PL 05/06/1987 - 30663�"%i
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COPIP�ISSIOPd P�IEETING, MAY 6, 1987
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Billings called the P�ay 6, 1987, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 7:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Mer�bers Present: Steve Billings, Dave Kondrick, Bruce Bondow (for Dean Saba),
Sue Sherek, Donald Betzold
Merabers Absent: Richard Svanda
Otl�ers Present: Jim Robinson, Planning Coordinator
Jock Robertson, Community Development Director
Joe P�aertens, 144 River Edge Way
Michael � Dorothy Gustafson, �81 - 66th Ave. N.E.
Qernard Scholzen, 480 F�irmont St.
David J. Sinigaglio, 4875 - 3rd St. N.E.
Dick Olchefski, 195 - 632 Way N.E.
Sandy Olchefski, 195 - 632 Way N.E.
Uonna O1son, 6430 East River Road
�, Bernadette Benson, Midwest Super Stop
APPROVAL OF APRIL 22, 1987, PLANNING COMP�ISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by �1r. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Betzold, to approve the April 22, 1987,
Planning Commission minutes with the following amendment: Insert between
Items 1 and 2: "Public Hea:r�ing: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #87-05,
by M-B Properties". This public hearing was originally scheduled for April 22, 1987,
but by the petitioner's request (who was not pres�nt at the A�;r:°.il 22 meetingj,the
public hearing was held over until �he May 6, 1987, Pl�nning Commission meeting.
Upon a voi_ce vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the motion
carried unanimously.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #87-05, BY
M-B PROPERTIES: Per Section 205.18.1, 6,,2, of t e Fridley City Code, to
allo�w offices not associated with the principal use; per Section 205.18.1,B, 9,
of the Fridley City Code to allow exterior storage of materials and equipment
on Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 2, Ca6`� Realty Addition, generally located south
of 83rd Avenue and west of University Avenue.
Mr. Billings stated this item was scheduled for the last meeting, but at the
petitioner's request was held over until this meeting.
MOTION by P1s. Sherek, seconded by f�r. Betzold, to waive the formal reading of
� t e pu lic hearing notice and to open the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION �EETING, MAY �:, 1987 PAGE 2
�
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the motion
carried unanimously and the public hearing open at 7:36 p.m.
Mr. Robinson stated the property was located on the southeast corner of 83rd
Ave. and Main St. The zoning was M-2, heavy industrial, surrounded by heavy
industrial on the west, commercial zoning on the south, commercial zoning on
the east, and just recently there was a reaoning on the north to R-3 which
was a proposed 358-unit apartment complex.
Mr. Robinson stated the proposal was for three multi-use office/war�house-
type buildings. They are three separate tax parcels at this time.
Mr. Robinson stated the parking was approximately 1-500 sq. ft. which was a
speculative parking�ratio for this type of development. It would allow for
approximately 45% office use and still enable the rest of the space to be
rented as warehouse and have enough parking.
Mr. Robinson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations:
l. Apply for building setback variance from 83rd Avenue and process
concurrently with special use permit.
(f�r.� �obi nson stated because 6f �ttr1� rezoni ng of the. property across the street
� �ta,1�=3; it set up a situation where a setback of 100 feet from a street right-
of-way would be required for industrial buildings abutting a right-of-way
adjacent to residential. So, the buildings located at 90 ft. setback and
35 ft. setback to the right-of-way wauld be in variance to that building set-
back code,;� � variance would be prpcessed through the Appeals Commission.)
2. Provide and record joint driveway easements between Lots 3, 4, and 5 where
common use is planned. Owners to agree prior to Council approval. Ease-
ments recorded prior to first building permit.
3. Provide improved facade plans for staff approval ten days prior to Council
review. �
4. Provide screening for loading doors on Phase I building through installa-
tion of approved plantings, along 83rd Avenue, with Phase I construction.
(P9r. Robinson stated the phasing for these buildings was not certain at this
time, so they were asking that this screening be done along 83rd Ave. with the
Phase I building so there would be immediate screening from the right-of-way
to the residential district.)
5. Provide three decorative masonry screening walls to screen loading doors,
one at each building.
6. Provide eight foot high opaque fence around storage area in Phase I
�.., construction.
