Loading...
PL 02/19/2003 - 30901CITY OF FRIDLEY ^ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 19, 2003 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the February 19, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Barb Johns, Brad Dunham, Dean Saba Members Absent: David Kondrick, Larry Kuechle Others Present: Stacy Stromberg, Planner Michael Juaire, PMJ Group, Inc. Cindy Mabel, 1214 Norton Ave. Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton Ave. Andrea DeWitt, 1243 Norton Ave. Porsha Hoskins, 1243 Norton Ave. APPROVE THE JANUARY 15 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Johns, to approve the January 15, 2003, Planning Commission meeting minutes. n UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a rezoning, ZOA #03-01, by Michael Juaire, to rezone from M-1, Light Industrial, to R-3, General Multiple Units, to accommodate a townhome development, generally located at 1152 Norton Avenue NE. MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Saba, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:35 P.M. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner, Michael Juaire of PMJ Group, is requesting to rezone the properly located at 1152 Norton Avenue from M-1, Light Industrial, to R-3, General Multiple Family. The petitioner is also requesting to replat 1152 and 1170 Norton Drive to allow for the construction of an 8-unit townhome development. Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial, and the properties located to the east and northeast are zoned R-3, Multiple Family. The existing home was built prior to 1949 and the existing garage was built in 1967. Both of these structures would be removed to accommodate the townhome development. Ms. Stromberg stated that the existing land use is not consistent with the existing zoning ^ designation. Rezoning this property would be an extension of the existing R-3 zoning classification, and the entire Norton Avenue block would be zoned R-3, Multiple Family. Therefore, rezoning this property would be consistent with neighboring properties. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 19, 2003 PAGE 2 Ms. Stromberg stated the City's zoning ordinance and zoning map are the mechanisms that help the City achieve the vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. The law gives the City the authority to rezone the properly from one designated use to another. So long as the zoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates the 2020 land use of this property as redevelopment. Redevelopment is described in the Comprehensive Plan as a form of community revitalization that transforms undesirable elements into desirable elements that reflect the community collective vision. The purposes of redevelopment are to remove older blighted structures and to provide an opportunity for more efficient land uses and eliminate inefficient land uses as under utilized parcels. Redevelopment can also provide an opportunity to build new facilities, meet current market demands and desires of the City, and to eliminate incompatible land uses. All of these purposes of redevelopment have the potential of being met with the rezoning of this property. Rezoning the property to R-3 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will allow for the redevelopment of this property. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff recommends approval of this rezoning request with the following stipulations as the proposed rezoning is an extension of the existing R-3 zoning district and the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. The final landscape plan shall meet code requirements for number of and sizes of plantings and be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. A landscape plan for the ponding area, in lieu of fencing, shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. A storm pond maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to issuance of a building permit. All landscaped areas shall have imgation installed. The proposed walkway shall be concrete. Brick type and application on elevations and other extemal building materials shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted and approved by the City's engineering staff prior to issuance of a building permit. The sewer connection shall be located near the cul-de-sac. The six-inch water main shall be looped according to City engineering staff s specifications. A 12-foot utility and drainage easement shall be granted along the entire southem edge of the property prior to final plat. A 25-foot easement from the center line of Norton Creek on the west side of the property shall be granted prior to final plat. The parking lot shall be constructed to code standards. All elements of the building shall meet the current building code and be approved by the City Building Official. The petitioner shall pay the applicable park dedication fee of $1,500 per unit prior to the issuance of any building permits. The fire tumaround shall be redesigned to meet the City's Fire Department standards. The driveway and fire tumaround shall be designed to 9-ton standards. (corrected — should be 9-ton standards, not 20-ton standards) The fire tumaround shall be posted, "No Parking Fire Lane.