Loading...
PL 09/22/1976 - 30452� CITY OF FftIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 19?6 PAGE l CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:37 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Harris, Berginan, Langenfeld, Schnabel, Shea Members Absent; Peterson Others Present; Ray Leek' Planning Aide APPROVE PLANNING CONIMISSION MINUTES: SEPTEM�3ER 8, 1976 Mrs. Schnabel stated she would lik� to affirm on page 2l�, item 13� the date set for the joint meeting with the City Council on !t0' lots. She said she was sorry she hadn't been able to set up the meeting earlier, a.nd November 22nd � would be fine with her. She added she appreciated it oeing set up and would get in touch with the appropriate people. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission minutes of September 8, 1976 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. CONTTNUID: PUBLIC HF�RING: REZONING REQUEST. ZOA #76-03, BY EVERTµ�..- SWANSON: Rezone Lot 19, except the East 190 feet thereof, and except the° West 17 feet taken for highway purposes, from C-1 (general office and limited businesses), and the West 1l�7.7�, feet of Lot 18, from R-1 (single family dwelling areas), all in Auditor�s Sub-division No 129, to R-3 (general multiple family dwellings), to allow a condominium-type develop- ment, the same being located at the intersection of Central Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E. Public Heaxing closed. Mr. E�rert R. Swanson, property owner, and Mr. A. R. Olson, architect, were present, MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission reopen the Public Hearing on a rezoning request, ZOA #76-03, by Evert R. Swanson. Upon � a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing ' open at 7:1�3 P.M. Mr. Leek stated there was no further input from Staff other than what was discussed ' at the last meeting. Chairperson Harris asked if the Fire Marshal had looked at the plans� and Mr. Leek replied he had and there was no problem with it. Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 2 Mr. Swanson stated he now had some elevations to show� and invited the interested ^ paxties to view them� which they did. Mr. Bergman asked if Mr. Swanson would be in agreement with the stipulation that if this was approved� these townhouses would be owner-occupied. Mr. Swanson answered he would be. Mrs. Shea asked if anything had been done to move those condominiums back, as one had been only 20' from the residential property line. Mr. Olson stated the plan he had before him sho��ed a 26� setback and a 30' setback� and pointed out on the plans eahere those setbacks were. . Mr. James Hinrichs, 7355 Hayes St. N.E., asked what the term "condominium" meant, and if it was any different than a townhouse, and if one was more desirable than the other. Mr. Swanson saa.d that although the notice did read this was a condominium-type development, which was owner-occupied apartments, this project was acivally a townhouse development. He said the occupants would own the land that their particular part of the building was on, and would have their own yards and patios. Mr. Leek corrmiented that there vaas no definition for the term "condominium" as such in the City Code� but it did define townhouses and the development in question fit that definition. Mr. Hinrichs stated they were try3ng to keep the value of the neighborhood up, and he wouldn't object to a townhouse development. Mr. Larry I�IcCabe� 7328 Hayes St., N.E., stated that he had two petitions to present. He explained that one w�;.s in disagreement with the rezoning and i�ras signed by two neighbors� the other was in favor of the rezoning with stipulations and had 18 signatures. �� Chairperson Harris xead the first petition, which stated: We the undersigned group, heretofore to be lmown as '�neighbors"� hereby agree to the rezoning of the property known as Lot 19� except the Ea.st 190 feet thereof, and except the West 17 feet taken for highway purposes, from C-1 (general office and limited businesses} and the West 11�7.7�. feet of Lot 18 from R-1 (single family dwelling areas)� all in Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, to R-3, subject to the following stipulations concerning the construction� occupation� and maintenance of said property: 1. No.structure shall be constructed any closer than currently indicated on the plans dated 9/8/76 and retained by the "neighbors". 2. All structures exceeding 1(one) story in height, shall be con- structed at a mi.nimum distance of 35 feet from the bordering property line of the neaxest "neighbor". 3. The nneighbors" sha11 not be burdened with any assessments� levies, or taxes of any kind, now planned� or planned in the future, as . a result of the construction, occupation, or maintenance of the above described property� as the result of good or poor planning on the part of the developer or the City of Fridley, for a period of up to 5(five) years following the completion of said construction. The costs of all assessments, levies, or taxes shall be borne by the developer� and/or the City of Fridley for this period. Also� if any assessments are now planned� the "neighbors" would like to be informed of them at this time (9/22/76). � Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 . Page 3 � Chairperson Harris noted that petition had 18 signaturese He then read the following pe�ition: We the undersigned group' heretofore to be known as "neighbors", hereby disagree to the rezoning of the property lmown as Lot 19, except -ihe East 190 feet thereof� and except the West 17 feet taken for highway purposes, from C-1 (general office and limited businesses), and the West 1l�7 e 7!� feet of Lot 18 from R-1 ( single fariily dwelling areas ) all in Auditor's Sulxiivision No 129, to R-3. Mr. Harris noted that patition had two signatures. MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Bergman,_that the Planning Commission receive the two petitions. Upon a voice vote, all eoti.ng aye, the motion carried unaninously. ' Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Swanson if he had any concerns about the stipulations, and he answered that the only one would be the second stipulation requiring a ts•ao-story structure to be a minimum distance o£ 35 feet from the bordering property line of the nearest neighbor. Mr. Olsan asked if it was the intent of the neighbors to question the 26� setback which he indicated on the �olans. R?r. McCabe stated that at the time the petition was put together 35� 4ras arbitrary� and the general feeling at that time �ras since they did not have any idea of the exterior of the b�iildings they did not want just a large straight wall any closer than 35� to their property lines. He explained they had asked a vaeek ago for an idea of th.e Pxterior or tota]. height of the townhouses, ba.t ;'"�, hadr� � t gotten any heZp at that time. Mr. � Olson stated that �he total cornplex, including floor plans with detaa.ls and elevations had been drawn up according to -the City�s requi'rements ior setbackso He added that the measurements �n tne plans �rere actually a little in excess of the minirmams which were required. NIr. Swanson asked if the neighbors would have the same complaint if it was a two-story single-family dwelling that was being constructed. 14Ir. McCabe said they intended to bring this in as a matter of arbitration, although 35' was in agreement among the neighbors. Mr. Hinrichs commented they just didn�t want an IDS Tower next to their back doors. Nir. Swanson stated he understood that� and the buildings �rouldn�t be any higher than any other two-story dw�lling would be. Mr. Hi.nrichs pointed out that there presently weren�t any two-story dwellings in their axea. Mr. Olson stated he wanted to point out that the entire project would be meticu- lously landscaped, and it was possible to bring a ta11 building down in height by the planting of tress and so forth. He added they should also bear in mind that this wouldn't be a straight �,�a11 going up as there would be axeas on the second floor that iaould come out two to four feet, there would be windows that would project out, and so forth. Mr. Hinrichs stated that the building on the Southeast corner did not follow their stipulations, and asked that the architect reconsider and move the building over five feet and in nine feet. Mrs. Schnabel noted that r7r. Olson had mentioned there would be extrusions of � t�ao to four feet on the second floor elevation, and asked if those extrusions would extend over the 26 foot setback. Mr. Olson replied they taould not, and said the ground line of the building might possibly have more than a 26� setback. Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 page � Chairperson Harris stated it would be a good idea to number the documents� and �.,1 identified the petition in favor of the rezoning with stipulations as Exhibit A� the petition in opposition as bchibit B, the color-coded layout plan as �chibit C� and the floor plans as bchibit D. Mr. Langenfeld stated he would like to point out that when a husband and wife signed a petition, it was counted as one signature and not two� and Chairperson Harris said that was correct. P4r. ricCabe explained they were just aiming for a representative as a property oVmer, �rheiher it was one or both. Mr. Hinrichs stated that in their petition, they agreed to the plan dated 9/8/76 with stipulations� and noted that there was a discrepancy between those plans and the plans Mr. Swanson had t�i.th ha.m. Mr. Swanson comrnented that the plans had been revised, and the one dated 9/8/76 was obsolete. NLr. Hinrichs said he would like the petition to be changed to read "the plans as shot,m in exhibit C"� and Chairperson Harris said it would be so noted. Chairperson Haxris said he wished to speal, to stipulation #3� and commented that he hoped it would be good planning. He said that concerning a guarantee that there would be no assessments or levies against that property, he wasn't quite sure what the neighbors t,rere driving at. Air. P4cCabe explained they were talking about assessments or levies that would be a direct result of that project. Mr. Langenfeld said he also felt they meant if there were major street improvements within that axea as a result of this construction, the rieighhors did not wished to be assessed because of that. P�r. McCabe sa.id that taas correct. Chairperson Harris asked if there was any proposed construction or assessments for this area� and�Mr. Leek replied r�ot to his knowledge. Mr. Harris asked if the storm sewers were in� and rir. Swans�n said he beliened they were. Mr. Harris asked if there were storm sewer assessments now, and was told that there were on Hayes. Mr. McCabe stated that they felt that the assessments that were in now were paid for by the neighbors� and if new ones arose they didn't want to split the difference with the new people and let them get a free ride. Mr. Langenfeld commented that one of the functions of the Planning Commission was not to become an assessor, but the possibility could exist where this might be beneficial to the tax situation and be a reverse situation. Chairperson Harris stated the reason he brought this point up was because the Planning Commission could not make any agree:nents or commitments for the City; that was up to the Cit�r Council. He added that from his past experiences with the Council� he thought it would be difficult to get the City to agree to that last stipulation. Mr. McCabe stated that the word �'City" could be eliminated from the peti.tion. Mr. Harris said that would have to be an agreement between Mr� Swanson and the City, if he would consider making such an agreement. Mr. Swanson commented that to his lmowledge there were no assessments agaanst this property at the present ti.me. Mr. Harris explained the neighbors didn't want additional expenses because of the development for street improvements or modifications in the street to faailitate traffic or excess drainage of storm �raters, and things like that. �, � Planning Commission Meeting - September 22� 19?6 Page 5 Mr. Langenfeld said he noted that one 3.ndividual was concerned about a large �`� wall adjacent to his home� and pointed out that the request they �rere considering . was changing this area from C-1 zoning, and with that type of zoning something could be constructed that would be much more unfavorable. Mr. Hinrichs asked if this property could be used as rental at a later date if the project got half completed and the money ran out or the units didn't sell for some reason. He was �.concerned that construction costs would be cut to get the costs of the building down to be used for rental. Mr. Swanson said that anybody who owned a piece of property had the right to rent it out;. but that ��ras not his aim. He added that if they couldn�t be sold and had to be rented out, it would be better than having them stand empty. Mr. Leek commented that there was nothing in the ordinance that prohibited rental. Mr. Langenfeld stated this brought concern to him when it had come up previously, because he didn't see how it could be stipulated that it be only owner-occupied. P�ir. Hinrichs said i.n that case he would like his name taken off the petition in agreement with the toUmhouses and be put on the opposition one, and not risk Mr. Swanson missing his taxget. Mrs. Shea said that at the last meeting Mr. Hoffineyer had stated that they would build one building to sell� and wouldn't start on another until 80% oi it was sold. TZr. Swanson said that was correct, and he couldn�t afford to rent them anyway. Mr. McCabe sai.d he thought they were worried about the intent� and at what point Mr. Swanson would say is a turning point and decide they couldn't be sold and just throw something up to rent. Mr. Harris explained that once the��� toi�mhouse development plans were approved, they were tied by building permit �,, to a speciiic type of construction and could not deviate in major ways from that type of construction. M..^. McCabe said they were concerned because the townhouses were going to be two stories high, and in spite oi the redwood fence the occupants would be able to see the two junk yards� trailer court, auto dealers, etc. in the area, and were wondering what was going to sell these units for $1�0�000 to $60,000 since there was nothing on the order of a swimming pool or other luxuries planned. He said that seemed like a steep price for what they izere getting. Mrs. Schnabel stated that she had read a copy of the report that came out recently by a study group formed by the Metropolitan Council concerning housing in the metropolitan axea. She informed the Commission and the citizens that the current situation in housi.ng was v�ry critical in the metro area, and a single-family home was a raxe find these days. She said that if they could compare what you got for $l�0,000 in a single-family home today with what you got for the same price in the late 1950's� they would be amazed at the difference in the quality of housing that is availa.ble. She added that there is a market for housing and a very strong demand for it. Mrs. Schnabel said that there were many people who reached the point whsre they didn't wish to have a great deal of maintenance in a private dwelling of their own. She said she thought that basically the main concern right now was brhether or not to grant a rezoning on this property. She stated that their concerns as neighbors were well justified, but she thought they had to let Mr. Swanson worry about how.this would be marketed and who would buy it. According to the studies, shs said, there is a great demand for this type of housing; single family houses are so expensive and the amount you are getti.ng is so little in comparison to what it was that there is a great demand for the townhouse concept. She added that �'1 there probably was a market that many of them didn't realize, but if they checked with other builders or realtors they would find there was. a definite market. Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 6 Mr. Bergman asked what the code requirement was ior setback of a townhouse structure from R-1 property� and I�r. Leek said it was 15' with appropriate � screening. rir. Olson pointed out that they were 26� from the property line. on the East side and 30' on the other side, so they were in excess of the code by quite a bit. Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Swanson if he would be agreeable to moving that building from 30' to 35� from the R-1, and i�ir. Swanson said that should be discussed tiaith the architect. Mr. Olson said that would decrease the distance between buildi.ngs 4 and 5 by 1�'� and there would also be four feet less green. area. Mr. Olson asked if it was the Planning Commission's suggestion that the architect restudy buildings 5 and 6 according to 35' instead of what the present codes required. A�r. Harris said he couldn't speak for the whole Commission, but in his own opinion he thought it would enhance the property if they had a little more space on those particular sides. He said there would then be 31' between the buildings, and it would mean shifting 5 and 6 to the North. Mrs. Schnabel asked what that would do to building #6 on the West property line, and Mr. Olson stated that would be reduced by roughly 9'• Mr. Olson said he would like to point out that across Central Avenue to the West ��as some unenvironmental property, and if he lived in the neighborhood he would �*elcome the proposed development on the suggested site rather than thinking what could be developed on the site in lieu of the townhouses. Mr. Swanson stated that if it went commercial the neighbors would have the back yards of stores facing them, with those large garbage containers and a lot of debris. Personally, he said, he couldn't see why anyone would object to it. Mr. John Young� 731�3 Hayes Street N.E., stated that he didn't think they were against the development. He said they were agreeable to it in their petition, � but wanted to make sure it was a good development and aesthetically pleasing. Nlr. Swanson said that question had come up before and he had done all he could to assure the neighbors on that point. rir. Olson pointed out that once the plans were accepted, that is what had to be developed. He saa.d that these plans also carried an axchitectural stamp with a state registration number� so the axchitect would not be willi.ng to jeopardize his own profession and would see that the plans were carried out as proposed. Mr. McCabe said he was basically reassured about stipulations one and two, but would like a little further reaction from Mr. Swanson on the assessment end of it. He added that he couldn't see any benefit to the neighbors from any assessment that had anything to do with the development. Chairperson Haxris said he was wondering if there was an area assessment for storm sewers, and that got to be a rather technical question as to whether it benefits the total area or what area it benefits. He said that was why storm sewers were taken on a general area assessment. He added that if the storm sewers were i.n, and the streets, sewers and water were in, he couZdn't see any future improvements. Mr. S��anson said that he didn't lmow if one person could be i.ndividually taxed and not the community. He added that no matter what went in on that property, the same thing would apply, whether it was commercial or residential. Mr. McCabe asked if Air. Swanson would or iaould not be willing to pick up the tab for any future developments that iJere related to the project� and Mr. Swanson replied by asking how an individual could commit himself to paying for improve- ments that would benefit the whole area. He added he didn't foresee any coming � up. Mr. Hinrichs said that Air. Swanson couldn't foresee any, but asked what would happen if the sewers weren't big enough to handle all the water from these , units. Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 7 '""� Mr. Swan�on said that if the area was commercial they mi:ght have the same --- problem. Chairperson Harris suggested clearing up the matter of what could be constructed in a commercial district� and Mr. Leek read the permitted uses for C-1 districts. Mr. Langenfeld asked if Staff had prepared an administrative report on this� and Mr. Leek replied they had not. Mr. Langenfeld asked if they had found any problem with drainage, and Mr. Leek said no such situation had been mentioned to him. Chairperson Harris sai.d he had talked ta Mr. Boardman earlier in tae- eveni.ng and asked if the administrative departments had looked at this, and Mr. Boardman said they had. Mr. Harris said he had asked if there were any comments or documentation, and apparentl,y there wasn't any. Mr. Michael Virnig, 1365 73rd Avenue N.E., asked how far back the screening would be off the property line. l�ir. Leek sa.id ihe code didnQt stipulate that, but just stated 15' with the landscaping located on the R-3 property. Mr. Virnig said that he had a fence on his property at the present time, an d was wonde�ing if there t�ould be 'tYlO fences just 6�� apart with no maintenance in between. He said he was also wond.ering how fax the fence would extend9 because if it extended too far he iaould have a problem going in and out of his driveway. Mra Harris said the fence could not extend 7� in height all the way to the street. Mr. Leek read from the City Code which stated n�thing would be allowed to impede visions and Mr. Langenfeld aommen�ed that Staff would make certa.�n that the'fence would not be a visual barrier. Chairpe�son Harris said that with regard to the t�do fences together,, he hoped that the two adjoining �,� neighbors cou3.d work tha� out. � • � � rir. Virnig asked i.�•there could be some stipula-�ion on completion of the fence after initiation of the project, and I�r. Swanson said that they would do the landscaping on each bui3ding after it was constructed. Nirs. Schnabel asked if he was talking about the landscaping surroundin.g the buildi.ng itself, and N1r. Swanson said yes. Mrs. Schnabel asked about the landscaping of the exterior portion of the property running around the property line itseLf. �ir. Swanson replied they would do all �he landscaping for a particular building out to the lot line for each building. P�7rs. Schnabel said that one of the neighbors was concerned because he was surrounded by buildings number 1 and 5, and asl:ed if the landscapi.ng would be done around building number 1 upon its completion, and finish the lar�dscaping axound building number 5 when it was completed, Mr. Swanson said that was rightf and added that up un�il that time his back yard would have the same view it had right no�r. Mr. Langenfeld commented that particular pice oi prope•rty woulcl remain in its natural state until construction commenced. Mrs. Schnabel stated she ti�as still quite concerned about stipulatiorn �aumber 2 in the petition agreeirg with the rezoning. She said she didn't think ihey had� answered that to the satisfaction of the petitioners or the builder or the architect, and she felt they ��ere leaving something hanging in mid air if they didn't address themselves specifically to the problem of the 35' setback the petitioners were requesti.ng. A3r. Olson said that the plans, }mown as exhiUit C, met all setback requirements, and asked if it was now also paxt of the require- � ments to meet stipulation number 2 of e�chibit �1. Mr. Young� speaking for the Pl�nning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 8 neighbors, said they felt if it was within the code they would strike stipulati�ni"� number 2 from their petition and would go along with it as planned. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission close the Public Heaxing on the rezoning request� ZOA #76�0�, by Evert R. Swanson. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:7.)t P.P�. MOTION by Langenfeld that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of rezoning request� ZOA �#76-03� by Evert R. Swanson: Rezone I,ot 19� except the East 190 feet thereof, and except the West 17 feet taken for highway purposes� from C-1 (gener�l office and limii;ed businesses), and the West. 1Lt7.71� feet of Lot 18, from R-1 (single family dVrelling areas), a11 in Auditor�s Subdivision No 129, to R-3 (general multiple family dwellings), to a11ow a condominium-type development, the same being located at the intersection of Central Avenue ar�d 73rd Avenue N.E. with the following stipulations; 1) Every effort be made to maintain the setbacks as shown in exhibit C, and 2) All the necessary studies be made on behalf of the assess-. ment procedure. � Rirs. Schnabel said she thougnt that perhaps the stipulations were premature. She said this hearing was strictly on the rezoning request� and thought consideration of the stipulations might fa11 under consideration of the prel�minary plat or the totanhouse development plans. Mr. Langenfeld agreed. Mr. Langenfeld AAltivIENDID the ri0TI0AT to recommend approval of the rezoning request ZOA #76-03 by Evert R. Swanson without the sti � Bergman. pulations. Seconded by Mrs. Schnabel said she thought it would be wise to point out that the majority of the adjacent neighbors did concur with the rezoning request as indicated by their petition. UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting a,ye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDRATIC�N OF A PROYOSID PRELIAIINARY PLAT, P.S. #76-08 except the East 190 feet thereof� and except the T�Test 17 feet taken for highway purposes, and the �7est 1lt7.7�.feet of Lot 18, all in Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, to a11ot•r the development of a 36 unit townhouse site� the same being located at the intersection of Central Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E. Mr. Evert R. Swanson� property owner� and Mr. A. R. Olson, architect� ti�ere present. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by I,angenfeld� that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on consideration of a proposed preliminary plat, P.S. #76-08� Central Townhouse Addition, bv Evert R. Swanson. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 9:20 P.M. ,-•� Planning Commission Meeting - Segtember 22� 1976 Page 9 Chairperson Harris stated that this would entail a new legal description, and ^ Mr. Swanson asked if that meant putting it into simpler language. Mr. Harris -�- replied yes� they Vrould just be cleaning up the legal description. Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Swanson if he had a replat plan, and he replied he had no other documents other than what had already been discussed. Mr. Harris asked if he was replating, and Mr. Swanson replied not tr�at he Imew of. Mr. Langenfeld pointed out the Planning and Zoning Form on page 27 of the agenda, signed by hir. Swanson. Mr. Harris noted he had also paid the fee. NIr. Haxris said he was wondering why a replat was needed, and asked if somebody at Staff level had requested a replat. Mr. Swanson said he didn�t know. Mr. Leek said he had no other information other than what was in the agenda. Chairperson Harris said he thought they would be bringing the legal description into one lot because they had parcels of two different lots, and the legal description was very unwieldy the wa� it read now. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission close the Fublic Hearing on consideration of a proposed preliminary plat, P.S. #76-08, Central To�anhouse Additian, by Evert R. Swanson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Public Heari.ng closed at 9:30 P.M. P��r. Langenfeld said it was his opira.ion that since they were lacking the specifics as fax as the rep].at description. they could not make a decision. Chairperson Harris said he thought it would be proper at th�s time to recommend approval of the preliminary plat, if that was the Commission's wish, and refer to ;�� exhibit C. - MOTION by LangenfeTd, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of :a proposed preliminary plat, P.S. �`76-08� Central Townhouse Addition� by Evert R. Swanson, as indicaied in exhibit C: A replat of I�ot 19, except the East 190 feet thereof, and except the West 17 feet taken for highway purposes, and the West 1l�7.71� feet of Lot 18, all in Auditor's Subdivision No 129, to allow the development of a 36 unit townhouse site, the same being located at the intersection of Central Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E. ASrs. Schnabel stated that she was a little upset that Staff'Yhad no lmowledge of what was goi.ng on at this point� and that the Chairman of the Commission did not have any information an this either. She said she felt Staff should have informed the Chairman since the person who normally services the Commission couldn't be present. She added that she felt they were shooting in the dark, and didn't really know for sure what was intended. She said she could not vote in favor of the motion because of that. Mr. Leek said he appreciated Mrs. Schnabel's concern' and sa.id that part of the fault was he had failed to ask the appropriate questions during his briefi.ng. �te stated his understanding was that t}le situation was understood� but apparently it wasn't. Mr. Haxris commented that it hadn't occurred to him to delve into it further. Mr. Langenfeld said he was certainly in agreement with Mrs. Schnabel, but since this would be a simplification of a legal description he didn't think it should be something that should hold back anything they had already staxted moving �� forward. Airs. Schnabel stated that was just an assumption as to what this was about; it appeared that nobody lmew for sure what the request was really for. Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 10 Chairperson Haxris said he agreed with Mr. Langenfeld� and as long as the n recomriendation would be tied to exhibit C� he didn't see where there was any problem because that located the buildings, the landscaping and everything on the property. Mrs. Schnabel said that was really relevant to item 3 on the agenda� and Mr. Harris stated that they could all be tied together. Mr. Bergman stated he thought there was more involved in the preliminary plat than what they were discussing. For example, he said, he would like some additional confirmation on utilities, any easement requirements and drainage problems. He stated that with that in mind he felt it would be proper to defer action on this item until they got a preliminary plat with those things checked out by administration. Mr. Langenfeld stated he wished they would have a Staff Report available when they took on projects such as this. I�Ir. Laaigenfeld WITHDRE4d THE MOTIOId. P�IOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning �ommission table the consideration of a proposed preliminary plat� P.S. �76-08, Central Town- house Addition, by Evert R. Swanson, subject to receipt of a preliminary plat including Staff input with regaxd to drainage, utilities, and also review oi assessment-type items including streets� curbs, sewer, and water relative to ?3rd St. Upon a voice vote, all v�oting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Harris stated that �his item would be tabled until October 6t,h� and info .�ed Mr. Swanson this action would probably not delay him because the City Council would have to se-E a heari.ng for the rezoning. ^, 3. T-#76-03, 2'OWNHOUSE DEVELOPMEIJT PLANS. BY EVERT R. S'rJANSON: 36 Unit Townhouse Development for Central Townhouse Addition. NOTE: See Appeals Commission minutes of September 1K, 1976, wi.th the recommendation to Council through the Planning Commission of approval of the variance from 5 acres to 3 acres for this townhouse development. Mr. Evert R. Swanson� property owner� and P�Sr. A. R. Olson, architect� were present. Chairperson Haxris asked what size, initially� the trees in the landscaping would be. Mr. Olson replied the landscaping would be a combination of berm� fence, and trees; the-_us�al type of planting. He stated the trees would be recommended by a nursery, the evergreens being about four to six feet. r7r. Olson added that the other types of deciduous trees would vary in size according to species. Nirs. Shea noted there were trees on that property now, and asked if any effort would be made to try to save them. Mr. Olson replied that ever�r effort would be made to try to mai.ntain as many as possible. . Chairperson Harris asked what the exterior finish on the buildings would be� and Tir. Olson replied they intended to use tex�ured one-eleven, which was a commercial wood siding. He added that the buildings would be stained, which would weather better than paint� and the roofs would be regular asphalt shingles. Mr. Swanson added there would possibly be some brick facing on the lower paxt � of the buildings, and anything other than what was shown on the plans would just � be an improvement in appearance. Planning Commission Meeting � September 22, 1976 Page il � Chairpersori Harris asked in what direction the garages were going to face� and � Mr. Olson replied that would vary according to what particular building he � was referencing. He showed the Commi.ssion on the plans the different ways the garages ��ere situated� thereby not having a long row of garage fronts on the street. Mr. Bergman stated he would like to Imow what the $7_O,OOO difference was between a$�.0,000 and �60,000 tovmhouse, and particularly if there were any plans to use different construction materials between that range of price. He was wondering if this was including or excluding fi.�:tures and appliances, or if � the difference had to do with the size of the unii:s� and so on. Mr. Olson said that a lee�aay of $20,000 was established because they had no contractual estimates as to what it i�rould cost to build a building-, and witri inflation prices for building costs were changing tremendously. He said this was more or less a figure to work with. Mr. Olson added that a$1�09000 house might have no brick, one bedroom and one bath� whereas a$60,000 home might have brick, two bathrooms, three bedrooms� e�c. Mr. Swanson added that �he intention was not to cheapen any of the construction. , Mrs. Schnabel asked if the guest parking would be in the center areas between the garage axeas, and r7r. Olson replied it would, and also aprons were provided in front of tlie garages for additional parking. N1rs. Schnabel noted that these taere single car stalls, and asked where an occupant would park his second cax if he had one. PZr..Ols�n sa;d he would have to park it in �ront of his first car's parking st.all. P�1rs. Schnabel sa.id her concern stemmed from the � fact that if an owner had two caxs and one had to sit out, and if tliey or someone else had guests over� there could be a problem with�congestion oi cars in that area. She.added that there might be a safe�y hazard as far as fire trucks and ambulances getting in and out. PZr. Olson said there would be ample room on the street where.cars cauld also park, but he didn't lrnow if the Townhouse Association would allow paxking there. Chairperson Harris noted on page 3� of the agenda tl�e plans stated 36 sin�le garages, 108 si.ngle aprons, and a total oi 1!�!� parking spaces. He asked Aqr. Olson if they were proposing 1!