09/09/1991 - 5108.� '� � FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING
unror
F��� ATTENDENCE SHEET
Monda�r, Sep tember 9, 1991
7:-30 P.M.
PLEASE PRINT NAME, ADDRESS AND ITEM NUMBER YOU ARE INTERESTED IN
' ITEM
PRINT NAME (CLEARLY) ADDRESS NUMBER
�, . � .,,. _ �
���♦- ��' �� .J�,.� �.� .� �'J_ .
I _.�_ ,' ' -� ��<.i, . _� �
�i/ , _ � _,% � +, � � ' !
� ��.,. . �. - - - - � � ���.• _ �_ r ! � -.
; --
� ��r ti ;�, � � � �
, �� � i��� :���7��r�
�,,�./.,/� _����, �% .�/. ,�.��, � ���`�.� .
. �i ' "'" � ' ,� '
/. � ` � � �� � / ► , •
/r' '.�% / � � ` /
� _ �/�a. � j�� •
I � _
� � . � �
! �
�t�..� ��l' � _ � � i � � � . � �I
r, I �.
I / - ' '
�r � / /
�//�• i.L_ .• � � �
� %I /J/ E�j� y�� I• L �<,i
;/ '
. ,
' � � � '��.
i
� �
� - /
- � �- i�
� � i �� � �� � ,� � r � � � � �� � � � '
.
,� •
� � � �l�/_%.I/ � � � _ L_ . � ' L / �/ � i • ..
� � � � � • � � � �� �
t � �
I� _ ♦ � J I � �
� L , � �- ` Lj - - - �r�!� ` �.t
�! I ' � i
�r i�� , ' _ � .,/ � ` r � :
,� • I r�I / �.� r ,
.
�i _ _ �
�
�
�
�
�
unror
Froo��
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ATTENDENCE SHEET
7:30 P.M.
PLEASE PRINT NAME, ADDRESS .AND ITEM NUMBER YOU ARE INTERESTED IN
ITEM
PRINT NAME (CLEARLY) ADDRESS NUMBER
�
'_ FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL
F�p�y SEPTEMBER 9, 1991
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
PRESENTATION OF AAARD:
To the City of Fridley and the North
Suburban Consumer Advocates for the
Handicapped from the Minnesota Council
on Disability for publication of the
second edition of the "Access Guide
to Friendly Fridley"
APPROVAL OF MINIITES:
City Council Meeting of August 26, 1991
ADOPTION OF ACiENDA:
OPEN FORIIM, VISITORS:
(Consideration of items not on agenda - 15 minutes)
OLD BUSINESS:
Second Reading of an Ordinance Under
Section 12.07 of the City Charter to
Vacate Streets and Alleys and to
Amend Appendix C of the City Code
(Vacation Request, SAV #91-03, by
William Pickering) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - lA
991 Pa�e z
NEW BIISINE88:
First Reading of an Interim
Ordinance Placing a Moratorium
on the Issuance of Special Use
Permits for Exterior Storage of
Materials and Equipment and Rock
Crushing Activities in the M-1,
Light Industrial and M-2, Heavy
Industrial Zoning Districts, and
Prohibiting their Location Within
the City While the Moratorium is
in Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 2B
First Reading of an Ordinance to
Amend the City Code of the City
of Fridley, Minnesota, by Making
a Change in Zoning Districts
(Rezoning Request, ZOA #91-01,
by Mark Kvalheim of Bailey
Enterprises) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3T
Receive the Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of August 21, 1991 . . . . . . . . . 4 - 4S
Receive an Item from the Appeals
Commission Meeting of August 6, 1991: . . . . . . . . . 5 - 5R
A. Variance Request, VAR #91-21,
by Anna Wichern, to Allow the
Existence of a 3.97 Square Foot
Free-Standing Daycare Sign on
Lot 9, Block 2, Sandhurst
Addition, the Same Being 6880
East River Road
J
NEW BIISINE88 (CONTINIIED):
Receive Items from the Appeals
Commission Meeting of August 20,
1991 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 6.66
A. Variance Request, VAR #91-22,
by Jennifer and Ronald Prasek,
to Reduce the Rear Yard Setback
from 28 Feet to 18 Feet, to
Allow the Construction of a
Three-Season Porch Addition
on Lot 25, Block 2, Harris Lake
Estates, the Same Being 1681
Camelot Lane N.E . .............. 6- 6.14
B. Variance Request, VAR #91-23,
by Warren and Gerry Stock, to
Increase the Maximum Allowable
Lot Coverage from 25 Percent
to 28.3 Percent to Allow the
Construction of an Addition
on Lots 3 and 4, Block 11,
Spring Brook Park, the Same
Being 289 Liberty Street N.E.... 6.15 - 6.26
C. Variance Request, VAR #91-24,
by Patrick Hayes of Hardee's
Restaurant, to Reduce the
Height of the Required
Screening Adjacent to a
Residential District from 6
Feet to 3 Feet, on the East
20 Feet of Lot 7, Lots 8
through 12, and the West 25
Feet of Lot 13, Block 7, City
View Addition, the Same Being
289 - 57th Avenue N.E. ........ 6.27 - 6.51
9� 1y91 Y8Q@ 4
NSW BIISINE88 (CONTINIIED):
Receive Items from the Appeals
Commission Meeting of August 20,
1991 (Continued):
D. Variance Request, VAR #91-25,
by Theodore William Investments
to Reduce the Required Front
Yard Setback from 35 Feet to
20 Feet; to Allow a Loading
Dock in the Front Yard; to
Al1ow the Construction of a
Loading Dock Platform on
Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19,
Block 2, Onaway Addition,
the Same Being 7879 Beech
Street N.E . .................... 6.52 - 6.66
Nuisance Abatement at 64th and
Ashton Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 7F
Request for Waiver of Temporary
Sign Permit Fee and Deposit for
the Knights of Columbus Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 8A
Receive Bids and Award Contract for �
Springbrook Nature Center Landscaping
Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 9A
1�'K1UL�Z �:llx �:UUlVC:1L MYili11NG OF SLiYTriMliriK J� 1Jy1 rage �
NEW BIISINE88 (CONTINIIED):
Motion to Appoint Gordon Sangster
to the Fridley Senior Citizens
Center Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Resolution Authorizing Changes
in Appropriations for the General
Fund, Grant Management Fund, HRA
Reimbursement Fund, Capital
Improvement Fund, and the Municipal
Center Remodeling Fund for the Year
1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 11C
Resolution Authorizing Changes
in Appropriations for the General
Fund and the Capital Improvement
Fund for the Year 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 12B
Resolution Directing Preparation
of Assessment Roll for Street
Improvement Project No.
STREET 1990 - 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 13A
Resolution Directing Publication
of Hearing on Proposed Assessment
Roll for the Street Improvement
Project No. STREET 1990 - 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 14C
�`
ciTY cvvNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 Pac�e 6
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINIIED):
Resolution Directing Preparation
of Assessment Roll for Water,
Sanitary Sewer & Storm Sewer
Proj ect No . 210 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 15B
Resolution Directing Publication
of Hearing on Proposed Assessment
Roll for Water, Sanitary Sewer
& Storm Water Project No. 210 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 16C
Resolution Directing Preparation
of the Assessment Roll for
Treatment and Removal of Trees
1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 17A
Resolution Directing Publication
of Hearing on the Proposed
Assessment Roll for the Treatment
and Removal of Trees 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 18C
Motion to Approve Letter to
Rice Creek Watershed District
Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 19D
E
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINLTED):
Informal Status Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 22D
Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - 23F
ADJOIIRN:
7
THE MINOTES OF THE REGIILAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COONCIL OF
AIIGIIST 26, 1991
The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order
at 7:37 p.m. by Mayor Nee.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Nee led the Councilmembers and audience in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL•
�
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Councilwoman Jorgenson, Councilman
Billings, Councilman Schneider and Councilman
Fitzpatrick
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
COUNCIL MEETING. AUGUST 12, 1991:
MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to approve th
presented. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon
all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carrie
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
e minutes as
a voice vote,
d unanimously.
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to adopt the agenda as submitted.
Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
OPEN FORUM, VISITORS:
KENNETH WILKINSON ANOKA COUNTY SHERIFF:
Mr. Wilkinson, Anoka County Sheriff, stated that he appreciated the
opportunity to address Council this evening. He stated that his
purpose for attending the meeting was to emphasize continuation of
good communications between the Anoka County Sheriff's Department
and the communities they serve. He stated that Council should have
received their annual report which outlines the activities
involving the Sheriff's Department through the year.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that the working relationship between the
Sheriff's Department and the Fridley Police Department has been
excellent. He stated that the Fridley Police Department is one of
the more progressive in the State and for which the community
should be proud. He stated that in the area of criminal
investigation, the Fridley Police Department assumes the
investigation of most crimes that occur in the City. He stated
that the Sheriff's Department assisted with 245 cases in 1990 which
was up from 176 in 1989. He stated that other areas where the
Sheriff's Department has assisted are in drug enforcement, criminal
sexual conduct cases, and death investigations.
Mr. Wilkinson stated sexual assaults in the County have started to
level off. He stated in 1990, there were 47 such cases
investigated in Fridley, which was up from 35 the previous year.
He stated drug activity is increasing in the County and cooperative
efforts within the law enforcement community has had some success.
He stated in 1990, there were 144 drug related arrests in the
County. He stated through July, 1991, the drug unit was assigned
204 cases resulting in 100 arrests. He stated the narcotics unit
worked 64 cases in the City of Fridley during 1990. He stated one
case resulted in the arrest of five dealers which led to Federal
indictments. He stated these parties were responsible for six
pounds of cocaine a month to the metropolitan area.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that another service provided by the Sheriff's
Department is polygraph testing. He stated forty such tests were
conducted in 1990, two of which were for Fridley. He stated that
Fridley is one of the prime contributors to their jail facility and
booked over fifteen percent of the people. He stated that the
total booked in 1990 was over 9,600.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that the County's canine unit and SWAT team
are also available to serve communities. He stated that the
Sheriff's Department reserve force has fifty volunteer members and
assists in the areas of accident investigations, snowmobile patrol,
boat and water enforcement, and underwater recovery.
Councilman Schneider asked Mr. Wilkinson to elaborate on how
requests relating to drug enforcement were handled.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that the Police Department evaluates these
requests if there is suspicion about drug operations. He stated
that the East Metro Task Force shares a computer link and resources
which makes it a multi-agency operation.
Councilman Billings stated that Fridley was responsible for fifteen
percent of the jail bookings, and he wondered how much crime lab
time is used for Fridley operations.
Mr. Wilkinson stated he did not have that information available
this evening, but he could obtain the records.
Councilman Billings asked the primary source of funding for the
Sheriff's Department. He stated that his concern was, as budgets
are tightened, governing bodies will be looking at aiternative ways
to meet expenses.
FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF AIIGOST 26, 1991 PAGE 3
Mr. Wilkinson stated that the primary source of funding is the tax
base.
Councilman Billings asked the number of residents in Anoka County,
and Mr. Wilkinson stated about 240,000.
Mr. Aill, Public Safety Director, stated that the Fridley Police
Department has excellent cooperation from the Sheriff's Department.
He stated that in reply to Councilman Schneider's question, any
drug complaint received is investigated and a conclusion reached.
Mayor Nee thanked Mr. Wilkinson for his presentation.
PUBLIC HEARING•
1. PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING REOUEST, ZOA #91-01, BY MARK
KVALHEIM OF BAILEY ENTERPRISES. INC., TO REZONE FROM R-3,�
GENERAL MULTIPLE DWELLING, TO C-2, GENERAL BUSINESS, ON
LOT 17, BLOCK 5. AND THE SOUTH 7.3 FEET OF LOT 16, BLOCK 5,
RICE CREEK PLAZA SOUTH ADDITION. GENERALLY LOCATED AT 203-205
MISSISSIPPI STREET N.E.:
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to waive the reading of the public
hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by
Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor
Nee declared the motion aarried unanimously and the public hearing
opened at 8:00 p.m.
Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that this was a
request to rezone the east portion of an existing building at
203-205 Mississippi Street from R-3 to C-2. She stated that the
property has been zoned R-3 since 1958, and at that time, the
district regulations did permit an office building with a special
use permit. She stated that the east portion of this building, the
subject of the rezoning, was constructed in 1959 and a zero lot
line was approved. She stated that the building is under two
separate ownerships.
Ms. Dacy stated that the owner of the east portion of the building
would like to lease the building to a children's consignment shop
which is a retail use and not consistent with office use. She
stated that in analyzing the rezoning request three criteria needed
to be evaluated. She stated that was the district use, district
intent, and whether or not the parcel meets the district
requirements. She stated that the proposed use of the consignment
retailing is consistent and compatible with the proposed zoning
district of C-2. She stated that the C-2 district would be
compatible with the adjacent C-3 zoning district and uses.
FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF AIIGIIST 26, 1991 PAGB 4
Ms. Dacy stated that CR-1 regulations were also reviewed, as the
uses allowed under the special use permit issued in 1958 would fall
under this zoning district category. She stated it should be noted
that there would need to be several setback and parking varianc�s
granted in order to bring the property into comformance with the
district requirements for both the CR-1 and C-2 districts. She
stated that, therefore, staff is recommending denial of the
rezoning request.
Ms. Dacy stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the rezoning by a 3 to 2 vote, subject to the petitioner
obtaining a joint parking easement from the owners of Holly
Shopping Center.
Mr. Mark Kvalheim, the petitioner, stated that the purpose of the
rezoning is to accommodate this business owner who wishes to locate
a children's consignment shop in the building. He stated that he
felt this business was well-suited for this location and wondered
why Council could not consider a special use permit rather than
rezoning.
Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that the problem is not with the
proposed use; however, once a property is rezoned the City does
not have control over future uses of the building. He felt that
the property owner who owns the west half of the building also had
to be protected.
Mr. Kvalheim stated that in past years there have been other retail
operations located in the building such as carpet and furniture
stores.
Councilman Schneider stated it appears that no one has difficulty
with the proposed use and wondered if the code should be modified
to permit secondhand apparel stores in an R-3 zone.
Ms. Dacy stated that staff was using the CR-1 requirements to
determine what was legal in that building, and their interpretation
is that secondhand consignment shops were not closely related to
the uses permitted in this district.
Councilman Billings felt that if the code were changed to allow
secondhand clothing stores it really opens the door to more retail
than just this type of business.
Mr. Terry Mickley, 241 Rice Creek Terrace, stated that his concern
is the traffic and parking on 2nd Street. He stated that there is
already parking on 2nd Sfireet because of the dental office. He
stated that this is the only access for all the residents who live
in the area. He asked Council to take into consideration the
parking on 2nd Street so that it does not become a major problem.
FRIDLEY CITY COtTNCIL MEETING OF AIIGIIST 26, 1991 PAGE 5
Dr. Nyberg stated that he has been a tenant of the building for 25
years. He stated that he wished to go on record as being concerned
that Council does not allow some unsavory business to start
occupying that building.
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to receive the letter from
Dr. Lapinski, 201 Mississippi Street, dated August 3, 1991 in
opposition to the rezoning. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to close the public hearing.
Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the
public hearing closed at 8:28 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS•
2. ORDINANCE NO. 975 AMENDING SECTION 2.03.07 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY
CHARTER•
Mr. Hunt, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that this Charter
amendment would change the deviation allowed in the wards from one
percent to three percent.
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the reading and adopt
Ordinance No. 975 on the second reading and order publication.
Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
3. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE UNDER SECTION 12.07 OF THE CITY
CHARTER TO VACATE STREETS AND ALLEYS AND TO AMEND APPENDIX C
OF THE CITY CODE - VACATION REOUEST SAV #91-01 BY EUGENE AND
JEAN HAGBERG (TABLED 8/12/911:
MOTION by Councilman Billings to remove this item from the table.
Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation
of the Planning Commission and City staff to deny Vacation Request,
SAV #91-01. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson.
Councilman Fitzpatrick stated his one concern is that it seems to
be taken for granted that people may park and store snow in this
alley, and this is not a permissible use.
Mr. Gregg Herrick, representing the City Attorney's Office, stated
their interpretation is that it is an alley. He stated if cars are
FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF AUGIIST 26, 1991 PAGE 6
parked and snow is stored in this alley that this should not be
permitted.
Ms. Jean Hagberg, 5881 2nd Street, wanted to know who decided this
was an alley.
Mr. Herrick stated that the fact is there have been a number of
persons using the alley for ingress and egress to their property.
Ms. Hagberg asked who the persons are using the alley. She stated
that there is not anyone using the alley, except Mr. Measner.
Councilman Billings stated it is his understanding that the
previous occupants of Mr. Measner's home were using the alley, as
well as residents of the apartment building. He felt that that
constitutes a number of persons. He stated that he did not know
how large or small that number may be, but it is certainly more
than Mr. Measner based on testimony at the Council meetings.
Councilman Billings stated that he would support the motion for
denial as, historically, the City has not, with very rare
exceptions, vacated alleys without 100 percent agreement of the
property owners. He stated that in this particular case, there are
at least two property owners that do not want the vacation, Mr.
Measner and the owner of the apartment building. He stated that
by vacating only a portion of this alley it could conceivably
create an intentional hardship for people on the south end of the
block. He stated that if the north half of the alley was vacated
it would certainly preclude vacation of the south half because
there is a property owner in the middle of the alley that needs
some type of rear yard access. He stated that out of fairness to
all the property owners, he did not feel only a portion of the
alley should be vacated.
UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and
Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS•
4. PRESENTATION OF THE 1992 PRELIMINARY DRAFT BUDGET:
Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that this preliminary budget
was presented in compliance with Chapter 7, Section 7.04 of the
City Charter. He stated that this reflects a 0.6 percent decrease
over the 1991 Budget for all budgeted funds. He stated that the
1992 General Fund budget is slightly less than a one percent
decrease, while those funds included in the Budget Resolution
reflect a 4.5 percent decrease over 1991. He stated that the tax
levy in this draft budget is at the same level as the 1991 levy.
FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF AIIGUST 26. 1991 PAGE 7
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the 1992 Preliminary
Draft Budget. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried
unanimously.
5. SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOVEMBER 18 , 1991. ON THE CITY OF
FRIDLEY 1992 BUDGET:
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to set the public hearing on the
1992 Budget for November 18, 1991. Seconded by Councilman
Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared
the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Councilman Billings to set the reconvening date on the
1992 Budget for November 25, 1991, if needed. Seconded by
Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee
declared the motion carried unanimously.
6. RESOLUTION NO. 65-1991 CERTIFYING "PROPOSED" TAX LEVY
RE�UIREMENTS FOR 1992 TO THE COUNTY OF ANOKA:
Councilman Schneider asked what this levy means to the Fridley
taxpayer.
Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that this proposed tax levy
represents a zero percent increase over the 1991 levy for the City
of Fridley. He stated that it is not known, however, what action
will be taken by the other taxing districts.
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adopt Resolution No. 65-1991.
Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
7. RESOLUTION NO. 66-1991 ADOPTING A"PROPOSED" BUDGET FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 1992•
MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to adopt Resolution No. 66-1991.
Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
8. RESOLUTION NO. 67-1991 APPROVING A SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL
INDENTURE OF TRUST AND A FIRST AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT
RESPECTING THE CITY'S COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS
(FRIDLEY BUSINESS PLAZA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PROJECT)•
Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that the Fridley Business
Plaza Limited Partnership has requested the City consider this
resolution for a supplemental indenture of trust which would allow
them to re-market the bonds. He stated that there are conditions
FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF AIIGIIST 26, 1991 PAGE 8
in the resolution that stipulate that the delinquent taxes should
be paid.
Councilman Schneider asked who would benefit by the City adopting
this resolution.
Mr. Pribyl stated that the bonds, as they now stand, have the
possibility of defaulting, and this would be remedied.
Councilman Schneider asked who would be hurt if the default
occurred.
Mr. Pribyl stated that the bank would pay the bondholders, and the
bank would then own the project. He stated that the benefit is to
attempt to create a profitable environment for that particular
development.
Councilman Schneider asked if the City's processing expenses would
be covered.
Mr. Pribyl stated that the developer has provided a$2,500 deposit
for staff's time in reviewing the document.
Mr. Richard Martins, representing the General Partner of the
Limited Partnership, stated that this was a refinancing of an
existing bond issue. He stated the bank that has provided the
letter of credit is not willing to reissue their letter of credit.
He stated that the 1990 property taxes have not been paid and
neither has the first half of the 1991 taxes. He stated that there
is $335,000 in cash going into the project from the owner in
addition to the letter of credit. This would allow everything to
be brought up to date. He stated that without refinancing this
cannot proceed.
Councilman Billings asked if this, in any way, would have a
negative impact on the current bondholders.
Mr. Steve Rindsig, of Leonard, Street and Deinard who is serving
as Bond Counsel for the developer, stated that the current
bondholders are all tendering their bonds for purchase on
September 1, 1991. He stated that all the current bondholders will
receive all their money out of this project. He stated that on
September 1, the bank will purchase all the bonds, will become the
sole bondholder and allow the changes to be made in the documents.
He stated that changes cannot be made without 100 percent
bondholder consent. He stated that the bonds will be for a three-
year, rather than a five-year period. He stated that the bonds
will then be sold to another buyer out of the bank's hands.
FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF AUGIIST 26, 1991 PAGE 9
Councilman Billings asked if all current bondholders are willingly
participating.
Mr. Rindsig stated that all those who are current bondholders were
given the opportunity to hold on to their bonds. He stated that
if they did nothing, in effect they sold their bonds back to the
trustee. He stated that the bonds will be restructured and resold
to a single bondholder, and there has been a new disclosure
document prepared.
Councilman Billings asked what interest rate the current
bondholders have received.
Mr. Rindsig stated that he believed the interest rate was 6-3/8
percent.
Councilman Billings asked what a competitive interest rate was in
the municipal bond and industrial revenue bond market.
Ms. Cleo Rasmussen, representing Miller and Schroder stated that
based on a AA-3 rate, an interest rate of 6-1/4 percent could be
expected when the bonds are offered for a three-year period.
Councilman Schneider asked if the bondholders received all their
money back with interest.
Mr. Rindsig stated that all the interest has been paid as it has
accrued. He stated that there will be a payment due on
September 1, 1991.
Councilwoman Jorgenson asked what would happen if Council decided
not to proceed.
Mr. Rindsig stated that none of the current bondholders will hold
the bonds because they opted to sell them to the trustee. He
stated that if Council does not adopt the resolution there may be
a default of the bonds, foreclosure of the project, and the bank
would become the owner of the property.
Mayor Nee stated there is some indication that the taxes will be
paid out of the proceeds.
Mr. Rindsig stated there is new financing that will be used to pay
back taxes so everything will be current as of September 1, 1991
with the new changes to the documents. He stated Mr. Jim O'Meara
has made it clear that this would happen, and the documents will
provide for payment of any back taxes due. He stated that the
actual outstanding taxes and special assessments are about
$235,000.
FRIDL$Y CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF AIIGIIST 26. 1991 PAGB 10
MOTION by Councilman Billings to adopt Resolution No. 67-1991.
Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
9. MOTION TO APPOINT FRIDLEY RESIDENTS TO THE FRIDLEY SENIOR
CITIZENS CENTER TASK FORCE:
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with Mayor Nee's
recommendation to appoint the following persons to the Fridley
Senior Citizens Center Task Force: Councilwoman Jorgenson,
Councilman Fitzpatrick, Marguerite Gilbert, Rose Totino, Corinne
Prindle, Richard Storla, and John Gargaro. Seconded by Councilman
Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared
the motion carried unanimously.
10. k'TRST RF.AnTNr nF AN [)RiITNAN[�F TTNiIRR CFr�TTnl�i � � n� n� mu� r+rmv
ii L V.Lii
CHARTER TO VACATE STREETS AND ALLEYS AND TO AMEND APPENDIX C
OF THE CITY CODE (VACATION REOUEST SAV #91-03 BY WILLIAM
PICKERING):
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the reading and approve the
ordinance upon first reading. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion
carried unanimously.
11. APPROVE COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN FOR OSBORNE CROSSINGS IACATED
AT 250 OSBORNE ROAD N.E.:
Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated the Sign Ordinance
requires that multi-tenant commercial buildings must submit a
comprehensive sign plan. She stated that the leasing agent for
this property at 250 Osborne Road, Weis Asset Management, Inc. , has
submitted their plan for the Council's approval.
Ms. Dacy stated that each tenant will have an individual cabinet
sign which will not exceed 5 by 20 feet along the front of the
building. She stated the landlords are also proposing that in
addition to the wall signs centered between each tenant's lease
lines that each tenant be allowed one 37 square foot wall sign
placed on the southeast wall of the building. She stated that if
wall signs are placed on more than one wall of the building, staff
recommends that only the tenant whose space abuts the southeast
wall should be allowed to have wall signage placed on this wall.
She stated it was felt that four 37 square foot signs may promote
a cluttered appearance; however, there is no specific requirement
in the sign code preventing the proposed request.
Mr. Bob Grootwassink, representing Weis Asset Management, Inc.,
stated that the existing pylon sign will be used by two tenants,
Pet Food Warehouse and Stone Fabrics. He stated that they have two
FRIDLEY CITY COONCIL MEETING OF AIIGIIST 26, 1991 PAGE 11
additional tenants on the west end of the project and are trying
to give them some additional exposure on the University side of the
building. He stated that they would reduce the size of the Pet
Food Warehouse sign so it would not be too large but still visible.
Councilman Billings asked how large a sign Pet Foods Warehouse
could have on the southeast wall.
Ms. Dacy stated that the maximum would be 142 square feet.
Councilman Billings asked if the sign plan specifies the coloring
that must be used.
Ms. Dacy stated that each tenant could have their own color or
lettering.
Councilman Billings suggested that possibly four signs be allowed,
but require that all the signs be the same color, lettering, and
style.
Mr. Grootwassink felt that this would be acceptable.
Ms. Dacy stated that staff stands by the original recommendation,
but the effort to have consistent lettering, style, and color is
desirable.
MOTION by Councilman Billings to approve the Comprehensive Sign
Plan for 250 Osborne Road N.E. Seconded by Councilman Schneider.
MOTION by Councilman Billings to amendment the Sign Plan by adding
the following language under Item I F: These 37 square foot signs
shall be limited to four signs. �All four shall be o the same
color background, styling, and the same style lettering � Seconded
by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION, aIl voted aye, and
Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
12. AWARD CONTRACT FOR SKYWOOD LANE WATER EXTENSION PROJECT
NO. 220•
MOTION by Councilman Billings to table this item to the next
meeting. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
13. APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO 2 FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT_
NO. ST. 1991 - 1& 2•
Mr. Winson, Assistant Public Works Director, stated that this
change order includes the construction of the Little League parking
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGOST 26, 1991 PAG$ 12
facility, extension of 3rd Street, and the widening of the parking
lot for the Fridley Liquor Warehouse.
MOTION by Councilman Billings to authorize Change Order No. 2 in
the amount of $77,906.50 for Street Improvement Project
No. ST. 1991 - 1& 2 with W.B. Miller, Inc., and direct the
appropriate City officials to sign same. Seconded by Councilman
Schneider.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion
carried unanimously.
Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that there are several large potholes
in the liquor store parking lot and wondered if the HRA could
participate in the patching of these potholes and repair of the
parking lot. She stated that she has had numerous complaints
regarding the potholes on that property.
14. APPROVAL OF 1992 SIX CITIES WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
BUDGET•
Mr. Winson, Assistant Public Works Director, stated that Council
is required by the Joint Powers Agreement to approve the Six Cities
Watershed Management Organization Budget for 1992. He stated that
it is a minimum budget in order to keep the organization operating.
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to approve the 1992 Six Cities
Watershed Management Organization Budget. Seconded by Councilwoman
Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared
the motion carried unanimously.
15. MOTION TO RESCHEDULE THE DECEMBER 16, 1991 FRIDLEY CITY
COUNCIL MEETING TO DECEMBER 9, 1991:
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to reschedule the
December 16, 1991 Council meeting to December 9, 1991. Seconded
by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor
Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
16. RESOLUTION NO. 68-1991 AUTHORIZING CERTAIN POSITIONS AS
PERMANENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCLUSION UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF CHAPTER 3 OF THE CODE OF CITY ORDINANCES:
Mr. Hunt, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that for a number
of years the City has had temporary personnel appointed by the City
Manager to meet temporary needs. He stated that over a period of
years, these positions have been filled by persons working forty
hours a week. He stated that with comparable worth staff has
examined these positions, and Council gave authorization to bring
these positions to comparable worth status.
FRIDLEY CITY COONCIL MEETING OF AIIGIIST 26. 1991 PAGE 13
Mr. Hunt stated that at the present time the incumbents of these
positions are being paid comparable worth benefits except for
funeral leave and tuition reimbursement. He stated that the
budgeting for the education benefit would not change as a result
of adopting this resolution but would rectify the status quo. He
stated that in preparing this final list a number of positions were
consolidated. He stated that there are a number of similar
positions in the liquor operations, but pending restructuring of
the liquor store these are not being presented at this time.
MOTION by Councilman Billings to adopt Resolution No. 68-1991.
Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson.
Councilman Billings stated that as he understands it this is not
placing any additional employees on the payroll, but these are
employees who are now on the payroll and gives them the full fringe
benefit package.
Mr. Hunt stated that incumbents of the positions in question would
be eligible for all benefits including funeral leave and tuition
reimbursement.
UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and
Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Councilman Billings to concur with the eleven
appointments to the permanent positions authorized by Resolution
No. 68-1991. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried
unanimously.
17. RESOLUTION NO. 69-1991 AUTHORIZING AN ADDITION TO THE CONTRACT
OF THE CITY MANAGER TO ALLOW FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF ANNUAL
LEAVE• -
Mr. Hunt, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that the City
Manager is one of the few contracted employees of the City. No
provision in his contract is made to exchange annual leave for
cash. He stated that this resolution would allow the exchange of
up to five days of accumulated annual leave for cash, similar to
what is provided to other City employees.
Councilman Schneider pointed out that the date of the original
contract with William Burns was August 29, 1988, instead of
August 29, 1991 and requested the change be made in the resolution.
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adopt Resolution No. 69-1991,
with the change in the original contract date from August 29, 1991
to August 29, 1988. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a
�
FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF AUGOST 26. 1991 PAGE 14
voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried
unanimously.
19. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that there were no informal status
reports.
20. CLAIMS•
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to authorize payment of Claim Nos.
39018 through 39225. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried
unanimously.
21. LICENSES•
MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to approve the licenses as
submitted and as on file in the License Clerk's Office. Seconded
by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor
Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
22. ESTIMATES•
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to approve the estimates as
submitted:
Chemlawn Commercial Services
1156 East Highway 36
Maplewood, MN 55109
Corridor Maintenance Project
No. 217
FINAL ESTIMATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4, 462 . 58
Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd.
200 Coon Rapids Boulevard
Suite 400
Coon Rapids, MN 55433
Services Rendered as City Attorney
for the Month of July, 1991. . . . . . . . . $ 6,620.50
Newquist & Ekstrum, Chartered
301 Fridley Plaza Office Building
6401 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Services Rendered as City Prosecuting
Attorney for the Month of July, 1991 ....$ 8,298.00
FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF AUGOST 26, 1991 PAGE 15
Allied Blacktop
10503 - 89th Avenue North
Maple Grove, MN 55369
Street Improvement Project
No. ST. 1991-10 (Sealcoat)
Estimate No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $77, 095. 88
HNTB
6700 France Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55435
Inspection of the 1.5 MG Elevated
Water Reservoir, Project No. 202
Partial Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2, 678 . 83
Halvorson Construction
4227 - 165th Avenue N.E.
Anoka, MN 55304
1991 Miscellaneous Concrete Curb,
Gutter and Sidewalk Project
Estimate No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,153 . 02
W.B. Miller, Inc.
16765 Nutria Street
Ramsey, MN 55303
Street Improvement Project
No. ST. 1991 - 1& 2
Estimate No. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $43,479.22
Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT•
MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to adjourn the meeting. Seconded
by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor
Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the Regular Meeting
of the Fridley City Council of August 26, 1991 adjourned at
9:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Carole Haddad William J. Nee
Secretary to the City Council Mayor
Approved:
. _
_
.
Community Development Department
PLA►NNING DIVISION
City of Fridley
DATE: September 5, 1991
� /Ji .
TO: William Burns, City Manager� �v-
FROM:
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
SUBJECT: Second Reading of
Vacation Request,
Pickering, Located
Drive N.E.
an Ordinance Approving a
SAV #91-03, by William
at 1467 North Innsbruck
Attached please find the ordinance vacating the south 15 feet of
a platted drainage and utility easement located on Lot 11, Block
2, Innsbruck North, the same being 1467 North Innsbruck Drive N.E.
The City Council approved the first reading of the ordinance at its
August 26, 1991 meeting. Staff recommends that the City Council
approve the second reading of the attached ordinance.
MM/dn
M-91-653
J
�
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE IINDER SECTION 12.07 OF TIiE CITY
CHARTER TO VACATE STREETS AND ALLEYS AND TO
AMEND APPENDIX C OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Fridley does hereby ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1. To vacate the Southwesterly 15 feet of the
Northeasterly 40 feet of the platted drainage and
utility easement of Lot 11, Block 2, Innsbruck
North, generally located at 1467 North Innsbruck
Drive N.E.
All lying in the South Half of Section 24, T-30, R-
24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota.
Be and is hereby vacated.
SECTION 2. The said vacation has been made in conformance with
Minnesota Statutes and pursuant to Section 12.07 of
the City Charter and Appendix C of the City Code
shall be so amended.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
DAY OF , 1991.
ATTEST:
WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR
SHIRLEY A. HAAPALA - CITY CLERK
Public Hearing: August 12, 1991
First Reading: August 26, 1991
Second Reading:
Publication:
1A
r �
�
.
Community Development Department
P�rnvnvG DrviSION
City of Fridley
DATE: September 5, 1991 �/�J
L�"
�
TO: William Burns, City Managerj�,.
d�.
FROM:
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Interim Ordinance Declaring a Moratorium on
Issuance of Special Use Permits for Rock
Crushing Activities and Exterior Storage of
Materials and Equipment in the M-1, Light
Industrial, and M-2, Heavy Industrial,
Districts
The attached ordinance is presented for first reading in response
to the City Council's long term concern for outdoor intensive uses.
The proposed ordinance establishes a moratorium on issuance of
special use permits for rock crushing activities and exterior
storage of materials and equipment in order for a zoning ordinance
amendment to be prepared to create an M-3 zoning district which
would regulate such uses.
The moratorium will enable staff to analyze the extent and type of
outdoor intensive uses now located within the community. These
uses may include junk yards, trucking terminals, construction
yards, and other uses which require large outdoor uses. Hopefully,
the passage of the interim ordinance will not adversely affect any
existing use or potential use given that the moratorium will occur
over the winter months. The ordinance requires that the Planning
Commission consider a proposal within 60 days of the passage of the
moratorium. We will try and process this request as soon as
possible.
The City Attorney has advised
required by a 4/5 vote since
suspend the regulations of the
BD/dn
M-91-657
me that passage of
the intent of the
zoning ordinance.
2
the ordinance is
ordinance is to
ORDINANCE NO.
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE PLACING A MORATORIUM ON
THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR
EXTERIOR STORAGE OF MATERIALS AN� EQUIPMENT AND
ROCK CRUSHING ACTIVITIES IN THE M-1, LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL AND M-2, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONING
DISTRICTS, AND PROHIBITING THEIR LOCATION
WITHIN THE CITY WHILE THE MORATORIUM IS IN
EFFECT
The City Council of the City of Fridley does hereby ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND INTENT
The City iinds that an interim ordinance placing a moratorium on
the location and establishment of uses needing outdoor storage of
materials and equipment and/or rock crushing activities is
necessary to protect the health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the citizens of the community; and
The City Council finds that an interim ordinance placing a
moratorium on the location of uses needing outdoor storage of
materials and equipment and/or rock crushing activities is
necessary in order to permit the planning process to take place and
to allow the City staff, Planning Commission, and City Council to
proceed in an orderly fashion to adopt a permanent ordinance to
create a new zoning district for these uses.
SECTION 2 AUTHORITY
This ordinance is adopted pursuant to
City in Minnesota Statutes Annotate
"Interim Ordinance".
SECTION 3 DEFINITIONS
that authority granted to the
d 462.355, Subd. 4, entitled
The City Council hereby directs the City staff to study and prepare
an ordinance creating a new zoning district for these uses, and to
schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission within
sixty (60) days of the effective date of this interim ordinance.
The City staff is further directed to report the results of their
studies and recommendations along with the recommendations of the
Planning Commission as soon as the Planning Commission has
completed their hearings and recommendations.
SECTION 4 VIOLATION
The City may enforce any provision of this ordinance by mandamus
injunction or other appropriate civil remedy in any court of
competent jurisdiction.
2A
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION 5 SEVERABILITY
Every section, provision, or part of this ordinance is declared
severable from every other section, provision, or part thereof to
the extent that if any section, provision, or part of this
ordinance shall be held invalid by a court of competent
jurisdiction, it shall not invalidate any other section, provision,
or part thereof.
This ordinance shall become effective fifteen (15) days after
publication and shall be in effect for a period of one hundred and
eighty (180) days from the date hereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
DAY OF , 1991.
ATTEST:
SHIRLEY A. HAAPALA - CITY CLERK
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Publication:
�.J
WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR
i _
�
Community Development Department
NG DIVISION
City of Fridley
DATE: September 5, 1991
TO: William Burns, City Manager -I! ��
�j t'�
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
SUBJECT: First Reading of an Ordinance for a Rezoning
Request, ZOA #91-01, by Mark Kvalheim of Bailey
Enterprises; 203 - 205 Mississippi Street N.E.
Attached please find the above-referenced ordinance. The City
Council held a public hearing for this request at its August 26,
1991 meeting. Staff recommends that the City Council deny first
reading of the attached ordinance.
MM/dn
M-91-648
'
�
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY
OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA BY MAKING A CHANGE IN
ZONING DISTRICTS
The Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Appendix D of the City Code of Fridley is amended
as hereinafter indicated.
Be and is hereby rezoned subject to stipulations
adopted at the City Council meeting of
SECTION 2. The tract or area within the County of Anoka and the
City of Fridley and described as:
Lot 17, Block 5, and the South 7.3 feet of Lot 16,
Block 5, Rice Creek Plaza South Addition, Anoka
County, Minnesota, lying east of the following
described line: Beginning at a point in the south
line of said Lot 17 distant 76.61 feet west of the
southeast corner of said Lot 17; thence north to a
point in the north line of said South 7.3 feet of
Lot 16, said point being 75.86 feet west of the east
line of said Lot 16 and thereby terminating.
Together with a nonexclusive driveway easement over
the North 10 feet of the South 17.63 feet of Lot 16,
Block 5, Rice Creek Plaza South Addition, Anoka
County, Minnesota, generally located at 203 - 205
Mississippi Street N.E.
Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District C-
2, General Business.
SECTION 3. That the Zoning Administrator is directed to change
the official zoning map to show said tract or area
to be rezoned from Zoned District R-3, General
Multiple Dwelling to C-2, General Business.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CTTY OF FRIDLEY THIS
DAY OF , 1991.
ATTEST:
WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR
SHIRLEY A. HAAPALA - CITY CLERK
Public Hearing: August 26, 1991
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Publication:
3A
�
�
C�� �F
FRI DLEY
REQUEST
PERMIT NUMBER
APPLICANT
PROPOSED REQUEST
LOCATION
SITE DATA
SIZE
DENSITY
PRESENT �ONING
ADJACENT LAN� USES
& ZONING
UTIUTIES
PARK DEDICATION
ANALYSIS
FlNANCIAL IMPUCATIONS
STAFF REPORT
APPEALS DATE
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE : Juiy 24 , 1991
CITY COUNCIL DATE : augus t i 2, 19 91
CONFORMANCE TO
COMPREHENSNE PLAN
COMPATIBILITY WITH
ADJACENT USES & ZONING
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
APPEALS RECOMMENDATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
AUTHOR MM/dn
ZOA ��91-01
Mark Kvalheim
To rezone from R-3, General Multiple Dwelling to C-2,
General Business
203 - 205 Mississippi Street N.E.
6,750 square feet 28� lot coverage
R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling
R-2, Two Family Dwelling to the N; C-3, General Shopping
Center to the E and S; R-3, General Multiple Family
Dwelling to the W.
Denial
Approval
I 3B.
e
�
i NIY CONNER
SEC. /I
IIV
L-
22
�`
CONDAN/N/UM NQ 9 23
,.,.�„
_
I I�
3c �
ZOA �691-01
Mark Kvalheim
N 1/2 �EC. �
l�!
C�TY Of
�
2 ■
.., v' • �� �.
�•' 7 e
� te,y,
�� 1 ` ��
L' ��
..'Z �� •� �b4
B y%
�I ... ,� �"•:.� 4
. y11 " ��
B(�) 5 .
M:
� �+)
� j N�' ,.:
x . , � 1 .�+
� �; a�� . _�c
ti
S �4 3 2 �
i �,�
67 AVE. N.E. ~
. �, M � M.»
� /� /2 /3 /P /J
�.c
N, l�J ° p+l f�"
. �. � _ 1 �`_'+ P'
:l M rs� M ,dl 1 ' ,. ... .o- l•) _
� ' �n � i
9 B� R E 3 Z�
r 6 5 •6
�'sfk�E-�,f8-1ii6HV�iA'fti9�'�r�--' �.
s�
/
24
OCATION MAP
� ZOA �� 91-0 I
Mark Kvalheim
ZONING MAP
Staff Report
ZOA #91-01, Mark Kvalheim
Page 2
RE4UEST
The petitioner is proposing to rezone a portion of Lot 17, Block
5, Rice Creek Plaza South Addition from R-3, General Multiple
Family Dwelling to C-2, General Business, the same being 203 - 205
Mississippi Street N.E, The petitioner is attempting to locate a
consignment retailer in the building. The proposed tenant will be
renting approximately 2,000 square feet of building area.
SITE
The subject parcel is located at the northeast corner of the
intersection of Mississippi and 2nd Streets. Located on the
property is a two story office building which shares a common wall
and lot line with the adjacent building addressed 201 Mississippi
Street. Adjacent properties are zoned R-2, Two Family Dwelling to
the north; C-2, General Shopping Center to the east and south; and
additional R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling to the west.
HISTORY
The property has been zoned R-3, General Multiple Family since
1958. At that time, a building permit was issued to build the
building at 201 Mississippi Street. The City Council approved a
special use permit to allow the building to be used as a dental
clinic, as required by the 1958 zoning code (see attached 1958 City
Council minutes, and 1955 zoning code). Also, Lot 17 had not been
divided. In 1959, a building permit was issued to construct the
203-205 Mississippi Street addition. At that time, a lot split
occurred which split Lot 17 into the subject parcel and the
remaining parcel. The parcels have been divided as such since that
time. Since 1958-59, the uses within the building have been of
the office nature, specifically dental and medical offices.
ANALYSIS
In analyzing the rezoning request, three criteria need to be
evaluated: district use, district intent, and whether or not the
parcel meets the district requirements. The proposed use of the
consignment retailing is consistent and compatible with the
proposed zoning district of C-2, General Business. In addition,
the C-2 zoning district would be compatible with the adjacent C-3
zoning district and uses.
Staff analyzed the subject parcel, the 201 Mississippi Street
parcel, and both parcels as a single unit to determine if any or
all of the parcels would meet the minimum requirements of the C-2,
General Business and CR-1, General Office District regulations.
3E
Staff Report
ZOA #91-01, Mark Kvalheim
Page 3
The CR-1 regulations were also reviewed as the uses allowed under
the special use permit issued in 1958 would fall under this zoning
district category. The result of staff's analysis is displayed in
Exhibit A. Reviewing Exhibit A, it can be noted that there would
need to be several setback and parking variances granted in order
to bring the property into conformance with the district
requirements for both the CR-1 and C-2 districts. Specifically,
the parcels cannot meet the minimum parking requirements; they can
only provide from 1/2 to 1/3 of the required parking. Based on the
determination that the parcel cannot meet the zoning district
requirements, staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the
rezonzng request.
Although the property does not meet the minimum requirements for
both the CR-1 and C-2 district regulations, staff recommends that
the proposed uses for the subject parcel continue to be regulated
by the CR-1 regulations. The City Attorney has determined that in
cases of nonconforming zoning patterns such as the subject parcel,
allowing the CR-1 district regulations to regulate these types of
parcels is appropriate (see memo from Virgil Herrick, City
Attorney, dated August 27, 1990).
The Planning Commission should be aware that the owner of the
consignment business will be in attendance at the meeting. Both
she and the petitioner may request that the Planning Commission and
City Council make a determination that the consignment use is
similar to the uses in the CR-1 district. Reviewing the permitted
uses in the CR-1 district, the proposed use is not similar to a
professional office or health care service. Items are sold/traded
and the use is commonly located in retail areas and shopping
centers.
RECOMMENDATION AND STIPULATIONS
As the property does not meet the requirements of the C-2 zoning
district, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend
denial of the zoning request to the City Council. Future uses of
the subject parcel can continue to be regulated by the CR-1
district requirements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the
request to the City Council. The Commission conditioned their
approval on the petitioner obtaining a cross-parking easement for
nine spaces from the adjacent Holly Shopping Center.
3F
Staff Report
ZOA #91-01, Mark Kvalheim
Page 4
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the rezoning request,
as the property does not meet the requirements of the C-2 zoning
district.
3G
Mark Kvalheim
ZOA ��91-01
�! _
� � � ��
� � 7� G-'_� c- �'✓�i � ,�� ��� �.-o �
.�/� �y 6°� � --r . . _ �s . --- �i - � �y G �U _ _ "'� t_ - - .
--•r-- , —^"�' - - - - - ' � � ` a�" .:
� • . �. . , v . U .
_ —� � = -G --- -.=;yY , 126 � �-- . '° , b: �:.{.
� '. � �
o-�. . ��`. � . �
� � � ' � `V • (
� � Q��\ z . �b � - � �
�. � . ° :�. - - . - �
� S � �. � ,�� � �,.
� � � � , � t�; r+a
4 ,� ` � 1
� � (, �, � � , � r 4� ' ��� �
� \ � `� , � � ,,. . , v� `
`� • T.. . . � -�� , � . . 7
. • � ��� , 7� � �. „' �
.: � � . � �
. . , .
. �� : : �./� u - :
�
.�G1 '� ` � �^ � ` Q �`t \ 0� �rrntRT � �4{� `� t�'i � C ��. �
'� • �, j •t �� *�>� v ^ �` 1 � \ . �, �:�i
`a�. � � � �l� �,. V t . . t ":,
�
\< ,J � ..\ � \ � m� � J. � . -: �
. �'�•, � � , �qj
. . : � � ; ^,t � p :� �. � • � .�`.
.� ; �.�� 1�1��N,;� -�e � i
. �� �1 y - ; c � .�` � � ,� i
� � � Q V � �' � � ' �? � . .� ' �
�� �� � � ` Q ;
`o_ ��- �� � . . , .
� � I �� . ' �. �
' �.� ' � � _ n,.> _.o's� --- _, ` �
� k� �:
, �, . . . � . . _ '� �,
._ ^ � -�. - � �� - �� -� . t� : . �.
, . ,V � . v,�;,, � � �� _ o _, �
� Z� w,� u c �
� �
' � '� ;'��- � , �� �; �� � ,i .\ 1 i
� � ` j ;•� o `1;0� �
� Z1 ' �
�y i �� � ��,� �q�. V -.; �
c� � ; ,.; ���.��� � �.
� � �` ���� oo � m '�:.� �
I, � � � , � ��,���'��N � �1;-- � ` -1
� -� � ��� `� � �1 .. -•� {
��o � i -. , �
� `� ; " � ; — -- - �'
o. � � . I
�
� � � �
� I � �� -
, , .
, . � ; ; ��. ,,
, , � 3 ` 1 �.. ..
�I , - � L =� i �
� .�'r °T�� a�.;��: �.%� -�' .
�
�
� 1�� . �
I�------r-- � ' L 9�"�� �'
1
.o
� -- S-
� �
3
S—_ -_ �, l
S �.
'-'_'_" 3H `�-
� -- �
SIT
s —
E PLAN
EBHIBIT A
COMPARISON OF 201 203-205 MISSISSIPPI STRE�T•
DO THEY MEET THE CR-1 AND C-2 DISTRICT REOUIREMENTS?
Lot Area
Lot Width
Lot Coveraae
Setbacks,
Building:
Front
Rear
Side
Adj . Res .
Setbacks,
Parking:
ROW
Side Lot
Rear Lot
Building
Parkina,
Required/
Available
1/150 (retail)
1/250 (office)
1/200 (spec.)
CR-1 General C-2, General 201 203-205
Office Business Miss. Miss. Together
------------------------------------------------------------
15,000 sf
75 ft
40%
35 ft
25 ft
15 & 35 ft
30 ft
20 ft
5 ft
5 ft
5 ft
20,000 sf
N/A
40%
35 ft
25 ft
15 & 35 ft
50 ft
20 ft
5 ft
5 ft
5 ft
5,670 sf
63 ft
18%
35 ft
27 ft
0 & 23.5 ft
27 ft
1. Driveway exceeds 32 feet
2. No striping exists for the parking lot
3. No handicap parking space designated
4. Minimal landscaping
* Items in bold would require a variance
31
0 ft
0 ft
N/A
9 ft
13.5/6
8.1/6
10 .1/ 6
6,750 sf
75 ft
28$
35 ft
16 ft
10 & 0 ft
16 ft
0 ft
0 ft
0 ft
8 ft
26/10
16/10
19 . 3/ 10
12,420 sf
90 ft
23%
0 ft
0 ft
0 ft
8 & 9 ft
39.5/16
24.1/16
29.4/16
)
�"
205.16 CR-1 GENERAL OFFICE DISTRICT REGUI.ATIONS
1. USES PERMITTED
A. Principal Uses.
The following are principal uses in CR-1 Districts:
(1) Professional office facilities including real estate,
lawyer, architectural, engineering, financial, insurance and
other similar office uses. (Ref. 888)
(2) Health care services including medical, dental,
optometrist, chiropractic and counseling clinics. (Ref. 888)
B. Accessory Uses.
The following are accessory uses in CR-1 Districts:
(1) Signs.
(2) Off-street parking facilities.
(3) Off-street loading facili[ies.
(4) Storage of inerchandise, solely intended to be retailed by
the principal use. .
(5) Solar energy devices as an integral part of the principal
structure.
C. LTses Permitted With A Special Use Permit.
The following are uses permitted with Special Use Permits in CR-1
Districts:
03/91
(1) Wind generators and other tower mounted energy devices.
(?) Solar. energy devices NOT an integral part of the principal
structure.
(3) Exterior storage of materials and equipment.
(4) Day Care Centers.
(a) At least one (1) off-street parking space shall be
provided for each 100 square feet of useable day care
floor area.
(b) Reduction of parking spaces may be allowed when
provision of space required for parking stalls, due to
the particular nature of the proposed use or other
considerations, would be an unnecessary hardship.
Adequate open space shall be provided to satisfy the total
number of required parking spaces.
3J
205.16.01.
CR-1
DISTRICT
REGULATIONS
USES
PERMITTED
�/
205.CR1-1
�s �
EO�
o�i •° �
�
� ��
�; �
°J �' a
. �00 :+
� �b
S ww q
� � ��
G7 � :=i
; a::
���a
a��
���'u
_.._. .= m a �'
� �
ti v
m d
c �,
y F
�
� ° �
� � o
�
7 � y
a'� �
�� h
O
a��
va�iu
�"��
y Q' U
O � ,' �O aU�i
�..Qi���
� a ��
c.�i �"' �
�,y��a,
C� � � v �
d �� y �
v3 � �, a, ,,, Y
O �d �^ C i
DOq'��'.�� C
c�3�.�,^
°' ° °�;°• C
Q��=�.°'e
� a c ... ... 3
� 0 � � y :� y ,� �.i �'
^ �... C :L � � •U C '� C
L
�!J u cC S... y u C�i O
V �� aL+ G7 N� Y� G e�i
� a� �+a� a � o
y V � � � � O '
d a, y m � .�= �.
id �n,��o �y uy�..:
.V � _ � O � � u � � p
� �� d � �� a��'C �
5� c,���a. ,G
V � F y�� O O'Cf d'� O
a °u�"'�a �°°'"
eo s. '° a :° v
'i„ y w N 7 �� O�: � p N
�'� i+ � C�'1 G i. A� y Q� Gf+!
E E�:;�,�,,::d�
c
G. � a��v�,� a�°u°c`�oo
� � iv.
�` �-' t ai
>'3" °
� �
sw.�3.+
c
�a��o
� � y b
��d�
O � ~ �
N w C
u o •�y
����
�' o
v�`" �
n 7 � �
v�i .°S
7 W
�
b c
� s�'.
��
a,
op, 'o
7 7
cL v
^x
a
.i] �
�_
d �
�.
.c a
C "
x
N �
W
ca
a
�
w
W
�
�
�
�•
N 'i'
i �
�
.�
��
C �
:.. �
d �
� J
�„ a�, �
O y
� N •�
0
. s d
�"a
ai
3 .� m
A��
ti U r�
s.d�
O � � y
� c6 V �
�'�cw
��b=
���£
.���.
`�Gai�O
d V +'
� k � ,,,,
� d O �
y m C
a�+ d V '�p
y � � 'S
•L � � �
a�c,,
., o ..,
N
� L W
O � � � �
v O = p N
a, o. o ;; �
^o:. u�
�Cs�.��
c�. y i v7, +-�'+
cs � w c.
� G�i � � O
;ao�'a
3yac`�,o
h � � � �
a��°s
C y a� v
Q.c��'w
� �az� K::
�
�,
C
7
a
E
7
A
�
A�v+ �
�r�i (/2
U�7q
�
����
W*.�Cqz
a�j`��
a
��0�
I a�,a
,ri• X O
N Q l � �
ri2QqQEa-�
W
�
W
a
W
�
�
a
ai"i
� �
♦L".+ t"
�"
A �o
M �
a�
��
d u
C�
�
a `�
«�7 X 7
d c°�
rl
00 �
� 'C a+ r m Q V� y 67 C� w O �� O� d O a�
C O �"' G'p � 'O «. 'O a:+ A' E CO d
r_ �� �; e, v� •� .., �o a.� oi 'v, d ° a� e ca 8 s c m
'O 00 V Q �` � i.� � C% CO 7%� y �+ CJ a+ CO
s. ir. � o e, g a, co „ 1� �, °: � y c° c y p, �i ^ c.
�'" o��, .o `"'�'°o°�,,��` �` �a�` �"�
.aoo �o�v; a a c�� au �.. y.a,a� >,�°
ei: eb �.» �.. ^
��' °���.-� `-'csE��a'"�'°.a dc °';Ey ��
�� a+ O.� ..�'.. ��� N VJ "r L C G� ��+
��' � y^ f.�i 'O GJ GJ � OD L G: O' �Li � . w� a�+ y y � 0.0
a, °: :°� �,s.3cq,.�"� � oc, ^ui� �a�
ti
�,� "a,o�'�,.��, a,002s�o��o`�y:eu o ���q a �
i1' �� � y� U1 C��i �r.'O O,% Cy/ C..�r�..,.v. CLOn ,�i^�� � �?w
eC a.�.+ u U 3'Cf O� � C O� y a.�+ � ai u:.^. � y y.G O
.�.,� o.a�� c�c �o�....m �w����aow�.c�'�yc1C
A (y� = N • 00
�rn U 'y y �+ y C7 � � y: � p� ;o �ii� oo�M � �
~' z '° C a ai " H �O � u a � � '�O °1 � � eC.� � .a Oa � w 'v a��i "oi � �ai °ao'
q W O^.0 � T W � y O .L �� i„ ��..'. ' s.
O a+ t" � A «�+ �'�J � �,, CO.... « :+ a � 'O �
U
•'� v'if �'O O,� O ,C; N i.�. y 60 a„q„ O E
�E,'�,,a�,���y�u "O-�aa d�a
ac,�[��m��+�ooy�3aE��°o,-o
'.,,r
� ? `' ° 4. r�i� a N � 'C at�i y � a a � " � � vy,
c"v � eon`o� c�� a a E o�c `�.ca a°i c.
G E � � �"" `� �.� ° � �:� � e o �-�ti
°'s:r��n °'o�'u�G.a�,°a���.�°'v o
0�:.. �c.'7� yy �y C'O�
w �� �a,, a`' � c�a c e�, 3�� e°.,' o-;
�:°`'o°'000���a°o � `�`zao
a �n � c° U:.� .., s s co co N«. v� �n
.�c.a,u•�c.� v� �"y�u •°—'� u�
E"0..�'c,s�,a�i.°r'v�C ti�—�on3 a+=�vic
�,f.: �, ' � � �^ CS v i, (0 � C! 61 C.0 ... �+ ctl �-i
�'n .)uao--ys,�nmu�:�c�-+
�
«+ � ^' 'l
L O ? q
c, v O c.
.n ' 0. :o
,�C'„ O � ••�+ •
� ~ N � H
' � � .� �
c�a�''
(C L :�.
,�,� ..� n1 � 6/
c, o ^ c�
°� � .n o 0
�o a, a N ...
K°�,'co°J�
o �y ,�,, �
v
�v� a'
�.�°��
O G� w J� cC
N �
��
�
r-� �
i]�. �
W
W
az..
� � �
:��'jQ
� `� z
�� E" r»
�a
cAw
» 3
ri1 [� A
. `1, 'L� �"� • G„ -+
L 7 N'B ecS 1� i Z CJ � `" c'.
.� ., .., > • u c. �.,
�ao�3=',^L�° ,. vc
Vi C t�-. �' a � �67 �' '�" vl ...r" � � a'
F. 'O �,, i• A � ,C� �0
.� C'� � 00 �� b M OCi L � C� �.
� '�.c ^ c A' eo a°1i ^, c
y=+ t,o fi �" � p: C�� O
� u
m•5�o c�4+B �, � o` �`a �
c.�'. �w'3 y � w ppC o'O � C
,�+ c�.��^. � o'C � S.y a��^ti
'�' ��£ i�. ��'�-� Q'r c9 d f�. '� v� p�p a
0
� � °°'� c `� .-, o � .� °'�-' 3 � '� a
ai O�Oy � °�°.�.+'GnY'p�,+�� O�-. � � eo
c° f. p,.S
O� aba �`° 'y �' z�,o
� CAn q� a� �� ��� �« QO
� � Q
M � �
z
���
a�A
IAa
�Na�,
otKa�
� M
�
�?��
,.N+
u
.�
..
H
A
a
L:
G
c.
�
�
�
C E',� 'L7 'D
� � � v
,C?�a
r �'
vi �
� �
� .g � ,o
a a� °,�
� ti �
� � � F
o w a p d
^ � ��y �
W �' C y
��0-' jo
-3K
-
:�
ay
w 7
� o
Ey
00
00 �
cS
d �
3�
A�
. �
� y
w�
E" 3
�
C`7
d
N
�
0
�
n�
�
CO
'fl
0
v
C
�
00
C
�o
W
M
U1 ..n.
"" V
� A •�
�6.-zaU A
�"' V N
a�a a
� 3 .�
l�A �
c'? W L
,n A .a a
c"'av� �,
���V �
� �� �
� �F �
i '
� E '. C
��s a'�
u �;
� ^.
L � � �
o, t„ •..
� � � y
� u � �
V y cD 7
y •� � 0.�
d �, c
�-'�°
� H H `�
� � o c. °d
w u c' cu. a�,
���=�
��E>°u
v" y � � � �1 �+ f1! � / 1 1 f � � �
i'" l0 C �f..� a+ C.:-1 ii (y �" 4yi .Yi � M C�
�.�R%r�.. � y o� a.�C'G-'�S � 7 t„�n
v,o� o aaiy•'c.w,��y�a °
'������`�����,d3���°'
m C p�� I]. d O � �'�' ^ I�.
� � � � " °o � � � c m � v oe .� o' �
so „
� w y''� �'o ,C t�J N p' y� y
rn � p���., p%G C� G 3 y c, d'�
c+ p, 7 td p, � d R. ' �0 �p ,.d-, .0 X'�+ y
O d a�+ y in a� � O
N> in� � � Ow O t�..+'' y�� C1.^'O
._da >���'�y���x�i
�"�e `�����,�'.a��'���'
� _^• ,a ..� � y y •� ��',, ^ a; :; �
a � %. .-�r �' � O ,N 7 W � Gr .4: ty. i.y. � c. .t
�ym�a�E.c:.�,.�ti3.aa,aaEai
�E N
ii A
� �
a��
wa�
E'.
�aw
�' � M
'��a
P�
°Aa,..�
��I�
GJ � y �
��a�b
� � � « �
.0 a�0 ~ '� � Q
�d��a�
N �
3 "
� �A� �
U 'O ^ O
..�. � « '�' 0 W
� .� a
,��u��a� v�
�
A�eaG�� �
a3000 Q
d
H
7
'�
e
�
DD
a
'�
�
u
.Q
�
a
�-i
� a,�d
��
��
� �
O
� O
a�
�,.
� � ao
i� �
a,� �
� d 00
A w M
7 � c' X.
a ��,
a
CV
GC ' � C+ ^ � '^ U CJ � ^ �
� ^ ': � u + _' q � .L.+ C cp O
� O � � � � A M y
5 � y�� y� a � h
�O y� y� y a C�, .' « c' �
� L p
� .�C � � � � � u � � � � t0'
���,, 'O +' �� �
C,p ,',f,�, :; O p• ,,,,; � � ,C 4�., ,,,,, � OG cE
G . ���o, ��oo�c.o
� ..-e i� y � N fn ^%, x
c, �� u�� � �� � o N�p c�o
'.37 � .� > G ` w � v �+ �
',�7 ;� p u y '� V� L7 !r y N
v � o c- � y .,, `" oco ° o c
c' Et �'�d� �.;,n.5�°sa�
; °� �.� � o:�e`� � �•�a o � �'x
� O o
�-r � �
Nt- O U
:0 � E t.n w u.� �.� 0 7'.C'J L'L'L'
�O ��Ow c�.
U � ..�.
� a �
� � O � O
y S � d
O tn h .t� m
,� d �o
,ta`,;;�+a
; � > �
r � •t+ R" �
°' c °' a c
'p '� d
d � � � �
� `� Q o a,
7 .'r_,' �+ y
L vi U � � O
c� �� ��,�
�>nvay
` T V = L
� r � � d
�..
�>�^�
y� L. r„ U
� �
'Q v .�C � l"' N
� � (uq L � «
� � C
C N O� V U
�o '� � Q
. = v �- �i O
»evxE�
� d
�
� c � a� c.
a•o �� � �
aa�;,�c
�w, v,.. � a
ay+ =
d �
d�
��
vi °-
��
�'s
'�'' R
�a
U «
.� �
�
aF
a
M
N
c.
d
>
.�
�
'�
C
�
�
a
d
0
U
If]
N C r, a� � cc u�;t .:, .
C� W C G r C
cecc���c`�'c�
" C 'C ^ � G u '� y -c: Lj,i ;
.-. C� G r' ��r„ � F,
�
C�- � �� 6,,,,,�i O'C � Q p
d co e
� �—c .�o
..� q � +' c�. o u � � �
c� � V 4; w a
r.. � �� y� o� o,,
y .,, 7
�a g, 3� �o � o« a:
c. N 8
>; y .0 O � � L �i � �+ 77
y «� cn � �
� G� eC C O� U�� aS �
�r�'�o a,c����C�,�
Q 7 C+ •� �' p c, c�. � W �
���,aoE.°�.o�°.
��.
Go�hc� 1 M; ��4-.e� t�s'�
• La Grange� .TOhansor., P;a-e1, Sheridan, ann ;•:c�;:e.
2nd the fol�o��ing member� voted a�sinst *.he sa*�e:
None
'':�::JIJ'�C:; SAIL� n'SC.T• T?:'ICi: l:'AS :i�CLA?3rD DIJIY FASSE� A:::� !s� ^_':;�,
1!eticn by 1va�e1, secon�e� b,y SY►e°�dan to adcnt re,cl ior_.
'�'ct'_cn carried unani-oLS�y,
I► nresente`icn w�s aa5e by J�ss. Laurie Johnscn ::�ste:r, t:c-�s
a^cl '!r. L. I'clme, Do�aSlas Fir Pl,y�rcod Assoc'.a cn, in re.-�ra '
tc use of al,yteo�� for extericr wal7s and th use ef p].vwac::
fcr h-r!e de��elopment. Mot.'_cn b,r :;olke, s ar_dea b�� S!�arjd�r.,
to refer ent_re i�a,.ter to L'�.; ]n{ng Stan rds Corymi`tee *_'or
recc�r^e^da-'cn ano re^crt. l�:ot{on ca^ ied unan3-ousJ.}•.
ro"l�i•��r.g nuhlic hearin�, �:etion b.�a�el, spconded t�y tilclY.e
.authcrizing "aper and City N;ana to sign end accent f:r.�l
nla` cf ?Iitze�a� Addi�icr.. �:o . cn carried unan{ ~o�:sl}�.
Fo-�c���`r.F d'scussicr., �not` , by '�'clke, seccr_deci h}� ;;� p? t�
aTer.a the 6*a;t cf C!�din ce '-`l�(' ��• addi�g ±her-to a n�::• se^_
ti�r. as : ellotirs: `
Section �. It i here'�}� sreci?ically prr�ide6 t:�at ::-i•�
re .�ct to each of ±he above zoning c�iar.ges
as �ade he�e� _ r.o ner�it sha12 be issued by t'�e �;•ii�=�:-
T_^.snectcr `.';'^ cne (1) vear of the change, excer;, a.t�•,
annrcval ° the sa�ne c:t�'ne� :r� t}e Citv Ceune'1.
`:oticn c rri ed unar.i�ous? y.
?•'eti , by :•lclke, secon::e;i Ly 1�see1 tc acce�t secend �•e=:`� �
e: ;•dirarce '=100 amer.6jr.� t�e zonir:g ordfnar.ce of �!�e C"•: •f
�'. id7e3� rezenine certair_ lots !a Riee Creek Flaza �cu`� ���i+.-
t`cn. N.et±cn earried ur�an'~ously.
�:'' �C'E'::� (`F' /;'T'-^.l:' S �r^C?: - Jul y � � , oK$
A:embers aresPnt: Chn. ShafSer, Plu�, Geodrich, Grif;;;�s
�. 6 reques* for ti•.a!ver of �inir.�ur� stde lot ^eouire�:�s:- •�r
the ccnstructfcn o_" an a�tached caroert to witi:'.r. ��r�c
(?) feet cT �:�e s;de lct line at 6�51 _ 6th St. t:. E.
:,eouest b;� Je�es ?. SFxard, o��mer. ?�oard rec�-:-:e :i s s �.:•c -
"z? � ad�c;r.irg prcnerty o::�:er si.gn=d ]et-er sta�'n^ ^e ^�:d
nc c� i�ctic.^..
'. '�_^.e reque�* for a variance on the s�de ;�ard re�u±re--:�•:.=
fro^ f i��e ( 5) feet to three (31 feet cn I ot t^' ^� eer. f��'
�loc_- seven (il, Christ;.e Additicn for t*�e ecr.s�ruct'�r, c- �-.
a`tache3 garaPe, the a•:dress et said loca±icr_ beir.g -=%1 ',•'�.-.^-�
�t. P;. E. �
Reouest by Edgar �ha.er, o�:�er. Eear: reco.�^er.ci; s-rr�-
ral, adioinir_g pronerty o:•:ner sigr.ed letter s`�"r.r �;� ^
nc ot-io��-or_s. ' "'_'
.. A seqL�st fo^ a varianeQ on tre s;de �ard .•e��;`rer:sr.- ; ��
fiv� ([� feet te t.�o ar.d c^e-half (2�-) feet : cr �i:� cc:.-
struc�icn of' an attached gara�e at �7F1 - l•!es. '•:eore Ls'.�F
D: i•a e I� . E.
Reoue-t b� Gerard Bib�au, ot:�ner. ?card reco-.-.�r.c� dr r� :•-;-
as de�ached garage in r-ar yard r.ct feas;ble because ?c' : -
to lakeshore.
4• ==� roon�st for -a �oecial ise -permit for the ooerat!c^ c`'
• derital elinic on Lot severrteen il7? enc sc-:t:: 7.? feet
of I�ot sizteen (161� B1ock five (51, Rice Creek Plaza, SoL'.�
3L
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 24, 1991
���������������������__��������__����������_���__������������ ��
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairperson Betzold called the July 24, 1991, P1
meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Don Betzold, Dave Kondrick,
Connie Modig, Brad Sielaff�
Sue Sherek, Diane Sa
; �Commission
Saba,
Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Commu ty Development Director
Michele McPherson Planning Assistant
Mark Kvalheim, B iley Enterprises, Inc.
Jean Dufresne- mbrio, ChiZdren's Gharm, 240
Mississip � Street N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the
July 10, 1991, Planni g Commission minutes as written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIE- UNANIMOUSLY.
C'[1RRF.(`TTC1N TCl JfTTNR 7� 'IAA'1 �r_a�.rutr�rr_ nnrurMrccrn*r ur-r�ntmc�.
MOTION by . Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to amend the motion
on page 3 paragraph 2 as follows: "to recommend to City Council
approva of vacation request, SAV �91-03, by William Pickering, to
vacate he southerly 15 feet of the northerly 40 feet of a drainage
and ility easement located in Lot 11, Block 2, Innsbruck North,
gen rally located at 1467 Innsbruck Drive N.E."
�3PON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING ZOA #91-01 BY
MARK KVALHEIM OF BAILEY ENTERPRISES. INC.:
To rezone from R-3, General Multiple Dwelling, to C-2, General
Business, on Lot 17, Block 5, and the south 7.3 feet of Lot
16, Block 5, Rice Creek Plaza South Addition, Anoka County,
Minnesota, lying east of the following described line:
Beginning at a point in the south line of said Lot 17 distant
3M
PLANNING COMMISSZON MEETING, JIILY 24, 1991 PAGE 2
76.61 feet west of the southeast corner of said Lot 17; thence
north to a point in the north line of said South 7.3 feet of
Lot 16, said point being 75.86 feet west of the east line of
said Lot 16 and thereby terminating. Together with a
nonexclusive driveway easement over the North 10 feet of the
South 17.63 feet of Lot 16, Block 5, Rice Creek Plaza South
Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota, generally located at 203 -
205 Mississippi Street N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PQBLIC HEARZNG OPEN AT 7:31 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the northeast
corner of the intersectian of Mississippi Street and 2nd Street.
Located on the property is a two-story office building which shares
a common wall and lot line with the adjacent building addressed 201
Mississippi Street. The proposal is to rezone the property from
R-3, General Multiple Dwelling, to C-2, General Shopping Center.
Ms. McPherson stated the property has been zoned R-3, General
Multiple Dwelling, since 1958. At that time Lat 17 was one entire
lot, and a building permit was issued to construct 201 Mississippi
Street (the west half of the building). In 1958, the City Council
also approved a special use permit to allow the building to be used
as a dental clinic which was required under the Zoning Code in
1958. Offices were allowed as a special use in the R-3 zoning
district.
Ms. McPherson stated that in 1959, a lot split occurred which split
the parcel into the two current parcels, and a building permit �aas
issued for the construction of 203-205 Mississippi Street (subject
parcel for rezoning). Since 1958 and 1959, the uses within the
buildina have complied with the original special use permit issued
in 1958, specifically, dental and medical office type uses.
Ms. McPherson stated that in analyzing the rezoning request, three
criteria need to be evaluated by staff: district use, district
intent, and whether or not the parcel meets the district
requirements. The proposed use of the consignment retailing is
consistent and compatible with the proposed zoning district of C-
2, General Business. The C-2 zoning district would be compatible
with the adjacent C-3 zoning district and uses.
Ms. McPherson staff analyzed the subject parcel, the adjacent 201
Mississippi Street parcel, and both parcels combined to determine
if any or all of the parcels would meet the minimum requirements
of the C-2, General Business District regulations, or the CR-1,
General Office District regulations. This "Comparison" was
included in the agenda. Zt should be noted that there are several
3N
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JQLY 24. 1991 PAGE 3
items, specifically building and parking setbacks and parking space
requirements, which cannot be met by the either the subject parcel,
the 201 Mississippi Street parcel, or the combined parcel. If the
rezoning is granted, several variances will also have to be
acknowledged.
Ms. McPherson stated that although the rezoning request does meet
the district intent and district use, the parcel cannot meet the
minimum requirements of the C-2 district regulations. For that
reason, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend denial of the rezoning request to the City Council.
Future uses of the parcel can continue to be regulated by the CR-
1 district regulations. The City Attorney previously wrote an
opinion regarding issues such as this one when reviewing the
rezoning request for the Suburban Engineering building located at
6875 Highway 65, which is also currently zoned R-3, General
Multiple Family Dwelling, and has consistently been used for office
uses.
Mr. Betzold stated that if this rezoning request is denied, he did
not believe there are any other comparable sites in the City where
the City has allowed the situation where a business is using a
larger area next to it to meet the code requirements their property
cannot meet.
Ms. Dacy stated that actually the opposite is true. The former
Suburban Engineering site is zoned R-3 and is an office use. There
is no commercial zoning adjacent to that particular site. The
Knights of Columbus Hall next door is also zoned R-3. The Moose
Lodge had petitioned to rezone the former Suburban Engineering
site, but the Commission recommended denial of that request. Crne
of the arguments against the rezoning was that the site did not
meet the C-2 requirements.
Mr. Mark Kvalheim stated the problem not only the owners of the
building have, but also the City, is this building hardly conforms
to any regulations. This building is a split level building where
the lower level is at garden level, and the ceiling height varies
from 6 lj2 - 7 feet. Generally, it would be difficult to say that
general office use is going to do well in there. They are looking
at some physical obsolescence. The question is how to deal with
that. Unless the City is interested in having the building remain
vacant for extended periods of time, it is a problem the City is
going to have to grapple with sooner or later.
Mr. Kvalheim stated that the tenant that is requesting to be in
their building is currently doing business in the City. The tenant
has a children's consignment shop in the Rice Plaza Shopping Center
across the street. Their status as a retailer is somewhat
overblown. This is a very low impact retailer. Their volume of
customers and traffic is quite low, and that should be given some
consideration in trying to determine how to create some economic
3O
PLANNZNG COMMISSION MEETING. JIILY 24, 1991 PAGE 4
viability for this building. If the two buildings are considered
separately, his building has about 4,000 sq. ft. A dental office
occupies 2,000 sq. ft., and they are proposing that the consignment
shop occupy the other 2,000 sq. ft. which has been vacant for at
least a year. There.are 12 parking spaces. They cannot conform
to the building and parking setbacks or parking requirements, and
he thought these are situations that have to be overlooked.
Mr. Kvalheim stated that in tr�ing to establish some history of
what type of businesses have occupie� the building, he had heard
that at one time a furniture retailer occupied the space. He had
no other. inforr,lation of the impact of that business, but maybe it
is something that could be investigated further.
Mr. Kvalheim stated that in initial discussions with staff, staff
recommended the rezoning. Rezoning the property seems to make
sense for this particular tenant.
Mr. Betzold stated there are parking concerns. He asked what
happens if a lot of people come at once, and there is not enough
parking? Where will they park?
Mr. Kvalheim stated there is an apartment building with a parking
lot adjacent to the property on the north and Holly Shopping Center
is to the east. There is the possibility of some type of cross-
parking arrangement with the apartment building or Holly Center,
but they have not explored that yet. He did not believe that the
consignment business would attract that kind of traffic. He
believed that they could have parking problems with some other uses
as well, such as a chiropractic clinic, an attorney's office, etc.,
which are "legitimate uses" in the CR-1 zoning. �
Mr. Betzold stated that he did not think they could look favorably
on this rezoning request favorably without some additional parking.
M�. M���� a�ked if the rezoning request is denied, what is the
propertyJowner's alternative?
Ms. Dacy stated that if the rezoning request is denied, the
property owner still has the ability to lease the space as office
space. Of course, this does not help the proposed tenant.
Mr. Saba stated that if the City does rezone the property from R-
3, General Multiple Dwelling, to C-2, General Business, and the
proposed tenant does not stay very long, then the property owner
can rent that space out to any business that is allowed in C-2
zoning.
Ms. Dacy stated that if the Commission recommends approval of the
rezoning, then the property owner will have to petition for
variances to bring the property into conformance to eliminate its
"nonconformity". She stated staff believes it would be wise for
3P
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JULY 24, 1991 PAGE 5
the property owner to investigate the possibility af a cross
parking easement with Holly Shopping Center.
Ms. McPherson stated that the two properties combined require 21
parking spaces. There are 12 spaces for 203-205 Mississippi
Street, so they are short 9 parking spaces.
Mr. Kvalheim asked if it is possible to insert some language inta
the CR-1 regulations to allow consignment shops.
Ms. Dacy stated that would require an amendment to the Zoning Code,
and that process could take 2-3 months.
Ms. Dufresne-Sombrio stated they need more room for the consignment
shop. They need to be out of their current space by September 1,
and they have to give one month's notice.
Mr. Betzold stated that if he knew Holly Shopping Center was
willing to grant a cross parking easement, then he would be a
little more inclined to recommend the rezoning. Unfortunately, he
did not know that at this time.
Ms. Modig stated the City makes exceptions occasionally for special
circumstances, and she wished there was some way to accommodate
this business.
Mr. Bruce Lundberg, 235 Rice Creek Terrace, stated he saw the
notice for rezoning and was curious.about what is being proposed.
He stated that 2nd Street is the only exit onto Mississippi Street
out of this residential area. He would be concerned about a
rezoning that might increase the traffic in and out of this area
during peak traffic times.
Mr. Sielaff asked about the traffic that might be generated from
the proposed tenant.
Ms. Dufresne-Sombrio stated the shop's hours are 10:00 a.m. - 7:00
p.m. Monday and Thursday; 10:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Wednesday and
Friday; and 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. She stated they
use 2-3 parking spaces at the most at one time. There is usually
no more than 1-2 people in the store at one time. During sales,
they might have 3-4 people in the store at one time.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND TAE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:15 P.M.
Mr. Kondrick stated he would be in favor of the rezoning if the
property owner is able to get a cross parking easement with Holly
Shopping Center.
3Q
pLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 24, 1991 PAGE 6
Mr. Sielaff stated he would be concerned about current policies and
the overall impact of a rezoning. He had no problem with this
particular business, but there might be problems with future
businesses. He stated he wQUld vote against the rezoning.
Mr. Saba stated he did nat have any abjection to this particular
business either, but they should 3aok at all the possibilities that
could go into this building under the C-2 zaning. He stated the
Holly Shopping Center's parking lot is heavily used now, and he did
not know how receptive Holly Shopping Center would be to granting
a cross parking easement.
Mr. Saba stated that if they recommend approval of the rezoning
and the Council approves the rezoning, then one-half of the
building would be zoned C-2, and the other half wauld be zoned R-
3. That seemed rather strange.
Mr. Kondrick stated this is such a small tenant space that he did
not think there were very many other uses that could go into that
space.
Mr. Sielaff stated he did not believe it is worth taking on all
this uncertainty by recommending approval of the rezoning.
MOTTON by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend to City
Council approval of rezoning, ZOA #91-01, by Mark Kvalheim of
Bailey Enterprises, Znc., to rezone from R-3, General Multiple
Dwelling, to C-2, General Business, on Lot 17, Block 5, and the
south 7.3 feet of Lot 16, Block 5, Rice Creek Plaza South Addition,
Anoka County, Minnesota, lying east of the following described
line: Beginning at a point in the south line of said Lot 17
distant 76.61 feet west of the southeast corner of said Lot 17;
thence north to a point in the north line of said South 7.3 feet
of Lot 26, said point being 75.86 feet west of the east line of
said Lot 16 and thereby terminating. Together with a nonexclusive
driveway easement over the North 10 feet of the South 17.63 feet
of Lot 16, Block 5, Rice Creek Plaza South Addition, Anoka County,
Minnesota, generally located at 203 -205 Mississippi Street N.E.,
with the following stipulation:
1. A cross parking easement must be obtained from Holly
Shopping Center for nine additional parking spaces.
Mr. Saba stated he is also concerned about the signage that is
allowed for C-2 zoning.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, RONDRICR, BETZOLD, MODIG VOTING AYE, SABA AND
SIELAFF VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
BY A VOTE OF 3-2.
^�]_a_
. �
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 24, 1991 PAGE 7
Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on August
26, 1991.
2. RECEIVE JUNE 27 1991 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MINUTES• , �
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receiv��the June
27, 1991, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes. %
i
OPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. i
3.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr.
9, 1991, Appeals Commission minutes.
, to reaeive the July
QPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, IRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
4. OTHER BUSINESS:
The Commission members recei�re,d�an update on the Comprehensive Plan
as requested by Commissione,� Saba and Sielaff.
ADJOURNMENT•
MOTIDN by Mr. Saba, econded by Mr. Kondrick, to adjourn the
meeting. Upon a vo' e vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold
declared the moti carried and the July 24, 1991, Planning
Commission adjour,ed at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully �submitted,
��
Lynf�� Sa
Recordi g Secretary
3S
c ��'`: � :�,� ��.�'� '� - - — — -�- --- - — — -._.. . . ._.
� Y" �� � � � t,.� . .. . . . . , i .
f �` a r
�� ��7 ; . � . . . . � .. . . _
.
�� CITY OF FZt'CDLEY
, ,
6431 iA�IIVERSITY AVENQE N. E. �� � ,,;
FRIDILaY,' 2�II�T 55432 �t �� � { Oommmity DeVelopment D�it f= �� �
� � �,:(612) _ 571-3450 � �_ � �t
4' �� . . Y- �' a.. .- . .
. .,: _ .. _, .. . .
_ ,
. . �, . - ... . �.. ;... . ...
. ��� - , . ..- . . . . . . �. x. . + . .. . .. ..; �
. ... .. ,- .. . .... . ., . . ..
,'. .:t�:.: � ' . -a:.`. `; - ,: .- ,. . .
k �� .. ±� � 1�Jf/6QU.a.R7 t'acr... �.li1J l/LL, � � li �s.
+' . 4 ., . .. . " ` : �`'-` � -
- - r • �..� r . e
.. . -- �.: ; ,'. ...
. ., ' . . .. ' : �'
. � .. . . - .. �: .. . ��� ..h� ,.. , .':
, . .... , ,
_ ,y
.�
.
