PL 07/18/2001 - 30931CITY OF FRIDLEY
^ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 18, 2001
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice-Chairperson Kondrick called the July 18, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30
p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Dave Kondrick, Larry Kuechle, Leroy Oquist, Barb Johns
Members Absent: Connie Modig, Dean Saba, Diane Savage
Others Present: Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator
Stacy Bulthuis, Planner
Stephanie Hanson, Planner
Julie Jones, Environmental Planner
Ralph Messer, Assistant Fire Chief
Ron Julkowski, Building Inspector
George Bateson, 6196 Heather Place
Dwayne Myrvold, 554 Janesville Street
Bob & Frankie Fetrow, 7061 Hickory Drive
Ray Hatchett, 1313 Hillwind Road
Tim Coleman, 1165 Regis Lane
^' APPROVE THE JUNE 20, 2001. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Johns, to approve the June 20, 2001, Planning
Commission meeting minutes as presented.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration of a Vacation Request, SAV #01-06, by George and Ann Bateson, and Dennis
and Mary Pietrini, for drainage and utility easements to be vacated in the plat of HEATHER
HILLS NORTH, generally located at 6201,6203,6207,6209 Heather Place.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Johns, to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:35 P.M.
Ms. Bulthuis stated that the petitioners are requesting the vacation of the utility and drainage
easement created on the original Heather Hills North plat in 1999. The plat had originally been
platted into four single family home lots in 1999. A five lot plat has been submitted which is slated
for final Council approval on July 23. The utility and drainage easements granted for the original
four lot plat do not align with where the utilities will need to be placed to service homes with the new
5-lot plat. Staff recommends approval.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 18, 2001 PAGE 2
Mr. Bateson, petitioner, stated that when they replatted, it should have been vacated. On Lot 4, right
^ now, there is a ten foot strip down and they cannot build on it. This is kind of a mechanical thing he
is trying to do here. The new lots have the necessary easements associated with the new lot.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:38 P.M.
Mr. Kuechle stated that he would approve this, because it is simply taking the old out and it is
redundant and no longer needed.
Ms. Johns stated that she agreed.
Mr. Oquist stated he also agreed.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve SAV #01-06.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #01-06, by Dwayne SR & Dawn Myrvold, for a
second accessory structure (garage), for parking and storage, generally located at 554
Janesville Street NE.
�"�
MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECURED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:38 P.M.
Ms. Bulthuis stated that the petitioners are requesting a special use permit to allow the construction
of a second accessory structure over 240 square feet in size. The property is zoned R-1, and the lot
was created in 1922 with the original home being built prior to 1949. The original home was
demolished by a fire, and a new home was built in 2000. Second accessory buildings over 240
square feet are a permitted special use in the R-1 zoning district, provided the total square footage
of all accessory buildings does not exceed 1400 square feet. The existing garage combined with the
proposed accessory structure totals 1384 square feet. The special use permits provides the City
with a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain uses upon the general
welfare, public health, and safety of the area in which it is located. The City may place stipulations
to eliminate negative impacts to surrounding properties. The City has a right to deny the request.
Ms. Bulthuis stated the negative impact is that the location and appearance on the new garage will
not be consistent with the surrounding area. The proposed location is not aesthetically ideal and is
out of character for the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the proposed garage be moved back
20 feet in order to line up with the existing home and break up the large wall of garage doors that
would otherwise be uniformly set back from the street.
Ms. Bulthuis stated staff recommends approval subject to stipulations.
i"� Mr. Kondrick asked if the first stipulation regarding the petitioner installing the required hard surFace
driveway has a timeline.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 18, 2001 PAGE 3
Ms. Bulthuis stated that 12 months is the time frame for completing that.
�
Mr. Kuechle asked for clarification of no additional curb cuts. Is only one curb cut per residential
dwelling allowed?
Ms. Bulthuis stated that was correct.
Mr. Oquist asked how the garage would be in the driveway with the one curb cut.
Ms. Bulthuis stated another curb cut on the east side of the property that is being shared with the
neighbor could be utilized.
Mr. Oquist asked if stipulation #7 could be clarified about moving back 20 feet. Would it be in line
with the house itself then and not the garage?
Ms. Bulthuis stated that was correct; it would be in line with the house.
Mr. Dwayne Myrvold, petitioner, stated that the stipulations are fine but instead of having a 20 feet
setback, he would like a 24 foot setback. This would align the garage doors, and he would be able
to see the garage from his back deck. Last night he had a bicycle stolen out of his yard, so he would
like to see what is going on there.
