Loading...
PCM 10/21/2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 21,2015 Chairperson Kondrick called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: David Kondrick, Leroy Oquist, David Ostwald, and Mike Heintz MEMBERS ABSENT: Todd Olin, Brad Sielaff, and Dean Saba OTHERS PRESENT: Julie Jones, Planning Manager Katie Smet, Planning Intern Richard Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace Approval of Minutes: September 16, 2015 MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Heintz. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment,TA#15-04, by the City of Fridley, to modify Chapter 205, Zoning Code. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the variance and appeal procedures, modifying the public right-of-way and easement vacation process, to provide a process by which property owners may be able to expand legally non-conforming structures, to reference the City's Active Transportation Plan, and to update definitions and existing language. MOTION by Commissioner Heintz to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Ostwald. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:02 P.M. Katie Smet, Planning Intern, stated for the past few years staff has been working on proposed language for Chapter 205, Zoning Code. There are three main purposes for this amendment. One is to update definitions and existing language. Second, to provide a process by which property owners may be able to expand legally non-conforming structures. Third, is to separate the variance and appeals procedures. Ms. Smet stated Section 1 of the Text Amendment establishes recommendations by staff that Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2015 Page 2 of 15 incorporates new terms and definitions and modify existing definitions in order to create consistency throughout the Code, State Statute, and Building Code. Ms. Smet stated these new definitions include assembly facility, expansion, gazage sale, manufactured home, parking stall (angled), public right-of-way, trucking terminal, vehicle, and zero lot width. Ms. Smet stated in addition, staff recommends new language to the following terms: For dwelling, staff recommends modifications to the definition in order to match International Building Code definition. For garage heavy duty repair, staff recommends removing collision services to the definition. For 35 and 38, staff recommends changes that will clarify and clearly distinguish the two terms of each other for future interpretations of the Code. A majority of these definitions have been modified to match other sections and chapters of Code, as well as State Statute and Building Code descriptions. For example, 16, Manufactured Home Park,this is currently listed as Mobile Home Park; but State Statute 327.31 changes this to Manufactured Home Park. Ms. Smet stated definitions have also been modified to add clarity to the terms' meanings by removing and adding new language to the definitions for clarity reasons. Likewise, such as in Vision Safety, Diagrams have been added for clarity purposes and to exemplify the definitions. Ms. Smet stated next in Section 2 staff recommends changes to the following subsections of Section 4 in the Code. Currently property owners must apply for a variance in order to expand a non-conforming structure. However, changes to state law have made it difficult for property owners to expand non-conformities through a variance process. Staff has researched what other cities are doing to help property owners with non-conformities. They have found that some cities are offering permits for expansion to non-conformities. Ms. Smet stated for this reason, under the Non-Conforming Uses and Structures section, staff recommends an administrative non-conforming expansion permit that is authorized under State Statute Section 462.357, Subd. 1(e)(b). The purpose of this amendment is to create an application process for property owners to apply to expand their non-conforming structure. The permit is set up to give special attention to the design and intent of the expansion and does not allow the owner to expand existing non-conformities, meaning that they can only expand the portion that meets setback, lot width and zoning requirements. Ms. Smet presented a photo showing a structure that does not meet rear yard setback requirements. Currently under Code they would not be able, for example, to expand on the west side of the property if they wanted to add an attached garage. The expansion permit would allow you to do so and would allow other property owners to expand their non-conformities within a reasonable measure. Ms. Smet stated, secondly, staff recommends modifying language to the building site section in order to be consistent with language in Chapter 208 which would clarify a land alteration permit Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2015 Page 3 of 15 when it is required for property owners. Moreover, part 4.3 is modified to reference Fridley's Active Transportation Plan. Ms. Smet stated, third, under Accessory Building Structures, staff recommends changing the term "house" to say "living area" so it is consistent with Code definitions. In addition, staff recommends removing Part 2(b)to prevent any ambiguity. Ms. Smet stated additionally the fence language in Required Yard and Open Space Section has been removed since it is already established in the fencing code, Chapter 218. Likewise the fuel tank section has been removed as it is already in the Industrial and Commercial District codes. Ms. Smet stated, lastly, in