PL 04/11/1968 - 31005� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - APRIL 11, 1968
PAGE 1
,$QLL CALL •
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Erickson at 7:37 P.M.
Members Present:
Member Absent:
Others Present:
Ylinen, Erickson, Myhra, Jensen
Hughes
Darrel Clark, Engineering Assistant
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 28 1968
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission Minutes of
March 28, 1968 be approved. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried.
RECEIVE CONII�7ITTEE ON ORDINANCE REVIEW MINUTES:� MARCH 28 1968
. MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission receive the
Committee on Ordinance Review minutes of March 28, 1968. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE PL�,TS & SUBDIVISIONS-STREETS & UTILITIES SUBCOrINIITTEE MINUTES: APRIL 5 1968
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by_Myhra, that the Planning Commission receive the
^ Plats & Subdivisians-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee minutes of April S, 1968.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE SPECIAL MEETING OF PARKS & RECREATION CONIl�IISSION MINUTES: APRIL 1 1968
. MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission receive the
Special Meeting of Parks & Recreation Com¢nission minutes of April 1, 1968. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE SPECIAL MEETING OF PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINiTTES: APRIL 8 1968
MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission receive the
Special Meeting of Parks & Recreation Couanission minutes of April 8, 1968., Upon.a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCONIMITTEE MLN[TTES: APRIL 10 196$
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that t�i� P�ian�iing Com¢nission receive the
Building Standards-Design Control Subconunitte�.mi�utes of April 10, 1968. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
ORDER OF AGENDA;
-� The Vice Chairman stated that, since the time �schedule was included in the public
hearing notices and unless there were some objection from the Commission, the�
order of the agenda �aould be taken as presented.
�
PLANNING COP•1MISSION MEETINa -- APRIL 11� 1968
PAGE 2
1. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST ZOA ��68-05, DR K H. INGEBRIGTSEN: Lot 11,
��`� Block 1, Moore Lake Highlands 3rd Addition. Rezone from R-2 to C-1.
Acting Chairman Ericks�n explained the procedure for public hearings before
the Planning Commission and asked Dr. Ingebrigtsen to comment on his request.
Dr. Ingebrigtsen stated he was requesting the rezoning for the purpose of
building a professional building. At this time he had no plans to present, but
he believed C-1 was required for him to be able to build a professional building.
At this time, he would like to have a dentist, possibly a physician, lawyer and
insurance agency or something of that nature. �He also said he did not mean to
imply that it would be a very large building.
Chairman Erickson referred to the letter before the Co�ission members from
Marvin Brunsell opposing the rezoning.
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission receive the
letter from Marvin Brunsell dated April 5, 1968. Upon a voice vote, all vDting
aye, the motion carried unanimously.
The Chairman stated that from the co�ents of Dr. Ingebrigtsen, the Commission
. does not know what his building will look like although he did state what he
would use it for. If the area were zoned C-1, he could construct the kind of
building he planned, but there are other uses in that category which could be
, built and be undesirable should something happen that Dr. Ingebrigtsen was unable
� to follow through with his present plans.
Richard A. Patterson, 6328 Dellwood Drive: I am immediately back of the area.
What would this rezoning do to my personal property taxes?
He was informed that it would not affect him one bit.•.If a property is residen-
tial, he will be taxed as residential. He received a notice of the rezoning
because he lived within a specified distance from the property requesting rezoning
in order to give the owners an �pportunity to approve or disapprove, but the re-
zoning won't affect other property. The adjoining property is not put into any
other category, just the area requested in the rezoning petitior�.
The Public Hearing Notice was read by Mr. Jensen.
William H. Gottwaldt, 6300 Bakex.Avenue N.E.: I have no objections to a
professional building.