Ms. Bulthuis stated that would not be a problem as long as he can make the required rear yard
setbacks.
^ Mr. Myrvold stated that there is a driveway on the east side of the property, and they intend to use
that for a horseshoe driveway and no additional curb cuts would be necessary.
Ms. Johns asked if the driveway would be shared with the neighbor.
Mr. Myrvold stated that it would not.
Mr. Kondrick stated that the horseshoe would go in front of the new garage and come back out with
the other curb cut.
Mr. Kuechle stated that it does not take care of the requirement for the single curb cut.
Ms. Johns stated that he is not adding one; it is already there.
Mr. Kuechle stated that it does not make any difference.
Ms. Johns stated that the stipulation states that no additional curb cut may be added.
Mr. Kuechle asked if the overhangs on the gables and sides of the garage would match the house.
Mr. Myrvold stated that they would.
Mr. Kuechle asked to change stipulation #6 to state that it should architecturally match the house to
cover that.
i'�, MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Johns, to close the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JULY 18. 2001 PAGE 4
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
� MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:48 P.M.
Mr. Kuechle stated that he would like to change stipulation #6 as follows:
6. The garage shall be architecturally compatible with the existing home and fumished with
same siding and color scheme.
Mr. Oquist stated that stipulation #7 could be changed to:
7. The garage shall be moved back a minimum of 20 feet in order to be in line with the
existing home.
Mr. Kuechle stated that it could be reworded to stipulate 55 feet back from the curb also.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend approval of SP #01-06 with
stipulations as amended:
1. The petitioner shall install code required hard surface driveway.
2. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction.
3. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation.
4. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface as approved by the City.
5. Total square footage of all accessory structures must not exceed 1,400 square feet.
6. The garage shall be architecturally compatible with the existing home and fumished with same
siding and color scheme.
�� 7. The garage shall be moved back a minimum of 20 feet in order to be in line with the existing
� home and 55 feet back from the curb.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Kondrick stated this would go to Council on August 13.
3. PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #01-07, by Bob and Frankie Fetrow, for a second
accessory structure (garage), generally located at 7061 Hickory Drive.
MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:52 P.M.
Ms. Hanson stated that the petitioners are requesting a special use permit to construct an 864
square foot accessory building at 7061 Hickory Drive. Section 205 requires that a special use permit
is necessary to allow accessory buildings other than a first accessory building over 240 square feet.
The total square footage of accessory structures are not to exceed 1400 square feet. Total square
footage of all proposed accessory structures on this site is 1,364 square feet. The existing shed
would be taken down and the building will go in its place. Staff recommends approval with
stipulations.
i'"� Bob and Frankie Fetrow, petitioners, stated that they had no problems with the stipulations. They
did not want the driveway because it is unnecessary.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 18, 2001 PAGE 5
Mr. Kondrick stated that the first stipulation having to do with the driveway was placed to avoid the
� look of another regular driveway.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Johns, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED 7:55 P.M.
Mr. Kondrick stated that it looked pretty cut and dry.
Mr. Oquist stated that the issue with the driveway should be watched closely. The number of
vehicles and things that are going to go into that garage could easily put a path back there.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of #01-07, with the
following stipulations:
1. Staff shall conduct regular inspections of the site. If, at any time, a trail simulating a driveway is
present, a hard surface driveway approved by the City will need to be installed within 90 days.
2. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction.
3. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation or living area.
4. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface as approved by the City.
5. Total square footage of all accessory structures must not exceed 1,400 square feet.
6. The garage shall be architecturally compatible with existing home and finished with same siding
and color scheme.
^ UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
� MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #01-08, by Ray Hatchett, for a second accessory
structure (garage), generally located at 1313 Hillwind Road.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:58 P.M.
Ms. Bulthuis stated that the petitioner is requesting a special use permit to construct a 780 square
foot accessory building. It will be used for vehicle parking and storage. Section 205 requires a
special use permit to allow an accessory building other than the first accessory building of over 240
square feet. The total square footage of accessory structures is not to exceed 1400 square feet.
The total square footage of the existing garage and the proposed accessory structures on this site is
1,354 square feet. A 96 square foot shed is located next to the house that will need to be removed
upon completion of the proposed accessory structure in order to comply with the 1400 square foot
maximum for accessory structures. The petitioner has asked to keep the shed intact until the
proposed structure is constnacted to eliminate any outdoor storage issues, that may be a problem if
the structure is removed. Staff recommends approval with stipulations.
