Loading...
PL 03/10/1982 - 6771PLANNING COPiMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: CAIL TO ORDER: City of Fridley A G E N D A WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1982 APPROVE PLANNING COt4MIS5I0N MINUTES: FEBRUARY 24, 1982 1. TABLED: REOUEST FOR A LOT SPL Split off the North 81 teet of Lot 8H, Rudltor's Subtlivision No. 21 (953 Mississippi Street N.E.) to make a new buildable lot, the same being 6530 Oakley Street N.E. 2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #82-03, BY DONNA MILLER: Split Lat 1, Block l, Veit's 2nd Addition, and Lot 26, Auditor's Sub. �o. 23, combined, into three lots: (110 64 1/2 Way N.E.) The easterly 65' of Lot 1, Block 1, Veit's 2nd Addition together with the easterly 75.19' of Lot 26, A.S. #23, and (120 64 1/2 lJay N.E.) The Easterly 140' of Lot 1, Block 1, Veit's 2nd Addition, except the easterly 65', together with the easterly 150.19' of Lot 23, A.S. #23, except the easterly 75.19', and (110 64 1/2 Way) The westerly 128.01' of Lot 1, Block 1, Veit's 2nd Addition, together with the Westerly 121.23' of Lot 26, A.S. #23. (This lot is presently addressed as 6430 East River Road, but if the lot split is approved, it will require an address change). 3 4 EIVE HOUSING AND REDEUELO OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURNh1ENT: 7:30 P.M. PAGES 1 - 11 12 - 15 16 - 22 WHITE CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,.FEBRUARY 24, 1982 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the february 24, 1982, Planning Cortmission meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. Harris, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Svanda, Mr. Kondrick, Mr. Saba, Mr. Oquist (arr. 7:55 p,m.) Members Absent: Ms. van Dan Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Patricia L. Lester, 5484 Meister Rd. W. G. Doty, 6379 University Ave. N.E. Gary Wellner, 6221 Sunrise Dr. N.E. See attached list APPROVAL Of FEBRUARY 3, 1982, PLANNING COMMI55ION MINUTES: MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY MR. SABR� TO RPPROVE THE FEBRUARY 3� 1982� PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN, UPON A VOZCE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHRIRMAN HARRI5 DECLARED THE MOTION CRRRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #82-01, PATRICIA L. LESTER: Split off part of'Tot 3,1—B�iocc� , Ostman s� ir A dition�escribed as beginning at the most Northerly corner of said Lot 31; thence Southwesterly along the North- westerly line of said Lot 31, a distance of 30 feet; thence Southeasterly to the most Easterly point of Lot 31; thence Northwesterly along the North- easterly line of said Lot 31, to the point of beginning, and add it to Lot 30, Block 1, Ostman's Third Addition, the same being 6909 Hickory Drive N.E. Mr, Boardman stated the lots in question are 6901 and 6909. The request is to take a ZO ft. triangle portion of 6901 and add it to 6909. He stated Staff has no problems with this request. Ms. Patricia Lester was in the audience and stated she had no statement to make at this time. MOTION BY M8. SABA� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRSCK� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR LOT SPLIT� L.S. N82-01� BY PATRICIA L. LESTER�TO SPLIT OFF PART OF IAT 31� BLOCK 1� OSTMAN'S THIRD RDDITTON� DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING RT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 32� THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY R7ANG THE NORTH- WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3S� A DZSTANCE OF 30 FEETj THENCE SOUTHERSTERLY TO TXE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 page 2 MOST EASTERLY POINT OF LOT 31, THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORSHERSTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 31, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING� AND ADD IT TO LOT 30� BIACK 1� OSTMAN'S THIRD ADDITION� THE SAME BEING 6909 HICKORY DRIVE N.E. . UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN XARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNRNIMOUSLY. Mr. Harris stated that L.S. #82-01 was recommended to City Council for approval and would go to City Council on March 8. Z. R�E UEST FO_R A LOT SPLIT, L.S_._ #82-02, MARK ANDERSOM: Split off the North f81 eet of ot 8�f,�luditor s Su�division �o. 2TZ�53 Mississippi St. N.E.) to make a new buildable lot, the same being 6530 Oakley Street N,E. Mr. Boardman stated the lot is located between Oakley and Mississippi Streets. Lot 8H is a large lot, 25D' x 111.37'. The lot the petitioner wants to split off is the lot along the back line in order to create a new lot. The location of that new lot creates some problems. The existing garage will be moved and relocated; however, with the existing Zoning Code, the required rear yard setback is 42 feet. The difference is about 20 ft „ so the petitioner would need a variance from 42 ft. to 20 ft. The petitioner is appealing to the Planning Commission to approve the variance along with the lot split to avoid going through the variance procedure. He stated this has never been done before and one of the problems is that a lot split does not require a public hearing, but a variance does require a public hearing. Mr. Boardman stated he had no problem with the lot size. It is an extra large lot and can legally be split into three 4,OQ0 sq. ft. lots. Ms. Gabel stated she agreed with Mr. Boardman. She did not feel the Planning Commission should grant a variance. The variance procedure requires a public hearing, and she felt the neighbors should be notified. The petitioner was not in the audience. Mr, Boardman stated another thing is they will eventually be looking at a proposal for a bikeway/walkway along Mississippi St, and will be requesting l0 ft. easements for bikeway/walkway. Mr. Harris stated he would feel very uncomfortable acting on this lot split without the petitioner present. Ne would like the Planning Commission members to be able to talk to the petitioner before acting on the lot split request. Ms. Gabel stated she agreed, particularly when they will be asking for a 70 ft. bikeway/wa]kway easement. They need roore information from the petitioner. MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY MR, KONDRICX� TO TRBLE TXE REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT� L.S. 82-02 BY MRRK ANDERSON UNTIL TNE NEXT MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VPTING AYE� CHAZRMAN HRRRIS DECLARED TXE MOTSON CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. - PLpNNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 24 1982 PAGE 3 Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman to contact Mr. Anderson and inform him of the Planning Commission's action. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING RE�UEST, ZOA #82-01, BY W, G, DOTY AND GARY A. WELL ER: Rezone t�fo owf�ing�escribea parce�s from M-1 (light in ustr�a areas) to R-2 (two family dwelling areas),(except if this area is platted, 1 lot will be R-1): That part of Blocks 8 and 9, Lowell Addition, lying South of the North line of Sylvan Hills Plat 8, extended in a Westerly direction to the West boundary of said Block 8, and lying Westerly of the plat of Sylvan Hills Plat 8, together with the Easterly one-half of vacated Elm Street, and that part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 7, Lowell Addition to Fridley Park, lying Southerly of the Westerly extension of the North line of the plat of Sylvan Hills Plat 8, together with the Westerly half of vacated Elm Street, generally located South of Mississippi Street N.E., East of the Burlington Northern right-of-way. MOTSON BY MR. SVANDA� SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZOA #82-01 BY W. G. DOTY AND GARY A. WELLNER. � UPON A VOICE VOTE� RLL VOTING RYE� CHAIRNAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:50 P.M. Mr. Boardman stated that Mr. Doty and Mr. Wellner originally brought a rezoning request before the Planning Commission eariy in 1981. At that time, the proposal was for a rezoning from M-1 (light industrial) to R-3 (general multiple dwellings). Also included in that rezoning request was a street vacation. Because of neighborhood opposition to R-3, Mr. Doty withdrew the rezoning request, so it did not go to City Council. However, the street vacation was approved by City Council. Mr. Boardman stated this proposal was for rezoning from M-1 to R-2 (two family dwelling areas) and that a small portion be rezoned R-1. This would have to be determined through the plat, and at some point in time, they will have to get both the platting and zoning together before it goes to City Council for final approval. Right now, they cannot split the land as far as �he actual legal description on the zoning; however, the zoning issue is the key issue as to whether this project will go or not go. For that reason, Mr. Doty has not applied for a plat and is submitting only a rezoning. He asked Mr. Doty to explain his plans for development. Mr. Doty stated this property is bounded on the west by the railroad tracks, is bounded on the north by light industrial, and is bounded on the east by multiple residential. In an attempt to get along with the people, they made the concession to make an R-1 adjacent to the one R-1 property this property abuts. He stated the zoning is presently light industrial. He and Mr. Wellner felt M-1 was not the proper use for the property in that location because of the residential neighborhood. They felt that with apartment complexes, manufacturing, and industrial that R-1 was also not a proper use for the land. For that reason, they came up with what they thought was a realistic compromise--R-2 zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 PAGE 4 Mr. Wellner stated that Mr. Doty has expressed his thoughts. and he is in support of this proposal. Mr, Michael Larson, 6390 Starlite Blvd., stated he wanted to point out that the drawing Mr. Doty had brought to the meeting was the first time tfie neighborhood had seen it. He stated his R-1 property was most affected by this change in zoning. He stated he and his neighbors have a number of concerns, and he sub- mitted the following letter to the Planning Commission members: The nei9hbors of the SyTvan Hills area most directly impacted by the proposed rezoning, are unanimously supportive of either maintaining the current M-1 zoning or upgrading the zoning to R-1. We cannot conceive of an instance where we would approve of an R-2 zonin9 for this parcel! Some of the reasons for our concerns are as follows: t�EIGHBORH00D INCOMPATIBILITY... Our neighborhood is almost entirely single family homes with the exception of the apartments on Satellite Lane. We are roud of our homes. We work hard to maintain a pleasant apoearance an ere y maintain the value of our homes. 7RAFFIC & SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS... Satellite Lane is a narrow road and a�e have had to restrict parking to avoid accidents and assure the safetv of our children. The proposed rezonina could allow 7 duplex structures or�—livin9 units. If each of those units averaaes 1 and 1/2 cars, there would be 21 cars to park in an area comprised of a very short cul-de-sac and 14 driveways! The additional traffic would increase the traffic risks to an unreasonable level. IMPACT ON HOME UALUES... Whatever incremental profits would accrue to the developer by obtaining R-2 zoning would be more than offset b the reduction in the value of our homes. tJe are convince a eve op�nent un er - cou e pro i a e to the developer. Consider the new construction of an imQressive single-family home at 6380 Starlite Blvd. as proof of the viability of our area. CURRENT ZONING RESTRICTIONS... We see little risk in maintainin the M-1 zoning because this property is essen ia y an - oc e rom an in us rial development viewpoint. Even if some industrial development were pursued, we feel confident it may be preferential to R-2 development. THE LACK contacted they feel they see prior to our home Of CO�CERN FOR OUR OPINIONS... At no t�me has the developer neiohbors to discuss his thouahts and perspective. Apparently they should be allowed to develop their property as fit to do so! The fact that the didn't do their ho�ework ourchase of the property doesn mean we ave o surren er vatues to their ineptitude. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24 1982 PAGE 5 WE UESTION THEIR REAL INTENT... Are they seeking R-2 zoning knowing our �eig or oo wi o �ec�? Do they intend to then "compromise" for R-1 with alot of variances attached? Having someone propose specific construction of a planned development is one thing• Having someone seek a change in zoning so they can selt individual lots to individual bvilders, is an entirely different risk. In summary, WE REQUEST AND DEMAND THAT THE REQUEST FOR R-2 ZONING BE DENIED to PRESERVE OUR EIGHBORHOOD, MAINTAIN OUR PROPERTY VALUES, AND ASSURE THE SAFETY Of UR �L�iF�'� ��U , � Mr. Bill Zurbey, 145 Sylvan Lane, stated he has lived in this neighborhood for 19 years. Quite a few years ago, they had a sewer problem in this neighborhood, and he wondered if anyone had done any research as to whether the current sewer system would handle duplexes. Mr. Boardman stated the sewer capacity was checked when Mr, Doty had applied for the rezoning to R-3. At that time, the City Engineering Dept. felt there was adequate sewer capacity for that type of development. Mr.Robert Olson, RAO Manufacturing, stated he was at the meeting for information, and not to approve or disapprove the proposal. He stated he understood that with the development of the property to R-2, it would increase RAO's setback to 50 ft. He stated they are now 50 ft, from the back line so there were no problems with that, He wanted to know if there were any other restrictions that would restrict the possible use of their property because of this development. Mr. Boardman stated that besides the setback requirement, there are screening requirements for loading areas. Mr. Olson stated one concern he had would be the grading required to put in these units. RAO's property is quite a bit higher than Satellite Lane. If the developer would have to dig out to lower all the units to the level of Satellite Lane, there could be quite a drop. He stated if there were no other major changes, he would have no objection to this development. Ms. Judy Kidder, 6360 Starlite Blvd., stated she supported everything Mr. Larson had said. He has done an excellent job in organizing the neighborhood as can be seen by the number of people who turned out for tfie meeting. She stated the neighborhood sincerely believes this property could be developed into R-1 and it would be the best solution for both parties. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN6, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 PAGE 6 Mr. Larson stated one of the reasons they are not concerned with the property being zoned light industrial is because they benefit from RAO Manufacturing, which is probably one of the neatest buildings, from an industrial standpoint, in Fridley, or maybe in the Twin Cities. As a homeowner, he appreciated that and wished all industrial property was maintained as well. Mr. Doty stated he understood the neighbors' feeling and was not unsympathetic to the fact that no one wants a multiple dwelling built in his/her R-1 neighbor- hood, In his 20 years of real estate, he has yet to find or witness an R-1 neighborhood that was in favor of a multiple residential adjacent to it. However, he hoped they could allay some of the neighborhood's fears. Mr. Doty stated it is not feasible or likely that anyone is going to build a double bungalow for under $120,000. He stated they have submitted some various plans as to what the structures might look like. He stated they are very nice units. He stated they cannot at this time make a commitment to build those units on those lots because of today's interest rates. FHA interest rates are 162%. Financing on double bungalows would dictate they be sold to owner occupants. Mr. Doty stated they talked to Mr. Robert Olson about a year ago as far as industrial for this property. They talked about buying some property and coming in along the south side of RAO, but they discovered this was not feasible. They talked about the possibility of selling the land to RAO because of neighbor- hood opposition, but RAO felt they had sufficient land for further expansion and wouid not need this additional land. Mr. Doty stated the property is presently zoned M-1. They are requesting a down- zoning. He is not so certain that a plan must have neighborhood approval, and he is not so certain that a neighborhood can'�emand what a private property owner does with his land as long as it is within the proper zoning requirements. Again, he wanted to emphasize that this land is M-1, it is bordered by the rail- road tracks, light industrial, and R-3 Multiple housing. They are requesting an R-2 zoning. Ms, Gabel stated Mr. Larson had made the statement about the possibility of the individual lots being sold and developed by individual builders. Would that happen or did Mr. Doty and Mr. Wellner plan to develop all of it themselves? Mr, Wellner stated it was their original intentioh to buy the property and develop it themselves. If the economy is such that they can develop it themselves, that is what they will do; however, they cannot guarantee that. Ms, Judy Kidder stated people have lived in their neighborhood for years. They feel that even with duplexes, there will be a constant turnover of tenants-- even in the one-half. Right now, they do not get that constant change in residents, and they do not feel it is fair to change the character of their neighborhood so much. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24 1982 PAGE 7 Mr. Larson stated he felt it was his and the neighborhood's concern that these lots will be haphazardly sold off to individual builders. He stated Mr. Doty showed nice drawings of prospective structures, but that doesn't mean anything unless it is tied in with the rezoning. Again, he spoke for the neighbors when he said they are �remendously upset about this and heartily recanmend the Planning Commission reject the rezoning. Mr. Frank Liebl stated he sympathized with Mr. Doty. Mr. Doty has a right to develop his property, but not at the neighborhood`s expense. He stated there is already too much traffic. Because of the multiple residential north of Satellite, there is too much density in that area right now. He stated there are also definite sewer problems in that area, and Staff should look into this problem. Mr. Wellner stated he wanted to speak as a present homeowner who has property adjacent to duplexes. His property is on Sunrise Drive, and Star Lane has a11 duplexes on one side of the street. He in no way thought those duplexes depreciated the value of his home, because the property owners keep them in nice condition. Ne has lived for many years next to duplexes. He does not have the noise problems the neighborhood is alluding to, he does not have any more traffic than living next to a single family home with 2-3-4 cars. He did not think the traffic argument was as strong as the neighborhood would like to make it, and he did not think they could make the generalization that duplexes would devalue their properties. He stated they could do some market analysis that would show this was not necessarily the case. Mr. Dennis Johnson, 6336 Starlite Blvd., stated he lives on the west side of Starlite Blvd., and their children like to play at Sylvan Park. They have to cross the street to get to the park, Starlite is almost an extension of Main Street and carries a lot of traffic, much of which is above the speed limit, and the street is not safe for children. He would like to keep the traffi,c on their street at a minimum, and he felt construction of single family homes was a way to keep that traffic at a minimum. Mr. Saba stated that regarding the issue of the care of double bungalows, he has seen some excellent double bungalows, and he has seen some very bad double bungalows. He stated where neighborhoods are kept up, the double bungalows are usually kept up also, but as a neighborhood deteriorates, so do the multiple dwellings. He stated that at today's costs, there are some pretty nice double bungalows being built. He liked the effort Mr. Doty had made to put a buffer between the double bungalows and the single family residential. He stated he felt R-2 was a fair compromise. He thou9ht they should also consider the sewage problem thaC has been brought up, and the City owes the neighborhood an answer to that concern. He did not know if they could address the rezoning issue at this meeting without an answer to the sewage problem. Mr. Boardman stated he would do some more checking into the sewer problems to see if there are any solutions to the problem. Ne stated he had discussed the sewer capacity with the Engineering Dept. for R-3, and they had indicated the sewer capacity was adequate for R-3. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1982 PAGE 8 Ms, Catherine Scherven, 131 Sylvan Lane N.E., stated she does not object to double bungalows, because she and her husband are thinking about buying one. But, she did not think this area was a good area for double bungalows, because of the traffic situation and the water situation. She stated that whenever there is a rain, their street runs like a river. The water comes down Starlite and down Sylvan towards the park. With more run-off from a cul-de-sac, the water situation would be even worse. Ms. Gabel stated she would like the Planning Commission to know more about the sewer capacity before ma�king a decision, and she wou]d ]ike to see this item tabled. � Mr. Wellner stated he and Mr. Doty are not asking for any platting at the present time, and it would seem to him that answers to the sewer objections could be found out between now and the time they would come forth with a plat. At that time, the City coul� determine whether or not the sewer capacity was adequate for the deve]opment. A]7 they are asking for now is a rezoning, and it would seem to him that the City would have control as to whether the development could be handled by the utilities at that time. He did think it was a question that should be answered, but he was not at all certain the sewer issue should dictate approval or disapproval of the rezoning request. Mr. Oquist stated he agreed with Mr. Wellner. If there is a sewer problem, there will be one whether it is an R-2 development or an R-1 development. The sewer question has nothing to do with the rezoning. MOTION BY MS, GABEL� SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST� TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZOR �82-01 BY W. G. DOTY AND GRRY A. WELLNER. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HRRRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC NERRING CZASED RT 9:D5 P.M. Mr. Oquist stated he did not necessarily agree that this rezoning request should be tabled. He stated he has always argued for the right of the owner of the property to be able to develop the property w�thin reason. He felt there was going to be a sewer problem no matter what kind of development went in, But, because of the density already in the area with the multiple dwellings and the existing traffic problems, he would have to vote against the rezoning. Ms. Gabel stated there are so many other things that could be developed on this property under the current zoning, which could generate a whole different kind of traffic for that residentia] street. That bothered her in terms of leaving the zoning M-1. However, she agreed the density was probably has high as it should be and would be inclined to vote against the rezoning. Mr. Kondrick stated he shared Mr. Oquist's point of view on density. He would like to see the area better handled with single family residential. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24 1982 PAGE 9 MOTION BY MR. OQUIST� SECONDED BY FII2. KONDRICK� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE DENIAL OF REZONING REQUEST ZOA #82-01 BY W. G. DOTY AND GARY A. WELLNER TO REZONE THE FOLLOWZNG DESCRIBED PARCELS FROM M-I (LSGXT SNDUSTRIAL AREAS)� TO R-2 (TWO FAMILY DWELLING AREAS)� (EXCEPT IF THIS RREA IS PLATTED�I LOT WILL BE R-2): THAT PART OF BLOCXS 8 AND 9� TAWELL ADDITION� LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH LZNE OF SYLVAN HILLS PLAT 8, &XTENDED IN R WESTERLY DIRECTION TD THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SRID BLOCK 8� AND LYZNG WESTERLY OF THE PLAT OF SXLVRN HILLS PLAT 8, TOGETXER WITH THE EASTERLY ONE-HALF OF VRCATED ELM STREET� AND THAT PAR2 OF LOTS 1 AND 2� BLOCK 7� LOWELL RDDITION TO FRIDLEY PARK� LYING SOUTNERLY OF THE WESTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE PLAT OF SYLVAN HILLS PLAT 8� TOGETHER WZTH THE WESTERLY HALF OF VACATED ELM STREET� GENERALLY IACATED SOUTH OF MISSISSIPPI STREET N.E., EAST OF THE BURLZNGTON NORTHERN RIGHT-OF-WRY� FOR THE FOLIAWIN6 RERSONS: Z. EXISTING DENSITY 2. TRAFFIC PROBLEMS Mr. Harris asked Mr. Doty if he would like the Planning Commission to vote on the motion or did fie wish to withdraw his request? Mr. Doty stated he would like the Planning Commission to vote on the rezoning request. UPON A VOICE VOTE� OQUIST� SVANDA� KONDRICK� SABA� AND GABEL VOTING AYE, HARRIS ABSTRINING� CHRIRhtAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Harris stated that ZOA #82-01 was recommended to City Council for denial and would go to City Council on March 22, Chairman Harris declared a ten-minute recess at 9:15 p.m. 4, RECEIVE FESRUARY 1, 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. SRBA� SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO RECEIVE THE FEBRUARY 2� 1982, HOUSING & REDEVE7APMENT AUTHORITY MZNUTES. UPON R VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTZNG AYE, CHAZRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNRNIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE JANUARY 26, 1982, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY MR. XONDRICK� TO RECEIVE TXE JANUARY 26� 1982� RPPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES. . UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CRRRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIUE FEBRUARY 2, 1982, PARKS & REGREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. OQUIST� SECONDED BY F1R. SABA� TO RECEIVE THE FEBRUARY.2� Z982� PARKS 6 RECRER2'ION COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING RYE� CHAIRMRN HARRIS DECLAI2ED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANZMOUSLY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, fEBRUARY 24, 1982 PAGE 10 7. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 4, 1982, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED 8Y MS. GABEL� TO RECEIVE THE FEBRUARY 4, I982, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MZNUTES. � UPON R VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING RYE� CHAIRMAN XARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNRNIMOUSLY. 8. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 9, 1982, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MR, SVANDA� TO RECEIVE THE FEBRUARY 9� 2982� COMMUNZTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MZNUTE5. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING RYE� CHRIRMAN XARRIS DECLRRED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. . . 9. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 16, 1982, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. SVANDA� SECONDED BY MR. SABA� TO RECEIVE THE FEBRUARY I6� 1982� ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES, Mr. Svanda stated the Commission had made two motions: (1) to recommend that the Mayor proclaim April 18-24 as "Fridley Recycling Week" and to request City Staff to pursue activities and ideas through the media to promote the recycling week; and (2) to recommend that the City Offices accelerate their recycling efforts and that the City collect all recyclab7e items to take to the SORT Recycling Center during "Recycling Week" in order to help publicize the recycling effort and set an example for the rest of the community. Mr. Svanda stated he would like Planning Commission to concur with these recommendations. UPON A VOICE VOTE,RLL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY MR. SVRNDA� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK� TO CONCUR WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSIONYS RECOMMENDATION THAT THE MAYOR OF FRIDLEY PROCLAIM THE WEEK OF APRZL 28-24 AS "FRIDLEY RECYCLING WEEK" AND TO REQUEST STAFF TO PURSUE ACTIVITIES AND IDEAS TXROUGX THE AVAILABLE MEDIA. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY MR, SVANDA� SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST, TO CONCUR WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMZSSION�S RECOMMENDRTION THAT THE CITY OFFICES ACCELERATE THEIR RECYCLING EFFORTS AND THAT THE CITY THEN TAKE THE PAPER PRODUCTS AIVD OTHER RECYCLABLES TO THE S.O.R,T. RECYCLING CENTER bURING RECYCLING WEEK TO SERVE AS AS EXAMPLE TO TNE CITIZENS OF FRIDLEY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 1952 PAGE 11 UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHRIRMRN XARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. - 10. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Government Training Service Seminar Mr. Harris stated this seminar would be held on March 10-12 and any Planning Commission member interested in attending should contact Mr. Boardman. B. Chairman's Farewell Mr. Harris stated this will probably be his last meeting as Chairman of the Planning Commission as he will be on vacation in March. He stated Virginia Schnabel will be replacing him as of April 1. He stated it has been a pleasure serving on the Planning Commission and working with the other Planning Commission members. He wished them all good luck. The other commissioners also wished Mr. Harris good luck, Mr. Kondrick thanked Mr. Harris for the help and good direction Mr. Harris has given each of the Planning Commission members. Mr. Oquist stated he has very much appreciated Mr. Harris' expertise. Mr. Saba stated that Mr. Harris will be sorely missed. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MR. SRBA� SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TO ADJOURN THE MEETINC. UPON A VOICE VOTE� RLL VOTING RYE� CHAIRMAN HARRZS DECLARED THE FEBRUARY 24� 1982� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AAlOURNED A2 9:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, u �� Lyn e 5aba Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, i982 NAME E. L. Rice Marijane Tessman Michael Larson A1 Ricks Jim Fischer Norris Knutson Doris Knutson Mrs, E. W. Wetterberg Mrs. Louis Sandusky Jeane Rice Mary Hartfiel John Gilliver Gail Ahrens Thomas Christensen Ed Ahrens Robert Olson Terrance Ross Maria Zurbey William Zurbey Paul A. Scherven Catherine M. Scherven Connie Johnson Lisa Cooper Bev Waks Sheila Butler Robert Aacuira Ardys J. Smith Mary Lietzke Frank Liebi Ju�y Kidder Dennis Johnson ADDRESS 100 Sylvan Lane N.E. 6390 Starlite Blvd. 6390 Starlite Blvd. 161 Sylvan Lane N.E. 6312 Starlite Bvld. 6300 Starlite Blvd. 630Q Starlite Blvd. 175 Sylvan Lane 181 Sylvan Lane 100 Sylvan Lane N.E. 120 Sylvan Lane N.E. 663 - 47th Ave. N.E. 198 Mercury Dr. 190 Satellite Lane 198 Mercury Dr. RAO Manufacturing,Co., 321 Hugo St. N.E. 145 Sylvan Lane N.E. 145 Sylvan Lane N.E. 131 Sylvan Lane N.E. 131 Sylvan Lane N.E. 13326 Gladiola - guest guest of W. G. Doty guest of W. G, Daty guest of W. G, Doty guest of W. G. Doty guest of W. G. Doty guest of W. G. Doty 222 Mercury Dr. N.E. 6360 Starlite Blvd. 6336 Starlite Blvd, 200 Mississippi St. of W.G. Doty ���-7��!� SU��JEC i ��% �� CITY OF FFi1CJLEY, � �� G439 UNIVCqSITY AVE. NE. Yr-� 6 FFII�LEY. MN. [i5432 [G92I �7'i-34Ei0 ADDRESS: � � 3 � � LOT SPLIT RECORDED: PLAP�P;?NG CCMt�iISSI0P1: APPROVED__ DISFlPPROVED DAT CI7Y COUNCIL P,4RK FE[ REQUIRED: STIPUlATIONS: APPROVED� DISAFPROVED__ DATE AMOUNT PAID 12 LS DATE: �/��S' � NO I�C NAi4E F�ec� ���K /¢ ��a-� t FEE /C��p R�CEIPT P�b S�3S PROcERTY �WPy:.R(S)���1`�,C'�K_tt. s�l�o-(�#" iELCPHONE NOS%/-_�.�%�J 1'ELEPHONE t�0 noo�ESS (�s)_��� y ��Y/dr �S �- N E ___ –.��-1��f �ff�l/. _� — PROPERTY LOCATIOfd OPd 57REET _�_ �.� ! s� ' � Y� j T � -r � /v a'/' " � LEGAL DESGRIPTICi! OF P�QPER7Y_ � f.�� E�t+��t E�fineil � d✓e E. _��__ �c1i-�'�D/'/ �Sc�� ��^✓,t��n �� � P%Df' �`�5�/S� — TOTAL AREA OF PROPERTY !�Q � O 9 2 ___ �'RES�NT ZO�ItiG!�S- P,EASON FOR LOi SPLIT�,��o/ NGr.J uJe -- The undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this application are true and correct. DATE:_ ��Z�a _ SIGNt�TURE_�� C - __.'��i.C�`��� NOTICE: A sketch of the propertg and the proposed tot split with any existing struc- � tures shown sheuld accompany this application. (See revarse side for additional instructions) �.:zil.frl ilest�sL'-�'a"`l �5 %/_ . / z-y v � �s-5 - �s�� '� SSG- ;��raa4 � �iv. + 7z..-y,�s s� S/ iY ' _� _`., l 1981 POLICY STATEMENT ON PAFK FEES 13 ON LAND SUBDIVISION L.S. #82-03 Brandt & Anderson Date �—��—�a In determining fair market value of public areas for land subdivision for cash payment, as required by Ordinance 633, the following values will be used: Residential subdivision b1,000.00 per lot Residential lot split E 500.00 per lot Commercial/Industrial subdivision or lot splits $ 0.015 per sq. ft. This fee is to be paid at the time of final plat or lot split approval. The City Council may defer collection to the time a buildi�g permit is requested for individual lots created by such subdivision/lot split. 7he City retains the option to accept an equivalent-amount in cash from the applicant for part or all of the portion required to be dedicated. PARK FEE AGREEMENT The undersigned understands that according to the City Platting Ordinance, the following public park land dedication is required to plat residential, commercial or industrial zoned property. It is further understood that the public park land dedication or cash payment equivalent is at the discretion of the City. It is agreed that a cash payment of $ 50� � will be paid according to the above stated policy for the following su— b�ision/lot split. It is agreed that the following land dedication is provided according to the above stated policy for the following subdivision/lot split: Dedication: Subdivision/lot split: The undersigned further agrees Lo notify all future property owners or assigns of the cash paqment requirement, if it is to be collected at the time of building permit. DATE� � � — �'�- 0084A/1067A �: � � ��� �C : t._ ; s , ' ,� t �:� � ���Z r T`- N ,�,,. � .W_� w1�� ="rr�e °' 7 �., 5 ,; � i � � a � � �I � i � 9� f -�- A-- ' , ,�'T � Xi W� �Q r L iv o �EY ' - —� �wmn..�ur. � I! � . � �,ry .�. � �.�� � ` _r.:.- . 1 I __ L.$. #82-�2 �. A _ �,; � Mark Anderson I k -_ �3��...�'_ r � _ _ t ' - . � "�..... .. �%µ� �= � s �: � � � � �� � - ���, ���� �, �,�: �, ; r F�� ,�- _i� � �r , ' I i � - I f� 3 �_�a �a ��', _`I ;� - � c �S ✓ w �i i E i� _ J i� � h�� °i:�� � i �� �i� ._.�. F. 1N � � � '-i-?,- — �;- k . � r �, , � -. , .- - ��_� . . I�I t i a� ' _.— ��_- , ��� ��,r � _. � _ � o _p l I y 'r. {,Y - I: � I �`� ��� ��- � �, � � ,�T 10'� 91� R � -1 �j ,� ,,�� , ,� , � , �� ��- Lo 4 � � '(��Z � \ � h i �' E L� i � I � �� `C - _ ( y)� � 1 �-- 1! I 1 l r � +. ^%� �� � =�'� � � I� � _ II �i� [ �. , _�� 1 � � - L �__�a � _7 i _� .�+r ' ,—� I T 1— - J � �. L� } �� I J{p �� � Ik1�1. �-J I I - � ` .���J: � J�9 i! d_ ii 1-J ^ K� 1��i. -. r.. � r i �T '� �,�` i 1 � � i �� �' A i I L I �, y � �- P� I f � � �f-:� �jsi� ,�� ��+_ ,q { . , . yh. 1 E F i :l� J - -'� �%C � � �� � . � i ' 0116 �/ F ��..' T1 �� I � " , � ; �', `, ; � �L II � �� / � �B y+, ������� � �i ���i- � % ��b � � p �[ `� a'�l k �; ��` �. i i t� h�E .+�' a��i�TT��—�' J ` � Ti�_— ___¢ --. � �' � - ==� ' t �l, _. 7�: � _, i ` :.�-� ��_ � d/ '� -�—_� /�,' � ��., � / ` b'� A'�.. - / > � ° ij' ¢ / �"C� ���� `� � i /bi.�.. � � �-.]� � '� _ .G-�F� � � � � � � L — l ¢ ,.� � '�` `��� � !"rl ll � 4�_: I'I a�� � �� � � �' � I ��i. . � - � . � I'. � ' ���` � ^` ' i �It ' _ �, � - j �- ' I�I�I �: - - � b I L�L i J `N � , TIl•! r _ _ : N ,- - -' � p .�IJ�I��. _ .. � � , , , �;, _ - ° � , l ���f -_ - - ' _ _ .= . ° s ;� � � - — , , , _, — � i--J�r.-1--"�"' ' _ -- _ � '. ��� �,.: '- i �_ _ --- - _ _: ; i--- , r 9r ��"�_ - STREET MAP-CITY OF �L!� _� f�� _�_ FRIDLEY _ �v�orzgra,�� l.oan , �urv�y for t- L.S. #82-02, Mark l�nderson 15 �o��i� �ine o;'Lo� Sli� S�,:o„d 12�:v,�.e� /�...�;�o Cu6C'��v1S�On �o i.:'� � � � � / I — 111.'��l — 33 d � - -------+ � 0 Z c 0 _s .> � �} V' _S L � � "'G Q �^' W .� � / O � � _ � J C+ 0 d G � d � �OZO,q� � � � � �t �� l � �� L- _ -��� i:- � FfJ a � a. - '` -�. -- 1a3 ��__t2'l� T1• `. r S ✓ .1 _� �'•Fo.�.r:= � C�� '."� . 24. _- � � �1i.35, ��1.�9 . . -� 1 `�2 `�tor.� . �+ ^r,�, � ie� � � �f:i119Qr "'9 ' J C�. � �A� �J ��irl��E. ' c� O �1 IP R�.k5! 32.5 . . �J - --- � GA Sh ' � '..� 24 I I �� _ - m'_ ll! . � �— f "05,.-.�-.,---�--� - � �:.m.�.r� r�.ww4t..�� �- i o.�f�',�n pias`t enC�.0 �•eJ -, r__`_.'..- . .. . , -- i +�i 0 r� � — 111.31 — / � � � /V\1C.G.1CGiC7nt � V � I ' W / � � Q i i i i I � � � � v � � \ 33.0 _ _ ��=.._. � /� l� �� t c' c�zv o� �n�:�4�r, SU3�_CT G43'1 UNIV::RSITY AVE. Nf'-• rR1ULEY. MN. 1�.ri�3F'. [E:72) `.+l�-34EU . 16 LUT SPII'i LS H_, 8� �� RFCORDEJ: RDDRESS: %�O� /2D� /l0 G i%%y�- W_� DATE: PLAiridIMG COh1���:S5I0�J CITY CDU"i�IL: PfiRf: FtE REQUIRED: STIfULkTIONS: APPnQUED DISkPPRQVED DAT APPkOUrD 'JISAPPRO'aE� DAT A�dOUIyT PJkME D�nn� J Nd-1er _ _ .___ �i0 NO FAIU FEE�1C0.00 _� RECE I P7 idC � yo ?ROPERTI' Ol,'I�iFISj---_—z— ---- .� TELEf`HOitE P!0 57L�83� _ TELEPHU�1� ;��_%5%—Z7Qo � �' S9y� �i f � / ADD��SS�ES)_�._64�_°..e_s-t River P.d.,_._------------------------- PitOP�RTY tOCA�f IOh! O�v STREET 5bi cor.zr of 64- 'rt_�: = Ea.st Ri;rer :t�.ir_�ia'* ,^_ L[GAL DESCRIFTIOiv OF PFOPERTY�_. Lct 1 E1ock S Veits �nu! d3n__`T 2. �Lot �6 AZ:ciitors Sku �23 Flat jl_15!: Parcel 3580 __ �-- �iOTAL AREA QF PRGPERTY 39tG,�3 g_f �� _��°R�SENT ZOtdI�G F�es._ _ s o t __ _ RENSOi! FOR LOT SPLIT �-�di�raz].lv ow�e3 ha-nes. :S2u.t,0 -'�.,'O !�el�� bi�.,1d The undersigned hereby oeclares tiiat all the facts and representations stated in this application are true and cerreci. DA7E NOTIC[ 2-25-d2 SIGNA7URE �,��,,� �_.__ �. — ��--,����e��= A s'r..etch of the proreri:y and the prrop�sed lot sptit tvith any existing str:�c- tur�s sho�vn sl�ouid acconpany this applicatio^. (See revei�.e siue fcr additio;;a1 instructions) 0 1981 POLICY STFTEMENT ON PARK FEES �� ON LAND SUBDIVISION L.S. #82-03 � In determining fair marketi value of public areas for land subdivision for cash payment, as required by Ordinance 633, the following values will be used: Residential subdivision �1,000.00 per lot Residential lot split b 500.00 per lot Commercial/Industrial subdivision or lot splits b 0.015 per sq. ft. This fee is to be paid at the time of final plat or lot split approval. The City Council may defer collection to the time a building per•mit is requested for individual lots created by such subdivision/lot split. The City retains the option to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant for part or all of the portion required to be dedicated. PARK FEE A6REEMENT The undersigned understands that according to the City Platting Ordinance, the following public park land dedicatior� is r•equired to plat residential, commercial or industrial zored property. It is further understood that the public park land dedication or cash payment equivalent is at the discretion of the Cit�y �r ta a� It is agreed that a cash payment of $ � will be paid according to the above stated policy for the following subdivision/lot split. It is agreed that the following land dedication is proviJed according to the above stated policy for the following subdivision/lot split: Dedication: Subdivision/lot split: The undersianed further agrees to notify all future property o�vners or assigns of the cash payment requirement, if it is to be collected at the time ef building permit. DAT OOfi4 A/ 1067A .�_.. N LoG41';on rnw Mnos a z : � i � � o�p� ../ T < �+� 18 L.S. #82-03 Donna Mil er /\ YIOIW L1sE IMM �y ri Jt9�1JIJLJLI�"Jf_�IL�_'1.II����l "=� ���!��ll�� �lr `�� ���,�. ° �,��niiY;,_ � �� ��,,� � C� _ . : ., _�� � � �]�fM 1 ' 'r-- I� I � 1 � 1 uaiu ce �itw_Cn� oo. wcuaut a[ i • . �'� � a a € `� /�� �"��kCti �Jl� .....�. ....�'J ['� —q as I 4���'��I@�4 �� cauria � � Mciex*s STREET MA.P-CITY OF FRIDLEY 0 �33� 6,866 �u . 8 : �ii� � �rf� R'C� SUHVEYING 6 ENGINEEFING CO � �— Z 62009 JOB NUMBER 15/30/24 SEC/TWP/RN Donna Mil]er GLIENT Lot 1, Block 1, VEIT'S 2ND ADD. LEGAL and DESCRIPTION Lot 26, AUD. SUH. NO. 23, REV. 5_e reverse side hereof for proposed legals for proposed tracts Feb. 22, 1982 DP.TESURVEVED Feb. 22, 1982 DATE DRAFTED 50 �, SCALEIN FEET PERINCH PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: NoNE Z 1r P I 3 ry � � 3 i A s f FIRST FLOOR 70P OF FOUNDATION � GARAGEFLOOR LOWEST FLOOR SANITARY SEWER eENCHMARK ELEVATION BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION ` d�,F 6�i ��\'I'3'1.9�� y0c� 1 , ` 1 19 s���,�,.w..,o,so�,� MINNEiONtlI MiNNESOiA 5531] SIANDARDSYMBOLS L.S. #f82-03 Donna Mill "p' Denoles V2'ID pipe wit� plaslic plug bearing Stale Registralion No. 9235, set. '��' Denoles iron monumenl found. "+" Denotes cross chiseled in concrete suAace. "q82x5" Denotes existing spot elevation measured at t�e point marketl by "z", in this case, 982.5 feet above mean sea ievel. '•g82x5" Denotes Droposetl spot elevation atthe point marke� by "i �. °•-->" �enotes proposetl direclion ot sbrm water mnOH. CERTIFICATION 1 hereby certity that this plan, survey, report or speciEication was ptepared by me an`d Mat l am a duly Registered Land Surveyor an0 Pmfes- ` sional Engirreer under t�e Laws of the State of /1 �1 , Minnesota. - �i�...n., 9/ � 1 , l� 1 �c...- � 1 �� 1 1 � .. � � :� j� ` 1 0 `VN �11.r U J? O1 Y (`�. �\1 0 � N �� 1 v 1� / � / ^, 1 ' \ ~ � �� N � A m � w i3i.�?1' 1 ' � �o� 3 � i Q � �1 rt � N ' o p'd � � c � ��� � � � � �� �D `' C py � G �',r � r; � ,� � � � ��� p O �p S � �" ` � � .o G o n Z�,= N 1"�� i o� - - i � �'�� i9 � � � ) v �` �; 1S"10 � � C) �Z �'�' � � 1 � = � . 9 - � � �� � O o� '� � � Y �%� .'�� � �� 4A ��, cC '°� f 1 fR` ad U �,; 6- � � .� 11� 1]'. � �� 1 / iP , `�. ` 11 � , J G `, �•� � ` 1 �/ � 1 J` � � G O / ob� �� KoP° ,5.,ot � � ,�� �� EPS� H. Parker, Minn. Feg. No. 9235 L.S. #82-03 Donna Miller TR}1CT 1 ; 3�7 That part o£ Lot 1, Hlock 1, VEIT'S 2ND ADDITION and of Lot 26, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 23, REVISED, Anoka County, Minnesota which lies southwesterly of the following described lir.e: Commencing at the most northerly corner of said Lot 1, thence on an assumed bearinq o£ S74°50'W along the northwest line of said Lot 1 a distance o£ 190.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence S75°1D'E a distance of 137.79 feet to the southeast line oE said Lot 26 and there terminating. Contains 17,172 square feet. TRACT 2: That part of Lot l, Block 1, VEIT'S 2ND ADDITION and of Lot 26, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 23, REVISED, Anoka County, Minnesota described as commencing at the most northerly corner o£ said Lot 1, thence on an assumed bearing of 579°50`W along the northwest line of said Lot 1 a dist- ance of 140.00 £eet to the point of beginning of the trzct to be described; thence 515°10'E a distance of 137.79 feet to the southeast line of said Lot 26; thence N74°50'E along said southeast line a distance of 75.00 £eet; thence N15°10'SP a distance of 137.79 feet to the northwest line oi said Lot 1; thence S74°50'W along said northwest line a distance o£ 75.OD feet to the point of beginning. Contains 10,334 square feet. TRACT 3: That part of Lot 1, Block 1, VEIT REVISED, Anoka County, Minnesota Conunencing at the most northerly along the northwest line of said the line to be described; thence said Lot 26 and there terminating NOTE: 'S 2ND ADDITION and of Lot 26, AU�IT�R'S SUBUIVISZON NO. 23, which lies northeasterly of the £ollowing described line: corner of said Lot 1; thence on an assumed bearing of 574°50'V: Lot 1 a distance of 65.0� £eet to the point of beginr.ing of � 515°10'E a distance of 137.79 feet to the southeast iine of Contains 11,927 square feet. In order to facilitate building on these tracts, it wou7d seerr� appropriate to vacate the 6 foot drainage and utility easement created by VEIT'S 2ND ADDITION and to create a new easement as follows: An easement for drainage and utility purposes over the westerly and southerly 6 feet oi Lot 26, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISON NO. 26. REVISED, Anoka County, Minnesota. also, the City may wish to consider acquiring the northeast 26.58 feet of Lot 26, AL'DITOR'S SUBDIVISON NO. 23, REVISED since it appears that for the last few years it has been using this nroperty for EAST RIV�R ROAD. Contains 2197 square feet. also, a variance £or frontage below the 75 £oot minnimum would have to be considered on Tract 1. ,� � r ' l � -� � z 0 + � TI N i � m 3 r 3 � r � �.. � „ p ��p� 51���1�9�� 7� . ` o' , � � 1 � � � � " t o � � ��\ -� . � N �`` � � Q Q q �� '°` � �' , � y t� �n �- � ° '� � � '•'- i 1 S'_ _ �7 (J 1 '; Y% / 6' �,1 �' � ; ,1 - ,x � `� `�` �' � y � i3-�.19 E ,� � � •�n 5�`' �� 1 � % O �1 , "-_'.� � s�- 0 O L' '� � � �S` �� i��� � - `i C x'S 1 r G , - ' .s� ;� � �� r 1 1 � T`% o — � O � � � �V' � � � ��� � s Q ��,'i �li �. � � s , �,1 � � r �'� � , 1 9�/ � .�n?�� _ � zi , L.S. N82-03 Donna Miller 1 ` , ,�� L=i U .� �' �,, � � � � �;' y s - 'r ` 1 � � ) � a .` G � � � 9 � ` ° �`� O `- - O � . � �9 � 1` � , � , ` Y -�� �� _ { 1 %� `q�i��7�,� 1 � � � �`v y tl �o- j 1 R' � p° 18 �2 :o � -' c 1, ��- 6�'� , _ . �- 1-' 1;�� �' � �.� 1 �9 � �W � �Or � � ���� � p0 5�`�° 1� �\� � . % �Pc,'C \ �, / {: a� _: _,. _ _ � . , _ � , . � � .e 1 � ti � � +.... � ... � � ��'� Kdr .- Obmrws.�n �w Sw�� /.r .s � � r e '� • 'd��� �, /i ufTi RsZOPSIf.� 1 f •• ' _ . ' ,� � � • s.r♦ � !� 1� �O � y�'�� � �'�� a '� .. `4t _✓/ �/ ``js,�i�� f, ��:_ f `� � I i"' -�,b � � ,� � lJ�� ��. .. �,. __ � o P.. � ri ��L���. .MY���let� �j JY . `f\ _ / ` ,-:�--T � ?'--71� C.S.A.�. � ' l x' / i s*•u.�"r' 'F R_ `� ' ' '�,?' 7 ` � � "E' G7c � -p� � �' i �• �¢r .p� :i� �r� � �� v [ � � �.r ' 6 �'�-� '{ � - �` wi rl (�,B \ � IF+�'•l " �'� y�D` .1 (i' � �. - :a ';' � �Oti�i .�? � ; :t ,,YSb; < •r � ✓r' p�P�� � , ;..,,,__ .. � 4� ,A � .*. �' J�f ,SS�P�+ 3'e ;� � .p - ' � � .+ . � Y r �_, oT � . c z�,��55 !^ »I?� . ti , ��Z � � • p �yit .� �s rc,d eS^ �3 ) 'R"�� h ♦ � ... • � �� �w ' I �N �,q .,f'aq: ;� po� � ,=y�, - t� " rR,��, . f" DD, � �, � ,. , Dn• .,0�° �"r�.,tiy_�� � r✓ � ss�+..ti w •' S 3 ua '�D � j'i�y1� 1 tf��I ,, f.. � � CZ�ai __ l459 � �itP -�',°'� . $ y� 3 ��- , , �6 w,,�t� ,�„�� � �. ' ,,.F , , � 6. r . ,1/i�y�l' ii � .:�.. - � � c / . 1„ � ,Z�? '/��_ ��' h� �+ �` � K ` : �" .aik ���y+' 3rN.'�l",dy�.a�Y�T F.xrc: ; �, .•`bQ �d v+ � % y �5 � .`��,n. , c 64 t�'�,, '� k.s,f ;���... ! ��v4'�:,0 N � !' i ,� ;� ,sF Q�/ :• ' p " /.`� . f'. • 4! ��v P � \': il�. 4 u. �i � ` .'� + j�' � �' ? ,; ,� t . ` : �� + A� � L44� V�r 3 ` '��:, •: - ��Dk� '�� ip _ �. � {� � . ` �i. � I �'y� '����.'��j� �� ��� , -t�c,�����tSQ ';�;,�°� Ni4 � i _- � , { ! � � _,� rtr-i` .�. . ,� V5 lb l �'��� ' `�;' . +��y `• ; ~�E "' 28 ���, ' .� .., �.f� ; . �r�.G�QaB ' � i � , � �yk .. y.. A-r ; � ,--- ; : : ..� -� �;�;, � , -•. `�. 3� � � ,•.c� _ a � 4 TH e Q�a �� ..� jfb�'% f�' �.r�ss � p 1; no�Eoi_°�`-"-' �.> >�' . i""�°L . ��:, � ,� , ��/ � sr. ,,��a � . 306��°' ,,, �- � '�3 n ♦ ,�.( 1Q.- � hwi�D� ''��� f•.I 1v�� .�' ..t� Y 2 s /� iY N��1 �ti a�r����4 �'V!;�1��. �, � - �, ", �is'J'a 2 �,r� � �r�A. _ ; j. '' �.� �,6�ei , � ,i..�' a � 3s�1131��a} l�C`'w,''°s'..s • �; � . � ' �, Q� 2(IJ(p��6 r�'saj'�< � g� q� 6 �� (R'� !�� 1st4, a}•� ��, a I � .6��4,� �� 18;� tt� 1„ �,aY — ,;;, _� �K:� 9 � ,.b3s� c. ° �'y A :. •'' 1 � , �,�o ,�. r';� i' , _ _--+"`' , � a � ; a �e ° � d�.�...a� - f� ._.. d„or,a- � -$'5.1�`� o �d° p,` 1�8� i4d ��� s r s�,�, �jf� �� ►y �'E3 i� �' � b �''�^ T i � ( � � � ,� f '� 1 i � �e �. ' � 1 ,� �3 t''t .6331 � 1�4 g� �['�y � � � Y,1 �.,' ., UJ �as�4o �� � �;� w �]- i ��% 'r- � i :: !NS`,; ��J �1-3�+"1•r"r ; '� ���r0 �''� ^ � d' ' - � R 1�7y � wt i�' Q.' � .� ' 4 � J �31 � � �• / M 'r a 159 �7 /s` � /6 � I� ti !g� ` ; il,�a .. '• �+t :,`� 7-(F' �4 f J3 j !s�! ' ��l �`�t : � 1351 i� i i�r» 1 ': , . �`, �,`t : L3f�%. � I _� — . s � �� o ! I +,'S��f // �' _, ,`. . fy �-- S� -YfAY %'.Y , —�;�� � D �� � •. % �, ,,,�, » , r � ° ! r i�4 1� ro �'� ,� � �� ~`"'-'f p . � ;��ra�� lq¢ lBi. 170- �8 � � ;��. �'��. 1 Y e e r c• ��` ,�,������ 1�::�3R sb OYPH va / E' {+a• �., ,Sj i. de ' ♦f � a.lf�9T N v/ •l , N � � � �.M=' � � � ' ,,.; ( T �;�. �, l �,�� ' �z?/ �� ' � ; 7G "� ; _' 4 T 47�90 = � • �'�baw- d q5 � p� <'� t . � : , 1 ! , .. ., / p�y�j//j s. � n � r �t Z/ j �/ ( ±? .� � : ',.r .i . ��]f .+. f I � `1 ; -��ri {1�k t � % ° a �.,� � � �f JH� . : 1 F+' e 1 •- �`,�� :�� 2.nm°�i � r�i.�sa-�� �ii'-.'.�Z'.�`f •- L�/ .' .. F.`S 1�•.:cf' + : '� �� �j Iz7 �'-r t' � r '�7 Lf L ZrI✓� �4 a.+Ir � 'a l..� - �i.' "tii �i'�1�40 t -}M�. a`3 M � Z �� �� ��1/!,!I f � * �Y 3G�31J; i i.�`4 ��: � � 2 �t a �- � .i'ri2LG• I bZ?,S, � * ii+Y t � ♦�` `w.r kGOn��� �ry,��� �, .,�, ��� 62zo '�� :, � �, . ��'CL � 1���^ `,.VJ�r �!�r .Y '<'z jr�rl. fJ � __y...�1_.� ) �+'" .} `, t '�711• �! �� � j� 6Z �lZ Na � —�, p,R . � L 1! �l �. d� ,,;k, ., _ _ a:,�nN " � ^ - _ � e�.�c...._ CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 1982 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Commers cailed the February 17, 1982, Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Commers, Russel Houck, Carolyn Svendsen, Elmars Prieditis, Duane Prairie Members Absent: None Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Dennis Schneider, City Councilman Norma C.Swanson, 361 Rice Creek Terrace Mike Polich, 825 - 3rd St. N.E., Osseo Richard Mochinski, 8271 Madison St. N.E., Spring Lake Park Jim Sackerson, 845 W. 80th St., Bloomington Jim Benson, Benson & Malkerson, Inc., Mpls. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 14, 1982 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AU7HORITY MINUTES: MOTZON BY MR. PRRIRZE� SECONDED BY MR. HOUCK� TO APPROVE TXE JANURRY I4� 1982� HOUSING & REDEVEIAPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOSING AYE� CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 21, 1982, SPECIAL HOUSING & REDEVEIOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. PRIEDITIS� SECONDED BY MR, HOUCK� TO APPROVE THE JRNUARY 21� 1982� SPECIAL HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING RYE� CHRIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 1, 1982, SPECIAL HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTNORITY MINUTES: MOTZON BY MR. PRAIRIE� SECONDED BY MS. SVENASEN� TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 1� I982� SPECIAL HOUSING & REDEVETAPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 17, 1982 - PAGE 2 I. CENTER CITY PROJECT A. Sho in Center - Phase III emo o. $'£-� from x� ecuti ve Di rector) Mr. Commers declared Memo No. 82-06 received into the record. He stated this memo indicates the HRA has requested that any parties interested in applying for the development of the Center City Project appear at the HRA's March 11, 1982, meeting. He stated it appears from the "Development Notification List" that there are developers who are interested, He asked Mr. Boardman to briefly explain what it looks like for people who may be presenting proposals at the March meeting. Mr. Boardman stated he has personally met with eight developers. Out of the eight, he expects proposals from Lynn G. Donohue of Watson Centers, Inc., Holman Development Co., and Orrin A. Ericson af J.R.S. Development, Inc. He also expects Jim Vasser & Associates, as part of the limited partnership,to put together another general partner on the project and make a presentation to the HRA. Mr. Commers stated that at the time the HRA withdrew the development right from Jerry Remmen, they had indicated to Mr. Vasser that they would at least suggest to other developers the possibility of a relationship between a developer and the limited partners. Has that been discussed with these developers? Mr, Boardman stated it has been discussed with each of the developers. Whether they go in that direction, he did not know. He knew Jim Vasser and the development partnership are presently looking at their own developer. Mr. Commers asked what is expected of the HRA at the March meeting. Mr. Boardman stated the developers will be giving letters of interest and will make presentations based on their companies and what they feel they can do for the City. He stated he would like the HRA to select a developer based on the presentation and give that company 30 days in which to do a site design. If the site design is adequate and is what the HRA wants, then the HRA would give them a six-month right of development. Mr. Prairie asked whether the deposit made to Jerry Remmen by one of the potential tenants in the retail center had been returned. Mr. Boardman stated this deposit has not been returned, and he has put pressure on Mr. Vasser to return that money. Mr. Prairie stated the HRA should make sure this type of thing never happens again. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING FEBRUARY 17 1982 - FAuE 3 Mr. Boardman stated that what they need to do is in the right of development, they will have to spell out that if there is any money put down for deposits, that money has to be put in an escrow account. Mr, Commers stated the Redevelopment Specs look.very good, and Staff should be commended for a fine jo6. B. Christiansen Buildin - Demolition emo o. 2- from xecutive irector) Mr. Commers stated the HRA has a separate document entitled, "Specifi- cations for Demolition of 5tructure at 6471 University Ave. N.E.", prepared by John Flora. He stated the opening of bids was Feb, 16, and the bids will be returned to the HRA at their March 11 meeting. He stated the document, as it stands, requires complete removal and grading by the end of April 1982. Mr. Commers declared Memo No. 82-07 received into the record. He declared the Demolition Specifications also received as part of the record, C. A raisal Re ort - Northwestern Bell Tele hone Bui Memo No. 82-10 from Executive Director Mr. Commers stated the HRA had a copy of the appraisal report from Newcombe & Hanson and an appraisal report from Leon Madsen, City Assessor. He stated there is approximately a$22,000 difference between the two appraisals, which is a little bit less than 10% of the overall cost of the property. Mr. Boardman stated he has had several discussions with Mark Haggerty who is representing Mr. Wyeth, owner of the property. Mr. Haggerty has recommended that Mr. Wyeth accept the City's appraisal, but Mr. WyeTh and his partners feel the building is far more valuable than - a City's appraisal. Mr. Wyeth is looking at around $275-280,000 and not willing to accept the City's appraisal of $250,000. Since t!_ HRA is not in any hurry to acquire this property, it was his recommendation to not go ahead with acquisition at this time. He stated it was up to the HRA whether they wanted to negotiate a value higher than $250,000. Mr. Commers asked what period of time the HRA had in order to make a decision. When is Northwestern Bell's lease up and when will they be negotiating a new lease? Mr. Boardman stated their present lease terminated in January, and he believed they were on a month-to-month type of lease arrangement. Mr. Prieditis stated he did not feel the HRA should go any higher than $250,000. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 1982 - PAGE 4 Mr. Houck agreed with Mr. Prieditis. The HRA members agreed to authorize Mr. Boardman to contact Mr. Haggerty and Mr, Wyeth and see if there was any room for negotiation. Mr. Coir,mers declared Memo No. 82-10 received into the record. He also declared the appraisal report from Leon Madsen and the appraisal from Newcombe & Nanson dated Jan: 15, 1982, received into the record, II. MOORE LAKE PROJECT p. Phase I- U date on N bo Project emo o. 82- from Executive Director} Mr. Boardman stated the project is moving along satisfactorily. Ms. Nybo did receive the necessary commitments for rental space from her finance company, a�d she indicated she would have all the necessary commitments by the HRA's March 11 meeting. Mr. Commers declared Memo No. 82-11 received into the record, B. Phase III emo No. 82-08 from Executive Director) Mr. Commers stated this memo is regarding City Council approval for CDBG funds for land acquisition in the Moore Lake Project area for a potential elderly project by St. Phillips Lutheran Church. Mr. Boardman stated this was for the HRA's information. No action was required at this time. C. Phase V-VI Memo No. 82-12 from Executive Director) Mr. Boardman stated that Mr. Dick Mochinski is proposing to develop a townhouse/quad project to be located in Phase V-VI of the Moore Lake District. This would be an all ownership project. The quad homes would run approx. $64-68,000, and the townhouses would run approx. $78-80,000. Mr. Mochinski is proposing they work on Phase I, II, III, and IU in a phase development starting with the property he presently owns and the City owns. Mr. Mochinski stated they were originally working with Mr. Boardman on a commercial project on the property he owns, and then it was discovered that the area was going to 6e set up for a future residential district. After meeting with a coupTe of finance companies that expressed some interest in this project, he came up with this preliminary proposal, based on the realty study he had done on what the market would be for that type of housing. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 17, 1982 - PA6E 5 Mr. Mochinski stated one of the problems associated with this site is the bad soil. He is looking at the possibility of the HRA participating in some method of soil correction to make these buildings feasible. After borings were done on his site, he was looking at a cost of approx. $80-100,000 to prepare the soil. Assuming the ground is similar on the City's site, it could be another $80-100,00D. For a developer to absorb that kind of cost would probably make the cost of those units prohibitive. Mr. Mochinski stated this is still in the preliminary stage; however, based on the cost of land per unit, he is looking at a minimum of 96 units for the whole area. Mr. Commers asked what action the HRA should take. Mr. Boardman stated he would like an indication from the HRA as to whether it was worth Mr. Mochinski's while to move ahead and do further design work and for the City to go ahead with further analysis. Is the HRA willing at some point in time to make acquisitions as necessary to continue this project? Mr. Comners asked how many structures would need to be acquired in the whole project. Mr. Boardman stated they would need to acquire nine residential, one commercial, and one substandard residential, He stated the project appeared to be feasible. He felt it was a worthwhile project and felt they should continue to analyze it. Mr. Prieditis stated he did not like the placement of the units as shown on the site plan. He felt they were detrimental as far as the visual impact, and there has to be a better way of placing the units. Mr. Boardman stated one of the City's concerns is the number of access points onto the major road systems, and they would like to work with Mr. Mochinski on a more workable design on road and road patterns. Mr. Commers stated it was the concensus of the HRA that Staff go forward in trying to develop additional information, to work with Mr. Mochinski on the general development of this project, and report back to the HRA. Mr. Commers thanked Mr. Mochinski for coming to the meeting. III. NORTH AREA PROJECT A. Phase I 1. Memo No. 82-09 from Executive Director (Action on Housing Bond Mr. Commers stated that on Feb. 1, the City Council requested the HRA to review the program submitted by the developer to analyze the HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETIN6, FEBRUARY 17, 1982 - PAGE 6 use of tax increment funds for, not only land improvements, but for use as rent subsidy. Mr. Commers stated the HRA had also received in the agenda packet a memo dated Oct. 30, 1981, from Guy Peterson of the Metropolitan Council regarding the "Tax Exempt Mortgage Revenue Bonds - Back- ground Summary and Current Status", a letter dated Jan. 25, 1982, from Charles Weaver, Chairman of the Metropolitan Council, indicating this project is consistent with the area-wide policies and goals, and a memo dated Jan. 11, 1982, from Guy Peterson of the Metropolitan Council explaining the bond program. Mr. Boardman stated he has talked to Dave Harris and Diane Eliason, one of the bond people. They have been doing runs on dollars to try to make the dollars work. At this time, they are not ready to make a formal presentation to the HRA and have requested that the HRA table this item. Mr. Boardman stated he could explain a little about the bond program and the project Mr. Harris is proposing. He stated the project is a 360-unit apartment complex (two buildings) located north of 83rd Ave. They are looking at quite a bit of assistance from the HRA. They are looking at assistance from the HRA of around $900,000 for soil correction and land acquisition. On top of that, they would be looking for some form of rent subsidy. He stated that what has been discussed to date is that any rent subsidy the HRA would get involved in would be rent subsidy that would have a dollar figure and that they could calculate out over a period of time. Mr. Boardman stated that under the Ullman Bill, if the City gets involved with the Housing Bond Program, there is a requirement that 20% of those units have to be occupied by persons of low and moderate income. Therein lies the problem a lot of developers have. The housing mortgage bonds are tax exempt bonds, but they are tax exempt bonds only if 20% of those units are occupied 6y low and moderate income persons. If at any time during that 20-year period, those units have to remain open for low and moderate income persons and there are not low and moderate income persons in those units, the bond holders lose their tax exempt status all the way back to the beginning of the bond. Mr. Boardman stated it is very hard to sell housing mortgage bonds without some kind of guarantee there is going to be occupancy. When a developer develops new housing units, it is very expensive and the rates on those units are way above what normal market rate is for low and moderate income persons. There either has to be a skewing of the rentals to bring 72 of the units down to where they can be rented to low and moderate or there has to be some guarantee of subsidy. So,that is the proposal that has come before the City Council with housing mortgage bonds and has now been sent to the HRA for analyzing as far as tax increment financing. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARV 17, 1982 - PAGE 7 Mr. Commers stated that the City Council has also asked the philosophical question of whether or not tax increment tunds should be used for rent subsidies. Also, he remembered from the discussion that the bonding people had only run their projections for a period of ten ye.ars and had not shown what would happen for the balance of the bond term. He stated he would hope the bond people would do that. He felt these two issues were something the HRA members should understand and give thought to before the next meeting. Mr. Commers stated he also felt they should get something in writing from their legal counsel with regard to what the HRA can do on rent subsidies, i.e., how will it work, how far can they go? Mr, Schneider stated that Mr. Commers pretty well covered the major areas. First of all, there was the philosophical question of whether the City should get involved in rent subsidies. Assuming the answer is,yes, it is a valid need and a valid use for tax increment, then the next question is: Can it work in this particular case? How does the City control or know what the rental structure will be some years from now and ensure there is enough increment generated so it covers the rental subsidy? Mr. Schneider stated another issue raised was that if all the increment is used to cover the land acquisition, soil correction, and rent subsidy, is this then beneficial for the overall district? Is there anything left to help with soil correction in the rest of the district? Mr. Boardman stated he would recommend that the HRA table this item until he can get more information from Mr. Dave Harris. MOTION BY MR. HOUCK� SECONDED BY MR. PRIEDITIS� TO TABLE ANY ACTION ON THE HOUSING BOND PROGRAM FOR R 360-UNIT COMPLEX UNTIL MORE INFORMATION IS RECEIVED. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHRIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 2. Memo No. 82-13 from Executive Director (Pro osal for Industria Develooment bv ELO Enaineerina - North Area TIF Mr. Commers stated this proposal is for a 70,000 sq. ft. manufac- turing plant located at the corner of 81st and Main St. N.E. ELO is looking for some soil and drainage assistance on that site. ELO is already located in Fridley on Rancher's Road. Mr. Boardman stated that in the North Oistrict, they have a little bit different situation than in the other districts, primarily because with industrial/commercial development, they have what is HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 17, 1982 - PAGE 8 called "fiscal disparities". 50, with any indust'rial/commercial development, they lose 40% of any tax right off the top because that goes to the State as revenue sharing. Mr. Boardman stated he has done some runs on a 70,000 sq, ft. building, They have an assessed market value of $342,000 with an assessed value of $577,000. This breaks down to a tax increment financing amount of around $52,600. After fiscal disparities, they have a tax every year of $31,571. The bonding authority is $174,302. Initial indications they have gotten on soil correction work is going to be approx. $300,000. If $300,000 is strictly for soil correction, he felt there will have to be some compromises on the development of this property. Mr. Jim Benson stated ELO _�-lanufacturing moved to Fridley seven years ago and built a 12-14,000 sq. ft. building on Rancher's Road. About four years ago, they expanded to 27,000 ft. of industrial building. He stated this is one of the best landscaped and well-kept buildings in Fridley. He stated there is now no more room for expansion and ELO wants to build a 70,000 sq. ft. building. Mr. Benson stated he was asked to help ELO locate a site in Fridley. He stated they have approached several sites and came up against soil prob7ems and the unavailability of a good 7-acre site. This site on 81st and Main St. was finally located, The soil tests were done very quickly in order to be at the HRA meeting. Of the $300,000 soil correction cost, there is a breakdown which shows that some of these costs do not relate to the actua7 soil correction, so a more realistic figure would be around $225,000. Mr. Benson stated he felt this is the type of company the City should help. ELO Ma�ufacturing employs 35 people and they are pro- jecting employing 85 people in the new facility. If ELO Manufacturing can get some assistance from the City of Fridley, even if it isn't the total amount, he felt they might be persuaded to stay in Fridley and pay the difference in correction costs. He stated he would like to ask the HRA to consider this proposal and offer to work with ELO Engineering to see if the City can offer some type of assistance. He stated the owners, Gene and Louise Owczarzak, could not be at the meeting as they are on vacation. Mr. Boardman stated it was his recommendation that Staff work with ELO ��anufacturing to try to come up with an a9reeable dollar fiaure and then move ahead with the project. He did tee! iiiey want to maintain a certain portion of dollar amounts in all bonding areas for drainage improvements. Sirice this was actually the first proposal the City has had in this area, they may want to retain 11¢/sq. ft. and utilize HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 17 1982 - PAGE 9 the remainder for soil correction, He stated that if he had the concensus of the HRA to move ahead, he will get some actual cost figures and go to the bonding counsels and get some runs. He wi71 bring this information back to the HRA. Mr. Corteners stated it was the concensus of the HRA that Staff go forward in working with ELO Engineering. They would like Mr. Boardman to report back at the next meeting on specific figures and better information with respect to the bonding situation. Mr. Gommers thanked Mr. Benson and Mr. Sackerson for coming to the meeting. IV. LARGE FAMILY PROJECT A. Memo ion an Mr. Boardman stated that Ms. Cayan is requesting an extension of 90 days for Mr. & Mrs. Mosad Aly as they need more time to complete the necessary paperwork for financing. MOTION BY MR, HOUCX� SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN� TO GRANT A 90-DAY EXTENSION TO MR, & MRS. MOSAD ALY IN ORDER TQ COMPLETE THB NEC6SSARY PAPERWORK FOR FINANCING. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. B. Letter from Thomas Feene�, Area Manager, HUD Mr, Commers stated this letter is regarding close-out procedures and that the City is to inform HUD when they are in the process of closing out the program. Mr. Boardman stated they are in the process of closing out this program. V, FINANCE A. Check Register MOTION BY MR. PRRIRIE� SECONDED BY MR. HOUCK� TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER DATED 2/I6/82, NOTING THE VOIDED CHECK TO MINNEGASCO IN THE AMDUNT OF $720.84 AND CONTINGENT UPON THE VERIFICRTION OF THE $100.98 INSURANCE PAYMENT TO RICE CREEK RGENCY. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLRRED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 17, 1982 - PAGE 10 VI. OTNER BUSINESS: A. Report from Minnesota National Association of Housina & Redevel Mr. Boardman stated that in the "1982 Summary of Minnesota Legislative Proposals Related to Housing & Community Development", the HRA should be concerned with the proposals as submitted in the NAHRO memorandum dated January 18, 1982, from Nancy Reeves, Chair of the Minnesota NAHRO Legislative Cortmittee Mr. Boardman stated he would like to write a letter to NAHRO expressing the HRA's support of these bills. He stated he is a member of NAHRO and was on their Legislative Cortmittee. It was the concensus of the HRA that Mr. Boardman be given the authority to write a letter for the HRA supporting the four proposals. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY 1NR. SVENDSEN, SECONDED BY MR. PRAZRIE� TO ADJOURN TXE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED SHE FEBRUARY 17� 1982� NOUSING & REDEVEIAPMENS RUTHORITY MEETING RDJOURNED AT 9:25 P.M. Respectfully sub itted, �� yn a a Recording Secretary GITY Of FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 10, 1982 CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Oquist called the March 10, 1982, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL: Mem6ers Present Members Absent Mr, Oquist, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Svanda, Mr. Kondrick, Ms, van Dan, Mr. Saba (arr. 8:45 p.m.) Mr. Harris Others Preseot: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Scott Wheeler, Planning Intern Ron Miller, 5705 Jackson St. N.E. Mark Anderson, 556 - 37th Ave. N.E. Allen Stahlberg, 305 - 89th Ave. N.E., Blaine Donna J. Miller, 6430 East River Road Peter D. Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Dr. N.E. APPROVAL OF fEBRUARY 24, 1982, PLAfVNIN6 COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. KONDRZCK, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TO APPROVE THE FEBRUAI2Y 24, 1982, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOZCE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. TABLED: REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT th2 N01'th ti I feet ot LOt f�H, NUd1 t01^' S SUbdl V1 Street N,E.} to make a buildable lot, the same BY MARK AN sio'�n V�o: 2� being 6530 ON: Split off 3 Mississippi ley Street N,E. MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY MR, SVANDA� TO REMOVE L.S. k82-02 BY MARK RNDERSON FROM THE TABLE. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VTCE-CHAIRPERSON OQUZST DECLARED THE M02ION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, Mr. Boardman stated this item was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting because Mr. Anderson was not at the meeting. He is at the meeting tonight, He stated it is Staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission approve the lot split with the condition that a 10 ft, bikeway/walkway easement be retained along Mississippi St. He stated this easement has been discussed with Mr. Anderson. He stated Mr. Anderson has applied for variances and those variances wi71 be going through the Appeals Commission. Staff will tie both the variances and the lot split together before going to City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 10 1982 PAGE 2 Mr. Ron Miller, 5705 Jackson St. N.E., stated he and Mr. Anderson will be purchasing the new lot. He asked Mr. Boardman to describe the bikeway/walkway easement. Mr. Boardman stated that right now there is a sidewalk along Mississippi St., and the City needs to room to expand the sidewalk for a bikeway on the north side of Mississippi. At one time, a bikelane was striped on Mississippi, but when the County changed Mississippi to a four-lane road, they eliminated the bikeway. That is why the City is requesting a 10 ft, �ikeway/walkaay easement on all new requests. MOTION BY MR. XONDRICK� SECONDED BY MS. VAN DAN, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF IAT SPLTT REQUEST� L.S. #82-02, BY MRRK ANDERSON� TD SPLIT OFF THE NORTN 81 FEET OF LOT 8H, AUDITOR'5 SUBDIVISION NO. 21 (953 MIS5ISSIPPI STREET N.E.) TO MAKE A NEW BUILDABLE LOT� THE SAME BEING 6530 OAKLEY STREET N.E.� WITH THE FOLLOWING TWO SSIPULATIONS: I. THE LOT SPLIT BE CONDITIONED UPON THE APPLICRTION FOR REAR YARD VRRZRNCES. 2.. THE CITY RETAIN A 20 FT. BIKEWAYJWALXWAY EASEMENT ON MISSISSSPPI ST. UPON A VOZCE VOTE� RLL VOTING AYE� VICE-CNAIRPERSON OQUTST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Boardman stated the variances will go to the Appeals Commission on March 16, and then both the lot split and the variances should go to City Council on March 22. (Mr. Saba arrived at 8:45 p.m.) 2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L,S, #82-03, BY DONNA MILLER: Split Lot 1, Bdock 1, Peit'— s 2nd Adaition, a�Lot 26, Auditor's Su . No. 23, combined into three lots: (110 - 64 1/2 Way N.E.) The easterly 65' of Lot 1, Block 1, Veit's 2nd Addition together with the easterly 75.19' of Lot 26, A.S. #23, and (120 - 64 1/2 Way N.E.) The Easterly 140' of Lot 1, Block 1, Ueit's 2nd Addition, except the easterly 65', together with the easterly 150.19' of Lot 23, A.S. �23, except the easterly 75.19', and (710 - 64 1/2 Way) The westerly 128.01' of Lot 1, Block 1, Veit's 2nd Addition, together with the westerly 121.23' of Lot 26, A.S. �23, (This lot is presently,addressed as 6430 East River Road, but if the lot split is approved, it will require an address change.) Mr. Boardman stated this layout has now been changed and the ]egal description has been changed. Before, the lot lines were uneven, and they have now evened up the lot lines for a simpler lot split. MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY MR. KONDi?ICK� TO RECEIVE THE REDEFINED SURVEYOR�S MAP OF THE LOT SPLIT. � UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VTCE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECTRRED THE MOTION CRRRIED UNRNIMDUSLY. � PLANNING COMMISSION �EETING, MARCH 10, 1982 __ PAGE 3 Mr. Boardman stated this is now a very simple lot split. There are presently two buildable lots, and Ms. Miller wants to positi�n those iot lines to make it easier to build on and to make three lots. Ali of the lots are over 9,000 sq. ft. The surveyor's drawing shows that a portion of the property is on East River Road, That is probably dedicated as street easement, but it should be cleared up before final approvai of the lot sptit. He stated Ms. M911er should check on this, and the Planning Commission should �ake the recommendation that if the easement is not there now, it should be. It is also advisable that the petitioner apply for a vacat9on of the drainage and utility easement, but that is up to the petitioner. MOTION BY MR. SVANDA� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL RPPROVRL OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.B. #82-03, BY DONNA MILLER TO SPLiT OFF LOT 2� BLOCK 1� VEIT'S 2ND ADDITION, AND IAT 26� AUDI�OR'S SUB. NO, 23, INTO THE FOLLOWING THREE DESCRIBED TRACTS: (140 64 2/2 WAY), TRRCT 1: THE SOUTHWEST 138.01� OF LOT L� $LOCK 1� VEIT`S 2ND ADDITION AND OF LOT 26� AUD. SUB. NO. 23; (IZO 64 I/2 WAY)� TRACT 2: THE SOUTHWEST 204.2' OF LOT I� BIACK Z� VEIT'S 2ND ADDITION AND OF LOT 26� AUD. SUB. NO, 23, EXCEPT THE SOUTHWEST I38.1' THEREOF� AND (210 64 1/2 WAY), TRACT 3: ZAT 1, BLOCK 1� VEIT'S 2ND ADDITION� AND LOS 26, AUD. SUB. NO. 23� EXCEPT THE SOUTHWEST 204.01' THEREOF� AND EXCEPT THE NORTHEAST 28.5' OF SAID LOT 26, TRACT BEING USED FOR EAST RIVER ROAD BUT OWNED BY CLIENT: THE NORTHERST 28.58' OF LOT 26� AUD. SUB. NO. 23j AITH THE PROVISION TNAT THE PROPERTY OWNER CHECK ON THE EASEMENT FOR THE 75' x 28.58' PORTION ON TXE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY EXTENDING ZNTO SAST R£VER ROADr AND DEDICATE SUCH ERSEMENT TO ANOKA COUNTY, IF THIS HRS NOT ALREADY BEEN DONE. UPON R VOICE VOTE� RLL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRZED UNRNIMOUSLY. Mr. Boardman stated L.S. #82-03 would go to City Council on March 22. 3. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 17, 198Z, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY MS. 6ABEL� TO RECEIVE FEBRLPARY 17� 1982� HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� VZCE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. OTHER BUSINESS: a. Extension of Special Use Permit, SP #78-1D by Allen B, Stahlberg Mr. Boardman stated the Commission had received a copy of a letter from Mr. Stahlberg. Mr. Stahlberg got a special use permit in 1978 for construction of a single family home in the fiood plain. Since that time, he has had three extensions. At the last extensfon, the City Council stipulated that it be the last extension and that 9f there were any further extensions, Mr. Stahlberg wou7d have to reapply for a new special use permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 10, 1982 PAGE 4 Mr. Boardman stated that special use permits are set up under the Zoning Code to last for a period of one year. If the action that the special use permit was applied for does not take place within that one year period, the petitioner is required to go through the Planning Commission and City Council to request an extension. Since Mr. Stahlberg has already had three extensions, the City Council stipulated that no more extensions be given. MOTSON BY PIIZ, KONDRSCK� SECONDED BY MR, SVRNDA, TO RECEIVE THE LETTER FROM MR. ALLEN B. STRHLBERG DATED MARCH 8� 1982. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTSNG RYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTIDN CARRIED UNRNIMOIISLY. Mr. Stahlberg stated that it is not that he has wanted to come back so many times for extensions, but it has been a matter of economics. He was laid off his job about a year ago, and he is now hoping to get back on his feet this fall in a new occupation. That is why he is requesting a one year extension, rather than six months. Right now he has plans with a builder to get an estimate. Just completing the bid process may take a few months, but he is trying to move as fast as he can. Ms. Ga6e1 stated that if the Planning Cortmission does not grant the extension, Mr. 5tahlberg has to reapply for a new special use permit, go through another public hearing,and the findings are probably going to be the same. INr. Boardman stated the Commission has to understand that every time there is an extension, there are staff costs--meeting time, review time, etc. Ne thought that was why after so many extensions, the City Council said there would be no more extensions. Ms. Gabel stated that normally she wouid agree with that, but she is wondering what there is to review about this. It is not something that is extremely complicated, and she just did not think the review time involved could be very significant. Mr. Svanda stated that if the Planning Commission denies the extension, Mr. Stahlberg has to go through the special use permit process all over again. Referring to Mr. Soardman's comment about staff costs, that $200 special use permit fee may or may not recoup the staff costs for reviewing, writing memos, and attending meetings to bring it back before the Planning Commission, and nothing has really changed. Granted, there have been a number of extensions, but it seems they were because of things that were possibly beyond Mr. Stahlberg's control. He thought they should give Mr. Stahlberg one more chance at it, since nothing has materially changed on the request. It is going to cost a few dollars just to process the $200 on a new special use permit. . PLANNIN6 COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 10, 1982 PAGE 5 MOTION 8Y MR. SVANDA� SECONDED BY M8. GRBEL� TD RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF RN EXTENSION OF ONE YERR FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT� SP N78-I0� BY ALLEN B. STAHLBERG� FOR THE FOLIAWING RB'RSONS: 2, REQUIRING MR. STAKLBERG TD GO THROUGH THE PROCESS RGAIN WOULD RESULT IN� HIM HAVING TO SPEND ANOTHER $200. 