Loading...
PL 08/08/1990 - 30723� /`°� ,� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMIBBION MLETING, AIIGIIBT 8, 1990 ....................................««............................,................ .......,.... .......,...........................................,. CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Betzold called the August 8, 1990, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Don Betzold, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Paul Dahlberg Dave Kondrick, Diane Savage, Connie Modig Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Garland and Jane Lagesse, 7951 Broad Avenue APPROVAL OF JULY 25 1990. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES• MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the July 25, 1990, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOII3LY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #90-13. BY GARLAND LAGESSE: Per Section 205.24.04.D of the Fridley City Code to allow a structure to be constructed in a CRP-2 (Flood Fringe) District, on Lots 9-12, 16-24, Block M, Riverview Heights, generally located at 7951 Broad Avenue N.E. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOII3LY. Ms. Dacy stated the parcel is located east of and adjacent to Broad Avenue. The parcel is approximately one acre in size and is located just at the edge of the flood fringe district as identified in the Flood Insurance Rate maps. The petitioner, Mr. Lagesse, is proposing to demolish the existing attached 18 ft. by 11 ft. three- season porch and reconstruct a 12 ft. by 25 ft. three-season porch. Ms. Dacy stated the major factor with this application is, because of its location in the Flood Fringe District, what the Flood � � PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. AUGIIST 8, 1990 PAGE 2 Insurance Rate maps call the "finished floor elevation". The finished floor elevation must be at a level which is considered flood-proofed in the eyes of the City's ordinance. Ms. Dacy stated that during the application period, there was some misunderstanding between staff and the petitioner. Mr. Lagesse was under the impression that he only had to have an elevation of 823 feet; and, as listed in the staff report, staff is stipulating 824 feet. During the last week, staff has been working with the petitioner and looking at the flood information to determine the exact flood elevation that actually occurred in this part of the flood plain district. Ms. Dacy stated that in the report staff found in the files dated November 1971 prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers, it analyzes the entire flood area of the Mississippi River and then provides a 100 year flood elevation profile along the entire length of the river. Staff determined that the flood elevation in the approximate location of the petitioner's property between Buffalo and Cheryl Streets occurred at the elevation of 822.5 feet. The City's ordinance and the DNR require that the finished floor elevation of a habitable living space be flood-proofed to one foot above the flood elevation. That makes an elevation of 823.5. Mr. Lagesse has indicated to staff that he can construct the addition at the 823.5 foot elevation, but would not be able to do it at the 824 foot elevation. The additional 6 inches affects the floor to ceiling height which would affect the pitch of the roof such that it would impinge on the windows on the upper floor of his home. Ms. Dacy stated that in the staff report, staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit with the following stipulations: 1. 2. 3. The first floor elevation of the addition shall be 824 feet above sea level. The addition shall be flood-proofed in accordance with the building code requirements. The petitioner shall provide hard surface driveway by September 30, 1991. Ms. Dacy stated that now, instead of the proposed stipulation #1, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit subject to the first floor elevation of the addition being at 823.5 feet, subject to the approval of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR); and, if necessary, the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA). Ms. Dacy stated that as the Commission is aware, the City takes a �"� certain risk in approving construction and habitable living area - within flood plain areas. She had contacted a DNR staff person � PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. AIIGIIST 8. 1990 PAG� 3 regarding this issue who advised her that in the case of a federal and state audit, if it can be determined that the City issued a permit in direct conflict with the codes of the City, the City is at risk for penalty and, in the case of a flood, lawsuits for damages. With that in mind, between the Planning Commission meeting and the City Council meeting on August 27, staff is going to write a letter to the DNR requesting that the DNR analyze the above information and make a recommendation as to whether or not they agree with staff's recommendation at the 823.5 foot elevation. If so, then the City Council can proceed and approve the special use permit. Ms. Dacy stated another issue with this application is that last week staff informed the petitioner about stipulation #3, requiring a hard surface driveway. As the Commission is aware, providing a hard surface driveway is a typical stipulation that the City places on variance requests, special use permit requests, and other building permits in order to bring various parts of property up to City Code. The petitioner is strongly opposed to the hard surface driveway stipulation. Mr. Dahlberg asked if staff has the specific elevation of the existing home. ^ Ms. Dacy stated that at the request of the petitioner, the Engineering Department staff shot the elevation of the existing porch at 821.94 feet. If a flood occurred at 822.5 feet, it is just barely into the flood plain. Mr. Garland Lagesse stated he would like to explain to the Commission why the existing porch is being taken down. He stated this project started out as a simple project to upgrade the existing porch. In getting some estimate costs, it was pointed out to them by a contractor that the existing porch is not on footings. It is merely on a slab. It was also pointed out that part of the wall is starting to pull away. Upon further investigation, it was discovered that the concrete slab has either broken loose or is cracked. Mr. Lagesse stated he talked to Darrel Clark, the Building Inspector, to see if the porch could be jacked up and footings be put underneath. He was told he was restricted on what he could do because the property is in the flood plain. He was told it might be possible to mudjack under the concrete to try and pick it up and push more concrete under it to level the floor out. If it would work, it is only a temporary solution. Mr. Lagesse stated the only alternative he has bee is feasible is to take the existing porch down scratch. And, because he is in the flood plain, � the elevation of the floor up. This project quickly from approximately $2,000 to $15,000. n told about that and start from he has to bring escalated quite PLANNING COMMISBION MEETING, AIIGIIST 8, 1990 PAGB 4 '--� Mr. Lagesse stated he can always leave the porch as it is and let it fall down, but they would like to utilize the space for their family. Mr. Lagesse stated that on the roof, he needs at least 4 inches between the roof and the house windows. If the roof is any higher, there will be a water problem on the windows. He cannot go with a gable roof, because of the elevation restriction, so he has to go with a flat roof. Inside, he has to come out with a landing to step up into the porch from the house. Because they will lose some usable living space because of the landing, they decided to extend the width of the house. He stated he has modified the plan to go to 823.5 feet, but not to 824 feet. If he went with the 824 foot elevation, he would have a room standing about 40 inches above the ground. He would also lose some of the solar benefit and a view out to Spring Brook Creek. Mr. Lagesse stated he has talked to a realtor to see if the construction of a new porch is feasible in terms of economics. The realtor said it would be kind of stretching it, but they have to think in terms of what the family wants. The realtor said the added value to the home was possible $7,000, so the cost of constructing the porch is double what the added value will be. ^ Mr. Lagesse stated John Flora, Public Works Director, has been talking to the Federal Government about the whole flood plain issue. The essence of it is that for the last 25 years the citizens of Fridley have been paying for flood insurance apparently for no reason. The reason behind that is the cause of the 1965 flood was from man-made causes. There was an obstruction at the St. Anthony bridge; and at the same time, I-694 was being constructed and the width of the river was down to a 10 foot width. The combination of the two things caused the flooding. This is documented in Army Corps of Engineers records. Ms. Dacy stated, that in spite of what happened in 1965, since then there have been adjustments at the Coon Rapids Dam and other adjustments which has caused the City of Fridley to ask the Army Corps of Engineers and the DNR to take a look at the elevation of the flood plain since 1983. The Army Corps has done some studies on the control mechanisms that were installed along the river to determine if they are going to be accurate. It is her understanding that the DNR is reluctant initially to look at pulling back the existing elevations, and it could take months or years before this is resolved. Underlying Mr. Lagesse�s argument is the fact that he is at the fringe of the district and, in his mind, there is a real question as to whether or not a flood of this nature could occur again to the intensity that was recorded. Unfortunately, until the numbers are changed, the City has to live �"1 with what the FEMA maps say. PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, AIIGIIST 8. 1990 PAGE 5 n Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Lagesse's next door neighbor, Mr. James Bowe, built a new home at 7919 Broad Avenue (SP #89-02), and the finished floor elevation was required at 824 feet. Mr. Betzold stated he believed the Planning Commission put on a stipulation requiring Mr. Bowe to sign a hold harmless agreement. Maybe the Planning Commission could put on a similar stipulation in this case if they are getting stuck over this 1/2 foot requirement with the DNR and FEMA. Ms. Dacy stated that was a stipulation as part of the Planning Commission and City Council approval, and the document was recorded and is in the file. Mr. Lagesse stated he was at the meeting when Mr. Bowe applied for his special use permit. The stipulation read: "Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall sign a covenant to be recorded at the County releasing the City from any liability for the issuance of this special use permit." If the Planning Commission wanted to make a similar stipulation at the 823.5 foot elevation, he could live with that. Ms. Dacy stated the agreement Mr. Bowe signed did not specify an elevation. It was just a statement. �' Mr. Dahlberg stated that since the main level of the house is at about 822.4 feet, the house is already subjected to a lower elevation and the petitioner is taking a risk just by living in the flood fringe. He believed it would make sense to go through the same process in terms of a hold harmless agreement of some sort but to construct the porch at the same elevation as the house but no lower. Ms. Sherek agreed. She stated it does not make sense to build a porch above the level of the house. Ms. Dacy stated she also agreed. She just had the concern that if an audit occurred, she would prefer to have this issue resolved now and have the DNR sign off on it. Ms. Sherek stated then they should ask the DNR to sign off on it with the porch at the level of the existing house. Ms. Dacy stated she can certainly ask this question of the DNR. Mr. Lagesse asked staff to be sure and tell the DNR that the existing porch is now lower than the existing level of the house, and that the reason it will be torn down and replaced is because of structural damage. ^ Ms. Dacy stated she will draft a letter to the DNR and have Mr. Lagesse review it to make sure the facts are accurate. � PLANNING COMMI_88ION MEETING, AIIGIIST 8, 1990 PAGE 6 !"'� Mr. Robertson stated that the flood-proofing measure required by the building code is raising a structure to an elevation one foot above the flood. Now they are looking at a situation where that may not occur. A question Mr. Lagesse might want to find out: Would the newly constructed porch addition and the house be eligible for flood insurance? Mr. Lagesse stated that if he is allowed to stay at the existing floor elevation of the house, it broadens his options and it might make sense to see what the cost is to jack up the existing porch and put footings underneath it. Mr. Betzold asked Mr. Lagesse to state his objection to the hard surface driveway stipulation (#3). Mr. Lagesse stated that his reason for objecting to the hard surface driveway is that when he made the application in July, he was not told about the requirement of the hard surface driveway. It wasn't until about one week ago that staff called him and told him they had forgot to tell him about the hard surface driveway requirement. Throwing this requirement on top of everything else presents more of an economic hardship than he is willing to bear. ^ Mr. Lagesse stated that when he moved into the house, there was no hard surface driveway. It has been his understanding that the City cannot legally require anyone to put in a hard surface driveway, but can only encourage it. He has made improvements to the driveway. He has put in a concrete surface between the garage and the house and about 40 feet from the garage. He has put class 2 material on the driveway to hold the driveway together and to make it harder. He stated that the cost of a hard surface driveway is over $2,000, and the hard surface driveway requirement is a definite economic hardship. The driveway is 150 feet long. Mr. Betzold stated Mr. Lagesse is correct in saying that the City cannot legally require the hard surface driveway, but this stipulation has been pretty routine for anyone making a request to the City in order to bring the property up to code. He stated any new construction, of course, must meet code. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CL03ED AT 8:35 P.M. Mr. Saba stated he has real concerns about forcing the hard surface driveway for 150 feet of driveway because of the cost involved. He would be willing to make an exception in this case. �"� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING� AIIGIIBT 8. 1990 PAGE 7 � Mr. Betzold stated he agreed. If the petitioner was remodeling, he might insist on the hard surface driveway, but in this case, the petitioner is not remodeling, he is just trying to repair or replace part of the house that is falling down. Mr. Dahlberg stated he also agreed. However, if it turns out that the existing porch can be reconstructed for significantly less than new construction, he would encourage the petitioner to reconsider the hard surface driveway. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to City Council approval of special use permit request, SP #90-13, per Section 205.24.04.D of the Fridley City Code to allow a structure to be constructed in a CRP-2 (Flood Fringe) District, on Lots 9- 12, 16-24, Block M, Riverview Heights, generally located at 7951 Broad Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The elevation of the porch addition to be at the elevation of the existing living space, contingent upon approval by the Department of Natural Resources and Federal Emergency Management Association. 2. The property owner shall execute a hold harmless agreement to be recorded with the title of the property. � IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARE THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. Ms. Dacy stated this item will go to City Council on August 27, 1990. 2. RECEIVE JUNE 4 1990 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES• MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the June 4, 1990, Parks and Recreation Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARE THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 3. RECEIVE JULY 17, 1990 ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY AND EATERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the July 17, 1990, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARE THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 4. RECEIVE JULY 19 1990 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES• � PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING� AIIGIIST 8, 1990 PAG� 8 � MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive the July 19, 1990, Housing and Redevelopment Authority minutes. QPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARE THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 5. RECEIVE JULY 24, 1990. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES• MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the July 24, 1990, Appeals Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(3 AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARE THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to adjourn the meeting. IIpon a voice vote, all votinq ape, chairperson Betzold declared the motion carried and the Auqust 8, 1990, Planninq Commission meetinq adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, � G��� Lyn Saba Reco ding Secretary �