-- --�-- ' MOTION by Jensen; seconded by Ylinen, tha� t�e Pia.nning Commission close the
,. Public Hearing of ZOA ��68-05, Dr. K. H. Ingebrigtsen of Lot 11, Block 1, Moore
Lake Highlands 3rd Addition to rezone from R-2 to C-1. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Jensen said�it seemed to him that the present zoning of the lot in question
is somewhat illogi.cal, not that it doesn't conform with the zoning to tkie North,
because since the time of zoning, this property and use of the lot to the North,
there has been a change in uses permitted in R-2 zone and therefore, this remaining
� vacant lot of R-2 zoning would now be the only�lot that subsequently is a two
family dwelling.
PLANNING CONIl�IISSION N�ETING -- APRIL 11, 1968
PAGE 3
Mr. Ylinen agreed generally with Mr. Jensen in the rezoning request as he felt
it would not be proper to leave any R-2 category. Also, the requested use of the
,�\ land seemed to be proper and would upgrade the area. `
Mr. Myhra wondered whether a general office building comes under the definition
of CR-1 clinic.
� Ac�ing Chairman Erickson stated he was riot in a position where he felt he could
vote on this particular request, so he would abstain fram further discussion.
Mr. Jensen asked the petitioner if he would consider a change in his request to
CR-1 which limits the use of this site for general medical and drug store type of
use.
Dr. Ingebrigtsen answered that he feit it might limit him too much. He felt that
�":-`fi=�'->� he would want a lawyer or office to round out the plan. He didn't think it would
I`` be exactly the same if there were other professional offices in there.
^ . ' i��.f.r`
( '
�`1
`}r`
Mr. Myhra added that as long as the plans are in the future, and we never knor�a
what could possibly happen in the interim, this rezoning would open up quite a
variety of uses.
Mr. Jensen said he thought, in general, the Planning Commission is always reluc-
tant to rezone anything higher than its stated intended use, because as soon as you
step up a notch in zoning, the option for the property owner to use the properfi.y
follows the extent of the zoning he has and this particular site, as other sites,
is a specialized thing. It relates to a lot of people in a residential neighborhood.
There are single families on one side and multiple on the•other and it is the job
of the Planning Commission to determine that a request of this sort is going to fit
in that neighborhood and blend in and retain proper atmosphere also protect the
people's rights and property as best they can. .
Dr. Ingebrigtsen asked if it were possible to consider zoning with certain
restrictions, i.e. specify certain professions that would be allowed and would be
acceptable. �
Chairman Erickson informed him it would not be possible. The CR category was
read from the Code Book. It was suggested that Dr. Ingebrigtsen use CR-1 and request
a waiver from the Board of Appeals and Council for the use of the building.
The doctor said it would be completely acceptable if he knew the type of pro-
fessional peo�ile that would be allowed there. He felt CR-1 falls short of his
request and to be limited by just that little bit, would be too restrictive.
Mr. Jensen asked whether or not the Planning Co�ission has the prerogative to
suggest or recommend approval to change the application. It was decided that the
Planning Co�nission was hearing a request for C-1 and had no right to approve some
o�her category at this meeting. If there were a change, the request would have to be
republished.
/� �
Mr. Myhra wondered if CR-1 were considered, would i e in order in the recom-
mendation � �iances. �
�
The Chairman said the Commission can recommend anything it desired, but it would
�- P•l�nning Commission Meeti�g - April 11, 1967� '-� Page 4
�, still go back to the Board of Appeals. The pet�tioner could withdraw the request
�- and state he wished to have it reconsidered under CR and it would have to be re-
. published and come back to the Planning Commission. They can take action on the
request as it is, table, accept or deny.
Dr. Ingebrigtsen said if it would be acceptable for CR-2, he would do that if
it were more acceptable than C-1.
Mr..Myhra tQld Dr. Ingebrigtsen that the Planning Commission has, in no way,
any assurance that variances would be acceptable. He agreed with the planned use
of the area, but felt that the doctor should keep in mind the possibility of the
property changing hands, and under those circumstances, he would like to do one of
two things. The Planning Commission could give the doctor more time to pursue or
make a motion to deny. He asked Dr. Ingebrigtsen his preference, and was told
that the preference was to go to Council. Mr. Erickson informed the doctor that
the Planning Commission is a recomm�nding body and a request goes to Council and
they make the final decision.
Mr. Myhra continued that he agreed the present zoning of Lot 11 is not suitable
because of the changes in uses permitted in R-2, and the possible delay by Dr.
Ingebrigtsen of using a new zoning category and the possibility of the lot being
purchased by another party, he would make the following motion:
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission recommend
denial of the rezoning request, ZOA ��68-05, Dr. K. H. Ingebrigtsen of Lot 11,
/� Block 1, Moore Lake Highlands 3rd Addition to rezone from R-2. (limited multiple
family district) to C-1 (local business district). Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: REZOIVING REQUEST, ZOA ��68-06, HIRSCH BROS. PROPERTIES; Part �
of Block 22 and all of Block 23, Fridley Park Addition and parts of Lots 7 and 9,
Revised Auditor's Subdivision .��23. .
Darrel Clark, Engineering Assistant was pxesent for this item.
Mr. Hirsch explained they plan to build a 144 unit apartment complex, 96 units
will be one bedroom and 48 units two bedrooms. They are attempting to have as
much space for river view as they can. There will be an indoor-outdoor swimming
pool.
Mr. Wormsbecker said he was asked by the owners to find a person interested
in the land. The only thing that would fit would be apartments and, from the
standpoint of i.mprovement, would be well needed by the neighborhood. The area
has a lot of old sheds and barns and it would be a great asset to get rid of
them. They will screen with beautiful txees, the buildings will be architecturally
planned. The Produce Store, even, has to be rebuilt or removed because that �
building and type of operation would be an eyesore.
^ John Cullen, 6668 East River Road: As I understand, the two parcels next to
the Plum residence would be my neighbor. The petition states they are to be
rezoned from R-1 to apartment complex. A11 that was said about eyesoxe is true.
We don't like that situation either. Furthermore, we hope to keep that property
as it is, R-1, rather than be encroached upon by this big commercial enterprise.
Plannin Commission Meetin� - April 11, 1968 Pa�e 5
_Herman�Kubow, 6654 East River Road: I am opposed. In the first place, we
^ came out here with the understanding it is residential. Bob's Produce is the
biggest eyesore. Beautiful homes can go in and bring as much as apartments. Last
year they wanted to rezone commercial.
Mr. Myhra commented that the area behind Bob's Produce is R-3.
� Mr. Kubow said that Lots 7, 9 and Block 23 are R-1 and should stay just as
they are.
Mr. Hirsch said mention was made of taxes and he checked with the assessor.
He found that ��x�s -0n a b�-ilding,such as they.are planningrare approximately
25% of the gross, ma.king the taxes about $60,000 a year.
Mr. Kubow asked how many years wauld that building be good?
Mr. Hirsch answered that they have put a mortgage on a building like the ones
they contemplate building here and it is a 25 year mortgage.
Mr. Kubow said it is true the apartment buildings would bring more revenue but
the protection of the citizen's right is what he was concerned about. He didn't
persorially believe the commercial venture is good for their area.
William Plum, 6652 East River Road: I have lived here since December 4, 1922
until today.
� He asked who had prepared the drawings and was told that Hirsch, Miller and
Mellow had prepared the plans. He continued that he was reluctant to believe
Mr. Schroer would clean up his property. He has had special permits for lean-to
canvas sheds. The village police and fire department do not notice burning. You
want to rezone Parcel 1, he said, from C-1 to local shopping. He was concerned
about commercial coming down East River Road. Will this be considered commercial
and face East River Rvad? Traffic, also, was discussed.
Mr. Erickson said, regarding the intersection of East River Road and Missis-
sippi Street, the Planning Commission recoimnended to Council a street pattern
of that intersection. There was nothing in their reco�nendation that there
would be dividing lines along East River Road. This is a County road.
