Loading...
PCM 9/18/2024 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 7:04 p.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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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 From:Jay Stubbs To:Stromberg, Stacy Subject:6677 Lucia Ln rezoning Date:Wednesday, September 11, 2024 10:05:48 AM Good Morning Stacy, My name is Jason Stubbs, I live at 6846 Channel Rd NE, I am the property owner along with Judy Stubbs, who has owned this parcel of land for 52 years. I am writing to you today to express my opinion on having a multifamily dwelling next door. Honestly I am saddened to hear that there will be another rental property being built, with seven apartment buildings already in the neighborhood, and the hundreds of units recently built in Fridley. I feel that we don't need another rental unit built. Take a short drive down Dellwood or Pierce and really look at the duplexes along those streets. They have looked like garbage my entire life, and will continue to be in a state of disrepair and neglect for perpetuity. I'm not saying that the people who want to build this are in the wrong, it's just a wrong fit for our neighborhood. I love my home and the property around it, unfortunately that is not a sentiment held by many landlords or the people living in rental situations, and it is more than obvious when looking at the rental properties. Fridley does not need more rental units. It needs people with a vested interest in where they live, not landlords. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Jason Stubbs From:LeeAnn Vardas To:Stromberg, Stacy Subject:6677 Lucia Lane Date:Wednesday, September 18, 2024 12:55:19 PM \[You don't often get email from leeannv9876@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification \] I am emailing my opposition to changing 6677 Lucia Lane to a multi-family use property. My concern is adding more traffic to our street. We already have problems with traffic and some of those are getting addressed with the current road construction project. However, there are still problems with traffic from others who live on Lucia Lane that don’t have a vested interest in our small neighborhood or the community. As homeowners we take care of our property and look out for our neighbors. Adding more multi-family housing makes our neighborhood a drive-thru destination. Thank you. LeeAnn Vardas Resident of Lucia Lane Sent from my iPhone From:nicdan_ch@q.com To:Stromberg, Stacy Cc:nicdan_ch@q.com Subject:Rezoning ZOA #24-01 for 6677 Lucia Lane NE Date:Wednesday, September 18, 2024 2:30:20 PM You don't often get email from nicdan_ch@q.com. Learn why this is important Hi Stacy, We are unable to attend the 9-18-24 public meeting regarding the rezoning of 6677 Lucia Lane NE. We are in opposition to the proposal to rezone from single family to multi-family. In the past hearings, the large parcel would be broken up into single family lots and turn into multi-family. Several years have passed and no homes have been built there. Now there is a proposal for multi-family zoning. We already have 3 apartment buildings at the end of the block and we are opposed to adding additional multi-family units. We do not need or want the increased traffic on the street or the potential negative impacts to our neighborhood. Potential for more crime, potential to lower housing values, increased traffic due to the amount of people mutli-family units would bring. A few years back the concern of additional multi-family housing units was rectified when it was approved to be broken into single family lots only, relieving much fear and concern in the neighborhood It now appears that the push is back now with the land owner for multi-family housing. We strongly oppose the rezoning of single family to multi-family. Sincerely, Daniel and Lynette Christianson 6640 Lucia Lane NE 763-310-6190 nicdan_ch@q.com