Loading...
PL SUBCOM 07/12/1972 - 31124' � � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLATS & SUBDIVISIONS- STREETS & UTILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE JULY 12, 1972 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schmedeke at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Meissner, Schmedeke, French, Forster Member Absent: Engdahl Others Present: Darrel Clark., Engineering Assistant 1. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. �'�72-03, BY DON A SCHULTZ: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Edgewater Gardens. To remove lot line from under adjacent house for adequate side yard requirements. Mr. Schultz was present. Chairman Schmedeke commented that Mr. Schultz owns the property on both sides of the line he intends to move. Mr. Clark discussed the drawing on Page 2 of the Agenda, saying the existing lot line runs right underneath the corner of Mr. Schultz's existing house. He would like to move the lot line. The shore line has moved out, but the ownership has not. The entire lake bottom is owned by two people. Mr. Schultz has a surveyor working on this to get a plat of the whole lake bottom. Tonight all the Subcommittee is talking about is moving the lot line. He called the County Surveyor and he will accept the lot split if the City decision is favorable. Mr. Schultz has a retaining wall along the shoreline of his house and there may be need for one on this new building site also. Mr. Meissner asked how Mr. Schultz ended up with a house on top of_the lot? Mr. Schultz said that the house was built without maximum use of his property and should have been turned for all practical purposes. He can't own both lots forever and this would come up sooner or later. The Chairman felt that this was a simple lot split. MOTIDN by French, seconded by Meissner, that the Plats & Su.bdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee recommend to the Planning Commission approval of the'Lot Sp1it Request, L.S. #72-03, by Don A. Schultz for Lots 1 and 2, B1ock 1, Edgewater Gardens to remove the 1ot line from under the house and provide adequate side yard for this existing house. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Plats & Sub.s.- Str. & Uti1. Mt .- Jul 12 1972 Pa�e 2 Mr. Clark explained that before the lake was formed, the land was owned by two people, Otto pstman and Drew Scherer. They are still the owners of the lake bottom. If one person owned the lake and everybody around the lake shared the cost of platting, the lake bottom could be divided into lots. Then the one owner could deed the individual lots to the adjacent owner. For example, the land in front of Mr. Schultz's house, because the shoreline has shifted, is owned by another person and consequently, Mr. Schultz has no lake access. Mr. Schultz said his surveyor may not have enough time to do it. There will be 50 different ideas of how it should be decided b ecause there are 50 lakeshore owners. There are some. people who will not deed their property to the lakeshore because they had their property before there was a lake. 2. LOT SPLIT RE UEST: L.S. ��72-04 BY EDWARD E M. METCALFE: Lot 16, except East 165 feet, Re ��23 -- to split off South five feet of Lot 16. TORNEY FOR JOHN or's Subdivision Mr. Gerald M. Randall, Associate, of the office of Edward E. Colemanyrepre- sented Mr. Metcalfe. Mr. Clark reviewed the lot split request of a year ago referring to the map on Page 8 of the Agenda, and said Mr. Metcalfe got approval to split the land that runs from the Mississippi to the East side of Riverview Terrace, being one large parcel into three R-1 lots. It was stipulated that he provide a second utility and driveway easement for sewer and water and access for the house now located on the river. When the survey was made, it was discovered that the neighbor to the South had his garage built with a 1.+ foot overlap. The City has one deed already signed but not recorded for Riverview Terrace. The County won't accept it because of the title which was in the name of the father-in-law of Mr. Metcalfe, but nac,� Mr. Metcalfe has the title. Mr. Clark continued that the driveway goes across the Southerly part of the lot. The utilities also may work out better on the South line. Notliing has been recorded yet so that it will not be a problem. The lot now is 91 feet wide and splitting off the South 5 feet would leave 86 feet. There is quite a bit of room between the new lot line and the existing house so that line could slide East or West. The contract for the deed has been paid off within the last few months. We should get a new deed signed by Mr. Metcalfe for Riverview Terrace. Mr. Gerald Randall said he thought this would be taken care of soon. There is a mortgage on the five foot strip that Mr. Metcalfe is selling. When the mortgage is released, a survey will be made of the whole area. Mr. Clark said the sewer is rather shallow that connects to the house on the river. If it can serve that house, it can serve the proposed house. However, it will have to be relocated. As you move South, you gain depth in the sewer line. He added that the lot split cannot be completed until a survey is made of the entire parcel so that proper legal descriptions can be brought up. MOTION by French, seconded by Forster, that the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee recommend to the Planning Commission approval of the Lot Split Request, L.S. #72-04, by John M. Metcalfe splitting of the SoutherZy 5 feet of Lot 16, except the East 165 feet, Revised Auditor's Subdivision #23 subject Plats & Subs.-Str. & Util. Mt .- Jul 12 1972 Pa e 3 to receiving a certificate of survey of the entire Lot Z6 showing the location of a11 subsequent Zot Zines with proper legals describing them. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, fhe motion carried unanimously. 3. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. ��72-05, BY LAUREN BORN: Lot 20, Block 1, Spring Va11ey Addition -- to be split into four lots because of high taxes. Mr. and Mrs. Lauren Born were present. Mr. Clark explained that on the East �ide of the property there is an alley going in a North/South direction. The lot is 335 feet deep. It is planned to have a 50 foot street coming from Arthur Street towards Central Avenue. The half of the lot abutting Central Avenue is zoned coamiercial and the East half is zoned R-1. Mr. Born submitted two proposals for his request. Proposal "A" is divided into four lots meeting the present R-1 land area requirements without additional right of way for the North/South street along the Eastern edge of the property. Proposal "B" shows these lots as being smaller than the R-1 requirements. Mr. Born apparently feels because he has to give up 34 feet, the lots have to be smaller -- he might be able to get a variance. The zoning line on proposed Lot 2 comes within about 8 feet of the Eastern line of Lot 2. The existing house is on the corner lot. Mr. Born has spent.quite a bit of money remodeling it. The house had no basement. Mr. Meissner wondered if a cul de sac could be used instead of Mr. Born dedicating 34 feet for a street. Mr. Clark answered that a couple of years ago, there was a request for a lot split to the North of here. The petitioner was asked to dedicate 34 feet for the North/South street. Because this area does not have a storm sewer and will eventually have to have one if the split goes through, Council probably will ask Mr. Born to escrow $8.00 per 100 square feet for storm sewer. The lots would hook onto sewer and water from 64th Avenue. Mr. Schmedeke said that he liked to favox the petitioner at every opportunity he gets, but here two different zonings are involved. The house on Mr. Born's property is in C-1 which makes it a non-conforming use. Most of the second lot would be in C-1 so there would be a creation of a coa�ercial lot which was under- sized. He would prefer Plan B as shown on Page 12 of the Agenda because the street is shown, but could not go along with the request at this time. He asked the Subcommittee if there would be any way they could help this man, perhaps by a change in the zoning. There could be the possibility of this being considered spot zoning. Addressing the Subcommittee, Mr. Clark asked if Mr. Born decided to rezone the property and it was approved, could he be assured the lot split would be accepted. Mr. Born was informed of the rezoning procedure. Mr. Meissner noted that the two lots North of Lot 20 were zoned C-1 (Lots 18 and 19) and the two lots North of them were zoned C-2. He wondered if it would be possible to rezone the three lots in the same category. Mr. Clark said that the lots could be split along the zoning line. C-1 facing Central A�enue and R-1 facing 64th Avenue. Plats & Subs.-Str. & Util. Mt .- Jul 12 1972 Pa e 4 Mr. Meissner asked if there was practically no chance of not including the street if they go through the lot split. Mr. Clark answered that there has to be a street there. The people will be forced to try to use their land a little better when the storm sewer assessments of $800 per lot is levied. Mr. Born said he owned Lot 19, the lot to the North. Dale Movers are across the street, there is not enough land for a small shopping center. He did not know what Walquist wanted to do. Ferd has the next big piece to the North. Darrel Clark did not feel Mr. Walquist would be interested in changing the zoning. Mr. French said he would be in favor of Proposal "B" with the property zoned R-1, or split two lots off in R-1 making two buildable lots in the back. Mr. Meissner said that looking at Plan "B", hi� thoughts were more along lines as far as the present zoning situation,_unless-there was a change in C-1 zoning, his feeling was Mr. Born would be better off to make two lots out of the R-1 property, but not the dimensions he is using. He could leave the legal non-conforming Use at this time for the lot and house on Central Avenue and if something did happen to the house and he wanted to come back and rebuild, he would have an $O,or 75 foot �ot. He could come back and split the lot into two lots, but he would have an undersized commercial lot:as it,-is zoned now. Mr. Born said that if he could have some assurance he could split Lot 20 into four lots, he would definitely try to have the property rezoned and come back. Mr. Clark said that a new house built on Lot 2 would have to have a setback of 35 feet, and Mr. Born would have to ask for a variance if built closer. Mr. Born commented that the former owner gave up the land because of taxes. He would go along with trying to get the property rezoned if the 5ubcommittee would go along with the four lots. He would like to have the lot split and rezoning at the same time. Mr. Meissner said the following was his suggestion: That the split be made contingent upon the rezoning. This wonld leave Mr. Born with two lots (Lots 3 and 4) to develop at this time. There was no objection to this kind of lot size. They would be slightly under in front footage on one lot, but close enough that it could be recommended. In this way the whole property is not tied up waiting for the rezoning which can proceed on its own. Nothing will happen until a sale is made and until the lot split is recorded. The approval can be for Lots 3 and 4 and that the ].ot split shown for Lots 1 and 2 be contingent upon applying for rezoning to R-1 and if rezoning is granted, the lot split would go on through within a year. Mr. Clark said that the Planning Commission or Council could_request Mr. Born to also rezone Lot 18, but there was no guaranty the rezoning would be permitted. It will depend upon the attitude of the people, City Council and Planning Commission. MOTION by Meissner, seconded by Forster, that the Plats & Subdivisions - 5treets & Utilities 5ubaommittee recommend approvaZ to the PZanning Commission of the Lot Sp1it Request, L.S. #72-05, by Lauren Born of Lot 20, B1ock .Z, Spring Va11ey Addition with modifications as follows: First of a11 we are ta.Zking about Plan "B", Page 12 of the Agenda and that the Zot lines be amended so that Lot 4 is 75 feet as shown with a 34 foot future street Zocated on the East si<de: That Lot 3 also be made 75 feet thereb� splitting the property into three lots at the present time, two of which are in the residentiaZ area and the one Plats.& Suhs.-Str. & Uti1. Mt .- Jul 12 1972 Pa e 5 presently zoned C-I, contingent upon an application for rezoning R-Z for the remaining C-Z area and that the commercial Zot be split into approximateZy 81 feet for Lot 1 and Lof 2 to be 71 feet with the neaessary easements to a11ow continuing the water and sewer access for Lot 1. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 4. PROPOSED PRELIMINAR.Y PLAT, P.S. ��72-02, DORSTAD DORSTAD: A replat of Lot 39, Revised Auditor'� part to Greenwood (Parcel 5640). Mr. and Mrs. Dorstad were present. 'ION BY EINAR "TED" vision ��77 except that Mr. Clark explained that Mr. Dorstad requested rezoning to R-3 about a month ago. At that time the discussion was to divide into residential lots with a street running through the center. The Planning Commission and people thought double bungalows on East River Road would be acceptable with single family residences on the remainin� property. The next problem was the street. Some day there will be a median put down East River Road and the interior streets will not have access to East Ri.ver Road excepting to �o South. The traffic signal would be at 79th Avenue and Osborne Road and would take care of the left turns going North. He had talked to Mr. Lundheim recently who said he does not like the plat but will continue to work on the design. They probably would have to get additional right of way on the West side. Mr. Lundheim asked about getting additional easements along East River Road for slope or sidewalk. The houses on the West side are located close to East River Road. The structures on the East side are set back pretty far. He �ske�_to�.be given opportunity to give it more study. Mr. Clark said the lots abutting East River Road meet the minimum area requirements for R-2. The watermain is on the East side of East River Road. The sewer would be open cut, and the storm sewer is in to Talmadge now. Refer� ring to Talmadge Lane, if the buildings go through, Talmadge Lane would be surfaced. There is enough right of way. Osborne Road is 50 feet wide with a 66 foot right of way. Mr. Clark suggested Mr. Dorstad talk to Mr. Greenwood explaining that it would be to the City's advantage and Mr. Greenwood's if he would include his parcel in the Dorstad plat. MOTION by French, seconded by Meissner, that the PZats & Subdivisions - Streets & Uti.Zities Subcommittee recommend approval of the preliminary p.Zat, P.S. #72-02, Dorstad Addition to the Planning Commission, to replat Lot 39, Revised Auditor's Subdivision #77 except that part to Greenwood (Parcel 5640) subject to possibZe easements for utilities on the West side of East River Road, being the Easterly side of the property, and consideration be given to the realignment of Osborne Road somewheres close as shown on the proposed plat. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 5. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. ��72-06, BY MRS. MA.RION JOHNSON: Lot l, Block 2, Moore Lake Highlands to be split into two lots: 80x100 and 120x100. Mrs. Marion Johnson was present. Plats & Subs.-Str. & Util. Mtg. - July 12 1972 Page 6 The explanation of the request was given by Darrel Clark. This is a lot on the corner of Able and Mississippi Streets. There is 100 feet on Mississippi Street and 200 feet on Able street. A house is on the lot. If the lot were split, the new lot would be 80 feet and abut Mississippi Street. This would give a lot of 8,000 square feet, 12 feet between the lot line and existing house, and 10 feet being the side yard minimum. The recommendation would be for the driveway to come off Able street. The City would like to get a 10 foot sidewalk easement along Mississippi Street in case Mississippi were widened. The side- walk easement would not encroach on the area as it would be considered part of the yard. There is a retaining wall on Mi.ssissippi Street which belongs to the County. The present house faces Able Street but uses a Mississippi address. The reason for the split is that the husband passed away and Mrs. Johnson would like to sell part of the property. Chairman Schmedeke said that the new lot probably would be the smallest in the area. Mr. Clark said the frontage was about average, but the area far less than average. Lots further South are 75'x150'. The lot might appear small to the prospective buyer because the rear yard would be short. Mr. Clark said that the homes in the area were probably built in the 1950's, The date of the present home is about 1940, being a little on the small side and getting rather old. The house to the East (Mr. Paulson's) is a good sized rambler and sets rather far back. The houses across Able Street were probably build in the 50's. They do not meet the standards of today's minimum require- ments. The Subcommittee was told they were being asked to approve a lot that daes not meet the City standards. As the proposed 1ot would face Able Street, the rear of the lot would be next to Mr. Paulson's lot. Mr. Meissner said that Mississippi Street, being a main street:in the City, he felt it was important they keep proper consideration for the requirements of the ordinance as far as the ordinance is concerned. This will be a small lot within the area of Mississippi Street. Most of the homes are being built on very large lots. There are ways of cantrolling the kind of houses, but the Sub- committee does not pass on them. His basic objection was that it does not meet the area requirements, is on a main thoroughfare of the City and in an area of large lots. He asked if Mrs. Johnson had any specific plans and her answer was "no particular plans". Chairman Schmedeke suggested the Subcommittee take a better look at the request because this property is on a main street and also he had had no time to check it. MOTION by Meissner, seconded by French, that the PZats & Subdivisions- Streets & Utilities Subcommittee continue the request for a Lot 5p1it, L.S. #72-06, by Mrs. Marion Johnson, to split Lot 1, B1ock 2, Moore Lake Highlands � into two building sites, until the 9th day of August, or in case of a large - agenda, on August 2nd subject to the decisions of the Chairman and DarreZ Clark, Engineering Assistant, notifying the neighbor on the East of the Hearing. Upon a voice vote, a.Z1 voting ar�e, the motion carried unanimously. �lats.& Suhs.-Str. & Util. Mt .- Jul 12 1972 Pa e 7 MISCELLANEOUS CONIl�IENTS : Development of the Riedel Propertv: Mr. Meissner felt that if the rezon- ing request by the Wall Corp. is passed, there are traffic problems that have not been thoroughly discussed. He would like to see the Subcommittee be given the opportunity to research the traffic problem more thoroughly. Sub Streets and A11e s: Mr. French felt a study of street easements that are never being used throughout Fridley and alleys that are not being used, would result in dormant property being put back on the tax rolls. Darrel Clark was asked how much work this would be for the Engineering Department. Mr. Clark said that at the present time, it would be rather difficult to get the report ready, but otherwise it would not be a difficult assignment. ADJOURNMENT ; �TION by Meissner, seconded b� French, that the Plats & Subdivisions- 5treets & Utilities Subcommittee meeting be adjourned at Z0:35 P.M. Upon a voice vote, a11 votinq aye, the motion carried unanimousl�. R ectfu l��ub tted r f Haze 'Brian Recording Secretary