PL 06/01/1994 - 30790�,
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING� JIINE 1i 1994
_____..__..__..__..___________»___.._.,_..,..,,.,._...._....______........,.......__..___
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairperson Newman called the June 1, 1994, Planning Commission
meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL•
Members Present: Dave Newman, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba,
Brad Sielaff, Diane Savage
Members Absent: Connie Modig, LeRoy Oquist
Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Gordon Hedlund, 1255 Pike Lake Road,
New Brighton
Richard Larsen, Amoco Oil
Mr. & Mrs. M. E. Thompson, 6212 Hillside Road,
Edina
Darlene Brady, 641 Buffalo Street N.E.
^� Clark Nason, 614 Cheryl Street N.E.
Frank Shimek, 7901 Riverview Terrace
Dwight & Karen Just, 661 Cheryl Street N.E.
Ronald Swanson, 7921 Riverview Terrace
Tim Lott, 2149 Sheridan Hills Road
Wayzata
Renee McCoy, 581 Buffalo Street N.E.
Monte & Michelle Maher, 7965 Riverview Terrace
APPROVAL OF MAY 18. 1994. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES•
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the May
18, 1994, Planning Commission minutes as written.
Mr. Sielaff stated that on page 30, second paragraph, he would like
to change the first sentence to read: "Mr. Sielaff stated he also
agreed the density and traffic issues are a wash whether it is
existing zoning or proposed zoninq.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED T8E
MOTION CARRIED DNANIMOIISLY AND THE MINQTES APPROVED AS AMENDED.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Savage, to remove special
use permit requests, SP #94-03, SP #94-04, and SP #94-05 from the
table.
��
/"'`,
/"�,
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEBTING. JUN� 1. 1994 PAGE 2
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
Mr. Newman stated that public hearings on all three of these
special use permit requests were held at the May 4, 1994, Planning
Commission meeting. That record and the information that was
presented at that meeting will be included in the packet that goes
to the City Council. Even though the public hearings were closed,
he stated he would still allow public input on these items but
asked those in the audience to limit their comments to new
information that was not raised at the last Commission meeting.
Ms. McPherson stated that prior to
each individual application, she
about some issues that were raised
Planning Commission meeting.
staff making a presentation for
would like to talk in general
by the neighbors at the May 4th
Ms. McPherson stated one of the issues was whether or not the
Commission had the authority to limit the height of the proposed
structures on these residential lots. This question was asked of
the City Attorney. The City Attorney's response was that the City
would need to receive testimony on a case-by-case basis regarding
the devaluation of the adjacent properties by the construction of
dwellings that would be substantially higher than the existing
dwellings. The City Attorney said that the Planning Commission and
City Council should bear in mind that there are many instances in
the City where there are two story structures adj acent to one story
structures. This is true in the Riverview Heights neighborhood.
The City Attorney stated that if this reason is to be used for
denying or limiting the special use permit, it would be necessary
to differentiate between the situation of the application and other
situations where there are differences in height between adjacent
residential structures.
Ms. McPherson stated another issue discussed was the question
regarding the Coon Rapids Dam. She stated the dam is experiencing
some maintenance problems. The Counties of Hennepin and Anoka are
currently discussing who is going to be responsible and what type
of improvements will be made. The dam is still functioning as a
control mechanism for downstream flows, and the DNR and Corps of
Engineers have been requested to initiate a new flood study of the
upper regions of the Mississippi River.
Ms. McPherson stated another issue raised by the neighborhood was
regarding sewer backups in the vicinity of Cheryl and Buffalo
Streets. The Public Works Department reviewed their records. They
noted that there was one backup at 641 Buffalo Street in September
1989. Nine backups at 614 Cheryl Street were recorded due to the
basement elevation. In 1989, a backflow preventor was installed
in an attempt to reduce the amount of backups. Since the
installation of the check valve, there has been only one backup at
614 Cheryl Street.
� PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING JIINE 1, 1994 PAGB 3
1. Tabled 5�4/94: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #94-
03, BY GORDON HEDLUND:
Per Section 205.24.4.D and 205.24.5.A of the Fridley City
Code, to allow construction in the CRP-2 District (Flood
Fringe) on Lots 12 and 13, Block Y, Riverview Heights,
generally located on the south side of Buffalo 5treet east of
Riverview Terrace.
Ms. McPherson stated that at the May 4, 1994, Planning Commission
meeting, staff recommended that the Commission table the request
pending the submission of an engineer's plan for the grading and
drainage.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has since submitted a grading
and drainage plan stamped and signed by a civil engineer with the
requested information on the slope percents and spot elevations on
the subject parcel. The engineer has reviewed and approved the
plan as submitted. Staff has added a few stipulations:
• The builder shall grade the property to conform with the
engineering plan dated May 23, 1994.
• The verifying survey shall confirm that the grading
�; complies with the plan dated May 23, 1994.
• Rip-rap shall be placed at the end of the swale adjacent
to Buffalo Street.
• Erosion control measures shall be installed along the
west, south, and east lot lines.
Ms. McPherson stated the remaining stipulations are the same as
those proposed at the May 4, 1994, Planning Commission meeting,
the elevation certificate, the flood proofing of the garage, the
fill, the easement, and the retaining wall.
Mr. Frank Shimek, 7901 Riverview Terrace, stated he would like the
retaining wall to be constructed of cement, run the whole length
of the property, and be built six inches above the level of the
ground.
Mr. Shimek stated he was talking with the dam engineer at Coon
Rapids Dam. He stated rodents and small animals have been digging
tunnels in the levy for 25 years. He asked the engineer what were
the chances of the levy holding if the water goes up on the levy
and these tunnels start filling with water. The engineer laughed
and said the chances were not very good.
� Mr. Shimek stated the federal government is against building in
flood plains because of the cost. The weather is changing. The
environment is polluting the air to the point where they are now
,
,,� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINa. JIINE 1. 1994 PAGE 4
getting two, three, and five inch rains. If they get heavy rains,
it is going to flood in this neighborhood again. These houses are
going to sit on mounds of dirt. What happens when a heavy current
of water flows around these houses and the dirt washes away? Are
these houses are going to break loose and tear into the other
houses?
Mr. Shimek stated he questioned whether this lot even has 7, 500
square feet. He stated he has a stake in his yard that was put
there by Anoka County to mark the corner of the property many years
ago. When the surveyor came out, he surveyed 5 1/2 feet off that
stake.
Mr. M. E. Thompson, 6212 Hillside Road, Edina, stated Mr. Shimek's
lot is six feet lower already than the subject property, and now
the petitioner wants to build it up another four or five feet.
That stake has been there for 22 years, and all of a sudden the
property line moved 5 1/2 feet. He submitted a diagram showing the
existing stake and the location of the nail put in by the recent
surveyor. Can the City send a surveyor in to check this out? He
also believed the subject property was more like 7,000 square feet
instead of 7,500 square feet. The City took some property for the
road, so why are they giving it back to him again?
,^� Ms. Darlene Brady, 641 Buffalo Street, stated she also challenged
the size of this lot. She heard that the City is including land
that was taken by the City under the dike in the street before the
petitioner even purchased the property. That is crazy. If the
City gave that land back to petitioner, then the City shouid give
everyone back their land.
Ms . Brady stated that a recent article in the newspaper stated that
the federal government does not want people building behind levies
because they don � t want to have to support buildings in the future.
The river and the creek were very high last year. If they had
gotten the rains like Iowa, Missouri, and Illinois, they would have
been flooded, too. It is not very smart to add new homes in the
flood plain. The City can have the petitioner sign a piece of
paper stating that the City is not financially responsible for any
flooding, but if a home washes away with a family in it, then what
good is that piece of paper?
Ms. Brady stated the levy was built on an emergency basis; it was
not constructed the same as a well planned levy. Adding new homes
in this area will only compound the problems.
Ms. Brady stated it is recorded that her sewer has only backed up
once. That is not true. It has backed up four or five times.
She did not call the City every time because she assumed the
problem was roots. She has documentation from sewer contractors
about these backups. She called her City Councilmember at the time
to try to get a check valve, but nothing ever happened.
,.� PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa. JIINE 1, 1994 PAGE 5
Ms . Brady stated that regarding the engineer' s report, the engineer
talked about getting the water to run off the proposed property,
but her concern is what happens after the water leaves the
property. The water will all come out right by her garage, and her
garage will be flooded. With the recent heavy rain, the water
pooled up in front of her garage.
Ms. Brady stated that to build on a 7,500 square foot lot, the
person should have 7,500 square feet of actual land available.
They should not be able to count the land that is under the dike
and dam. She believed that this lot is not 7,500 square feet and
would like the lot resurveyed, because things have changed in the
last 30 years.
Ms. Dacy stated that according to the certificate of survey that
the petitioner's surveyor submitted, with the area that is included
in the street (easement), there is a lot area of 7,982 square feet.
If, for discussion purposes, the easement area was subtracted out,
that equates to 455 square feet, leaving a remaining lot size of
7,527 square feet.
Ms. Dacy stated the City does not have a registered surveyor on
staff. The City typically does not do surveys for private property
�. owners. It is the City's policy that if adjacent property owners
are disagreeing about the location of a lot line, staff recommends
that the adjacent property owners contact a surveyor, have another
survey done, and have the two surveyors go over the surveys and
verify the correct survey.
Ms. Brady asked about the drainage.
Ms. Dacy stated the plan is to eventually direct the water on the
subject parcel toward the northeast corner of the lot within the
swale. The purpose of the rip-rap at the end of swale is to hold
back the velocity of water running off the driveway. At that
point, the water will run onto and down the street. Staff was at
the site during the last rain and does acknowledge that for certain
periods of time, the water does pool in front of Ms. Brady's
garage. However, the engineer is certifying to the City that the
water can be handled on the subject lot and then is directed
appropriately to the public street. At this time, there is no
evidence to indicate to staff that the drainage would adversely
affect Ms. Brady's property.
Ms. Brady stated that it sounds good in theory, but these plans do
not always work.
