PL SUBCOM 02/28/1973 - 31134CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLATS & SUBDIVISIONS-
STREETS & UTILITIES SUBCObIlKITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 28, 1973 PAGE 1
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairman Schmedeke called the meeting to order at 7:10 P.M.
ROLL CALL•
Members Present: Schmedeke, Engdahl, French, Meissner
Members Absent: Forster
Others Present: Darrel Clark, Community Development Administrator
1. PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. �k73-01, BY RUDOLPH BAYER: A replat
of Lots I2, 13 and 14, Block l, spring Lake Park Lakeside.
Mr. Rudolph Bayer was present.
Mr. Clark said he realized that the Subcoumnittee just got their
copy of the �roposed plat this evening. He said if you look at the
North Half of Section 12, Spring Lake Park Lakeside Addition, you
will find Lots 12, 13, and 14. Mr. Bayer's proposal is to divide these
lots into more conventional residential lots with the dedication of
a 25 foot easement off the East for the extension of McKinley Street.
The only question I have and Mr. Bayer has of the Subcommittee
is the lowering of the minimum lot requirement from 75 feet of frontage
to 72 feet on the lots that will face the new McKinley Street, Also,
Mr. Bayer plans to sell 20 feet of the frontage on I.akeside Road to
the homeowner to the South. I would suggest that this be made into
an Outlot and be included in the Plat, otherwise you are going to have
a very small portion of a lot that�s going to be difficult to find on
a half section at a later date.
tr�.�.Bayer stated the reason he wants 72 foot lots instead of 90 foot
was b��:��e the utility cost would be $1,000 to $1500 more on a 90 foot
lot compa;:e3 to a 75 foot lot. This would make the land cost so high that
it would be difficult to keep the homes in the low $30,000 bracket. The
minimum lot size requirement is 9,000 square feet. Even though these lots
would be only 72 feet wide, the lot, because of its depth, would be 864 feet
above the minimum lot size requirement. On Lakeside the lots would be 85
feet, 10 feet over the requirement. The lots will be bigger on Lakeside
and smaller on McKinley. We will have to do a lot of filling on these
lots which will add to the cost. The square footage of the lots North
of this property are much smaller than ou� 72 foot lots.
Mr. Darrel Clark said that the homes on Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 1,
Spring Lake Park Lakeside Addition, get access from Stinson Boulevard.
These and other property owners might be comin � in for subdivision..
when McKinley Street goes in. If they subdivide they could want 72 foot
lots also.
page 2
Plats & Subs -Streets & Utilities Subco�mnittee Meeting-Februar� 28, 1973
Mr. Bayer said it was a mixed neighborhood with some hames being
from 20 to 30 years old. He said the homes he is intending to build
on these lots are side split-entry homes, with a 51 foot frontage,
that go back on the lot, so the homes will have about 1100 square feet
of living space.
Mr. Clark said the house plan presented, with the required side yards,
would use up 66 feet and there would be 7 feet for additional side yard
space.
Mr. Schmedeke asked if there were utilities in on Lakeside Road
only. Mr. Clark said there is curb and gutter, sewer and water, and a
storm sewer on Lakeside. If this plat is approved this will open up
McKinley Street. We have already had some inquiries on sewer and water
for McKinley, so sewer and water will be run into McKinley Street, I
pr�sume, That would require an additional pnblic hearing.
Mr. Schmedeke said as this was the first time they had seen the
proposed plan it made it a little difficult to assess the request.
Mr. Bayer said he would like to start building on Lakeside before
the road restrictions go on.
Mr. Schmedeke asked Mr. Clark if he had had the time to look over
this preliminary plat. Mr. Clark said he had, and had informed Mr. Bayer
that it was up to the various bodies who consider this request whether
72 foot lots would be acceptable. He has shown that he can build houses
on a 72 foot lot.
Mr. French said this is a mixed neighborhood so he had no objections.
Mr. Meissner said he didn't see any basic problem with the Plat, and
while he was sympathetic with the economic reasons for sma.11er lots, he
saw no compelling reason to allow lots below the minimum requirements.
This could be platted for fou� 90 foot lots instead of five 72 foot lots
on McKinley.
Mr. French said he was less concerned with the front footage when
the lot would exceed the minimum square footage.
Mr. Meissner said it will mean he has to spread the assessment costs
over four lots instead of 5. Mr. Engdahl asked what the cost differential
would be in having 4 lots instead of five on the new street. Mr. Bayer
said ,.tha�_with the assessments and fill required it would make the lots
quite expensive. Mr. Clark said it cost approximately $30 a foot for
water, sewer and street. Then you have to add storm sewer�°crosts to that.
It would make a total difference of something between $700 to $i,000 per
lot .
Mr. Schmedeke asked Mr. Bayer that if the Subcom�►ittee recommended
90 foot lots what would this do to his request. Mr. Bayer said he would
have to talk to his partner. Mr. Schmedeke said we have been quite rigid
on meeting the ordinance requirements, unless it is an old plat.
Plats & Subs Str & Util Subcom�►ittee Meeting - February 28, 1973 Page 3
Mr. French said we_could recommend approval and send it to the Planning
Commission and let them decide. Mr. Engdahl said if Mr. Bayer increased
the lot size to 90 feet he would have clear saiiing. We could recommend
approval and then he could be denied by either the Planning Cou�►ission or
Council.
Mr. Clark said that as Mr. Bayer was anxious to start construction
before the road restrictior� go on, he could start two houses on Lakeside.
They could be placed on two of the lots to fit the new lot lines on the
proposal.
Mr. Schmedeke said Mr. Bayer should talk this over with his partner
and consider 90 foot sites.
MOTION by Engdahl, seconded by French to table the request for a
proposed preliminary plat P.S. ��73-01, by Rudolph Bayer, a replat of
Lots 12, 13 and 14, Block 1, Spring Lake Park Lakeside until March 15,
1973. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
2. PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT P.S. �k73-02 INNSBRUCK NORTH TOWNHOUSE
PHASE IV AND V: BY DARREL A. FARR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: To
constu� 118 Townhouse Units.
Mr. Jim London representing Darrel A. Farr Development Corporatip3n
was present.
Mr. Clark said everyone has seen the orig�nal all-over plan that
was presented in 1969 and 1970. Phase IV and V af fhe plan are being
presented tonight. There is a little change made from the original plan.
The traffic flow won't change but there have been street alignment changes
which are for the better as far as street grades and for development. They
have to go to Building Standands for plan approval as far as esthetics and
annuities such as a park plan and recreational develbpment so your recom-
mendation should include approval by the Building Standards Subcommittee.
This plan is less dense than the original plan. They will be able to
save more trees with this plan. Mr. London said they have a more accurate
topog to work with, so the development will fit with what's existing much
better.
Mr. London said with the more accurate topog they will end up with
less black top area and more green areas.
Mr. Clark said we're working with Darrel Farr on a gark plan as to
what we would like to see in the area, Mr. London said we have always had
a park and recreation plan, but we are working with Jerry Boardman and
Paul Brown on this now.
Mr. Schmedeke asked if the City was contented with the changes. Mr.
Clark said the City was more satisfied with this plan than the original.
Mr. Meissner asked if any of the roads were maintained by the City.
Mr. Clark said they will all be privately maintained.
Mr. Meissner said he had looked at the area and thought they were doing
a good job of preserving the area.
_ ._....
....................... ._._.........�....
Plats & Subs Str & Util Subcommittee Meeting-February 28 1973 Page 5
the money should go back to the people in the area that paid for it, and
not to the City or a general fund. Mr. Schmedeke asked Mr. Clark to find
out where the money went for the house they sold.
Mr. Schmedeke said he wanted to make some comments on the January 22,
1973 Council minutes on the discussion with Mr. Muggli. Councilman Pee
asked Mr. Muggli how he was going to use the property. Mr. Muggli stated
he had no special use for the property at the present time. Mr. Nee
suggested that evergreens be planted for a softening affect of this area.
Mr. Muggli also stated that people are using this alley and drive through
his property. The City has put up a dead end sign and this has eliminated
the problem. Councilman Utter said he wanted the loop-back and objected
to the City selling the property. If the City needed the land, the City
would then have to buy it back from Mr. Muggli. Mr. Schmedeke said he
agreed with both Councilmen.
Mr. Schmedeke said he thinks Mr. Muggli wants the City to know he
is interested in this property so that if it is ever for sale, he would
have first chance to obtain it. Mr. Schmedeke said he agreed to this
also.
Mr. French said he agreed this property should be retained until
the traffic study in the area is completed.
Mr. Clark said that in talking to Mr. Muggli, he got the impression
that because of the one-way traffic and the slip-off, Mr. Muggli feels
that he has damages coming. In lieu of being paid for it, he thinks
the City should give him some land they aren't using. Whether or not
he would be willing to pay for the property, in my opinion, is questionable.
Mr. �1ark said he wasn't arguing for Mr. Muggli, or against him, but as
he is not present, I thought I would tell you how I think he feels. I
know there are other people in the same situation.
Mr. Clark said that the construction program that was adopted about
three years ago will affect this area in 1975. The traffic problems in
this area should came to a head in the winter of 1974.
Mr. Meissner asked if the alley dead ends at Lot 28, Mr. Clark
said it did. Mr. Meissner then asked if the City likes dead end alleys.
Mr. Clark said they don't like dead end streets, so I assume they like
dead end alleys even 1ess.
Mr. Meissner asked if this one way street and slip-off plan ever
went throu�h this Subcou�mittee. Mr. Clark said no. It started out a
long time ago as a rezoning request. It stems from the fact that the
petitioner wanted access to University Avenue. It was part of the State
stipulations when the City got permission from the Highway Department for
a slip-off at 60th Avenue.
MOTIOft by Meissner, seconded by Engdahl, that the Plats & Subdivisions-
Streets & Utilities Subcommittee recommend to the Planning Commission e�enial
at this time of the vacation request SAV �k73-03, by Lawrence A. Muggli, to
vacate the unused portion of Lots 29 and 30, Block 12, Hyde Park Addition,
until the traffic problem in the area is solved, with the following stipula�:::-.,,a.�,
tions:
Plats & Subs Str & Util Subcommittee Mee�ing-February 28, 1973 Page 6
l,.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
That Lot 30 never be sold.
That Lot 29 not be sold until traffic problem is solved.
The buyer be charged at least as much per square foot as the people
in the area paid for this parcel.
That this parcel be sodded and planted into evergreens, including
the 12 foot alley attached to the East end of these two lots.
T�at-the opposite triangular parcel created by this Street, be
treated in a similar fashion of sodding and evergreens.
That the present alley should be plowed and reasonably maintained
up �p and including Lot 28 because of its location along Fridley's
main expressway Highway �k47.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
5. VACATION REQUEST, SAV ��73-04, BY WAYNE SIMONEAU: Vacate 57'� Avenue
between Lots l0 through 16, City View Addition and 6th and 7�th Street
N.E.
Mr. Clark said he didn't think there was any urgency on this request.
Mr. Schmedeke said he would like to see the alley vacated along
with 572 Avenue on Block 32, Hyde Park Addition, and probably 58th Avenue
could be taken care of at the same time. Mr. French said we-could clean
up the entire corner at the same time.
Mr. Schmedeke said he thought the people in area should be notified.
Mr. Clark said we can renotify the petitioners and other people in
the area.
