Loading...
LS79-04 Form #5-68 LUT SPLIT APPLICATION ` CITY OF FRIDLEY 1 ' FOR CITY TTSE OrTL`t �� ibant I s Name r APPLICANT: :. Loth Split bir ADDRESS:_ l2 d [ l �j/Tl�if/(�� t+�/f'r Ji �l Tj .� Street City Zip ' ode Date File 4� +�-� : $'0 `fes �— _.._ Fee: 7��fteceipt '1ao � k a TELEPHONE Home Bes.� Coulncil Action:Date i, •H CTS Q) 0 REMARKS: Id 0 PROPERTY OWNER(S) 6° �u,a /Cd -- � � P •H 0 P, 3 0 on ADDRESS(ES) 1'(s6 cz . P �+ Street City Zip Code ,cj ami o o -P IQ � r Street City Zip Co e v 1 O O o � ca •14 TELEPHONE #(3) ') / _ �D c/ .S` — a> � d P-1 Home0 0) Busu� +� m aP d P �M + m uP � Property Location on Street � �l� a or Exact Street Address (IF ANY) -'2 U P74 or H Legal Description of Property: H zj 3Y/1 3 2 0 G S- �� 2 2 . IV ` R 2.2 4- f44L3 0 eJx42K f Total Area of Propertysq. ft. Present Zoning lassificatio.n The undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this application are true and correct. DATE: SIGNATURE BELOW FOR CITY USE E ONLY (See reverse side for additional instructions CHECKED BY STAFF DATE Remarks: PLANNING COMMISSION: Date of Consideration - Remarks: CITY COUNCIL: Date of Consideration - Remarks � i i 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 $32WO for each original lot being split. 75'.00 3. The application krill 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 ��d ll then be submitted to the Planniny 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 lut 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 FIE;ANCE DEPARTMENT OF FRIDLEY '11AY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS. CITY OP FRIMLUY, SUBJECT I fl� MIr-jNr--:30TA COMINAISSUON ,C.F�'PLIC ' "EON RIZ-VEEV9 ter_•ria.�m.n:, :r.-.x.V;a::;; wcwz:ar.�9:v�n+x•Aaa::c:r�cas �.W, Uep mcnl/U rsrom Nurnuer I ttev r oqo Ap roved �y pofo FI N�4/ ADDRESS COMPLETE REVIEW CHECK ST �,,�10O-0Z( L� RETURN TO PLANNING I'd 6d S t� M(VIEr\JTS LW t .4,R ? NMQLj ' NMQ E 1W..1L" ic" El Sept. 14, 1979 Overall plans be developed and see that any proposals comply with the overall plans. NMQ/ms °;tea —IIA SS i ;�142n Ricp Crppk Road ! ., • r p So;Sp 4 1314 ss� /zf ,,s /zs /rs 1340 1358 1376 1400 1428 1442 1464 14ez �'• y • los ��� �+ (5 20) 440) (--f 60) (280) (?_00) 20) 9 N N 644(. ! 4r r --- 1op01_ _..1. /,zf 1 �EC o i x ft 1 4r 4 4( 33la3 mad � N�. t 700) 7_5 67Q t 151 .V ,> (7�011 a g) /9 J . a .560 e0) I (4.00 320 ��� ✓d°� (8 p) % ,CC . 4` ,j Z 16401 13A j 357 1423 1,2 60) , 41 �.. 1 �zg 14� /v F N411487�►� ':� {3T.2 , 1365 1403 14431145j3 �, 1 F 93 r i ' So 25 pp 114, v i 64TH AVE. fV F o r;?>,s,v t � i 9 ; t V ,.� s ; aee 6391 13- 304 400 14Z6 1442145,0 0� 00 v„Q ►340 1356 <.060, fool 4I'�o)!( d E t <.9�zr iia X39) /� 9 w� t' ♦ s"� 17 ` G ._ —�i, .GIX?t issue - _ .i _�.�.�.__ �._./._...1._.. `• t 2 4 ��411 (1180) i 00 i (iaPol 9 r3 , T I 4 z`p ' t3 9 1425 ,arca ���; .,.,..a.�.t.r�/� +r '^ Xf z5 p"�T/zS .,�� ,1 11D �' '�' 1..•.�,...«,..�»... -.....�,. rsk✓ : _.. RICE . R EEK ROAD 1�4+� 1 �`�i`� ADD. /J"3 t<' i tr 14`7 7 h / r1 hi�1 .c-'��r1400 •?;rf / i a -.. »,. •r I 1� i 37 O hNN _ 16 cc;, jL orf 4 E - r a t 1 i UD Y 4 g v+ 9)t , 0 1 ) ap r s .r-- - - - -- •.�---_� _______— LS $79-04 4 R Edward Bauler 1420 Rice C eOk Road i t Z-3 i i � 122 C3 D /o - � o , Ell D g S s LS !#79-04 CITY OF FRIDLEY Edward T. Bauler PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,,, SEPTEMBER 26, 1979 CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Langenfeld called the September 26, 1979 meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7 :43 P.M. ROLL CALL: i } Members Present: Ms. Hughes, Mr. Treuenfels, Mr. Langenfeld, Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel { Mr. Harris (arrived at 7 :45 P.M.) Members Absent: Ms. Schnabel (represented by Ms. Gabel) { f Others Present: Bill Deblon, Associate City Planner 1 APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 12, 1979: i MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the September 12, 1979, minutes of the Planning Commission with the following corrections : Mr. Langenfeld said on page 3, the 5th paragraph from the bottom the word emission should be admission. Also, on page 12, the 6th paragraph should read: He was ex- officio on the Planning Commission for over a year and this brought about a full citizen participation and felt the establishment of this (Energy Commission) would be very beneficial to the City of Fridley. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. LOT SPLIT REQUEST. L.S. #79-04, EDWARD T. BAULER: Split off the Westerly 60 feet of Lot 14, A.S. #22, except the Southerly 390 feet, also Lot 30, Block 2, Irving- ton Addition and adjoining vacated streets and alleys in Irvington Addition, to be sold as open space for an adjoining property, the same being 1420 Rice Creek Road N.E. Mr. Deblon said the lot was 239.2 feet by 194.5 feet. The petitioner plans to split off the 60 feet on the west side. Staff approached this request with a comprehensive look for the entire area and felt the lot split as shown would not be in the best interest of this area. Mr. Deblon showed a map of the area with a future proposed road on it. He said Mr. Boardman placed the road where the surrounding