Mr. Plum said his entire property is at the North end of the proposed complex,
and in answer to the question of how the rezoning would affect him, he said,
"It is a beautiful site on the river. There are some gorgeous homes directly
across the xiver. Z`he City has a complex on the River at Highway 100. I would
like to see the tzao lots R-1 nearest my area. We have built homes under the
assumption they will be R-1. We have paid for sewer and �ater and do not use
i�t. We sincerely object." �
Mr. Wormsbecker said that Parcel 3 is known as the Plum property and Wyman
Smith represents the owners, Mr. Plum said this property was owned by R. M.
Plum and Donald Plum and was sold to Wyma.n Smith about five years ago who was
going to build his home on it.
� The Engineering Assistant explained the recommendation the Planning Commis-
sion made on November 10, 1966 to the Council was to rezone Block 22 down on
the River but not recommending the 160 foot strip lying North of the street
that is being asked to be'vacated. Council set up hearing but never took
official action on any of the rezoning.
Planning Commissiori Meeting - April 11, 1968 Page 6
Mr. Plum said his home is approximately 75 to 100 feet off East River Road.
^ Mx. and Mrs. Kubow mentioned that, right now, they are at the end of the
sewer system and-the pipe is only 42 feet underneath the road, and the present one
freezes up.
Mr. Wormsbecker said as far as he understands, the sewer wi11 be connected on
the North side and would run into Bob's Produce. He was told the sewer was
available for the project.
Chairman Erickson said the plans as prepared are nat necessarily the plans for
the building permit. The Commission was not approving or disapproving the plans
at this point.
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Jensen, tha•t the Planning Commission close the
public hearing of ZOA ��68-01, Hirsch Bros. Properties being part of Block 22 and
all of Block 23,. Fridley Park Addition and part of Lots 7 and 9, Revised Auditor`s
Subdivision ��Z3. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Ylinen conmmented that, personally, he had no objections to rezone Parcels
1 and 2. He believed Parcel 3 is really the one that creates the pxoblem �nd
he would �ike to rezone Parcel 3 to some type of buffer.
Mr. Myhra said that we are going to have apartment dwellings in Fxidley. One
of the things we are trying to do is to upgrade the apartments we have. When we
do this, one of the things we have to look at is apartments in fairly isolated
areas. Keeping these things in mind, it seemed to him that here is one area
/"�, where we are going to have about as much isolation as we can get -- the river on
one side and East River Road on the other, commercial enterprises and apartment
between the river. It seemed to him the way to move on this is to try to work
out some kind of arrangement and this is why he asked about a buffer strip, working
, along buffer screening. There is enough land so the apartment houses can be set
back quite a ways. It seems it would be possible, working with the petitioner, ,
that this then could be set up so most of the objections would be removed as the
° people would be far enough away.
Mr. Ylinen said he agreed.
Mr. Jensen said he would like to recall Mro Hirsch's comments about achieving
high quality apartment complex because of the relative size available in the site.
He thought special consideration should be given to the fact that the site gave
opportunity for the developer to build a high quality building. This is an extremely
important point to be considered in this particular case. Proper setback and
screening ean protect to a maximum degree the single family residences.
Mr. Hirsch added that all the area along the river is green. The area ne�ct
to East River Road would be landscaped. They have enough area and the question
is how to use it.
Mr. Erickson said the Planning Commission could take two steps of action.
Limit approval to propert except e North 75 or 80 feet to be left R-1, waive
some of the requiremene? � .���3ggest pxoblem is that the people living in
� R-1 area, do not wish multiples close to their property. By not rezoning the
entire parcel, which would prohibit the construction of a R-3 building, the North
part would be left R-1 giving it a buffer. This would reduce the R-3 area so
Plannin Co�nission Meeting - April 11, 1967 Pa e 7
there would have to be an appeal made to reduce the area requirements.for a parti-
cuTar building. Our previous action was to refuse the request to rezone to R-3
� on that North property. The Council held up the request until the East River
Road intersection was decided on and now it has been taken care of.
Mr. Wormsbecker explained they have an option on the property. If they do
not get.an answer within a time limit, their option expires.
