Loading...
pca 10/16/2024 Planning Commission Meeting October 16, 2024 7:00 PM Fridley Civic Campus, 7071 University Avenue N.E. Agenda Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Meeting Minutes 1.Approval of the September 18, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Hearing 2.A Variance, VAR 24-01, by Jason Zemke, to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 6.7 feet to allow an addition to an existing nonconforming home, generally located at 257 69th Avenue NE Other Business Adjournment Accessibility Notice: If youneed free interpretation or translation assistance, please contact City staff. Si necesita ayuda de interpretación o traducción gratis, comuníquese con el personal de la ciudad. Yog tias koj xav tau kev pab txhais lus los sis txhais ntaub ntawv dawb, cesthov tiv tauj rau Lub Nroog cov neeg ua hauj lwm. Haddii aad u baahan tahay tarjumaad bilaash ah ama kaalmo tarjumaad, fadlan la xiriir shaqaalaha Magaalada. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any City of Fridley services, programs or activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons who require auxiliary aids should contact CityClerk@FridleyMN.govor (763) 572-3450. 1 Jufn!2/ AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date:October 16, 2024 Meeting Type:Planning Commission Submitted By:Julianne Beberg, Office Coordinator Title Approval of the September 18, 2024,Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Background Attached are the September 18, 2024, Financial Impact None Recommendation Staff recommend the approval of theSeptember 18, 2024,Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachments and Other Resources September 18,2024, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Vision Statement We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses. 2 Jufn!2/ Planning Commission September 18,2024 7:00 PM Fridley City Hall, 7071 University Avenue NE Minutes Call to Order Chair Hansencalled the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:04p.m. Present Pete Borman Aaron Brom Mark Hansen Mike Heuchert Aaron Klemz Absent Ross Meisner Paul Nealy Others Present Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager John and Natasha Lawrence, 6677 Lucia Lane LuAn Throndson, 6620 Lucia Lane John Vardas, 6546 Lucia Lane Approval of Meeting Minutes 1.Approve August 21,2024, Planning Commission Minutes Motionby Commissioner Bormanto approve the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Brom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing 2.Public Hearing to Consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA #24-01 to Change the Future Land Use from Single Family Residential to Multi-Family Residential for the Property Located at 6677 Lucia Lane N.E. Motionby Commissioner Bormanto open the public hearingto consider the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Seconded by Commissioner Brom. 3 Jufn!2/ Planning Commission 9/18/2024 Minutes Page 2 Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing was opened at 7:06 p.m. Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager, asked that the Chair also open the public hearing for the rezoning as she would be presenting the two requests together. Motion by Commissioner Borman to open the public hearing to consider the rezoning. Seconded by Commissioner Brom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing was opened at 7:07 p.m. Ms. Stromberg presented a request for a Comprehensive Plan and Rezoning request from Natasha Lawrence, the applicant. She reviewed the current Comprehensive Plan designation, noting that the request would change the designation from single-family to multi-family, with a similar change to the zoning. She provided background information on the property and stated that the applicant would like to construct a duplex on the property. She provided the analysis of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and Rezoning requests, stating the staff recommends approval of the requests as presented and reviewed the suggested stipulations. Chair Hansen commented that it would appear the garages would be oriented towards the rear of the structure and asked if that is correct. Ms. Stromberg believed that it how the structure would be oriented but noted that the applicant could provide additional details. LuAnn Throndson, 6620 Lucia Lane, commented that she has lived on this street for 40 years and the subject property has not been well maintained since the property was purchased, noting that trash and that the snow is not cleared. She commented that when the property was sold, the residents were told that the property would remain as a single-family home property. She believed that if the property were cleared out better it would be more appealing for a single-family home to be constructed. She stated that there are a lot of Spanish speaking residents on Lucia Lane and stated that perhaps they did not understand the notice that was mailed. Natasha Lawrence, applicant, stated that they purchased the property about one year ago with the intention to construct a single-family home that they would live in. She stated that they cleared it out, cleaned it up and were told by their builder that they could not build their home on the property. She stated that their property is vacant land and therefore there is not anywhere to clear snow from, noting that they would need to construct their own driveway. John Lawrence, applicant, stated that the property to the south has the driveway with the grill and desk out at the end of the driveway and clarified that is not their property. He stated that they 4 Jufn!2/ Planning Commission 9/18/2024 Minutes Page 3 cleaned up the trees and planned the layout for the home they hoped to construct. He stated that they could not obtain financing for the project because of the large payment that would be necessary out of their pocket and because the home would not be valued at its cost because of the surrounding area. Mrs. Lawrence replied that they wanted to live on the property in the home they had hoped to build. She asked that the Commission consider this request for a duplex on the property. Mr. Lawrence commented that they liked the trees and wooded setting with the wetlands, which is why they chose the lot. Commissioner Klemz asked if there is an existing structure that would be removed as part of the project. Mrs. Lawrence commented that there was a previous garage that had been removed and the foundation remains. Commissioner Brom asked for clarification on why the duplex would be allowed versus the single- family home. Mrs. Lawrence commented that they can build the duplex for the same price as the single-family home, and they could either rent both units or live in one unit and rent the other. She explained that either option would allow them to recoup some of the costs to build. Chair Hansen asked it the orientation is correct to have the garages facing away from the street. Mrs. Lawrence commented that the goal would be for the garages to face the street. Mr. Lawrence stated that the existing home at 6663 Lucia Lane has a long driveway that cuts in with the garage facing the neighbor, while their plan would be for everything to face the street. He stated that he did do some cleanup work on the property, and he could tell that people were cutting paths to dump their compost and lawn clippings. He stated that you can also tell that the wind blows trash that collects in the treed area. He stated that they do not live on the land, which makes it hard to prevent trash or lawn clippings from collecting on the site. Ms. Throndson stated that the Islamic University is located at the end of the street and perhaps the applicants noticed how much traffic was coming down the street when they decided not to build a single-family home. She commented that the property has not been completely cleared and trash has remained on the site for at least six to eight months. She stated that two single-family homes would be better suited than a duplex. She noted the number of apartment buildings and duplexes that already exist in that area and would prefer to have single-family homes. 5 Jufn!2/ Planning Commission 9/18/2024 Minutes Page 4 Chair Hansen noted there are three emails that have been received from other residents on Lucia Lane expressing concerns with the rezoning (attached). John Vardas, 6546 Lucia Lane, stated that he would agree with a duplex but would not want anything above that as there are already three apartment buildings in that area. He stated that with the cul- de-sac already limits traffic and would not want to add more than a duplex. He stated that without a size limitation, he would think that once the rezoning is completed an apartment building would be constructed instead. Commissioner Klemz recognized the difference between R-1 and R-3 and asked if stipulations can be added that would limit the number of units that could be constructed on the property. Ms. Stromberg stated that with a rezoning it would approve a multi-family use and the Code is dependent upon lot size as to the number of allowed units. She was unsure if a size requirement could be stipulated and therefore would need to check with legal counsel. Commissioner Klemz stated that he understands the limitation of the wetlands on the site, but a wetland can also be filled if credits are purchased. Commissioner Borman asked if there is a zoning district between R-1 and R-3 that would limit to just a duplex. Ms. Stromberg stated that there is an R-2 district but because there is not another R-2 property is this area, an R-3 zoning would be a better fit. She clarified that R-2 would allow a duplex. She noted that the buildable area of the lot would be limited because of the wetlands as they exist today. Chair Hanson commented that in order to fill a wetland there would need to be a demonstrated benefit other than economic reasons alone. He stated that the soil conditions in that part of the property would make it very impractical to build on that area. Motion by Commissioner Klemz to close the public hearing to consider the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Seconded by Commissioner Heuchert. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing was closed at 7:32 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Klemz to close the public hearing to consider the Rezoning. Seconded by Commissioner Heuchert. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing was closed at 7:33 p.m. 6 Jufn!2/ Planning Commission 9/18/2024 Minutes Page 5 Commissioner Borman asked what would prohibit the City from rezoning to R-2. It was noted that would be considered spot zoning as that zoning does not exist in this area. Chair Hansen noted that they would still need to build something that fits into the surrounding area. Ms. Stromberg commented that there is an apartment build across the street. She stated that was built years ago and therefore does not have stormwater treatment or likely sufficient parking and therefore having a structure of that size would not seem feasible on the subject property. She stated that the applicant is proposing to build a duplex but once the rezoning is completed, something larger could be constructed but it would need to meet all the requirements of the City. Commissioner Brom commented that his concern would be with contiguous use, as he would think the street is a buffer from the apartment use. He recognized the clear opposition of the existing residents to having another apartment. He stated that all the properties on this side of the street are zoned R-1. Commissioner Heuchert stated that it seems reasonable to allow a duplex on the property, as it is between single-family and larger multi-family and therefore it would seem a likely transition. He stated that he would not want to see something larger than a duplex on the property. He asked if that stipulation could be placed on the recommendation of approval and the opinion of the City Attorney could be gained prior to the City Council meeting. Ms. Stromberg stated that she would be comfortable adding that condition and could verify if that would be allowed prior to moving it to the City Council meeting if the Commission wanted to proceed with that. Commissioner Borman stated that the applicant purchased the property with the intent to build a single-family home but then changed to a duplex. He stated that perhaps once the rezoning is completed, they would change again to a fourplex. He stated that he could only support this is there is a stipulation that only a duplex could be constructed. Chair Hansen agreed that a duplex would be a good fit for the lot and did not feel an additional condition would be needed as the size of the lot would dictate what could be built on the property. He understood the concern of the residents about what could be built on the property but noted that the property was listed for sale and any resident could have purchased the lot if they did not want to see it developed. He stated that he is comfortable moving forward, acknowledging that there would be many restrictions that would come into play as for what could ultimately be built on the property. Commissioner Klemz agreed with the comments of the Chair. Commissioner Borman asked where the additional stipulation would be placed, limiting construction to a duplex. Ms. Stromberg replied that would seem most appropriate for the rezoning if that is desired. 7 Jufn!2/ Planning Commission 9/18/2024 Minutes Page 6 Chair Hansen asked the opinion of the additional stipulation. Commissioner Brom commented that it does not seem enforceable. Commissioner Klemz stated that the opinion of the City Attorney would ultimately be needed, and it would be the ultimate decision of the City Council as to whether that stipulation is necessary. Motion by Commissioner Klemz, to recommend approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA #24-01 to Change the Future Land Use from Single Family Residential to Multi-Family Residential for the Property Located at 6677 Lucia Lane N.E. with Stipulations. Seconded by Commissioner Heuchert. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously. 3. Public Hearing to Consider a Rezoning, ZOA #24-01 to Change the Zoning of the Property Located at 6677 Lucia Lane from R-1, Single Family to R-3, Multi-Family Motion by Commissioner Klemz, to recommend approval of a Rezoning, ZOA #24-01 to Change the Zoning of the Property Located at 6677 Lucia Lane from R-1, Single Family to R-3, Multi-Family Seconded by Commissioner Heuchert. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously. Other Business Ms. Stromberg provided an update on recent activity of the City Council on planning related matters and also noted anticipated future meetings for the Commission. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Brom to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Borman. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 7:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Stromberg, Staff Liaison 8 Jufn!3/ LandUseApplicationSummary Item:VAR#24-01 Meeting Date: October 16, 2024 GENERAL INFORMATIONSPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant:Legal Description of Property: Jason ZemkeLot 2, Block 2, RICE CREEK PLAZA NORTH th 257 69Avenue NEADDITION, according to the recorded plat Fridley, MN 55432thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota. Requested Action:Public Utilities: VarianceHome is connected Location:Transportation: thth 257 69Avenue NEProperty is accessed from 69Avenue NE Existing Zoning:Physical Characteristics: R-1, Single FamilyRelatively flat, rectangularlot that abuts Community Park Size: 10,458sq. ft. .24acres Summary of Request: Property ownerJason Zemkerequestsa variance Existing Land Use: to expand an existing nonconforming building Single Family home th located at 257 69Ave NE. The variance would Surrounding LandUse & Zoning: permit an addition to the home and reduce the N:Community Park -P side yardsetback from 10 feet to 6.7 feet. E:Single Family & R-1 Staff Recommendation: S:Single Family & R-1 City staff do not believe the request meets W:Single Family & R-1 statutory requirements for a variance and Comprehensive Plan Conformance: recommend denial of the request. Guided forSingle Familyland use Zoning Ordinance Conformance: 205.07.03.D.2.arequireshabitable space to be set back 10 feet from the property line Building and Zoning History: 1959Lot is platted 1962Building Permit issued; identifies a 10 ft side yard setback for the home nd 1972 Special Use Permit approved for 2 garage. The surveyincluded in application Aerial of the Property notes an as-built 7.1 setbackfor the home. City Council Action/60 Day Action Date: 2002 Varianceissuedto recognize the City Council November 12, 2024 existing nonconforming structure. 192 sq ft 60 Day Date November 25, 2024 addition constructed in rear yard. Staff Report Prepared by Nancy Abts 9 Jufn!3/ Written Report The Request th Jason Zemke is the owner of the home at 257 69 Avenue NE. A previous owner built the home within the required side yard. Jason requests a variance to allow an addition to the home. The addition would encroach into the side yard, reducing the distance from the eastern property line to 6.9 feet, from the required 10-foot setback. (Garages are allowed with a five-foot side yard setback. This is because garages are uninhabited.) Site Description and History th The subject property is located on 69 Avenue N.E., immediately south of Community Park. It is zoned R-1, Single Family. When the existing home was constructed in 1962, the building permit indicated a 10-foot side yard. In 1972, a Special Use Permit (SUP) was issued for a second detached garage. The SUP application materials included a drawing showing a 7.1 foot as-built setback for the home. In 2002, an eight by twenty-four-foot addition to the rear of the home was proposed. At this time, a variance was approved to acknowledge expansion of the nonconforming structure, in a way that did not increase the nonconforming setback. The addition was then built in the rear yard. (Today, this could be done with an administrative Nonconforming Expansion Permit. The permit process was adopted in 2015, in part because of issues like this.) Code Requirements and Analysis Section 205.07.03.D.2, of the City Code requires a side yard of 10 feet between any living area of a dwelling and side property lines in the R-1 Zoning District. State law establishes a 3-pronged analysis for variances. Specifically, A property owner may request a variance when the owner establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with \[the Zoning chapter\]. An application must the exceptional conditions and the peculiar and practical difficulties claimed as a basis for a variance. A practical difficulty means: 1.!The property owner proposes performance standards for the property in a reasonable manner, but not permitted by the Zoning Code. 2.!The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. 3.! The findings of fact shall contain the following: 1.!The public policy which is served by the requirement; and 10 Jufn!3/ 2.!The unique circumstance of the property that cause practical difficulties in the strict application of the requirement; and 3.!Any stipulations of the variance approval. Summary of Practical Difficulties provided by the Petitioner Practical Difficulties: The proposed addition will develop and enhance the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by zoning ordinance. The need for a variance is due to circumstances unique to this property and were not created by the current owner (Jason and Rochelle Zemke). The requested variance will not alter the essential character of this neighborhood. necessary to accomplish the goals of the project. A building addition that achieves the same - building addition (more square footage), more lot coverage, more expense, and would be out of Practical Difficulties Variances may be granted if practical difficulties exist on the property. Staff finds that practical difficulties are not met in this case, based on the following findings of fact: Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? A side yard setback is intended to provide adequate space between homes. This allows green space, ventilation and access. In Fridley, the Hyde Park district allows a 7.5 setback. Other more dense cities like Columbia Heights and Minneapolis commonly have side yards smaller than 10 feet. Along with lot size and width requirements, side yards also provide a consistent urban form and character. The addition is proposed at the rear of the home and will have minimal impact on the streetscape. However, no efforts have been made to limit effects on the home (e.g., screening). The current neighbor does not object to the variance, but a variance, once issued, runs with the land and impacts future owners as well. Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as single-family residential. The use of the property will remain as single-family residential; as a result, it is consistent with the Plan. Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? There is ample buildable area on the property. Staff spent some time exploring alternative options for the addition. Figure 1 shows a hand-drawn plan for the addition that would not require a variance. The petitioner ultimately decided to proceed with the variance request instead of this option. 11 Jufn!3/ The applicant believes the alternative adds cost to the project and unnecessary square footage to the home. Figure 1: Alternative proposal for addition; not requiring a variance Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner? The property is a standard residential lot in Fridley. It does not have a unique shape or slope that limits building an addition without a variance. The nonconforming structure was constructed by a previous landowner. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? The variance is for a modest deviation from the side yard setback. However, there are not unique characteristics of the property. A variance could set a precedent for future requests. If a 5-foot side yard setback for habitable space is desirable, staff recommends the Commission and Council consider changing the district standards instead of approving a single variance. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission hold a public hearing for Variance Request, VAR #24- 01. Alternative options to construct an addition within required setbacks exist. Staff does not identify any unique conditions and circumstances related to this lot that make it difficult to construct an 12 Jufn!3/ addition within the required setbacks. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission deny VAR #24-01. For variances on lots zoned R-1, Single Family, the Planning Commission has the authority to grant final approval provided the following conditions are met: a. There is unanimous agreement of the Planning Commission b. The staff concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission c. The general public attending the meeting or responding to the notice of public hearing have no objection. d. The petitioner is in agreement with the recommendation. Because staff does not recommend approval, the variance will be heard by the City Council on November 12, 2024. Attachments 1. 