Loading...
PL 08/21/1985 - 30637CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING CObIlKISSION MEETING, AUG[TST 21, 1985 CALL TO ORDER: Chairwoman Schnabel called the August 21, 1985, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p. m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Ms, Schnabel, Mr. Oquist, l�. Wellan, Mr. Sielaff, Ms, Gabel, P'h�, Minton Members Absent: Ms. Schreiner Others Present: Jim Robinson, Planning Coordinator Gerald Iwen, 5605 Humboldt Avenue Kent Roessler, 10666 University Avenue -Ric�ard Heaqik, 12323 Gladiola. North APpROVAL OF_AUGUST 7. 1985, PLANNLNG COMMISSION MINUTES: Ms. Schnabel requested the following corrections be made: ^ Page 3, paragraph 2, change the word "formally" to "formerly" Page 6, paragraph 3, change the word "leave" to "live" 1�OTION BY 1�2. WELLAN, SECONDED BY MR. MINTON, TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 7, 1985 PLANNING COI�IISSION MINUTES WITH THE ABOVE CORRECTIONS. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECiARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIAfDUSLY. 1. P'UBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING REQUEST, ZQA ��85-02 BY KENT ROESSLER: Rezone from R-1 (one family dwelling) to R-2 (two family dwelling) to allow the construction of a duplex located on Lots lA, 1B, 2 and 3, Block 1, Iwen Terrace, the sa� being 5586, 5570, 5560 Fillmore Street N. E., all Located in the South half of Section 24, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. A�DA�DTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECO�iDED BY MS. GABEL, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZQA ��85-02 BY KENT ROESSLER. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P. M. Mr. Robinson stated this property to be rezoned is located west of Fillmore Street and south of Lynde Drive and includes three large Lots. He stated adjacent land is primarily zoned R-1, but there is ^ a mixed band of R-3 and nommercial uses along the highway frontage road. PLANNING COrIlKISSION MEETING. AUGIJST 21, 1985 pAGE 2 � Mr, Robinson stated the rezoning is proposed in order to construct three double bungalows with zero lot lines. He stated all lots are over 26,000 square feet and the code requires only 10,000 square feet for R-2 lots. Mr. Robinson presented drawings of the proposed structures to be con- structed on these lots. He stated the estimated market value of each individual unit is $75,000 to $80,000. Mr. Robinson stated there is a large easement on the back portion of these lots and easements along the north and south of each of the property lines so there are sufficient drainage and utility easements, as well as a ponding�area. He stated the west side of the plat is owned by the City. Mr. Robinson stated there is a covenant on the property and one of the key points was that this property should remain R-1 detached single family dwellings. He stated this covenant can be changed by the petitioner and the City and would have to be recorded at the County. Mr. Robinson stated, if the rezoning request is approved, the covenant should be amended regarding the building restrictions for single family detached dwellings. He further stated the structures should be built as indicated in the site plan and elevations submitted with � the rezoning application and to be constructed with brick and wood siding. Ms. Schnabel asked if the City had received any response from surround- ing residents regarding this proposed rezoning. Mr. Robinson stated the City has not received any comments. Mr. Iwen, owner.of one of the Lots, stated he contacted residents on the south side of Lynde Drive and received positive response from seven persons, He stated one resident was not at. home and another was undecided. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Roesaler if he was in agreement with the stipu- lations, and if the exteriors of brick with wood siding was acceptable. Mr. Roessler stated he would face the buildings with material accept- able to the City, but, this may vary slightly from what is shown on the plans. He stated because they are a custom home builder, it sometimes depends on what the customer wants as these units will be individually owned as a single family dwelling. Mr. Robinson stated the City's goal is to have the structures somewhat uniform to tie them together so you don't have three radically different styles of homes and also have them be as low maintenance as possible. ^ Ms. Schnabel asked if they presently have buyers for these units. Mr. Roessler stated, basically, they are just beginning, but didn't feel they would have a problem finding buyers. PLANNING CO1�Il�ILSS ION 1�ET ING. AUGUST 21, 1985 PAGE 3 ^ — Ms. Schnabel asked if they would start construction prior to sales. Mr. Roessler stated they may begin construction on one of the units. Ms. Schnabel queationed the value of the units. 1�. Roessler stated the cost would be from $65,000 to $85,000 per unit depending on the amount of features the buyer would litce in the unit. Ms. Schnabel asked if a covenant would be included with the purchase agreement which would indicate the responsibilities of the owners in terms of maintenance of the structures, as well as the yard and land- scaping. Mr, Roessler stated there would be a rider attached to the purchase agreement stating the uniformityr- of the structure itself and if there was to be any drastic color change, it has to be signed by both owners of the property. Ms. Schnabel asked if whe units would have a common driveway. Mr. Roessler se:aat+�d they would probably be separated by crushed ��e�.. orr shrubbery.. Mr. Robinson stated there should be a protective covenant on the exteriors of the structures and the City's main goal is low mainten- ance with possibly aluminum or cedar siding so it doesn't have to be painted. � � I�, Roessler stated aluminum or cedar siding gets extremely expensive so it prices them out of the market, He stated he didn't have a prob- lem with the brick, but did with the aluminum. l�ir. Minton asked how the restrictive covenant on the property could be changed. Mr. Robinson atated the petitioner would draft an amendment to be approved by the City and then recorded at the County, He stated there is a provision in the covenant itself for changes and, in this case, involves only the owner and the City. Mr. Well�n asked about drain tiles for these structures, Mr. Roessler stated these would be installed as they are a standard feature. Ms, Schnabel asked if Mr. Gearman was involved with this development aince he has signed the rezoning request. Mr. Iwen stated Mr. Gearman owns two lots and he owns one. Mr, Roessler is purchasing these lots from them.and has signed a purchase agreement. Ms. Schnabel questioned Mr. Gearman's role in terms of changing the covenant. Mr. Iwen stated he works with Mr. Gearman and there is no prob lem with it . Ms, Schnabel stated the Commission tends to feel a little uncomfortable when someone other than the owner makes these requests, She stated, in ^ terms of changing the covenant, she wanted to be sure they would be protected legally. � � PIANNING COI�IISSION MEETING. AUGUST 21. 1985 pA(� 4 Mr. Iwen stated the City owns three lots and he owns one of the lots so over 50% of the property owners are present this evening. He stated when they platted the land, the covenant was put in at that time just to protect themselves. Mr. Wellan questioned the elevations if they were to have full basements and if it would be necessary to fill the lots. 1�. Roessler stated the basements will be down only 36 inches. No other persons spoke regarding this proposed rezoning request. MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MR. MINTON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:02 P. M. MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MR. SIELAFF, TO RECOMI�ND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF REZONING REQUEST, ZOA ��85-02, BY KENT ROESSLER, TO REZONE FROM R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) TO R-2 (TWO FAMILY DWELLING) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DUPLEX LOCATED ON LOTS LA, 1B, 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1, IWEN TERRACE, THE SAME BEING 5586, 5570, 5560 FILLP�DRE STREET, N. E., ALL LOCATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 24, T-30, R-24, CITY OF FRIDLEY, COUNTY OF ANOKA, MLNNESOTA, WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPUI,ATIONS: (1) AI�ND- MENT OF COVEPIAN�� 0� BIIILDING-::�.tESTRIGTIUN� T0 _ BE ,.DRAFTED BX - PETITIONER; ,. APPROVED BY THE CITY AND RECORDED AT ANOKA COUNTY PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING PERMIT: (2) A�LL COVENANT RESTRICTIOTTTS, EXCEPT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLAUSE, TO BE ADHERED T0; AND (3) STRUCTURSS TO BE BUILT AS INDICATED IN SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION, TO INCLUDE BRICK WITH WOOD/MASONITE SIDING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel stated this item would go to the City Council on October 7, 1985. 2. CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT REQUEST L S�k85-07 BY KENT ROESSLER: Combine Lots lA and 1B, Block 1, Iwen Terrace and split in half to allow a duplex to be sold individually, and also Lot 2 to be split in half and Lot 3 to be split in half to allow duplexes to be sold individually, the same being 5586, 5570, 5560 Fillmore Street N, E, Ms. Schnabel stated this request for a lot split does not need a formal hearing, but there will be an inforroal discussion. Mr. Robinson stated this request for a lot split is in oonjunction with the rezoning request which the Commission has just recommended bg apnroved. He stated the purpose of the split is to create six lots with zero lot lines for the construction of double bungalows. ^ Mr. Robinson stated there presently are three buildable lots and, with the lot split, it would create six buildable lots so three park fees would have to be paid. PLANNING CO1�Il�iLSSION MEETING. AUGUST 21, _1_985_ PAGE 5 � Mr. Robinson stated a protective covenant would have to be executed to protect the subsequent owners of the property and approved by the City and then recorded at the County. He stated it would also be necessary for the subdivision to be recorded at the County prior to issuance of any building permit and the lot split should be contingent on approval by the Council of the rezoning. Mr. Roessler questioned.the three park fees to be paid with the first three building permits, He stated he would be taking out only three permits, one for each two unit building. Mr. Robinson stated, with esch building permit, two buildable lots are created where there is presently only one buildable lot. He stated, therefore, a park fee would be collected on the three new i�uildable lots. Mr. Roessler stated he could not quite understand this reasoning. It was explained to him that it was a policy adopted by the Council, and how these fees are assessed. 1�TION BY MR. MINTON, SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNIL APPROVAL OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L. S. ��85-07, BY KENT ROESSLER, TO COMBINE LOTS LA AND 1B, BE,UCK 1, ITJEN TERRACE AND SPLIT IN HALF TO ALLOW A DUPLEX TO BE SOLD IND1V IDUALLY, AND ALSO LOT 2, TO BE SPLIT IN HALF AND LOT 3 TO BE SPLIT IN HALF TO ALLOW DUPLEXES TO BE SOLD INDIVIDUALLY, TI� SAI� ^ BEING 5586, 5570, 5560 FILLM�RE STREET N. E., WITH THE FOLLOWING STIpU- LATIONS: (1) THREE PARK FEES TO BE PAID WITH FIRST THREE BUILDING PER- MITS; (2) PROTECTIVE COVENANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN SUBSEQUENT OWNERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND RECORDED AT ANOKA COUNTY; (3) SUBDIVISION TO BE RECORDED AT ANOKA COUNTY PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING PERMIT; AND (4) LOT SPLIT IS CONTING�NT UPON COUNCIL' S APp'ROV?..L OF THE REZONING REQUEST. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECZ.ARED THE MDTION CARRIED UNANII�USLY. 3. STATUS OF SATELLITE DISH ORDINANCE: Mr. Robi�son stated the Council had tabled this item in order to receive more input from businesses in the City. Mr. Robinson stated some comments from SPACE (The Society for Private and Com�rical Earth Stations) have been received in a letter addressed to Mayor Nee dated July 2, 1985. He stated they disagree with prohibiting roof mounts, overly restrictive screening, and installation in rear yards only. P�'. Oquist stated he felt they would disagree, however, this ordinance should reflect how Fridley wishes to control satellite dishes. He felt it shouldn't be changed because vendors didn't like it. Mr.°Oqufst ststed when the Commission wrote the ordinance they wanted ^ no roof mounts, screening, and installation in rear yards only. Ms. Schnabel stated in reference to SPACE's comment regarding restrictions of dish antennas to insure the financial success of cable operations, she felt there should be a disclaimer included that the City in no way adopts this ordinance to insure the success of the existing cable operations. PLANNING COP�7ISSION MEETING. AUGUST 21� 1985 �_ _ pAG� 6 � Ms. Schnabel stated it never was the Commission's intent when they considered this ordinance to protect the cable system. Mr. Oquist stated this issue was not addressed at all at the Commisssion meetings. Ms. Schnabel questioned the Satellite Earth Station Zoning Book referred to in SPACE's letter. Mr. Robinson stated this really addressed persons who are purchasing satellite dishes. He stated some of the model ordin- ances were really broad. Mr. Robinson stated Minneapolis has adopted an ordinance controlling satellite dish antenn�s and is considering a revision to eTiminate any appeals for roof mountings, He stated their ordinance also prohibits any satellites in front ane� side yards. Ms. Schnabel stated she is not totally against these satellites as they provide a lot of entertainment, but felt their visual impact on the community should be controlled. Mr. Robinson stated the FCC has come out and stated City's can�wt-inhibit this growing industry. There was discussion that there should be no variance or appeal procedure � for roof mounted antennas which exceed 30 inches in a residential area, It was felt a variance cou�d be requested for commercial and industrial areas, MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MR. MINTON, TO RECOMI�ND TO CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF THE SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA ORDINANCE, AS WRITTEN, WITH THE ADDITION OF A DISCLAIMER REGARDING CABLE TELEVISION, IF POSSIBLE, AND THE TOTAL E�CLUSION OF ROOF MOUNTED DISH ANTENNAS THAT EXCEED 30 INCHES IN R-1, R-2 AND R-3 ZONES WITH NO VARIANCE OR APPEAL PROCEDURE. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL V�STING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE P�OTION CARR IED UNAN IM(iUS LY . 4. RECEIVE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MIN[TTES OF AUGUST 5 1985: 1�TION BY l�flt. OQUIST, SECONDED BY M5. GABEL, TO RECEIVE THE AUGUST 5, 1985, PARKS AND RECREATION COI�ffSSION MINUTES. Ms. Schnabel stated in reference to comments on Rage _5 .by.:Cou¢ni�sion members regarding the "people upstairs", she stated it was as much a surprise to the Planning Commission as it was to the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding this public hearing, She stated it was not the Planning Com- mission's idea to hold that public hearing. UP(7N A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE 1�TION, ALL VOTED AYE, AND CHAIg- ^ WOMAN SCHNABEL DECIARED THE I�ION CARRIED UNANII�USLY. � � PLANNING COIrIl�iISSION MEETING. AUGUST 21, 1985 PA(;� 7 5. RECEIVE ENERGY PROJECT CQrIlNITTEE_ MINUTES OF AUG[JST 6. 1985: NR9�?ION BY Mt. SIELAFF, SECONDED BY MR. WELLAN, TO RECEIVE THE AUGUST 6, 1985, ENERGY PROJECT CO1rIlNITTEE MINUTES. Mr. Sielaff stated they are moving right along with the House Doctor and N.E .W. programs . Mr. Robinson stated on Page 3 of these minutes, there is reference to most of Fridley's funds going towards the downtown redevelopment. He stated this staternent is mi�leading, in that none of the public service funds go toward downtown redevelopment. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, ALL VOTED AYE, AND CHAIR- WOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE 1�TION CARRIED UNANII�OUSLY. 6. RECEIVE APPEALS COrIlKISSION MINUTES OF AUG[TST 13 1985: These minutes were not available at this time, Ms, Gabel did state the Appeals Commission had recommended denial of a request for a 200 square foot sign. Ms. Gabel asked about the sign plan for the East River Road Business Center. Mr. Robinson stated this was the sign plan for the first phase of the development. He stated it met all the code requirements and was approved by the City Council. 7. OTHER BUSINESS: a. Parks and Recreation Budget: Ms. Schnabel stated the Commission had discussed park and recreation development and wondered if there was an overall plan for park improve- ment. She stated, in conjunction with this discussion, the Commission wondered what kinds of funds are available for such improvements and requested a copy of the budget. Ms. Schnabel stated the Commiss.�an has received a copy of the budget and felt perhaps it should be reviewed and brought up again when a representative of the Parks and Recreation Co�nission is present at the next meeting. b. Banfill Tavern: Mr. Minton stated he was pleased with the action regarding the Banfill Tavern. He stated it seems made with the Arts Association is very good. ADJOURNMENT• by Anoka County the agreement 1�TION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY lrflt. MINTON, TO �DJOUR�I �E MEETING. UPON A ^ VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWpMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE AUGUST 21, 1985, PLANNING COIYIlKISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:10 P. M. Respectfully submitted, l��-�l��s� Carole Haddad, Recording Secretary