PL 12/05/2001 - 30936� CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 2001
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Savage called the December 5, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at
7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, Barb Johns, Larry Kuechle
Members Absent: Dean Saba, Leroy Oquist
Others Present: Stacy Stromberg, Planner
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Troy and Anna Peabody, 606 Cheryl Street NE
APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 7 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES:
MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to approve the November 7, 2001, 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 #01-13, by Troy and Anna Peabody, to allow
a residence to be built in a River Preservation District. A permit is specifically required
for homes proposed to be elevated, but not built on fill. (Ordinance Number 1056),
generally located at 606 Cheryl Street NE.
MOTION by Ms. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to waive the reading and open the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:33 P.M.
Ms. Stromberg stated that homes that are not elevated on fill are a permitted special use in the
flood fringe district provided that all FEMA and State flood-proofing regulations and standards
provided in Ordinance No. 1056 are met. The lot is located on the corner of Broad Avenue and
Cheryl Street and is zoned R-1, single family, as are all surrounding properties. It meets City
Code requirements for lot size (9,000 sq. ft.) at 9,350 square feet and meets City Code
requirements for lot width (75 feet) at 85 feet wide. The home meets setback and lot coverage
requirements. Ordinance No. 1056 states that a special use permit may be issued to construct
a home using alternative elevation methods, such as a tuck-under garage in this case, provided
that all living area is located above flood level. On this property there can be no living area
below 823.9 feet in elevation. The first floor living area will be located at 824.9 feet in elevation
with the garage slab at the top of two feet of fill, which will be waterproofed to meet all
�� standards.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 2001 PAGE 2
� Ms. Stromberg stated that staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the
following stipulations:
1. Prior to submittal of building plans, all structural and soil engineering shall be reviewed
and approved by a structural engineer.
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
823.9 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. Retaining walls shall be installed on the east and west sides of the home, a minimum of
5%a inches (maximum of 8 inches) is required to separate the grade from the threshold.
7. The petitioner shall submit new grading and drainage plans integrating the retaining
walls on the east and west sides of the home.
8. The verifying survey shall confirm stipulation #7. (Note to surveyor: Hydrant elevation
has changed since 1994, verify elevation.)
9. Erosion control measures shall be installed along all 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. The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees
required to be removed for the new home shall be marked and approved by City staff
^ prior to issuance of building permits.
12. The height of the structure shall not exceed 30 feet as measured from the top of the curb
elevation.
13. Special use permit approval is dependent upon approval of variance, VAR #01-15.
Mr. Hickok stated a special use permit is required to make sure any compatibility issues are
addressed prior to issuance of the building permit. FEMA regulations raise the elevation of the
first floor level of the home, and compatibility with adjacent structures is important to consider.
In 1994, a special use permit was approved for this property to keep the first floor elevation on
that height, but to build up the fill. What is being discussed tonight is taking the foundation and
building the floor elevation up to where it needs to be and building the home on top of that,
keeping the grade roughly where it is at with minor modification. The stipulation of minimizing
the height by using retaining walls or planter boxes as a possible solution would come in and
help bring the house back down. Architecturally, it would feel like it is blending in with the
neighborhood better. The property owner has a solution also that a retaining wall would be built
away from the home and hold the earth so it could be graded up towards the home and not
leave any grading issues like ponding water next to the house. This would raise the landscape
elevation to help bring it in at a level of the house similar to a typical structure.
Mr. Hickok stated option 2 puts a planter box right next to the house and the petitioner is
concemed about that. A new grading and drainage plan would be submitted by their
engineering staff and reviewed and worked out so there is no ponding or detrimental issues
there. Staff favors this option because it would raise up the grade and put landscaping at a
typical elevation and create an architectural feature to step land away from the building so it
feels like it is similar to surrounding homes. The petitioner submitted an alternative close to
option 1 showing planter boxes stepped out away from the home about six feet. It
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 2001 PAGE 3
,-1 accomplishes the grading, and the landscape has more dramatic effect coming closer to the
street than the house itself.