2. IT WOULD REQUIRE THE EXPENDITURE OF ADDSTIONAL STAFF TIME ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPENDED. 3, IT IS FELT THAT THE $200 WOULD PROBABLY NOT COVER THAT ADDITIONAL STAFF TIME C0.STS AND IT C0.5TS MONEY TO PROCESS THE PAYMENT. 4. NOTHING HAS APPRRENTLY CHANGED TO WARRANT AN IN-DEPTH RE-REVIEW OF TXE SITUATIQN. � 5. DELAYS HRVE BEEN BEYOND MR. STAHLBERG�S CON2ROL DUE TO A JOB LAY-OFF AND THE POOR HOUSING MARKES. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUZST DECLARED THE MOTION CRRRIED UNRNIMOUSLY. Mr. Boardman stated this would go to City Council on March 22. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY MR, KONDRICK� TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON R VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON 9QUIST DECLARED THE MARCH 20� 1982� PLANNING COMMTSSION MEETING RA7C>URNED AT 8:30 P.M. Res ectfully submitted, ' ,�� y eSaa Recording Secretary . ti CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCN 10, 1982 CALL TO ORDER: Uice-Chairperson Oquist called the March i0, 1982, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Svanda, Mr. Kondrick, Ms, van Dan, Mr. Saba (arr. 8:45 p.m,} Members Absent: Mr. Harris Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Scott Wheeler, Planning Intern Ron Miller, 5705 Jackson St, N,E. Mark Anderson, 556 - 37th Ave. N.E. Allen Stahlberg, 305 - 89th Ave, N.E., Donna J. Milier, 6430 East River Road Peter D. Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Dr. Blaine N.E. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 24, 1982, PLANNING COMMISSI�N MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. KONDRZCK, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 24, 1982, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN. [IPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. TABLED: RE UEST FOR t e ort 8 ftet o Street N.E.} to make LOt tiH� Huaitor•s �uddivision no. zi a buildable lot, the same being 6530 N: Split off -T�lississippi ey Street N.E. MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA� TO REMOVE L.S. Ii82-02 BY MARX ANDERSON FROM THE TABLE. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHRIRPERSON OQUIST DECLAREA THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOLISLY. Mr. Boardman stated this item was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting because Mr. Anderson was not at the meeting. He is at the meeting tonight. He stated it is Staff's recommendation that the Pianning Conmission approve the lot sp7it with the condition that a 10 ft. bikewayjwalkway easement be retained along Mississippi St. He stated this easement has been discussed with Mr. Anderson. He stated Mr. Anderson has applied for variances and those variances will be going through the Appeals Commission, Staff will tie both the variances and the lot split together before going to City Council. r � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH lOL 1982 PAGE Z Mr. Ron Miller, 5705 Jackson St. N.E., stated he and Mr. Anderson will be purchasing the new lot, He asked Mr. Soardman to describe the bikeway/walkway easement. Mr. Boardman stated that right now there is a sidewalk along Mississippi St., and the City needs to room to expand the sidewalk for a bikeway on the north side of Mississippi. At one time, a bikelane was striped o� Mississippi, but when the County changed Mississippi to a four-lane road, they eliminated the bikeway. That is why the City is requesting a 10 ft. bikeway/walkrtay easement on all new requests. MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MS. VAN DAN, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCSL APPROVAL OF 7AT SPLIT REQUE5T� L.5. �182-02, BY MARK ANDERSDN� TO SPLIT OFF THE NORTN 81 FEET OF LOT 8H, AUDIT012'5 SUBDIVISZON ND. 2Z (953 MISSISSZPPI STREET N.E,) TO MAKE A NEW BUILDABLE LOT� THE SAME BEING 653D DAKLEY STREET N,S „ WITH 2HE FOLLQWING TWO STIPULATIONS: I. THE LOT 5PLIT BE CONDITIONED UPON THE APPLICATSON FOR REAR YARD VARIRNCES. 2.. THE CZTY RESAIN A SO PT. BIKEWAY/WALKWRY EASEMENT ON MIS5I557PPI ST. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTZNG AYE� �ICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Boardman stated the variances will go to the Appeals Commission on March 16, and then both the lot split and the variances should go to City Council on March 22. (Mr. Saba arrived at 8:45 p.m.) 2. LQT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. �82-03, BY DONNA MILLER: Split Lot 1, Bdock 1, �eit`�s 2nd�Adaition, an3 Lot 26, Auditor s Sub. No. 23, combined into three lots: (110 - 64 1/2 Way N.E.) 7he easterly 65' of Lot 1, Block 1, Veit's 2nd Addition together with the easterly 75,19' of Lot 26, A.S. #23, and (120 - 64 1/2 Wey N.E.) 7he Easterly 140' of Lot 1, 81ock 1, Veit's 2nd Addition, except the easterly 65', together with the easterly 150.19' of Lot 23, A.S. #23, except the easterly 75.19', and (110 - 64 1/2 Way} The westerly 128.01' of Lot 1, Block 1, Ueit's 2nd Addition, together with the westerly 121.23' of Lot 26, A.S. #23. (This lot is presently,addressed as 6430 East River Road, 6ut if the lot split is approved, it will require an address change.) Mr. Boardman stated this layout has now been changed and the lega] description has been changed. Before, the lot lines were uneven, and they have now evened up the lot lines for a simpler lot split. MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY MR. ICONDRICK� TO RECEIVE THE REDEFINED SURVEYOR'S MAP OF THE LOT SPLZT. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� VZCE-CHAIRPER50N OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CRRRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 10z 1982 __ PAGE 3 Mr. Boardman stated this is now a very simple lot split. There are presently two buildable lots, and Ms. Miller wants to position those lot lines to make it easier to build on and to make three lots. All of the lots are over 9,000 sq, ft. 7he surveyor's drawing shows that a portion of the property is on East River Road, That is probably dedicated as street easement, but it should be cleared up before final approval of the lot split. He stated Ms. Miller should check on this, and the Planning Commission should aake the recommendation that if the easement is not there now, it should be. It is also advisable that the petitioner apply for a vacation of the drainage and utility easement, but that is up to the petitioner. MOTION BY MR. SVANDA� SECONDED BY MR, KONDRICK� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL RPPROVAL OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST� L.B. H82-03� BY DONNA MILLER TO SPLIT OFF LOT 2� BLOCK 1, VEIT'S 2ND RDDITION, AND IAT 26� AUDITOR'S SUB. NO. 23� INTO THE FOLLOWING THREE DESCRIBED TRACTS: (240 64 1/2 WAY)� TRACT 2: TXE SOUTXWEST I38.OZ' OF LOT L� BLOCK 1� VEIT'S 2ND ADDZTION AND OF LOT 26� RUD. SUB, NO. 23; (120 64 1/2 WAY)� TRACT 2: THE SOUTHWEST 204.1� OF LOT 1� SLOCK I� VEIT'S 2ND ADDITZON AND OF LOT 26� AUD. SUB, NO. 23� EXCEPT THE SOUTHWEST 138.1' THEREOFj AND (Z10 64 1/2 WAYJ� TRACT 3: IAT I� BLOCK 1� VEIT�S 2ND ADDITION� AND LOT 26� AUD, SUB. NO. 23� EXCEPT THE SOUTHWEST 204.01' THEREOF� AND EXCEPT THE NORTHEAST 28.5' OF SAID LOT 26. TRACT BEING USED FOR EAST RIVER ROAD BUT OWNBD BY CLIENT: SHE NORTHEASS 28.58� OF LOT 26� RUD. SUB. ND. 23; WITH THE PROVISION THRT THE PROPERTY OWNER CHECK ON THE EASEMENT FOR THE 75' x 28.58' PORTION ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY EXTENDING INTO EAST RIVER ROAD� RND DEDICATE SUCH EASEMENT TO ANOKA COUNTY, IF THIS HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN DONE. UPON A VOICE VOTE� RLL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHRIRPERSON OQUIST DECLW2ED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Boardman stated L.S. #82-03 would go to City Council on March 22. 3. RECEIVE FESRUARY 17, 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTIiORITY MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDBD BY MS. GRBEL� TO RECEIVE FEBRTPARY 17� I982� XOUSING S REDEV�'LOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES. UPON R VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTSNG AYE� VICE-CNAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANZMOUSLY. 4. OTHER BUSINESS: a. Extension of Special Use Permit, SP #78-10 by Allen B. Stahlberg Mr. Boardman stated the Commission had received a copy of a letter from Mr, Stahlberg. Mr. Stahlberg got a special use permit in 1978 for construction of a single family home in the flood plain. Since that time, he has had three extensions. Ai the last extension, the City Council stipulated that it be the last extension and that if there were any further extensions, Mr. Stahlberg would have to reapply for a new special use permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 10 1982 PAGE 4 Mr. Boardman stated that special use permits are set up under the Zoning Code to last for a period of one year. If the action that the special use permit was applied for does not take place within that one year period, the petitioner is required to go throu9h the Planning Commission and City Council to request a� extension. Since Mr. Stahlberg has already had three extensions, the City Council stipulated that no more extensions be given. MOTION BY hIIt, KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MR, SVANDR� TO RECEIVE THE LETTER FROM MR. ALLEN B. STAHLI9ERG DRTED MARCH 8� 2982. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHRIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNRNIMOUSLY. Mr. Stahlberg stated that it is not that he has wanted to come back so many times for extensions, but it has been a matter of econanics. He was laid off his job about a year ago, and he is now hoping to get back on his feet this fa11 in a new occupation. That is why he is requesting a one year extension, rather than six months. Right now he has plans with a builder to get an estimate. Just compieting the bid process may take a few months, but he is trying to move as fast as he can. Ms. Gabel stated that if the Planning Comnission does not grant the extension, Mr. Stahlberg has to reapply for a new special use permit, go through another public hearing,and the findings are probably going to be the same. Mr. Boardman stated the Commission has to understand that every time there is an extension, there are staff costs--meeting time, review time, etc. He thought that was why after so many extensions, the City Council said there would be no more extensions. Ms. Gabel stated that normally she would agree with that, but she is wondering what there is to review about this. It is not something that is extremely complicated, and she just did not think the review time involved could be very significant. Mr. Svanda stated that if the Planning Commission denies the extension, Mr. 5tahlberg has to go through the special use permit process all over again. Referring to Mr. Boardman's comment about staff costs, that $200 special use permit fee may or may not recoup the staff costs for reviewing, writing memos, and attending meetings to bring it back before the Planning Commission, and nothing has really changed. Granted, there have been a number of extensions, but it seems they were because of things that were possibly beyond Mr. Stahlberg's control. He thought they should give Mr. Stahlberg one more chance at it, since nothing has materially changed on the request. It is going to cost a few dollars just to process the $200 on a new special use permit, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 10, 1982 PAGE 5 MOTION BY MR. SVANDA� SECONDED BY MF. GABEL� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVRL OF AN EXTENSION OF ONE YEAR FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT� SP k78-10� BY ALLEN B. STAHLBERG� FOR THE FOLLOWIN6 RH'RSONS: 1. REQUIRING MR. STAHLBERG TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN WOULD RESULT IN HIM HRVING TO SPEND ANOTHER 5200. 2. IT WOULD REQUIRE THE EXPENDITURE OF ADDITIONAL STRFF TIME ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT HAS ALRERDY BEEN EXPENDED. 3. IT IS FELT THAT THE $200 WOULD PROBABLY NOT COVER THAT ADDITIONRL STAFF TIME CQSTS AND IT COSTS MONEY TO PROCESS THE PAYMENT, 4, NOTHING HAS APPARENTLY CHANGED TO WARRANT AN IN-DEPTH RE-REVIEW OF THE SITUATSON. 5. DELAYS XAVE BEEN BEYOND MR. STAHLBER6'S CONTROL DUE TO A JOB LAY-OFF AND THE POOR HOUSING MARKET. UPON R VOZCE VOTE� RLL VOTING AYE� VICE-CNAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNRNIMOUSLY. Mr. Boardman stated this would go to City Council on March 22. ADJOURNMENT: MOSSON BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK� TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON QQU2ST DECLARED THE MARCH 10� 1982� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AA70URNED AT 8:30 P,M. Res ectfully submitted, , 4 }-�� y eSaa RecordTng 5ecretary ,* CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 10, 1982 CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Oquist called the March 10, 1982, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Svanda, Mr. Kondrick, Ms. van Dan, Mr. Saba (arr. 8:45 p.m.) Members Absent: Mr. Harris Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Scott Wheeler, Planning Intern Ron Miller, 5705 Jackson St. N.E. Mark Anderson, 556 - 37th Ave. N.E. Allen Stahlberg, 305 - 89th Ave. N.E., Blaine Donna J. Miller, 6430 East River Road Peter D. Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Dr. N.E. APPR�VAL Of FEBRUARY 24, 1982, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. KONDRSCX� SECONDED BY MS. GRBEL� TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 24� 1982� PLANNZNG COMMISSZON MINUTES RS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING RYE� VICE-CHAIRPER50N OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNAIJIMOUSLY. 1. TABLED: RE UEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #82-02, BY MARK ANDERSON: Split off t e ort 8 eet o ot , Au �tor s Su �vision No. 2 953 ississippi Street N.E.) to make a buildable lot, the same being 6530 Oakley Street N.E. MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY MR. SVRNDA� TO REMOVE L.S. H82-02 BY MARK ANDERSON FROM THE TABLE. UPON A VOICE VOTE� RLL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOSION CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY, Mr. Boardman stated this item was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting because Mr. Anderson was not at the meeting. He is at the meeting tonight. He stated it is Staff"s recommendation that the Planning Comnission approve the lot split with the condition that a 10 ft, bikewayJwalkway easement be retained along Mississippi St. He stated this easement has been discussed with Mr. Anderson. He stated Mr. Anderson has app7ied for variances and those variances will be going through the Appeals Commission. Staff will tie both the variances and the lot split together before going to City Council. . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 10 1982 PAGE 2 Mr. Ron Miller, 5705 Jackson St. N.E., stated he and Mr. Anderson will be purchasing the new tot. He asked Mr. Boardman to describe the bikeway/wa]kway easement, Mr. Boardman stated that right now there is a sidewalk along Mississippi St., and the City needs to room to expand the sidewalk for a bikeway on the north side of Mississippi. At one time, a bikelane was striped on Mississippi, but when the County changed Mississippi to a four-lane road, they eliminated the bikeway. That is why the City is requesting a 10 ft, bikeway/walkway easement on all new requests. MOTSON BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MS, VAN DAN� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF I,OT SPLIT REQUEST� L.S, �i82-02� BY MARK ANDERSON� TO SPLIT OFF THE NORTH BI FEET OF LOT 8H, AUDITOR`S SUBDIVISION NO, 2I (953 MISSISSIPPZ STREET N.E.) TO MAKE A NEW BUILDAB.LE LOT� THE SAME BEING 6530 OAKLEY STREET N,E.