PL 06/29/1994 - 30791CITY OF FRIDLEY
^' PLANNING COMMI38ION MEETING, JIINE 29, 1994
_..___..___..___.._..______.._..__.._,._____________....»____,....,,...__________
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairperson Newman called the June 29, 1994, Planning Commission
meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
ROLL CALL•
Members Present: Dave Newman, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba,
LeRoy Oquist, Brad Sielaff
Members Absent: Diane Savage, Connie Modig
Others Present: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty
Reith Ebensteiner, Biltmore Construction
Chuck Plowe, Plowe Engineering
Louis Mitteco, Totino Grace High School
W. S. Fallon, St. Paul Archdiocese
Charles Westling, 125 - 76th Way N.E.
See attached list
�j APPROVAL OF JUNE 1, 1994, PLANNING COMMISSION MINtTTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the
June 1, 1994, Planning Commission minutes as written.
IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON NEWMAI�T DECLARED T8E
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT REOUEST
P.S. #94-05, BY KEITH EBENSTEINER FOR BILTMORE CONSTRUCTION
OF NEW BRIGHTON. INC.:
To subdivide part of Lot 1, Block 1, Grace High School
Addition, into nine new single family lots, generally located
in the southeast corner of the Totino-Grace High School
property at 1350 Gardena Avenue N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to waive the
reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTT� ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERSON NEAMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:36 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is owned by the Archdiocese of
St. Paul and Minneapolis. The property is located at the
intersection of Matterhorn Drive and Gardena Avenue. The areas to
be platted are located in the southwest and southeast corners of
!'�, the subject parcel. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family
PLANNINa COMMISSION ME�TINa. JIINE 29. 1994 PA�E 2
� Dwelling, as are the parcels on the north, south, and west sides
of the property. The property to the southeast of the subject
property is zoned R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling, and
Innsbruck Park located to the east which is zoned P, Public.
�
Ms. McPherson stated Totino-Grace High School is located on the
subject property. The high school campus is composed of the high
school, a retreat building, a maintenance building, a track, and
baseball, softball, and football fields. A 25 foot drainage and
utility easement running north/south across the property is located
within the western one-third of the subject parcel. A public water
main is located within this drainage and utility easement.
Ms. McPherson stated that also located on the subject property are
two Type 5 wetlands composed of approximately 95� open water with
some emergent and surrounding vegetation. Those wetlands are
located on the easterly portion of the subject property and have
delineated in accordance with the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act.
Ms. McPherson stated the aerial photograph shows a heavily wooded
area also located in the easterly portion of the subject property.
This area is composted of oak, maple, sumac, choke-cherry, and a
variety of other woodland-type plants. There is also a small clump
of similar-type vegetation located in the southwesterly corner of
the subject property.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner proposes to create nine single
family lots and one lot for the High School. Two lots will be
located in the southwesterly corner of the subject property which
will have direct access to Matterhorn Drive, and seven lots are
proposed in the southeastern portion of the subject property which
will have access off a cul-de-sac proposed to be named Royal Oak
Court.
Ms. McPherson stated that in terms of the R-1, Single Family
district requirements, all nine lots meet the minimum lot area of
9,000 square feet and lot width of 75 feet with corner lots
requiring 80 feet. The proposed lot areas are as small as 12,370
square feet and as great as 24,491 square feet.
Ms. McPherson stated that Lot 1, Block 1, located at the
in�ersection of Royal Oak Court and Arthur Street has a lot width
of 100 feet. Staff recommends a stipulation stating that the
dwelling should face Royal Oak Court. In addition, the trees
located within the 17 1/2 foot required side yard setback should
be preserved to provide screening for the dwellings located on the
east side of Arthur Street which face the proposed development.
Ms. McPherson stated that with the construction of each of the
dwellings, the Building Code requires the submission of verifying
surveys to ensure compliance with the setback requirements.
=�~
Ms. McPherson stated the total acreage of the subject property is
34.1 acres. Approximately 3.32 acres will be used for single
PLANNINa COMMIBSION ME$TING. JIINE 29, 199� PAQE 3
'� famil lots. A roximatel .44 acres will be used for the
y pp y proposed
road and its right-of-way. The remaining 30.34 acres will remain
under the ownership of the Archdiocese.
Ms. McPherson stated the subdivision ordinance sets forth a variety
of design requirements for all subdivisions. These requirements
include dedication for parks, street pattern and construction, and
minimum improvements.
Ms. McPherson stated the ordinance requires either a dedication of
land (l00) of the area to be platted or a cash equivalent
($1,500.00 per lot) for public uses such as schools, parks,
playgrounds, etc. Staff is recommending a stipulation that the
petitioner pay the cash equivalent of $1,500 per lot for each of
the nine single family lots.
Ms. McPherson stated the proposed road is a cul-de-sac 32 feet in
width. The length of the cul-de-sac is 278.15 feet which is well
within the 600 foot maximum permitted by the ordinance. The
diameter is proposed to be 80 feet; however, the Fire Code requires
a cul-de-sac width of approximately 90 feet so the road will need
to be redesigned and resubmitted prior to City Council review. The
road slope is well within the 6% permitted by the subdivision
ordinance.
;�, Ms. McPherson stated that in conjunction with the construction of
\ the road and the proposed development, the petitioner is proposing
to construct a sedimentation pond along the north side of the
street. This will allow the trapping of pollutants in the run-off
from the road prior to entering the wetland north of the
subdivision.
Ms. McPherson stated the City typically requires detention ponds
which are dry as opposed to sedimentation ponds which retain some
water. Detention ponds will hold water for a short period of time
and then will be dry during non-rainy periods. City staff inet with
the petitioner late last week prior to sending out the staff
reports. The petitioner will be submitting calculations to the
Engineering Department for review which indicate the amount of
detention needed as a result of the increase in impervious surface.
Preliminary indications are that there is adequate room within the
sedimentation basin to meet the City's requirements for detention.
The amount of impervious surface created by the proposed
subdivision will not adversely impact the 100 year elevations of
the adjacent wetlands, nor will the proposed subdivision overload
the adjacent stormwater system in the street.
Ms. McPherson stated a maintenance agreement for the sedimentation
basin will be required to be recorded against the property as
required by the City. An easement will also need to be dedicated
to preserve this area for drainage and utility purposes.
f�
McPherson stated the petitioner has submitted a preliminary utility
plan. The petitioner is proposing to construct water and sewer
PLANNINa CO1�lISSION MEETING. JIINE 29. 1994 PAaE 4
�� mains within the proposed right-of-way of Royal Oak Court. The
petitioner has proposed to loop the water main to provide water
service from Arthur Street into the cul-de-sac and back to Arthur
Street in order to prevent a deadend water line situation. The
Engineering Department has requested that the petitioner look at
other alternatives for looping the water main including connecting
the proposed water main connection to either the water main located
in the westerly portion of the property or another water main
located in the northerly portion of the property.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is currently analyzing these
two options to meet the Engineering Department's requirement;
however, the petitioner's concern is that in order to accomplish
either of these two linkages, additional trees (other than those
proposed to be removed for the road construction and construction
of the dwellings) would be impacted as a result of the Engineering
Department's request.
Ms. McPherson stated that, as designed, the water main would
function adequately as proposed by the petitioner.
Ms. McPherson stated the two lots proposed to be located adjacent
to Matterhorn Drive can be serviced directly from the sanitary
sewer and water mains which are located in Matterhorn Drive.
However, individual services will need to be installed for both
� the dwellings proposed to front on Matterhorn Drive.
Ms. McPherson stated the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission will
require the payment of 5ewer Availability Charges (SAC) for each
of the nine single family lots. Those are to be paid at the time
the building permit is issued. The current fee is $800.00 per
owner-occupied unit.