�!� parking spaces within the development, and Mr. Olson stated that according to his plan that was correct. Mrs. Schnabel asked if he could identify where those 108 ap�ons were,, and I�Sr. Olson said he would have to plead ignorance. Chairperson Harris stated that if this was recommended to Council for approval, it would be in order to stipulate that a more detailed.parking and plat plan layout be provided than what they had now as exhibit C. • r3r. Bergman said he would like to pay some recognition and compliment to Mr. Swanson and Mr. Olson because they had put a lot of thought into the plans� and the plans represented good and professional efforts in most cases. He added that they had obviously spent a great deal of time on them and had done a good job. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of T-�76-03, Townhouse Development Plans, by Evert R. ^ Swanson: 36 Unit Townhouse Develop�nent for Central Townhouse kddition� referencing exhibits C& D� and with the understanding that this is townhouse construction intended for owner occupancy� witM two stipulations: Planning Commission Meeting - September 22� 1976 Page 12 1. That as the property is developed from building 1 through subsequent buildings� the landscap'ing� including fencing� be completed as � construction stages are completed. 2. That prior to Council view the parking proposal be clarified with regard to identifying the total parking as indicated on exhibit C. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING.RE�UEST: ZOA #76-05, BY WYMAN SMITH: Rezone the Easterly 200 feet of Lot 13, except the Northerly 30 feet thereof; also the Easterly 50 feet thereof� Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, from R-3 (general multiple family dwellings), to C-1 (local business axeas), or C-2 (general business areas), to allow the construction of a speculative building to be used for offices and assemblies, generally located on the South side of Norton Avenue N.E. where it intersects tia�ith Central Avenue N.E. Mr. Leroy B. Smith' property owner� and Mr. Wyman Smith� attorney, were present. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by 5hea� that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on a rezoning request, zoA #76-05, by Wyman Smith. Upon a voice vote� a11 voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 10:05. N1r. Leek stated that there were a couple of concerns th � Staff had regardi.ng this, and t,*as some�rhat uncertain about hoi,r they feel it should go. He said ,.� that Mr. Boardman and �Ir. Clark felt that ideally the area in question should ' be industrial since it is surrounded by industrial (he referred the Commission to the maps on pages I�0 and 1�1 of their agendas); however, there were presently single-family dwellings in the area. Ntr. Leek said the feeli.ng had beer_ expressed that if there zaas an ideal location for an apartment structure in the city, that would be it. He added that there was no one recommendation regarding the property as fax as Staff w�.s concerned. Mr. k�yman Smith stated that AZr. Leroy Smith had owned this lot for more than fifteen years� and the taxes and assessments were now $900 a year. He saa.d that in spite of Staff's suggestion that tr�is would be ideal for apartments� the pro�erty has been for sale for an apartment siie for 15 years and no one had put together a package where it could be developed for apartments. He said that something had to be done with it, and Mr. Leroy Smith thought there was a need for some retail shops to serve the public that is in that area. Mr. Wyman Smith stated there was a very definite market in Fridley for an assembly room that wedding parties could rent and public assemblies convene. He said the assembly room would be on the second floor, and that could also be modified into offices if there was a need. He stated that probably this would be an offic building, as Mr. Leroy Smith was talking about finding a place for accountants and that type of thing. He presented the Commission with a rough ske�tch of the floor plan of the building. Mr. Langenfeld stated this request confused him a bit. He said there was nothing wrong zaith a rezoning request from R-3 to C-1 OR C-2 (one or the other)� but ,�--� Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 13 ^ he had never seen a request like this before. Mr. Wyman Smith said this had � come about because he had filled out_the form C-1, had seen Darrel Clark� and � Mr. Clark had suggested making C-1 or C-2. He stated he thought C-2 gave them a little more selection, but they would be satisfied with C-1. Mr. Langenfeld noted that a"speculative" building was mentioned� and said that implied this building would go up and if it didn't work out something else would be tried, and so on. Mr. Tr7yman Smith said that the term speculative in the market meant that there wasn�t a buyer. He said it would be financed and built, and then a buyer would be found to o�m the building. Mr. Bergman referred to the map on page 1t1 of the agenda, and asked if all of the property in the �ahite rectangle was now undeveloped or unoccupied. rtr. Leek replied that portions of that property contained single-family dwellings and an apartment building. Mr. Bergman referred to page 1�0, and asked what the present use was of lots 9, 10, 13 and any other large portions of that property. Mr. T,�yman Smith answered that lo�s 10 and 13 were vacant, and lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 were all single-family houses. He said there were a total of eleven residences on I�orton, and south of that property was Medtronics. Mr. Bergman asked what the zoning taas in the area circled on the map on page ltl, and Nlr. Leek replied it was zoned R-3 and had been changed to that in 1963. Mr. Wyman Smith stated that the zoning at one time was C-1, and that the residences on Norton had been there a long time. Cindy riabel, 12�1� Norto:� Avenue r'�.E., stated that everyons on the block felt it was a residential area. She said that two years ago it was all open, and ',;� no�r Medtronics had a park�ng lot right next to her yard. She said she was wondering ��here parking for the proposed building would be, and she assumed they had plans for both lots. r1rs. Mabel stated the proposed plans would . certainly deteriorate the neighborhood, and added that the houses were not old as her house had been built in 1961. Mr. Leroy Smith stated he just owned that one piece of property; the other property was in litigation and he had nothing to do with that. He said that it would just be an office building of 50' X 110', consisting of two floors, and there would be plenty of space on the lot to accommodate the building and the parking. Mr. Jerxy Sympson� 1175 Norton Avenue N.E., asked if Mr. Smith had sat down and figured out how many vehicles could be parked in this space. Chairperson Haxris said he would like to clarify one thing; they could not use the rest of the lot for parking in total. He explained there were certain green area and setback requirements that the City required. Mr. Ronald J. Risk, 750 Ione, Spring Lake Park, asked what percentage of the lot would be allowed for parking. P�r. Leek read the City Code which stated that off-street parking stalls shall be provided in the ratio of one stall for each three seats provided in such an assembly hall. He explained that if the hall would accommodate 300 people, that �rould necessitate 100 parki.ng stalls, and that didn't include office parking. Mr. Bergman determi.ned that 8 additional spaces would be required for the of�ice, or a total of 108 parking spaces would be necessary in total. Chairperson Harris said that if they tried to have a meeting ha11 and an office together, it would be awfully tight; but if the building was used totally for � offices they might make it on parking. Mr. Risk asked if the street could be utilized for parking since Qld Central wasn't a very busy street in the evening, and Mr. Harris replied they did not encourage on-street parking. Planning Commission Meeti.ng - September 22� 1976 Page 1� Mr. Earl Dunbar, 12�5 Norton Avenue, �sked where the access would be. Chair- ^ person Harris replied it could be on either one or both streets, probably bbth, but there was a minimum distance from the corner that the driveway could be. Mr. Leek stated that was 75' from the right-of-way. Mrs. JoAnn King, 1301 Norton Avenue N.E., stated she was opposed to this building because she thought it would be an invasion of her privacy. She explained she had just lost many trees to the Dutch Elm Disease which made her lot less private than it was, and she felt there would not be enough parking places and she would have cars lined up in front of her house and she didn't want that. Mr. Dunbar said they were talking about an assembly hall where liquor would be consumed, and this meant 100 cars coming in and out of that lot with the people being in no shape to drive. He said he was vrorried those people would find a street that was a dead-end street, and would run into problems turning their vehicles around, and so forth. He stated he didn't see where this would be of any betterment to the axea, and he was totally opposed to any type of assembly place. � r2rs. Mabel stated that even if nothing was presently being done about the lot next to this one, since it would be zoned Comriercial eventually another type of building would go up and there wouldn't be paxking for that, either. She added she felt they were opening up a whole bag of problems. Mr. �)yman Smith stated there would not be any parking problems, and the plan would be built wai.thin code. He explained when they talked about the number of � 300 for assembly, this was because the code had set that as maximum. He ' continued that if the assembly hall worked out and this became practical and feasible as a business venture� it would have to be measured down. He said if there �ras only room for 50 cars, then there would only be spaces for 50. He added that the code had been very carefully drawn to accommodate this sort of thing, and these plans were flexible. He said that NIr. Leroy Smith was not asking to put up a McDonald's Drive-In, and he had to do samething with the lot. Air. Wyman Smith said that it seemed to him that an office building would be an improvement over almost anything they could have there, and he thought it was feasible and practical. Mr. Dunbar said that to cite an example, the Frontier Club had a parking lot, and yet any night of the week 25 to 100 cars could be found parked on Central Avenue and the side streets, and teaxing up and down Central like it Vras a race track. He said that this would be the same type of assembly place with the same type of clientele� and asked how they could keep the cars off the streets. Nir. Wyman Smith stated he was fa.miliar with the Frontier Club, and explained that was grandfathered in before the code was updated. He said the code iaas now changed, and this wasn't going to be a Frontier Club. He added that at the present time there was only one place to go in Fridley� for a wedding party� and a community of 30�000 deserved to have a community building that could be used for that purpose. He stated that rir. Leroy Smith might change his mind, and if he could rent both floors for offices he would. Mr. Bergman said his observation was that a key hang up on the rezoning request ^ was with the idea of the assembly hall and a concern as to the type of activity � Planning Com,nission Meeting - September 22� 1976 Page 15 � that would go on there�: and the traffic over-flow and traffic problems. Mr. Bergman said that Mr. Smith was right in saying the code �aould restrict what �' � he could build there within the constraints of how much parki.ng they could work out of the lot, which apparently hadn�t been worked out yet at this point. He said that secondly, it would seem conceivable that there was some risk on Mr. Smith�s part in that this zoning request could get approved and that when he worked out the amount of parking spaces available with setbacks and green areas as requ�red by code and city administration, he might find there.weren't enough parkzng spots to accommodate the building. Mr. Bergman said he would then have to be restricted to that, so ichere �aas some risk � involved in not having this all put together at this point. He added that it would seem the assembly hall which would need 100 parking spaces was out of con�iext with the size of the property. Mr. Louis C. Gray, 1170 Norton Avenue N.E., stated that he felt the traffic problem was the greatest concern because it t�ould vary, and he was also worried about drunken drivers in the area. Ruth J. Norton� 1252 Norton Avenue 1V.E.� said she was against the assembly hall because the amount of cars going to a place like that couldn't be determined. She said they felt it would be a terrible thing to have in their residential area with a11 those people drinking and causing the residents problems they shouldn't have to put up with. Mr. Langenfeld asked under which categor� the assembly hall would fa119 C�1 or C-2. Mr. I,eek replied i�t could be either, and the diiference depended °"�, on the capacif.y of the hall. He explained that urider 300 would be G1 and over 300 would be C-2. Mr. Bergman said they were considering Central Aver�ue as one :boundary street and a primarily residential street on the other side of the property as a boundary� and this added some additional concern to the parking situation. He stated that the code requirement•for the assembly hall which was one sta11 for each seating capacity of three was a code minimum requirement, and in a cor�dition where parking was a particular problem Council could request something additional to that. He explained he was referring i�ack ico the assembly ha11 and a capacity of 300. He said the code might say a minimum number �f paxking stalls of 100� but it was entirely conceivable that with a capacity of 300 there could be 300 cars, and that would be taken into consideration. Mr. Risk stated that at the last �our weddings he had attended' there were usually three people per car and many times two couples per car. He said that if some of the other halls were looked at that had a capacity for 300 people, that many cars wouldn't be found in the parking lot. He added that he didn't see any conflict between the affice parking and the hall parking because the office would be closed at 1�:30 or 5:00 and assemblies didn't staxt until 7:30 or 8:00. N1rs. King stated she thought the building would stick out like a sore thumb in that axea because all the residences were one story structures with large trees. She felt it should come down to a one-story building to fit in more � aesthetically with the neighborhood. Mr. Smith explained that it was a split- entry building� so would actually be only a story and a ha1f. � Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 16 Mr. Langenfeld said he Vrished to point out to the Commission and the citizens that he fully realized the situation the property owner had here because he� was getting tired of paying taxes on property he couldn't utilize; however, the whole intent on this rezoning was to build the office spaces and the assembly hall with hopes to sell the property and make a profit. After that, he said� the Lord only knew what this would turn into. He stated he was definitely agaa.nst the assembly hall part of the proposal. Chairperson Haxris asked Pfr. Wyman Smith if he recalled what the circumstances were when this property Vaas rezoned. from C-1 to R-3. Mr. Smith replied that went way back very eaxly before Highway 65 was put through and Old Central was the main thoroughfare, and that area was one of the business sections. He said he suspected it was zoned R-3 by the first major comprehensive zoning plan. Mr. Leek said he would have to disagree with that to the extent that it was rezoned to R-3 in 1963. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Leroy Smith if at one time he had contemplated an apartment structure on that property, and he replied yes. He said the y had the plans all drawn for both lots for !�2-units. hir. Wyman �mi:th said he thought someone who had an option to buy the land may have instigated the rezoning. �"'� Mrs. Schnabel said she felt they �aere kind of.grasping in the dark here. She stated she would feel much more comfortable in making a decision on this if tbey could see the actual architectural plan.s on this. Mrs. Schnabel stated she felt the petitioner himself was unclear in a number of areas, and she would prefer that they continue this discussion at another ti.me when the petitioner had actual plans whic:� could be seen by the Commission and the neighbors shotai.ng,..