° The size of the landscape islands shall be reduced by 5 feet in order to accommodate fire equipment. The petitioner shall meet all Rice Creek Watershed District's requirements prior to issuance of a building permit. Ms. Savage asked if there were any residences on Norton Avenue that are single family. � � � � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. FEBRUARY 19. 2003 PAGE 3 � Ms. Stromberg stated the entire block is zoned R-3, Multiple Family; however, there are single family homes and duplexes on the block. Mr. Saba asked about the $1,500 fee. Is that a park fee for the plat and not the rezoning? Ms. Stromberg replied, yes, but the stipulations for the rezoning and the plat are exactly the same. Mr. Saba asked this was an R-3 rezoning instead of a planned unit development? Ms. Stromberg stated that was a good question. It is just an extension of the existing R-3 zone and seemed logical to the petitioner and staff. Mr. Saba stated that if the property is rezoned to R-3, doesn't it stay there forever as an R-3 property and does not necessarily apply to the stipulations? In other words, if a developer wanted to build this townhome development and tear it down five years from now to build an apartment building, he/she could that because the property would be zoned R-3. Ms. Stromberg stated that was correct. Mr. Saba asked how they define efficient versus non-efficient use of the land in regard to a townhouse compared to R-1 or single-family residential? Ms. Stromberg stated that if a property is zoned R-3, she would say the most efficient way to � develop it would be by the R-3 standard with some kind of multi-family. If it was zoned R-1, Single Family, a single family home would be the most efficient use for the property. But that is the difference between the finro. Mr. Saba stated he just had a concem about defining "efficient" and cramming as much as possible into an R-3 space. He did not think that was being very efficient. Ms. Stromberg stated the Code requires so many units per acre, and Mr. Juaire can definitely build 8 units per acre within those finro parcels that will be rezoned and replatted. Mr. Saba stated that he remembers a while back they changed was called a"zero lot line approach" to a full R3 multifamily town home development approach. The zero lot line approach was a method used to allow more homes with common walls (town homes) on a piece of property that with normal residential zoning would accommodate fewer homes. In his opinion some of these developments were ok but now it seems an excuse to cram more residential development into a small lot and this unfortunately is now being classified as "efficient". Ms. Johns asked whether the petitioner was aware of the stipulation changing 20-ton standards to 9-ton standards and the requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed. Ms. Stromberg replied, yes, and the petitioner has been in contact with the Rice Creek Watershed. Ms. Savage asked whether staff has received any complaints or comments from the public conceming this. � Ms. Stromberg stated they have heard from finro of the neighbors who have expressed concerns about traffic, parking, sewer connections, landscaping, and if the road is able to withstand the added amount of traffic PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 19, 2003 PAGE 4 Mr. Dunham asked whether there is anything unusual about this request regarding setbacks or � parking-related issues. Ms. Stromberg stated, no. Mr. Michael Juaire stated that regarding the question of why rezoning to R-3 versus planned unit development, these finro properties are being combined, one of which is already R-3. So they are asking that the second property also be rezoned R-3 and the combination of the finro would be rezoned R-3. To rezone 1152 Norton Avenue to planned unit development would not be consistent with the plan to combine the finro properties of 1170 Norton and 1152 Norton Avenues. Obviously, they have to have the same zoning designation in order to make the development work. Mr. Juaire stated that as far as efficient use, he will probably be coming before this Commission some time down the road about another parcel that has actually had some activity on it, wanting to put an 8-unit in an area where it would really be feasible and nice and good for the neighborhood. He thinks on this property, the R-3 zoning regulations would allow for something significantly in excess of 8 units, but these are 8 nice upscale townhomes, 1,700 square feet. He didn't go for maximum utilization; he went for nice townhomes. Ms. Savage asked if he had any problems with the stipulations including #19 regarding meeting all Rice Creek Watershed District's requirements prior to issuance of a building permit Mr. Juaire replied he and the engineer have made an application to Rice Creek Watershed District. �'"\ Mr. Saba asked if Mr. Juaire intended to fence the pond. There were some objections expressed in a document to the City about the fencing of the pond. If he doesn't fence it, is it in effect going to be a public nuisance? Mr. Juaire stated he had discussed this a little Mr. Bolin. Then he saw the stipulation (#2) about a landscape plan for the ponding area, in lieu of fencing. He stated he has not had a chance to discuss this with Mr. Bolin. He assumed that was for aesthetic reasons. He would like to propose actually putting a fence behind