Mr. Oquist stated that the stipulation regarding that the garage be architecturally compatible could
include requiring the same 4-12 pitch as the house. Is the siding going to be compatible with the
�'1 house?
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 18, 2001 PAGE 6
Ray Hatchett, petitioner, stated that the siding would be compatible. The pitch he submitted in the
�1 plan has to do with going steeper than the house because he has to shovel off the roof in the winter.
He also would like to build the garage as close to 826 square feet as possible to get as close to the
1400 square foot maximum allowed. What is the maximum height to the top of the garage allowed?
�
Ms. Bulthuis stated that 14 feet is the maximum to the center line of the garage.
Mr. Hatchett asked if there was a 3 foot setback required from the side property line to the overhang
of the garage.
Ms. Bulthuis stated that it does not apply to the overhang.
Mr. Kondrick stated there are ways to make this garage able to handle any type of snow load without
maximizing the height of the garage. He thinks the pitch should look exactly the same as the house.
Mr. Kuechle stated that there should be no reason why anyone needs to shovel snow off the roof.
Mr. Kondrick stated that since there will not be heat inside the garage, there should not be a problem
with the snow.
Mr. Hatchett stated there would be heat in the garage.
Mr. Kondrick stated there are ways to not have to add to the pitch very easily.
Mr. Hatchett stated that for some reason, he always has to shovel off his garage.
Mr. Kuechle stated that he could make the garage a little bit bigger because he is within 46 feet of
the allowed square footage.
Tim Coleman, 1165 Regis Lane, stated his only concem is where the entrance to this garage would
be.
Mr. Kuechle stated that the entrance would be from Hillwind from the driveway.
MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr.Oquist, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:08 P.M.
Mr. Kuechle stated that he does not take the stipulation to mean that it must exactly meet the roof
pitch. A certain amount of variation would be okay if the petitioner can work it out with City staff and
still make it architecturally compatible.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Johns, to recommend approval of SP #01-08 with
stipulations as follows:
1. The petitioner shall install Code required hard surface driveway within 12 months of issuance of
the building permit.
2. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction.
3. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation or living area.
�'1 4. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface as approved by the City.
5. Total square footage of all accessory structures must not exceed 1,400 square feet.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 18, 2001 PAGE 7
6. The garage shall be architecturally compatible with existing home and finished with same siding
�� and color scheme.
7. The petitioner shall remove utility shed on the west side of the house upon completion of the
proposed accessory structure.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #01-03, by the City of Fridley, to recognize
fratemal organizations as a permitted special use in the R-3 District.
MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:09 P.M.
Ms. Hanson stated that staff is requesting consideration of the text amendment to the City building
code that fratemal organizations be recognized as a special use in the R-3 district. They have one
fratemal organization in the R-3 district which is the Knights of Columbus (KC). For over thirly
years, the KC has been giving back to the City of Fridley by delivering Christmas baskets,
sponsoring the °Clean-the-Highway" program, annual Tootsie Roll drive, and the KC picnic. In years
past, the KC has allowed US West to use portions of a parking lot for temporary storage of a trailer
that functions for distribution of phone books. This allows additional money raised to be donated to
charitable contributions. Staff was made aware of the improper parking of the trailer in 1999. The
�� organization was asked to discontinue this. As a result, the Council asked staff to analyze the code
regarding such use.
Ms. Hanson stated after analysis, staff has determined that a zoning text amendment would be
necessary for fratemal organizations to have the ability to continue fund-raising in a manner
consistent with what is allowed in other locations. This addition to the code would be added to the
definition of fratemal organization: "A group of people formally organized for the common interest,
usually cultural, religious, or entertainment with regular meetings and formal written memberships."
Also added under the Uses Permitted would be: "Trailers for use by a fratemal organization for
fund-raisers provided the trailers are screened from the right-of-way and adjacent land uses do not
adversely affect parking providing the organization use of the trailer would meet the following
standards:
1. The number of trailer shall not at any time exceed three.
2. Trailer size shall not exceed Minnesota Department of Transportation standards for
enclosed trailers.
3. Trailers shall be enclosed type allowing contents to be screened on site from adjacent
properties.°
Ms. Hanson stated that this will allow fratemal organizations to raise additional funds and ensure the
continuation of charitable contributions to the community. Staff recommends the approval of the
zoning text amendment. In the event the amendment is approved, the Knights of Columbus may
make the August 31 deadline for the special use permit application. This will go before the Planning
Commission on October 3, 2001. The Council on October 22, 2001, will review the application.
i� Mr. Kondrick asked about screening the trailer from public view.
Ms. Hanson stated it will have to be screened.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 18, 2001 PAGE 8
� Mr. Kuechle stated that it states that the trailer shall be an enclosed type.
Ms. Hanson stated that when it is parked on the lot, it will be screened from the public right-of-way.
Ms. Johns asked if the Knights of Columbus building will do the screening?.
Mr. Kondrick stated that it would be; but if there are homes behind the building that can see the
trailer, should it be screened from them, too?
Mr. Kuechle asked how they would propose to screen a trailer at 12 feet high.
Mr. Oquist stated it would be temporary screening.
Mr. Kondrick stated that they needed to talk about that stipulation.
Mr. Kuechle stated that it is obvious that they needed a special use permit.
Mr. Bolin stated that the slide included is just a schedule that the Knights of Columbus would need to
follow. This process is strictly the wording for the zoning text. This does not mean that the Knights
of Columbus would get to use trailers in their parking lot.
Mr. Oquist stated that the screening issue is not part of this.
Mr. Bolin stated that the trailers themselves need to hide whatever is inside.
�
n
Mr. Kondrick stated they wanted to screen what is inside from view.
Mr. Bolin stated that is correct. The location for the trailer proposed is tucked behind the building
and will have a cover of pine trees on the north side. Staff may ask the KC when they come back for
a special use permit that they need to plant trees on the south side of the property to cover the small
section of street.
Mr. Oquist asked if Tamarisk had a garage sale last year and had a trailer there. Would that be
included?
Mr. Bolin stated that he does not believe Tamarisk would fit the definition for fratemal organization.
This section of code is strictly for R-3. Tamarisk could ask for a special trailer license.
Ms. Johns asked if the Knights of Columbus were the only fratemal organization in the district.
Mr. Bolin stated that most are in the commercial districts.
Mr. Kuechle asked if they could get a special use permit and do it.
Mr. Bolin stated that it is under a permitted use but this would recognize fratemal organizations as a
permitted special use in that district to give the Knights an opportunity to rebuild if the building were
destroyed.
Ms. Johns asked if it was easier to redo this in this manner.
Mr. Bolin stated that is correct.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 18, 2001
PAGE 9
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing.
n UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:24 P.M.
Mr. Kuechle stated that he would recommend approval to bring this to the permitted use in the R-3
district. The trailer issue has to be handled separately by a special use permit anyway.
Mr. Kondrick, Mr. Oquist, and Ms. Johns concurred.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of ZTA #01-03.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Kondrick stated that this would go to City Council on August 13.
6. PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #01-04, by the City of Fridley, to repeal
Chapter 205.04.08 "Fire Protection Requirements" and portions of Chapter 603.03
"Intoxicating Liquor Application". The City will be adopting Chapter 1306 "Special Fire
Protection Systems of the Minnesota Building Code" by amending Chapter 206 of the City
Code.
MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to open the public hearing
��
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:25 P.M.
Ms. Bulthuis stated that staff is requesting consideration of the text amendment to the City Code that
will eliminate section 205.04.08 of the zoning code which is entitled "Fire Protection Requirements".
It will eliminate portions of Chapter 603.03 "Intoxicating Liquor". They would be replacing this by
adopting Chapter 1306 "Special Fire Protection Systems of the Minnesota Building Code" by
amending Chapter 206 of the Fridley City Code.
Ms. Bulthuis stated the City Attorney advised that the City's current sprinkler system legislation
should not be a zoning or liquor license issue and in its cuRent state it is unenforceable. In the
interest of fire safety, automatic sprinkler systems have a proven record of reducing life and property
loss if a fire occurs. Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code is the standard offered and
recommended by the State to communities which desire to have an enforceable sprinkler system
ordinance. Chapter 1306 is the minimum maximum standard which means that municipalities that
adopt this are not allowed to change the requirements. Chapter 1306 states what is affected and
establishes minimum requirements. The requirements are established by square footage and
occupant load, new construction, building that increase in area, and buildings with an occupancy or
classification change. This will not affe�t many operations. Blaine, Coon Rapids, Mounds View,
New Brighton, and Spring Lake Park have all adopted this. Staff recommends approval to ensure
consistency with the Minnesota State Building Code requirements. Mr. Messer, Fire Marshall, and
Ron Julkowski, Chief building Official, are here to answer anyquestions.
