Loading...
03/06/1996 - 00003467CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 6, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: chairperson Newman called the March 6, 1996, Planning commission meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: �ave Newman, �ean saba, Brad sielaff, connie Modig Members Absent: �ave Kondrick, �iane savage, �eROy oquist others Present: scott Hickok, Planning coordinator Kurt �ensen-schneider, Planning Assistant �onda Kroone, 5933 Main street N.E. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 7, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Mr. sielaff, to approve the February 7, 1996, Planning commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE: chapter 205.07, entitled R-1, one-Family �welling �istrict Regulations, by adding subsection 205.07.06.A.(3); and chapter 205.08, entitled R-2, Two-Family �welling �istrict Regulations, by adding subsection 205.08.06.A.(3). The purpose of this ordinance amendment is to limit front yard driveways and parking stalls in single family and two family zoned districts to no more than thirty percent (30%) of the calculated front yard area. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. sielaff, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:35 P.M. Mr. �ensen-schneider stated staff is seeking input on a proposed change to the R-1 and R-2 sections of the Fridley city code regarding paved surface front yard coverage of one and two-family residential parcels. The purpose of the public hearing is to get public input regarding the change. Mr. �ensen-schneider stated the rationale for this change is closely related to the driveway issue discussed at the last Planning commission meeting. The idea of a hardsurface coverage requirement was first discussed in 1993. rn the agenda packet was a copy of the letter from Ms. Mccollom which generated that discussion. rn the letter, Ms. Mccollom expresses her frustration with a nei ghbor paving the entire front yard. rn an informal neighborhood meeting conducted by staff, one of the concerns was that someone would pave their front yard. This is still a related issue. Mr. �ensen-schneider stated the agenda packet includes a one-page lot coverage study which reviews the requirements of surrounding communities and reveals that limiting front yard impervious surface coverage is not an uncommon requirement. Also included in the agenda is a sampling of lot coverages throughout the community and visual samples via aerial photos to demonstrate some of the these coverages. The lot coverages ranges from 15% up to 58%. Mr. Newman asked what area is covered in the example showing 58% coverage. Mr. �ensen-schneider stated the property has a hard-surface drive and the remainder of the yard appears to be landscape gravel. Mr. saba stated it is common in areas with water shortages to landscape the yards in such a way. He asked if this home owner has had complaints from the neighbors. Mr. �ensen-schneider stated he has not received complaints since he had been on the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 6, 1996 PAGE 2 staff. The samples pulled out in 1993 are examples that appear to have excessive hardsurface coverage in the front yard. Mr. saba stated he thought it necessary to be very careful to distinguish between hardsurface and a landscaped surface. There must be some way to do this. Ms. Modig asked if they were talking only about hardsurface areas. Mr. �ensen-schneider stated, as the proposed ordinance is written, they are talking about blacktop or concrete. Mr. saba asked what the lot coverage would be for the last example in terms of lot coverage using this definition. Mr. Hickok stated he believed the 58% came from the hard surface area and did not include the landscape gravel area. Mr. �ensen-schneider stated the language of the proposed ordinance would be considering hardsurface that is specifically used for parking purposes. rt does not include walkways or patios. Mr. Newman asked what would happen, for example, if a person decides he wants to have a hard surface front yard and use it for a basketball court but does not park on it. Mr. �ensen-schneider stated, as the language is now written, he thought it would be an acceptable hardsurface use. Mr. Hickok stated this would be a rare instance. This is the section of the code that is in the zoning text which is different from a nuisance. There is a variance provision for extenuating circumstances. A person could challenge this. staff would look closely if someone were going to pave their front yard. Mr. Newman stated the language references hardsurfaces for driveways or parking. He shares Mr. saba's concerns. what are we trying to get at? Are we trying to address concerns of impervious surface and run off or are we trying to address parking issues? Mr. Hickok stated he thought the issue was parking and not turning the front yard into a parking lot. rf language is needed to differentiate between folks who want to do something else, staff can look at it. Mr. Newman stated the problem is enforcement. rs this used for a parking lot or is it landscaping? The city could run into problems with enforcement. rt is better to step back and ask if public policy is to limit impervious surface. �oes the city have an ordinance that talks about the amount of impervious surface allowed? Mr. Hickok stated there is such an ordinance for commercial properties but not for residential. �rainage could be an issue, and staff could use that to make this broader. Mr. sielaff stated you must then address the back yard. This ordinance as it is written does not say anything about the back yard. Mr. Hickok stated the ordinance as it is written is intended to talk about the driveway and the front yard. The percentage is based on the area of the front yard and the amount of hardsurface drive. Mr. Newman stated he had a neighbor who parked a limousine behind his house. with this ordinance, a person could turn their back yard into a parking lot. Mr. Hickok stated a situation such as this would be addressed through the home occupation section of the code. rt is possible someone could have four or five vehicles and may choose to use their back yard for parking. Mr. Newman asked the width of a three-car garage. Mr. Hickok stated the standard three-car garage is approximately 32 feet wide. Mr. Newman stated there are few three-car garages in Fridley but, as people remodel and/or upgrade, we will see more. rf a person had a strai ght driveway to the street and has 32 feet of drive on a 90 foot lot, the coverage could be 33% to 35%. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 6, 1996 PAGE 3 Mr. Hickok stated staff scaled other lots to use as examples. with our standard house setback and standard lot widths, he thought a person could utilize a standard driveway for a three-car garage and not exceed 30%. on the lots staff scaled, the percentages were closer to 25%. Typically, staff saw driveways narrower at the street and broadening out by the garage. Ms. Modig asked what would happen to those residents who currently have 58% coverage. Mr. �ensen-schneider stated, because this is a modification to the zoning text, that person would have a pre-existing, non-conforming use. That person would be allowed to keep the driveway. rf he/she wants to enlarge it, staff would then review. Ms. Modig asked what would happen if the property were sold. Mr. �ensen-schneider stated the non-conforming use would go with the property. Ms. Modig stated this ordinance will then not solve any problems that currently exist. Mr. saba stated it would solve the problem for existing conditions if there was remodeling or reconstruction on that property. rf someone has a driveway with a turnaround or parking space, is over 30% of coverage, is badly cracked or in disrepair, and the owner wants to redo it, would he then be in violation of the ordinance? Mr. �ensen-schneider stated yes. Mr. saba stated the owner could then either leave the driveway as it is, use the hardsurface that is there, or forfeit the parking space. Mr. Hickok stated, in this case, the person would have to rebuild using the 50% standard. Mr. Newman stated the homeowner could redo the area piecemeal. Ms. Modig stated enforcement then continues to be the problem. Mr. Newman stated homeowners also have the variance process they could go through. Mr. sielaff asked what was an acceptable runoff for a residential driveway. Mr. Hickok stated they do not have a hardsurface coverage requirement for residential. They have a structural coverage requirement. Therefore, the engineering staff do not get involved with residential issues. rf there is a question about sheet drainage or a surface easement, they would then get involved but not otherwise. Ms. Modig asked if the engineering staff get involved with new developments. Mr. Hickok stated yes, especially if it is multi-family. They do not get involved in single family residential on a lot-by-lot basis. Mr. sielaff asked how the engineering staff would design it if this were the case. They must take into account a certain size driveway for run off. Mr. Hickok stated, in a new development area, staff would take standard setbacks and standard drive widths to calculate the runoff for that area. Mr. sielaff asked if there was some basis for limiting coverage if drainage is the issue. Mr. Hickok stated there is merit to that as well as other issues such as a driveway versus a basketball court. staff can take this back and do an evaluation on the runoff. Mr. Newman asked if there was a time factor on this. Mr. Hickok stated this could go before the city council on April 22. Mr. Newman recommended discussion be tabled in order for staff to further evaluate the comments. Mr. Newman asked when the aerial photos were taken. Mr. Hickok stated the photos were taken in either 1993 or 1994. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 6, 1996 PAGE 4 Mr. Newman asked for comments from the public. Ms. Kroone stated she has a 40-foot lot. since they bought the house 20 years ago, it has always had a front driveway. The drive is now dirt and they plan to hardsurface. she is concerned if they would be able to keep their front driveway. They have very little space for company to park. she also does not care to park in the street or have visitors park there. she has had a hit-and-run with her car. That street is very busy and will get busier. she asked who came up with the 30%. The garage is detached and set back behind the house. Also, they put an addition in the back of the house and she planned to put the driveway to the garage and bring the hard surface to the back door. could there be special circumstances if it turned out the coverage would be at 35%? could there be an exception? she would hate to lose a front driveway. Mr. Newman stated he did not think the fact that the garage was set back was of concern. The proposed ordinance talks about front yard coverage. Ms. Kroone stated, since that part is seen to the street, would that footage change. Mr. Newman