The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 08/22/1990 - 7137City of Fridley A G E N D A PLANNING COI�IISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 22, 1990 7:30 P.M. I,OCATION: FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER, 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. CALL TO ORDER• ROLL CALL• APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: August 8, 1990 CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT. L.S. #90-03 BY FRIDLEY BUSINESS CENTER PARTNERSHIP: To split Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 2, Northco Business Park into the following two parcels: Parcel l: Lots 5 and 6 and the north 87.98 feet of the east 268.02 feet of Lot 4, Block 2, Northco Business Park, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota. Parcel 2: Lot 4, Block 2, Northco Business Park, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota, except the north 87.98 feet of the east 268.02 feet of said Lot 4. All generally located east of Northco Drive and south of 73rd Avenue. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT P S. #90-03 BY FRIDLEY BUSINESS CENTER PARTNERSHIP: To replat Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6, Block 2, Northco Business Park into two lots, Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Northco Business Park Third Addition, on property generally located east of Northco Drive and south of 73rd Avenue. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #90-14 BY STOCK ROOFING: Per Section 205.18.O1.C.(12) of the Fridley City Code, to allow exterior storage of materials and equipment, on Lots 10 and 11, Block 7, Onaway, generally located at 7738 Elm Street N.E. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 7 1990 OTHER BUSINESS• ADJOURN: . � S CITY OF FRIDI+EY pLANNZNG CO1rII+tI88ION l�ETING, ADa�BT 8, 1990 .. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Betzold called the August 8, 1990, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Don Betzold, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Paul Dahlberg Members Absent: Dave Rondrick, Diane Savage, Connie Modig Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Garland and Jane Lagesse, 7951 Broad Avenue ,APPROVAL OF JULY 25. 1990. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: OM TION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the July 25, 1990, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOIIBLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #90-13. BY GARLAND LAGESSE: Per Section 205.24.04.D of the Fridley City Code to allow a structure to be constructed in a CRP-2 (Flood Fringe) District, on Lots 9-12, 16-24, Block M, Riverview Heights, generally located at 7951 Broad Avenue N.E. OM TION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CSAIRPERBON HETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. Ms. Dacy stated the parcel is located east of and adjacent to Broad Avenue. The parcel is approximately one acre in size and is located just at the edge of the flood fringe district as identified in the Flood Insurance Rate maps. The petitioner, Mr. Lagesse, is proposing to demolish the existing attached 18 ft. by 11 ft. three- season porch and reconstruct a 12 ft. by 25 ft. three-season porch. Ms. Dacy stated the major factor with this application is, because of its location in the Flood Fringe District, what the Flood PLANNING COA�iI88ION MEETING, AIIGIIST 8. 1990 PAGE 2 Insurance Rate maps call the "finished floor elevation". The finished floor elevation must be at a level which is considered flood-proofed in the eyes of the City's ordinance. Ms. Dacy stated that during the application period, there was some misunderstanding between staff and the petitioner. Mr. Lagesse was under the impression that he only had to have an elevation of 823 feet; and, as listed in the staff report, staff is stipulating 824 feet. During the last week, staff has been working with the petitioner and looking at the flood information to determine the exact flood elevation that actually occurred in this part of the flood plain district. Ms. Dacy stated that in the report staff found in the files dated November 1971 prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers, it analyzes the entire flood area of the Mississippi River and then provides a 100 year flood elevation profile along the entire length of the river. Staff determined that the flood elevation in the approximate location of the petitioner's property between Buffalo and Cheryl Streets occurred at the elevation of 822.5 feet. The City's ordinance and the DNR require that the finished floor elevation of a habitable living space be flood-proofed to one foot above the flood elevation. That makes an elevation of 823.5. Mr. Lagesse has indicated to staff that he can construct the addition at the 823.5 foot elevation, but would not be able to do it at the 824 foot elevation. The additional 6 inches affects the floor to ceiling height which would affect the pitch of the roof such that it would impinge on the windows on the upper floor of his home. Ms. Dacy stated that in the staff report, staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit with the following stipulations: 1. The first floor elevation of the addition shall be 824 feet above sea level. 2. The addition shall be flood-proofed in accordance with the building code requirements. 3. The petitioner shall provide hard surface driveway by September 30, 1991. Ms. Dacy stated that now, instead of the proposed stipulation #1, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit subject to the first floor elevation of the addition being at 823.5 feet, subject to the approval of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR); and, if necessary, the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA). Ms. Dacy stated that as the Commission is aware, the City takes a certain risk in approving construction and habitable living area within flood plain areas. She had contacted a DNR staff person � PLANNING CCIN�IIBSION MEETIN�3. AIIGIIST 8. 1990 PAGE 3 regarding this issue who advised her that in the case of a federal and state audit, if it can be determined that the City issued a permit in direct conflict with the codes of the City, the City is at risk for penalty and, in the case of a flood, lawsuits for damages. With that in mind, between the Planning Commission meeting and the City Council meeting on August 27, staff is going to write a letter to the DNR requesting that the DNR analyze the above information and make a recommendation as to whether or not they agree with staff's recommendation at the 823.5 foot elevation. If so, then the City Council can proceed and approve the special use permit. Ms. Dacy stated another issue with this application is that last week staff informed the petitioner about stipulation #3, requiring a hard surface driveway. As the Commission is aware, providing a hard surface driveway is a typical stipulation that the City places on variance requests, special use permit requests, and other building permits in order to bring various parts of property up to City Code. The petitioner is strongly opposed to the hard surface driveway stipulation. Mr. Dahlberg asked if staff has the specific elevation of the existing home. Ms. Dacy stated that at the request of the petitioner, the Engineering Department staff shot the elevation of the existing porch at 821.94 feet. If a flood occurred at 822.5 feet, it is just barely into the flood plain. Mr. Garland Lagesse stated he would like to explain to the Commission why the existing porch is being taken down. He stated this project started out as a simple project to upgrade the existing porch. In getting some estimate costs, it was pointed out to them by a contractor that the existing porch is not on footings. It is merely on a slab. It was also pointed out that part of the wall is starting to pull away. Upon further investigation, it was discovered that the concrete slab has either broken loose or is cracked. Mr. Lagesse stated he talked to Darrel Clark, the Building Inspector, to see if the porch could be jacked up and footings be put underneath. He was told he was restricted on what he could do because the property is in the flood plain. He was told �it might be possible to mudjack under the concrete to try and pick it up and push more concrete under it to level the floor out. If it would work, it is only a temporary solution. Mr. Lagesse stated the only alternative he has been told about that is feasible is to take the existing porch down and start from scratch. And, because he is in the flood plain, he has to bring the elevation of the floor up. This project escalated quite quickly from approximately $2,000 to $15,000. PLANNING COMMISSION MESTING. AIIGIIBT 8. 1990_ PAGE 4 Mr. Lagesse stated he can always leave the porch as it is and let it fall down, but they would like to utilize the space for their family. Mr. Lagesse stated that on the roof, he needs at least 4 inches between the roof and the house windows. If the roof is any higher, there will be a water problem on the windows. He cannot go with a gable roof, because of the elevation restriction, so he has to go with a flat roof. Inside, he has to come out with,a landing to step up into the porch from the house. Because they will lose some usable living space because of the landing, they decided to extend the width of the house. He stated he has modified the plan to go to 823.5 feet, but not to 824 feet. If he went with the 824 foot elevation, he would have a room standing about 40 inches above the ground. He would also lose some of the solar benefit and a view out to Spring Brook Creek. Mr. Lagesse stated he has talked to a realtor to see if the construction of a new porch is feasible in terms of economics. The realtor said it would be kind of stretching it, but they have to think in terms of what the family wants. The realtor said the added value to the home was possible $7,000, so the cost of constructing the porch is double what the added value will be. Mr. Lagesse stated John Flora, Public Works Director, has been talking to the Federal Government about the whole flood plain issue. The essence of it is that for the last 25 years the citizens of Fridley have been paying for flood insurance apparently for no reason. The reason behind that is the cause of the 1965 flood was from man-made causes. There was an obstruction at the St. Anthony bridge; and at the same time, I-694 was being constructed and the width of the river was down to a 10 foot width. The combination of the two things caused the flooding. This is docwnented in Army Corps of Engineers records. Ms. Dacy stated, that in spite of what happened in 1965, since then there have been adjustments at the Coon Rapids Dam and other adjustments which has caused the City of Fridley to ask the Army Corps of Engineers and the DNR to take a look at the elevation of the flood plain since 1983. The Arnay Corps has done some studies on the control mechanisms that were installed along the river to determine if they are going to be accurate. It is her understanding that the DNR is reluctant initially to look at pulling back the existing elevations, and it could take months or years before this is resolved. Underlying Mr. Iagesse's argument is the fact that he is at the fringe of the district and, in his mind, there is a real question as to whether or not a flood of this nature could occur again to the intensity that.was recorded. Unfortunately, until the numbers are changed, the City has to live with what the FEMA maps say. PLANNING COMMIBBION MEETING. AOGDST 8, 1990 PAGE _5 Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Lagesse's next door neighbor, Mr. James Bowe, built a new home at 7919 Broad Avenue (SP #89-02) , and the finished floor elevation was required at 824 feet. Mr. Betzold stated he believed the Planning Commission put on a stipulation requiring Mr. Bowe to sign a hold harmless agreement. Maybe the Planning Commission could put on a similar stipulation in this case if they are getting stuck �over this 1/2 foot requirement with the DNR and FEMA. Ms. Dacy stated that was a stipulation as part of the Planning Commission and City Council approval, and the document was recorded and is in the file. Mr. Lagesse stated he was at the meeting when Mr. Bowe applied for his special use permit. The stipulation read: "Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall sign a covenant to be recorded at the County releasing the City from any liability for the issuance of this special use permit." If the Planning Commission wanted to make a similar stipulation at the 823.5 foot elevation, he could live with that. Ms. Dacy stated the agreement Mr. Bowe signed did not specify an elevation. It was just a statement. Mr. Dahlberg stated that since the main level of the house is at about 822.4 feet, the house is already subjected to a lower elevation and the pet�tioner is taking a risk just by living in the flood fringe. He believed it would make sense to go through the same process in terms of a hold harmless agreement of some sort but to construct the porch at the same elevation as the house but no lower. Ms. Sherek agreed. She stated it does not make sense to build a porch above the level of the house. Ms. Dacy stated she also agreed. She just had the concern that if an audit occurred, she would prefer to have this issue resolved now and have the DNR sign off on it. Ms. Sherek stated then they should ask the DNR to sign off on it with the porch at the level of the existinq house. Ms. Dacy stated she can certainly ask this question of the DNR. Mr. Lagesse asked staff to be sure and tell the DNR that the existing porch is now lower than the existing level of the house, and that the reason it will be torn down and replaced is because of structural damage. Ms. Dacy stated she will draft a letter to the DNR and have Mr. Lagesse review it to make sure the facts are accurate. S PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINa. AIIGIIST 8. 1990 PAGE 6 Mr. Robertson stated that the flood-proofing measure required by the building code is raising a structure to an elevation one foot above the flood. Now they are looking at a situation where that may not occur. A question Mr. Lagesse might want to find out: Would the newly constructed porch addition and the house be eligible for flood insurance? Mr. Lagesse stated that if he is allowed to stay at the existing floor elevation of the house, it broadens his options and it might make sense to see what the cost is to jack up the existing porch and put footings underneath it. Mr. Betzold asked Mr. Lagesse to state his objection to the hard surface driveway stipulation (#3). Mr. Lagesse stated that his reason for objecting to the hard surface driveway is that when he made the application in July, he was not told about the requirement of the hard surface driveway. It wasn't until about one week ago that staff called him and told him they had forgot to tell him about the hard surface driveway requirement. Throwing this requirement on top of everything else presents more of an economic hardship than he is willing to bear. Mr. Lagesse stated that when he moved into the house, there was no hard surface driveway. It has been his understanding that the City cannot legally require anyone to put in a hard surface driveway, but can only encourage it. He has made improvements to the driveway. He has put in a concrete surface between the garage and the house and about 40 feet from the garage. He has put class 2 material on the driveway to hold the driveway together and to make it harder. He stated that the cost of a hard surface driveway is over $2,000, and the hard surface driveway requirement is a definite economic hardship. The driveway is 150 feet long. Mr. Betzold stated Mr. Lagesse is correct in saying that the City cannot legally require the hard surface driveway, but this stipulation has been pretty routine for anyone making a request to the City in order to bring the property up to code. He stated any new construction, of course, must meet code. OM TION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8s35 P.M. Mr. Saba stated he has real concerns about forcing the hard surface driveway for 150 feet of driveway because of the cost involved. He would be willing to make an exception in this case. PLANNING COlrIIrIIBBION MEETING, AIIGIIST 8. 1990 PAaE 7 Mr. Setzold stated he agreed. If the petitioner was remodeling, he might insist on the hard surface driveway, but in this case, the petitioner is not remodeling, he is just trying to repair or replace part of the house that is falling down. Mr. Dahlberg stated he also agreed. However, if it turns out that the existing porch can be reconstructed for significantly less than new construction, he would encourage the petitioner to reconsider the hard surface driveway. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to City Council approval of special use permit request, SP #90-13, per Section 205.24.04.D of the Fridley City Code to allow a structure to be constructed in a CRP-2 (Flood Fringe) District, on Lots 9- 12, 16-24, Block M, Riverview Heights, generally located at 7951 Broad Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The elevation of the porch addition to be at the elevation of the existing livirig space, contingent upon approval by the Department of Natural Resources and Federal Emergency Management Association. 2. The property owner shall execute a hold harmless agreement to be recorded with the title of the property. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINGS AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARE THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. Dacy stated this item will go to City Council on August 27, 1990. 2. RECEIVE JUNE 4, 1990 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the June 4, 1990, Parks and Recreation Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPER80N BET20LD DECLARE THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 3. RECEIVE JULY 17 1990 ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the July 17, 1990, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOT�, ALL VOTINa AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARL� THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 4. RECEIVE JULY 19. 1990 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES• ! f � PLANNING CO1rIIrII88ION MEETIN(�, AIIGIIST 8. 1990 _ PAGE 8 e OM TION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive the July 19, 1990, Housing and Redevelopment Authority minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARE T8E MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 5. R��'FIVE JULY 24 1990 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: OM TION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the July 24, 1990, Appeals Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINQ AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARE THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. ADJOURNMENT: OM TION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to adjourn the meeting. IIpon a voiae vote, all votinq aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the motion carried and the Auqust 8, 1990, Planninq Commission meetinq adjournee at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, GC�j-�.� Lyn Saba Reco ding Secretary � � ,� � STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE ��OF pLAN�NG CONMSSION DATE: August 22, 1990 F'R! DLEY CITY COUVqL DATE �uTHOa ��= REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER APPLICANT PROPOSED REQUEST LOCATION SITE DATA SIZE DENSITY PRESENT ZONING ADJACENT LAND USES $� Z��a UME$ PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS F�VANCIAL IMPLlCATIONS CONFORMANCE TO COMPREt�1VSNE PLAN COMPATIBIUTY WITH ADJACENT USES & ZONNG ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION L.S. 4E90-03 Fridley Business Center Partnership Split off a portion of Lot 4, Block 2, Northco 73rd and University Avenues 206,911 square feet M-2, Aeavy Industrial M-2, Heavy Industrial Yes Yes Approval with stipulations Staff Report L.S. #90-03, Fridley Business Center Partnership Page 2 Rec�uest The petitioner, Fridley Business Center Partnership, is proposing to split off a portion of Lot 4, Block 2, Northco, and combine it with Lots 5 and 6, Northco, in order to create a larger lot for its purchaser, Angeion Corporation. In addition to the area being split, a triangular easement along the north lot line of Lot 4 will also be created for access for the Angeion Corporation. The petitioner is also processing a plat request, P.S. #90-03. The subdivision of these properties are proposed in two phases for the following reasons: Phase 1: The purpose of the lot split application is to convey the 88 foot rectangle for Angeion Corporation. Angeion has submitted its building permit application and would like to start construction in September. Approval of the lot split will enable them to do so. The proposed description of the rectangle is simple enough to be accepted by the County Recorder's office without replatting. Phase 2: The purpose of the plat application is to common lot line between Angeion's lot include the triangular easement area intc The legal description of the triangle is by metes and bounds, and therefore, replatted. reconfigure the and Lot 4 to Arigeion's lot. too complicated needs to be Site The property is located at the inter6ection of Northco Drive and the Carter Day private drive near 73rd and University Avenues. The property is currently vacant, and is treed with native oak and cherry trees. The property is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, as are the parcels to the north, south, east, and west. Analvsis The petitioner is proposing the lot split in order to create a larger lot for the Angeion Corporation. The split does not adversely impact Lot 4, Block 2, Northco, as that lot is over the 1.5 acre minimum lot size set forth in the zoning code. In addition, the lot still maintains the required 150 feet of lot width. 0 a Staff Report L.S. #90-03, Fridley Business Center Partnership Page 3 The petitioner, in processing the plat request, will create two new lots in what will be the Northco 3rd Addition, which will make the legal descriptions of the lot split and easement much simpler. Recommendation As the lot split does not adversely impact the existing lots as to minimum lot area and lot width, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request with the following stipulation: 1. The plat, P.S. #90-03, shall be completed by the petitioner. 2. Compliance with stipulations of P.S. #90-03 3. Park dedication fees shall be paid at time of building permit issuance. ' L.S. �90-03 P.S. �90-03 Page 2 Arlyn Jordan 7300 Memory Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Ronald Rillian 7301 Concerto Curve N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Willis Erickson 7341 Memory Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 David Kiefner 7331 Memory Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Constance Ahrens 7321 Memory Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Bennhard Hedlund 7311 Memory Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Arlen Hallberg 7301 Memory Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 John Giedlinski 7311 Melody Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Edward Windels 7321 Melody Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Phyllis Parviainen 7331 Melody Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 David Turbitt 7341 Melody Drive N.E. Fridley, 1rIl�T 55432 Thomas Zembal 7340 Concerto Curve N.E. Fridley, 1�1 55432 Dean Rorsgren 7330 Concerto Curve N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Gene Heglund 7320 Concerto Curve N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 John Gassner � 7310 Concerto Curve N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 David Windeier 7300 Concerto Curve N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 David Lissner 7301 Melody Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 . Donald Stark 7340 Melody Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Francis Grewe 7330 Melody Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Dennis Kudak 7320 Melody Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Gerald Dahle 7310 Melody Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 � Clifford Leacock 7300 Melody Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Bruce Zwirtz 7315 IIniversity Aveaue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Ronald Mattson 7324 Symphony Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Edward Czamecki 7312 Symphony Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 James Sandquist 7300 Symphony Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Ronald Pillard 7301 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company One North Western Center Chicago, IL 60606 City Council Members Planning Commission Chair Target Northern Distribution Center 1090 - 73rd Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 " L.S. �90-03 P.S. �90-03 Fridley Business Center Partnership Fridley Business Center Partnership Dale Edstrom 1201 Marquette Avenue Suite I10 Minneapolis, MN 55403 Tri-State Land Company 1601 Soo Line Building Minneapolis, MN 55428 Winfield Development 5780 Lincoln Drive Edina, MN 55435 Columbia lce Arena 7011 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Public Works Garage 400 - 71st Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 James Freberg 7331 Tempo Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 James Warhol 7321 Tempo Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Richard Almstead 7311 Tempo Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Harvey Benson 7301 Tempo Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Joha Bielawski 7311 Lyric Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Carol Oberlander 7321 Lyric Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Bruce Smith 7331 Lyric Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 MAILING LIST Larry Luck 7341 Lyric Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Planning Commission 8/7/90 City Couacil James Lawrence � 7340 Tempo Terrace N.E. Fridley, 1rIId 55432 Clifford Fabianke 7330 Tempo Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 James Bergerson 7320 Tempo Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 • James Solmen 7310-Tempo Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Thomas Stimart 7300 Tempo Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Clifford Boltman 7301 Lyric Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Eugene Buechler 7340 Lyric Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Allan Quam 399 - 73rd Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Norman Young 7330 Lyric Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Robert Ray 7320 Lqric Lane N.E. Fridley, 1�1 55432 Earl Noble 7301 Lqric Lane N.E. Fridley, 1�Il�T 55432 Phillip Rnutson 7301 Symphony Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 George Deutsch 7311 Symphony Street N.E. Fridley, 1�1 55432 Timothy Norgren 7321 Symphony Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Donald Johnson 7331 Symphony Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Arthur Jytyla 7311 Concerto Curve N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Kermit Dahlke 7321 Concerto Curve N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Robert Nielsen 7331 Concerto Curve N.E. Fridley, IrIl�1 55432 Raymond Maki 7341 Concerto Curve N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Ray Cramble 7340 Memory Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident 7330 Memory Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Jack Hokenstrom 7320 Memory Lane N.E. Fridley, 1�T 55432 Irving �taito 7310 Memory Lane N.E. Fridleq, 1�1 55432 b ��+. • .... t I; .. i � �. �` � . �� , --------------- - ------ ---- -� -- ---�----.... � �� ' i a ,� , Y � ' � a ��'�s W - � ' , �L . oyb, oy �: � � m o � . � _ � ~ � ��s��d.— ., 4 } � � . �� 1� � r �; � �� r � �� °�; � �M � .�� W ---��.,0�.. M.K.�?o,•._.. � �� • W � U ¢ , Q . i � � c� w � �� . � m �� z W z � G �E . � a � W Z � � c3� � � �o � � � n � � o < � •,i W dl Z `Y x �3 i � .a _� �e,p � ` � to 'R ��~ � m l� i ' ��a `�`; R•I � i � •.� pt � 1 j `� C. , o � I v � ' . e < � ,I �'�iL�/r+' ',►�•1~s •�..-„r.a�, � �i'�Jr�,.r w ' �� _ � H��ii--M.rYif+�' X ��.M!M _� � ..�.._-. ....�...... ^ �\ �� AYiY� •N II./: ` i .i � �� .., s �r,• ' _ pIMFIl11F+,�1 �� .,��— �'•i J i o,, i .�.. ,.�,.,�=�a i ! i.r � _ 1 0 � ..1 , i �.i'�z = � - - f - � � . i-- - ..€ -:.. -' f F,-' - • ;;;r • •""�:' " i � l �'� P � . r it• � -- ----- ��`' ''"� i .��' . . _�� w . g� � ♦ w �� • �, • �� • `�`� ,...r. . �} , .., ;' � g-y •: __1_"f ` /�+ F"t�� ' � . , '' , il,!!17 a 7i131111�� ' �- � I - • • � . � ` . � = I • 4 � �' tt� � �� !t s� : � � ,�' `' ` � M� g: 3 " � by : � � � `. � `�� . i . ;��'! ~ �y�� . � ° : � i � � • - � t I °; ct � k: `! _ . 3 LOCATION MAP � n Q O z � a i � _ Y 2 � � H ��v� ' ; . � :a '� �' . � r_ 2a . :� � �� j` � i : • -. • - �' , �s ! • ! ± F— a .� : t • i TH AVE. N.E. • d • .� • U�! I'i'Y HOSPITAL • / /S i! � " '4yrr. ••. �� ,- �c � I � � . .� • • � �.�..� � Ct+ 1�'•'� �i ;. � +• �� • ! ,�, . �: . . � . . •. r� � � . s•. �B •j. .�� i\ s ` � • • .�. t �� J• J\ �•. �� . I. � �' \, "' � �� ) ., ��, ••i• :a jj' �� ,f,6J �• t .� w .�'. ! • � \ � � R i� is' .� % !° • 1 i . . � , ti , . 1e .� � . � „ . . � . .e , � . � •.�� ., � •. • r , �� - •;s; N , _ + � . .r :•%': , rs . • . � _ s •� ,: �1�"� . ' , ' '' ' f �� I -� '•----� . � T R A��//� //�/� / � RE��STER�� E�►sTERE�' �% ��/ � R /�/� LAN� A �� L � � SUR S // � / / 0• N /� i ,7,�� +�; z • j��'_ ., .• t ; .t. '� � 4� +-- ° e �, � x ,�� 1 • ••�• t 'r • �� ' i Ap0 � '�� . . ? , i �1� 1.I� , r 1 � Z � ,. ■ : • . so s �" yyI'' �� '�E C , t I �� D� U '_ � � r L , 1•� . .t • 3 • .1�ii � : �„__ �� - ��'��$,L C� ' ,�,I ; ` � " � � ^0_ 13 .`. `� �1 , .c c . /�. \ i� � ,! I • `j � —, � � � s .�'� i � - +� i:. � MADSFN .: E�o� �� w �-� � Cl�vrdl ' �ARK ,; ^� � ti '� •� � Ts � � � � 73 RO AVEN:IE Nr E r I � � � l% % % % % % J . > >� %J/ _ f/ M-� Heevr �dustrie� � �i�.9SY///////. � ZorMd 3/27/58 � / � � � W..�. -,� •� --- -- � �-- -t-i,i=:i7 �"� '•�� r � ��1 VY :� hd �I � 1 v /�► !'1 �'•i N COLII�B(A 5�� lnAC 4�L/�Ci CE R�. � �'� '�� `'� ��.,� c� (A�1 � �`, ,� �` �� :.`� ' � � '� � ;r .., �,� '� :� v� ..�� : t,;� � , , ,� , .. ' .� ��" �µ_ _"3 � � � Q � � ��'� �• a . �� r�•'�eti �' � �� 0 r-CFI"�` GA13ACaB � �;.� `� � ;�1. ,.� .� � �. �' � � .j � �� .� � � '^ � � g t; -� �- �' �+, � � •'r`•S�' �_ � ��. 't� � � � � . � �:rPul� ��es.� � � � � �''•�,� � � .•:� ...�' � _ --i..s-- . - ZONING MAP � e � Q �' sD i3l��+��f�it� i � �j �. � D ��. !1 �"�'�-`'�_��: ! O � �� ' i�E�'t�3� j� �� a. �e� !.! is•�'� t* •s�s ; �j H � s a ! �� 15 a � �[ � O =�! �!= ��5�� t, ; ! a i9� �.`L � ! �n V � i '� ;��'��f �=l15 r �' +�� ° s ��3� � � j` � �� J 0 ��w !! l' i � � :z � � i�,a..:�1�1� � V 1S . a�s •=j�S�i��l�� 1 _ [S j . � � 3!! � !�i i��ii�:��! � �e � � z .� RS"s' 0 ..�. <>�.� �� ;�� a��j � �� '. � �� t�i}� � ��► ��,f � !�� _ i�i ii�l �; � �� i� - i t�e�i�� , ��_� 1 d t��i! `�`��i�li i '. • ie�li i�� •��l' E � ` ' "�.:. � �: ,�� , =;1=� �i �� '4� 0 � j i �ii { oe�t�l� � � i � rEe a� 1� : �§I ,��_�� i9�l�sit�3i � liiilliill�� eE�� i 0 � � � e 7 s �, I � .N � 1 d , ,f, � 1 l R:" ;:� •1 `~ � i� :�� t.,� ��:� r z—�-� � �1 SITE PLAN �� $ ! ^ 't � S' 3 0 5 i 3 . A? R S� " i • �}..,. .e...n n Pl� � � �� o ac �� a� 6� { , , , a: : � �# a ° �� $ �i O �� i Y i� � f � �� ° �. ws�ra�e� �seo .mn. ca. "� �"` �►NIsEION I.Y. L�V � Y�O Oit �i8 1�1C. �U '.�.T�.'1"'••6Y!'� u„neo n. coraPO�a�o,Tior� wrw� g�4F1T C�AT1�1 �••�rt�1 s , ' � , �� a �� ! � 5 j ! j � t � � � � r � • h • '. . . . s .� a a�j t � � � e� 4 P �:a i � � r+ r+ � @R A� ��s t� e � w � � �� . � �. . � w a � � � 4 � � 9 � �� d" ��1 i s ----- _--= .... _. �,,L,s .: .� — �� = i a6 6 a � � Z I�� m ! = cA 1 � i + E° �+ 3I i ; s P v S t 6 t � � -�'�' � ..�..� .'�•_ j� AV06m�11101Kt�A W�� 'r � F�; �o��io �.at/ � 060 — � � ;;� a,.,,, .,� �„�,, �NC"s�lOOV COPlPOR�►ilOf`�J = � .....o �. � .o... �. — m �g� � ^ .s.'� :; s��..i� a.nore n• ' _ � z . �""� STUAFIT [�OAATION _ � � � STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE ��NQF PLAN�NG COM�I�SSlON DATE ; august 22, 1990 FRlDLEY qTY COIaVqL DATE �r�a �_ REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER APPLICANT PROPOSED REQUEST LOCATION SITE DATA SIZE DENSITY PRESENT ZONtNG ADJACENT LAND USES $� Z�� $ PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FlNANCIAL HNIPLICATIONS CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSNE PLAN C,OMPAT�IUTY WITH ADJACENT USES & ZONIVG ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNWG COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION P.S. ��90-03 Fridley Business Center Partnership To replat Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6, Block 2, Northco into 2 lots. 73rd and University Avenues 468,790 square feet M-2, Heavy Industrial M-2, Heavy Industrial $.023 per square foot ($10,782.00) Yes Yes Approval Staff Report P•S. #90-03, Fridley Business Center Partnership Page 2 e est The petitioner, Fridley Business Center Partnership, is proposing to replat Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6, Block 2, Northco, into two lots. The subdivision of these properties are proposed in two phases for . the following reasons: Phase 1: The purpose of the lot split application is to convey the 88 foot rectangle for Anqeion Corporation. Angeion has submitted its building permit application and would like to start construction in September. Approval of the lot description of athe rectangle is simple enou hr o�Sbe accepted by the County Recorder's office g without replatting. Phase 2: The purpose of the plat application is to reconfigure the common lot line between Angeion's lot and Lot 4 to include the triangular easement area into Angeion�s lot. The legal description of the triangle is too complicated by metes and bounds, and therefore, needs to be replatted. Site The property is generally located at 73rd and University Avenues. Specifically, the property is located at the intersection of Northco Drive and the Carter Day private driveway. The property is currently vacant and treed with mature oak and cherry trees . The property is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, as are the parcels to the north, south, east, and west. � Ana� The petitioner is proposing to replat Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6, Block 2, Northco, into two lots of 4.65 acres and 6.10 acres. The plat will formalize the lot split and easement which was discussed in the lot split request, L.S. #90-03. The proposed plat will create lots that meet the minimum lot standards set forth in the zoning code for the M-2, Heavy Industrial district. Both lots exceed the 1.5 acre minimum lot size requirement and maintain a width of over 150 feet. In addition, both lots have adequate access opportunities with Lot 2 fronting both Northco Drive and 71st Avenue N.E. As these lots will continue to be part of the Northco development, environmental considerations such as tree preservation and storm water retention Staff Report P.S. #90-03, Fridley Business Center Partnership Page 3 are addressed by the development agreement which was approved as part of the first Northco plat. There are no easements along the side.lot lines of those lots that are being replatted, therefore, a vacation of easements is not necessary. Cross parking easements were recorded against the original Lot 4, Block 2, Northco, and the Carter Day parcel. These cross parking easements will need to be amended and recorded. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to the City Council with the following stipulations: 1. Cross parking easements shall be recdrded against Lot 2, Block 1, Northco Third Addition, and the Carter Day property to the east (Lot 7, Block 2, Northco Business Park). 2. A park dedication fee of $.023 per square foot shall be paid at the time of building permit. L.S. 4�90-03 P.S. �t90-03 Fridley Business Center Partnership Fridley Business Center Partnership Dale Edstrom 1201 Marquette Avenue Suite 110 Minneapolis, MN 55403 Tri-State Land Company 1601 Soo Line Building Minneapolis, MN 55428 Winfield Development 5780 Lincoln Drive Edina, MN 55435 Columbia lce Arena 7011 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Public Works Garage 400 - 71st Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 James Freberg 7331 Tempo Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 James Warhol 7321 Tempo Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Richard Almstead 7311 Tempo Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Harvey Benson 7301 Tempo Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 John Bielawski 7311 Lyric Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Carol Oberlander 7321 Lyric Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Bruce Smith 7331 Lyric Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 MAILING LIST Larry Luck 7341 Lyric Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Planning Commission 8/7/90 City Council James Lawrence 7340 Tempo Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Clifford Fabianke 7330 Tempo Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 James Bergerson 7320 Tempo Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 James Holmen 7310 Tempo Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Thomas Stimart 7300 Tempo Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Clifford Boltman 7301 Lyric Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Eugene Buechler 7340 Lyric Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Allan Quam 399 - 73rd Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Norman Young 7330 Lyric Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Robert Kay 7320 Lyric Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Earl Noble 7301 Lyric Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Phillip Knutson 7301 Symphony Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 George Deutsch 7311 Symphony Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Timothy Norgren 7321 Symphony Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Donald Johnson 7331 Symphony Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Arthur Jytyla 7311 Concerto Curve N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Kermit Dahlke 7321 Concerto Curve N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Robert Nielsen 7331 Concerto Curve N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Raymond Maki 7341 Concerto Curve N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Ray Cramble 7340 Memory Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident 7330 Memory Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Jack Hokenstrom 7320 Memory Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Irving Twito 7310 Memory Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 L.S. it90-03 P.S. ��90-03 Page 2 Arlyn Jordan 7300 Memory Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Ronald Killian 7301 Concerto Curve N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Willis Erickson 7341 Memory Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 David Kiefner 7331 Memory Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Constance Ahrens 7321 Memory Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Bennhard Hedlund 7311 Memory Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Arlen Hallberg 7301 Memory Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 John Giedlinski 7311 Melody Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Edward Windels 7321 Melody Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 5�5432 Phyllis Parviainen 7331 Melody Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 David Turbitt 7341 Melody Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Thomas Zembai 7340 Concerto Curve N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Dean Rorsgren 7330 Concerto Curve N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Gene Heglund 7320 Concerto Curve N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 John Gassner 7310 Concerto Curve N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 David Windeier 7300 Concerto Curve N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 David Lissner 7301 Melody Drive N.E. Fridley, NIN 55432 Donald Stark 7340 Melody Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Erancis Grewe 7330 Melody Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Dennis Kudak 7320 Melody Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Gerald Dahle 7310 Melody Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Clifford Leacock 7300 Melody Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Bruce Zwirtz 7315 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Ronald Mattson 7324 Symphony Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Edward Czarnecki 7312 Symphony Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 James Sandquist � 7300 Symphony Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Ronald Pillard 7301 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company One North Western Center Chicago, IL 60606 City Council Members Planning Co�ission Chair Target Northern Distribution Center ]090 - 73rd Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 ? ��. .... t I; .. _ i t "�; --.------------ - ---.-�� --- -- -- ----------- j �� , _ �� , . • � . d,� - s .9 ' , .: . O'j'b� py � i o � O� � � � �'1s,�� • . �� . .` ; IjI ---n.,.� - �.K �a..--- . _. �., . _ . . i � � �. k% i . W C �"e Q • f aWC } o � p � � i > '` B � i t9 J � a � t► � 'q yl � Z � .s � _� ��,e � � �� d . t�,t�`;a � i 4.� R � t'' < • � •' t � �y� '1'► � 1 ' . -i ,�a�.Q�« � � V��-.T.. , � � ,.a * W ....��-r..►w.,.-• R '• ! �i �—�- � "..ir� � `.' ,. �i7i 'iA� �3M�f� M �. ( , � � 4 �. � . - '�'1 J p Fq _ ,,._ ... ,• -- ..g. ---�- ' .. � � �� . _ ., j.d►` h � w . ! � � • M �� • � � ' l� • ' •� . I • i� �i 4,±�. �. � .. � ... :; , -_•� _J� n I �i�d�a > >y�a+o�. �.. ; �i .1. � �- .. . 1:- �: - �l �" ! � � t- � 3t ' . `' o g � • " . � . � : � ... `�� , ` � _ � ` . � � 1 ' � u � ( • I � � a W � V � . � : V �� : � � W � Q � �7 � � . � 3� —`� � .y l+� � � '�� ----- � �;� .,� . � � � CI °.` 1 4 �� 1 � �I CI � � . i � �1,. � . + • i � ,�y s �i nr .� � t _i►- ° "� _ _\ ,'�-.'�r tf�-�� '� i l � „ � ��.. �yn 0 �. u�i t � .•• f � j��.�i -�__ •}-- f �;. .�. e�i '. � -1 � �. � •: � '�`V � �� 1 . � ��. :' �`'� � s� �� : o Dy : � �'g�'! y�i . � � : � f •! :.i . � � � _ . LOCATION MAP �, ,4_. , . , _ i .� � �' _.. _ � L'_ _` _ ' '• � : _� j` � 1 :! . • N. Jl 1 • f " ! f s ; : � � TN AVE. N.E. U��Y :� �� HOSPiTAL �' �L � � 4 , •_ . ., . i • � i� � �' / �` 1,' �f f r 4 ` � .iA,\ _✓ .� � . . �� . .�� ,•' . � , �� .i ' �� 1 '' �� 7,�':��": z �j��•` + � , � d � ,, '� � :� .• .. , �� • • , � Ao��T ';�;f R . .. ? , ' ' ? ' s v � r' s � .�i. �•'l "'�� :j ^ `'� � � ( ,. ''� f .!d , � � � ,, 1y •..I .t • S 3 f! i, �-�=T „ .I�.,,i'�'�.�.�..,� ��_., �4 � �i ,� .,, ; Wr . . . c�• .�:•:,� •, :. ';- ., � �'�� y 4 � �. • • � :� � � : :ti•: •'+' :%ie '•'i: ;.�:Y�:� �,; . °. � - _, ., . . .� , � \ � ' . • � -� t -• ' .. e � ` ,` ,' ' ' = •; j• ;• '• � �. � , � i. � � � �� \ . 1.. � . .I. i • `y 2 � � � t� ' � �i a �• • 1' r. � . �1 •� ' C ��' ',.. • :• 1! '� •i ��\ �f • � �� ' �� .�� ! :� ,� : \>� � , � „ 's ` �� '. s .a/ � / 4 `� � . y L •.3 � • � � l0 �� '�'/ �, , i . � \, � v � .,,. . • ' � ' ' ' � MADSEN ,. •, . : , .: . ' e , � �� + _ � �!� ' ;.,.. 's � .. . � „ •-� €;;� �° . , � • + • , : •a • CAvran :•t: s u . • �, �ARF: : , . .: r . s •� � ti e � r • ' ' � s '� �j _1 �_ _.J ,� ..�- + 9 r� � i -` i - n T3 RO AVEN'JE N E � � AC? TRACT 8 /////Tl//Tl_»//»T,lJ Z ��/ / M-� �eAYr rld�sv�si �� RE��STER�� E��STERE � �� R /�� a / � LA%% / � A = SUR � z 9«»a s�Z�rsa s /�%'� x / NO . b z �' / � , � .� � � � , {LI .�. _ .� .,� .i � ,r �. . � � ! �' � �� ., M + _ � � '� � � r � I tfpr i Y � � N � �''� �;, � tit' �"� ;.� '::� . � �� .� ':,� '�,�,� � �` , , , ( � j � v'° �- � ~i � G� � � � � f;'�'� `�� . �� fi�'iet �i �� o i-C�` GAflAt,'i� � � � ��• �� «a � �, �. ti � �' �"' .� �� ...� ;:� � '' � � • ' �=� �_ � � � � ��. �_ �„� `'�• -� �-' � � , `'� `;� : P: Put�tQ �� . .—� I : � "', �''•!`"'.� � � ::� ,..�' " ZONING MAP � s O � � o � �� a � �� a � � � � i�G O � _ � �. '., . _;� _ _a: , ;�.� �.:;,; �Yi••�� L �1�� . � �,.i u� �, � ;�,� � p ! `,J_� . i.�- � , ,` �`,l� ; Z !'` ��ii j �. t �� , �� :� ,, ., �� '�! � ,�. �� !; �� 'f� � `.R t �� a�E�i ?�� j� �� I . �,� �� ,,� ! ] � h, � � ,��:� ,. �.i ��5�j ,�i� - I��s��i�i ,�� ;e�� ;� �, � 6� � I � s! �� . � �1111111i11�� !f,�� y �R,« � �.�.,eE��:. ;� ,�� ;� t �3 s, gl ,� ;e� �,�� ,�� _ _ � �� j�� ; ,�� 1 i �; � . . s 5: : �g � 1� ':�'. i:..l:' i :lit �� • i� .�;�___,1� ,__�: �_ ;; . : .— I _.. _.._J n t •�, •.�.� �:.°t��'.P?fl1TJ �a }-■■ ,�% �� as.ts ( ` [•�� • .f�� _•�!S'I.It..� w iie.��iii� • � • -�, j� '� —�-='- r- .- .�� ,.�',� j.i,�,:—� � � h� i ; — �� _�.� : ��`"y � � y`-' �' % ' � 4� .. .��:�f . � � - t c) �I ; I /�S' I / r� � �yS.! �1 � � � � \:�', �� `�i�,�, ' .,. ♦ � �`,� t�� i ,� '�,S•,I . �\ " � � (fi� � , •`/ � � , � .., � i i �' �.�1, � ��E'., .. ;� ;� � � E � �� ' `_c)�, \; � r�� . �� I � � � •, � 1 � � \ I � �� .. / � . 1 . / 8 1 . . � � , �•;� f�; • i -� �• � � � \} `�. r �'' +• �� +` 1 e i, ` i\ '- m„' ;�'. �\��\ l,l I ��¢� �.• _-� , , :,; -, , � � � c;, : v �-, / ; � ;�; '� � � F = �, ;�, � �i' = [r �:� Z_ � ? ` � :'; ` _� t t cT LJ '�' !.'! 4- .._ �� u. '� -' '` � �_ �:� Li_ y , , I �`�f ,�� : �;;� � d. � � t �J ��! � � 1�,;��J: ,E�,;�1� d� Y 'l �� r � � , .� �:� � � : � ,.. „ ,�:��.. , , :. , .., . I , � �� : 1 � 1 •� � i ti ��. f� � • �� \... �t �_�r -�1 �--- -� �: i i. t!y I � ; /� /� �r J ;, � , , , �'� � - �� 1 ' / � �' � - ,� � � ,. . ,, l,. ,� � , .,,,. _ .,.. �,. ��1�� / % � �� i� , � / ., _' ' , _ ��., � �I111''� '� ;; I rf"',{` f � i��i y� � I j��%r ' r �j;i;��9�1�j,i � `�� ` ( . i i I I� �I�Ij •� � /i� ` '�\�\ `• \ �\ h- � � �� Ij � \ 7 �� t 1 � � '��Y�� I � \\ � � j � � I�� ry�:�l ' \ � � I � �� li� ► . f� �a e� s 0 � :� � � � ,i,, II � 1 � ° `�' ;�N�;:�,�� _._a. � --� ;: � � ` � � N i i , � — � � P m �.• �� j � i� s i %� ,� � •-" „ _ '�, I I ' a1-�-�- ` — -) �� I �'1 �'I I - �\ � � ' f —� �. ��t�� i ; ;� � j 1J � )I ��a. , '� , � 1 " / I,� ,� ��' ' ( ,•`�� / � � � � 1 I �\ � �/ i �i �� F_ ��._. �,II1� : I .\\ I1��\ I ,. ,��;� __ ��: . , ,' � � ,`:�: �� - - . � \ � � �� ! � \; O �'� �' t.l � `� � � .. I PRELIMINARY PLAT >aY Jp OZ Ca �� , o� > Z Y- � UU � 1 � � Y I Z V/ W V H � Z B � � � Z � S : ! o 7 � $ � � - a�a+ s�r aaroia� i m� aQ•oiai K,az.oc � eero� wM ro s, e I = O �_ �,� N �',:� �R � e �J � � c_ � � [u .�, � ��_ i , � � � , , � Q `l -- I � .. a en w a,a...cs - � � � _' `_ r �- N � `__ � i �_, I o<< � � ch � /; I � `_ i� m O =; `�� 8 �.3 !g '-- �� i 3 L .=� p ` � . ;e . � *+ � � I t<� __ �,�' c' di � � � r � b N c �` l- __' � � � �-- L,+ L� I r ��_ i � '� ° � � ' '�� G � ( . : -- '� � � � � � as�o�nalr<r.��+po�� / [ i 8 ��:°.•.'ti, � , .r�ct ....4��. .mow�7lo_au � M i �!� 'Po��u. �u,[�fs ' •a. aaua� W .. er.i iv�s q � u m �s :�� O : � 1% c� 'Z u � � so =� i': � � � C I' � � •A � 1�� I � �l^� W � I --� `- a �_ �s �..� i+ 8'":��:::;':` �_.I s �e _ ^' 's, °t j � ak a � '� � � m :� � y : I � a I �Q `�� I � � Q / 4 �� •q��,�J .� � 1 -� � �_ � t4. �.�,.. � �, I o o :-- ��.�� . c� I I W ` ___ '�"w p � - O N 'a i ' �°ft'oa.�. a�t � �/ � + T4 �Y� •t r ' �� 9 � % ' - r � � �t. a?, '� � p^ �r �'�:� I� g ji . i �� O � . L I^ �? Q` M :t Z I y�� 0 I 4I • � 'C •,__ ` �,.�� c --_ .� I;=� � _ N �, ' �. iB "r.':F J � �rp �'i �09CC.y _. � I_�_ ao e O�' ':•y \I o�j ��'�_ O►• t ,_' � ••1 S!�A ;� \ sr. •c`ca � O � � & '� I I re lJ I = fp \ � �� °�'a r; \ ` , °' I `' _ . J I d o ..� >.��y � a Z \C� '' ; "+o• I Q .'°°...'::`::: t @ � i� � �� 'Q7 `�y�Y � �?�,� =oO SVe ��g$ ��a a .� s ��Q z� �� 6; � .. �n �E p��i J �S�Q 0 I l t � !° I i: � ee I E: � 3r J � M I i� .A.,o.�..�r.� N ;� b- — �i � � � ;� ' — J �,•� •i,',�� a p /�.wnaw �::ie�� I � I I \F� • • - �-3 °� �'-,�-�`-_ = _ -- �� u _� � I �,.� — N .te. - �. —�� ---,- I �=- \=��N'a' Of'Ii9 � M.N,IIAN o �� _ � _ I i-� �q� _-7..., _-r .,--� � i �`^ .�-� � iniii 1 i_'1 iv =/'�V_=/,L i'._i_ r��r�_7/�iiVi i /1_ 7� n, il-aqn !('�l � � i�//1 i � / -� i � � �• t_ �' .i / V i'. v/✓ �/-; �, i/" i i i l V i �:J -- —i J_ ✓�.. � � � � N D N � z H — —im sr — —�� — — -�— _��„�., -- � � � �s 0 A� � i� � . � �� , , ' .. ., ,• . � @ $� �� E !� 6 [� b8 6 � i-.f A.� 8 Lj C �� i g � 4°a de Y@ � �6 �i ' �';�� 'Q',;';�:�II :' �II s�.�... � `�� -II NDLLdk�db0� 1dbn1S 0.�� ua mnv�ia � '�°�"�'ar�. a� � a�^w�n.[7ti�v r�a�i��N� �' .� �,o,� �.�. �+� �°°.�011�r'tdOd�O� � � � ! S� S 7 4�� ' h�a : kx � s � �� E � �� a 0 �� r r� , .e r i 4p �q s14 �@ � :� :� -o w � �.... ....o U MtSS1 �NO .,. a..�, ......{� B ` i: �i � � � � � F � " q a a � ig �� z � ��e � _ � �� R.g �.�� ¢ e k:d 0�7 � � � � i �a ��e ��d�e � � E � � a� _p•_ a�� • � � `-i, �r �b�+ �4s�E � 3 C $5 -��.! geS d @e E � �e" �g� �� e� z $ q c � 8-% 4eraa � S� =a :_� ��aa r�'�� z@ a � p�e. c. � 5 � � ��p �� °Q �� q � � W � �a �e5 °+g� ��6�E $° � � � F—. � �5 � �d ��p�° 4� i# e � (� E&g ra� ��'r: flei °� d: �A � o �: « e . . . . . . NOLLVtlOd�O'J 1tiV1'715 �a,�� ='�` � �a aaov�o '„`.� "� s�°d" "g. U FJOI�.�t��c��i0� I°+a601��]N�° .'�'� •�� =� ' yW BM�C�u! � f�l�y1}.yy� w�w awo� "'< .~. J �a . 6' , � � � lil11=1111!I ~�`��,1 '�l:.,lil�l �.i�=;=� - � .��i,i�, �� _ili�ll �=11111i �f � � PLANNING DN1510N � � MEMORANDUM � cinroF FRI DLEY DATE: August 17, 1990 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Odor Experiment on August 20, 1990 at 4:00 p.m. at 7738 Elm Street N.E. You are invited to attend the odor experiment that staff is conducting with the petitioner at the subject property on Monday, August 20, 1990 at 4:00 p.m. The petitioner will be transporting an asphalt kettle onto the property to determine the extent and intensity of the odor from the asphalt as it is cooling to its hard state. Should you have further questions, please feel free to contact me at 572-3591. BD/dn M-90-578 � � i � STAFF REPORT � � APPEALS DATE �'�Q� pLAJ�VG CONMSSION DATE : August 22, 1990 FRI DLEY CRY COl�1CIL DATE �� B= REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER APPLICANT PROPOSED REQUEST LOCATION SITE DATA SIZE DENSITY PRESENT ZONWG ADJACENT LAND USES 8 ZONiNG UTLITE$ PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FINANCIAL fMPLICATIONS CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSNE PLAN COMPATBILITY WITH ADJACENT USES & ZONNG ENVIRONMENTAL . CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNtNG COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION SP 4�90-14 Stock Roofing, Inc. To allow exterior storage of equipment and materials. 