PL 10/19/1994 - 30798��
CITY OF FRIDI�SY
PLANNINa COIrII�lI88ION MEETINa, OCTOBER 19, 1994
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Newman called the October 19, 1994, Planning
Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL•
Members Present: Dave Newman, Diane Savage, Dean Saba,
Brad Sielaff
Members Absent: Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Connie Modig
Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Mearlin Nordstrom, 501 Rice Creek Boulevard
Bob Gilstad, 930 Haclanann Avenue N.E.
David Stewart, 1005 Fifth Street,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Marlene Rnight, 503 Rice Creek Terrace N.E.
APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 5. 1994. PLANNING COMMISS�ION MINUTES:
�
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the
October 5, 1994, Planning Commission minutes as written.
IIPON A VOICE VOTT, AI�L VOTIN�3 AYE� CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DLCLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
1. CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT. L.S. #94-06, BY DAVID STEWART:
To split Lot 3, Block 2, Se�er Addition, City of Fridley,
Anoka County, Minnesota, into two parts:
Parcel A: the south 35 feet of Lot 3, Block 2, Sexter
Addition; and
Parcel B: that part of Lot 3, Block 2, Sexter Addition,
lying north of the north 35 feet of said Lot 2,
This property is generally located at 5720 Polk Street.
Mr. Hickok stated the first three items are related. The lot
split involves the property at 5720 Polk Street N.E. which is
owned by the City. The City purchased the property as part of
the Polk Street improvement which required additional right-of-
way to be acquired. In 1992, a house was on the site. Because
the additional right-of-way took enough of the site, the City
�`,
purchased the entire site and demolished the house.
Mr. Hickok stated the lot split involves the southern 35 feet
� PLANNING COA'�iI88ION MEETINa OCTOBER 19. 1994 PAGE 2
across the entire southern edge of the property as it abuts the
Moore Lake Apartment property to the south. Mr. Stewart, the
petitioner, is one of the owners of the Moore Lake Apartment
complex, and this lot split is being proposed to add to the
current parking for that site. Originally, there were 70 parking
stalls planned with the apartments. At the time the buildings
were constructed, 64 parking spaces were requ.ired. With time and
two income households using two cars.per family, it would
increase the demand and number of spaces required. Our current
standards would require 109 spaces for a complex of this size.
With the complex pre-dating this requirement, it leaves cars
parked on Lynde Drive. The petitioner has discussed this problem
with staff and the City Council. The City Council asked staff to
look at this and evaluate some alternatives.
Mr. Hickok stated staff and the petitioner have discussed
alternatives. Originally it was felt there may be an opportunity
to purchase not only a portion of the City property but also
property to the west owned by Mr. and Mrs. Gilstad and that owned
by Pure oil Company. At that time, neither the Gilstads nor Pure
oil Company were willing to sell property; therefore, this
parking lot expansion would accomplish some of what the complex
owners are after and would certainly help the parking along Lynde
�'r Drive. The construction of this parking area would allow 15
- spaces on the property. As 15 spaces are created, some other
spaces will be replaced. The net gain is approximately 8 parking
spaces.
Mr. Hickok stated the lot split leaves a portion of the property
to the north to be retained by the City which�would accommodate a
single family dwelling. The minimum lot size in this R-1
district is 9,000 square feet. With the potential sale of 5,705
square feet, there remains a lot that exceeds the minimum
standard for both width and depth.
Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of the lot split with
the following stipulations:
1. The 35' x 140' parcel adjacent to the Moore Lake Apartment
complex shall be utilized for the parking expansion
indicated on the site plan and shall be landscaped/screened
according to Section 205.07.01.C.(7).
2. The new 35'x 140' parcel shall be consolidated with the
Moore Lake Apartment site as one tax parcel.
3. Special Use Permit, SP #94-16, and Variance request, VAR
#g4-26, shall be approved.
'�' MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the
letter of October 17, 1994, from Councilmember Billings regarding
�
!�1
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEBTINa OCTOBER 19. 1994 PA�E 3
the property at 5720 Polk Street.
IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTINa AYE, CBAIAPERBON NIEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
Mr. Newman stated Councilmember Billings states in his letter
that, first, selling or leasing the entire parcel would be a
major fix of the parking problem; second, splitting the property
creates a need for additional variances; and third, the reason
for the adjacent zoning change to R-1 would eliminate the
possibility of Union 76 building a combination fast-food/gas
station.
Mr. Hickok stated, in response to the first comment, the proposal
is to split off the southern 35 feet. In previous City
discussions including City Councilmembers, the interest was in
retaining as much of that property as possible while still
allowing some relief, if possible, to the apartments to the
south. It was felt that in the early discussions, for the
residents on Polk Street, this would be an appropriate solution.
After purchasing the property and demolishing the original house,
the potential of construction of a new house with some relief for
the apartments would be there. If the Commission prefers, staff
could do an analysis on what the gain would be in using the
entire site. The circulation would need to be laid out, and
staff would need to see how many spaces could be available on the
site. Staff's understanding of their direction was that the
southern 35 feet would be most appropriate.
Mr. Hickok stated, in response to the second comment regarding
the need for additional variances, the Appeals Commission
reviewed this item at their meeting of October 11, 1994, and the
Appeals Commission recommended the variances. One variance
reduced the setback from the west lot line of this 35 foot strip
from 10 feet to 0 feet.
Mr. Newman stated this is a side yard setback�and to eliminate
that setback could eliminate one parking space.
Mr. Hickok stated this was correct.
Mr. Hickok stated a variance reduced the setback from 10 feet to
5 feet along the northern portion of the parking area to allow
standard depth parking stalls of 20 feet and allow enough room
for the required screening fence and landscaping.
Mr. ATewman asked why they reduced the setback to 5 feet rather
than taking another 5 feet from the lot so no variance would be
necessary.
Mr. Hickok stated in doing this the remaining property would be
i"1
��
PLANNINO COMMI88ION MEETINa OCTOHER 19� 1994 PAaE 4
less than the minimum standard. Leaving a standard lot was
important. The City could have set firm with a 75 foot lot and
given them 2 additional feet. They did not do this so 5 feet was
requested.
Mr. Hickok stated, along Polk Street and in order to allow for
another parking stall, a variance was requested to reduce the
setback from 35 feet to 20 feet. In order to accomplish that,
staff has made a recommendation to landscape along the street
side of the project in order to soften the impact of that parking
staff.
Mr. Newman asked if there was a need for more parking than what
is provided in this lot split.
Mr. Hickok stated, according to the code, a modern day complex of
this size would require 109 spaces. If you were to determine the
needs based on the demand in that area, one would look at the
cars parked along Lynde Drive. According to windshield surveys
and reports from the complex, about 15 cars are parked on the
street on any given day. With the creation of 15 stalls, it is
getting at the problem but not solving the problem.
Mr. Newman asked if taking all of the property on Polk Street and
turning it into a parking would be too much.
Mr. Hickok stated it was possible. Staff can do an analysis to
see how many stalls they could get and what the circulation would
be.
Mr. Hickok stated Councilmember Billings refers to the rezoning
to R-1 which would require a future buffer zone. In the C-1 and
commercial districts in general it states that "permitted
buildings and uses, except automobile parking and loading spaces,
driveways, central services, walks, planting spaces, shall not be
closer to the boundary line of any adjacent residential district
than 30 feet to allow for plantings, buffers, and screening." In
the comments regarding rezoning, there is concern about the 30
foot buffer. If Union 76 wishes to do certain things, they would
have that issue to deal with on a rezoning to a residential site
to the east.
Mr. Newman asked what the current setback is.
Mr. Hickok stated, because the property behind them is
commercial, the commercial property could have a 0 lot line if
the other property was involved. There is more flexibility if
the property remains commercial. That certainly is an issue the
;�,
Councilmember is pointing to in the letter.
Mr. Saba asked if the City has tried to�sell the property at 5720
1
!"�
�,
�
, ,
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING OCTOBBR 19� 1994 PAa� 5
Polk Street before.
Mr. Hickok stated no. He believed this to be the first
discussion. �
Mr. Newman asked, with the lot split, will the remaining parcel
to the north meet the minimum requirements for a residential lot.
Mr. Hickok stated yes. The lot would actual exceed the minimum
requirements.
Mr. Newman asked, with the dimensions, can someone build a single
family home without a variance.
Mr. Hickok stated yes. This is a nicely situated site with some
mature vegetation.
Ms. Savage stated there is a very large tree on the site. Is
that on the portion being considered to be sold?
Ms. McPherson stated the tree is on the remnant piece that the
City would retain.
Mr. Sielaff asked the current zoning on the lot and if the lot
would need to be rezoned.
Mr. Hickok stated the lot is currently zoned R-1. That is the
reason for the special use permit which would allow for parking
on an R-1 property.
Mr. Saba asked if the landscape plan is approved by the City.
Ms. McPherson stated yes. The landscape plan was developed by
staff. The petitioner has seen the landscape plan which is part
of the variance approval as a stipulation.
Mr. Saba asked if there was a date set for completion of the
landscaping.
Ms. McPherson stated she did not believe a date was set for
completion of the landscaping. The stipulation could be amended
to indicate a date.
Mr. Sielaff asked if the apartment owners were willing to pay for
the entire lot. Does this have anything to do with whether they
are willing to do so?
Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner is present. This has not been
discussed.
Mr. Stewart, a managing partner of the Moore I,ake Apartments,
^ PLANNINa COMMI88ION 1KEBTINa OCTOBBR 19. 1994 PAaE 6
stated he could not add much to what had been discussed. With
the expansion of the lot to the north, this will increase the
parking spaces and solve some of the problems. This will also
add to the safety from the point of view of the fire chief, who
is concerned about bringing equipment in the back. At the back
of the building, the space is very tight. Currently, there are
seven parking stalls which are very small and they had a
difficult time with snow. The additional space will alleviate
the problems of bringing in safety equipment, if needed, and make
18 staffs that are effective parkinq stalls. As part of the
rezoning, they will have the ability to contain snow on that
easement portion of the property.
Mr. Stewart stated he had talked with the City about buying the
lot and maintaining the lot, but the City wanted to keep it for a
single family home and were concerned about the large tree. It
would also require access on Polk Street. Our present plan does
not provide access to Polk.
Mr. Sielaff asked if he had interest in acquiring the entire lot.
Mr. Stewart stated, from an economic point, he was not sure how
many stalls would be created. He was not sure it would solve the
r'-�, problem. Unfortunately, everyone now has two cars. The City has
granted relief by allowing some parking on the street and he
would like to see that maintained. The addition of these stalls
will make a major difference. It is also a matter of cost.
Mr. Sielaff asked if Mr. Stewart thought there would no lo�ger be
a need for on street parking.
Mr. Stewart stated he thought this would solve the problem of
residents. It is the guests of the residents that cannot.find
spaces. When they received a reprieve from the City in June,
they were given 6 to 9 months to come to some solution. They put
up signs and brought out safety vehicles. To the best of his
knowledge, there has not been a problem on the street.
Ms. Savage stated the Appeals Commission voted unanimously to
approve the request. It seemed to be a solution to the parking
problem which did not adversely impact the neighborhood and was
in keeping with the code. The stipulations were agreed to. She
would be opposed to the use of the entire property for parking.
one reason being that it would take away green space. That is a
residential area. Turning that entire lot into a parking space
would be detrimental. There is a large mature tree that is an
asset which we should try to keep. The petitioner is not asking
for more space and the solution proposed solves the parking
� problem, saves the green space, and keeps the residential
character. She would be in favor of the lot split.
�
�^�
��
PLANNINa CONII�II88ION MEETING OCTOBER 19. 1994� � PADE 7
Mr. Saba stated he would like to see more parking if possible,
but he did not want the entire lot used for parking for the same
reasons as stated. He would be in favor of approval.
Mr. Sielaff stated he agreed for the reason stated.
Mr. Newman stated, as far as the variances go, one variance is to
keep the remaining lot residential. He does want to get into the
realm of the Appeals Commission, but it seems the City
Councilmember raised issues we should address. As far as the lot
split, it makes sense.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve Lot
Split, L.S. #94-06, by David Stewart, to split Lot 3, Block 2,
Sexter Addition, City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, into
two p�rts :
Parcel A: the south 35 feet of Lot 3, Block 2, Sexter
Addition; and
Parcel B: that part of Lot 3, Block 2, Sexter Addition,
lying north of the north 35 feet of said Lot 2,
This property is generally located at 5720 Polk Street, with the
following stipulations:
1. The 35' x 140' parcel adjacent to the Moore Lake Apartment
complex shall be utilized for the parking expansion
indicated on the site plan and shall be landscaped/screened
according to Section 205.07.01.C.(7).
2.
3.
The new 35'x 140' parcel shall be consolidated with the
Moore Lake Apartment site as one tax parcel.
Special Use Permit, SP #94-16, and Variance request, VAR
#94-26, shall be approved.
IIPON A VOICE VOTB, ALL VOTIN�3 AYB, CHAIRPERBON NEWMAN DECLARI�D
T8E MOTIOAT CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP
#94-16. BY DAVID STEWART:
Per Section 205.07.01.C.(7) of the Fridley City Code, to
allow automobile parking for adjacent usea, on the south 35
feet of Lot 3, Block 2, Sexter Addition, generally located
at 5720 Polk Street N.E.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the
reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public
hearing.
� PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa OCTOBER 19. 1994 PAaE 8
IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTINa AYE, CBAIRPER80N NIEWMAI�T DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARINa OPEN AT 8t04 P.M.
Mr. Hickok stated the special use request is to allow parking on
land that is a different classification. In this case, the
zoning is R-1, Single Family. The Special Use Permit would put
stipulations on that piece of property to assure that screening
and other impact elements would be considered as part of the
approval.
Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of the Special Use
Permit with the following stipulations:
1. Variance request, VAR #94-26, and Lot Split request, L.S.
#94-06, shall be approved.
2. A new six foot screening fence shall be constructed on the
northern edge of the easement across the Gilstad property.
3. The petitioner shall install landscaping along the street as
indicated on the plan developed by staff including the
following elements:
/^� A. 2 - Nanking Cherry
B. 6 - Maney Juniper
C• 8 - Isanti Dogwood
D. 14 - "Miss" Rim Lilac
E. Weed Barrier
F. 3-inch rock mulch
G. Vinyl edging
4. The parking lot perimeter, except for the area ne�rt to the
retaining wall, shall be lined with six-inch concrete
curbing in accordance with Fridley Engineering Department
specifications.
5. The petitioner shall install a six-foot high board on board
screening fence constructed of treated wood parallel to and
two feet from the north property line. The fence height
shall be reduced to four feet at a point 35 feet from the
Polk Street lot line. Engleman ivy shall be planted two
feet on center on the north side of the fence.
Commission members had no questions of staff.
Mr. Stewart had no additional comments.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public
�,
hearing.
r�
�
r1,
PLANNINa COI�iI88ION MESTINa OCTOBER 19� 1994 PAa� 9
IIPON A VOICE VOTL, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPER80N rIEWMAN DLCLARLD
T8E MOTION CARRILD AND THE PIIBLIC HEARINa CLOSED AT 8t07 P.M.
OTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve Special
Use Permit, SP #94-16, by David Stewart, to allow automobile
parking for adjacent uses, on the south 35 feet of Lot 3, Block
2, Sexter Addition, generally located at 5720 Polk Street N.E.,
with the following stipulations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Variance request, VAR #94-26, and Lot Split request, L.S.
#94-06, shall be approved.
A new six foot screening fence shall be constructed on the
northern edge of the easement across the Gilstad property.
The petitioner shall install landscaping along the street as
indicated on the plan developed by staff including the
following elements:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
2 - Nanking Cherry
6 - Maney Juniper
8 - Isanti Dogwood
14 - ��Miss" Kim Lilac
Weed Barrier
3-inch rock mulch
Vinyl edging
The landscaping is to be completed with one year after
completion of the parking lot.
The parking lot perimeter, except for the area next to the
retaining wall, shall be lined with six-inch concrete
curbing in accordance with Fridley Engineering Department
specifications.
5. The petitioner shall install a six-foot high board on board
screening fence constructed of treated wood parallel to and
two feet from the north property line. The fence height
shall be reduced to four feet at a point 35 feet from the
Polk Street lot line. Engleman ivy shall be planted two
feet on center on the north side of the fence.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(3 AYE, CHAIRPBRSON N�EWMAI�T DLCLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
3. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING REOUEST ZOA
�94-03. BY DAVID STEWART:
To rezone from C-1, Local Business, �o R-1, Single Family
Dwelling, to allow parking and dumpster placement on the
easterly 120 feet except the northerly 135 feet of that part
of Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision #25, which is described as
� PLANNINa COMMI88ION 1�E�TINa OCTOBER 19� 1994 PAa� 10
follows to wit: beginning at a point on the north line of
said Auditor's Subdivision distant 221.7 feet east of the
northwest corner thereof which point is also on the
centerline of Central Avenue, then east on said north line a
distance of 270.8 feet, then south a distance of 308.2 feet
to a point on a line parallel with and 160 feet north of the
most southerly line of said Lot 1 which point is 437.44 feet
distant east from the centerline of Central Avenue, then
west along a line parallel with and 160 feet north of the
most southerly line of said Lot 1, 437.44 feet to the
centerline of Central Avenue, then northeasterly along said
centerline to the point of beginning and except the north 30
feet thereof said 120 feet to be measured along the north
line of said Lot 1. This property is generally located west
of 5720 Polk Street and north of Moore Lake Apartments.
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIN(� AYE, CHAIRPLR80N N�EWMAN D1:CLARED
THE MOTION CARRiED AND THE pUBLiC HEAR�Na OPEN AT 8a09 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated Mr. Stewart is the petitioner and Mr.
� Gilstad is the property owner. The subject parcel is located
between 5720 Polk Street and vacant property owned by Pure Oil
Company, north of the apartment complex, and to the rear of Mr.
Gilstad's dwelling located at 930 Hackmann Avenue N.E. The
request is to rezone the subject parcel from C-1, Local Business,
to R-1, Single Family Dwelling. While the petitioner has been
the same in all three requests, this request is not directly
related to the other requests being processed by the petitioner.
Ms. McPherson stated the rezoning request is a result of
negotiations between the petitioner and the owner to obtain a
snow storage easement along the north property line between the
subject parcel and the apartments to allow snow storage for the
apartment complex.
Ms. McPherson stated, when considering a rezoning request, staff
evaluates three criteria:
• District compatibility with adjacent uses and zoning.
• District intent.
• Whether or not the parcel meets the district requirements.
Ms. McPherson stated, in this particular area, the adjacent
zoning includes R-1, Single Family Dwelling, to the north and
� east of the sub'ect • .
� parcel, C-1, Local Business, to the west, and
R-3, General Multiple Family, to the south. There are single
�..� PLANNINa COl►�II88ION MEETINa OCTOB$R 19 1994 PAaE il
�
family dwellings to the north and east, an apartment complex to
the south, and a convenience/gas station use to the northwest of
this area. Rezoning the subject parcel would be compatible with
adjacent uses and zoning. Use of the property in its current
zoning would be limited due to the shape and location of the
property. The property is also land locked. Any development
which would occur on this property would need to occur in
combination with either property to the north or the property to
the west to provide street access. Due to the current zoning
configuration, the C-1 district ends at somewhat of an awkward
location. By moving the zoning district line, it makes more
sense. �
Ms. McPherson stated, in terms of the district requirements, the
subject parcel is currently vacant and measured 120' x 170� with
an area of approximately 20,400 square feet. The property is
land locked and does not have street access. This property
should be combined with the owner's property to the north.
Currently, there is a low spot in the southern portion of the
parcel that receives stormwater run off from adjacent properties
in the area. With the exception of the lack of access, the
property does meet the minimum requirements of the R-1, Single
Family Dwelling, district.
Ms. McPherson stated, in terms of district intent, typically when
the City reviews rezoning requests, staff is .looking at a
specific site plan or a specific use. At this time, the
petitioner and the owner are not interested in developing the
property. In the future, any development plans for this parcel
would be subject to the R-1, Single Family District, regulations.
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the request as
it meets the criteria; subject to the owner combining the parcel
with the parcel to the north as one parcel of record.
Mr. Newman asked if the parcel directly to the north has a
structure located on the property.
Ms. McPherson stated yes.
Mr. Newman stated, since the subject parcel is land locked, it
would be hard to use it in combination with the parcel to the
north.
Ms. McPherson agreed.
Mr. Newman asked if this was necessary to accomplish snow
storage.
Ms. McPherson stated it was not a requirement of the City;
however, it was the agreement between the petitioner and the
� PLANNINa CO�IIdlIBBION MESTINa OCTOB$R 19. 1994 PAaB 12
owner of the property.
Mr. Stewart stated the reason for the request is an agreement
with he and Mr. Gilstad. Mr. Stewart wanted to be able to move
the fence off the property line. Currently, they cannot push
snow in that direction. Mr. Gilstad has agreed to grant an
easement to the partnership to allow us to build a fence across
his property line, which will enable them to move the car bumpers
to the property line to the edge of the asphalt and not hit the
fence. They talked about putting the fence back 15 feet which
would be adequate and will make the accessibi-lity of traffic
better. For that reason, he agreed to petition for rezoning as a
means of allowing the partnership to have better access and a
better ability to remove snow.
Mr. Newman stated, from a design standpoint, what you are trying
to achieve is admirable. If it is rezoned from a planning
standpoint, it is difficult to rezone for single family uses. He
thought they could utilize by moving the current structure. The
difficult planning issue is that the property is land locked. It
makes it difficult to rezone until he knows how it will be used.
Mr. Gilstad stated he has been talking to staff in the last 10
�"`� years and they were already saying then they would like to see
the property residential. The property is land locked. An
easement was given to the property owned by Pure Oil and given to
them. It is his intention for the property is to clean it up and
join it with his backyard.
�.
Mr. Newman stated he could do that as the property is currently
zoned.
Mr. Gilstad agreed. Staff said they wanted the property zoned R-
1. The commercial zoning has no benefit to him. He cannot sell
the property because it is land locked. If joined to the
property, he still owns it either way.
Mr. Newman stated that,
an effort to accommodate
Council in the past.
Mr. Gilstad stated yes.
essentially, the request is being made in
concerns raised by staff and the City
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the
public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSOIJ NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THF pIIBLIC HEARINa CL08ED AT 8020 P.M.
Mr. Sielaff stated it is an unusual request but he sees no reason
not to approve it.
� PLANNING COMMI88ION MESTINa OCTOBER 19� 1994 PAaB 13
Mr. Saba stated he has concerns about a land locked property in
that it creates problems in the future. He did not know that the
request would solve that. They may need to change the code to
make it accessible. This may be the best use. It does solve two
problems. At some point in time, they may have to go back and do
something about it. Anytime there is a land locked property,
there is a problem in the future. In light of that, he would be
will to go along but he has reservations.
Ms. Savage stated she would support approval.
Mr. Newman stated he was opposed. On a land locked piece of
property with no specific plan, he sees no reason to rezone. The
property to the west is commercial. The property to the south is
multi-family and one could say it might be part of the multi-
family. It makes sense to him to keep it as it is. Without a
plan, it makes no sense to rezone.
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend
approval of Rezoning Request, ZOA #94-03, by David 5tewart, to
from C-1, Local Business, to R-1, Single Family Dwelling, to
allow parking and dumpster placement on the easterly 120 feet
except the northerly 135 feet of that part of Lat 1, Auditor's
�"'� Subdivision #25, which is described as follows to wit: beginning
at a point on the north line of said Auditor's Subdivision
distant 221.7 feet east of the northwest corner thereof which
point is also on the centerline of Central Avenue, then east on
said north line a distance of 270.8 feet, then south a distance
of 308.2 feet to a point on a line parallel with and 160 feet
north of the most southerly line of said Lot 1 which point is
437.44 feet distant east from the centerline of Central Avenue,
then west along a line parallel with and 160 feet north of the
most southerly line of said Lot 1, 437.44 feet to the centerline
. of Central Avenue, then northeasterly along said centerline to
the point of beginning and except the north 30 feet thereof said
120 feet to be measured along the north line of said Lot 1. This
property is generally located West of 5720 Polk Street and north
of Moore Lake Apartments; with the following stipulations:
1. This shall be subject to the owner combining the parcel with
the parcel to the north as one parcel of record.