,: . , , ,
. , :; . . : :: p
,;. �r; .. . . . _ . . . . .:�
P.
� > PROPERTY II�TI�T � = sibe' Plan `requ:ired,'fo�; 'submittals: j see `attaciled �`� `
� ,, -
��: `203-2Q5aMississippi St:� Minne'apolis �MN 55��32-439�t
...M � a . L '.
� � ,i r _� '; �.`. ...r '� ... �_ Y . ,' E . 7 _F t ._ i
�. � �'� .. � . . - . ' 'a Sd \i � l T , _ .
z, Isga7. de.sCrip�tZOn: `� See surdey attached ��';�"'�.� �' ��: ; i M m ;
�� 4 �� �: �, s:;� -� � Soutii'> z
• , .... � , , �r: • � ::
> . , . • ,� , .j _ �
,t t� �Lot '17 B1ocJc 5� 3 ti��Tract/Additi�`.'Rice: Cre`�`k Plaza Additibn ;��,';z
K `'' � ° � ��" � r � �, z g � , , , ,
. . -: . ; ,� f 4 �; _ `... ' Y i � ��y.y �♦ � �:.
' „ :� ,� . . � e � � ., c � r
�,.�„ i .. �. . ` ` �f�
� '�MJ.iCilt•'Zi��•, . a � ` �;r� � , � ��< �re foatage�/aa+eage � ,.i. F� ,�s
A � �
,� . .: '. s. .: E - . , W ` ' � N } �. 'V� `:� {,y 'V' w3
. , -L} '� 1 � ':. �� y �,.. Y4.- r• u ,.. � S t '. �, < r
� <, � � R�eques#-ing �anlrig; � C :2 .�.Gener.al ; Bus ine s s .� ` � � . � £ � �A
.+. 4 1� 1 P@ i J..
. 1 i � .! �. � cr � ,.t I..r � N* �j � 1�a -y t.` p w. ir� � N x+ :: . � � �. ai : , '.
a 'A� : ` �� i„ :._ � . y. :: � r'i .���i :Ar-�1 j�a:. y �S s4� tT. ir�+ S+ : � : E"v : � x 'k� .. �p 3 . : � ^ 3�x c ' `. t ' :
,� �_ ;`�;� �S :�Reasoai' for i�ezo�it�q��_�o"� a'aaomodate �p�°o�spec'tive'�ten.a't � s`F �e�ail �use �:�
1 / �' � 4
- � . . � Q4 , '�: �.
'�'a'L'' `� ���� q<.
. `� � . .. ':4.. �
� < = t(7oa�tract Pumha�ers: Fee Owners m�st sign this form P��' '� P��1�. -'` '
�� . � s. _ _.
�,
.. _
,' �.
��
.� T C F Bank fsb '
.;
�� :, :..� 80.1 Marquette Ave . ,. ,Minneapolis =MN 55�02 = `
.�_ _
IaAyTIl� pFIO�IE 37�-7000
� SICI�,ZU�2E (� ' ;. LIATE 6/ � 9/ 9 �
� Tim Bailey� ��
�..
. . .. ,. �. ., , •: � 7.� _. .
P�,TITI�it I�ORMATION � x � i� � , ,
_ rr
NAME Bailey Enterpr'ises, Inc. r
,. . . � „
', AD�S �8�4� N. 'Wabasha St. , St. Paul' MN 55102 ` ;
�: ` :: . DAyTIl� pHpNE 2 2 4- 5 4 8 2:
SIC�7.LTRE ' � 6/ 19 / 9 �
I � .. M.��a C� ��Tl...�1�L...-0... .. . .� � . � ...
Fee: $300.00 _
, , .
P�xmit za� # � - x�eoe.ipt # `� 4 � � � i
Application reoeived by: . , �� r
'h
��.� p�� ��� �: � l z� 1� 1
t
...
�� �� �� ��: : ._ . .. : � ,.: � :. .
# ,;. . . . . . . . � i4 � �. :�
... . .. . .: : . . . . ..... x ' .�. �. .
LL _ 3T
�
�.
M�
_•• �
�..
�
�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGUST 21, 1991
NMM�rNNMw�wrMw�wNM�rwMMNMM�rMwrwtiMM�V rMMwrMM�rtiMM�rN�VwiMMw�M�4rtiMw�MwrNMtiMw�M�Mwrlrwn w�wr
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairperson Betzold called the August 21, 1991, Planning Commission
meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL•
Members Present: Don Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba,
Sue Sherek, Larry Kuechle (for Diane Savage),
Connie Modig, Brad Sielaff
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Darwin Voigt, Fridley Bus Company
Barrett Colombo, legal counsel for Mr. Voigt
See attached lists
APPROVAL OF JULY 24 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the
July 24, 1991, Planning Commission minutes as written.
UPON A DOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER30N BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
1. CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #91-09, BY DARWIN
VOIGT OF FRIDLEY BUS COMPANY. INC.:
Per Section 205.18.O1.C.(12) of the Fridley City Code, to
allow exterior storage of vehicles and equipment on Lot l,
Block 6, Rice Creek Plaza South Addition, generally located
at 6750 Main Street N.E.
MOTiON by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:31 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the end of Main
Street and the service drive west of Stylmark, located south of and
adjacent to Rice Creek. The property is zoned M-1, Light
Industrial, as is the property to the south. To the north is Rice
0
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AQGIIST 21, 1991 PAGE 2
Creek, to the west is the Burlington Northern Railroad, and to the
east is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling.
Ms. McPherson stated that in June of 1991, the City received a
complaint from the resident adjacent to the subject parcel about
the condition of the above ground fuel storage tank. The tank was
rusting and the screening surrounding the tank was inadequate. The
City notified the petitioner, and requested that they install a
screening fence and paint the storage tank.
Ms. McPherson stated that after receiving the letter, the
petitioner met with the Code Enforcement Officer regarding required
actions. Construction oi a fence, a retaining wall, and repainting
the tank were discussed. However, tree and vegetation removal was
not discussed nor was it authorized by the Code Enforcement
Officer.
Ms. McPherson stated that after the meeting, the petitioner
commenced the clearing of vegetation and regraded additional
property which resulted in the expanded storage area. The removal
of vegetation in this area is in direct violation of stipulation
#4 of the building permit originally issued in 1973. A total of
15 stipulations were applied to the building permit and agreed to
by the original property owner. Once the City was notified by an
adjacent property owner that the clearing of the vegetation had
occurred, staff ordered the petitioner to stop work and apply for
a special use permit.
Ms. McPherson stated removal of the vegetation created an
additional 3,300 square feet of storage area. If the special use
permit is approved, this area will need to be paved, increasing the
amount of run-off from the site. A storm water plan would need to
be submitted for approval.
Ms. McPherson stated the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) is
preparing plans to repair the Locke Lake dam and improve the lake
basin. In conjunction with these improvements, a sedimentation
basin may be constructed in Rice Creek north of the subject parcel.
The petitioner will need to work with the City and the RCWD to
determine the actions necessary to facilitate this improvement.
Ms. McPherson stated the expanded storage area required the removal
of extensive vegetation along the east portion of the property.
Because the petitioner has violated the stipulation applied in
1973, staff cannot recommend approval of the special use permit
request, and staff's recommendation would be to require that the
area be re-vegetated.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has installed a chain link
fence in conformance with the fence ordinance and has repainted the
tank. Also, trees have been planted along the east side of the
fence.
. .
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGQST 21, 1991 PAGE 3
Ms. McPherson staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Council denial of the special use permit
request to allow exterior storage of vehicles and equipment and to
require that the property owner to re-vegetate the area by June 1,
1992, with the following plant materials:
- 14 - 2 1/2 inch caliper Silver Maples planted 20 feet on
center.
- 30 - 24 inch Red Twig Dogwood, planted along the east property
line at approximately 3 feet on center.
Ms. McPherson stated that if the Planning Commission decides to
recommend approval of the request, staff recommends the following
stipulations:
1. The storage area shall be paved, lined with B618 concrete
curb, and meet the appropriate setback requirements,
including a 5 foot hard surface setback from the
building.
2. A drainage plan shall be submitted to the Engineering
Department for approval.
3. Appropriate permits shall be obtained from the Rice Creek
Watershed District.
4. The petitioner shall work with the City and the Rice
Creek Watershed District on the construction of a
sedimentation basin in conjunction with the Locke Lake
improvement.
Mr. Betzold asked if there was any outdoor storage of buses prior
to it being brought to the City's attention?
Ms. McPherson stated that on previous site visits, the existing
parking area had at least one bus, if not several, parked outside.
Mr. Betzold asked if the City files give any indication what the
original intent for the requirement for vegetation was in 1974 when
the building was constructed.
Ms. McPherson stated there are extensive minutes discussing the
approval of the building plan in 1973. The neighbors we�e very
concerned about the aesthetic impact of the proposed facility, and
the intent of stipulation #4 was to provide screening and buffering
of the building fram the residential neighborhood to the east.
Mr. Betzold stated that the Commission has been given two documents
at the meeting. One is a two page letter from the petitioner's
. ;
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AUGUST 21, 1991 PAGE 4
legal counsel, Barrett Colombo, dated August 21, 1991, and a
petition submitted by the neighborhood.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive into the
record the letter dated August 2i, i991, from Barrett Colombo, and
the petition dated August 21, 1991 submitted by the residential
neighborhood.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOOSLY.
Ms. McPherson stated the petition was submitted this morning. It
is from the residents of the Rice Creek Plaza neighborhood. There
are approximately three pages of signatures. The neighborhood is
trying to make its concerns known to the Commission about the
request. The petition states:
�
As concerned residents of the Rice Creek Plaza neighborhood,
we would like to make our concerns and recommendations known to the
Planning Division and City Council regarding the use of the
property known as Fridley Bus Company.
The use of this property has far exceeded the original intent
of the building permit No. 12392 issued November 16, 1973. It
appears that the company may well have outgrown the intended use
of the facilities. The attached documents and correspondence
describes the illegal activities and noncompliance with the
building permit and stipulations. We will not restate them for the
pttrpose of this petition. We do wish to make the following
recommendations known to the Planning Division:
1. That Fridley Bus Company adhere to stipulation #9 of th�
building permit and refrain from parking buses outside
the existing building.
2. That Fridley Bus Company replant trees and shrubs on both
sides of the new fence to completely cover the fence from
the east side and to conform with stipulation #4
(easterly 70 feet of property be left in vegetation).
3. The City obtain an easement and estabZish a walkway in
accordance with stipulation #2.
4. That the City investigate the apparent pollution caused
by the storage and refueling of buses on the west end of
the building. It appears that diesel fuel is running
into Rice Creek.
5. That only limited exterior lighting be allowed so that
visual pollution is kept to a minimum (lighting be
limited so that it is not visible from the east of the
property).
4C
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AUGIIST 21, 1991 PAGE 5
6. That the City study the traffic flow from 2nd Street to
Mississippi Street. With the expansion of Stylmark and
the number of buses and cars at Fridley Bus Company, that
is basically the only exit/entrance for the entire Rice
Creek Plaza neighborhood."
Mr. Betzold asked the staff's reaction to this petition.
Ms. Dacy stated staff just received the petition this morning. It
does not appear that since the 1970's that the City did obtain an
easement from the property for a walkway on the north side. The
other issues need to be discussed by the Planning Commission. In
relation to the traffic issue, there have been a number of public
hearings regarding requests from Stylmark, and the City is well
aware of the concern about the traffic from 2nd Street onto
Mississippi Street. The City is in the process of working with
Anoka County for a traffic light; however, it does not appear that
this will take place in the immediate future.
Ms. Dacy stated that regarding the letter received from Mr.
Colombo, the petitioner's legal counsel; she had spoken with Mr.
Colombo earlier in the day and had asked Mr. Colombo to write this
letter for presentation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Colombo
makes the point that they believe the requirement to apply for a
special use permit for this activity is not necessary. They are
saying that the parking of vehicles on the property is a permitted
accessory use. Secondly, they are questioning the enforceability
of the stipulations made on the building permit in 1973.
Apparently, many of those stipulations were not recorded against
the property at Anoka County. On page 2 of the letter, Mr. Colombo
indicates that they wish to work with the City to try to come to
some kind of agreement to meet the concerns of the homeowners to
the east.
Ms. Dacy stated that as far as staff's reaction to Mr. Colombo's
letter, in regard to the necessity for the special use permit, she
advised Mr. Col.ombo on the telephone that it has been typical City
policy for the City to require a special use permit if the vehicles
cannot be properly screened from public right-of-way or a
residential area. Another section of the M-1 district states that:
"All materials and commercial equipment shall be kept in a building
or shall be fully screened so as not to be visible from any public
right-of-way or adjoining property of a different district. The
City Council shall require a special use permit for any exterior
storage of materials."
Ms. Dacy stated that as far as whether or not these stipulations
are enforceable, that is a matter that will probably have to be
tried in court. Until that time, the City stands by the
stipulations of the permit. However, if they can come to an
. �
;!:.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AUGU3T 21, 1991 PAGL 6
agreement that would be acceptable to the petitioner and the
neighborhood, they would prefer that.
Mr. Darwin Voigt, the owner of Fridley Bus Company, stated he
purchased the existing building and business from Roger Christenson
in 1985. At that time, they did a title search and found there
were some stipulations against the property in regard to storm
sewer, water, sewer, etc. When they took over the bus company,
there was one full time employee and the owner. There are now 30
full time employees. Of these 30 employees, six have moved into
the Fridley area.
Mr. Voigt stated he started to expand his business, but was not
aware of the 15 stipulations from the original building permit.
They did not become aware of them until they received a notice from
the City asking him to take care of the propane tank. He then
discussed this with Mr. Barg at the site. Mr. Barg stated the City
wanted the propane tank painted and screened. He asked if he could
build an 8 foot fence, and Mr. Barg said he could, but that it had
to be of a noncombustible material and slatting had to be in it.
He stated that with an 8 foot high fence, the buses would still be
visible so he proposed an 5 foot retaining wall, that would make
a height of 13 feet so the buses would not be visible to the
residential neighborhood. He believed Mr. Barg's comment was he
was not too concerned about what he did as long as the tank is
painted and the buses screened.
Mr. Voigt stated he sandblasted the tank and painted it. When they
were laying the last block in the retaining wall, Mr. Barg came and
told them they had to had to stop any further work because of the
removal of the vegetation which was in violation of one of the
original stipulations which he knew nothing about.
Mr. Voigt stated that as far as the vegetation that was removed,
one was a big cottonwood tree that was growing into the power
lines, and the power company removed that. There was one big oak
tree that was cracked and rotten in the middle; there were 5-6 elm
trees that had grown wild; there were 4-5 pine trees planted by Mr.
Christenson for screening. They did not haul any dirt in or out
of the property. They graded the property and installed cultured
sod.
Mr. Voigt stated they did not do this work behind anyone's back.
They were not aware of the stipulation. Therefore, he is
requesting this special use permit so he can continue to operate
his business at this location in Fridley.
Mr. Betzold asked Mr. Voigt to respond to the six recommendations
made by the residents in the petition.
4E
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGUST 22. 1991 PAGE 7
Recommendation #1: That Fridley Bus Company adhere to stipulation
#9 of the building permit and refrain from
parking buses outside the existing building.
Mr. Voigt stated he cannot operate his business if he is required
to adhere to stipulation #9. He stated he owns about 40 buses.
Only 24-28 buses can be stored inside. The rest have to be parked
outside.
Recommendation #2. That Fridley Bus Company replant trees and
shrubs on both sides of the new fence to
completely cover the fence from the east side
and to conform with stipulation #4 (easterly
70 feet of property be left in vegetation).
Mr. Voigt stated that is the area he needs for parking. If he put
vegetation back there, he will lose parking. If he has to re-
vegetate with trees and shrubs, why put the fence up?
Recommendation #3. The City obtain an easement and establish a
walkway in accordance with stipulation #2.
Mr. Voigt stated his only concern would be the liability for people
walking on his property. If he could be assured that he would not
have any responsibility or be held responsible for any accidents
on his property and as long as he did not have to pay for the
walkway, he would not object to an easement for a walkway.
Recommendation #4. That the City investigate the apparent
pollution caused by the storage and refueling
of buses on the west end of the building. It
appears that diesel fuel is running into Rice
Creek.
Mr. Voigt stated he had one over spill from a stuck nozzle. They
called the MPCA who investigated. They had about a truckload of
contaminated soil that needed to be hauled away.
Recommendation #5. That only limited exterior lighting be allowed
so that visual pollution is kept to a minimum
(lighting be limited so that it is not visible
from the east of the property).
Mr. Voigt stated his intent was to have the poles on each corner
of the fence to be 10 feet higher in order to shine lights into the
storage area to prevent vandalism. They do get vandalism. He
stated he did discuss lighting with the neighbors, and there were
a couple of neighbors who did request lighting.
Ms. Sherek asked where Mr. Voigt has parked the buses before now.
4F
,1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AQGUST 21, 1991 PAGE 8
Mr. Voigt stated he has been parking them on the Stylmark property.
He has an agreement with Stylmark to park buses there. In the
summertime, he moves school buses to a storage area in St. Cloud
to prevent vandalism.
Ms. Sherek stated that if the special use permit is granted, is
there any possibility that Mr. Voigt would totally enclose that
storage area?
Mr. Voigt stated, yes, his intent is to totally enclose it with
fencing and a gate with a lock.
Mr. Barrett Colombo, Rinke-Noonan, legal counsel for Fridley Bus
Company, stated he has had little opportunity to examine the City's
ordinance or the past history. He had expressed some of his
concerns in his letter. He stated some of the 1973 stipulations
were recorded as encumbrances against the property. The title
company for the property show that there are restrictions in regard
to the easements. Someone took the time and care to select certain
restrictions that were going to run with the property.
Mr. Colombo stated that while Mr. Voigt wants to cooperate, it is
feeling that it would be very difficult for the City to actually
enforce the rest of those stipulations. In reviewing some of the
correspondence provided to him from Mr. Voigt, he believed some of
the wording about the illegal activity regarding the removal of
vegetation is somewhat strong. He did not believe there was any
necessity to get anyone's approval to remove that vegetation.
Mr. Colombo stated this was the first time he was aware of the
easement for a walkway along the north side of the site and thought
it is something that can be worked out. As far as the lighting
issue, adequate lighting also relates to the requirements by the
insurance company.
Mr. Colombo stated the goal is for Mr. Voigt to have a decent
operation and to reach some accommodation with the City and the
neighbors. He has not really had much opportunity to discuss this
with the City Attorney.
Mr. Terry Mickley, 241 Rice Creek Terrace, stated he is really
concerned about these stipulations not being recorded with the
County. Are these stipulations still legitimate?
Ms. Dacy stated that at this time, staff is saying that the
stipulations are enforceable. Obviously, the petitioner has
objected to that and until that is resolved via a settlement or
court action, City staff is intending to enforce the stipulations
passed with the original building permit.
Mr. Walter Behun, 171 Rice Creek Terrace, stated he is the property
owner most adjacent to the bus company. He is concerned about the
4G
PLANNING COMMISSION M�ETING, AIIGIIST 21, 1991 PAGE 9
value of his property. He stated that the vegetation that was
removed was almost worthless for any screening. In the summer
months, the trees were leaved out and it did provide some blockage;
however, about seven months out of the year, the leaves are down
and the propane tank and property are quite visible. He had asked
the former owner, Roger Christenson, to plant some evergreens to
help block the view, but the evergreens were planted too far apart
to do anything.
Mr. Behun stated the new fence and retaining wall are up and the
slats are in the fence. This has obscured the view about 85-90�,
so it still isn't doing the job he would like it to. One
suggestion has been made to put another set of slats on the back
side of the fence to provide heavier screening. He would also
suggest that more evergreen type arborvitae be planted to fill in
the area. However, arborvitae need to be kept trimmed and neat
looking. Putting in deciduous trees has little value for
screening. He certainly likes the situation better now than what
they had before.
Mr. Behun stated he would be opposed to a walkway easement. He
does not want anybody walking behind his home for any purpose.
There is really not enough space for 20 foot walkway because the
bank drops rather abruptly.
Ms. Sherek stated that because the slats are made of a
noncombustible metal slats, another set of slats going the other
way may trap moisture and dirt, causing the fence to deteriorate
faster.
Mr. Sebastian Wagner, 181 Rice Creek Terrace, stated there is a
concern that has not been mentioned with an additional 18-20 buses
parked outside, and that is the pollution and exhaust from these
buses running, particularly in the wintertime. Another thing is
that this privacy fence is not very private. What is wrong with
having a"freeway-type" privacy fence 12-14 feet high made of
treated lumber that would really screen the area? His two major
concerns are the air pollution and being able to see the buses.
He would like to see stipulation #4 enforced. As far as
evergreens, any size tree can be planted.
Mr. LyZe Elverud, 221 Rice Creek Terrace, stated there would not
be any problems if the bus company had continued to park all the
buses inside. He did not believe the rest of the neighborhood
shares the same view as Mr. Behun regarding the vegetation that was
removed. The neighborhood is concerned about pollution: air
pollution, noise pollution, odor pollution, not only from the buses
but also from the trains. Tall evergreens would be excellent for
screening. The dogwoods recommended by staff are also excellent
and beautiful in the wintertime. The people on Main Street are
concerned about the buses running on Main Street, and the
neighborhood is concerned about the buses running at night.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AUGUST 21, 1991 PAGE 10
Ms. Ethel Dzubay, 220 Rice Creek Terrace, stated she was at the
public hearing in 1973 when this business was first proposed. At
this time, she feels really betrayed. She feel that the spirit of
the law and the stipulations that were written down and what they
were promised have changed drastically. Many neighbors that night
expressed the need for visual privacy to make the area look good,
to be screened from the noise, pollutants, and the insistence that
all the buses be stored inside. They left the public hearing with
the feeling that they had achieved something, that they were going
to allow a business there, but that the neighborhood would have a
business that looks good. Now it no longer looks good and it
smells bad.
Ms. Constance Wagner, 181 Rice Creek Terrace, stated that regarding
the air pollution, in the wintertime they can smell the fumes in
their house. This cannot be conducive to good health. She also
feels betrayed.
Ms. Dacy stated that regarding any type of ordinance regarding air
pollution, the City has adopted the MPCA standards by reference,
so if there are odors that would trigger certain thresholds, the
City would have to hire a testing firm to conduct tests.
Mr. Betzold stated the air pollution is a very legitimate concern.
The City might want to consider having tests conducted to alleviate
some of the neighbors' concerns.
Ms. Wagner stated that with this new storage area, the buses will
be parked 35-40 feet from the nearest house. That is too close to
the residential neighborhood. The air pollution could be even
worse than it is now.
Mr. Saba stated he is very concerned, not only about the odors, but
also about carbon monoxide build-up.
Ms. Wagner stated that she was also at the public hearing in 1973.
The former owner, Roger Christenson, told them that school
attendance was down, several schools had been closed, and his
business would just eventually phase out. That is not the case
with Mr. Voigt. He has many charter buses. This is not a school
bus business anymore. This is a business that has outgrown its
location. It is not as it was in 1973.
Mr. Voigt stated he would be able to cut down the idling of the
buses considerably if he has the storage area, because he will
have outlets to plug the buses in to keep the engines warm. The
buses are diesel, and the trains also run on diesel fuel. If they
do testing, how will they know where the fumes are coming from, the
trains or the buses?
41
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AUGUST 21, 1991 PAGE 11
Mr. Sielaff stated a certain part of the solution could be managing
the buses and not having them all running at one time.
Mr. Voigt stated he does stagger the buses as much as he can. The
school buses are not diesel; some are propane, some are qas. The
school buses a11 leave between 7-9 a.m. Seven charter buses leave
between 4:00-5:30 p.m., and the others leave on different
schedules.
Mr. Saba stated adequate vegetation buffers noise, it buffers
pollution, and it looks nice. He would like to see the petitioner
pursue very dense vegetation.
Ms. Dacy stated the Commission's primary focus tonight is the
special use permit and the comments need to be directly related to
the special use permit for an outdoor storage area. Then, if the
Commission wishes to recommend that staff pursue some of these
other issues with the Fridley Bus company, staff can do that.
Mr. William Neumeister, 180 Rice Creek_Terrace, stated that he has
been told by other neighbors that Mr. Voigt is using Stylmark
property for the outdoor storage of some of his buses. Can he do
that?
Mr. Voigt stated that he has an agreement that allows him to park
on Stylmark property and to do this modification. At such time
that the owner of Stylmark wants to expand, then the agreement
ceases. The agreement can broken within 30 days.
M�. Neumeister stated Mr. Voigt has been very nice and cooperative
to the neighbors. He had no problem with the bus company and
thought everything was fine with the City until he read the 1973
stipulations. He just moved into the area in November in 1990, and
he plans to live here a long time. Mr. Steven Barg's letter to Mr.
Voigt dated May 29, 1991, stated that: "The City of Fridley has
established a City Code for the purpose of promoting a pleasant and
attractive suburban environment." Seeing a fence is not
attractive. Even though the original vegetation was not very
attractive, it did block sound.
Mr. James Tracy, 250 Rice Creek Terrace, stated he is a relatively
new resident to this area, and he, too, moved in with the intention
of living here a long time. He is concerned about the City's
ability to inform general citizens about a change to the
neighborhood when some neighbors are out of the notification area.
Mr. Tracy stated that pollution is a major issue. There has been
a substantial increase in noise since he moved in. As far as air
pollution, testing of that particular thing is rated on personal
exposure limits and basically that would pertain to the diesel
fumes. The reason the propane tank is on the property is because
the original buses were run on propane which is a much cleaner
4J
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGUST 21 1991 PAGE 12
burning fuel. With the change of makeup of Mr. Voigt's general
fleet, there will be a substantial change in air quality.
Mr. Tracy stated the land related to Stylmark is rather unique.
Tt is o.k. for businesses to work together, but the concern is on
the part of Stylmark also condoning variations which are beyond
what the City has proposed as being correct and proper channels in
which to do business. He is concerned about whether Stylmark might
take similar actions in the future if this special use permit is
approved. He is hoping the Planning Commission will table this
matter in order to have an opportunity to look at some of the legal
issues that might are involved and possibly learn more about the
amicable arrangement between Mr. Voigt and Stylmark.
Mr. Bruce Lundberg, 230 Rice Creek Terrace, stated he has lived in
his home for 18 years. The proposal in 1973 was for a bus company.
They came away from that public hearing with the feeling they did
not have everything they wanted but did have a workable compromise.
At that time, they wanted natural screening. The 70 feet was
there, the vegetation grew up rather wild, but it wasn't bad. He
knew the bus company was parking buses outside, but, from where he
lives on the block, the buses are not very visible. Then, the
trees were removed, and it brought up all the feelings and concerns
expressed by the neighbors in 1973. In some ways, he also feels
betrayed. Some mistakes were made and some of the stipulations
were not recorded on the deed. His question is: If he made the
same kind of mistake on his home, would he not also be required to
go back to the stipulations and the agreements that were made
before?
Mr. Lundberg stated he likes the area. They have made a
substantial investment in their home. The area is relatively noise
free and relatively traffic free. But, now the fence is not
adequate screening. The slatting does not screen the buses
effectively. As nice as the fence is, over time it will
deteriorate. It looks like an industrial area, and he personally
feels the visual impact is the same as having an auto parts junk
yard in his neighborhood. He is urging the Planning Commission to
deny the special use permit and to reinstate the stipulations from
the original building permit.
Mr. Ben Baxter, 191 Rice Creek Terrace, stated that they can see
the subject property easily. There has been a tremendous aesthetic
difference in the tree line since the trees were removed. The
trees used to be continuous, and the continuity is now broken and
drops to the height of the fence. It looks pretty naked and
different. He is somewhat puzzled about why Mr. Voigt is so
staunch in his position against trees on the neighbors' side of the
fence. He wouid like to see trees planted on their side of the
fence.
4K
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 21, 1991 PAGE 13
Mr. Baxter stated that if the special use permit is denied and
there is not outdoor parking of buses, then it is unfortunate that
all the vegetation was removed and the other work has been done.
It would have been nice to still have the trees for some screening.
However, if the special use permit is approved and Mr. Voigt can
park all these buses outside, then the residential aesthetics of
the neighborhood will have been totally violated and something has
to be done about it.
Mr. John Hreha, 6731 Main Street, stated he has lived here for 30
years. When he moved in it was nice and quiet. The property was
zoned light commercial. Then in 1973, the school bus company was
built and the Christenson's told the neighbors that trees would be
planted all around the building. Now with the trees gone he sees
the whole mess. Those buses run all night. They are noisy, and
in the morning all they can smell are the fumes. The new fence
only covers half the buses. This is a residential district, and
the value of their properties is being lowered. They are very
dissatisfied.
Mr. Raymond Rejman, 190 Rice Creek Terrace, stated he has lived
here 23 years. There was not a problem back in 1973 when the buses
ran on propane. Since Mr. Voigt purchased the company, he has
brought in the big diesel buses and they are noisy. The bus
company has grown too large for this particular parcel of property.
There is no room for expansion. He is suggesting that the Planning
Commission deny the special use permit, and Mr. Voigt look for a
larger piece of property for his business.
Mr. Bruce Lundgren stated the Fridley Bus Company is currently
parking buses on Stylmark property with Stylmark's permission. If
Mr. Voigt needs a special use permit to park buses outside on his
property, how does this affect Stylmark? Wouldn't a special use
permit also be applicable to the buses being parked at Stylmark?
Ms. Dacy stated that originally the easterly 70 feet of the whole
Stylmark parcel up to the Fridley Bus Company parcel was supposedly
to remain as is. It is true that since 1985, the Fridley Bus
Company has been parking buses outside the building. It is also
true that the City has not sent the Fridley Bus Gompany a violation
notice during that time. The only possible explanation is that
because of the vegetation, there did not seem a reason to pursue
it. At least, the City did not receive any complaints. Now that
the vegetation has been removed, this whole issue has been raised.
Ms. Dacy stated that regarding whether or not Stylmark is required
to have a special use permit for the bus storage, there is this
special use permit that needs to be dealt with and then the City
Council has to decide whether it wants to pursue stipulation #9 to
force all the buses on the property to be parked in the building.
4L
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGIIST 21, 1991 PAGE 14
Ms. Sherek stated the City has granted a special use permit for
storage of materials on another property in the past. A special
use permit was issued for a lawn service company to store their
lawn equipment vehicles on property at 73rd and Central. She
believed a stipulation was that if the business where the vehicles
were stored ceased to operate, then the special use permit also
ceased.
Mr. Wagner stated that back in 1973 this was just a school bus
business and, at that time, the owner admitted his business would
probably dwindle. Now it is far more than just a school bus
business. If Mr. Voigt would just maintain the school bus portion
of the business at this location and have his charter bus portion
at another location, that might be a solution.
Ms. Sue Neumeister, 180 Rice Creek Terrace, stated she wanted to
just re-emphasize the fact that back in 1973 stipulations were put
on the building permit. The definition of a stipulation is:
"Making a condition of or requirement". The requirement in this
case was to have trees for screening, and now they are not there.
Is the City just going to ignore those stipulations now and say
they mean nothing?
Mr. Betzold stated that whenever stipulations and various
conditions are put on special use permits, variances, etc., they
are often filed at the County Recorder's Office against the
property. If someone buys a property, that person is expected to
know what is filed against the property. In this particular case,
for some reason, some of these stipulations were filed at the
County, and some were not; and Mr. Christenson, for whatever
reason, apparently did not inform Mr. Voigt of these stipulations.
Mr. Voigt's attorney is saying that those stipulations that were
not recorded at the County are not enforceable. City staff is
saying they are.
Mr. James Tracy asked if anyone has verified that some of the
stipulations are not recorded on the deed.
Ms. Dacy stated staff has not done that, but they would be happy
to verify that information. Stipulations related to easements are
typically recorded against the property. The law as it reads now
is that if the Council takes any kind of action, any stipulations
must be recorded. That was not true in 1973. However, the records
are still available at the Municipal Center, and there is a certain
amount of obligation on the part of the property owner to
investigate all records before purchasing a property.
Ms. Sherek stated that if the former property owner was also
operating in violation of the stipulations and the City had done
nothing about it, what is the situation then? If Mr. Voigt had no
reason to believe that the operation being carried on at the time
was not alright, then how do they enforce stipulation #9 now? She
4M
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AUGUST 21, 1991 PAGE 15
knows that buses were stored outside prior to 1985 when Mr. Voigt
purchased the property.
Ms. Dacy stated that, again, the whole issue of stipulation #9 has
to be pursued further by the City Council.
Mr. Betzold stated Mr. Voigt has provided the Commission with a
copy of the title search done by Chicago Title Insurance Company.
He gave this copy to staff to also be forwarded on to the City
Attorney.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive into the
record the title search done by Chicago Title Insurance Company.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Tracy asked if there was any need to get a legal opinion from
the City Attorney prior to the Planning Commission making a
decision.
Mr. Betzold stated he would like to know what the City Attorney has
to say about some of these issues before they make their
recommendation; however, if they do make a recommendation at this
meeting, the City Attorney will have an opinion before the City
Council meeting.
Ms. Dacy stated that the Commission does have a copy of a memo from
the City Attorney dated July 23, 1991, regarding the illegal
activity at the Fridley Bus Company. In the memo, Mr. Herrick
agrees with the special use permit approach. He agrees that the
property owner should be advised that he is in violation of the
stipulations on the building permit and that the City would pursue
court action if the property owner does not voluntarily restore the
area in a manner satisfactory to the City. She will have Mr.
Herrick review the information submitted by Mr. Colombo.
Ms. Dacy stated that based on some recent applications the City has
had, she cautioned whether it is advisable for the Commission to
be discussing legal positions if the case ends up in court.
However, if the Commission wishes, staff can come back with the
appropriate information.
Mr. Betzold stated that is a valid point.
Ms. Sherek asked Mr. Voigt that in the past year, what are the
maximum number of buses he has parked outside on the site or on
Stylmark's property.
Mr. Voigt stated 18 buses are parked outside.
4N
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AUGUST 21. 1991 PAGE 16
Ms. Sherek asked that when Mr. Voigt purchased the company in 1985,
how many buses were parked outside?
Mr. Voigt stated 4-5 buses were parked outside.
Ms. Sherek asked what Mr. Voigt's plans are for the coming two
years. Is he planning to continue to expand his charter fleet?
Mr. Voigt stated he has no intention of expanding the charter fleet
at this time. He does intend to be out of this area in about 4
years. That is no secret. He has told the neighbors this. With
financing the way it is, he cannot afford to purchase another
property at this time.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, AI�L VOTING AYE, CIiAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOIISLY.
Mr. Betzold stated that even though he still has a lot of
questions, he did not think they are significant enough to table
this item. His inclination is to recommend denial. He believed
the bus company has grown too much and seems to be pushing too far
into the residential neighborhood, there are too many buses in this
area. He did not think Mr. Voigt entered into any of this with bad
faith or bad intentions, but at some point, the City has the
responsibility to draw the line.
Mr. Saba agreed. He stated the neighborhood feels betrayed. They
were promised a commitment that vegetation would be maintained, it
was put on the building permit as a stipulation, and then the
vegetation gets arbitrarily removed. He agreed they were betrayed.
If the neighborhood, the City, and Mr. Voigt could get together and
agree on some vegetation, that might be a solution. He agreed that
Mr. Voigt has almost outgrown this site.
Ms. Sherek stated that, unfortunately, many of the City's
businesses are outgrowing their sites. Time after time, the City
has tried to accommodate these businesses with special use permits,
variances, etc. Al1 they have to do is drive down Main Street or
Central Avenue to see those areas where these permits have been
given and no one is ever happy. There are always problems.
Ms. Sherek stated she has serious problems with the air quality
issue with having 40 buses parked 30-150 feet from the residential
area. She would support denial of the special use permit.
Mr. Kuechle stated he would disagree with the denial. If they
recommend denial, it is his feeling they will basically lose the
ball game. Mr. Voigt will either move or park the buses outside
anyway, and they then lose any negotiating power the City has to
. �
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGIIST 21, 1991 PAGE 17
try to get some more vegetation along the easterly side. If they
approved the special use permit with a stipulation for more
vegetation along that side, then that would be the best situation.
He would recommend approval.
Mr. Kondrick stated he was inclined to recommend approval, until
Mr. Voigt said he was planning to move out of the area in four
years. Then, all this would be for nothing. The noise is not so
much a problem as the air pollution. He agreed that Mr. Voigt has
outgrown the area, and he would recommend denial.
Ms. Modig stated there does not seem to be much compromise between
the neighborhood and Mr. Voigt. Mr. Voigt is going to need more
space soon. This area is just not designed for the type of use now
with the large charter buses. She is concerned about the air
pollution and the buses being so close to the residential homes,
18 years outside year around and 32 buses inside. She would be in
favor of denial.
Mr. Sielaff stated the stipulations were there from the beginninq
and knowingly or unknowingly Mr. Voigt didn't seek out that
information. As a result, they are sending the wrong message out
to other industries in the City if they don't enforce these
stipulations. He would vote in favor of denial.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to
City Council denial of Special Use Permit, SP #91-09, by Darwin
Voigt of Fridley Bus Company, Inc., per Section 205.18.O1.C.(12)
of the Fridley City Code, to all.ow exterior storage of vehicles and
equipment on Lot 1, Block 6, Rice Creek Plaza South Addition,
generally located at 6750 Main Street N.E.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, SIX MEMBERS VOTING AYE, RUECHLE VOTING NAY,
CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 6-1.
2. RECEIVE JULY 16, 1991, ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY AND ENERGY
COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the July
16, 1991, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. RECEIVE AUGUST 1 1991 HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the
August 1, 1991, Human Resources Commission minutes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
. ■
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGIIST 21. 1991 PAGE 18
4. RECEIVE AUGUST 6, 1991, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES•
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the August
6, 1991, Appeals Commission minutes.
OPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CFIAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT•
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the
meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold
declared the motion carried and the August 21, 1991, Planning
Commission meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
�
Lyni e Saba
Recording Secretary
. �
8 I G N- I S H E E T
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, • � 7 "l(
Name Address/Business
�S' �'a�J� O% ,e.��, .��, ��-
��r�.� , � �, , . .,
�
�
.� , . ,,
� � b �
� �
� � �.
� �v1 � .
�� I %� i c ree %� �!�Y 2L
. �
8 I G N— IN S H E E T
PLANNING COMMTSSION MEETING, August 21, 1991
4S
r �
�
�
Community Development Department
PLA►NNING DIVISION
City of Fridley
DATE: September 5, 1991
To: William Burns, City Manager ���� I
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Variance Request, VAR #91-21, by Anna Wichern,
Located at 6880 East River Road N.E.
Attached please find the above referenced staff report. The
Appeals Commission voted to recommend approval of the request to
allow a free-standing sign of 4 square feet in a residential
district with the following stipulation:
l. The property owner shall submit a drainage and utility
easement to the City in order to complete a sanitary sewer
improvement to the facility when Anoka County completes the
East River Road widening project.
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the request as the four
conditians outlined in the Sign Code for granting variances have
not been met.
MM:ls
M-91-596
G
�: �
�
�► S�'AFF REPORT
APPEALS DATE �uqust 6, 1991 �
CITY OF PLAN(�NG COMMISSiON DATE
FRiDLEY CITY COUNCIL DATE September 9, 1991 AUTHOR �/�
REQUE�T
PERMIT NUMBER
APPUCANT
PROPOSED REQUEST
LOCATION
SITE DA?A
SIZE
DENSITY �
PRESENT ZONING
ADJACENT LAND USES
& ZONING
UTIL(f1ES
PARK DEDICATION
ANALY�IS
FINANCIAL. IMPUCATIONS
CONFORMANCE TO
COMPREHENSNE PLAN
COMPATlBILITY WITH
ADJACENT USES & ZONING
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
APPEALS RECOMMENDATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
VAR #91-21
Anna wichern
7.b allvw a free-standing sign of 3.97 sq. ft. in a
residential district
6880 East River Road
16, 376 sq. ft.
�-1, Single Family Dwelling
R-1, Single Fa�ly Dwelling, tA E, S, & W;
Lpcics lea Gi.rls' CaQnp to N
Denial
Apprc�val with stipulations
5A
VAR ��91-21
Anna Wichern
N!/2 SEC. /5, T. 3�. R. 24
C/TY OF FR/OLEY
,9
J t./
.
: `
�
MpN�
i i '.1
', j ,' '
j : �pU�
��'
1
` /
% /,
�is..r.�s.r �
�r� n s.r�s
1
�
r�
�
_" �\ ��� �
/
/
�
� �
,
I
13
56
L
�� ,
��
Q�
0
I �I �23.
3 A�j
� F �
,1
`: \.
I � �
�
� •�
--T'. ■
14 .�_�,��y�-� �
. r.� .. , ,...
�CATION MAP
�'
, '
■;
..
�
�
�
�
�►
�
1 i
I
I ,
� �
�
�
- ;
�
� �
� ; •
t /s
�
, - .,� .
;;
;
,
,e
� � 'i9
1 '
. ' 2°
z�
' /`
� ��
�� � �
• �A f�1
', �
,
'� 1
, �,
; 1
� �' F
� -,
� .�
` �\ .
,1
�
�� ;
5C
■
VAR ��91-21
Anna Wichern
�
0
�
M
�//
/1
/3
. ■
ZONING MAP
�
I
Staff Report
VAR #91-21, 6880 East River Road
Page 2
A. STATED HARDSHIP:
"To allow child care sign to be placed in front yard."
B. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
RecLuest
The petitioner requests a variance to allow the continued
existence of a free-standing sign of approximately 3.97 square
feet on Lot 9, Block 2, Sandhurst Addition, the same being
6880 East River Road.
Site
Located on the property is a two story single family dwelling
unit with a detached garage. The petitioner currently
operates and has operated a daycare facility from this
location since before 198'7. The sign is located at the north-
east corner of the property along East River Road.
Analysis
Section 214.09 of the Sign Code allows two types of signs in
residential districts: (1) area identification signs of up
to 24 square feet in area; and (2) wall signs of up to 3
square feet in area and one sign per dwelling unit. The
existing sign is 3.97 square feet in area and was constructed
as a free-standing sign.
Section 214.21.02 of the Sign Code requires that four
conditions be met prior to the Appeals Commission recommending
approval of a variance from the literal provisions of the Sign
Code.
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to the property or to the
intended use that do not apply generally to other
property in the same vicinity or district.
The property is currently zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling,
and, while the house is somewhat screened by vegetation, the
sign could be visible to southbound traffic traveling on East
River Road if it was placed on the wall of the dwelling unit.
There are not any exceptional circumstances which would
differentiate it from properties zoned similarly.
B. That the variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right
possessed by other property in the same vicinity and
district, but which is denied to the property in
question.
5D
Staff Report
VAR #91-21, 6880 East River Road
Page 3
To deny the sign variance would not remove signage from the
property, but would limit and allow signage as conditioned by
the Sign Code.
C. That the strict application of the Chapter would
constitute an unnecessary hardship.
Strict application of the Chapter wouZd require that the sign
be placed on the dwelling unit and reduced to 3 square feet
in area. As was stated earlier, the sign would still be
visible to southbound traffic traveling on East River Road.
D. That the granting of the variance would not be
materially detrimental to the public, health,
safety, or general welfare, or detrimental to the
property in the vicinity or district in which th�
property is located.
While the sign does not greatly exceed the square footage
allowed by Code, nor does it obstruct visibility for traffic
or adjacent property owners, the granting of the variance may
create a precedent for future requests. The sign could be
considered to contribute to visual pollution.
Recommendation
As the four conditions required within the Code have not been
met, staff recommends that the Appeals Commission recommend
denial of the request to the City Council. However, if the
Commission chooses to recommend approval of the request, staff
recommends the following stipulation:
1. The property owner shall submit a drainage and
utility easement to the City in order to complete
a sanitary sewer improvement to the facility when
Anoka County completes the East River Road widening
project. (See attached documentation from the
Engineering Department which explains the background
to this request.)
Appeals Commission Action
The Appeals Commission voted to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request with the stipulation recommended by
staff.
Citv Council Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the request as it
does not meet the four conditions outlined in the Code.
5E:
VAR ��91-21
Anna Wichern
land Planning -- -� ? ,n,�r� � /y - 8 Y
V�(� (/L L�QLIi� _ 6875 Hi hwa !
land Surveying O/�, ,/ •�1 /�/�/� • M� /+ '; Min
Soiis Testing �'/ G�/�CC''C�� ) � ;6�/• ��, Min
Civil Engineering � � Telepfidne 7
Municipal Engineering Engineers & Surveyors �' A�e°
�:-__:
Certificate of Survey for D��ALd �`�u�� N_ �
�,rair�;a�e a«ci U�;1��� �Ea�emcn�.
- `�,�'.�4 nr.ea7.-) �
� �
� _►lti'=l4'� Plat � —�.�,.
—�— -- — --- 4 —�
---------------_J-- �>> --� F-�..P. �
'�� � Y
., a-
1 4', �
N N i .
C��
i
d
ai
� ���� i
3V.4r� :?.�'
L� . ... . . ----..-_-�� c'r.��ci--
`J ��, �-��::�C\� �
5,. . � �1 : �-
t �'3»-+E
�� � �
►.' . � b � �'J
5" .,
s �I.y .. ' iS.j�.
;.�
h
:�
c.}
:�
r3` `�`'
. �,. � . . . . . _ . . . + J i
� �
1� ` ' �
' ( ' 4- �L
� (-� �t.fJ^ � .
`J . `��Y�9it�C. \' `` ` ...- . # .
� V�,� C `araqe C r� � ` •�'�' �— : / � ��,�i. .�V.!_1'~.-�—'._ ---.__ , _ �,- �
t .; e^ . \ : .. �.. ,i� `�i. ( �}
, � . , ♦ �O ���' �� rsY ,._.,-_ --1 _�" �.. � ' } . � �/l� �� � " � . V �
.,i \ i6 S . _ }_._� �
. �..
. . _ ito . � t , .
. �— ' 1'(�� ��OPj.`�. T �---._. ...,. _.-..- � \f . . " �
,N�r�� `��a,�,��lj cerner.�� C��s•�;1�1E Jr�vew'�) �.aSemEr� ��'-'�
� � Lot ' "3tact� 2,Sa��ahurs�
��. .
/�ddliion. , i �
� i
o LJEr,r,f,e, Iron n;�,t..�:,�mE.r•,�
Lol, y , �i1o4iL `Z � �jar�Cl�lursl� �c�ci i�io�7 �xc?(�� L�2L ��or� }��inq Wist os� a'�r�l�
�rawn V"01'�'1 d OIr14 Gtl��f No1'rn (IYIf. L��r�G+� digT,ar1L .`�i4•C>�, n�E� �a5}., qr
�itie Nor��twesner-�y CGfnQr at, 5a;�( Lo�. `� �o �,he mcs't S:n.�bher(� or Sou�,F,uesterty
corner khereo� and �hEYe ber►��natin9.
_.. �
i
I�he�eby certify that this is o true a�d correct representation oi a survey of the bovndo�ies of th
described land� and of the locatioh of all buildings� thereon� and all visible encroachments� if any� fr
said tand. As su�veyed by me this �5��` day of .�'�tt•,E A.D. 19�1 . i
` � � .SUBURBAN ENGINEERING, INC. ,
�C'a��. � � �� Engineers _ . , _ _ Syrv _�ors ___ ____,
5F
StTE PLAN
�
� �
�
_
C�TYOF
FR[DLEY
FRIDLEY MUN(CIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY. MN 55432 •(612) 571-345D • FAX (612) 571-l287
February 7, 1991
Mr. Jon Olsen
Anoka Co. Hwy. Dept.
1440 Bunker Lake Blvd.
Andover NIId 55304
PW91-32
SUBJECT: Sewer Service for 6880 East River Road
Dear Jon:
This letter is to follow up on the telephone conversation we had
on February 7, regarding a new sewer service at 6880 East River
Road.
The present owner is on sanitary sewer but it requires a Iift_
station or pump and he has been having some problems and we felt
that with the proposed improvement of East River Road and the
street being cut that now would be the time to provide him a new
sewer service. As we discussed Jon, the most opportune manhole to
tie into, in this case, is located at 69th Way and East River Road
as that manhole is much deeper than the dead-end manhole is just
south of the intersection.
Please provide a service from that manhole to the above property
and incorporate it in the plans of the improvements to East River
road.
Thank you Jon for taking care of this for us.
Sincerely,
, _,
/ i.�
, ,
`Cl d V. Morave
Y tz
Engil��eering Assistant
CVM/kn
;
5G i
�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 UNIVIILSITY AVENfJE N.E.
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
(612) 571-3450
•�n n � �- •�n.' �_�. ■�,'
�i�ARIA�E APP?�C�Z'I�T FORM
Pib�PEi�t'Y II�ORI�,TIo�T - site plan r+equired for sul�nittals; see attarhed
Ri . s�
L�egal description:
Ir�t slocx �-
�I'rdCt�AC�lt1011 � GL-- � � � n .fl � 'J� 4� � r
GUrrexit zoning: Square footage/acreage
Reason for variance ar�d t�arr3�t,; n; � c�� �� C�.�� �U.h� ���-
:�..._
section of City c]ode: 'L�:O�. ff�`1�� -�o a.C�o�.J
(Contract P�u�rhasexs: Fee Own�xs must sign this foxm prior to prooessing)
►� �
L�,
� r. ��►-
,
�ss l � �� � � � r �.�� r - � �.
� ��� ��� v nu� � � � � - (c �( 33
SIG�fA�7RE +�►��.c� � ' DA2� % - � � ' � %
P�'i'I'PIONER IN�R'[�T'ION
�— C� r� h a � ��� i(' � r- 1-�
ADI1RESS �l � �� �� e v 1? �.
� �' � �Q � LIAYTIlNE PHONE .� � � - � �' � �
szc�� ,�.�.,�� �_ � . �� � �.:�� ra� '7 ' a a - 5 i
Fee: $loo.00
$ 60.00 for residential propei�ties
Pe�mit vAR # q, ��� R,aceipt #
Application received by: �,�
s�nedul.ea Appeals �issi.on
Scheduled City Council date:
5H I
� � l �
�
U
�
�
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Community Development Dep
G DIVISION /
City of Fridley
May �30, 1991
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
�/ Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
�
Request from Councilman Fitzpatrick Regarding
Residential Signs
I have researched the list of residential signs given to you by
Councilman Fitzpatrick. The following is a list of the signs and
the result of the investigation.
1.
2.
Welding sign located one block north of Osborne and East River
Roads - The sign is for a business operated by Mr. Wojcik of
109 - 76th Way. I sent a letter to Mr. Wojcik requesting that
he move the sign to a wa12 or apply for a variance. ;:�,,� �,�. /� .� r
Daycare center sign located at 6880 East River Road `I sent
a letter to the resident requesting the sign to be removed or
apply for a variance. �iu� (Q.?,p.�i(
3. Festival of Nations sign located at 73rd Avenue and East River
���� Road - This sign appears to be an off-premise, out-of-city
sign used to advertise a variety of events. The current sign
(��`�� in this location is advertising a State music festival at the
Bel-Rae Ballroom in Moundsview. In addition to this sign,
there are several others located in this general area of the
City. I will send a letter requesting that these signs and
any other$ l,oc�te,d w�thin the �ity be remDV;eci
I� ¢d -Iz c f� � vleu% �.�i �y ,�.✓e. IvZ�s� iv�5'�i�- ((2d�iv
4. Church of Christ sign at 7�h and Mississippi Streets - The
sign is in conformance with the sign code, and does have a
permit (see attached).
If the ;ity Council wishes to provide further direction regarding
any or all of the above signs, please let me know.
Mr. Hengtes has not removed his sign or applied for a variance.
Unless the City Council has further direction, I will notiiy Mr.
Hengtes that he has 20 days to comply with the sign code or the
City will remove the sign and assess the cost to him.
I�I/dn + ' �' � ✓a�c�.�.?;� S ���1
��1e� {� �"'� l�% • i�-9/
M-91-377
51
GITY OF /�1�lOL.EY. s�s�cct
ssa� uN�vEasmr rrv�. �.
sA�a�sr. �. �ssse cs� sr•aaso
COMMUNRI' pEVE�O►ytENT ply.
MOTECT�VE �N3►ECTqN fEC.
wu��E�
SIGN PERMIT
AFv O�TE ��
s-�-a� 5/4/87 /
�os ��a+ess 501 Mississippi Street N.E.
1 LfGA� LOT NO SLOCK TAACT 011 ADWTIpN
oESCp 10 1 Rice Creek Terrace Plat 1
Fridley Church of Christ 501 Mississippi Street N.E.
3 t16N ERECTOR MAiI AODRE55 21
DeMars Signs 4040 Fast River Road N.E., Fridley 55421
� $16N TYPf
( ) MALL (�i) ►YION ( ) ROOF ( ) OTMER
S CONSTRUCTE� OF: a. 20NING
Aluminuat
TT NO �
__094?
O� I ���AOvEO �•
/ soo
571-8957
M�ONE L�CENSE HO
781-1315
7�U�LDINO IENYTH • EXIl71NY •IYN AREA • NAXIIIUM AREA A�LOMEO
10 C�ASSOf WORK NEW
�
11 pESCR18E SIQN
LENGTH : 6 �
12 MES94pE (SEE ATTACNEC iKETCN)
"Church of Christ"
STIPULATIONS
O AODITION O A�TERATION O REPAIR
MEIGHT: 4� �. FT: 24 MEtQNT AiOVE CRADE:
SEPARATE PERMI?S ARE REOUIRED FOR ELECTRiCAL, YIRIN9� OR � REVOLVINO BEACOkS, 21P F�ASHERS� AND SIM4lATEG DEVICE9,
♦LTERATION Of THE •UILOINO. IkCLY01N8 /�NT 90URCE OF LIOHt WMICH CNANGE! IN INTENSITY
TM�S PERMiT lECOMES NUII •ND VOIO IF WORK Op CONSTRUCTION ARE PROMIBITEO.
AUTMOpi1E0 IS NOT COMMENCEO WITMIN 66 OAVS, Oq IF GpNSTpUCT10N
OA wORK �S SuSPENOEO Op �B�NDONED FOR � oERi00 OF �20 O�rb AT
ANY TIME AFTER WORK t5 GOMMfNG£O.
1 MEREd� CERTIFr TMAT 1 MAVE pEAC AMO EXAMINEO TMIS APP�IGATIpN
ANO KNOW TNE SAME TO SE TRUE ANO GOARECT. ALL �ROVISIONS OF �AWS yAlUAT10N SUpTA7c
ANO OpD�NANCES GOVEpNING TMIS TYPE Of WORK WILL 6E COMPLIEO
W�TH WMETMEN SPEC�f�EO NEREiN OR NOT. TME GRAN?�NG Of yl �E111,At'f S2 OOO N�A
DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTMOp1T� TO VIOLATE Op CANCEL TNE pEqM1T FEE TOTAL FFE
PNOVISIONS Of AN� OTMEp STATE 011 IOCA� �AW REGULATING CON-
STRUCTIpN O�TME PfAfORMANCE� GONSTAUCTION. /�2�.0� $Z�i.00
iK+a�tu�EO�CO�+'�CTpAp��Vt«pA�jEC�GEMf �W1TE�
,
WMEN
TMiS �S rOU AEp iT
� s��r�,
�
5J
�)
r �
�
J
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SIIBJECT:
Community Development Department
P G DIVISION
City of Fridley
July 3, 1991
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Di.rector
�Niichele McPherson, Flanning Assistant
Followup on Residential Signs on East River Road
This is a followup on my memo of May 30, 1991, regarding severaT
residential signs along East River Road. I inspected the daycare
sign at 6880 East River Road and-found that it is still being
displayed. I sent a letter on July 2, 1991, to the daycare
provider regarding the need to apply for a variance.
The other outstanding sign issue is the off-premise, out-of-city
signs currently displayed in the area of 77th Avenue and East River
Road, as well as Osborne Road and East River Road. I contacted the
Be1Rae Ballroom regarding the need to remove these signs. They
contacted me and provided me with the number of the company
responsible for installing these signs. I will send a letter to
Jensen Posting, the company responsible for these signs, and
request that they be removed.
MAM:ls
M-91-485
�� �
... �
APPEALS COMMIS&ION MEETING. AQGUST 6, 1991 PAGE 3
Ms. McPherson stated th re are photos in the staff report. One
photo shows the petition r's side fence and top of the roof next
door.
Dr. Vos asked that if the etitioner decided to add 5 feet on to
the north of garage, would variance be required?
Ms. McPherson stated, yes, a uming future staff maintains the same
front yard to rear yard inte retation. If you were to expand the
garage to the lot line, it w uld be a rear variance from 30 feet
to 0 feet. Staff couldn't con rol how the house was placed on the
lot and the interpretation tha was made at the time it was built,
but staff has placed an interpr tation based on the definition they
have today.
MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, s
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE,
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEA1
by Dr. Vos, to close the public
:RPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
CLOSED AT 7:40 P.M.
Dr. Vos stated he thought it reasona le to approve a nonconforming
request. Corner lots are always di ficult in the interpretation
of what is the front and side yards, and that is where the City
gets into some difficulty. He would te in favor of the request.
Ms. Savage and Ms. Beaulieu agreed.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Beaul ei
of Variance Request, VAR #91-20, by Ric a
205.07.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley City
yard setback from 30 feet to 10 feet, to
condition to allow the construction of an �
2, Parkview Oaks First Addition, the same
N.E.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAI
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
x, to recommend approval
rd Hudrlik, per 5ection
�de, to reduce the rear
correct a nonconforming
�dition on Lot 9, Block
eing 5502 Regis Trail
SAVAGE DECLARED THE
2. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #91-21 BY ANNA
WICHERN•
Per Section 214.04.02 of the Fridley City Code, to allow the
existence of a 3.97 square foot free-standing daycare sign on
Lot 9, Block 2, Sandhurst Addition, the same being 6880 East
River Road.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to open the public
hearing.
5L
APPEAL8 COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 6, 1991 PAGE 4
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE pOBLIC HEARTNG OPEN AT 7:43 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the variance request is for 6880 East River
Road. The property is located on the west side of East River Road
just south of Lockslea Girl Scout Camp. The property is zoned R-
1, Single Family Dwelling.
Ms. McPherson stated the reason for processing the variance is to
follow-up on a request by the ward councilmember who requested, in
the response to a letter regarding an illegal home occupation sign,
that staff look at any or all residential signs along East River
Road. The City requested that the petitioner either remove the
sign or apply for a variance.
Ms. McPherson stated the sign advertises a daycare the petitioner
operates and has operated since before 1987. The Sign Code allows
two types of signs in a residential district: area identification
sign of up to 24 square feet and wall signs up to 3 square feet in
area and one sign per dwelling. The existing sign in question is
a free standing sign and is approximately 4 square feet in area.
The sign code has four conditions that must be met before
recommending approval:
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not
apply generally to other property in the same vicinity or
district.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is currently zoned R-1 and, while
the house is somewhat screened by vegetation along East River Road,
if the sign were to be placed on the wall, it could be visible to
traffic travelling southbound on East River Road. There are no
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which make this property
unique from other R-1, Single Family, properties.
B. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other
property in the same vicinity and district, but which is
denied to the property in question.
Ms. McPherson stated that to deny the variance would not remove
signage from the property but would limit the signage to that which
is allowed under the sign code.
C. That the strict application of the Chapter would constitute
an unnecessary hardship.
Ms. McPherson stated strict application of the chapter would
require that the sign be reduced to 3 square feet and be placed on
5M
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AOGOST 6, 1991 PAGE 5
the dwelling unit instead of existing as a free-standing sign.
The sign could be visible to those travelling southbound on East
River Road.
D. That the granting of the variance would not be materially
detrimental to the public, health, safety, or general welfare,
or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or district in
which the property is.located.
While the sign itself does not greatly exceed the square footage
allowed by code, nor does it obstruct traffic visibility or
visibility from adjacent properties, the granting of this variance
may create a precedent for future requests. The sign could be
considered to contribute to visual pollution, as stated in the
public purpose.
Ms. McPherson stated, as the four conditions required have not been
met, staff recommends denial of the request. However, if the
commission chooses to recommend approval, staff recommends the
stipulation that the property owner submit a drainage and utility
easement to the City in order to complete a sanitary sewer
improvement to the dwelling unit when Anoka County completes the
East River Road widening. The property is currently serviced by
a septic system which is connected to a lift station which connects
into the City system on Hartman Circle. The Engineering Department
has requested Anoka County connect this property to the sanitary
sewer across East River Road and, therefore, the City would need
a drainage and utility easement.
Ms. Savage asked if the only type of sign that would be in
conformance is,a wall sign.
Ms. McPherson stated, yes, with an area of 3 square feet.
Ms. Beaulieu asked if it was alright to advertise a business in an
R-1 district.
Ms. McPherson stated, yes, the Code cannot define the type of
message that is written on the sign. It could be a personal
expression sign, a"for sale" sign, an advertising sign such as
this, etc.
Dr. Vos asked if the sign must be attached to the dwelling.
Ms. McPherson stated that according to the Code, the sign must be
attached to a wall. It must be some type of structure not
including a fence.
Dr. Vos asked if the only other sign allowed was an area
identification sign.
5N ��
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 6 1991 PAGE 6
Ms. McPherson stated, yes. This is defined in the Code as the
identification of a multi-family residential area or a single
family residential area of more than 10 units.
Ms. Savage asked if this began when a City Council member asked
staff to check signs along East River Road.
Ms. McPherson stated, yes. In May, she received an anonymous
complaint for a free-standing business sign located at 79th and
East River Road. She•sent a letter to the property owner that the
sign did not meet Code. The property owner called and asked how
to process a variance. After receiving an explanation of the
process, the property owner decided they could not afford the fee.
This person contacted their ward councilmember. The ward
councilmember then asked her to do a visual sign inventory for East
River Road.
Ms. Savage asked the petitioner how she felt about replacing the
current sign with a wall sign.
Ms. Wichern stated she did not think a wall sign would be visible.
There are trees, then a small break, and then bushes. She has been
a child care provider since 1978 and provides referrals for Fridley
licensed child care providers. She is providing a service to the
parents in Fridley in trying to place children in safe homes. Day
care providers must go through a police check, fire check and FBI
check. When parents call for openings, she can give out names of
homes in Fridley that are licensed to help put children in safe
homes. That is why she decided to apply for a variance.
Ms. Savage asked how long the sign has been there.
Mr. Jagger stated the sign has been there for approximate2y 3 1/2
years.
Mr. Jagger asked when the sign ordinance was passed.
Ms. McPherson stated the ordinance was passed in 1977.
Mr. Jagger stated the sign is not objectionable and is not bright.
It blends in with the area. What if the sign is reduced?
Ms. Savage stated the problem is that the sign is a free-standing
sign and nonconforming with the Code requirements. Mr. Jagger is
right in that the sign does blend in with the area.
Dr. Vos asked if there was a sign up the road at the Girl Scout
camp.
50 '�
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 6, 1991 PAGE 7
Ms. Beaulieu stated the design is very similar.
Dr. Vos stated there is also a sign at the Locke House.
Ms. McPherson stated the Banfili Locke House and Lockslea Girl
Scout signs are considered institutional signs and can be up to 32
square feet in area.
Dr. Vos asked if this is because of their function.
Ms. McPherson stated, yes.
Mr. Jagger stated anything attached to the building would be
virtually worthless for the service.
Dr. Vos asked how far back the house is set back from the property
line.
Ms. McPherson stated the house is set back 53 feet from the
property line. The property line is close to the curb line on that
side of East River Road. In fact, the County will be taking some
of the property when doing the widening project.
Ms. Wichern stated she has no objection with hooking up with the
sewer.
Ms. McPherson stated that if the Commission recommends approval and
this is a requirement, she would have the Engineering Department
contact Ms. Wichern and draw up the documents.
Ms. Wichern stated that her concern is not her business, but she
is concerned about the welfare of children.
Ms. Savage asked if there are alternatives to providing this
service.
Ms. Wichern stated Anoka County Day Care Association advertises in
the Fridley Focus and on cable television. The sign, however,
seems to generate more calls than the other forms of advertising.
She keeps track of the source of calls. Funds are limited, and she
feels she is doing a service to the children for which she is not
being paid.
Dr. Vos stated it seems that the traffic traveling southbound would
see the sign. Where would staff suggest placing the sign on the
dwelling?
Ms. McPherson stated on the northeast corner of the east side of
the house.
5P'
)
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING AIIGIIST 6 1991 PAGE 8
Ms. Wichern stated the sign would be seen for only 5 seconds in
that location.
Dr. Vos stated there is much vegetation and the house is set back
53 feet and the garage is set back approximately 90 feet. The sign
would have to be placed on the east or north side of the house.
The Code requires 3 square feet. Does the 3.97 square feet include
the structural support?
Ms. McPherson stated the 3.97 square feet includes only the sign.
It does not include the structure that supports the sign. If the
Commission chooses to recommend approval of the variance, they
could recommend approval to: (a) allow a free-standing part;
and/or (b) continue to allow a 3.97 square feet sign.
Dr. Vos asked that if the variance is granted for a free-standing
sign without the second part, does the petitioner have the option
to put up, for example, an 8 square foot sign?
Ms. McPherson stated that if the petitioner wanted to make the sign
bigger, she would recommend the petitioner come in for another
variance.
Dr. Vos stated it sounds like they are tied together.
Ms. Savage asked that if the variance is granted, does Ms. Wichern
want a new sign?
Ms. Wichern stated, no, she wants to keep the current sign. Mr.
J'agger stated he did not think the sign itself is 3 square feet.
Ms. McPherson stated the sign dimension as she measured is 1.5 feet
x 2.65 feet. The frame area is 3 feet wide and 5.7 feet tall.
Ms. Wichern stated the neighbors have no problem with the sign.
The sign does not detract from the neighborhood.
MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Dr. Vos, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:02
P.M.
Ms. Beaulieu stated she would abstain from voting.
Ms. Savage asked if the Commission could vote with only two members
voting.
Ms. McPherson stated, yes.
5 Q'�
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AQGOST 6. 1991 PAGE 9
Ms. Beaulieu stated she knows the area well. Will this set a
precedent for others in the area to want a sign, too?
Ms. Savage stated her main concern is setting a precedent. The
thing that caught her attention this time is that this sign has
contributed to parents calling about licensed and reliable day
care. The only way she would approve the request would be on this
very special set of circumstances which almost rises to the level
of a child protection issue. Looking at it that way, it would not
normally set a precedent. This is a rather unique reason for
allowing the sign to continue in existence.
Dr. Vos stated this is a difficult decision. If they go by the
letter of the ordinance, the sign would have to go on the house.
With the construction of East River Road, there is a curve there,
plus the setbaek of the house and garage, it seems unrealistic to
require the placement of the sign in that type of setting. The
nature of the sign makes him more sympathetic. He would not be as
open to support if it advertised some other type of service. It
has been his experience that the need for safe child care anywhere
is something that they should support. He would vote in favor and
let the City Council discuss it and make the final decision.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend approvai
variance request, VAR #91-21, per Section 214.09.02 of the Fridley
City Code, to allow the existence of a 3.97 square foot free-
standing daycare sign on Lot 9, Block 2, Sandhurst Addition, the
same being 6880 East River Road with the following stipulation:
1. The property owner shall submit a drainage and utility
easement to the City in order to complete a sanitary
sewer improvement to the facility when Anoka County
completes the East River Road widening project.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, VOS AND SAVAGE VOTING AYE, BEAULIEU ABSTAINING,
CIiAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ms. McPherson stated the City Council will discuss this variance
September 9, 1991.
3. UPDATE ON PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL ACTIONS:
Ms. McPherson reviewed the recent Planning Commission and City
Council action items.
t'1.L
r �
�
I
Community Development Department
G DIVISION
City of Fridley
DATE: September 5, 1991
�� �� .
To: william Burns, City Manager�,
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Variance, VAR #91-22, by Jennifer and Ronald
Prasek; 1681 Camelot Lane N.E.
Attached please find the above-referenced staff report. The
requested variance is to reduce the rear yard setback from 28 feet
to 18 feet. The Appeals Commission voted unanimousl.y to recommend
approval of the request to the City Council with the following
stipulation:
1. No construction shall occur within the 15 foot drainage and
utility easement.located parallel to the north lot line.
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the request, as the
petitioners have alternatives which would allow them to meet code.
MM/dn
M-91-649
^
�
�
� STAFF REPORT
APPEALS DATE August 20, 1991
CI-IY OF PLANWNG COMMISSION DATE �
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL DATE September 9, 1991 Au�'HpR r'�"1/ls
REQUEST
PERMIT NUMBER
APPLICANT
PROPOSED REQUEST
LOCATION
�iTE DATA
SIZE
�ENSITY
PRESENT ZONING
ADJACENT LAND USES
8� ZONING
UTILfTiES
PARK DEDICATION
ANALYSI�
FINANCtAL IMPLICATIONS
CONFORMANCE TO
COMPREHENSNE PLAN
COMPATIBILITY WITH
ADJACENT USES & ZONqVG
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
APPEALS RECOMMENDATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
VAR #91-22
Jennifer and Ronald Prasek
To reduce the rear yaxd setback f�an 28 feet to 18 feet
1681 Camelot Lane'
11,705 sq. ft.; 16.1g lot aoverag�
R-1, Single Famiiy Dwelling
�l, Single Family Dwelling, to W, E, & S; Harri.s Parid
to the N
Denial
Approval with stipulation
6.1
;,_ 1: 30, �'. 24
4/OL EY
��
id�.
vi
/T �� �
nrr�JFY+f`
R1
T/��
�
�9 �i��
w..`
i �14� ���
N "
f ��
��
{ �h)
!
. Y � �.,
i
' �.."
' WnsA.'�!
A./ y�y
l+)
20 SU8_
� `„ �
�
.��� u•
- + s.l
�
��
y 43
.I
41
i i II i i u i� ..
6�i�
L
• �
VAR ��91-22
Jennifer/Ronald Prasek
iHIS IS A COMPILATlON OF RECORDS AS
iMFY Ai7EAR IN �HE ANOKA COUN�Y
OFFICES AFFECi1NG THE ARFA SHOWN.
iN15 DRAWINC IS l0 BE USEG ONLY fOR
REfERENCE PURPOSES AND THE COUN-
TY IS NOT RESPON518LE FCR ANY IN-
ACCURAGIES HEAEIN CJNTAINED.
33913
s
�� �` �RxfR ""
� "I`c. /J �„�r..�r
a.lia
�.:� •�e�
ROLAND W. ANDERSON � =�- %�
COUNiY SURVEYOR �-� r ��
ANOKA fO1Mf1. MMfiO�� ' AF. s�nGe
�� ':.
OCATtON MAP
��►11►CH►��/�\:
5taff Report
VAR #91-22, 1681 Camelot Lane
Page 2
A. STATED HARDSHIP:
"3-season porch will not fit on lot with required allowance.
However, lot map does not accurately reflect actual footage
to shore of Harris pond, nor is the privacy of the lot, due
to trees and house placement, shown on lot map."
B. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
Request
The petitioners are requesting a variance to reduce the
required rear yard setback from 28 feet to 18 feet. The
request is for Lot 25, Block 2, Harris Lake Estates, the same
being 1681 Camelot Lane.
Site
Located on the property is a single family dwelling unit with
an attached two-car garage. The property is zoned R-1, 5ingle
Family Dwel,ling Unit, as are the adjacent properties. Harris
Pond is located to the north of the subject parcel.
Analysis
Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) requires a rear yard setback of
not less than 25� of the lot depth with not less than 25 feet
permitted or more than 40 feet required for the main building.
Public purpose served by this request is to provide rear yard
space to be used for green areas which enhance the
neighborhood.
The petitioners are proposing to construct a three-season
porch off the rear of the dwelling unit. An open deck is
located in the area where the three-season porch is proposed
to be built.
While the subject lot is shorter than adjacent properties due
to its location on a cul-de-sac, the design of the home is
such that the living area is set back farther than the garage
area. This results in the house being closer to the required
rear yard setback. If the structure had been built such that
the living area of the home was closer to or even with the
garage, an additional 16 feet of rear yard would have been
gained.
6.4
Staff Report
VAR #91-22, 1681 Camelot Lane
Page 3
While the proposed three-season porch would have minimal
impact on surrounding structures, the Appeals Commission
should be aware that properties to the west have lot depths
of 135 feet, and the homes are set closer to the front
property line. More area exists on these lots to expand
without a variance.
The petitioners have several alternatives to the proposed
variance request. The petitioners have reasonable use of the
property without the three-season porch. They could construct
a detached gazebo in the rear yard. If the petitioners needed
additional living area, an addition could be constructed on
the east side of the structure.
Recommendation
As the petitioners have reasonable use of the property and
have other options which would allow them to meet Code, staff
recommends that the Appeals Commission recommend denial of the
request to the City Council. If the Commission recommends
approval of the request, staff recommends the following
stipulation:
1. No construction shall occur within the 15 foot
drainage and utility easement located parallel to
the north lot line.
Apppeals Commission Action
The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval
of this request to the City Council with one stipulation:
1. No construction shall occur within the 15 foot
drainage and utility easement located parallel to
the north lot line.
Citv Council Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the variance as
the petitioners have alternatives which would allow them to
meet Code.
6.5
Z��
VAR ��91-22
Jennifer/Ranald Prasek
�..r .�.,.��.,� tJ�lill ��Il!/ sa�s N;�...Y a.. �s N. i
l�nd fvrv�ri..� ///��� • p � •) ///��� /y, /� M�nw����l:s
�il• T�i��w� �,����,I•����/��� �1 ��` � M�w1�. siti�
Civil Ew�in��.iwy i�l�ply�e 7i1-�MI
"'""K`r'' b"f'^'•""+ Engineers ic fiurveyors ��•• 4•+• •�:
Mortgage Loan Survey !or BRI[KNER CONSTRUCTION CQ
`�� �
F=t� f''rfS anaL �� � >
. ��
� `T � ��
�
�
r;
c�
_
I
_ ��.0 _
1r
/ � bo.i `
,!� � - --�
s �.
�— ��S
�.� o �..
�� �1
"� N E
�
� _ � � � �__
T 2 5_, _-- -/
0
. �._- .
/
.3 ur�� �e�
�h
i
�
�
,�. �
�� , i:.::-s ,.-
���` t
,
. ,
r2�
Lo S�ocK2
�aaa�s L�K,� �STAT�S
And�w �'our�iy
TAis :a o•r�• � c�r��i� h����N1iM �� sv�.sp �� t1�e Mw�de.��s e1 tA• �e�d e►ow d�sc..i�d �nd �1 M��
bc�rti�w •! �I1 Iwil/iw�a� �f uwr� tl��n� �n� elt r�sibl� �ws►���A.w�w�a, i1 oqr� l��.w �. on •eid bw�. This su•wy i1
wr1• �wlr iw fM�1�Cfi�R v.;�R a+w�rhys 1�aw n�w w.w� �c�r ew r1w 'r�'e��� •nd wo I�oAil��y n�►��.w�d
��tMt N►M IwIdM �/ �vcA wN��*��• M�wy NM. iwen�ir •c��.red �r �IN ���s�n ol �v�h w�.�fey�. 1� �•
6.6
We, the undersigned, wish to make knowm to the Appeals Commis�ion
that we have no objections ta the proposed three-season porch
addition which Ronald and Jennifer Prasek wish to add ta their
home at 1681 Camelot Lane in Fridley. Therefare, we recommend
that the Appeals Commission grant the variance which the Praseks
are requesting.
.� ��� Z��. i� � � c��; � � �� � .
��, -�- ���(,,�..�J ��zG�. ICo 5 I ..
�v � G�u� �.���� l�� ��r.e�` `� �
� . � � ����� �� �� � � � n ����� L� �
� j
� � � �i � �.-.. �C� 10 ��-e�'-b f �-C'`�`�.,
� ,
��f i ° � -- ' �-� v�l�-
� � � �.�.� ��=�k �� �� ��
� �� G � l—.
` �° � �' ��
.�� / �" � /'`/, /G � r � � /� / D /
`, ; ' %y'� ;/ / 1 ,%' � ` , /�/`''
� , J ` U` . . j � . (� ,���j'`}� j j` � �/ �/ `/
� ` � (�Cr L/
i�. • �•
��� � n
�� �, . �
��-�-- � l 6��C� � � � �/�-��
� , � ---��'
. _ ��� --c.. /( � �i����--�,;��, �
�� � � � ��� � 7
.�
`:9�., � .��,..�, _
6.7
� �a t G�.r...�t.� -�.,�..-R.. ; �� s�t
�t �� �l
CITY OF FRmLEY
6431 LRdIVII2SITY AVF�N[JE N.E.
FRIDI�Y, I�i 55432 aoaanuiity De�velc�pment Dep� ��ent
(612) 571-3450
�►ARTAN�E APP7�ICATI�I FORM
P4�PERTY II�OR'N�1TI�i - site plan required for submittals; see attac�
Address: �fp�� �/h�ID / Ll�J. 1i�� _
Legal description: L o� �7 � ��OC� � /�!.[ �r-.� _ L�t �C. �� 5 T�tTCS
IAt oZ S B1oc�ac a2 Tract/Adclitiari �ar.-; s C�t k� �sf�t7�c s
Currpnt zonirig: /P'" � Square foatage/aareage
R�son for varianoe ar�d l,�r��,;p: 3� SPa Son DO �i C!� `f,'d � c�l� �� r!U f�%f
\/ r
On fOf w� f� � ea :� �i a/�u.ah c�ion of City Oocie: 'yDS�� �Zl. � j�Ya.�' �� l�
.
�.W.�.sL,��D l e a. � S�i or c¢�
FEE dWI�R IN�CI����I�Ti /��r�s �n•C - it or i' f�ic i-:✓�t a o-� '�+r 7` �ier �a 7"r�ees
o �
.�Zna�. iloaSc `J�4«rne.,fj SitO n an �07` rh�t�0. .
(G�ontxact P�a�rl�asexs: Fee Ownexs msust sign this fo� pri.ar to P�'��Ji
rr�r� /PonQ/d � Ten n;�e.� /�r'q s e. /�
�s /� 8/ �•-� � l o�` �,v N�
�i; c�/ey /�'1 �l% ss 5�3 Z. L�Y'I� P�I� 57/ -l0.2 �9 !
szc�� ���.l�l ���� n� 7 �9 - 5/
I�II�ME �Qrn G 4'.S 4 �s✓�—
• �.� : �.
F.� r.►r. � i:
�� Mwi ,_ • i
���
Fee: $100.00
$ 60.00 ✓ for residential propPxties
P�,nnit VAR # _ � � � ��
A�lication x�eceived by:
Sc�ieduled Appeals C.o�tuni_ss
Scheduled City Council date: '
. :
CITY OF FRIDLEY
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGIIST 20, 1991
_�_��������������������__���_������������������������_�����������
CALL TO ORDER-
Vice-Chairperson Kuechle called the August 20, 1991, Appeals
Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL-
Members Present: Larry Kuechle, Cathy Smith, Carol Beaulieu
Members Absent: Diane Savage, Ken Vos
Others Present: � Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
. : � Ronald & Jennifer Prasek, 1681 Camelot Lane
� Wa'rren 8tock, 289� �Liberty Street. N.E. � � � � �
Bert Waller,-280 - 57th Ave. (Hardee�s)
Kathleen Harvet, 271 - 57th Place
William & Margie Talley, 281 - 57th Place
Robert Lunde, Theodore William Investments
Scott Zbikowski, Theodore William Investments
APPROVAL OF AUGUST 6 1991 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES•
MOTION by Mr. Smith, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to approve the
August 6, 1991, Appeals Commission minutes as written.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTiNG AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RIIECHLE
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY.
1. 4CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE RE UEST VAR #9i-22 BY RONALD AND
JENNIFER PRASEK-
Per Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley City Code, to
reduce the rear yard setback from 28 feet to 18 feet, to allow
the construction of a three-season porch addition on Lot 25,
Block 2, Harris Lake Estates, the same being 1681 Camelot Lane
N.E.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the end of Camelot
Lane which is a cul-de-sac located near the New Brighton/Fridley
border, just south of Harris Pond. The property is zoned R-1,
Single Family Dwelling, as are the adjacent properties.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioners are requesting a variance to
reduce the rear yard setback from 28 feet to 18 feet in order to
construct a three season porch oif the rear of the dwelling.
6.9
—T--
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGIIST 20, 1991 PAGE 2
Currently, an open deck is located in the area where the proposed
porch is to be built. Decks are allowed to encroach into the
required setback areas.
Ms. McPherson stated that while the subject lot is shorter in depth
than adj acent properties due to its location on the cul-de-sac, the
design of the home is such that the living area is set back farther
than the garage area. If the home had been built such that the
living area was closer to the front of the garage, an additional
16 feet of rear yard could have been gained at the time the home
was built. The proposed three season porch will have minimal
impact on surrounding properties as Harris Pond is to the north
and there are no other homes located to the north. There are lots
to the west that have lot depths of 135 feet, approximately 20-25
feet deeper than the subject lot. These homes are also set closer
to the front property line as the right-of-way line is straighter.
More area exists on adjacent lots to expand without a variance.
.Ms..McPYierson�stated the petitioners �do have several alternatives
to the proposed variance request. The petitioners have reasonable
use of the property without the three season porch. An alternative
would be to construct a detached gazebo or, if the petitioners
needed additionaZ living area, an addition could be built on the
east side of the dwelling unit.
Ms. McPherson stated that as the petitioners do have reasonable use
of the property and have other options which would allow them to
meet the Code, staff recommends the Appeals Commission recommend
denial of the request to the City Council. If the Commission
recommends approval of the request, staff recommends the following
stipu].ation:
1. No construction shall occur within the 15 foot drainage
and utiiity easement Iocated parallel to the north lot
line.
Mr. Kuechle asked about the lot coverage with the proposed
addition.
Ms. McPherson stated that with the proposed addition, the lot
coverage would be 18.3%.
MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Smith, to open the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RUECHLE
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:45
P.M.
Ms. Jennifer Prasek, 1681 Camelot Lane, stated she would like to
make some comments about the staff report. She stated that at the
bottom of page 2, staff stated: "While the subject lot is shorter
6.10
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGOST 20, 1991 pAGE 3
than adjacent properties due to its location on a cul-de-sac, the
design of the home is such that the living area is set back farther
than the garage area. This results in the house being closer to
the required rear yard setback. If the structure had been built
such that the living area of the home was claser to or even with
the garage, an additional 16 feet of rear yard would have been
gained.
