The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 05/18/1994 - 30789CITY OF FRIDLEY � PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, MAY 18, 1994 , �";� __»�_________________�____�__________________�_____��_�_____�_�__ CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Newman called the May 18, 1994, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Dave Newman, Dean Saba, Diane Savage, LeRoy Oquist, Connie Modig, Brad Sielaff Members Absent: Dave Kondrick Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Paul Harstad, Harstad Companies Forrest Harstad, Twin City Townhomes Tedd Mattke, Mattke Engineering Ed Dropps, Cypress Development See attached list APPROVAL OF MAY 4, 1994. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES• MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the May 4, 1994, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NSAMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN WI2 #94-01. BY PAUL HARSTAD: Per Section 205.27 of the Fridley City Code, to allow the filling of a wetland for construction of a single family dwelling on Lot 6, Block 2, Innsbruck North 2nd Addition, generally located at 5470 and 5490 East Danube Road N.E. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:32 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the subject parcels are generally located near the intersection of East and West Danube Roads, east of Matterhorn Drive, and south of North Innsbruck Drive. This request comes as a result of two actions--one at the state level and one at the local level. In 1991, the State Legislature passed the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). This Act is an attempt to limit �`�`, the loss of wetlands to no net loss. The City adopted the O-4 /"� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 18, 1994 PAaE 2 Overlay District which is the Wetland Preservation District. This basically put the State Statute into a working document that the City can use to enforce the State Statute passed in 1991. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting that this replacement plan be approved to allow the filling of 2,800 square feet of Type 4 wetland. The replacement plan proposes to create 2,500 square feet of Type 4 wetland. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has also applied for variances which will be heard by the Appeals Commission on May 24, 1994. Ms. McPherson stated the subject parcels are zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are the surrounding parcels. This particular subject parcel has had a lengthy history regarding to the wetlands located on it. The earliest documentation was in 1973 in which the property owner in developing the area requested that the assessments for water main, sanitary sewer, and street construction be reduced on these particular lots due to the fact that they might not be buildable due to the presence of wetlands. Ms. McPherson stated that in 1977, the DNR declared that the wetlands located on these parcels and other parcels in the Innsbruck area would fall under the DNR's jurisdiction and would require permits from the DNR prior to development. Ms. McPherson stated the remainder of the documentation occurred in the late 1970s, predominately in ].977 and 1978. In 1986, the City issued a land alteration permit to Hearthstone Homes to fill the properties from the front property lines to the drainage easement located 20 and 40 feet from the westerly lot lines. In reviewing the plans submitted by the petitioner, staff determined that the filling did not occur to the extent that would have been permitted under that land alteration permit. That land alteration permit expired on December 31, 1986, and the City has not issued any subsequent land alteration permits. Ms. McPherson stated staff reviewed the aerial photos located at the Municipal Center. In 1977, the aerial photo showed that an extensive Type 3 or 4 wetland was located on both 5470 and 5490 East Danube. The 1981 aerial showed that filling had occurred on a small portion of the wetland on Lot 5 which is the northerly lot, and in 1985, no further filling as compared to 1981 had occurred. Ms. McPherson stated that in 1993, staff inet with the petitioner on site as a result from a complaint from a neighbor. The petitioner was informed at that time that he would need to comply with the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act prior to the issuance of a building permit. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing to fill the lots �� in order to construct single family dwellings on both Lot 5, 5490 East Danube Road, which was filled previously, and Lot 6, 5470 East Danube Road. Lot 6 will receive the most impact for the wetlands. �^ PLANNINa COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 3 Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has submitted a Wetland Delineation Plan as well as a Wetland Replacement Plan. Ms. McPherson stated a Type 4 wetland is located on the subject parcel. Wetlands of this particular type are characterized by open water with a depth of 2-3 feet. Vegetation associated with this wetland includes cottonwood, black willow, dogwood, reed canary qrass, and pinkweed. This wetland is also part of an overall drainage system for the neighborhood. Ms. McPherson stated staff has determined that the subwatershed is defined by Matterhorn Drive on the west, Gardena Avenue on the north, and I-694 on the south. Water flows west from the wetland west of West Danube Road, under West Danube into the subject wetland, and out of the wetland under East Danube Road into Farr Lake. In addition, Farr Lake also receives storm water from Black Forrest Condominiums and the North Innsbruck Townhomes. Ms. McPherson stated that in the petitioner's wetland replacement plan, staff reviewed the requirements of the O-4 Wetland Overlay District which has been adopted by the City and which includes the requirements of the State Statute. The petitioner is missing eight items which are required as part of the submission of the wetland replacement plan for the impacted wetland: �; 1. Wetland location with a public land survey coordinate of the wetland center 2. The overall size of the wetland including that portion not on the subject parcel 3. The wetland type as defined by USFW Circular 39 and National wetland Inventory mapping conventions 4. A soils map or soils information provided by soil borings 5. The size of the watershed draining into the wetland area 6. Location of inlets and outlets 7. A map or written description of the land use within one mile of the watershed 8. Evidence of ownership Ms. McPherson stated staff inet with the Rice Creek Watershed Administrator, Kate Drewry, on the site on May 10, 1994. They were able to speak with one of the neighbors at that time. The Administrator supplied staff with a second delineation plan that had been submitted by the petitioner in April 1993. The two �� delineations did not match; and on May il, 1994, staff conferred � with the City's consultant, Peterson Environmental Consulting to do a visual site visit of the subject parcel to determine if the � PLANNINa COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 4 delineation submitted by the petitioner is accurate. The consultant confirmed that the delineation submitted by the petitioner is accurate and would be acceptable as far as the Statute and ordinance. Ms. McPherson stated staff reviewed the sequencing requirements of the wetland ordinance. Any developer wishing to fill or drain a wetland needs to go through five steps to minimize or avoid impact to wetlands. The petitioner did provide three alternatives which would avoid impact to the wetland: 1. 2. 3. Choose not to build on Lot 6. Construct a home on pilings on Lot 6. Build a smaller home on Lot 6. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner dismissed the first alternative using the "takings" argument that he would not receive the economic return he intended to receive when he first purchased the property. The petitioner also indicated that there is an exemption in the State Statute which applies to platted properties which have improvements and/or infrastructure installed or having local site plan approval, conditional use permits, or similar official approval by a governing body or government agency. Ms. McPherson stated that while this particular parcel does have utilities stubbed to it and there is infrastructure which would serve this particular lot, the petitioner did not apply for a building permit or land alteration permit within the window that is permitted in the State Statute which is from July 1, 1986, to January 1, 1992. Staff is reluctant to extend this window outside the five year window defined in the Statute. Ms. McPherson stated the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), the state agency that wrote the rules for the State Statute, would have the regulatory authority to make the interpretation that this parcel would be exempt from the State Statute based on that particular exemption. Staff is taking the stand that the exemption does not apply to this parcel. Ms. McPherson stated the second alternative the petitioner presented was to construct a dwelling on pilings. The petitioner stated this would be a cost-prohibitive alternative and is not an accepted way of constructing a dwelling unit. The petitioner did not submit expert testimony from a structural engineer to support the statements he made. The petitioner should submit such information from a professional to support his argument. Ms. McPherson stated that in the third alternative, the petitioner stated that a smaller house would not fit into this particular � neighborhood nor would it meet the City's minimum house size requirements of 1,020 square feet. The petitioner stated that a house size small enough to meet the setback requirements and to PLANNING COM�IISSION MEETING� MAY 18. 1994 PAGE 5 �� avoid all wetland impacts would need to be 15 feet by 45 feet. The petitioner is correct that the house would not meet the minimum dwelling size; however, if a front yard variance was granted by the City, the petitioner could construct a house pad of 30 feet by 50 feet which would eliminate most impact to the wetland and would allow the petitioner to possibly fall under the 400 square foot exemption which is in the Statute and the ordinance. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner also did not explore the use of retaining walls to reduce the amount of fill needed around the dwelling unit along the rear and side walls. Ms. McPherson stated that in terms of the wetland replacement plan, the last item staff reviewed was the information submitted and the replacement ratio proposed by the petitioner. The State Statute and the local ordinance require that replacement be at a minimum rate of two acres created wetland for every one acre of wetland which is impacted. The petitioner is proposing a wetland replacement rate of less than 1:1 if no setback variances were granted by the City. If the setback variance is granted by the City, the petitioner could meet the 1:1 ratio of one acre of wetland created for every one acre impacted. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner also did not submit approximately eleven items which are required as part of ;� identifying the replacement of wetland and also the monitoring plan which is required to monitor the created wetland for a five year period after the wetland is created. Ms. McPherson stated that as the petitioner cannot meet the 2:1 ratio, the City cannot approve the replacement plan as the State Statute and the local ordinance require a minimum replacement ratio of 2:1. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the replacement plan as it is proposed based on two findings of fact: 1. Feasible and prudent alternatives exist which avoid impacts to the wetlands (Section 205.27.05.D.(3)). 2. The proposed replacement ratio is less than the 2:1 ratio required by Statute and local ordinance (Section 205.27.10.D). Mr. Sielaff stated that the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission reviewed this proposal at their meeting on May 17, 1994, and passed a resolution agreeing with staff's recommendation and stipulations. Mr. �aul Harstad stated that he is representing Harstad Companies. %�. He stated this is primarily a procedural matt�er. They are well aware that they have not met the very stringent requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act. They are asking for the Commission's PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. 1KAY 18. 1994 PAGB 6 '� denial, and then the next step will be to appeal that denial to the State Board in the hope of receiving a very specific exemption in the law. It is regarding the fact that utilities are stubbed to the site, the lots are platted, etc. Mr. Harstad stated that in the event that they do not receive that exemption, they would then have to find feasible and prudent alternatives as described by staff. If they determine that a smaller house size as suggested by staff is not sufficient for homes in this neighborhood, then they would challenge the law at the state level. Mr. Harstad stated that subsequent to the Wetland Replacement Plan, he also sent a letter to Ms. McPherson dated April 29, 1994, in which he requested a 15 foot setback variance for Lot 6 and a 10 foot setback variance for Lot 5. The purpose of this variance was to minimize the impact to the wetland. He would still like to proceed with the variance request. If they receive the variance as requested, they would be reducing the fill area from 2,500 square feet to 1,900 square feet. Mr. Harstad stated floor plans were submitted, along with the Wetland Replacement Plan, one of which was designed in early 1986 that was to fit on Lot 5. The proposal by staff to build a two- story house should be considered, but it would probably be a two- ;� story house without a basement, making it very difficult to sell in Minnesota. Mr. Newman stated he appreciated NIr. Harstad's candor as to his intent for this request; but if Mr. Harstad needs to build a record for his appeal to BWSR, he is invited to take advantage of that opportunity and supplement whatever information he has already given the Commission and those in the audience. Mr. Harstad stated staff has stated that there are a number of items that were not included in their Wetland Replacement Plan. They are aware of that and are• happy of the fact that the Commission will deny the request because they are not meeting the 2:1 requirement. He would have a difficult time if the Commission tabled this request until they were able to submit all those other items. Some of those items are time-consuming and costly, and they are not sure at this point that they will be required to submit them prior to receiving a decision from BWSR. He stated he had no further comments. Mr. Bob Horeck, 5505 West Danube Road, stated he lives on Lot 9, directly behind the stated lots. They built their house on this lot in 1974. At that time, they were promised that Lots 5 and 6 were unbuildable and were going to be declared as wetlands and were going to be left as wetlands. He stated they purchased this lot because they wanted to live by the woods and they wanted privacy �, which they have had for 20 years. They spent five years trying to get Lots 5 and 6 declared as wetlands; and in 1991, they were declared as wetlands. He stated nothing has really changed, except PLANNING COMMISSION MEBTING. MAY 18. 1994 PAGE 7 � ' for the construction that was done by Harstad in 1992. Approximately 20-25 truckloads of dirt were dumped primarily on Lot 5. � , Mr. Horeck stated they have the lowest lot in the neighborhood. The road on Lots 5 and 6 is roughly 10-15 feet higher than his back yard. If those lots are filled in, all the drainage has to come into his back yard. The soil is solid clay, and clay does not absorb the moisture. Since the fill happened in 1992, they have had water problems. They have to run their sump pump constantly to keep water out of the basement. Right now, the water is almost at the highest it has been in years. By filling the back yard of Lot 6, it would greatly jeopardize their property, and it would be in direct disagreement with all the things they have been told in the past. Wetlands should not be declared anything but wetlands. Mr. Horeck stated his recommendation is that the Planning Commission not take any action or just table the discussion and require Mr. Harstad to meet all the requirements. Quite frankly, he would like to see this drag on for years. Mr. Bryan Steppe, 5528 West Danube Road, stated these lots are wetlands, and he is concerned about the drainage. Even if there is some kind of wetland replacement, that doesn't mean the drainage is going to work properly. Ms. Sue Williams, 5568 West Danube Road, gave the Commission copies of a letter she had written to Mr. Pete Fryer regarding further development in this drainage area. She would like it included with the record. She stated she purchased her lot in 1977 from Keith and Diane Harstad. They told her that Lots 5 and 6 were wetlands. Mr. Keith Harstad had to fill a little bit of the edge of the pond to make her lot "buildable". Mr. Keith Harstad is responsible for the level of her basement. He, along with the Fridley City Engineer, assured her that the drainage areas of the pond were not that big and that even with a 100 year rain, the water would not come into her basement as long as the drainage area was maintained. Ms. Williams stated her basement has already been jeopardized, and filling Lot 6 will further seal her doom when the next 100 year rain comes. She hoped the City would feel responsible if she sues the City for a wet basement, because that is what she will do. She will also get the names of everybody involved and make a civil suit for everyone who makes such a decision. It is just criminal that the Harstad Company appears to be able to do whatever they want to do. The Harstads promised that these lots would remain wetlands, and she is tired of all these broken promises. She would appreciate it if the City would not let them do everything they want to do anytime they want to do it. Mr. Norman�Nault, 5535 West Danube Road, stated that in 1992, the � Harstads did fill quite a bit in the lot behind him. Prior to that time, they never had any water problems in the back yard. Two weeks ago when there was a heavy rain, the water was about 10 feet PLANNINa COMMI88ION F+i�ETINa� MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 8 .'- � from his walkout. The Harstads promised these lots were going to be wetlands. The Harstads have not paid taxes on these lots, because they were declared wetlands, and now they want to develop them. The Harstads want a denial so they can appeal it, sa they can find a sympathetic body. And, if they get the variance, they will not even have to fill Lot 6. Some unsuspecting soul will buy a great house in a great neighborhood, and then later they will realize the problems when they try to sell it. Ms. Darlene Blank, 5544 East Danube Road, stated her family moved here in August 1993. Their lot sits right on the wetland, which is a home to all kinds of animals, ducks, birds, frogs, etc. They wanted to live in a community that was like living in the outdoors. Her youngest son is an avid hockey player and has enjoyed skating on this wetland in the wintertime. She would hate to see this area which is now being used by children and being appreciated by the neighbors developed because someone wants to make a profit off the land. Mr. Tom Fisher, 5477 East Danube Road, stated he lives directly across East Danube Road from Lot 6. The Harstads received a permit to fill this lot in 1986. He stated that regarding the filling in 1992, he called the City at least twice and someone from the City came out and he showed them where the fill was taking place. He watched the trucks dump on that lot. He complained to Mr. Harstad. ,�, Subsequent to that, additional dumping was done so that they now have mounds of dirt piled on the lot. He called the City again and asked for someone to come out and look at the lot. He was told by a City staff person that the Harstads could not overfill the lot and just leave piles of dirt there and that the piles would have to be removed. He stated nothing has been removed, and the piles of dirt are overgrown with weeds. He would like to know who gave the Harstads permission to fill in 1992. If no one did, then should the Commission be listening to representation from Mr. Harstad? Mr. Fisher stated the people represented at the meeting were told by Mr. Keith Harstad that these lots were wetlands and would never be built on. He purchased his lot from a previous owner and built his house in 1977 after being assured by Mr. Harstad that the lots across the street would always be wetlands and were unbuildable. It is hard for the neighbors to believe that the Harstads are being harmed when the neighbors were told by the Harstads that they did not plan to build on these lots. Mr. Fisher reviewed the drainage from the wetlands under East Danube Road between his house and the house to the north to Farr Lake. The outlet does not outlet into Farr Lake. Surrounding Farr Lake is a walking path. The outlet is about 15-20 feet short of the walking path which makes the water dump into his back yard. He built a berm around his back yard so there is a kind of wetland � area that surrounds his back yard and fills up from this pond. When it fills sufficiently, the water begins to dribble across the path into Farr Lake. The problem is that in a 100 year rain or PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 18. 