Ms. Dacy stated that is why all the stipulations are based on
approval of the petitioner�s plan and engineer's plan. If there
�� are any problems, it will be the property owner's responsibility
to correct the situation.
;�
�"`
PLANNING COMMI88ION ME$TINa. JIINE 1, 1994 PAGE 6
Ms. Brady stated she is not against a two story house being built
on this lot; but when a 2- 2 1/2 story house is built on top of
land that has been jacked up eight feet higher than the surrounding
homes, the house ends up being three to four stories tall.
Ms. Dacy stated that regarding construction in the flood plain,
the federal government is concerned about the costs; however, the
federal government has a list of standards that people who own
property in the flood plain and have the right to develop must
meet.
Ms . Dacy stated the City, on an annual basis, has requested the
federal government and state to do another flood insurance rate
study to re-evaluate the elevations. Until that time, the City
has to abide by the federal government's standards.
Ms. Brady stated that if a house is built on this property, it
should be appropriate to the lot, appropriate to the neighborhood,
and on a lot that is large enongh. Is there any reason why this
lot could not be designated a green space and be swapped with
another lot for this builder? It is something to consider. Part
of the attraction of this neighborhood is the green space and the
setting of the neighborhood, and that can be vastly changed by
constructing an oversized house on an undersized lot.
Mr. Tim Lott, 2149 Sheridan Hills Road, Wayzata, stated his concern
is the retaining wall. He is also concerned about the square
footage of the lot. He stated Mr. Hedlund has always been trying
to buy property from the Thompsons on one side and from Mr. Shimek
on the other side so that he would have enough land to build. Now,
all of a sudden, stakes are inside the Thompson property line where
they were not there before, and there is a permanent marker in the
southeast corner. Staff says it is up to the adjacent property
owners to say the property marker that has been there for many
years is not right and must spend money for another survey. His
concern is that the petitioner did not have enough property to
build on, and now, all of a sudden, he has enough property to build
on. At best, he sees 7,200 square feet for this property.
Mr. Lott stated that when they start building little pyramids on
these pieces of property that have been draining properly, the way
the rain falls off this property, the drainage is not going to be
the same as it was. It might impact the adjacent properties from
just general rains, as well as if there is that 100 year flood.
Mr. James Peterson, 7995 Broad Avenue, stated this neighborhood is
an eclectic neighborhood. Some houses were built as cabins on 25
foot lots, and there are nice homes on large lots. It is kind of
a hodge podge. There never seems to have been a comprehensive
development plan for this area. Does the City even want
development in this area? Or would the City rather not have any
,� PLANNING COMMIBSION MEETING. JIINE 1. 1994 PAGE 7
development and see that the land is abandoned? If the City wants
development, what kind of development would it like to have? Does
it want to continue developing on a piecemeal basis? It is a mess
right now. It would be in the City's best interest to develop
these lots to present day standards. This would be a golden
opportunity for a comprehensive development, particularly with the
development of Riverview Heights Park. What has happened to the
big plan for park land all along the River? What are the plans for
Riverview Terrace? What is its funGtion?
Mr. Peterson stated planning implies anticipation. It is not a
reactive job; it is a proactive job.
Mr. Peterson stated this is a beautiful area. This is an excellent
opportunity for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to do a
cooperative development, and these people could end up with new
homes.
Mr. Peterson stated there are property owners whose basements are
being used as holding ponds. They have streets that have hollows
in them; and when it rains, the water pools in the hollows. The
streets are all breaking up and have just been patched over and
over again. There are more plans for the improvement of East River
Road. What are going to be the main streets?
�'`,
Mr. Peterson stated that about 1,000 yards of fill will need to be
brought in. He would suggest that the trucks bringing in the fill
use 79th Way to protect the other neighborhood streets from the
truck traffic and from breaking up.
Mr. Monte Maher, 7965 Riverview Terrace, stated he believed the
creek is going to be the major problem as far as water. The creek
is going to fill up first. Staff has said that if other property
owners contest the survey, the property owners have to hire a
surveyor to have another survey done. He just didn't understand
why it is their responsibility, especially when the neighbor knows
where the stakes are. Doesn't a four foot retaining wall show that
there is a problem?
Mr. Newman stated the petitioner has provided the City with a
survey signed by a state licensed surveyor. The City has to assume
that the individual is duly licensed and is doing his/her job
appropriately. Despite what some people might think, most of these
surveyors are not going to risk their license and livelihood by
fudging on an official survey. As a matter of policy for the City,
questions on surveys come up all the time. If, every time a
neighbor contested the survey of another lot, the City used public
dollars to hire a second surveyor, the City could start spending
significant public dollars. That is why the City has adopted the
� policy that if neighbors disagree with a survey submitted by a
� state licensed surveyor, it asks the neighbors to present
compelling evidence to prove otherwise.
,,.�, PLANNING COl�lI88ION MEETING. JONE 1. 1994 PAGE 8
Mr. Maher stated they do not need a three story house when everyone
else in this neighborhood has one and two story houses. Maybe more
of an effort should be made to combine these vacant lots with other
lots to make bigger lots. This is a beautiful neighborhood and
building should be done, but it should be done on the right sized
lots.
Mr. Maher stated that this proposal actually affects more people
than just this neighborhood and more people should have been
notified. There are a lot of changes going on that more people
should know about.
Ms. McPherson stated notices are sent to people within 350 feet
outside the property line of the subject parcel.
Mr. Newman stated that notices are sent out based on an ordinance.
It would require an ordinance change by the City Council to require
sending notices to a broader area.
Mr. Gordon Hedlund stated the size of the house was brought up.
The house that he would be proposing would not be any larger than
homes that are already in the area. It is not unusual to see a
smaller house next to a larger house in this area.
�
Mr. Kondrick asked Mr. Hedlund if he had any objections to the
stipulations being recommended by staff.
Mr. Hedlund stated he has read the stipulations and is in agreement
with them.
Mr. Newman asked Mr. Hedlund what material would be used for the
construction of the retaining wall.
Mr. Hedlund stated it would be an approved product, whether it is
wood, concrete, or stone.
Mr. Newman asked if Mr. Hedlund would object to a stipulation that
the retaining wall not be made of wood.
Mr. Hedlund stated he believed the retaining wall would probably
be non-wood. Concrete is more permanent.
Mr. Tim Lott asked if it would make a difference if the
petitioner's property is less than 7,500 square feet.
Mr. Newman stated that if the property is less than 7,500 square
feet, the petitioner would have to apply for a variance before he
would be able to build on the property.
�'� Mr. Lott asked if the Planning Commission will be basing its
decision on the assumption that this property is 7, 500 square feet.
,..� PLANNING COMMISBION MEETING. JIINE 1. 1994 PAGS 9
Mr. Newman stated the Planning Commission has to base its decision
on the available information. He suggested that if the property
owners want to contest the 7,500 square feet, they might want to
first ask a surveyor to come out to the property and infornaally
tell them whether or not the stakes are properly located. If the
surveyor believes the stakes are improperly located, then the
property owners have no issue. However, if the surveyor feels there
may be a problem, then the property owners may want to spend the
money for the second survey. That information should be given to
the City staff and City Council.
Ms. McPherson explained that the property that is in the road from
the curb of Riverview Terrace to the lot line was acquired as an
easement. It was not condemned and taken over under City
ownership. The City condemned an easement which gives the City
permission to use that portion of property for the road. But, the
property between the curb and the lot line is still legally under
the fee ownership of Mr. Hedlund, and that land can be used as a
calculation for the lot area.
Mr. Lott stated it might be a moot issue to acquire another survey.
Mr. Newman stated that is true, unless the property owners can
r"� prove that the lot area, including the area under the road, is less
than 7,500 square feet.
Mr. Maher asked if there are any plans for Riverview Terrace that
might affect this plan.
Ms. Dacy stated there is a potential improvement plan for the
Riverview Terrace right-of-way. One of the proposed stipulations
on this particular lot was for a request from the Engineering
Department for an additional easement. Because no detailed
drawings have been done, staff does not know the answer to Mr.
Maher's question at this time.
Ms. Brady stated there has to be some kind of rule or ordinance
that allows a property owner to count the easement as part of lot
area.
Ms. Dacy stated the definition for an easement is defined in State
Statute, as well as in the definition for fee simple ownership.
Between now and the City Council meeting on June 20, 1994, staff
will be happy to meet with the adjacent property owners and a
surveyor to review what they feel is a correct version of this lot.
If they can document that the lot area is below 7,500 square feet,
staff will present that to the property owner. Then the next step
would be for the petitioner to apply for a lot area variance which
� would be a separate process through the Appeals Commission and City
�� Council. Or, the property owners can make their appeal to the
Council members.
,"i
r^�
�
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. JIINE 1. 1994 PAGE 10
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the
diagram showing the existing stake and the location of the nail
put in by the recent surveyor submitted by M. E. Thompson.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER801J NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
Ms. Brady asked for a copy of the survey report, the new
stipulations, and engineer�s report.
Ms. Dacy stated staff will provide her with that information.
Mr. Saba stated that as much as he is opposed to this type of
structure, according to the City Attorney's decision, the City
cannot restrict the height of the structure. The other control is
through the lot size and flood fringe permit, which is the reason
for the special permit application. The Commission also cannot
discuss how this area is to be planned. The neighbors have brought
up a number of issues, including the lot size, that should be
resolved before this special use permit goes to City Council. The
testimony from the public hearing on May 4, 1994, and from this
meeting will go to City Council with the Commission's
recommendation. He stated he believes the only recommendation the
Commission can make is approval of this special use permit with the
stipulations recommended by staff. `
Ms. Savage stated that at the May 4, 1994, meeting, the Planning
Commission tabled this special use permit request so the petitioner
could fulfill the requirements and he has done that. She would
agree that the Commission should recommend approval of the special
use penait with the stipulations.
Mr. Sielaff agreed. Based on the information the Commission has
had, they have to recommend approval. If the adjacent property
owners can come up with some other information and want to make a
case, they can make it to the City Council.
