Loading...
LS84-05 47 17 � ;i c4 •r ©s� �= �;��x�. �, :iSUBJEu LOT SPLIT LS # Dl t3NIVi'_Fdt-717Y tVY. NE, \� anso t RECADED: � s ADDRESS: DATE:_ PL ANNINIG C011114ISSION: APPROVED DISAPPROVED _ DATE__________-- NOr_____� � CITY COUNCIL: APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE NO_^ Pr.RK 'FEE REQUIRED: AMOUNT PAID STIFULATIONS: ^NAME O _ C.k - FE RECEIPT NO, 0 f r PROPERTY OWNFR(S)LW_&t TELEPHONE NOS?)-� - -- TELEPHONE NOF_. ADDRESS(ES)M_____^ PROPERTY LOCATION ON STREET LEGAL DESCRIPTIONV OF PROPERTY `f'T g domzf J5,C"ZN_____� TOTAL_ AREA OF PROPERTY IIS `I __� .q7_ PRESENT ZONING REASON FOR LOT SPLIT— Tt, TSj lr'� i. a IV,/4 Aee7` V© _Q l The undersigned hereby declares that all 4ie facts and representatio stated i► this application are true and correct. DATE: C) -� SIGNATURE NOTluE_ : A sketch of the property id th pr7j._ 'lot I anexisting struc- tures shown should accompa its application, (See reverse side for additional instructions) r -An i � t 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 $75.00 for each original lot being split. 3. The application will be checked over by Staff and the owner may be required to submit a Certificate of Survey containing a simple description of a part of a platted lot or registered lot, along with the new parcels created with all existing structures tied in. 4. The application will then be submitted to the Planning Commission for their recommendation. The Planning Commission meets on the Wednesday following the City Council meeting, which is generally the first and third Wednesdays of the month. 5. The recommendations of the Planning Commission are submitted to the City Council for final action. If a Certificate of Survey wasn 't required before, it will be required for this meeting. The City Council meets on'.the first and third Mondays of the month. 6. The City Council approval may be subject to certain stipulations which must be complied with by the applicant. 7. A letter will be sent to the applicant to notify him of the Council action and to advise him to comply with the conditions imposed by the City. The letter will also contain any necessary deeds for easements and other pertinent papers for his signature. 8. When all the conditions of the lot split have been complied with, the applicant should file the lot split in Anoka County. 9. In all cases where Council action has been sought and denied, no petition for identical action can be presented until a period of six months has elapsed. NOTE: THE RESULTING REAL ESTATE TAXES AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE NEW PARCELS IN TOTAL AFTER THE LOT SPLIT MAY EXCEED THE AMOUNT ASSESSED TO THE ORIGINAL PARCEL. THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF FRIDLEY MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS. b o I 92 •.mood !sem 8484�0�5 0 n Hichc ck a 11 CC J ,.. - r 941" 940 s�►t .t r 9 17 8 ocr. 'fo• 9�o %► J'�, 916X 92 17 `) � bb31 6830 N94 `02o it /s io O f S • "'�' 993 990 N w ns.Ar iliid � ii J 1953 961 �'� ~? '' /3 4 Am 2 . , _ LE-.�i— �� h6 $ r-7f�rII ., s...«••�---•• T�a,�• •'.. -.; Uzi'Pip )� s:��1� ' 7f.00• 7i.«• 7s •• 7t.p• • 1 T� �13b1 • \ • • t ti � ♦ y at 1 41 rb I J s ' alltos{ l0 6) ' I j 670- S 74 � `1�� '' CAAlaI C71, GC o «O6 SW r ,�•sr mss K , M3 ' S • 8A 8910 (zoo�o) bsso fit' _ t" c5s ----------- (10Ar1 }•�,�. (, 9 v ► w 8 F,-%v bs51 --- (A - 3 , 635 4 S 34 _- 65�475 c ; r 9 A 9C 9 : '• 2 i r� Cay gym, ►c�r©1 tots roll 425 931 us W 1141 C04VER 1 EC. 15 M CERTIFICATION OF STATUS OF SUBDIVISION OF LAND 1. Property PIN No. ►')f�o 'D Plat No. �jJ Parcel No. 02�lv M 2. Applicant 6y, �kL CbU�' Tele. No. i 3. Type of Document: D Deed 0 Contract for Deed 0 Other (Specify) 4t tL d 4. Date of Document 5. Grantor: 41 N 6. Grantee: 7. Received by City Clerk of SJ1-e'U Date : �- Time : By: 8. Action bC' ty: Approved: Rejected : L Date: Date : Time: Time : c By: By: (If approved - complete stamp on Document) 9. Reasons: (Cross out inappropriate words) a. Subdivision Regulation (do apply. b. Subdivision --approved �not �appr�ov �- (If approved - attach certified .copy of Resolution. ) C. Restrictions (waiwd - not waive by Council. (If waived - attach a certified copy of Resolution. ) 10. Conditions Imposed: 0 Combination with PIN No. (Petition of Owner shou d be attached. ) Others: (Specify) NOTE: IF SUBDIVISION INVOLVES TORRENS LAND, CONTACT THE EXAMINER OF TITLES AT COUNTY COURTHOUSE FOR FORM OF DESCRIPTION. (MINNESOTA STATUTES SECTION 508.47) 48 Effective January 17, 1984 1984 POLICY STATEMENT ON PARK FEES ON LAND SUBDIVISION Date In determining fair market value of public areas for land subdivision for cash payment as required by Ordinance #633, the following values will be used: Residential Subdivision $1 ,500.00 per lot Residential Lot Split $ 750.00 per lot Commercial/Industrial Subdivision or Lot Split $ 0.023 per sq. ft. This fee is to be paid at the time of final plat or lot split approval. The City Council may defer collection to the time a building permit is requested for individual lots created by such subdivision/lot split. The City retains the option to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant for part or all of the portion required to be dedicated. PARK FEE AGREEMENT The undersigned understands that according to the City Plating Ordinance, the following public park land dedication is required to plat residential , commercial or industrial zoned property. It is further understood that the public park land dedication or cash payment equivalent is at the discretion of the City. It is agreed that a cash payment of $ ?�V will be paid according to the above stated policy for the following subdivision/lot split. It is agreed that the following land dedication is provided according to the above stated policy for the following subdivision/lot split: Dedication: Subdivision/Lot Split: The undersigned further agrees to notify all future property owners or assigns of the cash payment requirement, if it is to be collected at the time of issuance of a building permit. Date: —9`O e6eq (Property Owner Signature lel 3/0/8/8 s�zy�gL{ 9 .F F TY OF FRIDLEY, COMMISSION APPLICATION MINNESOTA REVIEW N isim Number ev I P099 Approved by FILE NO/ ADORES 4j _..O ' FIL"TE COMPLETE REVIEW CHECKLIST ,��y-v5- �/ ! �PLS DUE RETURN TO PLANNING --RATE 7 COMMENTS f J M Lfr s w - A �.yc�:�y�,�•���y ����`,� was El DarrelZ07- Mark 1 d e '5' 0,.,L y 9, s ?6 s . fc- , c%v z- �c John . Leon � SvRe y s,�o w :5 y 9;//.y � a '5 1 a, o� I a f e� / s., � o� � S�fhm��- � -, /.� y�� an¢5 �n � Fi6ccy , • G? ' h � • w 1 174� �r'WG `� _._ - _. _ -.. -__-_.._ I•t Ir. IA 31 SlEb 27 1, 1 _ C6� IL --_ • , oA vg�i i 1I �� � v 1`� �I -fes• I;/ „ () ' w c �1 TT / L.S. #84-05 John Hitchcock 11 EE t-'7 I 3 3 1 3 -- 144. 37 - _ 0 o ��'•3��•' 4 p . . . ' •A f ► I I M /44. 37— /Y88047'/S";V M COON T Y STATE A/.D FEET. /NCN /PON P/PE SET. AV /,,O;J /fONUxfENT FOUND. ASSUMED DATUM. r't',vo,�s w�cD [�r4 SdT " .viirl r' re�,v .trr � - 11Z PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 23 1984 PAGE NOTION BY PIR. SA I#A, SECONDED BY PIR. OQUIST, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SP N84-09 BY CHARD E. GREEN. UP VOICE VOTE, "ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEART CLOSED AT 8:42 P.M. NOTION BY KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP 084-09, BY RICHARD E. GRE PER ZCTIONECT_, 205.15.1, 3, D, OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO ALLOW A REPAIR G GE LOT L, BLOCK 1, TARGET ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 765 53RD AVENUE N.E. �TH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: 1. THERE BE AN ROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN. 2. A MANAGEABLE S\ZA?r MUST BE LEFT ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE LOT NO GREATER THAN 3:1. , 3. IF BAD SOILS ARE FD , PETITIONER MUST PROVIDE SOIL ALTERATION PLAN WHICH INCLUDES P CTION OF CAR WASH PROPERTY. 4. PETITIONER MUST AGREE TO VE NO OUTSIDE STORAGE OF CARS OR PARTS AT ANY TIME. 5. REQUIRE THAT OPERATION MANAGE EIR USED OIL OR OTHER HAZARDOUS WASTE THROUGH APPROPRIATE MEANS. 6. AN APPROVED DRAINAGE PLAN BE REQU D FOR BUILDING PERMIT. 7. SPECIAL USE PERNIT sF-IRSC*"D TO THE P ERTY OWNER AND NOT BE TRANFERABLE WITHOUT A70VAL OF THE Y OF FRIDLEY. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE,' CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABE ECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel stated the special use permit request, along wi the variances , would go to City Council on June 4. (Mr. Oquist left the meeting at 8:45 P.M.) 4. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #84-05 BY JOHN HITCHCOCK: Split off the Southerly feet of Lot 8H, Second Revised Auditor's Sub ivision No. 21 , the same being 6530 Oakley Drive N.E. •Mr. Robinson stated the lot in question is zoned R-1 , located on the corner of Oakley and Mississippi St. The present lot is 18,811 sq. ft. The petitioner is proposing to split off the southerly 86 ft. to create a new R-1 lot. Both new lots would be over the 9,000 sq. ft. needed. Mr. Robinson stated Staff would recommend the following stipulations if this lot split was approved: 1. The following variances for the existing structure be approved with the lot split: front yard - from 35 ft. to 25 ft. rear yard - from 25 ft. to 21 ft. 2. Require owner's signature on the lot split request 3. Park fee on one new lot of $750 4. Existing home to change address from Mississippi St. to Oakley St. 5. Lot split be recorded at the County, if approved. 