Loading...
09/04/1996 - 00003626CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the September 4, 1996, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig, Larry Kuechle Members Absent: Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator APPROVAL OF AUGUST 21, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the August 21, 1996, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. l. (Tabled 8/21/96) PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, SP #96-14, BY ROGER SERDAHL: Per Section 205.07.O1.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow an accessory building other than the first accessory building, over 240 square feet, on Lot 3, Block 4, City View, generally located at 409 - 57th Place N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to remove the matter from the table and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the request was presented at the last meeting. The request is for a special use permit for a second accessory structure. The petitioner has requested the special use permit as well as a variance in order to construct a garage at this location. Mr. Hickok stated the proposal is to supplement the existing 16- foot x 20-foot garage with a new detached garage measuring 12 feet x 22 feet. The existing garage is located 5 feet from the property line on the 57th Avenue side of the property. The petitioner has appeared before the Appeals Commission. Staff had recommended denial of the variance request to 22 feet. Staff is also recommending denial of the special use permit request. Mr. Hickok stated the issue is that the request compounds difficulties in a neighborhood that already has existing detached accessory structures closer to the road than allowed by code, including one existing on this property. Having another garage close to the curb creates a compound of structures. There are also alternatives on the site for consolidation into one garage at a typical setback. There is also an opportunity to attach the garage and provide potential living space above the structure. Options exist on this site that do not require a variance or special use permit, and will not detrimentally impact the neighborhoods' open space. For that reason, staff recommends denial of the request. Staff will work internally to have the remodelling counselor see if there is any remodelling advice that can be given to consolidate the dwelling and the garage. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner was not present at the meeting. Ms. Savage stated the petitioner was present at the Appeals Commission meeting on August 28 and had the opportunity to speak. The Appeals Commission recommended denial of the request. In her opinion, the Planning Commission should act on the request. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:35 P.M. Ms. Savage stated the petitioner had the opportunity to speak at the Appeals Commission meeting and had the opportunity again to be present at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Kuechle was present at the Appeals Commission meeting but all members present felt there were alternatives. The site is now crowded. Because of the alternatives to consolidate into one garage, the Appeals Commission unanimously recommended denial of the variance. Mr. Kuechle concurred. The existing garage is 43 years old so it not a particularly valuable structure any more. The biggest expense that the petitioner would incur would be the removal of the old garage. He thought the petitioner knew the procedure and knew to be here. He did not think they needed to be concerned that the petitioner did not understand the process. Ms. Modig stated staff had mentioned one reason the petitioner wanted to keep the existing garage as it is was the cost of removing the asbestos. Staff checked into the regulations to see PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 3 if the processes were the same for residential and commercial projects. Has the petitioner been made aware of that? Mr. Hickok stated yes. The petitioner seemed to be seeking alternatives. When asked if he wanted to continue with this process, the petitioner request the City Council act on it. Ms. Modig stated she talked to some of the neighbors. Those that she talked to did not have any problems with the request. Mr. Hickok stated staff received one call from a neighbor who indicated they had a problem with the request as problem as proposed. They would prefer to see a consolidation. Mr. Sielaff asked if the petitioner had any objections to the alternatives. Mr. Hickok stated he thought the alternatives seemed to be something the petitioner may be willing to pursue. He thought the petitioner was looking for an opportunity for inexpensive garage space as opposed to a more complicated process. He thought the petitioner saw the merit of consolidating even though it is more expensive. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend denial of Special Use Permit Request, #96-02, by Roger Serdahl, to allow an accessory building other than the first accessory building, over 240 square feet, on Lot 3, Block 4, City View, generally located at 409 - 57th Place N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Hickok stated the City Council would consider this request on September 16. 2. CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #96-02, BY KEITH AND DONNA MAAHS: To split the East 66.50 feet of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 89 into two separate parcels, described as follows: Parcel A: The East 33.25 feet of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, Anoka County, Minnesota. Subject to easements, if any. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 PAGE 4 Parcel B: The West 33.25 feet of the East 66.50 feet of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, Anoka County, Minnesota. Subject to easements, if any. This property is generally located at 1241-43 Norton Avenue N.E. Mr. Hickok stated this request came to the City for a lot split. The structure is a side-by-side double bungalow at 1241-43 Norton Avenue. There was a sense by staff that historically some of these requests have been approved. Staff wanted to get a sense of what has happened on lot splits in the past. It seemed there should be a policy that lot splits should have components outlined. Lot split requests must meet the following requirements: l. A minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet prior to the lot split. 2. A minimum lot width of 75 feet prior to the lot split. 3. The structure must be proven to meet all minimum building code requirements for unit separation. Mr. Hickok stated many of the homes of this vintage were constructed with a common wall similar to a single-family residential exterior wall and not quite the fire-wall as required by the code. With the three items lacking, staff contacted the petitioners to let them know the lot was substandard and the structure would need modifications before the request could be considered. Staff did not hear from the petitioners since they received the letter. In the future, applications will not be accepted without meeting these minimum requirements. Mr. Sielaff asked what the two-hour fire wall was. Mr. Hickok stated this is basically two finished walls with sheetrock on either side and an air space in between. It allows separation in the event of a fire in one of the units and gives approximately two hours time before it seriously affects the adjacent unit. The fire wall goes from the foundation up to the ridge line. Older homes often have open rafters so the flames can carry across and involve the entire structure. Ms. Savage asked if staff's memo reflects something new in the analysis of lot split requests. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 PAGE 5 Mr. Hickok stated it reflects something new internally. We have had four requests for lot splits recently. In real estate, a unit that has been split can be more marketable. Staff felt it necessary to have a uniform statement for these requests. Ms. Savage asked if this petitioner was led to believe they could apply. Mr. Hickok stated he did not know details of conversations lead to their making the application. The application was accepted but, during the review process, it was determined property lacked these components. that the Ms. Savage asked if there was a need to inform the public of this decision. Mr. Hickok stated the lot area and lot width requirements are already part of the code and the fire wall requirement is part of the building code. Mr. Kuechle stated he did not see it necessary to inform the public. This is nothing new. It just clarifies the requirements. Mr. Hickok stated the City has a number of double bungalow lots that meet the requirements. It is not unusual. Staff's feeling is that, in the event a unit should burn or be destroyed, we then have two owners to deal with on the parcels. If the sites have a minimum 75-foot lot width, we then have the opportunity to join them into one lot. Mr. Kuechle asked if this lot was 8,892 square feet before the lot split. Mr. Hickok stated yes. The lot width after the split would be approximately 33 feet. Mr. Sielaff asked if this policy needed to be approved by the City Council and if the City Council had delegated this to staff. Mr. Hickok stated he thought the Council would be comfortable with staff making this type of decision. Internally, it boils down to what staff will accept at the counter as a minimum standard. Home owners can still go through the process. The requirements are now a part of the code and the code is very PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 PAGE 6 clear. With the 60-day agency action law, he felt the City Council would prefer that staff not accept these types of applications. Ms. Modig asked if there are buildings that would meet these requirements. Mr. Hickok stated yes. Mr. Sielaff stated he was trying to separate what is policy and what is code. Is this something staff is doing to be sure the code is being enforced? Mr. Hickok stated the minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet and the minimum lot width of 75 feet is in the code. The fire wall requirement is a safety issue. It is a major reconstruction project and we want to petitioner to be aware of this requirement. The cost of this reconstruction can be prohibitive and staff wants to identify that for the petitioner. Mr. Kuechle stated the two-hour fire wall is a building code requirement. Mr. Hickok stated the policy portion is putting this information together and informing the petitioner at the time they come in to make the application. Ms. Savage stated there is no need to notify the public because this is nothing new. It is just enforcing what is already in the code. Mr. Hickok stated this application could have been moved forward but staff feels this would have been a disservice to the petitioner. Ms. Modig asked if there was a time where buildings were required to have this type of construction. Mr. Hickok stated it would be easy to go back to the Uniform Building Code as to what is required between unit. He thought the fire-wall requirement was changed in 1976 or 1984. Ms. Modig stated perhaps it would be helpful to state on the application that any buildings constructed prior to this date must meet these requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 PAGE 7 Mr. Kuechle stated, when something happens to buildings, they must then be brought up to code. That may be the case here. Mr. Hickok stated that is a consideration. There is cost involved and what value this has in relationship to the rest of the building. Beyond 500 of the value of the structure, it would require being built to all new standards. 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 16, 1996 Mr. Sielaff stated these minutes have not been approved by the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission. The next meeting will be in October. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission meeting of July 16, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 1996 MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to receive the minutes of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting of August 8, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 1996 MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of August 14, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 1996 Mr. Kuechle stated these minutes have not been officially approved. The next meeting is scheduled for September 25. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 PAGE 8 MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of August 28, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Hickok stated, once the minutes are accepted, he will provide a copy to members if there are any changes. Mr. Hickok stated the first draft of the traffic study done as part of the Home Depot project for the 57th street improvements is back from Home Depot's consultant. The County and the consultants for Home Depot will meet tomorrow. The consultants have outlined a number of options for 57th Avenue. No costs have been assigned. We are working toward a solution. The Commission will be kept informed of the progress. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE SEPTEMBER 4, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary