PL 04/14/1993 - 30769�"1
�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 14, 1993
NMMMNMMti�YMM�wwN�YMMMMNMIYNMN�YMMMIYMwMNNM�MMMMM�Y��M�MMNN�MMMwMNwMNM�►M
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairperson Newman called the April 14, 1993, Planning Commission
meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL•
Members Present: Dave Ne�man, Dean Saba, Connie Modig,
Brad Sielaff, LeRoy Oquist
Members Absent: Dave Kondrick, Diane Savage
Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Peter Meade, Target Stores
John Sandstede, Target Stores
Richard Carlson, Park Construation
John Miller, 300 Midwest Fed. Bldg., St. Paul
Mark and Jean Schwartz, 1372 - 64th Ave.
Lynette Jain, 240 Longfellow Street N.E.
� Frank Labandz, 1356 - 64th Ave. .
WELCOME TO LEROY OOUIST, VICE-CHAIRPERSON, HUMAN RESOURCES
COMMISSION•
Chairperson Newman welcomed Mr. Oquist, who will be attending the
Planning Commission meetings until a new chairperson is elected
for the Human Resources Commission.
APPROVAL OF MARCH 24, 1993. PLANNING COMMISSION MIIJUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to approve the March
24, 1993, Planning Commission minutes as written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTI1dG AYE, CHAIRPLRBON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
1. PUBLIC H_EARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP
#93-94. BY TARGET STORES:
Per Section 205.15.01.C.(11) of the Fridley City Code, to
allow garden centers or nurseries which require outside
display or storage of inerchandise, on part of Lots 10, 11,
and 12, Auditor's Subdivision No. 155, generally located at
755 - 53rd Avenue N.E.
/'�,
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 14, 1993 PAGE 2
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERBON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARINa OP�N AT 7s33 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is generally located south of I-
694, west of Central Avenue, and north of 53rd Avenue. The
property is zoned C-3, General Shopping Central district, as are
the adjacent properties to the east. The property to the west is
zoned R-1, Sinqle Family Dwelling district, and the property to
the south is in the City of Columbia Heights.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing to construct a 20
ft. by 24 ft. hoophouse (a temporary greenhouse structure) for
garden sales. The petitioner has proposed three alternate
locations for the hoophouse, two of which are on the concrete pad
in front of the Northwest Fabric portion of the store, and the
third is adjacent to the building on the south side of the
building. All three of the proposed locations would minimize the
traffic impact to the garden center.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner plans to hold garden sales
until approximately June 30, 1993. The petitioner is unsure at
� this time whether this will be an annual operation. She stated it
might be appropriate for the Planning Commission to limit the time
the special use permit is valid. Staff has indicated in the
stipulations that the petitioner will have to notify the Community
Development Department by the end of 1993 as to whether or not
Target wants to continue annual garden sales in this manner.
�'�
Ms. McPherson stated that fertilizers, herbicides, or insecticides
should not be stored in the garden center to minimize or eliminate
any environmental concerns associated with those products.
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of this special use permit request with the
following three stipulations:
1. There shall be no outdoor storage of fertilizers,
pesticides, or herbicides.
2. The petitioner shall notify the Community Development
Department in writing by December 31, 1993, whether the
sales will occur on an annual basis.
3. If there are no complaints or issues raised by the
operation of the garden center, the sales may continue
on an annual basis. If problems do occur, the Planning
Commission and City Council may review the special use
permit request to change the stipulations or to determine
if revocation is necessary.
� PLANNING CONIIdIISBION MEETING, APRIL 14, 1993 PAaE 3
Mr. Saba stated that Target has conducted outdoor garden sales in
the past. If this the first time Target has applied for a special
use permit for this type of operation?
Ms. McPherson stated she had reviewed both the address file and
staff's special use permit list, and it does not appear that Target
obtained a special use permit in the past for outdoor garden sales.
Mr. Saba asked if the City has ever received any complaints from
neighbors in the past.
Ms. McPherson stated that she has not heard of any complaints.
Mr. Peter Meade stated he is the Assistant Manager for the Target
Store at 755 - 53rd Avenue N.E. He stated six Target Stores in
the metro area will be testing the outdoor garden centers this
year. He stated they did have an outdoor garden center several
years ago. Nationwide, they outdoor garden centers were not very
successful; however, they were successful in the Minneapolis area.
In an effort to increase sales, they are again getting back into
this part of the business. The garden center will open by early
May and will be open for approximately six weeks. The company they
are.working with is Rosacker which has a very fine reputation.
�
Mr. Meade stated they have no problem with the stipulations
recommended by staff.
Mr. Saba asked if there would be any other outdoor storage other
than the plants in the hoophouse.
Mr. Meade stated they might bring some garden items out of the
store during the day and put them back at night. If the City
doesn't allow them to do that, that is fine.
Mr. Oquist stated Target is proposing three locations for the
garden center. What is Target's preferred site?
Mr. Meade stated they would prefer site #3 (adjacent to the
building on the south side of the building). At that location,
they will not be interfering with Northwest Fabric's business.
Mr. Oquist stated he also favored site #3, not only for ATorthwest
Fabrics, but also in terms of traffic flow and staying out of what
is actually a fire lane in front of the building.
Mr. John Sandstede stated he is the Store Manager for the Target
Store at 755 - 73rd Avenue AT.E. He stated the hoophouse is made
of high quality poly. The sides can be rolled up during the day.
Their intention is to have the bedding plants inside the hoophouse.
� He showed the Commission pictures of garden centers at other Target
Stores.
'"'�
�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. �PRIL 14. 1993 PAGE 4
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CL08ED AT 7t50 P.M.
Mr. Saba stated he had no objection to the special use permit
request. He stated he also preferred site #3.
Mr. Saba that if the Commission recommends approval, he would like
to add a stipulation that the garden center be located at site #3.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend to City
Council approval of special use permit, SP #93-04, by Target
Stores, per Section 205.15.O1.C.(11) of the Fridley City Code, to
allow garden centers or nurseries which require outside display or
storage of inerchandise, on part of Lots 10, 11, and 12, Auditor's
Subdivision No. 155, generally located at 755 - 53rd Avenue N.E.,
with the following stipulations:
1. There shall be no outdoor storage of fertilizers,
pesticides, or herbicides.
2. The petitioner shall notify the Community Development
Department in writing by December 31, 1993, whether the
sales will occur on an annual basis.
3. If there are not complaints or issues raised by the
operation of the garden center, the sales may continue
on an annual basis. If problems do occur, the Planning
Commission and City Council may review the special use
permit request to change the stipulations or to determine
if revocation is necessary.
4. The garden center shall be located at site #3 which is
adjacent to the building on the south side of the
building.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOII3LY.
Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on May 3,
1993.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF EXTENSION OF A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT. SP #82-12. BY PARK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY:
Per Section 205.19.02.C.2 of the Fridley City Code, to allow
rock crushing activities to continue until May of 1995, on
the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 3, Township 30, Range 24, except the South 500 feet
thereof, generally located at 7900 Beech Street N.E.
,..., PLANNING COMMI38ION MEETING. APRIL 14, 1993 PAGE 5
� �
MoTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7s52 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located in the northwest part
of the City at the intersection of 79th Avenue and Beech Street.
The property was recently rezoned from M-2, Heavy Industrial, to
M-3, Outdoor Intensive Heavy Industrial. The property to the north
is also zoned M-3, the properties to the east and south are zoned
M-2, and the property to the west adjacent to the Burlington
Northern tracks is zoned both R-1, Single Family Dwelling, and M-
l, Light Industrial.
Ms. McPherson stated the original special use permit was issued in
1982 to allow rock crushing activities. The City has reviewed the
special use permit on a bi-annual basis depending on whether rock
crushing activities have occurred. Prior to this current request,
the special use permit was extended in 1991. At that time, Park
Construction did not conduct any rock crushing activity due to the
lack of available material for crushing.
� Ms. McPherson stated that during the rezoning process rahich was
processed by the City to rezone parcels from M-2, Heavy Industrial,
to M-3, Outdoor Intensive Heavy Industrial, several residents
appeared at the public hearings to voice their concern regarding
the noise of the crushing activities, height of the stockpiles, and
possible presence of children on the Park Construction property.
Staff also received a letter from an adjacent property owner west
of the railroad tracks. This resident expressed these same
concerns plus hours of operation and general noise and dust
concerns.
Ms. McPherson stated that in speaking to Park Construction, Park
Construction did confirm that they have had problems with vandals
entering the property by cutting through the security fence along
the west property line. The fence is eight feet in height which
is the maximum permitted by City Code.
Ms. McPherson stated Park Construction recently completed a rock
crushing activity from the period of January 16 - March 6, 1993.
This was again the first time in three years that Park Construction
has conducted a rock crushing activity. Park Construction
typically crushes rock or asphalt or concrete during the hours of
7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. These are permitted work hours based on the
City Code. She stated that Mr. Engebretson, Dispatcher for Park
Construction, has said that Park Construction attempts to conduct
these rock crushing activities during the winter months when
� windows are closed due to the inclement weather.
� PLANNING COMMISSION MESTING. APRIL 14. 1993 PAdE 6
i
Ms. McPherson stated that once the material has been crushed, it
is stockpiled on Park Construction property. Staff visually
observed the pile to be between 20-25 feet in height. During the
M-3 rezoning process, the Commission indicated they would like to
evaluate the special use permit and the possibly the height of
these stockpiles.
Ms. McPherson stated the stockpiles are visible from the properties
across the railroad tracks. There is some vegetation which
provides some screening; however, the vegetation is deciduous so
it does not provide year-around screening of the stockpiles.
Ms. McPherson stated that if there is no adverse comment at this
public hearing, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the request to extend the 1982 special use
permit with the following stipulations which were applied to the
1982 request:
1. Special Use Permit, SP #82-12, granted only for the
period from March 1, 1983, to February 28, 1984, and re-
evaluate the permit at the first regular meeting of the
Council in March 1984, providing there has been one
crushing operation at that time.
�"'� 2. The City be allowed to dump their waste concrete material
at this site at no cost.
3. Park Construction take the necessary steps to ensure the
City and State noise, dust, and environmental limits are
not exceeded.
4. The rock crusher, generators, and stockpiles be located
as far north and east on the property as possible.
5. The same standards regarding run-off be applied to this
site, as applied in the Rice Creek Watershed area.
Mr. Sielaff asked if Park Construction was in compliance with the
City's noise ordinance during its recent rock crushing activity.
Ms. McPherson stated she could not answer that question as there
was no City staff person on site taking noise readings. To her
knowledge, staff did not receive any complaints.
Mr. Sielaff asked if the City can regulate the height of the
stockpiles.
Ms. McPherson stated there is no stipulation on the original
special use permit to limit the height of the stockpiles, and there
is nothing in the zoning or nuisance ordinances within the City
�'"� Code which would limit the height of stockpiled materials. If the
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINa, APRIL ig, 1993 PAGE 7
Commission is concerned about the height of stockpiled materials,
a specific stipulation will be needed to address this situation.
Mr. Saba asked Mr. Richard Carlson from Park Construction what they
have been doing to address the concerns about the height of the
stockpiles.
Mr. Carlson stated they have limited the height of the stockpiles.
Since they heard the complaint, they have lowered the piles to 22
feet which is the same height as the building across the street
from their offices. Before, the peaks of the piles could be
anywhere from 26-38 feet in height.
Mr. Carlson stated the City of Fridley dumps all its waste concrete
and asphalt materials at Park Construction at no charge to the
City. Everyone else is charged a minimum of $25-40 per load. Park
Const'uction also reciprocates in selling back to the City all the
crushe�d concrete at a reduced cost.
Mr. C�rlson stated he read the Planning Co�nission minutes when
these concerns were raised during the discussion of the rezoning.
He st ted the people who complained were 1,100 feet or almost two
600 city blocks from the rock crushing operation and 900 feet to
the e ge of the pile. That is a significant distance from any
�"'� resid ntial areas.
��
Mr . C�
attem
they
make �
o f tY
somet
annoy
�lson stated that while they were crushing, they made several
:s to assess the noise levels, and driving up to it in a car,
�uld hardly hear it. The railroad trains at this location
significant amount of noise which about drowns out any noise
crushing activity. When the trucks dump their boxes,
�es the drivers slam the tailgates slam which is noisy and
ig, and they have instructed the drivers not to do that.
Mr. Carlson stated that occasionally with a southeast wind and dry
weather conditions, the dust does blow. However, now that they
have leveled the pile, the wind will not hit those peaks, and that
should curtail a lot of the dust problems. The northwest winds
never affect the residential area. Probably more dust blows around
in the yard than from the stockpiles. They have very heavy
machinery that works around in the yard, and the yard does get very
dusty during dry weather.
Mr. Sielaff asked if Park Construction could wet the piles to keep
them from blowing.
Mr. Carlson stated they do not have any water, but it could be
done.
Mr. Newman asked if any other materials are stockpiled.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 14, 1993 PAGE 8
Mr. Carlson stated that the only other material stockpiled is the
unprocessed material, and that is kept at a minimum height.
Mr. Carlson stated they have had trouble with children coming in
and vandalizing the equipment and starting fires. They have hired
a security department to check the property which has eliminated
a lot of the vandalism. They have also put some yard lights in the
center of the yard which has also helped the security.
Mr. Oquist asked how often Park Construction has to crush more
material.
Mr. Carlson stated that the pile crushed in 1990 was 80,000 tons.
They still have about 3,000-4,000 tons left. This year they have
a project for a big percentage of it. He did not anticipate the
need to do any more crushing for 2-3 years.
Mr. Carlson stated Park Construction has always tried to abide by
whatever the City asks and to do things that are in the best
interests of the City. They will continue to do that.
Mr. Newman stated he has asked Duane Prairie of Park Construction
if he would object if the Commission wanted to incorporate the
hours of operation consistent with what Park Construction is doing
� now into the stipulation. Mr. Prairie had said he would not object
to that.
Mr. Carlson stated that when the crushers come in, they want to
get the job done. A crushing job takes so many hours, and if the
hours are extended, it just takes longer to get the job done. He
believed their working hours were between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
If 7:00 a.m. is a problem, they would be willing to adjust that.
Ms. Dacy stated the hours of operation per City Code is 7:00 a.m.
to 7:00 p.m. with no work on Sundays.
Mr. Carlson stated that if this special use permit extension is
approved, at the next crushing operation, they are going to monitor
the noise so they can show that the noise generated does not
violate the noise ordinance.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER90N NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTIOI+T CARRIED AND T8E POBLIC BEARIAIG CLOBED AT 8:17 P.M.
Mr. Saba stated that the Planning Commission had discussed the
possibility of limiting the height of the stockpiles. They had
also wondered what limitations other cities have on stockpiled
� materials. He believed it is something the Commission should
�,1 PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa. APRIL 14. 1993 PAG� 9
pursue. He was glad to hear that Park Construction is willing to
level the piles off to 22 feet, but is 22 feet is adequate?
Mr. Oquist stated he liked the idea that the stockpile is no higher
than the building near it. He did believe that if they are going
to pick restrictions on height of stockpiles, it should be done in
the M-3, Outdoor Intensive Heavy Industrial zoning regulations, and
not in the special use permit.
Ms. Dacy stated the Commission had added a stipulation to the
special use permit section in the ordinance restricting the height,
or they can also request that the Council initiate a zoning
ordinance amendment.
Ms. McPherson stated that when outdoor storage of material exceeds
15 feet in height, that requires a special use permit, but there
is no maximum height.
Mr. Saba stated he appreciated the fact that Park Construction is
leveling off the piles.
Mr. Sielaff stated he agreed the height of the stockpiles for
anything might be something to consider through the zoning process,
rather than through the special use permit. For this particular
� facility, he would like to see the problems managed in the best way
possible. There are also the concerns about erosion, dust, and
noise. It really becomes a management issue. Maybe Park
Construction could put together some type of management plan for
the City staff.
Ms. McPherson stated staff could work with the petitioner to
develop an acceptable management plan.
Mr. Carlson asked that the more restrictions that are put on them
by the City, the more complicated things become. He stated Park
Construction is willing to work with staff whenever the City
receives complaints. The file could be researched to find out how
many complaints have been received by the City in the 12 years Park
Construction has been in operation. Park Construction has always
tried to be good member of the business community.
Mr. Carlson stated that because of complaints about the stockpiles,
they have been lowered to 22 feet. Lowering the piles is an
additional cost to Park Construction because the piles then take
up more yard space, leaving less space for their other equipment.
He would recommend that they work with staff; and when complaints
are received, they will work with City staff to resolve the
complaints.
Mr. Sielaff stated a management plan makes the City staff aware of
��'` what Park Construction is doing so that when complaints are
received, the staff can respond to those complaints. It does not
�
�
PLANNING COMMI88ION MLETINQ, APRIL 14. 1993 PAGE 10
have to be a complex plan. The City does not want to place more
restrictions on Park Construction.
Mr. Carlson stated he had no problem with writing a letter to staff
outlining what Park Construction is doing to address the neighbors�
concerns.
Mr. Newman stated that, as he understands it, Park Construction is
willing to submit to the City a simple summary letter outlining
their management procedures, and that Park Construction is also
willing to meet with staff and with neighbors when complaints
arise.
Ms. Dacy stated that in reviewing the mailing list, it did not
appear that Edward Bishop, 212 Ely Street, was included in the
mailing list for this public hearing. Mr. Bishop had expressed
several concerns in a letter to the Council and Planning
Commission. She apologized for this error, and stated that she
would be more comfortable if the Commission could table this
request until the next meeting so that Mr. Bishop can have an
opportunity to attend and hear the responses to his concerns that
have been made by Mr. Carlson. She stated this would not interfere
with this item going to Council on May 3.
Mr. Oquist suggested staff review the mailing list and records to
make sure no one else has been overlooked for notification.
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Saba, ta table SP #82-12 until
the next meeting.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPLRSON NEWMAI�T DECLAR�D THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOII3LY.
3. LOT SPLIT REOUEST, L.S. #93-03 BY MICHAEL OBERLE FOR D& N
FEDERAL SAVIATGS BANK:
To create two separate parcels, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2,
described as follows:
Parcel 1: Lots 29, 30, and 31, Block 3, Spring Brook
Park, Anoka County, Minnesota, and together with the
North Half of the vacated alley adjacent to said Lots 29
and 30, Block 3, Spring Brook Park, lying between the
Southerly extensions of the East line of said Lot 29 and
the West line of said Lot 30, in said Block 3, Spring
Brook Park, Anoka County, Minnesota
Parcel 2: Lot 28, Block 3, Spring Brook Park, Anoka
County, Minnesota
This property is generally located at 260 Longfellow Street
N.E.
PLANNINd COMMI88ION MEETING, APRIL 14, 1993 PAQE 11
Ms. McPherson stated this property is located in the northwest
corner of the City. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family
Dwelling. Properties to the west, north, and east are also zoned
R-1, Single Family Dwelling; and the property to the southwest is
zoned R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling.
Ms. McPherson stated the purpose of the lot split is to divide Lot
28 from three other platted lots, Lots 29, 30, and 31, in order for
D& N Federal Savings Bank (represented by Michael Oberle, the
petitioner) to divest itself of the mortgage which was applied for
on Lots 29, 30, and 31. The title history is somewhat complicated
in the fact that there are several properties which are involved
and a combination of contract for deeds and warranty deeds on the
properti�s.
Ms. McPherson stated that in 1987 Mr. and Mrs. Jaeger received a
mortgage on Lots 29, 30, and 31 from Investors' Savings Bank. In
1988, the Jaegers acquired Lot 28 by tax forfeiture. The mortgage
on Lots 29, 30, and 31 was then assigned to D& N Savings Bank.
In 1990, the parcels were combined into one tax parcel for ease of
processing tax notification, assessments, etc. That in itself has
a more complicated history.
