Loading...
PL 05/04/1994 - 30788� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, MAY 4� 1994 CALL TO ORDER• Vice-Chairperson Kondrick called the May 4, 1994, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Dave Kondrick, Diane Savage, Dean Saba, LeRoy Oquist Members Absent: Dave Newman, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michelle McPherson, Planning Assistant Faron Turner, 7708 Tyler Street N.E., Spring Lake Park, Minnesota Frank Shimek, 7901 River Terrace Clark Nason, 614 Cheryl Street N.E. M. E. & E. Thompson, 6212 Hillside Road, Edina, Minnesota � Tim & Diane Lott, 2149 Sheridan Hills Road, ` Wayzata, Minnesota Darlene Brady, 641 Buffalo Street N.E. Gordon Hedlund, 1255 Pike Lake Drive, New Brighton, Minnesota James Peterson, 7995 Broad Street APPROVAL OF APRIL 20 1994 PLANNING COMMISSIOAT MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the April 20, 1994, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(3 AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERBON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOIISLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: AN ORDINANCE RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE. CHAPTER 205 ENTITLED "ZONING" BY AMENDING SECTIONS 205.14.1.B, 205 14 1.C, 205 15 1 B 205 15 1 C AND RESCINDING AND AMENDING CHAPTER 32 ENTITLED "FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS" MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:36 P.M. � PLANNING COMMISSION NlEETING, MAY 4 1994 PAGE 2 Ms. Dacy stated this item is a request to amend two zoning districts in the ordinance. The request is to amend the C-2 and C-3 districts, which are commercial, to permit seasonal outdoor food sales. The request is being made because the petitioner, William Turner and his son, Faron Turner, operate a mini-doughnut machine. They were selling mini-doughnuts inside the Wal-Mart Store during the holiday season last year. The mechanical code requires this type of equipment to have a venting system to have the exhaust leave the area of the machine and out of the building. Wal-Mart was not willing to provide the venting system. The alternative was to locate the mini-doughnut machine outside the building. The zoning code however does not permit the outdoor sales of food items. Mr. Turner subsequently spoke at a City Council meeting during the Open Forum to request the City Council to consider amending the ordinance. The City Council directed staff to develop options for their review which staff did and brought back to the City Council. The City Council decided they would be able to support an amendment that would permit�outdoor food sales, both on a temporary and long term basis, using different tools in the zoning code and the licensing chapter. The amendment to the zoning ordinance includes three different types of sales of food items, as follows: A. Daily sales. Sales which occur each day for ten or more �� consecutive days. B. Weekly sales. Sales which occur for a minimum of one and a maximum of three consecutive days each week for two or more consecutive weeks during the year. C. Special event sales. Sales which occur for a minimum of one and a maximum of ten consecutive days, and no more than two times per year. The weekly sales and special event sales would be a permitted accessory use and would require a license. The petitioner would come in, file an application for a license, and this would be handled by staff. For daily sales, staff suggest there be a special use permit in the C-2 and C-3 districts. Using this as a framework, staff developed seven standards with which all of the sales would have to comply: 1. The sale area shall not exceed ten feet by 20 feet (200 square feet of area). 2. The sale area shall be located within 20 feet of the major entrance of the principle bu�lding. 3. The sale area shall not be located within the 20 foot parking r� setback or in the public right-of-way. � T"; PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 4 1994 PAGE 3 4. 5. 6. The sale area shall not interfere with parking or traffic patterns. The pedestrian waiting area shall be clearly defined, signed, and shall be protected and separated from vehicular traffic. Sale equipment shall meet all applicable building, fire, and electrical codes. 7. A license shall be obtained in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 32 of the Fridley City Code prior to conducting sale activities. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission re�ommend approval to the City Council of the proposed ordinance amendment. Ms. Dacy stated, as a related item, Chapter 32, the Food Establishment Code which would require the license, is currently being reviewed by the Clerk's Office. Because this is not part of the zoning code, it will not be brought before the Planning Commission. Also, she was contacted by a local restaurant owner wondering if the outdoor eating area at his establishment might be restricted by this ordinance. In order to clarify for the record, this is not the case. This amendment is to address temporary food sales, such as the mini doughnut operation, which is not a continuous principal use of the property. Mr. Saba asked if staff had considered tieing these types of sales to the number of square feet of space so they are not lined up along the wall. Is there a maximum number of food vendors allowed? Ms. Dacy stated this was not discussed but they may want to restrict the number of sales occurring on any one property at any one time. This could be a standard. Mr. Oquist stated the intent is not to restrict outdoor use at restaurants, but this could restrict that. There should be wording in the standard that does not restrict. Ms. Dacy stated, in the definition of sales, they can clarify what the term means and perhaps define by excluding restaurants with outdoor eating arease Mr. Oquist stated, in the first standard, the sale area is not to exceed 10 feet by 20 feet (200 square feet). He asked if they wanted to restrict this to 200 square feet or 10 feet by 20 feet. Ms. Dacy stated she would recommend stating 200 square feet and ,.� not provide dimensions. ,� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 4. 1994 PAGE 4 Ms. Savage asked if restaurants can have outdoor tables without a special use permit. Ms. Dacy stated this was correct. There are no specific guidelines in the code about that. Outdoor seating areas are typically separated from a sidewalk or street and customers have to get back into the main building to pay. The food is being sold and eaten on the premises. The City is trying to address food sales purchased and not eaten in the immediate area. Mr. Faron Turner thanked staff and the Commission for their time and effort. He and his father have gotten a good response from the public as far as what they do at Wal-Mart. People are coming and like to find them there. It is a novelty that the public enjoys and Wal-Mart enjoys, and they would like to continue. He understands the proposed amendments, but he does not know where it will end up. As far as the down draft system used to vent the operation in the store, when they purchased the equipment, they were told it was approved equipment but later learned it was not approved within the City. They would not have used it if they had known. He met with Ms. Dacy at the site, and he hopes they can continue their operation. Ms. Darlene Brady stated she had a thought about the outdoor �"'; seating areas at restaurant. These areas do not have food prepared there. Food is prepared inside and served outdoors. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERBON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CL08ED AT 7:52 P.M. Mr. Saba stated he would like to see included in the amendment wording that addresses the number of food sales vendors allowed in any one area to avoid a carnival-like appearance and change the area to read 200 square feet. Mr. Oquist stated there should also be clarification of food preparation or food sales and to whom it applies. Mr. Kondrick asked if Ms. Dacy would like to make the changes and come back or if she would like a recommendation. Ms. Dacy stated she would like to have a recommendation if the Commission is comfortable in doing so without actually seeing the changes. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend to the �, City Council approval of an ordinance recodifying the Fridley City Code, Chapter 205, entitled "Zoning'� by amending Sections ,'"''} PLANNING COMMI_SSION MEETING. MAY 4 1994 PAGE 5 205.4.1.B, 205.14.1.C, 205.15.1.B, 205.15.1.C, and rescinding and amending Chapter 32, entitled "Food Establishments"; that the standard regarding the sale area be amended to read, "Sale area shall not exceed 200 square feet of area"; that there be included a limit to the number of sellers allowed at a site; and that there be clarification of food preparation and food sales. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP �94-06, BY WILLIAM TURNER: Per proposed Section 205.14.01.C.(18) of the Fridley City Code, to allow seasonal daily outdoor sales of food (mini doughnuts) on Lot 1, Block 1, Wal-Mart in Fridley, the same being 8450 University Avenue N.E. (Wal-Mart Store) MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERBON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7t56 P.M. ��` Ms. Dacy stated the parcel is located at the Wal-Mart Store located at the corner of 85th Avenue and University. The property is zoned C-2, Conamercial. The Springbrook Apartments are on the west side of the property and are zoned R-3, Multiple Family, and the vacant property now under construction is zoned C-2, Commercial. Ms. Dacy stated the petitioner is requesting a special use permit for doughnut sales just east of the front door within the 20 feet distance required by the zoning ordinance just discussed. The vendor will be located on the sidewalk in front of the store. The sidewalk is about 10 feet deep. The trailer is 7 feet by l0 feet so the trailer will be located lengthwise along the wall of the building. At this point, the area is striped for pedestrian traffic and there are bollards in front of the store's main entrance. Ms. Dacy stated the petitioner stated during the site visit, because they prepare the doughnuts in the bags in advance, they have not generally had a line and there is not an overcrowded condition. Staff have reviewed the request based on the standards developed in the zoning ordinance and recommend the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit subject to the following stipulations: ,-` 1. Daily sales of mini doughnuts shall begin on May 1 and end on = October 1 of each year. �i �� % �, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 4 1994 PAGE 6 2. The petitioner shall submit documentation to the Fire Marshall regarding the fire extinguishing system for the deep fat fryer. 3. The petitioner shall obtain a license as required in Chapter 32 of the City Code and comply with the seven standards of the proposed ordinance amendment. 4. This special use permit is for the daily sales of mini- doughnuts only; additional sales shall obtain the appropriate licenses or special use permits as governed by the proposed ordinance amendment. Extensions to the sale period shall be approved by the City Council. Mr. Oquist stated the petitioner indicated that Wal-Mart was in favor of this business. Are they in favor of this being outside? Mr. Turner stated they were outside for a short time before going inside. Wal-Mart likes their operation, and people seem to like it and ask when they will be back. Mr. Kondrick stated the City received a letter from the Wal-Mart store manager indicating he and the customers have been happy with the facility and the food. Mr. Saba stated he has a concern that the vendor is selling food in disposable bags and the customer throws the bag away. He would not like to see these disposable bags thrown away in the parking lot and subsequently littering the Springbrook Nature Center. Mr. Turner stated they pick up the bags when they see them. They fill the bag up all the way to the top, and customers end up taking them home. This has not been an issue. He can place a garbage can outside. The units are spotless all the time and are approved by the Health Department. They follow the codes and try to recycle as much as they can. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERBON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:02 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend to the City Council approval of Special Use Permit, SP #94-06, by William Turner, to allow seasonal daily outdoor sales of food (mini-doughnuts) on Lot 1, Block 1, Wal-Mart in Fridley, with the following stipulations: ,� , � PLANNING COPRMISSION MEETING, MAY 4. 1994 PAGE 7 1. Daily sales of mini doughnuts shall begin on May 1 and end on October 1 of each year. 2. The petitioner shall submit documentation to the Fire Marshall regarding the fire extinguishing system for the deep� fat fryer. 3. The petitioner shall obtain a license as required in Chapter 32 of the City Code and comply with the seven standards of the proposed ordinance amendment. 4. This special use permit is for the daily sales of mini- doughnuts only; additional sales shall obtain the appropriate licenses or special use permits as governed by the proposed ordinance amendment. Extensions to the sale period shall be approved by the City Council. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOOSLY. Mr. Turner stated the first stipulation states the dates of operation from May 1 to October 1. Is it possible for him to start working anytime soon? Ms. Dacy stated the petitioner is asking to start the operation prior to City Council approval which will not be until June 20. She suggested he write a letter which she will pass on to the City Council. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #94-05, BY GORDON HEDLUND: Per Section 205.24.4.D and 205.24.5.A of the Fridley City Code, to allow construction in the CRP-2 District (Flood Fringe) on Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, Block V, Riverview Heights, generally located on the north side of Dover Street west of Broad Avenue. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:05 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the Planning Commission has before them requests for three separate lots in the Riverview neighborhood. As each lot is unique and the issues different for each parcel, the requests will be presented individually. �� Ms. McPherson stated the first request for Special #94-05, is for 665 Dover Street. This property is approximately 160 feet east of Riverview Terrace on Use Permit, SP located the north � PLANNING COMMISSION_MEETING. MAY 4 1994 PAGE 8 side of Dover. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family, and is vacant. The property meets the minimum lot area requirement of 9,000 square feet as it has a lot area of 10,978 square feet. The code requires a minimum lot width of 75 feet. The subject parcel has a lot width of 99.5 feet. The petitioner does not have a buyer for this lot; however, the surveyor working with the petitioner indicated the proper setback requirements for the lot on the site survey and has identified a house pad which meets the setback requirements. There is a 30 foot by 40 foot dwelling unit proposed for this lot which meets the setback requirements. Ms. McPherson stated the special use permit request is to allow construction of a dwelling unit in the flood fringe area. A portion of the Riverview Heights neighborhood is in the flood fringe area and is regulated by local ordinance and Federal regulations to require construction to meet certain flood avoidance regulations. The regulations require the first floor elevation of habitable living space be one foot above the 100- year flood level. On this parcel, that elevation is 823.1 feet above sea level. The petitioner is proposing a first floor elevation of 824.1 feet. In order to insure that the construction meets the minimum flood elevation requirements, the ordinance requires the petitioner to submit an elevation certificate submitted by a registered surveyor verifying that the ''�`• first floor elevation is at the proper elevation. This needs to be done prior to the foundation being capped and construction continuing on the dwelling unit. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has proposed a garage elevation of 822.1 feet. The garage is considered an accessory use, and accessory uses are permitted below the 100-year flood elevation if they meet certain standards: 1) They are not for human habitation; 2) They have low flood damage potential; and 3) Structures are firmly anchored. The ordinance also requires that the portion of the accessory structure that is below the 100-year flood level needs to be flood proofed in accordance with current Federal and State regulations. Ms. McPherson stated the ordinance also requires the fill needed to bring the first floor elevation up to the required minimum extend a minimum of 15 feet around the dwelling unit. The petitioner has proposed the required 15 feet of fille As a result of the fill to be placed on the lot, the drainage patterns on the subject parcel will change. Currently, water flows from the rear to the front of the parcel, east along the curb line of Dover Street to a catch basin, and then through a pipe and westerly to the river. As a result of the fill being placed on the site, the water would then flow around the fill being placed or towards the east and west property lines and then south to the � street. In order to direct this water from flowing to adjacent � properties, well defined drainage swales will need to be constructed to direct the water in the proper direction. Staff ;.� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 4 1994 PAGE 9 is recommending that a grading and drainage plan stamped and signed by a registered civil engineer be submitted by the petitioner prior to any action being taken on the request by the Planning Commission or City Council. The surveyor has indicated general drainage on the site plans; however, there are no spot elevations or slope percents with which staff can verify the drainage plan as submitted can function as it should. Ms..McPherson stated the petitioner would also need to submit an erosion control plan, which is required by Chapter 208 of the City code. In the past for similar requests, the City has requested the petitioner execute and record a hold harmless agreement to release the City from any liability should damage occur due to flooding as the result of the City's approval of the special use permit. Ms. McPherson stated there are some miscellaneous requirements associated with this request. There are a number of mature trees located along the west, north and east lot lines. These mature trees are an asset to the parcel and attempts should be made by the petitioner to preserve as many of these trees as is practical. �� The subject parcel is composed of four 25-foot lots which have been assigned individual Property Identification Numbers (PIN) with a tax statement being issued for each number. The Assessor has requested the petitioner combine these lots into one PIN so the new property owner would receive one tax statement. The petitioner has complied with the requirements of the 01 district regulations. However, staff is still concerned that the stormwater runoff be properly addressed by the petitioner. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing in order to receive testimony from the adjacent property owners but table its decision until the petitioner has submitted the required grading and drainage plan from a registered civil engineer. If the Commission should choose to act on the request, staff recommends the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate as part of a verifying survey prior to the foundation being capped, which shall verify that the minimum first floor elevation is 824.1. 2. The petitioner shall flood-proof the garage in accordance with current federal and state flood-proofing requirements to a minimum of the 100-year flood elevation. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 4 1994 PAGE 10 3. The fill placed on the property shall extend a minimum of 15 feet from the proposed dwelling unit. 4. A grading and drainage plan and an erosion control plan shall be designed, signed, and stamped by a registered civil engineer showing well-defined drainage swales along the north, west, and easterly lot lines. The drainage plan shall indicate spot elevations and percent slopes for the drainage swales. These plans shall be submitted for staff review prior to City Council review of the special use permit. 5. Petitioner shall execute and record against the property a hold harmless agreement releasing the City from liability if damage occurs as the result of flooding. 6. The grading and drainage plan shall indicate the number of trees to be preserved. 7. The petitioner shall sign a Combination Form, combining the property into one tax statement prior to building permit issuance. Mr. Hedlund stated he is in the construction business and he could build the houses and sell them. He would prefer to sell �`'� the lots to someone in the construction business or sell to a person who wanted a home in the area. He would then have a specific plan. One of the requirements that staff suggest is to have an engineer to do all this work, but he thought the surveyor was qualified to do this type of thing. For the sake of simplicity, he thought it would be adequate to have the information for drainage taken care of by the surveyor. Mr. Kondrick asked staff if they felt a surveyor could provide this plan or does this need to be done by an engineer. Ms. Dacy stated, while the surveyor has provided information on the general direction of the flow, staff's concern is that a registered engineer could actually do calculations of the runoff, run through the typical 100-year storm event calculations from typical studies, and from that be able to design with a good degree of accuracy exactly how deep the swales should be on the north, west and east lot lines and how wide the swales should be; and the registered engineer can then submit a plan that says the lot can handle the runoff from the house on its own. Mr. Oquist asked how can this be done without the footprint of the house. Ms. Dacy stated this can be done knowing the amount of impervious surface. An engineer can run through the calculations to determine the amount of runoff that would occur, combine that with the runoff from the grades and give staff a dimension of how � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 4 1994 PAGE 11 wide the swales should be and at what slope. In this particular