land would be used most efficient- ly for future residential development. He said any future road in this area would have site limitation because of the steep elevations. Mr. Deblon said this lot would only be 60 feet wide by 239.2 feet deep, making it sub- standard in width. Staff felt this could set a precedent for this area as there was quite a large amount of undeveloped land in the area. He stated the plan as drawn by Mr. Boardman is not a definite plan. Mr. Oquist asked if any developer had approached the city for this type of development. Mr. Deblon said no. The staff was asked -to make a comprehensive stud of this area be- fore allowing a small piece of land to be split off. This would foresee future development complications. LS #79-04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 26 1979 PAGE 2 Mr. Ed Battler, 1420 Rice Creek Road, was present for the request. He said he and his neighbor, Mr. Kassel, in 1967 fought it out at that time about the placing of a road here. He was told if he could come up with an alternative the City would go along with it. Mr. Bauler said he came up with the idea of what was now Kerry Lane. He ques- tioned why he should be the only one penalized and have the road put n as Mr. Boardman suggested. He said the area west of his land was better suited for a�road because it was flatter. Mr. Harris question if Mr. O'Bannan and Mr. Brickner owned some of the undeveloped land. Mr. Bauler said yes. Mr. Bauler said this proposed development was for the future, so why �hould he be burdened with it now. He explained he lives on a pension with his wife and they have had high medical bills in the last few years. Selling this 60 feet to his neighbor would pay off his debts and let him still give the rest of his land to his children. Mr. Deblon said the staff felt the land would be better utilized if developed the way shown. This would allow Mr. Bauler's land in the future to be split into 3 lots if his family so desired. The lot as prognosed by Mr. Bauler would be a north-south lot with access off of Rice Creek Road. The proposed City development would make the lot pie shaped and would need road right-of-way from the adjoining property to obtain access to this lot. Mr.. Bauler said his future was now and he has to do something about it - The commission pointed out that on the proposed development, future lot lines had been set up through or close to existing homes and did not feel homeowners would go along with that. Mr. . Deblon said the lot lines would not necessarily go through as dram, but City staff was looking to maximize the area for residential development. Mr. Harris said he thought they should talk with the other property owners in the area and see what their intent was for their land. He thought there was some land already platted and some building going on now. Mr. Oquist pointed out to Mr. Bauler that he could get 2 lot splits p�ssibly and make more money. Mr. Bauler said he did not want to sell all his land, only what was needed. He thought it was very sad when the City would not let you sell. your own property. He has been here since 1938 and has helped build the City and this was the thanks he gets. Mr. Deblon said the City has to look at the entire area to see what was best, not just for now, but for future generations that will live in Fridley. Mr. Harris asked if Mr. Bauler had talked to anyone on his proposed lot split. Mr. Bauler said no, only his neighbor who wanted to butt the land for � tennis court. Mr. Langenfeld pointed out to Mr. Bauler he thought they were using proper planning procedure and forsight here. He felt if they granted this lot split tonight and then in the future had to say because of development, the rest of this land would not be useable, Mr. Bauler would be very mad. PU-MING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 26 LS #79-04 1979 PAGE 3 Edward T. Bauler 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. MOTION 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 OF 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 alread buili here and asked when the County approved this and why. Mr. Deblon said he did not have answers fo those 2 questions, but said it went tax- forfeit 6 years ago. He said the propert owner, Mr. Van Cleves, ke t 14.2 feet out when he sold this land (Lot_JZ to Mr. E ckson. Right now the land Ms not owned by anyone and is was suggested t t the of C pick up the extra 14.2 feet. He said the City was looking for a ible lot split on Lots 1-4 and also to build a road off of Benjamin Street to s ice em. Mr. Treuenfels asked if the p perty owners h been contacted to see if they wanted to purchase the 14.2 feet and pay taxes on •it. Mr. Deblon said not co his knowledge. LS #79-04 CITY OF FRIDLEY Edward T. Bauler PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 3 1979 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the regular meeting of the Planning Commissiontoorder at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. Harris, Ms. Hughes, Mr. Oquist, Mr. Treuenfels, IMs. Gabel Members Absent: Ms. Schnabel, (represented by Ms. Gabel), Mr. Langenfeld (arrived at the end