LS79-01 CITY OF FRIDLEY
FOR Q!TY' TSF ONLY
Applicant'� fial
APPLICANT: XAC61, ,J-i- L A e,r f Fr, x7
Lot. Split
ADDRESS: �c�/a l J Au p- U W c� y ►'ZA,� Jc-
Street City Zip Code Date Filed: -f-17 y
a� m TELEPHONE 4C0 n Fee:SX�"'Receipty �,/l.
°R, Home Business Council Action:Date
REMARKS:
Id 0
PROPERTY G 1< s a
4-1 .0 Td /
0 3 IV
�+ i-' '� ADDRESS(ES)ac a G 2 . �` 41 ✓ S S u 3
± Street City Zip Code
a) R+ o
-P EQ d Street City Zip Code
,o � ami � TELEPHONE #(S)2 s
0 Home Business
4-> cn -I" cd
x R � cn
v� 0P
Q, P P Property Location on Street
or Exact Street Address (IF ANY) _�,,/ /�,q �� /�- Y rJD AA 4y457
w
v
+ Legal Description of Property:
ri
1)vaougr So
Reason for Lot Spli . /` l
Total Area of Property;L, - i sq. ft. Present Zoning Classification
The undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and
representations stated in this application are true and
correct. 9
DATE: SIGNA
BELOW FOR CITY USE 0 (Sed e io
Y
CHECKED BY STAFF DATE - 7
Remarks: _ ^
PLANNING COMMISSION: Date of Consideration
Remarks:
CITY COUNCIL: Date of Consideration -
Remarks:
LOT SPLIT APPLICATION PROCEDURE
1. Obtain application form at City Hall (6431 University Avenue N.E. , Fridley).
. 2. Return completed application form with the required sketch of the property
involved and the lot split fee of $30.00 for each original lot being split.
3. The application will be checked over by Staff and the owner may be required
to submit a Certificate of Survey containing a simple description of a part
of a platted lot or registered lot, along with the new parcels created with
all existing structures tied in.
4. The application will then be submitted to the Planning Commission for their
recommendation. The Planning Commission meets on the Wednesday following
the City Council meeting, which is generally the. first and third Wednesdays
of the month.
5. The recommendations of the Planning Commission are submitted to the City
Council for final action.
If a Certificate of Survey wasn 't required before,
it will be required for this meeting. The City Council meets on '-the first
and third Mondays of the month.
6. The City Council approval may be subject to certain stipulations which must
be complied with by the applicant.
P
7. A letter will
be sent to the applicant to notify him of the Council action
and to advise him to comply with the conditions imposed by the City. The
letter will also contain any necessary deeds for easements and other pertinent
papers for his signature.
8. When all the conditions of the lot split have been complied with, the applicant
should file the lot split in Anoka County.
9. In .all cases where Council action has been sought and denied, no petition for
identical action can be presented until a period of six months has elapsed.
NOTE: THE RESULTING REAL ESTATE TAXES AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR
THE NEW PARCELS IN TOTAL AFTER THE LOT SPLIT MAY EXCEED THE
AMOUNT ASSESSED TO THE ORIGINAL PARCEL. THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT
OF FRIDLEY MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF
ADDITIONAL TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS.
GERALD T. COYNE LOT SURVEYS COMPANY RAYMOND A. PRASCH
300 BRUNSWICK AVE S. 6917 IDAHO AVE. N.
GOLDEN VALLEY, MINN. LAND SURVEYORS BROOKLYN PARK, MINN.
MINN. REG. NO. 4741 MINN. REG. NO. 6743
RB(319TERBD UNDBR LAWS Or >!'PATB 01 1[INNB/OTA
7601 -73rd Ave.No. Minneapolis,Minnesota 55428 560-3093 INVOICE NO. 6919
INDUSTRIAL — JUDICIAL #artirga s Ttr�fuatP SCALE 1"F. IL NO. 181-27 40•`
COMMERCIAL — TOPOGRAPHICAL ++��
CITY LOTS — PLATTING
O — DENOTES IRON
MARVIN ERICKSON
9 0.of - -
-
2t
50
N I DO
t`f1
/30
So.o_
I Q
4C Q
0 9j 1 \
V-
�
3 c�•I -4
'
I I �
149. 99-
Lot 10, Auditor' s Subdivision o;
Ivo. $9. Subject to Norton o; M M
Avenue over the South 30 feet I1 AloRro&
thereof. And subject to - -- - -
Central Avenue over the Fast 50-, 4 A, re of Lot/O, qud. 5,,6c! A%. 89::w r
50 feet thereof.
We hereby certify that this is a true and corroct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above j
described lend and the location of all builldings and visible encroachments, i4 any, from or on said lend. r
Surveyed by us Ws 6th day of September ig 78 Signed
SURVEYS COMPAY
r' W
Sp 10
" "A.S.: #89 into tld n sl
_
,
12
47
" CENTER.
NTE
SE 1 .
L!P,�
-
RT• 23`ss.s•' 4 i
P/..235 17 /8
f i D a•is' •p i
:z;n X70
1 L 280.0'
SrPsi•fl�ni/-iea S/adibns/iue. - - =i
i1lia�eso a/ndrsfYiv/
7200ti Pa�,Fs/er /rrirr�ffalnir
4� •
12 4 ( { 305
LJ..........
Yliirn�satd 1200` i t W
jCo. 7 InC. 719+' 2 -1 Gee B ERvssf .�
AUDITORS SUED IS N
NO. _- -
ya✓.reoA'eyisn�<.J �
{!
-7151
t
� p � ,Srr Notes 4 � L•f
'- _ moo..• .... / --zo '
.. F -\
� 17O ,� ........ zoo .ca.9• 7,7• ios -
1� (700) t
•.;pro) /1p� 1�
/d►��...t.✓ "r `6 8 h �. ✓ods
710{ IIb3� �1 II 1 . %;�'E.aV,y IO
,239 1245 Ix51 i 1301 7111
�.
..-. .... /JO __.......
wow,-
1152 Q
.. _ 1 {S 2 �'1'..... .900. � - ....... ..} � -• o-'�-- � -
(s+ ) l y3 o
114
o Gaso
�000� /o6a) 070
12 y 3 v o Sails
1170 f2oo fz14 - - r
,.�,:.
F§-- 1 . - mip-
1VIiNNESOTA C Mi4IP SICISM APPLICATION
REVIEW
Uep; i�"r�ctri
(VIS[on, 11julnuer lwv r ugo Approved by Dole
..... �. .___�
1=11,OpCil ADDRESS .w__ FILER YE
r:otviRL_ETE REV:EMr CHECKLIST � d � ----2
RE-77 URN TC PLANNING �� � DUE DATE ./-
COMMENTS
'61e-rP
-ice -may
104
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COM14ISSION MEETING - PEPRUARY 28, 1979 _
r
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Harris called the February 28, 1979, meeting of the Planning Commission
to order at 7:45 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Mr. Harris, Mr. Storla, Ms. Schnabel, Ms. Modig (in place of
Mr. Oquist)
Members Absent: Mr. Oquist, M.r. Peterson, Mr. Langenfeld (arrived at 8:15 P.M. )
Others Present: Mr. Boardman, City Planner
1. APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINITIES: JANUARY 24, :1.979:
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Storla, to approve the January 24, 1979,
minutes of the Planning Commission as written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. REQUEST FOR. A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #=79-•01, BY �kRVIN AND ROBE..T FRICKSON: Split
off the Westerly 74.99 feet of Lot 10, Nudi-i cr' s Subdivision No. may, to make
two building sites for double bungalows, the same being 1285-87 and 1295-97
Norton Avenue N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Storla, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to table lot split request, L.S.
