PL 06/01/1994 - 6934��
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNE3DAY, JIINE 1, 1994
7:30 P.M.
PUBLIC COPY
�
�
�
/,.� City of Fridley
A G E N D A
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 1994 7:30 P.M.
LOCATION: Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E.
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL•
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: May 18, 1994
Tabled 5/4/94: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #94-03
BY GORDON HEDLUND:
Per Section 205.24.4.D and 205.24.5.A of the Fridley City Code,
to allow construction in the CRP-2 District (Flood Fringe) on
Lots 12 and 13, Block Y, Riverview Heights, generally located on
the south side of Buffalo Street east of Riverview Terrace.
Tabled 5/4/94: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #94-04
BY GORDON HEDLUND:
Per Section 205.24.4.D and 205.24.5.A of the Fridley City Code,
� to allow construction in the CRP-2 District (Flood Fringe) on
' Lots 29, 30, and 31, Block X, Riverview Heights, generally
located on the south side of Cheryl Street west of Broad Avenue.
.Tabled 5/4/94: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #94-05
BY GORDON HEDLUND:
Per Section 205.24.4.D and 205.24.5.A of the Fridley City Code,
to allow construction in the CRP-2 District (Flood Fringe) on
Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, Block V, Riverview Heights, generally
located on the north side Dover Street west of Broad Avenue.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #94-
07, BY AMOCO OIL COMPANY:
Per Section 205.14.O1.C.(5) of the Fridley City Code, to allow
the expansion of an automobile service station on Lots 16, 17,
18, and 19, Block 13, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville,
generally located at 5311 University Avenue N.E.
RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MEETING OF MAY 2. 1994
OTHER BUSINESS:
ADJOURNMENT
.E '9
�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMIS�ION MEETING, MAY 18� 1994
_______________�__________________________�_______________-_-___-
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairperson Newman called the May 18, 1994, Planning Commission
meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL•
Members Present: Dave Newman, Dean Saba, Diane Savage,
LeRoy Oquist, Connie Modig, Brad Sielaff
Members Absent: Dave Rondrick
Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Paul Harstad, Harstad Companies
Forrest Harstad, Twin City Townhomes
Tedd Mattke, Mattke Engineering
Ed Dropps, Cypress Development
See attached list �
APPROVAL OF MAY 4. 1994, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
/'�
_ MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the May �,
1994, Planning Commission minutes as written.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL oOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEpMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOII3LY. �
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN
WR #94-01, BY PAUL HARSTAD:
Per Section 205.27 of the Fridley City Code, to allow the
filling of a wetland for construction of a single family
dwelling on Lot 6, Block 2, Innsbruck North 2nd Addition,
generally located at 5470 and 5490 East Danube Road Id.E.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:32 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the subject parcels are generally located near
the intersection of East and West Danube Roads, east of Matterhorn
Drive, and south of North Innsbruck Drive. This request comes as
a result o� two actions--one at the state level and one at the
local level. In 1991, the State Legislature passed the 1991
Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). This Act is an attempt to limit
^ the loss of wetlands to no net loss. The City adopted the O-4
PLANNING COMMIS3ION MEETING, MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 2
Overlay District which is the Wetland Preservation District. This
basically put the State Statute into a working document that the
City can use to enforce the State Statute passed in 1991.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting that this
replacement plan be approved to allow the filling of 2,800 square
feet,of Type 4 wetland. The replacement plan proposes to create
2,500 square feet of Type 4 wetland.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has also applied for variances
which will be heard by the Appeals Commission on May 24, 1994.
Ms. McPherson stated the subject parcels are zoned R-1, Single
Family Dwelling, as are the surrounding parcels. This particular
subject parcel has had.a lengthy history regarding ta the wetlands
located on it. The earliest documentation was in 1973 in which
the property owner in developing the area requested that the
assessments for water main, sanitary sewer, and street construction
he reduced on these particular lots due to the fact that they
might not be buildable due to the presence of wetlands.
Ms. McPherson stated that. in 1977, the DNR declared that the
wetlands located on these parcels and other parcels in the
Innsbruck area would fall under the DNR's jurisdiction and would.
require permits from the DNR prior to development. ,
P- �
r"�
Ms. McPherson stated the remainder of the documentation occurred
in the late 1970s, predominately in ].977 and 1978. In 1986, the
City issued a land alteration permit to Hearthstone Homes to fill
the properties from the front property lines to the drainage
easement located 20 and 40 feet from the westerly lot lines. In
reviewing the plans submitted by the petitioner, staff determined
that the filling did not occur to the extent that would have been
permitted under that land alteration permit. That land alteration
permit expired on December 31, 1986, and the City has not issued
any subsequent land alteration permits.
Ms. McPherson stated staff reviewed the aerial photos located at
the Municipal Center. In 1977, the aerial photo showed that an .
extensive Type 3 or 4 wetland was located on both 5470 and 5490
East Danube. The 1981 aerial showed that filling had occurred on
a small portion of the wetland on Lot 5 which is the northerly lot,
and in 1985, no further filling as compared to 1981 had occurred.
Ms. McPherson stated that in 1993, staff inet with the petitioner
on site as a result from a complaint from a neighbor. The
petitioner was informed at that time that he would need to comply
with the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing to filT the lots
in order to construct single family dwellings on both Lot 5, 5490 �`
East Danube Road, which was filled previously, and Lot 6, 5470 East
Danube Road. Lot 6 will receive the most impact for the wetlands.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 3
�� - -
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has submitted a Wetland
Delineation Plan as well as a Wetland Replacement Plan.
Ms. McPherson stated a Type 4 wetland is located on the subject
parcel. Wetlands of this particular type are characterized by open
water with a depth of 2-3 feet. Vegetation associated with this
wetland includes cottonwood, black willow, dogwood, reed canary
grass, and pinkweed. This wetland is also part of an overall
drainage system for the neighborhood.
Ms. McPherson stated staff has determined that the subwatershed is
defined by Matterhorn Drive_on the west, Gardena Avenue on the
north, and I-694 on the south. Water flows west from the wetland
west of West Danube Road, under West Danube into the subject
wetland, and out of the wetland under East Danube Road into Farr
Lake. In addition, Farr Lake also receives storm water from Black
Forrest Condominiums and the North Innsbruck�Townhomes.
Ms. McPherson stated that in the petitioner's wetland replacement.
plan, staff reviewed the requirements of the O-4 Wetland Overlay
District which has been adopted by the City and which includes the
requirements of the State Statute. The petitioner is missing eight
items which are required as part of the submission of the wetland
replacement plan for the impacted wetlaMd:
�
1. Wetland location with a public land survey coordinate of
� the wetland center
2. The overall size of the wetland including that portion
not on the subject parcel
3. The wetland type as defined by USFW Circular 39 and
National Wetland Inventory mapping conventions
4. A soils map or soils information provided by soil borings
5. The size of the watershed draining into the wetland area
6. Location of inlets and outlets
7. A map or written description of the land use within one
mile of the watershed
8. Evidence of ownership �
Ms. McPherson stated staff inet with the Rice Creek Watershed
Administrator, Kate Drewry, on the site on May 10, 1994. They were
able to speak with one of the neighbors at that time. The
Administrator supplied staff with a second delineation plan that
� had .been submitted by the petitioner in April 1993. ' The two
delineations did not match; and on May 11, 1994, staff conferred
with the City's consultant, Peterson Environmental Consulting to
do a visual site visit of the subject parcel to determine if the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 18. 1994 PAGE 4
delineation submitted by the petitioner is accurate. The
consultant confirmed that the delineation submitted by the
petitioner is accurate and would be acceptable as far as the
Statute and ordinance.
Ms. McPherson stated staff reviewed the sequencing requirements of
the wetland ordinance. Any developer wishing to fill or drain a
wetland needs to go through five steps to minimize or avoid impact
to wetlands. The petitioner did provide three alternatives which
would avoid impact to the wetland:
1.
2.
�
Choose not to build on Lot 6.
Construct a home on pilings on Lot 6.
Build a smaller home on Lot 6.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner dismissed the first alternative
using the "takings" argument that he would not receive the economic
return he intended to receive when he first purchased the property.
The petitioner also indicated that there is an exemption in the
State Statute which applies to platted properties which have
improvements and/or infrastructure installed or having local site
plan approval, conditional use permits, or similar official
approval by a governing body or government agency.
Ms. McPherson stated that while this particular parcel does have
utilities stubbed to it and there is infrastructure which would
se�ve this particular lot, the.petitioner did not.apply for a
building permit or land alteration permit within the window that
is permitted in the State.Statute which is from July 1, 1986, to
January l, 1992. Staff is reluctant to extend this window outside
the five year window defined in the Statute. •
Ms. McPherson stated the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR),
the state agency that wrote the rules for the State Statute, would
have the regulatory authority to make the interpretation that this
parcel would be exempt from the State Statute based on that
particular exemption. Staff is taking the stand that the exemption
does not apply to this parcel.
Ms. McPherson stated the second alternative the petitioner
presented was to construct a dwelling on pilings. The petitioner
stated this would be a cost-prohibitive alternative and is not an
accepted way of constructing a dwelling unit. The petitioner did
not submit expert testimony from a structural engineer to support
the statements he made. The petitioner should submit such
information from a professional to support his argument.
''1
�
Ms. McPherson stated that in the third alternative, the petitioner
stated that a smaller house would not fit into this particular �,.,�
neighborhood nor would it meet the City's minimum house size
requirements of 1,020 square feet.. The petitioner stated that a
house size small enough to meet the setback requirements and to
� a
'„�
PLANNING COMMI38ION MEETING, MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 5
avoid all wetland impacts would need to be 15 feet by 45 feet. The
petitioner is correct that the house would not meet the minimum
dwelling size; however, if a front yard variance was granted by the
City, the petitioner could construct a house pad of 30 feet by 50
feet which would eliminate most impact to the wetland and would
allow the petitioner to possibly fall under the 400 square foot
exemption which is in the Statute and the ordinance.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner also did not explore the use
of retaining walls to reduce the amount of fill needed around the
dwelling unit along the rear and side walls.
Ms. McPherson stated that in terms of the wetland replacement plan,
the last item staff reviewed was the information submitted and the
replacement ratio proposed by the petitioner. The State Statute
and the local ordinance require that replacement be at a minimum
rate of two acres created wetland for every one acre of we.tland
which is impacted. The petitioner is proposing a wetland
replacement rate of less than 1:1 if no setback variances were
granted by the Gity. If the setback variance is granted b� the
City, the petitioner could meet the 1:1 ratio of one acre of
wetland created for every one acre impacted.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner also did not submit
agproximately eleven items which are required as part of
�'"1 identifying the replacement of wetland and also the monitoring plan
which is required to monitor the created wetland for a five year
period after the wetland is created.
Ms. McPherson stated that as the petitioner cannot meet the 2:1
ratio, the City cannot approve the replacement plan as the State
. Statute and the local ordinance require a minimum replacement ratio
of 2:1.
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends that the.Planning Commission
recommend denial of the replacement plan as it is proposed based
on two findings of fact:
1. Feasible and prudent alternatives exist which avoid
impacts to the wetlands (Section 205.27.05.D.(3j).
2. The proposed replacement ratio is less than the 2:1 ratio
required by Statute and local ordinance (Section
205.27.10.D).
Mr. Sielaff stated that the Environmental Quality and Energy
Commission reviewed this proposal at their meeting on May 17, 1994,
and passed a resolution agreeing with staff's recommendation and
stipulations.
Mr. �aul Harstad stated that he is representing Harstad Companies.
^ He stated this is primarily a procedural matt�er. They are well
aware that they have not met the very stringent requirements of the
Wetland Conservation Act. They are asking for the Commission's
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 6
r�
denial, and then the next step will be to appeal that denial to the
State Board in the hope of receiving a very specific exemption in
the law. It is regarding the fact that utilities are stubbed to
the site, the lots are platted, etc.
Mr. Harstad stated that in the event that they do not receive that
exemption, they would then have to find feasible and prudent
alternatives as described by staff. If they determine that a
smaller house size as suggested by staff is not sufficient for
homes in this neighborhood, then they would challenge the law at
the state level.
Mr. Harstad stated that subsequent to the Wetland Replacement Plan,
he also sent a letter to Ms. McPherson dated April 29, 1994, in
which he.requested a 15 foot setback variance for Lot 6 and a 10
foot setback variance for Lot 5. The purpose of this variance was
to min,imize the impact to the wetland. He would still like to
proceed with the variance request. If they receive the variance
as requested, they would be reducing the fill area from 2,500
square feet to 1,900 square feet.
Mr. Harstad stated floor plans were submitted, along with the
Wetland Replacement Plan, one of which was designed in early 1986
that was to fit on Lot 5. The proposal by staff to build a two-
story house should be considered, but it would probably be a two-
story house without a basement, making it very difficult to sell ^
in Minnesota.
Mr. Newman stated he appreciated Mr. Harstad's candor as to his
intent for this request; but if Mr. Harstad needs ta build a record
for his appeal to BWSR, he is invited to take advantage of that
opportunity and supplement whatever information he has already.
given the Commission and those in the audience. .
Mr. Harstad stated staff has stated that there are a number of
items that were not. included in their Wetland Replacement Plan..
They are aware of that and are� happy of the fact that the
Commission will deny the request because they are not meeting the
2:1 requirement. He would have a difficult time if the Commission
tabled this request until they were able to submit all those other
items. Some of those items are time-consuming and costly, and they
are not sure at this point that they will be required to submit
them prior to receiving a decision from BWSR. He stated he had no.
further comments.
Mr. Bob Horeck, 5505 West Danube Road, stated he lives on Lot 9,
directly behind the stated lots. They built their house on this
lot in 1974. At that time, they were promised.that Lots 5 and 6
were unbuildable and were going to be declared as wetlands and were
going to be left as wetlands. He stated they purchased this lot
because they wanted to live by the woods and they wanted privacy
which they have had for 20 years. They spent five years trying to �
get Lots 5 and 6 declared as wetlands; and in 1991, they were
declared as wetlands. He stated nothing has really changed, except
/"'�'�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 7
for the construction that was done by Harstad, in 1992.
Approximately 20-25 truckloads of dirt were dumped primarily on Lot
5.
Mr. Horeck stated they have the lowest lot in the neighborhood.
The road on Lots 5 and 6 is roughly 10-15 feet higher than his back
yard. If those lots are filled in, all the drainage has to come
into his back yard. The soil is solid clay, and clay does not
absorb the moisture. Since the fill happened in 1992, they have
had water problems. They have to run their sump pump constantly
to keep water out of the basement. Right now, the water is almost
at the highest it has been in years. By filling the back yard of
Lot 6, it would greatly jeopardize their property, and it would be
in direct disagreement with all the things they have been told in
the past. Wetlands should not be declared anything but wetlands.
Mr. Horeck stated his recommendation is that the Planning
Commission not take any action or just table the discussion and
require Mr. Harstad to meet all the requirements. Quite frankly,
he would•like to see this.drag on for years.
Mr. Bryan Steppe, 5528 West Danube Road, stated these lots are
wetlands, and he is concerned about the drainage. Even if there
is some kind of wetland replacement, that doesn't mean the drainage
is going to work properly.
�
Ms. Sue Williams, 5568 West Danube Road, gave the Commission copies
of a letter she had written to Mr. Pete Fryer regarding further
development in this drainage area. She would like it included with
the record. She stated she purchased her lot in 1977 from Keith
and Diane Harstad. They told her that Lots 5 and 6 were wetlands.
Mr. Keith Harstad.had to fill a little bit of the edge of the pond
to make her lot "buildable". Mr. Reith Harstad is responsible for
the level of her basement. He, along with the Fridley City
Engineer, assured her that the drainage areas of the pond were not
that big and that even with a 100 year rain, the water would not
come into her basement as long as the drainage area was maintained.
Ms. Williams stated her basement has already been jeopardized, and
filling Lot 6 will further seal her doom when the next 100 year
rain comes. She hoped the City would feel responsible if she sues
the City for a wet basement, because that is what she will do. She
will also get the names of everybody involved and make a civil suit
for everyone who makes such a decision. It is just criminal that
the Harstad Company appears to be able to do whatever they want to
do. The Harstads promised that these lots would remain wetlands,
and she is tired of all these broken promises. She would
appreciate it if the City would not let them do everything they
want to do anytime they want to do it.
Mr. Norman�Nault, 5535 West Danube Road, stated that in"1992, the
�'� Harstads did fill quite a bit in the lot behind him. Prior to that
time, they never had any water problems in the back yard.. Two
weeks ago when there was a heavy rain, the water was about 10 feet
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 8
��
from his walkout. The Harstads promised these lots were going to
be wetlands. The Harstads have not paid taxes on these lots,
because they were declared wetlands, and now they want to develop
them. The Harstads want a denial so they can appeal it, so they
can find a sympathetic body. And, if they get the variance, they
will not even have to fill Lot 6. Some unsuspecting soul will buy
a great house in a great neighborhood, and then later they will
realize the problems when they try to sell it.
Ms. Darlene Blank, 5544 East Danube Road, stated her family moved
here in August 1993. Their lot sits right on the wetland, which
is a home to all kinds of animals, ducks, birds, frogs, etc. They
wanted to live in a community that was like living in the outdoors.
Her youngest son is an avid hockey player and has enjoyed skating
on this wetland in the wintertime. She would hate to see this area
which is now being used by children and being appreciated by the
neighbors developed because someone wants to make a profit off the
land.
Mr. Tom� Fisher, 5477 East Danube Road, stated he lives directly
across East Danube Road from Lot 6. The Harstads received a permit
to fill this lot in 1986. He stated that regarding the filling in
1992, he called the City at least twice and someone from the City
came out and he showed them where the fill was taking place.. He
watched the trucks dump on that lot. He complained to Mr. Harstad.
Subsequent to that, additional dumping was done so that they now '�
have mounds of dirt,piled an the lot.. He called th� City again and
asked for someone to come out and look at the lot. He was told by
a City staff person that the Harstads could not overfill the lot
and just leave piles of dirt there and that the piles would have
to be removed. He stated nothing has been removed, and the piles
of dirt are overgrown with weeds. He would like to know who gave
the Harstads permission to fill in 1992. If no one did, then
should the Commission be listening to representation from Mr.
Harstad?
Mr. Fisher stated the people represented at the meeting were told
by Mr. Keith Harstad that these lots were wetlands and would never
be built on. He purchased his lot from a previous owner and built
his house in 1977 after being assured by Mr. Harstad that the lots
across the street would always be wetlands and were unbuildable.
It is hard for the neighbors to believe that the Harstads are being
harmed when the neighbors were told by the Harstads that they did
not plan to build on these lots.
Mr. Fisher reviewed the drainage from the wetlands under East
Danube Road between his house and the house to the north to Farr
Lake. The outlet does not outlet into Farr Lake. Surrounding Farr
Lake is a walking path. The outlet is about 15-20 feet short of
the walking path which makes the water dump into his back yard.
He built a berm around his back yard so there is a kind of wetland �
area that surrounds his back yard and fills up from this pond.
When it fills sufficiently, the water begins to dribble across the
path into Farr Lake. The problem is that in a 100 year rain or
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 18. 1994 PAG$ 10
�
Ms. Freeburg stated she is also concer�ed with setting up two �
wetland areas that are smaller than the existing wetland. The area
now supports a certain amount of wildlife. If that wetland is cut
into two smaller wetlands, ignoring all drainage problems that
would be created, they will have defeated the purpose of having the
natural wetland area.
Mr. Boyd Herdendorf, 5467 East Danube Road, asked if the Department
of Natural Resources has done any evaluation of the effects of
filling wetlands on Farr Lake or if there are plans for such a
s�udy. If not, he would suggest that a study be done. The wetland
performs an important filtration system. If the wetlands are
filled in, the water will rurs directly into Farr Lake carrying
heavy sediment and debris that would come through any culvert
system and it would tend to pollute Farr Lake quicker. He believed
there might be some environmental impact on Farr Lake because of
this.
Mr. Norman Nault, 5535 West Danube Road, stated that if it appears
that Lot 6 was filled in 1992 with no permits from the City, can
some action be taken against the Harstads?
Ms. McPherson stated that if the City.finds that filling was
conducted illegally, the City can require the person responsible .�
to remove the illegal fill. �`
a
Mr. Bob Horeck, 5505 West Danube Road, stated that about four years
ago, he received a variance from the City to enlarge a deck on the
back of his house which brought it next to the culvert that runs
between Lots 5 and 6. The culvezt actually comes out at.the back
of his garage which is about 70-80 feet from the road.and runs for
another 70 feet through the back yard as drainage into the pond.
When applying for the variance, he was informed by the City that
th�re would be no construction through the back involving the
culvert and it would remain that way. If any of Lot 5 and 6 is
filled further, it will require that the culvert that drains
between Lot 5 and Lot 6 over to Farr Lake be connected to the
culvert that goes across West Danube. Such construction would
require coming between him and his neighbor such that it would
require tearing down his deck.
Mr. Roger Hertel, 5501 West Danube Road, stated he did not
understand why a variance is even under consideration. The
Harstads have not been good neighbors. He built here in 1977 and
it was also represented to him that Lots 5 and 6 would remain
wetlands.
Mr. Newman stated that by ordinance and by law, any property owner.
can make a petition to the City as long as the appropriate forms
are filled out and the fees paid. "
Mr. Newman stated the people in the audience have made some very
useful observations and provided some very helpful information to
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 18. 1994 PAGE 11
�
the Commission. He stated that regarding promises made to them by
the Harstad Company, the City has to be very careful in making its
decisions that it is not trying to enforce private agreements made
between private parties. While it is certainly useful information,
to the extent that there are claims by the buyers against the
Harstad Company because of certain representations, those concerns
might have to be addressed privately and not through the City.
Mr. Tom Fisher, 5477 East Danube Road, stated he believed these
comments are being offered as to the credibility of the person the
City is dealing with.
Ms. Darlene Blank, 5544 East Danube Road, stated she would like to
see this item tabled indefinitely until Mr. Harstad can get all the
required information.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to receive into the
record the following: (1) Letter from Sue Williams dated June 3,
1993, to Mr. Pete Fryer; (2) Letter from C. Tom Fisher dated May
18, 1994, to the City of Fridley Planning Commission; and (3) 19
photos.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON NEWM�IN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
^, MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VDICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:35 P.M.
Mr. Oquist asked what�would�happen if the Commission tables this
item and the petitioner then satisfies the eleven items that are
required.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner's application would then be
complete in terms of ineeting the separate requirements of the
requirements that need to be submitted for the wetland delineation
of the impacted wetlands, as well as the replacement plan and
replacement of wetlands and the monitoring plan which is a five
year plan which must be submitted by the petitioner.
Ms. McPherson stated that regarding the public's request to table
this item indefinitely, under State Statute and local ordinance,
the City must make a decision on this request within 60 days from
the date of public hearing publication in the Focus.News. That
publication date was May 10, 1994.
Mr. Sielaff stated that if.BWSR grants an exemption, where does
that put the City as far as denial or approval.
� Ms. McPherson stated that if BWSR grants an exemption from the
State Statute, Mr. Harstad would not have to replace any impacted
wetland. As far as the City is concerned, the petitioner would
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 18. 1994 PAGE 12
have to comply with the land alteration permits and get a permit
from the Rice Creek Watershed District. The City or the adjacent
property owners could appeal BWSR's decision (a petition of 100
names is required) to the District Court.
Ms. McPherson stated that under State Statute, any decision
regarding any wetland replacement plan is not enacted until 30 days
after the date the decision is published in the Environmental
Quality Board Monitor, and that decision is mailed to certain state
and local departments and anyone on the mailing list who requests
notification of said decision.
Ms . McPherson stated that any residents who want to be informed
about the action taken by BWSR should contact her and she will
forward that list to BWSR.
Mr. Oquist stated that City ordinance states that any development
cannot create any more water runoff after the development than
before the development. How does the ordinance affect this
request, because any fill is going to cause more runoff? �
Ms. McPherson stated that portion of the ordinance would be
reviewed during the building permit application process.
Mr. Oquist
illegally
corrected,
further.
stated it sounds like the Harstads brought in fill
on Lot 5. Until that has been investigated and
Mr. Harstad should not be allowed .to proceed any
Ms: McPherson stated the City does not have any formal record of
any application made for a land alteration permit for Lot 5. The
City received a complaint saying that there was filling on Lot.5.
When staff inet with the petitioner on site, there was� not any
evidence of new fill being placed on the lot. At that time, the
petitioner was informed that he wot�ld need to comply with the 1991
Wetland Conservation Act. She stated she was one of the staff
members.who visited the site in 1993 after receiving complaints
from a neighbor. At that time, she made a note to the Building
Inspection Department that no permits would be issued for these
particular parcels.
Mr. Saba stated that over many years, they have all learned a lot
about the quality of wetlands. He believed the ordinance the City
has adopted is a good one and will serve the City we�l . He would
like to see Wetland Replacement Plan, WR #94-01, strongly denied
based on the City's wetland ordinance and testimony received at
this meeting. He did not think tabling this request for two months
would accomplish anything.
��
�
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend to City
Council denial of Wetland Replacement Plan, WR #94-0I; by Paul �
Harstad based on the City's O-4 wetland regulations and the '`
following findings of fact: "
�
i'�,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 13
1.
2.
3
Feasible and prudent alternatives exist which avoid
impacts to the wetlands (Section 205.27.05.D.(3)).
The proposed replacement ratio is less than the 2:1 ratio
required by Section 205.27.10.D.
The Wetland Replacement Plan application is incomplete.
Ms. Modig stated that in her opinion, the petitioner has set up
the Commission to deny this request, so that he can appeal and
override the City's decision. The neighborhood clearly does not
want this. She will only vote to table the request.
MOTION by Ms. Modig to table Wetland Replacement Plan, WR #94-01,
by Paul Harstad.
MOTION DIED FOR LACR OF A SECOND.
Mr. Oquist stated he agreed with Ms. Modig that they have been set
up. After hearing the neighborhood's testimony, he did not see
this company as a good neighbor. Unfortunately, the City's hands
are tied. If the Commission tables the request, they have to act
on it in 60 days, so their only option is to deny the request. He
stated the 1992 filling of I�t 5 has to be investigated and
addressed as there seems to be a real violation there.
Ms. Savage stated the Commission really has no other option but to
deny the request. Tabling the request is just delaying the
inevitable, and they have to let the process move forward. It is
pretty clear that an adequate record has been made, so they should
let the process take its course.
Mr. Saba stated that if the community is informed about the BWSR
hearing, he would encourage the neighbors to repeat their testimony
at that hearing.
A neighbor recommended that the City use the same mailing list of
residents within 350 feet to notify them of the BWSR hearing.
Mr. Sielaff stated the Commission needs to send a strong message
that the Commission supports the City's wetland ordinance. Tabling
the request might make the Commission look hesitant, and he did
not want anyone to have that perception at all.
Ms. Modig stated
that she did not
reason she made
petitioner submit
plan.
her motion to table the request was not to say
strongly support the wetland ordinance. The
the motion to table was to try to make the
the 11 items missing from the wetland replacement
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, MODIG VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON NEWM�N DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED. •
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 14
�
Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to the City Council on June
20, 1994.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to ask City staff and
the City Council to investigate the improper filling of Lot 5 in
1992.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CBAIRPERSON NSWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
Mr. Newman stated staff has recommended that the next three public
hearings be consolidated into one to alleviate confusion during the
public discussion.
2. CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT P S #94-04. BY FORREST
HARSTAD OF TWIN CITY TOWNHOMES:
To replat Lot 6, except the East 650 feet thereof and except
that part lying West of the Northeasterly right-of-way line
of the Outer Drive of the State Trunk Highway, Auditor's
Subdivision No. 25, Section 24, Township 30 Nor�h, Range 24
West, Anoka County, Minnesota, and Lot 7, except the East 650
feet thereof and except that part thereof lying West of the
Northeast�right-of-way line of the Outer Drive of State Trunk .
Highway and except the South 55 feet of the West 150 feet of
the East 800 feet thereof, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25,
Section 24, Township 30 North, Range 24 West, Anoka County, ^
Minnesota, and Lot 8, except the east 800 feet thereof. and
except that part thereof lyi�g west of the Northeasterly
right-of-way line of the Outer Drive of State Trunk Highwa,y,.
Auditor's Subdivision No. 25. This property is generally
located at 971 Hillwind Road N.E.
3. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REOUEST SAV #94-02..BY FORREST
HARSTAD OF TWIN CITY TOWNHOMES:
To vacate that part of Lots 6, 7, and 8, all in Auditor's
Subdivision No. 25 and lying in the Southwest Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 24,
Township 30, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota described as
lying between the following described LINE 1 and a line 40.00
feet northeasterly of and parallel with the following
described LINE 3. LINE 1 is described as commencing at a
point on the east line of Section 24, Township 30 North, Range
24 West, distant 181.30 feet north of the southeast corner
thereof; thence run northwesterly at an angle of 78 degrees
39 minutes 45 seconds from said east section line (as measured
from north to west) a distance of 4081.10 feet; thence deflect
ta the right at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minntes 00 seconds
a distance of 244.00 feet to the point of beginning of LINE
2 to be described; thence deflect to the left at an angle of
90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 2Z8.65 feet;
th,ence deflect to the right at an angle of 25 degrees 44
minutes 00 seconds a distance of 980.13 feet and said LINE 2 �
there terminating; thence continuing northeasterly from the
point of termination of said LINE 2 at an angle of 90 degrees
�
/"'�,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 15
00 minutes 00 seconds to said LINE 2 a distance of 35.00 feet
to the point of beginning of LINE 1 to be described; thence
southeasterly to a point distant 110.00 feet northeasterly of
(as measured at right angles) a point on said LINE 2 distant
550.31 feet northwesterly of its point of beginning; thence
southeasterly to a point distant 40.00 feet northeasterly of
(measured at right angles) a point on said LINE 2 distant
115.06 feet northwesterly of its point of beginning and said
LINE 1 there terminating. LINE 3 is described as commencing
at a point on the east line of Section 24, Township 30 North,
Range 24 West, distant 181.30 feet north of the southeast
corner thereof; thence run northwesterly at an angle of 78
degrees 39 minutes 45 seconds from said east section line (as
measured from north to west) a distance of 4081.10 feet;
thence deflect to the right at an angle of 90 degrees 00
minutes 00 seconds a distance of 244.00 feet to the point of
beginning of LINE 3 to be described; thence deflect to the
left at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a.
distance of . 276.43 feet; thence deflect to the right at .an
angle of 25 degrees 46 minutes 30 seconds a distance of 980.17
feet and said LINE 3 there terminating, generally located at
971 Hillwind Road N.E.
4. CONSZDERATION OF A REZONING REOUEST ZOA #94-02 BY FORREST
HARSTAD OF TWIN CITY TOWNHOMES• '
To rezone from R-1, Single Family Dwelling to R-3, General
Multiple Family Dwelling, to allow the construction of 41
townhomes on Lot 6, except the East 650 feet thereof and
except that part lying West of the Northeasterly right-of-way
line of the Outer Drive of the State Trunk Highway, Auditor's
Subdivision No. 25, Section 24, Township 30 North, Range 24
�West, Anoka County, Minnesota, and Lot 7, except the East 650
feet thereof and except that part thereof iying West of the
Northeast right-of-way line of the Outer Drive of�State Trunk
Highway and except the South 55 feet of the i�est 150 feet of
the East 800 feet thereof, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25,
Section 24, Township 30 North, Range 24 West, Anoka County,
Minnesota, and Lot 8, except the east 800 feet thereof and
except that part thereof lying west of the Northeasterly
right-of-way line of the Outer Drive of State Trunk Highway,
Auditor's Subdivision No. 25. This property is generally
located at 971 Hillwind Road N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notices and to open the public hearing for
P.S. #94-04, SAV #94-02, and ZOA #94-02, by Forrest Harstad of Twin
City Townhomes.
ITPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER40N NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:55 P.M.
� Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is Forrest
Twin City Townhomes. The subject property is
and Oliver Erickson. The property is located
Harstad representing
owned by Edwin Dropps
adjacent to and west
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 18. 1994 PAGE 16
of Fillmore Street and east of Hillwind Road. Polk Street is
located in the northwest corner of the subject parcel. The
property is zoned both R-3, General Multiple Dwelling, and R-1,
Single Family Dwelling.
Ms. McPherson stated previous requests for the property include:
The Cottages by Arkell Development in 1977 for 60 elderly
townhomes. The request was withdrawn by the petitioner while
the City commenced its senior housing market study.
An informal request from Continental Development Corporation
and Oliver Erickson in 1983 for a 60 unit apartment building
and 32 townhouse units.
A request similar to the current request by Oliver Erickson
in 1981 to rezone the property from R-1 to R-3 to construct
180 apartment units on the subject parcel and adjacent
parcels.
Ms. McPherson stated the neighborhood'•s concerns for all previous
requests are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Concern with traffic on Polk and Fillmore Streets
Concern with drainage plans or lack of drainage plans
Increase in the concentration of multiple family units
Difficult traffic flow due to the intersection at
Hathaway Lane and Central Avenue
Environmental impacts to the wetland on the �ite
Existing parking problems
Ms. McPherson stated the subject parcel has been zoned in its
present configuration since 1958. In 1985, the City rezoned Iwen
Terrace (north of the subject parcel) from R-1, Single Family
Dwelling, to R-2, Two Family Dwelling. Western Ridge Estates
(south of the subject parcel) was platted in 1983 and, in
conjunction with the plat, the City approved a rezoning from R-1,
Single Family Dwelling, R-2, Two Family Dwelling, and R-3, General
Multiple Dwelling, to R-2, Two Family Dwelling.
Ms. McPherson stated the adjacent office developmer�ts (northwest
of the subject parcel) were rezoned from R-3, General Multiple
Dwelling, to CR-1, General Office, in 1971, 1978, and 1988.
�
�^
Ms. McPherson stated the parael has a steep slope along Hillwind
Road, and the remainder of the parcel is gently sloping. A Type
3 or 4 wetland bisects the parcel in the southwest to northeast ��
direction. A storm water outlet is located on the west side, which
brings storm water from I-694 and Hillwind Road into the wetland.
��
�,
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, MAY 18. 1994 PAGE 17
The shallow ditch at that storm water outlet can be classified as
a Type 6 shrub wetland. A variety of trees are on the site.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing a 41 unit
condominium project. The parcel is proposed to be replatted into
two lots. Lot 1 will be used for the 41 condominium units and
outlot A is being held by the property owner for a possible future
multi-family project. Thirty-seven of the 41 units will be located
around a private drive, and four units will access directly onto
Fillmore Street.
Ms. McPherson stated the condominiums are similar to townhomes in
design. They are two-story, and each unit will have a two-car
garage. Both two and three bedroom units will be constructed.
The petitioner is proposing 194 parking spaces provided through
the use of garages, individual driveways, and off-the-roaci private
parking spaces.
Ms. McPherson stated three things limit the design of the site:
l.
2.
3.
The petitioner has no control over Outlot A.
The 1991 Wetland Conservation Act requires avoidance of
all wetland impacts.
The topography of the subject parcel limits access to
Fillmore Street.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has also applied gor a variance
request which will go before the Appeals Commission on Tuesday, May
24, 1994.
Rezoning Request
Ms. Dacy stated the reason for the rezoning is to rezone the
easterly 1.67 acres from R-1, Single Family Dwelling, to R-3,
General Multiple Dwellir�g, which permits apartment buildings,
townhomes, condominiums, two family dwellings, and single family
dwellings. Approximately 3.4 acres of the property is already
zoned R-3. The petitioner is proposing to develop condominium
units on Lot 1.
Ms. Dacy stated that using the existing ordinance; staff tried to
determined the development density. An apartment building of
approximately 38 units could be built on the R-3 two acre part of
this site. The R-1 portion of the property could be subdivided
into four single family lots, and a 60 foot wide right-of-way could
be constructed to serve the single family lots and the apartment
building.
,� Ms. Dacy stated the petitioner has submitted <
six story apartment building of 104 two-bedroom
parking areas, not only on this site, but also
on outlot A. His point is that if the.property
i plan that shows a
units with adjacent
across the wetland
was developed under
PLANNING COMMI38ION MEETING, MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 18
the existing pattern, a significant amount of density could be
developed on the property. The petitioner also noted that the
wetland would still not be impacted and a foot bridge could be
constructed over the wetland.
Ms. Dacy stated that usually the City looks at two types of
criteria to evaluate whether or not a rezoning request is
appropriate. The first criteria is to evaluate if the proposed
development plan is consistent with the requested zoning change.
Any approval of the rezoning should be conditioned upon the
approval of the variance.request. If the variance request is not
approved, the petitioner will need to revise the site plan to
conform with the R-3 setbacks or reduce the number of units.
/`1
Ms. Dacy stated the second criteria is if the proposed rezoning
and use is consistent with adjacent uses and zoning. Except for
the Frank home to the southeast of the property, the parcel is
surrounded by similar or compatible zoning. Twinhomes and
townhomes are located to the north and south. The school separates
the use from single family areas.
Ms. Dacy stated the 1991 housing study conducted b.y the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority identified a market demand for this
type of housing style. The market study indicated that the primary
market for these types of owner-occupied units are single,
professional female, empty-nesters, and other smaller size famil.y �
households.
Ms. Dacy stated staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the rez�ning request to the Council subject to the
following stipulation: Variance request, VAR #94-02, shall be
approved.
Mr. Newman stated.they should probably add two more stipulations:
(1) Plat request., P.S. #94-94, shaTl be approved; and (2)
Vacation request, SAV #94-02, shall be approved.
Staff agreed.
Vacation Request
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting the vacation of
a.portion of the Minnesota Department of Transportation turnback
property which the City received from the State of Minnesota. The
proposed area (21,042 square feet) to be vacated is located
directly adjacent to Hillwind Road along the easterly right-of-way
line. The City processed and approved a similar request for the
Western Ridge Townhomes to the south to vacate the City's inter.est
in that particular area.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has reserved adequa"te right-
of-way area for Hillwind Road for snow storage and maintenance �'�'�
purposes. No City utilities are located within this area, and the
City has no further use for this property. If the City approves
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 18 1994 PAGE 19
the vacation request, the City Council will also need to declare
this particular piece of property as surplus and deed it to the
petitioner to be combined with the adjacent parcels as part of the
plat.
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends the Commission recommend
approval of the vacation request with the following stipulation:
1. Plat request, P.S. #94-04, shall be approved and the
vacated area shall be combined with the property to the
east.
Mr. Newman asked if the City customarily receives any compensation
for turning back property.
Ms. McPherson stated the City does not.
Plat Reauest
Ms. McPherson stated the request is to replat portions of Lots 6,
7, and 8 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 25. The total area to be
platted with the vacation area is 5.11 acres. Two lots will be
created, Lot 1, which is 3.85 acres, and Outlot A, which is 1.26
acres. Both lots exceed the minimum lot width and lot area
requirements of the R-3 district. Lot 1 will become part of a
�� condominium plat whereby the association owns the land and
individual units are owned by residents. As it is a condominium
plat, it is also required to comply with the requirements in
Minnesota�State Statute Chapter 515.A.
Ms. McPherson stated that traffic on site is proposed to be handled
by private driveways which will enter off Fillmore Street. The
petitioner is proposing to name the circular drive "Fillmore
Court". Thirty-seven of the 41 units will be clustered around the
circular driveway, as well as the two north-going legs of the side
driveways. Four of the units will directly access Fillmore Street.
Ms. McPherson stated the private driveways will be 24 feet wide
and will be lined with concrete curb. The minimum Fire Department
driveway width is 20 feet. The Fire Department has requested that
these driveways be signed "no parking" on both sides, to maintain
the minimum 20 feet. The association will be responsible for
plowing, maintaining, repairing, and permitting emergency vehicle
access on the private driveways.
Ms. McPherson stated the Police and Fire Departments revfewed the
proposed plans and did not have any adverse comments. The Police
Department stated that having one entrance in and out of the
development as good in terms of police patrol.
� Ms. McPherson stated the existing traffic in the area is generated
by the single family units to the east and along Lynde Drive. It
is also generated by the multiple family units and the office uses.
The office uses generate most of their traffic on Hillwind Road.
PLANNING COMMI33ION MEETING, MAY 18. 1994 PAGE 20
/"1
North Park Elementary School on Regis Lane is serviced by nine
buses with school starting at 8:30 a.m. and dismissing at 2:40 p.m.
Traffic leaving the subject parcel could go either east on Regis
Lane or north on Fillmore Street.
Ms. McPherson stated that according to the Institute of Traffic
Engineers, it is estimated that the development would generate an
additional 240 daily trips. To measure the existing daily trips,
staff placed traffic counters at the intersections of Fillmore and
Lynde Drive and across Regis Lane, just west of Regis Drive. The
daily counts average over 48 hours were approximately 630 daily
trips at Fillmore/Lynde Drive and 345 at Regis Lane. Residential
streets can typically handle approximately 1,000 trips per day.
With the estimated additional 240 trips per day, it would be
expected the capacity on adjacent roads would not be exceeded. It
is expected that most of the trips would go north on Fillmore to
access Highway 65 at Central, especially during the morning peak
hours.
Ms. McPherson stated the access for 5512 Fillmore Street is located
close to the proposed access for the development. The property
owner has indicated a willingness to share this�particular access.
Easements should be executed and recorded against both properties.
Ms. McPherson stated staff did look at other access options. The .
first would be to connect to Hillwind Road; however, staff �
estimated that the steep slope.would be approximately 27% which
would pose a safety hazard. The second option would�be for the
petitioner to purchase Lot 9, which is currently owned.by tMe State
of Minnesota. Purchasing this lot would improve access�to the site
as the road could be constructed parallel to the slope as opposed
to against the slope. The third option would be to cross the
wetland. The petitioner would need to obtain an access easement
from the property owner of Outlot A. A connection could then be
made to Polk Street.
Ms. McPherson stated the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act requires
all wetland impacts to be avoided whenever possible. The best way
to avoid any impact would be to construct a bridge, or to construct
a road using a culvert which would require filling a portion of the
wetland. Filling any portion of the wetland would require a 2:1
replacement. Staff is reluctant to recommend pursuing this option
because it would be contrary to the intent of the wetland
protection ordinance.
Drainaqe
Ms. McPherson stated the existing stormwater flows from the
stormwater pipe located adjacent to HillwYnd Road into the wetland
area and through the BASFU located north of the subject parcel
which is a water treatment facility installed by the Cit� a number
of years ago. The stormwater then leaves that particular area �
through a pipe and flows north under Polk Street into Moore Lake.
�
�'`�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 21
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner submitted a grading, drainage,
and erosion control plan which the Engineering Department has
reviewed. The petitioner will need to comply with a number of
comments made by Scott Erickson, Assistant Public Works Director,
in a memo to Ms. McPherson dated May 13, 1994. In addition, a
separate permit issued by the Rice Creek Watershed District will
be required. The association will be required to maintain any
detention facilities and any other drainage-related facilities they
would install.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing to install private
water and sanitary sewer lines to serve the development. However,
there is a public sanitary sewer line which services the properties
adjacent to Hillwind Road. Because that sanitary sewer line
currently crosses the development parcel, it will need to be
relocated and an easement granted as part of the plat to allow
public access for maintenance and repair of the public sanitary
sewer. The City would be held harmless for repairing any
improvements made by the association as a result of the City work
on that sewer line.
Ms. McPherson stated the association would also install new
hydrants, and arrangements should be made and authorization given
to the City Public Works Department to flush those hyd.rants in
accordance with City policies.
Ms. McPherson stated there are a number of trees on the parcel
which should be maintained as they are an asset to the site. Many
of the trees are located adjacent to the edge of the wetland.. The
grading plan should be amended to indicate the trees which are to
be preserved.
Ms. McPherson stated the subdivision ordinance requires a park
dedication fee of either land or money. The current dedication
fee is $750 per unit which the petitioner must pay at the time of
the building permit.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has provided a landscape plan
which needs to be revised to provide 15 six-foot evergreen trees.
This will bring the landscape plan in compliance with the
ordinance. The association will be responsible for maintaining
the landscaping.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing a screening buffer
of evergreen shrubs along the property line with 5512 Fillmore
Street. This area should be irrigated.
Ms. McPherson stated that regarding the plat request, staff is
recommending the Commission recommend approval to the Council with
the following 16 stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall record in the condominium declaration
that the association shall be responsible for the plowing,
PLANNING COMMI33ION MEETING. MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 22
�"1
maintenance, and repair of the private roads and driveways.
The declaration shall permit emergency vehicle access.
2. The driveways shall be signed "no parking" on both sides.
The condominium declaration shall be amended to prohibit
parking on both sides of the driveways.
3. The petitioner shall place a stop sign at the intersection of
the private drive with Fillmore Street.
4. Access, maintenance, and repair easements shall be executed
and recorded against the development parcel and 5512 Fillmore
Street to allow the resident at 5512 Fillmore Street to use
the access drive.
5. The condominium declaration shall be amended to require
maintenance and repair of the stormwater pond by the
association.
6. The petitioner shall comply with all comments by the
Engineering Department regarding the grading/drainage/ erosion
plan, which will consider the flow fram the Western Ridge
development.
7. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from the Rice Creek
Watershed District prior to the.issuance of a building permit. �
8. The condominium declaration shall be amended to hold the City
harmless for the operation, maintenance, and repair of
association improvements as a result of work on the public
sewer line.
9. The condominium declaration shall require the association to
repair and maintain the private utilities.
10. The utilities shall be constructed to municipal standards.
11. The association shall authorize the Public Works Department
to flush the hydrants in accordance with City policies.
12. The grading plan shall be amended to indicate the number of
trees to be preserved.
13. The petitioner shall pay a park dedication fee of $750.00 per
unit (41 units at $750:00 equals $30,750) prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
14. The landscape plan shall be revised to pro.vide 15 six foot
evergreen trees. Underground irrigation shall be provided
along the R-1 property (5512 Fillmore Street).
15. The condominium declaration shall require maintenance and/or �'"'�
repair of landscaping by the association.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 23
16. The petitioner shall submit a letter of credit in the amount
of 3% of the construction value, not to exceed $60, 000, to
cover the outdoor improvements.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the rezoning, the vacation request, and the
plat request, subject to the revised stipulations included with a
copy of a memo from John Flora, Public Works Director, dated May
16, 1994. The petitioner has received a copy of the amended
stipulations, Mr. Flora's memo, and Mr. Erickson's memo.
Mr. Oquist asked what are the plans for the intersection of Highway
65/Central Avenue, and has any consideration been given to the
impact on this intersection? He lives in this area, and this
intersection gets quite congested.
Ms. Dacy stated the level of development on the Lake Pointe
property on the west side of Highway 65 may require the improvement
of that intersection to add lanes on the east and west sides of
Highway 65. The current status is that the existing amount of
traffic does not require the improvement; however, with an.
additional 500,000-700,000 square feet of development on the Lake
Pointe property, eventually that improvement could be implemented.
The level of traffic generated by the proposed townhome project
would not require the upgrade of the intersection.
�
Mr. Oquist stated he is concerned about the density. There is an
additional 41 units with only one exit onto Highway 65, let alone.
the density and the traffic patterns that already exist within the
neighborhood. This development will definitely have some impact
on this one single intersection. The traffic is even worse on the
weekends.
Ms. Dacy stated the average daily trips number is an estimate that
is averaged over a 24 hour period. Usually, in a neighborhood,
there are staggered work hours or trips. However, that does not
negate the fact that the primary movement out of the site will go
north on Fillmore. to Polk and to that intersection. Staff
acknowledges that during peak hours, the additional traffic
generated from the development will impact that intersection.
Mr. Forrest Harstad stated he would like to comment on the most
important concerns. Regarding traffic, whatever development occurs
on this piece of land will impact that intersection. It seems a
fair assessment that the intersection is in need of a little
improvement before any new development.
Mr. Harstad stated the property as it is zoned today can generate
considerably more traffic without any zoning changes or other
requests. Ted Mattke of Mattke Engineering designed a six story,
� 104-unit, apartment building to show what actually could be built
on the R-3 zoned property without rezoning or variances, and the
traffic generated from that building would be considerably higher
PLANNING COMMI83ION MEETING, MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 24_
than his proposed development. He is proposing all owner-occupied
units, and the units will be sold before they are built.
Mr. Harstad stated that regarding access to Hillwind Road, he had
not really looked at the acquisition of Lot 9 because Lot 9 is at
the top of the hill. Lot 9 would still require a considerable
amount of grading such that safety would still be a concern. It
is not impossible, but it might prove to be cost prohibitive
because of the steep grade. Also, if the traffic all accessed onto
Hillwind Road, it would still end up at the Highway 65/Central
Avenue intersection.
Mr. Harstad stated that regarding the single access into and out
of the development, he believed that is a positive for a project
like this. It keeps people from racing cars through the
development, and the Police Department has said it is easier to
police: It is more like a cul-de-sac street; it is more
neighborly. From his experience with his other townhome projects,
traffic is more easily handled with a single access.
Mr. Harstad stated there seems to be some concern over what
effectively is a concentration of multiple family units. The land
is actually zoned for significantly higher densities than what he
is proposing. And, the higher density would be rental units.as
opposed to owner-occupied.
Mr. Harstad stated he can comply with all the stipulations and
requirements made by the City.
Mr. Bob Marty, 1140 Regis Lane�N.E., stated he sees a lot of fast
traffic on Regis Lane. He is concerned about the traffic with the
young children in the area. One of the alternatives to help avoid
traffic hassles coming out of the proposed development would be to
go up Regis Lane to Matterhorn Drive to Gardena Avenue. He
definitely sees increased traffic on his street because of the
current speed levels.
Mr. Marty stated he
be purchased and
townhomes, could it
property?
is also concerned that if the townhomes are to
owned, if the development cannot sell the
become low income rental in order to sell the
Mr. Newman stated the City cannot restrict the developer from the
ability to rent out a unit or units as long as a rental license is
received from the City.
Mr. Marty stated there are children who do not ride the school bus
and cross the street to go to the school or the playground. The
increase in traffic could pose a problem for the children who have
to cross the street. He stated he is opposed to the development,
because of the traffic concerns and the fact that the density seems
a little high.
/'1
�
,--•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 25
�� Ms. Ann Jensen, 5572 Fillmore Street, stated she lives in a
twinhome down the street. She is really concerned about the
traffic. She would much rather see townhomes than an apartment
building. She has licensed daycare, and there are children from
all over the neighborhood who play at the school playground. The
traffic has not been too bad until now; but with 41 new townhomes,
that traffic could be detrimental to the children. She stated it
would be nice if the developer would acquire the state-owned
property and access onto Hillwind Road.
Ms. Connie Masica, 1070 Lynde Drive, stated that the neighborhood
could still end up with the worst of both worlds, because Outlot
A is still available for development. If the City approves the
development of 41 townhomes, there is still the potential of an
apartment building development on Outlot A. How many additional
apartments could be put on Outlot A?
Mr. Harstad stated one of the owners of Outlot A, Edwin Dropps, is
willing to sell Outlot A. Mr. Harstad stated he could construct
between 4-6 townhomes on that parcel that would a11 access onto
Hillwind Road.
Ms. Dacy stated staff has not done a specific analysis on Outlot�
A, but she would estimate 18-20 apartment units on the low end,
but that number could go up to 50 units depending on the site plan.
r"\
Ms. Masica stated she has three children, so she is concerned about
the traffic with the school and the playground. She finds it a
little humorous that the Police Department approves of the single
access to the development�for control when the Police Department
has not yet been able to control the problems at the Polk Street
Apartments.
Ms. Masica stated that at a District #13 School Board xrieeting last
fall, they were told that as of the fall of 1993, North Park School
is at its maximum capacity. There�is the possibility of splitting
and having only 4th and 5th grades at North Park for the whole
district, and grades K- 3 would be divided between Highland and
Valley View. Current residents who have children already enrolled
in North Park and live within that zone can still send their
children to North Park, but any new residents will be subject to
busing. She stated they really need to find out what additional
busing might be happening in this area.
Ms. Masica stated she is also concerned about the traffic at the
Highway 65 and Central Avenue intersection. She has watched four
or five green lights come and go before she can even get off
Hathaway/Hackmann Avenue onto Central Avenue. She did not see
where adding a third lane will help improve any congestion, because
Central Avenue is only two lanes.