lot, there appears to be enough change in grade to direct the water to the street. Staff wants to know with some degree of accuracy, and a registered engineer can do that, that the water can be handled. Mr. Oquist stated part of the plan from them may be the stipulation that says what could happen with a house of a particular size. Mr. Kondrick asked, if the footprint were put the other way, is that possible? If so, would it not hamper the flow of water from the south? Ms. Dacy stated, in answer to both questions, yes, and doing so would affect the drainage. The petitioner wants approval from the City so he can sell the lot. Staff wants an approved drainage plan based on a reasonable site plan. Mr. Kondrick stated this is suitable for a prospective buyer and also for the neighbors so they know the water can be handled. Ms. Dacy stated without an engineer submitting a plan that shows how deep this swale should be, may be leaving too much discretion �`�, up to the builder and/or the City to interpret what was the Council's intent. Staff is trying to reasonably assure the buyer, adjacent homeowners, and the City that the drainage can be handled. Mr. Hedlund stated the house will be very close to the stated size and shape. One of the things that could be done to make the base smaller is to construct a two-foot overhang in the front and in the back. In speaking of the engineers, he is thinking of the cost of an engineer. When they have a document such as presented, a surveyor will know what he is up against. If he does not feel qualified, they would not do it. But, rather than going to an engineer and since he is working with a qualified surveyor, he would recommend saving the cost of an engineer. There is a limit to how high the costs should be on this. Ms. Savage asked to clarify the original reason for the request and if this was because the property is in the flood fringe and so no dwelling can be built without the special use permit. Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. Even an accessory structure must have a special use permit. Mr. Frank Shimek stated he is concerned about the condition of the Coon Rapids dam. The dam is in bad shape and Anoka County is ,,_, not doing anything about it. He felt it dangerous to build a ` house in that area until that structure is repaired or removed. If the dam should break, all homes in that area will be flooded. �, P"�, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 4 1994 PAGE 12 Ms. Darlene Brady referred to the special use permit and asked if this required an engineer. Mr. Kondrick stated this is not always the case, but in this situation with changing the elevation due to the fill, the City wants to make sure the run off will be contained on the property. Ms. Brady asked whose decision it is to require or not require an engineer. Mr. Saba stated the Commission's recommendation goes to the City Council who make the final decision. Ms. Brady stated she would prefer to have an engineer. Regarding building in general in that area, she was happy to see the City requires a hold harmless agreement. With flooding to the south last year and the government not in support of dikes, which is located there, she wonders about the advisability of new construction in that area which would compound any problems that might come up. The dike was not built like those that gave out last year. It was not constructed in the same manner, but rather on an emergency basis, which may mean it was not as well constructed which increases the possibility of something happening. The river is high now as well as the water in the creek. If it rains, she does not know what will happen. She wonders if it is advisable to build new homes in that area. Ms. Brady stated another concern is the sewer system in that area. She has lived in that area about eight years and has had the city sewer back up into her home five times. She wonders what the effect of additional homes will be on the sewer system. The sewage goes through a pumping station and is pumped up the hill. Ms. Brady stated a year or two ago another house was built in that area. She feels the house is much too big for the lot and for the neighborhood. It does not fit into the type of homes in that neighborhood. A smaller lot should have a smaller home. She is also concerned about the water run off. Mr, James Peterson stated the elevation of the foundation, as he reads the drawing, would be 8 feet above the street level. He is concerned about how high the houses are from street level on the other sides of this lot, particularly if building a two story home or if the house has a steeply pitched roof. How high would this be in relation to the other houses in that area? Ms. Dacy stated the drawing shows an elevation of 819 feet at the curb and the top of the foundation is at 824.1 feet. The elevation along the east and west lot lines is 820 feet. Mr. Peterson asked if this home would be much taller. ��-� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 4. 1994 PAGE 13 Ms. Dacy stated she had only ground elevations, but this house would be somewhat higher. Mr. Peterson stated the one suggestion he would make would be that the City limit the structure to a one-story home and a 5-12 pitch roof to minimize the impact to the neighborhood. In general, he is pleased to see new homes coming in. The new homes are larger than the older homes in that area. Construction has changed and because it does not conform to the 600 to 800 square foot homes that are there, one should not put it in disfavor. A 30 foot by 40 foot house means 1200 square feet. What is the minimum number of square feet now required by the code? Ms. McPherson stated the minimum first floor dwelling unit size is 1020 square feet. Mr. Peterson stated a garage was mentioned but he does not see if on the plan. Is the garage attached to the front? Ms. McPherson stated the front portion would be the garage. Mr. Hedlund stated the 30 foot x 40 foot dimension is for both the house and the garage. The structure would be a split level with an overhang to provide additional square feet with a smaller �r`1 foundation. He does not have a specific plan now but this would be a respectable house. Mr. Peterson stated he thinks a two-story will give too much height compared to the 1 1/2 story homes in that area. Ms. Diane Lott asked if a home with two-foot overhangs would still meet the setback requirements. Mr. Oquist stated there is sufficient room to have the two-foot overhangs and still meet the minimum setback requirements. Mr. Tim Lott stated, when reading about the tile around the house, he was not sure whether it would work or not or it has not been proven this would drain properly. Is this correct? Ms. McPherson stated these are called drainage swales which is surface drainage system for the area around what is being filled. Staff has stated, in general, that the surveyor has indicated general drainage patterns but there are no spot elevations and it does not indicate the water flows to a point that is lower nor does it give a percentage of slope from the bottom of that swale. That is why staff is asking that an engineer design the drainage swales so that staff can tell the builder how deep the swales need to be and at what slope so that it works. /-� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 4 1994 PAGE 14 Mr. Lott stated that it seems as if no matter what is built on the property now will be higher than any other house in that area because of the changes in the building requirements. What you have now is a house on top of a mound. He cannot see how