779-OI. This item tabled at the petitioners request.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN vARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANI1,1OUSLY.
3. CONTINUED: PROPOcED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 205. ZONING:
t1OTI( T by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive minutes from Member
Co,m ssions on proposed changes and to receive the minutes of the Community
Development Commission of November 14, 1978.
UrON A VOICE VOTE, AIS, VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE. ..OTION CARRIED
U,11ANINOU0LY.
Mx. roardrian stated he had gore through the minutes of the Appeals Commission
and the Comn-,.,nity Development Coin-mission and recorded their recommended charZes
:in his book_ The Environmental Quality Corttnission had not made any specific
recor-mendations, so they could discuss tho:,e minutes later. Mr. Boardman
silE�.ett.ed thc'r Go through the book page by page, the way the Consrissions did, and.
they could discuss as they went along.
Mr. Harris agreed.
Mr. ,t.itc-d they could then go Lack and make additional comments or changes
after they had gone through the whole book.
PLANNING COMMISSION MM-TING FEBRUARY 28, 1.979 - PAGE 2
Ms. Schnabel suggested they receive the minutes oiz the agenda first and then
go back to this.
MOTIOP?.by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Storla, to continue the proposed changes
to -Chapter 205. Zoning, until the end of the meeting. I
i
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
f
4. RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES C01,TESSION MINUTES: FEBRUARY 11 1979
MOTION by Mr. Storla, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to receive the February 1, 1979,
Human Resources Commission minutes.
Mr. Storla stated that Ms. Swanson had reported on the activities of the Fine
Arts Committee. Her report was very acurate. Also, on the last page of the
minutes, Mr. Storla noted that there was a training program on February 24th for
the new Memorandum of Agreement. The training session lasted about 8 hours and
the Human Resources Commission will discuss it tomorrow.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE .MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: FEBRUARY 13, 1979:
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the February 131, 1979,
Appeals Commission minutes.
Ms. Schnabel stated they had spent quite a bit of time discussing the request on
the substandard lot on 2nd Street. This request bad come before the Appeals
Commission in November, it went through the Planning Commission and the Planning
Commission had reccmmended to Council that the request be tabled for 90 days. The
90 days is up, and Council had asked Appeals to review the request again because
they had received two new pieces of information. After reviewing the request, the
Appeals Commission decided they were on target the first time.
Mr. Harris asked what the new information was.
Ms. Schnabel stated that in November they were told the house was condemnable, that
the City viewed the house as a condemnable piece of property and the City would be
inclined to condemn it and would order it torn dorm. It turns out that in fact the
City does not look at that piece of property in that light at all and think that
the building is rehabilitable. They were also told verbally at the November meeting
that approval of building on this property probably would not effect the court case.
They were told that this was the opinion of the City Attorney. A week or so later,
they received a letter from the City Attorney in which he said it probably could
effect the court case. Ms. Schnabel stated that their feeling was that there would
have to be so much renova't'ion done if it was to be just renovated. The structure
orignially was a chicken coop and at some point someone moved into it. It is in
bad shape and strreturally it needs a lot of work. The Appeals Commission felt
that by permitting this to be done, in a sense, they really would be going at a
lot renovation rather than allowing building on a 40 foot lot. As 14r. Barna stated
on pane 8 of the minutes, it would be a rehabilitationof the lot rather than a
rehabilitation of the house, as opposed to starting out with a vacant; h0 foot lot
s thing to be buil': on it. The felt th_i. was a real distinction.
and all-owingo e
a ,> Y
They did not feel this would prejudice the court case because of this distinction.
PLANNING COMMISSION MFZ TING MARCH 21 1979 - PAGE 11
Ms. Gabel stated she agreed with Mr. Langerfeld, that they did not have sufficient
grounds to deny this request.
Ms. Sulirbier stated she did not like to see extra garages going up around Fridley
for storage purposes.
Mr. Oquist asked if they wouldstipulate that the garage be 20 x 20.
