The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 07/07/1999 - 30971CITY OF FRIDLEY �"� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 7,1999 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the July 7, 1999, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, Connie Modig, Brad Sielaff, Dean Saba Members Absent: LeRoy Oquist, Larry Kuechle Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Paul Bolin, Planning Assistant Ross Larson, 1568 Gardena Avenue Sue Wick, 1565 Gardena Avenue Carla Winiecki, 5950 Benjamin Street Bailey Tiller, 1535 Gardena Avenue Erika Kuhlmeyer, 1564 Gardena Avenue Carol & Cory Wilson, 1588 Gardena Avenue ^ Michele Hatten, 5955 Benjamin Street Barbara & James Sweeney, 7320 Jackson Street Rich Revering, 7300 Jackson Street Roger & Lavona Carlson, 7385 Memory Lane Victoria Friedmann, 1541 60�' Avenue NE Scott Roberts, Genesis Architects Marj Rolland, 1561 Gardena Avenue Bob Neal, 1561 Gardena Avenue E. T. Lane, 1132 Mississippi Street Monica Lane, 3451 —121StAvenue NW, Coon Rapids, Minnesota Jean Hicks, 106 Hartman Circle Julie Hunstad, 7664 Jackson Street Bemice Tumer, 7601 Jackson Street Jeff Ledin, 10678 Washington Boulevard, Blaine, Minnesota Greig Manthei, 965 83`� Avenue NE, Spring Lake Park, Minnesota Kenneth Johnson, 7430 Tempo Terrace Steve Varichak, 1558 Brierdale Road James Surdyl�, 6415 Eagle Lake Drive Hank & Rosemarie Melcher, 6500 Pierce Street Dr. Larry Lucas, 3380 Xylon Avenue N. Clayton Hicks, 106 Hartman Circle Roland Peterson, 235 Craigbrook Way � Jerome Tiller, 1555 Gardena Avenue 1 PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 APPROVAL OF JUNE 2, 1999, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: PAGE 2 �, MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the June 2, 1999, Planning Commission minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF LOT SPLIT. L.S. #99-01, BY MONICA LANE: To split the North'/2 of Lot 9, Auditor's Subdivision #88, generally located at 1132 Mississippi Street. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:34 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated the petitioner is requesting a lot split of the north one-half of Lot 9, Auditor's Subdivision #88, to construct an additional single family home. The property is located at the southeast comer of the intersection of Highway 65 and Mississippi Street, generally known as 1132 Mississippi Street. The property is currently 1.04 acres in size and is zoned R-1, Single Family, as are all the immediate surrounding properties. � Further to the south of this property is property zoned R-3, General Multiple Units, and apartment buildings zoned R-2, Two-Family Units. Mr. Bolin stated the new lot would be created just to the east of the existing driveway. Once the lot is split, the existing lot with the home will measure 85 feet x 239 feet. The newly created lot will be 75 feet x 239 feet. Both lots meet the minimum code requirements for lot size. The existing home will still meet all of the required setbacks as well as the new home being proposed. The existing home was built prior to 1949. In 1949, the garage was built on the site. In 1952 and in 1962, the home had some additions made to it. Mr. Bolin stated, since the lots will exceed the required size standards, staff recommends approval of the request with the following stipulations: 1. Petitioner shall extend current 10-foot easement along the entire Westem boundary. 2. Petitioner shall pay $750 park dedication fee for new lot prior to issuance of building permit. 3. Petitioner shall grant code required 12-foot utility and drainage easement along Southern boundary of property. 4. Petitioner shall pay all water and sewer connection fees. 5. Petitioner shall record a 12-foot driveway easement along both sides of common boundary. � 6. The current 15-foot private easement along Eastem boundary of property shall be vacated, or new home and accessory building shall be set back 15 feet from the eastem boundary so as to not encroach into the easement. 2 PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 3 7. Petitioner shall meet all right-of-way dedication requirements of Anoka County for that portion of each lot that abuts Mississippi Street. 8. The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees required to be removed for the new house shall be marked and approved by City staff prior to issuance of the building permit. Mr. Bolin stated many of the items in the stipulations have already been addressed by the petitioner's engineers including the 15-foot easement along the westem boundary, the 12-foot driveway easements, as well as a 12-foot drainage and utility easement along the south edge of the property. Ms. Modig asked if staff had received comments from the neighbors. Mr. Bolin stated staff has received four calls. All of the callers wanted to know about the plans. There was some fear that by splitting the lot, a convenience store or gas station might go in. The zoning is R-1, Single Family, and this is all that can go in there. Ms. Monica Lane stated her father raised a family in that home. He is now alone. The family believed this would allow their father to continue to be an active member of the community. He is a member of St. Luke's Church, participates in seniors' programs, does many things for the neighbors and elderly people, has a carving class, and would like to stay in the community. However, he will not always be able to keep up this lot alone. Many of the children live out of state. Two children live within forty miles. It is �.,,\ very hard to have their families and try to care for this yard at the same time. Since she ' was in the process of trying to find a lot on which to build a home, she believed this would be a practical solution and allow her father to stay in his home. She graduated from Fridley High School. She likes the neighborhood. It will mean that she will have to relocate her family. Mr. Sielaff asked if the petitioner had any problems with the stipulations. Ms. Lane stated she is confused about some things. One is the 15-foot easement on the eastem side. When she went to the courthouse, she discovered that, at one time, this was a dirt driveway that was the access to the home behind them about 35-40 years ago. Since she can remember, this area has been fenced by the neighbors and totally closes off the easement. If she does build a home, it is unrealistic to keep the home 15 feet from that easement and 10 feet from the driveway without butting into it. She would like to have the easement removed, because it serves absolutely no purpose. Mr. Hickok stated that the parties involved could have it removed from the plat. This is a private easement on file at Anoka County. This property and the other current property owner could come to an agreemerit and have that done. Mr. Hickok stated the City and County would prefer that this not become a driveway also because the property now takes access from the frontage road to the south and � has done so for a number of years. The petitioner's property is at a very critical point for bringing driveways out onto Mississippi. That is why staff recommended a driveway 3 PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 4 easement location of 12 feet on either side of the line. That gives the opportunity for a driveway for each lot while controlling the number of access points. Ms. Lane stated that on the survey she had done, the existing driveway goes into what would be the newly created lot. If a driveway were to be put in, it would have to be to the right of that or to the east. Of the homes across the street, one has a driveway and another has finro driveways. Her father would prefer that she have her own driveway to avoid any problems in the future. She is trying to realistically think of how one person would come in off one driveway and veer off. If a driveway were to be put in, it would have to be put in to the east of the existing driveway. That driveway goes onto the newly created par�el. She does not know how to go about correcting that. Mr. Hickok stated this is staff s recommendation in an effort to control access at a critical point of the roadway. This is an area where cars could be traveling at the Highway 65 speed and rounding the comer at a green light only to find there are nearby driveways, causing conflict. Since this is a family situation, it is stafPs recommendation to create a driveway location that is deemed appropriate for the lot split and still control the number of access points. Staff does understand that the current driveway crosses over onto the newly created lot, but that is not an unusual situation. There are a number of properties in the City that share access but then split once they gain access to their property. The concem is at the easement. Beyond the easement, the owner can do what he/she wants. � Ms. Lane asked if the easement at the westerri boundary is by the highway. Mr. Bolin stated this is correct. The 15-foot easement is an existing easement. The engineering staff asked that this be extended along the entire length of the property. Mr. Melcher stated he lives two blocks from this site. If the lot is split, what is the possibility of commercial on the new lot? Directly across the street from this parcel is land that was set up as residential. When the owner had difficulty selling it, he petitioned the City to change this to commercial in order to put in a gas station and a pizza place. It was part of the pocket zoning thing. His concerr� is that this is another pocket zoning problem. If this goes residential, but the Lanes do not build another house and the property goes up for sale, what is the possibility of this being rezoned commercial? Mr. Bolin stated the property is currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, as are the surrounding properties. The plot across the street is still zoned R-1. The possibility of this becoming commercial is very slim. Currently, the City is updating the comprehensive land use plan. In this update, that area is designated as residential. Mr. Melcher stated that part of Mississippi and Highway 65 is a very severe accident prone area. He did not have statistics, but he felt the police department could vouch for the fact that. If commercial was put in there, it would be a real mess. �� Ms. Lane stated it would be her worst nightmare to relocate her family, build a home, and find out that this was zoned commercial. She is making the request to build a home to help keep the area residential and to keep her dad in his home. � PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 5 � Mr. Hickok stated that when the City evaluates a rezoning, staff looks at criteria that the request would have to meet in order to get a recommendation for approval. One of those criteria is the surrounding zoning. He believed the City Council is committed to keeping this area residential. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:56 P.M. Mr. Saba stated he has no problem with the request. Mr. Kondrick agreed. He believed the petitioner understood the stipulations. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of Lot Split request, L.S. #99-01, by Monica Lane, to split the North %2 of Lot 9, Auditor's Subdivision #88, generally located at 1132 Mississippi Street, with the following stipulations: 1. Petitioner shall extend current 10-foot easement along the entire Westem boundary. 2. Petitioner shall pay $750 park dedication fee for new lot prior to issuance of � building permit. 3. Petitioner shall grant code required 12-foot utility and drainage easement along Southem boundary of property. 4. Petitioner shall pay all water and sewer connection fees. 5. Petitioner shall record a 12-foot driveway easement along both sides of common boundary. 6. The current 15-foot private easement along Eastem boundary of property shall be vacated or new home and accessory buildings to be setback 15 feet from the easterr� boundary so as to not encroach into the easement. 7. Petitioner shall meet all right-of-way dedication requirements of Anoka County for that portion of each lot that abuts Mississippi Street. 8. The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees required to be removed for the new house shall be marked and approved by City staff prior to issuance of the building permit. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Bolin stated this item would be considered by the City Council on July 26. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF REPLAT REQUEST. #99-03. BY STEPHEN VARICHAK & JAMES SURDYK: To create three separate lots from Lot 22, Auditor's Subdivision #92, generally � located at 1583 Gardena Avenue. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick to open the public hearing. 5 PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 6 ,� UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:58 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated the petitioner is requesting a replat of Lot 2, Auditor's Subdivision #92, to develop three separate lots which wouid accommodate three single family homes on the property located at 1583 Gardena. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family, as are the surrounding properties with the exception of a small parcel just to the south of this property. A 40-foot strip of land is owned by the City and used as access into the park for maintenance. A home and a number of large trees currently exist on the property, The northemmost edge of the property is lower than the other part of the property. Mr. Bolin stated the lot was platted in 1949. In 1956, the existing home was constructed. In 1976, the existing home was connected to City sewer and water. Mr. Bolin stated that in reviewing the preliminary plat, staff has noted that the proposed lots exceed the code requirements for size and street frontage. Staff recommends approval of the request with the following stipulations: 1. Grading and drainage plan shall be approved by City's engineering staff prior to the issuance of any building permits, in order to minimize impact to the low area located along the Northem most edge of property. 2. Petitioner shall provide a 20-foot drainage and utility easement along North ,� property line of proposed Lot 1. ' 3. No grading or land alterations shall be permitted within 50-feet of the North property line of proposed Lot 1. 4. Petitioner shall provide proof that the old well located on the site is properly capped or removed. 5. During construction, silt fencing shall be used where applicable. 6. Petitioner shall pay $750 per lot park fees prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Petitioner shall grant code required 12-foot utility and drainage easement along westem boundary of property. 8. Petitioner shall pay all water and sewer connection fees. 9. petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees required to be removed for the new homes shall be marked and approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits. Mr. Bolin stated the northemmost lot. Lot 1, would be approximately 17,000 square feet, Lot 2 would be about 11,000 square feet, and Lot 3 would be just over 12,000 square feet. Lot 1 acts as a natural drainage area. The 20-foot easement would give the City a drainage easement in that area. Also, to address some of the neighborhood concerr�s with drainage and open space, staff has requested a stipulation stating that no land alterations shall happen within 50 feet of the northemmost property line. Ms. Savage asked why this is a replat rather than a lot split. � Mr. Bolin stated this is because there are three lots involved. This is a reconfiguring of the entire site rather than splitting one parcel into two parcels. 0 PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 7 Ms. Savage asked if there were any legal guidelines or statutes in a situation like this ,� where it is clear that these lots are the proper size. Are there any other guidelines in making a recommendation to approve or deny? Mr. Bolin stated staff goes by the City zoning code to make sure that all the lots will be buildable. Not only must the lots meet certain size requirements, but also that homes can be built on the lots. This is a residential area, and these will be single family homes. According to the code, the petitioners can do this and meet the requirements. Ms. Savage asked for staff s response to the letter from Glenn Lillmars indicating that he owns an adjoining property that he wanted to build on and that he was not able to build. Mr. Bolin stated he believed Mr. Lillmars' property abuts this property and was at one time platted even though they do not have access. About the same time, a 25-foot portion of the proposed Hill Drive was also platted. It is highly unlikely that Hill Drive will be extended due to the topographic constraints. In order to construct Hill Drive, it would be necessary to fill in the entire low area, which would cause drainage problems for the entire area. There would also be issues in acquiring property in order to put in a road. The City code requires 60-foot roadways with 30 feet of paved surface and 15 feet of right-of-way on either side. It is landlocked and without some major purchases of property, it would be impossible to come off Benjamin onto Hill Drive. � Mr. Kondrick asked the minimum lot size. Mr. Bolin stated the minimum lot size is 9,000 square feet. Ms. Modig asked why the Iots are not being separated into equal size lots. Mr. Bolin stated the main reason is that, when the petitioner was drawing up the lots, he was thinking about the low area at the notherr�most lot. In order to make that a buildable lot, he made the northemmost lot larger than the other finro. Ms. Modig stated that once this subdivision is done, what prevents the future owner from making a topographic change in that low area? Mr. Bolin stated a future owner would need a grading permit. There is a storm sewer culvert that goes under Benjamin just to the north of this property. That drainage comes partially across the neighbor's property. Practically, this would not be a possibility. Mr. Hickok stated there is a stipulation that states the subdivision was approved under certain conditions. If this was filled, it would be a violation of the law. Mr. Saba stated that in walking the property� it appears there is wetland soil at the northemmost area. Has anyone looked at whether there is wetland material and if �'"�1 there is mitigation involved? 7 PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 8 Mr. Bolin stated he understands that the water does not set in the area very long and ,-� drains quickly. Any potential wetland in the area would be small enough in size that it would not trigger any mitigation. The area lacks wetland vegetation. Mr. Saba stated the lot located north of Lot 1 has severe erosion. What will construction do to that property as well as other? Will removing trees and vegetation add to that? Mr. Bolin stated that in reviewing this with the City engineers, they are confident that the 50-foot buffer along the northem edge and engineering staff having final approval of the grading plans would stop any potential problems with erosion and runoff. Anything done on Lot 1 should not affect the property to the north. Mr. Saba asked where the house would be located. Mr. Bolin stated a house would have to be located on the southem portion of Lot 1 at a place where they would meet the required setbacks and still stay away from that 50- foot line. Mr. Sielaff asked if the former sewage treatment systems had been properly abandoned. Mr. Bolin stated that if there is one, it will be removed when the existing home is razed. � This is a requirement of the demolition permit. Ms. Modig stated that where is the drainage going to go? Mr. Bolin stated the engineering staff would like to see all the drainage go toward Benjamin. Ms. Modig stated that when the grading and drainage plan is approved, the idea is that it is going to drain away from the property itself into Benjamin. There is drainage further to the north. Will it accommodate this? Mr. Bolin stated those are all good concems and are things that the engineering staff has looked at. The engineering staff does not want to allow any more drainage into that area, and they believe this will work. Ms. Modig stated she understands that. These are concems of the neighborhood that have to be addressed for the neighborhood in order for it to be a peaceful project. She has concems about that. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive into the public record letters received from Vicki Hamilton dated July 6, 1999; from James Hamilton dated July 6, 1999; and from Marjorie Rolland dated June 27, 1999. �� UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. : PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 9 Mr. Varichak stated he lives three blocks away and has lived there for the last 15 ^ years. He is very familiar with the property. He is looking at this for investment purposes. They will remove the old house and build three new ones. It will improve the area. He purchased the property a few months ago. The lots are all nice sized lots. At this time, he has finro people interested in building on the lots. Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner had any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Varichak stated he has no problems. They made the northem lot big in order to accommodate the landscaping. That is a nice walkout lot. They will try to save as many trees as possible. Mr. Saba asked where he would put a house on Lot 1. Mr. Varichak stated they would have to mark where 50 feet is from the north end. It is really the buyer's option to position the house. They will pick out a plan and see if it is a good fit for the lot. Currently, there are no plans. Ms. Winiecki stated she is attending the meeting on behalf of the three owners directly north of the three proposed lots. Cathy Miller and Thomas Steifer wrote a letter to the City regarding the request, which was included in the agenda packet. Ms. Winiecki read portions of the letter. � Ms. Winiecki stated the homeowners she is representing purchased their lots primarily because of the scenery. Throughout the years, the entire neighborhood has enjoyed the natural setting tucked away in a big city. It appears to her the developer will come into the neighborhood, create a less than desirable area for the existing homeowners, and exit the scene without regard for the current residents. Surely, in this case, the developer will benefit. In what way will the existing property owners benefit? Will they enjoy looking at the sides or backs of the homes he built rather than taking in the beauty of the oak trees or open areas? Will they enjoy the loss of some of the wildlife in the area? Will they enjoy the additional traffic or homes being created? Will their property values go down? Most importantly, if this lot is lost to subdivision, will the next home that is sold then allow for an additional subdivision? Surely some of the lots are large enough to entice another developer? In order to protect the current residents, they need to stop this subdivision from taking place. The current homeowners like the neighborhood as it is. There is no question a developer with significant capital can subdivide the lot, take away the essence of the neighborhood, and make a hefty profit. The real question is, should they be allowed to? Ms. Wick stated she lives on the property immediately west of this property. Her entire property borders the property in question. There are a couple of things going on. One is the emotional aspect of cutting down trees. There are 24 oak trees are on the site. When stepping out her back door on a sunny day, she sees trees that are green. She will now look at siding, and she is not sure how she feels about that. She displayed a diagram showing two trees and she thought that was about the perimeter. The �� perimeter holds about two trees. With three houses, there will be three families, four to nine kids, six or more cars, RV's, boats, etc., instead of all these really nice oak trees. That is the emotional piece. � PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 10 ,.� Ms. Wick stated the other part is about it being problematic. The Commission asked great questions. What about the erosion? What about the drainage? Can you put a house on that big lot? Is it going to change the drainage? Can you expect that there will not be erosion when it is occurring now on the properly to the north? She was not sure these questions were answered. Her concerr� is how the Planning Commission can make a decision until they know those answers from the engineers? If inembers have not been to the site, she would invite them to come out and walk the lot. She loves the trees and thought they were over 100 years old. Ms. Wick stated she has spoken with Mr. Varichak. He seemed like a nice man. While he does live in the neighborhood, he does not live next door. She is willing to accept some compromise. Maybe she does not have a choice, but she and her neighbors are willing to take a look at a compromise — perhaps finro houses rather than three to save more trees. At the slope, there is a pocket of eight or nine trees that will have to go. If two houses are put at the higher portion of the lot, they will be closer to the road. She agreed that it is probably okay for the house to be demolished. There is more compromise than just marking some trees. She thought they needed to go further than just 95% of these big old trees missing. Ms. Wick stated she has a petition signed by approximately 65 of the neighbors. She asked that this be presented to the City Council. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded to Ms. Modig, to accept the signed petition into the �� public record. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Larson stated he lives across the street from the property. He agrees that the house should be demolished. He has talked to the neighbors and all are opposed to three houses going in. All the lots around there are fairly decent size. All the properties have mature trees. If they start taking them down, they will not see mature trees. This is not an investment to him. He will not see anything in his pocket. This is all that the petitioner is looking at. He thinks there could be a compromise. He has a child who enjoys getting out and playing in the neighborhood. It would be sad for him to have three houses go in there. Besides the extra traffic, Gardena is a busy street as it is right now. With three houses, there will be a minimum of six cars. He just doesn't think this is right. Ms. Wilson lives directly across the street from the property. She concurs with everything that has been said so far. She had concems about Lot #3 and asked for the dimensions of that lot. Mr. Bolin stated Lot #3 measures 90 feet x 134 feet. �'�'� Ms. Wilson asked if staff had described the slope that is there from Lot 3 to Lot 1, and how a house could be built into that hill. �� PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 Mr. Bolin stated Lot 2 is fairly level. Most of the slope is on Lot 1. PAGE 11 ,�'°� Ms. Wilson stated she concurred that the house should be taken down. They had heard rumors of having 3 feet taken off that property. As a neighborhood� they have all mature trees, deep lots, park land behind them, lots of animals, and lots of rolling hills. She is very opposed to squishing three houses in there. If the developer had come to the neighborhood with a proposal for two houses, that might have been easier to swallow. Ms. Kuhlmeyer concurred with the comments. She lives across the street from the property. She is concemed about the tax ramifications and special assessments. Are there any assessments or taxes they should be concemed about as properly owners? Mr. Hickok stated that as far as assessments, all of the costs of development are bome by the developer. Neighbors and residents in the area should not expect any additional assessment because of this development. There is the added revenue of having three homes where one had existed. Ms. Hatten stated she lives across from the 50-foot area and looks at it from her front window. They purchased their house in November. The front does not look very nice