Loading...
LS87-01 DENIED CITY OF FRI DLEY 2 ,z 6431 UNIVERSITY AV N.E:" ` FRIDLEY, MN 5543: § LOT SPLI19ORM L.S. J (612)571-3450 LOT SPLIT FEE {_ PARK FEE RECE IPT # t� SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: (-/ SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: PROPERTY INFORMATION ADDRESS: EcmY a i Ay6 , N LMAL DESCRIPTION: A0 w\0 a E 7SInt LOT BLOCK TRACT/ADDITION PRESENT ZONING REASON FOR LOT SPLIT: A sketch cE the property and the proposed lot split with any existing structures shown should acccmpany this application. vie- fik t- 0/0 FEE OWNER INFORMATION NAME U AY I E_C L , 'Rice,Ce PHONE # �5 71-405 q ADDRESS _S A I lszrnd A k ai6 011 SIGNATURE C,9�� �__<3-Zf� DATE Note to Contract Purchasers; Fee Ownejs*mVsj dip*f*r* kr*o* *o*p*ro*ess n .* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME C,)nArtes L, 2" PHONE # ?l-►IOS�I ADDRESS 15;4 t FEYr4balc- AV6 . N1 SIGNATURE DATE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PLANNING COMISSION APPROVED DENIED DATE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED DENIED DATE STIPULATIONS: IOT SPLIT APPLICATION PROCURE 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 $100.00 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 cr eat ed 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 gei,erally the f irst 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 crinin;l e-d v t by the a:Fl ica.t.. 7. If approved, the applicant shall then have the land involved in the lot split surveyed. Upon receipt of the required Surveyor's Certificate, the Council shall pass a resolution approving the lot split. 8. After final approval, a certified copy of the resolution approving the lot split and a "Certificate of Status" form shall be attached to the notice of approval and forwarded to the applicant. The lot split, together with a certified copy of the resolution and "Certification of Status" form, shall thereafter be recorded among the records of the County within one hundred eighty (180) days after the date of the resolution, unless a longer period of time is granted and provided for recording at the time of approval. 9. In all cases where City 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 RESULTIlW, REAL ESTATE TAS AMID SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR 78E NEW PARCELS IN TOTAL AFTER THE LOT SPLIT MAY EXEED THE AMOUNT ASSESSED TO THE ORIGINAL PARCEL. 78E FINANCE DEPARTMEZU OF FRIDLEY MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE ESTIMATED AM31W OF ADDITIONAL TABS OR ASSESSMENTS. 6?14 64-o- ZLI '00� Xd"'e. this........... ......... Y ..........I ig...7P.- .. ........................ bctwem............ .....J CH:I P E C L S and Ci L E E N G T FEEBLES ....... ................... ...... ........................................................ .............t.................9.......H.u.s.b.a.nd.......an ...... of the County of..................Anoka .... ....... .............. ........and state of....... ...Min.neso i e *ta ........... .... . .............. pa 1-t S .... Of the fl)-s' P(Irt, and.........ST NL E Y..... .......0"1 V.I.$....... Vi f e ............ ............................A.n.ok a......................................................................................................................................................................... of the Cou n'Y of .......................................................................a?ld State of.........Plinnesota f -........................................................................I pal-ties of the Second part, Mitnes,ect1j, That the said part i.-25.. of the- first part, in consideratiolt of th.c &1,111, ..0 iN c.......D C L L.r.i R......P,1,IN)......0-11.:'R.......0 Q.QQ......ANP... W"LLI P-LE CO3NSIDERAT191 ------------ ... . ..............I.. .................... ............................................:7.-:-D 0 L E71R S, to.....t 11,-M................. in hand paid by the said parties of the second port, the receipt whereof is hereby acknoll-1- edfrd, do ... .... hereby Grant, Bar rain, 'Ml, a71d Convey unto the said parties of the second part (ts joint,'27 te7l(771ts a71d 7101 (IS tC??G?lts ipt C077177mm, their the szowiror Of f said parties, and the heirs and ass'6U3 o the survivor, ForcL-ep, all Ile tract..... or parcel...... of land lyind and b " 7-7n, the ro 0 the s"" t7,An a' '3 'a the ............ _a7l CrV,tZrt� "i'lPac So 'h 1"T O� the Ano a 0 'We's'*t.....1'/? lot ... .......Auditor 's Subdivision Number 07, according to the map or plat f thr-reof on. file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for r t said county and state, subject to covenants, restrictions and easemients of record,,* if ny; DEED TAX DEED TAN 0:.!:D LAX DEED TAX, DEED TAX *0111,1 : .os 60 lo JUL 11 1970 ASSESSOR The State deed tax due hereon is $58.30. C' 0�'VIabc(1111 to j`."Olb 11je nimlm, Tonether with all the hereditaments and appurtcnan.-es there- unto Mondi)i6 or in anywisc a7)PC7•tai71i7td' to the said pat-ties of the sceond part, their as.3i1ns, the sur- vivor of said parties, ann d the hCh'S ad asci erns of the survivor, Foret-cr, the said Parties of the second part takin" as j0171t tcna.WS and not as tenants ill, CO'1)1.7)ZOZ. Ind the said..........J9��N E61'..ARD PEEBLES and EILEEN MARGARET PEEBLES and wi , ........... ...............I.....................................................................................................PEEBLES_,......... .......... ............f!�.P........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ part - ie.s of t h e ft v-4 part, for..... ......theI ....................heirs, executors and adMiHislrators do............ covenant with. the said parties of the second part, thCil'assigns, the SZ17-1'iVO7'of said ;:antics, and the heirs and assifns of the 8117TZI-07-, that....they...Prq........?vc7Z seized i7l, fCC Of the laIVIS and PITMiSCS aforesaid and ha Vie.-. food H44t to Sell and convey the same in MOMICY' and f07-m- afoi'esaid, and that the saMel arc6 filce froia all incumbranves, except as abov2 stated; .4nd the above 7)cz7-(,_inCd and laUdS a7Z(I. premises, i7L the quiet 0714 7)-?('cc,1blC possesv'on, of the said parties of the second part, their asci s, the survivor of said parties, and the, heirs inns the SUVV1�7 IVOP, afairst cul p-r,,wzs b-m-fidly Cb)?i7lj or to claim the u.-hole or any pa;,l thercoi, Subiccl to Mri(Mbrallees, if any, hereinbefore mentioned, the said part......... of the fl7',qt P(17't Will TT'W-ra7tt and Defend. Y11 !Z'0tfimny UUlercof, The said part---i..Cs of the first P07-t haYP....... hC1'C2171tO SCI ..... . .......... houd.-75. the day 071d 7/Cc11. P'St (7101-C IU7'ittC7Z. In Prescncc of v 77- .......... ....... K ..................................... ................ ......... **'"*,.,*..,-**.,*,."*,..,*""..*,-*.."*............................ 2A 0 rm CRYOF FMDLEY CIVIC CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 PHONE(612)571-3450 April 3, 1987 TO WHOM IT MAY GDNCERN: The City of Fridley Planning Con mission will be holding an informal hearing on a request for a Lot Split, L. S. #87-01, by Charles Rice, to split Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92 into two separate parcels. One being that part of the north 133.84 feet of the east 75 feet of Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, subject to a street and utility easement over the north 30 feet. The other being that part of the east 75 feet of Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92 lying south of the north 133.84 feet, subject to a street and utility easement over the south 30 feet, the same being 1541 Ferndale Avenue N. E. Anyone who wishes to be heard shall be given the opportunity at the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, April 8, 1987 in the Council Chamber of City Hall at 6431 University Avenue N. E. at 7:30 pm. STEVE BILLINGS CHAIRMAN ELANNNING OJMMISSION L.S. #87-01 1 1 K • • Charles Rice EXHIBIT A N.E. CORNS ( •r r.nr.c/.f Sow v�. C. 4 61 ST AVE. N 4 '° '° i� VE.14 N �� �I It: �l _ :::�: ,r..' d.ns SP_v1 �Z��J E s•1 15 Ii ^sw >�0 _'fl >.t _" ) •!'° �P� ' (B� ed+. Ie�e �.. 01) 6 np,.