Mr. Hickok stated that from the garage end, the planter boxes are stepped away from the house
that leaves the FEMA foundation standing on its own allowing a walkway around both sides.
The planter box could be taken six feet past the garage and turned so it creates a minimizing
effect and a nice L-shaped walkway to the front door. On the west side of the house there
would be another planter box drawing down the height of the structure. There is a plain looking
building face, and the landscape would create visual interest for the neighbor. There will be a
deck built to break up the back of the home and draw it down to the neighborhood scale.
Ms. Savage asked if any neighbors had any complaints.
Ms. Stromberg stated they received one concem from a neighbor about the size of the structure
being too large in comparison to the other homes in the area.
Mr. Kondrick stated there is six feet from where the body of the house is and the planter area.
How will the water be managed with snow melt and heavy rain?
Mr. Hickok stated that is included in the stipulations. The area would need to drain properly.
They need to revise the grading and drainage plan to show that it needs to be titled somewhat
or have a draining mechanism built into it.
Mr. Kondrick stated that gutters and downspouts would be an important part of the program.
r"1
Mr. Kuechle asked a question regarding the curb and the height of the top nut on the hydrant.
Mr. Hickok stated it is 817 feet. The curb and hydrant height have changed. The 817 feet
given comes from the 1994 packet of material. Staff has asked the petitioner to go back and
know the benchmark height of the top nut which is used for survey elevations. That has
changed about one foot since the 1994 project. That would have an impact on the first floor
living area. Staff has discussed this with the petitioners, and everything they take off from the
benchmark is correct.
Mr. Kuechle asked if there was a stipulation about the planters and what leverage the City has
to make sure the petitioners build the planters.
Mr. Hickok stated that is important, and they need to make sure there is a solution before the
building permit is issued. A special use permit can be revoked, and it becomes an expensive
problem for the petitioners. Staff has a good working relationship with the petitioners, and the
planter boxes are a suitable solution with landscaping and planter boxes. The one that talks
about prior to their getting a building permit having the grading and drainage plans approved will
be key to the question. It has to show the boxes, or it cannot be approved.
Ms. Savage stated that the stipulations are significant in this situation due to the fact of the flood
plan area. The stipulations are required to allow the special use permit.
Mr. Hickok stated that is correct.
,�"'� Ms. Anna Peabody, petitioner, stated that the actual measurement is 818.54 feet according to
the inspector. The problem with the planter boxes being right next to the house is that there are
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 2001 PAGE 4
� venting and draining issues. There are also FEMA guidelines about the crawl space next to the
house.
Mr. Kondrick asked how far over the planter boxes would be.
Ms. Peabody stated that they put the retaining wall six feet away so the planter boxes will be
about four feet away from the house. The house is on finro feet of fill and sits on a slight hill.
They might be able to drop off the fill sooner if not for the planter boxes that they need to stick
closer to the house. They can then alleviate putting the dirt higher against the house. Shrubs
would be used to minimize the appearance of the house about four wide and four feet high.
Clay will be used on top of the fill so the water will run down easier and it will be a really dry
house due to the tile arrangement and design. The planter boxes will have to have some holes
in the sides to help them drain down over that one foot. If you use a certain kind of brick and
bring the fill up to the top of that brick, the water will run right down and over it. A slightly higher
shrub will be used right next to the planter box to help minimize the garage. Some brick will be
used in front of the garage too. These plans could be submitted with added drainage along with
the final plans for the permit. The issues with the drainage are really easy to work with. The
planter boxes could be put into a certificate of occupancy to make sure they get done.
Stipulation #6 states that a minimum of 5.5 inches for a maximum of 8 inches is required to
separate the grade from the threshold. Could that be tied in with #3 or changed to show they
are building the planter box farther away from the house?
Mr. Hickok stated that change makes sense.
,.—� Ms. Savage asked if there are any problems with the other stipulations.
Ms. Peabody stated she did not think so. Stipulation #6 could be changed to state that along
with submitting the permits, the new grading and drainage plan will be submitted including a
plant box. #11 addressing the trees is not a problem because they are working on preserving
all the trees on the lot, except one got hit by lightning last week and it has to come down
anyway. The trees will be higher than the house.
Jon Maloy, 8051 Broad Ave., stated that he has lived next to the property for 24 years. The
water has never been a problem in 24 years. It is a nice flat lot and he cannot understand why
they would not allow buildings on it. He does not understand the elevation of the house. Will
there be stilts like in Florida? He has never seen fill there. Other than the flood plain, what is
wrong with the lot?
Mr. Kuechle stated that the regulations of how far the house has to be set up is not decided by
the City of Fridley. Federal regulations mandate that, and they are trying to design the house to
make it look as good as possible for the neighborhood.
Mr. Maloy stated that the house on Dover Street belongs to a good friend of his; and he had a
heck of a time getting that done, but it is beautiful.
Mr. Kuechle stated that stipulation #6 could be changed to state as follows: "A suitable
retaining wall plan shall be submitted before issuance of the peemit."
Mr. Hickok stated that it could be changed to say: "A suitable retaining wall plan shall be
,� submitted and approved by staff prior to issuance of the permit."
NING COMMISSION MEETING. DECEMBER 5. 2001
� Ms. Peabody stated that there could be a similar thing on #7.
Mr. Kuechle stated that has to do with grading and drainage.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Johns, to close the public hearing.
PAGE 5
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:55 P.M.
Mr. Kuechle stated that the petitioners have done a good job of trying to make this plan fit the
requirements and design it as well as possible. He would recommend approval.
Mr. Kondrick stated he agreed. This should be a real nice house.
Ms. Johns stated she agreed. The size of the house is not much of an issue with the tall trees
and the planting proposed.
Ms. Savage stated she also agreed. The house is permitted as long as the standards are met
and it should be an attractive home.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Johns, to recommend approval of SP #01-13 with
the following stipulations:
1. Prior to submittal of building plans, all structural and soil engineering shall be reviewed and
^ approved by a structural engineer.
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 823.9
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 suitable retaining wall plan shall be submitted and approved by staff prior to issuance of
the permit.
7. The petitioner shall submit new grading and drainage plans integrating the retaining walls on
the east and west sides of the home.
8. The verifying survey shall confirm stipulation #7. (Note to surveyor: Hydrant elevation has
changed since 1994, verify elevation.}
9. Erosion control measures shall be installed along all lot lines prior to any work done on this
site.
10. The petitioner shall execute and record against the properly a hold harmless agreement
releasing the City from liability if damage occurs as a result of flooding.
11. The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees required
to be removed for the new home shall be marked and approved by City staff prior to
issuance of building permits.
12. The height of the structure shall not exceed 30 feet as measured from the top of the curb
elevation.
13. Special use permit approval is dependent upon approval of variance, VAR #01-15.
Mr. Kondrick asked about the variance required.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 2001 PAGE 6
� Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioners need a variance because they are not meeting the
minimum square footage requirements for a split level home design. That is stipulation #13.
The Appeals Commission will act on the variance on December 12.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Savage stated that this will go to City Council on December 17.
Mr. Kondrick asked when building would begin.
Ms. Peabody stated that it would probably be around the first of the new year.
2. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 14, 2001, APPEALS COMMISSION
MEETING:
MOTION by Ms. Jones, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 5. 2001, PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSION MEETING:
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Ms. Stromberg gave an update on the year of all the Planning Commission actions. There were
four plats, 0 lot splits, 13 special use permits, and 7 zoning text amendments. The Planning
Staff would like to thank the Planning Commission members for all their hard work this year.
The December 19, 2001, meeting has been cancelled; the next meeting is January 2, 2002.
Ms. Savage also thanked Planning staff for all their hard work.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to adjourn the meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE DECEMBER 5, 2001, PLANNING COMMISSION WAS
ADJOURNED AT 8:10 P.M.
RespectFully submitted,
u �
�� Sig e L. John n¢�.
Recording Secretary