Loading...
PL 07/23/1975 - 7516� � � �. � CITY OF FRIDL�Y AGEN.DA PLAPlNING COMMISSTON MEETING JULY 23�, 1975 8:00 CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: JUNE-25, 1975 AND, RECEIVE VERBATIM MINUTES OF SAV #75-04 AND RECOMMEND E 5, 9 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RECEIVE LETTER FROM HARVEY E. SKAAR, ATTORNEY FOR THOSE IN FAVOR OF VACATION REQUEST SAV. # 75-04, DATED JULY 7, 1975 aPPROVE PLANNING G�MMISSION MINUTES: JUL`f 9, 1975 PAGES i - 14 15 - 23 24-25 26 - 30 RECEIVE RPPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 15, 1975 31 - 37 RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 16, 1975 38 - 40 1. �BUILDING PERMITS None 2. COMTINUED: CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST, SAV #75 05, 41 - 46 BY RICHARD KOK: To reduce the drainage and utility easemerit � from 6 feet to O feet on the South.side of Lot.6, Block 1, Clark's Addition, the same �eing 6517 McKinley Street N.E. 3. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST• SAV #75-07, BY VERLYN VANDER LUGT: To vacate the street easement occupying the Easterly 66 feet of property described as the South part of Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 3, to allow the construc- tion of a single family home: � 4. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST: SAV #75-08, BY LEO LEMKE: To vacate 47th Avenue N:E. between 3rd Street and �University Avenue, and the vacatipn of the 12 foot alley between 46th Avenue N.E. and 48th Avenue N.E., a11 located on Blocks 8 an� 9, Plymouth Addition, to allow the construc- tion of a single family home on Lot 30, Block 9, Plymouth Addition, the same will be 4687 3rd Street N.E. 5. RECETVE MEMORANDUM FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THE TSSUANCE F �PECIAL USE PERMITS �, nd delivered at the meeting. �;, �GOALS & OBJECTIVES . • � �� ' . � �� .. . � �G� 47 - 51 52 - 56 � �� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 25, 1975 PAGE 1 !� CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Harris, Lindblad, Peterson, Drigans Members Absent: Meissner Others Present: Darrel Clark, Community Development Administrator James Langenfeld, ex-officio member APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: JUNE 4, 1975 MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Lindblad, that the minutes of the Planning Corranission meeti�:g of June 4, I975 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. . RECEIVE ENVIRQNMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 27, 1975: MOTION by L2ndblad, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive the Environmental Quality Commission minutes for their meeting of May 27,�1975. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: MAY 27, 1975 MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes af the Board of Appeals 5ubcommittee meeting of May 27, 1975." Mr. Drigans said that on page 14 of the Planning Commission agenda, and page 2 of the Board of Appeals minutes, the Board had made a motion that the Council make a determination if the "office-warehouse° under question constituted � a proper use of C-1S zoning. He hadn`t heard any answer on this mation. He said that they wanted to know the difference between a warehouse and a siorage facility. Ne said that the developer would be leasing office space, and this "storage" space would be available to any tenant who would need it. Mr. Drigans said that he felt that conceiveably the developer could rent out affice space io one tenant and warehouse space to another tenant, which wouldn't be an allowed use in C-1S zoning. Mr. Clark said it may be hard tb�keep jurisdietion over this, but it definitely would be permitted.that if say a plum b�r rented office space, and he could use the storage space for his equipment, such as a truck and stock. There were a lot of trades that would be allowed in this zoning. He said it had been made quite clear to the developer that he could only rent storage space to someane who had already rented office space. Mr. Drigans said he thought this could be difficult to control as the developer could sell that building and a new owner may not follow this policy. Mr. Clark said the code was quite clear in this area, and what the developer � inter�ds to do was an allowed use in this zoning. Mr. Drigans said he still thought ` this should be in an M-] District rather than a C-2 Qistrict. Mr. Clark said then the code would have to be changed. He said that even if this was hard to administer, � but he felt that if a tradesman was gaing to rent office space, he would rather see 0 Planning Commission Meeting - June 25, 1975 Page 2 inside storage �han have equipment stored in the yard someplace. � Mr. Drigans said this was labeled as an office-warehouse combination and ' that was what the Board of Appeals took exception to. Mr. Clark said it should have said office-storage combination, because this was what it was going to be. Mr. Lindblad said he didn't feel this would be any harder to control than any other type of building. We never have any absolute guarantee�ihat�every building will be occupied exactly as the City Code allows. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 votinq aye, the.motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CQMMISSION MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1975 MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Drigans, that the Planninq Commission receive the minutes of the Environmental Quality Commission meeting of June Z0; 1975. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion Garried unanimously. � RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1975 MOTION, by Drigans, se�onded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission �eceive the minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcommittee meeting of June 10, Z975. Upon a voice vote, a1Z voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. l. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A.SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP�#75-06, BY C. E. GILBERT: To allow the operaiion of an autdoor flea market, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.151, 3, N, to be located on Lot 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. ,,.� � 153, the same being 5207-5289 Central Avenue N.E. (Skywood Mall} Mr. Gilbert was not present. , MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-06, by C. E. Gilbert. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared ihe Public Hearing open at 8:12 P.M. Mr. Clark said that to clarify the location he pointed out where Twin City Federal, �round Round, Menards and the Speedy Car Wash were located which were all in the vficinity of Skywood Mall on Central Avenue. He said it was his understand- ing that the flea market would be located somewhere South of the building known as the Skywood Shopping Center and North of the Speedy Car Wash operation, in an open area that was not blacktopped. Mr. Clark said that if the City were to allow this type of operation out in the open,,�it shoul!d be very, very careful and scrutinize the operation to make sure it would not cause traffic problems, and that the litter was picked up. He�thought it would be hard to administer, and it would be difficult to see that the area was always cleaned up. He said he thought it was a Council decision on whether they wanted to have thi5 type of operation in the City of Fridley. Mr. Clark said that even if this use was allowed, they wo.uld want to delay it until� the City had gotten an agreement from Mr. Mortenson on the beautification program the City was starting, because there were problems in this area that have to be sorted out with the property owner. They would 1ike better �lainten.�nc-.eand there were some erosion problems in the area and the blacktopped area needed some work. Planning Commiss�ion Meeting - June 25. 1975 Page 3 Mr. Drigans said that befare he was ready io make any decision on this, he �„1 would like the petitioner to be present, and as long as he wasn't here, he was � prepared to make a motion to continue this request. Mr. Harris said they had some bus�iness to take care of before this motion could be made. . Mr. Gordon Bluhm, 1160 Regis Trail, said he was a resident of Fridley, and also Assistant Secretary for the Twin City Federal branch in Fridley, located at . 5205 Centra) Avenue, although he did work in the downtown offiee. He said Mr. Don Borrel was also in attendence, and he was Assistant Vice President of this Fridley branch also. : Mr. Bluhm said it was tMeir opinion ihat this operation would be detrimental to the Twin City Federal property. He said he knew this was a prejudicial viewpoint, based on other flea market operations in other communities. Mr. Bluhm said he had stopped on his way home on the day of this meeting and had taken pictures of the area in question, to show how it looked at the present time. He-said h� would not want to see this property deteriorate any further. - . Mr. Harris asked if this operation had been inside the Skywood Shopping Center before this request was made. Mr.: Clark said it was his understanding that it had been, on a weekly basis. He said Mr: Gilbert wanted to move this outside so the flea market could be larger. . Mr. Bluhm presented a letter from Twin City Federal Savings and Loan Association. UPON A MOTIQN by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission � rece�ve the letter from Tw.in City Federal Savings and Loan Association, dated June 25, 1975, from Mr. Bluhm, and a voice vote, a11 voting �ye, Chairman Harris summarized the Zetter for the audience. . Mr. Harris said the letter was written to let the Planning Commission know they were not in favor af this request for a flea market in this area of Fridley. The letter states the reasons for this ob,jection. _� Mr. Lindblad asked if oiher merchants who operate businesses in the Skywood Shapping Center were notified of this request? Mr. Clark said that only property owners were notified, but Sheldon Mortenson had signed the request, and it would be up to him to determine if his other tenants would agree to an open flea market�in this area. . . � � Mr. Bluhm said he had been to outside flea markets in the Los Angeles area, located in industria.l neighborhoods. He said they are really an attraction. He said that in the M'inneapolis Sunday paper, it was mentioned that the indoor flea market at Apache Plaza draws between 25,000 to 35,D00 cars on the week-end. He said he couldn't see any problem with an indoor flea market, but an outdoor flea market would be something else. Ne didn't think this would benefit Fridley at all, and he would strongly urge the Planning Commission to deny this request. Mr. Langenfeld said he appreciated Mr. Bluhm's statements, but he thought the petitioner had every right to state his case also. He said that even.though we do not know the exact details, he was sure that the Planning Commission would run into � some. of the problems that were specifically mentioned that had to be considered in granting a Special Use Permit, and they were traffic problems, noise, light glare at night, and probably indiscriminate advertising. - Planning Commission Meeting - June 25. 19T5 Page 4 Chairman Harris said that as no one had any other cornments to make on this /'�, request, it would be in order to close the Public Hearing, and determine �f they - were for or against this request, or to table t�e item. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission continue the Public Hearing on the request for a special use permit, SP #75-06, by C. E. Gilbert, until Ju1y 9, 1975. Upon a ro11 ca11 vote, Drigans and Peterson voting aye, and Lindblad and HarriS voting nay, the MOTION FAILED. Mr. Drigans said that perhaps the petitioner didn`t realize that he should appear for this meeting. Mr. Clark said he had been sent an agenda for this meeting. MOTION BY LINDBLAD, that the Planninq Commission close the PubZic Hearing on the request for a special use permit, SP #75-06, by C. E. Gilbert. THE MOTION DIED for lack of a second. Mr. Peterson said that Mr. Gilbert did pay the fee for a Special Use Permit and as we do not know the reason he was not in attendence at this meeting, it would be common courtesy to continue this request until the wisheg of the.petitioner were krrown . 1�QTION By Drigans, seconded by Feterson, asking fr;r reconsideration of tl:e motior to continue the Public Hea.z•ing until Jul� 9, 1975. The vote remained the same, so the MOTION FAILED. � Mr. Lindblad said he knew it was the polic y to continue any request where the petitioner did not appear, but he felt this was creating a hardship for the � interested parties who did attend the meeting to ask them to come to another meeting of the Planning Gommission. ' Mr. Clark said he would excuse himself and try to contact the petitioner to see why he was not here. When he returned to the�meeting, he said the petitioner had forgotten the meeting, but he was on�his way to the meeting now. MOTION BY Peterson, the request for a Special appeared at the meeting. mously. seconcled by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission table Use Permit, SP #75-06, by C. E. Gilbert, until the petitioner Upon a voice vote,!a11 voting aye, the motion carried unani- 2. CONSIDERATIQN OF A UACATION REQUEST: SAV #75-�4, BY LEONARD BENSON: Vacate . the 12 foot alley in Block 4, Spring Brook Park Add�t�on, located between Ashton Avenue and the railroad tracks,�so the existing gardens and fences would not have to be removed from this alley. Mr. Leonard Benson was present. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. 6enson what type of fence was in the a11ey easement. � M.r. Benson said he had a chain link fence, and he also had a garden. Mr. Benson said there was another fence that was kitty-corner from his fence that extended into the alley also. He said one other neighbor had had a fence in the alley ease- ment, but he has. already moved his fence back. • �"1 � Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Benson if he had a survey of his property at the time the fence�was put in. Mr. Benson said that he did. Mr. Drigans asked him why he put the fence in the alley then. Mr. Benson said he thought the alley had already been vacated. /'1 /'� , . � .�..� � . ! Planninq Commission Meeting - June 25, 1975 Page 5 Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Benson if he had received any complaints on this fence from the neighbors? Mr. Benson said he had not. Mr. Benson said he had a petition from the neighbors whQ were in favor of this request. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Corrunission receive the petition in favor of vacata�on request, SAV #75-05, by Leonard Benson, (Petition 15=1975) which was signed by eight property owners in B1ock 4, Spring Brook Park Addition. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unan.irriously. Mr� Harris said there was a petition in their agenda that was against the vacating of this alley. MOTZON by Peterson, seconded by Lindblad, th�t the Planning Commission receive the petition against the vacation request, SAV #75-05, � Leonard Benson, (�Qtition 16-1975} which was szgned by seven property owners in B1ock 4, Sprinq Brook Park Addition. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye,, the motion�carried unanimously. Mr.. Benson said that if this alley wasn't vacated, we could have traffic on this alley and snowmobiles could use it also. He said they have had a problem of small thievery in the neighborhood, and if this area was open, he thaught this sort of thing would be encouraged. This was why he wanted this area fenced, and keep the traffic on the street. He said that all the garages face the street so no ane needed the alley to get in�o their garage. Mrs. Cyril Paulsan, 131 79th Way N.E., said that they couldn't get into their back yard if this alley was vacated without taking their front yard fence down. She said there were other people on Langfellow that couldn't get their recreational vehicles into their back yard without this a1Tey, because there wasn't enough room between the houses, and these vehicles can't be left on the street. � Mr. Stephen Pogreba, 190 Longfellow Street, and Mr. James Roberts, 121 79th Way N.E. said they had signed both petitions. They had signed the petition against the alley vacation first, and then had changed their minds, and were both in favor of the alley vacation now. Chairman Harris asked them if they wanted their names removed from the petition against the vacation and they said they did. That left five names of property owners on the petition No. 16-1675 against the vacation. Mr. Clark said that if this alley was vacated, the City would have to retain a utility and drainage easement on the 12 feet. Mrs. Judy Welch, 1�4 Longfellow Street N.E., said she had circulated the petition against the alley vacation {petition 16-1975), but it was not their intention to ever ask that this alley be improved. She said they wanted it left as it was, just grass and an open area. She said that they owned a recreational vehicle and they would not be able to get this into the back yard if the alley was vacated, anzl this vehicle couldn't be parked in the street either. � Mr. Benson said he had talked to neighbors in Block 4, and two peopie who have � recreational vehicles could get to their property in the rear yard even if the alley was �vacated. There would only be one who had signed thepetition against the vacation � who wauld not be able to get their recreational vehicle into the back yard if tr�e alley was vacated, who wouldn't have an alternate access to his rear yard. Mr. Langenfeld said that Mr.�Benson had stated that he had received no complaints Planning Gommiss�ion Meetinq - June 25, 1975 Page 6 from the neighbors on his fence, but tonight we are hearing some. How did this come ^ to the attention of the City? Was it a complaint? � � Mr. Clark said they do not have the staff to go out an check infri�ngements into alley easements, and anly do so when there was a complaint. He said the Engineering � Department had received the complaint, so he was not involved in it. Chairman Harris said the Planning Commission had received twol�tters on this request. One was from Richard Rush, 3619 Janssen Avenue North, Chicago, who stated that he was in opposition to the vacation.request, and he owns Lots 11 and 12, BTock 4, Spring Brook Park, and a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Eugene Pett, 176 Longfellow Street, who state that they have signed the petition against the vacation, but were unable to attend this meeting and they need the alley easement so they can get a 21 foot recreational vehicle into their back yard. MOTION BY Drigans, seconded by Peterson, that the PZanning Commission receive the letters from Richard Rush and Mr. & Mrs. Eugene Pett in opposition to the vacation request;� SAV #75-04, by Leonard Benson. Upon a voice vote, a11 votinq aye, the motion carried unanimously. , Mr. Drigans said this would make 6�roperty owners in opposition to the vacation request and 8 in favor o�� the r.eques�..vThere �ere.l7.proper_ty owners in the block. � ' Mr. Benson said that if this alley easement was used by recreational vehicles and pick-up campers, it would cut up all the grass in the easement. ^ Mr.� Langenfeld asked Mr. Clark that if the alley went in, wouldn't the - adjacent property owners have ta pay fvr that. Mr. C7ark said they would. Mr. Petersan asked Mr. Clark if.there were any restrictions on this alley which was neither uacated nor improved. He said that it seemed everyone in this alley had sodded this area, and could someone come in there with a heavy vehicle and tear it all up, and just leave it.in that condition? He asked if there were no regulations governing this?� It wou.ld seem to him that in this particular instance, the people in this area want•to have their cake and eat it too. He said that if he were a property owner in this area, and someone drove on this unimproved alley that he had sodded, and tore it all up, he wouldn't appreciate it. He said the use that people want to make of th�s alley almast demands an improved alley. � Mr.�Clark said that the City doesn't maintain unimproved alleys, and if it was being maintained, it was by individual property owners. He said that if someone tore up this portion of maintained alley easement so the property owner couldn't cut it, he didn't know what would happen, as we have had not had a situation like this before. He said that apparently the alley has been used this way, and he didn't know if this had caused a problem or not. Mr. Roberts, 121 79th'Way, said he had lived their three years and he had never seen any traffic on this alley. He said that Northern States Power Company doesn't even drive on this alley easement. They work from the street. Mrs. Paulson said that Northern States Power Company had used this alley about 15 years ago, but that was when there was very little development in this area. /"1 . � � Mr. Clark said they usually didn't have such a division on whether an alley should be vacated or not. He said that about 15 years ago, in Plymouth Addition, there was division, and the Council vacated half of the alley, and left the other Planning Commission Meeting - June 25, 1975 Page 7 half open, but there were people using the alley for access to their garages, in this particular instance. � ^ , Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Benson if he knew he was violating the City Code when he extended this fence into the alley easement. Mr. Benson said he thought the alley had already been vacated because alleys in the blocks around them were vacated. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Benson if he insialled this fence himself. Mr. Benson ' said that he had. Mr. Langenfeld asked if anyone in the audience had changed their opinion dur.ing the discussion. There was no response. Mr. Drigans said there was enough opposition to vacating this alley so that he didn`t feel they could recommend approval of this request. He said it would take time to reconstruct the fences, so he thought the people with fences and gardens in this easement should be given a time period to comply to the Code. Mr. Drigans asked how many gardens were involved. Mr. Benson said that there were two. Mr. Drigans said he thought most of the gardens should just about be through by September 15th. Chairman asked Bob Schroer who was in the audience, if this was correet. Mr. Schroer said everything should be done by October lst,�.anyway, in the gardens. Mrs. Paulson, 131 79th Way N.E., said.that Mr. Benson had one of the most � beautiful gardens she had every seen, and although she was against the alley being vacated, she said it would be a shame to make him tear out this garden until after the growing season. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Benson what kind of garden he had. Mr. Benson indicated that it was a�arge vegetable garden and he had intended using the fence to grow cucumbers on. Mrs. Paulson said she was sure that every neighbor would feel that Mr. Benson sMould be allowed to let his garden grow until the end of the /'1 season. " MOTION by Dr�gans, seconded b� Peterson, that the P.Ianning Commission recommend to Coancil denial of the vacation request, 5AV #75-04, by Leonard Benson, to vacate the 12 foot a11ey in B1ock 4, Spring Brook Park Addition, located between Ashton Avenue and the railroad tracks, because of the opposition of six adjacent property owners, but that the property owners wha have fences and gardens in this aZ1ey easement be. given until September Z5, 1975�to relocated their fences and remove the gardens. Upon a voice vate, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. C. E. Gilbert arrived at the meeting. MOTIDN by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the request for a Spe�jal Use Permit, Sp #75-06, by C. E. Gi.Zbert be removed from the table. Upon a voice vote, aIZ voting aye, Chairman Harris removed it from the table at 9:20 P.M. Chairman Narris explaine� to the petitioner that this item had been tabled to give him a chance to be heard. • Mr.'Gilbert said he had been holding an indoor flea market for three years. He said this usally closed up by the end of May. He said it was the policy of a flea market to set up outside, in the surr�ner time, so he approached Mr. Mortenson with this request, and Mr. Mortenson said he had no objection. � Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Gilbert is he would explain the nature of a flea market. � � Mr. Gilbert said that the people who set up booths or tables are called dealer,s. � They pay a$3.00 fee ta set up in the market. They sell antiques, items from estate . "� �'I Planning Commission Meeting - June 25, 1975 Page 8 ^ sales and garage sales, or items they have bought wholesale. After the sale they � pack up and clean up. He said they usually opened up at 7:30 A.M. and closed at 4:00 P.M. � Mr. Drigans asked if they needed a license to sell in a flea market? Mr. Gilbert�said they just needed it for sales tax. Mr. Origans how many dealers were at these sales. Mr..Gilbert said they usually had 52 dealers inside, but outside they would have 60 or more dealers. Mr. Drigans asked about the tUrnover of dealers. Mr. Gilbert said some of them were regulars and some only came once, of just a few times. Mr. Drigans asked how Mr. Mortenson made a profit on this. Mr. Gilbert said he got a percentage of the fee charged each dealer. Mr. Drigans said it wasn`t a percentage of the sates then. Mr. Gilbert said no. Mr. Clark asked how often the flea market wouTd be open. it would be once a week, on Saturday. � . Mr. Langenfeld asked how they advertized the flea market. they used flyers, the Minneapolis papers and the Sun. He said was built up, they usually didn't have to advertise. Mr. Gilbert said Mr. Gilbert said that after business Mr. Drigans said that as this was a commercial business he wondered if there - were adequate facilities. Mr. Gilbert said they had a key to the Mall so they /'� could use the restroom facilities there. Mr. Clark said that OSHA requirements - say the facility has to be within 200 feet, so he thought this would be adequate. Mr. Bluhm said he thought Mr. Gilbert was a very reputable man and an honest man. What he has described would be like a gia�t garage sale. He wondered if the property owner of the Skywood Shopping Genter had the right to rent to a tenant that could adversely affect other �enants in the area. Mr. Clark said that Mr. Mortenson, the owner of this property, had signed the request, and he would have thought that he would have cansidered his other tenants before he agreed to this use. He said that he agreed that the tenants have a vested interest in this. Mr. Lindblad said that was why he fel� that all the tenants should have been notified. Mr. Bluhm said that only the awners of property were notified, and that � Menards and Lee Wards were notl�ht�butdhe thoughtrhesshould haae`discussed�itrwith Mortenson had discussed.th�s w , �he other tenants, if he didn't. , Mr. Bluhm said he felt that Menard's had greatly improved this area, and also 'the Ground Round had done extensive remodeling. He said that he l�as watched the Skywood Mall area very closely because of the location of the Twin City Federal �branch in this area. Ne said he was very sorry that Mr. Mortenson wasn'i at this meeting, because he would tell him to his face that the Skywood.Mall lacks a lot as far as maintenance. It should be improved, and kept improved. He said the reason he had taken the pictures on the way to this meeting was to show the weeds that are allowed to grow on this property. He said he just couldn't see this type of owner getting further pri.viledges of freedom, especially as there was a zoning ordinance that precludes it. . Mr. Lindblad said that the condition of Skywood Mall has always been a problem, Planning Commission Meeting - June 25, 1975 �aqe 9 and Mr. Mortenson had always skirted fixing and maintaining this area. He said he ^ didn't think this area benefited Fridley at the present time because nothing had been kept up, and all Fridley got were broken promises. Mr. Bluhm said there was a protective covenant that had been drawn up for the property that was occupied by Twin City Federal, and he thought this flea market operation would be in violation of the covenant, and turn-about should be fai.� play. Mr. Borrell said that Twin City Federal had spent a lot of money on their property ' trying to upgrade the property, and if this operation was allowed in this are a, it would have all been for nothing. He said that Twin City Federal was open from 9 to 12 on Saturday morning, and this operation would really be detrimental to their business.� Mr. Drigans said that;if the recommendation was to deny the outdoor flea market, this wouldn't stop the indoor flea market as this was not objectionable. MOTION BY Driqans, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing bn%..the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-06, by C. E. Gilbert. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion ^arried unanimous2y. MOTION by Lindblad,. seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Comm.ission recommend to the City Council denial of the request for a 5pecial Use Permit, SP #75-06, by C. E..Gilbert, to a1Zow the operation of an outdoor flea market, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, 3, N, to be located on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 153, the same being 1507-5289 Central Avenue N.E. (Sk�wood MaI1). Mr. Drigans said his feelings on this request were that an indoor flea market was fine, but that an outdoor flea market would be difficult to control, especially /'1 as far as traffic and crowd problems. He said he thought there were better sites in Fridley for this type of operation. There was a minature galf courseiin this � area, and we just don't know what type of environment we would be creating if we allowed this operation at this loc�tion. UPON A VOICE VOTE, aZl voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUfST: SAV #75-05,'BY RICHARD KOK: To reduce the drainage and utility easement from 6 feet to 0 feet on the South side of Lot 6, Block l, C1ark's Addition, the same being 651.7 McKinley Street N.E. Mr. Kok was not present. Mr. Clark said the previous owner of this property built a detached garage in 1961 before we requi.red a verification survey, and he encroached about three feet into the easement. There was never any troubie with this because there aren't any utilities an this easement. � Mr. Clark said that he advised the petitioner than in order to make his property more saleable, he should get this problem settled by having the encroachment allowed �or vacating the easement. He said there was a siz foot easement on this property and a 6 fAOt easement on the lot South of this property. A field inspection verified that there were no utilities on this easement, and the utility companies have been notified. As yet there has been no response from them, either pro or con. /"� Mr. Clark said that because the petitioner wasn't present and we haven't had any response from the utility companies, he thought this item should be continued. , He said the petitioner has waited 13 years, and he didn't think another month would . affect this one way or the other. .� �.I Planning Commission Meetinq - June 25, 1975 Page 10 MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission continue ^ until Jv1y 23, 1975, the vacation request, SAV #75-05, by Richard Kok, to reduce the � drainage and utility easement from 6 feet to 0 feet on the South side of Lot 6, Block 1, CZark's Addition, the same being 6417 McKinley Street N.E. Upon a voice vate, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 4. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST, SAV #75-06, by MICHAEL MCFARLAND: Vacate the 12 foot undeveloped alley in Block 15, Fridley Park Addition, to allow the petitioner to erect a fence that would include the alley, the same being 98 64th Way N.E. Mr. Michael McFarland was present. Mr. McFarland said that this was an undeveloped alley that was heavily wooded. It was just a collector of dead leaves and was very unsigh�ly. He said it had been used as a depository for junk, and it was completely impassable. He said he was new to the area, and he wanted to clarify his lot lines, and as he • lived on the corner of East River Road, he would like the privacy of a fence, and it would keep people from cutting through his yar�#. If the Planning Commission wasn't agreeable to the entire alley being uacated, he would still like the alley adjacent to his property vacated. . Mrs. Jerry Lowe 39 63 1/2 Way N.E. said they were in favor of this vacation request. Mr. Harris asked about the people who were across the alley from Mr. McFarland's ^ � property. . - Mr. Langenfeld said he lived across the alley, and he wanted the alley vacated also. He said this alley was used as a junk yard, and he wanted ta eliminate that problem. He said most of the people in this block have maintained the property that was alley easement. He said no one had a fenc� in the a11ey, but people would like to fence the alley easement, if it was vacated. Mildred King, 71 63 1/2 Way N.E., said she was in favor of the vac��iQn:�request. Mr. Lavern Dornbusch, 40 64th Way N.E. said he was favor of the .vacation request also. � Mr. Clark said that if the Planning Commission was going to recommend approval of this request, they should stipulate that a drainage and utility easement be retained in the vacated alley. He said the petitioner and Mr. Langenfeld were right when they said this alley�easement had been a catch-all. He said it would be impossible for the City to ever improve this alley, because they couldn't cut down the trees. MQTION BY Peterson, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission recommend � to Council approval of the vacation request, 5AV #75-06, by MichaeZ McFarZand, to vacate the 12 foot undeveloped alley in B1ock 15, Frid.ley Park Addition, �o a11ow the petitioner to erect a fence that would include the a11ey, the same being 98 64th Way N.E. with the stipulation that a drainage and utility easement be retained in the vacated Z2 foot alley. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried ^ unanimously. : u.._ Rlanning Commission Meeting - Ju�e 25, 1975 Pa e 11 ^ Mr. Harris said he would like all the property owners in the block notified of this request. Mr. Clark said they had been, and would be notified again for the Public Hearing before Council. . 5. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #75-02, BY RICHARD JANKE: To allow Lot ll, Block 1 , Rice Creek Plaza South Addition to be split into Parcels A& B, because of the error in fence location on lot 10, the same being 191 and 201 Rice . Creek Terrace N.E. � Mr. Richard Janke and Mr. Virgil.Mullins were present. Mr. Janke said his mother owned the property at 201 Rice Creek Terrace N.E. and when they built a patio and retaining wall, along with the fence, there was an error made as to the actual property line. He said that rather than most the fence and other improvements to this property, the owner of Lot 11, Mr. Virgil Mullins, 191 Rice Creek Terrace N.E., has agreed to sell the property to his mother. Mr. Clark said that P�r. Mullines was present also, and he had also signed the request, and if both parties were in agreement, ihe City saw no problem with this request, - Mr. Mullins said he was in agreement with this request. Mr. Harris asked if both lots would stiTl meet the setback and lot requirements of the City code. Mr. Clark said they would � � MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission recomment to Council approval of the request for a Lot Sp1it, L.S. #75-02, by Richard Janke, to . allow Lot .i1, B1ock 1, Rice Creek P1aza South Addition, to be split into ParceZs A and B, irecause of_an error in fence location, the same being 191 and 201 Rice Creek Terrace N.E. Upon a voice vote, aIl vatinq aye, the motion carried unanimously. 6. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #7�-03, BY ARTHUR SEGER: Sp1it Lot 1, Block 2, Spring Lake Park Lakeside Addition, to Greate another building site, the same being 7650 Lakeside Road N.E. Mr. Arthur Seger was not present. � Mr. Harris said it laoked like the lots would be quite large. Mr. Clark said they would be. He said the present lot has enough area and street frontage to make two building sites. Mr. Clark said there really should be a survey made of the property as soon as possible. There was some question as to the rear yard requirement for the existing house. According to the rough drawing, the house would be 26 feet from the new side lot line of the property being split off, and the rear yard requirements was 25% of the lot depth, which would make this 30 feet. He said that ihis would create no problem because of the size of the property. The lot size of the property being split off could be reduced to 90 feet and would still meet the lot area requirements. Mr. Harris said that it could be reduced just by the 4 feet, and the lot would be 100' x 100'. Mr. Clark said the property South of these lots belonged �o School District #13. ^ � ' _ � Mr. Harris asked if there would be any easements necessary on this parcel: Mr. Clark said he was sure that there would be. , _.� -� � Planning Commission Meeting- June 25, 1975 Paqe 12 ^ Mr. Harris said he would like to see this property surveyed and all the utility easements see before this went to Council. Mr. Clark said they have not always done it that way, but that was no reason it couldn't be done. They could stipulate that this a11 be done before it went on the Council agenda. � MOTION b� Peterson, seconded by Lindb�ad, that the Planning Commission recommend that the petitioner have Lot 1, BZock 2, Spring Lake Park Lakeside Addition surveyed and a11 utilit� easements worked out with Northern States Power Company, Northwestern BeZ1 Telephone Company, Minnegasco, Cab1e Television and the City Engineering Department before this appears on the Couneil agenda; and that both lots meet the sethack and area requirements of the City Code, and at that time.the PZanning Commission would recommend to Council approval of the request for a Lot Sp1it, L.S. #75-03, b� Arthur Seger, to split Lot 1, B1ock 2, Spring Lake Park IJakeside Addition, to create another building site, the same being 7650 Lakeside Road N.E. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Harris said he would like a copy of the completed lot split to be included in the �lanning Cor�nission agenda. Mr. Clark said he would see that this was done. ' 7. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #75-04, BY ROBERT SCHROER: Split off the North 126.1 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 3, Block 2, and tiie South 173.99 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 2, B1ock 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition, to create . a building site, the same being 7810 University Avenue N.E. Mr. Robert Schroer was present. � Mr. Clark presented a drawing that had been submitted by Mr. Schroer in 1972, and said that on the basis of this drawing, we have previously granted lot .splits for both Capp Homes and the Town Crier. The third parcel, which was this request, was for the Datsun Dealership. It does not disrupt the pattern thay may .become evident�at some future date, but it does cut off thes:treet access to the Western portion of Lot 3, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition. He said Lots 2 and 4 were L shaped lot splits, so they still have access. He said he had talked to Dave Harris, who has an interest in this also, and he told Mr. Harris that the staff would probably recommend approval of tire lot split, but we definitely wouTd want an eas.ement to the rear partion of Lot 3 for street access. Mr. Harris indicated to Mr. Clark that he would be willing to grant this easement at this time, and that the City should drawn up the agreement, and he would sign it. Mr. Clark said that this would.satisfy the access to tiot 3. � Mr. Clark said that both parceis meet the zoning requirements for C-2 Zoning. Mr. Clark said that he was not saying that the road would go in as it was shown on the drawning, but we do Mave to protect street access for Lot 3, and insis t on a right of way. � MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the request for a Lot 5plit, L.S. #75-04, by Robert Schroer, to split off the North 126.1 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 3, BZock 2, and the South 173.99 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 2, B1ock 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition, to create a building site, the same being 7810 University Avenue N.E., with the stipvlation than an agreement be signed to provide an easement for street right of way on the West 30 feet of the Easterly 230 feet of Lots 3 and 4, together with the 5outherly 33 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 4, Block 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition. Upon a voice vote, aI1 voting aye, the n�otion carried unanirnously. n . . . .. .. . ... .. .. _ . .. . . . . ... . . _ _. _.. . . . . . . . . Planning Commission Meeting - June 25, 1975 Page 13 8. BUILDING PERMITS � �� Paco, Inc. - Industrial Building - 7847 Elm Street N.E. -Staff Report -Attachment A Mr. Clark explained that with the reorganization of the Planning Commission this item will always appear on the agenda, with an administrative staff report, but after this, it will always be the first item on the agenda. Mr. Clark said that all building permits will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council. We feel that no action is necessary by either body unless they wish to make some comment about them. He said an administrative staff report would be submitted with all building permits, and they ��ere working on a form that would be a check list to see how sueh conS�ruction would affeci the environment, for example, whether it affects i� adversely or betters it. Mr. Clark said that this particular building, in this block, will complete the construction along Elm Street between 77th and 78th. This addition, along with another structure, meets all the zoning requirements as far as setbacks and parking ratios and the use of the property. The architectural design was similar to the balance of the buildings in this area. The�middle buil�ing front will be split block masonry. The other one will be brick, the same as the next building Sou�h, up to two or three courses of the top, and then it will be split face rock, for the balance. It was very similar in nature to the rest of the structures in the black. The staff feels that this was a goad addition to the area, and"it meets all the codes and does not affect the enuironment adversely. �. Mr. Clark said there was a set of plans, if the Planning Commission wanted to look at them. He said �here were 80 feet between this strueture and the next one South, and Mr. Pashke was,diseussing with the awner of the other structure, the possibjlity of putting in the parking lot now, rather than sodding it and having to tear up the sod later for the parking lot. This was a parking lot that they have been planning for, for some time. It doesn't have to happen, because the parking meets the code requirements, and there apparently were no parking problems, but we do have an open building which may need more parking, depending upon the occupancy. Mr. Lindblad asked ta see the over-all plan af the Onaway area. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Paschke when he was coming in for variance. Mr. Pashke said this building did not require any variance. Mr.. Drigans commended Paco, Inc., for coming up with a plan that didn't require a variance. � Mr. Clark�said there would have been a variance, but with both buildings being built at the same time, under vne ownership, and with the firewal], it meets the zoning requirements for a O lot line. • Mr. Clark said the Planning Commission did not have to make a recommendation unless they felt that this did not meet the policies, which you haven't established yet, then that would be what you would cor�nent upon. Mr. Lindblad asked if all building permits for commercial and industrial construction will come to the Planning Commission now. Mr. Clark said they would, and the staff report will state if there are any problems or not. If there are problems, the Planning Cor�nission will direct the application for a building permit to the proper Cor�nissison. If it was a variance, that would go to the Appeals Commission right away, before it comes to the Planning Commission. He said this '�� � 0 Planninq Commission Meeting - June 25, 1975 Page 14 procedure was sort of in limbo now, until the Planning Commission sets up its policies, and goals and objectives. Chairman Harris asked the other members of the Planning Commission if it was the concensus of opinion that they agreed with the staff recommendation. The other members stated their agreement. STATEMENT OF APPRECIATION: � Chairman Harris said that the reorganization of the Planning Commission would result in new members on the Planning Commission, and he wanted to thank the present members for their cooperation and indulgence. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Lindblad, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Planning Commisian meeting of�June 25, 1974 adjou�ned at 10:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � ���� Dorothy Eve on-Secretary 0 . . .. . .. � • . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . � . � . . � . . � � � . . � �� �. Page 1 Verbatim minutes from the June 25, 1975 Planning Commission Meetinq �5 /1 • as requested by the Planning Commission. � 2. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST: SAV #75-04, BY LEONARD BENSON: Vacate the 12 foot alley in Block 4, Spring Brook Park Addition, located between Ashton Avenue and the railroad tracks, so the existing gardens and fences � would not have to be removed from this alley. H�rris: Is Mr. Leonard Benson in the audience? Mr. Benson said he was present. Drigans:, Mr. Benson, what kind of fence is there'in �his alley. Benson: I've got a chain link fence and I've got it in the center of the alley, also I've got a garden along the fence. There is another fence that is kitty- corner from me, that's to the center of the alley, and there has been dnother gentleman had a fence in the alley, but he has moved his back dowr to his property. Drigans: Mr. Benson when you put this fence in, did you have a survey of the property. Benson: Yes, I did. Drigans: Why. did you put it in the alley. � � Benson Well, I thought it was vacated already. I was under the assumption that it was vacated, that there wouldn't be no alley in there�, so that's the reason I � put it out there. The one a black down from me has a redwood fence through there, and i figured I could put one there too. Drigans: Is your garden on the inside or ouisid� the fence. Benson: Inside of the fence. � . � ' Drigans: Inside of the fence. Langenfeld: Mr. Benson have you received any complaints from other people, the neighbors and so on, because of this fence. Benson: No, I have not. Benson: I also have a petition here of some of the owners bordering 79th and Longfellow that's in favor of vacating this alley. Harris: It would be in order then to receive your petition. The petition states " We the undersigned are in favor of vacating the 12 foot alley in Block 4, Spring Brook Park Addition SAV #75-04.(Petition 15-1975), and it is signed by eight petitioners, is that correct. ' Peterson: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to receive the petition. � Narr.is: The Motion has been made, is there a secand. Lindblad: I second it. /'1 /'ti Page 2 �s Harris: The motion has been made and seconded, is there any discussion on the petition. I'll call the question. All in favor. ,EVERYQNE VOTED AYE. Narris: So moved. The secretary will include this petition in the minutes. Harris: Do you have anything else you would like to say, Mr. Benson. Benson: Yes, also I was thinking if there was an alley baek of my property, this you would probably have traffic back there, alsa snowmobile:� running in the winter time back through there.. Also we hav:- had a litt'�e thievery in the neighborhood, small things, and I would thin�: if there was a lot of open area, like an alley through there, there� would probably be some more, so this is another reason why I am in favor of having a fence and keeping the traffic in the front of the homes instead of in the back• Also pretty near all the garages are facing forward or towards the streets so that there would be very few people who could actually use an alley. Thank you. Harris: Is there any other persons here who received letters. Mrs. Cyril, Paulson, 131 79th Way N.E.: If the fence is up, I can't get into the back of my property unless I take my front fence down. The houses are so close together on Longfellow, that there were a couple of other people who rvouldn't be able to get into their 6ack yards at�a�ll without this al�ley or:access. Harris: Then you are opposed to the alley being vacated. Paulson: Yes. Harris: I am looking for Mr. Floer. Is he here. Benson: Mr. Floer is on vacation. He will be at the next mee�i.ng. Harris: Is Mr. Pogreba here. ` Mr. Stephen Pogreba, 190 Longfellow Street: My garage f�� �s to the front and I drive into it from the street.. If we had an alley in the back, more than likely the property taxes would go up, and I would never use that alley right now. If you had traffic back and forth through there this would bring probiems because there have been some small items stolen the way it is. Drigans: Sir, I have a ques�ion for you. How come you signed both petitions for and against. � . �. Pogreba:. I don't think I did that. - Drigans: We have your signature on the petition in opposition to the vacation and you just signed this one in favor of the vaeation. We also have the James Roberts s�ignatures on both petitions. Pogreba: On the one opposing when they came around with that, that wasn't the way � they toi d i t to mc; . Drigans• The petition reads "We the undersigned property nwners �re �n'oapo�itiorn��of vacating the alley easement between 79th Way and Longfellow Street Northeast � and from Ashton Avenue to Burlington Northern right of way. We would like this property left open for public access. We feel it is very important � � to leave this property open �s an access for bikes and hikers and is a safer � place for children to,use. If this property.:is vacated, children would �� Page 3 be forced into using the street or cutting through unfenced yards." Mr. Drigans said your signature appears on this petition as well as ^ the one far the vacation as well as the Roberts. James Roberts, 121 79th Way N.E.: When �he came around with the one that was opposed, R she said they wanted the fences:v�cated 'past�thQ3�.own property�and they agreed, and that �a� the reason I signed that one. As far as I'm concerned,i it should stay just the way it is. His intentian that there was no way � th�t he was going to use that alley, and I ain't'going to pay for no��alley. i I think it should be left just the way it is. If you put an alley in there,i the kids are won't be able to.play like they can now, they will have to � watch out for cars. i Harris: Your name is Mr. Roberts and you wish to withdraw your name from the petition in opposition to the vacat'ing r��F �he alley. . Roberts: Just the way Mr. Benson wants it, I want to leave it like that. Harris: O.K. Langenfel.d: I noticed that we have several vacation requests on the agenda, and I'm wondering if the people in the audience ar� aware of what a vacation really does. He asked the Chairman if he would be so kind as to inform them. Harris: Perhaps we should let Darrel explain this, he's probably more able. Clark: Vacations of a public easement or alley or street right of way, means that it ^ goes back to the property from� which it was dedicated. Quite often in the vacation of an alley, the City, if they grant the vacation, will retain the utilities easement, and drainage easements, therefore, you become the fee owner of the property, but N.S.P, Bell Telephone, and other u�ility companies have � the right to keep their utility.poles at that location. You do have the right to plant gardens, perhaps even fence it with the idea in mind, that if the utility companies have to get in there, that the fence could be torn down, and they would not have to replace i.t, because they do have the right to use ti�at easement for access to their utiJities. We don't have any street vacations on the agenda, so we won't�get into that. More often than not, when the Planning Commission and Council vacate an alley they will retain a dra�nage and utility easement so the 12 foot strip will still he there as far. as u�ilities'are . concerned, but it cauld never be paved as an alley for access for use by the general public. ' Drigans: Darrel are there any increase�in taxes at all. Clark: I'm sure that there probably would be, but I would think that in this case where we were only extending the length of the lot by 6 feet, I can't see where it would make much difference. Langenfeld: I have been checking on this for a vacation request that will be coming •up later on and this one will also involve 6 feet that will be added on ta adjoining property. I talked to the City Assessor and he stated that it would be in the vicinity of a$6 to $8 increase per year in taxes. Now a lot of this ^ is based on whether you can built a structure on this or not. Clark: If the City retains a utility easement, you could not build a structure. One . thing this will d� is allow you to build closer to the 4ack� lot line. If you wanted to build an accessory building that'had to be��three'feet from the :rear'�'� lot line, you coerld use,�Chis 6 ft, as the setback• Harris: ^ • - , Pogreba: Page 4 Mr. Pogreba would you want to remove your name from the opposition. Yes I do. �. Harris: Thank you. We don't want to end up with the same names on opposing petit9ons. Mrs. Judy Welch, 144 Longfellow Street N.E.: I am the one that brought the petitio� around in opposition and I told the people when I asked them to sign the petition that we did not want an� �aved alley back there, but we do want the access. We want it left a� it is, grass and open. Mrs. Pett, I'm sure you got a letter from her, and ourselves;�have r�cw�ational�vehicles and d�trin� the winter we store these vehicles on the back of our property. With the fences up we will not be able to get back there. Benson: I've looked at��the neighborhood and everything, and there is only one person that couldn't get into their back yard, and actually they could get into their back yard because the corner where their property is, there is an apartment bu9lding that is paved all the way back to the alley, actually it i� over the line, and I also talked to this gentleman, and I don�'� believe he's here tonight, and he's one of the petitioners who wants the alley vacated, and he said it would be all right for her to pull her trailer down his black top into her yard and back out again. And also ��s. Paulson was saying that she had no way into her back yard. �ell there is a 30 feet chunk of property, I don't know who owns it, if the City of Fridley owns it, or who owns it, but there's a 30 feet chunk there, and I'm sure she could find out who owns it, and use that for�getting into.her back_yard. ^ � Langenfeld: Mr. Benson stated that he did not receive any complaints from his -' heighbors, now we are hearing some. The question that e�ters my mind is how did this become known to the City. ,In the form ot a complaint, or a routine inspection of properties, or just what. /'\ Clark: Traditionally we do not go out looking.for.fenced alleys. We normally would wait until it was brought to our attention, then we must go out and check it. . If we find that there is a fence in an alley, we send a letter, like the one's we find in our agenda tonight. Langenfled: Then it would seem that this was a complaint. Clark: I'm sure that it was. I did not receive it myself so I can't say yes to the fact that it was, but I'm sure that we didn't go out looking for fence violations of this sort. As a matter of policy, we just don't do it�unless we are asked. � Harris: We have�two letters here, one from a Richard Rush, 3619 Janssen Avenue North Chicago, who says "I own Lots ll and 12, and 1 and 2, Block 4, Spring Brook Park Addition and I am in opposition to vacating the alley easement between 79th Way and Longfellow St. N.E." and we have another letter, "Dear Mr. Narris. In regard to vacating alley easement between 79th Way and Longfellow Street �rom Ashton to Burlington Northern Railroad. Because of a prior commitment we are unable to attend the June 25th Planning Commission meeting. Nowever, I would like this letter read before the Commission. We signed the petition in opposition : to vacating. We feel very strong about this. We own a 21 foot recreatianal 'vehicle and since it is illegal to park it in the front of our property, we will • have to store it in our back yard. The only way is by way of the alley easement. � I don't know how the Planning Commission could even consider vacating this property when the majority of the homeawners are against it. When Mr. Floer ex- tended his fence onto the alley easement early this spring we told him it was an alley easement. Mr. Welch also tol'd Mr. Benson the same when he installed � _�. � Page 5 /'� his fence. We feel these individuals who knowingly violated a City ordinance - should not be rewarded. Thank jfou, Delores Pett, Eugene L. Pett.° It would be in order fo+� us to recei�te these communications at th�s time. . Drigans: So moved. Peterson: Seconded. Harris: The motion has been made and seconded, discu�sT�on, call �he question, a�l in fav Everyone voted aye. Mrs. Welch: About a year ago we were installing a low fence on our property and when my my husband was putting it up and Mr. Benson came out and said you can put it on the six feet and my husband said no, that was an alley easement, so at that time he was informed of this and when he wanted to put his fence up, he could have checked with the City orr�inances to se�. if this was vacated. Another thing, he stated that Mrs.�Pet� could use someon� elses property, O.K. wha�.��iapper�s t�ro yea�s from now when some..one else owns that property. How does he know if other people would a�low this. We have 30 feet on one side of our house, but we have plans to build a double garage. I said that we did not�want an alley, but we want the property left apen so we can go through. Mr. Welch, 144 Longfellow: I don't see why I should have to pay anymore property tax because someone wants.to use 6 foot more property, and as my wife stated, I wo.uld like to park my recreational vehicle behind my building and I plan on �"1 buying a new one, a larger one, which I cannot park in the street in Fridley. , Harris: Do you live towards the center of the block. We1ch: Towards the far end of the block : Harris: Towards the r.ailroad tracks. So if this alley was vacated, if any portion of this alley was vacated, you could not get into your property. Welch: Like if I waza�=e�� to tiave dirt haal;ed in. Roberts: What's going to stop them from getting into their back yard is a house that was moved in righ� next to them, after.the rezoning went through. There�are still three lots there yet, what's going to stop them from putting a house in there, and then how are they going to get back there. Same way with Northern States Power, h�ow are they going to get back there. They are going to go out �From the street. How are they going to get back there, and that's going to stQp a beautiful thing. I think they better leave just what they got. There's � still four lots next to Paulson's. They can go right up that into their back yard. They don't need that alley easement to get to their back yard. Drigans: I wonder if there is anyb�dy here who has not signed a petition either for or against, and would like to speak on this. How many here are for this? How many here are concerned on this item? Al1 of you here signed a petition either far or against. n ' Beflson: I would like to ask a question. If they put an alley in, how would you get turned around in the:end of,this alley. It goes down to the railroad crossing now, would they put a cul-de-sac in there, would they have �o take so much off of each home owner in order to make the cul-de-sac for a turn around to get ' back out the way you ��ame�.in, js this the understanding, or am I right or am I wrong. . . . Page 6 . 2O Harris: Mr. Clark, would you like to respond to that. ^ . - Clark: Well, this is not a hearing to improve the alley obviously: if it was a � petition to pave the alley, I think the City wou�d either get a� turn around at the end, or get an easement up to Longfellow or down to 79th, to get a •, loop out from the end of the a11ey. 6ut just because the Cfty decides not to vacate it, it doesn't mean its going to be paved. 7here would still have to be another public hearing before any alleys are improved, by the City Council. n Harria: Thank you. Mrs. Welch: I just want to add that I don't think there is one person on the block that is in favor of an alley, a paved alley. fi.his isn't what's the matter. We just want the property open, grass; the way it has been, so we can drive on it as an alley. Roberts: Like I said before, the only lots tha+ are left open, are the lots behind their house, other than the 30 foot lot betw���.�ine Gnd Paulson's, and that's coming up for back taxes, and I think I'm going to buy that.: Outside of that how are you going to get in there, because o�tside of that, it will be all blocked off. What I can't figure out is how you are going to get in there. What are you going to do, drive through some one's yard. Harris: There is access to Ashton. Roberts: Yah, but how are you going to get b�ack out, you`re going to have to get back out. There are still going to have to come down some place. Harris: They can back out. I don't see anyway you can turn around on 12 feet. Are there any more comments. l.angenfeld: Maybe you recall that taxes was mentioned before. We really weren't too concerned as to whether an alley was going in or not, but I would like to ask Darrel the question, with the assumption that an alley did go in, wouldn't the residents-•of that area have to participate in the cost of putting that in. Clark: Most definitely, yes. Langenfeld: I would like t�iat made part of the record as.� infarmational data �;'to the audience. Harris: Is there any further discuss7on. Peterson: Darrel,�are there any restrictions now in terms of usage of an alley that is 12 feet that has neith�r been vacated or improved, so that people drive on it, and those residpnts who live"further.up, 5omebody'cart bring a bull-dozer in there and tear it all up, drive a heavy truck in there and tear �t all up,' jusi leave i,� i�n'that condition. Rre there no regulations as far as the City - is eoncerned regardinq the usage of that open strip. It seems to me we want our cake and eat it too, and I Just wondered what the City's position was on � that, because if I were a property owner and somebody i#�terrupted sod I had. ^ put down beside my house, I probably would not appreciate it. . Clark: I don't think anyone wauld. � • `�� Page 7 P.eterson: When we are talking heavy recreational vehicles, and this type of thing, We are talking about a use that almost demands an improved alley, if they ^ • are going to use it the way I have heard. � Clark: The City doesn't maintain unimproved alleys, obViously, and if is being maintainedj as grass now, it is being maintained by the owner, who has probably put a lot of ; time in on this, and whether or before a resident decided to let a heavy truck � � up there, to rut it all up, so that it couidn't be cut any more, whether'.the � City would ask the person to repair it that drove over it, I dbn't know. We've ! never had this happen, so we have nothing to draw fnom that I know of. Apparently� there has been some traffic, not traffic, but once in awhile a vehicle has used f the alley and I don't know if there have been any problems with them, or not. ; � Benson: .I have a pick-�p camper, a pretty heavy one, and when we go camping, I have to watch pretty much what ground I drive on because my pick-up will` cut up the grass pretty good. Peterson: Is the assumption true that this alley has been used by vehicles. , Benson: No it hasn't, because I put a fence up there. Roberts: Since I've been there, three years now, I haven't seen a vehicle go on this alley. He said he noticed on the house that just came in there that Northern States Power parked on the street, and the electrician worked on the pole on , the corner of my lot. Mrs. Paulson: We have lived there 15 years and when Northern States Power first came in, they used it, but there weren't too many homes there then. �'1 � - -' Linb'tad: Darrel, what are the restrictions on parking on this alley. Clark: If the alley was��open for traffic, and anyone parked on it, they could get tagged for obstructing traffic. Again,.�I don't know what they would do on on this alley, but �u��i.common sense would,�tell yau that you couldn't park on it. We haven't had too many alley vacation requests where there have been . dif�ereriy��:of�opinions on whether they want to vacate or don't want to vacate. There was one in Plymouth Addition where there was a division in a block, where some wanted and some didn't. Council v��ated h�lf'n� �t and left the other half open. In that particular one, there were garages facing the alley. I would gues•� that Council would be reluctant to vacate an,� alley or anything else where there was more than one person objecting to it, without a good reason. Langenfel'd: I would like to address a question to Mr. Benson. Did you cor�s�puct this fence knawingly that you were violating the rules. Benson: No I didn't. I thought the alley was vacated. Drigans: You did not come down and check with the City. Benson: No I didn't. 0 Drigans: Did you put up this fence yourself, Mr. Benson. � Benson: Yes. Harris: Is there any other questions or comments. Well, gentlemen, this is not a Public Hearing so we don't have to close it. Therefore, what's your pleasure. Page 8 �2 Langenfeld: Mr. Chairman, before we make a�determination we sh�u�d �ee if�an�Y one �ias changed their opinion in any way since the discussion started. 1n ot er � wor�s those who were in favor and those against. � Car�.I ask for a'show � of hand or not. . � Harris: I don't beli.eve that's respor�si�►e. Drigans: Mr. Chairman, it is my own feeling that there is enough people in opposition to leave the alley open. It is our normal mode of operation to grant vacations here when there is no opposition and strong consideration when there is just one or two, but in this case there ar� quite a few. There is three fences, and it is going to take a certain amount of work to reconstruct a fence. I would like to make a suggestion, however. How many gardens are involved. � Benson: Two. Drigans: Two. Are those gardens out in the alley. Benson: Yes. Dri�gans: What's planted. Benson: Lets see what's planted. Sweet corn, potatoes, pickles, that I plan on growing on the fence, if they ever get going, also, squash, and I believe I have some . radishes g��:�it��� toao Drigans: Well, I guess��I.woul.d hate to::see.someone tear up his garden too, but I do ^ , feel there is enough opposition,,Mr. Chairman; that we should request the, recommend to City Councii that requesting that, at least in my opinion, I ' would really suggest that we put a stipulation, a time period, on the removal {' of the fence. I think sometime like September to al`low them to continue � � growing gardens, and allow the�n time to reconstruct the fence. That's my recommendation. . Benson: Sir, I hate to butt in,.but how many was it against and how many was for it. I would like to knaw. � C�iark�: There is five on this petition. There were seven, but two left. Benson: Are you counting names. Clark: No, I'm counting addresses. Drigans: He asked.for signatures, alsa people don't sign their addresses here. We have three �people off this on.e, and there on this one here. Eight for the retention. Harris: I thTnk ihere were nine signatues op�os�d. Benson; Do'husband and wife count for�two if they both signed. Harris: This is why �I think we should go by add�"esses. Then we have six addresses that are opposed. There were 8 addresses for. " � Raber�s: My name is on the petition in favor of the request, but my._;wife's isn't.and ��., � she's for it too. _ - Harris: That's why we should ��unt addresses instead of signatures. We don't wani�to., . �start any family feuds. . � . _ . .� ,�,� �. � • Page 9 �3 Harris: Are you ready to make a motion. Mr. Drigans. /'� � Drigans: My motion Mr. Chairman is to recommend to Council denial of the request, with the recommendation that Council put a stipulation on the date of removal of the fence by the middle of September. ' Harris: Excuse me. Mr. Schroer, you are our expert witness, are gardens about done by the middle of� September, Bob. SchrAer: They should be all done by the first of October. Harris: Is there a second to that motion. Peterson: I'll second it. Harris: There is a motion, its been seconded, is there any discussion. . No discussion, call the question. Everyone: All voted aye. Harris: Motion carries. ' Clark: This will go to Council on their July 7th meeting. The Council will probably set a public hearing for August llth. You will receive another notice of this �� Public�Hearing in August. � I^ - Benson: Now, on this now, I don't have to start tearing my fence down until this goes one way or the other. You�put a date on when my garden is done, but I don't � have to move my fence down until. its�_done, one way or the other. Clark: In the matter of policy, that is correct. But legally we could give you ���e ten days to remove it, and then you would have to. But as a matter of policy, we don't do that. � Mrs. Paulson: May I say something. Mr. Benson has one of the most beautiful gardens I have ever seen and I don't think anyone should ask him to take his fence r down until its all through. I'm sure that everyone in the block would agree � wi th me . . '� Clark: The reason I sai d i t_.that:.�vay was because� i t i s a matter of pol i cy that we do ; not, but legally it is violating the :�J.��vs and restrictions put on the alley and if some resident of that alley was to push the City into enforcing the laws, we would have no option. � �'1 Harris: I'm sure we understand Mr. Clark: � t ' . � � \ HARVEY E. SKAAR CRAIG M. MERTZ HARVEY E. SKAAR ATTORNEY AT LAW MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 58402 July ?, 1975 City of Fridley Civic Center , 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesnta 55432 Re: Vacation Request SAV#75-04 Dear Council Members: �4 /900 fIRST NATIONAI. BANK iiU1LDING � � AREA CODE 812 � � TELEPHONE 338-9'368 . This office represents Mr. and Mrs. Leonard Benser, Mr. and Mrs. James Roberts, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Floer, and Mr. and Mrs. Marvin Breiland, all of whom own property on Block 4, I�I� Spring Park Addition. Our clients have reviewed the minutes of the June 25,, 1975 meeting of.the Planning Commission, which, in an informal public hearing, considered the above matter, and'our clients note several inadeguacies in those minutes. � On behalf of the above named citizen, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission be�directed to amend said minutes to reflect the following: 1) That Mr. James R. Roberts, 121-79th Way N.E. � told the Commission that the opening of the alley i.n question would be a hazard to children in that it would be difficult for parents to watch for both front yard traffic and'back yard traffic. _ � 2) That Mr. Leonard Benser, 154 Longfellow N.E. told the Commission that the opening of said alley to vehicular traffic, would a. markedly increase neighborhood noise because of back yard snowmobile and motor cycle noise. ^ b. Necessitate the establishment of a _ . Cul de Sac because of the narrowness � of the right of way. n �� -- . ..a� _ , � . � • . . . �� � City of Fridley July 7, 1975 , page two � . c. Increase taxes because of the need to finance alley improvements by special assessment. �.� It is our position that the above described additions must be made in order that said minute accurately reflect the full scope of testimony received by the Commission at its June 25, 1975 ineeting. . Very truly yours, • ' . �' -_ I � . i�. � , � •CRAIG M. MERTZ, ATTORNEY � � . CMM:sh � � , � /'"� ' r� � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: CITY OF FRIDLEY JULY 9, 197� Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 8:00 P,M. ROIL CALL: Members Present: Harris, Scott, Bergman, Peterson, Drigans Members Absent: Langenfeld Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, Planning Assistant APPROVE.PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: JUNE 25, 1975 PAGE 1 � MOTION by Drigans, seconded by 5cott, that the minutes of the PZanning Commission meeting of June 25, 1975 be approved as written. - Chairman Harris called for discussion. Mr. Narris then read aloud the following letter regarding vacation request, SAV #75-04 (between Longfellow and 79th from Ashton to the railroad tracks). . • "Mr. Richard Harris, Chairman, Fridley Planning Commission, 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432. � Dear Mr. Harris: RE: Vacation Request, SAV #75-04. After reading the minutes of the June 25, 1975 Planning Commission, we feel there are a few items that were not included, that we think should be. 1. Mrs. Judy Welch, 1�4 Longfellow St. N.E. stat�d that she didn't�thknkthere was one person on Block 4 who wanted the easement paved or improved.' 2. Mr. Robert Welch asked if the taxes will increase if the property is vacated.. Mr. Langenfeld replied yes. Mr. I�elch-asked why should we have to pay taxes on property we don't even want to own. 3. Mrs. Welch said that they intend to put in a double car garage in the near future, and then��there would be no other access to the rear of their property accept by way of the easement in back. There is also a false statement in the minutes regarding the sodding of this area. Mrs. Paulson, who has lia�ed at 131 79th Way for about fifteen years has said she didn't think anyone ever sodded the easement, it is just filled in with weeds. I hope you realize that we don't want this property to be used as a drag strip, snowmobile haven, or gang hangout, we never had problems with this easement before the f��nces were installed. We are just requesting that it stay open so that when it is necessary to reach the rear of our property, we will have an access. Thank you. Mrs. Delores A. Pett, Eugene'L. Pett, C. Paulson, Mrs. Hazel Paulson, Mrs. H.F, Muhich, R. J. Welch, Judith L. Welch." � Mr. & Mrs. Ro�bert Welch, 144 Longfellow Street N.E., were present at the meeting. � Mr. Harris stated that it was his und�rstanding that the City had received a letter from.Mr. Benson's attorney regarding the other side of the question.� . Mr. Drigans recalled that there were��.�lsa some_ques�ions directed to the au.dlence regarding people signing both petitions. He added that he did not find any mention of that in the minutes. Mr. Harris said that was correct. Mr. Drigans thought �hat it might be appropriate to direct the staff tb���relisten to the tape� and modify the minutes accordingly. Planning Commission Meeting - July 9, 1g75 Paqe 2 2� Mr. Drigans and Mr. Scott WITHDREW THE MOTION. � MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Peterson, that the Plann2ng Comrrrission table approval of the minutes of the June 25, 1975 meeting, and request that the administration: review the tapes and include that section of the tape regarding vacation request, SAV #75-04, in verbatim, for the next.Planning Commission meeting on Ju1y 23, 1975, r UPON a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � RECEIVE NUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: JUNE 26, 1975 MOTIDN by Scott, seconded by Peterson, that the Plannin Commission receive the minutes of the Human Resources Commission meeting of June 26� 1975. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. l. BUILDING PERMITS i'Vone. � 2. ELECT VICE C<�iAIRMAN Chairman Harris called for nominations. Mr. Peterson naminated Mr. Drigans for Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. Chairman Harris called for further nominations. There were none. MOTION by Peterson, secanded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission close the nominations for Vice Chairman. Upon a voice vote, a11 vot.ing aye, the motion carried � unanzrnousl y . MOTIDN by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that a unanimous ballot be cast for M�. Drigans as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commi,ssion. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimous,Zy. � 3. SkORELAND MANAGEMENT AGT , Chairman Harris called on Jerrold Boardman, Planning Assistant, to explain��the Shoreland Management Act to the Commission. Mr. Boardman explained that the Shoreland Management Act was another set of rules and regulations from the Department of Natural Resources. If they are adopted by the State, they will then be mandatory regulations for all municipalities. Mr. Boardman continued that there�have been a number of State and Federal manda- tory regulations already, including the Flood Plain Ordinance, which was required by the Federal and State government. Initially, the Department of Natural Resources set up rules and regulations called "Rura1 Shoreland Management". This managed the shorelines of all major public lakes and recreational facilities in the State of Minnesota as far as setbacks of structu.re, lot size restrictions, sewer facilities, etc. This meant that a building had to be placed within a certain distance of the shoreline. Mr. Boart#man said'that through the Shoreland Management Act, the State alsa requires the municipalities to establish Shoreland Management Ordinances. The Commissioner of � the Department of Na'tural Resources would classify all pablic waters into categories. He said that he believes that Fridley would have three bodies of water classified as public waters. These would be, (1) Rice Creek, (2) Moore Lake, (3) Mississippi Ri ver. � ��► � • ......... .. . .. �� , . ... .... .. . .... . � Planning Commission Meeting - July 9, 1975 Page 3 Mr. Boardman said that on July 16, 1975 at 12:30 P.M., there wo�)ld be a Public ^ Nearing held on the proposed Shoreland Management rules and regulations at the St. Paul Vocational Technical Institute. Ne explained that the City staff can make a presentation against the proposed rules at this Public Hearing,'if the Planning Commission felt strongly about the negative aspects of these regulations. M�r. Boardman said that one of the questions which should be presented was what would happen if something should occur in some of the residential areas, such as a tornado, etc. He said, however, that there was a section in the Act which would a11ow the municipalities to allow variances to this code. These deviations, however, would be based upon the Commissioner's•consent. Mr. Harr�s said that it seemed as if the Cit�r had overlapping regulations. Some of these were in conflict. In reference to Mrs. Harris's point, Mr. Boardman said that under'the Shoreland Management Act, the setback requirement was 1�00 feet. However, under Critical Areas, the setback was 40 feet. " Mr. Scott explained'that by forcing�the City to accamodate what was written in the Shorelan� Management Act-, the City would have no flexibility. He added that once the ordinance was determined, if there was some problem with that type of ordinance, the City would have to present it's case to the Departrhent of Natural Resources, rather than the Department of Natural Resources coming to the City and assisting them with the problem. The burden of proof would be infl�eted. upon the City. Mr. Boardman said the main reason that this came about was the presence of /"� � private supplies of water and private septic systems. He said he didn't feel that this ordinance was well put together. Mr. Harris commented that if this ordinance was adopted we would eliminate any low cost, high rise type housing on that section of land south of I.694 and west of East River Road. That land would become almost unusable. Mr. Boardman said that the �eal problem was that the City had different agencies going through different steps, Critical Areas, Shoreland Management Act, etc., without consulting each other. � Mr. Harris a�ked what all of this would mean to the homeowner.� Would this increase or depreciate the value of his property? � Mr. Drigans said that it could depreciate it, or in the case of disaster, he would not be able to rebuild. . Mr. Harris questioned the obtainability of insurance coverage. Mr. Peterson felt that this Act would be discriminatory in the way that average people would not be able to afford to enjoy their property. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that Jerrold Boardman prepare a resolution for Mr. Harris's.signatiire���s��@hairman of the P�anning Commission, and that this resolution become the official resolution of the Planning Commission, to be ^ presented.at the Ju1y 16th Public Hearing meeting, and that this resoluation be presented to the City Council at the next regular City Council meeting, and it' the City Council so chooses, they may adopt that resolution as the City Council resolution to be sent out prior to Au�ust 5, .I975. Upon a voice vote, aIl votinq aye, the motion carried vnanimously. ' � �:� r'1 � Plannin Commission Meetin - Jul 9, 1975 Pa e 4 It was decided that Chairman Harris will contact each of the members of the Planning Commission for their approval of the resolution. • MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that Chairman Harris represent the Planning Commission, along with Jerrold Boardman, at the Public Hearing for the Shore.Zand Management Act on July 16, 1975. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 4. RECEIVE THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 1975 MOTION by Scott, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of June 23, 1975. Mr. Peterson pointed out that the Parks & Recreation Commission was quite concerned that the �enior citizens are adequately funded. Mr. Bergman referred to the section of the minutes on tennis courts. He added that he had the i�npression that Grace High School and the City were under some lease agreement and that they were available for public use ihiS summer. Mr. Peterson said that was true, and that included the public school courts also. . Mr. Bergman questioned as to that being true any longer. He said he thought that some private organization now had control of the courts. He added that the gates are locked at times, and that a group apparently had control of the padlock. The Planning Commission wished the Park Director to investigate the situation. UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM . Mr. Boardman explained that one of the main objectives of the Planning Commission would be establishing goals and objectives of the community. By doing this, they would be setting up a so called development f ramework. After the goals and objectives had been established, comprehensive planning for an extended time period would be done. He added that the Planning Commission should try to gear its policies closely with those of the Metro Council. • . Mr. Boardr�an handed out several informational sheets, one of which outlined specific areas of concern for each subcorrmnission to work on. He explained that everything outlined on the sheet was a�tentative layout. Mr. Boardman said that the member commissions would develop the initial policy to send to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would then have the resPonsibilit;y to further develop and review those policies for the approval of the City Council. The Planning Commission would be trying to establish what the needs are and then relate these needs to the goaJs and objectives of each commission. The subcommissions would also be �oncerned�n the implementation of the goals and objectives of the �omprehensive.plan. Mr. Boardman said that the Goals and Objectives should go to Public Hearing by ^ January 1, 1976. Therefore, each subcommission should have its goals and objectives back to the Planning Commission by mid-September. �Chairman Harris said that he would like a tentative schedule from each of the � L�l�J Planning Commission Meeting July 9, 1975 ' _ Page 5 Chairmen of the subcommissions by July 23, 1975. � Mr. Peterson suggested that a staff ineeting be held before�the.July 23r,d Planning Commission meeting to insure staff awareness. He added that the Community � Development Commission may wish to hold a meeting prior to their first scheduled , meeting. . , Mr. Scott explai�ned that the Human Resources Commission had already attended a meeting which included this subject. He added that the Human Resources Commission fel�t very confident in its understanding of this procedure. Mr. Boardman explained that more citizen participation was needed. It was presently very weak as far as citizen input. It was hoped that through the Public Hearing, citizen input would be increased. 6. MEETING TIME Chairman Harris referred to the Planning Commission meeting time. The meeting time seemed to be very confusing due to a misprint on the posted City-Hall schedul�,' Mr. Boa�rdrrlan explained that due to deadlines for a newsletter sent to all Fridley citizens, meeting�times were set prior to finishing the reorganization struc�ure. This.,newsletterindicated that the meeting time for each commission would be at 7:30 P.M. If this v��re changed, it would lead to more confusion. It was decided that the Planning Commission would conduct its m�.etings at ^ � 7:30 P.M. . 7. ADOPT RULES MOTION by 5cott, seconded by Peterson, that the P3anning Commission adopt Robert`s Ru1es of Order in so far as they apply to the spirit and,intent of the Planning Commissia.n. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADJOORNMENT: � MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Drigans, to adjourn the meeting.. Upon a voice votP,� a11 voting aye, Chaiirnan Harris declared.the Planning Commission meeting of Ju1y 9, 1975 adjourned at I0:16 P.M. Respectfully submitted, l4G ���Z� Ho11y To sager, Secret y �� � .r� � THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 15, 1975 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Drigans at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Drigans, Gabel, MEMBERS ABSENT: � Wahlberg OTHERS PRESENT: Howard Mattson, Plemel, Kemper Engineering Aide APPROVAL OF BOARD OF APPEAIS SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES OF MAY 27, 1975 MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Plemel, to approve the Board of Appeals Subcommittee minutes of May 27, 1975 as written. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL.OF BOARD OF APPEALS SUBCOMMITTEE MITTUTES OF JUNE 10, 1975 MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Gabel, to approve the Board of Appeals Subcommittee minutes of June 10, 1975 as written. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. 1. A REQUEST FOR A VARIA2ICE OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, SECTION 205.063, 4B, TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM FIVE (5) FEET TO TWO (2) FEET TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CARPORT AND A SCREENED PORCH ADDITION TO AN EXISTING D4VELLING, LOCATED ON LOTS £3 AND 9, BLOCK P, RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS ADDITIOPI, THE SAME BEING 631 JANESVILLE STREET N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432. (REQUEST BY JAMES R. MATISON). MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Gabel, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. Mr. James Matison was present to present his request. Chairman Drigans asked what the width of his lot was, and Mr. Matison replied that it was 50 feet. Also, if he had discussed his request with the neighbors which he said he had, and there had been no objections. He also mentioned that he had tried to purchase some land from his neighbor, Diane Mancino, who lives at 621 Janesville Street N.E., but that she no longer owns it, as it had been sold by her mortgage company to a finance company. He stated that it would cost a great deal of money and time to purchase the necessary land required to put in the two columns for a carport without a variance. . The Commission studied the proposed addition plan and then Mr. Kemper asked what the side yard setback was on the house �� �<.,�.:� Paqe 2 �� ^ . The Minutes of the Appeals Commission Meeting of July 15, 1975 was on the house next door. Mr. Matison answered that the lay-out of the neighbors house was 48 feet from the line, and it was asked where the most likely place to put a garage would be. Matison explained that the neighbor's kitchen was on the other side of the house which is where most people put their garages. Drigans asked how much of an overhang he proposed to put on this structure, and he said about 2 feet from the column, and would come a half a foot from the line. Mr. Kemper asked if this would be metal construction and Matison said no, that it would be of wood and follow the same lines as the house with two steel columns supporting the roof. Mr. Plemel asked what the size of the next lot was. Mr. Mattson, Engineering Aide, explained that these lots were originally platted as 25 foot lots, and Mr. Matison has two of them and the.neighbors to the east have three, giving them i5 feet of frontage. Mr. Drigans asked what his plans were for the screen porch and Matison stated that it would be a four screen porch, 12 x 18, added on to the rear bedroom and master bedroom. Mr. Drigans asked if he proposed to make that some type of a family room and he replied that rather than building up above the garage, he would hope to have this 18 x 12 structure used as a master suite, which would be two rooms instead of one large bedroom. � Mr. Plemel stated that this would make it more like a room in �• the house instead of a screened porch, and Mr. Matison stated that it will be a porch designed with glass on it, with the entrance from french windows. He also stated that sometime in the future, he would like to add a firep�ace and a barbecue. Mr. Drigans asked if there was an administrative report prepared, and Mr. Mattson e�cplained that he had talked to Mr. Clark, Community Development Administrator, because Mr. Clark also had a question on that because it appears that this addition on the back extends out as far as the carport, which is in violation of the code, so we included it in the request and sent out another notice. Mr. Mattson also stated that Mr. Clark's feelings were that on these 50 foot lots; the�code does state that there must be a 10 foot sideyard on one side, and if the house doeS not have an attached garage, or does not have a garage, there must be 13 feet on the other side of the house for the allowance of a driveway for access to a garage built in the rear, one that could be built without a variance. At the time Mr.�Clark made these statements, he did not know that Mr. Matison had tried to purchase additional property. Mr. Mattson stated that because of these circumstances, this should•be considered as part of the hardship. r� � Page 3 �� � The Minutes of the a eal.s Co ission Meetin of July 15, 1975 � Mr. Plemel asked if he had considered building a garage instead of a carport and he said that he wanted to run a concrete slab there and have some kind of drive out to the road so that his kitchen didn't serve as the entrance to his house. Another reason for not wanting a garage in the rear was that it would take up so much of the backyard. • Mr. Kemper brought up the subject of Mr. Matison's discussion with his neighbor about buying a cextain piece of property and what the outcome of it was, and he replied that he did cheek with Mrs. Mancino's mortgage company and they no longer hold the mortgage on it. It would entail a lot of legal work to get permission from all parties involved which would be a considerable expense. Mr. Matison then . explained that.his biggest problem was the side steps, which lead right into the kitchen. If he couZd somehow move that door, he wouldn't need a variance because he would then have 9 feet, which is plenty of space to pull a car into, but he can't move that donr . without $5,000 or $6,000 worth of remodeling costs to the kitchen. Mrs. Gabel asked how many bedrooms he now had in his house and he ' replied three. Chairman Drigans asked if this carport would be � constructed so that he could enclose the s'ides and make it a garage and he said, yes. Mr. Kemper asked if he the proposed cost fiqures and he said his own figures, which would be about $3500 for the carport and driveway and'$7500 for the porch. Mr. Plemel asked - if he were going to hard surface the driveway and he said, yes. � . MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Plemel, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. Chairman Drigans called the meeting now at the Committee level and discussion began with the lot size being the biggest hardship Mr. Matison had as he had tried to acquire some adjacent property, and the neighbor to the east had no objections. The neighbor's side yard setback is 48 feet. Mr. Plemel said it was quite an ambitious project and he was in favor of it with the stipuZation that Mr. Matison put in a hard surfaced driveway if he were goix�g to convert it into a garage. MOTION was made by Plemel, seconded by Gabel, to approve the variance in this case with the stipulation of the hard-surfaced driveway and the hardship of the lot size, to the City Council. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. 2. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF THE FRIDLEY CITY 'CODE, SECTION 205.154, (3}, TO REQUEST PERMISSION TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FENCE TO TEN (10) FEET FROM SEVEN (7) FE�T, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE AROUND A SWIMMING POOL AREA, TO BE LOCATEll ON LOT 4, BLOCK 2, MOORE LAKE HILLS ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 6128 WOODY LANE N.E. (REQUEST BY MR. C. E. LIABRAATEN, 6128 WOODY LANE N.E., FRIDLEY, ^ MINNESOTA 55�32). �: �: �� Pag e 4 � The Minutes of the Appeals Commission Meeting of July 15, 1975 MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Plemel, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, there being,no nays, the motion carried. Mr. Liabraaten was present and was asked to explain the reason for his request. He explained that basically he has a walkout basement and an above ground pool, so that the top of the pool will be on the existing deck. On the existing level of the deck, he will have a 6 foot high fence. The pool walls are 4 feet high and so when the ground drops down, he would like the same level to the top of the fence all the way throughout. To maintain this six foot height above the rim of the pool, the fence must go all the way to the ground around the side and rear of the pool making it ten feet high there. Mr. Drigans remarked that this would not only be for more privacy, but also for more of a protection for the pool. The Committee studied the plans and Mr. Plemel asked about which deck he was referring to and he pointed it out on his plan. He also explained the lot lines and the existing deck, and also where his 6 foot high f ence was to be located. Mr. Drigans asked how far the house was from the existing lot line and he said about 10 feet. Mr. Drigans asked how far from the lot line he proposed to put the fence:_and ' he said probably 6' to a foot. He also asked Mr. Liabraaten if he had discussed this with his neighbors and he said, yes, and they had no objections. Mr. Liabraaten was asked what type of fence � he had proposed to put up and what the pool was made of and he said it would be a redwood fence and the pool was steel with a vinyl bottom. The pool drops down so that the shallow end is 4'feet and � the deep end is 7 feet, so it drops down 3 feet on the bottom. He said the pool was 32 feet. Chairman Driga�� asked if there was an administrative report. Mr. Mattson replied that he'felt tlzis was one of the nicest arrange- ments he has seen as far as above ground pools go. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Gabel, to close the public i�earing. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Plemel, to recommend to the City Council, approval of this variance. Upon_a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. 3. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF 5ECTION 205.053, 4B, FRIDLEY CITY CODE,� TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO 6.6 FEET FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DWELLING LOCATED ON LOT 1, LUND'S ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 12 TALMADGE WAY, FRIDLEY, MI�TNESOTA 55432. (FZEQUEST BY DALE G. MINER) . MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Plemel, to open the public hearing•. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. � E�� �� � �m� � Page 5 The Minutes of the Y�ppeals Commission Meeting of July 15, 1975 Mr. Miner was present to present his request. Also present with Mr. Miner was Mr. Don Nielson, 115 - 71� Way N.E., Fridley, who is helping Mr. Miner with his plans for this proposed addition. He explained that this addition is to be 12 x 26 onto the south side of the existing house, which is the back of the house. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Miner to point out this addition on the plans that were presented to the committee, and Mr. Niiner showed them where the existing line was. Mr. Miner stated that when he bought the house, it had a twister cellar and it comes out at the rear of the house but does not show on the plans and that it is pretty much at ground level right now, but that it went way down the same way as the basement. It is a walk-into and it runs out quite a ways so the addition would just be an addition onto that on that one end. Mr. Plemel asked if that was a pre-stressed floor and Mr. Nielsen replied that it was a cement top and that it is all concrete re- inforced in case a twister comes. Mr. Kemper asked about his lot line, which was pointed out to him and Mr. Miner said he had talked to the people next door and they had no objection to it. Mr. Nielsen explained that to the south side of this lot, there is a drop-off into the creek, so there is no property there to interfere with. Mr. Miner also owns the property on the other side of the creek. ^, Mrs. Gabel asked what he wanted to do with this proposed addition, and Mr. Miner explained that it would be an addition to the kitchen, and a new bathroom. If he wasn't able to go that far out.on the west side, it wouldn't be feasible to build. Mr. Kemper asked where the existing bathroom was located'and it was pointed out on the plan. It was explained that they wanted to move the whole wall out and make the bedroom, kitchen and bathroom bigger. Mr. Drigans asked what he proposed to do with the roof, and Mr. Nielsen explained that it would be a reversed roof gable and would erect a bearing wall, but at the present time, he wasn't sure where it would be placed. Mr. Kemper asked. where the existing wall was on this structure and was shown to him on the plan. Mr. Miner said it was a concrete wall and would be tied into the existing structure crosswise and would be going down to the footing. New footings and new concrete bloak will be put in. Mr. Plemel asked how old this structure was and Mr. Miner replied he didn't know but thought it was about 25 or 30 years old. He had a garage built in 1971 and had to have a survey which is now on file . with the City. Mr. Drigans asked who was goinq to do th e construction work and Mr. Miner replied that he was going to it with the help of Mr. Nielsen, according to city specifications. Mr. Drigans mentioned that this would be a big undertaking and Mr. Miner said it wouldn't be because the footing is going to be poured concrete up to ground level and then with cement block from there on up the existing height of the foundation. .+'� Page 6. � The Minutes of the APPeals Commission Meeting of July 15, 1975 Mr. Plemel asked if the existing ground was pretty level or if was falling away. He was shown on the plan where the ground is falling away and where Mr. Miner had been hauling in fill all the time. Mr. Drigans asked how far away the structure next door was, and was told that there was a garage there but didn't know how many feet it was from his line. Mr• Drigans asked about the location of the garage on the plan and was shown the location and and also pointed out the cement wall on the west side of the house. Mr. Drigans asked what was behind this area and Mr. Miner replied that it was a jungle, full of trees, etc., but there was nothing there that he would have to remove. He said the.creek runs back there and when heavy rains come, they go down to about 6 f eet down a tunnel and take everything with it, his driveway included. Mr. Drigans asked if there was an administrative report. Mr. Mattson replied that because this is an extension of the existing structure, . the staff saw no problem. The existing driveway was mentioned. Mr. Miner then explained that he had a tough situation back there, ' and has hauled in dirt which is packed solid and the City says that he needs either a cement or a blacktop driveway. Mr. Plemel asked if this was coming off Talmadge now, and he replied that anything he puts in the other one washes away and he had talked to �. someone from the County and they are going to try to stop the water ' because the frain there does not hold enough so it comes right across the land, therefore he has been using fill in there. All of this comes aff the East River Road and the county has had a problem there. He has been trying to get the house built up so that the water stays on the road. Mr. Miner stated that when he was in the office, he had talked to Mr. Clark and someone from , the City's Engineering Department' about this problem. Mr. Drigans then replied that the garage was not the issue because it was already there, but that the City is trying to upgrade the whole community by making it a stipulation that the driveway be hardsurfaced, which is now part of the City Code. Mr. Drigans asked if the plans had been reviewed with the Engineering 'Department and the answer was, yes. MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Gabel, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. Mr.'Drigans stated that this was an extension to the existing structure and Mr. Miner is trying to increase the size of his residence as he does have some need for it, and the neighbors have no objections. � �� Page�7 � The Minutes of the Appeals Commission Meeting of July 15, 1975 �' � MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Gabel, to recommend to the City Council, approval of this variance. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, • the motion carried. � ^ ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Drigans at 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � «-a�,,.�.�.��...� / � CAS IRA SAEi� KE C� Secretary � n �� . . � . � . � ' . . i�p'� '..,� . � � � COMMiTNITY D�VELOPM�NT COMMISSLON ?��ETING OF JULY 16, 1975 �� Chairman Bergman calle3 the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Bergman, Lindblad, Stanley MEriBERS AI3SENT: Forester, Oquist OTHERS PRESENT: Jerrold Boardman, Planning Assistant Kichard Harris, Chairman of Planning Commission Ing Siverts, Visitor, resident of Fridley 1. ELECTION OF VICE-CHA.I�IE1N MOTIOIQ, by 5tanley, seconded by Lindblad to table item number one until the next meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried. 2. DEVELOPMENT OF GOALS AI1D OBJECTIVES Mr. Bergman stated at the Planning Commissior. meeting of July 9, 1975 that four assignments were given to this commission..They are the Land Development Plan, Housing.Development Plan, Transportation Development Plan, and the Economic Policy Plan. Mr. Bergman stated that this commission should discuss the four items and whether or not we wish to give one of them to another committee. Mr. Boardman passed out a 000klet on Comprehensi��e Development Plan. It will be used as a guide liae for goals and objectives of the committee. Mr. Boardman state3 he would like this commission to look ahead 15 or 20 years to provide goals and objectives for the people in the future who will be�living in Fz�idley. These will give the Council help and guidance. The goals will help control change. Mr. Boardman stated he would like the commission to review the goals and objectives and modzfy and change them to fit the community need. Mr. Lindblad asked how the commission can stop what we do not want the community to have, and how this commission can help change things. Mr. Boardman stated that this commission can give the city staif direction if y�u pr�pare goals and objectives far us to follo�a. The goals will help promote changes.. The Council will use the goals and objectives of this commission when dealing with items brought to their attention. Mr. Boardman said that the goals and objectives ot the Community Development Commi.ssion should be completed for the Planning Commission by mid-September. Chairman Bergman said that this coznmissions efforts are not restricted to the.four items given to them by the Plai.ning Commission. From a Gommunity Development title we are involved in establishing our own theory of goals and objectives. �There should be a review of present documents and of present goals and objectives. � � COMMiTNITY DEVELOPP�NT COI•S�iISSION NIEETING U.F JULY 17, 1975, PAGE 2. Mr. Lindblad stated that the commission membPrs should go through the booklets they have now to establish guidelines of the comuiission. Chairman Bergman stated that at Planning Commission the question was asked as to whether the Board of Appeals should take on the Land Development Plan. Mr. Boardman stated that he would rather the Board of Appeals did not get involved in land clevelopment. Mr. Lindblad said he felt that land development should stay with the Community Development Commission. He asked if the City still had and industrial commission. He stated that in the past the Industrial Commission did very little to help entice the land developers to this area. Mr. Boardman asked if the commission felt they needed more time to plan their goals and objectives. He asked if a January lst date was to early and should new deadlines be set up. He stated that the Planning Commission would like to establisti deadlines. Mr. Boardman stated that before we go to the public hearings we want to get service organizations involved in the comr.munity's goals. He said that this commission is acting as a service comriission to the Planning Commission. Chairman Bergman asked when each member felt that we can present to the Planning Commission a schedule of what we as the Community Development Commission feel we need fo.r a time frame. Mr. Lindblad said he felt we couldn't do justice to a plan before ^� September with only two meetings. He stated he would�be open to ' meeting twice a month. Chairman Bergman stated the next meeting should determine the subject matter of what we are going to address ourselves to and establish what subjects we think we need to look at. . Mrs. Stanley stated she would be willing to meet twice a month to meet the deadline of mid-Septeu�ber. Mr. Harris stated he would like the general idea of our imput so that the Planning Commission can draw up their goals and objectives. He said that Planning Commission will be willing to accept the input by October lst. Mr. Harris stated that the general goals of this commission need only be established at this time. Chairman Bergman stated that this commission agrees to provide interim goals and objectives by October lst to the Planning Commission, and wz agree to meet twice per month on the dates to be set up. The following. dates we decided upon, July 30th, August 13, 27, September 17, and October lst. 3. COMMISSION AI3SENTEEISM Chairman Bergman stated that this commission has a lot of work to be done ^� and tliat the members should try and make an effort to attend each meeting. Mr. Harris suggested that the chairman contact a member who is absent more frequently then others and ask for reasons for his or her not attending. He stated the member should ask to resign •if they are not going to attend COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION I�fEETZNC OF JULY 17, 197�, Page 3 �� r-� the commission meetings. Chairman Bergman adjourned the meetircg at 9:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �-�'J�rz.,�� Arlene Smith Secretary n � 0 � � � ct•rir or rizln�cY r�i:�;�rso�r� /�� �, PLA�tf�ING AND LLNING FOlU1 NU�iQE12J>�/� � � �S -4 S MPLICAN7''S SIGNAIURE / J x,,Z Address ..a` /y ` � [ . �'7'`�'f"4' ' � • Telephrnie htiml�er �7�j'� - .,�� j� � PItOPf'sItTY Otv�fER' S SIGNATU}:E Address L�i � j 7 /U�� �� �/�L C� �/`.l'f'�%� �-- 'felephone Number � B� " �1 � � 4l TYPE OF REQULST Rezoning 0 Special Use Permit A��proval of Premin- inary $ Final Plat _�_ Streets or Allcy Vacations _ Other ;� �� �ee �� y ;_ D Receipt No. / �� � � ' Street Locati.on of Property , . � Legal Descripti.oii of I'rop��rt-y�� � � f2��'� ! �����1-s ,� �� �r���v Present Zo�iin�; Classification Existi�ig Use of Propert}���� r' �'�:� �T_ Acreage of Proper.ty Describe l�riefly the proposed zoning classification or ty�e of tzsc and improvement prol�osed �2- ���c° c- � C�;,� �i�t�,� F� �i `� t!_� T v �'�t�.N�f� �u� ��'���,%-� !.� � �i� ��. �'�c'i �'��_�-� �i� :- c�-�' ��� �y 3L�� � _— . � �,. �-.`? �;� �c e'��- fJ � � Iizs �}�e prescnt Zrpli.cant pr.eviously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split or varzance or s�3cci.ai use per►nit on the subject si.te or part of it? yes�_no. tt'hat tias reque�ted and �.�hen? ^ The tii�dersi.�neci uncicrstancls that: (a) a list of all residents and owners of property ki.titiin :�00 feet (�50 feet for rczoni.ng) must be :�ttached to this ap��l.icution. �1)� 7�Illti <i��pli.cation �mist be si�ned by all oti.�ners of the property, or aii explanati.on gi.v�n �.�hy tl�is is not the case. (c) Res��on5ibi.lity for �,ny ciefect in the proceedings xcsultins; i'��er.n the fai.lurc to lisfi thc Tiames and adcfiresscs of all reside�tts ancl pr�operty o<<ncrs of praperty in qucstion, bclongs to thc uncicrsigncd. A sl;et:ch of proroscd pro}�crty and structure must bc dx.i�.�n and attached, siio�ainb thc folla►.infi: 1. North I�.ircction. 2. l.ocati.an of prol�osed titructure on thc lot. 3. Uimensions of rrorci-�ty, ��roposed stl•t�ct:ui•e, anci fro;�t. and si.de setbacks. 4. Strcct Namcs, 5. I.ocation and usc of acijaccnt exisr.ing biiilclin�s (within 3t?U fect). 7'IlC ttt�cle�r�i�;ned hereby cteclares that �11 thc facts., �ind representations stated in i:his a�plicatioi► nre tru� and corrcct. � c�� ' � t�a•r� �� �3 0 �- 7-� sYC�nT�t��i�c_.�� �,r -��' . �� � �nr►��.ICAN•r� /� p.►t� Fi lcd D:�tc of tic:�rin� Pl:�nnin�; C��mmissian A��proved (datc:s) Ucnied � City Counc�il Aprroved (dates) Uc�tied � �,�,.�-_.. � ,, 4,2 /. %e/l� "/ % � �� ! �-` %' - June 10, 1975 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: o The Planning Commission of the City af Fridley will be holding � � an informal hearing on a vacation request, gAV #75-05, by Richard Kok � � � of 6517 McKinley Street N.E., to reduce the drainage an utility � � ' easement from 6 feet to 0 feet on the South side of his lot described N ' M � as Lot 6, Block 1, Clark's Addition, on Wednesday, June 25, 1975 at � a 0 8:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber at 64�1 University Avenue Northeast. � , . W z � � z If you have any objection to this request, you can either attend � J this meeting, or sent a letter to the City of Fridley, to the attention 0 � LL of the Planning Comnission. _ . . � � a W _ � RICHARD H. HARRIS °z Chairman . � � • Planning Correnission z W . � , Q . } ` H N � W � , . � z .� . � M � • � , '' . W F- Z , . W U U . > . � �\ V • � � Mailing List SAV #75-05 Richard Kok Vacate 6' drainage and � ' utility easement on the SoutM side of Lot 6, �Block 1, Clarks Addition Richard Kok . 6517 McKinley Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Richard Janiak 1655 Mississip�i Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55�32 Nfr, & Mrs. John Gannon 6516 Stinson Blvd. N.E. �Fridley, Mn 55432 � Earl F. Burke 1695 Mississippi Street N.E. � Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Duane Retzer 1675 Mississippi Street N.E. � Fridley; Mn 55432 n � 43 Pl ann i ng Commi ss i on ��= / v' � J _ Council ^ 0 ^ . f] 7 1 .. ' �/ ��� _ �%��/ �/�(�p/� 1 / ( ' Y___�__ � � J/j I� � �.:� � ✓f'�-� ^"".E��C• G �!J�- 9 `'t,�, . � . � ' y� ( S 1'7 i�� � ''�f�` � � f' � � �� ^ /°�' t�e!'inr.�.'+ti� ��c� _c'd�•'�=�- �i� � �a� , ;��- � `�� � � - G � ,�- LG4�-�'""' i' ,J���t/�'..G�"✓� ��yri�_.L:�2GavC/ . � � . ��� ��S . / . �% � c� ��/`�I/L�C ��%�f�— ' % � � T.��`/ / Y '' ' 0 .. � � .(�. � � S � V / Date �"�� G - � �' Time / � �.� � � ��3i�.�-'�r�.��, � �l,�'��: �'�:�'°�� M � .�"�� n � ,.,, ` Gv - � , �%%.���G.�'✓',a ,/..�--.. of � ' �� � Phone Area Code Number ExtensloA TELEPFiONED ?! PLEASE C'1LL CALLEdTO SEE YOU �VILL CAL1.r.GAlni i • 1NAtJTS TO SEE YOD U�GEN7 REl'I�RN�DYOUR CALL ? itic�z�-.�-„� �..,� i(i(.��t-<-7 �Message � G � , ••� � � ` � � �� �� ,�,,...�.�.:� � � , � �, ��-r— � _�___ � �.,,�; f} , �/. J r'— c- ,h . .� ��1 .e � • • i Operator � EfFICiENCYp LINE N0. 2725 AN AMPAD PRODUCi 60 SHEEfS • "�"' � ' � � a. . ' . • � . � t I � s �,.' �. ,,,. , �, . , .. ,, , ,_.,; � �:; . . � �� . : ,r ; - ' . ,( ; � , , , i _ . -� . `.� . ✓(,. � ! ` . � � \� . ..� � • ,,.... .. . ¢ , ...... : .; .. .. _.�_ :�.... _..,.�...__.�r_. __.......,�,...�........ ourcar A . � . . �/1----- 9•1Y �1 ' ! � � � / �.:�.tw �_,. �d pvr�oT / L� �. " -sr y 38B ��p t A �.+.� if ag?Fti�, ° : °' o / Y,.. � 3a�_ �g F�a � a �f ; y a � `I� r:���� � �� � � �� ' • � � V � a � �1s + -- � . 7 t� v � SAV #75-05, Richard kok a °� ' � W Reduce � dra�na�e &-ut�l i ty easemen f�rom 6 to �6' of South side of Lot � � c k , lar k's A d di tion t he sa b e j x t g` f r�7 Ki n l e y St . N. E. �� ��� � .� .,se, o """'T•- . „^ ..•i � '� � i' 7 � o � .0 r � 6'0 FA:s� _ :sa i� '; '� _zy ' Z - q� �_ � � �a r 3 �,'. �� �4 � � 7 � � �_ .: 5 �, o x � i• � � E�i� �� !3�_f �- � —; .i — -�y !' � � 25 � 6 ' S3Q � ° � � . � � M��`" S. _Z¢ _��-- ��'1 �� . z 3 M, � ° .v � .--' -3 ' �� "� 7-2� �" z�-E�i •. � ..a� � =:, f_� ;.__� a•— � 2� .O �! - � 3 /O 20 '.� // � � o �:.� . / . �/ . fAi ',�7 � �—{ � � . � / ��`�\� . �/���'i— � � �`.` — `_ _—, j•a-=— �_.` —fci i —�'� ' ;;,; ,a_ ,��. ,�. ;•¢ � �,V1f y�� � �"0 �i 6 �rr..0 � � I •`ei i� ___ _ � b � ::. � � � � JO -,� �. � —� � ! � z� ZE � zs i � 24 � 23 ^? - k� . ?r0 � �f� — k ' /7 3,os /G..� R ♦_� ' �` .':: I /.. � � T �-i `: T4 ! . 1 `� �� � Cn.E ; Q Z .r�.� ?9 �"��::d�'- S � 3 � ,.�z 3 ' � � _ • P.Y� �. -1� �...,. ,., , ; �i v. i tl — � :t� _ � .�—{ 5 -�— — 6 �_ 6 �.B � F'. j E� f_� � o �� :.�' �' i�`' 9 /a � 2 i /o /� �'. O �% �r� �� %Z /� �B /� •'� � /7 .'�f �.:j � 4 � $ /�. /;� - . . ��._.�. _ �L ,-- �� ; � 1� ,�, ' "� « �,`�' � 4�► - �� ; �� .- _, '`�. \�, � � `` `� �..' ... . � ..... .. �• '' �„� ��i. -....._. :. ..._ ,� ;' � d'.t-Cw� �rn�.�.-�—.. i , _ � .. _;,J .... 4 � • ` � ^.w. n ' %>.:4 aa a��.....a�T�L� . � �jrz I ea.: »� � � � � .1 C T'� � l3 � l ;; � ?_ "y'� J �.._.. � v 'J � t a i�,�.�.'-:::� � 9x.69 ���!/� �;;��. i l.r.�-:,,•:Z,T9f 60 � - F.;,,� • // °, � � c �!! a �',2,� • /4 � . u � O 0 ,�� ` a �° � — � � 7 �o �� o d n � /.: �/' FO � � W ���'�. � ��. �. _ ,..._,. - � - � -�= ��. .`•' V~ /---' � 1796i �.ri � so �<.� iJZe ' 1 x a �' � y,� � ��'o � � h; i�•� ���o� • � � �t?� e� t -.,�_.!q � � . � ti` � ��V T �: l� .cn 4-___f� �. ? : � � -,:;2 � .�_ ��,iiaa x;.�� � 5 � ,,,,,�3:h �a'- .;3 � - ��o. � _ W �_ �,,.;�.�._ �'. ° �," �,L� ^'I L<.iCS 6_ ,� � �a•, ���., � ,��,� � 0 � :_�,�;� � � r � `_� � ,_ � ..� _._Q..� ; •'� r LL. _.. __ '^� ,,^,�y �� i,.� �. Q' sx ��:�� . y = ,� �, « , '\ � 1.. ,,,. s -'+ / A t�;ti �JI� •� • � �z 3Z!% i 1S4",� ? i, i�' � d � =. .�. � : �: .::. J ' :4 : L 7 % y /3 � '� y F�c B^ ��j N �.� ' �. • � � � �� �. . � . �. � �l�f ,• s � � � �•K Y. �. ���.�..�_......� .. . .' �f✓./:� . ��.'� ° Q,�, , � U �,, � �I _ , � w� �� »... t..___.. +._ , �: .._.. �......... v _ ; # i i � Lvnd Ploirnin9 � c�►� s�,���y;,�� sn,rs leshnc� �iv/l fr Afu/1/ClPOI f,���r,��erm9 . �\ . . -�. . 4� . � � 68TS N,9h„�,y �cs ,vE. Mn�rx�ofx�!s 2/. . � E� � 1 ��� � l �i �C, � �f �. . .��;,,,�;�f� SUn.+ef 4-60f�ro En ineers � Sur vec�or5 9 . A � � ������.���� �u,� ����� �- � � � u . �' �' � � '� ,� 1----�,'- ��..- r n• SAV #75-05 Richard Kok Reduce drainage & utility easement from 6' to 0' on South side of Lot 6,. � Block 1, Clark's Addition c : � `�-� _..._.-- -_ � -t 1-' _ � � J � �' �� . y� O V Y t� � � •.�-, ..r- ti �;.{ __.— _,__ _-_ _-- - ----r--- _,_ . _ �._ i. � o v� . � i �• � . i � I c� � 6�� 1 �. , E, L�/!' . � � � � + � � / . � � ; 3S � ' � �' ��� —1 _i '•�--� �., � ^i � _ o � ; ,�, , : �, � . , � �� � � 1' • � � ' �' � �h �U � � � � � ,; ; � �. � : J / 1 �1 � �1 i1 � � y = �.�. r ,t , � • 1.� '• � y v:, ,.z. ,�� � } -"1 ^T'� � . ` ` C°, � •i �- � � . `l,� F =- ,-- ._ ___._ _—. ----- -.� '�P ,.t j�` 'C ` n,�, � .� .. ...._�. . .��...�. _.� --�---__ .,..��__ _. _�� ( .l'�'o `� 1 . . ��� t � � , _I� - . t . � �~ 1 r� . ._..._ ' .. %. V �C! � t_c ► G.� `:�,.t_.��c r. 4� i �' lC \� J \ t� � �! . � I, l,.r ` ! � � i f i �! herebcJ cerf��'y f�nf tfi�s is o frue and cr�rrecf �e��esenfafion e�'o suryey �'f�i� Sair►do�ies �'�r obo,r c��d and, onr! ��'i� laofinn o�'n// truildin95 ,1�rrecn , onG�o�� r�SiSl� �;cropcfimt�fS , rl�oncf, �ixrn ar un soid /ond. As su�veyrd � me f/us _ c'vS/ $ o� �� L�.• �- q.0 !9� . ' � S(18 URBAN FNGINEE 2/IVG lNC { � . .. , , . L-n9;nee�s 6- Su�reyors � . � �/r % !� . , i �:� i ,�../r . J � � ' �' � � � . � ./� CITY OF FRIDLEY MINNESOTA PLANNI�G AND ZONING FORM NUMBER , `� ' �� � � r1. f . /`� � APPLICANT'S SIGNATURC Address_ 3_ �7� 16th St. Nti'1 New Bri�'hton. l�i.�• Telephone Number 6 1"2 � ,j'.. ;I ,i` �,.��,.,�t,,.� PROFERT� OL9NER' S SIGNATURE j� �� ^!� Y' C.,, n � � . (� Cf �' ;�.,,t.�.�,�i !�..•f� /� � ' Address �� 7 � ' • Telephone Number 7��� - � ����� g Stxeet Location of Property � 68��0) Sieverts Lane �v� TYPE OF REQUEST Rezoning � r Special Use Permit ppproval of Premin- �— inary F, Final Plat _�� Streets or Alley Wacations Other � -�--------- . Fee a•°U Receipt No! r1D--�- ; Legal Description of Property S. Part or '1�I'd�� "�oka County, i°1�-nnE•sota v�.+�Y,i- Existing Use of Property — � ! Present Zoning Classification , � classi£i.ca.t:ion 8 Aer�scribe briefly the proposed zoning „ Acreage of Property ApProx. . � ro osed Vacation of street easement � or type of use and improvement p p ro ert� deseribed above � � occupying the easterly b6 ft. •f � � 1 t obtain a Iot split or �, ^ Has the present applicant previously variance or special use permit on the What was xequested and when?_____,______ sought to rezone, p a� subject site or part of it? yes no. a list of a�11 residents and owx�ers of property � The undersigned understands that: �a� must be attached to this application. ; �ithin 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning} all owners of the property, or an explanation (b) This application must be signed by defect in the proceedings � given why this is not t�ie case. (c) Responsibility for any � ultin from the failure to list the names and �Qdthesundersignedesidents and xes g ro ert in question, belong � property owners of p p Y of ro osed property and structure must beroro edastructureeon t e log,the � A sketch p P � . following: 1. North Direction. 2. Location of p p " 3. Dimensions of property, proposed structure, and front andbuildinasb(within 300 feet 4, Street Names. S. Location and use of adjacent existing o % � si ned hexeby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this The under g application are true and correct. � DATE �"/(� " ��___---SIGNATURE_ Date of } Date�Filed Planning Commission (dates) Approved_________„_ Denied � (dates) Denied n , .^ � 560-3450 . • . �S . rt o r��e � � �. c� � ANOKA COUNTY � 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 July 11, 1975 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Planning Commission of the City of Fridley will be holding an informal hearing on a vacation request, SAV #75-07, by Vernon Vander Lugt of 3076 - 16th Street N.W., New Brighton, Minnesota, to vacate the street easement occupying the easterly 66 feet of property described as the South Part of Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 3, Anoka County, Minnesota , on Wednesday, July 23, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber at 6431 University Avenue N.E.,.Fridley, Minnesota. If you have any ohjection to this request, you can either attend this meeting, or�send a letter to the City of Fridley to the attention of the Planning Commission. � RICHARD H. HARRI5 Chairman Planning Commission 0 i. . . . . . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . � �� �� f Planning Commission /����%S� Council MAILING LIST: SAV #75-07, Verlyn Vander Lugt Vacate Street easemerit occupying � the easterly 66 feet of property described as the South Part of , Tract C, Registered Land Survey � ' No. 3, Anoka County. Verlyn Vander Lugt Mr. L. K. Rodman. 3076 - 16th St. N.W. Northwestern Bell Telephone New Brighton, Minnesota 224 South 5th Street . Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Theodore W. Klobs 6851 Central Avenue N.E. 6540 Shingle Creek Parkway ^ � Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Minneapolis, Minn. 55430 � Virgil Halgrim Mr. Tom Colbert 6860 Sieverts Lane N.E. City of Fridley, Eng. Dept. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 � Ing Sieverts � 6850 Sieverts Lane N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 ' Nc��n: �.,�z' . • General Television � 350 - 63rd Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota � i � Minnegasco 733 Marquette Avenue , Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Northern States Power Mr. Larry Benson � � 414 Nicollet Avenue (4501 68th Ave. North) Minneapolis, Minnesota 554.01 55429 � �---� ^ � � . 560-3450 . �� �t,� �iltp YlGil� � . �. � � ANOKA COUNTY � � 6G31 UNIVERSITY AVE(VUE NE July 11, 1975 FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 � TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Planning Commission of the City of Fridley will be holding an informal hearing on a vacation xequest, SAV #75-07, � by Vernon Vander Lugt of 3076 - 16th Street N.W., New Brighton, � Minnesota, to vacate the street easement occupying the easterly ��.66 feet of property described as the South Part of Tract C, � Registered Land Survey No. 3, Anoka County, Minnesota , on Wednesday, July 23, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber at 6431 University Avenue N.E., �'ridley"' Minnesota. � �.. If you have any objection to this request, you can either attend this meeting, or send a letter to the City of Fridley.to� tne attention ot the Pianning Commission. ' � • • • RICHARD H. HARRIS . � Chairman � . ,�. Planning.Commission . ,� J �,�,��s . � i �� N�t� �t �t�- Cv�s � . �4�s �o � �i �iT��s.� . � r�l . � � . ��Cu�c� a��. . 5����� G� .��r�%�-T ��s�zti� N-� � � � ��,��.� -S�s �o� �'�G�' �'o t�'s �l�c��[�ot� . `� . � . . � . � � �u-u-x�-� ��,c.-� . %'./J >7S � : ---- — . .r ,. � .: � :N".J` CORN�'R---- - --- -----._.— - ------ - - . - . . � _. .. —_..- � . ; � C. /.s ,� h 5� ..50 /�o�t� o o ��'/0 1 s w >37+�--.i a�t+-•r ��•�� /OJO+� . _ �� .�..� �, cc �., � - z� - � l ;9�` ;`; •;. - � ��'I ... _ ...� ' ,, _ . � � � _ . � .�f�a'ic� i ' .. P , , .._.,<.';:. _�., f � � :. ri:.. •a`" • . �.n;4ri. .- s � � � r:' -.... ; �' � O ,\� ' � ' �`^ --- h r 1 Lj i219o) o�?320)� �Z36o) o�.?.4ovJ ^^ v�; � o � v �� �i I d s ' � ' V a — ----• - -- - •• - !9 20 ' � °�� � �- �. �� � �� � _ �y, __ � 4�,' � ��� . ( o) �� °e�' �'� i � ti , q � ,�� � d �V'.� • u" �LC 9 ��� e $ � 4 \ � �� �, \ ..__ ; �� � �l _ �� I � ��� � . i° � �� - --t7s.i9 - _ , , L�0 3i6M Ioeo1 ---- ; � V � /I � � � .�: � � `b�. $ � $ : ' /? � � IOB. 07 ` � $ !� o � E : F ; � ✓,&.��r . �' `_Q.�� * ` � , � SAV #75-07 VER�YN VRNDER �G � �1 � ' ' � o.y � v � . ' �aoj ; . � . ( � . z� �. _--�- "'� . � � . ' .. .. �. B � �-� ��o � v ��-e� ; ze : � Q '<<C. � � 3 � i � ;�.�. �; lG� : � �JO• o , Z, � �' �`i �,,u, : � C k � _ : i . j . � �� � ' �: w � � J � ' . 5 •' _ � ; .� 31 �2l0 ' , '3? . A � (.Soo> (9oc} ' (/30 � � � � � �/ � � • ' r`�'.a S�a1t ofMa..,ntiusf � F/oyd F, � �:,: . _; o� y. f Foa/itn ` ourtor a I , �_ � i— — --(��R , __ --?s'6i7-- �� " ".,/ � .. __ .. O .r.sy's��iir. rw �� - --i47•1/ -_ � L« 6 . � � � 3_� �� J M� �'_� . . - . , i Rrru'tJ � �T�'17 — --- ----�►, i � . � ---•-� VI�Gr�'il L`�i��i ' - ��I�ta �'` � � n o4. K r+ • ,:EzoJ � Q � Cify of Fi-is/ey I � _�p �.� `► � � � , � �6', � � E O .. s�tG �a� I � ��B -..3y6..q..� B4„)� BA,7 . B ¢zj� g•7 ' aa�-� �, � � _�� �---�°_ � � /p � 9 � g'° 7 ° —4' � � �) ���e lC�'cek i' ' 541./ .. . j� � _� ' � ,,� J avr�orx r . j � ��� - � 5 � A� � � � �� .Rl�� € zt�f ^a �w-w j ' :: : �. S9�a's , �to sa �, a�+ eat ' � ait�-'� ; � \� . ✓_-- '' ., � �/poo) � r� -0 �; a o i'� p3�°� �" ¢ � -�, u 2 / � O k ( � .,i;ll /J�ii.d� p\ � � w.G �o ��tLY ���-• Bo.da w� ,o '�`Y � liiit 1 tJ4 - ` "� a �% / l 9 � � d � .... .,• � � . :,. ��,� 66TH AVE. N.E. �a ' ' � • Q"' zs 83 _._�} o. _ : . � �_ .�� . y . Y [}. . � � � � ` C'1 O` ���% ' � �/190J � p, l •, � tZ 0 �' \ �'` — / t /ir,L`XA" I,M� \ � I � `ITj, � V V � � , _ _ _ a_�.... I" \ � .�.1� �a� :.� 7 �� Q3 C � t �`�� � ^ � ... � p� � a� �� � oa C E � � RG �E � R R��I �rNTA A �Y w � �.. 8 , 7 � • 6' `,� ,Z 3 � ZZ , Z� . 20 !9 . �� . _ b . � r- CITY Or ERIDI,T�Y PITNNGSOTA PLANNING AND ZONING POItM NUbSB�R � A U � J-��3 � . ^ APPLICAN'T'S SIGNATURT? � � . (� Aaar�ss����_�/o � �, ����z� 0 . � r� Telephone Number -5-�..�- / — � ��v C -��PROP�RTY OWN�R'S SIGNATURE �, i) �� . '' `' Addres s �L'�L—� � � �`� . Telephone Numbcr. ���n-E" - . • Street Location of Property �-`� ���- 3�� �—� � n-��-� Legal Description of Property 1' �-t-V, �" � � 52 TYPE OF RCQUCST Rezoning • Special Use Permi.t Approval of Premin- inary � I'i.na l P].at �_ Streets �or Alley Vacations uii Other � •---� --, � � E Fee Receipt No; / � � � Present. Zoning Classificati.on �- � Existing Use of Property ��(�:��o�-����}-�- Acreage of Property �'-- Describe briefly the proposed zoning classification or. type of use and improvement �roposed �a�� P�� �'� � ��� c��� F�� ��.n' �: � �w C: � �. � ,� c, � �J � `� � c�c�t� `� C' �. � ✓� 0 c� � �:� �� -Has the present applicant pxeviously sou�ht to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split o-r variance o� special use permit on the subject site or part of it? �! yes_ no. lt�hat was rec�uesi.ed and when? (�; h�i - __ . , The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of a11 residents ancl owners of property f saithin 300 feet (350 £eet for rezoning) must be attached to this application. � (Y,) 1'liis application must be si�ned by all owners of the property, or an explanation s given ��hy this is not the case. (c) ResponsiUility for any defect in the proceedings � resulting from the failure to list the names.and addresses of alI residents and property owners of proper_ty in quest'ian, Lclongs to thE undersigned. A sketch of proposed property and structure must be dra�a�l and attached, sho�aing the � . following: 1. North Direction. 2. Location•of proposed structure on the lot. 3, Dimensions of prorerty, �?roposed structure, and front and side setbacks. 4. Street Names. S. Loca.tion and use of� adjacent existing bui].dings (wiLhin 300 feet). The undersi.gned hereby declares that all the facts.and representations stated in this application are truc and correct. � � � . � ����� .. DAT� �� <t .� SIGNATURE �. � . ' (API'LICnNT) ^ Date Piled 7=/G �• 7� Dat•c of licaring �., y3 - 7 S� �� Flannin� Cammission Ai�proved City Council Arproved ;wY (dates) Denic;d (dates) Deniecl , � ,�*. �/AC � ��Ti� �l d F .�/°7 � �4 �� �� � w�� ` ��' ��� °`- Z�-1��...u� � ���--� I . ! � • � i � �� ���<<.y !-ct .-w �! • r <- c -��.:.,,: ,�' ZC� , 5�i�iF�t' ,__, � , . , 53 � ,�,�' � �' �`�.�� ��E�� ����'� `� � July 16, 1975 . , . � o • � � . v . � TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: � ' N � `� The Planning Commission of the City of Fridley will be holding . � an informal hearing on a vacation request: SAV #75-98, by Leo Lemke, � � who proposes to construct a single.family dwelling on Lot 30, Blvck 9, . o - W Plymouth Addition, to vacate 47th Avenue between 3rd Street and University . z z Avenue, and to vacate the 12 foot alley between 46th Avenue and 48th Avenue �� •J N.E., that lies adjacent to University Avenue N.E. in Block 8 and 9, Plymouth 0 ^ � W Addition, on Wednesday, July.23, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. in tahe Council Chamber � � at 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. . � � Q w . � � � F- � If you have any objection to this request, you can eigher attend � o � z � this meeting, or send a letter to the City of Fridley, to the attention Z . � of the Planning Commission. . a� . } . _ , � w � RICHARD H. HARRIS > �� Chairman z Planning Commission � . . � M � �. r � � H . _ z W V U ^ V . 5� � Planning Commission July li, 1975 MAILING LIST Council � � '��� SAV #75-08 Leo Lemke � Vacate 47th Avenue between 3rd Stret and University Avenue and the 12' alley between 46th Avenue and 48th Avenue adjacent to University Avenue /'1 � 0 Leo Lemke 2229 North 6th Street Minneapolis, Mn 55411 Katherine E. Riley 4703 3rd Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Sinigaglio 4715 3rd Street N.E, Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. Harl ey Pel tz 4727 3r�1 Street N.E. - Fridley, Mn �55421 Mrs. Donna Bergler 4739 3rd Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 James Haugan 4751 3rd Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. Cecil Schlader 4763 3rd Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421_ Mr. & Mrs. Stanley Thorson 4775 3rd Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 554�! Mr. & Mrs. Loren Smerud 4603 3rd Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. Daniel Hanson 4615 3rd Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. Melvin Otremba 4627 3rd Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. Arthur Forest 4638 3rd Street N�.E. Fridley, Mn 554�1 0 Anoka County Auditor Anoka County Court House Main Street Anoka, Mn 55303 Mr. & Mrs. Doyle Ceroll 4651 3rd Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. John Errvin 4663 3rd Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. Cornelius Warzecha 4675 3rd Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 A11 utility Companys . . �_._. . 5� � CITY OF FP.IDLEY � f M E M 0 R A N D U M . ' MEMO T0: Darrel Clark, Community Development Administrator ' ' �i�MO FROP4: Thomas A. Colbert, Assistant City Engineer ��' SUBJECT: Vacation Request, 47th Auenue (3rd Street to University) ; DATE: July 16, 1975 In reference to the proposed vacation requested by Mr. Leo 0. Lemke, the Engineering Department has no objections but offer the following�stipulations and recoinmendations : ' 1. A drainage and utility easement be retained over the North. 23 ft of the South one half of 47th Avenue. This is due ^ - - to an existing 24' R.C.P. storm sewer located 13 f t South � of the center line of 47th Avenue. 2. If the entire street is to be vacated, it is suggested that the alley both North and South of 47th Avenue also be vacated to eliminate any potential.access problems. .. The alley ways are presently undeveloped and unused but . • landscaped and maintained by the abutting property owners. In 1969 this same vacation was requested and denied by Council action. The only reason for denial that could.be discerned was to main- ' , tain a pedestrian walkway to a bus stop. Recent observation revealed this ; is no longer in use as the Minnesota Highway Department has established a restrictive chain link right-of-way fence. Checking with the County and Traffic Operations Program.for Increasing'Capacity & Safety (TOPICS), ^ ' -- . certain overhead pedestrian crossings are planned for the future at 51st Avenue but not at 47th. T�1C/as . - , — 4 �1'N. -� -� N,�� �S; N.-- •,r �� 48T�. v +i� : 1-�'� �j� �.�'r 7./ �. i�L� : � ���� �z^ zl �; � 1c ����' �J _� �� o �� 1/tej �I ,Jr.♦ �- -�i �H� � t�y.'... � . ,'1, .� � i;o s� � °� I a ��/r� � : e�k�� ' � • -�.; � J�- -- . {- j; f,3Z- -� , . 9 � ��,, Z4i-= _ %' = :����, : .3 � N�_.._ •'.�._._.. . ,� , ,�Sl',� :W�a3.•� � ` LEO LEMKE SAV #75-08 ' � �^ r � " acate t venue etween 3rd Ave`. , and Univ. All v�in B � I .,• . 1 oc & � 'I • ,� ._ 9 ., � � .g � ���'� '� ' '; `' � I N8� ---� - - � /7 : N I ' , � °-�go3 -- -..: _,.; �f .� se ? � Y it/.vc' '' "` �ilG a. .i ' . �. /1 ' "".' _{'�' i• �. � �V E. : o . � I ; 4 l.l_ �� � y �:�i� " "_' �isqc� Q , }'�+� � JO _ _ _/ - . :'�`�:. , i „ �t a p 9 ,: � L� a°,� . 1 M�� 5_�� � , 1,� - - -'--- � � �' • ;` £ ' �N1U�j— ---�-_ ,ti:'�, ,, . f � z. �� _ . '- -- -; `:� - '' � � � zs : � , � � � ��?r!�- — � - - '--�_' - � - � : ., fi ; ' 1 �'a�' 2? ' 8 ' :' ' �° 1�` — I � '� ��` _ 9 �, ... �° � `r'J - ..� ._ -1 . ..-�3����+:; --�-��.., j . . � Yf / "�— ---- ~=+-�+ `� --- ! Z✓ /! �^"":.(,.... .�.i� ` ,;: . i9 - -- - - i1 �.7.:.. �°v..�', - -� ' o ; . y l s - ���, , , -- -- � . , ,�, M� , � _ . . ;a �.,.�: , ; , . -- - -.---t'-•'' f � ( � . oN�o3 ---_'=��'' �'� � : �, : ir a �� ; v°i ja -o- ;!". /73c: �.ot i - � �:_. i � .�o ' "- � /:s..r.ti �it�-od, � "- �iisajwt �s �2/20� /� � � „ 1 �! ,;� , +. . -��y�j�� - ---------, � � � � 1 � oi • ------ - • - ��6 y'� p ------�'�� � � Z [� ? � � � �'t � y 1 . __ _ .--_"".._ -� .� �:100� C�� . . . rr .r yq q i �: � ,;� �/ ' _� _r_'_y'"J � ! . S �6 -; � -s�-/� f i � � -- - - � �.. - .1 . ' _ _ __�.__ _J . . „ 6 � ,� - ��3-� -�--; '� ' O L� - ---1 , :; (zvaq � . a�3 z� ---8 r-,, a � - °- � - ----- �r zz � 1 � :: -��Zy` _�_� �� . ----- �a _e �: ,r .�(,2? ---���:� �. =� ., __..c.._� ;1 �,,��c, I �:, � _.'� - � r0-` �� - - -��� ' ;-- - _ •� s•.. �.f ;� -- - -- �o�,� � , � ;�:��. '° - �oU � ` � -�--'9 -' � � C t ��', � . �., . „ -�I ,, (,��' '?'• _ �e J3 ,} w 'l...v�r �� V �'lJ.C)�' /'4� .. t lnSi I`� V 6.• �=-. , o �,�py-�- - r Y „�,� : --M W � Jr.�_:�6—..... .._,._ � /. J1 �0 � � w 9� __^ ^ � 0 w f ��7q" n �,�5�� _.' , N � --��- - - �� �. �H ��5 �: - � ,�_r �y��3� � -' H 5 31.. � L� � <.e: � �� • y.r,i,.� Q .. �H� �: n ' .N��� � ^H350- �_� �s.�,, : � � N53� � �S� i _ .r•o_3S- _ `—H ��� �b� � +mct •-- i� . . . '-�_" -� . - ---- 1- . E. . � .—.,.r._ . ,; •• ..�. � . � � ..•.i� � ,�...t .3,�j0 h. rc, ----,i,- 1..; Y � �. 3> �_ , � _ p �_ _p - � ' ; K3q5 � `--- �-- x; � -��`- ; , y5q� .. � . 90` i a � ;. : _ 1 r� —r _� ��v� H5,7�1- �; � , , :e :! ,� , � ,. ;� � � _ Ns�7g— '� � . t��`1S -�-- ^ e� �. ' �' ' * °� � 57.�- ° _� � . N �� �,� , ��H �p � , C] `� - ---�, - - , ; -- � ,;. � — - - - ^ (r - - ---- ', , � �, s ' .. � s��: cl�t1 � ;; � `�```►� N N�SI - ►�5+�y- - M � �� - ----�.,;,,� � �-, � � -� � � �j� w *. � --�'�-� c �'1 .re [.•+ _ . h.• ♦k , ' a 4�� . . g, r� z3 g�.,�,. ,; 1.t�.� �; H S�� --NS_3 -- ' , ,,� �,,j\ ., xzd� ,. w 1/ n �'../ ^ yw =t , '' r� � �i � . ,r_ '- - -- "re.-ri ' ��, - _'._- --�. � .!t�_ . ys�' 7- HS Zh -- 1� a.. ��. �.!_ � , r -� .. n �k� ^ � � y�3?}--- �- ---N - , , - ; y. ' _ .._ ;' �� (�sso) ... � tJ 1' r. ��S�S !�5�y � ,, � 'a' ',: � _ .. „i . �r . -.. - • � ". -.�IIQ._. �"�"_� �"� i .