� WITH TXE FOLLOWING TWO STSPULATIDNS: I. THE LOT SPLIT BE CONDISIONED UPON THE APPLICATSON FOR REAR YARD VARIRNCES. 2.. THE CITY RETAIN A IO FT. BIKEWAY/WALKWAY EASEMENT ON MISSISSIPPI ST. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING RYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � Mr. Boardman stated the variances will go to the Appeals Commission on March 16, and then both the lot split and the variances should go to City Council on March 22. (Mr. Saba arrived at 8:45 p.m.) 2, LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #82-03, BY DONNA MILLER: Split Lot 1, Baock l, �eit's 2nd Ad3ition, ana Lot 26, Auditor's Sub. No. 23, combined into three lots: (110 - 64 1/2 Way N,E.) The easterly 65' of Lot 1, Block 1, Veit's 2nd Addition together with the easterly 75.19' of Lot 26, A.S. #23, and (]20 - 64 1/2 Way N.E,) The Easterly 140' of Lot 1, Block 1, Veit's 2nd Rddition, except the easterly 65', together with the easterly 150.19' of Lot 23, A.S. #23, except the easter]y 75.19', and (710 - 64 1�2 Way) The westerly 128.01' of Lot 1, Block 1, Veit's 2nd Addition, together with the westerly 121,23' of Lot 26, A,S. #23. (This lot is presently,addressed as 6430 East River Road, but if the lot split is approved, it will require an address change.) Mr. Boardman stated this layout has now been changed and the legal description has been changed. Before, the lot lines were uneven, and they have now evened up the lot lines for a simpler lot split. MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED SY MR, KONDRICK� TO RECEIVE THE REDEFINED SURVEYOR'S MRP OF TNE IAT SPLIT. . UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING,AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTSON CARRIED UNANIMDIISLY. PLANNING GOMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 10, 1982 PAGE 3 Mr. Boardman stated this is now a very simple lot split, There are presently two buildable lots, and Ms. Miller wants to position those lot lines to make it easier to build on and to make three lots. All of the lots are over 9,000 sq, ft. The surveyor's drawing shows that a portion of the property is on East River Road. That is probably dedicated as street easement, but it should be c7eared up before final approval of the lot split. He stated Ms, Miller should check on this, and the Planning Commission should make the recommendation that if the easement is not there now, it should be. It is also advisable that the petitioner apply for a vacation of the drainage and utility easement, but that is up to the petitioner. MOTION BY MR. SVANDA� SECONDED BY MR, KONDRICK� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY CDUNCIL APPROVAL OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST� L.3. #82-03� BY DONNA MILLER TO SPLIT OFF LOT I� BIACK 1� VEIT'S 2ND ADDITION� AND LOT 26� AUDITOR'S SUB. NO. 23� SNTO THE FOLLOWING THREE DESCRIBED TRACTSt (140 64 Z/2 WRY)� TRACT 1: THE SOUTHWEST 138.01� OF LOT L� BLOCK 1� VEIT�S 2ND ADDZTION AND OF LOT 26� AUD. SUB. NO, 23; (220 64 1/2 WAY)� TRACT 2: THE $DUTHWEST 204.1� OF ZAT 1� BIACK 1� VEIS�S 2ND ADDITION AND OF LOT 26, AUD. SUB. NO. 23� EXCEPT THE SOUPHWEST 138.1' THEREOF� AND (110 64 1/2 WRYJ� TRAC2 3: IAT 1� B7ACK 2� VEIT'S 2ND ADDITIDN� RND LOT 26� AUD. SUB. NO. 23� EXCEPT THE SOUTHWEST 204.01' THEREOF� AND EXCEPT TNE NORTHERST 28.5� OF SAID ZAT 26. TRACT BEING USED FOR EAST RIVER ROAD BUT OWNED BY CLIENT: THE NORTHEAST 28,58' OF LOT 26� AUD. SUB. N0. 23j WITH THE PROVISION THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER CXECX ON THE ERSEMENT FOR THE 75� x 28.58' PORTION ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY EXTENDING INTO EAST RIVER RDAD„ AND DEDICRTE SUCH EASEMENT TO RNOKA COUNTY� IF THIS HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN DONE. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTIDN CARRIED UNANSMOUSLY. Mr. Boardman stated L.S. #82-03 would go to City Council on March 22. 3. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 17, 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION BY MR, SABR� SECONDED BY MS, GABEL� TO RECEIVE FEBRIIARY 17� .Z982� HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MZNDTES. UPON A VDICE VOTE, ALL VOTING RYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRSED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. OTHER BUSINESS: a. Extension of Special Use Permit SP �t78-10 by Allen B. Stahlberg Mr. Boardman stated the Commission had received a copy of a letter from Mr. Stahlberg. Mr. Stahlberg got a special use permit in 1978 for construction of a single family home in the flood plain, Since that time, he has had three extensions. At the last extension, the City Council stipulated that it be the last extension and that if there were any further extensions, Mr. StahTberg would have to reapply far a new special use permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 10, 1982 PA6E 4 Mr. 8oardman stated that special use permits are set up under the Zoning Code to last for a period of one year. If the action that the special use permit was applied for does not take place within that one year period, the petitioner is required to go Lhrough the Planning Commission and City Council to request an extension. Since Mr. Stahlberg has already had three extensions, the City Council stipulated that no more extensions be given. MOTION BY AII2. XONDRZCX� SECONDED BY MR, SVANDA� TO R&CESVE THE LE2TER FROM MR, ALLEN B. STAHLBERG DATED MARCN 8� 1982. UPON R VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHRIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED TNE MOTION CARRIED UNANZMOUSLY, Mr. Stahlberg stated that it is not that he has wanted to come back so many times for extensions, but it has been a matter of economics. He was laid off his job about a year ago, and he is now hoping to get back on his feet this fall in a new occupation. That is why he is requesting a one year extensian, rather than six months. Right now he has plans with a builder to get an estimate. Just completing the bid process may take a few months, but he is trying to move as fast as he can. Ms, Gabel stated that if the Planning Conmission does not grant the extension, Mr. Stahlberg has to reapply for a new special use permit, go through another public hearing,and the findings are probably going to be the same. Mr. Boardman stated the Commission has to understand that every time there is an extens9on, there are staff costs--meeting time, review time, etc. He thought that was why after so many extensions, the City Council said there wou]d be no more extensions. Ms. Gabel stated that normally she would agree with that, but she is wondering what there is to review about this. It is not something that is extremely complicated, and she just did not think the review time involved could be very significant. Mr. Svanda stated that if the Planning Commission denies the extension, Mr. Stahlberg has to go through the special use permit process all over a9ain. Referring to Mr. Boardman's comment about staff costs, that $200 specia7 use permit fee may or may not recoup the staff costs for reviewing, writing memos, and attending meetings to bring it back before the Planning Commission, and nothing has really changed. Granted, there have been a number of extensions, but it seems they were because of things that were possibly beyond Mr. Stahlberg's control. He thought they should give Mr. Stahlberg one more chance at it, since nothing has materially changed on the request. It is going to cost a few do]7ars just Co process the $200 on a new special use permit. PLANNING C4MMISSION MEETING, MARCH 10, 1982 PAGE 5 MOTION BY MR, SVANDA� SECONDED BY M8. GABEL� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCZL APPROVAL OF AN EXTENSION OF ONE YEAR FOR SPECSAL USE PERMZT, SP #78-10, BY ALLEN B. STAHLBERG, FOR THE FOLIAWING RBASONS: I. REQUIRING MR. STAHLBERG TO GO 2HROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN WOULD ItESULT IN HIM HAVING TO SPEND ANOTNER $200. 2. IT WOULD REQUIRE THE EXPENDITURE OF ADDITIONAL STAFF TIME ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT HAS ALRERDY BEEN EXPENDED. 3. IT IS FELT THAT THE $200 WOULD PROBABLY NOT COVER THAT ADDITIONAL STRFF TIME C0.STS AND IT COSTS MONEY TO PROCESS THE PAYMENT. 4. NOTHING HAS RPPRRENTLY CHANGED TO WARRANT AN IN-DEPTH RE-REVIEW OF THE SITUATION. 5. DELAYS HAVE BEEN BEYOND MR. STAHLBERG'S CONTROL DUE TO A JOB LAY-OFF AND THE POOR HOUSING MARKET. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CXAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Boardman stated this would go to City Council on March 22. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK� TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE� RLL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHRIRPERSON QQUIST DECLARED THE MARCH 10� 1982� PLANNING, COMMISSION MEETING AATOURIJED RT 8:30 P,M, Res ectfully submitted, , .-�, yr� e Sa a Recording Secretary CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING C�MMISSION MEETING, MARCH 10, 1982 CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Oquist called the March 10, 1982, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Svanda, Mr. Kondrick, Ms. van Dan, Mr. Saba (arr. 8:45 p.m.) Members Abse�t: Mr. Harris Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Scott Wheeler, Planning Intern Ron Miller, 5705 Jackson St. N.E. Mark Anderson, 556 - 37th Ave. N.E. Allen Stahlberg, 305 - 89th Ave. N.E., Donna J. Miller, 6430 East River Road Peter D, Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Dr. Blaine N.E. APPROVAL OF FEBRURRY 24 1982, PLAfVNIN6 COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. KONDRICX� SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 24� Z982� PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTfi� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 1. TABLED: Street N.E. EST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #82-02, BY MARK ANDERSON: Split off feet of ot 8, Au itor s Su ivision No. 953 ississippi to �ake a buildable lot, the same being 6530 Oakley Street N.E. MOSION BY MR. SRBA� SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA� TO REMOVE L.S. �82-02 BY MARK ANDERSON FROM TNE TRBLE. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIN6 AYE� VICE-CHRIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Boardman stated this item was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting because Mr. Anderson was not at the meeting. Ne is at the meeting tonight. He stated it is Staff's recommendation that the Planning Comnission approve the lot split with the condition that a 10 ft. bikeway/walkway easement be retained along Mississippi St. He stated this easement has been discussed with Mr, Anderson. He stated Mr. Anderson has applied for variances and those variences will be going through the Appeals Commission. Staff will tie both the variances and the lot split together before going to City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 10, 1982 PAGE 2 Mr. Ron Miller, 5705 Jackson St. N.E., stated he and Mr. Anderson will be purchasing the new lot. He asked Mr. Boardman to describe the bikeway/walkway easement. Mr. Boardman stated that right now there is a sidewalk along Mississ9ppi St., and the City needs to room to expand the sidewalk for a bikeway on the north side of Mississippi�_ At one time, a bikelane was striped on Mississippi, but when the County changed Mississippi to a four-lane road, they eliminated the bikeway. That is why the City is requesting a 10 ft. �ikeway/walkWay easement on all new requests. MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MS, VAN DAN� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF IAT SPLIT REQUEST� L.S. #82-02� BY MARK ANDERSON� TO SPLIT OFF THE NORTX SZ FEET OF IAT 8H� AUDSTOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 21 (953 MISSISSIPPI STREET N.E.) TO MAKE A NEW BUILDABLE LOT� THE SAME BEING 6530 OAKLEY STREET N.E,� WITH THE FOLLOWING TWO SSIPULATIONS: Z. THE IAT SPLST BE CONDITIONED UPON THE APPLICATION FOR REAR YARD VARZANCES. 2. THE CITY RETAIN A 10 FT. BIKEWRY/WALKWAY EASEMENT ON MISSFSSSPPI ST. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� 9ICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRZED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Boardman stated the variances will go to the Appeals Commission on March 16, and then both the lot split and the variances should go to City Council on March 22. (Mr. Saba arrived at 8:45 p.m.) 2. LOT SPLIT REQUESTL L.S. #82-03, BY DONNA MILLER: Split Lot 1, Bdock 1, �eit s 2�Icn �dition, an�Tc Lot 26, Auditor's Sub. No. 23, combined into three lots: (110 - 64 1/2 Way N.E.) The easterly 65' of Lot 7, Block 7, Veit's 2nd Addition together with the easterly 75.19' of Lot 26, A.S, #23, and (120 - 64 1/2 Way N.E.) The Easterly 140' of Lot 1, Block 1, Veit's 2nd Addition, except the easterly 65', together with the easterly 150.19' of Lot 23, A.S. #23, except the easterly 75.19', and (110 - 64 lE2 Way) The westerly 128.01' of Lot 1, Block 1, Veit's 2nd Addition, together with the westerly 121.23' of Lot 26, A.S. #23. (This lot is presently,addressed as 6430 East River Road, but if the lot split is approved, it will require an address change.) Mr. Boardman stated this layout has now been changed and the legal description has been changed. eefore, the lot Tines were uneven, and they have now evened up the lot lines for a simpler lot split. MOTION BY MS, GABEL� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK� TO RECEIVE THE REDEFSNED SURVEYOR'S MAP OF THE LOT SPLIT. � UPON R VOICE VOTE� RLL VOTING.AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � PLANNING COMMISSION�MEETING MARCH 10 1982 PAGE 3 Mr. Boardman stated this is now a very simple lot split. There are presently two buildable lots, and Ms. Miller wants to position those lot lines to make it easier to build on and to make three lots. All of the lots are over 9,000 sq. ft. The surveyor's drawing shows that a portion of the property is on East River Road. That is probably dedicated as street easement, but it should be cleared up before final approval of the lot split. He stated Ms. Miller should check on this, and the Planning Commission should aake the recommendation that if the easement is not there now, it should be. It is also advisable that the petitioner apply for a vacation of the drainage and utility easement, but that is up to the petitioner. MOTION BY MR. SVANDA� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRZCK� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL RPPROVAL OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.3. #82-03� BY DONNA MILLER TO 5PLST OFF LOT Z� BIACK 1� VEIT'S 2ND RDDSTIDN� AND LOT 26� RUDITOR'S SUB. NO. 23� INTD THE FOLIAWING THREE DESCRIBED TRACTS: (140 64 Z/2 WAY)� TRACT 1: TXE SOUTHWEST 138.01' OF LOT L� BLOCK 1� VEZT'S 2ND RDDITION RND OF LOT 26� AUD, SUB. NO. 23; (120 64 I/2 WRY), TRACT 2: TXE SOUTHWEST 204,1' OF IAT I, BIACK 1, VEIT�S 2ND ADDITION AND OF LOT 26� AUD. SUB, NO, 23� EXCEPT THE SOITTHWEST 138.I' THEREOF� RND (IZO 64 2/2 WAY)� TRACT 3: LOT I� BLOCK S� VEIT'S 2ND ADDITION� AND LOT 26, AfID. SUB. ND. 23� EXCEPT TNE SOUTXWEST 204,01' THEREOF� AND EXCEPT THE NORTHERST 28.5' OF SAID IAT 26. TRACT BEING USED FOR EAST RIVER ROAD BUT OWNED BY CLIENT: THE NORTHEAST 28.58� OF IAT 26, AUD. SUB. NO. 23; AITH THE PROVISION THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER CHECK ON THE EASEMENT FOR THE 75' x 28.58� PORTION ON THE EAST $IDE OF THE PROPERSY EXTENDING INTO EAST RIVER RORD� AND DEDICATE SUCH ERSEMENT TO ANOKA COUNTY, IF THIS HAS NOT RLREADY BEEN DONE. UPON R VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTSNG RYE� VICE—CHAZRPERSON OQUISS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIEP UNRNIMOUSLY. Mr. Boardman stated L.S. #82-03 would go to City Council on March 22, 3. RECEIVE 6EBRUARY 17, 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELODMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTZON BY MR. SABR, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TO RECEIVE FEBRIPARY 17� 1982� NOUSING & REDEV£LOPMENT AUTRORSTY IdSNUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE� RLL VOTING AYE� VSCE—CHRIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOT70N CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. OTHER BUSINESS: a. Extension of Special Use Permit, SP #7$-lO�Allen B. Stahlberg Mr. Boardman stated the Commission had received a copy of a letter from Mr. Stahlberg, Mr. Stahlberg got a special use permit in 1978 for construction of a single family home in the flood plain. Since that time, he has had three extensions. At the last extension, the City Council stipulated that it be the last extension and that if there were any further extensions, Mr. Stahlberg would have to reapply for a new special use permit. PLANNING COMMISSTON MEETING, MARCH 10, 1982 PAGE 4 Mr. Boardman stated that spectal use permits are set up under the Zoning Code to last for a period of one year. If the action that the special use permit was applied for does not take place within that one year period, the petitioner is required to go through the P7anning Commission and City Counci] to request an extension. Since Mr. Stahlberg has already had three extensions, the City Council stipulated that no more extensions be given. MOTION BY AII2, KONDRICK� SECONDED BY A�Z, SVANDA, TO RECEIVE THE LETTER FROM MR, ALLEN B. STAFILBERG DATED MARCH 8� 2982. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRZED UNANIMOUSLY. _ Mr. Stahlberg stated that it is not that he has wanted to come back so many times for extensions, but it has been a matter of economics, He was laid off his job about a year ago, and he is now hoping to get back on his feet this fall in a new occupation, That is why he is requesting a one year extension, rather than six months. Right now he has p]ans with a builder to get an estimate. Just completing the bid process may take a few months, but he is trying to move as fast as he can. Ms. Gabel stated that if the Planning Co�nission does not grant the extension, Mr. 5tahlberg has to reapply for a new special use permit, go through anoiher public hearing,and the findings are probably going to be the same. Wlr. Boardman stated the Commission has to understand that every time there is an extension, there are staff costs--meeting time, review time, etc. He thought that was why after so many extensions, the City Council said there would be no more extensions. Ms. Gabel stated that normally she would agree with that, but she is wondering what there is to review about this. It is not something that is extremety complicated, and she just did not think the review time involved could be very significant. Mr. Svanda stated that if the Planning Commission denies the extension, Mr. Stahlberg has to go throu9h the special use permit process all over again. Referring to Mr, Boardman's comment about staff costs, that $200 special use permit fee may or may not recoup the staff costs for reviewing, writing memos, and attending meetinys to bring it back before the Planning Commission, and nothing has really changed. Granted, there have been a number of extensions, but it seems they were because of things that were possibly beyond Mr. Stahlberg's control. He thought they should give Mr. Stahlberg one more chance at it, since nothing has materially changed on the request. It is going to cost a few dollars just to process the $206 on a new special use permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MARCH 10, 1982 PAGE 5 MOTION BY MR. SVANDA� SECONDED BY MB. GABEL� TO RECOMMEND TD CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN EXTENSION OF ONE YEAR FOR SPECIAL USE PERMI2, SP #78-I0, BY ALLEN B, STAHLBERG� FOR THE FOLIAWING RSASONS: I. REQUIRING MR. STRHLB.ERG TO GO THRWGH THE PROCESS AGAIN WOULD RESULT IN� HIM HAVING TO SPEND ANOTXER $200. 2. IT WOULD REQUIRE THE EXPENDITURE OF RDDITIONAL STAFF TIME ABOVE AND BSYOND WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPENDED. 3. IT IS FELT THAT THE $200 WOULD PROBABLY NOT COVER THAT ADDITIONAL STAFF TIME CQSTS AND IT COSTS MONEY TO pROCESS THE PAYMENT. 4. NOTHING HAS APPARENTLY CHANGED TO WARRANT AN 7N-DEPTH RE-REVIEW OF THE SITUATION. 5. DELAYS HAVE BEEN BEYOND MR. STAHLBERG�S CONTROL DUE TO A JOB LAY-OFF AND THE POOR HOUSING MARKET. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CXRIRPBRSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Boardman stated this would go to City Council on March 22, ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO ADJOlJRN THE MEETING. UPON R VOICE VOTE� RLL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAZRPERSON 99UIST DECLARED THE MARCH 20, Z982� PLANNING. COMMISSION MEETING AA70URNED AT 8:30 P.M, Res ectfully submitted, � .-tC., y eSaa Recording 5ecretary j ,' �' � ; "� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 10, 1982 CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Oquist called the March 10, 1982, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Svanda, Mr. Kondrick, Ms. van Dan, Mr. Saba (arr. 8:45 p.m.) Mem6ers Absent: Mr. Harris Others Preseet: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Scott Wheeler, Planning Intern Ron Miller, 5705 Jackson St. N.E. Mark Anderson, 556 - 37th Ave. N.E. Allen Stahlberg, 305 - 89th Ave. N.E., Blaine Donna J. Miller, 6430 East River Road Peter D. Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Dr. N.E. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 24, 1982, PLANNING COMMISSION MI MOTZON BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 24� I982� PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING RYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED SHE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 1. TABLED: RE UEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #82-02, BY MARK ANDERSON: Split off t e ort 8 eet o ot , Au itor s Su ivision Na. 2 9 3 ississippi Street N.E.) to make a buildable lot, the same being 6530 Oakley Street N.E. MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO REMOVE L.S. #82-02 BY MARK ANDERSON FROM THE TABLE. UPON R VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Boardman stated this item was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting because Mr. Anderson was not at the meeting. He is at the meeting tonight. He stated it is Staff's recommendation that the Planning Corrmission approve the lot split with the condition that a 10 ft. bikeway/walkway easement be retained along Mississippi St. He stated this easement has been discussed with Mr. Anderson. He stated Mr. Anderson has applied for variances and those variances will be going through the Appeals Commission. Sta#f will tie both the variances and the lot split together before going to City Council. PLANNING COMMISSIQN MEETING. MARCH 10, 1982 PAGE 2 Mr. Ron Miller, 5705 Jackson St. N.E., stated he and Mr. Anderson will be purchasing the new lot. He asked Mr. Boardman to describe the bike�ay/walkway easement. Mr. Boardman stated that right now there is a sidewalk a7ong Mississippi St., and the City needs to room to expand the sidewalk for a bikeway on the north side of Mississippi. At one time, a bikelane was striped on Mississippi, but when the County changed Mississippi to a four-lane road, they eliminated the bikeway. That is why the City is requesting a 10 ft. �ikeway/walk�ay easement on all new requests. MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MS. VAN DAN� TO RECOMMEND TO CISY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST� L.S. �82-02� BY MARK ANDERSON� TO SPLZT OFF THE NORTH 81 FEET OF LOT 8H, AUDiTOR�S SUBDIVISION NO. 22 (953 MISSISSIPPI STREET N.E.) TO MAKE R NEW BUILDABLE LOT� THE SAME BEING 6530 ORKLEY STREET N.E.� WITH THE FOLLOWING TWO STIPULATIONS: I. TXE IAT SPLIT BE CONDITIONED UPON THE APPLICATION FOR REAR YARD VARIANCES. 2.. THE CITY RETAIN A 10 FT. BI.KEWAY/WALKWAY EASEMENT ON MISSISSIPPI ST. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Boardman stated the variances will go to the Appeals Commission on March 16, and then both the lot split and the variances should go to City Council on March 22. (Mr, Saba arrived at 8:45 p,m.) 2. LOT �SPLIT RE, �U,EST, L.S, #82-03, BY DONNA MILLER: Split Lot 1, B$ock 1, �it s' 2nd Addition, an�Lot 2� 6�itor's Sub. No. 23, combined into three lots: (110 - 64 1/2 Way N.E.) The easterly 65' of Lot 1, Block 1, Veit's 2nd Addition together with the easterly 75.19' of Lot 26, A.S. #23, and (120 - 64 1/2 Way N.E.) The Easterly 140' of Lot 1, Block 1, Veit's 2nd Addition, except the easterly 65', together with the easterly 150.19' of Lot 23, A,S. #23, except the easterly 75.19', and (110 - 64 1`2 Way) The westerly 128.01' of Lot 1, Block 1, Veit's 2nd Addition, together with the westerly 121.23' of Lot 26, A.S. #23. (This lot is presently,addressed as 6430 East River Road, 6ut if the tot split is approved, it will require an address change.) Mr. Boardman stated this layout has now been changed and the ]ega] description has been changed. Before, the lot lines were uneven, and they have now evened up the lot lines for a simpler lot split. MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK� TO RECEIVE THE REDEFINED SURVEYOR�S MAP OF THE LOT SPLIT. �. UPON A VOTCE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUSST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 10, 1982 PAGE 3 Mr. Boardman stated this is now a very simple lot split. There are presently two buildable lots, and Ms. Mi11er wants to posftion those lot lines to make it easier to build on and to make three lots. All of the lots are over 9,000 sq, ft. The surveyor's drawing shows that a portion of the property is on East River Road. That is probably dedicated as street easement, but it should be cleared up before final approval of the lot split. He stated Ms. Miller should check on this, and the Planning Commission should �ake the recommendation that if the easement is not there now, it should be. It is also advisable that the petitioner apply for a vacation of the drainage and utility easement, but that is up to the petitioner. MOTION BY MR. SVANDA, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCSL APPROVAL OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST� L.3. N82-03� BY DONNA MILLER TO SPLST OFF LOT 1� BLOCK 2� VEIT'S 2ND ADDITION� RND LOT 26� AUDITOR'S SUB. N0. 23� INTO THE FOLLOWING THREE DESCRIBED TRACTS: {140 64 1/2 WAY)� TRACS 1: SHE SOUTHWEST I38.OI' OF LOT L� BLOCK 1� VEIT'S 2ND ADDITION AND OF LOT 26� RUD. SUB, NO. 23; (120 64 I/2 WAY)� TRACT 2: THE SOUSHWEST 204.Z� OF LOT 1� BLOCK 1� VEIT'S 2ND ADDSTION AND OF LOT 26� AUD. SUB. NO. 23� EXCEPT THE SOUTHWEST 138,1' THEREOFj RND (SZO 64 3/2 WAY)� TRACT 3: IAT 1, BLOCK 1� VEIT'S 2ND ADDITION, AND LOT 26, AUD. SUB, N0. 23� EXCEPT THE SOUTHWEST 204.OZ' THEREOF� AND EXCEPT THE NORTHEAST 28.5� OF SATD LOT 26. TRACT BEING USED FOR EAST RIVER ROAD BUT OWNED BY CLIENT: THE NORTHEAST 28.58' OF LOT 26� RUD. SUB. NO. 23y AITH THE PROVISION THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER CHECK ON THE EASfiMENT FOR THE 75' x 28.58' PORTION ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY EXTENDING INTO EAST RIVER ROAD� RND DEDICASE' SUCH EASEMENT TO ANOKA COUNTY, IF THIS HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN DONE. � UPON A VOICS VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � Mr. Boardman stated L.S. #82-03 would go to City Council on March 22. 3. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 17, 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTNORITY MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. SABA, SECONDED�BY MS. GABEL� TO RECEIVE FEBRAARY 17� I982� HOUSING & REDEV£LOPMENT AUTHORITY MZNUTES, UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. OTHER BUSINESS: a. Extension of S�ecial Use Permit, SP #78-10 by Allen B. Stahlberg Mr. Boardman stated the Commission had received a copy of a letter from Mr. Stahlberg. Mr. Stahlberg got a special use permit in 1978 for construction of a single family home in the flood plain. Since that time, he has had three extensions. At the last extension, the City Council stipulated that it be the last extension and that if there were any further extensions, Mr. Stahlberg would have to reapply for a new special use permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 10, 1982 PAGE 4 Mr. Boardman stated thct special use permits are set up under the Zoning Code to last for a period of one year. If the action that the special use permit was applied for does not take place within that one year period, the petitioner is required to go through the Planning Commission and City Council to request an extension. Since Mr. Stahlberg has already had three extensions, the City Council stipulated that no more extensions be given. MOTION BY MR, XONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA� TO RECEIVE TXE LETTER FROM MR. ALLEN B. STAHLBERG DRTED MARCH 8� Z982. UPON R VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Stahlberg stated that it is not that he has wanted to come back so many times for extensions, but it has been a matter of economics. He was laid off his job about a year ago, and he rs now hoping ta get back on his feet this fall in a new occupation. That is why he is requesting a one year extension, rather than six months. Right now he has plans with a builder to get an estimate, Just completing the bid process may take a few months, but he is trying to move as fast as he can. Ms, Ga6e1 stated that if the Planning Comnission does not grant the extension, Mr. Stahlberg has to reapply for a new special use permit, go through another public hearing,and the findings are probably going to be the same. Mr. Boardman stated the Commission has to understand that every time there is an extension, there are staff costs--meeting time, review time, etc. He thought that was why after so many extensions, the City Council said there would be no more extensions. Ms. Gabel stated that normally she would agree with that, but she is wondering what there is to review about this, It is not something that is extremely complicated, and she just did not think the review time involved could be very significant. Mr. Svanda stated that if the Planning Commission denies the extension, Mr. Stahlberg has to go through the special use permit process all over again. Referring to Mr, Boardman's comment about staff costs, that $200 special use permit fee may or may not recoup the staff costs for reviewing, writing memos, and attending meetings to bring it back before the Planning Commission, and nothing has really changed, Granted, there have been a number of extensions, but it seems they were because of things that were possibly beyond Mr. Stahlberg's control. He thought they should give Mr. Stahlberg one more chance at it, since nothing has materially changed on the request. It is going to cost a few dollars just Co process the $200 on a new special use permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEE7ING, MARCH 10, 1982 PAGE 5 MOTION BY MR. SVANDA� SECONDED BY M8. GABEL� TO RECOMMEND TO CSTY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN EXTENSION OF ONE YEAR FOft SPECIAL USE PERMIT� SP�#78-10� BY ALLEN B, STAXLBERG, FOR THE FOLLOWING Rb'ASONS; Z. REQUIRING MR. STAHLBERG TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN WOlILD RESULT IN HIM XAVING TO 5PEND ANOTHER $200. 2. IT WOULD REQUIRE THE EXPENDITURE OF ADDITIONAL STAFF TIME ABOVE AND BEYDND WHRT HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPENDED. 3. IT IS FELT THAT THE $200 WOULD PR0.8ABLY NOT COVER THAT ADDITIONAL STAFF TIME CQSTS RND IT C0.STS MONEY TO PF20CESS THE PAYMEN2. 4. NOTHING HAS APPARENTLY CHANGED TO WARRANT AN SN-DEPTH RE-REVIEW OF THE SITURTION. 5. DELAYS HAUE BEEN BEYOND MR. STAHLBERG`S CONTROL DUE TO A JOB LAY-OFF AND THE POOR HOUSING MARKET. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED TXE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Boardman stated this would go to City Council on March 22. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO ADJQURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING RYE� VICE-CHAI.RPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MARCH ZD� 1982� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AA7CIURNED AT 8:30 P.M. Res ectfully subm'tted, yr e Sa a Record�ng Secretary