Loading...
03/01/2000 - 00008058CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MARCH 1. 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the March 1, 2000, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p. m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Larry Kuechle, Brad Sielaff Connie Modig, Dean Saba Members Absent: Dave Kondrick, Leroy Oquist Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Missy Daniels, Planner Jon Haukaas, Assistant Public Works Director Robert J. Viera, US West Wireless Consultant Leigh Harris, Chamber of Commerce APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 16, 2000, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the February 16, 2000, Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #00-01, by US West Wireless LLC, to allow the construction of a 90-foot telecommunications tower, legally described as Lot 7 and Lot 8, Block 3, East Ranch Estate Addition subject to easement, generally located at 7835 Main Street. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:31 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner, US West Wireless, is requesting a special use permit to allow construction of a 90-foot telecommunications tower on the property that is owned by Talco, Inc., located at 7835 Main Street. There is a small 24-foot by 18-foot fenced compound that would also be required as part of this proposal. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAGE 2 Mr. Hickok stated that the equipment will be located at the corner of the building along Main Street. The compound is a relatively small area and is screened naturally by existing vegetation along the east side, and there will be additional landscape between the parking lot and the compound itself. Code requires a special use permit to allow telecommunications towers and wireless telecommunications equipment in the industrially zoned districts. Staff recommends approval of the special use permit to allow construction of the 90-foot monopole tower and telecommunications equipment. The petitioner has met code requirements for issuance of a special use permit. Staff recommends a number of stipulations. Ms. Savage asked what the Staff ineant by "negative impacts" in the report while at the same time granting approval. Mr. Hickok stated that they like to have towers like this blend or give a stealth design and back up to a power line behind it so they blend together. In this situation, the upright and the 90 feet is in the middle of an area of much lower rise development. There is not a lot they can do to downplay the size of a 90-foot monopole in this area. The petitioner did go to a location that staff had selected as a monopole site. The property owners were not interested in the lease agreement, however, so this is an alternate location. This is not ideal, but staff recommends approval even though they would like the tower to be shorter. The tower does need to be in the certain range of their other equipment and of a certain height for the technology to work. Mr. Saba asked Mr. Hickok about the additional structures on the tower. Mr. Hickok stated that it is designed so they can co-locate at least a second and potentially a third user depending on the equipment needs of the third user. Mr. Saba asked if that would involve additional structures on the ground. Mr. Hickok stated that their ideal is to have many users on a pole to limit the overall number of poles needed to serve the City. With technology becoming more advanced, 90 feet may now be high tech enough to get a third user on the site. Mr. Sielaff asked if staff looks at the design for the unauthorized entry. Mr. Hickok stated they do. There is a building permit approval process that happens, and they check the enclosure and the gate as part of the process. Mr. Sielaff asked if staff still needs to review it. Mr. Hickok stated that Staff would still review it and make sure all stipulations are being met. Mr. Kuechle asked if the colors would match the existing structure exactly. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAGE 3 Mr. Hickok stated that is a standard stipulation used on other applications, and it may be that another color may be more suitable. The petitioner, Mr. Robert Viera, a US West Consultant, stated they do not have any problems with any stipulations and he has nothing to add. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, 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 WAS CLOSED AT 7:44 P.M. Mr. Saba stated that he does not have any problem with granting this request and does not have any problem with the specific location. Mr. Kuechle agreed. It is an excellent location being far away from residential areas and it is a good choice. Ms. Savage stated she agreed. Ms. Modig stated that she agrees also. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve Special Use Permit, SP #00-01, by US West Wireless LLC, to allow the construction of a 90-foot telecommunications tower, legally described as Lot 7 and 8, Block 3, East Ranch Estate Addition subject to easement, generally located at 7835 Main Street with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner or successors shall install and maintain the proposed equipment so that it blends into the surrounding environment. 2. A non-corrosive finish shall be used to match the color of the existing structure, City Staff to approve the color and design of the pole prior to installations. 3. The tower shall not be artificially illuminated except as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 4. All screening planting shall be installed in accordance with the landscape plan, dated February 3, 2000, submitted by US West. 5. The facility shall be designed to discourage unauthorized entry. 6. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of installation of any facility equipment on this site. 7. No signs other than warning or equipment information signs are permitted as part of this application. 8. Any future placement of antennae on the tower shall require review by the City to determine if the equipment location requires additional stipulations or a revised special use permit. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAGE 4 Ms. Savage stated this request would go to the City Council on March 20, 2000. Ms. Modig asked if there were any other approved sites on the list that have not been agreed to by the property owners. Mr. Hickok stated that it is the only site that staff is aware of. When staff was working with the telecommunications engineers, the location was really central to an area of need and had all of the characteristics that staff was looking for. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #99-02, by the City of Fridley, to allow for limited temporary outdoor display and sales promotions in the commercial districts. In addition, the amendment will delete a part of the ordinance that allows display of petroleum products between pumps and temporary display of inerchandise within four feet of the building at service stations. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:46 P.M. Ms. Daniels, Planner, stated that this proposed ordinance amendment is for temporary outdoor display and sales in the commercial districts, C-1, C-2, C-3, and CR-1. This came before the Planning Commission in November and they had two parts to this amendment. The first part is to create an ordinance that would allow temporary outdoor tent sales and promotions of that type. The second part of the ordinance is to streamline the ordinance for outdoor displays at service stations. The proposed temporary display ordinance is basically the same with a few changes and there are a series of options for display at service stations. Ms. Daniels stated what they are trying to accomplish with the ordinance for temporary outdoor display is to provide businesses with an opportunity to conduct special outdoor promotions and still maintain and enhance the image of Fridley. Currently the ordinance for outdoor displays opposed to outdoor storage is that it allows display between pumps at service stations and temporary displays within four feet of the station building. The ordinance for outdoor storage allows the special use permit for garden centers, and outdoor RV sales and unscreened exterior storage of materials and equipment are allowed. Ms. Daniels stated that staff is proposing an ordinance amendment that would allow up to three outdoor sales events per business per year in commercial districts and six for multi-tenant buildings; an administrative permit process for these events rather than Commission or Council action to streamline it; and a ten day timeframe for promotions with 20 days between each of them. This allows businesses to conduct sales events that currently are not permitted. Three events per year fall between the extremes of PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAGE 5 other cities of allowing or not allowing them at all or permitting them continuously. The proposed ordinance language can be found in C-1, C-2, C-3, and CR-1 reading as follows: USES PERMITTED A. Principle Uses B. Accessory Uses (5) Temporary Outdoor Display, Sales, or Promotion of Merchandise subject to the following conditions: a. The property owner shall obtain a Temporary Outdoor Display License from the City at least one week prior to starting the event. The property owner shall submit the information required on the license application. The City shall approve the license prior to commencement of the event. b. A temporary Outdoor Display License is required whether merchandise is sold for profit or given away as part of a promotion. c. Only items associated with the principal use may be displayed. d. Three events per year are permitted, and shall occur no closer than 20 days apart. e. Six events per year for multi-tenant developments are permitted, and shall occur no closer than 20 days apart. f. The duration of each event shall be no longer than 10 consecutive days. g. The merchandise shall be displayed in a manner that does not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic or otherwise cause unsafe traffic conditions. h. The merchandise shall not be displayed in the boulevard or on any landscaped area. i. If a tent is to be used, the property owner shall obtain a building permit and comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code related to tents. Fees for tents shall be as established by the Uniform Building Code. j. The property owner shall pay the fees as established in Chapter 11 of the City Code. k. Signage for temporary promotions must meet the temporary sign definition with