Mr. Sielaff asked if the easement needed to be addressed.
Mr. Hickok stated the easement is an issue between the property
owners. Staff recommendation for the fence on the back of that
easement was to allow for snow storage which is part of the
parking issue. According to code, the fence would need to be
nearly on the property line. This is saying is that it would be
back beyond their private agreement so that he could do the snow
storage. Easement language was tied directly into because staff
,,_, PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa OCTOBBR 19. 1994 PAGE 14
, � -
sees this as an issue they are dealing with. There is a fence
that encloses a screening area on the property. If the parking
area is backed up to residential, it requires a fence. He
thought a portion of that is screened by the dumpster enclosure
but the code requirement would be that the privacy fence be
completed along the bac� lot line.
Mr. Newman stated he understands the easement is a contractual
agreement between the petitioner and owner. The Commission's
basis for rezoning is good planning. If the easement is not
granted, the fence needs to be on the property line. If the
easement is granted, the fence is to be placed on the easement.
IIPON A VOICE VOTS, WITH M8. BAVA(�E, MR. SABA AND MR. BILLAFF
VOTINa AYE AND MR. NEWMAN pOTINa NAY, CBAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED BY A MAJORITY VOTL.
Ms. McPherson stated the Special Use Permit, Variance, and Lot
Split would be considered by the November 7. A public hearing
will be established for the rezoning at this meeting also.
4. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REOUEST SAV #94 03 BY MEARLIN
NORDSTROM:
^ To vacate that part of the drainage and utility easements
which lie six feet on both sides of the line between Lot 8
and Lot 9, Block 2, Holiday Hills, Anoka County, Minnesota,
and between said Lot 9 and Lot 8, Block 1, Holiday Hills
Second Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota, and which lie
within the boundary of the following described tract: That
part of Lot 8, Block 2, Holiday Hills, Anoka County,
Minnesota, lying southerly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the easterly line of said Lot 8, 15
feet northeasterly of the most southerly corner thereof,
thence northwesterly to the most westerly corner of said Lot
8 and there terminating; also Lot 9, Block 2, Holiday Hills,
Anoka County, Minnesota; also that part of Lot 8, Block 1,
Holiday Hills Second Addition, lying southeasterly of the
following described line: Beginning at a point on the
westerly line of said Lot 8, 55 feet northwesterly of the
most southerly corner of said Lot 8; thence to a point on
the easterly line of said Lot 8, 99.65 feet from the most
southerly corner of said Lot 8 and there terminating. This
property is generally loaated at 501 Rice Creek Boulevard
N.E.
Ms. McPherson stated the subject parcel is located at 501 Rice
Creek Boulevard N.E., which is located south of 69th Avenue and
east of University Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Single
Family Dwelling. There is R-3, General Multiple Family, at the
�` intersection where Woodcrest Baptist Church is located.
�,._,\ PLANNINa CONII�lI88ION MEBTINa OCTOB$R 19. 1994 PAaB 15
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting that drainage
and utility easements be vacated along the west and north lot
lines of Lot 9, Block 2, Holiday Hills Second Addition. The
petitioner owns the subject parcel and, over the years, has
acquired small pieces of property to the west and north and
consolidated them into one tax parcel. The petitioner is
proposing to add on to an existing two-car garage. The location
of the easements are such that they bisect the buildable area,
specifically the area directly west of the subject dwelling where
the petitioner proposes to add on to the garage. The petitioner
is requesting the easement be vacated and that he would dedicate
new drainage and utility easements along the west and north
property lines. There are no public utilities located within the
easement area. Vacating easements would not adversely affect
drainage. Staff did notify the private utilities via fax and
have received one response from Minnegasco who had no objections.
Staff felt they would hear from the remaining utilities prior to
this being heard by the City Council.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner did not submit plans for the
proposed garage expansion. Staff looked at the existing garage
and any potential plans the petitioner may have. The existing
garage is 26 feet x 30 feet or 780 square feet. The code allows
� the first accessory structure to be 1,000 square feet. Without a
variance, the petitioner could add 220 square feet or an addition
11 feet x 20 feet. A proposed expansion of that size would not
adversely impact the lot coverage which would be at 15.6�a. Any
plans by the petitioner would need to comply with code or a
variance obtained.