� the number of parking stalls, office spaces� etc. She said that at this poi.nt they were being asked to grant a blanket rezoning on something the petitioner himself is not clear on what he �rants to do. Mr. Leek said that in answer to the question regarding zoning, the ordinance which was passed in August, 1963, changed that area in question from R-1 to R-3. He then read to the Cammission the code on setback requirements to adjacent districts. The rear yard could not be less than 25', where a side yard abuts a street of a corner lot the side yaxd requirement was a minimum . of 35', and the other side would be 15'� Chairperson Harris noted it would be very difficult to fit that building on the lot, and agreed with PZrs. Schnabe]. that he would also like to see a plat plan of the building. Mr. 4dyman Smith asked why Staff hadn't worked this out with them. He stated they paid $155 for this request and thought that Staff should communicate with them and work it out with them. Mrs. 5chnabel asked if Staff had given them copies of the code perti.nent to C-1 and C-2� and Mr. Wyman Smith said they were offered that information. He stated it was true they didn't know exactly what they wanted, but their aim was to try to use this lot. He said that if this possibility d:idn't make any sense, they would try something else. He explained that rir. Leroy Smith wanted to have some lrnowledge if this could be rezoned before he hired an archite�t, as that usually involved a commitment of more than $1,000, and he wanted to avoid that until he found out if this proposal made any sense. He stated he thought they needed to work with Staff on this� and explai.ned that he hadn't actually asked them for any help to this point. Mr. I,angenfeld stated that he thought they could relate to item #t� as a rezoning � Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 197d Page 17 � request� and not actually a construction approval, and could take it from there ��`, --� with stipulations. Mr. Bergman said that with parcels of land of substantial � size and of continuous zoning and without concerns for parking capacities, he � would agree with Mr. Langenfeld. However, he said� with a parcel of land this small and with the kind of proposed occupancy that had been mentioned, he thought concerns were logical in regard to the kind of activity and the parking question. He added that with concerns for those two items he personally didn't feel in a position to feel positive about the rezoning at this point. Mr. Langenfeld noted that the fee was $155, which was a sizable amount of money. �ie said he agreed with Mrs. Schnabel in trying to obtain more concrete ideas for the uses of this property� rather than denying outright the request for rezoning. He said he also felt they were in the dark with regaxd to this item. Mrs. Schnabel explai.ned she was not necessarily asking the petitioner to go out and spend $1�000, but with the information that had come out at this meeting and with review of the zoning ordinance with regard to putting the building on this particular site� she thought the petitioner himself c,ould possibly come up with a structure the size he wanted and that would fit the setbacks the City required. She thaught he alse°might want to put a little more thought into if he still wanted to pursue the assembly hall idea with the lrnowledge of the parki.ng requirements. Mrs. Schnabel said that perhaps if she hadn't heard an assembly hall was planned, she would be a little more disposed to act on the rezoning,� but in light of what the neighbors had said she would be reluctant to vote for a rezoning. She added she taould be more ,..� inclined to vote for a tabling motion_to give the petitioner time to reassess the situation. Mr. Langenfeld agreed completely, and said that at this point his vote would also be a denial. He suggested they could come up with a better idea that would be more feasible. rir. Sympson stated that he realized Mr. Smith had owned the lot for 15 years and wanted to get his money out of it. He said that if A7r. Smith could draw up a plan and make it attractive and fit on the lot with no parking problems, this would be completely agreeable. He added that then he would have no objection to the rezoning� and would be in favor of anything that would bring less people into the area. Mr. Leroy Smith stated that he thought the building would fit in completely with what was along Central Avenue and with Medtronzcs. He sai.d they had been asked to bring a survey and a rough plan, and �that is what they did. He stated that he hadn�t anticipated any problems with the neighbors and didn't iaant any problems with them. He added that he could see no use in tabling this, and said he would like to withdraw the request. Chairperson Harris stated he wished Nir. Smith would consult with his attorney before he made that request. Air. Wyman Smith stated that an attorney only did what his client requested, but he did wish to poi.nt out that one concern his client had was trying to do some- thing this fall before the frost came in. Chairperson Harris sai.d that before he closed the Public Heaxing he wanted to mention that he had been playing with some figures and he could only get about � Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 18 12 or 13 parking spaces on that lot a.long with the building, with the requi,red �� setbacks and green areas that must be maintained. He stated that even in the paxking lot the City required a parking stall to be 10' x 20' in size� and there must be a place to back out of 25' to get out of the parking stall. He sa.id that in trying to lay it out several different ways, the maximum he could get in parking stalls was 12 or 13. � Mr. Risk said they might as well throw away the plan that was submitted since it wouldn't fit, and would try to come up with a building that would fit on the lot and meet codes. He stated that they were trying to avoid a time lapse, and once it was rezoned it would be easy to fit a building on there. Chair- person Harris said that he couldn't in good conscience vote for a rezoning without lmowing what would be on there. Mr. Langenfeld asked if this request would be good for six months if it was tabled, and Chairperson Harris said that was correct, but if it was denied the petitioner could not return for six months to make another request. Mr. Bergman asked what affect the removal of the request would have with regard to fee� and Mr. Harris said the peitioner would lose the fee. Mr. Leroy Smith stated that since he would have nothing to lose� he would like the request to be tabled. MC�TION by Bergman, seconded by Shea� that the Planning Commission close the Public Heaxing on Rezoning Request ZOA #76-05, by ;dyman Smith. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 11:25 P.r�. °"�: MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission table Rezoning Request ZOA #76-05� by Wyman Smith, until the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. • 5. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. �76-06 BY EVERETT MADSEN: Split Lots 9 and 10, Block , Rice Creek Plaza North Addition, so the new property line runs at an angle 6.1�0 feet from the existing NorthUresterly corner of I,ot 10, to 36 feet northeasterly of the �•Jesterly line of Lot 9, as per survey of record with the City, Parcel A describing the new lot line for Block 10� 246 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E., and Parcel B describing the new lot line for Block 9� 250 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. Mr. Everett Madsen was present. He stated that he was the owner of Parcel A, and this request t�as a mutually agreeable situation between the two neighbors. He explained he had this house built when he was in Los Angeles, and the builder made a mistake. He stated he felt it was a logical request. Mr. Leek sa.id that it was Staff's opinion that the request made sense� and was not objectionable to them. Mr. Bergman asked if both owners of Parcels A and B•were present, and Mr. Aiadsen stated that the owner of Parcel B, r4rs. Murphy, was not interested in attencling the meeting. R1r. Bergman asked if there was anything in writing from her, and Mr. Madsen said he was told that wasn't necessary. Mr. Bergman stated that from ^ what he could see, approval of this request would reduce the size of Parcel B, � Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 19 ^ and the owner o? Pa.rcel B ought to therefore testify in writing that she. agrees _ to the shrinking of that property. Mr. Madsen said he hadn't known it was � necessary to have her signature, but he wouZd get it. Mr. Aiadsen asked if it was any concern of the Planning Commission or the City Council the amount of funds that would exchange hands. Chairperson Harris explained that in Minnesota it would be necessary to give Mrs. rlurphy a dollar and other valuable considerations to make it legal and binding, but it was no�concern of the Planning Commission or Council how much money exchanged hands. MOTION by She2,, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of I,ot Split Request L.S. �}76-06, by Everett Madsen: Split Lots 9 and 10, Block 1�, Rice Creek Plaza Narth Addition, so the new property line runs at �n angle 6.l�0 feet from the existing.Northwesterly corner of Lot 10, to 36 feet northeasterly of the Z�►esterly line of Lot 9, as per survey of record with the City, Parcel A describing the new lot line for Block 10, 21�b Rice Creek Blvd. N.E., and Parcel B describing the new lot line for Block 9, 250 Rice Creek Blvd., N.E., with the stipulation that Mr. Madsen obtain a written statement from Mrs. Murphy stating this is a mutually agreeable situation. Ugon a voice vote, all eoting aye, the motion caxried unanimously. b. LOT SPLIT RE�UF,ST: L.S. �`76��7- BY FRANK VOTHs Split the Ulest 210 feet of Lot 9, Auditor's Subdivision Ido. 9, into three parcels as follows; Parcel 1(5801 pxthux Stree-t. N.E. ) The South 8�. fe�t of the ��est 210'�: "� Parcel 2(580� Arthur Street N.E.) The North �80 feet of the South 120 feet of' the �rdes;� 210 feet: Parcel 3(�809 Artht?r Street I��oE,) The ti�Test . 210 feet of Lot lt9, except the South 160 feet thereof: a�l.measured along the West line.of said Lot �;9, and all parcels subject to an easement for road purposes over the West 30 feet. Nlr. Frank Voth was present. Mr. Leek stated tYiat Staf'f had no problem with the lot split itself, but felt there were two considera*,.ions. He said that.Staff felt perhaps this should go to the Parks and Recreation Cornmission as currently the garage on Parcel #3 was two feet on paxk property, and also, there was a road easement of 20' going through �he middle of that garage. He added this was a11 zoned R-1. Mr. Vot.h stated that Mr. and AZrs. Jacob Wiens had lived on the praperty since 19�0� and they would like to be able to straighten out the matter of the gaxgage and the lot spl.it. Ho�;ever� hs said, at the current time they had Mr. k�'iens' abstract being continued at Anoka Title, and added that wasn't done Yor many yeaxs. He showed the Canimissioners on the survey where Mr. Wiens' property was� and which progerty Y�as now being dedicated by Darrel Farr as park property. rir. Voth stated that he would like to take care of the matter of the lot sp3it first as he wished to build a house this fall,. and would immediately thereafter take care of the other matter at a later date following any recommendations from Council. ^ Ghairperson Harris commented that the lot sizes appeared to be more than adequate, and asked if there was any necessity for drainage or utility easements. Mr. Voth Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 20 replied that services were in and power lines were up. Mr. Bergman stated that he was of the impression that the intent here was to establish Paxcels one and two for building purposes, and that these parcels were on the East side of Arthur Street; the gar�ge infringement was on the wildlife center; and the park dedication from Darrel Farr was on the East end of the property. Mr. Voth said that vras correct. Mr. Harris askEd if access would be off of Arthur S�reet, and Mr. Voth replied that was correct. Mr. Bergman asked Mr. Voth if he had been talking to City Administration with regard to the right-of-way and the infringement, and Mr. Voth answered he had. Mr. Leek said that actually there were three considerations, the third being the minor consideration of the shed. Nir. Voth explained that :�u. Wiens did not use the shed, but did keep up the maintenance on it.in order to keep up the appearance, even though it was not on his property. Mr. Bergman asked if it was Mr. Voth's in�ention to get back to Darrel Claxk regarding alternatives for the two considerations, and Mr. Voth said he would. Mrs. Schnabel asked who owned lot 1�5 to the North, and l�ir. Voth replied that was park area. � MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of I,ot Split Request L.S. #76-07 by Frank J. Voths Split the West 210 feet of Lot l�9, Auditor's Subdivis?on No. 1�9, into three paxcels as follows: Parcel 1(5801 Arthur S'creet N.E.) The South 80 feet of thp Z+1est 210': Parcl 2(5805 Arthur Street R.Ee) The North 80 feet of the South 120 feet of the West 210 feet: Parcel 3(5809 Ar'thur Street N.E.) The West 210 feet of Lot 1�9, except the South 160 feet thereof: all measured along the Gdest line of said . Lot 1�9, and al� paxcels subject to an easement for �i road purposes over the tidest 3Q feet, and requesting of r1r. Voth continued communication with City Administration concerning two somet�hat related elernents: 1) right-o��way, and 2) infringement on paxk property. Upon a voice vote, all noting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission direct the encroachment of the garage on Paxcel #3 to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unaniMOUSly. Chairperson Haxris declared a recess at 11:50 P.P7. and reconvened the meeting � at 12:10 A.M. 7. WR.ITTEN SURVEY FOLICY Mrs. Shea noted that this iaas the same information that had been received at the last meeting9 and the Commission had just requested that it be made into written policy. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea� that the Planning Comtnission concur with the Administrative Policy on $urvey Requirements as written. Upon a voice vote, ali voting aye� the motion caxried unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 21 ^ 8. REVIEW OF PROPOSID MAINTENAI�CE CODE MOTION by Shea� seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission table the review of the porposed maintenance code until the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 9. CONTINUED: DISCUSSION ON GARAGE REO,UIR.ENIENTS FOR SINGLE FAZ�ILY HOP9ES MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the Planning Review on Single Family Garge Requirements. Upon a voice vote, a.7_1 voting aye, the motion caxried unanimously. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission table the discussion on garage requirements for single family homes until the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 10. CONTTNUID: HUMAN DEI7ELOP;'fENT GOALS AND OBJECTNES P�10TION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planni.ng Commission table the discussion on Human Development Goals and Objectives�until the next meeting. Upon a voice vote� a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimouslyo � 11. RECEIVE HUNIAN RESOURCES COr7MISSION MINiTTES: SEPTEMBER 2, 1976 rSOTION by Shea, seconded by Sclznabel, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the.September 2, 1976 Human Resources Commission meeting. Mr. Langenfeld noted on page 51 the review on goal areas for human development, and stated he was glad to see somebody was working on it. He asked if.this was actually going to be proposed to the Planning Commission� and Mrs. Shea replied it was simply their input to the Planning Commission. Mr. Langenfeld commented that the Planning Commission should bear this in mind when they discussed Human Development Goals and Objectives. Mr. Bergman suggested it would be pertinent to request Staff to include pages 51 and 52 of the Human Resources Commission m:i.nutes in the next agenda under the discussion of goals. Chairperson Harris said that with regard to the Teen Center, they have had several meetings and were drataing up the bylaws and articles of incorporation to operate under. He stated they had met and looked at the facility� and it taas his opinion that the facility was very inadequate. Mr. Harris said they were endeavoring to work with the District 11� schools to obtain a different location, but were meeting with some resistance from their staff. He added that hopefully this project would be off the ground and they would be able to hold elections for their Board early next month. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting a}re, the motion caxried unanimously. � 12. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION rfINUTES: SEPTII�IBER 15, 1976 MOTION by 5chnabel, seconded by Bergman, that the Pl�nning Commission receive Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 22 the minutes of the September 15, 1976 Appeals Commission meeting. ^ Chairperson Harris commented that it seemed to him that lately they had been - getti.ng a lot of petitioners throngh here that weren't very well prepared. UPON A VOICE VOTE� a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. - Mrs. Shea stated that she didn�t want to insult anybody, but she did have a complaint about this Commission. She said she thought they wasted a lot of time because the Commissioners did not go to look at the property that �as to be discussed beforehand, and she felt that maybe they could do their ho:��e- work a little bit better. NIr. Bergman said that he would like, through the minutes, to request of City Administration that steps be taken to more promptly type and provide minutes from the Community Development Commission. For example, ne sa�d, their meeting was a week ago tonight, and he didn�t lmow Vrhy �neir minutes couldn't be before this Commission with that amount of tirie to type t?:erc. He requested that some attention be �iven to that. ADJOURNriENT : MOTIQN`by Langenfeld� seconded by Shea� that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Haxris declared the Planning Commission meeting of September 22, 1976� adjourned at 12:32 P.j�• eY �'-animous i"� vote. Respectfully submitted, �-; ` � ^ � � ! , �r, .. J Sherri 0'Donnell Recording Secretary � �