Loading...
PL 09/17/1997 - 30847,�", CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING CO1�II�lISSION MEETING, 3EPTII�LR 17, 1997 CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Kondrick called the September 17, 1997, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CA.LL : MemYaers Present: Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig Members .Absent: Diane Savage, LeRoy Oquiat, Larry Kuechle Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Jeff Saarela, 6190 Heather Circle Mary & Dennis Pietrini, 6177 Heather Cir. NE George Bateson, 6196 Heather Place Mary & Mark Bue, 6229 Central Avenue Norma & Harold Morgan, 6245 Central Avenue Dorothy Miles, 1370 Rice Creed Road NE � Paul Litwinczuk, 6291 Central Avenue NE Councilmember Ann Bolkcom Councilmember Bob Barnette Angela Rust Jane Skinner, 6217 Central Avenue John Corcoran, Realtor Dianne McKusick, 4330 Van Buren Street Cynthia Schreiner, 7372 Symphony Street NE Peggy Van De Riet, 210 Rice Creek Boulevard Donnamae Siedlecki, 425 - 67th Avenue NE Virgil Brenny, 6187 Heather Circle Mar�e Brickner, 3423 Fordham Court Rick Brickner, 1233 - 12th Avenue NW, New Brighton, NIl�T Jim Esler, New Brighton Mrs. Willis Lynn, Melody Manor Phil Dommer, Philip Stephen Companies, Inc. Jeff Johnson, Barna, Guzy, & Steffen Ltd. Amy Jo Martin, 6170 Heather Place Carol Westover, 6270 West Ben More Drive Virgil Raney, 6187 Heather Circle APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 3 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MINU'TES: OM TION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to approve the September 3, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as written. /'�� . IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICL-CHAIRPLRSON ItONDRICR DLCLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UN,i�,1�TIMOIISLY . PLANNING CO1�lISSION MEETING, SEPTEU�F•R 17, 1997 PAGE 2 1. COMPREHEN�T�TE' PLANNING MEETING FOR AREA #3 Mr. Hickok stated this meeting is for the third planning area as part of the Comprehensive Planning process. The City Council made it clear that they would like to ir�volve the public in the process as much as possible. In order to do that, staff has broken the City into seven geographic areas. Homeowners and business owners are notified of the meeting in the hope that they will provide input as the City moves forward in the comprehensive plan process. Mr. Hickok stated the City adopted its first Comprehensive Plan 15 years ago as part of the State Land Planning Act. The plan looked to the future; talked about what we would look like from a policy standpoint into the year 1990; and set policy for land use, housing, park and recreation, transportation, environment and utilities. We are at a point where the Comprehensive Plan needs to be updated. The State is requiring that by the end of next year the Comprehensive Plan be updated and in place. As part of the process, staff has been interested in getting the public's input and the Commission's input as part of moving forward on the plan. � Mr. Hickok stated the City of Fridley is a fully developed community. Most of the development occurred after World War II in the 1950's and 1960's. As we now look at this process, it is important for the City to look at not only the City itself but also where we are in the region. As the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed by staff, the City Council and Planning Commission, we want to make certain that we have looked at how we fit into our region. We want to hear about what makes the community happy and what the community wants to see changed. Surveys were sent out to have the public give us a written response ahead of time. Citizens are asked to send that in. A prepared map is located in the lobby at the City Center showing the planning district. Staff will share this evening statistics of the comments received from Planning Area #3. Mr. Kondrick stated, for all planning area meetings, citizens are asked to share their ideas and comments for the future of our City. This meeting is one of six meetings being held to get ideas and input from citizens. It is not the purpose of the meeting to discuss individual problems or issues. Ms. McPherson stated this is the third planning area meeting out of six. Staff sent 767 surveys and invitations out on August 25 to residents of Planning Area #3. She apologized for the typographical error in the survey and any confusion that it may � have caused. Planning Area #3 is the area bound by Rice Creek on the south, Highway 65 on the east, the Burlington Northern railroad to the west, and the Cities of Spring Lake Park and Coon � PLANNING COI�IISSION MEETING, SEPTII��R 17 , 1997 PAGE 3 Rapids to the north. 59 surveys were returned for an average return rate of approximately 7.7%. The return rate for Area #1 was 5.2% and for Area #2 was 7.8%. Ms. McPherson reviewed charts showing the ages of the respondents and the length of residency. Staff has attempted to group comments received into the issue areas of parks, City services, property and maintenance, general amenities, City government, taxes, neighbors, access and location, traffic, crime or safety, land use, City image, and schools. This chart compared the four questions asked of residents - what did residents like about Fridley; what did residents dislike about Fridley; what did residents like about their specific neighborhood; and what did resident dislike about their neighborhood. General responses regarding what residents liked about Fridley included the areas of City services including snow plowing, police, fire services, recycling, and to a small extent the water. A higher response category was the access and location. Ms. McPherson stated the largest area of complaint included land uses with general comments about apartment buildings in the neighborhood, desiring upscale restaurants, wanting a municipal golf course. Most of the negative comments were about the Fantasy �, House and the pawn shops, general property upkeep and the City image particularly along the University corridor. Ms. McPherson stated specific comments about Planning Area #3 include property upkeep. Most people feel that their neighborhoods are well kept and that people care about their property and their neighborhood. They also feel that people in their neighborhood are very friendly and very supportive, and feel a part of the community in their neighborhood. Ms. McPherson stated the last question asked what residents disliked about their neighborhood. While most people felt their neighborhood was well kept, a number of respondents stated there were a number of properties that were not well kept. The second category for comments was land uses including the lack of maintenance along Univeraity Avenue and the fence along University which is a negative contribution to the community. There were several comments about increased traffic along 73rd. Several respondents stated the City lacks good architecture. Many felt their neighborhood and/or the City was very stable. Ms. McPherson atated, for this meeting, the Planning Commission would like to know what residents would like Fridley to be in the year 2010 and to discuss general concerns the residents have about where the City might be going in the next 10 to 15 years. At the � same time, they would like residents to be creative and pose possible solutions to those same concerns. For those who would prefer not to come forward to speak, forms are available so that � �� PLANNING CON�lISSION MEETING, SEPTII�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 4 reaidents can jot down comments and turn them in at the end of the evening. Mr. Kondrick stated he would hope more people would respond. 7.7% responded to the survey for this area. This provides a trend but it would be better if a larger percentage reaponded. He asked residents to come forward for comment. Ms. McKusick stated she agreed with the comments that were made. She did return the survey. One comment she wanted to make is that the University Avenue corridor is right now an eyesore. Highway 65 and the Moore Lake area are becoming an eyesore. The other day as she drive past there, she noticed many weeds and the barrier is damaged and rusted. When the City Council discussed the issue of the lights, they discussed upgrading the corridor. Councilmember Barnette mentioned future businesses moving into the former Twin property may be affected by that. As a community member, ahe would like to support that whether the lights go in or not. Ms. McKusick stated another issue is something she noticed a few years ago while at Unity Hospital with her mother-in-law. While in the waiting room, she talked to a number of people. She noticed two couples and another person who had left the City. She asked them why they had moved, and they responded it was because there was not the type of housing available for them that they wanted for their later years. Their ages were the late 50's to perhaps 70's. They were looking for a little more upscale townhomes. The City did not have the Rottlund development at�that time. In conversation with these people, she got the impression they wanted something perhaps a little more than the $100,000 level. It seems sad that these people seemed to be good community citizens but they left the community because of that issue. She did not know if anything could be done about it, but it is an idea that should be thought about in the future. Ms. McKusick stated she agreed with most of the other comments. She pretty much likes her neighborhood. There is one property that is deteriorating and the family does not seem to care about it. Otherwise, she has nice neighbors. They have been in their house for 28 years. Mr. Kondrick asked if she thought there was a good sense of community pride in Fridley. Ms. McKusick stated she thought overall there is. She has been involved in different community events and organizations. Overall, she thought there was a good sense of community. � Mr. Pietrini stated he would like to know what they are doing at the Moore Lake area because it has significantly increased the traffic. Sometimes trying to get out of their street onto old � �, �1 PLANNING CONIlrlISSION MEETING, SEPT�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 5 Central is getting to be tougher and very risky particularly when cars are coming from the south. Mr. Pietrini stated he has lived in Fridley for seven years. He asked if their were specific rules and laws about the condition in which you keep your property, what you can or cannot park in your yard such as a gravel truck? He thought Fridley was a nice area. He does occasionally see a house with debris or stuff in the yard and wonders what the neighbors must think. What can you do about it? Mr. Hickok stated he would address those issues following the meeting. Ms. Siedlecki stated she uses Locke Park and really enjoys it. She sees a lot of development that encroaches on these beautiful areas in Fridley. She thought these natural areas should be left alone. As an example, there is a huge warehouse north of Locke Park. Wal-Mart encroaches on the Springb�ook Nature Center. She thought the City should slow down on the development and not encroach on the beautiful preserves that are in the City. That was the attraction when moving here. When she walks through Locke Park, it is like she is not even in the City any more. It is a beautiful place and she thought they should slow down on the development. She is an avid fan of bicycling and encouraged the bike trails. The bike trails along Univeraity Avenue are bumpy and the plans are to fix that. She thought, as a community, Fridley seemed anti-pedestrian. If she is biking on Mississippi Street, cars will honk as if she has no business on the road. She thought they could have more designated areas on the side of the road for bicyclers. It does not have to be real wide, but just enough to feel safe. Ms. Modig asked where the east/west bike paths were located. Ms. McPherson stated there was a bike path along 73rd on the south side. There is also a path on the north side of Osborne which goea from the easterly border at Mounds View over to East River Road. Mr. Esler stated he now lives in New Brighton after moving from Columbia Heights. His purpose for the coming is that he heard about the Planning Commission meeting. Last week while on the Internet, he found something interesting. He got on the website for the Minnesota Planning Commission. One of the reasons he moved from Columbia Heights was the fact that the taxes jumped by 21% this last year. The purpose for coming is that he found a report put out by the Minnesota Planning Commission talking about where the State is today as far as having a surplus over that last few years, but they also have expectations of seeing a large deficit in the 2002 to 2005 timeframe. His thought to the City is � PLANNING CON�IISSION NN�EETING, SEPTEI�ER 17 , 1997 PAGE 6 to watch how they spend other people's money. He will provide a copy of this article. Mr. Kondrick stated he would pass that information on to the City Council. Ms. Lynn stated she is concerned about where they are going with all the information, and she is concerned about the mandated laws that have been passed this last year by the State legislature about land use and planning and starting a strategic and long range planning office. The State mandates these meetings in all the cities and counties. She wants to make sure that we are�very careful that we are not having things mandated by the State and Federal governments as to private property uses. She is concerned about mandatory laws stating that there be a certain number of roads per square mile and a.certain number of residents per square mile, etc. She will provide a copy of this bill, House File 217. This is information available on the Internet. She just wanted to make sure that we are not being drawn into something that would affect the property rights of Fridley citizens. There are a lot of plans out there, and she wants to make sure that we are free of that type of intrusion from the State and Federal governments. �� Ms. Van De Riet stated she did not mind the weeds but there is way too much litter in the parks and along the roads in such areas as Commons Park, University Avenue aervice road, in the parks around Columbia Arena, etc. Moore Lake is disgusting. There is garbage strewn about, broken glass on the beach, boom boxes playing loudly and car radios, etc. She went there once but she will not go back. The area is unkempt. She°thought it ahould be picked up or fines for those who litter. It is worse than oth.er places she has been to. Mr. Bue stated he believed there is a proposal for new housing next to his property. It shows there would be six houses put along the edge of his property. He has concerns about that, about the street and where it would go, how it would butt up to his property, etc. He is looking for information on how that would be done. Mr. Kondrick stated this item is next on the agenda and will be discuased following this item. He asked Mr. Bue is he had any comments about his neighborhood and/or community. Mr. Bue stated he thought the schools were pretty good. One son is a junior and another eon is in the Air Force, and he thought they both received good educations. He thought Fridley was a great place. He has no problem with the police. He thought they � did a good job. It seems like a nice community and he has great neighbors. He would like to keep it that way. � PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, SEPTII�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 7 Mr. Hickok stated he would like to address the concern about the number of people attending this meeting. He reminded the viewing public that they can still fill out their surveys and turn those in. Four more planning areas are yet to.be reviewed. Staff would like to hear those comments. Comments will be included in the information and they do want to make sure that all voices are heard. He and Ms. McPherson are available if anyone would like to speak with them personally about any issues. Ms. McPherson's telephone number is 572-3593 and Mr. Hickok is available 572-3599. Mr. Hickok stated another concern came up. The City Council has heard the voice of the code enforcement process and the need to make sure that properties are kept up. It is very important to the City that this happens. In May 1997, the City has embarked on a systematic code enforcement process. The plan is to go through the City over the next two years to be certain the codes are being enforced. Very often, they find that folks need additional information about the code requirements. Staff has found that approximately 87% to 90% of the folks upon first notice and realizing what code issues exist on their property correct those issues. Mr. Kurt Jensen-Schneider is the reaource for code enforcement and is available at 572-3595. The next area planning meeting will be October 15. � Mr. Saba stated people bring up over and over again the lack of maintenance and unsightly conditions. The more he drives on Highway 65 from I-694, the worse he fells about what the State is doing to the City. It is the State's responsibility to repair the divider and rusted looking barriers, to control the weeds in the median and to fix it up. He did not think they would be doing that to the City of Edina but they tend to forget about Fridley. What can we do as a City to get the State to be more active in cleaning up their unsightly areas. It degrades our City. We have a nice looking park in the Moore Lake area but you see the mess in the median. It's ugly. We have an area on University where we are trying to clean it up including the fence. The areas on Highway 65 are strictly the State's responsibility, and he would like to make sure that someone in the City working with the State to take care of this. Mr. Hickok stated thia is an excellent place to start. The message from the public is entered into the public record. The City Council is interested in the outcomes of these discussions. Staff direction comes from the City Council. The City Council is very intereated to know what it is about the community that is ailing and what it is that they can do in terms of giving staff direction to move forward. Certainly, staff take that to heart and will move forward to get issue(s) taken care of. This � particular comment about the upkeep of the corridors is one that has come up over and over again. � PLANNING CONIl�lISSION N�ETING, SEPTII�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 8 Mr. Kondrick stated they do hear similar comments from others as well about the conditions along East River Road, University and Highway 65. He agreed that it is time for some action. Mr. Saba stated he was satisfied that they will do something next year. He would like something to be done sooner. It could be a beautiful area for the City but now is looks like a slum. 2. PUBLIC HEARING • CONSIDER.ATION OF A PRELINIINARY PLA'r P S #�97-04 BY THE PHILIP STEPHEN COMPANIES INC.: To resubdivide the property into six buildable lots for single family homes, on Lots 20 and 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22, generally located at 6217 Central Avenue N.E. OM TION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Saba, to open the public hearing. '�PON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINC3 AYT, VICL-CHAIRPLRSON RONDRICR DLCLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE P'OBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:22 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the request is for a preliminary plat of residential development for a single family subdivision of seven � lots generally located at 6217 Central Avenue. The property is located south of Rice Creek Road on Central Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Single Fami.ly Dwelling, and is surrounded by R-1, Single Family, on all side except to the west where there is C-3 development, the Moore Lake Racquet Club. The Heather Hills residential development would share the Heather Place roadway that enters this proposed development. Mr. Hickok stated, in analyzing this plat, staff determined that each lot meets the minimum 75 foot lot width requirements and exceeds the 9,000 square foot minimum lot area. The proposed development would have seven single family executive homes which would be paired in such a way to share a driveway. Six of those homes would face south and the paired arrangement would mean three driveways onto Heather Place. Each dwelling would be maintained with a homeowners association. The properties would be commonly cared for, the driveways plowed in a common arrangement, the landscape maintained by a common asaociation. The seventh lot is Outlot A on the proposed plat and would have access from the Ben Moore cul de sac. Mr. Hickok stated a neighborhood meeting was held September 10. At that meeting, the developer asked to hear of the concerns of the surrounding neighborhood. In the context of the meeting, the developer agreed that a$300,000 base price for the dwelling units ,.