Ms. Gabel stated that Mr. Korst had agreed to that' but would agree to make it a
stipulation if it was agreeable to Mr. Langenfeld.
Mr. Langenfeld agreed.
Mr. Cool: asked if the Commissioners would consider requiring some type of shrubbery
to beautify the back of the building.
Mr. Oquist stated that if the garage was 20 x 20, he would have 4 feet behind the
garage to plant shrubbery.
Ifir. Cook asked they be more specific as to what percent of the back would be covered.
Mr. Langenfeld stated he would amend the motion to include shrubbery but only to the
point vhere it would eliruinate visual pollution. He did not feel they could stipulate
a certain percentage.
Mr. Oquist agreed, and suggested that pine trees would make good coverage.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, Ike. L. NGENITLD, I11S. GABEL AND MR. OQUIST VO'ITIRG AYE, AND MR. HARRIS,
MS. SUII:BIER, AND IR. STORLA VOTIIrG NAY, CHAIRILAN HAIMIS DECIJJED THE BION FAILED
WITHOUT A CLEAR MAJORITY.
Mr. Harris asked if there was another motion.
There were no further motions.
Mr. Harris stated the request would be sent to Council without a recommendation. He
informed tho audience and petitioner that this item would appear at the April 9th
Council meeting and suggested that allInter artier be there.
5. TABLED: REQUEST FOR A LOT SPL T L.S. jr'79-61, Y MtRVIN AND ROBERT ERICKSON:
Split off the Westerly—7-1r.99 of rt s Subdivision No. bgp to make
two building sites for double bungalows, the same being 1385-87 and 1295-97
Norton Avenue N.E.
Mr. Leek stated that the petitioner had requested the item remain tabled at this
rreet ing.
E. CONTINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES IN CHAPTER 205. ZONIEU:
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Suhrbier, to continue this item until the
end'^o the meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
PLANNING COMMISSION I=TING, MARCH 21, x.,979 PAGE 12
7. RECEIVE ENVIRONM NI'AL QUALITY COIv1M'I SSION MINtP ES: i+"EDRUARY 20 1979:
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Suhrbier, to receive the February 20, 1979,
minutes of the Environmental Quality Commission.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIPs AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
8. RECEIVE IL[NM RESOURCE COMMISSION MDRYIE,S: MARCH 14 1979:
MOTION by Mr. Storla, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the March 1, 1979, minutes
of the Human Resource Commission.
UPON A VOICE VO'L'E, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
9. RECEIVE APPEALS COA94ISST_ON 14T.N1.1TBS: MARCH 13, 1979:
MOTION by 11s. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to receive the March 13, 1979,
minutes of the Appeals Commission.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYEo CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
10. OTHER BITSIN-ESS:
Mr. Langenfeld stated that in order to purchase a tape recorder, a motion must be
made directly to Council, because that is considered a capital expenditure.
Chairman Harris declareda recess at 8:50 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:10 P.M.
11. CONTINUED: PROPOSE CHANGES IN CKAPTER 205. ZONING:
205.044 LOT PROVISIONS
Page 13, 76: Appeals Commission had recommended this be changed to read: "Where
the front yard setback of existing buildings within a distance of 100 feet on both
sides of a structure to be erected is more than the minimum fron yard setback re-
quired, then the setback for the said building could be 6 feet less of the mean
depth. (delete words "more or") In no case sha-11 it be less than the required
minimum setback for that Zone." (add the word "minimum")
The Commissioners concurred.
205.045 .ACCESSORY BUILDII-,S AND STRUCTURES
Mr. Harris noted there were a lot of additions to this eection.
Mr. Leek stated that in general, the sense of the changes was to increase the accept-
ability of accessory buildings to the neighbors by increasing the distances from
lot lines and things like that.
CITY OF FRIDLLY
PLANNING COP�•1;ISSION 14ETING - I1t4Y 9, 1979
-. -�
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Harris called the May 9, 1979 meeting; of the Planning Commission to
order at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Mr. Oquist, Ms. Hughes, Mr. Barris, Mr. Treuenfels, Mr. Hora
Ms-. Schnabel arrived at 7:35 P.M.
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Mr. Boardman, City Planner
Councilman Schneider
Dean Doyscher, Professional Planning & Development Co.
1. APPROVE PLANNING COT-u,ISSION MINUTES: AMI IL 18, 1979:
MOTION by Mir. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Horaa to approve the April 18, 1979 minutes
of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Boardman referred to page 19 of the minutes and stated that Mx. Leek had stated
according to the consultant it would be 1.0 years. This was in regards to the
discussion on Moore Lake. Mr. Boardman stated they had checked into this further
and this statement was in error. According to Hicheock & Associates they would be
looking in excess of 50 years.
UPON A VOICE VO'ITG, ALL VOTI11G AIL, CIiAIRTf.AN HARRIS DECLV= THE MOTION CARRIED
AI'1D THE MINUTES APPROVED AS CMI .
2. TABLED: REQtEST FOR. A LOT ti1SPLI1,S. f 79-07 , I3Y ARVIN & ROBERT ERICKSON:
Slil.it �'i''ftie Westerly 7+ 9 feet of-� r- tior' s Subdivision No. 091
to make two building sites for double bungalows, the same being 1285•-87 and
1295-97 Norton Avenue N.E.
Mr. Boardman stated this was located on the corner of Norton Avenue and.Central.
These lots are presently zoned R-3, which is a multiple zone and would allow duplex
construction. The lots are in excess of 10,000 square feet which is a requirement
and in the case of the corner lot they were looking at, with the lot split, 75 feet.
Generally we like to see 80 feet on a corner but an 80 foot lot is not necessarily
required on a corner. Since the lots are in excess of 10,000 square feet, it would
allow a duplex.
Mr. Oquist asked if both buildings would face Norton?
Mr. Boardman stated that both buildings would face Norton and both buildings would
have access off Norton.
Mr. Barris asked if they were in excess of 10,000 square feet?
Mr. Boardman stated that the lot to the west was 10,050 andtheother lot was also over
10,000 square feet. He did not have the exact figure. He stated that Staff had
no problem with the lot split. He also stated that sewer and water were available
in Norton Avenue.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 9 1979 PAGE 2
Mr. Erickson, the petitioner, stated that the duplexes would be similar to others
in the area.
Mr. Boardman stated that within the lot split area, he would like to pick up as
much room on the corner lot as possible. _.
He did not think that would be a problem as far as setbacks and variances for the
construction. He would prefer to pick up as much buildable space on the end lot
as possible because of the 172 foot setback requirement from the street corner.
They might be better off with a larger lot on the corner. This was a suggestion
they made to the developer. Also, he felt the developer should be aware that there
was only one sewer service and if the lot split were approved, one sewer service
would have to be added and three water services would have to be added at the owners
expense.
Mr. Boardman asked Mr. Erickson what the size of the structure would be?
Mr. Erickson stated that one would be 40x46 and the other would be 40x48.
F
Mr. Boardman asked if that included the tuck-under garage?
Mr. Erickson stated it did. He also stated that with a 48 foot unit on the east
half of the lot they would infringe on the 1�2 foot setback by 6 inches, and they
would put this 46 foot unit on that lot. '
1,1r. Boardman stated that if they could fit it on the lot and meet the setbacks, he
would have no problem.
Ms. Schnabel stated there was still a 50 foot easement there.
Mr. Harris stated that was part of Central Avenue.
Ms. Schnabel stated that then they were not going 172 feet from Central, there was
a 50 foot easement before the property line.
Mr. Harris stated that was from the center line of Central Avenue. He was not sure
how wide Central was there.
Ms. Schnabel stated the map showed half of it was 33 feet.
Mr. Erickson asked if there was a 10 foot setback on the side.
