Loading...
PL 10/26/1967 - 30998PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - OCTOBER 26, 1967 ROLL CALL• The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M, by Chairman Hughes. Members present: Myhra, Jensen, Hughes, Erickson Member absent: Ylinen Others present: Engineering Assistant Clark APPROVE MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: OCTOBER 5, 1967: PAGE 1 MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission min- utes of October 5, 1967 be approved subject to the correct spelling of the name of the County Administrator, Bernard Steffen. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. APPROVE MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: OCTOBER 19, 1967: MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Erickson, that'the Planning Commission min- utes of October 19, 1967 be approved. Upon a vaice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE MINUTES OF BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING: OCTOBER 24, I967: Member Erickson asked the following corrections be made: 1) Under Item C, the reference to the permit number should read as follows "until landscaping as proposed on previous addition, Permit ��9111 - December 1, I966 be approved as in plot plan document �k661117. 2) Subdivision (B) should read "Exterior blocks be all painted". Subdivision (C) be added and read as follows "Blocks will be highlighted on South and West elevations". MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Jensen, that the minutes of the Building Standards-Design Control meeting of October 24, 1967 be received subject to the above corrections. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ORDER OF AGENDA: Chairman Hughes said an item had been brought to his attention by the City Council requesting action in the near future regarding a City Planner. This would be considered as Item 5, and the Commission proceed with the agenda in the order it is printed. ' 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST (ZOA ��67-10} HFNRY LAPIDES: Lots 29 and 30, Block 12, Hyde Park Addition to rezone from R-2 to R-3A. Mr. Lapides, the petitioner, was present, and also Mx. and Mrs, Lawrence Muggli, residents in the neighborhood. � The Public Hearing Notice was read by the Chairman. Plannin� Commission Meetin� - October 26, 1967 Page 2 Mr. Lapides, in explaining his plans, said he would just like to request that he be granted the rezoning request for Lots 29 and 30. He felt the petition for a fourplex would fit into the area very nicely due to the fact � that a fourplex is on the opposite side of the street one lot away and the structure would back up to University Avenue. As they plan on putting a nice looking building up, he felt that it will enhance the area. There is a build- ing on the property now, but it is dilapidated and will be torn down. The Engineering Assistant showed a map prepared for the Plats & Subdivisions- Streets & Utilities Subcommittee of the buildings in the area, but not indica- ting the size. 2'he vacant lot adjoining the property of Mr. Lapides was owned by Mr. Muggli. Mr. Lawrence A. Muggli, 5973 3rd Street N.E.: It was his understanding that under the present zoning regulations, this proposed unit could not be built there. In R-3A, under the present Code, he asked what would be the minimum type of building. - The Engineering Assistant answered that, without waiving area requirements, still only three family dwellings could be built because the lots are not large enough for a fourplex. To build four units, they would have to have three 40 foot lots. Mr. Muggli asked, that in the procedures fox the request of rezoning a couple of lots with all the surrounding area not that type of zoning, is it the policy to allow a rezoning of just a couple of lots within an area? He was informed that, in general, it is considered bad practice. General comments could be made on whether it is good or bad zoning, but each case is judged on n its merits. Mr, Muggli answered that there was no doubt in his mind it would not be fair to the other people in the neighborhood. His situation was a little different inasmuch as he was operating under a grandfather clause. He felt the rezoning would interfere with the operation of his business. He said referring to the statement ma.de by Mr. Clark, the amount of land is roughly 30% under the requirements and this would indicate a change of parking space. Parking for the fourplex could definitely affect his property. If he had a load of steel come in, he would not want to run around the neighborhood to get cars moved. Mr. Lapides stated the draftsman conferred with the Building Inspector of Fridley on the layout of the building and garages on proper sideyard and set- backs and they were told they had adequate parking facilities, according to the Code requirements on the land that is available now. The comment was made tfiat three units could be built on this site under R-3 and that the plan, as the Planning Co�ission understands it, is to petition for variance to allow four units. With the land rezoned, it would be possible to apply for a variance. Member Jensen commented that he personally felt favorably inclined toward the rezoning as he thought it was compatible with the immediate neighborhood. In view of the small sketch studied indicating land use around the area, he thought it was somewhat indicated. However, he did feel quite strongl� in a negative way toward a variance in