HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-09-04 Minutes Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Centerville held a public hearing on
Tuesday, September 4, 1990 at City Hall. The purpose was to hear
all persons present regarding a request for variance from the
Side Yard Setback of Ordinance 04, Table B Schedule of District
Regulations, lot and yard requirements to erect an attached deck
twenty -four feet from the east property line of the property
described as follows: Lot 7, Block 1, Centerville Heights.
The Property address is: 1847 Prairie Drive.
Chairman Tourville called the public hearing to order at 7:08
p.m. Present: Drilling, Wilharber, Liaison Burgstahler.
Absent: Welk, Vermeulen.
Tracy Tobin, 1847 Prairie Drive, was present. Mr. Tobin stated
that he is on a corner lot. Mr. Tobin also stated that he has
about 46', with 10' of easement and would like to build a 12'
deck on the side of his house.
Gunnar Pettersen, Building Inspector, was present. Mr. Pettersen
stated that Ordinance 04, Section 34.02 -3 just about allows Mr.
Tobin to build his deck with out a variance. Mr. Pettersen had a
problem on the interpretation of the entrance level of a split
level home. Mr. Pettersen felt there would not be a problem with
allowing this variance if Mr. Tobin is not allowed to make the
deck into a three season porch. The builder missed inform Mr.
Tobin of the set back requirements.
Commission member Wilharber complimented Mr. Tobin on his
variance request presentation. He felt the information was put
together nicely, and was easily understood.
Chairman Tourville question Gunnar Pettersen, Building Inspector,
if a variance would be necessary if the entrance floor is
interpretted as the main living area.
Mr. Pettersen stated that this is a "gray" area in the Ordinance.
The Ordinance was written before split level homes were the norm.
Mr. Pettersen felt this was a hardship case, that Mr. Tobin's
sliding doors are where he proposes to install his deck.
Mr. Tobin also agreed with Mr. Pettersen opinion that this is a
"gray" area in the ordinance, and that is why he is before the
Planning and Zoning Commission to request a variance. He does
not want any questions in the future as to why he would be
allowed to have a twelve foot deck.
Chairman Tourville noted that the building permit has already
been issued and paid for by mistake.
Motion by Drilling, second by Wilharber to adjourn the public
hearing, motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing adjourned
7:18 p.m.
Meeting Minutes - P & Z
September 4, 1990
page two
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Centerville held a public hearing on
September 4, 1990 at City Hall. The purpose was to hear all
persons present regarding the possibility of the following
amendment to Ordinance #4:
Appendix A - Commercial District
delete: Section A -10 Site Plan. Site plans for all
developments require special use permits prior to
the issuance of building permits. At least the
following information shall be submitted for
review:
(1.) Site development plan.
(2.) Building plans, including building
elevations, indicating mass, building
materials, and color of all exterior
surfaces, including all materials proposed to
meet the screening requirements of this
Ordinance.
(3.) Landscape plans, including the number,
species, and size of all plantings.
(4.) Grading, drainage, and utility plans.
Appendix B - Industrial District
delete: Section B -10 $ite Plan. Site plans for all
developments require special use permits prior to
the issuance of building permits. At least the
following information shall be submitted for
review:
(1.) Site development plan.
(2.) Building plans, including building
elevations, indicating mass, building
materials, and color of all exterior
surfaces, including all materials proposed to
meet the screening requirements of this
Ordinance.
(3.) Landscape plans, including the number,
species, and size of all plantings.
(4.) Grading, drainage, and utility plans.
Chairman Tourville called the public hearing to order at 7:19
p.m. Present: Drilling, Wilharber, Liaison Burgstahler.
Absent: Welk, Vermeulen.
Chairman Tourville commented that it was not the Planning and
Zoning Commission's intent to delete the entire site plan
requirements from the ordinance, only the special use permit.
Meeting Minutes - P & Z
September 4, 1990
page three
Chairman Tourville opened the public hearing for comments. There
were no comments offered from the audience members.
Motion by Drilling, second by Wilharber to adjourn the public
hearing, motion carried unanimously. Public hear adjourned 7:23
p.m.
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Centerville held a public hearing at
City Hall on Tuesday, September 4, 1990. The purpose of the
public hearing was to hear all persons present regarding the
possibility of the following amendment to Ordinance #4, Section
34.10
NOW READS: MAJOR RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT. No boat, boat
trailer, travel trailer, pick -up camper or coach designed to
be mounted on a motor vehicle, motorized dwelling, tent
trailer, or similar major recreational equipment, and no
case or box used for transporting such equipment shall be
parked or stored for more than seven (7) days on any lot in
a residential district except in a carport or enclosed
building or in a side or rear yard. No point of any such
equipment shall be located within three (3) feet of the rear
or side lot line except when parking in an established
driveway and in no case shall any such point be closer than
ten (10) feet from the living quarters of a residence on
adjoining property. No such equipment shall be used for
living, sleeping, or housekeeping purposes when parked or
stored on a residential lot, or in any location not approved
for such use.
AMEND TO READ: MAJOR RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT. No boat, boat
trailer, travel trailer, pick -up camper or coach designed to
be mounted on a motor vehicle, motorized dwelling, tent
trailer, or similar major recreational equipment, and no
case or box used for transporting such equipment shall be
parked or stored for more than seven (7) days on any lot in
a residential district except in a carport or enclosed
building or in a side or rear yard. No point of any such
equipment shall be located within three (3) feet of the rear
or side lot line except when parking in an established
driveway and in no case shall any such point be closer than
ten (10) feet from the living quarters of a residence on
adjoining property. No such equipment shall be used for
living, sleeping, or housekeeping purposes when parked or
stored on a residential lot, or in any location not approved
for such use.
Residents may apply to the Clerk /Administrator for a
Meeting Minutes - P & Z
September 4, 1990
page four
Temporary Parking and Occupancy Permit for one recreational
vehicle per residential parcel for a maximum of a fourteen (14)
day period in any one year, if such parking and occupancy
otherwise complies herewith. Any such occupancy as stated in
this paragraph shall be only for noncommercial use with no fee
paid to the landowner, occupant or renter. Upon investigation
of the site the Clerk /Administrator shall notify the applicant
within ten (10) days of receipt of the application, the decision
to deny /approve the request.
Extensions or appeals may be heard by the City Council.
The Temporary Parking and Occupancy Permit fee shall be
determined annually by the City Council.
Chairman Tourville called the public hearing to order at 7:24
p.m. Present: Drilling, Wilharber, Liaison Burgstahler.
Absent: Welk, Vermeulen.
Chairman Tourville stated that the intent of the amendment to the
Ordinance was to permit in a residential area the temporary
parking for one recreational vehicle with a permit.
The following persons were present in audience and made comment:
- Bob Lindgren, 7242 LaValle Drive
- Melvin Dupre, 7244 Main Street
- Mary Jane Lang, 1559 Peltier Lake Drive
- Tom Dario, 1573 Peltier Lake Drive
- Dave Kaul, 1969 Main Street
- Floyd Laska, 1393 Mound Trail
Some of the comments expressed by the above audience members
were:
- A boat /motor not allowed in front yard of home were the
front yard faces the lake;
- Worse thing put on the books, half of the people in
town could be fined for not following law;
- Where do you put your boat /trailer but in the yard,
since the City does not allow pole barns;
- What is the purpose? If it is for cosmetics then what
about the fish houses?
- These vehicles are licensed by the State, and you can
not tell people where to park them. Check into legal
aspects, could start a lawsuit;
- If you live on a lake you have to have a place to put
your boat;
- Storage of boats and /or motor homes is costly;
- Will there be a fee?
Meeting Minutes - P & Z
September 4, 1990
page five
Chairman Tourville noted that the current ordinance has been on
the books for a long time. This is an attempt to rewrite one
part of the ordinance. Chairman Tourville also noted that this
issue did not arise from Planning and Zoning. The City Council
had received a complaint from Center Oaks.
Liaison Burgstahler emphasized to the audience members that the
proposed amendment does not make the current ordinance more
restrictive. The public hearing is to make the ordinance more
liberal. Liaison Burgstahler also felt that the front yard is to
be interpreted as the street side of a house on a lake.
Commission member Drilling noted that this is to control people
living in motor vehicles. The amendment does not change the
parking or storage of boats, ect. He also noted that the amount
of the fee has not yet been decided, and that the fee would be a
City Council decision.
Dave Kaul, 1969 Main Street, expressed that in his opinion if
would be easier without a fee if there is to be a permit.
Liaison Burgstahler stated that a complaint was received that
persons where housekeeping in a motor home. The current
ordinance says no one shall live in a motor home. The City
Council felt this was to stringent. The time limit was suggested
so that people would not be allowed to live some place
permanently.
Floyd Laska, 1393 Mound Trail, suggested that it be a thirty day
permit if there was no increase in traffic or creating a
nuisance, and that the permit be renewable.