2. Public Hearing notice to properties within 350 ft. 3. Findings of Fact denying the requested variance 13 Jufn!3/ Findings of Fact denying the requested variance Whereas, a practical difficulty or uniqueness was not found to meet the requirements for a variance, based on failure to satisfy all of the following standards: Criterion #1: Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? The intent of the side yard setback is to ensure that there is sufficient separation and privacy between adjacent homes. The proposed setback reduction does not include elements (e.g., screening,) to mitigate the impact to the neighboring property. Criterion #2: Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides this property for single family residential use. The variance is consistent with this guidance. Criterion #3: Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? Building a small addition to an existing home is a reasonable use. However, an addition to the home can reasonably be constructed within the required setbacks, without necessitating a variance. Criterion #4: Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner? The preexisting nonconforming setback was not created by the current landowner. However, there are not additional unique circumstances impacting site geometry or geography which limit the ability to comply with standard setbacks on this property. Criterion #5: Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? This addition will not alter the essential character of the locality and due to its location in the rear yard. 14 Jufn!3/ 15 Jufn!3/ September 13, 2024 Jason and Rochelle Zemke th 257 69 Ave NE Fridley, MN 55432 Detailed Narrative with Practical Difficulties Statement: We, the property owners, are seeking to request a Variance to reduce the side yard setback for a proposed additional 8’ x 20’ living area at the northwest corner of our house in order to recognize an existing non-conformity. The required side yard setback for R-1 zoning is 10’-0”. The current side yard setback at the northwest corner of our house is 7.1’. The house was built in 1962, out of compliance with current zoning ordinances, through no fault of our own. The proposed addition will expand an existing undersized bedroom to create a primary bedroom suite with a new full bathroom. The proposed addition will maintain existing roof slopes and exterior materials and colors. Further, the proposed addition is in harmony with the existing architecture of the house by aligning with two existing exterior walls on the north and west sides of the house, and it is in harmony with the adjacent neighbor’s house, which currently extends approximately 6’-0” past the rear of our house – upon completion, the rear wall of both houses will be in a similar location. Practical Difficulties: The proposed addition will develop and enhance the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by zoning ordinance. The need for a variance is due to circumstances unique to this property and were not created by the current owner (Jason and Rochelle Zemke). The requested variance will not alter the essential character of this neighborhood. Alternatives are not practical in that the proposed addition is the smallest functional footprint necessary to accomplish the goals of the project. A building addition that achieves the same functional space but that also abides by the 10’-0” side yard setback will require a larger net building addition (more square footage), more lot coverage, more expense, and would be out of character with the footprints and style of adjacent homes. 16 Jufn!3/ Community Development Department Public Hearing Notice 7000 267 191 201209217225233241249257 6890 280 274 266 242 194 209210218226234 295 260 289 200 252 285 225 205 246 206 281 215 238 277 210 232 201 273 216 224 290 269 218 286 267 210 220 280 261 276 226 270 255 281 230 266 291 SOURCES Fridley Engineering and Planning Variance, VAR #24-01 Request Fridley GIS Anoka County GIS Petitioner: Jason Zemke Address: 257 69th Ave N.E. - Map Date: 10/1/2024 18 Jufn!3/ Fridley Civic Campus 7071 University Ave N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 763-571-3450 | FAX: 763-571-1287 | FridleyMN.gov PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE th To: Property Owners and Residents within 350 feet of 257 69 Avenue NE Applicant: Jason Zemke Request: A Variance, VAR #24-01, by Jason Zemke, to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 6.7 feet to allow an addition to an existing th nonconforming home, generally located at 257 69 Avenue NE, the legal description is on file an available at Fridley Civic Campus. Date of Hearings: Planning Commission Meeting, Wednesday, October 16, 2024 at 7:00 p.m. The Planning Commission meeting is televised live the night of the meeting on Channel 17. Location of Planning Commission Hearing: Meeting will be held in person at Fridley Civic Campus located at 7071 University Avenue NE. How to Participate: 1. You may attend the public hearing in person and testify. 2. You may submit a letter in advance of the meeting to Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager at the address above or by email at stacy.stromberg@fridleymn.gov Questions: Call or Email Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager at 763-572-3595 or stacy.stromberg@fridleymn.gov Mailing date: October 4, 2024 Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any City of Fridley services, programs or activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons who require auxiliary aids should contact CityClerk@FridleyMN.gov or (763) 572-3450. 19