Mr. Kondrick stated he cannot come up with any legal reason for
denying this request. The petitioner has conformed to all the
requirements, and the Commission has to rely on the information
that has been provided. He, too, would recommend approval of the
special use permit.
Mr. Newman stated he appreciated the concerns raised by the
neighbors. He remembered back in 1964 when there was a referendum
as to whether or not this site was going to be included in urban
renewal because of the concerns of flooding, and the residents of
this City voted against that. He stated he was down in this area
in 1969 filling sandbags. He runs through this area and has for
10 years, so he is very familiar with this area.
,-� PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETINa. JIINE 1. 1994 PAa$ 11
Mr. Newman stated Mr. Peterson made a very compelling and
interesting argument. However, under state law, this is a special
use permit; and as long as the applicant can meet the standards set
forth in the ordinance, the Commission does not have any
discretion. That is set by state law. If the City Council wants
to do some kind of comprehensive plan and wants the Commission to
do that, then that becomes their responsibility. Until then, the
Commission is bound by the state law. From his reading and from
the information that has been provided to the Commission, the
applicant has met those statutory standards.
MOTION by Mr. iCondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend to
City Council approval of special use permit, SP #94-03, by Gordon
Hedlund, per Section 205.24.4.D and 205.24.5.A of the Fridley City
Code, to allow construction in the CRP-2 District (Flood Fringe)
on Lots 12 and 13, Block Y, Riverview Heights, generally located
on the south side of Buffalo Street east of Riverview Terrace, with
the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate in
addition to a verifying survey prior to the foundation
being capped, which shall verify that the minimum first
floor elevation is 824.
,� 2. The petitioner shall floodproof the garage in accordance
with current federal and state floodproofing requirements
to a minimum of the 100 year flood elevation.
3. The fill placed on the property shall extend a minimum
of 15 feet from the proposed dwelling unit.
4. The builder shall grade the property to conform with the
engineering plan dated May 23, 1994.
5. The verifying survey shall confirm that the grading
complies with the plan dated May 23, 1994.
6. Rip-rap shall be placed at the end of the swale adjacent
to Buffalo Street.
7. Erosion control measures shall be installed along the
west, south, and east lot lines.
8. The petitioner shall submit retaining wall plans that
have been signed by a structural engineer. The wall
shall be constructed of concrete or stone.
9. The petitioner shall execute and record against the
property a hold harmless agreement releasing the City
� from liability if damage occurs as a result of flooding.
i�
,�
r"1
PLANNING COMMIBBION MEETING JIINE 1. 1994 PAGE 12
10. The petitioner shall grant a 10 foot flood control,
street, utility, and drainage easement along the west
lot line.
11.
12.
The grading and drainage plan shall indicate the number
of trees to be preserved.
The petitioner shall sign a Combination Form, combining
the property into one tax statement prior to building
permit issuance.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on June 20,
1994.
2. Tabled 5/4/94: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERNiIT SP #94-
04, BY GORDON HEDLUND•
Per Section 205.24.4.D and 205.24.5.A of the Fridley City
Code, to allow construction in the CRP-2 District (Flood
Fringe) on Lots 29, 30, and 31, Block X, Riverview Heights,
generally located on the south side of Cheryl Street west of
Broad Avenue.
Ms. McPherson stated this property is located at the intersection
of Cheryl and Broad Streets. The Commission tabled this request
at its May 4, 1994, meeting to request that the petitioner have
the grading plan reviewed and more specifically defined by an
engineer. The engineer plan did come back with swales defined with
percent slopes and spot elevations on the property. The engineer
also indicated that a pipe will need to be installed in the
southwest corner of the property to the catch basin at the
northwest corner of the property to make sure that water does not
remain pooled in the southwest corner.
Ms. McPherson stated staff has again stipulated that the builder
is to grade the property in conformance with this plan and that
the verifying survey which is required be submitted by the
petitioner to confirm that the grading does meet the plan as
submitted. In addition, silt fences and other erosion control
measures need to be placed along the edges of the property line to
prevent dirt and excavation material from going into the adjacent
streets.
Ms. McPherson stated staff visited this site to investigate the
height issue. The property owner at 614 Cheryl Street indicated
a concern regarding the height of the dwelling. For this
particular property, staff has stipulated not to limit the height
of the building, but to limit the location to the pad as proposed.
It is in the center of the lot and, therefore, would reduce the
impact of the overall height of the building if it is constructed
,-�� PLANNING_ CO1�II�II88ION MEBTING. JIINE 1, 1994 PA(,�L 13
in this location. This lot is very similar to the lot at 600 Ely
Street, just two blocks north of the subject parcel. At that
location, there is a small dwelling unit in a similar location as
614 Cheryl. The dwelling to the east, built after 1977 when the
flood plain regulations were adopted, is at a higher elevation.
You can see the amount of fill that was filled on that property to
bring the dwelling into conformance.