7738 Elm Street N.E. 14,768 square feet N/A M-2, Heavy Industrial M-2, Heavy Industrial and Single Family house to N; M-2, Heavy Industrial and Single Family house to S; M-2, Heavy Industrial to E; M-2, Heavy Industrial and industrial uses to W. $.023 per square foot to be paid at time of bldg. permit None Yes See staff report Mature vegetation exists along the rear portion of lot. See staff report .o Staff Report �5 Stock Roofing, SP #90-14 Page 2 Recruest The petitioner, Stock Roofing, Inc., proposes to construct a 3,500 square foot industrial building on Lots 10 and li, Block 7, Onaway Addition, the same being 7738 Elm Street N.E. The petitioner operates a roofing business. The petitioner has indicated that approximately 90� of his business consists of shingle work and approximately 10� of his business involves roof work on commercial and industrial buildings. The petitioner has also indicated that he needs the outdoor storage area to store pallets of insulation, hard asphalt, shingles, ladders, and other equipment necessary to conduct his business. The petitioner has two pick-ups, one dump truck (single axle) a one tor► truck, and two tar kettles on trailers. The petitioner originally inquired as to whether a 7,000 square foot building could be constructed to avoid the need for outdoor storage. Because this exceeds the lot coverage maximum and because adequate parking could not be placed on the property if a manufacturing use occupied the building, staff advised the petitioner to reduce the size of the building. Site The site is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, and is surrounded on all sides by M-2 zoning. However, to the north of the site is an existing single family residence and a detached accessory building. Single family residences are also located south of the subject site. These residences are nonconforming uses. The property has existed as a separate parcel of record. It has not been combined or subdivided from the adjacent parcels. There is existing vegetation along the rear lot line of the property separating the property from the industrial property to the west. There are several large Pin Oak and Bur Oak trees throughout the rear portion of the property. Heavy vegetation also exists along the south lot line of the property adjacent to the ��paper" alley and the existing single family homes. Variance Request In order to construct the proposed building on the property, the petitioner has submitted a variance application for a 15 foot side yard setback, from the required 20 feet to 5 feet, as well as a lot area and lot width variance. The Appeals Commission at its August 7, 1990 meeting tabled action on the variance request until the Planning Commission considered the outdoor storage special use permit request (see attached Appeals Commission minutes). � d Staff Report Stock Roofing, SP #90-14 Page 3 One issue of concern was the impact of the value to the property to the north. The City Assessor advised that the proposed development will not affect the value of the property, even if a 5 foot setback is approved. Site DesiQn The small size of the lot hampers the location of a typical manufacturing use on the property. Most industrial buildings have loading dock areas and some type of yard facilities, either for outdoor storage or for vehicle access/maintenance. Included in the report is a diagram showing the buildable area after applying the typical building and parking setback requirements. A 3,200 square foot building could be constructed on the property with 8 required parking spaces; however, there would be no area for a loading facility or any outdoor storage. The alley would not have to be used as well. The proposed building is 3, 500 square feet and is using a different access plan to utilize the rear portion of the site for storage facilities. If the building were to be sold and the building reoccupied by a manufacturing use, the rear portion of the storage area could be converted to the parking lot and would be able to accommodate 9 parking spaces which would meet the 1:400 parking space ratio for manufacturing uses. The petitioner has indicated in his letter his desire to purchase the property to the north. Therefore, the use could be expanded in size and potentially some of the outdoor storage needs could decrease with a larger building. The alley was platted as part of the Onaway Addition in 1911. There was also an alley to the rear, or along the west lot line of the property; however, that alley was vacated in 1972. The petitioner will use a portion of the building to store at least two vehicles. The remainder of the building will be used for office area. In the petitioner's letter dated July 20, 1990, he indicated that they employ five men working primarily at the job sites. The petitioner also wanted to use the long dimensic�n of the building to use as a screen of the proposed outdoor storage area (this was one of the issues the Appeals Commission discussed in relation to the setback variance; whether or not the 5 foot setback would help screen the storage area better). Parking is proposed along the west side of the building to back-out into the alley (the City has permitted this situation in the past; an example in this area is to the west of the subject property at 7701 Beech Street). The proposed outdoor storage area is to be screened by a six foot chain link fence with slats. The petitioner has verbally agreed e � Staff Report Stock Roofing, SP �90-14 Page 4 to assume all of the costs for construction of the alley (he must receive approval from the City Council to make this improvement). The alley will extend from Elm Street approximately 80 feet to provide access to the outdoor storage facility. Odors The primary concern for the impact of the outdoor storage area is the impact from the smell of the tar kettles when they return to the site. The petitioner has indicated that the tar kettles are not heated on site, but are heated at the job site. The tar kettles are approximately 175 gallons in size. The kettles cannot be moved from the job site until they are cool enough so that the tar within the kettle will not easily spill when being transported on the highway. The petitioner indicated that the asphalt begins to harden at approximately 200 degrees. He also indicated that it will take approximately 1- 4 hours, depending on the heat of the day for the asphalt to be completely hard, and therefore, have no smell. Because of its location adjacent to existing single family homes, the petitioner has proposed an experiment by placing the asphalt kettle on the property and determining the extent and intensity of the odor. This experiment is proposed to be conducted on Monday, August 20, 1990 at the subject property. The size of the asphalt kettles are significantly smaller than the tanker trucks that were evaluated in conjunction with the Central Roofing Company's special use permit request. Nevertheless, an odor is still produced, and the intensity of it should be determined. Surface of the Outdoor Storage Area The petitioner is requesting that the outdoor storage area not be hard surfaced and lined with concrete curb. If there is any spillage from the hot asphalt onto crushed rock or exposed earth, it hardens as it cools and there will not be any impact to the ground water. Because of its consistency, it will not permeate more than 6 inches through the soil. The petitioner has also indicated that the oaks on the property would also be retained if he would not be required to hard surface the outdoor storage area. Staff reviewed other special use permit applications for outdoor storage areas. While a majority of these cases included paved storage areas, there were three examples of areas which were not required to be paved. Central Roofing Company, Park Construction, and the Kohanek building on 77th Way were permitted to have crushed rock in their storage areas. Staff Report Stock Roofing, SP #90-14 Page 5 Given the small storage area and the small number of vehicles using the site, the crushed rock alternative could be used in this case. Further, retaining the oak trees along both the south and west lot lines would also help to screen the storage area. The Engineering Department will require a detention pond if the storage area is paved. If the storage area is not paved, then the property needs to be graded such that the runoff is directed either down the alley or into a storm sewer pipe along the east side of the building into Elm Street. A detailed drainage plan will have to be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. The Fire Department has recommended that any liquid materials be stored inside the building. The petitioner is proposing to utilize 'a concrete rough block. This will meet the four hour fire wall rating required by the Building Code. Minor vehicle maintenance and repair will be occurring within the building. This fire wall rating will be required if a 5 foot setback is permitted. �111ey Improvement and Parkina Area If the alley is to be used to provide access to the facility, 2 feet along the south right-of-way line should be reserved for construction of a 6 foot screening fence. A petition to improve the alley must be approved by the City Council. Nonconforming Uses At the Appeals Commission meeting, the issue was raised regarding the City's intent to remove existing nonconforming single family homes in this area. The City Council's policy is that they will not acquire/condemn single family homes for redevelopment. There was an inquiry at the Appeals Commission meeting as to whether or not a redevelopment/tax increment district could be created to accomplish the removal of the homes. Staff has prepared a separate analysis of that issue which is under separate cover. Recommendation The main concern regarding the outdoor storage area is the impact from the odors of the asphalt kettles. The experiment on August 20, 1990 should help to clarify this issue. Pending the outcome of the odor experiment, staff recommends approval of the special use permit, subject to the following conditions: 1. Submission of a landscaping and irrigation plan prior to issuance of a building permit. . Staff Report Stock Roofing, SP #90-14 Page 6 2. The parking area to the west of the proposed building shall be lined with concrete curb. 3. The outdoor storage area shall be enclosed by a 6 foot chain link fence with slats. The fence shall also extend along the south right-of-way line of the alley providing access to the outdoor storage area. Storage of materials shall not extend above the height of the fence. 4. Al1 liquids shall be stored inside the building. 5. Submission of a grading and drainage plan prior to building permit issuance. 6. � Payment of park dedication fees at time of building permit. 7. Approval of variance request, VAR #90-20, and compliance with stipulations. If it is determined that the asphalt kettles will not have an adverse impact, the following stipulations are also recommended: 8. There shall be no heating of the asphalt kettles on the property or on the adjacent right-of-way. 9. Temperature of the asphalt kettles must be no higher than 200 degrees fahrenheit when they are returned to the site. 10. The asphalt kettles shall be parked in the northwest corner of the site. SP �90-14 Stock Roofing Stock Roofing 289 Liberty Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 MAILING LIST Mary Novack 21 - 77th Way N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Planning 8/3/90 Council Raymond Meggitt Johny Krall 3514 Lake Elmo Avenue North 19 - 77th Avenue N.E. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Fridley, MN 55432 Francis Anderson 7748 Elm Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Brooklyn Tool 7775 Beech Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 P.K. Properties/Resident 7775 Beech Street N.E. Fridley, NIl�1 55432 Dyno Five Company 7733 Beech Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Dyno Five Company 8333 Sunset Road Minneapolis, MN 55432 Daniel Nelson 7713 Beech Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Resident Business 7715 Beech Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Edward Willey 7701 Beech Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Rhodes Lock & Glass 39 - 77th Way N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Laverne Rhodes 4017 Kentucky Avenue N. Minneapolis, MN 55427 Richard Harris 7710 Main Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Richard Harris 6200 Riverview Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 David Asplund 7715 Elm Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 David Asplund 8464 Greenwood Drive Moundsview, MN 55432 Paul Schultz 7751 ELm Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Paco, Anderson, and Hetlund 7760 Elm Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Hetland Anderson 7753 Beech Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Kenneth Ekberg 7790 Elm Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Johnson Printing Co 40 - 77th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Consolidated Container 733 - 3rd Street North Minneapolis, MN 55401 Planning Co�ission Chair City Council Members 6 0 � ,�__ � T. 30, R. 24 FRiocEr � / ' �� % i s' � . • � .r i _ . ,. i i � M I `b+ �+�•i rr�."'r.vw+ ' i_lil.lr,-�' i '4�'��• �1r� 4 4 i. �¢ �� ; I r •t �t ? STRE �r x 'e� s � 1��/' � wJ"R�i ' � � r•..^��wr+ rr MW� n'�,(�'.y' ` � i�+ ..,�� . �. .r,� : ; .I.,�y.`.'...°r�'' Z `•'�'�; i;•'•r ,'•.I•� • ., i �f •� .� -.. '� y � � 2 ) STi1EET > ` � M;'M',F.,.J.{:�.w a .i•�n,+,•.,, ��r ��. . �� . - � ' *..•�v:.1 1� _ yM1�Y�w,��r.. .� +• ":-.•' °�' •r o ''" 'STREET ��ry�. ,`�ti I ��,' y •y�r��iiir�ep►l^T►YRY„ pHa�lM '� y � �. 'rr c .,.�-� . � � _'1 ;y'--' ! .,,� .��:s: - �,:,, w r°'; :' � �:..�..�r�:'.,' .--.:-+!',i I^� _ ra"*� ,�.�"r:»•'!�"� ;,! � �If6 6 � �0�1�¢I � �gOS l5 I�1' IMlY N fR YQ� �r arr+ca .f�tc►r+� rwr r[� siw� *ie ouw+c a ►o r urre : •, . .a� �+teac► nrotn r,p rrr c�owrr a MO► �es�bart �00� �Mr •�:.: �..a.,,..�, �. � 41 539Q� �� - [ /N COAII'lR fEG ! _ �� --� . �.i.:.-w:r.qrv�.._r �___�_�_ — j \ ( 1�1 ( � � I'' +ir_�_------ I; . � / i�� ' ; I ,' ,=i � , . � i�! .... � � •t � � i �� , �� '� � \ �� . . � � , �.- �; � ��: � i:� ,' �: � �.� �;� i ��—�---� --- -� �� - � _ - ��: `� --a--� � f--- : �— `-- �7 �� ir. �----�=�'� ==-- . r » __ , ri nl '1 ,�_ .. .- ��i � I I � _ I �,� � � � '` � • � �il - � c� ; ; � iil � 1:. ='r= �•�i .►:. I � I '' i � �I� � 1 .� i I � i;� �1, �� i• � i�� I ` I� j ..�...r..... ... . �� `I r ��T -� ,Y �' ; �� ?`.*, � � - 4 y-----------� �--a---�------�' � �° , i ; • = ; � ;,• '. '�.. _ `, `.._. r F • . ! � H ' ' � i . W ' % �'1VLN � : � O� W q •. W •6:� J � �:\� i . � \ . � � riy ' � F .�f t F 9 •1♦ ' ` � � • le ] IS .lG fY • 1C • �� p + � � � � :l »- �.� M£AD � �` ��. RUN �.• � . � .�r _ � \ � '�. � � � '� � ; � /ST ,�� ADD. ♦ � � �� .+• '�.'•�' ,\ \ I'� �.h� ��. �•� ��' �� '�i � ,i� (�[ �••►�/� ,'M�'�• � �:X� .�fi�1PS r� � `.,. ' s V�,• \ q . �' ' .:•�. . ..0� � \ .'` .•�• , c�OP • � . ~ • . , � YAfD, n ' e� ' ' . � "' ` .,� ADD. �'' �•�. � r �r, J '; � �� , � - ..; �� — �_ � `'i-�a� a7w�l7 �� . 43 8 ,•,� a s9J'` 4 •�YENURE / q K1- Y 1�;;�1 t13:'� �� a �. t��f� S�/7 ��:�� ■ � �C�� [y9 �I�@� m ,� � � �� iJ� . � tsi � � ! l � � I � I � �` t r :....�:r.;= �� 1 �� i��'�� ! �Zn L �•l r. � "r �� •^ 4 \•�� w ��w- � �� r F ` s��.'^}�.� _:::�- .. �. . �; ; �. LOCATION MAP ! �� . y • • • O � ��Y ��• rV' • • �� • ��Z • � • • • �• � • • d � • ,� • • � • • r 1�_•_�_' !_� ZONING MAP 0 0 i� � � � � � r � � I � � � r, � �M�t,t�e �'� T� 16 �6f� BC�CIC 1 � 1d �' j�� r �� ' y� �-v �� r:A�� /i�k � � S�% � � c.�+� `_ ' T- �— 70,-- -- - -- --- �� s• C�e"��ff�� '� � �' . *. i pA,r.�,� 1 ` - — �1 � �� . • i li F�.r,e',�� ': i� Frr.� �- � � k ��R6 S, cF w.�� M� 3So� 3yr"> 1,5• � ?JS � �s- fL n� STi�'�ET N SITE PLAN �PPEALS COI+IIdI68ION lRSETING. ��aDBT 7, 1990 �AGE 7 Ms. Dacy stated this item goes to the City Council on Auqust 27, 1990. 4. �ONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REOUEST VAR �90-17. BY JOEL AND j�+ARILYN GERDEEN: A. Pursuant to Section 205.07.03.A of the Fridley City Code to reduce the lot area from 9,000 square feet to 8,835 , square feet; B. Pursuant to Section 205.07.03.0 of the Fridley City Code to increase the lot coverage from 25$ to 26.5$; C. Pursuant to Section 205.07.03.D.(1) of the Fridley City Code to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 21 ' feet; To allow the construction of additional living epace on Lot 2, Block 2, Al Rose Add3tion, the same being 6240 Alden Way N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. Ms. Savage stated this item was tabled uritil the meeting of August 21, 1990. Mr. Harris asked how far away from the property does the City notify of a variance request. Ms. McPherson stated all persons within 200 feet of the property are notified. 5. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REOUEST VAR #90-20. BY STOCK �tOOFING. INC.: A. Pursuant to Section 205.18.03.A of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the required lot area from one and one-half (1 1/2 acres) (65,340 sq. ft.) to one-third acre (14,768 sq. ft. ) ; B. Pursuant to Section 205.18.03.D.(2) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the side yard setback from 20 feet to 5 feet; C. Pursuant to Section 205.18.03.B of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the lot width from 150 feet to 104 feet; To allow the construction of a roofing business on Lots 10 and 11, Block 7, Onaway Addition, the same being 7738 Elm Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. OM TION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Johnson, to open the public hearing. �PPEALS COIrII+iIBBION MBETIHG. �IIGOST 7. 