-� would be the starting price for the homes. An $8,000 landscape budget would be required of each of those homes and the minimum floor area of the homes would be 1800 square feet. The developer � � � PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, SEP��'R 17, 1997 PAGE 9 also talked about the architectural individuality of the units. There were concerns from the neighborhood about this looking like six homes with similar characteristics. The developer responded that they would be interested in individuality. On top of the other standard lot sales, there would be a plan book to select from with no two plans being the same. The developer agreed to shared concrete driveways, matching mailboxes, yard lighting that is appropriate for the architecture in the area, and also an entry monument off from Central Avenue. Mr. Hickok stated other development issues include the status of Outlot B. Outlot B exists as part of the Heather Hills West plat. If you were to go to the County and ask for the plat for Heather Hills West, Outlot B is a 4-foot strip of property that separates the street from the north property line. Outlot B was created in 1981 as part of a development discussion for the Heather Hills West plat. At that time, the property owner who owned the property to the north discussed a number of options with the City but at that point indicated they were not interested in future assessment packages or anything that would put an assessment responsibility on that property to the north. As a result, Outlot B was created and the developer to the south paid 100% of the improvement costs for the roadway and utilities to go along with the development. Mr. Hickok stated there are street connection issues. In discussions at the time the initial Heather Hills West development was being discussed, there was also a discussion about future development from this area up to Rice Creek Road. In the event that future development were to occur, what would be potential future road alignments for this area. There is a stipulation which talks about providing future access via a dedication of a 30 foot strip across the northern edge of Outlot A and Lot 6. There is a public street right-of-way for 28 feet of the eastern lot line for Outlot A. This provides adequate access for the residents in this location. Dedicating a 30-foot,strip along Outlot A and Lot 6 would provide an option for the future. In the planning process, we like to look at the development and, as it is developing, make sure that we are leaving ourselves options. For future road connection, if the larger lots to the north were to develop in a different scheme than we currently see, we would have an option for an alternative for connecting the roadway from Ben More to Rice Creek Road, should that become the chosen route. Mr. Kondrick asked if Mr. Hickok was saying that from Ben More that we are talking about allowing access to the�first and second lot or just the first. The accesses for the other lots are from the south. Mr. Hickok stated access from.Ben More would be just for the one lot. The other six lots would have access from the south. The � PLANNING CO1rIlrlISSION MEETING, SEPTEL�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 10 dedication is upon request of the City. The development area to the north is such that future development could occur. If that did occur, this would provide an opportunity. As we look at the addition of snow plow routes along alternative access neighborhood, etc., this would be 1/2 of a right-of-way. Mr. Hickok stated there are miscellaneous engineering issues talking about where utilities can be connected to the development and where utility stubs are in relation to the lot lines. Those are pointed out in the staff report and will become part of the recommendation before final plat approval. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of the plat request with the following stipulations: l. Prior to approval of the final plat, the petitioner shall either acquire Outlot B and incorporate it into the plat, or provide legal documentation to certify that Outlot B does not exist. 2. Park fees shall be paid at the time of the building permit ($1,500.00 per lot). ^ 3. A$1,000 per lot storm water fee shall be paid at the time of the building permit. 4. Outlot A shall be changed to Lot #7. 5. A 30-foot road easement shall be dedicated along the north lot lines of Lots #7 and Lot #6. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit on Lot #7, a detailed grading and drainage plan and an erosion control plan for the driveway and house plan shall be submitted. 7. No driveway access to Central Avenue is permitted. 8. The developer shall place restrictive covenants on the property regarding maintenance of shared amenities. 9. A maximum of 3 driveways will be permitted onto Heather Place, as proposed by the developer. 10. A demolition or moving permit shall be obtained prior to demolition or movement of the existing home. 11. Dedication of the 50 foot easternmost lot illus�rated on the proposed plat for County Roadway purposes. �"1 12. All engineering issues identified shall be rectified to satisfy the City Engineering staff prior to final plat i��`, r'"�1 i `� PLANNING COI�lISSION N�ETING, SEPTEI�ER 17 , 1997 PAGE 11 submittal including, but not limited to: • Services to Lot 3 are on or across Lot 4 property line • No services have been shown to Lot 6 • No services have been shown to Outlot A • Proposed grading plan showing drainage west to CSAH No. 35 (Central Avenue) from rear yards • Proposed grading cannot affect properties to the north. Ms. Modig asked how the 50-foot easement affect the first lot. Mr. Hickok stated the developer has designed the plat to accommodate the required right-of-way. The developer has allowed an additional 3.86 feet on the corner lot. The lot size for Lots 1-6 are approximately 11,245 square feet and Outlot A or Lot 7 is approximately 17,988 square feet. One revelation staff had as they analyzed the 30-foot dedication on the north edge of Lot 6 is that it does leave Lot 6 with 8,995 square feet or 5 square feet short of the minimum lot size. If that were to be the case, staff ask that the lot line be adjusted so that Lot 6 would be of the minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet. Staff asked that this be considered as the final stipulation. Mr. Sielaff asked if Ben More drive would terminate at Lot 7. Mr. Hickok stated Ben more is a cul de sac. On the plat there shows a 28-foot public right-of-way that then becomes a private driveway. In the event of future development occurs to the north and the City builds a roadway, then a determination would have to be made on just how the road alignment would work. Mr. Sielaff stated, in the future, that road could extend further on to the north of Lot 7, and we do not know how far out that will be. It depends on future development. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. Ms. Modig stated, in looking at the map on Heather Place, what is the triangular piece. Mr. Hickok stated that is a different Outlot A. The petitioner would need to obtain rights to Outlot B. It is our understanding that the developer does not intend to address anything with this Outlot A. Mr. Dommer stated his desire is to plat a property with a lot of history. The situation has been a difficult situation for many people, particularly for those who are closely involved. His hope is to get beyond that and create a dynamic development that will enhance the City and address some of the housing needs. In his presentation he will describe the development, address the Outlot B isaue, and finally ask for support and help in moving this ^. PLANNING CO1�Il�lISSION 1�ETING, SEPTS�ER 17 , 1997 PAGE 12 forward. Mr. Dommer stated in his work he focuses on developing projects that are meeting the needs of a changing market. In the Parade of Homes or if you have seen the Parade of Homes magazine, there is a section that talks about attached maintenance-free and detached maintenance-free living. They are moving in that direction. Although this is a traditional single family neighborhood, we are addressing the need to have a traditional single family lifestyle in a maintenance-free setting. Their projects have three main characteristics. First, they target main level living with the owner's suite on the main level, laundry area on the main level, etc. There is expansion space in the upstairs or downatairs. This project would have an 1800 square foot main level minimum. Second, they are focusing on maintenance free homes both on the exterior of the home as far as the materials that are used and also on the property itself. The association includes landscaping, snow plowing, etc., which gives people the freedom they are looking for. They are targeting the active adult. Third, the architecture itself is required to be classic architecture. The intent is to develop homes and require homes that have features of a throw back era. One point for clarification - they do not have a plan book such that you can �'� choose a particular plan. They have a guidebook that says we are looking for a particular feature and a particular material. They are not going to feature garages or driveways. They want to feature good architecture with good proportions. These principles define the kind of project they are trying to do in this location. Mr. Dommer showed proposed elevations for the site. Their intent is that the eye would be drawn to the home itself and not to the driveways or the garages. Their landscaping plans would require that the homes are veiled with landscaping but not screened. They want to feature the architecture as well as good landscaping. You will notice that the garage is not visible. They do a concept called layering. In front of the home, they put a retaining wall which raises the home and allows the residents to look across the street at other pleasant homes and allows those ori the street to look up at the home and not see the driveway. The overall site plan is presented to give the idea of the variety of homes that could be put there. You can get a variety of different stylea in architecture. These are going to be custom homes. People have the freedom within this footprint to have a unique home to fit their taste. There is generous space between the homes. Even with a relatively large footprint, 1800 square foot minimum, they can still achieve generous spacing. The characteristics being discussed do not apply to the outlot but to the six lots. The three driveways and generous landscaping will minimize the �1 negative things of residential development. Mr. Dommer showed an example of the shared driveway. It allows � �. /'��� PLANNIATG CONIl�IISSION MEETING, SEPT�ER 17 , 1997 PAGE 13 and encourages some kind of a pattern in the complex. Their intent is to create a development that offers the best of single family living and a maintenance-free lifestyle. He thought this was a great location to offer it. Mr. Dommer stated he wanted to get into the other development standards to make sure there is no misunderstanding between himself, the City and the neighbors. They held a neighborhood meeting, and he thought they made good progress. Anytime you have development, there is concern particularly in an existing neighborhood. Regarding the concrete drive, they are committing to the concrete drive but they would also like to leave the option open for pavers and aggregate. He thbught the bottom line was there be no asphalt. They talked about textured architectural shingles which is really asphalt shingles. They would like to leave the option open to put on slate and shakes. Last, it states we are going to brick, stucco, stone and bleached shakes. These are maintenance free products for the front of the home. The sides and the rear of the home may have other maintenance-free products including vinyl siding. That is up to the owner. Their intent is from the streetscape to offer a real dynamic appearance. Mr. Kondrick asked if the developer would specify that the home be maintenance free. Mr. Dommer stated yes. There are detail elements that some will be cedar, some will be shakes, but the intent is to be as maintenance free as possible. Regarding the $300,000 minimum value, that is not the base price of the house that you can add options from there. They are talking about making homes that are comparable in value to the Heather Hills West