PL 10/06/1999 - 30975CITY OF FRIDLEY
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 6,1999
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Savage called the October 6, 1999, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, Brad Sielaff, Dean Saba,
Connie Modig, Larry Kuechle
Members Absent: LeRoy Oquist
Others Present: Scott, Hickok. Planning Coordinator
Paul Bolin, Planner
Jean Schuldt, 5500 Norwest Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota
George Bateson, 6196 Heather Place
Mary Pietrini, 6177 Heather Circle
Chuck Plowe, 2725 94�' Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota
Robert Eibensteiner, 14 Ridge Road, St. Paul, Minnesota
� Josh Burtyk, 5861 Main Street N.E.
Todd Raveling, 5861 Main Street N.E.
Mavis Pries, 5905 Main Street N.E.
Stacey Birtyk, 5861 Main Street N.E.
Mr. & Mrs. Donale Copeland, 7781 Broad Avenue N.E.
Steve Elwell, 6172 Heather Circle
Virgil Brenny, 6187 Heather Circle
Arie Martin, 6170 Heather Place
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Janezich, 6171 Heather Place
Jeff Saarela, 6190 Heather Circle
Garland & Jane Logesse, 7951 Broad Avenue N.E.
Brian Westover, 6274 Ben More Drive N.E.
APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 15. 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
Mr. Hickok stated on page 12, in the motion to recommend approval of Special Use
Permit, SP #99-09, Stipulation #3 should read:
3. The property shall not be used as a place of storage or depository of
wrecked, abandoned, or junked motor vehicles or the display of used motor
vehicles or the sale or display of new motor vehicles.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the September 15, 1999,
� Planning Commission minutes as amended.
�C3.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBEf� 6, 1999 PAGE 2
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CH�►IRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
�°� THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT. P.S. #99-
05, BY KIM & GEORGE BATESON AND MARY & DENNIS PIETRINI:
To divide property into four single-family lots, generally located at 6217 Central
Avenue N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public
hearing notice and to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P.M.
Mr. Hickok stated the petitioners are seeking to create four lots from Lots 20 and 21,
Auditors Subdivision #22, and Outlots A and B, Heather Hills West, to construct four
new single family homes. The property is located east of Central Avenue on Heather
Place on the north side of the street. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family, as are
the properties to the north, east and south. The zoning to the west is C-3, General
Shopping.
Mr. Hickok stated the property was platted in 1939. A home was built prior to 1949 and
still exists on the site. As part of this development, this home will be removed. In 1997,
� there was an unsuccessful attempt to divide the property into seven lots. At that time,
there was discussion about the outlot to the south of this property that separated the
proposed lots from utilities. Those outlot issues have been rectified.
�
�
Mr. Hickok stated the proposal meets or exceeds the size requirements of the Fridley
zoning code. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the plat request, P.S. #99-05,
with the following stipulations:
1. Grading and drainage plan shall be approved by City's engineering staff
prior to the issuance of any building permits in order to minimize the
impacts to the surrounding properties.
2. The petitioner shall provide a 20-foot drainage and utility easement along
easterly and southerly property lines of proposed Lot 4.
3. The petitioner shall provide a 12-foot drainage and utility easement along
the northerly property line of proposed Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4.
4. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual
sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or
removed.
5. During construction, silt fencing shall be used where applicable.
6. The petitioner shall pay $750 per lot park fees prior to issuance of building
permits.
7. The petitioner shall pay all water and sewer connection fees.
8. The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible.
All trees required to be removed for the new homes shall be marked and
approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 6, 1999 PAGE 3
� Mr. Hickok reviewed the proposed site plan for the plat.
Ms. Savage stated she looked at the area. Lot 4 is very steep. Is that a problem for
building as far as the City is concemed?
Mr. Hickok stated he has looked at the grades. The petitioner has worked with the
builder and has determined there is a buildable site for a house.
Mr. Kondrick asked if staff had received any comments from the neighbors.
