.
Hearing no other nominations, Chairperson Newman declared the
nominations closed.
MOTION by Mr. 5aba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to cast a unanimous
ballot for Dave Kondrick for the office of Vice-Chairperson of the
Planning Commission.
DPON A VOICE VOTB, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIBD IINANIMOIISLY.
APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 16 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the
December 16, 1992, Planning Commission minutes as written.
IIPON A VOICE VOTL� ALL VOTINt3 AYE� CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
�,.� PLANNINa COIrII�ISBION MEETINa. FEBRIIARY 10. 1993 PAGE 2
1. PUBLIC HEARIATG: An amendment to the Fridley City Code Chapter
205, entitled "Zoning" by amending Section 205.04.04.I, to:
A. Adopt by reference Best Management Practices
B. Require submission of a grading and drainage plan
C. Require submission of a conservation plan and schedule
D. Establish standards for control of storm water run-off
E. Require "as-built" drawings and maintenance agreements
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Savage, to open the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE pIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:34 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated that in 1988, the Metropolitan Council amended
their Water Resources Development Plan of the Metropolitan
Development and Investment Framework. As part of that, the
Metropolitan Council directed Metropolitan Council staff to prepare
�"'�, an implementation strategy to improve overall water quality in the
metropolitan region by reducing non-point source pollution. This
directive was then passed on to local municipalities for
comprehensive plan update.
Ms. McPherson stated that in 1992, City staff was notified that
the Metropolitan Council had been working on attempting to
implement their strategies to reduce non-point source pollution
and were using as a basis the Environmental Protection Agency's
and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's joint project for the
Minnesota River. This is a project to attempt to reduce the non-
point source pollution along the Minnesota River in an attempt to
reduce the pollution loads in the Minnesota River.
Ms. McPherson stated that as a result of that ongoing study, local
municipalities have been mandated to do three things: (1) to adopt
design standards for storm water ponds and to reduce pollution
loading in surface water runoff; (2) to adopt Best Management
Practices; and (3) to adopt the Department of Natural Resources�
(DNR) Shoreland Ordinance.
Ms. McPherson stated City staff is working on the Shoreland
Ordinance. However, the DNR has indicated that Fridley is not a
"high priority city" as it is 85� developed, and most of its
shoreland property is already developed with residential
development. There is no pressure from the DNR for Fridley to
� adopt a shoreland ordinance. Fridley is, however, working to adopt
a shoreland ordinance which is modified to meet the City's needs.
� PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEBTING. FEBRIIARY 10. 1993 PAG� 3
Ms. McPherson stated the first ordinance amendment is for the
Zoning Code which is Chapter 205. In Chapter 205, there is a
subsection entitled "Building Site'� which talks�about requiring
building permits and various other development standards for
development of property within the City. Staff is proposing to
amend that chapter by adding language which basically does five
things:
1. Adopting by reference the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency's reference book entitled, "Protecting Water
Quality in Urban Areas, Best Management Practices for
Minnesota".
2. It requires the submission of a grading and drainage plan
in conjunction with a building or land alteration permit.
3. It requires the submission of a conservation plan and
schedule.
4. It establishes standards for control of storm water
runoff.
5. It requires as-built surveys of the detention facilities
�"'� once they are constructed and also requires the execution
and recording of maintenance agreements.
Ms. McPherson stated the Environmental Quality and Energy
Commission has reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment and made
comments to staff. In December 1992, the Planning Commission
reviewed this ordinance preliminarily and made some comments at
that time. �
Mr. Newman asked what revision has been incorporated in the
maintenance agreement.
Ms. McPherson stated staff has drafted the maintenance agreement.
It describes the area where the pond is to be located on the
property. It sets forth standards for maintenance and also has a
notification requirement. If the City inspects or receives a
complaint and inspects the pond, and the pond is not being
maintained to the standards set forth in the agreement, the City
can notify the property owner; and, if the situation is not
rectified, the City can come in, do the maintenance, and assess
the property owner for the expense incurred by the City.
Mr. Newman stated that normally there is a requirement for a
security deposit by the developer.