199� PAGE 9 � � even before that, Farr Lake does not drain out as fast as it drains in, and the water starts backing up into his back yard. If the pond is made smaller and even if they let it drain, all he is going to get is more water in his back yard. And, if Farr Lake is not draining, then he has a serious water problem. .�•, Mr. Fisher stated that prior to 1992, he had a sump in his basement with no pump and never had any water in the sump. Since the fill was dumped in 1992, he has to take bucketloads of water out of his sump all the time. He can only see more problems if more fill is allowed in this area. Mr. Fisher stated he is asking the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider one other serious point. Do they make good Mr. Harstad's expectation that he can build on this lot to the detriment of all the neighbors surrounding the property, or do they consider the citizens who live here and had certain representations made to them by the Harstads? Who has the rights here, and where are the City's liabilities? It may be a catch-22 for the City, but he believed the City has some liabilities they need to seriously consider. Mr. Newman asked Mr. Fisher to check his notes to see if he could find the name of the City staff person he talked to in 1992 and notify Ms. McPherson. Mr. Fisher submitted a letter dated May 18, 1994, which he wrote to the Planning Commission which reiterated some of the things he has been talking about. Mr. Roman Zawnirowycz, 5527 East Danube Road, stated he lives across from Lot 5. He moved there in 1986, and he has not had any contact with any of the Harstads. Within a year of 1986, a large area in Lot 5 was dug out as if a house was going up, and then the entire area was filled in. Since that time, mounds of dirt have been dwnped on the lot. He submitted some photos for the record. He stated this is a beautiful area, and all the neighbors want it to remain that way. They are all concerned, not only about the beauty of the area, but about the drainage problems which were not really addressed in the staff report. Mr. Zawnirowycz stated he also started having water problems in his basement about 1992. He has records of people he has hired to fix water drainage problems. The drainage problems seem to come from the overflow from the area across the road. When it rains hard, the water level rises and floods all the back yards on his side of the street where Farr Lake is located. Ms. Pat Freeburg, 5557 East Danube Road, stated she also started having water problems in her basement when the lot was filled in 1992. Last week she had a tree replaced and when they dug down, �� they could see water. Because of the fill in 1992, it diverted the natural drainage and it is now coming under East Danube Road, seeping through the lots. y-. PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING. MAY 18. 1994 P�aE 10 Ms. Freeburg stated she is also concerned with setting up two wetland areas that are smaller than the existing wetland. The area now supports a certain amount of wildlife. If that wetland is cut into two smaller wetlands, ignoring all drainage problems that would be created, they will have defeated the purpose of having the natural wetland area. Mr. Boyd Herdendorf, 5467 East Danube Road, asked if the Department of Natural Resources has done any evaluation of the effects of filling wetlands on Farr Lake or if there are plans for such a study. If not, he would suggest that a study be done. The wetland performs an important filtration system. If the wetlands are filled in, the water will run directly into Farr Lake carrying heavy sediment and debris that would come through any culvert system and it would tend to pollute Farr Lake quicker. He believed there might be some environmental impact on Farr Lake because of this. Mr. Norman Nault, 5535 West Danube Road, stated that if it appears that Lot 6 was filled in 1992 with no permits from the City, can some action be taken against the Harstads? Ms. McPherson stated that if the City finds that filling was conducted illegally, the City can require the person responsible ,�, to remove the illegal fill. Mr. Bob Horeck, 5505 West Danube Road, stated that about four years ago, he received a variance from the City to enlarge a deck on the back of his house which brought it next to the culvert that runs between Lots 5 and 6. The culvert actually comes out at the back of his garage which is about 70-80 feet from the road and runs for another 70 feet through the back yard as drainage into the pond. When applying for the variance, he was informed by the City that there would be no construction through the back involving the culvert and it would remain that way. If any of Lot 5 and 6 is filled further, it will require that the culvert that drains between Lot 5 and Lot 6 over to Farr Lake be connected to the culvert that goes across West Danube. Such construction would require coming between him and his neighbor such that it would require tearing down his deck. Mr. Roger Hertel, 5501 West Danube Road, stated he did not understand why a variance is even under consideration. The Harstads have not been good neighbors. He built here in 1977 and it was also represented to him that Lots 5 and 6 would remain wetlands. Mr. Newman stated that by ordinance and by law, any property owner can make a petition to the City as long as the appropriate forms � are filled out and the fees paid. Mr. Newman stated the people in the audience have made some very useful observations and provided some very helpful information to PLANNING CONIIdiISSION MEETING. MAY 18, 1994 PAG� 11 � '' the Commission. He stated that regarding promises made to them by the Harstad Company, the City has to be very careful in making its decisions that it is not trying to enforce private agreements made between private parties. While it is certainly useful information, to the extent that there are claims by the buyers against the Harstad Company because of certain representations, those concerns might have to be addressed privately and not through the City. Mr. Tom Fisher, 5477 East Danube Road, stated he believed these comments are being offered as to the credibility of the person the City is dealing with. Ms. Darlene Blank, 5544 East Danube Road, stated she would like to see this item tabled indefinitely until Mr. Harstad can get all the required information. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to receive into the record the following: (1) Letter from Sue Williams dated June 3, 1993, to Mr. Pete Fryer; (2) Letter from C. Tom Fisher dated May 18, 1994, to the City of Fridley Planning Commission; and (3) 19 photos. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEpMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. ,-� MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICTs VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPLR80N NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING� CLOSED AT 8s35 P.M. Mr. Oquist asked what would happen if the Commission tables this item and the petitioner then satisfies the eleven items that are required. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner's application would then be complete in terms of ineeting the separate requirements of the requirements that need to be submitted for the wetland delineation of the impacted wetlands, as well as the replacement plan and replacement of wetlands and the monitoring plan which is a five year plan which must be submitted by the petitioner. Ms. McPherson stated that regarding the public's request to table this item indefinitely, under State Statute and local ordinance, the City must make a decision on this request within 60 days from the date of public hearing publication in the Focus News. That publication date was May 10, 1994. Mr. Sielaff stated that if BWSR grants an exemption, where does that put the City as far as denial or approval. -� Ms. McPherson stated that if BWSR grants an exemption from the State Statute, Mr. Harstad would not have to replace any impacted wetland. As far as the City is concerned, the petitioner would PLANNING COI�MISSION MEETING. MAY 18. 1994 PAGE 12 ��' have to comply with the land alteration permits and get a permit from the Rice Creek Watershed District. The City or the adjacent property owners could appeal BWSR's decision (a petition of 100 names is required) to the District Court. Ms. McPherson stated that under State Statute, any decision regarding any wetland replacement plan is not enacted until 30 days after the date the decision is published in the Environmental Quality Board Monitor, and that decision is mailed to certain state and local departments and anyone on the mailing list who requests notification of said decision. Ms. McPherson stated that any residents who want to be informed about the action taken by BWSR should contact her and she will forward that list to BWSR. Mr. Oquist stated that City ordinance states that any development cannot create any more water runoff after the development than before the development. How does the ordinance affect this request, because any fill is going to cause more runoff? Ms. McPherson stated that portion of the ordinance would be reviewed during the building permit application process. Mr. Oquist stated it sounds like the Harstads brought in fill �� illegally on Lot 5. Until that has been investigated and corrected, Mr. Harstad should not be allowed to proceed any further. Ms. McPherson stated the City does not have any formal record of any application made for a land alteration permit for Lot 5. The City received a complaint saying that there was filling on Lot 5. When staff inet with the petitioner on site, there was not any evidence of new fill being placed on the lot. At that time, the petitioner was informed that he would need to comply �aith the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act. She stated she was one of the staff members who visited the site in 1993 after receiving complaints from a neighbor. At that time, she made a note to the Building Inspection Department that no permits would be issued for these particular parcels. Mr. Saba stated that over many years, they have all learned a lot about the quality of wetlands. He believed the ordinance the City has adopted is a good one and will serve the City well . He would like to see Wetland Replacement Plan, WR #94-01, strongly denied based on the City's wetland ordinance and testimony received at this meeting. He did not think tabling this request for two months would accomplish anything. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend to City Council denial of Wetland Replacement Plan, WR #94-01, by Paul %�`�`, Harstad based on the City's O-4 wetland regulations and the following findings of fact: PLANNINa COMMI88ION ME�TING. MAY 18. 1994 PAGE 13 �� 1. Feasible and prudent alternatives exist which avoid impacts to the wetlands (Section 205.27.05.D.(3)). 2. The proposed replacement ratio is less than the 2:1 ratio required by Section 205.27.10.D. 3 The Wetland Replacement Plan application is incomplete. Ms. Modig stated that in her opinion, the petitioner has set up the Commission to deny this request, so that he can appeal and override the City's decision. The neighborhood clearly does not want this. She will only vote to table the request. MOTION by Ms. Modig to table Wetland Replacement Plan, WR #94-01, by Paul Harstad. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Mr. Oquist stated he agreed with Ms. Modig that they have been set up. After hearing the neighborhood's testimony, he did not see this company as a good neighbor. Unfortunately, the City's hands are tied. If the Commission tables the request, they have to act on it in 60 days, so their only option is to deny the request. He stated the 1992 filling of Lot 5 has to be investigated and ,�"`,, addressed as there seems to be a real violation there. � Ms. Savage stated the Commission really has no other option but to deny the request. Tabling the request is just delaying the inevitable, and they have to let the process move forward. It is pretty clear that an adequate record has been made, so they should let the process take its course. Mr. Saba stated that if the community is informed about the BWSR hearing, he would encourage the neighbors to repeat their testimony at that hearing. A neighbor recommended that the City use the same mailing list of residents within 350 feet to notify them of the BWSR hearing. Mr. Sielaff stated the Commission needs to send a strong message that the Commission supports the City's wetland ordinance. Tabling the request might make the Commission look hesitant, and he did not want anyone to have that perception at all. Ms. Modig stated her motion to table the request was not to say that she did not strongly support the wetland ordinance. The reason she made the motion to table was to try to make the petitioner submit the 11 items missing from the wetland replacement plan. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, MODIG VOTING NAY, CBAIRPLRSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING� MAY 18, 1994 PAG� 14 � Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to the City Council on June 20, 1994. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to ask City staff and the City Council to investigate the improper filling of Lot 5 in 1992. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYTs, CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY. Mr. ATewman stated staff has recommended that the next three public hearings be consolidated into one to alleviate confusion during the public discussion. 2. CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT P S. #94-04 BY FORREST HARSTAD OF TWIN CITY TOWNHOMES: To replat Lot 6, except the East 650 feet thereof and except that part lying West of the Northeasterly right-of-way line of the Outer Drive of the State Trunk Highway, Auditor's Subdivision No, 25, Section 24, Township 30 North, Range 24 West, Anoka County, Minnesota, and Lot 7, except the East 650 feet thereof and except that part thereof lying West of the Northeast right-of-way line of the Outer Drive of State Trunk Highway and except the South 55 feet of the West 150 feet of the East 800 feet thereof, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25, � Section 24, Township 30 North, Range 24 West, Anoka County, Minnesota, and Lot 8, except the east 800 feet thereof and except that part thereof lying west of the Northeasterly right-of-way line of the Outer Drive of State Trunk Highway, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25. This property is generally located at 971 Hillwind Road N.E. 3. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REOUEST SAV #94-02 BY FORREST HARSTAD OF TWIN CITY TOWNHOMES: To vacate that part of Lots 6, 7, and 8, all in Auditor's Subdivision ATo. 25 and lying in the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 30, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota described as lying between the following described LINE 1 and a line 40.00 feet northeasterly of and parallel with the following described LINE 3. LINE 1 is described as commencing at a point on the east line of Section 24, Township 30 North, Range 24 West, distant 181.30 feet north of the southeast corner thereof; thence run northwesterly at an angle of 78 degrees 39 minutes 45 seconds from said east section line (as measured from north to west) a distance of 4081.10 feet; thence deflect to the right at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minntes 00 seconds a distance of 244.00 feet to the point of beginning of LINE 2 to be described; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 278.65 feet; thence deflect to the right at an angle of 25 degrees 44 �� minutes 00 seconds a distance of 980.13 feet and said LINE 2 there terminating; thence continuing northeasterly from the point of termination of said LINE 2 at an angle of 90 degrees � �, PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEBTINa. MAY 18, 1994 PAaE 15 00 minutes 00 seconds to said LINE 2 a distance of 35.00 feet to the point of beginning of LINE 1 to be described; thence southeasterly to a point distant 110.00 feet northeasterly of (as measured at right angles) a point on said LINE 2 distant 550.31 feet northwesterly of its point of beginning; thence southeasterly to a point distant 40.00 feet northeasterly of (measured at right angles) a point on said LINE 2 distant 115.06 feet northwesterly of its point of beginning and said LINE 1 there terminating. LINE 3 is described as commencing at a point on the east line of Section 24, Township 30 North, Range 24 West, distant 181.30 feet north of the southeast corner thereof; thence run northwesterly at an angle of 78 degrees 39 minutes 45 seconds from said east section line (as measured from north to west) a distance of 4081.10 feet; thence deflect to the right at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 244.00 feet to the point of beginning of LINE 3 to be described; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 276.43 feet; thence deflect to the right at an angle of 25 degrees 46 minutes 30 seconds a distance of 980.17 feet and said LINE 3 there terminating, generally located at 971 Hillwind Road N.E. 4. CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING REOUEST ZOA #94-02 BY FORREST HARSTAD OF TWIN CITY TOWNHOMES• To rezone from R-1, Single Family Dwelling to R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling, to allow the construction of 41 townhomes on Lot 6, except the East 650 feet thereof and except that part lying West of the Northeasterly right-of-way line of the Outer Drive of the State Trunk Highway, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25, Section 24, Township 30 North, Range 24 West, Anoka County, Minnesota, and Lot 7, except the East 650 feet thereof and except that part thereof lying West of the Northeast right-of-way line of the Outer Drive of State Trunk Highway and except the South 55 feet of the West 150 feet of the East 800 feet thereof, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25, Section 24, Township 30 North, Range 24 West, Anoka County, Minnesota, and Lot 8, except the east 800 feet thereof and except that part thereof lying west of the Northeasterly right-of-way line of the Outer Drive of State Trunk Highway, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25. This property is generally located at 971 Hillwind Road N.E. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notices and to open the public hearing for P.S. #94-04, SAV #94-02, and ZOA #94-02, by Forrest Harstad of Twin City Townhomes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:55 P.M. �� Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is Forrest Twin City Townhomes. The subject property is and Oliver Erickson. The property is located Harstad representing owned by Edwin Dropps adjacent to and west PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING� MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 16 �� of Fillmore Street and east of Hillwind Road. Polk Street is located in the northwest corner of the subject parcel. The property is zoned both R-3, General Multiple Dwelling, and R-1, Single Family Dwelling. Ms. McPherson stated previous requests for the property include: The Cottages by Arkell Development in 1977 for 60 elderly townhomes. The request was withdrawn by the petitioner while the City commenced its senior housing market study. An informal requ�st from Continental Development Corporation and Oliver Erickson in 1983 for a 60 unit apartment building and 32 townhouse units. A request similar to the current request by Oliver Erickson in 1981 to rezone the property from R-1 to R-3 to construct 180 apartment units on the subject parcel and adjacent parcels. Ms. McPherson stated the neighborhood's concerns for all previous requests are as follows: 1. Concern with traffic on Polk and Fillmore Streets �. 2. Concern with drainage plans or lack of drainage plans 3. Increase in the concentration of multiple family units 4. Difficult traffic flow due ta the intersection at Hathaway Lane and Central Avenue 5. Environmental impacts to the wetland on the site 6. Existing parking problems Ms. McPherson stated the subject parcel has been zoned in its present configuration since 1958. In 1985, the City rezoned Iwen Terrace (north of the subject parcel) from R-1, Single Family Dwelling, to R-2, Two Family Dwelling. Western Ridge Estates (south of the subject parcel) was platted in 1983 and, in conjunction with the plat, the City approved a rezoning from R-1, Single Family Dwelling, R-2, Two Family Dwelling, and R-3, General Multiple Dwelling, to R-2, Two Family Dwelling. Ms. McPherson stated the adjacent office developments (northwest of the subject parcel) were rezoned from R-3, General Multiple Dwelling, to CR-1, General Office, in 1971, 1978, and 1988. Ms. McPherson stated the parcel has a steep slope along Hillwind Road, and the remainder of the parcel is gently sloping. A Type �"�'' 3 or 4 wetland bisects the parcel in the southwest to northeast direction. A storm water outlet is located on the west side, which brings storm water from I-694 and Hillwind Road into the wetland. ,'"a � PLANNINa COMMIBBION MgETINa MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 17 The shallow ditch at that storm water outlet can be classified as a Type 6 shrub wetland. A variety of trees are on the site. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing a 41 unit condominium project. The parcel is proposed to be replatted into two lots . Lot 1 will be used for the 41 condominium units and outlot A is being held by the property owner for a possible future multi-family project. Thirty-seven of the 41 units will be located around a private drive, and four units will access directly onto Fillmore Street. Ms. McPherson stated the condominiums are similar to townhomes in design. They are two-story, and each unit will have a two-car garage. Both two and three bedroom units will be constructed. The petitioner is proposing 194 parking spaces provided through the use of garages, individual driveways, and off-the-road private parking spaces. Ms. McPherson stated three things limit the design of the site: l. 2. 3. The petitioner has no control over Outlot A. The 1991 Wetland Conservation Act requires avoidance of all wetland impacts. The topography of the subject parcel limits access to Fillmore Street. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has also applied for a variance request which will go before the Appeals Commission on Tuesday, May 24, 1994. Rezoning Request Ms. Dacy stated the reason for the rezoning is to rezone the easterly 1.67 acres from R-1, Single Family Dwelling, to R-3, General Multiple Dwelling, which permits apartment buildings, townhomes, condominiums, two family dwellings, and single family dwellings. Approximately 3.4 acres of the property is already zoned R-3. The petitioner is proposing to develop condominium units on Lot 1. Ms. Dacy stated that using the existing ordinance, staff tried to determined the development density. An apartment building of approximately 38 units could be built on the R-3 two acre part of this site. The R-1 portion of the property could be subdivided into four single family lots, and a 60 foot wide right-of-way could be constructed to serve the single family lots and the apartment building. Ms. Dacy stated the petitioner has submitted a plan that shows a �'-`' six story apartment building of 104 two-bedroom units with adjacent parking areas, not only on this site, but also across the wetland on Outlot A. His point is that if the property was developed under PLANNING CON�iISBION MEETING� MAY 18, 1994 PAGB 18 � the existing pattern, a significant amount of density could be developed on the property. The petitioner also noted that the wetland would still not be impacted and a foot bridge could be constructed over the wetland. Ms. Dacy stated that usually the City looks at two types of criteria to evaluate whether or not a rezoning request is appropriate. The first criteria is to evaluate if the proposed development plan is consistent with the requested zoning change. Any approval of the rezoning should be conditioned upon the approval of the variance.request. If the variance request is not approved, the petitioner will need to revise the site plan to conform with the R-3 setbacks or reduce the number of units. Ms. Dacy stated the second criteria is if the proposed rezoning and use is consistent with adjacent uses and zoning. Except for the Frank home to the southeast of the property, the parcel is surrounded by similar or compatible zoning. Twinhomes and townhomes are located to the north and south. The school separates the use from single family areas. Ms. Dacy stated the 1991 housing study conducted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority identified a market demand for this type of housing style. The market study indicated that the primary market for these types of owner-occupied units are single, � professional female, empty-nesters, and other smaller size family households. Ms. Dacy stated staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rezoning request to the Council subject to the following stipulation: Variance request, VAR #94-02, shall be approved. Mr. Newman stated they should probably add two more stipulations: (1) Plat request, P.S. #94-94, shall be approved; and (2) Vacation request, SAV #94-02, shall be approved. Staff agreed. Vacation Request Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting the vacation of a portion of the Minnesota Department of Transportation turnback property which the City received from the State of Minnesota. The proposed area (21,042 square feet) to be vacated is located directly adjacent to Hillwind Road along the easterly right-of-way line. The City processed and approved a similar request for the Western Ridge Townhomes to the south to vacate the City's interest in that particulaz area. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has reserved adequate right- '� of-way area for Hillwind Road for snow storage and maintenance purposes. No City utilities are located within this area, and the City has no further use for this property. If the City approves ,� , , �� PLANNING COMMI68ION MEETING. MAY 18. 1994 PAaB 19 the vacation request, the City Council will also need to declare this particular piece of property as surplus and deed it to the petitioner to be combined with the adjacent parcels as part of the plat. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends the Commission recommend approval of the vacation request with the following stipulation: 1. Plat request, P.S. #94-04, shall be approved and the vacated area shall be combined with the property to the east. Mr. Newman asked if the City customarily receives any compensation for turning back property. Ms. McPherson stated the City does not. Plat Reauest Ms. McPherson stated the request is to replat portions of Lots 6, 7, and 8 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 25. The total area to be platted with the vacation area is 5.11 acres. Two lots will be created, Lot 1, which is 3.85 acres, and outlot A, which is 1.26 acres. Both lots exceed the minimum lot width and lot area requirements of the R-3 district. Lot 1 will become part of a condominium plat whereby the association owns the land and individual units are owned by residents. As it is a condominium plat, it is also required to comply with the requirements in Minnesota State Statute Chapter 515.A. Ms. McPherson stated that traffic on site is proposed to be handled by private driveways which will enter off Fillmore Street. The petitioner is proposing to name the circular drive '�Fillmore Court". Thirty-seven of the 41 units will be clustered around the circular driveway, as well as the two north-going legs of the side driveways. Four of the units will directly access Fillmore Street. Ms. McPherson stated the private driveways will be 24 feet wide and will be lined with concrete curb. The minimum Fire Department driveway width is 20 feet. The Fire Department has requested that these driveways be signed "no parking" on both sides, to maintain the minimum 20 feet. The association will be responsible for plowing, maintaining, repairing, and permitting emergency vehicle access on the private driveways. Ms. McPherson stated the Police and Fire Departments reviewed the proposed plans and did not have any adverse comments. The Police Department stated that having one entrance in and out of the development as good in terms of police patrol. Ms. McPherson stated the existing traffic in the area is generated � by the single family units to the east and along Lynde Drive. It is also generated by the multiple family units and the office uses. The office uses generate most of their traffic on Hillwind Road. PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING� MAY 18, 1994 PAG$ 20 �� North Park Elementary School on Regis Lane is serviced by nine buses with school starting at 8:30 a.m. and dismissing at 2:40 p.m. Traffic leaving the subject parcel could go either east on Regis Lane or north on Fillmore Street. Ms. McPherson stated that aacording to the Institute of Traffic Engineers, it is estimated that the development would generate an additional 240 daily trips. To measure the existing daily trips, staff placed traffic counters at the intersections of Fillmore and Lynde Drive and across Regis Lane, just west of Regis Drive. The daily counts average over 48 hours were approximately 630 daily trips at Fillmore/Lynde Drive and 345 at Regis Lane. Residential streets can typically handle approximately 1,000 trips per day. With the estimated additional 240 trips per day, it would be expected the capacity on adjacent roads would not be exceeded. It is expected that most of the trips would go north on Fillmore to access Highway 65 at Central, especially during the morning peak hours. Ms. McPherson stated the access for 5512 Fillmore Street is located close to the proposed access for the development. The property owner has indicated a willingness to share this particular access. Easements should be executed and recorded against both properties. Ms. McPherson stated staff did look at other access options. The � first would be to connect to Hillwind Road; however, staff estimated that the steep slope would be approximately 27� which would pose a safety hazard. The second option would be for the petitioner to purchase Lot 9, which is currently owned by the State of Minnesota. Purchasing this lot would improve access to the site as the road could be constructed parallel to the slope as opposed to against the slope. The third option would be to cross the wetland. The petitioner would need to obtain an access easement from the property owner of Outlot A. A connection could then be made to Polk Street. Ms. McPherson stated the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act requires all wetland impacts to be avoided whenever possible. The best way to avoid any impact would be to construct a bridge, or to construct a road using a culvert which would require filling a portion of the wetland. Filling any portion of the wetland would require a 2:1 replacement. Staff is reluctant to recommend pursuing this option because it would be contrary to the intent of the wetland protection ordinance. Drainaqe Ms. McPherson stated the existing stormwater flows from the stormwater pipe located adjacent to Hillwind Road into the wetland area and through the BASFU located north of the subject parcel which is a water treatment facility installed by the City a number � of years ago. The stormwater then leaves that particular area through a pipe and flows north under Polk Street into Moore Lake. � �� PLANNINa_COMMISBION MEETING� MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 21 Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner submitted a grading, drainage, and erosion control plan which the Engineering Department has reviewed. The petitioner will need to comply with a number of comments made by Scott Erickson, Assistant Public Works Director, in a memo to Ms. McPherson dated May 13, 1994. In addition, a separate permit issued by the Rice Creek Watershed District will be required. The association will be required to maintain any detention facilities and any other drainage-related facilities they would install. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing to install private water and sanitary sewer lines to serve the development. However, there is a public sanitary sewer line which services the properties adjacent to Hillwind Road. Because that sanitary sewer line currently crosses the development parcel, it will need to be relocated and an easement granted as part of the plat to allow public access for maintenance and repair of the public sanitary sewer. The City would be held harmless for repairing any improvements made by the association as a result of the City work on that sewer line. Ms. McPherson stated the association would also install new hydrants, and arrangements should be made and authorization given to the City Public Works Department to flush those hydrants in accordance with City policies. Ms. McPherson stated there are a number of trees on the parcel which should be maintained as they are an asset to the site. Many of the trees are located adjacent to the edge of the wetland. The grading plan should be amended to indicate the trees which are to be preserved. Ms. McPherson stated the subdivision ordinance requires a park dedication fee of either land or money. The current dedication fee is $750 per unit which the petitioner must pay at the time of the building permit. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has provided a landscape plan which needs to be revised to provide 15 six-foot evergreen trees. This will bring the landscape plan in compliance with the ordinance. The association will be responsible for maintaining the landscaping. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing a screening buffer of evergreen shrubs along the property line with 5512 Fillmore Street. This area should be irrigated. Ms. McPherson stated that regarding the plat request, staff is recommending the Commission recommend approval to the Council with the following 16 stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall record in the condominium declaration that the association shall be responsible for the plowing, ''�.1 �"'`, �, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 22 maintenance, and repair of the private roads and driveways. The declaration shall permit emergency vehicle access. 2. The driveways shall be signed "no parking" on both sides. The condominium declaration shall be amended to prohibit parking on both sides of the driveways. 3. The petitioner shall place a stop sign at the intersection of the private drive with Fillmore Street. 4. Access, maintenance, and recorded against Street to allow the the access drive. and repair easements shall be executed the development parcel and 5512 Fillmore resident at 5512 Fillmore Street to use 5. The condominium declaration shall be amended to require maintenance and repair of the stormwater pond by the association. 6. The petitioner shall comply with all comments by the Engineering Department regarding the grading/drainage/ erosion plan, which will consider the flow from the Western Ridge development. 7. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8. The condominium declaration shall be amended to hold the City harmless for the operation, maintenance, and repair of association improvements as a result of work on the public sewer line. 9. The condominium declaration shall require the association to repair and maintain the private utilities. 10. The utilities shall be constructed to municipal standards. 11. The association shall authorize the Public Works Department to flush the hydrants in accordance with City policies.� 12. The grading plan shall be amended to indicate the number of trees to be preserved. 13. The petitioner shall pay a park dedication fee of $750.00 per unit (41 units at $750.00 equals $30,750) prior to the issuance of a building permit. 14. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide 15 six foot evergreen trees. Underground irrigation shall be provided along the R-1 property (5512 Fillmore Street). 15. The condominium declaration shall require maintenance and/or repair of landscaping by the association. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 18. 1994 PAGE 23 �� 16. The petitioner shall submit a letter of credit in the amount of 3% of the construction value, not to exceed $60,000, to cover the outdoor improvements. /'�� Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rezoning, the vacation request, and the plat request, subject to the revised stipulations included with a copy of a memo from John Flora, Public Works Director, dated May 16, 1994. The petitioner has received a copy of the amended stipulations, Mr. Flora's memo, and Mr. Erickson's memo. Mr. Oquist asked what are the plans for the intersection of Highway 65/Central Avenue, and has any consideration been given to the impact on this intersection? He lives in this area, and this intersection gets quite congested. Ms. Dacy stated the level of development on the Lake Pointe property on the west side of Highway 65 may require the improvement of that intersection to add lanes on the east and west sides of Highway 65. The current status is that the existing amount of traffic does not require the improvement; however, with an additional 500,000-700,000 square feet of development on the Lake Pointe property, eventually that improvement could be implemented. The leve� of traffic generated by the proposed townhome project would not require the upgrade of the intersection. Mr. Oquist stated he is concerned about the density. There is an additional 41 units with only one exit onto Highway 65, let alone the density and the traffic patterns that already exist within the neighborhood. This development will definitely have some impact on this one single intersection. The traffic is even worse on the weekends. Ms. Dacy stated the average daily trips number is an estimate that is averaged over a 24 hour period. Usually, in a neighborhood, there are staggered work hours or trips. However, that does not negate the fact that the primary movement out of the site will go north on Fillmore to Polk and to that intersection. Staff acknowledges that during peak hours, the additional traffic generated from the development will impact that intersection. Mr. Forrest Harstad stated he would like to comment on the most important concerns. Regarding traffic, whatever development occurs on this piece of land will impact that intersection. It seems a fair assessment that the intersection is in need of a little improvement before any new development. Mr. Harstad stated the property as it is zoned today can generate considerably more traffic without any zoning changes or other requests. Ted Mattke of Mattke Engineering designed a six story, 104-unit, apartment building to show what actually could be built � on the R-3 zoned property without rezoning or variances, and the traffic generated from that building would be considerably higher �`� ;� PLANNI_NG COP�lI88ION MEETING. MAY 18. 1994 PAGE 24 than his proposed development. He is pro�osing all owner-occupied units, and the units will be sold before they are built. Mr. Harstad stated that regarding access to Hillwind Road, he had not really.looked at the acquisition of Lot 9 because Lot 9 is at the top of the hill. Lot 9 would still require a considerable amount of grading such that safety would still be a concern. It is not impossible, but it might prove to be cost prohibitive because of the steep grade. Also, if the traffic all accessed onto Hillwind Road, it would still end up at the Highway 65/Central Avenue intersection. Mr. Harstad stated that regarding the single access into and out of the development, he believed that is a positive for a project like this. It keeps people from racing cars through the development, and the Police Department has said it is easier to police: It is more like a cul-de-sac street; it is more neighborly. From his experience with his other townhome projects, traffic is more easily handled with a single access. Mr. Harstad stated there seems to be some concern over what effectively is a concentration of multiple family units. The land is actually zoned for significantly higher densities than what he is proposing. And, the higher density would be rental units as opposed to owner-occupied. Mr. Harstad stated he can comply with all the stipulations and requirements made by the City. Mr. Bob Marty, 1140 Regis Lane N.E., stated he sees a lot of fast traffic on Regis Lane. He is concerned about the traffic with the young children in the area. One of the alternatives to help avoid traffic hassles coming out of the proposed development would be to go up Regis Lane to Matterhorn Drive to Gardena Avenue. He definitely sees increased traffic on his street because of the current speed levels. Mr. Marty stated he be purchased and townhomes, could it property? is also concerned that if the townhomes are to owned, if the development cannot sell the become low income rental in order to sell the Mr. Newman stated the City cannot restrict the developer from the ability to rent out a unit or units as long as a rental license is received from the City. Mr. Marty stated there are children who do not ride the school bus and cross the street to go to the school or the playground. The increase in traffic could pose a problem for the children who have to cross the street. He stated he is opposed to the development, because of the traffic concerns and the fact that the density seems ��` a little high. PLANNING COMMI88ION MEBTING. MAY 18. 