�"'� Ms. Nancy J. Jorgenson, 5730 Polk Street N.E., stated she is
addressing this item not as a Council member but as a resident.
She stated she and her family have lived here for 17 years. During
PLANNING COMMI83ION MEETING, MAY 18. 1994 PAGE 26
that time, she has seen three proposals for this property. In
1981, she was the circulator of the petition that stopped the
rezoning.
Ms. Jorgenson stated her concern is not only with the density and
the rezoning of the R-1 property, but also with the current
property that is along Highway 65 and Hillwind Road which is within
an HRA redevelopment district. If for some reason, the Polk Street
apartments ceased to exist, or some of the other apartment
complexes were purchased by other people, there is the potential
for having another office complex like the one located on Hillwind
Road that is currently owned by the 5tinskis. She has been
contacted in the past by the Stinskis regarding their interest in
purchasing the three apartment complexes located on Lynde Drive for
a twin Hillwind office development.
Ms . Jorgenson stated she believed that when this property was zoned
R-1, it was zoned R-1 for a reason. The City generally stays
within the requirements of what it feels the density of the
neighborhood can handle. There are already a large number of
apartment units in this area. She would be very pessimistic to
see a six story apartment complex located anywhere on that
property. For one thing, the developer would need soil correction.
Secondly, the developer would need structural steel construction
which is very expensive. Realistically, it is probably not
economically feasible for that kind of development to happen, and
this is more of a scare tactic to the neighborhood than anything.
Ms. Jorgenson stated the proposed development is probably the
highest class and the best she has seen proposed for�this area,
but she did not like the density this development would bring to
the neighborhood. She has toured the petitioner's facility in New
Brighton, and that development is very classy.
Ms. Jorgenson stated she would recommend, as a neighbor, that the
City not approve the variance or the rezoning. She is also
concerned about an issue that was discussed at the New Brighton
location regarding the excess material that would be removed from
Lots 6, 7, and 8 in order to build this development. It was told
to the neighbors that were present that the material from Lots 6,
7, and 8 would be deposited on the outlot section. Right next to
the outlot on Polk Street is the BASFU on which the City spent a
lot of money, as well as state funding, in order to try to get
something that would filter the phosphorus and salt coming off I-
694 from filtering into Moore Lake. Any additional filling of dirt
in this area is going to make that drainage plan next to
impossible. Some consideration has to be given to that.
Ms. Jorgenson stated she believed that at the time Polk Street was
constructed where it currently looks as if there is a partial cul-
de-sac, the development agreement with the real estate company on
that particular location included a stipulation that indicated that
road would not be punched through. Of course, they cannot deny
access to a development. If apartment complexes were constructed
�
�
�
i'�
PLANNING COMMIS3ION MEETING, MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 27
there and were more than five stories, she feels fairly confident
that the Fridley Fire Department would require two entrances or
exits for fire safety.
Ms. Jorgenson stated she cannot believe some of the rumors she has
been hearing regarding this particular development. Again, it is
the finest that she has sean for this location; but, in her
estimation, she believed the best use of this property, although
it would not give the developer the most financial consideration,
is single family homes.
Mr. Newman stated that based on the comments made by Mr. Harstad
during the public forum, if the project was amended to include
Outlot A and the density increased to 46 units, that has taken care
of the possibility of Outlot A being used for an apartment comglex.
Wou�d that change Ms. Jorgenson's feelings about�the project?
Ms. Jorgenson stated she would still probably recommend that the
portion of property that is currently zoned R-1, Single Famiiy
Dwelling, remain R-1 zoning. If the developer wants to put a
townhome development on the R-3 zoned property, she wauld probably
support it, as long as it did not require additional fiTl around
the BASFU area, ponding, or any environmental wetland conc�itions.
As an alternative, that option is obviously better than an
apartment complex. It is somethint� that could be done without any
^ action from either the Planning Commission or City Council unless
variances were needed.
Mr. Newman stated the problem the City is facing is that if this
proposal is denied, they may well run the risk that a developer
will come in and build an apartment building and the City will lose
the control. However, they can ask. Mr. Harstad to amend his
proposal so that the townhomes are on the entire parcel, including
Outlot A. �
Ms. Jorgenson stated she would still be adamantly opposed to the
rezoning. Her issue is strictly with the density.
Mr. Sielaff stated he believed the main issue is traffic going by
the school and that if there was another access to this
development, that would alleviate a lot of the neighborhood's
concerns.
Ms. Jorgenson stated it would alleviate some of the concerns as
far as the tr.affic going by the school. But, traffic is always
going to be an issue. Basically, everything west of Matterhorn
runs through Polk Street down to Haclanann or Hathaway. and out to
the Highway 65/Central Avenue intersection. She did not know how
they are ever going to address that traffic problem, even with the
improvements that are proposed for Central Avenue and Highway 65.
� Mr. Harstad stated that Ms. Jorgenson has voiced all the concerns
that need to be discussed in this forum.
PLANNING COMMI33ION MEETING, MAY 18. 1994 PAGE 28
�,
Mr. Harstad stated the price of the condominiums is minimally
$83,900. The end unit base price will be at least $89,900. They
have not yet factored in all the costs. The R-3 portion of the
property needs significant soil correction,. particularly on the
west half of the property, so there are some significant soil
correction costs. The only way he could dare suggest townhomes on
the west side would be right up against the Hillwind. The soil
gets better as it moves eastward. For an apartment building to be
feasible, it would need to be a tall building, because it would
need soil correction which would necessitate a steel structure as
opposed to wood structure.
Mr. Harstad stated he is proposing very nice townhomes. He intends
to move into this development if it is approved.
Mr. Harstad stated that regarding the demographics, they have found
that the demographics of townhomes break down the same way in each
neighborhood. Roughly two-thirds are 30-somethings and one-third
is e�pty nesters. In both subsets, about two-thirds are singles
and one-third is couples. Of the singles in both subse�s again,
about two-thirds are female and one-third is. male. Less than 5�
of the units have children at all, and it is very rare to see two
or three children in these townhomes.
Mr. Harstad stated this proposed development is across the street
from a grade school, and it has more of an attraction to the single /�,
mom with children in grade school. But, his project in St. Anthony
Village that is across the street from a grade school has no
children.
Mr. Harstad stated that if the wetland did not come out of the hill
that actually drains the I-694 intersection, he could route the
traffic out onto Hillwind Road, but, again, that would not help the
Highway 65/Central Avenue intersection.
Mr. Harstad stated that regarding the access into the development,
he believed it is in the neighborhood's best interest to have only
one access into the development.
Mr. Harstad stated the rezoning of.the R-1 portion of proper�y in
no way increases the density over what otherwise could go into this
project, and the reason for that is the condition of the soils.
Soil conditions are poor enough on the R-3 portion that it takes
a steel structure for a doable project with a higher density,
taller building.
Mr. Harstad stated that regarding placing excess fill on the
western portion, that excess fill is what they are going to dig
out for the basements. The logical place to put the fill is in
what is presently the low land on the west side of the wetland,
because that is the unbuildable part of the project. -
�
Mr. Harstad stated that Ms. Jorgenson's density concern is not
handled by denying the rezoning. In fact, allowing the rezoning
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 18, 1994 PAG� 29
effectively eliminates the potential for significantly higher
density.
Mr. Edwin Dropps stated he and 011ie Erickson have owned this
property for 22 years. He has come to the City with a number of
proposals over the years; some have been dropped because of the
neighborhood opposition. This is the fourth proposal. He stated
he has paid over $100,000 in taxes over the last 22 years, and they
have to do something with the land. They believe this is a good
project that is good for the community and is better than anything
else they can get. He stated he does have a definite buyer for a
multiple dwelling on the R-3 zoned property if this project is not
approved. This is not meant as a threat. The townhome development
is a much better proposal for this property than any apartment
building.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THS PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSBD AT 10:50 P.M.
Ms. Savage stated that Ms. Jorgenson articulate.d very well the
concerns about density and traffic. However, she is very impressed
with the quality of the project. There isn't anything like it in
�, Fridley that is this classy. She believed this type of housing
would be an asset to the City. She stated she has been persuaded
by Mr. Harstad that these types of townhomes generally attract
smaller amounts of residents which will ultimately help the density
problems. She stated they should do whatever they c�n to alleviate
some of the traffic problems. She stated she would recommend
approval of the rezoning, vacation, and plat requests by Mr.
Harstad.
Mr. Saba stated he agreed with Ms. Savage; however, he would like
to see the density decreased to less than 41 units. The traffic
concern has to be addressed somewhat, even though he realized it
is kind of out of the petitioner's hands. As Ms. Jorgenson stated,
this is a very classy development and probably the best development
for this area. On the other hand, the best thing for this area
would be no development. It is kind of a catch-22, but he would
be inclined to recommend approval of the requests.
Mr. Oquist stated he shares Mr. Saba and Ms. Savage's sentiments.
He does live in the area, so he has some real concerns about the
density. It would be nice if the developer couid acquire Outlot
A and build some more townhomes to help reduce the potential of
additional densities. He stated this is the best proposal he has
seen for this area; and even though he is hesitant because of the
traffic problems, he would recommend approval.
� Ms. Modig stated it is •the best project she has seen for this area.
She can understand the residents' concerns about the traffic, and
maybe something can be done to help control the traf�ic through
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 18, 1994 PAGE 30
/�
traffic signs and police patrol. This is a nice project, and she
would like to see Outlot A added to assure the neighborhood that
there would not be another apartment building.
Mr. Sielaff stated he also agreed the density and traffic issues
are a wash no matter what happens on that property. This is a
quality development. He personally would like to see owners as
opposed to renters which is better for the neighborhood overall.
Mr. Newman stated that if Mr. Harstad wanted to incorporate Outlot
A into his development, what would be the best way for him to do
that? If they are going to include additional land, is another
public hearing necessary?
Ms. Dacy stated there would be no need to hold another public
hearing because Outlot A was part of the public hearing notice.
If the Commission wants to review the site plan for Outlot�A, then
they.could continue the public hearing until Mr. Harstad has had
time to submit the plan. The other option is for the Commission
to act on this proposal and send it onto the.Gouncil for action.
The Commission would then not be reviewing the site plan for Outlot
A.
Mr. Harstad stated that if the Commission was willing to call a
short recess, he would discuss this with the property owner of
Outlot A and make a decision at this meeting. ^
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to take a 15 minute
recess to allow the Mr. Harstad and Mr. Dropps time to discuss the
inclusion of Outlot A in the development proposal.
OPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE MEETING RECESSED AT 10:50 P.M.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to reconvene the
meeting.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON NEAMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE MLETING RECONVENED AT 11:05 P.M.
Mr. Harstad stated that he and Mr. Dropps have discussed the
purchase of outlot A and the inclusion of Outlot A into the
development propo�al. He stated that 4-6 townhomes along Hillwind
Road could probably be made to work.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend to City
Council approval of rezoning request, ZOA #94-02, by Forrest
Harstad of Twin City Townhomes, subject to the following
stipulations:
1. Plat request, P.S. #94-04, shall be approved.-
�,
2. Vacation request, SAV #94-02, shall be approved.
PLANNING COMMISSION MLETING, MAY 18. 1994 PAGE 31
� 3.
4.
Variance request, VAR #94-02, shall be approved.
The rezoning request is contingent upon the site plan as
submitted by the petitioner and reviewed by the Planning
Commission at its May 18, 1994, meeting.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend to City
Council approval of vacation request, SAV #94-02, by Forrest
Harstad of Twin City Townhomes, subject to the following
stipulations:
1. Plat request, P.S. #94-04, shall be approved, and the
vacated area shall be combined with the property to the
east.
2. Rezoning request, ZOA #94-02, shall be approved.
QPON A VOICE VOTL, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THS
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Saba, to reconamend to City
Council approval of preliminary plat, P.S. #94-04, by Forrest
^ Harstad of Twin City Townhomes, subject to the following
stipulations:
l. The petitioner shall record in the condominium
declaration that the association shall be responsible
for the plowing, maintenance, and repair of the private
roads and driveways. The declaration shall permit
emergency vehicle access.
2.
3.
The driveways shall be signed "no parking" on both sides.
The condominium declaration shall be amended to prohibit
parking on both sides of the driveways.
The petitioner shall place a stop sign at the
intersection of the private drive with Fillmore Street.
4. Access, maintenance, and repair easements shall be
executed and recorded against the development parcel and
5512 Fillmore Street to allow the resident at 5512
Fillmore Street to use the access drive.
5. The condominium declaration shall be amended to require
maintenance and repair of the stormwater pond. by the
association.
6. The petitioner shall comply with all comments by the
n Engineering Department regarding the grading/drainage/
erosion plan, which will consider the flow from the
Western Ridge development.
PLANNING COMMISBION MEETING, MAY 18. 1994 __ PAGE 32
7. The petitioner shall obtain
Watershed District prior to
permit.
a permit from the Rice Creek
the issuance of a building
8. The condominium declaration shall be amended to hold the
City harmless for the operation, maintenance, and repair
of association improvements as a result of work on the
public sewer line.
9.
10.
The condominium declaration shall require the association
to repair and maintain the private utilities.
The utilities shall be constructed to municipal
standards.
11. The association shall authorize the Publie Works
Department to flush the hydrants in accordance with City
policies.
12. The grading plan shall be amended to indicate the number.
of trees to be preserved.
13. The petitioner shall pay a park dedication fee of $750.00
per unit (41 units at $750.00 equals $30,750) prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
14. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide 15 six
foot evergreen trees. Underground irrigation shall be
provided along the R-1 property (5512 Fillmore Street).
15. The condominium .declaration shall require maintenance
and/or repair of landscaping by the association.
16. The petitioner shall submit a letter of credit in the
amount of 3% of the construction value, not to exceed
$60,000, to cover the outdoor improvements.
17. The condominium declaration shall indicate the layout of
the project as submitted on the plat approved by the
Fridley City Council. The declaration shall comply with
the requirements of Minnesota Statute Chapter 515A.
18. The grading and drainage plan shall be amerided to conform
with the recommendations stated in Scott Erickson's memo
dated May 13, 1994.
19. Outlot A shall be included in the subdivision with Outlot
A containing no more than six residential units. Access
to the residential units shall be directed onto Hillwind
Road. �
/"1
�
�
�
�
PLANNING COMMI3SION MEETING. MAY 18. 1994 PAGE 33
For clarification, when the stipulations talk about "no parking"
in the drYVeway, that is referring to the private drives serving
the units and not the individual driveways immediately in front of
the garages.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
Ms. McPherson stated these items will go to City Council on June
20, 1994.
5. RECEIVE APRIL 4. 1994. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MINUTES•
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded �y Mr. Saba, to receive the April
4, 1994, Parks and Recreation Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOII3LY.
5. RECEIVE APRIL 26, 1994, EPTVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY
COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the April
26, 1994, Enyironmental .Quality & Energy Commission meeting.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to adjourn the meeting.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Newman declared the
motion carried and the May 18, 1994, Planning Commission meeting
adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
Res.ectfully s bmitted,
,_ `
':/lit,X- `-Tti-
� Ly e Saba '
Recording Secretary
V'�-
S I G N— IN 5 H E E T
�
PLANNING COMMIgSION MEETING, Wednesday, May 18, 1994
�
/"�
/"1
��
' �' % �
���� Z�` Z�
;
�
/ I
1 , r� Yl ����`�-�'i
- �j �-�/ � --
/ /� ,/,/- �� �� %
' � /� ` /' `
� � r
C�,� "% � C`�{_�% `� j�%' � � l'� fC� � ! i ,
� �C _ � ) � �� � �,
�-L� ���,� _) ,i �'���
�
�.J��� t �% �Mvrf�. iJl . ���— � J/ c1/
��'� ��
��(�_IL� � ����U�'
�)
'J � �i1� �� �rT'r�
�� �J�-U n�s
l�oa n�: l� � �?./-c� ����
�
�/�TTI�� �..:/y'G���J��Riti�� ��> -a � v c�
�t���rSs �J-e o�c� �U��r�nr� 7.�=�r:. �Q� �
• ��i �. K � n-�" -� f� 1 �:�.a _/�,� S : , s � .�-� ��� �; n i��- � 3 5 � - �'� z�
�
' �r. �`� �� S�
� ' ��i��� 55/ a �° ���r'�c, r 5 �
�� � `- r r ,
_ �
�
�
0
STAFF REPORT
Community Development Department
Appeals Commission Date
Planning Commission Date
City Council Date
APPLICATION NIIMBER:
SP #94-03
PETITIONER•
Gordon Hedlund
LOCATION:
7915 Riverview Terrace N.E.
REOIIEST•
May 4, 1994 � June 1, 1994
The petitioner requests that a special use permit b
allow construction of a single family dwelling unit
Fringe district. The request is for a vacant parcel
the southeast corner of the intersection of Buffalo
Riverview Terrace.
ANALYSIS•
Zoning Requirements
e issued �to
in the Flood
located in
Street and
The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling. There are
additional residential uses surrounding the subject parcel. The
parcel is vacant, and the petitioner proposes to prepare the
parcel for sale (the petitioner does not have a purchaser for the
property, and does not have proposed house plans). The subject
parcel has been a lot of record since it was platted prior to
1955. The lot requirements are therefore different than what is
required for current lot splits/plats. The subject parcel has a
lot area of 7,982.4 square feet which exceeds the minimum 7,500
square foot requirement. The subject parcel has a width of 60
feet, which exceeds the minimum lot width requirement of 50 feet.
The surveyor has identified the proper setback requirements for
the R-1, Single Family Dwelling district on the site survey, and
has located a possible house pad on the property which meets
those setback requirements.
Flood Fringe Requirements
Section 205.24.05.A of the O-1 district regulations require that
the first floor elevation of all habitable living space is a
�
SP #94-03
Gordon Hedlund
Page 2
minimum of one foot above the 100 year flood elevation. The 100
year flood elevation for the subject parcel is 822.9. The
minimum first floor elevation, therefore, is 823.9 for all
habitable spaces. The petitioner has proposed a first floor
elevation of 824. The O-1 regulations also require that an
elevation certificate be submitted.
**Stipulation** The petitioner shall submit an elevation
certificate in addition to a verifyinq survey
prior to the foundation beinq capped, which
shall verify that the minimum first floor
elevation is 824.
�
The O-1 district regulations pernait accessory uses below the 100
.year flood elevation.if those accessory uses are flood-proofed in
accordance with current federal.and state flood-proofing
regulations and the following standards: a) Not for human.
habitation; b) Have low flood damage potential; and c) Structures
are�firmly anchored. The garage is proposed to be at an .
elevation of 822. This is.permitted if the garage is flood- .
proofed to the 100 year flood elevation of 823.9. ,
/"�
**Stipulation+�* The petitioner shall flood-proof the qaraqe
in accordance with current federal and state
flood-proofinq requirements to a miaimum of
the 100 year flood elevation.
The O-1 district regulations also require that the fill needed to
increase the elevation of the first floor extend a minimum of 15
feet from the proposed dwelling unit. The petitioner is
proposing to comply with the fill requirement; however, as a
result of placing fill on the subject parcel, the natural
drainage patterns of the parcei will be changed.
Water currently flows from west to east across the subject parcel
into Buffalo Street to a catch basin located at the east end of
Buffalo Street. Once it enters the catch basin, the water then
flows into Springbrook Creek. There is also a low area along the
south lot line where water would flow into the property to the
south.
As a result of the fill being placed on the subject parcel, water
will be instead directed toward the north and east lot lines. In
order to direct storm water flow so that it leaves the subject
parcel, a well-defined drainage swale will need to be constructed
along the south and east lot lines to prevent water from entering
the property to the south. The petitioner submitted a grading
plan reviewed by a civil engineer which includes spot elevations ^
and slope percents for the swale located along the east property
/"'1
�
�
SP #94-03
Gordon Hedlund
Page 3
line. The grading plan will not change the flow of water on the
property to the south. Water will still pool next to the
proposed retaining wall. The plan will drain the water properly.
The builder will be required to grade the property according to
the plan dated May 23, 1994. The verifying survey shall confirm
that the grading meets the plan. Rip-rap should be placed at the
end of the swale adjacent to Buffalo Street.
Erosion control measures will need to be installed along the lot
lines indicated on the engineering plan.
**Stipulation** The fill placed on the property shall estend
a minimum of 15 feet from the proposed
dwellinq unit.
**Stipulation** The builder shall grade the property to
conform with the engineerinq plan dated May
23, 1994.
**stipulation** The verifyinq surnep shall aonfirm that the
qradinq complies with the plan dated May 23,
1994.
*+�stipulation**
**Stipulation**
Rip-rap shall be place� at the end of the
swale adjacent to Buffalo Street.
Erosion control measures shall be installed
alonq the west, south, and east lot lines.
The petitioner is proposing to construct a retaining wall along
the south property line due to the amount of fill needed. The
design of the retaining wall should be reyised and signed by a
structural engineer.
**stipulation** The petitioner shall submit retaininq wall
plans that have been siqned by a structural
engineer.
Hold Harmless Aqreement
The City has in the past required petitioners of similar requests
to execute and record hold harmless agreements against the
property. This releases the City from liability if damage occurs
due to flooding.
**Stipulation** The petitioner shall eseaute and record
. aqainst the property a hold harmless
aqreement releasinq the City from liability
if damaqe occurs as a result of floading.
SP #94-03
Gordon Hedlund
Page 4
Road Easement
The Engineering Department is requesting a 10 foot flood control,
street, utility, and drainage easement. In 1969, the City began
condemnation proceedings for a similar easement of 7 feet.
Riverview Terrace is proposed to be reconstructed as a
neighborhood collector street under the Minnesota State Aid
Program (MSA). Additional right-of-way is needed to meet MSA
standards. This right-of-way may be obtained through the
granting of easements.
**Stipulation** The petitioner shall qrant a l0 foot flood
control, street, utility, and drainaqe
easement alonq the west lot line.
Miscellaneous Requirements
There are a number of mature trees located on the subject parcel.
These trees are an asset to the subject parcel, and an attempt
should be made by the petitioner to preserve as many trees as
practical.
**Stipulation** The qradinq and drainaqe plan shall indicate
the number of trees to be preserved.
The subject parcel is composed of two, 30 foot lots with two
individual Property Identification Numbers (PIN). The City
Assessor has requested that the petitioner combine these lots
into one PIN, therefore, receiving one tax statement.
**Stipulation**
Buildinq Height
The petitioner shall sign a combination Form,
combininq the propertp into one tax statement
prior to buildinq permit issuance.
Staff toured the neighborhood to inventory the types and styles
of dwellings which include one, two, and split story dwellings.
Staff reviewed the building plans of two recently-constructed
dwellings to determine building heights. 7995 Riverview Terrace
is 26 feet in height from finished grade to the roof peak. 7919
Broad Avenue, a split level, is 24.5 feet in height. Along
Buffalo Street, the property to the east is vacant. Any dwelling
constructed on that parcel would be subject to the same
requirements as the current request. The dwelling on the north
side of Buffalo Street is a single story and is nonconforming as
it is too close to the street. This dwelling, if it is
constructed, will need to meet the same requirements.
�
/"\
� �
/'� SP #94-03
Gordon Hedlund
Page 5
Staff conferred with the City Attorney regarding the Planning
Commission's request to limit the height of the structure. The
Attorney's opinion is included in the supplemental information
packet.
RECOMMENDATION/STIPIILATIONB:
The petitioner has complied with the requirements of the O-1
district regulations. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the request, with the following
stipulations:
i. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate in
addition to a verifyinq survey prior to the foundation being
capped, which shall nerify that the minimum first floor
elevation is 824.
2. The petitioner shall flood-proof the qarage in accordance
with current federal and state flood-proofinq requirements
to a minimum of the 10o year flood elevation.
/"1 3. The fill placed on the property shall extend a minimum of 15
feet from the p=oposed dwellinq unit.
4. The builder shall qrade the property to conform with the
engineering plan dated May 23, 1994.
5. The verifying survey shall confirm that the qrading complies
with the plan dated May 23, 1994.
6. Rip-rap shall be placed at the end of the swale adjacent to
Buffalo Street.
7. Erosion control measures shall be installed along the west,
south, and east lot lines.
8. The petitioner shall submit retaininq wall plans that have
been signed by a structural enqineer.
9. The petitioner shall esecute and record aqainst the property
a hold harmless aqreement releasinq the City from liability
if damaqe occurs as a result of flooding.
10. The petitioner shall qrant a 10 foot flood control, street,
utility, and drainaqe easement alonq the west lot line.
11. The gradinq and drainage plan shall indicate the number of
�^ trees to be preserved.
SP #94-03
Gordon Hedlund
Page 6
12. The petitioner shall siqn a Combination Form, combininq the
propertp into one tax statement prior to buildinq permit
issuance.
�
�"'�
�"'�
�
�
�
�
N�
T
�
s
Y � �
�
�
�,s�
� � c, �
.
.�,
,
. �.,
�
L
SP ��94-03
Gordon Hedlund
1
OCATION MA
;
�a
0
:
�J���y.
'\'�j
�
,�
P
SP 4�94-03 ' '
Gordon H dlund
, - p ,r , � .. — --i
i c� c'�� � �^-, �i � � �' �l
�} �''� • �
� K � � � � � � Zj
. � ��r,r n . W� 1 .
� �
� � r `' �� .� _�
f ,
� � � �, ,,� '
" -:.� �'' .� �.�
�' ��: j �. -.;
, CITY pF , ������, � ���
, . � ,� _c; `� ` ,�:� .�
I THOMPSON� --- ' r* "� � `-'�' .
�
R/VERV/EW _ \' � �.•�• � � ` • cr"�
' NE/GHTS O \ -� = � '�
� -� �'-�
� �� � . � ....,
�r
_ rA � � • � �
O � � � `'''� �.:;�
�:
� J J. 11 27 1 � � �� t
� P `��A � �
� � IRONTON REET
� 128 .: ':C�i UI � c�s � i p 0 I��2 i.
.. SPRIf� � 8aa�� y,
I � BPROOK ,
� v '
R a � a a s�l� 1
I� �,,J ,
/ � � B I �S � •• �'
� T+ y+ z 4 £. f`*'� _
GLENCO `
� 4 .� +I + 3 6 � f ��
� PAR � �. s � ,� s `z � Rti#''
i � rJ' • . + , 4 � , ���' .
� � ' • � v
� + ' +.., Z
� -K E - - —� , .� . : + ,�+ E. _ .o , . �,"` � - ,
�'' � 9 ', � � 4 �. �� ' >� �� J��`r"
U � ��F = � j� � ♦ ' iS 3' %, f �.
.
� ELY CIR. � ELi '
,; . x � �0 ` 9 � `,
� `/ Q �� rQ e i` // (�1� ui
I' Y `• � i� P tn
�'
I � 3 � a
` �i ��; LIBERTY ST. Z
� �-
z
•d
VJ `�� = s
, • �reet . �
a
' ��� x �, LONGF LLOW
.,, ,
�� , • � � �� ,, ;
� y Z... ...� ....
. . . . . . • • 4 .
. . . ; . . . • .
., � -
� � ♦
� � ��`� . �k • ; .�1.r •��5���!� ' �•
RI V E R �-: �� � �� ti � '�"• � g9 . �.: _.....__.._... . : • .
�w '� �. �� ...�..... :.
Ft E I GH �' � , t ''. < �1� �. . . . . . . • •
�\ 4•, � ,
DISTRICT LEGEND
1 .
\� \ �' (.�•t' q-/ ONE FAM�LY DW6'S ❑ M-1 LIGXT INDUSTPIAI ❑
r•�.
N , '�\ \ , ���1� �.� q'� TWO F�YIIY OWQ'S ❑ M-f XE�YY INDUSTfl1AL �
r� `�� �� O (�� q-7 �EN. MULTIPLE OwG'S � PUD P�ANNED UNIT DEV. �
\\ �, �`j^ '' q-♦ MOBILE HOME P11NK ❑ S-i HYOE P11NK NF16MBORXOOD ❑ �'�
� � � C..., w ~ P PLBIIC FAC���TIES � 5-3 NEOEVELOPYENT DISTPICT �
T 4Y �
� C-I LOCAL BUSINE55 ❑ O-t CREEK 8 qIVEA ppESEp��T�JH �
C-2 GENENFL BUS�NESS � O-3 CRITIC�L ARE� �
C-] GEHENAI SNOPPING �
C-R1 GCMENNL OFi�CE ❑ VnC�TEO Si4EEi5 .__
ZONING MAP
� ,
Zf �
� ` � .
�
�
Q
�
� Z
SP ��94-03
Gordon Hedlund
J� :
1
� �� �
�♦ � -� '
�� A , • �
� `�s / �
`� _ � L
/R ; I� i �
r.,`� � '`- � Z
. � �; -' ��, Z a � ;
i ,r,, � � o�'
,�r�� : - � �.
. rv ' i' .. % J U� ' O n1
. e`��;? ..;i "�% � � ��, � � r � �
p ,. . `�' �,-� � D x
� Y���,�'t� � I �� � '�� � ��` � � 1
'�' 9� � � � - � \ -tt � � Q
. �'�� � � �� O � < I�n
/ �/� ' ' - `;' �
/ �� ' � � l F i � � N M
� L
. / i � C �
��� — - ' -- - -
. /i�i� '' _^ I- — /\_ - "' D �
i r � M1 �
2� ��:�� �. � �� ' 6 � � ,�_
`;� ; � y � � Z � z
, �9,,,T_ _ � . �' �` 9 >
n >
9- �- _ -i
�- � , ` �, � ,
� � -, � , /
. O z �- �- I
.i �' '� �
�
's � � � , �y �
. �, — � p , ���y �� ,
C �� ,Og� s �
,
rn N-� , � � ,� -
� o° ' � �
�� ,' �j /� .
/� � O �/p � ��jr' � S � � V , � N
� rn �' `- '
(�►• � r D A � s- , �
. \ I'0 , o p ' I c,
( �
/. r
� r �O . � l . S' �
� - - - - — �
�9 f � � �P `* G �' �
o � � � �'
�• � ' . f .
1 � � � V
_ � � - - ` _ ' ��; J! l i �
rn .
` SwAL4
— � —"�l � �� s�-�—`��►
.� .., . q
m� �.� ,�.
`�:p `c�`� . f ' y c'
� p �� .
�-1 r
� ���� x. .� ,� �. O��
i: A� f�.
�� �� : , .
c�: '9cy �'
. vN
_ ,. .
� Z ��:
:� T��
�-�-�
��,
o �' �
�g�
�y � �i.
( �
: �
� �,
o _ �
0 ��
� ,1
� I � f't ,
Nrl
C
, � �
� �
� y
w �
� = I
� M:
�
r, � �
`�N, �O v► o "'�'
S. n �„� t� D N �
� a 3 � � � � i
G �Dx°"'m z�
t° ,� J � ► m i
t v1'�� o � �jJ O�
,� oa= o>a
;�D� ��
� � pa'i L�I
v a � zz
�"' r
� T� 6� ri 7
0
� �
o %�
� r„
--� Z , o �
SITE PLAN
�� ��Z
o _, �
Z �
s � �
O
� '� / m
/ 6
� x �1 b M
��
,r ' '_ 1 /
� i 1 `t7 �] `�� � �
1 Q, A7 U1
Y _.� _.I !_c—! � X �
./ n �
�
-� a.� �
,r
_,
,
N L
� 'b� ��,� � ��i
� '�� �/��
' Q�� - � j �'�{,1��� W
1 � " ` cr
� � � : � �� �IL � ■�
U� 6 � �
/ ` Lx �_ l� .M_�.� .�e� _ . O �
' x lb g " �` �
1 % IT� ` ''� X \
� . p _ `._- .--
d' ' � M �-
� � i �� � �
.\
/
r p o
` v � �� '�i ��!Ci
i �
� - - - .
��` -- _ , ---- ------ - - ,
� /� , S ' ' � O1 / /
V �
� ► a, � �
( � ;� � -��dQ a '�' � � �
,
' Q� tJ � d tJ � '4.
9 � � / t ` � •J J` �Q � � /(p �
4 � ,,
p � � . �- o
i J / � ��
�
� � � .� �,� �T, , -
,r � ?¢�'i d) �
� ` ,� �1�_6 I
�, ►- ,
I � :� 3 : �
0 � � �
� ~ ', z .
,
I '- \ _
�L =/ � ____ Q
�t- t- _. - .� ,
� � , � _.�, i �
� 1 _ D� .� — - _ _ -�1.
LL `�� � 6�' � � � �i %% F�
9 __ � , ' ,�%
� � �� -- -- --.---- — -- —� - j�i
� '� ',f �
% 1 • g ' � � � ``�1//
� _ � �..
� ' i•�
� � � �
p�\ �=� � Ji�/' �� cY
�J.T ��I .1 � ���iF / `�c��i-�d �
�Y �� ��
- - �,J7 .t.M� �� � . j;�Q+ ��� � .
�. . i • �
N .o ^ �%' t` C` \
�
� � `c ��� � � � � � .
'� J �
� y , < <D� J� -
_ �
\\��
���. �_
K �'� `<i/
Q c � �
� � '` `\
t
�I
�
�
O,
}'
J
� � �
� 1
r�
�r
.i�
, _ �
�
/"'�
�
L t
��
,'�
��
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 4 1994 PAGE 15
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICK
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:50
P.M. i
Mr. Saba stated he would definitely insist on an engineer'
opinion on the drainage. /
Ms. Savage stated she would agree and would
decision until that has been submitted.
Mr. Oquist agreed to both the engineering
tabling a
tabling.
Mr. Saba stated he would also like to hav some answers on the
impact to the sewer system and how the ainage affects what is
already in the street. Many good que ions were brought up and
they need to be answered.
MoTION by Ms. Savage, seconded Mr. Saba, to table
consideration of Special Use rmit, SP #94-05, to allow
construction in the CRP-2 D'strict (F1ood Fringe) on Lots 13, 14,.
15, and 16, Block V, Rive iew Heights, until submission of a
drainage and erosion co rol plan designed, signed, and stamped
by a registered civil engineer; and until such time staff provide
additional informat'on on the storm sewer and sanitary sewer
systems.
Mr. Oquist as ed, through the special use permit, can the height
of properti s be restricted?
Ms. Dac stated she would like to confirm this with the city
attor ey.
A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR
RED THE MOTION CARRIED IIIJANIMOOSI�Y..
4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A.SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP
�94-03, BY GORDON HEDLUND:
Per Section 205.24.4.D and 205.24.5.A of the Fridley City
Code, to allow construction in the CRP-2 District (Flood
Fringe) on Lots 12 and 13, Block Y, Riverview Heights,
generally located on the south side of Buffalo Street east of
Riverview Terrace.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICR
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:54
P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated this request is for the property addressed
as 7915 Riverview Terrace N.E. The property is located at the
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 4. 1994 PAGE 16 �
intersection of Buffalo Street and Riverview Terrace. The
property is vacant and has been a lot of record since prior to
1955. It was platted in the late 1800's. For lots of record
platted prior to 1955, the zoning code does have an exception to
the 9,000 square foot minimum lot area. This exception allows a
lot area of 7,500 square feet. The parcel exceeds that minimum
having a lot area of 7,982.4 square feet. The subject parcel has
a widtk� of 60 feet, which exceeds the minimum lot area for this
special exception for a lot width of 50 feet.
The request is for a special use permit to allow construction of
a dwelling in a flood fringe area. For this lot, the 100-year
flood elevation is 822.9 feet above sea level. The minimum first
floor elevation would be 823.9 feet. The petitioner is proposing
a first floor elevation of 824 feet. A verifying elevation
certificate would be required to be submitted by the petitioner.
The petitioner is proposing that the garage be lower than the
minimum flood elevation or 822 feet. The garage would be
required to be flood proofed in accordance with current Federal
and State regulations.
Ms. McPherson stated there is 15 feet of fill which is required
to extend out�aard from the dwelling unit. In this request, since
the lot is a narrow lot, a retaining wall is needed along the
south to retain the fill needed to meet the minimum elevation ^
requirement. This is because there is not enough distance to tie
the elevations back in a natural pattern.
The natural drainage patterns will be changed by the placement of
fill on the property. Based on the submitted grading plan, staff
has determined that water flows from west to east across the
subject parcel and into Buffalo Street, where it flows to a catch
basin located at the very east end of Buffalo Street. The water
then flows into Springbrook Creek and then to the Mississippi
River. It appears there is a low area along the south property
line where water would flow naturally in its undeveloped state
into the property to the south.
Once the fill is placed on the lot, water would then be directed
to the north and east lot lines. Staff is requesting well ^
defined drainage swales be constructed to direct water off the
property and away from other parcels. Staff is especially
concerned about the south and east lot lines to prevent water
from draining onto the properties to the east and south. Staff
is recommending a grading and drainage place be submitted by a
registered civil engineer to insure that the slopes are accurate
and that the drainage plan will work as it is designed. The
petitioner will need to submit an erosion control plan.
Staff recommend the retaining wall be designed by a registered
structural engineer to insure the retaining wall will work. ^
�
�..1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 4 1994 PAGE 17
Ms. McPherson stated staff requires a hold harmless agreement to
release the City from any liability as a result of the issuance
of the special use permit.
For this particular parcel, the Engineering Department is
requesting that a 10-foot flood control, street, utility and
drainage easement be granted to the City along the westerly
property line. In 1969, the City condemned a similar easement of
7 feet adjacent to the property line for the construction of
Riverview Terrace. The Engineering Department has been working
with the Minnesota State Aid program to define Riverview Terrace
as a neighborhood collector and to reconstruct Riverview Terrace
in order to meet Minnesota State Aid g�idelines and to improve
the road. The road would be widened and the height of the road
increased to provide additional flood control measures for the
neighborhood. The easement is requested to provide additional
right-of-way for the road reconstruction. The right-of-way can
be obtained through a dedication or through the granting of an
easement.
Ms. McPherson stated there are also miscellaneous requests.
There are a number of trees on the property, and staff are
requesting the grading and drainage plan indicate those trees
which are to be preserved.
The parcel is composed of two lots which have two PIN's and,
therefore, two tax statements. The Assessor has requested the
petitioner combine these lots into one PIN which would mean the
property owner would receive one tax statement.
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends the Planning Commission
conduct the public hearing to receive testimony from the adjacent
property owners and the neighborhood, but table the request until
stamped and signed drawings for the drainage from a civil
engineer have been submitted. If the Commission chooses to
recommend approval, staff recommends the following stipulations:
l. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate in
addition to a verifying survey prior to the foundation being
capped, which shall verify that the minimum first floor
elevation is 824.
2. The petitioner shall flood-proof the garage in accordance
with current Federal and State flood-proofing requirements to
a minimum of the 100-year flood elevation.
3. The fill placed on the property shall extend a minimum of 15
feet from the proposed dwelling unit.
4. The petitioner shall submit retaining wall plans that have
,� been signed by a structural engineer.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 4 1994 PAGE 18 ,...�
5. 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.
6. The petitioner shall grant a 10-foot flood control, street,
utility, and drainage easement along the west lot line.
7. A grading and drainage plan and an erosion control plan shall
be designed, signed, and stamped by a registered civil
engineer showing well-defined drainage swales along the
north, west, and easterly lot lines. The drainage plan shall
indicate spot elevations and percent slopes for the drainage
swales. These plans shall be submitted for staff review
prior to City Council review of the special use permit.
8. The grading and drainage plan shall indicate the number of
trees to be preserved.
9. The petitioner shall sign a Combination Form, combining the
property into one tax statement prior to building permit
issuance. �
Mr. Kondrick asked for a comparison of the elevation of the
property and the proposed structure to the other properties.
n
Ms. McPherson stated the average elevation of the subject
property from east to west along Riverview Terrace is 819 feet.
In the middle of the property, the elevation is approximately 818
feet. Along the east, the elevation is 819 feet. The first
floor elevation is proposed to be at 824 feet so there is
approximately a 5-foot difference from the dwelling unit to the
elevation to the south. At the corner of Buffalo and Riverview
Terrace, the elevation appears to be 822 feet. The elevations
are lower going east to 818.3 at the east corner of Buffalo. The
garage level is proposed to be at 822 feet which is about 4 feet
above street level.
Mr. Kondrick asked if the proposed structure is 24 feet x 40
feet.
Ms. McPherson stated this is the proposed pad which meets the
setback requirements.
Mr. Saba asked if there were the same concerns here about the
storm sewer and sanitary sewers.
Ms. McPherson stated, according to the Engineering Department,
there is no storm sewer under Buffalo Street. All run off in on
surface on Buffalo Street. The first catch basin is at the end
of Buffalo. As far as staff can tell, the water then enters
Springbrook Creek and then to the Mississippi River. ^
i �
!'`1
�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 4 1994 PAGE 19
Mr. Hedlund stated, with the exception of the retaining wall, the
drainage and erosion could be handled by a surveyor.
Ms. Brady stated Buffalo Street, coming from Riverview Terrace,
has quite a slope to it, and residents are getting water from
Riverview Terrace. When it rains heavily, it starts pooling in
front of her house near the garage. The garage is very close to
the street. If there is water coming off the southeast corner,
she feels her property would be flooded. She lives across the
street from the vacant property. The street is narrow, and she
will have trouble getting in and out of her garage if someone
parks on the street. She does not think Buffalo can handle any
more water and the water has to go to the other end of the street
to go down the drain. Riverview Terrace is higher than this lot.
If Riverview Terrace is to be improved, will this make the lot
smaller?
Ms. McPherson stated the City is requesting an easement be
granted which would be used for side slopes for the road. The
road would not be expanded into the lot. If the road is to be
expanded, it would be expanded toward the river side. The
proposal is to increase the height of the road, perhaps by two
feet, in order to use it as a flood control structure. The
easement being requested is to tie the side slopes of the road
back into the adjacent property.
Ms. Brady asked if there�would be more water going back onto the
property from the Riverview Terrace road improvement project.
Ms. Dacy stated they did not have detailed construction plans of
the street as of yet. They do know there will be concrete curb
and gutter so some of the run off will not be direct�d onto this
property. There will still be the slope however into Buffalo
Street.
Ms. Brady stated there is the sewer problem. This is a low area.
Every time the city sewer backs up, it backs up into their homes.
She feels this will add to the problem. She asked what side
would be considered the front of the house.
Ms. McPherson stated the code defines the front as the shortest
of the two street frontages on a corner lot so the front is
defined as Riverview Terrace.
Ms. Brady stated her house is fairly close to the street. This
house is close to the street and this is a narrow street. If a
large ho'use is built on this lot, she did not think this would be
appropriate for the location. She would prefer no one build on
the property, but if they do, she would prefer a low profile
house.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 4, 1994 PAGE 20 �...�
Ms. Brady asked how the square footage was figured. She was told
the lot was 60 feet x 146 feet, but from the shape this does not
appear to be accurate.
Ms. McPherson stated the area was calculated by the surveyor.
The lot is a trapezoid so there is a mathematical formula for
calculating the area.
Ms. Brady stated she believed there was a question about the
survey and asked, when the property was surveyed, did they take
into consideration that the street has moved since putting in the
dike.
Ms. McPherson stated that this has been taken into consideration.
Ms. Brady stated she is concerned about g�tting in and out of her
garage. She is concerned about the water coming off this
property. It will also affect other properties as well_ She
asked if the proposed garage is a two-car garage and the.type of
home to be built.
Ms. McPherson stated yes, the code requires a minimum two-car
garage.
Mr. Hedlund stated the house would be a split entry design.
Ms. Brady stated she has the same concerns with this property as
with the previous property.
Mr. Kondrick stated there is concern about the water run off and
how this will be managed as it relates to the property to the
adjoining properties. As the water leaves the subject property,
then what obligation have do we have?
Ms. Dacy stated the City tries to, with any street improvement or
any drainage improvement, control drainage with the public right-
of-way. It is typically held by state law and local code that
every lot should handle its own water and should not adversely
affect other properties. Staff is trying to make sure that the
run off from the abutting properties drains down to the street
and to the catch basin. What staff is hearing from the testimony
is that the water does pond from time to time and Ms. Brady's
concern is that the elevations in trie right-of-way are such that
the water ends up in her front yard. Staff will need to evaluate
that.
Mr_ Oquist stated this is proposed and the plan could change_
The City does not know exactly where the driveway will be at this
point. This must be monitored.
�-�,
S J � �
�
��
��
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 4, 1994 PAGE 21
Ms. Brady stated the retaining wall appears to run the length of
the property on the south side. What happens to the water run
off in that area?
Ms. McPherson stated the retaining wall does not go all the way
to the end of the lot. The surveyor has acknowledged that water
from the adjacent property would need to flow across this
particular parcel to leave the area due to the current grades.
The surveyor is tieing back into the natural contours by not
extending the retaining wall all the way to the lot line.
Ms. Brady stated, to her knowledge, the water travels south. If
the ground is built up more, there will be more water coming down
there.
Ms. McPherson stated this is where the drainage swale would need
to handle the water. The natural slope of the lot provides some
natural drainage.
Ms..Brady stated she would prefer to have an engineer involved
rather than a surveyor. The water run off is a�problem in that
area, and the sewer system is a big problem in that area also.
Mr. M. E. Thompson stated he thinks this makes no sense.
Neighboring properties have water on their property much of the
year. He thinks this will make the problem worse.
Mr. Tim Lott stated his concerns are the drainage swales on the
east side. In looking at the flow, there are trees along that
border and there is a stipulation about the preservation of
trees. There are trees along the border and trees where the
house is planned also. When looking at the terrain of the area,
he sees a house there, additional run off and the trees gone.
The house elevation is at least four feet higher than the street.
The proposed driveway is on a narrow street. He cannot see a
reason for having a house there, let along trying to place it on
a lot that is very small. Sewer back up is already a problem and
he sees more potential problems with the raising of the road.
The problem he has is that the City is looking at putting in
houses that are dramatically higher. He sees an impact to the
people living there. It looks like a bad situation for the size
of the house and the effect on the people who live around it.
Mr. Peterson stated this is the entrance to the area. This is a
beautifully wooded area and the builder faces a dilemma. This
area could be a beautifully done development. He is sure the
builder is using his skills and talents to cope with the
situation. Every day he passes the property. It is a charming
area and a very rural looking area. The present use of the
property provides a park-like atmosphere. The City has a
choice. The present use can continue or something can be built
there that will add character and value to the neighborhood.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETII�TG, MAY 4 1994 PAGE 22
This is an area where the HRA could get involved to develop that
peninsula and increase the value of each of the homes by putting
four to six homes in that area, and by doing so comprehensively
would eliminate the problems generated by piece meal growth.
Ms. Brady felt the builder was fighting too many natural elements
with this lot.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:32
P.M.
Mr. Saba stated, once again, there is a critical question about
the drainage that must be answered. The sanitary sewer question
is another question that must also be addressed regardless of
what happens to this property or any other property. He felt a
nice home could be built on the property, but the drainage
question must be answered.
r + _
r\
Mr. Oquist agreed. The drainage needs to be addressed. This lot
may have more of a problem with the drainage with the proposed
driveway and its slope which could put a lot of water into the ,,�
street.
Mr. Kondrick stated, if the.water concerns can be addressed, he
would agree.
Mr. Oquist stated another point was made regarding comprehensive
planning in the area and making sure the homes built are
consistent with the rest of the homes.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to table
consideration of Special Use Permit, SP #94-03, to allow
construction in the CRP-2 District (Flood Fringe) on Lots 12 and
13, Block Y, Riverview Heights, until submission of a drainage
and erosion control plan designed, signed, and stamped by a
registered civil engineer; and until such time staff provide
additional information on the storm sewer and sanitary sewer
systems.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICIC
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL--USE�PERMIT SP
�94-04, BY GORDON HEDLUND: � �
Per Section 205.24.4.D and 205 .-�5.A of the Fridley City
Code, to allow construct� in the CRP-2 District (Flood
Fringe) on Lots 29 , and 31, Block X, Riverview Heights,
�
�
,-'�
''�
S TAFF REP O RT
Community Development Department
Appeals Commission Date
Planning Commission Date
City Council Date
APPLICATION Ni7MBER:
SP #94-04
PETITIONER•
Gordon Hedlund
LOCATION•
600 Cheryl Street N.E.
REOIIEST•
May 4, 1994; June 1, 1994
The petitioner requests that a special use permit be issued to
allow construction of a single family dwelling unit in the Flood
Fringe district. The request is for a vacant parcel located in
the southwest corner of the intersection of Cheryl Street and
Broad Avenue.
ANALYSIS•
Zoning Requirements
The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling. There are
additional residential uses surrounding the subject parcel. The
parcel is vacant, and the petitioner proposes to prepare the
parcel for sale (the petitioner does not have a purchaser for the
property, and does not have proposed house plans). The subject
parcel has a lot area of 9,337.25 square feet which exceeds the
minimum 9,000 square foot requirement. The subject parcel has a
width of 85 feet, which exceeds the minimum lot width requirement
of 75 feet. The surveyor has identified the proper setback
requirements for the R-1, Single Family Dwelling district on the
site survey, and has located a possible house pad on the property
which meets those setback requirements.
Flood Fringe Requirements
Sectiorv 205.24.05.A of the O-1 district regulations require
the first floor elevation of all habitable living space is a
minimum of one foot above the 100 year flood elevation. The
year flood elevation for the subject parcel is 822.9. The
minimum first floor elevation, therefore, is 823.9 far all
that
100
SP #94-04
Gordon Hedlund
Page 2
habitable spaces. The petitioner has proposed a first floor
elevation of 823.9. The O-1 regulations also require that an
elevation certificate be submitted.
**Stipulation** The petitioner shall submit an elevation
certificate in addition to a verifying survey
prior to the foundatioa beinq capped, which
shall verifp that the minimum first floor
elevation is 823.9.
The O-1 district regulations permit accessory uses below the 100
year flood elevation if those accessory uses are flood-proofed in
accordance with current federal and state flood-proofing
regulations and the following standards: a) Not for human
habitation; b) Have low flood damage potential; and c) Structures
are firmly anchored. The garage is proposed to be at an
elevation of 821.9. This is permitted if the garage is flood-
proofed to the 100 year flood elevation of 823.9.
/'"1
**Stipulation** The petitioner shall flood-proof the qarage
in accordance with current federal and state
flood-proofinq requirements to a minimum of �'�
the 100 year flood elevation.
The O-1 district regulations also require that the fill needed to
increase the elevation of the first floor extend a minimum of 15
feet from the proposed dwelling unit. The petitioner is
proposing to comply with the fill requirement; however, as a
result of placing fill on the subject parcel, the natural
drainage patterns of the parcel will be changed.
Some of the water currently "sheet" flows from south to north
across the subject parcel into Cheryl Street where it flows to a
catch basin located at the northwest corner of the parcel. Once
it enters the catch basin, the water then flows east and south to
Springbrook Creek. A portion of the water appears to remain on
the property in the southwest and southeast corners of the
parcel. Water from the property to the west also flows toward
and into the subject parcel.
As a result of the fill being placed on the subject parcel, water
will be instead directed toward the west and south lot lines. In
order to direct storm water flow so that it leaves the subject
parcel, well-defined drainage swales will need to be constructed
along the west and south lot lines. A small retaining wall is
proposed to be constructed along the south lot line to increase
the elevation, however, there does not appear to be adequate
siope along the west lot line to direct runoff toward Cheryl '�
Street. The petitioner submitted a grading plan reviewed by a
��
�
SP #94-04
Gordon Hedlund
Page 3
civil engineer. The plan indicates a pipe along the west lot
line to drain the property from south to north. A catch basin
will need to be installed in the southwest corner and the pipe
will connect to the manhole located in Cheryl Street. The
remaining stormwater will drain into the street. The builder
will be required to grade the property to comply with the plan
dated May 23, 1994. The verifying survey should confirm that the
grading conforms to the plan. The property owner will be
required to maintain the pipe.
Erosion control measures should be installed as indicated on the
engineering plan.
*�stipulation** The fill placed on the property shall egtend
a minimum of 15 feet from the proposed
dwellinq unit.
**stipulation**
**stipulation**
**stipulation**
The builder shall qrade the property to
conform with the enqineerinq plan dated May
23, 1994.
The verifping survey shall confirm that the
gradinq complies witb the plan dated May 23�
1994.
Erosion control measures shall be installed
alonq the west, south, and east lot lines.
**Stipulation** The hold harmless aqreement shall be amended
to require the propertp owner to maintain the
stormwater catch basin and pipe.
Hold Harmless Aqreement
The City has in the past required petitioners of similar requests
to execute and record hold harmless agreements against the
property. This releases the City from liability if damage occurs
due to flooding.
**3tipulation** The petitioner shall egecute and record
aqainst the property a hold harmless
aqreement releasinq the Citp from liability
if damaqe occurs as a result of floodinq.
Miscellaneous Requirements
There are a number of mature trees located along the south lot
line. These trees are an asset to the subject parcel, and an
attempt should be made by the petitioner to preserve as many
SP #94-04
Gordon Hedlund
Page 4
trees as is practical.
**stipulation** The grading and drainage plan shall indicate
the number of trees to be preserned.
The subject parcel is composed of three, 25 foot lots with three
individual Property Identification Numbers (PIN). The City
Assessor has requested that the petitioner combine these lots
into one PIN, therefore, receiving one tax statement.
**Stipulation** The petitioner shall siqn a Combination Form,
combining the property into one tas statement
prior to building permit issuance.
Buildinq Heiqht
�"1
Staff toured the neighborhood to inventory the types and styles
of dwellings which include one, two, and split story dwellings.
Adjacent dwellir�gs include a split level at 7919 Broad Avenue and
a two-story at 7995 Broad Avenue; both to the east of the subject
parcel across Broad Avenue. The dwelling at 615 Cheryl Street is
also a split level. The dwelling at 614 Cheryl Street will ^
receive the greatest impact due to the new structure. The
foundation of the new structure will be located at "eye" level
despite the dwelling style and height. To minimize the impact,
the dwelling should be constructed in the location proposed on
the site plan as it is in the center of the property.
Staff conferred with the City Attorney regarding the Planning
Commission's request to limit the height of the structure. The
Attorney's opinion is included in the supplemental information
packet.
**Stipulation** The dwellinq shall be constructed in the
location proposed on the qradinq plan.
RECOMMENDATION/STIPIILATIONS:
The petitioner has complied with the requirements of the O-1
district regulations. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the request, with the following
stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate in
addition to a verifying survey prior to the foundation beinq
capped, which shall verify that the minimum first floor
elevation is 823.9.
�
�'^� SP #94-04
Gordon Hedlund
Page 5
2. The petitioner shall flood-proof the qaraqe in accordance
with current federal and state flood-proofinq requirements
to a minimum of the 100 year flood elevation.
3. The fill placed on the property shall egtend a minimum of 15
feet from the proposed dwellinq unit.
4. The builder shall qrade the property to conform with the
enqineerinq plan dated May 23, 1994.
5. The verifying survey shall confirm that the qradinq complies
with the plan dated May 23, 1994.
6. Erosion control measures sball be installed alonq the west,
south, and east lot lines.
7. The hold harmless aqreement shall be amended to require the
property owner to maintain the stormwater catch basin and
pipe.
8. The petitioner shall eueaute and record aqainst the propertp
�"1 a hold harmless aqreement releasinq the City from liabilitp
if damage occurs as a result of floodinq.
9. The qradinq and drainaqe plan shall indicate the number of
trees to be preserved. �
10. The petitioner shall siqn a Combination Form, combininq the
property into one tau statement prior to buildinq permit
issuance.
11. The dwellinq shall be constructed in tbe location proposed
on the gradinq plan.
�'1
�
S� $9�-0�
Gordon Nar�lnnr�
�7 ' g - �f � � •' ry �
� {�� � � ~ � r� y '
.-�` ��i
�, � � � \_ �' 1 1
. �� n •, \�1� � �
. � �����.�
� � f � - � �, � .;� :r
� � `-�.� , �'' ,.� ��
i� I ��~ �� � J' v � +C�.
, TY O F �� � ..� ;�
\ .� � r � .�
' 1'HOMPSON` \ �', � "� � `r� .,"
I R/VERV/EW •�• � � ` • �"�
�HE/GHTS O '�
� � °° � �~�
� � .�.,
O ra � . � � .t:�. �
� s � .� �.: t
� � • zr z� ' � `
P ` ° �S � ��
I ` `A �
/ � IRONTON REET
�t2a .: :•: C�i t�l H R A 2 ;'�•
� • � 6 S 4 3 p � ��, t
• � SPRIt� � 8ea�� y,
I � BFt 00�C • .
a: i B a 1�W 1
,� - R � ,
I� t� � e ' 'S �'� �
� +,fi + z a E.
� GLENCO � f ,� � + j ` ' s �`'" �
pqR ■ s s �s -_ R�,r
��nn. �
, + i , �,�
i - .. , + 5 �
- E I . ' � �� : + �,�+ +`�� , . K � i
� • f' _ '° �� i
-� � - - -. _ __ 9 ` � � 4 _
� K 4 �� �e Q/ �r/, ,� �'�`r�:
� �'1�� S � !/ j , �7 : 15 �' / 1 !
(% � ELY CIR. N ELY �
�� � �( �.M� �� � g �
, � T1 �� W
� � � r0s�
• � 3'
�� y ���, � 3� P a
I . ` i �� 1. 1 8 E R T Y S T. y I
�� Z d �
� � o
' ' • �� , ,� � = I�i
�re �
Q �
� �� x �� LONGF LLOW
;, .
�, \� � �� � �s
\ � � % z � • �� •-�,� • • • •
• • • � • • • • •
• • • �, • • � • 4 •
\ ♦
4 1, `i` �. •Is•� ' •' •'' '�
� i 1 i i "r ' , ♦ � � ^�' •
. i � u• � � %L�;r. - �� .y . :
. I�, � � l ,,, •1 � � 89 - �., .-.'•�-•%_�., - : 1 -
R I V E R V'!,� W '�� � � . � � . . .�. . . . . : .
hEiGN �'� ti `• � �1� � . . . . . . . .
� �;•. � ti
' DISTRICT LEGEND
\ � . .
\ � � 7� � p-i ONE FAYIL� CW6'S ❑ M-1 116MT INDU4TpIAL �
\\ 4.'.''N�•� q-� TWO FAMILY OWO'S � M-2 HEAVT 1f10U9TN1AL �
N ��� �, ��. . . �
r� `�'� \\ � p-� QEN. MULTIPLE�OWG'S � VUD VLANNEO UNIT CEV.
. � o � . � � �
'� �\ �� ', q-{ MOBIIE NONE PANK ❑ S-1 N�OE PAHK MEIGXBORXOOD �
� � e,-' � V PUBLIC PACILITIES Q S-2 HEDEVELOPMENT OISTP�CT �
T , ``v �,
C-1 LOCAL BUSINESS � O-i CREEK e RIVER VXESEA�ATION 'Q
� C-7 CENENAL BUSINESS � O-2 CRITICAL �REA �
C-] GEMERAI SMOPVING �
�-q1 GENEN�L OFFICE ❑ '/AC�TEO STXEETS •._
ZONING MAP
�'���
�����
.�
�. ���� �V — = O ~ _
��a �- . � � � �-
--��/ � 1� 8� _� �S
D.SP�LLwAY�"' ��cC,h \b., \ \,�
/6 K+�.,�aC' a �
'S. y J.
�� � . `� , i \�
N� � � '`� T
_fsAR �` Q
� �
.,,` � � 7
�� 2�b` p1 ---�
� �b � - x pa \bX•
�
i �Z �
/
��1 � cilf.¢. �
� �A�-8 q
� ; .� Z�� x �i0'
0
• , z ��• ; _ , � q���
� I u � � i-��l..-``i
�,
�� � �
�� '�� . .� P/�.p
� _
Qi ` ;\ oai ! � , ' / T �J 8�a.� -SZ a
� a
� ( 3
r ��
�
CO � `
�N0 R��
R UHE ;�
ci
5e� d � h -�;_..—x..��--�'
QQ `�� `�GT�IN�,t� 1/�Al,l.. - --��6- J �.
' woo� PewP�y FtHC.� cHra�nl +NK � FCN<.0
�-cc�p w Au� a � • 0 . .
� —
x' � 5�i u�f�p ,
�7 ; � .
tL
�1� LiAz a�i�.
, .
L���AL- Di=�`�1 P`c��oM '
�0�5 Z°l��o;�,\.����K X.2\vGRv�Lw
�
SP 9�94-04
Gordon Hedlund
�'�C
P
y � �
,O � C �J:..
�C��ti`'
tiwM 15
�
4ti
�l1
�
7
�
( �
�
d
'i.
�
1
�
►
►�
N�
T
SITE PLAN
��
/
s
Y� s
�
I ��.
�
SP ��94-04
Gordon Hedlund
� �, �a
.-n s�
_�tF�
�� �'�
,
\ '�
, '��
�
.�o
aw�
���
:�
: �.u, o .
LOCAT�ON �V1AP
MlN• �oWu'yT F►.ODR= BZ'�.q
* ���vCA�c�.� SPq��>
�"� L��-:.YK��'�/7CsV w��uv�
8� . � �i�.o�-•.�Ro''i'o5t-O �T SL�V�
x --�j � D2A\ t�l P� l�
- ��opoSG� �-,�t��it�L,�
,
�
� � C �-� �.. � �l L_._ � � � ��� .
_ `. �► .� -
"\ 1 •�7 �
�i�'�y � :�� qj�� (� < •
(�' �1' `�.�� �- ` V � � "` • y p��'•� I
� v►T•7P��wAY� Ci^ \�0 � � .g ^ \ -- •..-�-� �� � �r�\'
��`c ` _���u \ �. `��
�6,s� �- .r„� . � a h �,;
•,,,,--C ' �� ' — , � L1
cNO F::n� T . 1 �.
O.�' c��AR 4� i I Q � \\
� � 3 �
e►,, d V ��^ �
�, � � � , - iJ
,�
, �,� �, �-J , �
�� �t it � �v� 8 (9. � �
� \b !� `�x N �bX � 1 l � 1�
�d �O I � � Z.2 � �
s� i / I �
_�� V- . � (, yAQ.�q�j-� q � I � I J-+-'
' �
� � 1
� ' � � Z�' � yo' - + i
� a �
f . � 'z ,� � � J �y e i . i `1
� Q � LL x� /!-�!�l.a�' i , t �
� � � 8 � T. �� � � PAp � °' � .
t� .
s ;, Z � _^_��
�
� � � i � � ; � , jd� 8ioc�-�Z A � !
' � q 19. < < �
z� �'1, 5 i `� , ° � � y ?' ;` 'L
� 8{ 5' �
� , o . � I
� o - �
( 3 � � � I
l � 1 n
� r t` 2''� , i ��
(' I4� � _ ` - ZL / � � /
f ��
1�l, 1
hCHCL• CDRNCR\� ' � 1v/� ,1 ^
0.,5• o��� uHe ;� � � i�;-!
�_ 816.5 ��' � ��/ +�ll .
� ', GI.CAR . r \�� � O.bt�iA� &
' I.0° . ,,r� A
� i-0 • b
5 eS � M t�t /� l. ei s.t ' "—�-�-r o�
Q �
�� ` 'L:T ` —�th--- / QQ
CIo' woo� P2 � F�n�� � � �Hta►rJ �NK - �GNc,E J
� �a w� � -c�P wA�.-B�� �� � . zs �
B EEH IvE �' S 1 GI� q �• 0`— 0. �c
ORATE ��?� � F� �'" � z'' �I
R.E. 816.1
(.E. '813.T9 �`1 . L�A� Acs��:
0 a 2.3� LL,L-�AL o;����, p-�,o�, . Engineer Plan
�n � � 'L°1, �o i �, \ ��GC.K X R.\v C RV \L w
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 4 1994 PAGE 22
This is an area where the HRA could get involved to develop that
peninsula and increase the value of each of the homes by puttin.g
four to six homes in that area, and by doing so comprehensively
would eliminate the problems generated by piece meal growth_;'
Ms. Brady felt the builder was fighting too many natural�,elements
with this lot.
�
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to closefthe public
hearing. �
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPER50N RONDRICR
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARrING CLOSED AT 9:32
P.M. /�
Mr. Saba stated, once again, there is
the drainage that must be answered.
is another question that must also be
what happens to this property or any
nice home could be built on the pro e
question must be answered.
a c�'`itical question about
he�'sanitary sewer question
� dressed regardless of
ther property. He felt a
ty, but the drainage
Mr. Oquist agreed. The draina needs to be addressed. This lot
may have more of a problem wi the drainage with the proposed
driveway and its slope whic could put a lot of water into the
street.
Mr. Kondrick stated, if he water concerns can be addressed, he
would agree.
Mr. Oquist stated a other point was made regarding comprehensive
planning in the a a and making sure the homes built are
consistent with e rest of the homes.
MOTION by Mr. quist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to table
consideratio of Special Use Permit, SP #94-03, to allow
constructi in the CRP-2 District (Flood Fringe) on Lots 12 and
13, Block , Riverview Heights, until submission of a drainage
and eros'on control plan designed, signed, and stamped by a
regist ed civil engineer; and until such time staff provide
addit'onal information on the storm sewer and sanitary sewer
syst ms.
U N A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, ViCE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR
CLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. PUBLIC HEARING- CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP
#94-04 BY GORDON HEDLUND:
Per Section 205.24.4.D and 205.24.5.A of the Fridley City
Code, to allow construction in the CRP-2 District (Flood
Fringe) on Lots 29, 30, and 31, Block X, Riverview Heights,
d
/"'1
�
�
��
�
�
PLANI�iING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 4 1994 PAGE 23
generally located on the south side of Cheryl Street west of
Broad Avenue.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:35
P.M. � .
Ms. McPherson stated this property is a vacant lot located at the
intersection of Cheryl Street and Broad Avenue. It meets the
minimum lot area and lot width requirements and also the setback
requirements.
The current drainage is such that the drainage flows from south
to north towards Cheryl Street where most of the run off is
caught by the catch basin located at the northwest corner of the
parcel. Once it enters the catch basin, it enters a pipe which
flows to Springbrook Creek. It appears that a portion of the
water remains on the parcel in both the southwest and southeast
corners. Water from the parcel to the west also flows onto the
subject parcel. Water from the development would be instead
directed to the west and south lot lines. In order to continue
the natural drainage pattern the water needs to-again go north.
Staff is requesting that well defined drainage swales be located
along the west and south prop�rty lines. The petitioner is
proposing a small retaining wall along the south property line;
however, there does not appear.to be adequate slope to direct the
water out of the southwest corner and towards the northwest
corner of the property. It is possible that a pipe of some sort
may be needed and that the swale may not adequately address the
drainage in this situation. Again, a registered civil engineer
would be able to determine if the swale would be adequate. Staff
are requesting that a drainage plan be submitted by a registered
civil engineer and an erosion control plan be provided. Again,
the remaining issues are similar. The hold harmless agreement is
required, saving as many of the mature trees as possible, and
combining the properties into one PIN.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is requesting the Planning Commission
conduct the public hearing but table any action on the request
until receipt of the necessary information.
Mr. Oquist asked to clarify that the pipe was underground and
that there would need to be a storm sewer connection at the south
corner.
Ms. McPherson stated this was correct.
PLAI�TNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 4 1994 PAGE 24
Mr. Hedlund stated he thought the drainage was adequate. The
surveyor knows what he is doing when he states this will work
without the pipe.
Mr. Clark Nason asked staff to clarify the elevations. If the
home is built as he thinks, the foundation will be two feet above
his current ceiling height.
Ms. McPherson stated the elevation on Cheryl Street at the
driveway is 817 feet. The top block of the foundation is to be
at 823.9 which would be a difference of almost seven feet. It
looks like the ground level at the �ouse next door is at 818 at
the north corner and 817 feet at the south corner of the garage.
Mr. Nason stated he sees no reason for this and to make others
suffer. The laws were changed in 1976. He has lived there since
1966. Things change and nothing is done. The sewer system is
terrible. He has had numerous times that the sewer has backed up
into his basement, he has lost a lot of money, and the City has
done nothing about it. He is opposed to adding homes until
something is done about the sewer system. When the pumping
station goes out, it's an act of God. When his basement is
flooded, it's an act of God but it comes through the City �eTaer
system.
Mr. Nason stated the run off is now coming downhill towards his
home where it used to go to the river. The streets were gravel,
but are now blacktop. They built everything up because of the
manmade dike. With the additional building, whe�e will all the
water go? He is not tearing anyone down for building, but he
does not want to look out his kitchen window at ground and
someone building seven feet above him.
Ms. Brady stated she has the same concerns with thi.� request as
with the previous two requests - sewer problems, water run off,
etc. She is not anti-building either in appropriate places and
at appropriate times. Here you have a much bigger lot and the
size of the house would be more appropriate. The height is a
problem. She did not know if there was a plan for the
neighborhood. The neighbors need to be asked what we want for
our neighborhood. More should be put into helping the people fix
up their homes and make the homes worth more. This is not
helping. The direction should be put into helping the people
that are already living there rather than compounding the
problem.
Mr. Peterson stated he is concerned about aesthetics. If the
buildings are two story and a high elevation, it is not right.
This should be limited to a one-story house with a low roof to
have less impact on the other property owners. Because of
changes in the laws, it ruins it for the rest of the people.
r"1
�
�'"�
. , �
,� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 4 1994 PAGE 25
Saying you cannot regulate the height is not good enough. This
impacts the neighbors who will have to look at this every day.
Mr. M. E. Thompson referred to preserving the trees. If the lot
is filled with four feet of dirt, all the trees will die.
Ms. Brady asked how many vacant lots were in that area.
Ms. McPherson stated the City has an inventory but she could not
say how many parcels were in that area.
Ms. Diane Lott wondered if the City could come up with a plan for
these properties that would be good for the whole neighborhood.
MoTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICR
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:50
P. M.
Mr. Saba stated about two years ago the City was not as concerned
about what was defined as a flood fringe area because there were
no floods. Because of some of the concerns expressed tonight,
^ perhaps the City should be concerned about the flood fringe area.
The most the City can do is protect what is there. The vacant
lots will be developed and there will probably be homes built on
those lots. Concerns about drainage are very valid concerns that
should be addressed before recommending approval or disapproval
of the requests. The sanitary sewer problems must be addressed
whether properties are developed or not.
Mr. Saba stated he would like to see the trees stay as they are
but, if someone wants to develop the property, the City must stay
in the confines of the federal, state and local �egulations in
terms of building in a flood fringe area. The elevation is up to
the builder and the person who buys the land. If a builder
builds a house that stands out, this will limit the market. On
all these properties, there must be a good definition of the
drainage and he recommends this be done by a certified engineer.
He would recommend to table consideration.
Mr. Oquist agreed. Along with the drainage and sewer, is there a
Comprehensive Plan for the area and is the Commission being
consistent with that in the kind of housing that is being built
there.
Ms. Savage stated this is certainly something that can be
discussed but the Commission does not have that information. The
concerns expressed will be on record and the neighbors will have
/�'�1 further opportunity to express their concerns to the City
Council.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 4, 1994 PAGE 26
/""'��
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Savage, to table
consideration of Special Use Permit, SP #94-04, to allow
construction in the CRP-2 District (Flood Fringe) on Lots 29, 30
and 31, Block X, Riverview Heights, until submission of a
drainage and erosion control plan designed, signed, and stamped
by a registered civil engineer; and until such time staff provide
additional information on the storm sewer and sanitary sewer
systems.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
Ms. McPherson stated staff will work with the petitioner to
gather the requested information regarding the drainage plans,
the sewer back-ups, the street elevations, etc. Once that
information is put together, a meeting date will be set, and the
City will re-notify all persons who received notices the first
time. Notices will be sent approximately l0 days prior to the
meeting.
Mr. Oquist stated, until there is a true site plan, it is going
to be difficult to truly identify the drainage.
6. RECEIVE THE MINiJTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MEETING OF APRIL 7. 1994 / ^
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to receive the
April 7, 1994, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes s
written.
CE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE VICE-CHAIRPERS�N RONDRICR
UPON A VOI , � �
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
ADJOURNMENT-
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr.�quist, to adjourn the
meeting. �
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRI AND THE MAY 4, 1994, PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING ADJO ED AT 10:03 P.M.
Respectfully submi�ed,
Lavonn ooper
Reco ding Secretary
��
_ -�-
0
S TAFF REP O RT
Community Development Department
Appeals Commission Date
Planning Commission Date
City Council Date
APPLICATION NIIMBER:
SP #94-05
Gordon Hedlund
LOCATION:
665 Dover Street N.E.
REOIIEST•
The petitioner requests that a
allow construction of a single
Fringe district. The request
feet east of Riverview Terrace
ANALYSIS•
Zoning Requirements
May 4, 1994; June 1, 1994
special use permit be issued to
family dwelling unit in the Flood
is for a vacant parcel located 160
on the north side of Dover Street.
The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling. There is
additional residential uses on all sides of the subject parcel.
The petitioner proposes to prepare the parcel for sale (the
petitioner does not have a purchaser for the property, and does
not have proposed house plans). The subject parcel has a lot
area of 10,978 square feet which exceeds the miniinum 9,000 square
foot requirement. The subject parcel has a width of 99.5 feet,
which exceeds the minimum lot width requirement of 75 feet. The
surveyor has identified the proper setback requirements for the
R-1, Single Family Dwelling district on the site survey, and has
located a possible house pad on the property which meets those
setback requirements.
Flood Fringe Requirements
Section 205.24.05.A of the O-1 district regulations require
the first floor elevation of all habitable living space is a
minimum of one foot above the 100 year flood elevation. The
year flood elevation for the subject parcel is 823.1. The
minimum first floor elevation, therefore, is 824.1 for all
habitable spaces. The petitioner has proposed a first floor
that
100
.� � ,
SP #94-05
Gordon Hedlund
Page 2
elevation of 824.1. The O-1 regulations also require that an
elevation certificate be submitted.
**Stipulation** The petitioner shall submit an elevation
certificate in addition to a verifyinq survey
prior to the foundation beinq capped, which
sh�ll verify that the minimum first floor
elevation is 824.1.
The O-1 district regulations permit accessory uses below the 100
year flood elevation if those accessory uses are flood-proofed in
accordance with current federal and state flood-proofing
regulations and the following standards: a) Not for human
habitation; b) Have low flood damage patential; and c) Structures
are firmly anchored. The garage is proposed to be at an
elevation of 822.1. This is permitted if the garage is flood-
proofed to the 100 year flood elevation of 823.1.
��
**stipulation** The petitioner shall f�ood-proof the qarage
in accordance with current federal and state
flood-proofing requirements to a minimum of
the 100 year flood elevation. ��
The O-1 district regulations also require that the fill needed to
increase the elevation of the first floor extend a minimum of 15
feet from the proposed dwelling unit. The petitioner is
proposing to comply with the fill requirement; however, as a
result of placing fill on the subject parcel, the natural
drainage patterns of the parcel will be changed.
Water currently "sheet" flows from north to south across the
subject parcel into Dover Street where it flows east to a catch
basin located approximately mid-point in the street. Once it
enters the catch basin, the water then flows westerly into the
river.
As a result of the fill being placed on the subject parcel, water
will be instead directed toward the north, west, and easterly lot
lines. In order to direct storm water flow so that it leaves the
subject parcel, well-defined drainage swales will need to be
constructed along the north, west, and easterly lot lines. These
drainage swales will need to accommodate water from the proposed
single family dwelling and from the property to the north. The
petitioner submitted a grading plan reviewed by a civil engineer.
The plan includes spot elevations and slope percents fqr the
swales. A cross section of the swale will need to be submitted
at the time of building permit issuance. The plan will drain ,�
water properly. The builder will be required to grade the �
property according to the plan dated May 23, 1994. The verifying
. �
� SP #94-05
' Gordon Hedlund
Page 3
�
�
survey shall confirm that the grading meets the plan.
Erosion control measures will need to be installed along the
west, south, and east lot lines.
**Stipulation** The fill placed on the property shall egtend
a minimum of 15 feet from the proposed
dwellinq unit.
**8tipulation**
**stipulation**
**Stipulation**
The builder shall qrade tbe property to
conform with the enqineerinq pian dated May
23� 1994.
The verifpinq survey shall confirm that the
qrading complies with the plan dated Map 23,
1994.
Erosion aontroi measures shall be installed
alonq tbe west, south, and east lot lines.
Hold Harmless Aqreement
The City has in the past required petitioners of similar requests
to execute and recard hold harmless agreements against the
property. This releases the City from liability if damage occurs
due to flooding.
**Stipulation** The petitioner shall euecute and record
aqainst the property a hold harmless
aqreement releasing the Citp from liability
if damage occurs as a result of floodinq.
Miscellaneous Requirements
There are a number
north, and east lot
subject parcel, and
to preserve as many
**Stipulation**
of mature trees located along to the west,
lines. These trees are an asset to the
an attempt should be made by the petitioner
trees as practical.
The qradinq and drainaqe plan shall indicate
the number of trees to be preserved.
The subject parcel is composed of four, 25 foot lots with three
individual Property Identification Numbers (PIN). The City
Assessor has requested that the petitioner combine these lots
into one PIN, therefore, receiving one tax statement.
SP #94-05
Gordon Hedlund
Page 4
**3tipulation�*
Buildinq Heiqht
The petitioner shall siqn a Combination Form,
combininq the propertp into one tas statement
prior to buildinq permit issuance.
Staff toured the neighborhood to inventory the types and styles
of dwellings which include one, two, and split story dwellings.
Adjacent to the subject parcel at 641 Dover Street is a two story
dwelling. 670 Dover Street is a one-and-a-half story dwelling.
A new dwelling at 7995 Riverview Terrace is 26 feet high and is
located southwest of the subject parcel. The dwelling located at
680 Ely Street to the north of the subject parcel is
approximately 20 feet in height and is two stories.
Staff conferred with the City Attorney regarding the Planning
Commission's request to limit the height of the structure. The
Attorney's opinion is included in the supplemental information
packet.
RECOMMENDATIONj3TIPIILATION3:
The petitioner has complied with the requirements of the O-1
district regulations. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the request, with the following
stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate as part
of a verifyinq survey prior to the foundation beinq capped,
which shall verify that the minimum first floor elevation is
824.1. �
2. The petitioner shall flood-proof the qaraqe in
with current federal and state flood-proofinq
to a minimum of the 100 year flood elevation.
3.
4.
5.
6.
accordance
requirements
The fill placed on the property shall extend a minimum of 15
feet from the proposed dwelling unit.
The builder shall qrade the property to conform with the
enqineerinq plan dated May 23, 1994.
The verifyinq survey shall confirm that the qradinq complies
with the plan dated May 23, 1994.
Erosion control measures shall be installed along the west,
south, and east lot lines.
d.
�,
,"'1
, �
� SP #94-05
Gordon Hedlund
Page 5
7. The petitioner shall e$ecute and record aqainst the property
a hold harmless aqreement releasinq the City from liability
if damaqe occurs as a result of floodinq.
8. The qradinq and drainage plan shall indicate the number of
trees to be preserved.
9. The petitioner shall siqn a Combination Form, combininq the
property into one tax statement prior to buildinq permit
issuance.
Please refer to the supplemental information packet for
information regarding the Coon Rapids sewer backups and assessors
comments.
�
' `♦
�,
� �o �e
�
�f1 so
SP ��94-05
Gordon Hedlund
�
.�
�=
�.�
��I ? �
► a'
�r : �
�
�.
V .
L.00ATIOi�I MAP
1,�,.
�
�
.. '
. - . �,,������ ,
/ A,
. � Lk�� �1
��'`'' �
, ��• /
�•�'. �.
� �
.
�„�:�}'•�'"� =
�, ��
ci���r�'�' � � • ! ��
! � � � . .�:
i
O �
7�
.
�.. L�.
i.
�
SP ��94-OS
Gordon Hedlund
, �g�� �c� �� ' � � �.:�
..,.� � � � . � �-� ;:;� . � �
� ,•,t r:�/,,, CL. �(' �l _ ^'� .'• ,
`"J Z�� — � ` i �� `�ti
� �
� � ��J �� � �._J �
�"'�, �; " {� `r'�
:� � �, � '� � �
,\ �, � � � ,� ,
.� � � I� � "
� :; ,� � � �..,
4 ��
`�' �J
. ,..� ' � •t: � �f
�
.r �,
� s � J � �
I�
� a � a rr v� .� �
� T +} + r q ��i+�
PLENCO e i � y j j 6� f -
s. t' : R�#'�
� . �r.�in- , s � �
� E� � � �� �
� -- -� -- - ; ' ' � � �m +•:� � "K _ , • J
�,.,,;_ + + � � o � , y �/
T��%. � � � — � � !
_9 � - ,��.
; � K 4 �• u /� %,` ��,
i / � �'N� i � !1 2 , IS�/ !/.
� V � ELY CIR. � E�r �
,,� � ,� �0� s � � ,�
,
i Q y y � a� �,/ �\ '
� ; �` --,� � W
� ` �` 3 , a
� � ,�� 418ERTY
. `' ST.
� / Z
` ��� �� o d
• �"reet '�. 6 = _
, �
, ,� x , Q a
'�� �, LONGF LLOW
\ � • � � �� ��, -
\ y z ,.,.,., . .-� , , 7
. . .,. .• • •�.• .
�,. . � . . . 4 .
�� z I/i �J\ ` �; �s�,,�� L�.r -���y���� ��
RI V ERV'l,�W . • , �� ti .� • � sa - •�� •�•--�-•-� . � • -
FtEIGH �' t ''� < •'�. � . . .�: . . . . : .
� . � �. • • • • • • • •
\ �. � �,
� DISTRICT LEGEND
\� \\ ( Y� R-7 ONE FAYILI' OW(i'9 ❑ y-� L16XT INDUBTNIAI � • Q
� � 1 ��`� p-2 TWO F�YIIY OWO'S � Y-4 HE/1V1 IpDUSTR111L �
N `` �-� \� [���;��(. -� • N-3 OEN. YULTIPLE�OW6'S � PUD PLANNEO UNIT DFV. L
� `• �lMb�` N-� MOBILF HOYB PAqi( � 8-1 HYDE VAHK NEIONBORXO00 ❑
T \ � C� w � P PUBLIC FACILITIES � g-2 qEDEVBLOPYENT OISTRICT 0
� �� C-1 LOCA� 8U91NE88 '� O-1 CPEEK 8 HIVEN PNESERVIITION �
C-1 6ENEq�� BUSINESS '� O-2 CqITICAL ARE� ,�.�'
C-� QENEN11l SNOPPING �
C-R1 GENERIIL OFFICE ❑ VAC4TEO $TqEETS �
ZONING MAP�
�
t � �%�
�
/ �
�\
��%
_ . �„� �
. I
�.� �
� �
�� � .
�
L
� �
� �
� O
1..�� �
0
� �
�f
�
I�
7���/ i
°�� /
�� , ._ �
�ti° �
0 0
N �
�
• 1 DO (u•�
r,� - v1 � Y�l 1 I"�\ ----
.� L i
� �^- - � 1
SP ��94-05
Gordon Hedlund
�%.y1 x
c
y � aQd,�'
c
� ?�'i�� ,
a
/gL ,
� —
Fpv �l �
�\ �
7 �� ,
��J
O
z ` Q\ �O
�� �
Y Z� r
�o` '�u �
_� pr.�'�'� �
� I
\ � - Bt� I
'�J
Jz v •
�� �
°Y i�o
.�.. J /
N ��
T
,, . � (
��� 1 � � •
9 a
�8�9�5� � aoy ' �a�q,5;
� � �_ �
Fv,� r+o � � -- -- _ - -- - - - � _ _ � _ - - � i 4x. f .f• � \'
,� c.� q3� 61T. GJCLP� bl� -----`�p �R> �81QSi
�.� � , � - qq . � � (M> � � T.�.
�.� �-�R�-G�--�- � , �, , (��' �l
���
1 r_�_n. ��=�-.in,t�1-�..�i
StTE PLAN
1�
t-�K �v�vvr+ n�.uwi�.�
°1 MEREB�t C'£RTIFr iFIAT THIS SURYEY. PLAM OR REPORT
rw5 PREP�uiED dY kY Git uNOER YY DINECT SuAVERVISION
�u�0 [14�T !�u/ A Du�.tr REOISTER D L�Np SUNrET01t Vt�EK
T 5 Of iT TE YI SoT�.
MINN�SO A REGISTRATION NO.�Z�o
�
a�
( O/
�
�
hUlt 1 tl J Wt Y C I 1 nV . ����. . � � � Qvl\ wv1��wK„H 1
aW2 JEfFE�iSOn sr. h.E. gEARINGS ARE ON AN
CU�u+is1A �iflc;nTS. �+n. SSa21
io,zi 7aa-�7o9 i�x t6i2� �ae-76o2 ASSUMEU OAiUl1
PRo�0�C,1�
L-� � (��1 �(.�.--�
�NGHMAZI�'• Top NvT NYD��� �i
. �R<�+aQ � �oYC:R AV�.
��cv•= �2�1.�9 (N�,.�,o.-wz��
loo y�A� ��o = 0Z3.\
M�N• �Ow��T Fwoe = $2�-l•1
��.1 Y E�Ei�-t S P A�-C: �
� ;;
l $�l►�i
i
/ 1 \
�"�� �
:;eHA 7.8 �
\ �a��\` \��
�
� �
��` %� /T
i�� �� o`.� /
��� /
� '
�ti° O
�
fi
819.7 �
, a��� �
�
Fo� c10 �
I oo �k�
---- Q�,���)--
._��
,� ,��\,��j�" '�-- B1T • GJtLPJ D�1
__
D O �J � �.
c�. : �x�7� iK�, SPo''c ��.Cy.
— --- —= 6u��.o�N�� ��'gAc..K
��t� : R�,(AQ-O 0�5TA1V4�;
�r►� � I�GAS ��%.D ••
--- �1�t--=G1��4'C►Nh [.OKTJV�
zo = P�OPoSc:�LO.r�1Tt�v�.
—� = ��Ar� � �x:
�2o.a = P2oPa E�v�-�riotii
� y1 x
/�1,�' � -
4��5� �ENt.� �
q�.�SCM�-- .
Eng�neer
Q�"
;;a
�'`��a� �
r8L ,
�.
%pd 1�1 D
�\
�
?�
O �
�J
ZL
��
OQ
Z�
,��
:-� �ti ��� 1
> >
fi - St� �
819.7
/� 1
�� / a,4� •
-_x' T --"' `b \q
.81 �
,-.�.
Plan
�
S � 1�CC� � �, �. , C�J����
0
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 4 1994 PAGE 7
l. Daily sales of mini doughnuts shall begin on May 1 and end="on
October 1 of each year. '
2. The petitioner shall submit documentation to the F.in`e
Marshall regarding the fire extinguishing syste�or the deep
fat fryer. �
3. The petitioner shall obtain a license as equired in Chapter
32 of the City Code and comply with th seven standards of
the proposed ordinance amendment.
4. This special use permit is for t e daily sales of mini-
doughnuts only; additional sal shall obtain the appropriate
licenses or special use pe ' s as governed by the proposed
ordinance amendment. Ext sions to the sale period shall be
approved by the City Co cil.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL TING AYE, VICE-CBAIRPER30N RONDRICR
DECLARED THE MOTION C IED IINANIMOII3LY.
Mr. Turner state the first stipulation states the dates of
operation fro ay 1 to October 1. Is it possible for him to
start worki anytime soon?
Ms. Dac stated the petitioner is asking to start the operation
prior o City Council approval which will not be.until June 20.
Sh �uggested he write a letter which she will pass on to the
ty Council.
3. PUBLIC HEARING' CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP
#94-05 BY GORDON HEDLUND:
Per Section 205.24.4.D and 205.24.5.A of the Fridley City
Code, to allow construction in the CRP-2 District (Flood
Fringe) on Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, Block V, Riverview
Heights, generally located on the north side of Dover Street
west of Broad Avenue.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:05
P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the Planning Commission has before them
requests for three separate.lots in the Riverview neighborhood.
As each lot is unique and the issues different for each parcel,
the requests will be presented individually.
Ms. McPherson
#94-05, is for
approximately
stated the first request for Special Use Permit, SP
665 Dover Street. This property is located
160 feet east of Riverview Terrace on the north
0
�
�,
v
�1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 4 1994 PAGE 8
side of Dover. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family, and is
vacant. The property meets the minimum lot area requirement of
9,000 square feet as it has a lot area of 10,978 square feet.
The code requires a minimum lot width of 75 feet. The subject
parcel has a lot width of 99.5 feet. The petitioner does not
have a buyer for this lot; however, the surveyor working with the
petitioner indicated the proper setback requirements for the lot
on the site survey and has identified a house pad which meets the
setback requirements. There is a 30 foot by 40 foot dwelling
unit proposed for this lot which meets the setback requirements.
Ms. McPY�erson stated the special use permit request is to allow
construction of a dwelling unit in the flood fringe area. A
portian of the Riverview Heights neighborhood is in the flood
fringe area and is regulated by local ordinance and Federal
regulations to require construction to meet certain flood
avoidance regulations. The regulations require the first floor
elevation of habitable living space be one foot above the 100-
year flood level. On this parcel, that elevation is 823.1 feet
above sea level. The petitioner is proposing a first floor
elevation of 824.1 feet. In order to insure that the
construction meets the minimum flood elevation requirements, the
ordinance requires the petitioner to submit an elevation
certificate submitted by a registered surveyor verifying that the
^ first floor elevation is at the proper elevation. This needs to
be done prior to the foundation being capped and construction
continuing on the dwelling unit.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitionex� has proposed a garage
elevation of 822.1 feet. The garage is considered an accessory
use, and accessory uses are permitted below the 100-year flood
elevation if they meet certain standards: 1) They are not for
human habitation; 2) They have low flood damage potential; and 3)
Structures are firmly anchored. The ordinance also requires that
the portion of the accessory structure that is below the 100-year
flood level needs to be flood proofed in accordance with current
Federal and State regulations.
Ms. McPherson stated the ordinance also requires the fill needed
to bring the first floor elevation up to the required minimum
extend a minimum of 15 feet around the dwelling unit. The
petitioner has proposed the required 15 feet of fill. As a
result of the fill to be placed on the lot, the drainage patterns
on the subject parcel will change. Currently, water flows from
the rear to the front of the parcel, east along the curb l�ne af
- Dover Street to a catch basin, and then through a pipe and
westerly to the river. As a result of the fill being placed on
the site, the water would then flow around the fill being placed
or towards the east and west property lines and then south to the
street. In order to direct this water from flowing to adjacent
^ properties, well defined drainage swales will need to be
constructed to direct the water in the proper direction. Staff
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 4 1994 � PAGE 9 ^
is recommending that a grading and drainage plan stamped and
signed by a registered civil engineer be submitted by the
petitioner prior to any action being taken on the request by the
Planning Commission or City Council. The surveyor has indicated
general drainage on the site plans; however, there are no spot
elevations or slope percents with which staff can verify the
drainage plan as submitted can function as it should.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner would also need to submit an
erosion control plan, which is required by Chapter 208 of the
City code.
In the past for similar requests, the City has requested the
petitioner execute and record a hold harmless agreement to
release the City from any liability should damage occur due to
flooding as the result of the City's approval of the special use
permit.
Ms. McPherson stated there are some miscellaneous requirements
associated with this request. There are a number of mature trees
located along the west, north and east lot lines. These mature
trees are an asset to the parcel and attempts should be made by
the petitioner to preserve as many of these trees as is
practical.
n
The subject parcel is composed of four 25-foot lots which have
been assigned indiviclual Property Identification Numbers (PIN)
with a tax statement being issued for each number. The Assessor
has requested the petitioner combine these lots into one PIN so
the new property owner would receive one tax statement. The
petitioner has complied with the requirements of the Ol district
regulations. However, staff is still concerned that the
stormwater runoff be properly addressed by the petitioner.
Ms. McPherson�stated staff recommends the Planning Commission
conduct the public hearing in order to receive testimony from the
adjacent property owners but table its decision until the
petitioner has submitted the required grading and drainage plan
from a registered civil engineer. If the Commission should
choose to act on the request, staff recommends the foll.owing
stipulations:
l. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate as part
of a verifying survey prior to the foundation being capped,
which shall verify that the minimum first floor elevation is
824.1.
2. The petitioner shall flood-proof the garage in accordance
with current federal and state flood-proofing requirements to
a minimum of the 100-year flood elevation.
i"1
�
P
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 4 1994 PAGE 10
3. The fill placed on the property shall extend a minimum of 15
feet from the proposed dwelling unit.
4. A grading and drainage plan and an erosion control plan shall
be designed, signed, and stamped by a registered civil
engineer showing well-defined drainage swales along the
north, west, and easterly lot lines. The drainage plan shall
indicate spot elevations and percent slopes for the drainage
swales. These plans shall be submitted for staff review
prior to City Council review of the special use permit.
5. Petitioner shall execute and record against the property a
hold harmless agreement releasing the City from liability if
damage occurs as the result of flooding.
6. The grading and drainage plan shall indicate the nuaiber of
trees to be preserved.
7. The petitioner shall sign a Combination Form, combining the
property into one tax statement prior to building permit
issuance.
Mr. Hedlund stated he is in the construction business and he
could build the houses and sell them. He would prefer to sell
� the lots to someone ir� the construction business or sell to a
person who wanted a home in the area. He would then have a
specific plan. One of the requirements that staff suggest is to
have an engineer to do all this work, but he thought the surveyor
was qualified to do this type of thing. For the sake of
simplicity, he thought it would be adequate to have the
information for drainage taken care of by the surveyor.
Mr. Kondrick asked staff if they felt a surveyor could provide
this plan or does this need to be done by an engineer.
Ms. Dacy stated, while the surveyor has provided information on
the general direction of the flow, staff's concern is that a
registered engineer could actually do calculations of the runoff,
run through the typical 100-year storm event calculations from
typical studies, and from that be able to design with a good
degree of accuracy exactly how deep the swales should be on the
north, west and east lot lines and how wide the swales shouid be;
and the registered engineer can then submit a plan that says the
lot can handle the runoff from the house on its own.
Mr. Oquist asked how can this be done without the footprint of
the house.
Ms. Dacy stated this can be done knowing the amount of impervious
surface. An engineer can run through the calculations to
�"'� determine the amount of runoff that would occur, combine that
with the runoff from the grades and give staff a dimension of how
PLANNING CONIlvIISSION MEET�NG MAY 4, 1994 PAGE_ 11 ,,.•�
wide the swales should be and at what slope. In this particular
lot, there appears to be enough change in grade to direct the
water to the street. Staff wants to know with some degree of
accuracy, and a registered engineer can do that, that the water
can be handled.
Mr. Oquist stated part of the plan from them may be the
stipulation that says what could happen with a house of a
particular size.
Mr. Kondrick asked, if the footprint were put the other way, is
that possible? If so, would it not hamper the flow of water from
the south?
Ms. Dacy stated, in answer to both questions, yes, and doing so
would affect the drainage. The petitioner wants approval from
the City so he can sell th.e lot. Staff wants an approved
drainage plan based on a reasonable site plan.
Mr. Kondrick stated this is suitable for a prospective buyer and
also for the neighbors so they know the water can be handled.
Ms. Dacy stated without an engineer submitting a plan that shows
how deep this swale should be,.may be leaving too much discretion
up to the builder and/or the City to interpret what was the n
Council's intent. Staff is trying to reasonably assure the
buyer, adjacent homeowners, and the City that the drainage can be
handled.
Mr. Hedlund stated the house will be very close to the stated
size and shape. One of the things that could be done to make the
base smaller is to construct a two-foot overhang in the front and
in the back. In speaking of the engineers, he is thinking of the
cost of an engineer. When they have a document such as
presented, a surveyor will know what he is up against. If he
does not feel qualified, they would not do it. But, rather than
going to an engineer and since he is working with a qualified
surveyor, he would recommend saving the cost of an engineer.
There is a limit to how high the costs should be on this.
Ms. Savage asked to clarify the original reason for the request
and if this was because the property is in the flood fringe and
so no dwelling can be built without the snecial use permit.
Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. Even an accessory
structure must have a special use permit.
Mr. Frank Shimek stated he is concerned about the condition of
the Coon Rapids dam. The dam is in bad shape and Anoka County is
not doing anything about it. He felt it dangerous to build a
house in that area until that structure is repaired or removed. �`
If the dam should break, all homes in that area will be flooded.
�
� -
/�
�
PLANIVING COMMISSIOIV MEETING, MAY 4 1994 PAGE 12
Ms. Darlene Brady referred to the special use permit and asked if
this required an engineer.
Mr. Kondrick stated this is not always the case, but in this
situation with changing the elevation due to the fill, the City
wants to make sure the run off will be contained on the property.
Ms. Brady asked whose decision it is to require or not require an
engineer.
Mr. Saba stated the Commission's recommendation goes to the City
Council who make the final decision.
Ms. Brady stated she would prefer to have an engineer. Regarding�
building in general in that area, she was happy to see the City
requires a hold harmless agreement. With flooding to the south
last year and the government not in support of dikes, which is
located there, she wonders about the advisability of new
construction in that area which would compound any problems that
might come up. The dike was not built like those that gave out
last year. It was not constructed in the same manner, but rather
on an emergency basis, which may mean it was not as well
constructed which increases the possibility of something
happening. The river is high now as well as the water in the
creek. If it rains, she does not know what will happen. She
wonders if it is advisable to build new homes in that area.
Ms. �Brady stated another concern is the sewer system in that
area. She has lived in that area about eight years and has had
the city sewer back up into her home five times. She wonders
what the effect of additional homes will be on the sewer system.
The sewage goes through a pumping station and is pumped up the
hill.
Ms. Brady stated a year or two ago another house was built in
that area. She feels the house is much too big for the lot and
for the neighborhood. It does not fit into the type of homes �.n
that neighborhood. A smaller lot should have a smaller home.
She is also concerned about the water run off.
r1r. James Peterson stated the elevation of the foundation, as he
reads the drawing, would be 8 feet above the street level. He is
concerned about how high the houses are from street level on the
other sides of this lot, particularly if building a two story
tiome or if the house has a steeply pitched roof. How high would
this be in relation to the other houses in that area? -
r4s. Dacy stated the drawing shows an elevation of 819 feet at the
curb and the top of the foundation is at 824.1 feet. The
elevation along the east and west lot lines is 820 feet.
i�
Mr. Peterson asked if this home would be much taller.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 4 1994 PAGE 13 �--�
Ms. Dacy stated she had only ground elevations, but this house
would be somewhat higher.
Mr. Peterson stated the one suggestion he would make would be
that the City limit the structure to a one-story home and a 5-12
pitch roof to minimize the impact to the neighborhood. In
general, he is pleased to see new homes coming in. The new homes
are larger than the older homes in that area. Construction has
changed and because it does not conform to the 600 to 800 square
foot homes that are there, one should not put it in disfavor. A
30 foot by 40 foot house means 1200 square feet. What is the
minimum number of square feet now required by the code?
Ms. McPherson stated the minimum first floor dwelling unit size
is 1020 square feet.
Mr. Peterson stated a�garage was mentioned but he does not see if
on the plan. Is the garage attached to the front?
Ms. McPherson stated the front portion would be the garage.
Mr. Hedlund stated the 30 foot x 40 foot dimension is for both
the house and the garage. The structure would be a split leval
with an overhang to provide additional square feet with a smaller
foundation. He does not have a specific plan now but this would �
be a respectable house.
Mr. Peterson stated he thinks a two-story will give too much
height compared to the 1 1/2 story homes in that area.
Ms. Diane Lott asked if a home with two-foot overhangs would
still meet the setback requirements.
Mr. Oquist stated there is sufficient room to have the two-foot
overhangs and still meet the minimum setback requirements.
Mr. Tim Lott stated, when reading about the tile around the
house, he was not sure whether it would work or not or it has -not
been proven this would drain properly. Is this correct?
Ms. McPherson stated these are called drainage swales which is
surface drainage system for the area around what is being filled.
Staff has stated, in general, that the surveyor has indicated
general drainage patterns but there are no spot elevations and it
does not indicate the water flows to a point that is lower nor
does it give a percentage of slope from the bottom of that swale.
That is why staff is asking that an engineer design the drainage
swales so that staff can tell the builder how deep the swales
need to be and at what slope so that it works.
i"�
< e n,y
S .
� YLANNING COMMISSION MEE`PING, MAY 4 1994 PAGE 14
Mr. Lott stated that it seems as if no matter what is built on
the property now will be higher than any other house in that area
because of the changes in the building requirements. What you
have now is a house on top of a mound. He cannot see how this
can prevent drainage which is already a problem in that area. He
cannot see how this will work.
Ms. Brady stated the storm water runs down the street.
Ms. McPherson stated staff acknowledges that this dwelling needs
to be built at a higher elevation as a result of the adoption of
the ordinances in 1977, but there is a way by the grading of the
property that water can be diverted properly to where it is
supposed to go and may even help drain other properties.
Mr. Lott asked if the water is to drain out to the street. He
did not see how this would help the neighbors who have problems
with water now. Right now, the water is going into the ground.
With a dwelling there, it is not only impacting the area but it
seems it would create further problems by draining the water to
the street.
Ms. Dacy stated, by requiring swales along the perimeter, it
helps to channel the run off from the roof and the surrounding
n properties as well. Some of these lots are too flat so water
cannot run off. By creating a swale, or as in another lot to be
reviewed, it may be necessary to put in a catch basin and pipe
improvement, in order to catch the run off and prevent ponding
from backing up onto another property. While it is not a perfect
system, every lot has to handle its own run off and that is the
basis for staff's suggestion that a detailed plan be.provided by
an engineer.
�
Ms. Brady asked if they were saying there would not be any more
water going in the street after a house is built.
Ms. Dacy stated no, but by adding additional impervious surface
there is going to be more run off than a vacant property. That
is the reason for a drainage plan and to know how deep the swales
will be to get the water to the street. The swales can act also
act to retain the water.
Ms. Brady stated, when it rains heavy, the water pools in her
yard and it seems this would be adding to that.
Mr. Hedlund stated this is a general drainage plan, and it would
work.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public
hearing.
�
�,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 4 1994 PAGE 15 �
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:50
P.M.
Mr. Saba stated he would definitely insist on an engineer's
opinion on the drainage.
Ms. Savage stated she would agree and would recommend tabling a
decision until that has been submitted.
Mr. Oquist agreed to both the engineering plan and tabling.
Mr. Saba stated he would also like to have some answers on the
impact to the sewer system and how the drainage affects what is
already in the street. Many good questions were brought up and
they need to be answered.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Saba, to tabie
consideration of Special Use Permit, SP #94-05, to allow
construction in the CRP-2 District (Flood Fringe) on Lots 13, 14,
15, and 16, Block V, Riverview Heights, until submission of a
drainage and erosion control plan designed, signed, and stamped
by a registered civil engineer; and until such time staff provide
additional information on the storm sewer and sanitary sewer
systems . ,.,.1
Mr. Oquist asked, through the special use permit, can the height
of properties be restricted?
Ms. Dacy stated she would like to confirm this with the city
attorney.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PE SP
#94-03, BY GORDON HEDLUND:
Per Section 205.24.4.D and 205.24.5.A of the idley City
Code, to allow construction in the CRP-2 'strict (Flood
Fringe) on Lots 12 and 13, Block Y, Ri rview Heights,
generally located on the south sid f Buffalo Street east of
Riverview Terrace.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, second�y Mr. Saba, to waive the reading
of the public hearing noti�e and open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, A7sL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR
DECLARED THE MOT CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:54
P.M.
Ms. McPh son stated this request is for the property addressed :--�,
as 79 Riverview Terrace N.E. The property is located at the
� �
�
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PACKET
SP #94-03, SP #94-04, AND SP #94-OS
�
�
RUBERT A. GUZY
BERNARD E. Si'EFFEN
RICiiARD A. MERRILL
DARRELL A. JENSEN
JEFFREY S. JOHNSON
RUSSELL H. CROWBER
]ON P. ERICKSON
LA\VRENCE R. JOHNSON
DAVID A. COSSI
THOMASP.MALONE
MICHAEL F. HURLEY
VIRGIL C. HERRICK
HERMAN L. TALLE
TO:
FROM:
1 �
�
'i
� �
Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
400 Northtown Financial Plaza
200 Coon Rapids Boulevard
Minneapolis, MN 55433
(612) 780-8500 FAX (612) 780-1777
Writer's Direct Line: (612) 783-5124
� �-�-\ � J►!
Barbara Dacy
Community Development Director
City of Fridley .
r
Virgil C. Herrick �`�/�
City Attorney �C;;-' �'
City of Fridley
PAMELA M. HARRIS
CHARLESM.SEYKORA
WILLIAM M. HANSEN
DANIEL D. GANTER, JR.
BEVER�Y K. DODGE
GREGG V. HERRICK
JAMES D. HOEFi' �1
JOAN M. QUADE
SCOTT M. LEPAK
STEVEN L. MACKEY
DAVID M. WEIGEL
ELIZABETH A. SCHADING
\�U(LL[AM F. HUEFNER
ROBERT C. HYNES
1935-1993
SUBJECT: Height Restriction as a Stipulation in Special Use
Permit Requests, SP #94-03, SP #94-04, and SP #94-05,
by Gordon Hedlund, Petitioner
DATE: May 24, 1994
I acknowledge receipt of your Memorandum of May 23, 1994
regarding the above subject. I have reviewed your Memorandum and
the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 4, 1994.
You asked the question whether the City has authority to impose a
condition on a special use permit that would limit the height of
a single family residential structure to less than the limit
contained in Section 205.07.04 A.
Mr. Hedlund has made application for a special use permit to �
construct a single family home in a CRP-2 District (Flood
Fringel. TY!?s is a permitte� use �?r�.A� Section 205.25.0� D, u��n
obtaining a special use permit.
There are general legal principles that apply to the issuance or
denial of all special use permits. Among these are:
1.
2.
3.
That the enumerated use is a permitted use.
Denial of a special use permit must be for reasons
related to public health, safety, and general welfare.
That the burden for denying the permit rests with the
City.
An Equal Opportunicy Employcr
�
�
w �
Barbara Dacy
� May 24, 1994
Page Two
4. Denial must be based on evidence presented to the
Council and should be contained in findings of fact
made by the Council
5. Esthetic concerns of neighboring landowners is not
considered to be a serious health, safety or public
welfare consideration which will justify denial of an
application for a special use permit. See Luger v.
City of Burnsville, 295 N.W2d 609 (1980).
A municipality receives its zoning power from the State
Legislature. Minn. Stat. §462.3595 gives the Council authority
to issue conditional use permits. This Section provides in part
as follows:
"Conditional uses may be approved by the governing body or
other designated authority by a showing by the applicant
that the standards and criteria stated in the ordinance will
be satisfied. The standards and criteria shall include both
general requirements for all conditional uses, and insofar
as practicable, requirements specific to each designated
^ conditional use..."
^
This Section goes on to provide: "A conditional use permit shall
remain in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are
observed, but nothing in this Section shall prevent tha
municipality from enacting or amending official controls to
change the status of the conditional uses..."
The City of Fridley has in its ordinances adopted both general
criteria for issuing special use permits and specific criteria
for permits to be issued in the flood fringe District. The
general criteria are contained in Section 205.05.04 and the
specific criteria are contained in Sections 205.25.04 and .
205.25.05. It is clear that the City can impose reasonable
conditions when issuing a specia]_ use nermit. I have examined
the Sections of the Code to identify those that might apply to
the question of restricting the heights of single family
structures.
Section 205.05..05 F enumerates considerations to be applied in
determining whether the City shall issue a conditional use
permit. One of the criteria to be considered is: "Will (it)
seriously depreciate surrounding property values." This is a
fact question that would have to be determined on a case by case
basis. If the City were to reject the application for a special
use permit because the height of the proposed structure was
substantially greater than the adjoining buildings, it would have
to receive testimony regarding the devaluation of the adjacent
Barbara Dacy
May 24, 1994
Page Three
properties. The Planning Commission and the Council should bear
in mind that there are many instances in the City where there are
two story structures adjacent to one story residences. If this
reason is to be used for denying or limiting the conditional use
permit, it would be necessary to differentiate between the
situation in the existing applications and other situations where
differences in height between adjacent residential structures
exist.
�
,^�
�
�,
b �
,-�
�
� _
S
I
DATE:
TO:
��u
" ;f,{ �� � 5--�.
' -
1 I,
Community Development Department
�I,��NNING DIVISION
City of Fridley
May 23, 1994
Virgil Herrick, City Attorney
�/ Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Height Restriction as a Stipulation in Special Use
Permit Requests, SP #94-03, SP #94-04, and SP
#94-05, by Gordon Hedlund, Petitioner
The Planning Comm�ssion at its May 4, 1994 meeting tabled action
on three special use permits for construction of new homes in the
floodplain in the Riverview Heights area. One of the issues that
the Commission asked us to research was whether the City could
impose a height restriction as part of the special use permit
stipulations.
One of the lots is located at the southwest corner of Cheryl
Street and Broad Avenue. The property.will require four feet of
fill in order to meet the required flood protection elevation
requirement. The concern is that a two story house would "tower"
over the existing homes in the area. One resident suggested that
a stipulation be imposed stating that one story homes be
constructed on the property.
Section 205.07.04 A of the R-1 district states: "No building
shall hereafter be erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered,
enlarged, or moved so as to exceed the building height limit of
thirty (30) feet from finished grade level". Can the City, as a
stipulation of a special use permit for construction in the
floodplain, impose a more restrictive height limit and require
construction of a one story home?
BD/dn
NI-94-270
En,inee�inn
Sewer
V.`;t t e r
Perks
S�ree(s
Wlaintenancc
ME MORANDUM
TO: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
FROM: John G. Flora�Public Works Director
DATE: May 23, 1994
SUBJECT: Gordan Hedlund Issues
i��.�� - -
In response to your note, the following information is presented for the Planning Commission
meeting of June 1, 1994.
.�
��
The Coon Rapids dam is experiencing some maintenance and construction requirements. At
this point in time, Hennepin and Anoka Counties are discussing who is responsible and what
type of improvements will be made. The dam is functioning as a control mechanism of flows �
down stream. The City has requested that the DNR and the Corps of Engineers initiate a new
flood study of the upper regions of the Mississippi in order to incorporate some of the changes
that have been accomplishe�! in the river system over the last few years. Due to the cost, a
study has not been completed but there continues to be discussion about a need.
Sewer backups in the vicinity of Cheryl and Buffalo
Our records indicate that there was only one backup at 641 Buffalo in September, 1989. There
have been nine backups at 614 Cheryl Street as a result of the structures basement elevation.
In 1989, a back flow preventor was installed in the line in an attempt to reduce the backup into
the property. Since that time, one backup occurred when the overall system was being
checked by the check valve.
We are interested in reviewing the Hedlund plans for drainage within the area.
JCF:cz
�
'�
� .:
�.. �
0
.e'°
�
�Engineering
N Sewer
� Y Water
Q
� O Parks
p 3 Streets
VV Maintenance
W J
� m
0 =
a
�
MEMORANDUM
��� _�
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
William W. Burns, City
.✓
John G. Flora,JPublic
October 6, 1989
SIIBJECT: 614 Cheryl Street
Manager
Works Director
PW89-375
A few weeks ago, we experienced a sanitary sewer backup on
Riverview Terrace which affected the residence of Mr. Charles Nason
at 614 Cheryl Street. Based upon a telephone conversation with
you, he indicated he had experienced a number of backups and was
requesting some assistance to correct the problem.
We have reviewed the records and found the resident has had eight.
(8) backups since 1973, five (5) of which were a result of sticks
and roots in the system and three (3) were a result of power and
system outages at the lift station at 79th Avenue and Riverview
Terrace.
As a result .of this information, we have reviewed the sanitary
sewer line and residences along that segment of Riverview Terrace
and adjoining streets to determine if there were any construction
or design problems in that area. It appears that the resident at
614 Cheryl Street is only about one foot above the main sewer line
on the street and less than eight feet above the lift station
invert on that system. Accordingly, if any blockage or downtime
should occur, the resident at 614 Cheryl Street is the first home
to experience a backup. All of the other homes that we have been
able to identify have services substantially higher than his.
I have contacted Mr. Nason and
installing a backflow preventer
(2) weeks. This backflow preve�
any sewage backflows into his re
problems that have been occurri
JGF/ts
cc: Ralph Volkman
informed him that the City will be
on his service withi.n the next two
iter should eliminate 95 percent of
sidence and, hopefully, resolve the
ng over the past number of years.
'
CIfYOF
FRIDLEY
M
r�
COF MEMO
TO: Barb Dacy, Director of Community Development
FROM: Leon Madsen, City Asessor
SUBJECT: Gordon Hedlund properties in Riverview Heights
DATE: May 19, 1994
In regard to the Special Use permits being sought by Gordon Hedlund, in the Riverview Heights
area, I have the following comments:
From my prospective, as Assessor, I think getting these parcels built on will have a very positive
impact on the surrounding neighborhood, and especially the properties closest to them. There
have been at least 2 similar situatuions, in this same immediate neighborhood, at 7995
Riverview Terrace and 600 Ely St, both requiring relatively major elevation adjustments that
have, apparently, been done very successfully. Certainly, the general consensus of the real
estate market, is that better homes in a neighborhood tend #o increase the general level of value.
There is no doubt that the insurance of proper drainage, from the proposed sites, is of primary
concern. But there can be no legitimate basis for the statements made, that building on these
parcels will be detrimental to the value of the surrounding properties. If done according to code
and with a reasonable attention to design, I would be of the opinion that values could only ,,—�
improve. It would not be my intent to increase values in the area, because of these new homes,
until resales came thru to provide a measurable basis.
Mr. Hedlund acquired these parcels thru tax forfeit property sale in 1970. At that time, such
properties were not offered to neighboring property owners, before putting them on sale to the
general public, as is current practice.. However, 'rf Mr. Hedlund were not allowed to build on
these parcels, I would imagine he would just let them go tax forfeit again. In 4 years, the County
would offer them to the various governmental entities for whatever legal purposes desired, and
then to the adjoining neighbors. The asking price would be what the sites are currently
assessed at. If neither of these are successful, the sites would be put back on the public block.
I would suspect that, if Mr. Hedlund was unsuccessful in obtaining permission to build, no one
else would want them either. Ultimately, the sites will most likely end—up back off the tax rolls.
,- —�
�
�
r'�ti
[ng+neerinn
Sewer
V�O.er
P�rks
Sueeis
tJ�a�nten�ncc
ME MORANDUM
TO: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director PW94122
FROM: Scott Erickson, Asst Public Works Director�4,
DATE: April 15, 1994
SUBJECT: Preliminary Drainage and Grading Review of Lots Located at 7915
Riverview Terrace, 665 Dover Street, and 600 Cheryl Street
The following comments are based on the grading details and elevations provided by the
property owner and a site visit made on Monday, April 11, 1994.
7915 Riverview Terrace
1. A structural engineer will need to design and approve the proposed retaining wall.
2. Provide a minimum 5-ft-wide drainage swale along the south and east property lines.
Specific elevations and percent grades shall be shown for the drainage swales.
Install rip-rap at downstream end of swale.
3. An erosion control plan shall be submitted and approved prior to building permit
approval.
4. A 10 ft easement for street, utility, and drainage purposes will be required along
Riverview Terrace.
665 Dover Street
1. A well defined drainage swale will be required along the back and side lot lines. It
will be necessary to show elevations and percent grades for the proposed swales.
The lot will need to be graded such that it accepts the drainage from the property
to the north.
2. An erosion control plan shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
�
�
April 15, 1994
Page 2
600 Cheryl Street
1. Provide a minimum 5-ft wide drainage swale along the south and west property
lines. Elevations and percent grades will need to be shown for the drainage swales.
2. It will be necessary to ensure the drainage from the property to the east is
adequately addressed. Elevations will need to be shown along with the necessary
grading issues addressed.
3. An erosion control plan shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
SE:cz
r"'�
,---�
�--�
�
0
�
STAFF REPORT
�, Community Development Department
Appeals Commission Date
Planning Commission Date :.Tune I, 1994
City Council Date
APPLICATION NIIMBER:
SP #94-07
PETITIONER:
Richard Larsen for Amoco Oil
LOCATION'
5311 University Avenue; northeast corner of University and 53rd
Avenues. The property is zoned C=2, General Business. Proper.ty
to the east is zoned R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling.
REOIIE3T•
The special use permit would allow the expansion of the service
station. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 12 foot by
15 foot storage area to the rear of the building.
BACRGROIIND•
The original service station was constructed in 1959.
A special use permit was issued in 1978 to allow a car wash
expansion (see attached minutes).
The petitioner has also applied for the following variances:
l. To reduce the setback from an adjacent residential district
from 50 feet to 19 feet.
2. To reduce the hardsurface setback from a building from 5
feet to 0 feet.
The Appeals Commission reviewed the variance request at its May
24, 1994 meeting and recommended approval of the request to the
City Council.
ANALYSIS•
The proposed addition will be used to store lube equipment,and
air compressors used by the mechanics. The serviee bays are
narrow, and moving the excess equipment into a storage area will
SP #94-07
Richard Larsen for Amoco Oil
Page 2
improve the safety of the working conditions for the employees.
The addition is proposed to be located adjacent to the carwash
entrance at the rear of the building. A waste oil tank is buried
to the south of the proposed addition, thereby limiting the size
and location of the addition.
Located to the east of the subject property are dwellings.
Residents access their garages via the service station property
("mid-lot") and the alley adjacent to it. The proposed expansion
will narrow the driving aisle adjacent to the alley to 19 feet.
The code requires a 15 foot hardsurface separation from the
alley. Requiring the petitioner to comply with this requirement
would eliminate access to the adjacent residential properties as
it is now. The Appeals Commission did not recommend granting a
variance to correct this nonconformity in order to allow .the City
an opportunity to evaluate this if the building is ever damaged
to more than 50% of its value. The Appeals Commission voted to
recommend approval of the variance to reduce the hardsurface
setback from the east side of the building to zero feet with
appropriate protection. Requiring the setback would�further
reduce the driving aisle to 14 feet.
A site visit revealed that the area along the north side of the
building is being used for the storage of tires, scrap metal,
barrels, and miscellaneous materials. The dumpster is also
located near the north lot line; blocking access to the driveway
along the building. The dumpster is also not screened.
The addition is proposed to be constructed of 8 inch concrete
block. The concrete block is proposed to be insulated with
cellulose type insulation. It should be painted to match the
rest of the building. Operation of the equipment stored inside
shall not exceed the decibels established by Chapter 124 of the
City Code.
RECOMMENDATION/STIPIILATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of special use permit SP #94-07 with the following stipulations:
1.
2.
Variance VAR #94-03 shall be approved.
Two pipe bollards shall be installed at the southeast and
northeast corners of the addition in lieu of the five foot
separation.
y
�
3. The addition shall be painted to match the existing ��
structure.
Q
i�i
�,
SP #94-07
Richard Larsen for Amoco Oil
Page 3
4. Equipment noise shall not exceed the maximum decibels
established in Chapter 124 of the City Code.
5. The outdoor storage of materials adjacent to the north lot
line shall be discontinued.
6. No parking shall be permitted adjacent to the rear of the
building or the addition; and shall be posted "no parking".
7. The dumpster shall be screened from public view.
-- - ---------- i
, --=_�-��--
i0.. .. �4� � '
,.f: .
�
- -���t ... .
. -
:,
,dl
i
�1�. �
,.,o �
; ,a •
G�
�
�
�
V
---------------------- `l
I
• I
�I
_ -� 19B.L/"
,✓Bl� �/a N' :
i : i.
� , �,
�,i
� t
�
SP ��94-07
Amoco Oil Co.
i 9 � `'� �-_.�-•-�-_ �- - - i �-- r`� -.� _ Q �+^_i �a
•�_ L �_ � .-4E�_ _ '•= '_— , --��7 ' —�21
"'•. - � . �� —_ — ' --1—�-C ��
_ `— : _ ,1 �—.
�-- ` ' I--= -��:!
, u� � — j I �r�).�� � — ;;: � i i r — ,—f° i ,, ;
- --1 r'-., �--}- -a �7_��1 �,_1j
R' -� � ` �� 1.:; `:i t"� . _ � :I :+
� �' `�r- --� `�-- -t�1 =� ----I �-- —
� � t` _. �� � �-: ` •f� �''j : : t �
_ �— `.`=—.��.1�' _�� �t_! ;L_A_-1 _� r� :�� ', �_j,
,. --
� - --- -=°-,�---------------------------------- -----
ir sf.Je 7e�.! -----
��V i!l.J� /.=< \� ')!i �. ! 4: ��
—, �---..- � � r:. Y :
�, i i ; , 4% � i � �
�—='--- �—a �
� r---
�Q a� �y � I� �: 2 ) Q ' 175
' -- �---r-- :
r' .- : I � . : , � :`�, . .
�_---1 � �'_��` j : ��,,y '� (n)�a��,�,�: �. ,:�
�� � � � =�j� s l�: ��
' f—�'- �I---- 'i
� Li . .. 7 i: . �S .,s
-+°---J �—=--1. � ` - =
: I : i .; .: a � �: : ryn ; < � �al� � 24
, :rt---
���._� � , a ,��. , �,
; ,:�; — - �: -- � -
+—_—��—_ �2
� �- ��i� z� � �o ���: z�,
j' �8.---� F--'`
I'-1--= '�� ��z1� �` {• : a : . z-
� t ; y � �: ir 1 . - �9 - - - �l, /9
�, r'--- r � � > ,
�� :(.�__��= D : '�n : ! �J ie
' , L-_--� _ �� : r�l = � �. : � �
{� &� 'j �� ° f . !
�o L' : �Q z�� • , � : �_.<.: � � `�- : EA ;, , `
r.o6.e.i- �t: �r :e
� o �-r, ,�: . �d.�..� AVE. �-
- r' �_✓� � c i:
' 'I�y !l0.70•• U0.70 A j: .30.7 /30.7c � � —/_;•
� ' �a��. f�i �a: .ti, .�O � �
�I-=-- ° � n 3�
I i _ • �. ��°. � � 9 � ,y � �� o � �) 7�
�_ , y1i � �+ c � s (
, ;= � Z%�� � ' � � � V�L:
r-
I. 26 � . � �� �o� : E . 4i (g�: Z�
a i° ��,Z
24 I. �i� Z.0 �= � % t 1
. � . = 23 - i . _ � � ` ���Z3.\ 8 ld�a= : �L�)Z.
1 � � ,
iLOCATIQN M�P
�.
,"�
/ '
.
;�1
A UD. SUB.
O I �5 5
SP ��94-07
Amoco Oil Co.
�
�6 ., .�
U
� -
� .� • �. ^ �
��p� ��� 1`
�or �� �I��i tiff r � �v���.S' �
.�� . :r ,� ; ':' ;r�+�4�,1
� .�� � �; � • . �
, �� �` .
, �
�, �� .��, .��, .;�,. c� ,.: �,� .
`�' ' '��
. ��� • �� .
', � � � �I '
►• O��✓ � � ri, , I. , p� _.
-�..��� �� �
a:_. � ;
,
d����0 ���� ��, ;�� _ -�ir�rr�:m.__ ;����
� �;,3�� �► � � .. .
�- e►� � '� � ��� r
���� �� ��, � �i� r�� � e'' ���� � � c�`-
�
A �� �l� � 7.� ,-i t7.��i'�./ ri� �ar. r � �i►�PI"�T;IiT
� �� I� L 1ir: ��l+ Rf�e13� t1A "
_ � . � �� � � • ti,� /Ir� � t
�� �� . �
� ��j� �� ' � PI9 � I � �' �' Myi+� i iy!!� � 'if ; �� • � � �
� � � 0� � _:' � ��4.� �'=�i � � ' ��� � '���'�
. �_
�� .
�� �' • • . - •
� �
000� ; ,�� �
��, � e� � „
1� . � �
•'�.�A � � -�e�
l�l:l�l ��',�� �
� � ��..�
�i � : � '.,.���, ��
� • �.�,�i.
' ��� � �; [�,`i�i
� / , �
� �
� • �� �
s '
,
� • . .�� �
s� � : � ,
:� � . � '
:��.n �
�
� ��
• I�V�
�%1:�:1 ' � ' � � jl
����' ,�' �
�
�
DISTRICT LEGEND
M-� ONE FAYILt DWG'S ❑ y-� LIGHT INOVSTqIqI Q
F-3 TWO FaY1lY DWG'S ❑ M-2 NEAVY INOUSiqIqL �
N-3 CEN. MUITIPLE DWC'S � PUO P�qpNEO UNIT OEV, I::J
N-< MOBILE NOME P4RN ❑ 5-1 NYDE PARK NEIGNBORHOOD ❑
V PUBLIC FAC�UTIES � 5-2 REOEVELOPMENi OISTPICT �°
C-i LOCAL BUS�NESS � O-1 CREEN 8 RIVEN VpESERVATION �
C^I GENEqqL BVSINESS '�p O-2 CHI��CAI 11qEA Q
C-8 GENERAL SHOPPINC �
C'N1 GENEBAt OFFtCE � VACqiEO STREETS �
ZONING MAP
/���-----
„ �
�
I
I
I
�
SP �k94-07
Amoco Oil Co. �
-- — -------=�-B�L=----- � i
_--- r----------�`'
I
---- -,-- �_-, ,
i
�
N
53rd Avenue
_ ;
i
1
1
_ _ �
;
I �
1 �j
1 N
1 '-
1� 1 �
� �
T
L
Q
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
►�
��
It
m
��
�o
I T
I �
I
I
I
I
I
I
_ �_ _ __ - /�
�
T
SITE PLAN
/ \
,�
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing of the
Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431
University Avenue N.E. on Wednesday, June 1, 1994 at 7:30 p.m.
for the purpose of:
Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP
#94-07, by Amoco Oil Company, per Section
205.14.O1.C.(5) of the Fridley City Code, to
allow the expansion of an automobile service
station on Lots 16, 17, 18, and 19, Block 13,
Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville,
generally located at 5311 University Avenue
N.E.
Hearing impaired�persons plannirig to attend who need an
interpreter or other persons with disabilities.who require
auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no
later than May 25, 1994.
Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an
opportunity at the above stated time and place. Any questions
related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community
Development Department at 571-3450.
Publish: May 17, 1994
May 24, 1994
DAVID NEWMAN
CHAIR
PLANNING COMMISSION
SP ��94-07
Amoco Oil Company
Richard Larsen
Amoco Oil Company
5001 West 80th Street
Bloomington, MN 55437
Marlene 0'Donnell
5300 - 4th Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Steven Soderholm
5336 - Sth Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Richard Byers
5300 - Sth Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Merle Otten
5311 - 4th Street N.E.
Fridley, NIN 55421
John Prebarich
10704 - llth Avenue North
Plymouth, MN 55441
Bigos Properties
Ted Bigos
P.O. Box 22464
Robbinsdale, MN 55422
Harold Geiser
5325 Altura Road N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Richard Motter
5357 Altura Road N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Amoco Oil Company
5311 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
S & R Enterprises
Minnesota Petroleum
5333 University Avenue
Fridley, MN 55421
Frances Rodgers
5330 - 5th Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Planning 5/13/94
MAILING LIST Council
Allyn Amundson Michael Jenkins
5301 - 4th Street N.E. 5313 Altura Road N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421 Fridley, MN 55421
Patrick Breitkreutz
5315 - 4th Street N.E.
Fridley, MN� 55421
Resident
5339 - 4th Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 554Z1
Resident Managezi�'
305 - 53rd Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Thomas Commers
5337 Altura Road N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Resident Manager
5291 - 3rd Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Amoco Oil Company
4940 Viking Drive
Minneapolis, MN 55435
Jerome Schurstein
1102 - 43 1/2 Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
James Stevens
5310 - Sth Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Chris Donley
5305 - 4th Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Larry Nelson
5323 - 4th Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
N.E. Duane Schwartz
2525 - 118th Avenue N.W.
Coon Rapids, MN 55433
Planning Comm. Chair
City Council Members
Gerald Baker
5347 Altura Road N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Resident Manager
5261 - 3rd Street N.E.
Fridley, NIN 55421
Richard Rappes/Resident
5370 - 4th Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Homer Melton
5334 - 4th Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Resident
5320 - 4th Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
City of Columbia Heights
590 - 40th Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Richard Kappes
3129 Webster Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Herbert Ledo
5326 - 4th Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Richard Hansen
5310 - 4th Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Thomas Zandlo
5334 - 4th Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
I�ichard Perkovich
1718 East 7th Street
St. Paul, MN 55106
Resident
5347 - 4th Street N.E.
FridYey, MN 55421
��
��
�
�
,�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
'0
(612) 571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SPECIA.L USE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
PROPERTY INFORMATION - site plan required for submittal; see attached
Address:
Pro�rty Identification Number (PIl� "
Legal description: _ �c.r,�e� �
Lot Black Tract/Addition
Current zoning: Square foota.gelacreage
Reason for special use permi� �//�8 I`��O��tiOik�'�i�brLt ��•dr p�
�r�r.g� �"�r,�" i����2 �f�r,�,���Y��ry Code: �?,os:l�-.ol.�.(S �-� a.itibw.
Have you operated a business in a city wluch required a business license? a��M� o�... ��.+-
1,;(er Sev�,tcv
Yes � No If yes, which city? �/2/d f.� 4/ s�►►�-•
ff yes, what type of business? �� /� �/11J�%/yl =
Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No �
FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title)
(Contract
SIGNATURE
Fee Owners must sign this form prior to processing)
YTIlVIE PHONE �i/� .-�l�/6—����
� DATE �
PETITIONER INFORMAT ON
NAME���21U� �/L �'�/f�/i/y
ADDRESS��p/ Go), �D {� �E,��
� �.�p/�?�rrfd-iai+/ , �/' �tt/. .�� I� DAYTIME PHONE �� ��1� iG�� /
Fee: �400.00 $100.00 for residential2nd accessory buildings
Permit SP #_ �'�'-07 Receipt # t 57 0"1
Application received by:
Scheduled Planning Commission date: % �
Scheduled City Council date:
�_a._�a;�i�a��v:.� co;�^-;z��;�rorr ����.,,��T.r�r,, ,�:r1�rP,�L� 2�T��_ - �r;�E 3
IrI� . iTarrie attai:�d t,ha�� if 1rr. S�,ohn's dau�}i�:�r i� pl�nninB �;o bui.ld on th
XUt, h� r,u�;f�estc ihat Uefc�re she ma�:e any plr�nc, she contACt St�ff I�..:mb
Dc�a•1-c:11 Clrrk und i�e call �;ive he•r. t,ll_ -che ��arl;i.ci.Q.r�rs -�hat sY,c must et
befor.e �he can t�ui�d in �his p$rticular arca� and shQ could then p c�ed. �
ifs. Spahn thnnb:ed the C�mmission.
