Loading...
05/03/2000 - 00008165CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 3, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the May 3, 2000, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Larry Kuechle, Barbara Johns, Connie Modig, Dave Kondrick, and Roy Oquist Members Absent: Dean Saba Others Present: Paul Bolin, Planner Julie Jones, Planner/Recycling Coordinator Margaret Greshik, 121 Hartman Circle E. J. Scholzenm 117 Hartman Circle Patrick Gooley, 6348 Starlite Boulevard APPROVE THE APRIL 19, 2000, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the April 19, 2000, Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a special use permit, SP #00-08, by Margaret Greshik, to construct a second accessory structure (detached garage in the rear year), generally located at 121 Hartman Circle. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, 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 WAS OPENED AT 7:32 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated that the petitioner is requesting a special use permit to allow the construction of a 720 square foot accessory building to be used for vehicle parking and storage. Accessory buildings of over 240 square feet are permitted as a special use in the R-1 zoning district provided the total square footage of all accessory buildings does not exceed 1,400 square feet. The property is zoned R-1, single family residential. East River Road runs behind the property, and the front of the home faces Hartman Circle. The lot was platted in 1955 and the home was built in 1960. In 1997, Anoka County acquired 27 feet of the property along the East River Road side diminishing the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 3, 2000 PAGE 2 size of the property. The petitioner is also seeking a variance from the Appeals Commission to construct the garage 9 feet from the rear property line. Code requires a 35 foot setback for a double frontage lot. The garage would be located 37 feet from the old property line prior to Anoka County acquiring 27 feet. Mr. Bolin stated that the garage would be built seven feet from the property to the south. Neighboring properties have accessory buildings similar in nature. Staff recommends approval with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2. The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by May 1, 2001. 3. The accessory structure shall not be used to conduct a home occupation. 4. Approval is dependent upon the approval of variance request, VAR #00-05. Mr. Bolin stated that the petitioner has the side of the home hard-surfaced, which will provide access to the garage. Mr. Kondrick asked why the petitioner wanted to have the garage so far back. Ms. Savage stated that is an issue for the Appeals Commission. Mr. Bolin stated that the petitioner placed the garage in that location based on sunlight and open space in the back yard. Mr. Oquist asked how far the garage would be from the house. Mr. Bolin stated that it would be at 34 feet and would actually only need to be about five feet. Ms. Margaret Greshik stated that her fiance, who is in a wheelchair, cannot move well in her existing garage because there are two cars in it and there is not enough space for the wheelchair. She wants her property to look neat and wants to properly store the other cars. She has no problem with the stipulations. Mr. Kuechle asked about the hard surface for the driveway. Ms. Greshik stated that when she first moved in, the large area in the back was concrete so she hard-surfaced the area between that concrete and the driveway for her fiance to be able to wheel around to the back. Mr. Oquist asked if the driveway would go up to the concrete. Ms. Greshik stated that it would. It would be only about fifteen feet or so of more concrete. Mr. Charles Scholzen, 113 Hartman Circle, stated that he lives three houses down from Ms. Greshiks'. He is in favor of granting this permit because he would also like to add a garage in the back in the future. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 3, 2000 PAGE 3 MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:46 P.M. Mr. Oquist stated that it sounds reasonable. How wide is the concrete by the garage for a driveway? Mr. Bolin stated that his survey says it is about 8.5 feet. The petitioner's survey states it is about 9.5 feet. The City's survey probably had the home drawn in. Ms. Johns asked if the concrete goes to the property line. Ms. Greshik stated that the concrete abuts railroad tie borders. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of special use permit, SP #00-08 with stipulations as follows: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2. The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by May 1, 2001. 3. The accessory structure shall not be used to conduct a home occupation. 4. Approval is dependent upon the approval of variance request, VAR #00-05. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, ZTA #00-01, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, INTENDED TO MINIMIZE LOSS OF URBAN FOREST BY REQUIRING TREE PRESERVATION PLANS AS PART OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Johns, 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 7:48 P.M. Ms. Jones stated this topic came about with the issues raised in the Gardena-Benjamin plat review process that occurred last year. The City Council requested staff to investigate the degree of tree loss seen in recent subdivisions and to study tree preservation ordinances of other communities. The existing City code does have some tree preservation requirements. Section 104 applies to tree disease control and hazardous trees. This is handled on complaint basis only. Section 510 deals with preserving trees on City-owned property. Zoning ordinance Section 205 applied to landscaping requirements for several types of property with the exception of R-1, single family property. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 3, 2000 PAGE 4 Ms. Jones stated that the main area of concern was with single family property since current code does not address single family properties. City staff found few subdivisions occuring; however, the potential is that there are nearly 700 parcels that are of the square footage requirements that could possibly subdivide in the future. Recent subdivision cases have had an average of three significant trees per parcel removed. Replacing trees is often an issue of debate with applicants. Many of the 700 parcels are along the Mississippi River and Rice Creek that are heavily forested. The benefits of trees are that they remove CO2 emissions, lower air pollution, cool neighborhoods, provide windbreaks, cut cooling costs, and increase property value by 15% or more. Trees support many generations of birds and wildlife and improve community pride. Ms. Jones stated that there are also several water quality benefits to trees by reducing the amount of water reaching the streams and the water table. Trees keep excess phosphorus and nitrates from entering streams and rivers and are critical to protecting wetlands. City staff and the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission recommend approval of protecting significant trees which are defined as deciduous trees of four inches in diameter and greater and coniferous trees of eight feet in height or greater through the subdivision process. Ms. Jones stated the EQE and staff believe that monitoring ongoing tree removal on private property would be impossible to enforce. Besides, most people know the value of trees and do not remove them without good cause. The subdivision application process is a very good point to look at the issue of tree loss. The proposed amendments would require a tree preservation plan to be prepared by qualified professionals. If significant trees are present and are expected to be impacted, a reforestation plan would be required. Significant trees would be required to be replaced with a minimum of three per parcel. Ms. Jones stated that the City would retain the right to require more than three replacement trees if the property was larger than 15,000 square feet in size within one year of issuance of the building permit. This addresses the concern of protecting adjoining property values, allows staff to treat all subdivision applicants consistently and addresses the problem up front in the application process. It formalizes the procedures Staff has already been following through the stipulation process for a number of years. The recommended action is to approve zoning text amendment #00-01 to preserve trees through the subdivision application process. Mr. Kondrick asked how big the replacement trees should be. Ms. Jones stated that replacement deciduous trees shall be a minimum of 2.5 inches of diameter and six feet in height for coniferous. Mr. Kuechle stated that this only applies to subdivisions for a lot split. Ms. Jones stated that was correct. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 3, 2000 PAGE 5 Mr. Oquist stated that if you have a subdivision and there is already 20 or 30 trees on the lot and they cut down trees to put in a house, the total number of trees should be looked at in the subdivision. To plant three trees in an area where there are 20 trees already will not do much good. Ms. Jones stated that Mr. Hickok stated that there has never been a case in recent history where there was a lot that did not have room for a minimum of three trees. Ms. Johns stated that 20 trees that may be left are on two of the lots. Mr. Oquist stated that they are talking about a subdivision, not lot by lot. Ms. Johns stated they are talking about one lot being subdivided and most lots are not able to be divided into more than four lots. Mr. Oquist stated that there is a lot on Old Central where every tree was taken out for four lots. There needs to be some words to address the total number of trees. Ms. Savage stated that they are trying to establish an ordinance that is going to apply to the City in general. If there is an unusual situation, possibly the applicant could ask for a variance or special use permit. Ms. Jones stated that is correct. They could go through the variance process. Ms. Johns asked if there was any way, with this verbiage, that a person could buy the property, clear-cut the property, and then divide the property. Ms. Jones stated that is a concern, but staff could not come up with a way to address that. This does not prohibit someone from clear-cutting a lot and then coming in to apply for a subdivision. Mr. Oquist stated it is feasible that the trees are where the house would be built so clear-cutting is necessary. Ms. Jones stated they are talking about cutting the trees before the application process. Mr. Kuechle asked why they did not choose to just require a landscape plan like they do on commercial properties. Ms. Johns stated that landscaper architects charge a lot of money that people would not necessarily be able to afford. They did not want to make it real costly. Mr. Kuechle stated that this is kind of the same thing which requires an assessment and normally a person can get a landscape plan from any landscaping company inexpensively if you commit to buying the trees from them. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 3, 2000 PAGE 6 Ms. Jones stated that staff considered placing the tree preservation requirements in Section 205 of the zoning code, but that staff decided it was better placed in the Subdivision section. Ms. Savage stated that the ordinance should be consistent and uniform and is a new idea. There is a need to preserve the trees. Mr. Oquist stated that a landscaping plan dictates where they would have to plant the trees. Mr. Kuechle stated that the landscaping plan would still be the people's decision where to plant things. He feels this is a great idea to preserve trees. It is a fairly common occurrence that once trees are cut down, the neighboring trees die also. That is why he feels the landscape plan is a better choice. Ms. Jones stated that the tree replacement plan does need to be approved by the City forester. There is a heavy emphasis on the replacement tree being high-wind-resistant. The City is involved in Project Impact, and is trying to make the community more aware of storm safety issues. Mr. Kuechle stated that conifers get to be hazardous after about 30 years when they grow so big and need to be cut down eventually. Ms. Jones stated that the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission decided that they would like to see some education done in the community about tree maintenance and management. There is an objective for the Community Development Department to coordinate a tree sale in 2001. Project Impact is giving some grant opportunities to help underwrite costs of trees and do some public educational. Rosie Griep, the Crime Prevention Officer, has plans to do a tree maintenance seminar for the public. Mr. Patrick Gooley, 6348 Starlite Boulevard, stated that the Star Tribune did an article on his neighborhood. NSP had people come and selectively cut under the power lines. He talked with them and they said they were just going to selectively cut under the power lines. He came home Tuesday and everything was gone. NSP sprayed chemicals and did not tell anyone exactly what those chemicals were. They had beautiful trees in their neighborhood and now everything is gone. Ms. Johns stated that she heard about that. Ms. Savage asked if he had any recourse. Mr. Gooley stated that he did not and that was frustrating for him. Ms. Johns asked if they could do anything about that. Mr. Bolin stated that City staff feels for the neighborhood, but it is Burlington Northern property and an NSP right-of-way. Railroads and utility companies have their own set of rules they follow. The City was not approached by NSP prior to this happening. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 3, 2000 PAGE 7 Missy Daniels, Code Enforcement Officer, is working on the matter with NSP. One of the problems is that different responsible parties are in different areas of the State. Mr. Burns, City Manager, has also been involved with this. Mr. Kondrick stated that it would be nice if they could at least find out what chemicals were used. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Kuechle. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:20 P.M. Mr. Oquist asked Ms. Jones if Staff talked about a developer going in and clear-cutting the trees in a subdivision. Would this ordinance require them to go back once they start building the house and replant some trees? Ms. Jones stated that if they have done it before the subdivision application, they could not. Mr. Oquist stated that is a loophole. Mr. Bolin stated that in cases like that, they could try to place stipulations on the approvals. Mr. Kondrick stated he likes Mr. Kuechle's idea of a landscape plan opposed to this ordinance. Ms. Savage stated that the applicant has to get permission to subdivide a lot through the Planning Commission. At that time the Planning Commission could provide stipulations. Ms. Jones stated that staff could not come up with a solution as far as language to prevent the removal of trees before the subdivision process. They do have the opportunity through stipulations to address that once they get into the process. Mr. Oquist asked if there could be another ordinance that states that nobody can clear- cut? Ms. Jones stated that gets back into the issue of enforcement difficulties. Mr. Oquist stated that they could move this on to the City Council with the issue that consideration should be given to clear-cutting and how to handle that one. His other issue is that if there are already many trees on the lot and they cut enough to do what they have to, is it necessary to have them go back? More trees may only be detrimental to the lot. Ms. Savage asked if they could move it on with the concerns noted. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 3, 2000 PAGE 8 MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the zoning text amendment, ZTA #00-01, by the City of Fridley, intended to minimize loss of urban forest by requiring tree preservation plans as part of a subdivision application. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Bolin updated the Commission on past City Council actions. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MAY 3, 2000, PLANNING COMMISSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 8:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Signe L. Johnson Recording Secretary