the area requirement to allow for a fourplex � in a neighborhood that already has a relatively high density, relatively high � volume of apartments built prior to some of the later changes in zoning and •��,_ which land use absolutely lacked adequate park and playgrounds. With all these things corisidered, I think allowing additional dwelling uriits on substandard � .r_.y....... . . � � � �.._ Planning Commission Meetin� - October 26, 1967 Page 3 lots complicates the problem that we already have. He added he would certainly not favor this, but because of the use in the immediate neighborhood, he favored the rezoning. Mr. Lapides added that the main reason is a duplex in that particular area would cost a lot of money. It would be very hard to sell, but a four- plex would fit into the area nicely because there are other fourplexes around there. It is a good location, near University Avenue, near business service and shopping, a good rental area. It would be the nicest building in the area and also a kind of buffer zone for the people on 60th Street. Mr. Lapides said he was the owner of the property. � Chairman Hughes added that one thing needed to be considered is the relation of the activities on that part of the City in changing the zoning to this area. This entire Hyde Park area is zoned R-2 and does have varying uses. It seems that whatever action is taken in this area to change the zoning should be based on some long term view as to what the area might become. There are several possibilities. We could look at the area along 3rd Street where commercial and industrial already exists and when further usage will be extended over the years, would it be proper to think in terms of commercial or industrial zoning on that street. Another possibility, the area is zoned R-3, and as buildings go out of use and conditions make it more difficult for commercial building, the tendency wi1Z be for the area to go into limited residential. A patch of R-3 at this particular point would be a very strong basis for the petitioner to argue that adjoining areas to the North, West and South should also go R-3. It could also be a statement on our part that.no further commercial should be expected along that street, at least to the North . of this area. We would essentially say, by taking action to R-3, that we would not expect cammercial to go North. We are also in a position of having to consider the likely action of the petitioner if we do recommend rezoning to R-3. We know what could be allowed and what could be done with variance. It would be extremely difficult for the City to turn down a variance if these lots were zoned R-3 or R-3A for the simple reason that the lots immediately across the street would feel it proper for them to have R-3 there with four units on them. Member Myhra said that he would like more time to study this problem inasmuch as there is a large area involved. Chairman Hughes added that the discussion has to be to the point -- is the rezoning proper in this situation as the zoning now exists. He thought it would be difficult to show it would be improper. Mr. Lapides said that they had sent out twenty-one letters in regard to this rezoning, and as far as he knew, there had been only one objection to the application and he felt that proved the point that the people in the area do not object to it and are probably happy that it is going to take place because of the paxticular situation in that area. MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission table the petition, ZOA ��67-10, by Henry Lapides to rezone from R-2 to R-3A lots 29 and 30, Block 12, Hyde Park Addition until the meeting of November 30, 1967. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. , 2. VACATION REQUEST: SAV ��67-04, HAROLD W. HARRIS: Block 8, Onaway, vacate two alleys in Block 8. Member Erickson commented the plan for the construction of a warehouse Planning Commission Meetin� - October 26, 1967 Page 4 and office on Lots 26 through 31, Block 8, Onaway was approved by the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee on October 24th, as it was felt construction could proceed without any vacation. n Mr: Harris discussed the vacation with the Commission,using a copy of the origina� plat dated August 11, 1911, and his proposed present plans. The Engineering Assistant said he was not familiar with any storm sewer proposal for this area. There are some ditches in the area and the one on this property takes care of a large area, Mr. Harris stated he checked with Anoka County and they had no indication it is a legal county ditch. Member Jensen a'sked if Mx. Harris were familiar with the other owners of property and he stated he was, but he was not certain they were familiar with his request. He also said the people did not use the north/south alley, but used Elm Street. The zoning of the property is M-2. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Erickson, that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council the vacation, SAV ��67-04, Harold W. Harris, of the alleys in Block 8, Onaway as being in the best interests of the City and ' the adjoining property retaining the drainage and utility easements. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. REZONING REQUEST: ZOA ��67-11, JAMES LUPIENT: Lots 18-20, 23, 34, 7, 8, NZ 9, 11-13, Block 11, Hyde Park Addition - rezone from R-2 to R-3. Chairman Hughes explained that this request came before the Planning Commission at the informal meeting of October 19, 1967 and at that time the public hearing date was set for the 30th of November. No further action was necessary at this point. n 4. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. ��67-06, GEORGE L WALQUIST• Outlot �kl, Don Addition. Mr. Walquist explained that this was the South 233 feet of Outlor ��1, Don Addition. Darrel Clark said that he wanted to bring .to the attention of the members and petitioners that there is, as shown on the certificate, a ditch entering and exiting the parcel involved. Also even more important, is a sanitary sewer that runs North and South across the West portion of the lot of which there is no recorded easement. These are items that have to be considered at some level of jurisdiction and development: an easement for the sanitary sewer must be recorded. Mr. Walquist said that the ditch had been changed several times accord- ing to the old plats. Member Jensen noted the ditch parallels the new road on the West side. to just opposite Saliterman's Shopping Center and on the East to Moore Lake. He asked Mr. Walquist if he would have any objections to providing a sanitary sewer easement for the length of Outlot ��1, Don Addition. Mr. Lenny Cochran said it was his understanding that the sewer was in before he owned the property. Mr. Gottwaldt was the previous owner. n When Mr. Walquist was asked the purpose of the lot split, he answered they were intending to purchase this, but do not want any problems after- �'�__ wards. As far as he was personally concerned, he did not want to give an easement until they were sure they can use the property for what they want. Because the ditch comes through the middle of the property, if it created a problem, he wondered if it could be moved.. Planning Commission Meeting - October 26, 1967 Page 5 The Engineering Assistant added that if the structure does have to be built on the ditch, the property owner would have no right to close up the ditch, but he could reroute it. � Mr. Walquist said he did not mind giving the easement for sewer if he could use the property and if it were justifiable. He was told the easement does not cause the owner to lose the use of the property, but he cannot put a building over it. MOTION by Erickson, second�d by Myhra, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Lot Split �k67-06, George L. Walquist, of the South 233 feet of Outlot ��1, Don Addition, and that Council should consider securing a twenty foot perznanent easement for the existing sanitary sewer on Outlot �kl. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � 5. CONSIDERATION OF A CITY PLANNER: Chairman Hughes reported that the Council has, in the past months and are planning again, to advertise for a City Planner. The Council, at this time, wants to know if the Planning Commission would, as a group, express itself with reference to the need for, and possibly some of the duties and qualifications, of a planner. In our deliberations, we must xecognize that the Planner's salary range would be between $9,000 and $11,000. After discussing and some deliberation, the Planning Commission n concluded that the City does not need a full time planner, that if possible, a person could be hired wherein approximately 50% of his time could be spent on i�ems planning for the City. Some of the statements and items discussed are outlined in the following paragraphs. A City Planner should not be expected to state his opin�.5n a� a hearing on rezoning. His time would be spent in reviewing the applica- tion, gathering per.tinent data, and then reporting to the Planning Commission in report form his findings. A planner could review the present zoning, platting and building codes and rewrite them to present day standards wherein this would relieve some of the City Attorney's time. The attorney, however, still would have to check the validity of the revisions. Cextainly some time could be spent in looking at some of the City's problem areas, insofar as platting and zoning, in some parts of the City. ' History has shown the Planning Commission that only in a few remote cases have they felt present service of the City staff inadequate. How- ever, they understand that in some cases present Planning Commission de- mands may have robbed time of some personnel from performing other duties for the City. � _ '- �__ The Planning Commission felt that if City Council is thinking of hiring an assistant for the City Manager, that it might be worthwhile considering a person with a major in planning and a minor in public Planning Commission Meeting - October 26, 1967 Page 6 administration. This person could then possibly fill both needs. In summarization, it was the consensus of the Planning Commissian that n we could profitably use about 50% of a person's time if he had a planning - background. However, it should be pointed out that if a person is hired to do this, that it will in no way reduce the level or time spent on Planning Commission business by such employees now already involved with the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT • . . There being no further business, Chairman Hughes adjouxned the meeting at 10:30 P.M, ^ n � Respectfully submitted Hazel 0'Brian Recording Secretary s " �/ �'1- l h � � � �� �' � � d� � � Y � � �,%�' �' �` �,' �, �an �r /7� ¢ �'7�� � � � ° r% _ I' v - II . /'r ��1� ,e 5 s �� _ .�'y -�p -� , — � - � p ' � � . iI , , ; - �� �� � � , ;, ; �� ,, � j � , � � ; , } . �; �, ,, � a . , : _ ._ _ . , . �:