Loading...
PL 09/22/1993 - 30779� �"'� /"� i CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNINC3 COI�iI88ION MEETING, 22, 1993 ,..,______________........_______......________....____...._.._____,.....___....____ CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Newman called the September 22, 1993, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Dave Newman, Dean Saba, Diane Savage, Connie Modig, LeRoy Oquist Members Absent: Dave Kondrick, Brad Sielaff Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Marvin and Karen Just, 661 Cheryl Street N.E. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 8 1993, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by M�. Oquist, to approve the September 8, 1993, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTB, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERBON NEAMP�T DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, 3P #93-15, BY MARVIN AND KAREN JUST: Per Section 205.24.04.D. of the Fridley City Code, to allow the construction of a three season porch addition in the CRP- 2(Flood Fringe) district, on Lots 13-15, Block W, Riverview Heights, generally located at 661 Cheryl Street N.E. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CBAIRPLR80N NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRISD AND THE PIIBLIC HEARINt� OPLN AT 7:32 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are all surrounding parcels. The petitioners are proposing to construct a 12 ft. by 14 ft. three season porch addition off the rear of the property. The original dwelling unit was constructed in 1962 prior to the adoption of the flood plain regulations which the City adopted in 1977. The flood plain regulations permit construction of accessory structures and habitable living space with special use permit approval by the � PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETINa, BEPTEMBER 22. 1993 PAGB 2_ City. For habitable structures or spaces, the ordinance requires that the first floor elevation be a minimum of one foot above the 100 year flood elevation. In this case, the first floor elevation needs to be 823.6 feet above sea level. All materials used in the construction below that elevation must be floodproofed in accordance with the current building code regulations. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioners will be required to submit a elevation certificate which must be completed by a registered land surveyor which will verify that the first floor elevation is at 823.6 feet or higher. Ms. McPherson stated the addition as proposed does not adversely impact the lot coverage or the required setbacks. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit request with three stipulations: . 1. A floor elevation of the addition shall be at 823.6 feet or greater. 2. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate completed by a registered land surveyor verifying the first floor elevation of the addition. ,�'� 3. All materials below the regulatory elevation shall be floodproofed in accordance with current regulations. Mr. Oquist asked if staff knows what the first floor elevation is and where that would put the addition in relation to the existing house? Ms. McPherson stated staff does not have any records on the first floor of the dwelling unit. Mr. Newman asked what happens of the Commission recommends approval and then the City finds out later that the porch is quite a bit higher than the house. Does the Commission want to authorize construction of a porch that is built on stilts and is higher than the house? Ms. Dacy stated the City does have data on file of the elevations at certain points along Cheryl Street and Dover Street so there are some benchmarks. Based on previous experiences, there have not been any major problems with the elevations in this area. Mr. Newman stated that having been involved in sandbagging this residential area in 1969 when there was flooding and experiencing the floods this summer, it is his opinion that this area is not going to flood again if it did not flood this year. Is there much likelihood that this area will ever flood again in light of the � work that has been done at the Coon Rapids Dam? ^ PLANNIN(� COMMIBBION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 22. 1993 PAGE 3 Ms. Dacy stated the Public Works Director, John Flora, is trying to convince the Army Corps of Engineers and the federal officials to re-evaluate the flood plain, but that will take a number of years to accomplish. Certainly, the improvements at Coon Rapids Dam have improved the possibility of maintaining the areas in there, so the potential for flooding is probably minimal. Unfortunately, as long as the Federal Emergency Management Agency maps are still enforced, the City has no choice but to enforce them. Ms. Karen Just stated that they have lived in their home for 16 years and have never had a drop of water in their basement. They really do not consider their property to be in the flood plain. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPLRBON NEWMAN DECLARED THL MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:46 P.M. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend to City Council approval of special use permit, SP #93-15, by Marvin and Karen Just, per Section 205.24.04.D. of the Fridley City Code, to allow the construction of a three season porch addition in the CRP- � 2(Flood Fringe) district, on Lots 13-15, Block W, Riverview Heights, generally located at 661 Cheryl Street N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. A floor elevation of the addition shall be at 823.6 feet or greater. 2. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate completed by a registered land surveyor verifying the first floor elevation of the addition. 3. All materials below the regulatory elevation shall be floodproofed in accordance with current regulations. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED TH8 MOTION CARRIED. Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to the City Council on October 4, 1993. 2. RECEIVE AUGUST 9 1993. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Savage, to receive the August 9, 1993, Parks & Recreation Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPER80N NEAMAN DECLARED T$E ^ MOTION CARRIED. ^ PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEBTING, 8$PTEMSBR 22. 1993 PAG� 4 3. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 9. 1993 , HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINLTTES : MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the September 9, 1993, Human Resources Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPER80N NEWP�iN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 4. j2FCF.TVF. sFpm�mrgER 14 1993. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the September 14, 1993, Appeals Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(3 AYE, CHAIRPERBON NEWMAl�T DLCLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED. 5. OTHER BUSINESS: a. Tabled: Amortization of Gravel Driveways MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to remove this item from the table. IIPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTIN(� AYE � CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED � THE MOTION CARRIED. � Ms. Dacy stated that at the last meeting, the Commission discussed this subject and asked staff to research four or five areas. Staff now has the results of� that research. Staff would like the Commission to continue discussion on this issue to see if the Commission is prepared to make a recommendation to the City Council. 1. Assessment - The Commission wanted to know that if the City adopted an ordinance that required gravel driveways to be paved, could the City do the work and assess the costs back to the property owners, the advantage being that the costs would be spread out over time, and the owners would not have to pay all the costs immediately. Ms. Dacy stated the Commission members had received by mail a copy of the City Attorney's response to this issue. In his memo, Mr. Herrick said it is possible if, when the City adopts the ordinance, it finds a gravel driveway to be either a safety hazard, nuisance, or a hazardous condition. Mr. Herrick listed under a variety of statutes how the City could assess the property owners in terms of how many payments and what percentage rate. This is good news in terms of the property owners who might be affected by this ordin�ncet n PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SEPTBMBER 22, 1993 PAGE 5 2. Income information for the 350 properties that would be affected Ms. Dacy stated that Ms. McPherson worked with the Finance Department and determined that 15 out of the 350 households who have gravel driveways are elig.ible for the low income utility rate programe 3. Driveway definition, what constitutes a hard surface driveway? Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Barg called Columbia Heights, Crystal, and Roseville. These cities are very definitive. Concrete or asphalt are the only acceptable materials allowed by those cities. In the City of Fridley's code, it is defined as "concrete, blacktop, or other hard surface material approved by the City". 4. Financial assistance - Ms. Dacy stated she has not had an opportunity to discuss this directly with the HRA, but she did �"� discuss this with Grant Fernelius, the Housing Coordinator. If a person who owned a gravel driveway applied for one of the HRA-sponsored grants or loans, paving the driveway would be an eligible expense under the program. The assessment option proposed by the City Attorney also helps the financial burden. The HRA would have to decide how to expend monies on this particular project. Staff identified two options: �, a. The HRA could choose only to assist the low income seniors (15 families) and pay for all the costs; or b. If there is the question of fairness, the HRA could develop a policy that paid for a portion of the costs for all the property owners. The estimated price tag for the first option is $20,000. If they assist everyone, the cost would be about $?5,000. Ms . Dacy stated that it would be dif f icult f or staf f to recommend that the HRA pay that amount of money when they are scrounging for dollars to do other things that may have more of a public purpose than paving driveways. � � PLANNINa CONII�lIBSION MEETINQ. BEPTBMB�R 22. 1993 PAGg 6 Ms. Dacy stated there are two important questions the Commission must address: 1. Does the Commission want to pursue an ordinance amendment which would require property owners without hard surface parking areas to provide paved driveways? 2. If the answer to the above question is "yes", the following issues should be addressed: a. b. c. What materials should be considered acceptable in meeting the hard surface requirement? How long should property owners have to pave driveways? Should additional time be granted for property owners with driveways in excess of 50 feet? Mr. Newman stated staff has done a very good job in addressing the issues. Now the Commission has to address the first question: Do they want to have an ordinance that would require people with gravel driveways to hard surface those driveways? Mr. Saba stated he liked the idea of requiring gravel driveways to be hard surfaced, but the definition of "hard surface" should be broadened somewhat. However, he would not want to require people to have hard surface driveways to accessory structures in the rear yard that are used for storage only and not for vehicle use. Mr. Oquist stated he has mixed emotions. He is in favor of hard surface driveways, but he is against the hardship that it will put on some people. The Commission really needs to take that into consideration. Staff has determined that there are about 15 low income property owners who would be affected, but there are other people who are not necessarily low income who are living on the edge and are going to be affected as well. To force them to pay an average of $1,000 for a hard surface driveway could be a real hardship. Mr. Oquist stated he believed they need to first define "hard surface". Brick and concrete pavers can look much better than asphalt. Ms. Modig stated that the eight reasons for hard surface driveways prepared by staff are very good, but she also has �� a problem with the cost they will be forcing people to pay for these driveways. There are a lot of people who are not ^ PLANNING CONIIdiI88ION MEETING. BEPTEMBER 22. 1993 PAG$ 7 low income who are on the edge and another $1,000 is a lot of money. She did not know if the City has the right to dictate this kind of thing. It might be better to enforce the hard surface driveway requirement at the time of sale or when the property changes hands. She is not sure what to recommend. Ms. Savage stated she believed it is a good idea to require gravel driveways to be hard surfaced. When you live in a community, you have to conform to a lot of requirements for the general betterment of the community. She understood the concerns expressed by the other Commission members and the financial burden on the property owners, and the City should do anything it can to help ease that burden. One way is through some type of assistance. It is a fairly minimal amount of people in terms of the total population of Fridley. She also has no problem in giving people time to put in hard surface driveways, but she did think it is a good plan and is for the betterment of the City. Mr. Ne�aman stated he is concerned about the financial impact on the property owners and also concerned that the $1,000 might better be used to enhance their properties in other ways. He could not help thinking that if they had a room full of property owners asking why the Commission was recommending �"� an ordinance that would force them to blacktop their driveways and why the Commission feels this is an appropriate expenditure of $1,000, he would have a hard time justifying that. In some cases, that $1,000 could better be used to replace a new roof or put on a fresh coat of paint. Even though the hard surface driveways would have some aesthetic benefit, he would oppose an ordinance for the reasons he has stated. Ms. Modig stated it is rather unfair when this is not new construction. Many of these people have been living in their homes for many years without hard surface driveways, and many of them purchased these homes without hard surface driveways. She is not so concerned about the low income property otaners, because they can get assistance through various programs. She is concerned about the people who do not meet the criteria for low income but are close to low income and the City is telling them they have a certain amount of time to conform to an ordinance that is basically visual. She would rather see this hard surface requirement handled through the sale of the home or when a building permit is issued. Mr. Newman stated he was not sure if the City Attorney's memo addressed some type of assessment plan where property owners could pay for an improvement through an easy installment plan. � Staff might want to explore this as it might be another avenue ' for those people who want to put in hard surface driveways. � �"� PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING. 88PTEMSER 22. 1993 PAG$_8 Mr. Saba stated that the City sends out letters every year to those property owners who do not have hard surface driveways letting them know of the rates if they want to hard surface their driveways during City street projects. Maybe, this should be publicized more and promoted a little heavier. Maybe the City could follow up on these letters with a telephone call. Mr. Oquist stated there are some people who just do not care whether their driveway is hard surface or not. Ms. Dacy stated that is true, but staff could certainly advertise a little more. Mr. Newman asked the Commission if they wanted to recommend to City Council an ordinance amendment requiring property owners without hard surface parking areas to provide paved driveways. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend to City Council that the City retroactively require that all non- hard surface driveways become hard surface driveways. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, NEWMAN AND MODIG VOTING NAY, CBAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3-2. Mr. Newman stated the Commission must now address the other questions. They should also include the question raised by Mr. Saba about whether or not to require a hard surface driveway to accessory structures in the rear yard and the issue of some type of assessment process. a. What m�terials should be considered acceptable in meetinq the hard surface requirement? Mr. Oquist stated he believed the acceptable materials for hard surface should be cement, asphalt, brick, or concrete pavers. The Commission members agreed that the acceptable hard surface materials should be limited to cement, asphalt, brick, and concrete pavers. b. How lonq should propertp owners have to pave driveways? Mr. Saba suggested a requirement where a hard surface driveway must be installed whenever the house is sold or the title transfers. ^ Ms. Dacy stated the problem with the on-sale issue is it would mean another inspection requirement that staff would have to try to track, and there are 400-500 s�2es �er year. PLANNINQ COMMI88ION MEETING, 88PTEMHER 22. 1993 PAG$ 9 Ms. Dacy stated staff is going to be evaluating a truth-in- sale ordinance, and they could add a requirement for hard surface driveway at that time. Mr. Newman suggested that the City take the current ordinance which requires a hard surface driveway and file it against the 350 properties. Then, when the property owner sells his/her home, the buyer is going to know he/she has to conform to the ordinance and that a hard surface driveway is requi�red. That will ensure, in some respects, an automatic enforcement, and the City can do the followup. Yt will be a lot cheaper than an inspection. Ms. Dacy stated that the problem is that each filing costs about $20 which would mean about $6,000 which is not in the budget. Mr. Newman stated the City might have some problems with amortization if subsequent buyers are not made aware of the hard surface requirement. He stated that $20 per filing or approximately $6,000 might be nothing compared to the cost of legal fees five years from now to enforce any amortization. i'� Mr. Oquist stated the hard surface requirement is already in the ordinance. He suggested the hard surface requirement be contingent upon the following requirements, whichever comes first: (1) i2) (3) a time period such as five years the sale of the property when a permit is requested from the City such as a building permit or special use permit c. Should additional time be granted for property owners �ith driveways in escess of 5o feet? Mr. Oquist stated the whole idea is to clean up properties, so he would say "no" to this question. d. Should a hard surfaae driveway to accessory structures in the rear pard be requ3red? Mr. Saba stated he would not want to see this requirement for accessory structures that are used for storage. Mr. Oquist stated that if a hard surface driveway to an � accessory structure in the rear yard is required, it can be handled with a stipulat�.on on �he special use permit. � PLANNING COMMI88ION METsTINa. SLPTEMHTsR 22, 1993 PAGE 10 �"� e. Should there be some type of assessment proaess? Mr. Saba stated the City should make every effort to contact these property owners and encourage them to take advantage of the City's contractors for installing hard surface driveways. Mr. Oquist stated he believed there should be some type of assistance, not only for low income property owners, but also some type of assessment process where property owners can be assessed for the cost and pay it over a longer period of time. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to summarize the consensus of the Planning Commission regarding the hard surface driveway requirement as follows: a. Ahat materials should be considered acaeptable in meetinq the hard surfaae requirement? Concrete, bituminous, brick, concrete pavers b. How lonq should property owners have to pave driveways2 Whichever comes first: • Five years from the adoption of an ordinance; • When the property is sold; • When a permit is required from the City c. Should additional time be qranted for property owners witb driveways in eucess of 50 feet3 No d. 8hould a hard surface driveway to aacessory structures in the rear yard be require8? The City will exclude from this ordinance any secondary storage facilities that are not used for vehicular storage. e. 8hou18 there be some type of assessment process? The Commission encourages the City Council to make use of the special assessment process for payment of this improvement and to make every effort to include this improvement with other improvements in �` City programs for rehabilitation or repair. /'� �� � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINa� SEPTEMBER 22. 1993 PAGB il Mr. Newman stated he will vote against the motion because of the costs, not the least of which would be legal fees, in trying to enforce the hard surface driveway requirement. IIPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE � NEWMAN AND MODIG VOTING NAY� CBAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3-2. ADJOURNMENT: MOTIOAT by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson motion carried and the September 22, 1993, meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully sub 'tted, , yn: Saba Rec ding Secretary adjourn the meeting. Newman declared the Planning Commission