Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-22-1988 PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting June 22 , 1988 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Hwy. 10 , Mounds View, MN 55112 The Mounds View Planning Commission was called 1. Call to to order by Chairman Mountin at 7 :31 PM on Wednesday, Order June 22 , 1988 . MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Burgers , Saunders, 2. Roll Call Zollner, Miller and Chairman Mountin. It was noted that Commissioners Peters and Simons had excused absences. ALSO PRESENT: City Planner Herman and Councilmember Wuori. Motion/Second: Burgers/Zollner to approve the May 4 , 3 . Approval of 1988 regular meeting minutes and the May 18 , 1988 Minutes : special meeting minutes as presented. May 4 , 1988 and May 18 , 1988 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried There were no residents requests or comments from 4 . Residents the floor. Requests and Comments from the Floor Peter Sabee, of Barr Engineering, reviewed their 5 . Consideration correspondence of June 17 to the City Council and of Resolution Planning Commission, clarifying issues previously No. 229-88 brought up in the discussion of the proposed Green- Regarding field Estates development. Greenfield Estates Preli- Mr. Sabee reported that in addrssing the May 31, minary Plat 1988 letter from the developer regarding requirements for lot size, lot width, setbacks and so forth for developments within the wetland zone, they reviewed three different ordinances, from the City of Chanhassen, the State Shoreland and Floodplain Management Regula- tions and Nine Mile Bluff Creek Regulations, and found Sthem to be similarly restrictive with those of Mounds View, and he reviewed the various requirements. Mounds View Planning Commission June 22, 1988 Special Meeting Page Two 111 John Borovsky, of Barr Engineering, explained that they had responded as they thought appropriate to the developer ' s letter, but he realistically feels that passing judgment on this issue should be with the Planning Commission, City Council and legal counsel, as it relates not so much to technical issues as it does to community standards. Mr. Sabee reviewed the letter regarding the phosphorus stripping capacity, which interprets the intent of the ordinance to protect the potential of the wetland function, and he reviewed that interpretation. He explained there are no wetlands that can completely strip phosphorus from the water, and due to the time storm water spends in a typical wetland, there is not enough time to remove the phosphorus. He added they must also consider the intent of the ordinance, that development should have no impact on the wetland phosphorus stripping capacity as compared to the existing conditions of the wetland. Mr . Sabee recommended the Planning Commission consider a change in the standard that would result in a standard that states that whatever development or • alteration there is, it could not result in a decrease in the phosphorus stripping capacity, that it can only be maintained or improved. Mr. Sabee stated that in addressing the Planning Commission ' s concern about an average storm versus a critical storm, the Walker Method is an alternative that could be used for an average event, and he would recommend some modification of the Walker Method or another method be considered for critical storm events. He added that they have looked at this issue from a technical viewpoint and did not look at it as Mr. Borovsky added that with a particular development, when phosphorus stripping is a big hurdle, they should look at other methods for analyzing phosphorus stripping. Mr. Sabee cautioned that their letter dealt solely with considering the method and the attributes of such, and does not apply to how the method is applied to this development. Jim Merila, of Merila & Associates, questioned whether the representatives of Barr Engineering felt the developer ' s proposal strips phosphorus better than the • existing wetland using the Walker Model. Mr. Sabee replied using a different model than that required by the Code was dependent upon approval of the Planning Commission and Council , and they do not Mounds View Planning Commission June 22, 1988 Special Meeting Page Three • have an option to use that as a measure for a proposed development. He added that the questions of how it would calculate to a critical storm event needs to be evaluated. He also stated the Planning Commission needs to address what method would be used and how the standard would be applied. Mr . Merila stated the existing method does not provide an adequate manner of calculating phosphorus stripping, and a better method is needed. Kay Weseman, no address given, asked if there was another approach to improving phosphorus stripping in a wetland. Mr. Borovsky stated he would be surprised if state of the art phosphorus calculations didn' t show the proposed development would result in improved phosphorus stripping capacity. He added that while that gives an indication of the direction the development would proceed, it does not provide a test of whether it would be good enough or not. He stated the language in the ordinance now is what the test would be. • City Planner Herman stated they are trying to help the City Council decide what direction they want to go, and the issue is both how to get the end result, what model to use as well as the end result itself. Mr. Sabee expressed concern with the total picture and its implications, stating they need a standard that will look at all cases and protect the intent of the ordinance in all cases without necessarily approving the development. Mr. Merila stated he feels there is a better technical method of calculating phosphorus than what is currently being judged, and if Barr has another method, they have no problem complying with that versus the Walker Method. Mr. Merila reviewed his letter of June 22, in response to the June 17 letter from Barr Engineering. City Planner Herman reviewed proposed Resolution No. 229-88 with the Planning Commission. She stated that regardless of whether the development is approved, she would recommend the Coucnil address the proposed change to the wetland boundaries and bring the wetland map current . • There was discussion among the Commissioners regarding setting standards for phosphorus stripping. City Planner Herman read from portions of the ordinance and questioned whether the Planning Commission was already setting standards, and she advised recommending to the Council that they look at the standard rather than giving a definitive recommendation. Mounds View Planning Commission June 22 , 1988 Special Meeting Page Four 0 Mr. Borovsky suggested an addition to the proposed resolution stating that with a wetland, there would be no net decrease in phosphorus stripping capacity, for a fully developed watershed and in comparison to predevelopment conditions in the wetland, and they should not reduce the phosphorus stripping capacity of the existing conditions from the watershed phosphorus loading. Chairman Mountin recommended they advise the City Council that critical storm analysis needs to be done to establish flow rates and a data base for this and future developments . Motion/Second: Mountin/Zollner to recommend to the Council that a priority be given to establishing flow rates on a city-wide basis that affect wetlands, in order to establish a data base on which future calculations can be made . 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Chairman Mountin noted the information requested of the developer regarding Chapter 48 .06 Subd. 4 (3) was received earlier in the day and there was not sufficient time to consider it before the meeting. 410 She added that due to time constraints, they cannot table action on this request to wait for further information and must take action now. There was discussion on whether any additional lots would have been gained if the original upland had been used for four lots, and it was determined there would have been no gain. Mr. Merila stated it was more expensive to develop with the setup of the proposed plat, than what they had originally requested. Chairman Mountin clarified that the City did not create a land-locked parcel for Mr. Harstad. The setback issue of 100 ' for th:o buffer was discussed, and th:o Commissioners agreed it should be discussed lot by lot. City Planner Herman reported that Barr had done some work and they feel that by moving fill around, the 100 ' buffer requirement could be met. Mr. Sabee explained it would involve redistribution of where the fill is placed and the wetland created. He added there are many different configurations, which • may require giving up a lot, butwould not require other variances, although it would still require an alteration permit. Mounds View Planning Commission June 22, 1988 Special Meeting Page Five Mr. Borovsky clarified that Barr Engineering was not directed by the City Council or Planning Commission to figure out how to configure the development to meet the Code, and that should be done by the developer. Chairman Mountin recommended adding another whereas to the resolution, that the variance to the 100 ' set- back should not be viewed as a blanket variance and may in fact be changed by a redesign of the wetland alteration. Savri Ayaz, no address given, stated he feels the variances should be specific, not general. Chairman Mountin explained this would be an open door so that if reasonable alternatives are available, they will be looked at, and she added there may be a reasonable alternative here. Mr. Merila stated he feels precedent was set with Planning Commission Resolution No. 93-83 , for Dynamic Designers , as a variance was granted due to a hardship with many similarities to their proposed development. He added Edgewood Square was approved with 90 ' lots, and they are considered to be part of the wetland area. He added the big issues are lot size and width, and he illquestioned. if there was a real need for the standards set for development of the wetlands . Chairman Mountin replied the variance to build in the 100 ' buffer is a moot point if the preliminary plat is not approved. She explained that without the variances for Dynamic Designers, which was One lot, it was just not buildable. She stated she was not certain what the circumstances were for the Eigen- heer property, but if an error was made, that does not mean it should be repeated. Chairman Mountin reiterated that due to time constraints, the Planning Commission must work with what is before them, and as there is no request from the developer to table this to allow time for. the Planning Commission to review the information received earlier today, action must be taken now. Motion/Second: Zollner/Miller to adopt Resolution No. 229-88 , a resolution of recommendation to the City Council regarding the Harstad Development Proposal known as Greenfield Estates. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried IIICity Planner. Herman reported the itemwould be on the July 5 agenda of the Council, and the applicant would be notified. Mounds View Planning Commission June 22, 1988 Special Meeting Page Six 0 City Planner Hermanreported she had spoken to the 6. Consideration City Engineer, who verified that a 16" . variance is of Resolution needed for the northern 12 ' of the driveway. No. 227-88 Regarding Motion/Second: Miller/Saunders to adopt Resolution Variance Request No. 227-88 , approving the. variance request by Tom by Tom Deuser, Deuser, 2097 Pinewood Drive, Planning Case No. 2097 Pinewood 242-88 . Drive 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried It was noted there was no one present to represent 7 . Consideration the applicant, of Resolution No. 228-88 City Planner Herman reported the applicant had been Regarding Minor in earlier in the day and paid the fees, but it was Subdivision discovered she had made an error in the original Request by submission and the figures submitted should be W.E. Rosenquist, checked for accuracy. 8380 Spring Lake Road Chairman Mountin suggested approving the request contingent upon easements documents being received and verification of the calculations. • There was a question of whether Mrs . Bonen has power of attorney for the property owners, her parents, but it was agreed the only time proof of ownership is needed is at the time of recording. Motion/Second: Burgers/Miller. to adopt Resolution No. 228-88 , recommending approval of a minor subdi- vision at 8380 Spring Lake Road, Mounds View Planning Case No. 245-88 . 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried City Planner Herman advised the Commissioners of 8. Report of upcoming items for their next meeting. In discussing Staff the schedule of the Planning Commission, Chairman Mountin advised a calendar must be set for 1988 , if it was not already done. It was agreed to have the recently received subdivision request placed on the July 6 agenda, for discussion and possible action at that time. The Planning Commission will get back into a mode of holding their regular meeting on the first Wednesday of the month, with an agenda session the third Wednesday of the month, at which time they will call to order if necessary. 411 The Commissioners asked that Staff look into the sale which is set up across from Pinewood School. Mounds View Planning Commission June 22, 1988 Special Meeting Page Seven 411 The attendees at the June 15 agenda session were 9. Chairman' s Commissioners Miller, Zollner, Burgers and Chairman Report Mountin, and City Planner Herman and. Councilmember Wuori. Chairman Mountin asked that the minutes of the public meeting of June 15 be attached to the minutes of the June 22 meeting. Chairman Mountin adjourned the meeting at 10 : 15 PM. 10. Adjournment Respectfully submitted, /e/ - Kim Herman City Planner • 411 ATTACHMENT TO JUNE 22, 1988 , MINUTES PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Public Meeting June 15, 1988 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 Chairman Mountin opened the meeting at 7: 30 PM on 1. Presentation Wednesday, June 15, 1988, explaining that it was not and Discussion: a regular or special meeting, but rather a public Greenfield meeting to gather information and hear those concerned Estates Pre- with the proposed development. She explained the liminary Plat Planning Commission would not be calling to order or taking any action this evening, and she outlined the guidelines to be followed, with dialogue to flow to and from the Planning Commission, and questions posed to the Commission, who would then ask them of the developer, and so forth. Tne Commissioners present were Commissioners Miller, Zoliner, burgers and Chairman Mountin, with City Planner Herman rep- resenting Staff and Councilmember Wuori representing Council. City Planner Herman explained there would be a brief presen- tation by Harstad Co. , and then Barr Engineering, mho was hired by the City and paid for by Harstad Co. , would answer questions and respond to the comments made. Jim Merila, of Merila & Associates, Inc. , introduced himself and Steve Thatcher, then made a presentation showing several different drawings of the proposal, including two colored renderings showing the original and the new plan, with the road no longer going all the way through. He explained it had been eliminated primarily to have the wetland contiguous on both sides of Edgewood. He added the revised plan has been a.•roved b the Arm Cor._ . se ' . -- wie ' .— _ . prised of 17 lots total. Mr. Merila showed where the existing wetland and buffer are, per the City map, and the wetland district line as determined by the Corps of Engineers, which differs. He stated that regardless of whether this development is done, the City ' s wetland map needs to be updated to show the determination made by the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Merila stated they are proposing to fill 1 . 