of the meeting) Others Present: Jerry Boardman, City Planner and Bill Deblon, Associate City Planner 1. CONTINUED: LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #79-04, EDWARD T. BAULER: Split off the Westerly 60 feet of Lot 14, A.S. #22, except the Southerly 390 Feet, also Lot 30, Block 2, Irvington Addition, and adjoining vacated streets and alleys in Irvington Addition, to be sold as open space for an adjoining property, the same being 1420 Rice Creek Road N.E. Chairman Harris asked Mr. Boardman for comments on this request. Mr. Boardman told the Planning Commission when considering this item, that it was very important to consider planning for the whole district. The entire area was quite large with many undeveloped lots. He stated other landowners in this area ave contacted him regarding the question of lot splits. His two main questions wer how to get access to all of this land and what kind of use the land would service Fridley' best. He realized Mr. Bauler only wants to split off 60 feet, but this would make the lot substandard in width and a very deep lot. This lot could become landlocked in the future. When planning we have to look at 15 to 20 years down the road. He realized this will put a burden on Mr. Bauler now. The City already has a 30 foot road right- of-way along Mr. Bauler's land. This was platted many years ago on the old Irvington Addition. All the streets and alleys in the area have been vacated. The City would have to obtain an additional 30 feet to make room for a road. Mr. Bo�rdman recommended denial of the lot split. Mr. Harris said the reason for continuing this request was the question of access to the rear properties, plus, to find out what the other property owner's intents where. Mr. Boardman said they dial not ask each owner what their intent was, because perhaps in 5 years from now they may sell to a developer and we have to plan for that now. Mr. Harris said they were also looking for some sort of a plan for this area. Mr. Boardman said this was what he did on his proposed road plan and of plan. Because of lack of time, everything was not planned from an engineering standpoint, but the plan as far as a road system, lot division and lot size was feasible. He asked if we do this split now, what problems are we creating down the line. He recommended denial because the lot would be too narrow. It would be only 60 feet wide, which was substandard and that •has never been allowed before. If the commission okays the lot split, it would be saying the lot was buildable, which was not- true. Mr. Boardman questioned if LS #79-04 Edward T. Bauler PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 3 1979 PAGE 2 a e the Commission could legally approve the lot split because it would be going against the ordinance requirements for size. Mr. Boardman also recommended denial because the rest of the land would be inaccessible and the City could not get the needed road right-of-way. Mr. Harris asked if the terrain was too steep for roads. Mr. Boardman said there are variations in the terrain, but there are law points which are fairly level and could be serviceable. The proposed plan was about the best one for road access and creating lots. Ms. Gabel pointed out on the proposed road plan, some houses wore in the way. She questioned what happes to them. Mr. Boardman replied this road plan was not definite. It may have to be moved around for those homes, some lots made smaller or larger or if the price was night, the developer would purchase the homesand relocate them. Ms. Hughes asked how many property owners were affected. Mr. Boardman said the land was owned by 9 homeowners and they each have a large amount t of land. He then showed a map of each homeowner's land. 4 C t Mr. Boardman suggested to Mr. Bauler to split off some other area of h�s land. f Mr. Bauler, 1420 Rice Creek Road, said he has a buyer for this land already and he did not want to sell anymore of his land. Mr. Boardman said this neighbor would be able to put in his tennis court, with this- lot split and then split off his original land and sell. He has seen this happen _ before. Mr. Bauler would then be left with inaccessible land on his b ck property. Mr. Robert Barnette, 541 Rice Creek Blvd. , speaking as a friend for Mr. Bauler, pointed out the only reason Mr. Bauler was selling was because of financial need. He said if he sold this 60 feet to his neighbor, ultimately the tennis court would go in, and when the road was needed, it would be part of the neighbor's land that would be condemned. The burden would be on the purchaser of the property, not on Mr. Bauler. It would be up to the neighbor to settle on the cost of this lot, not Mr. Bauler. The burden should not be on the petitioner because of something 20 years down the road. . Mr. Boardman said the burden was on the City, because they would be saying the lot split was buildable and it was not. Mr. Harris said he did not see how the Planning Commission could approve a lot split for this size because it goes against the ordinance. Mr. Bauler said he did not want to sell off more of his land closer to his house. That was all part of his home and he had lived there since 1938. Mr. Harris said, there have been no lot splits of less than 75 feet since 1966. Ms. Gabel asked if C,,C. would buy another configuration of his land. The Commission tried to work out various ways to split the land, but b cause of needed road right-of-way and future land development, nothing was feasible. Also, Mr. Bauler LS #79-04 Edward T. Bauler PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. OCTOBER 3, 1979 PAGE 3 could not agree with any of the suggestions because it would infringe on his home and his life style. Mr. Bauler stated he wanted to leave his land to his children. Mr. Harris suggested splitting off the land along Rice Creek Road;-' leal ing an access to his home. This lot would be more valuable then the original request, somewhere in the area of $15 - 16,000. This lot would also meet all the requirements. An easement would be given for future road right-of-way to give access toj the land to the rear. This split would stillleave Mr. Bauler the land around his home and allow him to do what he wants with it. Mr. Barnette pointed out that the neighbor was not interested in this land. Mr. Harris said considering land shortage and the location, this lot should sell very easily. Mr. Boardman suggested leasing the land ', the' neighbor wasnted for hisIItennis court and also split the front lot on Rice Creek Road. The proposed road plan would then be shifted be along this lot and an easement could be dedicated for road right-of-way when the-lot was sold. This would satisfy the neighbor's plan, and give Mr. Baultelr the -money-he requires and still leave 2 lots left of his land. Mr. Bauler said he fought placing a road here in 1967, but looks now like he has lost. Mr. Barnette asked what type of procedure Ed would have to go thru. Mr. Harris said he would only need a lot split for the land on Rice Creek Road. He also suggested working out a written aureement with the neighbor on leasing the land for the tennis court. This should include and easement for access to theltennis court for motorized vehicles. Mr. Harris said they would continue this item until Mr. Baulter had time to talk with his neighbor ori this proposal and-work out the newllot split. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Hughes, to continue Lot Split Request, L.S. 179-04, Edward T. Bauler, until further notice. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTI0N CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. J 2. RECEIVE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES : SEPTEMBER 13. 1979: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Gabel to eceive the Housing anh Redevelopment minutes of September 13, 1979. Mr. Boardman pointed out a motion o age 3 regarding the discussion on reliminary Development Standards and he Cent City Project. "Motion by Mr. Houck, eco d by Mr. Prieditis, to recommend toCityCouncil, through Planning Commi s' n, that they adopt some guidelines for controls sim- ilar to the "Prelimin Development Standards" to be implemented in the zoning ordinance. pon Voice Vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Commers de- clared the moti carrie unanimously. He said he was esently workin on zoning controls for the Center City project and should be b ing them to the P anning Commission soon. He stated he was looking at this area as'" an overlay district rich would require. Special Use Perm is for all buil- dings in the Center City project. pecial Use Permits would take car of variances, CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 24, 1979 CALL TO ORDER: Co-chairperson Schnabel called the meeting of the October 24, 1979, Planning Commission meeting to order at 8:32 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Ms. Modig, Ms. Hughes, Mr. Treuenfels, Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Hora, Mr. Harris (arrived at 8:35 P.M.) Members Absent: None Others Present: Jerry Boardman, City Planner, Bill Deblon, Associate City Planner APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES : SEPTEMBER 26, 1979: MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels to approve the September 26, 1979, minutes of the Planning Commission as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CO-CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES : OCTOBER 3, 1979: MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels to approve the October 3, 1979 minutes of the Planning Commission as corrected: Page 2, the second to last paragraph shoud read; '1Is. Gabel asked if the neighbor ." Ms. Schnabel was not present at the September 26th and October 3rd meetings, and questioned the use of Special Use .Permits taking care of variances in the Center City Project as noted on page 3 of the October 3rd meeting. She felt this statement contraacted what the Board was discussing at the previous meeting on pages 6 and 7, y hey were concerned about Special Use Permits being used instead of variances, l Mr. Boardman said Special Use Permits are set up now not to handle variances because one requires a public hearing and one does not. Ile was looking at the Center City Project to be an overlay district and there would be special conditions for building in that district. One of the special conditions would be that all building permits would require a Special Use Permit. The permits would cover any variances from thelcode, i.e., setbacks. The project would be handled by development rather than the regular code requiring a 35 foot setback. The Special Use Permit process would have to follow the variance process. Mr. Herrick has a copy of the overlay district and Planning Commiss17 has not reviewed it yet. They will be reviewing the overlay district and zoning code modification after Mr. Herrick has looked at it. Ms. Schnabel said she would like to have time to look over this and see if she thought it was a good idea. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 24. 1979 PAGE 2 Mr. Boardman said _definitely the Planning Commission would be going over the use of Special Use Permits in the Center City Project. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ` 1. CONTINUED: LOT SPLIT REQUES L.S. #79-04 ARD T BAULER: Split off the West- erly 60 feet of Lot 14, A.S 1122, exc e Southerly 390 feet, also Lot 30, Block 2, Irvington Addition, a joining vacated streets and alleys in Irvington Addition, to be sold as open space for an adjoining property, the same being 1420 Rice Creek Road N.E. Mr. Boardman reminded the commission that at the last meeting they had continued this request so Mr. Bauler could look into another lot split and possible lease agreement with his neighbor. Mr. Bauler came forward and said he would like to stick to his original request for a lot split. He said he Lad been told when he brought it in, it would not be approved. Mr. Boardman said he told Mr. Bauler when he brought in his request he would recommend denial of the lot split. Mr. Harris said the commission would make a recommendation to the City Council and he could ask the City Council for approval. Mr. Bauler could see no point in that and felt his only alternative was to sell all his land and move out of Fridley. ti Mr. Bauler left the meeting at that point. Mr. Harris said the commission had studied the entire area carefully and had come up with an alternative suggestion for Mr. Bauler. He chose to stick with his original lot split request and that request does not meeting zoning requirements. MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels to recommend to City Council denial of L.S. #79-04, for the following reasons : 1. Lot split does not meet zoning code requirements for minimum lot width. (lot size would be 60 x 293.2 feet) 2. Any future lot split of this new lot would create-2 substand,1rd,lo�s (60 x 146.6 feet). This would only add to future problems in this area. 3. By allowing such a lot, the commission would be saying the lots are build- able, which was not true. Ms. Schnabel said she felt bad she was not at the last 2 meetings when this request was discussed . She had studied the minutes and felt the motion was proper. Approval of the request- would be creating a substandard lot and this would not be in the best interest of the city. Mr. Harris pointed out the commission had come up with a better plan by splitting off the front section of his land on Rice Creek Road. That would still leave all the land around PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 24 1979 PAGE 3 the house and to the rear. An access easement would have been provided for Mr. Bauler. This land would be more valuable to Mr. Bauler for resale and that was his main reason for the lot split request. Ms. Hughes also felt Mr. Bauler was not receptive to any new proposal as this was his third time here and he had the same comments each time. She felt the commission had really tried to work with him. She stated she felt sorry they were not able to con- vince him of the alternative solution. She understood why he might not want to use their solution, because a house could be built close to his. She wished they had been able to explore the possibility of splitting the rear lot and leasing that land to his neighbor. She stated that Mr. Boardman said the City would not have done that because a rear lot split would have created a diagonal line and they do not dol lot splits with a lot of description. Mr. Boardman said they do not necessarily not do them but a split likes that would have to go through the plat process. Ms. Modig asked if he could use an alternative lot split proposal at a later date if he desired. Mr. Harris said yes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Harris asked to have Mr. Bauler notified of the commission'slrecommendation. He also asked that City Council get all the information and discussions on this request as one package. 