Loading...
PL 05/21/1975 - 30420� 0 CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING � MAY 21, 1975 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Har.ris called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: 0 Members Present: Harris, Meissner, Drigans Members Absent: Lindblad, Peterson Others Present:. James Langenfeld, Ex-officio member of the Planning Commission Jerrold Boardman�, Planning Assistant APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 7, 1975 MOTION by Dr��ans, seconded by Meissner, that the Planning Commission minutes. of the May 7, 1975 meeting be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION SUBCO(NMITTEE MINUTES: APRIL 28, 197 MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Meissner, tha.t the Planning Commission receive the Parks & Recreation Subcommittee minutes of t.heir meeting of Apri1 28, 1975. Upan a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ,�', RECEIVE PLATS & SUBDIVISIONS-STREETS & UTILITIES�SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: MAY 13, 1975 .• MOTION by Meissner, seconded by Dr.igans, that the Planning Commission receive - the Plats�& Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee minutes of the May 13, 1975 meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. . . . • }� RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES: APRIL 29, 1975 �- � MOTION by Meissner, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Comrnission receive the Environrrtental Quality Commission minutes of the Apri1 29, 1975 meeting. Upon a . voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanirnously. RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOf4MITTEE MINUTES: MAY 14, 1975 MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Meissner, that the Planning Commission receive the Building Standards-Design Contro2 Subcommittee minutes of May 14, 1975 meeting. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried nnanimously. 1. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST: SAV #75-02, BY LOREN SMERUD: Vacate 46th Avenue N.E. between 3rd Street and University Avenue N.E., to allow the construc- tion of a 24 ft. x 24 ft. addition at 4603 3rd Street N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Loren Smerud of 4603 3rd Street N.E. and Mr. Robert Archer, 4595 3rd Street IV.E. were present. � � � � Mr. Boardman said the administration had no objection to this vacation request, � but an easement would have to be retained for the storm sewer in the South-Half of T� � Plannin Commission Meeting - May 21, 1975 Page 2 the street being vacated, and for the 12 foot easement in the alley would have to be extended across the vacated street, because of the power lines in this easement. Mr. Harris asked the purpose of this vacation? Mr. Smerud said it would enable him to construct an addition to his home without ask.ing for a variance, and as they were maintaining this property already, they would prefer to own it. Mr. Boardman said the proposed addition would be 8 feet from the present property line, and Mr. Smerud was told to either ask for a variance or request a vacation of the street, and Mr. Smerud chose to ask for the vacation. � . Mr. Langenfeld said the adjacent property owners to this street had been main- taining it for the past 8 years. , Mr. Harris asked Mr. Archer, the other adjacent p�operty owner, how he felt about the vacation of this street? Mr. Archer said he was in agreement to having it vacated, and he had been maintaining the pro-�rty also. . Mr. Urigans asked Mr. Smerud what he was going to do with the existing garage? Mr. Smerud said he was going to tear it down. MOTION by Drigans,.secnnded by Meissner, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of vacation request, SAV 4�75-02, by Loren Smerud, to vacate 46th Avenue N.E. between 3rd Street and University Avenue N.E., to allow the construction of a 24' x 24' addition to 4603 3rd Street N.E. with the following stipulations: 1. Retain the storm sewer easement over the Northerly 20 feet of the South Half of 46th Avenue being vacated. • 2. Retain a 12 foot utility ea.sement in the extension of the alley between Block 9 and 16, Plymouth.Addition. 3. The existing garage be town down when the addition with the tuck under _garage is completed. Mr. Smerud asked what probiems he would have if this garage wasn't torn down at that time. Mr. Boardman said he would have to apply for a Special Use Permit for a second accessory building. Mr. Smerud said he didn't know about the restric- tions on a second accessory building, so he would probably tear down the existing garage. Mr. Meissner said this would not be such a rigid stipulation, that the very day the addition was completed, the garage had to come down, but he would have to comply within a reasonable time. Mr. Smerud said he would like to use the present garage for storage while the second garage was being built. Mr. Meissner said that if he decided at a later date, to use this garage for storage, and not tear it down, he would then have to apply for the Special Use Permit. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST: SAV #75-03, MACHINING INC.: Vacate the ^ alley in Block 5, Spring Brook Park Addit�on, that l�es between Ashton Avenue ' and the railroad tracks, to allow for an addition that will join two existing - buildings, at 140 Liberty Street N.E. . Mr. Frartk Schaul, co-owner of Machining, Inc., was present. Planning Commission Meeting - May 2l, 1975 � Page 3 ,.� Mr. Boardman said that Machining, Inc. have a building on both the North and South side of a 12 foot alley. They want to construct an addition that would join these two buildings into one complex, and in order to do this, they are request- - ing that this alley be vacated. He said there were power lines in this alley, and what they want to do was to encroach on the utility easement and vacate the alley easement. Mr. Boardman said D�rrel Clark had received a letter from Northern States Power Company, which he presented to the Planning Commission. �� MOTION by Meissner, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission receive the letter from Northern States Power Company dated Ma.y 14, 1975. Upon.a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris read the letter as follows: "I reeeived the City of -Fridley's notice�of the preliminary hearing on the request of Machining, Inc., 140 Liberty Street N.E., to vacate the alley in Block 5, Spring Brook Park Addition, ,that lies between Ashton Avenue and the railroad tracks, to allow an addition that will join_two existing buildings. Northern States Power Company has no objection to this vacation, provided we are granted a permanent easement for the retention of_ our facilities or are reimbursed for rerouting them. Thank you for your cor��ider- ation in this matter, John L. Ranck, Municipal Services Representative, North Division." Mr. Boardman said that one of the stipulations of the Plats & Subdidisions- Streets & Utilities Subcommittee was that in order for this building to be constructed, they would have to have written permission from the utility companies who are presently using this easement for their facilities. He said that the utility com- panies would be placing stipulations on the height of the building, and how far the roof 0!f the building would have to be from the'power lines, etc. Mr. Harris asked what these power lines served? Mr. Schaul said they went across the railroad tracks to John Hayes property at 136 Liberty Street. Mr. Schau.l said the power lines had just gone in last year, and he had given them permission to put the poles in. Mr. Meissner asked Mr. Schaul if {ie had talked to Northern States Power Company about the allowed height of the building, etc. Mr. Schaul said his partner had been talking to them. • Mr. Boardman said that if the utility easement was retained in this alley, and the petitioner gets written agreement from the utility companies using this easement • on the encroachment, then the City couldn't see any problem with granting this vacation request. The City has no objection to the encroachment on the vacated alley. Mr. Harris asked about Mr. Hayes having access through this property. He said there was an unsigned agreement in the agenda, which state�d that there was verbal agreement, but that Mr. Hayes would not sign it, on access through this property to the crossing at the railroad tracks. Mr. Boardman said that at present, John Hayes has access from his property to both Longfellow and Liberty Street, on Machining, Inc. property, and with the proposed addition, he will only have access to Liberty Street. The original unsigned agreement only gave him �ccess to Liberty Street. . Mr. Meissner asked if John Longfellow? Mr. Schaul said he �'1 had any trouble with Mr. Hayes. Hayes knew that his access would be cut. off to didn't think he knew this ye.t�, but they had never -- Mr. Schaul said that about three years ago, he did seek legal advice, and that this advice was that he could shut the access off to .John Hayes anytime, which he said he had no intention of doing. His only concern was that as Mr. Hayes had been � Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 1975 Page 4 � using this access for a number Machining, Inc. didn't want to �1 square foot that they have. of years, he�might claim the property as his, and give up any of their property, as they need every Mr. Meissner said this easement for Mr.. Hayes didn't enter into the vacation request of the alley, but it was something that would have to be considered. Mr. Harris said he thought this was something that would have to be resolved, because it was something that was sort of swept under the rug by the City for many years. He thought Machining, Inc. should have some type of written agreement on the access to Liberty Street. Mr. Schaul said he was not under obligation to provide this access. Mr. Meissner said he may have a problem with adverse possession, if some sort of agreement wasn't wo rked ou t. Mr. Schaul said this what they worried about. Mr. Harris said the Mr. Schaul�said that Machining, Inc. got along fine . with Mr. Hayes, but the next owner might wonder what Mr. Hayes was doing driving on this property. Mr. Boardmar�. said that although this vacation request has nothing to do with � the easement for Mr. Hayes, indirectly it does, because in granting this vacation to allow the construction of the addition, it will block Mr. Hayes access to Longfellow. He said the verbal agreement never covered an access to Longfellow, only to Liberty, but Mr. Hayes has been using both accesses. � Mr. Harris said an agreement should be drawn up, and if Mr. Hayes won't sign � it, as he refused to sign the first agreement, there wasn't anything that coul�`change that, but he thought the effort should be made. Mr. Schaul said he thought Mr. Hayes would be fighting for another access, because he had seen him sitting at the /�1 tracks for an hour waiting for the train to move�. Mr. Harris said that Mr. Hayes has his junk yard spread all over, and a lot of it was on other people's property and in the street right of way. Mr. Boardman said.that Steve Olson, the Environmental Officer for the City, had been working with Mr. Hayes, and he has been pulling a lot of the junk back onto his own property. Mr. Meissner said that Machining, Inc. could give Mr. Hayes permission to use this access unilaterally, but retain all rights for themselves, in an agreement. Mr. Meissner said that another question he.had on this vacation involved a lot of people in this block, and without their written consent, he wouldn't be in � favor of vacating any more than just the alley that was owned by �he pet7tioner. Mr. Schaul said that was all he had requested. Mr. Meissner said he knew it was the practice of the City to vacate the entire alley, but he would still'want written consent from the rest of the block, even though they had been notified of this request. Mr. Schaul said they only needed to vacate the alley between Lots 10-17, and Lots 32-37, for the construction of their addition. Mr. Harris said that before he could go along with vacating the entire alley, , he would like to see some signatures of the affected praperty owners, that they were in agreement to the vacation. Mr. Boardman asked what the Planning Commission would do if all the signatures � of the other property owners weren't obtained. Mr. Harris said then we would just vacate that portion of the alley that the �petitioner requested. Mr. Boardman said that the administration felt it would be better to vacate the entire alley from Ashton Avenue to the railroad tracks, and that all those property owners had been � notified of this request and had been asked to attend this meeting. �� m_ Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 1975 • Page 5 Mr. Harris said he agreed that the entire alley should be vacated, but he still wouldn't vote to vacate the alley without signatur.es of property owners in this � block. Mr. Boardman said that Tri-Co Builders had called the office and said they had no objection to this vacation. They own some property on this block. Mr. Meissner said that as a member of the Plats & Subs. Subcommittee, it had always been their policy to vacate as many stub streets and undeveloped alleys as they could to get this property back on the tax rolls, not that these vacations added that much to the tax rolls, but there was really no reason for the City to keep this property either. He said that when something was vacated, he still liked to have the property owners present to say that they will accept the property. He continued that 99 times out of 100, no one did object, but he would still like to know that the property �owners agreed to the vacation. MOTION by Meissner, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission reconmiend to Council approval of the request for a vacation, SAV #75-03, by Machining, Inc., to vacate the a11ey in Block 5, Spring Brook Park Addition, that lies between Ashton Avenue and the railroad tracks, to allow the r,?nstruction of an addition that wi11 join two existing buildings at 140 Liberty Street N.E., with the folZowing stipu- Zations: � I. Retain the .Z2 foot utility easement in the vacated a�1��y.:. 2. City allow the encroachment of the buiZding into the easement. 3. Petitioner get writfen permission from the utility companies, and fol.iow n their stipulations for this encroachment. 4. That consent be obtained in some form, from a1Z the other affected property owners along this a1ley, or failing that, that the a11ey just be vacated between Lots 10-.I7 and 32-38, Block 5, Spring Brook Park Addition, which are owned by the petitioner. Mr. Harris asked if the agreement that Mr. Schaul should work out . with Mr. Hayes on an access should be a stipulation? Mr. Meissner said he didn't want to tie'this in with the vacation request. He said that Mr. Schaul did not intend to shut Mr. Hayes off from an access, but he didn't want to give any of his property away either. Mr. Harris said that even if this was not going to be a stipulation of the vacation, he thought this agreement was something Mr. Schaul should pursue. UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Harris said he thought that it should be brought to the Council's attention that there were platted streets and alleys across the railroad tracks. This was an old plat, and none of the streets and alleys were in. He said this was a problem area in Fridley, and a solution of some type should be sought. 