Loading...
PL 09/26/1979 - 30519CITY OF �RIDLEY � ' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEP'BER 26, 1979 "r'�, CAT.L TO ORDER • Mr. Langenfeld called the September 26, 1979 meeL-ing of the Planning Commission �o o�cder at 7 :43 P .M. � ROLL CALL• Members Present: Ms, Hughes, Mr. Treuenfels, Mr, Langenfeld, Mr. Oquist, Ms, Gabe1 Mr. Harris (arrived at 7:45 P,M.) Members Absent: Ms. Schnabel (represented by Ms. Gabel) Others Present: Bill Deblon, Associate City Planner APPROVE PLANNING COMMTSSION MINUTES: SEPTII�IBER 12 1979: MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Mrm Oquist, to approve the Sep�ember 12, 1979, minutes of the Planning Commission with the following correcti.ons: Mr. Langenfeld said on page 3, the 5th paragraph fxom the battom the cvord emission should be admission. Also, on page 12, the 6�h paragraph s�ould read: He was ex- officio on the Planning Commission for over a year and this brought about a full citizen participation and felt the establishment of this (Energy Commission) would be very beneficial to the City of Fridley. �-tip01� A VOICE VC1T�, ALL VOTING AY�, C��AIRMAN H�RRIS DECLARED THE MOTIOPT CARRIED uNANIMOUSLi'o �iri 1. LOT SP?�IT REQU�ST ZoSo ��79�04 EDWAitD Tg BAULER• Split off the Westerly 60 feet of Lot 14, A,S. ��22, except the Southerly 390 feet, also Lot 30, Block 2, Irving- ton Addition and adjoining vacated streets and alleys in Irvington Aclditi�n, to be sold as open space for an adjoining property, the same being 1420 Rice Creek Road N.E. Mr. Deblon said the lot was 239.2 feet by 194.� feet. The pe�itioner plans to spli�c off the 6� feet on the west side. Staf£ approached this request with a comprehensive look for the entire area and felt the lot split as shown would not be in the best interest of this areae Mro Deblon showed a map of �che area with a futurs proposed road on it. He said Mr. Boardman placed the road where the surrounding land would be used most efficient- ly for future residential development. He sai.d any future road in this area would have site limitation because of the steep elevations. Mr. Deblon said this lot �aould only be 60 feet wide by 239.2 feet deep, making it sub- standard in width. Sta£f felt this could set a precedent for this area as there was quite a large amount of undeveloped land in the areao He stated the plan as dracun by Mre Boardman is not a definite plan, Mr. Oquis't aslced if any developer had approached the city for this type of development. Mro Deblon said no. The sicaff was asked to make a comprehensive study of this area be- foxe allowing a small piece of land to be split off.� This would fozesee future developmexxt complications. PLANNING COMMISSION_MEETING, SEPTEr'�ER 26,_1979 PAGE 2 Mr. Ed Bauler, 1420 Rice Creek Road, was present for the request. He said he and his neighbor, Mr. Kassel, in 1967 fought ft out at that time about the placing of a road here. He was told if he could come up taith an alternative the CiCy �ould go along with �` it. Mr. Bauler said he came up with the idea of what �aas now Kerry Lanee He ques- tioned why he should be the only one penalized and have the road put in as Mre Boardman suggested. He said the area west of his land was better suited for a road because it was flatter. Mr. Harris question if Mre 0'Bannan. and Mr. Brickner owned some of the undeveloped land. Mr. �auler said yes. Nir. Bauler said this proposed develop�ent was for the future, so why should he be burdened w ith it now. He explained he lives on a pension with his wife and they have had high medical bills in the last few yearso Selling this 60 feet to his neighbor would pay off his debts and let him still give the rest of his land to his children. Mr. Deblon said the staff felt the land would b�-better utilized if developed the way shown. This would allow Mro Bauler's land in the future to be split�into 3 lots if his family so desireda The lot as pxo�osed hy Mr. Baulex would be a north�south lot with access of= of Rice Creek Road. The proposed City development would make the lot pie shaped and would need road riglit-of�way from the adjoining property to obtain access to this lot. Mr. Bauler said his future was now and he has to,do something about ita The commission poinied out that on i:he proposed developmen�, future lot lines had been set up through or close to e�isting homes and did not feel homeowners