LS76-10 1
LOT SPLIT- APPLICATION 8
'orm #5-68 -•---
CITY OF FRIDLEY
FOR CITY USE ONLY
Applicant' s Name
APPLICANT: Thomas S�t'ib�
Lot Split
ADDRESS: yD6Q "-5'u"ter
Street City Zip Code Date fled:
4-3
TELEPHONE # fib_ 7d'3/ 7�rS'-3sa� Fee: v Receipt #8399 {
+� Home Business Council Action:Date _�
0
a o REMARKS:
PROPERTY OWNER(S)
P 1/� Q s SfssC��
0 3 ii
u � CO ADDRESS ES) /4/6 5' Qr? 2,Ya en �'1'r� �rs4,/
o Street City ip Code
� c 0 -+ �/�?r0 �'� a /c���- Cly—"PP i99.����r
-P ca Ca Street City Zip Code
0 H CO -H TELEPHONE #(S) Business
o a rd �Home
+> W +� �
O O O
�i Ski
U2 O f� •rl
P Property Location on Street
or Exact Street Address (IF ANY) '
HLegal Description of Property:
N •
4:5?2L /j �lc�r 7v/s' -4ZZ-2 i� �,• �'i1` c�f ��r�%rev
Reason for Lot Split:
��� •�`ll�� �� r-.t2 / • /G�i isoy 7`��--
Total Area of Prope77tyj56esq. ft. Present Zoning Classification
The undersigned hereby declares that all, the facts and
representations stated in this application are true and
correct.
DATE: SIGNATURE �ti�i�,+�
BELOW FOR CITY USE ONLY (See reverse side for additional instructions)
PLATS & SUBS: Date of Consideration -
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 Ave. N.E. , Fridley) I�
2. Return completed application form with the required sketch of the property
involved and the lot split fee of do.00 for each original lot being split.
3. The application will be submitted to the Plats & Subdivisions and Streets
•& Utilities Subcommittee for recommendations. This Committee meets once a
month, when required. The City will supply the applicant with minutes of
the Subcommittee.
i
4. Following the Plats & Subs Committee recommendation of approval, the owner
must then obtain a Certificate of Survey on the original parcel or parcels
along with the new parcels created with all existing structures tied in.
5. The Certificate of Survey should then contain a simple description of a part
of a platted lot or registered lot and be filed with the Engineering Department
for Planning Commission recommendations. The Planning Commission meets on the
second .and fourth Thursday of the month. The City will supply the applicant
with minutes of the Planning Commission.
6. The recommendations of the Planning Commission are submitted to the City
Council for final action. The Council meets on. the first and third Monday
of the month.
7- The City Council approval may be subject to certain stipulations which must
be complied with by the applicant.
I
8. 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.
9.• When all the conditions of the lot split have been complied with, the applicant
should file the lot ,split in Anoka County.
10. 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 ANT• SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR
THE NEW PARCELS IN TOTAL AFTER THE LOT SPLIT, MAY EXCEED TIE;;
AMOUNT ASSESSED TO TIM ORIGINAL PARCEL. THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT
OF FRIDLEY MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF
-ADDITIONAL TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS.
CIVIL ENGINEERS
N .C . HOIUM AND ASSOCIATES , INC . LAND SURVEYORS
s
D Telephone
F110130 CENTRAL AVE. N.E. ( Hwy. 65)—BLAINE,MINNESOTA 55434 784-5480
712 SOUTH MAIN ST. — CAMBRIDGE ,MINNESOTA 55008 689-4798
I -S-F
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY: # '4~G-
To m SKI 5A
20
�Qj
i I
Y !
G
CA
" .
1_zI
U y
I s, 0
� t-
� � � w
t w
F SCALE -' ) " = 30'
C DENOTES PON
t
N 4 72'0 - Z 1513 9 40
34.0 � +
�2 -5 'F
a� q
c2 #14b 5 0 r.
23.0 34.E r i 1 z
� — z t)
Lf) CO
R �
E
t
/yGs i N� 7
� NOCy DAG A ST,
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS:
TRACT A: All of the "est 165 feet of Lot 11, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 129, Anoka County,
Minnesota lying Northerly of the South 147 feet thereof.
TRACT u: The East 75 feet of the gest 165 feet of tre South :47 feet of Lot 11 , AUDITOR S -
SUBDIVISI_)N NO. 129, Anoka Countv, Minnesota.
TRACT C: The West 90 feet of the South 147 feet of Lot 11 , AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 129,
Anoka County, Minnesota.
1 hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct super-
vision and that I am a duly Registered Land
Survevor under the Is of t e State of Minn-
_1071
inn-
csota.
Uat.e 1(`121/76 __ (Zed; No. 4427
INV 4720-215/39740
e—LtoZ llE 5 r5 ! ,j
_«o_ O /4
�r:.
?t3 I Jr�j--" X11, ert THOMAS SKIBA L.S. #76-10 — /8
w e ! .^ „>°�i ,.�/ �-� ��'. o t�/ �'c'•i �...•••"F b�. � Ili
OD w // t. 8 o
/111^._ [oL�. r'.,.ai>+ .r--.zc1;,. .• ,•✓y.. R i' #i'9t`_ .I/4�.�_- n f
_ e:. sr aa.s� _, as .. s_ 1 i .. ♦�re•s..w^ E./
6 � �• r1 � / V � ff
-SO �.sr o.of G}daai' So n:yf ns• �.� /-pe sr Y. @ �7 , -- p p 30;
,✓ ase -45
't.- `;=7V `� 's/►fli Sc e:6+•,J.� `a / sa�f>.+s ~ j
•!•.. ya, `r',u 9s14a:;,• t _';�9F.: ``• •• e r is _ a soW ; 4�:a9 ff h
'etc' 1:M fa0 .t. '• f iG >.� •f:)p f>10 prio: k
a AVENUE z N.E�---- -- ---
'
tj
--—. .
0 o4W 3
rzi
lo
y. N14/7C"f ? a Oh 5k� 6 �i� 1■ .}.(/ ^-- ADD jR� ^ 6s
•tG M.®O• 9 N }�Z�' Spry M,nT.■ A D�/�~ B9. /if +Wi
°. o ,dam 299.
b D
V/7 =T/
i
z a T, b
�n t. J z�> �•b'• ''Sv 1 cr) 3 ,/o ael9rasw z6� '� a�
0 1
I'ry n �6 W 90 1 dV f cybo Bo , ea I Bo
v: aefo sdf/f s
� �: �.may W as'Jail'•" S � � a a M� I \ '+ k
6 �,
.if5zzf• dqn SO � •� G� tl � �+j +��j
'`, 7 ,� t,.> _.,>..:a• B,S' ,''c o1ORL
psi -�•�!3d'��'_a,ir,C:_--- ..�.._ n��nt` Sf-'- -.;r!=--- ��df- 7fT J�3o � � �a< !#
-'t. 39 o O' '�•f t
ja '
7 • �Pl"rt• � f 4
IJDITOR S
eL els 1``. � �'3 N'`.<\ ��;\ `>a �._l_PF.� • O �30� ';.
\ 10�
6r c /
} S o" o
1 1 w lsro� (szs,� (9•?Ol L o r /9> ') ,h �= 23'm
m
l • .v7 E� �7d• y�..... ..du*zur :ate yf* a az 33o z iro 6
FIRESIDE nRIV-L �, a, ;4 `�oo ,FF,, ' 3��os go5�15 e
(f- J o'.lf ba...r ,pf `s°rs: \ 1 0
.._ 1 lrzz Zo /04// /Zo s 7•-77 a16 ''+,r ',M, 4 '
'5 Ak
Iq 31 4t; 7 Ile
j�
NDE
SON
2 p c4 A JD/dsf"
1 69.OS}s• gc31 a b
�_ L*t. r :0 1S •• tr 90 tf . ,, oz LJ
s JB .„ ONONUAGASTREET
b i
e s,' so„gg 75 75 Ao eS eo r
WA LNU $ p !
W , Z v 3 a 4
' 1 /
33SLJBDIVISION
/ /o w p 1
zsc31 �^� i \' /eso1,4 (/ssd `0 7s*s r
300 2 24 ; 261 28h f.H ti
1. (iz27
o) < r»Oer 3 (irao) /ibly 9 B j a
111\
�...w. � 34-
2073 I/2
1 S�oddi,c k t A•'trr,H. 4 Ji �l+flava 1s s { I
1 ZoBefwr,;-17612� rIt
s 0
j Lea.cn�slo
r9Bo; T d
19 ;3 �, -- -_ z.2 v-j 2 3 25 I 27; 29 f '
I I(1550) (/SOD) 40)
p d i,.*ronA�.o� 'j3J o f
jw ell
Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1976 Page L:
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission close
the Public Hearing on the Proposed Preliminary Plat, P.S. #76-11, Real Estate
10 Addition, by Francis J. Girdler. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Schnabel said that she was a little disturbed that they had one little
section of land that was commercial; that bothered her more than the replatting
process, but she said it was beyond their scope at this point. She added
that she didn't understand how one lot in the middle of all the R-3 got a
commercial zoning on it, as that entire area was strictly either R-1 or R-3
with the exception of the corner where the filling station was. Chairperson
Harris commented that he didn't know how it happened as it occurred before
he was on the Planning Commission. Mrs. Schnabel stated that it was going
to seem a little strange -when that area got filled in, and Mr. Harris agreed
but said there was nothing they could do about it now.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission
recommend to Council approval of the proposed preliminary plat, P.S. #76-11,
Real Estate 10 Addition, by Francis J. Girdler: Being a replat of Lot 5,
except that part thereof lying West of the Northeasterly right of way line
of the outer drive of State Trunk Highway #65, and except that part thereof
lying East of a line drawn from a point in the North line of said Lot 5,
distant 1,505.96 feet West from the N.E. corner thereof to a point in the
South line of said Lot 5, distant 1,393.62 feet West from the S.E. corner
thereof, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25, the same being 951 Hillwind Road N.E.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that he agreed with Mrs. Schnabel in regard to the
spot zoning, but felt they had no recourse but to grant the preliminary plat
under the conditions.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L. #76-10, v THOMAS SKIBA: Split Lot 11, Auditor's
Subdivision No. 129, int arcels as follows: Tract A: All. of the
West 165 feet of Lot ll, A.S. #129, lying Northerly of the South 147 feet
thereof: Same as 1465 Onondaga N.E. (already built upon), Tract B: The
East 75 feet of the IN,rest 165 feet of the South 117 feet of Lot 11, A.S. #1291
. same being 1467 Onondaga N.E. (vacant), and Tract C: The West 90 feet of
the South 117 feet of Lot 11, A.S. #129, the same being 7120 Bacon Drive
N.E. (vacant).
Mr. Thomas Skiba was present.
Mr. Boardman explained that this was a simple lot split, and Mr. Skiba wanted
to divide the property that was located on Lot 11 into three parcels: one 90'
and two 75'. He said there was a house presently existing on the 90' parcel.
Mr. Skiba stated that Bacon Drive_ was in and went all the way through from
Onondaga Street to 75th.
Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1976 Page 3
Mr. Boardman explained that because of the lot description they had requested
a replat instead of a lot split. He said the actual legal description would
have been too long and lengthy on this, so they had requested it be replatted
instead. He further explained that the building that was being constructed
was not on this property in question, but on the property just North of this.
Mr. McKinley asked if there would be a real estate office there, and Mr.
Boardman said he believed that was the intention and it was zoned properly
for that. Mr. McKinley asked- if there would be approximately 125' of fronting,
and Mr. Boardman said that was correct. 141r. McKinley asked what the depth
would be, and Mr. Boardman referred him to page 27 of the agenda which showed
the layout of where the building would be located. He explained there would
be a minimum of a 35' setback, and a double row of parking in front of the
building would put it back about 801. Mr. McKinley asked if there would just
be the real estate office or if anything further to the East was planned.
Mr. Boardman said just the one building would be allowed on the property.
Councilman Starwalt stated that a pre-fab home had been mentioned, and explained
that- as he recalled when it was before Council nothing was' said about pre-fab
and he just understood the residence that was going in was a single-family
residence. Chairperson Harris said that a single-family residence was allowed
under this zoning, and Mr. Girdler said they were referring to a Wausaw home.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if the home that was being constructed to the North was being
built by Mr. Girdler, and he replied it was not. Mrs. Schnabel noted that
on the form Mr. Girdler had filled out for this request it stated a real
estate office building, and asked if there would be other offices. Mr. Girdler
replied there would not be; just their own facility.
Mrs. McKinley asked if this construction would leave the way open for multiple
dwellings in this area. She explained the apartment building in back of the
property in question was charging their tenants extra rent for allowing them
to have pets. Mrs. McKinley said they had gone through the expense of putting
up a Cyclone fence to keep their dog in because of the leash law, and the
apartment dwellers exercised their animals freely out there. She explained
they would like to keep other multiple dwellings out of there because there
was never enough room for the children and there was also the pet problem.
She stated she was wondering if the. replat would in any way possibly allow
a rezoning. Chairperson Harris said that this had nothing to do with rezoning,
and explained this was already zoned commercial. He said that to rezone would
take another Public .Hearing by the Planning Commission, a Public Hearing by
the City Council and final action by the City Council. Mr. Harris asked if
the problem regarding the dogs was that they were running loose. Mrs. McKinley
said that most ran loose, and only one appeared to be on a leash. She stated
there was a large Siberian Husky, a water spaniel, and a couple of German
.
She herdsChairperson Harris said that Fridley did have a leash law and a
P p
dog patrol, and if the animals were unleashed perhaps the City Staff could
look into it. Mrs. Shea commented that the dog patrol was only available in
the mornings, which was quite disconcerting. Mr. Harris said that perhaps
the situation should be examined and remedied.
I
Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1976 Page 5
Chairperson Harris asked how far the house on Tract C was off of the proposed
center lot line between C and B. and Mr. Skiba replied approximately 321 . Mr.
Harris asked if there was some reason Mr. Skiba was maintaining 90' on the lot
that the house was already on, and Mr. Skiba explained he had purchased the
balance of the property which resulted in A and B from the owner of the
original property, and this was what the original owner wanted. He explained
he did not own Tract C.
Chairperson Harris asked if drainage and utility easements were provided,
and Mr. Boardman replied that none were needed on the property. He explained
that had taken 20' for the street and all utilities were in the street. Mr.
Boardman said that as far as he was aware, they didn't have any problem as
far as easements.
Chairperson Harris noted that there appeared to be an alley or access easement
that ran down the side of the property to Lot 5. He said it was just to the
West of the property and appeared to be about 20' wide. Mr. Skiba explained
that this was a piece of property the original owner had let go tax forfeit;
he had traded the 20' that was used for Bacon Drive for this 20' , so it was
part of the parcel.
Councilman Starwalt explained that the strip in question at one time did belong
to Mr. Flannery, but was traded for street access. He stated it went back
to early days of survey when things didn't quite line up as well. Mr. Starwalt
explained that originally it was not Mr. Flannery's, but he ended up acquiring
it simply because nothing else could be done with it; originally it was not
a part of this property, but did become a part. -He explained it was an agree-
ment between Mr. Flannery and the City. Chairperson Harris said that then the
20' was part of the property now, and Mr. Starwalt said that was correct. He
said that it was his impression that the property now looked at as A, B and C
did include the 201, but two years ago it didn't. - Mr. Peterson asked if he
was correct in saying that the 90' that was presently shown as Tract C included
the 20' they were discussing, and Mr. Starwalt said that was correct. Mr.
Boardman stated that then the dark line on page 30 should include the 20'
strip.
Chairperson Harris said he was wondering about the legal description on A & C,
and if it shouldn't.somehow include .that 20' He -said that Lot 11 would have
been replatted when this other parcel was acquired to include the property.
Councilman Starwalt said that to his knowledge it was replatted approximately
two years ago. Mrs. Schnabel asked what the date of the survey was, and Mr.
Boardman replied it was done on October 21, 1976. Chairperson Harris suggested
they check to see that Lot 11 was replatted to make sure that the 20' was
included. Mr. Boardman said they would check that out in time for the Council
meeting. He asked the Commission if they wanted this to go on to Council, or
if they would prefer to-have it come back to the Planning Commission. Chair-
person Harris said it was up to the members. Mr. Peterson asked Mr. Skiba
if timing was of importance to him so he would appreciate it being handled at
this meeting, and Mr. Skiba replied it was.
Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1976 Page 6
Mr. Bergman said he was a bit confused about the street pattern and right of
way. Fie stated that looking at Bacon Drive on page 30 of the agenda, there
appeared to be a 30' dedication off of Hitzeman Addition. Mr. Boardman
explained the City did have a 50' right of way off Bacon Drive; the 30'
off Hitzeman and the 20' to the west. He explained that the 20' was the
same 20' that appeared on page 29 marked "taken for street", and was an
existing right of way.
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission
recommend to Council approval of Lot Split Request L.S. 1776-10, by Thomas
Skiba: Split Lot 11, Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, into three parcels
as follows: Tract A: All of the West 165 feet of Lot 11, A.S. ##12.9,
lying Northerly of the South 147 feet thereof: Same as 1465 Onondaga N.E.
(already built upon), Tract B: The East 75 feet of the West 165 feet of the
South 147 feet of Lot 11, A.S. ##129, same being 1467 Onondaga N.E. (vacant),
and Tract C: The West 90 feet of the South 147 feet of Lot 11, A.S. ##129,
the same being 7420 Bacon Drive N.E. (vacant), with the stipulation that
the replat is as the Planning Commission understands it (the 20' noted on
page 30 is indeed included in the 165' as shorn on page 29) and Mr. Boardman
is to have that assurance before it goes to City Council. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
3. CONTINUED: REVIE'd OF PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission hold
this discussion on the proposed maintenance code to 2�s hour maximum. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Bergman stated that he had gone through initial parts of the maintenance
code and found a lot of personal disagreement with what he had gone through.
He said he would be glad to briefly run through what he was talking about
for other members to comment.
Mrs. Schnabel said that before he proceeded, she was wondering if anything
had been done concerning breaking up the maintenance code into various sections
as discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Boardman said that
there were four sections in the proposed maintenance code: residential,
exterior maintenance for residential, commercial and industrial, and exterior
maintenance for commercial and industrial. Mrs. Schnabel noted that they had
also talked about breaking out apartments and mobile homes from R-1, and Mr.
Boardman said they could easily be broken out because they were in separate
sections of the code. He said that it was his understanding that the intent
for tabling was to give direction to the subcommissions. Mr. Boardman explained
this would be sent down to the member commissions and at that time the Planning
Commission should give them some direction as to what to look at. He said he
was wondering how this would fit in as far as breaking dorm the code and that
type of discussion. Chairperson Harris suggested sending the member commissions
one section at a time.
i
198
! REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 1976 PAGE 3
CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE ON REZONING .REQUEST, ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT ZOA #76-03, BY EVERT SWANSON, TO REZONE FROM C-1 AND R-1 TO R-3; INTERSECTION
OF 73RD AVENUE AND CENTRAL AVENUE:
Mr. Virgil Herrick stated that at the last meeting he indicated that he would have a
proposed agreement that would limit the use of the property. A draft has been
prepared, however, he has not had an opportunity to discuss this with the applicant.
Mr. Herrick suggested to the City Council that they may pass it on the first reading
and hold the second reading until an agreement has been reached and signed by the
applicant.
Mayor Nee, for the benefit of the audience, explained that there is a side agreement
that could be enacted as a condition of the rezoning that spells out the many concerns
of the people in the neighborhood with regard to such things as the fencing going in
first, that it be owner occupied with no rentals, and it really addresses a number
of the questions that the people have. Mayor Nee asked if there was anyone in the
audience other than the petitioner who was concerned and there was no response.
Councilman Starwalt stated that he believed there were going to be people present on
the subject. Mayor Nee proceeded to give the petitioner a copy of the proposed agreement.
MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to waive the reading and adopt the ordinance on the first
reading. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor
Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNINri COMMISSION HEETING OF NOYEfiBER 3, 1976:
i
REAL ESTATE 10 ADDITION, P.S. '476-11:
MOTION by Councilwoman Kukowski to set a public hearing for December 13, 1976.
Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee
declared ion carried unanimously.
T. SKIBA, L.S. #76-10:
ublic Works Director, stated that this is a request by petitioner
for a lot split in the general vicinity of Bacon and Onondaga Streets. The Planning
Commission did have a hearing on November 3, 1976 and did recommend approval of the
lot split. He pointed t
p out that there was some concern regarding a parcel of property
that appeared not to be included in Lot 11 , but after checking with Anoka County, that
parcel is included in Lot 11 ; and the description as it reads in the Planning
Commission minutes is correct.
fir. Qureshi questioned whether there were any additional water and sewer assessments
and Mr. Sobiech responded that they were in and assumes thehave been assessed.
However, the petitioner would assume any of the assessments for the development of
the property.
Mr. Tom Skiba, 4010 Bunker Lake Road, was in attendance and stated that fie was the
individual reouesting the lot split and he was awere of the assessments and had no
questions at the present time.
MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to approve the lot split on the recommendation of the
Planning Commission. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Unon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 1976:
VID PROPERTIES, 4300 MAIN STREET N.E.:
Mr. Sobiech stated that this is a request by the property owner in an industrially
zoned property at the corner of 43rd and Main for a variance on the lot coverage
as it presently exists. He further pointed out that the owner proposes to make
an addition to their present facility which would be generally to the west of the
bu.ildino and the rear of the building. The proposed addition would be constructed
i on an existing retaining wall . Previously, there was a sloped portion of landscaping
s
and basically this was to ensure that the foundation in thipart of the building "
i
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 1976 PAGE 4 {
i
would not freeze. Mr. Sobiech also noted that the basic buildinn covers approximately
50 - 51 % and with the additional proposal, they would be in the neighborhood of
about 55 - 56% lot coverage. The Appeals Commission did, however, recommend i
approval. He also pointed out that the construction of the initial structure was '
in the early fifties prior to the requirements that presently exist and he thought
perhaps some additional stipulations with the building permit could be made in that j
they would work with the Staff to acquire a joint parking agreement with Burlington
Northern. There is a concentrated parking problem in the area; however, to the
south there is a lot that is basically empty all of the time.
Councilman Fitzpatrick questioned the reasons for the greatly increased on-street
parking and Mr. Arvid R. Hansen, 4300 Main. Street N.E. , responded it was due to the
fact that there are all kinds of salesmen coming and going to Burlington Northern.
Mr. Hansen proceeded to mention that the average call of a salesman is 15 minutes
and Burlington Northern probably net 100 salesmen, and they get approximately
10 a day.
Mr. Qureshi stated that a stipulation could be made wherein authorization be given
the administration to work with the property owners to study a plan that would be an
appropriate arrangement on the parking problem.
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to approve the recommendation of the Appeals
Commission for a variance to increase the lot coverage, and that the petitioner
work with the City Administration to try to alleviate part of the parking problem
that exists both along on-street parking and on property. Seconded by Council-
woman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION by Councilwoman Kukowski to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission.
Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee
declared the motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 112-1976 - ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND FINAL_ PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND
ESTIMATES OF COSTS THEREOF: STREET IMPROVEMEPi7 P OJECT ST. 1977-1 AND ST. 1X77-2 (PiSAS):
Mayor Nee stated that it would be in order to a end the resolution with reference to
1977-1 :. Mayor Nee stated that after the plans and specifications and cost estimates
have been prepared, the item. wd 11 come back o e more for action by the City Council at
which time a deletion could be made if in the judgment of the Council , such a deletion
should be made.
Regarding Channel Road, Mayor Nee stated.t t the resolution deletes that part of Channel
Road north of 68th Avenue. He then asked f there was a motion to modify the Charnel
Road proposal. Councilman Starwalt state that he had a proposal for modification and
it takes into consideration vievrpoints f some of the people regarding the sanitary
sewer. He further stated that he would ike to include the ennineerina all the tray to
the end, including the possibility of a cul-de-sac.
VY. Sobiech stat-�d that if during the ounci1 's travels through the neighborhood; ti.:-re
are any the%y Can add thP!P ba in. Hoyle". r, the resoiUt7C;11 would order 0,
`incl pi „s and sp.cific tions for th s. They can h prenared zoid th,=y can be diel,t,ed
at a later time. They co.ild work wii i.hr.- adjacent pro,,iorty owr.-'.yrs on the sanitary
sel,.er problem. As it now exists, ho lever, it is going to be very expensive. t1r. So : ech
stated that he believed it would be okay at this time to order the improvement and
nothing +:could be lost if it was del -ted at the neva resolution.
Councilman Starwalt stated that al houCih he realized the next hearinn would not be a
public hearing, he questioned whe er there could be a letter notification from the City
to the affected property owners s that they are made aware of the meeting.
Mr. Qureshi stated that it may b more appropriate if the Administration contact these
people personally and give them 11 of the background information. If they have a
change, they can contact one of the councilmembers.
MOTION by Councilman Starwalt o add northon 68th to Channel Road through the cul-de-sac.
Councilwoman Kukowski stated at she was going to second it just so they can have the
plans drawn up, review them, nd be in contact with those concerned before a final move
I is made on the matter. She later withdrew her second and Mayor Nee stated that the
motion failed for lack of a econd.
' d
CITY OF FRIDLEY '
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N. E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
TELEPHONE ( 612)571 -3450
November 17, 1976
CITY COUNCIL
ACTION TAKEN NOTICE
'l Thomas Skiba
4010 Bunker Creek Blvd.
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
L.S. #76-10, Split Lot 11 , Auditor's
Dear Mr, Skiba: Subdivision #129 to gain two residential
building sites.
On November 15, 1976 the Fridley City Council
officially approves; your request for Lot split
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.
Sincerely,
1ZOLD BOARDS"SAN
CITY PLANNER
JLB/de
Stipulations:
None
Concur with action taken.
UTIOP
s cZ
— 2
W 2
s