Loading...
PLM 05/15/2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 15, 2013 Chairperson Kondrick called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: David Kondrick, Brad Dunham, Brad Sielaff, and Jack Velin, MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Solberg Dean Saba, and Leroy Oquist OTHERS PRESENT: Stacy Stromberg, Planner Rick Shermer, Shermer Homes Inc. th Brad and Kathy Hove, 891 – 66 Avenue NE th Glen Douglas, 871 – 66 Avenue NE th Bart Douglas, 871 – 66 Avenue NE Charles Shields, 925 Mississippi Street NE APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: April 17, 2013 MOTION by Commissioner Velin to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Consideration of a Lot Split, LS #13-01, by Shermer Homes Inc., to subdivide the property at 925 Mississippi Street to make two single-family lots. MOTION by Commissioner Dunham to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Velin. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:06 P.M. MOTION by Commissioner Dunham receiving letter from Dennis and Karen Digeros (sp.) in opposition to this property lot split. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Stacy Stromberg , Planner, stated Rick Shermer, of Shermer Homes Inc., on behalf of the property owner of 925 Mississippi Street, is seeking a lot split, to sub-divide the property to create a new single family lot. The home that already exists on the southern portion of the lot will remain in place and the subdivision will allow for the construction of a new home on the northern portion of the lot. Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family, as are all surrounding properties. The existing home and garage were constructed in 1950. Planning Commission May 15, 2013 Page 2 of 9 Ms. Stromberg stated Fridley City Code requires that single-family lots in the R-1 zoning district be a minimum of 75 feet in width with a minimum total lot area of 9,000 square feet. The subject property is a large single family lot at 31,700 square feet. The petitioner would like to split off the “North 117 feet” to allow the creation of a new single family lot. After the split, the new lot will be 11,700 square feet in size and 117 feet wide. The lot with the existing house on it will be 21,000 square feet and 100 feet wide. As a result both lots are well over the minimum lot size and lot width requirement. Ms. Stromberg stated Section 211 of the Subdivision ordinance allows a lot split when a parcel can be subdivided through the use of a simply fraction. The proposed subdivision splits the large lot by one- third north: two-thirds south, therefore, meeting the intent of the ordinance. Ms. Stromberg stated the lot for the existing home will continue to meet all required setback and lot coverage requirements and there is adequate room for the new home to comply with all code requirements as well. Ms. Stromberg stated as was just received by the Commission the City did receive a letter from the th neighbor at 870 – 66 Avenue. In their letter they state that the proposed lot split would ruin the beautiful nature views for all neighbors and it would affect their property value. As a result they are not in favor of approval of the lot split. Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of this lot split request with stipulations as it does meet the minimum standards as outlined in the Zoning Code. Also, it does provide additional homeownership opportunities. Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends that if the lot split is granted, the following stipulations be attached: 1. All necessary permits shall be obtained prior to construction on new home. 2. Grading and drainage plan to be approved by City’s engineering staff prior to the issuance of any building permits, in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding properties. 3. Property owner, at time of building permit application, shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 4. Property owner, at time of building permit application for the construction of the single family home, shall pay $750.00 required park dedication fee. 5. Property owner at time, of building permit application for the construction of the single family home, shall pay all water and sewer connection fees. Chairperson Kondrick stated one of the concerns of the letter writer is they felt the new property owners were going to build their house without the proper setbacks from the road. It is time to dispel that and make sure they are on the right track and that all those setbacks are important and are going to be followed and adhered to. Is that correct? Ms. Stromberg replied, what the person who was writing the letter was stating is back in 1976 there was a variance request to do something very similar on this property. They were going to split it and then the variance was actually to reduce the front yard setback. At that time the petitioner ended up withdrawing and nothing was built. She does not have building plans that were submitted with this lot split request, Planning Commission May 15, 2013 Page 3 of 9 but the builder does know that in order to build something here he would need to meet Code requirements. The front yard setback is 25 feet now. Commissioner Dunham asked, how deep is the lot? Ms. Stromberg replied, it is 100 feet. It would be 100 feet x 117 feet. Chairperson Kondrick astated and that meets the minimum lot requirement by quite a bit. Ms. Stromberg replied, yes, it does. Commissioner Dunham asked, the rear yard setback is 25 feet? Ms. Stromberg replied, it is 25 percent of the lot depth, and in this case 25 feet. The builder sketched in the location of the potential house, that can be seen on the plan submitted. The Commission can certainly talk to the builder about what type of home he is considering constructing. Rick Shermer , Shermer Homes Inc., stated he met with the City Planner before he submitted his request to make sure that everything that is required by the City can be met. He said he believed he could go as close as 10 feet to the property line on the garage side, and 15 feet on the house side. Ms. Stromberg stated it is actually 5 feet on the garage side and 10 feet on the house side. Mr. Shermer stated he could build a 100 by 50 foot house basically. The one he is planning now is about 32 feet deep and 48 feet wide. He believes in being neighborly. With the house he plans on building he is going to be 10 feet off the right side of the property line. That way it will give the neighbor to the north close to 40 feet away from his house. He does not believe in cutting all the trees down, he tries to limit the number of trees he needs to take down. He has to dig up the street because there is an old sewer line, etc. He has talked to everyone about how he has to go about doing that. Technically if he did not want to be neighborly he could be 5 feet off the property line on the north side, but that is not the right way of doing it. You have to work with everybody. He sees both sides. He is actually a councilmember and on the planning commission in his city, and he understands people’s views. He is trying to build the home so there is the least amount of impact to the neighbors. Commissioner Dunham asked if he already knew what he is building there? Mr. Shermer replied, yes, he has plans. It is going to be about a 1,500 square foot split entry. To keep the depth and width, he is doing a three-car garage on the right side and will have three bedrooms, two baths on top and kitchen and living room on the left hand side. No windows will be on the left-hand side and creates privacy for people on that side with a patio door on the back. Commissioner Dunham asked if that was 1,500 square feet on one level or both levels? Mr. Shermer replied, both levels. With a three-car garage that will be 32 x 26 feet deep. He has to do more dirt work by putting the garage on the right-hand side because of the higher banks. That way he is not having traffic going straight in to make the corner. He actually put a flag on the fence on site to show where the 117 feet is. Planning Commission May 15, 2013 Page 4 of 9 th Brian Hove , 891 - 66 Avenue NE, stated he is the neighbor to the north of this property. They have lived in Fridley for 22 years. During that time they have had this beautiful lot next to them with big pine thth trees. The home is build right on 66 where Able and 66 come together. His front window, his front door, his bathroom window, his bedroom window are 13 feet from the property line. The new neighbors are right at the line. Their privacy is going to be minimized at this point. He heard about the garage being built next to the home so the windows are looking into the garage and the windows not facing their windows which is more comforting to them. Mr. Hove stated they also have an issue with drainage. The lot does slope. He is not a civil engineer, but he would say it was maybe a 30-degree slope; and now with a home and driveway there is going to be a certain amount of drainage into their lot. They have a double lot, too, but their second lot is locked and you cannot get to it. They are concerned with drainage because they have had water in their basement. They did build the pond there, and that helped to hold some of the water in the area. However, they are concerned with recreating a problem that they did have at one time. That is a big concern. Mr. Hove stated also “safety” was something they are concerned about. /They are right on a curve and where the driveway of the new home is going to come out, people are coming around that corner. For somebody coming out of the driveway, there could be problems there. With the slope of the property, people are coming down Able and can create speed. Kathy Hove , 891 – 66th Avenue NE, asked Chairperson Kondrick whether he has been out to look at the land? Chairperson Kondrick replied, yes, he just drove by there. Ms. Hove stated it really is on an incline. Chairperson Kondrick replied, one of the stipulations, and it is an important one not only with this lot but all other lots they do this for whether they be commercial or residential, is the City insists there is a drainage plan. They cannot have any water running anywhere with it causing troubles. The water should be retained on the property where the project is at. Mr. Shermer also mentioned he will have the driveway down on the right-hand side so the driveway issue Mr. Hove talked about, and he understands Mr. Hove’s point of view, is going to be down around and past the curve so they will be able to get into the three-car garage past that. Ms. Hove stated they just have 13 feet from the property line to their front door. She is relatively concerned with the privacy. Chairperson Kondrick replied, there will not be any windows on that side, which is a good thing. The builder must have thought about potential neighbor concerns when putting together a plan. . He appreciates that they will not have the same privacy as before with nothing there. Commissioner Dunham stated the other thing is Code is 10 feet for living area for most of the City, is it not? Ms. Stromberg replied, yes. Commissioner Dunham stated there are a lot of people that are 10 feet from their lot lines. Planning Commission May 15, 2013 Page 5 of 9 Ms. Hove stated she really feels that their property values are going to go down with this. It is like a house right on top of their home. Chairperson Kondrick replied, it certainly will be a change for them there is no question about that. Commissioner Dunham stated it is a buildable lot. It is designed to meet Code standards. Ms. Hove asked, why did it not go through before? Ms. Stromberg replied, the reason it did not get approved before is because they were asking for a variance for the front yard setback. It had nothing to do with the lot size. The lot has always been big enough to be subdividable. However, at that time, the person who was going to build the house was asking to have reduction in the front yard setback because they did not want to build a longer driveway than they had to because of financial reasons. It sounds like from the minutes she read there was some neighborhood opposition at the time, and then the owner must have decided not to go through with it. He pulled the request and that was back in 1976. Ms. Hove asked whether the neighbors even have any say in this process. It sounds to her the Commission’s decision is made to tell the truth. Chairperson Kondrick replied, in a way it kind of is and here is why. They all hear them and know what their concerns are, and he appreciates that. However, they have somebody who has, by Code, by law, a buildable piece of property. The Code says and the law says that someone can put something on there. If the Commission says, but it has to be “this” far away and “that” far away and “this” deep and have the proper setbacks, the law says, the Code says, it is tough to deny that. The builder and the owner of the property could be angry about that because they are not obeying the law. That is why. Ms. Hove asked, then why are they even here. Chairperson Kondrick replied because you did not know all of these things before you attended the meeting and he understands that. A lot of folks come before them who do not realize some of these laws. Part of their job this evening is to tell them about the laws and make sure the builder better make sure he follows those stipulations because it will not happen if he does not. Commissioner Dunham stated half of the conditions are the drainage, etc. and the approvals are subject to all those things. Subject to building within those certain distances which are the same thing as in the Code. They have to be done right. It is bigger than a lot of single family lots the City has. Chairperson Kondrick stated the stipulations are set making the builder do all these things to protect not only the person buying the home he is building but also to protect the neighbors. They must go along with the Code and the law unless someone can give them a good reason why not, and that has not been proven. Commissioner Dunham stated in 1976 it appears it was a variance. They wanted a special driveway and so it was denied. However, there is no variance being requested here. Planning Commission May 15, 2013 Page 6 of 9 Chairperson Kondrick stated this is a straightforward deal and similar requests have been before them and to their neighbors in Fridley. They understand their concerns. It has not been predetermined but maybe it has, in part because it meets Code requirements and because of the stipulations. Ms. Hove asked whether he saw the incline on the property? Chairperson Kondrick replied, yes. The builder has to figure a way around that because they do not want any water shifting around. th Glen Douglas, 871 – 66 Avenue NE, asked, how many lots have they done this to in Fridley? Chairperson Kondrick replied, as to lots splits? A lot. Commissioner Velin replied, many, many. Commissioner Dunham replied, the corner lots happen more often because you have more frontage. All over the place. Mr. Douglas replied, okay, he just wanted to know how many they have done. th Bart Douglas , 871 – 66 Avenue NE, stated he thought the meeting was conducted very well. The facts are pretty clear, the person has the right to do this, and the builder is being fair. With the proposed split, the lot that Kathy and Brian live on was kind of squeezed in there. To him maybe if you construct a fence on the property line that would help with the privacy. They know the Codes but decency is a little bit different than Codes. Is the current property owner interested in selling more land to them so they can have a front yard or would that squeeze their backyard too much so they could not build a house. Chairperson Kondrick replied, he assumes that somebody talked to somebody about what is the biggest and smallest lot they can have to be able to get a good buildable lot; and they came up with those numbers, 117 x 100 feet. That is a pretty good lot size. Down by the river, for example, that would be a very big lot. He does not know how to answer Mr. Douglas. He asked Ms. Stromberg is he correct so far? Ms. Stromberg replied, the only other question she would entertain is it is up to the property owner whether they are interested in splitting additional land area for the neighbor to purchase. Mr. Shermer stated he is trying to be neighborly. If they are worried about privacy, he could put up a fence. He asked what is the City’s ordinance on fences? Ms. Stromberg replied, you are allowed to do a 7-foot privacy fence in the side or rear yard. Mr. Shermer stated he could a 7-foot privacy fence on the property. Chairperson Kondrick stated to Mr. Shermer he moved that driveway further south. Mr. Shermer replied, he moved it as far south as he could. Technically as long as he does it according to Code he could build it closer to the line; however, that does not help him. It is better he moves it away from the neighbors for the potential buyers and also to give the neighbors privacy. He has drainage on Planning Commission May 15, 2013 Page 7 of 9 the Hoves’ side, from the front to the back. He has 5-foot drainage. Everything drains from the northeast corner. It is probably costing him $5,000 more to put the garage on the right side. MOTION by Commissioner Dunham to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:38 P.M. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff approving Lot Split, LS #13-01, by Shermer Homes Inc., to subdivide the property at 925 Mississippi Street to make two single-family lots with the following stipulations: 1. All necessary permits shall be obtained prior to construction on new home. 2. Grading and drainage plan to be approved by City’s engineering staff prior to the issuance of any building permits, in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding properties. 3. Property owner, at time of building permit application, shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 4. Property owner, at time of building permit application for the construction of the single family home, shall pay $750.00 required park dedication fee. 5. Property owner at time, of building permit application for the construction of the single family home, shall pay all water and sewer connection fees. Seconded by Commissioner Dunham. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING: 2. Consideration of a Vacation, SAV #13-02, by Carlson McCain for William Fogerty, to vacate a public road easement, two sanitary sewer easements and a water main easement on the property at 7011 University Avenue. New easements will be dedicated as part of the new plat that will be filed for the property. MOTION by Commissioner Velin to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:42 P.M. Ms. Stromberg stated Mr. Krystofiak, of Carlson McCain, who is representing Bill Fogerty, the owner of Columbia Arena at 7011 University Avenue, is requesting to vacate an existing public right-of-way easement and three utility easements that will be dedicated on the new plat for the Columbia Arena project, when that is filed at Anoka County. Planning Commission May 15, 2013 Page 8 of 9 Ms. Stromberg stated as the Commission and Council will recall, the petitioner asked and received preliminary plat approval for the subject property to create three lots from the one large lot, to allow for potential redevelopment opportunities. Ms. Stromberg stated as part of the platting process, new utility easements will be dedicated on the new plat; as a result, the existing easements need to be vacated. Ms. Stromberg stated the existing lot lines for the subject property extend beyond the University Avenue st Service Road and 71 Avenue. Therefore, those roadways are on the petitioner’s property through road st easements. Once the new plat is filed, both the University Avenue Service Drive and 71 Avenue will be dedicated to the City. As a result, the right-of –way easements also need to be vacated. Please see attached drawings to show locations of easements to be vacated. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff recommends approval of the easement vacation request, with the following stipulation: 1. The proposed vacation resolution shall be filed at Anoka County prior to the filing of the final plat for “Columbia Arena Addition.” MOTION by Commissioner Dunham to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:48 P.M. MOTION by Commissioner Dunham approving Vacation, SAV #13-02, by Carlson McCain for William Fogerty, to vacate a public road easement, two sanitary sewer easements and a water main easement on the property at 7011 University Avenue. New easements will be dedicated as part of the new plat that will be filed for the property with the following stipulation: 1. The proposed vacation resolution shall be filed at Anoka County prior to the filing of the final plat for “Columbia Arena Addition.” Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Receive the Minutes of the April 4, 2013, Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Dunham to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Receive the Minutes of the April 1, 2013, Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting. Planning Commission May 15, 2013 Page 9 of 9 MOTION by Commissioner Velin to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Dunham. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Stromberg stated the John Allen’s project at 5601 East River Road has not gone to the Council yet because they are doing an EAW (environmental assessment worksheet) right now, and the Council cannot act on that request until the EAW worksheet has been completed. ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Dunham adjourning the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Velin. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:48 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary