Loading...
AF-LS - 41843< � � ��¢� �� � e;�' � �. PLANNTNG COMP�1ISSIOP! MEE7ING. MAY 6, 1981 Mr. Harris stated tr�at SP #81-06 would go to City Council on May 18. PAGE 5 2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #81-04, BY JOHN R. DOYLE: Split off the East 8 feet of Lot 2, an split off t e West 9 feet of Lot 14, and add to Lot 13, all in Fridley Park Addition, to make a buildable lot after 32 feet of Lot 12 is taken by Anoka County, the same being 6301 East River Road N.E. Mr. Boardman stated the reason for the lot spiit request is primarily because of a court case tt�at is going on right now in Anoka County. The property is located on East River Road south of Mississippi. Anoka County is presently acquiring property for expansion of East River Road. The County is planning on taking 32 ft. from Lot 12. The County is contending that what is being 7eft is actually a buildable lot. The only wa,y to make that determination and make that a buildable lot is through a lot split process. Mr. Doyle is before the Planning Commission and the City Council to see if the lot split will be granted. If the lot split is granted, then it is a buildable lot. The existing house is located on Lots 13 and 14, • Mr. Boardman stated that by adding the 9 feet, then with the lot split the present lot �vould have a 57 ft. width and a 732 ft. depth and is 7,524 sq. ft. By code with the lot split, it is a buildable lot. The remaining lot has a 71 ft. frontage and 9,372 sq. ft. Mr. Boardman stated the question before the Planning Commission and City Council is: Will the Planning Commission and City Council approve a lot split request? This area was platted� �efore 1955 where a iot cannot be less than 50 ft., but can be less than 60 ft. �ret-Ql-d would require 7,500 sq. ft. Mr. Harris stated that if Mr. Doyle cannot get financing to build a single family home on the lot on Osborne Way and East f2iver Road, how did he think he couid do it on this lot? ��1r. Doyle stated he did not know. The lot does meet the requirements. What might be favorable on a lot that size is to be excused from having a garage in order to make the home affordable. Mr. Harris stated that from a community standpoint and what would be best for the City would be for the County to acquire the whole 80 ft. lot, so there is adec�uate open space between the highway surface and the residential area. Acquiring pieces of property here and there has been done a17 the way up East River Road, causing road surfaces to be too close to dwellings and driveways and accesses too close to East River Road. Mr. Qoardman stated he felt if this lot split request is denied, there should be son�ething in the record that states if the County does acquire this property, this property be tied together in some way with Lot 13 so the 48 ft. would not go tax forfeit. If anyone tries to sell Lot 12 off from Lot 13, they would then require a lot split. He is very concerned about having a 48 ft. lot that may eventually go tax forfeit. � PLANNING COMMISSION P�EETING, MAY 6, 19�1 PAGE 6 � r Mr. Harris stated he is not in favor of having a structure between the existing structure and East River Road, which is a major highway, and he did think the boulevards should be wider in there. Three to five feet isn't even enough for snow storage. He stated they should not subject any more residents to being that close to East River Road. . Ms. Hughes stated the Planning Commissi�n's options are: (1) to give the lot split and presumably legally �eet all the lot requirements of the plat, but it would give them an undesirable lot; (2) if they do deny the lot split request, what is going to happen is the County will take the 32 ft. and then Mr. Doyle will have a 48 ft. lot. That 48 ft, could be tacked onto the 80 ft. lot, making a 128 ft, lot, which is a big lot. From the standpoint of the City, that did not look like a very good deal. From the standpoint of the petitioner, at this point she felt there was no overwhelming reason for him to have the lot split. So, on that basis, she thought maybe the best thing for the City would be to oppose the 1ot split. Mr. Harris stated not so long ago, the P7anning Commission was �iiscussing 7,500 sq. ft. lots versus 9,000 sq. ft. lots. The City has taken the position that they should stay with 9,000 sq. ft, lots. Community De�elopment has concurred with that, and in his discussions with the City Council, the majority of the Council has agreed the City should stay with 9,000 sq. ft. lots. Now, to accommodate the County, the City is going to create a 7,500 sq. ft. ]ot. He felt that was being very inconsistent. Ms. Hughes stated 7,500 sq. ft. lots work in some places, but they do not work on corners, and the theory is to have larger corner lots. Mr, Harris stated the 57 ft, lot is inconsistent with the rest of the neighborhood, which, for the most part, are residences built on 80 -ft, lots. He fe7t it would be poor planning to put a residence on a si��aller lot than is normal for the area only 172 ft. from a major higfiway, which basical]y is what they are being asked to concur with. He stated this was not a viable building site. Mr. Doyle asked if the Planning Commission would be willing to give an east/west lot split. Mr. Harris stated he could never consider an east/west lot split from the stand- point that it would be an absolute disaster as far as a hazard to safety. As City policy, they have tried to eliminate direct driveways onto East River Road, wherever possible. He believed it was also County policy to deny those kinds of requests, and in several instances a]ong East River Raad, the County has denied direct access onto East River Road. Mr. Oquist stated that in thinking about an east/west lot split, it may work out better to have an east/west lot split but have the driveway from the back lot come out on 63rd with a driveway easement. Ms. Hughes stated the east/west split as Mr. Oquist has proposed would have more appeal to her. � . � � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 6, 1981 PAGE 7 Mr. Harris stated the problem with the east/west lot split is it would still be creating two lots that are not in character with the neighborhood. MOTION BY MS. HUGHES, SECONDED BY MR. WHARTON, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF LOT SPLIT REQUE5T, LS #81-04, BY, JOHN R. DOYLE. Ms. Gabel and Mr, Svanda stated they basically agreed with all that f�r. Harris has said about the 57 ft. lot being inconsistent with the neighborhood and that it is not a vi�able building site. • Mr. Oquist stated he also agreed with Mr. Harris. He agreed it did not make much sense to put a single family home on that size lot to be a buffer from East River Road. But, do they have strong enough reasons to deny the lot split request? Mr. Harris stated he thought there was more to it than just the letter of the law, because there are people inv�lved, there is the health, safety, and general welfare of the community involved in granting such a lot split. Just because the letter of the law says they should approve the lot split, he did not think that was a viable enough reason to approve it. People have to live there. WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE SECONDER, MS. HUGHE5 WITHDREW THE MOTION. MOTION BY MS. HUGHES, SECOI�DED BY MS. GABEL, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST, LS #081-04, BY JOHN R. DOYLE, TO SPLIT OFF THE EAST 8 FEET OF LOT 12, AND SPLIT OFF THE WEST 9 FEET OF LOT 14, AND ADD TO LOT I3, ALL IN FRIDLEY PARK ADDITION, TO MAKE A BUILDABLE LOT AFTER 32 FEET OF LOT 12 IS TAKEN BY AIVOKA COUNTY, THE SAME BEING 630I EAST RIVER ROAD N.E., FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 2. IT IS A CORNER LOT WHICH IS REALLY TOO SMALL AND TOO CLOSE TO A BUSY HIGHWAY. 3. THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM THAT COULD BE GENERATED BY DRIVEWAYS SO CLOSE TO EAST RIVER ROAD. 4. THE ADVERSE ENVIRONNIENTAL IMPACTS FROM NOISE AND VEHICLE POLLUTION. Ms. van Dan stated she agreed with the motion for all the reasons mentioned and the danger because of accidents that have occurred on East River Road in the past. UPON A VOICE VOTE, HARRIS, VAN DAN, GABEL, SVANDA, OQUIST, AND HUGHES VOTING AYE, WHARTON VOTING NAY, CHAIRl�1AN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 6-1. Mr. Wharton stated he had voted against the motion because he believed when a person comes :in requesting a lot split and if the lot split meets all the planning of the City's platting, there is no reason to deny that lot split. Mr. Harris stated LS #81-04 would go to City Council on t�ay 18. Mr. Doyle asked the Commission to make a policy decision on whether they would allow an east/west lot split with access onto East River Road. � � ' , PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 6, 1981 PAGE 8 MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MS. VAN DAN, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY NOT ALLOW ACCESS DIRECTLY ONTO EAST RIVER ROAD OR ANY OTHER LOT CONFIGUR.�TION WITH THIS LOT AS IT IiAS BEEN THE POLICY OF THE CITY TO ELIMINATE ACCESS ONTO EAST RIVER ROAD, WHEREVER POSSIBLE. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. . PUBLIC HEARIi�G: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED CONVERSION CONDOMINIUM LICENSING \ RDIfVANCE MOTIO� MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONSIDE TION OF A PROPOSED CONVER5ION CONDOMINIUM LICEN5ING ORDTNANCE. UPON A VOI VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:50 P.M. Mr. Boardman s ted the only reason this is back on the Planning Commission agenda is because when e Planning Commission took action on this ordinance and recommended approval to the Ci Council, they did not have a public hearing at that time. What is needed now for the Planning Commission to take action on the ordinance with a public hearing MOTION BY MR. WHARTON, S ONDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOS.. CONVERSION CONDOMINIUM LICENSING ORDINANCE. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING� E, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:51 P.M. . MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MS\ VAN DAN, TO REC01�1MEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED CONVERSION CON�INIUM LICENSING ORDINANCE. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIR NARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANI�IOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE APRIL 14, 1981, COMMUNITY DEVELOP NT COPIMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO R�EIVE THE APRIL 14� 1981, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTE5. � Mr. Oquist stated they are still discussing the purpose�pf their commission. Mr. Oquist stated that on page 6, because of a request by t e City Council, the Community Development Commission members discussed and recomn ded some criteria as the minimum requirements in estabYishing a special use permi for two families in a single family unit in an R-1 zone. He stated the Community velopment Comnission would like the Planning Commission to concur with this r ommendation. Mr. Oquist stated there �re some things that cannot be enforced, but it as always been his opinion that if you have an ordinance, at least you can enforce i but if you don't have an ordinance, there is nothing to enforce and there is no o- tection for the City. .