the exception that they may be displayed only during the ten-day event. (214.02.36) 11.10 Fees License fee shall be as follows: CODE 205.30 SUBJECT Temporary Outdoor Display License FEE $75.00 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAGE 6 Ms. Daniels stated the changes made are: (1) six events per year for multi-tenant developments and (2) sign requirements, in that the temporary signs are allowable for each event and still must meet the definition for a temporary sign and only be up for ten days. The next part to be reviewed is for service stations only. They are proposing a deletion of language in C-1, C-2, and C-3: The display of petroleum products between pumps; or the temporary display of merchandise within four (4) feet of the station building is permitted. The City has come up with four options for a change in the current ordinance as follows: Option 1: Delete the provision in the above ordinance language permitting outdoor display of petroleum or other products associated with service stations. The advantage to this option is that enforcement is streamlined. The disadvantage is that it would take away the outdoor storage opportunity stations have under the current ordinance. Option 2: Delete the above language and add, "Merchandise offered for sale may be displayed outdoors provided the display area does not exceed a greater number of square feet than ten (10) percent of the ground floor area of the building housing the principle use. No storage of any type shall be permitted within the required front or side yard setback or parking area." The advantage is that it still allows service stations outdoor display, eliminates the unenforceable word temporary, and creates a defined amount of space to allow the displays. The disadvantage is the negative impacts to aesthetics. It is also difficult to measure and enforce a square foot amount of space. Option 3: Delete the word temporary from the current ordinance and delete the allowance for display between the pumps. The advantage is that it allows stations their current displays within four feet of the building and deletes the word temporary. The disadvantage is the negative impact to aesthetics. Option 4: Do not delete any current language. Leave the ordinance as is. The advantage is that it does not change the ordinance. The disadvantage is the negative impact to aesthetics. The word temporary is still unenforceable. Ms. Daniels stated that it is staff's recommendation to approve the first option of deleting the provision in the ordinance language that permits the outdoor display of petroleum or other products associated with service stations. They have talked with businesses a number of times and the main concerns that were raised were that permanent outdoor storage issues are not addressed with this proposed amendment. That is correct because this is not intended to address that issue. Their special use permit process addresses all permanent outdoor storage. This is a chance to have temporary displays and promotional sales. Ms. Savage asked if the service stations still have the option of applying for the temporary display no matter which option is selected and are still able to apply for a special use permit for permanent outdoor display. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 Ms. Daniels stated, yes. Mr. Sielaff asked if temporary was defined in the ordinance. PAGE 7 Ms. Daniels stated that temporary was not defined, It simply states: "temporary outdoor display" and usually the displays are a year long and there is no way to enforce it because it is not defined. Ms. Modig asked if they used option 3 and are talking about the temporary display within four feet of the building, is there a need to put in a height recommendation? Ms. Daniels stated that currently only the building code states the heights for the building. It has not been an issue and is not in the ordinance now, but is something they may want to consider. Mr. Saba asked if option 3 permits the sale of propane tanks out front. Ms. Daniels stated that would be allowed if that was approved. Ms. Modig stated they would have to have a special use permit for that. Ms. Daniels stated that is incorrect, and it is part of the outdoor display that is allowed. Mr. Sielaff asked if the $75.00 fee was for each event. Ms. Daniels stated that is correct. They would have to get a license for each one for staff to review their plans and where they would put everything. Mr. Kuechle asked if it was staff's preference for option 1 and, secondly, option 3. Ms. Daniels stated that is correct. Mr. Kuechle asked why staff did not prefer option 2 to option 3. Ms. Daniels stated that the options are close, but it is hard to tell what ten percent (10%) of the ground floor area of the building is so option 2 would be harder to enforce than option 3. Mr. Kuechle stated that option 2 would be more restrictive. Ms. Daniels stated that option 2 is more restrictive depending on the size of the building as to the size of outdoor display. Option 3 is favored over 2, because it does allow display within four feet of the station building usually on the sidewalk against the windows. Mr. Kuechle asked why option 2 does not just state four feet also. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAGE 8 Ms. Daniels stated that is the same as option 3, and they certainly could put that in option 2. Ms. Savage asked if there are other cities that are using ordinances similar to option 1. Ms. Daniels stated that most of the cities around Fridley do allow it, or the ordinance does not have anything in it that allows it, but it is not enforced. A lot of the cities close to Fridley have the ten percent (10%) area. Mr. Saba stated that he feels that because service stations do not have shopping carts, it is easier for people to pick up things like the salt right by the car. He feels option 3 is more descriptive. Mr. Kuechle asked if most service stations place their islands close enough together, does it seem necessary to allow storage between islands? Ms. Daniels stated that they would not cause hardship by removing that clause in the ordinance because most do not have room between the islands. That is from an era when someone was changing the oil while fueling the car. Ms. Savage asked if anyone from the public wanted to address this. Ms. Leigh Harris, President of the Chamber of Commerce, stated that the first part of the ordinance regarding the special events has been very well received by the retailers. She has talked with many of the service station businesses regarding eliminating the display option, and they say that would be a hardship to them. The businesses are also concerned about the aesthetics of their appearance and work hard to keep it nice. Mr. Kuechle asked if Ms. Harris had any views on the idea of cutting out the between the islands storage. Ms. Harris stated that she does not think they would have a problem with that because that is in reference to a different era. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:11 P.M. Ms. Savage stated that she does not like the appearance of the service stations with the outdoor displays. If Cub Foods cannot display the salt, why should service stations be allowed to? If they want to improve the image of Fridley, then they need to be more restrictive. This ordinance is not saying that service stations can never have any outdoor displays, it can be allowed under the first part of the ordinance or the special use permit. She would be in favor of option 1. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAGE 9 Ms. Modig stated that it is part of their business, and people do not have the advantage of taking a cart like Cub to pick up the items and bring to the car. She would be in favor of option 3 and including "no storage of any type shall be permitted within the required front or side yard setback or parking area." One of the things she questions about that statement is that they are saying "storage" again and this is addressing displaying. They may need to change "storage" to "display" to clarify for businesses. This ordinance is not relating to storage, it is relating to displays and temporary displays. Mr. Hickok stated he does not think that it is overstating the fact that the ordinance includes the word "storage". There are situations where pallets of salt may be off- loaded from a truck and may sit for a short time in a location as storage. Mr. Saba stated that service stations in general are an outdoor business. The main product they sell is outside and there are certain products that should be placed outside. Ms. Savage stated she understands that, but feels there is a balancing that has to be used between the needs of the merchant and the aesthetics of the City. Mr. Kuechle stated that he agrees and he would opt to allow storage in the four feet and would not allow storage within the front or side yard setbacks and would not allow storage between pumps. He agrees with Mr. Saba that service stations are outdoor businesses with a lot of movement and cars, and they could look at what is more unattractive between the salt outside or the grocery carts that are always left outside. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend approval of the Zoning Text Amendment #99-02, 205.13 C-1 Local Business District Regulations. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend approval of option 3 to delete the word "temporary" from the current ordinance, delete the allowance for display between the pumps and add "no storage of any type shall be permitted within the required front or side yard setback or parking area". UPON A VOICE VOTE, COMMISSIONERS MODIG, KUECHLE, SIELAFF, AND SABA VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED 4- 1. 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 7, 2000, PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIONENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the February 7, 2000, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAGE 10 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 9, 2000, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the February 9, 2000, Appeals Commission meeting minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 3, 2000, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the February 3, 2000, Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS 6. Discussion on the Storm Water and Critical Area Chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that so far in the Comprehensive Plan they have seen the synopsis of the community vision, the plan overview, the land use chapter, the housing chapter, the parks and open space chapter, the transportation chapter, the sewer chapter, and the water supply chapter. There are a lot of State laws and regulations that communities have to meet when they are preparing the plans. The surface water plan is required to meet the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act and the State identifies the types of information that should be in that plan. The critical area element was established under the Critical Areas Act of 1973. The critical area is a natural resource that is very important to the State. In 1976, the State said that the Mississippi and the entire length of it is a critical area. The State requires communities along the river to adopt zoning ordinances to protect certain features along the river. They have to keep in mind that there is a regional authority over the City of Fridley called the Watershed Management District. Ms. Dacy stated that the surface water management chapter states the goal statements about how the City tries to manage the runoff. There are a system of ponds, storm sewers, and how the water is treated. They want to ensure the water quality is high before it runs off. The issues of flooding are of importance. They want to protect the wetland resources that the City has left. They want to control erosion and the impacts of sedimentation. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAGE 11 Ms. Dacy stated that the Critical Area plan focuses on the east bank of the Mississippi River and west of the River Road. The intent is to keep an eye on the land uses within the corridor and increase the connections to and within that area. There are nice parks along the river, and they are trying to encourage bikeways to the river. They want to keep an eye on and preserve the natural resources along the river. The plan has spent a lot of time on the wetland health, the rate of the water going through the nature center, the quantity of the water, and the quality of the water and the impact to the Nature Center. Ms. Dacy stated the plan speaks of monitoring the same types of issues along Rice Creek. The City is in Phase 1 of a Clean Water Partnership Grant from the State. There has been a lot of testing going on about the quantity of the water that is going through the Springbrook Nature Center, the quality of the water, and analysis of the wetland health. Staff has coordinated the hiring of a consultant that is now looking at the data and they will receive a final report in May. The Public Works Department has a very proactive capital improvement program. They have completed a lot of projects throughout the City. The City did adopt the ordinances that the Metropolitan Council and the DNR had asked all communities in the Metropolitan area to adopt such as erosion control and a variety of storm management requirements to appropriately treat water runoff for new developments. The Metropolitan Council staff will review the Critical Area plan and they will probably have to amend that zoning district ordinance. Ms. Dacy stated that staff is offering this for review and comments on the chapters and then they will send the plan out to Rice Creek and the Six Cities Watershed District. The Environmental Quality & Energy Commission will be discussing this on March 21. A public hearing for the entire plan will be on April 5. This will be available at the library; and if anyone is interested, they can call the Community Development Department. Jon Haukaas, the Assistant Public Works Director is available for any questions this evening. Ms. Savage asked if the parks by the river were being maintained by Anoka County or Fridley. Ms. Dacy stated that the parks south of I-694 are being maintained by Anoka County, Riverview Heights Park and Manomin Park are maintained by the City, and the Islands of Peace Park is maintained by the County. Ms. Savage stated that the bike path is not in very good condition along the river, and she does not feel that the park area is very well maintained along the river. She would be in favor of enhancing the riverbanks somehow. The Girl Scout Camp building could possibly be made into upscale apartments or put in restaurants or cafes. The Rice Creek bank stabilization project has made an enormous difference with the flooding problems. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAGE 12 Mr. Kuechle asked if there was any data whether or not there was more run-off into the river. Mr. Haukaas stated they do not have any regional data like that. Mr. Saba stated that there is some data from the Nature Center that is being conducted pertaining to the water runoff. He feels it is an education aspect collecting the data to learn about the effects of water runoff into the Mississippi River, and it would be nice to put an educational report together regarding the watershed. Mr. Haukaas stated that the up and coming Phase 2 Storm Water compliance regulations will affect cities Fridley's size. That has education and public involvement into the storm water plans. Siah St. Clair, the City Naturalist, will add some storm water education components to some of the programs. Fridley will be developing more programs over the next year involving television cable station and handouts in the newsletters. Another component is to stencil on all of the catch basins "no dumping, drains to river" for a very visual notice for people. Mr. Kuechle stated that there seems to be a lot of wellhead testing activity in the parks. Mr. Haukaas stated that is primarily based around the Commons Park due to the ordinance plan that TCE has been detected. That is an on-going study being done with the Department of Health. Fridley has four wells that some contamination has been detected. The worst one, #9, is not being used at all. It is pumped twice per year and is being tested but not put into distribution. The other three are only used during summer peak demand periods and used one at a time so no significant amounts are taken from the wells. It is tested by the City of Fridley and by the County on a quarterly basis. They have not violated the Clean Water Act standards in any instance. Ms. Dacy stated that she is not aware of the location he is speaking of. Mr. Kuechle stated that it is the park just south of I-694. Mr. Haukaas stated that it is associated with the N. I. R.O. P. Navy plant there to test groundwater to determine if they have made any impact to the groundwater as a result of that plant being there. That has been completed and no problem has been found. They treat the water on site and the treated water is pumped to the river. Mr. Sielaff asked if the local surface water management pertained to local water management plan including groundwater. Ms. Dacy stated that when Anoka County is done with the plan, the City will have to address wellhead issues. The plan tonight is for surface water referring to the wellhead issues and the water supply chapter has been reviewed previously. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAGE 13 Mr. Sielaff asked if they have to separate surface water from ground water for separate documents. Ms. Dacy stated that was correct due to state regulations and the Department of Health. Mr. Sielaff stated that there has been improvement in the Rice Creek water, and there should be data included from the Medtronic project water runoff. There should be data from various wells including the N.I.R.O.P. site for the groundwater quality monitoring and evaluation on a routine basis. Wellhead protection should be a program in itself with data collection. Is the Groundwater Management Plan the wellhead protection plan as listed in the introduction? Ms. Dacy stated that is correct. Ms. Modig asked for more information about what is going on at Springbrook Nature Center. Ms. Dacy stated that in 1996 the City received funds to complete the grant program called the Phase 1 Analysis to take samples of the water going through the nature center, the rate at which it goes through, the volume and take inventory of the vegetation and species. The City has hired an intern who has gone out and done some testing and they are working with other communities. Julie Jones of the City of Fridley staff is working with Coon Rapids, Blaine, and Spring Lake Park to obtain information. The data will now be analyzed by a technical consultant and hopefully they can make recommendations as to ways the City can make sure that the degradation occurring will not get any worse and try to restore some of the loss and that will require partnership with the upstream communities. They hope the final report will be available in June of this year. The State does offer a Phase 2 grant application for funds to implement recommendations of a study. Metropolitan Council has established more grants for these types of issues. Ms. Modig asked if it deals with the runoff of the stream that goes from Wal-Mart's parking lot into Springbrook Nature Center. Ms. Dacy stated that prior to Wal-Mart developing, there was a creek and they had to install a pipe underneath their parking lot. Wal-Mart created ponding in compliance with the current standards before they discharged their runoff to meet the current standards. Ms. Modig asked if some of the runoff is coming from upstream. Ms. Dacy stated that is correct. Mr. Sielaff asked if the Locke Lake problem was taken care of. How will they decide if there is going to be another problem with sediment? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAGE 14 Mr. Haukaas stated that there is intermittent monitoring and checking of depths by the DNR in Locke Lake. He imagines that sometime in the future they will have to do another project like that with the river. The City is not doing the monitoring, the watershed districts themselves are involved in the monitoring. Mr. Sielaff asked if there is something that is being done continuously to prevent more erosion. More erosion will result in greater sedimentation. Mr. Haukaas stated that Rice Creek Bank Stabilization Phase 1 is a prime example of that protection, and they are looking at Phase 2 right now. Upstream of that is increased storm water regulations statewide. As communities develop, these issues are looked. Mr. Sielaff stated that they are not sure what is going to happen out there or when. Mr. Haukaas stated that is correct. Ms. Dacy stated that the last chapter is the implementation section, and, hopefully, it will be presented on March 15 or at the public hearing in April. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MARCH 1, 2000, PLANNING COMMISSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Signe L. Johnson Recording Secretary