PL 08/10/1994 - 30793I'`�
�^
�
� �
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMI38ION MEETING, AIIGIIST 10� 1994
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Newman called the August 10, 1994, Planning
Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL•
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Dave Newman, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba,
Brad Sielaff
Dave Kondrick, Diane Savage, Connie Modig
Others Present: Barb Dacy, Community Development Director
Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Glenn Vande Water, Peterson Environmental
Consultants, Inc.
Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty
Keith Eibensteiner, Biltmore Construction
Warren Paulson, 6881 Highway 65 N.E.
David Darrell, Architect, 4812 Larkspur Lane,
Edina, Minnesota
Terry Reyes, 1479 N. Danube Road N.E.
John Haluska, 5660 Arthur Street
Dennis & Ann Dewing, 1501 Camelot Lane
Jan Filer, Burnet Realty, 10 Rice Creek Way
Timothy Strong, 10884 Avocet Street N.W.,
Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Shirley Nevala, 1476 - 64th Avenue N.E.
APPROVAL OF JULY 13 1994, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the
July 13, 1994, Planning Commission minutes as written.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOOSLY.
1. �Tabled from Julv 27 1994 Planning Commission Meetinct)
PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP
#94-08, BY WARREN PAULSON:
Per Section 205.09.01.C.(9) of the Fridley City Code, to
allow the expansion of a motel in the R-3, General Multiple
Family Dwelling District, on Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 1,
Valley View Manor, the same being 6881 Highway 65 N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to remove from the
table consideration of the Special Use Permit Request, SP #94-08.
��
�
;�-�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 2
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing.
QPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER30N NEAMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:35 P.M.
Mr. Hickok stated the property is located adjacent to Highway 65
in the Valley View Manor Addition. The site is zoned R-3,
General Multiple Residential, and is located just north of 68th
Avenue. The request for a special use permit is to expand the
existing motel facility at the northeast corner of Highway 65 and
68th Avenue N.E. Currently, a 14-unit motel exists on the site
along with office and living quarters. The office and living
quarters are perpendicular and to the south of the motel units.
The proposal is to add a 2-story with a walkout addition to
provide 9 additional units in the complex.
Mr. Hickok stated the motel was built in 1960 and predated the
requirements for a special use permit. In 1965, the complex was
badly damaged by a tornado and was then reconstructed. In 1968,
there was a request to replace the landscaping on the east edge
of the site with a redwood privacy fence. The City Council
approved the fence as a separation of the residential area and
motel site. In 1982, a variance was.approved to complete an
addition on the south edge of the residential complex for a 26
foot x 10 foot deck and another to encroach on the setback area
for a vestibule for a weather tight entry into the office area.
In 1987 and in 1992, there were variances requested for signs on
the site.
Mr. Hickok stated the Appeals Commission reviewed four variances
related to this request at their July 12 meeting and recommended
approval. Staff concur with the recommendation. These include:
1. To reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 10 feet.
(This is an existing condition for the deck along the
residential side of the complex.)
2. To reduce the side corner setback from 25 feet to 30.33
feet. (This is related to the new construction and
proximity to the property line adjacent to Highway 65.)
3. To reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 19.44 feet.
(The rear yard is to the north and abuts to the Rice Creek
area. The new addition will not encroach any more than the
existing structure.)
4. To improve vehicle turning movement by reducing the parking
setback from 20 feet to 18 feet.
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGIIST 10. 1994 PAGE 3
Mr. Hickok stated staff has worked with the developer to get a
better understanding of how the addition would relate to the
complex as it exists on site. At grade level, there are 2
stories. Along Rice Creek, there is a walkout. The walkout was
not part of the original design but poor soil conditions in the
area require either serious soil correction or, as an
alternative, build a foundation rather than a 2-story addition on
a slab.
Mr. Hickok stated there are some transportation issues related to
this. A stop sign has been recommended on the site plan. The
drive comes out to 68th Avenue. At the point where the drive
meets 68th Avenue, a stop sign has been recommended for traffic
control to stop traffic before entering 68th Avenue. The
residents in the area also voiced concerns about an uncontrolled
intersection at 68th Avenue and Highway 65. Staff discussed this
with the Public Works Director who evaluated the need according
to established criteria. It is the belief of the Public Works
Director that this is not an intersection that warrants control.
Therefore, staff would not recommend stop lights at this
intersection.
Mr. Hickok stated the existing structure and the new addition
�, represent 20% lot coverage. The existing structure is 6,220
square feet. The foot print of the addition is 2,728 sguare
feet. Staff recommends appro�al with the following stipulations:
1. A stop sign shall be installed by the developer at the point
where the parking lot drive enters onto 68th Avenue. The
sign would be the cost and responsibility of the motel.
2. The addition shall be built with an architectural character
consistent with the character of the existing motel complex.
3. No windows shall be placed ori�the second story of the east
side of the building addition.
4. The parking lot shall be re-striped to identify the 35
parking spaces indicated by the petitioner's site plan.
5. The new parking surface shall include curb and gutter around
the expanded parking perimeter. The curb and gutter is to
be concrete and of a staff-approved design.
6. Erosion control fencing shall be installed during
construction to assure no construction-related soil is
carried into Rice Creek or adjacent landscape.
�,°'�
;s"`-.
,�"`�,
�
PLANNING COMMI83ION MEETING, AOGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 4
7. Rip-rap erosion
the roof drain
empties surface
site.
control shall be installed at the base of
and at the point where the parking lot swale
water onto the landscaped portion of the
8. All landscape areas shall be restored.
9. Although not specifically required by Code, staff suggests
that the three 20" oaks removed by construction be replaced
by three 2 1/2" oaks in an alternate location on the site.
Mr. Hickok stated the stipulations have been discussed with the
petitioner. The concern by the petitioner concerning the oak
trees is that there may not be a place for those three oak trees.
Again, the Code does not stipulate this. It was a suggestion by
staff.
Mr. Saba asked where the dumpster is located.
Mr. Hickok stated he believed there was a service drive at the
rear which is used for the dumpster enclosure and a utility shed.
This will stay in the same location.
Mr. Newman asked where staff thought it appropriate to place
three oak trees.
Mr. Hickok stated the feeling of staff is that whether it is oak
trees or other trees it would be nice to replace those trees.
The existing trees are in a location where they must be removed
for the addition. He felt staff could work with the developer to
identify a site for the trees.
Mr. Paulson stated he had no additional information to provide.
The architect, Mr. David Darrell, is present if there are any
questions. As far as the landscaping, there is a row of pine and
blue spruce trees across the front already. Since he has
purchased the property, he had planted other trees in just about
every place it is possible to put a tree. On the west side,
there will be some foundation shrubs along the sidewalk to
landscape that area. It is possible to put some trees on the
north side of the property right on the property line and that
would almost be part of Rice Creek Watershed.
Mr. Darrell stated there is a mass of trees along the creek that
provide a nice backdrop. That beside the present landscaping is
sufficient.
Mr. Newman asked where the dumpster is located.
Mr. Paulson stated, along the back side of the property, there is
a 3-stall garage with a fence that comes out 8 feet and the
,,-.,, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 5
,
dumpster is behind that fence. It is only visible when driving
back on the service road. There will be no change in that area.
Mr. Oquist asked Mr. Paulson if he was aware of the stipulations
and if he had problems with any of them.
Mr. Paulson stated no, although Mr. Hickok did mention something
earlier in the day about curb and gutter to come out to the
street.
Mr. Hickok stated the curb has been proposed to terminate at the
property line. The Engineering staff would prefer the owner to
bring the curb out to the radius at the entrance of the drive at
68th Avenue. At the time when 68th Avenue is improved, that new
curb would match up with the property curb and would be complete
back into the development. It does serve as the drive into this
development and with the construction and addition of curb our
Engineering staff has asked to look at extending that curb to the
south.
Mr. Newman asked if the Rice Creek Trail was in front of the
building.
Mr. Paulson stated the trail is in front of the motel near the
entrance to the motel.
Mr. Newman asked if the curb posed a problem.
Mr. Paulson stated it does not pose a problem. That area is city
property but the additional expense would be minimal and he could
do that. He would need staff to indicate where to locate the
curb so it is properly located.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:50 P.M.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend approval
of Special Use Permit, SP #94-08, by Warren Paulson, to allow the
expansion of a motel in the R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling
District, on Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 1, Valley View Manor, the
same being 6881 Highway 65 N.E., with the following stipulations:
1. A stop sign shall be installed by the developer at the point
where the parking lot drive enters onto 68th Avenue. The
sign would be the cost and responsibility of the motel.
2. The addition shall be built with an architectural character
consistent with the character of the existing motel complex.
r�
,—.
.rE
� �
PLANNING COMMI38ION MEETING, AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGB 6
3.
4.
No windows shall be placed on the second story of the east
side of the building addition.
The parking lot shall be re-striped to identify the 35
parking spaces indicated by the petitioner's site plan.
5. The new parking surface shall include curb and gutter around
the expanded parking perimeter. The curb and gutter is to
be concrete and of a staff-approved design and is to extend
out to 68th Avenue. The point of termination shall be
specified by the Engineering Department staff.
6. Erosion control fencing shall be installed during
construction to assure no construction-related soil is
carried into Rice Creek or adjacent landscape.
7. Rip-rap erosion control shall be installed at the base of
the roof drain and at the point where the parking lot swale
empties surface water onto the landscaped portion of the
site.
8. All landscape areas shall be restored.
9. Although not specifically required by Code, staff suggests
that the three 20" oaks removed by construction be replaced
by three 2 1/2" oaks in an alternate location on the site.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEAI�3AN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOOSLY.
Ms. McPherson stated the requests for the Special Use Permit and
Variances would be reviewed by the City Council at their meeting
on August 15.
2• LTabled from City Council meeting of July 25 1994) PUBLIC
HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT REOUEST P S
#94-05. BY KEITH EIBENSTEINER FOR BILTMORE CONSTRUCTION OF
NEW BRIGHTON, INC.:
To subdivide part of Lot 1, Block 1, Grace High School
Addition into nine new single family lots, generally located
in the southeast corner of the Totino-Grace High School
property at 1350 Gardena Avenue N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to remove from the
table consideration of the Preliminary Plat Request, P.S. #94-05.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOII3LY.
,�-*, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 7
Ms. McPherson stated the Totino-Grace plat request was tabled by
the Planning Commission at the June 29, 1994, meeting. The plat
request is to create 9 single family lots - 2 lots on the west
side of the Totino-Grace property which will front directly on
Matterhorn Drive and 7 lots on th� east side with access on a cul
de sac proposed to be titled Royal Oak Court. This area of the
site is heavily wooded with a variety of oak and maple trees.
The property has 2 wetlands on the site which fall under the
protection of the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act and the City's
0-4, Wetland Overlay Ordinance. The petitioner is not proposing
to impact the wetlands by draining or filling them in any way so
they would be exempt from the provisions of the 1991 Wetland
Conservation Act as well as the 0-4, Wetland Overlay Ordinance.
Ms. McPherson stated the Planning Commission at their June 29,
1994, meeting moved to recommend that the request for an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) by the Friends of
Innsbruck Park be considered by the City Council. The City
Council at its July 11, 1994, did consider the question which was
tabled to allow staff time to research a number of items. Staff
worked with Peterson Environmental Consulting to address the
issues raised in the petition by the Friends of Innsbruck Park.
Their response is included in the agenda packet. At the July 22,
� 1994, meeting, the City Council determined an EAW would not be
required and that it would not authorize any further ecological
or environmental studies. The Friends of Innsbruck Park have
requested that the City consider acquiring the 3.5 acres and add
it to the City's open space system. The Park and Recreation
Commission reviewed the request at their August l, 1994, meeting.
The Commission stated they would accept the 3.5 acres into the
park system if it were to be donated by an outside group or if
municipal funding other than park funds was to be used. If it
was not to become part of the park system, the Commission stated
that the property could be developed with careful scrutiny of
compliance with the stipulations that staff has presented to the
Commission.
Ms. McPherson stated there are some amendments to the proposed
stipulations. The petitioner sent in writing a response to
staff's stipulations originally submitted for review on June 29.
Staff has reviewed the stipulations presented by the petitioner
and have made some amendments to their amendments. She reviewed
those items amended as follows:
Stipulation #4, the petitioner has requested that we use the
term "significant" trees. Staff is defining significant
trees as those which are 6" or greater in caliper. This
will clearly differentiate between shrubby materials on the
� site as opposed to mature trees.
��
r"1
P_LANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 8
Stipulation #14 adds the language "Individual grading,
erosion control, and tree preservation plans are to be
submitted for each lot prior to the issuance of a building
permit."
Stipulation #17 has been amended to add the terms "the
lowest basement floor opening shall be at the 950 or above
elevation for Lots 5 and 6 of Block 1" and also has been
amended to read and "the lowest basement floor opening shall
be at the 955 elevation or above for Lot 7, Block 1." This
is in response to the discussion regarding the vertical
distance of these lots from the wetlands on the site in
addition to the horizontal distance which is addressed in
Stipulation 18 where staff set the maximum distance of the
dwellings from the lot lines.
Stipulation #20 concerns the preservation of trees. The
petitioner has submitted a more specific and revised
stipulation. This stipulation now reads "Individual
grading, erosion control, and tree preservation plans for
each lot shall clearly show a) the grading limits for the
construction of the new home; b) the iocation of warning
signage (tree protection ribbon) that will be placed around
the perimeter of the construction limits protecting all
significant trees outside the construction limits; and c)
the location of any significant trees to be saved inside the
construction limits. Any significant trees to be saved
shall have fencing around it extended out to the dripline."
Staff has amended the stipulation to include the words "Work
shall not commence until City staff has field inspected
i.tems B and C of the stipulation."
Stipulation #21 has been amended to add the words, "The lot
shall not be clear cut of significant trees."
Ms. McPherson stated the Commission does not have the Park and
Recreation minutes before them. During the discussion regarding
the plat, Mr. Young had discussed the impact of clearing the
understory vegetation adjacent to the properties to the south.
Staff is proposing to add another stipulation, #22, to establish
a 15-foot "no cut" easement along the south property lines of
Lots 1-5, Block 1. The easement would prohibit cutting trees or
clearing understory except to remove dead or diseased trees.
Mr. Newman stated they had a letter dated August 2 from Royal
Oaks Realty and asked if those are the comments incorporated into
the stipulations.
Ms. McPherson stated yes. As a result of that letter, some of
the original stipulations have been removed.
PLANNING COMMI38ION MEETING, AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 9
Mr. Newman asked, concerning those items contained in the letter
of August 2, are there any areas of disagreement which should be
considered. Other than the fact that the developer objects to
some of the language, he does understand the stipulations.
Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. The petitioner called Ms.
Dacy regarding stipulations #4, #22, and also has comments
regarding the necessity of stipulation #18 based on the changes
to #17. The petitioner can address this.
Mr. Oquist stated #22 is there to cover during construction.
What is to prevent the home owner from clearing afterward?
Ms. McPherson stated they would use similar language in #22 as in
#16, which would require recording restrictive covenants which
would become part of the property.
Mr. Saba asked what is to prevent heavy equipment operators from
knocking down trees in that area. Is there any kind of bond
required that would be consistent with the number of trees to be
saved?
Ms. McPherson stated under the current ordinance the City has no
�, mechanism to require a bond. The petitioner has indicated they
would be submitting a performance bond to insure proper
construction of the utilities and road, but there is no such
mechanism for tree preservation.
Ms. Dacy stated what they are trying to accomplish with the
stipulation on grading and erosion control is for staff to review
when the permit is submitted and the Planning and Building
Departments would work closely on this project and go to the
field and inspect the trees. During the street and utility
construction, there will be a staff person there to monitor. She
believed the Engineering Department has an inspector who is
prepared to do that. Staff's approach is to allocate manpower on
every lot as the permit comes in and monitor construction for the
road and utility work closely.
Mr. Newman asked if the City had considered a developer's
contract.
Ms. Dacy stated the City has typically done the road and utility
installation. In this case, she believed the Public Works
Department would be working with the-developer on an agreement so
the road construction will be done by the developer but according
to the City's specifications. As part of that, there may be a
letter of credit to assure the proper installation of the road
and utilities.
T"`�
�, PLANNING COMMI38ION MEETING. AOGUST 10, 1994 PAGE 10
Mr. Newman suggested that staff pursue execution of a development
agreement especially regarding the tree removal.
Ms. Dacy stated she agreed that a developer's agreement would
provide more enforcement. This has not been the policy in the
past.
Mr. Newman stated the public hearing was closed but he would like
to provide an opportunity for additional comments for new
information not provided at the last meeting.
Mr. Black stated they would be happy to enter into a developers
agreement with the City. They have done that with other cities.
They are happy to work with staff and happy to report that staff
has done an excellent and thorough job in addressing the issue
and following their application through the process.
Mr. Black stated, when he was here in June, they were at a point
where they were beginning to discuss the stipulations. We have
been side tracked, have addressed more issues, and are 99� in
agreement with staff on the stipulations. There are two that he
would like to provide comments.
� Mr. Black stated stipulation #1 refers to putting restrictive
covenants on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. Those are the two lots on
the west end of the development that stand alone. He is
concerned with the wording. Staff is recommending to place
restrictive covenants on those properties. If indeed those
restrictive covenants indicate there will be no removal of any
vegetation, little could happen on the site. He thought staff
was looking for protection for the wooded area on the back side
of the lot. Part of that wooded area is off the subject lots on
the high school property so some of the area is beyond future
owners of those parcels. They suggest using the same protection
of "significant trees" in that area.
Mr. Black referred to stipulation #18 which talks about dwelling
units on Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 1, which are the lots adjacent to
the wetlands on the east side of the development. Staff
recommends that the homes on those lots be setback as close as
possible to the lot line away from the wetland to limit
encroachment. With the reconstruction of stipulation #17, he was
not sure that #18 was needed. Stipulation #17 refers on all
three lots a minimum floor elevation have a vertical distance
above the 100-year flood plain on the adjacent wetlands, no
grading below a certain elevation and a minimum setback from all
the wetlands. This stipulation covers both the horizontal and
vertical setbacks from the wetland. At the last meeting, there
was a comment made that requiring the setback to 10 feet from the
lot line away from the wetland may not accomplish anything if
someone builds a large house or elongated house that would
�.�
!�'�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEBTING. AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 11
stretch toward the wetland. He thinks they have covered what
staff has been concerned with.
Mr. Black stated stipulation #22 recommends a"no cut" zone.