Motion by Drilling, second by Wilharber to adjourn the public
hearing, motion carried unanimously. Public hearing adjourned
7:42 p.m.
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Centerville held a public hearing at
City Hall on Tuesday, September 4, 1990. The purpose of the
public hearing was to hear all persons present regarding the
possibility of rezoning the following properties described as
follows:
Unplatted City of Centerville the W 100 ft of the E 333 ft of the
s 200 ft of the E 1/2 of NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section 23 -31 -22
Anoka County, MN (Subj to Cnty Statehwy No. 14 & 21) and commonly
known as 1969 Main Street;
Unplatted Village of Centerville all the pt of NE 1/4 of NE 1/4
Meeting Minutes - P & Z
September 4, 1990
page six
of Section 23 -31 -22 desc as fol, the 5183 ft of W 100 ft of E 433
ft. - subj to the its the public has acquired in Sly 33 ft for
road purposes (ex part taken for Hwy by Anoka Cnty 10/2/73) and
commonly known as 1976 Mairi Street;
Unplatted Village of Centerville S 183 dtr of W 100 ft of E 533
ft of E 1/2 of NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 Section 23 -31 -22 (Ex part taken
for Hwy by Cnty of Anoka 7/30/73) and commonly known as 1973 Main
Street;
Unplatted Village of Centerville the W 100 ft of the E 333 ft of
the S 200 ft of the E 1/2 of NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of section 23 -31 -22
Anoka Cnty, MN (Subj to Cnty Statehwy No 14 & 21) and commonly
known as 1979 Main Street;
Unplatted City of Centerville the S 183.00 ft of the E 133.00 ft
of the E 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of section 23 -31 -22
Anoka Cnty, MN (subj to cnty state aid hwy 14 & 21) and commonly
known as 7105 20th Avenue North;
Unplatted village of Centerville th pt of E 1/2 of NE 1/4 of NE
1/4 sec 23 -31 -22 desc as fol, com at a point 183 ft N of SE
corner of NE 1/4 of NE 1/34, th W AA dist of 133 ft to point of
page two
beg, th s a dist of 150 ft, th W a dist of 100 ft, th N a dist of
150 ft, the E a dist of 100 ft to the point of beg (ex part taken
for Hwy by Anoka Co 8/23/73) and commonly known as 1981 Main
Street;
and lying north of Main Street, east of the Hardwood Ponds
Estates development, west of 20th Avenue. The proposed rezoning
will be from Commercial (B -1) to Single Family Residential -
sewered (R -2).
Chairman Tourville called the public hearing to order at 7:43
p.m. Present: Drilling, Wilharber, Liaison Burgstahler.
Absent: Welk, Vermeulen.
Chairman Tourville noted that the rezoning request was due to the
location of the water mains and that the property owners are
petitioning.
Leon L"Allier, 1973 Main Street, was present. Mr. L'Allier
stated that he and several other of the petitioning property
owners have been before the City Council with their concerns
about being assessed according to the property use (residential).
Commission member Wilharber noted that these properties have been
Meeting Minutes - P & Z
September 4, 1990
page seven
zoned commercial for a long period of time.
Chairman Tourville noted that the City Planner addressed in the
latest Comprehensive Plan the zoning of these properties, and
their recommendation was to rezone to residential.
Liaison Burgstahler felt that by rezoning these properties to
residential would bring them into conformity with the
Comprehensive Plan. The property owners want to be rezone, and
he sees no problem with their request.
Commission member Drilling asked what the difference in the
assessment of the water main would be.
Mr. L "Allier stated it would be in the excess of $1,000.00.
Dave Kaul, 1969 Main Street, was present. Mr. Kaul is concerned
that by leaving the properties zoned commercial, some one could
sell out and they could be then living next door to an unwanted
commercial business.
Liaison Burgstahler expressed that he did not feel that the size
of the lots would be conducive to commercial businesses.
Chairman Tourville thought that there were three compelling
reasons for the rezoning:
1. The property owners want it.
2. The Comprehensive Plan calls for it.
3. The surrounding area is mainly residential.
Motion by Wilharber, second by Drilling to adjourn the public
hearing, motion carried unanimously. Public hearing adjourned
7:49 p.m.
Pi_irGnent to due call and notice thereof the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Centerville held their regular meeting
Tuesday, September 5, 1990 at the City Hall. Chairman Tourville
called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. Present: Drilling,
Wilharber, Liaison Burgstahler. Absent: Welk, Vermeulen.