some bushes. You wouldn't see the fence because it would be behind the bushes, and it would be safer for little kids who might wander into the pond. So, he doesn't have a problem with that stipulation. This can be discussed further with staff. Ms. Johns stated the stipulation says landscaping, not necessarily plantings, so it may not necessarily mean bushes. It could mean some sort of other types of plants as well. So that is more particular to a wetland area that may look nice and yet achieve a goal or make it a little more attractive than a fence. Mr. Saba replied he liked the idea of a fence. He worries about the safety of children. Ms. Johns asked if it is a dry pond at this location? Mr. Juaire replied it is meant for runoff water. Ms. Johns asked if this meant it is not wet all season, just during the heavy rains and then it goes away. �„1 Mr. Juaire replied, that is right. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 19, 2003 PAGE 5 �--� Ms. Cindy Mabel, 1214 Norton Avenue, approached and stated she is two lots down from the proposed development. Her lot is like a perfect square shape. She has lived there for 31 years. ` It is a single-family home and she has taken a lot of care and really a lot of pride in the property. One of her biggest concems is parking. Since all these townhomes have gone in, the parking has become a very big issue. They're all townhomes, they have very short driveways so there is a lot of parking on the street. As she looks at the curb or street access of the proposed property, there is actually going to be less street frontage for 8 townhomes than there is just for her single-family home. So, she is asking herself, where are these people going to park? From what she understands, they are all going to have two-car garages, but that doesn't allow for extra cars for visitors. What happens at Christmas when people have their families over? Where are these people going to park? And there really isn't very much street parking considering all the streets are full already. Ms. Mabel stated she can't envision how any of those trees can stay. There are some beautiful trees along Norton Creek, and there is water unless it is really a dry summer. Her kids play there. That is a wildlife area that connects down to Rice Creek, and it's beautiful down there. It is a comdor going straight up along old Central for wildlife, and taking down the trees would be the end of that. So, she is really concemed about the trees. Ms. Mabel asked that they look at the quality of life. They are paying good property taxes. Several of the properties have single family homes, and a lot of the duplexes are owner- occupied. These people have a strong interest in keeping the neighborhood a good neighborhood to live in and, with the street traffic, she doesn't see that happening. She stated people can't park in that cul-de-sac because the plows and school buses need that full width to � tum around. She just hopes they will really consider the people moving in there and, maybe a smaller, four-plex or something would be more appropriate. The one house is perfectly good. The other one could be torn down and rebuilt. Ms. Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton Avenue NE, stated she and her daughter own the duplex at 1241-1243 Norton Avenue. She and her daughter do not believe this is the right spot for more rental property. She understands it's R-3; but, as Ms. Mabel said, many of those homes have tumed over and become single family. Even though they are duplexes, they are owner- occupied. She and her daughter moved into Fridley in November of 1999. Since moving into Fridley, they have seen the affect of rental property in their neighborhood. They have heard a lot of concems about absentee landlords that have not been resolved. There is property behind her daughter's that is connected to a very large apartment complex. There is actually two apartment complexes and what they call townhouses but what she would call four-plexes. That piece of property, although wooded, has been a complaint issue with them for the last 2%2 years. The properly is used as a dump site. The properties that are rental are not kept up as well as those that are single family or owner-occupied. Ms. Reynolds stated she has safety issue concems because of the fact that Norton is a dead end street. Currently, the school bus does not come down the street because the cul-de-sac is not large enough. She has a concem with an 8-plex because of the large construction vehicles causing damage to the street. Who is going to pay for the damages the construction vehicles cause going up and down the street? Currently, the garbage trucks and snowplow are the biggest vehicles that go down that street. She just doesn't see this as being an asset to their neighborhood. She is also concemed with the traffic and the parking, because this is a dead end street. They get a lot of people who just need to tum around because they have tumed in � the wrong place. To their north there are the apartment buildings that can be seen behind her house, apartment buildings and townhomes. The density is already there; the vacancy rate is already there. There must be four of those townhomes right now for rent. Her concem is that PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 19, 2003 PAGE 6 as a