Loading...
SAV 83-01r CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEET. JUNE 8, 1983 CALL TO ORDER: Vice -Chairperson Oquist lle<eJune , 1983, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. uist,s. Gabel, Mr. Kondrick, Mr. Svanda, ;r/s.Schnabel Goodspeed Members Absent: Others Present- Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Richard & Sonia Peterson, 247 - 5 Place Lawrence & Joyce Zimmerman, 5380 4th t. N.E. Laura Vagovich, 5400 4th St. N.E. APPROVAL OF MAY 18, 1983, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY W. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO APPROVE THE JUNE 8, 1983, PLANNING * COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. VACATION REQUEST: SAV #83-01, PETITION NO. 4-83: Vacate the Easterly TW..70 feet of t venueeta ween Blocks Viand 13, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, by the owners of 5380 and 5400 4th Street N.E. Mr. Boardman stated this was the area where Dr. J. C. Schurstein had proposed to put an office building back in Dec. 1980. There is a service road that comes in and cul-de-sacs right along University Ave. There is an unpaved alley at this location that is used to service the backs of the properties along 4th St. It also services apartments and some businesses. Mr. Boardman stated the vacation request is for a portion of 54th Ave. between Blocks 12 and 13. The vacation request is being made by the two property owners on either side.. Mr. Boardman stated the alley is being used and at some point in time, the City is going to have to pave that alley as long as it is being used. If the alley is paved, they would have to make sure there was access on both ends. At this point in time, the City has been opposed to a vacation of that portion of 54th Ave., primarily because there is no way out of the alley, and the logical way for circulation within that area would be to come up to 54th Ave. An alter- native would be to come down and connect into the cul-de-sac, but that may not be an appropriate way to go. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE'8, 1983 PAGE 2 Mr. Boardman stated that when Dr. Schurstein proposed the development of an office building in this location, as a condition of the permit, the City Council required that Dr. Schurstein pay for the improvement of the alley. Because of that, Dr. Schurstein did not build, and the alley is still unimproved. Mr. Boardman stated that in their consideration of this vacation request, the Planning Commission should consider what is going to be done with that alley and at what point they want access. The Engineering Dept. has said the best possible way for access is back up to 4th St. That would be in direct conflict with this vacation request. Ms. Laura Vagovich, 5400 4th St. N.E., stated she has lived in Fridley for 34 yrs. Her house was moved twice, once for Highway 100 and again for I-694. She has maintained this portion of the street for 34 years. She stated she would like to have the protection of not having people going through there. People drive through there and dump things in the bushes and trees, and she has even had things stolen out of her garden. She stated she had assumed for years that this road was already vacated and had maintained it because she thought it was vacated. Mr. Lawrence Zimmerman, 5380 4th St. N.E., stated it was his intention to put up a retaining wall and use the 30 ft. gained from the vacation to build a road to a garage.he would build on his property. Mr. Boardman stated that even if they vacated the street right-of-way, they would want to retain the southern half of the street for storm sewer. Mr. Zimmerman stated the most logical way and the cheapest way for the alley access was to go out on the cul-de-sac. Mr. Oquist asked if it would be feasible to put a turn -around area by using the portion of 54th Ave. that is not vacated plus the portion of the street they want vacated. Mr. Boardman stated that if they are going to retain 30 ft. for easement, why not retain another 30 ft. so if the alley is ever improved, they can get access. He stated if the property owners wanted to fence this portion of the street, they could do so right now. The problem is that if at any point in time a road would be required to go in there, that fence would be removed at no cost to the City. Mr. Zimmerman stated the main reason for the vacation request is so he can build a garage with access off 4th St. He did not intend to use the alley, because it is 2-3 feet below his property. He is going to have to put up a retaining wall at the back of his property. Mr. Boardman stated it was his understanding that if the property owner put a fence or a driveway over the easement, if"the City has to dig up that easement, the City is not responsible for putting back blacktop or fencing. It would be the property owner's responsibility to put back whatever was torn up. a PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE B. 1983 PAGE 3 Mr. Boardman agreed with the fact that there is never going to be a street connection in there that would utilize the whole 60 ft. He had no problem with vacating the street right-of-way, but they should retain the storm sewer and access easement. In that sense, the property is no longer owned by the City of Fridley but needhe togo property hrow owners; i habut roadhorCaccessuld forsthelalley,nan theyecanment use so ifthey n 9 9 that easement. Mr. Oquist stated another alternative would be to access by the highway property if the Highway Dept. turns that property over to the City. Ms. Yagovich stMredZ�hmmerman can buildrman had a garagesandeaccess onto the main purpose for Theythe vacation is so will jointly maintain the property. Mr. Boardman stated that if Mr. Zimmerman puts in his garage and accesses onto 4th St. raer de the in effectsr placesfhisedrivewaysand heved woulddstillshaes vt o the street gra have access , onto the alley. MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF VACATION REQUEST, SAV N83-01, PETITION NO. 4-83, TO VACATE 54TH AVENUE ALL THE WAY TO THE HIGHWAY PROPERTY AND THAT THE CITY OF FRIDLEY RETAIN ACCESS EASEMENT OVER THE TOP OF THE EXISTING 30 FT. UTILITY EASEMENT. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Boardman stated the public hearing at City Council on this vacation request would be on July 11, 1983. 2. L SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #83-02 BY RICHARD & SONIA f L t 13 Rlnr_LP�, .E. Lot 12,,and the Westerly 30 feet o buildin sits, the same being 241 - 57th P1 Split off ew, to make a new Mr. Boardman st ed the petitioners own Lot 2, 13, 14, and 15. These are 40 ft. lots totalling 60 ft. of lot area. hey are requesting to split off Lot 12 and the weste 30 ft. of Lot so that Lots 12 and 13 will become a 70 ft. lot. The depth the lot i 40 ft. It does meet the 9,000 sq. Aft. lot lot requirement and meets 11 of requirements as far as lot splits. split does require a park fe $500. The park fee is payable at the time of approval of the lot split ues - however, the City Council may defer collection to thetime a Thor ind rm iswouldpendioniwhethuesttehe petitionerividrequestedual lots cthetCityysuch a Council lot split. to delay payment of park fee. The petitioners wey in the audience.