Mr. Hickok stated staff received six calls. All six callers supported the request. There
were no objections.
Mr. Bateson stated he is one of the petitioners, a citizen of Fridley and a resident of
Heather Place. They bought their lot on Heather Place in 1990. One of their concems
was what would happen to the lot across the street. A builder owned the outlot and that
would ensure that this property would be developed consistent with the quality and
character of Heather Place. In 1997, there was a proposal to divide that property into
six lots with a seventh lot to face Ben More. At that time, the residents of Heather Place
realized they did not have a lot of control or influence over what was going to happen
with that property. At that time, Dennis and Mary Pietrini and he and Ann stepped
forward and agreed to purchase the outlots in Heather Place. Subsequent to that, they
� came to an agreement with the people involved with the other development and they
now own all of the property. They are combining that to form Heather Hills North and to
divide the property into four lots. It is their intention to develop these lots in a manner
that is consistent with the character of Heather Place.
�
IVIr. Bateson showed photographs of existing homes in the area. The proposed homes
will be of equivalent quality. They have joined forces with Bob Ebensteiner who will be
the exclusive builder on these four lots. He is very committed to the quality of this
development. He will look at the results every day of his life. The Commission should
trust what he will do. He trusts that Dennis and Mary Pietrini will be proud of this
development, and he believes the neighbors and citizens of Fridley will be proud of this
development. He is asking for the continued guidance and support of City staff to
develop this property so that it is consistent in character and quality with the
neighborhood. He asked the Planning Commission for approval of the request.
Ms. Savage asked if Mr. Bateson had received any feedback from the neighbors.
Mr. Bateson stated he has met with the neighbors and presented the preliminary
proposal. Their acceptance and support of the proposal was quite strong. He received
no feedback to not go ahead or that they were not happy.
Mr. Kondrick asked if Mr. Bateson had any objections to the stipulations.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 6, 1999 PAGE 4
Mr. Bateson stated he was surprised about the 20-foot easement; but now that he
� understands the issues with the water lines, it is okay. It is quite a large lot so they can
work around that. After working with the engineers, it will not be a problem.
�"'�
Ms. Savage asked if he had any problems with the stipulation regarding the trees.
Mr. Bateson stated he had no real problem with the stipulation. Some trees will be
removed. They want to keep these lots as much of quality lots as possible. Trees are a
component in that equation. They plan to leave as many trees as possible. Some
grading must be done and some trees will be removed. On Lots 3 and 4, just the street
driveways have to be graded. Knowing that these will be large lots, he thought there
would be more trees left than what is normal. He is willing to work with the City.
Mr. Westover stated that, in general, he has no complaints. He was wondering what the
impact would be to Ben More Drive in the near future and in the long term.
Mr. Hickok stated that at the time the proposal for seven lots was being considered,
there was discussion that would put a 30-foot easement off Ben More on the northem
edge of what is now Lot 4. The City Council felt that one day utilities may need to run
off Ben More but not a street. Based on that discussion and knowledge of the contours,
he can say with some certainty that a street connection would not be made there. This
development would have less impact on Ben More than the previous proposal. From an
impact perspective, that neighborhood will have much the same feel as it has now.
Mr. Westover stated there is an unbuildable lot behind Lot 4. What happens to that lot?
Mr. Hickok stated there is a lot to the north of the proposed Lot 4. That lot does have a
public right-of-way on the southeast comer that comes across 25 feet. If there was
street development in that area, he would have concerr�s about the contours. It is not
landlocked, but he thought that piece's future probably depends on a very specific
design or having that become part of some larger development in the future.
Ms. Martin stated she would like to express her support for the proposal. She and her
husband reviewed the plan at Mr. & Mrs. Pietrini's house. Mr. Bateson took them
through it. They are familiar with the builder and the builder's quality of homes. She
thought it would be a great addition to Fridley. She looks at that area with great pride.
She was not happy about the previous proposal but supports this plan.
Mr. Saarela stated he lives on the comer. He would like to eliminate the formal setting
and put everyone around his kitchen table because this is how it feels. This is a great
conclusion to a proposal that has good feelings from the property owners. To have the
petitioners come in and alleviate a problem for everybody on such a moral and ethical
premise, he compliments them and the neighbors. They have done well.
Mr. Janezich stated he was in favor of the request. He is very proud to be a part of
� Heather Place. They moved there five years ago. It is one of the better places in the
metro area. He is very proud that Ann and George Bateson and Mary and Dennis
Pietrini have stepped forward to put resolution to this issue that has been going on for
��
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 6, 1999 PAGE 5
about two years. The Commission can be confident that this will be a quality addition to
� the City of Fridley.
Mr. Brenny stated he was in agreement with everything that has been said. The
Batesons and Pietrinis have done a tremendous act of charity to the neighborhood and
the City. He appreciated the efforts of the City, and hoped the Commission and City
Council would approve the proposal.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:58 P.M.
Mr. Kuechle stated the request meets the spirit of what the City is looking for in terms of
size. It meets the requirements of the code. They have been involved with and have
worked with the neighborhood. He would recommend approval.
Mr. Kondrick stated he agreed and likes the spirit of the development. The neighbors
share in the same kind of spirit. That is a lovely area. He would approve the request.
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend approval of a Plat,
P.S. #99-05, by Kim and George Bateson and Mary and Dennis Pietrini, to divide
property into four single family lots, generally located at 6217 Central Avenue N.E., with
,-� the following stipulations:
1. Grading and drainage plan shall be approved by Cifiy's engineering staff
prior to the issuance of any building permits, in order to minimize impacts
to the surrounding properties.
2. The petitioner shall provide a 20-foot drainage and utility easement along
easterly and southerly property lines of proposed Lot 4.
3. The petitioner shall provide a 12-foot drainage and utilifiy easement along
the northerly property line of proposed Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4.
4. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual
sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or
removed.
5. During construction, silt fencing shall be used where applicable.
6. The petitioner to pay $750 per lot park fees prior to issuance of building
permits.
7. The petitioner to pay all water and sewer connection fees.
8. The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible.
All trees required to be removed for the new homes shall be marked and
approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
�� Ms. Savage stated the City Council would consider this request on October 25.
7
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 6, 1999 PAGE 6
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT. P.S. #99-06.
� BY KURT MANUFACTURING COMPANY:
To replat for the purpose of purchasing a portion of the railroad right-of-way�
generally located south of I-694 and Industrial Boulevard, and Ashton Avenue.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public
hearing notice and to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:00 P.M.
Mr. Bolin stated Kurt Manufacturing is seeking a plat to add property they have acquired
from the Burlington Northem-Santa Fe railroad to their existing property. The property
is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, and is surrounded by other industrial uses. Across the
street to the east is R-1, Single Family, zoning.
Mr. Bolin stated the property was platted in 1941. In 1959, Kurt constructed its first
building. In 1960, 1963 and 1965, warehouses were added. In 1965, 1966 and 1975,
additions were made to the site.
Mr. Bolin stated staff is recommending approval of the request. One of the stipulations
requires combining the parcel with the existing property prior to final plat approval. Staff
first thought the property acquired was vacant. As it tums out, the property is not
� vacant. Kurt has been using the site for approximately 15 years for parking. It is paved,
and there is bituminous curb around portions of the site. Even with the property they
have acquired, it appears there is still property that will be leased from the railroad.
Mr. Bolin stated staff recommends approval of the request with the following
stipulations:
1. At the time any future parking improvements are made, code required
curbing shall be installed.
2. The petitioner shall provide a 25-foot drainage and utility easement along
the easterly property line of proposed Lot 1.
3. The petitioner shall combine this lot with existing property prior to final
plat.
4. The petitioner shall pay applicable park dedication fees prior to issuance
of any permits.
Mr. Bolin reviewed an aerial photo and the preliminary plat. It appears that part of the
existing parking lot lies outside the area of this acquired parcel.