11 AA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 23, 1984 PAGE 9 Ms. Schnabel stated the Planning Commission had a problem with the owner not petitioning for the lot split. The petitioner, Mr. John Hitchcock, stated he is under contract with the existing property owner to buy the lot. He stated he was sure this had happened with the northerly lot that was split off some time ago. At that time, the petitioner requested the lot split and was granted the lot split. Mr. Hitchcock stated there was a change in the lot split request. The 86 ft, should be changed to 84 ft. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Hitchcock if he had talked to any of the neighbors in the area across Oakley St. or west of the lot about the visual impact of putting a structure in front because it would be set further ahead of any other house in the immediate area. Mr. Hitchcock stated he has not talked to the neighbors across Oakley. The property owner to the west is the father of the person he is buying the lot from, and he was the only property owner he had talked to. Mr. Hitchcock stated when he discussed this with Bill Deblon, Mr. Deblon felt that since this house faced Oakley, it was applicable to the houses on Oakley. Ms. Schnabel stated she still had some problems with that house setting so far forward, even though it was an Oakley St. house, rather than a Mississippi St. house. Ms. Gabel stated she had a problem with the variances being approved with the lot split. She did not think this had ever been done before with a lot split. Since it was a housekeeping type of thing, that might be the reason for it; but by not following the variance procedure, it eliminated the public hearing process whereby the neighbors would be notified of what was happening. Ms. Schnabel stated she saw the following problems with this lot split request: 1 . The variance situation--granting the variances with the lot split. 2. Not having the actual owner on record with the lot split request. 3. The situation of the setback impact on Mississippi St. This should be checked out with respect to the setback requirements in the Zoning Ordinance or a legal opinion. Would this be setting a precedent? Ms. Schnabel stated she realized the petitioner was anxious to move on this, but she thought possibly the Planning Commission should table this request until their June 6th meeting when these problems can be clarified. Mr. Kondrick stated he agreed that this request should be tabled until these questions are answered. • f 11 EB PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 23, 1984 PAGE 10 Mr. Hitchcock stated he strongly objected to this, because of the fact that he had made himself available to do everything the Staff had requested. No.-ION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO TABLE LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. N84-05, BY JOHN HITCHCOCK, TO SPLIT OFF THE SOUTHERLY 84 FT. OF LOT 8H, SECOND REVISED AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 21, THE SAME BEING 6530 OAKLEY DRIVE N.E. , UNTIL THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS CAN BE CLARIFIED: 1. THE VARIANCE SITUATION WITH REGARD TO GRANTING VARIANCES WITH THE LOT SPLIT. 2. NOT HAVING THE ACTUAL OWNER ON RECORD WITH THE LOT SPLIT REQUEST. 3. THE SETBACK IMPACT ON MISSISSIPPI ST. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE NOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, LOT SPLIT RE UEST: L.S. #84-06 BY ANNETTE POESCHEL: Split the South .10 feet excet e or an exceptes .75 feet of South Half Lot 31 , subjec to easement over South 30 feet) into two parcels to allow ze lot line for double bungalow, the same being 1571-1573 73rd Avenue N.E. Mr. Rob on stated 'this property was located to the north of 73rd Ave. and east Hayes St: The property is zoned R-3. The property is surrounded by a mixture f R-1 a d heavy industrial to the south. The existing lot is 12,822 sq. ft. The pe itioner is proposing to build a double bungalow on the two split pa is ith zero lot line. This meets all the setback require- ments. He stated f would recommend the following stipulations: 1. Signed zero lot line ovenant (The City provides a standard agreement to the owners to pr good maintenance.) 2. Park fee of $750 on o e , lot 3. Lot split be recorded with' a County. Ms. Schnabel asked if this double b alow would be a one-owner building or would each half be sold of ? The petitioner, Ms. Annette ,Poeschel , state the bungalow would have two different owners. She stated she owns the or erty now. She will be the owner of one half, and her partner will buy the her half. NOTION BY MR. SABA, SECONDED Y MR. NIELSON' TO RECO ND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #84-06, TO SPLIT T SOUTH 138.10 FEET (EXCEPT THE NORTH 1/2 AND EXCE T WEST 92.75 FEET OF SO UT ALF OF LOT 31, SUBJECT TO EASEMENT OVER SOUTH 0 FEET) INTO TWO PARCELS TO LOW ZERO LOT LINE FOR A DOUBLE BUNGALOW, THE SAME BEING 1571-1573 73RD AVE N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING , CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED TH OTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel stated this item would go to City Council on June 4. r PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 6, 1984 PAGE 3 1. NEED TO WATERPROOF TO REQUIRED--`ELEVATION OF 825.25 FT. THIS MAY CONSIST OF TWO ADDITI AL COURSES OF BLOCK 8R THE USE OF WATER RESISTANT WOOD. 2. STRUCTURE SHOULD BE, CURELY ANCHORED WITH ANCHOR BOLTS. 3. DRIVEWAY TO GARA99 BE PAVED WITH CONCRETE OR ASPHALT MATERIAL. 4. GARAGE BE COMPLETED BY SEPT. 1, 1984 5. PETITIONER WILL ELIMINATE THE CONTINUING OUTDOOR STORAGE AND CURBSIDE PARKING PROBLEMS. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. SKnabel stated this item would go to City Council on June 18. 2. TABLED: LOT SPLIT REQUE L.S. #84-05 Y JOHN HITCHCOCK: Split off the outherly 84 feet of Lot H, Second evise Auditor's Su division No. 21 , to make a new building site--at-TM Mississippi Street N.E. (Other lot will be changed to 6530 Oakley Drive N.E. MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO REMOVE LS #84-05 FROM THE TABLE. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Robinson stated they still need the owner's signature on the lot split request, and the owner, Ron Miller, was in the audience. Mr. Robinson stated the property in question was located on Mississippi St. west of Oakley Drive. It was a corner lot. Previously, the northerly 81 ft. had been split off, and at this time the petitioner was asking that the southerly 84 ft. be split off. This lot is presently built on and the house faces Mississippi St. Mr. Robinson stated one of the problems expressed by the Planning Commission at their last meeting was the variance situation. He stated three variances are scheduled to go to the Appeals Commission on June 12. The lot split will create a new front yard for the existing house. Presently, in the front .yard there is an accessory garage building that would need a variance. Another variance would be that the front yard be 25 ft. versus 35 ft. , and a variance that the rear yard be 21 ft. Versus 27 ft. Mr. Robinson stated the proposed house on the new lot would front Oakley Dr. Mississippi St. then became the side yard, and 17.5 ft. would be the required setback. However, Staff was suggested that 30 ft. be provided. The adjacent house has a front yard setback from Mississippi of 110 ft. There are similar setbacks as they proceed westward to Jackson St. After Jackson St. , the houses are closer to Mississippi . He stated the side of the proposed house would be on Mississippi and would not be consistent with the neighborhood. He stated Staff would recommend the following stipulations if the lot split request is approved: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 6, 1984 PAGE 4 1 . Approval of variances created by lot split (scheduled for Appeals Commission on June 12) 2. Existing structure (now facing Mississippi ) havd new address on Oakley Dr. after lot split 3. Signed park fee agreement for one lot of $750 4. L.t split to be registered with County prior to issuance of a building permit. October 15, 1984 is deadline to split 1985 taxes. 5. Existing garage (accessory building in front yard) to be relocated to side yard if it is to be replaced or substantially improved (at 50% of garage replacement cost) 6. Owner to sign lot split and variance requests Ms. Gabel stated she felt this was all inconsistent with the neighborhood. She could not remember any instance where a variance was granted so a garage could be put in front of a house. She stated the garage in front of the existing house was the biggest problem she had with this lot split, and she was not sure what could be done to alleviate that problem. Mr. Kondrick stated the house and garage are already there, and that will not change. The people who build the new house are going to see the same thing. He stated he did riot have. a problem with this request since the situa- tion is an existing situation. Mr. Saba stated he agreed with Mr. Kondrick, but he could also understand Ms. Gabel 's point of view.of what this was doing to the neighborhood in general . All of a sudden they are allowing a garage to be in a front yard, and the City would be setting a precedent. Ms. Gabel stated she also felt they put some burden of proof back on the City if they grant this kind of a lot split, because this lot split does require variances, and this was not a variance she had ever seen before. It was not the kind of variance that comes because of the "lay of the land". Mr. Kondrick stated he would agree if they were talking about new construction. He stated he would consider the new proposed house more of a visual problem than the problem of the garage in front of the existing house. Ms. Gabel stated she thought the intitial problem started with the garage in front of the existing house, but then it was compounded by putting a new house on the corner of Mississippi and Oakley Dr. when the setbacks are as far back as they are in that area. Ms. Schnabel stated Ms. Gabel had a valid point in that the variances would not be necessary if the Planning Commission does not grant the lot split request. The City, in effect, is creating the variances that become necessary to be appealed. The variances are not something the petitioner is creating, but the City is creating them if it approves the lot split. Ms. Schnabel asked the petitioner or the owner of the property if they had any comrients to make. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 6, 1984 PAGE 5 Mr. Hitchcock stated he could see a problem if they were proposing to con- struct an auxiliary building in the front yard--something the neighborhood would be upset about. He was not sure what Ms. Gabel was objecting to. Ms. Gabel stated she was clearly concerned about the garage in the front yard. She felt it was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the total planning for the City. The visual impact is that people cannot see the house from the street, only the garage. She stated her other concern was that the Planning Commission's granting of the lot split was what was creating the variances. If the Planning Commission does not grant the lot split, there is no need for the variances. What is the position of the Appeals Commission in denying the variances when the City has granted the lot split? She stated she was very uncomfortable about granting the front yard variance for a garage in the front yard. Mr. Hitchcock asked if Ms. Gabel would be more willing to look at this if he moved the garage to the side of the house. Ms. Gabel stated, yes, she would be more willing to take a look at this if the garage was moved to the side of the house. Mr. Hitchcock stated he was not convinced that moving the garage was going to improve the looks of the property, but he would do whatever was necessary. Mr. Robinson stated that if the garage was moved, there would be quite a difference between the proposed house and the existing house. The petitioner might want to consider moving the proposed house back 5 ft. to make it more consistent with the existing house and the new house to the north on Oakley. Ms. Schnabel stated she was very reluctant to grant the lot split. She honestly had a hard time visualizing a house going in on the corner of Mississippi and Oakley in front of all the rest of the homes in that two block area. She felt it would dramatically change the nature of the street. It was really inconsistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Hitchcock stated that considering the fact that they are in conformance with the homes on Oakley Dr. , could the Planning Commission impose something that was stronger than the code? Ms. Schnabel stated the Planning Commission can only make recommendations to the City Council . Then all the legalities have to be handled by the City Council who has legal counsel . The Planning Commission does not have that legal counsel . The Planning Commission can only go by what the Zoning Code says which does not give them legal expertise. Mr. Hitchcock stated that because of the demand for land being what it is, he believed that at some future time it was likely that this same kind of lot split would be proposed for the other side of the street on Oakley. If Fridley wants new construction, it is going to have to work with these types of things. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 6, 1984 PAGE 6 Ms. Schnabel stated they did not know what was going to happen in the future. She agreed land was not easy to come by, but she still felt the Planning Commission had an obligation to preserve the neighborhoods. Mr. Kondrick stated that because of the trees on the lot, he did not find this as objectionable as he would if it was up about two blocks. He stated he did feel this was the best use for the property as opposed to having nothing there. He would be in favor of the lot split, even though it was going to create some problems for the Appeals Commission. However, he would be in favor of a stipulation that the garage be moved to the side of the existing house. Mr. Saba stated he agreed with Mr. Kondrick. He stated this is a very unique area, and there is not a lot of conformance in that whole area. His main concern was the garage in front of the existing house. He would be in favor of the lot split with the stipulation that the garage be moved to the side of the existing house. Ms. Gabel stated they will be creating a "monster" if this lot split is granted and it thea goes on to the Appeals Commission. MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #84-05, BY JOHN HITCHCOCK, TO SPLIT OFF THE SOUTHERLY 84 FT. OF LOT 8 H, SECOND REVISED AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 21, TO MAKE A NEW BUILDING SITE AT 953 MISSISSIPPI STREET N.E. (OTHER LOT WILL BE CHANGED TO 6530 OAKLEY DRIVE N.E.) , WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: 1. APPROVAL OF VARIANCES CREATED BY LOT SPLIT 2. EXISTING STRUCTURE (NOW FACING MISSISSIPPI ST.) TO HAVE NEW ADDRESS ON OAKLEY AFTER LOT SPLIT 3. SIGNED PARK FEE AGREEMENT FOR ONE NEW LOT OF $750 4. LOT SPLIT TO BE REGISTERED WITH THE COUNTY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILD- PIRMIT, OCTOBER 15, 1984 IS DEADLINE TO SPLIT 1985 TAXES. 5. EXISTING GARAGE TO BE MOVED FROM PRESE;IT LOCATION TO A LOCATION SOUTH OF THE PRESENT HOUSE THAT IS CONTIGUOUS WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE. 6. NEW HOUSE ON THE NEW LOT TO BE SET BACK AN ADDITIONAL 5 FT. TO 40 FT. (AS OPPOSED TO 35 FT.) FROM OAKLEY DR. , BASED UPON WHERE THE EXISTING GARAGE IS RELOCATED. UPON A VOICE VOTE, KONDRICK, SABA, AND MINTON, VOTING AYE, SCHNABEL AND GABEL VOTING NAY, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. Ms. Schnabel stated the variances would go to the Appeals Commission on June 12. The lot split request and the variances would then go to the City Council in one package on July 12. 3. LOT SPLIT RE UEST: L.S. #84-07, BY BRANDON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: Split of , Block City View in half and add one half to Lot 4 and one half to Lot 6, to m esi ential si the same being 411 ana 415 57th Place N.E. OUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 2. 1984 CHANGED AT 953 MISSISSIFFI STREST N-,E,.0 J_OHN VL HITCHCOCK: AMP - LOT SPLIT REQUEST. S1 X84_05. �Y_s]9HN_ HITCHCOCK (FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING QE JUNE L, 1984) : Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the lot split request was presented to the Planning Commission which is to split off the south portion of the 'lot located on Mississippi Street and Oakley Drive. . He stated the Commissison had considerable discussion about the lot, since they felt it was a change in the environment of the neighborhood. He stated the front door of the home would face Mississippi Street, but access would be on Oakley Drive in order to permit a new lot with access off Mississippi Street. Mr. Flora stated the Planning Commission did recommend approval of the lot split with six stipulations. He stated these were as follows: ( 1 ) the variances created by this lot aplit must be approved by the Appeals Commission; (2) the existing structure now facing Mississippi Street is to have a new address on Oakley after the lot is split; (3) a signed park fee agreement for one new lot in the amount of $750; (4) the lot split is to be registered with the County in a timely manner; (5) the existing garage (accessory building in front yard) is to be relocated to the side yard if it is to be replaced or substantially improved; and (6) the owner is to sign the lot split and variance requests. Mr. Flora statd when the issue came before the Appeals Commission, after the meeting of the Planning Commission, they looked at the existing structure which has a garage 25 feet off Oakley Drive and would have the front door facing the rear of the existing home. He stated the variance applied for was a front yard setback from the required 35 feet to 25 feet and a variance of the rear yard setback from the required 25 feet to 21 feet. He stated there was discussion that the garage could be relocated and placed in front of the existing structure so it would be 35 feet back from Oakley Drive. Mr. Flora stated at the public hearing before the Appeals Commission. there were a total of seven neighbors who spoke against the variance. He stated the Appeals Commission felt to grant the variances would significantly alter this particular lot and change the complexion of the neighborhood and, therefore, recommended denial of the variance which means the lot split would also be denied, since this was contingent upon the Appeals Commission approval of the variance request. Mr. Hitchcock, the petitioner, stated he purchased this property contingent on obtaining the lot split and variances. He stated he felt it was a good lot to build on in the City and is willing to negotiate with the neighbors to find an acceptable solution. He stated the need for the front yard variance has been deleted as he agreed to move the garage. He stated he would be open to working out the plans for a home that would be suitable for the neighborhood. He stated the only variance he is requesting, at this point, is for the rear yard setback from the required 25 feet to 21 feet. Mr. Hitchcock stated he took some photos of the area and the only two homes -7- i i COUNCIL MEETING OL JULY 2. 1984 impacted are the first two homes on the east side of Oakley Drive. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated this is an unusual lot and felt it is extremely critical that the neighborhood accept whatever is proposed. He stated it is not the inherent right of the property owner to receive the lot split because this is the reason the Council reviews these requests to determine how it would fit into the neighborhood. • Mr. Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, felt the home didn' t meet the setback requirements on Mississippi Street. He felt the house would stand out and would ruin the appearance in that area and obstruct the views. Mr. Walt Miller, 945 Mississippi Street, stated he definitely didn' t think the house belongs there as it would disrupt the neighborhood. Mr. Hitchcock stated considering the opposition he is facing in the neighborhood, he wished to withdraw his request. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to accept the petitioner' s withdrawal of the lot split and variance requests. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission mEeting of June 20, 1984 . Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 12. PRESENTATION BY HICKOK &A-U-QUA-'ES 9N_MOORS_1 AU -P-RQJ-E-qT STATUSf Mr. Boyer of Hickok and Associates submitted a summary sheet of what has transpired on the Phase II project of the Moore Lake restoration. Mr. Boyer state\d.. over a year ago an application was submitted to the Environmental PrUtection Agency and approved by the Pollution Control Agency for Phase II of the Moore Lake restoration project. He stated the Council acted in favor of 1'1�oceeding, even though the City would receive only 50% of the funding for the 'Phase II portion. Mr. Boyer stated theiginal grant application consisted of hydraulic dredging of the lake'to et rid of the aquatic vegetation. He stated the second part of the original project was to go back and, basically, apply an aqua screen material and a sand cover on top of this in water that is less than 10 feet deep. He stated there would also be an alum treatment in the deeper areas of the lake to remove the Phosphorus and to perform a study to determine whether this would be successful. Mr. Boyer stated last year they started with the pilot project to determine if there was a cheaper way rather than using the aqua screening; to determine if it was necessary to dredge; and if a sand protective cover was required. -8- a COUNCIL MEETING -M JULY 2.,---193A Mr. Flora stated the variances would be to increase the size of a free standing sign from 80 square feet to 98 square feet and to reduce the setback from 10 feet to 7 1/2 feet from the west property line and reduce the required setback from 10 feet to 3 feet from the south property line. Mr. Flora stated the Appeals Commission felt. if this request was granted, it would set a precedent for other stations to increase their signs and, therefore, recommended denial of the variance request. Ms. Sprang stated they are not attempting to put up more square footage of sign, but to replace the signage damaged by the wind. She stated two persons on the Appeals Commission were familiar with the property and indicated they didn't feel the previous sign was an eyesore and the property didn't have excessive signage. Mayor Nee stated the sign could be replaced with a comparable sign only a little smaller and set back farther. Ms. Sprang stated it would be difficult to meet the setback requirements because it would place the sign about in the middle of the driveway. Mr. Flora stated the code requires the sign be 10 feet from any property line or driveway and this sign is 7 1/2 feet from the west property line and three feet from the south property line. He stated the code limit is 80 square feet for signs and they currently have an existing 66 square foot sign so it would leave only an additional 14 square feet for another sign. Councilman Fizpatrick stated the Council has consistently denied similar requests. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation of the Appeals Commission and deny the variance request. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Mayor Nee stated he shares Mr. Barna's feeling that he doesn' t see a problem with this particular property. but the Council has turned down similar requests. Councilman Hamernik stated he feels the Council should support the businesses in the City and has a problem with denying it because the business is more than a gas station. Councilman Barnette stated he knows the owner. Mr. Swingdorf, and how involved he is in the community and would go along with the minority on the Appeals Commission. UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE, Councilman Fitzpatrick, Councilman Schneider, and Mayor Nee voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Hamernik and Councilman Barnette voted against the motion. Mayor Nee declared the motion carried by a 3 to 2 vote. 11B. VARIANCE R QUESTS TO -EDUCE_ REA�iF YAR_D SSTBACIC AND _RE QUCE FRONT )LAU SETBACK AND-3Q ALLOW DETACHED ACQESSQRY BUILDING -10 1§ -6- i COUNCIL MEETING 9F JULY 2. 1984 rezone the lots between 62nd Way and 61st Way from R-1 to R-3 to develop a "loft" home concept in this area. Mr. Nielson, 7144 Riverview Terrace. stated they have met with the City staff and neighbors in this area and would like this item tabled at this time. He stated he and Mr. DeGardner wish to come in with a new proposal which came about after their meetings and received a positive reaction from • the neighborhood. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to table this item until the petitioner requests it be brought back to the Council. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated the affected residents would be notified when the proposal is brought back to the Council. 11 . RECEIVING THE MINUTES OE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINSx 9E JUNE 20. 19$4: 11A. CONSIDERATION O.F A_ REQUEST EOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, #84-11 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION_ Off'_ A_S C N AUESS9RY BUILR-ING AT 29$ ELT STREET IL. E_., BY -UE RIL A-MILRUISK A Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated this is a request for a special use permit to allow an accessory building, a 22 x 24 foot detached garage, to the rear of the property. He stated the property is located on the corner of Ely Street and Ruth Street, and it is required this garage be set back 30 feet from Ruth Street. He stated the petitioner wishes to construct a double garage in order to house three vehicles. Mr. Flora stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of this special use permit with the stipulations that the driveway to the new garage be paved and a 30 foot setback be maintained for the garage off Ruth Street. Mr. Michurski, the petitioner, stated he has no problems with the stipulations. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and grant special use permit, #84-11 , with the stipulations that the driveway to the new garage be paved and at least a 30 foot setback be maintained from Ruth Street. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 11B. MINUTES OF-THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING QF JUNE-J2, 1984 VARIANCE REQ�EQTE TQ INCREASE SIZE OE FREE SISN ANQ REDUCE THE -REQUIRED SETBACK AT 6485 EAST RIVER-ROAD N, RHODA M_ SPRANG: Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated this property is located on the east corner of Mississippi Street and East River Road. he stated there are two pylon signs on the property, however, the one to the south was damaged in excess of 50% and cannot be replaced without a variance. -5- 11 U JOHN HITCHCOCK LOT SPLIT #34-05 STIPULATIONS 1) APPROVAL OF VARIANCES CREATED BY LOT SPLIT. (SCHEDULED FOR APPEALS ,JUNE 12, 1984) 2) EXISTING STRUCTURE (NOW FACING MISSISSIPPI) TO HAVE NEW ADDRESS ON OAKLEY AFTER LOT SPLIT. 3) SIGNED PARK FEE AGREEMENT FOR ONE NEW LOT. FEE TO BE $750. 4) LOT SPLIT TO BE REGISTERED WITH COUNTY IN A TIMELY MANNER. 5) EXISTING GARAGE (ACCESSORY BUILDING IN FRONT YARD) TO BE RELOCATED TO SIDE YARD IF IT IS TO BE REPIACED OR SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED. (@ 507, OF GARAGE REPLACEMENT COST) . 6) OWNER TO SIGN LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCE REQUESTS.