6 acres of wetland, and to compensate for that, they will excavate an equal area. He pointed out that presently the 100 ' buffer line goes through two fully developed lots, and the current *zoning map shows five lots within the current buffer strip. Mr. Merila stated that with the new deliniation, three additional lots will be buildable that currently are not without a variance. With some modification, they can get four additional lots outside the 100 ' buffer strip, which Mounds View Planning Commission June 15, 1988 Public Meeting Page Two • he feels would be acceptable with the Corps of Engineers. It would require excavation of approximately 10 ' near the inlet to the wetland which would be moved to the south. Mr. Merila showed the plan that was originally proposed in 1981, which was for 24 lots. He explained the appli- cation was submitted three days before the moritorium was created, thus tabling the proposal . Edgewood Square was being developed at that time and Mr . Harstad asked for access to the southern corner of his lots at that time, and when it was not given, four to five lots were cut off and land locked. Mr. Merila stated they are now looking for an amendment to have the wetland boundaries modified to their correct location, then a wetland alteration permit for 1 .6 acres, as well as a variance for building within 100 ' setback, and a variance from the 20, 000 square foot lot size require- ment and variance from the 125 foot lot width. Mr . Merila stated that in a survey they did of 45 metro communities, 80 percent do not have a wetland ordinance, and of those that do, only two besides Mounds View have a minimum lot size, both of which are 16, 000 square feet. 0 He added only Mounds View has a minimum lot width in the wetland that is greater than the rest of the City, as well as greater setback requirements . He added the Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over any development within a wetland, - and he feels their interpretation would be merit for modification of the City' s wetland ordinance. Mr . Merila explained the process they plan for phosphorus removal, with the use of sedimentation ponds. The method they suggest for analizing phosphorus stripping is the method currently being used by the St. Paul Water Works. Planner Herman presented a list of the issues that have been raised, and called upon the representatives from Barr Engineer- ing to give their responses. She added they had read the memo sent to the Planning Commission and felt comfortable with the technical assumptions made in it. John Borovsky, of Barr Engineering, discussed the phosphorus removal options available and explained the difference between dry and wet wetlands. He explained the developer could meet the requirements of the ordinance by methods that could be contrary to the intent of the ordinance, the Planning Commis- sion and City Council . He stated he is concerned at this time with recommending the Walker method due to possibly setting a 411precedent in the community. He added that the principles involved in the Walker method are consistent with what they believe the City should consider, and he explained the assump- tions involved. He advised the City Attorney address the issue of precedence that may be set , and if it could be worked out, this type of approach would be acceptable. Mounds View Planning Commission June 15 , 1988 Public Meeting Page Three • Peter Sabee, of Barr Engineering, stated that if the intent of the ordinance is to protect the wetland, the amount of stripping is not the key item to be concen- trated on, but rather the existing conditions versus proposed conditions. Mr. Borovsky advised there are two decisions to be made, one being the appropriateness of the procedure, and secondly, the parameters the Planning Commission or City Council determines would be appropriate with the ordinance. City Planner Herman stated Barr is putting their report in writing and it will be given to the Planning Commission prior to their next regular meeting. She also clarified the issue of the temporary injunction Mr. Harstad had sought with the development of Edgewood. Square. Mr. Harstad' s opinion was that he should not have to provide access to his lots, and it should be the City' s role to do so, and because it was not done, he is now claiming a hard- ship. Jim Sandidge , 7817 Bona Road, questioned how much property Mr. Harstad had purchased originally, as he has developed several homes in the area already and it is possible that he could have land-locked himself. He added he felt it Illwas important the City find out. Mr. Merila showed on one of the maps where the land-locked lots are, and where Mr. Harstad has developed homes already. He also stated he has sent Clerk/Administrator Pauley a letter regarding the methodology used to calculate phosporus stripping and requesting that the Walker method be adopted. He added that if Ramsey County Soil and Water Conservation District modifies their report, it would satisfy the ordinance and not require an amendment. .. - - - - - - - - -e e . e . - ordinance. There was discussion on when Mr. Harstad had requested access to the lots that were subsequently land-locked, and when the Eigenheer development was approved. Chairman Mountin clarified that development is essentially approved at the time the preliminary plat is approved. Kathy Ayaz , 7751 Bona Road, asked at what point access was offered to Mr. Harstad, and the opportunity given to him to buy the necessary property. She stated she does not feel there should be a payback now because of this situation from some time ago. Mounds View Planning Commission