`�� rlel v r,, i,• E. dot, i c IV 1y m /E 1 �A D 01 Aki J is r 1.B9SB 9E � o, •• n A, 1 A el � is ♦ / �M N o I a y n 0 ` d c b H1 /97 b e � w aI v^ • .� — \_ ,ems !.?Ds rSr /d. /JS � s 1 _ / r. i i B n A 7 tS a \ .y 91;9 s .r a r..- ��..� a _z - r - b i_ A,;. 7 .If w 7797 t r r Pc5,. V RR 171 SA �j, N z � 4 •`tI R r�\,� �,,i �oigo o� a6 •,nA�' ' M •� � � \ x�Y(1�� \ �� 'N • ��\ •f •\ k. ••___ 0 1 +_ _lr .7e r-✓rl .. s ✓P r, I-, �� 1`� I Oool J CJcC� I � CEVES VQ N ; `# a -,� : . 0 .7 _ 16 . vs A ORITHILLIRK T R- 1(a> A� M 3 ` t 4d. 4f � 7 !• K 1 a PP J.•.f b 71 ,,tali....4P�•�C T. n.i ! w •'.• (( \o y`r' _„•1ys .fw•rnsfnf_.ya. n 1�l� I�. I O 2 L.. ', _\: 24 / 2 „1,�f x, .yo7. ` I raao, �1 ((��//JJ7 9� >•�1Y> ti 1y1� .o L 25• 9 .�) �a� a -AV. —�ti--- 5) 7rT•� • l , e ---------------= L 31 32 �'• ',� z 3 y�3 3 6,'x < ° IQ �J nt_C_A� tea✓ q 1 - L.S. #87-01 Pl Hing 4/3/87 2B Charles Rice • MAILING LIST Council Francis Hunt James Allen Robert Nehring 1505 - 60th Avenue N.E. 1541 60th Ave. NE 1540 Ferndale Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Thomas Shelton Walter Kycia 1571 - 61st Avenue N.E. Ronald Long 1572 - 61st Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 1521 60th Ave. NE Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Dennis O'Keefe Brian Jacenko 1565 - 61st Avenue N.E. 1578 - 61st Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Thorne Helgesen David Nelson 1500 Rice Creek Drive N.E. 1579 Ferndale Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Timothy Dess Terry Clasen 1510 Rice Creek Drive N.E. 1573 Ferndale Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Robert Hayes Richard Bjorklund 1549 - 61st Avenue N.E. 1567 Ferndale Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Herbert Zimmerman Michael Bargy 1559 - 61st Avenue N.E. 1568 Ferndale Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Roger Arel Ellena Duval 1521 Ferndale Avenue N.E. 1560 Ferndale Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Charles Rice Andrew Evans 1541 Ferndale Avenue N.E. 6040 Benjamin Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 John Peebles Roger Sorsoleil Route 3, Box 17A 1561 - 60th Avenue N.E. Clear Lake, IA 55319 Fridley, MN 55432 Irving Olsen Clifford Rickhoff 1511 Ferndale Avenue N.E. 1567 - 60th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Gregory Johnson D. A. Hunt 1505 Ferndale Avenue 6020 Benjamin Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Gary Doty Ronald Scholl 1561 Ferndale Avenue N.E. 1508 Ferndale Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Yul Choi Otto Gaupp 1566 - 61st Avenue N.E. 1504 Ferndale Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Wayne Herrig Andrew Richert 1511 - 60th Avenue N.E. 1522 Ferndale Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 COMIISSION APPLICATIOO REVIEW Department Number File Date Meeting Date C'TYOF Planning 16 4/8/87 FRl DLEY File Address/DescriptionL.S• #87-01 COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST Charles Rice -- Lot 1, Auditor's Sub. No. 92, 1541 Ferndale Avenue N.E. RETURN TO PLANNING EDDARYL COMMENTS DEBBIE C- Lkk v&6L ow fIA-p- vLOV4- In,: (-P, 4-4w sell 44X1;4j 1 M D E 1313 I PJOHN ,V,,- 75--0 DEBBIE ARREL EBBIE LY D E 0, 4., ;s a wII 1,-11 �s. awe DEBBIE ]MARK DEBBIE' EILEON -3- DEBBIE rim w CANNING DIVISSJN 1 1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF FRI DLEY MEND TD: Jock Robertson, Community Development Director MEND FROM: Jim Robinson, Planning Coordinator JV_ NAND FATE: April 15, 1987 REGARDING: Lot Split #67-01 On April 8, 1987 the Fridley Planning Commission reviewed a petition by Mr. Charles Rice to subdivide his property into two single family lots. The property is located at 1541 Ferndale Avenue N. E. As you can see by the enclosed map (exhibit A) the proposed new lot abuts the westerly 30 feet of the 61st Avenue cul-de-sac. Research for this application revealed that this property was discussed in conjunction with the 1974 Rice Creek Estates Platting process. In planning for the 1974 Plat, Staff suggested a plan (see exhibit B) which would allow for the possibility of extending the road to the west in order to open up the backs of the double lots which front on Ferndale and to some extent the properties to the north which abut on Rice Creek Drive. During the course of the Council meeting on March 18, 1974 (see exhibit C) several possibilities were offered: 1. Th extend the road with the development and assess the abutting properties including the Rice property. 2. Simply to provide easements and put in a temporary cul-de-sac which could be extended at some future date. As you will see from the discussion (page 6) the Rice's were not supportive of splitting their property, extending the road or granting road easements at that time. The City Council and the developer took reliance upon these statements and did not make any provisions for extending 61st Avenue, therefore precluding further subdivision. At this time Staff feels it would be unwise to allow the lot split for the Rice property, unless a neighborhood-approved comprehensive plan for street extension and subdivision can be worked out. The Planning Commission recommended denial and placed the burden of providing a workable plan on the petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Rice. This item will come before the City Council on April 20, 1987 for their review. JLF;/dm C-87-87 f . 61 st AVE . N. E. - , — -- NOTE • /�!�/ 158:57 ! C — — — -- - --— } - -- - — -50417A/,) 57 of AA!/OA I err a ! - BEfJJaM1�J ST , � ( i c.1 ye Z t j 4 a� 1 8 i I I i o I I ! i 10 9 ! N :5 � 1 A-75 ( �.lyc of 90 i I so• I .-4, --G�d-�P CC-C� � �' I N 3 Zs- HYDRANT' 'tILI y ` 1 Ilk BEND i W a\ j _ _ 1. -41 c. lk 'Cove. II 72-5 _ 99.28'-7e 8 6( FRO•'OSE�� no - m .36' QL • f ' Cu AZs BY CITY s � I �•FR�G1.F� � I lye ' GJye /t 77 Wye 1-oo3 I zjve 0f29 I (J sf 15' 'M t• — pRo P©�0 to 10,038 � i 1 1o,o3a� b '75' � �erndQle, Av. ��.so' F I i --- - 06 i S ( oo , x . f + tt i i '4 1 r • •` 32 7. 97 ' v. 4o W i 1 � X33. 8 ' 133 g� _ Z - O Q+ r'1 �1 1 61 sT o a F LT � h M _ � S� �o M M ' v n M f �o I PL.9N 9 I riRNim LF- AY. 7.51 1 NORTH �,5 27-01 sbl .. � -,, r- � ., ti � .. t' ,� .r�.. � .. ... ... '�... .. .r v � .. ... .. .. � .. a' ...... ...�i1 j;j�fi� .. ...-....... ... .. �. .. .. .. .. ..M. _.,. ..i.... .. .. .. ... ♦.w•.w. fw. qui ♦ i..ti�.. ,�. . �.. , \ .. � .... � r..,... .... ,. .. .�..,.a, •.a -�. .. S. #87-01 1 1 N ..... , harles Rice 4'- 7S� 6/ ST 1 LT r /212 n �n M — , Y 4� 1 551 DETAIL MAP �_. :. ,. ,� ., _ ` ... ' � 1 .._ ._ _ _ ___�..- __� � 1 I i � ...' 7 � ._ . _. t, . !_ _ f _ ! � � � i ,.I , � ,.,.: � i t _.___. 1 � . . __ ,. .... . _ _ r , j _ _ _..�� � . _ __ '1� 3 ...._ '. ... ; !\ � t } '.1 �- � . . . . �4 .. - � _. -.,� 4 �' L.s. #87-oi 1 1 L '". Charles Rice EXHIBIT •B ` VJ I i to �' [ ►. t_ t 1'� ( '� �: ! -.St�� / i :�„_.�L. Gam:,_,,,_� ?��.� 1.-Ir 1._. .. \ i1• ��-�� + \''' #.� / \� / _ \-_�. _1�..__ �/ '•1'+ 1__ � 1�' �.1� ��,� C/;rte^/ r J_- -- � �, o \� �...,. r/ f ,, ,..'/ l` �J � Ott ./JT•-T_�,,,,-/,,,,,,, ,..,.�. A. Lu ot I �. } 17 lit 111T, / t +- - ice ♦ �♦♦♦♦ � � _ , � � ��1♦♦♦♦♦moi♦♦♦'�_♦� ♦♦♦♦ . •.. .n • , ♦ ♦♦♦IV IV Vv I ♦♦♦♦Lqp W 4w 4w ♦ . ♦ �• ��� ' y • ..�♦�♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦:mac:► 40 IV IV Ilion ** ** summon wasommusir museums u■u■■■..,.� �! iiian ►EE9iii man memo w '�i �1� . - �► •mom moo. _ © � ���� �- �►�ga . ©©.- 0 �1 �►.�, !�.• ._,.� OEM, •� and alllot a �� ,fir 'y�� o AMY �e � ,; �,. a�� - - ��i �'�• o � d - �% ��'�► �s��- � ''�i�i c�il0©y©©d°gni w 911 PROM VO im 0 Val r�m � Y �,•t �L -.M-1- "� :" '�" va, fie•.. o `� IL - 4 v r • a RICECREEK DRIVEkwt „ ,a Ae Mo e a , T. S VLI I A4 T s Ifx r , il R i V" ! ~ g" FI flo , �, -fid •„ � �- � � � � � �'' L A 'c YpeA i din �. !. """771ff lfnti. +�, C lot 41 V g d:: d Awl 04 OW , Au 14 Aa , w x _ Bim . r LAI. - t ! 1 � f W i • � , Ac� t ?�, may'` �y{ ^.•,» NO 5 + w M e q * 4 t ,Y .., .._.»!c^x.Ae aa.�,�n�wee�TMmr^._..�u�"'Ik�ta�ii�GJ' . ,r�e�. ► _ a _ _ . �° xw' 1 w ,It + .... .i' 00 - t1 Ave, 5-71 Aa R 47 y3F e a� 7J A5 . 