Loading...
PL 03/05/2003 - 30902CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 5, 2003 � CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the March 5, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Larry Kuechle, Brad Dunham, Dean Saba Members Absent: Barb Johns, Dave Kondrick Others Present: Stacy Stromberg, Planner Ted Theilmann John Johnson, Metro Land Surveying Greg Stull, Realty Executives See attached list APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 19. 2003, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES� MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Dunham, to approve the February 19, 2003, Planning Commission meeting minutes. ^ UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Plat, PS 03-02, by Ted Theilmann, to subdivide three parcels into eight single family lots, generally located at 1540 Rice Creek Road. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:38 P.M. Ms. Stromberg stated that the petitioner, Ted Theilmann, is requesting a replat to subdivide the property at 1540 Rice Creek Road into eight single family lots. The existing home at 1540 Rice Creek Road was built prior to 1949, and the existing garage was constructed in 1962. Both of these structures will need to be removed in order to accommodate the creation of the eight single-family lots. The Fridley City Code requires that lots in the R-1, Single Family, district, have a minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet. All eight lots exceed the minimum lot area requirements. The Fridley City Code also requires that lots in the R-1, Single Family, district, be a minimum of 75 feet in width at the required front yard setback. Ms. Stromberg stated that of the eight lots, seven are substandard by a maximum of 2 feet. Lot 2, Block 2, is 75 feet wide at the front yard setback and does meet code requirements. Lots 1 and 3, Block 1, are 73 feet wide; Lots 2 and 4, Block 1, are 74 feet wide; Lots 1 and 3, Block 2, are 73 feet wide; and Lot 4, Block 2, is 74 feet wide. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 5, 2003 PAGE 2 Ms. Stromberg stated this development would provide additional homeownership opportunities for Fridley residents or people wanting to move to this area. The future residential land use section of the Comprehensive Plan states that future redevelopments should plan for densities that match surrounding development patterns. Redeveloping this property into 8 single-family lots would meet this Comprehensive Plan criteria as all of the surrounding properties are between 9,000 and 10,000 square feet. The exception is the property located at 1530 Rice Creek Road, directly west of the subject property, which is 21,908 square feet. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed development would allow the connection of Woodside Court as a through street which will, in tum, be more efficient for the Public Works staff. The connection of Woodside Court will allow for more efficient snowplowing, will complete the transportation system and the water system in the neighborhood, and will be a safety and fire protection benefit. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner has indicated that years ago, Outlots A and B were given to his parents in exchange for the right-of-way along Briardale Road. The intent of the exchange was that by providing Outlots A and B to the petitioner's parents, the property could one day be split. However, the 15.53 foot outlots that were exchanged are 3 feet short of being sub- dividable by current code standards. � � Ms. Stromberg stated the subdivision ordinance states that the Planning Commission or City Council, upon finding any regulations or requirements of the Code that cannot be met by a particular subdivision, may grant approval of a plat request with minor variances. Recognizing mi�oF �afia�ce deficiencies througk� tk�at p6atti�g pfocess is not inter�ded ta set a p�ec�d�r�t i'o� future variance requests. City staff recommends approval of this replat request with stipulations as it provides additional homeownership opportunities, and the Woodside Court extension ,—� provides benefits to the City. If the plat is approved, staff recommends the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2. Any remaining debris from demolition of the existing home and any outdoor storage on-site shall be removed prior to granting a final plat. 3. Regular maintenance of the site shall be done by the developer until the homes are built. 4. The grading and drainage plan shall be approved by the City's engineering staff prior to issuance of any permits in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding properties. 5. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 6. During construction, silt fencing shall be used where applicable. 7. The petitioner shall provide easements as required by Section 211.07.21 of the City Code. 8. The petitioner shall pay $1,500 per lot park fees prior to issuance of building permits. 9. The petitioner shall be responsible for the installation of sewer and water service connections from property line to existing City utilities. Plan shall be approved by the City's Engineering department. 10. The 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. 11. The petitioner shall work with existing contours of the land and preserve existing slopes to the extent possible. ^ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 5, 2003 PAGE 3 12. A Development Agreement outlining the developer's obligation to install utilities, ^ etc., shall be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the petitioner prior to final plat approval. Mr. John Johnson, Director of Engineering for Metro Land Surveying, stated that he is there to help answer questions the Commission or the residents may have so they have a better understanding of what they are proposing. He was hoping to get some clarification on three items in the stipulations. Mr. Johnson stated the first question was in stipulation #2, removing the existing home prior to final plat approval. That was something that hadn't been discussed prior to seeing the staff report, and they are wondering why that was a requirement. Mr. Johnson stated that stipulations #10 and #11 kind of worked together, the preserving of the trees on site and the grading of the site. Because of the nature of the site and the topography of the site, it is going to take some very unique handling of the area where the trees are the heaviest and the hills are the steepest to make sites for homes. The timing for getting those lots implemented may have a little longer time frame than the finro lots that face Briardale Road and the finro that face Rice Creek Road. Those can happen fairly easily because the streets are in place and they just need to put in sewer services. Sewer services are on one side but not on the other. Getting the street built and saving the trees is going to take more time. They don't have a problem with the stipulations, just identifying the best ways to go about developing each site. Mr. Kuechle asked Ms. Stromberg if she can just give them a little enlightenment on the platting �.—� process. This is a preliminary plat, and what is the process to reach the final plat? Ms. Stromberg replied the preliminary plat goes to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's recommendation goes to the City Council for approval or denial. If the preliminary plat is approved by the City Council, then the petitioner must file the plat with the County. Once the petitioner has gotten the okay from the County, the petitioner comes back to the City for final plat approval. At that time, the final plat goes to the City Council only; it does not have to go back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Kuechle asked about the time frame. Ms. Stromberg replied it can be anywhere from 2-6 months. It kind of depends upon the County and how quickly the petitioner can get the final plat back to the City. Mr. Johnson stated he wanted to talk about the 15.5 foot strip--one of those pieces of history where hindsight is 20/20. The original handwritten agreement befinreen Mr. Theilmann's father and the developer at that time said that the strip would be approximately 20 feet by whatever length it was. How it tumed out to be 15.5 feet is one of the reasons why they need to discuss these issues. It isn't that there was any decision on the part of Mr. Theilmann or his father to create it, it was what was left when the developer got done with the 4 lots to the north or 8 lots to the north of this project. It was one of those unfortunate things that just happened, but he believed they have come up with a very good subdivision of the property; and if they can save some of those beautiful trees and create a nice neighborhood, that would be desirable by all. Mr. Joe Hoesley, 1581 Woodside Court, approached and stated his home would be east of Lot � 3. He asked how Mr. Theilmann was going to develop the lots. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 5, 2003 PAGE 4 Mr. Theilmann replied they would try to develop them all at the same time if possible. The four lots that are adjacent to the road would be the easiest lots, the least amount of work would be ^ necessary to develop those lots. It is his intention that everything would go through as quickly as possible given the constraints that they have in the stipulations on preserving trees and '� terrain. Those issues do pose a little bit of a problem for engineering the road and grading. Mr. Hoesley asked when would that road be going through. Is that the City's responsibility? Mr. Theilmann replied, no, he believed that was his responsibility. The road would go through as part of the development. Mr. Hoesley stated his property is approximately 5 or 6 feet higher than the Theilmann property. Is Mr. Theilmann planning to take all that dirt, grade it, and raise it up to be level of his property? Mr. Theilmann stated that is why he hired the engineering firm of Metro Land Survey to generate a grading plan that would be approved by the City engineers to make sure there isn't adverse drainage onto any surrounding properties. Mr. Hoesley replied drainage is one thing, but he is also concemed about aesthetics. He has a retaining wall (railroad ties) that goes the length of his property. Is it allowable for Mr. Theilmann to fill that in to cover a retaining wall? Mr. Theilmann stated there is kind of a hole there that is kind of dropped down. It would be his desire to try and bring that up and try and get as much water to drain to the street. So he thinks they would try to match the elevation so there wouldn't be either a hill or a depression at that point but, here again, Metro Land Engineering has been hired to come up with a plan that would ^ be agreeable. Mr. Hoesley stated he would like to see how that is going to happen. He has 150 feet there and he is concemed about that process and what it will look like, whether it will be suitable aesthetically speaking. Ms. Stromberg stated that once the plans have been submitted to the City, staff could definitely call Mr. Hoesley so that he could take a look at the plans. They do have a stipulation on the plat request that none of the surrounding property owners are affected as a result of this. Mr. Hoesley stated, yes, he did see that stipulation, but was still curious about the process. Ms. Stromberg stated staff can certainly have Mr. Hoesley look at the plans. Mr. Hoesler stated he likes the idea of Woodside Court going through and taking down at least the Cottonwood trees. Mr. Johnson stated the grading plan has to be approved by the City Engineer, and they have some real interesting challenges here in balancing tree presenration, topography preservation, and making the lots work. Those lots that would be immediately adjacent to Mr.Hoesler would probably be walkout lots, so the front will be up at street level and the back would walk out at the lower level. More dirt will probably leave the site than will remain on the site when they are done, because there is a pretty good hill they have to go through at the west end of Woodside Court. Right now they don't have a plan that they can lay on the table and say this is how it is going to work, but they have looked at it and talked about it enough to know it is feasible. The /� City is very desirous on getting that piece of road built, and they don't see that as an PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 5, 2003 PAGE 5 impediment to the plan at this point. It is just a matter of coming up with the best solution for n everybody. He doesn't think there will be any drainage issues, but it is going to take some creativity to make it all happen. They will definitely work with the neighborhood. Mr. Steve Resch, 1541 Woodside Court, stated he is in favor of this development, but there are some water problems and the hills. He has built his house about 20 years ago and ever since he has had water up to two feet deep in his front driveway. The neighbors can attest to that also. The water comes off the hills, and it's like a lake; there are even ducks in there. He has been trying to pump it out, and he just doesn't want the water running down his driveway anymore, so the engineer has his job cut out for him. He asked about the tree preservation stipulation. Is there something that stipulates that if the developer removes so many trees, he has to replace so many? Ms. Savage stated the stipulation states that all trees required to be removed shall be marked and approved by City staff. Replacing trees is not part of the stipulation. Mr. Resch asked how long this project would take. Mr. Johnson stated they are hoping that the project could be done before the end of this construction season, but a lot of things have to come together to make that happen. Mr. Resch stated he hoped they wouldn't remove all that soil up there. They wouldn't take that hill down, but would they put in tuck-unders or whatever is there? Mr. Johnson replied that is one of the things that has been discussed — retaining walls, unique ^ siding of buildings to preserve topography and trees. However, they have to find a buyer or builder who is willing to do that, and it takes time. Mr. Resch stated he hoped they are not going to stick a finro-story house up on top of the hill where the owners would never see the sun in the moming. Mr. Johnson stated it is going to be a challenge. One of the stipulations says they have to do the best job they can, and City staff is going to be watching them very closely. He just does not have a good answer to these questions right now. Mr. Tim Leighton, 6201 Rice Creek Drive, stated he lives on Rice Creek Drive and Briardale Road. Regarding the finro lots that would be on Briardale, were they not up to code widthwise and would need a variance? Also, if lot width is an issue, does that dictate how big a home can be put on the lot? Ms. Stromberg stated that, through the platting process, the Planning Commission and the Council can grant a plat with minor deficiencies without requiring a variance. As far as the home size, in regards to the lot width, there wouldn't be a need for a smaller home; the placement of the home would have to comply with the front yard, rear yard, and side yard setback requirements. Mr. Leighton asked if the City knew of any variance the builder or developer is going to need in the placing of homes. Ms. Savage stated the City of Fridley has nales about the setbacks for the side and the front and � back yards, so obviously the builder would have to comply with those setbacks or request a variance. There is no indication at this time whether the builder will need any variances. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 5, 2003 PAGE 6 Mr. Leighton asked if these lots are going to be available to the public. Mr. Theilmann replied there is currently no contract with a developer; however, a developer is interested in this property. It is possible some lots could be available to the public, or the lots could be sold as one package. Mr. Mike Serie, 1531 Woodside Court, stated he has lived here 16 years. They have a pond that forms every spring and when there are heavy rains, so drainage is the major issue that he would be concemed about. In looking at the topography and the hills that are there, his question would be if you try to maintain what they have here today in terms of the levels (and it's very steep there), but if you try to put houses there, it might actually look abnormal or different than it should look and he would challenge the Planning Commission to take a look a this a little differently. Maybe more should be cleared off, and maybe the trees shouldn't be the primary concem. They could have a situation where a homeowner is looking down at everybody, and it's going to look crazy. If he was an adjoining neighbor, he would definitely think there should be an opportunity for the neighbors to see what the property elevations are going to look like. He thinks it is going to be a very challenging effort on the part of an engineering firm to try and do that. � Mr. Greg Stull, Realty Executives, stated he is a builder and developer. His company is considering the parcel, and he has been working closely with Mr. Theilmann and Mr. Johnson. The grading and drainage issues are of great concem. He doesn't think maintaining that large knoll or nodule on that land is something that can be accomplished with retaining walls, etc., because the ponding and the water are probably going to still be issues. He would think that the development, in terms of its grade and topography, is going to be very similar to the existing �— homes around. So, it's going to have a good blend. All of this will have to go through the approval process with the City. Mr. Ron Larson, 6221 Rice Creek Drive, stated he believes his lot is adjacent to Block 2, Lot 2. Their house may be most affected by the elevation issues and the grading issues. He thinks that the hill behind 6221 is probably higher than it is adjacent to any other of the parcels. He stated that he didn't know if any of the Commission members had an opportunity to go out and look at this, but if they could envision what a two-story home would look like behind 6221 where it is already about 15-20 feet up in the air. That home would practically block out the sun. He doesn't know if they could possibly meet stipulations 4 and 11 to minimize the impact on surrounding properties and work with the existing contours of the land to preserve existing slopes to the extent possible. If they do have to take a lot of dirt out behind his property, he believes there are some kind of drainage and utility easements on all the prope�ties to the back lots. He thinks they would probably have to come in and actually dig, probably 6 feet into his property, in order to level that out, so there are some unique issues there. It is a hill that goes almost straight up, maybe a 15-20 foot elevation in about maybe 35 feet into the back of his lot. Mr. Larson stated they have two trees at the back of their lot (Lot 2) that are right on the property line. During the grading process, those trees will probably have to be removed. What is the process, because he doesn't know if the trees are actually on his property or on the Theilmann properly. Ms. Savage stated the City does have to approve the removal of the trees. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 5, 2003 PAGE 7 Mr. Serie stated that because this is such a unique situation, the people, particularly those most ^ affected by the grading, should actually have the ability to take part in the approval process, along with the City engineers. Mr. Johnson stated that regarding the two trees, the one closest to the street is a 20-inch Eastem Cottonwood. Most people want to get rid of cottonwoods. The other tree is a 10-inch Siberian Elm which is probably right on the property line, if not over it. The Cottonwood is north of the property but right on it. He does not have an answer to the question of whether or not those trees will need to be removed. It's something that has to be resolved. He didn't know what the City's process is here for involving the neighbors in the grading plan process, but he did not have a problem providing some mechanism to do that, as long as it's reasonable Mr. Serie stated Mr. Johnson seems to be in agreement with the neighbors participating in that process. He is wondering how the Planning Commission and the City feels about stipulating that. Ms. Savage stated she didn't think that would be a problem. That seemed like