Loading...
03/15/2000 - 00007914CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMISSION MEETING, MARCH 15, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the March 15, 2000, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p. m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Larry Kuechle, Brad Sielaff Connie Modig, Dean Saba, Leroy Oquist Members Absent: Dave Kondrick Others Present: Paul Bolin, Planner Gary and Sally Bannochie, 7845 East River Road, Apt. #113 APPROVE THE MARCH 1, 2000, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the March 1, 2000, Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #00-02, by Gary and Sally Bannochie to allow a residence to be built in a River Preservation District. Permit is specifically required for home proposed to be elevated, but not built on fill (Ordinance No. 1056), generally located at 665 Dover Street N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:34 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated that the petitioners, Gary and Sally Bannochie, are seeking a special use permit in order to construct a home not completely elevated on fill in the flood fringe district at 665 Dover Street. Homes that are not elevated on fill are permitted as a special use in the flood fringe district provided that all FEMA and State floodproofing regulations and standards provided in City Ordinance #1056 are met. Mr. Bolin stated that City Ordinance #1056 requires a special use permit for this proposed home because a portion of the living space is going to be elevated by the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 15, 2000 PAGE 2 tuck-under garage rather than by fill. On this property there can be no living area below 824.1 feet above sea level of elevation according to City Code. Mr. Bolin stated this property is zoned R-1, single family residential, as are all of the surrounding properties. This lot was platted in 1922. An old home on this site was removed in 1964. In 1994, a special use permit was granted to this property and two others in the Riverview Heights neighborhood to allow these homes to be built in the flood fringe district. On this particular lot and on at least one of the others, the homes were never built. Since that time, the special use permit has expired; and in 1996, City Ordinance #1056 was adopted. Mr. Bolin stated the legal description of the lot actually states that this was four individual lots that has since been combined into one tax parcel. The home will be flood-proofed through the use of siding, cultured stone, and landscaping. The City's required setbacks are met with 11 feet along the eastern property edge, a 35-foot front yard setback, and almost 21 feet on the west side of the property. There is a retaining wall to the east of the home because the ordinance generally requires homes built on fill to have that fill extend 15 feet out all the way around the foundation of the home. In this case, in place of that on the east side is a retaining wall. The City's engineers and the petitioner's engineers looked at it and decided to do a retaining wall to not affect the natural flowage and drainage along that edge of the property. Everything will still come out towards the street as it always has. Staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following stipulations: 1. Soil testing shall be completed and submitted by a soils engineer as required by Chapter 17 of the Uniform Building Code prior to pouring the foundation footings. 2. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction. 3. Siding and landscaping shall be used to minimize the impact of flood-proofing materials. 4. 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 feet. 5. The petitioner shall flood-proof the garage in accordance with current Federal and State flood-proofing requirements to a minimum of the 100-year flood elevation. 6. A retaining wall shall be installed on the east side of the home to maintain existing elevation and drainage along eastern property line. 7. The builder shall grade the property to conform with the grading plan dated 2/11 /2000. 8. The verifying survey shall confirm that the grading complies with the grading plan dated 2/11 /2000. 9. Erosion control measures shall be installed along the west, south, and east lot lines prior to any work done on this site. 10. 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 COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 15, 2000 PAGE 3 11. Petitioner shall plant a minimum of five (5) trees. These five trees can be a combination of over-story deciduous trees having a 2'/ feet minimum caliper at planting and coniferous trees at least six feet in height at the time of planting. 12. City Staff must approve the removal of any additional trees. 13. The height of the structure shall not exceed 30 feet as measured from the street elevation, which is 818.54 feet. Ms. Savage asked Mr. Bolin if he has had any calls from any neighbors. Mr. Bolin stated that he has not had any comments from the neighbors. There is another lot similar to this about a block away, and they have had a lot of interest in that site lately too. People are finding out that it is possible to build in these areas if proper procedures are followed. Ms. Savage asked if any other authority such as the Watershed District has to look at this request. Mr. Bolin stated that only City Council has to look at this. It does have to go through the building permit process and be in conformance with all of the FEMA and State and Federal standards. Mr. Kuechle asked if the first stipulation was required on all lots or only lots in the flood plain. Mr. Bolin stated it is only required because it is in the flood plain and there will be some soil hauled in. Mr. Kuechle asked if stipulation #11 should have a more specific date; for example, by September 2001. Mr. Bolin stated that would be a good idea. Mr. Oquist asked if stipulation #9 was only during construction. Mr. Bolin stated that was correct. Ms. Modig asked if the City usually has stipulations similar to #11 regarding planting trees on these types of properties. Mr. Bolin stated that the City tries to place a stipulation on these properties going through a special use permit or a lot split. Staff will go and look at any trees that are being proposed to be removed and give approval. In this case most of the trees came down last summer. The trees probably were where the home would be located; but in order to return some of the character that the property had prior to the trees coming down, they would like to see some replacement of the 12 to 15 trees that came down. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 15, 2000 PAGE 4 Ms. Savage asked the petitioner if he had any problem with the stipulations. Mr. Gary Bannochie stated that he only has a problem with stipulation #11. This is a wooded lot and is not really big. The house is going to take up a lot of the lot. There are still some trees in the back and to plant five more may just add too much with the limited space in the yard. There are still some trees in the back that he really wanted to get rid of because they are dying. The neighbors on the one side let the vines grow so thick that it pulls the trees down, and they needed a tree trimmer to dress up the whole place. He may need someone to come back out and take a look at the tree situation. Mr. Bolin stated that it would be up to the Planning Commission to amend the stipulation. Mr. Bannochie stated there are quite a few trees in the lot already. Ms. Savage stated that it is necessary to try to replace some of the trees that have been cut down already. Mr. Bannochie stated that when the house in finished, there will be such overgrowth with the neighboring trees that shade out the lawn already, it will be hard to get sunlight in there. A lot of the trees in the back corner are dead. He does not have a problem with planting more trees, but he would rather not. Mr. Saba asked how many live trees he would have left. Mr. Bannochie stated that there are a few in there. They will be doing some landscaping, but he is not sure if adding five trees would work out. The trees in the summer time fill up on top like a big dome. Ms. Savage stated that he does have a choice with the trees he wants to plant. Ms. Modig stated that he has to have a certain amount of coniferous trees at least six feet tall at the time of planting. Mr. Bolin stated that was correct, but he could also have deciduous trees at least 2'/ inches in caliper. Mr. Saba asked Mr. Bolin how staff arrived at five trees. Mr. Bolin stated they came up with five trees by looking at the size of the site and the number of trees that were removed. There were a number of trees that were not in the way of the house site that could have stayed up, but it is hard to tell what shape they were in. The City thought five was a fair number with the option of planting coniferous trees or deciduous trees. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 15, 2000 PAGE 5 Mr. Oquist stated that they do not require this for other house construction. He knows that the lot is fairly wooded, and he can appreciate what Mr. Bannochie is talking about with it having some overgrowth. Just because he takes a tree down, he should not be required to replace it. Ms. Savage stated that maybe they should. Mr. Bolin stated that over the past year, the tree issue has come up more and more with the lot splits they have had. In the past they have been able to get a good look at the lots and have a say in which trees come down. They have not had to come in after the trees came down and play catch up. Mr. Bannochie stated that maybe that situation is more in a development than this type of lot. Ms. Savage stated that she can recall a number of cases where they have prohibited the removal of trees without the approval of the City. Apparently, in this case, Mr. Bannochie took down trees without approval. Mr. Bannochie stated that was true, but the trees were where the house would be built and the driveway. The two trees near the driveway area presently might need to be knocked down because they may be too close to the driveway. He might have to talk to the City about those two trees. Mr. Oquist stated that he thinks the City has to be careful about what trees to take down. He just took down some big trees in his yard. Is the City going to be coming in to each individual home and ask what trees are going to be cut down? He had to cut his down because of the big limb hanging over the house. Ms. Savage stated that she thought this was a different situation. Mr. Bannochie stated there are a lot of big trees in the neighborhood and to add five more will be a lot. They are going to do landscaping with shrubs, etc. He probably would add a few trees, but to say that he has to plant five makes it hard to say where he would put them. Ms. Modig asked Mr. Bannochie how he would like to see stipulation #11 changed. Mr. Bannochie stated that he would like to see it changed to two trees. Possibly he would put five, but it is hard to say because he has not gotten into the landscaping part of it. Ms. Savage stated he does have a choice in the trees he has to plant. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 15, 2000 PAGE 6 Mr. Saba stated that he can understand Mr. Bannochie's dilemma. A tree is a permanent thing and to try to plant it within a time limit and within certain spaces is a tough decision to make. Ms. Savage asked how many trees he took down. Mr. Bannochie stated that he probably took down 15 where the house will be situated. Many were dead and they had a huge pile of root that was pulling the trees down and he had to get a professional tree trimmer to clean it up. Ms. Modig asked Mr. Bolin if Staff was saying that Mr. Bannochie has to come in and play catch-up because the trees were taken down. If he is saying that he took down dead trees and trees in the way of the house, is the City telling him where the trees should be planted? Mr. Bolin stated that they can be planted anywhere in the yard. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:04 P.M. Ms. Savage asked if they could leave the same number of trees to be added but change the size of the trees. She likes the idea of encouraging planting of trees. Mr. Oquist stated that one of the problems with having too many trees is that grass does not grow. Mr. Saba stated that trees have been controlled in the past when developers have bought the land; but, in this case, this is going to be Mr. Bannochie's own home. Coming up with the locations for trees is a tough decision. He thinks this is going to take care of itself, they do not need the stipulation. He would support taking the stipulation right out. Mr. Oquist stated he agrees with that. Mr. Kuechle stated that he feels they should keep the stipulation but have the petitioner and City staff work together to come up with a landscaping plan between now and the City Council meeting. It seems that another tree would be lost in the front yard and they would want to look at replacing some of those. He could fairly quickly mark where the trees would be in the site plan presently. Mr. Bannochie stated that as the house gets built, it would be easier to see where the landscaping should be. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 15, 2000 PAGE 7 Ms. Savage stated that she feels that there is a bigger issue. Should the City have a say in whether people should be able to cut down trees or not. This is a special use permit and the City is mandating a number of stipulations versus a situation where the home is already owned. Mr. Oquist stated the petitioner owns the property. Ms. Savage stated that he still had to get a special use permit. Mr. Oquist stated that this is a single family lot versus a big commercial project and they should be careful with this. Once he puts all those trees up, are they going to prevent him from taking them down? Ms. Savage stated that the City has a requirement for residential properties that people have to follow. Mr. Saba stated that in this case, he sees an exceptional situation because it is already wooded. Ms. Modig stated that most of the trees have been cut down where four houses are being built on Central Avenue at 61St. Why didn't the Planning Commission intervene there with the trees? She does not want anybody to tell her that she can or cannot have a tree. She does not think they can tell someone how to landscape their property. Mr. Saba stated that he did not think that they need to. People want to plant trees where they want them, but it may take a while to make that decision. Trees add to the value of the property. It is almost self-regulating, because the property owner wants the property to look the way they want it to look. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to approve Special Use Permit, SP #00-02, by Gary and Sally Bannochie, to allow a residence to be built in a River Preservation District, with the deletion of stipulation #11 as follows: 1. Soil testing shall be completed and submitted by a soils engineer as required by Chapter 17 of the Uniform Building Code prior to pouring of the foundation footings. 2. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction. 3. Siding and landscaping shall be used to minimize the impact of flood-proofing materials. 4. 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 feet. 5. The petitioner shall flood-proof the garage in accordance with current Federal and State flood-proofing requirements to a minimum of the 100-year flood elevation. 6. A retaining wall shall be installed on the east side of the home to maintain existing elevation and drainage along the eastern property line. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 15, 2000 PAGE 8 7. The builder shall grade the property to conform with the grading plan dated 2/11 /2000. 8. The verifying survey shall confirm that the grading complies with the grading plan dated 2/11 /2000. 9. Erosion control measures shall be installed along the west, south, and east lot lines prior to any work done on this site. 10. 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. 11. (Stipulation deleted.) Petitioner shall plant a minimum of five (5) trees. These five trees can be a combination of over-story deciduous trees having a 2'/ feet minimum caliper at planting and coniferous trees at least six feet in height at the time of planting. 12. City Staff must approve the removal of any additional trees. 13. The height of the structure shall not exceed 30 feet as measured from the street elevation, which is 818.54 feet. Ms. Savage stated that she believed stipulation #11 requiring the five trees is a reasonable requirement and she will not be able to go along with the motion without it. It seems to her there are many situations where they have required homeowners to not cut down trees without approval of staff. Mr. Oquist stated they have not had the requirement for homeowners to plant trees and how many. He agrees with Mr. Saba. Mr. Bannochie stated that he is planning on putting at least two trees in. Mr. Oquist stated that if Mr. Bannochie did not have a special use permit, they would not even be talking about the trees. Mr. Kuechle stated that this is the only place they have leverage. He agrees with Ms. Savage. He would be in favor of granting the special use permit with some flexibility of stipulation #11. He feels they need to send the message that they want the City to look good and this is one way of doing it. Mr. Oquist asked Mr. Kuechle what he meant by being flexible. Mr. Kuechle stated that he believes that the petitioner could work something out with City staff. Mr. Oquist stated that Mr. Bannochie cannot work something out until summer comes so he can see what the existing trees look like and whether he will need five trees and how many will survive. Ms. Modig stated that if Mr. Bannochie did not want any trees, he would not have bought the lot, so it is not a matter of him trying to get rid of the trees. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 15, 2000 PAGE 9 Ms. Savage stated that is not the issue. The issue is whether the City should have a say in the appearance of the City. Mr. Oquist stated that they would then have to change the ordinance. When they issue a building permit for a new house, they would have to dictate what the landscape would look like. Mr. Sielaff asked if the real issue is whether they retain the trees on the lot. Mr. Oquist stated that he has got that with stipulation #12. Ms. Savage stated that he has already removed a number of trees, which is the reason for stipulation #11. Ms. Modig stated that he removed the trees because they were dead. Ms. Savage stated that when you remove a dead tree, you should replace it. Mr. Oquist stated that there are reasons to plant trees and reasons to cut them down. He does not think they should tell a person to put more trees on a lot when you do not need them. Mr. Sielaff asked how many trees would remain on the property when the house is built. Mr. Bannochie stated that there are quite a few trees remaining. He is going to replace some trees, but he does not know how many. There are trees in the back and front and pines on one side that are half-dead. Mr. Kuechle asked if they could vote on stipulation #11 separately. He is in favor of granting the special use permit but does not want to vote "no" because he objects to elimination of stipulation #11. Mr. Saba stated that he has that opportunity to put that on record. Ms. Modig stated that she does not think the motion will pass if Mr. Kuechle votes against it. Mr. Kuechle stated that if Mr. Saba withdrew his motion and made a motion to delete stipulation #11, Mr. Kuechle and Ms. Savage could vote against that and they could bring up the whole thing and they could all vote in favor of it with stipulation #11 separate. Mr. Oquist stated they should leave the motion and make a second motion afterwards to make a recommendation to add or delete it. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 15, 2000 PAGE 10 Ms. Modig stated that someone could issue an amendment to the motion on the floor and vote on it as a separate issue. Mr. Saba stated that they would have to remove the motion completely and reconfigure the whole thing. Mr. Kuechle stated that if Mr. Saba withdrew the motion, could they vote on including stipulation #11 or not? Then, they could vote for the overall approval of the special use permit. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to withdraw the motion UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to exclude stipulation #11 from the list of stipulations for Special Use Permit, SP #00-02. UPON A VOICE VOTE, OQUIST, SABA, SIELAFF, AND MODIG VOTING AYE, SAVAGE AND KUECHLE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED 4-2. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve Special Use Permit, SP #00-02, by Gary and Sally Bannochie to allow a residence to be built in a River Preservation District, at 665 Dover Street N.E., with stipulation #11 excluded and renumbered as follows: 1. Soil testing shall be completed and submitted by a soils engineer as required by Chapter 17 of the Uniform Building Code prior to pouring the foundation footings. 2. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction. 3. Siding and landscaping shall be used to minimize the impact of flood-proofing materials. 4. 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 feet. 5. The petitioner shall flood-proof the garage in accordance with current Federal and State flood-proofing requirements to a minimum of the 100-year flood elevation. 6. A retaining wall shall be installed on the east side of the home to maintain existing elevation and drainage along the eastern property line. 7. The builder shall grade the property to conform with the grading plan dated 2/11 /2000. 8. The verifying survey shall confirm that the grading complies with the grading plan dated 2/11 /2000. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 15, 2000 PAGE 11 9. Erosion control measures shall be installed along the west, south, and east lot lines prior to any work done on this site. 10. 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. 11. City Staff must approve the removal of any additional trees. 12. The height of the structure shall not exceed 30 feet as measured from the street elevation, which is 818.54 feet. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Saba stated that City Council will make the final decision. 1. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 15, 2000, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff to receive the minutes of the February 15, 2000, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission meeting. Seconded by Ms. Modig. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Bolin updated the Commission on past City Council actions. Mr. Bolin stated this was Mr. Sielaff's last Planning Commission meeting, as he has chosen not to be reappointed to the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission. Mr. Bolin thanked Mr. Sielaff for all of his years of service on the Planning Commission, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission, and other committees he has served on for the City of Fridley. Mr. Sielaff stated that he has really enjoyed his time on the Commissions. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MARCH 15, 2000, PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 15, 2000 PAGE 12 Signe L. Johnson Recording Secretary _