9 LSC a n n e " v r 7 . w a y t a e " 4 } " D A AV { A ry Y —4 v, t •CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 8, 1987 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Billings called the April 8, 1937, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL: Meribers Present: Steve Billings , Dave Kondrick, can Saba, Sue Sherek, Donald Betzold Meribers Absent: Richard Svanda Others Present: Jim Robinson, Planning C, ordinator Richard Peterson, 247 - 57th Place N.E. Charles, Faye, and Ni 11 Rice, 1541 Ferndale Ave. N.E. See attached list APPROVAL OF 14ARCII 25 1937 PLANNIt C01111ISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. KOIIDP.ICK, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO APPROVE THE MARCH 25, 1987, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS RITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1 . CONSIDERATION OF A VA ATION, SAV 187-01 , BY RICHARD PETERSON: To vacate a 33 foot treet dedication between 57th Place and 57 1/2 Avenue lying east of Lot 1 , Block 1 , and west of Lot 1 , Block 2, City View Addition, all lyin in the City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, generally located east of 247 - 57th Place N.E. Mr. Robinson st ted the petition was by the property owner who lived adjacent to th right-of-way and just to the west of the Hyde Park area which was pre oriinately a single family neighborhood. The petitioner had approxim tely 103 ft. of width with one-half of the street right-of= way. The p titioner was proposing to construct an addition to his house which woul create the need for a variance without the vacation of the street. Mr. Rob'nson stated the utility companies have been inforned of this vacati n request, and there are some utilities in the street easement. Altho gh the City had no problens with the vacation of the street, Staff wou1 request that a utility easement be maintained over the entire right- of- y. ter. Robinson stated that as the Conmissioners could see from the area map, e right-of-way did not line up with 22 Street, so it had no function at his point. The Public Works Department felt the street could be vacated with no detrinental effects at this time. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 8, 1987 PAGE 2 Mr. Bret Anderson, 241 - 57th Place N.E. , stated he lived next or to Mr. Peterson and had no problem with the vacation request MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MS. SHEREK, RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF VACATION, SAV #87-01, BY RICHAR ETERSON, TO VACATE A 33-FOOT STREET DEDICATION BETWEEN 57TIl PLACE AN 7 1/2 AVENUE LYI117G EAST OF LOT 15, BLOCK 1, AND WEST OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2 ITY VIEW ADDITION, ALL LYING IN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, ANOKA COUNTY, NESOTA, GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF 247 - 57TH PLACE N.E. , WITH THE S ULATION THAT A UTILITY EASEMENT BE MAINTAINED OVER THE ENTIRE RIGHT-O AY. UPON A VOICE VO , ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNAI! OUSLY. fir. i ings stated this item would go to City Council on April 20. 2. CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #37-01 , BY CHARLES RICE: Split Lot 1 , Auditor's Subdivision No. 92 into two separate parcels. One being that part of the north 133.84 feet of the east 75 feet of Lot 1 , Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, subject to a street and utility easement over the north 30 feet. The other being that part of the east 75 feet of Lot 1 , Auditor's Subdivision No. 92 lying south of the north 133.84 feet, subject to a street and utility easement over the south 30 feet, the same being 1541 Ferndale Avenue N.E. Mr. Robinson stated this lot was located on the north side of Ferndale Ave. and west of Benjamin Street. He stated it was a double deep lot located in a single family neighborhood. The proposal was to split the lot north and south, approximately half-way. The lot was 227 ft. in length. Mr. Robinson stated he would like to give a little history on this particular application. He stated it was the subject of quite a bit of debate in 1974 when the Benjamin/Briardale area was platted. There was quite a bit of discussion at that time about extending the existing cul-de-sac at 61st (which would be the access for the proposed lot) west to open the other large lots in this area. There was the potential for quite a few lots to be split in this area. One lot already had been split--to the west from the Rice's lot. Mr. Robinson stated that at the tine of the platting, the petitioners, Mr. & Mrs. Charles Rice, were not in favor of extending the road to open up the other lots. At that time there was reliance by City Staff and the developer of the plat of that fact, and the area was developed with the cul- de-sac as it is today. Now, it would be very difficult to extend the road because there was a house that sat to the north and west of the cul-de-sac which was basically to the center of the road. Any road connection would have to be a winding kind of road. Because of this problem, Staff did not feel they could recommend approval of the lot split at this time, and that it would require further consideration. Mr. Robinson stated the Planning Commission members had a copy of the Mar. 18, 1974, City Council minutes, regarding this issue. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8 1987 PAGE 3 Mr. Robinson stated if this lot split was approved, it would either set a precedent for opening up the rest of the properties to be split or it would completely close the other properties off. Staff felt there should be a plan that was agreed upon by all the neighbors. Mr. Charles Rice stated it was his understanding that he had access to the northerly portion of his lot at this time. Mr. Robinson stated Mr. Rice did have about 30 ft. of access which abutted 61st Ave. The problem with the 30 ft. was that it would not allow Mr. Rice to put in a city street. It would allow a driveway into Mr. Rice's lot alone and in the process would landlock the other properties to the west. firs. Faye Rice stated that back in 1974, the lot was certainly buildable then. Why was it not a buildable lot now? Mr. Robinson stated he had gone through the old plat of that adjacent property and the minutes along with the old map that reflected that there was a plan by City Staff at that tine to provide access to all the back lots. The plan was to extend the road and the cul-de-sac to open up everything to the west. At that time, there were eight lots which could have been developed. This plan was rejected by the neighbors and, specifically, the Rice's at that time. The existing layout of the property was directly due to the fact that the City and the developer relied on the input by the neighbors that they did not want the property developed and did not want a road put through there. Mr. Getzold stated that in the fiarch 18, 1974, City Council minutes, firs. Rice was gL16ted as saying: "She had purchased the property because of the location and the large parcel . . .if she wanted to live on a square parcel adjacent to and back to back from another home, she would not have bought this property. She said she had bought the property because they wanted breathing room. " Mrs. Rice stated that was a horrendous meeting at that time. They were youno, and they had just moved into their house. It was beautiful back there. The woods and the trees were what sold them on the lot. Then, all of a sudden, a contractor was corning in and was going to build a whole bunch of houses back there, tear dorm trees, etc. , and anyone would have been opposed to that at that time. She stated their decision to split the lot was not a "fly by night" idea. They have thought it over, have been to City Hall numerous times and have talked to various people, and up until a month and a half ago, they were told there was no problem with the lot split. She stated it was understandable that they were upset about Staff's recommendation. Mr. Jack Peebles stated he owned the lot that had been split. He had split the lot about the same time he bought the lot which was 33 years ago. lie stated he would very much like to see the road go through. He had expressed that same opinion before at a meeting. He would like to see the Rice's lot split approved, and the whole thing opened up for all the lots. AP PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 3, 1987 PAGE 4 Mr. Tim Dess, 1510 Rice Creek Dr. N.E. , stated he owned the lot that backed up to the Peebles ' lot split. He strongly objected to the road going through. If the lot split was approved, he would be afraid of the City setting a precedent. lie would not be opposed to the Rice's lot split with the condition that it would preclude the extension of 61st Ave. If any of the Commissioners had 'been back in that area, they knew what the elevation was like. The ele- vation was quite high; and if homes were built up there, there would be homes looking into the windows of other homes. Extending the road would certainly allow hin to split his lot, but it appeared there could be all kinds of problems in the way the area was developed. He bought his house for the same reasons expressed by the Rice's. Ile felt it was the responsibility of the Planning Commission to not just open up areas for lot splits, but to plan the development of an area. He did not feel that extending an alleyway through there was an appropriate way to utilize the area. Mr. Robinson stated that at this time, the road could not go through because of the house that was built on the cul-de-sac, and the house was allowed to be built there because back in 1974 the neighbors did not want a road through there. Even if they put a 30 ft. driveway through there, there would have to be quite a curve because of the existing house, so Staff was not reconmendinq a road go through there at all given the existing conditions. Ctrs. Ruth Hayes, 1549 - 61st Ave. W.E. , stated they owned the house in question on the cul-de-sac. She stated they bought the house because it was on the cul-de-sac. They wanted the privacy and liked the quiet area. She would be very upset if there was traffic going on alongside their house. As far as the lot split, if it was approved, and the house was built facing the cul-de-sac, she felt it would fit in with the rest of the area, but she did not know if the house could be built that way. She did not think it would loot: right for the house to be built facing the south side of their garage. Mr. Roger Sorsoleil , 1561 - 60th Ave. N.E. , stated he owned the lot next to Mr. Rice on the west side. He would go along with the lot split. He, too, would like to split his lot someday and maybe there could be some kind of common driveway arrangement. Mr. Robinson stated there are some older situations in Fridley where there are common driveways, but it was the present city policy that every house and every lot have its own 25 ft. access to the street. The City strongly dis- couraged common, private driveways . Mrs. Hayes stated she liked to think that Fridley planned this area , and they should not be having afterthoughts now. If the area was thought out and planned this way in 1974, it should remain this way now. Mr. Billings stated that in looking at the Mar. 18, 1974, City Council minutes , there was considerable amount of discussion about this , and it appeared that what was done was well thought out and was felt to be the best plan under the circumstances at that time. At this time, the only function required by the Planning Commission was to approve or disapprove the lot split, not to recom- ment or not recommend that a road should go through there. It was not the I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 8, 1987 PAGE 5 Planning Commission's function to come up with a plan for the area. Staff's recommendation was to deny the lot split request until the petitioner can get together with the neighbors and come up with a better plan, if at all. Mr. Betzold stated that at the same time, the Planning Commission did have the responsibility to try to take a longer range view of the entire situation. Ms. Sherek stated the Rice's were before the Planning Commission saying they want to be able to develop a lot that they told the City Council in 1974 they had no intention of developing, which had some effect on how the area was developed and why Mr. & Mrs. Hayes' house was located where it was. In other words, at that time, the cul-de-sac was going to continue in order to permit access to all the lots under the unitial plan. Because Mr. Peebles was the only one who made that request of the honeowners, the plan was scrapped. Now the Rice's were saying they have the access to their property and they now want to split the property they said in 1974 they had no intention of splitting. If the Rice's had come to the City Council back then, chances were pretty good that the road configuration would have happened because at least half of the homeowners said they wanted those lots to be buildable lots. Mrs. Rice stated she wanted to know if what happened in 1974 had anything to do with their petition for a lot split. Mr. Billings stated that what happened in 1974 would definitely affect the Planning Commission's decision, because in 1974 the actions that were taken by the Rice's,City Staff, Planning Commission, City Council , and the developer were what had brought them to the point they are at now. The Planning Commission could not disregard what happened in 1974. Mr. Peebles stated he could understand what firs. Rice was saying. When he first built here, it was just a gravel pit. It was out in the country, and it was beautiful . He now lived in Becker, Minnesota. He stated when the Rice's moved in, they did not want the cul-de-sac extended, but progress was the name of the game, and they have to open up areas that some people do not want. Back in 1974, the Rice's did not want any development. Mr. Robinson asked fir. Peebles if he would support the lot split if the construction of the house would make it so that he could never build on his lot. Mr. Peebles stated, no, he was in favor of the lot split only with the idea that the road would be extended. fir. Betzold stated that in reviewing the 1974 minutes , was it a fair summation that the road would have gone through except for the opposition by the neigh- bors to the City Council? Mr. Peebles stated the neighbors did not want the road through at that time, but now it was many years later and land was valuable. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 8, 1987 PAGE 6 Mr. Hayes stated a building permit was issued for his house to be built, so it must have been in compliance with the way the cul-de-sac was designed. The original plan could not be implemented now because his house was in the way. Mr: 'Betzold stated he would be opposed to the lot split. The development as it was now was exactly what the Rice's fought for in 1974. To grant the lot split at this time would essentially be to the Rice's benefit, but it would also create a hardship for fir. Peebles who in 1974 supported the road going through exactly the way it should have been done which was recommended by the Planning Commission at that time. Mrs. Rice stated that was 12 years ago, and they were concerned about what the developer was going to do and then facing all the assessments. The City has done a lot of things in 12 years. Mr. Kondrick stated lie could not vote in favor of the lot split unless there was some way of opening up the other lot splits. He would recommend this item be tabled until City Staff and the neighbors could come up with some kind of solution. fir. Tim Uess stated lie was not in favor of opening up the issue of putting the road through there. Mr. Billings stated his view was similar to Fir. Kondrick's except that Mr. Kondrick had expressed the desire to table this item. If they were to recommend to the City Council approval of this lot split, they would be doing things piecemeal . lie hesitated to say that the area was screaming for some kind of long range plan, because some of the neighbors ' long range plan was to leave the area as it is now and others ' long range plan was to eventually develop their lots. His