Mr. Kuechle asked if this relates to sprinklers in the building?
i''1
Ms. Bulthuis stated that, yes, it relates to sprinklers inside the building.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 18, 2001 PAGE 10
Ms. Johns asked if the contractor follows more stringent state codes when installing sprinkler
�� systems versus following less stringent City codes.
Mr. Messer stated that the City is not permitted to make the code more stringent because it is a
minimum maximum code.
�
�,
Ms. Johns stated that the City Code is not as stringent as the State code.
Mr. Messer stated that the sprinkler provisions in the liquor portion of the Code is tied to licensing
requirements requiring a sprinkler system. The other part is zoning and depends on occupancy and
use as laid out by the Code. This is strictly a building code. The basis for the State's building code
is the uniform building code. The State also has a fire code based on uniform fire code which they
have their own amendments to. The building code has provisions for sprinkler systems. This is
stating an adaptation of this is more consistent and fair and easier to enforce.
Mr. Kondrick asked if this is what Fridley wants.
Mr. Messer stated that some of the costs for the fire protection were initially bom by the building
owners. This does make him happy.
Mr. Oquist asked if Section 3, Chapter 2, would be incorporated into the code?
Mr. Messer stated there would be the option by reference. The State only allows two options, and
the option they are requesting is the 2,000 or more square feet. Sprinklers dramatically cut losses
and the systems pay back for the cost of installation and insurance claims.
Mr. Kuechle asked what percentage of commercial/industrial buildings in Fridley have sprinklers?
Mr. Julkowski stated that about three-quarters do. Most of the north end, west of University Avenue
from Osbome north do not have them. That is the original industrial park.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:35 P.M.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Johns, to recommend approval of ZTA #01-04.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #01-05, by the City of Fridley, to update
Section 113 of the City Code to match the current recycling and solid waste management
practices.
MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:37 P.M.
Ms. Jones stated that this zoning text amendment regards Section 113 of the City Code, which
addresses solid waste disposal and recycling collection. Repealing the existing code is necessary
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 18, 2001 PAGE 11
because the changes are so dramatic, and adopting a new Section 113 also involves adopting a
� resolution setting the recycling fees. The fees are currently set in the codes. Five parts are being
proposed to the new Section 113: definition section, solid waste section, compost, recycling
language, and licensing requirements. In the definition section, some outdated terms have been
eliminated. They have changed some definitions to match State Statutes and added definitions they
felt were necessary in the existing code.
�
Ms. Jones stated one change proposed is screening of garbage and recycling as required in the
Zoning Code. She believed it needed to be in this section of the code and applied to residential as
well. Staff is proposing to eliminate the 32 gallon size limit on residential garbage containers.
Another proposed change is to allow those garbage containers to be down at the curb, but only for a
28 hour period. They want to change the 32 gallon size because they are easily tipped over on a
windy day. Lids fall off, and lids disappear. The current system is also a hauler identification
problem. Staff is proposing that yard waste storage be only allowed at the curb for 24 hours before
collection time. Yard waste is also proposed to not be allowed to be stored on property visible from
the public right-of-way.
Mr. Oquist asked if she meant storing yard waste behind the house is acceptable.
Ms. Jones stated that is correct.
Mr. Kuechle stated that it looks to him like yard waste may not be stored on site for more than five
months.
Ms. Jones stated that is the actual code language.
Mr. Kuechle asked if it was okay if yard waste is out of sight if stored more than five months.
Ms. Jones stated there would be odor problems if it was grass. Realistically, in code enforcement,
staff can only tag what can be seen from the street so staff will not have much ability to enforce this.
Ms. Johns stated that many people put the dead leaves around their house in the wintertime and
take them off in the spring.
Ms. Jones stated that backyard composting generates complaints. Current code only allows
composting on single family property. Some schools do composting for education purposes, and
staff felt that should be allowed. The new code would state that composting may not occur near
waterways or within 20 feet of an adjacent dwelling unit, and needs to be maintained so that it is not
a public nuisance.
Mr. Oquist asked if that was going to be clarified, because a public nuisance should be clarified.
Ms. Jones stated they do have a good definition of public nuisance. Staff researched a lot of other
city codes for some good examples. Staff also put a limitation on the size of compost areas not to
exceed 10 cubic yards in size or five feet in height.
Ms. Jones stated recycling changes are that multi-unit property recycling containers do not have to
be screened but must be placed on a paved surface. Multi-dwelling owners would also be required
to recycle four categories of materials which matches state Statutes. Recycling containers must be
as convenient to reach as trash disposal. It would be illegal to steal recyclables.
�'`,
Mr. Oquist stated that he has a problem with recycling containers not needing to be screened. They
can look just as bad as storage containers.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 18, 2001 PAGE 12
�� Ms. Jones stated that the problem with screening is that it may be more difficult to access. They are
only talking about the 60 or 90 gallon carts. Box type containers require screening.
Mr. Oquist stated that the big ones tend to overflow.
Ms. Jones stated that the garbage dumpsters typically overFlow, not the recycling. They would like
them all on a paved surtace for a more permanent space. Screening the recycling containers would
place a hardship on the apartment owners with the crunch for space for parking. They have had
problems with all the snow not be being plowed around the recycling carts and people had to trudge
through four feet of snow to get to them. That needs to be addressed. The fee would be changed a
few cents, and that fee may have to be adjusted each year to keep up with inflation. The Council
may set those fees by resolution as they need to. There are not a lot of changes regarding the
hauler license requirements. They are going to bump up the insurance requirements which are very
outdated. Back-up waming devices are required as in a lot of other City Codes. Procedures to
remove a particular hauler's license would be in place. Staff is anticipating the City Council would
set a public hearing date at the August 13th meeting, probably for September 17�'.
Mr. Kondrick stated that he thinks that this is put together very well.
Ms. Johns asked if the cubic feet of the compost area would be changed to five cubic feet.
Ms. Jones stated that she is proposing to change that.
Mr. Kondrick stated he agreed.
�
�'^,.
Mr. Kuechle asked if the timeframe for yard waste placement in view of the street could be changed
to 28 hours versus 24 to make it consistent with the others.
Ms. Jones stated that the yard waste is put out in bags, not carts, so that is why the timeframe is
less. Staff just did not want the refuse carts sitting there for more than 24 hours.
Mr. Kondrick stated that sometimes people leave their grass clippings in the driveway for four days
until pick-up.
Ms. Jones stated they are trying to accommodate what they feel may happen in the future as far as
waste management. One thing that may happen is that yard waste may be picked up in carts like
the garbage.
Mr. Kondrick stated that in the fall sometimes there are 20 bags of yard waste and how would that
be managed?
Ms. Jones stated that she has wondered that herself, and she does not perceive it happening here.
Mr. Oquist stated that one reason for the 28 hour deal is that sometimes a smaller truck comes in
later to pick up the waste. Consistency and giving a leeway on the 24 hours may be necessary.
Mr. Kuechle stated that he is thinking of a little more consistency to keep all the hours straight.
Mr. Kondrick stated that he likes the 28 hour time frame.
Mr. Kuechle stated that staff has done a great job.
�,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 18, 2001 PAGE 13
Ms. Johns stated that the container size is an important issue.
Mr. Kuechle asked what percentage of the haulers use containers.
Ms. Jones stated that they do not provide containers because the carts are very expensive.
Mr. Kondrick stated that he feels that it would be more attractive for a container to be out by the
curb. It may take longer to lift a large container as opposed to individual bags of garbage thrown
quickly in the truck.
Ms. Johns stated that haulers like to use the big containers.
Mr. Kondrick stated that it would take forever to lift the big containers.
Ms. Jones stated that it takes less time, and they only have to have one person on the truck instead
of two. The biggest savings for the haulers is workman's compensation costs.
Mr. Kuechle asked if any thought has been given to going paperless for the City.
Mr. Bolin stated that the City Council currently has been using a paperless agenda for the last finro
years; however they seem to be generating more paper recently. It is a good idea, but sometimes
not very practical with the size of the documents that go into the packets. Multiple paper copies of
the maps and pictures is a problem with downloading the information. Scanning maps and plats
take forever, too.
,� MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Johns, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 9:00 P.M.
MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend approval of ZTA #01-05.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to adjoum the meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE JULY 18, 2001, PLANNING COMMISSION WAS ADJOURNED AT
9:07 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
� � t,a•r�
Sign L. Johns d,'�,
Recording Sec etary
