Loading...
11/06/1996 - 00003674CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 6, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the November 6, 1996 Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig, Larry Kuechle (7:57 p.m.) Members Absent: None Others Present: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Mark Weispfenning, J.S.S. Architects Charlie Melcher, Ulteig Engineers Ralph Wedgewood, 5871 West Moore Lake Drive APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 16, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to approve the October 16, 1996, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. l. (Tabled) PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN, WR #96-01, BY NOAH'S ARK: To fill 9,356 square feet of type PEMC wetland and replace with same on site; 83rd and University Avenue. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to remove from the table and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:52 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the subject parcel is located at the intersection of 83rd Avenue and University Avenue N.E. on the west service road. Located to the west is Springbrook Apartments of Northtown which is zoned R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling. Located to the north is Wal-Mart which is zoned C-2, General Business. The property to the east is currently vacant. To the south of the parcel is the Moose Lodge and the Northwest Orthopedics Building. The subject parcel is zoned C-2, General Business. The proposed development is a 108-unit senior independent living apartment building. It is placed on the site in an "L"-shaped configuration. The building is proposed to be four stories in height with one-story for underground parking. Above PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 6, 1996 PAGE 2 ground surface parking spaces are located in front of the building. The building is oriented to the southeast toward the service drive. Two main entrances will be off the service drive. Ms. McPherson stated the Appeals Commission at their last meeting reviewed a variance request to reduce the side yard setback from 25 feet down to 15 feet for the north property line. The Appeals Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the variance request contingent upon approval of the wetland replacement plan. Ms. McPherson stated homes for the elderly are permitted in the C-2 district. The Planning Commission is considering the filling and replacing of wetlands on the site by the petitioner in order to do this development. The delineation of the boundary of a Type 5 wetland was done by Pat Arlig and Associates. Type 5 wetlands are typically indicated as being shallow (less than 10 feet deep) with a border of cattails, reeds, dogwoods and other associated wetland shrubs. Typically, Type 5 wetlands are not associated with a lake or river and typically have a sandy bottom. The site also indicates evidence of historic fill on the property and the wetland edge is very uneven. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is permitted to fill up to 5,000 square feet without replacement and anything over that needs to be replaced. The impact area is .21 acres or 9,356 square feet. Subtracting 5,000 square feet leaves an area of 4,356 square feet to be replaced. The petitioner is proposing to create 13,333 square feet which is approximately 3 times the area of impact. The minimum replacement ratio is 2:1. Ms. McPherson stated the way that the petitioner is proposing to mitigate this impact is by creating areas of wetland along the south part of the property. The variance to locate the building as close to the north property line allows a greater mitigation area along the south edge of the building. In addition, with the new changes in 1995, the proposed retention basin is also eligible for credit. The petitioners are proposing to create the required storm water detention area but, instead of having a dry area in front of the building, they will be retaining water at a certain level so the area will remain wet. Ms. McPherson stated, in the area adjacent to the building, while it is indicated to be filled, the petitioner is proposing to minimize the amount of fill such that the wetland would not be completely fill in, but would be changed from Type 5 to Type 6 which is more of a shrub type wetland and slightly dryer. Ms. McPherson stated, in terms of the grading plan, the storm water is proposed to run off the parking and hard surface areas to enter PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 6, 1996 PAGE 3 into the retention pond through a series of pipes and scuppers. A series of controlled access points would collect debris. Water would at a certain elevation flow out of the detention area into the wetland area. From the wetland area, the water could flow out of an outlet pipe along 83rd Avenue to flow to the south or it can continue on a natural drainage course west into the drainage ditch along 83rd and then into Springbrook Nature Center. Ms. McPherson stated the consultant, Peterson Environmental, assisted staff in reviewing the request and have agreed that this does comply with State statute and with ordinance requirements. Staff recommends approval of the wetland replacement plan to the City Council with the following stipulations: l. The petitioner shall submit monitoring information to the City on June 1 of each year, from 1998 until 2003. 2. The petitioner shall submit the plant list for MnDOT seed mix 25A to staff for review. Ms. McPherson stated she has already received the plant list and it appears to be satisfactory. Mr. Sielaff asked if staff was saying the retention pond is included in the 3:1 ratio. Ms. McPherson stated yes. Under the new rules established in 1995, retention ponds receive partial credit for mitigation. Mr. Sielaff stated the partial credit brings the overall credit to 3.1. Ms. McPherson stated yes. Mr. Sielaff stated staff had stated the petitioner would change a Type 5 wetland to a Type 6 wetland. What does that mean? Is the retention basis a Type 6? Ms. McPherson stated the retention basin is just that. The area behind the building now has open water. An area must be filled completely because that is where the basement of the building is going to be. When that portion is filled, they will be filling it with the hydric soils that are there and this area will be planted with more shrub-type materials which is considered Type 6 wetland as opposed to the open water Type 5. Mr. Sielaff asked how many acres of this wetland are not being modified? He does not have a sense of how big the total wetland is currently. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 6, 1996 PAGE 4 Mr. Melcher stated the area is less than one acre. This is a fairly small site. There are certain rules that come into play as of a certain size. The area was smaller than those rules. The wetland area is .21 acres. The entire area is probably three times greater than what is being impacted. Mr. Sielaff stated they were then impacting about 250. Mr. Melcher stated yes. Mr. Sielaff asked if by making those modifications it changes the type. Ms. McPherson stated yes. Changing where the water is and where the hydrology is in relation to the surface soil as well as the plant materials changes the type. Mr. Sielaff asked if they were changing the depth. Mr. Melcher stated yes. They are talking about the fringe. In looking at the grading plan, you will see some fairly close together lines in that area. The thought is to build an area that is a transition from the building, providing a slope, and then the wetland. They are looking to create a 20-foot area for a buffer zone for that transition. That area is partially architectural design and partially wetland design. The buffer zone would be wetland with dogwood type of plantings that would flower. There may be some trees and evergreens. Mr. Sielaff asked what sort of wetland it is will depend a great deal on how much water is in there. He is hearing that the petitioner will be filling in an area, putting in vegetation, and then saying they have changed the type of wetland. Mr. Melcher stated, by definition, this is true. Mr. Sielaff stated he would assume the vegetation is not native. The petitioner is just putting it in there. Does that mean the vegetation on the rest of the wetland will be changed? Are we really getting a Type 6 wetland? Mr. Melcher stated the vegetation over time may change. Nature will take its course. The only way a Type 5 will occur is if the elevation is re-established. Mr. Sielaff asked if the elevation of the water is changed. Mr. Melcher stated yes. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 6, 1996 PAGE 5 Mr. Sielaff stated the other modifications and additions will be at a certain elevation that we think will be a Type 6. Ms. McPherson stated the replacement is proposed to be at the same elevation as the existing Type 5. Mr. Sielaff stated there are currently two types of wetlands there now. Mr. Melcher stated yes. There will be more open water like what is there now. There are two types of wetlands there now and they are replacing the two types. They are putting a Type 6 along the border and the water further from the building. The only structure is the storm water pond which is 2.5 feet higher than the normal water level for a Type 5. The outlet pipe would be at the normal elevation for the wetland this summer. Ms. McPherson stated it happens in nature. If you look at a wetland, it is not all the same. You have types that blend together depending upon where the open water is. If there is a bit more elevation to the soil along that edge, it will be dryer which will harbor dryer wetland plants. Sometimes the delineations blur where the types blend together. They are trying to create a dryer wetland along the fringe area that is still a wetland but a different type. Mr. Sielaff stated, when we did the inventory of wetlands, a particular wetland was classified as one type. Mr. Melcher stated that is how Board of Water and Soil Resources (BOWSR) would look at it also. To define this zone and the way to approach it is that it is easier to describe the area by saying it will be a Type 6. BOWSR will look at it as one wetland. We look at it as different types. Mr. Sielaff stated one issue on replacement is whether we should have replacement of the same type. Mr. Melcher stated technically the wetland is a Type 5. Along the fringe, the wetland will be a Type 6. They are altering the elevation. Ms. McPherson stated BOWSR just asks where the line is between wet and dry. Mr. Sielaff stated the first stipulation requires the petitioner to submit monitoring information to the City. What kind of monitoring information is required? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 6, 1996 PAGE 6 Ms. McPherson stated the statute requires water elevation and photo vegetation information to document how the vegetation is responding and to verify that the water elevations are being maintained at the proper level. This must be reported on an annual basis. Mr. Sielaff asked if the petitioner must monitor once per year or more frequently. Ms. McPherson stated the City can require them to monitor three times per year and report once per year. No specific standards are set in the statute. It just says this has to be checked, monitored and reported to the City. Mr. Sielaff asked how this is enforced. Has the City determined what the monitoring requirements are and how they are to be reported? Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner does have to receive a permit to do the alteration work and the City will retain a bond for five years to ensure that, if there is a problem for reporting and/or monitoring, the City can correct any problems that are being evidenced by the monitoring and reporting or their failure to do the reporting. She has not detailed exactly what type of information the petitioner will have to submit to the City. They can work together before the City Council meeting and work that out. Ms. McPherson stated they did something similar with the Wal-Mart proposal. Wal-Mart's was a little more extreme in that the City actually had them do water quality testing. That is not required as part of the State statute on this. We need to look at elevations and plant growth. The City did hold their bond through the monitoring period and released the bond when there was no impact. Mr. Kondrick asked how deep the retention ponds would be? Is it set up so that, when it fills with water, it will then drain into the wetland area? Will that in fact hold a lot of water? Ms. McPherson stated the retention pond is set up to drain into the wetland. The pond will have water in it. It will hold up to eight feet of water based on the contours. Because it is a storm water pond, there is a restrictive flow pipe so it does have to contain water and can only release it at a certain speed so it does not overpower the system down stream. The inlet pipes coming off the two parking lots are at an elevation of 868. The bottom of the detention area is 862. The outlet pipe to the wetland area is at 863. Mr. Melcher would have to indicate how much water would be PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 6, 1996 PAGE 7 held in the retention pond at any given time. Mr. Melcher stated the bounce is 1.2 feet. The deepest part is six feet. The average is about 3.5 feet of water. There will be a liner in the pond. With the soils on site, the water would percolate into the ground. They have talked about putting in a sprinkler or fountain. He did not know if this would be done. If you must have storm water, it is nice to have something that people can look at and enjoy. Mr. Weispfenning stated he is representing Noah's Ark. He thought this would be a very good project and an attractive building. The retention pond will be an amenity, and he hopes to get a flowing fountain which keeps the water cleaner. As Mr. Melcher has explained, this water system should work. They have done this before in Mounds View. They have a similar situation there where they created a retention pond that overflowed into a natural wetland area which worked out well. He thought the City would be happy with it. Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner had any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Weispfenning stated he had no problems. If that is what is required to keep going, then certainly that is what they will abide by. Mr. Melcher stated they had already talked about a lot of the things. There are a lot of things here they don't normally have. They don't normally have a wetland that is in such a tough spot. That made it difficult to make project go. With the water on three sides and with the landscaping, it will make this an attractive building. The finishes that were selected will also make it attractive. Their project in Mounds View is at Highway 10 and County Road I which is a three-story building. When you drive into the parking lot, one can see the sidewalks that go all the way around. They also have a Type 6 wetland there as well. They do that because they are close to the building with an underground garage and they don't want the water to get in their. A Type 6 is a dryer wetland. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:25 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated he saw no problem. He drove by the building in Mounds View. It is similar to what they are proposing here. He is PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 6, 1996 PAGE 8 concerned about the water that flows into Springbrook. He thought they had done what they could to protect that. Water quality is always a concern. He thought the petitioner had gone through the hoops. Ms. Modig stated she had no problems. Mr. Sielaff stated he would like to tighten up the monitoring and reporting. Mr. Melcher stated they have submitted something on monitoring. What they submitted is the typical standards that BOWSR requires. It lists about eight different things that have to be done including pictures taken from the same spot on the same date every year. In that way, they can see the improvements. Mr. Sielaff stated he thought that was good, but he would like to see explicitly stated what the petitioner is required to do so that everyone knows. Ms. McPherson stated she would formulate the stipulation with specific written guidelines in the rules for the City Council. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend approval of a Wetland Replacement Plan „ WR #96-01, by Noah's Ark, to fill 9,356 square feet of type PEMC wetland and replace with the same on site; 83rd and University Avenue, with the following stipulations: l. The petitioner shall submit monitoring information to the City on June 1 of each year, from 1998 until 2003. 2. The petitioner shall submit the plant list for MnDOT seed mix 25A to staff for review. and that the monitoring plan be explained thoroughly and properly to the City Council. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated this item would be considered by the City Council at their meeting of November 25. 2. APPROVE 1997 MEETING DATES MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to the 1997 meeting dates as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 6, 1996 PAGE 9 January 8 February 5 March 5 April 2 May 7 June 4 July 2 August 6 September 3 October 1 November 5 December 3 January 22 February 19 March 19 April 16 May 21 June 18 July 16 August 20 September 17 October 15 November 19 December 17 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HLJMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 1996 MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the minutes of the Human Resources Commission meeting of October 3, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1996 MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting of October 10, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 1996 MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of October 23, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 6, 1996 PAGE 10 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE NOVEMBER 6, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary