Loading...
LS79-02 Form #5-be LOT SPLIT APPLICATION CITY OF FRIDLEY FOR CITY USE ONLY Applicant's Name - APPLI CANT: 1 i r -�. Lot Split ADDRESS• / �� C�f1��LJc= ✓ q 4 _ •� Street City Zip Code Date a) co 0 TELEPHONE # -! 'f � L '7 - /, :'` Fee:L - ece ipt 1 Home Business Council Action:Date -d o REMARKS: PROPERTY OWNER(S) 0 3 1 +' co ADDRESS(ES) in 47r 5 o Street City Zip Code 4-> ,L 4-1 -P cn ca Street City Zip Code CH r° w rq TELEPHONE #(S) 0 -1 d � a ome Business 0 0)-P w -P w 14 P+ 0 M m o N •r+ k +' 1Q, Property Location on Street or Exact Street Address (IF ANY / / ��� ' - "✓ 'T f '. fi'c -1 w NLegal Description of Property: THE Reason for Lot plit: Total Area of P operty.6-_je sq. ft. Present Zoning Classification The undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this application are true and correct. DATE: — 7 2 SIGNATURE 421ele� BELOW FOR CITY USE ONLY (See reverse side for additional instructions CHECKED BY STAFF DATE Remarks: PLANNING COMMISSION: Date of Consideration Remarks: c� CITY COUNCIL: Date of Consideration Remarks: LOT SPLIT APPLICATION PROCEDURE 1. Obtain application form at City Hall (6431 University Avenue N.E. , Fridley) . 2. Return completed application form with the required sketch of the property involved and the lot split fee of $30.00 for each original lot being split. 3. The application will be checked over by Staff and the owner may be required to submit a Certificate of Survey containing a simple description of a part of a platted lot or registered lot, along with the new parcels created with all existing structures tied in. 4. The application will then be submitted to the Planning Commission for their recommendation. The Planning Commission meets on the Wednesday following the City Council meeting, which is generally the first and third Wednesdays of the month. 5. The recommendations of the Planning Commission are submitted to the City Council for final action. If a Certificate of Survey wasn't required before, it will be required for this meeting. The City Council meets on '.the first and third Mondays of the month. 6. The City Council approval may be subject to certain stipulations which must be complied with by the applicant. 7. A letter will be sent to the applicant to notify him of the Council action and to advise him to comply with the conditions imposed by the City. The letter will also contain any necessary deeds for easements and other pertinent papers for his signature. 8. When all the conditions of the lot split have been complied with, the applicant should file the lot split in Anoka County. 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 ESTAZE 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. _ y A s�oh��ins= .3 S.namou3 '2NI `JN1?J-73lV19Ni nro9bn9ns /a-d v y Ficp - a 1 s,�j aur�pa�ia�Jnr sj! /puv�pros uv./o u�' �rAo�i`Sfr�vuirpuvxn �jq�s��/ �xv'uo.:�x�`s6uJp/rr�4//nJo uot{ax,/,t�� faai-Im PLA Iar-q v V 91%fow 9y r7 figany/ -04 j o — -.r r •',� Sr ��` 41 7-1 ;�.'/�� T is,1�, •1/, err,!„ r J � ,£ _ LIS j s'f v T J � —. io bZ. � 1 v A <� .. - J 4 J ti • "fir _ 'yco . C/�C'xiul�Y •V N ,ON 7 V ! 0)p 1 1f t ;.3 h 0 l t .h.._i. � � � �t, , � � �,'� � ,.�,b � i r,� �-; � , � `�� i ! 32 ,e e rer/fi irnl o/� f%• 50. 411.,9 lee '< h v �� fr•)• -�� `�, .r I v� I LCA?. Cr,tiC t I i'TIOV c; 'i �� :ci't ref Let 3, A:• ,r+g 2 --z `I. }r SIII'divi%1on�so. 5. .,,e, rvco-,Ira :±ia A 1 � !•5 :.�,.. r � \ � L 2 nr`' , :1,•ku •:re:..t v. t ?tilln.c,tta. E:\t'F:1'? the w,•�, fret u: t 0 J t-r. ;r cr,f(! I••i Z3, :Ir•.,: F.X('F:?'T '1)u �.u:h ?O ve, Set:ir, Xar c '+3, 't :t 16, 7m.-.%ship ct 7 i h ` IIARCEi. A /ic !'''` ,1 .'.•/ Z \ I� 3 The south 110 fc•e I ,1, Audit:,r' i tat S ^ FF Suk � �` � t _ S�.S_1C.�_._r��•r.�• � ;divisi(•n No. d', :,c'c:,r(:in:: :+• t:r• recti r<.c.' ' is tit the'rCK:f, APU1c:t . vinnese) Ly t:1,F: �vsc 3(i ;�t.• .� said Lr.i 231, fcet o; Said ,.ot L3. PARCEL B — 3 7 he a(:.+L h t 3 Sclhd i v:bion fe')2 o2 CC�r(li r Atiti he ! G .n, 2 ' : \ YiC(±rel C(1 Piat ihorc(:2 , A;'..ok's� U d ) 1 \ D•.nnesot a. F:Xt"Ii i'7 the :ntl, l l n f c C f •• •* ; G,,j++ri%t' ' Qt Lot 23 and the w%!..t :O :ce: 5 of said Lot 23. i � : � i '1 0 Ce"0:ls r.On nonumint irtaN+ad tc.:r,t 4yar r.nr >otm aRt make ocvs. [•r:of ' y .q•- ,, 7A lq 15/'',/ Y.E, �. '-r (•%s rr. - 1 o:.u.o 1 Oe�o::s Pr er SE'CM tl:.?.K '7'.�• j�•� ........................... 'rqC �1li�a" .r + ••. .. �.-� E)2tos scr(ace dum,,e /�:. .� �. <^.. r • n• q ( FrGaaw^d yaraSC boor ctlr.+ G,er'q ✓rrii.� •� - �•»__- �- fi:'r•_Y:.� �•if"7J• sh4.1 5t.. .�;.,.:�, -7. C-r••.J .:t-j r/. 9;j% :+•r n•. cr•t!,:nat tms•s a t,..r r•o c•.r•rr,rrrrar�:at•n�nt,;,u•.rv'Yt id!Na 1 L P!M.,Jr•rl 01:n••IOar!G,C•WC Ono ana 41 Ihu WAt.on nt a::cw d-.1 11 - f t f rZM5 t:SRM. Z . t.om o_r a_r$4.11 .S.INC. 4.•n Fn�aC � PREPARED FOR: As w•.!rr7 Or Mt n•s _ :;,;.A. 1977 /4_'L� r r111.nrt Hey No m 25 CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N. E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE ( 612)571 -3450 September 19, 1979 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Planning Commission of the City of Fridley will be holding an informal meeting on Wednesday, September 26, 1979 at 7:30 in the Council Chamber to consider a request for a Lot Split. This request is to split off Lot 1 , Block 3, Shleffers Subdivision #1 , lying East of the East 90 feet thereof, and Lot 2, Block 2, Shaeffer' s Subdivision #1 , except the East 90 feet threof, to make two building sites for single family homes. These would probably beaddressed as 7562 and 7584 Able Street N.E. The resulting lot sizes if This lot split is recommended for approval would be approximately 7520 square feet. We are enclosing a survey of these lots showing how the petitioner intends to develop these sites. Anyone who wishes to be heard on this item may be heard at the above time and place. RICHARD H. HARRIS CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION MF'I7 �®Oo0Q90 ao� � �€ I101�s�01=1� 100 �_� � ®o©■ ®emmb©mom 00�� �1 ;00 FAi"r '■�. mo �'. ,� dooms .�� e■s• i� ITO© p©.pEi.�'A► �� -dam � i mi��mra:mio 00 0© ®� m� IOQ'v, POW _.m GMfill � `� i=tea:©A ©a:�a m© ��:2 �-�- c� / ■<IE�9y [� • - i�®oroa .'mss oo ® tsi\`kml o. 0411111���� m �mmmmmma g3 vv eeoo©t o���R� � mm . r . cr,wr a© 0® p t ��� '�• � all All an Q �� 011191 ► ®e ����� m��wm : o eaQ�1�v ��©1a®mm� T �'E©®D'�@p�!�►i �� �Q�®►O'�� wIN go W. �� asingle te" ' GRACE CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL logo III MA me 01161101E � � � uA®��mmemmmmmmm■■©�aoo�,��q EIEEe1EIEAQIoe0010 ®o a :% d0000ln■11,71 • ®m o ��/S �� .�. gr d: ��, 0 ons . � Q .���...�� Qnocm�a��amQ� r��0® ® ��ti�i► �...., ...,��:�, I �►� o �� ��,r:� �, oval ® ���•�'��� ��aeaoom soo as b O 0 .,.��aEE�: o s - �dala�o■vasa 000it� 01'���� �®oe`s�av d�© R- ZONING LEGEND - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - fit, Ire- f //,,4 T 1 , 00 DZZ Ole NE1,10 TO: Nasim Qureshi, City Manager MEMO FROM: Thomas A. Colbert, Assistant City Engineer DATE: June 11, 1975 SUBJECT: Benjam�n Backyard Drainage Information Per your request, the attached sketch shows the square footage involved in the twb individual areas that you had indicated. If you notice, the dr inage boundaries have been slightly revised, reflecting the actual areas of past assaes, uiensa ..This revises the r� total assessable area for District 'r " to 248, 405 Sq. Ft. e following table indicates the money that could be generate'Ic mt~-- different assessmenIt rates: $2.00/100 Sq.Ft. $4,968.10 $2.50/100 Sq.Ft. $6,210.13 $3.00/101'0 Sq.Ft. $7,452.15 $3.50/1010 Sq.Ft. $8,694.18 $4.00/190 Sq.Ft. $9,936.20 $4.50/1010 Sq.Ft. $11,178.23 When considering the assessable rate for the two prelininary alternatives to bel considered, the revised rates are as follows: ALTERNA�E "B" =ject Cost $20,981.25 ess. Rate $3.45/100 Sq.Ft. ALTERNL A4E "F" Prsect Cost $10,150.00 As�ess. Rate $4.09/100 Sq.Ft. Q' `3 O I r N v i,, o� t 40 I -y"k Of 1 ;IAlr r >� f •` / .v..°2'8;�f"'^t P #' x7�k ,„� a"..t.S�£s.