Ms. McPherson stated that is not required with the maintenance
�"� agreement, but typically the City does require a performance bond
�.,� PLANNING_COMMI88ION ME�TING. FEBRIIARY 10. 1993 PAG$ 4
for all outdoor improvements that is usually held for a certain
amount of time.
Ms. Sherek asked if there are any standards set forth in this
ordinance regarding fencing the detention ponds.
Ms. McPherson stated she is not aware of any standards regarding
fencing, but she could review that with the Engineering Department.
Ms. Sherek stated she believed it is very important to require
fencing around detention ponds for safety reasons.
Mr. Newman stated that in a previous conversation with Ms.
McPherson, he expressed concern about how Chapter 205 could impact
the single family lot or the addition to a single family home since
the language is such that it involves any building. Ms. McPherson
had discussed the possibility of incorporating language from
Chapter 208, Paragraph 3, to exclude structures that are single
family homes or for additions that are less than 9, 000 square feet.
Could Ms. McPherson elaborate on that?
Ms. McPherson stated that right now the proposed language in
Chapter 205 requires that a grading and drainage plan be submitted
in conjunction with a building or land alteration permit. While
^ the City may always re�quire a land alteration permit, it may be
appropriate in all cases to require an extensive grading and
drainage plan for certain types of project.
Ms. McPherson stated that in Chapter 208 there are exemptions from
submitting a conservation plan, and those exemptions include minor
land disturbances, construction or installation of utilities,
preparation for single family residences built on single lots, and
for commercial or industrial uses where the disturbance of the land
area is less than 9, 000 square feet which would potentially include
a small addition to an existing business plus some improvement to
the parking lot.
Ms. McPherson stated that one thing discussed by Mr. Newman and
staff was possibly including that type of language as an exception
in Chapter 205. She has not had an opportunity to review that with
the Engineering Department, but she believed it would be a logical
inclusion.
Mr. Sielaff stated he would be a little concerned because it would
really be site dependent. There needs to be some discretion to
determine this on a site-by-site basis. Chapter 208 talks about
an 18o slope, and he would be a little bit concerned about the
slope or other situations.
Ms. McPherson stated that in Chapter 208, Section D, there is
� language that allows the City to rec�uire a plan even though it
falls under the exemption. She b��ieved they could word the
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING. FEBRIIARY 10. 1993 PAG$ 5
!�`� —
exemption for Chapter 205 in a similar manner so that if the City
has an environmental concern and feels that it would adversely
impact adjacent properties, the City could require that a grading
and drainage plan be submitted.
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Rondrick, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTL, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE pIIBLIC HEARIN�3 CL08ED AT 7t50 P.M.
Mr. Sielaff stated that with the amendment as suggested by staff
to incorporate the language on the exemptions in Chapter 208 into
Chapter 205 alleviates his concerns.
Ms. Sherek stated that she believed fencing should be required but
fencing is probably covered in the Best Management Practices.
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend to City
Council approval of an amendment to the Fridley City Code Chapter
205 entitled "Zoning", and to direct staff to include the
exemptions in Section 208 into Chapter 205.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THB
^ MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: An amendment to the Fridley City Code Chapter
208, entitled "Erosion Control", to:
A. Eliminate soil erosion when possible
B. Establish standards and specifications for conservation
practices and planning activities which eliminate or
minimize soil erosion and sedimentation
MOTION by Mr. Rondrick, seconded by Ms. Savage, to open the public
hearing.
IIPON A DOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N rfEWMAI�T DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE ppBLIC HEARIldt� OPEN AT 8:00 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated that the proposed Chapter 208 amendment would
create a new chapter in the City Code entitled "Erosion Control".�
This chapter establishes the City�s position and intent to
eliminate soil erosion whenever possible and, when that elimination
is not feasible, to have activities which minimize the amount of
soil erosion in conjunction with the development with the City.
It sets forth a variety of definitions. It again adopts several
technical guides by reference, including adopting the Best
Management Practices developed by the Minnesota Pollution Control
/� Agency.
� PLANNINa CONIlKI88ION MEETINa, FEHRIIARY 10, 1993 PAaE 6
Ms. McPherson stated it still requires the submission of a
aonservation plan which again is related to the various development
activities and, as discussed earlier, has certain exemptions for
certain types of activities. It sets forth specific standards and
specific activities which need to be addressed in a conservation
plan and requires the establishment of a timetable by which those
types of activities need to occur.
Ms. McPherson stated it sets a plan review schedule and proposes
to designate someone to review plans. It also specifically calls
out certain design standards and, while they are minimums, the City.
may require more design standards which are included in the Best
Management Practices handbook. It requires a security over and
above the typical performance bond. Right now they do require a
performance bond� which covers all outdoor improvements--
landscaping, blacktopping, curbing, irrigation, etc. This would
be a separate security over and above that particular performance
bond, and that particular security would only apply to the
conservation and its related components.
Mr. Newman stated his concern with a performance bond is that it
is very difficult to get a performance bond these days. Requiring
a performance bond, letter of credit, or certificate of deposit
would add a significant cost to the improvements. In his personal
^, opinion, he is not sure a 100� letter of credit or 100� performance
bond is necessary. What they want to do is encourage people to
improve their properties, and the City has to be careful that it
doesn't make it so costly that people cannot afford to make those
improvements.
Ms. McPherson stated that the City's typical performance bond (not
including what is talked about in conjunction with the conservation
plan) for outdoor improvements is 3� of the construction value.
So, the City�s policy is not 100% coverage; it is only a percentage
of the entire value of the project. That includes not only the
landscaping and outdoor improvements, but also includes the value
of the building, etc. This particular security would only cover
what it would cost to install the detention pond, sedimentation
basin, etc. She should probably discuss this with the Engineering
Department to see what kind of costs they are talking about for the
developer. Instead of requiring a 100� in bond for the
improvement, it might be more appropriate to change the performance
bond to 5o and have it cover the conservation plan as well.
Ms. McPherson stated the section on "Securities" needs to be
clarified. It reads two ways. The first part reads that it going
to follow another section of the ordinance, and then at the same
time it requires 100% of the cost of the conservation plan and
associated improvements.
r^, Mr. Saba stated that maybe the performance bond can just be enough
to cover the erosion control measur�es as opposed to a certain fee.
PLANNING CO1�iI88ION ME�TING. FEBRIIARY 10, 1993 PAa$ 7
��
They are not asking for the amount of money for security to cover
the cost of the entire improvements--just the cost of the erosion
control measures. The language should be very specific.
�"'1
Ms. McPherson stated staff can amend the language ta reflect that.
Mr. Kondrick agreed. They should just be addressing conservation
methods and policies, not anything else.
Mr. Newman stated his only concern is that they not increase the
amount of the performance bond. There are already some safeguards
in place.
Ms. McPherson stated it might be appropriate to also amend that
particular section of the ordinance that talks about performance
bonds to specifically call out conservation practices as outlined
in a required conservation plan as one of the included items to be
covered by the performance bond.
Mr. Kondrick stated that this seems to be an area of concern, and
maybe staff can revise the language in Section 208.07. Securities.
Ms. Sherek agreed. The performance bond language really needs to
be addressed.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, AI,L VOTIN(3 AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
MOTION by Mr. Rondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to table discussion
on an amendment to Fridley City Code Chapter 208 entitled "Erosion
Control'� to the next meeting in order for staff to make further
modifications as discussed by the Planning Commission.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPER80N NEWMAN DLCLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIIBLY.
3. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REOUEST SAV #92 03 BY BOB'S
PRODUCE RANCH:
To vacate the north 50 feet except the west 209.7 feet of Lot
1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates First Addition according to the
plat of record on file in the office of the County Recorder,
Anoka County, Minnesota, and the.north 10 feet of Lot 1, Block
1, East Ranch Estates First Addition according to the plat of
record and on file in the office of the County Recorder, Anoka
County, Minnesota. Generally located at 7620 University
Avenue N.E.
� Mr. Newman stated that because of a conflict of interest, he would
not participate in the discussioA �nd would abstain from voting on
� PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa. F$BRIIARY 10. 1993 PAaB 8
this issue and asked Vice-Chairperson Kondrick to conduct this
portion of the meeting.