because they have a big tree so they don't get any sun and grass won't grow. They have erosion and they will have erosion down the street. They are debating about taking out a tree, and now this is talking about taking out 24 trees across the street. � She has a huge problem with that. Her property at the street is where water drains out. This winter, there was a cycle of freeze, thaw, freeze, etc. That part of the street was all ice. There is a huge drainage problem there right now. They already have water that backs up into the driveway when it rains heavily. She would like the City to do something about that. A house on Lot 1 with the slope will have erosion. The drainage will go into the pond. She would like someone to look further into that. Ms. Hatten stated she is totally against three houses there. She does not want to look at that across the street. She did not think this is aesthetically pleasing. If they put in a huge house, it makes the rest of the houses built in the 1950's look like dumps. That does not help her as a property owner. She stated Mr. Varichak is a very nice guy; and, if he wants to make some money, that's fine, but can he reduce the size of the houses so they fit in with the other homes in the neighborhood? She would like that to be considered. Ms. Winiecki stated that a few years ago when the north property owners had some drainage problems, the City needed to come in and redo the driveway. In addition� some of the front yard had additional fill put in. This happened during the construction of the street on Benjamin. Mr. Bailey Tiller stated he has lived in the area for 60 years. Years ago, when they started the City, they were very fortunate to have a very good manager. The taxes were $88 per year. Now the taxes are $200 and they talk about development that is ^ costly. It is costly because keeping everything in order costs a lot of money. They have enjoyed the block the way it is, and they want to keep it the way it is. The taxes cannot take care of all the extras. You cannot put this in to get more taxes. There is 11 PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 12 nothing so nice as when you have nature. It would be nice to have it natural. If you ^ drive off Gardena and Oakwood Manor to the west, years ago they were going to put houses in there. Now there is the most beautiful nature. They have to keep what they have as good gifts and so he wants to keep this now as a gift. �� Mr. Jerome Tiller stated he has lived here for 50 years and is a long time resident of the neighborhood. The Commission is faced with a terrible dilemma. Here is a gentleman who has lived three or four blocks from the neighborhood for 15 years who purchased this property on speculation. The Commission's decision is either to protect the speculator's investment or to somehow reach some sort of compromise and protect the neighborhood's investment in this beautiful lot. Some of the members have been there. This is a special lot. He always thought they would have rich neighbors someday because he never thought anyone would take that lot and split it up. There is also a steep slope on that hill. He does not know how they intend to arrange that land and put a house on that site. It will be costly in the long run because of the potential drainage problems. Mr. Jerome Tiller asked the Commission to take a hard look at the situation before making a decision. He though the neighborhood was willing to compromise. He would prefer to see one lot, but they are probably realistically thinking finro lots, but he did not think anyone in the neighborhood would live very well with three lots. It would destroy the present unique situation. Fridley has a few nice garden spots. Gardena is a very old neighborhood. It has a nice mix of old and new; it is a beautiful area. You need to preserve it the best way you can. Ms. Friedmann stated she has some concems with this proposal. The first is squishing three newly constructed homes and making them consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. She has lived in the area for about 10 years� and they liked the charm and the large trees. The glamg inconsistency of the three new homes would not be very pleasant. Her second concem is the soil composition and the potential for erosion. She has spent many years as an environmental engineer and understands this. Along with the erosion and increased drainage (which will by nature want to go north and further erode rather than going up hill onto Benjamin), erosion will be a considerable factor as well as the integrity of the structure on that soil. Her third concem is the precedent that this sets. She lives across from another elderly lady who has a beautiful lot with large old oak trees that is oversized and square footage-wise could very conceivably be split into three lots. It is a beautiful site. You could conceivably put finro houses on this site. It is so inconsistent with the rest of the houses in the area and the scenery. Both of these areas are in her neighborhood. When she is out walking her dog, she enjoys the shade and the scenery and would like that to remain. Mr. Jerome Tiller stated he thought the trees are more like 300 years old. When he was little, those trees were as big as they are now. Ms. Savage asked the petitioner his reaction to a double lot split. Mr. Varichak asked if the City would consider purchasing the lot. 12 PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 13 Ms. Modig asked the petitioner if they had soil testing done on the property. ,—.� Sometimes after a soil test is done, you may find that it is not buildable. Mr. Varichak stated the site is buildable. Mr. Sielaff asked how staff determined the measurement of 50 feet. Mr. Bolin stated staff sat down with the engineering department and figured out how far up the hill they would need to go to preserve that area. Mr. Sielaff stated he is concemed that Lot 1 is buildable. He is not sure if there were any restrictions in the code that constitutes a buildable lot and what doesn't. Mr. Hickok stated the zoning code sets standards for setbacks, landscape, etc., but it does not talk about soil conditions. The building code addresses that. There is a requirement that the foundation be adequate to support the home, to prove that the footings need to be based on soil compaction tests, etc. As they build homes, they need to verify that the soil conditions are such that it will support the home proposed for the site. The questions about soil conditions are valid. The builder would find out at the time of the soil tests. Oftentimes it is not the soil but the design of the footing that needs to match that soil. Those are building issues that need to be taken to the building department. The grading requirement is specific in the building code. If the land steps down, that needs to be considered in the design of the home. On Lot 1, the ,,� builder will need to determine the contour that will be needed and the placement of the '` home in order to make this work properly. Mr. Sielaff stated there is no specific requirement on the degree of slope or no restrictions on degree of slope. Mr. Hickok stated there is none on a lot like this. Along the river, there is a bluff requirement. Ms. Hatten asked if the City has considered the flow of drainage to the street and how that collects in the sewer and goes back down into the pond. Has the City considered the extra impact in the area of the additional water in that area? Will that end up having standing water? Mr. Hickok stated City staff met with a development review committee consisting of staff from engineering, fire, police, assessor, and building departments to analyze the questions that the neighbors are asking. It is important to know that the planning staff is presenting information received from a number of different sources. A determination was made that three lots and three homes can work. Mr. Saba asked what level of rainfall these calculations are based upon. Mr. Hickok stated that in commercial and industrial development, they base the i^� calculations on 10 year, 15 year, and 100 year storm events. In residential areas, it is done in very much the same fashion. They look at the density of the development, the roofs and driveways, and the kind of runoff they will get as a result of that 13 PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 14 development. They look at the hard surface area and the areas to handle that � capacity. In this case, the answer has been yes. Mr. Saba asked what criteria is used to save trees. Mr. Hickok stated they were obligated under stipulation as part of the subdivision to protect the trees in the Royal Oaks Development south of Totino-Grace. This stipulation was in place as well. Staff did go down and mark the trees. He thinks that was a good end product. There are a good number of mature trees that were left as a result of marking the trees and then protecting those that are left during construction. Mr. Saba asked if there is an estimate of the number of trees that could be saved. Mr. Hickok stated that would depend upon the placement of the homes. Staff have talked to the developer about this. Trees are valuable to a lot. The more trees you can preserve, the more value you have in a lot. To design a home for a wooded lot� the footprint looks at the lay of the land to minimize the impact. The. more trees that are preserved, the better off they are. Ms. Hatten