They do not agree with the wording. They agree with no cutting
of significant trees without review by the City after submitting
grading and site plans. They are concerned that this will limit
the homeowners right to use their property in a way that others
have been able to use their property. If a homeowner wants to
clear underbrush and restore the ground in the manner they wish
to do so, he thought they should have that right. The lots are
deep lots, but we may find the property owners once they are
living there will not care to maintain all the way to the back of
the property line. But, they should be allowed to do that if
they wish. He is also concerned that we are going to customize
the grading plan initially only to accommodate the construction
of the utilities and streets and leave the lots in their natural
state. Once someone wishes to purchase a lot, that person will
design a home to fit that lot. In most cases where we don't
masquerade, what we can end up with is pockets of drainage
problems. Drainage does not always work as good as if working
with an overall drainage plan. He would like to have a clause
that would indicate that, subject approval by the Planning
Department or Engineering Department, vegetation may have to
removed in order to accommodate drainage. There are four
abutting property owners to the south. Three of those four
property owners have some clearing within 15 feet of the
backyard. If our property owners want to have the benefit of a
garden or being able to sit in the backyard or clear an area for
a patio, they should have the opportunity to do so also.
Mr. Newman asked, on the vegetation preservation for Lots 1 and
2, Block 2, is staff looking for a no cut area.
Ms. Dacy stated yes.
Mr. Newman stated it seems the only alternative is to put in the.
legal description for that area that there will be no cutting in
that area subject to the same conditions made on Lots 1- 5.
Mr. Black stated this was not a problem to identify the amount of
land or distance to be protected. He has a concern with placing
a restrictive covenants on properties that have more protection
than any other property in the City, especially those on
Matterhorn Drive. They have woods beyond the proposed lots on
the school property that will be left in a natural state. He has
no problem with protecting significant trees.
Mr. Haluska stated he would speak for the neighbors. First, they
are appreciative of staff's work on this. They fully support the
stipulations which do much to mitigate the damage. Second, they
� PLANNING COMMI33ION MEETING, AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 12
do not support the environmental appraisal done. They think it
is superficial. They will argue that point at the City Council
meeting. Third, they do not have any objection to the Planning
treating the parcels separately. There are different issues
involved. Fourth, as far as the question of the no cut zone,
they think it is important that the language be maintained and
the integrity be maintained as the stipulations presented. As
far as the consideration for drainage, they agree with the
developer that the language could perhaps cause some problems and
they have confidence in staff to mitigate any problems and would
not object if there were problems.
Mr. Newman asked the Commission members for their comments.
Ms. Saba stated he would feel more comfortable with a developer's
agreement between the City and the developer for the preservation
of trees. Too many things can happen between the time of
approval and the time of construction.
Mr. Oquist stated, after reading the reports and alternatives, he
thought it would be a good development. He appreciates the
drainage consideration but also likes the no cut area. However,
a landowner has the right to do some clearing of trees and shrubs
n as need be but he wants to keep significant trees.
Mr. Sielaff asked he would like to see a separate stipulation on
a developer's agreement.
Mr. Newman referred to Stipulation #1. Along the south portion
of Lot 1 and 2, he understands the need for a buffer. In
response to the developer, he does not think this is an unusual
request. The school has a right to do what they want with the
property. The neighbors had some reasonable justification in
thinking this would remain public property and the request for
screening is understandable. The buffer would screen from the
ball field.
Ms. Dacy stated, during the site visit, it seemed like it was a
unique stand. It does provide some screening from the ball field
area and, because it is part of the 2 lots and a unique stand of
trees, staff wanted to prevent clearing of the entire stand or at
least the portion on their lot.
Mr. Newman stated limiting this to significant trees should
cover.
Ms. Dacy stated significant trees to be left are large and there
is some large underbrush as well. The intent was to preserve the
� existing stand as it is now. In order to be consistent with the
�' south 15 feet of Lots 1-5, the intent was to preserve it in its
existing state. Staff prefers that the 2 stipulations be
�� PLANNING COMMI38ION MEETING, AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGB 13
maintained and hopes that the vegetation there would be
preserved.
Mr. Newman stated stipulation 18 states homes are to be a maximum
of 10 feet from the lot line opposite the wetland. Does staff
feel strongly about a house at 10 feet?
Ms. Dacy stated she looked at the request and determined that
with Lot 7, based on the plan submitted by the petitioner, the
elevation proposed would dictate that the home be at 10 feet.
However, the elevation on Lots 5 and 6 would permit the structure
to be placed closer to the wetland. If they enforced the
stipulation that the pad be 10 feet from the far lot line, it
would be at the maximum horizontal distance. If the petitioner
can submit other information to show how the distance can be
maintained or preserve the wetland, staff would be happy to
evaluate it.
Mr. Newman stated stipulation #22 should have language added
stating "subject to the determination of the Public Works
Department that the "no cut" easement would not affect drainage."
Stipulation #23 should be added stating, "The City shall enter
into a developer's agreement with the petitioner for the
^ enforcement of these stipulations."
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend
approval of Special Use Permit, SP #94-05, to subdivide part of
Lot 1, Block 1, Grace High School Addition, into nine new single
family lots, generally located in the southeast corner of the
Totino-Grace High school property at 1350 Gardena Avenue N.E.,
with the following stipulations:
1. A restrictive covenant shall be recorded against Lots 1 and
2, Block 2, preventing the removal of vegetation except for
dead/diseased trees.
2. Outlot A shall be named as a"lot" in the plat.
3. The dwelling on Lot 1, Block 1, shall face Royal Oak Court.
4. The significant trees along the side lot line of Lot 1,
Block 1, within the 17.5 foot setback shall be preserved.
"Significant trees" are defined as those six inches or
greater in caliper.
5. Verifying surveys shall be submitted prior to the capping of
the foundation.
� 6. The petitioner shall pay a park dedication fee of $1,500.00
per lot (9 X$1,500.00 =$13,500) at the time of building
permit issuance.
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING� AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 14
7. The stormwater pond shall be siz.ed to meet the detention
requirements of the City.
8. The Archdiocese shall execute and record a stormwater pond
maintenance agreement providing for ongoing maintenance of
the pond.
9. A drainage easement shall be dedicated over the stormwater
pond.
10. The design details of the 6-inch watermain loop as proposed
by the petitioner shall be approved by the Public Works
Director.
11. The petitioner shall install water and sewer services to the
lots on Matterhorn and shall pay the appropriate connection
fees. �
12. SAC fees shall be paid at the time of building permit
issuance.
13. The petitioner shall comply with the co�nments listed in
Scott Erickson's memo dated June 16, 1994.
n
14. Individual gradinq, erosion control, and tree preservation
plans shall be submitted for each lot prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
15. The improper fill in the wetland shall be removed and the
wetland restored.
16. Restrictive covenant shall be recorded against Lots 5, 6,
and 7, Block l, preventing any filling of wetlands including
brush, grass clippings, trash, etc. Accessory structures
and footings for decks, additions, gazebos, etc. shall not
be located in the wetlands as delineated on the plat. The
language shall be reviewed by the City Attorney.
17. No grading shall occur below the elevation of 948 on Lots 5
and 6, Block 1, and the lowest basement floor opening shall
be at the 950 or above elevation. No grading shall occur
below the elevation of 953 on Lot 7, Block 1, and the lowest
basement floor opening shall be at the 955 elevation or
above.
18. The dwellings on Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, shall be located a
maximum of 10 feet from the lot line opposite the wetland.
19. Two street trees per lot shall be planted by the petitioner.
�
�`1
�^�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 15
20. The individual grading, erosion control, and tree
preservation plan for each lot shall clearly show:
A. The grading limits for the construction of the new
home.
B. The location of warning signage (tree protection
ribbon) that will be placed around the perimeter of the
construction limits protecting all significant trees
outside the construction limits.
C. The location of any significant trees to be saved
inside the construction limits. Any significant trees
to be saved shall have fencing around it extended out
the dripline.
Work shall not commence until City staff has field inspected
items B and C of the stipulation.
21. The lots shall not be clear cut of significant trees.
22. Restrictive covenants shall be recorded against Lots 1- 5,
Block 1, Totino-Grace Addition, establishing a 15-foot "no
cut" easement along the south property line of Lots 1- 5,
Block 1, Totino-Grace Addition. The covenants shall
prohibit the cutting of trees or clearing of understory
except for the removal of dead or diseased trees within the
easement, subject to the determination of the Public Works
Department that the "no cut" easement would not affect
drainage.
23. The City shall enter into a developer's agreement with the
petitioner �or the enforcement of these stitiu7ati�nc_
Ms. Dacy stated, to clarify, stipulation #22 regarding the "no
cut" easement, the Planning Commission has asked about including
that as part of the restrictive covenant, and stipulation #18,
based on further analysis, Lot 7, Block 1, can be dropped because
of elevation issues.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� C$AIRPER30N NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOOSLY.
Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would establish a public
hearing at their September 6 meeting. The public hearing would
be for September 19, and interested persons should attend the
meeting on September 19.
�--� PLANNING COMNlISSION MEETING, AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 16
3. CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT. L.S. #94-03, BY STRONG BUILT
HOMES•
To create two additional residential lots at 1490 and 1476 -
64th Avenue N.E. The legal descriptions for the four lots
are as follows:
Parcel A•
The west�half of the north half of Lot 1, Block 2, Spring
Valley, City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Parcel B•
The east•half of the north half of Lot 1, Block 2, Spring
Valley, City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Parcel C•
The southerly 75.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Spring Valley,
City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Parcel D•
That part of the south half of Lot 1, Block 2, Spring
Valley, lying northerly of the southerly 75.00 feet thereof,
City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota.
�
Ms. McPherson stated the request is for a Lot Split, L.S. #94-03,
by Timothy Strong, Strong Built Homes. The subject parcel is
located in the southwest corner of the intersection of 64th
Avenue and Arthur Street. Located on the subject parcel are two
dwelling units - 1476 and 1490 - 64th Avenue. There is a City
maintained open ditch located along the south property line. The
property is zoned R-1, Single Family, as are the surrounding
parcels. The subject parcel is legally described as the east and
west halves of Lot 1, Block 2, Spring Valley Addition. The lot
was originally platted in 1941. It is 125 feet wide x 300 feet
deep. It is unclear from City records as to when the property
was split in half. Staff is aware this was done prior to 1955
which is the first survey of record on file.
Ms. McPherson stated the subdivision would create two single
family lots by splitting the subject parcel in half and then in
half again. The 2 new parcels will face Arthur Street and access
directly onto Arthur Street. All parcels for the existing
dwellings meet the minimum R-1 setbacks with the exception of the
lot widths on parcels A and B.
Ms. McPherson stated the some of the existing vegetation on the
site seems to indicate there may be wetlands on the site. The
petitioner contracted with the Anoka Conservation District who
^ investigated the site and determined that no wetlands are located
on the site other than the ditch section located along the south
" property line. The petitioner will be required to use proper
�� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 17
erosion control measures to prevent erosion from leaving the site
and going into the public ditch. The petitioner has submitted a
preliminary grading plan which establishes the lowest floor
elevation at 886 feet. The elevation at street level on Arthur
is approximately 890 feet. The Engineering Department has
requested additional information including:
1. Clarify the amount of fill in the front yard by adding
additional spot elevations and drainage arrows on the
grading plan.
2. Clarify how the shallow ditch section along Arthur Street
will be handled.
3. Provide accurate first floor elevations to insure proper
grades for the sanitary sewer services.
4. Provide an erosion control plan in compliance with Chapter
208. �
Ms. McPherson stated the proposed lots are not currently serviced
by the municipal water and sewer services. They will be required
to be connected, and the petitioner will have to pay sewer
�`1 availability charges as required by the SAC. The subdivision
ordinance required the payment of a park dedication fee of
$750.00 per lot payable at the time of building permit issuance.
The Inspection Department requires the submission of a verified
survey prior to capping the foundation. The parcel is heavily
wooded with a variety of plant materials. Preserving much of the
vegetation would be an asset for the subject parcels as well as
the neighborhood. Staff has suggested recording a"no cut"
easement over the westerly 15 feet to provide a buffer to the
lots to the west, and the petitioner should attempt to save any
many large trees as possible. •
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the lot split,
L.S. #94-03, with the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall provide the information requested in
Items a- b prior to the issuance of a building permit.
a. Clarify the amount of fill in the front yard by adding
additional spot elevations and drainage arrows on the
grading plan.
b. Clarify how the shallow ditch section along Arthur
Street will be handled.
,.� c. Provide accurate first.floor elevations to insure
proper grades for t�e sanitary sewer services.
�"`� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 18
d. Provide an erosion control plan in compliance with
Chapter 208.
2. Water and sewer services shall be provided to the dwelling
units.
3. The sanitary sewer connection shall be made via the manhole
located at the intersection of Arthur and Camelot Streets.
4. The petitioner shall pay the appropriate connection fees and
SAC charges ($800.00 per unit) at the time of building
permit issuance.
5. The petitioner shall pay a park dedication fee of $750.00
per lot at the time of building permit issuance.
6. The petitioner shall provide a verifying survey prior to the
capping of the foundation.
7. The petitioner shall record over the westerly 15 feet of the
lots a"no cut" easement which would prevent clearing of the
vegetation and provide a buffer for the parcels to the west.
� Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner did submit a proposed site
plan showing the proposed location of the dwelling units. The
proposed dwellings would be set at the 20 foot front yard setback
as opposed to the 35 foot setback. The petitioner has applied
for a variance which will be heard before the Appeals Commission
on August 23. They are not recommending approval of the lot
split be contingent on approval of the variance.
Mr. Ne�aman asked what they are buffering this from.
Ms. McPherson stated is for the properties to the west to buffer
from the rear lots of adjacent dwellings.
Mr. Newman stated there are no homes on the south half of the lot
so the buffering is from the other back yards.
Ms. McPherson stated this was correct.
Mr. Saba asked the petitioner if they had any problems with the
stipulations.
Mr. Strong stated he would like to add the definition of
significant trees. To the west, there is only one tree. The
rest is grass. He does not intend to remove the one tree. It is
important to preserve some of the other trees on the parcel. If
,...�, he has to move the homes back, he would have to remove some of
the trees. The 20 foot setback would line up with the other
homes. There is also a large boulevard there so the setback
��'1
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING� AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 19
would be the same as the other homes. There will be much fill to
bring the lot up to the right level and to get proper drainage.
The farther back he needs to go, the more trees will need to be
removed. His intention is to save every tree and this will make
it more attractive. On the back 62 feet of the lot split, there
is grass and only one tree which will be left there. It is
important that definition be changed to significant trees.
Mr. Newman asked for staff's response to the 15 foot "no cut"
easement.
Ms. McPherson stated staff would be okay with revising the
stipulation that the petitioner is to preserve all significant
trees on the site and we can use the definition of 6" or greater
to be consistent.
Mr. Newman asked how they would submit this.
Ms. McPherson suggested wording the stipulation to read, "The
petitioner is to preserve all significant trees on the subject
parcels outside of the areas to be filled and outside of the
dwelling pad," and then eliminate the current wording under #7.
Mr. Sielaff stated significant trees was based on 4" in diameter
and 6" was negotiated.
Ms. McPherson stated they compromised for the previous
petitioner. She felt they should be consistent between
applications.
Mr. Sielaff asked if there was language in the code.
Ms. McPherson stated there is not a definition for significant
trees. The landscape ordinance defines a large tree as a tree
that is 4" or greater in caliper.
Ms. Dacy suggested that the petitioner and staff ineet prior to
the City Council meeting. The reason for proposing 6" on the
previous request was that it seemed to be a good measure for that
particular site. That site has significantly larger trees. For
this site, she would suggest staff and petitioner go to the site
and specifically identify the trees. There are different types
of trees at different locations.
Mr. Sielaff stated he did not want to make this too arbitrary.
Mr. Strong stated he wants to express the importance of the 20
foot setback. He is planning a walkout split. The walkout is
^ where the vegetation currently lies. From the back line of the
foundation forward to the street will be filled and nothing will
�
�"\
PLANNING COMMI83ION MEETING� AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 20
survive because of the fill. The setback is important to
preserving the trees.
Mr. Newman stated the Planning Commission will only make a
recommendation on the lot split. The Appeals Commission will
consider the variance.
Mr. Newman recommended the current stipulation #7 will be deleted
and replaced with, "Prior to City Council action, the petitioner
and staff shall designate which trees shall be preserved and
protected pursuant to the recorded restrictive covenants."
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval
of a Lot Split, L.S. #94-03, by Strong Built Homes, to create two
additional lots at 1490 and 1476 - 64th Avenue N.E. with legal
descriptions for the four lots as follows:
Parcel A: The west half of the north half of Lot 1, Block
2, Spring Valley, City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Parcel B: The east half of the north half of Lot 1, Block
2, Spring Valley, City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Parcel C: The southerly 75.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 2,
Spring Valley, City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Parcel D: That part of the south half of Lot 1, Block 2,
Spring Valley, lying northerly of the southerly 75.00 feet
thereof, City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota;
with the following stipulations:
1.
The petitioner shall provide the information requested in
Items a- b prior to the issuance of a building permit.
a. Clarify the amount of fill in the front yard by adding
additional spot elevations and drainage arrows on the
grading plan.
b.
c.
d.
Clarify how the shallow ditch section along Arthur
Street will be handled.
Provide accurate first floor elevations to insure
proper grades for the sanitary sewer services.
Provide an erosion control plan in compliance with
Chapter 208.
� 2. Water and sewer services shall be provided to the dwelling
units.
^ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 21
3. The sanitary sewer connection shall be made via the manhole
located at the intersection of Arthur and Camelot Streets.
4. The petitioner shall pay the appropriate connection fees and
SAC charges ($800.00 per unit) at the time of building
permit issuance.
5. The petitioner shall pay a park dedication fee of $750.00
per lot at the time of building permit issuance.
6. The petitioner shall provide a verifying survey prior to the
capping of the foundation.
7. Prior to City Council action, the petitioner and staff shall
designate which trees shall be preserved and protected
pursuant to the recorded restrictive covenants.
IIPON A VOICE VOT$, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER30N NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
Ms. McPherson stated the Appeals Commission would consider the
variance request on August 23 and the City Council would review
both the lot split and variance requests on September 6.
�
4. RECEIVE THE AUGUST 2 1994. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the
August 2, 1994, Appeals Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEAMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn the
meeting.
OPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE AIIGII3T 10� 1999, PLANNING COMMI83ION
MEETING ADJOIIRNED AT 8:50 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
i�
,: ,
✓ 1 / �� ?� � ' / C�
/ ;.
Lavonn Cooper
Recording Secretary
'"1
/� �i
�
�
S I, G N— IN S H E E T
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, Wednesday, August 10, 1994
d��
, �►-� �