Ms. McPherson stated that in conjunction with the utility plan and
the sedimentation basin plan, the petitioner has submitted a
preliminary grading and drainage plan for the entire plat for
construction of the road.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is requiring that individual grading
and drainage plans be submitted for each of the single family lots.
Staff will review the grading and drainage plans for compliance
with Chapter 208 which is the Erosion Control ordinance recently
adopted by the City in 1993.
Ms. McPherson stated that, in addition, the grading and drainage
plans are to protect the two wetlands located on the property.
The petitioner has delineated the wetlands in accordance with the
1991 Wetland Conservation Act, as well as the City's recently
adopted O-4 Wetland Overlay ordinance.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is not proposing to fill or
""`�� drain the wetlands as a result of the proposed subdivision. The
City's consultant reviewed the delineation and determined, via a
PLANNINa COMMISSION MEETING, JIINE 29, 1994 PAGE 5
,�
site visit in June, that the delineation as proposed by the
petitioner was accurate and somewhat on the conservative side.
Ms. McPherson stated that during the site visit, it was determined
that there has been some improper fill of the wetland to the east.
There are some barrels, sand, construction debris, and a variety
of other materials that have been dumped along the northern edge
of the larger wetland. This improper fill should be removed and
the wetland restored to its original character.
Ms. McPherson again stated that the petitioner is not proposing to
drain or fill the wetlands. The lots impacted specifically by the
two wetlands are Lots 5, 6, and 7 of Block 1. Staff is
recommending that restrictive covenants be filed against these
three lots preventing any filling of the wetland, including brush,
grass, trash, etc. The restrictive covenant should also state that
"accessory structures and footings for decks, additions, gazebos,
etc. , shall not be located in the wetlands as delineated on the
plat."
Ms. McPherson stated that regarding the individual grading and
drainage plans, staff is stipulating that•no grading is to occur
below the elevation of 948 feet on Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, and that
no grading is to occur below the elevatiori of 953 feet on Lot 7,
Block 1. Staff is also recoaimending the stipulation that the
�� dwellings located on Lots 5, 6, and 7 be located as close to the
lot line opposite the wetland as possible.
Ms. McPherson stated that, as stated earlier, a number of trees
will need to be removed as a result of construction of the road.
The petitioner is proposing to limit the amount of construction
initially for the road to the right-of-way line. The right-of-way
line is 50 feet wide for the linear portion of the road and 100
feet in diameter for the cul-de-sac. The subdivision ordinance
requires that a developer plant two trees per lot for each
residential subdivision. Staff has recommended a stipulation that
the lots are not to be clear-cut; and that, as part of the grading
and drainage plan, an individual tree inventory for each lot shall
be submitted clearly indicating the number of trees which would be
removed as a result of the construction of the individual
dwellings. Staff is recommending that the grading plan indicate
all trees four inches are greater in caliper.
Ms. McPherson stated there is neighborhood concern regarding the
possible environmental impact by the proposed development. The
neighbors did petitioner the Environmental Quality Board for
completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). City
staff, as well as the citizen petitioner, has been notified by the
Environmental Quality Board that this project would be exempt from
having an EAW completed.
�""', Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the plat request with the
following 22 stipulations:
�
PLANNINa COI�iI88ION MEETING. JONE 29. 1994 PAaB 6
1. A restrictive covenant shall be recorded against Lot 1
and 2, Block 2 preventing the removal of vegetation
except for dead/diseased trees.
2. Outlot A shall be named as a"lot" in the plat.
3. The dwelling on Lot 1, Block 1, shall face Royal Oak
Court.
4. The trees along the side lot line of Lot l, Block 1,
within the 17.5 foot setback shall be preserved.
5. Verifying surveys shall be submitted prior to the cappinq
of the foundation.
6. The petitioner shall pay a park dedication fee of
$1500. 00 per lot (9 x$1, 500 =$13, 500) at the time of
building permit issuance.
7. The stormwater pond shall be sized to meet the detention
requirements of the City.
8. The Archdiocese shall execute and record a stormwater
pond maintenance agreement providing for ongoing
,�-. maintenance of the pond.
9. A drainage easement shall be dedicated over the
stormwater pond.
10. The petitioner shall connect the water main with either
the 10-14�� or 6�� mains located on the property.
11. The petitioner shall dedicate a 25 foot easement over
the water connection line. If the 6" main is used, a 25
foot easement shall also be dedicated.
12. The petitioner shall install water and sewer services to
the lots on Matterhorn and shall pay the appropriate
connection fees.
13. SAC fees shall be paid at the time of building permit
issuance.
14. The petitioner shall comply with the comments listed in
Scott Erickson's memo dated June 24, 1994.
15. Individual grading and erosion control plans shall be
submitted for each lot prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
'—'� 16. The improper fill in the wetland shall be removed and
the wetland restored.
PLANNING COMMIBSION MEETING� JIINE 29, 1994 PAa$ 7
��
17. Restrictive covenants shall be recorded against Lots 5,
6, and 7, Block 1 preventing any filling of wetlands
including brush, grass clippings, trash, etc. Accessory
structures and footings for decks, additions, gazebos,
etc. shall not be located in the wetlands as delineated
on the plat.
18. No grading shall occur below the elevation of 948 on Lots
5 and 6, Block 1. No grading shall occur below the
elevation of 953 on Lot 7, Block l.
19. The dwellings on Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 1 shall be
located a maximum of 10 feet from the lot line opposite
the wetland.
20. Two street trees per lot shall be planted by the
petitioner.
21. The grading plans for each lot shall indicate all trees
4" or greater in caliper located on the lot and shall
indicate which -trees are to be removed to allow
construction of the dwelling.
22. The lots shall not be clear-cut.
� Mr. Saba stated that with several developments, the City has made
stipulations that as many trees be preserved as possible. In many
cases, there is a lack of communication between the developers and
the construction companies and the trees are clear-cut. Can the
City include a performance bond as a guarantee against this
happening with this development?
Ms. McPherson stated the Commission could add a stipulation
requiring a performance bond for the preservation of trees.
Mr. Saba stated stipulation #20 requires two trees per lot to be
planted by the petitioner. What size are these trees?
Ms. McPherson stated the minimum caliper required by the
landscaping ordinance is 2 1/2 inches, so that would be the
smallest size tree permitted to be planted. No size of trees is
listed in the subdivision ordinance. The Commission could
stipulate the minimum size tree required.
Mr. Oquist stated that stipulation #10 requires the petitioner to
connect the water main with either the 10-14" or 6" mains located
on the property. If that requirement is only for Block 1, then
that should be spelled out in the stipulation.
Mr. Saba asked if City staff will have a chance to review the
restrictive covenants (stipulation #17) before recording to make
� sure they are tight enough.
PLANNING COMMISSION ME�TING� JIINE 29, 1994 PAGE 8
'�� Ms. McPherson stated it is staff's intent to review the restrictive
covenants prior to their recording against the proposed lots. The
Commission could amend the stipulation to reflect that intent.
Mr. Rondrick stated that if the water main is looped as proposed
by the petitioner, there is a concern by staff that there could be
water quality problems. In the memo dated June 16, 1994, from John
Flora and Scott Erickson, they are recommending an alternative
loop. He was wondering why the difference in opinion.
Ms. McPherson stated there is a difference of opinion in how a
water main loop is looked at. The Engineering Department has
stated that the solution proposed by the petitioner will function;
however, there is a better alternative and that is connecting the
water main to another pipe somewhere else on the property. The
drawback to that alternative is that a number of trees would have
to be sacrificed to meet the Engineering Department's objective.
The Commission will have to consider these two options.
Mr. Newman stated that regarding paragraph 3 of the same memo, Mr
Flora and Mr. Erickson are recommending installing valves on the
water mai:n at both ends. If there are valves at both ends, if
there is a break within Royal Oak Court, both valves will be closed
down anyway. If they deadend it, there is a shut-off valve on
Arthur Street. Under either approach, if there is a break in Royal
,-�� Oak Court, the entire street will be without water. The real
benefit of looping the water main is that there will not be rusty
water, bad odor, or bad taste. The question is whether the City
wants to lose some trees so the Public Works Department does not
receive complaints and risk lawsuits from homeowners because of
rusty water and damaged clothes.
Ms. McPherson stated that is correct.
Mr. ATewman stated that regarding the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet request from the Friends of Innsbruck, that request would
more appropriately be addressed to the City of Fridley. He
believed the Planning Commission could recommend that the City
Council order an EAW.
Ms. McPherson stated, yes, the Commission could make that
recommendation.
Mr. Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty, introduced Keith Ebensteiner of
Biltmore Construction; Chuck Plowe, Civil Engineer from Plowe
Engineering; Lou Mitteco from Totino-Grace High School; and Bill
Fallon from the St. Paul Archdiocese.
Mr. Black commended City staff on its thorough review and the staff
report. Staff has been very helpful in giving direction and
coordination of this development proposal. The property is zoned
1�"`� R-1, Single Family Dwelling district, and it is their intention to
develop the property within the R-1 zoning regulations and all the
City�s land use regulations. The proposal is for nine single
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING. JONE 29. 1994 PAG� 9
,�
' family lots which will take up approximately 3.8 acres of the
Totino-Grace High School property. Two lots have direct access
onto Matterhorn Drive, and seven lots will have access off Royal
Oak Court in the southeast corner of the property.
Mr. Black stated the R-1 zoning district requires a minimum lot
size of 9,000 square feet and a lot width of 75 feet. Their
average lot size is 16,100 square feet and average lot width is 98
feet.
Mr. Black stated they agree with the entire staff report and the
spirit and intent of the Planning staff and Engineering staff;
however, he would like to comment on some stipulations more to
point out their position than to point out any disagreements.
Mr. Black stated he has no comment on stipulations 1- 5.
Mr. Black stated that regarding stipulation 6, they feel the park
dedication fee is quite high, twice as high as any other city, and
they will pass this comment onto the City Council.
Mr. Black stated that regarding stipulation 7 that the stormwater
pond shall be sized to meet the detention requirements of the City,
they have met again with the Engineering staff and they have
addressed these issues of stormwater treatment and detention of the
,�-�,, 100 year flood plain. Their engineer faxed a letter to the City
staff updating City staff on that issue. They are in full
agreement with the fact that they have to do pretreatment and have
to retain the rate of run-off and hold the water in their existing
ponding from the 100 year flood. It is just a matter of
calculations, etc.
Mr. Black stated that regarding stipulation 8, prior to going to
City Council, they are going to request a sample copy of the
stormwater pond maintenance agreement mainly for the Archdiocese
of St. Paul since they will be responsible for the ongoing
maintenance of the detention pond.
Mr. Black stated he has no comment on stipulatioa 9.
Mr. Black stated that regarding stipulation 10, that is back to
the question of the looping of the water main. This would be only
a 350 feet long cul-de-sac, and there are many cul-de-sacs all over
the Twin Cities where water systems are deadended and not looped.
They are not arguing the City's recommendation for connecting the
water main to other water mains on the subject property but they
want to study the alternatives. With one alternative, there is
some concern with the proximity to a dwelling during construction,
as well as the removal of quite a few trees. They are staking that
alignment and will show it to City staff. With the second
alternative, they would be disturbing the ballfields and the water
�� main would have to come down through the center of lots. At their
last meeting with the Engineering staff, they were willing to
continue to look at other alternatives to the looping system.
�
PLANNINa COB�lI�SION MEBTING, JIINE 29, 1994 PAGE 10
Mr. Black stated he has no comments on stipulations 11 - 13.
Mr. Black stated stipulation 19 refers to the memo dated June 16,
1994, from John Flora and Scott Erickson which was written prior
to their last meeting with the Engineering staff and predates the
new information which was discussed at the recent staff ineeting.
Incorporating this memo into the Planning Commission's motion
incorporates some of the issues that have been looked at and
restudied.
Mr. Black stated he has no comment on stipulation 15.
Mr. Black stated that atipulation 16 addresses the improper fill
in the wetland which shall be removed and the wetland restored.
He stated they will need to meet with the school to discuss the
dumping that has occurred and what is needed to clean it up.
Mr. Black stated he has no comments on stipulation$ 17 - 18.
Mr. Black stated that stipulation 19 states that the dwellings on
Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 1, shall be located a maximum of 10 feet
from the lot line opposite the wetland. They do not disagree with
the staff's concern for structure setback from the wetland both
from a vertical and from a horizontal point of view. Their concern
�, is with the fact that the house automatically has to be at the 10
foot setback line. Each house will be custom designed for each
lot, and Lots 5, 6, and 7 are the lots that allow for the natural
topography to have a walkout. The walkout would typically be on
the downside slope and would have to be architecturally designed
for each lot. They don't want to have to build the house up on top
of the hill next to the common property line when the main reason
for the setback is for no encroachment into the wetland itself and
the assurance of a vertical separation of the 100 year floodplain.
They believe all those requirements can be met and may not require
the absolute minimum setback because of the topography. They ask
that the setbacks be looked at for each individual lot at the time
of the building permit and that the developer have an opportunity
to explain the site plans to the Building Inspector, Engineering
staff, and Planning staff at that time.
Mr. Black stated that regarding stipulation 20, they will meet the
requirement of two street trees per lot. They have staked the
center line of Royal Oak Court, and the trees are very dense in
there. Their construction method is to protect as many trees on
site as possible. He would suggest to the Commission that the two
trees per lot are not going to make a difference, but they will
abide by the City's ordinance.
Mr. Black stated st3pulation 21 states that the grading plans for
each lot shall indicate all trees four inches or greater in caliper
'"�� and which trees are to be removed. They completely agree with the
spirit and intent of trying to save as many trees as possible;
however, it is the method and how they go about it. They are going
PLANNINa COI+�3I88ION MEETING. JIINE 29. 1994 PAGE 11
`� to minimize and customize their construction of street and
utilities on site so they limit the amount of trees to be removed
initially. Afterwards, as individual homes are constructed,
additional trees will be removed for the house pad, driveway, and
yard staff.
Mr. Black stated many cities have ordinances on tree protection.
It is his understanding that Fridley does not have such an
ordinance, but they are willing to work with City staff during the
construction of houses on each individual lot. Four inch caliper
is not a typical size to look at for tree protection, and it varies
from conifer to deciduous tree. A conifer is protected based upon
the height. A deciduous is based on caliper inches anywhere from
8-12 inches, whether hardwood or softwood. There are a variety of
opinions as to what is a significant size tree to protect. These
lots are loaded with trees; and if they are required to inventory
every tree four inches or more on these lots, it would be a fiasco
for any surveyor to take on that challenge. What might make more
sense is to prepare a site plan that would show the grading, the
house construction, and the driveway pad; and then within the area
to be disturbed, they could show how many trees would be affected.
Mr. Black stated that regarding stipulation 22 that the lots shall
not be clear-cut, again, they agree that the lots should not be
clear-cut. They recognize the benefit and value of having wooded
� lots and are in full agreement with staff's concern.
Mr. Sielaff stated that regarding trees, a suggestion was made for
a performance bond. Would the petitioner agree to that
stipulation?
Mr. Black stated his first reaction is that it would be
unnecessary. His second reaction would be to ask if the City has
an ordinance that requires that of every developer. If that is a
normal practice the City wants to take on, the City should be
consistent and adopt an ordinance and apply it to everyone. They
are certainly willing to work with the City on the intent and
spirit of preserving the trees.
Mr. Newman stated the City of Fridley is a mature city, and there
are not a lot of plats coming forth or proj ects where trees are
going to be removed, so the City has not spent a lot of time
working on tree preservation ordinances. While he appreciated Mr.
Black's desire for fairness, it has been awhile since the City has
dealt with a development involving trees.
Mr. Black stated they would be happy to continue their discussions
with City staff regarding the preservation of trees. They do not
feel this will be a problem.
Mr. Saba stated he would still like to see some type of performance
�, bond for tree preservation with some type of agreement to ensure
that the construction people comply with a plan to preserve the
trees. Maybe the City does need a tree ordinance; but since they
r""�
PLANNINa COPIIdiI88ION MEETING. JIINE 29, 1994 PAGE 12
do not have one, he would like the performance bond included in the
stipulations.
Mr. Black stated they can address that with City staff. They are
proposing a land development. They are proposing to construct an
urban street and seven single family homes on this cul-de-sac. That
indeed will change the character of that real estate as it is
today. They will build a quality neighborhood that the owners,
neighbors, and City can be proud of. They estimate the homes on
the cul-de-sac to sell for a minimum of $200,000 and may exceed
$300,000. The two lots off Matterhorn will be a little less.
Mr. Saba stated this area used to be called "Peck's Woods", and it
is very near and dear to a lot of people in the City.
Mr. Newman stated that, in the City of Plymouth, when someone wants
to build a home in the City of Plymouth, the tree inspector must
come out to the site to review the site plan and mark the trees to
be saved. If, during the process of construction, any of those
trees are damaged or destroyed, before the certificate of occupancy
is issued, the owner must pay the City a penalty of $100 per each
inch in diameter of the damaged tree. With that alternative, there
is no cost for the performance bond and no cost for the tree
inventory.
�, Mr. Kondrick stated Mr. Black's suggestion was to show the City
their construction plan, where trees are going to be removed, and
identify those trees. Any trees not identified on the plan would
be subject to a penalty. Would that be reasonable to the
petitioner?
Mr. Black stated that sounds very reasonable.
Mr. John Haluska, 5660 Arthur Street, stated he is speaking on
behalf of himself, his family, and the Friends of Innsbruck Park,
an organization of about 30 people who have a deep and abiding
interest in the future of Innsbruck Park.
Mr. Haluska stated he would also like to commend City staff who
also has been very helpful to the loyal opposition of this proj ect,
although he does get a sense that the staff has a feeling that it
is a"done deal". He is also concerned about the tone and comments
and questions from the Planning Commission members, because he also
gets the feeling that they think it is a"done deal". He stated
those who are opposed certainly hope it is not a"done deal". He
would like to reinforce the fact that although an EAW is not
required by state regulations or statute, it is certainly an option
for the City to request an EAW of the developer of this project at
no cost to the City. At a minimum, they believe an EAW should be
required because of the ecological sensitivity in the area.
Mr. Haluska stated the Planning Commission members had received a
copy of their petition for an EAW.
PLANNING COMMISBION MEETING� JIINE 29. 1994 PAaE 13
f�` Mr. Haluska stated the site that Totino-Grace High School wants to
sell to Biltmore Construction for a housing development is the
southern portion of its property immediately across from Innsbruck
Park. That fact has not entered into any of the discussions yet,
and that is critical to the issue that is before the City at this
point. The development will no doubt involve the destruction of
a major portion of the trees and ponds, and the fragile ecology
that depends on them and, in turn, endanger the ecology of
Innsbruck. They are asking the Planning Commission to recommend
denial of the permit request.
Mr. Haluska stated that as friends of the Park and neighbors of
this particular site, they are concerned about the Parks ecological
future; and their concern is based on both the present and past
ecological history. This is the last remnant of "Peck's Woods",
and it is really important to the heritage of Fridley.
Mr. Haluska stated that the property being sold, along with
Innsbruck Park, is the last remnant of an upland oak savanna that
covered this area at the time of European settlement. The terrain
is really a special feature. The ponds are the result of ice
chunks that were buried and melted, so it is ecologically
significant to Fridley and is part of Fridley's geological
heritage.
Mr. Haluska stated he has identified five ponds, although the
�r•, delineation process has indicated only two ponds, two year-around
wetlands. W'hen he first looked at the aerial photograph produced
by staff, it appeared the photo was taken in late spring in the
late afternoon, because the light is coming from the southwest.
There is not a lot of foliage on the trees so thep do not get a
full appreciation of the vegetation on the site. There are a
couple of seasonal ponds that lie at about the 938 foot level.
They are hard to see with the relief on the maps, and these ponds
show up as reflections on the aerial photograph. These have not
been enumerated by the wetland delineation process which is pretty
superficial. It does not give any idea of the scope of the
vegetation. It just says "oak, willow" and that is about it.
There are, in fact, some pretty unique communities of ferns, a lot
of woodland plants unique to the Fridley area and are worthy of
preservation.
Mr. Haluska stated the two related parcels, Innsbruck Park and the
Totino-Grace site, form an inextricably interlocked habitat that
sports a diverse ecology of plant and wildlife species. They are
two halves of a whole system. To destroy one imperils the other.
Despite the statements by the proponents for the development, the
ecology and the topography of this area and the vegetation habitat
and the habitat for the animal life are going to be destroyed
during the construction process. He did not want to be part of a
process, either by his silence or by his acquiescence, that allows
this to go forth while he is a resident of Fridley and,
�""` particularly, a resident of this area.
PLANNINa CON�iI88ION MEETING� JDNE 29. 1994 PAaE 14
,�
� Mr. Haluska stated he grew up in this area and hunted here as a
kid. At one time, these woods ran all the way from approximately
Lowry Avenue in Minneapolis up to about 66th Street in Fridley.
This property and Innsbruck Park are the last two undisturbed
portions of the upland oak savanna. It is just unconscionable to
think that it is worthwhile for the City to tear up this area just
to get a few houses on the tax roles. These woods are a special
part of the Fridley landscape and their threatened destruction is
something that should not even be contemplated.
Mr. Haluska state they are concerned that in the City's efforts to
be e�editious in assisting the developers, Innsbruck Park's
fragile ecosystem will be destroyed. If the Commission will not
recommend to deny the development request so that full
consideration of all aspects of the Totino-Grace/Biltmore
development can be given and all consequences can be appreciated
and weighed, they ask that the City insist that an EAW be required
concerning this project. The Friends of Innsbruck Park have
petitioned the Environmental Quality Board to that end and hope the
Planning Commission will support their call for the basic
information only an EAW can provide.
Mr. Haluska stated the State recently completed a biological survey
of this area in Fridley. That is in manuscript form and is
available from the State. He has not heard any mention of that and
� that should be considered. Ecologists and biologists who have been
working on this survey are available for consultation, and the City
should talk to these people.
Mr. Haluska stated that if the Commission feels that this matter
deserves further consideration before denial, they ask that because
of its importance and impact on the environment and Innsbruck Park,
the City call for separate hearings before the Environmental
Quality & Energy Commission and the Parks and Recreation
Commission, in addition to the Planning Commission, prior to
sending this request on to the City Council. Every effort should
be made to develop as much information as possible before making
a fully reasoned and considered decision.
Mr. Haluska stated they feel that the City has an interest and
responsibility that overrides private interests to assure that the
ecology of Innsbruck Park is protected. They feel that the clear
threat to the park and to the ecological heritage of Fridley that
the contemplated development presents requires that all plans for
the Totino-Grace woods be subject to the closest scrutiny and be
weighed against all alternatives, especially acquisition of the
property in question for addition to Innsbruck Park.
Mr. Haluska stated they feel the acquisition of this parcel by the
City will not only serve to protect the interrelated and co-
dependent ecology of these two fragile sites, but will also be a
� valuable addition to one of the few remaining parcels of land in
the City that logically belongs within the park and trail system.
