The URL can be used to link to this page

06/19/1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 1991 7:30 P.M. Public Planning Commission City of Fridley AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 1991 7: 30 P.M. LOCATION: FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER, 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: May 22 , 1991 CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION, SAV #91-01, BY EUGENE AND JEAN HAGBERG: To vacate the 12 foot alley in Block 23, Hyde Park, for a distance of approximately 243 feet south of the south line of 59th Avenue, generally located north of 58th Avenue, south of 59th Avenue, east of 2nd Street, and west of 2 1/2 Street. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #91-07 , BY BIZAL, INC. : Per Section 205. 18. 03 .C. (4) of the Fridley City Code, to increase the maximum lot coverage from 40% to 42.5%, on Lot 1, Block 3 , East Ranch Estates Second Addition, generally located at 7880 Ranchers Road N.E. CONSIDERATION OF ANOKA COUNTY REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT REVIEW PROPOSED EXPANSION TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND CREATION OF NEW TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT FOR CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 6, 1991 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 16, 1991 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 21, 1991 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 28 , 1991 OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURN: 1=k. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 22, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Betzold called the May 22, 1991, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Don Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Brad Sielaff, Larry Kuechie (for Diane Savage) Members Absent: Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Connie Modig Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Steven Barg, Planning Assistant Jean Hagberg, 5881 - 2nd Street N.E. James Peterson, 7995 Broad Avenue See attached list APPROVAL OF MAY 8, 1991, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the May 8, 1991, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MAY 8, 1991, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED AS WRITTEN. 1. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST, SAV #91-01, BY EUGENE AND JEAN HAGBERG: To vacate the 12 foot alley in Block 23, Hyde Park, for a distance of approximately 243 feet south of the south line of 59th Avenue, generally located north of 58th Avenue, south of 59th Avenue, east of 2nd Street, and west of 2 1/2 Street. Ms. McPherson stated this is the 243 feet directly south of 59th Avenue. The alley is not improved, and all the properties in this general area are zoned S-1, Hyde Park. Alleys serve the public in three ways: They provide: (1) vehicular access; (2) location for utilities; and (3) access for emergency vehicles. In this particular instance, all the properties except one, 5834 - 2 1/2 Street, just south of where the vacation request ends, have access from either 2nd Street or 2 1/2 Street. Ms. McPherson stated the City has several advantages for vacating the alley. It will remove from the public responsibility part of PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 22, 1991 PAGE 2 an alley that the City cannot maintain, transferring the maintenance responsibilities to the adjacent homeowners directly abutting the alley. It would also potentially remove nuisances of partying and illegal dumping of materials. Ms. McPherson stated the property owner, Pete Meisner, who depends on the alley for access could potentially still have access from 58th Avenue, which is the south entrance to the alley, or if he could come to some type of agreement with the apartment building directly to the west of him at 5851 - 2nd Street, he would still have access to his property. Ms. McPherson stated there are several disadvantages to vacating the alley. In the past, the Council has preferred 100% agreement for vacating an alley or street. Included in the agenda packet are minutes alluding to a 1963 alley vacation in which the petition was to vacate a portion of an alley; and in the process of review, the entire alley, without 100% agreement, was vacated. However, the original petition for the portion of the alley was 100% agreed upon by those persons directly abutting the alley, the same as this current request. Ms. McPherson stated that in 1980, a similar request to vacate all of the alley in Block 7, Hyde Park, was approved by the City. In that instance, a petition with 100% of the adjacent property owners was submitted. In the Hyde Park neighborhood, there are two partially vacated alleys and four entirely vacated alleys. Ms. McPherson stated vacating a portion of the alley creates an alley that has a deadend which would require that someone driving into the alley would have to back out the same way he/she entered the alley. With only one entrance to the alley, access would be prohibited should someone park in the south area of the alley, and this would prohibit the access of Mr. Meisner's property. Ms. McPherson stated a third opportunity for access to Mr. Meisner's property would be for the City to allow a parking area to be paved in his front yard. However, in reviewing the building file in 1978, apparently City staff told the previous property owners that they could not use a curb cut in their front yard, even though the Code allows parking in the required front yard if the parking does occur on a hard surface. Ms. McPherson stated that in evaluating the request based on the three public purposes (vehicular access, emergency vehicle access, and location for utilities) , the only requirement that is not met is the fact that the access to Mr. Meisner's property could potentially be blocked. There are NSP overhead wires in the alley; however, a 10 foot drainage/utility easement submitted by the petitioners would still allow access by the utility company to repair and maintain their lines. The Fire Department does not PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 22, 1991 PAGE 3 require the alley for emergency access, so the remaining issue is to ensure that Mr. Meisner has guaranteed access to his property. Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending to the Planning Commission that this vacation request not be granted until Mr. Meisner has guaranteed access to his property, either by an easement agreement with the property owner of 5851 - 2nd Street, the apartment building directly to the west of his property, or by the City allowing him to pave a parking area in the front yard. If either option does occur, staff would recommend the portion of the alley be vacated as requested, the north 243 feet, with two stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall pay for the cost of preparing and installing the deadend alley signs. 2 . The petitioner shall provide a 10 foot drainage and utility easement over the vacated alley. Ms. McPherson stated staff is also recommending that perhaps the Planning Commission might want to discuss the policy issue of vacating part or all of alleys in general and make a recommendation to City Council. Mr. Betzold asked how access to Mr. Meisner's property is being denied. Ms. McPherson stated that Mr. Meisner's house has no garage and no driveway from 2 1/2 Street. In order for Mr. Meisner to remove his vehicle from the street, he uses the alley to park in his rear yard on the grass. On occasion he has had to call the City to say that someone has piled brush in the alley or someone has parked in the alley which prevents him from accessing his property. Mr. Kuechle asked if there is any record for the number of parties or disturbances that would indicate a good reason to vacate the alley. Ms. Dacy stated the Police Department has records, but staff does not have that information for the meeting. Ms. Jean Hagberg, 5881 - 2nd Street, stated that they have lived at this address since 1964. Until last year, the alley has not been drivable, because of high ruts. In the last year, they have had NSP cut down trees, and the neighbors cleaned up the alley. They also hauled in dirt to fill in the ruts, because they had plans for vacating the alley on their end. Ms. Hagberg stated their reasons for wanting to vacate the alley is because of the kids that go back there and party, because of broken glass, cans, beer bottles, and other debris, and cars driving through the alley at 2: 00-3:00 a.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 22, 1991 PAGE 4 Mr. Paul Reider, 5875 - 2nd Street, stated that he owns the property adjoining the Hagbergs. He stated snowplowing is a concern of his since this alley has never been plowed. This alley has no gravel on it, and it is very muddy when it rains. At this point in time, he did not expect the City to come in and spend any of his tax dollars to improve it. Six months out of the year, the alley is filled with snow. If the alley was plowed, what would happen to the snow? To his knowledge, the alley has not been used for garbage removal or fire access. He believed it would be a win- win situation for the City to not spend any money improving this property, and he would condone giving Mr. Meisner off-street parking in his front yard. Mr. Meisner's lot is very small, but he could have access to his rear yard from the south end of the alley and from the front. He did not want to cause a hardship for anyone. Mr. Meisner stated there are no lights in any of the alleys that the City is not maintaining. So, it is very dark back there. He stated he walked down to the 5900 block where 1/2 of the alley is vacated. He did not see one sign saying "deadend" . He did not see any signs saying "end of street" or any barricades. He asked some people if there were any problems with the vacation of the alley, and there did not appear to be any problems. Regarding snow removal, they said they are at the discretion of the apartment building to plow them out. He did not understand that, because he is under the impression that he is not allowed to plow an alleyway with his personal vehicle. The people in the 5900 block told him of similar problems with the alley because of the darkness, a place for kids to party, and trying to keep the alley clean. Mr. Reider stated that if one-half of the alley is vacated, they will stop people from using it for a shortcut and for parties and it will stop the garbage that is ongoing. The broken glass is a big problem, and who is liable if someone gets cut while playing in the alley? If the alley is to be kept open, then he thought lights are essential for security reasons. Mr. Betzold asked if vacating the northern one-half of the alley would preclude the vacation of the southern one-half in the future. Ms. Dacy stated that if the neighbors submitted a petition to vacate and had 100% agreement from the adjacent property owners, then she did not see how the vacation of the northern half could preclude the vacation of the southern half. Ms. Dacy stated staff's recommendation is based on the objective to get the access issue resolved for Mr. Meisner or any future owner of his property. The record is not clear as to why the City denied the former property owner the ability to have a curb cut off that street in 1978 when the Code does allow it. They do not know if the property owner of the apartment building would be willing PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 22, 1991 PAGE 5 to record an access easement in perpetuity across their property to allow Mr. Meisner access. Mr. Pete Meisner stated that he has to have some type of access to his property. He is willing to work with the apartment building owner to get an easement as long as it is in writing. Mr. Kondrick asked how Mr. Meisner felt about a parking area in his front yard. Mr. Meisner stated a parking area in his front yard would take up almost his entire front yard. He would prefer to have access to the rear of his property. Mr. Betzold stated a third option for access to Mr. Meisner's rear yard is to come through the alley from the south. Mr. Meisner stated the only problem with that is that he would have to drive in forward and then back out. He would still have to drive on a part of the northern part of the alley. Mr. Betzold asked about snow removal in the wintertime. Ms. Cheryl Williamette, 6004 - 2 1/2 Street, stated she is the previous owner of Mr. Meisner's property. She stated they had a big truck and they plowed the alley themselves. They always parked two vehicles in the back yard. She stated that in 1978 when the City came in and tore up the old streets and put in new streets and curbs, they decided they would like to put a parking area in the front yard. She stated the property is on a hill, and there is no way you can guarantee that a vehicle parked on the hill in the wintertime is not going to slide down the hill. So, it is not an option unless they dig into the hill, and there is water and sewer on part of the property. At one time, she and her husband tried to see if they could put a drive-around to get to the rear of the house, but there is not enough room on either side of the house. Ms. Dacy asked Ms. Williamette if she remembered why the City did not allow a curb cut in 1978. Ms. Williamette stated the City said it was because they could not park in front of the house, that they needed some access around the house. Ms. Judy Konselo, 5828 - 2 1/2 Street, stated she owns the property next to Mr. Meisner. She stated she uses the alley to the south, and in the wintertime, the snow from the apartment building parking lots is stacked at the end of the alley, so access to the south for Mr. Meisner is not possible in the wintertime. Ms. Dacy stated that given these particular circumstances, staff thought the option for a driveway in Mr. Meisner's front yard PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 22, 1991 PAGE 6 should be reconsidered. The lot is only 40 feet wide, and there is no way to get to the rear from the front of the property, and it seems like a reasonable option. Mr. Betzold stated that if the City does vacate the northern half of this alley, they are essentially taking property from Mr. Meisner. By denying him the access to the rear of his property and then requiring him at the same time to have some place to park his car, having to use his front yard for a driveway would diminish the value of his property. If the only access to the rear of the property is with an easement, that will cost someone some money, and somehow this is going to have to be worked out. He stated using the southern half of the alley is the worst scenario, because it is probably just a matter of time before the neighbors to the south are going to want to vacate their half of the alley. It is too bad the City turned down the curb cut and driveway 12 years ago, because they wouldn't have this problem now. Mr. Betzold stated he believed there is an issue here, because the City is essentially taking property, and the City Attorney should review this matter before it goes to Council. He would also like staff to contact the apartment building owner and get more information on that option. Ms. Dacy stated staff will try to contact and meet with the apartment building owner at 5851 - 2nd Street to see if it is possible to get an access agreement, and they will also discuss this with the City Attorney. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to table SAV #91- 01, by Eugene and Jean Hagberg until the June 12, 1991, Planning Commission meeting in order to obtain more information and to get a legal opinion from the City Attorney. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Dacy stated that if not enough information is available for the June 12, 1991, meeting, the City will notify the neighbors about a week prior to the meeting. Ms. Sherek stated another question to be asked of the City Attorney is that if there are legal fees incurred by the property owner to record an access agreement, is there any precedent for the City undertaking the payment of those fees? 2. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST, SAV #91-02 . BY JAMES AND LINDA PETERSON AND TIMOTHY AND DONNETT MILLER: To vacate the east 110 x 40 feet of Dover Street as measured from the east right-of-way line of Broad Avenue, subject to an easement for utility purposes over the southerly 20 feet of the portion of Dover Street to be vacated and a walkway PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 22, 1991 PAGE 7 easement over the northerly 10 feet of the southerly 20 feet of the portion of Dover Street to be vacated, generally located south of 591 Dover Street and north of 7995 Broad Avenue. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioners are proposing to vacate the east 110 feet of Dover Street, as measured from the east right-of- way line of Broad Avenue. This portion of Dover Street lies between the two petitioners' properties. Ms. McPherson stated the portion of Dover Street east of Broad Avenue is currently a paper right-of-way. With the exception of the water lines that lie within the public right-of-way, the street is unimproved. The right-of-way is currently used by Mr. and Mrs. Miller to access their property at 591 Dover Street. Ms. McPherson stated the same public purposes exist for public right-of-ways as was outlined previously: (1) vehicular access; (2) location for utilities; and (3) emergency vehicle access. In this instance, because of the change in topography between the portion of Dover Street which intersects Broad and the upper portion which is directly off East River Road, there would not be a need for the City to connect two portions of Dover because the cost would be prohibitive. Emergency access can be provided on Broad and East River Road for the various properties. Currently, residents from the upper portion of Broad Avenue do utilize the bluff to walk down the bluff to the streets along the river. The petitioners are proposing to provide a ten foot walkway easement which will continue to allow residents to access the lower portion of Dover Street. Ms. McPherson stated there are water and gas mains located within the right-of-way. Minnegasco has requested that the easement be slightly modified to accommodate this gas main or that the petitioners pay to relocate the gas main within the easement. Staff believes the easement can be modified to accommodate Minnegasco's request. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioners received letters of agreement from all but one of the residents living on the upper portion of Dover Street. The one dissenting resident brought up the issue of the pedestrian access, and that has been addressed by the petitioners proposing to provide a ten foot walkway easement. Ms. McPherson stated that since the proposed vacation does not adversely affect the vehicular access, utilities, or emergency access, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the vacation with two stipulations: 1. The petitioners, Timothy and Donnett Miller, shall provide a hard surface driveway by August 1, 1992 . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 22, 1991 PAGE 8 2 . The drainage and utility easement shall be modified to accommodate Minnegasco services as described in the letter dated April 30, 1991. Mr. James Peterson, 7995 Broad Avenue, stated one reason for proposing the vacation is so that he can expand his garage and driveway which seems more logical than building a detached garage which would require a side yard variance. He realizes he cannot build on top of the utility easement but he can build up to the easement. Mr. Peterson stated there is also an erosion problem, and it is his intent to regrade and put in some plantings and landscaping to keep the hill from eroding further. Ms. Sherek stated that if they recommend approval of this vacation, they are almost tying the Peterson's ability to build a garage and upgrade their property to requiring Mr. and Mrs. Miller to put in a hard surface driveway, and she did not think that is fair. Ms. Dacy stated that if the Millers are contemplating a garage rearrangement, the hard surface driveway would be a typical stipulation as part of the building permit. Maybe the alternative is rephrase stipulation #1 to say that if the petitioners, Timothy and Donnett Miller, construct a new garage on Broad Avenue, they will be required to provide a hard surface driveway. Ms. Sherek stated that seemed to be fairer solution. Mr. Peterson agreed that the stipulation does seem a little harsh to require someone to pave a driveway area that is not being maintained. Mr. Miller already has gravel to the garage from the street. Mr. Peterson stated that regarding the easement for the walkway, he had included that as a political solution to the problem some of the neighbors have at the top of the hill in wanting to walk down the hill toward the river. If the City chooses not to accept the easement, that is fine. Ms. Dacy stated that if the walkway easement is not required by the City and is not recorded and someone asks to walk down the hill, would Mr. Peterson give them permission to do so? Mr. Peterson stated he stated he has stone terraces behind his house, and he has been thinking about extending those terraces to try to retain some of the erosion. If someone wants to climb over the terraces and crawl through some bushes, then he might have a problem with that. He did not yet know his complete landscaping plan for the area. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 22, 1991 PAGE 9 Ms. Dacy stated she believed City staff went along with the petitioner's political solution for a walkway easement, because staff thought there was some demand on the part of the neighborhood at the top of hill to walk down the hill. In looking at the slope of that hill, she did not know how these people do that. If there are signs of erosion, she believed the Public Works Department will not be allocating any money for providing a walkway or sodding, as they just do not have the resources to do that. If someone does want to walk down the hill and is not able to cross through Mr. Peterson's property anyway because of his landscaping improvements, then why have the easement? Mr. Peterson stated there was a question as to why he is not requesting to vacate the entire stretch Dover Street. He believed that at some time, the City is going to have to go in and do something to hold up the street, and it seemed more appropriate to leave that portion of the street in the hands of the City. (Ms. Sherek left the meeting at 9: 00 p.m. ) Mr. Kuechle stated he is in favor of leaving the stipulation for a hard surface driveway. If they modify it to say that a hard surface driveway is not required until there are some improvements on the property or a garage is constructed, then whenever might be never. Mr. Kondrick stated he agreed with Mr. Kuechle. The hard surface driveway would certainly look nicer. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend to City Council approval of a vacation request, SAV #91-02 , by James and Lynda Peterson and Timothy and Donnett Miller, to vacate the east 110 x 40 feet of Dover Street as measured from the east right- of-way line of Broad Avenue, subject to an easement for utility purposes over the southerly 20 feet of the portion of Dover Street to be vacated and a walkway easement over the northerly 10 feet of the southerly 20 feet of the portion of Dover Street to be vacated, generally located south of 591 Dover Street and north of 7995 Broad Avenue, with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioners, Timothy and Donnett Miller, shall provide a hard surface driveway by August 1, 1991. 2. The drainage and utility easement shall be modified to accommodate Minnegasco services as described in the letter dated April 30, 1991. 3 . The petitioners shall record a 10 foot walkway easement at the County. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 22, 1991 PAGE 10 Ms. McPherson stated the City Council will set a public hearing date on this item for June 17, 1991. 3 . RECEIVE APRIL 16, 1991, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the April 16, 1991, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4 . RECEIVE MAY 2 , 1991, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to receive the May 2, 1991, Human Resources Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE MAY 9, 1991, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the May 9, 1991, Housing and Redevelopment Authority minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE MAY 14, 1991, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the May 14, 1991, Appeals Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, Chairperson Betzold declared the motion carried and the May 22, 1991, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9: 15 p.m. Respectfully subm'tted, Lyn e/ Saba Recording Secretary SIGN - IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, )/ ��rIa9( J Name Address/Business .g,- .�8aY a%2-( /� ?? qLj ) k 'ram ) 6 39 5-Ot )16 . /a-:.,,-,,_ 55-V 2Y2_ 5+ &II K„ LI,_,...-.,, 5. a' q -2- C-1- 13 - C- litom 666 4- 2 `/Z- /QC.- 7( t f(Z--7( ?)O / 0,7 -p ,. /7---(ze)1/a-e71/e{t61- --Jo/v-0 ' 1775 t - -0 Lf.,_k 1 ......, ,z,- e-f;65.,Obilbe u _cy 9 s- d ai,6 471 er: siy‘n,� C -.t.-e---._ � ti‘ it �� ' I— c bci- Y1r �z� )-i� r 0rcw t i„ ,AT So a of, .+ A,T, 5",--1(-( `?U) STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE CITYOF PLANNING COMMISSION DATE : May 22, 1991 ; June 19, 1991 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL DATE AUTHOR MM/dn REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER SAV #91-01 APPLICANT Eugene and Jean Hagberg PROPOSED REQUEST To vacate the north 243 feet of a 12 foot alley in Block 23, Hyde Park, as measured from the south ROW LOCATION line of 59th Avenue. SITE DATA SIZE DENSITY PRESENT ZONING S-1 , Hyde Park ADJACENT LAND USES S-1 , Hyde Park to the north, south, east, and west & ZONING UTILITIES PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS CONFORMANCE TO Yes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPATIBILITY WITH Yes ADJACENT USES & ZONING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION SAV #91-01 Eugene/Jean Hagberg ' • / N 1/2 SEC. 1 CITY OF CD 0 (:j M• OR ER NU4 COR. � 3 ) l ) l J i 1 t t w,/ „ 1.„ST AVENUE- yt2' ) '2�i ' zr iz i tO 12 /: MEM , z i ,�I'©E E�i7I. �1 20 -,4- zf 3s �e s lE= ' '_n,:, ;� ' `M ��GiL �11Mii e�/s � ��2 k I u•W # z' r r— 27 ) 4 r) ; -.- ; ©i 1 , .G,• t;- C • 2f(,•7 I S?) .-zf - - iM r s_ ; 11022111 FON 1KW51: :±/4 a 0 a ' 25(0 f!! has-- ff A,. •25k ._ - [�.�!� °' ofiat� Sr,A..�. , ,u - T(a), .J2fn ! 7 r\i4---`T- ESN ♦� .1 iMai nos :. IgligAm" a``,/3„ #1 ! `• 2z `�' B t'; :•ZE D' f av•' -\72-,, 9�,"_ iLSi1,u -i wzmi:Me al:AN=Nit E Em IR ;,`/2 ;VI 3 4. 1-00 //O •!z° ! /r - zot / `n, j WV,1 ` k 11, pryer • .1 N /24y' • /,49 /zt*/ /9\C - Jz--. rem, /.■-1 d.�lr�•Mini — �7:1D;a�• -, /f /3,4• •.f/B 1/3 . I' /■ 1> l� 1 B�!:ill�•= `a,=°G 7 k /7(" T/4 ,• /7(«) //s,ej• �/7_ .. NEEn �.1 Q =IN MEM I-NE l'�1� ,t�h `. lt- y y 1..f,/rf!; ,•1 L- /�" ; /1.. . /r F3<: IB/,f ,.,:EY/,ill'i+iL'+: ., I -" • ." TH AVENUE t ' '='',37o.%., „'q ) 3/N 7d13 k1 a �:• i dui 1 374�9 'i`z yT z_l MAC IM . 2s(•1.9 \z i t"1 -\ A ;\z7�p° ••\z y t,-as 4aiy :s�1♦l R} .I M • Yze \3 Q. Firm -71l-- '\za,q \a,- . ,2,28;', `j 2 `. j \f• WIC NEM \z 7 y11 4 ME _ 1 y ` z0 `�-1 X\1°'l�i l'L. ' -i:Ti- 5� l�� • 26 S�l� � 1 K •1 rf V M u.,:� �s. gins roct 2� '.]C6_ =En Nu , z3•/ll �7 • az=winF •W •• s c\,f' \(AJi z 1 ON ,7 . /5/ .',1^f� W toa n�.,4 I A W • .\.2 "7 7 1. : zL /g 9 21 . fl' W Li r/•s�i -, W®� •i . z/6,,i /o w® --- • 1 .ti/,' Z 1 v.7 1 �!� i_ Z •rap Wig� Z ,io // ZI�. �,� j 20 // t - //N2 saga oms /• /,.4) /.,____„4, �CZ_ STEM INS22 /9 /2 Z 1•-4.itq `/f% , ?�l,•. :iiiy 1 S)S -Yf--- " • . /B i /3 ilrEi •"a•F -i/ �'L r '.1'' W f .�!)!O y=ME t `-,-747: Mel WM 1-: • /7 4' 1 MK'''. I-:7. AVENUE N.E. \ao SM� 3 tf " WU • SUER 01 Z � r7 V t a mg 17 Ql lM 29� � y � , fay s 1„ �, • 1 aggiggge - `zf �04 ' NE i.71 i0 zBp1 .3f . o a j.- ,f, .b f-i rs. ,... •r� `° z,t .^41 ®im 111 N1� 27 W)4 •: CC •f h`•.� ,,, '4 •••(•)5 ,n/o..mot ,BIE\2f ' S Kim W E • .\2f N1 "----j'M Ian i'S eke. e�•• u, .,,,,t. ,\zsf f • ►�l-:i v r- .)s • ia� ji.- %A( • 59 TH - 1VE. N.E. =-- 7 i""_" •ia ' z40) 17 l*:• �i F 7 i . .... 1�. .-o.,, " S( e 1_ F '`2. ley B�' A :,,�lyd ntiB .." . '�....•� Z ,r..,�l 'd)� t /6(�1 ; •`yyCf'J 7/f .l?lz� Fi 9•�y1. Mal 'q w\r1Y a • /6 \z/d d v z/ty> w/o • ®_ off. _-!f 2l/l Q s��a�) s Erail i.„ /3 i�� /B yl /3�, �� / 3 1 :dl';'vi ''•• 41J1\ CI'''.N': M) ;cif,,.,._ !E.• i WANE : /L,;9 /1/y f z a ;/ ,�- a�',/„z�f)5 'i ��lT�O.J�!!fC�. c 58TH�.,,.,A� AVENUE �• --N-E.t ' is '�// • �^�� 11griffin ..�.'=�//`�. Egma i�zi�Y��7z►i s MEN IO EN NEIM C�Jfi E • MEGA z ' tit B 12'.'1 /''. "„7,„ 7, gams s g ,!aiiSE 1 l�i}M�� • IN:OVAIZI��+� i'iYfiM 5iii ~ Merlzrail ti 3 1 7A•• • .•.. ~ , 'KEW W'/f g MO ___ �r I��+ 'G. irlO-�1 I GZi/J7[f!'if/fTIG G° r, '�i a� GO miso�'•� rt�c s � Gc � ,J(f�••. LO �J7lfijiFSi a L,:1/��VaJl%yn'O/y 4. lar r/////w///// //a _t AVE. ) N.E.• r ///�v►m3 ,L� ' TH 3 ,' s.uaj,+,r PLACE `/ 11111111111111 .,.ir \ Ix / ®®m■m g _ _ iN.p\/ 1'/3 _r, p)F elf✓" ,. 9 M// ,y Z/ Z 3 4 5 6 ) ///z _ •�Yl_,L�.c TWrr r- V .....v - . - - 57 TI1--AVENHE- 1` ' I --�. ROAD NO. 102 �f``a a r t N; W//4 CORNERI 1 �� ,�1 1 '1C SEC.?1i i ; 23 0 2 LOCATION MAP SAV #91-01 Eugene/Jean Hagberg Ad I • • .c-1 tea,we+ -- - .��► wit' re= I �Q 1311.11 ®© iRfi 1Ue7 +.79'MU -M51 QT1 Pfi21 tali la • WM/ =PI I.t IRE s&D I llOWI QiW_ LI■ st-� 4 s,z. RCM - 1's,Irf6 WWI if 12s w /�;il ©� E L'r.ran ...s rj7 0 •Al.I�� Ir:VA a.4 IM utisr- .311'at* 1!•1111G su 4.vr.•ril• a �i4(f M.16a1 . 4Q 'S,l''IE 3 a II.'I0i- y ILK �'OM©2'. ' © V sl-J..':aII '+T/ WEIR It,1fr -►.F1.1,�,W ,7 W —w1►.��WL.W�aYtirl'd>3lIRi['77 Waii .7*1 SrL7/ If 115 1 t 0 W pa:all iG� - 1."l VMS :'R f!.(,Qit� ff-nr,�•,1wraiirm F- 74f-ie C� M�N, lQ9 cm • nvg.hcsa 1� Atm Ia u' I' '1'I IG>• 6 3- II• ff•6QTH. ,a-r1 7fi•O ur;i-4n a� re.•..a vo2 ..._,.l ,.,.,t v.ru /e7 / .t1 / rsr,:+� 71cn ruc mer�sr �..1t 1f1,.�.IS WOiNUM C1fillSUli If.:11 GM? i3R1 'L'Os 2Jo /f 1 1/ 2 c+d+Ml.VA= 1I NE �I?Z �7'1 W 101f tr in I.F.7.t' 1T7G 1, /r"V,a-ma rots I/�A *flit IRPM i� 1Lt.,V/4a -^,�lIK�I j.ifs •'IR rt C/f0 P ie e711I ','I'A q►lig /4 3 2e .7 asa:\1M F_21/ 'r ►?'►it j'AlO I([?'.1 17I• ✓e3e N' T dr ir$ CA..;Pit fE71 R,fii ri1/ 1LI. K�'1I /1 3 '3 / 4 s.y- :-n errrA.14:re GS.- 1f eel s::.. I ,.'.'.•Wind I ,1 r C'e I,2.71 ?Inn IS.': 11 SIM Q':. ICii7 Fc t t l'1f1 ,, 4 . 1- iiLV1 C:W 1/Lf�` OIL211F W,Aq ICCi/1 1;.4 I f /7.,3Lnw ■n.� repMCA P:fs. 171i '• /. 7 wan.I(s7tK ISI'II*P Mall a wLm 0'O1 H L:'-"�� N. ^ N. 'a 71 1tf i t71 /O!Y eV u N LW ltt.=ifW IL%Y' �'.�' a 4 / 44 9 /B ; .8 r KM fK r fi+If EMI Bali [S rli .V// ,• , lI ,aril axn 1�/.CIO1je1 EOM flan C:Pg cd : , r 3 ! I 2 /.7 /a a 1 t 'Zdy)• vLR1 Mil�la hi P y' AncT f✓70i Gbi71 In.r ..I ! - /' raa max• t�i l II hi i]1:111111 ISM +0, - /� /0 /2 // u , 'cQ ' L 171 con GAM V'S R,fi la odt5ifl�a M 6L!! • 1■ :rl N. /I 4 -` • f c ICiGII,ia1 La—,..w AU,:L1:ff' IfSRt „aI p Gird r I;T21 17:i •r R�1w7l1 0 m. I e e e /i / . /L / /. / •'f f r��!Al 4 : NSA LE AL VP.V1. ii110 II Vet.1/41 1T-GS:an, ;i' i !AU , , —v *vim rCO 1 7,11E ilkas ITV EN. ik0/2 _ if 2 5 2 i r3 r1E• ff ritsi■ . IA10 fi7•A M it 1�'._.1>< _ ■ gd32 `� 1 7Wittran t'.'Jfel du i �r�W�:-fi}A7L/1 . i /} 3 /+ 3 H -. J`;VI1'31 m �1fl' IG1eV '.•li�Q ri 7!t �OOI H ,, 1 B :� ^1 MUM iLgl1n1' • 'I kiN3DIA�Q' FIRM !/ /'N. •r' /3 ¢ •r 6 4 • 7 4 t- A.V73; -0 . tia WWI adrin 11102.MEW Sr-,Rl 'aI.,IIi /1 S I L s N, •V N. ' 1.?,i. ' • T AV 1 MPG NMI W.: z/qt ffrl.*. r Will .I M PA" /. p• ,, 6 • . r • SN i • lii7llr'�il CAP- o '1- 71.1'F'SII •/•. 7 /a 7 - 11� 11©[1 , 3 et, 67ir1l�I H eist i7e /F�•/f,D� .•,..•,'1:. •'/.•. 8� IL�t,:+�[ 01, 4 1- o •: r r r 1 C a N 2. , a :TJ inT r I J+ C d � . ate __0 a 0.4:5/ : 20 1 riZ,� F► a • :';c 3u4 w�a� l Cr •�� '� 57 TH P ACF N.E. ' , ., rrrr Irrrr eizn�r tr1/ '' I It ©mom 2 '111I,I �• ;, , I (.i, , . Nat rJ. 5,bi7'. ovowvz to 1 gem of ZONING MAP Staff Report SAV #91-01, Eugene and Jean Hagberg Page 2 REOUEST The petitioners are requesting that the north 243 feet of a 12 foot alley in Block 23, Hyde Park, be vacated. The request abuts the properties 5851 through 5881 - 2nd Street and 5846 through 5852 - 2 1/2 Street. SITE The alley is located between 58th and 59th Avenues and 2nd and 2 1/2 Streets. The alley is not improved, and the properties adjacent to it are zoned S-1, Hyde Park. ANALYSIS Public Purpose Alleys serve the public in three ways. They provide: 1. Vehicular access; 2. Location for utilities; 3. Access for emergency vehicles. All the properties except 5834 - 2 1/2 Street where Mr. Meisner resides have access from the public streets. Advantages of the Vacation There are several advantages to vacating the alley. It will remove from public responsibility part of an alley that the City cannot maintain, transferring the maintenance responsibilities to the adjacent homeowners. The vacation would potentially remove the nuisances of partying and the illegal dumping of materials. Mr. Meisner, who uses the alley on a regular basis for access, would still have access opportunities from 58th Avenue or could obtain access across the south portion of the parking lot of the apartment building at 5851 - 2nd Street (to the rear of his home) . The alley currently is not used by snowplow or garbage hauling companies. Disadvantages of the Vacation There are also several disadvantages to vacating the alley. The City Council has preferred 100% agreement for vacation of an alley, being reluctant to approve partial alley or street vacations in the past. In 1963, there was a problem with an alley vacation where there was not 100% agreement by the adjacent homeowners (see attached minutes) , but the alley was eventually vacated. In 1980, Staff Report SAV #91-01, Eugene and Jean Hagberg Page 3 the City Council vacated the alley in Block 7, Hyde Park, on 100% agreement by the property owners. In the Hyde Park neighborhood, there are two partially vacated alleys and four entirely vacated alleys. Vacating a portion of the alley would eliminate through- traffic and would create a dead-end alley with no turn-around option; people would be required to back down the alley. Vacating a part of the alley eliminates options for Mr. Meisner to access his property. With only one entrance to the alley, access would be prohibited should an obstruction block the alley at 58th Avenue. Mr. Meisner uses the alley in order to park his vehicle in the rear yard. One option for him is to pave a parking area in the front yard; however, in 1978, the City told the previous property owner that he would not be able to use the curb cut that existed along the street for a driveway (see attachment "A") . However, Section 205.07.06.A. (1) . (b) allows parking in the required front yard if such parking occurs on a hardsurface. In reviewing the proposed vacation request in terms of the three public purposes discussed earlier, the alley is required by Mr. Meisner to provide vehicular access to his property. There are no City utilities located in the alley; however, NSP does have an electric line running the length of the alley and would require a ten foot drainage and utility easement over the vacated alley. The City does not require the alley for emergency access by fire or police vehicles. If Mr. Meisner can be guaranteed access to his property, either through an easement agreement with the property owner at 5851 - 2nd Street or can pave a parking area in his front yard, the first public purpose would not be needed and part of the alley could be vacated. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The vacation request should not be granted until Mr. Meisner has guaranteed access to his property by an easement agreement with the property owner of 5851 - 2nd Street or by allowing him to pave a parking area in the front yard. If either option occurs, staff recommends that a part of the alley be vacated with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall pay for the cost of preparing and installing the dead-end alley signs. 2. The petitioner shall provide a ten foot drainage and utility easement over the vacated alley. The Planning Commission may also want to discuss the policy issue of vacating part or all of the alleys in general, and then make a recommendation for the City Council to consider. Staff Report SAV #91-01, Eugene and Jean Hagberg Page 4 STAFF UPDATE Staff consulted the City Attorney to determine if preventing access to Mr. Meisner's property would constitute a taking. In his memo of June 11, 1991, the attorney confirms that this may be a taking (see attached memo) . He suggests that either an easement or paving a parking area be implemented prior to completion of the vacation. Staff also contacted Mr. Rasmussen and Mr. Baune, owners of 5846 - 2 1/2 Street and 5851 - 2nd Street respectively. Mr. Rasmussen stated he was unable to provide parking space to Mr. Meisner as he does not have enough parking for his tenants with the ten spaces he has. Mr. Baune also stated he was not interested in providing an access easement to Mr. Meisner. The City Assessor reviewed the property and stated that the property would receive a reduced value due to lack of a legal parking place. In terms of cost, the cost is the inconvenience of the property owner needing to create a parking area in the front of the property. The parcel will not become landlocked if the City approves the vacation request. The City Attorney's opinion confirms staff's original recommendation that the vacation not be approved until Mr. Meisner has some type of guaranteed access to his property. A ,• • I. 0L'1 er . • ‘41 ° k,_i_, ' rof pvta o r 074 _2:7 11771 rileyr0 rernerl j".e.°4 °el"' 9/7/ 'ems73740 '�� Planning 5/3/91 , 5/31/91 SAV #91-01 Eugene and Jean Hagberg MAILING LIST Council Eugene and Jean Hagberg Karen Moorman Jerry Finkelstein 5881 - 2nd Street N.E. 5850 - 2 1/2 Street N.E. 4319 Cedarwood Road Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 George Pfieffer John Rasmussen Jj1 Eugene Lundberg 5817 - 2 1/2 Street N.E. 5846 - 2 1/2 Street N.E. 5815 - 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Angela Wax John Rasmussen Rebecca Smith,./111: 5821 - 2 1/2 Street N.E. 8855 - 230th Street E. 5825 - 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Lakeville, MN 55044 Fridley, MN 55432 Charles Lindberg DuWayne Williamette Tri Nguyen 5825 - 2 1/2 Street N.E. 5834 2 1/2 Street N.E. 5835 - 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Charles Lindberg Judith Konsela Current Resident 5829 - 2 1/2 Street N.E. 5828 - 2 1/2 Street N.E. 5851 - 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432E Fridley, MN 55432 Bonnie Mikkola Jerry McNurlin "� • Tropicana Company 5833 - 2 1/2 Street N.E. 5820 - 2 1/2 Street N.E. Marshall Lebow Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 6950 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55426 Ronald Newland Jerry McNurlin 5841 - 2 1/2 Street N.E. 250 Sylvan Lane N.E. Eileen Davis Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 5875 - 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Elmer Gabrelcik Robert Johnson,2 5845 - 2 1/2 Street N.E. 5810 - 2 1/2 Street N.E. David Burg Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 5866 - 2ndeet N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Ervin Guibord Robert Johnson 5847 - 2 1/2 Street N.E. 7 Dartmouth Circle David Burg Fridley, MN 55432 Longmont, CO 80501 2291 Lois Drive New Brighton, MN 55112 Everett Beck Albin Johnson,/) t' 5849 - 2 1/2 Strreet N.E. 5800 - 2 1/2 Street N.E. Ralph WardA1: Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 5848 - 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Victor Leader,A3 Albin Johnson 5851 - 2 1/2 Street N.E. RR I , Box 59 Ralph Ward Fridley, MN 55432 Cushing, WI 54006 2812 - 64th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Joseph Cherveny Jerry Finkelstein .• L 5852 - 2 1/2 Street N.E. 5801 - 2nd Street N.E. John Weatherly,A 7. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 5830 - 2nd Street N.E. FRidley, MN 55432 Page 2 Eugene and Jean Hagberg SAV #91-01 John Weatherly City Council Members 5815 - 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55417 Planning Comm. Chair Sylvia Holmen 5816 - 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Michael Mezzengaj 1435 - 14th Avenue N.E. New Brighton, MN 55112 Michael Mezzengaag je: 5901 - 2 1/2 Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Tammy Hanson 5910 - 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Richard Gesino 5908 - 2 1/2 Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Richard Gesino 3933 Hayes Street N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55337 Richard GesingA..e' 5900 - 2 1/2 Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Richard Snyder 5901 - 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Lloyd LaPointe 5909 - 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident 5920 - 3rd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Douglas Jarosh 5917 - 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Robert Walrod 5916 - 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 3.y ' crry CF FRIDTEY , 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. ' FRIDLEY, )N 55432 4 Oomm pity Development Department (612) 571-3450 VACATION APPLICATION F 3RM * ` 'ROPER"? =FORMATION site plan: • for submittals: 'see attached Address Legal description: Ife,V &13'y I z) ICCel tiflf r.� /% -- Lot Block 'rract/Addition Legal description of,ease<nent to be vacated: Current zoning: - 1 luare;footage/acreage Reason for vacation: 'a'l) �jb'p n � i s S d i Di e Inn p 4-111 FEE OWNER aN `6,' A -6-u � (Contract Purchasers: Fee Owners must sign this form prior to processing) NAME c�q !�hQ�. V-�eQ,h / I• Ih I ban ADDRESS 8 �•�� D� 33/�-/7 7 4 slcvRE �(,,* ?r 24L DATE PEErrIC)NER INFORMATION NAME U v } , ADDRESS olg 8 yt --4-1^ 1 de _ WITNIE PHONE a‘A"t13/—/ 7 76 SIC ZURE , r�/Vj �p (,(�fe ATE Fee: $150.00 V. -.._..._............,... ...... Permit sAv # I / `01 Recepit # 7 87 7 Application received by: Scheduled Planning cr mmi cicion date: i ZZ, (9 q I Scheduled City Council date: J 1RJ CITY OF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER•6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432•(612)571-3450• FAX(612)571-1287 April 19, 1991 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The City of Fridley Planning Commission will be holding an informal hearing on a request for a vacation, SAV #91-01, by Eugene and Jean Hagberg, to vacate the 12 foot alley in Block 23, Hyde Park, for a distance of approximately 243 feet south of the south line of 59th Avenue, generally located north of 58th Avenue, south of 59th Avenue, east of 2nd Street, and west of 2 1/2 Street. Anyone who wishes to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, May 22, 1991 at the Fridley Municipal Center, 64311 University Avenue N.E. , at 7:30 p.m. DONALD BETZOLD CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION HERRICK ez NEWMAN • ATTORNEYS AT LAW Virgil C. Herrick James D. Hoeft MEMORANDUM Gregg V. Herrick Of Counsel David P. Newman i n' TO: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant „{f'!1 FROM: Virgil Herrick, City Attorney 6U DATE: June 11, 1991 RE: Vacation Request by Eugene and Jean Hagberg This memorandum is in response to your memo of May 31, 1991. In your memorandum you discuss the possibility of vacating a portion of an alley in Block 23, Hyde Park. As I interpret the material that you furnished me, a majority of the people adjacent to the alley are in favor of the vacation. However, one, Mr. Meisner, is presently using the alley for access to the rear of his lot for parking purposes. The Planning Commission asked two questions: 1. Will City action on the vacation request constitute a taking if it prevents access to Mr. Meisner 's property? 2 . Has there been precedent for the City to pay legal fees incurred by the property owner to record an access agreement? The general rule regarding a vacation of a right-of-way is that if a property owner is damaged by the vacation, he is entitled to compensation. The vacation of an alley constitutes a taking of part of the property owner ' s property rights. It is similar to a condemnation action and the measure of damages is the same; that is, the difference in value of the property before the vacation and the difference in value of the property after the vacation. Based on the information contained in the discussion before the Planning Commission, it would be my opinion that there is a very good possibility that the vacation would constitute a taking as far as Mr. Meisner is concerned. It would be my suggestion that one of the alternatives discussed by the Planning Commission be implemented before the alley is vacated. If this is not done, the City could be liable for damages to Mr. Meisner. If an alternative solution to his access problem is obtained, I would then suggest that Mr. Meisner be asked to sign an agreement that he is in favor of the vacation. Suite 205, 6401 University Avenue N.1 ., Fridley, Minnesota 55432, 612-571-3850 Memo to Michele McPherson June 11, 1991 Page 2 I am not aware of any precedent for the City to pay legal fees incurred by a property owner to record an access agreement. However, the amount of fees involved in this would be minimum. If there were to be an access easement partially on Meisner's property and partially on the adjoining property, this would involve preparing two Quit Claim Deeds with cross-easements. The one easement would have to be signed by Mr. Meisner and his wife, if he has one; the other would have to be signed by the adjacent property owner. If either property has a mortgage, the mortgage company would have to assent to the granting of the easement. I would estimate that the entire cost of preparing the easement agreements and recording them with the county would not exceed $200 .00. I trust that the above answers your questions. If not, please contact me. VCH:ldb CITY OF FRIDLEY VACATION REQUEST NOTICE Date: April 26, 1991 Dear Utility O*npany: • The City of Fridley currently has a Vacation request, SAV $ 91-01 , to See attached • Please indicate whether or not you have a problem with this vacation request. Ihe utility company has no problem with this request. Aar Aer 14&,A4.;. *2111Y Signed Company Dt3 The utility company does have a problem with this request for the following reasons: 4 -"et, ,ies..e..-400t- eridetoga -ArAti-rftled i/ . s'. C �-. �-30 r Signed Company Date Planning Commission and City Council Minutes 1963 Alley Vacation Request J STREETS AND UTILITIES SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 1962 @ 3:45 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Nagel, ?ember Ubben and City Engineer Calvin G. Brown Absent: Nona 2. PRELIMINARY STUDY - STREET L&T( JT LOT 35 AUDITORS SUBDIVISION 92: Motion by Ubben to table until overall plan is available for area. Carried. 3. PETITION - ALLEY VACATION - SOUTH 360' OF ALLEY IN BLOCK 2, PLYMOUTH TOWNSHIP: The committee visited the alley. Petition is signed by 100% of 360 foot vacation requested. Motion by Ubben to recommend approval of vacation as petitioned. Carried. 4. lacxxELON - CONTINUE SERVICE ROAD IN ADJOINING LOTS 1-10 BLOCK 6, SPRING BROOK PARK: btion by Mr. Ubben to receive petition and place on file. Carried. 5. STREET & LOT REARRANGEMENT: LOT 3 & 4 BLOCK 1, HORIZON HEIGHTS ADDITION. The history of this situation and request of Pim:minn Commission to study possible street access solution was exp].a:.ned by the City Engineer. Notion by Mr. Ubben to defer action pending preparation of a possible lot rearrangement and alley vacations. Carried. 6. PETITION - ALLEY VACATION - BLOCK 8, HIDE PART ADDITION (60-61st & Main 2nd). The Committee visited the site. Petition is signed by 69% of property owners owning 60% of property. Motion by Mr. Ubben to recommend denial of this petition. Carried. 7. FIVE FOOT (5') EASEMENT VACATION - LOT 16, BLOCK 2 SPRING BROOK PARK ADDITION: The letter from Mrs. Edna EL Hoyt was read. The City Engineer explained the background of this situation which will not affect other lots along 79th Avenue N.S. west of East River Road. The five foot (5') easement could be vacated, and by retaining the five foot (5') utility rights, she could have a 45' lot instead of 50° wide and the city would still have 10' easement north of its water lateral. notion by Mr. Ubben to recommend vacation of five foot (5') street easement but retention of 5' utility easement adjacent to South edge of Lot' 16, Block 2, Spring Brook Park Addition. Carried. . PSG CCEMISSION MEETING. -• 11, 1962 1. ROLL CALL: Acting Chatham Negel, Members Johanson, Bendel, Thompson, Mr. Bravik arrived at 9:30 P.M., City Manager Mr. Wagner, City Engineer • tit. Brown. 7: 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING... s&PTa1BBIR 27-. 1962:. Motion • by Mr. Johanson, seconded by Mr. Bendel, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 1962. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, said motion carried unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PARKS & PLAYGROUNDS - SEPTEMBER 17. 1962: Motion by Mr. Thompson, seconded by Mr. Bendel, to approve the minutes of the Parka .& Playgrounds Sub-Committee of:September 17, 1962. Upon a • voice vote, there being* nays, said motion carried unanimously. 4. RECEIVED MINUTES OF STREETS & UTILITIES SUB-COMMITTEE OF SEPTEMBER 27. 1962: Motion by Mr. Bendel, seconded by Mr. Johanson, to receive the minutes of the Streets & Utilities Sub-Committee of September 27, 1962. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, said motion• .carried unanimously. 5. PETITION - ALLEY VACATION: The South 360' of the alley located in Block 2, Plymouth Addition. . Er. Nagel stated the Streets & Utilities Sub-Committee reca=ended this petition be granted,. . • Mo tion by Mr. Johanson, _ seconded by Mr. Bendel, that this alley vacation be granted. Carried unanimously. 6. PETITION - ALLEY VACATION: Between 60th Avenue N.B. and 61st Avenue between 2nd St. N.S. and Maier Street, Block 8, Hyde Park Addition: The Streets & Utilities Sub-Committee recommended this petition be denied. Bo-by Mr. Johanson, seconded by Mr. Thompson., that the Plt+nntne Commission concur with the Streets & Utilities Sub-Committee and recommend that this petition be denied. Carried unanimously. • 7. EASEMENT VACATION: Request by Edna H. Hoyt to vacate 5' easement across Lot 16, Block 2, Spring Brook Park Addition. The Engineer explained that with proper variances, Mrs. Hoyt stated that she can dispose of a 45' lot, but not a 40' lot. Bet on by Mr. Johanson that the Planning Commission concur with Streets & Utilities Sub-Committee to recommend vacation of 5' street easement but retention of 5' utility easement adjacent to South edge of Lot 16, Block 2, Spring Brook Park Addition. Seconded by Mr. Thompson, carried unanimously. 8. RECEIVE NINTTTES OF PLATS & SUBDIVISIONS SUB-COMMITTEE or OCTOBER 9, 1962: Motion by Mr. Bendel, seconded by Mr. Johanson to receive these minutes. Carried unanimously. aaa�. v vJ .......ubvi 1 Go.u. vaac uv ya.I.G vl uc)Q.a..0 i6. vil.. 1VC.G J titled loildla Lie felt Mr. Madsen should sign a petition for street for this part of Melody Manor. Mr. Brown, the City Engineer, presented the plans and specifications for the job. Several people stepped forward to view the plans and specifications and Mr. Brown explained the plans to them in detail. A question was asked if there was any money in escrow for this street. It was stated that there was not. John Miller, Melody Manor Addition, asked who was .going to be assessed for this imorovemer The City Manager stated that the benefitt.ed property would be assessed, but it has not been definitely decided what the exact amount would be. For the property on the north side, it would probably be somewhere in the neighborhoos of $30,000.00. Mr. Wolke stated that he felt that the developer would take care of it. Mr. DeCarbo, who lives in Melody Manor Addition, asked if the people pay for half of 'the residential street, who will pay for the other side. It was explained that the people on the north side would be assessed for half of the residential street, and the people on the south side of the overall right='of-way for half of an industrial street. Mr. Johanson pointed out that the developer is required by the platting ordinance to put in the necessary streets and surface them. There being no further discussion on the matter, the Mayor declared the hearing clo�s"ed�. exurv;tt ('1 'V0v�,+r viol, P LIC HEARING - -VA ATION OF PORTION1OF ALLEY BLOCK 12, PLYMOUTH DITION: The City Manager read the notice of hearing. The City Manager stated that there is a petition requesting vacation of a portion of the alley in Block 12 signed by 100% of •the people involved in the portion of -the _ alley to be vacated. The Planning Commission had recommended that this alley be vacated. Motion by Nee to receive the petition and place it on file. Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, - the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Wolke asked if there were any garages on the property to the north of the portion of the alley which would not be vacated. It was stated -that there were. Mr. Sheridan asked why the City was not vacating the whole alley. People should have access to use the alley at both ends. Mr. Nee asked if all of the people in the block got a notice of this hearing. The City Engineer stated that they did. There being no further discussion, the Mayor declared the hearing closed. Motion by Wolke to order the ordinance drawn vacating the alley in Block 12, Plymouth Add- ition. Seconded by Johanson. Those voting in favor, Greig, Johanson, Wolke, Nee. Opposed, Sheridan. The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING ON FIVE FOOT STREET EASEMENT VACATION - LOT 16, BLOCK 2, SPRING BROOK PARK ADDITION (HOYT): The City Manager read the notice of hearing. Mr. Brown explained that Lots 18 through 20 in this block were built on under one ownership. The easement vacation request is for Lot 16, and the owner would have a pproximately 45 feet frontage if this five foot vacation were granted, by adding this to the property they would have on Lots 16 and 17. Mr. Wolke asked what this would leave for the street. Mr. Brown explained this would leave 65 feet for street. Mr. Johanson asked of what use this would be, if she could not get a building permit. Mr. Wolke asked if the property owner could acquire more property to the north. Mr. Brown stated that this was under separate ownership. There being no further discussion, the Mayor declared the hearing closed. There was some further discussion as to whether or not the easement should be granted before it is determined whether or not a building permit could be obtained for the property. Mr. Wolke stated that the Council could table this request until the building permit is requested. Motion by Johanson that it is the consensus of the Council that it will act favorably on this vacation request if a building permit can be the city has an easement. City Attorney Kohlan stated the only real concer • normally is whether or not their access is cut off to the back of their . o- perty. The City Manager stated this vacation of an alley had been pub shed and it would be effective June 6th, 1963. RESOLUTION #95-1963 RECEIVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS '. i AUTHORIZING BIDS - SW#65: Mayor Nee announced this was a resolution receiving f' al plans and specifica- tions and authorizing bids on SW #65. The City Man.zer explained to the City Council, if they wished to pass on this resolutio-, they could open bids for same on the following Monday and explained this was the area regarding Barry Blower Company. Motion by Johanson to adopt Resolution ,' - 5-1963 receiving final plans and specifications and authorizing bids o► Project SW#65. Seconded by Brook. Upon a. voice vote, there being no .ys, the motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION #96-1963 RECEIVI : FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING BIDS - SS#64: Mayor Nee announced is was a. resolution receiving final plans and specifica- tions and authoriz' g bids on SS #64. The City Manager explained to the City Council this was the area of Meadowmoor Terrace. Motion by B'.ok to adopt Resolution #96-1963 receiving final plans and speci- fications and authorizing bids on Project SS #64. Seconded by Johanson. Upon a oice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. T1 - City Manager inquired of the City Council if they would like to have a egular meeting time or could three or four members come in late on the after- noon of the 10th to open bids. 6-01 c 1 Me-e 1%# )1Lme. 77 I LI lQ 2 Mr. Kuruu , returned to the floor the vacation of alley near his home. Council- man_ Sheridan explained to him the engineering department doesn't have a record of_the notices sent to the property owners in the area. because it was a public hearing called by the Council. Mr. Nagel, member of the Planning Commission, stated there was a petition by all of the people below this section and stated the Planning Commission had looked it over and felt this vacation didn't affect the people at the other end of the alley because they could still get in and out. Councilman Sheridan stated at the time of the public hearing he had questioned if everybody had been notified within the block because the entire alley wasn 't being vacated and stated these people were entitled to the use of that alley and they should have been notified to voice any objection to the vacating of the alley. Councilman Sheridan voiced the question to City Attorney Kohlan if this could be held in abeyance and have it set back for another two weeks before it goes into effect by rescinding the order. City Attorney Kohlan explained the ordi- nance had been published and he was at a loss as to how to undo it, that- the • way it would have to be done would be to establish 'an alley again and whether or not the residents would be entitled to any compensation for it, he wasn 't certain. He further explained the city has utility easements and it is a matter of service rights and legally the alley would have to be established. _I_v It was stated that those residents who like on that part of the alley which has been vacated have made repairs, moved fences and fixed it up, etc. City Attorney' Kohlan stated the ordinances do not become law until 15 days after publication and there is room for a referendum petition to be filed with adequate signatures. The City Manager asked if an emergency type ordinance could be published and was told it could not. Councilman Wolke suggested the residents opposed to this vacation get a. petition to get it reopened and explained that he had felt, as did the other members of the City Council, the residents had all been notified at the time this had been passed on. City Attorney Kohlan explained that the failure to give this notification under the Charter does not invalidate the ordinance. The notification is something the Council does as a matter of advice and originally the thought was to vacate the entire alley. He further explained he had advised the members of the Planning Commission at that time that as long as these people were using the alley, they should not be deprived of the access. Also protesting this vacation was Mr. George Gorski. Motion by Johanson that the above described alley vacation be returned to the Planning Commission for a closer look because of the objections that have been voiced this evening. Seconded by Brook. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. CLAIMS: Motion by Johanson to approve payment of General Claims #261 through #344. Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. Motion by Sheridan to approve payment of Liquor Claims #5369 through #5388. Seconded by Brook. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. Motion by Brook to approve payment of Public Utilities Claims #2548 through #2576. Seconded by Wolke. Upon a. voice vote, there being no nays, the • motion carried unanimously. ESTIMA'1'LS: Motion by Sheridan to approve the following described estimates: Dunkley Surfacing Company - 3756 Grand Street Northeast Minneapolis, Minnesota Estimate L2 (Partial) Street Improvement Project No. 1962-4 $ 4,836.51 Estimate r4 (Partial) Street Improvement Project No. 1962-2B $12,9788.63 Estimate #4 (Partial) Street Improvement Project No. 1962-2A $ 9,185.40 Seconded by Brook. Upon a. voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. LICENSES: Planning Commission Meeting - June 13, 1963 Page 4 14 LAND SUBDIVISION BASIC REGULATIONS: Continued until next meeting, June 27, 1963. 15. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT - F. F. FOSLIEN HOMES,, INC. Lot 5-C, 2nd Revision .Auditor's Subdivision #21, except W. 33' taken for Lucia Lane, Motion by Mr. Nagel, seconded by Mr. Thompson, to set the Public? Hearing date for Preliminary Plat of Lot 5-C, 2nd Revision Auditor's Subdivision #21, except W. 33' taken for Lucia Lane, for July 11, 1963. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the notion carried unanimously. 16. VACATION (SAV #6303) RUSSELL H. FRANCEN, SR.: Six foot easement north side of Lot 1, Block 1, Don's 3rd Addition. Motion by Mr. Johanson, seconded by Mr. Nagel, to concur with the Streets and Utilities Sub-Committee to recommend vacation of this easement: along north edge of Lot 1, Block 1, Dome 3rd Addition, subject to prr- viding a similar easement along the south edge of the lot. Upc-n a voice vote, all voting aye, the notion carried unanimously. 17 VACATION OF SOUTH 360° OF ALLEY LOCATED IN BLOCK 12, PLYMOUTH t DDDITI Oi:: Motion by Mr. Thompson, seconded by Mr. Johanson, to refer this m3c:trE: to the Streets and Utilities Sub-Committee. Upon a voice vote; all vottiG aye, except Mr. Nagel who voted nay, the motion carried. Adjournment There being no further business, Chairman Eravik adjourned the meeting at 9:30 PAL Respectfully submittec:, Hazel O'Brian Recording Secretary 1 Pa€._ 7 Streets & Utilities Sub-Committee - September 10, 1963 REARRANGEMENT OP ADAMS STREET AND AREA - B & M INC, - MR BIRD Mro Robert Bird explained this property was zoned 8.1 and he would keep it that way. The property involved includes Jefferson, Washington, 7th and 6th Streets between 57th and 58th. Allowing for twenty feet for street R./W, he would end up with a group of 60° lots. At the present tip, they are platted in 40' lots. He agreed to replat all the propert;- he owned leaving out exceptions. Motion by Mr. Ubben that the Streets and Utilities Sub-Committee look with favor on the street pattern with the dedications and vacation, as indicated and recommend to the Planning Commission acceptance of this plan. Carried. PETITION,. VACATION RIVERVIEW TERRACE - SAV #63-07 - FROM 79TH TO BROAD AVii:E: Present to discuss the vacation were Mr, and Mrs. W. B. Strub and Dr. Robert Jaeger. This portion of Riverview Terrace is not being used as a through street at this time. Mot..on by Mr. Ubben that the Parks and Playgrounds Committee be con- tacted, that the members of the Streets & Utilities Sub-Committee and for Parks and Playgrounds Committee visit this area, and that. Dr. Jaeger be invited to attend. Carried. COS 1DERATION OP MINN'E.APOLIS GAS COMPANY PERMIT H-19 7-R AND A_ LANE. Motion by Mr. Ubben that the Streets & Utilities Sub-Cooar•J.ttee deny both Gas Company permits (Apes: Lane and Central Avenue frau ?road:-. a to 75th and Stinson Blvd. from 75th to Osborne) unless the Gas Company wishes to go down as deep as the City°s utilities. Carried. VACATION OF SOUTH 360 c OF ALLEY LOCATED IN BLOCK 12, PLYtIOUTE ADDITIOP? Mr. Nagel visited the area. No action, ADIOURIIMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5 0 45 tfully submittednn 11RREI. CIAF,E _ Jam" Recording Secretary • PLIIMNG COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 12, 1963 Pas. 3 The Commission recalled this problem had been discussed pre?icusl_, with no solution acceptable to the interested parties. NOTION by Thompson, seconded by Nagel, that the Planning Co i sio. refer the Landlock Problem, Ostmen°s 3rd Addition, to the Streets 6& Utilities, Plats & Subdivisions Committees and the City Engineer fcI. study. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the notion carried. 12. LOT SPLIT REQUEST - L.S. #63-29 - HARRY SHUTE: Oak Grove Addition, Lott 16, 17, 18. Mr. and Mrs. Harry Shute were present. There was a short discussion regarding the lot sizes. MOTION by Nagel, seconded by Thompson, that the Planning Comissio approve the lot split subject to the City Attorneys approval and receipt of certificate of survey, noting that the corner lot is a minimum of 60', and payment of the lot split fee. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the notion carried. &3. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #63-30 - TRED COMPANY, INC.: MOTION by Nagel, seconded by Thompson, that the Planning CoiissiOs refer this request back to the Plats & Subdivisions Sub-Committee, Up.: a voice vote, all voting aye, the notion carried. 14, VACATION OF SOUTH 360' OF ALLEY LOCATED IN BLOCK 12, PLYMOUTH ADDIT Ot: Mr. Nage? reported the Streets & Utilities Sub-Committee had visit this area. MOTION by Thompson, seconded by Handel, that the Planning Conmissicn accept Mr. Nagel's verbal report and recommend no change in the original recommendation of the vacation. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the notion carried. 15. PROPOSED PBE JThTNApv PLAT - P.S 063-OE - MARKEY ADDITION - KEI' NOPd)LING Mr, Kenneth Nordling stated his problem was that 80% of the land was R-2 and 20% zoned R-1. The problem is whether or not the land would require rezoning before platting cane up, Mr. Nordling was asked if hE_ would assume the costs of publications for rezoning hearing before City Attorney's opinion was given, in order to speed up the procced_isv Ha agreed that he would. MOTION by Thompson, seconded by Nagel, that the PlAnn{ng CommissioL set the Public Hearing date for October 10, 1963 for rezoning, Lot 2; Auditor's Subdivision #94 except that part taken by the State of Mir::ks:ita, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the notion carried. such as these. Councilman Wolke inquired if there Tiere a sewer service to t • lot. Mr. Clark stated he didn't know. Mr. Harry Shute, owner, was ent in favor of the lot split and to explain the area. Motion by Wolke to concur with the rec ation of the Planning Commission and approve the lot split of Oak ddition, Lots 16, 17 and 18; L. S. #63-29 by Harry Shute subject e City Attorhey's approval and receipt of certificate of survey. onded by Johanson. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the m carried unanimously. WUrul Y\ eAivi'i oer IIo(1 VACATION OF S 360 FEET OF AT,TJ'Y LOCATED IN BLOCK 12, PLYMOUTH ADDITION: The City Manager explained the City Council had approved the vacations and it was referred back to committees for restudy. Councilman Wolke stated he wished to have this item carried over because at the time he had no idea when it would be brought back to the floor and wanted the residents in the area to be notified. Motion by Wolke to table until the next regular meeting of the City Council the vacation of So. 360 feet of alley in Block 12, Plymouth Addition and during the interim notify the residents involved. Mayor Nee inquired if the City Council could have a legal opinion regarding the reversing of their decision. Councilman Wolke stated the residents claim they were not notified and if this were true, it was not a legal action, that there was a condition with two or three garages and residents do not want to back out of their garages and claim they were not notified. It was stated the ordinance was recorded. Mr. Nagel, member of the Planning Commission stated it was only a matter of the residents not getting a house to house notice was the only matter, that some of the residents have al- ready put up fences and the resident doing the most complaining had already moved his garage. City Attorney Smith explained the ordinance had been recorded and he was not certain, at this point, if that didn't end it, that the City had retained a utility easement but that he would check on same and report to the City Council. Mayor Nee requested that Councilman Wolke rephrase his motion in- cluding in motion that a request for a legal opinion be prepared. Motion by Wolke to table until the next regular meeting of the City Council the vacation of So. 360 feet of alley in Block 12 Plymouth Addition, notify all resi- dnts in the particular named block so that a public hearing could be held and request a legal opinion be prepared for the meeting in question. Seconded by Johanson. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF MINNEAPOLIS GAS COMPANY PERMIT #S-197-R AND APEX LANE: The City Manager read to the City Council the recommendation of the anning Commission and stated the Minneapolis Gas Company had requested at lines be closer than ten feet to City utilities; that this had been • 'scussed before that nothing could be closer than ten feet to the lines so - s was referred to Streets and Utilities Committee and the Planning Commissio. -rid they recommended permits be denied. The City Manager explained the per. s could not be approved ten feet or less without Council action. Mayor Nee nquired how close the Minneapolis Gas Company wished to get to the City lin- - . Mr. Clark of the City Engineering De- partment stated they wished to go ve feet in one location and within seven feet of the City storm sewer ' another location. The City Manager stated he had -called the Minneapol' : as Company and asked if the City had to do any extra digging, would they •. the difference in cost and he had heard nothing from them. Motion by Wo e to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny th- 'emits to the Minneapolis Gas Company on #S-197-R and Apex Lane. Se- con. -. by Brook. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried • animously. COMMUNICATIONS: • Motion by Johanson to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the realignment of 73rd Avenue, University Avenue to Able Street, three and one half feet south. Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. ZoorIA 011eekinq Ovitloer-1 191.070- CONSIDERAT N OF VACATION OF SOUTH 360 FEET OF ALLEY: Mayor Nee announced the item for consideration was the vacation of the South 360 feet of an alley and inquired if Councilman Wolke had any comments. Coun- cilman Wolke inquired if the residents in the area affected were notified that this would be on the Agenda this evening. The City Manager replied they had mailed some sixteen notices. Mayor Nee inquired if there were anyone present who wished to be heard in this regard, that as he understood the problem the City of Fridley was in an irreprievable position. Mr. Edgar Milseith of 4656 2nd Street Northeast stated he had just bought a home and was unable to use his garage unless he backed all the way down.the alley. Mr. Rognas of 4680 2nd Street Northeast was also present in favor of the opening of the alley. Mr. George Gorzycki of 4668 2nd Street Northeast was present in favor Of the open- ing of the alley. Mayor Nee explained to the residents present that he had no authority to change the action of the Council at this time. The City Manager stated that, at one time, the entire alley was up for vacation and it was de- cided against it and then it had come up as a part of an alley vacation. Coun- cilman Wolke stated that he felt one of the reasons the City of Fridley did this was because they don't care to have alleys and if the people petition for vacating same, the Council does approve. The question was raised by a resident if an easement could be used. It was explained the City does retain an easement but the City can't use it except for public utilities. Councilman Wolke inquired if the action previously taken was a recommendation of the Streets and Utilities Committee and was told it was. Councilman Wolke stated this area was a problem as the City Coun- cil generally take their recommendations because they check these things quite thoroughly. Mayor Nee explained the problem at the moment was that, apparently, what the City Attorney says is the City does have to go in and buy the property back to reopen the alley. The residents asked what they would do for driving if this was not done. City Attorney Smith explained there was a technicality here on the way of es- tablishing alleys, that there would be legal expenses, etc., and quite a lot of problems. He further stated it was his opinion that not much could be done at a hearing, the Council could decide to pass a resolution to condemn the alley or they could decide to do nothing. A general discussion was held re- garding all aspects in the case. City Attorney Smith inquired if all the abutting owners were notified. He was told they were and that a petition in this regard was presented. Councilman Sheridan inquired of the City Manager if all of the owners affected by the alley had not asked for a vacation but actually come back with a part section. He was told this was true. Councilman Wolke stated that no matter where a resident lived on this block, they had as much right to any portion, that it was a two way street and if any resident didn't get a notice, then it was a different thing. Councilman Johanson suggested finding out how much of the property they could get back. City Attorney Smith stated he felt it was legally sufficient to follow the statute and charter provisions. Motion by Johanson that the City Manager and City Attorney be instructed to I U L) negotiate with the property owners in the affected alley to see how much of this property they could get back. Seconded by Wolke. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. COMMUNICATIONS: EXCAVATORS: LICENSING OF WATER AND SEWER EXCAVATORS: The City Manager stated he had discussed the licensing of water and sewe ex- cavators with the City Attorney and would suggest the City Council ref- this item over to him for his consideration. Motion by Brook to refer to the City Attorney the licensing of water and sewer excavators for the drawing of an ordinance. Seconded by heridan. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried u :nimously. • BROOKLYN CENTER: SEWER STUDY AGENCY: Mayor Nee announced this was a communication from Br•oklyn Center on the sewer study agency. Motion by Johanson to receive the c• munication from the Village of, Brooklyn Center and file. Seconded by Brook. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. NORTH SUBURBAN HOSPITAL DISTRICT: ELECTION COSTS: Mayor Nee announced this was a communi :tion from the North Suburban Hospital District regarding election costs. 'e City Manager explained a decrease in election costs was asked for by the 'ospital District, that Fridley had or- iginally billed the hospital distr ct for about $483.00 and the new price would be $170.00. Motion by Johanson to author' e the City Manager to reduce the North Suburban Hospital District election 'ost to the figure of 10% of the total election bill. Seconded by Brook. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. DEPARTMENT OF HEAL►!' : RICE CREEK: Mayor Nee announced the communication in question was from the State of Minne- sota regardin„ Rice Creek. The City Manager explained to the City Council that the St. e of Minnesota Department of Health recommended certain things be done an. they are talking about an expensive set up, that he had a. letter from the 'ealth Inspector in which he felt this problem was not serious. Mayor N -e inquired if this could be studied and the City Council advised. The C' y Manager suggested the City Council might wish a report from the Hea h Officer in this regard and he would want to consult with the Board of Health. Motion by Johanson to receive the letter from the State of Minnesota, De- partment of Health and refer same to the Health Inspector, Mr. Hensley for his study and comments. Seoonded by Sheridan. Upon a voice vote, there be- ing no nays, the motion carried unanimously. CTTY ATTORNEY: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 49: and the other regarding the leasing of same. Motion by Johanson to refer the two letters received from Madsen Realty re- garding the building at 6441 University Avenue Northeast to the City Manager for a recommendation to the City Council. Seconded by Brook. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. The City Manager suggested to the City Council if they wished to extend the City property, it would be appropriate to authorize negotiations or looking into a building that might be available adjacent to City property to save rental monies of approximately $1+,300.00 per year. Motion by Johanson to authorize the City Manager to negotiate for the acqui- sition of or checking into the possibility of obtaining the Oman property adjacent to City property. Seconded by Brook. Upon a voice vote, there be- ing no nays, the motion carried unanimously. PEARSON: PARK DEPOSIT: Mayor Nee announced the item in question was a communication from Pearson Homes, Inc. The City Manager read aloud the communication and explained it was with regard to a piece of property along East River Road which was just replatted to permit multiple dwelling sites and part of Pearson's Craigway Development, that Mr. Pearson had felt they had contributed their 5% or more for park purposes and though they had sent a check of $105.00 to cover park purposes, they wished Council consideration on same. Engineering Assistant Clark stated the entire acreage of the plat was ninety some acres and the Pearson land, so far, does meet the ordinance requirement. The City Manager explained the $105.00 wouldn't to any good. Motion by Johanson to authorize'the City Manager to return the check for $105.00 for park purposes to Pearson Homes, Inc. Seconded by Brook. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. Dam IA taLO� OWNERS OFF LOTS 7-25, BLOCK 12, PLYMOUTH ADDITION: AT.T.Y VACATION: The City Manager explained this was a communication -from the residents in the area regarding the alley vacation on the South 360 feet of Block 12, Plymouth Addition, that he had been directed by the City Council to write to the people abutting the same alley to vacate same but this letter had come in and each piece of property that abutts the area in question signed the letter and these residents don't believe in giving alley back. He fur- ther explained this was the alley that had been vacated by ordinance and the City Attorney has advised the only way to do anything about it would be to reacquire by dedication or condemnation. Motion by Johanson to receive and place on file the letter received from the owners of Lots 7 through 25, Block 12, Plymouth Addition and confirm the action previously taken by the City Council. Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a voice NJte, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. MADSEN: APPRECIATION: The City Manager read aloud the letter of appreciation from Mrs. Betty Madsen. Motion by Brook to receive and place on file the letter of appreciation from Mrs. Betty Madsen. Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 22, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Betzold called the May 22, 1991, Planning ommission meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Don Betzold, Dave Kondri , Brad Sielaff, Larry Kuechle (for Dias - Savage) Members Absent: Dean Saba, Sue She -k, Connie Modig Others Present: Barbara Dacy, -ommunity Development Director Michele McP rson, Planning Assistant Steven Ba = , Planning Assistant Jean Ha• •erg, 5881 - 2nd Street N.E. James -eterson, 7995 Broad Avenue See -ttached list APPROVAL OF MA 8 1991 PLANN NG COMMISSION INU ES: MOTION by , . Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the May 8, —1, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPO. A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED T. MAY 8, 1991, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED AS WRITTEN. 1. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST, SAV #91-01, BY EUGENE AND JEAN HAGBERG: To vacate the 12 foot alley in Block 23, Hyde Park, for a distance of approximately 243 feet south of the south line of 59th Avenue, generally located north of 58th Avenue, south of 59th Avenue, east of 2nd Street, and west of 2 1/2 Street. Ms. McPherson stated this is the 243 feet directly south of 59th Avenue. The alley is not improved, and all the properties in this general area are zoned S-1, Hyde Park. Alleys serve the public in three ways: They provide: (1) vehicular access; (2) location for utilities; and (3) access for emergency vehicles. In this particular instance, all the properties except one, 5834 2 1/2 Street, just south of where the vacation request ends, have access from either 2nd Street or 2 1/2 Street. Ms. McPherson stated the City has several advantages for vacating the alley. It will remove from the public responsibility part of, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 22. 1991 PAGE 2 an alley that the City cannot maintain, transferring the maintenance responsibilities to the adjacent homeowners directly abutting the alley. It would also potentially remove nuisances of partying and illegal dumping of materials. Ms. McPherson stated the property owner, Pete Meisner, who depends on the alley for access could potentially still have access from 58th Avenue, which is the south entrance to the alley, or if he could come to some type of agreement with the apartment building directly to the west of him at 5851 - 2nd Street, he would still have access to his property. Ms. McPherson stated there are several disadvantages to vacating the alley. In the past, the Council has preferred 100% agreement for vacating an alley or street. Included in the agenda packet are minutes alluding to a 1963 alley vacation in which the petition was to vacate a portion of an alley; and in the process of review, the entire alley, without 100% agreement, was vacated. However, the original petition for the portion of the alley was 100% agreed upon by those persons directly abutting the alley, the same as this current request. Ms. McPherson stated that in 1980, a similar request to vacate all of the alley in Block 7, Hyde Park, was approved by the City. In that instance, a petition with 100% of the adjacent property owners was submitted. In the Hyde Park neighborhood, there are two partially vacated alleys and four entirely vacated alleys. Ms. McPherson stated vacating a portion of the alley creates an alley that has a deadend which would require that someone driving into the alley would have to back out the same way he/she entered the alley. With only one entrance to the alley, access would be prohibited should someone park in the south area of the alley, and this would prohibit the access of Mr. Meisner's property. Ms. McPherson stated a third opportunity for access to Mr. Meisner's property would be for the City to allow a parking area to be paved in his front yard. However, in reviewing the building file in 1978, apparently City staff told the previous property owners that they could not use a curb cut in their front yard, even though the Code allows parking in the required front yard if the parking does occur on a hard surface. Ms. McPherson stated that in evaluating the request based on the three public purposes (vehicular access, emergency vehicle access, and location for utilities) , the only requirement that is not met is the fact that the access to Mr. Meisner's property could potentially be blocked. There are NSP overhead wires in the alley; however, a 10 foot drainage/utility easement submitted by the petitioners would still allow access by the utility company to repair and maintain their lines. The Fire Department does not PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 22, 1991 PAGE 3 require the alley for emergency access, so the remaining issue is to ensure that Mr. Meisner has guaranteed access to his property. Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending to the Planning Commission that this vacation request not be granted until Mr. Meisner has guaranteed access to his property, either by an easement agreement with the property owner of 5851 - 2nd Street, the apartment building directly to the west of his property, or by the City allowing him to pave a parking area in the front yard. If either option does occur, staff would recommend the portion of the alley be vacated as requested, the north 243 feet, with two stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall pay for the cost of preparing and installing the deadend alley signs. 2 . The petitioner shall provide a 10 foot drainage and utility easement over the vacated alley. Ms. McPherson stated staff is also recommending that perhaps the Planning Commission might want to discuss the policy issue of vacating part or all of alleys in general and make a recommendation to City Council. Mr. Betzold asked how access to Mr. Meisner's property is being denied. Ms. McPherson stated that Mr. Meisner's house has no garage and no driveway from 2 1/2 Street. In order for Mr. Meisner to remove his vehicle from the street, he uses the alley to park in his rear yard on the grass. On occasion he has had to call the City to say that someone has piled brush in the alley or someone has parked in the alley which prevents him from accessing his property. Mr. Kuechle asked if there is any record for the number of parties or disturbances that would indicate a good reason to vacate the alley. Ms. Dacy stated the Police Department has records, but staff does not have that information for the meeting. Ms. Jean Hagberg, 5881 - 2nd Street, stated that they have lived at this address since 1964. Until last year, the alley has not been drivable, because of high ruts. In the last year, they have had NSP cut down trees, and the neighbors cleaned up the alley. They also hauled in dirt to fill in the ruts, because they had plans for vacating the alley on their end. Ms. Hagberg stated their reasons for wanting to vacate the alley is because of the kids that go back there and party, because of broken glass, cans, beer bottles, and other debris, and cars driving through the alley at 2:00-3:00 a.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 22, 1991 PAGE 4 Mr. Paul Reider, 5875 - 2nd Street, stated that he owns the property adjoining the Hagbergs. He stated snowplowing is a concern of his since this alley has never been plowed. This alley has no gravel on it, and it is very muddy when it rains. At this point in time, he did not expect the City to come in and spend any of his tax dollars to improve it. Six months out of the year, the alley is filled with snow. If the alley was plowed, what would happen to the snow? To his knowledge, the alley has not been used for garbage removal or fire access. He believed it would be a win- win situation for the City to not spend any money improving this property, and he would condone giving Mr. Meisner off-street parking in his front yard. Mr. Meisner's lot is very small, but he could have access to his rear yard from the south end of the alley and from the front. He did not want to cause a hardship for anyone. Mr. Meisner stated there are no lights in any of the alleys that the City is not maintaining. So, it is very dark back there. He stated he walked down to the 5900 block where 1/2 of the alley is vacated. He did not see one sign saying "deadend" . He did not see any signs saying "end of street" or any barricades. He asked some people if there were any problems with the vacation of the alley, and there did not appear to be any problems. Regarding snow removal, they said they are at the discretion of the apartment building to plow them out. He did not understand that, because he is under the impression that he is not allowed to plow an alleyway with his personal vehicle. The people in the 5900 block told him of similar problems with the alley because of the darkness, a place for kids to party, and trying to keep the alley clean. Mr. Reider stated that if one-half of the alley is vacated, they will stop people from using it for a shortcut and for parties and it will stop the garbage that is ongoing. The broken glass is a big problem, and who is liable if someone gets cut while playing in the alley? If the alley is to be kept open, then he thought lights are essential for security reasons. Mr. Betzold asked if vacating the northern one-half of the alley would preclude the vacation of the southern one-half in the future. Ms. Dacy stated that if the neighbors submitted a petition to vacate and had 100% agreement from the adjacent property owners, then she did not see how the vacation of the northern half could preclude the vacation of the southern half. Ms. Dacy stated staff's recommendation is based on the objective to get the access issue resolved for Mr. Meisner or any future owner of his property. The record is not clear as to why the City denied the former property owner the ability to have a curb cut off that street in 1978 when the Code does allow it. They do not know if the property owner of the apartment building would be willing PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 22, 1991 PAGE 5 to record an access easement in perpetuity across their property to allow Mr. Meisner access. Mr. Pete Meisner stated that he has to have some type of access to his property. He is willing to work with the apartment building owner to get an easement as long as it is in writing. Mr. Kondrick asked how Mr. Meisner felt about a parking area in his front yard. Mr. Meisner stated a parking area in his front yard would take up almost his entire front yard. He would prefer to have access to the rear of his property. Mr. Betzold stated a third option for access to Mr. Meisner's rear yard is to come through the alley from the south. Mr. Meisner stated the only problem with that is that he would have to drive in forward and then back out. He would still have to drive on a part of the northern part of the alley. Mr. Betzold asked about snow removal in the wintertime. Ms. Cheryl Williamette, 6004 - 2 1/2 Street, stated she is the previous owner of Mr. Meisner's property. She stated they had a big truck and they plowed the alley themselves. They always parked two vehicles in the back yard. She stated that in 1978 when the City came in and tore up the old streets and put in new streets and curbs, they decided they would like to put a parking area in the front yard. She stated the property is on a hill, and there is no way you can guarantee that a vehicle parked on the hill in the wintertime is not going to slide down the hill. So, it is not an option unless -they dig into the hill, and there is water and sewer on part of the property. At one time, she and her husband tried to see if they could put a drive-around to get to the rear of the house, but there is not enough room on either side of the house. Ms. Dacy asked Ms. Williamette if she remembered why the City did not allow a curb cut in 1978. Ms. Williamette stated the City said it was because they could not park in front of the house, that they needed some access around the house. Ms. Judy Konselo, 5828 - 2 1/2 Street, stated she owns the property next to Mr. Meisner. She stated she uses the alley to the south, and in the wintertime, the snow from the apartment building parking lots is stacked at the end of the alley, so access to the south for Mr. Meisner is not possible in the wintertime. Ms. Dacy stated that given these particular circumstances, staff thought the option for a driveway in Mr. Meisner's front yard PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 22, 1991 PAGE 6 should be reconsidered. The lot is only 40 feet wide, and there is no way to get to the rear from the front of the property, and it seems like a reasonable option. Mr. Betzold stated that if the City does vacate the northern half of this alley, they are essentially taking property from Mr. Meisner. By denying him the access to the rear of his property and then requiring him at the same time to have some place to park his car, having to use his front yard for a driveway would diminish the value of his property. If the only access to the rear of the property is with an easement, that will cost someone some money, and somehow this is going to have to be worked out. He stated using the southern half of the alley is the worst scenario, because it is probably just a matter of time before the neighbors to the south are going to want to vacate their half of the alley. It is too bad the City turned down the curb cut and driveway 12 years ago, because they wouldn't have this problem now. Mr. Betzold stated he believed there is an issue here, because the City is essentially taking property, and the City Attorney should review this matter before it goes to Council. He would also like staff to contact the apartment building owner and get more information on that option. Ms. Dacy stated staff will try to contact and meet with the apartment building owner at 5851 - 2nd Street to see if it is possible to get an access agreement, and they will also discuss this with the City Attorney. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to table SAV #91- 01, by Eugene and Jean Hagberg until the June 12, 1991, Planning Commission meeting in order to obtain more information and to get a legal opinion from the City Attorney. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Dacy stated that if not enough information is available for the June 12, 1991, meeting, the City will notify the neighbors about a week prior to the meeting. Ms. Sherek stated another question to be asked of the City Attorney is that if there are legal fees incurred by the property owner to record an access agreement, is there any precedent for the City undertaking the payment of those fees? 2. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST, S: #91-02 . BY JAMES AND LINDA PETERSON AND TIMOTHY AND DON. - T MILLER: To vacate the east 110 x 40 fee of Dover Street as measured from the east right-of-way ' e of Broad Avenue, subject to an easement for utility p •oses over the southerly 20 feet of the portion of Dove Street to be vacated and a walkway MIIIM imi STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE CITY OF PLANNING COMMISSION DATE : June 19, 1991 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL DATE AUTHOR MM/dn REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER SP #91-07 APPLICANT Michael Bizal PROPOSED REQUEST To increase the required maximum lot coverage from 40% to 42.5% LOCATION 7880 Ranchers Road SITE DATA SIZE 63,283.47 square feet DENSITY PRESENT ZONING M-2, Heavy Industrial ADJACENT LAND USES M-2, Heavy Industrial to the North, South, East, and & ZONING West; M-I , Light Industrial to the Northeast UTILITIES PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FINANCIAL IMPUCATIONS CONFORMANCE TO Yes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPATIBILITY WITH Yes ADJACENT USES & ZONING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION Denial APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION SP #91-07 • Michael Bizal • S 1/2 SEC. CITY a CITY OF SPR. C) ..1/4 CORkR @ 14:1:,-, SEC 2 ., • -... ..-4.4 " AVE. ..„. N.E. .,;- ---' - ...''' - - • I ...,-.-- - 3(k,:.. 69 , = 1 4 „, /(0.),•,, ,te, z 0/ I s , _2:- .1 , . 4 • '''''• (o) 4.0,-. , ,t 1 1 1 . - .0 6,).i. , -64 ' • i t, .;...• (y) z 6., 5 ., , w._ i, a z -• la---'7 :*' '..7 r -' z: :4N E , ) I NE.i .....') . r). 