Loading...
PL 11/07/1973 - 31157r� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 7, 1973 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 8:05 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Fitzpatrick, Drigans, Lindblad, Harris, Blair - Members Absent: None Others Present: Darrel Clark, Comm�xnity Development Adm. � Jerrold Boardman,.Planning Assistant Kirk English, Department of Natural Resources James Haner, HUD, Federal Government National Flood Insurance Program � Paul Brown, Parks & Re�creation Director APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: OCTOBER 17, 1973 ^ MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Blair, that the Planning Commission approve ihe minutes of the meeting of October 17, �"y 1973 as wri,tten. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: OCTOBER 18, 1973 MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Building Standards-Design ControZ Subcommittee meeting of October 18, 1973. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES: OCTOBER 9, 1973 MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Blair, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes�of the Board of AppeaZs meeting of October 9, 1973. Upon a voice vote, a1Z voting aye, the ' motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MINUT�S: OCTOBER 23, 1973 Motion b,y B1air, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Board of Appeals meeting of October 23, 1973. Upon a voice•vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � . RECEIVE PLATS & SUBDIVISIONS-STREETS & UTILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: OCTOBER 24, 1973 � �'MOTION by Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Plats & Subdivisions-Str�ets ^, Planning Commission Meeting - November 7, 1973 Page 2 & Utilities meeting of October 24, I973. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: OCTOBER 29, 1973 MOTION by Blair, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of October 29, 1973. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. M�`. Drigans requested that a fourth item be placed on the . agenda. Due to President Nixon's speech this evening (November 7th) he wanted a discussion of the energy crisis. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED REGISTERED LAND SURVEY, P.S. #73=08, BY HARLAND BERRY: Described as - b�ing-180 foot lot extensions into Locke Lake, (part of Lot�3, Revised, Auditor's Subdivision No. 23) of Lots 2-6, Block l, Ostman's lst Addition; Lot 4, Ostman's 2nd Addition; and Tracts A& B, Registered Land Survey No. 20, generally .located along the West and North shores of Locke Lake�. Mr. Harland Berry was present. � MOTION by B1air, seconded by Aarris, that the PZanning Commission waive the reading of the Public Hearing notice for ''� a proposed Registered Land Survey, P.S. #73-08, by Harland Berry. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � Mr. Clark said one of the stipulations of the Pl�ats & Sub- divisions-Streets & Utilities 5ubcommittee was for the staff to check with the County to see if the lots that are being platted in the lake could be combined with the lots on dry land, so they could be one lot. On a Registered Land Survey, the property has to be under one ownership so this can't be done, since the dry land property is owned by numerous people and the lake bottom by a separate person. Mr. Fitzpatrick said land should nat be platted with no access. Mr. Clark said this was also covered at this same meeting, in that if the first stipulation wasn't possible, then a legal document should be drawn up for an agreement that the two parcels that will be under one ownership, cannot be separated�, without City approval. Mr. Harland Berry said that what had ca•used this problem was that the lake wasn't in at the time those lots were platted. When the lake was made, some of the property lot lines didn't reach to the lake shore. Planning Commission Meeting - November 7, 1973 �age 3 �� Mr. Harris.said the ownership of the lake bottom was something of a problem. Mr. Fitzpatrick said there has been agreement to deed the remaining portion of the lake bottom to the C�_ty. Mr. Harris said what if, at some future date, and af�er the City could have ownership of the remaining lake bottom, it was decided the lake should be dredged. Could the City dredge the part of the lake bed that was under _priv�te ownership? Mr. Clark said the portion below the tressle is where the largest siltation occurs. Mr. Harris said if. the City does obtain ownership of the remainir,g lake bottom, there chould be some type of agreement or easement given by the owners of the lake bottom to the City�so if an�- work had to be done, the City would have the right to control the entire lake bed. Mr. Clark .���d �here can't be any easements shown on a Registered Land Survey, but probably some other type of agreement could be worked out. Mr. Berry said there are a lot of covenants covering this pro�erty at the present time. . Mr. Clark said he didn't know if the private owners of the � lake bed would object to the City maintaining the entire lake bottom. Mr. Clark said the State has control of public waters, so the private owners couldn't dredge the lake either, without � :pe����o� from the 5tate. '"s. Mr. Clark asked Mr. Kirk English, Department of Natural Resources, for an opinion. Mr. English said that public waters are defined as any body of water that has a beneficial�public use. This would be such as recreational use, for use as a flood basis, use for wild life habitat, etc. Public waters are considered to be up to the elevation of the natural ordinanary high water mark and most clearly defined as wherethe aquatic vegetation meets the terrestrial vegetation. It is also defined a"s being from the natural high water mark to the natural low water mark, but this is hard to determine. Chairman Fitzpatrick said the lake bed in question is a privately owned lake and was man made. Mr. English said he wasn't that familiar with the determination of a lake of this type. Mr. Clark gave Mr. English a copy of the � proposed Registered Land Survey to take with him, and Mr. English said he would check into this matter and give the information to Mr. Clark. � Mr. Harris said if the City was going to have jurisdiction over the lake bottom, there would have to be some type of agree- ment reached with the private owners, so that one or more owners couldn't stop this maintenance. Mr. Lindblad asked if this could be considered a public lake. � Mr. Clark said there was public access to the lake. � . ` Mr. Clark said Mr. Ostman has deeded these extentions to the property owners, but�because this is torrens property, the Register o� Title wouldn't accept the deeds until this proposed Registered . Land Survey is recorded. Mr_. Clark said this R.L.S. will have 8 tracks, A through H, which would then be deeded by Mr. Ostman �"'1 �, �f � Planning Commission Meeting - November 7, 1973 Page 4 �O the eight property owners, and there should be an agreement with thE: deed that these tracks would not be separated from the lots on dry land without approval by the City. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that in the mean time, we are still platting lots that aren't accessible. Mr. Clark said that he would think that before the City Council would approve the final plat, these �:greements would have to be signed. These would have to be made up by the City Attorney. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Berry at what point Mr. Ostman would be willing to deed the remainder of the lake to the City. Mr. Berry said at any time the deed can be drawn up. Mr. Berry said there wouldn't be ar:y money changing hands except for tax purposes. Mr. Clark said it would be up to the City Council to make the decision on whether the City wanted to acquire the remaining lake hottom. There were pros and cons to this proposal. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if the City might be reluctant because they would be responsible for maintaining the lake level. Mr. Clark said they already have control of the lake level. There is the po;a:�iblity that the prope:z�ty owners around the lake could petition the City to improve the lake with no cost to them, because this was a public lake. Mr. Clark said that ordinarily the affected property owners would be assessed for part of the cost, the same as on a street: If the cost of maintaining this lake had to come out of the GEneral Fund, then the year that the lake was impraved, there wouldn't ba mQney left in the General Fund for much else. - Mr. Drigans asked about the other lots around the lake. Clark said most of the other lots go to the edge of the lake. Mr. Drigans asked what would happen if the shore line changed. Clark said there wasn't much fluctuation in this lake, because it is controlled by a dam. Mr. Harris said that if the City didn't obtain the remainder of the lake bottom, it should own the part where the dam was locate�. Mr. Mr. Drigans asked what would happen if the dam went out and this kent back to being a creek. Mr. Clark said the property . would belong to Mr. Ostman and Mr. Scherer. This is one of the reasons it would be better for the City to have title of the remaining lake bottom. Mr. Clark said he believed the part of the lake owned by D. L. Scherer has gone tax forfeit. Mr . Mr. L�.ndblad asked why the deeds couldn't be made out for the property just to the water's edge. Mr. Clark said a Registered Land Survey is just done on paper ancl is quite inexpensive. To plat this to the lake shore would require a lot of survey work and would make: the cost so prohibitive, that it probably wouldn't be done. Planning Commission Meeting - November 7, 1973 Page 5 ^ Mr: Frank Nebel, 6961 Hickory Circle, N.E., President of the Loc�ke Lake Homeowners Association, said he owns 150 feet of lake bottom w;.th his property. He said the City has designa- ted this area for snowmobiling. They will be snowmobiling on this portion of the lake also, and he wondered about his liability. Mr. Fitzpatrick said this is one of the problems we have before uc on this plat. If the remaining portion of the lake bed becomes City property, then this would be a gublic lake, but how this would affect the private ownership of part of the lake bottom, is our concern. Mr. Nebel said that part of the .. lake bottom that he owns is land part of the 'time. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Berry if the City accepted the remainder of the lake, would there be any objection to giving the City as easement on the privately owned portion of the lake. Mr. Berry said, if this was possible, he was sure Mr. Ostman would sign such an agreement. Mr. Linblad asked if the City acquired the remaining lake bottom, if the entire cost would have to be borne by the City for maintaining it. � � Mr. Clark said if a Public Hearing was held for the necessary maintenance of the lake, the property owners benefiting from this ^ maintenance could be assessed for part of the cost. This was done ;_.- when �he Locke Lake dam was repaired. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if the administration had any recommenda- tions on this request. Mr. Clark said it was felt that the owner- ship of the bottom of Locke Lake should be cleared up. It would be better for the City to have ownership of the Lake bottom than to have it stay in private ownership. If the Lake did go down, the property owners would be fa.ced with having no control of the property adjacent to their lots. The administration doesn't feel th�:t this should be maintained from the General Fund. MOTIGN by Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearinq on the propased Registered Land Survey, P.S. #73-08, by Harland Berry. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Harris said as long as the first stipulation of the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee could not be done, he would not include that in his motion. MOTION by Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the proposed Registered Land Survey, P.S. #73-08, by HarZand•Berry, described as being 180 foot long extensions into Locke Lake (Part of Lot 3, 8evised Auditor' �^, Subdivision No. 23) of Lots 2-6, Block 1, Ostman's First Addition, Lot 4, Ostman's Second Addition, and Tracts A& B, Registered Land Survey No. 20, generaZly located along the West and North shores of Locke Lake, with the following stipuZations: Plannir,g Commission Meeting - November 7, 1973 Page 6 �� (1) A Zegal decument should be filed with the property that the parcel pairs cannot be separated. (2) The. City investigate the possiblity of obtaining a deed to the remaining lake bottom property. (3) If the City does obtain the remaining lake bottom, that they investigate the possibility of obtaining an easemenf or agreement to permit maintenance and work on the lake bed that is under private ownership. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. CONTINUED: ARMORY PROPOSAL: PRESENTATION BY GENERAL CHEESEMAN W. H. Cheeseman, Deputy Adjutant General of the State of Minnesota, was present to make the presentation. General Che.eseman said he was here �� clariEy and to acquaint the new members of the Planning Commissior��with the armory proposal for Fridley, and to answer any questions the Commission might have on this proposal, and what we hope to �„\ accomplish. '� General Cheeseman said he was proposing to the Commission that they consider favorably the establishment of a National Guard Armory in Fridley. There are various reasons for the National Guard to desire this. He said 15 villages and cities have been contacted with this same proposal. At the present time we have 15 units in one location, the Minneapolis Armory. We want to move with the times and establish armories in five locations in the first and se�ond ring suburbs so we can go with the population. We wish to establish these five armories from Bloomington to New Brighton, over a five to ten year period. These five armories will each have one guard unit. What the National Guard is for those who do not know, is a military force that is the oldest voluE�tary unit. It was started 300 years before the Declaration of Independence. In fact, it is mentioned six times in the Declaration of Independence. It is an effective means of our democrac� where we depend upon o,ur citizen soldier for the primary force of our military forces. The National Guard comprises the primary coinbat organization of the reserve of the United States Army and Air Force. Minnesota has approximately 10,000 National Guards in 97 units located in 67 communities. We have had units in Minnesota since before our State Constitution. So, we are not a new r"'� ' organization and we will be here long after everyone here is gone. f What we are trying to do is program five communities for a National Guard unit and armory. When we decide and agree on the City where an armory will be located,•we can then set up priorities and a program, for various years• Whatever area is Planning Commission Meeting - November 7, 1973 Page 7 � decided upon, we will start building up a unit from that area �^ and the officer personne� would come from that area. In our first pr.oposal we had a requirement of five acres. This was not very realistic because not too many communities have that large an area left and the days of 'squad right and squad left' are over too, as far as outside drilling. We only need less than 3 acres to construct oux building, provide parking for the building and for military vehicles, and provide room for landscaping. The armory itself is built by the Minnesota State Armory ' Commission. State laws provide for the building, establishing the bonds and the retiring of the bonds. It cost approximately a half million dollars to constru�-tan armory. Of this, the Federal Government pays 750. Of the remaining costs, the State pays 40o and the local government pays 600. Any additions to � the building that could be used by the National.Guard would be paid for on the same ration between state