^�r iv t w r a. U �J i tjj 1 TA 1 o I i ` I ° ;z I_si \ I ►y MEMO TO: Nasim NI. Qureshi, City Manager RE: Benjam n Backyard Drainage Information Page: 2 The adjacent �reas were assessed in the Street Improvement Project ST. 1972-1 at the rate of $3.83/100 Sq.Ft. for area "B" and $1.76/100 Sq.FL as a partial assessment for area "D". If any furthe� information is needed, please let me know. Respect lly submitted, . OMAS A. COLBERT Assistant City Engineer TAC/as CC: Richard N. SoUiech Public Works Director CI , Y U. PRIOLU Ivu��1r o Baa C b N. 1SS FM ,s4r PUCATICM Ueportrncrn' .__.�___._..r 't9urnsyer 1 Hev r pu tapproved by Vale,21 y i {:t ADORL:SS FILE C:.C1MPLE-TE REViE:-.%Af til-{EC: LIST RETURN TO PLANNING ❑uc q�aTev7COMMENTS � — ----- E 1 s TT4;i C w W 1�V r. �IC Ga m f. e� {} w►i Al � A C.5 . y UA �Ae.1r - frnow% OC-4 SA w111J'. ILI - t . " _ . ��2C`r�- � of r� l�'�i',e�fic�9 �v� � • t//,Ile • ��i iii "i•- • �4 • i t c�A ' —'ir♦ /to /35.LI �. -- -- ^! GI ST uVF_. 1\�.�. ro:/o FI �'• !`J1:.. 9r'` `.r ryr »e •r en,. (z 1') 1 i:: rs is 3R t' r GOC, ^ � h .; �' -- / �j t \ y o�3 ? 7 'i CJ PD'` l57� ?1 7E re �jQsi•'rc ` 3 i .r ff ; .S'� 13`t� 9 h. !`. ,� R w i �::,s'e ..a•'-ft r.:/e �"y_' re Jam• : -. � /1�J7 ii✓�. _.. •e �& �t ; ra�.• •i ��+ MWig+'1\` 'rJb,• �C3 4 NVE 1; 1/6 hl `. 1�0 t t (�is L.z3- n DT, . �,rJ =• :Irs i * 1 /9 r' �:.�.�j tR,t 1 Y-•.- '" : 1_ !•' LjS C:•.i: It.iz IA'.17 _ nle.•f, •. •#L;r� ,a JSP.v1'�>< 4' ,,L _fr t f-'`«r � ,• O S - - VWtoss KG,; so L zo a i' �" IS04 IS46 t ' ` 1V RwtMY•' I.11,vnG 0/`i %... /y '{!.= !� �• .�"• � � ��y`C '?1 V t.t t A:l.�/. �, •1 l6'CJ Ky• t•9 f.G sJ. an c �r.r !s° r�• 1c ��a l�ti �� � IS6% ��' F`�s I � �` �/`'we �)l ': 'ctP es'�:• � � � h .!f)Vh�3 �es} ) �:e i,. :��e9 N�'n � ....OG f ko - � 7s �L � :fi �� �'• i , �q. ^ i:�.- A.; ,a• Z 5334 . v e + ti H'it .if-5�iE i' c��L�6>v~ F �, `'" ,r•• S y`' Q ` �`,' e' Z '¢ 3 i�r•• ( ,2 ..".wP t 4 ti RR f, c,e'. =},`�K',%r`• - .� z3 ' zz sit b� - '1 �_j! /1 r. _.:... c3.�:•!y ,-a / - -'--AA1.F s,�L .S e`fe�ft•� ..^T v GL.T OT/ /A:.O¢ h. .e f S:. awwy=r h .r7w. ^ +, .7 t• 1..,` ..4N a...1 J�•)iF J,c. NL M 0 fr <<e /L�r•.,• NN• Nr \ ' �° N�+ I 3,,• .0/( 9` 10 59 60 VA / cir IE " _ 5`��1 --♦ 13Gop� e ,7G Y •��1 t .y N.L•'.. „ - ~ a fs IIG j - N.ry k- r3 v i;,-S'l•`- `;d• 1. PULL {Fryt tib) �i Cb - , / ✓: 555 //rL D•/f r/ I.iS. ff •,•r/i�ve.r LiY� ��Z� L� � r. _ 1 s �'' /'SJti•e s r . r rN �•� /F IT pnfL:f. s /� ,,.[t` `!�• - // -� 7 t:i. - /. ,s '•'� - -- - - /-. � �•r�i�++�� J��1.��t Aa�JnVN.v.< .�rw.s':': /`'. i-"4t( i A, ♦ � - I�r .�t � � 4 � t � <��`y�f//' J rj.•.avrjr - ... t �� e �I,.. (lam � � .� � rJ .E � 24 2 . 2� tom,,_,: x �• Q bcf �y e r . N4 <�` •/ .y 7 �``"� `./1901 ��F,_.i�> rz ,S} t1a€�� i��%•` 1'`4)t64i.'17 AVI t1 } �z �• �� � �. •X t�3s �. .r,b � F�� •� =!�s,.9r "1C��s tb3s ,j•„ ,� `/ L f�•fi+ar .�S� G10f /G ( Z .jam x _ _ i f!; ` V s r i•-ti }9r' 14 79 '23 1437.'}44 I�6� ;I' �4g5: '� :�� IrS c 1.� ��., lq,h lFa�� i. s .1!•.$.. a _._—._ s�v jj Q `/i4rD• ' `' lyt`� 1 1l { r c r3 3 S � �"� q /wad' `�- i �/>.ZGf• �� A•~,�, - C 41 --- T J J 3 LxJ - \ oXN 03 � a , 'is N1Wb' N38 f ` _ n x^ i x rt Q , a �. x Cl x 01) PC NX 1 k,, ITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING CO1WISSION MEETING - APRIL 41 1979 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the April 41 1979, meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. Storla, Mr. Oquist, Mr. Harris, Ms. Suhrbier, Mr. Langenfeld Ms. Schnabel (arrived ar 7:35) Members Absent: None Others Present: Mr. Boardman, City Planner 1. APPROVE PLANNING COMSSION MINIMS: WiRCH 21,_1979: MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, iseconded by Mr. Oquist to approve the March 21, 1979, minutes of the Planning Commission. Mr. Langenfeld stated that the last paragraph on page 7 should state that if the intended use was not used!, it would then have to come before the Commission and the Council. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL V T AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MINUTES APPROVED AS CORRECTED. `��� 2. LOT SPLIT R:EQUE ', L S. #79-01, BY ALLAN FEHN: Split off the Southerly 22.2 feet of Lot, 23, X&i or's Su vision No. 02, except the West 30 feet of Lot 23, and except the u 30 feet of said lot 23; into two building sites, as follows: Parcel A. The South 110 feet of Lot 23, A.S. #92, with the exceptions, and Parcel B. The outh 222 feet of Lot 2.3, A.S. #92, except the South 110 feet and except the west 30 feet of said Lot 23, located at the intersection of Gardena Avenue and enjamin Street N.E. Mr. Boardman stated tha page 20 of the agenda showed the location of the lot. There was an existing house 1 Gated on what would be Parcel B if the lot split was approved. The existing lot right pow is quite a large lot and even with the split you would have more that what is required for two single family lots in the area. The thing to be concerned about and should loot: at is that with the split off, the existing house is presently faci,'ng Gardena, and although it meets the requirements at this time, with the split off it would make the existing house a non-conforming use as far as the setback goes. If something happened -to that house, it would probably have to be rebuilt based on the code, and couldn't be rebuilt on that same foundation. The new house would have to meet the code and face Benjamin with a 35 foot setback instead of the 25 foot setback. Another thing to consider is that the house to the east of this property is setback a considerable distance, approximately 70 feet. So a house built on this corner lot would stick out into the front yard of that house. Mr. Boardman stated he; would imagine the location of the proposed house would be facing Benjamin. Also, the present sewer and water come off of Gardena, so they would have to have a new water tap off Benjamin. He believed sewer could still be served off Gardena. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 4-, 1979 - PAGE 2 e z Mr. Harris stated that there appeared to be a sewer clean out in there someplace. Mr. Boardman stated that there was a sewer clean out in the middle of the lot, and there would have to be some changes in that. He understood that the sewer for the existing house would have to be tapped off Benjamin. The new structure would use existing sewer from Gardena. Mr. Harris stated they would then have to cut off the line. 3 a Mr. Boardman stated that was correct, the sewer would have to come off Benjamin for the existing structure, and also the water would have to come off Benjamin for the existing structure. Mr. Harris noted they could make both taps at the same time. He asked what the size of the new lot would be. ' Mr. Boardman stated the new lot would be 80.0+ x 133.25. Mr. Harris asked if the petitioner would like to make any comments. Mr. Allan Fehn stated he had no comments at this time. Mr. Boardman stated that the lots to the east were very deep lots, approximately 225 feet deep. Mr. Harris asked if there was just one structure on lot 24. Mr. Boardman stated that was correct, that it looked like lot 23 had been split, and the northerly part had the house on it. Mr. Fehn stated that actually the south end had been split. Mr. Oquist noted that his house would then be facing Benjamin and would have a Benjamin address. Ms. Schnabel asked if the petitioner had talked to the people to the east at 1623 Gardena, or if the City had heard anything from those people. Mr. Fehn stated he had talked to no-one about this. Mr. Boardman stated that the City does not send out notifications on lot splits, so those people probably don't even know about it. Mr. Boardman stated that there was a comment in the file from Dick that they would need variance approval since a lot split does not require a public hearing. Mr. Harris said he thought they needed a variance because they would be changing the frontage of the house. 