They urge the City to give full consideration to acquiring the
PLANNINa CO1rIIRI88ION MEETING. JIINE 29. 1994 PAGE 15
�`,
property for its park system. They have already made arrangements
with outside sources for funding to secure this parcel for addition
to Innsbruck Park and want to work with City officials and the
Archdiocese in that regard.
Mr. Haluska stated they are asking the Commission to recommend
denial of the permit to develop. If the Commission feels they
cannot do that, at a minimum, the Commission should insist that
the proposers of the project complete an EAW before any further
consideration is given to the development plan.
Mr. Oquist asked Mr. Haluska to explain what he meant about the
fact that funding is available.
Mr. Haluska stated they have identified a couple of funding
sources. They have strong support from the Trust for Public Land
that is very interested in doing something in this area and
particularly interested in this parcel. Trust for Public Land
representatives have asked that a meeting be arranged with the City
to discuss the acquisition. He stated he first wanted to see what
the Planning Commission does before proceeding.
Mr. Haluska stated that regarding funding, it is his understanding
from a couple of telephone conversations that Totino-Grace High
School is looking at a cost of around $200,000 for the property.
�,, He stated funds are available that exceed that amount, so it is not
a question of money. It is a question of what the City wants to
do with what is remaining of its natural heritage.
Mr. Haluska stated the statement was made by the developer that it
would be foolish to save every tree on the property. To the
Friends of Innsbruck Park, it would be absolutely foolish not to
try to save every tree on that property. Al1 the trees are
valuable because of the density, location, and proximity to
Innsbruck Park.
Mr. Newman stated Mr. Haluska talked about the potential damage to
Innsbruck Park by this development. Could Mr. Haluska elaborate
on that?
Mr. Haluska stated these are two relatively small sites. Because
of their small size and because they are last remnants, that makes
them significant. The reason they are looking at potential damage
to Innsbruck Park that in no way can mitigated is because the two
sites need each other to support present animal populations.
Together, they are able to support a population of owls, deer, fox,
and numerous small animals. Plus, together they provide a
tremendous number of nesting sites for songbirds and migratory
birds. This is extremely important. There are very few sites like
this in the City of Fridley. The closest that comes in density to
a site like this, other than the Rice Creek area, is down along the
!� Mississippi River.
��
��``�
r-�
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEBTING JUNE 29, 1994 PAG$ 16
Mr. Sielaff asked the process the City would go through to request
an EAW.
Ms. McPherson stated the City Council can, at its discretion, based
on testimony and a possible Planning Commission recommendation,
request that an EAW be done. However, there is a caveat in the
requirements for doing an EAW. The project proposer is permitted
to submit data supporting the EAW, but it is the responsibility of
the City to make sure that the EAW is accurate and complete.
Therefore, it would require some work on the part of the City
either through staff or a hired consultant. The City can use
information submitted by the project proposal, but the City could
not accept an EAW submitted by the project proposer based on the
current rules of the Environmental Quality Board.
Mr. Haluska stated
information provided
charge the proposer
normally done in an
the
by
fo
EAW
City would, indeed, have to verify the
the proposer, but the City could certainly
r the cost of that information. That is
process.
Mr. Kondrick stated he is very concerned about Innsbruck Park also,
but he did not think development on the Totino-Grace property would
disturb the park that greatly.
Mr. Haluska stated the only way they will find that out is by
having an EAW done.
Mr. Kondrick stated that if an EAW shows that the development will
negatively impact Innsbruck Park, it will be interesting to see
how the City of Fridley or other sources would be able to come up
with $200,000 to purchase this property to let it sit there.
Mr. Haluska stated it is interesting that the Chairperson of the
Parks and Recreation Commission would make a comment about the City
of Fridley or another source coming up with the money to buy the
property to just let it sit there. That is a little discouraging
if that is the attitude toward parks, because parks are extremely
important to the City.
Mr. Kondrick stated that is true, but the City has many parks now
that have to be maintained. What the Friends of Innsbruck Park are
asking the City to commit to is not only acquisition but also
maintenance of the property.
Mr. Gordon Backlund, 5805 Arthur Street, stated he has lived at
this address for 16-17 years. His concern relates to the
development as it relates to utilities. He stated he is on the
east side of Arthur Street, and the utility easement for NSP,
Minnegasco, the telephone company, and the cable company run down
Arthur Street in front of his property. The edge of his driveway
is basically on the outlet of the aul-de-sac of Royal Oak Court.
He stated he has a concrete driveway, and his concern is where the
utilities will be stubbed in. If they are stubbed in on the east
side of Arthur, it will mean breaking up his driveway. He asked
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING. JIIIJE 29. 1994 PAGE 17
��`� if the City could request that when the utilities are brought into
the development that some consideration be given to the property
owners on the east side of Arthur Street.
Ms. McPherson stated that perhaps the petitioner could address Mr.
Backlund's concerns.
Mr. Black stated he did not see any problem. Upon approval of the
preliminary plat, they would send the plat to the utilities and
have them begin working on design for extension of the utilities
into the subdivision. He stated that when they know of a concern
by an adjacent property owner, they are willing to work with the
property owner to alleviate any problems. He stated that under no
circumstances are they allowed to destroy anybody's property and
if�' they do, they would return the property to its original
condition. He stated they will certainly work with Mr. Backlund,
and this should not be a problem.
Mr. Backlund stated that he has observed the migration of animal
life between the subject property and Innsbruck Park.
Mr. Terry Reyes, 1479 North Innsbruck Park, stated he has lived at
this address since ATovember 1990 and has lived in Fridley since
1976. He stated he is at the meeting to speak on behalf of the
Friends of Innsbruck Park and support all the comments made by John
�., Haluska.
Mr. Reyes stated that one of the reasons he and his family chose
to continue residency in Fridley was to have the opportunity to
live in this wooded area, because of the heritage of Peck's Woods
and because of the unique environmental urban forest. It is an
excellent haven from the rest of the urban life.
Mr. Reyes stated that since he has lived in Fridley, he has had
the unfortunate opportunity to observe many of Fridley's wooded
areas being turned over to commercial development; and as these
areas have been developed, what has been proposed and promised in
advance by the developer as to the preservation of trees and
woodlands unfortunately has not been honored. In particular, with
current developments-around Springbrook Nature Center like Wal-Mart
and Slumberland, it was his understanding that these developers had
reached agreements with the City that they would not be cut�ing
down some oak trees, yet sad to say, he has seen that entire area
be decimated.
Mr. Reyes stated it is very significant that as they have lost
these beautiful areas, they are becoming more detached from their
heritage. He, as well as his neighbors, has enjoyed seeing this
land and the variety of natural life that is present here. In
conversations with his neighbors and the resulting signatures on
a number of petitions he circulated, one of the great comments was:
^, "How can this be happening?O This land is beautiful, and it is the
major reason why people want to live in this area. As they have
seen, the desire to develop land and turn it into residential
PLANNING CO1�lI88ION MEETING� JIINE 29, 1994 PAGE 18
�! property has significantly reduced much of the reasons why they are
living in this area. When they lose those reasons to live here,
he believed they then find it difficult to see all the other
wonderful features of their neighborhoods.
Mr. Reyes stated his neighbors are concerned about this develop-
ment, and he has received some excellent support from them to have
this area maintained as a park, to be possibly purchased by the
City of Fridley as a park and to certainly draw upon some of the
other public monies that are available such as the Trust for Public
Land. He sees where the subject property and Innsbruck Park are
inextricably linked. The animal life moves readily between the two
sites. He has been amazed by the animal diversity that is present
there.
Mr. Reyes stated it is also his concern that these wetland areas
harbor migratory waterfowl which may have some protection under
Federal law. If they start to alter that environment enough, he
is concerned that they might be altering some other patterns within
this ecological system that cannot be regained.