a reasonable way to proceed. Mr. Kuechle stated he thought the Planning Commission can make that recommendation to the City Council, but the City Council would have to make that decision. He was not sure the Planning Commission could create an obligation on the part of the developer to involve the neighbors. Mr. Serie asked about making an obligation on the part of City Engineering to involve the � neighbors, because that is the department that is going to make the final approvals on the drainage and grading plans. Mr. Kuechle stated he is not sure about that question. Mr. Serie stated it's just that the real issue with this particular project is really the grading plan. There is no question that the grading is going to have the biggest impact on the neighborhood, along with the resulting aesthetics and the manner in which those houses fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson stated these stipulations are a condition of approval of the preliminary plat. Does the City require that all the stipulations be satisfied before the final plat is released for recording? Mr. Kuechle stated that is one of the reasons for stipulation #2, for example, that any remaining debris from demolition of the existing home and outdoor storage on site be removed prior to granting the final plat. That is really the City's leverage to say that the job hasn't been done. Mr. Johnson stated that is why he was trying to clarify #2. They will demolish buildings, and they will remove the debris. They had a question on why the house has to be removed. Regarding stipulations #4, 10, 11, if they have to have a grading plan and mark the trees for preserving or taking down, do they need to have all these things done before the Council will act on the final plat? Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner can work with the City on resolving some of these issues, ,� with the goal that the neighbors will be informed and will be part of the process. She wasn't sure the Commission could give them an answer at the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 5, 2003 PAGE 8 Ms. Stromberg stated these exact stipulations will be on the final plat. Some of them are �, required prior to final plat. But the majority of the ones that Mr. Johnson is talking about are _ required prior to issuance of any building permit. So they would be able to go through the final plat approval, but before construction is begun, staff wants to see the grading and drainage plan and the tree inventory. Mr. Johnson stated the timing of the construction on the four lots that are on either side of the street will be at a little different point in time, depending on how they can set up contractors and get it organized. He is thinking that maybe they can come up with a plan that has been reviewed by the City and the neighbors as a stipulation for release of plat and that the plat then provides the warranties/guarantees necessary to implement the plan as part of the building permit process—a kind of a finro-step process, a plan and an implementation program that would occur. Does that seem reasonable? Ms. Paula Baron, 6240 Rice Creek Drive, stated she is on the west end of the Woodside Court extension and she wanted some clarification about the existing street on the east side of Woodside Court. Is this going to stay that way where it ends and is kind of curved? Mr. Johnson replied that they are not planning on changing the end of that existing street, other than to make an appropriate connection to it. The existing road squiggles through there and the reason it squiggles is to try and get as many square feet as possible so they don't need any variances and only have to deal with the width issues discussed earlier. Ms. Baron asked if it would be possible to be notified when the City has a plan for that bottom section of Woodside Court. ; —� Ms. Stromberg stated she can have Jon Haukaas, the Public Works Director, contact Ms. Baron as soon as next week about the City's plans to extend or replace the existing road. Ms. Baron asked the dollar value of the homes that will be placed on these lots. Mr. Stull stated that right now the projections with a proposal of a purchase of this property and what the lot costs after developing would be a lot cost of somewhere in the range of $110,000 to $120,000. The houses will probably be running anywhere from 25 percent to 30 percent more than the current values of the homes in the area now, so he would expect the homes being anywhere from $350,000 to $370,000. Ms. Pat Serie, 1531 Woodside Court, stated that except for the part the City has to do, do the homeowners normally get assessed when a street in front of their house has to be redone, or assessed for the curbing or the tree removal? Ms. Stromberg stated that as far as the tree removal, she doesn't see that they would be assessed for that; but if the City has to put in new curb and gutter, they could be assessed. She stated she would clarify this and get an answer to Ms. Serie's question. Ms. Wendy Resch, 1541 Woodside Court, stated she is the one with the long driveway. When they bought that lot 20 years ago, they did put money in escrow with the City, so her concem is that if she has to pay for that chunk of street and curb, she hopes that money in escrow eamed a lot of interest. They always knew the street would go through. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 5, 2003 PAGE 9 Mr. Theilmann that during his research, he found that there are water and sewer stubs, a ^ hydrant has been put in, and even the curb portions are there. He believed the only thing not done was paving the street. So, some of that work has already been done in advance for this event. Mr. Ron Larson, 6221 Rice Creek Drive, asked if he could be included in any communication that they might have with the neighbors on how the City is going to proceed with that particular one-third of the Woodside Court improvement. His property is one of two properties that are probably most affected by this, and they don't have any money in escrow with the City. Ms. Savage suggested that those who would like to be notified by the City should indicate that to Ms. Stromberg after the meeting is over. 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 AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:48 P.M. Mr. Saba stated he didn't have any problem with the plat request. If Ms. Stromberg could answer the question for the developer before the City Council meeting about why that one house has to be removed, the Commission could amend the stipulations. Mr. Kuechle asked if they should add a stipulation that there would be at least one public meeting with the neighbors during the development process? ^ Mr. Saba stated that would be nice if they could do that. Ms. Savage asked Ms. Stromberg what the reason is for demolishing the cuRent home. Ms. Stromberg replied they do put that on most plat applications just to ensure that there aren't any outdoor storage issues or that they have half of the home sitting there and then they receive complaints from neighbors about what is happening on the site. It is just kind of a standard stipulation that they put on most plat requests to ensure that the property is maintained while it is going through the plat process. Ms. Savage stated she didn't see why that should be a problem. Mr. Johnson stated the problem he has is that the stipulation reads as if the house has to be demolished. Is there a problem with the house staying there because it does sit on one of the finished lots? Ms. Stromberg stated it was staff s assumption that the house would be removed and that is the reason for the stipulation. If they do not want to remove it, it can stay; however, she does think they are going to have setback issues with it. Mr. Johnson stated he thinks they can solve that if that's the issue. They can adjust that rear lot line between Lots 1 and 3 to get the rear setback. There is plenty of room to install a garage and attach it to the front of the house. Mr. Kuechle asked if they plan to keep that house. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 5, 2003 PAGE 10 Mr. Johnson stated Mr. Theilmann wants to have the option of keeping the house. If they do demolish the house, then the stipulation is okay. They just want the option of not being required � to demolish the house. Ms. Savage asked if there was a problem with it not looking like the other houses. Mr. Johnson stated it is an older home, but it does have good functioning heating and air conditioning equipment and adequate electrical service. The garage is an issue because once it is tom down, a garage would have to be put some place else. There is a spot in the front where the garage could be set and look very typical to some of the older homes. Mr. Theilmann's brothers and sisters grew up in that house, so there is also some sentimental value. Ms. Savage asked if it would be possible to preserve the existing home. Mr. Johnson stated that if they can get the lot lines configured such that it does not require a variance to the rear setback, he guessed that could be the stipulation. The existing home can stay if no additional variances are required. Ms. Savage asked how the Commissioners wanted to handle this request. Mr. Saba stated he had no problem with the plat request as long as Mr. Theilmann presents the revised preliminary plat to City Council as part of the recommendation and City staff makes the final decision to the Council. He doesn't know how the staff feels about modifications to a preliminary plat prior to the City Council approval. /"� Ms. Stromberg stated she believed it could be done as long as it was done prior to the preliminary plat going before the Council. Essentially, it is changing the lot lines which changes the legal descriptions, so it's changing the plat. She will need to verify this, because staff has never had a petitioner ask for a change after it's been at the Planning Commission. Ms. Savage stated what concemed her is that the public hearing was conducted using this information with the lot lines as described and the demolition of the house, and, now, without reopening the public hearing, they aren't able to have any more input from the neighbors about that. Maybe they should just leave it as it is. Mr. Kuechle stated he was also uncomfortable with making any changes at this point in time. As Ms. Savage just pointed out, all their discussions were based on the lot lines as presented. Mr. Savage suggested the Commission approve the plat as presented with the stipulations. If the petitioner wants to modify his plans, then he would have to come back before the Planning Commission again. Ms. Stromberg stated she would agree with that, but she can verify that information. If the petitioner wants to make minor changes, maybe it could be done before the City Council meeting. Otherwise, it would need to go before the Planning Commission again. Mr. Saba replied there is that technicality. That is a very good point that this whole public hearing was based on the preliminary plat. Now, if they go and modify the plat, it is only fair to the neighbors to reopen the public hearing or to have a new public hearing. r'� 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 5, 2003 PAGE 11 Mr. Kuechle stated it might be a moot point anyway if the petitioner cannot get enough setback � on that lot and still keep the lot in compliance. That's the first thing they need to calculate. Mr. Kuechle stated he would like to add a stipulation that when the petitioner gets the plan ready for the City Engineer, a public meeting be held with the neighbors to discuss the plat or the plan. Ms. Stromberg asked if that would be the responsibility of the City or the petitioner to hold the meeting? Mr. Kuechle stated he would suggest that it would be the petitioner's responsibility. He is a bit uncomfortable with it because he is not sure that they legally have any leverage on the City side to make that happen. Mr. Theilmann asked if he could get the mailing list from staff to mail notices to those neighbors interested in attending a public meeting. Ms. Savage stated staff could make that available. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend to City Council approval of preliminary plat, PS #03-02, with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to constru�tion. 2. Any remaining debris from demolition of the existing home and any outdoor storage on-site shall be removed prior to granting a final plat. 3. Regular maintenance of the site shall be done by the developer until the homes are built. � 4. The grading and drainage plan shall be approved by the City's engineering staff prior to issuance of any permits in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding properties. 5. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 6. During construction, silt fencing shall be used where applicable. 7. The petitioner shall provide easements as required by Section 211.07.21 of the City Code. 8. The petitioner shall pay $1,500 per lot park fees prior to issuance of building permits. 9. The petitioner shall be responsible for the installation of sewer and water service connections from properly line to existing City utilities. Plan shall be approved by the City's Engineering department. 10. The 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. 11. The petitioner shall work with existing contours of the land and preserve existing slopes to the extent possible. 12. A Development Agreement outlining the developer's obligation to install utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the petitioner prior to final plat approval. 13. The petitioner shall hold at least one public meeting with the neighbors to discuss and inform them of the development plans. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MS. SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Savage stated this will go to City Council on March 24. She urged all those interested to attend that meeting. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 5, 2003 PAGE 12 2. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 12, 2003, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. n MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the Minutes of the February 12, 2003, Appeals Commission. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Stromberg stated the next meeting is March 19. There is one item for that meeting. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Dunham, to adjoum the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MARCH 5, 2003, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:04 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �.�:�, ����� Denise M. Letendre � Recording Secretary n �, CITY OF FRIDLEY '� SIGN-IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING I S � � T Name and Address � Agenda Item of Interest '� . � �� � � � � LL �Z�(� f L �1 �4r� �� �SL v c� iel� f. � l � 5L�1 ' � �� �r �f D j� i c e(�,�ee k�r'�� v-e_ / �1 ��� Gv► a vr v1 l I e f-r� � _ /J, `/l �, ` � � � � �'� /�a � �1 � _ ���s� ���s� ��ll� �v�s�� � ��9.��.�,,f.� _ .�_ Jc���,,o.� � � � ` � � ' e �� . Z l I�, c.� C+�PeK �Y , t� � � � V�� ( �Q I� s o►� �� - � �Nl �r'%`����� �p�G''/ ���� ��� � v�e- � i I�1 J�,"� �i�-� _ � � - �e,r � � I � � � l.c� C Q-�� � , ���`�� � � ` _ �� Z �� �vc z,.� ���.�r� �- �--� S(7 V I�- � L�J4 ( �-� 6Z,1���[ � ��Vll�a ��5��0� b��� I��c;�C��� � � � � lrncc�-� _ ri r� � �1 „ << � ���� �� �