taxpayer in Fridley, what about the absentee landlord. She is paying the taxes but she is the one who has to keep track of that property in order to maintain the value of her home. ^ There is pride in ownership, and she doesn't believe there is in rental and doesn't believe this is effective utilization of the property. � Ms. Reynolds asked that if this property has had single-family dwelling on it since 1946, how did it get zoned M-1? Ms. Stromberg stated the house was constructed prior to 1949. Fridley didn't become a city until 1949. So, they don't have any records of anything that was constructed prior to 1949. She, too, is unclear why the zoning is the way it is. Ms. Reynolds stated she guessed it would probably be because it abuts up to some of the businesses on that back side that connect via the little road to Medtronic. She just thinks it is a poor spot to be trying to put in 8 more families. Ms. Reynolds stated that in stipulations #15, #16, and #17, talking about changing the tum- around, does that mean the cul-de-sac? Ms. Stromberg stated, no, that tum-around is within the development. Ms. Reynolds stated that the owners of the apartment building at the end of the street did a beautiful job of remodeling. They put in garages, but their parking is nowhere sufficient for the number of residents they have. So, they park on the street. Even during the period of time in the winter from November 1 through April 1, there is parking in front of that apartment building. Now, she doesn't know if they have some special privilege that the rest of the neighbors don't � have. She got a ticket for parking in front of her own home. She just thinks this is too many people in a small space. Ms. Johns commented she had some concems about the trees. Mr. Juaire stated that regarding the absentee landlord, he owns properly in Columbia Heights, Fridley, and Mounds View. Previously he was an engineer for 20 some years and started this business in 1988. He stated he is not an absent landlord. He takes very good care of his properties, and he does a very careful job of selecting tenants. Any difficulties would be dealt with immediately. Mr. Juaire stated this property is being requested to be replatted so each of these townhomes may in the future be owner-occupied. They are being established in such a way that they can be owner-occupied. He has had many of his tenants, many of them are professionals, that the next step after leaving his place would be to go out and purchase a home. The type of townhomes that he owns are in a category that requires a good stable job, and quite a few of these people stay with him for a year, maybe two years, and then the next step is buying a home. A few of them have even talked about the rent-to-own kind of situation which is one of the reasons he is establishing this property in the way he is requesting. Mr. Juaire stated that regarding parking, each one of the townhomes are proposed to have a finro-car garage with an additional two spaces for parking in front of the garage. The parking space in front of the garage is 45 feet deep which includes the driveway, so it's 20 feet deep for parking space and 25 feet deep for drive. And there is additional space in between so they would be able to put like a dozen cars out of the garage area so the residents themselves have � their cars in the garage. They would be able to put another dozen cars off the street in that paved area. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 19, 2003 PAGE 7 n Mr. Juaire stated that regarding the trees, on the landscape plan he believed at least five, maybe six trees are going to be kept up. Some are in the way of the building so they have to be � taken out. But, they will keep all the trees they can. Most of the trees that are being kept are on the south properly line. Mr. Saba asked whether those would be identified prior to construction? Mr. Juaire replied, yes. In fact, he thought it was part of a stipulation, but there definitely was a request to fence around those with one of the orange fences to protect them from contractors. Mr. Saba and Ms. Johns commented that the landscaping has to be approved. Mr. Saba asked Mr. Juaire what his plans were to make these all rental units? Mr. Juaire replied that, initially, the units will be rented, and he is in the process of looking into the rent-to-own situation. So, that is why they are being individually platted with separate services and separate everything so they can be sold. Mr. Dunham asked if there would then be an association. Mr. Juaire replied, yes. He will own the outlot to begin with, and he is working with a lawyer to set it up. Ms. Johns asked Mr. Juaire if he owns any property now in Fridley? '� Mr. Juaire replied he owns a duplex at 5622-5624 4th Street and a four-plex at 56th and 4�' , Street. The tenants are professional-type people, and he has no problems. Mr. Saba asked him to again explain the parking. There is space for two cars in the garage and finro cars in the driveway. He asked if there was space other than that for off-street parking for guests? Mr. Juaire replied he was indicating the area that would be a pull-up. There are four landscaping islands that are wide enough. Now that the islands have been made shorter by one of the stipulations to actually be able to parallel park