neighborhood. He is not convinced that the number is $300,000 but the neighbors tell him it is. They will go in that direction. He is talking about total value which is a.different term than base price. He thought this was a dynamic development if you look at it from that perspective. Mr. Dommer stated it was a surprise to him that they would be asked to dedicate a 30-foot easement on Lot 7. They can do that if that is a buildable lot. At the time they submitted the plat, that was in question. Dedicating 30-feet to the north is not the proposal that they are presenting and not the proposal they are seeking a recommendation on. 30 feet particularly on Lot 6 is very detrimental to the project. By taking 30 feet of Lot 6, you eat up 30 feet of the lot and then you have a front aetback on that side and a front street setback on the other side, and then the lot does not meet minimum size. They are absolutely against dedicating that right-of-way particularly on Lot 6. They understand there are hopes to develop the rest of the area, and that is why they plotted Outlot A. Mr. Hickok mentioned some reasons for doing an outlot. One of the big reasons in �I PLANNING CON�IISSIOAT MEETING, SEPTET�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 14 development is to hold it for future development. Their intent is to give some flexibility. They understand the need for future planning. Dedicating a 30-foot right-of-way does not serve the development and is not necessary for this project. When a development plan comes in, that would be the time to dedicate it. That is not their proposal. If you have to recommend approval with that in it, then you will not get this proposal. He thought that was piecemeal planning. This was a surprise to him and he did not get a chance to work out details. They object. It does not serve the development and there is no benefit to it. At the time a new development does come in, they would be happy to work and cooperate with that. This same issue has been talked about since 1980. Mr. Dommer stated, regarding Outlot B, the burden of proof is apparently on his shoulders to show that it does not exist. The Planning Commission has a copy of the staff report. Mr. Dommer handed out copies of the graphics previously shown. In the staff report, he would like to make sure there are corrections entered into the record. He has been is Mr. Hickok�s position. There is a lot of stuff flying around, and this in particular is very difficult. He is personally interested in the property so he has � spent a lot of time researching the records. That is time the staff probably does not have. The corrections he is making are probably because no one else probably knows the record as well as he does at this point. There are some things in the staff report that need to be corrected in order to get an accurate picture. Mr. Dommer stated the first regards the site history as outlined on page 4 of the staff report. It talks about, in 1980, Brickner Builders proposed the Heather Hills development. What needs to be moved in the site history, however, is the fact that the Skinners did not address the issue of the road access, and the Heather Hills road placement was not debated until July and August, 1981. So that whole paragraph needs to be pop down. That is important because the chronology needs to be right. Mr. Dommer stated, second, the City Council did set a public hearing to consider Heather Hills West. They approved it on April 20 but they approved it as a 50-foot right-of-way. That information is not in the staff report. The copy of the approved plat is in the packet. Mr. Dommer stated, third, later it says the developer would have to pay an additional $56,100 without the participation of the Skinners. The actual proposal was for the amount to be $18,835. That is from the City Council records. This is the critical point. The staff report identifies that the Skinners were not r--� interested in any options for special assessments. However, minutes will show that to be different. There was a public hearing on an assessment project on August 10, 1981, which is � PLANNING COI�IISSION MEETING, SEPTEI�ER 17 , 1997 PAGE 15 several months after the plat approval. Reading directly from those minutes, he stated, "Councilman Schneider asked Mr. Skinner if he would be in favor of a deferred assessment. Mr. Skinner said that he felt that a deferred assessment would be more intriguing to him. He stated he had an interest in developing this property but one thing is the time problem of not knowing exactly what is going to develop, in which direction, and how it will affect his property in the future." Mr. Skinner stated he would certainly feel more comfortable with a deferred assessment and the time frame was such that he would be pursuing some plans for development and then what would the options be.. Mr. Dommer etated there is a clear record on August 10 that Mr. Skinner was interested in a deferred assessment. Now seven days later on August 17, 1981, an adminiatrative meeting was held by the City Council. The Skinners were not invited to that meeting and no public was there except the developer and the City. At that time, the staff report shows that is when Outlot B was created. For this to have occurred at that time, there would have to have been three official City actions. First, the right-of-way approved previously would have to then be vacated. Second, a variance would have to be approved. Third, a new lot was created � and would have to have been created through a replatting procese. He has asked in a letter that the City to provide him with minutes or any action that would indicate that these thing happened. Their response was that there are no minutes to show these actions. There are no resolutions that show these actions. Furthermore, the addition of Outlot B was not included on the agenda or in a resolution. The only resolution approved on August 17 was one approving a public works project. Mr. Dommer stated, as a Planning Commission, you know that there is a process that a property has to go through to be created. That process does not exist here. First, we have no action taken to substantiate the addition of Outlot B. We have a problem because Outlot B shows up on the County records and is drawn on the plat. His question is who drew Outlot B on the plat. He would like to ask that publicly tonight. The previous builder is here. The City is here. Of those two, who drew Outlot B on the plat? Mr. Dommer stated we have a situation where there was no action taken, no one taking responsibility for that action. That outlot was never officially created. He is sorry for Mrs. Skinner. She has objected to this situation from the day they found out about it. It has caused a great deal of grief. Mr. Skinner died in the process. He is sorry for the Brickners. They have paid taxes on this for many years. He has come tonight with facts that you can �� rely on and there is nobody who can refute those facts. We can get through this. He is willing to cooperate with it and he wants to do it. They can get the County record and get it corrected. �, � PLANNING CONIlKISSION N�ETING, SEPTEL�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 16 The County records do have errors. He has been around the business enough to know there are errors in the County records. He has no problem with that and wants to participate in it. Here is what he has a problem with. This is.a big ugly public mess. It has created a lot of problems for the Brickners, for the homeowners, and for the Skinners. Mr. Dommer stated the public guardian is the City. The public guardian should step in and help fix this problem. Instead, the Ci�y's position has been private citizen, Mr. Dommer, and private landowner, Mrs. Skinner, should fix it. He can fix the problem but he did not think it was necessary if they could together. He does not want to litigate this thing but he will if he has to because the facts are on his side. If you look at the letter regarding the City�s response to his question for evidence that Outlot B was created, the City's letter states that they must presume Outlot B exists because the County records show it and the plat shows it. Lawsuits are one of facts not presumptions. If we have to litigate this, they have to do it. Every dollar spent litigating is a dollar less spent on a prime development. Every dollar spent litigating is another dollar taken from the taxpayers. He does not want to go that route. The facts are clear, but they will do what it takes to get the records corrected. Mr. Dommer stated he said at the end of his presentation he would be asking for the.Planning Commission's help and that is what he wants to do. They have a prime development that he thought would be an asset to the community. These are homes that meet a market demand not currently met in the City. It is a good area and he thought they would provide a good tax base. He asked that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the plat as presented and recommend the City Council to work with them to correct the error in the County records. Ms. Modig stated page 6 of the staff report indicated that the neighborhood talked about concrete drivewaya and that Mr. Dommer agreed. Tonight, the petitioner is indicating that perhaps that the driveways may not all be concrete and that there may be other materials. . Mr. Dommer stated he was saying that concrete would be their minimum or something better. There may be an aggregate or pavers which is an upgrade material. They will not put in asphalt, and he thought that was what they were objecting to. Ms. Modig stated she was not at the meeting but of what the neighbors are asking for is that the � same materials that are in the existing division that is concrete. her interpretation appearance be the and at this time PLANNING COI�Il�IISSION MEETING, SEPT��'R 17 , 1997 PAGE 17 � Mr. Dommer stated they would be happy to agree to concrete. It is less expensive than other materials. Ms. Modig stated stipulation 5 deals with the 30-foot roadway easement and that the petitioner would not agree to do that. Mr. Dommer stated this was correct. It does not benefit their property and is not required to plat their property. There is an outlot to the north. He would be willing to leave Lot 7 or Outlot A so that you have some control if someone would want to get back there. They can build on it and still address that isaue. There is a lot of land there. His feeling is that there are a lot of private owners who da not want it developed. At this point, it would not be wise planning to carve out a narrow strip which would negatively impact this project and a strip that is not usable today. When a development plan comes in is the time to set the road patterns. Ms. Modig stated, if they do not do that planning now and a development come in later, a home is already built on the property, and there is no room there, then that creates a major problem for the reet of the area to develop. n Mr. Dommer atated he would agree, but that is the typical process. You can develop property when you have control of it. If that were the case, then he would ask that the City plat the rest of the right-of-way through