The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 04/22/1987 - 6913City of Fridley AGENDA FLANNIP7G �MMISSION t�EETING WEDf7ESII]4Y, APRIL 22. 1987 7:30 P. M. Loca tion: Co�mcil Ci�anber (upper level) �ar,r, ZU ORDER- ROI,L CALL: APPROVE PII�,NNING NMMISSION MINOTFS: APRIL 8, 1987 � �NSIDERATION OF A IDT SP"IT L S #87-02 BY DON RIEKEN: •••. 1- 1G To split Lot 1, Auditor's S�bdivision No. 89 into three seFarate �xircels. �e first �rcel being that part of the East 25 feet of of the West 500 feet of the North Half of the Nortl�east Quarter of the Soutl�west Quarter of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, Anoka County, hlinnesota. 7he second �arcel being that �rt of the East 225 feet of the West 475 feet of the Nozth Half of the Northeast Q�rter of �e Southwest Quartez of Section 12, Ztxanship 30, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying north of the s�uth 405.60 feet of said North Half of the Nottheast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter. Zhe third parcel being that �rt of the South 405.60 feet of the Fast 225 feet of the West 475 feet of the North Half of the Northa-�st Quarter of the Southwest Qu�rter of Section 12, 'Itr�nship 30, Range 24, Araka County, Piinnesota, the �me being 1131 - 72nd Avenue N. E. RECEIVING �3E MINUTES OF Z4iE HOUSING & REDEVII,OPMENT AUZI30RITY MEETING OF PY�RQj 12� 1987 • • • • � • • • • • • • • • ' �� REC�IVING ?i3E MII�U�S OF 7.F3E APL-EALS �MMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 14. 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YII�pW (At r1tg.) 0'IHHER BUSINFSS: : � � :�� u �� i �CITY OF fRIDLEY PLAN�IING COf4f4ISSI0il H[ETING, APRIL II, 19ii7 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson 13illings called the April 8, 1937, Planning Connission meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. ROl_L CALL: tienbers Present: Steve Gillings, Dave Y.ondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Donald Getzold �4enbers Absent: Richard Svanda Others Present: Jim Robinson, Planning f,00rdinator Ricfiarci Peterson, 247 - 57th Ptace ��.E. Charles, Faye, and flicoll Rice, 1541 Ferndale Ave. �J.E. See attached list APPRQUAL OF t4ARCH 25, 1937, PLA��fJIl�G C�I4IISSIO�J 11INUTES: MOTIDN BY A1R. KO1lDP,ICK� SECONDED AY MR. BETZOLD, TO APPRON� SHE MARCH 25� 2987� PL.1fJNING C01961755ION M.ZNUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CNAIRPERSO!1 BILLINGS DECLRP.ED TffE b10TION CARRZEi7 UNRNZ140USL3'. CO�JSIDERATIO'! OF A VACATION, SAV "II7-Ol, GY RICHl1RD PETERSON: To vacate a 33 foot street dedication between 57th Place and 57 1/2 Avenue lying east of Lot 15, Block 1, and west of Lot 1, Dlock 2, City View A�dition, all lying in the City of Fridley, Anoka County, !linnesota, generally located east of 247 - 57th Place N.E. tdr. Robinson stated the petition was by the property owner who lived adjacent to the right-of-aray and just to the west of tlie Hyde Park area which was predor:iinately a single faciily neighborhood. The petitioner had approximately 103 ft. of width o-�ith one-half of the street right-of= way. The petitioner was proposing to construct an addition to liis house which would create tlie need for a variance without the vacation of the street. Mr. Robinson stated the utility conpanies have been inforned of this vacation request, and there are sor�e utilities in the street easement. Although the City had no problens with the vacation of the street, Staff would request that a utility easement be naintained over the entire right- of-way. I�r. Robinson stated that as the Conmissioners could see fror� the area map, the right-of-4ray did not line up oiith Zi Street, so it had no function at tiiis point. The Public Works Department felt the street could be vacated with no detrinental effects at this time. a Y PLANfJIIJG COf1t^ISSION HEETI�lG, APRIL t3, 1987 PAGE 2 �dr. Bret Anderson, 241 - 57th Place N.E., stated he lived next door to Mr. Peterson anci had no problem with tlie vacation request. MOTION BY idR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MS. SHEREK� TO RECOIdMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF VACRTION� SAV i187-01� BY RICH.�RD PETERSON� TO VACATE R 33—FOOT STREET DEDZCATIOld BETWEEN 57TH PLACE AND 57 1/2 RVENUE LYZNG EAST OF IAT 15� BIACK 2, AND WEST OF LOT 1� BLOCK 2� CITY VIEW ADDITZON, ALL LYIC7G IN THE CZTY OF FRIDLEY� ANOKA COUNTY� MINIJESOSA, GENERALLY L(?CATED EAST OF 247 — 57_TH PLACE N.E.� WITH THE STZPULATZON THAT A UTILITY EASEd1ENT BE MAIN_TAINED OVER THE ENTZRE RIGHT—OF-47AY. UPON A VOICE VOTE, RLL VOTZNG AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECZ,ARED TXF, MOTION CARRIED U.NRIJZMOUSLY. t1r. 6illings stated this item would go to City Council on April 20. 2. CO�JSIDERATIOfI OF A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #II7-01, [3Y CHARLES RICE: Split Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision tJo. 92 into t�oo separate parcels. Qne being that part of the north 133.84 feet of the east 75 feet of Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision f�o. 92, subject to a street and utility easemeni over the north 30 feet. The other being that part of the east 75 feet of Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92 lying south of the north 133.84 feet, subject to a street and utility easement over the south 30 feet, the same being 1541 Ferndale Avenue I�.E. tdr. Robinson stated this lot was located on the north side of Ferndale Ave. and west of Denjamin Street. He stated it was a double deep lot located in a single family neighborhood. The proposal was to split the lot north and south, approximately half-way. The lot ��as 227 ft. in length. Mr. Robinson stated he would like to give a little history on this particular application. He stated it was the subject of quite a bit of debate in 1974 �ahen tlie Benjamin/Briardale area was platted. There was quite a bit of discussion at that time about extending the existing cul-de-sac at 61st (which would be the access for the proposed lot) west to open the other large lois in this area. There was the potential for quite a few lots to be split in ttiis area. �ne lot already had been split--to tfie 4iest from the Rice's lot. t4r. Robinson stated that at the tir:ie of the platting, the petitioners, h1r. & I1rs. Charles Rice, were not in favor of extending the road to open up the other lots. At that time there was reliance by City Staff and the developer of tl�e plat of that fact, and the area was developed vaith the cul- de-sac as it is today. Now, it would be very difficult to extend the road because there was a house that sat to the north and west of the cul-de-sac wliich was basically to the center of the road, Any road connection would have to be a winding kind of road. Because of this problem, Staff did not feel they could recommend approval of the lot split at this time, and that it would require further consideration. Mr. Robinson stated the Planning Commission members had a copy of the Mar, 18, 1974, City Council minutes, regarding this issue. t PLANNIt�G COf111ISSI0f! ItEETING, APRIL 8, 1987 PAGE 3 Mr. Robinson stated if this lot split was approved, it would either set a precedent for opening up the rest of the properties to be split or it would completely close the otlier properties off. Staff felt there should be a plan tfiat was agreed upon by all tfie neighbors. Mr:"Charles Rice stated it V�as his understanding that he had access to the northerly portion of his lot at this time. ��tr. Robinson stated I1r. Rice did have about 30 ft. of access which abutted 61st Ave. The problem o-�ith the 30 ft. was that it would not allow f1r. Rice to P�tin a city street. It would allov� a driveway into P1r. Rice's lot alone and in tfie process ��ould landlock the other properties to the west. t1rs. Faye Rice stated that back in 1974, the lot was certainly buildable then. Why was it not a buildable lot now? F1r. Robinson stated he had gone through the old plat of that adjacent property and the ninutes along Hiith the old map that reflE�cted that there was a plan by City Staff at that time to provide access to all the bac{; lots. The plan was to extend the road and the cui-de-sac to open �p everything to the west. At that time, there were eight lots ��rhich could have been developed. This plan was rejected by the neighbors and, specifically, the Rice's at that time. The existing layout of the property a�as directly due to the fact tfiat tiie City and the developer relied on the input by the neighbors that they did not viant the property developed and did not want a road put through there. f1r. Getzold stated that in the I1arch 13, 1974, City Council minutes, 'irs. Rice was qui�ted as sayiny: "Slie had purcfiased the property because of tl�e location and the large parcel...if she �va�ited to live on a square parcel adjacent to and back to back from another home, slie ��ould not have houqht Ciiis property. She said she had bought the property because they aranted breathing room." i1rs. Rice stated that ��as a horrendous meeting at that tir�e. They vtere young, and they had just moved into tfieir house. It was heautiful back there. The woods and tlie trees ti•lere �-�fiat sold them on the lot. Then, all of a sudden, a contractor was cominy in and was going to build a whole bunch of houses hack tliere, tear do�:�n trees, etc., and anyone would have been opposed to that at that tir�e. She stated their decision to split the lot was not a"fly by niqht" idea. They have tfiought it over, have been to City Hall nunerous times and have talked to various people, and up until a month and a half ago, they ��ere told tliere was no problem with the lot split. She stated it aras unders±andable that tliey ��ere upset about Staff's recortenendation. Mr. Jack Peebles stated he orm ed the lot that had been split. He had split the lot about the same time he bought the lot which a�as 33 years ago. He stated he would very r�uch like to see the road go through. fie had expressed that same opinion before at a meeting. He ti�ould like to see the Rice's lot split approved, and the wliole thing opened up for all the lots. e �� PLANWII�G COF111ISSIOtd 19EETING, APRIL 3, 1937 PAfE 4 t4r. Tin Dess, 1510 Rice Creek Dr, PJ.E., stated he owned the lot that backed up to the Peebles' lot split. He strongly objected to the road going through. If the lot split ��as approved, he would be afraid of the City setting a precedent. He t-�ould not be opposed to the Rice's lot split �iith the condition tiiat it �iould preclude the extension of 61st Ave. If any of the Commissioners haii"6een back in that area, they knew what the eievation was 1ike. The ele- vation was quite higli; and if homes were built up tliere, there would be hor�es looking into tlie riindows of other I�omes. [xtending the road ��ould certainly allow hin to split his lot, but it appeared there could be all kinds of problems in the �ray the area was developed. He bou9ht his house for the same reasons expressed by the Rice's. He felt it was the responsibility of the Planning Commission to not just open up areas for lot splits, but to plan the developr�ent of an area. He did not feeT that extending an alley��ay through tfiere tiras an appropriate �aay to utilize the area. I•1r. Robinson stated that at this time, the road could not go through because of the house that was built on the cul-de-sac, and the house Yias allowed to be built tf�ere because back in 1974 the neighbors did not 4iant a road through there. [ven if they put a 30 ft. driveway through there, there would have to be quite a curve because of the existing house, so Staff was not reconmendinq a road go tlirough there at all given the existing conditions. Pirs. Rutii Hayes, 1549 - Glst Ave. tJ.E., stated tfiey owned the ho�ase in question on the cul-de-sac. Slie stated they bought the house because it was on the cul-de-sac. They o�anted the privacy and liked the quiet area. She would be very upset if there was traffic going on alongside their house. As far as tlie lot split, if it was approved, and the house was built facing the cul-de-sac, she felt it ��ould fit in with the rest of the area, but she did not kno�a if the house could be built that �aay. She did not thinl: it would looi; right for the house to be built facing the south side of their garage. �'�r• Roger Sorsoleil, 1561 - 60th Ave. IJ.E., stated he owned the lot next to f1r. Rice on the west side. He �iould go along o-ri�h the lot split. He, too, would like to split his lot someday and maybe there could be some kind of coromon drive�aay arrangement. f•ir. Ro6inson stated there are sor,ie older situations in Fridley where tliere are corumon drive�vays, but it was the present city policy that every house and every lot have its own 25 ft. access to the street. The City strongly dis- couraged coromon, �rivate driveways. Pirs. Hayes stated she liked to think that Fridley planned this area, and they should not be having afterthoughts now. If the area was thought out and pl�inned this way in 1974, it should remain this way now. P4r. Billings stated that in looking at the 11ar. 18, 1974, City Council minutes, there o-ras considerable amount of discussion about this, and it appeared that what was done was weTl thougl�t out and was felt to be the best pian under the circumstances at that tine. At this time, the only function required by the Planning Commission was to approve or disapprove the lot split, not to recom- ment or not recommend that a road should go through there. It was not the PLAN"JIN6 C01114ISSIOt� 11EETING, APRIL 8, 1987 PAGE 5 Planning Commission's function to come up with a plan for the area. Staff's recommendation was to deny the lot split request until the petitioner can get together with the neighbors and cone up with a better plan, if at a11. Mr. Betzold stated that at the same tir�e, the Planning Comr�ission did have the responsibility to try to iake a longer range view of the entire situation. Ms. Sherek stated the Rice's ��rere before the Planning Cor�nission saying they want to be able to develop a lot that they told the City Council in 1974 they had no intention of developing, which had some effect on h rni the area �•�as developed and why Mr. ; Mrs. fiayes' house Yras located where it was. In other a�ords, at that time, the cul-de-sac was going to continue in order to permit access to all the lots under the unitial plan. Because Mr. Peebles was the only one who made that request of the honeowners, the plan was scrapped. Novr the Rice's i�ere saying they have the access to their property and they now want to split tlie property they said in 1974 they had no intention of splitting. If the Rice's had come to the City Council back then, chances v�ere pretty 9ood that tlie road configuration would have happened because at least half of the honeowners said they wanted those lots to be buildable lots. 1�1rs. Rice stated she wanted to knori if vihat happened in 1974 had anything to do �oitfi their petition for a lot split. Mr. Billings stated that what happened in 1974 would definitely affect the Planning Commission's decision, because in 1974 the actions that were tal:en by the Rice's,City Staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and the developer were rihat liad brought them to the point they are at no��. The Planning Commission could not disregard what liappened in 1974. Mr. Peebles stated he could understand what �1rs. Rice oias saying. lJhen he first built here, it was just a gravel pit, It was out in the country, and it was beautiful. fie na-1 lived in Becker, 14innesota. He stated �-lhen the Rice's r�oved in, they did not Y�ant the cul-de-sac extended, but progress ��as the name of the 9ame, and they have to open up areas that some people do not want. Back in 1974, the Rice's did not want any development. Mr. Robinson asked �ir. Peebles if he would support the lot split if the construction of the house o-rould �nake it so that he could never huild on his lat. P1r. Peebles stated, no, he 4ras in favor of the lot split only with the idea that tlie road �iould be extended. t1r. Betzold stated that in reviewing the 1974 minutes, was it a fair summation that tfie road would have gone through except for the opposition by the neiqh- bors to the City Council? I�tr. Peebles stated the neighbors did not want the road through at that time, but now it was many years later and land was valuable. PLAflNItJG COFI��IISSION t1EETIP�G, APRIL 8, 1987 PAfE 6 t4r. Hayes stated a building perr�it was issued for his house to be built, so it rnus*. have been in cor�pliance witli the way the cul-de-sac was designed. The original plan could not be implemented now because his house was in the way. Nir. Qetzold stated he �+ould be opposed to the lot split. The developr�ent as it was now �ras exactly what the Rice's fought for in 7974. To grant the lot split at this time would essentially be to the Rice's benefit, but it would also create a hardship for �1r. Peebles who in 1974 supported the road going through exactly the way it should have been done which o-ras recommended by the Planning Commission at that tine. f+lrs. Rice stated that rras 12 years ago, and they were concerned about what the developer was guing to do and then facing all the assessments. The City has done a lot of things in 12 year5. 14r. Kondrick stated he could not vote in favor of the lot split unless there was some way of opening up the other lot splits. lie would recor�mend this item be tabled until City Staff and the neighbors could come up with sor�e kind of solution. fir. Tin Dess stated he was not in favor of opening up the issue of putting the road tl�rough there. Mr. Billings stated his vieYi w�as similar to �tr. Y.ondrick's except that Mr. Y.ondrick had expressed the desire to table this item. If they were to recommend to the City Council approval of this lot split, tliey would be doing things piecemeal. He hesitated to say that the area was screaming for some kind of long range plan, because some of the neighbors' long range plan was to leave tfie area as it is now and others' long range plan was to eventually develop their lots. His recommendation was much in line V�ith Staff's reconr�en- dation, and that was to deny this particular lot split at this time and reconmend to the petitioner that he 9et together with his neighbors to try to come up with a legitimate plan for the area. It might, in fact, be some- tfiing that was some�rhat similar to what was suggested in 1974. 41hat he heard tlie Rice's saying rlas that in 1974 tliey did not think they a�ould ever want to split their property, and assessments had been a concern of theirs at that time. Notir things have changed, and they are faced with what can be done for this entire area. If the City �aas to grant the lot split without naking any pro- visions for Mr. Peebles and some of the other property owners, they aiould be landlocked forever, and forever was a long time. He had a real philosophical problen with doing that. He had no problem with the Rice's wanting a lot split, but if they were allowed to do it, then the same opportunity should be given to the other property owners wiih similar iots. Hrs. Rice stated she understand that. She stated she vrould never do anythin9 to hinder anyone else's property and that was �ahy they were before the Commission. 1 PLAidNIN6 COF111ISSION MFETING, APRIL II, 19II7 PAGE 7 MDTION BY tAR. XONDRIC%, SECONDED BY 195. SHEREK, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUPCIL DEI✓IAL OF LOT SPLZT� L.S. NB7-02, BY CHARLES RICE� TO SPLZT LOT I� AUDITOR�S SUBDIVISION 1d0. 92 INTO TWO SEPRRATE PARCELS. ONE BEIC7G TXAT PART OF THE NORTX 233.84 FEET OF THE EAST 75 FEE_T OF LOT 1� AUDISOR'S SUBDIVISZON NO. 92, SilBJECT TO A STREET AND UTILITY EASEf4ENT OVER THE NORTH 30 FF,ET. THF, OTXF.R BEZNG THAT PARS OF TNE EAST 75 FEES OF LOT 1� AUDITOR'S SUBDZVISION NO. 92 LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH I33.84 FEET, SUBJECT TO A STREET AND UTILITY EASEMENT OVF,R THE SOUTH 30 FEET, THE SAIdF. BEZNG 2541 FERNDALE AVET7UE N.E. UPON A VOZCE VOTE� ALL VOTING RYE, CNAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE �40TION CARRIED UNRP:IIdOUSLY. The Conmissioners were in agreenent that if the peti±ioner coulci get neigh- borhood support for a plan, it might be sor�etliing the Planning Cor.imission could also support. The following people asked for copies of the hiar. lII, 1974, f,ity Council r�inutes to be sent to them: Charles & Faye Rice, Tim Dess, Robert Nayes. 3. CONSIDERATIOI� OF A RESOLUTIOIJ OF TH[ FRIDLEY PLA��aIt�G COt1MI5 !ir. Robinson stated that in conjunction ��rith the expansion of a project area, it was necessary for the Planning Commission to review and conment on the expansion. Ne stai:ed tiiis had been brought up at an earlier meeting, and tlie Planning Comr�ission had been supportive of the expansion. Formal action was needed 6y the Planning Commission to amend the redevelopment district. MO.".'SON BY f�1S. SXEREK� SECO?7DED BY 19R. SABA, TO APPROVE "RESOLUTIOC7 OF THP FRZDLEY PLAN.JING COMMISSIO:7 FIIJDIIJG THE AMESdD1dENT OF THP HOUSIPIG 6 REDEVELOP— MENT AUTNORITY'S f40DIFIED REDEVEIAPMENT PLAld FOR REDEVEZAPMENT PR0,7ECT NO. 1� TNE ENLARGEt7ENT OF THE REDEVELOPMEN.T PRpJECT AREA� R?7D 2NF, A14ENDP3F•NT OF THF, TAX INCREMEITT FINANCING PL71NS FOR TAX INCRE.'dEN?' FZNANCING DISTRICTS 1J0. 2 SHROUGH NO, 8 TO BE COIISISTEN? WISH SHE COl7PREHELlSIVE PLAN FOR TNE CITY", UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CXAZRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE 140TION CRRRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIV[ t1ARCH 5, 1987, NUHAiB RESOURCES COt1i1ISSI0�! I1If�UTES: MOTION BY M5. SHEREK, SECONDED BY MR. KOr7DRICK� TO RECEIVE TXE MARCH 5, 1987, HU11AN RESOURCES COMidZSSION MINUTES. UPON A VDICE VO�', ALL VOTZNG AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTIDN CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. e � PLAf!'dIIJG COI�i1ISSI0�d �4EETING, APRIL 3, 1987 PAGE II 5. RECEIV� 11ARCH 31 , 1987, APPEALS C01"F1I5SIOtl t1INL'TES: MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECOTJDED BY MR. KONDRICK� TO RECEIVE THF, f1ARCH 31� 2987� APPEAIS COMAIISSZON I171JUSES. UPON R VOZCE VOTE� ALL VOTZNG AYE� CXAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECIJf.RED THF. MOTION CARRIED UNANZl40USLY. G. DEFINII�G ISSUES RELATED TO LOiJG RAf7GE PLAiJfJIilG O[3JECTIVES: i�r. Rohinson stated the Planning Commission had decided that it vrould be a good thing to have bi-monthly long range planning r�ee*ings. This idea �•ias to go to tlie City Council conference meeting agenda for h1arch 31, but it was buriaed off the agenda because of an already heavy agenda. I�Ir. Robinson stated he felt now was a good time to at least get started on some of the issues the Planning Commission feels tliey want to be looking at, perhaps to get to a point where they have some goals and objectives, and tfien ask the City Council to sit in on a meeting before fornally putting together a work plan. P4r. Qillings stated the City 11anager and a couple of other people indicated they did not know if not scheduling anything adrninistrative every fourth meeting �ias going to make their process elongated so that it r�ight be detrimentat to a developer. So, the Planning Commission should probably cone up orith some kind of proposal to the City Council in terrns of what they want to do on these fourth meetings and if they can,in fact, set aside one meeting out of every four for 7ong range planning. Then cone up with a list of ten�aiive things they want to be lool:ing at and discussing. Mr. Y.ondrick stated he felt every fourth meeting was reasonable to set aside for long range planning. In all fairness to petitioners, r�aybe once in awfiile, tliey would have to hear a request on that fourth neeting. �4r. Betzold stated Staff could also use some discretion in arranging their agendas. Tl�e Coranissioners generated the following 11 issues for future discussion. These issues are ranked in the order of priority (1 beinc* the highest priority, 10 being the lavest priority): 1- Identify undeveloped residential properties a�hich are either problematic, traditionally landlocked, or properties which have rezoning potential for residential use. 2- Development and function of Riverviea� Heights Park as an asset 3- Review and update Comprehensive Plan. 3- Use of City lands. 1 PLAi�IdIi�G COt111IS5I0P! 11EETI�JG, APRIL 8 1937 PAGE 9 4 - Improperly zoned properties. 5- Improve Iloore Lal:e as an asset. 6- Improve the City's identi*.y(physical). 7 - tlnautliorized junk yards. 8- Plans to replace temporary land uses. 9- Poor perception of Fridley. 10 - Unpaved drive��ays. h1r. 6etzold stated the Commission members now have listed sor�e issues. The next step ��as to define sor�e of the problems for the top 4-5 issues, tlaybe betVreen no�i and the t4ay 20th neeting, if Staff can help the Comr�ission on any of tliese issues, tiiey could provide the Conmission with that inforr�ation. �-1r. 6illings stated that at the tiay 20th meeting, the Commissioners should plan on better defining the top 4-5 issues and better definin9 what direction the Conmission would like to go on each one. 7. OTHER [3USINESS: t4r. Robinson s�ated he just �ranted to remind the Planning Corimission members ihat the public meeting on the °No Parking Dan" being co-sponsored by the League of 4Jomen Voters and tlie Planning Conmission i�ould be held on Thurs., April 16, in Community Roora I at 7:30 p.n. ADJOURIUIE�JT: M.D'"ZO:7 BY 14R. BETZOLD, SECOI]DED BY f4R. Y.OfiDRICK, :'O ADJOURil THE I+IEF,_TIIJG. UPO!1 A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIZJG AYE, CHAZRPERSON BILLII7GS DF,CLAkED THE FiPRZL 8� 1987, PL.LYNIIJG COMf475SION l�1EETING ADJOURT7ED AS 9:30 P,M. Respectfully su�ted, ; � -'Ci� Lynn Saba Recording Secretary � r � , �`��'Y ��.G7�i� ��7"I � � �� C;�-�t- �� (�.�� 9, /i�7 ;� �-,-� ✓ � �;��4,� � "� ' l �.� � % �(/'�� tG�S_ '�\ C.rc � � � T Awr� � �scN R� u� �� 7%.� r��s ; --�f��c,�rk. �� l��-� , �� .� Jack Peebles Roger Sorsoleil ¢` -� �'.� .:) , � /t riv �! v , �c_ ��.�� fiXCtQ �. ��:i�'G � . - �� t-� _ i��rl �=�L�ut��C� �?L'�' ��''� -f ��;/, �� (( ,. ✓ �S�( S7�' /��At� N.� � �i � s�t.� v�.�.�...� a � /Sia /'-CE C'l'E��c �, j 5'� - � ( "�Q �(-� . �� . �-F . /5y�- G %�� l� 1561 - 60th Ave. ��. E, i , ( ., ,��,�✓/El° �� 7'-.��.r�c6J `%; u 3-: -�L��Gc� , ��'.��-� ClTY OF FRfD�_E! 1 8431 UNIVF.H:'I'i'Y aYd. N.E. FRIDLEY, Mw �b.s�2 LOT SPLIT FORAA L.S. ��°� (612)571-3450 �1 9/ z IC7f SPLTT FEE !D v� PARK FEE RECEIPP A=L=�� 9QIIDULID PLAt1IvING QJMhIISSION MEETING IY1TE: �� SQiIDCTLID CITY �[1NCII, MEFPII�G TY1TE: PROPERTY INFORMATION pp��g: 1131-72nd Ave. �� LEGAL DESQ2IFPION: See attached survey. LOT __ SI,OCR �2ACP/ADDITIDN PRFSFNT ZCSI7DKi � i�(-�n'� -� v-rk'..c �fr �'""'\ REASGt� ft7R LOT SPLTT: A sketch c� the property and the pioposed lot split witi� ary existing structures shaan should acocmp3ny this apglication. Parcel 1, proposed sale to James Determan £or purpose of tiling I4orton Creek £rom r o . asce a� or sa e o pr per y � � p • Parcel 3� to remain for existir� business. * • * x * • * • � � • * r * r ,� * • • * ,� * * * * * * � • : : * * * * * • • * r • • OWNER INFORMATION Np�,� Haarstad Enterprises ppg�� 1131-7�d jAv, hr,, Frid�ey, t�IId 55432 p��p�,IE $ 571-3�72 SIGNF�URE `y�l�t_.c-�-�/ � I�TE 3�11�87 • • � x * : * f • * � * • � * * : * • • x t • � : * * * � * • ,c * * t � * * * * � � PETITIONER INFORMATION N�,g Don r2ieken pp�� 1131-72nd Av,� NFi, SIGNF�STRE t•� 55432 PHGNE 3/11/g7 • * * x * • * * � * * * * • • * * * � : • • ,t : * • • r� * * • * * * * • : * ,r • � � PLANNII�G QJDII'S,SSIDN : APPROJID DIIIIED IY�TE .« �! !� � � SfIAJLAT7DNS: .. • a� � � �a�� • �� :` � ,- � ; C[1Y OF FRIDLEY CIVICCEVTER • 6-331 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDL[Y'.:�11NNESOTA i�43'_ Apri1 10, 1987 1p WHOM IT NAY �NCERN: PHONF-, (61^_1571-3150 �e City of Fridle� Planning Caiunission will be holding an informal hearing on a re3uest for a Lot Sglit, LS #87-02, by Don Rieken, to sglit Lot 1, Auditoz's Subdivision No. 89 into three seFsrate �rcels. Zhe first p�rcel being that part of the East 25 feet of �e West 500 feet of the North Half af the Northeast Q�arter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, 4bwnship 30, Range 24, Anoka Coimty, Minnesota• �e seo�nd Fxrcel being that Fart of the East 225 feet of the West 475 feet of ti�e North Half of the Noctheast Qusrter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, 'lbanship 30, Fange 24, Moka County, Minnesota, lying north of the South 405.60 feet of said North Half of the Northeast Q�rter of the Southwest Qiarter. �e third psrcel being that Fart of the South 405.60 feet of the East 225 feet of the West 475 feet of the North Half of ti�e Northeast Qiartec of the Southwest Qlarter of Section 12, 4banship 30, Range 24, Anoka Coimty, Minnesota, the sarre being 1131 72rd Ave. Anyore who wishes to be heard shall be given the Camnission meeting on Wec�esday, April 22, 1987 City Hall at 6931 University Avenue N. E at 7:30 opporttmity at the Planning in the Council Chambec of Rm STEUE BII,LIIxiS QiAIRig1N P(,p,NNII�G �iMiLSS7DN lA C hLaILING LIST Richard Haarstad 1131 - 72nd Ave. N.E. Fridley, DLV 55432 James Determan 1241 - 7"Lnd Ave. N.E. Fridley, DL\ 55432 Edric Associates c/o Edaard Anderson 5024 Kormandale Court Ldina, Dn 55�36 F:urt �fanufacturing Co. 5280 Dfain St. N.L. Pridley, Ai� 55421 Koch �larkcting Co. P.O. Box: 2315 liichita, KS 67201 Falck Prcperties 2446 Bunker Lake Blvd. Anoka, DL� 55303 Planning April 10, 19871B Council John Buzick 1201 - 73 1/2 Ave. N.E. Fridley, AIIv` 55432 Buzick and Flaherty 1201 - 73 1/2 Ave. Fridley, hi� 55432 Limpro, Inc. 1223 - '3rd A��c. N.E. Fri�ley, PL� 55432 Ashland Oil, Inc. P.O. Box 14000 Lexington, F:Y 40512 Donald Harstad 7151 Ha}'. 65 \.[. Fridley, PL\ 55432 Don Fieken ll31 - 72nd thre. ti.G. F'ridley, A�i 55452 . � I L.S. #87-02 Don Rieken 31 1� -- _ y �. f. ; ' '_"_ ,� TH.�Ci A i'� CJi � F.,/br �I7� ar'•�•t-i � :2 PAR R� ---p" „ --� - - �n�-«.-,�, I ,' ,._..»�.. . .�-� ers � r< { �i,.,)��, " 1 � �ff% .i � �rsx-+�t ;� ivU°. � \ /3 't .4�•. .s. ece4 +; �/1 2 �•:ti�i,� P i� L z u :n� L • a ( ) - `. � :i W e }}} . 1 ' ` .� .'\ �4Y�. � I TRACT E � �:•i:•:}:•::•:•::.{•�. ✓LMES N. OETfRM/N 1.. �(t� � � • • • `•� {••: t}}f� :Y:. � c� .� m' i. ----- r� � :;i;:.;•:.�::::;:ii � � Jv�. � S t' � � ¢ }:};�:::� �:•:•:v::�� / P i ; �., n„s i �� O �`,.y i � � �. +PX�H�e;?L,Ctd:tji}`•}:t+::- �'is i6 is N �. �oeaz) s, , � � � � � O? •�T, .itSFllJ;ijF$Yl;?i;]�Si;P�: � i � iP. 4° v°a � i 1; r rt « ��i \ .v116 J ✓r. �OArS� ° . � a 1 41 �� . + i: � % �i:`: fi.':::{{: -('�"r. Pn - � �,.-,..., i u/ r i� Eii. @ .-- - . � , � - h v � � " /,�� TRAsCi �- /� . h r�, - �' :T. � z e�' ♦ i �I ,y�s°""-"i � :•: :::.;, .... •i:;:; � i __ �' � i�b�..r�l.-� p�� '�i::iiiri�i:,t;:}$C{:" � ist �� , "' �� $ Y. ' i ; !6l 1 iS�� ." - �'� 1 � a: .i, //. � �=� ' '. �S ✓nMCS R. OETERMdN � JOSEPN R � � � � �iRA('T D � � e ;� � �! i � i3'r�/Ntlr.�' :�:�:�:•:•:�:: � �I . � �� ;:;::i}::::•?,}: ti , ' N i� .ei s 7RACT ��E • �. � • .:.::::.}:•::•:}::}};} 0 � ---=` �soat - ��!��p_ � _ f �5��. � r � i ; 1 ' J- A' � � ( L It[T - ��.F fi�"C. '- �sif4� t '� . . �, _. _ ui' _' _ .. � �a� . ,K.. Q ��,b RUNi MANUfCCTUA/NG CO. t /�N� � �\ ll � N � ., /e� A�s.,� o<KS 2, a�� . � _ ,,, ._ -- �oRP �°'TR -00 �\D� ,' a 3 �i� AUDI,TORS -__-._„�;_,_sU@- .�� — �� e 1 Y %. ' �+ oon r. Haessno /ol ...�ro�. _ 4 �y) S Z'� a c? ;� rro� N 8 9 3.,,k n� /;� �, o = ' a, � �W � �. I> ' .w - .,�, ;¢ °••- ` + .r : ,.;'+ _; ; _ ,., .,- �C ~ I r..„ 7Y(.i•, ^'^ � r��- rnl nei iis� �zo //1/ /� f//1 //31 �//II //3/ � � O.W Mep5TA0 "'� ' F'OBERI C��.r 15 �g C. 7 � 9 � � ' ! I C0. ROSECRaN �W ! �,_ .._im�.... .. �li..,..1 N✓aTI !l6/ !I5/ I 'c� J • a � 2 = °� kV4 �> � �--�FOR�ON— —T—,�oT;� �� v l231 ' . 'W .� �� . Izs/Q Kp�rH rcowac�' Iea/ fP6l �rzil ;(reJ rl�) � - � r �f� �V1 c0 (3G) y ifSl N/ � �•"°� " I I E„ � CYNTM// ,.NO �'O . , AV,ENU ` 1 ' ' is; . - _'r R ._ �_' C "" Mi .. BUR.(STNIND Y/!EL . � 6 5 :OM J � / N ; . - _ ..ne_.._.�... ik \ i.. � , - �..../KI._ ._ -i4f".. L/ ff5 -.� + � ♦ :�.'��— O ' ,. _ _ N//.I'�-fOx_' h � - -_ _ _ ~ � �• - � � Irl� ` ' � p 1 � � � � � /.e .� « ' � - ` � � � ; z o Y - - - - f�it}-- � ' - - _ '?� _ _ aZ � --_ — -__ � -__ G. • : . � . � � " W ` (/' �L _ . 'YOFlpfAN - � � _ fn -_ � f � � � "v.� ' � Fi.,• a A,C 1 � � _ � SUBUAB4h � - . �' � F .- _ . H s O Q/� N _ _ S4NiTOFY � ' -L ` � 990p� _ `l LL� _ ! 6 I � � � SEIrEp __ . __. a � � � Eq � � _ � - + � - _, SFMFht -' � i �` , O D= C p0 e�i ` \ J W • 0 3 , � � � LOCATION MAP�e-;�e W ' �'' iiijjj� /� / FJ , ;a? �� N tD O Z � � '� (7 S ' r ' :i�.w✓ - Y��i,J'� : ' " ' " � -- �:� y . , :�. _� D �' _p b S' 1 F+! �B� ,.� Q en ' ' ' — . � � . j -� .�✓ _ �. - y o iS �N.'� : � ° ° ° � i Q � L 7 'n cvEvuE N E 'JN!L(✓NG� (/ i � �:r,; . �• a� £s � � � � "�FLn'n � • , - , �� . �, :��:�7 i 3 ` � � ��oo'o'oo ` a ,k � o��o�oa 000000u �� 6 = • -�r � a000000 0 0 0 o a o a ,e �� y� l�y J O�J�]�O O O �� Y. C , ,`b2 � O J OJ� O�O �� 8 ./O o'.°o°a°o o°o° P o°o°o°o°o o°o°c oou0000 � >>,a000� �3�� , „ ; JS Z� z. :. r. }'� — „ ;N . / :.2• .�: . ,� . .I . . . . . . .} . . Y,E�[.� .:,`j..�'� :3. � y • �I 1�• ��• • o /tt'P't�'�t+fl , '• _�:L • • i •{1i �• 4• ' 8,. '��•. •��(��• •��I• • ' ' • t-1 T7� -��- • • ••�• .T �Tw /�� • !,� O Wa f L1 -a' a • ♦ ■ � • • • • • • . ' 0..� A4D....�. . . ........ � . . r . . re . . •.: . . RTO � � : . . .� . w�; - . • . • . . . .� :.Y,�jk t ♦ . � • . • . n�_TRANc�-_. Y Z � q. : � '.�,.�`' � r , � . •�oe �. a Q ,y � � t a W i1 ` � z - � H.AVEQ j • _ !Y� w • u 1G" H � ,b ;� 7 a i��;;1 , ' � • �� - y' � 2 > C -- - ic �� ii n ec \'�raet dy ':'1a_ ,� cl ICP.�,CfiEEK �„ � � . % � � � /� � � e.��3`� fJ" � �� w �. ; � i % °1 � . Jl�Zortgage Loan Survey for Hti'!'�-��'LIL SPF� IALTY' ��7. L.S. #87-02 ��v�7w �-n.�E OF Lvr I� A�V.�IeB. r�o. av Don Rieken I I �. � �, — i 5 O .O O — _ -� ��'�. I / f ( e -.,ryle �G. Y�.L. w _" -_-' . . 59 f4 ti �, � � \ U �\ �. yl �v� . ��` ri�' {i �� I� � C', � e QP \' i' � G; i � a �'�\ � � S � � G P�_. �i\ � � � ...,.. riz.io l � � : ��3, i' � i � �.r��.,E i'j :9,bo 9 �v It. 1 � 1� - U . �L ' ' �/ �; r� � 1 ; �, v " d �' QQ � N � �I � F�Q6Aaliir o= � � � � __ . � � s J N S :� �'�I `� Q b I a � 8 �i � ^/ ; �� ! �" r l` : R.� V f � �`� _ 'r L.M1 _ - . ...�_-_ _�.�»Iie.MMi'� �' f�� . .��[a��r��.�. � !'�. � �S'iet}f'"" _ � C . e � - ,, , � f � ,u. � ° �� _ '_7�4.'».�—.c .5. �'�.- '_ .�: ,:�...-r :I«.+��. � Py.r �ao ¢'u C } '.r,.e . _ ` . ' __. _- - c ° ,1"° Q.ve�__ 1 � — Q50 • 00 — `Jv�7N LiNS oF �..T �. �_t"e �.�. J � 0 � LL � � � 1' 3 z � � 0 W 1 _.1 � �}�-� -`- ?- hcr�c. 1"= leo' � o�n� Loj AFEP �n��iv�.'=� a„Kt-s� - li�� ti- Carcel l 'p�e Fasl 'i (.at .: lhe R.�sl Sn0 fevt ��1 tl�.. •... �I. 1'�.:�.'. �. NortLeast Vuarter u( [h.- ooutlivart C��.-��=•': .•. .' .. ... chlp 70. Rangc L4. Aro,ka G,uui.. Luau ��,i,;.•. ,: ,,,<< ,.� .,,. , .. _ , . �, � � Ci. . . � -��♦ . . . ..... . �' � . . . ....� r� . . .. . . M1t�[(hc'.]SL l�UdltP! Ci L�1F �uu[�14'['�[ l�u-.Il�'r. Parcel 3 ihe Sw[A 405.60 Eee[ ot tl�e Eest 215 tec[ � U- �. ��-.i � [ee[ of the Noah Ha]f ot the Northeasc tjverter f U�r }�., esl Quarler cE SecGlun 11. Younsliip ]0. R:.nge 2...�-... � Cuunty, Xinnesn(a. -.ereby cercify to She Prudential Insurance Compan; o` Arerica, that fTis i� a tr�c avd corz�r.! represPnSatior - a eurvey of the boundaries of tre above described land, and of the location of all builcinqs, thereon, and : visible eneroachmente, if any, from or on said land, all visible and reeorded easements affecting eaid lanL. ___ ur.Lerstooc anc aqree� no monun,ents hav� 5een ptaced .__ !te p•_rco^? of =:atli•hina lot lin�� or bo��nBrrv �rners. Daced this �'� day of �-- —� 19 -�' R�,•. z�n;a� cs�o... p..«� ��Te�.s, SUBURBAN ENGINEERING, INC. Re. 2/z416i (OUV;p��=�+) Fngineers Surveyors by .i � a�a:, � oae-s. ..ir.n. .ec. . . 105G=. I � -113ac. z�4 ; �,�� 31 - �'tx us L.s. �a� zI � . 1F Don Rieken CENTER SEC. /2 ' a w^ N,>.` _. -_ — J " — ° — ,� a, ax � - -- {� _ -----•---h �.—;,�r,�� - ,:;a PAR � '�zt t a-i fqqCT Ar's.�,q� �,/ •.f F,si (4)) a.� i .o�� :nt�..o,i:-e, .'F: , .. -_ -.. 1 ,na � �r Z�� - - - - - - - - - - - . J �� t'.V N -�L Tf. : � _ -_ _ ' /ye)� h q 9' I � [ .�i 4 � ru �� ^ i•b•1 � �, i3 '� u `, . �� I s'Ri u ,� f„n-K� �a 3Z5 � ► ,•L` , � ,. ,�. � ;, � r:, `� V :r � , �') . I ` fRACT B a�' P j' 02 a�Y�� JdY[S R OETfRMdN $� d b� A i i� ��,y� � . !Sl ' ., � � ` �1 `�i O �" Z♦ fi i.: � air«ano- a a- _ I • E�'is �6 i7 �f if M � ��• � �. 's �'j �`i �!""1IALM-JL-MCAFS71D ; / ` A Ai `` g � - - � i I y IL !i it � q�. .... ��y 3�. ___'__'___"' r� rrE � Cl__ a� ; � I _______ _ + .O�PDI) � /.i: • / vLlf E/l.. _, . ....i , ... - ... �'.::. ��+TR.oC7 �5:�� .....T w' -- � • � , � : : � ... �. ., µ � � � � .... I! _ 1 .-'/Nl/n! ��7� "...� "�. i I � Q i � !6l .9 !il Z .�, � JOSfPH R. Y/LIER .IR. I I � S Y I : Q� " S'' ;� �12.'�I� 1� i AK JaMES R. OFiERYIM I: g�` aQ � 7R�T D 3,w r� � i' s>" sc"�� -! i I �../If9f�.s✓ a,L..'��f',�. i . n ' ( � y �.s ra ��`f i i,� � :' —� -p�� — - � -i I — ;,';�.;E a �- � syJ.�- - —�9- ` ,s � . � . � H.r r w... �� .rr 7e' i �._ltI "__ • . I �� 1 , dWl YaNUFIC7VAIM6 CO. Q t . �N� ! �O ? 