Loading...
PL 05/09/1973 - 31151� i n � � � 4 CITY OF FRIDLEY PL,�SIVNING COi�IINISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: MAY 9, 1973 � PAGE 1 Chaia�man Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 8:10 P.M. ROLL CALL: P�embers Present: Fitzpatrick, Harris, L�ndblad, Blair, Drigans Members Absent: None Others Present: Darrel Clark, Community Dev@lopment Administrator� ,4PPROVE PLANNING CODM�IISSION MINUTES: APRIL 18, 1973 P90TION by Drigans, seconded by BZair, tlaat the Planning Corr¢nission minute� af April 1�, 1973 be approved as written. iTpon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the rr�otion .carried unanimously. RECEIVE PLATS $ SUBDIVISIONS-STREETS F, UTILITTES SUBCONA�JITTE� MINUTES: APRIL 18, 1973 MOTION by Elarris, secondPd by Lindblad, that the PZanning Conanission ,receive the P1ats & Su�divisions-Streets & Utilities Subcatranittee minutes of Apri1 18, 1973. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the mot�on carr�.ed unanimously. RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES: APRIL 24, 1973 1►90TION by B1air, seconded by Drigans, that the PZanning Commission receive the Board of Appeals minutes of Apri1 24, 1973. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Drigans called Chairman Fitzpatrick's attention to page 26 in the agenda and the statement by Mr. Crowder that he recommended that the Planning Commission look into these areas o£ allowing or not allowing ae�co setbacks. Chairmara Fitzpatrick said we will add this as the last item on our agenda and discuss it at that time. RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCONIltiIITTEE MINUTES: APRIL 26 1973 MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Harris, t�iat the PZanning Commission recezv'e the Building Standards-Design Con�rol Subcomrru�ttee minutes of Apri1 26, 1973. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. lo CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PEfL'NIT, SP #73�02, RUSSELL SCHLEN�IER: To construct a detached secand garage on Lots S and 6, Block 14, Spring Brook Park, per City Code, Section 45.051, 2 A. Public Hearing open: Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 1973 page 2 � � Mr. Russell Schlemmer was present. �hairman Fitzpatrick asked the petitioner if he had any statement ta make at this time. ' Mr. Schlemmer said his original pxoposal was to have the garage 45 feet behind the house and 5 feet fram the prvperty line. Because the Commission had asked him to see i£ he could bring the gaxage closer to the house, he said he would be willing to move the garage 10 feet and have it 3b �eet behind the house, but to eliminate too shaxp a turn, he would have to go to the minimum requirement of a 3 foot side yaxd setback. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he was asked to consider moving the garage directly behind the house and have the garage doors open to the West instead o� the South. • Mr. Schlemmer said he couldn't locate the garage there because it would interfere with the back entrance to his house. e Chairman Fitzpatrick explained to the new members of the Planning Commission why this item had been continued. Mx. Fitzpatrick said there ^ had been objections from the neighbors because the yards were deep in this neighborhaod and they liked the open space. n Mr. Clark said there was a question by a neighbor whether Mr. Schlemmer had enough room for a driveway as there was only eleven feet between his house and the property line. Mr. Fitzpat�ick said'the reason for this petition was because Mr. Schlemmer owns several recreational vehicles and two caxs and needs � this second garage because he just has a single attached garage at the present time. Mr. Digans asked how wide the driveway would be and i£ it would be blacktop or concrete. Mr. Schlemmer said it would be a nine or ten foot concrete driveway. Chairman Fitzpatrick asked if anyone else wished to be heard. Mr. Mykola Moroz, 289 Ely Street, said he had a selfish objection, but he said this dxiveway would be 6 feet from his driveway and then in anothex 25 feet would b� bir. Schlemmer's present driveway, and he thought it would make the front yards look like they were all concrete. He felt this would detract from the value of his home. Mr. Clark said he was not speaking for or against this request, but ^ although both the neighbor's on each side of Mr. Schlemmer's home have attached garages, there are detached gaxages in this block that are back n on the lot. Mx. Drigans asked Mr. Clark if he had checked the property £or any drainage pxoblems. Mr. Clark said he had, and there wouldn't be any problem. �'r►e driveway would h$ve to have a crown so that drainage could go both ways, but this had to be done on most Yong driveways. R ;,-� Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 1973 Page 3 i � � M�. Drigans asked Mr. Schlemmer if the grade would be the same for this driveway as the adjacent praperty owner�s. Mr. Schlemmer said it woulde Mx. Blair asked where the gas service was located. Mr. Schlemmer said it was located on the side of the house along the pxoposed driveway, but he would call�the gas company and have the gas service moved. MOTION by Harris, seconded by B1air, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #73-02, by Russell Schlemrtter. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motiori carr3ed unanimously. ' Mr. Drigans said that as all the driveways will be concrete, he didn't £eel, thas was unappealing. , Mr. Fitzpat�cick said there were objections made to the obstruction of an open area also. Mr. Clark said there were at least two detached garages East of this area. Mx. Blair said�if the garage was moved forward 10 feet, this would help some. Mr. Harris said he would prefer that Mr. Schlemmer maintain a five foot side yard setback, even if this meansthe garage is 45 feet behind the house. He said he thought there should be stipulations that the dxainage plans be ivorked out with the City, a turn around must be provided for safety on the driveway, and the garage should match the exterior of the house. Mr. Schlemme� said he intended to do all these things. Mr. Harris said he still thought they should still be stipulated so there were no questions. Mr. Harxis continued that he didn't think we would be setting any precedence as there were other detached garages in the area�if we approve this request. This is a means of keeping recreational vehicles from standing axound in the yard. MO�'ION by Drigans, seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commission ,recommend to Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #73-02, by Rus�e11 Schlemmer, to construct a detached second garage on Lots 5 and 6, Block 14, Spring Brook Park Addition, per City Code, Section 45.051, 2 A, with the following stipulations: 1. A proper drainage plan be worked ou� with the City. 2. The esthetics of the garage conform to the house. 3. Provide a proper turn-around in the driveway. 4. Maintain 5 foot side yard setback as specified on the plot plan, the garage to be set back a maximum of 45 feet behind the house. , 5. The driveway to be at the same grade as the adjoining neighbor's. UPON A VOICE VOTE, aZl voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � 2. CONTINUED: VACATION REQUEST, SAV #73-05, GILBERT MENKVELD: Vacate � public easement oi� 67th Avenue N.E. between Anoka Street N.E. and Fxidley Street N.E. to add 30 feet to the North/South dimension of Lot 1, Block 2, Oak Grove Addition to Fridley Park, making it a bui�dable six�. Mr. Craig Willey and Mr. .Pames �Ie�lspn, his attorney, were present. ,� Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 1973 � Pag� 4 !� Ghairman Fitzpatrick said this i�em has been befoxe the Parks � Recreatian Commissian, the Plats $ Subdivisions-Streets F, Utilities Subcommittee, and was continued at the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Fitzpatrick said rather than have the petitioner make a complete presentation one more time, I will ask the Commi,ssion to address any questions they may have to the petitioner. Mr. Willey said he was representing Mr. Menkvehd, the fee owner, and himself, as the buyer of the property, and he had Mr. James Neilson, his Counsel, �cith him who was prepared to answer questions a1so. Chaixman Fitzpatrick said the petitioner wants to vacate 69th Avenue to make his property a buildable site. The problem is that the area being vacated is about half usuable land and the othex half is below the embankment of the Creek. Mr. Willey has agreed to rededicate the land below the top of the embankment back to the City for park purposes. Mr. Clark said there were two questions brought up at the last meeting that needed opinions from the City Attorney. One question was if the City could vacate a street right of way and ^�, retain all, or part of it, for park purposas, or wauld it be more legal to let it revert back to the private owner of the land and obtain the re- � � dedication from the property otwner. The answer to that question was that we should definitely let it revert back to the owner of the property and get the dedication from the property owner. The second question was that if it is a dedicated street right of way, could the City of Fridley prohibit its use to licensed motor vehicles even though it is not open to traffic. Mr. Herrick answexed that if the street right of way is not being used for street purposes, it is under the control of the fee owners, probably the adjacent property owners, and they may use the property as their own until the City decides to open the street. This being the case, they could fence the right of way to prevent it from being used by motoxcycles, etc. Mr. Clark said he had talked�to Mr. Neilson and there was a difference of opinion between the two attorney's. Mr. Neilson feels that as this is a street right of way, the public has the right to use it as a street right of way. . Chairman Fitzpatrick said this question came up because in discussing the dedication of street right of way on 67th Avenue, it was stated that �he City had no intention of ever opening up this street, and did we have the right to hold this dedication. It was felt that it should all be vacated and revert back to the propexty owners, Mr. Clark said he thought we should consider this vacation request �..,1 by.itself. If the Planning Commission thinks more of 67th Avenue should be vacated, then we coul,d address letters to the property owners to see if it was vacated, they would dedicate the property that is over the embankment � back to the City fox park purposes, also. Mr. Drigans asked if the property owner of Lots 29 and 30 would also dadieate the land over the embankment back to the City £or park purposes. Planning Cammission Meeting - May 9, 1973 Page S i� . �"� � Mr. Clark said Mr. Sodahl was at the ,last meeting, and indicated at that t�me that he would do this also. Mr. Sodahl, 6689 Anoka Street N.E., said his original statement was that he wanted to make sure this vacation was for ali of 67th Avenue between Anoka $ Fridley Street N.E. He said he didn't make any statement about dedicating any land back to the City and he hasn't made a decision �n this as yet. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that he wasn't sure that the street right of way that reverted back to Mx. Sodahl's property was over the embankment. Mr. Sodahl said there would be, a problem det�rmining what is over the embankment. About 3/4 of the easement is level with his present property and then there is a gentle slope. Mr. Fitzpatrick said we have an elevation line of 902 feet we are using on Mr. Willey's property, but that line may be different on your property. . Mr. Neilson said he didn't have the benefit of being at the last Pianning Commission meeting. There were a few points he would like to make. He said this was an old plat, that was platted in December of 1886. In that plat there was a road on the North side that was called North Street, and at the end of the ded�cation clause, it stated, by the fee owners at that time, that we hereby donate and dedicate to the public, use forever of all streets, avenues and alleys as shown on said plat. Since that time, Block 3 has been replated into Rice Creek School Addition, and North Street, which is presently 67th Ayenue, was vacated. So approximately 300 �eet of dedicated street has already been vacated. I think it should also be noted that the owners of Lots 1, 2' and 3, of Block 2, in 1965 gave an easement to the City for the cul-de-sac. From a practical sense, 67th Avenue N.E. cannot be used �s a street. There is an easement there for a public st�ceet. In my opinion, this gives the public the right to use this fox public passage. We cannot force the City to put in a street, but we cannot stop the public from using•it. Mr. Neilson said he would like to give five reasons for vacating this street easement. Anytime you vacate an easement it should be in the general interest o£ the public. If you vacate this street, no one can ever come in and request that they want a street here. So i��s a benef�t to the City not to have that problem, It would be a benefit to control the area. It is my positian that anyone could use this easement now as long as they weren't creating a nuisance. It will be a bene£it be��use you have a clear undex- standing from the property owner that he is going to convey the land.over the embankment back to the City for park purposes. It will also be a benefit to have a 70 foot tract of land to build on rather than a 40 foot site. This wil� make it possible to build a much nicer home. It will also be a benefit to the C�.ty in that thi� will then be taxable property. This lot has already gone ,tax forfeit tw�.ce. � Mr. Blair said in the minutes of April 18, 1973, Mr. Clark stated the . redwood deck would have to be shorted by five feet to meet the setback � reauiremants on the South side of the lot. Does the petitioner agree to this. Mr. Willey said he had ne objection and had agreed to this. Mr. Blair said you also have no objection to redicating land for park purposes. Mr. Wi11ey sa�.d the prpperty b��ow the embankment would be more of a liability for me ° t4 keep. I have no practi�al use for it. There would be a maintenance problem and a problem of personal liability if ar�yon� got huxt on this embankmant. � �"'� Planning Commission Meetin - May 9, 1973 Page 6 � �-- Chairman Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Clark that if the Cormnission voted favorably upon this vacation request if they should include the other lot$ along tha Creek in the motion. Mr. Clark said he thought it should be in two motions. He also felt.that it shouldn't be vacated without getting rededication back for park purposes on the area over the embankment. Mr. Drevniak, 6684 Fridley Street N.E., asked how many of the Commissioner have seen this property. Ghairman Fitzpatrick said most of the members have been to the site. Mr. Sodahl said that people use this easement to get down to the Creek. He thought the avenue of travel would be seriously hindered by the vacation of this easement. He said that in listening ta the discussion, if the vacation wasn't granted, a small house might be built on this lot, which wouldn�t .fit into the area. If the vacation was granted, Mr. Willey wants to construct a twa-stoxy house which he felt iaould also be a detriment to the areas of one story homes. He wondered what his recourse was. Mr. Haxris asked Mr. Arevniak,if he was �ware �ixis property had gone tax forfeit. Mr. Drevniak said they purchased their home in August of 1971, � and until they had their lot surveyed to construct a garage, they thought , they had more property�. The year they bought their home, they couldn't have '. afforded to purchase an additional lot. � Mr. Harris asked Mr. Sodahl if he would be willing to dedicate the land from the top of the embankment for park purposes also. Mr. Sodahl said this would be difficult to answer at this time because he didn't know the elevations of his slope. Mx. Drigans asked Mr_Sodahl if he wasn't using part of this easement for a garden. Mr. Sodahl said he has spent co�tsiderable time clearing off dead trees, chunks of concrete someone had dumped on the easement, and other debris from this area. He is presently trying to grow grass in this area and a gaxden he has on his property is extended a small way on the easement. . Mr. Arigans said the second point Mr. Sodahl made was that there could be a house constructed on this lot that would not conform to the existing houses. Mr. Drigans asked Mro Sodahl if he thought the house at 6600 Fridley Street was a.conforming house. Mr. Sodahl said he was referring to houses close to the proposed house. Mr. Drigans said the house referred to was in the same block. Mr. Harris said if this vacation was granted, it would make Lot 1 a much more desirable building site, and the area would be cleaned up. He said'he couldn't see any reason to retain an easement on any property the . � City doesn't ever intend to use. Mr. Harris said he didn't know if the house proposed was compatible with the houses in the area, but this was a matter of judgement. r"1 Mr. Drigans said a portion of the Commission has never seen the plans £ox this house. Mr. Willey prQ�ented his plans to the Commission. He said the house would have horizontal masonite siding and a�ph$1t shingles, the same as the � . . � Planning Commission Meeting - Ma�, 1973 Pap�e 7 � � • neighboring houses. Although it was two siory, i� would have a mansard raaf to lower the profile of the house. The �arage wau2d be in line with Mr. Dxevniak�s house. 