the project at this time. Ms. Modig stated she was not comfortable with the Planning Commission having to react rather than act. She would rather act upon something instead of having to react to a negative thing to try to deal with it five, ten or twenty years down the road. Even though she no longer would have to worry about it, someone is going to have to deal with that. She is not comfortable dealing with it in that way. She finds they are more and more into that mode because they neglected or did not deem it necessary to do something 25 years ago because they did not see far enough into the future to know that they were going to need to do that. Now they are trying to solve some of those problems at this age, and she did not see that they need to continue to do that. Mr. Dommer stated, if that is a requirement of the platting, he objects. The right-of-way is not required there to aerve the project. There is rational nexus between that right-of-way and the project. Mr. Sielaff asked if the petitioner ob;ected to the right-of-way was on both Lots 6 and 7. �� Mr. Dommer stated he objects particularly to Lot 6. He would plat it on Lot 7, and he made Lot 7 bigger for future planning. There /~1 i �1 � PLANNING CONIl�lISSION NN�EETING, SEPTII�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 18 is plenty of room on Lot 7 to make a road work. He says that with the understanding that if the right-of-way is platted that Lot 7 is still considered a buildable lot. Mr. Hickok stated the developer has throughout the course of the meeting asked staff to say whether Outlot A is a buildable lot. It is the developer's determination that should say whether that is a buildable lot. Staff's position is that they want to see that as Lot 7. The lot size would not be diminished by dedication of the right-of-way. He has been asked several times to answer whether or not this is a buildable lot, and he thought there was something else there of interest. The developer indicated to Mr. Hickok early on that this is the site for his own home. It is staff's position that it meets all of the minimum standards. Earlier this evening the developer questioned whether this was a buildable lot. The street right-of-way frontage requires 25 feet on a public right-of-way. This lot has 28 feet and meets the requirement by 3 feet. To answer the answer the question about minimum lot area, the lot area would not be diminished to create something smaller than a 9,000 square foot by dedication on Lot 7. On Lot 6, there is a 5 square foot deficit by dedicating that 30 foot strip. This is an opportunity for the developer to move the lot line over and create the additional square foot dimension necessary to allow that to happen. Also on Lot 6, the developer talks about the double frontage. As you will note, the roadway in front of Lot 6 curves at about the west lot line. We are talking about a future potential roadway behind it and a driveway to Lot 6 that comes in off from Ben More. Mr. Sielaff asked why they were saying the right-of-way is on Lot 6 and not on Lot 5. Mr. Hickok stated staff will look at this from a reasonableness perspective as to whether or not we are reasonable in our expectations. The topography in this area has great variation. To go from Ben More to the north would require a gradual curve. Staff believes that with the topography considerations additional land may be necessary on Lot 6 but it would not carry to Lot 5. Because of the change in grade, staff is therefore asking for that dedication. Mr. Dommer stated, because it is a surprise to him that they have a 30-foot right-of-way on Outlot A, does that constitute proper frontage in order to pull a permit to build a home. Mr. Hickok stated the lot has 28 feet of frontage on the Ben More right-of-way. The situation would only get better by dedication of a 30-foot right-of-way because there would be frontage along the north side of the lot. Mr. Dommer stated this is true. But the code says an "improved" ^ PLANNING COI�IlKISSION MEETING, SEPTII�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 19 right-of-way. The City would be drawing an unimproved right-of- way across there. He wants to make sure he is not creating an unbuildable lot. As Mr. Hiekok said, we really don't know what the road is going to do. Personally he believes the road needs to cut off quite a bit sooner. He did not know how much land is needed. He would need to look at an engineering plan that shows the need for Lot 6. There is a hill from Ben More. The best course is to go with the hill as soon as possible which would be cutting about 75% and would not require Lot 6. Mr. Sielaff asked if, historically, the County is considered the official record. Mr. Hickok stated yes. If anyone has tried to file a false document at the County, it puts a different light on what has been put before you this evening. The official document is before the Planning Commission this evening that is recorded at the County. Certainly there are some representations that lots of things happened in the past. It is very clear that the City Council has the authority to file a plat within 18 months of the time that plat is approved. This was filed within 18 montha, and they elected based on the August 17 discussion to include an outlot because the developer was willing to pay 100% of the assessments �''1 and it was represented. The minutes state the City Manager let the City Council know that the property owner to the north was not interested in participating; therefore the developer has taken on 100a of the assessments and therefore an outlot was created. When assessments are being appointed to properties adjacent to an improvement, the assessment is based on the benefit to that property. At this juncture, it was determined that the property owners were not interested in the proposal at hand, the developer was interested in 100% involvement in the project, and therefore a lot was created and it was filed within the proper amount of time. Until a record ie in the County�s hands on a filed plat, there is no dedication of a 50-foot right-of-way. It is at the time that the 50-foot right-of-way in on record at the County that a vacation would have to occur and also a variance to allow that lot width of the street. The City Council has within its power the ability to create something less than a 50-foot right-of-way if they choose to do so, and they chose to do so in this case. Mr. Dommer stated he is not refuting that. He is saying that there is a process they have to go through, they did not follow the process. The only public records available indicate that Mr. Skinner was interested in a deferred assessment. You cannot create outlots in public works project areas. He has asked for the documentation that the City Council created through the process. Furthermore, this is just plain bad planning. It would � not occur if it went through the proper process. The drawing at the County shows Outlot B, but the approved plat in the file does not. � PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING, SEPTII��R 17 , 1997 PAGE 20 Ms. Modig asked if the petitioner was saying the approved plat does not show Outlot B. Mr. Dommer stated this was correct. He does not know what happened. There is a difference between what the plat shows and wYiat the City Council approved. Mr. Hickok and he have agreed that they are not going to agree on this. The facts before you are that this did not get created in a hearing setting or process that is legally viable. Ms. Modig stated she understands the petitioner would object to stipulation #5 regarding the 30-foot road easement. The issue regarding Outlot B cannot be solved this evening. Is there anything other than that stipulation to which you object? Mr. Dommer stated stipulation #8 should be clear that Lot 7 is not a part of the neighborhood with shared amenities and maintenance. Only the six lots will have that. These are two neighborhoods. He also asked for a clarification of stipulation #1 that says he must acquire Outlot B or provide legal documentation that it does not exist. He asked someone to define what that documentation is so they know what they have to bring. Mr. Hickok stated throughout the course the course of this the developer has asked the City to do the research to prove his point be correct. Staff's position is that on this is that Outlot B exists and we will ask the Commission to ask based on the development. If, as presented to you, you believe there is litigation standing, then he believes it is based on past history. The proposal before the Commission is one that wi�hout request for an answer to Outlot B cannot go forward. Mr. Dommer does not have access to a roadway based on the records on file at the County. Therefore, we have a planning issue. If there is something else, that is his proof and we would like him to bring that forward. At a point this can be proven, we certainly will amend our position. At this time, Outlot B exists and staff will contend that Outlot B does exist as this moves forward. If the direction of the Commission is to send staff back to do the developers research, then he would like to point out that it is his burden of proof to show that the outlot does not exist. Mr. Dommer stated he is asking what legal documentation staff is seeking to convince them. Facts were presented tonight which are convincing. What else is there? He would like specifics. The drawing is one thing, but there are other parts of it that he can bring forward. He is asking for guidance from staff. They are asking for legal documentation. He wants staff to be specific �� about what that legal documentation is. Mr. 5ielaff stated in stipulation ##1 the petitioner is asking for ^ PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING, SEP'�'*��R 17, 1997 PAGE 21 specific information as to what legal documentation is required besides what was presented tonight. Mr. Kondrick stated this is certainly a difficult issue. He opened the meeting to the general public. Mr. Johnson stated he was an attorney at the Barna, Guzy & Steffen law firm and that he repre�ented the Brickners. At the time of the transaction, he represented the church that had the underlying fee ownership of this property. While he was not particularly involved with the platting process, he can say that it is the Brickners' position that Outlot B does exist. If you understand the platting process, the city is presented with a plat, a drawing per se, in which the city will look at, act and approve. That drawing is reduced to a recordable instrument, signed off by the city mayor and city clerk, sent to the County Attorneys office, surveyor's office, and ultimately is recorded in the•County Recorders and Registrar and Titles Office. Mr. Johnson stated in the plat, if you read the dedication, the dedication statement says that the developer or the party platting is dedicating to the public the right-of-ways that are reflected on the plat and subdividing the propertiea and parcels that are � reflected by that drawing. That is the instrument that creates the subdivisions with the County. It is what then goes forward from that time for the records. The parcels are identified separately, tracts and change of title are identified separately from that time forward, property identification numbers (PIN) for taxes purposes are assigned to the individual parcels. All of those steps were followed. This took place some 16�years ago. Minnesota has statutes of limitations. If there was a problem with the process, the statute of limitations has long expired. Outlot B exists. There is no question that Outlot B exists. If the developer is asking you what you need in the way of some type of legal documentation saying it does not exist, it needs to be in a district court order that reverses the process. Good luck to the developer in getting that. Mr. Bateson stated seven years ago they purchased a lot in Heather Place. They wanted to build a substantial home. They looked at many places in the Twin Cities to build. When they found this, that is where they wanted to build and they wanted to be in that kind of setting. He is present to voice his concerns that this development changes the character of Heather Place. His lot faces this property. His lot is 230 feet wide. The part that he has developed and mows is about 175 feet wide. His home not counting the decka is 78 feet wide, and Mr. Dommer wants to put in 75 foot lots acroes the street from this. His home would not even fit on � these lots. He thinks this development is to minimal and changes the character of Heather Place. If those lots is going to have access onto Heather Place, then he thought it should be in keeping ^ PLANNING CONIl�lISSION N�ETING SEP'1'Er�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 22 with the kind of homes that are in Heather Place. Mr. Bateson showed pictures of his property. All the homea have a significant street presence. They talked about the driveways should be concrete to be consistent with what is the development. He thought the street presence should be conaistent with the development too.� These are all homes that are not built right upon each other. If you looked at Mr. Dommer's renditions, you would see that the garages are 5 feet from the lot line which means the back of the garages are 10 feet apart. His decks are 12 feet wide. And this development would be across the street. He thought that it would detract from the character of the Heather Place development which has been there for many years. Also, he believes he would suffer value loss in his property if this development is allowed to go ahead as proposed. Mr. Bateson stated they had met with Dr. Dommer and talked about the requirements that the residents all faced when they built in Heather Place. That is summarized in the list in the staff report. He is concerned that there is no legal substance. Mr. Dommer has agreed to these but he would like to have some way that this is incorporated into the development that these things will take place if the development goes ahead. Those requirements were n given to us to be in Heather Place. He hears that they are not the requirements for the development, legally. That is why Outlot B is so important. When they asked their developer about the property across the street because they had concerns about what might happen there, Outlot B was explained to them and the fact that when Outlot B became involved in any future development that the requirements would be enforced. That is why they had no reservations about building in Heather Place even though it was not completely defined what would happen on the property now being discussed. He thought this development was not in keeping with the kinds of homes now in Heather Place now. He asked the Planning Commission not to approve the development that has been presented. Ms. Martin stated she has concerns about the development. One concern is the shared driveway approach. They were presented this option as the lesser of two evils. Do you want six driveways coming onto Heather Place or three? It is like asking whether you would rather have a broken leg or a heart attack. In the cul de sac where she lives, there are five homes each with three-car garages and extra wide driveways. Whenever they have a family event or gathering, they end up having to park on the street. The shared driveways really brings up the concern for parking. Now you have six homes with a shared driveway and parking pads going to individual residences. If any one of those people on each of � those three driveways have a gathering, there will be people parking in the street. That creates traffic problems. There are bends and blind spots. But now there would also be cars parked on � PLANNING CONIlrlISSION MEETING, SEPZ'EN��R 17, 1997 PAGE 23 the street. Ms. Martin stated her second concern is that the developer has agreed to the yard lights, a minimum landscaping requirement, exterior materials, etc. He has also agreed to a$300,000 price range. He as much said at the neighborhood meeting that he can ask $70,000 for the lot and $230,000 for the home so this has reached the $300,000. He has not even selected a builder yet. There may not be a builder who will put homes on a lot with a shared driveway. It may happen. What will prevent him from putting in a $150,000 house? Ms. Martin asked where the egress would be for Outlot A. Mr. Kondrick stated the egress would be only on Ben More cul de sac. Mr. Pietrini stated he has given a lot of thought to this development. He understands the concerns about the property and they understand as homeowners that the property will someday be developed. They think at this time that the development as proposed is not in keeping with the spirit and general overall look of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is a tremendous asset i''1 to that property. He thought that property could be an tremendous asset to the neighborhood. He suggested four lots rather than six with bigger yards and homes more in keeping with the style of the homes that are there. It would enhance everybody's position. Mr. Pietrini stated there were questions that keep popping into his head. He does not have an answer but he has suspicions. You have seen picturea of the homes in Heather Hills. If you look at Mr. Bates home, it is very well kept as are all the homes. If you were going to build a development, why would you have the back of the house and the garages facing out at the area. Wouldn't you like to look at the homes in Heather Hills? What is the reason that we will have garages looking at us? Why aren't the garages on the back side of the undeveloped lot? There is more to this scenario than meets the eye. He sees this as not real good for their situation. Mr. Pietrini stated Mr. Dommer has stated he is the developer and not a builder. In the neighborhood meeting, he said when they build they do this and they do that, but he stated he was strictly a developer. He could develop the land, put the lots up for sale, and a builder could buy the lots provided they met certain criteria and could build there. In effect, he could develop these lots, parcel it out, have someone build on them, and leave. That bothers him also. He would hope that the Planning Commission � would look at the neighborhood, look at the huge investment that they have made in their neighborhood, look at all the things they have done to keep their homes looking right, and ask that the � PLANNING CON�lISSION MEETING, SEPTII�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 24 Planning Commission take a hard look at this development and see if there is another way that this could be developed. He thought that the land was worth enough money, why fight about Outlot A and Outlot B? He believed that 4-foot strip when it was put in there by the City was for a very specific and just cause to protect this extre�nely expensive area to develop as insurance for homeowners who bought that land so that nothing would happen to their cul de sacs with through streets and other types of development. He believes in that spirit at the time that strip was put there and he believes it is legal and he believes that it is part of the area. Mr. Kondrick stated Mr. Pietrini has suggested having four lots there. What if there were four homes there worth $175,000, would that be satisfactory to him? Mr. Pietrini stated no. Mr. Kondrick stated he is familiar with the area. We are talking about a residential area. He is wondering how they can limit the amount of dollar value of a home that is put in there. Mr. Pietrini stated he believed that the control comes from the � developer. He believes there are developers in this area under the right circumstances would develop that property and put' homes in there of substantial value. There has been a recent development in the City of Fridley on Royal Oaks Court. Those are very substantial, beautiful homes. No one in the neighborhood would mind getting homes like that in there. But not with shared driveways. That is not in keeping with their neighborhood. The lots in Royal Oake Court sold quickly. He believed there was an opportunity for the developer to do that. He knows it is difficult for the Planning Commission to say the value must be $200,000 or whatever. There is already some backpedaling on Mr. Dommer's part on what he perceives to be a$300,000 value on a home versus what they perceive. He believes there are people who would love to live in that neighborhood. Ms. Pietrini stated she agreed with what the neighbors and husband have said. She supports their statements. She would like to add that they love living in Fridley. They love their community. They love their neighbors. They have fun together and do things together. The City means much to them. A developer comes in, develops a piece of property, sticks whatever he can put in there and leaves. They are still living there and working together. That is one concern that they all have. Ms. Westover stated she and her husband have owned their home on � Ben More Drive for 17 years. Her concern is that, when they were notified of this meeting, it was about taking a piece of property on Heather Place and making it six lots. There was no mention � PLANNING CONIlKISSION MEETING, SEPTS�ER 17 , 1997 PAGE 25 that it would affect Ben More Drive. She did not think the people in her neighborhood were aware of it. They were not invited to the neighborhood meeting nor were the people to the north of that property. There are eight homes on Ben More Drive and she did not think that the people on that street would like to have it go through either. She thought the other people need to be heard before this is approved. They were against Ben More Drive when their development was going through because we felt that would bring their values down. She thought there were other people who would object. They are at the top of a substantial hill. This property is lower and would not be a part of their neighborhood. Now the City is talking about putting a street in there and making it a through street. She thought others on that street would want an opportunity for input before anything is decided upon. Mr. Dommer stated he invited to the neighbor immediately to the north to the meeting and discussed with him the proposal. He said he was fine with that and did not see a reason to attend. Mr. Saarela stated