this can prevent drainage which is already a problem in that area. He cannot see how this will work. Ms. Brady stated the storm water runs down the street. Ms. McPherson stated staff acknowledges that this dwelling needs to be built at a higher elevation as a result of the adoption of the ordinances in 1977, but there is a way by the grading of the property that water can be diverted properly to where it is supposed to go and may even help drain other properties. Mr. Lott asked if the water is to drain out to the street. He did not see how this would help the neighbors who have problems with water now. Right now, the water is qoing into the ground. With a dwelling there, it is not only impacting the area but it seems it would create further problems by draining the water to the street. Ms. Dacy stated, by requiring swales along the perimeter, it helps to channel the run off from the roof and the surrounding � properties as well. Some of these lots are too flat so water cannot run off. By creating a swale, or as in another lot to be reviewed, it may be necessary to put in a catch basin and pipe improvement, in order to catch the run off and prevent ponding from backing up onto another property. While it is not a perfect system, every lot has to handle its own run off and that is the basis for staff's suggestion that a detailed plan be provided by an engineer. Ms. Brady asked if they were saying there would not be any more water going in the street after a house is built. Ms. Dacy stated no, but by adding additional impervious surface there is going to be more run off than a vacant property. That is the reason for a drainage plan and to know how deep the swales will be to get the water to the street. The swales can act also act to retain the water. Ms. Brady stated, when it rains heavy, the water pools in her yard and it seems this would be adding to that. Mr. Hedlund stated this is a general drainage plan, and it would work. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public ,� hearing. �� �� .^ , � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 4 1994 PAGE 15 IIPON A VOICE VOTB, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPER80N RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PQBLIC BEARINa CL08ED AT 8:50 P.M. Mr. Saba stated he would definitely insist on an engineer's opinion on the drainage. Ms. Savage stated she would agree and would recommend tabling a decision until that has been submitted. Mr. Oquist agreed to both the engineering plan and tabling. Mr. Saba stated he would also like to have some answers on the impact to the sewer system and how the drainage affects what is already in the street. Many good questions were brought up and they need to be answered. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Saba, to table consideration of Special Use Permit, SP #94-05, to allow construction in the CRP-2 District (Flood Fringe) on Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, Block V, Riverview Heights, until submission of a drainage and erosion control plan designed, signed, and stamped by a registered civil engineer; and until such time staff provide additional information on the storm sewer and sanitary sewer systems. Mr. Oquist asked, through the special use permit, can the height of properties be restricted? Ms. Dacy stated she would like to confirm this with the city attorney. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CBAIRPERBON RONDRICR DECLARED T$E MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP �94-03. BY GORDON HEDLUND: Per Section 205.24.4.D and 205.24.5.A of the Fridley City Code, to allow construction in the CRP-2 District (Flood Fringe) on Lots 12 and 13, Block Y, Riverview Heights, generally located on the south side of Buffalo Street east of Riverview Terrace. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. OPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CBAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND T$E PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:54 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated this request is for the property addressed as 7915 Riverview Terrace N.E. The property is located at the �� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 4, 1994 PAGE 16 intersection of Buffalo Street and Riverview Terrace. The property is vacant and has been a lot of record since prior to 1955. It was platted in the late 1800's. For lots of record platted prior to 1955, the zoning code does have an exception to the 9,000 square foot minimum lot area. This exception allows a lot area of 7,500 square feet. The parcel exceeds that minimum having a lot area of 7,982.4 square feet. The subject parcel has a width of 60 feet, which exceeds the minimum lot area for this special exception for a lot width of 50 feet. The request is for a special use permit to allow construction of a dwelling in a flood fringe area. For this lot, the 100-year flood elevation is 822.9 feet above sea level. The minimum first floor elevation would be 823.9 feet. The petitioner is proposing a first floor elevation of 824 feet. A verifying elevation certificate would be required to be submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner is proposing that the garage be lower than the minimum flood elevation or 822 feet. The garage would be required to be flood proofed in accordance with current Federal and State regulations. Ms. McPherson stated there is 15 feet of fill which is required to extend outward from the dwelling unit. In this request, since the lot is a narrow lot, a retaining wall is needed along the i"'` south to retain the fill needed to meet the minimum elevation requirement. This is because there is not enough distance to tie the elevations back in a natural pattern. The natural drainage patterns will be changed by the placement of fill on the property. Based on the submitted grading plan, staff has determined that water flows from west to east across the subject parcel and into Buffalo Street, where it flows to a catch basin located at the very east end of Buffalo Street. The water then flows into Springbrook Creek and then to the Mississippi River. It appears there is a low area along the south property line where water would flow naturally in its undeveloped state into the property to the south. Once the fill is placed on the lot, water would then be directed to t�ie north and east lot lines. Staff is requesting well defined drainage swales be constructed to direct water off the property and away from other parcels. Staff is especially concerned about the south and east lot lines to prevent water from draining onto the properties to the east and south. Staff is recommending a grading and drainage place be submitted by a registered civil engineer to insure that the slopes are accurate and that the drainage plan will work as it is designed. The petitioner will need to submit an erosion control plan. ,,.� Staff recommend the retaining wall be designed by a registered structural engineer to insure the retaining wall will work. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 4 1994 PAGE 17 Ms. McPherson stated staff requires a hold harmless agreement to release the City from any liability as a result of the issuance of the special use permit. For this particular parcel, the Engineering Department is requesting that a 10-foot flood control, street, utility and drainage easement be granted to the City along the westerly property line. In 1969, the City condemned a similar easement of 7 feet adjacent to the property line for the construction of Riverview Terrace. The Engineering Department has been working with the Minnesota State Aid program to define Riverview Terrace as a neighborhood collector and to reconstruct Riverview Terrace in order to meet Minnesota State Aid guidelines and to improve the road. The road would be widened and the height of the road increased to provide additional flood control measures for the neighborhood. The ease�ent is requested to provide additional right-of-way for the road reconstruction. The right-of-way can be obtained through a dedication or through the granting of an easement. Ms. McPherson stated there are also miscellaneous requests. There are a number of trees on the property, and staff are requesting the grading and drainage plan indicate those trees which are to be preserved. r�, The parcel is composed of two lots which have two PIN's and, therefore, two tax statements. The Assessor has requested the petitioner combine these lots into one PIN which would mean the property owner would receive one tax statement. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing to receive testimony from the adjacent property owners and the neighborhood, but table the request until stamped and signed drawings for the drainage from a civil engineer have been submitted. If the Commission chooses to recommend approval, staff recommends the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate in addition to a verifying survey prior to the foundation being capped, which shall verify that the minimum first floor elevation is 824. 2. The petitioner shall flood-proof the garage in accordance with current Federal and State flood-proofing requirements to a minimum of the 100-year flood elevation. 3. The fill placed on the property shall extend a minimum of 15 feet from the proposed dwelling unit. 4. The petitioner shall submit retaining wall plans that have been signed by a structural engineer. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 4� 1994 PAGE 18 5. The petitioner shall execute and record against the property a hold harmless agree�ent releasing the City from liability if damage occurs as a result of flooding. 6. The petitioner shall grant a 10-foot flood control, street, utility, and drainage easement along the west lot line. 7. A grading and drainage plan and an erosion control plan shall be designed, signed, and stamped by a registered civil engineer showing well-defined drainage swales along the north, west, and easterly lot lines. The drainage plan shall indicate spot elevations and percent slopes for the drainage swales. These plans shall �e submitted for staff review prior to City Council review of the special use permit. 8. The grading and drainage plan shall indicate the number of trees to be preserved. 9. The petitioner shall sign a Combination Form, combining the property into one tax statement prior to building permit issuance. Mr. Kondrick asked for a comparison of the elevation of the property and the proposed structure to the other properties. �, Ms. McPherson stated the average elevation of the subject property from east to west along Riverview Terrace is 819 feet. In the middle of the property, the elevation is approximately 818 feet. Along the east, the elevation is 819 feet. The first floor elevation is proposed to be at 824 feet so there is approximately a 5-foot difference from the dwelling unit to the elevation to the south. At the corner of Buffalo and Riverview Terrace, the elevation appears to be 822 feet. The elevations are lower going east to 818.3 at the east corner of Buffalo. The garage level is proposed to be at 822 feet which is about 4 feet above street level. Mr. Kondrick asked if the proposed structure is 24 feet x 40 feet. Ms. McPherson stated this is the proposed pad which meets the setback requirements. Mr. Saba asked if there were the same concerns here about the storm sewer and sanitary sewers. Ms. McPherson stated, according to the Engineering Department, there is no storm sewer under Buffalo Street. All run off in on surface on Buffalo Street. The first catch basin is at the end ,..� of Buffalo. As far as staff can tell, the water then enters Springbrook Creek and then to the Mississippi River. � PLP,NNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 4. 1994 PAGE 19 Mr. Hedlund stated, with the exception of the retaining wall, the drainage and erosion could be handled by a surveyor. Ms. Brady stated Buffalo Street, coming from Riverview Terrace, has quite a slope to it, and residents are getting water from Riverview Terrace. When it rains heavily, it starts pooling in front of her house near the garage. The garage is very close to the street. If there is water coming off the southeast corner, she feels her property would be flooded. She lives across the street from the vacant property. The street is narrow, and she will have trouble getting in and out of her garage if someone parks on the street. She does not think Buffalo can handle any more water and the water has to go to the other end of the street to go down the drain. Riverview Terrace is higher than this lot. If Riverview Terrace is to be improved, will this make the lot smaller? Ms. McPherson stated the City is requesting an easement be granted which would be used for side slopes for the road. The road would not be expanded into the lot. If the road is to be expanded, it would be expanded toward the river side. The proposal is to increase the height of the road, perhaps by two feet, in order to use it as a flood control structure. The easement being requested is to tie the side slopes of the road i"� back into the adjacent property. Ms. Brady asked if there would be more water going back onto the property from the Riverview Terrace road improvement project. Ms. Dacy stated they did not have detailed construction plans of the street as of yet. They do know there will be concrete curb and gutter so some of the run off will not be directed onto this property. There will still be the slope however into Buffalo Street. Ms. Brady stated there is the sewer problem. This is a low area. Every time the city sewer backs up, it backs up into their homes. She feels this will add to the problem. She asked what side would be considered the front of the house. Ms. McPherson stated the code defines the front as the shortest of the two street frontages on a corner lot so the front is defined as Riverview Terrace. Ms. Brady stated her house is fairly close to the street. This house is close to the street and this is a narrow street. If a large house is built on this lot, she did not think this would be appropriate for the location. She would prefer no one build on the property, but if they do, she would prefer a low profile „� house. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING� MAY 4, 1994 PAGE 20 Ms. Brady asked how the square footage was figured. She was told the lot was 60 feet x 146 feet, but from the shape this does not appear to be accurate. Ms. McPherson stated the area was calculated by the surveyor. The lot is a trapezoid so there is a mathematical formula for calculating the area. Ms. Brady stated she believed there was a question about the survey and asked, when the property was surveyed, did they take into consideration that the street has.moved since putting in the dike. Ms. McPherson stated that this has been taken into consideration. Ms. Brady stated she is concerned about getting in and out of her garage. She is concerned about the water coming off this property. It will also affect other properties as well. She asked if the proposed garage is a two-car garage and the type of home to be built. Ms. McPherson stated yes, the code requires a minimum two-car garage. �''1 Mr. Hedlund stated the house would be a split entry design. Ms. Brady stated she has the same concerns with this property as with the previous property. Mr. Kondrick stated there is concern about the water run off and how this will be managed as it relates to the property to the adjoining properties. As the water leaves the subject property, then what obligation have do we have? Ms. Dacy stated the City tries to, with any street improvement or any drainage improvement, control drainage with the public right- of-way. It is typically held by state law and local code that every lot should handle its own water and should not adversely affect other properties. Staff is trying to make sure that the run off from the abutting properties drains down to the street and to the catch basin. What staff is hearing from the testimony is that the water does pond from time to time and Ms. Brady's concern is that the elevations in the right-of-way are such that the water ends up in her front yard. Staff will need to evaluate that. Mr. Oquist stated this is proposed and the plan could change. The City does not know exactly where the driveway will be at this point. This must be monitored. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 4 1994 PAGE 21 Ms. Brady stated the retaining wall appears to run the length of the property on the south side. What happens to the water run off in that area? Ms. McPherson stated the retaining wall does not go all the way to the end of the lot. The surveyor has acknowledged that water from the adjacent property would need to flow across this particular parcel to leave the area due to the current grades. The surveyor is tieing back into the natural contours by not extending the retaining wall all the way to the lot line. Ms. Brady stated, to her knowledge, the water travels south. If the ground is built up more, there will be more water coming down there. Ms. McPherson stated this is where the drainage swale would need to handle the water. The natural slope of the lot provides some natural drainage. Ms. Brady stated she would prefer to have an engineer involved rather than a surveyor. The water run off is a�problem in that area, and the sewer system is a big problem in that area also. Mr. M. E. Thompson stated he thinks this makes no sense. r'1 Neighboring properties have water on their property much of the year. He thinks this will make the problem worse. Mr. Tim Lott stated his concerns are the drainage swales on the east side. In looking at the flow, there are trees along that border and there is a stipulation about the preservation of trees. There are trees along the border and trees where the house is planned also. When looking at the terrain of the area, he sees a house there, additional run off and the trees gone. The house elevation is at least four feet higher than the street. The proposed driveway is on a narrow street. He cannot see a reason for having a house there, let along trying to place it on a lot that is very small. Sewer back up is already a problem and he sees more potential problems with the raising of the road. The problem he has is that the City is looking at putting in houses that are dramatically higher. He sees an impact to the people living there. It looks like a bad situation for the size of the house and the effect on the people who live around it. Mr. Peterson stated this is the entrance to the area. This is a beautifully wooded area and the builder faces a dilemma. This area could be a beautifully done development. He is sure the builder is using his skills and talents to cope with the situation. Every day he passes the property. It is a charming area and a very rural looking area. The present use of the property provides a park-like atmosphere. The City has a choice. The present use can continue or something can be built there that will add character and value to the neighborhood. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 4 1994 PAGE 22 This is an area where the HRA could get involved to develop that peninsula and increase the value of each of the homes by putting four to six homes in that area, and by doing so comprehensively would eliminate the problems generated by piece meal growth. Ms. Brady felt the builder was fighting too many natural elements with this lot. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CBAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARINa CLOSED AT 9s32 P.M. Mr. Saba stated, once again, there is a critical question about the drainage that must be answered. The sanitary sewer question is another question that must also be addressed regardless of what happens to this property or any other property. He felt a nice home could be built on the property, but the drainage� question must be answered. Mr. Oquist agreed. The drainage needs to be addressed. This lot may have more of a problem with the drainage with the proposed � driveway and its slope which could put a lot of water into the street. Mr. Kondrick stated, if the water concerns can be addressed, he would agree. Mr. Oquist stated another point was made regarding comprehensive planning in the area and making sure the homes built are consistent with the rest of the homes. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to table consideration of Special Use Permit, SP #94-03, to allow construction in the CRP-2 District (Flood Fringe) on Lots 12 and 13, Block Y, Riverview Heights, until submission of a drainage and erosion control plan designed, signed, and stamped by a registered civil engineer; and until such time staff provide additional information on the storm sewer and sanitary sewer systems. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPER80N RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #94-04, BY GORDON HEDLUND: Per Section 205.24.4.D and 205.24.5.A of the Fridley City � Code, to allow construction in the CRP-2 District (Flood Fringe) on Lots 29, 30, and 31, Block X, Riverview Heights, ��`1 � � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 4 1994 PAGE 23 generally located on the south side of Cheryl Street west of Broad Avenue. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPER80N RONDRICR DECLARED THL MOTION CARRIED AND T8E PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9s35 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated this property is a vacant lot located at the intersection of Cheryl Street and Broad Avenue. It meets the minimum lot area and lot width requirements and also the setback requirements. The current drainage is such that the drainage flows from south to north towards Cheryl Street where most of the run off is caught by the catch basin located at the northwest corner of the parcel. Once it enters the catch basin, it enters a pipe which flows to Springbrook Creek. It appears that a portion of the water remains on the parcel in both the southwest and southeast corners. Water from the parcel to the west also flows onto the subject parcel. Water from the development would be instead directed to the west and south lot lines. In order to continue the natural drainage pattern the water needs to again go north. Staff is requesting that well defined drainage swales be located along the west and south property lines. The petitioner is proposing a small retaining wall along the south property line; however, there does not appear to be adequate slope to direct the water out of the southwest corner and towards the northwest corner of the property. It is possible that a pipe of some sort may be needed and that the swale may not adequately address the drainage in this situation. Again, a registered civil engineer would be able to determine if the swale would be adequate. Staff are requesting that a drainage plan be submitted by a registered civil engineer and an erosion control plan be provided. Again, the remaining issues are similar. The hold harmless agreement is required, saving as many of the mature trees as possible, and combining the properties into one PIN. Ms. McPherson stated staff is requesting the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing but table any action on the request until receipt of the necessary information. Mr. Oquist asked to clarify that the pipe was underground and that there would need to be a storm sewer connection at the south corner. Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. � ; �1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 4. 1994 PAGE 24 Mr. Hedlund stated he surveyor knows what he without the pipe. thought the drainage was adequate. The is doing when he states this will work Mr. Clark Nason asked staff to clarify the elevations. If the home is built as he thinks, the foundation will be two feet above his current ceiling height. Ms. McPherson stated the elevation on Cheryl Street at the driveway is 817 feet. The top block of the foundation is to be at 823.9 which would be a difference of almost seven feet. It looks like the ground level at the l�ouse next door is at 818 at the north corner and 817 feet at the south corner of the garage. Mr. Nason stated he sees no reason for this and to make others suffer. The laws were changed in 1976. He has lived there since 1966. Things change and nothing is done. The sewer system is terrible. He has had numerous times that the sewer has backed up into his basement, he has lost a lot of money, and the City has done nothing about it. He is opposed to adding homes until something is done about the sewer system. When the pumping station goes out, it's an act of God. When his basement is flooded, it's an act of God but it comes through the City sewer system. Mr. Nason stated the run off is now coming downhill towards his home where it used to go to the river. The streets were gravel, but are now blacktop. They built everything up because of the manmade dike. With the additional building, where will all the water go? He is not tearing anyone down for building, but he does not want to look out his kitchen window at ground and someone building seven feet above him. Ms. Brady stated she has the same concerns with this request as with the previous two requests - sewer problems, water run off, etc. She is not anti-building either in appropriate places and at appropriate times. Here you have a much bigger lot and the size of the house would be more appropriate. The height is a problem. She did not know if there was a plan for the neighborhood. The neighbors need to be asked what we want for our neighborhood. More should be put into helping the people fix up their homes and make the homes worth more. This is not helping. The direction should be put into helping the people that are already living there rather than compounding the problem. Mr. Peterson stated he is concerned about aesthetics. If the buildings are two story and a high elevation, it is not right. This should be limited to a one-story house with a low roof to ^ have less impact on the other property owners.. Because of changes in the laws, it ruins it for the rest of the people. �� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 4. 1994 PAGE 25 Saying you cannot regulate the height is not good enough. This impacts the neighbors who will have to look at this every day. Mr. M. E. Thompson referred to preserving the trees. If the lot is filled with four feet of dirt, all the trees will die. Ms. Brady asked how many vacant lots were in that area. Ms. McPherson stated the City has an inventory but she could not say how many parcels were in that area. Ms. Diane Lott wondered if the City could come up with a plan for these properties that would be good for the whole neighborhood. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(� AYS, VICE—CBAIRPERBON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CL08ED AT 9s50 p��e Mr. Saba stated about two years ago the City was not as concerned about what was defined as a flood fringe area because there were no floods. Because of some of the concerns expressed tonight, �� perhaps the City should be concerned about the flood fringe area. The most the City can do is protect what is there. The vacant lots will be developed and there will probably be homes built on those lots. Concerns about drainage are very valid concerns that should be addressed before recommending approval or disapproval of the requests. The sanitary sewer problems must be addressed whether properties are developed or not. Mr. Saba stated he would like to see the trees stay as they are but, if someone wants to develop the property, the City must stay in the confines of the federal, state and local regulations in terms of building in a flood fringe area. The elevation is up to the builder and the person who buys the land. If a builder builds a house that stands out, this will limit the market. On all these properties, there must be a good definition of the drainage and he recommends this be done by a certified engineer. He would recommend to table consideration. Mr. Oquist agreed. Along with the drainage and sewer, is there a Comprehensive Plan for the area and is the Commission being consistent with that in the kind of housing that is being built there. Ms. Savage stated this is certainly something that can be discussed but the Commission does not have that information. The ,...,` concerns expressed will be on record and the neighbors will have � further opportunity to express their concerns to the City Council. �%_� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 4 1994 PAGE 26 MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Savage, to table consideration of Special Use Permit, SP #94-04, to allow construction in the CRP-2 District (Flood Fringe) on Lots 29, 30 and 31, Block X, Riverview Heights, until submission of a drainage and erosion control plan designed, signed, and stamped by a registered civil engineer; and until such time staff provide additional information on the storm sewer and sanitary sewer systems. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-C$AIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. McPherson stated staff will work with the petitioner to gather the requested information regarding the drainage plans, the sewer back-ups, the street elevations, etc. Once that information is put together, a meeting date will be set, and the City will re-notify all persons who received notices the first time. Notices will be sent approximately 10 days prior to the meeting. Mr. Oquist stated, until there is a true site plan, it is going to be difficult to truly identify the drainage. 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ''�'1 MEETING OF APRIL 7, 1994 MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to receive the April 7, 1994, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes as writtene UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERBON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the meeting. OPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MAY 4� 1994� PLANNING COMMI83ION MEETING ADJOIIRNED AT 10:03 P.M. Respectfully submitted, a ��;�/2�f Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary � S I G N— IN S H E E T � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, Wednesday, May 4, 1994 ,� �