Ms. McPherson stated that in 1991, the Jaegers sold the property,
� Lots 28, 29, 30, 31, in its entirety to Mr. Zweig on a contract
for deed. On the same day the property was sold to Mr. Zweig, the
Jaegers assigned their interest in the contract for deed to Mr. and
Mrs. Stewart and then warranty deeded the property to Mr. and Mrs.
Stewart. In 1992, D& N Savings Bank foreclosed on the mortgage
which was assigned to Lots 29, 30, and 31. The mortgage does not
apply to Lot 28.
Ms. McPherson stated the Commission members had a copy of a letter
dated April 14, 1993, from the petitioner, Mr. Oberle. She stated
D& N Savings Bank is attempting to collect on the loan guarantee
from the Department of Housing & Urban Development.
Ms. McPherson stated that by approving the split of Lot 28, the
City would, in effect, be approving a split to create a non-
conforming, unbuildable parcel. The parcel would only be 30 ft.
by 150 ft. Staff spoke with Mr. Stewart who would be the next
owner of Lot 28, should the split be approved. Mr. Stewart has
indicated that he has no interest in receiving Lot 28 as the owner
and, as stated in Mr. Oberle's letter, Mr. Stewart is also not
interested in acquiring the entire property for the amount
indicated in the letter.
Ms. McPherson stated the other interested property owner who
contacted staff is Mr. John Jarvi who lives at 240 Longfellow
Street, the lot adjacent to Lot 28. Mr. Jarvi stated that he had
� attempted to purchase Lot 28 when it went tax forfeit in 1988. It
is possible that Mr. Jarvi may still be interested in acquiring Lot
�\ PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, APRIL 14. 1993 PAGB 12
28. If so, those negotiations would have to occur between Mr.
Jarvi and Mr. Stewart.
Ms. McPherson stated staff has no recommendation at this time
regarding the lot split; however, staff will reiterate that
approving the lot split creates a nonconforming, nonbuildable lot.
Ms. Dacy stated she spoke to Gregg Herrick, City Attorney, late
that afternoon. Mr. Herrick has discussed this matter with Mr.
oberle. Apparently, there was a question as to whether ar not the
lot split application even pertains to this case. Mr. Herrick
verified that the lot split procedure is valid in this case,
because by virtue of creating a separate parcel, they are creating
a parcel that is below the minimum lot area and lot width
requirements in the R-1 zoning ordinance. Staff is concerned that
if the lot split is approved, the lot will be owned by someone who
will not maintain it. So, what they are trying to do with this
process is to get people together and try to get the problem
solved.
Mr. John Miller stated he is a partner of Mike Oberle. Mr. Oberle
is the attorney in their law firm who handles foreclosures, and
that is how he got involved in this particular transaction.
/'� Mr. Miller stated he has gone through the City's subdivision
ordinance, and it does not appear to him that there are any set
criteria of factors that should be taken into consideration when
the Planning Commission or City Council has a lot split to
consider. He would suggest that there are a number of factors that
are relevant, but he did not believe they have to get to that
particular issue at this time.
Mr. Miller stated this is a situation where they have what is
nominally one parcel but is in fact t�ao parcels. One parcel owned
by two different people who never went into partnership to develop
the property, and are being forced together to negotiate when
actually neither party wants ta really enter into negotiations to
solve this particular problem.
Mr. Miller stated the mortgage that was taken by the bank occurred
before the combination of the parcels for tax purposes. It appears
that the combination was done for real estate tax purposes in order
to help facilitate sending'out notices and things of that nature
and was not done for zoning purposes. In fact, in 1988 when the
combination took place, Lot 28 was a nonconforming lot at that time
which had evidently been allowed to be created at some time in the
past by the City.
Ms. McPherson stated the staff report does not go into the
combination portion of the title history for tax purposes, but
i� prior to the meeting, she researched the Assessor � s files regarding
this issue. At one time, Lots 28 and 29 were stand-alone parcels.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 14. 1993 PAGE 13
�,
They were each assigned an individual PIN number. In 1988, Lots
28 and 29 were combined into a single tax parcel. Also, at that
time, Lots 30 and 31 had been a single tax parcel with a single PIN
number. It wasn't until 1990 when the two sets of parcels were
actually combined into one parcel.
Mr. Miller stated D& N Federal Savings Bank took the mortgage
prior to any combination.
Ms. Lynette Jarvi, 240 Longfellow Street, stated they are
interested in Lot 28.
Ms. McPherson stated she would provide the necessary information
to Ms. Jarvi.
Ms. Dacy stated the Commission has two options: (1) to recommend
approval of the lot split subject to Lot 28 being combined with
the property at 240 Longfellow Street and successful conveyance.
This option would move the application on to Council; (2) to
either approve or deny the lot split as is, separate from any other
property owner action.
Mr. Newman stated he has some fairly strong feelings about this.
He believed that from a legal point standpoint, the bank has done
� everything properly. One of the tenets of real estate law is that
once the first party records its interest, it gets priority over
anything that happens afterward. The City is trying to implement
good planning policy, but he has grave concerns about preventing
the lots split. As a general practice, he can see the real estate
community becoming quite upset if the City denies this. When the
bank files a martgage, it cannot later convey title, because it is
bound by decisions after the fact for which it had no input. The
Bank had no control over the decisions made to combine the parcel.
Mr. Newman stated he is also concerned because the house is vacant.
A vacant house creates a potential problem for the lender and also
for the neighbors. There is nothing the City can do that will
address all the concerns, but in some ways the problems are ones
the City has created and not the bank, and he believed the City has
to address the Bank's concerns. Hopefully, at some point in time,
everyone can get together and solve some of the problems.
Ms. Modig stated she agreed that the Commission has to take some
action now.
Mr. Oquist also agreed. He stated it is not the fault of the
petitioner or the property owners that this lot was created.
Thirty foot lots were acceptable at one time. The City has had to
deal with them in the past, and the City is going to have to deal
with this one. He believed the lot split should be approved. If
�° the Commission does not approve the lot split, nothing happens and
^ PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. APRIL 14. 1993 PAGB 14
that is worse than getting things organized so things can move
forward.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend to City
Council approval of lot split, L.S. #93-03, by Michael Oberle for
D& N Federal Savings Bank:
To create two separate parcels, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2,
described as follows:
Parcel 1: Lots 29, 30, and 31, Block 3, Spring Brook
Park, Anoka County, Minnesota, and together with the
North Half of the vacated alley adjacent to said Lots 29
and 30, Block 3, Spring Brook Park, lying between the
Southerly extensions of the East line of said Lot 29 and
the West line of said Lot 30, in said Block 3, Spring
Brook Park, Anoka County, Minnesota
Parcel 2: Lot 28, Block 3, Spring Brook Park, Anoka
County, Minnesota
This property is generally located at 260 Longfellow Street
N.E.
n IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOII3LY.
Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to the City Council on May
3, 1993.
4. VACATION REOUEST. SAV #93-01 BY MARK AND JEAN SCHWARTZ•
To vacate the East 8 feet of the alley adjacent to the West
lot line of Lot 13, Block 2, Spring Valley Addition, generally
located at 1372 - 64th Avenue N.E.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioners request that a vacation be
approved to vacate the east eight feet of the alley located
directly adjacent to their property. The property is zoned R-1,
Single Family Dwelling. There is additional R-1 zoning to the east
and south, and there is R-1 and C-1, Local Business, to the west.
Ms. McPherson stated that between the Schwartz' property and the
Labandz' property at 1356 - 64th Avenue, there is a 16 foot
easement for an alley which extends from 64th Avenue on the north
to Rice Creek Road on the south. The petitioners are requesting
that the 300 foot by 8 foot alley•easement be vacated. There are
utilities located in the alley easement.