Ms. McPherson stated the original easements are 12 feet wide with
six feet on either side of the property line.• The City is unable
to obtain the additional six feet from the adjoining property
owners as they are not a party to the request. Staff is
proposing that the petitioner provide 12-foot easements along the
north and west property line.
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the request
with the following stipulations:
1. A 12-foot drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated
along the inside of the west and north property line.
2. The garage expansion shall comply with the code
requirements, or a variance obtained.
Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner would need a permit from the
Rice Creek Watershed District.
�� Ms. McPherson stated the impact is smaller than the minimum
requirement. Staff will have the petitioner confer with the
,.� PLANNINGi CONII+�I88ION MBETINGi OCTOBER 19. 1994 PAaE 16
district to be sure no permits are required.
Mr. Nordstrom stated he combined the three lots because there was
a problem with the tax papers. He then found out there were
easements. He wants the easements moved in order for him to keep
cars off the street. Within the last year or so, there was
beginning to be a problem with too many cars on the street.
Mr. Newman asked the petitioner if he was comfortable with the
stipulations.
Mr. Nordstrom stated he was comfortable with the stipulations as
stated.
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the
vacation request, SAV #94-03, by Mearlin Nordstrom, to vacate
that part of the drainage and utility easements which lie six
feet on both sides of the line between Lot 8 and Lot 9, Block 2,
Holiday Hills, Anoka County, Minnesota, and between said Lot 9
and Lot 8, Block 1, Holiday Hills Second Addition, Anoka County,
Minnesota, and which lie within the boundary of the following
described tract: That part of Lot 8, Block 2, Holiday Hills,
Anoka County, Minnesota, lying southerly of the following
/-'� described line: Beginning at a point on the easterly line of
said Lot 8, 15 feet northeasterly of the most southerly corner
thereof, thence northwesterly to the most westerly corner of said
Lot 8 and there terminating; also Lot 9, Block 2, Holiday Hills,
Anoka County, Minnesota; also that part of Lot 8, Block 1,
Holiday Hills Second Addition, lying southeasterly of the
following described line: Beginning at a point on the westerly
line of said Lot 8, 55 feet northwesterly of the most southerly
corner of said Lot 8; thence to a point on the easterly line of
said Lot 8, 99,65 feet from the most southerly corner of said Lot
8 and there terminating. This property is generally located at
501 Rice Creek Boulevard N.E., with the following stipulations:
1. A 12-foot drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated
along the inside of the west and north property line.
2. The garage expansion shall comply with the code
requirements, or a variance obtained.
IIPON A VOICE VOTB, ALL VOTIDT6 AYE � CHAIRPERBON r�WMArT DECLARLD
T8E MOTION CARRIBD IINANIMOIIBLY.
Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would establish a date for
the public hearing on November 7.
5. RECEIVE THE MINLTTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY AND ENERGY
'^' COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20 1994
,� PLANNINa COMMIBSION METTINa OCTOBER 19, 1994 PAaE 17
,
OTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the
minutes of the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission
meeting of September 20, 1994.
IIPON A VOICB VOTE, ALL VOTINa AYE, CHAIRPERBON NEWMAN DECLARL�D
THE MOTION CARRITD IINANIMOIIBLY.
6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF
OCTOBER 11. 1994
OTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the
minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of October il, 1994.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRITD IINANIMOIIBLY.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Hickok provided an update on City Council actions on Planning
commission recommendations.
ADJOURNMENT
� MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms: Savage�, to adjourn the
meeting.
IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON NSWMAN DECLARBD
THE MOTION CARRILD AND THE OCTOBBR 19, 1994, PLANNINt� COMMI88ION
MEETING ADJOIIRNSD AT 8t42 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
,
, �Cr�
avonn Cooper
Recording Secretary
r"�
�1
,�
�
S I G N— IN S H E E T
PLANNING COMMI88ION.MEETING, Wednesday, October 19, 1994