and local governmento The type of armories that are being put up at the present time cost the State and local government about $150,000. At present the legislature allows us about $4,000 a year. to pa� on the retirement of bondso When you do not have a National Guard unit in your City, ^ it is hard to picture this as a civic organizatian. This would be the Fridley Armory, and it would have various uses for the " community. It has a regulation size basketball court. There is an assembly area of 7,000 square feet. There are cooking facilities. It provi�es a civic building in the City that can be used by the City�and also can be rented out for var�iousfunctions by the Chamber of Commerce, the V.F.W. and other such groups. The State pays for the upkeep and maintenance of the building, but there are certain charges that have to be made for the rental of the building. These charges are minimal because we are not� a profit making organization. Tt costs the State about $8,000 to $12,000 a year to maintain an armory. For civic use, there is no fee, for such things as a location for voting, a eity meeting, blood bank, and there is no charge to the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts. We do have two employees who are in the building every day. The Guard Unit comes in two days a month. We prefer to have the building used by the community. � •Mr. Blair asked General Cheeseman if he had looked into any locations in Fridley. General Cheeseman said he had looked at two sites and they were both favorable, but they preferred the site by the Ice Arena. The Arena could use the armory parking lot for overflow parking. General Cheeseman said it would all depend upon the uses the �� community would like to make of the armory to determine how much = it will ultimately cost. S�ome communities want a larger armory. They want room for more recreational facilities, or a youth room. We do have an area for a firing range. This can be used for the F�rearm Safety Proqram, and we provide the instructors. If the Planning Commissi.on Meeting - November 7, 1973 Page 8 �, firing range was wall would have of the�City. going to be used by the Police Department, the to be re-enforced and that would be the cost Mr. Fitzpa.trick asked what the communities share of the cost would be on a basic armory built at the present time. Gener�.l Cheeseman said it would be about $90,000. Qhairman Fitzpatrick asked if this proposal was going favorably in any other communities. General Cheeseman said it was about the same in most of the communities.. He has been ' asked to come back, similar to Fridley. When we are talking about something so far in the future, five years minimum, we are trying to find the communities that are interested in this proposal so they will set aside the land for this purpose. The City Council and Commission will change in five years, so we can't pin them down to passing a resolution of intent. If we can't find the communities that are interested in this proposal and will set aside the land in case they might have an armory, then when we are r.eady to construct the armory there won't be any . land available.. We will then have to go out further in the - suburbs, to the third ring, for instance. The big thing in establishing a National Guard unit is the City's committment. This is a patriotic organization of young men who give up their ^ time for the country with very little for it. -� Mr. Clark asked what the National Guard wants from the City at this time. General Cheeseman said it was a resolution of inteni-of- which he has a sample. He gave this to Mr.�Clark. This resolution states that the City considers the establishing of an armory and National Guard unit favorably. There is nothing binding as this is 5 to 7 years in the future. This will enable us to start our planning.. This is a twenty year plan with the Federal government. We expect to"construct an armory every other year. It takes about three years to get this in the budget. Mr. Clark asked General Cheeseman how long they would expect the City to hold the land. General Cheeseman said it would be until they have chosen the five locations. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the resolution would come at the City Council level, if�they so desired. The Planning Commission was just a recommending body. Mr. Clark said that.i� the City was going to set aside a parcel of land, he thought they should have some idea on how long they would have to hold the land. Chairman Fitzpatrick said we are not talking just about buildir,g an armory, but the establishment of a National Guard � • Unit in Fridley. � Mr. Drigans asked the general size of a National Guard unit. General Cheeseman said it was about 140 men. Mr. Lindblad asked what type unit this would be. General �� Planning Commission Meeting - November 7, 1973 Page 9 Cheeseman said he thought it would be an artillery firing group. Mr. Drigans asked General �heeseman if the $90,000 figure for the communities cos� was today's�prices or a�uture price. General Cheeseman said this was the current figure. Paul Brown said at a previous meeting with General Cheeseman, Leon Madsen, from the Assessing Department, thought the City's cost would be between $80,000 and $90,000. Mr. Drigans said e`-idently this cost would be more in five years, or more. � Mr. Drigans asked General Cheeseman if he forsaw any change in the National Guard in the next five years. General Cheeseman answered, growth. Mr. Drigans asked about the training program. General Cheeseman said they were in the regular army for six months for basic training. Then they were worked back into a National Guard unit as army reserve, and they continue their training. The National Guard has both a Federal and State responsibility which is unique. This unit can be used at any government level, from National to local. The Guards have the same equipment and organization as the regular army. Mr. Lindblad asked General Cheeseman if the �, have any protection from this unit getting larger ,f an excess of military vehicles.General Cheeseman � unit would be splitif it got too large, and their were stored at the New Brighton Arsenal. City would and having said the extra vehicles Mr. Lindblad asked that if this armory was located in Fridley, and we had free civic use, would surrounding communities have free civic use. General Cheeseman said no. This would be the Fridley Armory and any other community would have to pay rental. '� " � Mr. Drigans asked who would have first choice to use the armory if there was a conflict. General Cheeseman said there was a regular duty man on the premises, and the use of the building would be on a first come, first served, basis. He said t�Yiis was a problem they generally don't have but they have never been in a situation where communities were so close together. General CheFSeman said this was rented by contract, so if this was being used for a recreational use, for instance, at the same time every week, that contract would be honored every week. There would also be a citizen's committee to work out any problems between the Guard and the City. . �,... Mr. Harris asked who would be responsible for City services. , General Cheeseman said the gover.nment would pay for sewer and water ' and other services. � Chairman Fitzpatrick askec't if the armory would be staffed � on a daily basis. General Cheesemen said the Commanding Officer and� a custodian would be there during the day, and the custodian ` Planning Commission Meeting - November 7, 1973 Page��.10 �b�Id always be there when the building was in use. Mr. Harris asked what security system they would have for the vehicles. General Cheeseman said they would have an alarm system and they would ask for a police check as this is a civic building. General Cheeseman said the Federal Government sets up the rules for security and they have to have alarm systems and triple door.s because of the arms room. Mr. Paul Brown said he has already stated the uses the Parks & Recreation Department and other uses that could be made of an armory at the July 18, 1973 Planning Commission meeting. The usec mentioned are Community use, departmental use, youth programs, assemblies, �own meetings, for regional use, Federal use, and veteran use. iie though� he had made his position quite clear in that there was a definite need for additional facilities. Mr. Br�wn continued�that it seems to him that when the City has the acreage it could set aside, and there was a need, the consideration would have to be on how the City wou].d finance it's share. Mr. Brown said he would like to have the Planriing Commission g�ive the Council a firm recommendation on this proposal to really explore the feasibility of having an armory in Fridley. i""1 Mr. Harris asked if this was a cement floor in the armory. � General Cheeseman said it was. Mr. Harris asked if this was satisfactory for basketball. General Cheeseman said it seemed to be working out fine. He said the armory has a regulation basketball court but there wasn't room for bleachers, so this would be f�or intermural sports. • � �� Mr. Harris asked if it would be possible to have indoor tennis in this building. General Cheeseman said that would be no groblem. � Chairmar: Fitzpatrick said it has been pointed out earlier that this also has dressing rooms and showers. Mr. Brown said he has a drawing of the basic plan for an armory. He said he would see that the Planning Commission members; received copies of this, which does show what is available. General Cheeseman presented pictures of armories that have been�built recently in the State. • Mr. Lindblad said he coul�n't accept that this would only cost the City $90,000 because costs could change and as we are far from saying what additional facilities we might want in this armory, the cost could run conside'rably more. General Cheeseman said there would be an agreement drawn up before the construction began on the building, so the City would know their exact costs. MOTION by Harris, seconded Commission continue the armory to a11ow more input from other by B1air, that the Planning proposal t.o an indefinite date departments of the City. a � P'lanning Commission Meeting - November 7, 1973 Page 1� �' Mr. Drigans asked the administration to prepare a letter from the Planning Commission to the civic and service organizations of Fridley, asking them if they would be interested in a Public Hearing or a Public discussion on the armory proposal, or if they would return back to us some type of correspondence on any usage they would have for a National Guard facility. They could list their pros and cons on this proposal and tell us of any needs that could be filled with an armory located in Fridley. UPON A VOICE VOTE, a1.Z voting aye, the m4tion carried unanimously. ' 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CREEK AND RIVER PRESERVATION MANAGEMENT ORD. Mr. Kirk English, Department of Natural Resources, and Mr. James Hanes, from HUD, who warks on the Federal Flood Program in Minnesota and Wisconsin, were present. MOTION BY DRIGAN5, SECONDED by Blair, that the Planning Commission waive t.he reading of the pub�.ic Hearing notice for the Creek and River Preservation 1�9ait�ge�rrtent Ordinance. ' Upon a, voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motjon car�ied.unaimously. Mr. Clark said there was a question when the Planning n, Commission was reviewing this ordinance if there would be any fluctuation in value of a home located in the CRP-2 zone before and �� after the adoption of this ordinance. Would the home be easier � or harder to sell. . Mr. Haner said the worst it could do� would be to hold the value stable and the value should go up because it was insurable. Any praperty that is along a waterway should be in a preservation district. This is one of the reguirements of F.H.A. and the V.A. now, and it should follow.that this will become a requirement of private lending agencies. Mr. Blair said he had always heard that flood insurance on a h�2me was expensive. Mr. Haner said that beforE �_°5s, t�� only place you could get flood insurance was from Lloyd�s of London and the rate was $6.95 per $100. When the subsidized flood insurance program was passed by Congress in 1968, on homes costing $30,000 or less, the cost is $.25 per hundred, before the actuarial map is e:tablished, and this represents about l00 of the premium. 90o�of the premium is ::ubsidized and handled through 10-0 insurance agencies in New York. Mr. Hane� said on these homes of $30,000 or`.less, only $17,500 can be insured under this subsidized program at""the present time. Contents can be insured up to $5,000 for $.35 � per $100. When the comr�tunities ge�heir actuarial inaps, which takes about three years, you will have the information and the 'r insurance company will be able to use this information to determine the 100 year flood level, and with your local �opog��aphlymap, they will be able to measure the ground level of a structure against ' the flood level, and actuarial rates can then be determined. At that point, the property owner has the choice of the subsidized Planning Commission Meeting - November 7, 1973 Page .Z2 �``� rate or the actuarial rate and the amount that can be insured will be doubled. Presently, there is a law in Congress to increase the coverage rate on a single family home to $30,000 (subsidized). The amount of contents that can be insured will go up and also the amount that can be insured by business�s. Mr. Haner said at the present time the homeowner will be able to get subsidized insurance on $17,500 if his home cost $30,000 or less. With the actuarial rates, it will depend where his structure is located below or above the 100 year flood level. If hisstructur� was at a high enough elevation, it could only cost $.05 per $100. Mr. Clark asked how this insurance would pay. If you had a house that cost more than $17,500 but you could only insure it for that amount, and the flood caused $3,000 structural damage, would they pay the $3,000. M�. Haner said they would. Mr. Harris said that with this ordinance, we are defining the area where people can get flood insurance. He asked if this was correct. Mr-. Haner said that once this ordinance was in eff�ect, anyone within the corporate boundary of Fridley could get flood insurance. � Nlr. Harris asked if you lived in an area where there was a drainage ditch and during an occasion of a heavy rain you �. could have some.damage, would this be covered by flood insurance. Mr. Haner said it would. He said a flood was defined by any unusal amou�t of water into an area that is usually dry, unless the problem was caused by some action of the homeowner. It even covers mud slides. Mr. Haner said the�.reason t�is legislation was passed was because of the great drain on the taxpayers t-hrough the Disaster Relief Fund. ThE: Congress said these people have to be helped and if a community would agree to pass ordinances for proper land management to reduce floods and flood damage, they would be eligible for subsidized flood insurance. M-r. Lindblad �asked if after a community has this flood insurance available to them, if thE:y would still be eligible f.or Disaster Relief Funds. Mr. Haner said the community would not be eligible. Because of the present legislation, December 31,.1973 would be the cut off line for disaster relief and those without insurance will'. find it more difficult to receive flood relief. Mr. Haner continued that last year there were 48 areas designated as disaster areas and 46 �f these were floods. It cost the Disaster Relief Fund br taxpayers, between 9 and 10 billion dollars. � ��� • Chairman Fitzpatrick said it would depend upon the State program as to whether you were eligible for,Disaster Relief. Mr. Haner said Minnesota has passed the l,ecrislatioh and it is such an easy program to get into at lit"tle cost so it is . good business for a community to get into this flood insurance program. � � ��� � Planning Commission Meeting - November.7, 1973 Page 13 Mr. Blair asked the CRP-1 area and the CRP-2 area to re defined Mr. Boardman said that in a CRP-2 zone shown in red pn the map, buil'dings fcr occupation would be allowed if they were filled to two feet above the 100 year flood level and if that wasri!t feasible, then protect the structure according to the State Standards. Any construct�on would require a Special Use Permit. In a CRP-1 zone, shown on blue on the map, this allows use that is not for human habitation and has a low flood potential damage, such as parking lots, tennis courts, or • small park areas, that will not raise the flood cross section level more than .5 feet. Mr. Drigans said we did have a question on who had juris4 diction �n appro"val �� a Special��se Permit, where it says all governing bodies have jurisdiction over such use or obstruction, but in a memo from Jerry Boardman on October 31, 1973, it states that Mr. Boardman has talked to Jim Wright of the Department of Natural Resources and he said the City of Fridley has sole priority on the.decisions within its boundaries. A�proval of other bodies are not _ necessary since these are merely recommending to the City. There is a discrepancy here. Maybe this secion should be rewritten. Mr. Boardman agreed that it should be rewritten. � Mr. Clark said there are some lots in Riverview Heights that are vacant and it is not feasible to fill them up to two feet above the 100 year flood level, and yet the valuation af homes in this area would make it economically unfeasible to have expensive flood proofing of the structure. � Mr. English said they would either have to fill the property or flood proof the structure.. If the City made it a habit of. giving permission for variances and Special Use Permits that did not meet the State Standards, they would lose their eligibility for subsidized flood insurance. Mr. Clark said the Planning Commission should not feel guilty if they have to turn down any such requests that don't meet the State Standards. • Mr. Drigans said he didn't think the owners of the vacant property are aware that this rodinance could make some of the lots�unbuildable. Mr. Clark said they woul'd have the option of flood proofing any structure they would want to build. Mr. Clark said there was also a question raised that in a real emergency situation, during.flooding, and your property was washing away, can the property owner take emergency action for fill to protect his property. Mr. English said that in these circumstances, he was sure that any property owner would have the right to protect his property, but after the emergency was over he would need a Special Use Per.mit, to make permanent repairs to his property. • Planning Commission Meeting - November 7, 1973 Pagel� �`' Mr. Harris asked about removing trees and vegetation from a�river �ank or along a waterway. Mr. English said there were no restrictions on this. Mr. Harris said this would expose the banks to erosion. Mr. English said this could be put in the Fridley ordinance. It would exceed the State Standards, but there's no reason the ordinance can't do that. Mr. Clark said this could be added to the CRP-1 zone. Mr. Boardman said it can be put in the preservation area of the ordinance. ,� MOTTON by Lindblad, seconded by Blair, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the Creek & River Preser= vation Management Ordinance. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimousl�. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Harris that the Planning Commission recommend to the Cit� Council adoption of the Creek and River Preservation Ordinance, after the foZlowing changes have been made: (1) Add the preservation of existing trees and vegetation to CRP.-1 zone under section 5, subsection B. (2) Rewrite paragraph 8 on page 5 of the ordinance to state that any Special Use Permit being considered� by the City is subject to the recommendation of aZ1 other governing bodies. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 4. DISCUSSION ON ENERGY CRISIS Mr. Drigans said he had listened to President Nixon's speech on television before the meeting this�evening (November 7) and felt some action �hould be taken by the City of Fridley �o help �o�v�.the critical energy crisis. He said as long as the Planni.ng Commission was an ��dvisory board to the Council he would like to ask the �ouncil to appoint a citizen's committee to study this problem. In the discussion that followed, other members of the Commission though� this might be premature and wanted to wait until Federal and State controls had been set. Chairman Fitzpatrick adjourned the meeting at 11:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � . Dorothy Eve on, Secretary � , ���, � �� /��a� ,� . Q���'�--c4.1�� �'���c�`'� r /� ���h� � �/�'�,��-��, ,� /"� '^ / ,� i �;. � � ' � �, �_,a� /�-;-�---�.-f r . '� � ; / J C�� �� f � /i <�c �'v' �I M � S /"� �.�i � ��a� n�n ( � ����i� �t9 ��i'J s 5 � s en /// � ���� /��'�' � J�' �� ���sre-� 5 �� U j l ���"'_" "`" �2 � � n / r � � � � / ,,� ,�c �.: o .� � �' ✓.1. � � �,'� ,r�,;.-,,{= ,� � � � /Z � � � � �% `;��'j � � ,� / D " ` � `�'f � t , -�, �� 1 ' b � 7 �i�,,�-,���.; . �,, �.. P �� A. j � . ,�' >� C.� (�' � e� � �- d� `� e. s , % �, /; _ �,/ � - � ( - 9 .'�" � _ fC.'' ./ j % ��. � ,: ` � _ _ �; ., �/ /, , (! � %1. r�%! �i_.�-_ ; � �! ='t, �i � . _ . �.. '� � � r,. �L,b, �oV f � /V!-��I , FLooD �!V 5, �/ /�OG►t�►�M