Ms. Prasek stated that paragraph suggests that they placed the
house farther back than adjacent homes. As the Commission can see,
there is living space behind the garage as well. The garage is
placed on the lot in this particular position so that they could
make the best use of the space, the front yard, space.on the north
and east, and also to give the appropriate driveway space coming
off the aul-de-sac. It would have been impossible with this
particular house plan to have gained 16 feet in the rear. They
chose this particular house plan for their family at the time they
bui.lt, and thex .were not made aware, by, ,either the contractor or the
City at � that •time �� that ti�ere would be � any groblem with thi's� ��
particular plan on this lot. The house is also turned slightly to
follow the line of the cul-de-sac. The living area of the house
to the east matches their living space, and the garage to the east
is on the right side of the house and comes out so it does line up
in looking from the circle.
Ms. Prasek referred to page 3 in the staff report, first paragraph,
which stated: "While the proposed three season porch would have
minimal impact on surrounding properties, the Appeals Commission
should be aware that properties to the west have lot depths of 135
feet, and the homes are set closer to the front property line.
More area exists on these lots to expand without a variance."
Ms. Prasek stated this is possibly the most important statement in
the staff report which should have led to a recommendation of
approval of the variance by staff, because the porch would have
minimal impact on surrounding properties. The statement that the
lots to the west are deeper and have more room for expansion
without variances has no bearing on her request for a variance.
Ms. Prasek stated the statement made by staff that they have
reasonable use of the property without a three season porch also
has no bearing on the current situation. It is their wish to add
a three season porch, and they feel that would also constitute a
reasonable use of the property. Staff also suggested several
alternatives to their variance. A gazebo would be nice, but it not
what they want. To suggest they place the porch on the east side
would have a direct impact on the neighbors to the east. It would
be in direct line of their view from their family room windows
toward the northwest and Harris Pond. It would also interfere from
the view of their backyard and would infringe on the spaces between
the two homes. Having the porch on the back makes it very private
and has a very minimal impact on the surrounding properties.
s.11
APPEALS COMMI3SION MEETING, AUGU3T 20, 1991 PAGE 4
Ms. Prasek stated there is 25 feet between their legal lot line and
the actual shoreline of Harris Pond. There are trees on a large
peninsula area which is City park property. There is a walking
easement of approximately 10 feet all the way around Harris Park.
The drainage and utility easement would involve another 15 feet to
the lot line, but there is an additional approximately 20 feet that
exists down to the pond. That same 20 feet is in place along the
whole shoreline. All the lot plans leave this area in limbo. They
are required by City Code to have 28 feet from the northernmost
cvrner of the new addition to the lot line, and, in reality, it
would be a little more than 40 feet to the shore of the pond. This
is more than adequate. It doesn't make the lot look crowded.
Ms. Prasek submitted a petition with the signatures from all the
surrounding neighbors on Camelot Lane stating they have no
obj ection to the proposed three season porch and recommend that the
Appeals Commission grant the.variance. . � .
Ms. Prasek stated that with all these issues in mind, she would
request that the Appeals Commission recommend approval of this
variance request.
Ms. Smith asked if there has been any flooding in this area.
Ms. Prasek stated that several years ago, during the super storm,
Harris Pond filled up and flooded the park on Mississippi Street,
overflowed into Mississippi Street and the adjacent intersection
of Anoka Street/Mississippi Street. No water flowed onto the back
of their property. The north end of Harris Lake is much lower than
the south end.
Ms. Beaulieu stated she would like the petitianer to address the
hardship in a little more detail.
Ms. Prasek stated the hardship is: (1) the fact that the porch in
another location on the house would not be accessible from the
house; (2) the fact that the porch on the back of the house would
look more pleasing from all sides; (3) the fact that there is
additional footage in back down to Harris Pond that they cannot
legally claim, but was sodded and has been maintained by them for
the 15 years they have lived here.
Mr. Kuechle stated that before granting any variance request, the
Appeals Cammission must consider whether or not there is a true
hardship. One of the criteria the Commission has to use in
granting a variance request is whether or not the petitioners have
reasonable use of their property. For example, if there is
something unique about a particular piece of property that the
petitioner cannot use it and still conform with the requirement of
the Zoning Code, then they have a strong case for a variance. That
is the reason for the statement made by staff that: "The
6.12'
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGUST 20, 1991 PAGE 5
petitioners have reasonable use of the property without the three
season porch." It is relevant to every variance request.
Mr. Kuechle stated the petitioners have chosen to set their house
farther back on the lot. That was their choice, and the City had
no influence over that choice. If the house had been built
forward, they would have had more rear yard space. The petitioners
also chose the particular house plan to put the garage in front of
the house, and had the house been at the 35 foot setback, there
would be more rear yard space. He did not mean the variance should
not be granted for that reason, but there are consequences in the
plan the petitioners chose at the time they built their house.
MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to receive into the
record the petition signed by the neighbors on Camelot Lane stating
they have no objection to the variance and the construction of the
three season porch at 1681 Camelot Lane.
II�ON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING' AYE� VICi�-CHAIRPER30N RIIECHLE
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Smith, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KIIECHLE
DECI,ARED THE MOTiON CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:55
P.M.
Ms. Smith stated that she would be inclined to recommend denial if
there was a home to the rear of this property, but there is not.
Harris Pond is to the rear of the property. She stated that
putting an addition on the east side oi the home would not be
practical and would interfere with the neighbors on that side.
Putting the porch on the rear of the house makes sense. She would
recommend approval of the variance, because there are no neighbors
behind the property.
Ms. Beaulieu stated the petitioner stated the neighbor to the east
has a view to the pond, and the neighbor would lose that view if
the addition was constructed on the east. Since this addition
would bring the lot coverage to 18.8%, the property owners could
not put on another sizable addition without caming for another
variance for lot coverage. She stated she would also recoznmend
approval of the variance.
Mr. Kuechle stated that the hardship is not particularly strong,
but the impact to the neighbors also is not strong. In looking at
the house from the north side, the addition will hardly be seen.
There is still a lot of open space in the rear yard because of the
pond. Because of the minimization of the impact on the surrounding
neighborhood, he would also recommend approval.
6.13:
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGOST 20, 1991 PAGE 6
MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to recommend to City
Council approval of variance request, VAR #91-22, by Ronald and
Jennifer Prasek, per Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley
City Code, to reduce the rear yard setback from 28 feet to i8 feet,
to allow the aonstruction of a three-season porch addition on Lot
25, Block 2, Harris Lake Estates, the same being 1681 Camelot Lane
N.E., with the following stipulation:
l. No construction shall occur within the 15 foot drainage
and utility easement located parallel to the north lot
line.
UPON A VOICE VOTL, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RUECHLE
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY.
Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on September
9, 1991.
2. '
GERRY STOCK•
Per Secti.on.205.07.03.0 of the Fridley City Code, to inc ase
the maximum allowable lot coverage from 25� to 28.3% t allow
the construction of an addition, on Lots 3 and 4, ock 11,
Spring Brook Park, the same being 289 Liberty Str t N.E.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located on Lib y Street just
east of Ruth Street. The property is zoned R- , Single Family
Dwelling, as are the adjacent properties.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is re esting a variance to
increase the allowable lot coverage from 5� to 28.3� in order to
construct a 20 ft. by 12 ft. addition o the rear of the property.
Currently located in this area is a enced concrete patio. The
petitioner is proposing that the ad tion be used for an additional
bathroom and laundry room.
Ms. McPherson stated the pet' ioner currently has a single family
dwelling unit on the prope y as well as a three car garage for a
total square footage of ,050 sq. ft. The lot is undersized at
8,640 sq, ft. The re red minimum lot size is 9,000 sq. ft. The
difference of maximu ot coverage between the two is approximately
90 sq. ft., so t impact which would allow the petitioner to
construct an add' ion is relatively minimal. The petitioner does
have adequate e of the property; however, the construction of the
addition wo d have minimal impact on adjacent neighbors as it
would meet he minimum setback requirements and would be located
where th existing patio area is.
Ms. Pherson stated that as the petitioner does have adequate use
of the property, staff recommends that the Appeals Commission
ecommend denial of the request to the City Council.
6.14
� _
�
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Community Development Department
P G DTVISION
City of Fridley
September 5, 1991
William Burns, City Manager
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Variance, VAR #91-23, by Warren Stock; 289
Liberty Street N.E.
Attached please find the above-referenced staff report. The
requested variance would increase the maximum Iot coverage on a
residential lot from 25� to 28.8�. The Appeals Commission voted
2-1 to recommend denial of the request to the City Council.
An unimproved a11ey is located to the north of the property, and
the petitioner has also proposed to reduce the addition to 10' x
20' instead of 12' x 20'. Reducing the addition reduces the
variance request to 26. �.
Staff recommends that as the petitioner has reasonable use of the
property, the City Council deny the request.
MM/dn
M-91-650
6.15
�
�► STAFF REPORT
APPEALS DATE August 20, 1991
CITY�F PLANIWNG COMMISSION DATE
FRI DLEY CITY COI�ICIL DATE September 9, 1991 q�T►�oFl 1"�"1/ls
REQUEST
PERMIT NUMBER
APPLICANT
PROPOSED REQUEST
LOCATlON
SIT� DATA
S1ZE
OENSITY
PRESENT ZONING
ADJACENT LAND USES
8� ZONING
UT�(f1ES
PARK DEDICATION
ANALYSIS
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
CONFORMANCE TO
COMPREHENSNE PLAN
COMPATIBILITY WITH
AOJACENT USES 8� ZONtNG .
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
APPEALS RECOMMENDATION
PIANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
VAR i�91-23
Warren Stock
- S t/2 SEC. 3 T. 31�, R. 24
C/TY OF FR/OLEY
31 �
��'/'�I
��� �
�`�� f
,..�
�,
�;
. , �u
(Y)
�\ � �- i}�i , \
�`- - ��
.,\ \\\__�_ \c' _
� �,✓ , " r„
— \� .�'c,
34 � �
�
s.�7' L
�'.
,.���`-�'
� .
.
��
�.
--w:�.�.-. —
.
;
� ;
� ;
;�,
� :t
, ,,_.y�;�
�
�'� ,
�
OCATION MAP
, � -
.�
,
��
, y
i
�
' C
'r 1
..., 1
...�
....
,,.�
ur}��
\ � \�rl�
,.,.._
:::
��:::
...�
...,
�
_ :
�
�
,. .
�
r4•
\\
�
,_\\ �,\ '.
7
7
' - ''`J�
.- �`'�
OF
22
+--- �
s 4�
�
�
.
VAR ��91-23
Warren Stock
�-T -- � ° `� ,,.,� -w��'-v� �� �iy � �- � �:r � :
� � Q � �� ,. .� � ,� � .`� ...
� � �,;� �`� ,:;� q � _ � _ �' �,,:� i
w.'�� �- '•�� � � � � ;
t/:j ^ 3 � �+'' ,� � � �.:� p �
U �� .+s
���������� ����
.
'� � �`�� � � �� '� '� � � � ;� f
� �� �
���f�� � �
� V �'`� �� �
\ � C,i,' `� � t;;;� '� :1 `^��' `'`� � �;,;;
� " ::� � ;�; .�.-�� � � �
�' ;�. ,� � ,� � `�F� � � � .� �
� .:, � . � �, . �:
. � � � � `� , `"� t>:
"r •� � -c':ti �����} • -c,',�i `�'-� - ='-�- !' �.--
'""3 `a✓ ��v�1 c
� 1 `. � � /1 � ' "f _ � �
is3����� ,�
� , /
.,� �
�■��. //
��� �, - i
�� %� !
N�
�q ' V�'�
�� ��.
:�%��:
10 PR
G
���. '%
. .%,
. ���
, �
�. . �
.
.�.�
��' `.
z..,, ...� ..,, T
..., .. .. .
....� ... . 4 .
♦ . �
� `� ' - . .. .
•4• ♦ t-' -•'�^�-� .: � . .
�� ti � �� � �, "�'� .�.!i �i._�.; . �.� ` •�
` •3� �� �, 69 • • • • •��•�•• �����i•
, \1 l k t �1� �� ����• •�• • • • • • • • �� Z
• �pi � • •� • •��� O
� , � ..�`"�� � � `�vt '! ,���i ,��,��������t�• •�i'� �• �,139 ••• �
� `� ��`5 L ~ `� ��, ��i►�cQ � •����J ����•�
� r - i .� •9' y � � ♦ • • • 42
� ,i • • • ��
� ��f 9 ,�� �R�", b.1 9� ; � �����r ��������d����� 7
o . ,� ` �'',,� . g pd � • • • • • • • • • • • � �
3 �� ,a't 4 ``� . 9: � � �ti ,��,���i���'• r�iA�r
�oC:-.' t•. ``�. _ 0 Ze.�� 3 �O Qh� ��r�a � �_� ` .
s•18 ZONING N
Staff Report
VAR #91-23, 289 Liberty Street N.E.
Page 2
A. STATED HARDSHIP:
"Need for additional bathroom and larger laundry area"
B. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
Re�uest
The petitioner requests a variance to increase the maximum
allowable lot coverage from 25� to 28.3% to allow the
construction of an addition. The request is for Lots 3 and
4, Block 11, Springbrook Park Addition, the same being 289
Liberty Street N.E.
Site
Located on the property is a single family dwelling unit and
a three-car garage. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family
Dwelling, as are the adjacent properties. The petitioner is
proposing to construct a 12 ft. by 20 ft. (240 sq. ft.j
addition to the rear of the home.
Analysis
Section 205.07.03.0 requires that not more than 25� of the
area of a lot sha11 be covered by the main building and all
accessory buildings.
Public purpose of this requirement is to eliminate the
condition of overcrowding of residential areas.
The proposed addition increases the maximum allowable lot
coverage by 3.3%. The petitioner's home is 1,062 sq. ft. and
the three-car garage is 988 sq. ft., for a total square
footage already on the property of 2,050 sq. ft. As the lot
is slightly undersized at 8,640 sq. ft., the maximum square
footage to be built on the property would be 2,160 sq, ft.,
which allows the petitioner to construct an addition of 110
sq. ft. If the lot had been platted at 9,000 sq. ft., the
maximum allowable square footage to be built on the property
would be 2,250 sq. ft., which would only give the petitioner
an additional 200 sq. ft. in which to build an addition.
The petitioner has adequate use
denying the variance would not
location of the addition, however,
properties.
Recommendation
of the property; therefore,
constitute a taking. The
will not affect surrounding
As the petitioner has adequate use of the property, staff
recommends that the Appeals Commission recommend to the City
Council denial of the request.
6.19
Staff Report
VAR #91-23, 289 Liberty Street N.E.
Page 3
Appeals Commission Action
The Appeals Commission voted 2-1 to recommend denial of the
request to the City Council.
Staff Update
The petitioner requested that staff consider the unimproved
alley to the north and also proposed to reduce the addition
to 10 feet by 20 feet instead of 12 feet by 20 feet. If the
alley was vacated, the petitioner would gain an additional
360 sq. ft. of lot area, increasing the lot area to 9,000 sq.
ft. By reducing the addition, the lot coverage decreases to
26.5%. If the lot, in fact, was 9,000 sq. ft., the lot
coverage would decrease even further to 25%.
Citv Council Recommendation
As the petitioner has reasonable use of the property, staff
recommends that the City Council deny the variance request.
6.2�
��
�
i
�
;
1��
���
� a
t��
� �� �.
, `�.
' � a-
�
;
3 C�� ��Q�-�S�
� �
�
�
C�
�d� �
, • j- � �"'t � i 1
� o�
PR6 NU�Cc�
� l�O,D� �
� 2�{O
I.
�
� ..-!'� _ �jGA..�E�
�kis�,iv �
/�O U SG
I,D�Z �
Q� � � "� � �� �
� � �
�,�F,�� ..5�
6.21 '
VAR ��91-23
Warren Stock
:,: ..
�
0
Z
�
� -
rb
�
� i
�
�
� I
C' +
� !
,
;
SITE PLAN
,�... _.
�
, '' -�,+-.
�.
/, ,
i
�
�
�_..
t �
�
s
�
; i
, ;
i ' o r
: .� � A
j , � � r
; + � V
� �
� : .
t '
..., .._ --
�_. _ .�
� �. v_.. _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . , _ .�.-
� �.-._,_......._.��_ --.�...._�.---
6.22
VAR 4� 91-2 3
;�:=:y�,�:e�"`�'ock . ..
��
��
�a
�� �
�
�
3
�
z
�
_ . _.. _.._. . . .----
�
� �
Y �% i
v � !
MS[ J
V V
--- ':-�--_---�'
�
/1
CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 IJNIVII?SITY AVIIV[JE N. E.
FRIDLEY� MN 55432
(612) 571-3450
��iiiii 1� � �' •�n_- � �:�. K���,- �
����_..����__..,...�.,...,_..�....�.,..r......�_.»�........ �...�.�.��..,,.��....,......_���
V'ARI.�`E APPLIC�ITI�T FORM
�.....,_��_�.�..,_� �_.�..,��_»�.�.,,
......��_�.,....�_��......�_
Pl�PEt�i'Y Il�oR1�TIO�T - site plan required for su}�anittals: see attached
Addr'ess: - � � / Li,t7e�C7�✓ J1• T /e/d �rY
�
Legal description:
rAt 3� S� Blocx // Tract/Ad�aition �',r�a,.�,c ,r3,eQe,F �°fr
Ctirrent zoning: �CeS. • Square foo�tage/acxeage
Reason for variaix�e arr.� hardship: jJ� e D ,r'o,� A,�D ��� A/ B�-i`y.e DdM
fd!✓� .LARRfiC La.u.c.��''c,v A�a Section of City Code: _ la 1�Gcl-eCcSy_���
. /�
Vln/t_. /r....� �„ n f�.._ .�,. ��.�„ ��..� .�-.. r.. �. .,_ _1.:.-_ _ �1�1 1 n� o•/ t f1 .
�+' • ^ � a� • � i • •� r� �a.l
r•. � -
�-�� %�' �"I. D?a- LU
Fee Owi�xs moust sign this form prior to prooessing)
NAME�j9,pKCr� i9�crr� � �2�cv�-�4c,�
r�ss a 8 J �,6 .Q�.. Si {ai�/ty
� � � � � s �.
r ►• ' .���� � ' � �
PEI'ITIOI�R II�+ORI�TION
�ME � Ak.�CC�i /1�ut7 � �I2V c���
r
� �- 8 i �i�c�� ��% �it�( icr
nArrn� � _ -7��/- 7G v'"�
r. ►� • / � ,
�_��___�_�_�_�_�_�____�__���_����__���__���....,.�.,.�_......�_.r...�_�_�_���......��_�_�__���_
Fee: $loo.00
$ 60.00 for residential properties
P�ermit vAR # � -o� �3 Receip� # ���4 �
Application reoeived by:
Scheduled Appeals (k�arnnission date: �,,o � !
Scheduled City �il date:
f�.......,,..._�»......���....��....�.�.�_�����..._.��_��_
6.23 i
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGIIST 20, 1991 PAGE 6
MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to recommend t ity
Council approval of variance request, VAR #91-22, by R ld and
Jennifer Prasek, per Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) o e Fridley
City Code, to reduce the rear yard setback from 28 et to 18 feet,
to allow the construction of a three-season ch addition on Lot
25, Block 2, Harris Lake Estates, the same eing 1681 Camelot Lane
N.E., with the following stipulation:
1. No construction shal ccur within the 15 foot drainage
and utility ease t located parallel to the north lot
line.
IIPON A VOICE , ALL VOTING AYE� VICS-CHAIRPERSON RQECHLF
DECLARED THE TION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
Ms.
9✓
2.
stated this item will go to City Council on September
91. .
, .. _ _ . . .._
CC)NS71jF.RATTAN AF .VARTAN(`F. RRnTTF.$T _ VAR $91 =23 _ RY WART2F.N Al
Per Section 205.07.03.0 of.the Fridley City Code, to increase
the maximum allowable lot coverage from 25� to 28.3� to allow
the construction of an addition, on Lots 3 and 4, Block 11,
Spring Brook Park, the same being 289 Liberty Street N.E.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located on Liberty Street just
east of Ruth Street. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family
Dwelling, as are the adjacent properties.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting a variance to
increase the allowable lot coverage from 25� to 28.3� in order to
construct a 20 ft. by 12 ft. addition on the rear of the property.
Currently located in this area is a fenced concrete patio. The
petitioner is proposing that the addition be used for an additional
bathroom and laundry room.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner currently has a single family
dwelling unit on the property as well as a three car garage for a
total square footage of 2,050 sq. ft. The lot is undersized at
8,640 sq. ft. The required minimum lot size is 9,000 sq. ft. The
difference of maximum lot coverage between the two is approximately
90 sq. ft., so the impact which would allow the petitioner to
construct an addition is relatively minimal. The petitioner does
have adequate use of the property; however, the construction of the
addition would have minimal impact on adjacent neighbors as it
would meet the minimum setback requirements and would be located
where the existing patio area is.
Ms. McPherson stated that as the petitioner does have adequate use
of the property, staff recommends that the Appeals Commission
recommend denial of the request to the City Council.
6.24
APPEALS C_O_MMiSSION MEETING, AUGUST 20, 1991 PAGE 7
MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to open the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RIIECHLE
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND TIiE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:05
P.M.
Mr. Warren Stock, 289 Liberty Street N.E., stated the house was
built in 1962 and it has the original circuit breakers and 60 AMP
service. He had planned to increase the service to 150 AMPS. When
he inquired of the electrician who will do the work, the
electrician told him that the laundry room was set up next to the
electrical box and does not meet code. The room next to the
laundry room is a bathroom which he constructed a few years ago.
He had planned to remove the downstairs bathroom and enlarge the
laundry room. However, with his family, he needs two bathrooms,
and that is why he is proposing the addition. The other part of
the.addition is closet space as the house had very. little closet
�pace when it was�built in 1962. - �� '. �
Mr. Stock stated that the basement is 94 sq ft. more than the first
floor. He was told sta�f calculates �the lot coverage with the
building footprint. So, he questioned whether he is at 25�, or
would he reall.y be 60 sq. ft, as far as square footage. He is
proposing the addition at 12 feet instead of 10 feet so he wou3d
have the same kind of extension out the back as in the front to
look better architecturally.
Mr. Kuechle asked if the petitioner has any alternatzves if the
variance request is denied.
Mr. Stock stated the alternative would be to build another floor
on the house.
Mr. Stock stated there is also an unimproved alley in the rear, and
he did not know how that affects his lot coverage.
Ms. McPherson stated that if the alley is vacated, he would gain
half the a1Zey. It would add to his lot area and his lot coverage
would be reduced.
MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON ROECHLE
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:11
P.M.
Mr. Kuechle stated that the part of this variance request that
concerns him is the fact that the public purpose of the maximum lot
coverage is to eliminate the condition of overcrowding of
residential areas. In looking at this particular area, it does
s.i� 'Jr
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETiNG, AIIGIIST 20. 1991 PAGE 8
seem very crowded. With a fairly large three car garage, house,
and undersized lot, the lot appears to be quite crowded. On the
other hand, he can appreciate the need by the petitioner to add
some living space and do some modernizing to his house.
Ms. Smith stated she agreed with Mr. Kuechle that the area does
appear to be crowded. Similar to the first variance in talking
about a hardship, the petitioner made the choice to build a 1,000
sq. ft. garage which brought the lot coverage to 25�. The
petitioner is at full coverage now.
Ms. Beaulieu stated she agreed with Ms. Smith. The petitioner
built the three car garage when a two car garage would have given
him a little leeway for an addition. If they allow one property
owner to go to 28� lot coverage, then they are setting a precedent
for others to come in wanting higher and higher lot coverages.
Because there is a good purpose for the maximum lot coverage of
25�, she would recommend denial of the variance. ,
MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Smith, to recommend to City
Council denial of variance request, VAR #91-23, by Warren and Gerry
Stock, per Section 205.07.03.0 of the Fridley City Code, to
increase the maximum allowable lot coverage from 25� to 28.3� to
allow the construction of an addition, on Lots 3 and 4, Block li,
Spring Brook Park, the same being 289 Liberty Street N.E.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, BEAIILIEU AND SMITH VOTING AYE, RIIECHLE VOTING
NAY, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RIIECHLE DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE.
OF 2-1.
Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to Council on September 9,
1991.
3. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE RE UEST VAR 91-24 BY PATR
HAYES, HARDEE'S RESTAURANT:
Per Section 205.14.06.G.(1).(a) of the Fridley Cit ode, to
reduce the height of the required screening acent to a
residential district from 6 feet to 3 feet on the east 20
feet of Lot 7, Lots 8-12, and the west feet of Lot 13,
Block 7, City View Addition, the same ing 289 - 57th Avenue
N.E.
Ms. McPherson stated the proper is located at the intersection
of University Avenue and 5i Avenue, directly across from the
Cattle Company Restaura . The property is zoned C-2, General
Business, as is the operty to the west. The property to the
south is zoned C- , General Shopping Center, and the property to
the north is z ed S-1, Hyde Park.
Ms. McP son stated that the Hardee's Restaurant was formerly a
Cou y Kitchen approved by the City in 1969. At that time, the
lding plan indicated that a 3 foot high cedar fence would be
6.26
r �
�
J
Community Development Department
PLANIVING DIVISION
City of Fridley
DATE: September 5, 1991 �T
TO: William Burns, City Manager�=��
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Variance, VAR �91-24, by Patrick Hayes of
Hardee's Restaurant; 289 - 57th Place N.E.
Attached please find the above-referenced staff report. The
Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the
request to reduce the required screening adjacent to a residential
district from six feet to three feet.
Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Appeals
Commission recommendation and require the installation of the
required screening.
MM/dn
M-91-651
6.27'
�
� STAFF REPORT
APPEALS DATE August 20, �91
C�TY{�F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE
FIZ�DLEY CITY COIAVCIL DATE Sept�nber 9, 1991 AuTHOA ��
REQUEST
PERMIT NUMBER
APPLICANT
PROPOSED REQUEST
LOCATION
SITE DATA
SIZE
DENSITY
PRESENT �ONING
ADJACENT LAND USES
8� ZONWG
IJT�.JTIES
PARK DEDICATION
ANALYSIS
FINANCIAL IMPUCATIONS
CONFORMANCE TO
COMPREHENSNE PLAN
COMPATIBILITY WITH
ADJACENT USES & ZONWG
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
APPEALS RECOMMENDATtON
PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
I
0
-.J U _ l
so . so ,
/ °^� �O:a� i.o''� ` ° .,; i .4
7 19 2 y 9 �P ' 2 i
3dg� • ZB .3 g 3 '
+ - 27 • 27:� � 4 �:
as�� . zc;p syi� _zc._ ._e....
� ' "2f - - f ¢p � 2 5!) � n.
p�. � Zfw� 7� P4' '"?-'
• T 3�j B.�q '� Z3� • R-i `
! J• 2Z f � � ! �� �
/o . • 2 � (W /o /� � 2/ _ J?_ . '�
u.au zo ir is^ ir ^:
iza�» i� w� iz n --n--
/3 !7� �S /3 � �� /C �9 2� .
ir nlwi i< i�.� :o�,
09• : /f /f : / .t -
l�
r� P_'9Pp--N
� o i f o��
2 3 29 2 3 �sf I � L)
3�, , ZB 3 11, : 12B � 3 2B l
I ._z7. f � 2f �� . I zf
s.a, ac a s� . as s a rc e
d --td.-. s • 23 �pP. �6 � LS
� g� . Z* � � zf � - � ea'. �
e �-z `e , as a :�
� � zz --s•- W zs � � �
in W. ri w:. .v�, • a: ,,, io z, ,p
//'d1� = Pa � _Jl._. Z ' 2 �// _ � So
iz /1 /POa. /9 ;/1 - /f �+� �.
/3 � /B 'R� � _+t w : .'B i! ' /6d
�s � �.: --p--- a' F- nV i�'dr F� if a
if N / / y /6 /f 3 N i
59TH AVENUE N.E.
� � � � ��
a� zs z n r zs
�,,. _.. te s N� re � 3 o B--
: N � zs � . � t��p �s ,, K i�z�
p S g N 26 tin '-'�'t M' 6
( �L f LS :P-E ' t5
7 LO 7 1• �t4,1 �? � .(�l
a :v� z B p. .��la �9 � Yn
! s ', t � .• w
.� � ai t� i. ;�, si ya u':n ��zi
Zp 1�� Ze� �.. :.�zo
� iz iv v� . iz �v n Wl �;e is
i3 : . . ie c�` /3 • /B y+l :e . (n'�
� if . /� � /f W �� .`/J /
i : /f : ic • s ! /
58TH AVENUE i�i:E.:
� /0 V. � ; �. • . .'i., Y i I /o
Z :� 8 . -a--i
3 B 31A�
sl ��7 s
3 �. `'�" '_5"i re
�
23
���'
VAR ��91-24
Hardee's Restaurant
N 1/2 SEC. 23, 1
C/TY OF FR/�
�7
21
t ' N/N CONN£N
l s��'.�
�----- '. _ .... - .. - .
«�
� �� ��� k`3a��'�. a;:ie,€/�,~,i li . :�1.6 ,��i : se• /
i Pfi ' 2 t -'s;-' '2-' � 2! 2
�zs� �' 'a =..lFze 3 rt�� ' 3pV0 . 3� : f/S g12 . I ri J
�r�fi?f f +h'127 } l• ! 2 l7
" s •i : �. s S z ri'' 9 ?!f 1�13 2s
2fd i t d S
; ,�� 2
Z� N t 7 i- � xa� `: �':3 l� f I, �t i
--Pa�- B �: Z! , 2 r� 'f Ss
s: s � p� 's � g,� i.iz •�� s � sz a
. :�`''L /s `f 9 `�,� , ` � ' 2/ . � .
m � a ��B Z iiM .:�i/ Yo I. r• /i
- n s is � � u ,r ir i ,a �
��� N i� •�4`�� ��+� � 71is tsF.'. e;'�O . 1��� � ia
< �� � � s e =' ��', w. �s .i a � x n �
y x /t �l 6 � � i .s .r ' 9 � B y
��'"""' j� TH AVENUE : �N.E.
� i. i d" s ae d� �?� i j jyi f� ; � Y,22 3�/ � zi �2
: If 2 = _3y. L �.1
�.
. � � ?.+ 3 €. . 2 28�e j ' � ��. J �'Z ���� �JZ s! y'1
2 -
y
&
-a-- �z,..� r .
s �^•: ., .'f�1 �_`';i ''�i3 .
� .� -. : ' d
s
��F�. ��� a �,=�/3 y.A�' 7¢ .
I ;��8 '�j � W ,
' � ; `, . z �.t;, ;. Z i s;z , s , . Z ; �',g l s
i;r :;''/s � •�� "'c ar%� 6l�
L • i Lo� . + ..
� y x:.i� ;,� � F:�O 4'� N a.*ya M�,
� '%I ' i: � . tN�� •� B .�%f i'�B .
3 � . R rni3 �S r°-L'i� ��/ .f+ � � /4��1 9 .f�
`�: ' = 1
,`� . /_- pn�� �r.. . � ,s� s.2 . � ^ �3 �R �o�r
.r n
//M in�o, i ! ��P. 'ilj� �Z�f� �� :fi
f�,.
; S9 TH VE. ' N.E. �
`l�� /l�,l �►%/ i t 'i6�d� , �:. �r h��o � (+
2:i� /� �� Z �/4,f� �� z � � 9� Z y
. r a � . � :p� r
j'� �%f `� J /s,fr 3 ra B 3
f'ss�. �b'l '`1�' �r.q: S �• 7�� ¢�
.� f � N�/.Z. ��5 iJy' S!' 6'•�� 5`�
l i' i/'�� 'f's /i'r E- 7 io°YYmi �:r
m
zir - � .. ;ob
�10� ({� 7 /o ir 7 t� �.
8
' V'� _� f;3' '9� B+� 19.�' E+� .im�1 -f-
as+•` - _".i" s> n � ri Si.�
AVE. . i N.E:........ �� - , �,
� M ��) % U .Y. ,Y }l::i: � "' Iw.-'i !I) Yi • f:
1 3 i S e 7 p// R 9 /1 « / 2 3 +� � G �r b// /< /3 /f /S
/
!. �
,r.<,, PLACE ,,,�
c,� ., >, r, p� t, �' �„� ' r : .� :: i."' :�� !rJ 1� S!
' Z 3 ✓ S � 7 . // /I / �I / 7 I � � � f .n N n U // d
�/
' �� r�t-1 � ���—� ..,�t'
6.29
24
�B i Y �
n z va
6 P 3�
i� 4 ��1
f Sw"
/3 6 �'
a � S+�
i 8 V'
io y W`
r,'
z /
a eW.
ir * i
ro 5(�
9� �
B h)7
/f .'• = //,
i� M78
REGI ERED
+�o ,��
� �!0. a'° %'�
23
LOCATION MAP
���.
.;,�•,.
�c ��
l:��`��,1�
�.
DNING MAF
Staff Report
VAR #91-24, 289 - 57th Avenue
Page 2
A. STATED HARDSHIP:
See attached letter dated July 31, 1991, from Patrick Hayes.
B. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
Request
The petitioner requests that a variance be granted to reduce
the height of the required screening adjacent to a residential
district from 6 feet to 3 feet. The request is for part of
Lot 7, Lots 8-12, and Lot 13, Block 7, City View Addition, the
same being 289 - 57th Avenue.
Site
Located on the property is Hardee's Restaurant. The property
is zoned C-2, General Business, as is the property to the
west. The property to the south is zoned C-3, General
Shopping Center, and the property to the north is zoned S-1,
Hyde Park.
Background
In 1969, the Council approved a building plan for a proposed
Country Kitchen facility. At that time, the plan indicated
that a 3 foot high cedar fence would be constructed along the
north property line. In 1970, an adjacent neighbor to the
north requested that the Council require Country Kitchen to
construct a 6 foot high fence. At the May 4, 1970, meeting,
the Council stated that it was the policy of the Council not
to put a fence on the street side of a commercial property,
but that if it were the alley or the rear of a property, a 6
foot fence would be required (see attached minutes). Staff
consulted the City Attorney to determine if the Council
discussion in 1970 constituted a variance to the Code
requirement. The City Attorney indicated that the discussion
did not constitute a variance. In 1990, Hardee's removed the
existing fence; and in June 1991, Hardee's planted 2-2 1/2
foot tall arborvitae spaced approximately 4-5 feet apart in
place of the fence.
Analysis
Section 205.14.06.G of the City Code outlines the screening
and buffering standards. They are as follows:
(1) Where the parcel abuts park or residentially zoned
property, there shall be provided a landscaped buffer
which shall be constructed in the following manner:
6.31
Staff Report
VAR #91-24, 289 - 57th Avenue
Page 3
(a) A screening fence or wall shall be constructed
within a five (5) foot strip along the property
line(s) abutting the park or residentially zoned
property. Said fence or wall shall be constructed
of attractive, permanent finished materials,
compatible with those used in the principal
structure, and shall be a minimum of six (6) feet
high and a maximum of eight (8) feet high. Chain
link fences sha1Z have non-wooden slats when used
for screening purposes; or
(b) A planting screen shall be constructed in a
fifteen (15) foot strip and shall consist of
healthy, fully hardy plant materials and shall be
designed to provide a minimum year-round opaqueness
of eighty (80) percent at the time of maturity.
The plant material shall be of sufficient height to
achieve the required screening. Planting screens
shall be maintained in a neat and healthful
condition. Dead vegetation shall be promptly
replaced.
(c) If the existing topography, natural growth of
vegetation, permanent buildings or other barriers
meet the standards for screening as approved by the
City, they may be substituted for all or part of the
screening fence or planting screen.
While the plant materials planted by Hardee's are an alternate
screen as indicated in (b) above, they are not planted at a
spacing which will meet the 80o rule. In addition, at 2 1/2
feet in height, it will take approximately 3-5 years for the
plant materials to reach a minimum height of six feet.
The Hardee's property is a commercially zoned property whose
side yard would be considered to be 57th Place. While there
is a street right-of-way which separates the property directly
from the residential properties, the boundary line between the
zoning districts is the south right-of-way line of 57th Place.
Therefore, screening at a minimum height of six feet should
be required. The Fridley Town Square project in 1990 was
required to install an eight foot high fence along the lot
line abutting a public street right-of-way and adjacent to a
residentially zoned district (66th Avenue).
The subject parcel is not unique in any way from other
commercial properties within the City, and the City requires
a screening fence or vegetative screening where commercial
properties abut residentially zoned districts.
6.32
Staff Report
VAR #91-24, 289 - 57th Avenue
Page 4
Recommendation and Stipulations
Staff recommends that the Appeals Commission recommend denial
of the request to the City Council with the following
stipulation:
1. Installation of a 6 foot high screening fenae or
vegetation of 4 feet in height and planted 2 feet
on center shall be completed by November 1, 1991.
Appeals Commission Action
The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial
of the request to the City Council.
City Council Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Appeals
Commission action and require the installation of the required
screening.
6.33
N
VAR ��91-24
Hardee's Restaurant
5
_ V'� `�V 1 L �;.. !_`�i ��i3i. _.
.^, Q -�, t ; - : -
*-r' i' =--i ��
, ._... _ __ �
� � _ _ —1 t � i — c i �7 t'? —� i 7 � . : — —
3�iv_;:3:'' _ � _ — v �- — --- — — — — —
*STi�(?'_ . i i
i� NT`��l�,jt'•t;7}3:. !1—�:, _�F,' !.�� . 3G3!�t�3LF �-.- 1 i �
�• i �
� Jr��.Jy� r �
� _��:� l+ t' i� +� 3�` � 17 1,j �„ � t`� i
�
-�'?-�► �vt,r�
6.34
I
1 �
( �
� y
1��
�
SITE PLAN
�.�_i— � ... . .""�—..,.�-----�-��-_ . !' . �
. � `�N�VF_Q.blTi -'.� ��r�r... �_� ` ��^ ti�""y.r:�,���.� . i.
�
""^ --.,.���.�..
f n:,c _ - -..,_ ,
��OUTi�c3 � ..__ .. .. . ... .
ou.a� - Srr rn - -..._.
r.".�•i� VAR ��91-24 '�
�_ _
Hardee`s Restaurant
�
-- �
�-- � ! �9
Q � � � M
� -�- --- -- ----...__-- r
—��� _�....?.-- R
--- ------- V
. �
� � �
-----� � �✓, ` � --�� - . . �c n . - � .
a
' � . .. � — ��• _ �
� �__ — th� . _'� � -' .
I ..._ %�:s�li�` „ Si�'-__T '
�a__. j� ,:Y...Cy��T T� Dv.� �
� � �..t= �.._'¢'��-�__.__... .. w Z ! I, ; `:
� � � �' � �
� d �' _.._ �"��-- -- - .._. _. � � � .
. j � `b _ -----rf---n --_ - � --� a ` .
! ,
I ...__ = tl f , t-, :
+ � N .. -__� �-.---- - __._ _ n ! ,� • E
� d _� 'i � � t Q
f-' ; -0- �'---- d � i. W
49 r i U � 4 u '
-i- �� U .! j F-
Q , � i ...._+�-.�,.�_ _ a .! , �
� � ' � � - � - - ' d , tl . � . _ .._{ ; p ��t ; �
?z ' � � �--_- � o - a f-�
. .
�# ^- - _ _ - _---� .. - .. .__. , ,
� ' 7 ! , .'___ ' `_..�_`.' � �. �� �' ..._ . j � � . �i
�2 �' �� � A � � � ` � � '� � r
. � �Z � _U. _ .--4 ---_._. ' - - - - � � Q 2 �` ,t
u �� s �' � n -- � %
d � � a - -- _ n • • - � y� � �° '
� � j{ :�
•4 �F v ,���..��T�PtVevJV(,.w�rrt --% . ... s� — ,� {' .
� �' i 2'• T°PP tib. j "�-- O .
^ � S i � .
. . y '� � � 4 fl �
� _ �"' • !
a — ��, `.:... .., o: - 2 .
� •`�� �.\�� M' � �
� .� �:. ,.:. � 5,; � i
�` a d . � :\\�.\. ; `- " -- _ : .
� � ������� � _ _ -�� <<.
, •" e- SA�q\•,',��\\` .��,- `-��.r„ `' � . � IJl :�i
J �,(�\"�\�:� \. � ALK _ 1 ; � � '
. � ? "\\;\�\�`\ � ` �_ �. �q , � � ; � .
s M— �\,;\`���,� �� '.`- 30^ � i �� �' .
� tl� ,t \�\\��. ` � v` �y p ' � il ' '
) i :lw 3 ` \\\\�\\i ��.�\�\ � -- Q j� g �
� � ' \ �. .
! � �° � �;� ���� �\��\� �1 � � � � i � i � � �
.
yd ta.' �` �� \`\\�� \� `--�," et � N k 0� 1.�
t.
. `'
i I + � ; �•�' � ` � �;�. � r \�� �\\\\� .-� � d v`( a � 0' � � (.7 i� �,(� i
� °� 0 v4_ �, ..'.� ) \ `:\ . a \\\ "�y `t �' O: ; - ,A
�1 r < oo�t . :�� ����\Q\\ _ _ y y0 V im � v' �
� � � ; � � • •� v�� \, � \�\ -. S''o- -- -a- d t. _ .