Section 2, staff recommends renaming subsection 8, Multi-Story Parking Structures, to say "Parking Standards" and, subsequently, the sections have been restructured to clearly lay out the standards for parking stalls, angled parking, and multi-story parking structures. These dimensions listed in the Code come from the State Aid Road Rules Manual. Ms. Smet stated for Section 3 staff recommends the following changes to the subsections of Section 5. First, according to State Statute Section 15.99 it requires cities that receive an incomplete land use related application to notify the applicant within 15 business days. Staff recommends that the City increases the notification period from 10 days to 15 business days. Ms. Smet stated, in addition, the section amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, staff recommends modifications to remove the errors that are presently in this Code; such as the repeat, "be referred to the Planning Commission which shall" that is repeated twice within the sentence. Staff recommends removing that from the Code. Ms. Smet stated, third, in the variance section staff recommends separating the variance section into two separate sections so that the variance and appeals procedure will be clearly laid out in their own sections. Upon doing so, staff recommends modifying language to match language in Chapters 6 and 128. Ms. Smet stated under the Vacation section, staff recommends new language to clarify the vacation of right-of-ways and easements for property owners as well as to change petition requirements to a majority rather than all. Also, the City Attorney also recommends that a notice be sent out to the DNR if a vacation application includes a body of public water. Ms. Smet stated, lastly, Section, Building Permits, staff would like to recommend a new bonding requirement that is consistent with current practices. Currently staff recommends the approval of Text Amendment 15-4. These changes would help clarify the City Code, update Zoning Code definitions, it recognizes the Active Transportation Plan, and creates a new expansion permit process for property owners. Staff has not received any comments from the public regarding proposed changes. The City Council will conduct a public hearing on proposed text amendment on Monday,November 9. Planning Commission Meeting � October 21, 2015 Page 4 of 15 Chairperson Kondrick stated it appears as though in many ways the staff is conforming with what the State is asking all the cities to do in order to comply. There are a few things that do not. However, it seems that is the direction staff is headed with this pattern. There is a whole lot of information. Commissioner Ostwald asked, overall is this going to be more restrictive, less restrictive, more clarity? What is the City's role in defining all this? Julie Jones, Planning Manager, replied if anything, it is more restrictive. However, the part that is less restrictive is this new allowance for an expansion permit, which will be an administrative permit. Now, if someone now wants to expand a non-conforming property, they would come for a variance,have that approved, and it goes through this Commission. How this expansion permit process would work is it would simply be administered by staff. Therefore, it is less expensive for people, takes less time, etc. Instead of the two months to get a variance approved it could be something that could be approved within a couple of weeks. Richard Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace, stated since the adoption of the new IBC Code, the original codes that the City was operating under was under the Uniform Code; and there is a fair amount of difference between the codes. It is about time the City brings them up to speed. It will make it a lot easier for staff and the general public. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Ostwald. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:14 P.M. Chairperson Kondrick stated obviously somebody spent a lot of time on this. He read it a few times and tried to absorb everything. People watching would probably have a hard time digesting all of it and would have to get a hold of staff if they wanted more information. However, he did read it and decided staff knows what they are doing. He could not find any problems with it. Commissioner Heintz stated he did not have any problem with it. Ms. Jones stated as complicated as this text amendment is and all the changes that are within it, it is actually just the beginning of what the City needs to do to update its Zoning Code. Changing some sections in here affect other sections of the Zoning Code, but staff knew it would be absolutely overwhelming for the Commission and the public if they did the entire thing all at the same time. Plus they have not had the staff time. It took them a couple of years to get this one together. However, they are getting some proposals right now and trying to figure out a way to possibly finance it and keep moving forward updating other sections of the Zoning Code. Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2015 Page 5 of 15 Simple changes such as the changing the definition from Mobile Home to Manufactured Home needs to be changed in the R-4 section, and staff does not have that before the Commission tonight. The fence changes were already made in a previous text amendment here a few weeks ago triggered the need to change the fence language in this section of the Zoning Code. There are a lot of things that kind of snowball here. That is going to be one of Ms. Smet's tasks here is to keep moving ahead on the next sections while they still have her on staff. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist approving a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment, TA #15-04, by the City of Fridley, to modify Chapter 2p5, Zoning Code. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the variance and appeal procedures, modifying the public right-of-way and easement vacation process, to provide a process by which property owners may be able to expand legally non-conforming structures, to reference the City's Active Transportation Plan, and to update definitions and existing language. Seconded by Commissioner Heintz. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment, TA#15-05, by the City of Fridley, to consider repealing Chapter 205.27, Creek and River Preservation District, of the Fridley Zoning Code, and adopting a new Floodplain Ordinance, as prepared by the MNDNR, that adopts revised FEMA maps and standards for development of flood hazard areas to minimize future flood losses in areas subject to periodic inundation. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Heintz. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:18 P.M. Ms. Jones stated this is actually being initiated by the DNR who has informed the City that FEMA has completed their new digitized maps. This text amendment is repealing the City's existing Overlay District 1, which is the City's Creek and River Preservation Overlay District, and amending new language. Staff is suggesting to rename it the "Floodplain Overlay District". Now the City has an overlay district for the MNRRA area, we have one for wetlands, and one for shoreland. We have a lot of overlay districts affecting properties along waterways, so staff thought it would be important to distinguish in the name of this district that it is related to floodplain issues. Ms. Jones stated the reason for the repeal and replacement is that FEMA has adopted new flood insurance maps, and those maps become effective December 16, 2015. They have not given the Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2015 Page 6 of 15 City much time to do this. Staff just found out about this in late July and just got the new maps a month or two ago. Ms. Jones stated in order for Fridley residents to be able to obtain flood insurance, the City of Fridley has to adopt these new maps by that date when they become effective. Fortunately the DNR has provided the City a template to follow because this is a very complex ordinance. She likes the new template format better than the existing Code as staff struggles interpreting the existing Code because it uses different terminology than what is on the FEMA maps. Unfortunately so does this draft,but it is better. Ms. Jones stated the purpose of the floodplain is to regulate the development in flood potential areas and to prevent the loss of life and property, to preserve the natural characteristics and function of the floodplain, and to protect water quality as well as wildlife habitat. Also, most importantly,to maintain Fridley's eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. Ms. Jones stated the key components of this new Code are primarily adopting those new maps by reference number as well as there are new definitions. The City's current Code does not do a real good job of defining some terms, and this one does a good job of clearly defining things. Also, it classifies the City's floodplain areas into three different classifications. It does a really nice job of breaking those out clearly and succinctly in the Code. You can look at the floodway section and see exactly what the requirements are for that section. Ms. Jones stated when they talk about these three districts, the Floodway, the Flood Fringe, and the General Floodplain, it is helpful to look at the maps to understand what those are. Ms. Jones distributed a revised Zoning Map to replace the one that was in the meeting packet, explaining that this is a map staff creates to help them when someone wants to add onto their house or build a new garage; staff can look at their property on the Zoning Map and see if they are possibly in the Floodplain. The map is not part of this text amendment. Ms. Jones showed a picture taken from the FEMA website as to the description of the district terms that are used in the Code. One being the Floodplain, that is the land adjoining lakes and rivers that is covered by the 100-year flood. FEMA is getting away from the 100-year flood terminology. Floods of this magnitude occurred in 1965, 1969, 1997, and 2001. Ms. Jones stated that the Floodway is the land immediately adjoining the river channel that is the natural conduit for floodwaters. Structures or fill are not allowed in the Floodway as they would obstruct flood waters. Only open space like parks, parking areas, and residential yards are allowed in floodways. Ms. Jones then explained the Flood Fringe, which is the remaining area of the Floodplain lying outside of the Floodway that is generally covered by shallow slow-moving floodwater. People can build in these areas according to FEMA standards using professional services and floodproofing construction methods. Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2015 Page 7 of 15 Ms. Jones presented a close-up picture of the Riverview Heights area as an example because the City has many residential properties in the Flood Fringe in this area. There are some changes from the old information in the new digitized maps the Commission is adopting with this ordinance. One of the areas that is most visible is here in the Riverview Heights area because in the old lines on the old map you could see that it was a little off because of where Springbrook Creek comes in as it was not quite lined up with Springbrook Creek. The new district borders are aligned with the land features. Ms. Jones stated the new mapping is much better and it is digitized so that before staff was just guessing looking at the FEMA maps and visually transposing the lines onto the Zoning Maps. Now they have that information digitally so that it is taken from using the sonar to basically bounce the signals off the land and determine what the elevation of the land is which is how they determined these lines. They do not have the precise data like they do in this neighborhood for the whole City, however. The new map distributed to the Commission shows some areas, like around Locke Lake, where it is designated as Floodplain. They do not have detailed data as to what is Flood Fringe and what is Floodway. So, the data is not perfected yet, but it is better than what the City had from the 1981 FEMA maps. Ms. Jones pointed out areas of Riverview Heights where district boundaries shifted south of where the lines were before. There is also much more detail in the map of areas that are higher elevation which are kind of islands within the Flood Fringe that were not notes on the old maps. What happens when people come in and even part of their land is bordered by that Flood Fringe line is staff has to tell them to get a certified survey done with topography on, which will show staff precisely where the lines are because the previous maps were just an estimate. These are, too, but are a much more precise estimate than what the City had before. Ms. Jones stated as far as the permitted uses in each district: the Floodway district is the area where pretty much all that is allowed to be there is residential yards, parking lots, parks, and open spaces. No structures or fill are allowed unless approved by the DNR and are designed for floodwater to flow through them. They will see some requirements in Code about early warning systems. Say you have some building in a park where people could be gathering. In the case of a flood there has to be a warning system in place to warn people there are floodwaters coming. She does not how that all works, but that language is in the Code. Ms. Jones stated in the Flood Fringe area, that is where uses and structures are allowed that are allowed in the underlying district. Keep in mind that is an overlay district so still the underlying zoning district requirements are in play. However, structures are allowed if they are elevated and designed to meet these standards. If not meeting FEMA standards or fill over 1,000 cubic feet, then a special use permit is required. In our current Code a special use permit is required for anything you are going to build in the Flood Fringe. This is a case where the new Code will be less restrictive. That is, if the DNR approves it that way. The City is tweaking the language a little bit from their template so they will see if they approve it. They were just given that language today so they have some time to review that yet. Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2015 Page8of15 Ms. Jones stated special use permits are going to be rare in this scenario because they are basically putting the language in the code requiring people to build to FEMA standards and apply for a special use permit. Now, they just still have to get all of the Certificate of Survey work done, hire an engineer, get everything designed to FEMA standards; but they do not have to get special use permits. It would be simply getting a building permit and meeting all those other requirements. Ms. Jones stated staff recommends approval of Text Amendment 15-OS which repeals Chapter 205.27, Creek and River Preservation District, as it is written and adopts this new Floodplain ordinance in compliance with FEMA requirements and adopt the new FEMA flood insurance maps. Adoption of the new maps would be required by December 16, 2015, and is required for property owners to continue to qualify for flood insurance, which, of course, is very important. It is going to be difficult for the City to meet this deadline with the City Council is holding a public hearing on November 9. They are going to need to do the First Reading as well that night for the City to meet that deadline, because they have to be to publication by December 16. The City Council does not normally do that, but she is hoping they will be willing to do that for this process so the City can meet that deadline. Commissioner Heintz asked whether digitized maps will be available on-line after December 16? Ms. Jones replied, yes, the DNR told her today that the maps would be linked online on December 17, once this text amendment is official. The City has the digitized information already and is using it. Commissioner Heintz asked whether there will be a link on the City's website, too? Ms. Jones replied, yes, there is a system on the City's website called, Self-Serve Zoning, where people can go to and actually click on directly to the FEMA information. Unfortunately, right now it is broken; and staff has been debating about whether they should fix it now or wait until the new maps are in place. FEMA may have disconnected the links while this process is underway. Richard Harris stated obviously his neighbor who was present and himself back up to the river. He asked in the new ordinance are they changing any of the language as to what they are doing tonight? Is this strictly the floodplain designation or is there language that is going to be changed from what they now have? Ms. Jones replied, the whole Code is completely changing; but as to the definitions, right now in the Code they use the floodplain,the Floodway, and the Flood Fringe terms. Those are not really changing, but those lines are changing slightly on the map. On Mr. Harris' section of the river, she does not recall seeing much changing at all. There are some areas, as she pointed out, in that Riverview Heights and another area around Moore Lake where there is a significant change. Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2015 Page 9 of 15 Mr. Harris stated this not only affects the river and the creek, but all public waters in Fridley. Ms.Jones replied, not all are on there. Just Moore Lake. She did not think Harris Pond and Farr Lake are on FEMA's maps. Mr. Harris stated they adopted something called bluff lines. Ms. Jones replied, yes,the shoreline ordinance. Mr. Harris asked, is all of that,the definitions and measurements, is that going to be changed? Ms. Jones replied, no, that ordinance is not changing at this time. They do have a University of Minnesota student group right now working on a project looking at the City's Shoreland Overlay Zoning District, Wetland Overlay District; these various districts that involve properties along the water and looking at making the City's language uniform. Particularly in the requirements on the bluff as far as what can be done with vegetation, because we have some differing language in those overlay districts; and they want to make sure that everything is cohesive and there is nothing in conflict with each other. The students are studying that right now and are going to make recommendations to the City about that in December when their class project is done. Mr. Harris stated his biggest concern now is all of the buildings now are existing, and the definition of existing non-conforming use concerns him as to how that is being handled. Ms. Jones replied, they did not mention it; but there is still a whole non-conforming section in this new language. It is still keeping everything the same in compliance with State Statutes. Anything that is existing that is non-conforming, you are allowed to maintain and remodel if you need to. You just cannot expand it. Say you have, for example, a dock. Maybe in the new Code language you are not allowed to put in a dock but you can maintain the existing dock that you have. Mr. Harris stated he is more concerned with the structures. If a structure is over 50 percent destroyed, can it be rebuilt, because that definitely affects the valuation of the property. Mr. Harris stated about two or three years ago they had a meeting up at the golf club put on by the DNR. Several people attended. Is this growing out of that discussion they had up there with the State at that time? Mr. Harris stated the legislature gave them a ton of money to do something, and they were very evasive about what they were going to do. There were some pretty unhappy people, especially from the Anoka area. Ms. Jones stated Mr. Harris is referring a different thing. That is the new DNR rules for the Critical Area, the MNNRA area. For that, the City is still waiting the final rules. That language is another thing this student group is looking at - the draft rules. However, that is coming yet. Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2015 Page 10 of 15 That hearing is on a different code section. Mr. Harris stated they should all get on the same page with all these ordinances because after awhile you get overwhelmed with so much paperwork you do not know where you are at. How does this ordinance that is being proposed tonight mesh with the proposed ordinances that are on-line? Also, as to the new IBC Code. He tries to go on-line with the State. He cannot get through that mine field. You just cannot get any answers from those folks. 'That is why they are here tonight. He is trying to find out what is going on. Chairperson Kondrick asked, will some of these things Mr. Harris is asking about be able to be addressed by the City Council by the 16th? Ms. Jones replied the issues Mr. Harris is concerned about is precisely why the staff assigned this project to the University of Minnesota problem solving class, because folks like Mr. Harris, who live on the river, are understandably confused. They are controlled by all these different overlay districts that have different language in them. In her opinion the City has not done a good job of educating people as to what they are allowed to do. Part of that work the students are looking at, not only at making recommendations and how to make the Code easier to understand, making it uniform, so that it is consistent from one overlay district to the next; but also coming up with suggestions as to what the City can do for public education to help inform people in a simple, easy to understand manner, to let them know whether they can take a tree down in the bluff, what are the requirements. They are looking at this language as part of that study, and they are looking at the Critical Area code language and looking at the Shoreland Overlay District language as well. We will see some recommendations to the City Council from that student group on December 14. Mr. Harris asked where does the national parks fit into this whole thing? They have the islands out in front. Ms. Jones replied, the river is a national park. The island on the north end of Fridley is owned by the Izaak Walton League, and the island that people refer to as Durham Island she believed is owned by the City of Brooklyn Park. Certainly the DNR, the National Parks Service, are involved in looking at amenities in those areas and park facilities in those areas; but those areas are governed by the Critical Area language. The area of Fridley between East River Road and the river is what is in the Critical Area, which is Overlay District Two, where the City is awaiting for the new rules from the DNR to see what will be required to be adopted there. The City has been heavily involved in those meetings, and she does not anticipate any changes that are in contrary with what is currently in City Code. Mr. Harris stated there was even some discussion about land management and maintenance as far as trees, brush, etc. At one time you were supposed to get a permit to take down a live tree. He thinks it was over 6 inches in diameter. It was never clear who you were supposed to get the permit from. Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2015 Page 11 of 15 Mr. Harris asked whether they could get a copy of the proposed new ordinance. He cannot seem to get one on-line from the DNR. Ms. Jones replied she can certainly get him a copy. It will be on-line in the City Council's packet for the November 9 meeting. The Friday before it will go on-line if he can wait that long. She anticipates the language is going to change a little bit between now and then. Commissioner Ostwald asked overall was there a net increase or decrease in the homes affected now? Ms. Jones replied, they do not know at this time. In just the past few days they have been working on this map so they have not had a lot of time to analyze that. Just visually looking at it she does not see much significant change. If you look at Locke Lake, where Commissioner Ostwald lives, it is probably better for him because things were not lined up according to the lake boundary very well before. Commissioner Ostwald stated actually before they told him the detailed map stopped at the spillway. His yard was not in there. That is why he is concerned. Ms. Jones stated Commissioner Ostwald's is one those where he would need to have a survey done, because that area around Locke Lake does not have the detail of the Flood Fringe and the Floodway distinguished. FEMA just has it all listed as Floodplain. Staff could show him a little more detail some time on the aerial if he wanted to come in. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Heintz. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:47 P.M. Commissioner Oquist stated, using Moore Lake as an example, they have a general Floodplain district for Moore Lake. He asked, how wide is that? Does that mean it is from that red line into the lake or from the red line outside the lake? Ms. Jones replied, this is something they have struggled with because on the map it is kind of solidly colored in the area but it is impossible to do that on top of the zoning map layer because there are too many colors and it gets all lost. What they are thinking of doing is creating a map on top of the aerial map of the City and then color in those areas solid. Commissioner Oquist asked,but that is just inside the lines not outside the lines. Ms. Jones replied, right. Moore Lake is another one of those on the map,just like Locke Lake, where it is all just general Floodplain area. Any property touched by that line, before they can Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2015 Page 12 of 15 say yay or nay on a building permit, they are going to have to have a survey done. Which the City's shoreland overlay district requires anyway, so it is typical for people to have to get a survey anyway. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist approving Consideration of a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment, TA#15-05, by the City of Fridley,to consider repealing Chapter 205.27, Creek and River Preservation District, of the Fridley Zoning Code, and adopting a new Floodplain Ordinance, as prepared by the MNDNR, that adopts revised FEMA maps and standards for development of flood hazard areas to minimize future flood losses in areas subject to periodic inundation. Seconded by Commissioner Heintz. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Chairperson Kondrick accepting into the record the Fridley Zoning Map dated October 21, 2015. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. PUBLIC HEARING. Consideration of a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment, TA#15-06, by the City of Fridley to add a fee for non-conforming building expansion permits to Chapter 11, Fees,in the event this new process is adopted into Fridley's Zoning Code. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Ostwald. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:51 P.M. Ms. Smet stated creating an administrative non-conforming expansion permit would require a new fee in Chapter 11. For coming up with a fee for this expansion permit, staff has analyzed expected time required to review this application; and they came up with a $150 expansion permit fee. They estimated it would take about two hours to review the permit and it would be $75 per hour. Ms. Smet stated staff recommends approval of this text amendment establishing a $150 expansion permit application fee. Staff has not received any comments from the public regarding proposed changes, and City Council will conduct a public hearing of the proposed Text Amendment on Monday,November 9. Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2015 Page 13 of 15 Chairperson Kondrick asked under what conditions, situations, would be present for a person to have to spend that money staff is suggesting the City charge them? Ms. Jones stated sometimes people will come in wanting to know if they can do a certain building addition and, once staff looks at the property, they find the existing structure does not meet the side yard setback or front yard setback or something like that. However, where they want to add on is not increasing that non-conformity. Staff has come up with a simple application where someone could apply for that permit to be able to do that with staff s approval. It is a pretty simple process. Chairperson Kondrick asked and what would happen, the City would inspect the property and see what they are talking about? Ms. Jones replied, usually they use the aerial photography. That is why it does not take them much time to do it. However, often Ms. Stromberg will go out and take a look at the site just to make sure. Commissioner Ostwald asked whether this fee would be on top of the building permit fee? Ms.Jones replied, yes. However, it is better than the variance fee which is $500 or$1,000. Commissioner Heintz asked why does the City not just bill them by the hour instead? Ms. Jones replied, they do not do that for any of the other applications, i.e., sign permits or other permits. There are some that take longer than others, but they do come up with a standard fee. It is probably for the benefit of the applicant, they want to know up front before they make a decision on whether they are going to pursue this expansion, how much it is going to cost them. The City could but they would want to look at all of their fees in that regard if it was going to do that. The City went through a very extensive fee analysis back in 2003 where staff took all of the land use application fees and calculated out how much time each staff person spends on average on an application and then multiplied that by the hourly rate and probably even included the overhead costs to the City. That is what the City's fees are based upon that they have in place. Commissioner Oquist asked, this non-conformity expansion permit is not in lieu of a variance. If they are going to expand they are still going to need a variance. Ms. Jones replied, it actually is in lieu of a variance; but they may want to still do the variance to recognize the existing non-conformity as they might be in a situation for financing that their bank or whoever wants that recognized. They could run into a situation where they still might want to do that. However, since she has been involved she has not run into that where someone needs that for financing purposes. Commissioner Oquist asks, for example, if he is going to expand on a non-conforming property to two feet from the property line, he does not need a variance? Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2015 Page 14 of 15 Ms. Jones replied, that is different because for this type of expansion permit everything they are doing in the new expansion has to be completely meeting all requirements of the Zoning Code. They cannot increase that non-conformity. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Heintz UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:57 P.M. Chairperson Kondrick stated he had no problem with this. MOTION by Commissioner Heintz approving a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment, TA #15-06, by the City of Fridley to add a fee for non-conforming building expansion permits to Chapter 11, Fees, in the event this new process is adopted into Fridley's Zoning Code. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Receive the Minutes of the September 8, 2015, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Ostwald. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. Receive the Minutes of the September 3, 2015, Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Heintz. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Receive the Minutes of the August 3, 2015, Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Heintz to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2015 Page 15 of 15 Ostwald. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Jones stated Mr. Hickok had asked her to bring up the topic of the Columbia Arena which was the subject of a recent article in the local newspaper. Mr. Hickok is planning to come to the Planning Commission either next month or soon to start talking about rezoning that property to S-2, Redevelopment District, and to talk about the master planning that would have to be part of that rezoning for the property. He wants to have the Planning Commission have an opportunity to be involved right at the beginning of that planning process, to have some discussions with them as to what they envision for the site, involving the Planning Commission in that process. ADJOURN: MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to adjourn. Seconded by Commissioner Heintz. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:01 P.M. Respectfully submitted, _ �-�,- � ���-'�'f�l'1��--� � ' �������`�.' ) � Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary CITY OF FRIDLEY I SIGN-IN SHEET i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING � � l a -a l- �s � � , � ; ► , , ______________________________________________________________ ; ; � Name Address/Business � I i �i�G� � �d I�a � ��P s ��D�lV��hV��eW �.�Y'1�, �sYc�� �c2/1�—,��0� � l� .z �" ti � �