PLt�NNIfdG COMP�ISSION P�IEETING, MAY 6, 1987 PAGE 3
�
7. Developer to supply to City tenant type and buildng area calculations
prior to each occupancy to monitor buildir�g usage and parking supply.
Occupancy of building not to exceed parking supply.
8. Landscape plan to be refined and approved by Staff prior to Council
approval.
9. Provide for ��lanting_ islands in front of each building on revised
plans.
Mr. Betzold stated that if the buildings were in�ended to be built in phas�s,
and maybe the other two buildings might never be built, what would happen with
the rest of the space between Building 1 and the landscaping on 83rd Ave.?
Mr. Robinson stated it would just be a natural grassy area that would have to
be mowed.
Mr. MaQrtens stated his intent at this time was �o improve the soil, take out
the,pea�, ar�d use sand to bring it up to grade and grade it off. It was his
in�ent to improve the Phase III area over a period of time as materials became
available. He stated all three lots have very bad soil.
��Ir. Maertens stated he had a problem with stipulation #4. He was not in favor
r� of the landscaping along 83rd Ave. with the Phase I construction. That land-
scaping was quite a way from the building. Building plans could change over
a period of time, and he really thought it would be money poorly spent to
landscape that area at this time. The residential buildings were one-half block
away from the building. The loading docks would be of decorat�ve block. A
lot of business cen�ers similar to this really have the loading area right in
front where people can service it. It is a combination service area and office
area, so he did not think these loading doors would be particularly offensive.
Mr. Maertens stated right now this is a tentative landscape plan. Things�
could change, driveways could be relocated, and the buildings could get
slightly re-oriented. Two years �'rom now they could be tearing out landscaping
they just put in. He strongly felt it was wasted resources to put in that
landscaping at this time. New landscaping was not going to conceal these
loading doors on that side anyway, especially from a three-story apartment
building.
Mr. R�birison stated the apartment building would start occupancy in the fall.
Of course, the landscaping plans were tentative, but there should be some
screening. Landscaping was required regardless of the type of use, and in the
event a driveway needed to be realigned, trees could be moved. He stated it
was obvious that it would be difficult .to screen anything from a second or
third story of the apartment building, but regardless of what goes in on the
property, a 20 ft. setback was required and that has to be landscaped. He
did not think it was an unnecessary or unfruitful investment.
�
PLANNIfJG COMP�ISSION MEETING, MAY 6, 1987 PAGE 4
n
Mr. Maertens stated another- stipulation (#5) he would like to see deleted was
�he one providing three decorative masonry screening walls to screen the
loading doors, one at each building. He stated this building was going to
be quite attractive, and he did not think the loading doors were unattraEtive,
so he did not see the need for the masonry screening walls. Other buildings
similar to this do not have screening walls to i�ide their loading doors.
Mr. Robinson stated two masonry walls would be very short. The one wall that
faced the residential area would be about 30-35 ft, lo�g, He really felt
the masonry screening walls were an important eomponent in screening the
loading dock doors.
Mr. P�laertens stated another thing he would like to point out was that it was
his understanding that h�e would be required to have an irrigation system
in the landscaped area. An irrigation system would have to be located in
conjunction with the Phase II building, instead of Phase I. It would be out
of sequence to put in irrigation in Phase I to take care of those plantings.
Mr. Robinson stated tiiat an,irrigation system could be put in with an extra
coupling so that when Phase II was developed, they could disengage from the
Phase I system and haok up to Phase II.
MOTION by P�s. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Betzold, to close the public hearing.
n Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the public
hearing closed at 8:03 p.m.
Ms. Sherek stated that regarding the landscaping along 83rd Ave., she really
felt that landscaping would have to go in at �r�e point, and she would be
inclined to agree with stipulation #4 that it be placed in there now.
If they were looking at a possible 5-10 years before Phase II, she did not
think it was fair to ask the residents in the apartments across the street
to look at the back side of the building for that period of time. /�s far as
the irrigation system, that would have to be put in for Phase I anyway.
MOTION by P�r. Betzold, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council
approval of Special Use Permit, SP #87-05, by M-B Properties, per Section
205.18.1, B, 2, of the Fridley City Code to allow offices not associated
with the principal use; per Section 205.18.1, B, 9, of the Fridley City Code
to allow exterior storage of materials and equipment on Lots 3, 4, and 5,
Block 2, Caba Realty Addition, generally located south of 83rd Avenue and
west of University Avenue, with the following stipulations:
l. Apply for building setback variance from 83rd Avenue and process
- concurrently with special use permit.
2. Provide and record joint driveway easements between Lots 3, 4,
and 5 where common use is planned. Owners to agree prior to
Council approval. Easements recorded prior to first building
permit.
�1 3. Provide improved facade plans for staff approval ten days prior
to Council review.
�„� PLANNING COMP�IISSION MEETING, MAY 6, 1987 PAGE 5
4. Provide screening for loading doors on Phase I building through
installation of approved plantings along 83rd Avenue with
Phase I construction.
5. Provide three decorative masonry screening walls to screen loading
doors, one at each building.
6. Provide eight foot high opaque screening fence around storage area
in Phase I construction.
7. Developer to supply to City tenant type and building area calcula-
tions prior to each occupancy to monitor building usage and parking
supply. Occupancy of building not to exceed parking supply.
8. Landscape plan to be refined and appr-oved by Staff prior to Council
approval.
9. Provide for two planting islands in front of each building on
revised plans.
Uqon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to allow Stipulation #1
regarding the variances to go straight to the City Council from the Appeals
Commission rather than having to come back through the Planning Commission
first.
�'~`� Mr. Billings stated he felt the Commission was cognizant of the fact that the
residential development across the street has, in fact, had an impact on this
property after the time Mr. P�laertens entered into his purchase agreement; and
at this time, the reason for the 100 ft. setback was so the residential
property wasn't buffered right up against unattractive looking properties.
He thought the variances had to be tied to a good looking landscape plan.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson �illings declared the motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Robinson stated the variances would go before the Appeals Commission on
May 26 and both the variances and special use permit requests would go to
the City Council on June 1.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPfCiAL USE PEW'4IT, SP
DAVID SINIGAGLIO: Per Section 205.07.1, C, 1, of the Frid
allow a second accessory building on Lots 28 and 29, Block
Addition, the same being 4875 - 3rd Street N.E.
#87-07, BY
ey Ci ty Code to
1, Plymouth
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to waive the ��rma1 reading
o�f� publ i c heari ng noti ce and to open the. =pztbl i c heari ng.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Bil�ings declared the motion
� carried unanimously, and the public hearing open at 8:10 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 6, 1987 PAGE 6
�
Mr. Robinson stated this request was for a second accessory building, a
624.sq, ft. attached garage. �The property was�located on 3rd St. just south
of 49th Ave. The property was zoned single family. -There was an existing
paved driveway that leads to an existing garage (352 sq. ft.) at the rear
of the lot. The petitioner was proposing a back door in the new garage so
that the rear garage could also be�accessed. The petitioner has expressed
a.desire to clean up his property. There has been some problem with outside
storage in the past, and the new garage should help alleviate that problem.
Mr. Robinson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations:
1. Garage addition facade and roof to match house.
2. No outside storage of construction material is permitted in yard.
Mr. David Sinigaglio stated he needed the new garage to store his trailer
he pulls behind his truck. He is in the construction.business and keeps a
lot of his cons'truction equipment and supplies in the trailer. Right now he
has to keep the trailer in the driveway or yard. It was kind of an eyesore,
and he wanted to keep it in the garage also because of vandalism. He stated
he lived in a nice neighborhood, and he wanted to improve his property and
ya rd .
�"`� MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the public
hearing closed at �:13 p.m.
MOTIUN by P�r. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council
approval of Special Use Permit, SP #87-07, by David Sinigaglio, per Section
205.07.1, C, 1, of the Fridley City Code to allow a second accessory building
on Lots 28 and 29, Block 1, Plymouth Addition, the same being 4875 - 3rd
Street N.E., with the following stipulations:
1. Garage addition facade and roof to match �iouse.
2. No outside storage of construction material is permitted in yard.
Upon a voice vote, all voting �ye, Chairperson Billings declared the motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Robinson stated this item would go to City Council on P�ay 18.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIIT, SP #87-08,by
MICHAEL GUSTAFSON: Per Section 205.07.1, C, 1, of the Fridley City Code,
to allow a second accessory building on Lot 1, Block 1, Meadowlands Addition,
the same being 881 - 66th Avenue N.E.
P�OTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to waive the formal reading
,-�,, of the public hea�f� notice and open the public hearing.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the motion
carried unanimously and the public hearing open at 8:16 p.m.
PLMINING COMPIISSION MEETING, MAY 6,- 1987 PAGE 7
r'�'\
Mr. Robinson stated this property was located just north of 66th Ave. and
to the north ar�d west of Able St, on Meadowlands Park. The proposal was for
a second accessory building, a garage, to�be located to the rear of the
house. He stated there was yuite a steep slope along the side of the
petitioner's house where the driveway would be. He was-not sure of the
petitioner's plans but Staff was recommending the driveway slope be reduced
as much as possible.
I�r. Robinson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations:
1. Garage facade to match house.
2. Driveway to be at least three feet from adjoining lot.
3. Driveway slope to be reduced as much as possible.
4. Owner to secure NSP authorization of garage placement prior to
construction.
Mr. Gustafson stated that regarding stipulation #1 to have the garage facade
match the house, he had thought of using a different type of facade for the
garage. He stated-:his house has white steel siding, and he thought that the
garage in its proposed location with the trees might look better with a
P'`� redwood facade. However, he would do whatever the City wanted.
Mr. Bandow stated he agreed with P�1r. Gustafson. He stated he thought the
redwood would have less of a visual impact than the white when viewing the
property from the park.
Mr. Robinson stated the intent of that stipulation was to ensure that the
second accessory building was compatible with its surroundings.
Mr. Billings stated he felt they could probably change that stipulation and
let Staff approve the garage facade.
MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the
public hearing closed at 8:25 p.m.
MOTION by P�r. Betzold, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council
approval of Special Use Permit, SP #87-08, by Michael Gustafson, per
Section 205.07.1, C, 1, of the Fridley City Code to allow a secand accessory
building on Lot 1, Block 1, Meadowlands Addition, the same being 881 - 66th
Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations:
1. Garage facade to be approved by Staff.
2. Driveway to be at least three feet from adjoining lot.
3. Driveway slope to be reduced as much as possible.
� 4. Owner to secure NSP authorization of garage placement prior
to construction.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 6, 1987 PAGE 8
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Robinson stated this item would go to City Council on May 18.
4_ PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIf�INARY PLAT, P.S. #87-03,
OLIVER OLSON ADDITION, BY DONNA OLSON: Being a replat of Lot 1, Block 1,
Viet's 2nd Addition, and Lot 26, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 23,
according to the plats thereof on file and of record in the office of the
County Recorder in and for Anoka County, Minnesota, the same being
6430 East River Road N.E.
MOTION by Pnr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Betzold, to waive the formal reading
of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing.
Upon a voice vote, a�l voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the motion
carried unanimously and the public hearing open at 8:26 p.m.
Mr. Robinson stated this petition involved a single parcel of residential
property on the southwest corner of East River Road and 642 Way. The
property was zoned single family. The proposal was to split the parcel,
which included a single family existing home, into three single fami7y lots,
creating two additional builda�le lots.
Mr. Robinson stated a lot split request was reviewed by the City Council in
1982, and a copy of those minutes dated May 3, 1982, were included in the
agenda. At that time there was some �ontroversy as to the size of the lots
and also a proposed street easment which the City was requesting to run along
the west side of the property.
Mr. Robinson stated that in 1982, a lot split a�proved by the City Council
was rejected by the petitioner, and the petitioner was back at this time ask-
ing for a different subdivision.
Mr. Robinson sta.ted the proposal was for a corner lot (Lot 3) to be 73.39 ft.
in width, the middle lot (Lot 2) to be 65 ft. in width, and the resident's
lot (Lot 1) would have the balance of 128 ft. in width.
Mr. Robinson stated that as far,as lot area, Lot l was 17,177 sq, ft., Lot 2
would have 8,952 sq. ft., and.Lot 3 would have 11,064 sq, ft. The code
required that corner lots be 80 ft. in width and that all lots be a minimum
of 75 ft. in width. All lots must have an area of 9,000 sq, ft, so the plat
as proposed had -3_ variances for lot width (Lot Z and 3) and one for lot
area for the middle lot (Lot 2).
Mr. Robinson stated Staff was proposing that the lot widths and lot areas be
as follows:
�, Lot 1(resident's lot) - 121 ft. wide; lot area - 16,262 sq. ft.
Lot 2 middle lot) - 70 ft. wide; lot area - 9,646 sq. ft.
Lot 3 corner lot) - 75 ft. wide; lot area - 11,285 sq. ft.
�„1 PLANNIfJG COMMISSION f�IEETING, MAY 6, 1987 PAGE 9
Mr. Robinson stated a�variance would still be needed on the corner lot and
middle lot for a lot width of 5 ft.
Mr. Robinson stated that in 1982, the City Council approved a 76 ft. width
for the corner lot (Lot 3), 60 ft. width for the middle lot (Lot 2), and
84 ft. width for the petitioner's lot (Lot 1). He believed the 84 ft. width
must have been a mistake in the minutes because it did not add up to the
total wi�dt� faf �th�e ;three 41 ots, . _ � � .
Mr. Robinson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations for
both the prelir��inary plat and the vacation (Item 5 on the agenda):
1. Provide for the following -lot widths: A) corner 75 feet; B) middle
70 feet; C) westerly approximately 121 feet.
2, Provide a 25 ft. street easement along west of property with 25 ft.
triangle at intersection with 642 Way.
3. Provide 10 ft. utility easement (in addition to proposed street ease-
ment) along west and along north of plat.
4. All future electric service to be underground.
�� 5. Two park fees to be paid with building permits; Council to prescribe
amount.
6. Lot width variances are approved with subdivision; corner from 80 ft.
to 75 ft., middle from 75 ft. to 70 ft.
7. Imp�ove entrance to existing house by eliminating old garage door and
re-orienting entry.
(Mr. Robinson stated that in 1983 a garag� permit was issued for a new garage
which now faces 64z Way. Originally when the garage was built, it was
oriented towards East River Road. Along with that 1983 building permit,
there was a stipulation that the existing garage be converted to living space
and that completion should be accomplished within 90 days after the garage
was completed. So, it has now been several years since the garage was built,
and that should be taken care of.)
8. No access allowed on East River Road.
Mr. Robinson stated the road easement that was being proposed along the
westerly side of thet:p�roperty was for a future road. There were three houses
on that side that were serviced by a dirt drive to East River Road, and there
was a master plan (included in the agenda) that would include a 50 ft, right-
of-way (25 ft. from the park and 25 ft. from the petitioner's property)
culminating in a cul-de-sac which would open up access to potentially five
� properties.
� PLANNING C01�1�+fISSION MEETING, MRY 6, 1987 PAGE 10
Mr. Billings asked what the sizes of the lots were across the street on
642 Way.
Mr. Robinson stated those lots were 100 ft. in width.
Ms. Donna Olson stated that because of the fact that she was changing the
position of her home from facing East River Road to facing 642 Way and the
way the house was situated on the lot, cutting h.er sideyards down and provid-
ing an easement across the back of the 1ot would leave her with r�o sideyards
or backyard. She stated she has a large four-bedroom house that will accommo-
date a large fami]y but no yard. If the house was built to face 642 Way,
it would probably have been built closer to 64%2 Way, but it was sitting back
farther than the required 35 ft. setback.
Ms. Olson stated she did want to finish the construction they have started.
The smaller her lot becomes, the less money she will get from Twin City
Federal to help finance the finishing of the construction. She stated the
City Council approved a 60 ft, width lot for:ihe middle lot in 1982. All
she was asking for now was a 65 ft. width. She did not mind giving the ease-
ment in the back as long as she had a decent yard around the house.
Mr. Betzold stated they are stuck with the �arameters that are existing.
With a fairly large house on Lot 1, by squeezing down the other two lots,
�` it made a fairly small lot for Lot 2. Why not split into just two lots?
Ms. Olson stated she has already incurred so much expense in doing all this
that it would not be feasible financially.
P��. 0lson-stated s�le would also not object to the easement as long as she
would be exempt from any assessments for a road if a road ever goes in there.
Mr. Robinson stated that was a stipulation made by the City Council in 1982,
that there would be no future assessment to Ms. Olson's lot unless she used
the street. �
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Betzold, to close the public hearing.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the public
hearing closed at 8:46 p.m.
Mr. Betzold stated the City Council was trying to avoid substandard lots
created by lot splits. In looking at this, he saw the exis�ing house was on
a 128 ft, wide lot, but a portion of that would be taken up for a future road.
He thought a comparable lot could be created next to it, and he would be more
comfortable with two lots rather than three lots.
Mr. Kondrick stated he agreed, that too much was trying to be put on this
property.
n
/'1
�
�
PLANNIfJG COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 6, 1987 PAGE 11
M�. Olson stated these lots have already been sold, subject to the lot split,
and plans have been approved by the City for houses that will fit on those
lots. The houses would be a comparable value to her home.
Mr. Kondrick stated that even though that was the case, he would have to vote
in favor of the stipulations for the revised lot widths as recommended by
Staff.
Mr. Billings stated he agreed with Mr. Betzold and Mr. Kondrick, He thought
it would be more appropriate to end up with two lots, each being approximately
130 ft. in width which wou�ld be consistent with the 100 ft. wide lots across
the street. The peti,tioner had indicated that this would not be economically
feasible. The Planning Commission was not obligated to do things which were
motivated by financial criteria; however, at the same time, some concessions
were made by the City Council in 1982, and he thought the compromise made by
Staff on the lot widths was a fair compromise. It was not what they would
like to see, but it was something they could probably live with. He could go
along with the stipulations as recommended by Staff.
Mr. Billings stated he would like to see the Planning Commission recommend
to the City Council that the park fees be $750/lot for two lots, rather than
$1,500, because of the additional expense the petitioner has gone to for the
replat and the petitaoner's willingness to work out a compromise.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council
approval of Preliminary Plat, P.S. #87-03, Oliver Olson Addition, by
Donna Olson, being a replat of Lot 1, Block 1, V�it's 2nd Addition, and
Lot 26, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 23, according to the plats thereof
on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Anoka
County, P�linnesota, the same being 6430 East River Road, with the following
stipulations:
1. Provide for the following lot widths: (1) corner 75 ft.; (2) middle
70 ft.; (3) westerly approximately 121 ft.
2. Provide a�5 ft. street easement along west of property with 25 ft.
triangle at intersection with 642 Way. Petitioner not to be assessed
for street improvements provided petitioner does not access new road.
3. Provide a 10 ft. utility easement (in addition to proposed street
easement) along west and along north of plat.
4. All future electric service to be underground.
5. Two park fees to be paid with building permits; each park fee to
be $750.
6. Lot width variances are approved with subdivision; corner from
80 ft. to 75 ft., middle from 75 ft, to 70 ft.
7. Improve entrance to existing house by eliminating old garage door
and re-orienting entry.
8. No access allowed on East River Road.
Upon a voice vote, Billings, Kondrick, Bondow, Sherek, voting �ye, Betzold
voting nay, Chairperson Billings declared the motion carried by a vote of 4-1.
,�
�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, I�AY 6, 1987 PAGE 12
Mr. � llings stated he wanted the City Council to note that at least three
Planning Commission members were in favor of two lots rather than three lots.
Also, they would like the City Council to note that the garage that a permit
was issued for in 1983 has not yet been completed.
5. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION RE
To vacate a 6 foot �rainage and uti
Addition, generally lo�ated at 6431
SAV #87-03, BY DONNA OLSON:
ity easement created by Veit's Second
East River Road N.E.
Mr. Robinson stated there was presently a 6 ft. utility easement that ran
across the �#�dle of the existing lot. This would have to be vacated in order
to build a new house. There were no uiilities in that easement. The only
recommendation they had was from NSP and Nortel Cable that the easement be
replaced with a 10 ft. easement along the west and along the north side of
the property, The prior stipulations with the plat included the provision
for that easement and also that there be underground electrical service.
There were no further stipulations.
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recorarnend to City Council
approval of Vacation Request, SAV #87-03, �y Donna Olson, to vacate a 6 ft.
drainage and utility easement created by Veit's �econd Addition, generally
loca�ed at 6431 East River Road N.E.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Robinson stated this vacation request and the preliminary plat would go
to City Council on June 1.
6. CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT, E.S. #87-03, BY BERNADETTE BENSON OF MIDWEST
SUPER STOP: To split off all that part of Lot 13, Revised Auditor's Sub-
division No. 103, Anoka County, Minnesota, according to the plat on file
and of record in the office of the Anoka County Recorder, lying easterly of
the easterly line of Lot 2, Blo¢k 1, Waynes First Addition and westerly of
a line drawn from a_point on the easterly line of said Lot 2, Block 1,
distant 1.5 feet southerly of the northeast corner of said Lot 2 to a point
on the easterly extension of the southerly line of said Lot 2, Block 1,
distant 45.0 feet east of the southeast corner thereof, generally located
at 8100 East River Road N.E.
Mr. Robinson stated the property was located on the southwest corner of
Fairmont and East River'�ad. In 1984 a special use permit was issued for
the construction of a gasoline facility. He stated the petitioner,
Bernadette Benson, had done a very nice job of rehabbing that corner. After
moving into the building, they discovered their property line was not identical
to the fence line west of the building but ran at a drastic angle to what
would be the side and back yard of the adjacent family house. In order to
clean up this problem, they have agreed to split the property west of the
fence and will be selling the property to the neighbor who will combine that
with his lot which will then bring his lot up to code. After the split, the
lot area for the gas station will be 21,800 sq. ft. which was more than adequate
by code. Code requirement was 20,000 sq. ft.
� PLANNING COMMISSI:6N MEETING, MAY 6, 1987 PAGE 13
Mr. Robinson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations:
1. Execute and return street easement agreement (17 ft, along East River
Road) prior to recording lot split.
2. Provide dumpster screening prior to recording lot split.
3. Provide hedging along Fairmont Street with edging, weed barrier, and
mulch prior to recording.
4. Subdivided parcel to be added to residential lot to west concurrently
with recording.
MOTION by Mr. Bondow, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend to City Council
approval of Lot Split, L.S. #87-03, by Bernadette Benson of Midwest Super
Stop, with the following stipulations:
1. Execute and return street easement agreement (17 ft, along East
River Road) prior to recording lot split.
2. Provide dumpster screening prior to recording lot split.
3. Provide hedging along Fairmont Street with edging, weed barrier,
and mulch prior to recording.
4. Subdivided parcel to be added to residential lot to west
^ concurrently with recording.
Upon a voice vote, all voting �ye, Chairperson Billings declared the motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Robinson stated this would go to City Council on May 18.
7. RECEIVE MARCH 2� 1987, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Betzold, to receive March 2, 1987,
Parks & Recreation Commission minutes.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the
motion carried unanimously.
8. RECEIVE APRIL 2, 1987, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION �INUTES:
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Betzold, to receive April Z, 1987,
Human Resources Commission minutes.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the
motion carried unanimously.
9. RECEIVE APRIL 9, 1987, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the April 9, 1987,
� Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the
motion carried unanimously.
�.:,1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 6, 1987 PAGE 14
10. RECEIVE APRIL 21, 1987, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES:
h10TI0N by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the April 21, 1987,
Environmental Quality Commission minutes.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the
motion carried unanimously.
11. REC�IVE APRIL 28, 1987, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the April 28, 1987,
Appeals Commission minutes.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the
motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Bondow, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the May 6, 1987,
Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
,-'"1
Res ectfully su mitted,
t,(�
Ly e Saba
Recording Secretary
r�
�-- -��,.
�
�
� < . P
�, �i��
� rrn�-
, ��
��. /�I1g,�`r�,1/� �i�� �/U�i� ���� �j��
�'r.cr��-�zP � �.�z�f .�tr�--- ��l - �O � �" � �j � ��
�� '
; ��v � �
�� � � �-�� ��-��- �� .
� ��-[�6rJ � �1�����cv ��S�S — �`�� 5� l��
' ��G�� ���e���S�G% � �/S`- � �� !�f-,� ��
J�zu�C. � � 9�— (; .3 �a �
, L:��. L��. �
f `
