LS78-04 Form #5-6,8, LOT SPLIT APPLICATION
CITY OF FRIDLEY .
FOR CITY USE ONLY
Applicant's Name
APPLICANT•
�� ,n ,,� Lot Split �D
b.0 ADDRESS: - (//yl�" Al'ot e �lziU«y
Street City Zip Code Date Filed:
TELEPHONE # ���- ?,j S7 ?S-7� Fee:$,Sj- eceipt
IP Home Business Council Action:Date
-d O REMARKS:
Cd CPROPERTY OWNERS O L,O
Cd
aP P � �•��� k�
0 3 '
-P m ADDRESS(ES)A90 5T
( H,9R4�.� .
-PC
o Street -r— Ci Zip Code
+'J M Cd Street City Zip Code
CH -H TELEPHONE #(S)
o d P4 Home Business
-P M -P cd
N O U
M P{ 0
Cf1 O P •r-I
P -P -C Property Location on Street _
-4 P1 or Exact Street Address (IF ANY) lao
w
H Legal Description of Property:
o
Reason for Lot Split:
t f,,v�eove Gt>ffs-r �1�s�F. dF P�oP�/ny �� �i���e•�-rE-
��LEL , � �Gn1.s7.L°c��7" C�rsS/!)�i(✓Tn4 t,,� �7GtlEs!-.�,//��
Total Area of Propert. - sq. ft. Present Zoning Classification /f-
The
-The undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and
representations stated in this application are true and
correct.
G'
DATE: � SIGNATURE
BELOW FOR CITY USE ONLY (see a , 4" na structio.ns
CHECKED BY STAFF DATE
Remarks:
PLANNING COMMISSION: Date of Consideration -
Remarks:
CITY COUNCIL: Date of Consideration -
Remarks
� 1
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.
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.
g. 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.
Surveyors Certificate
COMSTOCK& DAVIS, INC. Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors
1446 County Road J, Mpls.,Minn. 55432, 784-9346
�o���.�or�tLy SUrZvEy � 1JI.....�G, Lo�A`i'Ic�►J �c�CL r2OPUSEU
c.0 s:2EET �.
n� ., { C
n
5 8 9 5 c-�) ` /C-
IOf�.CC7 UA N �OO.Op W Q
O
O
t 13
� r
z? LP R I
No
20.
V
P.
Z3` i Ic�o.00r 59.4 1
_ _ (� p V)
K EWST p P. I
o Q' �
-?z w. yA.1
TSN S4co
wax' C. APT. F3�0
vk.oC-K A-�ES. ZIV <<?_ � �tJQK(� Co.� a�\It")N.
SCALE:
O p'�Nn�E:S 1Rc�N h1o�J. SET
� DC►JOTES 120 Mom . Fov�`'J
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State
of Minnesota.
0 3
Reg. No. Date Job No.
A/C 6 So
s! fv
/ ROD WAARA, L.S. #78-04 +
y
140 Charles St.
at
' � 11i10f
20
e r ti II i
� ° . "' � l depe/w�•!! Sr�lao/ D.sfr7�t �S/.. /4 I /,�j
9
:ROBERT LOUIS STEV NSON
ELEMENTARY SO OLIVY'
1
titin _ ` - ! ._ I• �
(tel �-- ' • ,� .•._ s_s3.se » � �
a ROBYN S i
I147 1
ARi
r•
h •e,STRE _
„ MAgal
OR • I.
u
I ?EAS
3f6.233
r 1 1
�q I 962,75
Q... J x ,7 57IsAl
1 �
?ISO 594 p` t
Z flivJrry Cc •
rRACr A I
/
' r
' �. 580 '� ��'• ' rn�') ' i
s!
rr �� N
_ �• - ter! + l.w1As •/��e �
LILL
IL
1
13 ti_ eu t'1 ��•�.�
r
CITY OF FRIOL EYE SUBJECT
MINNESOTA COMMISSION APPLICATION
REVIEW
Uepor)+rrt<r(r162Nision- _ Numdef 1 tev r'ago Approved by Data
FI NO/ADDRES FILE T
COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST
RETURN TO PLANNING W` DUE.PATE ..._. ..
rCOMMENTS s
?'OM 11 cm k
r
125Se$ I've OPAV
2�
PLANNING C011,14TSSTON MT; TTNr - JTTLY ?_6 1 8 Pa e 6
Mr. Boardman said that Bone occupations are not allowed to be
carried on in -accessory buildings. He said that if anyone did
conduct a business out of an accessory building they would be
in violation of the City Ordinances.