1�. Harris said he would be more in favor of the vacation, if he felt the house was more compatible to the other homes in the immediate area. Mr. I.indblad felt that if someone were to build a house on the 40 foot lot,�tbey could build something that was a lot more incompatible with the area. Mr. Clark said the Commission could make a recommendation to the Council that the st�eet easement be vacated subject to the hause plans being approved. MOTION by Narris, seconded by Lindblad, that the PZanning Commission recommend to CounciZ approval of the vacation request, SAV 73-05, by Gilbert Mer�kveld, to vacate hte public easement on 67th Avenue N.E. betw�en Anoka Street N.E. and Fridley Street N.E. to add 30 �eet to the North/South dimension of Lot 1, BZock Z, Oak Grove Addition to Fridley Park, making it r,,,� a buildable site with the stipulation that a11 land below the elevation .�ine ' or 902 feet be rededicated back to the Cit for ark y p purposes contingent upon �he stucture that is proposed for this 1ot be compatible to the area. � ' bir. Sodahl said he could not agree to the 902 foot elevation line on his lot because the elevation was different on Anoka Street. Mr. Harris amended his motion, seconded by Lindblad, to read that the petition would rededicate a11 the property lying below the crest of the embanlcment whether it be street easement or not as determa.ned by the property owners and the City administration. UPON A VOICE VOTE, aI1 voting aye, the motion and amended �tion carried unan3mously. Mr. Blair said he felt the proposed house was compatible with the area. Mx. Harris said he knew that was a matter of judgement, so we will leave the decision to the City Council. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED PLAT, P.S. #73-05, BY AARREL A. FARR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: A replat of 81ock 10, Innsbruck North Townhouse lst Addition. Mr. Jim London was present. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Blair, that the Planning Commission � wa3ve the reading of the Public Xearing notice of the proposed p1at, P.S. #73-05, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporatipn. Upon a voice vote, a11 �'} votiny aye, the motion carried unanimously. �. Mr, Clark said when Block 10 was platted, the property lines were Stxaight. The area between the garages was enl'�rged because thexe were some t�ree� they wanted to save. A jog was put in the property line so the owner will own the garage that goes with }�is t�wnhquse. II 1D Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 1973 —,�� � � .. � , / Chairman Fitzpatrick asked if this would change the size of the lots, Mr, I,ondo$ said two lots will be one foot less and two would be 1 foot more, The lats are of different sizes because the width of the lot depends on the size of the unit. Mr. Fitzpatxick said that administxation has no objection to this xeplatting and tha Plats F� Subdivisions-Streets � Utilities Subcommittee recommended appraval. MOTION by Harzis, seconded by LindbZad, that the Planning Corranission olase the Public Nearing on the proposed plat, P.S. #73-05, by parrel A. Far.r Development Corporation. Upon a voice vote, aZZ vvting aye, the motaon carried unanimously. ' MOTTON by Narris, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission z�ecommend to Council approval of the proposed p1at, P.S. �i73-05, by Darre3 A. Farr Development Corporation, a replat of 81ock 10, Innsbruck North Townhouse 1st Addition. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 4. VACATION REQUEST,►SAV #73-08, QENNiS a. RANSTROM: Vacate 20 foot utility and drainage easement line between Lot,10 and 11, Block 1, � Rice Creek School Addition, to allow construction of a home on twu � lots. i"1 Mr. Qennis Ranstrom and Mrs..�at Ellis were present. Mr. Clark said the petitioner is contxact: purchaser of Lots 10 and 11, and wants to build a home that would cover portions of both lots. This easement is not being used so administration has no objection to the vacation. We do have a storm sewer running East and West at about the location of the South side of Lot 11, and it is recommended that the City retain a 6 foot drainage and utility easement at this location. A large portion of Lot 11, is at Creek level and Plats $ Subs recommended that any portion that was North or West of the Creek be dedicated to the City for park purposes. Mr. Clark said he thought it should be seriously considered getting a recommendation £rom the Paxks $ Recreation Commission be£ore this goes to the City Council. He said that in his opinion, anything South mr.' East o� the Creek couldn't be used for walking patlts. Mr. Ranstrom said he has letters from the adjoining property owner that he has no objection to the vacation, and a letter from his architect explaining the problems of building on this property, which he would like to present to the Planning Commission at this time. MOTION by Narris, seconded by B1air, that the Planning Cornmission z�ece3ve the letters from F1oyd F. Foslien dated May 4, 1973, property owner ^ to the North of the property, and Gordon Metcalf, Architect, dated May 5, 1973. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the tr�tion carried unanimously. �� Mr. Harris requested that these letters be sent on to the City Council also. Mr. C1ark sa��l the petiti��er is anxious to build this house this swamer. If we wait for a recommendation from the Paxks $ Recreation Commission II � , Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 1973 Page 9 �,.., . _., . . � it could delay this into September before all �he Public Hearings and readings of the ardinaces are through. You could reconm►end this for approval subject to the findings of the Parks $ Recreation Commi,�sion and the Park $ Recreati.on Department. They have June llth as their target date for the Public Hear�ng by ths Council. Mr. Fitzpatrick said if we continued this until Ma.y 23rd they could still have the hearing before Council June llth. MOT.ION by Harris, seconded by Blair, that the PZanning Gommission continue unt�1 May 23, 1973 vacation request, SAV #73-08, by Dennis A. Ranstrom, to Ys�cate the 20 foot vtility and drainage easement line between Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Rice Creek School Addition, to a11ow construction of a home on two 1ots, until we get the reco�nendations of the Parks � Recre�tion Co�niss�on, the Parks & Recreation Department, and the Board of Appeals. Upon a vo3ce vote, a1Z voting aye, the �tion carr�ed unanimously. 5. RECONQvIENDATION FOR VACATION OF 67TH AVENUE N.E. BETWEEN FRIDLEY STREET N.E. AND STINSON BOUI.EVARD Chairman Fitzpatrick said that in Item 2 we recommended vacation of 67th Avenue between Anoka Street and Fridley Street N.�. This leave� the area between Fridley Street and Stinson Boulevard that we should make some ,� kind of recommendation on. n � Mr. Harris said this was discussed at the Subcommittee level, although no recommendation was made. It was felt that the balance of the street ease- ment on 67th Avenue should be vacated with the request that the adjacent propexty owners rededicate the property from the crest of the embankment back to the City for park purposes. This would help clean up the entire area. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the tax forfeit lot which is Lot 1, Block 1, Oak Grove Addition to Fridley Park, should be called to the attention of the Parks F, Recreation Commission. Mr. Blair said he wanted this called to the attention of Paul Bxown also. _ Mx. Harris asked how the elevation was on the easement for 67th Avenue on `the lots under discussion. Mr. Clark said that most of the easement lies below the embankment. Mr. Drigans asked i£ Mr. Clark thought �he people would agree to rededicating land back to the City for park purposes. Mr. Fitzpatrick said xhere would be people who wouldn't car� if the City holds this easement fox a street or for park purposes. Mr. Clark said the area could be better controlled if it was de�icated for park purposes, and we could make this known at the hearing. � � MOTION by Harris, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission � recommend to Council that when they have the Public Hearing for the vacation of 67th Avenue between Anoka and Fridley Streets N.E. t�at they include the � azea between Fridley Street N.E. to Stinson Boulevard, subject to the property owne.�s rededicating the property below the embankment back to the City for " paxk ptu'poses. Upon a vvice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion caxried unaninrouslr �lanning Commission Meeting - May 9, 1973 Page 10 n , / 6. REQUBST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. �73-05, BERNARD JULKOWSKI: Split off part of Lot 6 an 7, Auditor's Subdivision No. i53, to develop land either multiple or commercial. Mr. Claxk said this propexty is located East of Robert Hall on the South side of 52nd Avenue N.E. The property is zoned C-1S. When the apartment houses were built that'are on part of this property, they could be b�uilt in C-1S zo�ing. Mr. Julkowski originally owned all this property, but he consequently sold the apartments and sold this parcel. This has already been split by the County for real estate tax purposes, but the City does not honor this split. He has to get City approval of the split befoxe the special assessments can be split ox a building permit issued. The part he wants to split off does meet the requirements for C-1S zoning. This was con�tinued by the Plats �, Subdivisions-Stree�s $ Utilities � Subcommittee because they would like to give the owner of the apartment comp�ex and Robext Hall a chance to be heard. The apartment complex is having parking pxoblems. They met the code requirements when the apartments were built but according to our present codes tch�y should have 108 parking stalls and they only have 73. If the owr�er of the apartment complex should want ta purchase this property, it should not be split off. �"� • Mr. Harris said some of the cars for this apartment complex are being n. � - park�d in the fire lane, Mr. Clark said this will not be considered b� the Planning Commission tonight, as it was tabled at the Subcommittee ],eve1. 7. ZERO SETBACKS Mr. Fitzpatrick said this was referred to the Planning Commission by the Board of Appeals. At their last meeting they approved zero side yard setbacks.for two proposed buildings, but they weren't quite comfortable with their decisions, so they are asking the Planning Commission for any recommendation we might wish to make on zero setbacks. Mr. Clark presented a colored rendering of the area between 77th and 79th Avenue N<E. and between Main Street aiid the Burlington Northern right of way. The two proposed buildings that had zero side yard setbacks approve�i are in this areao Mr. Drigans sai.d there are 40 foot lots in this area and the petitioner felt that in oxder to build a. usable building he asked us to consider zero side yard setbacks. Mx. Harris said this is Onaway Addition that was platted in 1911. All n the lots are 40 feet wide except the end lots which are a little larger. The lots £acing 77th Avenue are 25 foot lots. The alley in Block 7 has been ^ vacated. Mr. Harris said everyone else who has built in this area followed the rules of the City. Block 1 is the vnly block in this area without industrial development. Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 1973 Page 11 /� Mr. Clark said the petitioner asking £or the zero setbacks is going to pe�ition for the alley to be improved in this block. If he is unsuceessful, i.t maight zeopardize his plan, because I don't think this plan will work without the alley being opened. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that in reviewing the Board of Appeals minutes, it seems that using 40% of the lot for the building and checking the other requixements, that it adds up to more than 1000 of the lot. Mr. Clark said that on these two requests, they could have met'. all the requirements except for the rear yard setback, if they had placed these buildings in the middle of the lot. The building that was proposed on the corner would have h�d• to be reduced 20 feet to meet the requirements. Mr. Drigans said on the proposal they considereci�the buildings only cover 40% of the lots. Mr. Clark said that what would be in favor of zero setbacks is that ].f we can get the cooperation of other property owners, as they develop in this block, to maintain the zero setbacks on one end of their property and double the open area on the other side of their building, it might look bet�er esthetically. �� Mr. Dxigans gaid the petitioners for the proposed buildings did get . approval for these setbacks from the adjacent property owners. � Mx. Fitzpatrick asked how many individual owners of property there wexe an the West side of Block 1. Mr. Clark said one awner has Lots 5, 6 and 7(120 feet�, one owner for Lots 8, 9 and 10 (120 �eet), Lot 11, one owner £or 40 £eet, Lot 12, a 40 foot lot, was tax forfeit, and one owner £or Lots 13, 14 and 15 (120 feet). �"�1 � Chairman Fitzpatrick said the Planning Commission was being asked for a recommendativn on zero setbacks in any area of the City. Mr, Drigans said they have a request for zero se�tbacks at their next meeting of the Board of Appeals by an individual owner. Mr, Lindblad said he felt it made it difficult for industry to come into Fridley and always meet our requirements< He felt that under certain cixcumstances, the ordinances had to be bent a little. When someone is constxucting a building and they are only going to have four employees and we require them to have 20 parking spaces in case the building is ever used by a diffexent company, I don't believe you can protect the City from all eventualiti-es. Mr. Clark said the Planning Commission could review any ordinance they £elt was too stringent. He said the City has a lot of commcrcial and industrial development