5 67, ..I. I , aa.,:r5rrr a aa W • filM511 '• .. 4 '..„..'.. .4 .4' 1 'li' (4) 0 (.,) ' ... '. ' -(..?•,..4. .... \ ,: ak 1 ti''.• .!:'--i---- cc 11 hrl .- Jr :•• 80 TN wAVE. N.E i • ki z CO Et ce w ..:' • 09; : 4 • 4'T '''' ...•.. ''..; Ma .40): Of '5-I ccw \ 4 1 . 2 1 • 4 I 1: . -. '' . .) , 11(,..„ ,. : a,, 216.).,0'ON .. ."-- , -- „....U4 I 4 I 111' .....Z i • $ .. ,,,,„ 1. 0 ,,2,,, 3 00: 6 ,, r 7 0 . i ..c ':a !'' . co 1 ' ' I, .1: a../ 1, ROSEDALE a R•Ace • g40 3 4tt)4. 4'-er'l 1 4 .Z /,' . a ./.. I ...r)- Z • '....' ...4.'" 4-7r—":—L .-----.,,,„ * s 4 ;"... ''' ., .-9* .',-f;) (7 ' X s /0(e)i, 5-09: X '..4 4('''''S I . 1 (-4) .1 Z k < , ...1, , i' ii.g.-. .,•_,,„•__„ ' W .• • 9 0') 4 60 a 4.' Al........ 2 fn.)...,,, .1 , s(....0 % .. , ,. i As...,.4 .,... 25', z . c.P... :•.' ."'(:"`1 ,ss Z: 0 i ... . , ! I "••.. ••• r --. ' • ;,,,, -..V. .-". ••••;,;,t , '" ....,,, I' ' ''° ! .',-. .;. ite) 7(0':. Z4.;e q)-;-..- .-- 73 TN ..... „.... _ . .0!:‘ -, A., -- :,.? ; -15, •,,, ','t...„'• --,,.(,.>/ &neer Pont .l....: 1. ,. 3 , 1 ...... . , _....- k —:-..-::- , cr ' — _, ;:-- _ <, 5EGLI _ :. 1 . 4.1...."1-e.,Alf..e•••••', . ' k 0 r , Z''' '''.... •,....,/...." t m .- .,,,;',.:-..47.-- ,,11.:41*--".: ! I '') >, T :•. or) l':il• ' w : t ,,.-- , . -1''''., 4 ..4 v, __4j-_-_1.1__,'-'„, 1,,ii d('-'4 (2,) .:1 T 1, (,) ,.p. :.- i..4;, k ..7K•'7--472.TH•••,••-••,,WAw. ." 7 .. I ' . — __--ir-- 5 rt CORNER ------ -0Set4C------- C) LOCATION MAP SP #91-07 Michael Bizal 4 . orl,�� aAM 0 rt /warWle .. i VA 30, : , ©A_ , z ., .... . i ... g-K-- w- _, I, ;. :✓//../`iiiili. oL'sR 1 Vri weir% �p el 4' O i_' 4- rni:i:;1 le;;44( ' . f, 772 ,. •, 7-0.-•••...**1 ' I9,03rA °.,••••1'sedP ' ./ '..;4i...' • ' e Vr;:;V:ii;:;:* .:4•:,..4:6:4 j I ZONING MAP Staff Report SP #91-07, Michael Bizal Page 2 Request The petitioner is requesting a special use permit to increase the maximum allowable lot coverage from 40% to 42.5%. The request is for Lot 1, Block 3, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition, the same being 7880 Ranchers Road N.E. The petitioner has also applied for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 8 feet. The Appeals Commission recommended approval of the variance request to the City Council with the stipulation that a lot split be completed within two years to bring the property into compliance. Site Located on the property is a single story industrial building used for manufacturing and warehousing. The property is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, with additional M-2 zoning to the north, south, east, and west. Located to the northeast is M-1, Light Industrial zoning. The lot to the south is currently vacant and owned by the petitioner's father. As the two properties are owned by two separate entities (the subject parcel is owned by the Bizal Corporation) , a combination of the properties is not possible without a transfer of ownership. Analysis Section 205. 18.03.C. (4) of the Fridley City Code outlines two standards which must be met prior to the City granting a special use permit to increase the maximum lot coverage by up to ten percent. In evaluating this proposed request, standard A requires an evaluation to determine if a reduction in the total building and parking coverage can be achieved; however, the proposed addition would require an increase in total building coverage as well as additional hardsurface area to provide loading dock access to the warehouse addition from Ranchers Road. The second standard to be evaluated is whether all ordinance requirements can be met, including but not limited to parking, storm water management, and landscaping. The current use of the building is divided between manufacturing space at 15,580 square feet and warehouse space at 5,870 square feet. By code, the required number of parking spaces needed for the existing uses of the building is 42 . The site currently provides 27 spaces. The proposed addition of 5,480 square feet would require an additional three spaces be provided on site. The number of employees that work at Bizal total 25. While the site provides adequate parking Staff Report SP #91-07, Michael Bizal Page 3 for the number of employees currently employed by Bizal, the site clearly does not meet the code requirements based on the types of uses within the building. In addition, the proposed warehouse expansion would eliminate area for the "proof of parking" which is provided for in the code. A property owner does not need to physically provide the required number of spaces, but needs to maintain an area where the required spaces could be provided if needed. A grading and drainage plan should be submitted to ensure that the storm water detention requirements are met. Recommendation and Stipulations As the proposed expansion does not meet the standards set forth within the zoning code to allow a special use permit to increase the maximum lot coverage, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request to the City Council. If the Commission chooses to recommend approval of the request, the following stipulations are recommended: 1. When the lot split is completed, 55 feet should be split from the adjacent vacant lot to provide "proof of parking". 2. The petitioner shall provide a grading and drainage plan showing where storm water detention and retention shall occur. 3. Variance request, VAR #91-14, shall be approved. SP #91-07 Michael Bizal r BIZAL 4T9th AVE + ,..-- _ ,„,„:__ ,... i�l ' i t Li �� O 1 a 1 I-- O y 1 CC —J —I "A OS i I -I y U IOr • .zE. (l.2.05.41 a rr. I i -1 I Y Ciltiluh +Loh Z: lro n cr 1 I Q MEW AY ," .i,Aeo a Gr 'dl . 4 I ¢ T+rel 1 LDh UE3 2,110 oar i 3.wano=eo o Aa 0IaN y• �yp� ar 137�7 O SITE PLAN S(6LC I _ 40• Legal Survey Zoning La, I'BILYC S Lar Sat.cvs L0.01.1, EA v..Au`M e.arm v� lr s a Lau-r. n M-2 See awl A-comaI SITE PLAN CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 Community Development Department (612) 571-3450 SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM PROPERTY INFORMATION - site plan required for submittals; gefl attached Address: 7880 RANCHERS ROAD Legal description: Lot 1 Block 3 Tract/Addition EAST RANCH ESTATES 2ND ADD. Current zoning: M 2 Square footage/acreage 631283. 47 Reason for special use perm;t• NEW ADDITION WOULD EXCEED BUILDING TO LAND RATIO Section of City Code: 2 0 5 . 18.3 3 FEE OWNER INFORMATION (Contract Purchasers: Fee Owners must sign this form prior to processing) NAME ADDRESS DAYTIME PHONE SIGNATURE DST 1t11T1Or1EI2 INFORMATION ............... .................................... NAME BIZAL, INC• ADDRESS 7883 RANCHERS ROAD DAYTIME PHONE 571 4033 SICTURE77A/.4Lex7:,„!�� DATE MAY 13, 1991 Fee: $200.00 X $100.00. for residential second accessory buildings Permit SP # 1 1 -0 7 Receipt # A/0 a GP Application received by: / Scheduled Planning Commission date: Loll Z.(JJ !9 Scheduled City Council date: PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. on Wednesday, June 19, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #91- 07, by Bizal, Inc. per Section 205. 18. 03.C. (4) of the Fridley City Code, to increase the maximum lot coverage from 40% to 42.5%, on Lot 1, Block 3, East Ranch Estates Second Addition, generally located at 7880 Ranchers Road N.E. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. DONALD BETZOLD CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: May 29, 1991 June 5, 1991 Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department, 571-3450. Planning 5/24/91 , 5/30/91 SP #91-07 MAILING LIST Council Bizal, Inc. Bizal, Inc. Michael Bizal 7880 Ranchers Road N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Industrial Molded Rubber 9 7855 Ranchers Road N.E:All Fridley, MN 55432 Pitzen Enterprises VZ, 3628 Connolly Arden Hills, MN 55112 Steinwall Inc. 7895 Ranchers Road N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 P and K Properties 5920 Kirkwood Lane North Minneapolis, MN 55442 Brooklyn Tool 7875 Ranchers Road N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Raymond Carlson 6212 Lee Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Michael Bizal 5000 Fillmore Street Minneapolis, MN 55421 Talco Inc. 7835 Main Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Park Construction Co. 7900 Beech Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Planning Comm. Chair City Council Members Community Development Department \J PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: June 14, 1991 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Review Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Light Rail Transit The LRT Process This is just the beginning. The draft EIS is the first step in the review process for the LRT system. The EIS has been developed in accordance with the State of Minnesota's Environmental Quality Board regulations. Its purpose is to study those environmental impacts which may need to be mitigated. The Anoka County Regional Rail Authority and the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority are the designated responsible governmental units. Under EQB rules, they are responsible to determine whether or not the EIS is accurate in describing the extent of the impacts and adequate in identifying proper mitigation measures. After the conclusion of the draft and final EIS processes, it is anticipated that the Rail Authorities will submit to the cities the preliminary design of the LRT system which constitutes 10% of project construction. During this process, the City can be more specific and make specific recommendations to system details. The City is also required to conduct a public hearing. EIS Comments Staff has compiled a list of comments on the draft EIS. We have also completed a list of proposed mitigation measures for those environmental areas that were determined to have an impact. Note that in several cases, information will be addressed in later stages of the LRT process, including the preliminary design, preliminary engineering, and final design processes. To follow is a synopsis of the major issues that would affect the City of Fridley: 1. Comparison of an all-bus alternative with the LRT system. The draft EIS stated that the no-build alternative referred to an RTB report called Year 2010 Transit System Principles and Review Draft EIS for LRT June 14, 1991 Page 2 Philosophies. That document was completed on March 15, 1989 and is about ten pages long. It was an attempt to look at service improvements metro-area wide; however, it is a very general representation of what the transit system would be like in the northeast corridor. When people suggest that an all-bus system should be studied and implemented rather than LRT, two key areas are forgotten. The first is provision of a reliable main/trunk line bus service from the area to downtown Minneapolis. As traffic and congestion increases in the next 20 years on University Avenue, buses will be bogged down in the traffic. Therefore, when considering an all-bus alternative, it will be necessary to provide a dedicated right-of-way for a main/trunk line bus. Secondly, re-routing the buses east/west have to be done in order to accomplish a time transfer system. Staff is suggesting that the Regional Transit Board, Metropolitan Transit Commission, and the Metropolitan Council provide an analysis of this type of system and compare it to the LRT system. We believe that the study would then give the communities an opportunity to compare the two systems and evaluate them on a equal basis (see notes in longer list) . The regional agencies should be responsible for this comparison. While the Regional Transit Board has stated that light rail transit is a reasonable alternative and while the RTB has endorsed a LRT 2010 system for the metropolitan area, these studies should be done for the northeast corridor to indicate why or why not the bus alternative should be completed. 2. Analysis of the 53rd and 57th Avenues park-and-ride sites. It is still not clear from the EIS whether there is a necessity for both stations. Although demand projections have been provided to 2010, it is not clear whether the Rail Authority will build one or the other first and then phase in the second park-and-ride site. The EIS noted that the 53rd Avenue site without traffic mitigation will operate over capacity. Further complicating the issue is the neighborhood's desire to have none of the park-and-ride sites, and in the case of 57th Avenue, to move the park-and-ride site north of 57th Avenue where there are existing vacant commercial properties. Review Draft EIS for LRT June 14, 1991 Page 3 This does conflict with long-term City goals to redevelop the area north of 57th Avenue. Even if the park-and-ride site was moved to the north of 57th Avenue, the block south of 57th Avenue would be considered for redevelopment due to the HRA's goals to remove deteriorating or blighted housing and remove commercial uses which may not be acceptable to the "Gateway appearance" of University Avenue (SuperAmerica, however, could remain on the corner) . In terms of site design, the 57th Avenue park-and-ride is more compact and more serviceable for the LRT system. We are recommending another access point at the southeast corner to connect into the frontage road. The City needs to recommend which station it would prefer or a phasing plan to be implemented. 3. The Fire and Police Departments are opposed to the closure onto University Avenue for emergency vehicles. Two options were identified in the EIS. The EIS did refer to the City's preference to have the emergency entrance remain open. This will need to be pursued in more detail with the Rail Authority during the preliminary design phase. 4. Loss of tax value. If all the acquisitions are proposed to be made, about $1,320,400 in property value will be lost to the City. This represents about $6,400 in City taxes. It is the staff recommendation to minimize the loss of value as much as possible, realizing that if this system is implemented, construction of park-and-ride lots will be necessary to serve the ridership. Note that the 53rd Avenue park-and-ride would be about $257,000, and the 57th Avenue site would be $937,800. 5. During the preliminary review stage this winter, the commissions, City Council, and staff identified a list of specific issues relating to the design of the park-and-ride sites and along the corridor, such as parking lot design, screening, lighting, noise mitigation, safety and security issues, LRT operational issues, etc. The list of comments represents a detailed listing of comments which may not be applicable to the EIS, but at least the Regional Rail Authorities are aware of the City's concerns. Review Environmental Duality and Energy Commission Comments Brad Sielaff and Dean Saba can further substantiate the EQEC's comments on the EIS. They were as follows: Review Draft EIS for LRT June 14, 1991 Page 4 1. Would the vibration of the LRT system affect the water wells in the area? The EQEC wanted to reinforce the need for the vibration study and have it address impact on area wells. 2 . The EQEC questioned that there was less carbon monoxide in the build alternative versus the no-build alternative at the Northtown station. Although it was stated that air quality mitigation would not be necessary because carbon monoxide levels have not been exceeded, what would mitigation entail? What type of procedures will be provided to monitor air quality along the system? 3 . The Commission believed that impacts on residential development north of Mississippi Street needed to be better identified and addressed earlier in the review process. 4. The Commission felt that the section devoted to energy use should identify what kind of energy losses will occur "on line" . How efficient is the system when it is "on line? 5. The EQEC wanted to make the Rail Authority aware that if contaminated soils/properties are found during construction, proper notice and procedures should be taken. 6. The Commission stated that proper erosion control methods should be in the area of the Rice Creek bridge. 7. The Commission stated that the existing vegetation and greenery along the corridor should be acknowledged, and replacement landscaping should be identified as soon as possible and not until the final design stage. The landscaping criteria and details should address areas where the line immediately impacts residential areas. The Rail Authority should commit to a budget for landscaping early in the process, and not be reduced at time of construction. Significant sized plant materials should be used. Recycled products such as envirosoil, or compost mulch, should be utilized as a showcase for recycling efforts. The Commission also wanted to know the visual impact of the station structures, color of the poles, the height of the lighting standards, etc. 8. The Commission recommended a pedestrian/bikeway overpass between Locke Park and Community Park should be addressed. Review Draft EIS for LRT June 14, 1991 Page 5 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission endorse the summary of issues contained in this memo, and review the attached list to determine if there are additional comments. The Commission may also want to incorporate the EQEC's recommended comments as well as their own. All comments will be forwarded to the City Council for the July 1, 1991 meeting. STAFF COMMENTS ON LRT EIS JUNE 6, 1991 1. Summary Chapter. This chapter merely introduces the issues which are further described in the remainder of the draft EIS. A. Page 1.7, Community and Neighborhood Character, impact on Fire Station and access onto Mississippi to go east/west with Opticom system. The statement should read that there is an adverse impact on the Fire Station. B. Page 1. 13, Storm Water Runoff, disregards storm water runoff from station area. C. Page 1.14, Utilities, disregards the impact of all utility lines placed under the LRT tracks; what happens when water lines and gas lines break. D. Page 1. 16, Safety, slights police support necessary for various activities in the park and ride facilities. E. Page 1.17, At Grade Street Crossings, does not incorporate sidewalks or bikeways at at-grade crossings. F. Page 1. 18, Storm Water Runoff, does not call for detention ponding or filtering water in park and ride and station facilities. 2 . Project Description Chapter. A. What are graffiti resistent vendomats? B. What are the merits of the proof of payment fair collection versus the Washington D.C. subway example (Nancy Jorgenson's questions) ? 3. Alternatives Chapter. A. Figures 3.3, 3.4, and 3.6 indicate only a 2 ft. space shown between tracks and frontage roads and no barriers. Need to put a barrier between the tracks and frontage roads. What types of protection/separation can be made within 2 feet? Vegetation? Fencing? Also, in area north of Mississippi, Russian Olive trees and fence will be removed. Existing trees should be replaced with some kind of landscape barrier. Will also help with noise issue. Staff Comments on LRT EIS, June 6, 1991 Page 2 B. Why isn't there an indication of the MnDOT right-of-way on Figure 3.6 (top half) ; and what is the distance in this area to the Fire Station? We would like a specific cross section of the Fire Station area to better understand how area would function under both alternatives. C. Page 3. 10, talks about identifying feeder bus bays at various stations. In looking at Chapter 5, the bus that services 57th Avenue makes circular loop to include the west side of the Mississippi River coming through Northtown and back to 57th Avenue. What is demand for service or existing ridership west of River? Does it justify new feeder route? D. Figure 3.13, consider second exit for park and ride facility at 49th Avenue. E. Figures 3. 14 and 3.15, should eliminate one of the exits onto 4th Street. F. Figures 3 .16 and 3.17, suggest a second exit be put onto 4th Street. G. Figure 3 .18, here are comments on the Mississippi Street station design: (1) Provide sidewalk on Mississippi Street (2) There is no bike path north of Mississippi Street. How will connection be provided? Plans don't appear to be showing improved Mississippi Street. (3) Do plans show improvements to Mississippi Street which will be completed by Anoka County this year? (4) The new feeder route #125 stops at University Avenue and Mississippi Street. We would like this to continue to East River Road and south of the Georgetown Apartment area and then loop back. As it is right now, how are route #125 buses going to turn around? (5) The City requested analysis of the necessity of pedestrian overpasses at Mississippi, 57th Avenue, and Osborne Road during the scoping period. H. Is the Cambridge systematic report available for review and comment? Staff Comments on LRT EIS, June 6, 1991 Page 3 I. The chart on page 3 . 30 indicates a higher park-and-ride activity than can be accommodated at the Mississippi Street station. Will Hide 'n Ride parkers generate need for pedestrian overpasses? Further, these numbers do not seem to correspond to the discussion in Chapter 5 regarding traffic from the park-and-ride sites. J. Will construction of park and ride sites at 57th and 53rd be phased? Are both needed? 4. Affected Environment Chapter. A. Page 4.5, City of Fridley, add 73rd Avenue as major east/west route. B. Page 4.10, the City of Hilltop is also served by the City of Fridley Fire Department. C. Figure 4.2b, map errors include wrong location of Anoka County Library, the post office is located too far south, and the Middle School should be added. D. Figure 4.4b, the zoning maps needs to be amended to reflect the Springbrook Apartment site as residential, the southeast and northeast quadrants of Mississippi Street and University Avenue should be shown as commercial, and the Lake Pointe site should be shown as planned development. E. Figure 4 .6, the transit map is too busy to be understood. The northeast corridor area should be enlarged and focused on. F. Page 4. 10, another Fire Station is located on Central and 63rd Avenue. G. Page 4.32, Table 4.9, why are there two rows for carbon monoxide? H. In talking about visual and aesthetics, no description given of what the electric poles look like. How often are they placed along the corridor? Like to coordinate with University Avenue Corridor Plan completed by Barton Aschman. Need to know height of electric poles for Fire Department information. I. Page 4.48, Vibration issues, will vibration cause problems for business computers and utilities underground? Staff Comments on LRT EIS, June 6, 1991 Page 4 J. Page 4.47, how does traffic levels on University Avenue compare with LRT? How much additional noise will be created? Especially concerned about properties along East Side. K. Page 4.67, the section on Parklands should include discussion of impacts of trail/bikeway/walkway systems/sidewalks. Specifically, existing sidewalks from 57th Avenue north to 61st Avenue should be replaced if removed by the frontage road. See other comments for the bikeway/walkway facilities at Mississippi Street. 5. Environmental Consequences Chapter. A. Page 5.9, the City will object to closure of access onto University Avenue for Fire Station. Access is needed onto service road and good access is needed onto University Avenue and Mississippi Street. The EIS should include a specific cross section of the alternatives. B. Page 5. 15, can more data be included to compare impact on land values from LRT versus Station Area redevelopment? Tax values of displaced properties should be indicated and incorporated into discussion through page 5.19. C. Page 5. 17, the comment regarding the commercial redevelopment for the 53rd Avenue site is not entirely accurate. D. Page 5.18, southwest quadrant should be identified as being a major redevelopment area of Mississippi station area. E. Page 5.20, "full system projections" by the Met Council. What are these and when will they be produced? F. Page 5.26, what factors at 57th Avenue make it operate under capacity versus what factors at 53rd Avenue make it fail? Again, the figures in this part of the traffic analysis do not seem to correlate to Table 3.30. G. Page 5.26, forgot Mississippi station in Table 5.9. H. Page 5.27, what is the breakdown of people exiting the park-and-ride site at the Osborne Road station going right versus going left? Are left turners of those headed east-bound going to need a stop light? Will the warrants be there? Exit needs to be wide enough to accommodate turning movements. Staff Comments on LRT EIS, June 6, 1991 Page 5 I. Page 5.29, why is traffic increasing on 66th Avenue? Frontage road is merely being relocated. No motor vehicle access to 66th Avenue will be permitted. J. Page 5. 30, any change to the City in maintenance responsibilities for any items along University Avenue? K. Page 5.35, Frontage Road/Access Issues, there is no discussion of frontage roads at Mississippi Street and/or Fire Station. L. Figure 5. 1, all development in this area drains toward Springbrook Nature Center; water quality and volumes should meet standards of the agreement between the City of Fridley and Coon Rapids. M. Page 5.39, No Build Alternative, shouldn't discussion contain information regarding what intersections fail or what happens if no improvements? Refer to Anoka County transportation plan? N. Page 5.41, is information available to indica a number of buses/routes? Also, Year 2010 study by - for improved bus system is too general and not specific enough for a valuable comparison to LRT. Compounding the issue is increasing public demand to use money on a revamped bus system. Request ACRRA/HCRRA initiate a study of an improved bus system (2010) for Northeast Corridor and compare to LRT in terms of; ,d" (1) gas/fuel prices ��)e� �+' Ut-�� dh (2) reliability of service (3) traffic increase (4) capital investment (5) labor cost (6) dedicated right-of-ways Further, when will detailed review of feeder bus routes in conjunction with LRT occur and when can City comment? 0. Page 5.65, Feeder Bus Noise Impacts, what receiver points meet the three tests r no Si nificant change in noise levels? A 4 ,5c p t l6 , P. Page 5.73, Storm Water Runoff, in rural section, need to make sure ditch is big enough. No reference to possible 47rea/r downstream in Locke Lake from Rice Creek cult' t expansion. Staff Comments on LRT EIS, June 6, 1991 Page 6 Q. Page 5.81, what happens during main breaks or flooding? The City has a strong concern about all utilities under LRT tracks. Utilities should be relocated outside LRT line. R. Page 5.84, parkland analysis should refer to pedestrian and bikeway/walkway systems long the corridor. 6. Proposed Mitigation Measures Chapter A. Page 6.4, 53rd Avenue Station, it is not clear who would be responsible for the mitigation. B. Page 6.7, Frontage Road Mitigation, we need to begin analysis of what alternative would be appropriate in Fridley. C. Page 6. 13, (if required) , delete "if". Stormwater detention is required in the City of Fridley. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Relocation/Displacement. The EIS discusses the relocation process that it will follow in conformance with Federal law. What is not known is the time schedule or phasing of property acquisition. 2 . Safety/Security. The EIS states that specific safety mitigation measures will be addressed in the preliminary design/engineering and final design stages of the project. Issues which will be incorporated into the mitigation techniques include: A. Traffic levels in the vicinity of the LRT line and/or station site. B. The City of Fridley emergency vehicle access to University Avenue. C. Surrounding land use. D. Accessibility to parking areas adjacent to the LRT track and/or station site. E. Visual and aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed safety features (fencing and landscaping) . F. Existing pedestrian traffic levels and directions in particular areas. G. Station Design and Safety Issues. The EIS notes that "security patrols will be provided if they are determined to be needed after discussions with local law enforcement authorities" . 3 . Traffic. The EIS identifies mitigation measures for the 53rd Avenue station which would include the east leg of the intersection; it would need three lanes (a left, through, and right) . It is not clear who would be responsible for that improvement. Also, the frontage road mitigation issues are proposed to be addressed during the design phase of the LRT project. Pedestrian access is also identified as an issue to be studied further. 4. Air Quality. The EIS indicates that the carbon monoxide concentrations do not trigger the need for air quality mitigation. M Y Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 2 5. Noise. The EIS indicates that there will be specific standards for the system components such as the type of wheels, tracks, and LRT vehicles. It also states that the location and determination of the desired height of "warranted noise barriers" should be completed as part of the preliminary and final engineering processes. 6. Vibration. The EIS indicates that a geological study will have to be completed to determine the "propagation rate for vibration emissions". 7. Water Resources. The EIS indicates that design of the park-and-ride facilities will be done in cooperation with the appropriate municipalities and proper erosion control measures will be installed during the construction process. 8. Wetlands/Vegetation/Wildlife. The EIS indicates that if an Army Corp permit is required, the permit will require compensatory mitigation to be completed. 9. Existing Soil Contamination. The EIS identifies that the Regional Rail Authority will comply with State MPCA and Federal EPA regulations for any soil contamination that may be determined. Testing is currently being conducted at the Rapid Oil site and the Amoco station at 53rd Avenue. 10. Utilities. The EIS states that during the preliminary engineering and final design phases of the project, the Regional Rail Authority will contact the municipality to discuss the proposed mitigation. 11. Park Lands. The EIS recommends additional plantings and landscaping along the edges of Locke and Community Parks. Not discussed in the EIS is the bikeway/walkway system or in any great detail the pedestrian issues. Proposed Mitigation Measures Page 3 12. Visual and Aesthetics. This portion of the plan indicates that detailed landscaping plans will be prepared during the preliminary engineering phase. Also, details on the types of poles, overhead wires, and other design issues will be able to be reviewed during the preliminary engineering phase. The EIS states that "where existing vegetation must be removed which currently mitigates the views into the LRT corridor, new landscaping will be planted where possible and appropriate" . This will specifically apply to the residential areas north of Mississippi Street along the route. 13. Historic and Cultural Resources. There apparently will be no impacts in the City of Fridley regarding this issue. 1 / Community Development Department IPLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: June 14, 1991 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Approval of Resolution Stating the Proposed Modification to the Redevelopment Plan, and Creation of a Tax Increment District is Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan The HRA is considering modifying the redevelopment project area to include the former CUB Foods site and the Bob Schroer property at the southwest and northwest corners of the Osborne Road and University Avenue intersection. Both property owners have been in the process of developing redevelopment plans. In fact, the HRA has received an application to receive assistance from the property owners of the former CUB Foods site, the Charles Smith estate. Prior to modifying the redevelopment plan or creating a new tax increment district, State law requires the Planning Commission to adopt a resolution stating that the Commission has determined it is consistent with the community's comprehensive plan. Bob Schroer is considering constructing a new 23,000 square foot produce sales building to the rear of the existing facility. The second part of the project would be to remove the existing garden center structure and reconstruct another building such that you would have an "L" shaped building. Detailed plans, however, have not been submitted, but Schroer does intend to pursue this project within the next year. The property owners of the former CUB Foods site are proposing to rehabilitate the existing structure into two tenant spaces which would be leased by Pet Food Warehouse and potentially Stone Fabrics. A significant amount of interior improvements need to be done, namely a complete removal and repair of the existing roof system and removal of asbestos-backed floor tiles. My office has been working with the property owners to establish an exterior improvement plan, including a landscaping plan, striping plan, and replacement of the existing light standards. The HRA will consider the Smith's estate application for TIF assistance at the June 27, 1991 (this issue would have been decided on June 13 , 1991; however, we had to postpone the meeting due to the conflict with the LRT Modification to Redevelopment Plan June 14, 1991 Page 2 meeting and the 49 'er Day events) . The City Council will then hold a public hearing on July 1, 1991 to consider amending the project area and creating the TIF district. Attached is a map of the City of Fridley's project areas and tax increment districts. As you recall, the City can create redevelopment project areas throughout the entire City. Tax increment districts need to be reviewed by the Anoka County Board and the school district. At this point, the City has ten tax increment districts. It should be noted that of these districts, three districts will be eliminated in the next three years; the Johnson Skywood district, the Paschke district, and the Shorewood district. The 1991 land use pattern identified in our comprehensive plan for these properties is commercial, which is consistent with the zoning on the properties. The proposed modification to the redevelopment district and creation of the tax increment district is consistent with the objectives of the comprehensive plan. The proposed plan will enable the City to assist the property owners in removing and updating substandard buildings. The redeveloped properties will create a larger tax base than now exists on both sites, and will contribute to the attractiveness of this particular part of the community. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution confirming that the amendment to the redevelopment project area and the tax increment plan is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. The first attachment is the proposed resolution. The second attachment with page numbers 1-16 and 1-17 are excerpts from the larger redevelopment plan. The third attachment is a new section regarding the TIF plan for the new district. BD/dn M-91-429 RESOLUTION OF THE FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY WHEREAS, the City of Fridley' s Housing and Redevelopment Authority is proposing that the City modify its Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 to reflect increased geographic area, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.074, inclusive, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and has determined its consistency to the Comprehensive Plan of the City: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION that the proposed modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 is consistent with the Fridley Comprehensive Plan, and the Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed modification. Adopted this 19th day of June, 1991 . Chairman ATTEST: Public Trails/Recreational Improvements/Open Space 325, 000 Parking 450, 000 Street Lighting 200, 000 Demolition 500, 000 Relocation 500, 000 Architectural/Engineering Fees 500, 000 Administration Fees 400, 000 Total $11 , 078, 000 • Maximum Estimated Total Bonded Indebtedness* $14, 401 , 400 *This amount includes capitalized interest in an amount sufficient to pay interest on the bonds from the date of issue until the date of collection of sufficient tax increment revenues to meet scheduled interest payments when due. AS MODIFIED FEBRUARY 26, 1990 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 10 (NORTHCO PHASE III) Soils Correction $ 70, 000 Administration Fees 4, 967 Intersection Improvements to University Avenue Frontage Road and 73rd Avenue 20, 000 Total $ 94,967 Maximum Total Estimated Bonded Indebtedness* $ 94,967 *This amount includes capitalized interest in an amount sufficient to pay interest on the bonds from the date of issue until the date of collection of sufficient tax increment revenues to meet scheduled interest payments when due. AS MODIFIED JULY 1 , 1991 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 11 (UNIVERSITY/OSBORNE SITE) Acquisition $ 200, 000 Demolition 40, 000 Site Cleanup/Preparation and Utility Relocation 200, 000 Street Modification Ingress/Egress 60, 000 1 - 16 Professional Fees 15, 000 Administrative Fees 72, 000 Total $ 587, 000 Maximum Estimated Total Bonded Indebtedness* $ 737, 000 *This amount includes capitalized interest in an amount sufficient to pay interest on the bonds from the date of issue until the date of collection of sufficient tax increment revenues to meet scheduled interest payments when due. Subsection 1 . 10 . Public Improvements and Facilities Within Redevelopment Pro-iect No. 1 . Publicly financed improvements within Redevelopment Project No. 1 include but are not limited to: a. The acquisition and sale and/or lease of the parcels identified in Subsection 1 . 7 . hereof; b. Soil corrections, including excavation and backfill; c. Installation and/or upgrading of utilities and other public improvements; d. Development of proper traffic circulation patterns and improved ingress and egress on public and private roadways; e. Funding of the Reserve Program; and f. Other authorized uses as provided by State law. (The following amendment of Subsection 1 . 