Motion by Tourville, second by Wilharber to approve the June 5,
1990 meeting minutes, motion carried unanimously.
The August 7, 1990 meeting minutes were tabled until the next
regular meeting.
Golden Meadows - Gerald Rehbein
ReQuest for Rezoning - Special Use Permit (for multi - family
dwelling in an R -2 zoning district - PUB) - Preliminary Plat
Meeting Minutes - P & Z
September 4, 1990
page eight
Chairman Tourville noted that the Feasibility Study is not yet
available from the engineers.
John Stewart, City Engineer, was present. Mr. Stewart noted that
the preliminary Feasibility Study has been completed but did not
feel it is appropriate to review the preliminary study without a
grading plan from the developer.
Chairman Tourville noted that the City Planner in their report
noted seventeen items that should be addressed. It also appears
to be the conclusion of the planner that this plan would be
workable with some adjustments.
Gerald Rehbein, developer, expressed concern over the Planner's
comment that there is not enough parking. Mr. Rehbein feels that
he has more parking then the City requires in the Ordinance.
With the Planner's concern over the setbacks he expressed that he
could bend the roads to 20th Avenue and would then be able to
meet the 35' setback requirement.
Mr. Stewart expressed that he is more in favor of a cul -de -sac
with the emergency access than a "horse shoe ". In his opinion a
"horse shoe" could create too many accesses on to the County
Road. Mr. Stewart also noted that the berm needs to be adjusted
as it is in the way of the emergency access.
Commission member Wilharber stated that the Planner,
Clerk /Administrator and City Engineer have noted a lot of issues
that need to be addressed.
Mr. Rehbein felt that he can not please the Planner,
Clerk /Administrator or City Engineer. He is here to ask the
Planning and Zoning Commission what they would like.
Chairman Tourville noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission
had already approved the concept, but this idea is new to
Centerville and that is why they were treading slowly.
Chairman Tourville felt that the purpose of a PUB is to create a
little more uniqueness to a project and that the setbacks may not
be a problem.
Mr. Rehbein expressed that he felt that the Park and Recreation
Committee should not be involved in the park land. That the
people who live there should decide what they want.
Liaison Burgstahler asked Mr. Rehbein which comments that have
been made regarding his proposed development he did not like.
it
Meeting Minutes - P & Z
September 4, 1990
page nine
Mr. Rehbein stated the following:
1. The curve in the road in regards to the setback
2. Parking space
3. Asks that the building pad elevation be lowered 1 -2
feet
Mr. Stewart stated that the flood plain elevation is currently
907.9, and that the building pads are required to be two feet
above the flood plain elevation.
Chairman Tourville asked if the proposed 71 1/2 Street is to be a
9 ton 66 foot road.
Mr. Rehbein felt that by having this be a nine ton road would be
inviting industrial traffic through the development.
Mr. Stewart stated that he firmly believes in a nine ton road.
The purpose of a nine tone road is not for the type of traffic
but for the amount of traffic that would to be generated by this
development. Mr. Stewart feels that this development alone will
generate enough traffic to warrant a nine ton road.
Chairman Tourville expressed concern over how the home owners
agreement is to be handled.
Mr. Rehbein stated that he is not the builder, but could get an
example of a homeowners agreement for the Commission to review.
Mr. Rehbein feels that he meets the requirements of the off
street parking with the spaces in front of the garages. There
are 96 units, each with two parking spaces; one in the garage,
and one in front of the garage.
Commission member Drilling would like to see a home owners
agreement.
Chairman Tourville expressed concern about the assurance the City
would have to see that the concerns expressed at the previous
public hearing about quality are met.
Mr. Rehbein stated that the City Council and City Attorney can
work out that in the developer's agreement. Mr. Rehbein
expressed concern over the fact that Planning and Zoning seemed
to want to have control.
Mr. Rehbein suggested that he could live with a nine ton road if
it is only 60' wide.
Mr. Stewart appeared to be agreeable to Mr. Rehbein's suggestion
of nine ton roads with a 60' wide easement.
r
Meeting Minutes - P & Z
September 4, 1990
page ten
Chairman Tourville stated that a variance would be required for
the setbacks if not addressed under the PUD.
The Planning and Zoning Commission complied the following list of
concerns that Gerald Rehbein needs to address before their next
regular meeting!
