Loading...
PL 04/18/1984 - 306170 CITY OF FRIDLEY '�1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 18, 1984 CALL TO ORDER: Chairwoman Schnabel called the April 18, 1984, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL: Meribers Present: Ms. Schnabe7, Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Kondrick, Mr. Saba, Mr. Goodspeed Members Absent: Mr. Svanda Others Present: Jim Robinson, Planning Specialist Gerald G. Johnson, 712 River Lane, Anoka Robert Erickson, 2178 - 17th St. N.W., New Brighton Mark Haggerty, 6401 University Ave. N.E. APPROVAL OF MARCH 28, 1984, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOT.ION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY 1�Z. SABA� TO APPROVE THE MARCN 28, 1984� � PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN. Ms. Schnabel stated that at this meeting, the Commission asked for some clarification from the City Council regarding park fees. Mr. Robinson stated a memo was sent to the City Council. The Council's inter- pretation was what he had said at the March 28th meeting, that on a 9-lot plat, the park fee was on the 9 lots. Mr. 67omberg had questioned paying a park fee on the 9th lot, because there was an existing dwelling on it. Mr. Robinson state� that on a lot split, a$750 park fee is paid on each new lot that is created. However this is not a lot split issue but rather a plat. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF APRIL 4, 1984, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO APPROVE THE APRIL 4, 1984� PLANNING CQMMISSION MINUTE5 AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRW�IAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MO'_"ION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 18, 1984 PAGE 2 � 1. LOT SPLIT RE UEST: L.S. #84-03 BY GERALD B. JOHNSON: Split off the West 0 ot , an a o ots , 6, an , uc�a ane Addition, into three tracts as follows: Tract A: The north 90 feet of Lot 5, along with the Nort6 90 feet of the East 20 feet of Lot 6, Lucia Lane Addition, the same being 6516 Lucia Lane N.E. Tract 6: That part of Lot 5 lying south of tF�e Nortf� 90 feet of said Lot 5, and that part of the East 20 feet of said Lot 6, Lucia Lane Addition, the same being 6500 Lucia Lane N.E. Tract C: Lot 7, along with the West half of Lot 4, and that part of Lot 6 lying west of the east 20 feet of said Lot 6, Lucia Lane Addition, the same being 1133 and 1145 Mississippi Street N.E. Mr. Robinson stated this property was located north of Mississippi St., west of Lucia Lane, and east if Hi ghway 65. The property presently consists of Lots 5, 6, 7, and the west half of Lot 4, The petitioner is requesting that this property be split in such a manner so that Lot 5 will be basically split in half with 20 ft, from Lot 6 being added to Lot 5, and the remainder of Lot 6 and Lot 7 being added to the half of Lot 4, to make three tracts, Tract A, Tract B, and Tract C. Mr. Robinson stated Staff Fias same definite concerns that have been di_scussed with the petitioner, Mr. Gerald Johnson. One of t�ie Staff concerns is that the legal descriptions are quite lengthy� and Staff feels Mr. Johnson should apply for a plat ratfier than a lot split and not allo�► tFiis type of reworking ,—� of the 7 and with a l ot spl it. __ Mr. Robinson stated another Staff concern was the traffic on Mississippi St. With two R-1 lots on Lucia Lane and one rather large tract of over 42,000 sq. ft. off Mississippi St., Staff fe7t access should be required off Lucia Lane with no access onto Mississippi St. He stated that presently there are plans to widen Mississippi St. and put in a medi�an so access onto Mississippi would be very limited. Mr. Robinson stated the third Staff recommendation wou7d be a 15 ft. bikeway/ walkway easement along Mississippi St. Ms. Schnabel asked the petitioner, Mr, Johnson, if he v�ould like to make some statements reaardin4 his dr000sal for this nrouertv. Mr. Mark Haggerty stated he was an attorney representing Mr. Gerald Johnson. He stated Mr. Bob Erickson, who was a contractor, was also at the meeting. Mr. Haggerty stated he would first give the Planning Commission members a little background on this paecel of land. He stated this parcel of land has been before the Planning Commission and City Council about six times in the last six years. There have been proposals for everything from restaurants and office buildings to duplexes and condominiums. Mr. Haggerty stated the prohlem was a"catcfi�22" which 6as 6een created hy the City of Fridley. On Lucia Lane, with the Knights of Colum6us and the apartment buildings, the neighbors claim there is a tremendous traffic problem � do�vn Lucia Lane. Obviously, ti�ey cannot get access to Highway 65. The City — � I 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 18, ]984 PAGE 3 claims there is a tremendous traffic problem on Mississippi St. Ne said they have met with the neighbors many times, and the neighbors say they want no access onto Lucia Lane, T�e City wants no access onto Mississippi St., even though at t�is time, Mr. Johnson could pull a building permit on Lots 7, 6, and 5, and the City could noi do anything about it. Mr. Haggerty stated he had just become involved with this proposa] that day, and he be7ieved the dimensions on the drawing were not quite accurate. f�hat was really meant r�as to have a Tract A and Tract B and two buildable lots on Tract C, making four buildable residential lots. Mr. Haggerty stated Staff has talked about running a road in from Lucia Lane. That would be great, except for two things: (1) the cost; and (2) the neighbors on Lucia Lane would be very upset. The neighbors have stated they want nice residential homes and try to preserve the beautiful oak trees that are on the land, in order to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood and not create a traffic problem. Mr. Haggerty stated they are asking the Planning Commission, and ultimately the City Council, to compromise. The City says there are traffic problems on Mississippi St., and the neighbors don't want traffic congestion on Lucia Lane and the neighbors do not want multiple development. So, they are propos- ing to take one ]ot off Plississippi St., put two lots on Lucia Lane, so there are two lots on Mississippi, as opposed to three lois. He stated he did ^ not know what would happen with the westerly portion of Lot 4. It would make a nice backyard for someone. The petitioner is primarily concerned with the four residential lots without t�e additional cost of having to put in a road that would meet city standards. That would run another $60,000, With a total square footage of 64,000 maximum, that just doesn't justify a road. Ms. Schnabe7 asked either Mr. Johnson or Mr. Haggerty to comnent on the staff recommendations, particularly the first recommendation that because of the comp7ex legal descriptions, the City would like to see a p7at. Mr. Haggerty stated he did not fee] the ]egal descriptions were that complex. Regarding the drawing, he felt Tract C should have been two tracts, and that could be corrected. If the legal descriptions were too complicated, they would find that out very fast at the County Recorder's office. Under state law, if the legal descriptions are too complicated, the County Recorder has the right to reject them. In checking with the County Clerk, these legal descriptions did not appear to be that objectionable. . Ms. Schnabe] stated she was concerned about Mr. Haggerty's cor�nent that the drawing was not totally correct. Mr. Haggerty stated the drawing showed adding 20 ft, from Lot 6 to Lot 5, and he believed that should be around 15 ft., which would create four buildable ]ots with minimum square footages and minimum frontages. �1 PLANNING COM�ISSION MEETING, APRIL ]8 z 1984 PAGF 4 � Mr. Haggerty stated they could drop the westerly portion of Lot 4, an� just work with Lots 7, 6, and 5. That parcel was not necessary for the minimum square footages on Lots 7 and 6. Mr. Haggerty stated Mr. Johnson has held t�is property for a long time, and he pays $3,000/year in real estate taxes on the property. He stated they would request that the Planning Cor�nission approve this lot split request, taking into consideration some of the problems there �ave been in the past, and tfie change of adding 15 ft. to Lot 5, rather tfian 20 ft., as indicated on the drawing. Mr. Oquist stated he really could see nothing wrong with this request. With only two driveways coming out onto Mississippi St., that would only be 2-4 additional cars coming out onto Mississippi. Ms. Schnabe7 suggested the possibility of combining the driveways for Lots 7 and 6 so that both homes would be accessing onto Mississippi from one single driveway. Mr. Haggerty stated the problems were basically legal and marketing problems. If people are going to buy a single family hame, they want a single family home where everything on it is theirs. If a driveway is combined, it has to be done right. There has to be a reciproca7 easement and reciprocal maintenance agreement that runs with the land. He stated that kind of tfiing scares people ^ off and makes it very difficult to market a single family �ome. In his -- experience, it has 6een a very difficult prob7em. Ms. Schnabel stated she was a 7ittle uncomfortable with this request with no public hearing, considering t�at in the past history of this property, the neighbors have been very vocal. She realized that a lot split did not require a public hearing by ordinance, but she still felt uncomfortable without having some kind of vehicle for those neighbors to make comrient on this proposal. Mr. Haggerty stated that in the meetings with the neighbors, of all the plans they submitted to the neighbors, when they started getting down to the 8, 7, and 6 unit density 7eve1, the concern from the neighbors lessened. Now, they are down to the 4-unit level. He stated they could have three units without any trouble, but they are trying to accomnodate the City by putting one more driveway onto Lucia Lane, as opposed to Mississippi, and still make the total package economically feasible enough so that something can �e done. He stated it is getting to the latter third of April, and they would 7ike to get going. To go through a pub7ic hearing process at this time would be very burdensome. Mr. Robinson stated one thing he was a little concerned about was that, with the original lot sp7it, the westerly part of Lot 4 was included. If they do as Mr. Haggerty suggested and drop that portion, that piece of land would be completely landlocked. ,—� � �� �� � PLANNING COF1MISSION MEETING, APRIL 18 z 19a4 PAGE 5 Mr. Haggerty agreed, but he stated they are willing to give up develop�ent on that lot in order to be able to get some development going on these four new lots. Mr. Oquist stated that of a77 the plans they have seen for this property, tfiis seemed to be the most viab]e plan. Mr. Robinson suggested that 5 ft, from Tract A be added to Tract B, ma,king a little more room on Tract B because of greater setbacks on a corner lot. MOTION 8Y MR. OQUIST� SECONDED BY MR. SABA� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF LOT SPLIT REQUE5T� L.S. #84-03, FOR THE CREATION OF TRACT A AND TRACT B� LEAVING LOTS 6 AND 7 AS BUILDABLE LOTS, WITH THE FOLIAYIING STIPULATIONS: 1. A 15 FT. BIKEWAY/WAL76�JAY EASEMENT ON MIS5ISSIPPI ST. 2. CORRECTION IN CLERICAL ERROR THAT TXE 20 FT. FROM LOT 6 TO BE ADDED TO LUT 5 BE CHANGED T10 IS FT. AND THAT THE NECE.SSARY DOCUMENTS BE PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THI5 ITEM GOES TO CITY COUNCIL. 3. A CORRECTED DOCUMENT BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE RECOMMENL'ATION THAT TNE FRONTAGE ON TRACT A BE CKANGED FROM 90 FT. TO 85 FT.� ADDING 5 FT. TO TRACT B. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CXAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED TfiE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel stated this would go to �ity Council on May 7. 2. DISCUSSION ON TARGET PROPOSAL FOR PROPERTY NORTH OF CITY HALL: Mr. Robinson stated the plans for the Target faci7ity north of City Ha]1 are very quickly becoming fina7ized� and Staff felt they should come to the Planning Commission and explain the Target proposal to the Commission. Mr. Robinson stated it involves the area north of City Hall, 4.8 acres. Target will be constructing a 75,000 sq, ft, building, three stories, with a possible expansion of 15-16,000 sq, ft, for administrative operations and computer-type operations. Target will be relocating '. employees from Paco Industria] Park. This is a$5 million facility and will create $200,000/year in taxes. Mr. Robinson stated Target wi17 be using similar type brick and stucco and the same plaza motif wil] be carried throughout the area. Landscaping will also be consistent with the tota7 deve7opment. Mr. Robinson stated that primarily the access to the parking lot will be off the service drive to City Hall. There will be more ]imited access off Mississippi St. The parking lot will have 311, 9' x 18', stalls. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 18, 1984 PAGE 6 ,� The Planning Commission members wondered why Target did not have their own driveway off 5th St. past the median, rather than having a shared driveway with City Hall and the Police Dept. Mr. Robinson stated that right now the City is working on relocation of present businesses on the property, and everything seems to be going well. 3. RECEIVE MARCH 26, 1984, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MOT.ION BY MR. KONDRICK� 5ECONDED BY MR. OQUIST, TO RECEIVE TBE MAR. 26� I984� PARKS � RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN 5CHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE MARCH 27, 1984, ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. SABA, SECONDED BY 1►�2. KONDRICK, TO RECIEVE TXE MAR. 27� 1�84� ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRF70MAN SCXNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE APRIL 5, 1984, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION NIINUTES: !�'� 1NOTION BY MR. GOODSPEED� 5ECONDED BY 1�2. iG�NDRICK� SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST, TO RECEITIF; THE �PRIL 5� 1984, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSIGaN MINUTES. Mr. Goodspeed sta±ed the Commission members came up with their recommenda- tions to City Council for human service funding of 1983 CDBG funds. He stated those recommendations were stated in a motion to the City Counci7 on page 5. Ms. Schnabel stated the Planning Commission appreciated all the work the Human Resources Commissim has done in coming up with these recomnendations for human service funding. The Planning Corr�nission was in agreement with what the Human Resources Cormnission had recommended. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL bECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE APRIL 10, 1984� APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY MR. SABA� TO RECEIVE TEE APRIL 19� 1984� APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRF70MAN SCHNABEL DECLAP.ED THF. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY. �--. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 18, 1984 PAGE 7 ADJOURNMENT: 1r10TION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY 1�2. OpUIST, TO ADJOURN TITTE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCNNABEL DECLARED TXE APRIL Z8� 1984� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIlVG ADJDURNED AT 9:35 P.M. Respectfully sub itted, �� re Saba Recording Secretary r°"'1 �,