Mr. Nelson said that a complaint from any of the neighbors that
they felt a business was being carried on in the accessory building
would bring immediate action from the City.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
The Planning Commission' s recommendation for approval of Special
Use Permit, SP ,/78-06, with sti ns lira �7AARA.
ity Council.
2, REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLI L S e-04, Bim' ROD DINl�
RI ALT_'i: SPLIT OFF THE C 'r OF THE EA FEET
AS MEASURED ALONG THE NORTH LINE, OF , BLOCK 2, HAYES
RIVER LOTS. THIS PARCEL JILL BE ADDRESSED AS 140 CHARLES
STREET NE.
Mr. Boardman said that there was sewer and water in Charles Street.
He said that the property in question was zoned as R-j. He said
that with the split off of the property, there would be approximately
10,500 square feet of land that could be developed with a duplex
or triplex. He said that there was an existing house on Lot B.
Mr. Waara said that the intent was to split off the westerly 100
feet of the existing; lot. He said that the plans were to develop
Parcel A with either a duplex or a triplex. IIe said that the
triplex would only be considered if a suitable plan could be found.
Mr. Boardman said that the City would require five foot easements
on all sides of the lots. In addition, he said that the existing
utility easement along parcel B be extended to 20 feet to allow
for Bikeway/Walkway easements as well as the drainage and utility
easements.
Chairperson Harris asked if they came up with a triplex plan
that could meet all the parking and easements condition, would
that be planned for the lot.
Mr. Waara said that basically a duplex_ was being considered. He
said that from an investors standpoint, they :could like a triplex;
however, he wasn't sure that all the requirements could be met on
that particular lot.
Mr. Waara said that they were requesting a lot split and that they
would work out the details with the Building Department.
k�
4
f
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JULY 2 8 PaP,o 5
Mrs. Larson pointed out that the slope of the land in question
was an important issue. She said that problems could develop
if the garage was constructed without considering the lay of the
land.
Mr. Langenfeld pointed out to the people opposing the motion
that he had weighed all the statements and concerns expressed
by all the people. He said that he had to abide by the rules
and even after listening to everything being said he did not
feel there would be enough information to deny the request.
Mr. Storla said that Mr. Nelson had seemed very flexible with
anything that was being suggested. He said that he wanted the
garage and was agreeable to whatever stipulations the Commission
wanted to put on the approval.
Mr. Langenfeld said that the request would go before the City
Council on August 7, 1978. He told the people in the audience
that they should also attend that meeting.
Chairperson Harris said that the action of the Planning Commission
was to recommend an action to the City Council.
Chairperson Harris explained that Mr. Nelson would have to abide
and adhere to all the Building Codes. He said that the construction,
the materials used, and the general design of the accessory building
would have to conform to the existing structure and would have to
be approved by the Building Department.
Chairperson Harris said that he did not share the concern of the
grade differential as was alluded to by some of the neighbors. He
said that he did look at the property previous to the meeting and
he said that the minimum grade of the structure would have
to be 18 inches to two feet. He said that with those statistics
the grade differential would only be approximately 3 feet. He said
that it appeared there was enough land between the structures that
the accessory building could easily be handled.
Chairperson Harris said that he did share the concern of the
surrounding property owners that a precedent could possibly be
set. He said that the Commission had to keep in mind that the
Special Use Permit was granted to the property and not the person.
He said that he was not certain that the structure would be in
concert with the rest of the neighborhood; however, he said that
with Mr. Langenfeld' s reading of the directive from the City
Attorney, the Planning Commission wasn' t left with much choice
because there was no real proof that the construction of the second
accessory building would be a health, safety, or general welfare
hazard to the neighborhood. He said it would be very difficult
for the Planning Commission to deny the request.
PLANNING COP MTS)SION ME1,ATTNG - JULY 26s-_1278 Page 7
MOTION by Mr. Langcnfeld, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, that the
Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a Lot
Split, LS #78-04, By Rod 13aara, Edina Realty: Split off the
West 100 feet of the East 200 .feet as measured along the north
line of Lot 11 Block. 2, Hayes River Lots. This Parcel will be
addressed as 140 Charles Street NE, with the stipulations of five
foot easements along all sides of Parcels A and B and the 20 foot
easement along the east portion of Parcel B to be used as Bikeway/
Walkway easement as well as utility and drainage easements. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
3. CONTINUED: ENERGY PROJi',CT 001�U4ITTEE DISCUSSION
A. Geneva Harper, State of Minnesota Engrgy Agency
r
Ms. Harper had an emergency in her amily and was
not able to appear before the Plannl ng Commission on
July 26, 1978.
Mr. Boardman suggested that the Planning Commission act on
the Energy Project Committee and to consider using Ms. Harper
as an information resource for the Energy Project Committee.
B. Review Scope
Mr. Boardman indicated that the ad for membership on the
Energy Committee had been put in several newspapers as
well as on the Reader Board in front of City Hall and
on Cabel TV. He said that the response had been slow
but believed it would improve as people had more time
to give it some thought.
Ms. Schnabel said that she had talked to several people
regarding the Energy Project ;Committee. One of the
people was Pat Brennan of the League of Ydoraen Voters.
Ms. Brennan recommended that' the The Energy Project
Committee get in contact with the Anoka County Community
Action Program resources. This Program has done much
on the subject of Energy. Ms. Schnabel suggested that
the group be contacted either as a possible membership
on the Energy Project Committee or as a resource.
Mr. Storla referenced the Right to Light Bill. He
said that the bill gave the authority to the City to
take whatever measures necessary to protect anyone
who would plan to utilize solar collectors, etc. to help
in the conservation of energy.
Mr. Storla felt that one of the things that the Energy
Project Committee should do is come up with an Energy
Plan for the City and have the "Right to Light' a part
of the regulations.
PL1IIITIIIIG COMILIISSION K211.7ING - JULY 26 1978 Page 8
Mr. Boardman said that it wouldn't necessarily be the function
of the Energy Project Committee to develop certain regulations.
He said that it would be their responsibility to make
recommendations to the Planning Commission for action to the
City Council for the specific directIon of an Energy Policy.
Chairperson Harris said that it would be the responsibility
of the Energy Project Committee to develop an energy policy
for the City of Fridley and not to develop ordinances.
Mr. Langenfeld felt that the Right to Light Bill should be
incorporated in every existing ordinance that was applicable
Ms. Schnabel felt that the Energy Project Committee could
develop energy conservation ideas with the goal that the citizens
of Fridley could obtain a-reduction of energy consumption.
Chairperson Harris said that would be included in the implementation
phase of the Committee.
Mr. Langenfeld wanted to know what was the point in the discussion
that took place at the July 11 , 1978, Community Development
Commission meeting regarding the Energy Project Committee,
Ms. Modig said it was decided that most people don't really believe
that there is an energy problem. She said that the Commission
basically hoped something more specific could be recommended
to the citizens to help them reduce the consumption of energy.
Ms. Modig personally felt that there should be some provision
in the tax system that would give people tax credit when they
do an energy saving procedure to their homes rather than re-
assessing the property and raising their taxes.
Chairperson Harris said that some energy saving projects can be
used as income tax reductions.
Mr. Boardman said that as long as the taxes are based on the
assessed evaluation and if someone isn' t paying their share
of the market assessed value of their property because they
were getting a credit on that assessed value, the amount that
the person receiving the credit doesn' t pay has to be passed off
to someone else. He didn't believe that anyone could expect
any credits on assessed evaluations because they produce an
energy consumption reduction improvement to their homes.
AM
1 190 f
REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 1978 PAGE 4
Councilman Hamernik stated his point in bringing this up for discussion
is that the general public probably has a misinterpretation as to how
the ordinance reads, as he felt they interpret it as being acceptable,
without the special use permit.
Mayor stated he generally agrees with Mr. Nelson that it would be favorable
to get the vehicles under cover and stored inside. He stated this is why j
the question was raised of extending the garage in order to obtain the
needed space.
Councilman Barnette asked if the City can really say, by adding this accessory
building, if it would lower the value of homes around this property.
Mr. Doug Klint, City Attorney, stated the Council would have to be the final
judge and weigh the evidence.