199Q PAGE 8 �PON !l VOICB VOTE, LLL VOTING 11YS, CSA=RPBRBON DSCLARED THE I[OTION ClIRRZED LND TH8 PIIBLIC 88ARING OPEN 7lT 6 t 08 P.![. Ms. Dacy stated the property ie located west of and adjacent to Elm Street. It is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, and is eurrounded on all sides by M-2 zoning. However, to the north, there is an existing single family home and to the south are existinq single family homes, which are considered in the eyes of the ordinance to be nonconforminq. The proposed application for a variance consists of three parts. The first part ie the lot area. The entire lot is approximately 14, 670 eq. ft. The requirement in an M-2 district is 1 1/2 acres. The second part is lot width. The minimum lot width is an M-2 district is 150 feet. The existing width is now 104 feet. The third part is a side yard variance to locate a buildinq 5 feet from the'north lot line, which is typically 20 feet. The history on this parcel bas been that the lots were created in 1911. Until 1969, the City did not stipulate a minimum lot area. The parcel has been in existence since 1911 and according to the records has not been part of.another parcel since 1969. Therefore this parcel is considered a parcel of record. Staff reviewed the case with the City Attorney's office, and because the parcel existed under one ownerBhip prior to the chanqe in zoning in 1969, the City Attorney stated that to deny the lot area and lot width variances would be to deny use of the property. Based on thThe facts, staff is recommending approval of those two components. difficulty that these parcels of record pose is that the requirements of the zoninq ordinance are based on a larqer lot size so the development that occurs must be made as best as possible. Third is the setback request to locate the building 5 feet rather than 20 feet from the north lot line. Onder this particular proposal, the petitioner is requesting the City pave the existing alley which is located along the south lot line. In the early 1970's, the City did vacate the alley to the west, at the rear of the property. Alleys such as this were common in the early 1900's. Although other alleys were vacated, this alley was maintained. The petitioner has indicated his willinqness to incur costs to maintain access to the parking area that be has. The proposee building is located in conformance with the front setback requirement with a rear storage area. A special use permit is required for the outside storage which �ill be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The issues reqarding the outdoor storage and other site plann issues taill be considered by the Planning Commission on August 22 when the special use permit is considered. Given the size of the lot and the proposed layout, etaff Yecommends approval of the variance to locate the building 5 feet from the north lot line; however, the building inspector has made some recommendations on fire ratings for the north t�all. Petitioner has APPEALB COI+IIriIB6ION 1dEETZNG, �IIGIIST 7. 1990 BAGE 9 . advised that the interior will be used to etore vehicles and not for repair garage; therefore the north wall could be constructed to a 1 hour rating. Staff recommends approval of the three variances. Ms. Smith asked if the alley vas to the south or to the west. Ms. Dacy stated there used to be an alley oroqinally platted in the Onaway Addition �ahich t�as vacated in 1972. Ms. Smith asked if the alley �ras between the new building and the residence to the south. Ms. Dacy stated the 16-foot alley is platted from Elm Street to the rear of the property, but the alley would be paved approximately from Elm Street to about 85 feet to the west. Mr. Johnson asked if the single family residence to the north was considered nonconforming. Ms. Dacy stated the area is zoned M-2, Heavy Zndustrial. All single family dwellings in this area.are considered nonconforming in the eyes of the ordinance. Mr. Stock etated he proposes to build and operate a roofing company on the lot. The lot is a small lot. He had proposed a 7,000 sq. ft. building but ran into a problem with parking spaces. He had to resort to outside storage. He must have outside storage with the smaller size building. If the building is moved away from the lot line, they would put outside storage on the side and the area used for parking would shield the storage area. Ms. Novak, 21 - 77 Avenue NE, stated she lived behind the property �n the south side. She objects to this.business locating there because she does not want the smell of hot tar near her home. Her windows open on the south side and she does not want this next to her property. Ms. Smith asked if this iseue would be taken up by the Planning Commission.� Ms. Dacy stated this was correct. The Appeals Commission is to consider the variance in terms of lot size, lot area, and setback. Any question regarding emells and odors �ill be addressed by the �Planning Commission on August 22. Mr. Anderson, 7748 Elm Street, stated he lives in the residence to the north. If this building is located 5 feet from the property line, there will be little space between his house and the proposed building. He has a factory next door that t�as built at the lot 1 ine . �PPEALB COI+�'iZBBZON 1dEETINQ. ��aIIBT 7. i990 BAGE 10 � Ms. Smith asked Mr. Anderson if the out building on his property �ras used as an industrial building. Mr. Anderson stated the buildinq was for his own use. 8e has only a 30 year permit on that building. Mr. Harris stated he owns Block 7 and parcels in East Ranch Estates. He has no real objections. This does not impact him, but it does affect Mr. Anderson and Ms. Novak if granted. Because of limited parking spaces, Mr. Harris �as concerned that the petitioner's employees and/or patrons �ould use his parking lot across the street. Mr. Stock stated the business would operate cut of the building only. His employees do not work there, but rather at the site. Parking should not be a problem. Ms . Smith asked how many vehicles t�ould be in tbat area on a normal basis. • Mr. Stock stated two cr three. These vehicles would be inside the building or locked in the gate because no one would be there. Mr. Asplund asked what the building size �ould be and expressed concern about odors. Mr. Stock stated the proposed buildinq is 3,500 sq. ft. and that there would not be storage of hot tar at the building. Mr. Asplund stated he has no objections. This is an industrial area. Ms. Smith asked Mr. Stock if he had a response to the concern about odors. Mr. Stock stated the heating is done on the job, not at the shop. Mr. Anderson stated the smell supposedly is for 1/2 bour in the evening. He has a small house �ith no central air. This smell would get in the house. He and Mrs. Novak have lived there before the City rezoned the area to heavy industrial and feels the City ehould have bought their properties a long time ago. He felt he was being pushed out. When Mr. Stock stated he was putting in a roofing company, Mr. Anderson thought he �as going to be roofing houses. He�has industrial buildings all around his property. lRs. Dacy stated if Mr. Stock was not proposing an outdoor storage area and if the City Council does approve the variances, then the proposed use is permitted by right of the zoning district. The issue of the odor and vhat is stored outside will be discussed by the Planning Commission on August 22. The Appeals Commission must 0 !l,PPEALS COAII+lZBBION l�ETING. 71��GOBT 7, 1990 PAGE 11 decide to approve or not approve the variarice requests. Everyone bas the riqht to apply for a variance. Mr. Anderson 6tated the ordinance requires a 20 foot setback and asked why this was being changed. Ms. Smith stated the issue being faced is that of a small lot. Without a variance it would severely limit what can be done with the property. OT OM by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Smith, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE oOTE, ALL VOTINa AYE, CHAIRPERBOId BAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED lIND THE pIIBI+IC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:30 P.1+i. Ms. Savage explained that the Commiesion would now discuss the issues. This, however, would yet qo to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council. The Commission understands the points of the residents. Mr. Anderson stated that he allowed the variances in years back, and now he has only smell ahd noise. Mr. Johnson stated too that the City Council and Planning Commission would address the residents' concerns stated here toniqht. Mr. Johnson questionned the wall safety requirement. It was his understanding that in winter the building would be used for repairs of vehicles and equipment. Ms. Dacy stated it was her understanding that there would not be vehicle maintenance within the building. She asked Mr. Stock to clarify. Mr. Stock stated he t�rants to install a four hour rating wall. Ms. Smith asked if Mr. Anderson had street to the north of his property . Mr. Anderson stated there is a building riqht next door. Mr. Johnson asked how many sinqle family dwellinqs are in this block. Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Anderson is located immediately to the north. Mrs. Novak and other neighbors are located to the soutti on 77th Avenue. Ms. Smith stated the letter stated there were plans to purchase property to the north. What would you do with it, if you purchased that property? �PPEALB COIrII+iIBBION �SETING. ��GOBT 7. 1990 PAaE 12 lir. Stock stated he wculd extend the building and make outside storage elonq the back. This is definitely in the future. lris. 6mith etated the the plan as laid out would seem to make the most sense for the use of the property. With a lot that is 104 feet wide, it is difficult to place a building on the property and bave appropriate use of the property. Ms. Savage agreed, for those reasons set forth in the staff report, that to deny these variances would deny reasonable use of the property and consequently ehe taould agree to approve the variance �equest. Ms. Smith stated the sketch ehows 35 feet back from the street, and asked if this met Code requirements. Ms. McPherson stated yes, the Code requires a 35 foot front setback. Mr. Johnson asked if there is nn existing building. Ms. McPherson etated the lot is now vacant. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Stock is a buildinq of 3,500 sq. ft. is the minimum space needed to operate his business. Mr. Stock etated this was the minimum amount of epace required. Mr. Johnson asked if there was any other way to shape the building to get a larger Betback. Mr. Stock stated that to qet parking and outside storage, there would then be too little space for a vehicle to turn. Ms. Savage stated the Commission has heard what the neighbors have said. Assuming the petitioner is allowed to build, will the petitioner be able to work with them and staff to resolve the issues. Mr. Stock stated that part of the reason for having a 5 foot setback rather than 20 foot was for the neighbors. The other niternative is to put up a 6 foot fence on the property line. In this way, there is 5 feet of grass rather than a fence right on the property line. He felt it would be nicer with that much of a buffer. Regarding the smell, he did not know how to address this. Part of the reason for choosing the lot was because of the M-2 soning. The petitioner currently has a purchase agreement for the property at this time. Moned h a6oni d st ialere There iB ro me to build8a busine sionathe z �►Y other end of town. �PPEALS COI+II�I88ION MBETINO. �OGIIST 7. 1990 PAaE 13 0 Ms. Savage stated she can foresee d3fficulties and has seen other difficulties where business and industrial properties are next to residential. She urged Mr. Stock to think about the fact that he vill need to work with the neighbors. Mr. Stock stated he does not want to create problems. He just wants to operate a business. He would not park on othez's property . � Mr. Harrie stated he has been in construction business for some time, bas lived in the community since 1962, and his family has been in the community since East River Road was a path so he has some background and experience in what the Commission is looking at. In his opinion, what the Planning staff and the Appeals Commission has missed must take into consideration more than this parcel. If you grant this variance, the problem then arises of what happens to Mr. Anderson's parcel. The Commission have severely impacted his parcel as far as value. It may be that you may be liable for damages for reducing value. Even if you put in a 4-hour wall, however, even qoing to a�zero lot line on Mr. Anderson's north side, he has 80 feet, a minimum of 15 feet between the buildings (5 feet on the petitioners property and 10 feet on his property),alllows a 70 foot w3de building. Because you have to put in an access to the back of the property, unless there are loading docks in the front, the amount of usability of this property has been qreatly diminished. He and Mr. Anderson have been �restling with this problem for many years and have not been happy with the results. He asked the commission to look at the whole picture; not only this parcel, but the parcels in proximity. Perhaps the best thing to do is not to try to handle it; is to not make a recommendation for or against but have the City Council make a decision. He had some real reservations and problems with it from the general area development standpoint. After the building is built 5 feet from the lot line, trhat will happen in the future to other parcels in the area. Because of other variances he sold other lots he owned in the area because he felt they �ould not be able to do anything. Since then, someone else was able to do something there which �as not the best use of the land. Ms. Savage stated this seems to come down to whether this property is to be used as heavy industrial. Mr. Harris stated residences are in time, feels the City Council this ehould happen now. nonconforming and, at some point must handle this fact and feels Ms. Smith stated the property is 104 foot empty lot. Residential is 80 feet wide now. Building next to it has a 0 lot line. So if this building is build 5 feet from the line line, there will be 85 feet between the buildings taith a house between the buildings. �BPEALS R'A1+II+iIBBION l�ETINd �IIGIIBT 7. 199Q PAGE_ �4 Ms. Dacy stated the best alternative would be to bave Mr. Anderson's and this property combined; however, there are separate owners. Of the three components of the variance, ff the Commission recommends denial of the area and lot width issue as well as the eetback issue, then a recommendation ehould also include lanquage that the City should also think about taking the property. However, of the three components, the side setback is one that the Appeals Commission could recommend denial and still sustain a finding. Fifteen feet could be taken off the building. The petitioner states his minimum requirement is 3,50o sq. ft. This could be reconfigured on the site, but there would be other site plan complications. The City would like to Bee the two parcels combined. This property owr►er has a legitimate request to build on the property . Ms. Smith asked, if the Commission recommends approval and this devalues property, could this be an issue. Ms. Dacy stated that a lot of the analysis ie based on her converSheirecommends1thist be treated aas any other requestn of the law. � Ms. Savage agreed that this is not a reletive iesue. 1�lr. Asplund stated he has several lots. As he Bees it, the tax base on a piece of property is greater than on a lot with a building than on an empty lot. He does aqreed that he would like to see a building on the lot rather than an empty lot. Mr. Johnson asked, when this t�as brought to you, is there a reason why the building could not be flipped the other way and fit in the ordinance code. Ms. Dacy stated the building is 50 feet by 70 feet. It could be shifted to maintain the 20 feet 6etback. Sowever, it shifts everything so the parking area is closer to the lot line. The petitioner proposes to use the alley which t�ould also reduce the turn radiuereor�e �ldi g could be reduced 151f et� in sizeon as proposed h , Mr. Johnson stated that ff the petitioner needs area to turn around it would 6eema 15 feet,a hy the ne d for�the varian e for �the' 5 need the extr foet setback. Mr. Stock stated it would be the same nmount of Bquare feet either vay. Mr. Smith stated they would then use outside storage riqht up to the property line. �,ppgAi,g CO1rII+IIBBION MEETI1dG. !►�GIIBT 7. 1990 BAGE 15 Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission would address the issue of the outside storage and placement of the building as part of the special use permit analysis. 1►ss. Savage stated that what ttie Commission recommends can etill be changed by the Planning Commission. The City Council would ultimately decide. i�is . Smith stated area, but not the �City Council. �re cculd recommend to reduce lot width and lot 20 foot setback. This could be reversed by the Mr. Stock stated the building will not be built if it cannot be done with 3,500 sq. ft. Mr. Johnson stated the Commission could make no recommendation and let the City Council decide. Ms. Smith stated this 6eems to be a whole package issue. oM TION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Johnson, that the Commission make no recommendation on variance, VAR #90-20, to allow the construction of a roofinq business on Lots 10 and 11, Block 7, Onaway Addition, the same being 7738 Elm Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. IIpON A oOICE oOTE, WITH MR. .TO�TBON 1�TD !�B• BMITS oOTI1dG 71YE, MS. BAVAGE VOTII�O NAY, CBAIRPERSON BAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRZED. Ms. Dacy asked to clarify if the CommiBSion wished to review the variance again after a decision is made on the special use permit or if the Commiesion is saying they have no opinion on this case. Ms. Savaqe stated she felt the Commissior► should either approve or deny, and felt the Commission ehould recommend denial. Ms. Smith stated in tryinq to recommend 2 items and deny 1 the commission is hearing from the petitioner that he will not build. Ms. Savage stated she would like to Bee a motion to approve the variance request with the three stipulations. Ms. Dacy stated that, since the motion was passed, the only way is to have another motion to reconsider. 