- Sidewalks
- Nine ton road - sixty foot right -of -way (71 1/2 Street)
- Seven ton road - sixty foot right -of -way (Wacota Court)
- Parking
- Park land
- Drainage
- Flood plain elevation
- Setback variance - public hearing
- Wacota Court to stay cul -de -sac
- Emergency access left as is - removing berm
- Landscape plan - trees to be included
Mr. Rehbein stated that he needs feed back from Maier, Stewart &
Associates regarding the grading and ponding.
Motion by Drilling, second by Wilharber to direct City staff to
initiate a public hearing to address Gerald Rehbein's request for
a variance of the required setbacks for a planned unit
development (Golden Meadows), motion carried unanimously.
Preliminary Plat Review Checklist
John Stewart, City Engineer, stated that he created this
checklist according to the ordinance. The present ordinance
requires all these things prior to acceptance of a preliminary
plat.
Tamara Miltz - Miller, Clerk /Administrator, stated that if Planning
and Zoning Commission no longer wishes to require this things
prior to the acceptance of a preliminary plat they must change -
the ordinance.
Mr. Stewart felt that the Planning and Zoning Commission may be
mixing up a sketch plan and preliminary plat. Some of things can
be addressed in a sketch plan.
Chairman Tourville stated that he "feels" for the developer
having to spend a lot of money on a preliminary plat were changes
can become costly.
Mr. Stewart stated that he could prepare something for the
Planning and Zoning Commission to review at their next meeting to
try and structure stages of approval for a preliminary plat.
Motion by Tourville, second by Drilling to withdraw the following
Meeting Minutes - P & Z
September 4, 1990
page eleven
motion from the August 7, 1990 meeting minutes:
page two "Motion by Tourville, second by Vermeulen to
revise the Preliminary Plat Review Checklist as follows:
- that the pages be numbered;
- that the information required on page three -
Subdivision Plat - (e) street pattern through page five
- Restrictions, be required after preliminary plat
approval;"
motion carried unanimously. Motion withdrawn.
NEW BUSYNESS
Variance Request - 1847 Prairie Drivp,
Motion by Wilharber, second by Drilling to recommend to the City
Council the approval of the variance request from the Side Yard
Setback of Ordinance #4, Table B Schedule of District
Regulations, lot and yard requirements to erect an attached deck
twenty -four feet from the east property line of the property
described as follows: Lot 7, Block 1, Centerville Heights, and
commonly known as 1847 Prairie Drive for the following reasons:
- Not the petitioners own doing, there was a
miscommunication by the builder and building inspector;
- Ordinance #4, Section 34.02 -3 being a gray area, the
upper level could be considered the entrance level;
- Meets the requirements of Ordinance #4, Sections 65.03-
1, 65.03 -2, 65.03 -3 and 65.03 -5;
motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSYNESS
Possibility of Rezoning the Following Properties:
1969 Main Street
1976 Main Street
1973 Main Street
1979 Main Street
7105 20th Avenue North
1981 Main Street
Commission member Wilharber expressed that since the rezoning was
petitioned for by the property owners, it appears to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning request
makes sense, he would recommend the rezoning.
Chairman Tourville expressed that he is not comfortable with the
proposed water assessment being the basis of the rezoning
request. Some where down the road it could be better used as
commercial.
Commission member Drilling expressed that he is not in favor of
rezoning these properties to residential. Mr. Drilling feels
Meeting Minutes - P & Z
September 4, 1990
page twelve
that, in his opinion, these properties left with their current
commercial zoning would be more beneficial to the City.
Motion by Wilharber to recommend to the City Council that the
following properties be rezoned from Commercial (B -1)a to Single
Family Residential - Sewered (R -2):
1969 Main Street
1976 Main Street
1973 Main Street
1979 Main Street
7105 20th Avenue North
1981 Main Street
Aye - Wilharber, Tourville; Nay - Drilling, motion carried.
Possibility of Amending Ordinance #4. Section 34.10 MAJOR
RECREATTONAL EQUIPMENT
Chairman Tourville expressed that, in his opinion, the City gets
to restrictive on what you can do on your own property. The
people present at the public hearing were not focusing on the
issue.
Motion by Tourville, second by Drilling to table the possibility
of amending Ordinance #4, Section 34.10 MAJOR RECREATIONAL
EQUIPMENT for further review, and to see what other cities allow,
motion carried unanimously.
Possibility of Deleting from Ordinance #4:
Appendix A - Commercial District
Section A -10 Site Plan
Appendix B - Tndustrial _District
Section B -10 Site Plan
Chairman Tourville questioned if everyone on the City Council
understands the intent of the removing of the special use permit
requirement from the site plan. Chairman Tourville noted that
this had initiated at the Centerville Economic Development Task
Force. At the Task Force's last meeting they voted unanimously
to eliminate the special use permit. Chairman Tourville feels
that the special use permit is detrimental to economic
development within the City. Chairman Tourville also stated
that, in his opinion, it is a miss use of a special use permit,
you do not grant a special use permit to grant site plan
approval.