2•SO'1'I4id by Mr. LangenfeZd, �econded by t�ir. Storla, t� clo the public hearing �
sor a request for Special Use Permits SP �7�3-70.
UI'OY q VOICE ��0`1Ty ALL VO'1'IT�TG AYEy CHkIR�I1 ?iARRI�D�C7�!►RID Ti� pU13L IC Ii�AR�G
cLOSt;r� nz 7:4G r .ri. /
2,1r. H<,>.x°xir c�11� �ox discussion.
A3r. 7.�n�enfel�. �-ia�ea �hat he �elt � . S�ahlberg h�,s ta}�en �,ll the nece�sary
steps 'tG n�31cc- cC�y ��.in th2�� '�he � ee cOndi'cions �•�ere met, and other stipulations
�n�de ry �i:� City. I�Jt; �oi_nic�d it th�.t it shoutd Ue s�ressed� as it Y�s�s Ueen iii
�h� ���;st z�h�u SpectaZ Use F ts w�re �r� nted in this �re�, tha t the burden oi
axzy prable�s 1.ies t•rl�h �ri developer, not tih� City.
NOTIOi,T by Mr. I,�n�en ds seconded' by Mr. Or�u3st' �o recommend to City Council,
ap�,roval of °tlie re est for a Special Use Permit, SP ��78-10, by Allen B. Stahlberg,
per �ection 205 r 57, S, D, to a11o�a construction in CPR-2 Zoning (flooc?. �olain) on
I.ots 23, 24, 2, Block U, Kiveriview Heights, the same being $053�RiverTTieca Terrace
V.E. Upon � voice v�te;�-aTl"voting aye; Chairman Harris declared the motion carried
ur�aninous � ' • �
_ ... . �
i•ir.--"�r.x•i.;; sug�e�t�.rd 'tnd[ piY": 'Stahlbe�g contact Dorothy'L;venson 'to find out �ahen tliis
�� � - aPPear on the CounciZ `s agenda.� - -- -- - - � - � � �
2�,� . Stahlberg thanked the Gomtnission.
2. P?T.3 ;IG I�/�RING.• RE9,i]�ST FOR A SPECIIIL USE PERhiITs SP �'j8-Il' BY �b,OCO
�IL CQ2�u�N�'f A DIVISION OF STANDkRD UIL CO�.'1�ANY: Per Section 205.?Ol,
3, E, Ht ta �tllc�w the operazi:on of r� service station with car wash �acilities,
on Lots 1Ei9 �7, 18 and 19, Block Z3, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville,
t�e ssm� being j3L1, University Avenue 1TE. �
Ai0TI0N bu Mr. Oquist, seconded by I�is. Gabel, to opexi t23e puUlic hearing for a
xequest far Special Use Permit, SP �78-11 by l�moco Oil Co��r�r.
itpON �, VQICE V�?�'� AI,L VO�r2rrc AYE; CHAIRhSAI�i EiA�RIS Dr.CLAFi�D THE PUBLIC ��AR1I�G
�'1:N AT 7:50 P .T1.
Chairn�an Harris asked Mr. Le�k to present h:is inforrastion.
0
0
.__-�-- , � -----...... ��, --,�_, _ _....�
Mr. Leek stated th�t arter reviewing this request, the Statf would recommen3
r�pproval o� thia Special Use Permit with the stipulatien i,hat ii and when 1;he
ea�t end oY the property;�aas completed and the a11ey �aas vacated. Amoco Oi].
Company make final improvements at that end of the proper�y. Mr. Leek stated
that he would also like to point out for clarification to the Con�iss3on and
to the pe�itioner a few items Mr. Boardman has discussed with them. They are
aa follows:
a. The building should be aurrourided by a 5 foot concrete apron.
b. On the north end oY the proper�y line, allowances must be made for a
5 foot area of l�ndscaping from the property line� and there should b�
lsndscaping area at the northweatern corner oP the property.
N�r. Leek pointed ou�t �ha� the area sround the bvildin� can be either poure3
concrete, or concrete with �aood chips, and the landsc�pe area to th� nor�ch
should be sodded.
Chairman Harris asked. $hat the representative of the petitioaer step fortaard.
Mr. Aarlan McGregor af the Amoco Oil Compar�y came forward.
Mr. McGregar asked. ior clarification of whs�t Mr. Leek m�ant by iinal iraprovemen�s
if '�he �lley Was vacated.
TZr. Leek statc-3 that �hey �an curbing of so�z sort c+r a�inal separa��on froa�
the gdjacent property by fencin� or other me�ns.
^ l�x. r.�Cregor �sked if itwas ant:Icip�teri �that this elleyc,�auld b:e. vNc.�ted?���,
��
Mr. L�ek s�ta�ted ichai; i�t was .�ot anticip�ted at this �ime.
Mr. Leek stated �tha•i the trash pick-up location w�s not detailed on the ��te
pla� and wo�a].d like verification of where the �rash pick-up loca'�ion �ould be
and hoz�i' they intende� , r4� ; screen it . �
�Ir. PdeGregOr ststec7 th3't i't .was presently on the nortl� side .of the buildin ,
and was.Uoard on board cedar, Yaut would�proUably bc re�ocated to the rear o� th�
building.
Mr. Leek gave th� Comnission copies of the site plaz��� for tlleir reviet,�.
A.r. Harris �sked if it was correct that ��:oco had a facility tl�er� now. �"
N,r. McGrcgor stat�l that that ��t�as correct. . .
N,`r. A1cGre�or asked wl�y th� iii►e ioat apran '<<*as required around the back.
Ms. Gabel s�ated th&t thiscs.�s a zonii� reauirement.
Mr. Harris �tated 'thRt this ZJus required in order to protect tlie building, to.
keep a]1 vehicular traffic �way from the buildir.{;. Mr. Harris rei�.er�ted thst
this was a part of the 'Loning Ordinance. �
e..�_..._...�.+..� �.._ ___ _ __ � _ _ I - ' 1 Y '�'I 1 /
0
i�-. I,r:rria ��l:eci ii tticy would expand �.he gara�e �acilil;y� or i:P this caas a
r�e;�� c�,i• wash operation.
I�lr. A'.cGxc;;or ata�cd it `=ou1.d be a cta17. uddi�ion to allo��r Pox �:he car wach. �
Mr. H�rris sv�;gestcd �;hat Mr. A�cGr��er check with the f��e m�rshull re��rdinv
the underground stor�ee tanks. 2•:r. Ii�rri3 stAterl tha� since the� trill bP
ctr3v3n� lane�, they r�a3� have to be cavered with concrete.
I�'!r. Oc�uist asl�ed wh;�t �he liours for thE st�.�tion caould be?
1��ir. trcGregar E'�.fRl•EG� 't�lti'� tiri�h tl�e new I�linn�sota Fr�:iachise Latrr E�.moco cnnno�t
dict�f:e laaars. This ��rill be decided b�► the �pera�COr of the s�t��i�n.
Afr. Langenf�ld as�eti ty�t . Leek if' the Staff l�a� ttrzslyzed tile incr�aced. �ra�'�ic
Plop,� to see if �this ��;c�uld be a hazard �to the gen�rAl �el�are.
i�Iz�. L�ek state� t�h�t ��arr�,al stur�y �ad not U�en m�de.
i�fr. L�n�enfe3.d aske3 if they could Assua�e �hat �he houx�s would continue the
s��� as now.
I�'b�°. BscGregor sta�ed th�t �he statiOn raas _now closed, and a new operator
would be taking over. The new operator would determine the hours.
I�x. fiFari•is stated. that the Commission aould make a stipulatiori �ori "the �peciai
Use Permi.�t regordsr� haurs . �
��. Gabel stated that wnless the hours have an impact on a res�den�_ial
nei�hborhood9 she wovld hesi�aice to do iic. •
P3r. Leek said'that there would he stin».lations for the propert-� at �333 University
Avenue cahen that propertX was reopened. He said the sion company had withdra�,m
their req,ue�t, but the City had otner inquiries on that property.
NIr. L�ek sta�ed, that R rear fence would be required on this property, and the
stipulations �aere the same that they had asked for at the time they approved the sign
company.
Mr. Anrris stated th�t the Zoning Cale requixes a pY�qsical separa�ien betwetn
cv��rcia,7, and res�d�ntial are�s.
rfr. Oqui�t ata�c-3 tbt�� �;he alley ��as the ph}=sical separation at this time. IrThen
the alley�as vacaLed; iencin�;<<�ould be required aL- tl�at time,
Ms. Gabel asked if there would be anything stored iu the rear tha't should be
fenced .
Mr. McGregor stated that nothing will be stored. Th� trash pick-up locr�tion
will be there And wi11 be enclosed. No equipment or an�ything else would be
�torerl outside.
r"�
YLANIJlf�+(; (;Ut;t��1.;�.�lUiJ I•���;GTIP]G, `.�LJ'TEI�I3ER 27� l.q'jB - PAGF i>
Mr. Iit�xrin �tt�ied tht�� he w�zs concerned about- the car wali ol�eratinf, 24 hour ,
� d�,V� bee�u�;� iche resi.dents in the rear �would tlicn he affectecl_by lighl-s and
/"'\ noi�e Pr•om the cars. 1•ir. ii�zrris stated tbAt he Would li�� to see i:he facili'cy
clased bet��een i;he rours oi 14 p.m. ar�d 7 a,m.
Ms. Gabel asiced if- Mr. Hzrris mcant the entire �aei].ity} or just the car waah.
Mr. Iitzrrie stated tha•t because the existing faca.li�ty was grandi'r��CherPd in, i�i
would be dif�'icult �co ircpose restrictians at �his po•Lnt. Lut 'che car �r$sh ."caas
r� differeni; rcatter.
N�. ?�cGr��ar s•Va�ed �h�t h� cou.�d un:3ezst�nd th� n�.�h� Z1b:ia.lrE{�lOi?y but askecl
the Con�issian to reconsidcr the morrxing limita'�ion. fie �rould l:i.kc ta see it
op�n �nt 6 a. m, ins�;er�d of 7 a.. m.
Mz°. �iQrris �gre�-d..
A.� . G�bel siw��Ced tha � she didn' � li�Ce to see hour J.imi �ations plac�d. an a
busine�s, bu'c because of the ef�'ect �n resi.dents �n the rear, it��ras unique.
Ms. Gabe]. atated tha�t �here was a bi� problem with the property next dobr�
5333, a� one �ime because of �he noise at night Fraaa trucks and caY•s.
I�. Leek sta�ed th�t there �as the option of the petitioner providing screening
a].ong the back of the lot to prevent th� problem of 13ghts. •
�'ir. HFtrris agreed .
� Mr. Harris stated that if the petitione� wi.shed a 2�+ hour oper��ioa of -�he
car wash, the Gity would be �ailling to lo�k at scrtening. �
MCYl'ION by Afr. L�ngenield, s�conded by Mr. Qe}ui.st, to close the pubtic hearirx�
for a reques� ior Special Use Pe�nit, SP #78-11 by Amoco Oil Co�par�y. .
UPO:d A VOIGE VOTE� ALI, VOTING �lYE� CHAIRtdAAN HARRIS �E CLARED TI� 1�UBL IC HEAR 7NG
CLOSED AT 8:23 P.M. ° -
MOT IDN by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by P1r. Oquist, to recommend to Council
approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP �78-11, by Amoco Oil
Company, a Division of. Standard Oil Company, per Section 205.101, 3(E.H.)
to allow the operation of a service station with car wash facilities on Lots
16, 17, 18 and 19, Blocl; 13, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, the,same
being 5311 University Avenue N.E. �aith the following stipulations:
A• :Ln t;he event tZie Allcy i� vacai;e�� f3na1 3mprove��ents be w�de.
B. The Ut�tl,ding be surroun�ed by a 5 fo�� concrete apron.
C. On the north end, a 5 foot allo�,rnnce tor landscapin� from i;se property
line, and i.n �he northzaes-tern corner of the lot th�re shoulci be so�.
D. Th� car wash is not to b� conclucted Ue�ween the i�ours of 10 p.m. and
6 r�.m.
E. Screening wiXl be provided. along the br�ck or east aide oi the
in lieu or clos3n; between the hours o� 10 Ploper�y,
p.m. r�nd 6-n.m.
a
Le11�N 7��'C COt�L�il ;S 7�N '�11;1'sT 7NC, SI:P•rrr�r�,R 27, ].978 - Pa�e 7
1�1'ON !1 VOIGT VOT, ALL VOT1t�G AYE, C}il1Jk�Il:i� 11�1RPll) ULCL�IZED '1'lIl: rIOTTON CAP.RIL'D �'
UIQAI�I 7�:OUSLY.
l�r. I1a�:r:is said thi.s would appear on the October 16th Council Agenda. He aslced
�1r. Leck to natify Amoco Oil Company if there was a change i.n this.
Chairman Harris declared a recess at 8:35 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 8:50
p.m. ,
3. CONTIIS't1ED: trFi�:CRllIlDtl�� OF l�GRF�iFiEPJT
Mt�T:I(?I�1 by ASr. Stc*_�1�9 recc��i�ed by t4r. Oquist, to continuc �he N�moran.di:m of
Agreem�nt until the Hur�QU R�sourees Cammission formvlal;ea a�ys'cem to process
char�es.
i�'is. Gab�1 st�iced tht�t she wc�uld I.iYe �o �sk � a few quEStions.
Ns. G8%�1 �zsked i� �Chere is a�y �:�y '�n�y ��� Prej�ct the number of charges
pe� �°ear.
h'�. S�orla sta,�:c�d that Coon Rapids has not had a�y comple�;ed char�es in tre
y��x �ha'L' they ha�ve had this.
IKs. G��e? �eke%�. �.cxc� �.on� it takes to re�olve � co�pl�.i�t.
AZr. St;or�.a s�ated that in the ?�innesota Human P3�hi:s Dep�r�:,r�en�i, it tak�s
].8 mo��i•chs �or i.he ���ur�;�;�n�L td �;ef, to �h� ca�ipl^�i�a� on iche sv�rt��e. lfx. Storla
Ft�tcd thai: he has no s�;�tiistics as to ho�r �.ong it icskc:s after th�y ge� ta �.t.
t�c. Lengenfeld asked ii the hiemorer,.�um rEfers to ar�y special �roup of peaple.
I�r. Storla stated �hat i�; dc�es not.
1✓s. Gab�l. referred �o page 10, par�grapu 1, regarding a member of t;he Human
Resaul•ce� fIuman Rights Commission acting as a representati�;e for the charging
paricy• Ms. Gabel qu�s�ioned how the Commission will se].ect the represen4ativ�.
Mr. Storla stated �that -che Commission has not yei� discussed this.
I�s. Gebel �:s�ed wh��t th� legAl rar�ifica�ions of havir� a Co:inission nember as
a re�resenta'tiv�.
Mr. Storla stated. thtit th� State Human Righ�s Depar�tment is liable for the .
�,c�ians oi the represen-tative, not �the Fridley Human Rights Commission. Mr.
Storia further sta�ed that the State gives our ComMission the option to
become their in-t�l�e officer and to try to concil.iate the problem, or to solve
i.t. If we cannot solve the probl.em, we still have been the in-take officer,
s,nd give them a copy of iche forms, and they will 1:hen handle it.
,--.
�
�-,
. i
REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 1978
PAGE 3
I Mr. Sampson pointed out, if the building was not constructed, the rest
�\ � facilities would be constructed near this locatio�. He stated, in eit
� event, whether they do or do �ot construct a building, he sees a need
; for the sewer and water. �
i�\
/"'\,
i
�
i
}
i
E
t. .
/�!
�LJ✓
�
Councilman Schneider felt eventually sewer and water would be need�£i and
it would probably be more costly to do it at a future date. /
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to authorize staff to enter in negotiations
with the City of Coon Rapids to supply sewer and tivater servi e for the
Springbrook Nature Center. Seconded by Counailman Fitzpatr ck.
Mayor Nee explained this motion does not order the imp
staff to contact the City of Coon Rapids regarding con
and water system. /
UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, all
declared the motion carried unanimously.
ent, but authorizes
ons to their sewer
aye, and Mayor Nee
hiEETING OF SEPTEMBER 27
BE STAHLBERG, SP �78-10, 8053 RyUERVIEW TERRACE:
Mr. Sobiech, Public 4dorks Director, sta ed this is a request for a special
use permit to allov� construction of a ingle family dwelling in the flood
plain area on the southeast quadrant of Riverviev� Terrace and Fairmont
Street. •
Mr. Sobiech stated basic requir nts must be met for the request to be
considered for approval. The must be no negative comments from the De-
partment of Natural Resource , the structure must be constructed relative
to the flood plain so as to provide protection; and 15 feet on all sides
of the building must be a ve the flood plain level. Mr. Sobiech stated,
as far as the City is co cerned, all the requirements for the specia] use
permit have been satis ed.. Mr..Sobiech stated the Planning Commission
did hold a public he ing on this request and have reco�nended approval.
Councilman Fitzpa ick questioned if this request covered Lots 23, 24, 25
and 26. He poin d out that the Council's information did not include
Lot •26.
Mr. Sobiech tated the original request did include all four lots, 23,
24, 25 and. 6; therefore, he explained this must be a typing error as
the publ' hearing notice included all the lots.
�40TI0 by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recort�nendation of the
Plan ing Commission and grant SP �78-10. Seconded by Councilman Namernik.
Up a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried
animously. .
AMOCO OIL CONIPANY, SP �78-11, 5311 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.:
(Hr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated this is a requzst for a special
use permit to allov� construction of a car wash addition to an existing
service station at 53rd and University Avenues.
Mr. Sobiech stated the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
request and recommended approval with certain stipulations, as nated on
�. Page 2E of the agenda book. Mr. Sobiech stated the alley that presently
exists to the east of this property is now unimproved. He stated one of
the stipulations recommended by the Planning Commission was, in the event
' the alley was improved, that the petitioner agree to pay their fair share
of the improvement or, if the alley was vacated in the future, t'o provide
the proper setbacks. Mr. Sobiech then reviewed the other stipulations
recommended by the Planning Cortmission. He pointed out so� landscaping
improvements have been made on the south and west sides of the property
and suggested another stipulation be added to cover maintenanc.e of the
2� ::�
1,.�.
�,��
REGUL/�R NLI:T1(JG 0; OCTQ3ER 23, 1�18
1 andscapi n�7.
PAfE h
Cauncilmai� f�itzEiaLric4; felt Lhere sheuld be screening to the easi:, regard-
less of the hr�urs of operation. He n�te� ��h� pel:itiorier for �Che special
use permit is Standard Oi1, but the liours of c;peration ��r�uld depend on the
lessee. He stated hp was co�icerned becuuse this pro�erty abuts a resident�ial
area to thc cast and �s not sure at this point, �;fiat Lhe procec;ure ti•rould
be for discussing the hours of operation.
Mr. PicGrec�or, re{�resenting Standarci Oil Cot��pany, stated they agreed, 9f
the ho���s o!' o},eration cn ihe car arash extended Fast 1C p.m., t!�ey a:culd
put,up a fenr.e. He pointed out: since the Mir�nesoi:a Franchise Larr has
come into effect; th�y can't er.ercise Lhe contr•ol over the hours or" op�ration
t1r. Herrick, City Attor�ey, stated, if the Council appruves the special
use pera�it it cot�ld be contingert or. certain hou-rs of operntion �nd r:ould
apply to the lessee. H� stated, in tliis �,ray, tl7e City would er.�rcise control
�vet- the h�urs of operatiun.
Councilman Fitzpatrick felt the 6 a.m. opening tiras too early and should
be later.
MOTION by C:�unciln;an Fitzpztrick to concur wi1:h the reconm�ndation of t.he
Planning Cor:�issicn and grant SP ,'-,`74-11, with the follo�ving sti�ulaiicrs:
l.
�� 2.
3.
4
In the event the alley is vacated, or impro�ed, final irr:�rovcr:ents
be rr.adE.
The buildiny be surrounded by a 5 foo•t concrete apron.
On the north e:id, a 5 foot al loti�rarce for landscapi►;g frnm the .— '-
property line, and in the north1aestern corner of the lot th�:re
shoul d b� sod. • �-� ,
The ca; ��rash is not to be conductEd bet��aeen the hours of lU p.r.i.�
and 7 a.m. • ,,.�
5. Screening will be provided along the back or easi side of the, .
prop2rty. ` r,�'
6. Tlipre shall b2 cor.�i�ued Maint�nance af the existing anc� any
a�ditiona] la;�dscaping. �-- •• ' -
Seconded �y Councilman earnc:tie. Jpon a voice vote, a77 voting ayc, t�!aior
Pdee declared ihe n*�iion car►•ied unanin,ously.
REVIEIJ Qr SIGfV ORDIt�ANCE {FRE[ STAP�DIN6 SIGNS)_
Mr. Dick Narris, Chairman �f Lhe Planning Cummission, appeared b�fore t
Council reg:�rding clarification of the Council's vr sF�es on revievr cf ee
standing signs.
Councilman Schneider stated it rras not his intent to have Planning
Co�ission revievr the entire Sign Ordinance. He pointe ut there i�ave
been a number of variance requesLS for fi•ee standing gns ar.d Iie �elt the
Commi�sion sho��ld take a look. at this area possib to consider some fr�rmula
based on the size of the building and setback o� the main thoroughfare.
Councilman Schneid�r stated he had no p� icular fe rniula in mind, but there
might be soma reasanable r:ay of dete .,�ning the size of.a siyn by com-
parison vritl� the size of the buil n� and distance frUm the major ti�orough-
fare.
Mr. Harris felt possibl� hey might cansider a similar type of formula
ihey have for vrall ' ns, bu± sLill keep the variance procedure.
Councilman Ha nik pointed out the City has had people saying certain signs
are stand signs used in other arnas and yet they didn't mee± the City
Code. .
. Jim Stafford of Signcrafters Signs stated he felt Frid]ey is probably
i
Is
i
,
.;
i '
�
j
�
i.
� , j!
� {
i �
•i
�
�
�
�
�
:� ��
. �
r A V f�
� _� '
�'� �. �� � � .
�_.. ......... .� _t`;, .,..
�rv . _,
�::;:-' .
��' '.
� .�
� �
� _. �\ �
3_ ,, a
� `"�•F �•+' �T+ k rr � �'';
� ,� a `�;�,��i� � n � � er � •��. ,., I� ., i
"a��as� ;1 ' '
L ��
. . . . . . _ . 'pj��p � ,
! F �' 9 P K F����
1` F r�� '�'i-{k q� �' �ZA'T �
Y
a{ — � �
.T' }R ._ . .� -�3iC'It° .' I.. �. . . ,..�.V .� -aw.'^Ct�:
� y �.
/
. �
� r ��_ ar.s w� ,� y -4 4 �,. � :3' � ��-c °°,w�zz �� .� t � ,�
_ �r � . � =a-z .w� , _ u > � ' �,r �f �:.- �. .. ° .�� �
� S ,» � ,�`��t�.t'r .'h�i��:3. �s r' 7e`, ? �: r ,! z°• �r . tn�:
� ,� � �� � �� '�*�, �c ��.� * � � a�. � a "e � � � -.� �,f � , _ ,F,� �, �� - -k' �'�,., � , '��,�i
4� v*� y"6 x��� 3a.E'•..-5+ -$ i �-- '�` a �' & �� - i r A, z� � :'�i�
� : ""�t.� :, i��y ,� � � ,� "� L �*V� Y '�`°F �.a�. "�i �'S. � � ��''�` t'
zi'��. � Eu,� . } q 'w �.: i„'+.*i'y�r 'S�-r� � �a�'�� . _ "t',�Y" g F.,r� . t � �� .�' s-�' �'�` . �
' �# � � � �' � � w� �� l. � r3' #:e,� �'�c.-r � r�ar,� ..- . � a . "' �� �" � �� �� . r.ir ,�-+ � �` �'" ^� ��u�� ,.
� ? { �c 2 j��r�"5 " L �r . i . A' i+ , ��` d ���.�7-
& n a � � e a �=. � x v ei ,�, s� .. �,u�" x�r e;��.
•� '�� '� J ?4`,�', s'� ' . � i � . '�`i'''�-• _, £ �� �, �r �� i* i �-"�s- g �#`e
"5 i. � . . . � i - � � "`s' 'a�``� t��� j ,�.^�� �� _ .
_ � _ � N �G'-'��' _ .x ��,r � ,y,�
- _ �.. . 7 �'. P�. �� �,..
�? �3v S �i
_ _ " � � .a ,t. � '"� Y ' _ r -� -v�` ,
* �� t 5�3r±� A�renue - � °�Y �� r - ��
I �� -�' : � - � �{ -
� y 4 T N. ': ,y' � j _ _ - _
g ps�, ,m� "'' y� Y'�+YB '� . �'3' 'E° . .
' w ' `�". �; . S ` t � � � �t � ,��`' � �� . �" � _
� #�
� �'a x 4 ` " : 3�,s' �,�, � �, _ -a _ i'
� � � � � � � �` '�w. � '�i��_ r=T ��"''�� �"
� I� ` :$ � �"X . �� � .�'��" � i��� �.� � z;
( � �� � � :, 7 ��
+t, � a ` - sL :-�= 4,i i ` z � . � x �.'
"z��� � � � � �S .`• .�. z. { '�� ,�` x � '� � `.t 4`v3� ,�d,
iR �� �.,. �^:t�� ��k,,;� 'v,��'+k� � � ; � _ �..� _ w .M- :-1
� Ftk+ �'� r � ' � ' s � �
� ,�F �.�m��.� .. .�. "s+;i� te , .. .:��.�k+� �i'�.' . '�i�'_� frr�. � ;r'`. "� t+'7 i� fr a ;t!",� �t
�;s.."� . - r -_ �`'a��`' t ... R., . ��� � � r�„y� ��a,��
�
�
/ • / ,• . • ' •,