1994 PAGE 25 � Ms. Ann Jensen, 5572 Fillmore Street, stated she lives in a twinhome down the street. She is really concerned about the traffic. She would much rather see townhomes than an apartment building. She has licensed daycare, and there are children from all over the neighborhood who play at the school playground. The traffic has not been too bad until now; but with 41 new townhomes, that traffic could be detrimental to the children. She stated it would be nice if the developer would acquire the state-owned property and access onto Hillwind Road. Ms. Connie Masica, 1070 Lynde Drive, stated that the neighborhood could still end up with the worst of both worlds, because Outlot A is still available for development. If the City approves the development of 41 townhomes, there is still the potential of an apartment building development on Outlot A. How many additional apartments could be put on Outlot A? Mr. Harstad stated one of the owners of Outlot A, Edwin Dropps, is willing to sell Outlot A. Mr. Harstad stated he could construct between 4-6 townhomes on that parcel that would all access onto Hillwind Road. Ms. Dacy stated staff has not done a specific analysis on Outlot A, but she would estimate 18-20 apartment units on the low end, but that number could go up to 50 units depending on the site plan. ,� Ms. Masica stated she has three children, so she is concerned about the traffic with the school and the playground. She finds it a little humorous that the Police Department approves of the single access to the development for control when the Police Department has not yet been able to control the problems at the Polk Street Apartments. Ms. Masica stated that at a District #13 School Board meeting last fall, they were told that as of the fall of 1993, PTorth Park School is at its maximum capacity. There is the possibility of splitting and having only 4th and 5th grades at North Park for the whole district, and grades K- 3 would be divided between Highland and Valley View. Current residents who have children already enrolled in North Park and live within that zone can still send their children to North Park, but any new residents will be subject to busing. She stated they really need to find out what additional busing might be happening in this area. Ms. Masica stated she is also concerned about the traffic at the Highway 65 and Central Avenue intersection. She has watched four or five green lights come and go before she can even get off Hathaway/Hackmann Avenue onto Central Avenue. She did not see where adding a third lane will help improve any congestion, because Central Avenue is only two lanes. � Ms. Nancy J. Jorgenson, 5730 Polk Street N.E., stated she is addressing this item not as a Council member but as a resident. She stated she and her family have lived here for 17 years. During � i"'1 PLANNING CONII�lI88ION MEETING. MAY 18. 1994 PAGB 26 that time, she has seen three proposals for this property. In 1981, she was the circulator of the �etition that stopped the rezoning. Ms. Jorgenson stated her concern is not only with the density and the rezoning of the R-1 property, but also with the current property that is along Highway 65 and Hillwind Road which is within an HRA redevelopment district. If for some reason, the Polk Street apartments ceased to exist, or some of the other apartment complexes were purchased by other people, there is the potential for having another office complex like the one located on Hillwind Road that is currently owned by the Stinskis. She has been contacted in the past by the Stinskis regarding their interest in purchasing the three apartment complexes located on Lynde Drive for a twin Hillwind office development. Ms. Jorgenson stated she believed that when this property was zoned R-1, it was zoned R-1 for a reason. The City generally stays within the requirements of what it feels the density of the neighborhood can handle. There are already a large number of apartment units in this area. She would be very pessimistic to see a six story apartment complex located anywhere on that property. For one thing, the developer would need soil correction. Secondly, the developer would need structural steel construction which is very expensive. Realistically, it is probably not economically feasible for that kind of development to happen, and this is more of a scare tactic to the neighborhood than anything. Ms. Jorgenson stated� the proposed development is probably the highest class and the best she has seen proposed for this area, but she did not like the density this development would bring to the neighborhood. She has toured the petitioner's facility in ATew Brighton, and that development is very classy. Ms. Jorgenson stated she would recommend, as a neighbor, that the City not approve the variance or the rezoning. She is also concerned about an issue that was discussed at the New Brighton location regarding the excess material that would be removed from Lots 6, 7, and 8 in order to build this development. It was told to the neighbors that were present that the material from Lots 6, 7, and 8 would be deposited on the outlot section. Right next to the outlot on Polk Street is the BASFU on which the City spent a lot of money, as well as state funding, in order to try to get something that would filter the phosphorus and salt coming off I- 694 from filtering into Moore Lake. Any additional filling of dirt in this area is going to make that drainage plan next to impossible. Some consideration has to be given to that. Ms. Jorgenson stated she believed that at the time Polk Street was constructed where it currently looks as if there is a partial cul- de-sac, the development agreement with the real estate company on ^� that particular location included a stipulation that indicated that road would not be punched through. Of course, they cannot deny access to a development. If apartment complexes were constructed PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. MAY 18. 1994 PAGE 27 � there and were more than five stories, she feels fairly confident that the Fridley Fire Department would require two entrances or exits for fire safety. Ms. Jorgenson stated she cannot believe some of the rumors she has been hearing regarding this particular development. Again, it is the finest that she has seen for this location; but, in her estimation, she believed the best use of this property, although it would not give the developer the most financial consideration, is single family homes. Mr. Newman stated that based on the comments made by Mr. Harstad during the public forum, if the project was amended to include outlot A and the density increased to 46 units, that has taken care of the possibility of Outlot A being used for an apartment complex. Would that change Ms. Jorgenson's feelings about the project? Ms. Jorgenson stated she would still probably recommend that the portion of property that is currently zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, remain R-1 zoning. If the developer wants to put a townhome development on the R-3 zoned property, she would probably support it, as long as it did not require additional fill around the BASFU area, ponding, or any environmental wetland conditions. As an alternative, that option is obviously better than an apartment complex. It is something that could be done without any � action from either the Planning Commission or City Council unless variances were needed. Mr. Newman stated the problem the City is facing is that if this proposal is denied, they may well run the risk that a developer will come in and build an apartment building and the City will lose the control. However, they can ask Mr. Harstad to amend his proposal so.that the townhomes are on the entire parcel, including Outlot A. Ms. Jorgenson stated she would still be adamantly opposed to the rezoning. Her issue is strictly with the density. Mr. Sielaff stated he believed the main issue is traffic going by the school and that if there was another access to this development, that would alleviate a lot of the neighborhood's concerns. Ms. Jorgenson stated it would alleviate some of the concerns as far as the traffic going by the school. But, traffic is always going to be an issue. Basically, everything west of Matterhorn runs through Polk Street down to Hacl�nann or Hathaway and out to the Highway 65/Central Avenue intersection. She did not know how they are ever going to address that traffic problem, even with the improvements that are proposed for Central Avenue and Highway 65. -''� Mr. Harstad stated that Ms. Jorgenson has voiced all the concerns that need to be discussed in this forum. PLANNING CON�lIBSION MEETINa. MAY 18. 1994 PAaE 28 � Mr. Harstad stated the price of the condominiums is minimally $83,900. The end unit base price will be at least $89,900. They have not yet factored in all the costs. The R-3 portion of the property needs significant soil correctio�, particularly on the west half of the property, so there are some significant soil correction costs. The only way he could dare suggest townhomes on the west side would be right up against the Hillwind. The soil gets better as it moves eastward. For an apartment building to be feasible, it would need to be a tall building, because it would need soil correction which would necessitate a steel structure as opposed to wood structure. Mr. Harstad stated he is proposing very nice townhomes. He intends to move into this development if it is approved. Mr. Harstad stated that regarding the demographics, they have found that the demographics of townhomes break down the same way in each neighborhood. Roughly two-thirds are 30-somethings and one-third is empty nesters. In both subsets, about two-thirds are singles and one-third is couples. Of the singles in both subsets again, about two-thirds are female and one-third is. male. Less than 5� of the units have children at all, and it is very rare to see two or three children in these townhomes. Mr. Harstad stated this proposed development is across the street ,� from a grade school, and it has more of an attraction to the single mom with children in grade school. But, his project in St. Anthony Village that is across the street from a grade school has no children. Mr. Harstad stated that if the wetland did not come out of the hill that actually drains the I-694 intersection, he could route the traffic out onto Hillwind Road, but, again, that would not help the Highway 65/Central Avenue intersection. Mr. Harstad stated that regarding the access into the development, he believed it is in the neighborhood's best interest to have only one access into the development. Mr. Harstad stated the rezoning of the R-1 portion of property in no way increases the density over what otherwise could go into this project, and the reason for that is the condition of the soils. Soil conditions are poor enough on .the R-3 portion that it takes a steel structure for a doable project with a higher density, taller building. Mr. Harstad stated that regarding placing excess fill on the western portion, that excess fill is what they are going to dig out for the basements. The logical place to put the fill is in what is presently the low land on the west side of the wetland, because that is the unbuildable part of the project. ,� Mr. Harstad stated that Ms. Jorgenson's density concern is not handled by denying the rezoning. _In fact, allowing the rezoning PLANNINa COP�iI88ION MEETING. MAY 18, 1994 PAGB 29 � effectively eliminates the potential for significantly higher density. Mr. Edwin Dropps stated he and 011ie Erickson have owned this property for 22 years. He has come to the City with a number of proposals over the years; some have been dropped because of the neighborhood opposition. This is the fourth proposal. He stated he has paid over $100,000 in taxes over the last 22 years, and they have to do something with the land. They believe this is a good project that is good for the community and is better than anything else they can get. He stated he does have a definite buyer for a multiple dwelling on the R-3 zoned property if this project is not approved. This is not meant as a threat. The townhome development is a much better proposal for this property than any apartment building. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CL08ED AT 10:50 P.M. Ms. Savage stated that Ms. Jorgenson articulated very well the concerns about density and traffic. However, she is very impressed with the quality of the project. There isn't anything like it in � Fridley that is this classy. She believed this type of housing would be an asset to the City. She stated she has been persuaded by Mr. Harstad that these types of townhomes generally attract smaller amounts of residents which will ultimately help the density problems. She stated they should do whatever they can to alleviate some of the traffic problems. She stated she would recommend approval of the rezoning, vacation, and plat requests by Mr. Harstad. Mr. Saba stated he agreed with Ms. Savage; however, he would like to see the density decreased to less than 41 units. The traffic concern has to be addressed somewhat, even though he realized it is kind of out of the petitioner's hands. As Ms. Jorgenson stated, this is a very classy development and probably the best development for this area. On the other hand, the best thing for this area would be no development. It is kind of a catch-22, but he would be inclined to recommend approval of the requests. Mr. Oquist stated he shares Mr. Saba and Ms. Savage's sentiments. He does live in the area, so he has some real concerns about the density. It would be nice if the developer could acquire Outlot A and build some more townhomes to help reduce the potential of additional densities. He stated this is the best proposal he has seen for this area; and even though he is hesitant because of the traffic problems, he would recommend approval. �'� Ms . Modig stated it is •the best proj ect she has seen for this area . She can understand the residents' concerns about the traffic, and maybe something can be done to help control the traf�ic through � PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEBTINa. MAY 18. 1994 PAGE 30 traffic signs and police patrol. This is a nice project, and she would like to see Outlot A added to assure the neighborhood that there would not be another apartment building. Mr. Sielaff stated he also agreed the density and traffic issues are a wash no matter what happens on that property. This is a quality development. He personally would like to see owners as opposed to renters which is better for the neighborhood overall. Mr. Newman stated that if Mr. Harstad wanted to incorporate Outlot A into his development, what would be the best way for him to do that? If they are going to include additional land, is another public hearing necessary? Ms. Dacy stated there would be no need to hold another public hearing because Outlot A was part of the public hearing notice. If the Commission wants to review the site plan for Outlot A, then they.could continue the public hearing until Mr. H�rstad has had time to submit the plan. The other option is for the Commission to act on this proposal and send it onto the Council for action. The Commission would then not be reviewing the site plan for Outlot A. Mr. Harstad stated that if the Commission was willing to call a short recess, he would discuss this with the property owner of ,�"'� Outlot A and make a decision at this meeting. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to take a 15 minute recess to allow the Mr. Harstad and Mr. Dropps time to discuss the inclusion of Outlot A in the development proposal. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE ASEETING RECE3BED AT 10:50 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to reconvene the meeting. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 11:05 P.M. Mr. Harstad stated that he and Mr. Dropps have discussed the purchase of Outlot A and the inclusion of Outlot A into the development proposal. He stated that 4-6 townhomes along Hillwind Road could probably be made to work. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend to City Council approval of rezoning request, ZOA #94-02, :by Forrest Harstad of Twin City Townhomes, subject to the following stipulations: � 1. 2. Plat request, P.S. #94-04, shall be approved. Vacation request, SAV #94-02, shall be approved. PLANNINa COMMI88ION ME�TING. MAY 18, 1994 PAOE 31 �� 3. Variance re est VAR #94-02 shall be a � , , pproved. 4. The rezonin� request is contingent upon the site plan as submitted by the petitioner and reviewed by the Planning Commission at its May 18, 1994, meeting. IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTINa AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend to City Council approval of vacation request, SAV #94-02, by Forrest Harstad of Twin City Townhomes, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Plat request, P.S. #94-04, shall be approved, and the vacated area shall be combined with the property to the east. 2. Rezoning request, ZOA #94-02, shall be approved. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to City Council approval of preliminary plat, P.S. #94-04, by Forrest ,� Harstad of Twin City Townhomes, subject to the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall record in the condominium declaration that the association shall be responsible for the plowing, maintenance, and repair of the private roads and driveways. The declaration shall permit emergency vehicle access. 2. The driveways shall be signed "no parking" on both sides. The condominium declaration shall be amended to prohibit parking on both sides of the driveways. 3. The petitioner shall place a stop sign at the intersection of the private drive with Fillmore Street. 4. Access, maintenance, and repair easements shall be executed and recorded against the development parcel and 5512 Fillmore Street to allow the resident at 5512 Fillmore Street to use the access drive. 5. The condominium declaration shall be amended to require maintenance and repair of the stormwater pond by the association. 6. The petitioner shall comply with all comments by the �'� Engineering Department regarding the grading/drainage/ erosion plan, which will consider the flow from the Western Ridge development. ,� PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING, MAY 18. 1994 PAGE 32 7. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8. The condominium declaration shall�be amended to hold the City harmless for the operation, maintenance, and repair of association improvements as a result of work on the public sewer line. 9. The condominium declaration shall require the association to repair and maintain the private utilities. 10. The utilities shall be constructed to municipal standards. il. The association shall authorize the Public Works Department to flush the hydrants in accordance with City policies. 12. The grading plan shall be amended to indicate the number of trees to be preserved. 13. The petitioner shall pay a park dedication fee of $750.00 per unit (41 units at $750.00 equals $30,750) prior to � the issuance of a building permit. 14. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide 15 six foot evergreen trees. Underground irrigation shall be provided along the R-1 property (5512 Fillmore Street). 15. The condominium .declaration shall require maintenance and/or repair of landscaping by the association, 16. The petitioner shall submit a letter of credit in the amount of 30 of the construction value, not to exceed $60,000, to cover the outdoor improvements. 17. The condominium declaration shall indicate the layout of the project as submitted on the plat approved by the Fridley City Council. The declaration shall comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statute Chapter 515A. 18. The grading and drainage plan shall be amended to conform with the recommendations stated in Scott Erickson's memo dated May 13, 1994. 19. Outlot A shall be included in the subdivision with Outlot A containing no more than six residential units. Access to the residential units shall be directed onto Hillwind ,� Road. PLANNING CONIIKI88ION MEETING. MAY 18. 1994 PAaE 33 � For clarification, when the stipulations talk about "no parking" in the driveway, that is referring to the private drives serving the units and not the individual driveways immediately in front of the garages. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN�3 AYE, CBAIRPER80N NIEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. McPherson stated these items will go to City Council on June 20, 1994. 5. RECEIVE APRIL 4. 1994 PARKS AND RECREATION CONIIKISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the April 4, 1994, Parks and Recreation Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE DOTE, AI�L VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARL�D THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 5. RECEIVE APRIL 26, 1994 ENVIRONMEPTTAL OUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the April 26, 1994, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting. ,� IIPON A VOICE VOTL, ALL VOTINGi AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEAMAN DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOOBLY. ADJOURNMEATT • MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to adjourn the meetinq. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Newman declared the motion carried and the May 18, 1994, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Res. ectfully s mitted, . ; �� ' Ly , e Saba Recording Secretary � S I G N— IN S H E E T � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, Wednesday, May 18, 1994 ��G� n� �.�� r � � �� D �� l� TrKi � � r�vs �-�-�c��. �"'� ��/- �°� � �O�D � � L� �� ) �� r d�'`'� ,5�i� �I I,�ore. 5-f- �7 /- c� �, � � �;c@ �� ll�O h�-�' ��1�°`�� '%/�`r7'�� G�sJ��Ri�� .�-� � o 0 �% �i��sS `J-e �� to��/�� '7�4` (�o� � �cA. �n-i`� /-�DI z�J .i�� S, � S��-e_. ��gli'l�'�S 3�3 ��o �� K - � ��.c. � � ��f a� s� � � � s5�a � ,--.