Ms. McPherson stated the alley was originally platted with the
Spring Valley Addition and could provide a means of access to the
� rear of these properties in this general vicinity should a road in
an east/west direction be constructed along the rear property lines
�..,� PLANNINQ COMMI88ION MEETING, APRIL 14. 1993 PAGE 15
to the east. If the alley is vacated and a street and utility
easement is not maintained over the vacated alley, this would
potentially limit the number of options for a future subdivision
in this particular neighborhood. Staff is requesting that this
type of easement be maintained over the vacated portion of the
alley. A utility easement would also need to be maintained.
Ms. McPherson stated that after the petitioners applied for the
vacation request, the Labandz', the neighbors to the west, also
applied for a vacation request to vacate the west half of the alley
easement. Staff has contacted both petitioners to see if a joint
vacation request could be processed at one time, thereby vacating
the entire all�ey.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending the Commission recommend
approval of the vacation request with two stipulations at a
minimum:
1. The petitioners shall execute and record a street and
utility easement in place of the vacated alley.
2. The petitioners shall execute and record a hold-harmless
agreement provided by the City.
n Mr. Mark Schwartz stated that this alley was platted 52 years ago,
and it has never been used as an alley and probably never will.
He stated he has lived here 7 1/2 years, and the alley was never
maintained before he moved there. He has put a lot of money into
seed and dirt to make it look like part of the neighborhood. Yet,
because it is not vacated, he cannot use the alley the way he wants
to use it. He stated he realized a utility easement has to be
maintained. He was not sure whether the street easement is needed
and would prefer to see the street easement not part of the
stipulations.
Mr. Schwartz stated that if all the neighbors on the block decided
to split the backs of their lots to create another block, he would
suggest bringing a street down the middle and curving it out to
Rice Creek Road. The City would not have to acquire any additional
property. He stated his house sits approximately 20 feet off the
alley, so he did not know how much closer the City could come to
his home to acquire enough property for a street.
Mr. Frank Labandz stated he did not want to see any street there
because the children play in that area. A street would be a bad
idea.
Ms. Dacy asked Mr. Labandz if they are interested in vacating the
west half of the a11ey.
� Mr. Labandz stated, yes, they filed for a vacation on Monday, April
19.
^ PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, APRIL 14. 1993 PA�E 16
Ms. Dacy stated that if the Schwartz' are willing, the vacation
application for the west half of the alley could be heard at the
April 28th Planning Commission meeting. Then, both applications
could be combined with one ordinance going to the Council for the
same alley.
Mr. Schwartz stated that if both the vacations can be done at the
same time, that would be great.
Ms. Modig stated she is a little concerned about the stipulation
for a street easement.
Mr. Sielaff stated he would like to see that part of the
stipulation deleted.
Mr. Saba agreed. He did not think it very likely that a street
would ever be built there.
Mr. Oquist stated he also would agree to the elimination of the
street easement from the stipulations.
Mr. Newman stated he would be inclined to keep the street easement
as part of the stipulations. This area has had a variety of
^ applications over the years, and it is also a unique area because
of the high water table. Even though he cannot visualize how the
easement would be used, he has seen examples in the past where
leaving a street easement has been a benefit. There are not many
buildable sites left in Fridley, and it allows the City to keep its
options open.
MoTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Saba, to table action on SAV
#93-01 by Mark and Jean Schwartz until the next Planning Commission
meeting when Mr. and Mrs. Labandz' vacation application will be
heard.
UPON A DOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
5. RECEIVE MARCH 1. 1993, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINLTTES•
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the March
1, 1993, Parks & Recreation Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
6. OTHER BUSINESS:
a. Meeting with City Council
�"'�
� PLANNINa COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 14, 1993 PAGE 17
Ms. McPherson stated the Council will probably be meeting with
the Commission on either April 28 or May 12.
Mr. Newman stated that if the Commission members give him
input on items they would like to discuss with the Council,
he will formulate those items in a memo to staff and Council.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the meeting.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Newman declared the
motion carried unanimously.
Res ctfully sub itted,
��- � ��.
Ly Saba
Re rding Secretary
�
�
�
n
�
8 I G N— IN S H E E T
PI,ANNING COMi�III88ION MEETING, Wec�esday, April 14, 1993
� �j��
3
'�JL- �S �
l ia
s y. 3Z
� �y �
��