Loading...
PLM 2-19-20 FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2020 7:00 P.M. FRIDLEY CIVIC CAMPUS, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7071 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Kondrick called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 6:59 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT:David Kondrick, Mike Heintz, Mark Hansen,Ryan Evanson,Leroy Oquist,Brad Sielaff, and Terry McClellan OTHERS PRESENT: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Tom Stanek, 6360 Madison Street Cindy King, 1505 Ferndale Avenue NE John Morrison, 1342 Hillrest Drive NE Jerry Holm, 1338 Hillcrest Drive NE Nancy Blegen, 1504 Ferndale Avenue NE Jeff Morrison, 1342 Hillcrest Drive NE APPROVE MINUTES January 15, 2020 Motion by Commissioner Oquist to approve the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Evanson. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Consideration of a Lot split, LS #20-01, by Tom Stanek, to subdivide the single family lot at 1340 Hillcrest Drive to create a second single family lot. The new lot will receive access from Ferndale Avenue. MOTION by Commissioner Heintz 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 7:01 P.M. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 2 of 26 Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated the petitioners are Beth and Tom Stanek who have requested the lot split to accommodate two homes. A previous home had existed on this parcel. A fire claimed that home in February 2019. The Staneks have purchased the property since it was cleared by the previous owner. Mr. Hickok stated the proposal is to allow for the construction of two homes. The home to be built on Parcel A would gain access from Hillcrest Drive and that is very much like the previous home had done. On Parcel B the new home will gain access from the end of Ferndale Avenue. The apron for the Parcel B property will need to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering staff prior to construction. Mr. Hickok stated the property with a dead end at the end of Ferndale reminds him of when he was planning in Apple Valley many years, it was very common as cities were developing to have the roadway stop to then suggest that when the next development happens that roadway would continue and development would center around that roadway. Mr. Hickok stated you can tell from the aerial photograph that with Ferndale coming in, Ferndale was the first to be platted and then later, when the Hillcrest Drive plat came in, there was a decision made not to connect Ferndale and not to have this link between the neighborhoods. The street pattern and everything else now make the suggestion it was not necessary, it was two independent neighborhoods, and it does leave a dead end street. Mr. Hickok stated it also leaves that situation where if you were interested in doing a subdivision, you would need to have access to or adjacency to the right-of-way on each of the lots. The way the Code reads is that you need a minimum of 25 feet of adjacency to a public right-of-way in order to have access to a lot. In this case the Hillcrest Drive side of course has adjacency. The entire front is adjacent to a public right-of-way. On the Ferndale side it meets the minimum requirement of 25 feet. It also exceeds that. He believed the right-of-way width there is something more than the 60-foot standard. There is adjacency there as well. In other words, it passes that test for adjacency to a right-of- way. Mr. Hickok stated the next thing you have to evaluate is whether there is enough square foot dimension to have adequate sized lots; 9,000 square feet in this zoning district is the standard. Both of these lots exceed the standard. Mr. Hickok stated the point about Ferndale that is important is that, because it was a dead end roadway, it leaves a bit of a precarious blunt and in front of what would now be Parcel B. It has importance because, for example, if you were the public works street superintendent and were plowing that road you likely would plow down the road with a Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 3 of 26 piece of equipment and with it being dead ended, you might actually plow snow up on that end and work your way around. This is not, though, like a cul de sac where you use a very large piece of equipment and plow the cul de sac bubble if you will. Mr. Hickok stated as they think about Parcel B and it being a residential site, it is going to be very, very important that, not only for the apron coming in off from the end of Ferndale is evaluated and worked through with the City Engineer, but also for things like the garbage truck picking up the garbage at the end of the driveways right now. Mr. Hickok stated there will be one more driveway with one more set of garbage cans to pick up on garbage day and exactly how the garbage truck comes to pick up. All of those things are important elements to discuss. Reasons why probably typically you do not see a lot of dead ends but in developing communities, especially in his experience when he was working for Apple Valley, things were developing so fast that the next neighborhood over might have developed within the next year so that it did not leave a dead end street very long. Mr. Hickok stated this is kind of interesting and maybe a bit precarious in that the roadway not only terminates there but really ends on a situation now where it does provide the opportunity to do a lot split, but consideration needs to be given. He is spending a little bit of time talking about that driveway here and the importance of that engineering discussion that will happen for the very reasons that plowing, garbage trucks, all of that, so that it continues to be a safe access and egress and can be designed to co-exist with homes that have not had a home at the end of the roadway before. Mr. Hickok stated there are also trees on this site. The site slopes downward from the Hillcrest side towards the Ferndale side. It even slopes a bit further to the southeast corner of the site. Highlighted in yellow there is a note stating there are some potential wetland characteristics that were noticed there. Mr. Hickok stated before a permit is issued for a home to be built on that site, they will need to identify whether what they are seeing is truly wetland and, if so, how would they operate on Parcel B to make sure they either protect that or do what is necessary according to the Wetland Protection Act. It is important that be noted and they will see in the stipulations staff refers to that. They need to be observant of that, they need to delineate that, and they need to operate in accordance with the proper laws that deal with wetland or development around a wetland. Probably a very small piece of that Parcel B. Not so much so that it would keep a house from being built there, but it may cause them to position the house to avoid any sort of encroachment on that corner. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 4 of 26 Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of Lot Split, LS #20-01 as it does provide for a new home and new home ownership; however, with this approval staff recommends the following stipulations: 1. All necessary permits shall be obtained prior to construction of that new home on either lot. 2. Grading and drainage shall be approved by the City’s engineering staff prior to issuance of any building permits in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding properties. 3. The property owner, at the time of the building permit application, shall provide proof of any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 4. The property owner at the time of building permit application for construction of a single-family home shall pay a $1,500.00 required park dedication fee. 5. The property owner at the time of building permit application for the construction of the single-family home shall pay for all water and sewer connection fees. 6. The landowner must adhere to the requirements of the Wetlands Conservation Act, prior to issuance of a building permit for Parcel B. Chairperson Kondrick asked can the applicant bring in fill and put it in the low spots? Mr. Hickok replied, on any development site there is what he would call a foundation excavation that happens. In some cases there is cutting in some areas and filling in other areas. This is a lot that is sloped. It slopes from Hillcrest and it would be more about the design of the home because it slopes downward from the roadway. It is not necessarily a situation where they are building up that lot to slope towards Hillcrest nor does he see a situation if they are wondering about that wetland where they would be filling to kind of level on that corner. The contours really dovetail nicely into adjacent properties. Because that was a woodland area, it kind of contours downward towards other woodland areas on the back of some of those Hillcrest lots or towards the house at the end of Ferndale. You cannot detrimentally impact adjacent properties with runoff and so forth. Mr. Hickok stated they will need to make sure that any movement of soil they do in there really manages the water, keeps it on the property, does not cause any negative impact to Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 5 of 26 adjacent properties. As it relates to placement of the home on Parcel B, it would be thoughtful placement of a home that will keep it away probably away from that lower area anyways because everything seems to gradually slope that way. If you are placing a home on that lot, you would probably put the home more on the high land areas, only a few feet higher in one spot than the other but on the higher portion of the lot where that actually does sit a bit higher than the roadway itself on that one. It was a walkout on the Hillcrest site. He sees it where probably being a home which foundation is a tad bit higher than the roadway on the Ferndale side. Chairperson Kondrick stated as to the dead end business, talking about garbage trucks and plows, etc. , is there any way the City could put in a cul de sac so that it would make those chores, the pick up and delivery of garbage, snowplowing and whatever more easier? Mr. Hickok replied, there is a 60-foot right-of-way there. Chairperson Kondrick asked whether trucks can move around, can they jockey around to get back out of there? Mr. Hickok replied, there are cul de sac designs that are petite – smaller than the typical cul de sac you would see. This is where it becomes a little bit different than a typical development scenario because even the cost of that cul de sac is borne by the developer who is getting their yield from building homes around a roadway system and the cul de sac which can be rather expensive in and of itself. Mr. Hickok stated they have developed lots that are basically abutting this dead end street also and the cost of that cul de sac typically would be done at the time of installation of roadways. Oftentimes on cul de sacs the homes are positioned a little bit to sit, not necessarily parallel with the driveways, but coming out perpendicular with and all of that. This is a little bit of an after-the-fact design. It is taking advantage of a terminus of a roadway that is blunt but trying to not change the character of the neighborhood for these adjacent properties. Commissioner Sielaff asked, what do they do now for garbage? Mr. Hickok replied, they pull in and out of their driveways. That is how they manage at the end of the cul de sac. Commissioner Sielaff asked and what about the snow plow; where does the snow go? Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 6 of 26 Mr. Hickok replied, smaller equipment is used on that dead end street because the large plow truck that would typically take advantage of a cul de sac, turn around, and blade the snow in that fashion cannot do it. Commissioner Sielaff asked, there is no snow storage at the end of the road? Mr. Hickok replied, he is sure they took advantage of the fact there was not a house there for snow storage, but is not a given in the snowplowing of snow that you get to pile it. It is going to take some snow management also. Commissioner Hansen stated he did not know if it would violate the setbacks, but asked would it be possible to consider some sort of a flag lot scenario off of Hillcrest Drive so you have both driveways coming off of Hillcrest and then Ferndale continues to operate in a fashion that it currently does. This is probably not ideal given the fact that garbage trucks and plows cannot really turn around, and they probably have to back up, and the folks who live there probably have to listen to the backup beepers and such in the morning on garbage day, but at least they are not making that problem worse. Mr. Hickok replied, it is a good question, partly because Fridley is a river city and people have wanted to have that opportunity just to have a narrow driveway off of the street and then position themselves on the river behind an existing house. The City’s ordinance does not allow that. In part there is that 25-foot adjacency that is required to a public roadway, but the second part of it is by the time you get to the standard setback for that zoning district, the lot needs to be the standard width of 75 feet. In the drafting of that, which predates him, what they tried to do is eliminate the long skinny driveway. However, by the time you get to 35 feet back which was the setback at the time, your lot would be 75- feet wide. Commissioner Hansen stated he also sees an overhead electric wire that kind of cuts across the southerly corner of the lot, he asked whether that is going to have to be removed? Mr. Hickok replied, certainly it would have considerations for both the placement of the home and for the future basically of that developed corner if they were going to do that. It comes in at a precarious angle and if he were building there, one, he would be considering the movement of that and/or positioning the home so that they can co-exist without that power line cord being an issue. Commissioner Heintz asked, on the stipulations, do those apply to both lots? Mr. Hickok replied, yes. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 7 of 26 Commissioner Heintz because it does not really say both lots. If the lot split is approved, it should say both lots. Mr. Hickok replied, it does apply to LS #20-01 which is the creation of two lots. There is something maybe embedded in that question and that is the park dedication. There is one park dedication being paid here. Commissioner Heintz stated both things should say, for both lots following all these stipulations. He understands for the split, that is one fee. Chairperson Kondrick asked whether they need to clarify that? Mr. Hickok replied, the stipulations are actually for the developer to understand that in order to get the yes, these are stipulations they need to adhere to, less about the lots, more about the action of a lot split, and what is going to be required as part of the process. He does not believe so. They do not typically do that in lot splits. Just for the audience if the Commissioners understand, maybe the audience could benefit from this added description that $1,500.00 is the typical park dedication fee. You might say, okay, well, $1,500.00 is the park dedication fee for a single-family home but there are two homes to be built. The presumption is the fee or the impact to parks here would be one additional home because there was a home here, it already had impacts to the park, what they are adding is one additional. Commissioner Heintz stated he understands that part but when they are building a new home where the other one was, make sure the stipulations have applied to both. Mr. Hickok replied, there is an important piece that exists in the Fridley ordinance they may not pick up from the lot illustration. The petitioners and their surveyor were very good to respond to this. It kind of gets to Commissioner Hansen’s point about the flag lots. On Parcel A (the uphill Hillcrest side lot), because the setbacks in that neighborhood are greater than what was required in an R-1 District. At the time these homes were built, the setback was 35 feet for a front yard. The ordinance has now been modified to only require 25 feet. However, rather than allowing a house to come in here and be 25 feet from the curb which would really now be way up in front of those houses again, part of this relates to Fridley being a river city and having a lot of those homes being pushed back to the river as far as they could so they had large front yard setbacks. However, when you have those large setbacks, setback averaging applies so that you do not get a house in there that is so far forward that it causes this juxtaposition. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 8 of 26 Mr. Hickok stated in this particular case, even though the R-1 zoning district requires a 25-foot setback, setback averaging required that because the home to the north and the home to the south had something greater than, he can see from this illustration, the home to the south had 54.9 feet which is greater than, and the home to the north had something like 40 something feet. You take the average of those two and the new home would have to be built in a range of plus or minus 6 feet from that average dimension. What that means is the new home on Parcel A can be no closer than 40 feet so its front yard setback has to be a minimum of 40 feet. If they choose to set it back further than 40 feet, that is up to them but no closer than 40 feet so it recognizes the homes on either side have large front yards as they want to still maintain the view down the street, etc. Chairperson Kondrick stated to Mr. Hickok he has conveyed this principle to the petitioner already, correct? Mr. Hickok replied, yes, in fact their surveyor and the homeowner were very responsive to this. When the first drawing came in, it was illustrating setbacks as the Code defined; and they have now included this as part of it. Commissioner Evanson asked what are the proposals with what the builder wants to do with it? Is the current owner of the property also going to be the builder and, in dividing the lots, is that going to limit perhaps the type of properties that can be constructed on that? He is curious what the strategy is around that because they do not want to limit building options by splitting. Is there any commentary there? Mr. Hickok replied, he would defer to the property owner on this. He thinks it is the intention of the property owner to build themselves a home on one of the lots and then have another lot available. As to design of the home, Parcel A by virtue of its contours, he would anticipate it is going to be a walkout. It is really a home lot that is right for a home that walks out towards Parcel B. As far as the home on Parcel B, again there is probably a bit more flexibility and less known to him as to what they would want to build or design there. Commissioner McClellan stated has the owner or developer decided what lot they are going to build on? Mr. Hickok replied, again they can speak to that. Initially Parcel A but now maybe favoring Parcel B. Commissioner Hansen stated the wetland needs to be delineated or defined. What happens if it becomes so large that Parcel B is unbuildable? Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 9 of 26 Mr. Hickok replied, the City mentioned it early on because they wanted to make sure the petitioner knew that; and they wanted to tie it to the building permit. As the Commission knows from before, once the wetlands are delineated that is not the end of it. There is a process by which, if it is determined that yes there is wetland, then there is a dimension given about how large that wetland is and there is then strict instructions built into the Conservation Act to talk about how you develop around it, protect it, what you do if you are building uphill even if you are not touching it, but how you are protecting the down slope. Mr. Hickok stated it is very, very important that the delineation happens and they follow the instructions once it is determined if there is. Without being a wetland expert or engineer that at least from appearances before we had snow, if it is, it is on the downhill contours close to the southeast corner of the lot. The vegetation and everything else changes as it goes up the slope a couple of feet and you see a real difference there. Commissioner Sielaff asked, who delineates the wetland? Mr. Hickok replied, there are experts who do that. The petitioner will need to hire their own consultant. Commissioner Sielaff asked, it is not the Watershed District who comes in and does that? Mr. Hickok replied, they will work with the Watershed District on this building on the watershed but also, if and when there is an identified wetland, then that is another agency. The City is one of the agencies who protects that wetland, the Watershed District is another agency who helps protect that wetland, and here is where the Wetland Conservation Act and these different agencies really work to protect that environment but to make certain there are steps before a building permit would issue and before damage would be done to this natural environment. Commissioner Sielaff asked if they hire someone and delineate a wetland then is it approved by the Watershed District? The owner can hire someone to delineate it, but there needs to be some oversight on how it is delineated, right? Mr. Hickok replied, right, they typically then have somebody who understands wetland delineation more than him review it also. They have their own expert that will analyze the results. Commissioner Sielaff asked, it is subject to a review process? Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 10 of 26 Mr. Hickok replied, absolutely and there is where it is subject to concurrence of the end result and solutions before a permit is issued and that is why the stipulation is so important. Commissioner Sielaff stated you read about this in the paper all the time, well, they trade if there is a wetland there and if you can create a wetland or add to a wetland somewhere else, that means you could really destroy the wetland that is, say, on this property. Is that correct? Mr. Hickok replied, there are provisions in the Wetland Conservation Act that allow you to do that. In fact the City bought wetland credits on its site for the Lennar Townhomes that are going up across the water. There was a very small narrow strip that was a wetland and, when he says “we”, as part of the negotiation with the buyer, Lennar, the HRA negotiated a solution through the purchase of wetland credits that you buy. All of that is defined so the City is not making up the numbers. There is a relationship between how much area they are talking about that is wetland and if it is truly right where the foundation of homes would otherwise be then, and it is not a large area, but it needs to be managed, and then wetland credits can be purchased. They did that and ultimately there is money in there that goes towards the re-definition or improvement of a wetland elsewhere where it makes more sense. Commissioner Heintz stated as to Stipulation No. 6, it says “the issuance of a building permit for Parcel B” but being that it is a down slope, would “A” affect that at all? Mr. Hickok replied, here is where he says the characteristics. There is a 10-foot drop in a relatively short period in the land characteristics. Although he is not the one who would be able to describe all of the aquatic vegetation necessarily down in the corner which a wetland person would be able to. The land and its characteristics change quite rapidly as you go up. You get up a couple of feet from that southeast corner, and the understory vegetation clearly is very, very different. Commissioner Heintz asked wouldn’t they want to include “A” on that? They would know then in Parcel B, just so they are protected in the future when they go to build on “A”, and it would be checked on both parcels at one time he is sure. Mr. Hickok replied, if the Commission feels that is an added protection that is necessary or they would like to add to it, certainly that is the beauty of the Commission making its own recommendation in advance. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 11 of 26 Commissioner Oquist asked as to Stipulation No. 5, property owner at the time of building permit of single-family home shall pay water and sewage? Once again that applies to “B” only because “A” is already done or does it apply to both? Mr. Hickok replied, as to the water and sewer connection fees, there is a distinction here. Although you might say this a bit nuanced, but with any of these lots they are going to require that the private service leading into the home is new from the City service in the right-of-way to the home. In the case of the Ferndale lot, that is quite a run because the utilities stopped, not quite at the far property line, but some distance away from where that Parcel B lot begins. They are going to be making those connections, and they are already aware of the fact that is going to be a cost which is one they considered with the purchase of those lots. It applies to B but there is an overall, when they talk about water and sewer connection fees, sharing of the cost of the system that was put in place in the City. Again, like park dedication the uphill side on Hillcrest has already presumably paid into that because they were already hooked to the water and sewer. The new lot though is new and they are connecting to a system that has not had the benefit of that. Commissioner Oquist stated so they are only talking about Parcel B and once again that should probably be clarified. Commissioner Oquist stated also there is this 10-foot drop in elevation, right? Mr. Hickok replied, yes sir. Commissioner Oquist stated in the ordinances doesn’t the City have it where you have to control the runoff from Parcel A to Parcel B after it is built? Mr. Hickok replied, there is the natural contour that exists in there and it is not suggested that somehow they now create a lip or edge or something so what is that natural contour down from one lot to another. They are not suggesting that be changed and somehow what is not a cause or effect of the foundation excavation or anything else, they are not changing the contours of neighborhoods for example when a new home goes in. If it naturally slopes downhill and it does in this case 10 feet, it is only in those situations where you are excavating, you are building a foundation where there wasn’t one before, you are creating a new artificial slope if you will that will pitch into yards that did not pitch before. Commissioner Oquist stated but that has to be part of the building permit or the plan to control that runoff. Mr. Hickok replied, with the building permit comes their grading and drainage plan. Just so everyone is clear though, it would not be the expectation of Parcel A holding everything Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 12 of 26 on the uphill slope that already now grades and slopes to the downhill. It is the impact of a new excavation and contours cannot exacerbate an issue or cause water now to push where it would not have otherwise gone. Commissioner Hansen asked whether there are easements contemplated for the new parcels created with this that would help convey some of the edge across the properties? Mr. Hickok replied, that is a good point and the point they talked to the surveyor about. In this illustration it does not show easements on the periphery of the lots. But typically that is the standard that they would share a 5-foot easement on either side of the lot line and so basically take the shape of the lots. Put a 5-foot easement on the inside so that at any point if there needs to be a pipe that runs down and has a purpose beyond the private purpose of those two lots, it could be managed within that easement area. That is a typical requirement as part of the subdivision ordinance and is something that before the final lot split illustration goes to Council they will have to have those illustrated. Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Stanek whether he understands and agrees with the stipulations as submitted by staff? Tom Stanek, 6360 Madison Street, replied, yes, they have gone over them pretty thoroughly. Chairperson Kondrick stated the wetland is going to be a messy deal for them. They have to wait to find out what the deal is. Mr. Stanek replied, exactly. Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Stanek if there were any questions he may have now of staff? Mr. Stanek replied, no, actually he came in last May and met with Ms. Stromberg and a number of others to go over this whole proposal ahead of time. Chairperson Kondrick stated so they have been at this for quite a well. Mr. Stanek replied, yes, he has and they are at this point now. Commissioner Heintz asked what does Mr. Stanek plan to do, where he is the homeowner, somebody comes up Ferndale, his driveway is right there, does not realize it and drives into his garage door. Are they planning something so it is maybe offset? Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 13 of 26 th Mr. Stanek replied, absolutely. And there is a precedent just a block over as well on 60. But, yes, they have taken that into consideration as well. Commissioner McClellan asked Mr. Stanek if he is a developer/builder currently? Mr. Stanek replied, he is not. He is working with a builder and an architect to design the proper houses. Commissioner McClellan asked Mr. Stanek he has not decided which one yet? Mr. Stanek replied, they have gone back and forth. They are still kind of deciding. His dad still lives in Fridley, they want to keep him in his home, his wife works close by and so does he. He went to Fridley schools, grew up here, and they would love the opportunity. Commissioner Evanson asked Mr. Stanek he would personally be living in one of these homes? Mr. Stanek replied, yes. Commissioner Evanson asked Mr. Stanek and he is looking at the “A” lot? Mr. Stanek replied, they were looking at that first and now they are kind of thinking they may switch and want to take “B”. Commissioner Evanson stated he lives a couple of doors away. Just a few doors south. What are the characters of the home he is thinking of building? Mr. Stanek replied, they are going to keep it within the neighborhood. They do not want to have anything that sticks out like a sore thumb. A rambler on the “A” and something very similar on “B”. Commissioner Evanson asked Mr. Stanek if he looking to build on both lots. Would they be building a spec home or just selling off? Mr. Stanek replied, they actually have a very good friend who is interested and probably more interested in the Hillcrest one. But they like them both. Commissioner Evanson stated so it would end up being custom for whoever ends up buying the lot? Mr. Stanek replied, yes. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 14 of 26 Cindy King, 1505 Ferndale Avenue NE, she stated she lives at one of the properties which will most be impacted. She asked whether a study has been done before the land development about species of the wildlife that is going to be impacted? Chairperson Kondrick asked, for example? Ms. King replied, the owls. This is impacting her last 29 years of living in her home. It is suddenly going to change. Has anyone looked into the wildlife that is going to change there? Commissioner Sielaff stated he would imagine the wetlands would provide habitat to wildlife. Ms. King replied, those wetlands have a very invasive ground cover. If you call them wetlands. The ground cover that covers that whole “B” lot is not necessarily a wetland ground cover, but it is very invasive. Commissioner Sielaff asked Ms. King, what does she mean by that? Ms. King replied it is worse than your worst Creeping Charlie. She is curious about that and also, once this all gets underway where are the trucks going to be. Ferndale is not easy to turn around on. In fact she had some packages that were to be delivered by Amazon this week that could not get down the street soeshe did not get her packages. Not a big deal but that is what they are used to. It is a very quiet street. They do not have a lot of traffic so the children play at that dead end where all the snow gets built. Ms. King stated it is definitely making an impact and she just read some paperwork there were no people who came forward. She has been on this since February 22 last year when the fire took place. It is going to make a lot of difficulty. She did look into the different species. They also have 14 deer. Some of them rest right on her side yard. They will be impacted. A few of the owl are a species of the least concern. The ICUN is what they say about them. The great horned owl and the Barred owl. Those two are not species of least concern, but she would like somebody to at least take an interest in the wildlife. There will be another house but what about what was there. Just some considerations. Commissioner Sielaff asked when the City plows the street do they store snow at that property? Ms. King replied, they have stored it on her front yard and up the yard. She used to keep her yard well but she does not rightly care anymore because it is then reseeded with weed Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 15 of 26 seed by the City. This past week she had to call Jeff with the City and have him come and take it away because she only had one-third of her driveway she was not able to get not even one car out of. Some of the dump trucks were out of commission so he could not get that done until maybe five days later. He did what he could and most of the snow gets plowed over the wire fence which right now is broken in about two places from the impact of the snow. Commissioner Sielaff asked, that is at the end of the street? Ms. King replied, right, going toward Parcel B. It is always a hassle. She asked how much of her front easement is going to be impacted to make some sort of turn around? There are a lot of questions that have not been answered yet so they will see what happens. John Morrison, 1342 Hillrest Drive NE, stated all in all he feels there are enough catches on Parcel B right now that why are they doing this before the wetlands are delineated. He feels like they are going too far ahead on this before they know it is even a feasible thing. Beyond that it is quite an important corridor for the wildlife to move through. Deer, foxes, owls, possums, raccoons, the whole bit goes through there. He even had an eagle in his tree. That will all be gone with a second house right there. Having them pairing together like that. He came from Brooklyn Center right on the border of north Minneapolis. They have a lot more space here. They are cramming two houses in right on top of each, and basically to him it ruins the characteristics of the neighborhood. You have a lot of space there. It is peaceful and quiet. That bit of piece of quiet and solitude is gone. Right now he is very much against it. Jerry Holm, 1338 Hillcrest Drive NE, stated he lives right next door to the property which has been a nightmare to most of them for some time because of the fire, etc. Now the property wants to be split and all the people he has talked to, the neighborhood, are not in favor of it. The neighborhood was started in the 1950’s. The lots are large, they have beautiful backyards and everything, and nobody seems to want that changed. The wetland part of it down on the bottom, because it is a 10-foot drop, and they get some pretty bad rains and it runs down in there, it is low and then comes back up to the road in the back of it which the only access would be the part B of the property if they are going to split it. Mr. Holm stated it is not a Como Zoo but there are animals down there. There are deer which have habitated, owls and different things, it is pretty. The main issue for everyone he thinks are the people who live on the bottom side of it. He urges them to drive down that road and see what it looks like. The question was brought up, could you put a cul de sac in there, and you would have to go into the property and put a cul de sac and come back out on Parcel B. there is no way on the street. He does not know how they can measure that and Mr. Hickok said you would have to have a 60-foot access to the property. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 16 of 26 He is not sure the road is that wide. He does not know where that amount of property would come in. You would have to go into either of the two neighbors to get that much of a width. Mr. Holm stated as the construction stuff, trucks going back and forth into there would be a nightmare, snowplowing is going to be a nightmare. Right now it is pushed up against the fence. Mr. Hickok has already said that, when they have had conversations with the City, it would have to get different equipment to go down there and bucket it out of there. Probably put it in dump trucks to haul it out of there. There is no place else to put it. Right now he thinks the garbage trucks back out. He really urges them to drive down the street and look at the property before they make their decision. Nancy Blegen, 1504 Ferndale Avenue NE, stated she lives where the wetland part is. She agrees with everything everybody has brought up. It is going to be very difficult for construction and go forward just getting in and out of that space without doing something to extend Ferndale or get into the property. There is limited turn around. There is no doubt about that. She does have concern about where they are going to put equipment and roll outs and all of that. She talked to Mr. Hickok about that. She understands it is a really nice lot but a big change for them who have lived there for 30 plus years. Jeff Morrison, 1342 Hillcrest Drive NE, stated he was just going through some of the paperwork he had gotten a hold of. It says to date staff has only heard from one neighbor about this whole thing. His son got notice two, three weeks about it. As far as notification of the neighbors as to what is going on with the property, that is the first they have heard of it. As far as the one neighbor they talked to, he does not know who the City has talked to, but most of the people he has talked to are very much against this. Chairperson Kondrick asked, and why are they against it? Mr. Morrison replied, they do not want to change the neighborhood. Chairperson Kondrick asked, one house is going to change the whole neighborhood? There was a house there before on the other side. Mr. Morrison stated there was a house there so build the one house that was there. Chairperson Kondrick asked, so adding one house is going to change the whole neighborhood? Mr. Morrison replied, if you had a back yard and someone decided to build one right beside your backyard, you had a nice yard, and all of a sudden you had another house Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 17 of 26 right there, is that what you would want in your backyard? He has a neighbor behind him. In the summertime the trees are up, but they do not really see each other’s houses. He looks over now and he is going to see another house sitting right there. It is like it was not there before. There is so much to it. They want to change something because somebody wants to change it. He does not want to change. Let them rebuild the house that was there, that is fine. He has no problem with that. He would like that. He would deal with the construction part of it. He has worked with construction/remodeling for 13 years. He knows all about it. Mr. Morrison stated as far as runoff from the “A” portion it is going to go downhill. That is the low spot in that whole area. He does not care what they do, how they build it, they are going to have problems with water. It is going to run off the “A” lot, it is going to run down the street, it has two other lots that run because of the way the land lays, it all runs to that spot. He does not care who you are and how you build it, unless you bring in a lot of fill, it is not going to work. He would be very sad to see a person build a house there and then they have water issues for 10 or 20 years. You could put sump pumps in but where are you going to pump it. It would have to be on your property as you cannot pump it into the sewer, cannot pump it down your drain. Mr. Morrison stated he sees it ruining the aspect of his neighborhood from the back of his house. It is when you start splitting the lot, you start making changes to the neighborhood that were not there before. The things they like about the neighborhood and all of a sudden they change it because they can, they think they can, or they pay somebody to do it, or paid for a vote or whatever you might want to call it. He does not know but he is very much against it. Commissioner Evanson asked Mr. Stanek about the economics, being able to develop Lot A if he cannot develop Lot B. He looked at this lot himself at one point and talked to a builder he knows. Knowing the price points of the community, there are challenges in being able to build only one home on a lot. He is curious whether Mr. Stanek has done far more analysis than he has going off of paper. He asked what are the economics of being able to develop anything if he cannot develop both? Mr. Stanek replied, that is why he came in here last May to go over this and the lot does meet the specifications. It exceeds what it needs to. They are going to take any precaution. They would be great neighbors. They will save every tree they can. They are not against wildlife. It is an opportunity and a nice area they would like to be part of. Commissioner Evanson stated he gets that. If they are talking about dividing the property, building two units on it, there are costs to develop properties, and his question is does it become economically challenging to build anything to replace any property Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 18 of 26 where there is if you cannot do both? The more doors you can put on a plot of land, it just makes it feasible or not feasible. While he hears everyone’s concerns about changing the character of the neighborhood, if Mr. Stanek cannot build anything on Parcel B, does that mean he really cannot afford to build something on Parcel A? There is the cost to acquire the property, you need to be able to build something, to sell something, and you would be able to recoup the cost of developing. Mr. Stanek replied, they would not be able to recoup the cost. Commissioner Evanson stated there would be a risk in not dividing the property. The entire lot could become vacant. Mr. Stanek replied, correct. That is, again, why he came in 10 months ago. Chairperson Kondrick stated Mr. Stanek wanted to find out whether it was feasible. Mr. Stanek replied, correct. Commissioner Evanson stated how does it change the character if now there is a vacant lot. There is already a vacant lot on Hillcrest. There is a vacant lot that is a little bit further down the hill. So what happens to the character of the neighborhood if you have another vacant lot? Commissioner Heintz asked they have naturalists at the Springbrook Nature Center. Would there be an opportunity to evaluate this property? Mr. Hickok replied, although it is noble and certainly understandable folks were talking about doing studies and all about the wildlife, there is a certain minimum size development that triggers any of that. A single-family home does not. The creation of a lot split does not cause that. Oftentimes you hear about Blandings turtles and owls and other things stopping a development. On any large development, and the City has done in the recent past, had both an EAW and EAS done and that might be where some of the confusion comes where a developer who has their sights set on a large site hopes there is not a discovery of something like that which keeps the project from going forward. Mr. Hickok stated what they are governed by here is the subdivision ordinance which talks about certain standards by which if met allow people to build or subdivide to allow in this case two lots and really those are very few, it is adjacency to a public right-of-way, it is meeting the minimum lot size, and where necessary the City has applied stipulations here to make sure that they do not get too far into parcel B, for example, before they know Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 19 of 26 is it truly buildable with that wetland characteristic they are suspicious of. Those types of things. Mr. Hickok stated he is hearing kind of mounting, what if they just say, no? What would be so wrong with just having a vacant lot? From the lot split subdivision standard the City is not really in a position to just clearly say, no. You can make a recommendation and protect as best you can. They may recall one of the first developments years ago when he first came to the City was the Royal Oaks development, south of Totino-Grace, a fairly large, deep cul de sac, with homes around there. They talked about the diminished Oaks Savannah, they talked about that is probably some of the last evidence of the Oaks Savannah that existed here, and they talked about all sorts of things, but the reality is that in an area that is zoned in an area that has certain rights to an owner, they also have to from the City’s perspective be very careful about just saying no because when do they shut the door. Mr. Hickok stated it is a very common thing in development to say, I am here now, I think we are done, I don’t think another house can be built, where by the subdivision ordinance it lays out invitation. If you can meet all these things. It has street access, it has the minimal size dimension, and so forth. Of course you would love to keep the trees next door, that would be phenomenal if you could, but the people who lived there before the Ferndale neighborhood and the people who lived there before the Hillcrest neighborhood would have loved that larger piece of the forest to stay there also. Did Ferndale’s neighborhood meet the requirements of the subdivision ordinance at the time? Yes, it did. Did the folks who developed the uphill side, the Hillcrest neighborhood, have to be governed by what the local ordinance stated? Yes, they did. Did they create a plat that met all the minimum standards? Yes, they did or it would not have developed. He wants to be clear, he does not want to sound harsh, that it is not as simple as just saying yes or no and how about just leaving the lot because there still looms then the question, what about a landowner who has at their fingertips the Code that says, well, the minimum lot size in the R-1 district is this. I Mr. Hickok stated in order to be able to have two lots, you have to have access to both with a minimum amount of access of this foot dimension. If you meet those minimum standards, that is what they are really talking about. To the extent the City can, they put protections in there about what they are seeing vegetation wise and not allowing a home to be built. When the gentlemen mentioned, aren’t we getting ahead of ourselves, we do not even know about the wetland yet, that is the risk to a buyer who intends to build two homes who may find out later that they do not get a permit for the second one until they reconcile what issues are related to the wetland. Through this they are trying to govern as best they can with a situation where there is an owner who is meeting the minimum standards of the subdivision ordinance. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 20 of 26 Commissioner Sielaff asked what would happen if a wetland was delineated which would make the property maybe unbuildable or less buildable? Could that be resolved, so that the property could be used, with a wetland credit? Would the wetland be approved or if it is delineated as a wetland, then are they saying they cannot use that property as a buildable lot? Mr. Hickok replied, the City would then be governed then also by the Wetland Conservation Act, and the rules of the Watershed District and so forth. Think of this as a landowner’s rights to develop and the laws that apply. They talked about the subdivision ordinance. Once it is determined and if it is determined there is wetland there, then there is the Wetland Conservation Act that says, okay, there will be agencies involved. There will be the Watershed District involved, the local engineering folks certainly involved, and there would be basically a road map from there with some options in it, and one of those options might be buying wetland credits and being able to then operate the way they did here. That example is you did not just buy the wetland credits and then the Watershed District, in this case the Army Corps of Engineers, did not just say go ahead and do what you want now. There would always be certain parameters they put on it. Even if you were to buy wetland credit, here is how you would need to leave this. It is not just a simple answer they get on that. Mr. Hickok stated that is why you are being cautious when you are buying property, you are looking at it to see what is the wetland characteristic, do I know what it is if I do not, you are going to want to bring in an expert anyways because what looks like and walks like a duck may not be. You want to make sure you are bringing on somebody who actually knows that and then in subdividing you want to make sure Parcel B is large enough and anticipates that if your 14,000 square feet and a standard lot is 9,000 square feet maybe the wetland consumes 5,000 square feet of what he would otherwise build on, and you still have basically a standard lot size uphill. Now, can I meet all of the requirements of the Watershed District now knowing about the low land in this property, that he can protect it, stay out of it, that he can still dig a foundation. There is a lot that goes onto it. It is not just delineate it and it is done. There will be a plan if it is delineated and if it is found there is one, then there will be a plan and steps forward as to how they get to building. Commissioner Sielaff stated he is not clear as to under what circumstances would a credit be allowed or approved. Mr. Hickok stated it might be more science than he can provide. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 21 of 26 Commissioner Hansen stated that is something the applicant will have to understand or determine with their expert they hire for the delineation. Sometimes wetlands are small enough where they qualify for a deminimus or they can just be filled in. Otherwise they have to go through a functions and values process. Chairperson Kondrick stated the petitioner has his work cut out for him, and he thinks he knows that. Commissioner McClellan asked would the house location on the lot already be determined in the permit application? Showing how it looks as to geography, south, west, that sort of thing? Mr. Hickok stated if all were known then about this southeast corner and how much is actually wetland and is it deminimus, can it be filled, and what are the next steps. From there then if he were that owner, that is when he would be determining, okay, here is the design of the house I want. Here is how I would situate it on the lot. All I know now about having to stay away from this area, I can still build this house, shaped like this, on this part of the lot. He asked Commissioner McClellan if that answered his question? Commissioner McClellan replied, yes, but it also indicates at this point in time nobody really knows. Mr. Hickok replied, yes, it is too early. It will have to thaw, see the vegetation, etc. Commissioner Hansen asked would it be possible for a snow storage easement or possibly some right-of-way that could be dedicated. It would probably violate the setbacks if right-of-way was dedicated, but he is still struggling with the snow storage and kind of losing that spot where the City currently puts the snow now and how are they going to deal with that. Mr. Hickok replied, they have talked to the Public Works Director about this, and the City Engineer and Assistant Engineer attended the meeting where they discussed this. They are going in with full recognition and understanding that you get that snow storage basically not by right but by virtue of the fact it has happened on the downhill side of 1340 and there have not been complaints about it. However, the reality is all along they could have and should have and maybe might have been better off to have a solution because the dead end street did serve as that solution, but now with somebody wanting to put a driveway in there to a new house it was not a given they get to keep it. Mr. Hickok stated to answer the question, which he thinks is a very good question, is would there be easement or some sort of allowance here, that, too, goes back to the Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 22 of 26 stipulation where they are talking about them working with the engineers on their driveway coming in. For a lot of reasons, if he were developing this lot, he would want to be able to look down Ferndale and say, even on that first snow day, well, here is the distinction here, Ferndale does not continue. Maybe it is a berm that rolls and is a bit landscaped with a driveway that kind of goes around to the side of it. However that driveway being put in there might also afford an opportunity to continue to kind of use slope and to push snow against the end of it where they have before where they are sneaking a driveway kind of around a landscaped area which still says, this is the end of the road. If you are driving down Ferndale, do not plan on going any further, that is a private drive from here forward. Commissioner Hansen asked whether the applicant has any idea how wide the driveway is going to be? Mr. Stanek replied, a standard 16 to 20 feet. He guessed that is for the architect to help with that. Commissioner Oquist asked Mr. Hickok, in regards to the snow concern about it being pushed up there, is there not a 10 or 15 foot boulevard that they have to leave free? Mr. Hickok replied, this will answer another question someone had about the width of the right-of-way. They will see in front of the homes there is a line behind a vehicle and a line right here. That is the edge of the public right-of-way. Although one of the gentlemen spoke and said that street is not 50 or 60 feet wide. No, it is not. It is probably 28 feet wide, back of curb to back of curb. However, in a 60-foot right-of-way, the difference between 28 feet and 60 feet is boulevard. If somebody wanted to do something like a turnaround or something, you have 60 feet to work with without encroaching. The woman speaker asked, will this take part of my front yard? If you are counting the boulevard as part of your front yard, which people do and they mow it and treat it like part of their front yard, yes, it would cut away part of their front yard. Mr. Hickok stated the idea here was to have as little impact on adjacent neighbors as possible while allowing a driveway to come back in and be somewhere within that right- of-way that would still allow them to have access to the home that would exist on Parcel B and not detrimentally affect things like possibly it can be done in a way that still leaves area for snow storage and things like that. Mr. Hickok stated he does not know about dedicating right-of-way here. The purpose for that right-of-way and the width of that right-of-way and all is in part for snow storage. Maybe it is that in the Commission’s recommendation they want to say something about area along that property line to store snow or maybe they want to rely on that discussion Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 23 of 26 with the engineers about how the driveway comes in and how they can still manage that. That is up to the Commission and certainly he is okay with however they want to recommend on that. Commissioner Hansen stated the City would need an easement to push and store snow on Parcel B. Mr. Hickok replied, it would. To be clear they did not have one before to shovel it onto the downside of 1340 but on a dead end street it is a rare condition where they do it because of convenience he is sure. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Evanson. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:19 P.M. Chairperson Kondrick stated he is in favor of this idea. The petitioner or whoever has his work cut out for him, no question about that for all the things they are talking about here. The petitioner is agreeing with all of the conditions the City is placing upon him and on the lot. He asked the Commission if they wanted to include anything else about Lot B as far as connection fees and whatnot? He thinks the petitioner already understands that; however, are they clear on those things? Commissioner Hansen stated he is clear on the items Commissioner Oquist brought up but he suggested they consider some sort of a snow storage easement. He does trust the applicant and the City will work together to come up with some plan. However, in the event they cannot or there needs to be an easement, should that be a stipulation and would they be agreeable to providing a snow storage easement of some sort? Chairperson Kondrick stated they can put that in there and the City Council can decide upon that. And the petitioner will be working with the City on additional things, let alone the wetland problem. Commissioner Hansen asked if it was needed? Mr. Hickok replied, he commended Commissioner Hansen for suggesting it. Frankly he thinks it is the replacement for the act of putting snow there. It would be a formal replacement of that. He does fear that if there is not a combination of driveway and easement solution, then it locks them into that. He is inclined to say he thinks there is a Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 24 of 26 willingness on all sides to figure out a solution that allows them to get in and out in a non- cul de sac situation with snow plowing. If it is an easement, at any point, they can come back with a document and file it for that easement. Some of these things kind of hinge together where the wetland is and where the house sits which will determine how the driveway comes into that house. So there are things yet to be discovered. Chairperson Kondrick stated he did not know if he wants to go so far as to tell him where the snow can be stored. Commissioner Hansen stated he is okay with that. Commissioner Heintz asked whether they are going to change Stipulation No. 6 to include Parcel A with the wetland? Commissioner Oquist stated the wetland is on Parcel B. Commissioner Heintz stated but also because of the slope. Chairperson Kondrick stated that is going on there whether or not something is built there. It is going down that way no matter what. You cannot stop that. He does not think that is going to swing his decision not to do this. Commissioner Oquist stated the concerns he has are answered with Stipulation Nos. 2 and 6 plus their discussion tonight. Commissioner Oquist asked Mr. Hickok if he is going to put in as to Stipulation Nos. 4 and 5 they apply to Lot B only? Mr. Hickok asked if that is the wish of the Commission staff modifies that language? Chairperson Kondrick stated he guessed it would explain some things to somebody. Commissioner Evanson stated it might just be an abundance of clarity. If it is already obvious. Chairperson Kondrick asked the Commission if they could say what stipulations and what they would prefer the language to be? Chairperson Kondrick replied, Stipulation Nos. 4 and 5 that they include Lot B and making sure it is for the whole thing, not just for Lot A. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 25 of 26 Motion by Commissioner Oquist approving Lot split, LS #20-01, by Tom Stanek, to subdivide the single family lot at 1340 Hillcrest Drive to create a second single family lot. The new lot will receive access from Ferndale Avenue with the following stipulations which are amended: 1. All necessary permits shall be obtained prior to construction of that new home on either lot. 2. Grading and drainage shall be approved by the City’s engineering staff prior to issuance of any building permits in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding properties. 3. The property owner, at the time of the building permit application, shall provide proof of any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 4. The property owner at the time of building permit application for construction of a single-family home shall pay a $1,500.00 required park dedication fee. 5. The property owner at the time of building permit application for the construction of the single-family home shall pay for all water and sewer connection fees. 6. The landowner must adhere to the requirements of the Wetlands Conservation Act, prior to issuance of a building permit for Parcel B. Seconded by Commissioner Evanson. UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH COMISSIONERS HEINTZ, HANSEN, EVANSON, OQUIST, MCCLELLAN AND CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK VOTING AYE, AND COMMISSIONER SIELAFF VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ON A 6-1 VOTE. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM OTHER COMMISSIONS – THROUGH ONE MOTION Motion to accept the minutes from the following Commission meetings: 1. January 6, 2020, Parks & Recreation Commission 2. December 10, 2019, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission 3. January 14, 2020, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission Motion by Commissioner Hansen to approve the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Heintz. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 26 of 26 OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Hickok stated staff is working on an ordinance that better defines what commercial and industrial properties say about storage facilities. It seems of vogue lately to see storage facilities in other cities, very nice. They are a new generation of storage building, and they do have one that has been very interested in building in Fridley. It would be pre- ordinance amendment so it would be governed by what Fridley’s ordinances say currently. Within the next few months they will probably see a draft of something that better defines precisely what they would look for in the industrial and commercial districts. ADJOURN: Motion by Commissioner Oquist to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:32 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary