LS79-03 Form #5-68LOT SPLIT APPLICATION
-Y-----
' CITY OF FRIDLEY as
FOR CITY USE ONLY
J Applicant's Name
" APPLICANT: i,c S -Sn'4 r T r c !_h
_ Lot Split. -C'
ADDRESS: 6-113 9 ewerimPC-- IpfrAC e-
S.Sy z z
Street City Zip Code Date Filed:
o N TELEPHONE # Fee:$ Receipt WHI A
Home Business Council Action:Date
rd 0REMARKS:
We—
OWNER(S)_j a 4- (D A i I
4-1
P +' r-f t S 7� A Aj !a
C) •rq ;:5
P,
.0 �
Pi P m ADDRESS(ES)6. YQ K/y[oy(Pc,� /P//ACP !�r ��� •��``{•� 2
m a 5 o Street City Zip Code
w
o ED0
Street City Zip Code
o to 0) � TELEPHONE #(S) (2_j a/ � �3 7 _3
Home Business
PP
4`1 m -P cd
14 Pa 0
m o P
m -� Property Location on Street /�
or Exact Street Address (IF ANY) Oq.r
w
�-+ Legal Description of Property:
0
Reason for Lot Split:
-0 & l - 4g 15r
Total Area of Property 41d ft. Present Zoning Classification
The undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and
representations stated in this application are true and
correct.
DATE: 7 _ 7!Z sIGNATUR."Z Z Zj_,Ze
BELOW FOR CITY USE ONLY (See ie7verse side for dditional instructions
CHECKED BY STAFF DATE
Remarks:
PLANNING COMMISSION: Date of Consideration -
Remarks:
CITY COUNCIL: Date of Consideration -
Remarks:
r
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 $300 for each original lot being split.
75.j o
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.
9. In all cases where Council action has been sought and denied, no petition for
identical action can be presented until a period of six months has elapsed.
NOTE: THE RESULTING REAL ESTATE TAXES AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR
THE NEW PARCELS IN TOTAL AFTER THE LOT SPLIT MAY EXCEED THE
AMOUNT ASSESSED TO THE ORIGINAL PARCEL. THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT
OF FRIDLEY MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF
ADDITIONAL TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS.
G-� LS #79-03
John & Gail Estli g `
--'! �� EGANT FI t.' Vic. N ►
_ 40 Rig erview Te r
2825 HARRIET AVE. E F MINNEAPOQ5,MINNfiSCTA
For Arthur Veifi
CD10
c rn
23
Iron L•16' 1, ;{°r (�`� ac,(, H�u s e � �
gs? R igsr Scale; 1" 50"1,
R=4
6' R=-�7o:oz w
DescrI pt ions Lot i, Block! I, VE IT'S ADDITION.
i
We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of
the boundaries of the land' above desciiibed and of the location of all building
If any, thereon, and all visible encrc?achments, if any, from or on said land.
Dated this ibth day of J'lIY 19
EGAN, F1EL0 b NOwAK •
�Urvevors—
c i le N 0,1 23 11800k No. -'372 - 1 by 7i % ,i
Q- Al
Soo look
i,LO
LS #79-03
John & Gail Estling
6440 Riverview Terr.
a_0 h
.1s�irinrs X 'In,R 220 fS6.o, 4por4y
.7 yRAC
W
OAq*
TRAC.1
NO,'
rt?�CT pj� As ,
.001
S.XH.
f-rd
1A
pr t
%v ta
1.0
TO W
V
V
4, A,j
13�,)� ; " ,
Oil12
2
fl\ I ll
�"Lvl�.\� A bq uj
> rf
t , OawA1_
0 es & A
T7
4OASS .
1
i3
(0 \A jq
6,
j,5 A el,f
10 Ilk (,A31-33
i4, 1,0 D
-01�
V*
2710
64\A
OL
1:4) 4�TH t
101 \9
(.
30
9
10
,6
x"I
1{ 1
rjz Is 12(u
AO
6 SSO rVA fW AY
_f
75
M. b336 n, t �"" � 2 f� � �"'r `;y \ �V -03 112
lit
> 90
6.!,�4
14 1 .9
ozo7. IV 15;'�
00 7
6 3 WAY
N E.
9-4 122
J,z�i I "
_90 7
C7
n
A
VA
F1,,7
n CITY OF FRIDL EY, SUBJECT
MINNESOTA COMMISSION APPLICATION
peportm N�sio fJumUer ( lieu raga Approved by polo _
FIL O_ Ap [f3
/ DRS• FILE E...:..._
COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST /111 /%
RETURN TO PLANNING �" " ouE
/ COMMENTS
wwm c-,16,a r r e
da
oick
Jerry
g-j-��
x
PLANNING COTMAISSION MEETING, AUGUST 8, 1979 - PAGE 6
U A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION R
CAR UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Harris formed the petitioner that the request had been recommmended
to Council fo proval with stipulations and would go to Council on
August 20, 1979, d suggested that all interested parties attend.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: C IDERATION OF A RE VEST FOR A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT: SP t'179-10 , 'E
x ' • I.:3UR IiOi,.�S II'1C. : Per Section 205-157
D to allow the constr tion of two new dwelling's on Lots i
27-30 , Block S Riverview Heb hts in CPR-2 zoning flood lain
the same beim 8125 Riverview `1 Face N.E.
Mr. Harris stated that this item was to b", continued for two weeks at
the request of the petitioner. '4 _, j
MOTION by Tis. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, continue the
request for Special Use Permit SP #79-10, for two wee
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED MOTION
CARRIED UNANIP,IOUSLY.
4. REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT L.S . -0 BY JOHN & GAIL ESTLING:
Split off the Westerly 20 fe t of 1 Block -12 Veit' s Addition
_(6440 Riverview ' errace NT.E. and add it to Lot 2 Block 2 Veit' s
Addition Riverview Terrace N.E.J.
Mr. Boardman stated that page 23 of the agenda was a plot plan layout.
The plot plan indicates a building to the west which is 23x32 and that
building is not there. What they are planning on doing is splitting
off 20 feet of this lot and adding it on to the house to the west.
Ivir. Boardman showed the Commissioners an aerial photograph of the area
and explained the situation more clearly. He stated that he understood
that any garage to be located on the property would be located to the
rear of the house with access off Riverview Terrace. Mr. Boardman
explained to the Commissioners where the lot line would be,
John & Gail Estling came forward and showed -the Commissioners a copy of
their survey which showed the lot line more clearly.
Ms. Schnabel stated that it was her understanding that the main purpose
of this split was to increase the size of the lot. She asked if that
was correct?
Mr. Harris stated that was correct and it would also give them more
parking which they need. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman if 641 Way was
a dedicated street?
Mr. Boardman stated that he was not sure and that it didn't look like it.
He stated that they couldn' t get a snowplow in there if they wanted to.
Mr. Harris suggested they look into that and if it is not vacated, we
should .do it.
Mr. Boardman agreed and stated he would look into it.
PLANNING COPIMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 81 1979 - PAGE 5
s, Hughes also stated that they should have some stipulations, one of
1ch would be to close the access near the neighbors property. Also,
t y should be asked to keep the parking lot in good order. Chances
ar they don' t sweep it often enough since the plantings in front are
not aken care of very well. They may need to be asked to do that.
Also, �they should be asked to make sure they don' t have the children' s
activi�, es close to the neighbor' s yard. They have a big enough area
to avoid that. ,
Ms. Schnabel agreed and stated that some consciousness-raising on the
part of the church could be in order especially in regards to thelek
problems of the neighbors. She felt the two of them could come to a 1
satisfactory splution. She stated she could understand the concerns
of the neighbor'..,in terms of working nights and sleeping days and the
church should be, willing to close off that access.
Mr. Hora agreed. l
Mr. Treuenfels also agreed especially in light of the fact that Fridley !(
does not have another 'lay care center centrally located. j
Mr. Harris stated that he,. felt it was a good proposal with modifications. !`
He suggested a security fexice around the playground equipment for their
own benefit. That kind of `�qquipment would be an attractive nusiance
and the church would be liable. Also, something could be done with
signage for the egress off of`•,1,.7onroe Street indicating that pickup and
drop off traffic should use the, access off Dlonroe Street only.
Mr. Boardman stated that would be'-:,,required anyway.
Mr. Harris stated that it should be`stipulated. He also recommended
that the church put some plantings and vegetative screening along the
neighbor' s property line. He stated that they could possibly do this
in a. phase program with the fencing and,;driveway blockage being done
this year and the vegetative screening b' ing done in the Spring.
h70TION by' Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. . Treuenfels, to recommend to
Council approval of the request for Special ` Tse Permit SP #79-09,
Fridley United Methodist Church: Per Sectiom,205.051, 3, F, to allow
the church to have a day care center, located ''on Lots 1-3 and Lots 22-
25, Block 2, Christie' s Addition, the same beinx 666 Mississippi Street
N.E. , with the following stipulations: 1) the d !aveway access to Bennett
Street be chained off during the week beginning with the first day of
business; 2) proper fence of playground facilities y the first day of
business
• the church plants a vegetative barrie3 � between their
3) p
property and the properties located west of the churcl�, to be completed
in the Spring of 1980. The plantings will be approved`�by Staff.
Ms. Finney stated that in regards to the second stipulate n, the church
Board had discussed that and felt that the fence would be ore attractive
to children. �
RTr. Harris stated that by fencing it they were at least takin , ,action
to prevent someone from using it. If no .action' were taken, the could
be liable.
Ms. Finney asked how high the fence would have to be?
Mr. Boardman stated that a 4 foot fence would be adequate.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 8, 1979 - PAGE 7
There were no comments from the audience regarding this item.
IYIOTICN by res. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to recommend to
Council approval of the request for a Lot Split, L.S. #?9-03, by- John
and Gail Estling: to
split off the Westerly 20 feet of Lot 1, Block 1,
Veit's Addition (6440 Riverview Terrace N.E. ) and add it to Lot 2,
Block 2, Veit's Addition (6438 Riverview Terrace N.E. ) , with the
following stipulation: the 6 foot utility easement to the north of
the property line will be retained by the City.
Mr. Harris stated that it appeared that the lot would be in excess of
9,000 square feet after the split.
Mr.. Boardman stated that was correct and there was no problem there.
Both lots would be in excess of 9, 000 square feet.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRT4AN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Harris informed the petitioner that they had recommended approval
to Council and this would appear before Council on August 20, 1979. He
suggested all interested parties attend. i
CONTINUED: SAV 1179-03, CITY OF FRIDLEY & CONSIDERATION OF STATUS
OF UNUSED ALLEYS IN FRIDLEY:
Mr. Boa an recommended they ask the Community Development Commission !�
to handle e consideration of the status of unused alleys and also '
that they ho SAV #79-03.
I,Ir. Harris agreed.
MOTION by TATs. Schnabel, , econded by Mr. Treuenfels, to send the consider-
ation of the status of un ed alleys in Fridley to the Community Develop-
ment Commission for their snd request that the Commission report
their findings back to the Pla ing Commission. ?
Ms. Schnabel stated that the .Communis! Development Commissicn should
have the direction and guidance of Sta"Min studying this.
Mr. Boardman agreed. .
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARR DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANITAIOUSLY.
MOTION by T4s. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to c tinue SAV
request #79-03 for future consideration.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE TION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
k-
r.
k
t
PLANNING COTZTISSION MEETING, AUGUST 8, -19 79 - PAGE 8
6. CONTINUEDt PUBLIC HEARING ON COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
PARKSt
MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve the goals, F
ob3ectives and policies as amended by the Parks & Recreation Commission.
Ms. Hughes stated that one of the things they added was an objective on
water and there was more emphasis than originally on natural areas and
environmental education within the realm of parks and recreation. She
stated those were the major differences. Also, there were a lot of
word changes. j
Mr. Harris stated that he didn't get the feeling if they felt the
amount of park acreage was adequate.
Ms. Hughes stated that they would like to examine that in light of
whether or not the Plan is going to be adopted with the additional
2300 units. She stated they were going to look at all the parks to i
see if they should be designated as parks. The Shore is in the pro-
cess of being acquired between the County and the City. On an acreage
basis, the chances are pretty good, even at our fullest potential for
population, that we will have enough acreage on that rule of thumb.
Whether they are all located correctly is another question and whether
or not they fit the classifications and the neighborhoods usage is
another question. In the implementation of the parks and open space
plan, they expect to be going through and reclassifying where necessary
to change uses, having new parks and trying to make it a more usable
system.
PTs. Hughes went on to say that the only place she could remember where
they addressed the question of adequate acreage was in the Goal. She
had recommended they say in the Goal that they want an adequate park
system. She stated that she had originally asked the Park Commission
to add a statement on need of a cettain number of acreas per population
or something along that line. Because of the reclassification program,
they did not come up with that statement. She stated that they decided
not to add in a statement saying that they want to meet the national
standards mainly because we have a fair amount of County space in here
that we don't count in our park system.
Mr. Harris asked if they had considered the additional 2300 units in
their deliberations? He didn' t get a feeling for that.
Ms. Hughes stated that in some of the discussions in the Planning
Commission that had come out and she did take that back to -the Parks
and Recreation Commission and told them the things the Planning Commission
was doing that she felt would impact on the actions of the Parks Com„missio,i ,
There were several things she felt should be considered and the increase
in housing was one of them. The things she suggested they look at were
the housing and population increases, the changes in age classification L
of people living here and the redevelopment area in the Center City.
That redevelopment area has had significant impacts on us. Ms. Hughes
stated that the thing she found difficult in the Plan was that they
really haven' t gone a step further and said what our implementation
plan would be.
243 1,
REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 1979 PAGE 4
or Nee asked if they would consider moving the driveway farther to the
as and more towards the corner.
Mr. Fer son stated he is sure they wouldn't mind moving it, but that the
expense m ht be a problem and factor to consider.
Councilman Sc eider asked Mr. Ferguson if he felt there was no compromise i
or middle groun Mr. Ferguson felt there are things they could work on and
that other things uld be more valuable than a chain in solving some of the
other problems menti ed.
l Councilman Schneider sta d his concern is the noise and asked what they
would propose as an altern ive to chaining or closing off the driveway or i
removing the driveway perman tly.
Mr. Ferguson stated he has a har time understanding what the problem is as he
felt there isn't any problem with noise.
Mayor Nee stated he has to assume if t e isn't any problem, Mr. Rejman
wouldn't be here.
Mr. Ferguson felt he got tones of other probl' is that are creating this impasse.
Councilman Schneider stated he hated to delay the ening of the center, but
asked if they would prefer it be tabled to try and rk out a compromise.
He felt something should be worked out that specifica addressed Mr. Rejman's
problem with the noise.
Mr. Ferguson stated he felt this item should be tabled until" he next meeting. i
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to table this request by Fridley thodist
Church for a special use permit until September 10, 1979. Seconde y
Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee de red
the motion carried unanimo
LOT SPLIT RE U T, LS #79-03, BY OHN AND GAIL ESTLING 6440 RIVERVIEW
TERRACE :
Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated this is a request for a lot split to split
off the westerly 20 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Viet's Addition, and add it to
the property to the west. Mr. Qureshi stated the Planning Commission has recom-
mended approval of this request and indicated that the staff would work with the
property owner to see that this 20 foot portion and the parcel to the west to
which it is proposed to be attached gets one parcel number.
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation of the I '
Planning Commission and grant Lot Split #79-03. Seconded by Councilman
Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion
carried unanimously.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 17, 1979:
M ureshi, City Manager, stated the Environmental Quality Commission has
recom ded that the City become a member of the North Management Committee.
Councilman eider asked what is involved and the costs for becoming a
member.
r Councilman Fitzpatrick ted a group of other governmental bodies did pay
for a consultant's invests ion and report and Fridley did not participate
in this and, as a result, had uble getting the report. He stated, one
of the reasons the City didn't pa ' ipate was that it didn't involve Fridley,
since the river crossing was propose rther North, but it seems to have gotten
closer to Fridley which now involves the more.
Mr. Qureshi stated all the meetings that are he re open and the City staff has
been attending the meetings and keeping up with the velopments. He stated,
even if the City is on the Management Committee, it wou 't have any impact !
because we would be in the minority. He stated, oriyinall hen the concept
was conceived, the City was part of the original team regardin he concept
of the Northtown Corridor, however, when it was determined it wou 't be in
Fridley, the only involvement of the City was attending the meetings.
i
stated it has come down to three alternatives that are being considered a
1
242
REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 1919 PAGE 3
Mr. Alfred Reiman, 633 Bennett Drive, stated his bedroom is located right next
to the church property and pointed out that his wife works nights and comes home
around 2 A.M. and felt, with the traffic from the day care center, they had
to shut off this exit on Bennett Drive or put up some fence for the noise.
Councilman Schneider stated he has driven through the church's parking lot and
would agree with Mr. Rejman that the driveway to Bennett Drive is extremely
close to Mr. Rejman's house. He stated he would support the chaining of the
driveway and asked Mr. Rejman if he felt this would help. J
Mr. Reiman stated he felt it would help some, but that they would hear some of
the noise and have the lights from the cars.
Mr. Ferguson felt.that 90-95% of the people would use Monroe Street because it
is closer to Mississippi. He felt for the few cars that would go through, it
wasn't worth chaining the driveway.
Councilman Schneider questioned if it was necessary to even have the driveway
to Bennett Drive, if there were so few cars using it. Mr. Ferguson felt it f
was necessary for other activities and snow plowing and funerals. I
Councilman Schneider questioned if this special use permit was approved, with
all the stipulations as recommended by the Planning Commission, if they would
have their day care center. Mr. Ferguson stated that really wouldn't be his
decision.
Mr. Ferguson stated he couldn't see why the property should be restricted for
a limited number of cars. He thought the type of people that will be coming
to the center aren't the ones turning the place into a racetrack.' He felt,
if people abuse their cars in the parking lot, they would be the first ones
to reprimand them. He felt the noise from the cars, if they use the exit on f
Bennett Drive, would be very minimal , but couldn't guarantee it. -i
Mayor Nee stated his problem with the chain is he felt it was dangerous. Mr.
Ferguson stated they felt also it is a question of liability of the put up
the chain.
Councilman Schneider felt the concern, as he understands it, is the noise of
the cars less than 10 feet from Mr. Rejman's window. He pointed out setbacks are
required in front and rear yards to try and prevent these situations. He stated
they have an unanimous recommendation from the Planning Commission and, in the
spirit of cooperation, hoped the church would be willing to try this as the
purpose of the special use permit is to handle exactly these kinds of situations.
Councilwoman Moses suggested possibly the use of saw horses rather than a chain.
Mr. Ferguson stated there is still the problem of maintaining it. He felt
a barricade of any sort just attracts trouble.
Councilwoman Moses asked Mr. Ferguson if he had another method to propose to
keep the traffic out from under Mr. Rejman's window.
Mr. Ferguson stated he didn't think this is a problem, but that there are other
problems forcing this issue, such as the bus, which they will be getting rid of
shortly, the condition of the parking lot and the shrubbery. Mr. Ferguson
stated he would agree there could be more shrubbery, but didn't like the idea
of chaining the driveway.
Councilman Schneider stated he would like to see a solution which is acceptable j
to both the church and Mr. Rejman. He stated he sympathized with Mr. Rejman and
felt he had a valid concern.
I
I
CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N. E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
TELEPHONE ( 612)571 -3450
/AIA August 24, 1979
I TY-C 01.
AICTION
Mr. & Mrs. John Estlina
6440 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Fridley, 'in 55432
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Estling:
On August 20, 1979 "-hp F-r-id'. y "'t-y Coul'!Cil
app'rovr.?d your rcque.st for
the list.ed below.
t-he !)oted stipulat,ions S-ign "..'he ib'e.1014. anld'
on(.'; m,py to the City of Fridley.
V 0
ou h"a"re a fiv q st-A,o.,j s rega ro,i 1",Q. Ve a-# >Ii ,:U 11
1CF-, atf,7
j 1
C-N
J L P/d
r, u a t c ns
1 . The 6 foot utility easement to the north of the property line will be
retained by the City.
NOTE: This paper should 'be taken to the County Auditor when you want to
file the lot split at the County
TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR OF ANOKA COUNTY:
The City Council of the City of Fridley on August 20, 1979
approved the following request for a lot split to allow:
the Westerly 20 feet of Lot 1 , Block 1 , Veit's Addition to be added to
Lot 2, Block 1 , Veit's Addition
on the following property:
6438 and 6440 Riverview Terrace N.E.
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: c
Plat # S
Parcels
Lots 1 and 2
Block 1
Addition Veit's Addition
Signed
Owner(s) of Record
cc: Property Owner
Lot Split Folder
Fridley Assessing Dept. ,Real Estate File
Special Assessment Dept. File
;1