� � d e-�-- r_���: �\� �\\\ .��x �\\�' J ♦ �' R � Q
. I � �� � ' _ --�.ai�. u�i.�`�r�a�"�u. �� ��� q m�� � ' � ^ Q `
�a�.� cea.t.�.���.:_,► ` J�. i � � �
1.. . . I : w � f' � tli ��
1 �- ' •- t
,; � � sb r, j�� � d V N iL
"°� �� t1
' . , � -=- 7�4_p-..__ Q � i .' � u� ♦ � � . .
�---�-��_ _ _-- 7r•_o_ •' '� �i
— ' ' --- - -. - � �'•e ; ( .
.—'_=_.... _,, . �A'_e, -_ - i
CF qlEW . . �,0'.p � - - .-_.. ._�..�o . � i .
. . Ltr ipte 4b___�_ ------_—�.. _ __� . -
:4�.`�.�: .::yi: .�....-�:.i1.� . . . .
. � � . . . -... � . . �� _ ,y' 4 ,�,....w•_ -,�f _ . }.�.L;, � . - � , �;�~ fj
. l � .s�i�, y : fe
,1
�Y
� . � 6.35 "�" � .
� � Y�_
� �.j �. �/ � �� ; �:
a.+. :
•`� l
�ardee's �r.sta�rsnf
28� - ��th A'tentje R�.f.
Fridley, i�ir,_ 55�3L
,1ut4 �t,t9°1
Stew�er� Sarg
Cnde Enforcement Offic�r
City Of �ridley
Fridiey 1"lunicipa� C�nter
64�1 t;ni�ersity Ave. t�1.E.
�ridief�. �r�_ 55�32
S�i1I?1G'Ci: SL'P�4fElif� 8� CS� — .�.t7�i�_ �ven� �i.E.
�e8r Mr. B8r g:
i recieve� yvu� let#er canfirm;nq the infvrm�tipn pravid?� ft� me during our telephane
corrrer�ts#ian �ar�ier today. Ai this time we discus�d #he issu� of �c��nin� al�ng 3rd.
�treet #� p�ovi� a physical sep�ration frvm the ad}acent r�sidentiai district f� tt� rrorth.
As uou ststed recentl y we did remave the 3�o�t fenc� thst t�ad existed aloc�g t� pr�p�rt�
to tdvrth. �e reptaced it wi#h 2b" arborvit�e bushes (25} alt�ng t�Eat propertu 1i�te. 7his
resuited i n$�t ta iiar�ee'� of $6u1,.00. Th�ae �ian�s would reach 3' by s�xt uear a gr��th
vf 6" s�ti +�auld alsv get tv the hiqht of 10' in tt� ne��t 5 t��srs wh�r-ts �,�•QUid ���ore t�san
me-e# the ne�{ requi remeni of b fee#.
!t stwuld sl� be mentianed #ha# aft�r 2 i years i n exis#�nce #t�e €ence de�i n�tel [� n�eQeQ ta b�
remo�ed. ft was an eyesvre and in gavd tai#h we remove� �t and eleaned up the prn�rt+;.
�fe , on ��sil g bas�s, mai ntai n our property ar►d ttrat o� th� r�eighb�rhood_
ft is r��r �ee�i n9 #hat C£�3��C1!'t� #�tB fEitGf! Wi��7 �1V8 3Gi'BBttie� �rf�li�f� �ithBit�G ��'t6 GQSl71��IC
app�arar�ce of bath tf�e neigh�ors pra�er#� ar�d our c�+�n. �� poi nted out b� �v#h �ur�l*;" �nr�
M(GHELE McPH�RSON. Rianning A�sgis�ant, s��� did rmt feel that the bushe9 wvuld fi11 irt
eiru�gh �s they ar�e curre�tl e� s��d �t ap�roxi ma#e� y 4 fe�#_ Vde will add mor e E�ust�es to
r-��ul# in 2's�a�ing wh��h �+iti definatel4 fit� irE aerd ctffer the �p�►rapr-iate t�uffars.
M(GHELE i�1e�NER�Oiti aisn ao�ce� s cuncern thsf it� 6us3�s would n,�f 9r-o� fa�t es=c€�r� ��
ttleei tftE ff��iit'ements, Ufl1es� ttteU `�+�t 2 pt'QpEt'� � Gs�!'ed f�i . T� 8rt�����' f�er r,�t�r.-et't�� !
wou�d as�: thai t�t��� s� �i7pl t� i�ok at the re�t t►f our nrt��+ert+�i �nr� �ie�r t€�e �?eaithy ���ktfY: �r�
si�r�i?ss �e hs��e t�i:en care �t for the ��:; fi��Q y�:�r.:_
�ii�i� �C �18V� :��t� SLztTI�' �laCU3S10ii� Wti�'d tilC fi2lt��f�ilt�f3 C�R 3i'�,. 3it��'t _�itG'i� �IBF`C St�#:'t� t�?8=
#��� #:-:rh t�s�t ;� i r t�i�r- �ar�s ;s r�a�t `r cr:-, �:� ti►�� fr�urn H�li���� an� ���ia:�d�nvT�s.'r}te t.=��u3�1
ti ke t�+ rest�lv� *his m�}}Ft and �: Gswt r��ahbr�rs i r a ccrst Yfficien± rn�n�F and �ti+cu�d
w�lcoers� �nu more i np�� yau t�a�e t� nffer--
�i �)
• f�
a n.r.k K. Haues, �rec#ar of C�peratior� T.N.P. ir�c.
6.36
August 14, 1991
City of Fridley
Municipal Center
6431 University Avenue NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Diane Savage, and members of appeals Commission;
I am writing to you because I wiil be unable to attend your public hearing meeting, on August
20, 1991 regarding Patrick Hayes and Hardee's Restaurant in Fridley. 1 hope all five members
of the appeals commission will take the time to read this letter in fuii, and I thank you in
advance for your time and consideration.
When I Called on June 3, 1991, I was transferred to Steve Barg at the City of Fridley. I
Informed Steve of my concerns regarding Hardee's screening which was removed approximately
two years ago. This sc�eening was made up of a brown fence approximately four to five feet in
height. This was built sometime in the tate 1960's or early i 970's. This fence was very well
kept, being painted approximately every other year. This fence was not in any way an eye sore.
This fence kept most of the blowing trash from ente�ing the residential yards, and also kept
pedestrians from using the residential yards as walkways seeing how third st�eet is very curvy
in this area, and pedestrians like to take the shortest route from point a to point b.
When this fence was first removed, I consulted a Hardee's employee by the nidcname
"Spud". He had told me that they planned on doing landscaping work first thing in the spring.
This was never completed to this date. { informed Steve of my concerns regarding this
screening, those concerns are as follows:
1) Pedestrian's traffic through the yards fias been on a steady
incline.
2) The Cattle Co. resturant and bar has attracted more and more
of a bar rush at night, and after hours mostly on weekends.
They tend io gather at Hardee's restuarant.
3) When Country Kitchen was owner of this property, there was
never a drive-thru. This has added more traffic and noise to
the residential side of the building.
4) Parking on 57th place during lunch hour and after hours bar-
time is very frequent. This is very convenient for customers
and employees to have access without the proper screening in
place.
6.37
5) Traffic to and from the bus-line on University avenue
overfiows into the residential area since there is no sc�eening
available.
6) With the rising of crimes a person is able to observe any and
ali action of the residential properties. Putting people and
properry at a high risk for crime.
7) While sitting in the living room of my mothe�'s home at night
the car lights coming through drive-thru shine right into her
home. This was never a problem when there was screening.
8) The amount of blowing trash is an increasing problem with the
neighbo�hood's property. This is caused by no trash containers
in the parking lot, the garbage men dumping tfie dumpster on
windy days, and the patrons sitting on the street curb
eating and leaving their trash behind. With the proper
sc�eening it would reduce the amount of trash drifting into the
neighborhood.
Recently the manager of Hardee's restuarant came door to door asking for verbal
opinions of what the residents wanted. To my knowledge ali residents that he had spoke with had
voiced their opinions to uphold the existing City of Fridley ordinance regarding screening,
perferably seeing a fence in place of landscaping. At this time the manager said there was
financial problem, and they wouid be unable to put up a fence.
As 1 now observe this area Hardee's restuarant has again ignored the city's ordinance and
Steve Barg's advice and pianted approximately twenty-five two foot shrubs, at the cost of
$15.97 each, according to the price tags on the shrubs. These shrubs were planted by Pat
Hayes's son approximately tweive years old. This shows their low concern for a proper
screening.
Since I will not be able to attend this meeting I am writing this letter in place of being
present. Please document my concerns that the existing city ordinance should not be changed in
any way. I feei very strongly by the points listed above that a six foot fence is very necessary,
especially �egarding point number six tisted above. If you have any questions for me I can be
reached at home at 757-9187 or work at 571-6000 ext. 118, any time after August 26,
1991. Thank you again for your time and consideration, and I regret that I wili not be able to
attend this meeting.
Sincerely,
/ �
�� � _�
David S. Harvet
6.38
� REGULAR COuNC1L MEETING UF MAY 4, 1970
PAGE; 14
Councilman Sheridan said that he did not feel that the house should be
closer than 17� feet from 49th Avenue for clear vision on any corner lot
for the safety of the travelling public. This would mean that the house
width could be only 20 feet. .
MOTION by Councilman Liebl to grant the lot split requested by Mr. Frank
Dircz on Lots 29 and 30, Block 1, Plymouth Addition, as shown on Page
73 of the May 4, 1970 Agenda. The motion was seconded and upon a voice
vote, Breider, Liebl and Sheridan voting aye, Harris voting nay, Mayor
Harris Pro tem declared the motion carried.
It.was agreed that Mr. Dircz was to re-apply for the var•iances needed with
the Board of Appeals.
i�
DISCUSSION REGARDING FENCING ON THE NORTH.SIDE OF COUNTRY KITCHEN RESTAURANT:
The City Engineer explained that the Council approved the plans for Country
Kitchen pzeviously, includirig a 3' high fence along the north side of the
property. Now there is a request from the property owner to the north that
�` the fence should be 6' high. Country Kitchen is willing to build it, but •
� they are not actually in favor of it, and want to be assured that there
� will not be other similar requests. The property owner to the north has
; insisted on the 6' high fence and he did not want them to come back in later
� saying that the fence looks terrible.
Mr. Arthur Lindquist, Country Kitchen said that they have offered the City
several dispensations. They have directed their personnel to keep the
drapes closed on that side of the building, and have also changed the location
of the fence slightly so that it would be actually 4' above the ground level.
He said that they will agree, but they do object, as it is felt that this will
obstruct the view coming�down University Avenue.
Counci.tman Harris said that he would not favor the fence 6' high in view of
the rezoning that just passed on the property to the north. Mr. Lindquist
added that the refuse containers are enclosed in a 6' high redwood fence.
The City Engineer added that there would also be plantings in addition to
the 3' fence.
Mr. Max Hapka said that they moved into this area in 1964 and thought that
it would be a residential area. They also rebuilt after the tornado. He
said that he was not against progress, but they did want their privacy. He
said that he did not see why when this was planned, they were not told. He
said that they were also left out of the Hyde Park rezoning notices. He
said that he was the owner of the property. Councilman Liebl said that they
were on the mailing list, as he remembered seeing their names. Mrs. Hapka
added that there are big windows in Country Kitchen that face their yard.
A 3' fence will not keep people from looking right into her yard. She
added that Holiday Car Care Center has a 6' fence. She felt that anyone
in the restaurant could watch them in their home.
Councilman Harris pointed out that it would be poor planning for every
business all up University Avenue in the newly rezoned area to put up 6'
fences all around their property. Mrs. Hapka pointed out that there usually
is not a residence across the street. Councilman Sheridan said that it was
the policy of the Council to not put a fence on a street side. If it was an
alley, or the back of the B�oP���yr it would be a diffsre�� matter.
6.39
�..
,
� REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 4, 1970
Mr. Hapka said that Mr. Lindquist said that it would obstruct
from the north, but they have a large sign out in front. He
a very nice building, but they must insist on their privacy.
PAGE 1.5
the view
said that it is
Councilman Sheridan said that he could see no reason for changinq the
stipulation froc, the 3' fence. Councilman Li�bl agreed and sai.d that the
Council has stipulated that there was to be landscaping to spruce up that
side of the building. The Council has never permitted a 6' fence on the�
street side of a building. Councilman Breider said that he concurred.�
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE:
Mr. Lindquist said that they are planning on opening Thursday and have
applied for a food establishment license. The Health Sanitarian has lread
inspected the property.
The City Manager said that the Health Sanitarian's report has n been
received as yet, but the license could be approved subject to is approval.
MOTION by CounciLnan Liebl to grant a Food Establishment= 'cense to Country
Kitchen, subject to the approval of the Health Sanitaria . Seconded by
Councilman Sheridan. Upon a voice vote, all voting ay , Mayor Harris Pro
tem deClared the motion carried. J
APPROVAL OF SPECIFICATIONS AND CALLING FOR BIDS
NEW FIRE APPARATUS:
-� The Fire Chief said that last fall the Counci authorized the pregaration
of the plans and specifications for a new p per. This will be the same
as the one last purchased. The Fire Prev tion Bureau Chief added that it
is about two years between the call for ids and delivery of the pumper.
He said that the City must think of t status of the total apparatus needs.
, There .is now a lag of about 20,000 g lons per minute short, anc� the ladder
is about 20 years behind. He said hat they can now pump about 3500
gallons per minute. He said tha the City was getting into a marginal
area as concerns what they cou do, and as there is more indus'trial and
.commercial development, the ad will be even greater. _
Councilman Harris asked out the purchase of used equipment because of the
time element. The Fire revention Bureau Chief said that this was tried
about 2�or 3 years ag and they did not have a very good experience with it.
He said that there re some expensive repairs to be made on the engine and
the„pumper. He s'd that the Council should consider a bond issue to bring
the equipment up o date, and that it could be worked out on about an 8
year basis. �
Councilman arris asked the estimated cost of the new apparatus and the Fire
Preventi Bureau Chief said about $�12,000 for this unit.
MOTIO by.Councilman Sheri.dan to approve the sp�cifications for a new fire
app Gtus and autharize advertis�.�r�n� fo?_ l�ids until July 6, 1970. Seconded
t) C0111lC).�.i.l isI F3':'F??.c7.°r. �J�`J`i "_ �"'�_C;, :1J;.�,� 1] t.VO�ing F:;Jf_°� i�w}'OJ" :;� i�.1S
ro L-ern declared it�e motior: c«rried_
6.40
CT�Y OF I��tIDLEY
' 6431 URJIVERSITSC AVENUE N.E.
FZtIDLEY, MN 55432
(612) 571-3450
•� ii in. �1 � � ••� tl_ul �i,� . q�q_- !
__...........,_........�..___.....,......��___�.....����.,..r....r.r.r...___.r ............... ....,......_..,. �
� AP'PL,ZC�Ti�T FORM
PIt�PE�Y II�TI�i - site plan required for submittals; see attached
�: � �9 - s� t.0 . G�,..,, `Y) �' �-� .,//, �m.� _
Legal description:
IAt Blocic Tract/Ac�ditioai
Current zoni.rig: _ C' Z Square foatage/aareage
R�eason for variance arrd hardship: n S'
v� ��� lLt`�r �� Section of City Oode: '1�0� ��' �% �i � I 1( GL�
i , � . i . . , � . .. . . �'T'_
SI •^ I�1• � I••� 1� •1
(Cbllt�"c1C't �?CCCt�1dS2.Y`y:
�` � �
Fee Own�rs m�ust sign this fona prior to prooessingj
NAME
ADDffZESS
LaA�YTIl� PHOd�
SIC�I�tAZURE p��
r• ia
��� 'S'7�' ��. �A��,_
� �71- 1���
� � `�.����1
Fee: $zoo.00 ...... ,....�..._��......����__�__�_.._
$ 60.00 for residential properties
Piermit VAR # � � � gec�,
Application received by: �
t
Scheduled Appeals Ckarnnission date: �...0
Sclleduled City Couricil date:
a
_�..���.r......���_�...........���_�.........����.._...r..�. ..�.r.r.r.........,..r...��.r.r..,_..�..��� ...�......�....,,��...
6.41
FiUG—
.yf �
.� .
�� -
1—•� 1 THU S= eaS
ci�t aF ��c
6a�i visrv�sz�x Av�cn� r�-E.
FRTDI,F,`Y� MN 55432
(612) 5'71-3450
� n ��� �� • " • � q,c � � G.� . r� _�
'- - _—_
Y . b 6
M�Ir/�/NNrVM /�IMM4�IrNN�V NMMM4w/AIMM.YkIrMNM�/IrMMM�V�VMNMw��ww/M�I�MNMM�I^�N�M~�N�/Mti1Y/I4�NNM�IM
NN �'�� ��� �
IIHIN�VMM�wIMMMM�MMMMNMMM�Y�+�N^��Y1rI�rMNY4wIMNMti�Ii/MMY�V�IIN�I�/Y� I�'M
w..wr�r.v.tiwwr.v �vN�•.wlwiN.v...r.�w�.v^r.v
p� C�I �' iSI�E �?a.at'1 Y'�.� FGi' S1]�]Cq,1.��i1S /� 21ttdC�AC�
- - ., .� . - - -
p,aa�ss: � & q - � � t
L�gal description:
Ipt B1oc3C '.C�ract/Ar3dition
Currn.n� zoning: � ' �- Squa�'e f°�tage�a
Re.ason foY va►riance an�d i�x�3ship: ��
� ' Section of City Oacie:
.
NN�VMMti�NMNMM'VVtiwwIwIMMNMM�IH✓��`�`N MMM�w�'�"��'���"�MMVwMti�tiMMMM4���MI�MMM
�j � }y{� y�Vl�
(C�C!'ttrdG� . �C'.� OWt1EL^S � S].C�1 �S �d11ri prldr �Q p�0�'"'�,."y�
j,ip,� FFCA/IIP 1985 Property Company
p�g 17207 North Perimeter Drive, Scottsdale, Arizona 85255
�y�� p� 8:00 a.m. - �:�0 p.m.
sxc�� � v -�
ice ent, min st ation
Mr+Iw+M+�r.v4�N'�`NwIA�wIMIV�vwI �Ir4.w�4MN�YAa.vAIMIW�MNl4�r
�ii 1 � ������r�i V��
N1� �/�/G� � �I�L, � �
� Iiv9.
�r
.r► ► � l �
�' • �
pA'z'� .1uty 31 , 1991
,� 7 "��"l�l
y
w/NNN.v'.IM�v�vV�r�YVtiV�v�� �N.�tirlrw.�NNNNMww�IVA.nMM�.IMwIti�I4N�/�✓^��INtiwl.l /rw�.+iAeN.vwr.vMMK�./V4ti �/ M�Y����A+�NKwI�V
Fee: $100.00
$ 60. QO �or �esidez�tixa7. p�ope.itiEs
Pearm�a.t vAR # ��,� l�,aCeipt � _ 4tv� �'
Appli.cation reaei�r�a by:
Sr,hed�ted Appeals Co�nnnission dafi�:
Sc�-iedu].ed City Couneil date:
MNtiVtiI�h��`V MMNN�VIrNww.�w�M.vNN.�n.vw�'.rr.'Arw�rVNw�I.�VN�rr��.r.rw�...MMMAiti.rw�w�w.w.Nw.w�Mw�wiwrwr.vw�MMw��rwrw�ru�NlrnwtiVyv�r�v �v
6.42
�
.�
„.
_
_
V I I �F
FRlDLEY
,�. � :�� �,�.;y.-� �
M�...
- ; i:
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERS[TY AVE. N.E. FR[DLEY, MN 55432 •(6121571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287
June 11, 1991
Erwin Kump
Hardee's
289 - 57th Avenue N.E.
FridZe MN 55432
Y, _ _.
RE: First Notice of Noncompliance at 289 - 57th Avenue N.E.
Dear Mr. Kump:
The City of Fridley has established a City Code for the purpose of'
promoting a pleasant and attractive suburban environment. A recent
inspection of the property at 289 - 57th Avenue N.E. revealed that
not all Code requirements are presently being met. Listed below
is an item which does not compiy with the City Code:
l. Provide adequate screening between your property and adjacent-
residential properties to the north. (If landscaping is to'
be used for screening, please contact Michele McPherson at`'
s..
572-3593 regarding an acceptable landscaping plan.)
Your prompt attention in correcting this situation
assist us in helping make Fridley a better place
inspection will be conducted on or about June
determine compliance.
wouid greatly
to live. An
26, 1991, to
If you have questions or would like to discuss this, please contact
me at 572-3595. Thank you for your cooperation!
Sincerely,
Steven Barg
Code Enforcement Officer
SB:ls
CE-9 Z-19 8
6.43
�
II .i
_
_
C�TYOF
FR! DLEY
FRIDLEY MUNIC(PAL CENTER •(�31 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY. MN SSa?2 •(6121571-345p • FAX t61?1571-1'!i7
June 26, 1991
Erwin Kump
Fiardee's
289 - 57th Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 554�32
RE: Final Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at
289 - 57th Avenue N.E.
Dear Mr. Kump:
On June 26, 1991, a second inspection of the property at 289 - 57th
Avenue N.E. confirmed that the following item still does not comply
with City Code: .
l. Provide adequate screening between your property and adjacent
residential properties to the north. (If landscaping is to
be used for screening, please contact Michele McPherson at
572-3593 regarding an acceptable landscaping plan.)
A final inspection to determine compliance will be conducted on or
about July 8, 1991. You should arrange to complete an approved
plan for compliance before that date. Should this inspection
confirm that this deficiency still exists, legal action will be
approved. If corrective action cannot be completed by this time,
conta�t me to coordinate a schedule to complete this requirement.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me
at the Fridley Municipai Center, 572-3595.
Sincerely,
Steven Barg
Code Enforcement Officer
SB:ls
CE-91-255
6.44
STATE OF MINNESOTA COivIPLAINT (OFF�CER'S COPY)
COUNTY OF ANOKA
The undersigned, being duly sworn, states as follows that on �+ '�1
MON H
at (Location) ���"�!
Name _ t'i U �--�-.� �l. ,�� �.�.: , - - - -�-'.
Birth Date
DISTRICT COURT
CRIMINAL DIVISION N,Q. 5�` �— 4, ��
i� ! �'�;
City/Township of _ �!�-/'���=.r
-- ��..� -T--
�•-- DAV . 1:% � 8t f�� �M
of (Address)
did then and there commit the foliowing offense:
, in viofatio� oi Local Ord. No. � .� Cs� gtate Statute No.
in such case made and provided.
I promise to cpntact the Violations Bureau 6efofe (if I have The undersigned further states that he has just and reaso�able grou�ds to
(� any questions), or appear at the time and place shown be11eV8. and does believe, that the person named above committed the
below: and I understand if I fail to do so a warrant for my offense herein set forth, co�trary to law.
arrest may be issued. ,
� SIGNA E ����
� Viol tion Bureau ad ress: ��U ��-��� 4 '�`
�- - Q i w . s �v �'" — `C"�Z't_.-r .r"'j-� -�; `7 J; y-'
Phone: 422-7385 �-��j i9aature of Compla�hanC�
Court DBte: r�/�3' �Q j Court Time:�p.m. -TS'�cd.., ��`�� �---`k,�
�- Badge No. and De artmeM Date
,�
6.45
�
�4 £� f�� ":n A.
�:.G'�^e" �
j'::Y1;, i
I:
-`�,.
•
,
FRIDLEY MUN(C(PAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERS[TY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY. MN SS�132 •(612> 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287
July 31, 1991
Pat Hayes
Hardee's Restaurant
289 - 57th Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Subject: Screening at 289 - 57th Avenue N.E.
Dear Mr. Hayes:
This letter is to confirm the information which I provided to you
during our telephone conversation earlier today. At that time, we
discussed the issue of screening along 3rd Street to provide a
physical separation from the adjacent residential district to the
north.
Recently you removed the fence which had existed along 3rd Street,
and it is my understanding from last week's site meeting that you
intended to replace it with landscaping to a height of three feet.
You indicated that this should be acceptable since the fence had
only been three feet in height, and the City had permitted the
previous owner (Country Kitchen) to construct the screening fence
at this height.
On May 4, 1970, the Fridley City Council discussed the screening
fence issue. The City Council stated at that time that the Country
Kitchen could install a three foot high fence. Since that time,
the Zoning Code has been revised to require screening to a height
of six feet between commercial and residential districts.
We consulted the City Attorney and requested his opinion on this
issue. He stated that the City Council's discussion did not
constitute the same effect as a variance. He added that since you
have removed the previous fence, the replacement screening must
meet current code requirements unless a variance is granted.
It is my understanding from our conversation that you wish to apply
for a variance to allow screening at less than the required six
foot height. If this is correct, please complete the enclosed
variance application form and return it to Michele McPherson with
�• ' •
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGUST 20, 1991 PAGE 8
seem very crowded. With a fairly large three car garage, hous ,
and undersized lot, the lot appears to be quite crowded. On he
other hand, he can appreciate the need by the petitioner add
some living space and do some modernizing to his house.
Ms. Smith stated she agreed with Mr. Kuechle that t area does
appear to be crowded. Similar to the first varia e in talking
about a hardship, the petitioner made the choice build a 1,000
sq. ft. garage which brought the lot cover e to 25%. The
petitioner is at full coverage now.
Ms. Beaulieu stated she agreed with Ms. mith. The petitioner
built the three car garage when a two c garage would have given
him a little Ieeway for an addition. If they allow one property
owner to go to 28� lot coverage, th they are setting a precedent
for others to come in wanting h' her and higher 1ot coverages.
Because there is a good purpos for the maximum lot coverage of
25°s, she would recommend deni of the�variance.
MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, s onded by Ms. Smith, to recommend to City
Council denial of varia e request, VAR #91-23, by Warren and Gerry
Stock, per Section 05.07.03.0 of the Fridley City Code, to
increase the maxim allowable lot coverage from 25� to 28.3� to
allow the constr ion of an addition, on Lots 3 and 4, Block 11,
Spring Brook P , the same being 289 Liberty Street N.E.
UPON A VOI VOTE, BEAULIEO AND SMITH VOTING AYE, RIIECHLE VOTING
NAY, VICE IiAIRPERSON RIIECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE
OF 2-1.
Ms�.'�icPherson stated this item will go to Council on September 9,
91.
3. �CONSIDERATION-OF VARIANCE RE4UEST VAR #91-24 BY PATRICK
HAYES, HARDEE'S RESTAURANT:
Per Section 205.14.06.G.(1).(a) of the Fridley City Code, to
reduce the height of the required screening adjacent to a
residential district from 6 feet to 3 feet, on the east 20
feet of Lot 7, Lots 8-12 , and the west 25 feet of Lot 13 ,
Block 7, City View Addition, the same being 289 - 57th Avenue
N.E.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the intersection
of University Avenue and 57th Avenue, directly across from the
Cattle Company Restaurant. The property is zoned C-2, General
Business, as is the property to the west. The property to the
south is zoned C-3, General Shopping Center, and the property to
the north is zoned S-1, Hyde Fark.
Ms. McPherson stated that the Hardee's Restaurant was formerly a
Country Kitchen approved by the City in 1969. At that time, the
building plan indicated that a 3 foot high cedar fence would be
6.47
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 20, 1991 PAGE 9
constructed along the north property line. In 1970, an adjacent
neighbor to the north requested that the Council require Country
Kitchen to construct a 6 foot high fence. On May 4, 1970, the
Council stated it was the policy of the Council not to put a fence
on the street side of a commercial property. To the north of the
site is 57th Place which is used as a residential street. Prior
to requiring the petitioner to file a variance request, staff
consulted the City Attorney to see if the Council discussion in
1970 constituted a variance to the City Code requirement. The City
Attorney indicated that the discussion did not constitute a
variance. In 1990, Hardee's removed the existing fence; and in
June 1991, Hardee's planted 2 1/2 foot tall arborvitae spaced
approximately 4-5 feet apart to replace the fence.
Ms. McPherson stated there is documentation in the staff report
from the City's Code Enforcement Officer requesting that Hardee's
comply with the screening requirements in the Zoning Code.
Ms. McPherson stated Section 205.14.06.G of the City code outlines
the screening and buffering standards between a commercial district
abutting a residential district. Those are:
(a) A screening fence or wall shall be constructed within a
five (5) foot strip along the property line(s) abutting the
park or residentially zoned property. Said fence or wall
shall be constructed of attractive, permanent finished
materials, compatible with those used in the principal
structure, and shall be a minimum of six (6) feet high and a
maximum of eight (8) feet high. Chain link fences shall have
non-wooden slats when used for screening purposes; or
(b) A planting screen shall be constructed in a fifteen (15)
foot strip and shall consist of healthy, fully hardy plant.
materials and shall be designed to provide a minimum year-
round opaqueness of eighty (80) percent at the time of
maturity. The plant material shall be of sufficient height
to achieve the required screening. Planting screens shall be
maintained in a neat and healthful condition. Dead vegetation
shall be promptly replaced.
(c) If the existing topography, natural growth of vegetation,
permanent buildings or other barriers meet the standards for
screening as approved by the City, they may be substituted for
all or part of the screening fence or planting screen.
Ms. McPherson stated that while the plant materials planted by
Hardee's are an alternate screen as indicated, they are not planted
at a spacing which meets the 80% rule. In addition, at 2 1/2 feet
in height, it will take approximately 3-5 years for the plant
materials to reach a minimum height of 6 feet.
��
�
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AQGUST 20, 1991 pAGE 10
Ms. McPherson stated the Hardee's property is a commercially zoned
property, and the side yard would be considered to be 57th Place,
with the front yard to be University Avenue. There is a street
right-of-way which separates the residential structures from the
Hardee's property; however, the zoning district division occurs at
the north property line of Hardee's or the south right-of-way line
of 57th Place. Screening at a minimum height of 6 feet should be
required.
Ms. McPherson stated the Fridley Town Square project approved in
1990 located at Mississippi Street and University Avenue was
required to install an 8 foot high screening wall along the lot
line abutting a public street right-of-way and adjacent to a
residentially zoned district.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is not unique in any way from
other commercial properties within the City, and the City would
require other commercial properties to provide a screening fence
or vegetative wall at a height of 6 feet.
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends that the Appeals Commi_ssion
recommend denial of the variance to the City Council, with one
stipulation:
1. Installation of a 6 foot high screening fence or
vegetation of 4 feet in height and planted 2 feet on
center shall be completed by November 1, 1991.
Ms. Smith asked if the City had any record of any contact from
Hardee's prior to Hardee's tearing down the fence and making the
decision to put in the arborvitae.
Ms. McPherson stated that she personally spoke with someone from
Hardee's generally inquiring about removing the fence because
Hardee's thought it was in need of repair. This person also
inquired about landscaping, and she told this person that before
the fence is torn down, they need to submit a landscaping plan to
the City for review to see that it meets the City's standards. The
fence was torn down and the City never received a landscaping plan.
MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to open the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RUECHLE
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND TiiE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8: 2 6
P.M.
Mr. Bert Waller stated he is the District Manager of Hardees. Pat
Hayes is out of town and was unable to attend the meeting.
Mr. Kuechle asked why replacing the fence would be a hardship.
. � '
�
APPEALS GOMMISSION MEETING, AIIGIIST 20, 1991 PAGE 11
Mr. Waller stated replacing the fence is not a problem. The cost
of replacing the fence is the problem. It will cost in excess of
$2,000 to replace the fence. They have already spent approximately
$600 for the removal and disposal of the old fence, plus the plant
materials. The old fence was in bad disrepair. They also cleaned
up some of the City property at the same time.
Mr. Waller stated he was not aware of any telephone conversations
with the City regarding the removal of the fence.
Ms. McPherson stated she has had several telephone calls over the
last two years regarding the fence issue. In all instances, she
told the person that a landscaping plan needed to be submitted
prior to the removal of the fence.
Mr. Waller stated he became the District Manager in the fall of
1990. The fence was removed in June of 1989.
Mr. Waller stated they understand the landscaping requirement
height is 6 feet and they are requesting that it be reduced to 3
feet. He has no objection with adding more plants to meet the 80�
opaqueness. If they have to install a fence, financially, they
cannot make it.
Mr. Waller stated that regarding the statement made by the Council
in 1970 that it was the Council's policy not to put a fence on the
street side of a commercial property, is that listed in the
guidelines?
Ms. McPherson stated that is strictly an opinion made by the
Council in 1970. It is not a Code requirement.
Ms. Kathleen Harvet, 271 - 57th Place, stated that she lives across
from Hardee's. She would definitely like to see the City ordinance
upheld for the 5 foot requirement. Now there is nothing to stop
people from walking through her yard, through Hardee's parking lot,
to the bus, to school, or to other businesses. They did not have
this problem when there was a fence. Even if Hardee's would plant
more plant materials at 2 1/2 feet, people will just step over
them.
Mr. William Talley, 281 - 57th Place, stated that regarding the
original fence becoming an eyesore, it was damaged in the
wintertime by the snowplows pushing snow into the fence. The fence
was never repaired, and then it was removed. Hardee's now has the
drive-through and as cars come around the drive-through, the lights
shine into their homes. The trash truck comes every morning, and
the trash falls on the ground and blows onto their properties. He
definitely feels Hardee's should replace the fence.
6.50
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGOST 20. 1991 PAGE 12
MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYB, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RIIECHLE
DECLARED THE MOTTON CARRIED AND THE PQBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:37
P.M.
Ms. Beaulieu stated that she is sympathetic with any business in
having to spend money; however, she would definitely recommend
denial, because she also sympathized with the neighbors. It is too
bad that Hardee�s did something that they are now going to have to
remove or replace. She would recommend denial because of the
legitimate complaints of the neighbors.
Ms. Smith stated she agreed with Ms. Beaulieu 100�. She has a real
problem putting a financial. hardship on a business, especially in
light of the fact that cal�s were made to the City, and staff
recommended that they submit a landscaping plan before removing the
fence, and they removed the fence anyway. She would concur with
denial of the variance.
Mr. Kuechle stated he looked at the site, and it certainly has to
be a problem for the neighbors on 57th Place. He thought it should
be a requirement for a business at this location to have a fence.
Even though $2,000 is a certain sum of money, he did not feel that
created an undu� hardship. He agreed with the removal of the old
fence, because it was definitely an eyesore and needed replacement.
He would also vote to deny the variance.
MoTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to recommend to City
Council denial of variance request, VAR #91-24, by Patrick Hayes,
Hardee's Restaurant, per Section 205.14.06.G.(1).(a) of the Fridley
City Code, to reduce the height of the required screening adjacent
to a residential district from 6 feet to 3 feet, on the east 20
feet of Lot 7, Lots 8-12, and the west 25 feet of Lot 13, Block 7,
City V�.ew Addition, the same being 289 - 57th Avenue N.E.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RIIECHLE
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY.
4. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE RE UEST VAR 91-25 BY JACK W
1THEODORE WILLIAM INVESTMENTS)•
Per Sectidn 205.18.03.D.(1) of the Fridley Code, to
reduce the required front yard setback 35 feet to 20
feet;
Per Section 205.18.06.G.(2 the Fridley City Code, to allow
a loading dock in the ont yard;
To allow t onstruction of a loading dock platform on Lots
16, 17 8, and 19, Block 2, Onaway Addition, the same being
Beech Street N.E.
6.51
r �
�
�
Community Development Department
G DIVISION
City of Fridley
DATE: September 5, 1991
TO: William Burns, City Manager �r•�*
�•
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Variance, VAR #91-25, by Bob Lunde and Scott
Zbikowski of Theodore William Investments; 7879
Beech Street N.E.
Attached please find the above-reference staff report. The
requested variances are: 1) to allow a loading dock in the front
yard, and 2) to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 20
feet. The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the request to the City Council with the following
stipulation:
1. The proposed earth berm shall be a minimum of two feet high
and the petitioner shall plant Black Hills spruce instead of
Mint Julep junipers in the south planting bed.
Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Appeals
Commission recommendation.
MM/dn
M-91-652
�w�
b.5 "L
�
� STAFF REPORT
APPEALS DATE August 20, 1991
CITY OF PLANNING COMMISSION DATE
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL DATE september 9, 1991 ntrr� ��
REQUEST
PERMIT NUMBER
APPLICANT
PROPOSED REQUEST
LOCATION
SITE DAT�4
SIZE
DENSI�Y
PRESENT ZONING
ADJACENT LAND USES
& ZONING
UTILITIES
PARK DEDICATION
ANALY�IS
FINANCIAL 1MPUCATIONS
CONFORMANCE TO
COMPREHENSNE PLAN
COMPATIBILiTY WITH
ADJACENT USES & ZONWG
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
STAFF RECOMMENOATION
APPEALS RECOMMENDATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
� #91-25
Bob Lunde, Seott Zbikawski (Zheodore William Investments)
To allaw a loading dock. in the front yard; to reduce
the required front yard setback fram 35 feet tA 20 feet
7879 Beech Street N.E.
1�-2, Heavy Industrial
N�-2, Heavy Industri.al, tA the N, S, E, & W
Approval
Approval with stipulation
�
6.53
� T. 3D, R. 24
FR/OL£Y
I/
W) `
�
C�I •
,�q�. C1 ;
iR%, �y �
>
`:�4
�h�� '
' `
:ORNER ' �
f
3)
/
�
. �� '��
43
�
�,
\
VAR 4�91-25
Bob Lunde/Scott Zbikowski
?Nli /S A �OMINAipN OF RfCpfps AS
1NfY AYOEAR IN fME M/pKA �puMY �
Q/fKES AffEC7/HG THF AREA ypWN
T1NS ORAWING IS 10 If t/SED p'�"/ .,�R
RFffRENCf iIYIpSFt A�/p �NF COUMY
n NOT RfyONSM1E fQR ANY 'l: [ �
CUR4UE5 MfREMf C1DMA';.'. • •
41 53903
E. //I CORNEN !'
SEG 3
�
�I
� �\ � "�Ca r 6E� 3�ry .e....r .
� �
�`' 44 �,::� -
y. : � :,:; ;.. ,. .
A ; .'
,. . ., ,� . F4�,
�Q�.' i lr� JW;`' �I MA. '-!� /
6.54' L
OCATiON MAP
VAR �� 91-2 5
Bob Lunde/Sentt '%}�ilrnr.�c.Li
6.55'
ZONING MAP
Staff Report
VAR #91-25, 7879 Beech Street N.E.
Page 2
A. STATED HARDSHIP:
"Traffic hazard; no existing dock height loading dock"
B. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
Request
The petitioners are requesting two variances: (1) to allow
a loading dock in the front yard; and (2) to reduce the
required front yard setback from 35 feet to 20 feet. The
request is for Lots 16-19, Block 2, Onaway Addition, the same
being 7879 Beech Street N.E. (the former site of Pappy's
Foods).
Site
Located on the property is a single story industrial building
which has three overhead doors/loading dock areas which face
the front yard. The property is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial,
as are the adjacent properties.
Analvsis
Section 205.18.03.D.(1) requires a front yard depth of not
less than 35 feet for all permitted buildings and uses.
Public purpose of this requirement is to provide desired front
yard space to be used for green areas or access, and to add
to the attactability of a commercial zone.
Section 205.18.06.G.(2) requires loading docks to be located
in the rear yard or side yard.
Public purpose of this requirement is to limit loading
activities to the rear and side yard in order to reduce
traffic conflicts and aesthetic impacts.
The petitioners are proposing to construct a loading dock
platform which will be at a 30 degree angle to the building.
Currently, semi-trailer trucks park at a 90 degree angle to
the building and block one lane of traffic on Beech street
when they load and unload at the building. The proposed
loading dock would allow trucks to back up to a platform which
will be at the same height as the trucks. In addition, the
angle of the truck will minimize the impact to the traffic on
Beech Street.
6.56.
Staff Report
VAR #91-25, 7879 Beech Street N.E.
Page 3
The petitioners are also proposing to add additional
landscaping to provide screening of the proposed loading dock
area. '
In this case, we believe the ordinance is imposing the
hardship. The location of the existing loading dock doors are
an existing condition and cannot be relocated due to the
narrow alley located at the rear of the property. The
building was constructed in 1972 permitting overhead doors in
the front yard.
Further, the reduction in the front yard setback from 35 feet
to 20 feet is necessary for the extension of the loading
platform. Vehicles using the new platform will not block the
street. The loading dock will improve the functionality of
the building and can be considered similar to a vestibule or
unenclosed decks in the residential districts, which are
allowed to encroach into the front yard setback. The proposed
loading dock is 4 feet high and will have no impact on sight
lines from adjacent properties as well as traffic traveling
on Beech Street.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Appeals Commission recommend
approval of both variances: (1) to allow a loading dock in
the front yard; and (2) to reduce the front yard setback from
35 feet to 20 feet, with the following stipulation:
l. The proposed earth berm shall be a minimum of 2 feet
high, and the petitioner shall plant four Black
Hills Spruce instead of Mint Julep Junipers.
Appeals Commission Action
The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval
of the request to the City Council with the following
stipulation:
1. The proposed earth berm shall be a minimum of 2 feet
high, and the petitioner shall plant Black Hills
Spruce instead of Mint Julep Junipers in the south
planting bed.
Citv Council Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council
Appeals Commission action.
6.57
concur with the
VAR 4�91-25
Bob Lunde/Scott Zbikowski
VAR ��91-25
Scott Lunde/Scott Zbikowski
� WICUlIW htltYll - fb' �
I
I
! Theodore William Investments '
Bob Lunde Scott Zbikowski :
� (612-574-9225)
i91H AVE.