asked if the engineers are saying that the drainage system that they have now is adequate. She did not think the current system in adequate because the water is backing up their driveway when it rains. Mr. Hickok stated there is no plan at this time to upgrade the storm sewer on � Benjamin. Ms. Wick stated there are some tough questions that need to be answered. She felt like the neighbors are fighting the City. She wondered what the motivation was to try to convince the Commission that three lots is a good idea. Mr. Hickok stated the code sets a minimum standard through the zoning and subdivision ordinance on what is in the City of Fridley. By doing that, there is a standard that is essentially an invitation to developers. As you look at property, you would Iook at the subdivision ordinance and the zoning ordinance to see if your proposed development for that lot meets the City's requirements. Through the State statutes, the City has the ability to subdivide the land within the City the way it sees fit. The City considers requests based on the standards. Has the developer met the minimum standards of the subdivision ordinance? Yes. Has the developer met the minimum standards of the zoning code? Yes. If these are met� staff cannot recommend denial. Mr. Jerome Tiller asked if staff is predisposed to protect the investment of developers regardless of the impact it might have on aesthetics. Ms. Savage stated staff must follow the law. She did not think it had anything to do with favoring development. There may be other considerations beyond the fact the � property meets the standards. There are other considerations, and that is why there is this meeting. 14 PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 Mr. Jerome Tiller asked what would be some of the other considerations. PAGE 15 n, Ms. Savage stated one would be neighborhood reaction. She stated this is very difficult, as they all understand how the neighbors feel. Every Commission member would like to have property or property close to them that is beautiful with trees and wildlife. But, at the same time, they are bound by laws, statutes, and regulations. Mr. Jerome Tiller stated they are bound by laws, statutes and regulations that determine what a minimum code would be. Are they obligated to protect the investment of a land speculator? What value do you place on aesthetics and neighborhood aesthetics? Values are subjective. Does a code invite developers to develop? He is having trouble with that. Mr. Sielaff stated the Commission also has to consider land ownership. What can you do with Iand that you own? Ms: Kuhlmeyer asked what the timeline was for the completion of this project. Mr. Varichak stated that if everything goes according to schedule through the City, County, etc., this process will probably be completed at the end of September. Ms. Modig asked the petitioner if he is going to develop the property himself or if he is planning to sell the parcels to individual parties. Mr. Varichak stated that it is possible he will sell to individual parties. It depends on who purchases the property. He will not be the builder. Mr. Bailey Tiller stated he has lived in the neighborhood for 60 years. He hoped that the Commission would listen to the people that live there. Ms. Savage stated that regardless of the recommendation made by the Planning Commission, the final decision will be made by the City Council. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:25 P.M. Ms. Modig stated she lives in the neighborhood, and she has been on the property. The City is bound by the statutes and the laws of what they can or cannot do. As long as the property owner meets the criteria, they can divide the property. The City cannot say no. Her feeling is that she would really like to table the request and let the property owner meet with the neighbors to determine if it was possible to do a iwo-way split. She felt there would be some value to do that� but she thought this was not going to happen. She would vote against the request because there are too many variables regarding drainage, grading, the trees, ponding, etc. The City has been assured by the engineers �''� that there is not a wetland there. They keep hearing from the neighbors about a pond that forms after it rains, so perhaps they need to look at the drainage in the area. There are too many ifs for her. She would vote against the request. 15 PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 16 n Mr. Kondrick stated he would vote in favor of the request because of the criteria they have to foilow. He is basing his decision upon the fact that the engineers know what they are doing. It is his understanding that, if three houses are built, there cannot be any more water than what is there now. He does not see how they can deny the owner from putting three pretty homes in the area if it can be done. The lots are over sized. They are doing what they can to put the third house back 50 feet. There are some tough stipulations. He walked the property and is aware of what the neighbors are talking about. Lot 1 will be a challenge for anyone that decides to build there. That is the way things happen sometimes. He will trust that the Planning staff and Engineering staff know what they are doing. If the stipulations are adhered to, he would vote to approve. Ms. Modig stated she did not mean to infer staff did not know what they are doing. She just feels that there is so much neighborhood animosity towards the request, and she feels that three lots are just too many. Mr. Sielaff stated he is empathetic to the residents. In his job, he has to deal with minimum standards. The minimum can become how far you can go down. On the flip side, minimum standards will improve the quality throughout the City. He recognizes this, and it is frustrating that they cannot do much about it. The City has a code with certain standards. Any person can purchase land and design down to those standards. The petitioner is the landowner and meets the minimum standards. He would vote in favor of the request. r�1 Mr. Saba stated that if he was to vote his personal feelings, he would vote against the request. He loves trees and wetland areas. It appears to be a very nice property; however, three legal lots are proposed. The City engineers have looked at the drainage and agree that it is workable. That puts some responsibility back on the City. The Planning Commission's recommendation will go on to City Council for a final decision, and everything the neighbors have said will go to the City Council. It is certainly a tough decision. The lots are legal size with sufficient room for three legal homes. He is very concemed about Lot 1 and where the house is placed. There are market forces that would have to determine the placement of the house and the trees to be saved. He would vote in favor of the request. Ms. Savage stated that if it were her neighborhood, she would be out in the audience. This is an extremely difficult decision. She is very concemed about the reaction of the neighborhood and very concemed about taking down mature trees. On the other side, she is a lawyer, and she cannot see any way to deny a request that meets the standards of the code. She would have to agree with the majority and vote in favor of the request. Ms. Modig asked if it would be possible to add another stipulation regarding the testing of the soil and that this be done before the replat is done. �"�, Mr. Hickok stated this can be done. If the Commission makes the motion with the stipulations, staff will make sure that this happens. 16 PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 17. Ms. Modig stated that if the soil tests show that there are a lot of problems, the ^ petitioner may decide not to do the project. Mr. Kondrick suggested the wording for the stipulation: uAppropriate soil testing shall be done to assure a buildable home sites." Mr. Hickok asked what the timing expectation is on the added stipulation. Ms. Savage stated it would be helpful to have this done before the City Council meeting. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend approval of Replat Request, P.S. #99-03, by Stephen Varichak and James Surdyk, to create three separate lots from Lot 22, Auditor's Subdivision #92, generally located at 1583 Gardena Avenue, with the following stipulations: 1. Grading and drainage plan shall be approved by City's engineering staff prior to the issuance of any building permits, in order to minimize impact to the low area located along the Northem most edge of properly. 2. Petitioner shall provide a 20-foot drainage and utility easement along North property line of proposed Lot 1. 3. No grading or land alterations shall be permitted within 50 feet of the North property line of proposed Lot 1. 4. Petitioner shall provide proof that old well located on the site is properly capped � or removed. . 5. During construction, silt fencing shall be used where applicable. 6. Petitioner shall pay $750 per lot park fees prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Petitioner shall grant code required 12-foot utility and drainage easement along westem boundary of property. 