June 15 , 1988 Public Meeting Page Four 410Chairman Mountin stated. that in granting a variance, the applicant should not have created his own need. Debbie Alman, 2390 Pinewood, stated she knows of someone who would like to purchase that property from Mr. Harstad, but he is unwilling to sell it and appears to be hanging on to it for a bargaining tool. Jim Thollus, 7845 Bona Road, asked for a clarification of the proposed drainage ditch, and what the City does to maintain wetlands. City Planner Herman replied the ditches have to be cleaned periodically, and the City has not been too active in keeping them cleaned in the past. Sabri Ayaz , 7751 Bona Road, stated he feels cleaning the ditch hurts the wetland as it appears to shrink. Sandy Keough, 7827 Bona Road, stated she had read the ordinance and as far as changing the wetland map, there is quite a procedure to be followed, which is time consuming, and she did not feel the City should use the developers revised map to consider this proposal as it has not been approved. • City Planner Herman stated the Planning Commission will take action on this proposal on Wednesday, June 22, and send it on to the Council, who is the final authority. The Council would have adequate time in July to conduct the necessary public hearings, if the City takes the deliniation of the Army Corps of Engineers as an accurate assessment. Kay Weseman, 7807 Bona Road, stated she has a real problem in accepting the Corps of Engineers authority over the wetland, and she quoted several facts from a book she had she•asked the City to use caution on taking their recommenda- tions. She added she would like to hear the DNR's comments on the City' s guidelines, and would also like to know where Mounds View stands in comparison to non-wetland development. She added she would also like to know from Barr Engineering what the wetland would look like in 5, 10 or 20 years if the City does not do anything as far as cleaning the ditches, and so forth. She stated she feels the cattails should be reseeded and guarantees made. Ms. Weseman presented a petition to the Planning Commission of over 200 signatures of residents mostly within 350 ' of the proposed development, all opposed to disturbing the •wetland. Mounds View Planning Commission June 15 , 1988 Public Meeting Page Five 410Mr. Borovsky questioned the date of the book Ms. Weseman had referred to, as things have changed drastically with the Corps of Engineers within the past few years . He explained they get recommendations from the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is a very strict, conservative group. Ms. Weseman replied she could not recall the date of publication but could go back to the library and look it up. She added the City should accept the ultimate responsibility and not just go along with what the Corps of Engineers says. City Planner Herman pointed out it was not just the Corps of Engineers who feels the wetland should be redeliniated, that Barr Engineering has also gone out, and after the last discussion on boundaries, Ramsey County Soil & Water Conser- vation District, Barr Engineering and the Corps of Engineers went out together and all agreed upon the pro- posed redeliniation. She added that Barr was selected in part based on recommendations of the residents present at the hearings . She stated the lot size consideration has been referred to Barr, and input should be back from them soon. She added they will be reviewing standards of other communities also. In the end, it will be the City' s decision, and it will be a variance decision, not a "too strict" decision. Chairman Mountin stated that every developer that comes before the City complains the City is too restrictive. That is a value the City and it' s residents desire and is why they come to Mounds. View to live. She added they will stay with that as long as the residents want it. City Planner Herman stated that the wetland portions that are not going to be built upon will be turned over to the City as outlots , at which time they will become the City' s res•onsibilit to main _' . . a. • •. — _ ae must be done. Mr. Borovsky stated it is not possible with the budget they are working with to predict what will happen 10 or 15 or 20 years from now. He stated wetlands change over time, irregardless of development. Rich Lievel, of 7701 Edgewood asked what amount of phosphorus is coming into the wetland relative to the stripping capacity. Mr. Borovsky replied there is no actual measure to what will come in, that it is all assumptions . SChairman Mountin explained the City' s ordinance has been used to deny development on wetlands, with a case recently, which also had variance issues involved. Mounds View Planning Commission June 15 , 1988 Public Meeting Page Six Ms . Alman asked if the proposed change in the wetland boundaries takes into consideration 3 dry years and the fact the ditch was cleaned. Mr. Borovsky replied it does, and he explained the pro- cess used to classify wetlands . Mrs . Ayaz asked how many proposed lots would not be buildable if they did agree to the new boundaries and kept the setback requirement. Mr. Merila replied one would be buildable. Mrs. Ayaz stated she does not see the need to give the setback variance, and she referred to comments made at one meeting by a member of the Audubon Society, con- cerning the importance of the buffer zone, and how it is there to protect what is there. Mr. Sandidge stated the issue has been brought up before that the City altered the wetland by cleaning the ditch and he asked if the City is looking at repairing any damage that was done. City Planner Herman replied the City is required to maintain the ditch for flood purposes, and they are not •violating the ordinance by cleaning the ditch. Commissioner Burgers stated the purpose of cleaning the ditch was also to restore it to its prior level. Mr. Borovsky stated there is a misconception about the wetland, while it may be shrinking -in a sense of the water level and the character of what is_therey the change in deliniation is not affected relative to the ditch, but rather because the original map was not done in detail, which has been done now. City Planner Herman referred to City Council minutes of September 14 , 1981, at which Mr. Harstad asked that access be provided to his lots by the City, at which time Mr. Eigenheer offered to sell him the property needed. Mr. Merila clarified the change in the wetland and the accuracy of when it was originally platted. City Planner Herman stated the Planning Commission would discuss the issue further next week, at their June 22 meeting, and would make a final recommendation at that time to the Council. Mounds View Planning Commission June 15 , 1988 Public Meeting Page Seven 4I0Ms. Weseman asked that a copy of the report from the Audubon Society be given to all the Planning Commissioners. The discussion ended at 9 :20 PM. Respectfully submitted, Kim Herman City Planner • • 1 it (;)-0/eli (:21T/2,,L 78, 804),• a(/--6_:_._: 752_7 3c --t g _1 i! fI ZRc , / to 5A-ele 7?/ 7 l 775/ P i -11 - l 1 Na 5 Triv6 '-1/ Fa r y Yc 41 RAJ t. 0- d'' 95JP /fly W e-5 /YI 4,t) 7807 BOA) �4 • ;I 1 ; ; i; !II Ii • !I I I a MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 228-88 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION, 8380 SPRING LAKE ROAD, MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 245-88 WHEREAS, W. E. Rosenquist, 8380 Spring Lake Road, has requested approval of a minor subdivision dividing the northeast portion of his lot from the existing lot; and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant ' s request for a minor subdivision and determines that it is in conformance with Chapters 40 and 42 of the City Code . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Mounds View recommends approval of the minor subdivision request by Mr. Rosenquist contingent upon providing the City with appropriate title abstracts and recording of those abstracts with Ramsey County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval for the minor subdivision be contingent upon the applicant drafting and 0 obtaining utility easements for 8380 Spring Lake Road and verification of lot sizes. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes . Adopted this 22nd day of June , 1988 . ATTEST: N/11 ,1evuft MAVA',:t-,,r Chair an.' (SEAL) a �f JCity Planner • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 229-88 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE HARSTAD DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL KNOWN AS GREENFIELD ESTATES WHEREAS, Harstad Companies has requested approval of a single family development proposal known as Greenfield Estates ; and WHEREAS, Harstad Companies has requested the following in order to construct their proposed development: 1 . Major subdivision ( 17 single family homes ) 2 . Wetland zoning district map amendment 3. Wetland alteration permit 4 . Variance from a) 100 foot wetland setback requirement, b) 125 foot minimum lot width, and c ) 20, 000 square foot minimum lot size 5. Vacation of right-of-way (ROW) 6 . Park land dedication credit 411 7. Conditional use permit for working in the flood plain; and WHEREAS, the Army Corps of Engineers, Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District, and the City' s Engineering Consultant have reviewed the wetland boundaries and found some discrepancy in the boundaries shown on the City' s official Wetland Zoning Map; and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission recommends approving the Wetland Zoning District amendment to accurately reflect the existing boundaries of Wetland No . 1-19; and WHEREAS, the developer must meet the conditions outlined in Chapter 48 . 06, Subd . 1, 2 and 3 in order to obtain a wetland alteration permit; and WHEREAS, the City's engineering consultant has reviewed the development proposal and found that the discharge rate from the wetland will not increase ; and WHEREAS, the City 's engineering consultant has reviewed the development proposal and found that the storm water storage volume of the wetland will increase ; and 41, WHEREAS, the City's engineering consultant has reviewed the development proposal and found that the flood height of the wetland will not increase ; and MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 229-88 PAGE TWO WHEREAS, the discharge rate, storm water storage volume , and the wetland 's flood height will not have a substantial nor significant adverse impact upon the wetland; and WHEREAS, the City's engineering consultant has reviewed the phosphorus calculations for the development per City Code Chapter 48. 06, Subd . 3(A) 2, and found it to not be in conformance with the Code requirements; and WHEREAS, the developer has suggested an alternative method for calculating the phosphorus stripping; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission would recommend evaluating the phosphorus stripping capabilities of a wetland for both the critical storm event and the average storm event; and WHEREAS, the City's engineering consultant has reviewed the alternative phosphorus stripping model and found it to be acceptable in calculating an average storm event with some changes in the input assumptions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission would recommend to the City Council that the "Walker Method" suggested by the developer is an acceptable method of calculating the phosphorus stripping capacity of a wetland for an average storm occurrence with some changes in the input assumptions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission would further recommend that if this methodology were chosen to supersede the ordinance requirement using the Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District formula, the model should be modified or another found to assess the phosphorus stripping for a critical storm, therefore , ensuring that the analysis would produce the most conservative estimate ; and WHEREAS, the two analyses gathered, phosphorus stripping in a wetland for an average storm event and critical storm event, should be reviewed to assess the overall quantifiable affect of the proposed development against the existing wetland; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council to review the standard set in 48. 06 ( 3 ) (A) for phosphorus stripping and recommends that the standard should be that for a fully developed watershed the wetland alteration shall not result in a net decrease in phosphorus stripping capacity as compared to the predevelopment conditions of the wetland; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission further recommends that • the City Council add to 48.06 , Subd . 4, the term "phosphorus stripping" to allow the City Council to place conditions related to that subject upon an alteration permit approval ; and MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 229-88 PAGE THREE WHEREAS, Chapter 48.06, Subd . 4 (3) requires that following information as part of the wetland alteration permitting process : 1 . The time period for commencement and completion of the development including time for staging of development, if applicable . 2 . Design specification and plan for all sediment and erosion control measures as well as all grading and drainage appertenances and practices ; and WHEREAS, the developer has not provided the required information such as the location of the temporary road nor the time period for the commencement of the development including time periods for staging; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission would recommend denial of the wetland alteration permit based on the insufficient information on the revised phosphorus calculations and on the construction timing and temporary haul road; and WHEREAS, the developer has requested a variance from the • minimum lot size-20, 000 square feet and minimum lot width-125 feet as measured at the building setback line and the 100 foot setback; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and Staff have reviewed this request and found that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which apply to the properties which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property, since enactment of this Code, have had no control ; and WHEREAS, furthermore , the Planning Commission and Staff has found that the request is not the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship; economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission would recommend denial of the variance requests for lot size, lot width and the 100 foot setback; and WHEREAS, the developer has requested a conditional use permit for working in a flood plain; and WHEREAS, the City's engineering consultant has reviewed • the development proposal and found no adverse affect upon the flood plain; and MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 229-88 PAGE FOUR • • WHEREAS, the Planning Commission would recommend approving a conditional use permit for filling in a flood plain contingent upon the receipt and review of the information regarding the temporary haul road; and WHEREAS, the developer has requested vacation of • right-of-way and a park dedication fund credit and the Planning Commission has no recommendation; and WHEREAS, it is the practice of the Planning Commission to recommend approval of a development in total . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Planning Commission recommends denial of the development proposal Known as Greenfield Estates , except for Lot 4, Block 4, which is not within the wetland zoning district and meets the Code requirements of Chapter 40, for the following reasons : 1. Denial of the wetland alteration permit 2. Denial of the variance for lot size 3. Denial of the variance for lot width 4 . Denial of the variance for 100 foot setback • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approving the wetland zoning district amendment separate from this development proposal so as to have the City' s records accurately reflect the existing wetland. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes . Adopted this 22nd day of June , 1988. ATTEST: /f i417 Chai ma (SEAL) ///// 00/ 4 City Planner •