10 to the Modified Redevelopment Plan was approved November 18, 1985 . ) Additional public improvement costs to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 and to be financed by tax increments derived from all tax increment financing districts within Redevelopment Project No. 1 are estimated to be: Land Acquisition $3, 500, 000 Streets, Intersections, Walkways and Lighting 4, 100, 000 Parking Facilities 1 , 500, 000 Soil Correction, Drainage and Landscaping 2, 300, 000 1 - 17 SECTION XII TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 11 (UNIVERSITY/OSBORNE) Subsection 12. 1 . Statement of Objectives. See Section I, Subsection 1 . 5. Statement of Objectives. Subsection 12.2. Modified Redevelopment Plan. See Section I, Subsections 1 . 2. through 1 . 15. Subsection 12 . 3. Parcels to bg Included. The boundaries of Tax Increment Financing District No. 11 are described on the attached Exhibit XII-A and illustrated on Exhibit XII-B. Subsection 12 . 4. Parcels in Acquisition. The Authority may publicly acquire and reconvey any or all of the parcels in Tax Increment Financing District No. 11 identified on the attached Exhibit XII-A. The following are conditions under which properties not designated to be acquired may be acquired at a future date: (1 ) The City may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of the Tax Increment Financing Plan; and (2) Such acquisition will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. Subsection 12.5 . Development Activity for which Contracts have been Signed. As of the date of adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan, the City intends to enter into a Development Agreement with an investment group incuding the following: Steven Hardy, Leanne Hardy, Kent Gardner, Jerrill Lynn Gardner, Kent Smith and Spring Smith, for the rehabilitation and expansion of an existing facility to provide 34, 200 square feet of commercial space with a total construction cost estimated at $400, 000, and anticipated construction completion in 1991 . Subsection 12 . 6. Specific Development Expected to Occur. At this time it is anticipated that a facility providing 34, 200 square feet of commercial space will be rehabilitated and constructed. Additional commercial development is also anticipated and is expected to include an additional 35, 000 square feet with construction costs in excess of $1 , 700, 000 . 12 - 1 Subsection 12 . 7 . Prior Planned Improvements. The Authority shall, after due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of district enlargement with a listing of all properties within Tax Increment Financing District No. 11 for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen ( 18) months immediately preceding approval of the Tax Increment Financing Plan by the Authority. The county Auditor shall increase the original tax capacity of Tax Increment Financing District No. 11 by the tax capacity of each improvement for which the building permit was issued. If said listing does not accompany the aforementioned request or notice, the absence of such listing shall indicate to the County Auditor that no building permits were issued in the eighteen (18) months prior to the Authority's approval of the Tax Increment Financing Plan. Subsection 12.8. Fiscal Disparities. The Authority hereby elects the method of tax increment computation set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469. 177, Subdivision 3, clause (a) if and when commercial/industrial development occurs with Tax Increment Financing District No. 11 . Subsection 12.9 . Estimated Public Improvement Costs. The estimated costs associated with Redevelopment Project No. 1 are listed in Section I, Subsections 1 .9 and 1 . 10 . Subsection 12. 10. Estimated Amount of Bonded Indebtedness. It is anticipated that $500, 000 of bonded indebtedness could be incurred with respect to this portion of Redevelopment Project No. 1 . The City also wishes to reserve the right to pay for all or part of the activities listed in Section I, Subsections 1 .9 . and 1 . 10 . as modified July 1 , 1991 relating to Tax Increment Financing District No. 11 as tax increments are generated and become available. Subsection 12 . 11 . Sources of Revenue. The costs outlined in Section I, Subsection 1 . 9 . will be financed through the annual collection of tax increments. Subsection 12 . 12 . Estimated Original and Captured Tax Capacities. The tax capacity of all taxable property in Tax Increment Financing District No. 11 , as most recently certified by the Commissioner of Revenue of the State of Minnesota on January 2, 1991 , is estimated to be $70, 035 . 12 - 2 The estimated captured tax capacity of Tax Increment Financing District No. 11 upon completion of the proposed improvements on January 2, 1995 is estimated to be $129, 601 . Subsection 12. 13 . Tax Capacity Rate. The current total tax capacity rate is 101 . 508. Subsection 12. 14. Tax Increment. Tax increment has been calculated at approximately $60, 464 upon completion of the improvements assuming a static tax capacity rate and a valuation increase of zero percent (0 .0%) compounded annually. Subsection 12. 15 . Type of Tax Increment Financing District. Tax Increment Financing District No. 11 is, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469 .174, Subdivision 12, a Redevelopment District. Subsection 12. 16. Duration of Tax Increment Financing District. The duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 11 is expected to be twenty-five (25) years from receipt of the first tax increment. The date of receipt of the first tax increment is estimated to be July, 1993 . Thus, it is estimated that Tax Increment Financing District No. 11 , including any modifications for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate in the year 2018. Subsection 12. 17. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions . The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction would have occurred without the creation of Tax Increment Financing District No. 11 . If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0 to other entities. Notwithstanding the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdictions is $0 due to the fact that the financing would not have occurred without the assistance of the City, the attached Exhibit XII-E reflects the estimated impact of Tax Increment Financing District No. 11 if the "but for" test was not met. Subsection 12. 18. Modification of Tax Increment Financing District and/or Tax Increment Financing Plan. As of July 1 , 1991 , no modifications to Tax Increment Financing District No. 11 or the Tax Increment Financing Plan therefore has been made, said date being the date of initial approval and adoption thereof by the City Council. 12 - 3 EXHIBIT XII-A BOUNDARIES OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 11 UNIVERSITY/OSBORNE AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED JULY 1 , 1991 P.I.N. 11-30-24-22-0024 11-30-24-22-0020 11-30-24-22-0018 02-30-24-33-0026 XII-A-1 • EXHIBIT XII—B 1 BOUNDARY MAP OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 11 1 I ,, •/nc ..• III • ! . L 7?33 ■ I.1 1 i 2 . . I. - 22a5" . . r(.$) s i.e,hill" 77f0 . 1...n I.-. 3 (24) II 7��(9 L•r 1 •. ; c �,� : I■ /-wry • ` EAST RANCH II AST RAIYCHr.�.. •V . ■ - .ESTATES � - "ST TE K • TH/RP ADD. ■ rj L� ADD / 2,-1 g , . �, / %� I • _ 5 • iig • 1 1 „fr..,..., il„.;A " •••.?"-.4r.;'eao k VAN! .• I (3/80• ) r 1 _ .. {Its , /' ,/fit 1 / I. / it., - O p.' I 1I. � ,- n 1 4.• 29 =- ~1. i!=' 11 Y ••" • 15(042 + _ i . Cj) . .� t = 28 -m- if: . , IV!a ili jg.INIIIIIMIIIIIIIIM1111111111 - (a% it" (rJ(/50J a .11 Z. '/a00) 3 / 27 -•ram.- •I 1 TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT . /,...., „„) -,..�7) (250) - °c. (•350) 5 ,••' • I 1 i 4 (/9/O) • 6 1 2 • 7521( �,� (3 0) ;?• ; 25 W • %I ' --- -- XII—B-1 8 .s CC_.� I 1 • I /�) , 7f'�O (450) 4 I 1 P �, r _ 4: r w rn aI Q C a ,) N W a a n r` CO (T a aD M O O N Cn 01 m 01 r` 1 •-+ > et 1illCO CT N tD 01 N CO CA U) U N C7 CO IA O 0) f� tD 01 tD Cl) Ca W .- U CT 01 O ID U NCOCO t0 tD 01 01 t0 c'� CDO 01 COCOV N V m IL, t0 I� _ In U)0 ct 1n 1 J O QQ Z .t V 0 0) N 0 0 tO f- sr U) a) tD 01 U) CO N CM t0 ICI t0 ID In CO . 01 CD CO J Z W J g M a N O1 r N d tD CO 0) N V in 1-- m O1 O N cn 1A 1n to N J N N N N N N CO Cn el U) C7 01 (h U) 00 01 v Q > M m 4.1 CZ J W Q J J O O N 0 0 CO CT O 1n N O N 0) O U) CD O t0 O 01 CO N N C•) to co > co Q f, O CO CO N N_ CO 01 N CO t0 to CO CO tO CO O In O CO N Ol N N H 4 R ZU 01 O to 1,6 f, ID 01 f., O N N CO t0 to N CO CO C7 m C7 Of O tD C'7 lT Y• W Q Q J N or; N f: N CO N t0 CT 1C) f: C7 U) N .- N O 0) 0) m CO m N. I. to ✓ CO > .-I ��111 `- W Q f Q IX W CO a m W O O d C) N CO N CO N CO d st r st d ct r d' __I W 1n N N 1� I- N fN N 1, N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q CO Z v v o p v o p v o .-- f,- r n ..-{ 1� r n .- n r` I` 1,. N. N. r` f, n f� H Q v I- t-. > () N CO N CO N in CO CO CO CO sr CO N CO CO CO CO CO N CO N CO CO CO N CO CO Q () O ~ > LU 1 >i w Q v s�t{ a v v v ct v v . H 1 22. w IN 1A to N 1ti 1fi v) u) Iti IA r H X 2 CO o w a v Cr v Cr v v v v v J m to U) to U) 1n to to U) Li; °" C H w a > ai- Q z , H .3 0 O w 1 WO '-' Ce °` $ > H 0 w w I- o 0 0 o m CO CO CO CO CO J 2 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N X �+ U co XX w o O O O o O N N f, N 1, N N 1� N f� N N rN fN r., N N N N N > a = J Q w Ui U) U) U) Ui U) ao CD co ai a0 Co a0 CO CO CO CO tD co co co m co CO c0 co -I W M Y v Q 1- CC N N N N CV N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Cl) 4 U > .2-. CO U V tN� = Cc) CO h 0 0 O O N N N N N N N N N N N N CM N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0N La N M CO CO CO U) U) U) U) U) I U) U) In 1n 1n U) U) N Ir) N U) U) U) In W CO W J Q 2 X W W CI I- O O O O to U) U) U) L U) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I- W 2 Ch CO CO CO M CO CO CO CO CO CO C•) CO CO CO Cf) Ch (M CO CO CO V) Cc) CO CO M .-. _ IQ-- W Ch CO CO CO Ce) CO N N N N N N N CV N N N N N N CV N N N N CV 4J • H I- LLJ Ce N N N N C VC N N COO COO CO CO CO CO CO M CO COO M M COn CO') M CO CO COO CO C'n O 41 .� (CC W appp aapp fCpp CCpp Capp ap \ 4.1 O O O O CD CO c0 CO CD It) N IAA II) N IAA u�) N i� i� Cl) N II) to t�A N tin LO It) t�C) Ce .--. /\ M rA CJ • • • • • • 01 01 0) CT O1 O) al 01 01 0) CT al CT (71 01 0) 01 0) 01 CT CO W d d U) U) tf) N U) U) U) to In U) to In U) U) to U) U) 1n to U) to U) U) U) In In w < Q > U U 1--1 2 CD to IA C7 elelC7 CO V) 41 I N CO Cc) N N N N N N O CD CD CD CD O C) CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD COO a 01 01 0) 01 Q1 CT tD COt0 t0 Cl) t0 tD CO CO CO CO ID tD Cl) t0 tO CO O CO t0 CO tD F- 0-, . .. . .. U CD U O O CT 01 01 CT CT 01 CT CT 01 01 O an tT 01 CT 01 CT 01 CT at Ol 01 I- I- < r` 1,6 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I- CO Q V) w U 0 U) U) tf) In If) to U) U) U) U) U) U) In In U) N In U) U) to 1f) U) to U) U) to U) In In If) U. J 07 M CC) M 07 (11 M M M (+) C') CM C+) M M U) (M CO CM 07 (I) CM U) CM C') C+) U) M Ch C'1 .-. _ Q _ CO CD C) O CD CD CD CO CD O C) C) CD O C) CO CD O CO CD Ca CD CO CD CD CO U Q U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Z C' I- d w f- fN Nf-, N .r f` r f- N N � N 1 f, f, f, 5- n 1 fN fN N ff`, f, fN t` C- ` N N ` N t t U Q E O U O J (NJ N M C7 cf V U) U) CD LC) t` f, CO a) CT 01 C) O N N CO CO V U) U) W 0 CT 0 1 CT 0) 0) 1 01 01 01 0) CT 0) 01 01 01 CT O1 01 O O CD CIO O O O O S O O W ^ LU 01 01 01 0101 01 01 01 01 01 aO) 01 01 O) CI 01 CT O O O O O O O O O O O O a co Q N N N N N N N N N N N N W v O \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Ce tO N tO N tD N tD N t0 N CD N tD N CO N CO N CO N VD N tO N CO N CD N tD N W r-CD .- r r r r r .- r r r r- r .- r- QN a /� LL a to a U) a U) a In O U) a In a In a U) a U) a U) a In a U) CD U) O U) a 1n r v O W O O r r N N CM (+) < a U) U CO CO t` N CO CO T T O O r r N N C7 V) a d U- rid } F- N W C7 ) Q C 3 7 11 a N O O_ N < M t0 M I� I� _N N t0 co at M d a0 st at N W s{ n N V' tO to N .-- M CO (") 0) (Si (Si • u ^ J j FQ W (Si U) M f� O) O) tO U) t0 O) N CO to O a < II J 7 J Z C N f0 M CO co co M 1N IA ant N In O� N to N O M V) U) 11 QQ JQ O� O� O O N N M M M N )A IA tO �D tO t0 M M CA . < . d V Q V 4 4 < V < Q d a II v W CC m IIN L II J W a �c}p pp p m II 11 m Q tO O n v N O) n v N O 2 to coN O) a co n 4D /() M .- 1 gZ Y W a Q QZJ tO tO lO In U) to , „' V d at M ('7 M pi M M N N N N N IA' N LO II v W < £ < a N CL' W m II 0_ toII II II N J II W N (Si N N N (Si (Si (Si (Si (Si (Si N (Si (Si (Si N N N N N (Si (Si O N ^ Q J V) Q . F- W a0 a0 aO CO a0 as CO CD a0 CO aO a0 O a0 a0 a0 0) aO aO a) aO a0 O u W F O Q W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N .- 11 F d 11 a II a w • N .. N f d Z U) N M N O w In II w v C W Q IA. III a° _I W 0_ 11 = a CA W N Q ` IX IJ eX 11 L. N r 0 ^ -I Z N (Si (Si (Si (Si N N N N N N N N N N N N (Si N N N N N N Q xx I� N N I� 1� N. N N. (� N. ts Is N N N 1� N t` N N N. t` M II } 2 J Q w a) m aO 0) CO aO aO a0 aD to a0 aD O aO a0 a0 aO 0) a0 aD a0 W t0 N C v I--. F- CC (Si N N (Si N N N N N N (Si (V N N N N N (Si N N N (Si U) II W U > "'_ N re) 6 CA N N N N N (Si (Si (Si N N N N N (Si N (Si (Si N (Si N N N 11 N n-. N U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) In 1() U) U) U) U) U) N v w W - 11 J < 0_ n• N x u w u II II W a I-- N N N N (Si (Si N N N (Si N (Si (Si N (Si N N (Si (Si N (Si (Si N I- H W CM CA el CA CO CA CA CA CA CA CO CO VI M CA I+) VI CA CO CA CO CAt0 II N XX f N N (Si (Si N N N N (Si (Si N N N N N N N N (Si N N (Si I,. II �- Q W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O pp O O O O N. 11 Z v 1 F- U M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M N 11 d' CO Z it' 11 m w 1-1II N 1- II ..... II O tp tO tO tO tO tO tO tO tO tO tO tO tD tD tp tO tO 40 tO tO CO tO 11 w tO tO tO tO tO tO tO lO tO tO tO tO tO tO tO tO NO tO tO tO tO tO �' rr U) U) 1A U) IA U) U) IA U) U o U U) U) N ) 1A 1A t ) U) U) U) U N 11 ) II N w ~ Q U ON ON ON 01 O) ON a) at O1 at Orn 01 a1 O) ON 0) 0) 0) a1 0) at at II CC v F- F- �Q U) U) U) U) U) In U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) IA U) U) U) U) U) U) U) II 1.1 U Q N 1-4U 11 Z 11 11 11 O 11 41yy 11 F- F- IA (0 tO 4130 0O tO tO tO tO tO (0 tO t0O IO tO tO tO LC. t0O tO tO 40 N II HU O I- U O) O) O) O) O) U) O) O) a) O) O) O) O) O) U) O) Cn 01 O) O) O) V) 11 �-' )- < N N N N N N N N N N N N (Si N (Si N (Si N (Si N N N II CO w U N I"t u a u U) U) U) U) U) U) U) In U) IA U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) II Is- J }} M CO el Cc) CA CO CA Cc) CA CO CO CA CO CO CO Cc) CA CA CO CO CO CAII F _ Z X oo ~ O O O O O O O O CIO O O O O C. O O O O O O O II U Q U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ii 11 Z (0 F- <v f N N N Co- N N N No N N N N Is. N /- N N N N N N No II CD 11 E O 6 u O N u O O fro; O O O O a O N (Si Col cc) U) U) LID ID II II W ^ Lc! O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 11 a coQ (Si (Si N N N N N N N N (Si (Si N N N N N (Si N N N N 11 Li .. a \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ III I a t0 N 40 (Si t0 (Si tO (V t0 N tO N t0 N tO N IO N t0 (Si t0 N 11 W .- '"' .- .--- — r .- .- .- r I- II `Q� N O Q^ U. Q a U) a U) a U) a U) O U) O U) O N O U) O U) a U) O U) II 11 O.Ce y IA U) (L) 40 I-- Is. CO CO 0) at O O N N M cc) V ct In U) II <L (Si N N N N (Si (Si (Si (Si N N (Si II I F- cc) - r. C„ w I C, C a 7 a rj ial n C. 0 C. 0 au 0 a 0 0 0 tO O N O O .C) N O O O IA 05 O O1 O. CO c' KT u) O M CV a 0 LIDU a CV U O N r 1-1 } 1- CV U) U '- CV U) d' u) IO w >- Obi Oai a. a. a. a. Obi Ot ot a. U J 6-1 UU a Q U a > a x 6 1-- a la- W U < Z CI £ Z F- O F- H w W 1 O N C9 N > > W Z }} Z W .--. SZ y Z W I-▪ a a W 1 0 0 = l- 1- O 00 OJ 0 O I- I- O 00 N QQ ZZ 11-- J al J — J a-. W .--. 1- < ►-. .--. J .--. W n-. F- a w Q U 0 CI 172 2 Y m > d LA- = ?w d ~ > ¢ twi g w CC) I-- I-I-Q--La 0 Z O. p�0 11-6 W c0 ac ►I- iiS V) .-. F- u' �a. a S S F- to n� w 0 v a Z w W W to „ . 0 W W 8 .-• r-• v) l.:1 W La- I- 1- QZtU) )( � s U W W s C F- m E E N UJ H Q CI-. ►r F- rn in O in '- a C x O M w Z aa I 0 0 0 0 0 ILL V 0O £ 0 > oLi- s 4 — R O N 6 > O O O 0 a • CO .- CO O cv A N. n a) N 0 0 0 O O a) O O O 0 a O O Q •> c\Ia s CC appp Oa 0a 5) 0 O O O .- a0 • O 0 •O cv r, OD C7 O O O CO U) I al a) d r J J as O 0 8 sm 8 ... ....... 1 (.0 Cn N N Z w CO m [O m m U 0 0 0 0 a v v v v v a ✓ O CO CO 10 I- I- F- IY O O O O O C7 CYCY } Z I- CV• CV N CV cc) F- W > > J 0 J I 1 1 1 1 Z U a a.. a. a ix Oa. f) F. ✓ ct cl' cf [t 0 a X W W .--. W N N N N CV —11111 I- Q W J NJ 0 (J CC W 0 (O•') aCc) CD aCol J xU FZ aa. a Q W � I-cy) F- 1 I 1 1 I Z Q a a 0 8 W a- .- � ,- ,- O .-. F- < I- J W a 1-1 N F- EXHIBIT XII-D "BUT FOR" ANALYSIS The four parcels in the proposed Tax Increment Financing District are located in an area targeted by the City for redevelopment. Existing buildings do not meet city codes and there are several environmental concerns, including the removal of asbestos materials. One building on the site has been vacant for a number of years. In addition to providing job opportunities and increased retail traffic, the rehabilitation of this building will provide an additional $200, 000 in market value to the City' s tax base. Other buildings in the Tax Increment Financing District will be replaced with larger structures providing additional employment and market valuation. Due to the high costs of public improvements including demolition, site acquisition, clean up and preparation, the project would not proceed in the foreseeable future without public assistance. XI-D-1 '' , v . I - 1 • a s �iwAxe: �- ° c City of Fridley ,.n Redevelopment Areas A �' +.4. O '41,;;' die and _ 1011 !t\t ,5'_::30 Olt Tax Increment Districts � \ c „. • me orw1�� e B \ CniallirW le. ` PA „ I Proposed Tax increment District #11 — � , , ; t.of r 4, _ \, 4131i 1 ICP'am' 0. 1 *in_ NEI Imo ILEa_a r C N 't © 1s� r �I. IL. i \ ;.,--.-- -.1 ,timlw war- ,,... :E:: 111111 ';�ii as ' � c C j �. wr I nr4ji i -__• 9A! ; B 1061i71 1� Ti (I 761d. I `. D ,Eiliiiiiiiii ,� a y ,45 • •I _- �o • -.14 ._- • �c I ( 1 ' � " aAs �I ( � _irimi-.4,•`44 E r H- rWilim:„,/41. i W� / ;MI 1 ",: .fir IL °. 1 _ ,j," ,,, , , ,,, ,,,MMus Maio �imme Ilil g \ °w' ? JIiiri_.'..r r��{{ ~�oI nil �II : __ 1 .,.{s 9 0 ,u1,3113n, J. F a••�r �. II ' , 1 _ y UN , 1 ,,.. • T t _ 7 !1 7 h-2 ■ ; .• ill 1 1, ' _. iiiii. • ,z,i /i , , III! / o7� T QICH. I °. II - i 11111 i'!,1 EM A 1, :._:0......_ 'c''.- ..';',i". I H / : w.,....:korium Lim r „:,, . , , ..8;:',,; , ''"ine- - if,11--, 1 ,..., iii. i. 1 ,„.„_______ ., ..,..,....,, ia N III*41;? is. ' ' i fl( : ,. - �> It111111 1 i 1', = .-.„NA1NO/ 7 1 ,..0- [ aka (, i ANOkJ COUNTY lu , , , ,, �+ ,' IFI Parcels within Tax increment Districts . b� ' 91� - ' Redevelopment Area Number 1 n,3. _ ► IIII — ;4, 11lI1 .\ ✓ ' y.y .s•4 fig , - "`-. :y r,- • • --- .. .-,.. to•'•-,"1%,•4...--.....Lt-....V4e."-;fo;-•-t: • 4 4 ', 4 Yi4l �y , , . ,00.-.4u.-.-,.. -1:':i1-11. . . -. .:' ' , .roc" "- / *% ' 0 4h1 t v gyp.. .�. ., v ��.y „ V /„ M A " - . - .- :-/7 ' ' -.' . _ - - - • •. -- 7. /_ . --.-..-Z-7.:„ . /tioi ti AllAue, , `=: N,, 7 f?..j tr,/, ' - . - - . . 6:V4 -• / Z r_______ 11,,i11,1. IN itI,� , , it 1 r(; -I'll''Ill„rit:...-ilii -,..`..,'''4,44'itir.':"., 1, $r*/'i -A, i - „, a,. ! i, , "! (ii, \ ,k *,.. l I Ili ej ,,-,. : ;I,',.`i I, :;,,,r.i,i.4,.:'4i, I� III f 'I i is 1♦ IIIIII I ;I —: 1 .'`11111' i,. I• m v •_ . ,J V4. M _1, 11 1 P ' /1 7 ,6 pip { IIII•II� :J �IIII j. IL1I NI>��! 11 s� ViIT Iv, Ii ,,�, 17. ' h4 ., s i r k f ! '110; it lill Aol