8. Petitioner shall pay all water and sewer connection fees. 9. Petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees required to be removed for the new homes shall be marked and approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits. 10. Appropriate soil testing shall be done to assure buildable home sites on Lots 1, 2, and 3, and to have that information available by the next City Council meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, SAVAGE, KONDRICK, SABA, AND SIELAFF VOTING AYE, MODIG VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE. Mr. Bolin stated this item would be considered by the City Council on July 26. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #99-04, BY JEFFREY VOGEL. GRACE EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH: To expand the educational, administrative, and gymnasium space of the church located at Parcel 300, North %2 of Section 11, generally located at 755 73`� Avenue. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba to open the public hearing. 17 PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 18 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED i--� THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:40 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated Grace Evangelical Free Church is requesting a special use permit to allow the expansion of the educational, administration, and gymnasium space of the existing ch�arch located at 755 73`� Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family, as are the neighboring properties to the north and east. To the west of the church property is Madsen Park. To the south across 73`� is a warehouse zoned M-2. Mr. Bolin st�ted a portion of the existing church would be removed and a new administration/educational building will be constructed in its place. There are single family homes along the eastem boundary. There is approximately 58 feet from the proposed buildings to the eastem property line. The lot is relatively flat with landscaping, parking lots, and the existing church buildings. Mr. Bolin stated the first building permit for this property was issued in 1964. In 1983, Special Use Permit, SP #83-13, was granted for an addition to the existing church structure and was the first special use permit granted for this property. As part of this process, if the proposed special use permit is granted, staff would ask that this replace SP #83-13. In 1990, Special Use Permit SP #90-02, was granted for the church to have a day care facility. This never happened, and the special use permit expired after one year. � Mr. Bolin stated the code allows churches as a special use in an R-1 zoning district. The proposed expansion complies with the code requirements. Based on that, staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following stipulations: 1. Peti�ioner shall place an adequate number of spruce trees along the portion of the eastem property line, where only bushes currently exist, to provide proper screening for neighboring property. A landscape plan shall be submitted and app�oved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Newly created parking areas shall be lined with a concrete curb and shall be properly striped to accommodate the required number of parking stalls. 3. The drive on east side of Church shall remain a one-way drive with angle parking. 4. Special Use Permit, SP #83-13, shall be replaced by Special Use Permit, SP #99-04. 5. The petitioner shall construct the gymnasium out of the same exterior materials as those used on the proposed administration/education building. The exterior elevation plans for the gymnasium shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. The petitioner shall step the east wall of the administration/education building to create a scale more compatible with the residential properties east of the church site. The °stepped° building plan shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. � Mr. Bolin stated that on the site plan, the administration/education building located in the southeast comer is proposed to be 39 feet in height. The gymnasium is proposed to be 25 feet in height. Code allows a height of 45 feet. Churches in the R-1 district actually : PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 19 have the CR-1 zoning standards applied to them. Staff has received four letters ,--� regarding this request. He has received six or seven phone calls, and Mr. Hickok has received four calls. The concems have been with the height of the buildings and also with the elevations of the proposed building as sent to the neighbors. Those elevations show the gymnasium as a tip-up panel building with a lighter color than the existing building. The administration/education addition is shown as a brick building with a cedar shake mansard around the top. The gym clashed with the existing architecture. That is the reason for the last finro stipulations. Staff would like to see the gymnasium tied into the rest of the property, and the administration/education building to have a stepped-back roof in order to make it more compatible with the church and the residential area. Mr. Bolin stated the code requires 150 parking stalls. With the proposed expansion and the added stalls, they will be over the required number of parking stalls at 183. Mr. Bolin stated that as part of this expansion, a letter included in the agenda packet states that the church will stagger their church services and Sunday school services so there is not so much overlap and will free up more of their parking. Ms. Modig asked staff to explain what they mean by a step-down roof. Mr. Bolin stated this is a type of roof design that staggers the height of the roof in such a way that it �esembles a step. ^ Mr. Sielaff asked if that will take care of the space needs. Mr. Bolin s�ated he did not know. Ms. Modig asked if this addresses the issue that was addressed in the letter received from Roge� and Gwen Nawrocki dated July 2, 1999. Mr. Bolin stated it is a combination of neighbor concems and staff concems as they saw some of the other elevations. If something is allowed as a special use permit, it is staff's job to mak� sure that it is as compatible as possible with the surrounding neighborhood. � Mr. Sielaff asked if the building would be three stories. Mr. Bolin stated the administration/education building would be three stories. The ' comments received were on the height of the administration/education building and the lack of character on the gymnasium building. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive into the public record the letter from Roger and Gwen Nawrocki dated July 2, 1999. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE IIAOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Peterson stated he is the Chair of the church. He has lived in Fridley for 26 years 6 months and has been a member of the church for 27 years. Grace Evangelical Free 19 PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 20 Church has been a part of the City for 35 years. The first building was constructed in � 1964. They have tried to serve the Lord over the past 35 years, hopefully in a favorable and responsible way. They have tried to cooperate with the neighbors and the City, and they had hoped it was a good relationship. The reason they are seeking this special use permit it to finish the current facility. They have an enormous need for educational space and fellowship space. They are now using hallways, and are not doing a good job in terms of education. They want the facility to blend in with the communifiy and the environment. It is not their intention to be disruptive. They want to be an asset to the community. They want to be good neighbors. They have an architect and building committee that have worked long and hard to try to fit their needs and to blend in. The architect is present at the meeting. � Mr. Peterson stated they want to be good neighbors. They hope they are currently serving the community and providing activities for kids and youth and want to be a positive influence in this neighborhood. They would appreciate the support of the Planning staff and appreciate the opportunity to share their plans. He recently heard of a Gallop poll that asked across the United Stated the question, "Do you have any religious training in your background?" In 1952, 6% answered, no; in 1981, 21% said, no; in 1993, 35% said, no. He is using that as an illustration. He would like to hope that they as a church are making an influence and are being an influence for the Lord in the community. Mr. Roberts stated he is with Genesis Architecture and is working with Welsh �..� Companies to facilitate this special use permit for the Grace Evangelical Free Church. Mr. Roberts reviewed the site plan identifying the proposed administratioNeducation building and the proposed gymnasium. They are proposing less than 3,000 square feet that include the gym and the administration/education building. They have some room to maneuver to reduce that third level. They could lose about 1/3 to'/2. This is now in the master planning process. Some of the comments heard to date are a bit premature in the sense that what has been put out publicly is based on a master plan. It is purely subjective at this point. Mr. Roberts stated they chose these areas after looking at a number of altematives. There is some additional space to the north. They tried to maintain the outer property in terms of screening and setbacks because of some of the previous issues that had been discussed in terms of the sanctuary to be sure there is a buffer. They looked at putting the addition to the west. It is fairly narrow to the east and west sides. They need to maintain that space from a vehicle flow standpoint. That was the general thinking in terms of locating these buildings. Mr. Roberts reviewed the elevations of the administration/education building and the gymnasium. In previous conversations, they had talked about precast panels for the gymnasium. They have done them on a number of gymnasiums for churches in other cities. Given the timeline and process, it looks like a basic industrial building. Ultimately, there would be some type of mix, whether it is the inclusion of brick or stucco or other tr�atment. They would like to work with staff in terms of developing these pieces without precluding the use of materials. He believed they could come up with something that is in tune with the rest of the building and serve the general purpose. They can use the step back design for the administration/education building without a 20 PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 21 problem. The elevation as shown is not the final product. As they start to lay out the r.--, spaces an� make it function property, the plans will change as it is finalized and as they map out the spaces. Ms. Savage asked if they had any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Roberts stated they have no problems as long as it does not preclude the use of any specific materials in terms of the matching and making sure it is consistent with what is exi�ting. Mr. Kondrick asked the petitioner if it would be a problem to make the gym look like everything else. Mr. Roberts stated that is subjective. In the past, using similar materials, precast concrete b�ings a lot of baggage with it in terms of what you see. It does not have to be that way. There are options. You can mix the brick as a part of the materials with perhaps a brick wainscoat, you can stamp the precast so it has a brick texture, you can have an aggregate, you can have more horizontal lines. He thought there were some avenues they could utilize. The worst case scenario is they could use a brick veneer and stucco. He thought they could come up with something and can work with staff to do that. Mr. Revering stated he sat through the last public hearing and he sees some similarities � although this is somewhat different. What additional leverage or control does the City have because of that? Mr. Hickok stated the added leverage really relates to compatibility. The City does not have enormous discretion in putting things on that don't have a rational nexus to compatibil6ty. Being designated as a special use in a district recognizes that the use itself can be okay in the district, and staff does have some latitude. If there are issues about. sorr�e of the elements of the proposal, staff can recommend some modifications through the stipulations. Mr. Revering stated he was opposed to the request but is less opposed now after hearing th� additional stipulations. He has several concems. The first is the site lines. He showe� a picture from his deck facing the door of the existing administration/ education building. The proposal as it was first presented to him would seriously impact the open feeling in his back yard. He knows that site lines are a concem of the neighbors. It sounds like the step back design would help. He would like to see a drawing troat is relevant. The current drawing seems quite drastic. What they come up with as they go through more design development may be more acceptable. Mr. Sielaff asked if the stepped-back part would be away from Mr. Revering's property. Mr. Bolin stated the stepped back part would be going away from Mr. Revering's property. �-� -._, Mr. Revering stated that�as far as site lines, he is not saying they should preserve that area in its natural state but he did think it is reasonable to expect that the long 21 PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 22 established views that are similar to other residential views in the neighborhood would ,-� be reasonable. He is looking for something that seems reasonable that is not treating his property differently from other residents in the City. Mr. Revering stated his second concem is the building appearance. The architect did discuss this. To him, the phone mansard roof line looked gaudy and like an apartment building. H� would like to see some additional lines. He thought the stepping would break it up. Some additional design treatments could make it fit in with the neighborho�d better or make it look more like a church-related building rather than an apartment building. As far as the building at this time, he is in a wait-and-see mode and would like to see the designs when they are further along. Mr. Reverirrg stated another concern is the intemally lit sign that the church put up about a year ago. It is very bright and lights up the bedrooms in the second story of his house. He did not think the sign needed to be that bright. He would like to have them show the residents outside of the official process what their plans are as they develop. Mr. Savage asked Mr. Roberts to respond to the request to show the neighborhood the plans. Mr. Roberts stated he did not think that was a problem. They had talked about inviting the neighborhood to be a part of the process. In the original process, they had talked about the appropriate time. They will invite them to look at the plans and talk about the �,,,1 different issues. A resident at 7350 Jackson Street stated that she was thankful when she built 28 years ago to have that church in her back yard. She is not too happy about this building, but feels betteu� after seeing the information presented. She thanked the City for sending the letter; otherwise, she did not think she would have been informed. She felt bad that the church did not come to its neighbors. They had no indication this was going to happen. The church now has its fourth pastor. Each pastor has had a change. The first pastor was very sweet. She and the second and third pastor had issues about the property. They did ask what she would like in the back — a fence or spruces and bushes. They chose the trees that she took care of and watered. There are spruces there and she does not know why they are saying they need more spruces or more landscaping along the east driveway. They maintain a small area by mowing it for the church. Will they cut into all the spruces that are along that area by the east drivewa� Do they plan to put in new trees? How close will they be to her property line? Mr. Roberts stated the perimeter will stay the same as it has been. There will be some additional spruces where there is that one gap which is pretty well filled in. The only new construction with regard to the site is the front where there is a drop-off and entry in the front. They will be cutting into the front part but they are staying within the setback lines. The existing trees will remain. Two existing trees will have to be removed for the gymnasium; otherwise, the rest will remain. � Mr. Sweeney stated he was there to also speak for Gwen and Roger Nawrocki. He lives to the east of the church as do the Nawrockis. He will look at the gymnasium rather thau� the sanctuary. He presented a drawing of site lines showing 93 feet from 22 PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 23 the proposed building and 176 feet from the existing sanctuary. The angle from where ,—� he sees it now to the eave of the church is presently 3.5 degrees and 7.2 degrees. The site line for the proposed gymnasium would be 14.75 degrees. That is taking a lot of skyline away and moving it closer to the house. Before the stepping was proposed, the angle was 21 degrees. Mr. Sielaff asked if the trees are screening that. Mr. Sweeney stated he is at the property with the low bushes. The trees will have to be 20-feet tall in order to screen the building from his house. The Nawrockis are concemed about the site lines to the education building from their deck. Their site line will change from 8.75 degrees to approximately 22 degrees. The gym building is his primary pr�blem. There are finro ways to build a building—from the ground and go up or from the ground and go down below grade. Mr. Sweeney stated one of the things they are talking about here is properly value. He sees a rather drastic reduction in property values. Would it be possible for a neutral party to give an evaluation of property value before and after, and have the church pay for all three properties? Mr. Revering stated it keeps coming up that the trees will screen this change in site lines. The screening is to mitigate the view of something ugly. In a case like this where you have a big building, the trees are going to enhance the appearance but they do not screen it. He would appreciate it if they would be careful about the use of the word � `screening' in a case like this. A wall of trees does not help when you have a wall of brick right behind it as far as having light in the evening and being in the backyard. Closing it in with trees or brick does not matter. n Ms. Sweening stated the east driveway is right behind their house. They have a problem wuth that driveway. When it was put in, they said it would be one way. It is not one way. Perhaps when they come to church it is one way, but it is a speedway. Originally, Madsen Park was clos�d off by a fence. Others partied there and played ball behind the fence. Then an opening was put in. She has nothing against using the parking lot to use the ball diamond, but they speed by, screeching tires, etc. That driveway is not a one-way driveway. Mr. Sweeney stated it appears that the door to the gym on the east side means a lot of traffic. Is it possible to move that door to the rear to enter? Mr. Roberts stated there is currently a door in that location. They must have exits from an emergency standpoint. That door is more to get out rather than to get in. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:32 P.M. Ms. Modig stated she can understand the concem about the height but she thought they were going to address that issue. 23 PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 24 �--, Mr. Saba stated he hoped it wouid be addressed befinreen the church and the neighbors before going to the City Council. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend approval of a Special Use Permit9 SP #99-04, by Jeffrey Vogel, Grace Evangelical Free Church, to expand the educational, administrative, and gymnasium space of the church located at Parcel 300, North '/2 of Section 11, generally located at 755 73`� Avenue, with the following stipulations: 1. Petitioner shall place an adequate number of spruce trees along the portion of the eastem property line, where only bushes currently exist, to provide proper screening for neighboring property. A landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Newly created parking areas shall be lined with a concrete curb and shall be properly striped to accommodate the required number of parking stalls. 3. The drive on the east side of Church shall remain a one-way drive with angle parkung. 4. Special Use Permit, SP #83-03, shall be replaced by Special Use Permit, SP #99-04. 5. The petitioner shall construct the gymnasium out of the same exterior materials as tl�ose used on the proposed administration/education building. The exterior elevation plans for the gymnasium shall be reviewed and approved by City staff � prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. The petitioner shall step the east wall of the administration/education building to create a scale more compatible with the residential properties east of the church site. The "stepped" building plan shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Bolin stated this item would be considered by the City Council on July 26. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST. #99-01. BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY: To amend the Transportation Chapter in the Comprehensive Plan to include the TH 65 Improvement Project. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 10:34 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated staff is requesting an amendment to the transportation chapter of the comprehensive plan. Staff is seeking approval to prepare an application for funding and � to prepare the appropriate text amendment for the City Council and .Metropolitan Council to review. Staff has initiated this amendment as part of the Highway 65 improvement project. This project was identified as a long-term improvement to the 24 PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 25 function of Highway 65. The purpose of going through this process now is because � staff is making application for Federal funds to complete further work on Highway 65. Those funds are part of the new ISTEA program for Federal funding. It is necessary to prepare an application and submit it before the end of August. In order to meet this deadline, staff is taking out the transportation portion of the comprehensive plan and making sure it is consistent not only on Highway 65 but other areas and make certain that the application coincides with where they are going as a City. Mr. Hickok stated that in 1998, SRF Consulting Group took a look at the Medtronic project, Highway 65, traffic counts and activity in the area� and performance projections for the are�. In the year 2010 with no improvements, they would be at service level E with level A being the best. By 2020, the service level would be F, the worst level, at these intersections. That is considering the current improvements. With additional improvements that can be made with the help of Federal funding, staff feels that a performance level C could be attained. The proposed lane project would provide an additional lane to the north and to the south in the causeway area befinreen the finro portions of Moore Lake. The improvements would go from the existing Lake Pointe Drive to 100 feet past the intersection at Moore Lake Drive. Mr. Kondrick asked why they are not planning to extend this to Mississippi Street. Mr. Hickok stated it is important to get through that intersection at Moore Lake Drive. Traffic counts show a need for improvement to that intersection. They did consider � extending this to Mississippi Street but felt the additional cost could kill the project. The area where it is needed and where the numbers show the performance is poor is in the proposed area. If deemed necessary in the future, they would take it to that point. There is an enormous amount of activity that happens between those intersections. The activit�o drops so the performance is not as bad at Mississippi as it is to the south. Mr. Hickok stated the comprehensive plan amendment matches the request. Federal funding is scored on whether or not the proposal matches the comprehensive plan and whether or not it helps solve a problem identified in the comprehensive plan. They have talked with the Metropolitan Council and obtained the application from the Federal govemmerut. Staff would like to have the endorsement of the Planning Commission to go ahead and prepare the language. This hearing is to take comments. If the Planning Commission is comfortable with staff creating the language, making the application, and then coming back with the actual language, that will keep staff on the necessary timeline. Mr. Saba stated that when going south, the metered lights on I-694 creates traffic back- ups. He has seen cars backed up to 61St. He felt they would have better traffic flow without those meters. He thought tuming off the lights would do more than adding another lane. He is not opposed to adding another lane either. Ms. Savag� asked if there would be lights on the causeway. � Mr. Hickok stated this has not yet been determined but the accoutrements will be in place so that lights can be installed if the decision is made to do so. �� PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 26 Mr. Kondrick asked what the costs of these improvements is expected to be. r--� Mr. Hickok stated the City's share would be a 20% match or $2.9 million. Total project costs are estimated to be $7.5 million. One of the concems is the condition of the median. The good news is that type of inedian would be replaced with a more modem design that should give a better appearance when traveling through the causeway area. MOTION b� Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIIVG AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:40 P.M. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Modig, to authorize staff to prepare the appropriate language for the text amendment to amend the Transportation Chapter in the Comprehensive Plan. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSOId SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 3, 1999. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the rninutes of the May 3, 1999, Parks & Recreation Commission meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 6, 1999, HUMAN RESOURCE COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the minutes of the May 6, 1999. Human Resource Commission meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 20. 1999. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes of the May 20, 1999, Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 3. 1999. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING: 26 PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1999 PAGE 27 MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the minutes of the June 3, 1999, Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjoum the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE JULY 7, 1999, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:45 P.M. F�es ectfully sub itted, �� Lavonn Cooper �� Recording Secretary n 27 � CITY OF FRIDLEY SIGN-IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING �u' Ir�.- �7, q q --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name and Address Agenda Item of Interest ��a�.�� 1�5�� is�� t�� 7 ��C� �� `�v� �ul�.`� i�� r�`<<�� 5 9so CAr �a k�� n i�t,�i �o n b c ha I�' o.(�-' �? ' :; � .�k�� `�� 3 �''� I � �� ?°,1 `� � �� 1 0 .:� J � en�ry� �t� � �,� � r 194� / �--�M S—Ee� � ��; .�'i.�� 9�'-0 °19 '�3 �� ''��'� —�' � � G�"�� `�'` � °�-"s� - _�, �� =,;,� � �,�, � ��lZ� � I�a,�,�-:� %�� d�'��`� � �s ` "� 1% �, � i�� ;'�+�� :�� , �.i� �' `� �i , �; �° � � �� a �s, . � p �, ��j �^�� If �+�a��a.�°\� � d' �� s� if'�J eev�r�F. i'�°'t� ��, ,fb � � � � � `�_ - � 1.�..-'4��'�`�''� -`L'� f �'�X�� !�' � �_ .� � � -� 1�`�✓i-�"�� (.`Kf�� .L-( C� C, - / �[ i�i ��i.a�sLdL% � 11 ,� r d�°�e�2'��!�?�Z1 �'�,i"� 9 ��.. ' Z� ,Ls ✓ 6�� ' !1/1!}/,1 �nl:N �I d/v°W��J'�' � PdC' ��dA.n Il7,i➢11 F.� J � �� r� ��ia�� !� � �' � a„-ad^�,� n •—° � �1 ,� �-� � l.� p �;� � �, Ir��`� 1.��! A� �' ,rti � � ��%� `�� i � � � ��'�� l� °� � �i'�.�� `�T ;�,'�- •.�t.� L�..� _ �z%z�-� %-�',�%, °'; ,� j- ��;;,J�i � � r- ��=�� i'� � � T �� / �� Ca' Cr" �//� � e � � � a ��