Loading...
PL 05/21/2003 - 30906CITY OF FRIDLEY � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 2003 CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Kondrick called the May 21, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:29 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Dave Kondrick, Larry Kuechle, Dean Saba, LeRoy Oquist, Brad Dunham Members Absent: Diane Savage, Barb Johns Others Present: Stacy Stromberg, Planner Michael Juaire, PMJ Group Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton Avenue NE Cindy Mabel, 1214 Norton Avenue NE Erin Mitchell, 6499 Christenson Lane NE Tom Myhra, 6360 Able Street NE APPROVE THE MAY 7, 2003, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: � MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the May 7, 2003, Planning Commission meeting minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat, PS #03-03, by Michael Juaire, for the construction of new townhomes, generally located at 1275 Norton Avenue NE. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:32 P.M. Ms. Stromberg stated Michael Juaire of PMJ Group, Inc., is requesting to replat the property located at 1275 Norton Avenue to create five separate lots from part of Lot 9, Auditor's Subdivision #89, in order to construct a 4-unit renter occupied townhome development. Ms. Stromberg stated this is the second of three plat requests submitted by Michael Juaire for a townhome development on Norton Avenue. The third request will be heard before the Planning Commission on June 4, 2003. Ms. Stromberg stated the property is zoned R-3, Multi-Family, as are all surrounding properties. The existing home and garage were built prior to 1949. Both of these structures will be ,� removed to accommodate the proposed townhome development. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 2003 PAGE 2 Ms. Stromberg stated that City Code requires that lots in the R-3, Multi-Family, zoning district ,—� have a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet for a 4-unit dwelling. The subject property is 16,108 square feet which exceeds the minimum requirement. The proposed townhome �" development also meets all setback and lot coverage requirements. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff recommends approval of this preliminary plat request with stipulations as it provides additional housing opportunities for Fridley residents. If the preliminary plat is approved, staff recommends the following stipulations: 1. The final landscape plan shall meet code requirements for number of and size of plantings and be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. All landscaped areas shall have irrigation installed. 3. 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 4. Columns shown on the right and left elevations of the building plans shall be constructed using a masonry material. 5. Shakes shown on the front and rear elevation shall be wrapped around to the right and left elevations. 6. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted and approved by the City's engineering staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. A utility plan shall be submitted and approved by the City's engineering staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. Individual services will be required for each unit. 9. A 12-foot utility and drainage easement shall be granted along the entire northem edge of the property prior to final plat. 10. All elements of the building shall meet the current building code and be approved by the City Building Official. 11. The petitioner shall pay an applicable park dedication fee of $1,500 per unit prior to the issuance of any building permits. 12. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 13. 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. Mr. Saba asked if there is any intent to sell these units or are they always going to be owner- occupied? Ms. Stromberg referred to the petitioner to answer that question. As far as she knew he planned to rent them in the beginning. But by platting the units, he is allowed to sell them off individually. Mr. Michael Juaire, PMJ Group, stated all the units on Norton Avenue are planned for rent-to- own. He has a little over 40 rental townhomes. Over the past five years, he has received significant interest in the rent-to-own type of plan by those people who can't afford the down payment and would like to enter into a separate program that would spread that down payment over a period of time. That is the plan for these units. � �, Mr. Kondrick asked Mr. Juaire if he was in agreement with the stipulations as presented by staff. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 2003 PAGE 3 � Mr. Juaire replied, yes. Ms. Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton Avenue NE, stated this is the second group of townhomes Mr. Juaire is proposing. One is underway, one is soon to be underway, and one is still in the planning stages. Norton Avenue is a dead-end street. At the last Planning Commission meeting, the residents brought up issues regarding the increased traffic on that street, which doesn't seem to be a concem except to those who live there. She has been reading the Comprehensive Plan and she knows that the Planning Commission uses that as a guideline for making some of their decisions. Under future land use policies, Item No. 5 says °to promote preservation and rehabilitation where possible to retain neighborhood character". That particular house is an eyesore because the people who lived there have moved out and it just deteriorated. Building four townhomes on that lot which is a little over a third of an acre is not retaining the neighborhood character. Ms. Reynolds stated the Comprehensive Plan states: "to encourage neighborhood participation and redevelopment and revitalization projects through active citizen participation and involvement in the process". Those who own homes on Norton pretty much feel like the process has been decided long before they ever had any input. The concept of if "he owns it, he can pretty much do what he wants to" is only partially true. The Planning commission entered into an agreement under the Comprehensive Plan through laws set up through the State of Minnesota. In June 2001, the Council said that the current housing densities met the regional goal, yet the Comprehensive Plan raised them from 3.5 units per acre for single-family and 9 units per acre for multi-family to 12 units and up for multi-family per acre and up to 30 for larger, upscale high-end apartments. The neighbors see this housing as nothing more than � making their neighborhood a congested area of housing. Chairperson Diane Savage said at the last public hearing that this will be an asset to their neighborhood — to add people, cars, and issues as they currently have is not an asset. When you put a lot of people in a small space, you have additional crime issues. It also adds issues for the schools and the school buses. Ms. Reynolds stated she did not know why the Council agreed in June 2001 to add 450 households to the City befinreen now and 2020, yet the Comprehensive Plan talks about greatly exceeding 500 housing units. Only 3.3 acres are undevelopable — planned for multi-family. The rest of it has to come from redevelopment. The maps that she has seen do not list any of Norton Avenue as redevelopment. She sees nothing at City Hall that shows her a list of undesirable and inefficient properties. The small space that she owns is efficient for her lifestyle, and she is sure that people who live in a much larger home and on much larger lots in Fridley find that their accommodations meet their lifestyle. She did not move into Fridley to end up in a townhouse development. Had that been part of her goal, she would have moved to a townhouse development. Ms. Reynolds asked if Mr. Juaire currently owns the property, because according to Anoka County, the property has not yet changed ownership. Can something be added to the stipulations that Mr. Juaire needs to have a little respect for the people in the neighborhood and for state law, etc. During the early parts of March, his construction crews violated Minnesota state laws. They have violated her personal property rights by his surveyor digging in her yard. She has asked that to stop; and, hopefully, it won't happen again. At the last Planning Commission meeting she attended, they had discussions about landscaping, trees, things like that. She would like the City, Planning Commission, staff, and others think about what it would be like to have this done to their neighborhood. To increase the traffic, increase possible crime, �� increase activity day in and night, have hammers and compressors, etc., going at 6:30 a.m. (when Mayor Lund assured them that 8 o'clock would be the start time). These are all things that need to be considered. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 2003 PAGE 4 i� Ms. Reynolds stated that even the renters on Norton Avenue feel a duplex fits in with the neighborhood. There is no reason to pick Norton Avenue as a redevelopment site because that `� doesn't fit in with the Comprehensive Plan. It's not listed as a redevelopment site. Again, she would like the Planning Commission, the City Council, the staff to try and remember that, although they are meeting the needs of the Comprehensive Plan, they are not meeting the needs of the citizens who live here, work here, and would like to stay here. Mr. Kondrick asked Ms. Stromberg whether Mr. Juaire does own the property? Ms. Stromberg replied, yes, she believed that he did. Ms. Cindy Mabel, 1214 Norton Avenue, stated when she first moved to Norton Avenue, it was all single-family homes and lots of open space, and it was zoned R-2. During the 1980s, many duplexes were built on this street because that fit with the R-2 zoning. At some point, it changed to R-3 zoning. The only reason she believed it could have changed was because of this apartment building at the end of the street. She assumes 1284-1294 Norton is zoned R-3. There weren't very big yards, but it was still a neighborhood, and people still knew each other. ; She would like to get some information about when that zoning changed and who was notified, because nobody ever contacted her about it. Now because it was zoned to R-3 back then, Mr. Juaire has the opportunity to come in and put in these multi-unit dwellings. This will very much change their neighborhood. Ms. Mabel stated the property at 1275 Norton where Mr. Juaire wants to put in four units with double car garages, she does know that there is not going to be any space on this street from ,� the overflow from the apartments and with all of the tightness of the double bungalows. There is no extra parking. She is very much concemed what is going to happen down at the cul-de- sac because he has eight units going in there, 1152-1170. Mr. Juaire says they have double garages and there are also spots in front of the garage. If these places have two to three bedrooms like he says, they are probably going to have two cars. She just doesn't see where these people are going to park. Mr. Oquist pointed out there is also a 17-foot driveway in front of the each of the garages. Mr. Juaire has a two-car garage plus a finro-car driveway for each unit. Mr. Kondrick stated there is enough parking for two cars, finro cars in front of each garage, for example. Ms. Mabel stated she is curious about Stipulation 11 -- $1,500 per unit for this park dedication fee. She would like to know if Mr. Juaire paid this for this 8 units, because she doesn't remember it for the first project. Mr. Kondrick replied he is on the Park & Recreation Commission, and he can assure her that Mr. Juaire did pay the park dedication fees. Ms. Mabel stated that given the density that they expect to see here, she has every reason to believe that the property values are going to be reduced. This has been her nest egg. She has been here 32 years; she has raised two children on just her income. She also had a question about the square footage of these yards. At the first Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Juaire said these units were going to have 1,700 square feet a piece. She has watched � these units being built, and she didn't believe they have 1,700 square feet. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 2003 PAGE 5 � Mr. Oquist stated these are two-level units. Ms. Mabel stated she understands that. She asked if the City even listens to the neighbors, because a lot more neighbors will be coming to the City Council meeting if the Planning Commission approves it. She would also like to know if they can ask Mr. Juaire right now how many units he wants to put on the other end. The third unit to be put in. Those are perfect starter homes. There is nothing wrong with either one of those homes. Having lived on that street for 32 years, she has been in every home on that street. The owner of the smaller house has spent all kinds of money remodeling, and he just put on a new roof about two years ago. He is being offered more than the asking price so of course he is going to be tempted to sell. Both of them are being offered more. She didn't know why Norton Avenue has to take on the burden of another 8 more units and 25-foot lots when she sees other properly for sale in Fridley where maybe he could build. Why does it have to be all condensed in Norton Manor as he calls it? Mr. Tom Myhra, President and Chair of the Concemed Citizens of Fridley, 6360 Able Street NE, stated he wondered if the Planning Commission members were ever told that they are a separate body. They do not work for the City Council; they are beholden to the public. When he was on the Planning Commission, they would have never dreamed of asking City staff to tell them how to vote. When the Commission members see themselves as working for the City, and they forget their purpose which is actually to represent the people as an individual and as a group, then their purpose is useless. Mr. Kondrick asked Mr. Myhra if he had something to say about this plat request. �� Mr. Myhra stated he didn't feel that the people have been represented, they didn't know about this redevelopment. . Mr. Kondrick stated he has been a member of this Commission for many years, and not one of the Commission members take their position lightly. Mr. Paul Norton, 1251 Norton Avenue, stated the developer is just trying to put too many people in too small a space. They are getting to the point where there is no where to park on that road, especially in the wintertime. In the winter time, he has trouble with people trying to park right across his driveway. Ms. Reynolds stated she has one question regarding the sheathing put on the outside of the home. She recently watched a program where there is considerable concem regarding wafer board sheathing having issues with mold and mold deterioration, water damage, etc. Is Mr. Juaire using wafer board sheathing as it is a cheaper product which helps reduce the cost of building new construction, and is this building material allowed in Fridley? Ms. Stromberg replied, no, she did not know the answer to those questions. She could check with the Building Official, and they could also ask Mr. Juaire if he is indeed using it. Mr. Juaire stated each of the units they are dealing with today are going to be 1,600 square feet, slightly under 800 square feet on the lower level and slightly over 800 square feet on the upper level. The 1,700 square foot units that were talked about at the end of the block are 800 square feet on the lower level and 900 square feet on the upper level. Identical units are ,�-� planned for the third phase as to the 8. Regarding Ms. Reynolds' last question, the Uniform Building Code does allow OSB, Saran Board, a commonly used material but not for townhomes. Townhomes are required to have an entire periphery of one-hour bum which is a PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 2003 PAGE 6 special water-resistant chips and sheathing which is what they put on these units. OSB is ^ allowed on garage but on the building the residence itself, a one-hour burn is required around v the entire building which is how these are being constructed. Mr. Kondrick asked if there will be enough room to have two cars parked in front of each garage. Mr. Juaire stated Ms. Stromberg can verify the minimum requirement in front of the garages. For example the design on the first addition is the driveway runs perpendicular to the drive that goes into the garage, and the space in front of the garage is a minimum of 20 feet. In addition to that, there is a 25-foot drive. The same thing is on the second addition, but the driveway isn't going perpendicular — it's just going straight out to the street. Actually the minimum setback is 25 feet, and the setback from the curb to the garage is 35 feet. Mr. Kondrick asked how many feet are from the back of the proposed unit to the property line. Ms. Stromberg stated it is 33%Z feet. Mr. Oquist asked if Mr. Juaire owns the property? Mr. Juaire replied, yes, he closed on it a month ago, and it's not surprising that Anoka County has not caught up within a month's timeframe. Mr. Saba asked him if he has attempted to call a neighborhood meeting to let the neighbors know what his plans are for the second or third phases, just to get their input and maybe �.