— — — — , — — — — � ..._ ..._ , -- — — � — — — —
I61 2' 35"- ?' &i'- T'
�
�
I �
� � �
� / /� IXlSfIhG SIQEYAIK
EAR1H 6L9Bg �%�
EXISTI1rG PARICING lOf
I / � � �� /
�?IISTKfbT "" ?"�///
i
I FXISJING PAIeCIhG
arrsrrn� �a x rr vv�,a ooae
�
ocisru� eua �
I T[P Q2IVEYAY 2t'- 0'
70'- 0'
, I
I �
I EXISl1AG SIt�YAL,C
( '� r6�
arrttn� io� x rr m�r,E�n a�e
\ \
�, aisrrnc a��ar
� � > � arrv�v�r zr- e•
� �` IXISTING IO- x �r m�o oaaz
! + � '`,
� <. �. �ia�- a•
� \�\ �\�\
. ,
� �. �.
I �� IXISllIV6 10' X IT' OVE�fAD OQR
1 I �
i �
Ll1AD1A1i LGC]C IB' M.
30' 611ILDING Q'ADE ABOVE SIRCfT
I �� IB' QpOC RAPP BQOM ST�T GRAOE
� ��- 2• /
I /�j XIM .AAB' .A.NIP6t - . . . ?i'- 0'
� 61RTN BEid"1
.,:,.
I?fD iYICL� OOG1�0 --
� _ —_ _ . -- - sa,nr �or i�x�
s.59bppSED SITE PLAN
AUGUST 2. 1991
Theodore Willam Investments
Bob Lunde. Scott Zbikowski
7880 Beech Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
CITY �F FRIDLEYI
TO WH�M IT MAY CONCERN:
Name of proiect: Theodore William Investments.
Telephone 574-9225
Contact: Bob Lunde, Scott 2bikowski
Legal: Lots 16,17,18 and 19, Block 2, Onaway
P,I.D. # R03 30 24 44 0024 NA 00511663
Address: 7879 Beech Street N.E.
Use of property: Expand our existing business of inetal stamping
tooling and metal stampings which is currentl�r operating at 7880
Beech Street N.E. bv existing owners Bob Lunde and Scott Zbikowski.
Initial employment in subject building ta be 5 people. Future
emplovment ta be 10-12 people.
Current zoning = MZ
Reason for variance: Existing loading facilities are inadequate for
intended business use. Current structure has no dock height access
and 4 flat dock openings in building. Current flat docks are
perpendicular to streei and not. long enough Por tractor trailer to
easily back into. See attached drawings with distanee of 45 Yeet
to back tractor trailer into. See attached drawin� and proposed
angled dock to allow easy access and lengthed dock approach to
eliminate traffic hazard caused by trueking blocking Beech Street.
Dock approach will be sloped to be approximateiy i8" below street
grade. Dock height will be standard 48" height. Please note
proposed earth berms which wiil partialiy block view of loading
area from street viewing to improve appearance of property.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
:.• .•-
/ � /
f�
• • •
1 �' •
.� / �sl.'�, ,/'�
�
. . 1
CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 iAJIVII2SITY AVEN�JE N.E.
FRIDLEY, rIId 55432
(612) 571-3450
��_�� iu__is � - - • � n.- � �_s� : �r�l_at
_�......___�.,,...�_���_��.r.., �...�...�
`iARIANC� �ZCATI(�I FORM
Pl�PERTY �0�1 - site plan required for subcnittals; see attached
��dd�ss: 7879 Beech Street N,E.
Lots 16� 17� 18 E.19
I,eCjdl d2SCY'lp'tlOri: PID _#Rp3 3p 24 44 00�4 NA 00511663 Block 2. Onaway
I� 1 6; 1 7 � 8 .� 9�«„� 2 ,I,���i�� 0 n a w a y
Current z�: � 2 Square fvotage/aGreage z 2, o 0 o s q, f t.
Reason for varianae arid hazdship: T r a f f i c H a z a r d. N o e x i s t i n q d o c k h e i q h t
1 o a d i n g d o c k S2C�lOri Of Cltj7 Cbd2:
F'EE �71�R II�ORMATI�i �
(Con'tract Pur�t�ers: Fee Owne�s n�u.st sign this fozm prior to pr�ooessir�g)
� Theodore Willi�m Investments� Bob Lunde, Scott Zbikowski
� 7880 Beech St. N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
OAYTIl�� PF� 574-9225 �
• �:�• . � • •� r• .�
j�ME Jack F. Woods
�S RR-1 Box 123
Fee:
Re� Wood Falls, MN �5066
�-
��
Fermit VAR # � -
Application received by:
Sc�hedul�l Appeals C'�carnniss���� �a�:
I]AY'1TIl�'!E PfiONE 612 - 3 8 8- 8 314
i� • � /. `
� �
for residential p�operties
Sc�heduled City �il date:
6.61
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGQST 20, 1991 _PAGE 12
MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to close the publ
hearing. �
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON ECHLE
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSE AT 8:37
P.M.
Ms. Beaulieu stated that she is sympathetic with a business in
having to spend money; however, she would defin' ely recommend
denial, because she also sympathized with the nei bors. It is too
bad that Hardee's did something that they are n going to have to
remove or replace. She would recommend de al because of the
legitimate complaints of the neighbors.
Ms. Smith stated she agreed with Ms. Beau ieu 100�. She has a real
problem putting a financial hardship o a business, especially in
light of the fact that calls were de to the City, and staff
recommended that they submit a lands ping plan before removing the
fence, and they removed the fence anyway. She would concur with
denial of the variance.
Mr. Kuechle stated he looked t the site, and it certainly has to
be a problem for the neighb s on 57th Place. He thought it should
be a requirement for a bu iness at this location to have a fence.
Even though $2,000 is a ertain sum of money, he did not feel that
created an undue hard ip. He agreed with the removal of the old
fence, because it wa definitely an eyesore and needed replacement.
He would also vote o deny the variance.
MOTION by Ms. S th, seconded by Ms. 8eaulieu, to recommend to City
Council denia of variance request, VAR #91-24, by Patrick Hayes,
Hardee's Res aurant, per Section 205.14.06.G.(1).(a) of the Fridley
City Code, o reduce the height of the required screening adjacent
to a res'dential district from 6 feet to 3 feet, on the east 20
feet o Lot 7, Lots 8-12, and the west 25 feet of Lot 13, Block 7,
City �ew Addition, the same being 289 - 57th Avenue N.E.
ON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RUECHLE
CLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOQSLY.
4. ,CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE RE4UEST, VAR #91-25, BY JACK WOODS
(THEODORE WILLIAM INVESTMENTS):
Per Section 205.18.03.D.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to
reduce the required front yard setback from 35 feet to 20
feet;
Per Section 205.18.06.G.(2) of the Fridley City Code, to allow
a loading dock in the front yard;
To allow the construction of a loading dock platform on Lots
16, 17, 18, and 19, Block 2, Onaway Addition, the same being
7879 Beech Street N.E.
6.62
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGIIST 20, 1991 PAGE 13
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the intersection
of Beech Street and 79th Avenue in the Onaway Addition. The
property is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, as are the properties to
the north, south, east, and west. This site was formerly occupied
by Pappy's Foods.
Ms. McPherson stated that the petitioners are requesting two
variances: (1) to allow an existing loading dock in the front
yard; and (2) to reduce the required front yard setback from 35
feet to 20 feet for a loading dock platform.
Ms. McPherson stated that currently, semi-trailer trucks back in
and park at a 90 degree angle to the building and one lane of
traffic northbound on Beech Street is temporarily blocked while the
trucks are loading or unloading. The petitioners are proposing to
construct a loading dock at approximately a 30 degree angle to the
building, which would allow the truck to back in at an angle and
will minimize a major portion of the traffic conflict which
currently exists. This would also create a condition where the
height of the loading dock would be at the height of the trailer.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioners are also proposing to add
additional screening both on the south and north ends o€ the site
to screen the loading dock from view.
Ms. McPherson stated in this particular instance, staff believes
the ordinance is imposing a hardship. The loading docks in the
front yard are an existing condition, and they cannot be relocated
due to the narrow alley located to the east of the property. The
building was constructed in 1972 permitting the overhead doors in
the front yard.
Ms. McPherson stated the reduction in the front yard setback from
35 feet to 20 feet is necessary to allow the extension of the
loading platform. Vehicles using the new platform would not block
the street; thereby minimizing the traffic impacts on Beech Street.
The new loading area will improve the functionality of the building
and could be considered similar to vestibule or unenclosed deck in
a residential district which are allowed to encroach into the front
yard setback. Since the dock is 4 feet high, it will have no
impact on sight lines from adjacent properties as well as traffic
traveling on Beech Street.
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends that the Appeals Commission
recommend approval of both variances with one stipulation:
1. The proposed earth berm shall be a minimum high, and the
petitioner shall plant four Black Hills Spruce in place
of the proposed Mint Julep Junipers.
6.63
APPEALS COMMISSION MSETING, AUGIIST 20, 1991 PAGE 14
MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Smith, to open the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RIIECHLE
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND T8E PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:47
P.M.
Mr. Bob Lunde stated he is one of the partners with Theodore
William Investments. They are in the process of p�rchasing the
building at 7879 Beech Street. A contingency on the sale is that
they receive a variance for the dock. Theodore William Investments
also owns the building across the street. They conduct a business
called Die Products, Inc., a tool and die and metal stamping
company. They have been in the building across the street for six
years and purchasing the building at 7879 Beech will be an
extension of their business.
Mr. Lunde stated he would outline some of the hardships they have
incurred and also foresee in the future:
1. Wh�n deliveries are made to the building now, in order
for the trucks to back in, the front tires have to go
onto the boulevard or lawn causing damage to the sod and
possibly to the building.
2. A hardship and an embarrassment in conducting their
business involves a conflict with their customers. The
customers park in front of the building. When the truck
has to make a delivery to the commercial building across
the street, the truck cannot get in because the driver
cannot make the turn. So, the driver has to come to
their building and ask that a vehicle be moved. It may
or may not be a customer's vehicle that is blocking that
particular frontage.
3. When trucks are backed in to the building in question,
the front of the cabs of the truck are definitely
blocking half the street. He feels that personally he
is at risk as a driver as well as other peopZe to
opposing traffic on that street.
4. The absence of a dock is a hardship, because it is
difficult to get the material out of trucks without being
able to drive into the truck with a forklift and pick up
the materials. The materials they commonly use would be
a pallet of steel coil weighing 4,000-6,000 pounds per
pallet. They need to have a forklift inside the truck
to remove the material. It is not always possible to
drive a forklift into the street to remove material from
a truck.
�• � '
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGUST 20, 1991 PAGE 15
5. There is also the safety concerns. When they are not
able to drive into a truck to remove the materials, tools
that are commonly used are skid-pullers. Skid-pullers
are a device that squeezes onto a strength or frame
member of a pallet underneath and pulls with the
forklift. The safety problem for his employees is that
when they have to drag material out of the truck when
there is no dock, these skid-pullers can lose their grip
and have slingshot effect flinging the chain or cable
back toward the people working . He would def initely 1 ike
to eliminate that danger by being able to ship and
receive out of a commercial building with the proper
sized loading platform.
Mr. Kuechle stated that with the proposed change for trucks to back
in at a 30 degree angle, how far is the truck still going to stick
out into the street?
Mr. Lunde stated the longest trucks they use are 58 feet long, so
the corner of the truck will still stick out approximately 3 feet.
Ms. Beaulieu asked if the petitioners had any problem with the
stipulation regarding the landscaping.
Mr. Lunde stated he had no objection to planting the Black Hills
Spruce in place of the Mint Julep Junipers on the south, but he
would have a problem doing that on the corner on the north. He
believed the taller trees would obstruct the view of traffic and
cause a traffic hazard.
Ms. McPherson stated she had no problem with that change.
Mr. Scott Zbikowski stated he is the other partner in the business.
He wanted to point out that the loading dock will not be 4 feet
high. Due to the elevation of the building, the loading dock is
only be above the ground approximately 18 inches.
MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Smith, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RUECHLE
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:55
P.M.
Ms. Smith stated this seems to be a well thought out plan, and the
variance seems to make sense. It appears that granting these
variance will actually be an improvement to the appearance of the
property.
Ms. Beaulieu stated she agreed. The new owners are taking care of
a problem that will be improving the condition of the site.
6.6 5
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 20. 1991 PAGE 16
Mr. Kuechle stated he also agreed.
MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to recommend to City
Council approval of variance request, VAR #91-25, by Jack Woods
(Theodore William Investments):
Per Section 205.18.03.D.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce
the required front yard setback from 35 feet to 20 feet;
Per Section 205.18.06.G.(2) of the Fridley City Code, to allow a
loading dock in the front yard;
To allow the construction of a loading dock platform on Lots 16,
17, 18, and 19, Block 2, Onaway Addition, the same being 7879 Beech
Street N.E., with the following stipulation:
l. The proposed earth berm shall be a minimu� of 2 feet
high, and the petitioner shall plant Black Hills Spruce
in place of the proposed Mint Julep Junipers in the south
planting bed.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RUECHLE
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISI,Y.
Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on September
9, 1991.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adjourn the
meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Vice-Chairperson
Kuechle declared the motion carried and the August 20, 1991,
Appeals Commission meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
L�(.V`�
Lynn aba
Recording Secretary
s.ss
� _
�
.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
Community Development Department
P G DrviSION
City of Fridley
September 5, 1991
William Burns, City
Managerj��
�-��.
�`Y
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Steven Barg, Planning Assistant
SUBJECT: Nuisance Abatement at 64th and Ashton Avenues
Please review the attached documentation concerning the vacant
property at the above-referenced location. Several residents near
this site have complained that this property has become a"hang
out" and that illegal dumping, the growth of small trees, and lack
of maintenance have created a public nuisance.
On August 21, 1991, I received a letter from the property owner,
Anna Marie Huston (copy attached). Ms. Huston seemed to indicate
that she wanted to correct the problem, but did not know how to
find someone to perform the work. She also stated that she had no
objection to having the City abate the nuisance and billing her for
the cost.
On August 26, 1991, I received a phone call from Ms. Huston. At
that time, we further discussed her options. I advised her that
I was unable to recommend contractors to remove the small trees,
tree house, debris, and surrounding weeds. Ms. Huston stated that
she would like to abate the nuisance herself, but she was unsure
as to how to proceed. I informed her that unless she provided a
clean-up plan with an acceptable time table for completion, I would
recommend that the City Council authorize abatement at its
September 9, 1991 meeting. Ms. Huston indicated that she would not
be able to attend this meeting due to a schedule conflict. She has
not contacted me since this conversation.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that
public nuisance at its
would include removal
surrounding weeds.
S B/dn
M-91-656
the City Council authorize abatement of this
September 9, 1991 meeting. Such abatement
of the tree house, debris, small trees, and
^
l
_
CtTYOF
FR(DLEY
FR[DLEY MUN[C[PAL CENTER - 6431 UNIVERS[TY AVE. N.E. FR[DLEY, MN 55432 •(6l2) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287
August 5, 1991
Anna Marie Huston
165 - 14th Avenue N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Subject: Vacant Property Near 64th and Ashton Avenues; Lots 13 -
16, Block 13, Fridley Park
Dear Ms. Huston:
Recently I received information suggesting that conditions
constituting a potential hazard exist at the above-referenced
location. Upon inspection, I observed two large areas of assorted
materials and debris, and a tree house in disrepair. It is
important that the materials and the tree house be removed as soon
as possible to protect the health and safety of the area.
Please review the enclosed copy of Fridley City Code 110 which
addresses public nuisances. In accordance with the provisions
outlined in 110.03 and 110.04, this letter shall serve notice that
you have ten days in which to abate this nuisance. If full
compliance is not achieved by August 20, 1991, I will request that
the City Council authorize abatement of this nuisance in accordance
with City Code 110.04.
Please call me at 572-3595 if you have questions or wish to discuss
this further.
Sincerely,
Steven Barg
Planning Assistant
SB/dn
CE-91-322
7A
r �
�
.
DATE:
TO:
Community Development Department
G DIVISION
City of Fridley
August 8,� �Z991
William Burns, City Manager
FROM: � rbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Steven Barg, Planning Assistant
BIIBJECT: Nuisance Abatement at 64th Avenue/Ashton Avenue N.E.
Recently I have received complaints concerning the vacant property
at the above referenced location. At this time, this is a heavily
wooded site. According to the complaints, the City used to mow
this site on a regular basis, but then several years passed without
anyone mowing the property. It is not known whether or not area
residents filed weed complaints during these years, but the lack
of such maintenance resulted in the growth of numerous small trees.
The complainants contend that this property is now used as a
"hangout" for parties and a home for "bums", and that the high
grass/weeds and "forest-like" conditions are to blame.,for this
problem. This vacant property is owned by an individual in
Minneapolis who has not responded to my 2etters.
Upon inspection, I observed the following code violations on this
site:
l. Weeds/hicrh grass - These are present throughout the property,
but could only practicably be removed on the boulevard areas
due to the abundance of trees.
2. nebr.is - There are two large areas of assorted materials and
debris on the site. One of these areas does appear to be a
temporary "living area" of some type.
3. Treehouse - There is a poorly constructed treehouse in one of
the higher trees. This appears to be a potential hazard.
Based on these conditions, I am currently pursuing compliance with
respect to the three items previously mentioned. A reinspection
conducted earlier today revealed continued noncompliance with the
weed ordinance, and I will instruct the Public Works Department to
cut the boulevard areas immediately. I have also sent a letter vf
noncompliance with our public nuisance ordinance indicating that
the debris and treehouse must be removed by August 20, 1991, or the
matter will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration of
an abatement.
:
Nuisance Abatement at 64th Avenue/Ashton Avenue N.E.
August 8, 1991
Page 2
The complainants contend that this site will remain a"hangout"
until the small trees are cleared. They argue that the City would
not be fully performing its duty to protect the neighborhood unless
this is done, and they believe that the City permitted this
condition to develop by faili.ng to cut the property for several
years.
It is questionable whether or not the City has the authority to
declare the trees to be a public nuisance. For this reason, I will
pursue this matter as outlined earlier (focusing on the weeds,
debris, and treehouse), unless otherwise directed. Please advise
the City Council of this situation and let me know if they wish to
have the problem addressed differently.
SB:ls
M-91-584
[i�
l �S 1`�f �-c.''�rt�� ��,
�1..�, .. I�' s.� y i 3
��,
-� �, 1 t 9i
/ i/�. . G�/Cv � U�--�'�yr� �u ��� .
�i `'�,� �,��/� �
l..�l,t� t L�yc,E�e�S�"� �,�2�v
�c Y3I �i,��� �' �y� �?�
�I1.���J�.a--� �V `s�s-� 3�
�.�-,. �YI,,,. ���,
;�.,�-u.� ' ��.���`' :�
�Zzo-�-� c� � .� c�� �.� v � j � �?�
I 3 — � � ����� 1 v � � � ; ��'� - ���--���-�-�-
�� .
���j� 7,?��'.'� cz- ��ev— a-`
,
�
�� , � ��,� '- �z.i
���- (��� �_� --����v . -� ? �_�
c�� °�
_ _ � _ �
C�� �c.�� ���,�t`�-�.�� _ e� �e ��.-c,.`'
, ��� �
��� c9-�� :.�� r � _ �, � _�..C/�2�!
-"'. '"/"%°y�� ��p� �(,��%�-�L' �,
�''a .�•L./jL.,B<.�% . � �v� ��iw -`
L
i / �
:il��yo �L.Q �- � � C�.:�� .
f� � �/� � n
: 7- C�—l�t/ � �-�.L-� C:���c�L' -
� �Q_1t.,�g�-�7���.�- ` ,r �.a'�� G��c..,c�- � ', �-o�
, '
���'-� t�c���:�_ � i.���2�� -
�f �/ ; ��� ��
i,: �
.%r►.-1��� � .
� _
., >
/ � �/
i�� r, ���. y� � CL-�L�' �+'-� ��i
7D
�
_ ,�
C`� � ,_' � Jt�-i �
•rK5`r
♦:K;„}k�
„vj;y1.
¢�ry,,,}',.
•
,
FR(DLEY MUN[C[PAL CENTER • 6431 UN[VERS[TY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 •(612) 571-3450 • FAX (6t2) 571-I?87
August 22, 1991
Anna Marie Huston
165 - 14th Avenue N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Subject: Vacant Property Near 64th and Ashton Avenues; Lots 13-
16, Block 13, Fridley Park
Dear Ms. Huston:
I have received your letter regarding the maintenance of the above-
referenced site. I am pleased that you share the City's concern
and desire to improve this property.
This site has apparently become a"hang out'� for certain
individuals. As I stated in my previous letter to you, there is
a poorly-constructed tree house, which poses a potential liability
to yau as the property owner. In addition, there is a large amount
of materials and debris on the property. Also, the growth and
development of numerous small trees, and the weeds which surround
them, has added to this problem by screening persons using the site
for unauthorized purposes.
This item is scheduled for consideration by the Fridley City
Council at the September 9, 1991 meeting at 7:30 p.m. at the
Fridley Municipal Center. At that time, the City Council can
authorize abatement of the public nuisance, which wouid include
removal of the tree house, debris, small trees, and surrounding
weeds. If this is done, you would be assessed in accordance with
City Code 110.04 (see enclosed copy).
Your letter indicates that you are looking for assistance in
getting this property cleared. While I am not able to recommend
a particular contractor to perform the work, you may wish to pursue
this option. Should you decide to pursue abatement yourself,
please contact me as soon as possible to develop an acceptable
timetable for completion of the work.
However, if you decide to allow the property to be declared a
public nuisance at the City Council meeting on September 9, 1991,
7E
Anna Marie Huston
August 22, 1992
Fage 2
the City will clear the property and assess you for the cost as I
mentioned earlier. Your letter suggests that this alternative may
be acceptable to you.
Piease call me at 572-3595 as soon as possible if you wish to
discuss this further. Thanks for your cooperation!
Sincerely,
Steven Barg
Planning Assistant
SB/dn
CE-91-365
7F
� _
�
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Community Development Department
PLA►NNING DIVISION
City of Fridley
September 6, 1991 �(�
William Burns, City Manager ��
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Request for Waiver of Temporary Sign Permit Fee
and Deposit; Knights of Columbus Hall
We have received the attached letter from Libbie Sellors requesting
that the temporary sign permit fee and deposit be waived in order
to display a banner at the Knights of Columbus Hall. An estate and
rummage sale will be held in order to raise funds in support of
the Roman Catholic religious order, specifically to benefit their
seminarians. Staff recommends that the City Council waive the fee
and permit requirements.
MM/ dn
M�91-663
L
3205 Roosevelt St. N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55418
September 5, 1991
Mayor William Nee and Council Members
The City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn
Dear Mayor Nee and Council Members,
Wednesday, October 9 through Friday, October 11, 1991 an Estate and
Regal Rummage Sale will be held at the Knights of Columbus Hall on
Highway 65 in Fridley. This event will be held in support of the
Roman Catholic religious order, the Legionaries of Christ and in
particular for the benefit of their seminarians.
We would like to display a banner promoting this event on the hall
grounds and request that the permit fee and deposit be waved.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
�
Sincerely,
� �
__ _ _ __ .- . /
� �
Libbie Sellors
: �
!
�
i
City of Fridley
Recreation & Natural Resource Department
6431 University Avenue NE, Fridley, Minnesota 55432
Phone # 612-572-3570 Fax # 612-571-1287
September 5, 1991
TO:
FR:
�,
William W. Burns �
��
City Manager
Jack Kirk ��
Director
RE: SPRINGBROOR NATIIRR CENTBR LANDSCAPING AND ENTRANCE AREA
PROJECT
On Thursday, August 29, 1991 at 11:00 a.m. bids were opened for the
Springbrook Nature Center Landscaping and Entrance Area project.
The project includes completion of the previously scheduled
irrigation system, landscaping around the new parking lot and
entrance area, and new trees as the final part of the tornado
restoration. The low bidder for the project was Uundee Nursery
with a base bid of $21,549.32.
Funds available for this project total $27,376.65 which includes
the City purchasing materials for the irrigation system at
approximately $5,800. This leaves $21,576.65 for the part of the
project that was bid and the low bid is within the funds available.
I recommend that City Council accept all bids on the project and
award the bid to Dundee Nursery. With the approval of City Council
staff will commence working with Dundee Nursery towards completion
of the project. We would expect the entire project to be completed
by the 15th of October.
JK: sj
�J
SPRINGBROOK NATURE CENTER
LANDSCAPING PROJECT
Bid Opening August 29, 1991, 11:00 a.m.
.;:.4•:•a;•:.x•y:•r:.. •.ya•.•:...:ry:�.., fi.; .
..x . .t.xr:+c.. .:tc•r.;'..,.• • k,+:�c•cr
.�;:::;:,, .:..........:. ----...... ....
•.. v: �":.?i: v.r.,.4ii;i}:�;�.•�vyii:} . .. ., . . : %}.:.. ; r. r',L jt';%}.i:�;ji�+::<:�},:..44;. ... M1.�i:{�+'fij � v' . h, . r\....}.if.i:�.�ti:fi:,+•f4ti+,"�.'.:�f ':}...Y....rn?}?]L'in''�;.n.$... '��:C�v'
:;>i�`.i;•..:iv�...:.\t, .���iiik;{:?�::i.•iii. v �ry'.� i i} \, r} . 2}
i: }`T:$':i�;.i:i>ii•.?`t.,'., ' ;r:'�C{?,; \;,%',' .. ,� .,�:+:; '' . ;4� $. '•. ; ' {�+'zv
''n. 'i� : ry• . : {v}: kZ;'.}w�r.r . :� ,f}r*.' .}, ri 4 A � ` {
:•i;ri,ir{.,:.•.. ���. :} ��' ''. i: .�• }M1.�. x:... x{v .: i':i;:. : ' .{>.. : • �{i'� .hk*:. :
.. . : •
��i:.� ..�� .���.M1 v��
..'.{tv.. . .J. :Y.r . :..•.'�..�.•.�.•..,�.� . �M�'.�.��� �� • } :
•:?•:%:��r.. .h•.v:.v.:'.: . . .�.�.�� ^.
.?•:'ii •:vv
:: vr..n.t:.
::.t:: _•::.:... '
::. v.vti•:: .nt.....• .. �
::n�:::::p•: :•....r Y�--....".'...... 'v:rii:.:'ii:::. . }.i. . Nttr.}.. • x•nv. .e . . t.. �... ..... . .:. vn.t . : . :.� ry•
....... :. ................... �.,::>.•.t::%;�:.':::�::�:it::•,':%`.;:i,•..;>.2::;r`s�:v
•::•::::a::v::::.>:.;;:,`..::•::+.•::•::::::::::•:.::::::::;•::.:::.:::•::•::• ::...............•:.�:::.,... •:::::::f...+.�:::....,,Y:SE�:C.t..,...a`...?.�.s,•... a:w.�i.t.Xa�.�.•::::r.£•.,ar'�,:.v.a>,.{#tY•: •
Bachman's No Bid
Central Landscaping No Bid
The City Forester No Bid
Cashier's
Dundee Check 59�0 $21,549.32 1
Earth Shapes No Bid
Fairs Garden Center No Bid
Lino Lakes Landscaping No Bid
Mickman Brothers Nursery No Bid
Cashier's
Minnesota Vaifey Garden Center Check 5% $23,621.00 2
Nobie Nursery No Bid
Park Nursery No Bid .
Second Nature Landscaping No Bid
Turf Masters Inc. No Bid
. �
MEMORANDUM
_ Municipal Center
_ 6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridtey, MN 55432
UN�F � (612) 577-3450
FRIDLEY
Office of the City Manager
William W. Burns
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City CounciZ
�.
FROM: William W. Burns, City Manager�NU`�
DATE: September 5, 1991
SUBJECT: Senior Citizens Center Task Force -
The following individual has agreed to serve on the Fridley Senior
Citizens Center Task Force:
Gordon Sangster
We request that the City Council approve the appointment of Mr.
Sangster to the Fridley Senior Citizens Center Task Force. With
this appointment, the Fridley Senior Citizens Center Task Force
will have the required eight representatives.
WWB:rsc
0
10
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
�
�r
MEMORANDUM
AILLIAM W. BIIRNS,
RICHARD D. PRIBYL,
CITY MANAGER J� ,l� � �
n�
FINANCE DIRECTOR
FINAL REAPPROPRIATIONS FOR TH8 1990 BIIDGET
SEPTEMBER 4, 1991
Attached you will find the final changes to the City's Budget for
1990. These changes are done every year-end in conjunction with
the preparation of the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report.
You might note that this years changes are diminutive in comparison
to the previous years because of the budgeting changes that have
been made. The main changes noted in the Resolution are in the
Special Revenue Funds. These changes are actually aligning the
Budget based on changes that were made because of revenue changes
or work scope changes. The General Fund has very few changes that
are noteworthy this year other than the change that was made to now
show our personnel time expended for other funds as a charge for
service.
RDP/me
Attachment
11
RESOLUTION NO. - 1991
A RESOLIITION AIITHORIZTNG CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS FOR
THE GENERAL FIIND� GRANT MANAGEMENT FDND� HRA
REIMBURSEMENT FIIND� CAPITAL IMPROVSMENT FIIND� AND TH8
MIINICIPAL CENTER REMODLLING FUND FOR THE YEAR 1990
WHEREAS, the Government Finance Officers Association requires that
all line items within divisions reflect favorable account balances
in the Annual Report; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has involved itself in initiatives
that provide for future charges and modifications that will provide
for a better delivery of service, and
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley had not incorporated these and other
necessary changes into the adopted budget for 1990.
NOW, TiiEREFORE BE TT RESOLVED, that the budgets of the following
divisions and funds be amended as follows:
GENERAL FUND
REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
CURRENT AD VALOREM TAXES
HOMESTEAD CREDIT
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS
PERSONNEL
FINANCE
FIRE
MUNICIPAL CENTER
CODE ENFORCEMENT
PLANNIIVG
PUBLIC WORKS & PARKS
PERSONAL SERVICES
PERSONAL SERVICES
PERSONAL SERVICES
SUPPLIES/CHARGES
SUPPLIES/CHARGES
PERSONAL SERVtCES
PERSONAL SERVICES
PERSONAL SERVICES
SUPPLIES/CHARGES
11A
39,793
(39,793)
461,000 RECLASSIFICATION OF
(461,000) ADMINISTRATIVETRANSFERS
$0
544 EMPLOYEE LEAVE
206 WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM
22,765 WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM
5,417 SWAP FROM PUBLIC WORKS
4,068 ARTWORK
t,025 EMPLOYEE LEAVE
4,972 EMPLOYEE LEAVE
7,224 WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM
(5,41 � SWAP WITH MUNICIPAL CENTER
GENERAL FUND (COIV�
NATURALIST PERSONAL SERVICES
RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCY
TOTAL APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT
REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
_ _
SPEqAL REVENUE FUNDS
GRANT MANAGEMENT FUND
1,89Q WORKER'S COMP PREMlUM
i42+ssa)
$0
INTERGOVERNMENTAL-STATE $71,179 RECYCLING GRANT
INTERGOVERNMENTAL-FEDER (23,433) CDBG
DONATIONS 100
MISCELLANEOUS 500
FUND BALANCE 425
�as,m
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS
PERSONAL SERVICES
SUPPLIES/ CHARGES
CAPITAL OUTLAY
REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
HRA REIMBURSBuIENT FUND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS
SUPPLIES/ CHAAGES
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
CAPfTAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
6,242
96,279
(53,750)
$48.771
$57,197
57,197
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS
CAPITA� OUTLAY (157,360)
SUPPLIES/CHARGES 157,360
$0
MUNICIPAL CENTER REMODELING FUND
REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
FUND BALANCE
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS
SUPPLIES/ CHARGES
CAPITAL OUTLAY
FUND BALANCE DEFICIT
11B
3,593
14,409
$18,002
1.377
16,253
372
$18.002
RESOLUTION NO. - 1991
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
DAY OF , 1991
ATTEST:
WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR
SHIRLEY A. HAAPALA - CITY CLERK
11C
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
t
r�.�r
MEMORANDUM
T0: AILLIAM W. BIIRNB, CITY MANAGBR rN�
�� •
FAOM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SHARON FETTING, STAFF ACCOONTANT
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATIONS TO THE 1991
BIIDGET
DATE: September 4, 1991
Attached you will find a resolution amending appropriations to the
1991 Budget in accordance with the City Charter.
The adjustments listed have arisen as a result of donations, items
budgeted in the incorrect categories, and unforseen expenditures.
All adjustments have been informally approved by you through the
Budget Reappropriation Form. We request that Council approve the
amendment of the attached budgets.
RDP/sf
Attachment
12
RESOLIITION NO. -1991
A RESOLIITION AIITHORIZING CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS
FOR THE GSNERAL FIIND AND TH8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
FUND FOR THE YEAR 1991
WHEREA5, the City of Fridley has received donations from various
organizations; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has involved itself in initiatives
that provide for charges and modifications that will provide for
a better delivery of service; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley had not incorporated these and other
necessary changes into the adopted budget for 1991.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Counci]. of the City of
Fridley authorizes the budgets of the following divisions and funds
be amended as follows:
GENERAL FUND
REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
Pub Safe - Coloring Books Police - Charges
Misc. Rev. - Donations Police - Supplies
Misc. Rev. - Donations Fire - Supplies
Misc. Rev. - Donations Fire - Capital Outlay
Misc. Rev. - Donations Nature Center - Supplies
Misc. Rev. - Donations Recreation - Supplies
Misc. Rev. - Donations Recreation - Capital Outlay
Fund Balance/Encumb. Automatic Irrigation System
Fund BalancelEncumb. Tornado Restoration
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS
Police Charges for Services
Supplies
Supplies
Supplies
Supplies
Supplies
Cha�ges for Services
Capital Outlay
Fire Supplies
Charges for Services
Capital Outlay
Charges for Services
Supp4ies
Capital outlay 12 A
$8,750
$5,435
$2,247
$1,Q00
$20
$50
$550
$5,000
$15,823
$38,875
$8,750 Coloring Books
$500 DARE Program
$300 Crime Prevention Bike Rodeo
$700 National Night Out
$410 Natio�al Night Out
$3,525 National Night Out
($1,160) Move to Capital Outlay
$1,160 Case File Carriers
$2,247 Fire Truck Equipment
$4,049 Fire Engine Brake Repair
$1,000 Decontamination Trailer
$4,538 Aerial Ladde� Parts
$1,080 Turn Out Gear
($1,080) Move to Supplies
Municipal Center Capital Outlay $3,000 Telephone Battery Back-up
Public Works Charges for Services ($1,490) Move to Capital Outlay
Capitai Outtay $1,490 Garage Air Conditioner
Nature Center
Recreation
Emergency Reserve
Supplies
Other Financing Uses
Other Financing Uses
Supplies
Capital Outlay
$20 Operating Suppiies
$5,000 Transfer to Capital Improvement Fund
$15,823 Transfer to Capitai Improvement Fund
$50 Operating Suppiies
$550 Community Park Popcorn Machine
($4,538) Move to Fire
($3,000) Move to Municipal Center
($4,049) Move to Fire
$38,875
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
Other Financing Sources Parks - Capital Outlay $20,823
$20,823
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS
Parks Capital Charges for Services
Contingency Capital Outlay
Parks Capital Capital Outlay
$1,500 Refund on Park Donation
($1,500) Move to Charges for Services
$20,823 Springbrook Entrance & Landscaping
$20,823
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
DAY OF , 1991.
ATTEST:
SHIRLEY A. HAAPALA — CITY CLERK
�7
WILLIAM J. NEE — MAYOR
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
�
�
MEMORANDUM
. J( �
TO. AILLIAM W. HIIRNS� CITY MANAGER �!�''
FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
DAVID DUBORD� A88ISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR
MARY SMITH, ASSESSMENT CLERR
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. STREET 1990 - 3
DATE: SEPTEMBER 5� 1991
Attached you will find the resolution directing preparation of
assessment roll for Street Improvement Project No. Street 1990 - 3.
This project involved the extension of 67th Avenue off of Oakley
Street. The assessments will be placed on seven lots equally and
assessed over a ten year period.
RDP/ms
Attachment
13
RESOLIITION NO. - 1991
RE80LIITION DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSESBMENT ROLL
FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. STREET 1990 - 3
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fridley, Anoka
County, Minnesota, as follows:
1. It is hereby determined that the assessable cost of
construction with respect to the following named improvement,
to-wit:
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. STREET 1990 - 3
including all incidental expenses thereto is estimated at
$99.928.01.
2. The City Clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amounts
to be specially assessed for said improvement against every
assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land benefited by said
improvement according to law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COIINCIL OF THE CiTY OF FRIDLEY THTS
DAY OF , 1991.
ATTEST:
WILLiAM J. NEE - MAYOR
SHIRLEY A. HAAPALA - CITY CLERR
13A
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
t
�r
MEMORANDUM
TO: WILLIAM W. BIIRNB, CITY MANAGER 'I�`�
�'
FROM: RICIiARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
DAVID DIIBORD, ASSISTANT FINANCL DIRECTOR
MARY SMITH, ASSESSMENT CLERR
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION DIRECTING PIIBLICATION OF HEARING ON PROPOSED
ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. STREET
1990 - 3
DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 1991
Attached you will find the resolution directing publication of
hearing on proposed assessment roll for Street Improvement Project
No. Street 1990 - 3. This project involved the extension of 67th
Avenue off of Oakley Street. The assessments will be placed on seven
lots equally and assessed over a ten year period.
RDP/ms
Attachment
14
RESOLIITION NO. - 1991
REBOLIITION DIRECTING PIIBLICATION OF HEARING ON PROPOSED
ASSE88MENT ROLL FOR THE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.
STREET 1990 - 3
WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the Council on ,
1991, the City Clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment
of the cost of concrete curb and gutter, aggregate base course,
bituminous paving, parking lot and related appurtenances; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk has notified the Council that such proposed
assessment roll has been completed and filed in his office for
public inspection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City Council shall meet at the Fridley Municipal Center
in the City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, on the 21st
day of October, 1991, at 7:30 o'clock P.M. to pass upon the
proposed assessment for:
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. STREET 1990 - 3
2. The City Clerk shall publish notices of the time and place of
meeting in the official newspaper of the City at least two (2)
weeks prior to such meeting.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COIINCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
DAY OF , 1991
ATTEST:
SHIRLEY A. HAAPALA - CITY CLERR
. .1
WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR
CITY OF FRIDLEY
ANORA COIINTY, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF HEARING ON ASSESSMENT FOR 8TREET
IMPRODEMENT PROJECT NO. STREET 1990 - 3
Notice is hereby given that the Council of the City of Fridley will
meet at the Fridley Municipal Center in said City on the 21st day
of October, 1991, at 7:30 o'clock P.M., to hear and pass upon all
objections, if any, to the proposed assessments in respect to the
following improvements, to-wit:
BTREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. BTREET 1990 - 3
The proposed assessment roll for each of said improvements in the
total amount of 599,928.01 is now on file and open to public
inspection by all persons interested, in the office of the Clerk
of said City.
The general nature of the improvements and each of them is the
construction of street improvements including installation of
concrete curb and gutter, aggregate base course, bituminous paving,
parking lot, and related appurtenances located as follows:
67TH AVENIIE, OARLEY BTREET & SPRINGBROOR NATIIRE CENTER
The area proposed to be assessed for said improvements and each of
them is all that land benefited by said improvements or each of
them and lying within the general area above. Said improvements
will be assessed against the properties within the above noted
areas in whole or in part proportionately to each of the lands
therein contained according to the benefits received.
At said hearing the Council will consider written or oral
objections to the proposed assessments for each of said
improvements. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of any
individual assessment unless a written objection signed by the
affected property owner is filed with the City Clerk prior to the
assessment hearing or.presented to the presiding officer at the
public hearing.
A property owner may appeal an assessment to the district court by
serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk within
thirty (30) days after adoption of the assessment and filing such
notice with the district court within ten (10) days after service
upon the Mayor or City Clerk.
The City of Fridley adopted Resolution No. 47 - i981 on Apri2 6,
1981, relating to the deferral of special assessments for certain
senior citizens where the payment of said special assessments
constitutes a hardship. The following factors will govern the
granting of the deferments: the property must be homestead
property, and the owner must be at least sixty-five (65) years of
. �
Paqe 2- Notice of Hearinq on Assessment for Street Improvement
Project No. Street 1990 - 3
age or older, and in the case of husband and wife, one member must
meet this age requirement.
The application for said deferral must be made within the first
thirty (30) days after the adoption of the final assessment roll
by the City Council. The owner will make application for deferred
payments on forms prescribed by tre Anoka County Auditor, and will
make application to the City of Fridley on forms provided by the
City.
The City Council will consider each application on an individual
basis; however, the general policy is to grant senior citizen
hardship special assessment deferrals when the annual payment for
the special assess�nent exceeds two (2) per cent of the adjusted
gross income of the owners as determined by the most recent Federal
Income Tax Return.
The deferral will be terminated and all amounts accumulated plus
applicable interest shall become due when any of the following
happen: the death of the owner, provided that the surviving spouse
is not otherwise eligible for the deferral; the sale, transfer, or
subdivision of the property or any part thereof; loss of homestead
status for any reason; the City Council determines that further
deferral is not in the public interest.