w�uld go along with �' that. Mr. Deblon said the lot lines would not necessarily go through as drawn, but City staff was looking to maximize the area for �esidential development. Mr. Iia�ris said he thought they should �alk with �he other property owners in the area and see what their intent was for their land. He thought there was some land already plai.ted and some bu.ilding going on now. Mx. Oquisti pointed out to Mr. Bauler that he could get Z lot splits possibly and make more money. Mr. Bauler said he did not want to.seZl all his land, only what was needed. He thought it �aas very sad when the City would not let you sell. your own property. He has been here since 1938 and has helped build the City and L-his was the thanks he gets. Mr. Deblon said the City has to look at the entire area to see what was best, not just for now, bu� for future generations that will live in Fridley. Mr, Harris asked if Mr, Bauler had talked to anyone on his proposed lot split. Mr. Bauler said no, only his neighbor who wanted �o bu� the land for a tennis court. Mr. Langenfeld pointed out to Mr. Bauler he thought they were using proper planning procedure and forsight here. He felt if they granted this 1ot split tonight,and then /� in the fu�ure had tQ say he���s� a� d�e�te�og�en�, t�� �e�� of th�s �and wau�.d not be - useable, Mr. Bauler would be very mad, � PLANNING COMMISSION Nl�ETING,_ SEPTII�'�ER 26, 1979 PAGE 3 � M�e,Bauler asked why they could not move the road further west and take 1/2 of what wae needed for a road from 2 lots. • � 1 Ms. Hughes said this would make many areas unbuildable. They have an obligation to plan for the future and thought the commission should get information on this area before deciding on this lot split. Mr. Bauler said Mr. Brickner had asked him to sell some of his land to him before. Mr. Harris said that was why he felt they should get the intentions of the landowners. Possibly Mr. Brickner was still interested in buying land from Mro Bauler.. Ms. Hughes asked what would be done with the lot split. Mr. Bauler said the adjoining property owner wanted to buy it and use it f�r a tennis court. Mr, Harris questioned if all the area lots were 9,000 snuare feet. He said if the road was put in the wrong spot, some land would be landlocked and could not be developed. Ms. Hughes asked about a private road to those lots. Mr. Harris said that brings up a lot of problems and did not think there was room for a cul-de-sac. MOTION by Mre Langenfeld, seconded by Ms, Hughes, to cantinue Lot Split request L.S. ��79-04, until the next meeting to allow staff time to contact the landowners in the area and see tiaha� they propose to do with their land, to find out the lot sizes of th:e � lots to the north of Mr. Bauler's land and also, what the proposed road status Was. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRTED UNANTMOUSLY. ' Mr. Harris asked the staff to notify the petitioner if this informa,tion was not ready for the October 3, 1979 meeting. 2, LOT SPLIT REQUEST L.S. ��79-OS CITY OF FRIDLEy• Split off the West 14.2 feet from Lot I, Block I, Van Cleeve'e Addition. Already split by County, never approved by City, Purpose of the lot split request is to make County and City records agree. Mro Oquist pointed out there were houses already built here and asked when the County approved this and why. Mr. Deblon said he did not have answers for those 2 questions, but said it went tax- forfeit 6 years ago. He said the property owner, Mr. Van Cleves, kept 14.2 feet out when he sold this land (Lot J) to Mr. Erickson. Right now the land was not owned by anyone and is was suggested that the Lot C pick up the extra 14.2 feet. He said the City was looking for a possible lot split on Lots 1-4 and also to build a r oad off of Benjamin Street to service them. Mr. Treuenfels asked if the property owners had been contacted to see if they wanted to purchase the 14.2 feet and pay taxes on it. � Mr. Deblon said not to his knowledge. PLANNING CQNR`1IS�ION MEETING SEPTII�ER 26 1979 PAGE 4 , Mr. Harris questioned if the City had street xight-of-way along Che possible lot splits. Mr. Deblon said no, but they would try to get them. � Mr. Harris poinied out this lot was landlocked then. He questioned how the county could allow a split like this to go through. They are the ones caho registered the deed and should not have allowed it. It was aoted the owner of this land was deceased. It also was noted the City of Fridley owns Lot H and was probably a park dedication at the time of the platting. Mr. Langenfeld stated Lot C was 75 feet wide on the one end and 63 feet on the end by Lot I. Could Lot C buy only 12 feet of Lot I and Lot J picic up the remaining 2.2 feet. Mr. Harris said no, but it would create a jog in the lot lines. He thought the City should put a hold on Lot I, since it was tax forfeit, and not allow Lot J to pick up the 14.2 feet. He reasoned if the lots were split in the futuxe and a road put in, there would be a 63 foot lo�: in the middle of tlze block. He said the county wants to sell this 1402 feet and get it back on the tax rolls. He also wanted to know why the City was holding Lot Ho MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mro Langenfeld, to reco�nend to Council approval of Lot Split request L.S. �k79�05, to allow the County and City records to coincide, with the following stipulations: 1. The City hold on to Lot I. 2e City staff b�cing in information on why we have Lot H and what the future development plans are for it. ^ UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN H�,RRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSZY. 3, L'DT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S, ��79-06 EXENIPLAIt,_INC.: Split off Lot 2, fxom Lot 3, both in Block 2, Shaffer's Subdivision �kl, bo'th lots lying East of the East 90 feet thereof, to make �wo R-1 building sites, the same being 7562 and 7584 Able Street N.E. Mr. Deblon said this lot had previously been proposed for a double bungalow, but the neighbors had objected because of the rental fac�or. This plan calls for 2, 3 bedroom rambler homes. Mr. Deblon said if they approve the lot split, they would be in a sense approving the va�iance for lot size. , Ms, Gabel said that was not ture, a variance would still.be requixed for lat size. The homes have been placed on the lot so yard setback variances w.�uld not be required. The lot sizes are 7,520 feet each. NIr. Deblon informed the petitioner he could build a Z-car garage on the northern lot instead of a 1-car garage. The garage could be moved closer to the lot line., He also stated it should be stipulated that utility services caill be required and they are not in at this ti.me. , Mr. Harris said if Council approves the lot size variance, they would be acting as the Board of Appea.ls. The cotmnissions are .normally the reconnnending bodies for the Council� d it would be unusual for Council to act as such. , ' _���. ,� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMEER 26. 1979 PAGE 5 � � Mr. Deblon said sta€f was staisfied with the plan and have no problems with the lot sizeso �he land would be used at iti's best with this proposal. Mr. Oquist said 7,500 square feet was the recommended size by the Metropolitan Council, taking into consideration there's less land available and trying to locaer housing costs. Mso Gabel informed the petitioner he should apply for a variance request immediately. This would give enough time for pzoper notice and would not delay his building schedule. Ms. Hughes said she thought the proposal was better suited for the area then the first praposal. Also she was a firm believer of lowering housing costs and this should do so. She pointed out the lot sizes wEre very close in size to the ones across the streeto Mx, Langenfeld asked if the proper 1ot size was 9,OOQ square feet, and these lots e�ould be 7,520 squarP feet, or a dif.ference of 1,480 square feet, wasn't that a large amount to allow for a variance. � The lots are 80 feet wide by 94 feet deep, with was 5/6 of what was required or 83%. Ms, Gabe1 said it was not out of line and variances have been granted befoxe for similar requests, MOTLON by Ms, Iiughes, seconded by Mx. Langenfeld to reco�end to Council approval of Lot Split request L.S. ��79-06, Exemplar, Inc•a to split off Lot 2, from Lot 3, both in Block 2, Shaffer's Subdivision ��1, both lots 7.ying east of the east 90 feet thereof, to make two R�1 building sites, the sama being 7562 and 7534 Abel Stree� NeEv, ��aith /�` the following stipulation: lo Drainage and utility easement be worked out be�tween the developer and the City of Fridley. Mr, Holsten, the petitioner, questioned the easeznents. Mr. Harris said this was an area of the lo� retained for drainage and utility, such as underground telephone service, thai would be used by the City if needed. Usually an easement is 6� 10 fee� wide. The survey sY��ws a G fao;: easement on the south linem UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIP.Mt�N H.�ItRIS DECLAItED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY o Mro Harris advised Mx. Holsten to talk with the staff on the easements and variance requests. 4. DISCUSS MEMORANDUr1 FROM VIRGIL HERRICK DATEb AUGUST 2 1979 AND MIIKO DATED SEpTEMBER 17�� 197 9 After reading the memo, Mr, Oquist said the memorandum implied it a special use permit was issued, you set a precedent. Mr, Harris said the Planning Co�nission has always tried to maintain that idea, but the City Attorney's office has jumped from one side to an othPx. The Supreme Court seems to agree with the idea it was precedent setting, � Mr. Oquist said the memo also said you cannot arbitrarily deny a request. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,_SEPTEN�ER 26, 1979 PAGE � 6 Mr, Harris said that was why they make a speciiic list of reasons for denialo For instance in thr case of the Tom Thumb request for gas pumps, the denial reasons where only for the gas pumps and not the shopping center. Mr. Oquist noted on the first page, 2nd paragraph, that it was confusingo I� states: "Special Use Permits differ from variances in that a special use provisional permits property, within broad discretion of governing body, to be used in a manner expressly authorized by ordinance." Mr. Oquist aslced why we need a special use permit if the prope�c�y was going to be used in �.ccordance with the ordinance. Mr. Harris said there are special uses, such as gasoline stations, that could be hazardous, etc. ta the general public. Thoses uses would require a special use permit. Mr. Deblon pointed out this helps give the City a broadex control on what was Uuilt in a district. Mr. Oquist said the mamo also states we cannor deny a special use permit unless it does not meet the requirements for public safety and welfare. Mre Langenfeld said the Co�ission had received an axticle by the Minnesota Supreme Court (1976) pertaining to standards for denying a special use pexmit. The 4 points are: 1. A use that was contxary to a comprehensive land development plan would be reason for a City to deny a request. 2. Further excavation that appears to increase the danger of irrepairable environmental dama.ge caas legal reason for denial, 3. The applicants failure to prove a proposed use will not affect the he�.lth, safety, morals and welfare of occupants of the surrounding land was sufficien� reason for denial. This puts �he burden of proof on the applicant and not the Citye 4. If the end. results was not compatible wi�h the comprehensive plan, that was sufficient, as far as legal aspects are concerned, for denialo Mx. Langenfeld said these �,tere very good points to f�llow, and he intended to do so. The other commission membexs asked for copies of this article. Mro Harxis pointed out the memo dated Septembex I7, 1979, sited examples of court decisionso He said the Supreme Couxt reviewed the decisions directly and not the de� cisions of the lower couxts. He said it pointed out tha.ti public pressure that was put on a city to deny a spzcial use permit wa� not sufficient reason fo� deniala This c��ission has had that hapgen to t1�em many timese Mr. Oquist said the memo s�atas we have to give reasons �or denial and also states, if the request was granted, it was precedent setting. Thexefore if we give a special use permit once, we will have to do again. r'�, �� � Mra Harris said he has argued that point severl times. In the case of secondaxy buildings on a lot, one in a neighborhood might not be objectionable, but a whole block of them c�uld be. Mso Hughes asked why we even use special use permits and how they relate to a neighbor- hood loolcing alike. She asked if a special use geruiit lets a homeowner do what he !�` would like on his lot or does it regiment him to do exactly as his neighhors do. . , PI.�NNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 26. 