LS77-13 #5-6s LOT SPLIT APPLICATION
CITY OF FRIDLEY
FOR CITY USF ONLY
Applicant' s Name
` APPLICANT: �f�!/�ieiU�" �' -"
Lot Split
ADDRESS: 2 200 S&Vex.- z,,--
Street
/KStreet City Zip Code Date Filed: -TF-
TELEPHONE
-TELEPHONE # lo3ly -136 7 6.-7/-111.3 Feer 7`--Receipt # LLv/
P X a Home Business Council Action:Date
a) 0 REMARKS:
rd 0
c� Cd
PROPERTY OWNER(S)
P .P r-4 ,moi Tib /fifi�STED — 6 36
o �
ADDRESS(ES) S4 9A GU �.4i(JViBE
P � 5. Street City Zip Code
27-00 S1441e4 Lk- R,9!9 A411S/01�W
-P w ( Street City Zip Code
0 H w •H TELEPHONE #(S) Bus ine s s
� Home
4-) m
O O O
."s.' Pt 0
U] O H •r-�
�
� Property Location on Street
or Exact Street Address (IF ANY) 5499
w
U
H Legal Description of Property:
Reason for Lot Split:
Total Area of Property _sq- ft. Present Zoning Classification R-/
The undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and
representations stated in this application are true and
correct. 'P A - I
DATE:_ /O/(c,17 7- SIGNATURE
BELOW FOR CITY USE ONLY / (See reverse side for additional instructions
CHECKED BY STAFF DATE
Remarks:
PLANNING COMISSION: 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 ain 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.
se
d.
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.
L
i ♦
'I"MERTIFKATE OF SURVEY
Foy• �.
DA VERNE CORP
12le 2611,
A 26
oDe17afes Irarl
of 1
o e l Q2 o
o�se
N ender dct'0n
h ,a� -N)k
/ tit :
o See attached sheet
1 zg2 for descriptions of
proposed division.
v
�NvBE
,Cofs 9)''/O, B/or,- 9, //ViVSBRUC/f "R7h'
We hereby Certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the E. G. RUD & SONSINC.
,
boundaries of the above described land and of the location of all buildings, if any, LAND SURVEYORS
thereon, and all visible encroachments, it any, from or on said land.
E. G. RUD & SONS , INC. 3847 155th Avenue N. E,
Doted thisEeZday of ��,p�% Ie Z7 Anoka , Minnesota 55303
by •D Tel: 434-6305
Minn Reg No.. OB
.1-SO +
DESCRIPTION
For:
DaVerne Company
of
Proposed Lot Division of Lot 10, Block 3 , Innsbruck North 2nd
Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Lot 9, Block 3 , Innsbruck North 2nd Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota,
and that part of Lot 10, said Block 3 lying North of a line described
as beginning at the Northeast corner of said Lot 10 ; thence Westerly
to a point on the West line of said Lot 10, distant 8. 5 feet Southerly
from the Northwest corner of said Lot 10 and there terminating.
Lot 10, Block 3 , Innsbruck North 2nd Addition, Anoka County,
Minnesota, except that part thereof lying North of a line described
as beginning at the Northeast corner of said Lot 10 ; thence Westerly
to a point on the West line of said Lot 10 distant 8. 5 feet Southerly
from the Northwest corner of said Lot 10 and there terminating.
144 145--
1415 h2t B :� L.S. #77-13 DaVerne Corporation a
1427 ,,0 Affecting Lots 9 and 10, Block 3,
56910�`��\ �•Mn �5,,~..�.�n, I ` R Innsbruck North 2nd Addition vv
1452 yam•„' - O`ZA
*14
s
-• �� �ASb47 3
z •' S b1� ,tee �, � j � �,.. �� ,
4 '
,565z 01 f 1439
w
' �;; ►40► �rJ .� ''.�ti°�,�' • :d. '• sSN i`°',V �-wry. �� -3� -a�.� � -�
��
a
a7o�t0 14 A.
'.
/
f,. 1 � Y �� /� �`-_ t� � a 4, � ''ten .ti�.• L I `
a 55x1 a /r �ra�+' ;� �� f h �,° ,.� .,m •, �,
.�«.o � l •� .i ,. �
01 2 }�
R� fig � 1*
Y r
q-,," ` -_ .� 3'SS•� � ��
E�•O � ins r
-S er i
TO
;S51i 9 dr �y0 a� )�°. � •
: a m �. a "°, Y�tt •t T�1�$
.. . �!i °y• p �� b
N '
20
_ -, .as `6,.–�'—'iso R;,pT�]rK'J'y°" •'.. '� p�5§ ., ;e%s ....
21
141 I IQ 15 a 1417 y :Z 19
/90
541,
X
� X14}g
_ -- r� --.wry-.,� "�' 1 � �DlD ?� � ;• .�,� ten. � / •�,...
It
Xf
- ----;.- "_-�:.- -- 5401 �► •��R � � .X
07
iii����___-`-' I- •'�bii. .._. - � .. -
0.14
�i .�.�sa�..._
CITY o;- �ntct�.tv,' SUBJECTI.
MINNESOTA j COMMISSION APPL1CATICTM
Uepertmsnt/ i _
Numb�r� frau ► qa Approved LY Unto
COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST FILE No/AOOAess
RETURN TO PLANNING ❑ ATL
COMMENTS
` K
luOrn
-_
f
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - OCTOBER 19, 1977 Page 10
3. LOT SPLIT REQUEST L.S. #77-12 THURE H. ERICKSON: t
SPLIT OFF APPROXXIMATL ALL` M MT 6, AND KDD
IT TO LOT 79 BLOCK 29 ELUELL' s RIVERSIDE HEIGHTS
PLAT 29 PER VERIFIED SURVEY AND COPY OF DEED, THE
SAME BEING ?515 and 7501 ALDEN 'JAY N.E.
Mr. Boardman explained that Lots 6 & 7 were owned by one
party. He said that when the house on Lot 7 was built
the driveway was allowed to encroach onto Lot 6 because
he did own both lots. He said that the party was planning
to sell Lot 6 and Mr. Erickson did not want to have to
move the driveway. He said that Mr. Erickson had arranged
with the other property owner to request a lot split
so that the driveway would be located on Lot 7,
Mrs. Erickson of ?515 Alden Flay N.E. was present at the
meeting. She indicated that they had gotten permission
from City Council 15 years ago to put the driveway at
its present location.
Chairperson Harris asked if City would have to retain
any easements.
Mr. Boardman said that there were no easements that
the City needed at that point.
MOTION BY Mr. Bergman, seconded by Ms. Shea, to recommend
to City Council the approval of the Lot Split Request,
L.S. #77-122 Thure H. Erickson: Split off approximately
11 feet from Lot 6, and add it to Lot 7, Block 21 Elwell' s
Riverside Heights Plat 2, per verified survey and copy of
deed, the same being 7515 and 7501 Alden ;lay N.E. Upon a
voice vote, all voting ay in carried unanimously.
4. LOT SPLIT REQUES , L.S. ,#77-13, A VERNE CORPORATION:
LINE OF LOT 10 AND ADD I TO LOT 99 BLOCK 3,
INNSBRUCK NORTH 2nd ADDITION, PER VERIFIED SURVEY
OF RECORD, SO HOUSE ON LOT 9_ CAN MEET ALL THE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS, THE SAME BEING 5468 and 5498 LEST DANUBE
ROAD N.E.
Mr. Boardman said that there were no problems as far as
the setbacks. He said that the lots would meet all
the requirements with the lot split. He said that the
lots were oversized lots and the lot sizes wouldn't
be effected by the split.
PLANNING COIffffSSION MEETITIG - OCTOBER, 19, 1977 Page 9
Mr. Thomas Brickner withdrew the request for a Special Use
Permit, SP #77-14: Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051 ,
3,D9 to allow the construction of a double bungalow in R-1
zoning (single family dwelling areas) , on Lot 19 Block 1 ,
Heather Hills, the same being 1430-1432 Rice Creek Road NE.
Mr. Bergman made the observation that out of 14 property
owners that had been invited, only one showed up at the
Public Hearing.
Mr. Togli said that he had never been contacted by anyone
with either of the Special Use Permits as to whether he
was for or against it.
Chairperson Harris said that he had gone to some of
the neighbors, but that he did not contact all the
neighbors.
Mr. Bergman felt awkward with the situation. He said
that Mr. Brickner had polled the neighbors and that
he had received little opposition; then he said that
Mr. Harris talked to neighbors, and they were very
much opposed; and he said that Mr. Schneider had talked
to neighbors and there had been a 50-50 split.
Mr. Bergman said that with all the different discussions
with the neighbors and then none of the people talked
to had shown up at the Public Hearing.
Mr. Togli said that with that many "polls" and he still ;
had never been contacted by anyone;
Ms. Schnabel said that people were very reluctant when
they are an adjacent neighbor to come and publically i
say how they really feel, even when they are opposed to
an idea, because that neighbor has to live in that
neighborhood. She said that possibly many of the people
were personal friends of the Brickner' s and they were
reluctant to say something against the double bungalow
because they have to live with him as a neighbor too.
i
Mr. Togli was concerned about the -term "spot rezoning". s
Chairperson Harris explained that it was allowed in the
Code that an R-2 (double bungalow or duplex) be built in
an R-1 lot with a Special Use Permit, providing that the
minimum square footage of the lot was 102000 square feet
or more and has 4/5 vote of City Council.
Mr. Togli asked if many were granted. He asked if there
was a lot of spot rezoning allowed in the City of Fridley.
Mr. Boardman said that there have been about six requests
over the past few months; but that only one had gone
through and that was the one at 1441 Rice Creek Road.
i
w
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - OCTOBER 19, 1977 Page 11
Ms. Schnabel ranted to know how the house at 5498 West Danube
Road NE got constructed when it didn' t meet the setback
requirements.
Mr. David E. Ficek of 1393 16th Avenue NW (representing
DaVerne Corporation) said that they had interpolated the
35 foot setback as to where the house would sit. He said
that in order to save a tree on the North side of the
property the house was moved to the south. He indicated
that they were 2.25 feet off the requirement on the
south boundary.
Mr. Boardman explained that that was the reason City
often required a survey after the foundation was laid.
He said that when the building inspector goes out to
a site to "eye" the construction, all they sometimes have F
to use are the stakes and sometimes the stakes would get !
moved and whatever. He said that many times there are
mounds of dirt, etc. and it becomes difficult to actually '
"sight" where the construction would be.
Mr. Ficek indicated the possibility of a financial
hardship on the property at 5468 and if that does
happen, then he would be applying for a variance.
Ms. Schnabel asked why Mr. Ficek hadn't applied for a
variance instead of a lot split.
Mr. Ficek said that he didn' t like variances. He said
that people should stay within the codes. He agreed
that it was difficult for the building inspector
to be able to "eye" if the building would be exactly
within codes. He said that if the lot split could be
done then both lots would be "legal".
MOTION by Ms. Shea, seconded by Mr. Bergman, that the
Planning Commission recommend to City Council the approval
of the Lot Split Request, L.S. -77-13, DaVerne Corporation:
Split off an 8.5 ft, wedge from Northerly property line of
Lot 10 and add it to Lot 91 Block 3, Innsbruck North 2nd
Addition, per verified survey of record, so house on
Lot 9 can meet all the setback requirements, the same
being 5468 and 5498 West Danube Road NE. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris declared a ten minute break at 9:09 P.M.
5. CONTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE
MOTION by Mr. Bergman, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to
continue the Proposed Maintenance Code until the next
meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - OCTOBER 19, 1977Page 12 t
k
6. CONTINUED: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN
Mr. Bergman said that since the Parks and Open Space Plan
would be reviewed at a Public Hearing that it should be
explained in the introduction that the purpose of the
document was to identify problem areas,
Mr. Langenfeld said that to him what was being done was
a statement was being made and then it was indicating what was
wrong with that point, and then the recommendations as
to how to change that wrong.
MOTION by Mr. Bergman that in the Introduction section a
statement be inserted to indicate, "The purpose of
this Parks and Open Space Plan and the resulting summary
of findings is to identify inadequacies in the current
Fridley Parks System".
Ms. Shea read Page 2, the last sentence, "The plan is
an inventory of existing facilities and a guide for future
decisions about priorities for acquisition, park
development, provision of recreation service", She said
that that would cover what Mr. Bergman wanted inserted,
Mr. Bergman didn't feel that it did cover what he wanted
stressed. He said that an objective inventory would
indicate both the bad and good points. He said that
the present Plan only indicated the bad points.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Chairperson Harris read Objective 4 in Section 4,
Summary of Findings:
Encourage the advancement of recreation opportunities
for all residents.
Ms. Schnabel felt that the first finding, "The City' s
recreation programs do not reflect a wide range of
activities for residents" could be stated in a different
way so that it wouldn't be quite so negative sounding.
Mr. Bergman said that that idea could be done throughout
the Plan.
Mr. Langenfeld said that the Environmental Quality Commission
suggested changing Finding 5 by deleting the term
"nature study enthusiasts" from the finding.
Mr. Bergman said that it was a shame that Parks &
Recreation Commission was not represented at the
Planning Commission meeting.
220
REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 1977 PAGE 6
SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #77-13, INTER CITY BUILDERS; 609 CHERYL STREET N.E.:
Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated this is a request by the property owner
at 609 Cheryl Street to construct a 'garage on property that is within the flood
plain designation.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request with the understanding
that all of the various flood plain requirements would be followed.
Mr. Sobiech stated correspondence has been received from the Department of Natural
Resources indicating they have no problems with this variance, if the flood plain
regulations were followed.
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the unanimous recommendation of the
Planning Commission and approve SP #77-13. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
LOT SPLIT L.S. #77-12, THURE ERICKSON, 7515 & 7501 ALDEN WAY N.E. :
Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated this is a request for a lot split to
split off a parcel of property on Alden Way at 7501 and 7515. He stated the property
owner originally owned both lots and at the resent time the existing driveway
P � 9 Y
involves both properties. The intent of the lots lit is to attach a certain P p amount
p
of property and existing driveway to Lot 7 to ensure that the driveway goes with
the proper residence.
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and approve L.S. #77-12. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, pointed out that several of his neighbors are concerned about
development of property east of their homes. He stated, to his knowledge, there is
no request for development of the property and if there are any requests for develop-
ment, they will c tainly be advised.
LOT SPLIT L.S. #,77-13 DaVERNE CORPORATION, 5468 & 5498 WEST DANUBE ROAD:
Mr. Sobiech, Puis Works Director, explained this is a request for a lot split in
order for the house on Lot 9 to meet all the setback requirements.
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the unanimous recommendation of the
Planning Commission and approve L.S. #77-13. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
SLIDE PRESENTATION - CRIME CONTROL PLANNING BOARD:
Ms. Carla Ekdahl of the State Crime Control Planning Board presented a slide presentation
regarding community crime prevention which was the subject of a study made in Minneapolis.
She stated their Board worked with the City of Minneapolis to analyze the crime problem
and make recommendations on what the City might do to lower the crime rate. She indicated
they would be in a position to offer training and technical assistance in working with
the City staff in implementing a crime prevention program in Fridley, if the Council has
an interest.
Ms. Ekdahl stated that Ms. Carla Ott, Police Technician in Fridley has recommended a
committee to study crime in Fridley and she would be happy to work with the City in
pursuing such a program.
Mr. James Hill, Public Safety Director, stated the Crime Control Board was requested to
make this presentation to the Council so that the City would have the advantage of seeing
what they had developed. He stated, in law enforcement, they are continuallytrying
Y 9
to reduce crime and felt the citizens should get involved. Mr. Hill stated, through
the research of Carla Ott he is proposing to the Council an "umbrella ella concept involving
a crime prevention committee composed of citizens, individuals representing the Police
Department, members.of the Planning Department, and members of the civic and business
community, to actually view the various crime problems in the City.
REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 1977 PAGE 5
Mr. Sobiech stated the original building permit indicates the special use permit
is only good for the automatic car wash. Therefore, if the variance is approved,
it would also be necessary for a special use permit for the operation of the gas
station. ;
Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated, when the property to the south develops, it
is anticipated this would be one of the major intersections. He indicated when the
original development was proposed, the requirement was that an additional lane be
put in to the north tp handle the traffic and that access be only from the service
road.
Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, indicated Mr. Sobiech's point was well-taken that the
special use permit exists for the car wash, and if the applicant now wants to
establish a gas station, a new permit would be required.
Mr. Qureshi suggested the staff work with the owner of the property regarding a
traffic pattern at this location that may require only one entrance off of 73rd and
provide some type of wider access off of T.N. #47. He felt they should have a whole
picture on what the total use of the property.would be and to work with the owner on
a more acceptable traffic pattern.
Councilman Hamernik indicated he has a problem with allowing the curb cuts in that
area. Mayor Nee indicated he shared Councilman Hamernik's concerns and hoped another
alternative could be worked out.
Mr. Coddin stated he was willing to work with the City in this matter.
MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to table this item until staff is ready to bring it
back before Council. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
EQUITY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 951 HILLWIND ROAD N.E.:
Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated this is a request by Real Estate 10 to
increase the maximum height allowed on an identification sign on Hillwind Road from
6 feet to 20 feet above grade. He stated the Appeals Commission heard the request
and recommended the maximum height be increased from 6 feet to 17 feet. He explained
this area is surrounded by residential property and this was the basis of the discussion
on whether the extra height would be allowed.
Councilman Fitzpatrick pointed out, when construction began on this building, it fit
well into the residential area and felt now an attempt was being made to appeal to
the I-694 traffic.
Councilman Schneider indicated he had somewhat of a problem with this request in view
of the fact the Council has just considered a sign ordinance.
Mr. Dick Walsh, representing Real Estate 10, indicated there was a mistake on the
location of the sign, and there is only one location on the property suitable for
the sign which would be west of the building.
Mr. Walsh stated the variance is requested from the 6 foot height in order to get,the
sign above ground. He indicated the purpose is to have an illuminated sign to identify
the building and indicated they do not wish to put up anything that would detract from
this structure.
Councilman Schneider indicated his primary concern is surrounding residential properties.
Mr. Walsh indicated they would like to get the sign out of the ground to a height
acceptable to the Council.
Mayor Nee asked Mr. Walsh if he would be willing to work with Councilman Schneider
regarding the positioning of the sign. Mr. Walsh indicated this would be satisfactory
with him and he could meet with Councilman Schneider at any time.
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to table this item to the next meeting on November 14,
1977. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee
declared the motion carried unanimously.
Note: You must bring this information with you to Anoka County to record
the deed for the lot split. (State Law) !
TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR OF ANOKA COUNTY:
The City Council of the City of Fridley on November 7, 1977
approved the following request for a lot split to allow:
The dwelling on Lot 9, Block 3, Innsbruck North second Addition to meet
all the rPniii rnrl Setback mquir-aments
on the following property:
Split off that part of Lot 10, said Block 3, lying North of a line described
as beginning at the NE corner of Said Lot 10: thence Westerly to a point on
the West line of said Lot 10, distant 8.5 feet Southerly from the NW corner
ot S� d o an ere er matin
s ipu ati.on o tie plot slit 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 All of lot 9e plu nor .inn split off Lot 10
Block 3
Addition Innsbruck North second Addition
Signed
Owner(s) of Record
cc: Property Owner
Lot Split Folder
Fridley Assessing Dept. ,Real Estate File
Special Assessment Dept. File