Mr. Hirsch asked if the Commission were contemplating having this rezoning
request come back in two weeks?
Chairman Ericksan explained the history has been pretty stormy over a number
of years and they would like more time to consider this request.
Mr. Myhra explained he was with_the.local.school district and his point of
view is always quite concerned about the tax base, considering tax valuation for
the schools. It seemed to him there must be some way that they can work this
out to the satisfaction of everyone.
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission reconsider
the request of ZOA ��68=06, Hirsch Bros. Properties being part of Block 22 and
all of Block 23, Fridley Park Addition and part of Lots 7 and 9, Revised Auditor's
Subdivision ��23, and the vacation request, SAV ��68-01, of the 30 foot street lying
South and adj�cent to the North line of Fridley Park Addition at the xegular
meeting of April 26, 1968. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously. �
� 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REZOIVING REQUEST, ZOA ��68-07, JAMES L. ADAMS BY ANDREW HOHN: SW'-`4
of SW� of Section 2(40 acre tract) to rezone from M-2 (heavy industrial district)
to R-4 (trailer park). �
The Chairma.n read the Public Hearing Notice.
Mr. Hohn stated that about two months ago he showed this tract to about nine
different business people who were looking for industrial property. He found it
would be a hard proposition to use this land for industrial because there is peat
and that would have to be removed. Mr. Adams and Mr. Miller were interested in a
Mobile Home Court. It would not be necessary to remove the peat for putting in a
Mobile Home Court. A planning engineer had been engaged who had made a sketch of
the Court and was pxesent this evening and would explain the plans. He then intro-
duced Mr. Dale Hamilton.
Mr. Jensen removed hi.mself from participation in the discussion because of con-
flict of interest.
Mr. Hamilton presented the specifications and maps. He read from the information
sheet the details of the proposed development, scope of development (about 200 units,
adequate off street parking being provided for each unit, free space between units
generally to at least 20 feet with 4,000 to 4,500 square feet per living unit, inter-
nal street 30 feet wide with curb, gutters, bituminous surfacing and sidewalk, access
from University Avenue Service Road, public service building including laundry facili-
ties, lounges, rest room facilities and miscellaneous service area, landscaped with
i�1 shrubbery and sod with at least one shade tree provided for each living unit, each
unit to have concrete or brick patio, electrical power proposed to be underground,
Mercuxy internal street lighting, central gas type incinexation, storm drainage will
be oriented to existing drainage ditch running through the middle of the property,
density not to exceed 6 units/acre) and they feel that this could be a very excellent
development. .
Planning Commission Meeting - April 11, 1968 Pa�e 8
� Ed Munson, 9042 7th Street N.E.: I atn the business administrator for School
District No. 16 and I represent the school board. As far as going on record as being
opposed to the trailer court, we have taken this position in the past for sevexal
reasons. 1. There is a strong feeling we would like all property that is designated
light industrial or commercial to remain as such because of tax dollars. 2. We
are a financially poor school. At least once a year we have to appeal to the State
Board of Education for emergency funds to help an immediate financial cri�sis. 3. We
feel the t�payers of our school district already pay quite a high mill rate on their
. real property. This mill rate will be 199 mills. We feel they are putting forth
quite a large effect in the support of education. 4. Past experience shows trailer
courts really do not pay enough compensation for the education of their children. It
may be the number of children are not necessarily as large in proportion to those of
residential areas, but we have no guaranty that this trend will continue. In addition
to putting on an added financial burden, it would further upset our present building
construction scheduleo We will be receiving less tax dollars from the mobile home
t�es because of the depreciation of trailex courts. 5. It was proven�in 1967,
when a survey was perfoicmed in the metropolitan area, that District 11 and 16 had
more trailer parks within the confines of their boundaries than any other distr.ict.
We feel we have enough right now.
�,
�
John E. Miller, 7350 Lyric Lane: I object to this rezoning as far as the value
of our homes in that particular area is concerned. We have a tremendous amount of
multiples. This is an attxactive area and I do no� think we need any more trailer
courts.