Ms. McPherson stated this property is located north .of Osborne Road
and west of the West University Avenue Service Drive. The property
is currently zoned C-3, General Shopping Center District. The
request is to vacate two easements. The first easement is a 10
foot sanitary sewer easement which runs adjacent to what was
originally the north lot line of Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates
ist Addition. The City does.not have any utilities located within
this easement. The City's utilities are located directly north of
the subject easement within the Metropolitan Waste Control's 33
foot easement.
Ms. McPherson stated the various utility companies have reviewed
this request and have stated that they do not have any utilities
within this easement. So, there is really no purpose for this
easement.
Ms. McPherson stated the purpose for vacating the easement of the
proposed addition to Bob's Produce is because it encroaches into
the easement. The City has executed an easement encroachment
agreement which has given the petitioner permission to encroach
into the easement in order to start construction during the
� vacation process.
Ms. McPherson stated the second easement is a 50 foot road easement
which extends from the West University Avenue Service Drive
approximately midway into the parcel. At one time, the City had
foreseen the possibility of 77th Avenue being connected in an
east/west direction. However, the City did approve a vacation
request to vacate that portion of 77th Avenue at the west end of
the development parcel. The middle portion was never dedicated to
the City, so there is really no purpose for this particular street
and utility easement. Al1 the utility easements have reviewed this
request in conjunction with the road easement, and they have no
utilities or concerns or questions regarding the vacation.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the vacation to the City Council.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend to City
Council approval of vacation request, SAV #92-03, by Bob's Produce
Ranch, to vacate the north 50 feet except the west 209.7 feet of
Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates First Addition according to the
plat of record on file in the office of the County Recorder, Anoka
County, Minnesota, and the north 10 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, East
Ranch Estates First Addition according to the plat of record and
on file in the office of the County Recorder, Anoka County,
Minnesota. Generally located at 7620 University Avenue N.E.
�
�..� PLANNIN(� COl�lIBBION MEETIN6. FEBRIIARY 10, 1993 PAGL 9
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, CBAIRPLRSOAT NEWMAN ABBTAINING� VICE-CHAIRPLR80N
RONDRICR DECLAR�D THE MOTION CARRIED.
4. RECEIVE THE NOVEMBER 2. 1992. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the
November 2, 1992, Parks & Recreation Commission minutes.
QPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
5. RECEIVE THE DECEMBER 10 1992 JOINT HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY/CITY COUNCIL MINUTES•
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the
December 10, 1992, Joint Housing & Redevelopment/City Council
minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTB, ALL VOTING AYS, CHAIRPLR80N NEWMAN DECI�ARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
6. RECEIVE THE DECEMBER 15 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL UALITY AND
'"�
ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES•
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the
December 15, 1992, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission
minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED THL
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
7. RECEIVE THE DECEMBER 15 1992 APPEALS COMMISSION MINiJTES:
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Rondrick, to receive the
December 15, 1992, Appeals Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTIN(3 AYE, CHAIRPERBON NTsWMAN DLCLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIIBLY.
8. RECEIVE THE JANUARY 4 1993 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the
January 4, 1993, Parks and Recreation Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEpMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
/'_`
�
�
��
PLANNING_CONII�II88ION MEBTINa. FLBRIIARY 10. 1993 PA(3B 10
9. RECEIVE THE JANUARY 7. 1993. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION
MINUTES:
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the
January 7, 1993, Human Resources Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THB
MOTION CARRILD IINANIMOIISLY.
10. RECEIVE TIiE JANUARY 12. 1993, APPEALS COMMISSION MINLTTES:
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the
January 12, 1993, Appeals Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINt� AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED T8T
MOTION CARRIBD IINANIMOIIBLY.
0 11. RECEIVE THE JANUARY 19, 1993 ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY AND ENERGY
COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the January
19, 1993, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, AI,L VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
/"'� MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
12. RECEIVE FEBRUARY �. 1993 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the February
2, 1993, Appeals Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIATt3 AYE, CBAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARLD THE
MOTION C�iRRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
ADJOURNMENT:
MoTIOK by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the meeting.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Newman declared the
motion carried and the February 10, 1993, Planning Commission
adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully s mitted,
Ly e Saba
Recording Secretary
/'