recommendation was much in line with Staff's recommen- dation, and that was to deny this particular lot split at this time and recommend to the petitioner that he get together with his neighbors to try to come up with a legitimate plan for the area. It might, in fact, be some- thing that was somewhat similar to what was suggested in 1974. What he heard the Rice's saying was that in 1974 they did not think they would ever want to split their property, and assessnents had been a concern of theirs at that time. Now things have changed, and they are faced with what can be done for this entire area. If the City was to grant the lot split without naking any pro- visions for Mr. Peebles and some of the other property owners, they would be landlocked forever, and forever was a long time. He had a real philosophical problen with doing that. He had no problem with the Rice's wanting a lot split, but if they were allowed to do it, then the same opportunity should be given to the other property owners with similar lots. Mrs. Rice stated she understand that. She stated she would never do anything to hinder anyone else's property and that was why they were before the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 8, 1987 PAGE 7 MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MS. SHEREK, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF LOT SPLIT, L.S. #87-01, BY CHARLES RICE, TO SPLIT LOT 1, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 92 INTO TWO SEPARATE PARCELS. ONE BEING THAT PART OF THE NORTH 133.84 FEET OF THE EAST 75 FEET OF LOT 1, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 92, SUBJECT TO A STREET AND UTILITY EASEMENT OVER THE NORTH 30 FEET. THE OTHER BEING THAT PART OF THE EAST 75 FEET OF LOT 1, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 92 LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH 133.84 FEET, SUBJECT TO A STREET AND UTILITY EASEMENT OVER THE SOUTH 30 FEET, THE SAME, BEING 1541 FERNDALE AVENUE N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Commissioners were in agreement that if the petitioner could get neigh- borhood support for a plan, it might be something the Planning Commission could also support. The following people asked for copies of the Mar. 18, 1974, City Council minutes to be sent to them: Charles & Faye Rice, Tim Dess , Robert Hayes. 3. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE FRIDLEY PLANNING C0P1HISSION JDING THE AMENDIIENT OF THE HOUSIIJG & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY'S MODIFIEDREDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 THE ENLARGEMENT OF T - REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND THE AMENDMENT OF THE TAX INCREMENT FI NCIIJG PLANS FOR TAX IIICREIIEIJT FINANCING DISTRICTS IJO. 2 THROUGH NO. 8 TO CONSISTENT 14ITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY: Mr. Robinson stated that in conjunction with a expansion of a project area, it was necessary for the Planning Commissio to review and comment on the expansion. He stated this had been broug up at an earlier meeting, and the Planning Commission had been suppor ve of the expansion. Formal action was needed by the Planning Commission o amend the redevelopment district. MOTION BY MS. SHEREK, SECONDED BY 4R. SABA, TO APPROVE "RESOLUTION OF THE FRIDLEY PLAN17ING COMMISSION FIN NG THE AMENDMENT OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOP— MENT AUTHORITY'S 140DIFIED RED LOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE REDE LOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND THE AMENDMENT OF, THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING P S FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS 170. 2 THROUGH NO. 8 TO BE CON STENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY". UPON A VOICE VOTE, L VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSTd 4. RECEIVE I1ARCHZ, 1987, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY S. SHEREK, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO RECEIVE THE MARCH 5, 1987, HUMAN RE OURCES COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON. VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING CONIHISSIOIN MEETING, APRIL 8, 1987 PAGE 8 5. RECEIVE HARCH 31 , 1987, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY AIR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO RECEIVE TH 1IARCH 31, 1987, APPEALS COM14ISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS D LARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. G. DEFINING ISSUES RELATED TO LONG RANGE PLANNIING OBJECT ES: Mr. Robinson stated the Planning Commission had de ded that it would be a good thing to have bi-monthly long range planning meetings. This idea was to go to the City Council conference meeting ag da for Harch 31 , but it was bumped off the agenda because of an alread heavy agenda. Hr. Robinson stated he felt now was a good me to at least get started on some of the issues the Planning Commission feels they want to be looking at, perhaps to get to a point where they hav some goals and objectives , and then ask the City Council to sit in on meeting before formally putting together a work plan. Hr. Billings stated the City Hanager and a couple of other people indicated they did not know if not schedulin anything administrative every fourth meeting was going to make their rocess elongated so that it might be detrimental to a developer. So, the Planning Commission should probably come up with some kind of prop al to the City Council in terms of what they want to do on these fourth me ings and if they can,in fact, set aside one meeting out of every four fo long range planning. Then come up with a list of tentative things they wa t to be looking at and discussing. 11r. Kondrick stated fie fp t every fourth meeting was reasonable to set aside for long range planning In all fairness to petitioners , maybe once in awhile, they would hav to hear a request on that fourth meeting. Hr. Betzold stated S aff could also use some discretion in arranging their agendas. The Commissioner generated the following 11 issues for future discussion. These issues ar ranked in the order of priority (1 being the highest priority, 10 b ng the lowest priority): 1 - Id tify undeveloped residential properties which are either pr blematic, traditionally landlocked, or properties which ave rezoning potential for residential use. 2 Development and function of Riverview Heights Park as an asset - Review and update Comprehensive Plan. 3 - Use of City lands. Itl " Copnei';tian 9reider a:;ked if the tot splits could be handled together as a plat. � a Mr. .Bergsven said this would be fine. , Mr. Davis said he had :ant an application for the lot split to the City Hall four weeks ago and nothing had been done to date. tie said there is some urgency as he ~' I was moving the curling Friday and the lot must be divided beiore Chis time to satisfy 1 ' Twin City Federal. He said he woulu pay for the curb and gutter. He said this should have been done before !►e had purchased the home, and was not done. He said he was not awa nr that it was needed at that time. Mayor, Liebl .,.kud tl:." City Attorney if under certain circumstances the lot split eould be granted in one evening by the Council? Would this be legal? The City Attorney said the Council has the right to grant a lot split. t=IGN by Councilman Starwalt to grant the lot split requested by Mr. Stan Davis. 1511 Ferndale, the 82 foot by 150 toot portion in the front. Seconded by Councilman Utter for discussion purposes. The City Engineer pointed out the area on the map on the overhead projector. Mr. Davis said h:e lot was Lot 1, Auditors Subdivision 92. "i irse�r SX&IN sr.sold the split- !qid 4180t% st , ntd i +c1t ' >Rk et►''tlw1: tb°'? end of the property, this is "why it had not been approved by the City before. He said they did not want to create any land locked lots. X The City Attorney said the City Engineer may be right, but he could sae no difficulties that do not exist at the present time. ,,'he City Attorney said some language should be included on the north half and he suggested Mr. Davis come in and work something out with the administration. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, Mayor Liebl declared the motion tarried unanimously. Mayor Liebl directed Mr. Davis to come into the office the following day and work with the administration on a satisfactory solution. ltl;. WAYHF CHASE 7839 MAIN STRETT N. E.: Mr. Chase said he was the Project Chairman from Four Seaoons Construction Company and he war requesting a house trailer permit for 7839 Mr.in Street N. E.. lie said the building on the site was being demolished and this had begun that day. He said the rraacn for the application at the present time would he to act up project headquarters and develop a site for construction for a permanent construction office. , i Mayor L:'ebl asked if there were any questions. The City Engineer suggested the application be considered favorably with the stipulations t..at a plan be submitted to the City within one month and the construction of the structure begin within three months. I REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Of MARCH 18, 1974 Page 4 I 1 indicated he was going to meet with the representatives of Goodco, the Ward Councilman, and the Councilman at Large. Councilman Starrialt said he had talked to the people on Saturday and they had not reached a decision, Councilnan Starwalt said the people involved had indicated they , would be present at the meeting. He said there was talk rf a agreement for the four lots belonging to Mr. Thielmann bring sold to the •, ±toper _o bo contained 1n the development. He said they had not worked out the d. I.olls ccrcerba c the costs and other things. Na said this proposal would allow I,00d,i•'•Ccvr+ the plat rather than be dead ^nded at thito continuo into s time, Cdr, lhie" ...in ser.:ed satisfied with this arrangement, but the Jncuments had not been ;rrcV red at '"at time, The City Manager went on to explain the second area of rnntcrn being an extension of 61st Avenue to the west- He said there had been a 1 ,Flit granted in this area creating a parcel which was owned by different people. City Manager placed n Plan of the proposed plat on the overhead projector and _•. '-ined this is the staff recommendation for the overall developm^nt of the area, and It would provide adequate access to the back lots, create better utilities if the lots are split and create access to the lot which had already been split. He said there is o;te lot split and the Council would be bound to provide access, if not legally, morally. He a Ain pointed out that the plan being shown was the ultimate plan for the area, and thisolan, if not followed Immediately, could be achieved in the future depending on the time s table of development of the area. (The plan extended the roadway beyond t.se section line and created a tui-de-sae on the far westerly properties.) Councilman Utter -111#6161ked to the people of the area and they did not want the road to ga th as shown on the plan being viewed. He said they preferred the plan where the development would Only extend to the section line with a Cul-dorsal' i insteiled there. He suggested the remainder of the property could be pat into outlots, and could be developed in the future. Ho suggested tho Council listen to thecoiementa of the people of the area who were prop"a owners in the westerly section. Councilman Utter said the man who owns the lotWhich had been slit is in I or someplace, and the people of the area attending the meeting would favor stopp stopping the road access at the section line. Councilman Utter continued to explain there had been unusual circwa,tances Concerning the approval of the lot split. He explained the property owner had originally applied fcontinued,rtheplit at the City. and the City had turned down tho request. After this, he Property owner went to the County, aj,d thu County split thproperty. Then, the original owner, Mr. John E, Peebles. sold the southerly sections.f the t property to Mr. Stan Davis. When Mr, Davis was in tho process of selling the property, he was made aware of the lot split that had not been approved by the City, 1 and which he did not know existed at the Limo of the purchase of the property. Councilman Utter continued explaining. Mr. Dav's had come to the Council the week he planned to move out of town and requested the split from the City be granted . to clear the t tle of the property before its s31e to ins, Elaine Drown. Councilman Utter stated,`. Davis required obtaining the split before he could move out of the City. The City Manager referred to the plan with the extension of 61st avenue to serve the split lot and said the City had approved this plan years ago, This plan had been approved by the Planning Commission and the Council. Ne:explained the lot split request had come up at the May 21. 1973 meeting during tht visitor's section. �- Councilman Starwalt.said it was his understanding that there had not been any final a I pproval on the plat,prevlously, councilman Utter explained the Planning Commission had approved and recommended the plan to scan the development at the section lin pme t of the area e, the;Councii ha • • do of tak en any action on the plat. He pointed 1 out this.*plan to bq On p+gRa +B of the current agenda. Councilman'Sterwalt said there „-r,ld t e property o•.m;,rs affected b h eu•nts if the rcaia,av :r.A u. y the a,_e,s- lOG REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF KIRCH 18, 1974 Page S Tha Finance Director, Marvin C. arunsell, said utilities were installed, the City would assessibothesiC4; -ty were split and the j instance, the benefit to the property owner would be fi&';.. He explained in this j would be spiittiag the property for devnlop,ent and this a:,%�idsbefas o maal they rate because there is enough area for the construction of a dweiling on the back portion, He further explained, this would not be so if there was net enough area for a second structure, because it would be determined there would be no benefit to the prop""ty owner, he would not be able to construct the secc,rd. Concern the special assessments, the taxes ma He said this would y not be raise'! by the split. Councilman Breider asked if the fell rate would beassessed for the back street assessment and the Finance Director said it would ba. Councilman Braider said it was possible tha,; the property owners would not split the property in the future, and Would receive no benefit . improvements. The 61ty Manager said if the Property is large enough to builfrc:n the lnstallat'r, of the d another house, the property would be assessed, The City Attorney said if the p,•r,-.rty involved had inprovcr;ents installed oa the front and back, and the size of tKe property would not permit the construction of another house, there would be some consideration because Oi s would not ben.,fit the property owner, He stressed, this Case is different than the cases where the property owner would not be able to build on the back portion. Councilman Utter said east of the section line, there is property dedicated for the roadway and west of the line, there is no dedication for the right of way. He said the Cit,would have to condemn the property to gain the right of way because he know the People would fight this dedication, Mayo.' Liebl asked the City Manager what his recommendation from the Engineering 1 standpu4nt would be, The City Manager repeated, as recon;cndod two to three years ago, acrd the City had hired aplanner to determine, and as Moa, Approved by the Council at that time, the roadway should extr_nd to the westerly section of the Property in question, he explained the construction of the ca aisle roadway would not have to be done at this present time, but if this is put off. the people of the area would have to pay the construction costs and these would rise substantially as tine goes on. He said there was no question about which was the best plan, the only question would be how mutt, shculd be dons at the present tire, He said if the Construction would be done all at one time, this would be lass expensive for thu Property owners. The City Manager said if the property owners want to development of the area in the future, the choice shouid beeglventto them std r the didnnot wantt hisePlannatltheapresent Ome, this toe ldlbe re.cinded. Ilea saidtifythe Plan were'approved at this tine, a temporary cul-de-sac Could be installed east of additional development in the future wouldxbenais all area on a tempor, He basis.expeie said the the + ! Constant rising cost of develcpment. He sold the peoDl• .,you w be given their choice. Mrs. Charles, Rice, 1541 Ferndale Avenue, asked what happened to the plan the Council do sethetl a favor the he plan week, The City Manager said the plan being proposed does the same thing as the plan of the previous meeting. ;e said this would allow • anwPlan to provide for access in future development of the arra. Ile said the first plan worked far the same conclusion 1n the future. He said the question would be to do the work now or stage the construction, Mayor Liebl said the construction of the cul-de-sac on the tmporary basis would be very expensive. The City Manager said the staging could provide for a dead end roadway at the section line with the installation of an area large enough for nN ntenance equipment to turn around in. Coueollemn Starwalt repeated the area people did not favor the installation of the I roadway at the present time because '.ney were concerned about theCosts involved. and'shen the assessments would be Payable. ' ~' The Finance Director said the assessments,would be on the tax rolls 1n 1976 or 1977. Kr tarry'Leirbke 15D Ferndale Road, asked wh^n he would t: , ,ivir.T notice ci far the assess installed in tha feel*, of tl Ilk • Charles Y.l�e EXHIBIT C j REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1974 Page 6 I He said if this were approved, !*W. d have. to pay the assessments for the frost lNnd the back•at the-same time., j Councilman Utter said the proposed improvement would be estimated at $4,000 for , Mr. Lembke's property, for the back improvements. i Mr. Lemb,:e said since he had moved into the home, he would be paying a total of $6,000 in special assessments. Councilman Breider said this improvement would include water, se-,:er and paving of the street, which is expensive because a raw cut of the previously undeveloped area would have to be made. tie added, this would also take care of the installation of the curbing and this type of construction adds up the costs rapidly. A resident of the area asked if this installation would include the storm sewer. He said he had been hooked on the separation of the improvements once before. He said the City had asked him to dedicate 30 feet of his property for right of way. He said he would do this anyday, but he would not agree to this if after he had given the property to the City he would in turn receive a $4,000 special assessment levy for this. Councilman Starwalt said he had talked to Mr. Arel about this. The City Manager said it would be possible for the area people to dedicate the right of way, and the City would only construct the roadway to the section line. He said it would be possible to do nothing in the other area at the present time. He said the area property owners could develop the area in the future at additional expense. He stressed the importance of informing the people that this would be more expensive in the future because this had happened in the past and the people protest the high cost of the development when others assessments are lower. He said the people have indicated they would not split their land, but this type of statement is made all of the time with the property soon being split. He repeated, later on when the improvements are requested, they would be expensive. He suggested adopting the complete plan for the area and installing a temporary cul-de-sac, and obtaining temporary easement from the developer. The City Manager continued in the future, if four out of six people of the area request the improvement, it would be installed. I A resident of the area stated if he would give the City the right of way for the extension of 61st Avenue, they would install the improvements, because they would then have control of the property. Councilman Starwalt said if it is necessary to obtain the right of way through condemnation, the cost of the condemnation would be assessed back to the property owners. j Mr. Charles Rice said he thought the construction of the road was for the sole purpose of access for Mr. Peebles, regardless of the other four people affected. He said Mr. Peebles had not attended the meetings or expressed his thoughts. Councilman Starwalt said he had talked to the Browns and they had been in contact with Mr. Peebles, and Mr. Peebles does not object to the installation of the improve- ments. i Mrs Charles Rice addressed the Council and said she did not want the roadway and improvements installed on the back portion of the property. She stated she had purchased the property because of the location and the large parcel. She went on, if she wanted to live on a square parcel adjacent to and back to back from another home, she would not have bought this property. She said they had bought the property because they wanted breathing room. She again said this is why she had bought the property, which was in excess of normal size properties. She stated this was i getting her down. She asked the Council what the City expected of people, Councilman Breider said he did not believe the extension of the roadway and improvements for the people of the area to gain two accesses to their property for the total of $6,500 plus the interest at 7% for 20 years would be feasible. He questioned the profit margin in this type of arrangement. He said he would agree with the area people to a large extent. He said he did not believe if they wanted large lots, they should be forced to split them just to gain the money to pay for the special I assessments. He said over a 20 year period, this would be a great deal of money. Mr. Lembke said he had paid $4,000 extra for the property because of the large size. He stated, three of the area people opposed the improvements and one favored them. A _.1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1974 Paye 7 He explained, the people residing on the hill also opposed the improvements. Me added, they did not want the additional traffic. i Play,)r Liebl questioned what would be done with the portion of the plat•dealing ! with the Thielmann property when he did not attend the meeting. Councilman Starwalt said he would recommend continuation of the roadway in this area. Councilman Utter said he did not feel the question on Woodside Court could be resolved that evening, bjt he felt the issue on 61st should be so the area property owners would not have to attend another meeting, t MOTION by Ciuncilman Utter to approve the plan for the plat in the 61st Avenue area as shown on page 3-B of the agenda with the plot and improvements ending at the section line. Seconded by Councilman Nee. The City Manager said this would leave only two buildable lots in this section of the plat because the cul-de-sac takes up the only portion of buildable property on the other two lots. Councilman Utter said he thought there cculd be four lots in this area. Tne City Manager stressed, these would not be buildable lots because of the elevations of the area. Councilman Breider asked why the lots could not bo extended back to make thm. buildable. The City Manager said there is a very steep hill in this area and the terrain is very difficult. He said the only buildable portion of the property would be where the cul-de-sac vould be installed. Councilman Utter questioned if the cul-de-sac would take up this much area. The City Manager said the City's standard size cut-de-sac is A 100 foot circle. Mayor liebl asked the City Attorney if the Council could deny the man Acte}} ttrd egress. The City Attorney said the lot was land locked At the tir..o tha spilt wa► granted, and there had never been any access. He continued. the City is hot denying the lean something he once had. ' 1 Councilman Utter asked Mayor Liebl to call for the question. ' UV4'4 A VOICE VOTE. iiayor Liebl. Councilman Utter. Councilman Nee. and Councilman Sreider voting aye. Councilman Starwalt voting nay. Mayor Liebl declared the motion• cur.ied four to one. The City Manager said he would bring the remainder of the plot for Council consideration when there is some agreement on the settlemeat between Thielmann and Goodco. �, TrE HIM ES OF THE PLANN r. ��4 T G C(ri"1 0! F • SSf 1 M.0 rl ETI G OF PARCH 6 9 4 RECEIVING 1 7 . RE7MINL REQUEST ZOA $74-02 RFRKFLEY PUP COr0ANY• TO 1117704E LOTS 1 AND 2 Hi>5�`KT3�Tlilfh. ,n 1�1K���lt cal G,i fTi 7-S�rl'F-t�AlilLYh'�,..1'ilTtI+r'1'(ii713'" TG-}?