1979 PAGE 7 It seema the special use permit would allow some individuality while still adhering �'� to the zoning ordinances. That gives some protection. She said a special use per- mit was almost like a�inor rezoning. Ms. Gabel said she things individuality in a neighborhood was good and a special use permit allows this spot rezoning. The process may be difficult to go through to obtain a permit, bu� it was there and can be done. She felt that was important. She also said a change in the ordinace now regarding all lot sizes could cause problems with the citizens. 7'he city ���a.s almost built to compacity nota as far as res�dential building a�as concerned, but the special use permit would allow smaller lots where it would be feasible. Mx. Oquist thought smaller lots should be allowed because of housing costs and land shortage, He suggested a change in the ordinance may be needed to allow thise Mro Langenfeld said the one thing he liked about a special use permit was the fact that if someone came before them with a somewhat questionable request, the commission could place controls and s�ipula�ions on the xequ�st. Mr. Oquist said that only happens when a permi� is granted. If the permit was denied (i.e, Toffi Thumb requ�st) and �he development was still allowed, the control was lost. Ms. Hughes said she �el� the staff should be more discrete about mentioning special use permits to developers. �Tro-Harris said when they a�e g�ing through the remzoning changes they should �ake � out some areas for special use germits, It has been a catch-all for many items that - should be va�iances. They are in fact variances to the zoning code and have been called special use permits. For example, the gas pump reques� by Tom Thu.�.b, was a variance to the zoning in the area and not a special use permit. We would have more control with variances then a special use permito So RECENE PUBLIC HEAkSNG NOTICE rROM SPRING LAKE PARK ABOUT A USED CAR LOT AT 8301 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N,E. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mro Treuenfels, to receive the Public Hearing Notice £rom Spring Lake Park about a used car lot. UPON L� VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTZNG AYE, CHALRMAN HARP.TS DECLARED THE MOTIQN CARRIED UNANTMOUSLY. , Since the commission caas not notified in time of the public hearing, Mr. Harris asked Mr. Deblon to see what type of action was taken before this item goes to Spring Lake Park's cou�cilo Mr, Harris said there was a policy with our neighboring sister cities to inform each other on whaC type of developments are planned along the boundries. He felt a used car lot wasn't maintained as well as a new car lot, but did not know of any reasons why this requesi could be denied. The business would fit into the surrounding area. Chariman Harris declared a recess at 9:35 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:55 PoM. n 6. DISCUSSION ON ESTABLISHING AN ENERGY COMMISSION � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTENBER 26q 1979 � PAGE �, Mr. Langenfeld pointed out pages 31 and 32 of the Energy Policy were in the wrong � order. He also stated he would like the Enexgy Policy propos�l, as written, be sent on to Council for approval and then have the Planning Commission discuss the establishment of the Energy Commission. NLs. Hughes said she thought the Energy Policy was goodo It was quite inclusive and somethings would raise some eyebrows, but perhaps they should be raised. She felt in some areas, particularly "City Ru1es and Regulations" and "Maintenance and Operation", that the work could not be done properly if there was not a representative from the Energy Commission on the Planning Commission, Mr. Langenfeld said he wished to point out �he chart in the policy realy ties everything togethere I� coincides exactly the specifications of the Planning Commission as far as the duties delegated �o the Energy Project Committee. Each one of the elements were to be delt with and they were. . ' MOTION by Mro Langen�eld9 seconded by Mso Hughes, to xeceive and approve �he prQposed Energy Policy with the recommendation to City Council that it approve the policy. Mr. Treuenfels noted some items on the �chart caere listed_ twice. Mr. Harxis said some irems had to be planned for in different ways to cover the entire scope, P4r. Langenfels said there was going to be some type of ove�lapo He cautioned not to use this chagt as a guide or the only way to interpxet the policy, butc rather as an outline of the Energy �olicy. It was also not the in�ent of the policy to have a %^ precise procedure, but to also a11oF� flexibility. � UPON A VOTCE VOTE, ALL VOTING AY�, CH1�I12MAN HA�It.IS DECI,AItED THE MOTION CrART'iIED UNANII�IOUSLY. Mr. Harris asked for discussion on setting up an Energy Commissione Mr. Oqv.is� �chougl� the Planning Commission should wait until Council acts on the Energy Policy. Mro Treuenfels asked if the budget would be affectedo Mre Harris said it would not have a large affect on the budget, and it would be money w i11 spent. Mr. Langenfeld thought the policy "scope" and the ordinance "scope" should read the same. As it was caritten now, they a�:e different. Mr. Harris explained that the scopes were of 2 different types. The ordinance scope was set up like all ordinances sef:ting up a new commission. Ms. Hughes point�d out a typing error in the proposed ordinance, There was at double sent�ncea � MO�TON by Mro Oquist, secunded by Air. Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission recommeni� to Council appxoval of the ammendment of Chap�er 6, esCablighiiig an Energy Commission. -- .� � PLANNTNG COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMEER 26, 1979 ' PAGE 9 �``��ti UP6N A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN FiAl2RIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARItIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. CONTINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 205. ZONING MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to continue the discussion on the proposed changes to Chapter 205. Zoning, until further notice. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLAR.ED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLYo 8. RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONIMISSION MINUTES : SEPTII"IBER 11 1979 MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mro Langenfeld to receive the Community Development minutes of September 11, 1979. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CI�AIRMAN ��,R1�IS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLYo Mro Oquis� said they discussed the cul-de-sac on Glencoe and East River Road and made a recommendation to the Planning Commission to deny the request. He said there were other ways to control the problems here and the neighborhood was working with the staff on it. Mr. Harris said they did not have the minutes on this item at iche last meeting and � �ook no action on it. Mro Oquist pointed out the Com�unity Development's motion for the Planning Commission and the reasons for denial. MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld to concur with the recommendation of the Community Development Commission t� recommend to City Council, that a cul- de�sac at the intersection of the 500 Block of Glencoe Street and East River Road not be considered for the following reasons: l. Li.mited access for emergency vehicles 2. Violation of Section 211.0613 of the City Code, because Glencoe Sto is approximately 800 feet in length 3. Concern by residents of neighboring streets about the increased traffic due to the blockage of Glencoeo ' The Community Development Co�ission would also encourage staff to devel�p alternative solutions to the traffic problems. , UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMt�,i�T HARRTS DECLARED THE MOTION CARP.IED UNAN IMOUS LY . � Mr. Oquist pointed out the continued discussion on conversion of rental property to individual ownership property. Mr. Langenfeld asked him to define "relocation payments" on page 4 of his minutes. f� Mr. Oquist said this was in the City of Minneapolis proposed ordinance on how much _the developer �aould have to pay or help pay to an individual who is moving out of � building. �LANNING C01�+9ISSION_ MEETING, SEPTEMI3ER 26. 1979 PAG� �0 He fel� this whole question of property conversion was a difficult problem and should be looked into very slowly and carefully. � , Mr. Langenfeld asked how many rental units is Fridley could be converted to ownership property. Mro Deblon said in the last comprehensive plan survey there were 2,985 units. Of these, 2,119 were affordable to low and moderate income tamilies, However, he pointed out, that changes quickly because of inflation. 9. RECEIVE_ APPEALS_CONlMISSION MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 18, 1979 MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld to receive the Appeals Commission minutes of September 18, 1979, with the following correction.: Ms. Gabel said on page 5, the 9th paragraph from the top, the portion of the sent�nce reading ...�said she agreed and ... should be omittedo Mr. Harris questioned the staff reports where it says Stated Hardship, i.eo page 6, "Would like to reduce the front yard setback by 6 feeic to add an addition." He asked how that can be a hardship, Ms. Gabel said that was not the hardship, The hardship was that they needed the extra living space as the house was small, The Appea.ls Commission has questioned this area many times, and i.hought when the petitioner was filling out the applicaicion, it was not made clear to him what was required� The application was probably no�t checked at the time the petitioner filled it out. � � Mr. Harris said he has noticed this many tiffies and thought the application woa°ding should be checked so it gives a better guideline as to wh�.t was required. Ms. Gabel said she would mention this to staff and the Apgeals Commission. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECL�,RED THE MOTION C�RRIED U:+IANIMOUSLY . 10, OTHEF BUSINESS: Mro Iiarxis said he wen�. to the Blaine City Council meeting regarding their new develop- ment by Northtown, He said this 6 acres was north of our city limits and drains into a re- tention pond and goes fxom there into Coon Rapid's storm sewer systemo The drainage then continues to our Spxing Brook area. He said he could noL- find out from the developer, Burlington Northern, if there was to be any type of coritrol spots by Spring Brook or skimming devices on the ret�:ntion ponds for this project. It seemed, even during the construction period, there was not any type of filtering planned. He said he could not find any agreement with Coon Rapids on this and does not remember even beinging invited to their meetings for this project. He felt North Park would become a silt settling area for this development, Mr. Harris questioned what type of protec- tion Fridley has £or this xegarding amount of flow and water quality. Mr. Deblon showed drainage maps of Blai� and Coon Rapids and said this development would drain into Coon Creek and into Spring Brook. He also stated Mr. Boardman had � been in on meetings regarding this development, but was not convinced Blaine or Coon _ �� , P�A�"NING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPT�NBER 26, 1979 PAGE 11 Rap3.ds was doing what they said they would. �, Mr, Deblon said North Park has been a natural holding pond for many years and has been assimilating the run-.off effectively. He stated water samples taken from Spring Brook have been of good quality. ' . Mr. Harris pointed out this area has not had to handle this much run-off before. He stated if we get an excess of water and lesser grade of water quality, we could ruin 1Vorth Parlc. He felt people dumping their water into our drainage system should control it and clean it up, particularly silt that will be coming down. Ms. Hughes said there w�s much more land under asphalt noca and thai extra water has to go somewhere. Mr. Harris said this development may only be 6 acres, but you take 6 acres here, 4 acres there, etc. and it soon adds upe This will: add to the pollution problem. He felt put upon by Coon Rapids and Blaine regarding the water they wexe sending down. He suggested some sort of an agreement between the cities should be set up if this gets out of hande rlr. Deblon said a watershed disirict for this area could be an answer. Mro Haxris said we require developers to follow the standards of the Rice Creek Wa�:ershed District, even if they are not in the watershed. Our sister cities should be dai.ng this alsoo r"�. Psro Harris asked Mr, Langenfeld to check into a proposed meeting on October 17, 1979, regarding the Highway 10 development. He asked to make sure someone was represented from the Environmental Quality Coumiission at the mee�ingo Mr. Harris also asked staff to notify the Planning Commission of any meetings or developmenis regarding the Highway 10 question plus the Nori.htown drainage problem. . ADJOUItNMENT • • MOTIQN by Mro Langenfeld, seconded by Mro Treuenfels to adjourn the September 26, 1979, meeting of the Planning Commission. UPC�N A VOICE VOTE, ALI, VOTING AY�, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:05 PoM. , Respectfully submitted, �� ,'' . ,� �ula Long, Record�g Secxetary �