T. H. Mikoda, 7361 Tempo Terrace: I agree with what has been said. I do not
believe we need any more trailer courts.
Mr. Hohn explained that a trailer court meets the needs of older people and
young married people who cannot afford a house usually until the time the third child
arrives. . �
H. M. Harris, 6210 Riverview Terrace: The drainage ditch runs through two parcels
of my property and the City Council is contemplating on vacating 78th and running a
storm drain through there, but it is held now due to the fact that this water comes fr:
Spring Lake Park and Minnesota Highway Department. I feel that being their water
uses this storm drainage help should partially come from them. Also they mention
30 foot street. My property is known as Onaway. Thirty feet has already been
platted and dedicated to the City of Fridley. This would eliminate any street at
a�l. People on the west side of Ma.in_Street have built their propexty to comply
k*�Ch the way the terrain runs. This would make a gxeat deal of difference tax wise
on the school tax. At this time this CoBUnittee should consider what the Council
has in mind abou't this property. Water and sewer =- where would that come in?
Richard Harris, 6300 Riverview Terrace: We own quite a good section of the
property that abuts this land on the West side. We have already begun an industrial
development in there. We have one building facing 77th, another one on the comer
of Main, and are putting a few buildings facing East. First, drainage ditch problem --
the situation is tota�ly intolerable to the area-. Every spring this washed out the
streets. The City Attorney is trying to make some sort of arxangement with Spring
Lake Park and the Highway Department. We certainly cannot allow this lagoon type
drainage ditch. Your storm sewer system would be draining into the lagoon. T'he
ditch is a private ditch. Thirty foot streets -- I cannot see 30 foot streets
being permissible in a trailer court and the City streets must.be 60 feet. People
fare much better in residential than trailer parks. From a public safety standpoint,
Planning Co�ission Meeting - April 11, 1968 Pa�e 9
I cannot see it. You say you cannot put buildings on peat. How can you make a slab
^ set still on peat? It will move away from you. I don't think this will meet the
building requirements of the City of Fridley. The last point is that this is zoned
M-2. �Heavy industrial area is short in Fridley. We should keep and protect the
industrial. It is the backbone of our tax base. As an abutting property owner and
taxpayer, we are definit�ly opposed to this rezoning request, at least the way it is
proposed here. .
Chairman Erickson asked Mr. Munson if he had any figures on the number of school
children per trailer and was told that in 1966-67, the overall percentage is about
1.63 per trailer, but the figure varies from year to year.
Mx. Myhra asked Mr. A1 Johnson if he had an opportunity to discuss the drainage
problem with the City Engineer. Mr. Johnson answered that he had been asking for
help for about five or six years. It is a financial burden -- he pays taxes and
gets nowhere at a11. T'he present ditch fills up.
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Co�ission close the
public hearing of ZOA ��68-07, James L. Adams by Andrew Hohn of the SW� of the SW'�
of Section 2, (40 acre tract) to rezone from M-2 to R-4 (trailer park). Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Ylinen said that his own opinion was that there is a better use for the
land than what•is proposed in the petition and therefore would make the following
motion:
n MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission recommend
denial to the Council of the rezoning request, ZOA ��68-07, James L. Adams by
Andrew Hohn of the SW� of the SW� of Section 2 from M-2 (heavy industrial district)
to R-4 (trailer park). Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried �
unanimous ly .
�
Chairman Erickson concurred with the motion and felt some counnents should be •
clarified. If this were completed and developed into residential, multiple or
industrial, we are still going to have a drainage problem. The drainage has to
be solved no matter what happens to the property, In regard to the street pattern,
he said the trailer court streets must be maintained by the people in the park:
He, too, did not feel this was the proper use for the land.
4. LOT SPLIT REQUEST (CONTINUED: L.S. ��68-07 RUTH GEDIG: Lot 17, Block G, Riverview
Heights. (subject to deed for lot split)
Mrs. Gedig was present.