DATED THIS DAY OF , 1991 BY ORDER OF THE CITY
COIINCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY.
WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR
ATTEST:
SHIRLEY A. HAAPALA - CITY CLERR
Publish: Fridley Focus on October 2 and 9, 1991
14C
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
�
�
MEMORANDUM
TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS CITY MANAGLR `�
. ��i`
FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
DAVID DIIBORD� ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR
MARY SMITH, ASSESSMENT CLBRK
SUBJECT: RESOLIITION DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMLNT ROLL FOR
WATER, SANITARY SEWER & STORM SEWER PROJECT NO. 210
DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 1991
Attached you will find the resolution directing preparation of the
assessment roll for Water, Sanitary Sewer & Storm Sewer Project No.
210. This project involved the extension of 67th Avenue off of
Oakley Street. The assessments will be placed on seven lots equally
and assessed over a twenty year period.
RDP/me
Attachment
15
RESOLUTION NO. - 1991
RESOLIITION DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ASBESSMENT ROLL
FOR WATER, SANITARY SEWER & STORM SEAER PROJECT NO. 210
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fridley, Anoka
County, Minnesota, as follows:
1. It is hereby determined that the assessable cost of
construction with respect to the following named improvement
to-wit:
WATER, SANITARY SEWER & STORM BEWER PROJECT NO. 210
including all incidental expenses thereto is estimated at
$35,395.50.
2. The City Clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amounts
to be specially assessed for said improvement against every
assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land benefited by said
improvement according to law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY T$E CITY C4IINCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIB
DAY OF , 1991.
ATTEST:
WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR
SHIRLEY A. HAAPALA - CITY CLERR
15A
• . � • (») � � . � . ` . �,} \ '\ , � %�� i � �o 1 s. e ��
��� . �/� �/ .J () t I-{J\.� �� �« {L�\ , ` 1i'-�•!� • i V q J �l.
(`) 1 . �1 /`) . i � � 7 t . ` . (il)rn h I^ .bl'h� �'.)
�' �4 �� ` > °,� �� I'I/ i�
Q � ,� - �- ,%�'i _ . ��:".; '��; ; , ; i) (�
. < <:
b � j'� � ^� � � '.ti (J,,� r `' c �,^ : ; : � ;,:y,� ., p�� '
<:�. -y c�v ,b �` / ; ' ;` ; - ' � �/% � � . � `' �� (�) y o
�. � 4 �e) . -.� ) ` � ,s� `-w�o . • :. .�a � ` o J �9 ;
, 3 �,� n �q �,�` � � �d ��,� �^ .1 � � : g /5 /6 / ;
4
`Y v,qh ;.__ �� —�9 i :4 u'�. y w" i,� �/9) � ''� ,,//
R)r Y ,e,! _ _ �` .J � �• �h� ��((
(�J� ���Q�` o (p1J � �� �./�I1'� ' �}� z3 /23.a9 � �` •� v 1"'1� `,� %
� � Q ti o ,y�%� ��,; �• / � ° a'i 9 �r�� "o �j�) �,� ; (�7 _
C +_ mr`. 9 a y
,��''��'�1 �j.' � w s�A' �/ � :`'� ,, ° } ^`: f y .., k i .a � m � � J 3 ; � z oc!•_u •�'favE
!i¢' s "_{ u (f/j o 'P wa+.c J�; <�� � �I7.�' ,Z1.eS9 ° 2�l�I
o� , �
�•;, • , � 3y � • � y � 7 q �O � �--� �8� '9 (i) ��
� `:• �, %�'� w, ; �2 �: � �. � ° (n ti i 6 0 m �
° T��� w '� Z 2'� Z pR
�- �'� �°� � <`'�� � �a � '� �� � .<o ' N
_ �, . � .. o. , ,v �
4 f1 �C � �e �/�i � �� � � �% m : m � % " ro (js,�p W '�i
%� � � �/� o0
�� e � V' �3 � lu% 8 � ° �, � / °J i� /s.7.G�Y /za.4B �� �� ' � �} � � •
�. M ;� m L ` . .y ; `�� lH� W 1 t1J � h �
e�-� a ,� -T __. ,�- M � �
�a � _:. E19� A �.1 c� »1� ^ : ' _ �' ? l� � " %/�f � ilf%� .m h'
`�y�'� --z ,��'�:? � �� � � � `•�z3. ,ay s • I o �e
� � '� � �? � �� � � � � ' 9, � � ��'�� � � � ��� �. a M as� � r +� 4 � , � � �s��
^ • � ��.p�' CG�� oS � t � � • °��. ' � v � � e ,�2 .: z ' e
. �. � J S,. v 1
7v o. �0 7S e, � SO �1�'�'a! /o.T 9Z'! 50 y,fa•N�34• ' 9'd � � .69�
• T:;• r,:e 1:se r�.. � �„ � 1
�1 , ...... .74.d ... . T:a• ,o. � 0
O G
• — it.Ra —��� ��ia.�a n�rs•sric_n' ,e,� [� h68T L
'� .:� �:. I1.� L�.i'� -..ros.e• .... .G ��8. .' . � • � '�g� � _� �
.)� 6t s� ' �r� n •- ; Z4 a 3..f
w, /as.1� • S f
� �,z �. ri � �-� : .
. .
� ��� � �,o � .:.:.� (•�> m � (s� �5= cs <so� (� � � �.,
� o �, I 4 J 1 (i�� .� (G4) _ �
� � ��
'.`, � ��'k) J 7� � ` - - - - �� .
s o o 1 ` ` 1 _•
/JLi '� W �x�J•f�W' � /:�/ �[ ` � �+ r ' �(iJr�• �2� � � � a .
� \ a.
�(�%;y �► � / • ` .. /
�� t aY z �• '+ _
;; ti � � °o" o ��-� 3�K� Q ,.�,', / - (�,�.5 � . J (!s) (� �l �� , � ¢,�
�/ � � • , , 6
"' � �,�.�'' v ; /�� �y ' � ' Y ' O�e Bee Ca�.,��t:.y
`� ee�P. o � , �� . 65) (�l (G71 j Z
S�• ¢��� �i� ie�o .oxs •�s � LS�
9� !?s; �Q"E �zo �o) Q ' 67 T+�1 AV. N E.. e -,.o,., . _ , �� �(��) 6 A(i66�
l�5) _""' NS�V : V o.a' �sss1. �-. • t""'
is'Q-D i3 E / q� . �. . .3 Z : � � s» - � t W ` _ ��f.!! __ u �1�� V � �/67c
�c� #;
C• fy .f F.; �/By�J _; . i�°� N A L a) �'6�, fG3) � W C=�> �i .
� �II ��,� US , r� ,� Y e , �
�`-`v` ��er.f'� C , `� �o' rc� 90' � � -- -- � `-�, V � �/7oc
� J C� •
� �� p � o �-- ;
�,3 $o� �. . . 2 N , ��.�o �� 8 � e � ����� m ��� 6 D r'�zo�
Meodow/onds Poik � �� 0 N ` - � �
D ' ; .zis -- �— —
q� �e � A p 6� . �
O �� ���� 4 0 ; . � ��: o ' ���~. � �.�� 6 EP��>
.
.. 11I ++ :Z/f _�__ __ So f
(z16o � . _.
3 �.GP o ^ �,� �oi�.� 3� o .��,
oe�zc• N� ^ �� �io � o p o .
Sy9 tr%% v � 8 A.�� �°. � C�� : 8,��� s q /(��
� (2°°°) � � z�� ;zo�s:.� �
o � io 8 0.. �
-� /4 .� � iiigg � — -----
� - (+I
a
; \ ^ � '�-� F , oo �„� �. �.��� ; �zs.��� � o ¢W c�s> � � . A C�� _ � v c��
8 �
� �y •,' _ � — _� _�
° ' � ,� �2240J /L.. •`"
�o ° � 7s o (212 0} 0 �
�. 80 0 0 )C�f�\ ` �,o���,�Q, ��r
�� . SECO D RE �SION SG(2� ,_ �,� �,¢ � ,(,
o � f .� - � ,o�.�, ,�,1¢ ;o, ! � o�x
� F- (�� C>> �� �, �,� � {z,*°> �• �. �f� �� . a
� (2530) (2S6b) (�r6Q% (' � i� (,2oP�i i ��� O �• (�
.
� FW, 9 A 9 C 9 �Z3o; — -- $ 6 � 2.�� i�' " ° �i i ��°� o ' � �.�,� ,,�
�8 H "
�� � � �D�� : I . �� ;' �' � �
(�°� 6 ��s � .
° ,a AUD. SU . N . 2,1 l) . � � , � C� ���� � �,
'.'rn I t � -'�3, •' �/ozo /o�0 1.� �_ --- �
p�y �6 0 � � �� 10
� ^'� qp 1 >r 1 7�/� � .i/ r� _�¢C'1-j1 �
m • . �� 15B - o�,�.»a
G�b ER
C. 3 � �
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
t
r��r
MEMORANDUM
i° ,
TO: WILLIAM W. BIIRNS� CITY MANAGER ���y
�
FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL� FINANCE DIRECTOR
DAVID DIIBORD, ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR
MARY 3MITH, ASSESSMENT CLERR
SUBJECT: RESOLIITION DIRECTING PIIBLICATION OF HBARING ON PROPOSED
ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR NATER, SANITARY SEi�ER & STORM SEWER
PROJECT NO. 210
DATE: SEPTEMBER 5� 1991
Attached you will find the resolution directing publication of
hearing on proposed assessment roll for Water, Sanitary Sewer & Storm
Sewer Project No. 210. This project involved the extension of 67th
Avenue off of Oakley Street. The assessments will be placed on seven
lots equally and assessed over a twenty year period.
RDP/me
Attachment
16
RESOLIITION NO. - 1991
RESOLIITION DIRECTING PUBLICATION OF HEARING ON
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR WATER, SANITARY BEWER
& BTORM BEWER PROJECT NO. 210
WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the Council on ,
1991, the City Clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment
of the cost of water mains, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and
related appurtenances; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk has notified the Council that such proposed
assessment roll has been completed and.filed in his office for
public inspection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City Council shall meet at the Fridley Municipal Center
in the City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, on the 21st
day of October, 1991, at 7:30 o'clock P.M. to pass upon the
proposed assessment for:
AATER, SANITARY SEWER & STORM BEWER PROJECT NO. 210
2. The City Clerk shall publish notices of the time and place of
meeting in the official newspaper of the City at least two (2)
weeks prior to such meeting.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COIINCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
DAY OF , 1gg�
ATTEST:
WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR
SHIRLEY A. HAAPALA - CITY CLERR
16A
CITY OF FRIDLEY
ANORA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF HEARING ON A83E33MENT FOR WATER, SANITARY SEWER
& STORM SEWER PROJECT NO. 210
Notice is hereby given that the Council of the City of Fridley will
meet at the Fridley Municipal Center in said City on the 21st day
of October, 1991, at 7:30 o'clock P.M., to hear and pass upon all
objections, if any, to the proposed assessments in respect to the
following improvements, to-wit:
WATER, SANITARY SEWER & STORM SEAER PROJECT NO. 210
The proposed assessment roll for each of said improvements in the
total amount of 535,395.50 is now on file and open to pubiic
inspection by all persons interested, in the office of the Clerk
of said City.
The general nature of the improvements and each of them is the
construction of water mains, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer, and
related appurtenances located as follows:
67TH AVENIIE E%TENSION AND OAKLEY STREET
The area proposed to be assessed for said improvements and each of
them is all that land benefited by said improvements or each of
them and lying within the general area above. Said improvements
will be assessed against the properties within the above noted
areas in whole or in part proportionately to each of the lands
therein contained according to the benefits received.
At said hearing the Council will consider written or oral
objections to the proposed assessments for each of said
improvements. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of any
individual assessment unless a written objection signed by the
affected property owner is filed with the City Clerk prior to the
assessment hearing or presented to the presiding off icer at the
public hearing.
A property owner may appeal an assessment to the district court by
serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk within
thirty (30) days after adoption of the assessment and filing such
notice with the district court within ten (10) days after service
upon the Mayor or City Clerk.
The City of Fridley adopted Resolution No. 47 - 1981 on April 6,
1981, relating to the deferral of special assessments for certain
senior citizens where the payment of said special assessments
constitutes a hardship. The following factors will govern the
granting of the deferments: the property must be homestead
property, and the owner must be at least sixty-five (65) years of
age or older, and in the case of husband and wife, one member must
meet this age requirement.
. :
Paqe 2- Notice of 8earinq on Assessment for Water, Sanitary 8ewe=
& Storm 8ewer Project No. 210
The application for said deferral must be made within the first
thirty (30) days after the adoption of the final assessment roll
by the City Council. The owner will make application for deferred
payments on forms prescribed by the Anoka County Auditor, and will
make application to the City of Fridley on forms provided by the
City. .
The City Council will consider each application on an individual
basis; however, the general policy is to grant senior citizen
hardship special assessment deferrals when the annual payment for
the special assessment exceeds two (2) per cent of the adjusted
gross income of the owners as determined by the most recent Federal
Income Tax Return.
The deferral will be terminated and all amounts accumulated plus
applicable interest shall become due when any of the following
happen: the death of the owner, provided that the surviving spouse
is not otherwise eligible for the deferral; the sale, transfer, or
subdivision of the property or any part thereof; loss of homestead
status for any reason; the City Council determines that further
deferral is not in the public interest.
DATED THIB DAY OF , 1991 BY ORDER OF THE CITY
COIINCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY.
AILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR
ATTEST:
SHIRLEY A. HAAPALA - CITY CLERR
Publish: Fridley Focus on October 2 and 9, 1991
16C
TO:
FROM:
SOBJECT:
DATE:
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
�
�r
MEMORANDUM
WILLIAM W. 8URN8� CITY MANAGER ��:�
�'
RICHARD D. PRIBYL� FINANCE DIRSCTOR
DAVID DIIBORD, ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR
MARY SMITH, ASSESSMENT CLERR
RESOLIITION DIRECTING PREPARATION OF THE 1991 ASSESSMENT
FOR TREATMENT AND REMOVAL OF TREES 1991
SEPTEMBER 5, 1991
Attached you will find the resolution directing preparation of the
1991 assessment for treatment and removal of trees. This
assessment roll consists of the removal of diseased trees within
the City of Fridley. The charges are made under the authority
provided in State Statutes Section.18.023 and Chapter 104 of the
City Code.
There is an administrative charge of $25.00 added to
of land assessed-in addition to the contractor's charge
down a diseased�tree. The total cost will be assessed
of f ive ( 5) years .
RDP/me
Attachment
17
each parcel
for cutting
for a period
RESOLIITION NO. - 1991
RESOLIITION DIRECTING PREPARATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR
TREATMENT AND REMOVAL OF TREE3 1991
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Fridley, Anoka County,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. It is hereby determined that the assessable cost with respect
to the following named improvement, to-wit:
TREATMENT AND REMOVAL OF TREES 1991
including all incidental expenses thereto, is estimated at
$225.00.
2. The City Clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amounts
to be specially assessed for said improvement against every
assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land benefited by said
improvement according to law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COtTNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
ATTEST:
DAY OF � 1991.
WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR
SHIRLEY A. HAAPALA - CITY CLERK
17A
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
t
r�.�r
MEMORANDUM
r
TO: WILLIAM W. BIIRNS, CITY MANAGER .�'
�
FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
DAVID DUBORD, ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR
MARY SMITH, ASSESSMENT CLERR
SUBJECT: RESOLOTION DIRECTING PIIBLICATION OF HEARING ON THE
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE TREATMENT AND REMOVAL
OF TREE3 1991
DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 1991
Attached you will find the resolution directing publication of
hearing on the proposed assessment roll for the Treatment and
Removal of Trees 1991. This assessment roll consists of the removal
of diseased trees within the City of Fridley. The charges are made
under the authority provided in State Statutes Section 18.023 and
Chapter 104 of the City Code.
There is an administrative charge of $25.00 added to each parcel
of land assessed in addition to the contractor's charge for cutting
down a diseased tree. The total cost will be assessed for a period
of five (5) years.
RDP/me
Attachment
�[ '
•.
RESOLIITION NO. - 1991
RESOLIITION DIRECTING PIIBLICATION OF HEARING ON THE PROPOSED
ASSESSMENT ROI�L FOR THE TREATMENT AND REMOVAL OF TREES 1991
WHEREAS, by resolution passed by the Council on ,
1991, the City Clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment
of the cost of treatment and removal of trees; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk has notified the Council that such proposed
assessment roll has been completed and filed in his office for
public inspection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, as followsz
1. The City Council shall meet at the Municipal Center in the
City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, on the 21st day of
October, 1991, at 7:30 o�clock P.M. to pass upon the proposed
assessment for the following named improvement:
TREATMENT AND REMOVAL OF TREES 1991
2. The City Clerk shall publish notices of the time and place of
meeting in the official newspaper of the City at least two
(2) weeks prior to such meeting.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COIINCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY TgI$
ATTEST:
DAY OF , 1991.
WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR
SHIRLEY A. HAAPALA - CITY CLERR
: ��
CITY OF FRIDLEY
ANORA COIINTY, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF HEARING ON ASSESSMENT FOR
TREATMENT AND REMOVAL OF TREES 1991
Notice is hearby given that the Council of the City of Fridley will
meet at the Fridley Municipal Center in said City on the 21st day
of October, 1991, at 7:30 o'clock P.M. to hear and pass upon all
objections, if any, to the propose3 assessments in respect to the
following improvement, to-wit:
TREATMENT AND REMOVAL OF TREES 1991
The proposed assessment roll for each of said imp�ovements in the
total amount of 5225.00 is now on file and open to public
inspection by all persons interested, in the office of the Clerk
of said City.
The general nature of the improvements and each of them is the
treatment or removal of trees located in the City of Fridley as
follows:
Pin No. 03-30-24-42-0073 Lots 29 & 30, Block 6
Spriaq Brook Park
The area proposed to be assessed for said improvements and each of
them is all that land benef ited by said improvements or each of
them and lying within the general area above. Said improvements
will be assessed against the properties within the above noted
areas in whole or in part proportionately to each of the land
therein contained according to the benefits received.
At said hearing the council will consider written or oral
objections to the proposed assessments for each of said
improvements. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of any
individual assessment unless a written objection signed by the
affected property owner is filed with the City Clerk prior to the
assessment hearing or presented to the residing officer at the
public hearing. ,
A property owner may appeal an assessment to the district court by
serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk within
thirty (30) days after adoption of the assessment and filing such
notice with the district court within ten (10) days after service
upon the Mayor or City Clerk.
The City of Fridley adopted Resolution No. 47 - 1981 on April 6,
1981, relating to the deferral of special assessments for certain
senior citizens where the payment of said special assessments
constitutes a hardship. The following factors will govern the
granting of the deferments: the property must be homestead
property, and the owner must be at least sixty-five (65) years of
. _
• .�
PAGE 2- NOTICE OF HEARING ON ASSESSMENT FOR TREATMENT AND REMOVAL
OF TREES 1991
age or older, and in the case of husband and wife, one member must
meet this age requirement.
The application for said deferral must be made within the first
thirty (30) days after the adoption of the final assessment roll
by the City Council. The owner will make application for deferred
payments on forms prescribed by the Anoka County Auditor, and will
make application to the City of Fridley on forms provided by the
City.
The City Council will consi.der each application on an individual
basis; however, the general policy is to grant senior citizen
hardship special assessment deferrals when the annual payment for
the special assessment exceeds two (2) per cent of the adjusted
gross income of the owners as determined by the most recent Federal
Income Tax Return.
The deferral wi11 be terminated and all amounts accumulated plus
applicable interest shall become due when any of the following
happen: the death of the owner, provided that the surviving spouse
is not otherwise eligible for the deferral; the sale, transfer, or
subdivision of the property or any part thereof; loss of homestead
status for any reason; the City Council determines that further
deferral is not in the public interest.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COiJNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
DAY OF � 1991.
ATTEST: AILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR
SHIRLEY A. iiAAPALA - CITY CLERR
Publish: Fridley Focus on October 2 and 9, 1991
18C
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Engineering
Sewer
Water
Parks
Streets
Maintenance
MEMORANDUM
William W. Burns, City Manager �,� ;�' � PW91-269
John G. Flora,��Public Works Director
September 6, 1991
Locke Lake
As a result of the meeting on September 4, 1991, on the preliminary
report for the Locke Lake dam, dredging and sedimentation basin
proj ects , I propose that the City make a f inal statement to the
Rice Creek Watershed District Managers prior to the finalization
of the report.
The study and the meeting identified a lack of information
regarding the quality of the sedimentation within the Locke Lake
basin. Accordingly, I would suggest that the City allacate
$5,000.00 from the Storm Water Contingency to hire a consultant to
analyze the soil to put the issue of heavy metals cantamination to
rest.
The study only provides a cost analysis and recommendation for a
"U" type dam structure. I feel that there should be a second
alternative provided such as a straight line dam so that cost
comparisons and analysis can be effectively made.
While the study focuses on the benefit concept for project funding,
I believe it should also identify Ad Valorem funding of special
districts for the various portions of the project; dam replacement,
dredging and sedimentation basin construction.
The Rice Creek Watershed District Managers will be
Wednesday, September 11, 1991. I would propose to
meeting and submit the attached letter. If you and
have any additions or deletions to the attached letter
me know.
JGF/ts
Attachments
�9
meeting on
attend the
the Council
, please let
/
CfiYOf
FRI[)L.EY
�
_
C�� �F
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY MUNIC(PAL CEN'iER • 643 i UNIVERS[TY AVE. N.E. FR[Dt,EY, MN 55432 •(612) 57t-3450 • FAX (612) 571-i287
September 6, i991
Mr. Andrew C�i�di nal
RC4JD
3585 Iexington Avenue North
Suite #374, Arden Plaza
A�en Hills, MN 55126
SIJBJECr: I,o�]ce I,ake Prnlunin�y Report
Dear Mx'. Cardinal:
PW91-183
The City has reviewed the preli mi r,arv report for the Ir�k,e Lake Dam replaoement,
dredging and sedimentation basin.
In revie�aixig the prelun.ir�aYy report, the issue rega�iing the quality of
sedimentation in the lake was made. In an att�t to expedite arid facilitate
the c�st analysis of the project, the City wi11 initiate soil testirig of the
sediment within the L,ocke Iake Basin and prr�vide the information to your
c:onsultant, JNIlK.
In reqards to the report itself, the City would request that a second alte.rnative
be inclwc%d for the dam replar.ement. The existing report only identifies one
type of dam "U" type structure. We feel there may be at least one other �tion
that we can cxm�are the c�sts and effects before a final decision is made.
We also request that the final report include an Ad Valorem process for the dam
replacement, dredging of the L,ocke Iake area and construction of the
sedimex�tation basin. It is envisioned that 3 special districts would be
appropriate. One distxict west of University Avenue, a second subdistrict west
of In.ng Lake, and finally, a total watershed district.
Request the above items be included in the final report in order to pravide the
necessazy information to obtain final direction and decision for the proposed
proj ec.-ts .
If you need any additional anformation in regan-�s to any of these items, please
contact me at 572-3550.
Sincerely,
John G. Flora, P.E.
Director of Public Works
JGF/ts 19 A
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SU BJ ECT:
Engineering
Sewer
Water
Parks
Streets
Maintenance
MEMORANDUM
John G. Flora,�Public Works Director
Mark A. Winson, Asst. Public Works Director
September 5, 1991
Locke Lake Advisory Committee Meeting
PW91-267
A meeting of the Locke Lake Advisory Committee was held on
September 5, 1991, at the Fridley Municipal Center. The following
were attendees:
Ed Fitzpatrick
Wade Savage
Steve Woods
Dave Torkildson
Patricia Rundolph
Tom Hovey
Ann Bolklom
Jim Antell
Fred Halverson
Pearl Halverson
Ra1ph Volkman
Mark Winson
City of Fridley
Rice Creek Watershed District
JMM Engineering
Anoka County Parks Dept.
Anoka County Soil &
Conservation Dist.
MnDNR
Locke Lake Homeowner
Locke Lake Homeowner
Locke Lake Homeowner
Locke Lake Homeowner
City of Fridley
City of Fridley
Water
The purpose of the meeting was to address the comments submitted
on the draft Locke Lake Preliminary Report. Mr. Woads explained
that he had received written comments from the Locke Lake Homeowner
Associates and the City of Fridley. He had also discussed the
report with the DNR<SWCD and the Corps of Engineers. He proposed
to go through the written comments in sequence.
The first item discussed was the need to test the lake sediments
for contamination. The Homeowner's Association wanted to know why
the testing had not been done. Mr. Woods explained that JMM had
approached both the City and RCWD regarding the extra expense and
that it was determined that the testing could be done later and to
not hold up the report. Both the Homeowners and Mr. Savage felt
that the sediment testing should be done in order to determine if
the additional cost of disposal of contaminated material needs to
be considered.
. -
/
�
CfiYOF
FRIDLEY
Page Two - PW91-267
There was discussion on what criteria would be used to determine
if the project was feasible. Mr. Savage explained the District
Board would have to evaluate the project costs, benefits, funding,
etc. in context with the entire district.
The Homeowners requested that the DNR inspection reports be made
part of the report. Mr. Woods replied that they should not be as
the report covers what needs to be done now, not what happened in
the past. Mr. Hovey of the DNR stated the inspection reports are
available to anyone.
A homeowner stated that he felt the installation of the piling for
the East River Road bridge accelerated the dam failure.
Regarding the cost estimates in the report, Mr. Woods explained
that the estimates were based on discussions with several
contractors and felt that at this point in the process, they were
reasonable estimates. He explained that an estimate was only done
for the one alternative as that alternative was the only
alternative that met the city's criteria. He stated that he
understood the DNR had presented a less expensive alternative in
the report that would cost out in the same relative range.
The discussion on sediment disposal covered the estimate of
quantities and the possibility of an island in the lake. Mr. Woods
explained that an island in the eastern portion of the lake would
have the effect of causing sedimentation in a pattern that would
increase the frequency of removal. An island in the west part of
the lake would not have an adverse effect on sedimentation, but
would require permits from the DNR that could be difficult to
obtain due to the DNR policy on not filling below the ordinary high
water line.
Mr. Antell provided copies of a court ruling on the liability of
the owner of a dam to the property owners adjacent to the
impoundment cr,eated by the dam and suggested the City Attorney
review this ruling in regards to the City's liability to homeowners
on Locke Lake.
Regarding the financing portion of the report, the recent grant and
loan from the DNR was discussed, along with the City and Watershed
attempts to obtain additional funding from other sources including
the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Woods explained that Table 4-2 was the
cost allocation derived in the 1977 report and was presented as an
example of how the allocation could be determined and not as a
recommendation. He stated that some of the premises on what the
1977 allocation was based have changed.
19C
Page Three - PW91-267
Comments:
The Homeowner's Associated is highly critical of the report.
They feel that without knowing if the sediments are
contaminated, the City and the Watershed District cannot make
a discussion on the feasibility of the project. They also
feel that the report is written with a negative tone and would
like to have several references to the magnitude of the
project and its cost deleted. They are dismayed at the
timeframe in which the report was written and concerned about
the length of time it will take to bring the project to
completion.
Mr. Savage indicated that perhaps the conclusions portion of
the report could be deleted. He suggested that both the City
and the Homeowners Association submit to the District in
writing their comments on what revisions should be made to the
report.
There did not seem to be much concern regarding final depth
of the lake or what type of dam should be built. There was
concern regarding how the report reflects that the main
benefit of the project would be to the homeowners on the lake
when they feel that all they are really getting is what they
originally had.
MAW/ts
19D
20
21
FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
Al-Ko Home Improvements
8090 4th Avenue
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Bangsund, Ken Remodeling
91 Osbome Rd NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Beider Bldg Systems
21789 Oldfield Aven
Scandia, MN 55073
Belair Builders, Inc.
443 - 8th Ave NW
New Brighton, MN 55112
Dolphin Pool & Patio Inc
3405 Hwy 169 N
Plymouth, MN 55441
Hans Hagen Homes
2353 Rice St N
St Paul MN 55113
Rockow Exteriors
18015 Ute St NW
Anoka, MN 55303
PLUMBING
Nova Frost Inc
1510 Sth Ave
Newport, MN 55055
ROOFING
B & B Roofing Inc
210 Centennial Dr
Buffalo, MN 55313
SIGN ERECTOR
Topline Outdoor Adv Inc
1471 92nd LN NE
Blaine MN 55434
A1 Kopecky
Ken Bangsund �
Joseph H Beider
Mark Murlowski
Lon Blumenberg
Hans Hagen
Jeff Rockow
Roger Mireau
Brad Burns
Joe Stienbach
22
LICENSES
DARREL CLARK
Chief Bldg Ofcl
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
STATE OF MINN
DARREL CLARK
Chief Bldg Ofcl
DARREL CLARK
Chief Bldg Ofcl
WRECKING
Dory & Sons Inc
620 - 39th Ave NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Paul Doty
22A
DARREL CLARK
Chief Bldg Ofcl
OWNER
FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL
September 9, 1991
LOCATION OF BUILDING
DUPLEXES & SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS:
WAYNE THOMPSON
TODD FUECHTMANN
ED-RAY BUILDERS
��
n
u
n
n
n
n
a
u
CALVIN DAHLQUIST
FLOYD BRADLEY
CHARLES HORTON
STEVEN MINDLIN
FLOYD BRADLEY
KAREN & DOUGLAS HORNSTEN
JOSEPH TEAGUE
THOMAS SHIER
B. NGUYEN & P DOAN
RAY & DOROTHY BURCHETT
JEFFREY HARRIS
G & G BLDG INC
STEVEN PETSCHEL
THOMAS ZANDLO
MAODE YUEH
TIMOTHY WHEELER
DARYL KRECH
W. THOMAS & G. SHIER
MULTIPLE DWELLINGS:
RIVERWOOD APT MGMT
FLOYD & LINDA RUGGLES
IRONTON ST APTS
LYNDE INVESTMENT CO
n
n
S & S INVESTMENT CO
ft
LAFOND & LAFOND-LEWASCKO
S.R. INVESTMENT
DAVID HERYLA
JOHN WEATHERLY
7339-41 ABLE ST
7417-19 ABLE ST
7479-81 ABLE ST
7495-97 ABLE ST
7501-03 ABLE ST
7513-15 ABLE ST
7527-29 ABLE ST
7539-41 ABLE ST
7553-55 ABLE ST
7565-67 ABLE ST
7579-81 ABLE ST
7595-97 ABLE ST
6446 ASHTON AVE
6830 BROOKVIEW
6550 CENTRAL AVE
7335-7 CENTRAL AVE
620 DOVER ST
6190-92 E RIVER RD
1361 MEADOWMOOR DR
1295-97 NORTON AVE
1392 OSBORNE RD
6100-02 STAR IN
6160-64 STAR LN
6421-23 STARLITE CIR
7323-25 UNIV AVE
5330-34 4TH ST
5810-12 4TH ST
5600 6TH ST
1313-23 73RD AVE
1580 -84 73 1/2 AVE
5960-80 ANNA ST
7673 E RIVER RD
430 IRONTON ST
910 LYNDE DR
950 LYNDE DR
990 LYNDE DR
5475 MAIN ST
5495 MAIN ST
140 MISS PL
1284-96 NORTON AVE
5761 2ND ST
5830 2ND ST
LICEN$ES
Page 1
UNITS
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
33
4
3
11
11
11
12
I2
4
7
3
4
FEE
12.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
24.00
12.00
24.00
12.00
24.00
12.00
12.00
24.00
24.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
24.00
12.00
24.00
91.00
36.00
36.00
49.00
49.00
49.00
49.00
49.00
36.00
36.00
36.00
36.00
APPROVED BY R.H. LARSON, FIRE F 2 2B:tON BUREAU/HOUSING INSPECTOR
FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL
September 9, 1991
OWNER
MIDWEST INVESTMENT CO.
DOUGLAS PROPERTIES
PAUL JOHNSON �
PROGRESSIVE PROPERTIES
ROBERT JOHNSON
JERRY & BARBARA MCNURLIN
R. GESINO & L. EPPERLY
u
RICHARD & NANCI ANDERSON
RICHARD PERKOVICH
JOHN HAIGHT
NAEEM QURESHI
HAROLD MORROW
D. KMIT & J. LUCIOW
DAVID BAUNE
OTTY PROPERTIES
JERRY DOLD
HANSEN PROPERTIES
FLOYD & LINDA RUGGLES
LOCATION OF BUILDING
5851 2ND ST
5980 2ND ST
6525 2ND ST
6541 2ND ST
5810 2 1/2 ST
5820 2 1/2 ST
5900 2 1/2 ST
5908 2 1/2 ST
5916 2 1/2 ST
6061-63-65 3RD ST
5320 4TH ST
5800 4TH ST
5600-06 4TH ST
5430 7TH ST
5460 7TH ST
191 59 1/2 WAY
110 61ST AVE
290 61ST AVE
350 ?5TH AVE
106 77TH WAY
CONDOMINIUM RENTAL UNITS - 1601 N. INNSBRUCK DR.:
JOSEPH & PENNY BIDWELL
MR. & MRS. CROHN
DUANE WOODWORTH
BLACK FOREST CONDO ASSN.
ROGER & JANICE CHALLMAN
ANGELINE SEWALL
MICHAEL PASEK
MARY WILLIAMS
EMMETT & LORRAINE GOSSELIN
DAVID CHILDS
LEESA & DONALD BETZOLD
THOMAS SINNER
SHABIR SOMANI
ROBERT KAFSKI
JOHN MORRISSEY -
OLAV & KRISTIN MAEHLE
EAF RENTAL5
KRISTIN LINDER
D. CREMISINO & D. PESEK
VIRGINIA WILLIE
TIMOTHY & NANCY PATTERSON
GARY LINDBERG
TED & MARION LINDSTROM
#112,
#119
#126
#127
#133
#141
#144
#166
#178
#248
#259,
#228
#229
#230
#250,
#253,
#255
#270
#280
#310
#316
#370
#375
262
201
350
304 -
LICEN8E8
Page 2
UNITS
11
4
7
5
4
4
7
7
7
3
4
4
4
34
34
12
8
3
11
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
FEE
49.00
36.00
36.00
36.00
36.00
36.00
36.00
36.00
36.00
36.00
36.00
36.00
36.00
93.00
93.00
49.00
49.00
36.00
49.00
36.00
24.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
24.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
24.00
24.00
12.00
12.00
ia.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
APPROVED BY R.H. LARSON, FIRE Pl ION BUREAU/HOUSING INSPECTOR
22C
APPROVED BY R.H. LARSON, FIRE P 'ION BUREAU/HOUSING INSPECTOR
22D�
'P
� FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL ESTIMATES
FRIpL�Ey SEPTEMBER 9, 1991
Allied Blacktop
10503 - 89th Avenue North
Maple Grove, MN 55369
Street Improvement Project
No. ST. 1991-10 (Sealcoat)
FINAL EBTIMATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 10, 691. 63
W. B. Miller, Inc.
16765 Nutria Street
Ramsey, MN 55303
Street Improvement Project
No. ST. 1991 - 1& 2
Estimate No. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 24, 847. 72
Pitt-Des Moines, Inc.
1015 Tuttle Street
Des Moines, IA 50309
Construction of the 1.5 MG
Elevated Water Reservoir
Project No. 201
Partial Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 85,226.64
Rainbow, Inc.
7324 - 36th Avenue North
Minneapolis, MN 55427
.5 MG Water Tank Painting/Altitude
Valve and Vault Installation
Project No. 212
Partial Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 35,387.50
23
/ •.
FROM: City of Fridley Eagineering Division
t0: Honorable Mayor and CitY Council
City of �ridley
b431 UniversitY Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Minnesota 55432
6pTE: SEPTEMBEk 4, 1991
CONTRACT ITEM
Se�icoat Nith FA-3 Aggregate
SNeep after Sealcaat Application
30'X 30• Loase Rock Signs
Alternat? A (Latexl
TOTAL
CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC MORKS aEPARTMENT
b431 UNIVERSiTY AVENUE N.E.
FRIDLfY, MINNESOTA 55432
PROJECT 199]-14 SEAL-COATIN6
STATEMfNT OF NORK
ESTIMATED
QUAMTITY
188,b54
188,654
31
189,654
UNIT
PRICE UkI�
0.414 Sq. Yd.
0.030 Sq. Yd.
21.00 Each
0.06 Sq. Yd.
23A
RE: Estiaate No. 2 tFINAL)
Period Ending: 9-b-91
CODE 1 550-00-004-9503
550-00-000-9504
FOR: ALLIED BLACKTUP
10503 89th Ave. N.
Maple 6rove� Mn. 553b9
QUANTITY TNIS
ESTIMATE TOSAL
190,848 140,848
19G,848 190,848
31 31
�O,QQO 40,OOU
�
TOiAL
AMOUNT
19,O1I.01
5,725.44
b51.0U
2,4d4.00
f97,78�.51
SUMNARY:
Original Contract Mount
Revised Contract A�ount
Vilue Co�pieted to Date
Asount Retained (Ult
tess Maunt Ptid Previously
AMOUNT 4UE 7HIS E5TIMATE
CERTI6ICATE DF THE CONTRACTDk
f45,732.02
f0.00
t87,787.51
i4.00
f17,09�.88
f10,b91.63
I here6y certify that the Nortc perfor�ed and the �aterials supptied to date under the tens of the coat�act for this
project, �nd �11 authorized changes thereto, fiave an actual value under the cootra�t of the a�ounts shown on this
esti�ate tind the final quantities on the iinal etti�ate are correct?, and that this esti�ate is just ind correct �nd na
part of the 'A�aunt Que This Esti�ate' has 6een received.
�
:
� � C�'
By ------------- ----- - - ------------------ Date
------,---���J �
Contractor's Authorized Representative iiitle)
CERTIFICATE OF THE EN6INEEk
I hereby certify that I have prepared ar exaiined thi5 esti�ate, and that the contractnr is entitled to payient of this
esti�ate under the corrtract for reference project.
CITY OF FRIDIEYt INSPECTOR
�Y
Checked By
236
Date _ � /1 � _ �
--� 1
Respectfully 5ub�itted,
• (�'�-�-�.-_
- -------------- --------------------
�hn 6. F1ora,P.E.
Fublic Morks Dire�tor
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PUBLIC WORRS DEPARTMENT
ENGTNEERING DIVISION
6431 University Ave., N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
September 9, 1991
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Fridley
C/o William W. Burns, City Manager
6431 University Ave., N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Council Members:
CERTIFICATE OF TIiE ENGINEER
We hereby submit the Final Estimate for Street Improvement P�aject
No. ST. 1991 - 10 (Sealcoat), for A11ied Blacktop, Inc., 10503 89th
Ave., N., Maple Grove, MN, 55369.
We have viewed the work under contract for the construction of
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1991 - 10 (Sealcoat) and find
the same is substantially complete in accordance with the contract
documents. I recommend that final payment be made upon acceptance
of the work by your Honorable Body and that the one-year
contractual maintenance bond cammence on September 9, 1991.
Respectfully submitted,
�
ohn G. Flora
Director of Public Works
23C
Prepared
Checked
September 9, 1991
Public Works Director
City of Fridley
REPORT ON FINAL INSPECTION FOR
CITY OF FRIDLEY
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1991-10 (SEALCOAT)
We, the undersigned, have inspected the above-mentioned project and
find that the work required by the contract is substantially
complete in conformity with the plans and specifications of the
project.
A13 deficiencies have been corrected by the contractor. Also, the
work for which the City feels the contractor should receive a
reduced price has been agreed upon by the contractor.
So, therefore, we recommend to you that the City approve the
attached FINAL ESTIMATE for the contractor and the one-year
maintenance bond, starting from the day of the final inspection
that being September 6
son, Construcfi�i.on Inspector
� � " f7r� rt 7� `1'�Ft �'1
Contractor Representative, (Title)
23D
September 9, 1991
City of Fridley
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NO. ST. 1991 - 10 (Sealcoat)
PREVAILTNG WAGE VERIFICATION
This is to certify that Allied Blacktop, Inc., has abided by the
Prevailing Wage Provisions as specified by the Minnesota Department
of Labor and Industry for Anoka County.
I declare under the penalties of perjury that this statement is
just and correct.
ALLIED BLACRTOP, INC.
� �
.r,�ao,,,�p,n� _ ...�..�. �i -- -
� �
4�, t rtr t l �. Syn%�' �t� �ti� +roc � vN'�4r7a�fr/ /�.P.� �
�
23E
September 9, I991
City of Fridley
STREET TMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NO. ST. 1991 - 10 (Sealcoat)
CERTIFICATE OF CONTRACTOR
This is to certify that items of the work shown in the statement
of work certified herein have been actually furnished and done for
the above-mentioned projects in accordance with the plans and
specifications heretofore approved. The final contract cost is
$87,787.51 and the final payment of $10,691.63 for the improvement
project would cover in full, the contractor's claims against the
City for all labor, materials and other work down by the contractor
under this project.
I declare under the penalties of perjury that this statement is
just and correct.
ALLIED BLACRTOP, INC.
r �.
�l'HFfA�A—v��}}i6���.:+---r-cc�.:.�.circ. . ��
�Cii'l�� l /9. Svl��`I`h �re► �� Cf ' �arta�r/ �'�G�r1 t
/ /
23F