Ms. Modig asked if the area that lies outside the acquired property is betvveen the
railroad and the manufacturing area.
� Mr. Bolin stated, yes. Kurt can continue leasing property from the railroad.
Mr. Kuechle asked if they meet the parking requirements.
���
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 6, 1999 PAGE 7
� Mr. Bolin stated, yes.
Mr. Kuechle asked why the issue of the curbing was left open-ended. He thought a time
should be indicated, such as 5 years. By just saying improvements, does that mean
striping?
Mr. Bolin stated improvements would mean re-paving. The Commission could put on a
time limit. Neighboring parking lots are gravel and not improved. This lot is improved.
Along the south boundary, there is a curb in place. At the time of improvements, staff is
asking that a 6:12 curb be placed on the site.
Mr. Kondrick agreed that to leave it open-ended is not good. A time limit would be
beneficial to everyone.
Ms. Schuldt stated she worked for a realtor's office and was hired to work with Kurt on
the petition. Kurt has leased the property from the railroad for a long time. The railroad
sold the property to another company, and now that company wants to sell the properly.
The property did not have a proper legal description. They are now trying to get a deed
of record. The property has been in use as a parking lot for a number of years. The
concern about improvements is also a concem of Kurt. They came forward to obtain
permission to record the deed in order to comply with City requirements.
� MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:10 P.M.
Mr. Kuechle stated he would be in favor of recommending approval with the change in
the first stipulation that the curb be in place within five years or the next time the parking
lot is paved.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend approval of Plat, P.S.
#99-06, by Kurt Manufacturing Company, to replat for the purpose of purchasing a
portion of the railroad right-of-way, generally tocated south of I-694 and Industrial
Boulevard, and Ashton Avenue, with the following stipulations:
1. At the time any future parking lot improvements are made or within five years
(whichever occurs first), code required curbing shall be installed.
2. The petitioner shall provide a 25-foot drainage and utility easement along
easterly property line of proposed Lot 1. �
3. The petitioner shall combine this lot with existing property prior to final plat.
4. The petitioner shall pay applicable park dedication fees prior to issuance of any
permits.
,,.� UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
�'�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 6, 1999 PAGE 8
Ms. Savage stated the City Council would consider this request on October 25.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION FOR A LOT SPLIT.
L.S. #99-03. BY FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HRA :
To sell the north 20 feet of the lot to an adjoining property owner, generally
located at 5857 Main Street.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public
hearing notice and to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:12 P.M.
Mr. Bolin stated the Fridley HRA is seeking to split the north 20 feet of Lot 29, Hyde
Park Addition, in order to sell it to the neighboring property owner. The property is
zoned S-1, Hyde Park Neighborhoods, as are the properties to the north and south.
Across the street to the west is M-2, Heavy Industrial. The legal description includes
Lots 28 and 29, Block 24, Hyde Park Addition.
Mr. Bolin stated the lot is currently vacant. The lot was platted in 1886. A home was
built on the property prior to 1949. There was also a garage on the site. In 1996, the
HRA acquired the property and removed the home and garage.
� Mr. Bolin stated staff recommends approval of the lot split. The lot owned by the HRA
will still exceed the size standards required by code.
n
Ms. Savage asked if staff had received any calls regarding the request.
Mr. Bolin stated staff had received no calls.
Mr. Kuechle asked if the goal was to sell the 20 feet to the neighbor to the north in order
to bring the comer lot closer to compliance.
Mr. Bolin stated the HRA has a proposal to build a home on the lot. The proposed
home does not need the full 80-foot frontage. The neighbor to the north has inquired
about obtaining more property in order to become closer to a 65-foot width. It is a
combination of having a buildable lot and getting the neighbor closer to the required lot
size. This is under-utilized land and has benefit to the neighbor.
Ms. Modig asked why they did not do the extra 1 3/4 feet in order to make the comer lot a
conforming lot.