Councilman Fitzpatrick stated they have been told aesthetics are not sufficient
reason for denial , but diminuation of the value would be
yet the diminu-
ation depends on the aesthetics.
Councilman Hamernik stated, at this point, he is in the position to recommend
denial, however, if the petitioner feels, for any reason, he would like
action delayed, he would give this consideration.
Mr. Nelson indicated he could see no reason for Council to delay action
on the request.
i
MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to deny SP 08-06, as filed by Mr. Robert
Nelson, 524 Rice Creek Terrace, on the grounds that the addition of a
second auxiliary storage structure, such as proposed, would have a dimini+tive
effect on the area which has been maintained and a precedent would not
be set by denying this request. Seconded by Councilman Barnette.
Councilman Schneider clarified that they are not allowed to consider the
aesthetics of the situation, but if the adverse effects diminish property j
values, then this can be considered as a reason for denial.
Mr. Doug Klint, City Attorney, stated it is a very close legal question ,
and the reason for denial would have to be determined by the Council.
In this case, he stated, the fact that the Planning Committee recommended
approval should be given considerable weight.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried ,
unanimously.
Councilman Barnette praised the Nelsons' motives, and hoped something could,
be worked out so that they could get things inside a storage area.
Mayor Nee stated he also shared Councilman Barnette's feelings and hoped
some other alternative could be worked out.
Councilman Hamernil; stated he was concerned to the degree that he is wondering,
in searching the ordinance, if perhaps Mr. Nelson wasn't misled. He felt
the Planning Commission should review the ordinance for possible clarifica-
tion.
MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to recommend that staff bring this ordinance
before the Planning Commission for their review and further discussion
for possible rewriting for clarification. Seconded by Councilman Schneider.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried
i unanimously.
ROD WAARA, ED_INA RE Y; L.S. #78-04, 1 CHARLES STREET:
I
Mr. Sobiech, Public Works i otthis is a request for a lot
jsplit for a parcel of property in the southwest corner of East River Road
{
REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 1978 PAGE 3
use permit.
Mr. Nelson stated there are other detached garages on Rice Creek Terrace
and he personally feels it would be better to have another garage than to
have items sitting in the driveway. He stated he moved out of his home
in Columbia Heights because he ran out of room and spent time looking
for property where he could put up another garage. He stated he talked
with the realtor and someone at City Hall and was told this was acceptable.
Mr. Nelson stated one of the main reasons for purchasing this home was
' because he needed the extra room and felt he could add on. Mr. Nelson
Istated he didn't come in to the neighborhood to put a blight on anyone,
but felt storing items outside are worse than having the accessory building.
Mr. Nelson stated he isn't aware of any covenants in his abstract of title
which would prohibit him from building the accessory building.
Mayor Nee questioned the nature of the covenants in Mrs. Knight's title.
Mrs-Knight stated, when their attorney examined the title, there was a
paragraph that was very specific as to what you could or could not do as
far as unattached garages.
Councilman Barnette asked if the residents would have the same objections,
if Mr. Nelson merely built a storage building, with no driveway.
Mr. Larson stated, speaking on his own behalf, it would depend on the
location, size and design of the structure. He stated he would not find
it as undesirable particularly if it was a smaller structure and didn't
have the driveway and a large garage door.
Mrs. Hughes stated she would have no objections to a storage building,
as long as it faces on 68th and there is no noisy activity. She indicated,
however, there are a lot of places to store off-season vehicles other than
on your own property.
Mr. Gourde stated lie would have no objections to a storage shed. He stated
this would eliminate the driveway and wouldn't be as large as the accessory
building proposed by Mr. Nelson.
Councilman Hamernik stated a number of the neighbors expressed a concern
about the comment at the Planning Commission regarding the burden of proof
for denial of the special use permit.
Mr. Doug Klint, acting City Attorney, stated the City doesn't have the initial
burden of proof as it is on the applicant to show that his request for
the special use permit complies with the requirements of the City Code.
He stated the petitioner would have to show that the application would
not adversely effect the safety and general welfare of the neighborhood.
He stated, from this point, the burden is on the City for showing a reason
for denying the special use permit. Mr. Doug Klint stated the courts have
shown that mere aesthetic reasons are not sufficient for denial.
Councilman Hamernik stated, at this point, the Council has testimony from
a person who is a real estate broker regarding property values, although
they don't have any official testimony from an appraiser on his evaluation
of the situation. He stated there were a number of comments regarding
a precedent being set concerning second accessory buildings which he agrees
does create some concern in his mind. He stated he didn't really feel
the City was planned with this in mind, that is, putting up second accessory
buildings on every lot. He felt this would be a great detraction from the
11 area, if this took place.
Councilman Hamernik felt the proper way to approach this would be for an
ordinance change so that there was adequate control.
Mayor Nee thought the ordinance is clear that it is prohibited.
Mr. Sobiech, Publis Works Director, stated this is permitted with a special
' ; use permit, and prohibited without the special use permit.
_ I
• r 1�3]
REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 1978 PAGE 5
and Charles Street. He stated the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the lot split with the following stipulations: (1) five foot easements
along all sides of Parcels A and B and (2) 2.0 foot easement along the east
portion of Parcel B to be used as bikeway/walkway easement as well as
utility and drainage easements.
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and approve L.S. #78-04 with the stipulations of. five
foot easements along all sides of Parcels A and B and the 20 foot esement I
( along the east portion of Parcel B to be used as bikeway/walkway easement
Il as well as utility and drainage easements. Seconded by Councilman Schneider.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried
unanimously.
MORATORIUM ON LOT DEVELOPMENT ON LOTS IN INNS�RUCK NORTH 2ND ADDITION
TLOTS 4, 5, AND 6, BLOCK 2 AND LOTS 5, 6, ANDD, BLOCK 3):
i
Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated the Planning Commission discussed
development on lots that have been previously designated as "wetlands"
by the Department of Natural Resources. He stated the Environmental Quality
Commission has recommended a moratorium on development of these lots and
passed this recommendation on to the Planning Commission, i
Mr. Sobiech stated he has been in contact with 'the Department, of Natural
Resources and they indicated the City should be receiving additional in-
formation regarding development of these lots; He felt that perhaps the
original Type III wetlands designation was mavde with the assumption that
this development did not have a functioning Storm sewer system. He stated,
about six months ago, the appropriate data the City has regarding the storm
sewer system in the area and how it functions, was forwarded to the De-
Partment of Natural Resources and they are in the process of reviewing
this material.
Mr. Sobiech stated a building permit has ,been issued, and appropriate
notice given to the D.N.R. for Lot 4 of ,Block 2. Mr. Sobiech stated, as
f 9
of now, no building permits have been issued for Lots 5 and 6 of Block 2
Further, the Department of Natural Resources has issued permits on Lots
4, 5, 6, and 7 Block 3, and the City has issued building permits for all
the lots in Block 3.
Mayor Nee pointed out that on Lot 4, $lock 2, the D.N.R. hasn't issued
a permit and yet the lot is being filled. He questioned if the D.N.R.
has been told there is activity on Lot 4. Mr. Sobiech stated they have
been informed.
Councilman Schneider noted on Lots•'5 and 6, Block 2, there is illegal filling .
taking place. Mr. Sobiech stated that was correct and the City has been
in contact with those property owners.
jCouncilman Schneider questioned of the filling of those lots creates
any additional flood potential o,f nutrient problem with the run-off.
Mr. Sobiech stated the Innsbruc storm sewer took into account the develop-
ment of all those properties, d the Rice Creek Watershed District approved
the storm sewer system.
Councilman Schneider stated t e City is apparently at the point where the
Department of Natural Resourc s is saying, in their opinion, the storm
sewer system is not adequate , nd in the City's opinion, it is adequate.
( He questioned if, in fact tFiere was flooding in the basements of the homes
f in that area.
Mr. Sobiech stated the City hasn't received any complaints about basement c
flooding. He stated the D.NR, has asked for appropriate data regarding
the storm sewer system and the design criteria used and perhaps the City `
would have additional information from them in the next few weeks.
Ms. Lee Ann Sporre, member of the Environmental Quality Commission, stated
19 2
REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 1978 PAGE 6
she wished to call on Mr. Messerli to speak to the Council as he is a
resident in this area.
Mr. Al Messerli, 5505 W. Danube Road, stated he lives adjacent to the
two wetlands in question. He stated he thinks the Council is aware of
the history of this area and how the assessments were put on to the lots
in the area. He stated the explanation they had was there was some
question if some of these lots would be buildable.
Mr. Messerli stated, last year, the D.N.R. did state that the lots were
Type III wetlands and public waters. He stated it was pointed out the
D.N.R. did not know about the storm sewers and believes this is in error
as the D.N.R. made a study of the storm sewers.
Mr. Messerli stated the most recent thing that brought up this issue again
is that there is extensive filling going on at these lots. He stated
truckloads of bad fill material was being dumped, without building permits.
Mr. Messerli referred to an article in the paper which stated that Minnesota
was losing Federal funds because their method of retaining wetlands was
not up to date. He stated this was of concern to him. He felt the D.N.R.
was not taking the. action they should to protect the wetlands, and felt
there are some lots that are worth preserving. He thought perhaps the
Rice Creek Watershed District may even have some second thoughts and in-
dicated he would not like something to happen again like is happening to
Moore Lake.
Councilman Schneider stated he shared Mr. Messerli's concern in the area.
He pointed out the State has legal authority that should be enforced at
the State level. He stated he has some questions of the legality of
imposing a one year moratorium on development in that area, or for that
matter, any other area. He felt, at this point, he would like to see the
additional information from the Department of Natural Resources and would
like the City Attorney to review the model ordinances and legality of pro-
posing a moratorium on construction. He thought perhaps the City could
hold off issuance of any building permits for two weeks until a report
is received.
Councilman Schneider felt, however, the dumping of fill should be stopped
as he felt it was in violation of existing City and State ordinances.
Mr. Messerli stated this fill was being done daily for the last several
months. He stated the sand casting was bulldozed and buried and they are
now hauling dirt on top of that. He pointed out those lots that were being
filled don't have building permits and stated Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, were
being filled today.
Mr. Sobiech indicated that Lot 4 had a building permit and the property
owner had been contacted about not discontinuing filling on Lot 5.
Councilman Barnette asked when Mr. Harstad purchased the lots if they
were designated as buildable lots.
Mr. Sobiech stated, if he wanted to go through the expense of soil prepar-
ation, they would be buildable lots.
Ii Ms. Sporre pointed out that judges have ruled over and over that if you
buy wetlands, you don't have the right to build on it. She stated the
State recognizes that wetlands are protected by State law. She stated
what the Commission was getting at was an injunction to halt the filling
of these lots. She felt the City should ask for an injunction against
the D.N.R. under the Minnesota Statutes.
Councilman Schneider stated Minnesota Statute 105 allows the appeal process,
however, you would get into a situation where one public body is suing
another public body and no matter who wins, the taxpayer loses.
' Mayor Nee stated, if it was as clear as Ms. Sporre suggests, he thinks the
4�. CITY OF FRID EY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N. E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
TELEPHONE ( 612)571 -3450
August 18, 1978
n CITY COUNCIL
ACTION TAKEN NOTICE
Ron Waara
Edina Realty
6528 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432 L.S. #78-04, Lot 1 , Block
Hayes River Lots
Dear Mr. Waara:
On August 7, 1978, the Fridley City Council officially approved
your request for a Lot Split on Lot 1 , Block 2., Hayes River Lots,
with the stipulations. listed below..
Please review the noted stipulations, sign the statement below,
and return one copy to the City of Fridley.
If you have any questions regarding the above action, please
call the Community Development Office at 571 -3450.
r
Sincerely,
�RRVLD L. OMR MAIN
CITY PLANNER
JLB/de
Stipulations: r
1 . A 20' Bikeway/walkway easement along East property line.
2. Any necessary drainage and utility easements along lot lines
as required by the City
cc: Donald Berry Concu action ken
100 Charles Street N.E.
t
THIS FORM SHOULD BE TAKEN TO ANOKA COUNTY WHEN YOU WANT TO RECORD THE LOT SPLIT.
TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR OF ANOKA COUNTY:
The City Council of the City of Fridley on August 7, 1978
approved the following request for a lot split to allow:
another building site
on the following property:
,$plit off the Westerly 100 feet of Lot 1 , Block 1 , Hayes River Lots
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 #_ C;L
Parcels
Lots 1
Block_ A
Addition Hayes River Lots
Signed
Owner(s) of Record
cc: Property Owner
Lot Split Folder
Fridley Assessing Dept. ,Real Estate File
Special Assessment Dept. File