� answer some questions before it comes to a Commission meeting. Mr. Juaire replied that is a good idea. There are people that talked with a worker at the construction site of the first addition that was very much in favor of it but didn't come to the meeting. Mr. Saba stated there apparently have also been some problems with construction crews starting too early. Mr. Juaire replied the construction crews don't start before 7:00 a.m. which is the requirement. Mr. Saba stated he had heard that they were not to start before 8:00 a.m. Ms. Stromberg replied that was not a stipulation. Construction hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Mr. Saba stated he just picked up on some general disrespect for the neighboring properties, digging without asking permission, etc., and asked if those issues could be addressed up front with the neighbors. Mr. Juaire stated they certainly could. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED � THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:14 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 2003 PAGE 7 n Mr. Saba asked about the townhomes reducing the character of the neighborhood. they are probably starting to encroach on the character of a neighborhood and might be really starting to change it. Is there any consideration at all at staff level for that part of the Comprehensive Plan, and where do they cross the line where they completely change the character of the neighborhood? They have gone from single-family homes and a few duplexes to apartments and now townhouses. Ms. Stromberg replied every time Mr. Juaire has submitted a plat application, the Development Review Committee that consists of numerous staff members meets to discuss the development, the neighborhood, what the building is going to look like, what is best going to fit into the neighborhood, and those types of things. As long as Mr. Juaire is meeting all the requirements of the City Code, staff really can't recommend denial of the request. She does believe that before his next plat goes to the Council on June 9, they are going to be looking a bit further into his third phase; but, again, she doesn't see how it can be denied as long as he is meeting the requirements. Mr. Saba stated the concept of changing the character of the neighborhood from single-family residential to a bunch of townhomes is quite an impact. Mr. Kuechle stated the impact really happened when the property was zoned R-3. Ms. Stromberg replied the 1986 Zoning Map shows this neighborhood as zoned R-3. She would have to dig back further to find out when it was rezoned. ,.� Mr. Kuechle stated he would recommend to City Council approval of the plat, although he hears what the neighbors are saying in terms of it changing the character of the neighborhood. This proposal does meet all the City Code requirements. It is zoned R-3, the proposal is R-3, and Mr. Juaire doesn't need any variances to build. It's changing a single-family residence to four residences. It's adding 3 more units so it might change the traffic slightly. Mr. Oquist stated he would agree with that. He thinks they have enough stipulations to control the landscape of the building. It is R-3 zoning and, they can't look at the third development because they don't know what that is going to be. They have to just look at the current development. Mr. Saba stated what Mr. Oquist and Mr. Kuechle said is true, but he would urge the developer to meet with the neighbors to answer some of their questions as there is a lot of anxiety regarding the development. Other than that, he agrees with what has been said about the R-3 zoning. This area is zoned for this development, and any objections should have been made at the time of the rezoning. Mr. Dunham replied he is okay with the preliminary plat request. Townhomes are nice housing, and he believed the neighbors are going to surprised at how nice it will be. Townhomes also sell well. Mr. Kondrick stated he would vote in favor of approval of the preliminary plat. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend to City Council approval of preliminary plat, PS #03-03, with the following stipulations: � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 2003 PAGE 8 1. The final landscape plan shall meet code requirements for number of and size of � plantings and be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a � building permit. 2. All landscaped areas shall have imgation installed. 3. 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 4. Columns shown on the right and left elevations of the building plans shall be constructed using a masonry material. 5. Shakes shown on the front and rear elevation shall be wrapped around to the right and left elevations. 6. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted and approved by the City's engineering staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. A utility plan shall be submitted and approved by the City's engineering staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. Individual services will be required for each unit. 9. A 12-foot utility and drainage easement shall be granted along the entire northem edge of the property prior to final plat. 10. All elements of the building shall meet the current building code and be approved by the City Building Official. 11. The petitioner shall pay an applicable park dedication fee of $1,500 per unit prior to the issuance of any building permits. 12. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 13. 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. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 7, 2003, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to receive the April 7, 2003, Parks & Recreation Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 23, 2003, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the April 23, 2003, Appeals Commission meeting minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Stromberg stated the next Planning Commission meeting is June 4, and they have two items. The June 11th meeting is cancelled. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 2003 PAGE 9 �1 ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MAY 21, 2003, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:26 P.M. RespectFully submitted, �°►�e�t�..O�� Denise M. Letendre� Recording Secretary � /``