5 Mr. Boardman stated they had done this before with lot splits, and if they approve the lot split, they would be approving the variance. Mr. Harris stated that variances need notification. r PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 4 1979 PAGE 3 1 Ms. Schnabel stated that what they were doing was grandfathering in an existing dwelling in a non-conform ng setback. Mr. Harris stated they would be changing the front yard setback from the required 35 feet to 24.19 feet. i Ms. Schnabel asked if there was a garage on this property. Mr. Fehn stated it was a tuck-under house. The entrance to the garage was off Gardena. Ms. Schnabel asked how hei would enter it after the lot split. Nor. Fehn stated he could �ither enter off Benjamin and make a u-turn into trhe existing garage, or he could build a garage in the back of the lot. Mr. Boardman asked Mr. Fehn if he lived in the house presently and if he did, was he planning on staying there. Mr. Fehn stated he did live in the house and planned on staying there. Mr. Boardman asked if he planned on building on the other lot. Mr. Fehn stated he did. Ms. Schnabel asked if he 'was planning on tearing down the existing house at any point and building a new house there. Mr. Fehn stated he did not plan on tearing down the existing house, that it was not very old. Mr. Boardman asked if they garage was on the east or west side of the house. Mr. Fehn stated the gara a was on the west side of the house. He stated that he planned to build a garag on the backside of the existing house and enter off Benjamin. He would thencloseoff the lower garage completely. Mr. Storla asked if theyihad settled the question of whether or not a variance was needed. Mr. Harris stated he questioned that himself and stated they could recommend approval of the lot split. Mr. Boardman stated that a question on platting had come up before the attorney and if they could make some ecision on platting, that would reauire a public hearing. In effect, they would th�n be informing the people of the variance. Mr. Harris stated he wod like to have the attorney' s opinion on this, because if Council approved the lot split, it would automatically approve the variance. t PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 41_1979 PAGE 4 i Mr. Harris stated that if the Commission wished, they could act on the lot split with the stipulation that they get a recommendation from the legal staff on whether they need a public hearing in this particular case. It would then be up to Council to either hold a public hearing as far as the variance goes, or send it back to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Langenfeld stated they should get a legal opinion no matter which way they go. Mr. Oquist stated that a variance goes before the Board of Appeals, so they could recommend approval of the lot split and find out whether or not a variance would be required, and if it is, it would go back anyway; to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Boardman stated the variance would not need Council action because it is a residential area. Mr. Harris stated that if Council wanted to act on it they could, or if there was a dispute on the variance request from the Commissioners, the Staff or the neighbors, it would go to Council. Mr. Boardman stated that the most efficient way of handling it would be to act on the lot split, sending it to Council with an action and if a variance was needed, they would talk to an attorney and then start processing it through the Appeals Commission. That way the Council could act on it conditioned upon Appeals Commission, or they could hold it and act upon it themselves. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Suhrbier, to recommend to Council approval of o Sp it Request, L.S. #'79-011 by Allan Fehn: Split off the Southerly 222 feet of Lot 23, Auditor's Subdivision No. 90, except the West 30 feet of Lot 23, and except the South 30 Feet of said Lot 23, into two building sites, as follows: Parcel A. The South 110 feet of Lot 23, A.S. 1792, except the South 110 feet with the exceptions, and Parcel B. The South 222 feet of Lot 23, A.S. #92, except the South 110 feet and except the west 30 feet of said Lot 23, located at the intersection of Gardena Avenue and Benjamin Street N.E., contingent upon whether or not a variance is needed. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. DISCUSSION ON THE DRAFT COPY OF THF COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Mr. Boardman stated that a special meeting had been scheduled next week for the Planning Commission to discuss this and also the other Commissions would be discussing it. He stated that they were looking at policy direction rather than the wording of the document. The discussion should be about whether or not they are going in the right direction. He would like to avoid nit-picking on the wording, etc. Mr. Oquist stated they should have the time to read the document before discussing it. APPEALS, COMMISSION MEEETING, APRIL 24, 1979 - PAGE 12 1 F 5. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 25 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO REDUCE FRONT YARD, SETBACKFROM THE REQUIRED 35 FEET TO 24.10 FEET BECAUSE A REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT HAS MADE THE SIDE YARD INTO THE FRONT YARD; WHICH WILL BE ADDRESSED ON BENJAM N STREET N.E. PRESENTLY ADDRESSED AS 1601 GARDENA AVENUE N.E.,., FRIDLEY NN. Request by Allen Fenn, 1601 Gardena Avenue N.E., Fridley, Mn. 55432) , MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by 14r. Barna, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL V©TING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCH11ABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:20 P.M. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Fehn to come forward and read the Administrative Staff Report as follows: AD,141NISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 1601 Gardena Avenue N.E. A. PUi LIC HI2POSE SERKO BY REOUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4, A, requiring a front yard setback of 35 feet. { Public purpose served is to allow for off-street parking without encroaching on the public right of Also for aesthetic cons'iderat'ion to reduce the "building line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor's j front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: i None stated, however, the house already exists and the approval of the variance request Vronild legalize the location of the existing house. C. AU INISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: This house is located on a lot large enough for two homes, however,- when the front loj. is approv d for a building site, it changes the front ,yard on the exist-1i-,q house cm Gardena tc Eben ani:n. Therefore, the required setback "C"ClUire;r ;nt from Benjan;i ; ch..ngcs frcm 17.5 feet to 35 feet. IF the Commission approves t"'is request-, ;:e 1,,ould recommend two stipulaticns: 1 . Change th�.2 l �:cidres_, on ::he ayi st i;,y house From 16;01 Gardena to 5921 Be.i anl;in S;.rE:ct P F.. 2. Change -tiiei cxlst-i;;g sc,,,r�r _��,d �•,at,2r service to the existing house from Garden is to Benjamin. • APPEALS COMDUSSION METING, APRSI, 2�+, 1979 - PAGE 13 1 G Ms. Schnabel that this particular lot received an approval for a lot split from the Planning Commission. ' At the .time of the approval it was noted that the existing sewer and water 'should be changed from Gardena Street to Benjamin Street to service the existing house. Also, the part that was split off which is called Parcel A which is the Parcel which boarders Benjamin and Gardena, would receive it's water and sewer from Gardena Street, and Parcel B, the existing house, would receive it's sewer and water from Benjamin Street. Mr. Plemel noted that was suite expensive to do, but the way it is right now the new house would sit on the sewer line. Mr. Fehn stated that he was not aware that the Planning Commission had recommended a new sewer hook-up. He stated that he knew where the sewer line was on the lot and if a new house was built, it would not be anywhere near the sewer line. Ms. Schnabel stated there was a sewer clean-out in the center of the lot. Mr. Plemel asked how he would build a residence there and escape the sewer and water lines. Mr. Barna stated the linyes would have to be abandoned at some point in order to build. Ms. Schnabel stated that the Planning Commission did not include that in it' s motion but it was talked about' It was mentioned in the minutes that when the taps are done for Parcel A, they could also be done for the existing house. She read from the Planning Commission minutes to explain what Planning had discussed. Ms. Gabel asked how he would swing the driveway to meet:the two garages? Mr. Fehn drew a picture'of what he intends to do. He explained that his problem was that he couldn't