Ms. McPherson stated the remaining stipulations for this property
are the same as those recommended at the May 4, 1994, Planning
Commission meeting. Staff recommends that the Commission recommend
approval of this special use permit request with the 11 recommended
stipulations.
Mr. Newman stated that, again, it might be appropriate to add a
stipulation regarding concrete or stone retaining wall plans that
have been signed by a structural engineer.
Mr. Clark Nason, 614 Cheryl Street, stated he is concerned about
the sewer system in this area. He is the one who has all the
trouble with sewer backups. He does have a shutoff valve, but if
the pumping station doesn't work, the sewer backs up into his
basement. The sewer system cannot handle the homes that are there
now, and how is it going to handle another home? He stated he is
,�"'� going to look at a 7 foot embanl�rtent outside his door. There is
a 50 foot vacant lot in back of his house so he could be looking
at another 7 foot embankment in back of his house, too, if that lot
is developed. With 7 feet all around him, he is down in the
valley. No matter what the City says, that water is not going to
stay on the other property; it is going to go onto his property.
Ms. Darlene Brady, 641 Buffalo Street, stated she again wanted to
say that when the land is built up that high, they are talking
about a two or three story house. Again, they need to build
appropriate to the lot and appropriate to the neighborhood.
Mr. Monte Maher, 7965 Riverview Terrace, stated that something
should be done about the sewer system if more houses are going to
be built.
Mrs. Michelle Maher, 7965 Riverview Terrace, stated she can
understand that the City has to approve these requests if the
petitioner meets all the requirements. But, is there anything the
Commission can do to understand the concerns of the neighbors and
make recommendations on a personal level? Is there anything the
neighbors can do to make a difference besides expressing concerns,
because that doesn't seem to be very beneficial here?
Mr. Newman stated that in some regards, expressing their concerns
� may be more beneficial than they believe. The Commission has two
important components: (1) The Commission receives information to
present to the Council; and (2) The Commission makes a
r-1.� PLANNINQ COMMI88ION M88TINa, JIINB 1. 1994 PAaE 14
recommendation to the Council. He stated the Council does not
always follow the Commission's recommendation. He stated some very
valid issues have been raised by the neighbors, and he encouraged
them to contact their councilmember.
Mr. Gordon Hedlund stated he had nothing to add.
Mr. Kondrick asked Mr. Hedlund if he had any objections to the
stipulations recommended by staff.
Mr. Hedlund stated he has read the stipulations and has no
objections to them.
Mr. James Peterson, 7995 Broad Avenue, asked if the City has any
rules for the building pads, the type of soil, etc.
Ms. McPherson stated that information would be required at the time
of the building permit by the Inspection Division.
Mr. Peterson stated the only other comment he would make is that
the City not allow the truckloads of fill to drive on Broad Street
which is already in very bad shape.
Mr. Newman stated that even though the Council could impose that
,�"`�, condition, it is very difficult to enforce.
Mr. Kondrick stated he is very disturbed about the sewer problems
that Mr. Nason at 614 Cheryl Street has been e�eriencing. He
recommended that Mr. ATason continue to express that concern.
Mr. Nason stated he now carries insurance because of the sewer
backups. Something needs to be done.
Ms. Brady stated she also has sewer backups. Her hot water heater
is rusting because of it. The City of Fridley will not help her
with that. Also, these backups can be a bad health issue.
Mr. Newman suggested that Ms. Brady contact her councilmember and
give her councilmember this information and any records she has
regarding her sewer backups.
Mr. Monte Maher, 7965 Riverview Terrace, stated sewage is a big
concern. The City�s record only pertains to those people who have
made the effort to contact the City. There may be a lot of other
people who have had sewer backups but have not called the City.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend to
City Council approval of special use permit, SP #94-04, by Gordon
Hedlund, per Section 205.24.4.D and 205.24.5.A of the Fridley City
^ Code, to allow construction in the CRP-2 District (Flood Fringe)
on Lots 29, 30, and 31, Block X, Riverview Heights, generally
,.� PLANNINa COMMI88ION M�ETINa. JIINE 1, 1994 PAGE 15
� -
��
located on the south side of Cheryl Street west of Broad Avenue,
with the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate in
addition to a verifying survey prior to the foundation
being capped, which shall verify that the minimum first
floor elevation is 823.9.
2. The petitioner shall floodproof the garage in accordance
with current federal and state floodproofing requirements
to a minimum of the 100 year flood elevation.
3. The fill placed on the property shall extend a minimum
of 15 feet from the proposed dwelling unit.
4. The builder shall grade the property to conform with the
engineering plan dated May 23, 1994.
5. The verifying survey shall confirm that the grading
complies with the plan dated May 23, 1994. The retaining
wall shall be constructed of concrete or stone materials.
6. Erosion control measures shall be installed along the
west, south, and east lot lines.
7. The hold harmless agreement shall be amended to require
the property owner to maintain the stormwater catch basis
and pipe.
8. The petitioner shall execute and record against the
property a hold harmless agreement releasing the City
from liability if damage occurs as a result of flooding.
9. The grading and drainage plan shall indicate the number
of trees to be preserved.
10. The petitioner shall sign a Combination Form, combining
the property into one tax statement prior to building
permit issuance.
11. The dwelling shall be constructed in the location
proposed on the grading plan.
Mr. Newman stated the neighbors have raised some very significant
issues and concerns, particularly the concern about these houses
sitting on mounds in this neighborhood. However, the Commission
is bound by ordinances and by the information provided by City
staff. As this area goes through further redevelopment, the
Commission should probably take a closer look at these issues and
�
concerns.
� PLANNING COMMISSION ME$TING. JIINB 1. 1994 PAaE 16
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(� AYE, CBAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLAR�D THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
3. Tabled 5/4/94: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #94-
05, BY GORDON HEDLUND:
Per Section 205.24.4.D and 205.24.5.A of the Fridley City
Code, to allow construction in the CRP-2 District (Flood
Fringe) on Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, Block V, Riverview
Heights, generally located on the north side of Dover Street
west of Broad Avenue.
Ms. McPherson stated this property is located on the north side of
Dover Street, approximately 150 feet from Riverview Terrace. This
request was tabled at the May 4, 1994, Planning Commission meeting
to allow the petitioner time to have an engineer review the grading
and drainage plan and provide percent slopes for the swales and
spot elevations. The petitioner has submitted an engineer's plan
which indicates that the swales will be adequate to handle the
water runoff. Again, the Engineering Department has indicated that
erosion control measures should be placed along the west, east, and
south lot lines to prevent soil from flowing into the street due
to runoff prior to vegetation being established on the property.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending that the Planning
,�"1 Commission recommend approval with nine stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate as
part of a verifying survey prior to the foundation being
capped, which shall verify that the minimum first floor
elevation is 824.1.
2. The petitioner shall floodproof the garage in accordance
with current federal and state floodproofing requirements
to a minimum of the 100 year flood elevation.
3. The fill placed on the property shall extend a minimum
of 15 feet from the proposed dwelling unit.
4. The builder shall grade the property to conform with the
engineering plan dated May 23, 1994.
5. The verifying survey shall confirm that the grading
complies with 'the plan dated May 23, 1994.
6. Erosion control measures shall be installed along the
west, south, and east lot lines.
7. The petitioner shall execute and record against the
property a hold harmless agreement releasing the City
� from liability if damage occurs as a result of flooding.
� PLANNING COMMI88ION MSBTINa. JIINE �. 1994 PAaE 17
8. The grading and drainage plan shall indicate the number
of trees to be preserved.
9. The petitioner shall sign a Combination Form, combining
the property into one tax statement prior to building
permit issuance.
Mr. Newman asked if there are any retaining walls for this
property.
Ms. McPherson stated there are not.
Ms. Brady stated that, again, the sewer issue is a concern for this
property. Also, the big mound on dirt and the multi-level home are
concerns. She is not objecting to a home being built on the lot,
but it should be built to fit the lot size and the neighborhood.
This proposal is more reasonable than the first two proposals.
Mr. Hedlund stated he had nothing to add.
Mr. Kondrick asked Mr. Hedlund if he had any problems with the
stipulations recommended by staff.
Mr. Hedlund stated he is in agreement with all the stipulations.
��1
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend to City
Council approval of special use permit, SP #94-05, by Gordon
Hedlund, per Section 205.24.4.D and 205.24.5.A of the Fridley City
Code, to allow construction in the CRP-2 District (Flood Fringe)
on Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, Block V, Riverview Heights, generally
located on the north side of Dover Street west of Broad Avenue,
with the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate as
part of a verifying survey prior to the foundation being
capped, which shall verify that the minimum first floor
elevation is 824.1.
2. The petitioner shall floodproof the garage in accordance
with current federal and state floodproofing requirements
to a minimum of the 100 year flood elevation.
3. The fill placed on the property shall extend a minimum
of 15 feet from the proposed dwelling unit.
4. The builder shall grade the property to conform with the
engineering plan dated May 23, 1994.
5. The verifying survey shall confirm that the grading
,.� complies with the plan dated May 23, 1994.
�
!�1
r"1
PI,ANNING CONIIdtISBION MEETING� JIINE 1. 1994 PAGE 18
6. Erosion control measures shall be installed along the
west, south, and east lot lines.
7. The petitioner shall execute and record against the
property a hold harmless agreement releasing the City
from liability if damage occurs as a result of flooding.
8. The grading and drainage plan shall indicate the number
of trees to be preserved.
9. The petitioner shall sign a Combination Form, combining
the property into one tax statement prior to building
permit issuance.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRILD IINANIMOIISLY.
Mr. Newman stated this request will go to the City Council on June
20, 1994.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP
#94-07, BY AMOCO OIL COMPANY•
Per Section 205.14.01.C.(5)� of the Fridley City Code „ to
allow the expansion of an automobile service station on Lots
16, 17, 18, and 19, Block 13, Hamilton's Addition to
Mechanicsville, generally located at 5311 University Avenue
N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the
reading and open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYB, CHAIRPERBON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE pIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9550 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated this property is located in the northeast
corner of 53rd Avenue and University Avenue. The property is zoned
C-2, General Business. The property to the east is zoned R-3,
General Multiple Dwelling.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing to construct a 12
foot by 15 foot storage addition on the rear of the service station
building. The original service station was constructed in 1959,
and the City issued a special use permit to allow a car wash
expansion in 1978.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has also applied for two
variances: (1) to reduce the setback from an adjacent residential
district from 50 feet to 19 feet; and (2) to reduce the hard
surface setback from a building from 5 feet to 0 feet. The Appeals
Commission reviewed the variance request on May 24, 1994, and
recommended approval of the request to the City Council.
�--� PLANNINa COMMISBION MEETING. JIINE 1, 1994 PAdE 19
Ms. McPherson stated the addition is proposed to be used for
storage of air compressors and lube equipment to improve the
working conditions and safety for the mechanics. The addition is
proposed to be located adjacent to the car wash. A waste oil tank
is located to the south of the addition so that limits the size and
location of the addition.
Ms. McPherson stated residential dwellings are located east of the
property. There are residents who use the service station property
and the alley along the east property line for access to their
garages. The e�cpansion would narrow the driving aisle adjacent to
the alley down to 19 feet. Typically, the code requires a 15 foot
hard surface separation from an alley; however, requiring
compliance with this requirement would eliminate access for the
adjacent property owners. The Appeals Commission did not recommend
granting that variance in order to allow the City to evaluate the
nonconformity should the property become damaged to more than 50�
of its value. The Appeals Commission did vote to waive the 5 foot
hard surface requirement along the east side of the addition in
order to maximize the driving aisle along the rear of the building.
Ms. McPherson stated a site visit revealed that the area along the
north side of the building is used for the storage of materials and
equipment. The dumpster is located in this area and is not
/� screened-from the public view.
Ms. McPherson stated the addition is proposed to be constructed of
eight inch concrete block and insulated with cellulose insulation
on the inside of the block. It should be painted to match the rest
of the building. The equipment to be stored inside the addition
should not exceed the allowable decibels established Chapter 124
of the City Code.
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the special use permit request with seven
stipulations.
Mr. Saba asked the hours of operation.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner stated at the Appeals
Commission meeting that the service station has 24 hour service;
however, the mechanic bays are typically closed at 9:00-9:30 p.m.
Mr. Saba asked if the compressor equipment will be running all
night. He is concerned about noise.
Mr. Richard Larsen, Amoco Oil, stated the compressor only runs if
there is a need for air. The car wash will not be used to any
extent late at night and the mechanics leave at 9:00-9:30 p.m.
^ Mr. Kondrick asked if there was any neighborhood objection.
,�
�
PLANNINa CONIIdiISBION MEETING. JIINE 1. 1994 PAG� 20
Ms. McPherson stated she received one telephone call from a
neighbor living near the service station who was concerned about
the amount of money being expended by the petitioner in terms of
light rail transit. She also received a telephone call from a
property owner living on the west side of University who was
concerned about signage and the aesthetic appearance. No residents
from the immediate neighborhood appeared at the Appeals Commission
meeting.
Mr. Newman asked if Mr. Larsen had any objections to the
stipulations.
Mr. Larsen stated he is in agreement with all the stipulations.
M TION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CEAIRPERBON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARIN(�i CLOSED AT 10:00 P.M.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to City
Council approval of special use permit, SP #94-07, by Amoco Oil
Company, per Section 205.14.01.C.(5) of the Fridley City Code „ to
allow the expansion of an automobile service station on Lots 16,
17, 18, and 19, Block 13, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville,
generally located at 5311 University Avenue N.E., with the
following stipulations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Variance, VAR #94-03, shall be approved.
Two pipe bollards shall be installed at the southeast
and northeast corners of the addition in lieu of the five
foot separation.
The addition shall be painted to match the existing
structure .
Equipment noise shall not exceed the maximum decibels
established in Chapter 124 of the City Code.
The outdoor storage of materials adjacent to the north
lot line shall be discontinued.
No parking shall be permitted adj acent to the rear of
the building or the addition and shall be posted "no
parking".
7. The dumpster shall be screened from public view.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSOld NEWMAI�T DECLARED THE
^ MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
� PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETINa. JIINE 1. 1994 PAGE 21
5. RECEIVE MAY 2. 1994, PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the
May 2, 1994, Parks and Recreation Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CBAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
6. RECEIVE MAY 5J 1994. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the
May 5, 1994, Housing and Redevelopment Authority minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED TSE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
7. RECEIVE MAY 12. 1994, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES•
MOTION by Ms..Savage, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the May
12, 1994, Human Resources Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRILD IINANIMOIIBLY.
�
ADJOURNMENT•
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. 5ielaff, to adjourn the
meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Newman
declared the motion carried and the June 1, 1994, Planning
Commission meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully sub itted,
�: �
�.
� -
y Saba
Recording Secretary
�
�' �'1
��
�
S I G N— IN S H E E T
PLANNING COMMIgSION MEETING, Wednesday, June 1, 1994
�
