Loading...
LS70-07 Form #5-68 LOT SPLIT APPLICATION CITY OF FRIDLEY FOR CITYs /�� Applicant's Name APPLICANT:�. � PoNo fey Lot Split # 70-07— ADDRESS: - Street "City ip Code Date Filed; FM TELEPHONE # - Fee:$ ieceipt ioome Business Council Action:D�0a���� REMARKS: PROPERTY OWNERS) -3 —. :9 � C— , A �� @ ADDRESS(ES) w p, o Street City Zip Code M � 24 o m p v Street City Zip Code ° '-4 W 'rA TELEPHONE #(S) `�� v m a Home Business +� m +11 cd O U M O ri Property Location on Street or Exact Street Address (IF ANY)/Z, , ta�2f2 W Legal Description of Property: 1 R//,r,�,r Reason for Lot Split: r i f?�I Q a 177 �'�r F'�i � �-�12! , .4 L� ►,✓� r� Total Area of Property sq. ft. Present Zoning C a s ficatim The undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this application are true and - correct. DATE._,. �' j—/j�D S I GNATURZ BELOW FOR CITY USE ONLY (Sea reverse side for additional inrtrq,O Vii : PLATS & SUBS: Date of Consideration - Remarks: PLANNING COMMISSION: Date of Consideration - Remarks: CITY COUNCIL: Date of Consideration - Reawrkes 3 LOT SPLIT APPLICATION PROCEDURE 1 . Obtain application form at City Hall. (6431 University Ave. N.E. , Fridley 2. Return completed application form with the required sketch of the property involved and the lot split fee of $15.00 for each original lot being split. 3. The application will be submitted to the Plats & Subdivisions and Streets do Utilities Subcommittee for recommendations. This Committee meets once a month, when required. The City will supply the applicant with minutes of the Subcommittee. 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 pare«-:e ,treat- ! w. '!- al: AxistirAg 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. 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 hie 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 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. ............................................................................................... .........., of the County of Anoka ...and State of........ Minnesota .......... parties of the second part, ltite� et'iJ, That the said partJ.P,.,9.. of the first part, in consideration of the m7a of........................... One Dollar and other valuable considerations------------------------------ .............................................................................................................................................................................................-DOLL to.........then...............in hand paid by the said parties of the second part, the receipt wTrereof is hereby acknowl- edged, do............ hereby Grant, Bargain, Quitclaim,.and Convey unto the said parties of the second pare as joint tenants and not as tenants in coinnzon, their assigns, the survivor of said parties, and the heirs and assigns of the survivor, Forever, all the tract...... or parcel...... of land lying and being in the County of . ...............Anoka ...................................and State of.ifinnesota, described as follows, to-wit: That part of Lot 20, Block 2, Sandhurst Addition, described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of Lot 20; i thence proceeding Southwesterly a distance of 15 feet along the boundary between Lot 20 and Lot 19 of Block 2, Sandhurst j I! Addition; thence Easterly to a point on Hartman Circle 6 feet ! South from the point of beginning; thence Northerly along the curvature of Hartman Circle to --pie point of beginning. I I Lot Split #70--07 Albert H. Hartmann L. 20, B1. 2, Sandhurst Add. r STATE DEED TAX iS i -- I t I r I � # I t i i i I I ! I a I } To abe anb to obi a frame, o �? � Together with all the h_.reditaments and appurtenances there- unto belonging or in anywise appertaining to the said parties of the g second part, their assigns, the sur- f said t -vivor o i d parties, and the heirs and assigns of the survivor,Forever, the said parties of the second part taking as joint tenants and not as tenants in common. � t I i Irt Te-Omonp Mf erect, The said part.ies.. of tTv,first part hd7e........ hereunto set....their hand...S. the day and year forst above written. // InPresence o ltichar�"jJ: 7`xezona c ""' of I ��11 •:.f.�. t..�. .... �J. '�4 V .3.-G, ............................................................................,f....................................... ..............................................................zll; �• i • ,q R / p ID Vv;f 3 y f a ALBERT H. HARTMANN L.S. #70-07 M=� 5 L. 20, B1. 2, Sandhurst Add. • r "' 6 ft-triangular parcel for drivewayy n33A k7N a �,�,' 1� s ,�,�_Icy !,(( •r. ��•.�;,AO P - tltPI, M IS " 4 ,1:y.�f to V yy"v`� !�(�- I� '' —(�-J _`•��-- D Nue41{ tt ` t� / 9 I CL Ov Y 140 cc 3: 1 V�r`$ •r a.e. -ic .rx-a . V K rtJ' r $� ��Qpy \ �, gt 11 x t a , ct 1i5 4 r ' AY 4OS 7'MA TH W iii tr,r l'S 1a / I �:s T- 4 �I] _ r i a' •� i a �17`h` P io V O a S IIL i t �, •� `_` y:. .m...-. . �, 4, � ` ! ham) 9 /0 J g i `V v �• t� FR A,4 ter AMC RI CE } � a A G,.. ,SFA;" wQO) ,� .�•"� - v < '� 10 Plats & Subs.-Str. & Util. Subcom. Meeting - May 6 Page 2 from the North Half and a 67 foot lot from the South Half,be approved providing that the South Half of Lot 20 is contingent in a sale with Lots 7 and 8 whenever they are sold. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. I 2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #70-07, ALBERT H. HARTMANN: Six foot triangular parcel from Lot 20, Block 2, Sandhurst Addition added to Lot 19, to provide more room for existing driveway. Mr. and Mrs. Hartmann were present. r Mr. Hartmann explained that they and the Trezonas would like to keep the existing driveway at 16 feet at the point where it meets Hartman Circle. The agreement was for him to put the driveway at its present location when his garage was built in order to have a straight approach to the street. The two driveways are separated by a small island where the mailboxes and shrubbery are placed. Mr. Hartmann also brought in the quit claim deed from the Trezonas deeding the triangular piece to them. The Engineering Assistant said, because this was abstract property, the legal description would not be too difficult to file. MOTION by Meissner, seconded by Zeglen, that the Plats & Subdivisions- Streets & Utilities Subcommittee approve the Lot Split #70-07 by Albert H. Hartmann to split a six foot triangular parcel from Lot 20, Block 2, Sand- hurst Addition and add to Lot 19 to provide more room for the existing driveway. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. e 2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #70-06, GEORGE L. WALQUIST: Lot 6 and S11 of Lot 7, Block 1, Erco's 1st Addition. Site for dental clinic. The petitioner was not present. The following discussion showed that the dental clinic was within the zoning category; there is a North/South easement going down the middle of Block 1 between Lots S and 6 and Lots 4 and 7; the front footage of the request is 139 feet; the new Zoning Ordinance requires 200 feet for C-2 property. The Subcommittee agreed that problems with the older plats and small sized lots, would be coming up in the future where there would not be enough land to meet the requirements of the new Zoning Ordinance adopted November 3, 1969. The consensus of opinion seemed to be that the new Zoning Ordinance referred to new plats, the requirements being for larger lots than those of the older plats and with no provisions made for the type of a problem the Walquist request presents. There were no objections to the building, but the Subcom- mittee felt they could not act on the request according to the new ordinance when the footage is not large enough, and hoped that the thinking of the Plan- ning Commission and Council about the variations of this type, which are bound to come up in the future, would give them some direction to follow. MOTION by Zeglen, seconded by Meissner, that the Plats & Subdivisions- Streets & Utilities Subcommittee table the Lot Split Request, L.S. #70-06 by George L. Walquist to split off the South Half of Lot 7, Block 1, Erco's 1st Addition until the feeling of the Planning Commission and Council is Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 1970 Page 3 MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commission approve the Lot Split Request, L.S. #70-05, Cpl. James L. Robinson by G. D. Giancola, Attorney, to split Lot 20, Central Avenue Addition, in half creating a 68 foot lot from the North Half and a 67 foot lot from the South Half. Minish amended the motion to add "that in the event Lots 7 and 8, Central Avenue Addition, were sold, the remaining portion of Lot 20 would be combined with them. UPON A VOICE VOTE, THE MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 3. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #70-07, ALBERT H. HARTMANN: Six foot triangular parcel from Lot 20, Block 2, Sandhurst Addition added to Lot 19 to provide room for existing driveway. Mr. and Mrs. Hartmann were present. i Inasmuch as this request is a simple lot split and that the Plats & Subdivi- sions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee had recommended approval earlier in the evening, and Mr. Hartmann explained that this request was to make legal a verbal agreement made quite a few years ago, and that the legal description would be fairly short, a motion was made to concur with the Subcommittee. MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Minish, that the Planning Commission concur with the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee and recommend approval of the Lot Split Request, L.S. #70-07, Albert H. Hartmann for that part of Lot 20, Block 2, Sandhurst Addition described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of Lot 20; then proceeding Southwesterly a distance of 15 feet along the boundary between Lot 20 and Lot 19 of Block 2, Sandhurst Addition; thence Easterly to a point on Hartman Circle 6 feet South from the point of beginning; thence Northerly along the curvature of Hartman Circle to the point of beginning. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 4. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #70-06, GEORGE L. WALQUIST: To split Lot 7, Block 1, Erco's 1st Addition in half combining the S� of Lot 7 with Lot 6 to make a build- ing site for a proposed dental clinic. Mr. Walquist was not present. Darrel Clark, EngineeringAssistant, statedted the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee continued this item, the reason being they felt they would like guidance from the Planning Commission and the City Council about creating a commercial lot smaller than allowed in the Ordinance. In this case, the lot would be quite a bit smaller. They realized the Planning Commission and Council passed the Ordinance requiring 200 feet for frontage and an area of 25,000 square feet, but wondered what the intent was on these old plats where the existing lots are smaller than those of new plats. They did not object to the dental clinic. Schmedeke added that there will be more and more smaller commercial structures wanting to come in and did not believe the land should be left open only to large investors. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 1970 PAGE 16 RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 6, 1970: 1. REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #70-04, CPL. JAMES L. ROBINSON BY G.D. GIANCOLA TO REZONE LOTS 1 TO 6, LOT 9, AND NORTH 68 FEET OF LOT 20, CENTRAL AVENUE ADDITION: Rezone Lots 1 to 4 and Lot 9 from C-1 to C-2 and Lots 5 and 6 and north 68 feet of Lot 20, Central Avenue Addition from M-1 to C-2. (Corner of 73rd Avenue and Central Avenue) MOTION by Councilman Breider to set the Public Hearing for the rezoning request by Cpl. James L. Robinson for June 8, 1970. Seconded by Councilman Sheridan. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Harris Pro tem declared the motion carried. 2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #70-05, CPL. JAMES L. ROBINSON BY G.D. GIANCOLA, ATTORNEY: Lot 20, Central Avenue Addition. Split so N-� is 68 feet and S� is 67 feet. (126 feet west of Central Avenue and north of Brook Street) It was agreed that this lot split will be taken up at the same time as the rezoning. 3. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #70-07 ALBERT H. HARTMANN: Six foot triangular parcel from Lot 20, ock 2, Sandhurst Addition added to Lot 19 to provide room for existing driveway. MOTION by Councilman Liebl to concur with the lot split requested by Albert H. Hartmann. Seconded by Councilman Breider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Harris Pro tem declared the motion carried. 4. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #70-06, GEORGE L. WALQUIST: To split Lot 7, Block 1, Erco's 1st Addition in half combining the S� of Lot 7 with Lot 6 to make a building site for a proposed dental clinic. The City Engineer said that there was no action necessary by the Council as the Planning Commission has not made a recommendation as yet. He added that this is the item that Mr. Eldon Schmedeke spoke of in the beginning of the Meeting. MOTION by Councilman Breider to receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 6, 1970. Seconded by Councilman liebl. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Harris Pro tem declared the motion carried. RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 12, 1970: 1. AREQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 45.053, 4B, SUBPARAGRAPH 3, TO REDUCE THE SIDEYARD ADJOINING AN ATTACHED GARAGE FROM 5 FEET TO 4 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE ON LOT 7, BLOCK 3, HEATHER HILLS ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 6243 KERRY LANE N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA (REQUEST BY ROBERT D. LEDIN, 1923 LINCOLN STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA) : The City Engineer reported that there was no action necessary as this item was denied by the Board of Appeals. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 1970 PAGE CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR STORM SEWER CONNECTION TO ONONDAGA STREET SYSTEM BY MIKE J. ELNICKY: The City Engineer said that he is building an apartment house and is willing to put in a pipe through to Bacon Drive on Onondaga Street. There is no easement so the City would have to acquire one, and he cannot hook onto the line in 73rd Avenue without digging up the new street. The question is if the Council wishes to allow him to develop, with the thought that there will be a storm sewer system later when the property develops more, or to get an easement for him to connect onto the line in Onondaga. Councilman Sheridan asked if he put in the conduit from his building site to the line in Onondaga, would he be willing to put in the size pipe to take care of future development. The City Engineer said yes, the size is no problem, the problem would be the cost of the easement. Councilman Sheridan said that by acquiring an easement, the City may be dictating the future development. He thought that it would be better to let him develop his property until the development in the area dictates a storm sewer system, then put it in as a project. The City Engineer said that this area was originally deleted from a district, so when it goes in, it will become a sub-district. MOTION by Councilman Harris to let Mr. Elnicky develop his property with surface drainage and a ponding area at the back lot line, until future development dictates a storm sewer system. Seconded by Councilman Breider. Upon a' voice vote, Kirkham, Harris, Breider and Sheridan voting aye, Liebl voting nay, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried. Councilman Liebl said that he felt that this was creating a problem, and if the developer was willing to put in the pipe, this would have been better. RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING OF APRIL 27, 1970: MOTION by Councilman Harris to receive the Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of April 27, 1970. Seconded by Councilman Breider for discussion. Councilman Breider said in reference to Chase Island, that the Parks and Recreation Commission seem to be talking about a considerable expenditure of money. . He said that in his opinion he would rather see the money spent on existing parks rather than the development of a new park. He said that he would like to see some priorities if they are starting on their budget for the next year. Councilman Harris agreed that he felt that this would be a low priority item. He said that he thought that this was indicated to them before. Mayor Kirkham said that he felt that some areas should be left natural, and Councilman Sheridan agreed. Mayor Kirkham said that this could be done sometime, but he did not believe in the immediate future. THE VOTE UPON THE MOTION, being a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried unanimously. MAYOR KIRKHAM- LEFT THE MEETING AND MAYOR HARRIS PRO TEM PRESIDED FOR THE REST OF THE MEETING.