use the lower half of his house. On one side was a supporting wall and on the other side was the fireplace structure which goes from the basement all the way through the house. On another side was a boiler room. To get dawn to the area they have to go through the garage, through the laundry room to enter the recreation area. There is also an outside door. There are no stairs from the in- side of the house to get down there. Also, during heavy rains and during the melt there is a water problem throughout the lower level. So he cann't use it all winter. [what he plans to do is build a double garage and make the house into a split entry because the back of the basement is already half into the ground. He would fill in the front area to bring it back to it' s original level. The garage would be on the north side of the houses. He noted that the front of the property was deteriorating and didn't want to spend money fixing it without making the rest of the changes. Ms. Schnabel asked w*would do the work. Mr. Fehn stated he would hire a contractor. Ms. Gabel stated that after he filled it up, it would create a drainage problem on Parcel A. Mr. Fehn stated there was a natural drainage that runs through the property. APPEALS COMMISSION IMTING APRIL 2I+, 1979 - PAGE 14 1 i� � , A Ms. Gabel stated that thejront yard was very big and beautiful and couldn't understand why he didn't want to retain it. Nr. Fehn stated that to him it was not beautiful, it has 300 feet of driveway that has to be shoteled. She understood that but wondered why he wanted another house in his front yard. Mr. Fehn stated that he didn't use the front yard that much anyway and it attracts a lot of kids which is a problem. Also, it's a lot of up keep: Ms. schnabel asked if the structure on the east side of the lot belonged to Mr. Fehn. Mr. Fehn stated that he had a metal storage shed back there, but the garage there belonged to his neighbor. Ms. Schnabel asked what he would do with that area. Mr. Fehn stated it was gravel now and he was planning to put about 6 inches of black dirt there. ' That area is a natural drainage area between his lot and the lot to the east of him. The lot to the east belongs to Mr. Costello. That will remain a drainage area but he would put soil on it so he can seed it or sod it. The driveway would then be non-existent. Ms. Gabel stated that she questioned the hardship stated in the Administrative Staff Report. Currently this is all legal and only becomes illegal with the lot split. She wasn't sure What the hardship and if there is one it would be self- imposed. Mr. Plemel asked if Council had approved the lot split. Mr. Barna stated that .Council had tabled it. Mr. Plemel stated that the structure was there and if the lot split is approved, the variance may as welllbe granted to make it compliant. Ms. Gabel asked what thelhardship would be then. Nis. Schnabel stated that hardship would be that in order to maintain the existing a P g 35 foot setback, he would have to tear down part of the existing house if the lot split is approved. Mr. Barna noted that he could achieve the changes to his house that he wants to without splitting the lot. The lot split is not a necessity which would mean that the variance would not be a necessity. He can make the changes to the house without a variance. Ivls. Schnabel stated that) one of the reasons for the 35 foot setback is to provide for off street parking. She stated that if his drawing was correct, he would be putting his garage back Further than 35 feet. Mr. Fehn stated it would be closer to 45 or 50 feet. I APPEALS COMMISSION PEETIE., APRIL 24, 1979m - PAGE 15 1 1 Mr. Plemel asked if he was going to put a detached garage there? bu. Fehn stated that was Correct. Mr. Plemel stated they should make that a stipulation to forestall the problem with the parking. Ms. Schnabel stated that her paint was that in terms of their requirement to keep the parking off the street I__ could be accomplished with that setback. The other concern would be the building line of site and the house to the north which is be- hind the existing house, has a 40 foot setback. So there would be a difference there. Mr. Plemel stated that th� house was already there. Ms. Gabel stated that to get right down to it, granting the lot split causes the variance. If the lot split is granted, they almost have to grant the variance. In looking down the road, they would also need variances for the house that would be built on Parcel A. Mr. Barna stated that was one of the things that was mentioned at the Council meeting. Granting the 1 t split creates the variance. On a lot split, the burden of proof falls on the City and on a variance, the burden of proof falls on the petitioner. That's why they put the variance before the lot split. They also wanted additional public input from the neighbors. They had wondered how many neighbors had been notified. Ms. Schnabel stated that question had come up at the Planning Commission meeting. They had asked if the petitioner had talked to his neighbors and he stated that he hadA't. When they askedlif there had been any response frau the neighbors, they were told that because it was a lot split, there was no need to notify the neighbors. That's the way the ordin nce reads. Ms. Schnabel stated that they felt that was wrong and the neighbors should have an opportunity to comment. So this public hearing tonight would be helping that situation. Mr. Plemel stated that he thought the lot split had been accomplished and if it wasn't, they didn't need variance. Mr. Barna stated they had tabled it so Appeals could hold a public hearing for the variance. Mr. William Costello, 1613 Gardena Avenue, came forward and stated that he had no objection to the variance or the lot split. His house is directly east of Mr. Fehn' s house. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Costello and the neighbor who owned the house located west of Mr. Fehn's house across Benjamin Street, to come forward and explained to them what Mr. Fehn wanted to 4o. She explained that Mr. Fehn would like to split his lot in half. The problem is that the City requires a 35 foot front yard setback. }because of the way he is splitting the lot, he would have to call the side that faces Benjamin Street his front yard. The narrow part of the lot is always the front of the lot. Instead of being 35 feet back from Benjamin the house is 24.10 feet back. If a new house was put on Parcel A, Benjamin Street would also boarder the front of that lot. So the new structure would also have to meet the 35 foot APPEALS C014MISSION 14EETIN2, APRIL 24, 1979 - PAGE 16 1 J setback from Benjamin Street. There would also have to be a 17 foot setback from Gardena. This is not to say that the front door would have to be on Benjamin Street. It could be on Gardena. But for the purposes of the City, the narrow part- of the lot is considlered the front of the lot. So they would be 35 feet back from Benjamin and a minimum of 17 feet back from Gardena. No matter what kind of house they put there, it iwould be considerably in front' of Mr. Costello's house. Mr. Costello was concerned about the placement of the garage for the new structure and asked if they could put in a stipulation regarding that. Mr. Barna stated that they couldn't do that because they were not asking to build on that lot. Ms. Schnabel stated that legally, she did- not think they could do that. Ms. Gabel stated that some of the houses around there are 80 or 90 feet back from Gardena and if she remembered correctly from the last variance, some of the houses around there are jogged. , So it could wind up being more than 18 feet because they would take the average. 14s. Schnabel stated thatthiswas a corner lot and she wasn't sure they would go across the street for that. Ms. Gabel stated they would still take the average. Ms. Schnabel read from the ordinance regarding averaging setbacks. "In a block where the average of the front yard depths of existing buildings within a distance of 100 feet on both sides of a building to be erected is more than the minimum setback required, then the setbacks of the said building could be 6 feet more or less than this mean depth but in no case shall be less than the required setback for the distance". So if they went 100 feet on each side, they would have to go across the street and 100 feet down each way. But it could be 6 feet of the mean depth of these two. Barna stated that would mean they couldn't build on that lot. They could only have about a 5 foot deep) house. Ms. Gabel stated that then whoever wanted to build on it would need a variance. Ar. Barna stated that would put a handle on it. The neighbor who lived to the west across the street asked if they had any stipulations for corner lots regarding which way the house has to face. Ms. Schnabel stated than they did not. The only thing the City does is for the purposes of declaring setbacks, they declare the narrowest part of the lot to be the front of the lot. Mr. Plemel stated that if it faced Gardena and kept the 35 foot setback, they would need a variance for the rear yard. Ms. Gabel stated that there was no way they could build on that lot without a variance. APPEALS COMMISSION MEZTING, APRIL 24, 1979 - PAGE 17 1 K Ms. Schnabel asked the neighbors present if they had any objection to the setback Mr. Fehn was requesting. Mr. Plemel stated they SYould keep in mind that the building is already there. Mr. . Barna stated that all they were really doing was changing the terminology. The neighbors stated they would have no objection to this variance, but would object to the proposed house on Parcel A. Ms. Schnabel stated thatlif they want to object to that they should attend the Council meeting. The Bo rd of Appeals has no control over the lot split, so that if they want to object, hey should go to the Council meeting. She suggested they call the City Hall and find out when it will appear on the Council's agenda. The neighbors reiteratedlthat they had no objection to the variance. MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Plemel, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:10 P.M. Ms.. Schnabel stated thatshethought it could be on the Council' s agenda for the meeting of May 7. Ms. Schnabel stated thatlthey should highlight in the minutes that the Staff had recommended two stipulation one of which regards the sewer clean-out. Council should look at the sewer clean-out problem and what would happen to it if the lot split is approved and also how the owner of Parcel B would have access to that sewer clean-out. Nir. Plemel stated that if Mr. Fehn sold Parcel A, he would have to retain an ease- ment if he intends to keep the water and sewer there. He felt it would be to Mr. Fehn's advantage to change the water and sewer lines to Benjamin. He noted that if repairs were needed, it would be quite expensive to make the repairs on someone else' s property. Mr. Fehn agreed. Mr. Moravetz stated than it would not be a very attractive lot to sell if the lines were retained there. Mr. Moravetz also stated that in addition to the cost of constructing a new lineloff of Benjamin, there could be some additional assessments. pie informed Mr. Fehn that he could call someone in the Special Assessments Department for more information onithat. Ms. Gabel asked if she dnderstood correctly that the neighbors were not concerned about this variance request but were concerned about the lot split? Ms. Schnabel stated that was correct. APPEALS COMMISSION MEET IP1 r, APRIL 24, 1979 - PAGE 18 1 L MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Barna, that if the lot split is approved they recommend approval of the request for variance pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the front yard setback from the required 35 feet to 2+.10 feet because a request for a lot split has made the side yard into the front yart; which will be addressed on Benjamin Street N.E., presently addressed as 1601 Gardena Ave. N.E., Fridley, Mn., with the following stipulations: 1. Change the address on the existing house from 1601 Gardena to 5921 Benjamin Street N.E. and 2. Change the existing sewer and water service to the existing house from Gardena to Benjamin. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Iris. Schnabel stated this would go to Council on May 7. Mr. Moravetz suggested that Mr. Fehn call and make sure that it is on the agenda for May 7. Ms. Schnabel declared a recess at 10:20 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 10:35 P.M. Ms. Schnabel stated that during the recess a question had come up as to what Council's action was on the lot split request made by Mr. Fehn. Ms. Barna stated that he was at the meeting and the lot split request was tabled until the first meeting in May. 7. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON TO SERVE FROM-5/1/79 to 51/80: MOTION by Mr. Plemel, se onded by Mr. Barna, that Ms. Schnabel continue as Chair- person and Ms. Gabel continue as Vice Chairperson for the period of 5/1/79 to 5/1/80. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel and Ms. Gabel thanked the Commissioners for their confidence. 8. OTHER BUSINESS: Tris. Schnabel stated thatl' on Saturday the Metro Council.has a program open to the public. The program costs $2.00 per person. The topic is the condition of the older part of the region and what do the vital signs show. It starts at 9:30 and goes until 4:30 at the Landmark Center in St. Paul. Ms. Schnabel stated that she felt it would be very pe�tinent to Fridley. Kr. Plemel stated that the City should pay the expenses for it. Expenses should include parking, mileage and lunch. M-. Boardman stated they should keep their receipts for all their costs and the City would reimburse them. PANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 7.6 1979 PAGE 44 Mr. Harris questioned if the City had street right-of-way along the possible lot splits. ` Mr. Deblon said no, but they1would try to get them. Mr. Harris pointed out this lot was landlocked then. He questioned how the county could allow a split like this to go through. They are the ones who registered the deed and should not have allowed it. It was noted the owner of th�s land was deceased. It also was noted the City of Fridley owns Lot H and was plrobably a park dedication at the time of the platting. Mr. Langenfeld stated Lot C was 75 feet wide on the one end and 63 feet on the end by Lot I. Could Lot C buy only 12 feet of Lot I and Lot J pick up the remaining 2.2 feet. Mx. Harris said no, but it ,��ould create a jog in the lot lines. He thought the City should put a hold on Lot I, since it was tax forfeit, and not allow Lot J to pick up the 14.2 feet. He reasoned 'if the lots were split in the future and a road put in., there would be a 63 foot lob in the middle of the block. He said the county wants to sell this 14.2 feet and get it back on the tax rolls. He also wanted to know why the City was holding Lot H. I MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to recommend to Council approval of Lot Split request L.S. #79-05, to allow the County and City records to coincide, with the following stipulations : 1. The City hold on to Lot I . 2. City staff bring in information on why we have Lot H and what the future developmentplansare for it. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. LOT SPLIT REQUEST L.SI. #79-06, XEMPI,ARa INC. : Split off Lot 2, from Lot 3, both in Block 2, S ' -,% ivision #1, both lots lying East of the East 90 feet thereof, to make jtwo R-1 building sites, the same being 7562 and 7584 Able Street N.E. Mr. Deblon said this lot had previously been proposed for a double bungalow, but the neighbors had objected because of the rental factor. This plan calls for 2, 3 bedroom rambler homes. Mr. Deblon said if they approve the lot split, they would be in a sense approving the variance for lot size. Ms. Gabel said that was noel Lure, a variance would still be required for lot size. The homes have been pl.acedlon the lot so yard setback variances would not be required. The lot sizes are 7,520 feet each. Mr. Deblon informed the petitioner he could build a 2-car garage on the northern lot instead of a 1-car garage. ) The garage could be moved closer to the lot line. He also stated it should be stipulated that utility services will be required and they are not in at this time. Mr. Harris said if Council 'lapproves the lot size variance, they would be acting as the Board of Appeals. The conuldssions are .normally the recommending bodies for the Council and it would be unusual for Council to act as such. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 26, 1979 PAGE. 3 Mr. Bauler asked why they could not move the road further west and take 1/2 of what ' was needed for a road from 2 lots. Ms. Hughes said this would make many areas unbuildable. They have an obligation to plan for the future and thought the commission should get information on this area before deciding on this lot- split. Mr. Bauler said Mr. Brickner had asked him to sell some of his land to him before. Mr. Harris said that was why he felt they should get the intentions of the landowners. Possibly Mr. Brickner was still interested in buying land from Mr. Bauler. Ms. Hughes asked what would be done with the lot split. Mr. Bauler said the adjoining property owner wanted to buy it and use it for a tennis court. Mr. Harris questioned if all the area lots were 9,000 square feet. He said if the road was put in the wrong spot, some land would be landlocked and could not be developed. Ms. Hughes asked about a private road to those lots. Mr. Harris said that brings up a lot of problems and did not think there was room for a cul-de-sac. _140TION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms . Hughes, to continue Lot Split request L.S. #79-04, until the next meeting to allow staff time to contact the landowners in the area and see what they propose to do with their land, to find out the lot sizes of the lots to the north of Mr. Bauler's land and also, what the proposed road status was. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Harris asked the staff to notify the petitioner if this information was not ready for the October 3, 1979, meeting. 2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S . #79-05 CITY OI' FRIDLEY, Split off the West 14.2 feet from Lot I, Block I, Van Cleeve'e Addition. Already split by County, never approved by City, Purpose of the lot split request is to make County and City records agree. Mr. Oquist pointed out there were houses already built here and asked when the County approved this and why. Mr. Deblois said he did not have answers for those 2 questions, but said it went tax- forfeit 6 years ago. He said the property owner, Mr. Van Cleves, kept 14.2 feet out when he sold this land (Lot J) to Mr. Erickson. Right now the land was not owned by anyone and is was suggested that the Lot C pick up the extra 14.2 feet. He said the City was looking for a possible lot split on Lots 1-4 and also to build a road off of Benjamin Street to service them. Mr. Treuenfels asked if the property owners had been contacted to see if they wanted to purchase the 14.2 feet and pay taxes on it. Mr. Deblon said not to his knowledge. r y PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ISEPTEI.IBER 26� 1979 PAGE 5 Mr. Deblon said staff was st isfied with the plan and have no problems with the lot sizes. The land would be used at: it's best with this proposal. Mr. Oquist said 7,500 square feet was the recommended size by the Metropolitan Council, taking into consideration there's less land available and trying to lower housing costs. Ms. Gabel informed the petitioner he should apply for a variance request immediately. This would give enough time for proper notice and would not delay his building schedule. Ms. Hughes said she thought the proposal was better suited for the area then the first proposal. Also she was a firm believer of lowering housing costs and this should do so. She pointed out the lot sizes were very close in size to the ones across the street. Mr. Langenfeld asked if the roper lot size was 9,000 square feet, and these lots would be 7,520 square feet, r a difference of 1,480 square feet, wasn't that a large amount to allow for a varian e. The lots are 80 feet wide by 94 feet deep, with was 5/6 of what was required or 83%. Ms. Gabel said it was not out of line and variances have been granted before for similar requests. MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld to recommend to Council approval of Lot Split request L.S. #79-06, Exemplar, Inc-, to split off Lot 2, from Lot 3, both in Block 21 Shaffer's Subdivision #1, both lots lying east of the east 90 feet thereof, to make two R-1 building sites, the same being 7562 and 7584 Abel Street N.E., with the following stipulation: 1. Drainage and utility easement be worked out between the developer and the City of Fridley: Mr. Holsten, the petitioner, 'questioned the easements. Mr. Harris said this was an area of the lot retained for drainage and utility, such as underground telephone service, that would be used by the City if needed. Usually an easement is 6 - 10 feet wide The survey shows a 6 face easement on the south line. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Harris advised Mr. Holsten to talk with the staff on the easements and variance requests. 4. DISCUSS MEMORANDUM FROM VIRGIL HERRICK DATED AUGUST 2 1.979 AND MEMO DATED SEPTEMBER 17,x1.979 After reading the memo, Mr. Oquist said the memorandum implied if a special use permit was issued, you set a precedent. Mr. Harris said the Planning Commission has always tried to maintain that idea, but the City Attorney's office has jumped from one side to an other. The Supreme Court seems to agree with the idea it was precedent setting.. Mr. Oquist said the memo alsc said you cannot arbitrarily deny a request. I W PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 26, 1979. _ _ _ PAGE 6 Mr. Harris said that was why they make a specific list of reasons for denial. For instance in the case of the '.Com Thumb request for gas pumps, the denial reasons where only for the gas pumps and not the shopping center. Mr. Oquist noted on the first page, 2nd paragraph, that it was confusing. It states : "Special Use Permits differ from variances in that a spacial use provisional permits property, within broad discretion of governing body, to be used in a manner expressly authorized by ordinance." Mr. Oquist asked why we need a special use permit if the property was going to be used in accordance with the ordinance. Mr. Harris said there are special uses, such as gasoline stations, that could be hazardous, etc. to the general public. Thoses uses would require a special use permit. Mr. Deblon pointed out this helps give the City a broader control on what was built in a district. Mr. Oquist said the memo also states we cannot deny a special use permit unless it - does not meet the requirements for public safety and welfare. Mr. Langenfeld said the Commission had received an article by the Minnesota Supreme Court (1976) pertaining to standards for denying a special use permit. The 4 points are: 1. A use that was contrary to a comprehensive land development plan would be reason for a City to deny a request. 2. Further excavation that appears to increase the danger of irrepairable environmental damage was legal reason for denial. 3. The applicants failure to prove a proposed use will not affect the health, safety, morals and welfare of occupants of the surrounding land was sufficient reason for denial. This puts the burden of proof on the applicant and not the City. 4. If the end results was not compatible with the comprehensive plan, that was sufficient, as far as legal aspects are concerned, for denial. Mr. Langenfeld said these were very good points to follow, and he intended to do so. The other commission members asked for copies of this article. Mr. Harris pointed out the memo dated September 17, 1979, sited examples of court decisions. He said the Supreme Court reviewed the decisions directly and not the de- cisions of the lower courts. He said it pointed out that public pressure that was put on a city to deny a special use permit was not sufficient reason for denial. This commission has had that happen to them many times. Mr. Oquist said the memo states we have to give reasons for denial and also states, if the request was granted, it was precedent setting. Therefore if we give a special use permit once, we will have to do again. Mr. Harris said he has argued that point severl times. In the case of secondary buildings on a lot, one in a neighborhood might not be objectionable, but a whole block of them could be. Ms. Hughes asked why we even use special use permits and how they relate to a neighbor- hood looking alike. She asked if a special use permit lets a homeowner do what lie would like on his lot or does it regiment him to do exactly as his neighbors do. 1L1 REGULARMEETING OF •-APRIL 23, 1979 PAGE 3 - I Mr. Rutten stated it gives him great pleas.ure to present this check to the City to be used in conjunction with the City's reforestation program. I Mayor Nee than ed Mr. Rutten for their donation and stated some of the Council i will be at the tree planting at Locke Park this Friday. RESOLUTION N0. 57-1979 GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL TNDU TRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, REFERRING THE PROPOSAL TO THE COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES FOR APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF AGREE- MENT AND PREPA ATI- ON OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. Mr. Jerry Vest Assistant Secretary of Onan Corporation, was present on behalf of Onan Corporation, to request preliminary approval for a $1,000,000 issue for industrial revenue bonds to be used for Onan's new facility. Mr. Vest state the proposed addition would be a separate building and would be used as a showcase into which they would bring personnel from around the country for training purposes. He stated it would not be used for assembly or manufac- turing nor str'ctly as an office facility, but a training center or school. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 57-1979 giving pre- liminary approval to this project under the Municipal Industrial Development Act and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Agreement. Se onded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION N0. 58-1979 GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROJECT UNDER THE i MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, REFERRING THE PROPOSAL TO THE COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES tOR APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF AGREE- MENT AND PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. Mr. Roger Wings of Juran and Moody, Inc., appeared before the Council regarding the request fo issuance of industrial revenue bonds in the amount of $7,500,000 for a new faci�ity to be built in Fridley by-the Bureau of Engraving. He stated the building would be approximately 175,000 square feet and add about 360 new jobs as well a: increase the tax base of the City. Mr. Wing es sta ed the City Attorney has reviewed the financial statements. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated he did review the financial statements, he would have no hesitation in recommending the Bureau of Engraving from a finan- cial standpoint. Mr. Patterson pf the Bureau of Engraving stated one of the primary reasons for wanting to locate in Fridley is because they draw their employees from this area. He stated, if they are unable to locate at the site they now have in mind, there are other areas in Fridley that may be available. Mr. Winges pointed out that the company has no outstanding long-term debt and the new debtservice coverage ratio is substantially greater than most high- quality companies. i MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 58-1979 giving pre- liminary approval to this project under the Municipal Industrial Development Act and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Agreement. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Ne� declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 4, 1979: A. LOT PLI�EST, L.S. #,79-01, ALLAN FERN, AT INTERSECTION OF l GARD NA AND BENJAMIN STREET: Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated this is a request for a lot split in the northeast quadrant of Gardena and Benjamin Street. He stated there was discussion at the Planning Commission that, if the lot split is approved, I I i I I - I i 122 REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 23, 1979 PAGE 4 it would create the need for a variance of the front yard setback for the existing house. The Planning Commission's recommendation, therefore, was for approval of the lot split contingent upon whether or not a variance is needed. Mr. Sobiech stated the City Attorney has stated the variance had to be a i separate procedure since, with the lot split, only the property owner is invited to the hearing, but with the variance, the surrounding property owners would be notified. Mr. Sobiech stated the variance process allows the Board of Appeals to make the decision regarding the setback in a residential area. Mr. Sobiech stated another item to be considered is that in all plats the City has acquired certain easements in the intersection area, specifically to try and obtain enough boulevard area for snowplowing. He stated they hope to work with the applicant, Mr. Fehn, to try and come up-with an easement and round off the intersection. Mr. Herrick felt the lot split could be approved contingent on ordering the hearing on the variance, before taking final action on the lot split.. He felt this would be reasonable because, if the variance is not approved, he didn't think Mr. Fehn would want to split the lot. Councilman Schneider stated his basic concern was the alignment, and wanted to make sure the variance did come before the Council. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to conditionally approve the lot split contingent upon granting the variance and final review by the Council. Seconded by Council- man Fitzpatrick. Mr. Sobiech stated as soon as Mr. Fehn takes out a building permit for the igarage, the variance process would begin since he would be adding on the a non-conforming use. Mr. Herrick stated the Council has the right to hold a public hearing on the lot split request, if they wish, so that people can be informed as to what Mr. Fehr. is planning. This way input can be received from the neighborhood on Mr. Fehn's proposal. COUNCILMAN FITZPATRICK WITHDREW HIS SECOND AND COUNCILMAN SCHNEIDER WITHDREW HIS MOTION. i MOTION by Councilman Schneider to table this item to the next meeting. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. I B. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 1979• CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR TAPE RECORDER• Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated there was discussion regarding the purchase of a tape recorder to be used by the Commission members when they attend meetings outside the City Hall. Mr. Sobiech stated the Environmental Quality Commission recommended a tape recorder be purchased and the Planning Commission- did discuss the matter, but made no recommendation. He stated funds were not appropriated for such an item in the 1979 budget, but it could be considered in the 1980 budget. Councilwoman Moses stated, if a tape recorder was purchased, she felt it should be made available for use by all the Commissions. Councilman Schneider stated only three members were present at the meeting when the Environmental Quality Commission recommended the purchase fo the tape recorder and one of the absent members was opposed to�the idea. Mr. Qureshi , City Manager, stated the question isn't so much the money for the recorder, but if this is the type of thing the Council wishes to provide since there seems to be a divided feeling about it. i I ' 1.34 THE MINUTES OFTHEREGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF i i MAY 7, 1979 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Nee. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Nee led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Councilman Fitzpatrick, Ccuncilwoman Moses and Councilman Schneider MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Barnette PROCLAMATIONS: Mayor Nee issuedlthe following proclamations: Vietnam VeteranslWeek, May 28 - June 3, 1979 Hearing Awareness Month, May 1979 Public Works Weep, May 20 - May 26, 1979 Recreation and Parks Month, June 1979 Mayor Nee suggested that the administration contact the veterns' organizations in Fridley regardin? any nominees for the Vietnam Veteran of the Year. CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION: A certificate of appreciation was presented to Robin Suhrbier for her services as a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission. i APPROVAL OF MINUTES: REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 23, 1979: Councilman Schneider requested clarification on Page 5 of the minutes regarding the motion for the tape recorder and whether or not it had carried since the minutes also reflected that four affirmative votes were required and the vote on the I motion was 3 to 2 in favor. Mr. Qureshi explained that this had been checked with the City Attorney and the minutes should reflect that three affirmative votes were required instead of four. i MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to approve the minutes with the following correction: Page 5, paragraph 11 , change "four" to "three". Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. OPEN FORUM, VIS14TORS: There was no response from the audience under this item of business. OLD BUSINESS: / LOT SPLIT REQUESTED, L.S. #79-01, ALLAN FEHN AT INTERSECTION OF GARDENA & BENJAMIN STREET TABLED APRIL 23, 1979): Mr. Sobie ch, Pu lic Works Director, stated this item was tabled on April 23, 1979 in order for Council to receive input from the Appeals Commission. He stated the Appeals Commission did have a meeting and from the minutes, there apparently wasn't much objection. They recommended, however, if the lot split is approved the variance was recommended for approval with the stipulations that the address on the existingihouse be changed from 1601 Gardena to 5921 Benjamin Street and to 135 REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 7, 1979 PAGE 2 j change the present sewer and water service to the existing house from Gardena to Benjamin. i Mr Sobiech stated the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request for the lot split and recommended approval. Mr. Costello, 1623 Gardena Avenue, indicated he had no objection to the lot split, but was concerned about the placement of the garage for a new structure, as, he felt, if there were a garage close to the corner, it would decrease the value of his property. Mr. Costello asked if there was a manner in which they could put in a stipulation regarding this item. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, felt the best way to handle this matter would be for Mr. Fehn and Mr. Costello to enter into a convenant that would be binding on them ' and future owners, and which could be filed with the abstract, indicating certain distances where the garage could be constructed and positioning of the house. Both Mr. Fehn and Mr. Costello felt this would be satisfactory with them. t?r. Fehn stated he has discussed the building of a house on this lot with Mr. Costello and he had no objections to his plans. Mr. Sobiech also stated there would be a minor increase in the drainage in the area with approval of the lot split. He stated, however, the impact is fairly minimal. Councilman Schneider questioned the storm sewer policy in that area. Mr. Sobiech stated, with any new development, an $800 escrow has been required for every new lot in the area. He stated this would apply to this lot, whenever someone built on it. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and grant Lot Split #79-01 with the following stipulations: (1) That Mr. Fehn and Mr. Costello enter into an agreement which they are agreeable to regarding setback and future development on the new Parcel A; (2) That $400.00 park fee and $800.00 drainage fee be required and paid to the City at f the time of building on the newly created lot; and (3) That any other fees for l utility charges not already assessed be paid. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to grant the variance requested by Mr. Fehn to reduce the front yard setback from the required 35 feet to 24.10 feet for the existing dwelling at 1601 Gardena with the stipulations that: (1) This address be changed from 1601 Gardena to 5921 Benjamin Street; and (2) That there will be a change in the existing water and sewer service to the existing house from Gardena Avenue to Benjamin Avenue. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE SCHEDULE FOR ESTABLISHING TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT FOR CENTER CITY PROJECT: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to approve the Center City Project Schedule for establishing a tax increment district. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. -_RESOLUTION NO. 63 - 1.979, BETWEEN CITY OF FRIDLEY AND THE PERLMAN-_ROC UE COMPANY (NORTH); *2,500,000 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS OF 1979: (AGREE EiiT Mr. Bernard Friel, from the law firm of Bri • ggs and Morton, appeared before the `! Council regarding this issue of $2,500,000 in commercial development revenue bonds for the Perlman-Rocque Company's project in Fridley. He stated, in addition to adoption of the note resolution, several other documents are needed and these were submitted to the City Attorney and City Clerk. He stated these documents could be approved and then held by either himself or the City Attorney until closing. M,r.Friel explained the $2,500,000 note will be purchased by the First National Bank of St. Paul and held by them. fie stated the proceeds from the note will be used for construction of a warehouse and distribution center in Fridley by the '7 w. CITY OF F IDL..E ' r 8431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N. E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 � ` �y` /A TELEPHONE ( 812)571-3450 CITY COUNCIL AU"ON TA!f,► NOTICE f Mr. Allen Fehn 1601 Gardena Ave. �. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Dear Mr. Fehn: O'l the Fridley(�City Council .. D, tili 11 5y apr)Fcr ed y LY' rcyUC S L for with stipu'ia)ions 1;s,-d below. P?ezise revie':t' th: noved sLilulations, sign "ll•': below, and' Y'ol ui'i onc: CC )V to the City of h-i dl ek'. i if YOU it Vca;I;j . dcstions rcc,'6 'ii?0 thCF c he %i,-'. adios, please call I ,.he Communit:J' [}. ' er.E. rif--CC' i+` { F Sir!ccrely; I'C CITY Pf_ANNER JLB/de St'i ulations: 1 . An agreement be executed between Mr. Fehn and his neighbor to the east, Mr. Costello, regarding positioning of the house and access to Benjamin for the newly described lot. 2. A storm sewer/environmental impact fee of $800, plus $400 park fee, plus any sanitary sewer and water lateral assess- ! ments will be paidlat the time of Building Permit application for the newly described lot. t Concur witf` action taken. i 6 k, NOTE: You must take this to Anoka County when you record the lot split. TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR OF ANOKA COUNTY: The City Council of the City of Fridley on May 7; 1979 approved the following request for a lot split to allow: Two building site on the Southerly 222 feet of Lot 23, A.S. #92 on the following property: - Split operty: -Split off the Southerly 222 feet of Lot 23, A.S. #92, except the West 20 feet of Lot 2 s follows: Parcel. A. The South 110 feet of Lot 23, A.S. #92, with the exceptions, and Parcel B. The South eet of Lot 23, , except e South 110-reet and except t A stipulation t�o the lot split approval was to combine appropriate parcels of property to ensure no defaulting of taxes and avoid losing a arcel on a future sale of the property. It is hereby re uested of the County Auditor to check the records and, if in order, combine the following parcels of land: Plat # J� Parcels U Lots 3 Block Additions d Ta 2 v L> V6)0.q Signed Owner(s) of Record cc: Property Owner Lot Split Folder Fridley Assessing Dept. ,Real Estate File Special Assessment Dept. File MEMO TO: File - Variance - Allan Fehn, 1601 Gardena MEMO FROM: Rich rd N. Sobiech, Public Works Director MEMO DATE: May 9, 1979 SUBJECT: Allan Fehn Variance The City Council t their regular meeting of May 7, 1979, approved the front yard se back variance from 35 feet to 24 feet with the following stipula ions: 1. The address o the existing house will be changed from 1601 Gardena o 1521 Benjamin Street. 2. The existing unitary sewer and water services to 1601 Gardena shall be auth9rized for the proposed new structure on the newly described property of the lot split, and the existing structure shall have new sewer and water services from Benjamin Street. RNS:ik cc: Jerry Boardman, City Planner Address Filej 4