Loading...
PL 01/11/1968 - 31014�+w� l.. a - ,•,� , . +�+0`'`.-j.�:.,4° . .s _- �. '` ` p .� PLANNING CONlMISSION MEETING JANUARY 11, 1968 PAGE 1 The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Erickson at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Jensen, Erickson, Ylinen, Hughes Fz . Member Absent: Myhra Others Present: Engineering Assistant Clark APPROVE PLANNING CONIMISSION MINUTES: DECII�ER 14, 1967 MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission Minutes of December 14, 1967 be approved. Upon a voice vote, all.voting ay�, the motion carried unanimously. APPROVE PI.�ANATING COI�IlKISSION MIN[1TES : DECEN7BER 28, 1967 No Meeting. RECEIVE P?�ATS & SUBDIVISIONS-STREETS & UTILITIES SUBCONIDZITTEE MLN[TTES; JANT,�RY 4, 1968 �, � -"'� x �� _..;� � Member Jensen asked that the following correction be made: On Page 5 of the Agenda, the last paragraph of the first item "the actual description of these three parcels" should read "as they would appear on a future deed" � instead of "future date". Member Erickson suggested that on the same page, Item 1, the first para- graph, the following correction should be ma.de: "they propose to build two residences, one on each side of the e�isting house" instead of "two single family residences on each side." MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subco�ittee of January 4, 1968 as corrected. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried urxanimously. REG"EIVE PARKS AND RECREATION CONlMISSION MINUTES: DECEMBER 18, 1967 MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission re- ceive the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission of December 18, 1967e Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES: DECEMBER 20, 1967 ,^ MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Coaimission re- `'"'�' `^"'�`7`, ceive the minutes of the Board of Appeals dated December 20, 1967. Upon a ` voice vote, all voting aye, the moti�n carried unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: NOVEMBER 30. 1967 The Engineering Assistant asked the following correction be ma.de on Planning Commis.s_ion Meeting - January 11, 1968 _ Page 2 Item 3, Page 11 of the Planning Commission minutes, 3rd paragraph from the ,�'�;� ;�;•. ja�=•- bo,ttom of the page: "corner lot would make a nice slip-off from University ~ ~�'� Avenue to 3rd.Street into the commercial area" instead of "slip-off to University Avenue for commercial." MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission minutes of November 30, 1967 be corrected as requested by Mr. Schmedeke as stated above. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, fihe motion carried unani.mous ly, ORDER OF AGENDA• �. � Inasmuch as the people involved in the first two items were present, Vice Chairman Erickson stated the Agenda would be considered in the order as written. 1. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L,S. �k67-07, FRED YESNES: East 273 feet of Auditor's Subdivision �k129. Mr. Louis Cohn of Fred Yesnes Realty stated the surveyor prepared a legal description for�the three proposed lots, which was mailed to the Engineering Department. Copies of the descriptions were given the members of the Commission at the meeting this evening, Member Jensen said the descriptions were in order and in line with the recommendation by the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subco�ittee. ''1� �-- �� �__ - `' �' _ In answer to the question if Fred Yesnes owned the property at this time, Mr. Cohn said they were in the process of acquiring the property and that there was a valid purchase agreement in existance. Member Jensen said the only comment he would like to make is the obvious requirement for a variance for side yard of the existing structure shown on Sheet ��1 of the survey. Vice Chairma.n Erickson said this division appears to be favorable to the Planning Co�nission. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Co�nission recommend approval of the Lot Split request, L.S. ��67-07, Fred Yesnes, of the East 273 feet of Auditor's Subdivision �129, in accordance with the surveys provided, numbered Sheets 1, 2 and 3, dated the 8th day of December 1967, signed by B. H. Bradley calling attention to the side yard variance for the existing dwelling at 1307 Fireside Drive, at nine feet instead of the required ten feet. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimouslyo Mr. Cahn was informed that this request would go to the Council on January 15, 1968. 2, LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. ��68-01, RODNEY BILLM�T, INC.: Lot 29, Block 1, Innsbruck Sth Addition. � ^,,,� ,. ��,�,_ Mr. John Bogucki, representing the petitioner, said there were two large ,_ homes with a vacant lot in between, and the two home owners felt they would like to have more yard and they have agreed to split the lot. He was asked if he had a draft of the legal description as it would read on the deeds. Planning Co�c�mmission Meetin� - Janua 11, 1968 Page 3 Jensen explained that at the Subco�nittee level, the lot split was approved, subject to receipt of legal description so that the Planning Com- � �—�-;,_..� mission could review the legal description to see that it would not be too � � awkward as the description should be brief. The actual written description would be reviewed by the Planning Commission before sending to the Council. Mr. Bogucki agreed that the description would be ready for the meeting on January 25, 1968e MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Couunission table the Lot Split request, L.S, ��68-01, by Rodney Billman, Inc. for Lot 29, Block 1, Innsbruck 5th Addition until January 25, 1968. Upon a voice vote, aIl voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. INTERSECTION PATTERN: MISSISSIPPI STREET AND EAST RIVER ROAD: Bob's Produce Ra.nch . The people present, Mr. Chandler, Judge Johnson, and Mr. Batterson were told that the Planning Commission did not feel they could come to a conclusion this evening, but would participate in further discussion. Acting Chaircnan Erickson said that, in all fairness to the people concerned, he did not want to see them come back ti.me�after time when the Planning Commis- sion did not feel they were ready for a decision. Mr. Chandler expressed his opinion against coming to the meetings without progress being made towards a decision. �"�� ��, ��-- Judge Johnson asked if M�. Chandler's position was known and understood . �— _ ��, as he wants two open ends for his commercial property - 642 LiTay as `aell as Mississippi Place. He said that they have property with two corners which they would like to maintain. /"'� -_,�_ �,,.v Vice Chairman Erickson said that the Planning Commission understands how they feel, and they are not attempting to just cut anybody off. Traffic is the Planning Cou�ission problem. .. Mr. Chandler said that this proposal is at his expense and he did not see how the Planning Commission could consider it. Presently the Benson Investment Co. has access to East River Road from 64a Way and Mississippi Place. He asked if the Commission didn't have other proposals also. The Vice Chairman said that they have not yet changed what they originall;; endorsed. , � � z� Member Jensen said '4ae should clarify the fact that Bob's Produce was held up for a building permit subject to a solution of the traffic problem. He had a building permit application in and the request was granted subject to a solution to the traffic problem. He then came in asking what the Plan- ning Co�nission could do. At that point a plan was generated, passed to the Planning Commission, passed up to Council level. This plan is still in existance. Bob Schroer studied this plan and decided it was not a plan he fayored, He came in with an alternate plan. It is a simple process, but not simple to the individuals involved. His proposal showed commercial on the front part of his property and a continuation of the same type of business now there. � - . . � ': �•._ 'M:., Plannin� Commission Meetin� - Januarv 11, 1968 Page 4 Chairman Hughes entered at 8:15 P.M. %'�," �` _--��, Vice Cfiairman Erickson tumed the meeting over to Chairman Hughes saying ' t.�erC��nunission tried to explain to these gentlemen that in the past the Plan- ning Commission actually approved a plan, and would suggest that perhaps the Co�nission is not ready to solve the problem yet, that maybe this is not the solution and to consider the problem for another three or fQUr meetings. The interested parties could then be notified when we were ready to make a decision and have them come in at that time. Mr. Chandler said, "I am sure you are aware that you would be definitely damaging our property if you agree to Bob's latest proposal and if it is done, we will go to court." Judge Johnson said.that we do see Bob has a real problem, but I would like to think he could handle his own development costs. � have paid for Mississippi Place, Riverview Terrace and East River Road, and now I dread to think I am going to pay for another road which would make it the fourth road. I recognize the fact that Bob needs it, he has got to have it, but I wonder if he could not handle his own road development. The problem of apartment buildings, wlnich could be built on property owned by Bob Schroer, and the type of business that might be put on the com- mercial land owned by Benson Investment Company could also attract a large volume of traffic, was brought up. Erickson said "what are we going to do about that?" �'�,v �-_,�.�� - Mr. Chandier--wondered if another cross street could be put in. Chairman � �- _F:��hes said that one of the biggest problems was to avoid cross streets which would not have signals. �� . � -'"�'":%�..��1 In answer to Chairman Hughes' question if the Subcoumiittee had made a ' decision, Jensen said Bob's Produce plan was adopted by the Subcommittee as a favorable plan and it was passed on to the Planning Co�nission with a request that the pr�perty owners involved be asked to come in for the meeting. We could endorse the plan from a purely street functional end, but we did feel it would be unfair to proceed without the�Planning Commission having some indica- tion of the feelings of the property owners. The property owners were given a written invitation and the three parties here tonight were the only ones who attended. Chairman Hughes said that he found himself agreeing with Mr. Erickson that the Commission is not ready to act on this problem at this time. Judge Johnson stated that Bob has to.have a road, but he just wants to protect himself from paying for a fourth street. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Erickson, that the Planning Commission con- tinue the study of the Intersection of Mississippi Street and East River Road, setting a projected date of March 14, 1968 for final action, and include the fact that the interested parties be notified prior to the meeting when we anticipate taking action. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carriec unanimously. � - ��.. '«:, � RECEIVE BOAItD OF APPEALS MINUTES; JANUARY 10, 1968: MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Erickson, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Board of Appeals dated January 10, 1868. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion car�ied unanimously. Planning Co�nission Meetin� - January 11, 1968 Pa�e 5 4. HYDE PARK REZOIVING PROBLEM: Discussion with Bill Chapman of Nason, Wehrman, Knight and Chapman� Inc. �;_;_ �� J� � � . The Engineering Assistant said he had talked.to Mr. Chapman, described the boundaries of the area and understood he had driven through it. This evening he has been given a map of the section showing existing structures which was the same map the Commission had used in their 3rd Street Study. He was told that the Planning Commission is considering having the area studied by a professional planner, but would like a cost estimate prior to their decision. The following background was given Mr. Chapman by the members of the Commission: The property, particularly along University Avenue was developed before Fridley had a comprehensive zoning ordinance. There was a zoning at that time of R-2. This permitted multiple dwellings; subsequently R-2 defini- tion was changed. Basically, this is our big problem. It developed in a hodge podge manner. People are now asking for rezoning, saying the property next door is so and so and why can't we. The basic problem is the non-conform- ing couffiercial which existed prior to 1956 zoning. This cou�ercial, to the East with non-conforming uses and development, was next to T.H. ��47. When the highway was widened, they were cut off from direct access to University and the boundaries of the Highway was such as they had no service road in front of them. Third Street was residential on the West side, commercial and light industrial uses to the East, and the outlet was to the South on 3rd Street. The Commission, taking a long range view of the property and the ultimate use in the future, would like to have an opinion how this area should be zoned so that they will have a basis for their decisionse '��''�•�`�" �.' Mr. Chapman said his thoughts at this meeting now were he would be look- ` ` ing for a physical xeview, looking at circulation pattern, what we may expect to happen on Main Street, and because of the approximately 300 families, the area for commercial would be pretty confining. Mr. Chapman did not feel he could appxoximate the cost of such a survey at this meeting. The Coicanission had hoped to lay the ground work.of what they expect from Mr. Chapman and an estimate of the cost so that they could make a recommendation to the Council. i ,� i "'ti�"' .%' - ,.� � 'c'` \ �_ i Mr. Chapman asked if there were a possibility of frontage on the West side of T.Ho ��47 and he was told there is no right of way, and if further land were taken, it would leave only a narrow strip. A visitor to the meeting, Mr. Schmedeke, said he had talked to all the people that have built around him. They thought it was O.K. for him to be co�nercial, and he hadn't found anyone who said they thought he was not com- mercial -- assessments say he is commercial. He said his access� was taken, he has no service road so 3rd Street is used. A slip-off from University Avenue to 3rd Street to the coffinercial area and out South would be a logical setup. The people who are in these zones are ready to go commercial. Chairman Hughes said the same rationale the Planning.Co�umiission applied to other rezoning requests would apply for any other rezoning request that might come in nowo The Commission stated that it would be reluctant to change gresent zoning in any direction until they found out which would be the proper way to go. He did not thi�.k a rezoning request now would be timely, and that if someone brought in an application for�rezoning to com- meicciaZ-or multiple, he would vote against it until they had a bas�ic plan for the area. � Plannin� Commission Meeting - Januarv 11, 1968 Page 6 Mx. Schmedeke stated he was only asking to rezone to commercial which is what �e is and has been for ma.ny years. He asked, "Don!t you �� ��°"`�-� think a taxpayer for twenty years has a right to be what he should be before a stranger is allowed to come in with a change in zoning?" '�� ,,,�y ,.�, ��-�-4'"C 5. Mr. Chapman said you have to have a potential for development and know the potential. With a potential, you have something to work with. Chairman Hughes said that no member of the Co�ission at the present time was involved in either of these activities. There was further dis- cussion between Mr. Schmedeke and Mr. Chapman, and Mr. Chapma.n and the Commission. Mr. Chapman said he was going to get further background information, and he would present alternate possibilities. Mention was made of using the possibilities of PD Development. Member Jensen told Mr. Chapman the City staff has a great deal of informa.tion available for him, and that there was no necessity for him to spend too much time in the field. The information on the value of buildings, etc. is readily available, along with basic maps and zoning information. Chairman Hughes stated there were three types of information the Commission would like. 1) What are the best uses for this area (local) in terms of present situation? 2) Iiaving determined what the best solu- tions are, what is the best way to go into the transition from one type to another? 3) What is the best�way to.implement the whole operation? He also stated that in the study, we would like the informa.tion and alternative. We are not asking for a solution, we are looking for alter- nates for help in.making a decision. Mro Chapman asked when the Commission would like to consider a cost proposal, as he thought he could develop one in not too long a period of time. He was told it was desirable to move as readily as possible. Would two weeks be a sufficient time for him to get ready� Member Jensen asked if he could give the Commission a tentative time schedule coinciding with the Planning Commission meetings and give some general outline of what he would anticipate. Mro Chapma.n said he would return at the meeting of January 25th with a cost proposal for the Commission to consider. PROPOSED ZONING CODE: 1968. e ,u� The Coffinission tabled this item to the next meeting of January 25, ADJOURNMENT • MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission adjourn the meeting at 9:55 P.M. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the _ motion carried unanimously, ,�"�_ �.�"�- " � � _ t . ��'"��-:" Respectfully�'submitted;. Hazel 0'Brian Recording Secretary ���n- l -n , ��� � � , - .,�=��� V` i � 6 � _ �, y � c�.l�c.,c-v�`- I\���� �z � �'� � ' � 0 � S � � � -�- ,� �L �' �� � S lv yG"� �i�'!� �� .3 � � ��� �� .5 � �� ��� G `z'� / ���� �-� �_ � %�������� � �� ; �� ��i��� ca� ,/„�� ��e�,�%X � ,. . , ���� ���� -�---�� ,,_ _+