=r L1G!Irl'11USTN111�f1kE1jS i0 6SAKR�TU�IIri'i GGNSIS�J�MI�►�VvtOVCftT�l.�t�5 1<T1f11'�l'r s'fkF' l�N. . The City Manager said the rezoning request did not require Council action at the present time. REQ'.IF.ST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMiT SP +174-01. BY G. RALPH SKINNER: PER FRiDLEY ! CI1Y COE SFCTiU'1 205.051 2 "O ONSIRUCi A SECOND CCESSOR UiLUII`U--7r Il.ti Yi3 �E iisEo-to c:si'u-a OT�U$5 1)_7 Ua) T;�+UOiTORTS SUUli11�1370.1 r�o, z Tii_ 'E b iG 2 Et II vFi+oi�N— _ The City Manager said the Planning Commission had recommended approval with three stipulations. He said there were some problems and the man wanted to build a garage and the Planning Commission had-recommended some stipulations. 410.440 he bp111ding is currently on skids andleoutd be-Vioved. ' Mayor Licbl said he would like to see the peitic-:r lira up to the three 4Zr.,l,E1!rt>. di y +r i • i r COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 20. 1987 temporary storage building at 25 - 44th Avenue N.E. He stated the Council approved this building for temporary use in 1971 for a five year period. He stated they are now requesting an extension of the temporary use and staff would recommend 7 years, but bei ieved Harvest States would like 10 years. Mr. Robertson stated Harvest States has agreed to a lands ca and screening plan which calls for planting poplar trees and vines. Mr. Hoel, representing Harvest States Cooperatives, ted they would like to obtain an extension of the temporary use of this,building for 10 years. He stated they are willing to comply with the proposed landscape plan. Councilman Fitzpatrick asked if there could be a problem with extending a temporary use for over 20 years since the original temporary use was approved in 1971. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated it/seems the original time period was imposed not because of the longevityfof the building, but a question whether this was the type of building the,.City wanted on the site on a permanent basis. He stated he didn't think an extension would impose any liability on the part of the City. He s ated the liability for the safety of the building would rest with the parry. MDTION by Councilman Fitz trick to grant an extension of the use of the Honeymead temporary stowage building for 10 years with the condition that the landscaping plan be completed with plantings of 330 ivy and 60 poplar trees and that none of the existing trees be removed. Seconded by Councilman Goodspee`a. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carrier unanimously. 10. CONSIDERATION bF SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 4 , 1987 TO REVIEW SP #851, BY ©OMMUNITY OPTIONS, TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STIP=IONS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT: PDTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to set the public hearing on SP #85-01 for May 4 , 1987. Seconded by Councilman Goodspeed. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 11. RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1987: A. CONSIDERATION OF A TAT SPLIT, L S #87-01, TO SPLIT LOT 1, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISON NO, 92 INTO TWO SEPARATE PARCELS, THE SAME BEING 1541 FERNDAJ E AVENUE N E , BY CHARLES RICE Mr. Robertson, Community Development Director, stated Mr. Rice is proposing to subdivide his property into two lots. He stated this property was discussed in conjunction with the 1974 Benjamin/Briardale area plat. He stated at the Council meeting on March 18, 1974, several possibilities were offered to extend the road or to simply provide easements. Mr. Robertson stated the Rice's were not supportive of splitting their property, extending the road, or granting road easements at that time. He stated staff feels it would be unwise to allow the lot split for the property unless a neighborhood approved plan for extension of the street and subdivision can -11- COUNCIL METING OF APRIL 20. 1987 be worked out. Mr. Robertson stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of- this lot split and placed the burden for providing a workable plan on the peti ti one r s. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated in 1974 the petitioners were given a choice and they indicated they didn't want to develop or split the lot. He stated since no right-of-way was given, access to the west was closed off. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, asked if it would be physically possible to jog the extension south and then west. Mr. Qureshi stated it is physically possible, but it would severely impact the property to the east. Mr. Jack Pebbles stated he awns the lot that was split and has been paying taxes on it. He stated he would like the Rice' s request for a lot split to be denied as he felt there has to be a workable plan for access. Mr. Tim Dass, 1510 Rice Creek Drive, stated he was against any extension of the road as development would not enhance his lot. Mrs. Ruth Hayes, 1549 61st Avenue, stated she lives at the end of the cul-de-sac. She stated they purchased the home because of the privacy and wouldn' t have purchased the property if the possibility of a street practically in their back yard had been brought to their attention. Mrs. Hayes felt the issue was decided in 1974 and the decision should be upheld as she didn't know how the problem could be resolved. Councilman Schneider stated he didn't have any difficulty with the decision of the Planning Commission for denial. He stated his concern is the doubt it leaves as to what might happen in the future. He stated if a plan was submitted, it would have to be initiated by the neighborhood or developer. He stated he would urge that whatever happens, whether it be three, five, or ten years from now, there be an unanimous conclusion in the neighborhood with any proposal submitted. He stated if the City made an error in 1974 by listening to public input, he felt the only resolution would have to be something agreeable to all parties. NDTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny Lot Split, L. S. #87-01. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. NOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 8, 1987. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 12. OpNSTDERATION OF RECEIVING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR MISCELT,P,NEOUS CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER PRQ= - 1987 NDTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the following bids for the 1987 -12- I CITY COUNCIL AMON TARN NOTICE Charles Rice April 27, 1987 1541 Ferndale Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 On April 20, 1987 the Fridley City Council officially denied your request for a Lot Split, L.S. #87-01, to split Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92 into two separate parcels. One being that part of the north 133.84 feet of the east 75 feet of Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, subject to a street and utility easement over the north 30 feet. The other being that part of the east 75 feet of Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92 lying south of the north 133.84 feet, subject to a street and utility easement over the south 30 feet, the same being 1541 Ferndale Avenue N.E. Lot Split was denied due to lack of interest when original platting was done. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the Planning Department rtment at 571-3450. Sincerely, James L. Robinson Planning Coordinator JLR/dm