Loading...
PL 06/06/2001 - 00009177CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JUNE 6, 2001 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the June 6, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Barbara Johns, Dave Kondrick, Leroy Oquist, Larry Kuechle Members Absent: Connie Modig, Dean Saba Others Present: Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator Stacy Bulthuis, Planner Bobby and Cathryn Taylor, 401 Ironton St. Karen Marty, 5601 Minnesota Dr, Suite 880, Bloomington, MN, 55435 Scott and Marie St. Arnold, 350 Ironton St Rick Wolfe, 960 Hathaway Lane Harriet and Jim Skarie, 3504 Larchwood Dr, Minnetonka, MN, 55345 APPROVE THE MAY 16, 2001, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to approve the May 16, 2001, Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #01-05, by Richard and Laura Wolfe, for a second accessory structure (garage), generally located at 960 Hathaway Lane. MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:32 P.M. Ms. Bulthuis stated that the petitioners are requesting a special use permit to construct a 600 square foot accessory building. The Code requires a special use permit to allow an accessory building other than the first accessory building over 240 square feet. The Code also requires that the total square footage of an accessory structure not exceed 1,400 square feet. The total square footage of existing and proposed accessory structures on this site would be 1,040 square feet. The proposed location of the garage is in the rear yard of the residence. Staff recommends approval with stipulations. Ms. Savage asked if any calls were received regarding this request. Ms. Bulthuis stated, no. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JUNE 6. 2001 PAGE 2 Mr. Rick Wolfe, petitioner, stated that the same color of the house is not stocked anymore, but he has found a similar compatible color that is almost exact, but slightly darker. Ms. Johns asked if the proposed garage would go right on top of the slab shown on the picture or further back. Mr. Wolfe stated that it would go right on top of it. His back yard is very long so it does not infringe on any easements. There is plenty of room. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:36 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated that he did not have any problem with this request. Ms. Johns stated she did not either. Mr. Wolfe stated this was an easy process. Is there ever a chance the Planning Commission could give the knowledgeable City staff the power over these decisions that are pretty routine and simple? Ms. Savage stated that the whole structure provided by Statute or ordinance would have to be changed. Mr. Bolin stated that a second accessory building over 240 square feet by zoning code is required to go through a special use permit process. The cases where the second garage would not fit due to lot size or surrounding uses gives the City discretion to place additional stipulations to make the garage more compatible. A majority of the structures do make sense, but there are a few cases with problems like putting in a second driveway. This way the stipulations can be put on there. It is possible to change the zoning code to take the second accessory structures out of the uses allowed with a special use permit and make them a permitted use with conditions that need to be met. The City Council would have to take the initiative to instruct staff to change that portion of the zoning code. Ms. Johns stated that it is also good for the neighbors to be able to come in and give their opinion on these requests. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve SP #01-05 with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall install Code required hard surface driveway within 12 months of issuance of the building permit. 2. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction. 3. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation or living area. 4. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface as approved by the City. 5. The total square footage of all accessory structures must not exceed 1,400 square feet. 6. The garage shall be architecturally compatible with existing home and finished with a complementary siding and color scheme. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JUNE 6. 2001 Ms. Savage stated that this matter goes to City Council on June 18. PAGE 3 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Vacation, SAV #01-05, by Harriet Skarie, to vacate a portion of Third Street, generally located at 5451 5th Street. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Johns, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:37 P.M. Ms. Bulthuis stated that the petitioner is seeking to vacate a portion of 3�d Street which is adjacent to 5th Street and north of the apartments at 5451 5th Street. This portion of street is an unimproved right-of-way and is not used by the general public. A vacation request to vacate the same portion of street was submitted in 1972. At that time, City Public Works staff did not recommend vacating it in case it was ever utilized again. Since that time, all connections to that street have been vacated and there is no longer a reason to keep the entire right-of-way. The proposed vacation is south of I-694 and, if granted, the petitioner would gain the 29 ft. x 302 ft. piece of land, correcting a nonconformity for the 5-foot setback needed for the existing garages. There are no underground utilities, and the northerly five feet of this property shall be dedicated to the City as an easement. There is a water main north of the property, and this easement is needed for access purposes. Staff recommends approval. Ms. Savage asked if any calls have been received. Ms. Bulthuis stated she has not received any. Ms. Skarie, petitioner, stated she is in a family partnership in ownership of this property. She has concern about the second stipulation referring to the cell tower. They had negotiated to place the cell tower back from the garage, because they would lose parking spaces. The cars park along the whole strip by the grass right now; and if the cell tower came in, it would take that grassy area. The area by 3�d Street tends to be a place where kids come back and play with dirt bikes and some people actually throw washers and dryers back there. They are thinking of putting in chain link fencing to discourage the dumping and graffiti on the garages. In constructing the cell tower, the equipment used may destroy part of the parking space. Mr. Bolin stated this stipulation came from the Planning and Public Works staff. The petitioners are required to have a paved driveway to the cell tower for maintenance purposes. The City does not like to see any more hard surface area than necessary in Fridley. There is a paved drive there already. There would be less impervious surface utilizing what is already there. There are concerns with plowing snow around the corner and the plows would be constantly blocking the access drive into the cell tower site. Mr. Kuechle asked if the property owners would lease the site for the cell tower? Mr. Bolin stated this site is an approved cell tower site identified by the City in 1997. Mr. Kuechle asked Ms. Skarie if she had the prerogative of not letting the cell tower there. Ms. Skarie stated, yes. Mr. Bolin stated that during the construction, the City Engineers probably would not have a problem with equipment going across the grassy portion of 3�d Street. They could come out PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JUNE 6. 2001 PAGE 4 once a week or so to work on the cell tower, and staff would rather have them utilize the area you have. Ms. Skarie stated they even thought about asking the City for permission for more parking spots because they are short of spots right now. They are not allowed to park on the street, and it makes it hard in the winter. If they are not going to put a driveway in the back, they may need to take out the grassy area to be used for more parking space. Mr. Bolin stated that Ms. Skarie would need to work with the Engineering staff regarding that. Mr. Kuechle asked where the cell tower driveway is proposed to go through. Mr. Skarie stated that the cell tower would be by the east parking entrance on the north side. Ms. Skarie stated that if this is vacated, half of the property would go to MnDOT and they would get 15 feet of it. Mr. Skarie stated that five feet of it would have to go to the City. Mr. Bolin stated they would need a five-foot easement. If MnDOT holds on to the property, that would probably not be a problem. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:55 P.M. Mr. Kuechle stated that this is legitimately straightforward and probably will not become a street so they may as well get it maintained. The cell tower driveway is hard to figure out exactly what to do with. Mr. Kondrick stated that he does not know how that would work out either. Mr. Oquist stated that 15 feet were indicated, but it states it is 29.69 feet on the survey map. Mr. Bolin stated they are only getting 15 feet of the 29.69 feet. MnDOT would obtain the other half. Ms. Johns asked if staff indicated that driving on that grassy area would be approved for construction of the cell tower. Mr. Bolin stated that is correct. Mr. Oquist stated there is the problem of cars being parked back there on parking spots for the people to access that area for construction. Mr. Bolin stated that MnDOT would give 15 feet to the petitioner. Mr. Oquist stated that there would be about 30 feet. Mr. Skarie stated that just because MnDOT owns the other half now, to vacate it they have to give them the half and they give it back. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JUNE 6. 2001 PAGE 5 Mr. Oquist asked if City Council would have to approve the cell tower going up in that area. Mr. Bolin stated it is a matter of coming in for a building permit which would stipulate that it needs to be built on an asphalt area, a requirement in the zoning code. Mr. Kuechle asked if they left it out entirely, they would still have to put in a hard surface driveway. The only thing is they are taking away the option of expanding the parking lot behind the building and using that as an access to the cell tower. Mr. Bolin stated that the City requires a 25-foot drive aisle for two-way traffic, and it may not be possible to get any parking stalls behind the existing garage. Mr. Kuechle stated that they could put them in line giving them a nine foot width. Mr. Bolin stated that they need to keep it five feet back from the property line; and, even for one- way traffic, they need an 18-foot drive aisle. There is not a possibility for parking behind the garage. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend approval of SAV #01-05 with the following stipulations: 1. A utility easement on the northern 5 feet of this property be dedicated back to the City. 2. Access to a future cell tower needs to be through the existing driveway and parking lot area. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Savage stated this would go to City Council on June 18. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Rezoning, ZOA #01-02, by Bobby Taylor, to change a dwelling from single family to a multiple family dwelling, generally located at 401 Ironton Street. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:15 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated that the petitioner is requesting a rezoning of this property from R-1, single family, to R-3, multi-family to accommodate the number of units and density with the desire to operate the property as a rental sober house. The lot was platted in 1966. In 1976, Norma Willson obtained a special use permit, #76-08, which at that time made provisions for a single family residence to be modified to allow a second dwelling unit. That section of City Code was removed shortly after that time. In 1999, the City became aware the property had been converted into three distinct units and two sleeping units in the basement. None of the renovations over the years had been done with any building, electrical permits, or plumbing permits. In September 1999, Ms. Willson was asked to give the tenants notice and have all but the two units that were approved vacated. In November 1999, Ms. Willson applied for an R-3 rezoning. The City inspected the building and found the home in serious disrepair and in non- compliance with building, electrical, and fire codes. The property owner was instructed to vacate all tenants. After inspection, many structural problems and electrical and plumbing problems were reviewed, and Ms. Willson withdrew her rezoning request. In February 2000, City Council revoked the rental license and Ms. Willson failed to meet the requirements by the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JUNE 6. 2001 PAGE 6 May deadline. City Council revoked the special use permit that allowed the second dwelling. The property was then reverted back to its original status as a single family dwelling. Mr. Bolin stated that in March 2001, Mr. Taylor, the new owner of the home, contacted the City requesting inspection of the property in order to obtain a rental license. At that time, staff inspected the home and informed Mr. Taylor that the property was zoned R-1 for single family use only. When staff inspected the home, it had undergone major remodeling without the benefit of any permits. There were three distinct units with 9-11 people living on this site. Mr. Taylor was informed that he had an illegal rental and must reduce the number of persons living in the home to five in order to comply with the City's R-1 requirements. Mr. Bolin stated that without the benefit of property inspections, staff was unable to determine the soundness of the home, quality of the plumbing work, and safety of the electrical work. In May 2001, Mr. Taylor submitted this rezoning application. The copy of the inspection sheet states that no permits were pulled on this property from 1977 on with the exception of Ms. Willson pulling two permits to install egress windows in the basement. Mr. Bolin stated rezoning is discretionary on the part of the City. The consideration of health, safety, and welfare concerns reflect that this is not adequate to allow many units. The request fails to meet the criteria the City uses to evaluate a rezoning of property. The first criteria is the compatibility of the use with the comprehensive plan. Nowhere in the plan does the City mention expanding the R-3 zoning into this neighborhood. The granting of this request would be inconsistent with the City's overall vision of the neighborhood. Mr. Bolin stated compatibility with adjacent uses is not appropriate, because this is not allowed by the R-1 zoning standards and could change the character with increased density and increased traffic. Parking would not meet the R-3 requirements, and creating a new parking lot would alter the look and feel of the neighborhood. This request would allow current and future property owners the ability to remove the single family home that currently exists and replace it with a 3 unit apartment building. Mr. Bolin stated compliance of the proposed use with the proposed district requirements is the third criteria. This does not meet the setback requirement for the R-3 zoning. A total of six parking stalls would need to be provided on site. A conversion of this property would require a landscape plan typical for the R-3 district. Mr. Bolin stated staff recommends denial with many concerns of the health, safety, and welfare not properly addressed. Mr. Taylor has not applied for the appropriate permits and this is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan. It would increase neighborhood density beyond the R-1 standards. The creation of a required parking lot would change the residential character of this neighborhood. There are two duplexes to the west of Mr. Taylor's property zoned R-3, but they are very residential in character. There is a four-plex to the south somewhat residential in character. Ms. Savage asked about the other duplexes. Mr. Bolin stated that they are actually in R-3 zoning. They have been zoned R-3 for a number of years. A duplex is an allowable use in the R-3 district. Ms. Savage asked how that cluster got there. Mr. Bolin stated that it is not uncommon to put some high residential as a buffer between a main thoroughfare and R-1 single family. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JUNE 6. 2001 Ms. Savage asked if he received any call regarding this. PAGE 7 Mr. Bolin stated he received six calls from the neighborhood all opposed to this rezoning. Mr. Oquist asked if the stipulation could be added that a variance is required if this is approved. The side yard setback is not within the code. Mr. Bolin stated they could add that. Mr. Kuechle asked if the 1976 special use permit philosophy was known under what venue it was permitted. Mr. Bolin stated that the intent was to allow a mother-in-law type apartment. There were no stipulations placed on that approval other than one rental unit within the home. Mr. Kuechle asked if there were any others like that. Mr. Bolin stated that was the only one he had come across. The petitioner, Cathryn Taylor, stated they were unaware that this was not a rental. When they brought this property, the realtors informed them it was a duplex, that it would need to be repaired, and then they could apply for rental license. The building has two separate entrances and two separate kitchens. They purchased it in November of 2000. They bought the property for sober housing rental. They had an appraisal done on April 10 where it lists on the title that it is zoned R-2. The appraiser stated she got the information from the City of Fridley. Ms. Taylor stated they didn't find out it was not zoned properly until Mr. Taylor called for an inspection. They have spent quite a bit of money updating this house and, had they known it was not zoned properly, they would not have spent this kind of money. They thought they could just fix this place up themselves. The residents living here are working and paying rent. It is a support community for people trying to get on their feet. She and her husband manage the property and check it every night. This is a community service, and they have been commended on their ability to provide this community service. This is not temporary housing, and there will not be an influx of different residents. The current residents are very careful and comfortable there. They brought letters of recommendation from former neighbors to explain that they provide a good service. They are willing to do anything the City requests and will cooperate fully. Their personal residence is only one block away. Mr. Kondrick asked how many people they expect to live there. Ms. Taylor stated that they would like thirteen people to be able to reside there paying rent. Mr. Oquist asked what the R-2 zoning was for. Mr. Bolin stated that R-2 is for two family dwellings with up to ten unrelated persons. Mr. Oquist stated this was appraised wrong. Mr. Bolin stated that is correct. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to receive the letters of recommendation submitted by Ms. Taylor. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JUNE 6. 2001 PAGE 8 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Karen Marty, attorney representing the Taylors, stated that the history is irrelevant and unrelated to how a normal property should be reviewed for a duplex. Ms. Savage stated that it seemed to her that they wanted to use this for a more than a duplex. Ms. Marty stated they bought it as a duplex and, in remodeling, they discovered it had more units. They left the rooms in the basement and fixed them up. They will take them down if that is what you desire. The comprehensive plan would be very unusual to include a specific plan for one lot. Usually it is a broad line picture for what you want for the City. This would be an incredible waste of money and public service opportunity to deter the Taylor's request. Marie and Scott St. Arnold, 350 Ironton Street, stated this issue is still a very sore spot for them since last year. They both have worked very hard appearing at all meetings regarding this property. At the last Council meeting regarding this, they were assured that this property would never be anything but a single family property. They have done a lot of work on their property and would like to keep their value up, too. They have a child and do not need extra traffic or commercial buildings. Mr. St. Arnold stated that the City and the Fire Marshall determined that the subfloor was rotted and needed to be redone to support it. Ms. St. Arnold stated that it is not a matter of only re-sheetrocking it. There was an enormous list of repairs needed. Mr. St. Arnold stated that all the stipulations for rental property state that all the work has to be done by a licensed contractor. Ms. St. Arnold stated that every city requires that work be done by a licensed contractor with valid building permits. Mr. St. Arnold stated that Fridley is pretty strict and he himself had been caught without a permit. Ms. St. Arnold stated that the previous situation with the former owner was awful with garbage, and it was alleged to be a drughouse and flophouse. Ms. Savage stated that it now would only be a sober house and does that have any effect on how she feels about it now. Ms. St. Arnold stated that the children from that house are coming in her yard. It would be different if there were no children. Mr. St. Arnold stated that he understands the need for a sober house being a recovered alcoholic himself. That does put fear into people, though. There is about a 75% chance for relapse. Everybody in the neighborhood was happy when Ms. Willson's permit request was denied as they then hoped someone would buy it only for single family. There are enough rentals around the neighborhood. The kids from the double bungalow are constantly coming in his yard by the creek with no parental guidance. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JUNE 6. 2001 PAGE 9 Ms. St. Arnold stated there are too many cars in the street which blocks vision when you turn the corners. Mr. St. Arnold stated that some vehicles have to park on yards. Ms. St. Arnold stated they were assured that the real estate agents would have to sell it as a single family home. Ms. Johns stated that in March when the City went for an inspection, there were 11 people living there. Did you notice any differences during that time that you did not like? Ms. St. Arnold stated that there were a lot of extra vehicles but not a lot of extra children in the neighborhood. Mr. St. Arnold stated there is a bunch of old concrete sitting by that house right now and how long is it going to sit there. Ms. Marty stated that there would be no children living at this house. It is for single women only. There are only a total of three vehicles at this site. The garbage by the house is supposed to be picked up and removed, but the Taylors stopped doing anything after they were told of this hearing. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:50 P.M. Mr. Kuechle stated that the rezoning to R-3 would have some possibilities. There are R-3 properties on each side, but he could not vote for a rezoning without a complete plan of how the property is going to be brought into compliance. He would vote against an approval; and if he were to consider a proposal, he would require a performance bond because of the history of problems. There is a lack of any kind of formal plans of how this property might be brought up to the kind of standards that the neighbors would be comfortable with. Ms. Johns stated that she was part of this committee when Ms. Willson was applying for the license and was amazed at the things that happened in that home and the structural problems. It is nice to see the improvements; but without the permits, it is hard to know if it is structurally sound. She did not think the R-3 zoning would be the best for the neighborhood. Applying for this permit is bringing up the unresolved issues and they need to be resolved before this is brought here again. A timeline would be good because of what happened in the past and the neighborhood is still very sore. She would vote "no" because it is too early without taking the steps prior to holding the public meeting for this request. Mr. Kondrick stated he agreed with Mr. Kuechle exactly. If the sober thing does not work out, what prevents the owners from renting it out to 15 other people with 15 cars. He is not comfortable with this. The owners claim ignorance, but spending $50,000 would not have happened without some kind of plan. He would vote against the rezoning request. Ms. Savage stated that the sober house plan is commendable and it sounds like the people living there would not cause a problem; however, this is the wrong place for this and it is too bad the Taylors did not realize that in the beginning. As a Commission, they have to look at the best interest of the City of Fridley and this property in the future when the Taylors sell it and an apartment building could go up. She would have to vote "no". PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JUNE 6. 2001 PAGE 10 Mr. Oquist stated he concurs with the other Commission members. It is commendable to have a sober house now; but if that does not work out, it could turn into a three-unit apartment. He likes Mr. Kuechle's idea of the performance bond and a real plan with timelines. He would go with denial. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend denial of ZOA #01-02. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Savage stated that this goes to City Council on June 18. Mr. Oquist stated that he would suggest that the duplexes in the neighborhood could also be cleaned up. Ms. Bulthuis stated that letters have been sent to them already about parking on the grass and outdoor storage issues. One of the residents across the street from 401 Ironton had three vehicles parked on the grass. Staff is trying to get the neighborhood cleaned up. Mr. Oquist asked if one of the owners lived in the duplexes. Ms. Bulthuis stated staff is not sure. If no results are seen, they will try to contact the owner. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 15, 2001, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the meeting UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE JUNE 6, 2001, PLANNING COMMISSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 8:59 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Signe L. Johnson Recording Secretary