MOTION by French, seconded by Meissner, to table Vacation Request,
SAV ��73-04, by Wayne Simoneau, to vacate 572 Avenue between Lots 10
through 16, City View Addition, and 6th & 7th Street N.E., until March
15, 1973. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
b. LOT SPLIT REQUEST; L S. ��73-03, BY ANiBER CONSTUCTION COMPANY: Split
off the North 20 feet of Lot l, `Block 1, Worrel's Addition, and add
it to Lot 18, Block 1, Amber Oaks Addition, to make a�0 foot lot a
buildable site.
Mr. Clark said we have been encouraging the owner of the 50 foot lot
to obtain additional land for a building site. He is still 5 feet short
of the minimum requirement. He purchased 20 feet from the owner to the
South, but that was all the excess land available. We would recom�nend
approval of this request.
Mr. Schmedeke said this will allow construction on this lot and he
is in favor of approval.
Mr. Meissner said this is the reason we make exceptions, a 70 foot
lot is a perfectly reasonable request under these circumstances.
Plats & Subs -Str & Util. Subcommittee Meeting - February 28, 1973 Page 7
Mr. Clark said this has been a long time in �he �aking. Evidently
the two parties found an equitable means of solving this problem.
MOTION by Meissner, seconded by French, that the Plats_&_Subdivisions-
Streets & Utilities Subcommittee recommend approval to the Planning Commission
of the Lot Split Request L.S. ��73-03, by Amber Construction Company, to
split off the ftorth 20 feet of Lot l, Block 1, Worrel's Additon, and add
it to Lot 18, Block 1, Amber Oaks Addition. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously.
7, iREE PLANTING
Mr. French throught thgre should be a comprehensive tree plan, City
wide.
Mr. Schmedeke said he thought any organization would help plan the trees.
He wondered if the Environmental Quality Commission had been formed yet
and if we could make a recommendation to them. Maybe we could get the
Mayor to make a proclamation of "Plant A Tree Day".
MOTION by Engdahl, Seconded by French, to adjourn the meeting at �
9:05 P.M: Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
, ��
Dorothy Evens , Secretary
560-3450
�i�o �ridie
� �
ANO�KA COUNTY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE March 5, 1973 FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55421
TO MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION:
Because the minutes of
weren't done to be included
not be done before the March
just the motions made on the
Item �� 4 on your agenda .
the Plats & Subs meeting of February 28th
in the agenda sent out Iast �`riday and may
7th meeting, I thought I would send you
items you will consider on Marah 7th.
Vacation Request• SAV �k73-02, by Samuel Templin
Recommendation to Planning Commission this vacation be approved to
vacate North/South alley in $lock 6, Fridley Park Addition subject
to 12 foot easement being retained for utilities. Not contingent
upon rezoning being approved.
Item �� 7 on your agenda.
Vacation Request; Sav �k73-03, by Lawrence Muggli
Recommendation to Planning Commission to deny this request to vacate
the unused portion of Lots 29 and 30 Hyde Park Addition, the unused
portion all being South of the 6�th AvPnue Slip-off until traffic
problem in the area is solved with the following stipulations:
1. That Lot 30 never be sold.
2. That Lot 29 not be sold until traffic problem is solved.
3. The buyer be charged at least as much per square foot as the
people in the area paid for this parcel.
4. That this parcel be sodded and planted into evergreens including
the 16 foot alley attached to the East end of these two lots.
5. That the opposite triangular parcel created by this Street be
treated in a similar fashion of sodding and evergreens.
6. That the present alley should be plowed and reasonably maintained
up ,to and included Lot 28 because of its location along Fridley's
main expressway Highway ��47.
Item �� 8 on your agenda.
Lot Split Request• L S �k73-03, Amber Construction Company
Recom�►end approval of Planning Commission to split off the North 20
feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Worrel's Addition, and add it to Lot 18, Block 1,
Amber Oaks Addition, to make a::50 foot lot a buildable site.
�� J