Loading...
02/15/2000 - 00004325CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 15, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the February 16, 2000, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p. m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, Leroy Oquist, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig Members Absent: Larry Kuechle, Dean Saba Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Paul Bolin, Planner Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator Robert Finnamore, 3209 Louisiana Ave. N., Crystal Darlene Finnamore, 3209 Louisiana Ave. N., Crystal Ruby A. Anderson, 1491 Rice Creek Rd. Charlie Kocourek, 1811 26t" Avenue N.E., Minneapolis Marlys Kocourek, 1811 26t" Avenue N.E., Minneapolis Dennis Dewing, 1501 Camelot Lane APPROVE JANUARY 18. 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the January 18, 2000, Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING: Lot Split Request, L.S. #00-01, by K. Robert Finnamore, to split off a portion of the property to create an additional single family lot, legally described as Lot 2, Block 2, Spring Valley, Anoka County, Minnesota, generally located at 1491 Rice Creek Road. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:31 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated that the petitioner is seeking a lot split to split Lot 2, Block 2, of the Spring Valley Addition in half in order to construct an additional single family home generally located at 1491 Rice Creek Road. The property is located on the corner of PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. FEBRUARY 16. 2000 PAGE 2 Rice Creek Road and an unimproved portion of Arthur Street. There is a 33-foot right- of-way that runs along the eastern edge of this property. The property is zoned R-1, as are all of the surrounding properties. An existing home is located on the south half of this property. A minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet is required for single family homes. After the lot split, both lots would still have over 18,000 square feet. Mr. Bolin stated that both parcels would be 125 feet wide and approximately 150 feet long. The northerly parcel would be 18,749 square feet. The southerly parcel would be 18,830 square feet. The existing home on the southerly parcel will still meet all of the code requirements for setbacks. A setback would be over 55 feet from Rice Creek Road and 51 feet from the west side yard. The garage is set back almost six feet from the east property line. The rear property line is also set back approximately 62 feet. Splitting this property in half would not have any impacts to the existing home. Mr. Bolin stated the access to the new northerly parcel would come off Camelot Lane. It does have 150 feet of frontage and has 27 feet of improved frontage on Camelot. The remainder along Arthur Street is unimproved frontage; but since it is over 25 feet on the improved surface, it meets the code requirements for the lot. There is a ditch that runs 20 feet along the northern edge of the northern parcel. The Engineering Department requested five feet along the eastern edge and the western edge of both properties and ten feet on either edge of the common boundary between the two properties. Any driveway that is put into the northerly property should be kept at least ten feet away from that fire hydrant that is near the northerly lot as suggested by the Engineering department. They have talked with the petitioner about the possibility of having to relocate the fire hydrant if they want a shorter driveway. Mr. Bolin stated that staff recommends approval of this lot split with stipulations. Both of the lots exceed the City's required size standards. It is a good opportunity for infill development as Fridley is a fairly well developed suburb and does not have acres of undeveloped land. Staff recommends the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall grant a 5-foot utility and drainage easement along the entire western boundary of both parcels. 2. The petitioner shall grant a 5-foot utility and drainage easement along the entire eastern boundary of both parcels. 3. The petitioner shall grant a 10-foot utility and drainage easement along each side of the common boundary line between the two parcels. 4. The petitioner shall grant a 20-foot utility and drainage easement along the entire northern boundary of the northern parcel. 5. The petitioner shall pay a$750 park dedication fee for the new lot prior to issuance of building permit. 6. The petitioner is responsible for all utility relocation costs including, but not limited to, labor materials and restoration. 7. The petitioner shall pay all service connection fees. 8. The petitioner is responsible for all street and curb restoration to City standards. 9. The petitioner shall not place fill in any easement areas. 10. The petitioner shall maintain drainage ditch along north property line. 11. The petitioner shall maintain a 10-foot clearance between driveway and hydrant. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. FEBRUARY 16. 2000 PAGE 3 12. The driveway location shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. 13. 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. Ms. Savage asked if the City had received any calls regarding this request. Mr. Bolin stated they have not had a single call against the project. Mr. Kondrick asked if stipulation #10 was regarding the northerly parcel. Mr. Bolin stated, yes, it is regarding the northerly property line of the northerly parcel. Mr. Kondrick asked Mr. Bolin how close the existing garage would be to the road once it is constructed. Mr. Bolin stated that there are no plans to install the road. It is only a half-roadway at 33 feet. The City would need to take an additional 33 feet to put the road through. They would have to acquire property to the east of this property. Mr. Kondrick asked that if the City did decide to put in the road, would the petitioner have to move his garage? Mr. Bolin stated that if that were to become a corner lot, the garage would need to be set back 17.5 feet. Mr. Sielaff asked if the drainage ditch to the north allowed enough space for a driveway. Mr. Bolin stated that having the drainage easement across there will keep the driveway out of the ditch area. The Engineering Department wants to keep the driveway out of the northernmost 20 feet and away from the fire hydrant. Arthur Street is a public right- of-way, so it is possible for the petitioner to put a driveway in off Camelot and come in south of that hydrant. This could be for a double garage with a 20-foot driveway. Mr. Sielaff asked if there will be enough space for a drainage ditch. Mr. Bolin stated, yes. Ms. Modig stated that the petitioner shall not place fill in any easement areas. There are easement areas around the entire area. There are already drainage problems and the lot will not be level. Mr. Bolin stated that by restricting the petitioner for putting fill in the easements will allow the drainage for this area to function as it has in the past. Ms. Modig asked if the amount of water there would interfere with the building of the basements? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. FEBRUARY 16. 2000 PAGE 4 Mr. Bolin stated that would be a question for the petitioner and the builder, but stipulation #9 protects those natural drainage areas. The petitioner, Mr. Finnamore, stated he had nothing to add. Ms. Savage asked if he had any problems with the 13 stipulations. Mr. Finnamore stated that he does not. Mr. Herb Lennox, 1461 Rice Creek Rd., stated that he has a property west of Ruby Anderson, the neighboring property. He has no problem with it being split, he has lived here since 1962, and the drainage easement in his yard is to keep the level for Harris Lake. His backyard runs uphill and he does not have any trouble with water. His concern is where the runoff is going to come from the house that will be put in there. Mr. Bolin stated that storm water management is taken into consideration as part of this process. That is the reason for keeping these easements to manage the runoff on the property and keep things as close to predevelopment as they can. The engineers have looked at this and as soon as they get the building plans they will have more input. Mr. Sielaff asked where the roof drainage would be directed. Mr. Bolin stated that would be looked at once they have an actual site plan with a building located on there and the type of structure is chosen. There should be enough surface to dry in any water runoff of a roof on almost a half-acre. Mr. Sielaff stated that he would be a little concerned about the drainage being handled correctly when hard surface is being added to a lot that already has drainage problems. Mr. Bolin stated that will be considered during the building permit process. Mr. Dennis Dewing, 1501 Camelot Lane, stated that he lives kitty corner from the lot. There is a walking path with the continuation of Arthur Street and will that be maintained? The City used to maintain the ditch; but since it is a watershed, they do not go in and pull the cattails or anything anymore. He bought his house in 1980 and every house in that area has sump pumps. He does not have water problems. On both sides of the property there is a berm. He is concerned they would lose that walking path area. There is an easement by Harris Lake on Diana Court where the owners of the property would not let anybody go through there, and kids would have to go out on Mississippi Street to go to the park. Mr. Oquist stated that this property will have no effect on Arthur Street. The driveway will be on the west side of Arthur Street. The whole north/south corridor of Arthur will still be there and will not change. Ms. Savage asked if he was opposed to the lot split. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. FEBRUARY 16. 2000 PAGE 5 Mr. Dewing stated that he was not opposed. Ms. Judy Lennox, 1461 Rice Creek Rd., stated that she lives in the lot to the west of the property. She was told several years ago that the easement on the north side was declared wetlands and it is not to be maintained. Stipulation #9 states that it will be maintained. Mr. Bolin stated that it meant to keep the ditch in place and not fill it in. Mr. Charlie Kocourek, 1811 26t" Avenue, Mpls., stated that he currently has a purchase agreement with Ms. Ruby Anderson contingent on this lot split. His intention as the perspective owner is to sell the existing house and build a house on the lot in question. They like the path the way it is. His question is if they can put fill anywhere in order to put in a driveway. He had no idea the water problems were so involved. Mr. Dewing asked if the City has any intention of selling the strip of land. Mr. Bolin stated that there is no intention of selling it. Keeping that right-of-way allows an opportunity to get utilities through there. It also helps with the drainage in the area. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, 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 WAS CLOSED AT 8:00 P.M. Mr. Oquist stated that it sounds like a pretty good project; and if there are no objections to the stipulations, he would be in favor of the request. Ms. Modig stated that she does not have any problem with it either. It is fairly straightforward. Ms. Savage agreed that the lot split conforms with the City's requirements. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to approve the Lot Split Request, #00-01, by Robert Finnamore with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall grant a 5-foot utility and drainage easement along the entire western boundary of both parcels. 2. The petitioner shall grant a 5-foot utility and drainage easement along the entire eastern boundary of both parcels. 3. The petitioner shall grant a 10-foot utility and drainage easement along each side of the common boundary line between the two parcels. 4. The petitioner shall grant a 20 foot utility and drainage easement a long the entire northern boundary of the northerly parcel. 5. The petitioner shall pay a$750 park dedication fee for the new lot prior to issuance of building permit. 6. The petitioner is responsible for all utility relocation costs including, but not limited to, labor materials and restoration. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. FEBRUARY 16. 2000 PAGE 6 7. The petitioner shall pay all service connection fees. 8. The petitioner is responsible for all street and curb restoration to City standards. 9. The petitioner shall not place fill in any easement areas. 10. Petitioner shall maintain drainage ditch along the northernmost parcel's property line. 11. The petitioner shall maintain a 10-foot clearance between driveway and hydrant. 12. The driveway location shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. 13. 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. Ms. Savage stated that this would go to the City Council on March 6, 2000. 2. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 9, 1999, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes of the December 9, 1999, Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 18, 2000, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes of the January 18, 2000, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 26, 2000, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the minutes of the January 26, 2000, Appeals Commission meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. FEBRUARY 16. 2000 PAGE 7 5. DISCUSS GATEWAY EAST: Mr. Fernelius stated that he has been responsible for overseeing the Gateway East project. The project is located at the northeast quadrant of 57t" Avenue and University Avenue. The properties involved are the vacant lot adjacent to the Rapid Oil Change and the Valvoline station on the corner. This includes the service drive that runs north, JR's Automotive property, and a vacant lot next to that to the east. A residential duplex is also to the east of that. The northern boundary would be the Cash-n-Pawn property, including a portion of 57t" Avenue. Mr. Fernelius stated that the site is comprised of five parcels, roughly two and a half acres in size. This has been identified as a redevelopment priority for a number of years. The Fridley HRA has acquired three of the sites in the project area. This includes the duplex, the Cash-N-Pawn property, and JR's Automotive. They were unsuccessful in reaching a voluntary negotiation on the two vacant lots, so they are now in the process of condemnation finalized by the end of this month. The schedule is to demolish the structures that are there in the spring and go through a developers' selection process. They would go through the land use approval process in the summer with the goal of trying to break ground sometime in the fall. Mr. Fernelius stated that they are looking at an owner-occupied townhome development. It would be a good location due to its proximity to the 57t" Avenue commercial corridor and located along a transit bus stop and close to other transportation areas. Residential use would be more compatible with the neighborhood to the east that includes a combination of multi-family and single-family properties. It would also be close to the Medtronic campus. Mr. Fernelius stated that the demand for this project was shown in the Maxfield Housing study completed last year that identified a need for about 550 units of new housing over the next 20 years citywide. Higher density would be appropriate at this location. The site could accommodate between 24-32 units. It would likely be a 2-3 story design similar to the Christianson Crossing project. The other factor is the financial issue that impacts the density. A moderate density project like this allows both the developer and the City to help recover more of its costs in a development project. Lower density would spread out that cost of fewer units which would increase the risk to both parties. There is strong demand for this kind of project based on the two projects seen in the last four or five years. Mr. Fernelius stated that the street alignment and site plan options are important in terms of planning. They have identified three plans in terms of how it could be configured. Option A would leave the frontage road intact and a cul-de-sac would be installed at the end of 57t"'/ Avenue. Fourth Street to the east would have a connection constructed and they have two pieces to the development. The southern parcel would still be owned and they would include that as part of the development project separated from the other development. Option B would involve removing the service drive off 4t" Street and then onto University Avenue to the west. The 4t" Street connection would be provided, and they would also have a connection onto 57t"1/2 Avenue to travel to the University Avenue service drive. Option C provides the same PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. FEBRUARY 16. 