Mr. Hickok stated that if they had done that, then the HRA lot would not be conforming.
The measurements are that close.
10
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 6, 1999 PAGE 9
Ms. Dacy stated this came up during an HRA meeting while they were discussing this
^ piece of property. The owner of the property to the north brought this to the HRA's
attention; the HRA asked staff to look into it; and staff is now processing a lot split.
Mr. Raveling stated they had gotten a letter from the City that if they purchased 20-feet
of land they would be compliant. That is what they are going for.
Ms. Dacy stated the intent is to acknowledge that the lot to the north of the HRA's lot is
a nudge less than the requirement and, in essence, this is granting a variance to that
requirement. Once the lot split is approved, they will have a conforming lot. If the
homeowners want to do something, they would not have to come in for a variance.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public hearing.
IJPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTIOIV CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:20 P.M.
Mr. Kondrick stated this is a good way to get utilization of the property. He would vote
in favor of the request.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend approval of a
resolution for a Lot Split, L.S. #99-03, by Fridley HRA, to sell the north 20 feet of the lot
to an adjoining property owner, generally located at 5857 Main Street.
� UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Savage stated the City Council would consider this request on October 25.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST SAV #99-
06, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY:
To vacate that portion of Cheryl Street lying easterly of the southem extension of
the westerly line of Lot 18, Block L, Riverview Heights, and westerly of the
southerly extension of the east line of Lot 10, Block L, Riverview Heights, Anoka
County, Minnesota.
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by IVIr. Kondrick, to waive the reading of the public
hearing notice and to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:22 P.M.
Mr. Bolin stated the vacation request is being brought forward by the City of Fridley.
The City is seeking to vacate an undeveloped portion of Cheryl Street. The property
would be split among three adjoining property owners. At the last meeting, the Planning
Commission granted a street vacation to Michael and Claudia Geis, who sought to
� vacate a portion of Cheryl Street that is undeveloped. Upon reviewing their request,
staff decided it would be in the City's best interest to vacate the rest of the undeveloped
��
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 6, 1999 PAGE 10
portion of Cheryl Street lying to the west of the Geis property. The City has had a
^ survey done to divide the land between the three adjacent property owners.
Mr. Bolin stated Cheryl Street was platted in 1922 as part of the Riverview Heights
addition. The roadway was never built. Since that time, it has been used by
neighboring properties as basically their own private property. The area is heavily
wooded and has a steep grade. It is not likely that the City would ever be able to
develop this as a roadway. Leaving a stub street after vacating the street by the Geis
property would leave unanswered questions in the future. Due to these factors, staff is
recommending approval of the street vacation.
Mr. Bolin stated that according to the certificate of sunrey, Lot A or 7981 Broad, would
receive a 20-foot x 160-foot parcel; Lot B would receive a 20-foot by 75-foot parcel; and
Lot C would receive a 20-foot x 235-foot parcel.
Ms. Modig stated she is assuming these persons are willing to do this and/or want it
done.
Mr. Bolin stated staff had received three calls regarding the request --one in support and
the other two just inquiring after the notices were sent.
Mr. Kuechle asked if the City gives the land to the property owners at no charge.
� Mr. Bolin stated, yes.
Mr. Lagesse stated he called in to get some information. He did not get enough. He
could not understand the description in the letter. He called and was told that it would
mean that he would be paying about $5.00 more in property taxes. Staff said it was
surveyed but he has not seen any markers. He would like to know where the markers
are so they can look for them. Curb and gutter was mentioned. What would that mean
to them financially as far as assessments?
Mr. Hickok stated curb and gutter formulas have been analyzed and the property
owners notified. This action does not add to it. The action happened after the costs
were broken down.
Mr. Hickok stated that as far as the sunrey stakes, the City has had a survey prepared.
The surveyor identified the comer stakes. They go from that benchmark to create a lot
description and identify the marks in the field. Property owners should be able to find
the comer stakes about one inch below grade.
Mr. Lagesse stated that in the past when his property was being surveyed for the
roadway, they were coming up with different answers depending on where they started.
Neighbors had a similar experience.
� Mr. Hickok stated there is no guarantee that adjacent lot owners get their lot surveyed.
The street right-of-way has been identified and marked. How it related to the properties
12
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 6, 1999 PAGE 11
stakes, he is certain there is not new comer stakes for those lots but there are for the
,�, right-of-way.
Mr. Lagesse asked how much property would go to each property owner.
Mr. Bolin stated each property would receive 20 feet.
Mr. Lagesse stated that if he understands correctly, he should be able to find the corr�er
stake by his driveway. If he goes out another 20 feet from that point, he should be able
to find a new stake.
n
Mr. Hickok stated the outside boundaries of the right-of-way have been staked. He
believed the survey would mark the center point of the area being vacated.
Mr. Lagesse stated he did not recall receiving a letter giving the cost for street
assessments — curb, gutter, and sewer.
Mr. Hickok stated that, annually, the City does a certification of assessments in
September. He believed that because the project was not finished for this year, they
will certify in September of next year. The property owners will receive a letter before
that explaining the costs and assessments.
MOTION by Mr. Kondr�ck, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:37 P.M.
Mr. Kondrick stated he would recommend approval of the request.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of a
resolution for a Vacation request, SAV #99-06, by the City of Fridley, to vacate that
portion of Cheryl Street lying easterly of the southerr� extension of the westerly line of
Lot 18, Block L, Riverview Heights, and westerly of the southerly extension of the east
line of Lot 10, Block L, Riverview Heights, Anoka County, Minnesota.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Savage stated the City Council would consider this request on October 25.
5. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION REVIEWING THE EXPANSION OF
THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA CONSISTING OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREA No. 1:
Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission is asked to pass a resolution to enlarge the
�,.� redevelopment project area in the City of Fridley. Maps included in the agenda packet
shows the current proje�t areas and the proposed expansion areas. Tax increment
financing (TIF) districts produce tax increment that goes to the HRA. A project area was
13
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 6, 1999 PAGE 12
first established in 1979. The City Council, HRA, and Planning Commission identified
r'-� parcels that they thought would be in need of redevelopment, rehabilitation, acquisition,
or some type of activity which would be permitted. The City of Fridley has
accomplished many of the goals set out by the community including the southwest
quadrant, the City Center area, the north industrial area, the Medtronic development,
etc. This has produced the need to go back to that plan, take a look at it, and update it.
The map also shows the proposed expansion areas.
Ms. Dacy stated one question is: Why is the City and HRA doing this? This is a
planning tool. They have finished 20 years of redevelopment and are now looking to
the future for areas they may want to look at. Because the HRA has done scattered site
acquisition in the Riverview Heights area, that neighborhood is included in the project
area. These may be future projects as well.
Ms. Dacy stated the resolution says that this expansion is consistent with the
comprehensive plan. Staff is in the process of revising the comprehensive plan. They
want to plan for the future and establish future housing rehabilitation programs, look at
land uses, and interrelate that to what the City needs for transportation modes that may
be built in the future. The North Star Railroad Comdor Authority is looking at a rail line
between Minneapolis and St. Cloud. What types of development or land use should
occur around that site? The goal of redevelopment and rehabilitation is to make sure
the land is being used efficiently. Are there areas that are under-utilized? Trying to
accomplish the community vision is another goal, as is removing substandard housing
,—,� and commercial buildings.
Ms. Dacy stated a good example is at the northeast comer of 57�' and University. The
HRA has acquired JR's Automotive and is purchasing vacant land to the east. The
HRA would assemble parcels, combine them and propose a townhome project in the
future.
Mr. Kondrick stated that in looking at the map, the proposed additions include the
Georgetown Apartments site, the carton company and LaMaur across the street, and
the FMC property to the south. Why is it important for those areas to be a part of this?
