Loading...
03/20/1996 - 00003476CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 20, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: chairperson Newman called the March 20, 1996, Planning commission meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: �ave Newman, �ave Kondrick, �eROy oquist, �ean saba, Brad sielaff, connie Modig Members Absent: �iane savage others Present: scott Hickok, Planning coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Mike Black, Royal oaks Realty Rich Riemersma, Imperial Homes, Inc. Bob Horeck, 5505 w. �anube �an & Ron zaczkowski, 814 Hugo street N.E. �ean & Bill schacher, 8191 Ruth circle N.E. Ralph officer, 315 Hugo street N.E. �avid �andrus, 5775 - 2 1/2 street N.E. Ray & �orothy Hegna, 5770 - 3rd street N.E. Kathy Roesler, 5846 - 2 1/2 Street N.E. Terry Reyes, 1479 N. Danube Road N.E. Norm �enkins, 5730 �uluth street, �olden valley, Minnesota rrving Brody, 5031 st. croix Avenue, �olden valley, Minnesota APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. oquist, to approve the agenda. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MARCH 6, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. oquist, seconded by Mr. sielaff, to approve the March 6, 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 A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #96-01, BY RONALD AND JANET ZACZKOWSKI: Per section 205.07.O1.c.(1) of the Fridley city code, to allow a second accessory building in excess of 240 square feet, on �ots 29 - 32, Block A, Riverview Heights, generally located at 314 Hugo street N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. saba, 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 7:38 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the special use permit is to allow a second accessory structure over 240 square feet. The subJ'ect property is located at 314 Hugo street which is Just east of Ruth street and east of East River Road. �ocated on the property is a single family dwelling unit of split level design with an existing tuck under garage. The Appeals Commission recently approved a variance request to allow the petitioner to construct a 22 foot x 36 foot attached garage. The variance was to reduce the setback from Ruth street from 25 feet to 17 feet. As a stipulation of approval, the petitioner was requested either convert the existing garage to living space or apply for a special use permit. Also located on the subject parcel in the rear yard is an 8 foot x 10 foot utility shed. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 20, 1996 PAGE 2 Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has indicated in his letter to the Planning staff and to the Planning commission that he would like to use the existing tuck under garage for the family car. A second car, a boat and hobby woodworking space would be located in the newly constructed garage. one option presented in the staff report was to have the petitioner utilize the new garage for the vehicles and boat and convert the tuck under garage for the proposed hobby shop. This would allow the petitioner to remove the existing overhead door and possibly install double doors or a single service door which could then allow the petitioner to remove all the asphalt in the front yard except for perhaps a sidewalk for access to the front door of the dwelling unit. The city has in past instances allowed both garages to continue to exist and has not required removal or strict conversion of a tuck under garage to living space. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has indicated he would be removing the off street parking space located in the front yard and returning that to green space. The petitioner will also be removing the 8 foot x 10 foot utility shed. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the special use permit request with one stipulation: 1. The petitioner shall remove the existing 8 foot x 10 foot utility shed within one year of completion of the garage addition. Planning commission members had no questions of staff. Mr. zaczkowski stated he is opposed to having the wood shop in the tuck under space. Any sanding or cutting of wood creates a lot of dust which drifts into the home. That is why he would like to put the wood shop in the garage where there is no direct access into the house except by the outside door. Also, any polyseal or varnishing could drift into the house as well. Mr. Newman stated the only requirement of the special use permit is that the 8 foot x 10 foot utility shed be removed in one year. Mr. sielaff asked if the petitioner was taking out the additional parking space and if he would object if the commission made that a stipulation. Mr. zaczkowski stated he plans to take out the parking space and the shed. He had no problem with the stipulation. Mr. Kondrick stated woodworking tools can be noisy. would this create more noise from the new garage than from the tuck under space? Mr. zaczkowski stated there may be more noise. He has a planer and it does involve noise. He did not plan to work at all hours of the night. He plans to insulate the new garage because he plans to be out there in the winter. No further comments from the public were received. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, 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 7:43 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated he has no problem with the request. He went by the property. He thought the request was reasonable and would be an asset to that area. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. saba, to recommend approval of special use Permit, sP #96-01, by Ronald and �anet zaczkowski, to allow a second accessory building in excess of 240 square feet, on �ots 29-32, Block A, Riverview Heights, generally located at 314 Hugo street N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall remove the existing 8 foot x 10 foot utility shed within one year of completion of the garage addition. 2. The petitioner shall remove the extra parking area within one year of completion of the garage addition. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 20, 1996 PAGE 3 Ms. McPherson stated the city council would consider this request at their April 8th meeting. CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT REQUEST, �.s. #96-01, BY VALLEY INVESTMENT CO.: To split �ots 1, 2, and 3, Block 27, Hyde Park, together with all that part of the vacated alley lying west of said lots and lying between the westerly extension of the North line of said �ot 1, and the westerly extension of the south line of said �ot 3 into two parcels as described: Parcel A. The west 65 feet of �ots 1, 2, 3, Block 27, Hyde Park, Anoka county, Minnesota, as measured along the North line of said �ot 1, and along the south line of said �ot 3, together with all that part of the vacated alley lying west of said lots, and lying between the westerly extension of the North line of said �ot 1, and the westerly extension of the south line of said �ot 3. Parcel B. That part of �ots 1, 2, and 3, Hyde Park, Anoka county, Minnesota, lying East of the west 65 feet thereof as measured along the North line of said �ot 1 and along the south line of said �ot 3. This property is generally located at 276-78 - 58th Avenue N.E. Ms. McPherson stated the request is for a lot split by the valley rnvestment company. The property is located at 276-78 - 58th Avenue. This property is a corner lot located at the intersection of 58th Avenue and 3rd street in the Hyde Park neighborhood. There are three issues to be considered: The Planning commission will be required to acknowledge deficiencies in �ot B, a reduction in the required lot width from 80 feet to 65 feet, and a reduction in the required lot area from 9,000 square feet to 8,839 square feet. The city's action will create a"swapping" of nonconforming setbacks. currently, the property does not meet the required rear yard setback. should the lot split be approved, the required front yard setback will not be met by the existing dwelling. The detached two-car garage located on the parcel will be located on a newly approved vacant lot should the request be approved. The city code does not allow accessory structures to be located on a lot prior to the principal structure. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioners are proposing to take the parcel comprised of three lots and a vacated alley and split it into two parcels. Parcel A has an existing duplex constructed in 1959 under R-2, Two-Family �welling �istrict, regulations. This parcel measures 77 feet x 135 feet and meets the minimum lot area required in the R-2 district of 10,000 square feet. The lot area is actually 10,400. The lot split would create Parcel B which is adjacent to 3rd street and 58th Avenue. This lot measures 65 feet x 134 feet and has a lot area of 8,839 square feet. �ot B is deficient in two requirements. The first is the lot width which is only 65 feet. The minimum requirement for a corner lot is 80 feet. The second is lot area which is less than the 9,000 square foot minimum. If the Commission chooses to approve the lot split, the members need to acknowledge these deficiencies. Ms. McPherson stated the second issue is the nonconforming setbacks. rn 1986, the Planning staff was requested to analyze a similar lot split request. At that time, it was determined that 3rd street, because it is the shorter frontage, would be the front yard making the west portion of the lot the rear yard. The duplex is currently 13.5 feet at its closest point from the rear lot line. The required rear yard setback is 35.61 feet. The lot as it is currently configured without the split is nonconforming in its rear yard setback. rf the lot split is approved, the front yard would then be towards 58th Avenue. The duplex is also set too close to 58th Avenue for the front yard requirement of 35 feet. The duplex is 14 feet from what would then be the front property line. The City's action would create a"swapping" of a nonconforming rear yard setback for a nonconforming front yard setback. Ms. McPherson stated the third issue is the detached garage on what would be Parcel B. rf the lot split is approved, the accessory structure would be located on the parcel prior to construction of a principle building. section 205.04.05.A of the Fridley city code explicitly states, "NO accessory building or structure shall be permitted on any PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 20, 1996 PAGE 4 lot prior to the time of the issuance of the building permit for the construction of a principal building." staff is recommending the petitioner remove this garage. Ms. McPherson stated staff has analyzed the petitioners' options. The petitioners could potentially move the detached garage onto Parcel A; however, that does increase the lot coverage from the maximum of 25% to 28% which would then require a variance. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the request with the Planning commission acknowledging the deficiencies and with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner acknowledges the city's action creates a nonconforming front yard setback. 2. The petitioner shall remove the garage located on �ot B. 3. The petitioner acknowledges that �ot B has a long, narrow buildable area and shall design a house to fit that area. Ms. Modig stated how is this impacted by the fact that the Planning commission is acknowledging the deficiencies regarding the setbacks and the petitioner is acknowledging that the city's actions create a nonconforming setback? Ms. McPherson stated she would respond to the first part regarding the Planning commission acknowledging the deficiencies. The subdivision ordinance allows the Planning Commission and the City Council to approve lot splits or plats with lots that do not meet the minimum requirements. The commission is in effect granting a variance to the lot area and lot width requirements. Those are the only two areas where the Planning commission is allowed to grant a variance. Ms. McPherson stated the second part deals with the front yard setback. while the petitioners acknowledge that the lot line along 58th Avenue now becomes the front yard and creates a nonconformity, it does not grant the petitioners a variance to the front yard setback. rf the petitioners chose to expand the part of the dwelling in the area of the garage, they would need to request a variance. Mr. saba asked what was planned to go on the newly created lot. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioners have been told that the only type of building permitted in that district would be a single family dwelling. Ms. Modig asked if a time limit had been set for the removal of the garage. Ms. McPherson stated a time limit had not been set. This should be done. Mr. sielaff asked if the existing attached garage had two parking stalls. Ms. McPherson stated the existing garage is a 1.5 car garage being 21 feet wide. Mr. sielaff asked if the petitioner would have to have hard surface that would accommodate 2.5 cars. Ms. McPherson stated existing duplexes constructed prior to the current code are permitted to provide three parking spaces. Potentially, if the tenants have small cars, they may be able to get two in the garage and the owner would have to provide an additional hard surface stall adjacent to the garage. Mr. sielaff asked if the total lot coverage included hard surface. Ms. McPherson stated no. This pertains only to the buildings. Mr. oquist asked, if the existing garage on the newly created lot could become part of the new structure, would it be necessary to remove it. Ms. McPherson stated no, but the Planning commission would have to amend the second stipulation to indicate, if a dwelling were to be constructed within 12 months or 18 months, then the garage could remain as part of that structure. Mr. Newman asked if the lot width of Parcel A was nonconforming. Ms. McPherson stated Parcel A is an interior lot and the minimum is 75 feet. This lot PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 20, 1996 PAGE 5 is 80 feet which is conforming. Mr. Newman asked, from a planning standpoint, why should the Planning commission recommend approval. Ms. McPherson stated that approval would provide an additional single family lot and provide an opportunity to invest in the Hyde Park neighborhood. The city and the H�, are encouraging investment in this part of the city. The request is not greatly different from what has been previously approved in other parts of the community. The lot area is not substantially below the minimum requirement. Mr. saba stated he had the same concerns that we are perpetuating nonconformance. rs this really an investment in the Hyde Park neighborhood or is this perpetuating nonconformance in that neighborhood? without seeing a plan or without knowing what will be developed there, he is skeptical. Ms. Hegna stated someone had talked about putting the existing garage next to the existing duplex. where would the driveway be? Ms. McPherson stated this is a question to direct to the petitioners. There is an option to go through the variance process to construct an addition to the existing garage. Mr. Newman asked if the petitioners could do this and meet the setback requirements. Ms. McPherson stated they could do that in the rear yard but not in the front. Mr. Newman asked, if the petitioners merely removed the detached garage, is there a garage by the duplex now. Ms. McPherson stated yes. Mr. Brody, valley rnvestment company, stated they would like to leave the garage on the new lot and construct a single family dwelling. He hoped to have that completed in the next 16 months. Mr. Newman asked when the petitioners anticipated breaking ground. Mr. Brody stated they hoped to do so this summer. Mr. Kondrick asked if the petitioners planned to build a new dwelling on the lot and leave the garage there. Mr. Brody stated yes. rt seems a shame to tear down the garage when it is already there serving a good purpose. Mr. Newman asked, without seeing plans, would that conform with setback requirements. Ms. McPherson stated, if the garage remained detached, it would meet the requirements. rf the garage is attached, staff would need to further analyze the request. Mr. saba expressed concern about the size of the garage. rsn't that an issue with new construction? Ms. McPherson stated the existing garage is 22 feet x 23 feet. rt is small but it would meet the two-car garage requirement. Mr. oquist asked, if a house were constructed, which street would be the address. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner can choose whether to address the property off 3rd street or 58th Avenue. Mr. saba asked if staff had received any calls from the neighbors. Ms. McPherson stated staff had not received any calls. Mr. Brody stated their plan is to construct a single family home. They would consider selling the lot if they had an offer from a contractor. Either way, there would be new construction in that area. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 20, 1996 PAGE 6 Mr. Newman suggested stating as a condition that the time frame be 12 months for a building permit to be issued with a certificate of occupancy being issued within 18 months and, if this is not done, the petitioner then must take down the garage. Mr. oquist stated he can understand the concern about nonconforming use but, on the other hand, it is a large empty area. The points staff has made are valid. He has no problem with the stipulations. Mr. Newman asked if the petitioners had seen the recommendations that staff had recommended and if they was comfortable with those. Mr. Brody stated they had seen them and had no problems. No further comments from the public were received. MOTION by Mr. oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend approval of �ot split Request, �.s. #96-01, by valley Investment company, to split �ots 1, 2, and 3, Block 27, Hyde Park, together with all that part of the vacated alley lying west of said lots and lying between the westerly extension of the North line of said �ot 1, and the westerly extension of the south line of said �ot 3 into two parcels as described: Parcel A. The west 65 feet of �ots 1, 2, 3, Block 27, Hyde Park, Anoka county, Minnesota, as measured along the North line of said �ot 1, and along the south line of said �ot 3, together with all that part of the vacated alley lying west of said lots, and lying between the westerly extension of the North line of said �ot 1, and the westerly extension of the south line of said �ot 3. Parcel B. That part of �ots 1, 2, and 3, Hyde Park, Anoka county, Minnesota, lying East of the west 65 feet thereof as measured along the North line of said �ot 1 and along the south line of said �ot 3. This property is generally located at 276-78 - 58th Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner acknowledges the city's action creates a nonconforming front yard setback. 2. rf the petitioner fails to obtain a building permit for a single family residence within 12 months of the approval of the �ot split and fails to obtain a certificate of occupancy for said structure within 18 months of the approval of the �ot split, then the garage located on Parcel B shall be removed. 3. The petitioner acknowledges that �ot B has a long, narrow buildable area and shall design a house to fit that area. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the city council would consider this request on April 8th. 3. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST, SAV #96-01, BY IMPERIAL HOMES, INC.: To vacate that part of the drainage and utility easement as dedicated on �ot 7, Block 1, Totino �race Addition, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the north line of said �ot 7 distant 65.10 feet east from the northwest corner of said �ot 7; thence on an assumed bearing of south 28 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East along the west line of said drainage and utility easement 64.13 feet; thence south 38 degrees 00 minutes East 32.00 feet; thence North 24 degrees 16 minutes 58 seconds west 92.63 feet to a point on said north line distant 12 feet east of said point of beginning; thence south 77 degrees 31 minutes 44 seconds west 12.00 feet to the point of beginning. Except the north 5 feet thereof, generally located at 1435 Royal oak court N.E. Ms. McPherson stated the request is for a recently subdivided lot in the Totino-�race addition located near Arthur street, southeast of the school and located adjacent to a wetland next to Arthur street. The petitioner is requesting that a portion of a drainage and utility easement located on the property be vacated. The petitioner is requesting the vacation in order to construct a single family dwelling with an attached PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 20, 1996 PAGE 7 garage. The northeast corner of the garage encroaches into the easement area. The petitioner is currently constructing a house and at this point is avoiding the area of the garage to avoid encroachment into the easement area. Ms. McPherson stated the purpose of the drainage and utility easement is to provide additional buffer space for the wetland area beyond the line delineated by the wetland specialist. The petitioners have designed a house for their client. unfortunately, the design of the house does not fit within the buildable area when taking into account the easement and setback requirements. wetland delineations are not an exact science. The additional buffer provided by the drainage and utility easement is an advantage. The vacation of the easement would reduce the buffer from 7 feet to approximately 1.5 feet at its closest point. Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending the request be denied. The petitioner has designed the garage so that it could be cantilevered over the easement area which would not require footings or foundations in the easement; however, the garage would still hang over and into the air rights of the easement. There are no utilities that the city would require access to in this area. The purpose of the drainage and utility easement is only to protect the wetland located north and east of the site. Mr. oquist asked if the petitioner could still cantilever the garage over the easement even if the request was denied. Ms. McPherson stated yes. The original design of the garage had space below the garage which was intended to allow the petitioner workshop space. That would need to be omitted if the vacation request is denied. Mr. Kondrick asked how much the setback would be reduced. Ms. McPherson stated the setback would be from 7 feet to 1.5 feet at the closest point based on the new line of the easement. Mr. Newman asked if the city had an ordinance that requires a specific setback from a wetland. Ms. McPherson stated no, the city does not have such an ordinance. Mr. Kondrick asked if it was correct that this is meant to keep buildings as far away as possible from the pond. Mr. oquist stated this is meant to keep the footings away from the pond. Mr. Newman stated the drainage and utility easement is meant to protect the wetland soils and vegetation. whether there is a pond or not is immaterial. The area is designated a wetland and the easement is to keep that from being disturbed. Mr. Black stated Bob and cheryl Horeck currently live at 4555 �anview, have lived there for 20 years and are building their dream home. Mr. Riemersma, rmperial Homes, spent much time with the applicants looking at their home, looking at what they would like to build, and desi gning a home for the lot. There have been many adjustments made to the plan and they thought they had it until it was staked out on the property, and they were told they were not allowed to go onto this drainage easement on the northeast portion of the lot. Mr. Black stated they are asking consideration to vacate only a portion of the easement. They are not talking about any setback variances. The house meets all the setback requirements. rt is the encroachment over the drainage easement that is the problem. The drainage easement line was not something required by the city. rt is not a requirement that they have this in a certain spot. It is really the surveyor who drew the easement line up and above the 100-year flood plane of that pond. rf we had known this, they would have moved the easement over because it is not going to make a difference. stringent requirements were placed on them as they came through the process to get this plat approved. on this particular lot, there were a number of stipulations they had to abide by in order to build a home on this lot. Mr. Black stated the pond has a 100-year flood plane elevation of 951 feet. The easement line as they wish to amend it will still be above 951 feet. The easement line as currently shown was delineated by Mr. Harley, a respected person when it comes to wetland delineation. However, the wetland soils meander up and down the hill. The PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 20, 1996 PAGE 8 easement line would still be above the wetland line. The change as proposed would not allow any encroachment into the wetland. rt is not their intention to encroach into the wetland. Mr. Black stated another stipulation was that there shall be no construction below the 953 contour. That is a stipulation we are abiding by. Regarding flood protection, there is a requirement that the lowest opening on the lower level cannot be below the 955 elevation. The lower level elevation is at 959. Mr. Black stated the request is to vacate a portion of this easement. rt will not encroach upon any of the stipulations placed upon us when the plat was approved. Mr. Black reviewed the building plan. Mr. oquist asked what portion of the easement the petitioner was requesting to vacate. Mr. Black stated the area is shown on the certificate of survey as a somewhat triangular shaped shaded area. rt could be made somewhat smaller. only a small corner of the garage would encroach totalling approximately 35 square feet. The buffer area is an area that staff would like to have, but there is nothing in the code that requires a setback from a wetland. rn many lots, it is common to have drainage easements along property lines and the homeowner maintains the easement. In this area, there will be some maintenance within the easement area. The easement line is the setback line. The house is a walkout rambler with a three-car garage. rt is the back corner of the garage where the problem occurs. The area below the garage would be a storage area with an outside access. Mr. Newman asked if the area of issue is under the third stall of the garage. Mr. Black stated yes. To avoid encroachment, they have designed the wall at an angle with the upper level cantilevered two feet over the footings in order to provide room for another vehicle. This creates some other structural problems including an unusual roof line and an odd exterior elevation. Mr. Black stated the Horecks are excited about building the house. They have the permits and are under construction. The house sits well on the lot and there have been adjustments made to fit the lot. rt is now the issue of the easement. There is no reason to have the easement this wide because they can still meet all the environmental protection requirements with a shallower easement area. Mr. Newman asked how the easement was set as it is. Mr. Black stated the easements are drawn on the final plat which does not reflect the final contours of the property. The easement line was drawn on the plat close to the wetland at a point the surveyor thought was above the 100-year flood plain elevation. rt was accepted, and they thought they had enough room to build. rt was not a mistake on the part of the surveyor. Knowing that these lots had restrictions and that the homes would be custom homes, in retrospect they perhaps should have paid more attention. Mr. Newman asked, when the city approved the plat, did we require the easement be a certain distance away from the delineation. Ms. McPherson stated no. Mr. Newman asked if they had assumed the surveyor was drawing the line to be consistent with the delineation of a wetland. Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. Mr. Newman asked if the original delineation had changed. Ms. McPherson stated no. Mr. Newman stated there was then no reason for additional area to be dedicated. The surveyor drew it and we accepted that. Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. unless it is for a specific engineering request, we do not stipulate the width of easements. Mr. Newman stated, since there is no such thing as a wetland easement, you use a drainage easement. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 20, 1996 PAGE 9 Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. Mr. Newman stated, whether or not a hardship is caused, the problem is that from a structural standpoint cantilevering the garage is going to be difficult. Mr. Riemersma stated, from a standpoint of doing custom design homes and fitting them onto the lots, we run into problems quite often with setbacks and certain requirements. on this particular lot, the reason we are where we are in the construction is that when we designed the home we did take into consideration all the setbacks. when he wrote a summary of the requirements for this lot, the requirement was to not build below 953 feet. so, he designed the home under that assumption not realizing there was a drainage and utility easement at that corner of the garage. His impression was that they could build within the 953 line which is what they are proposing. The reason we are constructing at this point in the way we are is that we could get a building permit without having a foundation shown on that easement. The city would allow them to build the garage with an angle and cantilevered. upon putting together the purchase agreement requirements, etc., they then found this was within the easement. Mr. Horeck is the future owner of the home. He distributed copies of his memo to the Fridley Planning commission dated March 20, 1996, regarding the vacation of the easement. Mr. Horeck stated they have a stairway from the garage going to the lower level. They have elderly parents who are not in good health and they expect their parents to come and live with them. He expects to install a lift system which requires adequate clearance by the corner of the stairway. The cantilever leaves marginal room and could cause problems. Beyond that, they feel the angled wall detracts from the house and the beauty of the neighborhood. They have had a number of concerns expressed by staff. The first was that they did not meet the setbacks. Mr. Black has discussed this in detail. The second was that the neighbors have serious objections. They have lived in the neighborhood for 22 years. He went to each person listed on the notice. with the exception of one person, they have all signed. The one person objecting is at the meeting. They have spoken about the objections and it comes down to destroying the beauty of the wetlands and not wanting the development in their backyard in the first place. The development is here. The house will be built. They want to preserve and enjoy the wetland. They have been avid about preserving the wetland. Their plan is to leave the wetland and easement as it is but they want to get the footings in for the garage. They have an elevation of 955 feet at the back of the house at the door on the lower level. The corner of the garage is an area of 35 square feet that would encroach. rf the wall is angled, the egress is tight if they have a wheelchair situation. Mr. Horeck stated he has no objection to the buffer area. They plan to leave the area wild, clean up as much as they can and keep it as natural as they can. They have two places that are a problem. The first is the 35 square feet at the angled wall and the other is one footing for a deck in the very back corner. He does not see how they are going to upset anyone's view by making the garage the right shape. They have no neighbors that will be affected. This is a reasonable request and he hopes to get approval. Mr. Reyes stated he is speaking in support of staff's recommendation that the wetland and drainage easement be retained. He was aware of the restrictions and covenants. These were done for many good reasons, including the preservation of the wetlands and retaining the natural beauty. He is concerned about this request. rn his experience, the developer has already encroached on property. His next door neighbor had his land encroached upon by a bulldozer which leveled everything there. That neighbor has resolved the matter but the developer did not have permission to do that. He is concerned that this request, though for a minimum amount of space, can end up being different than what is expected. He is concerned that what is being asked for may not be the final product. This area has had a lot of water runoff in the last few years. He is concerned that the home was started before this request was made. rt is close to the wetland as it is. He is surprised that a home of that size is going in that close to a body of water. He would support that the land and easement be retained as they are. Mr. saba asked if there was any other way to do this without giving up the entire easement, such as by a variance. Ms. McPherson stated the issue is not a setback requirement. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 20, 1996 PAGE 10 Mr. Newman stated he does not like the fact that, if the Planning commission approves the vacation, it allows a home to be within 1.5 feed of a dedicated wetland but the city has no ordinance requiring a setback. The surveyor may have made an error. rf so, we have to correct that mistake. This request is to correct the delineation. Mr. oquist stated the request is not to build into the wetland. rt is still 1.5 feet away. He thought they could assure Mr. Reyes in making sure this is constructed properly. Mr. Newman stated he would assume, if they added a stipulation, that we want the edge of that wetland clearly marked and staked during the construction period, that would be acceptable so it is clear to the builders, neighbors and city inspectors where the line is. Mr. sielaff stated he is concerned about a broader issue. one can argue that the easement is accurate or not accurate. He is concerned about other drainage easements that are done and what this does when they review other requests that come up. The lines are put on paper for a reason and now we are starting to move those lines a little more and then someone requests a little more. where to you then draw the line? He is concerned from a broader perspective. He has no qualms that the owner will take care of his property and take care of the wetlands, but he sees a broader issue. Mr. oquist stated this easement was arbitrarily placed there where in other situations they are well defined easements along lot lines. Mr. Newman recommended, when they are done, that staff look at an ordinance specifying setbacks from a wetland. since we do not now have such an ordinance in place, he did not think they could impose it in this case. Mr. saba stated he could go along with that recommendation. He would also like to see a setback ordinance for wetlands. MOTION by Mr. oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend approval of vacation Request, sAV #96-01, by rmperial Homes, rnc., to vacate that part of the drainage and utility easement as dedicated on �ot 7, Block 1, Totino �race Addition, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the north line of said �ot 7 distant 65.10 feet east from the northwest corner of said �ot 7; thence on an assumed bearing of south 28 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East along the west line of said drainage and utility easement 64.13 feet; thence south 38 degrees 00 minutes East 32.00 feet; thence North 24 degrees 16 minutes 58 seconds west 92.63 feet to a point on said north line distant 12 feet east of said point of beginning; thence south 77 degrees 31 minutes 44 seconds west 12.00 feet to the point of beginning. Except the north 5 feet thereof, generally located at 1435 Royal oak court N.E., with the following stipulation: 1. The edge of the wetland be clearly marked at not greater than 10-foot intervals so all concerned persons can monitor. Mr. saba stated he was concerned about the lack of consideration by the construction company going into the neighbor's property and being careless. Ms. McPherson updated the commission on this issue. An error was made by the subcontractor on one of the lots. staff immediately worked with the petitioner and the neighboring property owner to bring resolution and correct the error. They have re- vegetated and re-planted what was destroyed. As a result, in order to enforce the 15- foot no cut zone, staff has required the petitioner to install orange snow fencing to prevent sub-contractors from misunderstanding where the construction area is. staff is holding a performance bond of the petitioner as well. staff have put mechanics in place to prevent further inadvertent encroachment. This will apply to this lot as well. UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MS. MODIG, MR. NEWMAN, MR. KONDRICK, MR. OQUIST, AND MR. SABA VOTING AYE, AND MR. SIELAFF VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION BY A MAJORITY VOTE. Ms. McPherson stated vacation requests require a public hearing. The city council on April 8th will establish the public hearing for April 22. The city council will consider this request on April 22. MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend that staff review and PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 20, 1996 PAGE 11 evaluate the possibility of adopting a wetland setback ordinance. Ms. McPherson stated this may be included in the shoreline ordinance. Mr. Newman thought this would get buried there. He felt this should be part of the zoning requirements. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF FEBRUARY 8, 1996 MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. saba, to receive the minutes of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting of February 8, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14, 1996 MOTION by Mr. oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Appeals commission meeting of February 14, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 1996 MOTION by Mr. sielaff, seconded by Mr. saba, to receive the minutes of the Environmental Quality and Energy commission meeting of February 20, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Hickok stated the first neighborhood meeting in Hyde Park regarding the Frank's used car site had been conducted. Many residents would prefer to see a single-family development. others had some interesting comments regarding a townhouse development. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. sielaff, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MARCH 20, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �avonn Cooper Recording secretary