8er understanding is that �hat has just been passed is that the Appeals Commission makes no recommendation and the variance request just goes the rest of the raay through the process. Ms. Savage stated she would like.to open diecussion because she feels the purpose of the Commission is to make a recommendation. � 11PPEAI,B COlQKIBBION lSEETING. 11IIGIIBT 7. 1990 pAGE 16 s Mr. Johnson stated his concern is that this ie more than the building and to a much biqger picture then just building and much b3gger than tahat we can address. We could recommend the building be built, but he bas concerns for the petitioner and also for the resident. Ms. Savage stated there are epecific issues about where there is n hardship. That is what the Commission is here to make a decision on whether a variance Bhould be qranted based cn a hardship. The other issues can be diecussed at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Ms. Smith stated she has a hard time making a recommendation with all of the issues involved, including the outside storage issue. If we m�a do so b cause it is just thro ing it back in their lapke sense t Ms. Dacy asked if the Commission �ould like to reconsider after the Planning Commission or not to consider again. Mr. Johnson stated that the City Council �ill have final approval in either case. Mssues linvolv a a The City Council will be�looking at many issues is and can make a decision. Ms. Savage stated she could aqree if the Commission tabled this item waiting for something to eee what the Planning Commission does on the special use permit. As chair, Ms. Savage objects to the Commission not making a recommendation �hether for approval or denial. +�ipTION by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Savage, to repeal the above motion of no recommendation. QpOId A V03CE�V�Oi PERSON BAVAG E DECLARED T8E l�OTION C!►RRIED�. • BMITH VOTING NO, 0 IO by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Smith, to table variance request, VAR �90-20, until after the Planning Commission has made their recommendation regarding the special use permit and when more members of.the Appeals Commission are present. Mr. Stock stated, as the petitioner, he hoped the Commission could see the hardship. 8e is hear to show that he has a hardship Coun il need toVknowba hardsh p iexists �n �at lot. The City IIPON A VOICE �� RP$�RB•ON AoAGEDE�CLARED�BTHE !lOTION C�ARRZgD.BAVAGE VOTING IZAY, � 11PPEALB COI�IIriIBBION lIEETII�TG. 11�GOST 7. 1990 PAGE� ° Ms. Dacy Btated this item would be before the Appeale Commission on September 4. _ �. � ��_�!� y �+OTION by Mr. Johnson, eeconded by I+is. Sm3th to adjcurn the meeting. � IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECI�ARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE AUGUST 7, 1990, APPEALS COI�IISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary .�-� . - . �,: Quality Work at Affordable Prices July 20, 1990 City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, N�T 55432 To Whom It Nlay Concern: STOCK ROOFING INC. 28s uBERrr s-rRE� FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (612) 780-3561 Stock Roofing is a small residential and commercial roofing company, serving Fridley and the surrounding communities. We employ 5 men worki.ng primarily in this field and we close for the winter months except for equipment and vehicle repair. We are pres�ntly renting a pole bar.n and one acre in Cambridge, TiN. I personally have lived in Fridley for the past 11 years, so you can see why we would like to locate in Fridley. Our reasons for the variances from the city are as follows. Our company is small but has and will continue to grow. This proposed building is our first phase of construction and we hope i.n the near future to purchase the lot to the north of us. We would like to add on to our first building with another 50'x70' addition. Our reason for the outside storage is as follows. This is a small lot and we are limited by other city ordinances on the size of building needed to store all our materials and equipment inside. Outside storage will enable us to move all our equipment and materials to one place. We plan to construct a 6' chain link fence around the perimeter including webbing as not to see through. We are also requesting not to blacktop this outside storage area because blacktop and roofing asphalt are not compatible. Roofing asphalt is almost impossible to remove from hard surfaces and because this a small yard trucks will make sharp turns, further damaging the black top. We are on a limited budget and would prefer to invest more money into the front of the building than the rear. We will use crushed rock as our surface, which can be better maintained. We plan to store roofing equipment, some pallets, lwnber, roofing materials, asphalt in the solid form and possible some vehicle parking in the summer. All to be neat, excessible and well organized. The side setback request reasons are that square footage is verq valuable to this lot because of total builoling size li.mits. We need outside storage and for outside stor- age to be excessible we need width as well as length. By choosing a longer, narrower building we are able to obtain m�n?�nn square footage needed and keeping outside storage accessible. • r ° � The longer building also hides more of the rear storage and keeps the fenced area more to the rear of the lot. Future plans hopefully call for the purchase of the property to the north as I have already stated and making it all one property. We are open to suggestions but these are needed nariances to develop this property for our needs now and in the future. Thank you, � �O�iV�x� `� - :Z�tC�L Warren M. Stock Roofing Contractor Wt4S : gas ia � � � r � � � � � �Q� I I � �, �� . Id� 6�� ,� ��. ____ ��k� � . es �' � � r:Y�w i �l .� . � I 1ow� �o' f /O I , I � � 6� �� 4� , �S � �� 1 I � � 'V ��`' _, �. ,, . - - - : p � ; �-., r . — . -- . - - -- --,� - e - - � � � �' • Io�weQ+{Il. � - . - � - t - - - _ � CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMI88ZON MEETING, AUGIIST 7, 1990 CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Savage called the August 7, 1990, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. ROLL_CALL• Members Present: Members Absent: Diane Savage, Cliff Johnson, Cathy Smith Larry Kuechle, Ken Vos Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Steve Bodinski, 15515 University Avenue N.E. Dareld & Carolyn Nelson, 1365 73rd Avenue N.E. Richard Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace Warren Stock, 289 Liberty Street Marlys Jensen, 7763 Elm St. N.E. David Asplund, 7715 Elm St. N.E. Francis Anderson, 7748 Elm St. N.E. Lois Anderson, 7748 Elm St. N.E. Mary Novack, 21 77th Way N.E. Mr. Schultz, 7751 Elm Street APPROVAL OF JULY 24 1990 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve the July 24, 1990, Appeals Commission minutes as written. OPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 1. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE RE UEST VAR 90-18 BY WINFIELD DEVELOPMENTS- INC.: A, Pursuant to Section 214.11.02.B of the Fridley City Code to increase the maximum square footage of a free-standing sign from 80 square feet to 104 square feet; g. Pursuant to Section to allow a second street frontage; 214.11.02.A of the Fridley City Code free-standing sign along the same To allow an existing 24 square foot free-standing sign to remain on Lots 4, except the northerly 35 feet, Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, Paco Industrial Park, the same being 7110-7190 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. APPEALS COMMI88ION MEETING AUGIIST 7 1990 PAGE 4 an interior lot, the Code allows a garage to be expanded to within 3 feet of the lot line. However, this is a corner lot and the 17.5 foot setback from the property line needs to be maintained. Ms. McPherson stated Evert Court was constructed by the City in 1978 after the house was already existing. The City then provided for the house to meet the 17.5 foot setback requirement. In reviewing the plat, approximately 8 feet was added to the lot to meet the setback requirement. The lot is approximately 10,000 sq. ft. with an approximate rear yard of 89.7 feet. The petitioner does have the alternative to construct a detached garage in the rear yard facing Evert Court. There is a slope and it could be adjusted for a driveway cut for access. Because there is an alternative which meets the Code requirements, staff is recommending the commission deny the variance request. MOTION by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Smith, to accept the two handouts as provided by the petitioner. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED TAE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Mr. Nelson stated he understands there is the possibility of putting a garage in the rear yard; however, he would like to convert the existing single car garage into a double garage. Staff has stated in the report that the existing garage could be made into living space. The current garage was designed as a garage and, when built, an interior entrance to the house was not constructed. The existing house is a 4-bedroom house and they do not need additional living space. The structure would remain as a garage. Building in the rear yard would require a change in landscape. If the garage were built in the back, they could not use the existing driveway and curb cut and they would have to make a significant cut in the embankment for an entrance from Evert Court. A tree would need to be cut down along the fence line and a power pole is close to where the entrance would have to be. This would also mean additional cost. Since receiving this recommendation, Mr. Nelson did some checking on the cost and found it would be approximately 2 1/2 times more expensive. Regarding the current use of the area, there is an existing chain link fence that is visually in line with where the addition would be so there would be some conformity with existing appearance. A second car currently sits on the area of the driveway where the proposed driveway would be. Going back to the original ordinance, the Public Purpose served by the requirement, the purpose of the ordinance was to maintain high traffic visibility. Mr. Nelson stated that the addition to the garage would not incur traffic visibility limitations. A car currently sits where the garage would be. He was not clear on the line of site into the neighbors yard. From his visualization, he could not see where it encroaches on the line of site nor is a hindrance because of a 39 foot setback from the curb. Evert Court is a cul de sac. In his drawing of APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGIIST 7. 1990 _ PAGE 3 the surrounding property or impact the public safety. Further, the petitioner would incur additional expenses and it could result in an unusual architectural appearance. Because the amount of correction is minor, it may be more practical to grant the variance than to reconstruct the house. Staff therefore recommends approval of the variance as requested. Mr. Bodinski attended the meeting, but had no additional comments. MOTION by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Smith, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY AND TSE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:38 P.M. Commission members had no further comments regarding the request. MOTION by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve Variance Request, VAR #90-16, to correct the existing nonconformance to the City Code, on Lot 3, Block 1, Oliver Olson Addition, the same being 110 - 64 1/2 Way N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERBON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. Dacy stated that the variance was now considered approved since there were no objections from the neighborhood and the Commission agrees with the staff recommendation. 3. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REOUEST VAR #90-19 BY DARELD DEAN NELSON: Pursuant to Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(c).((1)) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the setback on the street side of a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 10 feet, to allow the expansion of an existing garage, on the west 67 feet of Lot 20, Auditor's Subdivision #129, the same being 1365 - 73rd Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Johnson, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:40 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the intersection of Evert Court and 73rd Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Two Family Dwelling. Property to the east, north and west are also zoned R-2, and to the south, M-2, Heavy Industrial. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting a variance to expand an exiting single garage to a two-car garage and utilize the existing driveway and curb cuts. If the petitioner's 1Qt had been APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGIIST 7. 1990 PAGE 6 Mr. Johnson asked, if a two-car garage were built in the rear yard, is there a limit placed on the amount of square footage. Ms. McPherson stated the Code allows up to 1400 sq. ft. for accessory buildings, which could include an attached garage, a detached garage, or detached yard sheds, etc. Mr. Johnson asked if the existing garage would be counted in the total square footage. Ms. McPherson stated that the existing garage would be included in figuring the total square feet. Ms. Smith stated adding a second structure would make no sense. There is not an easy spot to put a garage in the back. It would be expensive, costly and take away from the look of the area by putting an out building in the backyard. She could not see why they would want to put a free standing structure in the back yard. Ms. Savage felt this was a close issue. If the Commission is going to be strict with the code, you do have an alternative and she agreed with what Commissioner Smith said. She looked at the property and did not think it would visually detract from the neighborhood because of the particular location being on a cul de sac. The spirit of the code would be met with an addition, There would still be traffic visibility and she didn't think there would be encroachment on the line of site. She would have to agree that an additional garage in the back does not quite fit. She was disturbed about having to take down a large tree. Ms. Smith stated she did four-bedroom house with given the circumstances, not understand why someone would build a a single garage. Ms. Savage stated, that she would vote to accept the variance. Ms. Smith felt that the finished product of expanding the current garage would make more sense. It does not make sense to have another out building on the property. Mr. Johnson stated the question is the hardship question. He could see some hardship because of the radical change in the backyard. The property has commercial on one side and multiple family around it. It is unique in that respect. He agreed that it makes sense to add on rather to go through all that for an out building, and the petitioner would not be gaining an interior entrance. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Johnson, to approve Variance Request, VAR #90-19, to allow the expansion of an existing garage, on the west 67 feet of Lot 20, Auditor's Subdivision #129, the same being 1365 - 73rd Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOOSLY. � APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AIIQ�IIST 7. 1990 PAGE_5 the area, adding 10 feet on the garage would not hinder the line of site, be a traffic interference, aethestic interference, or block the view. Mr. Nelson asked the commission to reverse the staff's decision. He understands that there is an alternative and that it could be done, but a practical solution is to add on to the existing structure and make it a two-car garage. Ms. Savage asked staff to explain "line of site" and how it applies to this area. Ms. Dacy stated the concept of line of site is to make sure not only from a traffic standpoint but also an aesthetic standpoint for the construction of buildings. Granted, in this particular application, the line of site is not as large of an issue. The issue we address is; is there is a way to meet the ordinance?". It is up to the Appeals Commission and the City Council to decide if it is justifiable in terms of a hardsiiip. Mr. Johnson asked if the neighbors had voiced any objections. Mr. Nelson stated they did not. He provided drawings of the house to show the existing structure and what it would look like with a two-car garage. There is currently no interior entrance into the house and with the current garage there is not sufficient room. With the addition, there may be room for an interior entrance at some point in the future. Ms. Savage stated that, beside the fact that it is more practical to add on, the Commission is not to consider the economic hardship as a factor. The petitioner would have to take down a tree, remove part of the fence, and build a retaining wall. Mr. Nelson stated the retaining wall would be approximately 3 to 3 1/2 feet high. Ms. Savage asked what the petitioner would do if the variance was denied. Mr. Nelson stated he would maintain the existing garage as is and put a double car garage in the rear using it for the car that is used the least and for additional storage. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Johnson, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANZMOIISLY AND THE PIISLIC BEARING CLOSED AT 8:00 P.M. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGIIST 7. 1990 PAGE 8 IIPON A VOICE VOTB, ALL VOTZNG AYE� CHAIRP$RSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC IIEARING OPEN AT 8:08 P.M. Ms. Dacy stated the property is located west of and adjacent to Elm Street. It is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, and is surrounded on all sides by M-2 zoning. However, to the north, there is an existing single family home and to the south are existing single family homes, which are considered in the eyes of the ordinance to be nonconforming. The proposed application for a variance consists of three parts. The first part is the lot area. The entire lot is approximately 14,670 sq. ft. The requirement in an M-2 district is 1 1/2 acres. The second part is lot width. The minimum lot width is an M-2 district is 150 feet. The existing width is now 104 feet. The third part is a side yard variance to locate a building 5 feet from the north lot line, which is typically 20 feet. The history on this parcel has been that the lots were created in 1911. Until 1969, the City did not stipulate a minimum lot area. The parcel has been in existence since 1911 and according to the records has not been part of another parcel since 1969. Therefore this parcel is considered a parcel of record. Staff reviewed the case with the City Attorney's office, and because the parcel existed under one ownership prior to the change in zoning in 1969, the City Attorney stated that to deny the lot area and lot width variances would be to deny use of the property. Based on those facts, staff is recommending approval of those two components. The difficulty that these parcels of record pose is that the requirements of the zoning ordinance are based on a larger lot size so the development that occurs must be made as best as possible. Third is the setback request to locate the building 5 feet rather than 20 feet from the north lot line. Under this particular proposal, the petitioner is requesting the City pave the existing alley which is located along the south lot line. In the early 1970's, the City did vacate the alley to the west, at the rear of the property. Alleys such as this were common in the early 1900's. Although other alleys were vacated, this alley was maintained. The petitioner has indicated his willingness to incur costs to maintain access to the parking area that he has. The proposee building is located in conformance with the front setback requirement with a rear storage area. A special use permit is required for the outside storage which will be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The issues regarding the outdoor storage and other site plann issues will be considered by the Planning Commission on August 22 when the special use permit is considered. Given the size of the lot and the proposed layout, staff recommends approval of the variance to locate the building 5 feet from the north lot line; however, the building inspector has made some recommendations on fire ratings for the north wall. Petitioner has � APPEALS COMMIBSION MEETING, AOGIIST 7. 1990 PAGE 7 Ms. Dacy stated this item goes to the City Council on August 27, 1990. 4. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE RE4UEST VAR #90-17, BY JOEL AND MARILYN GERDEEN• A. Pursuant to Section 205.07.03.A of the Fridley City Code to reduce the lot area from 9,000 square feet to 8,835 square feet; B. Pursuant to Section 205.07.03.0 of the Fridley City Code to increase the lot coverage from 25$ to 26.5$; C. Pursuant to Section 205.07.03.D.(1) of the Fridley City Code to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 21 feet; To allow the construction of additional living space on Lot 2, Block 2, A1 Rose Addition, the same being 6240 Alden Way N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. Ms. Savage stated this item was tabled until the meeting of August 21, 1990. Mr. Harris asked how far away from the property does the City notify of a variance request. Ms. McPherson stated all persons within 200 feet of the property are notified. 5. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE RE4UEST. VAR #90-20. BY STOCK ROOFING, INC.• A. Pursuant to Section 205.18.03.A of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the required lot area from one and one-half (1 1/2 acres) (65,340 sq. ft.) to one-third acre (14,768 sq. ft.); B. Pursuant to Section 205.18.03.D.(2) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the side yard setback from 20 feet to 5 feet; C. Pursuant to Section 205.18.03.B of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the lot width from 150 feet to 104 feet; To allow the construction of a roofing business on Lots 10 and 11, Block 7, Onaway Addition, the same being 7738 Elm Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Johnson, to open the public hearing. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. AOGIIST 7. 1990 PAGE 10 Ms. Smith asked Mr. Anderson if the out building on his property was used as an industrial building. Mr. Anderson stated the building was for his own use. He has only a 10 year permit on that building. Mr. Harris stated he owns Block 7 and parcels in East Ranch Estates. He has no real objections. This does not impact him, but it does affect Mr. Anderson and Ms. Novak if granted. Because of limited parking spaces, Mr. Harris was concerned that the petitioner's employees and/or patrons would use his parking lot across the street. Mr. Stock stated the business would operate out of the building only. His employees do not work there, but rather at the site. Parking should not be a problem. Ms. Smith asked how many vehicles would be in that area on a normal basis. Mr. Stock stated two or three. These vehicles would be inside the building or locked in the gate because no one would be there. Mr. Asplund asked what the building size would be and expressed concern about odors. Mr. Stock stated the proposed building is 3,500 sq. ft. and that there would not be storage of hot tar at the building. Mr. Asplund stated he has no objections. This is an industrial area. Ms. Smith asked Mr. Stock if he had a response to the concern about odors. Mr. Stock stated the heating is done on the job, not at the shop. Mr. Anderson stated the smell supposedly is for 1/2 hour in the evening. He has a small house with no central air. This smell would get in the house. He and Mrs. Novak have lived there before the City rezoned the area to heavy industrial and feels the City should have bought their properties a long time ago. He felt he was being pushed out. When Mr. Stock stated he was putting in a roofing company, Mr. Anderson thought he was going to be roofing houses. He has industrial buildings all around his property. Ms. Dacy stated if Mr. Stock was not proposing an outdoor storage area and if the City Council does approve the variances, then the proposed use is permitted by right of the zoning district. The issue of the odor and what is stored outside will be discussed by the Planning Commission on August 22. The Appeals Commission must APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 7. 1990 PAGE 9 advised that the interior will be used to store vehicles and not for repair garage; therefore the north wall could be constructed to a 1 hour rating. Staff recommends approval of the three variances. Ms. Smith asked if the alley was to the south or to the west. Ms. Dacy stated there used to be an alley oroginally platted in the Onaway Addition which was vacated in 1972. Ms. Smith asked if the alley was between the new building and the residence to the south. Ms. Dacy stated the 16-foot alley is platted from Elm Street to the rear of the property, but the alley would be paved approximately from Elm Street to about 85 feet to the west. Mr. Johnson asked if the single family residence to the north was considered nonconforming. Ms. Dacy stated the area is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. All single family dwellings in this area are considered nonconforming in the eyes of the ordinance. Mr. Stock stated he proposes to build and operate a roofing company on the lot. The lot is a small lot. He had proposed a 7,000 sq. ft. building but ran into a problem with parking spaces. He had to resort to outside storage. He must have outside storage with the smaller size building. If the building is moved away from the lot line, they would put outside storage on the side and the area used for parking would shield the storage area. Ms. Novak, 21 - 77 Avenue NE, stated she lived behind the property on the south side. She objects to this business locating there because she does not want the smell of hot tar near her home. Her windows open on the south side and she does not want this next to her property. Ms. Smith asked if this issue would be taken up by the Planning Commission. Ms. Dacy stated this was correct. The Appeals Commission is to consider the variance in terms of lot size, lot area, and setback. Any question regarding smells and odors will be addressed by the Planning Commission on August 22. Mr. Anderson, 7748 Elm Street, stated he lives in the residence to the north. If this building is located 5 feet from the property line, there will be little space between his house and the proposed building. He has a factory next door that was built at the lot line. 0 APPEALS COMMIBBION MEETING, AIIGOST 7. 1990 PAGE 12 Mr. Stock stated he would extend the building and make outside storage along the back. This is definitely in the future. Ms. Smith stated the the plan as laid out would seem to make the most sense for the use of the property. With a lot that is 104 feet wide, it is difficult to place a building on the property and have appropriate use of the property. Ms. Savage agreed, for those reasons set forth in the staff report, that to deny these variances would deny reasonable use of the property and consequently she would agree to approve the variance request. Ms. Smith stated the sketch shows 35 feet back from the street, and asked if this met Code requirements. Ms. McPherson stated yes, the Code requires a 35 foot front setback. Mr. Johnson asked if there is an existing building. Ms. McPherson stated the lot is now vacant. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Stock is a building of 3,500 sq. ft. is the minimum space needed to operate his business. Mr. Stock stated this was the minimum amount of space required. Mr. Johnson asked if there was any other way to shape the building to get a larger setback. Mr. Stock stated that to get parking and outside storage, there would then be too little space for a vehicle to turn. Ms. Savage stated the Commission has heard what the neighbors have said. Assuming the petitioner is allowed to build, will the petitioner be able to work with them and staff to resolve the issues. Mr. Stock stated that part of the reason for having a 5 foot setback rather than 20 foot was for the neighbors. The other alternative is to put up a 6 foot fence on the property line. In this way, there is 5 feet of grass rather than a fence right on the property line. He felt it would be nicer with that much of a buffer. Regarding the smell, he did not know how to address this. Part of the reason for choosing the lot was because of the M-2 zoning. The petitioner currently has a purchase agreement for the property at this time. Mr. Anderson stated there was available land on 81st which is also zoned heavy industrial. There is room to build a business on the other end of town. �r APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGIIST 7. 1990 PAGE 11 decide to approve or not approve the variance requests. Everyone has the right to apply for a variance. Mr. Anderson stated the ordinance requires a 20 foot setback and asked why this was being changed. Ms. Smith stated the issue being faced is that of a small lot. Without a variance it would severely limit what can be done with the property. MOTIOM by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Smith, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:30 P.M. Ms. Savage explained that the Commission would now discuss the issues. This, however, would yet go to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council. The Commission understands the points of the residents. Mr. Anderson stated that he allowed the variances in years back, and now he has only smell and noise. Mr. Johnson stated too that the City Council and Planning Commission would address the residents' concerns stated here tonight. Mr. Johnson questionned the wall safety requirement. It was his understanding that in winter the building would be used for repairs of vehicles and equipment. Ms. Dacy stated it was her understanding that there would not be vehicle maintenance within the building. She asked Mr. Stock to clarify. Mr. Stock stated he wants to install a four hour rating wall. Ms. Smith asked if Mr. Anderson had street to the north of his property. Mr. Anderson stated there is a building right next door. Mr. Johnson asked how many single family dwellings are in this block. Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Anderson is located immediately to the north. Mrs. Novak and other neighbors are located to the south on 77th Avenue. Ms . Smith stated the letter stated there were plans to purchase property to the north. What would you do with it, if you purchased that property? ti r APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING ADGOST � 1990 PAGE 14 Ms. Dacy stated the best alternative would be to have Mr. Anderson's and this property combined; however, there are separate owners. Of the three components of the variance, if the Commission recommends denial of the area and lot width issue as well as the setback issue, then a recommendation should also include language that the City should also think about taking the property. However, of the three components, the side setback is one that the Appeals Commission could recommend denial and still sustain a finding. Fifteen feet could be taken off the building. The petitioner states his minimum requirement is 3,500 sq. ft. This could be reconfigured on the site, but there would be other site plan complications. The City would like to see the two parcels combined. This property owner has a legitimate request to build on the property. Ms. Smith asked, if the Commission recommends approval and this devalues property, could this be an issue. Ms. Dacy stated that a lot of the analysis is based on her conversations with the City Attorney and his interpretation of the law. She recommends this be treated as any other request. Ms. Savage agreed that this is not a relative issue. Mr. Asplund stated he has several lots. As he sees it, the tax base on a piece of property is greater than on a lot with a building than on an empty lot. He does agreed that he would like to see a building on the lot rather than an empty lot. Mr. Johnson asked, when this was brought to you, is there a reason why the building could not be flipped the other way and fit in the ordinance code. Ms. Dacy stated the building is 50 feet by 70 feet. It could be shifted to maintain the 20 feet setback. However, it shifts everything so the parking area is closer to the lot line. The petitioner proposes to use the alley which would also reduce the turn radius for trucks in the storage area. The other option as proposed here, the building could be reduced 15 feet in size. Mr. Johnson stated it would seem just need the extra 15 foot setback. that if the petitioner needs area to turn around as easy to back the trucks in. If he doesn't feet, why the need for the variance for the 5 Mr. Stock stated it would be the same amount of square feet either way. Mr. Smith stated they would then use outside storage right up to the property line. a APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGOST 7. 1990 __ PAGE 13 Ms. Savage stated she can foresee difficulties and has seen other difficulties where business and industrial properties are next to residential. She urged Mr. Stock to think about the fact that he will need to work with the neighbors. Mr. Stock stated he does not want to create problems. He just wants to operate a business. He would not park on other's property. Mr. Harris stated he has been in construction business for some time, has lived in the community since 1962, and his family has been in the community since East River Road was a path so he has some background and experience in what the Commission is looking at. In his opinion, what the Planning staff and the Appeals Commission has missed must take into consideration more than this parcel. If you grant this variance, the problem then arises of what happens to Mr. Anderson's parcel. The Commission have severely impacted his parcel as far as value. It may be that you may be liable for damages for reducing value. Even if you put in a 4-hour wall, however, even going to a zero lot line on Mr. Anderson's north side, he has 80 feet, a minimum of 15 feet between the buildings (5 feet on the petitioners property and 10 feet on his property),alllows a 70 foot wide building. Because you have to put in an access to the back of the property, unless there are loading docks in the front, the amount of usability of this property has been greatly diminished. He and Mr. Anderson have been wrestling with this problem for many years and have not been happy with the results. He asked the commission to look at the whole picture; not only this parcel, but the parcels in proximity. Perhaps the best thing to do is not to try to handle it; is to not make a recommendation for or against but have the City Council make a decision. He had some real reservations and problems with it from the general area development standpoint. After the building is built 5 feet from the lot line, what will happen in the future to other parcels in the area. Because of other variances he sold other lots he owned in the area because he felt they would not be able to do anything. Since then, someone else was able to do something there which was not the best use of the land. Ms. Savage stated this seems to come down to whether this property is to be used as heavy industrial. Mr. Harris stated residences are in time, feels the City Council this should happen now. nonconforming and, at some point must handle this fact and feels Ms. Smith stated the property is 104 foot empty lot. Residential is 80 feet wide now. Building next to it has a 0 lot line. So if this building is build 5 feet from the line line, there will be 85 feet between the buildings with a house between the buildings. APPEALB COMMIBSION MEETING AIIGIIST 7 1990 PAGE 16 Mr. Johnson stated his concern is that this is more than the building and to a much bigger picture then just building and much bigger than what we can address. We could recommend the building be built, but he has concerns for the petitioner and also for the resident. Ms. Savage stated there are specific issues about where there is a hardship. That is what the Commission is here to make a decision on whether a variance should be granted based on a hardship. The other issues can be discussed at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Ms. Smith stated she has a hard time making a recommendation with all of the issues involved, including the outside storage issue. If we make a recommendation for 20 foot setback, it doesn't make sense to do so because it is just throwing it back in their lap. Ms. Dacy asked if the Commission would like to reconsider after the Planning Commission or not to consider again. Mr. Johnson stated that the City Council will have final approval in either case. Ms. Smith stated she has a hard time because there are so many issues involved. The City Council will be looking at many issues and can make a decision. Ms. Savage stated she could agree if the Commission tabled this item waiting for something to see what the Planning Commission does on the special use permit. As chair, Ms. Savage objects to the Commission not making a recommendation whether for approval or denial. MOTION by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Savage, to repeal the above motion of no recommendation. IIPON A�10ICE VOTE, MS. SAVAGE AND MR. JOHNSON VOTING AYE, M8. SMITH VOTING NO, CHAIRPERSON BAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Smith, to table variance request, VAR #90-20, until after the Planning Commission has made their recommendation regarding the special use permit and when more members of the Appeals Commission are present. Mr. Stock stated, as the petitioner, he hoped the Commission could see the hardship. He is hear to show that he has a hardship and need to have a building building on that lot. The City Council need to know a hardship exists. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, M8. SMITH AND MR. JOBNSON VOTING AYE, MB. SAVAGE VOTING NAY� CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. . APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AIIG�ST 7. 1990 PAGE 15 Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission would address the issue of the outside storage and placement of the building as part of the special use permit analysis. Ms. Savage stated that what the Commission recommends can still be changed by the Planning Commission. The City Council would ultimately decide. Ms. Smith stated area, but not the City Council. we could recommend to reduce lot width and lot 20 foot setback. This could be reversed by the Mr. Stock stated the building will not be built if it cannot be done with 3,500 sq. ft. Mr. Johnson stated the Commission could make no recommendation and let the City Council decide. Ms. Smith stated this seems to be a whole package issue. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Johnson, that the Commission make no recommendation on variance, VAR #90-20, to allow the construction of a roofing business on Lots 10 and 11, Block 7, Onaway Addition, the same being 7738 Elm Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MR. JOHNSON AND MS. BMITH VOTING AYE, MS. SAVAGE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. Ms. Dacy asked to clarify if the Commission wished to review the variance again after a decision is made on the special use permit or if the Commission is saying they have no opinion on this case. Ms. Savage stated she felt the Commission should either approve or deny, and felt the Commission should recommend denial. Ms. Smith stated in trying to recommend 2 items and deny 1 the commission is hearing from the petitioner that he will not build. Ms. Savage stated she would like to see a motion to approve the variance request with the three stipulations. Ms. Dacy stated that, since the motion was passed, the only way is to have another motion to reconsider. Her understanding is that what has just been passed is that the Appeals Commission makes no recommendation and the variance request just goes the rest of the way through the process. Ms. Savage stated she would like to open discussion because she feels the purpose of the Commission is to make a recommendation. 4 � APPEALS COMMIBSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 7. 1990 _ PAGE 17 Ms. Dacy stated this item would be before the Appeals Commission on September 4. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Smith to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE AUGUST 7, 1990, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGIIST 7. 1990 PAGE 2 Ms. Dacy stated the petitioner was unable to come to the meeting due to a family emergency. This item has therefore been tabled until the Appeals Commission meeting of August 21. 2. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REOUEST VAR #90-16, BY STEVE BODINSKI• A. Pursuant to Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(c)((1)) of the Fridley City Code to reduce the setback on the street side of a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 12.5 feet; B. Pursuant to Section 205.07.03.D.(1) of the Fridley City Code to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 34.31 feet; To correct an existing nonconformance to the City Code, on Lot 3, Block 1, Oliver Olson Addition, the same being 110 - 64 1/2 Way N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Johnson, to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:34 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated this request by the petitioner is for Lot 3, Block 1, of the Oliver Olson Addition. It is zoned R-1, Single Family, as are the parcels to the east, south, north and west. The petitioner has recently completed construction of a single family dwelling with an attached two-car garage. This request is to bring the property into confornaance with the Code to correct the nonconformances on the side corner setback adjacent to the public right of way on East River Road and also the front yard setback. Ms. McPherson researched the reasons why a variance would be necessary for a recently constructed home. When the building permit was applied for, the petitioner presented a layout that was more parallel to the 64 1/2 Way right-of-way. The house is actually canted toward 64 1/2 Way right of way which puts the house into a nonconconforming situation. The Building Inspector checks to see that the building is laid out to meet the setback requirements. He had checked the front yard setback and had the contractor make some adjustments, which were not fully made. At that time he could not check the side corner setback as the contractor had placed a majority of the fill from the lot along the East River Road right of way. The encroachments do not appear to cause any site line problems as 64 1/2 Way is a right in, right out only from East River Road. Ms. McPherson stated the Appeals Commission could deny the variance and require that the garage be reconstructed to meet the setback requirements. However, the encroachments do not adversely impact ��.w � � cinroF FRIDLEY DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: C011/iMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT' M EMO RAN D UM August 17, 1990 Planning Commission Members Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Potential TIF Redevelopment District in the Onaway Addition Attached is a map identifying the vacant and nonconforming properties located in the Onaway Addition on 77th Avenue, Elm Street, and Beech Street. There are six nonconforming single family structures and two vacant properties. Creating a TIF redevelopment district in this area poses the following concerns: 1. One of the major changes in the new state law requirements for redevelopment tax increment districts includes a reduction in Local Government Aids (LGA) after 5- 6 years of creation of a district. The amount of LGA reduction increases as time goes on. Typical City policy has been that a district would not be created until a project has been identified; therefore, acquiring the homes at this time prior to enlisting a redevelopment project would mean that the City would be expending funds not knowing whether or not a project would occur, and therefore, no assurance of increment to pay for expenses. 2. A typical size industrial parcel that is usable for industrial development is approximately 3 acres. Without demolishing adjacent existing industrial buildings, most of these parcels could not be resold individually for projects of significant value. In the case of the properties on the west side of Elm Street, combining them would only total approximately 35,000 square feet. Use of these properties may be more valuable for expansion of existing uses or for very small operations, such as the use being proposed by Stock Roofing. 3. Typical City and HRA policy requires a redevelopment project to create enough value to retire the funds that have been expended to redevelop the property. Further, tax increment Onaway Addition Redevelopment August 17, 1990 Page 2 has been used to provide a piece of property which can be just as marketable as other properties in adjacent communities. Given the size and location of these parcels, the amount of value that could be created would not justify this criteria. For example, analyzing the parcels on the west side of Elm Street, it would cost approximately $180,000 to acquire all of the properties and provide for relocation expenses and to demolish existing buildings. The resulting parcel would approximate 35,000 square feet. In order to recover the City's cost in 5 years prior to LGA cuts, the building would have to be at least 25,000 square feet in size and be valued at $700,000. Obviously, this size of the building covers 71� of the lot and would not be possible to build. 4. The policy issue the City and HRA would have to address is whether or not the City would be willing to borrow money from other districts (which is also under scrutiny by the state) or to take the loss and acquire the properties. Another policy issue that t the City has not up until th for redevelopment. In th redevelopment, the developer adjacent to the 10,000 Auto Acquisition project is using flood plain. BD/dn cc: William Burns Rick Pribyl M-90-573 he City would have to address is that is point acquired single family homes e case of the Fridley Town Square acquired the two single family homes Parts site. The Riverview Heights federal funds to remove homes from the ��, �;i . i�t i i I I i . � �� , .; � ia ' � I I r� � -Q � _<�> ,� � i � �, -�" t'� � . ... ' � -- - �L �99 �, I 1- ' `' ,� • � /r � ��-� ��. . J ` ' �'� ' 'q�` � I ( � � ; � '� ( i` 4 I I \ I v ��=�� ' � � - �� 4 1� � �``� ~ � ` -�' L . `` �-------------� �------- ----- � .� �.� . �, .r o fwsf : ��.e n I s•-m.•. , r�o ' t�; \ � ,�>.0 �r.-;f•�E�' � ic � '� `�',`p e 1f_` ti E 0 ti iii., ., �lo r ; �» � •�♦ r � ., �,�s.S ti 4 i,��.r �, , : C �J: � � . �eii� h h e: h 1! � - , �• a�p�s , � � ; . � �1 /E � / ;' �� 4 � � ,. "; /617�: Q � '� � Q> 2 0}' o / 7�+j� ` v v JF— p �7ib � v' �• F' i p a� a t� 41 I � � W �.? W /F Cn> :. i,� j) ; � '� , � ytJ / 3 • (!' W S : ��g� : W , � � 4'f � : � /g � 4 ` � /9 ' 4 � ' / 9 • � Y 4 ' � > - -s � � V� ' �' `t r S N Z ( S � v� 1 i�! � (� S , ; � �, .��, o� � ; �,,�� : � ��. :�e6 , _ i 1a'~ � — ?erl r —�`� � � !'�)' s i i1�� ;) : .:.s'-% ror ..s � 3��-- ——�,—. 9 P Z3 yy� �� Z3(�) U> -� ;3 ' a 4�w � 9 • 2 9 U� 24(�)� ; 9(5) � � � � � .� G `� � >- �� Zs; � i io � 2s �� i� (t�� < (�►k•S ` � �o ,. i , �, = i �,�\\� �� Q Z�; // z�, . �/ � 2� i/ �� ' " � . � x • 2 � � � _ �� < � � �i � � �8 ��) 7 b �) � f � 7� �� C�)�3 � 2 os ,�.��,�� y�F •/ � ti ;_ � Z 9 • � /4 � � 9 � �} � /4 29 i1) < � /a � `,�� e 4' P i�i a� i'Ss a� � i o >. 0 6C' v � d o►i.�i,.r M�� =� ', Te TH ��``�"'� AVE�❑ ` " �. � , , . ' '� 4 � N.E. ,� � �'�� 4 ti GC �s� s � N i!� �� i!� r� ti Ii,� r ti� • rr n J . e � /�t� / � P � �� L ��P � r � .; .�_- — � !r z ,� i� v. °r��2 �' � ; � A i� � - 3ES — ,r, �3 � 3 a /E : �s,>1 � I � , 4 � ��' �i�) �� 4 � 4 : �� s' i � i : ��; : ,s : �1> � ,. � �,�a (M) � 3 � ��> : ' 6 (�> : , ,� "° � �° t Z< 71�, '' 3 JoJ � F � J . i � i.�oia �.�.. �t 5 � � �� : i/� .a - S/% ` ti, �� - 7� W Z4 : 4� _ ��, � : . . . �, '� ,, �� Q a /C fjb)& � � � w �Z.S(71)a ; o I �p ' � �� o� 77� . B J� 2� � p �r � � `� � ) ,. � � W „ s ,, q n n i74.S o J irt _ /J< J 9 / \ e �n � � v h �� . : , � �, {,. , ,.: > :, � _ \ ,� 1�3�' /6 � �P / z.. � : � i : ^ l► 1 . * J� \ .r .��r �� r l, ` 3i � / t r - . Lfi_ :,, – — — — .. eef.+J �. . _ 2 '' - - - , NER � '` '" SE 3 '�'" � � , � � �.aes r:,:. � F� -/3-E.j \,�� w.. vti`isi/ ) . .. NORTH P"' � . .�. � .9a: 9-e - 09 - . =r� ,'�1v "S-�' f�. . . �. ro F!, .�.,�.a. YL!>'1•r4 .7c. .•`��,4 RCV A�I�u �Cr,Y-y .e-` /f�� 7-//•(,7 /P'y �-.t9'.SC �E. �•IB�� 9 �i�r. : - � � _ RB. ; -.,o �6z .P � A. i- r� f'�. Rr.•. - '� Ri _ _ � H a W a O a a � H E-+ z W O I H �� a � w tr� N O N 0 I � � �i X 0 to 0 0 �� o �, x H� U O Gl � � fA � O � +� o � U r� o t� � � O c'� � �1 ln i �-i �.1 r-1 �� ro � N �O � O I c'� tA O C1 N G1 'LS � ch O U1 td rl oa �avr . W O • z '' w o z c� d o c�, �o �� N d� � t11 � � � � � � � �� t11 .-i ,C � l� t0 ed � I� \ . �I I� i� n � � � �v ��b o� O O o� �� r-I U1 fj �i W r-I � w tr� tA � � � � � � r-I k � � 0 0 �rn b � n � � o �r x H� U O � a� � � � O c� � +� o �o � •• U u1 o r� � . O � d� 1 ► ri 1� N �� 1 � � N c'� � O 1 c'� N O c�1 N � 't3 � c�'� O N �C rl oa �av} W W z zN ch � � � � � � � � Q � � x � o � ?, c� z � a, I � I � r-1 � ri �1 N '�..,NG4 N � w tr+ � O � ch � � N d' � k 0 � 0 0 �� +� r o �r H� � x a, U 3-� O � O sr rl .�.� o u1 GC1 • • U cv O � � f-I N I 01 �-1 i� N �r � � � �� > N � Q1 O 1 OD N O O N tn c� U1 d '� � r� O N � N oa aa� w w • N z zM +� O +� tn N N � � � � d � d t� � � � � � . W -�-i W d 00 � co i � RS d� •� l� W � G4 M � w �+ � N 01 O� r� � II 01 � r-1 k � � 0 0 �o � � �o o� H� � x a� U S-i O � O 01 r--I �J O ch W •• U �' � � � i-� 'd' 1 N r� J� d� � �� t' � 'CS N � O I e-� tA O ch tn � 'LS � ch O tA rtf N oa aav} N � . .. j„i W O rtS W z� c�nz O N +� o e-1 }� M N O •r1 � d� � � cC N �n �1 O C7 S-1 ln � � � V� t/� '� t/� C .. �� C�1\ ��?i aa� �r�� O '� � 1C '� � O � � �� v� x�w 'd' +� w iT' N 0 � � � �� N d' � k 0 � � � W O ,� I U v� o �� N 1 � O r-I � oa O . �, w • O zo rn � �� .. � � \ �r] M cn b �o � t� O � N � 0 0 r-1 01 td � }� �0 O N H vr d � � O � O � � � �--I �.�1 r-i ro�� > b � O N O N � N �� zM � �� a� � �� h� � � N W d �i M '� � �o -.� � r W � w � N 0 � c� � � II N d' � x 0 � � x U O � � O � � O N O N I �� r N e-1 I N O f'� tl� oa .. O � W zO o 0 � n� � �� .. � � � Wrn lf1 'LS �� t� O � N tG 0 0 r-1 N � � i� � O c'� H� � � � � O � � O . r��-1 }� I� �� > b � O N O N � � �a� . ,..r U d� �0 �M� H I� � x�o •• N O O c� 3-i W -� � � tf1 N ''T.. c'1 +� - x �, � � �� o�°�� ac�n.�u -��c4� � s+ +� a 3-��N�Ut11� � � .[ •� 7r � 1d � r--I ir ?i � � �d •r1 S-� W Cl �x�3a+�b � �C O N O .�G O •9 � -� �\�\� U rtt� � H UCO UW�C]I�G4 � W H a W a 0 a a E�+ U � � �0 CO ox �w O �� i a� � N � I CO O ri f`1 � oa � O • • rl O � � � �H� > � 4) N O N � � a�� w N �j., f''1 � �� a� � � � �� H W � r-�I o � zs a�w � w b' N � � � d� � 11 N d' �--I x � 0 � � x U O r-I � lf'1 � O r-1 O e--I d� '� �� irt � N O I �--I O C1 Ui oa � O O •• r-I d' � � 01 �H� > b � o N O N � � �a� z C�1 0 �� -� � z �w � � �c� � ��-lW �y e--I .�; ��a