Liaison Burgstahler questioned if this changes the control that
the City would have over a site plan.
Chairman Tourville felt that this eliminate some of the "red
tape ". Most cities have a shorter time period, but. in
Centerville it is drawn out two, three or four months for site
Meeting Minutes - P & Z
September 4, 1790
page thirteen
plan approval. He is questioning the need for a special use
permit to approve a site plan. Chairman Tourville is not asking
that the special use permit required under the zoning permitted
uses allowed be removed.
Liaison Burgstahler expressed that he is for getting rid of the
• "red tape", but that the City needs to have controls.
•
Motion by Tourville, second by Drilling to recommend that the
City Council amend Ordinance #4 as follows:
Now reads; Appendix A - Commercial District
Section A -10 Site Plan. Site plans for all
developments require special use permits prior
to the issuance of building permits. At least
the following information shall be submitted
for review:
(1.) Site development plan.
(2.) Building plans, including building
elevations, indicating mass, building materials,
and color of all exterior surfaces, including all
materials proposed to meet the screening
requirements of this Ordinance.
(3.) Landscape plans, including the number,
species, and size of all plantings.
(4.) Grading, drainage, and utility plans.
Amend to read: Appendix A - Commercial District
Section A -10 Site Plari. The following
information shall be submitted for review:
(1.) Site development plan.
(2.) Building plans, including building
elevations, indicating mass, building
materials, and color of all exterior
surfaces, including all materials proposed to
meet the screening requirements of this
Ordinance.
(3.) Landscape plans, including the number,
species, and size of all plantings.
(4.) Grading, drainage, and utility plans.
(5.) Parking.
Now Reads: Appendix B - Industrial District
Section B -10 Site Plan. Site plans for all
developments require special use permits
prior to the issuance of building permits.
At least the following information shall be
submitted for review:
(1.) Site development plan.
•
Meeting Minutes - P & Z
September 4, 1990
page fourteen
(2.) Building plans, including building
elevations, indicating mass, building
materials, and color of all exterior
surfaces, including all materials proposed to
•
meet the screening requirements of this
Ordinance.
(3.) Landscape plans, including the number,
species, and size of all plantings.
(4.) Grading, drainage, and utility plans.
Amend to read: Appendix B - Industrial District
Section B -10 Site Plan, The following
information shall be submitted for review:
(1.) Site development. plan.
(2.) Building plans, including building
elevations, indicating mass, building
materials, and color of all exterior
surfaces, including all materials proposed to
meet the screening requirements of this
Ordinance.
(3.) Landscape plans, including the number,
species, and size of all plantings.
(4.) Grading, drainage, and utility plans.
(5.) Parking.
motion carried unanimously.
nap Overlays
Commission member Wilharber noted that the new map overlays will
need an easel to hold them properly. John Stewart, City
Engineer, noted earlier in the meeting that the map overlays
should be ready in about a month, Commission member Wilharber
will come back at the next meeting with ideas on how to display
the maps.
NEW BUSINESS
August 20. 1990 City Council Meeting
Commission member Wilharber noted that at their August 20, 1990
• City Council meeting the City Council voted for pay raises for
the Mayor and City Council members. He knows this can only be
done in an election year, but questioned where the money will
come from. In his opinion the City Council is only hurting the
City by voting future City Council members raises.
Chairman Tourville expressed that enlight of the current City
expenses, i.e. the 1987 Street Reassessment lawsuit costs, he
does not feel a pay raise is appropriate.
Commission member Drilling expressed that no one really serves
Meeting Minutes - F 8c Z
September 4, 1990
page fifteen
the City for the money, serve because they want to.
Chairman Tourville expressed that the City should take a look at
the cost effectiveness of their expenditures. Chairman Tourville
expressed that the limestone and sand for Central Park, and the
chain link fence purchase appeared to be excessive. Chairman
Tourville also expressed dis- satisfaction with what the City is
doing with its finances.
The Planning and Zoning Commission asks that the City Council
look at the following:
- What is spent;
- How it is spent;
And the accountability for its expenditures
Motion by Wilharber, second by Drilling to adjourn the meeting,
motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned 10 :52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
•
Sanna E. Buckbee
Assistant City Clerk