PL 04/08/1987 - 30661'�C.ITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANC�ING COMMISSIOPJ P�IEETING, APRIL 8, 1987
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Billings called the April 8, 1987, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 7:31 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Mernbers Present: Steve Billings, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek,
Donald Betzold
Members Absent: Richard Svanda
Others Present: Jim Robinson, Planning Coordinator
�i�hard Peterson, 247 - 57th Place N.E.
- Charles, Faye, and Nicoll Rice, 1541 Ferndale Ave. N.E.
See attached list
APPROVAL OF MARCfi 25, 1987, PLANNING COP�IP�ISSION MINUTES:
MOZ',iON BY 1�1R. KONDI4ICK� SECONDED BY NIl2. BETZOLD, TO APPROVE THE MARCH 25� Z987,
^' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEPI.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTI7VG AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY.
1. COPJSIDERATIOPd OF A VACATION, SAV #87-01, BY RICHARD PETERSOPJ:
To vacate a 33 foot s�v�eet dedication between 57th Place and 57 1/2 Avenue
lying east of Lot 15, Block 1, and wesic of Lot 1, Block 2, City View
Addition, all lying in the City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota,
generally located east of 247 - 57th Place N.E.
Mr. Robinson stated the petition was by the property owner who lived
adj.acent to the right-of-way and just to the west of the Hyde Park area
which was predominately a single family neighborhood. The petitioner
had approximately 108 ft. of width with one-half of the street right-of=
way. The petitioner was proposing to construct an addition to his house
which would create the need for a variance without the vacation of the
street.
Mr. Robinson stated the utility companies have been informed of this
vacation request, and there are some utilities in the street easement.
Although the City had no problems with the vacation of the street, Staff
would request that a utility easement be maintained over the entire right-
of-way.
^ Mr. Robinson stated that as the Commissioners could see from the area map,
the right-of-way did not line up with 2a Street, so it had no function at
this point. The Public Works Department felt the street could be vacated
with no detrimental effects at this time.
�
�
�"'�
PLANNIPJG COMMISSION ME�TING, APRIL 8, 1987 PAGE 2
Mr. Bret Anderson, 241 - 57th Place N.E., sta�ted he lived next door to
Mr. Peterson and had no problem with the vacation request.
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SEC0IVDED BY M5. SHEREK, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF VACATION, SAV #87-01, BY RICHARD PETE.RSON� TO VACATE A 33-FOOT
STREET DEDICATZON BETWEEN 57TH PLACE AND 57 1/2 AVENUE LYING EA5T OF LOT Z5,
BIACK 1, AND WEST OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, CITY VIEW ADDITION, ALL LYING I1V THE
CITY OF FRIDLEY, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, �ElVERALLY LOCAfiED EAST OF 247 -
57TH PLACE N.E., WITH THE STIPULATION THAT A UTILITY EA5EMENT BE MAINTAINED
OVER THE ENTIRE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLING5 DE�.LARED THE MOTSON
CARRIED UIVANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Billings stated this item would go to City Council on April 20.
2. COtJSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #�7-01, BY CHARLES RICE:
Split Lot 1, Auditor's Su division No. 92 into two separate parcels. One
being that part of the north 133.84 feet of the east 75 feet of Lot 1,
Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, subject to a street and utility easemen�
over the north 30 feet. The other being that part of the east 75 feet of
Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92 lying south of the north 133.84 feet,
subject to a street and utility easement over the south 30 feet, the
same being 1541 Ferndale Avenue N.E.
Mr. Robinson stated this lot was located on the north side of Ferndale Ave.
and west of Benjamin Street. He stated it was a double deep lot located in
a single family neighborhood. The proposal was to split the lot north and
south, approximately half-way. The lot was 227 ft. in length.
Mr. Robinson stated he would like to give a little history on this particular
application. He stated it was the subject of quite a bit of debate in 1974
when the Benjamin/Briardale area was platted. There was quite a bit of
discussion at that ti�re about extending the existing cul-de-sac at 61st
(which would be the access for the proposed lot) west to open the other large
loics in this area. There was the potential for quite.a few lots to be split
in this area. One lot already had been split--to the west from the Rice's
lot.
Mr. Robinson stated that at the time of the platting, the petitioners,
Mr. & P�Irs. Charles Rice, were not in favor of extending the road to open
up the other lots. At that time there was reliance by City Staff and the
developer of the plat of that fact, and the area was developed with the cul-
de-sac as it is today. Now, it would be very difficuTt to extend the road
because there was a house that sat to the north and west of the cul-de-sac
which was basically to the center of the road. Any road connection would
have to be a winding kind of road. Because of this problem, Staff did not
feel they could recommend approval of the lot split at this time, and that
it would require further consideration.
Mr. Robinson stated the Planning Commission members had a copy of the
Mar. 18, 1974, City Council minutes, regarding this issue.
� PLANNING COMf�ISSION MEETING, APRIL 8, 1987 PAGE 3
Mr. Robinson stated if this lot split was approved, it would either set a
precedent for opening up the rest of the properties to be split or it would
completely close the other properties off. Staff felt there should be a
plan that was agreed upon by all the neighbors.
Mr. Charles Rice stated it was his understanding that he had access to the
northerly portion of his lot at this time.
Mr. Robinson stated Mr. Rice did have about 30 ft, of access which abutted
61st Ave. The problem with the 30 ft. was that it would not allow Mr. Rice
to putin a city street. It would allow a driveway into Mr. Rice's lot alone
and in the process would landlock the other properties �o the west.
P�rs. Faye Rice stated that back in 1974, the lot was certainly buildable then.
Why was it not a buildable lot now?
Mr. Robinson stated he=�ad gone th�ough the old plat of that adjacent property
and the minutes along with the old map that ref�ected that there was a plan
by City Staff at that time to provide access to all the back lots. The plan
was to extend the road and the cul-de-sac to apen up everything to the west.
At that time, there we�e eight lots which could have been developed. This
plan was rejected by the neighbors and, specifically, the. Rice's at that time.
� The existing layout of the property was directly due to the fact that the City
and the developer relied on the input by the neighbors that they did not want
the property developed and did not want a road put through there.
P�r. Betzold stated that in the March 18, 1974, City Council minutes, Mrs. Rice
was qu�ted as saying: "She had purchased the property because of the location
and the large parcel...if she wanted to live on a square parcel adjacent to
and back to back from another home, she would �ot have bought this property.
She said she had bough� the property because they wanted breathing room."
Mrs. Rice stated that was a horren:dous meeting at that time. They were young,
and they had just moved into their house. It_was beautiful back there. The
woods and the trees were what sold them on the lot. Then, all of a sudden,
a contractor was coming in and was going to build a whole bunch of houses back
there, tear down trees, etc., and anyone would have been opposed to that at
that time. She stated their decision to split the lot was not a"fly by night"
idea. They have thought it over, have been to City Hall numerous times and
have talked to various people, and up until a month and a half ago, they were
told there was no problem with the lot split. She stated it was understandable
that they were upset about Staff's recommendation.
Mr. Jack Peebles stated he owned the lot that had been split. I�e had split
the lot about the same time he bought the lot which was 33 years ago. He stated
he would very much like to see the road go through. He had expressed that
same opinion before at a meeting. He would like to see the Rice's lot split
approved, and the whole thing opened up for all the lots.
�
� PLANNItJG COMP�ISSION MEETING, APRIL 3, 1987 PAGE 4
Mr. Tim Dess, 1510 Rice Creek Or. N.E., stated he owned the lot that backed
up to �he Peebles' lot split. He strongly objected to the road going through.
If the lot split was approved, he would be afraid of the City setting a
precedent. He would not be opposed to the Rice's lot split with the condition
that it would preclude the extension of 61st Ave. If any of the Commissioners
had been back in that area, they knew what the elevation was like. The ele-
vation was quite high; and if homes were built up there, there would be homes
looking in'co the windows of other homes. Extending the road would certainly
allow him to split his lot, but it appeared there could be all kinds of
problems in the way the area was developed. He bought his house for the
same reasons expressed by the Rice°s. lie felt it was the responsibility of
the Planning Commission ico not just open up areas for lot splits, but to plan
the development of an area. He did not feel that extending an alleyway thr,ough
there was an appropriate way to utilize the area.
Mr. Robinson stated that at this time, the road could not go through because
of the house that was built on the cul-de-sac, and the house was allowed to
be built there because back in 1974 the neighbors did not want a road through
there. Even if they put a 30 ft, driveway through there, there would have to
be qui�e a curve because of the existing house, so Staff was not recornmending
a road go through there at all given the existing conditions.
Mrs. Ruth Hayes, 1549 - 61st Ave. N.E., stated they owned the house in question
� on the cul-de-sac. She stated they bought the house because it was on the
cul-de-sac. They wanted the privacy and liked the quiet area. She would be
very upse�t if there was traffic going on alongside their house. As far as the
lot spli�, if it was approved, and the house was built facing the cul-de-sac,
she felt it would fit in with the rest of the area, but she did not know if
the house could be built that way. She did not think it would look right for
the house to be built facing the south side of their garage.
Mr..Roger Sorsoleil, 1561 - 60th Ave. N.E., stated he owned the lot next to
Mr. Rice,on the west side. He would go along with the lot split. He, too,
would like to split his lot someday and maybe there could be some kind of common
driveway arrangement.
Mr. Robinson stated there are some older situations in Fridley vdhere there are
common driveways, but it was the present city policy that every house and
every lot have its own 25 ft. access to the street. The City strongly dis-
couraged common, �rivate driveways.
h1rs. Hayes stated she liked to think that Fridley planned this area, and they
should not be having afterthoughts now. If the area was thought out and
planned this way in 1974, it should remain this way now.
Mr. Billings stated that in looking at the Mar. 18, 1974, City Council minutes,
there was considerable amount of discussion about this, and it appeared that
what was done was well thought out and was felt to be the best plan under the
^ circumstances at that time. At this time, the only function required by the
Planning Commission was to approve or disapprove the lot split, not to recom-
ment or not recommend that a road should go through there. It was not the
PLANNIPJG COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 8, 1987 PAGE 5
Planning Commission's function to come up with a plan for the area. Staff's
recommendat�vn was to deny the lot split request until the petitioner can get
together with the neighbors and come up with a better plan, if at all.
Mr. Betzold stated that at the same time, the Planning Commission did have
the responsibility to try to �ake a longer range view of the enti.re situation.
Ms. Sherek stated the Rice's were before the Planning Commission saying they
want to be able to aevelop a lot that they told the City Council in 1974
they had no intention of developing, which had some effect on how the area
was developed and why Mr. � Mrs. Hayes' house was located where it was. In
other words, at that time, the cul-de-sac was going to continue in order to
permit access to all the lots under the unitial plan. Because Mr. Peebles
was the only one who made that request of the homeowners, the plan was scrapped.
Now the Rice's were saying they have the access to their property and they now
want to split the property they said in 1974 they had no intention of splitting.
If the Rice's had come to the City Council back then, chances were pretty good
that the road configuration would have happened because at least half of the
homeowners said they wanted those lots to be buildable lots.
Mrs. Rice stated she wanted to know if what happened in 1974 had anything to
do with t�eTr petition for a lot split.
�� Mr. Billings stated that what happened in 1974 would definitely affect the
Planning Commission's decision, because in 1974 the actions that were taken
by the Rice's,City Staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and the developer
were what had brought them to the point they are at now. The Planning
Corrunission could not disregard what happened in 1974.
Mr. Peebles stated he could understand what Mrs. Rice was saying. When he
first built here, it was just a gravel pit. It was out in the country, and
it was beautiful. He now lived in Becker, Minnesota. He stated when the
Rice's moved in, they did not want the cul-de-sac extended, but progress was
the name of the game, and they have to open up areas that some people do not
want. Back in 1974, the Rice's did not want any development.
Mr. Robinson �rs�ke�;�r. Peebles if he would support the lot split if the
construction of the house would �ake it so that he could never build on his
lot.
Mr. Peebles stated, no, he was in favor of the lot split only with the idea
that the road would be extended.
Mr. Betzold stated that in reviewing the 1974 minutes, was it a fair surrunation
that the road would have gone through except for the opposition by the neigh-
bors to the City Council?
Mr. Peebles stated the neighbors did not want the road through at that time,
� but now it was many years later and la�d was valuable.
�
�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 8, 1987 PAGE 6
Mr. Hayes stated a building permit was issued for his house to be built, so
it �ust have been in compliance with the way the cul-de-sac was designed.
The original plan could not be implemented now because his house was in the
way .
Mr. Betzold stated he would be opposed to the lot split. The developrnent as
it was now was exactly what the Rice's fought for in 1974. To grant the
lot split at this time would essentially be to the Rice's benefit, but it
would also create a hardship for Mr. Peebles who in 1974 supported the road
going through exactly the way it should have been done which was recommended
by the Planning Commission at that time.
Mrs. Rice stated that was 12 years ago, and they were concerned about what the
developer was g�ing to do and then facing all the assessments. The City has
done a lot of things in 12 years.
Mr. Kondrick stated he could not vote in favor of the lot split unless there
was some way of opening up the�otber lot splits. He wfluld recommend this
item be tabled until City Staff and the neighbors could come up with some kind
of solution.
Mr. Tim Dess stated he was not in favor of opening up the issue of putting the
road through there.
Mr. Billings stated his.view was similar to Mr. Kondrick's except that
Mr. Kondrick had expressed the desire to table this item. If they were to
recommend to the City Council approval of this lot split, they would be doing
things piecemeal. He hesitated to say that the area was screaming for some
kind of long range plan, because some of the neighbors' long range plan was to
leave the area as it is now and others' long range plan was to eventually
develop their lots. His recommendation was much in line with Staff's recommen-
dation, and that was to deny this particular lot split at this time and
recommend to the petitioner that he get together with his neighbors to try
to come up with a legitimate plan for the area. It might, in fact, be some-
thing that was somewhat similar to what was suggested in 1974. What he heard
the Rice's saying was that in 1974 they did not think they would ever want to
split their property, and assessmen��s had been a concern of theirs at that time.
Now things have changed, and they are faced with what can be done for this
entire area. If the City was to grant the lot split without making any pro-
visions for Mr. Peebles and some of the other property owners, they vuould be
landlocked forever, and forever was a long time. He had a real philosophical
problem with doing that. He had no problem with the Rice's wanting a lot
split, but if they were allowed to do it, then the same opportunity should be
given to the other property owners with similar lots.
Mrs. Rice stated she understand that. She stated she would never do anything
to hinder anyone else's property and that was why they were before the
Commission.
�
PLANNIPdG COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 8, 1987 PAGE 7
MOTIDN BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MS. 5HEREK, TO RECOMMEND TD CITY COUNCIL
DENTAL OF LOT SPLIT, L.S. #87-01, BY CHARLES RICE, TO 5PLIT LOT Z� AUDITOR'S
SUBDIVISION NO. 92 IN�O TWO 5EPARATE PARCELS. ONE BEING THAT PART OF THE
NORTH 133.84 FEET OF THE EAST 75 FEET OF LOT 1, AUDITOR'S SUBDlVI5ION NO. 92,
SIIBJECT TO A STREET AND UTILITY EASEMENT OVER TNE 1VORTH 30 FEET. THE OTHER
BEING THAT PART OF THE EAST 75 FEET OF LOT 1, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 92
LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH 133.84 FEET, SUBJECT Z'O A STREET AND UTILITY EASEMENT
OTTER THE 50UTH 30 FEET, THE SAME BEING 154Z FERNDALE AVENUE N.E.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOZ'ION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The Commissioners were in agreement that if the petitioner could get neigh-
borhood support for a plan, it might be something the Planning Commission
could also support.
The following people asked for copies of the Mar. 18, 1974, City Council
minutes to be sent to them: Charles � Faye Rice, Tim Dess, Robert Hayes.
3. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE FRIDLEY PLANNI_NG COMMISSIOIU FINDING THE
ECT
P�r. Robinson stated that in conjunction with the expansion of a project area,
it was necessary for the Planning Commission to review and comment on the
expansion. He stai:ed this had been brought up at an earlier meeting, and
the Planning Commission had been supportive of the expansion. Formal action
was needed by the Planning Commission to amend the redevelopment district.
MQTION BY MS. SHEREK� SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO APPROVE "RESOLUTION OF THE
FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING TNE AMEIITDMENT OF THE HOU5ING & REDEVELOP-
MENT AUTHO.RITY'S MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1,
THE ENLARGEMEIVT OF TNE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND THE AMElUDMENT OF THE
TAX IIVCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREME11lT FINANCING DISTRICTS NO. 2
THRDUGH NO. 8 TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP.REHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY".
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLING5 DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. RECEIVE P�ARCH 5, 1987, HUh1AN RESOURCES COP�PIISSION P�INUTES:
MOTI0111 BY MS . SHEREK, SECOIVDED BY MR . KONDRI CK, TO RECEI VE THE NIARCH 5, 19 87 ,
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMI5SION MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE V02'E', ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER50N BILLINGS DECLARED THE
n MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
� PLANNI�JG CONIP�ISSION MEETING, APRIL 8 1987 PAGE 8
5. RECEIVE P�ARCH 31 , 1987, APPEALS COP�IMISSION P�INUTES:
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MR. KOIUDRICK, TO RECEIVE THE MARCH 31, 1987,
APPEAIoS' COMMISSION MINUTES .
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BTLLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. DEFINING ISSUES RELATED TO LONG RANGE PLANNIPdG OBJECTIVES:
Mr. Robinson stated the Planning Commission had decided that it would be a
good thing to have bi-monthly long range planning meetings. This idea was
to go to the City Council conference meeting agenda for P�arch 31, but it
was bumped off the agenda because of an already heavy agenda.
Mr. Robinson stated he felt now was a good time to at least get started on
some of the issues the Planning Commission feels they want to be looking at,
perhaps to get to a point where they have some goals and objectives, and
then ask the City Council to sit in on a meeting before formally putting
together a work plan.
Mr. Billings stated the City P�anager and a couple of other people indicated
� they did not know if not scheduling anything administrative every fourth
meeting was going to make their ,process elongated so that it might be
detrimental to a developer. So, the Planning Commission should probably
come up with some kind of proposal to iche City Council in terms of what they
want to do on these fourth meetings and if they can,in fact, set aside one
meeting out of every four for long range planning. Then come up with a list
of tentative things they want to be looking at and discussing.
Mr. Kondrick stated he felt every fourth meeting was reasonable to set aside
for long range planning. In all fairness to petitioners, maybe once in
awhile, they would have to hear a request on that fourth meeting.
Mr. Betzold stated Staff could also use some discretion in arranging their
agendas.
The Corrm�issioners generated the following 11 issues for future discussion.
These issues are ranked in the order of priority.(l being..the highest
priority, 10 being the lowest priority):
1- Identify undeveloped residential properties which are either
problematic, traditionally landlocked, or �roperties which
have rezoning potential for residential use.
2- Development and function of Riverview Heights Park as an asset
3- Review and update Comprehensive Plan.
�,
3- Use of City lands.
�,,,, PLANNING COMP�ISSION MEETING,_ APRIL 8, 1987 PAGE 9
4 - Improperly zoned properties.
5- Improve Moore Lake as an asset.
6- Improve the City's identity(physical).
7 - Unauth�rized junk yards.
8- Plans to replace temporary land uses.
9- Poor perception of Fridley.
10 - Unpaved driveways.
Mr. Betzold stated the Commission members now have listed some issues. The
next step was to define some of the problems for the top 4-5 issues. Maybe
between now and the May 20th mee�Gi-ng,.if Staff can help the Commission on
any of these issues, they could provide the Commission with that information.
Mr. Billings stated that at the P�ay 20th meeting, the Commissioners should
plan on better defining the top 4-5 issues and better defining what direction
the Commission would like to go on each one.
'''�'� 7. OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Robinson stated he just wanted to remind the Planning Commission members
that the public meeting on the "No Parking Ban" being co-sponsored by the
League of Women Voters and the Planning Commission would be held on Thurs.,
Apri 1 16, i n Corrrmuni ty Room I at 7:30 p.m.
ADJOURPJMENT :
MOZ'ION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MR. KOKDRTCK, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON
A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE APRIL 8, 1987,
PLANNING COMNII5SION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:30 P.M.
Respectfully sub itted,
L
Lynn Sa a
Recording Secretary
�"1
�''��� `
�
�
� � ' �..r�rF�1s . � � C..F,
� � � T ,�i �( D � �?.�N
� �� �
1
�•� 1��s S
,
���
� Jack Peebles
�
� �'�ger-_Sarsoleil
'� ��'� � � �-t ���� .�
�,
4 �
L
�� � ���
� �iL�/.�/iC.//.�f../f �
���� �..���-� ��' �. _� .
i5�-1 � = �� . �.�. — -� �
t � cc ��
�S�l S7�' ��,�cC
� `/ 7 .�7f� ��
� ��
/�/ J �
/s°.a o�%c� G�cE�ic �
0
��� —l� / ��� a �1 � -
!�'��� � o��-��
156T -:.�Oth Ave. N. E.
��2��/��°
�2G����
LC
`f'—,�i.D�� 5 5 C{ ��
��
