Loading...
LS 79-04i1 CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 26, 1979 CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Langenfeld called the September 26, 1979 meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:43 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Ms. Hughes, Mr. Treuenfels, Mr. Langenfeld, Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel Mr. Harris (arrived at 7:45 P.M.) Members Absent: Ms. Schnabel (represented by Ms. Gabel) Others Present: Bill Deblon, Associate City Planner APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 12,1979: MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the September 12, 1979, minutes of the Planning Commission with the following corrections: Mr. Langenfeld said on page 3, the 5th paragraph from the bottom the word emission should be admission. Also, on page 12, the 6th paragraph should read: He was ex - officio on the Planning Commission for over a year and this brought about a full citizen participation and felt the establishment of this (Energy Commission.) would be very beneficial to the City of Fridley. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. LOT SPLIT REQUEST. L.S. #79-04. EDWARD T. BAULER: Split off the Westerly 60 feet of Lot 14, A.S. #22, except the Southerly 390 feet, also Lot 30, Block 2, Irving- ton Addition and adjoining vacated streets and alleys in Irvington Addition, to be sold as open space for an adjoining property, the same being 1420. Rice Creek Road N.E.LL Air. Deblon said the lot was 239.2 feet by 194.5 feet. The petitioner plans to split off the 60 feet on the west side. Staff approached this request with a comprehensive look for the entire area and felt the lot split as shown would not be in the best interest of this area. Mr. Deblon showed a map of the area with a future proposed road on it. He said Mr. Boardman placed the road where the surrounding land would be used most efficient- ly for future residential development. He said any future road in this area would have site limitation because of the steep elevations, Mr. Deblon said this lot would only be 60 feet wide by 239.2 feet deep, making it sub- standard in width. Staff felt this could set a precedent for this area as there was quite a large amount of undeveloped land in the area. He stated the plan as drawn by Air. Boardman is not a definite plan. Mr. Oquist asked if any developer had approached the city for this type of development. Mr. Deblon said no. The staff was asked to make a comprehensive study of this area be- fore allowing a small piece of land to be split: off. This would foresee future development complications. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 26, 1979 PACE 2�� Mr. Ed Bauler, 1420 Rice Creek Road, was present for the request. He said he and his neighbor, Mr. Kassel, in 1967 fought it out at that time about the placing of a road here. He was told if he could come up with an alternative the City would go along with it. Mr. Bauler said he came up with the idea of what was now Kerry Lane. He ques- tioned why he should be the only one penalized and have the road put in as Mr. Boardman suggested. He said the area west of his land was better suited for a road because it was flatter. Mr.. Harris question if Mr. O'Bannan and Mr. Brickner owned some of the undeveloped land. Mr. Bauler said yes. Mr. Bauler said this proposed development was for the future, so why should he.be burdened with it now. He explained he lives on a pension with his wife and they have had high medical bills in the last few years. Selling this 60 feet to his neighbor would pay off his debts and let him still give the rest of his land to his children. Mr. Deblon said the staff felt the land would be better utilized if developed the way shown. This would allow Mr. Bauler's land in the future to be split into 3 lots if his family so desired. The lot as proposed by Mr. Bauler would be a north -south lot with access off of Rice Creek Road. The proposed City development would make the lot pie shaped. and would need road right-of-way from the adjoining property to obtain access to this lot. Mr. Bauler said his future was now and he has to do something about it. The commission pointed out that on the proposed development, future lot lines had been set up through or close to existing homes and did not feel homeowners w uld go along with that. Mr. Deblon said the lot lines would not necessarily go through as drawn, but City staff was looking to maximize the area for residential development. Mr. Harris said he thought they should talk with the other property owners in the area and see what their intent was for their land. He thought there was some land already platted and some building going on now. Mr. Oquist pointed out to Mr. Bauler that he could get 2 lot splits possibly and make more money. Mr. Bauler said he did not want tosellall his land, only what was needed. He thought it was very sad when the City would not let you sell. your own property. He has been here since 1938 and has helped build the City and this was the thanks he gets. Mr. Deblon said the City has to look at the entire area to see what was best, not just for now, but for future generations that will live in Fridley. Mr. Harris asked if Mr. Bauler had talked to anyone on his proposed lot split. Mr. Bauler said no, only his neighbor who wanted to buy. the land for a tennis court. Mr. Langenfeld pointed out to Mr. Bauler lie thought they were using proper planning procedure and forsight here. He felt if they granted this lot split tonight and then in the future had to say because of development, the rest of this land would not be useable, Mr. Bauler would be very mad. Prnrrr��tac, COtdNtISSION MEETING SEPTEMPER 26 7.979 PACE 3 ouler Asked why they could not move the road further west and take. 1/2 of what was needed fora road from 2 lots. 148. Hughes said this would make many areas unbuildable. They have an obligation to plan for the future and thought the commission should get information on this area before deciding on this lot split. Mr.'Bauler said Mr..Brickner had asked him to sell some of his land to him before. Mr. Harris said that was why he felt they should get the intentions of the landowners. Possibly Mr. Brickner_was still interested in buying land from Mr. Bauler.. Ms. Hughes asked what would be done with the lot split. Mr. Bauler said the adjoining property owner wanted'to buy it and use it for a tennis court. Mr. Harris questioned if all the area lots were 9,:000 square feet. He said if the road was put in the wrong spot, some land would be landlocked and could not be. developed. Ms. Hughes asked about a private road to those lots. Mr. Harris said that brings up a lot of problems and did not think there was room for a cul-de-sac. MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Hughes, to continue Lot Split request L.S. #79-04, until the next meeting to allow staff time to contact the landowners in the area and see what they propose to do. with their land, to find out the lot sizes of the lots to the north of Mr. Baulex's land and also, what the proposed road status was. •UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Harris asked the staff to notify the petitioner.if this information was not ready for the October 3, 1979 meeting. 2. LOT SPLIT QUEST, L.S. 079-05, CITY OF FRIDLM,. Split off the West 14.2 feet from Lot I, Block I, Van Cleeve'e Addition. Already split by County, never approved by City,---Hur o� se of the lot split request iZ� to make County and City records agree. Mr. Aquist pointed out there were houses Z -ready built' here and asked when the County approved this and why. Mr. Deblon said he did not have�aggs ers for those 2 questions, but said it went tax - forfeit 6 years ago. He said e Property owner, Mr. Van Cleves, kept 14.2 feet out xAien he sold this land (Lot, o Mr �rickson. Right now the land was not owned by anyone and is was suggested that the L-dt,G pick up the extra 14.2 feet. He said the City was,lpoking for a possible lot split on Lots 1-4`/and also to build a road off of BenjantLn Street to service them. Mr. Treuenfels asked if the property owners had been' ontacted to see if they wanted to purchase -the 14.2 feet and pay taxes on it. Mr. Deblon said not to his knowledge. yr r { z ..... , , a ... .. n sit ^ , l Ill 1 1, I t J � t n ANY tl F u J Val': S^ . W - 4 \ � t `IF I I x - r. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION_ MEETING, OCTOBER 3, 1979 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. Harris, Ms. Hughes, Mr. Oquist, Mr. Treuenfels, Ms. Gabel Members Absent: Ms. Schnabel;(represented by Ms. Gabel), Mr. Langenfeld (arrived at the end of the meeting) Others Present: Jerry Boardman, City Planner and Bill Deblon, Associate City Planner 1. CONTINUED: LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #79-04, EDWARD T. BAULER: Split off the Westerly 60 feet of Lot 14, A.S. #22, except the Southerly 390 Feet, also Lot 30, Black 2, Irvington Addition, and adjoining vacated streets and alleys in Irvington Addition, to be sold as open space for an adjoining property, the same being 1420 Rice Creek Road N.E. Chairman Harris asked Mr. Boardman for comments on this request. Mr. Boardman told the Planning Commission when considering this item, that it was very important to consider planning for the whole district. The entire area was quite large with many undeveloped lots. He stated other landowners in this area have contacted him regarding the question of lot splits. His two main questions were how to get access to all of this land and what kind of use the land would service Fridley best. He realized Mr. Bauler only wants to split off 60 feet, but this would make the lot substandard in width and a very deep lot. This lot could become landlocked in the future. When planning we have to look at 15 to 20 years down the road. He realized this will put a burden on Mr. Bauler now. The City already has a 30 foot road right- of-way along Pyr. Bauler`s land. This was platted many years ago on the old Irvington Addition. All the streets and alleys in the area have been vacated. The City would have to obtain an additional 30 feet to make room for a road. Mr. Boardman recommended denial of the lot split. Mr. Harris said the reason for continuing this request was the question of access to the G rear properties, plus, to find out what the other property owner°s intents where. i Mr. Boardman said they did not ask each owner what their intent was, because perhaps in 5 years from now they may sell to a developer and we have to plan for that now. Mr. Harris said they were also looking for some sort of a plan for this area. Mr. Boardman said this was what he did on his proposed road plan and lot plan. Because of lack of time, everything was not planned from an engineering standpoint, but the plan as far as a road system, lot division and lot size was feasible. He asked if we. do this split now, what problems are we creating down the line. He recommended denial because the lot would be too narrow. It would be only 60 feet wide, which was substandard and that has never been allowed before. If the commission okays the lot split, it would be saying the lot was buildable, which was not true. Mr. Boardman questioned if PLANNING_ COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 3, 1979 PAGE 2 the Commission could legally approve the lot split because it would be going against the ordinance requirements for size. Mr. Boardman also recommended denial because the rest of the land would be inaccessible and the City could not get the needed road Y right-of-way. Mr. Harris asked if the terrain was too steep for roads. Mr. Boardman said there are variations in the terrain, but there are low points which are fairly level and could be serviceable. The proposed plan was about the best one for road access and creating lots. Ms. Gabel pointed out on the proposed road plan, some houses were in the way. .She questioned what happes to them. Mr. Boardman replied this road plan was not definite. It may have to be moved around for those homes, some lots made smaller or larger or if the price was right, the developer would purchase the homesand relocate them. Ms. Hughes asked how many property owners were affected. Mr. Boardman said the land was owned by 9 homeowners and they each have a large amount of land. He then showed a map of each homeowner's land. Mr. Boardman suggested to Mr. Bauler to split off some other area of his land. Mr. Bauler, 1420 Rice Creek Road, said he has a buyer for this land already and he did not want to sell anymore of his land. Mr. Boardman said this neighbor would be able to put in his tennis court, with this lot split vaid then split off his original land and sell. He has seen this happen , before. Mr. Bauler would then be left with inaccessible land on his back property. Mr. Robert Barnette, 541 Rice Creek Blvd., speaking as a friend for Mr. Bauler, pointed out the only reason Mr. Bauler was selling was because of financial need. He said if he sold this 60 feet to his neighbor, ultimately the tennis court would go in, and when the road was needed, it would be part of the neighbor's land that would be condemaed. The burden would be on the purchaser of the property, not on Mr. Bauler. It would be up to the neighbor to settle on the cost of this lot, not Mr. Bauler. The burden should not be on the petitioner because of something 20 years down the road. . Mr. Boardman said the burden was on the City, because they would be saying the lot split was buildable and it was not. Mr. Harris said he did not see how the Planning Commission could approve a lot split for this size because it goes against the ordinance. Mr. Bauler said he did not want to sell off more of his land closer to his house. That was all part of his home and he had lived there since 1938. Mr. Harris said there have been no lot splits of less than 75 feet since 1966. Ms. Gabel asked if C.C. would buy another configuration of his land. The Commission tried to work out various ways to split the land, but because of needed road right-of-way and future land development, nothing was feasible. Also, Mr. Bauler PLANKING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 3, 1979 PAGE 3 could not agree with any of the suggestions because it would infringe on his home and his life style. Mr. Bauler stated he wanted to leave his land to his children. Mr. Harris suggested splitting off the land along Rice Creek Road, leaving an access to his home. This lot would be more valuable then the original request, somewhere in the area of $15 - 16,000. This lot would also meet all the requirements. An easement would be given for future road right-of-way to give access to the land to the rear. This split would stillleave Mr. Bauler the land around his home and allow him to do what he wants with it. Mr. Barnette pointed out that the neighbor was not interested in this land. Mr. Harris said considering land shortage and the location, this lot should sell very easily. Mr. Boardman suggested leasing the land'. the' -neighbor wa.snted for his tennis court and also split the front lot onRice Creek Road. The proposed road plan would then be shifted be along this lot and an easement could be dedicated for road right-of-way when the _lot was sold. This would satisfy the neighbor's plan; and give Mr. Baulter the -money -he requires and still leave 2 lots left of his land. Mr. Bauler said he fought placing a road here in 1967, but looks now like he has :lost. -Mr. Barnette asked what type of procedure Ed would have to go thru. Mr. Harris said he would only need a lot split for the land on Rice Creek Road. 'He also suggested working out a written aereement with the neighbor on leasing the land for the tennis court. This should include and easement for access to the tennis court for motorized vehicles. Mr. Harris said they would continue this item until Mr. Baulter had time to talk with his neighbor ori this proposal and -work out the new lot split. .MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Hughes, to continue Lot Split .Request, L.S. #79-04, Edward T. Bauler, until further notice. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. RECEIVE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHbRITY MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 13, 1979_: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms.Gabel to receive the Housing an "kedevelopment minutes of September 13, 1979. Mr. -Boardman pointed out the motion on page 3 regarding the discussion on .reliminary Development Standards and the Center City Project. "Motion by Mr. Houck, seconded by Mr. Prieditis, to recommend to City Council, through Planning Commission, that they adopt some guidelines for controls sim- ilar to the "Preliminary Development Standards" to be implemented in the zoning ordinance. Upon a Voice Vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Commers de- clared the motion carried unanimously. He said he was presently working on zoning controls for the Center City project and should be bringing them to the Planning Commission soon. He gated he was looking at this area as an overlay district which would require Special Use Permits for all buil- dings in the Center City project. Special Use Permits would take care of variances, PLANNING COMMISSION_ MEETING, OCTOBER 3, 1979_ _ _ _ _ _ PAGE 4 s with proper notice. Mr. Harris asked if he had a timetable for the development. Mr. Boardman said he hopes to get a brochure out to developers by mid-November. That puts any firm development commitment into January or February. He felt if everything was done in a year's time, we would be doing good. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL.gUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 18, 1979: MOTION by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the Environmental Quality Commission minutes of September 18, 1979. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. CONTINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 205. ZONING: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels to continue the discussion of Proposed Changes to Chapter 205. Zoning. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, -CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Boardman asked the commission to set up a special meeting to discuss the zoning changes only. This was the only portion of the re -codification that had to be done. MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to hold a Special Meeting of the Planning Commission to discuss Proposed Changes of Chapter 205. Zoning, on Wednesday, October 10, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. in the downstairs classroom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Harris asked to have this meeting posted because it was a special meeting. 5. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Treuenfels asked if the number of housing units (Comprehensive Plan) suggested by the Metropolitan Council was subsidized by other agencies. Mr. Boardman replied yes. He also stated he has had some discussions with the Metro- politan Council on the number of units to be made available in a 10 year period. The Council now feels it cannot require a community to build X number of homes in 10 years if the Federal monies are not available. They now look at a 3 year period and say we have so much money that can be granted to a community and therefore the units will be built according to the monies available. This does not change the goals or objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, but will change some numbers in the implementation process. Mr. Treuenfels asked if the funds come through the Metro Council. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 24, 1979_ PAGE 2 Mr. Boardman said -definitely the Planning Commission would be going over the use of Special Use Permits in the Center City Project. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6( 1. CONTINUED: LOT SPLIT REQUEST. L.S. #79-04, EDWARD T. BAULER: Split off the West- erly 60 feet of Lot 14, A.S. #22, except the Southerly 390 feet, also Lot 30, Block 2, Irvington Addition, and adjoining vacated streets and alleys in Irvington Addition, to be sold as open space for an adjoining property, the same being 1420 Rice Creek Road N.E. Mr. Boardman reminded the commission that at the last meeting they had continued this request so Mr. Bauler could look into another lot split and possible lease agreement with his neighbor. Mr. Bauler came forward and said he would like to stick to his original request for a lot split. He said he had been told when he brought it in, it would not be approved. Mr. Boardman said he told Mr. Bauler when he brought in his request he would recommend denial of the lot split. Mr. Harris said the commission would make a recommendation to the City Council and he could ask the City Council for.approval. Mr. Bauler could see no point in that and felt his only alternative was to sell all his land and move out of Fridley. I w Mr. Bauler left the meeting at that point. Mr. Harris said the commission had studied the entire area carefully and had come up with an alternative suggestion for Mr. Bauler. He chose to stick with his original lot split request and that request does not meeting zoning requirements. MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels to recommend to City Council denial of L.S. #79-04, for the following reasons: 1. Lot split does not meet zoning code requirements for minimum lot width. (lot size would be 60 x 293.2 feet) 2. Any future. lot split of this' new lot would create 2_substandard. a (60 x 146.6 feet). This would only add to future problems in this area. 3. By allowing such a lot, the commission would be saying the lots are build- able, which was not true. Ms. Schnabel said she felt bad she was not at the last 2 meetings when this request was discussed. She had studied the minutes and felt the motion was proper. Approval of the request would be creating a substandard lot and this would not be in the best interest of the city. Mr. Harris pointed out the commission had come up with a better plan by splitting off the front section of his land on Rice Creek Road. That would still leave all the land around CALL TO ORDER: Co -chairperson Schn b meeting to order at ROLL CALL: Members Present: Ms. Mr. • CITY OF FRIDLEY ION MEETING, _ OCTOBER 24, 1979 al called the meeting of the October 24, 1979, Planning Commission :32 P.M. dig, Ms. Hughes, Mr. Treuenfels, Ms. Schnab , Mr. Hora, H ris (arrived at 8:35 P.M.) Members Absent: None \ Others Present: Jerry Boaz*an, City Planner, Bill Deb MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded Mr. Treuenfels to minutes of the Planning Commissi4 as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. minutes of the Planning Commission as c Page 2, the second to last paragraph s Associate City Planner the September 26, 1979, SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED 1 nfels to approve the October 3, 1979 ed: ; "Ms. Gabel asked if the neighbor ." Ms. Schnabel was not present at the eptember 26th and October 3rd meetings, and questioned the use of Special Use Permits taki.g care of ariances in the Center City Project as noted on page 3 of the October 3rd meeti g. She felt this statement contradicted what the Board was discussing at the previ us meeting on ages 6 and 7, where they were concerned about Special Use Permits being sed instead of v iances. Mr. Boardman said Special Use Permits are set up nW not to handle variances because one requires a public hearing and one does not. He was l oking at the Center City Project to be an overlay district an there would be special c ditions for building in that district. One of the specia conditions would be thatl building permits would require a Special Use Permit. The ermits would cover any variances from the code, i.e., setbacks. The project would be handl d by development rather than th�lregular code requiring a 35 foot setback. The Specia Use Permit process would have to'follow the variance process. Mr. Herrick has a copy.o the overlay district and Planning Cbmmission has not reviewed it yet. They will be re iewing the overlay district and zoning\,code modification after Mr. Herrick has looked t it. Ms. Schnabel said she'`would like to have time to look over this and see if she thought it was a good idea. t � F V,NNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 24 1979 PACE 3 the house and to the rear. An access easement would have been provided for Mr. Bauler. This land would be more valuable to Mr. Bauler for resale and that was his main•reason for the lot split request. pis. liughes also felt Mr. Bauler was not receptive to any new proposal as this was his third time here and he had the same comments each time. She felt the commission had really tried to work with him. She stated she felt sorry they were not able to con- vince him of the alternative solution. She understood why he might not want to use their solution, because a house could be built close to his. She wished they had been able to explore the possibility of splitting the rear lot and leasing that land to his neighbor. She stated that Mr. Boardman said the City would not have done that becmuse a rear lot split would have created a diagonal line and they do not do lot splits with a lot of description. Mr. Boardman said they do not necessarily not do them but a split like that would have to go through the plat process. Ms. Modig asked if he could use an alternative lot split proposal at a later date if he desired. Mr. Harris said yes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Harris asked to have Mr. Bauler notified of the commission's recommendation. He also asked that City Council get all the information and discussions on this request as one package. 2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #79-07, WALLACE L. LARSON_: Split off the Northerly 115.78 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition, the same being 1482 Mississippi Street N.E., to create a new building site 80' X125' (10,000 square feet). Mr. Boardman said this lot split was in an area in the Comprehensive Plan called under- utilized land. The lot had previously been split. off on the southerly end to create a 130 x 125 foot lot. On the south end of that lot the city has a 25 foot rode right- of-way. The lots in this area are all quite deep and the city was looking at placing a road along the southerly end and developing the area. He felt this lot split would fit in with the area. Mr. Harris questioned easements. Mr. Boardman replied the necessary easements to service the back lots would be required. Therewould be approximately a 5 foot easement around the lot. Mr. Harris asked the petitioner for comments and if he understood the easement requirement. Mr. [dally Larson, 1482 Mississippi Street, stated he had no additional comments and that lie understood about the easements. Mr. Boardman noted the curb that runs .down Mississippi Street along Mr. Larson's property was 1.3 feet on his land. Some type of agreement regarding that should be worked out. 295 REGULAR MEETING OF:NOVEMBER 5, 1979 Page 3 UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 1979: �4 CONSIDERATION OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST, LS #79-04 BY EDWARD T. BAULER, 1420 RICE CREEK ROAD: OJ Mayor Nee stated the Planning Commission has recommended denial of this lot split. Councilman Barnette stated Mr. Bauler was presented with some alternatives and tended to reject all of them. Mr. Boardman, City Planner, stated Mr. Bauler was present when the Planning Commission made their recommendation and laid out the reasons for recommend- ing denial. He stated Mr. Bauler did not want to proceed with any of the alternatives. Mayor Nee asked if staff was doing any work to provide leadership in this area. Mr. Boardman stated staff has talked with several people who have asked about the possibilities of lot splits. He stated these would involve properties closest to Old Central and indicated that development hasn't been promoted. Councilman Schneider stated he would have to concur with the Planning Com- mission's recommmendation for denial of the lot split, as it would create a lot which is not up to standard. Councilman Schneider stated he felt there were a lot of plans that he didn't feel the neighborhood wanted at this point of time. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated the overriding consideration is, if they grant the lot split, it creates a sub -standard lot. Councilman Schneider stated the reason Mr. Bauler requested the lot split was because his neighbor wishes to purchase this property for use as a tennis court. He stated he recognizes, however, that once the lot is split, some- one could come in and ask for a building permit. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated there are no provisions, however, to create lots for the purpose of a tennis court. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated he supposed if the sole purpose of the lot split was for something other than a residence and the Council felt very strongly that this should be passed, it may be possible to come up with a mutual agreement that would be filed with the deeds of the lots indicating the lot split was approved, but that it was not buildable and no building permits would be issued without a variance. Councilman Schneider felt it was a sad situation because Mr. Bauler was sin- cere in his efforts to sell off some of the property to cover some of the costs of medical bills in his family and the neighbor wants this property for a tennis court. Mr. Herrick stated if Mr. Bauler had considered the possibility of a long term lease. Councilman Barnette stated, in the last conversations he had with Mr. Bauler, he was going to talk with his neighbor about the possibility of leasing. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny LS #79-04, as filed by Mr. Edward Bauler. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST, LS#79-07 BY WALLACE L. LARSON, 1482 MISSISSIPPI STREET: Mayor Nee stated the Planning Commission has recommended approval of this lot split. 296 REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 1979 Page 4 Mr. Boardman, City Planner, stated that the survey shows that the curb line on Mississippi Street is on Mr. Larson's land. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, questioned how the lot got split in the first place. Mr. Larson, the petitioner, stated his father had sold off the South half and then bought back a portion. He pointed out on the map where he wished the lot to be split. Mr. Boardman, City Planner, stated the Planning Commission recommended that all the necessary easements be provided for drainage and utilities. } Mr. Qureshi stated there is still room for the road right-of-way and Council could grant the lot split subject to getting the easement, if necessary, for utilities and road right-of-way on Mississippi Street, and payment of the park fee plus drainage fee, and water and sewer lateral charges, if they haven't been assessed. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and grant LS #79-07, as filed by Mr. Wallace Larson, with the following stipulations: (1) If, in fact, there is a right-of- way problem, that the easement be granted; (2) That utility easements be granted; (3) That a $500 park fee be paid; (4) That a storm sewer and drainage fee be paid; and (5) That Mr. Larson be aware of the -potential of water and sewer assessments. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unani- mously. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 24, 1979. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING CATV COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 1979: MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to receive the minutes of the October 11, 1979 Cable Television Commission Meeting. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Councilwoman Moses stated there seemed to be some concern over the five percent paid for public access and asked if it was agree this would be turned over for the Public Access Coordinator. Mayor Nee stated the City has an obligation to use these funds for purposes of cable television and not necessarily for the Access Coordinator. He stated he hoped, however, they could give the workshop a fair amount. RECEIVING POLICE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 1979: MOTION by Councilman Barnette to receive the minutes of the October 22, 1979 Police Civil Service Commission Meeting. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Councilman Schneider asked about the joint venture with Bloomington. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated there is a new Suburban Police Recruit- ment System which the City could join for recruitment of Police Officers. He stated standards have been developed and an extensive process gone through to develop a valid testing. He stated Bloomington has been selected to conduct the final portion which is a field test. Mayor Nee stated he couldn't tell if the Commission members had examined whether or not it is open to females. Councilman Schneider asked what qualifications must be met for persons to take the test. Mr. Qureshi stated certain minimum criteria has to be met and indicated he would give further information to the Council. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated he talked briefly with Jim Hill, Public Safety Director, regarding this item and wondered if there would be any problems in dealing_tgith Bloomington. fie stated that the City of Bloomington was sued and, he believed, the case went to the Supreme Court by a woman