3 �4O � , �I � " �a� r z • - K�°� s � � �u57iC Oars � Y� .. ,.. -- _ _ Q �R ' �i � ��\ ?� 4... AUDITOR =----"O�_37��_ i�.%� p; n}.�y�y'.r p('0)� yr. 3 b - Z.' "'fu - 6 �� Y�• .on ��li � �t � OON M. MIRS:IO �� -�""�"" � �N� / Z . �9� � � /A�u�rr I x 79� � \�,w (roJ N .� B� k� �'� E i� AS _ ��M �n� u.",. :,.X� ', � . . r ... ; � _ ` . ..-. . _. ._:..,._ . _ ,_ p- ' 'ar,_- r:� - �-r ti. �- ... .0 . � � � • �r : er-� j�As �N+ ru- (O/ !//1 //B/ !PO/ (2/1 ,,., �,,, ,,,, ; �,., ,,,, 7 8 9 �� o.. �.AS..o 4 ,�BEA, � ,,,, 5 ,a �. - co. ._. aoseceav ir.-,,.. Hrnrr r•si � iai � '� �._ ....iw'_.. i ..pa, rew I J .. _ . ._. � � __ � . n . ;-----NpR;6t�} --� �n . k , "` p �� Irsl� It�i �b,� 2 ie) ltr) fc) �rl '�'� (nJ rzv� KE/fN A'OMILK /PII � /P6J !Y)1 Z c.O �O �� ^ �F �/�/ � a) J �E I I E.M. ' 1N✓M/d ♦ i N 5 � i I- e V, , I 3 . y i . BuNA'SSR/MD YaBEL �\ � OM S/T S ( c J � R '-. o --��rN- ...»_.._.. ..6Y . ' �, ..:._. _po._ . �....�/p:. _. -� iiT _ .. t/ - l�f _"� .. Ifso- � ^ ..._._ ... � - � _ A'/FN'bW � i _ �. �. - _ - -- -'-- � t- ---_ �'---_ .�i Y �t ---_ -'--_ a ��'--_ } F% N n ` � ? Z .� _ , NONlryfp � � _ _ _ _ ` � � _ _ L �1 � � _ SUBURB9N � v "' �_ / y'O , _ _ ' - � � � _ reNiT4NY - 'L - _ �� _ Q -_ � ` V � � sEwEA � � ` � � � � � � _ E4SENFNI � �/ I __ _ ` ` ` ` _ I `` � � p _ 22 ° 52� � ! _ _ _ _ a ' - , p 0° 3p , �-.� ,.,. N, � ' [ // lff�M/ �'ws tn � r � � . I �,i'i�' v � 2 . f ! ! ��, 1G , � ' -- �- - = _`=--=---__-___'--__-�.-_--_-------- -_�= =- - ---- _...«- i� -------��---------------- -��---------- -------�_-- � '` � � � � , -- _� _��,! _� - ---------------- -.--- I � ' / I----- I �:�,�� I � 1'�� l ' � 1 story Warehouse � Gtfice � B I'�. '. ..�� _�.� �� J I � o � I ;I( � Flwr 8830 I Floor 8830 1 �� i . � . FUTURE I I.'�. �i, �i � Hydrauli� Specialty � --- ' �- �: �.. See-Oeail .:.- .ro -------- - --� 7, � � 1 /i0 WY1 {� - . ••� �� ° i IOO r<ar HwL ' L'�—�oo '-'1� '� � � ��% lt � ____'_ _____""_"�_1_" iz" ,__---T--- --�ye _Hw�e�� J 25' N-5 Strip ro Ee aQui.eO Ey Det<�mon 678.6 � • f io' �� • _ ".� _ -- . .__.._ �;-e?6 – _ _ .�... - �'��-- . _ ��L _' _' �' .________�—fedcne�2asemenl �_-_-�3=_=____ �<_-___ �g� " "_ _' ' _eeo—�ra---' _F�rRmq -�Du� � - -�--= ProposedAddition 1 story S�oD Floo� esi 5 Floor 881.5 \ � — _ � __ __'"� _ , � \ ¢,. _, � � '' � ) �-5��,� .i_P'e.:� . e \Instoll 550�-72°, 16 Ga. "Gulvonixed CMP, 3°zl° Caruqations, yi . jiupqer Bonds w/Gaskets I � Lo�vest Floor Elevation ior Future Euildinas bet�,veen 72nd and 73rd A81. ,\��--�—�-----I-- � -- --- ', I � �� De!ermdn Weidir.g I , ,� , I s�ory ShaO � Office � II � � � � I Floor 8945 � Floar �2.8 � � � —� , _ '1 . ' � � _._ � � I � ��-- — —� � , - I ��_-- __ - _.., � � � �. �. , . . .—�_ ._ _ ._------_, _ , ..s t-----------� � _.--- -- �; ; , � �'`_,_ r —_— �___ --._� �_–J f ; ; ; CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING n REDEVELOPI1Ei�T AUTHORITY !1EFTIN,, !�tiRCH 12, 1937 CALL TO OP.DER: Chairperson Corimers called the liarch 12, 1987, I'aisin� R Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. ROLL CALL: 'lenbers Present tlenbers Absent: Larry Conners, Virginia Schnabel, Duane Prairie, John Meyer, lJalter Rasrwssen None Otliers Present: Jock Robertson, fIRA [xecutive Director !�asir� Qureshi, City �lanager Dave ��ewman, IiRA At�orney Ric{: Prihyl, finance Director Julie Rurt, Asst. Finance Officer Louis R June Lun�nren, 114�1 Itinnesota f3i�1n., S!. Paul R. Trocl:e, 244 �lississippi St. R. Schoneman, 246 �lississippi St. APPROVAL OF FE!iRUARV 12, 1987, NOUSI'�f, & RFDEVELOPI'ENT AUT!!�P.ITY 'fINliTf.S: MO.T.IOtI BY IfR. RASMUSSE77� SECONDED BY MS. SCHNABEL, TO APPROVE THT FF.B. 22, 1987, NOUSING 6 REDEVEIAP�dE.NT AUTHORZTk' MZNUTF.S AS [7RITTEi:. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE „ CHAIRPT,RSON COlff!F.RS D.�CLIRF.D ?XT MOTZOIJ C.�RRIED UNRNIIdOCISLY. 1. CONSIDERATION QF A RESOLUTIO"� A'1E��DING TN[ REDEV[LOPt1E'�T PRQJECT �IO FD A P1r. Robertson stated Staff had provided the HRA with a tirietable of the steps required to enlarge the redevelopnent district as suggested by the City Council in January. At the last rieeting, the HRA had directeci Staff to begin the proceJure. The first step was to adopt this resolution. hir. Robertson stated Item 3 in the resolution had been nodified hy the Qond Counsel; and in the agenda packet handed out at the r�eeting, the NRA members had received a revision of this resolution in tirhich the 11RA was �ivinq prelininary approval subject to Planning Commission revie�r, City Council approval, and subject to final HRA approval after tfie necessary docunentation has been furnislied by City Council. Jin 0'hteara has said he will have the final docur�ents to the City sonetirie within the next week. When those docu- ments are ready, that a�ill start the revie�+ process. HOUSIIJG P, REDEVELOP�tENT AUTHORITY MEETI�JG, MARCH 12, 1987 PAGE 2 ` MOTION BY MS. SCIfNRBEL� SECONDED BY MR. RASl4USSEN� TO APPROVE RESOLOTION .NO. HR7 3 -1987, R RESOLUTION Rl?ENDING THE REDEVELOP11El7T PROJECT NO. 1 Al7D A10DIFYING THE ENLARGEL9ENT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND THE 1?ODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RELRSZNG THERETO PURSUANT TO THE PROVISZONS OF MI.N.NESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 462.411 TO 462.716 EX.CLUSIVF,. � UPON A VOZCE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CIfAIRPERSON COMMERS DF.CLARED TNE MOTION CARRZED UNANIMOUSLY, 2. COiJSIDERATION OF DRA4IIWG OIJ LOU LUtJDGREtI'S LETTER OF CREDIT: t1r. Lundyren stated he had just received the final document of the feasibility study on the six-story apartment building. He stated this study was done by the Lee 11axfield Research group, and Mr. 19axfield vaas at the raeetinq to give a presentation and answer any yuestions from the HRA. Mr. Lundgren stated he had gotten the draft of the docuMent on P•1onday. He then met with Mr. Qureshi and I'Ir. Ro�ertson on TuesAay to briefly go over the document and discuss some aspects of it. The document was an inte9ral part of the presentation to the lenders, although the initial package to the lenders �aent out about t�io days ago. All the preliminary presentations aiere nrn� in the mail. There were six lending groups who were looking at the pacl;age. They will be responding vrithin 7-12 days concerning whether or not they have an interest in the project. As soon as lie receives the first affirmative response, they will be meeting aiith City Staff; and at that time, will try to work out whatever agreer�ents are necessary to make the project go. At the next HKA meeting,he should have a proposed agreement for the first stage of the project. t1r. Lundgren stated that in addition to the first stage, the financial pacl:age did include some preliminary infornation about stages II, III, and IV. Ne described the various phases of the project: Phase I- six-story apartment building, 124 units Phase II - apartment building (height of nunber of units will be responsive to the need as indicated by the feasibility study) Pliase III - about 60,000 sq. ft. of retail area Pliase IV - five-story office building P1r. Lundgren stated the feasibility study for the retail a�d the office hasnot been done Yet, but r�ill be commissioned as soon as they get over the first hump. Mr. Lundgren stated he was very optimistic about the project. He hoped to get this package in order; and if he was able to do that, he felt confident that he could proceed yet this summer with Phase II and possibly Phase III. P4r. Lundgren stated he would like to have t1r. Plaxfield give a brief presenta- tion of what he has done and what he thinks of the r�arket for the project. Mr. Lee �laxfield stated that for the last 18 years he has been involved in market research, predoninately in the Twin Cities but also throughout the country. In the last four years, they have worked on about 15,000 apartnent ; HOUSINf E� REDEVELOPI1EfJT AUTHORITY 11EETIN6, h1ARCH 12 19II7 PAGE 3 units in the To-�in Cities. They have also been involved in 15 - 20 senior housing projects. The next phase they are looking at for P1r. Lundgren was the senior 6uilding. P4r, ttaxfield stated they were asked to look at the market for the 124 apart- ment midrise building. As part of their analysis, they looked at the site to deterc�ine how they felt the site would appeal to the marketplace and the adequacy for housing. He felt, given the location on University, the shopping area, the civic center, and the community facilities across University, and tlie residential character of the neighborhood behind it, it offered a very good site for housing. He �iould call it a more urban infill site. They also looked at the growth in the community and the demographics in the area to identify where the market would be for this buildinq. In looking at the �rowth in the area, although Fridley's gro��th was not significant coMpared to other coranunities, there was a significant household base in the area today. There were a number of rental units that were dated that were older and one of the strong markets they have seen for housing was providing updated, more modern, more contemporary housing, so they do see a market that could be attractive to people who like tiie idea of living in neai units with more amenities that are supplied in a new building that might not be found in an older building. f1r. Maxfield stated that also in looking at the denographics of Fridley, they saw a large "empty nester" market--a market that was not seniors, but in the 50-55 and older age groiip with children who have grovm up and left home, and they find they no longer need all the space in their home and want to simplify their life style. Based on those demographics, they feel the building in question would strongly appeal to this market. This offered several things for the community: (1) Provided the ability for people to stay in Fridley; (2) Freed up more affordable housing for younger families; and (3) Denefitted the City and the School District by bringing younger families into the community. Mr. Idaxfield stated there a number of development projects for office space going in along University Avenue, and that type of development brought in a large number of professionals who are looking for housing which more befits their lifestyle. A new more contemporary buildfng appealed to that market where an older 15-20 year old building might not. Mr. P4axfield stated that in looking at the projections they have made for housing, they ��ould project in the market area which included Fridley, Coon Rapids, Columbia Heights, and New Brighton, that there would be a need for 1,600-1,800 new rental units between now and 1990 based on the growth in the area. A large number of the units would be attributed to Coon Rapids where tfie major share of development �•�as found; however, he felt infill sites had a very strong potential. Mr. Maxfield stated that in the analysis of buildings in Fridley in the imme- diate area, they found vacancy rates that were 3-4% across the board. Also, in looking at information in the Apartment Guide (a regional company that keeps track of vacancies throughout the t1etropolitan area), they found they are showing vacancy rates at the 3-4% range for this entire market. lie stated they always look at a market, if it is below 5%, as an opportunity to start new construction. r HOIISING & REDEVELOPI1EfJT AUTHORITY MEETIWG, f9ARCH 12, 1987 PAGE 4 P1r. 14axfield stated one other factor they found in an inventory of what was coming on the market, there are about 1,500 units planned, includinn the 124 units in Mr. Lundgren's project, as well as 165 or so units in the senior building. Most of the units being proposed in Coon Rapids or the apartrient complex in the nortliern part of Fridley (a different building product entirely-- a smaller scale building and r,pre affordable ho�sing) he did not see as being directly competitive a�ith this project simply because of the building type and appearance of the building. Mr. Maxfield stated if they are looking at 1,600-1,800 units for beinr� a potential market, 1,500 which are proposed right no�i, and with vacancy rates below 5ro, all things indicated to him that there was still a good market in this area to build additional housing. This type of building would be the only one like it in tlie area. Mr. Maxfield stated again that the target market identified was more toward professional couples, sinqles, and emnty nesters, as ��ell as some older people who do not want to retain their hornes any longer. This project was not for the young singles or the roommate situation that are found in a lot of other projects. �4r. �4axfield stated that in looking at the project, they came in later in the process, so they had not had any input into ho�� they felt the building should be built. However, in reviewing the floor plans, they did not have any major concerns about the amenities proposed, the unit mix, and unit sizes. They had suggested that one of the one bedroom units be made larger and there o-�ere a couple of units they felt were too large. These were deficiencies that could easily be made by rearranging the floor plans. They also made some projections on what they felt were appropriate rents, and did a major reshuffling of the rent schedules that had been proposed. They tried to bring the rents more in line with other units in the project as well as competitive buildin9s in the area. They ��ere recommending the follo�•ring rents: One bedroom units -�525 - 595, depending on size of unit Ttio bedroom units -$675 - 850, depending on size of unit Mr. Maxfield stated at this point he felt very comfortable in sayinc� they think there is a market for this building, given some of the recommendations they have made and change5 in floor plans, unit sizes and rearranging rents. Mr. Commers asked �1r. Maxfield if he had done any market analysis v�ith regard to Phase II. Mr. P�axfield stated they were in the process of doing that, but they wan±ed to get Pliase I done first. A lot of the information presented pertained to the second phase. One of their concerns in the second phase was the number of units; however, he was more optimistic that there was a market for senior housing in this area than in other areas (Richfield, St. Louis Park, I+�innetonka) where there �oere a substantial number of units still available. In this northern suburban area, there really was not a supply like that found in other communities. HOUSI�JG & ItEDEVELOP�IEPIT AUTHORITY MEETI�dG, t1ARCH 12, 1937 PAGE 5 Mr. Qureshi asked what the financial viability of this project was in relation to other projects. Mr, Maxfield stated that from meetings they have attended, HUD in particular and many of the lenders, are nervous ��ihen they see vacancy rates go up to 15-20�. IIUD has put a"soft market" stamp on the west suburban areas from Plymouth to Eagen (the �ihole soutiiwest suburban area), an�f they will not look at or consider any more rental projects in those areas because they are looking at a 3-4 year supply of units coming on the market. �4r. �4axfield stated the northern narket appeared to be a different market, as they do not see the large number of high vacancy rates, and there was not a lot of housing construction in the area. He tliought the lenders would look much more favorably on this market than they riould in most any other market in the Twin Cities. Mr. I4eyer stated that re9arding t4r. Maxfield's comments on the suggested floor plan revisions and rent revisions, were those acceptable to �1r. Lundgren? f4r. Lundgren stated Mr. f4axfield has made those conments in the draft market analysis, and he did not feel it orould be very difficult to accor,ttnodate those suggested revisions. f�e felt all the suggestions r�ade by t1r. Maxfield r�ere well taken, he agreed with all of them, and he intended to use ther�. He did not believe in paying good money for good advice and then not payin� any attention to that advice. t4r. Lundgren stated that in response to the question about the senior biiilding, he felt Itr. I�axfield would be ready �aith that report Yiithin the next 2-3 weeks. f+lr. Lundgren stated they haoed to be bacl: to Staff 4rithin two 4�eeks so that he can come back to the next HRA meeting with a proposed agreement for the HRA's review and discussion. Mr. Commers stated that hearing no notions, this item viould remain on the table and the letter of credit was not called upon at this time. 3. CO�JSIDERATIOPI OF A PIASTER LEASE OF RICE PLFlZA SHOPPING CENTER: Mr. Robertson stated he would direct the HRA's attention to the memo dated Piarch 6, 1987, he had written to �1r. Qureshi. At the direction of the HRA at their February meeting, Staff made a compromise proposal to Mr. Levy, cutting the iength of time for the option from five years to four years. That conpror�ise proposal was sent to Mr. Levy, and Staff had not received any response. 4. CONSIDERATIOW OF A RESOLUTIOIJ AUTHORIZI��G THE INITIATION OF CONDEI�ItdATIO!� Mr. Commers stated that in the agenda were a letter from John Flora to George Y.nox of U�dOCAL dated �tarch 10, 1987, and a resolution. HOUSIqG & REDEVELOPt1E��T AUTHORITY �1EETIWG, FU4RCH 12, 1937 PAGE 6 ' P1r. Robertson stated the project uras tentatively scheduled to begin in June. Tliey Nrere noo-r going through the steps. The Public 1lorks Department has been corresponding with the corporate headquarters of the Union 76 station. The local regional branch rras in agreement with the proposal for a provision of additional riglit-of-way for the construction of the inter- section; however, there v�ere sone aoonizinq delays with the coroorate head- quarters in authorizing an easement or a sale. The purpose. of the resolution �•�as to proviae the (;ity with a back-up plan which could be enacted to help consurunate the 4rilling seller/willing 6uyer situation. 1-10TI0:! BY M.P.. RASI4USSEN� SECON.DED AY MR. PRAIRZE, :'O APPP.OVE RESOLUT70"7 NO. NRR 4 1987� RESOLUTIOI! AUTHOP.ZZING THE INZTZATIO�i' OF CO\'DTAf3A:'ZO?: AC:IOA' FOR TNE RIGNT-OF-FIAY PROPERTY LGC'ATED OIJ THE UNIOt7 76 SERVICE STATION AT TNE INTERSECTIO.ti OF HIGNCIAY 65/WEST 1100RE LAKE ROAD AND OLD CF.6'TRAL. UP011 A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAZRPERSON COAtMF.RS DECLARED TNE 140TZON CARRIED UNAIJZMOUSLY. 5. UPDATE OIJ LAKE POINTE CORPORATE CENTER DEVELOPt1EP�T PROJECT: P4r. Nerir�an stated they have retained the larr firm of Popham-Haik to �•ior4; tvith them in representing the HRA. 19r. Ray Haik has indicated to the Lake Pointe's attorney that the HRA was not prepared to propose any modifications to the Development Contract. 11r. Haik di�i indicate that, of course, the IIRA would listen to any proposals which the Developer might wish to make. At this tir�e, they have not received any response from Lake Pointe's counsel. Mr. Commers stated that about to-�o years ago, Mr. Sid Inman provided the HRA Wj{H a copy of the insurance binder that covered the HRA members under the Ctfy's insurance policy, He would like 5taff to again provide a copy of that to the newer HRA members �vho had not received it in the past. 6, CLAIMS (1582-1588): MO"_'ION BY f9R. PRAIRIE� SECONDED BY 14R. 1-0EYER, PO TiPPROVE THE CHECY. RLGIS_TER DATED 3/lI/87 AS PRESE!1TED. UPON A VOZCE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAZRPERSOPi COMI4ERS DECLAAFD TH£ 140TIG^ CARRZED UNA.NZMOUSLY. 7. OTfiER UUSINESS: a. Plaza Parking Ramp t4r. Qureshi stated that discussion has been held a nunher of times al�rn�± the inadequate anount of parking space for the office buildinq and City e HOIJSIiIG & REDEVELOPt1Et�T AUTHORITY MEETING, I•tAP.CH 12, 1987 PRGE 7 Hall. It vias Staff's initial recommendation to prepare a feasibility study and when that study becomes available, they will present it to the fiRA for revie�r and discussion. ADJOURI�DIE�JT: MOTION BY 14R. RASMUSSEll , SECOIJDED BY MR. PRAIRZE � TO ADJOUR`7 THE MEETIN6. fIPON A VOICE VOTE, RLL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMI4ERS DECLARED THE MARCN 22� 1987, HOUSZNG 6 REDEVELOPME7dT AUTHORITY MEEmING ADJOURNED AT 8:20 P.M, Respectfully submitted, n..� (�.-�i 0._ L i e Saba Recording Secretary !�/)//� „ f jc-diL� �/ v/ i� ! `r� ..�/ . ,� ��_Lx" ��-� �r � � ) ;�'%2i Gl�., /�r � l � � � �� t � ��,��Ly�� ` � � �� j��,� ��: >,�I 'U2�7i(�(. �/�'��e^o /�� _, :�r ,�� l ��r o 61 C�,,.,.ti ��'t� U� 4 � �`is3�55 ✓�% o? �� ll2.t/�- J � ; .�,-__ �[f! ��C�`�, �i/ �c¢'fy�' �%%i��, 53%�%/ �� , 8'� � �czcct, (�'IN. _s > ic � �, —, 1 � � / � 't'�;� % S v-3�� V '� < 1 � I�o Iti � � �� \ c� ; o � � � � y � _ �, f`, -� �n —�! s-- c..,� °� — c w � y � � _. � � .� W �l � c� �� N � d. c,�' ._�_. � 0 � � '- � � �1 � ` __ _.. __.. _. .__.___ �i -� i °O `�1 i W �f' � �� W ____ �_-_- __ __. _ ._-- o� -n � o v � ` � ., � _ � _ � � � � � $ � � � �� ?i � � � � � � � �� . � � n � � � �� n � g� �-; d i�� g- � � �. � � ° i, o. � A `' � � ; � � �i� � �- � � �'� R -o � � � � u+ j o ! � �' �!X �� ;�� t� �� i � �� N , �. �I R� N� �� s �w �' �--�I� � � t � � � � � `� ; °0 � �'l I, � ! �I C � N � I j � , � A � � � �" r � � �� N a � � � b �\�, � o- ' � iw � � � � _� W '� � � �� , CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEAl.S COItMISSION t1EETING, APRIL 14, 1937 CALL TO-ORDER: Vice-Chairperson IIarna ca7led the April 74, 1987, Appeals Commissiorr meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Menbers Present: Alex Barna, Jerry Sherek, Diane Savage, I:enneth Vos Meeibers Absent: Donald 6etzold Otliers Present: Darrel Clark, City of Fridley Don & Wendy Page Reiken, 3413 Georgia Ave. P1., Crystal Richard Haarstad, 2265 Leona Dr., New Brighton Brian & Carol Westover, 6274 Ben More Drive Carol Dwyer, 6282 N.E. Kerry Lane Anthony & Beverly Krall, 194 - 69th Ave. N.E. Happie 14oselle, 430 Industrial alvd. t4r. & �1rs. Richard 6istodeau, 101 - 57th Place PLE. APPNOVAL OF 11ARCH 31 , 1987, APPEALS COMI1ISSION MItJUTES: MOTZOtI BY 67R. SHEREK� SECONDED BY �35. SAVRGE� TO APPROVE THE MZl7UTE5 LlI_TH THF. FOLLOWZNG CORRECTION; UNDER "1�E79BERS PRESENT"� SUE SXEREK SIIOULD BE CHANGF.D TO JERRY SNEREK. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING aYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSOIJ BAR1'7R DLCLIiRED TXE MOTION CARRIED UNRNIM.OUSLY. �. MOTION BY 12R, SHEREK� SECONDED BY MS. SAVAGE� TO OpEN THE PUBLIC HERRZI7G. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CXAIRPERSON BARNR DECLARED THE PULiLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:32 P.M. . APPEALS CO(111ISSIOId I'I[ETI�JG, APRIL 14, 1987 PAGE 2 Vice-Chairperson 6arna read the Administrative Staff Report: ADt1IPdI5TRATIUE STAfF REPORT 1131 - 72nd Avenue fJ.E. VAR #87-08 A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREFIEIVT: Section 205.17.3,A,2, requires a lot area of not less than 1.5 acres for one main building on plats recorded after January 1, 1983. Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide for adequate parking, open landscaped areas, and to limit congestion of industrial areas. Section 2D5.17.3,D,3, requires a rear yard setback of not less than 25 feet. Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide adequate open space areas around industrial structures for aesthetic and fire fighting purposes. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "Tlie code existing when the lot was purchased was .75 acres. 6y having a setback of 5 feet, ti�e are attempting to come as close to the existing code as possible." C. AUI1INISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEtJ: At the present time, the property is one parcel 250 feet hy 665 feet. The property has a building on it occupied hy }dydraulic Specialty Cornpany. The o�aner does not plan any plant expansion, and therefore, would like to divide off a lot to the north of the existing building. Said lot line is to be 5 feet north of the north wall. The petitioner also has petitioned to divide off the easterly 25 feet to be sold and combined with the property to the east (Determan Welding). The north parcel would be l.l acre. The petitioner has also applied for a lot split and that request is in the process of being reviewed. The Planning Cor�mission will consider that request on April 22, 1987. If the Appeals Commission recommends approval of these two requests, the Staff suggests tl�at the north wall of the existing buildi.ng remain as is ti�ith no openings and the final approval �e contingent�upon City Council approval of the lot split request. . APPEALS COI111ISSION 11EETII�G, APRIL 14, 1987 PAGE 3 Mr. Clark shoo-red a large scale drao-ring of what the parcel would look like after it was divided. I�e stated he could only assume the petitioner Vtanted to sell off the lot to the north for someone to build another industrial building. At this tir�e, nothing was proposed for that lot. Mr. Reiken stated Parcel Plo. 1 was being split off to sell to Determan 4lelding. He stated the reason he was asking for a variance was to make the property as viable as possible and to get the property as close as possible to code. When the lot o�as purchased in 1977, the code at that tir�e was .75 acres. And, at that time, it was anticipated that in the future the property would either be developed by them or sold. He stated that right nrn� because of the code cfiange, the use of the property was limited. Dr. Vos asked 19r. Reiken if he had any intention of putting an opening in the north 4ra11 of his building. t4r. Reiken stated the building was designed for their needs and there was no need for a door on tVie north side. t1r. Clarl: stated the fire rating of the wall in this building was 4 hrs. So, the building code was met witfi this building with the lot line beingat 5 ft. P1r. Reiken stated one tliing they discovered after applying for the variance was that by splitting this parcel by the Creek, they were cramped for parking space. They would like to get a variance so they can maintain their business the best they can. Mr. Clark su99ested the petitioner sell off 5 ft. less of property. Mr. Haarstad stated they would have a problem with that because with 11r. Determan purchasing the property, they were getting over the center line of their property. Dasically, their property line ran dotian the center of the Creek,so by selling him 25 ft., it gave 17r. �eterman the room he needed to close off the Creek. If they sell him any less than that, he did not think it would work for �4r. Determan. Iir. Clark stated the Appeals Commission could not act on a variance request for parking at this meeting. because it required the public hearing process. T��o alternatives would be: to reduce tlie amount of property being sold to Mr. Determan to 20 ft. instead of 25 ft. or to sell Mr. Determan 25 ft. and retain a setback easement of 5 ft. for parking. Mr. Clark stated it t•+as possi6le that when the lot split and the variance went to City Council nn May 4 that the City Council hearing could be advertised to reflect the difference. Another possibility was that when the lot split was approved, the Planning Commission could recognize that the lot line be "x" feet fror� the parking lot and grandfather the variance in with the lot split approval. He stated the petitioner needed to discuss these possibilities with P1r. Robinson, Planning Coordinator. APPEALS C011P1ISSIOW �1EETIIJG, APRIL 14 1987 PAGE 4 2. MOTION BY DR, VOS� SECONDED BY lAS. SAVAGE� TO CLOSE 2XE pUBLZC XF.RRZNG. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� VICE—CNAIRPEFSON BARNR DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARIN6 CLOSED AT 7:50 P,M. - Dr. Vos stated he did not have a problem with the variance reauest because the north 4ra11 was 4 hr, fire-rated. If variances were needed for a buildina on the new lot, that could be discussed at that time. I1s. Sava9e stated she agreed. This was a situation �ahere the property was purchased before the code change, and it did not appear there would be any problem as far as any obstruction for fire-fighting purposes. h1r. Qarna stated he agreed with h1s. Savage. He wou7d presume it v�as an economic hardship on the part of the otianer of the property, and that was his reason for splitting the property. There was adequate room for fire-fi9hting purposes, and he would have no objection to the variance. P4r. Sherek stated lie had no objection to the variance as requested. MOTZON BY MS. SAVAGE� SECOIJDED BY MR. SNEREK� TO RECOMMEND TO CISY CODNCZL APPROV7iL OF VARIANCE REQUEST� VAR �187-08� BY DON REZKEN� L72TH THF, FOLLOGIIf7G STZPULATIONS: 1. TNE NORTN 67ALL OF THL' EXISTINL'i BUILDING REMAIN AS IS 47ITH NO OPENINGS. 2. FIldAL RPPROVAL BE COP7TINGENT UPON CITY COUNCIL APPROVRL OF THF, ZAS SPLIT REQUEST. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VSCE—CNAIRPERSON BARfIA DECLARED THE f40TION CRRRZED UNANIlQOUSLY. -09, BY BRIAN bIESTOVEP,. PURSUAPlT P10TION BY MS. SAVAGE� SECONDED BY DR. VOS� TO OPEN THE pUBLIC HERP.S(7G. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING RYE� VICE—CHAIRPERSOlT BARNA DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:52 P.M. Uice-Chairperson Barna read the Administrative Staff Report: ADPiIt�ISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT G274 Qen 11ore Drive FJ.E. UAR #87-09 � Y � �7PPEALS COI1�dISSION �1EETII�G, APRIL 14, 1987 PAGE 5 A. PU[3LIC PURPOSE SERVED 6Y REQUIREMENT: Sectiori 205.07.1, B, 3, allows a maxinum lieight of 14 feet (above grade) for all accessory buildings. Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain an aestfietically pleasing community. B. STATED HARUSHIP: "Construction of a garage on the property is cor�plicated by the severe slope of tfie lot and the adjacent roadway (Kerry Lane). The garage must provide level access from tfie street to allow for access during the winter r�onths. The garage must also provide for convenient access from tfie house. We propose a garage plan which meets both these requirements, fioYiever, it requires a garage which is 1II-20 feet high. The r�aximum height of a detached garage in Fridley is 14 ft. and thus we require a variance. Street level access to the 9arage for autos is necessary to provide for access during the winter months. If the garage is not built into the hillside on our property, access to it could be severely limited during the winter. The impact of improper placement o-ras denonstrated at a new construction site several houses away from ours. After one o-�inter in their newly constructed house, tfie owners razed their elevated, attached garage and excavated a new tuck-under garage closer to the street level. We liave learned fro� thi s exarnple and ti•ii 11 bui 1 d near the street 1 evel . Qy excavating and building the garage into the hill we can provide street level access to the garage. If we also limit the height of the garage to the 14 feet specified in the code, o-re would be unable to provide a service entrance to the garage (for foot traffic) on either of the two walls closest to the house. In this situation, after parking in the garage, the driver would have to walk, carrying groceries, packages, babies, and other items approxir�ately 60-75 feet and up an exposed flic�ht of stairs to the house. This is certainly a hardship in �linnesota and will reduce the resale value of the house. If the heigVit of the garage is limited to 14 ft. the roof of the garage ��iould be one or two feet above the ground level on the uphill side of the garage. This would allow access to the roof top from the ground and would be .an extremely unsafe condition. To remedy the situation, vae propose to slightly raise the garage roof in order to provide a ground level entrance on the wall closest to the house. In this design, rather than a trek of 75 feet, up hill, from the garage to the house,rre have a walk, over level terrain, of 25 feet_from the garage to the house. Furthernore, the roof would be a safe distance abov.e the ground, preventing access to the roof by small children in the neighborhood. 0 .- APPEl1LS COt49ISSI0N MEETI�JG, APRIL l�F, 1987 PAGE 6 The resulting structure would be 18-20 feet high. The proposed design is shown in the accompanying figures. The placement of the garage, relative to tfie Viouse and the property line, is shotian in Figure 1. A perspective view of the house and garage is shoo-m in Figure 2. The shaded areas repre- sent the ground 1eve1. Flote how the ground is only about 1 ft. below the top of the first floor of the garage. A roof placed directly on top of this structure �rould be almost at ground level. Also note that a service entrance would have to be placed on the wall which is not below grade, the wall directly opposite the house. Our proposed design is sho�•m in Figure 3. One side of the garage has been raised to provide access to the house and eliminate the unsafe roof line. We have contacted several neighbors, including our next door neigh6or, and discussed tlie plans with them. All have approved our proposed project." C. ADI1IIJISTRATIUE STAFF REVIEW: This proposed garage is to be constructed on a very steep slope. Tliere- fore, the front and north a�all are a7loo-ied to be 20 ft. from the floor to the roof ridge. This location appears to be the only logical location on the lot. He presently has no off-street parking. If the Appeals Commission approves the request, the staff has no stipu- lations to suggest. Mr. Clark showed an overall map showing the location of the petitioner's property. He stated this is one of tiie fet•r lots in Fridley that does not have a driveway or a garage. He stated the location of the garage as proposed by the petitioner was the most logical location for a garage on this lot. Mr. Clark stated the petitioner needed the variance because unless the petitioner builds an underground garage, a garage wiTl not fit on the lot. He stated this was a unique lot and a unique situation. Mr. Clark stated the hardship statement. proposing. petitioner had done a very nice job in preparing the It gave the Commissioners a good picture of what he was Mr. Brian lJestover stated the house was built in 1947. The builder of the house wanted to put a garage on the lot next to the house, but over the years pieces of property were sold off, and they were left �aith the present lot. He again described the location of the proposed garage and the design of the garage. Ms. Carol Dwyer, 6282 Kerry Lane, stated she was the neighbor to..the north. Her home was bu9]t within the last year. She stated t4r. Westover had presented the plans to her sometime a9o. She basically had no problem with the garage as it was proposed. She stated the l4estovers have a high 12 story dorrnered roof and below them she had a very high peaked roof. Actually, putting the second e APPEALS CO�1P11SSIOPJ 11EETIt�G, APRIL 14, 1987 PAGE 7 3. story onto the south half of the garage o-�ould probably conform better to the two houses than if he built a one-story garage Yrith a very flat roof. Aesthetically, what P1r.Westover intended to do looked better. Mr,.Westover stated his neighhors to the east did not object to this proposal. MOTION BY MS. SAVAGE� SECOl7DED BY DR. VOS, 20 CIASF. THE PUBLIC HF,RRING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� VICE—CIfAIRPERSDIJ BRRNA DECLARED TAE PUBLZC XEARING CZASED AT 8:08 P,M. Mr. Barna commended the petitioners on a very �vell stated hardsfiip. The petitioner would definitely be bringing the house, even v�ith the variance, closer to code compliance than it has been since the ne�� code was established. t�is. Savage stated she agreed. In looking at the property, she noted the public purpose was to maintain aesthetically pleasing community, an�i it seened to her tfiat this garage as planned would certainly do that. She would be in favor of granting the variance. Mr. Sherek stated he agreed with Ms. Savage. The garage Yias definitely well designed. 11e, too, wanted to compliment the petitioner on the preparation he did in preparing the stated hardship description. Most hardship descriptions are very sketchy, and many times the Cortmiissioners are not even sure a petitioner has a hardship. Dr. Vos stated this vias a very creative solution. He had driven by the property many tir�es and never realized there 4ias no garage. The way the garage was designed and the location into the hill would really look nice. MOTION BY DR. VOS, SECONDED BY 1QS. SAVAGE� TO APPROVE VARIANCE REQUEST� VAR N87-09, BY BRIAN F]ESTOVER, PURSUANT TO CHRPTER 204,07.1� B� 3� OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO INCREASE TF1E ldAXZMUM ALLOGIABLE XEIGHT OF A GRRAGE FROM I4 FEET TO 20 FEET ON IAT�3� B7ACK 2� HEATHER XILLS ADDITION� THE SAME BEING 6274 BEN MORE DRIUE N,E.� FRIDLEY, MINNESOTR� 55432. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOSING RYE� VZCE—CHRZRPERSON BAR1�]A DECLARED THE MOTIDN CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, VAR #87-10, BY ANTHO�dY KRALL, PURSUANT MOTION BY MS. SAVAGE� SECONDED BY MR. SHEREK� TO OPEN TNE PUBLIC-.-HEARZIJG. UPA^J A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VZCE— CHAIRPERSON BARNA DBCLRRED THE PUBLIC HF.RRING OPEN RT 8:14 P.M. � r APPEALS CO(1MISSIOIJ MEETING, APRIL 14 1987 PAGE 8 Vice-Chairperson Barna read the Administrative Staff Report: AD�1INIS7RATIVE STAFF REPORT 191 - 69th Avenue N.E. VAR #87-10 A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERUED E3Y REQUIREMENT: Section 205.07.3, D, 3a, requires a rear yard vrith a depth of not less than 25 percent of the lot depth, and not less than 25 feet permitted or more than 40 feet required for the main building. Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide rear yard space to be used for green areas which enhance the neighborhood. 8. STATED NARDSHIP: "We need more space for our main floor. ble need a bedroom or den or office or combination thereof, because we have NO private place any longer for our aging parents and relatives who depend upon our home for a temporary place to stay or a stop-over place on their way to the hospital. It was just fine when they were younger 6ecause we housed them in our baseinent. PJow, they cannot oralk the stairs to the bathroom. We have one bathroom and that is on t}ae main level. From August 1985 througii January 4, 1986, the date he passed a41ay, my 82-year old father was living with us until we were able to put Vaim in a nursin9 home (December 1985). He had to stay on the main floor in my daughter's room and we moved all of her things downstairs which kept us in turmoil since we have only the one bathroom. Now �ae have my husband's 86-year-old mother from P�orthern �Qinnesota (4 hours away) who has to visit the University Hospitals periodically and stay with us on the main floor of our home. Because of her arthritic condition, she cannot climb the stairs. At tlie same time, my 74-year-old aunt has osteoporosis and is from the same northern Minnesota toam (4 hours away) has to stop here on her way to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, tdinnesota, where she was hospitalized to have her hip ball changed. She used to be on a cane, and now she is in a wheelchair. Qur bedroom hall area is too small for her to move in a wheelchair. Our kitchen is small (10 ft. x 11 ft.). When t�+e are "four" we manage to fit at our table in the kitchen just fine. With five or six people and a wheelchair, v�e must move to the dining room. The dining room (9 ft, x 10 ft.) is too sntall. IF WE PUT THE ADDITION ON, THE DIP�ING ROOM WOULD BE EXTENDED 8 feet and we could turn the table the otf�er way and manage quite well. ti APPEALS COI11�1ISSIOt� MEETItJG, APRIL 14, 1937 PAGE 9 We have four cars and try to I:eep them in the driveway. Our daughter and son each have their car parked in the drivetivay. lJith the driveway being moved over, �oe would also keep half of the present driveway for their cars. If we can move our den from the basement and all of the fire cabinets to tiiis extended room upstairs, we would be able to put a bathroom downstairs in that present area of the den-office. Our son attends a local college and lives at home. Our daughter attends a college out of state but will be living at home beginning this flay because she is transferring to a local colle9e anci will be living at home again. C. l;DI1I�JItdISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: This house faces the side street. The new garage is in the rear of the lot. Also, adjacent to the rear lot line is a city park. The request has been reviewed by the City Parks Department and they would have no objection to this request. If approved, Staff recoMmends that no windows be placed in the west wall. Mr. Clark stated the petitioner would like to convert his existing garage to living space and add a t�•�o-car garage toward the park, resulting in a 4.5 ft. setback to the west property line. The park ��as a passive park. There was some play- ground equipment, but no athletic functions. There might be children or adults playing Frisbee or Jarts or something like that, and that was the reason for the stipulation of no windows in the west v+all. P4r. Clark stated they get into the semantics of whether this was really the side yard or the rear yard. The legal front of the lo'� was the short side of the lot when it is a corner lot, so the front yard was on itice Creek Blvd. and the garage would be built in the rear yard, If this was�the side yard, then the garage could be built withi� 5 ft. of the property 1ine. 4Jith the house across the street, because of the shape of the lot, it ��as the side yard. Mr. Krall stated the main reason for their request was they need more floor space. Mr. Barna stated he felt t�ie variance was created by the way the house faces on,the lot. 13L1TZON BY MS. SAVAGE� SECONDED BY MR_ SHEREK� TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING RYE� VZCE-CXAIRPERSON BARNA DECLRRED THE PUBLZC XEARING CLOSED AT 8:20 P.M. i�1r. Sherek stated he felt this Yras a good Qlan. If the designation of the front and side yards aiere more appropriate, there would be no problem. There APPEALS COMtiI5SI0N MEETING APRIL 14 1987 PAGE 10 4. would be no distractions from the appearance of the neighborhooAY so he felt the spirit of the code was being met, and he would vote in favor of the variance. Ms.-Savage stated she agreed that the spirit of the code was being met because of the park being next ta the proposed addition. She would vote in favor of granting the variance. Dr. Vos stated he had no problem with this variance as requested. Mr. Barna stated he agreed with the other Commissioners. If they took the technicality of the narrow side of the lot being the front of the lot, and allowed the front of the house to be the front of the house, they would then have a side yard which was required at 5 ft. and only a 1/2 ft, variance would be needed. MOTION BY MS. SAVAEE� SECONDED BY MR. SHEREX� TO APPROVE VARIANCE RF.QUEST� VAR k87-10, BY ANTHONY KRALL, PURSUANT TO CXAPTER 205,07.3, D, 3a, OF TNE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO DECREASE THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBFICK FROM 31 FEET TO 4.45 FEET � ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTZON OF AN EXISTING GARAGE INTO LIVING SPRCE RND TXE CONSTRUCTZON OF R NEW ATTACHED GRRAGE ON L(Yf 20� BLOCK 4� RICE CREER NORTH ADDITION� TXE SRME BEZNG 194 - 69TH AVENUE N.E.� FRIDLEY� MIIdNESOTR, 55432�WITX TXE STIPULATION THAT NO WINWWS BE PLACED IN THE WEST WALL OF THE ADDITION. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VZCE-CHAZRPERSON BARNA DECLARED TXE MOTZON CARRIED UNANIfdOUSLY. MOTION BY DR. VOS� SECONDED BY MS. SAVRGE� TO OpEN THE PUBLIC NEARING. UPON R.VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLRRED THE PiJBLZC HEARINC OPEN AT 8;23 P.M. Vice-Chairperson Barna read the Administrative Staff Report: ADPIINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 101 - 57th Place VAR #87-12 _ .� ' APPEALS COt11�1IS5I0N MEETIN6, APRIL 14, 1987 PAGE 11 � PUE3LIC PURPOSE SERVED 6Y REQUIRE�4EP�T: � Section 205.21.5, C, requires that not more than 25°k of the area of a lot shall be covered by the main building and all accessory buildin9s. Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide rear yard space to be used for green areas tvhich enhance the neighborhood. Section 205.21.5, D, 3a, requires that the side yard ��ridth on a street side of a corner lot shall be not less than 17.5 feet. Public purpose served by this requirement is to naintain a higher degree of traffic visibility and to reduce the "line of sight" encroach- ment into the neighbor's front yard. B. STAT[D HARDSHIP: "Our plans for remodeling, in order to work in tlie best manner and maintain the best aesthetic appearance, need to Maintain the sar�e line as original house." C. ADI1INISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The east half of the tlain Street right-of-way adjacent to this lot is 40 feet--7 feet wider tfian the right-of-way to the nortti. We had thought we could vacate the easterly 7 feet of the 40 feet. Ilowever, a research of the records indicate that the City owns the 40 feet in fee. Consequently, the process to accor�plish the transfer of fee title would be very lengthy. If the 7 feet could have been added to the lot, it would have eliminated the necessity for any uariances. If the Appeals Corunission approves this request, the staff has no s�ipulations to suggest. f1r. Clark stated the petitioner's house was on the corner of 57th and Main Street running north and south. The right of way to P1ain Street from the petitioner's lot north was 66 ft. wide and 3? ft. from the center line. At one time before this house vias built, the to*.:-:1 40 foot lot which was adjacent to the petitioner's lot was deeded to the Cit>. That was arhy there was an additional 7 feet right-of-vray because the Ci�� took the �rholA 40 ft. lot instead of a 33 foot lot. �4r. Clark stated the petitioner would bedroon and bathroom, and an entryway garage. like to add on a family room, a master off the back of the house next to the Mr. Barna asked�how many feet there was from the blacktopped surface of tlain Street to the westerly side of the addition. e r APPEALS COP41ISSIOfd �1EETING, APRIL 14, 19E7 PAGE 12 Iir. Bistodeau stated it was 29.9 ft. to the southern corner from the blacktop, 31,1 ft. to the northern corner from the 6lacktop, and about 30.8 ft. to the addition from the blacktop. So, it was approx. 30 ft. from the.curb line to the existing structure. t4r. Bistodeau stated it was definitely an unusual situation. He stated he has lived in this house for 22 years. His fanily was groaiing faster than the house could accanmodate. The fact that they have spent a lot of money on the existin9 structure already and the fact that they could not find a better house or a nicer location, they have decided to add on to the existing structure. He stated they could alter the plans to try to avoid the variance, but it just didn't work as o-iell as this plan did by maintaininq the same line as the original house. Dr. Vos stated he had looked at the lot, and it seemed to be quite a distance from flain Street. He asked that since the City oorned 7 ft, of right-of-way, wliat did the City plan to do with it? Mr. Clark stated the City would be willing to vacate that 7 ft. if it was a simple procedure. Normally, right-of-way can be vaca�ed through city ordinance. In this case, the property was owned in fee and the City cannot just se11 it to to the property owner. They have to go through a process of hearings. It � tiaas a lengthy process and possibly a costly process for the petitioner uaho wished to purchase that 7 ft. It was much simpler to go through the variance process. Ile stated there were no plans for that 7 ft. MOTZON BY MS. SRVAGE� SECONDED BY DR. VOS, TO CIASE THE PUBLIC XEARIl7G. UPON R VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING RYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLRRED THF. PUBLIC HEARING CIASED AT 8:36 P.M. � Dr. Vos stated this seemed like a reasonable request. Since the City o4m ed the 7 ft., there was not much the petitioner could do and it was no fault of the petitioner's. Ms. Savage, P1r. Sherek, and idr. Qarna agreed with Dr, Vos and stated theytad no problem with approving the variance as requested. 1dOT70N BY MR. SHEREK� SECONDED BY MS. SAVAGE� TO APPRpVE VRRIRNCE REQUESTS� VAR #187-12� BY RICHRRD AIJD JUDITH BISTODEAU� PURSUANT TO CHAPSER 205.21,5, C, OF THE FRIDLEY CZTY CODE TO INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE OF THE AREA OF R IAT COVERED BY THE MAZt7 BUZLDING AND ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS FROM 25$ TO 27.5%; AND,'PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205.21.5, D, 3a, OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO REDUCE TNE SZDE YARD SETBACK ON A STREET SIDE OF A CORNER FROM 17.5 FEET.SO 22 FEET TO ALLOW TNE CONSTRUCTION OF AN .ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DWELLING THAT IS I.00dTED WITH AN EXISTING 12 FtlOT SIDE YRRD� ALL ON.LCYf 2 AND THE.WEST HALF OF LOT 3� BLOCK 1, CITY VIEW ADDITION� THE SAME BEING 301 - 57TH PbACE N.E,� FRIDLEY� MINNESOTA� 55432. - UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOSING AYE, VZCE-CHAFRPERSON BARNA DECLRRED THE MOTION CRRRIED UNRNIMOUSLY. e APPEALS COHt1ISSI0N MEETING, APRIL 14, 1987 PAGE 13 5. MOTION BY MS. SAVAGE� SECONDED BY MR. SNEREK� TO OPEN THE PUBLIC NEARING. UPON R VDICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSOP7 BARNA DECLARED THE PUBLIC HERRING OPEN AT 8;39 P.M. Vice-Cliairperson Barna read the Administrative Staff Report: ADI9INISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 7130 Riverwood Park VAR #87-11 A. PUftLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREPIENT: Section 205.07.3, D, 2c, 3, requires that any attached or unattached accessory building which opens on the side street shall be at least 25 feet fron the property line of a side street. Public purpose served by this requirement is to allow for off-street parking without encroaching on the public right-of-way and also the aesthetic consideration of the neighborhood to reduce the building "line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor's front yard. B. STATEO HARDSHIP: "If the house �•iere to be built with the garage to the west, the house would end up approximately 17 feet with the street curb. There Y�ould be no sound buffer, which would be provided if the garage were located to the east. If we front load the garage in the present position, it will create a potential traffic hazard because the driveway will come out in the radius of the corner and create blind spots for all traffic." C. AD�IIIJISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: the construction on this house and garage was just recently started. The buyer would prefer to have his driveway go out the east side of the garage which is 17.5 feet from the property line. They would meet the side yard set6ack if the door exited from the south side. If the Appeals Comnission approves this request, Staff has no stipulations to suggest. � APPEALS COP111ISSION ttEETIfJG, APRIL 14, 1987 PAGE 14 I�Ir. Clark stated the building perr�it for this house was issued with the stipulation that the garage doorivtiu1tl have to be moved to the south side of the structure if the variance was denied, He stated that if the garage door was on the south side, it would put the driveway exiting almost at the carve of Riverwood Drive which was not the best location as far as traffic was concerned. The right-of-way to Riverwood Drive was 60 ft, which was 10 ft. wider than normal to a residential street, so there was an additional 5 ft, of boulevard. If the driveway was on the east side, the disiance from the curb to the garage, there would be about 31 ft. which would leave enough room to park vehicTes without hanging over onto the curb. ttr. Clark stated this house does meet code if the driveo-iay goes out on the south side of the garage. This was a sin9le street with a curve, not toio streets coming together at an intersection. Mr. Clark stated all this has been discussed with the petitioner at some length priar to canstruction, but the petitioner stil] felt he wou7d like to apply for the variance. Mr. Moselle stated he was the builder of the house. He stated he had had the house designed, and the buyer's choice was to have the driveway on the east side for a couple of reasons: (1) an entryway was designed to come into the house from the garage. With the garage door facing east, it would give them more depth and more room for the entrance into the house; (2) the radius probler� of coming onto the street on the south side was definitely a consideration. Mr. Moselle stated this house plan came in on a real short notice to P1r. Clark. Because the buyer wanted to get going right away, the building permit was issued with the stipulation about the variance. The drafting people, when they set up the plan, probably did not do as much investigating as they should have, because as normal setbacks are stated, this was out of the ordinary as far as the side yard setback requirements. When he had checked back with the surveyor about why this setback wasn't brought to his attention, he was told that it was an unconmon ordinance, and the surveyoh had'not even been aware of it. That was why they were at this point, and why the house was des?gned this way from the beginning. tis. Savage asked Mr, Moselle to describe his hardship a little bit better. Mr. �loselle stated the way the house was designed, by having the garage door on the east, it would eliminate the driveway coming out in a radius. Obviously, the buyer does not want to come out on the south side. He felt that was the major hardship. Ilaving the garage door on the south would detract from the looks of the house and the design of the house, not only on the exterior, but also in the interior. He agreed that maybe some time should have 6een spent before the house was designed this way, but he wanted to enphasize that it was a setback not wel] known to the point where the house was designed before they were aware of it. It was designed in accordance with normal setbacks. APPEALS CQt1t1ISSI0N PIEETIIIG, APRIL 14, 1987 PAGE 15 Mr. Barna stated there really did not seem to be a hardship. � f4r. Clark stated the lot was sold with this house at tliis location before Mr. Moselle was aware of the code. He was aware of how the code read almost too late to change the plans much. It was a ganble he took, and he created his "own hardship. P�r. Clark stated he had talked to t1r. �toselle at length several times and tried to convince him to "flip-flop" the house plan, but apparently the potential buyer did not ti,�ant to do that. �4r. �9oselle has spent a lot of time �vorking on this house design, didn't realize the code restrictions, and noo-r has gone this far with a completion date that was rather tight. He could not wait to begin construction for two weeks, because he then would go beyond the completion date. Idr. Clark stated that o-ias his understanding of the situation, It was really not a l�ardsfiip the Appeals Commission could consider, but ��Ir. h1oselle would definitely have had a hardship if he had waited until this meeting for the decision, then having to go back to the drafting board to redraft the house design. However, if this variance was denied, �4r. Moselle could switch the gara9e door to the south, 14r. Barna stated he siill did not feel there was a well-defined hardship, other than the fact that the buyer has pushed things ahead a little 6it. What the Commission has to look at is the fact that without a variance, the property cannot be used. In this case, without a variance, the property can still be used. The only loss would be that incurred by the developer because of going ahead �iith plans and construction to this point before getting the variance. In other words, any loss that has incurred, was self-incurred. Mr. Sherek stated r�hat the Appeals Corrmission deals with are thin�s that are unavoidable--things that are already fn ptace when sorseone took over the operation. It became very difficult when someone was in the midst of causing the problem and then asked for a variance. Mr. Moselle stated this plan was developed from the original site plan approved by the City. The building pods were laid on that site plan. Those were the tfiings lie had to go by. He stated he cannot investigate each individual's job and he has to depend on the informatian given to him, Agai�, the ordinance which caused the problem was not an ordinance that was used verv much. Even the surveyor was not aware of it, so there was never an in�iication , there was a problem until the day he brought the plans in. The site had already been dug at that time. ldhen Mr. Clark went through the plans, he came up with the fact that they did not meet the setback because of the ordinance requirement. Mr. Moselle agreed it was his responsibility to monitor and make sure things got built right. - APPEALS COt1MISSION MEE7ING, APRIL 14 1937 PAC,E 16 Mr. C1ark stated that aesthetically, the garage exiting to the east seemed to work best. Having the driveway exiting to the south could cre3te a traffic hazard. If there fiad been more time, the best thing would have been for the builder to "flip-flop" the house. He stated that Mr. Mo.selle was correct when he said that the overall conception plan was approved with the overall plat. Mr. Barna stated their real problem was the legal restriction regarding the hardship. The spirit of the code was being �net, even vrithout a stipulation that any future house on the prcperty to the north face to the north. There was about 30 ft. from the curb to the side of the driveway and ift�e house to the north faced north and did the same thing by exiting the garage to the east, there would be no site line problems. He had no problem with the variance, but legally there was no hardship. The only hardship was the one imposed by the builder. t4r. 14oselle stated his statement of hardship would be the possibility of losing a buyer for the house. MOTION BY MR. SHEREX� SECONDED BY DR. VOS� TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC H£ARING. UPON A VOZCE VOTE, ALL VOTFNG AYE, VICE-CXAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE PUBLIC NEARING CIASED AT 8:25 P.M, Dr. Vos stated his initial reaction when looking at the construction was that someone had m9scalculated, He shared some of the same concerns expressed by Mr. Barna, and that a+as that this was a self-imposed hardship. Looking at how the house was going to be located and looking at where the driveway would exit, the driveway would come out on the radius. If they tried to run the driveway so it was not on the radius, the front yard would essentia7ly have to be full of concrete. The house looked small from the side if the garage door was put on the south side. He stated he felt a timeline was not a factor for being a hardship and was strictly between the buyer and the seller. That was soriething that was negotiable right up until the time you move in. He stated he would vote in favor of the variance request. Mr. Sherek stated he also shared the concerns expressed by Mr. Qarna and Dr. Vos. The hardship was being created right at this meeting, and he would feel very bad about setting a precedent that would maybe encourage the lack of thorough research of city ordinances 6efore doing a plan for a house. He stated he would vote against the variance request, even though he felt it was a good plan. Under other circumstances, he could possibly vote for it. P1s. Savage stated Dr. Vos had expressed her concerns well. She felt the spirit of the code had been met by the developer's plan in the placement of the garage on the east side. She understood the concern for setting a precedent. However, she would vote in favor of the variance request, �dr. Barna stated he had no pro6lem with the plan as presented, the aesthetics of it, and all the details of the variance, other than the fact that the i APPEALS COP4�IISSIOP� �1EETING, APRIL 14, 1987 PAGE 17 hardship was self-imposed. If they approve this, it would be setting a precedent for other builders to do the same thing. He would vote against the variance request. Mr. Barna recorrnended that the Commission make a motion recommending to City Council that the City Council approve the variance request, but expressing the Commission's concerns that there was no legal hardship and that tfie hardship was self-imposed, decause of the Commission's concerns about sending a motion recommending approval or denial with a tie vote of 2 to 2, the Commission members decided to make a motion to send this variance request on to the City Council without a recomnendation. 7dOTIQV BY MS. SAVRGE� SECONDED BY MR. SHEREK� TO SEND VARIANCE� VAR N87-S1, BY McMULLEN/MOSELLE, CONTRACTORS, 20 CZTY COUNCIL WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATIDN, BUT TO RSK THE CITY COUNCIL 2YJ CONSZDER THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE COMMISSION MF,P�IDERS IN TNE ABOVE DZSCUSSION. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING RYE, VZCE-CNRIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED TNE MOTION CARRZED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURf�11ENT: MOTIOIJ BY MR. SHEREK, SECONDED SY DR. VOS� TO AA70URN THE MEETING. UPON A VOZCE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHRIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE APRIL 14� 1987� APPEALS C014MISSION MEETING RDJOURNED AT 9:10 P,M, Res ectfully su mitted, � , a ynr� Saba Recording Secretary ��- ;� �� -c°� � ✓ ��_�� /� //�"�� .:. ✓" - .- �� , �� r / � � �i.�Ze-�� ' �� r�� i�'L�-CJ�.O�"'i� 7''�',-c�"i"`[l-�''T �� 9� %/�d,i✓ R-�--•�•��l�.i:.C�J� ��y✓��-i.�'-CI.f�C� 7 ��-, t�4o., y R. k'��C � �e�'a�y /�. /�iaCG �r ra.��INe��-a Jc Cu�o t W�-�� @ p�'' �� ' � �( � , sss�P � C�) �>> 2� E S �Q.'u-1. �CJ J) . / Ll.c.. U..L��i E� S J//-'L ��/ / u / - S 7 �"� %��c-c. ✓7 £ . ��'�E� �. �� /9Y-6 i� %�v�e-�i/�' 6a� y �n ��rP �r' �o�.g �. /l� � �� p�,� ��30 .In c/"v S �`�� , %f L G'�J �-�3 �- .Z �� l