Mr. Reyes stated he would like to recommend to the Planning
Commission that the preferred course of action would be to
recommend that the City Council deny the development permit
outright. The Friends of Innsbruck Park would then make
� presentations to the Council in support of the denial.
Mr. Reyes stated the second choice for the Planning Commission is
to ask that the proposers of the development be required, at their
expense, to complete an EAW on this project. It is his
understanding that there is no requirement for the City to pay for
this EAW.
Mr. Reyes stated another choice would be for the Planning
Commission to delay any action, considering that the Friends for
Innsbruck Park have petitioned for an EAW that has not yet been
formally presented to the State Environmental Quality Board. Once
an EAW is completed, it should be reviewed by the City's
Environmental Quality & Energy Commission and separately by the
City's Parks & Recreation Commission, and these recommendations
should then be considered by the Planning Commission prior to the
Planning Commission taking action.
Mr. Reyes stated that if the Planning Commission does not ask for
an EAW, the matter should still be referred to the other
commissions for consideration first. If the Planning Commission
insists on passing this matter on to the City Council with a
recommendation for approval, the Friends of Innsbruck Park will
have to make presentations to the City Council.
Mr. Reyes stated the neighborhood thinks this is a very important
r'` area, not only for the people who live in this area, but to the
City as a whole. These woodlands are not like anything else around
here. There is no way this property can be developed and still
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING. JIINE 29, 1994 PAG$ 19
� retain the uniqueness of the land. He is concerned that the trees
will be destroyed, not only the current young trees, but the 200
year old oaks that are in abundance. He is concerned that the
unique flora and fauna will also be destroyed. These woodland
plants are very fragile and cannot sustain this type of ecological
disruption. He would ask that this EAW be done before the City
moves to allow such a development and this unique area is gone
forever.
�
�^^;
Mr. Reyes stated that he is certainly not opposed to the sale of
this land. He just would like to see this land kept as it is,
either as a City park or that the land be purchased by an
organization such as the Trust for Public Land, where money is
available, so this land could continue as part of a park that
already exists.
Mr. John O'Brien, 1453 North Danube Road, stated his question is
regarding Lots 5, 6, and 7 where the homes will be built a maximum
of 10 feet from the lot line opposite the wetlands. Without
knowing the size of the home or the configuration of the home, does
this setback really accomplish anything, because it gives no
indication as to how close to the wetlands the home will be built?
If that is the case, it would indicate that there is a shallowness
in the presentation and perhaps more study is necessary.
Mr. Newman asked staff if the City has any ordinance that addresses
the setback from a wetland.
Ms. McPherson stated the City does not have a minimum setback
requirement from a wetland. Without setting a specific distance
limit, the staff report has stated that grading cannot occur below
a particular elevation on the property, and that was to take into
account protection of the wetland. So, on the one side, they are
pushing the house as far away from the wetland as possible, and on
the other side, staff is saying the developer cannot grade below
a certain elevation.
Mr. Oquist stated he is not so sure that restricts where the house
is in relation to the wetland. That requirement just says the
house cannot be built below a certain elevation.
Mr. Net�man stated that on Lot 6 which has a fairly steep slope,
the house will be closer to the wetland than the house on Lot 7
which seems to have a fairly flat slope.
Mr. Kondrick stated Mr. O'Brien raised a very important point.
Mr. Haluska requested copies of the stipulations from staff.
Ms. McPherson stated that she would forward a copy of the entire
staff report to Mr. Haluska.
Mr. Tony Kahlhamer, 5837 Arthur Street, stated it is interesting
that a neighbor is requesting that this land be kept as a park,
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING, JDNE 29, 1994 PAGB 20
�` while there is member of the Planning Commission who is also
Chairperson of the Parks & Recreation Commission who is saying the
City cannot afford to have another park. He stated this is a piece
of property that is basically park land. There is nothing on it.
Two hundred thousand dollars seems like a small amount of money to
invest in a piece of park land, while at the same time, down by
Moore Lake, the City is condemning property and buyinq land to make
that park bigger. Mr. Kondrick is saying the City has too many
parks already. He just found this a contradictory point of
information.
Mr. Milton Bullock, 5674 Arthur Street, stated the back of his home
abuts on these woods. His children have certainly enjoyed the
wildlife. He has the feeling that juggernaut is on the way here
and he wonders what happens to the rights of the people who have
lived in the area for 18 years. There is no notation of how many
of these 200 year oaks would be destroyed. He is sure it is a very
large number.
Mr. Bullock stated that for those who have lived in this area for
15-20 years, this is deja vu. The Black Forest development was
originally a part of the original oak parcel. Many of the
neighbors went before the Planning Commission then in opposition
of the development. Elaborate restrictions were made on the
developer and models were made on exactly how many trees would be
� cut down. However, this was totally ignored and the entire area
was bulldozed. He has pictures of huge oak trees burning. So, the
Planning Commission members should be able to see why the neighbors
would like to see this last parcel of ancient oaks preserved. If
there is an alternative for funding available, why not maintain
this parcel of land in its pristine form?
Mr. Bullock stated he is not knowledgeable about the cost of
maintaining parks. But, what degree of maintenance is necessary
for a wooded area with no structures, fences, etc.? He would urge
that every possible consideration be given to try to maintain this
last parcel of land in its pristine form.
Mr. Oquist stated he had a question for the representatives of
Totino-Grace. What is their agenda for selling the property; and,
if this preliminary plat is denied, what impact would that have on
Totino-Grace?
Mr. William Fallon, Chancellor of the Archdiocese, stated that when
this property was originally acquired for the high school, they
were in the process of building a lot of high schools. They had
22 high schools at one time, and now they have 11. If their plans
had gone as originally thought, this property would have been fully
developed by now. But, that did not happen and so they have to
deal with the reality of today. He stated he is sympathetic to the
neighbors and their concern for the delicate ecology. But, the
/'�, fact remains that this is privately-owned land and not public land.
While the Archdiocese is the fee owner of the property, the school
has its own organization, its own board, etc., and the
PLANNINa CONII�lISSION MEETING. JUNE 29, 1994 PAaE 21
.-.
� Archdiocese's arrangement with the high school is that the net
proceeds from the sale of this land will be used by the school for
capital improvements which are badly needed by the school.
Mr. Fallon stated a number of plans have been discussed for this
land; but since the church is not in the real estate business,
they contacted a real estate company to handle the sale. They are
under a contractual obligation to sell this land to the developer.
He stated a number of people spoke about the desirability of this
land, and he is not competent to comment on the ecological
considerations involved, but he does understand their concerns.
He stated the speakers are urging that the City or the Friends of
Innsbruck Park should find some way to acquire this land. His
concern as the representative of the owner is that they do not get
left ��holding the bag". If this development proposal is turned
down, the property owner should have some kind of commitment that
the land will be acquired by someone for park purposes so that
everything that has been said by the neighbors has not been said
in vain.
Mr. Fallon stated they do face two other situations, and that is
a recent Supreme Court case, which limited what restrictions could
be put on a site relative to development, and fair compensation if,
in fact, this turns out to be a kind of reverse condemnation.
� MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive as part
of the record the June 14, 1994, letter to the City Council and
City Commission Members from John Haluska and Terry Reyes on behalf
of Friends of Innsbruck Park and the June 29, 1994, letter to the
Planning Commission from John Haluska on behalf of Friends of
Innsbruck Park.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLYo
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive as part
of the record the letter dated June 28, 1994, to John Haluska from
the Environmental Quality Board.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC BEARING CI,OBED AT 8:45 P.M.
Mr. Oquist stated that although this development proposal seems to
be a very nice proposal for this plat, he would have to vote to
recommend denial. He might be willing to recommend that an EAW be
�� done. He has lived in this area for 30 years and he has watched
Peck's Woods disappear, and he has watched it disappear when it
should not have disappeared by some of the stipulations that were
PLANNINa CO�IIdlIBBION MEETING. JONE 29. 1994 PAGB 22
�' su osed to
pp preserve the trees at the time. He agreed that this
is one last patch of woods in the community that they have an
opportunity to preserve. He agreed with Mr. Fallon that they
cannot let the concept drop. The City needs to look at some
alternatives for the land including the possibility of acquiring
the land. But, he is opposed to the development of homes on the
property. It is also time they start saving some trees.
Mr. Sielaff agreed. What the neighbors are saying strikes a cord
with him. If this is an outstanding resource, then the City should
find that out through the EAW. He would be inclined to vote
against the plat request.
Mr. Saba stated he agreed that a lot of things happen when a piece
of land is destroyed like this. Change is never desired by anyone.
He stated this particular area is unique, and it does have a
precious value to many people in this City. He, too, has seen this
area slowly destroyed over the years. He would like to see it
preserved. He would like to see an EAW, and he would strongly
encourage that the Planning Commission make that recommendation to
the City Council. They need to find out exactly what they have and
exactly what they would be losing, and that information should be
well documented.
Mr. Saba stated he has also been aware of what has happened at
,� Springbrook Nature Center with the encroachment of development.
Even though the development is good, the effect of that development
on the environment is a disaster. The proposed development is
excellent, but he would to see an EAW before the Commission makes
any decision on the plat request.
Mr. Rondrick stated he agreed with Mr. Haluska and his concern
about the ecology of the area and the impact of the proposed
development on Innsbruck Park. Before they approve a housing
development, he would like to know what impact the development will
have, if any, on Innsbruck Park. If it is found that it will not
have any impact on Innsbruck Park, this plan appears to be a very
good plan with ponding and careful placement of homes, setbacks,
etc., a development that the City could be proud of. However, if
the development will impact the park across the street, the
Commission members should know that. As Chairperson of the Parks
& Recreation Commission, he would like to be assured that one won't
affect the other. For that reason, he would also be in favor of
recommending that an EAW be done.
Mr. Newman stated that if the Commission decided to table this
request, how much time does the Commission have before it must take
action on this request?
Ms. McPherson stated that according to Chapter 211 of the
subdivision ordinance, the Planning Commission must take action on
�� a subdivision application within 120 days following the delivery
of the application completed in compliance with the requirements
of Chapter 211. The application was dated May 27, 1994, so
PLANNINa COMMISSION I�EETING� JIINE 29, 1994 PAaE 23
� approximately 30 days have elapsed. The Commission has
approximately 90 more days before action must be taken. That
review period can be extended if the applicant is agreeable.
Mr. Newman stated he is in favor of the proposal. As stated by
others, it is a good proposal. It exceeds the City�s ordinances.
The property is properly zoned R-1, and the property owner has the
right to develop it. He can understand the neighbors' concerns
about what has happened in adjoining areas with development, but
these are different developers and, hopefully, the City has also
learned its lesson as well and will safeguard any bad things from
happeninq. On one hand, he would like to have the information
contained in an EAW and that it might be useful to the Commission
and the City, but he is concerned that the City has to be careful
how it utilizes that tool. Preparing an EAW is expensive to a
developer, not only from expert fees and cost, but also from time
delays.
Mr. Newman stated the wetlands have been delineated. The City is
doing everything it can to preserve the wetlands; and, as stated
in the staff report, the wetlands will not be filled in or
affected. The Commission has not received any concern from staff
or the Parks Department that this project is going to adversely
affect Innsbruck Park, and he did not think it is fair for the City
to impose the requirement of preparing an EAW on the developer
� without further information. Even if the EAW comes back saying the
development could have an impact on Innsbruck Park, the City then
runs a risk if it does not acquire the property. Essentially the
City has to either approve the project or acquire the property.
Mr. Newman stated that Mr. Fallon's comments were well taken. If
the Trust for Public Land wants to acquire the property, he did
not see any reason why the residents and City cannot work together
on a plan to acquire the property if they desire to do that, even
while the platting process continues.
Mr. Oquist stated he feels like the Commission is being pressured
again to make a decision. This request has come to the Commission
for action, but the Commission is not being allowed the time to
assess any other alternatives, one alternative being denial of the
plat and the City acquiring the property. This is a nice project,
but he believed the City also has an obligation to nature and to
its environment, and they should take the time to understand the
alternatives.
Mr. Newman stated he sees the following options for the Planning
Commission:
1. To table action on the request.
i"�
2. To recommend denial.
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING. JIINE 29. 1994 PAGB 24
� 3. To recommend the Cit Council direct the
y preparation of
an EAW to be sent back to the Planning Commission for
review.
4. To move forward with or without a recommendation that
final action not be taken until the City has had an
opportunity to pursue the possibility of acquisition of
the property.
Mr. Saba stated that Mr. Haluska has mentioned a couple of
additional wetlands that are not mentioned by staff or the
petitioner.
Ms. McPherson stated she spoke with the City's wetland consultant.
The consultant walked the site independently of City staff and did
not find evidence of any additional wetlands other than those
delineated by the petitioner.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to table
consideration of Preliminary Plat request, P.S. #94-05, by Keith
Eibensteiner for Biltmore Construction of New Brighton, Inc., and
to recommend to the City Council that an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet be completed. This preliminary plat request is to come
back to the Planning Commission either at the completion of the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet or the expiration of 120 days,
r� whichever comes first.
Mr. Oquist stated he would vote to deny the plat request; but, at
a minimum, he would be in favor of an EAW. He is still concerned
about what they will do when the EAW is completed. He is not so
concerned about Innsbruck Park; he is more concerned about the
subject property itself.
Mr. Newman stated that it might be more equitable to table the plat
request for 30 days to give the City staff time to meet with
neighbors to see if there is a possibility of acquiring the
property. If not, then the plat request would come back to the
Commission for action without unnecessarily delaying either Totino-
Grade or the developer.
Mr. Oquist stated he would be more in favor of that option. That
gives the Commission and the City time to explore the other
alternatives.
Mr. Kondrick stated he also liked this option.
Mr. Newman asked Mr. Kondrick if he would withdraw his motion so
that the Commission could act on Mr. Oquist�s approach of tabling
this item for only 30 days to see if there is a serious possibility
of the City acquiring this land.
'~� Mr. Kondrick agreed to withdraw his motion.
PLANNING COMMI88ION ME$TING� JIINE 29, 1994 PAGE 25
n Mr. Newman asked Mr. Sielaff if he would agree to withdraw his
second of the motion.
Mr. Sielaff stated he was uncertain if he wanted to withdraw his
second.
Being that the maker of the motion had agreed to withdraw his
motion but the seconder had not agreed to withdraw his second, the
Chairperson called for a vote on the motion.
IIPON A VOICL VOTE, RONDRICR, BIELAFF, AND BABA VOTING AYE� NEWMAN
AND OQIIIBT VOTIN(�i NAY, CHAIRPERBON NEWMAN DECLARED T8E MOTION
CARRIED BY A VOTL OF 3-2.
Ms. McPherson stated staff will prepare this item for review by
the City Council on July 11, 1994. At that time, the Council will
consider the Commission's recommendation for an EAW.
Chairperson Newman declared a 15 minute recess at 10:15 p.m.
Chairperson Newman reconvened the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
2. CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT L.S #94-01 BY CHARLES
WESTLING: To split Lots 6-16, Block 12, Hamilton's Addition
to Mechanicsville, into two separate lots, generally located
,� at 5400 - 4th Street N.E. The legal description for the two
lots are as follows:
Tract A: LotS 6� 7� 8� 9� 10� 11� 12� arid 13� B10Ck 12�
Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, Anoka, Minnesota,
except that part lying westerly of the east right-of-way line
of State Trunk Highway No. 47 (University Avenue AT.E.)