Mr. Boardman stated that was correct.
Mr. Erickson stated he would have no problem with that.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY-9., 1979 - PAGE 3
Mr. Boardman stated they could just leave it that way.
Mr. Harris asked what the maximum lot coverage was there?
Mr. Boardman stated that in R-2, maximum lot coverage was 25%.
Mr. Harris stated that as long as the garages were part of the structures, there
would be no problem.
NIr. Boardman agreed and stated that as long as they could fit the structures
on there with the 172 foot setbacks and the 10 foot side yard setbacks, it would be
no problem.
Mr. Harris asked if there was plenty of depth?
Yx. Boardman stated there was.
-There were no comments from the audience regarding this item.
MOTIOPF by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to recommend to Council approval
of the request for a lot split, L.S. #79-01, by Marvin & Robert Erickson to split
off the westerly 74.99 feet of Lot 10, Auditor' s Subdivision No. 89, to make two
building site: for double bungalows, the same being 1235-87 and 1295-97 Norton
Avenue N.E.
UPON A VOICE VO`1'E, ALL V02ING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNAi,IIM OUti LY.
Mr. Harris informed the petitioner that this would go to Coimcil on May 21, 1979.
The petitioner thanked the Commissioners.
3. PUBLIC kEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA -#79-01THE LIFE-SKI & BIKE, INC. , BY
SCO`11' HOLI72: Rezo=ne Lots 9 and 10, Block 11 Mloore Lake Highlands 3rd Addition,
from C-1 local business offices) to C-2 (general business areas), and Lot 11,
Block 1, Moore Lake Highlands 3rd Addition from CR-1 (general offices and
limited business) to C-2 (general business areas), to allow a garden center and
future building expansion at 6319 Highway #65 N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING
OPEN AT 7:50 P.M.
Mr. Boardman stated that this was located on Highway 65, just north df the liquor store.
Last year the Lift put in a garden center. They own two buildings on that location.
One was a filling station and one was a grocery store. They took these over and
developed one as a cross country ski area and the other as a down hill ski and those
types of things. The grocery store building, based on it's location, is over the
present lot line by 7 feet. In other words, it was built on property it didn't own.
This property is presently zoned C-1 to the south which is where the filling station
was and the old grocery store was, and it is zoned CR-1 to the north. They would
r
i
E
h
PLANNING COMMISSION PCT-TING MAY 91 1979 PAGE 4
.al
like to rezone this to all C-2 commercial which would allow them to operate in
that function. The reason they want to go to C-2 is based on the Special Use
Permit because an open area like the garden center is only allowed in a C-2
area. They want to combine the uses into .a C-2 use and eliminate the CR-1 on the
north and the C-1 on the south. He noted that there had been some street improve-
ment on the service road on Highway 65. With that improvement they did get some
initial boulevard planting, sod and a curb on the street side to improve the looks
of the building. They put in some marked parking areas in front of the brick
building. He referred to page 33 of the agenda and stated that Mr. Holmer had
given them a rough sketch which they put into a landscape plan according to the
planting schedule on the other side. What they would like to do on this, if
they do approve the rezone and the Special Use Permit, is to have this landscape
plan attached as part of the stipulation and a schedule developed for the completion
of the landscaping and completion of the entire facility. It could be a period of
two or three years but they would like the developer committed to this. Mr. Boardman
stated they were looking at getting the curbing, blacktoping and whatever landscaping
would be necessary to make the property completed. Right now the lots to the north
where the building sit is presently gravel and is presently utilized for parking.
It is not necessarily established as a parking area, but people park there. They
would like to get it firmed up.
Ms. Schnabel asked if it was the intention of the petitioner to put an addition on
the gravel area to the north?
Mr. Boardman stated they were looking at what the potential would be for an addition
on to the structure so within the plan they did take that into consideration for
parking requirements and landscaping requirements. It was noted on the drawing what
the maximum expansion could be.
Ms. Schnabel stated that she asked that because if they were looking for stipulations
on the landscape plan for example, the petitioner might not want to complete a land-
scape plan if they intend to put an addition on the building.
Mr. Boardman stated that there were things they could do with the landscape plan that
would not interfere with the addition. In the areas where they might disrupt an
area because of an addition, they would put those things at the end of the schedule.
He felt they should get started on the priorities on the development of the thing.
Things like the perimeter fencing and the perimeter planting and things like that
could get done. They could start with the perimeter and work into the lot.
Mr. Holmer stated that regarding perimeter fencing, he felt they should ask the
adjacent property owners what they want. The person on the corner lot might prefer
the view of Highway 65 rather than a 6 foot fence. He stated he would comply with
what is required but also with what the adjacent property owners would like. There
is existing fencing behind two of the lots. As far as the CR-1 lot, the reason they
purchased that lot was because they were 7 feet into that lot. Also, that made that
lot a substandard lot for building on. He stated that presently he could not afford
to do anything with the CR-1 lot which is the lot to the north. One year from now
he could, but not this particular summer. The reason for the rezoning request was
to legally operate the garden center. As far as the expansion, it is a little pre-
mature. He would like to expand the cross country shop first and then expand the
r
1 G 2 REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 21,1979 PAGE 2
Mr. Benjamin, stated Win Stephens is currently at their peak in their parts and
service department and there is a need for expansion and they would like to
add a body shop. Ile felt this was a necessary project to service their customers.
Mr. Benjamin stated the project, in terms of benefits to the City, would add
approximately $325,000 in additional annual payroll and increase the employees
from 12 to 20.
Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated, in discussions with the attorney for
Win Stephens Datsun North, he understands the funding of this project would
be in the form of a tax exempt mortgage.
Councilman Schneider questioned if there was some question about the legality
of tax exempt mortgages.
Mr. Herrick stated there has been some question about the legality for residential
purposes, but doesn't think there has been any question for commercial or
industrial purposes.
Mr. Herrick explained this project would be done through the industrial revenue
bond chapter of the Minnesota Statutes and the original concept would be
that they would sell bonds to finance the project, however, now this has
evolved to the point that, in some cases, instead of selling bonds, they
finance it through a mortgage. He was sure there wasn't any legal problem,
as it is accepted by the Internal Revenue Service and financial institutions.
Councilman Schneider questioned if there was insurance in this proposal to
back up the project in the event of default.
i
Mr. Herrick stated, in this situation, whoever finances the project, takes a
mortgage on the property and if the loan is not repaid, the one holding the
mortgage would end up with the property. i
i
MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to adopt Resolution No. 73-1979 giving preliminary
approval to a proposed industrial development project to be constructed and
financed under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, authorizing
the preparation of documents and materials in connection with the project.
Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor
Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, pointed out that preliminary approval for the
industrial revenue mortgage does not mean approval of the building plans and
that this would be a separate item which must be reviewed and approved.
RECEIVING THE PLANNING COMMI ION MINUTES OF MAY 9, 1979:
LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #79-01, Y MARVIN & ROBERT ERICKSON FOR 1285-1287 i
AND 1295-1297 NORTO
Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated this is a request for a lot split
at the corner of Norton Avenue and Central Avenue to split off the westerly
74.99 feet of lot 10, Auditor's subdivision No. 89 in order to make two
building sites for double bungalows. He stated the lots are presently zoned R-3
and arein excess of the 10,000 square foot requirement.
Mr Sobiech stated the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 9,1979
and recommended approval.
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and grant Lot Split #79-01 as requested by Marvin and Robert Erickson
for 1285-87 and 1295-97 Norton Avenue. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #79-01 , THE LIFT-SKI & BIKE, INC. BY SCOTT HOLMER
6319 HIGHWAY 65:
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to set the public hearing for this rezoning
on June 18, 1979. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF MAY 21,1979
The regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order, after the
Board of Review Meeting, at 7:46 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Councilman Fitzpatrick, Councilwoman Moses
Councilman Schneider, and Councilman Barnette
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 7, 1979:
MOTION by Councilman Barnette to approve the minutes of May 7, 1979 as presented.
Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor
Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
Two items were added: (1) Consideration of a resolution authorizing agreement
with the State of Minnesota in acquiring radar units; and (2) Consideration
of sending a -letter of appreciation to General Television.
Councilman Schneider stated, in reference to the second item to be added to
the agenda, that General Television, in conjunction with Anoka County Workshop,
has prepared several programs to be aired on the public access channel. He
stated he participated in the first program that dealt with Moore Lake and
felt the staff at General Television went out of their way and suggested a
letter of appreciation be sent to them.
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick. to adopt the agenda, with the above two amendments.
Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor
Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
OPEN FORUM, VISITORS:
Mr. Ed Wilmes, stated he had an opportunity to speak out for the merits of
the Islands of Peace at an April meeting with the Metropolitan Council, but
was advised not to go to the meeting and because he didn't speak out, the
Metropolitan-Council did not receive correct information on the Islands of Peace.
He stated, since that time, he has met with the Metropolitan Council because
one of the issues at the April meeting was a statement that other regional
parks have the some facilities as the Islands of Peace. He stated this was
false and people who are knowledgable about outdoor recreation for the handicapped
have taken tours of the regional parks and now realize they were hasty and
wrong and that the Islands of Peace is unique.
Mr. Wilmes stated he hoped there is a resolution by the Council to make a
recommendation that Anoka County proceed to make an amendment to their plan
to include the Islands of Peace and that the City will do everything they
can to cooperate with the County for acqusition of this land. He stated he
hopes the Metropolitan Council now realizes that what these areas need are
the proper facilities.
i
NEW BUSINESS:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-1979 GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND FINANCED UNDER THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO
THE MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES FOR APPROVAL THEREOF AND AUTHORIZING
THE PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT:
Mr. Benjamin, representing Win Stephens Datsun North, Inc. , appeared before the
Council regarding their request for an industrial revenue mortgage in the
amount of $675,000 for land acquisition and expansion of their existing facilities.
f -
�;ry CITY OF FRIDL Y
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N. E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
tl_
TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3454
May 24, 1979
CITY COUNCIL
ACTION TAKEN NOTICE
Marvin & Robert Erickson
<x 2424 119th Avenue N.W.
Coon Rapids, Mn 5:5433
Gentlemen:
On May 21 , 1. 979 the Fridley City Council
Officially approv G your request for a lot split, L.S. #79-01
wi t.h the stipulations listed below.
Please revie,., the noted stipulations, sign L.he sta.teiment below, an-:
return one copy to the, City of Fridley.
If you have arw C;l?eSti(11 c rng=vCjj; n the ed-0vP %tCt'i0n, please Call
the Conntunity Office at 571-3150.
Sincerely,
;'CITYPLANNER
J;_G/de %
StiDuIat-ions:
None
Concur with action taken.
I NOTE: This form should be taken to the Auditor's office when you want
to record the deed for this lot split.
TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR OF ANOKA COUNTY:
The City Council of the City of Fridley on May 21-9 1979
approved the following request for a lot split to allow:
two building sites for double bungalows
on the following property:
Split off the Westerly 74.99 feet of Lot 10, Auditor's Subdivision No. 89
A stipulation to the lot split approval was to combine
appropriate parcels of property to ensure no defaulting of taxes
and" avoid losing a parcel on a future sale of the property.
It is hereby requested of the County Auditor. to check
the records and, if in order, combine the following parcels
of land:
Plat `
Parcels
Lots 10
Block
Addition Auditor's Subdivision No. 89
Signed
Owner(s) of Record
cc: Property Owner
Lot Split Folder
Fridley Assessing Dept. ,Real Estate File
Special Assessment Dept. File