stated the calculations would occur from the front of the house to the street. whether or not it is seen from the street is immaterial. The 30% figure came from what other communities have adopted. The purpose of the hearing is to see if this figure should be 30%. He asked Ms. Kroone what the width of the driveway would be. Ms. Kroone stated the driveway would be about 10 feet to 13 feet but it would be narrower by the street. Mr. Newman stated the proposed language would exclude sidewalks. The calculations would include only the driveway and parking surface. rf she has a 40-foot lot and a 10-foot driveway, that is 25% coverage. Ms. Kroone asked if there could be exceptions to the figure that is decided. Mr. Newman stated a variance is an option. They want to draft the ordinance to minimize the need for variances. An essential element in order to enforce an ordinance is to keep it fairly specific and remove as much objectivity as possible. They would hate to see the ordinance prevent anyone from having a driveway. There are ways to do this and address the concerns. one of which is for you to have a hard surface driveway. No further comment from the public was received. MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:08 P.M. Mr. Newman suggested this item be tabled in order for staff to address concerns. He has four concerns. First, he thought they should take a look at total lot coverage and impervious surface coverage. He thought staff should look at the whole lot and not just the front yard. second, if you decide not to deal with lots or impervious surface, staff should look at restricting parking to the hardsurface or driveway areas. Third, look at the 30% figure. He was not sure that 35% would do just as well. Fourth, Ms. Kroone raises an interesting concern with the narrow lot. staff may want to make an exception, in any event, that a person could have a driveway of a minimum width, ie. 15 feet. Mr. saba stated the exception could be for the old narrow, 40-foot lots. Mr. Hickok stated, for the meeting, staff can take Ms. Kroone's lot as an example and could mail to her that information to give her a sense of what the coverage would be. Mr. sielaff stated the Edina parking restriction looks as though it incorporates the percentage according to the square footage of the lot. He would be interested to know what their justification is for those numbers. He would like to find out how and why they came up with those numbers. He wondered if drainage was a consideration. Most of the other communities have 30% front yard area so he did not think they needed further information on that. coon Rapids must have less than 50% coverage for buildings, driveways and paved areas. Mr. Newman stated a fifth concern to be addressed was the concern regarding the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 6, 1996 PAGE 5 percentage of coverage being tied to the square footage of the lot. Mr. Newman asked if they had addressed the landscape concern. Mr. saba stated they had as long as this is defined with driveway and parking. rt could be a concern with a basketball court or a large patio. There could be some unique situations and he wants to stay clear of those. He would rather confine it to parking. Mr. Newman referred to the example of the property with 58% coverage and where the front yard is landscaped. He would suspect that the landscaped area has black plastic under the rock so the impervious surface would actually be nearly 100%. He did not want to intrude in a private decision to fully landscape a house or yard, but he would be concerned if someone could turn the front of their house into 90% to 100% impervious surface. Mr. saba stated this type of landscaping was promoted by environmental groups during times of drought. MOTION by Mr. sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to table consideration of an ordinance amendment recodifying the Fridley city code and for staff to address the following concerns: 1. �ook at total lot coverage and impervious surface. 2. rf not dealing with total lot impervious surface, to restrict parking to the hard surface or driveway areas. 3. rncreasing the percentage from 30% to 35%. 4. An exception where, in any event, a person could have a driveway of a minimum specified width. 5. whether the percentage should be tied to the total width of a lot. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 1996 MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Parks & Recreation commission meeting of �anuary 8, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 16, 1996 MOTION by Mr. sielaff, seconded by Mr. saba, to receive the minutes of the Environmental Quality & Energy commission meeting of �anuary 16, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 1996 MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. sielaff, to receive the minutes of the Appeals commission meeting of �anuary 24, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5, 1996 MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Parks & Recreation commission meeting of February 5, 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 6, 1996 PAGE 6 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: 6. DISCUSSION OF UPCOMING MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE CITY�S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATED TO NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION Mr. Hickok stated he wanted to hand out the ordinance for non-point source pollution before the public hearing on April 3. The city regulates non-point source pollution through ordinance. The Metropolitan council has asked us, in conjunction with the Home Depot project, to make our language in the Comprehensive Plan match that of the Home Depot project. Mr. Hickok stated the city is also about the revise the comprehensive Plan. staff will go out for a housing action plan to be put together. overall, the comprehensive Plan consistency issues, staff will go through and categorize, inventory and evaluate for consistency; then come back with the inconsistencies for the Planning commission to review. Mr. Newman stated, to clarify, that this makes the comprehensive Plan consistent with the ordinance previously adopted. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. The city chose to address non-point source pollution by ordinance. other cities have done so through their comprehensive Plan. The Met council wants the city to do both. staff will bring this forward in April. 7. UPDATE ON THE ROTTLUND PROJECT Mr. Hickok stated this item was before the city council at their last meeting. Mr. Newman asked what happened to the name "stonegate". Mr. Hickok stated the name "christenson" is somehow related with Rottlund. Rottlund asked at a previous meeting if the council would object to a name change. This item had very little discussion on the part of the council. Mr. Newman stated Fridley needs more than anything else to change its image. The name of the proJ'ect is important, but he did not think this name would do that. They could have a public area named christenson Park or christenson Pond but he did not like it as the name of the development. Mr. saba shared the same concern. Ms. Modig stated she would prefer a name with some pizzazz to it. Mr. Newman asked staff to let the city council know the Planning commission has strong reservations about the name change and the image it creates. He understands the city council's concern but perhaps a public area could be called christenson Plaza. The name does have historical significance. Mr. saba stated he would to go back to stonegate to keep the character of the development. Mr. Newman asked if the fire department or police department has any problem with christenson �ane and christenson court as far as emergency planning. Mr. Hickok stated he had not heard that this is a concern. Mr. Hickok stated, after much discussion on the technical issues of the development agreement, the city council and Housing & Redevelopment Authority (H�,) have come to an ag reement as to the aspects of the development. There have been some changes made since this was before the Planning commission. The development will have 54 detached units, 32 townhome units back-to-back, and 32 row homes. There was much discussion about the three-story condominium buildings and the city's interest in subsidizing the cost. The conclusion was, rather than go with a subsidy, to have the developer come back with another option. Rottlund came back with one and two-story units with one and two-stall garages. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 6, 1996 PAGE 7 Mr. saba stated he was concerned about the one-stall garages. The Planning commission wanted two-car garages. Mr. Hickok stated there was concern about pricing. Rottlund was asked to bring the price of the units to where we could still provide affordable options, for example, for those who would have been interested in a condominium for $90,000. The cheapest floor plan is the one-level, one-car garage unit which addresses the accessibility and affordability issues. Mr. saba stated he was bothered by the fact that the city does not allow anyone else to build with a single-car garage, but we are doing it here. Mr. Newman referred to page 12 of the handout. when looking at the elevation, it looks like eight units. rn looking at the site plan, he did not see any units that are eight across. rs the elevation truly accurate? Mr. Hickok stated there are actually two units less and more space between the buildings. These units have windows front and back. Mr. Newman asked if christenson court and christenson �ane will have the same structures. Mr. Hickok stated there will be a mix of one and two-story units. Rottlund is not to put identical units side-by-side. The city will have to be careful to make certain they do not have identical units. Mr. Newman stated, in the original plan, the housing was a one-story cottage along christenson court and a two-story home along christenson �ane. Are both of those styles going to be incorporated into this plan? Mr. Hickok stated yes. The cottages are smaller than originally planned to get at the affordability issue. These now have a smaller footprint and a lower price range of approximately $90,000 to $100,000. Mr. Newman stated the plan originally had a mix of "z" lots and "0" lot lines. rf the plan to get rid of the "0" and go to the "z" lots? Mr. Hickok stated yes. rn the development discussion, there was some debate over how to integrate affordability and the visual interest. At that point, they decided that segregating the one-story and two-story units might cause a generic appearance rather than have a mix of one and two story units as one would find in a neighborhood. Mr. Newman stated in the original plan the units looked similar and that is what he liked about the design. He asked if the smaller house was the driving issue of the affordable housing. Mr. Hickok stated he thought the city did so because of the commitment to seniors to provide affordable housing with little maintenance. Mr. Newman asked if this was not already being done with the townhomes. Mr. Hickok stated it is a different market. The three-story townhomes would attract younger buyers. The real attraction will be for those looking for one-level living. Mr. Newman stated he was concerned about affordable senior housing. The city is taking the last piece of available land and developing housing for just over $100,000. what other opportunities will there be for upscale housing in the community? Ms. Modig stated the original idea of this project was to make it upscale. Mr. Hickok stated another issue was the number of units. we could not stray far from the number of units along with the other issues in order to make the project work. Mr. Newman asked where the council was on the issue of the prevailing wage. Mr. Hickok stated he believed the council approved an exemption for the residential project. Mr. saba stated he does not want anything to cheapen this development. He wants PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 6, 1996 PAGE 8 something to make this an icon. He does not like seeing the single-car garages and the higher density. Ms. Modig asked if this was a done deal. Mr. Hickok stated yes. These are new products which are a result of the earlier design discussions and which take into consideration the elements discussed in terms of landscaping, fences, walls, etc. The discussion of the design criteria drove the design of those units and the developer looked to do something that would complement that design. They believe they have designed the features that will allow this to look like a very nice development. Ms. Modig stated this has one-stall garages when the Planning commission had indicated very strongly that it does not work. Her son lives in a townhome with a one-car garage as do several others next to him. The parking becomes a ni ghtmare. Most occupants have two cars. As a result, the visitor parking is generally full of residents' cars. Mr. Newman stated, if you look at the M�s sheets, the number of homes that are not on the river or in rnnsbruck which sold for over $100,000 have been very few. rf we are going to encourage homeowners to invest in their homes, to renovate, we need to have more homes in the community in the $110,000 to $120,000 range. The city has many in the $90,000 range. He looked at this as an opportunity to move the city up. He realizes the seniors are active voters, but he thought we need to look at what is best for the city for the long term. rf we put in senior housing, we will have open homes for other families. But there are other options, and he has a real concern about that. Mr. Hickok stated he thought the base would be $95,000. rf this is like other developments, he thought they would find some base units but with some options added the cost will be higher. This pushes the envelope of prices up to where he thought they would hit the $120,000 niche. Mr. Newman stated he thought the townhomes would be less expensive. rf the single family units could be $110,000 to $130,000, we thought Rottlund would do okay. He thought they needed to avoid downsizing to get below that. Mr. saba stated that is the way the Planning commission felt when first looking at this project and still want an upscale development. Mr. sielaff stated he thought they were trying to maintain a certain total value. Mr. Newman stated part of the problem is to increase the density for the tax increment value and a certain density is needed to accomplish that. Mr. saba stated his biggest concern is the single-car garages. This will eventually end up with a mess for parking with the density in that area. Ms. Modig stated the area of the village homes does not have any visitor parking. Mr. Hickok stated the street width allows on street parking and there is also driveway parking. Mr. saba stated he is concerned that we are allowing things here that would not be allowed in an R-1 or R-2 district just to get density. Mr. Hickok stated he brought the plan to show the commission where it is at and to keep the commission informed of the progress. Ms. �acy would be a good resource if there are any questions or issues to discuss. He could asked her to attend a future meeting. Mr. Newman stated they could do this only if it will make a difference. He understands the economics, the impact of the decision, etc. we can express our concerns. He can appreciate that staff has a difficult time because on this project staff are trying to serve three masters - the H�,, the city council, and the Planning commission. we have concerns. As Mr. saba stated, we are doing things here we would not allow elsewhere. we are allowing one constituency to drive the planning needs of the city. He hoped that this would be a way to turn the image of the city and he did not think what is being proposed will do that. 8. MISCELLANEOUS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 6, 1996 PAGE 9 Mr. Hickok stated he will send out a copy of their planning periscope. This is a listing of items that are coming up and tracks when these items will go before the city council. Mr. Hickok stated a Hyde Park neighborhood meeting will be held March 19 regarding the redevelopment of the Frank's used car site. Planning commission members are welcome to attend. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Mr. sielaff, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MARCH 6, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �avonn Cooper Recording secretary