already so they £eel they can be choosy in who develops the balance of the open land, If one developer doesn't want to change his plans to meet our requirements, perhaps the next request we have for deveYopment of the same area cAn meet our requirements, Mr. Harris said the least of his objection was the side yard setback. H� thought this was the best way to utilize the land, He said we will be faC�d with the same problem in xedeveloping the Hyde Park area, because of a0 foot lot3. Also �art of Spring 8rook Park Addition. Mr. Harris said the time to considex zero setbacks is �rhen w� haYe the first proposal for . n Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 1973 Page 12 � a block. � Mr. Drigans sa3d the Board of Appeals has reservations about granting zero setbacks. Mr. Harris said you have to appreciate the developexs problems also. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he didn't think the Planning Commission would be ready tonight to make a recommendation on zexo setbacks. He said he does think it is proper to ask the Planning Commission for some quidelines. Mr. Clark said they should make a recommendation if they have strong £eelings against zero setbacks as this item would be befoxe the City Council at their next meeting. Mr. Harris said he thought the zero setbacks were right in Block 1; Onaway Addition, as shown on the drawing. Mr. prigans said each situation will have to be considered by itself. Mr. Harris said that when the first developer of a particular block comes in, he thought a plan should be made for ihat block. He said the developer comes into the City trying to find out from the City how he can ^ �develop an area. The City asks to see his development plan and tells the develaper the ordinance requirements. If a plan was worked out for the n " entire block, as a guideline, it would be a benefit to all. Mr. Fitzpatrick said most of the development in the area of the drawitlg were able to build within the ordinances. He said he felt w�en people couldn't build within the ordinances, there was something wrong with theix plan. Mr. Clark said there can also be something wrong with the plat. . Mr. Fitzpatrick said he didn't thing we were going to get any more i!�lput and he wondered if the Board of Appeals would like a motion on this. Mr. Arigans said he thought each situation will have to be considered by itself, but there could be a notation put• in the zoning ordinance that on certain minimum lot �izes in industrial areas, zero setbacks would be considered favorably by the City. Mr. Clark said that we will have to see how zero setbacks work on the two proposed buildings. If the outcome is favorable and a similar situation arises, we can point this out administratively, that this has been done in the past, but I think each case will have to be decided.on its own merits. Mr. Clark continued that before variances be granted for zero setbacks, the Board of Appeals should see the plan for the whole block. 8. AUXILLIARY BllILDINGS n Mr. Harris said that because so many people are acquiring recreational � equipment, and it is preferable to have it stored, than out in the operl, we are going to have many requests for Special Use Permits for auxilliary buildings He qusstioned as to the necessity of having metal storage buildings under a Special Use. C � �� /' Planning Commission Meetin� - May 9, 1973 pag� �,g Mx. Clark said the xeason for the ordina�ce requiring a Special Use Psrmit £ar a sQCOnd auxilliary building was to�prohibit people from adding a second building to use for business purposes. We have other ordinances covering home occupations, but they are difficult to enforce. The squaxe foatage minimum that makes it necessary to get a Special Use Permit and a building permit could be raised to eliminate some of the requests. Mr. Fi.tzpatrick said the Pla.nning Commission could review the ordinance at one o£ their future meetings. Chairman Fitzpatxick adjourned the meeting at 12:35 A.M. Respectfully submitted, �''� ,r� l��/ . porathy �ve son, Secretary � • 0 � � � ' - c� - - - - -- -- _ - _ - - -- -- _ ��s_:���% -- - -- — -r -�-�� - - ------ �z�.�z��C�__-�� - __ 5 a v � � 3� 5 -- ----- ----- -- - --��� ----- ------ -- � 3 =�-� -- - --- , - ----_ ----�' ��-'4-�- ��,, ------- --- - --- �3 "°� ----- -- --- -���'� �- � �-- ------- , �------ i 1{. L-_ _____.__-"_-_"t_ -/ 3" v� _ 7� - o � %� -oS �`d`� �. .,Z _"__�-'-_"_--_ ___ -'" - -_ .- _ - ----"----_-__" _ i _ . _-_--i-___ _-- - - I 1 _-__- . �X _ _ - - _- - _ _ . I �