Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes <br /> • December 15, 1998 <br /> Page 3 <br /> 1 broadly based and should require the'City to do more to educate residents on reasons for not <br /> 2 using phosphorus. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Wagner stated he believes the section should include a statement to the effect that other <br /> 5 educational opportunities will be on-going, suggesting the City's efforts are not limited to a <br /> 6 quarterly newsletter article. <br /> 7 <br /> 8 Gondorchin stated he believes the section should reflect that it is not simply fertilizer which is <br /> 9 the source of the problem, but more accurately, improperly applied fertilizer. He added the <br /> 10 greatest impact to lakes is lawn clippings which are washed into the streets and sewers. Horst <br /> 11 agreed that misuse of yard debris should be addressed.- <br /> 12 <br /> 13 Horst stated he believes there is not sufficient need for this section, and whether or not the City <br /> 14 supports on-going education, the implication should not be that phosphorus is bad. He added the <br /> 15 section implies the City is not considering both sides of the issue, and the section should be <br /> 16 stricken from the ordinance. He reiterated the City should work towards education, and support <br /> 17 residents who feel this is a critical issue, but it should not be the law of the City. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 Gondorchin agreed, stating specific comments could be inserted which specify to what extent the <br /> 0 application of fertilizer is improper. He added further discussion with the Council is necessary. <br /> 22 Makowske asked whether Horst recommends the elimination of the subdivision. Horst stated the <br /> 23 section could be amended to stress lawn debris education. Makowske asked whether the City <br /> 24 should still publish a quarterly newsletter article. Gondorchin stated he believes the section <br /> 25 should be amended to reflect that the City will sponsor and distribute lawn care information as <br /> 26 applicable. He added, more specifically,residents should be made aware that the greatest impact <br /> 27 they can have is to ensure clippings do not fall into storm drainage or natural drainage areas. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Gondorchin drew the Commission's attention to Section 1675.05, Subd.1, asking whether it is <br /> 30 necessary to apply this to small developments, based on the cost impact to developers of under 3 <br /> 31 acres of land. <br /> 32 <br /> 33 Horst expressed his agreement, stating a 3-acre development site would eliminate smaller home <br /> 34 sites. He cited as an example the development of Northgate which is not 10 acres but is over 3 <br /> 35 acres, adding it would be necessary for a potential developer to complete an impact study. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Gondorchin asked whether the subdivision relates strictly to commercial and high density <br /> 38 development, and asked for clarification with regard to the basis for selecting the limitation of 3 <br /> 39 acres. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated these limitations were included in the Metropolitan Council's <br /> 40 proposed ordinance. <br /> 3. Planning_Commission Applicants' Letters of Interest. <br />