PL 06/06/1984 - 306210
r•.
� �
��!%�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JU.NE 6, 1984
CALL TO ORDER•
,.
Chairwoman Schnabel called the June 6, 1984, Planning Comnission meeting to
order at 7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Ms. Schnabel, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Kondrick, Mr. Minton, Mr. Saba
Members Absent: Mr. Oquist, Mr. Nielson
Others Present: Jim Robinson, Planning Specialist
John Flora, Public Works Director
Mary Erickson, 650 Ely St. N.E.
Ron Miller, 953 Mississippi St. N.E.
John Dunphy, 155 Stonybrook Way N.E.
John Hitchcock, 9516 Tyler St. N.E.
APPROVAL OF MAY 23, ]984. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
^ MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TD APPROVE THE MAY 23� 1984,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRZTTEN.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CAAIISi10MAN SCHNABEL DECLARED T8E MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #84-10, BY
Y ERICKSON: Per Section 0. 4. ,D, o ri ey City Co e, to a ow
t e construction of a detached garage, 24 ft. by 32 ft., in CRP-2 zoning
(flood fringe), on Lots 34, 35, 36, Block V, Riverview Heights, the same
being 650 Ely Street N.E.
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECOIVDED BY MR. MINTON� TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING
ON SP #84-10 BY MARY ERICKSON.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECIIARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Robinson stated the property is ]ocated on the south side of Ely Street in
the Riverview Heights area. The petitioner is proposing to bui]d an accessory
bui7di�ng (a garage) in the rear yard. The foundation is in at the present
time. The setbacks are adequate and do meet code. The special use permit
is required because this accessory building will be in the flood fringe.
Staff would recomnend the following stipulations if this request is approved:
.,,� 1. Need to waterproof to required elevation of 825.25 ft. This
may consist of two addit9onal courses of block or the use of
water resistant wood.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 6, 1984 PAGE 2 ���
2. Structur.e should be securely anchored with anchor bolts.
3. Driveway to garage should be paved with concret�.or asphalt
material.
4. Garage to be completed by Sept. 1, 1984.
5. Petitioner will eliminate the continuing outdoor storage and
curbside parking problems.
Mr. Minton asked why the stipulation that the garage be comp]eted by
Sept. 1, 1984.
Mr. Robinson stated Staff felt that because of the nature of the problem
they are trying to correct here, the garage sho�ld be completed imrnediately.
Staff felt a date of Sept. 1 was ample time for completion by the petitioner.
Ms. Schnabe] asked the petitioner, Mary Erickson, if she had any comments to
make.
Ms. Erickson stated she was concerned about cost, and she was assuming the
two additional courses of block would be sufficient. She stated they do
intend to have the garage built imnediately, so she did not see the need for
a completion date of Sept. 1, 1984 as a stipulation of the special use
permit. She stated there was no prob7em with paving the driveway as almost
all of it was concreted at this time. ^
Ms. Schnabel stated that regarding the outside storage and parking problems
that currently exist, would this garage eliminate those problems?
Ms. Erickson stated the garage would be used for storage and this would
eliminate the problems.
MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY l�t. MINTON� TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON
SP �84-10 BY MARY ERICKSON.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC
AEARING CLOSED AT 7:46 P.M.
Mr. Saba stated he had no problem with this request as long as the stipulations .
were met.
Ms. Gabel stated she thought this construction was an excellent idea, and it
may be a way of solving a problem that has been going on for a long time.
She felt the stipulation of Sept. 1 for the completion of the garage was a
necessary stipulation.
�'lOTION BY MR. MINTON� SEC�VDED BY 1�2. KONDRICK� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT� SP #84-10� BY MARY ERICKSON�
PER SECTION 205.24�4�D, OF FRIDLEY CITY CODE� TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
DETACHED GARAGE� 24 FT. BY 32 1'T. � IN CRP-2 ZOIVING (FLOOD FRINGE) � ON LOTS
34� 35� 36� BLOCK V� RIVERVIEW XEIGHTS� THE SAME BEING 650 ELY STREET N.E.� �'
WIZ7i Z'HE FOLLOWING STIPULATION5:
,� PLANNIN� COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 6, 1984 PAGE 3
Z. NEED TO WATERPROOF TO REpUIRED ELEVATION OF 825.25 FT. THIS
MAY CONSIST OF TWO ADDITIONAL CDURSES OF BLOCK QR TXE USE OF
WATER RESISTANT WOOD.
2. STRUCTURE SXOULD BE SECiII?ELY ANCHORED WITX .7NCHOR BOLTS.
3. DRI�JEWAY TD GARAGE BE PAVED WITH CONCRETE OR ASPHALT MATERIAL.
4. GARAGE BE COA�LETED BY SEPT. 1� Z984
5. PETITIONER WILL ELIMINATE THE CONTINUING OUZ'DOOR STORAGE AND
CURBSIDE PARKING PROBLEMS.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCANABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Schnabel stated this item would go to City Council on June 18.
2. TABLED: LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #84-05 BY JOHN HITCHCOCK: Split off the
Southerly 84 feet of Lot 8 H, Secon Revise Au itor s Su division No. 21,
to make a new building site at 953 Mississippi Street N.E. (Other lot will
be changed to 6530 Oakley Drive N.E.
N•OTION BY MR. KONDRICIC, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TO REMOVE LS #89-OS FROM
THE TABLE.
^ UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCXNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Robinson stated they still need the owner's signature on the lot split
request, and the owner, Ron Mi]ler, was in the audience.
Mr. Robinson stated the property in question was located on Mississippi St.
west of Oakley Drive. It was a corner lot. Previously, the northerly 81 ft.
had been split off, and at this time the petitioner was asking that the
southerly 84 ft. be split off. This lot is presently built on and the
house faces Mississippi St.
Mr. Robinson stated one of the problems expressed by the Flanning Comnission
at their last meeting was the variance situation. He stated three variances
are scheduled to go to the Appeals Co�nission on June 12. The lot split will
create a new front yard for the existing house. Presently, in the front .yard
there is an accessory garage building that would need a variance. Another
variance would be that the front yard be 25 ft. versus 35 ft., and a variance
that the rear yard be 21 ft. iversus 27 ft.
Mr. Robinson stated the proposed house on the new lot would front Oakley Dr.
Mississippi St. then became the side yard, and 17.5 ft. would be the required
setback. However, Staff was suggested that 30 ft, be provided. The adjacent
house has a front yard setback from Mississippi of 110 ft. There are similar
setbacks as they proceed westward to Jackson St. After Jackson St., the
^ houses are closer to Mississippi. He stated the side of the proposed house
would be on Mississippi and would not be consistent with the neighborhood.
He stated Staff would recommend the following stipulations if the lot split
request is approved:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 6, 1984 PAGE 4
�,
1. Approval of variances created by lot split (schedu7ed for
Appeals Commission on June 12)
2. Existing structure (now facing Mississippi) have.new address on
Oakley Dr, after lot split
3. Signed park fee agreement for one lot of $750
4. L:t split to be registered with County p�YOr to issua�ce of a building
permit. October 15, 1984 is deadline to split 1985 taxes.
5. Existing garage (accessory building in front yard) to be relocated
to side yard if it is to be replaced or substantially improved
(at 50% of garage replacement cost)
6. Owner to sign lot split and variance requests
Ms. Gabel stated she felt this was all inconsistent with the neighborhood.
She could not remember any instance where a variance was granted so a garage
could be put in front of a house. She stated the garage in front of the
existing house was the biggest problem she had with this lot split, and she
was not sure what could be done to alleviate that problem.
Mr. Kondrick stated the house and garage are already there, and that will
not change. The people who build the new house are going to see the same
thing. He stated he did r�ot have.a problem with this request since the situa-
tion is an existing situation.
Mr. Saba stated he agreed with Mr. Kondrick, but he could also understand �
Ms. Gabel's point of view.of what this was doing to the neighborhood in _
general. All of a sudden they are a7lowing a garage to be in a front yard,
and the City would be setting a precedent.
Ms. Gabel stated she also felt they put same burden of proof back on the
City if they grant this kind of a lot split, because this lot split does
require variances, and this was not a variance she had ever seen before. It
was not the kind of variance that comes because of the "lay of the 7and".
Mr. Kondrick stated he would agree if they were talking about new construction.
He stated he would consider the new proposed house more of a visual problem
than the problem of the garage in front of the existing house.
Ms. Gabel stated she thought the intitial problem started with the garage
in front of the existing house, but then it was compounded by putting a new
house on the corner of Mississippi and Oakley Dr, when the setbacks are as
far back as they are in that area.
Ms. Schnabel stated Ms. Gabel had a valid point in that the variances would
not be necessary if the Planning Commission does not grant the lot split
request. The City, in effect, is creating the variances that become necessary
to be appealed. The variances are not something the petitioner is creating,
but the City is creating them if it approves the lot split.
Ms. Schnabel asked the petitioner or the owner of the property if they had �,
any corrwents to make.
�, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 6, 1984 PAGE 5
Mr. Hitchcock stated he could see a prob�em if they were proposing to con-
struct an auxiliary building in the front yard--something the neighborhood
would be upset about. He was not sure what Ms. Gabel waS objecting to.
Ms. Gabel stated she was clearly concerned about the garage in the front
yard. She felt it was inconsistent with the Cornprehensive Plan and the total
planning for the City. The visual impact is that people cannot see the house
from the street, on7y the garage. She stated her other concern was that the
Planning Cor�nission's granting of the lot split was what was creating the
variances. If the Planning Commission does not grant the lot split, there is
no need for the variances. What is the position of the Appeals Comnission
in denying the vari�nces when the City has granted the lot split? She
stated she was very uncomfortable about granting the front yard variance for
a garage in the front yard.
Mr. Hitchcock asked if Ms. Gabel would be more willing to look at this if he
moved the garage to the side of the house.
Ms. Gabel stated, yes, she would be more willing to take a look at this if
the garage was moved to the side of the house.
Mr. Hitchcock stated he was not convinced that moving the garage was going
�,, to improve the looks of the property, but he would do whatever was necessary.
Mr. Robinson stated that if t�e garage was moved, there would be quite a
difference between the proposed house and the existing house. The petitioner
might want to consider moving the proposed house back 5 ft, to make it more
consistent with the existing house and the new house to the north on Oakley.
Ms. Schnabel stated she was very re7uctant to grant the lot split. She
honestly had a hard time visualizing a house going in on the corner of
Mississippi and Oakley in front of all the rest of the homes in that two block
area. She felt it wou7d dramatically change the nature of the street. It
was really inconsistent with the neighborhood.
Mr. Hitchcock stated that considering the fact that they are in conformance
with the homes on Oakley Dr., could °the Planning Commission impose something
that was stronger than the code?
Ms. Schnabel stated the Planning Commission can only make recommendations
to the City Council. Then all the legalities have to be handled by the City
Council who has legal counsel. The Planning Commission does not have that
legal counsel. The Planning Correnission can only go by what the Zoning Code
says which does not give them legal expertise.
Mr. Hitchcock stated that because of the demand for 7and being what it is,
he believed that at some future time it was likely that this same kind of
lot split would be proposed for the other side of the street on Oakley.
^ If Fridley wants new construction, it is going to have to work with these
types of thi ngs .
PLANNI�JG COMMISSiON MEETING,�JUNE 6; 1984 PAGE 6
Ms. Schnabel stated they did not know what was going to happen in the future.
She agreed land was not easy to come by, but she still f�lt the Planning
Comnission had an obligation to preserve the neighborhoods.
Mr. Kondrick stated that because of the trees on the lot, he did not find
this as objectionable as he would if it was up about two blocks. He stated
he did feel this was the best use for the property�as opposed to having
nothing there. He would be in favor of t�e lot split, even though it was
going to create some problems for the Appeals Comnission. However, he would
be in favor of a stipulation t�at t�e garage be moved to the side of the
existing house.
Mr. Saba stated he agreed with Mr. Kondrick. He stated this is a very unique
area, and there is not a lot of conformance in that whole area. His main
concern was the garage in front of the existing house. He would be in favor
of the lot split with the stipulation that the garage be moved to the side
of the existing house.
Ms. Gabel stated they will be creating a"monster" if this lot split is
granted and it then goes on to the Appeals Comnission.
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
AP OPR VAL OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST� L.S. �I84-O5� BY JONN HITCHCOCK� TO SPLIT OFF !"�
THE SOUTHERLY 84 FT. OF LOT 8 H� SECOND REVISED AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 21, �
TO MAKE A NEW BUILDING SITE AT 953 MISSISSIPPI STREET N.E. (OTHER LOT WILL BE
G'hiANGED Zl� 6530 OAKLEY DRIVE N.E.) � WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS:
1. APPROVAL OF VARIANCES CREATED BY LOT SPLIT
2. EXISTING STRUCTURE (NOW FP_CI1VG MISSISSIPPI ST.) TO HAVE NEW ADDRESS
ON OAKLEY AFTER IAT 5PLIT
3. SIGNED PARK FEE AGREEMENT FOR ONE NEW LOT OF $750
4. LOT SPLIT TO BE REGISTERED WITH TNE COUNTY PBIUK TO ISSUANCE QF A BUILD-
P,$1ZMIT, OCTOBER 15, 1984 IS DEADLINE TO SPLIT 1985 TAXES.
5. EXISTING GARAGE TO BE MOVED FROM PRESEiIT IACATION TO A LOCATION
SOUTH OF TXE PRESENT EOUSE TNAT IS CONTIGUOUS WITX THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
6. NEW HOUSE ON THE NEW LOT TO BE SET BACK AN ADDITIQNAL 5 FT. 3'O 40 FT.
(AS OPPOSED TO 35 FT.) FROM OAKLEY DR.� BASED UPON WNERE THE EXISTING
GARAGE IS RELOCATED.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, KONDRICK, SABA, AND MINTON, VOTING AYE, SCHNABEL AND GABEL
VOTING NAY, CBAIRWOMAN SCBNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ms. Schnabel stated the variances would go to the Appeals Commission on
June 12. The lot split request and the variances would then go to the City
Counci7 in one package on July 12.
3. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #84-07, BY BRANDON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: Split
ot , loc , City iew, in ha f and a one alf to ot 4 and one half to
Lot 6, to make two residential sites, the same being 411 ana 415 57th Place �
N.E.
r�° PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 6, 1984 PAGE 7
,
Mr. Robinson stated there are three existing lots on 57th Place, located
�ust east of TH �i47. The petitioner is requesting that t,he middle lot, Lot 5,
be split in two. and that 20 feet be tiven to each of the adjoining lots to
make two 60 ft. residential lots. The lots are each 40 feet by 140 ft. Total
square footage of the three lots right now was 16,860, yielding two lots each
at 8,430 sq. ft. Since this plat was r�corded in 1887, the Code states that
50 foot widths or greater and 1,500 sq. ft. or greater, are allowed, so even
though the proposed lots would not be up to today's code, they are acceptable
because the are was platted prior to December, 1955.
Mr. Robinson stated there are several 60 ft. lots in the area, so this would
be in scale with the neighborhood and would meet all setback requirements.
Mr.Robinson stated Staff would recommend the following stipulations:
1. Signed park fee agreement for one lot of $750
2. Houses to face 57th Place (as others on double frontage block)
3. �Lot split to be reg istered witfi the Count� orior to issuance of a
build�ng perr�it. Dctotier 15, 984 is dea ling to s�lit 1885 taxes.
Mr. John Dunphy stated he was representing Brandon Construction. He stated
he believed this was a very simple lot split. If everything goes well,
�� the builder would like to start construction the first half of July. He
� stated he felt these new homes would really improve that neighborhood.
AlOTION BY lyR. ICONDRICK, SECONDED BY 1yR. SABA, Zb RECOMl�ND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPRDYAL OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST� L.S. 1/84-07� BY BRANDON CONSTRUCTION COl�ANY,
TO SPLIT LOT 5� BLOCK 4� CITY VIEW, IN HALF AND ADD ONE XALF TO LOT 4 AND
Oh►E flALF 410 LOT 6� Tt� 1NAKE TWO RESIDENTIAL SITES, TXE SAA� BEING 411 AND
415 57TX PLACE N.E., WITX TAE F�OI.LOWING STIPULATIDNS:
I. SIGNED PARK FEE AGREEMENT FOR ONE LOT OF $750
2. XOUSES TO FACE 57TH PLACE
3. LOT SPLIT TO BE REGISTERED WITN CDUNTY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUZLDING
PERMIT. OCTOBER 15, 1984 IS D£ADLING TO SPL.LT 1985 TAXES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCNNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Schnabel stated this request would go to City Counci] on June 18.
4. RECEIVE MAY 10, 1984, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES:
N� N BY MR. SABA� SEQ�NDED BY l�i. KONDRICK� TO RECEIVE THE 1�lAY 10, 1984,
BQUSING & REDEVELppME1�1T AUT80RITY 1�lINiT!'ES.
UPON A VDICE VOTE, AI,L VOTZNG AYE, CEAIRWOMAN SCffiVABEL DECLARED TNE MOTION
CARRIED UNANII�lOUSLY.
�' ,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 6, 1984 PAGE 8 ,s-^,,
5. RECEIVE MAY 14 L 1984, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES:
,.
1�lOTIOIV BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. MINTON, Z'O RECEIVE TRE MAY I4, 1984,
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES.
Ms. Gabel stated that in reading the Parks & Recreation Comnission minutes,
she was quite concerned about the possibility that the beach house at Moore
Lake would be torn down and not be reconstructed and the possibility that
the beach would not be guarded. She stated the beach is rea7ly used, and
there are really too many peop7e using the beach and the lake to not have a
lifeguard.
Mr. Kondrick stated there were alot of questions about th� use of the beach,
the lake, and the �each house. He stated'that at this time, this is all
just discussion and nothing has been decided.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. RECEIVE MAY 15, 1984, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY 1�t. MINTON, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO RECEIVE TRE MAY 15, 1984,
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES. ,��
UPON A VDICE VOTE� ALZ VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. RECEIVE MAY 22, 1984, ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY NIF2. KONDRICK, TO RECEIVE THE MAY 22, 1984,
ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES.
UPON A VDICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. RECEIVE MAY 29, 1984, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
AlOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY MR. MINT�dN, TO RECEIVE THE MAY 29, 1984,
APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTlNG AYE� CAAIRWOMAN SCANABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIINOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT:
1�lOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MR. MINTON� TO ADJOURN 27iE MEETING. UPON A
VOICE YOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE JUNE 6� Z984�
P7JANNING COMMISSIQN 1�ETING AD.TOURNED AT 9:30 P.M.
�
Respectfully su mitted,
_�c..� /
Lyn J Saba, Recording Secretary