2000 PAGE 8 access point except that there would not be a connection to the existing neighborhood at 4t" and 57t" Avenue. This would alleviate traffic problems and needs to be evaluated more. Mr. Oquist asked if access to this property would be on the service road to the north for all three options. Mr. Fernelius stated that is correct. Mr. Kondrick asked if the property would be all one piece of property in Option B. Mr. Fernelius stated that one of the concerns is providing access to the businesses along the University Avenue Service Drive. There is also a utility easement that runs along 57t" Place. That is for a sewer line remaining in the project area and is something they will have to work around. Option B and C contemplate closing off their access point to the service drive on the north side. The businesses are aware of that issue and are concerned about it. They have not had any discussions with them, but they have been informed of it. Mr. Sielaff stated that Option A has a portion of the redevelopment area surrounded by streets or Valvoline. Ms. Dacy stated that is correct. Mr. Oquist stated that they would all have the Valvoline in the picture and they cannot get away from that. Mr. Fernelius stated that they wanted to outline some options to provide a developer and ideally provide a preferred option. Mr. Sielaff asked for more information about the need for 550 units. How many people would be housed here? Mr. Fernelius stated that this could accommodate 24-32 units. Ms. Dacy stated that Maxfield was asked to project into the future the population and household growth. They took a lot of information from the Metropolitan Council and looked at births and deaths and immigration and location. Ms. Savage stated that she thought that study was before the Planning Commission. Ms. Dacy stated that Mary Bujold came to the Commission in May of 1999. Ms. Savage stated that additional housing is a need. Mr. Sielaff asked how demand is measured. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. FEBRUARY 16. 2000 PAGE 9 Ms. Dacy stated they look at building permits and how quickly developments have sold and the market area from a larger perspective. They ask the construction community what the marketplace is producing. The report stated that Fridley has good location but not a lot of new housing to attract new households. Ms. Modig asked if the zoning had to be changed. Ms. Dacy stated that Mr. Fernelius is going to address that in his power point presentation yet to be finished. Mr. Fernelius stated that some of the planning issues to be worked on are the unit design and the layout. The developer will have to negotiate that with staff and the City. A neighborhood meeting will be conducted in March for feedback. They will then prepare an RFP (request for proposals) and send it out to developers in April or May. They will select a developer in June and then begin the contract negotiation with the developer in July. They will start the land use approval process in August or September and then break ground in the fall. Ms. Savage stated that it sounds like a good project and will improve that part of the City. Mr. Kondrick asked if it would be logical to go further north to include that area as well. Ms. Dacy stated that they have not contemplated that because of the cost issue. Mr. Kondrick stated that he is a proponent of decorative fencing. Would fencing similar to the Christianson Crossing fencing be constructed? Ms. Dacy stated, yes. They are looking at rezoning all of the redevelopment area plus the Valvoline site as the S-2 Redevelopment District. They did that for the Christianson Crossing site as well. It provides a lot of flexibility in terms of site design for setbacks. It would give the City the ability to control any reuse of the site in the future. Mr. Sielaff asked what kind of demographics they are trying to attract at the site. Mr. Fernelius stated that it would include young professionals, some empty nesters wanting to downsize from an existing single-family home, and young couples without children. Mr. Sielaff stated that multi-levels would attract people who are healthy and in-shape and who can handle stairs. Mr. Fernelius stated that they are looking at a housing product they believe would be successful on that corner, and younger people are more likely to buy that type of housing. Mr. Sielaff stated that one of the debates is that they would like to attract families in the City. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. FEBRUARY 16. 2000 PAGE 10 Mr. Fernelius stated they would try to include as many amenities as possible that would be attractive to families. Mr. Sielaff asked if they had data whether or not the Fridley empty nesters ended up buying those houses at Christianson Crossing. Ms. Dacy stated that there are some, but she does not have exact data on that. Mr. Kondrick asked if they considered green spaces and streets when they figured out the number of units. The development may be too dense there. Mr. Oquist stated that more one-story units may be something to consider there. Will they be doing similar things on the west side where the used car lots used to be? Ms. Dacy stated, yes, but the City Council directed the City to focus the resources on this side to see if they could get a successful project and then go back to the neighborhood across the street. 6. UPDATE ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Ms. Dacy stated that they will have more information on March 1. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE FEBRUARY 16, 2000, PLANNING COMMISSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 8:32 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Signe L. Johnson Recording Secretary