he is a unique resident because he is the only � person who built his own house. He previously lived on Stinson Boulevard and noticed signs of lots available. He originally went to Mr. Skinner's house to see if he could buy a lot and then �1 learned of the landlock situation. Being a modest man, he never dreamed that he was going to be able to build there. He met with Mr. Brickner who agreed to sell him a lot and let him build his own house over a three year period. He stipulated the covenants that needed to be met. It was a gift to me. He finds himself in a development with individuals who have greater means .than he does as a resident and father of three. Fridley is a gift, a secret that the City really does not let out. It is a community of outstanding people. In some situations, it is wonderful to have a development where there is a place and where fine homes are there. His concern is to have this area developed and to bring in a development of minimal requirements is a contradiction in terms of what a development is. He would appeal to the property owners to come to terms and to break the lots into four instead of six, and ask Mr. Dommer to take his development somewhere else. He would also ask the Planning Commission to table this. Mr. Bue stated they are the people who have lived there the longest. They are the people that live down in the valley. Some residents have lived there 40 years. Some people here have been there seven years of their life. They have been there all of their life. They have concern with this. These people have these wonderful houses. Mrs. Skinner wants to move on in life and they are requesting her to sell to people that have to have expensive housea or it isn't good enough to show their house and they want � to put the back side of the house towards his neighborhood who have been in Fridley all their lives. How is his neighbor supposed to move on to something else? It will be harder for them �� � PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, SEPTEL�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 26 to sell because they have to sell to someone who has much more money. It is going to be hard for his neighbor to sell and hard for him to sell because these people want big houses like theirs. As the people who live closest to Mrs. Skinner, we weren't even asked to these meetings. It seems silly that the development of Fridley is not part of their system. Are they just going to be thrown away and say to get rid of this stuff? It's not big enough or beautiful enough. He thought they were part of the backbone of the City. Mr. Raney stated he was Mr. Bateson's neighbor. He appreciated Mr. Bateson's comments but the pure economics of it is that if the development is the way it is proposed with more of the upper class building bracket, it would enhance the resale value of his house. Fridley is a good community and there are many good things available to them. Former Mayor Nee had mentioned to Ms. Rose Totino when she was still alive that this is the pride of the Fridley area. All of the neighbors would benefit by the development if it is developed properly. The resale values would go up. The City would make more money on property taxes. It would benefit everyone. He agrees with his neighbors with limiting the number of lots. Why would minimum standards be set in those lots when where they are has larger lots? Even though the way it is situated now and you did an architectural configuration, no matter what you do you could never when the lots are that close together get a variation of the configuration of the houses. You would see much of the sameness there. That would detract from it. You would get the townhouse or rowhouse effect. Four lots would be more amenable. Mr. Johnson stated he had a procedural question. If the plat that is before you is encompassing Outlot B and the Outlot B owner has not signed an application and atands in opposition to the plat, is that property before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hickok stated the survey that has been submitted and signed by a surveyor indicates that the roadway right-of-way is directly abutting the property to the north. It is not taking over Outlot B. It is implying that Outlot B does not exist; therefore, a right-of-way exists up to the edge of the property and there is no separation by land between utilities, etc., and the lots to be developed. The developer has submitted a survey sig�ed by a surveyor that indicates there is a 50-foot right-of-way that exists and directly abuts the property in question. The property in question would exist between this property line and the roadway. The position of the developer is that the 50-foot right- of-way exists and that they have direct access to a public right- of-way directly adjacent to the property. What is on record at the County shows something different. The County record shows a 21 foot and 25 foot right-of-way which is four feet less than the surveyor had shown. The proposal does not take on land that �,..� PLANNING CON.�lISSION MEETING, SEPTII��R 17, 1997 PAGE 27 belongs to the owner to the north or it does not take on from the owner to the south. The proposal assumes there is no outlot that was legally created and therefore his access to utilities is there and adjacent to the property. Mr. Johnson stated he would offer to the Commission that the County record does demonstrate there is an Outlot B separating Heather Place from the property to the north. If there is going to be access taken along with Heather Place in this plat, it has to come over Outlot B. In that situation, Outlot B muat be incorporated into the proposed plat. The owner of Outlot B has not signed an application for this plat and is not in favor of this plat. What the Commission would be acting on is a proposal where one of the property owners is in opposition to the plat in process. Mr. Dommer stated their proposal only included the land to the north of Outlot B. They have the signature of the owner. The Commission can act on that proposal. The Commission can recommend denial because they don't have street frontage. They don't need Outlot B's signature because they are not incorporating that as part of the pl�at. You can propose a rectangle in the middle of a cornfield if you like. They are going through the process of n proposing a plat on property for which they have the owners signature. Mr. Johnson stated he would suggest that the developer has just admitted that his lots fail the minimum requirements for street frontages for the City. Mr. Dommer stated he is not suggesting the lots do not have street frontage. They are suggesting the right-of-way on Heather Place is 50 feet wide and that we have street frontage. TIO by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTS, ALL VOTING AYL, VICS-CHAIRPERSON ItONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE p�BLIC I�A,RING CLOSED AT 10:05 P.M. Ms. Modig asked staff if she made a motion to table this item would ther� be no further discussion and this be tabled indefinitely. Mr. Hickok stated a motion to table and seconded is not debatable. TI N by Ms. Modig to table consideration of Preliminary Plat, � P.S. #97-04, by the Philip Stephen Companies, Inc., to resubdivide the property into six buildable lots for single family homes, on Lots 20 and 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22, generally located at ^ PLANNING CONIl�lISSION N�ETING, SEPTEN�ER 17, 1997 PAGE.28 � 6217 Central Avenue N.E. Ms. Modig stated in her opinion there are too many issues that are not resolved regarding the final plat, Outlot B, and the 30-foot easement. She is concerned about whether the City allows shared driveways. She is concerned about density. She is concerned about the builder and talks with the neighbors concerns are not required or signed on. She is concerned that the people on Ben More Drive have not had enough input regarding the access for the road. She thought this had to go back to the drawing board and be redefined. Mr. Kondrick stated those are important issues and he has no problem with the motion. If they get down to the basics, would we agree that Outlot B exists? If it does exist, then it cannot happen and then therefore we would deny this application? Mr. Sielaff stated he would be in favor of denying the request because he felt there was enough information out there to make a recommendation. VICE-CHAIRPLRSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED FOR IeACR OF A SECOND. OTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend denial of Preliminary Plat, P.S. #97-04, by the Philip Stephen Companies, Inc., to resubdivide the property into aix buildable lots for single family homes, on Lots 20 and 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22, generally located at 6217 Central Avenue N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYL, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICK DECLARLD THL MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Mr. Hickok stated this item would be considered by the City Council at their meeting of October 13. 3. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #97-07 BY PAUL LITWITTCZUK: To grant approval to maintain an existing 18 foot x 20 foot garage on Lot 17, except the South 55 feet thereof, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22, generally located at 6291 Central Avenue N.E. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYL, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THFs MOTION CARRIED AND Ti� POBLIC HEARINa OPEN AT 10:12 �--� P . M . Mr. Hickok stated the special use permit request is to allow a � PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING, SEPTII��R 17, 1997 PAGE 29 second accessory atructure on the property located at 6291 Central Avenue. Mr. Litwinczuk has requested the special use permit to allow the continued use of an existing garage with 360 square feet in area. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family, and is surrounded by R-1 zoning. There is C-1, Local Business District, to the north and across the way is C-2 zoning, Moore Lake Plaza. Mr. Hickok stated a new dwelling was recently constructed on the property including an attached garage of 652 square feet. The subject garage was constructed in 1973 and is detached. A demolition permit was issued for the original dwelling in 1995. The petitioner was cited for lack of properly completing the demolition as the foundation stayed as an open excavation for a period of time. The structure will be moved closer to the new dwelling, as he understands, next season. The atructure will be resided and reroofed and used to store personal items. The setback because it is a corner lot must be 25 feet from Rice Creek Road and there is adequate space. A hardsurface drive is not required because the garage is for personal effects. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following stipulations: 1. All grading, drainage, and downspout locations shall be designed in a manner to prevent detrimental runoff impacts to adjacent properties. 2. Al1 necessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction. 3. No driveway access is permitted to Rice Creek Road. 4. All vehicles shall be stored on a hardsurface as approved by the City. 5. The siding and roof materials shall ma.tch the exterior of the new dwelling. A"double door" versus an overhead garage door shall be installed. � 7. A letter of credit of $20,000 shall be submitted prior to issuance of a moving/building�permit to insure timely completion of the project. Failure to complete the project by October 1, 1998, shall constitute a basis for establishing a public hearing to revoke the special use permit. Ms. Modig stated, regarding the use of the structure, the corner �, is very nice. The report states the petitioner will not be using the detached structure as a garage. �1 n �� PLANNING CONIl�lISSION N�ETING, SEPTII�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 30 Mr. Litwinczuk stated he wants to use the building as a garage with the existing driveway. The driveway for the attached garage is very short. There is not enough room for parking cars on that part of the driveway. If he has visitors, he wants a place for them to park. You cannot park two cars on the new driveway. Visitors must now park on the street. He wants to keep the curb cut and pave and keep that as a garage. He will reside and reroof it to match the house. He does not want to move the garage. Ms. Modig asked how they could keep the petitioner from using this as a garage if he wants to. Why do we care? Mr. Hickok stated two curb cuts on a corner lot is one issue and they are looking to avoid that. Mr. Litwinczuk stated the curb cuts are there now. Mr. Hickok stated special use permit in most cases is applied for before a structure is built. At that time a separate curb cut would be discussed and evaluated. Early in the discussions, it was understood that, because the structure is in a low area of the lot, the petitioner is going to raise the structure building a short foundation wall below the accessory building. It is staff's recommendation that it be moved back from the lot line because it sits a questionable distance,from the lot line. Although it may meet the three foot requirement, it is right on the �hree foot dimension. It was staff's recommendation, based on that discussion, that if the garage was going to be lifted for a new foundation that it be moved, resided, reroofed, etc. Mr. Kondrick stated it is common to see a stipulation stating that there be no home business operation in the acceasory structure. This is not included. Should that be included as stipulation #8? Mr. Hickok stated this is a standard and he would recommend adding that as an additional stipulation. Ms. Modig asked what they would have to do to let him use the garage. Mr. Hickok stated the Planning Commission has it in its authority to recommend whatever it likes. If you want to allow for a second driveway, he would encourage the motion be structured accordingly. Ms. Modig stated the basis of her question is that the garage is to be used for storage purposes and not be a garage for vehicular storage. Why did you do that? Mr. Hickok stated this is a unique situation. This is a long narrow lot with two garages with two driveways facing one direction. That is atypical to what we see on second accessory � PLANNING CONIl�lISSION 1�ETING, SEPTII�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 31 structures. It has a street presence that is less desirable, in staff's opinion, than if it were modified to be a storage building even with the garage door width opening but with double doors rather than an overhead door. Ms. Modig asked if the petitioner could still put a car in it if he wanted to. Mr. Hickok stated technically yes. He could not park in front of it, but if it has concrete floor he could park a car in it. If he is going to use it as a garage, then their recommendation would be to have a driveway put in. Aesthetics is one piece of it. It is a relatively narrow lot with two garages and two driveways. Mr. Litwinczuk stated he put a new house where it is because of the existing driveway cut. There is a driveway cut there now for the existing garage. The lot is difficult to build on so he set the house forward. The new driveway is short. He has 25 feet from the garage to the edge of the lot. He can only park one car there. If he has a visitor, they would have to park on the street. The detached garage is already existing, it is three feet from both lot lines, and it does not impact any neighbors. The neighbor to the east has no problem with the request. Her house �� is located back further. It does not impact any of the commercial properties across the street. He did not think it would hurt anyone by having a driveway there. The curb cuts are existing. Mr. Litwinczuk stated he had problems with stipulation #3 because he wants a driveway access to the detached garage. Stipulation #4 stated vehicles shall be stored on a hardsurface. If there is no hardsurface, he cannot park a car there. Stipulation #5 is okay as far as the siding and'roof materials. He wants the same garage door to match the new one on the house, not a double door. He does not want to move the garage. He wants to leave it where it is. He has just planned to have it lifted in order to have several courses of block added. He has no problem with the deadline. Mr. Kondrick asked if he had any problem with not allowing a home business. Mr. Litwinczuk stated that was okay. Mr. Saba stated the summary of issues in the staff report is not consistent with the stipulations. There is some modification required. The summary states the structure cannot be located closer than 25 feet from the Rice Creed Road lot line or north lot line and no closer than five feet to the east and south lot lines. �, Staff stated three feet was the setback and several pages later it states that three feet is okay. Which is correct? n PLANNING CONIlKISSION MEETING, SEP��R 17, 1997 PAGE 32 Mr. Hickok stated a detached garage can be as close as three feet. It was staff's understanding that the garage was going to be moved in which case, with the drainage, five feet is the preferred location. Mr. Sielaff asked the petitioner if it was correct that the size was not correct. Mr. Litwinczuk atated the garage by the house is 24 feet x 24 feet which does not equal what it stated. That is 676 square feet. The staff report states 652 square feet. Mr. Sielaff asked if there was an issue with #3. Mr. Litwinczuk stated they want to put in a driveway. Ms. Modig asked if they needed stipulation #6 if the petitioner is not going to be moving the structure. Is this needed? Mr. Hickok stated, whether the garage is moved or raised, $20,000 is the requirement. It is almost the identical process. Mr. Litwinczuk asked staff why they were asking for a letter of �� credit . � Mr. Hickok stated this is standard. This can be issued through a bank or an insurance agency. That is based on the value if the City had to complete the work or the project. Mr. Saba stated it is just to make sure that the project is done. Mr. Litwinczuk stated a special use permit was approved for the garage several years ago. The problem previously arose because the contractor had left debris from the foundation and could not get it removed on time because it was during the winter. This was in February. Mr. Sielaff stated this is not based on risk. Mr. Hickok stated there is a risk for those issuing the letter of credit. If the petitioner does not perform it becomes essentially a loan. The City cashes in on that, completes the work, and the petitioner pays on the value. Mr. Sielaff asked if there was a risk involved. Mr. Hickok stated, with the history, staff wants a bond on this proj ect . MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. � PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING, SEPZ'E1�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 33 UPON A VOICE VOTL, ALL VOTING AYE, VICS-CHAIRP8R30N RONDRICR DLCLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND TF�s PUBLIC HEARING CL03ED AT 10:40 P.M. Mr. Saba stated he has no problem with the request. He would concur with the petitioner to allow him a driveway and remove stipulation #3. He would recommend replacing stipulation #3 stating that no home occupation or busineas shall be operated in the structure. He would delete the second sentence from stipulation #5 and state an overhead garage door shall be installed. OM TION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #97-07, by Paul Litwinczuk, to grant approval to maintain an existing 18 foot x 20 foot garage on Lot 17, except the South 55 feet thereof, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22, generally located at 6291 Central Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: l. All grading, drainage, and downspout locations shall be designed in a manner to prevent detrimental runoff impacts to ^ adjacent properties. 2. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction. 3. The accessory structure shall not be used for a home occupation. 4. All vehicles shall be stored on a hardsurface as approved by the City. 5. The siding and roof materials shall match the exterior of the new dwelling. An overhead garage door shall be installed. 6. A letter of credit of $20,000 shall be submitted prior to issuance of a moving/building permit to insure timely completion of the project. 7. Failure to complete the project by October 1, 1998, shall constitute a basis for establishing a public hearing to revoke the special use permit. � �PON A VOICL VOTL, ALL VOTING AYL, VICL-CHAIRPLRSON RONDRICR DBCLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINArTIMOIISLY. Mr. Hickok stated this request will be considered by the City r"'� Council at their meeting of October 13. 4. _LTabled 9/3/97) RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL � PLANNING CO1�IlrlISSION N�ETING, SEP��'R 17, 1997 PAGE 34 � . � �� • ��u, • � u� � • .. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting of August 19, 1997. UPON A VOICL VOTT, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON R,ONDRICK DECLARED TH8 MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 4. �,+4LTTT�.' muF MTNLTTES OF THE PA12�RECREATION COMMI SS ION � FLTTrTr nF Ai7GUST O IO by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of August 4, 1997. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALI+ VOTING AYE, VICI�-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICK DFCLARSD THE MOTION CARRIED UNp+NIMOII3LY. 0'rHER BUS I�LE�S_ : Mr. Hickok stated the recycling center will be accepting appliances and fluorescent lighc aulmetalr a peratingehoursCareg center wi l l a l s o b e a c c e pfrom 9:00 a.m. to 5: 0 0 p.�►- T h e e x p a n d e d n T uesda y through Saturday I f an one has questiona, you services will start September 2 0. Y can contact Julie Jonea at 572-3594. pnJl.�NT • OT N by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the � meeting. UPON A VOICT VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� S�PT��R i�s�199��pII,p,�ING DECI+ARED 'I� MOTION CAR.RIE� � 10 :44 P•M• CONII�iISSION 1�I�'TING AUJOURNE� . Reapectfully submitted, ' '� 1 ,a1 �, ;� m�,�i �,. � ' avonn Cooper Recording Secretary � � � i� S I G N— IN S H E E T PLANNING COMMISSION.MEETING, ' September 17, 1997 .