Mr. Jensen spoke to Mrs. Gedig saying that before the Planning Co�nission con-
cludes this lot split, they would like to have her prepare the deed. They were
not saying that she would have to do it immediately. To split the property in
t1�is fasion would give her two individual tracts, the part split off being too
small to build a home on. It would not be logical. If she did not conclude the.
deal with her neighbor, she would have no reason to split the lot like that. For
her own benefit, the Planning Commission did not want her to do it.. He asked her,
at her convenience, to determine whether she will go through with deal with her
neighbor, and let the Commission know either one way or the other and they will
conclude the action so that it can gv to the Council. As far as they know, there
is not a time limit on returning with tlie request.
No action.
�
Planning Commission Meetin� - April 11, 1968 � Page 10
5. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. ��68-02, ARTHUR CHRISTENSON: All of Lots 2 and 3, and
part of Lots 20 and 21, Block 2, Rees' Addition to Fridley Park.
No one was present representing the petitioner.
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the lot split request, L.S. ��68-02, Arthur Christenson of all of
Lots 2 and 3 and paxt of Lots 20 and 21, Block 2, Rees' Addition to Fridle3� Park.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
6. •CONTINUED LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. ��68-05, WALTER R MACIASLEK: Lots 18 thru Z0,
26 thru 28, Block 2, Oak Grove Addition. (subject to certificate of survey)
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ylinen, that inasmuch as the petitioner complied
with our previous xequest for certificates of survey, the Planning Commission
recommends approval of the Lot Split request, L.S. ��68-05, Walter R: Maciaszek
of.Lots 18 thru 20, 26 thru 28, Block 2, Oak Grove Addition. Upon a voice �ote.,
all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
7. PROPOSED PRELIMINAItY PLAT: P.S. ��68-02 PEARSON'S SECOND ADDITION S. G. PEARSON
CO., INC. REPRESENTED BY LEONARD SAMUELSON: North of 77th Way and East of East
,� River Road, a part of Section 3. Set public hearing date.
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen; that the Planning Commission set a Public
Hearing date of May 9, 1968 for the preliminary plat, P.S. ��68-02, Pearson's
Second Addition, S. G. Pearson Company, Inc. represented by Leonard Samuelson,
being North of 77th Way and East of East River Foad, part of Section 3. Upon a
voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. •
ADJOURNMENT •
MOTIQN by Jensen, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission meeting
of April llth be adjourned at 11:00 o'clock P.M. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, the motion carried.
Respectfully submitted
Hazel 0'Brian
Recording Secretary
�
� � _#
, �
� �
/ _ _ _ - --
�
r --
�
.s'r��i - /h S � -� � �_ f� �, Y � � /�, /�' c� �
f�
d.h '7z < Tz� ��'n -r�� c S 5 � fl 7 J
Tz
_. _ _a-Z�1� _-- _ �� �_.
-- _ _ Y G_5 S__ .,_
_ __ _ _ _ _---
_ _____ �6� � _- ��3 3� _ �� _ � -- �
. . �
�
- -_� _ _ % � �.? ___ _ _ _ _ 7_3s7 �.�i�_ �-%�i�_ _ i�i' � _ _ _ _
�3� G� _ _ _ _ _7..�1/ _ � �,�_ _ � ./�E
� ��
, ��-���
-- , _ --- -- _ _ _ 1 r s� _ ,���-h-� � ��' �?�`� � r.�.<
h<_�!�. � _ � � �� ?Ls�� �s�rr- �.v. .�� o .eE_ �� ,��.
�� __ ___ __ __ _ __ _7_���_ _ ___------._��� �,.
� � .
_ �
i�� �- - -
; _ � . ____ _ _
��, --
� � ___ ___
-- __
��"���-� s.�.-�'�� �3 � �-- �. ; J � . _
� - �� �—,. ____ ___
, �,/� `��'
j� °�Yy�.�� �-���-�� _ . ? � ? l __ -
_ _ _ _ __
� �� .
- - , .._— 1 r1.�(p � !' �• 7�' - 6 Y/
, . _._ ,
f � , � �.d...L, _
, �.
///f i � /",• r, j f j , / _'
/ ... ._ ... . . ..
� , fJ� � / / .
- ,.1„. _< ., �� `�, __� 3 � ,��/
J � ^ \_ / .. �'t,r 1> . � \ t�/�. Y'J'. . _ .� f '-) �/✓-'� . . _ ..
. _ 4 .,
��/ '
��°�- -��- � _ _ _ - �� �� __ �
- - - __ � ,�'
�;� , . _
_-
� Q � s -�- � � � �
_,
__ __
_ ___
�r`��i - - . , c� �. __ _ - _ . _ __ ------
G� `E ,-- ` i � � _,�-� _ --! �/ `�� ��_��?!'� _
; - __ _. _
, n
__. �
� , ,_-
_ __._ _ _ - -+
���.
�. � __ �
.__ _
, ,. . � _
_ � �
J /
``�i' � - . � .. . . . .
U�
.�, ,
_ _ � ___ _ �-� �
, -
!� �� - ��a __ -_
� .
%��,�,�_ _ _ _
� ,,,
f ����� .
- - ,, � ,
_ _ ��-_
_ � � ; �.��,�.
_
� __
� �.
,
� � _�
';���, ,
_ -�! .����. -
--_
----_ _ �.l l _ _ _
-- - _ _
, ,�j
-- � � � � 1`1�t.�1d�_� ��`�
� �, ,
_
_ =- � __° .° _ `J =�-�. :.�.�-� h �� , �%�i ; �� � ' ,
- - _ ,� f
�Z� � G�.� -
__ -- --�-- ��
, -
O Z�0 _ ���,���..:r' �-r�_, __ __
. ,
�_a10 o� ��,� - - _ _ _
3 � ,� � �e � � _ �,�. �, ,� ___ _
3 � �U � �� s�
� -
�� _ _ _ _ _-- -
.
3_za� C�..�.. � Y�__
�
- �,
7�r �
�r� ����� _ �r-�-�--
. � - -_
S- `� � ,
�6 � � . ;��_ Y�. �
_
��� � /� � � �_- ____
��d�_� ,� �.-�� --
��� : � � �-�-�-�--���-� �
��s�� �� �
_ _ _ �_ --___ _ --�
�
. � �C?t� ' r
1-- 3--�t
3 i(
_�X
-� __ .�
�
_ -- � -- •�(
_ __ _ � __�(
� _�
�_ _�
�_ �
y � __�%
` _ -�-
_i, X
- __ �_ �
_ .. .�- �
�_ __� ..
_ __ _�'�
_ �
% '� �f _ - �-�
�
,� __
- ' � �J _ _. .,�
- � �.--�
� ��
_--� .z, }�
� _�--i�
��
___ �
���
� ���-
__
__
:� �--�C
,�
_ a�
� �
s
�
- _ - - _ D�2►2 � _ -- __ _ _-- - - - -_ _ _ _ _- _ _ _ � � q� t� � s � _
_ __ _ __ _ _ _ _���� �
. ,
_ _ _ _._ ��, . _ __ _ _ _��'"-_ -__ ._�a`�' .� �;`2, . S", jlj.� �-3
1
T;
_ _ _. ' '. ._ �'..... ._. ._ " _"-. .
� _ _ _ __ _ _7� �/ _� !� �•� � 3�
___ __ , __ _
�
., � - /�
� �� ' �' �� ' � \�
i � � '� : �°; �," _ �Y?_ ,�-���-e.� �...� '� � J_. ��--<=_; '_ - _; . :� � I ��� � _ _ _ _�--� l`
._. __ . / ,�_ � ��
� ����7'//��/� �„3Q �.s�o'�"�'JG- �//4' �-��
--
__ __
_ __ _
__ _ �
_
..___ _ __
1
�
-_ _ _. __-- - __----. _ ____ __ __-- . �
------ ___ _
-- -__ --_. .
- --- - ----- ----- --:