Loading...
PL 11/17/1993 - 30781/"'\ �"� �, CITY OF FRIDLE'Y PLANNING CO1�iI88ION MEETING, NOVEMBER 17, 1993 ___,...______________.._______________.._____________________________ CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Kondrick called the November 17, 1993, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Diane Savage, Connie Modig, Brad Sielaff, LeRoy Oquist Dave Newman Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 27. 1993. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to approve the October 27, 1993, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERBON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 1. DISCUSS O-4. WETLAND OVERLAY ORDINANCE: Ms. McPherson stated that in 1991 the State Legislature adopted the Wetland Conservation Act. Its purpose was to achieve "no net loss" of wetlands and to protect all wetlands that do not fall under the Department of Natural Resources' regulations or the Army Corps of Engineers' regulations. In January 1991, an interim program began and the City began to regulate wetlands under the interim program. Under the original legislation, the permanent program was supposed to begin on July 1, 1993. However, in 1993 the State Legislature again modified the Wetland Conservation Act, revised the rules the Board of Water & Soil Resources (BWSR) had developed, and extended the permanent program to begin January 1, 1994. The two main modifications the Legislature made was to allow wetland fills up to 400 square feet without replacement on sequencing and also modified the role of the technical evaluation panel. As a result, all cities are to adopt some type of ordinance to comply with the Wetland Conservation Act, hopefully, by January 1, 1994, or shortly thereafter. Ms. McPherson stated that in order to adopt the ordinance, staff needed to find out the number of wetlands, the location of the wetlands, the types of wetlands, and how the wetlands would be /"� /""� � PLANNING COMMIBSION MEETIN<3, NOVEMBER 17, 1993 PAGE 2 impacted by the legislation. The City contracted with Westwood Engineering and Peterson Environmental Consulting to do a wetland identification and delineation study. Ms. McPherson stated that as a result of that study, there are 59 wetlands located in the City. Forty-seven were originally identified on the 1982 Fish & Wildlife fly-over maps, also known as the National Wetland Inventory Maps. Twenty of those original 47 wetlands no longer exist in the field, and there are some wetlands in the City that did not show up on the original Fish & Wildlife Inventory Maps. Approximately 21 basins are less than 21, 000 square feet, and three basins are less than 4, 356 square feet. Basically, if those three basins were filled, they would not need to meet the sequencing guidelines. However, anything over 400 square feet would still need to be replaced. Ms. McPherson stated that thirty six of the 59 basins are located under the Rice Creek Watershed District's jurisdiction, and 23 are located under the Six Cities Watershed District's jurisdiction. The study also listed the nine Department of Natural Resources' protected waters which are not regulated under the Wetland Conservation Act, because they are already regulated by the Department of Natural Resources. All the basins fall under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. Ms. McPherson stated that 54 basins are eligible for a nation-wide permit, which is the shorter permitting process of the Army Corps. Five basins would require individual permits if they are filled or somehow impacted. Ms. McPherson stated the study itself has all the wetlands identified by type, size, location, and the dominant vegetation. The whole purpose of the study was to help staff make some determinations regarding the replacement and sequencing as required under the rules and regulations written by the Board of Water & Soil Resources. Before the Planning Commission's public hearing in December, she will make sure the Commission members get copies of the draft study. Ms. McPherson stated she has tried to condense this information for the Commissions and property owners into a basic flow chart which shows the process of how a wetland would be developed if a property owner wants to develop a piece of property with a wetland. How to determine what part of the statute is affected or is required to be applied is determined by the answers to the following series of questions: 1. Is there a wetland on the site? If the answer is NO, the law doesn't apply, and a person can develop the property per the zoning requirements of the City. ^ PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. NOVEMBER 17, 1993 PAGE 3 If the answer is YES, the following question needs to be asked: 2. Is draining, filling, or burning of a wetland required? If the answer is NO, the property owner can develop per the zoning requirements of the City. If the answer is YES, then the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act is to be reviewed and it needs to be is determined if there are certain criteria that need to be met in the Act. Then the following question needs to be asked: 3. Is the activity exempt per the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act? There are approximately 25 exemptions in the Wetland Conservation Act. Approximately 10 exemptions can apply to certain activities in the City. Most of those are for utility companies or the City for routine maintenance to public improvements already located in wetlands. There are list of those exemptions in the ordinance, and those were drafted directly from the exemptions in the law. �"'� If the answer is YES, the City needs to certify that the activity is exempt and needs to record an exemption certificate on the property, and then the property owner can develop the property per Zoning Code requirements. If the answer is 1J0, the following question needs to be asked: 4. Is the area to be drained, filled, or burned less than 400 square feet? If the answer is YES, the property owner may fill the wetland. The property owner does not need to go through the sequencing requirements. If the answer is NO, the following question needs to be asked: 5. Is the area between 400 square feet and 4,356 square feet? If the answer is YES, the replacement is required and the sequencing requirement is waived. The sequencing � requirements basically require the property owner to determine if there are any feasible or prudent alter- natives which can either avoid, minimize, rectify, or � reduce impacts to the wetland. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 17. 1993 PAGL 4 � If the answer is NO, then the full requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act are to be enforced. Ms. McPherson stated there are four purposes for adopting the local ordinance: 1. To comply with the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act. 2. To clearly designate on the zoning map the location of the regulated wetlands. 3. To clearly define the responsibilities of both the petitioner or property owner and the City regarding the administration of the Wetland Conservation Act. 4. To define the process for the development within and around wetlands. Ms. McPherson stated that all cities are adopting an ordinance in some form or another. Some are quite simple and some already have wetland protection ordinances that might need to be modified to ensure they are at least meeting or exceeding the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act. Ms. McPherson stated there is another body that gets involved in this process, and that is the Technical Evaluation Panel which is composed of one person from the Soil & Water Conservation District, one person from the Board of Water & Soil Resources, and one person appointed by the City. Their responsibility is to review exemption and no loss determinations, wetland delineations, and replacement plans. Ms. McPherson stated that the City has the following responsibilities under the 0-4 Wetland Overlay Ordinance: 1. Certify all exemptions. 2. Certify replacement plans. • Verify sequencing. • Determine no loss. • Submit copy of application to BWSR/others; publish. • Secure letter of credit/affidavit ensuring replacement. • Record deed restrictions. • Verify replacement ratio. • Retain exemptions/no loss documentation for minimum of 10 years. �"� ^ PLANNING CONII�II88ION MEETING. NOVEMBER 17, 1993 PAGE 5 3. Monitor replacement plansa Assure replacement of wetland functions and values. Review annual report submitted to the applicant. Inspect completed project and certify completion, if applicable. 4. Appeals • Administrative appeals of exemptions and no loss determinations • Mail notice of BWSR appeals. Mr. Rondrick asked Ms. McPherson to outline the process of what happened regarding the replacement of wetlands for the Wal-Mart development. Ms. McPherson stated that the Wal-Mart development occurred during the interim rule, so the City only needed to worry about making sure they had a one-to-one replacement. Ms. McPherson stated there were about four different types of wetlands on the undeveloped Wal-Mart site. It had always been the ^ City's goal to redo the Meadowlands Park site in order to relieve the water table pressure on the surrounding homeowners and return it to its natural state. Under the interim rules, the City identified what was being filled, what was on site, and how much of that was going to be impacted. They then took part of the site and recreated or modified the wetland that was there and then took the Meadowlands Park site and actually restored wetlands to its original state, and those balanced. All that happened with very little inventorying. Ms. McPherson stated that if that same development was to happen today, the first thing the City would do is receive the development application from Wal-Mart to develop the site. The City would then ask themselves the questions and follow the process that she had outlined earlier from the flow chart. If the Wal-Mart development had been proposed after the Wetland Conservation Act had been enacted, the development would not have occurred in the way that it did. Ms. Modig asked if this ordinance is tougher than the state requirements. Ms. McPherson stated this ordinance is verbatim from the state statutes. They cannot be easier than the state law; they have to at least meet the standards of the law. � Mr. Saba stated they have to remember that the whole purpose of this ordinance is to preserve the existing wetlands and to make it very difficult to develop on wetlands. He stated that before the '"� n PLANNING CONIIrIIBSION MEETING, NOVEMHER 17. 1993 PAGE 6 public hearing, they should make tlle point clear that the whole purpose of the ordinance is to preserve the existing wetlands. Another point would be to make it known the number of wetlands that have disappeared and will never come back. Mr. Rondrick stated they should also make it very clear that this is state law, and this ordinance is only adhering to state law and is not stating what the City of Fridley would like. Mr. Sielaff stated that regarding the banking issue, it is not explicitly stated in the ordinance. He believed it is explicitly stated in the statute. He stated he likes flexibility, and he believed the banking issue could prevent things from being boxed in. He can see property owners having no options. He is not an advocate of banking, but he believed it should be explicitly stated that banking is an option. Mr. Dacy stated she is hoping that the consultants will be able to address some of these specific issues at the public hearings. Ms. McPherson stated that regarding the banking issue, basically what goes into the bank is either restored, or some are created wetlands, as defined by the statute. So, something that is existing cannot be used for replacement; it has to be something that has been restored or created and not as part of another project. In other words, the Meadowlands Park would not qualify for banking, because it has already been tied into the Wal-Mart development. Ms. McPherson stated that the tentative schedule for the adoption of the Wetland Overlay Ordinance is as follows: November 17 November 30 Planning Commission discussion of draft ordinance EQE discussion of draft ordinance December 6 Informational meeting with affected property owners located in the Six Cities Watershed District. Meeting to occur at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Six Cities engineer and Westwood consultants in attendance. December 7 Informational meeting with affected property owners located in the Rice Creek Watershed District. Watershed District engineer and Westwood consultants in attendance. ^ December 8 Planning Commission conducts public hearing. �..,� PLANNIN(3 CONII�iI88ION METTING, NOVEMBER 17. 1993 PA(3E 7 January 3 City Council establishes public hearing for January 18, 1994 February 7 City Council approves the proposed ordinance. The Commission members complimented Ms. McPherson on a very good job in putting the ordinance together. 2. APPROVE 1994 MEETING DATES: MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the 1994 meeting dates as follows: January 12, 26 July 13, 27 February 9, 23 August 10, 24 March 9, 23 September 7, 21 April 6, 20 October 5, 19 May 4, 18 November 2, 16, 30 June 1, 15, 29 December 14, 28 IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 3. RECEIVE OCTOBER 4. 1993. PARKS & RECREATION CONIlKISSION MINUTES• MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the October 4, 1993, Parks & Recreation Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPER80N RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 4. RECEIVE OCTOBER 14, 1993. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES• ' MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the October 14, 1993, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 5. RECEIVE NOVEMBER_9, 1993. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the November 9, 1993, Appeals Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERBON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. /'1 ^ PLANNING COASMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 17, 1993 PAGE 8 ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Vice-Chairperson Kondrick declared the motion carried and the November 17, 1993, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,�- ✓�.r Ly e Saba Recording Secretary �� ;,""