2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, T.S. #79-07, WALLACE L. LARSON: Split off the Northerly 115.78 feet of Lot 1, Block 11, Spring Valley Addition, the same being 1482 Mississippi Street N.E., to create a new building site 80' X125' (10,000 square feet). Mr. Boardman said this lot split was in an area in the Comprehensive Flan called under- utilized land. The lot had previously been split off on the southerly end to create a 130 x 125 foot lot. On the south end of that lot the city has a 25 foot rode right- of-way. The lots in this area are all quite deep and the city was looking at placing a road along the southerly end and developing the area. He felt this lot split would fit in with the area. Mr. Harris questioned easements. Mr. Boardman replied the necessary easements to service the back lotswouldbe required. There would be approximately a 5 foot easement around the lot. Mr. Harris asked the petitioner for comments and if he understood the easement requirement. Mr. Wally Larson, 1482 Mississippi Street, stated he had no additional comments and that he understood about the easements. Mr. Boardman . noted the curb that runs down Mississippi Street along) Mr. Larson's property was 1.3 feet on his land. Some type of agreement regardinglthat should be worked out. I � t PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER_ 24,_ 1.9.79 PAGE 4 Mr. Larson replied he was sure some type of agreement could be worked out between him and the city. MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Modig to recommend to the City Council approval of L.S. #79-07, with the following stipulation: 1. Work out the required easements needed for the lot. Mr. Treuenfels questioned if the curb problem should be stipulated also. Mr. Harris said the City Council could handle that after staff has gotten all the information together. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Harris informed Mr. Larson this goes before the City Council on November 5, 1979. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREAS PLAN FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY: MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Hora to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 8:02 P.M. Mr. Boardman explained that the Critical Area Plan was part of the Comprehensive Plan and had been pulled out to allow review by the various local and state boards. He said the first 20 pages of the Critical Area Plan were the same as in the Comprehensive Plan. The policys and recommendations have already been approved with the approval of the Comprehensive Plan by the Planning Commission. From page 21 on there was a breakdown of projects and implementations of the Critical Area Plan. The Critical Area regulations are found in this segment also. Mr. Boardman stated the plan was an overlay district, in which changes will be included in the modifications of the City_ Code, Chapter 205. The Netxg Council has reviewed the elan veru informally.. A coDyl of their comments were made :available to each. Commission member. Mr, Boardman said he did not agree «ith all the comments made, Mr. Deblon said he had talked to the person who made the review, Carl Schenk, Mr. Shenk said the comments may seem harsh, but were not intended. Lack of time made for hurried comments. Ms. Hughes questioned if these comments change the policy, do we approve them and then send them back to Metro Council or what happens to them. Mr. Boardman replied we will review the plan and comments, make changes where needed, approve them and send them to the Metro Council for further reviewal. These comments, changes, and regulations are not necessarily the ones the Minnesota EQC would make. There was still some necessary negotiation needed on the document. The comments will be looked at to see if we are covering them or not. PAGE 21• Ms. Schnabel said the chart referred to as Figure 3-10 should be labeled as such. This was the Capital Improvements Program chart on page 23. 1 � z95 i REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 1979 Page 3 I UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES _OF_ T ER 24, 1979: CONSIDERATION OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST LS 079-04 6 EDWP,RD T. BA_ ULER, 1420 RICE CREEK ROAD: Mayor Nee stated the Planning Commission has recommended denial of this lot split. Councilman Barnette stated Mr. Bauler was presented with some alternatives and tended to reject all of them. 1 Mr. Boardman, City Planner, stated Mr. Bauler was present when the Planning I Commission made their recommendation and laid out the reasons for recommend- ing denial. He stated Mr. Bauler did not want to proceed with any df the alternatives. Mayor Nee asked if staff was doing any work to provide leadership in this area. Mr. Boardman stated staff has talked with several people who have asked about j the possibilities of lot splits. He stated these would involve properties closest to Old Central and indicated that development hasn't been promoted. Ij Councilman Schneider stated he would have to concur with the Planning Com- f mission's recommmendation for denial of the lot split, as it would �reate a lot which is not up to standard. I Councilman Schneider stated he felt there were a lot of plans that he didn't feel the neighborhood wanted at this point of time. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated the overriding consideration is, if they grant the lot split, it creates a sub-standard lot. i Councilman Schneider stated the reason Mr. Bauler requested the lot split was because his neighbor wishes to purchase this property for use a a tennis --_. court. He stated he recognizes, however, that once the lot is split, some- one could come in and ask for a building permit. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated there are no provisions, however, to �reate lots for the purpose of a tennis court. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated he supposed if the sole purpose of the lot split was for something other than a residence and the Council Melt very strongly that this should be passed, it may be possible to come up with a mutual agreement that would be filed with the deeds of the lots indicating the lot split was approved, but that it was not buildable and no building permits would be issued without a variance. Councilman Schneider felt it was a sad situation because Mr. Bauler was sin- cere in his efforts to sell off some of the property to cover some of the costs of medical bills in his family and the neighbor wants this property for a tennis court. Mr. Herrick stated if Mr. Bauler had considered the possibility of la long term lease. ( Councilman Barnette stated, in the last conversations he had with r. Bauler, he was going to talk with his neighbor about the possibility of le sing. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny LS 079-04, as filed by Mr. Edward Bauler. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST, LS#79-07 B1' WALLACE L._LAR ON, i 1482 MISSISSIPPI STREET: Mayor Nee stated the Planning Commission has recommended approval �f this lot split. i REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 1979 Page 4 I � Mr. Boardman, City Planner, stated that the survey shows that the curb , line on Mississippi Street is on Mr. Larson's land. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, questioned how the lot got split in the first j place. I Mr. Larson, the petitioner, stated his father had sold off the South half and then bought back a portion. He pointed out on the map where he wished the lot to be split. Mr. Boardman, City Planner, stated the Planning Commission recommended j that all the necessary easements be provided for drainage and utilities. I Mr. Qureshi stated there is still room for the road right-of-way and Council could grant the lot split subject to getting the easement, if necessary, for utilities and road right-of-way on Mississippi Street, and payment of the park fee plus drainage fee, and water and sewer lateral charges, if they haven't been assessed. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and grant LS #79-07, as filed by Mr. Wallace Larson, with the following stipulations: (1) If, in fact, there is a right-of- i way problem, that the easement be granted; (2) That utility easements be granted; (3) That a $500 park fee be paid; (4) That a. storm sewer and drainage fee be paid; and (5) That Mr. Larson be aware of the potential i of water and sewer assessments. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unani- mous ly. nani-mously. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 24, 1979. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried I unanimously. RECEIVING CATV COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 1979: l MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to receive the minutes of the October 11, 1979 Cable Television Commission Meeting. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. 111 Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ' Councilwoman Moses stated there seemed to be some concern over the five I percent paid for public access and asked if it was agree this would be turned over for the Public Access Coordinator. i Mayor Nee stated the City has an obligation to use these funds for purposes of cable television and not necessarily for the Access Coordinator. He stated he hoped, however, they could give the workshop a fair amount. i RECEIVING POLICE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 1979: t MOTION by Councilman Barnette to receive the minutes of the October 22, 1979 Police Civil Service Commission Meeting. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Councilman `.chneider asked about the joint venture with Bloomington. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated there is a new Suburban Police Recruit- ment System which the City could join for recruitment of Police Officers. Ne stated standards have been developed and an extensive process gone through to develop a valid testing. He stated Bloomington has been selected to conduct the final portion which is a field test. Mayor Nee stated he couldn't tell if the Commission members had examined whether or not it is open to females. Councilman Schneider asked what qualifications must be met for persons to j take the test. Mr. Qureshi stated certain minimum criteria has to be met and indicated he would give further information to the Council. � Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated he talked briefly with Jim Hill, Public Safety Director, regarding this item and t,ondered if there would be any problems in dealing with Bloo,ruington. He stated that 'i.he City of Bloomington i was sued and, lie believed, the case went to the Supreme Court by a woman i