3. DISCUSSION ON BIKEWAY PROPOSAL Mr. Boardman said he would give the Planning Commission a little history on the bikeway proposal. He said that when we were working on the Parks and Recreation �' Comprehensive Plan, we had suggested that a bikeway system be developed for the City of Fridley. In late August, the City Council wanted to look at.that a little further, so they set up a Citizen Bikeway Cornmittee to make a study and prepare a report. He said he had been meeting with this Committee ever since September, sometimes four Planning Commission Meeting - May_21, 1975 � Page 6 times a month.. They did prepare this report which calls for 32 miles of trails to be put in a five stage program. When the Bike Committee completed this report �`'� they held Public Hearings. After these Public Hearings, they did make some modifi- cations to the plan. We have mailed out this report to 44 service organizations and � asked to have their written recommendations on this plan. The�letters we.�have � received so far are in your agenda. Mr. Boardman said the City Council would be holding a Public Hearing on this proposal on June 9, 1975. Before this Public Hearing we did want to get the recommendations of the Planning Commission on this report. He said this report would come under the Transportation Plan as well as the Parks & Recreation Plan. . Mr. Drigans asked what was the intent of the Bikeway Committee. Would they cease to exist now that this report has been completed. Mr. Boardman said their - reCommendation to the City Council, was that if �his proposal was accepted, that this would be a continuing committee that would meet about 3 times a year to help implement the program. Mr. Boardman said this was a 9 member committee, who repre- sent the nine different areas of Fridley. If there were any changes necessary in any area, people could contact their representa�tive, and that representative would notify the City Council. Mr. Langenfeld said that he thought this was a very good report. He asked how this was going to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Boardman said they could review it page by page, or if they thought that in reading it, they just wanted to approve the concept, they could do that, if they were ready to make a recommenda- tion, or they could pass it on to Council without a recommendation. Mr. Boardman said the most important thing to•consider -in this report was r"1 Stage 1. This was the pilot stage. Stage 1 and 2 are mostly access stages. Stages 3, 4 and 5 were mostly recreational stages. The reason we felt that the access � stages were the most important was because we have a bad access problem for both pedestrians and bikes at the present time. Mr. Boardman said that we felt that the most important state of this proposal was the first stage. It will provide us with the amount of access we need to all parts af the City of Fridley. It will give us a good indication of the use of the system, and see how it will work. It will also allow us time to change some of the routes, if the system was not working. Mr. Harris said he noticed that Burlington Northern was quite adamant an allow- ing any easements on their property. Mr. Boardman said they are recommending no easements on Burlington Northern property. The only crossings we have are on the major roads that cross the railroad tracks. Mr. Langenfeld said he would like the sidewalk assessment policy explained. ._ Mr. Boardman said the way the assessment procedure works, at':the present time, was that all sidewalks on City streets are not assessed to the property owner, they are assessed to the general fund. All sidewalks on �tate Aid Roads are not assessed to the property owner, they are assessed to State Aid Funds. The sidewalks along County roads, are all assessed to the property owners. The recommendation of the Bikeway Committee:was that tf�is be changed so these sidewalks were not assessed to the property owner, bwt picked�up by the general fund also. �The reabon being that � these sidewalks would benefit more people that just the property owner who has the sidewalk on their property� � Mr. Langenfeld said that on page 24 it mentions �estricted parking. � Planninq Commission Meeting - May 21, 1975 Page 7 Mr. Boardman said what they wer� talking about in this section was that in � some areas, there will have to be astri,pe lane on City streets. On some streets we don't have enough room to provide two traffic lanes, two bike lanes, plus two . parking lanes. By re'stricted parking we mean elim.i,nating parking on one side of the street, or eiiminating all parking on some streets, to allow two traffic � lanes and two bike lanes. Some of the streets where the Bikeway Committee recor�nended no parking on the street were Mississippi, Osborne Road and Old Central, and on Rice Creek Road from Old Central up past the Lutheran Church. When we get into residential areas in providi'ng bike routes, then we don't have the problem of park= ing because there are no striped lanes. Mr. Boardman said that wherever there was a high turnover in parking.this made it more dangerous for the bicyclist. Mr. Boardman said the Bikeway Committee was very cautious on what streets they recommended for no parking. . a Mr. Drigans said the Bikeway System Plan was an extensive document and he felt that it required a detailed consideration by the Planning Commission. He said they would have quite an effect on the community if it was adopted by the City Coun- �cil. He felt th�; due to.the reorganization of the Planning Commission, and as we do not know what the make-up of the Commission will be a month from now, he thought it was better not to start this review until the membership was up to full strength, or else they would have to s.tart the review over again with the new.members. He said he thought this wouldn't affect the Public Hearing of the City Council. Mr. Boardman said as the Public Nearing by the City Council would ��probably be a series of continued hearings, it would be acceptable for the Planning Commission to make their recommendations later. Mr. Drigans said that �o give this plan just a superficial blessing was not the function of the Planning Commission. � Mr. Langenfeld said he agreed with Mr. Drigans and thought the Planning Corrunis- � sion should indicate to the Council that we have given this proposal a thorough ��review before we made our recommendation. � Mr. Boardman said he had felt that the Bikeway Committee could be a project committee of the Transportation Committee or the Community Development Commission, if we had been working under the reorganized Pianning Commission. The� this would have come to the Planning Commission and they would have to determine if this met the goals and objectives of the Transportation plan. He said that as this reorgan- ization was just going into effect, we don't have any goals and objectives on transportation. It was possible to hold this u.p until we get those goals and objectives established, or else pass on this and make ehanges and recommendations at a later date, to meet these goals and objectives. • Mr. Boardman said he agreed that it was the responsibity of the Planning Commission to have input on this proposal, and they could be doing this at the same time that the City Council was holding Public Hearings. , Mr. Harris said he would like Mr. Boardman to get input from the surrounding conm�unities, that have already started to implement a bikeway plan. He said he - knew a lot of them were in the first stages, and maybe from this input, we could avoid some of the pitfalls they experienced. Mr. Boardman said that most of these systems were recreationa� systems only, �� but he would gather as much information as was available, but that Fridley was�pro- posing a much more extensive system, because of our problems of access in the City. Mr. Boardman said that if we got a good response from our pilot stage, we can go Qn with th� p�an as it was laid out. If we have a bad response, then changes will � � � Plannin� Corrnnission Meeting - May 21, 1975 � Page 8 have to be made. This was a very flexible plan. Mr. Meissner said we are talking about a program that was goin� to take years before it was completely implemented. He said that it was mentioned in the report that one of the problems we were having was the enforcement of bicycle laws. He said we do not have to wait for this bikeway program to start enforcing the laws. Mr. Boardman said that part of the plan was already in action. The police are conducting bicycle safety and regulation classes at the schools at the present time. They have two policemen working 8 hours a day on an education program that was being presented to the schools. They sponsor bicycle rodeos also. � . Mr. Harris said that half of law enforcement was education. You can't expect the rules and regulations to be followed if the participants don't know them. Mr. Boardman said they have also set up a new system for tagging juvenile bicyclists, which was just going into opertation. ' Mr. Boardman said it was brought out in the goals and objectives of the Bikeway Committee that bicycle education was a must. He said he thought their goals and objectives were very well written, and were very flexible. MOTION b� Drigans, seconded by Meissner, that the Planning Commission start reviewing the bikeway proposal when the structure of the Planning Commission was solidified. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 4. DISCUSSION Mr. Boardman explained which had been a stipulation This was discussed at length they didn't want to make any ADJOURNMENT: � the background on the freeway noise abatement system of the Darrel Farr Development of Phase IV and V, by the Planning Commission, who subsequently �elt recommendation either way on this stipulation. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Meissner, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Planning Commission meet- ing of May 21, 1975 adjourned at 10:58 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �° . Dorothy Eve on, Secret�ry