Loading...
PL 06/04/2003 - 30907CITY OF FRIDLEY � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 2003 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the June 4, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Brad Dunham, Barb Johns Members Absent: Larry Kuechle, Dean Saba Others Present: Stacy Stromberg, Planner Michael Juaire, PMJ Group Inc. Cindy Mabel, 1214 Norton Avenue NE Luanne Prater, 1215 Norton Avenue NE Paul Larsen, 6460 Squire Drive NE Neil Itzen, 1175 Norton Avenue NE APPROVE THE MAY 21 2003. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: ^ MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the May 21, 2003, Planning Commission meeting minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat, PS #0-304, by Michael Juaire, for the construction of a six-unit townhome development, legally described as Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision #89, generally located at 1163 and 1175 Norton Avenue NE. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:33 P.M. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is requesting to replat the property located at 1163 and 1175 Norton Avenue to create seven separate lots from part of Lots 4 and 5, Auditor's Subdivision #89, in order to construct a six-unit renter-occupied townhome development. This is the third plat request submitted by Michael Juaire for a townhome development on Norton Avenue. Ms. Stromberg stated the property located at 1175 Norton Avenue is zoned R-3, Multi-Family, as are all surrounding properties. The existing home and garage were built in 1958, and both of these structures will need to be removed in order to accommodate the proposed townhome n development. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 2003 PAGE 2 Ms. Stromberg stated the property at 1163 Norton Avenue is zoned R-3, Multi-Family, as are all � of the surrounding properties to the north, east, and south. The property to the west is zoned M-1, Light Industrial. The existing home was constructed in 1953, and the existing garage was `� constructed in 1958. Again, both of these structures will be removed to accommodate the proposed townhome development. Ms. Stromberg stated that City Code requires lots in the R-3, Multi-Family, zoning district to have a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet for a 4-unit dwelling with an additional 1,000 square feet for each unit over 4. The subject property is 25,960 square feet which exceeds the minimum requirements. The proposed townhome development also meets all setback and lot coverage requirements. Ms. Stromberg stated a public hearing was held at the May 21, 2003, Planning Commission meeting for the second plat request on Norton Avenue. At that meeting, the neighbors brought up the issue of the zoning of Norton Avenue. She stated this block of Norton Avenue was rezoned from R-1 Single Family, to R-3, Multi-Family, on August 19, 1963. A public hearing was held on June 13, 1963, at the Planning Commission meeting and was continued to the June 27, 1963, Planning Commission meeting to deliver notices to the neighborhood. At the June 27, 1963, Planning Commission meeting, no one opposed the rezoning. Therefore, the rezoning request was approved by the City Council on August 19, 1963. It appears that the vision of the City Council was to allow higher density in this area. Mr. Juaire's requests are bringing that area closer to that vision. Ms. Stromberg stated Mr. George Norton, the petitioner for the 1963 rezoning request, stated at the June 13, 1963, public hearing that this was the only remaining residential portion in the area ^ and, therefore, he wished to rezone it so that the full value of the property could be obtained. The Comprehensive Plan designates the 2020 future land use of this area as redevelopment. Redevelopment is described in the Comprehensive Plan as a form of community revitalization that transforms undesirable elements into desirable elements that reflects the community's collective vision. The purposes of redevelopment are to remove older blighted structures and to provide the opportunity for more efficient land uses and eliminate inefFcient land uses that under-utilize parcels. Ms. Stromberg stated the Norton Avenue block is categorized under Redevelopment No. 1 in the Comprehensive Plan which also includes the salvage yards in the northem part of the City. It states that the multiple family properties located on Norton Avenue may be eligible for rental, rehabilitation programs. The City should also pursue aggressive code enforcement to assist in eliminating any negative impacts resulting from illegal outdoor storage or other code enforcement problems. The redevelopment section of this area doesn't specify that this area should be used for anything other than multi-family. Ms. Stromberg stated that any time something new is constructed in a neighborhood, the existing neighbors may view the changes negatively and an alteration to the character of the area. However, the intent of the 1963 rezoning was to accommodate multi-family in this neighborhood. Adding these additional townhome developments is consistent with the decisions made by the City Council 40 years ago. Ms. Stromberg stated the Fridley City Code states that construction hours are between the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., Monday through Friday, and befinreen the hours of 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. on Saturdays and legal holidays. Any work activity on Sunday is unlawful. Mr. Juaire and his � construction crew will be obligated to meet these requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 2003 PAGE 3 Ms. Stromberg stated that regarding neighborhood comments, Mrs. Reynolds called her that ^ day stating that she wouldn't be able to attend tonight's meeting but asked that her concems be mentioned for the record. It was Mrs. Reynolds' understanding that there is an underground spring that exists at 1163 Norton Avenue which required the existing house to have a special foundation, and she would like the City's engineering staff to investigate that. She was also wondering if the new structures do not have basements, if Mr. Juaire will be providing some type of storm shelter. She would also like the City to provide more notice to the neighborhood the next time the water main is shut off. She was also wondering if follow-up information could be provided to the neighborhood as to procedures to take for the restart of hot water heaters and other appliances. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff recommends approval of the replat request with stipulations as it provides additional housing opportunities for Fridley residents. If the plat is approved, staff recommends the following stipulations: 1. The final landscape plans 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 and 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 brick. 5. Shakes shown on the front and rear elevation shall be wrapped around to the right and left elevations for a consistent four-sided appearance. � 6. For architectural consistency, all windows on front shall have shutters installed. 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. A utility plan shall be submitted and approved by the City's engineering staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. Individual services will be required for each unit. 10. A 12-foot utility and drainage easement shall be granted along the entire no�them edge of the property prior to final plat. 11. The proposed rain gardens located on the property shall be properly maintained. 12. All elements of the building shall meet the current building code and be approved by the City Building Official. 13. The petitioner shall pay applicable park dedication fees of $1,500 per unit prior to the issuance of any building permits. 14. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 15. Reconfigure driveways so that both units with shared driveways have equal widths of street frontage. 16. 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. Kondrick asked what the proposed rain gardens are referenced in stipulation #11. Ms. Stromberg replied the rain gardens are a way to store the water runoff. It's similar to a pond, a low area on the site where all the water runoff can be located with some kind of �,-� vegetation. Ms. Johns stated it usually has flowers and vegetations surrounding it. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 2003 PAGE 4 Mr. Kondrick asked if they were talking about a 12-foot by 24-foot area. Ms. Stromberg stated s he would refer that question to Mr. Juaire. Mr. Oquist asked about the spring issue brought up by the neighbor. Did she have a chance to check on that? Ms. Stromberg replied, no, as the neighbor called about 4:30 that aftemoon. She would check on that issue the next day. Mr. Michael Juaire, PMJ Group Inc., stated the rain gardens are similar to the Norton No. 1 infiltration ponds that are meant to control the flow. Basically, runoff from the site itself is directed towards the pond. The two ponds are approximately 12-15 feet in diameter, and they have some special deep-rooted vegetation that goes around them to try and control erosion; but they have all water running into them and then a controlled outlet that goes into Norton creek. Mr. Kondrick asked about how deep the rain gardens going to be. Mr. Juaire replied these would be 3 feet or less, about 2%Z feet. The one at Norton No. 1 is handling pretty close to an acre and is about 3%2 feet deep. The new proposed area is just over half an acre. Mr. Kondrick asked if they put rock around the perimeter. /."\ Mr. Juaire stated they actually use a special seed mixture, inspected by MnDOT, who uses it in � heavy water areas, like roadsides. MnDOT 25B is a special seed mixture that will germinate and live in heavy moisture areas, along with some deep-rooted vegetation that most people will likely recognize in marshy areas. However, he is choosing pussy willows in this area. In this particular case, it was also requested as one of the stipulations by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Ms. Savage asked if he had any problems with any of the stipulations. Mr. Juaire replied he did not. Regarding the question by the neighbor about the spring, this is the first time he had heard that. There is a full soils engineering analysis that is done and is submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a permit. In addition to that, 1163 Norton is different from others properties in that area; 1175 and 1170 just to the east and one just to the south, are slab on grade. The property at 1163 Norton has a full basement. These properties are slab on grade so the basement floor of 1163 is eight feet lower than what this property is going to be. If there were any significant water issues, the former homeowner would have known about it. Mr. Juaire stated he has been in the basement and walked around his house, so he would be surprised if there was an issue there. However, it will definitely be evaluated by the engineers as they go down 16 feet. Mr. Kondrick asked if these units will have basements. Mr. Juaire replied, no. They will be slab on grade. That was the issue brought up with respect to the storm shelters. Slab on grade type of construction is pretty common. Three out of the five homes he has purchased to do the development on this were slab on grade before. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 2003 PAGE 5 ^ Ms. Leanne Prater, 1215 Norton Avenue NE, stated she lives just east of the property they are talking about this evening. One of her big concems is the traffic. Currently they have a minimal amount of traffic on their street since it is a dead-end street. With all these new homes coming in, they could have up to a minimum of 40 additional cars on the street. Another concem is about the parking. She knows there will be double garages as well as two parking spots in front, but there is limited parking on the street because there are so many multi-family homes. She wondered if the street could be posted "no parking ovemight" so people don't leave their cars on the street indefinitely. She was also concemed about the construction working hours. She thought that it was 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in a residential area so she was concemed about 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. as that is getting rather late. Ms. Prater stated she has several big trees on her lot. She is concemed that with the construction and digging that some of those roots may be cut, and she may lose some of those trees. Who takes care of removing those trees once they are dead or is that just her problem? Ms. Prater stated there is an apartment complex to the north of her and a duplex to the east, and both of those residences have privacy fences. She has talked to Mr. Juaire about a privacy fence, and he is willing to work with them on a fence. She stated she greatly appreciates that. Ms. Prater stated over 30 children live on this street and right now, since there is such a low amount of traffic, a lot of them play in the street, and the cars have to drive slowly. She asked if the City can put a sign at the beginning of their road, °Slow-Children at Play". She is hoping this new townhome development will make their neighborhood nice, and she is willing to work with Mr. Juaire. � Mr. Paul Larsen, 6460 Squire Drive, stated he is the current owner of 1200 Norton Avenue, which was George Norton's original homestead. They are now the fourth generation owners of that house. All the single-family homes that are on Norton Avenue were built by his wife's grandfather, father, uncle, and great uncle. Most of the houses that have been removed already were built out of scrap and salvaged materials and were definitely an undesirable element in that neighborhood. In the early 50s, no one really cared. Some of those houses were built out of abandoned railroad cars and things like that. He has spent 20 years in the residential construction business and three years selling real estate, and he can tell them that the product Mr. Juaire is putting on their block right now is far superior to the homes he has tom down and the homes he is planning to tear down in the future. Mr. Larsen stated regarding the underground spring at 1163 Norton, that house was built by his father-in-law, and he was never told of any problems when the foundation was put in. A tax forfeit lot immediately to the west is part of the watershed going out that direction, and if there were any springs, they would be on that tax forfeit lot as opposed to the lot at 1163 Norton. Mr. Larsen stated he is highly in favor of Mr. Juaire's project. It is a valuable addition to the neighborhood, and everyone's appraised home values and quality of life are going to be greatly improved. Ms. Cindy Mabel, 1214 Norton Avenue NE, stated she is opposed to the extent that Norton Avenue is being developed. At the last Planning Commission meeting, she asked for an explanation of how zoning on this street went from R-1 to R-3. Ms. Stromberg was kind enough to get that information. However, that zoning did not change in 1963 as Ms. Stromberg had � reported. She bought her house in 1971, and it was zoned R-2, Two Family Dwellings. She can bring in the papers to show that. It went from R-1 to R-2 in 1963. When she bought her house in 1971, the neighborhood was zoned R-2. Somehow the zoning changed from R-2 to R-3, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 2003 PAGE 6 Multi-family, in the late 80s to accommodate the apartment building at the end of the street. ^ She stated she really needed to be satisfied as to why the zoning went from R-2 to R-3 without her being notified. J Mr. Oquist replied that it is on the record that the zoning went to R-3 in 1963. Ms. Mabel replied that maybe she was sold her house under false pretenses. Mr. Oquist stated that may have happened. Ms. Mabel stated she is concemed about the density; is very concemed about the parking, and is concemed about the loss of trees. These are all things that make the quality of life in Fridley good, livable and habitable. She would like to point out that the finro homes they are talking about are not nearly in as bad condition as the properly at 1470 Norton which was a terrible home that needed to be condemned. These two remaining houses would make good starter homes, providing affordable housing for young people and lower income people. These homes would be far more affordable than to rent one of Mr. Juaire's townhouses at around $1,100 or $1,200 a month. Ms. Mabel stated her biggest issue is providing some kind of parking area to accommodate this development on the cul-de-sac. She is talking about the original 8 townhomes that are under construction now and the proposed 6 townhomes that Mr. Juaire wants to add. That is 14 units in a small cul-de-sac, and no one can park in the cul-de-sac. Not everyone wants to use both spots in their driveway when they need to get cars out of the garage, and you don't want to block your access in and out of your garage. So some extra parking is needed. If these people ^ want to have guests over, she doesn't know where they are going to park. What Mr. Juaire is proposing now is not adequate. She wants to propose that somehow a small parking area be put in to accommodate these 14 townhome residents. Ms. Mabel stated everything Mr. Juaire has asked for he has gotten, and he hasn't been the most considerate developer to work with. They have had unlicensed trucks/vehicles on their street that are not supposed to be on city streets. Construction is occumng at odd hours, on Sunday and after 9:00 p.m. He was told at the last Planning Commission that he should have a neighborhood meeting to address some of these issues. She believed the neighborhood meeting consisted of his approaching one neighbor today. She took up a petition at the initial meeting for the eight-plex and she got over 30 signatures who were opposed to the high density. She is asking the Planning Commission to consider the concems of people like her who have lived on that street for 32 years and care about their property, especially the parking issue. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:04 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated the Council will also have a chance to hear the neighbors' comments. There are 16 stipulations that the developer will have to follow. The Planning Commission has always been very careful about proposed developments, how buildings are going to look, etc. For these reasons, he is in favor of the preliminary plat. ,� Mr. Oquist stated he agreed and also suggested that Mr. Juaire talk to his contractors and make sure they are not coming in on Sundays or working until 10 o'clock at night. He would be in PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 2003 PAGE 7 � favor of looking at the possibility of recommending to the Council that the street be signed for no ' parking between certain hours. Mr. Kondrick commented that there is only parking on one-half of his street. Mr. Oquist stated maybe that is another possibility. Other than that, this seems to be a very good development, and it should help the area. Ms. Johns stated she is glad to see that rain gardens are involved. She is also glad that the Rice Creek Watershed District has been involved as they would anywhere along that creek. She did think that a°Children at Play" sign would be a good idea as well. People should always be careful how they drive no matter what street they are on, especially when children are involved. Mr. Juaire seems to be following the rules, and he has met all the requirements; however, she also understands the neighbors' concems. One of her concems is the deconstruction of these houses, whether everything would go to the landfill, but it doesn't sound like much of the materials would be very good for deconstruction as it has already been re-used once. She doesn't like to see a lot of trees cut down. She hopes that Mr. Juaire will try to keep as many trees as possible and put in nice plantings along the whole property and adjacent to the neighbors. She thinks the sign issue can be addressed with the City staff and that they would be receptive to that. Mr. Kondrick asked if the developer is being restricted regarding the number of trees that can be removed. � Ms. Stromberg replied stipulation #1 addresses a landscape plan. Before Mr. Juaire can pull a building permit, the landscape plan needs to be approved by City staff which requires a specific amount of plantings per development. Ms. Johns stated the houses are going in the center part of all the properties so she is assuming that most of the trees are around each of the townhouses as they exist. Are there perimeter trees that are going to be kept? Ms. Stromberg replied she believed so. She hasn't yet reviewed the landscape plan on this plat because they don't have the final plan, but there are trees around the perimeter and if Mr. Juaire keeps those, he receives credit. The Code definitely addresses trees and makes sure that he is replacing the trees that are taken down. Mr. Dunham replied he is okay with the plan and he likes what is going on. He thinks the neighborhood will be improved by the townhouses. Regarding the 30 children in the neighborhood, can the Planning Commission do anything about the signage? Ms. Stromberg stated it is something she will bring up to the Public Works Department, and she is pretty certain they will be willing to accommodate that request. Mr. Dunham replied he thinks they need to do everything they can with respect to that part of it. Ms. Savage stated there appears to be a lot of misunderstanding about the zoning of the street. This area is, in fact, zoned R-3 and has been for 40 years. It is a multi-family area. That is why it is being developed as multi-family, and that is why the single-family homes are being removed. � Mr. Juaire is clearly within the law in having this development. The development meets city code requirements for lot size and setback and lot coverage and, additionally, it appears it will be an asset to the neighborhood. She can understand it is something different for the neighbors to get PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 2003 PAGE 8 used to. Hopefully, it will work out a lot better than their thinking is right now. She would � support and go along with the recommendations made by the other Commission members. Ms. Stromberg replied that she would like to restate that the property was rezoned from R-1, Single Family, to R-3, Multi-Family, on August 19, 1963, by the City Council. That is the research that is on record, and she would be happy to provide any information that is needed to the neighbors. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend to City Council approval of Preliminary Plat, PS #03-04, by Michael Juaire for the construction of a six-unit townhome development, legally described as Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision #89, generally located at 1163 and 1175 Norton Avenue NE with the following stipulations 1. The final landscape plans 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 and 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 brick. 5. Shakes shown on the front and rear elevation shall be wrapped around to the right and left elevations for a consistent four-sided appearance. 6. For architectural consistency, all windows on front shall have shutters installed. 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. A utility plan shall be submitted and approved by the City's engineering staff prior to - issuance of a building permit. 9. Individual services will be required for each unit. 10. A 12-foot utility and drainage easement shall be granted along the entire northem edge of the property prior to final plat. 11. The proposed rain gardens located on the property shall be properly maintained. 12. All elements of the building shall meet the current building code and be approved by the City Building Official. 13. The petitioner shall pay applicable park dedication fees of $1,500 per unit prior to the issuance of any building permits. 14. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 15. Reconfigure driveways so that both units with shared driveways have equal widths of street frontage. 16. 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, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Savage stated this will go to City Council on June 23. 2. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 14 2003 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Johns, to receive the Minutes of the May 14, 2003, �� Appeals Commission Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 2003 PAGE 9 ^ UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 1. 2003, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the Minutes of the May 1, 2003, Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 20. 2003. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the Minutes of the May 20, 2003, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission Meeting. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Stromberg stated they do have one item on the agenda for the June 18 Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Dunham, to adjoum the meeting. � UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE JUNE 4 2003, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:16 P.M. RespectFully submitted, �7sw�.�. G��Ces-, Denise M. Letendre � Recording Secretary ,�"1