PL 10/05/1967 - 30335d
�
�
1�
P.LANNTNG COi�t1ISSTON ME;:�:�IiVG OCTQBER 5, 1967 PAGE 1
The meeti.ng was called to orcter at 7:38 P.M, by Chairman Hughes.
ROLZ CAL.L :
Members Present: Mynra, Jensen, �Iughes, Erickson
Members Abse�t: Ylinen
Others Present: City Attorney Herrick, Engineering Assistant Clark
APPROV� MINUTES Ok' PLANNTNG COMMISSION ME�TING: SEPTEMB�R 28,- 1967
Member Jensen called attention to Page 4 stating second paragraph from
� the bottom should read "the agxeemenL by the petitioners to restrict si_gns
. on the building so that they could not extend above the top oi the roof
line".
Member Erickson askecl the fol].owing correction by made on Page 6, ttie
first sent�nce of the last paragraph on the paoe should read "Member Erickson
said it seems that a lot split has alr.eady i:aken place".
MOTIQN by Jensen, seconded by Myhra, th�i: the minutes of the Plannin�
. Commission meetir�g of October 5, 196% be approved as corrected, Upon a voice
n vote, a11 voting aye, the moL-ion carr.ied unanimously.
RI�CE:CVE MINUT�S U� BUILDING STANDARllS-D�SIGN CONTROL SUBCUTIMITTEE 1�1�E'TING:
SEPTE�IBER 19, 19G7
MOTION by Exickson, seconded by Jensen, that the Plai�ning Commiss�.on re-
cei.ve the minutes of the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee meeting
of. Sept-ember 19, 1967. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carr�_ed
unanimously. �
RECETVE MI:ViJTES OF THE BOARD OI' APPEALS MEETTNG : SEPTEM13E12 27 Z 1967
MOT.ION by Myhra, seconded by Erzckson, that the Planning Cor_u-nission receive
the minutes o� the Soard of Appeals meeti.ng of SeptemLer 27, I967. Upon a voice
vote, all. voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. �
ORDER OF AGENI�A :
Inasmuch as there were no additions or objections to fhe order of agenda,
the items �aou)_d be consider_ed as Frritten.
l. CONTIIv'UED LOT SPL±T P.}?QUEST : L. S. ��n 7- 05, ROBERT DeGARDNER_AND P.OIvT�LD L,_GJEP.N� �. _
A'CTGRT.v�Y: Lots 52, 53 and 54, Block E, Ri_vervie�o Heights. Y^
Thcse present for this item �aere Mr:. Vera Johnson, Mrs. Duane H. Ander�on,
n_ Lucy G?v].d, Ron�'Ld J. Werner and Robert DeGaxclnex,
Chai��aan �IuGhes e�plained this lot split �vas helct over bec2use seve-ral -
questa,ons �aer.e r.a�.secl; one being if the �resent occupant o� the house on Lots
lri, 16 and 17 was ati�,ar�. of this request and anothc-Jr being whether the util.it.ies
for the house on 15, 16 and 17 ti�;ere properly ].ocated.
Plannin� Commission Meetin� - October 5, 1967 Pa�e 2
The house is se�-ved by a private system, a septic tanlc and cesspo�l. Mrs.
� Johnson said the distance is about 15 feet from the corner of the porch to the
cesspool and the septic tank is close to the house. The measurements were
"stepped off-". She said, as far as she knetio, the septic tanlc still operates.
Engineering Assistant Clark told the Planning Conunission he had talked
to Mr. Suhl and they were not coming to the meeting tonight as they were moving
out and are not interested in the lot split.
Mr. Werner saicl the Suhl's had retained an attoxney, Spencer Sokolowski,
556 40t11 Avenue N.E., rlinneapolis, and that he and Mr, Sokolowski had been
negotiating since last Monday in an attempt to finalize Mr. Suh1's interest
and they were ��opeful of getting a quit claim deed from him within the next
few days. It is possible.they may remain as a month to month tenant.
Chairman Hughes said he thought the Commission could assume the Suhls are
aware of the fact that proceedings are takii�.g place which might affect them
and are also awaxe of the nature. The fact that they are not present, he did
not think could be considered the fault of the Commission or petitioners.
Mr. Wexner asked if the Commission would wish a copy of the quit claim
deed, but Chairman Hughes did not believe it was important to do that.
Mr. Wexner asked Mr. DeGardner that, if in the event the cesspool is on
Lot 52, would he grant access to repair it. Mr. DeGarclner felt it could be
" stipulated in the deed, r1r. Werner continued,then Mr, DeGardner would not be
n adverse to the owner repairing the cesspool while it is being used, Since
his client desixes to sell this property, and since she has no capi.tal to
invest, she tioould have to sell it as is.
Mr. Wernex', in answer to Member Myhra's question, said the
the house by two feet. It was the suz-veyor`s plan that if they
20 feet off the South half of Lots 52 and 53, it would go right
In having a full 90 feet in which to build, Mr. DeGardner still
an aesthetic stxucture_which would benefit the conununity.
eaves overhang
took a fu11
past the eaves.
could put up
Member Myhra wondered if it would be wise procedure to have this that close,
and asked Mr. DeGardner how much could r�e take off the 90 feet. He answered
that he could not give moxe, but he would be willing to give an easement for
that corner for maintenance and repair of the property.
Mr. Werner said the house did not face blunt into the lot, but is at a
sharp angle -- it is only a short corner.
Member Erickson asked for the design of the roof. It was the high pitch
type.
Because there are gi.ztters on the house, the water did not drop off at the
corner. Mr. DeGardner said he did not think the drainage would be a problem
as the land slopes east and �•�est.
n_ Member Ericicson said he t��ould like to comment that if this lot spl.it is
granted, he be]_ieved the 20 feet should be 21 feet in order to give roon to
get axound. He di_d noi. thinl: that would affect Mr. DeGardner's property.
Member Je3.isen xccalled that if the lot split were approved this evening
with the addit�.onal foot, the Plannin� Commission would be directly in conflict
.
. Planning Commission Meeting - October. 5, 19G7 � pa��
with the orcli�.iance in regard to tlie xequired yard setback of 25 feet or 25% oi
� the depth. .
Mr. Werner said, referring to his original argument, that when you have
an old structure which was there before the platting, the old house is not
entitled to the benefits of the pzesent oxdinance. The house is 85 years old
and the land was platced in 1922.
Mr. DeGardnex said the depth of. the proposed house is 24 feet and there
is a 35 faoi: setbacic. He �aould have to allow about $500 less in value but
the structure would look presentaUle,
Member Piyhxa said he felt the Planning Commissian had no right to violate
an ordinance.
Chairman Hughes sai.d that the Planni.ng Commissi.on could xeconunend variatior_:
set by the ordinance. The question was raised as to whether it would be
feasible to leave the lots the way they are. rlember Jensen wondered if it
would be feasible moving this old house to another part of the lot.
Mr. DeGardner said he had known a few people wlio have tried to move an
old home onto a new foundation, but it was almost a new home as far as taxes
were concerned. A r.ew basement would cost about $2,000, for moving the house
$1,000 making $3,000 to be added to the selling price and you would get the
same type of buyer. This is not feasible. Tt is more of a hardship case to
. Mrs. Johnson if she can't split the lors.
^
Mrs. Lucy Wold said she felt Mr. DeGardner would be the first one to object
and if he feels he can build a new home with the old one there, and sell the
new ones, this should be a recommendatian for the lot split.
Member Myhra said that a lot split is pxeferable to leaving the land as is.
The less of the two evils is the lat split. There should be an easement for
access to the roof and another for the maintenance of the cesspcol.
�
Mr. DeGardner said he would prefer the wording "easement for the maintenanc_
of the house" as he believed that wauld be more acceptable to the mortgage com-
pany.
Mr. Werner asked if they were tal�ing about a 5 foot easement beyond the
20 feet.
Chairman Hughes said it occurx'ed to him as far as the recomm�ndations of
the Planning Coirnnission are concerned, the minimum fxom their viewpoint is
indicated by guaranteed access for xoof repairs and xepair of the cesspool,
Member Exicksoi� cvondered if the simplest solution would be to relocate the
cesspool.
Mr. DeGardner said it would better for him to have a five foot easement.
n_ MOTION by Myhra, seconr�ed by Erickson-that the Planning Co�nisszon recom-
mend approval of Lot Split Request, L.S. ;�67-05, Robert DeGardner of Lots 52,
53, and 5��, Block E, Rivervie�>> IIe.i_ghts as r.equested with the sti.pulation that
an easement be incl.uded wi.th Lots 15,�1& and 17 over the North S feet af the
South 25 feet of Lots 52 and 53 for the purpose of mai:�tenance of t}ie structure
� .
�� Plannin� Commission �Ieeting - October 5, 1967 P�e 4
^ and the sewage system on Lots 15, 16 and 17 and tlZat the requi•remerit fox the
rear yard on Lots 15, 16 and 17 be waived. Upon a voice vote, al1 votin� aye,
the motion carried.
ZONING BULLETTN, BOSTON, MASS,:
The Chairman instructed the secretary to write for sample copies of the
Zoning Bulletin which is "A national repart of Supreme Court Decisions in
Da.gested form -- publ.ished monthly" by Quinlan Publishing Company, Inc.,
191 High Street, Boston, Mass. 02110.
METROPOLITAN LIBR�.RY SERVIC� AGENCY (MELSA):
Chairman Hughes said this brochure was for information service only -- no
action.
2. PARK IMPROVEMENT PP,OGRAM: Facts on Fridley Park Land Acquisition and Develop-
' ment Program.
Chairman Hughes explained the Parks & Recreation Comznission have been
studyi.ng the needs of Fridley for parks over a year. The pxogram was proposed
by the Parks & Recreation Commission and formally adopted on September 13, 19&7.
It was agreed to utilize the services of A1r. Edward Braddock, Park Consultant
and fonner Chief Engineer for the Minneapolis Park Board and the Fark Directox,
- Pau1 Brown. The proposal was made to the Fridley City Counci.l at their meeting
^ � of September 18, 1967 and Council scheduled a special meei:ing for September 28,
1967, to discuss it. He felt the Planning Commission has an interest from the
standpoint of adequacy of land acquisi*ion, access, streets and utilities to
the park areas. He referred to a 1-1000 scale map of the 24 parks, existing
and proposed, and �tated that there has been no effort to tie down specitic
acquisitions at this point. He elzborated on the report and e�plained the
different aspects, meanings and answered questions. For further details,
refer to the report. Chairman Hughes said they estimate 40% to be acquir.ed
and 60% axe already developed. They feel the people who live in Fridley are
paying taxes and deserve to have a park system.
The subject of a golf course was brought up, and it was mentioned that
from time to time there has been discussion relative ta a golf course, private
and public. Chaixman Hughes stated the Commission had looked into the Federal
Open Space Program, and the Council toolc some steps under Open Space LaC�r with
no results. The advisability of acquiring pr�perty for a golf course with the
bond issue for the Parks Program did not seem feasible at this point. Chairmar
Hughes said the Recreation Cemmission recommended against the golf course on
the basis that the comments they have hearel were strongly opposed to it. They
thought it was an issue too charged with emotion to be includpd here. A doubie
ballot was discussed. Chairman Hughes (Chairman of Pazks & Recreation Commiss-�c:
said the Commissi.on's recorarr.endation to Council was wi:hout the golf course,
but they would not hesitate to back a public golf course if the Council_ felt
it should be included.
�� Member Myhra asked about the possibility of a museum of the Locke home-
stead by the City. The status of the Locke Homestead with Anoka County was
to be checked. (Mr. Stevens, County Administrator, stated that the acquisitior,
will be completed by November 1., 1967.j -
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission rerom-
mend the Fridlej� Park Land Acquisition aizd Development Program as prepared and
presented by the Parks �t Recreation Commission relative to the purposes and
development of pa.r_ks facilities. Upon a voice vote, all votin� aye, the
...,.�:,,,-. „�,-,-,oi ,,,,-„-,,..,,,,,�i.r
� ,
',
,`, Pla:nnin� Commission rleeti.t,�- Octobe-r 5, 1967 Page 5
3. PROPOSED ZONING COD�:
� In review, the Com.•nission had completed the Study of Section 2(Defini-
tions) and this evening began the Study of Section 3(Provisions Applicable
to A11 Districts).
, It was suggested that Fridley have an official map, one that is large
enough to show easemeztts, lot divisions, and should be the scale of a half
section. The Engi.neering Assa.stant called attention to the fact that linen
or milar sheets wi11. have to be used in order to make corrections. It was
noted the County is continuously revising their half sections.
The City Attorney had pxepared Section 5"R-1" One Family Dwelling in
rough drait for study and requested each mem�er receive a Xerox copy.
The Plann��ng Corcmission and the Engineer.ing Assistent, togethex with the
� City Attorney, set up a sgecial meeting on October 19th for the specific pur-
. pose of studying the Proposed Zoning Gode.
ADJOURNMENT :
m
n
��
�
There being no fuxther business, the Planning Commission meeting
adjourned at 11:55 P.M,
�
Respectiully submitted,
/(L '� �
�7 ��� �� / � -(-�`^-v
Hazel 0'Bxian
Recoxding Secretary