Loading...
PL 06/15/2011 - 30025PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 15, 2011 Chairperson Kondrick called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Approval of Minutes: Leroy Oquist, David Kondrick, Brad Dunham, and Brad Sielaff Dean Saba, Jack Velin, and Tim Solberg Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Jack Kirk, Parks and Recreation Director May 18, 2011 MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Dunham. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. Consideration of a Text Amendment to Chapter 510, Tree Preservation, Which Pertains to Removal of Living Trees on City-Owned Land. Jack Kirk, Parks and Recreation Director, stated the City has had the ordinance for close to 40 years. It was passed in the 1970's to protect trees on City-owned land from destruction or injury. It was enacted during a time when there was some controversy over the preferred use of a large tract of land on the City's northern boundary. That tract of land was known at the time as"North Park." The "use" question was whether it should be used as a golf course or a nature center. Ultimately it went to a vote of the citizens of the community and was voted on to be a nature center, known today as Springbrook Nature Center. Mr. Kirk stated he was not here when that was enacted 40 years ago, but some of the individuals who were here said it is possible this had a connection to prevent golf course fairways to be cut into the nature center. This ordinance was put into place as being very restrictive. Mr. Kirk stated as it sits right now, the ordinance basically prevents you from taking down trees on City-owned land with a few exceptions. One, is if there is tree disease (specifically Oak Wilt and Dutch Elm diseases). It talks about if you wanted to manage the woodland, you could take down trees but are limited to three trees per acre per year. That is only if you come in with a management plan. That plan would then need to be approved by the Parks and Recreation Department (in the existing ordinance it is called a"subcommittee" now a commission), the Planning Commission, and the City Council. The third exception is for utility construction with a proper reforestation plan accompanying it. Mr. Kirk stated most people on the commissions who have dealt with this are in favor with preserving trees whenever possible; however, the existing ordinance is very restrictive. Good projects that might come forth or changes in plans for paxks, etc. are significantly limited by this ordinance. For the past several years there has been a lot of talk about some improvements to the Springbrook Nature Center seven-acre entrance area. That project has been called the "SPRING"; and it involves putting in some outdoor classrooms, possibly a larger interpretive building, a larger picnic shelter, a berm along 85`h, trying to concentrate a lot on the heavy traffic at Springbrook Nature Center in an organized fashion in that entrance area. The existing ordinance, as it is today, would really prevent a lot of that project from happening or it would potentially take many years if you are restricted to "X" number of trees per year. Mr. Kirk stated staff is looking at other possible City projects that might come forth regarding City-owned land, which could be negatively impacted by this. Staff has recommended several changes. One of the changes is listing other tree diseases and even pest infestation because of dealing with the Emerald Ash Borer. Staff is recommending taking out the number of trees per acre per year. Basically it would still say you can remove trees for woodland management or City-approved projects. He recommends it be left that it be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, and the City Council. Those three bodies would review and approve any plans that would involve taking down trees. Mr. Kirk stated the Parks and Recreation Commission addressed this on May 23 and did approve the recommended changes. Commissioner Sielaff asked what does Chapter 104 say regarding where it states in here "where other tree disease and pest infestation as provided in Chapter 104." Mr. Kirk replied, he believed that primarily points out Oak Wilt and Dutch Elm, but it does give you the ability to cut trees or remove them in the case of disease. Commissioner Sielaff asked, would they want some general language in there that would cover Ash Borer or some other diseases? Mr. Kirk replied, he does not have the ordinance in front of him. He would be guessing if he knew what the exact language would be. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated it is as general as to a11ow other diseases. It was recommended through this process it be opened up to other diseases because that section of the Code is very specific to what was known at the time. Now there aze other diseases now just as prevalent. This would modify that reference and open it up to those other diseases. Commissioner Sielaff stated he was wondering if there was something in Chapter 104 that was general language or if the language proposed here is general enough to cover everything. Mr. Kirk replied he thinks what they are stating here is open-ended enough where it covers all tree diseases or pest infestation problems that could affect the trees on public land. He believed 2 the other ordinance even talked about private land when it came to tree diseases. This particular ordinance will strictly deal with City-owned land. Chairperson Kondrick stated one of the benefits is if there is any City land that needs some tree management that the management of those trees being considered to be cut down, must go through the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. There are checks and balances here which are very important to protect the City and its citizens. Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Hickok to read the proposed City ordinance § 510.01. Mr. Hickok read the section and stated if the Commission approves this it �will go on the Council's agenda on June 27 for first reading. Chairperson Kondrick stated they are talking about possibly putting a berm up on 85�' Avenue running east to west which would be a nice sound barrier for those folks in the park. For example, say there were 40 trees that had to be cut down because of the berm. Will they have to plant 40 trees elsewhere in the park if those are cut down? Mr. Kirk replied there is not a substitution on the number of trees, even a match 1 to 1. He thinks that is where the plan presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council comes into play. It could be they take down 20 and put up as part of the overall plan 30 to 40 but in different locations. In terms of that berm, trees would need to come down to construct the berm; but the whole idea would be then to reinforce the berm and help create the screen on 85�'. The plan was left open so you were not tied into necessarily a 1 for 1. Commissioner Sielaff stated it says the Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council all have to approve it. Theoretically, you could have one of them not approve it. Mr. Kirk stated that is the way it has always been. It has to be approved by all three boards. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist Consideration of a Text Amendment to Chapter 510, Tree Preservation, Which Pertains to Removal of Living Trees on City-Owned Land. Seconded by Commissioner Dunham. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. Receive the Minutes of the May 9, 2011, Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3 OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Verbal Report on Current Status of East River Road Corridor Project by Scott Hickok, Community Development Director. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated a study was conducted in coordination with Anoka County and the City of Coon Rapids on this segment which is six miles and goes from 694 to 610. 'The purpose of the study is to provide for a long-time livability, redevelopment and transportation improvement plan along what they call CSAH� (County State Aid Highway 1). The project was meant to review land uses, pedestrian/bicycle connectivity, access to mass transit, traffic and transit needs, access management, frontage or backage road needs, safety connectivity to the major roadways in the area, and to review the environmental documentation needs of this roadway as improvements would be necessary. Mr. Hickok stated it means the County took a very proactive role in bringing together the discussion about their highway needs between now and the year 2030 with the City's Comprehensive Plan needs. Like our Comprehensive Plan, the County highway department had a comprehensive plan for their roadway. Before they go into plan mode and actually create a plan of how they would manage traffic between now and 2030, they wanted to get together with the City of �ridley which is the majority of the roadway in the six-mile stretch, but also City of Coon Rapids where they have a short segment south of 610. They wanted to coordinate, hear the needs of the people in this area, and understand exactly what the cities' interests are from a land use perspective before they move on with a roadway design. T'he project will also develop and evaluate options for corridor landscaping and streetscaping. Mr. Hickok stated through this process the future long-range conidor vision will be developed. A future land use map, a future corridor concept to include roadway geometrics, transit service and facilities, access locations, trail and traffic signal locations, and streetscaping and landscaping. Streetscaping and landscaping have not necessarily been part of the County corridor design. It has been a lot about the utility of moving traffic, and not as much about the aesthetics, the landscape and streetscape piece of it. Mr. Hickok stated there has been emphasis on long-range planning. The funding is not currently available for the improvements on the roadway, but having a plan allows the City and the County to be one step closer when funding becomes available, and they have a plan then that is done they can match funding to. The County provided the funding for the majority of the cost of this study, while the City dedicated a portion of its Statewide Health Improvement Plan (SHIP) fund dollars to help with the cost of this study and ensure walking and biking would be considered. Mr. Hickok stated in looking at the aerial view of the corridor he finds it intriguing how closely it matches the shape of the river. It has been a very historic path for the City of Fridley, going back to the time it was an ox cart road where it would take you from the central City of Minneapolis, into the country, and eventually to North Dakota. It also, at one point in history, had passenger rail that put a rail station at about Mississippi Street. This area was really 4 important to the early development of the City of Fridley. Through this corridor study that history has not been forgotten and really as they get closer to a final design, there will likely be details that will be integrated into the design pointing back to that history and maybe identify historic elements about the roadway as well. Mr. Hickok stated there were public meetings that were held at the Community Center relative to this study on September 16, 2010, and September 21, 2010. There was an updated meeting given on March 3, 2011 (two on that day). They heard from the citizens through the course of those public input meetings things such as keep the road the way it is, do not widen the roadway, do not incorporate sound walls, they wanted a parkway feel, get rid of some of the metal signs that exist, there were questions about the caps in the roadway which vibrate when trucks passed over them, biking and walking opportunities, more than one voice wanted to avoid creating u- turns to get into neighborhoods, City continue to catch speeders, move truck traffic to other roadways if they could, to make speed limits consistent throughout, improve lighting, improve landscaping, maintain the medians better, and there were pretty stern comments about do not widen the roadway and keep it the way it is. Mr. Hickok stated the voices of those people really were carried on through the course of the design as it moved into how would you manage it and design the future roadway. What the study has determined to date is there are ways to move the anticipated traffic without widening the roadway. Very good news came about midway during the study which was widening the roadway would not be necessary provided some other improvements could be made within the existing corridor, from curb to curb it could stay where it is but medians, for example, may need to be modified in order to make this work. Mr. Hickok stated there are opportunities to enhance the corridor and create more of a parkway feel though that has been determined through the course of this study. There are improvements that can be made to improve the medians and eliminate a number of the metal signs. Part of that is median breaks. There are 22 more median breaks in this six-mile stretch than there would be in a typical six-mile stretch in this County or other counties. That means there are a lot of opportunities for cross traffic and from a highway design perspective that is not always good and slows down the traffic and can also create a dangerous movement. Mr. Hickok stated there are also opportunities to improve the overall aesthetic in the corridor and to tie in elements that reflect the road's proximity ta the river, its history, its environment, and the arts. Mr. Hickok stated this is meant to be a 15 to 18-month program and they are moving into the final leg of the program, but there are still some opportunities for public input and meetings for people who would like to attend. The next meeting with the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) is June 21. At that meeting three corridor improvement options will be revealed to that Committee which is made up of County Commissioners, councilmembers Barnette and Bolkcom, and staff (technical advisory committee) who attend as well. After that meeting on June 27 the City Council will have a conference session. They will take a look at the three options. 5 Mr. Hickok stated meetings with the neighborhoods potentially impacted by changes in one of those three plans or all three will happen between June 28 and end of July. It is quite likely if you are in a neighborhood along East River Road that you will have some opportunity to have a neighborhood meeting to talk about possible changes with the intersections, medians, etc. A public meeting will likely happen in August. Mr. Hickok stated they would then bring back the comments they have heard and the consensus really of those groups who have looked at the three plans. That meeting will be back at the Community Center for another opportunity for the large groups to take a look. The final plan will then be based on all of the input. The consultant would prepare a final recommendation based on community input. The technical advisory committee would review the final draft in late August, early September. The PAC then would review it at that time. The Planning Commission would review the final draft some time after. It will likely go to the City Council in September or a bit later. The original target was to have a final draft document ready in September/early October. Mr. Hickok stated it has been a very successful study right now. It really has attempted to tie in bikeway, walkway access and, our land use needs. Also the future extension of 57�' Avenue which they might recall was mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan and which has been given a lot of evaluation through the course of this. Frankly, the County is very enthusiastic about the extension of 57�' Avenue which would really open up some new opportunity, not only for the land uses along East River Road on that southern end but also open up some opportunities to change traffic patterns, take some traffic off of Mississippi and the segment between there and where the new 57�' Avenue extension would happen and really provide for a much more healthier, probably typical movement of traffic in an area right now which has very limited opportunity for east-west connections. AD,IOURN MOTION by Commissioner Oquist adjourning the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:36 P.M. Respectfully submitted, c�-�� M , �/�' Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary G� - CITY OF FRIDLEY S1GN-IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING �T-�e Is, ao�� Name Address/Business