Tract B: Lots 14, 15, and 16, Block 12, Hamilton's Addition
to Mechanicsville, Anoka County, Minnesota, together with that
part of vacated 54th Avenue N.E. and the vacated alley
accruing, except that part lying westerly of the east right-
of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 47 (University Avenue
N.E.)
Ms. McPherson stated the subject property is located at the
intersection of 54th Avenue and 4th Street. The property abuts
the I-694 right-of-way and the entrance ramp to eastbound I-694.
The property is zoned R-3, General Multiple Dwelling.
Ms. McPherson stated this request is somewhat unusual in the fact
that the subject property is composed of Lots 6 through 16, Block
12, in Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville. The proposed lot
split is actually occurring along a previously platted lot line.
However, due to the unique shape of Tract A(triangular in shape),
the buildable area is reduced because there is a 35 foot setback
�"'� requirement from both 4th Street and the I-694 right-of-way.
Typically, staff would handle this type of division
administratively; however, the petitioner is interested in the
PLANNINa COMMISBION MEETING. JIINE 29. 1994 PAGS 26
� construction of a four-plex on
variances are required. The
variance request and a formal
by the petitioner.
�
n
Tract A. Due to that construction,
City Attorney advised staff that a
lot split request should be pursued
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has submitted a site plan for
a single family dwelling unit for Tract A. It can meet the setback
requirements; however, a four-plex would need setback variances
from the I-694 right-of-way for a portion of the dwelling and for
the proposed garages.
Ms. McPherson stated the property has direct access onto 4th
Street. There is an existing curb cut; however, the petitioner's
site plan shows a driveway farther north from the existing curb
cut, so a new curb cut will need to be created and the original
one closed.
Ms. McPherson stated sewer and water services are available to the
site. The Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) will be required at the
time of the building permit issuance. The Metropolitan Waste
Control will verify that amount.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner did not submit a grading and
drainage plan. Such a plan will need to be submitted with the
building permit application. The plan should show the topography,
the location of the existing trees, indicating which trees will be
preserved, and spot elevations for the drainage. An erosion
control plan may be required. That decision will be based upon the
submitted grading plan.
Ms. McPherson stated there is a park dedication fee of $750 to be
paid at the issuance of the building permit.
Ms. McPherson stated this particular property was considered by
Anoka County as part of the Light Rail Transit park and ride
facility. The petitioner has been made aware of that.
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the request with five stipulations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Variance request, VAR #94-10, shall be approved.
The petitioner shall replace the existing curb cut when
a new curb cut is installed.
SAC fees shall be paid at the time of building permit
issuance.
The petitioner shall submit a grading and drainage plan
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
A park fee of $750 shall be paid at the issuance of a
building permit.
PLANNINQ COMMISSION MEETING, JIINE 29, 1994 PAaE 27
^ Mr. Charles Westling stated the only question he had was regarding
stipulation #2 regarding the curb cut. He stated he intends to
live in the four-plex if he gets approval to construct it. The one
inconvenience he can see from moving out of his existing house with
an attached garage is not being able to get near the building with
the unattached garages being a little distance from the building.
He was thinking of the possibility of using the existing curb cut
and somehow spiraling a driveway through the front of the property
and still make it look nice.
Ms. McPherson stated the City has no policy that would prohibit
that. She stated staff can work with the petitioner to develop a
plan for the driveway that will look nice.
Mr. Newman stated stipulation #2 only requires that the petitioner
replace the existing curb cut when a new curb cut is installed.
If he does not install a new curb cut, then he would not have to
replace the existing one.
Mr. Charles Schurstein, 1100 - 43 1/2 Avenue, stated he is the
property owner of the property south of the subject property. The
only question he has is the status of the vacated 54th Avenue going
to the University Avenue easement. Is that part of their property
now, or do the property owners need to petition to have that added
to their properties?
� Mr. Newman stated that generally when an alley or street is
vacated, it is divided equally between the two adjoining property
owners. However, it does depend on how the property was originally
platted.
Ms. McPherson stated she would research this and get an answer for
Mr. Schurstein.
Mr. Schurstein stated that he has no objection to the lot split as
requested by Mr. Westling.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend to
City Council approval of lot split request, L.S. #94-01, to split
Lots 6-16, Block 12, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, into
two separate lots, generally located at 5400 - 4th Street N.E. with
the following stipulations:
1. Variance request, VAR #94-10, shall be approved.
2. The petitioner shall replace the existing curb cut when
a new curb cut is installed.
3. SAC fees shall be paid at the time of building permit
issuance.
^ 4. The petitioner shall submit a grading and drainage plan
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
�
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. JIINE 29. 1994 PAGE 28
5. A park fee of $750 shall be paid at the issuance of a
building permit.
The legal description for the two lots are as follows:
Tract A: LOtS 6� 7s 8� 9� 10� 11� 12� 8Ad 13� B10Ck 12�
Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, Anoka, Minnesota,
except that part lying westerly of the east right-of-way line
of State Trunk Highway PTo. 47 (University Avenue N.E.)
Tract B: Lots 14, 15, and 16, Block 12, Hamilton's Addition
to Mechanicsville, Anoka County, Minnesota, together with that
part of vacated 54th Avenue 1d.E. and the vacated alley
accruing, except that part lying westerly of the east right-
of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 47 (University Avenue
N.E.)
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARL�D T8E
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
3. CDBG FUNDING RECOMMENDATION FROM THE HUMAN RESOURCES
COMMISSION•
Mr. Oquist stated the Commission had applications for a couple of
new projects th�t the Commission was quite impressed with--
,� Northeast Counseling Center and the CHAP Store. Both organizations
service a lot of Fridley people. He would recommend the Commission
concur with the Human Resources Commission's recommendation for
funding.
/"�1
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to concur with the
Human Resources Commission's CDBG funding recommendation for 1994-
95 as follows:
Organization
Alexandra House
Arc of Anoka County
Central Center
for Family Resources
CHAP Store
City of Fridley Recreation
Community Emergency
Assistance Program
Family Counseling Clinic
Northeast
Northwest Suburban Kinship
R.I.S.E.
St. Philip's Lutheran Church
Tamarisk
This Year's
Request
$ 4,500
$ 1,400
$ 3,000
$ 3,968
$ 5,000
$ 3,000
$60,000
$ 1,500
$ 5,000
$ 3,000
7 735
$98,103
Amount
Recommended
$ 2,500
$ -0-
$ 1,000
$ 3,000
$ 5,000
$ 3,000
$ 3,000
$ 500
$ -0-
$ 3,000
4 000
$25,000
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
�
,."�
PLANNING COMMI88ION MLETING. JIINE 29. 1994 PAG$ 29
4. RECEIVE MAY 17. 1994, ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY & ENERGY
COMMISSION MINiTTES:
MOTION by Ms. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the May
17, 1994, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission.
IIPON A VOICTs VOTE� ALL VOTING AYTs� CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
5. RECEIVE PqAY 24� 1994, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES•
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the May
24, 1994, Appeals Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(i AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
6. RECEIVE JUNE 7, 1994, APPEALS COMMISSION MINLTTES•
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the June
7, 1994, Appeals Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPLRSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
7. RECEIVE THE JUNE 21 1994, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES•
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the
June 21, 1994, Appeals Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEWMArT DECLARED T8E
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
8. OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Newman stated it would be helpful if City staff could prepare
for each Planning Commission meeting a short synopsis of the
Council action items.
Ms. McPherson stated staff can do that.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the
meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Newman
declared the motion carried and the June 29, 1994, Planning
Commission meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Resp ctfully sub itted,
/"\
Lynny Saba
Recc� ding Secretary
�`'�
,^�
/�"�
S I G N- IN S H E E T
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, Z,� � q y