Ms. Dacy stated the map includes the Georgetown Apartments plus the apartments on
Charles Street. The HRA's goal is to work on an apartment rehab policy. The focus
has been on single family. They have a certain amount of funds for rental rehab loans
for apartments. The apartment stock is aging. They are looking at programs to be
made available for those types of land uses. On Charles Street, one owner is taking
advantage of the program. There may be other programs that the HRA may want to
implement.
Ms. Dacy stated the United Defense property has a lease with the Department of the
Navy. She believed they are in the process of selling to another party. There is a
significant amount of vacant land there. There is monitoring of the water. This raises
� some interesting issues as to what could happen in the future. More and more, there
are Federal and State funds available to clean sites.
14
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 6, 1999 PAGE 13
Mr. Kondrick asked about the LaMaur and Longview Fibre companies.
Ms. Dacy stated LaMaur was just sold to another company. The City does receive calls
from prospective buyers asking about the City's economic programs. In this case,
LaMaur is not a part of a TIF district. By putting it into a project area, it gives the ability
to the HRA for loans or to establish a TIF district in the future if factors and issues can
be answered. It gives the City more flexibility to respond to needs. With less than 100
acres for industrial and commercial land, they must be creative about maintaining and
improving what is here.
Ms. Dacy stated that with the Medtronic campus, they recognize that the City will
receive additional interest from the private market for new commercial uses. Medtronic
would like to see a new hotel nearby. As a result, they have included the commercial
area in the southeast and southwest part of the interchange as well.
Ms. Savage asked for Ms. Dacy's comments regarding the northwest portions.
Alls. Dacy stated the HRA has already acquired some lots for the scattered site housing
replacement program in that area. The Hyde Park and Riverview Heights are two of the
older areas in the city. There are still a number of very small houses in that area.
There are also some commercial land uses along the west side of the road that pose
issues for the neighborhood. Expansion of the redevelopment area gives the HRA the
flexibilifiy for redevelopment or to expand the rehabilitation and scattered site programs.
^ Mr. Sielaff asked if there is some criteria by which the areas are defined.
Ms. Dacy stated it is within the ability of the City to determine what is in the project area.
What they did go by was the general purposes for redevelopment in the state statutes.
Some parcels are fine. What they do in one area can have an impact across the street.
When they start drawing the circles on the map, they began to interconnect
Mr. Sielaff asked if the key is to increase the value.
Ms. Dacy stated it is a goal to maintain and increase property values; but this is also an
opportunity to expand employment, keep structures up to code, etc.
Ms. Savage stated this is consistent with the inquiries made of the public and what can
be done to improve livability in the City.
Mr. Sielaff asked why the area west of University and south of I-694 was included in the
project area.
Ms. Dacy stated a number of rehab activities have occurred in that area. The Ciiy has
received inquiries about the need for rehab from soil conditions in the area. It is also
across the street from a significant industrial area. This gives the HRA the authority to
� do projects to address those concems.
�5
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 6, 1999 PAGE 14
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to approve a resolution finding the
�—, Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project #1 to be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 2. 1999. PARKS & RECREATION
COMMISSION MEETING:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the August 2, 1999,
minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 8. 1999 APPEALS
COMMISSION MEETING:
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the September 8, 1999,
minutes of the Appeals Commissino meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
^ THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 22. 1999. APPEALS
COMMISSION MEETING:
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the September 22, 1999,
minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjoum the meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE OCTOBER 6,1999, PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:57 P.M.
RespectFully submitted.
�„� Lavonn Cooper
Recording Secretary
16
�
/ `�
I
CITY OF FRIDLEY
SIGN-IN SHEET
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
r 1 i - � � •
Name and Address
�� .
Agenda Item of Inte�est
..S'sv7J �1����st ��de�e,---
/f7 �s /g /1� �I ,s s�� � � �--
�
��df � Q,� r/ � L� nr9 .���o � fh� �v S�r e z�
�
.'� .�1� ,
; ,
,
u � •. � / ! J !`ii� � _ . •, � �) i _