in front of the landscaping island. They can't park on the tum-around as it will be designated a°no parking area°, and they can't park out on the drive, because that is designated as a"no parking area", fire lane. But there would be 8 spaces total directly in front of the garages and then spaces at the end of the landscaping islands. Ms. Cindy Mabel asked if it would be possible for them to get a copy of the map showing "Norton Mano�' and the stipulations. She personally can't envision how all of this development and all these parking spaces are going to fit on that amount of land. She also wanted to know what is in it for the City of Fridley. They all know they will be looking at their taxes being raised. With the lack of state aid coming, the City is going to be a pinch. Are they going to get enough property taxes off this use of the land to pay for the education and all the other services that the City of Fridley is going to have to put back into these eight homes? MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Saba, 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 8:15 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 19, 2003 PAGE 8 Ms. Johns stated that regarding rezoning this property, it makes sense that it doesn't need to be � M-1 zoning. She thinks it should be rezoned, and it is typical of that neighborhood to be zoned R-3. She doesn't have a problem with the rezoning. � Mr. Saba stated he does. He is a little afraid of what R-3 could do in the future, especially if it stays rental. He would much rather see something else besides this, like a planned unit development. This development and the other property could be included in a planned unit development so there are more restrictions on the lot and on the development so that what goes there, stays there, and is confined to some type of an agreement, like a townhouse agreement. Mr. Dunham stated he was not sure he had a problem with what the petitioner is doing, but if Mr. Juaire was really intending to ever convey the units individually, is this going to be the right way to do it? Ms. Stromberg replied, yes, because he is platting them each individually. The Commission will be reviewing the plat next on the agenda. Ms. Savage replied she did not have a problem with this, and it appears to be a nice development. Frankly, legally, she doesn't see any way they could deny this request. It seems like the rest of the neighborhood is multi-family. From looking at the property, looking at the plans, and listening to the petitioner, she believed this is going to be an asset to the neighborhood. MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Dunham, to approve rezoning, ZOA #03-01, by Michael Juaire, to rezone from M-1, Light Industrial, to R-3, General Multiple Units, to ^ accommodate a townhome development, generally located at 1152 Norton Avenue NE, with the following stipulations: 1. The final landscape plan shall meet code requirements for number of and sizes of plantings and be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. A landscape plan for the ponding area, in lieu of fencing, shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. A storm pond maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. All landscaped areas shall have irrigation installed. 5. The proposed walkway shall be concrete. 6. Brick type and application on elevations and other extemal building materials shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted and approved by the City's engineering staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. The sewer connection shall be located near the cul-de-sac. 9. The six-inch water main shall be looped according to City engineering staff s specifications. 10. A 12-foot utility and drainage easement shall be granted along the entire southem edge of the property prior to final plat. 11. A 25-foot easement from the center line of Norton Creek on the west side of the property shall be granted prior to final plat. 12. The parking lot shall be constructed to code standards. 13. All elements of the building shall meet the current building code and be approved by the ,� City Building Official. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 19, 2003 PAGE 9 14. The petitioner shall pay the applicable park dedication fee of $1,500 per unit prior to the �.-� issuance of any building permits. 15. The fire tumaround shall be redesigned to meet the City's Fire Department standards. - 16. The driveway and fire tumaround shall be designed to 9-ton standards. (coRected — should be 9-ton standards, not 20-ton standards) 17. The fire turnaround shall be posted, °No Parking Fire Lane." 18. The size of the landscape islands shall be reduced by 5 feet in order to accommodate fire equipment. 19. The petitioner shall meet all Rice Creek Watershed District's requirements prior to issuance of a building permit. UPON A VOICE VOTE, DUNHAM, JOHNS, SAVAGE VOTING AYE, AND SABA VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ON A 3-1 VOTE. 2. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a plat, PS 03-01, by Michael Juaire, to plat for a townhome development, generally located at 1152 Norton Avenue NE. MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Saba, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 8:17 P.M. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner, Michael Juaire of PMJ Group, is requesting to replat the property located at 1152 and 1170 Norton Avenue to create 9 separate lots from Lot 11, � Auditor's Subdivision #89, in order to construct an 8-unit renter-occupied townhome r development. Ms. Stromberg stated 1152 Norton Avenue is zoned M-1, Light Industrial. The existing home was built prior to 1949 and the existing garage was built in 1967. Both of these structures would be removed to accommodate the proposed townhome development, and the petitioner is also applying for the rezoning of the property as is known. Ms. Stromberg stated 1170 Norton Avenue is zoned R-3, Multiple Family. The existing home was built prior to 1949. This home will also have to be removed to accommodate the townhouse development and, as they have been discussing, all of the surrounding properties are zoned R- 3, Multiple Family. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner plans to locate his storm pond along the northern edge of the property line close to the entrance of the development. He plans to construct a fence to surround the storm pond. Staff believes that the image of a pond that is properly landscaped is an aesthetically pleasing element for a townhome development; however, fencing a pond would change that image. Fencing in a pond would not only create an unattractive first image as you enter the development, but it also could be detrimental to the safety of children. The petitioner should design the pond using landscaped materials to create a natural amenity and, if the pond in this location warrants a fence, the pond should be relocated on the site. The proposed townhome development meets all lot size setback, lot coverage, and parking requirements. Ms. Stromberg stated staff has heard from iwo neighboring property owners who expressed concems about tra�c, parking, the number of units, sewer capacity, and tree replacement. ,� Ms. Stromberg stated City staff recommends approval of the plat request with stipulations as this request provides additional housing opportunities for Fridley residents. The stipulations for PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 19, 2003 PAGE 10 the plat request are the same as what was stipulated on the rezoning request and can be found in the packet. ^ Mr. Saba asked the petitioner if he was going to use maintenance-free siding on all exteriors? � Mr. Juaire replied, yes. Ms. Johns asked Mr. Juaire if he was just going to demolish the two existing homes and dispose of the debris or if he was going to deconstruct them. Did he know about deconstruction? Mr. Juaire stated the home at 1170 Norton Avenue is going to be destroyed and disposed of as it is in pretty rough shape. The existing home at 1152 Norton Avenue was recently remodeled and is in pretty good shape. It has a relatively irregular shape to it. He doesn't know if there are any documents that would show it, but it has had multiple add-ons and he has two house moving companies that are going to look at moving it. If it can be moved, they will do that. Ms. Johns stated that in some homes, especially homes built early in Fridley's history, the products that were made, whether it's the windows or parts and pieces of the house, are valuable to adjacent properties. Mr. Juaire stated he would not throw anything away that can be saved. There is a separate sauna at 1152 Norton Avenue that is not going to be thrown away. Mr. Saba asked if the garage doors are going to be equipped with automatic garage door openers. Mr. Juaire replied, yes, all of his townhomes have automatic garage door openers. � Ms. Johns asked whether the utility shed that is located on the plan to the west of the nearest lot 8 is going to house things that are going to take care of the property itself. Mr. Juaire replied the utility shed at the west end will house both the controls for the irrigation system, lawn irrigation system, and fire protection sprinkler system. Those will be monitored controls. Ms. Johns asked if each of these homes would have garbage pickup by entering the lot at Outlot A. Mr. Juaire replied, yes. Ms. Johns asked if garbage and recycling would be within the garages and set out for pickup. Mr. Juaire stated the driveways will be constructed to street standards so the garbage trucks would come in. The garbage containers wouldn't be put on the curb; they would be put on Outlot A. Mr. Saba stated that on the rear elevation, it looks like there are dividers between each set of patio doors? Mr. Juaire replied, yes, each patio has its own private area. Ms. Pam Reynolds stated that, again, her question is who is going to pay for the damages to the ,� road with the heavy equipment needed for this development? She is thinking mostly of the big construction trucks as Norton Avenue is not in that great of shape. She doesn't know when it is PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 19, 2003 PAGE 11 scheduled to be resurfaced, but that amount of construction equipment and that amount of � movement is going to damage the street and then the City is going to assess everybody on the street. Ms. Reynolds stated the Planning Commission has to think about the residents who are already living here and the current use of that property. The residents live there, pay taxes, and some consideration needs to be given to them. Part of the reason that Ms. Mabel and her daughter are the only ones at the meeting is because Ms. Mabel is one of the only people who got a public hearing notice. Ms. Reynolds stated she owns her home. She doesn't understand this, but the only people the City sends notices to are within 350 feet and Ms. Mabel is the only one who got a notice. She is sure the other rental property owners don't care. But the density in that area is already so highly rental and what happens ten years down the line when Mr. Juaire decides to sell the development? Then who takes care of it? Then what do the residents do? She asked if there was a road behind this property that borders Medtronic? Ms. Stromberg replied, yes, but it's on Medtronic properly. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Dunham, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:28 P.M. Mr. Saba asked about who would be liable for the road damage. Would the contractor be � liable? Ms. Stromberg stated that, yes, the contractor would be responsible for any damage to the road. Mr. Saba stated he didn't have a problem with the plat; he just had a problem with the rezoning. Ms. Johns stated she knows the Rice Creek Watershed District through the EQE Commission. The Rice Creek Watershed District are pretty strict on a lot of its requirements and what is going on in the Rice Creek area. She feels comfortable that the RCWD has looked at this proposed development and has made requests for some changes. The plat request looks good, and she believed the parking issues have been addressed for the most part. Mr. Dunham stated the units are good sized units, and he believed they are going to be a lot nicer than people think. There is a lot of footage to them, they are not minimum standards. These are not inexpensive rental units at all. They are very nice. He doesn't have a problem with them. Ms. Savage stated she didn't either. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Dunham, to recommend approval to City Council of PS 03-01, by Michael Juaire, to plat for a townhome development, generally located at 1152 Norton Avenue NE, with the following stipulations: 1. The final landscape plan shall meet code requirements for number of and sizes of plantings and be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. �-., 2. A landscape plan for the ponding area, in lieu of fencing, shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 19, 2003 PAGE 12 3. A storm pond maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to issuance of a building permit. ^ 4. All landscaped areas shall have imgation installed. 5. The proposed walkway shall be concrete. � 6. Brick type and application on elevations and other extemal building materials shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted and approved by the City's engineering staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. The sewer connection shall be located near the cul-de-sac. 9. The six-inch water main shall be Iooped according to City engineering staff s specifications. 10. A 12-foot utility and drainage easement shall be granted along the entire southem edge of the property prior to final plat. 11. A 25-foot easement from the center line of Norton Creek on the west side of the property shall be granted prior to final plat. 12. The parking lot shall be constructed to code standards. 13. All elements of the building shall meet the current building code and be approved by the City Building Official. 14. The petitioner shall pay the applicable park dedication fee of $1,500 per unit prior to the issuance of any building permits. 15. The fire tumaround shall be redesigned to meet the City's Fire Department standards. 16. The driveway and fire tumaround shall be designed to 9-ton standards. (corrected — should be 9-ton standards, not 20-ton standards) 17. The fire tumaround shall be posted, °No Parking Fire Lane." 18. The size of the landscape islands shall be reduced by 5 feet in order to accommodate fire equipment. � 19. The petitioner shall meet all Rice Creek Watershed District's requirements prior to issuance of a building permit. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Savage stated the rezoning and plat requests will go to the City Council on March 3, 7:30. The Council will make the final decision on these requests. 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 8 2003 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the January 8, 2003, Appeals Commission meeting minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9 2003 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Dunham, to receive the January 9, 2003, Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE �� MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � n �, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 19, 2003 PAGE 13 5. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Stromberg stated the next meeting is March 5 and there is one item which is a plat request. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Ms. John, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjoum the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE FEBRUARY 19, 2003, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:32 P.M. RespectFully submitted, � � ��� Denise M. Letendre � Recording Secretary